Journal of Ecology and Environment

The Ecological Society of Korea (한국생태학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Rapid ecosystem services assessment of Mundok Ramsar wetland in Democratic People's Republic of Korea and opportunities to improve well-being

  • Received : 2023.02.27
  • Accepted : 2023.04.09
  • Published : 2023.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The understanding of ecosystem services can be quantified and qualitative to assess the impacts of changes in the ecosystem to support human well-being. In the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, sustainable use of ecosystem services has attracted the interest of a range of decision-makers. However, although there is a concern for biodiversity, natural ecosystem, and their services, linking ecosystems with conservation planning remains challenging. Results: This study assessed the first qualitative ecosystem services provided by the Mundok wetland with decision makers of the West/Yellow Sea region. Furthermore, this study applied the Rapid Assessment Wetland Ecosystem method to support natural resources management, improving living conditions. We identified that cultural and supporting services index are highly provided, but preparing a plan to increase the provisioning and regulating services in Mundok wetland is necessary. Conclusions: The assessment results can provide helpful information for ecosystem services assessment, habitat conservation, conservation planning, and decision-making at local level.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

We are grateful to the Ministry of Land and Environment Protection and the comments of anonymous reviewers.

References

  1. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Muller F. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Indic. 2012;21:17-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019. 
  2. Burkhard, B, Kroll F, Muller F, Windhorst W. Landscapes' capacities to provide ecosystem services-a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landsc Online. 2009:15. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.200915. 
  3. Choi HA, Seliger B, Moores N, Borzee A, Yoon CHK. Avian surveys in the Korean inner border area, Gimpo, Republic of Korea. Biodivers Data J. 2020;8:e56219. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.8.e56219. 
  4. Choi HA, Song C, Lee WK, Jeon S, Gu JH. Integrated approaches for national ecosystem assessment in South Korea. KSCE J Civ Eng. 2018;22(5):1634-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-017-1664-9. 
  5. Chong JR, Hong YJ, Hong YG, Ie DS. A directory of Wetland of D. P.R.Korea. Tokyo: Wild Bird Society of Japan; 1996. 
  6. Christin ZL, Bagstad KJ, Verdone MA. A decision framework for identifying models to estimate forest ecosystem services gains from restoration. For Ecosyst. 2016;3:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-016-0062-y. 
  7. Costanza R, d'Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, et al. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 1997;387:253-60. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0. 
  8. Daily GC, Matson PA. Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(28):9455-6. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.0804960105. 
  9. Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). An Introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services. London: Defra; 2007. 
  10. EAAFP (East Asian-Australasian Flyway Partnership). Joint bird survey in Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) October 2019. Incheon: EAAFP; 2020. 
  11. ESP (Ecocystem Service Partnership). Looking back at ESP Asia 2018 Conference. 2018. https://www.es-partnership.org/looking-back-at-esp-asia-2018-conference/. Accessed 10 May 2022. 
  12. Frelichova J, Vackar D, Partl A, Louckova B, Harmackova ZV, Lorencova E. Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in the Czech Republic. Ecosyst Serv. 2014;8:110-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.001. 
  13. Holten-Andersen J, Paalby H, Christensen N, Wier M, Andersen FM. Recommendations on strategies for integrated assessment of broad environmental problems. Denmark: European Environment Agency (EEA) by the National Environmental Research Institute (NERI); 1995. 
  14. Hysing E. Challenges and opportunities for the Ecosystem Services approach: evaluating experiences of implementation in Sweden. Ecosyst Serv. 2021;52:101372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021. 101372. 
  15. Hysing E, Lidskog R. Policy contestation over the ecosystem services approach in Sweden. Soc Nat Resour. 2018;31(4):393-408. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1413719. 
  16. IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bonn: IPBES Secretariat; 2019. 
  17. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Asia. IUCN asia regional office annual report. Bangkok: IUCN Asia; 2018. 
  18. Kim BR, Lee JH, Kim IK, Kim SH. Rapid assessment of ecosystem services apply to local stakeholders. J. Korean Environ Restor Technol. 2019;22(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.13087/kosert.2019.22.1.1. 
  19. Kim HG, Lee EJ, Park C, Lee KS, Lee DK, Lee W, et al. Modeling the habitat of the red-crowned crane (Grus japonensis) wintering in Cheorwon-gun to support decision making. Sustainability. 2016;8(6):576. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060576. 
  20. Kim I, Lee JH, Kwon H. Participatory ecosystem service assessment to enhance environmental decision-making in a border city of South Korea. Ecosyst Serv. 2021;51:101337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101337. 
  21. Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Schagner JP, et al. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst Serv. 2012;1:31-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004. 
  22. Matzdorf B, Meyer C. The relevance of the ecosystem services framework for developed countries' environmental policies: a comparative case study of the US and EU. Land Use Policy. 2014;38:509-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.12.011. 
  23. McInnes RJ, Everard M. Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services (RAWES): an example from Colombo, Sri Lanka. Ecosyst Serv. 2017;25:89-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.024. 
  24. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005. 
  25. Moores N, Rogers DI, Rogers K, Hansbro PM. Reclamation of tidal flats and shorebird declines in Saemangeum and elsewhere in the Republic of Korea. Emu. 2016;116(2):136-46. https://doi.org/10.1071/MU16006. 
  26. Muradian R, Rival L. Between markets and hierarchies: the challenge of governing ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv. 2012;1:93-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.009. 
  27. Murray NJ, Clemens RS, Phinn SR, Possingham HP, Fuller RA. Tracking the rapid loss of tidal wetlands in the Yellow Sea. Front Ecol Environ. 2014;12(5):267-72. https://doi.org/10.1890/130260. 
  28. Murray NJ, Ma Z, Fuller RA. Tidal flats of the Yellow Sea: a review of ecosystem status and anthropogenic threats. Austral Ecol. 2015;40(4):472-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.12211. 
  29. Newman G, Shi T, Yao Z, Li D, Sansom G, Kirsch K, et al. Citizen science-informed community master planning: land use and built environment changes to increase flood resilience and decrease contaminant exposure. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(2):486. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020486. 
  30. Perrings C, Duraiappah A, Larigauderie A, Mooney H. Ecology. The biodiversity and ecosystem services science-policy interface. Science. 2011;331(6021):1139-40. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1202400. 
  31. Potschin M, Haines-Young R. Landscapes, sustainability and the placebased analysis of ecosystem services. Landsc Ecol. 2013;28(6):1053-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9756-x. 
  32. Ramsar Sites Information Service. Mundok Migratory Bird Reserve. [Gland]: Ramsar Sites Information Service; 2018. 
  33. Ri KS, Yun CN, Kim JC, Ri CS, Jong JS, Chae RJ, et al. A wetland inventory for DPR Korea. Pyongyang: Ministry of Land and Environment Protection; 2018. 
  34. RRC-EA (Ramsar Regional Center - East Asia). Rapid assessment of wetland ecosystem services: a practitioners' guide. Suncheon: RRCEA; 2020. 
  35. RRC-EA (Ramsar Regional Center - East Asia). Subregional training for Ramsar site managers in the Yellow/West Sea. 2018. http://rrcea.org/subregional-training-for-ramsar-site-managers-in-the-yellow-westsea/. Accessed 8 January 2023. 
  36. Salzman J, Thompson BH Jr, Daily GC. Protecting ecosystem services: science, economics, and law. Stanf Environ Law J. 2001;20:309-32. 
  37. Schleyer C, Gorg C, Hauck J, Winkler KJ. Opportunities and challenges for mainstreaming the ecosystem services concept in the multi-level policy-making within the EU. Ecosyst Serv. 2015;16:174-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.014. 
  38. Sharma S, Phartiyal M, Madhav S, Singh P. Global wetlands: categorization, distribution and global scenario. In: Sharma S, Singh P, editors. Wetlands conservation: current challenges and future strategies. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2021. p. 1-16. 
  39. Stein ED, Brinson M, Rains MC, Kleindl W, Hauer FR. Wetland assessment debate. Wetl Sci Pract. 2009;26(4):20-4. https://doi.org/10.1672/055.026.0405. 
  40. Su L, Zou H. Status, threats and conservation needs for the continental population of the Red-crowned Crane. Chin Birds. 2012;3(3):147-64. https://doi.org/10.5122/cbirds.2012.0030. 
  41. Tomek T. The birds of North Korea. Non-Passeriformes. Acta Zool Crac. 1999;42(1):1-217. 
  42. Tomek T. The birds of North Korea. Passeriformes. Acta Zool Crac. 2002;45(1):1-235. 
  43. Verburg R, Selnes T, Verweij P. Governing ecosystem services: national and local lessons from policy appraisal and implementation. Ecosyst Serv. 2016;18:186-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.03.006.