한국해양학회지:바다 (The Sea:JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN SOCIETY OF OCEANOGRAPHY)

  • 제29권2호
  • /
  • Pages.116-138
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 1226-2978(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2671-8820(eISSN)
한국해양학회 (The Korean Society of Oceanography)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

'해양교란유해종'의 영향 평가: 환경 및 사회경제적 평가를 위한 준정량 도구 및 프로토콜

Assessing the Impact of 'Marine Invasive and Harmful Species': A Semi-Quantitative Tool and Protocol for Environmental and Socio-Economic Evaluation

  • 김광용 (전남대학교 자연과학대학 해양학과)
  • KWANG YOUNG KIM (Department of Oceanography, College of Natural Sciences, Chonnam National University)
  • 투고 : 2023.12.22
  • 심사 : 2024.05.03
  • 발행 : 2024.05.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 '해양교란유해종'이 해양 환경과 사회경제적 측면에 미치는 영향을 평가하기 위한 새로운 도구와 프로토콜을 제시한다. 한국의 해양생태계 보전 및 관리법에서 발견된 한계점을 보완하기 위해, 본 연구는 해양 환경과 사회경제 그룹(영역)으로 나누어진 영향 평가 프레임워크를 도입하였다. 각 그룹은 6개의 영향 평가 카테고리(범주)로 구성되어 있으며, 준정량적인 5단계 척도를 사용하여 생태계의 교란에서 건강과 재산에 대한 영향에 이르는 폭넓은 이슈들을 다루는 유연한 방식을 제공한다. 이 영향평가 도구의 실행은 델파이 방법을 기반으로 한 체계적인 5단계 프로세스를 통해 진행된다. 이 접근법은 다양한 전문가와 이해관계자 간의 협력을 촉진하며, 다양한 관점을 통합하는 포괄적인 평가를 가능하게 한다. 또한 이 연구는 불확실성을 효과적으로 관리하고 결과의 일관성을 향상시키는 전략도 모색되었다. 본 평가 프로토콜의 적용은 '해양교란유해종'에 의한 생태학적 피해의 정도를 계량화하고 관리 대상 및 예방 조치의 우선순위를 정립하는 데 결정적인 역할을 할 것으로 기대된다. 평가 과정의 궁극적인 목표는 의사결정자가 해양생태계 보전과 사회경제적 영향을 완화하기 위한 전략을 수립하도록 지원하는 것이다.

This study presents a new tool and protocol to assess the impact of 'Marine Invasive and Harmful Species' (MIHS) on marine environments and socio-economic aspects. It addresses shortcomings in the Marine Ecosystems Conservation and Management Act in South Korea by proposing an impact assessment framework divided into marine environmental and socio-economic groups. Six distinct evaluation categories are included in each group, and a semi-quantitative five-step scale is utilized to provide a flexible approach, addressing a variety of issues from ecological disturbances to effects on health and property. The assessment tool is applied through a systematic five-stage process based on the Delphi method. This approach posters collaboration among a diverse sets of experts and stakeholders, enabling a comprehensive evaluation that incorporates various perspectives. The study also examines strategies to effectively manage uncertainties and improve the consistency of the outcomes. The application of this assessment protocol is expected to be crucial in quantifying the ecological damage caused by MIHS and in identifying management and prevention priorities. The ultimate aim of this evaluation process is to aid decision-makers in developing strategies to preserve the marine ecosystem and mitigate socio-economic impacts.

키워드

과제정보

본 논문은 해양수산부 재원으로 해양수산과학기술진흥원의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(해양환경기술개발사업: 해양생태계 교란생물과 유해해양생물의 관리기술개발).

참고문헌

  1. 해양환경정보포털, 2023. Available at: https://meis.go.kr/mes/marineLife/protection/view1.do, Accessed: 15 December 2023.
  2. Korea Marine Environment Management Corporation (KOEM), 2015. 외래해양생물 및 유해해양생물의 관리체계 개선방안 연구. 해양수산부. 137 pp. Available at: https://scienceon.kisti.re.kr/srch/selectPORSrchReport.do?cn=TRKO201700005032.
  3. Bacher, S., T.M. Blackburn, F. Essl, P. Genovesi, J. Heikkila, J.M. Jeschke, G. Jones, R. Keller, M. Kenis, C. Kueffer and A.F. Martinou, 2018. Socio-economic impact classification of alien taxa (SEICAT). Methods Ecol. Evol., 9: 159-168.
  4. Bernardo-Madrid, R., P. Gonzalez-Moreno, B. Gallardo, S. Bacher and M. Vila, 2022. Consistency in impact assessments of invasive species is generally high and depends on protocols and impact types. NeoBiota, 76: 163-190.
  5. Blackburn, T.M., F. Essl, T. Evans, P.E. Hulme, J.M. Jeschke, I. Kuhn, S. Kumschick, Z. Markova, A. Mrugala, W. Nentwig and J. Pergl, 2014. A unified classification of alien species based on the magnitude of their environmental impacts. PLoS Bio., 12: e1001850.
  6. Blackburn, T.M., P. Pysek, S. Bacher, J.T. Carlton, R.P. Duncan, V. Jarosik, J.R. Wilson and D.M. Richardson, 2011. A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol., 26: 333-339.
  7. Canavan, S., L.A. Meyerson, J.G. Packer, P. Pysek, N. Maurel, V. Lozano, D.M. Richardson, G. Brundu, K. Canavan, A. Cicatelli and J. Cuda, 2019. Tall-statured grasses: a useful functional group for invasion science. Biol. Invasions, 21:37-58.
  8. Christie, A.P., T. Amano, P.A. Martin, G.E. Shackelford, B.I. Simmons and W.J. Sutherland, 2019. Simple study designs in ecology produce inaccurate estimates of biodiversity responses. J. Appl. Ecol., 56: 2742-2754.
  9. Essl, F., S. Bacher, P. Genovesi, P.E. Hulme, J.M. Jeschke, S. Katsanevakis, I. Kowarik, I. Kuhn, P. Pysek, W. Rabitsch and S. Schindler, 2018. Which taxa are alien? Criteria, applications, and uncertainties. BioScience, 68: 496-509.
  10. Evans, T. and T.M. Blackburn, 2020. Global variation in the availability of data on the environmental impacts of alien birds. Biol. Invasions, 22: 1027-1036.
  11. Finch, D.M., J.L. Butler, J.B. Runyon, C.J. Fettig, F.F. Kilkenny, S. Jose, S.J. Frankel, S.A. Cushman, R.C. Cobb, J.S. Dukes and J.A. Hicke, 2021. Effects of climate change on invasive species. Polland et al. (Eds), Invasive Species in Forests and Rangelands of the United States: a Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the United States Forest Sector, Springer, Berlin (2021), pp.57-83.
  12. Fischhoff, B. and A.L. Davis, 2014. Communicating scientific uncertainty. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 111: 13664-13671.
  13. Gonzalez-Moreno, P., L. Lazzaro, M. Vila, C. Preda, T. Adriaens, S. Bacher, G. Brundu, G.H. Copp, F. Essl, E. Garcia-Berthou and S. Katsanevakis,2019. Consistency of impact assessment protocols for non-native species. NeoBiota, 44: 1-25.
  14. Hawkins, C.L., S. Bacher, F. Essl, P.E. Hulme, J.M. Jeschke, I. Kuhn, S. Kumschick, W. Nentwig, J. Pergl, P. Pysek and W. Rabitsch, 2015. Framework and guidelines for implementing the proposed IUCN Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT). Divers. Distrib., 21: 1360-1363.
  15. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 2016. Rules of procedure for IUCN Red List assessments 2017-2020, version 3.0. Approved by the IUCN SSC Steering Committee in September 2016.
  16. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 2020a. IUCN EICAT Categories and Criteria. The Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT): First edition. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.05.en.
  17. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 2020b. Guidelines for using the IUCN Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) Categories and Criteria): First edition. Version 1.1. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.
  18. Kim, K.Y., J.Y. Park, J.H. Chae and S. Sin, 2019. Development of the methods for controlling and managing the marine ecosystem disturbing and harmful organisms (Report No R&D 2013-0265). Chonnam National University, Korea. 959 pp. Available at: (in Korean) https://scienceon.kisti.re.kr/commons/util/originalView.do?cn=TRKO202000031207&dbt=TRKO&rn=.
  19. Kumschick, S. and D.M. Richardson, 2013. Species-based risk assessments for biological invasions: advances and challenges. Divers. Distrib., 19: 1095-1105.
  20. McGeoch, M.A., P. Genovesi, P.J. Bellingham, M.J. Costello, C. McGrannachan and A. Sheppard, 2016. Prioritizing species, pathways, and sites to achieve conservation targets for biological invasion. Biol. Invasions, 18: 299-314.
  21. Milanovic, M., S. Knapp, P. Pysek and I. Kuhn, 2020. Trait-environment relationships of plant species at different stages of the introduction process. NeoBiota, 58: 55-74.
  22. Nentwig, W., S. Bacher, P. Pysek, M. Vila and S. Kumschick, 2016. The generic impact scoring system (GISS): a standardized tool to quantify the impacts of alien species. Environ. Monit. Assess., 188: 1-13.
  23. Novoa, A., K. Dehnen-Schmutz, J. Fried and G. Vimercati, 2017. Does public awareness increase support for invasive species management? Promising evidence across taxa and landscape types. Biol. invasions, 19: 3691-3705.
  24. Probert, A.F., L. Volery, S. Kumschick, G. Vimercati and S. Bacher, 2020. Understanding uncertainty in the Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (ICAT) assessments. NeoBiota, 62: 387-405.
  25. Richardson, D.M., P. Pysek, M. Rejmanek, M.G. Barbour, F.D. Panetta and C.J. West, 2000. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Divers. Distrib., 6: 93-107.
  26. Roy, H.E., W. Rabitsch, R. Scalera, A. Stewart, B. Gallardo, P. Genovesi, F. Essl, T. Adriaens, S. Bacher, O. Booy and E. Branquart, 2018. Developing a framework of minimum standards for the risk assessment of alien species. J. Appl. Ecol., 55: 526-538.
  27. Shackleton, R.T., D.M. Richardson, C.M. Shackleton, B. Bennett, S.L. Crowley, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, R.A. Estevez, A. Fischer, C. Kueffer, C.A. Kull, and E. Marchante, 2019. Explaining people's perceptions of invasive alien species: A conceptual framework. J. Environ. Manage., 229: 10-26.
  28. Spalding, M.D., H.E. Fox, G.R. Allen, N. Davidson, Z.A. Ferdana, M.A.X. Finlayson, B.S. Halpern, M.A. Jorge, A.L. Lombana, S.A. Lourie and K.D. Martin, 2007. Marine ecoregions of the world: a bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. BioScience, 57: 573-583.
  29. Srebaliene, G., S. Olenin, D. Minchin and A. Narscius, 2019. A comparison of impact and risk assessment methods based on the IMO Guidelines and EU invasive alien species risk assessment frameworks. PeerJ, 7: e6965.
  30. United Nations Development Programme (UNEP), 2010. Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi targets. In Report of the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
  31. Van Der Bles, A.M., S. Van Der Linden, A.L. Freeman, J. Mitchell, A.B. Galvao, L. Zaval and D.J. Spiegelhalter, 2019. Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science. R. Soc. Open Sci., 6: 181870.
  32. Volery, L., D. Jatavallabhula, L. Scillitani, S. Bertolino and S. Bacher, 2021. Ranking alien species based on their risks of causing environmental impacts: A global assessment of alien ungulates. Glob. Change Biol., 27: 1003-1016.