Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14249/eia.2018.27.5.417

Analysis on Ecosystem Service Hotspots Based on Regional Environmental Stakeholders' Perception - A case study of Ansan -  

Kim, Ilkwon (Bureau of Ecological Research, National Institute of Ecology)
Kim, Sunghoon (Bureau of Ecological Research, National Institute of Ecology)
Lee, Jae-Hyuck (Bureau of Ecological Research, National Institute of Ecology)
Kwon, Hyuksoo (Bureau of Ecological Research, National Institute of Ecology)
Publication Information
Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment / v.27, no.5, 2018 , pp. 417-430 More about this Journal
Abstract
Identification and mangement of ecosystem service hotspots are necessary to set environmental policies that include concepts of ecosystem service. Assessment and mapping of ecosystem service hotspot referring areas with high amount of ecosystem services provide essential information to manage ecosystem services effectively. Assessment of hotspots based on regional environmental stakeholders' perception is an useful approach to identify priority areas where management practices are required. This study estimated weights on regulating ecosystem services from regional environmental stakeholders' surveys in Ansan, and then, identified regulating service hotspots with weights. The result indicated that regulating services are, in order of importance, water quality, air quality, erosion, and climate control. The north-eastern forest of Ansan was mainly revealed as an ecosystem service hotspot. Ecosystem service hotspots were spatially distributed similarly regardless of environmental stakeholders' weights. Identification of ecosystem service hotspot with environmental stakeholders' perception can be applied in decision-support tools for ecosystem service management.
Keywords
Ecosystem service; hotspot; regional perception; AHP;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Roh YH, Kim CK, Hong HJ. 2016. Time-series changes to ecosystem regulating services in Jeju: focusing on estimating carbon sequestration and evaluating economic feasibility. Journal of Environmental Policy and Adminstration 24(2): 29-44. [Korean Literature]   DOI
2 Saaty TL. 2005. The Analytic hierarchy and analytic network process for the measurement of intangible criteria and for decision-making. In: Figueira, J.(Ed.), Multiple criteria decision analysis, pp. 345-407.
3 Schlup CJE, Lautenbach S, Verburg PH. 2014. Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services: demand and supply of pollination in the European Union. Ecological Indicators 36: 131-141.   DOI
4 Schroter M, Remme RP. 2016. Spatial prioritisation for conserving ecosystem services: comparing hotspots with heuristic optimization. Landscape Ecology 31(2): 431-450.   DOI
5 Tidball KG, Krasny ME. 2011. Toward an ecology of environmental education and learning. Ecosphere 2(2): 1-17.
6 Willemen L, Hein L, van Mensvoort EF, Verburg PH. 2010. Space for people, plants, and livestock? Quantifying interactions among multiple landscape functions in a Dutch rural region. Ecological Indicators 10(1): 62-73.   DOI
7 Yoon SC, Kim BS. 2004. Troposhperic ozone pollutions in Korea during 1998-2002 using two ozone indices for vegetation protection. Korean Journal of Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 6(1): 38-48. [Korean Literature]
8 Zank B, Bagstad KJ, Voigt B, Villa F. 2016. Modeling the effects of urban expansion on natural capital stocks and ecosystem service flows: a case study in the Puget Sound, Washington, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 149: 31-42.   DOI
9 Zhang X, Lu X. 2010. Multiple criteria evaluation of ecosystem services for the Ruoergai Plateau Marshes in southewest China. Ecological Economics 69(7): 1463-1470.   DOI
10 Alessa L, Kliskey A, Brown C. 2008. Socialecological hotspots mapping: a spatial approach for identifying couple-social ecological space. Landscape and Urban Planning 85(1): 27-39.   DOI
11 Beverly JL, Uto K, Wilkes J, Bothwell P. 2008. Assessing spatial attributes of forest “landscape values: an internet based participatory mapping approach. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38(2): 289-303.   DOI
12 Burkhard B, Petrosillo I, Costanza R. 2010. Ecosystem services-bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecological Complexity 7: 257-259.   DOI
13 Cho HL, Jeong E, Koo BK. 2015. Development of a hybrid watershed model STREAM: Model structures and theories. Journal of Korean Society on Water Environment 31(5): 491-506. [Korean Literature]   DOI
14 Cai W, Gibbs D, Zhang L, Ferrier G, Cai Y. 2017. Identifying hotspots and management of critical ecosystem services in rapidly urbanizing Yangtze River Delta region, China. Journal of Environmental Management 191: 258-267.
15 Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC. 2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLos Biology 4(11): e379.   DOI
16 Cimon-Morin J, Darveau M, Poulin M. 2013, Fostering synergies between ecosystem services and biodiversity in conservation planning: a review. Biological Conservation 166: 144-154.   DOI
17 Choi YJ, Kim KH, Jeon EC. 2006. Odorous pollutant concentration levels in the Ban- Wall industrial area and its surrounding regions. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society 27(2): 209-220. [Korean Literature]
18 Eigenbrod F, Armsworth PR, Anderson BJ, Heinemeyer A, Gillings S, Roy DB, Thomas CD, Gaston KJ. 2010. The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. Journal of Applied Ecology 47(2): 377-385.   DOI
19 Fruh-Muller A, Hotes S, Breuer L, Wolters V, Koellner T. 2016. Regional patterns of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes. Land 5(2): 17.   DOI
20 Gimona A, van der Horst D. 2007. Mapping hotspots of multiple landscape functions: a case study on farmland afforestation in Scotland. Landscape Ecology 22(8): 1255-1264.   DOI
21 Heo JW, Kim DG, Song IS, Lee G. 2010. Concentration and gas-particle partition of PCDDs/Fs and dl-PCBs in the ambient air of Ansan area. Journal of Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment 26(5): 517-532. [Korean Literature]   DOI
22 Koo M. 2014. The development and application of ecosystem services assessment model for housing site development projects: the case study on 4 Bogeumjari Residential Areas. Ph.D. dissertation, Seoul Natl University, Seoul [Korean Literature]
23 Jung KH, Kim WT, Hur SO, Ha SK, Jung PK, Jung YS. 2004. USLE/RUSLE factors for national scale soil loss estimation based on the digital detailed soil map. [Korean Literature]
24 Jung KH. 2006. The formation, development and crisis of the industrial city, Ansan focused on theory of 'Industrial district', Journal of Regional Studies 14(1): 46-67.
25 KFRI (Korea Forest Research Institute). 2017. The lungs of the City, urban forests. Korea Forest Research Institute, Seoul, 64pp. [Korean Literature]
26 Kopperoinen L, Itkonen P, Niemela J. 2014. Using expert knowledge in combining green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning: an insight into a new place-based methodology. Landscape Ecology 29: 1361-1375.   DOI
27 Fisher B, Turner KR. 2008. Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biological Conservation 141: 1167-1169.   DOI
28 Koschke L, Furst C, Frank S, Makeschin F. 2012. A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning. Ecological Indicators 21: 54-66.   DOI
29 Lautenbach S, Maes J, Kattwinkel M, Seppelt R, Strauch M, Scholz M, Schulz-Zunkel C, Volk M, Weinert J, Dormann CF. 2012. Mapping water quality-related ecosystem services: concepts and applications for nitrogen retention and pesticide risk reduction. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 8(1-2): 35-49.   DOI
30 Lee HK. 2012. Shihwa regional reclamation development project and the changes in the environmental management policy. Environmental Law and Policy 9, 153-173. [Korean Literature]   DOI
31 Liu J, Li J, Gao Z, Yang M, Qin K, Yang X. 2016. Ecosystem services insights into water resources management in China: a case of Xi’an city. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13(12): 1169.   DOI
32 Locatelli B, Imbach P, Wunder S. 2014. Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services in Costa Rica. Environmental Conservation 41(1): 27-36.   DOI
33 Luck GW, Chan KMA, Klien C. 2012. Identifying spatial priorities for protecting ecosystem services. F1000Research 1:17.   DOI
34 MA (Millenium Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
35 Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Schagner JP, Grizetti B, Drakou EG, Notte AL, Zulian G, Bouraoui F, Paracchnin LM, Braat L, Bidoglio G. 2012. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem Services 1(1): 31-39.   DOI
36 Queiroz C, Meacham M, Richter K, Norstrom AV, Andersson E, Norberg J, Peterson G. 2015, Mapping bundles of ecosystem services reveals distinct types of multifunctionality within a Swedish landscape. Ambio 44(1): 89-101.   DOI
37 Martin-Lopez B, Iniesta-Arandia I, Garcia-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Del Amo DG, Gomez-Baggethun E, Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B, Gonzalez JA, Santos-Martin F, Onaindia M, Lopez-Santiago C, Montes C. 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PlosOne 7(6): e38970.   DOI
38 Meyer MA, Schulz C. 2017. Do ecosystem services provide an added value compared to existing forest planning approaches in Central Europe? Ecology and Society 22(3): 6.
39 Nam YS, Lim HS. 2011. A study for MICE multiplex location attributes which use AHP. The Geographical Journal of Korea 45(1): 125-136. [Korean Literature]
40 NIE (National Institute of Ecology). 2017. Mapping and assessment of ecosystem services, National Institute of Ecology, Seocheon, 403pp. [Korean Literature]
41 Quyen NTK, Berg H, Gallardo W, Da CT. 2017. Stakeholders' perceptions of ecosystem services and Pangasius catfish farming development along the Hau River in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Ecosystem Service 25: 2-14.   DOI
42 Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM. 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of National Academic Society 107(11): 5242-5247.   DOI
43 Renard KG, Foster GR, Weesies GA, McCool DK, Yoder DC. 1997. Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Agricultural Handbook 703, US Government Print Office, Washington, DC.