Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2012.40.4.114

A Development and Application of the Landscape Evaluation Model Based on the Biotope Classification  

Park, Cheon-Jin (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Graduate School, Kyungpook National University)
Ra, Jung-Hwa (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Kyungpook National University)
Cho, Hyun-Ju (Daejeon Development Institute)
Kim, Jin-Hyo (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Graduate School, Kyungpook National University)
Kwon, Oh-Sung (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Graduate School, Kyungpook National University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture / v.40, no.4, 2012 , pp. 114-126 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to find ways of the view evaluation of biotope classification before development by selecting an area, which is as large as about $10.0km^2$ around Non Gong Up, Auk Po Myun, Dalsung Gun, Daugu where the large project has been planned, as a subject of this study. The results of this study are as follows. Because of the classification of biotope, there are 23 kinds of types that are subdivided into 140 types. Three surveys for selecting the assessment indicators were performed. The first survey analyzed the importance of 22 selected assessment indicators based on the evaluation of an existing literature review and on the spot research. The second survey performed factor analysis and reclassified the value indicators. The third survey computed additive values of the selected assessment indicators. It used a method of standardizing the average importance of indicators by making their sum equal by 10. Theses additive values were then multiplied by each grade of indicators in order to make a final evaluation. The number of assessment indicators finally selected through the survey of asking specialist is vitality elements, visual obstructs elements etc 19. According to the result of evaluation of 1st, 1 grade spaces which especially valuable is analyzed that 7 spaces, 2 grade spaces for 4, 3 grade spaces for 5, 4 grade space for 2, 5 grade space for 5. Because of the evaluation of 2st, 1 grade spaces which especially valuable(1a, 1b) is analyzed that 15 spaces, 2 grade spaces which valuable is analyzed that 28 space. As the evaluation of site suitability model of this study couldn't have high applicability to other similar area because of having only one site as a subject, it is needed to do synthesize and standardization of various examples to have higher objectivity later.
Keywords
Biotop Classification; Visual Landscape; Landscape Evaluation; MCB Analysis;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 김승주, 임승빈(2009) 도시경관 진단을 위한 평가모델 및 지표개발 연구: 서울시를 중심으로. 한국조경학회지 37(1): 78-86.
2 김용수, 박찬용(2007) 도시근교 택지개발지역의 경관계획지표 적용방안. 농촌계획학회지 13(3): 51-60.
3 나정화, 도후조(2003) 도시 중심부 지역의 비오톱 구조분석 및 평가: 대구광역시 중구 사례지를 중심으로. 한국환경복원기술학회지 6(5): 9-20.
4 나정화, 이석철, 사공정희, 류연수(2001) 생물종 및 서식지 보전의 관점에서 본 대도시의 비오톱 구조분석. 한국조경학회지 28(6): 29-51.
5 나정화, 류연수(2003) 도시 경관생태계획 지표설정 및 중요도 평가: 대구광역시를 중심으로. 대한국토․도시계획학회지 38(1): 21-35.
6 박찬용, 이영대(1997) 도시경관 평가에 있어서 녹지의 역할과 계획지표 설정에 관한 연구: 대구시를 중심으로. 한국조경학회지 25(1): 18-35.
7 서주환, 조영배, 이준근(2002) 형태지수를 이용한 농촌경관의 선호성 분석에 관한 연구: 농촌 문화마을을 대상으로. 한국산림휴양학회지 6(2): 7-14.
8 윤상호, 이종훈, 홍장원, 박상우(2003) 해안지역의 경관관리방안 연구. 한국해양수산개발원 321(0): 1-152.
9 이동근, 윤은주, 김은영, 조순재(2007) 농촌어메니티 자원에 기초한 농촌경관평가에 관한 연구. 농촌계획학회지 13(1): 11-17.
10 이상문, 최형석, 박창석, 주신하, 신지훈(2007) 자연경관 보존 및 관리를 위한 제도적 접근. 농촌계획학회지 13(3): 23-32.
11 이성룡(2001) 경기도 강변지역 경관관리방안. 경기개발연구원 2001(14): 1-202.
12 이현택(1996) 고속도로 사면의 수경처리에 관한 연구. 한국조경학회지 24(2): 1-12.
13 임승빈(1988) 경관분석 및 평가방법에 관한 연구. 한국조경학회지 16(1): 43-51.
14 임승빈(1994) 경관영향평가 지표의 개발. 한국조경학회지 22(1): 1206-1208.
15 임승빈, 서정희, 박향춘, 정윤희(2007) 경관유형 분류지표에 관한 연구: 자연 및 농촌경관 유형도 작성을 중심으로. 농촌계획학회지 13(1): 41-50.
16 조동범(2001) 도시주변 녹지경관의 보전․관리에 있어 경관잠재력 지표의 경관정보화 가시화 연구. 농촌계획학회지 7(1): 37-48.
17 조현주, 나정화, 사공정희, 류연수(2009) 농촌비오톱 유형분류 및 특성분석. 농촌계획학회지 15(4): 13-32.
18 한국경관협의회(2008) 경관법과 경관계획. 서울: 보문당.
19 Arriaza, M and J. F. Canas-Ortega, J. A. Canas-Madueno, P. Ruiz-Aviles(2004) Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Plannng 69(1): 115-125.   DOI
20 Bauer, G., K. Gerresheim and U. Kisker(1976) Landschftsrahmenplan Erholungspark Ville. Beitraege zur Landesentwicklung 35: 149-173.
21 Denise, E. H. and R. D. Brown(2002) Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape and Urban Planning 58: 57-70.   DOI
22 Forman, R. T. T.(2000) Estimate of the area affect edecologically by the road system in the United. Conservation Biology 14: 31-35.   DOI
23 Goossen, M. and F. Langers(2000) Assessing quality of rural areas in the Netherlands: Finding the most important indicators for recreation. Landscape and Urban Planning 46(4): 241-251.   DOI
24 Hull, R. B., and R. B. Revell(1989) Issues in sampling landscapes for visual quality assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning 17(4): 323-330.   DOI
25 Jose, A. A.(2006) Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices. Landscape and Urban Planning 77(4): 393-407.   DOI
26 Kaerkes, W.(1986) Zur oekologischen Bedeutung urbaner Freiflaechen. Diss. Univ. Bochum: 281-284.
27 Patton, D. R.(1975) A diversity index for quantifying habitat edge. Wildlife Socoety Bulletin 394: 171-173.
28 Kiemstedt, H.(1975) Landschaftsbewertung fuer Erholung im Sauerland. Dortmund, 40-72.
29 Laurie, M. M.(1984) Comment on A. R. Beer : "the teaching of landscape architecture and the need to develop landscape planning as a specialism". Landscape Planning 11(3): 251.   DOI
30 Marks, R., J. Manfred, H. Leser and H. J. Klink(1989) Anleitung zur Bewertung des Leistungsvermoegens des Landschaftshaushaltes. FDL Band 229. Trier. 129-135.
31 Sukopp, H.(1969) Der Einfluss des Menschen auf die Vegetation. Vegetation 17: 363-369.