Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2021.49.1.031

Understanding the Difference in Residents' Perception of the Vulnerability of Local Ecological Assets - Focused on Paju, Gyeonggi-do -  

Son, Yong-Hoon (Graduate School of Environment Studies, Seoul National University)
Lee, Ju-Kyung (Interdisciplinary Program in Landscape Architecture, Seoul National University)
Kim, Do-Eun (Interdisciplinary Program in Landscape Architecture, Seoul National University)
Kwon, Hyuksoo (Bureau of Ecological Research, National Institute of Ecology)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture / v.49, no.1, 2021 , pp. 31-41 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study targets the city of Paju, Gyeonggi-do, where many challenges are facing ecological assets management due to the increase in recent development. Using the survey data provided by the National Institute of Ecology in Korea, the study analysed the differences in the local residents' perception of local ecological assets. The Q methodology, which is useful for revealing differences in opinions, was applied to classify the narrative groups, which had different points of view in evaluating each asset. Next, the study compared the differences in perceptions of the vulnerability of ecological assets. As a result of the analysis, the city of Paju was divided into two main narrative groups: a 'Nature Conservation Group' and a 'Heritage Conservation Group'. The Nature Conservation Group wanted to prioritize ecologically valuable assets, such as wetlands, brackish zones, and forests. The Heritage Conservation Group preferred preserving ecological assets having a cultural contexts, such as royal tombs, graves, and the surrounding landscape. Evaluating the ecological assets, the two groups identified 23 ecological sites under threat from development among the 25 ecological sites considered. The Nature Conservation Group noted the importance of sites such as the Sannam Wetlands, Gongneungcheon, Gongneungcheon Brackish Zone, and Simhak Mountain. These were considered to be the most vulnerable ecological assets in the city. The study found differences in the perceived values for each ecological asset by residents. The results can serve as useful data for decision-making on ecological asset management in the city of Paju.
Keywords
Ecosystem Service Assessment; Vulnerability Assessment; Q Method; Narrative Group;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Kerr, G. N. and S. R. Swaffield(2012) Identifying cultural service values of a small river in the agricultural landscape of Canterbury, New Zealand, using combined methods. Society & Natural Resources 25(12): 1330-1339.   DOI
2 Kim, B., J. Lee, I. Kim, S. Kim and H. Kwon(2019a) Rapid assessment of ecosystem services apply to local stakeholders. Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology 22(1): 1-11.
3 Kim, B., J. Lee and H. Kwon(2017) Recent ecological asset research trends using keyword network analysis. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment 26(5): 303-314.   DOI
4 Kim, I., S. Kim, J. Lee and H. Kwon(2019b) Categorization of cities in Gyeonggi-do using ecosystem service bundles. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment 28(3): 201-214.   DOI
5 Kim, J. and K. Lee(2009) Monitoring on vegetation structure for ecological restoration of small stream in Paju. Journal of Environmental Science International 18(1): 99-111.   DOI
6 Kim, M., J. Choi and J. Park(2018) A Study of ecosystem services trade-off based on user perception in Tancheon. Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology 21(1): 31-40.
7 Larondelle, N. and D. Haase(2013) Urban ecosystem services assessment along a rural-urban gradient: A cross-analysis of European cities. Ecological Indicators 29: 179-190.   DOI
8 Lee, H. (2017) Basic direction of the preservation and utilization of DeokjinSanseong fortress. Baekje Culture Research Institute 56: 255-270.
9 Lee, J. (2019) Conflict mapping toward ecotourism facility foundation using spatial Q methodology. Tourism Management 72: 69-77.   DOI
10 Lee, C. and D. Kim(2020) A study on the characteristics of spatial and landscape composition in Jangneung, Paju. Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture 38(1): 1-9.   DOI
11 Martin-Lopez, B., Iniesta-I. Arandia, M. Garcia-Llorente, I. Palomo, I. Casado-Arzuaga, D. G. Del Amo and J. A. Gonzalez(2012) Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One 7(6): e38970.   DOI
12 Nhem, S. and Y. Lee(2019) Using Q methodology to investigate the views of local experts on the sustainability of community-based forestry in Oddar Meanchey province, Cambodia. Forest Policy and Economics 106: 101961.   DOI
13 NIER(2006) 2006 National Survey of Natural Landscape : Paju. MOE.
14 Park, E. (2009) Funding for nature conservation of the DMZ area: Focusing on the ecosystem conservation fund. Gyeonggi Reserch Institute 5: 111-112.
15 Rhew, H. and S. Kim(2004) Spatial pattern of environmental loadings on border region of Gyeonggi province. Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea 7(2): 157-170.
16 Song, C., W. Lee, H. Choi, S. Jeon, J. Kim, J. Kim and J. Kim(2015) Application of InVEST water yield model for assessing forest water provisioning ecosystem service. Journal of the Korean Association of Geographic Information Studies 18(1): 120-134.   DOI
17 Song, I. and C. Yoon(2019) Establishment and Utilization of Ecosystem Service Assessment in Seoul. The Seoul Institute of Research on Policy Issues.
18 Buchel, S. and N. Frantzeskaki(2015) Citizens' voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Ecosyst. Serv 12: 169-77.   DOI
19 Ahn, S.(2013) Definition and classification of ecosystem services for decision making. Journal of Environmental Policy 12(2): 3-16.   DOI
20 Brown, S. R.(1993) A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity 16(3/4): 91-138.
21 Chan, K. M., T. Satterfield and J. Goldstein(2012) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics 74: 8-18.   DOI
22 Forrester, J., B. Cook, L. Bracken, S. Cinderby and A. Donaldson(2015) Combining participatory mapping with Q-methodology to map stakeholder perceptions of complex environmental problems. Applied Geography 56: 199-208.   DOI
23 Grimsrud, K., M. Graesse and H. Lindhjem(2020) Using the generalised Q method in ecological economics: A better way to capture representative values and perspectives in ecosystem service management. Ecological Economics 170: 106588.   DOI
24 Hein, L., K. Bagstad, B. Edens, C. Obst, R. de Jong and J. P. Lesschen (2016) Defining ecosystem assets for natural capital accounting. PloS One 11(11): e0164460.   DOI
25 Jeon, S, J. Kim and H. Jung(2013) A study on the forest classification for ecosystem services valuation. J. Korean Env. Res. Tech 16(3): 31-39.