Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7851/ksrp.2021.27.3.035

Identifying Supply-demand Relationships on Ecosystem Services Using Socio-ecological Approach in Gyeong-gi Province  

Park, Yoon-Sun (Interdisciplinary Program in Landscape Architecture, Graduate School, Seoul National University)
Kim, Choong-Ki (Korea Environment Institute)
Lee, Jae-Hyuck (Korea Environment Institute)
Song, Young-Keun (Department of Landscape Architecture, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University)
Hong, Hyun-Jeong (Korea Environment Institute)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning / v.27, no.3, 2021 , pp. 35-46 More about this Journal
Abstract
Ecosystem services play a role in promoting sustainable development by contributing to human welfare. For sustainable development, a balance between supply and demand for ecosystem services must be made. In this regard, in this study, factor analysis was performed using the results of measuring ecosystem services for the supply of ecosystem services and national statistical data representing socio-economic factors for demand for ecosystem services The results of analysis for Gyeong-gi Province are as follows. The service supply based on the result of ecosystem services was divided into the mixed service provisioning as factor1, the food provisioning as factor2, and the P retention service provisioning area as factor3. As for the demand for services based on socio-economic factors, factor1 is divided into urbanized areas, factor2 is forest development area, and factor3 is agricultural activity development area. Local governments that maintain balance were evaluated as Pocheon, Yangpyeong, Icheon, Pyeongtaek, Goyang, Suwon, Gwangmyeong, and Osan, and imbalanced local governments appeared in Gimpo, Uiwang, Anseong, and Yeoju. A management plan to maintain the balance between supply and demand of ecosystem services was suggested. The analysis method and results of this study are expected to be applicable to various local governments through regional expansion.
Keywords
Ecosystem Services; Ecosystem services Bundle; Factor-analysis; InVEST Model; Socio-ecological system; Trade-offs;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Garcia-Llorente, M., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Willaarts, B. A., Harrison, P. A., Berry, P., del Mar Bayo, M. and Martin-Lopez, B. 2015. Biophysical and sociocultural factors underlying spatial trade-offs of ecosystem services in semiarid watersheds. Ecology and Society 20(3).
2 Lahtinen, K., Guan, Y., Li, N., and Toppinen, A. 2016. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in supply chain management in the global forest industry. Ecosystem Services 21, 130-140.   DOI
3 Ellis, E. C., and Ramankutty, N. 2008. Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the world. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6(8): 439-447.   DOI
4 Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., and Muller, F. 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological indicators 21: 17-29.   DOI
5 Baro, F., Palomo, I., Zulian, G., Vizcaino, P., Haase, D. and Gomez-Baggethun, E. 2016. Mapping ecosystem service capacity, flow and demand for landscape and urban planning: A case study in the Barcelona metropolitan region. Land use policy 57: 405-417.   DOI
6 Bennett, E. M., Cramer, W., Begossi, A., Cundill, G., Diaz, S., Egoh, B. N. and Lebel, L. 2015. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Current opinion in environmental sustainability 14: 76-85.   DOI
7 Berkes, F., Folke, C. and Colding, J. 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems, Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8 Castro, A. J., Vaughn, C. C., Julian, J. P., and Garcia-Llorente, M. 2016. Social demand for ecosystem services and implications for watershed management. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 52(1), 209-221.   DOI
9 Choong-Ki Kim et al. 2020. Ecosystem Services Evaluation and Pilot Mapping ProjectIII. Ministry of Environment. Sejong-si, Korea(in Korean).
10 Colding, J., Lundberg, J. and Folke, C. 2006. Incorporating green-area user groups in urban ecosystem management. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 35(5): 237-244.   DOI
11 Gret-Regamey, A., Brunner, S. H., and Kienast, F. 2012. Mountain ecosystem services: who cares?. Mountain Research and Development 32(S1).
12 Kim, I., Kim, S., Lee, J. and Kwon, H. 2019. Categorization of Cities in Gyeonggi-do Using Ecosystem Service Bundles. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment 28(3): 201-214(in Korean).   DOI
13 Gyeonggi Province Statistics. 2020. (2020. 12. 1.) Retrieved from https://stat.gg.go.kr.
14 Hamann, M., Biggs, R., and Reyers, B. 2015. Mapping social-ecological systems: Identifying 'green-loop'and 'red-loop'dynamics based on characteristic bundles of ecosystem service use. Global Environmental Change 34: 218-226.   DOI
15 Hamann, M., Biggs, R., and Reyers, B. 2016. An exploration of human well-being bundles as identifiers of ecosystem service use patterns. PLoS One 11(10): e0163476.   DOI
16 Kaiser, H. F. 1958. The Varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika 23: 187-200.   DOI
17 Meacham, M., Queiroz, C., Norstrom, A. V., and Peterson, G. D. 2016. Social-ecological drivers of multiple ecosystem services: what variables explain patterns of ecosystem services across the Norrstrom drainage basin?. Ecology and Society 21(1).
18 Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport(MOLIT) 2019. 「The landscape policy plan(2020-2024)」.
19 Kim S, Lee D, Moon S, Byeon S, Kim J, Kim H, Kim J. 2020. A Study on the Evaluation and Improvements of New Town Policies in the Seoul Metropolitan Area. KRIHS, Sejong-si, Korea(in Korean).
20 Quintas-Soriano, C., Garcia-Llorente, M., Norstrom, A., Meacham, M., Peter son, G., and Castr o, A. J. 2019. Integrating supply and demand in ecosystem service bundles characterization across Mediterranean transformed landscapes. Landscape Ecology 34(7): 1619-1633.   DOI
21 Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005. Millenium ecosystem assessment synthesis report, Washington DC: Island press.
22 Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939): 419-422.   DOI
23 Sharp, R. et al. 2020. InVEST User's Guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund.
24 Wolff, S., Schulp, C. J. E., and Verburg, P. H. 2015. Mapping ecosystem services demand: A review of current research and future perspectives. Ecological Indicators 55, 159-171.   DOI
25 Wei, H., Fan, W., Wang, X., Lu, N., Dong, X., Zhao, Y. and Zhao, Y. 2017. Integrating supply and social demand in ecosystem services assessment: A review. Ecosystem Services 25: 15-27.   DOI
26 Scholes, R. J., Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Spierenburg, M. J., and Duriappah, A. 2013. Multi-scale and cross-scale assessments of social-ecological systems and their ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5(1): 16-25.   DOI
27 Spake, R., Lasseur, R., Crouzat, E., Bullock, J. M., Lavorel, S., Parks, K. E. and Mouchet, M. 2017. Unpacking ecosystem service bundles: Towards predictive mapping of syner gies and tr ade-offs between ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 47: 37-50.   DOI