• Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.237-251
• /
• 2019

This study evaluated the ecological value of waterside parks by investigating the animal distribution and ecological feature in 92 waterside parks and analyzed the change of ecological awareness by users and non-users of waterside parks through ecological education and promotion based on the investigation results. The result confirmed inhabitation of various animals including 9 endangered species (Pernis ptilorhynchus orientalis, Accipiter soloensis, Falco subbuteo, Charadrius placidus, Felis bengalensis euptilura, Lutra lutra, Kaloula borealis, Polyphylla laticollis manchurica, and Leptalina unicolor) in waterside parks. Although waterside parks were constructed to be hydrophilic areas for human use, some of them with high natural characteristics are valued as biological habitat. We investigated user status in 5 areas (Daejeon, Sejong, Cheongju, Kongju, and Buyeo) located at Guem river basin to evaluate people's perception of waterside parks and carried out the ecological education and promotion based on the investigation result. The survey of 200 people showed that there were more users of waterside parks than non-users and that people in their 40's showed the highest use rate. The use frequency of waterside parks located in Daejeon and Cheongju was lower than in other areas (Sejong, Kongju, and Buyeo). We considered it was because Daejeon and Cheongju were urban areas and had relatively more leisure areas such as sports facilities and cafe than other areas, and thus the residents had a lower reliance on waterside parks. Moreover, users used waterside parks more frequently when they were nearer to users' residence. It is because most users perceived waterside parks as the leisure sports facility and thus preferred them to be within walking distance. The users' perception of waterside parks as the ecological space "to be preserved" increased after the ecological education and promotion. The change of the perception was higher among users (80%) than non-users (38%). Therefore, ecological education and promotion were potentially more effective to people who user waterside parks and thus had a higher understanding of the characteristics and specification. In conclusion, 1) although waterside parks were constructed for human use, some parts had high ecological value for the distribution of endangered species and outstanding natural beauty, and 2) it is necessary to change the perception of waterside parks from the hydrophilic attribute to the conservation attribute. Such change of perception would contribute to establishing waterside parks that feature both hydrophilic and conservation attributes in the management or upgrading plan of waterside parks in the future.