• Proceedings of the Korea Water Resources Association Conference
• /
• 2021.06a
• /
• pp.451-451
• /
• 2021

인간활동으로 인해 서식처의 변화, 서식처의 파편화를 비롯하여 기후변화, 토지이용의 변화 등으로 생태계 생물 다양성은 빠르게 손실되고있는 상황이다. 특히 생물 다양성은 생태계 복원력에 중요한 인자로서 유역의 건전성 회복을 위해 생물 다양성을 중요한 인자로 고려하려는 경향이 커지고 있다. 유역 건전성은 주로 큰 하천에서의 친수성, 서식처, 유량 및 수질 등에 적용되어왔고 국내에서는 최근 들어 유역 건전성을 확보하기 위해 수량 및 수질관리, 환경문제 등의 해결을 위해 유역관리 차원에서 접근하려는 시도가 시작되었으나 어떠한 수단을 통해 생물다양성과 서식처 관리를 접근할 수 있는지에 대한 연구는 아직 부족한 실정이다. 이에 본 연구에서는 최근 20년 동안 도시화, 댐 건설 등 토지이용변화가 크게 발생한 금강유역(9,865 km²)을 대상으로 InVest 모델 중 서식처 가치평가 모델 (Habitat Quality Model)을 이용하여 유역의 서식처 가치를 평가하고 이를 수생태계 건강성 모니터링 자료와 비교하여 모형의 적용성을 평가하고자 한다.

• Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology
• /
• v.36 no.3
• /
• pp.318-326
• /
• 2022

The Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) recommends that 17% of the land be designated as a protected area to counter global environmental problems. Korea also realized a need to designate protected areas according to the international level and explain the significance of designating protected areas. Accordingly, studies on ecosystem services are required. In Korea, the protected areas are designated as national parks, provincial parks, and county parks by hierarchy under the Natural Parks Act. However, as priority was on political and administrative aspects, research on ecosystem service value evaluation and habitat management were concentrated in national parks, and provincial and county parks were relatively neglected. Therefore, more studies on provincial and county parks are necessary. In this study, habitat quality for Gajisan Provincial Park, where there were few studies on habitat management and ecosystem service valuation, was evaluated using the InVEST Habitat Quality model among the InVEST models. The analysis results were compared with 16 mountainous national parks. The results showed that the habitat quality value of Gajisan Provincial Park was 0.83, higher than that of the surrounding areas. The analysis of habitat quality in three districts showed 0,84 for the Tongdosa and Naewonsa districts and 0.83 for the Seoknamsa district. By use district, the nature conservation district, the natural environment district, the cultural heritage district, and the park village district had the highest habitat quality value in that order. Compared with the existing habitat quality analysis results of national parks, Gajisan Provincial Park showed naturalness at the level of Mudeungsan National Park. These results can be used as objective data for establishing policies and management plans to preserve biodiversity and promote ecosystem services in provincial parks.

• Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology
• /
• v.36 no.6
• /
• pp.553-565
• /
• 2022

Awareness of the ecological value and importance of protected areas has increased as climate change accelerates, and there is a need for research on ecosystem services provided by nature. The natural park, which is a representative protected area in Korea, has a system of national parks, provincial parks, and county parks. National parks are managed systematically by the Korea National Park Service, but local governments manage provincial parks and county parks. There may be the same hierarchical differences in naturalness (habitat quality) depending on the hierarchy of the natural parks, but it has not been verified. To identify differences, we examined 22 mountain-type natural parks using habitat quality using the INVEST model developed by Stanford University. The analysis of the habitat quality, regardless of the type and area of the natural park, showed that it was higher in the order of Taebaeksan National Park (0.89), Juwangsan National Park (0.87), Woongseokbong County Park (0.86), and Gayasan National Park (0.85). The larger the area, the higher the value of habitat quality. A comparison of natural parks with similar areas showed that the habitat quality of national parks was higher than that of provincial parks and parks. On the other hand, the average habitat quality of county parks was 0.83±0.02, which was 0.05 higher than that of provincial parks at 0.78±0.03. Furthermore, the higher the proportion of forest areas within the natural park, the higher the habitat quality. The results confirmed that the naturalness of natural parks was independent of their hierarchy and that there are differences in naturalness depending on land use, land coverage, and park management.