Assessing conservation priorities of unexecuted urban parks in Seoul using ecological network and accessibility analyses

생태네트워크와 접근성 분석에 의한 서울시 미집행 도시공원의 보전 우선순위 평가

  • Kang, Wan-Mo (Department of Human Environment Design, Cheongju University) ;
  • Song, Young-Keun (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University) ;
  • Sung, Hyun-Chan (Environmental GIS/RS Center, Korea University) ;
  • Lee, Dong-Kun (Dept. of Landscape Architecture and Rural Systems Engineering, Seoul National University)
  • 강완모 (청주대학교 휴먼환경디자인학부) ;
  • 송영근 (서울대학교 환경대학원 환경조경학과) ;
  • 성현찬 (고려대학교 환경 GIS/RS 센터) ;
  • 이동근 (서울대학교 농업생명과학대학 조경.지역시스템공학부)
  • Received : 2018.03.19
  • Accepted : 2018.04.30
  • Published : 2018.04.30


This study aims to quantitatively evaluate the conservation priorities of unexecuted urban parks in Seoul both from an ecological and public perspective. To this end, two methodologies, ecological network analysis based on graph and circuit theory and accessibility analysis, were employed in order to assess ecological connectivity of and public accessibility to unexecuted parks, respectively. This study applied linkage-mapping methods (shortest path and current flow betweenness centrality) of connectivity analysis to an integrated map of landscape permeability. The population-weighted accessibility to unexecuted parks was measured based on a negative exponential distance decay function. As a result, for both ecological connectivity and accessibility, Gwanaksan, Suraksan, and Bulamsan urban natural parks are found to be the most important (rank 1-3) to be conserved. For these sites, inner park areas with conservation priorities for connectivity and accessibility were identified. The findings of the study can be used for giving conservation priority to the unexecuted urban parks in terms of long-term sustainable urban planning.


Supported by : 환경부


  1. Busan Development Institute (BDI). 2010. Proposal for a city ark in Busan city: the unrealized urban planning facility. Busan Development Institute. 151pp. (in Korean with English summary)
  2. Carroll C. McRae BH. Brookes A. 2012. Use of linkage mapping and centrality analysis across habitat gradients to conserve connectivity of gray wolf populations in western North America. Conserv Biol 26: 78-87.
  3. Chae JH. Koo TH. 2004. Habitat feature analysis in urban biotope for bird diversity promotion in Seoul urban area. KRIHS 40: 87-100.
  4. Choi J-G. Seo S-C. Joo Y-. 2008. Research on Improving EIA Through Causality Analysis. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment 17(1): 11-24.
  5. ESRI. 2012. Arcgis, version 10.1. Redlands, california, USA.
  6. Bunn A. Urban D. Keitt T. 2000. Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory. J Environ Manag 59: 265-278.
  7. Burkhard B. Maes J. 2017. Mapping Ecosystem Services. Advanced Books 1. DOI: 10.3897/ab.e12837
  8. Eum SW. 2015. We may not be able to hike Mt. Gwanak and the Jarak-gil of Mt. Ansan. Hankyoreh, 2015, July 26. Retrieved from
  9. Gyeonggi Research Institute (GRI). 2015. Solutions for managing long-term unexecuted urban parks. Gyeonggi Research Institute, 24pp. (in Korean)
  10. Hugget RJ. 2004. Fundamental of biogeography, London and Network. Taylor & Francis e-Library.
  11. Kang W. Kim J. Park C-R. Sung JH. 2014. Comparing connectivity in forest networks of seven metropolitan cities of South Korea. Korean J Agric For Meteorol 16(2): 93-102.
  12. Kang W. Park C-R. 2015. Corridor and network analyses of forest bird habitats in a metropolitan area of South Korea. Korean J Agric For Meteorol 17(3): 191-201.
  13. Kim Y-R. 2017. Issuing municipal bonds to pay compensation for lands and selecting compensation priority areas for urban parks and greenbelts unexecuted in the long-term: with a focus on Seoul city. Journal of Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 45(3): 92-106.
  14. Kong F. Yin H. Nakagoshi N. Zong Y. 2010. Urban green space network development for biodiversity conservation: identification based on graph theory and gravity modeling. Landsc Urban Plan 95(1): 16-27.
  15. Konijnendijk CC. Annerstedt M. Busse Nielsen A. Maruthaveeran S. 2013. Benefits of urban parks a systematic review. International Federation of Parks and Recreation Administration. Copenhagen/Alnarp. 70pp.
  16. Korea Environment Institute (KEI). 2017. Measures to improve the strategic environmental impact assessment in response to the development-environmental plan linkage system: focusing on the urban management plan. 157pp. (in Korean with English summary)
  17. Marmot M. 2015. The health gap: the challenge of an unequal world. Bloomsbury, London.
  18. McRae BH. Dickson BG. Keitt TH. Shah VB. 2008. Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 89: 2712-2724.
  19. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being. Island Press.
  20. Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MoLIT). 2016. Urban Planning Information Service.
  21. R Core Team. 2017. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  22. Ratih Y. Febrianto JZ. 2016. Biodiversity as part of urban green network system planning case study: Pontianak city. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 227: 583-586.
  23. Seoul Development Institute (SDI). 2011. A study on the urban park management system with special use permits in Seoul. Seoul Development Institute, 173pp. (in Korean with English summary)
  24. Teng M. Wu C. Zhou Z. Lord E. Zheng Z. 2011. Multipurpose greenway planning for changing cities: A framework integrating priorities and a least-cost path model. Landsc Urban Plan 103: 1-14.
  25. Theobald DM. Crooks KR. Norman JB. 2011. Assessing effects of land use on landscape connectivity: loss and fragmentation of western U.S. forests. Ecol Appl 21: 2445-2458.