Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture (한국조경학회지)

The Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture (한국조경학회)
권호 표지

Environment Friendly Urban Open Space Planning - Enhancing the Connectivity of Habitats in Seoul, Korea -

환경친화적인 도시공원녹지계획 연구 - 생물서식처 연결성 향상을 위한 서울시 녹지조성 방안을 중심으로 -

  • Published : 2003.04.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Connectivity is a quantitative indicator of landscape structure, and connectivity of urban green areas is an indicator of ecological integrity in urban landscapes. The purposes of this study are to assess the connectivity of urban green areas in Seoul, and to develop a method of siting new green areas for better connectivity. Diverse methods for connectivity assessment and indices of connectivity are reviewed and applied to the connectivity assesment of green areas in Seoul. The indices of connectivity of green areas in Seoul turned out to be higher than expected, maybe because many of them are rather evenly distributed, serving as stepping stones, and because there are many riparian corridors, including the Han River. Analysis also shows the optimum location of new green space patches or corridors will be those spots that would link the mainland, or large green areas outside the city, and existing green areas in the city. Restoration of urban streams as ecological corridors will significantly enhance connectivity. Three different scenarios with increasing numbers of new green areas in the city were then prepared. The changes of connectivity were measured and the possible success rates of animal dispersal were simulated. The results revealed that restoration of streams will increase the connectivity and success rates of animal dispersal.

Keywords

References

  1. 김명수. 안동만(1996) 도시공원의 경관생태학적 분석 : 경관조각의 형태지수와 분산도 분석을 중심으로. 한국조경학회지23(4) :12-19
  2. 김명수(2001) 파편화된 서식처 복원을 위한 기초 이론 고찰. 한국환경복원녹화기술학회지 4(2) :52-61
  3. Andren. H.(1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat : a review. OIKOS 71(3) : 355-366 https://doi.org/10.2307/3545823
  4. Bowne. D. R.. J. D. Peles and G.W. Barrett(1999) Effect of Ladscape Spatial Structure on Movement Patterns of the Hispid Cotton Rat. LandscaPe Ecology 14 : 53-66 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008025827895
  5. Brooker. L. M. Brooker and P. Ca1e(1999) Ammal Dispersal in Fragmented Habitat: Measunng the Habitat Connectivity, Cornidor Use, and Dispersa] Mortahty : Conservation Ecology http://www.consecol. org/ vol3/ issl
  6. Dooley. J. L. and M. Bowers(1998) DemograPhic Responses to Habitat Fragmentation : Experimental Test at the Landscape and Patch Scale. Ecology 79(3) : 969-980 https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[0969:DRTHFE]2.0.CO;2
  7. Fahrig. L. and G. Memiam(1985) Habitat patch Connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66 : 1762-1768 https://doi.org/10.2307/2937372
  8. Forman. R. T. T. and M. Godron(1986) Landscape Ecology. New York. John Wiley and Sons
  9. Forman. R T. T.(1995) Land Mosaic : The Ecoloey of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge(UK), Cambndge University Press : 68-72
  10. Gustafson. E. J. and R. H. Gardner(1996) The Effect of Landscape Heterogeneity on the Probabihty of Patch Colonization. Ecology 77(1) : 94-107
  11. Haddad. Nick M.(1999) Corridor Use Predicted form Behaviors at Habitat Boundaiies. The Amencan Naturalist 153(2) : 215-227 https://doi.org/10.1086/303163
  12. Hawkins, V. and P. Selman(1994) Landscape Ecological Plannmg and the Future Countryside : A Research Note. Landscape Research 19(2) : 88-94 https://doi.org/10.1080/01426399408706432
  13. Hess, G. and R. A. Fisher(2001) Communicatmg Clearly about Conservation Comdors. Landscape and Urban P1anning 55: 195-208 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00155-4
  14. Jaarsma, C. F. and G. P. A. Willems(2002) Reducing Habitat Fragmentation by Minor Rural Roads through Traffic Calminng. Landscape and Urban Planning 58 : 125-135 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00215-8
  15. Kohn. D. D. and D. M. Wa1sh(1994) Plant species richness :the effect of island size and habitat diversity. J. of Ecology 82: 367 -377 https://doi.org/10.2307/2261304
  16. Mladenoff, David J. and Barry DeZonia(2001) APACK 2.17(Ana1ysis Software) User's Guide
  17. Pickett. S. T. A. and P. S. White (eds.)(1985) The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. San Diego. Academic Press
  18. Pirnat. J.(2000) Conservation and Management of Forest Patches and Comdors in Suburban Landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 52 : 135-143 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00128-6
  19. Schumaker. N. H.(1996) Using Landscape Indices to Predict Habitat Connectivity. Ecoloey 77(4) : 1210-1225 https://doi.org/10.2307/2265590
  20. Turchin. P.(1996) Fractal Analysis of Animal Movement :A Critique. Ecology 77(7) : 2086 https://doi.org/10.2307/2265702
  21. With. K. A.. S. J. Cadaret. and C. Davis(1999) Movement Responses to Patch Structure in Expehmental Fractal Landscapes. Ecology 80(4) : 1340-1353 https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1340:MRTPSI]2.0.CO;2