Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment (환경영향평가)

Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment (한국환경영향평가학회)
권호 표지

A Study on Importance of Assessment Factors and Indicators of Natural Ecosystem for Environmentally Friendly Land Conservation

환경친화적 국토보전을 위한 자연생태계 평가요인 및 평가지표의 중요도에 관한 연구

  • You, Ju-Han (Chungcheongbuk-do Research Center for Wild Plants) ;
  • Park, Kyung-Hun (Dept. of Environment Engineering, Changwon National University) ;
  • Jung, Sung-Gwan (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Kyungpook National University)
  • Received : 2005.06.07
  • Accepted : 2005.07.27
  • Published : 2005.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was carried out to offer the basic methodology of the system and model to objectively assess the natural ecosystem for environmentally friendly land conservation and present the alternative plan on establishing the environmental policy. The results of this study were as follows. We selected four assessment factors associated with biotic, abiotic, qualitative, and functional factors. Also, there were extracted fifty-six indicators including density, total nitrogen, hemeroby degree, and goods production. The assessment factor showed that biotic one was very important. The importance of indicators were analyzed that rare and endangered plant was important in biotic factor, in case of abiotic, qualitative, and functional factors, organic matter, landscape diversity, and conservation of ecosystem were greatly important. The results of factor analysis on the characteristics of indicators, classified biotic factor into six factors including a structural one, abiotic factor as a soil and physical one, qualitative factor as five ones including hierarchical one, and functional factor as public and conservational one. In the results of analysis on assessment model, R-square of biotic factor was 51.7%, those of abiotic, qualitative, and functional one were each 58.4%, 44.2%, and 39.3%, and statistical problem was no existence. In future, to develop the assessement model and methodology of sustainable natural ecosystem, we will have to achieve the integrated model and grouping by assessment factor.

Keywords

References

  1. 김상오, 오광인, 1998 , 무등산 도립공원의 사회. 생태적 평가기준에 의한 현 운영상태의 평가와 관리방안, 한국조경학회지, 25(4), 107-122
  2. 나정화, 류연수, 사공정희, 2001, 평가지표에 의한 도시 비오톱의 가치평가, 한국조경학회지, 29(1), 100-112
  3. 윤여창, 김상윤, 권태호, 이창석, 1999, 지속가능한 산지개발을 위한 환경기준 설정에 관한 연구, 환경영향평가, 8(2), 53-63
  4. 이동근, 전성우, 이상문, 2004, 토지환경성평가의 이론 및 기준. 지도작성에 관한 연구, 한국환경복원녹화기술학회지, 7(1), 116-127
  5. 이동근, 윤소원, 김은영, 전성우, 최재용, 2005, 보전가치평가를 위한 경관생태학적 지표의 활용 및 적용, 한국조경학회지, 32(6), 14-22
  6. 정성관, 유주한, 2003 , 자연환경 보전을 위한 통합 평가모형 -내셔널 트러스트 후보지 선정을 중심으로-, 환경영향평가, 12(2), 87-98
  7. Bebi, P., F. Kienast, and W. Schonenberger, 2001, Assessing structures in mountain forests as a basis for investigation the forest's dynamics and protective function, Forest Ecology and Management, 145, 3-14 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00570-3
  8. Cole, R.P., and S.V. Cordray, 1991, What should forests sustain? eight answers, Journal of Forestry, 89, 31-36
  9. Cowling, R.M., and M.J. Samways, 1995, Predicting global patterns of endemic plant species richness, Biodiversity Letters, 2, 127-131 https://doi.org/10.2307/2999776
  10. Daubenmire, R., 1966, Vegetation: identification of typical communities, Science, 151, 291-298 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.151.3708.291
  11. Folke, C., C.S. Holling, and C. Perings, 1996, Biological diversity, ecosystem, and the human scale, Ecological Applications, 6(4), 1018-1024 https://doi.org/10.2307/2269584
  12. Frissel, S.S., 1977, Judging recreation impacts on wildness campsite, Journal of Forestry, 76, 481-483
  13. Gluck, P., 2000, Policy means for ensuring the full value of forests to society, Land Use Policy, 17, 177-185 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8377(00)00018-1
  14. Johnston, J.M., and D.A. Crossley Jr., 2002, Forest ecosystem recovery in the southeast US: soil ecology as an essential component of ecosystem management, Forest Ecology and Management, 155, 187-203 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00558-8
  15. Kapfer, J.A., and S.B. Franklin, 2000, Evaluation of an ecological land type classification system Natchez Trace state forest, western Tennessee, USA, Landscape and Urban Planning, 49, 179-190 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00070-0
  16. Kessler, M., 2001, Patterns of diversity and range size of selected plant groups along an elevational transect in the Bolivian Andes, Biodiversity and Conservation, 10, 1897-1921 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013130902993
  17. Klijn, K., A. Helias, and U. Haes, 1994, A hierarchical approach to ecosystem and its implications for ecological land classification, Landscape Ecology, 9(2), 89-104 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00124376
  18. Louw, J.H., and M.S. Scholes, 2002, Forest site classification and evaluation: a South African perspective, Forest Ecology and Management, 171, 153-168 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00469-3
  19. Martin, H., and J. Cornelis, 2000, Towards a monitoring method and a number of multifaceted and hierarchical biodiversity indicators for urban and suburban parks, Landscape and Urban Planning, 49, 149-162 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00061-X
  20. Mendoza, G.A., and R. Prabhu, 2003, Qualitative multi-criteria approaches to assessing indicators of sustainable forest resource management, Forest Ecology and Management, 174, 329-343 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00044-0
  21. Miller, J.N., R.P. Brooks, and M.J. Croonquist, 1997, Effects of landscape patterns on biotic communities, Landscape Ecology, 12, 137-153 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007970716227
  22. Noss, R.F., 1990, Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach, Conservation Biology, 4(4), 355-364 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00309.x
  23. Odum, E.P., 1969, The strategy of ecosystem development, Science, 164, 262-270 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.164.3877.262
  24. Onaindia, M., I. Dominguez, I. Albizu, C. Garbisu, and I. Amezaga, 2004, Vegetation diversity and vertical structure as indicators of forest disturbance, Forest Ecology and Management, 195, 341-354 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.02.059
  25. Sidle, R.C., 1992, A theoretical model of the effects of timber harvesting on slope stability, Water Resources Research, 28(7), 1898-1910
  26. Sukopp, H., 1980, Biotopkartierung in besiederten Bereich von Berlin, Garten und Landschaft, 80(7), 560-568
  27. Sukopp, H., 2004, Human-caused impact on preserved vegetation, Landscape and Urban Planning, 68, 347-355 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00152-X
  28. Thompson, S., K. McElwee, and J.T. Lee, 2001, Using landscape characteristics for targeting habitat conservation and restoration: a case study of ancient semi-natural woodland in the Chiltern Hills area of outstanding natural beauty, UK, Landscape Research, 26(3), 203-223 https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390125623
  29. van Andel, T.R., 2003, Floristic composition and diversity of three swamp forests in northwest Guyana, Plant Ecology, 167, 293-317 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023935326706
  30. Webster, G.L., 1961, The altitudinal limits of vascular plants, Ecology, 42(3), 587-590 https://doi.org/10.2307/1932249
  31. Zebisch, M., F. Wechsung, and H. Kenneweg, 2004, Landscape response functions for biodiversity-assessing the impact of land-use changes at the county level, Landscape and Urban Planning, 67, 157-172 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00036-7
  32. Zimmerman, J.C., L.E. DeWald, and P.G. Rowlands, 1999, Vegetation diversity in an interconnected ephemeral riparian system of north-central Arizona, USA, Biological Conservation, 90, 217-228 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00035-X