Journal of the Korean Society for Marine Environment & Energy (한국해양환경ㆍ에너지학회지)

The Korean Society for Marine Environment and Energy (한국해양환경•에너지학회)
권호 표지

Emergy Carrying Capacity of Sungap-do, An Uninhabited Island in Korea

무인도서 선갑도의 에머지 환경수용력 평가

  • Kang, Dae-Seok (Department of Ecological Engineering, Pukyong National University)
  • Received : 2009.12.29
  • Accepted : 2010.02.18
  • Published : 2010.02.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

For sustainable use of the resources of uninhabited islands of Korea, their ecological economic potential needs to be fully integrated into their management policy and the carrying capacity of the islands should be evaluated before using or developing them. The emergy methodology was used to evaluate the ecological economic value and carrying capacity of Sungap-do which is an uninhabited island in Incheon, Korea. The system boundary for the emergy evaluation of the island included the sea area within 1km from the high tide level, following the management boundary for the uninhabited islands of Korea stipulated in the Law on the Conservation and Management of Uninhabited Islands. The total renewable emergy input to Sungap-do was $1.04{\times}10^{20}$ sej/yr from tidal energy. The annual ecological economic contribution of the island was evaluated high at 29.9 billion Em￦/yr. If Sungap-do were developed to the national average, its carrying capacity was 6,586 persons at the current living standard of Korea. The carrying capacity of Sungap-do for the long-term sustainability scenario was 2,337 persons at the same living standard as in the developed scenario. When only emergy contribution of the land area was considered, the carrying capacity of Sungap-do sharply decreased to 14 persons for the developed scenario and 5 persons for the long-term sustainability scenario. The carrying capacity of the uninhabited islands of Korea including Sungap-do, thus, needs to be considered from the initial stage of utilization or development projects to sustain the ecosystem benefits and their sustainable uses.

무인도서의 지속가능한 이용을 보장하기 위해서는 이용 개발계획을 수립할 때 무인도서 생태계의 높은 가치를 충분히 고려하고, 이용 개발 행위가 이루어지기 전에 환경수용력을 먼저 평가할 필요가 있다. 이 연구에서는 에머지 개념과 방법론을 이용하여 무인도서인 인천광역시 옹진군 소재 선갑도의 생태계 가치와 환경수용력을 평가하였다. 선갑도의 에머지 평가경계는 육지부뿐만 아니라 '무인도서의 보전 및 관리에 관한 법률'의 무인도서 관리범위를 따라 만조수위선으로부터 1 km이내의 해역까지 포함하였다. 선갑도 생태계로 유입하는 재생가능 에머지량은 $1.04{\times}10^{20}$ sej/yr로, 해면부의 조석 에머지가 가장 중요하였다. 선갑도의 가치는 연간 299억 Em￦으로 높게 나타났다. 선갑도 육지부와 해면부의 에머지 기여도를 모두 포함하여 환경수용력을 계산한 결과, 우리나라 평균 수준개발 시나리오의 경우 6,586명, 장기적 지속가능성 시나리오의 경우 2,337명이었다. 그러나 선갑도 육지부가 공급하는 에머지만 고려할 경우 환경수용력은 우리나라 평균수준 개발을 가정할 경우 14명, 장기적 지속가능성을 고려할 경우 5명에 불과하였다. 따라서 선갑도를 포함한 무인도서의 생태계 가치를 유지하고 무인도서 이용의 지속성을 보장하기 위해서는 이용 개발계획 수립단계에서부터 환경수용력을 고려하도록 제도화 할 필요가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. 국립해양조사원, 2005, 검조기록부.
  2. 기상청, 2006, 기상연보, pp. 297.
  3. 남정호, 강대석, 2002, "무인도서의 효율적 관리방안", 해양수산부, 우리나라 무인도서의 통합적 관리대책 마련을 위한 Working Group 운영, 29-56.
  4. 산림청, 2000, 산림과 임업기술 (I), pp. 272.
  5. 손지호, 1999, 에머지 분석법에 의한 도시의 지속적인 발전가능성 평가, 부경대학교 환경공학과 박사학위 논문, pp. 141.
  6. 엄기혁, 손지호, 조은일, 이석모, 박청길, 1996, "EMERGY 분석법에 의한 득량만의 환경용량 산정", 한국수산학회지, 29, 629-636.
  7. 옹진군, 2009, 개별공시지가, http://klis.incheon.go.kr/sis/info/landprice/landprice.do?service=landPriceInfo, 2009.10.15.
  8. 임효혁, 강대석, 남정호. 2003, "연안유역관리를 위한 해양환 경수용력 평가모델의 활용 개선방안", 해양정책연구, 18, 33-69.
  9. 해양수산부, 2003. 해상파랑관측 및 조사.
  10. 해양수산부, 2005, 무인도서 실태조사 및 통합적 관리방안, pp. 307.
  11. 환경부, 2002, 전국 무인도서 자연환경조사 - 인천광역시 강화군II.옹진군II, 환경부, 170-180.
  12. 환경부, 2009, 특정도서 지정.관리현황, pp. 14.
  13. Brown, M.T. and Ulgiati, S., 1997, "Emergy-based indices and ratios to evaluate sustainability: monitoring economies and technology toward environmentally sound innovation", Ecological Engineering, 9, 51-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-8574(97)00033-5
  14. Brown, M.T. and Ulgiati, S., 2001, "Emergy measures of carrying capacity to evaluate economic investments", Populaion and Environment, 22, 471-501. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010756704612
  15. Campbell, D.E., Brandt-Williams, S.L. and Meisch, M.A., 2005, Environmental accounting using emergy: Evaluation of the State of West Virginia, Atlantic Ecology Division, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Naragansett, Rhode Island, USA.
  16. Farber, S.C., Costanza, R. and Wilson, M.A., 2002, "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services", Ecological Economics, 41, 375-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00088-5
  17. Kang, D. and Park, S.S., 2002, "Emergy evaluation perspectives of a multipurpose dam proposal in Korea", Journal of Environmental Engineering, 66, 293-306.
  18. Lee, S.M. and Odum, H.T., 1994, "Emergy analysis overview of Korea", J. of the Korean Environmental Sciences Society, 3, 165-175.
  19. Lomas, P.L., Alvarez, S., Rodriguez, M. and Montes, C., 2008, "Environmental accounting as a management tool in the Mediterranean context: the Spanish economy during the last 20 years", Journal of Environmental Management, 88, 326-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.03.009
  20. Manning, R., Wang, B., Valliere, W., Lawson, S. and Newman, P., 2002, "Research to estimate and manage carrying capacity of a tourist attraction: a study of Alcatraz Island", Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10, 388-404. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580208667175
  21. Odum, H.T., 1983, Systems Ecology, Wiley, New York, pp. 644.
  22. Odum, H.T., 1994, Ecological and General Systems, University Press of Colorado, Niwot, 644pp.
  23. Odum, H.T., 1996, Envrionmental Accounting. Emergy and Environmental Decision Making, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 370.
  24. Odum, H.T., 2000, Handbook of Emergy Evaluation. Folio #2. Emergy of Global Processes, Center for Environmental Policy, Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 30.
  25. PAP(Priority Actions Programme), 1997, Guideline for carrying capacity assessment for tourism in Mediterranean coastal areas, pp. 51.
  26. Parpairis, A., 2004, Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment in Islands. In : (eds) H. Coccossis and A. Mexa, The Challenge of Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment : Theory and Practice, Ashgate, Hampshire, 201-213.
  27. Price, D., 1999, "Carrying capacity reconsidered", Population and Environment, 21, 5-26.
  28. Ricklefs, R.E. and Miller, G.L., 2000, Ecology, Freeman, New York, pp. 822.
  29. Rydberg, T. and Haden, A.C., 2006, "Emergy evaluations of Denmark and Danish agriculture: Assessing the influence of changing resource availability on the organization of agriculture and society", Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 117, 145-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.03.025
  30. Scoullos, M., 2004, Tourism carrying capacity and public participation: the methodology used in the case of the Island of Rhodes, Greece. In: (eds) H. Coccossis and A. Mexa, The Challenge of Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment : Theory and Practice, Ashgate, Hampshire, 215-244.