Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology (한국환경복원기술학회지)

The Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology (한국환경복원기술학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Stream Classification Based on the Ecological Characteristics for Effective Stream Management - In the Case of Nakdong River -

효율적인 하천관리를 위한 하천생태 특성을 고려한 유형 분류 - 낙동강수계를 대상으로 -

  • Lee, Yoo-Kyoung (Dept. of Environmental Science, Graduate Konkuk University) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Woo (Dept. of Environmental Science, Konkuk University)
  • 이유경 (건국대학교 환경과학과 대학원) ;
  • 이상우 (건국대학교 환경과학전공)
  • Received : 2012.07.19
  • Accepted : 2012.10.26
  • Published : 2012.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this research is classifying stream into different types depending on various factor from the perspective of stream corridor restoration and using it as basic data, which are used to consider efficient management and planning for the healthy stream according to the characteristic by types. In this study, 130 points of location of the Nakdong river basin which consist of various geographic factors have been chosen and hierarchical cluster analysis has been carried out in these points by using biological and physiochemical factors whose health can be considered to be predicted and evaluated. As a result of cluster analysis, there were three divided types. Type A whose biology and water quality are considered the best was the highest in forest area percentage so that it was classified into natural stream. Type B was classified into a rural region stream with a mixture of urban and agricultural region. Type C, with the most damaged water quality and biology health had the most urban region surface area and was named as urban region stream. Moreover, an overall restoration strategy according to characteristic by stream types was set. By the results of correlation analysis on factors, water quality showed a high correlation with biological properties and was affected by surrounding land usage. In evaluation of streams, it proves the need to consider not only other habitat's geographical and biological factors but also the water quality and land usage factors. There needs to be further research on stream ecosystem functionality factors and structural aspects by using a more objective and total evaluation result in selecting additional index and various other specific classification methods by stream types and its restoration strategies.

Keywords

References

  1. 건설기술연구원. 2005. 다기능하천실험사업.
  2. 박석순․박배경․이상호. 1994. 한강유역의 토지이용도에 따른 지천 수질 비교. 한국수질보전학회지 10(1) : 10-16.
  3. 박창석․배민기․오충현․이장호․김명철. 2009. 하천과의 거리 및 수변구역 지정에 따른 경관특성 비교. 한국조경학회 추계학술대회 논문집, 71-75.
  4. 오영주․강병화․김정우․김성필․한민수․김진호․나영은. 2006. 토지이용패턴에 따른 하천수질과 식생분포. 한국환경농학회지 25(1) : 34-39.
  5. 오정학․정성관․박경훈. 2005. 토지이용패턴을 중심으로 한 낙동강 유역의 경관생태학적 유형 분류, 한국지리정보학회 춘계GIS워크숍 및 학술대회 논문집, 121-132.
  6. 이혜림. 2010. K-평균법의 군집개수 선택기준에 관한 비교 연구 : 한반도 바람지역 군집분석에의 응용.
  7. Allan, J.D. 1995. Stream Ecology. Structure and function of running waters. Chapman and Hall, London.
  8. Boyer, J.N., J.W. Fourqurean, and R.D. Jones, 1997. Spatial Characterization of Water Quality in Florida Bay and Whitewater y Multivariate Analyses : Zones of Similar Influence, Estuaries, 20(4), 743-758. https://doi.org/10.2307/1352248
  9. Paul L. Angermeier and James R. Karr. 1994. Biological Intergrity Versus Biological Diversity as Policy Directives, BioScience, 44(10).
  10. Arienzo, M., Adamo, P., Bianco, M. R. and Violante, P. 2001. Impact of land use and urban runoff on the contamination of the Sarno river basin in southwestern Italy. Water Air Soil Pollut. 131 : 349-366. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011908019933
  11. Davis, W. S. 1995. Biological Assessment And Criteria : Building on the Past. In : W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon (Eds.) Biological Assessment and Criteria : Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making, Lewis, Boca Raton, pp. 81-96.
  12. Dunne, T. and Lepold, L. B. 1978. Water in environmental planning. W. H. Freeman and Company. Eagleson, P.S. 1970. Dynamic Hydrology, McGraw-Hill.
  13. EPA. 1974. Lake Restoration. Minneapolis : US Environmental Protection Agency.
  14. Fisher, D.S., J.L. Steiner, D.M. Endale, J.A. Stuedemann, H.H. Schomberg, A.J. Franzluebbers and S.F. Wilkinson. 2000. The relationship of land use practices to sur-face water quality in the Upper Oconee Watershed of Georgia. Forest Ecol. Manage. 128 : 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00270-4
  15. Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics : The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions, Cambridge University Press. pp. 652.
  16. Richard J. Hobbs, David A. Norton. 1996. Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 93-110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.1996.tb00112.x
  17. Holl K.D., Crone E.E. and Schultz C.B. 2003. Landscape restoration : moving from generalities to methodologies. BioScience, 53, 491-502. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0491:LRMFGT]2.0.CO;2
  18. Karr J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fishieries, 6. pp. 21-27. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(1981)006<0021:AOBIUF>2.0.CO;2
  19. Kelly M.G. and B.A., Whitton. 1995. The Trophic Diatom Index : a new index for monitoring eutrophication in rivers. Journal of applied phycology. 7/4 : 433-444. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00003802
  20. Lenat, D. R. and J. K. Crawford. 1994. Effects of land use on water quality and aquatic biota of three North Carolina piedmont streams. Hydro biologia. 294(3) : 185-200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00021291
  21. Leopold, L. B., Wolman, M. G. and Miller, J. P. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. Freeman, San Francisco, CA, p.522.
  22. MOE/NIER. 2009. Final report of survey and evalutation of aquatic ecosystem health in Korea. The ministry of Environment/National Institute on Environmental Research, Korea.
  23. Naiman, R.J. 1998. Biotic Stream Classification. In R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby (eds.), River Ecology and Management : 97-119, Springer-Verlag, New York.
  24. Ren, W., Zhong, Y., Meligrana, J., Anderson, B., Watt, W. E., Chen, J. and Leung, H. 2003. Urbanization, land use, and water quality in Shanghai : 1947-1996. Environ. Int., 29 : 649-659. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-4120(03)00051-5
  25. Sala O.E., Chapin F.S., Armesto J.J. et al. 2000. Biodiver-sity - global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science, 287, 1770-1774. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5459.1770
  26. Sponseller, R.A., E.F. Benfield and H.M. Valett. 2001. Relationships between land use, spatial scale and stream macroinvertebrate communities. Freshwater Biology 46 : 1409-1424. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2001.00758.x
  27. Tong, S. T. Y. and W. Chen. 2002. Modeling the relationship between land use and surface water quality. Journal of Environmental Management 66(4) : 377-393. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2002.0593
  28. UNESCO. 2004. Integrated watershed management - Ecohydrology and phytotechnology.
  29. Wickham, K.B. Jones, R.V. O'Neill, R.D. Tankersley, and E.R. Smith. 1999. An integrated environmental assessment of the US Mid-Atlantic region. Environmental Management 24(4) : 553-560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900254

Cited by

  1. 국내 자연하천의 유형별 물리적 구조 및 식생 특성 연구 vol.28, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.13047/kjee.2014.28.2.215
  2. Regression Tree Analysis for Stream Biological Indicators Considering Spatial Autocorrelation vol.18, pp.10, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105150