Establishment of Additional Protected Areas and Applying Payment for Ecosystem Services(PES) for Sustainability of Suncheonman-Bay

지속가능한 순천만을 위한 보호지역 확대와 정책적 활용을 위한 생태계 서비스 지불제(PES)의 적용

  • Mo, Yongwon (Interdisciplinary Program in Landscape Architecture, Seoul National University) ;
  • Park, Jin Han (Interdisciplinary Program in Landscape Architecture, Seoul National University) ;
  • Son, Yong-Hoon (Department of Landscape Architecture, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Dong Kun (Department of Landscape Architecture and Rural System Engineering, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Seoul National University)
  • 모용원 (서울대학교 협동과정 조경학) ;
  • 박진한 (서울대학교 협동과정 조경학) ;
  • 손용훈 (서울대학교 환경대학원 환경조경학과) ;
  • 이동근 (서울대학교 농업생명과학대학 조경.지역시스템공학부)
  • Received : 2015.10.29
  • Accepted : 2016.02.23
  • Published : 2016.02.29


Suncheonman-Bay and its surrounding areas play important roles as habitats for migratory birds. However, sustainable management of these areas is difficult because of the development pressure of private lands. Therefore, the areas surrounding Suncheonman-Bay must be classified as additional protected areas; for this, it is necessary to gather concrete and objective evidence and ensure protected area management. Further, compensation measures must be considered when acquiring a private property as an additional protected area. In this study, we distinguish protected areas, such as core, buffer, and transition areas, within a private area by using data from the Winter Waterbird Census of Korea and MARXAN software, a spatial conservation prioritization tool. We applied ecosystem services to apply Payment for Ecosystem services (PES) as compensation measures. Watershed conservation (supply), climate control (regulation), supporting habitats (support), and recreation (culture) etc. were evaluated by calculating the economic value of these ecosystem services. Eastern, western, and northern forests and rice fields of Suncheonman-Bay were shown to have a number of core areas for the preservation of endangered species. The ecosystem service value of the additional protected areas was estimated at 17.5 million KRW/ha/year. We believe that our study result could be used to establish protected areas to preserve major habitats, as well as include areas adjacent to such major habitats that play a vital role in endangered species conservation. In addition, through this study, we highlight the need for an objective basis to establish protected areas.


Supported by : 환경부


  1. Andam, K. S..P. J. Ferraro.A. Pfaff.G. A. Sanchez-Azofeifa and J. A. Robalino. 2008. Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. PNAS 105(42): 16089-16094.
  2. Ardron, J..H. P. Possingham and C. J. Klein. 2010. Marxan Good Practices Handbook. External Review Version 2. Victoria, BC, Canada.
  3. Ball, I. R..H. P. Possingham and M. E. Watts. 2009. Marxan and relatives: software for spatial conservation prioritization. IN: Moilanen, A., Wilson, K., Possingham H. (Eds.), Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools. Oxford University Press, UK.
  4. Carvalho, S. B..J. C. Brito.E. G. Crespo.M. E. Watts and H. P. Possingham. 2011. Conservation Planning under Climate Change: Toward Accounting for Uncertainty in Predicted Species Distributions to Increase Confidence in Conservation Investments in Space and Time. Biological Conservation 144(7): 2020-2030.
  5. Choi YS.Hur WH.Kim SH.Kang SG.Kim JH.Kim HJ.Son JS.Park JY.Yi JY. Kim CH.Kang JH and Han SH. 2012. Population Trends of Wintering Ducks in Korea, The Korean Journal of Ornithology 19(3): 185-200. (in Korean with English summary)
  6. Costanza, R..D'Arge, Groot, R. S.. Farber, S..Grasso, M..Hannon, B.. Limburg, K..Naeem, S..O'Neill, R. V.. Paruelo, J..Raskin, R. G..Sutton, P. and van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital, Nature 387: 253-260.
  7. de Groot, R. S..Alkemade, R..Braat, L..Hein, L. and Willemen, L. 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making, Ecological Complexity 7: 260-272.
  8. Fajardo, J..J. Lessmann.E. Bonaccorso.C. Devenish and J. Munoz. 2014. Combined Use of Systematic Conservation Planning, Species Distribution Modelling, and Connectivity Analysis Reveals Severe Conservation Gaps in a Megadiverse Country (Peru). PLoS ONE, 9, e114367.
  9. Fajardo, J..J. Lessmann.E. Bonaccorso.C. Devenish and J. Munoz. 2014. Combined Use of Systematic Conservation Planning, Species Distribution Modelling, and Connectivity Analysis Reveals Severe Conservation Gaps in a Megadiverse Country (Peru)." PLoS ONE 9(12): e114367.
  10. Fisher, B..R. T. Kerry and M. Paul. 2009. Defining and Classifying Ecosystem Services for Decision Making. Ecological Economics 68(3): 643-653.
  11. Freeman III A. M. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Value: Theory and Methods, 2nd eds, An RFF Press book, Washington, DC. 137-160.
  12. Game, E. T. and H. S. Grantham. 2008. Marxan User Manual: For Marxan Version 1.8.10. University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia, and Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
  13. Gray, J. M. 2013. Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature. ch. 10. Geoconservation in the 'Wider Landscape', John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  14. Hwang M.Lee MK and Jung TY. 2014. The Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Restoration in Suncheon Bay. J. Korean Env. Res. Tech. 17(4): 69-79. (in Korean with English summary)
  15. Jack, B. K..C. Kousky and K. R. E. Sims. 2007. Designing payments for ecosystem services: Lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms, PNAS 105(28): 9465-9470.
  16. Jenks, G. F. and F. C. Caspall. 1971. Error on choroplethic maps: Definition, measurement, reduction. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 61(2): 217-244.
  17. Kong I and Lee DK. 2014. Establishment of Priority Forest Areas Based on Hydrological Ecosystem Services in Northern Vietnam. J. Korean Env. Res. Tech. 17(5): 29-41. (in Korean with English summary)
  18. Koo MH.Lee DK and Jung TY. 2012. A Study on the Contexts of Ecosystem Services in the Policymaking Process. J. Korean Env. Res. Tech. 15(5): 85-102. (in Korean with English summary)
  19. Korea Forest Research Institute. 2010. A Study on the Quantification of Environmental Benefits of Forest. (in Korean)
  20. Krutilla, J. V. 1967. Consevation reconsidered. The American Economic Review 57(4): 777-786.
  21. Lessmann, J..J. Munoz and E. Bonaccorso. 2014. Maximizing Species Conservation in Continental Ecuador: A Case of Systematic Conservation Planning for Biodiverse Regions. Ecology and Evolution 4(12): 2410-2422.
  22. Levin, N..T. Mazor.E. Brokovich.P-E. Jablon and S. Kark. 2015. Sensitivity analysis of conservation targets in systematic conservation planning. Ecological Applications 25: 1997-2010.
  23. Luck, G. W..R. Harrington.P. Harrison.C. Kremen.P. M. Berry.R. Bugter.T. P. Dawson.F. de Bello.S. Diaz.C. K. Feld. J. R. Haslett.D. Hering.A. Kontogianni. S. Lavorel.M. Rounsevell.M. J. Samways. L. Sandin.J. Settele.M. T. Sykes.S. van den Hove.M. Vandewalle and M. Zobel. 2009. Quantifying the Contribution of Organisms to the Provison of Ecosystem Services. BioScience 59(3): 223-235.
  24. Martin, T. G..J. L. Smith.K. Royle and F. Huettmann. 2010. Is Marxan the Right Tool?, Marxan Good Practices Handbook, Version 2. p. 12-13. Ardron, J.A., Possingham, H.P., and Klein, C.J. (eds). Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association, Victoria, BC, Canada.
  25. Maxwell, L. T. 2011. An Application of Systematic Natural Heritage Planning for Biodiversity Protection in the National Capital Greenbelt Region. M. D. thesis, Queen's University.
  26. McElwee, P. D. 2012. Payments for Environmental Services as Neoliberal Market-Based Forest Conservation in Vietnam: Panacea or Problem? Geoforum. 43(3): 412-426.
  27. Milder, J. C..S. J. Scherr and C. Bracer. 2010. Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries, Ecology and Society 15(2): 4.
  28. Ministry of Environment. 2009. Landcover map.
  29. Ministry of Environment. 2015. Development of Natural Resources Valuation Assessment for Decision-Making Process. (in Korean with English summary)
  30. Mo Y.Lee DK.Kim HG.Baek GH and Nam S. 2013. Efficient Establishment of Protected Areas in Pyoungchang County,Kangwon Province to Support Spatial Decision Making. J. Korean Env. Res. Tech. 16(1): 171-180. (in Korean with English summary)
  31. Moilanen, A..K. A. Wilson and H. P. Possingham. 2009. Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools. New York: Oxford University Press, UK.
  32. Naoe, S..N. Katayama.T. Amano.M. Akasaka. T. Yamakita.M. Ueta.M. Matsuba and T. Miyashita. 2015. Identifying Priority Areas for National-Level Conservation to Achieve Aichi Target 11: A Case Study of Using Terrestrial Birds Breeding in Japan. Journal for Nature Conservation 24: 101-108.
  33. Nicholson, E. and O. Ovaskainen. 2009. Conservation prioritization using metapopulation models, IN: Moilanen, A., Wilson, K., Possingham H. (Eds.), Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools. Oxford University Press, UK.
  34. OECD. 2010. Paying for Biodiversity: Enhancing the Cost-effectiveness of Payment for Ecosystem Services.
  35. Possingham, H. P..A. Moilanen and K. A. Wilson. 2009. Accounting for habitat dynamics in coservation planning. IN: Moilanen, A., Wilson, K., Possingham H. (Eds.), Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools. Oxford University Press, UK.
  36. Rees, S. E..S. C. Mangi.C. Hattam.S. C. Gall. L. D. Rodwell.F. J. Peckett and M. J. Attrill, 2015. The socio-economic effects of a marine protected area on the ecosystem service of leisure and recreation, Marine Policy 62: 144-152.
  37. Ryu DH and Lee DK. 2013. Evaluation on Economic Value of the Greenbelt's Ecosystem Services in the Seoul Metropolitan Region, Journal of the Korea Planning Association 48(3): 279-292. (in Korean with English summary)
  38. Seppelt, R..C. F. Dormann.F. V. Eppink.S. Lautenbach and S. Schmidt. 2011. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 630-636.
  39. United Nations. 2015. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development A/RES/70/1. Goal 15.1. (
  40. Wunder, S. 2005. Payment for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts, Center for International Forestry Research(CIFOR), Occasional Paper 42: 3.