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

A Study of Ecosystem Services Trade-off based on user Perception in Tancheon

탄천 이용자의 인식조사를 통한 생태계서비스의 트레이드오프 관계 고찰

  • Received : 2017.12.29
  • Accepted : 2018.02.12
  • Published : 2018.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Report was published in 2005, the conflict between development and the preservation of the ecological environment has turned to paying attention to value assessments in rational decision-making. In recent years, the concept of ecosystem services has been recognized as a viable one for making significant decisions. However, a trade-off between increase and decrease occurs between the ecosystem services sub-categories (cultural service, regulating service, supporting service, and provisioning service), for which research centering on target sites is needed. To this end, the present study aims to investigate the trade-off relationship between service categories to search for reasonable decision-making strategies. As the research method, a survey was conducted using the translated version of SoIVES(Social Value for Ecosystem Services) 3.0 questionnaire of the United States Geological Survey. The research findings demonstrate the economic value, based on the derived monetary value of each service category, the economic value of the target site was compared among landscape aesthetic value 8,050,000 won, recreation value 6,750,000 won, biodiversity value 4,610,000 won, healing value 3,970,000 won, life-sustaining value 2,090,000 won, and productive value 220,000 won. And then the primarily recognized value criteria of the Tancheon ecosystem services illustrate landscape aesthetic and recreation value. Besides, this study illustrates visualized trade-off relationships based on user perception, and the derived relations illustrate the trade-off relationship between the cultural service, regulating service, supporting service, and provisioning service, as well as relationships between the components of the sub-categories.

Keywords

References

  1. Ament, JM. Moore, CA. Herbst, M. and GS. Cumming. 2017. Cultural Ecosystem Services in Protected Areas: Understanding Bundles, Trade Offs, and Synergies. Conservation Letters 10(4): 440-450. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12283
  2. Ahn, SE. and DH. Bae. 2014. The economic value of freshwater ecosystem services based on the evidences from the environmental valuation information system. J. Environ. Policy Admin 22: 27-54. (in Korean with English summary) https://doi.org/10.15301/jepa.2014.22.4.27
  3. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Overview of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
  4. Burkhard, B. Kroll, F. Müller, F. and W. Windhorst. 2009. Landscapes' capacities to provide ecosystem services-a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landscape online 15(1): 22.
  5. Jeon, CH. Lee, CS, and HJ Shin. 2010. Estimation of Welfare Change from Water Quality Degradation. Environmental Policy Research 9(2): 135-156. (in Korean with English summary) https://doi.org/10.17330/joep.9.2.201006.135
  6. Costanza, R. d'Arge, R. De Groot, R. Farber, S. Grasso, M. Hannon, B. ... and RG. Raskin. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. nature 387 (6630): 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
  7. Emerton, L. and E. Bos. 2004. Value: Counting ecosystems as water infrastructure. Iucn.
  8. Chung, ES. Kim, KT. Kim, SH. and KS. Lee. 2008. Calculation of Total Maximum Daily Load using Instreamflow Requirement. Journal of Korean Society on Water Quality 24(3): 317-327. (in Korean with English summary)
  9. Jung, M. 2010. Comparative Study on Proximity Effects in Welfare Change from Water Contamination. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Graduate School. Kangwon National University. (in Korean with English summary)
  10. Hwang, SJ. 2014. National Governmental Department Policy Direction for Healthy River Ecological Environmental Planning. Water Policy Vision 2(4): 2-9. (in Korean with English summary)
  11. Kandziora, M., Burkhard, B., and F. Muller. 2013. Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators-A theoretical matrix exercise. Ecological Indicators 28: 54-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.09.006
  12. Kim, EK. Kim, M. and JH. Chon. 2015. An Analysis of Ecosystem Service's trade-off through system thinking. Korean System Dynamics Review 16(2): 75-100. (in Korean with English summary)
  13. Kim, MH., Sung, JS. and JW Lee. 2017. Perspectives on the Direction of the Suncheon Bay National Garden from Local Residents and Non-Local Visitors. Sustainability 9(10): 1832. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101832
  14. Knops, JM. Koenig, WD. and WJ. Carmen. 2007. Negative correlation does not imply a tradeoff between growth and reproduction in California oaks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(43): 16982-16985. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0704251104
  15. Koo, M.H. Lee, DK and TY. Jung. 2012. A Study on the Contexts of Ecosystem Services in the Policymaking Process. The Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology 15(5): 85-102. (in Korean with English summary)
  16. Lee, CS. 2001. Valuation of water pollution by contingent valuation method : the study of Nam Dae Chun river in Kangnung province. Department of Economics Graduate School, Kangwon National University. (in Korean with English summary)
  17. Leem, YT. and Lee JY. 2005. An Estimation of the Value of Urban Ecological Riverside Park. Journal of the Korean Regional Development Association 17(3): 95-110. (in Korean with English summary)
  18. Ma, S. and SM. Swinton. 2011. Valuation of ecosystem services from rural landscapes using agricultural land prices. Ecological Economics 70(9): 1649-1659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.004
  19. Rutz, D. and R. Janssen. (Eds.). 2014. Socioeconomic impacts of bioenergy production. Springer Science & Business Media.
  20. Schaich, H. Bieling, C. and T. Plieninger. 2010. Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape research. Gaia-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 19(4): 269-277. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.19.4.9
  21. Yoo, SH. Han, JH. and SH. Park. 2009. The Economic Benefits from Restoring the Ecological Integrity of the Anseong River. Journal of the KRSA, 25(1), 57-73. (in Korean with English summary)
  22. Tomscha S. and S. Gergel 2016. Ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies misunderstood without landscape history. Ecology and Society 21(1).
  23. Tratalos, JA. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., Fish, R., and A. Church. 2016. Cultural ecosystem services in the UK: lessons on designing indicators to inform management and policy. Ecological Indicators 61: 63-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.040
  24. Turkelboom, F. Thoonen, M. Jacobs, S. Martin- Lopez, B. and P. Berry. 2016. Ecosystem Service Trade-offs and Synergies. Open NESS Ecosystem Services Reference Book.
  25. USGS (United States Geological Survey), https://solves.cr.usgs.gov/, accessed in 2017. 10.27.
  26. Wallace, KJ. 2007. Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biological conservation 139(3): 235-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.015
  27. Watson, R. Albon, S. Aspinall, R. Austen, M. Bardgett, B. Bateman, I.... and J. Bulloch. 2011. UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Technical Report. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre.

Cited by

  1. 습지보호지역을 대상으로 한 문화서비스 평가 연구 vol.22, pp.6, 2019, https://doi.org/10.13087/kosert.2019.22.6.139