DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Accessibility Analysis in Mapping Cultural Ecosystem Service of Namyangju-si

접근성 개념을 적용한 문화서비스 평가 -남양주시를 대상으로-

  • Jun, Baysok (Bureau of Ecological Research, Division of Ecosystem Services & Research Planning, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Kang, Wanmo (Cheongju University, College of Science Engineering, Department of Urban Planning) ;
  • Lee, Jaehyuck (Bureau of Ecological Research, Division of Ecosystem Services & Research Planning, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Kim, Sunghoon (Bureau of Ecological Research, Division of Ecosystem Services & Research Planning, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Kim, Byeori (Bureau of Ecological Research, Division of Ecosystem Services & Research Planning, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Kim, Ilkwon (Bureau of Ecological Research, Division of Ecosystem Services & Research Planning, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Lee, Jooeun (Bureau of Ecological Research, Division of Ecosystem Services & Research Planning, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Kwon, Hyuksoo (Bureau of Ecological Research, Division of Ecosystem Services & Research Planning, National Institute of Ecology)
  • 전배석 (국립생태원 생태연구본부 융합연구실) ;
  • 강완모 (청주대학교 이공대학 도시계획부동산학과) ;
  • 이재혁 (국립생태원 생태연구본부 융합연구실) ;
  • 김성훈 (국립생태원 생태연구본부 융합연구실) ;
  • 김벼리 (국립생태원 생태연구본부 융합연구실) ;
  • 김일권 (국립생태원 생태연구본부 융합연구실) ;
  • 이주은 (국립생태원 생태연구본부 융합연구실) ;
  • 권혁수 (국립생태원 생태연구본부 융합연구실)
  • Received : 2018.05.04
  • Accepted : 2018.07.31
  • Published : 2018.08.31

Abstract

A cultural ecosystem service(CES), which is non-material benefit that human gains from ecosystem, has been recently further recognized as gross national income increases. Previous researches proposed to quantify the value of CES, which still remains as a challenging issue today due to its social and cultural subjectivity. This study proposes new way of assessing CES which is called Cultural Service Opportunity Spectrum(CSOS). CSOS is accessibility based CES assessment methodology for regional scale and it is designed to be applicable for any regions in Korea for supporting decision making process. CSOS employed public spatial data which are road network and population density map. In addition, the results of 'Rapid Assessment of Natural Assets' implemented by National Institute of Ecology, Korea were used as a complementary data. CSOS was applied to Namyangju-si and the methodology resulted in revealing specific areas with great accessibility to 'Natural Assets' in the region. Based on the results, the advantages and limitations of the methodology were discussed with regard to weighting three main factors and in contrast to Scenic Quality model and Recreation model of InVEST which have been commonly used for assessing CES today due to its convenience today.

인간이 생태계로부터 취하는 비물질적인 혜택인 문화서비스에 대한 수요가 최근 국민총소득과 함께 증가하고 있다. 이에 대한 정량적 가치평가를 위해 국내외에서 다수의 연구가 이루어져 왔으나 개인의 사회, 문화적 이질성 등의 주관적 성향과 규모의 차이로 인해 국내 전 지역에 적용하기에는 어려움이 있다. 문화서비스가 발생하기 위해서는 자연생태계와 인간의 접촉이 이루어져야 하며 이러한 관점을 바탕으로 본 연구에서는 접근성이라는 개념을 활용하여 기존 문화서비스 가치평가방법이 가지는 사회, 문화적 주관성을 보완하고자 한다. 국내 전 지역 규모에 적용 가능하며 다양한 이해관계자의 공감대를 형성시킬 수 있는 포괄적인 문화서비스 평가 방법을 제시하는 것이 본 연구의 목적이다. 본 연구에서는 접근성을 근거로 개발된 유럽의 여가 서비스 평가방법 고찰을 통해 국내에 구축된 도로 네트워크와 인구분포현황과 함께 국립생태원에서 수행한 '생태자산 간이평가' 결과를 활용하여 '문화서비스 접근성 평가 (CSOS)'를 남양주시에 시범 적용하였다. 그 결과 남양주시에 산재한 특정 생태자산 및 주거지를 중심으로 우수한 문화서비스 접근성이 존재하는 특정 공간을 도출할 수 있었다. 또한 이를 바탕으로 오늘날 보편적으로 이용되고 있는 SNS 데이터를 활용한 InVEST의 Recreation 평가 모형과 조망점을 활용한 Scenic quality평가 모형간의 차별성과 시범연구로서 가지는 가중치 설정에 대한 한계점을 고찰하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ala-Hulkko T, Kotavaara O, Alahuhta J, Helle P, Hjort J. 2016. Introducing accessibility analysis in mapping cultural ecosystem services. Ecological indicators 66: 416-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.013
  2. Burkhard B, Maes J. 2017. Mapping ecosystem services. Advanced Books 1
  3. Chan KM, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Klain S, Satterfield T, Basurto X, Bostrom A, Chuenpagdee R, Gould R, Halpern BS, Hannahs N. 2012. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience 62(8): 744-56. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7
  4. Gomez-Baggethun E, Barton DN. 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics 86: 235-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019
  5. Haines-Young R, Potschin MB. 2017. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure.
  6. Hansen WG. 1959. How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 25(2): 73-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944365908978307
  7. Hernández-Morcillo M, Plieninger T, Bieling C. 2013. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological indicators 29: 434-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.013
  8. Jensen FS, Koch NE. 1997. Recreation in Forests 1976/77-1993/94 Forskningsserien nr 20. Forskningscentret for Skov& Landskab. Horsholm.
  9. Jensen FS. 2003. Recreation in 592 Forests and other Nature Areas Skovbrugsserien nr. 32-2003. Forskningscentret for Skov & Landskab. Horsholm.
  10. Kim EY, Kim JY, Jung HJ, Song WK. 2017. Development and Feasibility of Indicators for Ecosystem Service Evaluation. Journal of Environmental Impact Assess. 26(4): 227-241. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.14249/EIA.2017.26.4.227
  11. Korea Culture & Tourism Institute. 2018. Visitors of Main tourist destination 2004-2018. Korea Culture & Tourism Institute. [Korean Literature]
  12. Korea National Park Service. 2018. Yearly Visitors to National parks. Korea National Park Service. [Korean Literature]
  13. La Rosa D, Spyra M, Inostroza L. 2016. Indicators of Cultural Ecosystem Services for urban planning: A review. Ecological indicators 61: 74-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.04.028
  14. MA(Millenium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystem and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute. Washington DC.
  15. Nahuelhual L, Carmona A, Aguayo M, Echeverria C. 2014. Land use change and ecosystem services provision: a case study of recreation and ecotourism opportunities in southern Chile. Landscape ecology 29(2): 329-344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9958-x
  16. National Institute of Special Education. 2009. Terminologies of special education. [Korean Literature]
  17. National Institute of Ecology. 2017. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem Services. National Insistute of Ecology. [Korean Literature]
  18. Natural England. 2011. Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment: The National Survey on People and the Natural Environment - Annual Report from the 2010-11 Survey. Natural England Commissioned Report083.
  19. National Spatial Data Infrastructure Portal: http://market.nsdi.go.kr/ [Korean Literature]
  20. Sen A, Darnell A, Crowe A, Bateman I, Munday P, Foden J. 2011. Economic Assessment of the Recreational Value of Ecosystems Report to the Economics Team of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment. University of East Anglia.
  21. Sievanen T, Neuvonen M. 2011. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 212. Finnish Forest Research Institute.
  22. Steiner F. 2014. Frontiers in urban ecological design and planning research. Landscape and Urban Planning 125: 304-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.023

Cited by

  1. Identification of landscape multifunctionality along urban-rural gradient of coastal cities in South Korea vol.23, pp.5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00993-5