Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment (환경영향평가)

Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment (한국환경영향평가학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis on Ecosystem Service Hotspots Based on Regional Environmental Stakeholders' Perception - A case study of Ansan -

지역 환경분야 이해당사자 인식을 반영한 생태계서비스 우수지역 분석 - 안산시를 대상으로 -

  • Kim, Ilkwon (Bureau of Ecological Research, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Kim, Sunghoon (Bureau of Ecological Research, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Lee, Jae-Hyuck (Bureau of Ecological Research, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Kwon, Hyuksoo (Bureau of Ecological Research, National Institute of Ecology)
  • 김일권 (국립생태원 생태연구본부 융합연구실) ;
  • 김성훈 (국립생태원 생태연구본부 융합연구실) ;
  • 이재혁 (국립생태원 생태연구본부 융합연구실) ;
  • 권혁수 (국립생태원 생태연구본부 융합연구실)
  • Received : 2018.05.31
  • Accepted : 2018.10.05
  • Published : 2018.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Identification and mangement of ecosystem service hotspots are necessary to set environmental policies that include concepts of ecosystem service. Assessment and mapping of ecosystem service hotspot referring areas with high amount of ecosystem services provide essential information to manage ecosystem services effectively. Assessment of hotspots based on regional environmental stakeholders' perception is an useful approach to identify priority areas where management practices are required. This study estimated weights on regulating ecosystem services from regional environmental stakeholders' surveys in Ansan, and then, identified regulating service hotspots with weights. The result indicated that regulating services are, in order of importance, water quality, air quality, erosion, and climate control. The north-eastern forest of Ansan was mainly revealed as an ecosystem service hotspot. Ecosystem service hotspots were spatially distributed similarly regardless of environmental stakeholders' weights. Identification of ecosystem service hotspot with environmental stakeholders' perception can be applied in decision-support tools for ecosystem service management.

생태계서비스의 개념을 적용한 공간계획을 수립하기 위해서는 생태계서비스 우수지역 파악하고, 이를 관리하는 것이 필요하다. 생태계서비스가 주변보다 높은 지역을 의미하는 생태계서비스 우수지역 평가와 지도화는 생태계서비스를 효과적으로 관리하는데 필요한 정보를 제공한다. 지역 환경분야 이해당사자들의 인식을 반영한 우수지역 평가는 지역에서 관리가 필요한 우선지역을 파악하는데 용이하다. 본 연구는 안산시를 대상으로 설문조사를 수행하여 조절서비스별 가중치를 산정하고, 이를 반영하여 조절서비스 우수지역을 파악하였다. 환경분야 이해당사자 분석결과, 조절서비스의 중요도는 수질조절, 대기조절, 침식조절, 기후조절의 순서로 나타났다. 생태계서비스 우수지역은 주로 안산 북동부에 위치한 산림지역에서 나타났다. 이해당사자 가중치를 반영한 경우에도 우수지역의 공간분포는 유사하게 나타났다. 환경분야 이해당사자 인식을 반영한 생태계서비스 우수지역 평가는 지역에서 생태계서비스 관리정책 수립 시 의사결정지원도구로서 활용될 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Alessa L, Kliskey A, Brown C. 2008. Socialecological hotspots mapping: a spatial approach for identifying couple-social ecological space. Landscape and Urban Planning 85(1): 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.007
  2. Beverly JL, Uto K, Wilkes J, Bothwell P. 2008. Assessing spatial attributes of forest “landscape values: an internet based participatory mapping approach. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38(2): 289-303. https://doi.org/10.1139/X07-149
  3. Burkhard B, Petrosillo I, Costanza R. 2010. Ecosystem services-bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecological Complexity 7: 257-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.07.001
  4. Cai W, Gibbs D, Zhang L, Ferrier G, Cai Y. 2017. Identifying hotspots and management of critical ecosystem services in rapidly urbanizing Yangtze River Delta region, China. Journal of Environmental Management 191: 258-267.
  5. Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC. 2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLos Biology 4(11): e379. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040379
  6. Cimon-Morin J, Darveau M, Poulin M. 2013, Fostering synergies between ecosystem services and biodiversity in conservation planning: a review. Biological Conservation 166: 144-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.06.023
  7. Cho HL, Jeong E, Koo BK. 2015. Development of a hybrid watershed model STREAM: Model structures and theories. Journal of Korean Society on Water Environment 31(5): 491-506. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.15681/KSWE.2015.31.5.491
  8. Choi YJ, Kim KH, Jeon EC. 2006. Odorous pollutant concentration levels in the Ban- Wall industrial area and its surrounding regions. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society 27(2): 209-220. [Korean Literature]
  9. Eigenbrod F, Armsworth PR, Anderson BJ, Heinemeyer A, Gillings S, Roy DB, Thomas CD, Gaston KJ. 2010. The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. Journal of Applied Ecology 47(2): 377-385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01777.x
  10. Fisher B, Turner KR. 2008. Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biological Conservation 141: 1167-1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.02.019
  11. Fruh-Muller A, Hotes S, Breuer L, Wolters V, Koellner T. 2016. Regional patterns of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes. Land 5(2): 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/land5020017
  12. Gimona A, van der Horst D. 2007. Mapping hotspots of multiple landscape functions: a case study on farmland afforestation in Scotland. Landscape Ecology 22(8): 1255-1264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9105-7
  13. Heo JW, Kim DG, Song IS, Lee G. 2010. Concentration and gas-particle partition of PCDDs/Fs and dl-PCBs in the ambient air of Ansan area. Journal of Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment 26(5): 517-532. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.5572/KOSAE.2010.26.5.517
  14. Jung KH, Kim WT, Hur SO, Ha SK, Jung PK, Jung YS. 2004. USLE/RUSLE factors for national scale soil loss estimation based on the digital detailed soil map. [Korean Literature]
  15. Jung KH. 2006. The formation, development and crisis of the industrial city, Ansan focused on theory of 'Industrial district', Journal of Regional Studies 14(1): 46-67.
  16. KFRI (Korea Forest Research Institute). 2017. The lungs of the City, urban forests. Korea Forest Research Institute, Seoul, 64pp. [Korean Literature]
  17. Koo M. 2014. The development and application of ecosystem services assessment model for housing site development projects: the case study on 4 Bogeumjari Residential Areas. Ph.D. dissertation, Seoul Natl University, Seoul [Korean Literature]
  18. Kopperoinen L, Itkonen P, Niemela J. 2014. Using expert knowledge in combining green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning: an insight into a new place-based methodology. Landscape Ecology 29: 1361-1375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0014-2
  19. Koschke L, Furst C, Frank S, Makeschin F. 2012. A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning. Ecological Indicators 21: 54-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.010
  20. Lautenbach S, Maes J, Kattwinkel M, Seppelt R, Strauch M, Scholz M, Schulz-Zunkel C, Volk M, Weinert J, Dormann CF. 2012. Mapping water quality-related ecosystem services: concepts and applications for nitrogen retention and pesticide risk reduction. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 8(1-2): 35-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2011.631940
  21. Lee HK. 2012. Shihwa regional reclamation development project and the changes in the environmental management policy. Environmental Law and Policy 9, 153-173. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.18215/envlp.9..201211.153
  22. Liu J, Li J, Gao Z, Yang M, Qin K, Yang X. 2016. Ecosystem services insights into water resources management in China: a case of Xi’an city. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13(12): 1169. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13121169
  23. Locatelli B, Imbach P, Wunder S. 2014. Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services in Costa Rica. Environmental Conservation 41(1): 27-36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892913000234
  24. Luck GW, Chan KMA, Klien C. 2012. Identifying spatial priorities for protecting ecosystem services. F1000Research 1:17. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.1-17.v1
  25. MA (Millenium Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
  26. Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Schagner JP, Grizetti B, Drakou EG, Notte AL, Zulian G, Bouraoui F, Paracchnin LM, Braat L, Bidoglio G. 2012. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem Services 1(1): 31-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004
  27. Martin-Lopez B, Iniesta-Arandia I, Garcia-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Del Amo DG, Gomez-Baggethun E, Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B, Gonzalez JA, Santos-Martin F, Onaindia M, Lopez-Santiago C, Montes C. 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PlosOne 7(6): e38970. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970
  28. Meyer MA, Schulz C. 2017. Do ecosystem services provide an added value compared to existing forest planning approaches in Central Europe? Ecology and Society 22(3): 6.
  29. Nam YS, Lim HS. 2011. A study for MICE multiplex location attributes which use AHP. The Geographical Journal of Korea 45(1): 125-136. [Korean Literature]
  30. NIE (National Institute of Ecology). 2017. Mapping and assessment of ecosystem services, National Institute of Ecology, Seocheon, 403pp. [Korean Literature]
  31. Queiroz C, Meacham M, Richter K, Norstrom AV, Andersson E, Norberg J, Peterson G. 2015, Mapping bundles of ecosystem services reveals distinct types of multifunctionality within a Swedish landscape. Ambio 44(1): 89-101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0601-0
  32. Quyen NTK, Berg H, Gallardo W, Da CT. 2017. Stakeholders' perceptions of ecosystem services and Pangasius catfish farming development along the Hau River in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Ecosystem Service 25: 2-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.007
  33. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM. 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of National Academic Society 107(11): 5242-5247. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907284107
  34. Renard KG, Foster GR, Weesies GA, McCool DK, Yoder DC. 1997. Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Agricultural Handbook 703, US Government Print Office, Washington, DC.
  35. Roh YH, Kim CK, Hong HJ. 2016. Time-series changes to ecosystem regulating services in Jeju: focusing on estimating carbon sequestration and evaluating economic feasibility. Journal of Environmental Policy and Adminstration 24(2): 29-44. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.15301/jepa.2016.24.2.29
  36. Saaty TL. 2005. The Analytic hierarchy and analytic network process for the measurement of intangible criteria and for decision-making. In: Figueira, J.(Ed.), Multiple criteria decision analysis, pp. 345-407.
  37. Schlup CJE, Lautenbach S, Verburg PH. 2014. Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services: demand and supply of pollination in the European Union. Ecological Indicators 36: 131-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.07.014
  38. Schroter M, Remme RP. 2016. Spatial prioritisation for conserving ecosystem services: comparing hotspots with heuristic optimization. Landscape Ecology 31(2): 431-450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0258-5
  39. Tidball KG, Krasny ME. 2011. Toward an ecology of environmental education and learning. Ecosphere 2(2): 1-17.
  40. Willemen L, Hein L, van Mensvoort EF, Verburg PH. 2010. Space for people, plants, and livestock? Quantifying interactions among multiple landscape functions in a Dutch rural region. Ecological Indicators 10(1): 62-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.02.015
  41. Yoon SC, Kim BS. 2004. Troposhperic ozone pollutions in Korea during 1998-2002 using two ozone indices for vegetation protection. Korean Journal of Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 6(1): 38-48. [Korean Literature]
  42. Zank B, Bagstad KJ, Voigt B, Villa F. 2016. Modeling the effects of urban expansion on natural capital stocks and ecosystem service flows: a case study in the Puget Sound, Washington, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 149: 31-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.004
  43. Zhang X, Lu X. 2010. Multiple criteria evaluation of ecosystem services for the Ruoergai Plateau Marshes in southewest China. Ecological Economics 69(7): 1463-1470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.017

Cited by

  1. Assessing the Impacts of Urban Land Use Changes on Regional Ecosystem Services According to Urban Green Space Policies Via the Patch-Based Cellular Automata Model vol.67, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01394-2