환경영향평가 (Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment)

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

DOI QR Code

야생동물 이용빈도 및 종다양도를 활용한 생태통로 효율성 평가

Evaluation of Wildlife Crossings Eeffectiveness on Use Frequency and Diversity Indicators of Wildlife

  • 투고 : 2019.09.19
  • 심사 : 2019.12.05
  • 발행 : 2019.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 백두대간 등 주요 생태축에 위치한 생태통로 49개소를 대상으로 야생동물 일평균 이용빈도 지표와 주변 서식지와 출현종의 수를 비교한 종다양도 지표를 활용하여 생태통로 효율성을 평가하였다. 분석 결과, 전체 생태통로 일평균 이용빈도는 1.4회였으며, 평균을 상회하는 생태통로는 17개로 전체의 34.7%로 확인되었다. 주변 서식종의 수와 출현종의 수가 동일한 종다양도 1.0 이상인 생태통로는 18개로 전체의 36.7%으로 나타났다. 일평균 이용빈도와 종다양도 모두 양호한 생태통로는 10개로 전체의 20.4%로 분석되었다. 효율성이 양호한 생태통로 중 4개소의 생태통로 지침 준수율 등에 대한 현장조사 결과를 검토한 결과, 위치선정·규격·식재 및 토양·유도울타리 등에서 덕산재 육교형 생태통로의 지침 준수율이 가장 양호했다. 본 연구결과는 신규 생태통로 및 기설치된 생태통로의 기능개선 등 생태통로 효율성 연구의 기초자료로 활용될 수 있을것으로 판단된다.

In this study, 49 major WCS(Wildlife Crossing Structure), including Baekdu-daegan, were evaluated for the effectiveness of WCS on using the daily average frequency index and diversity Index comparing the number of species that appear with the surrounding habitats. According to the analysis, the average use frequency of the entire WCS was 1.4 times, and the average number of WCS exceeded the average was 17 and 34.7 percent of the total. There were 18 WCS with the same number of habitats and species that appeared in the same area, or 36.7 percent of the total. The daily average use frequency and variety were all analyzed at 10 efficient WCS, accounting for 20.4 percent of the total. According to the results of an site survey on the compliance rate of 4 efficient WCS, the compliance rate of the Deoksanjae overpass was the best in location selection, specifications, vegetation cover and soil, fence. The results of this research will be used as basic data for the study of WCS effectiveness, including the improvement of functions of new and installed WCS.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Barrueto M, Ford AT, Clevenger AP. 2014. Anthropogenic effects on activity patterns of wildlife at crossing structures. Ecosphere 5(3): 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00182.1
  2. Bellis M. 2008. Evaluating the effectiveness of wildlife crossing structures in Southern Vermont, Master Theses in University of Massachusetts Amherst
  3. Bergen NH. 2018. Evaluating the success and monitoring the usage of wildlife crossing structures in Bedminser, NJ
  4. Choi TY, Park CH. 2006. The effects of land use on the frequency of mammal roadkills in Korea. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 34(5): 52-58. [Korean Literature]
  5. Choi TY, Yang BG, Woo DG. 2012. The Suitable Types and Measures of Wildlife Crossing Structures for Mammals of Korea. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment 21(1): 209-2018. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.14249/EIA.2012.21.1.209
  6. Clevenger AP. 2011. Wildlife Crossing Structure Handbook Design and Evaluation in North America. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Report.
  7. Clevenger AP, Waltho N. 2000. Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Wildlife Underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Can.
  8. Clevenger AP, Barrueto M. 2014. Trans-Canada Highway Wildlife and Monitoring Research. Final Report Part B. Radium Hot Springs, British Columbia.
  9. Jonsson. 2017. Spatial modeling of wildlife crossing_GIS-based approach for identifying highpriority locations of defragmentation across transport corriodrs
  10. Korea National Park Service. 2009. Comprehensive plan on mitigation measures to reduce roadkill in National Park.
  11. Lee YU, Lee MW. 2006. Eco-corridor positioning for target species -by field surveying of mammals' road-Kill-, Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology [Korean Literature]
  12. NIE (National Institute of Ecology). 2015. A study on analysis of habitat fragmentation and improvement of wildlife passage effectiveness.
  13. NIE (National Institute of Ecology). 2016. Fundamental research on the conservation of national ecological network.
  14. NIE (National Institute of Ecology). 2017. Fundamental research on the conservation of national ecological network.
  15. NIE (National Institute of Ecology). 2018. Fundamental research on the conservation of national ecological network.
  16. MOLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport). 2018. Investigation of Roads Status
  17. Park JJ, Woo DG, Oh DH, Park JH. 2012. Site selection of wildlife passage for Leopard Cat in urban area using space syntax. Journal of Korean Institute of landscape architecture 40(1):92-99. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2012.40.1.092
  18. Shin SA, Ahn DM. 2008. Approach to the Location of Wildlife Corridors on Highways -Between Yang-jae and Pan-gyo ICs of Seoul -Busan Highway, Korea-, Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology [Korean Literature]
  19. Simpson NO, Stewart KM, Schroeder D, Cox M, Huebner K, Wasley T. 2016. Overpass and underpass: effectiveness of crossing structures for Migratory Ungulates. The Journal of Wildlife Management 80(8): 1370-1378. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21132
  20. Soanes K, Taylor AC, Sunnucks P, Vesk PA, Cesarini S, Ree RVD. 2018. Evaluating the success of wildlife crossing structures using genetic approaches and an experimental design-Lessons from a gliding mammal. Journal of Applied Ecology 55(1): 129-138. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12966
  21. Van der Grift EA, Van der Ree R. 2015. Guidelines for evaluating use of wildlife crossing structures. Handbook of Road Ecology, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  22. Wang J. 2014. Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossing Structures on Providing Habitat Connectivity for Wild Animals. Master Theses in University of British Columbia.
  23. Wang Y, Guan L, Piao Z, Wang Z, Kong Y. 2017. Monitoring wildlife crossing structures along highways in Changbai mountain China. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 50:119-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.10.030