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

Evaluation indicators for the restoration of degraded urban ecosystems and the analysis of restoration performance

훼손된 도시생태계 생태복원 평가지표 제시 및 복원성과 분석

  • Sohn, Hee-Jung (Interdisciplinary Program in Landscape Architecture, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Do-Hee (Environmental Planning Institute, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Na-Yeong (Interdisciplinary Program in Landscape Architecture, Seoul National University) ;
  • Hong, Jin-Pyo (Woo Young Environment & Development, Co., Ltd.) ;
  • Song, Young-Keun (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University)
  • 손희정 (서울대학교 대학원 협동과정 조경학) ;
  • 김도희 (서울대학교 환경계획연구소) ;
  • 김나영 (서울대학교 대학원 협동과정 조경학) ;
  • 홍진표 (우영환경개발(주)) ;
  • 송영근 (서울대학교 환경대학원 환경조경학과)
  • Received : 2019.11.18
  • Accepted : 2019.12.20
  • Published : 2019.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the effect of urban ecosystem restoration projects by evaluating the short-term restoration performance of the project sites, from both qualitative and quantitative evaluations. In this study, for the qualitative evaluation, we derived the evaluation frame from previous studies and literature. For the quantitative evaluation, the changes in ecological connectivity after the restoration project were described using landscape permeability and network analysis. In addition, changes in habitat quality after the restoration project were evaluated by using InVEST Habitat Quality Model. These evaluations were applied to the three natural madang (ecological restoration) projects and two ecosystem conservation cooperation projects. As a result, three categories, 10 indicators, and 13 sub-indicators were derived from literature as the evaluation frame for this study. In the case of quantitative evaluation of restoration performance, habitat quality increased by 45% and ecological connectivity by 37% in natural-madang, and habitat quality by about 12% and ecological connectivity by about 19% in ecosystem conservation cooperation projects. This implies that the ecological restoration project can increase the ecological connectivity and the habitat quality of degraded sites even in a short period of time by improving the land-cover and land use. The results by applying the evaluation frame indicated that ecological and environmental factors and the ecological functions were improved by the restoration works, even though the magnitude of performances were diverse depending on the specific evaluation items, project type, and site characteristics. This study clarified that the success of ecological restoration project should be assessed by both of the short-term and long-term goals, which can be achieved by the maintenance and sustainable management, respectively.

Keywords

References

  1. Andres, P. and E. Mateos 2006. Soil mesofaunal responses to post-mining restoration treatments. Applied Soil Ecology 33(1): 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2005.08.007
  2. Benayas, J. M. R.,Newton. A. C. Diax. A. Bullock. J. M. Enhancement of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by Ecological Restoration: A Meta-Analysis., Science, New Series, Vol. 325, No. 5944: 1121-1124.
  3. Byeon CW and Kim YM. 2017. The Effect of Ecological Restoration and Water Purification of Ecological Fish-way and Floodplain Back Wetland Createdas Sustainable Structured Wetland Biotope at Maeno Stream, J. Environ. Impact Assess. 26(6): 508-523 [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.14249/EIA.2017.26.6.508
  4. Cha JG.Lee SM.Choi TY.Moon HG.Kang DI.Lee IH.Seo HS and Park EJ. 2017. Diagnostic Assessment of Damaged Ecosystem and Restoration Areas and Practice of Resilience, Division of Ecosystem Services&Research Planning Bureau of Ecological Research, National Institute of eology
  5. Choi JY.Lee SH.Lee SA.Ji SY and Lee P SH. 2016. Evaluation Method Development for Ecological Restorations by Damaged Types, J. Korean Env. Res. Tech. 19(1) : 121-133[Korean Literature]
  6. Cui, B. S..Yang, Q. C..Yang, Z. F and Zhang, K. J. 2009 , Evaluating the ecological performance of wetland restoration in the Yellow River Delta, China, Ecological Engineering 35(7): 1090-1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.03.022
  7. Design forest., 2018, Sorasan Natural madang, Second year monitoring report, Ministry of Environment[Korean Literature]
  8. Fischer J and Lindenmayer D. 2007. Landscpae modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis, Global Ecology and Biogeography, vol. 16, 265-280 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00287.x
  9. Gu JH. 2017. Study on the establishment of precise spatial data and evaluation of habitat quality value in agricultural heritage area : focused on the agricultural heritage area of Uljin (county) pine tree forest. Doctoral dissertation, Korea University, Seoul[Korean Literature]
  10. Green for L., 2018, Monitoring report for damaged ecosystem restoration in Waryongsan, Seoul, (Secondary),Ministry of Environment [Korean Literature]
  11. Han SH.Kim JH.Kan WS.Hwang JH.Park KHand Kim CB. 2019. Monitoring Soil Characteristics and Growth of Pinus densiflora Five Years after Restoration in the Baekdudaegan Ridge, Korean J. Environ. Ecol. 33(4): 453-461 https://doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2019.33.4.453
  12. Kang HM.Song JT.Choi SH and Kim DH. 2017. The Change of Soil Animals by Forest Ecosystem Restoration Types, Korean J. Environ. Ecol. 31(1): 62-71[Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2017.31.1.062
  13. Kang WM and Park CR. 2015. Corridor and Network Analyses of Forest Bird Habitats in a Metropolitan Area of South Korea, Korean Journal of Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 191-201[Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.5532/KJAFM.2015.17.3.191
  14. Kang WM.Song YK.Sung HC and Lee, DK. 2018. Assessing conservation priorities of unexecuted urban parks in Seoul using ecological network and accessibility analyses, J. Korean Env. Res. Tech. 21(2) : 53-64 [Korean Literature]
  15. Kim EY.Kim JY .ip; Jung HJ and Song WK. 2017. Development and Feasibility of Indicators for Ecosystem Service Evaluation of Urban Park, J. Environ. Impact Assess. 26(4): 227-241[Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.14249/eia.2017.26.4.227
  16. Kim NY. 2018. Assessment of Habitat Potential at the Isolated Green Patches in Seoul. Masters dissertation, Seoul National University, Seoul[Korean Literature]
  17. Kim TK.Kim NC.Kim EB and Koo MK. 2018. Suggestion of the Post-Environmental Evaluation of Road-side Cut Slope after Revegetation Works, J. Korean Env. Res. Tech. 21(4) : 75-86[Korean Literature]
  18. Kim TY.Song CH.Lee WK.Kim MI.Lim CH.Jeon S and Kim JS. 2015. Habitat Quality Valuation Using InVEST Model in Jeju Island. Journal of the Korea Society of Environmental, Restoration Technology. 18. 1-11. 10.13087/kosert.2015.18.5.1. [Korean Literature]
  19. Kim YS and Shim SY. 2019. Evaluation of Vegetation Recovery after Restoration Works at the Jungbong and Nuebong Area, Mudeungsan National Park, Korean J. Environ. Ecol. 33(1): 64-74[Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2019.33.1.64
  20. Korea National Park Research Institute. 2016. Development of Technic and Foundation Construction for Ecosystem Conservation[Korean Literature]
  21. Korea National Park Research Institute. 2016. Evaluation of the Restoration Projects in National Park[Korean Literature]
  22. Korea Associaton of Ecological Restoration, 2019, A study on performance analysis of customized ecological restoration model development and restoration projects in downtown 2019, Ministry of Environment[Korean Literature]
  23. Lave, R. Meyer.J. L. O'Donnell.T. K. Pagano.L. Sudduth, E. et al. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42(2): 208-217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x
  24. Matthews, Jeffrey W, Spyreas, Greg, Endress, Anton G, 2009, Trajectories of vegetation-based indicators used to assess wetland restoration progress, ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS, 19(8): 2093-2107. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1371.1
  25. Ministry of Environment. 2014. Manual of Survey Evaluation and Diagnosis for Ecological River Restoration[Korean Literature]
  26. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. 2016. Landscape Design Standards Manual [Korean Literature]
  27. Ministry of Environment. 2017. Ecological Restoration Methods Development Using Native Species in DMZ Vicinities[Korean Literature]
  28. Ministry of Environment, 2018, Developing the assessment scheme and ecosystem restoration model depending on the degradation types (First year annual report)
  29. Ministry of Environment. 2017. Monitoring Techniques and Adaptive Management Guidelines for Ecological Restoration Sites [Korean Literature]
  30. Natioanl Institute of Ecology, 2017, Diagostic Assessment of Damaged Ecosystem and Restoration Areas and Practice of Resilience [Korean Literature]
  31. National Institute of Environmental Research. 2009. A Study on the Efficient Management of Artificially Created Ecosystem II[Korean Literature]
  32. National Institute of Environmental Research. 2015. Manual of Survey and Evaluation of Aquatic Ecosystem Health[Korean Literature]
  33. National Institute of Forest Science. 2016. Forest Health Monitoring Report[Korean Literature]
  34. Nexus. 2017. Incheon Seo-gu Natural Madang Creation Project, Fist year monitoring reportMinistry of Environment[Korean Literature]
  35. Nexus. 2017. Restoration of Hinterland's Reared Wetlands-First Year Monitoring Report, Ministry of Environment[Korean Literature]
  36. Oh KK. 2017. Evaluation of Vegetation Recovery after Restortaion Works at the Nogodan Area, Jirisan National Park, Korean J. Environ. Ecol. 31(1): 93-103[Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2017.31.1.093
  37. Palmer, M, Bernhardt,E, Allan, J.D, Lake P, Alexander, G, Brooks, S. Carp, J, Clayton. S, Dahm, C.N, Folistad Shah J, Galat, D.L, Loss S.G, Goodwin P, Hart D, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Kondolf G, Lave R, Meyer Jm O'Donnell T, Pagano, L, Suddth, E, 2005, Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42: 208-217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x
  38. Piqueray, J, Bottin, G, Delescaille, L. M., Bisteau, E., Colinet, G, Mahy, G.(2011), Rapid restoration of a species-rich ecosystem assessed from soil and vegetation indicators: The case of calcareous grasslands restored from forest stands, Ecological Indicators 11(2): 724-733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.06.007
  39. Ruiz-Jaen, M. C. and T. Mitchell Aide. 2005. Restoration Success: How Is It Being Measured?. Restoration Ecology 13(3): 569-577. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00072.x
  40. Sambul E&C. 2018. Government Complex Daejeon Natural madang, 1st year monitoring result report ,Ministry of Environment [Korean Literature]
  41. Seo SB. 2017. Analysis of habitat quality in the Nam-Han River Upstream Watershed using InVEST model. Masters dissertation, Ewha Womans University, Seoul[Korean Literature]
  42. SER. 2004. Science and Policy Working Group, Society for Ecological Restoration(SER). Restoration & Management Notes, 16: 46-50.
  43. Seoul. 2016. Seoul Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plan(2017-2021)[Korean Literature]
  44. Siddig, A. A. H., Ellison, A. M., Ochs, A., Villar-Leeman, C., Lau, M. K.(2016), How do ecologists select and use indicator species to monitor ecological change? Insights from 14 years of publication in Ecological Indicators, Ecological Indicators, 60: 223-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.036
  45. Song JH.Yun CW.Cho YH and Kang HK. 2017. A Study on Vegetation Structure Changes between Natural land and Damaged land in Regional Ecological Network at Chungnam Province, J. Korean Env. Res. Tech. 20(2): 13-35[Korean Literature]
  46. Suganuma, M. S. and G. Durigan .2015. Indicators of restoration success in riparian tropical forests using multiple reference ecosystems. Restoration Ecology 23(3): 238-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12168
  47. Taylor, P.D..Fahrig, L..Henein, K. and Merriam, G. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos, 68, 571-573 https://doi.org/10.2307/3544927
  48. Terrado, Marta.Sabater, Sergi.Chaplin-Kramer, Becky.Mandle, Lisa.Ziv, Guy Acuna and Vicenc. 2016. Model development for the assessment of terrestrial and aquatic habitat quality in conservation planning, Science of the Total Environment 540, 63-70 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.03.064
  49. Uezu, A..Metzger, J.P. and Vielliard, J.M.E. 2005. Effects ofstructural and functional connectivity and patch size on theabundance of seven Atlantic Forest bird species. BiologicalConservation, 123, 507-519
  50. Velasquez, E, Lavelle, P, Andrade, M (2007), GISQ, a multifunctional indicator of soil quality, Soil Biology & Biochemistry 39(12): 3066-3080 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.06.013
  51. Waltz, A. E. M. and W. W. Covington (2004). "Ecological restoration treatments increase butterfly richness and abundance: Mechanisms of response." Restoration Ecology 12(1): 85-96 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1061-2971.2004.00262.x
  52. You JH and Kim MJ. 2016. Change of Flora of Damaged Land in Juwangsan National Park for Five Years (2010-2014), J. Environ. Impact Assess. 25(4): 233-247[Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.14249/eia.2016.25.4.233

Cited by

  1. Response of Spatio-Temporal Differentiation Characteristics of Habitat Quality to Land Surface Temperature in a Fast Urbanized City vol.12, pp.12, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/f12121668