Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회지)

Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Assessing Conservation Priority of Private Land in Unexecuted Urban Parks in Seoul Using Betweenness Centrality Analysis

매개중심성 분석을 활용한 서울시 미집행공원 내 사유지 보전 우선순위 평가

  • Hwang, Byungmook (Department of Forest Resources, Kookmin University) ;
  • Ko, Dongwook W. (Department of Forestry, Environment, and Systems, Kookmin University) ;
  • Kang, Wanmo (Department of Forestry, Environment, and Systems, Kookmin University)
  • 황병묵 (국민대학교 산림자원학과) ;
  • 고동욱 (국민대학교 산림환경시스템학과) ;
  • 강완모 (국민대학교 산림환경시스템학과)
  • Received : 2020.11.09
  • Accepted : 2021.03.15
  • Published : 2021.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The implementation of the sunset provision of unexecuted urban parks in Seoul has been postponed; however, the mentioned parks still remain vulnerable since they can be subject to development under certain circumstances. Local governments may purchase the parks to prevent their loss but are constrained due to limited resources. The purpose of this study is to prioritize the purchase of unexecuted urban parks in Seoul based on landscape connectivity, which represents the important role of allowing the movement of wildlife and providing biodiversity in urban environments. In this study, we used four potential scenarios (PB100, PB1, PA100, PA1), which reflects the degree of land cover change resulting from the implementation of the sunset provision, and the role of Han River as a conduit or barrier for wildlife movement. Landscape connectivity was evaluated by calculating current flow betweenness centrality (CFBC). This was used to rank the importance of the unexecuted urban parks in Seoul. The results demonstrated that the implementation of the sunset provision will greatly decrease the connectivity of all parks in Seoul and particularly more so for parks in the southern part of the city. In addition, the results suggested that the low connectivity of Han river will diminish the connectivity around Bukhansan Mountain in the northern part of Seoul. Our study can be used for the prioritization of purchase, since it has the ability to evaluate the anticipated vulnerability of each park's connectivity after the sunset provision.

2020년 7월 공원일몰제 시행을 앞두고 도시자연공원구역 지정과 관련 법률 개정을 통해 서울시 미집행 도시공원의 실효 시점이 연장되었다. 그러나 미집행 도시공원의 개발이 여전히 가능한 상황에서 공원녹지의 추가적인 토지개발이 예상된다. 이 연구에서는 서울시 미집행 도시공원을 대상으로 향후 공원 내 사유지의 토지전용이 일어날 상황을 가정하고 예상되는 경관 연결성 변화에 따른 우선매입 대상지를 선정하고자 한다. 이를 위해 공원일몰제 시행 전과 후의 토지피복 변화와 생물의 이동능력을 반영한 4가지 경관투과성 시나리오(PB100, PB1, PA100, PA1)를 작성하였다. 이들 시나리오에 기반하여 Connectivity Analysis Toolkit의 전류흐름 매개중심성(current flow betweenness centrality) 방식으로 경관 연결성을 계산하고 미집행공원별 전류흐름 매개중심성 순위 변화를 비교하였다. 분석결과 공원일몰제 시행 이후 상황을 반영한 PA1과 PA100 시나리오에서 서울시 남부에 위치한 미집행 도시공원의 전류흐름 매개중심성 순위가 크게 감소하였고, 한강을 통한 이동이 어려운 PA1 시나리오는 북한산 인근 공원에서 전류흐름 매개중심성 순위가 크게 감소하는 것을 확인하였다. 향후 미집행 도시공원의 환경적·생태적 기능을 고려한 매입방안 모색에 있어 본 연구결과가 도움이 될 것으로 기대된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahn, Y.J., Lee, D.K., Kim, H.G. and Mo, Y.W. 2014. Applying connectivity analysis for prioritizing unexecuted urban parks in Sungnam. Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology 17(3): 75-86. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.13087/kosert.2014.17.3.75
  2. Baranyi, G., Saura, S., Podani, J. and Jordán, F. 2011. Contribution of habitat patches to network connectivity: Redundancy and uniqueness of topological indices. Ecological Indicators 11(5): 1301-1310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.02.003
  3. Bodin, O. and Norberg, J. 2007. A network approach for analyzing spatially structured populations in fragmented landscape. Landscape Ecology 22(1): 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-9015-0
  4. Borgatti, S.P. and Everett, M.G. 2006. A graph-theoretic perspective on centrality. Social Networks 28(4): 466-484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2005.11.005
  5. Carroll, C., McRAE, B.H. and Brookes, A. 2012. Use of linkage mapping and centrality analysis across habitat gradients to conserve connectivity of gray wolf populations in western North America. Conservation Biology 26(1): 78-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01753.x
  6. Chae, J.H., Zoh, K.J., Kim, S.J., Hoh, Y.K. and Hwang, J.Y. 2014. A Study on operational systems & planning contents of parks & green space plan-focused on London, New York, Berlin, Sydney, Seoul. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 42(2): 91-102. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2014.42.2.091
  7. Epps, C.W., Palsboll, P.J., Wehausen, J.D., Roderick, G.K., Ramey, R.R. and McCullough, D.R. 2005. Highways block gene flow and cause a rapid decline in genetic diversity of desert bighorn sheep. Ecology Letters 8(10): 1029-1038. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00804.x
  8. ESRI. 2012. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.
  9. Fernandez-Juricic, E. 2004. Spatial and temporal analysis of the distribution of forest specialists in an urban-fragmented landscape (Madrid, Spain): implications for local and regional bird conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(1): 17-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.09.001
  10. Han, B.H., Lee, K.J., Ki, K.S. and Choi, B.E. 2011. A study for selecting protected wildlife species and potential habitats in Seoul Metropolitan City. Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology 25(4): 601-613. (in Korean)
  11. Heo, H.K., Lee, D.K. and Mo, Y.W. 2015. The selection of suitable site for park and green spaces to increase accessibility and biodiversity. Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology 18(5): 13-26. (in Korea)
  12. Kang, J.E., Choi, H.S., Hwang, H.S. and Lee, S.H. 2018. Analysis of ecological network according to invalidation of decision on urban parks: Focused on Busan. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment 27(6): 618-634. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.14249/EIA.2018.27.6.618
  13. Kang, W.M. and Park, C.R. 2011. Quantitative analysis of seoul green space network with the application of graph theory. Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology 25(3): 412-420. (in Korean)
  14. Kang, W.M. and Park, C.R. 2015. Corridor and network analyses of forest bird habitats in a metropolitan area of South Korea. Korean Journal of Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 17(3): 191-201. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.5532/KJAFM.2015.17.3.191
  15. Kang, W.M., Song, Y.K., Sung, H.C. and Lee, D.K. 2018. Assessing conservation priorities of unexecuted urban parks in Seoul using ecological network and accessibility analyses. Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology 21(2): 53-64. (in Korean)
  16. Kim, J.M., Lee, G.G. and Jo, S.H. 2005. Alternative solutions to mitigate conflicts on private land for reasonable management of national parks in Korea. Korea Planning Association 40(5): 47-57. (in Korean)
  17. Kim, Y.J., Lee, I.S. and Lee, S.M. 1998. Establishing the development priority of undeveloped urban parks using GIS. The Journal of GIS Association of Korean 6(1): 35-45. (in Korean)
  18. Klamath Center for Conservation Research. 2010. Connectivity Analysis Toolkit. http://www.klamathconservation.org/science_blog. (2019. 10).
  19. Knight, E.H. and Fox, B.J. 2000. Does habitat structure mediate the effects of forest fragmentation and human-induced disturbance on the abundance of Antechinus stuartii? Australian Journal of Zoology 48(5): 577-595. https://doi.org/10.1071/zo00018
  20. Kong, W.S., Kim, K.O., Lee, S.G. and Park, H.N. 2014. Landscape ecology and management measure of urban mountain forest in Seoul. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment 23(3): 208-219. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.14249/eia.2014.23.3.208
  21. Korea Environment Institute (KEI). 2018. The environmental conservation value assessment map (ECVAM). https://ecvam.neins.go.kr/contents/contents03.do (2020. 05. 02).
  22. Lee, D.K., Kim, B.M. and Song, W.K. 2009. Relationship between the Birds-Mammals' Distribution and Forest area, Land cover. Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning 15(2): 19-26. (in Korean)
  23. Mac Nally, R., Bennett, A.F. and Horrocks, G. 2000. Forecasting the impacts of habitat fragmentation. Evaluation of species-specific predictions of the impact of habitat fragmentation on birds in the box-ironbark forests of central Victoria, Australia. Biological Conservation 95(1): 7-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00017-3
  24. McRae, B.H., Dickson, B.G., Keitt, T.H. and Shah, V.B. 2008. Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 89(10): 2712-2724. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1861.1
  25. Ministry of Environment (ME). 2017a. The detailed-class land cover map. http://www/neins.go.kr/gis/mun01/doc03a.asp. (2019. 10. 22).
  26. Ministry of Environment (ME). 2017b. Enforcement decree of the wildlife protection and management Act, Presidential Decree No. 16609.
  27. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT). 2019a. Boundary of administrative district with si, gun, gu. http://data.nsdi.go.kr/dataset/15144. (2019. 05. 14).
  28. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT). 2019b. Land Ownership Information. http://openapi.nsdi.go.kr/nsdi/eios/ServiceDetail.do?svcSe=F&svcId=F017&provOrg=NIDO. (2019. 10. 19).
  29. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT). 2019c. Officially Assessed Land Price Information. http://openapi.nsdi.go.kr/nsdi/eios/ServiceDetail.do?svcSe=F&svcId=F012&provOrg=NIDO. (2019. 11. 26).
  30. Minor, E.S. and Urban, D.L. 2007. Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecological Applications 17(6): 1771-1782. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1073.1
  31. Newman, M.E. 2005. A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. Social Networks 27(1): 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.009
  32. Oh, K.S., Lee, D.W. and Park, C.S. 2011. Urban ecological network planning for sustainable landscape management. Journal of Urban Technology 18(4): 39-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2011.648433
  33. Opdam, P. 1991. Metapopulation theory and habitat fragmentation: a review of holarctic breeding bird studies. Landscape Ecology 5(2): 93-106. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00124663
  34. R Core Team. 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
  35. Reaka-Kudla, M.L., Wilson, M.L. and Wilson, E.O. 1996. Biodiversity II: Understanding and protecting our biological resources. Washington DC, Joseph Henry Press.
  36. Seoul Development Institute (SDI). 2011. A study on the urban park management system with special use permits in Seoul. Seoul Development Institute. pp. 27. (in Korean)
  37. Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG). 2017. Seoul metropolitan government detailed plan for wildlife protection (2017-2021). pp. 46-84. (in Korean)
  38. Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG). 2019a. Seoul metropolitan government public notice No. 2019-2671. http://urban.seoul.go.kr/4DUPIS/sub5/sub5_4_1.jsp#view/299103. (2019. 10. 14).
  39. Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG). 2019b. The Seoul Metropolitan Government's countermeasures on the sunset of urban parks. http://news.seoul.go.kr/env/city_park_plan. (2019. 12. 03).
  40. Singleton, P.H., Gaines, W.L. and Lehmkuhl, J.F. 2002. Landscape permeability for large carnivores in Washington: a geographic information system weighted-distance and least-cost corridor assessment. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Potland, U.S.A. pp. 1-89.
  41. Song, W., Kim, E. and Lee, D.K. 2012. Measuring connectivity in heterogenous landscapes: A review and application. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment 21(3): 391-407. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.14249/EIA.2012.21.3.391
  42. Teng, M., Wu, C., Zhou, Z., Lord, E. and Zheng, Z. 2011. Multipurpose greenway planning for changing cities: a framework integrating priorities and a least-cost path model. Landscape and Urban Planning 103(1): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.05.007
  43. Urban, D.L. and Keitt, T.H. 2001. Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82(5): 1205-1218. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[1205:LCAGTP]2.0.CO;2
  44. Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications 8. Cambridge university press.
  45. Watts, K., Eycott, A.E., Handley, P., Ray, D., Humphrey, J.W. and Quine, C.P. 2010. Targeting and evaluating biodiversity conservation action within fragmented landscapes: an approach based on generic focal species and least-cost networks. Landscape Ecology 25(9): 1305-1318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9507-9