Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment (환경영향평가)

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

DOI QR Code

Changes of Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Area According to Urban Development Scenario - For the Namyangju Wangsuk District 1, the 3rd Phase New Town -

도시개발 시나리오에 따른 농업지역의 생태계서비스 변화 분석 - 3기 신도시 남양주 왕숙1지구를 대상으로 -

  • Kim, Sukyoung (Department of Landscape Architecture, General Graduate School, University of Seoul) ;
  • Choi, Jaeyeon (Department of Landscape Architecture, General Graduate School, University of Seoul) ;
  • Park, Chan (Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Urban Sciences, University of Seoul) ;
  • Song, Wonkyong (School of Environmental Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Dankook University) ;
  • Kim, Suryeon (Department of Urban Planning & Design, College of Urban Sciences, University of Seoul)
  • 김수경 (서울시립대학교 일반대학원 조경학과) ;
  • 최재연 (서울시립대학교 일반대학원 조경학과) ;
  • 박찬 (서울시립대학교 도시과학대학 조경학과) ;
  • 송원경 (단국대학교 환경원예.조경학부) ;
  • 김수련 (서울시립대학교 도시과학대학 도시공학과)
  • Received : 2021.03.04
  • Accepted : 2021.04.09
  • Published : 2021.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Urban development is continuously being carried out to stabilize housing supply. The importance of ecosystem services assessments considering the various urban spatial structures is emerging as land use change in the wake of urban development has impact on the provision of ecosystem services. However, few studies are available as to the effects of land use transition in agricultural land due to urban development on ecosystem services. The purpose of this study is to examine the applicability of decision-making in the urban planning process by analyzing the impact of land use change on ecosystem services due to urban development. Therefore, the scenario was set on before and after the city development, targeting Namyangju Wangsuk Zone 1 and InVEST model was used to compare and analyze changes in value of ecosystem services. Analysis results of ecosystem services before the urban development, it turned out that habitat quality and water yield increased overtime but carbon storage and crop production decreased. Analysis results of ecosystem services after the urban development indicated that all items in ecosystem services by scenario decreased more than in 2018. Among the scenarios of urban development, compact city had the lowest value of water resource supply but had the highest value in terms of habitat quality, carbon storage amount, and crop production. The study results demonstrate that the compact city has positive effects on ecosystem services and is expected to be used as the basic data for supporting policy decision-making in the establishment of future urban development and management plans.

현재 도시개발은 택지공급의 안정화를 위하여 지속적으로 진행되고 있다. 도시개발에 따른 토지이용 변화는 생태계서비스에 영향을 미치므로 다양한 도시 공간구조를 고려한 생태계서비스 평가의 중요성이 대두되고 있다. 그러나 도시개발에 의한 농업지역의 생태계서비스 변화를 고찰한 연구는 미흡한 실정이다. 따라서 본 연구는 도시개발에 따른 농업지역의 생태계서비스 변화를 분석하고, 향후 도시계획 단계의 의사결정 지원에 활용 가능성을 검토하는데 목적이 있다. 이를 위해 남양주 왕숙1지구를 대상으로 도시개발 전과 개발 후에 대한 시나리오를 설정하였으며, InVEST 모델을 활용하여 생태계서비스 변화를 비교분석하였다. 도시개발 이전의 생태계서비스 분석결과, 서식처 질과 수자원공급량은 시간의 흐름에 따라 증가하는 양상이 나타난 반면, 탄소고정량과 작물생산량은 감소하는 것으로 나타났다. 도시개발 이후의 생태계서비스 분석결과, 시나리오별 생태계서비스는 모든 항목이 2018년 대비 감소하는 것으로 확인되었다. 도시개발 시나리오 가운데 압축도시는 수자원공급량의 가치가 가장 낮게 도출된 반면, 서식처 질, 탄소고정량, 작물생산량의 가치는 가장 높게 도출되었다. 이러한 본 연구의 결과를 통하여 압축도시는 생태계서비스 측면에서 긍정적인 도시개발 시나리오로 판단되며, 향후 도시개발 및 관리계획 수립단계에서 정책적 의사결정 지원을 위한 기초자료로 활용될 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

본 결과물은 환경부의 재원으로 한국환경산업기술원의 도시생태 건강성 증진 기술개발사업의 지원을 받아 연구되었습니다(2019002760001).

References

  1. Bommarco R, Vico G, Hallin S. 2018. Exploiting ecosystem services in agriculture for increased food security. Global Food Security 17: 57-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.04.001
  2. Child MF, Cumming GS, Amano T. 2009. Assessing the broad-scale impact of agriculturally transformed and protected area landscapes on avian taxonomic and functional richness. Biological Conservation 142(11): 2593-2601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.06.007
  3. Choi J, Lee S. 2018. Evaluation of Ecosystem Service for Distribution of Korean fir using InVEST Model. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment 27(2): 181-193. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.14249/EIA.2018.27.2.181
  4. Choi J, Lee Y, Lee S. 2019. A Study on the Ecosystem Services Value Assessment According to City Development: In Case of the Busan Eco-Delta City Development. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment 28(5), 427-439. [Korean Literature]
  5. Conte M, Nelson E, Carney K, Fissore C, Nasser O, Plantinga AJ, Stanley B, Rickett T. 2011. Terrestrial carbon sequestration and storage. Edited by: Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts T, Daily G, Polasky S. Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. New York: Oxford University Press: pp. 111-128.
  6. Cumming GS, Buerkert A, Hoffmann EM, Schlecht E, Cramon-Taubadel S Von, Tscharntke T. 2014. Implications of agricultural transitions and urbanization for ecosystem services. Nature 515(7525): 50-57. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13945
  7. Dale VH, Polasky S. 2007. Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 64(2): 286-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.009
  8. Duffie & Beckman [Internet]. extraterrestrial solar radiation: [cited: 2020 Nov 19]. Available from: https://www.engr.scu.edu/~emaurer/tools/calc_solar_cgi.pl
  9. Duru M, Therond O, Martin G, Martin-Clouaire R, Magne MA, Justes E, Journet EP, Aubertot JN, Savary S, Bergez JE, Sarthou JP. 2015. How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 35(4): 1259-1281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0306-1
  10. EPIS(Korea Agency of Education, Promotion & Information Service in Food, Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries) [Internet]. urban agriculture status (2019): [cited: 2020 Dec 10]. Available from: https://www.modunong.or.kr:449/contents/bbs/bbsView.do?menuNo=41&bbsId=1150&bbsSeq=18&pageIndex=1&pageUnit=10&searchCondition=all&searchKeyword=
  11. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science 309(5734): 570-574. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772
  12. Gyeonggi-do Agricultural Research&Extension Services. 2019. Distribution and production map of agricultural products in Gyeonggi-do.
  13. Johnson KA, Polasky S, Nelson E, Pennington D. 2012. Uncertainty in ecosystem services valuation and implications for assessing land use tradeoffs: An agricultural case study in the Minnesota River Basin. Ecological Economics 79: 71-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.020
  14. Keeler BL, Polasky S, Brauman KA, Johnson KA, Finlay JC, O'Neille A, Kovacs K, Dalzell B. 2012. Linking water quality and wellbeing for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109(45): 18619-18624.
  15. Khoury CK, Bjorkman AD, Dempewolf H, Ramirez-Villegas J, Guarino L, Jarvis A, Rieseberg LH, Struik PC. 2014. Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111(11): 4001-4006.
  16. Kim I, Kim S, Lee J, Kwon H. 2019. Categorization of Cities in Gyeonggi-do Using Ecosystem Service Bundles. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment 28(3): 201-214. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.14249/EIA.2019.28.3.201
  17. Kim JE. 2014. The Value of Ecosystem Services based on Land Use in Shinangun, Jeonnam, Korea. Korean Journal of Ecology and Environment 47(3): 202-213. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.11614/KSL.2014.47.3.202
  18. KOSIS (Statistics Korea) [Internet]. Agricultural Land Area: [cited: 2021 Feb 27]. Available from: https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1EB001&language=en&conn_path=I3
  19. Lee CH, Kwak SY, Kim CK, Bae HJ, Suh YW, Ahn SE, Gang WM, Kim JE, Shin JW. 2016. An Integrated Approach to Environmental Valuation. Korea Environment Institute. [Korean Literature]
  20. Lee HW, Kim CK, Hong HJ, Roh YH, Kang SI, Kim JH, Shin SC, Lee SJ, KIM TY, Kang JY, Wood S, Fisher D. 2015. Development of Decision Supporting Framework to Enhance Natural Capital Sustainability: Focusing on Ecosystem Service Analysis. Korea Environment Institute. [Korean Literature]
  21. Lee JY, Choi HY. 2010. Soil Management and Practice. Korea Turfgrass Research Institute: p. 187. [Korean Literature]
  22. Lee KH, Park JH. 2008. Calibration of the Hargreaves Equation for the Reference Evapotranspiration Estimation on a Nation-Wide Scale. Journal of the Korean Society of Civil Engineers, B. 28(6B): 675-681. [Korean Literature]
  23. Lee SH, Kim JK. 2014. Study on the Method of Urban Planning for Adaptation. Journal of Climate Change Research 5(3): 257-266. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.15531/KSCCR.2014.5.3.257
  24. Li S, Yang H, Lacayo M, Liu J, Lei G. 2018. Impacts of land-use and land-cover changes on water yield: A case study in Jing-Jin-Ji, China. Sustainability 10(4): 1-16.
  25. Long H, Liu Y, Hou X, Li T, Li Y. 2014. Effects of land use transitions due to rapid urbanization on ecosystem services: Implications for urban planning in the new developing area of China. Habitat International 44: 536-544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.10.011
  26. MacPherson J, Paul C, Helming K. 2020. Linking ecosystem services and the SDGs to farm-level assessment tools and models. Sustainability 12(16): 1-19.
  27. Mascarenhas A, Haase D, Ramos TB, Santos R. 2019. Pathways of demographic and urban development and their effects on land take and ecosystem services: The case of Lisbon Metropolitan Area, Portugal. Land Use Policy 82: 181-194.
  28. Matios E, Burney J. 2017. Ecosystem Services Mapping for Sustainable Agricultural Water Management in California's Central Valley. Environmental Science and Technology 51(5): 2593-2601.
  29. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport [Internet]. Area by Land Category: [cited: 2020 Dec 10]. Available from: https://www.index.go.kr/potal/main/EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_cd=2728
  30. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport [Internet]. New Town Project and Construction Status: [cited: 2020 Dec 21]. Available from: https://www.molit.go.kr/USR/policyData/m_34681/dtl?id=522
  31. Moon JW, Jung CG, Lee DR. 2013. Parameter Regionalization of Hargreaves Equation Based on Climatological Characteristics in Korea. Journal of Korea Water Resources Association 46(9):933-946. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.3741/JKWRA.2013.46.9.933
  32. Palm C, Blanco-Canqui H, DeClerck F, Gatere L, Grace P. 2014. Conservation agriculture and ecosystem services: An overview. Agriculture. Ecosystems and Environment 187: 87-105.
  33. Power AG. 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365(1554): 2959-2971.
  34. Quintas-Soriano C, Castro AJ, Castro H, Garcia-Llorente M. 2016. Impacts of land use change on ecosystem services and implications for human well-being in Spanish drylands. Land Use Policy 54: 534-548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.03.011
  35. Ribaudo M, Greene C, Hansen LR, Hellerstein D. 2010. Ecosystem services from agriculture: Steps for expanding markets. Ecological Economics 69(11): 2085-2092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.004
  36. Sallustio L, De Toni A, Strollo A, Di Febbraro M, Gissi E, Casella L, Geneletti D, Munafo M, Vizzarri M, Marchetti M. 2017. Assessing habitat quality in relation to the spatial distribution of protected areas in Italy. Journal of Environmental Management 201: 129-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.06.031
  37. Sanderson MA, Archer D, Hendrickson J, Kronberg S, Liebig M, Nichols K, Schmer M, Tanaka D, Aguilar J. 2013. Diversification and ecosystem services for conservation agriculture: Outcomes from pastures and integrated crop-livestock systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 28(2): 129-144. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1742170512000312
  38. Schroter D, Cramer W, Leemans R, Prentice IC, Araujo MB, Arnell NW, Bondeau A, Bugmann H, Carter TR, Gracia CA, De La Vega-Leinert AC, Erhard M, Ewert F, Glendining M, House JI, Kankaanpaa S, Klein RJT, Lavorel S, Lindner M., Metzger MJ, Meyer J, Mitchell TD, Reginster I, Rounsevell M, Sabate S, Sitch S, Smith B, Smith J, Smith P, Tuck G. 2005. Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science - AAAS 310(5752): 1333-1337.
  39. Seo YH, Lim SJ, Heo SJ, Yoon BS, Hong SY, Park YH, Hong DK. 2019. Modification of Hargreaves Equation Coefficient to Estimate Reference Evapotranspiration in Gangwondo. Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer 52(1):1-10. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2019.52.1.001
  40. Shah SM, Liu G, Yang Q, Wang X, Casazza M, Agostinho F, Lombardi GV, Giannetti B. 2019. Emergy-based valuation of agriculture ecosystem services and dis-services. Journal of Cleaner Production 239: 118019.
  41. Sharp R, Douglass J, Wolny S, Arkema K, Bernhardt J, Bierbower W, Chaumont N, Denu D, Fisher D, Glowinski K, Griffin R, Guannel G, Guerry A, Johnson J, Hamel P, Kennedy C, Kim CK, Lacayo M, Lonsdorf E, Mandle L, Rogers L, Silver J, Toft J, Verutes G, Vogl AL., Wood S, Wyatt K. 2020. InVEST 3.8.7.post480 + invest.g77102ea7 User's Guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund.
  42. Song CH, Lee WK, Choi HA, Jeon SW, Kim JU, Kim JS, Kim JT. 2015. Application of InVEST Water Yield Model for Assessing Forest Water Provisioning Ecosystem Service. Journal of the Korean Association of Geographic Information Studies 18(1): 120-134. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.11108/kagis.2015.18.1.120
  43. Sun X, Crittenden JC, Li F, Lu Z, Dou X. 2018. Urban expansion simulation and the spatio-temporal changes of ecosystem services, a case study in Atlanta Metropolitan area, USA. Science of the Total Environment 622-623: 974-987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.062
  44. Swinton SM, Lupi F, Robertson GP, Hamilton SK. 2007. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecological Economics 64(2): 245-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.09.020
  45. Terrado M, Sabater S, Chaplin-Kramer B, Mandle L, Ziv G, Acuna V. 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
  46. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2019. World Urbanization Prospects 2018: Highlights.
  47. United Nations. 2015. Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
  48. Verhagen W, Van der Zanden EH, Strauch M, Van Teeffelen AJA, Verburg PH. 2018. Optimizing the allocation of agri-environment measures to navigate the trade-offs between ecosystem services, biodiversity and agricultural production. Environmental Science and Policy 84: 186-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.03.013
  49. Wood SLR, Jones SK, Johnson JA, Brauman KA, Chaplin-Kramer R, Fremier A, Girvetz E, Gordon LJ, Kappel CV, Mandle L, Mulligan M, O'Farrell P, Smith WK, Willemen L, Zhang W, DeClerck FA. 2018. Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the Sustainable Development Goals. Ecosystem Services 29: 70-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.010