Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment (환경영향평가)

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

DOI QR Code

Assessment of the Freshwater Comprehensive Soundness in the Geum River Basin - Focusing on Ecological Soundness and Water Welfare -

금강유역의 하천 종합건전성 평가 - 생태적 건전성 및 물 복지를 중심으로 -

  • Received : 2022.06.13
  • Accepted : 2022.06.15
  • Published : 2022.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Freshwater soundness can be broadly divided into the health of river ecosystems and social services for human water use, that is, water welfare. In this study the ecological soundness and water welfare index of rivers were calculated, and the freshwater comprehensive soundness was analyzed using the quadrant model for 14 basins in the Geum River basin. As for the ecological soundness of the river, the area upstream of the dam (based on Daecheong Dam) was evaluated as 'good', and the area downstream of the dam was evaluated as 'bad'. On the other hand as for water welfare, the area downstream of the dam with a large population was in a relatively 'good' condition, and the area upstream of the dam had a relatively 'poor' level of water welfare. In terms of freshwater comprehensive soundness, it was found that the basins of Mujunamdaecheon, Bocheongcheon and Daecheongdam showed good ecological soundness and water welfare, and the Geumganggongju, Nonsancheon and Geumganhagueon basins were all poor. The Gapcheon basin showed good results in 2014 due to continuous investment and systematic management. Therefore, it is necessary to find ways to utilize it for other watersheds through benchmarking.

하천 건전성은 하천 생태계의 건강성과 인간의 물 이용에 대한 사회적 서비스 즉, 물 복지로 크게 구분할 수 있다. 본 연구에서는 하천의 생태적 건전성 및 물 복지 지수를 산정하고 4분면 모형을 이용하여 금강수계 14개 중권역에 대한 하천 종합건전성을 분석하였다. 하천의 생태적 건전성은 댐상류(대청댐 기준) 지역이 상대적으로 '좋음'으로 나타났으며 댐하류 지역은 '나쁨' 상태로 평가되었다. 반면, 물 복지는 인구규모가 큰 댐하류 지역이 상대적으로 '좋음' 상태였으며 댐상류 지역은 상대적으로 물 복지 수준이 '나쁨'으로 나타났다. 하천 종합건전성은 무주남대천, 보청천, 대청댐 유역이 생태적 건전성 및 물 복지 수준이 모두 양호했으며 금강공주, 논산천, 금강하구언 유역은 모두 불량한 것으로 나타났다. 갑천 유역은 지속적인 투자와 체계적인 관리로 2014년에는 두 지수 모두 양호한 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 벤치마킹을 통한 타 유역으로의 활용방안을 모색해야 할 필요가 있다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2020학년도 충북대학교 연구년제 사업의 연구비 지원에 의하여 연구되었음.

References

  1. ANZECC. 2000. Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality (Vol. 1, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ)). Canberra Environment Australia.
  2. Becker W, Paruolo P, Saisana M, Satelli A. 2015. Weights and importance in composite indicators: mind the cap. Springer international publishing switzerland. Handbook of uncertainty quantification. pp. 1187-1216.
  3. Becker W, Saisana M, Paruolo P, Vandecasteele I. 2017. Weights and importance in composite indicators: closing the gap. Ecological indicators. 80: 12-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.056
  4. Chang HJ, Bonnette MR. 2016. Climate change and water-related ecosystem services: impacts of drought in California, USA. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability. 2(12): 1-19.
  5. Choi CH, Kim YS, Kim JS, Kim DH, Kim JW, Kim HS. 2018. Indicator development and evaluation of storm and flood resilience using big data analysis. J. Korean Soc. Hazard Mitig. 18(4): 109-123. https://doi.org/10.9798/kosham.2018.18.4.109
  6. Choi HJ, Jo YJ, Kim HY, An YM, Jang JH. 2020. Development of national water welfare index and future tasks to realize inclusive water welfare policy. Journal of Water Policy & Economy 34: 63-72.
  7. Greco S, Ishzaka A, Tasiou M, Torrisi G. 2019. On the methodological framework of composite indices: a reivew of the issues of weighting, aggregation, and robustness. Soc Indic Res. 141: 61-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1832-9
  8. Kao C, Wu WY, Hsieh WJ, Wang TY, Lin C, Chen LH. 2008. Measuring the national competitiveness of Southeast Asian countries. European Journal of Operational Research 187(2): 613-628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.029
  9. Karr JR. 1999. Defining and measuring river health. Freshwater Biology 41: 221-234. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00427.x
  10. Kim HM. 2020. Analyzing freshwater soundness considering ecological and social characteristics. Ph.D. Thesis. Graduate School of Chungbuk National University.
  11. Kim HM, Ha SR. 2021. Analyzing ecological soundness considerig the implicit weight of the indicator. J. Environ. Impact Assess. 30(4): 258-269. https://doi.org/10.14249/EIA.2021.30.4.258
  12. Korea Environment Institute (KEI). 2014. A Study on the development and application of index for sustainable water use (I).
  13. Korea Environment Institute (KEI). 2017. Research on improvement of environmental standards for water quality and aquatic ecosystem.
  14. Korea Water Resources Corporation (KWRC). 2018. Study on the development a system for evaluating the health of the rivers comprehensively. KIWE-WSO-17-15.
  15. Korean Society of Environmental Engineers. 2018. Water quality evaluation and analysis of causes of water quality change in weir sections related to the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project. Volume 1 (Parts 1 and 2, Investigation and Evaluation of Water Quality before and after the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project).
  16. Lee JH. 2021. Reassessment on the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project and the Weirs Management. J. Environ. Impact Assess. 30(4): 225-236. https://doi.org/10.14249/EIA.2021.30.4.225
  17. Lee DK. 2021. Development of indicators for the evaluation of welfare in small and medium cities. MS degree. Graduate School of Kyungil University.
  18. Lee DK, Ahn SS, Park KB. 2021. Evaluation of the level of water welfare in 24 Local Governments in Deagu.Gyeongsangbukdo using statistical yearbook. Journal of Environment Science International. 30(11); 937-944. https://doi.org/10.5322/JESI.2021.30.11.937
  19. Mazziotta M, Pareto A. 2018. Measuring Well-Being Over Time: The adjusted Mazziotta-Pareto index versus other non-compensatory indices. Social Indicators Research 136: 967-976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1577-5
  20. Mazziotta M, Pareto A. 2016. On a generalized non-compensatory composite index for measuring socio-economic phenomena. Social Indicators Research 127: 983-1003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0998-2
  21. OECD. 2008. Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. available at https://www.oecd.org/sdd/42495745.pdf.
  22. Saisana M, Saltelli A. 2011. Rankings and ratings: Instructions for use, Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 3: 247-268. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404511200058
  23. Vollmer D, Shaad K, Souter NJ, Farrell T, Dudgeon D, Sullivan CA, Fauconnier I, MacDonal GM, McCartney MP, Power AG, McNally A, Andelman SJ, Capon T, Devineni N, Apirumanekul C, Nam NC, Shaw MR, Wang RY, Lai C, Wang Z, Regan HM. 2018. Integrating the social, hydrological and ecological dimensions of freshwater health: The Freshwater Health Index. Science of the Total Environment 627: 304-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.040
  24. Vorosmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, Dudgeon D, Prusevich A, Green P, Glidden S, Bunn SE, Sullivan CA, Kiermann CR, Davies PM. 2010. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467: 555-561. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09440