Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology (한국환경생태학회지)

Korean Society of Environment and Ecology (한국환경생태학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analyze the Suitability on the Criteria and Methods of National Park Re-planning, Korea

국립공원 재계획 기준과 방법의 적절성 분석

  • Sung-Woon Hong (K General Construction Co.) ;
  • Woo Cho (Dept. of Landscape Architecture and Forest Science, Sanigji Univ.)
  • 홍성운 ((주)케이종합건설) ;
  • 조우 (상지대학교 조경산림학과)
  • Received : 2023.11.23
  • Accepted : 2023.12.05
  • Published : 2023.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aimed to analyze the appropriateness of the criteria and methods of the feasibility study for national park re-planning. The rate of 'release area' was derived at a lower rate in the absolute evaluation (the second) than the relative evaluation(the third) Seoraksan and Juwangsan National Parks as well as Gayasan National Park. Despite the third evaluation method aiming to maintain park area through retention by setting the areas available for release as 10% rather than applying release, it was found that the absolute evaluation method did not derive more areas available for release. When the second and third ecology-based assessments were applied to study sites, both second and third ecological-based assessments showed that the actual release areas were not reflected in the extraction in 2011. Consequently, it was found that the ecological-based assessment was only a means of assistance instead of a means of critical decision-making for determining the release area. From the district adjustment of the park planning easibility study, it can be determined that interactive exchange and priority application of release criteria as external factors acted more significantly.

본 연구는 국립공원 재계획중 타당성조사 기준과 방법의 적절성 분석을 목적으로 하였다. 가야산국립공원, 설악산과 주왕산국립공원은 절대평가(제2차) 방법이 상대평가(제3차) 보다 '해제 대상'이 낮은 비율로 도출되었다. 제3차 평가방법이 해제가능지역 10%라는 비율을 정해놓고 해제보다는 존치를 통한 공원면적 유지를 지향한 방법임에도 절대평가방법이 결코 해제가능 지역을 더 많이 추출하지는 않았다. 연구대상지에 제2차와 제3차 생태기반평가를 적용했을 때 2011년 실제 해제지역이 나타나는지를 분석한 결과 제2차, 제3차 생태기반평가 모두 해제지역을 반영하지 못했다. 생태기반평가는 해제지역을 결정하는 중요한 의사결정 수단이 아닌 보조수단일 뿐이었다. 공원계획 타당성조사의 구역조정 중 해제는 외적 요소인 상호교환, 해제기준의 우선적용 등이 더욱 중요하게 작용함을 알 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. CBD(2023) Kunming-montreal global biodiversity framework. https://www.cbd.int/gbf/ 
  2. Chape, S., J. Harrison, M. Spalding and I. Lysenko(2005) Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: 443-455. 
  3. Cho, W.(2015) Achievements and limitations of the Baekdudaegan Protected Area resource status survey. Seminar Presentation. (in Korean)
  4. Cho, W.(2019) Legislative direction for improving the natural park protection and management system. Policy Workshop of S.D. Lee(Congressman). (in Korean)
  5. Cho, W.(2021) Development impact based on area adjustment of feasibility review in Bukhansan National Park Planning. Korean J. Environ. Ecol. 35(3): 305-312. (in Korean with English abstract)  https://doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2021.35.3.305
  6. Cho, W.(2022) Report on policy recommendations to restore national parks functional normalization. (in Korean)
  7. HAEINSA(2022) https://www.haeinsa.or.kr/ 
  8. Hong, H.J., H.A. Choi, B.S. Byun and Y.H. Park(2013) Analysis of environmental and socio-economic effects on the adjustment of national parks. J. of the Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology 16(6): 49-62. (in Korean with English abstract)  https://doi.org/10.13087/kosert.2013.16.6.049
  9. Hong, S.W.(2023) Study on impact of natural park re-planning on park management and local development, South Korea. Ph.D. Dissertation, Graduate School of Sangji University. (in Korean with English abstract) 
  10. IPBES(2019). The global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services: Summary for policymakers. Intergovern mental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 
  11. IUCN(2008) Guidelines for protected area management categories. 
  12. IUCN(2019) Category II: National Park. Retrieved from https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-areascategories/category-ii-national-park 
  13. IUCN(2023) IUCN WCPA other effective area-based conservation measures specialist. Group. https://www.iucn.org/our-union/commissions/group/iucn-wcpa-other-effective-area-based-conservation-measures-specialist 
  14. Jeon, K.C., J. Nam and W. Cho(2018) Effect of land use change and price from the area adjustment of national park in Korea-A case study of Woraksan National Park-. Korean J. Environ. Ecol. 32(6): 639-645. (in Korean with English abstract)  https://doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2018.32.6.639
  15. Jeong, K.S.(1998) A study of national park boundary readjustment for efficient management of national park. J. of Tourism Development 8: 71-96. (in Korean with English abstract) 
  16. KBS News(2021) Seoraksan cable car controversy reignited. https://news.kbs.co.kr/news/view.do?ncd=5374735 (in Korean) 
  17. KDPA(2022) http://www.kdpa.kr/ 
  18. Kim, S.H., G.W. Sim, S.Y. Han and T.K. Kim(2016) The impact of adjustment of national park on fluctuation rate of land price-case of Dumo in the Hallyeohaesang National Park-. J. of Korean Institute of Forest Recreation and Welfare 20(2): 57-61. (in Korean with English abstract)  https://doi.org/10.34272/forest.2016.20.2.005
  19. KNPS(2015) Study of develop a roadmap for expanding protected areas to implement CBD recommendations. (in Korean) 
  20. Korea Forest Service(2023) Protected areas. https://www.forest.go.kr/kfsweb/kfi/kfs/bkmnt/selectBkmntPrarList.do?mn=NKFS_02_02_03_04_03 
  21. Leverington, F., K.L. Costa, H. Pavese, A. Lisle and M. Hockings(2010) A global analysis of protected area manage ment effectiveness. Environmental Management 46: 685-698.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9564-5
  22. Ministry of Environment(2003) National park adjustment finalized and notified. http://www.me.go.kr/home/web/board/ (in Korean) 
  23. Ministry of Environment(2020) Public comment on the third national park re-planning amendment(draft). http://www.me.go.kr/home/web/board/ (in Korean) 
  24. Ministry of Environment(2021) Internal document-changes to criteria on the third national park re-planning in National Parks Council-. (in Korean) 
  25. Ministry of Environment(2022a) Master plan for the third nature parks. (in Korean) 
  26. Ministry of Environment(2022b) Internal document. (in Korean) 
  27. Ministry of Environment(2023) Internal document. (in Korean) 
  28. Ministry of Environment, KEI(2008) Establishment of national park feasibility study critera and natural park system improvement. (in Korean) 
  29. Ministry of Environment, KEI(2019) Establishment of national park feasibility study critera(third) and natural park system improvement. (in Korean) 
  30. Money S(2021) The government is planning to expand the purchase of private land in national parks. https://m.moneys.mt.co.kr/article.html (in Korean)