DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

수정된 중요도-만족도 분석(ISA)을 활용한 수요자 기반 생태계서비스 수준 평가 연구 - 서울시를 대상으로 -

Ecosystem service quality assessment with an application of revised Importance-Satisfaction Analysis - The case of Seoul, Korea -

  • 전배석 (서울대학교 협동과정 조경학 ) ;
  • 권혁수 (국립생태원 생태계서비스팀 ) ;
  • 정필모 (국립생태원 생태계서비스팀 ) ;
  • 손용훈 (서울대학교 환경대학원 환경설계학과 )
  • Baysok Jun (Interdisciplinary Program in Landscape Architecture, Seoul National University) ;
  • Hyuksoo Kwon (Team of Ecosystem Service, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Pil-Mo Jung (Team of Ecosystem Service, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Yonghoon Son (Dept. of Environmental Design, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University)
  • 투고 : 2023.11.01
  • 심사 : 2023.12.19
  • 발행 : 2023.12.30

초록

Ecosystem services (ES) are the benefits that people obtain from ecosystems. Traditional ES assessment methods have focused on the supply of ES, using biophysical data. However, these methods often fail to capture the full value of ES, which is also determined by social and cultural factors. This study proposes a new approach to ES assessment that incorporates socio-cultural perspectives. The study was conducted in Seoul, South Korea. A survey was conducted of 1,805 residents of Seoul to assess their satisfaction with ecosystem services. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify bundles of ES that were perceived as important by residents. A revised importance-satisfaction analysis was used to calculate the urgency level of each bundle. The results of the study showed that the 21 ES that were considered in the survey could be grouped into three bundles: urban green area-based, biodiversity-based, and resilience-based. The urgency level analysis showed that some bundles were more important than others, and that some bundles were more urgent than others. The findings of this study have several implications. First, they suggest that a socio-cultural approach to ES assessment can provide a more comprehensive and accurate assessment of ES. Second, they show that this approach can be used to identify areas where ES management is most needed. Third, they suggest that this approach could be used to inform ES management and policy decisions.

키워드

과제정보

본 논문은 환경부의 재원으로 국립생태원의 지원을 받아 수행하였습니다(NIE-고유연구-2023-03).

참고문헌

  1. Asah, S.T..Guerry, A.D..Blahna, D.J. and Lawler J.J. 2014. Perception, acquisition and use of ecosystem services. Human behavior, and ecosystem management and policy implications 10:180-186. 
  2. Bennett, E.M..Peterson, G.D. and Gordon, L.J. 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology letters 12:1394-1404.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x
  3. Berkes, F..Colding, J. and Folke, C.J. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological applications 10(2):1251-1262.  https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2
  4. Braito, M.T..Bock, K..Flint, C..Muhar, A..Muhar, S. and Penker, M.J. 2017. Human-nature relationships and linkages to environmental behaviour. Environmental Values 26(3): 365-389.  https://doi.org/10.3197/096327117X14913285800706
  5. Burkhard, B..Kroll, F..Nedkov, S. and Mul er, F. 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological indicators 21: 17-29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019
  6. Chen, SH. and Huang, C. 2011. Application of importance-satisfaction model to identify critical success factors of hot-spring industry in Taiwan. International Journal of the Physical Sciences 6(10): 2470-2477. 
  7. Chen, SH..Pai, FY. and Yeh, TM. 2019. Using the Importance-Satisfaction Model and Service Quality Performance Matrix to improve long-term care service quality in Taiwan. Applied Sciences 10(1): 85. 
  8. Cord, A.F..Bartkowski, B..Beckmann, M..Dittrich, A..Hermans-Neumann, K..Kaim, A..Lienhoop, N..Locher-Krause, K..Priess, J. and Schroter-Schlack, CJE. 2017. Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: Main concepts, methods and the road ahead. Ecosystem services 28(C): 264-272.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.012
  9. Cortinovis, C..Geneletti, D. and Hedlund, K. 2021. Synthesizing multiple ecosystem service assessments for urban planning: A review of approaches, and recommendations. Landscape and urban planning 213: 104129. 
  10. Costanza, R..d'Arge, R..De Groot, R..Farber, S.Grasso, M..Hannon, B..Limburg, K..Naeem, S..O'neill, R. and Paruelo, J. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260.  https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
  11. Daw, T..Brown, K..Rosendo, S. and Pomeroy, R. 2011. Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environmental Conservation 38(4): 370-379.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000506
  12. Daw, T..Hicks, C..Brown, K..Chaigneau, T..Januchowski-Hartley, F..Cheung, W..Rosendo, S..Crona, B..Coulthard, S..Sandbrook, C..Perry, C..Bandeira, S..Muthiga, N..Schulte-Herbrugen, B..Bosire, J. and McClanahan T. 2016. Elasticity in ecosystem services: exploring the variable relationship between ecosystems and human well-being. Ecology and Society 21(2): 11. 
  13. Deng, W. 2007. Using a revised importance- performance analysis approach: The case of Taiwanese hot springs tourism. Tourism Management 28(5):1274-1284.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.07.010
  14. Ehrlich, P. and Mooney, H. 1983. Extinction, substitution, and ecosystem services. BioScience 33(4): 248-254.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1309037
  15. Gissi, E..Burkhard, B. and Verburg, P. 2015. Ecosystem services: building informed policies to orient landscape dynamics. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 11(3): 185-189.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2015.1071939
  16. Gouwakinnou, G..Biaou, S.Vodouhe, F..Tovihessi, M..Awessou, B. and Biaou, H. 2019. Local perceptions and factors determining ecosystem services identification around two forest reserves in Northern Benin. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 15(61): 1-12.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-018-0283-y
  17. Haase, D. Larondelle, N..Andersson, E..Artmann, M..Borgstrom, S..Breuste, J..Gomez-Baggethun, E..Gren, A..Hamstead, Z..Hansen, R..Kabisch, N..Kremer, P..Langemeyer, J..Rall, E..McPhearson, T..Pauleit, S..Qureshi, S..Schwarz, N..Voigt, A..Wurster, D. and Elmqvist, T. 2014. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43(4): 413-433.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0
  18. Hashimoto, S..Sato, Y. and Morimoto, H. 2019. Public-private collaboration in allotment garden operation has the potential to provide ecosystem services to urban dwellers more efficiently. Paddy & Water Environment 17(3): 391-401.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-019-00734-1
  19. Hummel, C..Provenzale, A..Van Der Meer, J..Wijnhoven, S..Nolte, A..Poursanidis, D..Janss, G..Jurek, M..Andresen, M. and Poulin, B. 2017. Ecosystem services in European protected areas: Ambiguity in the views of scientists and managers?. PLoS One 12(11): e0187143. 
  20. Iniesta-Arandia, I..Garcia-Llorente, M..Aguilera, P..Montes, C. and Martin-Lopez, B. 2014. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecological economics 108: 36-48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.028
  21. Jerneck, A. and Olsson, L. 2013. More than trees! Understanding the agroforestry adoption gap in subsistence agriculture: Insights from narrative walks in Kenya. Journal of Rural Studies 32: 114-125.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.04.004
  22. Kareiva , P..Watts, S..McDonald, R. and Boucher, T. 2007. Domesticated nature: shaping landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare. Science 316(5833): 1866-1869.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1140170
  23. Kim, YJ. and Son, YH. 2017. The Residents' Perceptions on the Revitalization Project of Rural Centers Utilizing IPA-The Case of Janggye-myeon of Jangsu-gun. Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning 23(3): 133-145.  https://doi.org/10.7851/Ksrp.2017.23.3.133
  24. Kuiper, R. 1990. De grondbank als instrument voor natuurbeleid. Tijdschrift voor Agrarisch Recht, 50(8-9): . 
  25. Lapointe, M..Cumming, G. and Gurney, G. 2019. Comparing Ecosystem Service Preferences between Urban and Rural Dwellers. BioScience 69:108-116.  https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy151
  26. Lapointe, M..Gurney, G. and Cumming, G. 2020. Perceived availability and access limitations to ecosystem service well-being benefits increase in urban areas. Ecology and Society 25. 
  27. Liquete, C..Piroddi, C..Drakou, E..Gurney, L..Katsanevakis, S..Charef, A. and Egoh, B. 2013. Current status and future prospects for the assessment of marine and coastal ecosystem services: a systematic review. PloS one 8(7): e67737. 
  28. Luederitz, C..Brink, E..Gralla, F..Hermelingmeier, V..Meyer, M..Niven, L..Panzer, L..Partelow, S..Rau, A. and Sasaki, R. 2015. A review of urban ecosystem services: six key challenges for future research. Ecosystem services 14: 98-112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.001
  29. Martilla, J. and James, J. 1977. Importance-performance analysis. Journal of marketing 41(1): 77-79.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297704100112
  30. Martin-Lopez, B..Gomez-Bag ethun, E..Garcia-Llorente, M. and Montes, C. 2014. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecological indicators 37: 220-228.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003
  31. Mastrangelo, M. Perez-Harguindeguy, N. Enrico, L. Bennett, E. Lavorel, S. Cumming, G. Abeygunawardane, D..Amarilla, L..Burkhard, B..Egoh, B..Frishkoff, L..Galetto, L..Huber, S..Karp, D..Ke, A..Kowaljow, E..Kronenburg-Garcia, A..Locatelli, B..Martin-Lopez, B..Meyfroidt, P..Mwampamba, T..Nel J..Nicholas, K..Nicholson, C..Oteros-Rozas, E..Rahlao, S..Raudsepp-Hearne, C..Ricketts, T..Shrestha, U..Torres, C..Winkler, K. and Zoeller, K. 2019. Key knowledge gaps to achieve global sustainability goals. Nature Sustainability 2(12): 1115-1121.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0412-1
  32. Matzler, K..Bailom, F..Hinterhuber, H..Renzl, B. and Pichler, J. 2004. The asymmetric relationship between attribute-level performance and overall customer satisfaction: a reconsideration of the importance- performance analysis. Industrial marketing management 33(4): 271-277.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(03)00055-5
  33. Meerow, S.Newell, J. and Stults, M. 2016. Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and urban planning 147: 38-49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011
  34. MEA(MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 
  35. Muhar, A..Raymond, C..Van Den Born, R..Bauer, N..Bock, K..Braito, M..Buijs, A..Flint, C..De Groot, W. and Ives, C. 2018. A model integrating social-cultural concepts of nature into frameworks of interaction between social and natural systems. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 61(5-6): 756-777.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1327424
  36. Nieto-Romero, M.Oteros-Rozas, E.Gonzalez, J. and Martin-Lopez, B. 2014. Exploring the knowledge landscape of ecosystem services assessments in Mediterranean agroecosystems: insights for future research. Environmental Science & Policy 37: 121-133. 
  37. Ostby, G. 2016. Rural-urban migration, inequality and urban social disorder: Evidence from African and Asian cities. Conflict Management and Peace Science 33(5): 491-515.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894215581315
  38. Parrotta, J..Youn, YC. and Camacho, L. 2016. Traditional knowledge for sustainable forest management and provision of ecosystem services. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 12(1-2): 1-4.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2016.1169580
  39. Pascual, U..Balvanera, P..Diaz, S..Pataki, G..Roth, E..Stenseke, M..Watson, R..Dessane, E..Islar, M. and Kelemen, E. 2017. Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Current opinion in environmental sustainability 26: 7-16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006
  40. Potschin, Y..Haines-Young, R..Gorg, C..Heink, U..Jax, K. and Schleyer, C. 2018. Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade. Ecosystem Services 29: 428-440.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.015
  41. Rau, A..Burkhardt, V..Dorninger, C..Hjort, C..Ibe, K..Kessler, L. and Ekroos, J. 2020. Temporal patterns in ecosystem services research: A review and three recommendations. Ambio 49(8), 1377-1393.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01292-w
  42. Raudsepp-Hearne, C..Peterson, G. and Bennett, E. 2010a. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(11): 5242-5247.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907284107
  43. Raudsepp-Hearne, C..Peterson, G..Tengo, M..Bennett, E..Holland, T..Benessaiah, K..MacDonald, G. and Pfeifer, L. 2010b. Untangling the Environmentalist's Paradox: Why Is Human Well-being Increasing as Ecosystem Services Degrade?. BioScience 60(8): 576-589.  https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.4
  44. Rieb, J..Chaplin-Kramer, R..Daily, G..Armsworth, P..Bohning-Gaese, K..Bonn, A..Cumming, G..Eigenbrod, F..Grimm, V. and Jackson, B. 2017. When, where, and how nature matters for ecosystem services: challenges for the next generation of ecosystem service models. BioScience 67(9): 820-833.  https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix075
  45. Ruiz-Frau, A..Krause, T. and Marba, N. 2018. The use of sociocultural valuation in sustainable environmental management. Ecosystem services 29: 158-167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.12.013
  46. Saidi, N. and Spray, C. 2018. Ecosystem services bundles: challenges and opportunities for implementation and further research. Environmental Research Letters 13(11): 113001. 
  47. Scholte, S..Van Teeffelen, A. and Verburg, P. 2015. Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods. Ecological economics 114: 67-78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007
  48. Seoul City. 2022. Balanced Regional Develop- ment Plan for Seoul. Seoul City. 
  49. Seoul City. 2023a. 2050 Greenhouse gas reduction strategy(Climate change of Seoul). https://news.seoul.go.kr/env/climate-environment/climate-change-strategy/2050-ggrs. (accessed 22. Sept.. 2023) 
  50. Seoul City. 2023b. Seoul Urban Master Plan for 2040. Seoul City. 
  51. Seto, K..Golden, J..Alberti, M. and Turner, B. 2017. Sustainability in an urbanizing planet. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(34): 8935-8938.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606037114
  52. Smets, P. and Salman, T. 2008. Countering Urban Segregation: Theoretical and Policy Innovations from around the Globe. Urban Studies 45: 1307-1332.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098008090676
  53. Song, IJ. and Yoon, CR. 2019. Establishment and Utilization of Ecosystem Service Assessment in Seoul. Seoul Institute. 
  54. Tonge, J. and Moore, S. 2007. Importance-satisfaction analysis for marine-park hinterlands: A Western Australian case study. Tourism management 28(3), 768-776.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.05.007
  55. Turner, N. and Cocksedge, W. 2001. Aboriginal use of non-timber forest products in northw estern north america: Applications and Issues. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 13(3-4): 31-58.  https://doi.org/10.1300/J091v13n03_04
  56. Tzoulas, K. and James, P. 2010. Peoples' use of, and concerns about, green space networks: A case study of Birchwood, Warrington New Town, UK. Urban forestry & urban greening 9(2): 121-128.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.12.001
  57. United Nations. 2019. World Urbanization Prospects The 2018 Revision. United Nations. 
  58. Walz, A..Schmidt, K..Ruiz-Frau, A..Nicholas, K..Bierry, A..de Vries Lentsch, A..Dyankov, A..Joyce, D..Liski, A. and Marba, N. 2019. Sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services for operational ecosystem management: mapping applications by decision contexts in Europe. Regional environmental change 19: 2245-2259.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01506-7
  59. Westman WE. 1977. How Much Are Nature's Services Worth? Measuring the social benefits of ecosystem functioning is both controversial and illuminating. Science 197(4307): 960-964.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.197.4307.960
  60. Wood, S..Jones, S..Johnson, J..Brauman, K..Chaplin-Kramer, R..Fremier, A..Girvetz, E..Gordon, L..Kappel, C..Mandle, L..Mulligan, M..O'Farrell, P..Smith, W..Willemen, L..Zhang, W. and DeClerck, F. 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
  61. Yang, CC. 2003. Improvement actions based on the customers' satisfaction survey. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 14(8): 919-930. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478336032000090842