한국환경복원기술학회지 (Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology)

  • 제26권6호
  • /
  • Pages.21-32
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 1229-3032(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-5011(eISSN)
한국환경복원기술학회 (The Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

도시의 개발 사업에 따른 생물다양성 변화 추세 분석 - 환경영향평가의 육상 동물종을 중심으로 -

Analysis of biodiversity change trend on urban development project - Focusing on terrestrial species in Environmental Impact Assessment -

  • 김은섭 (서울대학교 협동과정 조경학 ) ;
  • 이동근 (서울대학교 융합전공 스마트시티 글로벌 융합) ;
  • 전윤호 (한국환경연구원) ;
  • 최지영 (서울대학교 농업생명과학연구원) ;
  • 김신우 (서울대학교 협동과정 조경학 ) ;
  • 황혜미 (서울대학교 지능형에코사이언스 특성화대학 ) ;
  • 김다슬 (서울대학교 농업생명과학연구원) ;
  • 문현빈 (서울대학교 생태조경.지역시스템공학부 ) ;
  • 배지호 (서울대학교 생태조경.지역시스템공학부 )
  • Kim, Eun-Sub (Interdisciplinary Program in Landscape Architecture, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Dong-Kun (Integrated Major in Smart City Global Convergence Program, Seoul National University) ;
  • Jeon, Yoon-Ho (Korea Adaptation Center for Climate Change, Korea Environment Institute) ;
  • Choi, Ji-Young (Research Institute of Agriculture and Life Sciences) ;
  • Kim, Shin-Woo (Interdisciplinary Program in Landscape Architecture, Seoul National University) ;
  • Hwang, Hye-Mi (Specialized Graduate School of Intelligent Eco-Science, 4 Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Da-Seul (Research Institute of Agriculture and Life Sciences) ;
  • Moon, Hyun-Bin (Department of Landscape Architecture and Rural System Engineering, Seoul National University) ;
  • Bae, Ji-Ho (Department of Landscape Architecture and Rural System Engineering, Seoul National University)
  • 투고 : 2023.08.28
  • 심사 : 2023.11.23
  • 발행 : 2023.12.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) plays a pivotal role in predicting the potential environmental impacts of proposed developments and planning appropriate mitigation measures to minimize effects on species. However, as concerns over biodiversity loss rise, there's ongoing debate about the efficacy of these mitigation plans. In this study, we utilized data from EIAs and post-environmental impact surveys to understand the trends in biodiversity during construction and operation phases. By examining 30 urban development projects, we categorized species richness indices of mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles into pre-construction, during construction, and post-construction operational stages. The biodiversity trends were analyzed based on the rate of change in these indices. The results revealed three distinct biodiversity change patterns: (A) An initial increase in biodiversity indices post-development, followed by a gradual decline over time; (B) a sustained increase in biodiversity as a result of mitigation measures; and (C) a continuous decline in biodiversity post-development. Furthermore, all species exhibited a higher rate of biodiversity decline during the construction phase compared to the operational phase, with mammals showing the most significant rate of change. Notably, the biodiversity change rate during operation was generally lower than during construction. In particular, mammals seemed to be most influenced by mitigation measures, displaying the smallest rate of change. This study provides empirical evidence on the efficacy of mitigation measures and deliberates on ways to enhance their effectiveness in minimizing the adverse impacts of urban development on biodiversity. These findings can serve as foundational data for addressing terrestrial biodiversity reduction.

키워드

과제정보

본 결과물은 환경부의 재원으로 한국환경산업기술원의 ICT기반 환경영향평가 의사결정지 기술개발 사업의 지원을 받아 연구되었습니다(MOE) (2021003360002).

참고문헌

  1. Butchart, S. H. M, Walpole, M., Collen, B., Strien, A., Scharlemann, J. W, Almond, R. A, Baillie, J.M, Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K., Carr, G., Chanson, J., Chenery, A., Csirke, J., Davidson, N., Dentener, F., Foster, M., Galli, A, Galloway, J., Genovesi, P., Gregory, R., Hockings, m., Kapos, V., Lamarque, J., Leverington, F., Loh, J., Mcgeoch, M., Mcrae, L., Minasyan, A., Morcillo., M. H., Oldfield, T. E., Pauly, D., Quader, S., Revenga, C., Sauer, J., Skolnik, B., Spear, D., Smith, D. S., Stuart, S. N., Symes, A., Tierney, M., Tyrrell, T.D., Vie, J. C., Watson, R. (2010). Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science, 328(5982), 1161-1164. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1186777
  2. Drayson, K., & Thompson, S. (2013). Ecological mitigation measures in English Environmental Impact Assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 119, 103-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.12.050
  3. Drayson, K., Wood, G., & Thompson, S. (2017). An evaluation of ecological impact assessment procedural effectiveness over time. Environmental Science and Policy, 70, 54-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.01.003
  4. Helen, J. B., Joanna R, T., William R, S., & Stewart, T. (2000). Road Developments in the UK : An Analysis of Ecological Assessment in Environmental Impact Statements Produced between 1993 and 1997. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(1), 71-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560010775
  5. Graham, L. J., Haines-Young, R. H., & Field, R. (2018). The incidence function model as a tool for landscape-scale ecological impact assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 170, 187-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.10.008
  6. Hanski, I. (1994). A Practical Model of Metapopulation Dynamics. In Source: Journal of Animal Ecology (Vol. 63, Issue 1). https://about.jstor.org/terms
  7. Harker, K. J., Arnold, L., Sutherland, I. J., & Gergel, S. E. (2021). Perspectives from landscape ecology can improve environmental impact assessment. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets
  8. Hill, D., & Arnold, R. (2012). Building the evidence base for ecological impact assessment and mitigation. In Journal of Applied Ecology (Vol. 49, Issue 1, pp. 6-9). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02095.x
  9. Khera, N., & Kumar, A. (2010). Inclusion of biodiversity in environmental impact assessments (EIA): A case study of selected EIA reports in India. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28(3), 189-200. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155110X12772982841005
  10. Kim, E. S., Mo, Y. W., Park, T. Y., Jeon, Y., Choi, J., & Lee, D. K. (2023). Analyzing the Impact of Species on Urban Development Using Meta Population Model. J. Environ. Impact Assess, 32(2), 61-71. https://doi.org/10.14249/eia.2023.32.2.61
  11. Lee, J.H., Kim, E.S., Mo, Y.W., Lee, D.K., & Author, F. (2022). Evaluating Implementation Rate of Wildlife Mitigation Measures in the Environmental Impact Assessment. J. Environ. Impact Assess, 31(6), 359-368. https://doi.org/10.14249/eia.2022.31.6.359
  12. Lee, S.W, Kim, J.G., Seo, J.K. (2018). A Study on the Issues and Improvement of the Existing Environmental Impact Assessment System-Evaluation in an operator Viewpoint-. Journal of Environmental Science International, 27(5), 281~289. https://doi.org/10.5322/JESI.2018.27.5.281
  13. Mandelik, Y., Dayan, T., &Feitelson, E. (2005). Planning for biodiversity: The role of ecological impact assessment. Conservation Biology, 19(4), 1254-1261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00079.x
  14. Margalef, R. (1958) Information Theory in Ecology. General Systems, 3, 36-71.
  15. Morgan, R. K. (2012). Environmental impact assessment: The state of the art. In Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal (Vol. 30, Issue 1, pp. 5-14). https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.661557
  16. Naser, H., Bythell, J., & Thomason, J. (2008). Ecological assessment: An initial evaluation of the ecological input in environmental impact assessment reports in Bahrain. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 26(3), 201-208. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155108X333271
  17. Samarakoon, M., & Rowan, J. S. (2008). A critical review of environmental impact statements in Sri Lanka with particular reference to ecological impact assessment. In Environmental Management (Vol. 41, Issue 3, pp. 441-460). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-007-9039-5
  18. Tarabon, S., Berges, L., Dutoit, T., &IsselinNondedeu, F. (2019). Environmental impact assessment of development projects improved by merging species distribution and habitat connectivity modelling. Journal of Environmental Management, 241, 439-449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.031
  19. Tinker, L., Cobb, D., Bond, A., & Cashmore, M. (2005). Impact mitigation in environmental impact assessment: Paper promises or the basis of consent conditions? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 23(4), 265-280. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154605781765463
  20. Wegner, A., Moore, S. A., & Bailey, J. (2005). Consideration of biodiversity in environmental impact assessment in Western Australia: Practitioner perceptions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(2), 143-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2004.03.003
  21. Yi, Y. K., & Yi, P. I. (1997). Contnet Analysis of Mitigation Measures in Environment Impact Statement. J. Environ. Impact Assess, 6(2), 165-180.