한국환경생태학회지 (Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology)

  • 제38권2호
  • /
  • Pages.204-216
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 1229-3857(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-131X(eISSN)
한국환경생태학회 (Korean Society of Environment and Ecology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

장기간 토지피복 변화에 따른 국내 생태계서비스 간 상쇄효과(Trade-off) 분석

Trade-off Analysis Between National Ecosystem Services Due to Long-term Land Cover Changes

  • 박윤선 (한국산지보전협회 산지정책연구센터 ) ;
  • 송영근 (서울대학교 환경대학원 환경조경학과)
  • Yoon-Sun Park (Forestland Policy Research Division, Korea Forest Conservation Association) ;
  • Young-Keun Song (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University)
  • 투고 : 2023.12.27
  • 심사 : 2024.03.06
  • 발행 : 2024.04.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

생태계서비스 상쇄 효과(Trade-off) 규명과 같이 서비스 간 상호관계를 측정하는 것은 한정된 환경자원을 관리하는 측면에서 매우 중요하다. 이에, 본 연구에서는 약 30여 년간 토지 피복이 변화함에 따라 파생된 생태계서비스 우세경향 및 증감을 파악하고, 시간의 경과에 따라 발생한 생태계서비스 상호 간 관계 변화를 추적하였다. 이를 통해 토지 피복 변화와 생태계서비스 변화 간의 관계 및 지역마다 상이한 서비스 변화의 특성을 규명하였다. 연구는 생태계서비스 평가 모델인 InVEST Model을 주로 활용하였고, 평가결과를 0-1사이로 표준화한 후 차원축소기법 중 하나인 주성분 분석을 거쳐 시계열변화를 관찰하고 서비스 상호 간 관계를 파악하였다. 연구 결과, 시가화 지역 면적은 1989년에서 2019년 사이 급격하게 증가했으며, 산림은 2009년에서 2019년 사이 크게 증가하는 양상을 나타냈다. 1989년에서 2019년 사이에 생태계서비스 공급량에 있어 전국적으로 수량 공급은 13.9% 감소, 질소 저류는 10.5% 감소, 인 저류는 2.6% 증가, 탄소 저장은 0.9% 감소, 대기정화는 1.2% 증가, 서식처 질은 3.4% 감소하였다. 우리나라는 지난 30여 년간 시가화 지역이 증가하고, 농경지가 감소하며, 산림이 증가하는 동안 인 저류 기능과 서식처 질 사이에 상쇄 효과를 보였다. 본 연구는 우리나라의 환경관리 정책이 도시화로 인해 하락한 생태계 질을 향상시키고 생태계서비스를 극대화하는데 기여했다는 결론을 도출하였다. 이러한 연구 결과는 정책결정자들이 지속 가능한 자연환경 보전과 생태계 서비스 제공에 중점을 둔 조림 정책을 수립하고 추진하는 데 도움을 줄 수 있다.

Understanding the trade-off effect in ecosystem services and measuring the interrelationships between services are crucial for managing limited environmental resources. Accordingly, in this study, we identified the dominant trends and increases and decreases in ecosystem services derived from changes in land cover over about 30 years and tracked changes in the relationships between ecosystem services that occurred over time. Through it, we determined the relationship between land cover changes and ecosystem service changes, as well as the distinct characteristics of service changes in different areas. The research primarily utilized the InVEST model, an ecosystem service assessment model. After standardizing the evaluation results between 0 and 1, it went through principal component analysis, a dimensionality reduction technique, to observe the time-series changes and understand the relationships between the services. According to the research results, the area of urbanized regions dramatically increased between 1989 and 2019, while forests showed a significant increase between 2009 and 2019. Between 1989 and 2019, the national ecosystem service supply witnessed a 13.9% decrease in water supply, a 10.5% decrease in nitrogen retention, a 2.6% increase in phosphorus retention, a 0.9% decrease in carbon storage, a 1.2% increase in air purification, and a 3.4% decrease in habitat quality. Over the past 30 years, South Korea experienced an increase in urbanized areas, a decrease in agricultural land, and an increase in forests, resulting in a trade-off effect between phosphorus retention and habitat quality. This study concluded that South Korea's environment management policies contribute to improving ecosystem quality, which has declined due to urbanization, and maximizing ecosystem services. These findings can help policymakers establish and implement forestry policies focusing on sustainable environmental conservation and ecosystem service provision.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Abdi, H. and L.J. Williams(2010) Principal component analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics 2(4): 433-459. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.101
  2. Anton, C., J. Young, P.A. Harrison, M. Musche, G. Bela, C.K. Feld and J. Settele(2010) Research needs for incorporating the ecosystem service approach into EU biodiversity conservation policy. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 2979-2994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9853-6
  3. Bennett, E.M., G.D. Peterson and L.J. Gordon(2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 12(12): 1394-1404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x
  4. Bi, J., R. Hao, J. Li and J. Qiao(2021) Identifying ecosystem states with patterns of ecosystem service bundles. Ecological Indicators 131: 108195.
  5. Briner, S., R. Huber, P. Bebi, C. Elkin, D.R. Schmatz and A. Gret-Regamey(2013) Trade-offs between ecosystem services in a mountain region. Ecology and Society 18(3).
  6. De Groot, R., L. Brander, S. Van Der Ploeg, R. Costanza, F. Bernard, L. Braat and P. Van Beukering(2012) Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services 1(1): 50-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005
  7. De Groot, R., R. Alkemade, L. Braat, L. Hein and L. Willemen(2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity 7(3): 260-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
  8. Diaz, S., J. Fargione, F.S. Chapin III and D. Tilman(2006) Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS Biology 4(8): e277.
  9. Egarter Vigl, L., U. Schirpke, E. Tasser and U. Tappeiner(2016) Linking long-term landscape dynamics to the multiple interactions among ecosystem services in the European Alps. Landscape Ecology 31: 1903-1918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-016-0389-3
  10. IPCC(2014) Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151pp.
  11. KFS(2014) Phase 3 Forest cultivation project plan.
  12. KFS(2019) Phase 4 Forest cultivation project plan.
  13. Kim, G., J. Kim, Y. Ko, O.T.G. Eyman, S. Chowdhury, J. Adiwal and Y. Son(2021). How do nature-based solutions improve environmental and socio-economic resilience to achieve the sustainable development goals? Reforestation and afforestation cases from the republic of Korea. Sustainability 13(21): 12171.
  14. Kim, H.N. et al(2018) An integrated assessment to environmental valuation via impact pathway analysis: Impact assessment and value estimation by sector. Sejong, 131pp. (in Korean)
  15. Kim, I(1991) Urban geography theory. Bobmunsa. (in Korean)
  16. Kim, T., C. Song, W.K. Lee, M. Kim, C.H. Lim, S.W. Jeon and J. Kim(2015) Habitat quality valuation using InVEST model in Jeju Island. Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology 18(5): 1-11. (in Korean with English summary) https://doi.org/10.13087/kosert.2015.18.5.1
  17. Lawler, J.J., D.J. Lewis, E. Nelson, A.J. Plantinga, S. Polasky, J.C. Withey and V.C. Radeloff(2014) Projected land-use change impacts on ecosystem services in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(20): 7492-7497. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1405557111
  18. Lee, W.K.(2023) Direction of forest management in Korea based on nature-based solution. Daily One Health 2023.4.24
  19. Mach, M.E., R.G. Martone and K.M. Chan(2015) Human impacts and ecosystem services: Insufficient research for trade-off evaluation. Ecosystem Services 16: 112-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.018
  20. Mastrangelo, M.E., F. Weyland, S.H. Villarino, M.P. Barral, L. Nahuelhual and P. Laterra(2014) Concepts and methods for landscape multifunctionality and a unifying framework based on ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology 29: 345-358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9959-9
  21. National Geography Information Institute(NGII)(2020) The national atlas of Korea 2020. Seoul, 251pp. (in Korean)
  22. National Institute of Forest Science(2017) The lungs of the city, urban forest. Seoul, 64pp.
  23. Raudsepp-Hearne, C. and G.D. Peterson(2016) Scale and ecosystem services: How do observation, management, and analysis shift with scale-lessons from Quebec. Ecology and Society 21(3).
  24. Reyers, B., P.J. O'Farrell, R.M. Cowling, B.N. Egoh, D.C. Le Maitre and J.H. Vlok(2009) Ecosystem services, land-cover change, and stakeholders: Finding a sustainable foothold for a semiarid biodiversity hotspot. Ecology and Society 14(1).
  25. Seppelt, R., C.F. Dormann, F.V. Eppink, S. Lautenbach and S. Schmidt(2011) A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. Journal of Applied Ecology 48(3): 630-636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x
  26. Sharp, R.S. et al(2020) InVEST 3.8 user's guide.
  27. Turkelboom, F., M. Thoonen, S. Jacobs and P. Berry(2015) Ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies. Ecology and Society 21(1): 43.
  28. Turner, K.G., M.V. Odgaard, P.K. Bocher, T. Dalgaard and J.C. Svenning(2014) Bundling ecosystem services in Denmark: Trade-offs and synergies in a cultural landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 125: 89-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.02.007
  29. Yang, G., Y. Ge, H. Xue, W. Yang, Y. Shi, C. Peng and J. Chang(2015) Using ecosystem service bundles to detect trade-offs and synergies across urban-rural complexes. Landscape and Urban Planning 136: 110-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.12.006
  30. Yang, S., W. Zhao, Y. Liu, S. Wang, J. Wang and R. Zhai(2018) Influence of land use change on the ecosystem service trade-offs in the ecological restoration area: Dynamics and scenarios in the Yanhe watershed, China. Science of the Total Environment 644: 556-566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.348
  31. Yi, H.(2021) Spatial and temporal dynamics of land change and the effects on ecosystem service values in the Republic of Korea (South Korea) between the 1980s to the 2000s. Journal of the Korean Geographical Society 56(6): 675-704. (in Korean with English summary)