• Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.26-44
• /
• 2017

Regarded as Korea's traditional pond, Gungnamj Pond was surmised to be "Gungnamji" due to its geological positioning in the south of Hwajisan (花枝山) and relics of the Gwanbuk-ri (官北里) suspected of being components to the historical records of Muwang (武王)'s pond of The Chronicles of the Three States [三國史記] and Sabi Palace, respectively, yet was subjected to a restoration following a designation to national historic site. This study is focused on the distortion of authenticity identified in the course of the "Gungnamji Pond" restoration and the invention of tradition, whose summarized conclusions are as follows. 1. Once called Maraebangjuk (마래방죽), or Macheonji (馬川池) Pond, Gungnamji Pond was existent in the form of a low-level swamp of vast area encompassing 30,000 pyeong during the Japanese colonial period. Hong, Sa-jun, who played a leading role in the restoration of "Gungnamji Pond," said that even during the 1940s, the remains of the island and stone facilities suspected of being the relics of Gungnamji Pond of the Baekje period were found, and that the traces of forming a royal palace and garden were discovered on top of them. Hong, Sa-jun also expressed an opinion of establishing a parallel between "Gungnamji Pond" and "Maraebangjuk" in connection with a 'tale of Seodong [薯童說話]' in the aftermath of the detached palace of Hwajisan, which ultimately operated as a theoretical ground for the restoration of Gungnamj Pond. Assessing through Hong, Sa-jun's sketch, the form and scale of Maraebangjuk were visible, of which the form was in close proximity to that photographed during the Japanese colonial period. 2. The minimized restoration of Gungnamji Pond faced deterrence for the land redevelopment project implemented in the 1960s, and the remainder of the land size is an attestment. The fundamental problem manifest in the restoration of Gungnamji Pond numerously attempted from 1964 through 1967 was the failure of basing the restorative work in the archaeological facts yet in the perspective of the latest generations, ultimately yielding a replication of Hyangwonji Pond of Gyeongbok Palace. More specifically, the methodologies employed in setting an island and a pavilion within a pond, or bridging an island with a land evidenced as to how Gungnamji Pond was modeled after Hyangwonji Pond of Gyeongbok Palace. Furthermore, Chihyanggyo (醉香橋) Bridge referenced in the designing of the bridge was hardly conceived as a form indigenous to the Joseon Dynasty, whose motivation and idea of the misguided restoration design at the time all the more devaluated Gungnamji Pond. Such an utterly pure replication of the design widely known as an ingredient for the traditional landscape was purposive towards the aesthetic symbolism and preference retained by Gyeongbok Palace, which was intended to entitle Gungnamji Pond to a physical status of the value in par with that of Gyeongbok Palace. 3. For its detachment to the authenticity as a historical site since its origin, Gungnamji Pond represented distortions of the landscape beauty and tradition even through the restorative process. The restorative process for such a historical monument, devoid of constructive use and certain of distortion, maintains extreme intimacy with the nationalistic cultural policy promoted by the Park, Jeong-hee regime through the 1960s and 1970s. In the context of the "manipulated discussions of tradition," the Park's cultural policy transformed the citizens' recollection into an idealized form of the past, further magnifying it at best. Consequently, many of the historical sites emerged as fancy and grand as they possibly could beyond their status quo across the nation, and "Gungnamji Pond" was a victim to this monopolistic government-led cultural policy incrementally sweeping away with new buildings and structures instituted regardless of their original space, and hence, their value.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.38 no.3
• /
• pp.25-34
• /
• 2020

This study examined the definition and major values, the designated procedures and types, and the designation trend in Korean scenic sites and national parks in the United States. Based on this, the analysis of the characteristics of the designation of the two natural heritages. The results are as follows; First, Scenic Sites has characteristics of complex heritage that includes academic, historical, and humanities values on the basis of landscape. As a natural heritage based on public nature, the U.S. National Park aims to contribute to the people's natural heritage and satisfy both ecological and historical values through the protection of the landscape. Second, the designation of a scenic sites are decided through deliberation by the Cultural Heritage Committee after the request of the owner, manager, or local government or by the authority of the head of the Cultural Heritage Administration. The designated survey is divided into basic resource surveys and resource surveys by type. Since the initial designation of the Sogeumgang Mountain in Cheonghakdong, Myeongju in 1970, the number of designated scenic sites was low until the 2000s, but the number of designated scenic sites has increased rapidly since 2006 due to the policy to promote the scenic site, and the proportion of natural and historical and cultural scenic sites has been balanced. The designation of the U.S. national park is decided by the Congress or the president, and the National Park Service makes a series of decisions on whether to conduct a special resource study of provisional resources through a preliminary inspection survey, whether to satisfy the criteria for designation of national parks based on the results of special resource research, and to prioritize them. The U.S. National Parks have been expanded not only by Congress but also by the president's empowerment to designate them as national monuments. With the integrated operation of the National Park Service, the number of designated cases increased as the national park included the heritage sites under the control of various ministries. In addition, a number of historical areas were designated by the enactment of the Historical Site Act, and recreational areas were designated to provide leisure space and classified and managed in a total of 18 units. Third, the comparison of the designation characteristics of the two heritage properties confirmed that the designation of natural heritage with complex value, the classification of types according to complementary designation system and resource characteristics, the establishment of the competent ministry and the balancing of the heritage according to the designation policy. The two heritages had the characteristics of complex natural heritages that met ecological, historical and academic values at the same time based on landscape and public nature. In addition, both countries have identified a system for deliberating the designation of heritage through a basic resource survey and an in-depth designation survey, and classified each type according to the characteristics of the resource. In addition, the policies for promoting scenic sites in Korea and the integrated operation of the National Park Service in the U.S. influenced the designated aspects of the two heritage sites, balancing natural heritage with historical and cultural heritage. Fourth, the resource types and conservation management methods of Scenic site and National Park were largely related. The natural areas of the U.S. National Park include types of natural monuments in Korea as major resources, and have characteristics similar to natural scenic sites. In addition, historical resources were similar to the criteria for designation of historical and cultural scenic sites in terms of landscape, and the aspects of war and celebrity-related relics were related to the types of historic sites. In terms of conservation management, the natural area of the U.S. national park has a way of keeping the original ecosystem intact, but the Korean natural heritage protection system is likely to be useful for focusing on the resource of viscosity. Meanwhile, historical resources include historical sites and historical and cultural scenic sites in the traditional era, but historical relics in the U.S. National Parks have set a time limit to modern times for war history and celebrity-related relics, and the active provision of entertainment programs based on existing resources was derived as a difference.

• Journal of Wetlands Research
• /
• v.18 no.4
• /
• pp.474-480
• /
• 2016

In this study, formation background of biodiversity and its changes in the process of geologic history, and effects of climate change on biodiversity and human were discussed and the alternatives to reduce the effects of climate change were suggested. Biodiversity is 'the variety of life' and refers collectively to variation at all levels of biological organization. That is, biodiversity encompasses the genes, species and ecosystems and their interactions. It provides the basis for ecosystems and the services on which all people fundamentally depend. Nevertheless, today, biodiversity is increasingly threatened, usually as the result of human activity. Diverse organisms on earth, which are estimated as 10 to 30 million species, are the result of adaptation and evolution to various environments through long history of four billion years since the birth of life. Countlessly many organisms composing biodiversity have specific characteristics, respectively and are interrelated with each other through diverse relationship. Environment of the earth, on which we live, has also created for long years through extensive relationship and interaction of those organisms. We mankind also live through interrelationship with the other organisms as an organism. The man cannot lives without the other organisms around him. Even though so, human beings accelerate mean extinction rate about 1,000 times compared with that of the past for recent several years. We have to conserve biodiversity for plentiful life of our future generation and are responsible for sustainable use of biodiversity. Korea has achieved faster economic growth than any other countries in the world. On the other hand, Korea had hold originally rich biodiversity as it is not only a peninsula country stretched lengthily from north to south but also three sides are surrounded by sea. But they disappeared increasingly in the process of fast economic growth. Korean people have created specific Korean culture by coexistence with nature through a long history of agriculture, forestry, and fishery. But in recent years, the relationship between Korean and nature became far in the processes of introduction of western culture and development of science and technology and specific natural feature born from harmonious combination between nature and culture disappears more and more. Population of Korea is expected to be reduced as contrasted with world population growing continuously. At this time, we need to restore biodiversity damaged in the processes of rapid population growth and economic development in concert with recovery of natural ecosystem due to population decrease. There were grand extinction events of five times since the birth of life on the earth. Modern extinction is very rapid and human activity is major causal factor. In these respects, it is distinguished from the past one. Climate change is real. Biodiversity is very vulnerable to climate change. If organisms did not find a survival method such as 'adaptation through evolution', 'movement to the other place where they can exist', and so on in the changed environment, they would extinct. In this respect, if climate change is continued, biodiversity should be damaged greatly. Furthermore, climate change would also influence on human life and socio-economic environment through change of biodiversity. Therefore, we need to grasp the effects that climate change influences on biodiversity more actively and further to prepare the alternatives to reduce the damage. Change of phenology, change of distribution range including vegetation shift, disharmony of interaction among organisms, reduction of reproduction and growth rates due to odd food chain, degradation of coral reef, and so on are emerged as the effects of climate change on biodiversity. Expansion of infectious disease, reduction of food production, change of cultivation range of crops, change of fishing ground and time, and so on appear as the effects on human. To solve climate change problem, first of all, we need to mitigate climate change by reducing discharge of warming gases. But even though we now stop discharge of warming gases, climate change is expected to be continued for the time being. In this respect, preparing adaptive strategy of climate change can be more realistic. Continuous monitoring to observe the effects of climate change on biodiversity and establishment of monitoring system have to be preceded over all others. Insurance of diverse ecological spaces where biodiversity can establish, assisted migration, and establishment of horizontal network from south to north and vertical one from lowland to upland ecological networks could be recommended as the alternatives to aid adaptation of biodiversity to the changing climate.