• Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology
• /
• v.18 no.4
• /
• pp.446-455
• /
• 2004

This study has been conducted as a basic research for developing efficient ways of managing Korean National Parks by finding differences via the comparison of present management systems of national parks in Korea and Japan. The survey was conducted through telephone interviews and direct interviews with staffs of related organizations as well as related literature study. In result, it is found that Japanese national parks have a numerical standard of minimum area, with less staff than Korea, and larger designated areas are being managed. Management organizations of both countries are divided as main and commission. In Korea, 6 staff in Natural Resources Division under Ministry of Environment are managing main organization, and in Japan, 53 staff of 3 divisions(National Park Division, Natural Environment Management Division, General Affairs Division) are taking charge of it. Moreover, General Affairs Division, dividing whole country into 11 blocks, manages 11 units of natural preservation offices, 12 branch offices, and 67 units of nature preservation management offices. In case of commission, Foundation of Natural Park Beautification & Management in Japan has a headquarter and 20 branch offices with 54 staff who are only doing site management, while in Korea, the National Parks Management Corporation has a headquarter and 25 offices with 748 staff carrying out main office jobs and site management side by side. From the differences in both countries, we could suggest efficient measures for our national park management as follows: \circled1 introduction of numerical value as criteria for national park designation, \circled2 review of use zone, \circled3 division of the national park management office into site office and regional office, with dividing works and re-posting staff, \circled4 enlargement of park management division in Department of Environment, \circled5 National Park authority becomes a national public servant

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.39 no.4
• /
• pp.98-106
• /
• 2011

Establishing conservation programs to protect and maintain populations of endangered species are not only a global trend, but also a pursuit endorsed by the Korean Environmental Conservation Act. This study evaluates the feasibility of alternative habitat patches for the endangered butterfly Parnassius bremeri. A portion of habitat of P. bremeri is expected to be fragmented and damaged due to the scheduled construction of the Sangju-Yongduk Highway. A trans fer of the habitat patches of P. bremeri is also scheduled. In order to select an alternative habitat patch, the Mark-Release-Recapture (MRR) method was used to simulate a patch transfer model. The connectedness between habitat are as and the survival of local populations were evaluated for each candidate habitat. It was found that metapopulations with patch distances of <250m showed a 50% connectedness and survival rate in local populations. P. bremeri were expected to migrate at an average distance of 300m. In addition, P. bremeri formed a metapopulation that exhibited intimate patch dynamics that promoted persistence among these patches. Possible candidate habitats including those recommended by local governing bodies were evaluated along with habitats that may counter problems arising from the damage done to the original habitat and habitats that may have a compensatory value equal to that of the original habitat. Based on these criteria, Ansa-myeon township office was selected due to its high scores. This scoring was based on a consideration of a wide range of variables that mark a successful transfer of habitat. These include the amount of funding available, the governing bodies of the possible alternative habitat, and the Expected collaborative effort of local citizens. This decision was collaborated on by incorporating the expertise of various fields of study including biology, ecology, biogeography, ecological engineering, landscape architecture, and social sciences. Therefore, it is suggested that in order to evaluate an alternative habitat for organisms, many social issues as well as ecological issues must be considered.