• Korean Journal of Environmental Biology
• /
• v.40 no.4
• /
• pp.525-549
• /
• 2022

The process of biological invasion is led by the dynamics of a population as a demographic and evolutionary unit. Spatial structure can affect the population dynamics, and it is worth being considered in research on biological invasion which is always accompanied by dispersal. Metapopulation theory is a representative approach to spatially structured populations, which is chiefly applied in the field of ecology and evolutionary biology despite the controversy about its definition. In this study, metapopulation was considered as a spatially structured population that includes at least one subpopulation with significant extinction probability. The early phase of the invasion is suitable to be analyzed in aspects of the metapopulation concept because the introduced population usually has a high extinction probability, and their ecological·genetic traits determining the invasiveness can be affected by the metapopulation structure. Although it is important in the explanation of the prediction of the invasion probability, the metapopulation concept is rarely used in ecological research about biological invasion in Korea. It is expected that applying the metapopulation theory can supply a more detailed investigation of the invasion process at the population level, which is relatively inadequate in Korea. In this study, a framework dividing the invasive metapopulation into long- and middle-distance scales by the relative distance of movement to the natural dispersal range of species is proposed to easily analyze the effect of a metapopulation in real cases. Increased understanding of the mechanisms underlying invasions and improved prediction of future invasion risk are expected with the metapopulation concept and this framework.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.240-250
• /
• 2018

By the end of 2017, in a world of 7.6 billion people, there were inequalities in healthcare indices both within and between nations, and this gap continues to increase. Therefore, this study aims to understand the current status of regional inequalities in healthcare indices and to find an action plan to tackle regional health inequality through a geo-economic review in Korea. Since 2008, there was great inequality in life expectancy and healthy life expectancy by region in not only metropolitan cities but also districts in Korea. While the community health statistics from 2008-2017 show a continuous increase of inequality during the last 10 years in most healthcare indices related to noncommunicable diseases (except for some, like smoking), the inequality has doubled in 254 districts. Furthermore, health inequality intensified as the gap between urban (metropolitan cities) and rural regions (counties) for rates of obesity (self-reported), sufficient walking practices, and healthy lifestyle practices increased from twofold to fivefold. However, regionalism and uneven development are natural consequences of the spatial perspective caused by state-lead developmentalism as Korea has fixed the accumulation strategy as its model for growth with the background of export-led industrialization in the 1960s and heavy and chemical industrialization in the 1970s, although the Constitution of the Republic of Korea recognizes the legal value of balanced development within the regions by specifying "the balanced development of the state" or "ensuring the balanced development of all regions." In addition, the danger of a 30% decline or extinction of local government nationwide is expected by 2040 as we face not only a decline in general and ageing populations but also the era of the demographic cliff. Thus, the government should continuously operate the "Special Committee on Regional Balanced Development" with a government-wide effort until 2030 to prevent disparities in the health conditions of local residents, which is the responsibility of the nation in terms of strengthening governance. To address the regional inequalities of rural and urban regions, it is necessary to re-adjust the basic subsidy and cost-sharing rates with local governments of current national subsidies based mainly on population scale, financial independence of local government, or distribution of healthcare resources and healthcare indices (showing high inequalities) overall.