Development and Application of the Assessment Method of No Net Loss of Greenness for Urban Ecosystem Health Improvement

도시생태계 건전성 증진을 위한 녹지총량 평가법 개발과 적용

Kim, Seung-Hyun;Kong, Hak-Yang;Kim, Tae-Kyu

  • Received : 2015.12.01
  • Accepted : 2015.12.20
  • Published : 2015.12.30


This study defined and classified no-net-loss-of-greenness (NNLG) based on the law, and then assessed the NNLG index by metropolitan cities and provinces in Korea after estimating NNLG evaluation indicators for the introduction of NNLG for health improvement of urban ecosystems. The results are as follows. First, NNLG was the comprehensive meaning that was included in the greenbelt and park greenbelt and the green area which was defined by the Act on Urban Parks, Greenbelts, etc. and the National Land Planning and Utilization Act respectively. Second, NNLG was classified as a park greenbelt which was included urban parks and greenbelts such as buffer greenbelts, scenic greenbelts, and connecting greenbelts, green areas which was included in green conservation areas, green production areas, green natural areas, and green coverage which is included forests, grasslands, and wetlands that were occupied by vegetation such as trees, shrubs, and plants. Third, NNLG index by cities and provinces was assessed based on the estimation of NNLG evaluation indicators, which included parks and greenbelt areas per capita, green areas per capita, green coverage per capita, ratio of parks and greenbelts, ratio of green areas, and ratio of green coverage. As a result, Sejong city got the highest point of NNLG index and Seoul and Daegu got lowest points of NNLG index among metropolitan cities in Korea. Chungbuk got the highest point of NNLG index and Kyonggi and Jeju got lowest points of NNLG index among provinces in Korea.


Evaluation indicators;No net loss of greenness index;Urban ecosystem


  1. Benedict, M.A. and McMahon, E.T. 2012. Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Island Press, Washington, USA.
  2. Chiesura, A. 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning 68: 129-138.
  3. Gill, S.E., Handley, J.F., Ennos, A.R. and Pauleit, S. 2007. Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure. Built Environment 33: 115-133.
  4. Kim, H., Choi, H.S. and Park, E.B. 2014. Study on urban park area calculation of USA and Japan. Journal of the Urban Design Institute of Korea 15:47-60. (in Korean)
  5. Korea Planning Association. 2011. Land Use Planning. Bosenggak, Seoul, Korea. (in Korean)
  6. Lee, W.G., Choi, H.J. and Lee, B.H. 2007. Economic Supporting Programs to Protect Valuable Open Spaces in Urban Fringe Area. Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements, Anyang, Korea. (in Korean)
  7. Low, S., Taplin, D. and Scheld, S. 2009. Rethinking Urban Parks: Public Space and Cultural Diversity. University of Texas Press, Austin, USA.
  8. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystem and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
  9. Moon, C.S., Sim, J.Y., Kim, S.B. and Lee, S.Y. 2010. A Study on the calculation methods on the ratio of green coverage using satellite images and land cover maps. Journal of the Korean Society of Rural Planning 16: 53-60. (in Korean)
  10. Song, T.G. and Kim, E.I. 1997. A study on environmental condition and situation of green covered in urban area by remote sensing method and geographic information systems. Journal of the Korea Planning Association 32: 203-214. (in Korean)
  11. Yu, C. and Hien, W.N. 2006. Thermal benefits of city parks. Energy and Buildings 38: 105-120.


Supported by : 국립환경과학원