생태와환경 (Korean Journal of Ecology and Environment)

  • 제45권2호
  • /
  • Pages.252-260
  • /
  • 2012
  • /
  • 2288-1115(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-1123(eISSN)
한국수생태학회 (The Korean Society of Limnology)
권호 표지

경상남도 내 습지의 공간 분포 및 사회적 특성

Spatial Distribution and Social Characteristics for Wetlands in Gyeongsangnam-do Province

  • Do, Yu-No (Department of Biological Sciences, Pusan National University) ;
  • Kim, Ji-Yoon (Department of Biological Sciences, Pusan National University) ;
  • Im, Ran-Young (Department of Biological Sciences, Pusan National University) ;
  • Kim, Seong-Bo (Department of Biological Sciences, Pusan National University) ;
  • Choi, Jong-Yoon (Department of Biological Sciences, Pusan National University) ;
  • Joo, Gea-Jae (Department of Biological Sciences, Pusan National University)
  • 투고 : 2012.03.01
  • 심사 : 2012.05.25
  • 발행 : 2012.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

습지의 생태-사회적 가치는 인간사회에 혜택을 준다. 많은 나라들이 습지를 보전하고 보호하기 위해 노력하고 있다. 하지만 많은 습지들은 자연적 교란과 함께 인위적 교란으로 인해 소실되거나 구획화되었다. 구획화된 습지는 경관생태학적 연구의 주 대상이 되는데 이는 습지를 효율적으로 관리하고 보전하는 데 매우 중요하다. 본 연구는 행정구역상 경상남도 습지의 공간-사회적 분포양상을 파악하기 위해서 습지의 분포와 크기, 습지 간의 거리, 습지의 경관학적 형태, 토지이용현황, 공시지가 등을 연구하였다. 경상남도 내에는 146개(3,598.85 ha)의 습지가 분포해 있고 하천습지가 76개(1,955.60 ha), 범람습지가 49개(1,282.28 ha), 산지습지가 21개(1,282.28 ha)이었다. 대부분의 습지들이 크기가 작고(<2 ha) 농경지에 둘러 쌓여 있었다. 많은 습지들이 구획화되어 있고 훼손상태가 심각하지만 하천습지와 농업용 수로를 이용하여 연결할 수 있는 것으로 보인다. 습지의 연결성 확대를 통한 습지서식처의 확장은 습지에 의존하여 서식하는 생물들의 보전에 매우 유의할 것으로 생각된다. 많은 습지들이 현재 농업용수확보를 위한 유지로 이용되고 있고 국유지의 비율이 높아 추후 습지의 훼손과 소실은 국가단위의 대규모 계획공사로 인할 가능성이 높으므로 생태적으로 민감한 행정과 법률의 개발이 습지의 보전과 관리를 위해 중요하다.

The wetlands have eco-sociological values because their functions have proven to be useful to human society. Many countries are working to conserve and protect the wetland ecosystems. However, many wetlands have disappeared or have been fragmented due to a natural and/or anthropogenic disturbance. These isolated wetlands appear to work best in the landscape, as a spatially distributed system. We have analyzed the spatial-social distribution patterns of wetlands in Gyeongsangnam-do Province (GNP). We examined the frequency distribution of wetland sizes, the distances to the nearest wetlands, the shapes of the wetlands, land-use patterns, land owners, and official land values were confirmed as social characteristics for each wetland. A total of 146 wetlands (3,598.85 ha), including 76 riverine wetlands (1,955.60 ha), 49 palustrine wetlands (1,282.28 ha) and 21 mountain wetlands (1,282.28 ha) were identified in GNP. Most wetlands left for use to drainage were small (<2 ha) and located in agricultural areas. However, small and isolated wetlands were clustered, according to the location, indicating that these wetlands can be connected to each other using the linear riverine wetlands and water channels in agricultural areas. This is extremely valuable in maintaining the biodiversity, such that any loss of small wetlands will cause a direct reduction in the connectedness among populations of the remaining species. Due to most wetlands belonging to the nation or businesses, being classified as reservoirs (water storage areas), and consequently, degradation of wetlands will progress due to grand-scale engineering works. Therefore, wetland policy and ecologically sensitive laws and policies should be developed in order to promote the wise-use for wetlands.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Amezaga, J.M. and L. Santamarífa. 2000. Wetland connectedness and policy fragmentation: steps towards a sustainable European wetland policy. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part B: Hydrology, Oceans and Atmosphere 25(7-8): 635-640.
  2. Amezaga, J.M., L. Santamaría and A.J. Green. 2003. Biotic wetland connectivity-supporting a new approach for wetland policy. Acta Oecological 23: 213-222.
  3. Bang, S.W., I.J. Yoon and K.E. Shin. 2011. Analysis of U.S. mitigation banking system and its implications for wetland conservation management in Korea. Environmental Policy 19(1): 1-21.
  4. Brady, S.J. and C.H. Flather. 1994. Changes in wetlands on nonfederal rural land of the conterminous United States from 1982 to 1987. Environmental Management 18(5): 693-705. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02394634
  5. Burkett, V. and J. Kusler. 2000. Climate change: potential impacts and interactions in wetlands of the United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36(2): 313-320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2000.tb04270.x
  6. Clark, P.J. and F.C. Evans. 1954. Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 35: 445-453. https://doi.org/10.2307/1931034
  7. Costanza, R., R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O'Neill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
  8. Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. pp. 1-13.
  9. Gibbons, J.W. 2003. Terrestrial habitat: a vital component for herpetofauna of isolated wetlands. Wetland 23(3): 630-635. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2003)023[0630:THAVCF]2.0.CO;2
  10. Gibbs, J.P. 1993. Importance of small wetlands for the persistence of local populations of wetland-associated animals. Wetlands 13(1): 25-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03160862
  11. Gibbs, J.P. 2000. Wetland loss and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 14(1): 314-317. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98608.x
  12. Gunderson, L.H., S.R. Carpenter, P. Olsson and G. Peterson. 2006. Water RATs (Resilience, Adaptatbility, and Transformability) in lake and wetland social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(1): 16.
  13. Gupta, T.R. and J.H. Foster. 1975. Economic criteria for freshwater wetland policy in Massachusetts. American Journal of Agricultural Economist 57(1): 40-45. https://doi.org/10.2307/1238838
  14. ILM soft. 2011. Geovision landmap, professional geographic information solution. ILM soft.
  15. Ji, J.D. 2002. A study on the improvement of the land category system in Korea. Journal of the Korean Geographical Society 36(2): 101-112.
  16. Joo, G.J., M. Lineman, D.K. Kim, K.S. Jeong, Y. Do and C.K. Shin. 2008. Riverine wetlands in the lower Nakdong River basin in Korea: Biodiversity and conservation. Nakdong River Watershed Environment Office, Nakdong River Environment Research Center. p. 20-58.
  17. Kindt, R. and R. Coe. 2005. Tree diversity analysis. A manual and software for common statistical methods for ecological and biodiversity studies, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi.
  18. Lawler, S. 2001. Rice fields as temporary wetland: a review. Israel Journal of Zoology 47(4): 513-528. https://doi.org/10.1560/X7K3-9JG8-MH2J-XGX1
  19. Leibowitz, S.G. 2003. Isolated wetlands and their functions: an ecological perspective. Wetlands 23(3): 517-531. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2003)023[0517:IWATFA]2.0.CO;2
  20. Lupi, F., I. Graham-Tomasi and S.J. Taff. 1991. A hedonic approach to urban wetland valuation-Staff paper P91- 8. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul MN.
  21. Lyon, J.G. 1993. Practical handbook for wetland identification and delineation. Lewis Publishers. p. 69-100.
  22. Mahan, B.L., S. Polasky and R.M. Adams. 2000. Valuing urban wetlands: a property price approach. Land Economics 76(1): 100-113. https://doi.org/10.2307/3147260
  23. Mawdsley, J.R., R. O'Malley and D.S. Ojima. 2009. A Review of Climate-change adaptation strategies for wildlife management and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 23(5): 1080-1089. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01264.x
  24. McGarigal, K. and B. Marks. 1995 FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, Oregon, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
  25. Ministry of Environment. 2011. 3rd guidelines for national inland wetland survey. Ministry of Environment. p. 94- 101.
  26. Mitsch, W. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands Second Edition. van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, USA, p. 542.
  27. Mitsch, W. and J.G. Gosselink. 2000. The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting. Ecological Economics 35(1): 25-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00165-8
  28. National Wetland Center of Republic of Korea homepage. 2012. http://www.wetland.go.kr/.
  29. Norton, B.G. 1998. Improving ecological communication: the role of ecologists in environmental policy formation. Ecological Application 8(2): 350-364. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(1998)008[0350:IECTRO]2.0.CO;2
  30. Park, S.D., E.S. Hwang, J.I. Seong, K.S. Chae, C.H. Kim, G.Y. Cheon, Y.M. Son and J.D. Song. 2009. A study on the effective agricultural utilization of reclaimed land. Korea Rural Economic Institute. p. 7-48.
  31. R Development Core Team. 2005. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna Austria, URLhttp://www. R-project.org.
  32. Ramsar Convention on Wetland homepage. 2012. http://www. ramsar.org.
  33. Rempel, R. 2008. Patch analyst 4. Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources), Lakehead University.
  34. Sala, O.E., F.S. Chapin III, J.J. Armesto, E. Berlow, J. Bloomfield, R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald, L.F. Huenneke, R.B. Jackson and A. Kinzig. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287: 1770-1774. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5459.1770
  35. Schooley, R.L. and L.C. Branch. 2009. Enhancing the areaisolation paradigm: habitat heterogeneity and metapopulation dynamics of a rare wetland mammal. Ecological Application 19(7): 1708-1722. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-2169.1
  36. Semlitsch, R.D. and J.R. Bodie. 1998. Are small isolated wetlands expendable? Conservation Biology 24(5): 1129- 1133.
  37. Sims, K.R.E. and J. Schuetz. 2009. Local regulation and land-use change: the effects of wetlands by laws in Massachusetts. Regional Science and Urban Economics 39: 409-421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2008.12.004
  38. Son, M.W. and Y.G. Jeon. 2003. Physical geographical characteristics of natural wetlands on the downstream reach of Nakdong River. Journal of the Korean Association of Regional Geogrphers 9(1): 66-76.
  39. Tang, Z., B.A. Engel, B.C. Pijanowski and K.J. Lim. 2005. Forecasting lands use change and its environmental impact at a watershed scale. Journal of Environmental Management 76(1): 35-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.01.006
  40. Turner, R.K., J.C.J.M. van den Bergh, T. Soderqvist, A. Barendregt, J. van der Straatenf, E. Maltbyg and E.C. van Ierland. 2000. Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy. Ecological Economics 35(1): 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00164-6
  41. Verhoeven, J.T.A. and T.L. Setter. 2010. Agricultural use of wetlands: opportunities and limitations. Annals of Botany 105: 155-163. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcp172
  42. Washitani, I. 2007. Restoration biologically-diverse floodplain wetlands inclusing paddy fields. Global Environmental Research 11: 135-140.
  43. Williams, J.E. 2000. The biodiversity crisis and adaptation to climate change: a case study from Australia's forests. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 61: 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006361917359
  44. Williams, P., M. Whitfield, J. Biggs, S. Bray, G. Fox, P. Nicolet and D. Sear. 2003. Comparative biodiversity of rivers, streams, ditches and ponds in an agricultural landscape in Southern England. Biological Conservation 115: 329-341.
  45. Zedler, J.B. 2000. Progress in wetland restoration ecology. Nature 402: 523-526.
  46. Zedler, J.B. 2003. Wetlands at your service: reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(2): 65-72. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0065:WAYSRI]2.0.CO;2
  47. Zedler, J.B. 2004. Compensating for wetland losses in the United States. Ibis 146: 92-100.