Journal of Ecology and Environment

The Ecological Society of Korea (한국생태학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Review of Ecosystem Service Studies: Concept, Approach and Future Work in Korea

  • Chung, Min Gon (School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kang, Hojeong (School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University)
  • Received : 2013.02.06
  • Accepted : 2013.02.28
  • Published : 2013.03.27
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In South Korea, the conflict between development and conservation policy still exist among government ministries, and conventional development plan often has priority over conservation policy. Establishment of sustainable development and comprehensive management policy employing the results of ecosystem service studies are highly warranted, but researchers in South Korea are still limited and often misuse the concept of ecosystem services. Thus, we aimed to introduce the concept of Ecosystem Service (ES) and related terminologies such as Social-Ecological Systems (SESs), ecosystem function, trade-off, and human well-being in this paper. Additionally, this article reviewed and arranged key approaches in ES studies as follows: 1) field works, 2) mapping ecosystem services, 3) valuing ES, 4) quantifying trade-offs between ES and 5) understanding SESs. Based on those results, we suggest that field works for basic information have the first priority to be conducted among ES studies. Once basic information is sufficiently accumulated, researchers can perform applied ES research with accuracy. Finally, results of ES studies conducted by five approaches allow decision makers to consider both natural system and society simultaneously, and hence the results can be utilized for sustainable development and conservation policy based on ecosystem-based management.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahn HY, Park SY, Choi CU, Kim SY. 2010. Ecosystem service value assessment by change of land cover area in South korea, pp. 202-208.
  2. Ahn SS, Bae DH, Lee CH. 2011. Construction of an environmental valuation database and analysis of valuation studies of Korea 3. Korea Environment Institute, Seoul, Korea.
  3. Alessa L, Kliskey A, Brown G. 2008. Social-ecological hotspots mapping: A spatial approach for identifying coupled social-ecological space. Landscape and Urban Planning 85: 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.007
  4. Barbier EB. 2012. Progress and Challenges in Valuing Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Services. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 6: 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rer017
  5. Barbier EB, Hacker SD, Kennedy C, Koch EW, Stier AC, Silliman BR. 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal eco system services. Ecological Monographs 81: 169-193. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1510.1
  6. Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS, Diaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah, AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM, Perrings C, Reid WV, Sarukhan J, Scholes RJ, Whyte A. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 1305-1312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808772106
  7. Champ PA, Boyle KJ. 2003. A primer on nonmarket valuation. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
  8. Chan KM, Ruckelshaus M. 2010. Characterizing changes in marine ecosystem services. F1000 biology reports 2: 54.
  9. Chung MG. 2012. Mapping ecosystem services and statistical analysis for Ecosystem-Based Management of coastal areas, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Master. Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea.
  10. Costanza R, dArge R, deGroot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, Oneill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, vandenBelt M. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
  11. Costanza R, Kubiszewski I, Ervin D, Bluffstone R, Boyd J, Brown D, Chang H, Dujon V, Granek E, Polasky S, Shandas V, Yeakley A. 2011. Valuing ecological systems and services. F1000 biology reports 3: 14.
  12. Dahl R, Ehler C, Douvere F. 2009. Marine Spatial Planning, A Step-by-Step Approach toward Ecosystem-based Management. IOC Manuals and Guides 53.
  13. Davies ZG, Edmondson JL, Heinemeyer A, Leake JR, Gaston KJ. 2011. Mapping an urban ecosystem service: quantifying above-ground carbon storage at a city-wide scale. Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 1125-1134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02021.x
  14. Daw T, Brown K, Rosendo S, Pomeroy R. 2011. Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environmental Conservation 38: 370-379. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000506
  15. De Groot RS, Ecologiste PB. 1992. Functions of nature: evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and decision making. Wolters-Noordhoff Groningen, Groningen, NL.
  16. De Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41: 393-408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
  17. Faulkner S, Barrow W, Keeland B, Walls S, Moorman T, Twedt D, Uihlein III W. 2008. Assessment of Ecological Services Derived from US Department of Agriculture Conservation Programs in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: Regional Estimates and Functional Condition Indicator Models. Interim Report. Washington, DC: USDA NRCS.
  18. Finlayson M, Cruz RD, Davidson N, Alder J, Cork S, Groot RSd, Leveque C, Milton GR, Peterson G, Pritchard D, Ratner BD, Reid WV, Revenga C, Rivera M, Schutyser F, Siebentritt M, Stuip M, Tharme, R., Butchard, S., Dieme-Amting, E., Gitay, H., Raaymakers, S., Taylor, D., 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
  19. Freeman AM. 2003. The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
  20. Freeman Iii AM. 2003. The measurements of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. RFF press.
  21. Goldstein JH, Caldarone G, Duarte TK, Ennaanay D, Hannahs N, Mendoza G, Polasky S, Wolny S, Daily GC. 2012. Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 7565-7570. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1201040109
  22. Hope D, Gries C, Zhu WX, Fagan WF, Redman CL, Grimm, NB, Nelson AL, Martin C, Kinzig A. 2003. Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100: 8788-8792. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1537557100
  23. Horwitz P, Finlayson CM. 2011. Wetlands as settings for human health: Incorporating ecosystem services and health impact assessment into water resource management. BioScience 61: 678-688. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.9.6
  24. Jenkins WA, Murray BC, Kramer RA, Faulkner SP. 2010. Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Ecological Economics 69: 1051-1061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.022
  25. Kareiva P, Watts S, McDonald R, Boucher T. 2007. Domesticated nature: Shaping landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare. Science 316: 1866-1869. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1140170
  26. Koch EW, Barbier EB, Silliman BR, Reed DJ, Perillo GME, Hacker SD, Granek EF, Primavera JH, Muthiga N, Polasky S. 2009. Non-linearity in ecosystem services: temporal and spatial variability in coastal protection. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1890/080126
  27. Korea Environment Institute (2012). Environmental Valuation Information System. http://evis.kei.re.kr. Accessed 22 January, 2013.
  28. Korea Statistics (2012a). Korean Statistical Information Service. http://kosis.kr/. Accessed 22 January, 2013.
  29. Korea Statistics (2012b). Statistical Geographic Information Service. http://sgis.kostat.go.kr/. Accessed 22 January, 2013.
  30. Lenton TM, Held H, Kriegler E, Hall JW, Lucht W, Rahmstorf S, Schellnhuber HJ. 2008. Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 1786. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705414105
  31. Lester SE, McLeod KL, Tallis H, Ruckelshaus M, Halpern BS, Levin PS, Chavez FP, Pomeroy C, McCay BJ, Costello C, Gaines SD, Mace AJ, Barth JA, Fluharty DL, Parrish JK. 2010. Science in support of ecosystem-based management for the US West Coast and beyond. Biological Conservation 143: 576-587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.11.021
  32. Li J, Feldman MW, Li S, Daily GC. 2011. Rural household income and inequality under the Sloping Land Conversion Program in western China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 7721. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1101018108
  33. Liu JG, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Moran E, Pell AN, Deadman P, Kratz T, Lubchenco J, Ostrom E, Ouyang Z, Provencher W, Redman CL, Schneider SH, Taylor WW. 2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317: 1513-1516. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1144004
  34. Liu JG, Li SX, Ouyang ZY, Tam C, Chen XD. 2008. Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China’s policies for ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105: 94779482.
  35. Luisetti T, Turner RK, Bateman IJ, Morse-Jones S, Adams C, Fonseca L. 2011. Coastal and marine ecosystem services valuation for policy and management: Managed realignment case studies in England. Ocean & Coastal Management 54: 212-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.11.003
  36. McLeod K, Leslie H, Aburto M, Alessa L, de los Angeles Carvajal M, Barr B, Barbier EB, Boesch DF, Boyd J, Crowder LB. 2009. Ecosystem-Based Management for the oceans. Island Press Washington DC.
  37. McSweeney K, Coomes OT. 2011. Climate-related disaster opens a window of opportunity for rural poor in northeastern Honduras. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108: 5203-5208. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014123108
  38. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being. Island Press Washington DC.
  39. Ministry of Environment 2012. A basic operational plan of the National Ecological Institute. Ministry of Environment, Gwacheon, Gyeonggi.
  40. Minstry of Environment (2012). Environment Geographic Information System. http://egis.me.go.kr/. Accessed 22 January, 2013.
  41. MLTM (2012a). Coastal Management Information System. http://www.coast.kr. Accessed 22 January, 2013.
  42. MLTM (2012b). Korean Tidalflat Information System. http://www.tidalflat.go.kr. Accessed 22 January, 2013.
  43. MLTM (2012c). National Spatial Information Clearinghouse. https://www.nsic.go.kr/. Accessed 22 January, 2013.
  44. Montzka SA, Dlugokencky EJ, Butler JH. 2011. Non-CO2 greenhouse gases and climate change. Nature 476: 43-50. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10322
  45. Ostrom E. 2009. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustain-ability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science 325: 419-422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133
  46. Perrings C, Naeem S, Ahrestani F, Bunker DE, Burkill P, Canziani G, Elmqvist T, Ferrati R, Fuhrman JA, Jaksic F, Kawabata Z, Kinzig A, Mace GM, Milano F, Mooney H, Prieur-Richard AH, Tschirhart J, Weisser W. 2010. Ecosystem Services for 2020. Science 330: 323-324. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1196431
  47. Polasky S, Nelson E, Pennington D, Johnson KA. 2011. The impact of land-use change on ecosystem services, biodiversity and returns to landowners: A case study in the state of Minnesota. Environmental and Resource Economics 48: 219-242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9407-0
  48. Raymond CM, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH, Cast A, Strathearn S, Grandgirard A, Kalivas T, 2009. Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 68: 1301-1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006
  49. Redman CL, Grove JM, Kuby LH. 2004. Integrating social science into the long-term ecological research (LTER) network: social dimensions of ecological change and ecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystems 7: 161-171.
  50. Rockstrom J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sorlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley JA. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461: 472-475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
  51. Rodriguez JP, Beard TD, Bennett EM, Cumming GS, Cork SJ, Agard J, Dobson AP, Peterson GD. 2006. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society 11: 28.
  52. Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C, Walker B. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413: 591-596. https://doi.org/10.1038/35098000
  53. Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV, Lautenbach S, Schmidt S. 2011. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 630-636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x
  54. Sherrouse BC, Clement JM, Semmens DJ. 2011. A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Applied Geography 31: 748-760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.08.002
  55. Smith RI, Dick JM, Scott EM. 2011. The role of statistics in the analysis of ecosystem services. Environmetrics 22: 608-617. https://doi.org/10.1002/env.1107
  56. Sukhdev P, Wittmer H, Schroter-Schlaack C, Nesshover C, Bishop J, Brink P, Gundimeda H, Kumar P, Simmons B. 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. TEEB, Nagoya, Japan.
  57. Tallis HT, Ricketts T, Guerry AD, Wood SA, Sharp R, Nelson E, Ennaanay D, Wolny S, Olwero N, Vigerstol K, Pennington D, Mendoza G, Aukema J, Foster J, Forrest J, Cameron D, Arkema K, Lonsdorf E, Kennedy C, Verutes G, Kim CK, Guannel G, Papenfus M, Toft J, Marsik M, Bernhardt J. 2011. InVEST 2.3.0 User's Guide: Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford.
  58. Wackernagel M, Monfreda C, Erb KH, Haberl H, Schulz NB. 2004. Ecological footprint time series of Austria, the Philippines, and South Korea for 1961-1999: Comparing the conventional approach to an ‘actual land area’ approach. Land Use Policy 21: 261-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.007
  59. Yackulic CB, Fagan M, Jain M, Jina A, Lim Y, Marlier M, Muscarella R, Adame P, DeFries R, Uriarte M. 2011. Biophysical and Socioeconomic Factors Associated with Forest Transitions at Multiple Spatial and Temporal Scales. Ecology and Society 16: 15.
  60. Ziv G, Baran E, Nam S, Rodríguez-Iturbe I, Levin SA. 2012. Trading-off fish biodiversity, food security, and hydropower in the Mekong River Basin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 5609-5614. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1201423109

Cited by

  1. Integrated approaches for national ecosystem assessment in South Korea pp.1976-3808, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-017-1664-9
  2. 전남 신안군의 토지이용에 따른 생태계서비스 가치와 지속가능한 활용방안 vol.47, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.11614/ksl.2014.47.3.202
  3. 산림의 수자원 공급 생태계서비스 평가를 위한 InVEST Water Yield 모형의 적용 vol.18, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.11108/kagis.2015.18.1.120
  4. 강수량 및 인구인자를 반영한 수원함양서비스의 공간분포 평가 vol.19, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.11108/kagis.2016.19.3.001
  5. 토지피복 지도를 이용한 생태계 서비스 가치 변화 분석 vol.27, pp.special, 2013, https://doi.org/10.7856/kjcls.2016.27.2.681
  6. 농촌경관 생태계서비스 가치를 고려한 관리지표 개발 vol.23, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.7851/ksrp.2017.23.4.127