Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology (한국환경복원기술학회지)

The Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology (한국환경복원기술학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Rapid Assessment of Ecosystem Services Apply to Local Stakeholders

지역 이해당사자 참여 생태계서비스 간이평가

  • 김벼리 (국립생태원 생태연구본구 생태기반연구실) ;
  • 이재혁 (국립생태원 생태연구본부 융합연구실) ;
  • 김일권 (국립생태원 생태연구본부 융합연구실) ;
  • 김성훈 (국립생태원 생태연구본부 융합연구실) ;
  • 권혁수 (국립생태원 생태연구본부 융합연구실)
  • Received : 2018.10.30
  • Accepted : 2019.02.14
  • Published : 2019.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study suggested that various stakeholder can be participated in regional Environment planning and practical use of policy with rapid assessment of Ecosystem Services(ES). We applied to the rapid assessment of ES method to Ansan city and local registers selected Ecosystem assets that considered to space of ES. Ecosystem assets were measured 5 types Likert scale about 37 indicators of ES and confirm the main ES through the basic statistics. Furthermore Ecosystem assets classified according to similar character of ES. Ecosystem assets of Ansan were selected 47 site and Local climate regulation, Research and education, Primary production was high among the ES indicators. As a result two main group deduced that ecological education group(such as Research and education, Habitat) and safety regulation group(such as Air regulation, Fire regulation) through the factor analysis. In terms of location characteristics of each group, the ecological education-centered ecosystem assets were located near the downtown area, while the safety regulation group was located at the outskirts, such as mountains and coasts. This indicates that the ecological education about the habitat provision can be achieved in Ansan city downtown area and that outskirts should be approached from the aspect of ecological function to establish a plan. The result of Rapid assessment of ES, which can be lead a balanced and developmental consultation when establishing polices for environment planning and management in region.

Keywords

HKBOB5_2019_v22n1_1_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 1. Process of Ecosystem assets research and analysis

HKBOB5_2019_v22n1_1_f0002.png 이미지

Figure 2. Relative score of 37 ecosystem services indicators from Ansan ecosystem assets(n=47)

HKBOB5_2019_v22n1_1_f0003.png 이미지

Figure 3. Variability in delivery of Ecosystem services (Abbreviation: Fresh water:FW, Food:FD, Fuel:FU, Fiber:FI, Genetic resources:GR, matural medicines:MM, Ornamental resources:OR, Aggregate:AG, Waste disposal:WD, Energy harvesting (natural air and water flows):EH, Air quality regulation:AQ, Climate regulation-local:CRL, Climate regulation-globa:CRG, Water regulation:WR, Flood hazard regulation:FH, Storm hazard regulation:SH, Pest regulation:PR, Disease:DI, Disease Mediation:DM, Erosion regualtion:ER, Water purification:WP, Pollination:PL, Salinity regulation:SR, Fire regulation:FR, Noise and visual buffering:NV, Cultural heritage:CH, Recreation and tourism:RT, Aesthetic value:AS, Spiritual and religious value:SR, Inspirational value:IN, Social relations:SC, Educational and research:ED, Soil formation:SF, Primary production:PP, Nutrient cycling:NC, Water recycling:WC, Provision of habitat:HB)

HKBOB5_2019_v22n1_1_f0004.png 이미지

Figure 4. Distribution of Ansan Ecosystem assets by two main factor

Table 1. Result of component analysis from Ansan Ecosystem assets

HKBOB5_2019_v22n1_1_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Second Ecosystem assets factor Group of Ansan (Safety regulation)

HKBOB5_2019_v22n1_1_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. First Ecosystem assets factor Group of Ansan (Ecological education)

HKBOB5_2019_v22n1_1_t0003.png 이미지

Table 4. List of Ecosystem asset by factor group

HKBOB5_2019_v22n1_1_t0004.png 이미지

References

  1. Bae MK. 2017. A Study on Environmental Conservation Plan Based on Spatialization Method in Local Governments. Korea Environmental Policy and Administration Society. 25(2): 25-36 https://doi.org/10.15301/jepa.2017.25.2.25
  2. Bloch, F., Jackson, M. O., & Tebaldi, P. 2017. Centrality measures in networks. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2749124
  3. Bracken, L and Oughton, E. 2013. Making sense of policy implementation the construction and uses of ecpertise and evidence in managing freshwater environmnets. Environmental Science & Policy. 30, 10-18 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.07.010
  4. Brown, C., King, S., Ling, M., Bowles-Newark, N., Ingwall-King, L., Wilson, L., ... & Vause, J. 2016. Natural capital assessments at the national and sub-national level. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.
  5. Cui B., Zhang, Z., Lei, X. 2012. Implementation of diversified ecological networks to strenghten wetland conservation. Clean-Soil Air Water. 40(10)
  6. Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J. 2008.. A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global environmental change. 18(4): 598- 606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013
  7. Dickie, I., Cryle, P., & Maskell, L. 2014. UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-on. Work Package Report 1: Developing the evidence base for a Natural Capital Asset Check: What characteristics should we understand in order to improve environmental appraisal and natural income accounts. UNEP-WCMC, LWEC, UK.
  8. Dickson, B., Blaney, R. Miles, L., Regan, E., van Soesbergen, A., Vaananen, E., Blyth, S., Harfoot, M., Martin, C.S., McOwen, C., Newbold, T., van Bochove, J. 2014. Towards a global map of natural capital: Key ecosystem assets. UNEP. Nairobi. Kenya.
  9. Fish, R.D., Ioris, A.A.R., Watson, N.M. 2010. Integrating water and agricultural management: collaborative governance for a complex policy problem. Science of the Total Environment. 408, 5623-5630 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.10.010
  10. Frazier, T., Thompson, C., Dezzani, R., & Butsick. 2013. Spatial and temporal quantification of resilience at the community scale. Applied Geography. 42, 95-107 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.05.004
  11. Georgina M.Mace, Ken Norris and Alstair H. Fitter. 2012. Biodiversity and Ecosystem services: A Multilayered relationship. Cell. 27(1)19-26
  12. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M. 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012. Report to the European Environmental Agency. EEA Framework Contract no: EEA/IEA/09/003.
  13. Horlick-Jone and Sime. 2004. Living on the border: knowledges, risk, and transdisciplinarity. Futures. 36(4), 441-456 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.006
  14. Kim B, Lee JH, Kwon HS. 2017. Recent Ecological Asset Research Trends using Keyword Network Analysis. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment. 26(5): 303-314. https://doi.org/10.14249/EIA.2017.26.5.303
  15. Kwon ST, 2018, Urban Revitalization and citizen. Journal of Environmental Studies 61: 23-27.(in Korean)
  16. Lee JH and Son YH. 2016. The recent research wave in ecotourism research using keyword network analysis. Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning. 22(2): 45-55. https://doi.org/10.7851/ksrp.2016.22.2.045
  17. MA(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC 5
  18. McInnes, R. J., and Everard, M. 2017. Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services (RAWES): An example from Colombo, Sri Lanka. Ecosystem services. 25, 89-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.024
  19. Petts, Owens&Bulkely. 2008. Crossing boundaries: interdisciplinarity in the context of urban environment. Geoforum. 39(2), 5963-601
  20. R. Costanza, R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. ONeill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton, M. vandenBelt. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital, Nature. 387(1997): pp. 253-260 https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
  21. R.S. de Groot, M.A. Wilson, R.M.J. Boumans. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics. 41, pp. 393-408 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
  22. Raudsepp-Hearne, C., and Peterson, G. D. 2016. Scale and ecosystem services: how do observation, management, and analysis shift with scale-lessons from Quebec. Ecology and Society. 21(3).
  23. TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policy Makers. Progress Press. Malta. 209pp.
  24. Tobias Borger, Anne Bohnke-Henrichs, Caroline Hattam, Joanna Piwowarczyk, Femke Schasfoort, Melanie C. Austen. 2018. The role of interdisciplinay collaboration for state preference methods to value marine environmental goods and ecosystem services, Estuarin. Coastal and Shelf Science. (210) 140-151

Cited by

  1. 습지보호지역을 대상으로 한 문화서비스 평가 연구 vol.22, pp.6, 2019, https://doi.org/10.13087/kosert.2019.22.6.139