DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Establishing Diagnosis Systems for Impaired Stream Ecosystem using Stream/River Ecosystem Survey and Health Assessment

수생태계 현황 조사 및 건강성 평가결과를 활용한 수생태계 훼손원인 진단체계 구축

  • Lee, Jong-Won (Department of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, Konkuk University) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Woo (Department of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, Konkuk University) ;
  • Hwang, Soon-Jin (Department of Environmental Health Science, Konkuk University) ;
  • Jang, Min-Ho (Department of Biology Education, Kongju National University) ;
  • Won, Doo-Hee (Doohee Institute of Ecological Research, Korea Ecosystem Service Inc.) ;
  • An, Kyung-Jin (Department of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, Konkuk University) ;
  • Park, Hye-Jin (Ministry of Environment, Water Resource Policy Department, Water Resource Policy Division) ;
  • Lee, Junga (Department of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, Konkuk University)
  • 이종원 (건국대학교 산림조경학과) ;
  • 이상우 (건국대학교 산림조경학과) ;
  • 황순진 (건국대학교 환경보건학과) ;
  • 장민호 (공주대학교 생물교육과) ;
  • 원두희 ((주)생태조사단 부설 두희생태연구소) ;
  • 안경진 (건국대학교 산림조경학과) ;
  • 박혜진 (환경부 수자원정책국 수자원정책과) ;
  • 이정아 (건국대학교 산림조경학과)
  • Received : 2020.03.12
  • Accepted : 2020.03.19
  • Published : 2020.03.31

Abstract

The Stream/River Ecosystem Survey and Health Assessment has been carried out regarding the ecological health of the streams by the Ministry of Environment (MOE), South Korea. However, the sources of impairment of the stream ecosystem and the interactions between the sources, stressors, and the responses of impaired streams have not been taken into consideration. The purpose of this study is to propose the establishment of diagnosis systems for the impaired stream ecosystem because of the need to incorporate the same in the making of the policy to enable the recovery and improvement of the health of the impaired streams or river ecosystem. First, we define the concept of a diagnosis of the impaired stream or river ecosystem through a literature review. Second, through case studies [e.g., US CADDIS (Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System), AUS. Eco Evidence, EU WFD (Water Framework Directive)], we try to develop the diagnosis system for the making of policy. In this study, the diagnosis system that is proposed consists of eight steps including the basic data collection, detecting or suspecting impairment, defining the impaired stream reach, identifying the biological impaired cases and listing the candidate causes, illustrating the interactive conceptual diagrams between stressors and responses, investigating the stressors-responses in the field, verifying causes and identifying the probable causes of the impaired cases, and summarizing and proposing the restoration of the streams. The results of this study will support and enable efficient decision-making for sustainable stream restoration and management based on the diagnosis of the probable causes for the impaired complex and the diverse stream ecosystem.

본 연구는 훼손된 하천 수생태계의 훼손원인을 식별하고 그 전이 과정을 규명하기 위해 수생태계 훼손원인 진단체계를 구축하고 정책적 활용 가능성을 보고자 하였다. 수생태계 현황 조사 및 건강성 평가결과는 하천의 훼손에 대한 전반적인 상황을 알 수 있어 하천 복원 및 관리의 판단 근거로 사용된다. 그러나 하천이 훼손된 원인이나 훼손이 발생하게 된 전이 과정을 고려하지 못한다는 한계를 가진다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 과학적이고 체계적인 진단체계를 제안하여 훼손원인과 그 전이 과정을 규명하였다. 미국, 호주, 유럽의 사례를 분석하여 우리나라에 맞는 진단체계를 제안하였다. 총 8단계로 구성되며, 기초자료 조사, 하천 수생태계 훼손 판단, 훼손 구간 설정, 훼손 유형화 및 잠재적 훼손원인 도출, 본 조사, 주훼손원인 진단 및 최적 훼손 모델 도출, 종합분석 및 하천 복원방안으로 이루어져 있다. 이러한 진단체계는 하천 생태계의 복잡하고 다양한 특성을 고려하여 훼손원인을 파악할 수 있으며 하천 복원 및 관리 방안을 제시하여 효율적인 의사결정을 지원할 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. An, K.J., S.Y. Kim and S.W. Lee. 2018. Analysis of Relative Importance of Socio/Economic Factors in Establishing Diagnosis Systems for Impaired Stream Ecosystem. Journal of the Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology 21: 13-26 (Korean).
  2. Borja, A., I. Galparsoro, O. Solaun, I. Muxika, E.M. Tello, A. Uriarte and V. Valencia. 2006. The European Water Framework Directive and the DPSIR, a methodological approach to assess the risk of failing to achieve good ecological status. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 66:84-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2005.07.021
  3. Horne, A., A. Webb, M. Stewardson, B. Richter and M. Acreman. (Eds.). 2017. Water for the environment: From policy and science to implementation and management. Academic Press.
  4. IMPRESS, W. 2003. Guidance for the analysis of pressures and impacts in accordance with the Water Framework Directive. In Guidance Document prepared by WG IMPRESS. Available online at http://forum.europa. eu. int/Public/irc/env/wfd/library, accessed at (Vol. 7).
  5. Jeon, S.H. 2016. Some Problems and Improvement of Domestic System for River Environment Assessment. Journal of the Korean Society of Hazard Mitigation 16: 305-317 (Korean). https://doi.org/10.9798/KOSHAM.2016.16.1.305
  6. Kim, H.J., S.J. Lee and K.G. An. 2010. Comparative Analysis of Ecological Health Conditions Before and After Ecological Restoration in Changwon Stream and Nam Stream. Korean Journal of Ecology and Environment 43: 307-318 (Korean).
  7. Kim, M.J. 2007. Suggestions for Ecological Stream Restoration. Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment 16:59-68 (Korean).
  8. Kim, Y.J., H.N. Kim and O.M. Lee. 2012. The biological assessment of water quality using DAIpo and TDI of Paju Ecological wetland. Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment 21: 229-238 (Korean).
  9. Lee, Y.K. and S.W. Lee. 2012. Stream Classification Based on the Ecological Characteristics for Effective Stream Mannagement - In the Case Nakdong River -. Journal of the Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology 15: 103-114 (Korean).
  10. Ministry of Environment. 2017. A study on Aquatic ecosystem reference stream (II) (Korean).
  11. Nichols, S., A. Webb, R. Norris and M. Stewardson. 2011.Eco Evidence analysis methods manual: a systematic approach to evaluate causality in environmental science. eWater Cooperative Research Centre. Also available online at http://tinyurl.com/Eco-Evidencemanual.
  12. Nichols, S.J., M. Peat and J.A. Webb. 2017. Challenges for evidence-based environmental management: what is acceptable and sufficient evidence of causation?. Freshwater Science 36: 240-249. https://doi.org/10.1086/690106
  13. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2017. Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System (CADDIS), https://www.epa.gov/caddis, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
  14. Voulvoulis, N., K.D. Arpon and T. Giakoumis. 2017. The EU Water Framework Directive: From great expectations to problems with implementation. Science of the Total Environment 575: 358-366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.228
  15. Webb, J.A., K.A. Miller, M.J. Stewardson, S.C. de Little, S.J. Nichols and S.R. Wealands. 2015. An online database and desktop assessment software to simplify systematic reviews in environmental science. Environmental Modelling and Software 64: 72-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.11.011