Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment (환경영향평가)

Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment (한국환경영향평가학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Categorization of Citiesin Gyeonggi-do Using Ecosystem Service Bundles

생태계서비스 번들을 이용한 경기도 도시의 유형화

  • Kim, Ilkwon (Team of Ecosystem Services, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Kim, Sunghoon (Team of Ecosystem Services, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Lee, Jooeun (Team of Ecosystem Services, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Kwon, Hyuksoo (Team of Ecosystem Services, National Institute of Ecology)
  • 김일권 (국립생태원 생태평가연구실 생태계서비스팀) ;
  • 김성훈 (국립생태원 생태평가연구실 생태계서비스팀) ;
  • 이주은 (국립생태원 생태평가연구실 생태계서비스팀) ;
  • 권혁수 (국립생태원 생태평가연구실 생태계서비스팀)
  • Received : 2018.12.31
  • Accepted : 2019.06.07
  • Published : 2019.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The concept of ecosystem services is important for the effective management of regional ecological resources. Multiple ecosystem services provided by regional ecosystems are represented as ecosystem service bundles, which define the co-occurrent ecosystem services in a specific region. Bundles provide useful information to identify regional characteristics of ecosystem services and categorize sub-regions with similar patterns of ecosystem service provision. We assessed eleven ecosystem services using modeling approaches and statistical data and produced bundles of cities in Gyeonggi-do.We also conducted principal component analysis and cluster analysis to categorize these cities according to the characteristics of ecosystem services. The results indicated that the cities in Gyeonggi-do were categorized into three groups depending on the types of provision,regulation, and cultural services, and were designated as urbanized, urban-forest, agriculture, or forest cities. These groups were influenced by land use patterns reflecting regional social-environmental features. The results provide useful information for identifying regional ecosystem services and facilitate decision-making in regional ecosystem service management.

생태계서비스의 개념은 지역의 생태자원을 관리하고 효율적으로 사용하는데 중요하다. 지역 생태계가 동시에 제공하는 다양한 생태계서비스는 생태계서비스 번들로 표현된다. 생태계서비스 번들은 지역 생태계서비스 특성을 파악하고, 유사한 생태계서비스를 제공하는 지역들을 그룹화하여 지역 생태계서비스 관리정책을 용이하게 한다. 본 연구는 경기도 도시들을 대상으로 11개 생태계서비스 항목들을 모형과 통계지표를 이용하여 평가하고, 시군별 생태계서비스 번들을 제작하였다. 또한 생태계서비스 평가결과에 대한 주성분분석과 클러스터분석을 수행하여 경기도 시군들을 유형화하였다. 연구결과 경기도 도시들의 생태계서비스는 조절, 문화, 공급서비스 유형들로 분류되며 각각의 유형들은 지역특성에 따라서 도시형, 도시산림형, 농촌형, 산림형으로 구분되었다. 각각의 유형들은 지역의 인문사회 및 자연환경 특성을 반영하는 토지이용과 연관되어 나타났다. 본 연구결과는 지역 생태계서비스 특성을 파악하는데 중요한 정보를 제공하여 지역 생태계서비스 관리정책을 수립하는데 유용하게 사용될 수 있다.

Keywords

HOPHBL_2019_v28n3_201_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 1. Results on each ecosystem service index of cities in Gyeonggi-do.

HOPHBL_2019_v28n3_201_f0002.png 이미지

Figure 2. Ecosystem service bundles of cities in Gyeonggi-do arranged in Korean alphabetical order (Abbreviations are defined in Table 1).

HOPHBL_2019_v28n3_201_f0003.png 이미지

Figure 3. Result on first and second dimensions of principal component analysis among regional ecosystem services (Left: Graph of variables, Light: Graph of individuals).

HOPHBL_2019_v28n3_201_f0004.png 이미지

Figure 4. Results on cluster analysis and bundles of ecosystem services.

Table 1. Indicators and methodology of ecosystem services

HOPHBL_2019_v28n3_201_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Results on rotated component matrix from principal component analysis (P=Provision, R=Regulation, S=Supporting and C=Cultural services)

HOPHBL_2019_v28n3_201_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Features of ecosystem service clusters and their land uses of cities in Gyeonggi-do

HOPHBL_2019_v28n3_201_t0003.png 이미지

References

  1. Baro F, Gomez-Baggethun E, Haase D. 2017. Ecosystem service bundles along the urban-rural gradient: insights for landscape planning and management, Ecosystem Services. 24: 147-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.021
  2. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ. 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters. 12(1): 1394-1404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x
  3. Charrad M, Ghazzali N, Boiteau V, Niknafs A. 2014. NbClust: an R package for determining the relavant number of clusters in a data set. Journal of Statistical Software. 61(6): 1-36.
  4. Conte ME, Nelson E, Carney K, Fissore C, Nasser O, Plantinga AJ, Stanley B, Rickett T. 2011. Terrestrial carbon sequestration and storage. In: Kareiva P, Tallis H, Rickett T, Daily GC, Polasky S. Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. New York: Oxford University Press: 111-128.
  5. Crouzat E, Mouchet M, Turkelboom F, Byczek C, Meersmans J, Berger F, Verkerk PJ, Lavorel S. 2015. Assessing bundles of ecosystem services from regional to landscape scale: insight from the French Alps. Journal of Applied Ecology 52: 1145-1155. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12502
  6. Derkzen ML, van Teeffelen AA, Verburg PH. 2015. Quantifying urban ecosystem services based on high-resolution data of urban green space: an assessment for Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Journal of Applied Ecology. 52(4): 1020-1032. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12469
  7. Egoh B, Drakou EG, Dunbar MB, Maes J, Willemen L. 2012. Indicators for mapping ecosystem services: a review. Luxembourg: European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC).
  8. Francesconi W, Srinivasan R, Perez-Minana E, Willcock SP. 2016. Using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to model ecosystem services: a systematic review. Journal of Hydrology. 535: 625-636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.01.034
  9. 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. P. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 109(19): 7565-7570. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1201040109
  10. Hamann M, Biggs R, Reyers B. 2015. Mapping social-ecological systems: identifying 'green-loop' and 'red-loop' dynamics based on characteristic bundles of ecosystem service use. Global Environmental Change. 34: 218-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.008
  11. Hutcheson W, Hoagland P, Jin D. 2018. Valuing environmental education as a cultural ecosystem service at Hudson River Park. Ecosystem Services. 31: 387-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.005
  12. KFRI. 2017. The lungs of the city, urban forests, Seoul: KFRI. [Korean Literature]
  13. Kim YJ, Gal BS, Park JB, Kim SH, Im TH. 2018. Classification of Nakdong river tributaries under priority management based on their characteristics and water quality index. Journal of Korean Society of Environmental Engineers. 40(2): 73-81. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.4491/KSEE.2018.40.2.73
  14. Lee DY, Lee HY. 2016. Regional classification and analysis of the characteristics suburban rural areas in the capital region for promoting area-specific policies. Journal of the KRSA. 32(2): 15-29. [Korean Literature]
  15. Lee H, Lautenbach S. 2016. A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators 66: 340-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.004
  16. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Millenium ecosystem assessment synthesis report, Washington DC: Island press.
  17. Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquette C, Vihervaara P, Schagner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, La Notte A, Zulian G, Bouraoui F, Paracchini ML, Braat L, Bidoglio G. 2012. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem Services. 1: 31-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004
  18. NIE. 2017. Mapping and assessment of ecosystem services, Seocheon: NIE. [Korean Literature]
  19. NIE. 2018. A study on the evaluation and awareness of local ecological value, Seocheon: NIE. [Korean Literature]
  20. Niemela J, Saarela SR, Soderman T, Kopperoinen L, Yli-Pelkonen V, Vare S, Kotze J. 2010. Using the ecosystem service approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: a Finland case study. Biodiversity and Conservation. 19(11): 3225-3243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9888-8
  21. Park IH, Kim YH, Cho KJ. 2012. Bird species diversity analysis according to the type of forest vegetation. Journal of the Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology. 15(6): 43-52. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.13087/KOSERT.2012.15.6.043
  22. Queiroz C, Meacham M, Richter K, Norstrom AV, Andersson E, Norberg J, Peterson G. 2015. Mapping bundles of ecosystem services reveals distinct types of multifunctionality within a Swedish landscape. Ambio. 44: s89-s101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0601-0
  23. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett M. 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 107(11): 5242-5247. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907284107
  24. Reyers B, Biggs R, Cumming GS, Elmqvist T, Hejnowicz AP. 2013. Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social-ecological approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 11: 268-273. https://doi.org/10.1890/120144
  25. Risal A, Bhattarai R, Kim D, Park Y, Yang J, Lim K. 2016. Application of Web ERosivity Module (WERM) for estimation of annual and monthly R factor in Korea. Catena. 147: 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.07.017
  26. Rho PH, Choung EL. 2006. Alternatives of the Korean Nationwide Survey on Natural Environments to Promote Biodiversity Conservation. Journal of Environmental Policy. 5(3): 25-56. [Korean Literature]
  27. Roh YH, Kim CK, Hong HJ. 2016. Time-series changes to ecosystem regulating services in Jeju: focusing on estimating carbon sequestration and evaluating economic feasibility. Journal of Environmental Policy. 24(2): 29-44. [Korean Literature]
  28. Satz D, Gould RK, Chan KMA, Guerry A, Norton B, Satterfield T, Halpern BS, Levine J, Woodside U, Hannahs N, Basurto X, Klain S. 2013. The challenges of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental assessment. Ambio. 42: 675-684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0386-6
  29. Song CH, Lee WK, Choi HA, Jeon SW, Kim JU, Kim JS, Kim JT. 2015. Application of InVEST water yield model for assessing forest water provisioning ecosystem service. Journal of the Korean Association of Geographic Information Studies. 18(1): 120-134. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.11108/kagis.2015.18.1.120
  30. Song MK, Chang H. 2010. Characterization of cities in Seoul metropolitan area by cluster analysis. Journal of Korean Society for Geospatial Information System. 18(1): 83-88. [Korean Literature]
  31. Sparke R, Lasseur R, Crouzat E, Bullock JM, Lavorel S, Parks KE, Schaafsma M, Bennett EM, Maes J, Mulligan M, Mouchet M, Peterson GD, Schulp CJE, Thuiller W, Turner MG, Verburg PH, Eigenbord F. 2017. Unpacking ecosystem service bundles: towards predictive mapping of synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 47: 37-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.08.004
  32. Suh K, Kim TG, Lee JM, Lee JJ. 2012. Effective classification framework design and implementation for rural regional information using principal component analysis and cluster analysis. Journal of the Korean Society of Agricultural Engineers. 54(1): 73-81. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.5389/KSAE.2012.54.1.073
  33. Turner KG, Odgaard MV, Bocher PK, Dalgaard T, Svenning JC. 2014. Bundling ecosystem services in Denmark: trade-offs and synergies in a cultural landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning. 125: 89-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.02.007
  34. Verner J, Morison ML, Ralph CJ. 1986. Wildlife 2000: Modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. Madison Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin press.
  35. Yang G, Ge Y, Xue H, Yang W, Shi Y, Peng C, Du Y, Fan X, Ren Y, Chang J. 2015. Using ecosystem service bundles to detect trade-offs and synergies across urban-rural complexes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 136: 110-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.12.006

Cited by

  1. 지역 생태자산의 훼손 취약성에 대한 거주민의 인식 차이 - 경기도 파주지역을 대상으로 - vol.49, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.9715/kila.2021.49.1.031