Landscape and Ecological Engineering

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 245–256 | Cite as

A framework for conservation area designation utilizing an ecotope concept and its application to a mountainous national park in Korea

  • Jung-Hun Yeum
  • Bong-Ho HanEmail author
  • Jin-Woo Choi
Original Paper


This study focused on establishing a framework for the designation of a conservation area reflecting an ecotope concept, and its application to Korea’s Seoraksan National Park. Taking into consideration the mountainous topography of the study area, the watershed was chosen as the planning unit, and ecotope mapping was carried out to identify topographic and biological features. For the evaluation of the state of recent use, the trail index and the distribution status of tour and management facilities were used. These features were processed using Marxan with Zones. As a result, the optimal solution of scenario 1 was selected as the final one following detailed verification of the area ratio and grouping of the Park Nature Conservation Area (zone A, 76.7%) and the Park Nature Environment Area (I) (zone B, 14.3%), the inclusion ratio of biotope grade I (95.2%) and the satisfied shortfall value of the conservation indicators. In the overlap analysis between the optimal solution and recent zonation, most of the features included in the suggested scenario were found to be correctly distributed according to the intensity of conservation. Furthermore, the northern parts of the watershed which include sub-alpine vegetation with the Baekdudaegan ridge as its ecological axis was newly separated into the Park Conservation Area. This verification confirmed the improvement of recent zonation through the concrete criteria of ecotope mapping.


Protected area Zonation Watershed Mapping Marxan with Zones 



We thank the University of Queensland for providing the Marxan with Zones program and the National Park Service for their cooperation with our survey and for providing data.


This research did not receive any dedicated grants from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Airame S (2005) Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary: advancing the science and policy of marine protected areas. In: Sholz A, Wright D (eds) Place matters: geospatial tools for marine science, conservation, and management in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, pp 91–124Google Scholar
  2. Ardron JA, Possingham HP, Klein CJ (2010) Marxan good practices handbook, version 2. A Manual. Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  3. Ban NC, Bodtker KM, Nicolson D, Robb CK, Royle K, Short C (2009) Setting the stage for marine spatial planning: ecological and social data collation and analyses in Canada’s Pacific waters. Mar Policy 39:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkes F, Kislalioglu M, Folke C, Gadgil M (1998) Exploring the basic ecological unit: ecosystem-like concepts in traditional societies. Ecosystems 1:409–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonham-Carter GF (1994) Geographic information systems for geoscientists: modeling with GIS. Pergamon, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bormann FH, Likens GE (1979) Pattern and process in a forested ecosystem. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carwardine J, Wilson KA, Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Naidoo R, Iwamura T, Hajkowicz SA, Possingham HP (2008) Cost-effective priorities for global mammal conservation. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 105:11446–11450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chape S, Harrison J, Spalding M, Lysenko I (2005) Measuring the extent and ffectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:443–455CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng J (2002) Discussion of importance index in technology foresight. Science and Technology Foresight Center, National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, Tokyo, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  10. Cho GH (1994) On the amendments of the nature park law to conserve the national parks in Korea. J Kor Plan Assoc 29(4):383–408Google Scholar
  11. Choi JW (2010) Comparisons of classification system of biotope type in major Korean cities. Korean J Environ Ecol 24:78–86Google Scholar
  12. Crawford BR, Kasmidi M, Korompis F, Pollnac RB (2006) Factors influencing progress in establishing community-based marine protected areas in Indonesia. Coast Manage 34:39–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Day JC (2002) Zoning-lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean Coast Manage 45:139–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dudley N (2004) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. A guideline. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  15. Dudley N (2008) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. A guideline. IUCN, SwitzerlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farina A (2014) Soundscape and landscape ecology. In: Jones BS, Smith RZ (eds) Soundscape ecology. Springer, Netherlands, pp 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Halpern BS, McLeod KL, Rosenberg AA, Crowder LB (2008) Managing for cumulative impacts in ecosystem-based management through ocean zoning. Ocean Coast Manage 51:203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Helliwell DR (1969) Valuation of wildlife resources. Reg Stud 3:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hong SK, Kim S, Cho KH, Kim JE, Kang S, Lee D (2004) Ecotope mapping for landscape ecological assessment of habitat and ecosystem. Ecol Res 19:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Horton RE (1945) Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: hydro-physical approach to quantitative morphology. Geol Soc Am Bull 56:275–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hull V, Xu W, Liu W, Zhou S, Vina A, Zhang J, Tuanmu MN, Huang J, Linderman M, Chen X, Huang Y (2011) Evaluating the efficacy of zoning designations for protected area management. Biol Conserv 144:3028–3037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. IUCN (1994) Guidelines for protected area management categories. A guideline. IUCN, Gland and CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Jefferson RG, Usher MB (1986) Ecological succession and the evaluation of nonclimax communities. In: Usher MB (ed) Wildlife conservation evaluation. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 69–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jo GH (1994) On the amendments of the nature park law to conserve the National Parks in Korea. J Kor Plan Assoc 29:383–408Google Scholar
  25. Jo TD, Lee MW, Kim JS (1997) Focused on nature preservation zone and natural environment zone of National Parks: a study for the improvement of the zoning of nature parks of Korea. J Kor Plan Assoc 32:185–202Google Scholar
  26. Joseph LN, Maloney RF, Watson JEM, Possingham HP (2009) Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species, a project prioritization protocal. Conserv Biol 23:328–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Joseph LN, Maloney RF, Watson JEM, Possingham HP (2011) Securing nonflagship species from extinction. Conserv Lett 4:324–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klein CJ, Chan A, Kircher L, Cundiff AJ, Gardner N, Hrovat Y, Airame S (2008a) Striking a balance between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic viability in the design of marine protected areas. Conserv Biol 22:691–700CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Klein CJ, Steinbeck C, Scholz AJ, Possingham HP (2008b) Effectiveness of marine reserve networks in representing biodiversity and minimizing impact to fishermen: a comparison of two approaches used in California. Conserv Lett 1:44–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Knight AT, Cowling RM, Campbell BM (2006) An operational model for implementing conservation action. Conserv Biol 20:408–419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee KJ, Kim GT, Yim KB (1994) Management proposal of Sobaeksan National Park. Kor J Environ Ecol 7:58–71Google Scholar
  32. Lee HJ, Cha JY, Chung CU, Kim YC, Kim SC, Kwon GH, Kim JJ (2014) Home range analysis of three medium-sized mammals in Sobaeksan National Park. J Korean Env Res Tech 17:51–60Google Scholar
  33. Levin N, Watson JE, Joseph LN, Grantham HS, Hadar L, Apel N, Perevolotsky A, DeMalach N, Possingham HP, Kark S (2013) A framework for systematic conservation planning and management of Mediterranean landscapes. Biol Cons 158:371–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lockwood M, Worboys GL, Kothari A (2006) Management planning. In: Managing protected areas a global guide. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Loucks C, Rickets TH, Naidoo R, Lamoreux J, Hoekstra J (2008) Explaining the global pattern of protected area coverage: relative importance of vertebrate biodiversity, human activities and agricultural suitability. J Biogeogr 35:1337–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meir E, Andelman S, Possingham HP (2004) Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world? Ecol Lett 7:615–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ministry of Environment (2009) Regulation about method of natural environment and categorizing criteria of grade. Ministry of EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  38. Ministry of Environment (2014) Study on strategy establishment of national level of biodiversity. Ministry of EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  39. Naidoo R, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ, Polasky S, Ricketts TH, Rouget M (2006) Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends Ecol Evol 21:681–687CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Pereira JMC, Duckstein L (1993) A multiple criteria decision-making approach to GIS-based land suitability evaluation. Int J Geogr Inf Sys 7:407–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pressey RL, Bottrill MC (2009) Approaches to landscape- and seascape-scale conservation planning: convergence, contrasts and challenges. Oryx 43:464–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reyers BJ, Patrick O, Jeanne LN, Kerrie W (2012) Expanding the conservation toolbox: conservation planning of multifunctional landscapes. Landsc Ecol 27:1121–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rouget M, Cowling RM, Pressey RL, Richardson DM (2003) Identifying spatial components of ecological and evolutionary processes for regional conservation planning in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Divers Distrib 9:191–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ruiz-Labourdette D, Schmitz MF, Montes C, Pineda FD (2010) Zoning a protected area: proposal based on a multi-thematic approach and final decision. Environ Model Assess 15:531–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schaller J (1992) Environmental impact of proposal site for 1992 Winter Games in Berchtesgaden. UNESCO, West GermanyGoogle Scholar
  46. Schmiing M, Diogo H, Santos RS, Afonso P (2015) Marine conservation of multispecies and multi-use areas with various conservation objectives and targets. ICES J Mar Sci 72(2):851–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scholz A, Bonzon K, Fujita R, Benjamin N, Woodling N, Black P, Steinback C (2004) Participatory socioeconomic analysis: drawing on fishermen’s knowledge for marine protected area planning in California. Mar Policy 28:335–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Seo CW, Park CH (2000) Wild boar (Sus scrofa coreanus Heude) habitat modeling using GIS and logistic regression. J Korea Spat Inf Soc 8:85–99Google Scholar
  49. Shehu Z, Akintoye A (2010) Major challenges to the successful implementation and practice of programme management in the construction environment: a critical analysis. Int J Proj Manage 28:26–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith TB, Kark S, Schneider C, Wayne R, Moritz C (2001) Biodiversity hotspots and beyond: the need for preserving environmental transitions. Trends Ecol Evol 16:431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sohn HG, Kim WJ, Park CH (2000) Landscape scale ecosystem assessment modelling using spatial pattern analysis of GIS: a case study of Yongin, Korea. J Korea Spat Inf Soc 8:233–241Google Scholar
  52. Solnetsev NA (2007) The natural geographic landscape and some of its general rules. In: Wiens JA, Moss MR, Turner MG, Mladenoff DJ (eds) Foundation papers in landscape ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 19–27Google Scholar
  53. Stewart R, Possingham H (2005) Efficiency, costs and trade-offs in marine reserve system design. Environ Model Assess 10:203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Store R, Kangas J (2001) Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert knowledge for GIS-based habitat suitability modelling. Landscape Urban Plan 55:79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Strahler AN (1952) Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topology. Geol Soc Am Bull 63:1117–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tjallingii SP (1976) Enkele opmerkingen over het begrip ekotoop. Gorteria 8:31–35Google Scholar
  57. UNESCO (2008) Madrid action plan for biosphere reserves (2008–2013). A Guideline. UNESCO, FranceGoogle Scholar
  58. Watson JEM, Grantham H, Wilson KA, Possingham HP (2011) Systematic conservation planning: past, present and future. In: Whittaker R, Ladle R (eds) Conservation biogeography. Wiley–Blackwell, Oxford, pp 136–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Watts M, Carissa K, Romola S, Ian B, Hugh P (2008) Marxan with Zones (v. 1.0.1). A manual. University of Queensland, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  60. Watts M, Ian B, Romola S, Carissa K, Kerrie W, Charles S, Reinaldo L, Lindsay K, Hugh P (2009) Marxan with Zones: software for optimal conservation based land-and sea-use zoning. Environ Model Softw 24:1513–1521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilson KA, Meijaard E, Drummond S et al (2010) Conserving biodiversity in production landscapes. Ecol Appl 20:1721–1732CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Yim KB, Lee KJ, Oh KK, Lee MW (1987) Management proposal of Bukhan Mountain National Park. Kor J Environ Ecol 1:83–97Google Scholar
  63. You JH, Park KH, Jung SG (2005) A study on importance of assessment factors and indicators of natural ecosystem for environmentally friendly land conservation. J Environ Impact Assess 14:165–177Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Consortium of Landscape and Ecological Engineering and Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Wetlands Center, National Institute of Environmental ResearchChangnyeong-gunRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.University of SeoulSeoul Metropolitan CityRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Environmental Ecosystem Research FoundationSeoul Metropolitan CityRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations