A framework for conservation area designation utilizing an ecotope concept and its application to a mountainous national park in Korea
- 166 Downloads
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.
KeywordsProtected 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.
- 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
- Ardron JA, Possingham HP, Klein CJ (2010) Marxan good practices handbook, version 2. A Manual. Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
- Bonham-Carter GF (1994) Geographic information systems for geoscientists: modeling with GIS. Pergamon, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Choi JW (2010) Comparisons of classification system of biotope type in major Korean cities. Korean J Environ Ecol 24:78–86Google Scholar
- Dudley N (2004) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. A guideline. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
- IUCN (1994) Guidelines for protected area management categories. A guideline. IUCN, Gland and CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Lee KJ, Kim GT, Yim KB (1994) Management proposal of Sobaeksan National Park. Kor J Environ Ecol 7:58–71Google Scholar
- 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
- Lockwood M, Worboys GL, Kothari A (2006) Management planning. In: Managing protected areas a global guide. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Ministry of Environment (2009) Regulation about method of natural environment and categorizing criteria of grade. Ministry of EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
- Ministry of Environment (2014) Study on strategy establishment of national level of biodiversity. Ministry of EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
- Schaller J (1992) Environmental impact of proposal site for 1992 Winter Games in Berchtesgaden. UNESCO, West GermanyGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Tjallingii SP (1976) Enkele opmerkingen over het begrip ekotoop. Gorteria 8:31–35Google Scholar
- UNESCO (2008) Madrid action plan for biosphere reserves (2008–2013). A Guideline. UNESCO, FranceGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Yim KB, Lee KJ, Oh KK, Lee MW (1987) Management proposal of Bukhan Mountain National Park. Kor J Environ Ecol 1:83–97Google Scholar
- 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