Human Impact on Coastal Sand Dune Ecosystems in Korea

Part of the Ecological Research Monographs book series (ECOLOGICAL)


Coastal sand dune areas, which serve as an ecotone, constitute an important ecosystem located between coastal and terrestrial areas. Moreover, they represent complicated landscapes featuring geomorphological interactions such as erosion and the accumulation of sand. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the sand dune ecosystem from the standpoint of landscape scale, including the background landscape which affects the origin of the sand dune. The ecological landscape approach has already begun to be used to study complex ecosystems in developed countries, and has even been applied to national land management and biodiversity conservation strategies. To this end, this chapter describes a landscape ecological analysis, conducted in the form of a landscape pattern analysis, and carried out in seven areas of Korea where coastal sand dune ecosystems can be found. Nine landscape components were identified in these areas. Although the areas were composed of various patch types, forest and agricultural land were identified as the main background landscape components. However, as several variables, such as the scale and spatial patterns of study areas, influence the results, caution is needed when using landscape indices. Although landscape analyses through landscape indices are sometimes hard-pressed to explain an ecosystem, the landscape-scale approach to ecosystem assessment remains a useful method of interpreting ecological processes in large range habitats.

This paper is a modification of the article ‘Landscape ecological analysis of coastal sand dune ecosystem in Korea’, which was written in Korean with English abstract and published in the Journal of the Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology (2009; 12(3): 21–32).


Sand Dune Landscape Level Shape Index Patch Type Landscape Index 



This research was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2009-361-A00007).


  1. Acosta A, Blasi C, Stanisci A (2000) Spatial connectivity and boundary patterns in coastal dune vegetation in the Circeo National Park, Central Italy. J Veg Sci 11:149–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acosta A, Carranza ML, Izzi CF (2005) Combining land cover mapping of coastal dunes with vegetation analysis. Appl Veg Sci 8:133–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beever EA, Swihart RK, Bestelmeyer BT (2006) Linking the concept of scale to studies of biological diversity: evolving approaches and tools. Divers Distrib 12:229–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carboni M, Carranza ML, Acosta A (2009) Assessing conservation status on coastal dunes: a multiscale approach. Landsc Urban Plan 91(1):17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carranza ML, Feola S, Acosta A, Stanisci A (2007) Using between patch boundaries for conservation status assessment on coastal dune ecosystems. In: Bunce RGH, Jongman RHG, Lojas L, Weel S (eds) 25 years landscape ecology: scientific principles in practice. IALE Publication Series 4, Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  6. Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, New York, 632pGoogle Scholar
  7. Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 619pGoogle Scholar
  8. Greipsson S (2002) Coastal dunes. In: Perrow MR, Davy AJ (eds) Handbook of ecological restoration, vol 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 214–237Google Scholar
  9. Haines-Young R, Green DR, Conusins S (1996) Landscape ecology and GIS. Taylor & Francis, London 288pGoogle Scholar
  10. Hong SK, Kim JE (2008) Applying geographical information system and landscape indices to landscape ecological analysis of maritime villages in Korea: case study on fishery villages in Tae-An Peninsula, Chungnam. Island Cult 31:278–294 (in Korean with English abstract)Google Scholar
  11. Hong SK, Kim S, Cho KH, Kim JE, Kang S, Lee DW (2004) Ecotope mapping for landscape ecological assessment of habitat and ecosystem. Ecol Res 19:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hong SK, Nakagoshi N, Fu B, Morimoto Y (2007) Landscape ecological applications in man-influenced areas: linking man and nature systems. Springer, Dordrecht, 535pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hong SK, Koh CH, Harris RR, Kim JE, Lee JS, Ihm BS (2010) Land use in Korean tidal wetlands: impacts and management strategies. Environ Manage 45(5):1014–1026PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim JE, Hong SK, Nakagoshi N (2006) Changes in patch mosaics and vegetation structure of rural forested landscapes under shifting human impacts in South Korea. Landsc Ecol Eng 2:117–195Google Scholar
  15. Kutiel P, Zhevelev H, Harrison R (1999) The effect of recreational impacts on soil and vegetation of stabilized coastal dunes in the Sharon Park, Israel. Ocean Coast Manag 42:1041–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee WT, Chon SK (1984) Ecological studies on the coastal plants in Korea: on the sand dune vegetation of the western coast. Korean J Ecol 7(2):74–84 (in Korean with English abstract)Google Scholar
  17. Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li H, Wu J (2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landsc Ecol 19:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McGarigal K, Marks B (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Research StationGoogle Scholar
  20. Moser D, Zechmeister H, Plutzar C, Sauberer N, Wrbka T, Grabherr G (2002) Landscape patch shape complexity as an effective measure for plant species richness in rural landscapes. Landsc Ecol 17(7):657–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nigel G, Yoccoz JDN, Boulinier T (2001) Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends Ecol Evol 16(8):446–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Romme WH, Knight DH (1982) Landscape diversity: the concept applied to Yellowstone Park. Bioscience 32:664–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Roy PS, Tomar S (2000) Biodiversity characterization at landscape level using geospatial modelling technique. Biol Conserv 95:95–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Taveira Pinto F (2004) The practice of coastal zone management in Portugal. J Coast Conserv 10:147–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Turner MG, Romme WH, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV, Kratz TK (1993) A revised concept of landscape equilibrium: disturbance and stability on scaled landscape. Landsc Ecol 8:213–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. Springer, New York, 401pGoogle Scholar
  27. Walker S, Bastow WJ, Steel JB, Rapson GL, Smith B, King WM, Cottam YH (2003) Properties of ecotones: evidence from five ecotones objectively determined from a coastal vegetation gradient. J Veg Sci 14:579–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Williams AT, Alveirinho-Dias J, Novo FG, Garcia-Mora MR, Curr R, Pereirae A (2001) Integrated coastal dune management: checklists. Cont Shelf Res 21:1937–1960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wu J, Loucks OL (1995) From balance-of-nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: a paradigm shift in ecology. Q Rev Biol 70:439–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yoccoz NG, Nichols JD, Boulinier T (2001) Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends Ecol Evol 16(8):446–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institution for Marine and Island CulturesMokpo National UniversityJeonnamRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations