Advertisement

Landscape and Ecological Engineering

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 259–268 | Cite as

Morphological analysis of green infrastructure in the Seoul metropolitan area, South Korea

  • Sangjun Kang
  • Jin-Oh Kim
Original Paper

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to understand changes in green infrastructure (GI) in the Seoul metropolitan area, South Korea, focusing on the critical GI components of hubs and links. We applied a morphological analysis tool, morphological spatial pattern analysis (MSPA), to explore GI in the Seoul metropolitan area. For input data to run MSPA, we used 30-m pixel-sized land cover data of 2000 and 2009 provided by the Ministry of Environment of Korea. Land cover data are used as foundational information for GI network mapping. Using MSPA, we examined morphological changes in hubs and links from 2000 to 2009 in the metropolitan area as well as in 32 municipalities in Gyeonggi-do, a major part of the metropolitan area. Our analysis showed that the area of hubs in the Seoul metropolis has decreased, while the number of links has dramatically increased, over this 10-year period. This implies that hubs have largely been fragmented into smaller ones with a rapid increase in links in a way that does not conserve and enhance GI. We also compared analysis of network area changes in the Seoul metropolitan area with the environmental conservation value assessment map (ECVAM) currently in use by the government to assess conservation value, and found that the network areas of 2009 mapped by MSPA corresponded to a 87.8 % level to the Grade I areas of the ECVAM, with variation by municipality. From these analyses, we conclude that MSPA is helpful in establishing conservation planning strategies optimized for local and regional contexts. The MSPA also provides a useful tool to complement the ECVAM for improving GI functions.

Keywords

Green network Environmental conservation MSPA 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a research grant from the Kyung Hee University in 2013 (KHU-20130682).

References

  1. Bae C (2013) Urban Densification: The Greenbelt in Seoul (from the website http://blogs.ubc.ca/cindybae/2013/04/08/the-greenbelt-in-seoul. Accessed 29 Sept 2014
  2. Benedict M, McMahon E (2002) GI: smart conservation for the 21st Century. Renew Resour J 20(3):12–17Google Scholar
  3. Carr, MH, Hoctor TD, Goodison C, Zwick PD, Green J, Hernandez P (2002) Final Report: Southeastern Ecological Framework (from the website http://www.geoplan.ufl.edu/epa/index.html Accessed 15 Jan 2014
  4. Conn C (2009) Green Infrastructure and Greenprint. Maryland Natural ResourceGoogle Scholar
  5. European Environmental Agency (2011) Green infrastructure and territorial cohesion. EEA Technical, Report 18Google Scholar
  6. Forman R (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Hoctor TS, Carr HM, Zwick PD (2000) Identifying a linked reserve system using a regional landscape approach: the Florida ecological network. Conserv Biol 144:984–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jeon S, Song W, Lee M, Kang B (2010) Improvement of the environmental conservation value assessment map (ECVAM) by complement of the vegetation community stability item. Korea Soc Environ Restor Reveg Technol 13(2):114–123 (in Korean with English abstract)Google Scholar
  9. Kang SJ, Kwon TJ, Jung JC (2010) Assessment of low carbon city planning elements relative to urban types. J Environ Policy Admin 18(1):27–53Google Scholar
  10. Kim HM, Han SS (2012) Seoul. Cities 29:142–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kohut SM, Hess GR, Moorman CE (2009) Avian use of suburban greenways as stopover habitat. Urb Ecosyst 12:487–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Levey DJ, Bolker BM, Tewskbury JI, Sargent S, Haddad NM (2005) Effects of landscape corridors on seed dispersal by birds. Science 309:146–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lewis P (1964) Quality corridors for wisconsin. Landsc Archit 54:100–107Google Scholar
  14. McHarg I (1969) Design with Nature. The Natural History Press, Garden City, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Ministry of Environment of Korea (2005) Environmental conservation value assessment map for central region in the republic of Korea. Gwacheon, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  16. Sandstrom UF (2002) GI planning in urban Sweden. Plan Pract Res 17(4):373–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith D (1993) An overview of greenways: their history, ecological context, and specific functions. In: Smith D, Hellmund P (eds) Ecology of greenways. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  18. Soille P (2003) Morphological image analysis: principles and applications, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Soille P, Vogt P (2009) Morphological segmentation of binary patterns. Pattern Recogn Lett 30:456–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sung HC (1996) A study on the Establishment of Green Network. Gyeonggi Research Institute Report 96-04Google Scholar
  21. Turner T (1996) City as landscape. A Post-postmodern View of Design and Planning. E&FN Spon, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Tzoulas K, Korperla K, Venn S, Yli-Pelkonen V, Kazmierczak A, Niemela J, James P (2007) Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using GI: a literature review. Landsc Urb Plan 81:167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Van der Ryn S, Cowan S (1996) Ecological design. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Vogt P (2010) User guide of GUIDOS. Institute for Environment and Sustainability European Commission, Joint Research Centre, TP 2611-21027 Ispra (VA), ItalyGoogle Scholar
  25. Vogt P, Riitters K, Iwanowiski M, Estreguil C, Kozak J, Soille P (2007) Mapping landscape corridors. Ecol Indic 7(2):481–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Walmsley A (2006) Greenways: multiplying and diversifying in the 21st century. Landsc Urb Plan 76:252–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weber T (2004) Landscape ecological assessment of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Environ Monit Assess 94:39–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weber T, Sloan A, Wolf J (2006) Maryland’s GI assessment: development of a comprehensive approach to land conservation. Landsc Urb Plan 77:94–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wickham J, Riitters K, Wade T, Vogt P (2010) A national assessment of GI and change for the conterminous United States using morphological image processing. Landsc Urb Plan 94:186–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wise S (2008) GI Rising. J Am Plann Assoc 74(1):14–19Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Consortium of Landscape and Ecological Engineering and Springer Japan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Landscape ArchitectureKyung Hee UniversityYongin-SiKorea
  2. 2.Department of EnvironmentGyeonggi Research InstituteSuwon-SiKorea

Personalised recommendations