Skip to main content

The importance of the Mujechineup wetland for biodiversity: an evaluation of habitat quality and ecosystem service value


Wetlands are important multifunctional systems that provide various ecological services for animal populations, particularly with regard to regulation and support. The biodiversity of wetlands is threatened by human activities that cause habitat fragmentation and destruction. The international community needs to make efforts to measure habitat quality and recognize the value of biodiversity. This study aimed to evaluate the value of Nannophya koreana habitat restoration in the Mujechineup wetland. First, through a literature review, this study estimated the expected ecosystem service value of the Mujechineup wetland compared to existing wetlands. The Mujechineup wetland's ecosystem service value ranged from a minimum of $109,296.00 (SD $32,752.00) to a maximum of $679,457.14 (SD $4,611,730.90). Second, we quantified the habitat quality of the Mujechineup wetland in Ulsan for biodiversity measurements using the integrated valuation of ecosystem services and tradeoffs (InVEST). The analysis showed that there was a difference in the quality of the habitat depending on the spatial unit. Samdong-myeon was processed for 2 min with a mean value of 0.094. Ulju-gun was processed for 1 h 14 min with a mean value of 0.146. In addition, as a result of the field survey, the ratio of Hemiptera, Odonata and Coleoptera (HOC) groups in the Mujechineup wetland where Nannophya koreana lives was more than 50%, but the ratio of predators was approximately 10% on average. Third, this study investigated the willingness to pay to restore the habitat of Nannophya koreana, which lives in the Mujechineup wetland. The average amount that people would be willing to pay annually for the restoration of the Mujechineup wetland was $33,652. The study found that awareness of the importance of Nannophya koreana and the need for restoration of its habitat environment was high. These findings can be used to recognize the value of the Mujechineup wetland as a habitat for Nannophya koreana and to communicate its importance.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3


Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Availability of data and materials

Data and material sharing are not applicable.


  • Allen CD, Savage M, Falk DA, Suckling KF, Swetnam TW, Schulke T, Stacey PB, Morgan P, Hoffman M, Klingel JT (2002) Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecol Appl 12:1418–1433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aneseyee AB, Noszczyk T, Soromessa T, Elias E (2020) The InVEST habitat quality model associated with land use/cover changes: a qualitative case study of the winike watershed in the omo-gibe basin. Southwest Ethiopia Remote Sens 12:1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin G (2014) Green infrastructure for landscape planning: integrating human and natural systems. Informa UK Limited, Routledge, Oxfordshire.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bae YJ, Yeom JH, Cha JY, Yoon IB (1999) Morphology, habitat, and distributional records of Nannophya pygmaea ramber (Libellulidae, Odonata). Korean J Entomol 29:287–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Bae YJ, Yum JH, Kim DG, Suh KI, Kang JH (2020) Nannophya koreana sp. nov. (Odonata: Libellulidae): a new dragonfly species previously recognized in Korea as the endangered pygmy dragonfly Nannophya pygmaea rambur. J Species Res 9:1–10.

  • Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper P et al (2002) Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297:950–953.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bhagabati NK, Ricketts T, Sulistyawan TBS, Conte M, Ennaanay D, Hadian O, McKenzie E, Olwero N, Rosenthal A, Tallis H, Wolny S (2014) Ecosystem services reinforce Sumatran tiger conservation in land use plans. Biol Conserv 169:147–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs R, Schlüter M, Biggs D et al (2012) Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:421–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boutwell J, Westra J (2013) Benefit transfer: a review of methodologies and challenges. Resources 2:517–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brande L (2013) Guidance manual on value transfer methods for ecosystem service. Publishing Services Section UNON, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson BR, Ausseil AE, Gerbeaux P (2013) Wetland ecosystems services. In: Dymond JR (ed) Ecosystem services in New Zealand: conditions and trends. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, pp 192–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R et al (1998) The value of ecosystem services: putting the issues in perspective. Ecol Econ 25:67–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, van der Ploeg S, Anderson SJ, Kubiszewski I, Farber S, Turner RK (2014) Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change 26:152–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cylinder PD, Bogdan KM, Davis EM, Herson AI (1994) Wetlands regulation: a complete guide to federal and California programs. Solano Press Books Point Arena, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies ZG, Edmondson JL, Heinemeyer A, Leake JR, Gaston KJ (2011) Mapping an urban ecosystem service: quantifying above-ground carbon storage at a city-wide scale. J Appl Ecol 48:1125–1134.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desvousges WH, Johnson FR, Banzhaf HS (1998) Environmental policy analysis with limited information: principles and application of the transfer method. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Duarte GT, Ribeiro MC, Paglia AP (2016) Ecosystem services modeling as a tool for defining priority areas for conservation. PLoS ONE 11:e0154573.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenfeld JG (2000) Defining the limits of restoration: the need for realistic goals. Restor Ecol 8:2–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao J, Li F, Gao H, Zhou C, Zhang X (2017) The impact of land-use change on water-related ecosystem services: a study of the guishui river basin, Beijing, China. J Clean Prod 163:148–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66:332–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim DG, Yum JW, Yoon T, Bae YJ (2010) Life history of an endangered dragonfly, nannophya pygmaea rambur, in Korea (Anisoptera: Libellulidae). Odonatologica 39:39–46

  • Kim T, Song C, Lee WK, Kim M, Lim CH, Jeon SW, Kim J (2015) Habitat quality valuation using InVEST model in Jeju Island. J Korea Soc Environ Restor Technol 18:1–11.

  • Kim M, Oh CO, Kim N, Joo W (2020) Assessing beneficiary benefits for the introduction of payments for ecosystem services in wetland protected areas. J Environ Policy Adm 28:19–39.

  • Kong MJ, Lee BM, Kim NC, Son JK (2014) The analysis of function and factors for the value assessment of ecosystem service at rice paddy wetland. J Wetl Res 16:251–259.

  • Lee J, Kang D, Sung K (2010) Assessment of the wetland soil development of constructed wetlands using soil properties of a reference wetland. J Wetl Res 12:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee H, You S, Chon J (2015) The management methods of multi-purpose ecological reservoir by system thinking—focused on Anteo eco park. J Korea Soc Environ Restor Technol 18:1–17.

  • McPhearson T, Andersson E, Elmqvist T, Frantzeskaki N (2015) Resilience of and through urban ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 12:152–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: opportunities and challenges for business and industry. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Environment (1997) Report on the survey results of the Mujechineup wetland of Jeongjoksan (first year). Ministry of Environment, Gwacheon

  • Ministry of Environment (2009) Development of preservation, restoration, and propagation techniques on two endangered wetland insects, Lethocerus deyrollei and Nannophya pygmaea, in Korea. Ministry of Environment, Gwacheon

  • Ministry of Environment (2018) Comprehensive plan for conservation of endangered wildlife (2018–2027). Ministry of Environment, Sejong

  • Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2000) The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting. Ecol Econ 35:25–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Ecology (2019) A guideline for ecosystem services assessment of wetland protected areas. Ministry of Environment and National Institute of Ecology, Seocheon

  • Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J et al (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7:4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh KC, Ro KH, Lee HG, Kim DG (2017) Suggestions for protecting and preserving the level II endangered species Nannophya pygmaea in Korea. Environ Biol Res 35:545–548.

  • Osland MJ, Hughes AR, Armitage AR et al (2022) The impacts of mangrove range expansion on wetland ecosystem services in the southeastern United States: current understanding, knowledge gaps, and emerging research needs. Glob Change Biol 28:3163–3187.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel D, Wilson C, McCullum C, Huang R, Dwen P, Flack J, Tran Q, Saltman T, Cliff B (1997) Economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity. Bioscience 47:747–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsar Convention Secretariat (2013) The Ramsar convention manual: a guide to the convention on wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971). Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland

  • Rosenberger RS, Loomis JB (2001) Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation use values: a technical document supporting the forest service strategic plan (2000 revision). General technical report RMRS-GTR-72. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO

  • Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV et al (2011) A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol 48:630–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp R, Douglass J, Wolny S et al (2015) InVEST user’s guide. Stanford University, University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Minneapolis, MN

    Google Scholar 

  • Treweek J (1995) Ecological impact assessment. Impact Assess 13:289–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidal-Legaz B, Martínez-Fernández J, Picón AS, Pugnaire FI (2013) Trade-offs between maintenance of ecosystem services and socio-economic development in rural mountainous communities in southern Spain: a dynamic simulation approach. J Environ Manag 131:280–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vigerstol KL, Aukema JE (2011) A comparison of tools for modeling freshwater ecosystem services. J Environ Manag 92:2403–2409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi H, Güneralp B, Filippi AM, Kreuter UP, Güneralp İ (2017) Impacts of land change on ecosystem services in the San Antonio river basin, Texas, from 1984 to 2010. Ecol Econ 135:125–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi H, Güneralp B, Kreuter UP, Güneralp İ, Filippi AM (2018) Spatial and temporal changes in biodiversity and ecosystem services in the San Antonio river basin, Texas, from 1984 to 2010. Sci Total Environ 619–620:1259–1271.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y, Jin R, Zhu W et al (2020) Impacts of land use changes on wetland ecosystem services in the Tumen River Basin. Sustainability 12:9821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2021R1A6A1A10045235).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



Youngsun Seok: original draft and conceptualization, software, formal analysis, review and editing, and visualization. Dong Gun Kim: original draft and conceptualization, review and editing, investigation, methodology, formal analysis, and resources. Jaewoo Son: visualization, software, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, and resources. Jeryang Park: methodology, software, validation, review and editing, and resources. Junga Lee: supervision, validation, resources, review and editing, project administration, and funding acquisition. All the authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Junga Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

There was no need for ethical approval.

Consent to participate

There was no need for consent to participate.

Consent to publish

There was no need for consent to publish.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 32 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seok, Y., Kim, D.G., Son, J. et al. The importance of the Mujechineup wetland for biodiversity: an evaluation of habitat quality and ecosystem service value. Landscape Ecol Eng 18, 477–491 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Ecosystem service
  • Restoration
  • Endangered species
  • Wildlife
  • Nannophya koreana