Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Selecting and applying quantification models for ecosystem services to forest ecosystems in South Korea

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Forestry Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is growing interest in using ecosystem services to aid development of management strategies that target sustainability and enhance ecosystem support to humans. Challenges remain in the search for methods and indicators that can quantify ecosystem services using metrics that are meaningful in light of their high priorities. We developed a framework to link ecosystems to human wellbeing based on a stepwise approach. We evaluated prospective models in terms of their capacity to quantify national ecosystem services of forests. The most applicable models were subsequently used to quantify ecosystem services. The Korea Forest Research Institute model satisfied all criteria in its first practical use. A total of 12 key ecosystem services were identified. For our case study, we quantified four ecosystem functions, viz. water storage capacity in forest soil for water storage service, reduced suspended sediment for water purification service, reduced soil erosion for landslide prevention service, and reduced sediment yield for sediment regulation service. Water storage capacity in forest soil was estimated at 2142 t/ha, and reduced suspended sediment was estimated at 608 kg/ha. Reduced soil erosion was estimated at 77 m3/ha, and reduced sediment yield was estimated at 285 m3/ha. These results were similar to those reported by previous studies. Mapped results revealed hotspots of ecosystem services around protected areas that were particularly rich in biodiversity. In addition, the proposed framework illustrated that quantification of ecosystem services could be supported by the spatial flow of ecosystem services. However, our approach did not address challenges faced when quantifying connections between ecosystem indicators and actual benefits of services described.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bagstad KJ, Villa F, Johnson G, Voigt B (2011) ARIES—artificial intelligence for ecosystem services: a guide to models and data, version 1.0. ARIES report series, 1.0. The Aries Consortium. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaRev/meeting2013/EG13-BG-7.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2016

  • Bagstad KJ, Semmens DJ, Waage S, Winthrop R (2013) A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst Serv 5:27–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagstad KJ, Villa F, Batker D, Harrison-Cox J, Voigt B, Johnson GW (2014) From theoretical to actual ecosystem services: mapping beneficiaries and spatial flows in ecosystem service assessments. Ecol Soc 19(2):64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Mace GM, Fezzi C, Atkinson G, Turner K (2011) Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environ Resource Econ 48(2):177–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boumans R, Costanza R (2007) The multiscale integrated Earth Systems model (MIMES): the dynamics, modeling and valuation of ecosystem services. Issues Glob Water Syst Res 2:10–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Boumans R, Costanza R, Farley J, Wilson M, Portela R, Rotmans J, Villa F, Grasso M (2002) Modeling the dynamics of the integrated earth system and the value of global ecosystem services using the GUMBO model. Ecol Econ 41(3):529–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouwman AF, Kram T, Goldewijk KK (2006) Integrated modelling of global environmental change, an overview of IMAGE 2.4. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), Bilthoven. http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/500110002.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2016

  • Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63(2):616–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhard B, Kroll F, Müller F, Windhorst W (2009) Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services—a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landsc Online 15:1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2012) Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Ind 21:17–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung Y (1998) The methods for increasing water resources in forest. Environ Life 16:120–133 (in Korean)

    Google Scholar 

  • CICES (Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services) (2013) CICES V4.3. European Environment Agency. www.cices.eu. Accessed 11 Mar 2016

  • Costanza R, d’Arge R, Groot Rd, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cowling RM, Egoh B, Knight AT, O’Farrell PJ, Reyers B, Rouget M, Roux DJ, Welz A, Wilhelm-Rechman A (2008) An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(28):9483–9488

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Daily GC, Matson PA (2008) Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(28):9455–9456

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7(3):260–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dominati E, Patterson M, Mackay A (2010) A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils. Ecol Econ 69(9):1858–1868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, Richardson DM, Le Maitre DC, van Jaarsveld AS (2008) Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agric Ecosyst Environ 127(1):135–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Union (2014) Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services: indicators for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/2ndMAESWorkingPaper.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2016

  • Frélichová J, Vačkář D, Pártl A, Loučková B, Harmáčková ZV, Lorencová E (2014) Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in the Czech Republic. Ecosyst Serv 8:110–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GFERI (Gyeongsangnamdo Forest Environmental Research Institute) (2014) New forest technology. Gyeongsangnamdo Forest Environmental Research Institute. http://tree.gndo.kr/05research/020703.jsp. Accessed 13 May 14 (in Korean)

  • Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2010) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli DG, Frid CLJ (eds) Ecosystem ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 110–139

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R, Potschin M, Kienast F (2012) Indicators of ecosystem service potential at European scales: mapping marginal changes and trade-offs. Ecol Ind 21:39–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heo HY, Hockings M, Shin WW, Chung HJ, Dudley N, Shadie P, Vaisanen R, Vincent G, Kim H, Park SY, Yang SW (2010) Management effectiveness evaluation of Korea’s protected area system. J Natl Park Res 1(3):169–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Keppo I, O’Neill BC, Riahi K (2007) Probabilistic temperature change projections and energy system implications of greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 74(7):936–961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KFRI (Korea Forest Research Institute) (2011) The 5th national forestry inventory report. Korea Forest Research Institute Press, pp 30–36 (in Korean)

  • KFS (Korea Forest Service) (2007) The effect of forest tending works for improving the green infrastructure function. Korea Forest Service Press, Daejeon, pp 11–22 (in Korean)

    Google Scholar 

  • KFS (Korea Forest Service) (2010) Forest tending works manual. Korea Forest Service Press, Daejeon, pp 1–10 (in Korean)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim JH, Kim KD, Kim RH, Park CR, Youn HJ, Lee SW, Choi HT, Kim JJ (2010) A study on the estimation and the evaluation methods of public function of forest. Korea Forest Research Institute. http://book.nifos.go.kr/KFRICAB/IMG/006/001/155077.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2016 (in Korean)

  • Kim JH, Kim RH, Youn HJ, Lee SW, Choi HT, Kim JJ, Park CR, Kim KD (2012) Valuation of nonmarket forest resources. Korean Inst For Recreat 16(4):9–18 (in Korean)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Koschke L, Fuerst C, Frank S, Makeschin F (2012) A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning. Ecol Ind 21:54–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucharik CJ, Foley JA, Delire C, Fisher VA, Coe MT, Lenters JD, Young-Molling C, Ramankutty N, Norman JM, Gower ST (2000) Testing the performance of a dynamic global ecosystem model: water balance, carbon balance, and vegetation structure. Global Biogeochem Cycles 14(3):795–825

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Layke C (2009) Measuring nature’s benefits: a preliminary roadmap for improving ecosystem service indicators. World Resources Institute, Washington. http://pdf.wri.org/measuring_natures_benefits.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2016

  • Lee K (1995) A system for evaluation and allocation of forest functions. J For Sci 41:124–137 (in Korean)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee J, Kim J, Seo O (1989) Study on forest classification and evaluation method. Korea Forest Service Press, Daejeon, pp 21–54 (in Korean)

    Google Scholar 

  • MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being. Island Press Washington, DC. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2016

  • Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Schägner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, Notte AL, Zulian G, Bouraoui F, Luisa Paracchini M, Braat L, Bidoglio G (2012) Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst Serv 1(1):31–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuoka Y, Kainuma M, Morita T (1995) Scenario analysis of global warming using the Asian Pacific Integrated Model (AIM). Energy Policy 23(4):357–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MOE (Korea Ministry of Environment) (2014) Republic of Korea’s fifth national report to the convention on biological diversity. Ministry of Environment. https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/kr/kr-nr-05-en.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2016

  • Müller F, de Groot R, Willemen L (2010) Ecosystem services at the landscape scale: the need for integrative approaches. Landsc Online 23:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan M, Guerry A, Arkema K, Bagstad K, Villa F (2010) Capturing and quantifying the flow of ecosystem services. In: Silvestri S, Kershaw F (eds) Framing the flow: innovative approaches to understand, protect and value ecosystem services across linked habitats. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK. http://www.unep.org/pdf/Framing_the_Flow_lowres_20final.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2016

  • Naidoo R, Balmford A, Costanza R, Fisher B, Green RE, Lehner B, Malcolm T, Ricketts TH (2008) Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(28):9495–9500

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron D, Chan KM, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7(1):4–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paltsev S, Reilly JM, Jacoby HD, Eckaus RS, McFarland JR, Sarofim MC, Asadoorian MO, Babiker MH (2005) The MIT emissions prediction and policy analysis (EPPA) model: version 4. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt125.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 03 2016

  • Parton WJ, Stewart JW, Cole CV (1988) Dynamics of C, N, P and S in grassland soils: a model. Biogeochemistry 5(1):109–131

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Perrings C, Duraiappah A, Larigauderie A, Mooney H (2011) The biodiversity and ecosystem services science-policy interface. Science 331(6021):1139–1140

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Riahi K, Roehrl RA (2000) Greenhouse gas emissions in a dynamics-as-usual scenario of economic and energy development. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 63(2):175–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schröter D, Acosta-Michlik L, Arnell A, Araújo M, Badeck F, Bakker M, Bondeau A, Bugmann H, Carter T, Vega-Leinert A (2004) Advanced terrestrial ecosystem analysis and modelling. ATEAM Final report 2004. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam. https://www.pik-potsdam.de/ateam/ateam_final_report_sections_5_to_6.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2016

  • Sharp R, Tallis HT, Ricketts T, Guerry AD, Wood SA, Chaplin-Kramer R, Nelson E, Ennaanay D, Wolny S, Olwero N, Vigerstol K, Pennington D, Mendoza G, Aukema J, Foster J, Forrest J, Cameron D, Arkema K, Lonsdorf E, Kennedy C, Verutes G, Kim CK, Guannel G, Papenfus M, Toft J, Marsik M, Bernhardt J, Griffin R, Glowinski K, Chaumont N, Perelman A, Lacayo M, Mandle L, Hamel P, Vogl AL (2014) InVEST +VERSION+ user’s guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford. http://data.naturalcapitalproject.org/nightly-build/invest-users-guide/InVEST_+VERSION+_Documentation.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2016

  • TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. http://www.teebweb.org/publication/mainstreaming-the-economics-of-nature-a-synthesis-of-the-approach-conclusions-and-recommendations-of-teeb/. Accessed 11 Mar 2016

  • Villa F, Voinov A, Fitz C, Costanza R (2004) Calibration of large spatial models: a multistage, multiobjective optimization technique, landscape simulation modeling. In: Costanza R, Voinov A (eds) Landscape simulation modeling: a spatially explicit dynamic approach. Springer, New York, pp 77–116

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Willemen L, Verburg PH, Hein L, van Mensvoort MEF (2008) Spatial characterization of landscape functions. Landsc Urban Plan 88(1):34–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Science and Ecological Engineering, Korea University, Seoul, 02841, Republic of Korea

    Hyun-Ah Choi, Woo-Kyun Lee, Cholho Song & Seongwoo Jeon

  2. Ecosystems Services and Management Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Schlossplatz 1, 2361, Laxenburg, Austria

    Nicklas Forsell

  3. Department of Forest Management, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, 24341, Republic of Korea

    Joon Soon Kim

  4. Korea Forest Conservation Association, 186 Dongjak-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06559, Republic of Korea

    So Ra Kim

Authors
  1. Hyun-Ah Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Woo-Kyun Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cholho Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicklas Forsell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Seongwoo Jeon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joon Soon Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. So Ra Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Woo-Kyun Lee.

Additional information

Project funding: This study was supported by the Korea Ministry of Environment as “Climate Change Correspondence Program (2014001310008)” and “The Eco-Innovation Project (Project Number: 2012-00021-0002)”.

The online version is available at http://www.springerlink.com

Corresponding editor: Zhu Hong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Choi, HA., Lee, WK., Song, C. et al. Selecting and applying quantification models for ecosystem services to forest ecosystems in South Korea. J. For. Res. 27, 1373–1384 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-016-0259-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-016-0259-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation