Integrated Approaches for National Ecosystem Assessment in South Korea

Abstract

Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystem functions. Ecosystem services can be quantified through an ecosystem assessment. Its goal is to assess the effects of changes in the ecosystem to support human welfare. Ecosystem services assessment approaches support policy, decision-making, and implementation to protect biodiversity and ecosystem at national, regional and global levels. For natural resources management National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) was recently undertaken in Belgium, Spain, France and the UK, along with other ecosystem assessments at the national level. In South Korea, sustainable use of ecosystem services has attracted the interest of a range of policy makers. Although there is a greater concern for biodiversity and ecosystem services, linking ecosystems with conservation planning in South Korea remains a challenge. There is no implementation, framework or manual for NEA at the national level. Thus, this study proposes integrated assessment approaches that could be applied for decision-making at the national level in South Korea. This study demonstrated conceptual approaches step by step description for supporting natural resources management at national level. The proposed approaches can provide useful information for ecosystem services assessment, habitat conservation, conservation planning, and decision-making at the national level.

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

References

  1. Ahn, S. (2013). “Definition and classification of ecosystem services for decision making.” Journal of Environmental Policy, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bagstad, K. J., Semmens, D. J., and Winthrop, R. (2013). “Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: A case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona.” Ecosystem Services, Vol. 5, pp. 40–50, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bagstad, K., Villa, F., Johnson, G., and Voigt, B. (2011). ARIES–ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services: A guide to models and data, version 1.0. ARIES report series, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bai, Y., Zhuang, C., Ouyang, Z., Zheng, H., and Jiang, B. (2011). “Spatial characteristics between biodiversity and ecosystem services in a human-dominated watershed.” Ecological Complexity, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 177–183, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2011.01.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bryan, B. A., Raymond, C., Crossman, N. D., and King, D. (2011). “Comparing spatially explicit ecological and social values for natural areas to identify effective conservation strategies.” Conservation Biology, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 172–181, DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739. 2010.01560.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. CBD (2011). Conference of the Parties Decision X/2: Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011-2020.

  7. Chan, K. M., Shaw, M. R., Cameron, D. R., Underwood, E.C., and Daily, G. C. (2006). “Conservation planning for ecosystem services.” PLoS Biology, Vol. 4, No. 11, pp. e379, DOI: 10.1371/journal. pbio.0040379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Choi, H., Lee, W., Song, C., Forsell, N., Jeon, S., Kim, J. S., and Kim, S. R. (2016). “Selecting and applying quantification models for ecosystem services to forest ecosystems in South Korea.” Journal of Forestry Research, pp. 1–12, DOI: 10.1007/s11676-016-0259-5.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Christin, Z. L., Bagstad, K. J., and Verdone, M. A. (2016). “A decision framework for identifying models to estimate forest ecosystem services gains from restoration.” Forest Ecosystems, Vo. 3, No. 1, pp. 1–12, DOI: 10.1186/s40663-016-0062-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chung, M. G. and Kang, H. (2013). “A review of ecosystem service studies: concept, approach and future work in Korea.” Journal of Ecology and Environment, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 1–9, DOI: 10.5141/ecoenv.2013.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., and Willemen, L. (2010). “Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making.” Ecological Complexity, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 260–272, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Duarte, G. T., Ribeiro, M. C., and Paglia, A. P. (2016). “Ecosystem services modeling as a tool for defining priority areas for conservation.” PloS One, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 1–19, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone. 0154573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. EBM Tools Database (2016). Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) Tools Database, Available at http://ebmtoolsdatabase.org/, accessed 12 May 2016.

  15. Egoh, B. N., Reyers, B., Carwardine, J., Bode, M., O’Farrell, P. J., Wilson, K. A., Possingham, H. P., Rouget, M., De Lange, W., and Richardson, D. M. (2010). “Safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Little Karoo, South Africa.” Conservation Biology, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 1021–1030, DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01442.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Egoh, B., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Bode, M., and Richardson, D. M. (2009). “Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem services in South Africa.” Biological Conservation, Vol. 142, No. 3, pp. 553–562, DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.11.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Egoh, B., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Richardson, D. M., Le Maitre, D. C., and van Jaarsveld, A. S. (2008). “Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 127, No. 1, pp. 135–140, DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.03.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. European Commission (2011). Our life insurance, our natural capital: An EUbiodiversity strategy to 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ferrier, S. and Wintle, B. A. (2009). Quantitative approaches to spatial conservation prioritization: Matching the solution to the need, Spatial conservation prioritization: Quantitative methods and computational tools, pp. 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Frélichová, J., Vackár, D., Pártl, A., Loucková, B., Harmácková, Z. V., and Lorencová, E. (2014). “Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in the Czech Republic.” Ecosystem Services, Vol. 8, pp. 110–117, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. García-Nieto, A. P., García-Llorente, M., Iniesta-Arandia, I., and Martín-López, B. (2013). “Mapping forest ecosystem services: From providing units to beneficiaries.” Ecosystem Services, Vol. 4, pp. 126–138, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gimona, A. and van der Horst, D. (2007). “Mapping hotspots of multiple landscape functions: A case study on farmland afforestation in Scotland.” Landscape Ecology, Vol. 22, No. 8, pp. 1255–1264, DOI: 10.1007/s10980-007-9105-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Helfenstein, J. and Kienast, F. (2014). “Ecosystem service state and trends at the regional to national level: A rapid assessment.” Ecological Indicators, Vol. 36, pp. 11–18, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind. 2013.06.031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Holt, A. R., Mears, M., Maltby, L., and Warren, P. (2015). “Understanding spatial patterns in the production of multiple urban ecosystem services.” Ecosystem Services, Vol. 16, 33–46, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser. 2015.08.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. ]KFRI (2011). The 5th national forestry inventory report, Korea Forest Research Institute (in Korean).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Landsberg, F., Treweek, J., Stickler, M. M., Henninger, N., and Venn, O. (2013). Weaving Ecosystem Services into Impact Assessment, Washington DC: World Resources Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Larsen, F. W., Londoño-Murcia, M. C., and Turner, W. R. (2011). “Global priorities for conservation of threatened species, carbon storage, and freshwater services: scope for synergy?.” Conservation Letters, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 355–363, DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-263X. 2011.00183.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Luck, G. W., Chan, K. M., and Klien, C. J. (2012). “Identifying spatial priorities for protecting ecosystem services.” F1000Research, Vo. 1, pp. 1–17, DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.1-17.v1.

    Google Scholar 

  29. MA (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being, Island Press, Washington, DC.

  30. Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J. P., Grizzetti, B., Drakou, E.G., Notte, A. L., Zulian, G., Bouraoui, F., Luisa Paracchini, M., Braat, L., and Bidoglio, G. (2012). “Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union.” Ecosystem Services, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 31–39, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Margules, C. R. and Pressey, R. L. (2000). “Systematic conservation planning.” Nature, Vol. 405, No. 6783, pp. 243–253, DOI: 10.1038/35012251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ministry of Environment (2012). A basic operational plan of the National Ecological Institute (in Korean).

  33. Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Korea (2014). Korea’s national biodiversity strategy 2014-2018, Sejong special self-governing City, Korea.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Mittermeier, R. A., Myers, N., Mittermeier, C. G., and Robles Gil, P. (1999). Hotspots: Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions, CEMEX, SA,Agrupación Sierra Madre, SC.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mulligan, M., Guerry, A., Arkema, K., Bagstad, K., and 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.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da Fonseca, G. A., and Kent, J. (2000). “Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.” Nature, Vol. 403, No. 6772, pp. 853–858, DOI: 10.1038/35002501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Naidoo, R. and Ricketts, T. H. (2006). “Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation.” PLoS Biol, Vol. 4, No. 11, e360, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Ferraro, P. J., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T. H., and Rouget, M. (2006). “Integrating economic costs into conservation planning.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vo. 21, No. 12, pp. 681–687, DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2006.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D., Chan, K. M., Daily, G. C., Goldstein, J., and Kareiva, P. M. (2009). “Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Nelson, E., Polasky, S., Lewis, D. J., Plantinga, A. J., Lonsdorf, E., White, D., Bael, D., and Lawler, J. J. (2008). “Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species conservation on a landscape.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 105, No. 28, pp. 9471–9476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Olson, D. M. and Dinerstein, E. (2002). The Global 200: Priority ecoregions for global conservation, Annals of the Missouri Botanical garden, pp. 199–224, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Perrings, C., Duraiappah, A., Larigauderie, A., and Mooney, H. (2011). “The biodiversity and ecosystem services science-policy interface.” Science, Vol. 331, No. 6021, pp. 1139–1140, DOI: 10.1126/science.1202400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ribeiro, M.C., Martensen, A.C., Metzger, J. P., Tabarelli, M., Scarano, F., and Fortin, M. J. (2011). The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: A shrinking biodiversity hotspot, in: Biodiversity hotspots, Springer, pp. 405–434.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sanderson, E. W., Jaiteh, M., Levy, M. A., Redford, K. H., Wannebo, A. V., and Woolmer, G. (2002). “The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild The human footprint is a global map of human influence on the land surface, which suggests that human beings are stewards of nature, whether we like it or not.” BioScience, Vol. 52, No. 10, pp. 891–904, DOI: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0891:THFATL]2.0.CO;2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Schröter, M. and Remme, R. P. (2016). “Spatial prioritisation for conserving ecosystem services: Comparing hotspots with heuristic optimisation.” Landscape Ecology, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 431–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Seppelt, R., Dormann, C. F., Eppink, F. V., Lautenbach, S., Schmidt, S. (2011). “A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead.” Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 630–636, DOI:10.1007/s10980-015-0258-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Serna-Chavez, H., Schulp, C., Van Bodegom, P., Bouten, W., Verburg, P., and Davidson, M. (2014). “A quantitative framework for assessing spatial flows of ecosystem services.” Ecological Indicators, Vol. 39, pp. 24–33, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Sharp, R., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T., Guerry, A., Wood, S., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Nelson, E., Ennaanay, D., Wolny, S., and Olwero, N. (2014). InVEST user’s guide, The natural capital project, Stanford.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Stattersfield, A. J., Crosby, M. J., Long, A. J., and Wege, D. C. (2005). Endemic bird areas of the world: Priorities for biodiversity conservation.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Thomas, C. D., Anderson, B. J., Moilanen, A., Eigenbrod, F., Heinemeyer, A., Quaife, T., Roy, D. B., Gillings, S., Armsworth, P. R., and Gaston, K. J. (2013). “Reconciling biodiversity and carbon conservation.” Ecology Letters, Vol. 16, No. s1, pp. 39–47, DOI: 10.1111/ele.12054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Troy, A. and Wilson, M. A. (2006). “Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer.” Ecological Economics, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 435–449, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Turner, W. R., Brandon, K., Brooks, T. M., Costanza, R., Da Fonseca, G. A. B., and Portela, R. (2007). “Global conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services.” BioScience, Vol. 57, No. 10, pp. 868–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Wainger, L. A., King, D. M., Mack, R. N., Price, E. W., and Maslin, T. (2010). “Can the concept of ecosystem services be practically applied to improve natural resource management decisions?.” Ecological Economics, Vol. 69, No. 5, pp. 978–987, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.12.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wilson, L., Secades, C., Narloff, U., Bowles-Newark, N., Mapendembe, A., Booth, H., Brown, C., and Tierney, M. (2014). The role of national ecosystem assessments in influencing policy making. OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 60, OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: 10.1787/5jxvl3zsbhkk-en.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Woo-Kyun Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Choi, HA., Song, C., Lee, WK. et al. Integrated Approaches for National Ecosystem Assessment in South Korea. KSCE J Civ Eng 22, 1634–1641 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-017-1664-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • ecosystem service
  • spatial decision support
  • national assessment
  • conservation
  • national level