Copyright by Jin-Oh Kim 2008
The Dissertation Committee for Jin-Oh Kim Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation:
An Integrative Area Selection Method for Biodiversity Conservation in the DMZ and the CCZ of South Korea
Committee:
Frederick Steiner, Supervisor
Kent Butler
Elizabeth Mueller
Sahotra Sarkar
Karl Butzer
An Integrative Area Selection Method for Biodiversity Conservation in the DMZ and the CCZ of South Korea
by
Jin-Oh Kim, B.A.; M.E.P.
Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
The University of Texas at Austin August, 2008
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife Hwalwon Cho, our lovely daughter Rachel Kim, and my mother Cho-nam Chang who passed away in 1984.
Acknowledgements
This dissertation would not have been possible without the guidance of my esteemed advisor, Dr. Frederick Steiner. I would like to express my respectful gratitude to him for his constant assistance, encouragement, and support he provided throughout my doctoral studies. I am also very grateful for having an exceptional doctoral committee: Kent Butler, Elizabeth Mueller, Sahotra Sarkar, and Karl Butzer. Their critiques and comments were especially helpful in improving the draft of this dissertation. I owe a special note of gratitude to my colleagues, Trevon Fuller and Andy Karvonen for their time and support in developing this dissertation. I also would like to extend my appreciation to Yuhan-Kimberly Co., Korea and the former C.E.O. Kook-hyun Moon, for funding this research. Finally, I would like to thank my wife Hwalwon and our daughter Rachel for their love and patience.
v
An Integrative Area Selection Method for Biodiversity Conservation in the DMZ and the CCZ of South Korea
Publication No.______
Jin-Oh Kim, Ph. D. The University of Texas at Austin, 2008
Supervisor: Frederick Steiner
The purpose of this research is to propose effective ways to select areas for biodiversity conservation in the CCZ (Civilian Control Zone) and the DMZ
(Demilitarized Zone). To define “biodiversity,” I discuss the key concepts and their historical applications in the field of planning and related fields. After critiques on intuitive and conventional approaches to biodiversity conservation planning, I apply an integrative approach that combines systematic area selection process and information on human perspectives. The study focuses on the case of the CCZ and the DMZ in South
Korea, where the invaluable natural environment recovered from the ruins of battle and biodiversity has thrived since the cease-fire of Korean War in 1953. However, despite a recent increase of public awareness on the significance of conservation in the CCZ and the DMZ, extremely limited access for military security and buried landmines, and the lack of data have been significant barriers for effective biodiversity conservation. It is also controversial about how to measure the value of biodiversity in the region to select areas for conservation, while simultaneously considering local residents’ concerns in the
vi CCZ. Thus, I examine historical efforts and methods developed for area selections for biodiversity conservation in the CCZ, and explore ways to apply integrative approaches in the context of the CCZ. The integrative method is based on using systematic area selection algorithms for biodiversity content analysis and a qualitative research to understand local residents’ perspectives. Information about local residents’ values toward social and physical environment is obtained from a focus group study, which identified useful criteria in terms of spatial configuration and socio-cultural issues. The multiple criteria are carefully interpreted and applied to evaluate area network options produced from the computer-based area selection analysis. The final area networks represent the best selections based on available data and multiple criteria directly associated with spatial configuration. Adhering to the principles of systematic conservation planning, the integrative method proposed in this study may provide a more flexible framework that can be adapted in the dynamic social context of the CCZ and the DMZ.
vii Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1
Chapter 2 Background ...... 3 Growing Biodiversity Threats...... 3 Biodiversity and Conservation Planning ...... 6 Biodiversity Threat to the DMZ and the CCZ...... 8
Chapter 3 Study Goals and Outline ...... 12
Chapter 4 The Concepts of Biodiversity...... 15 Definitions of Biodiversity ...... 15 Values on Biodiversity...... 19
Chapter 5 Approaches to Biodiversity Conservation...... 23 Theoretical Approaches to Biodiversity Conservation...... 23 Methodological Approaches to Biodiversity Conservation...... 33 Integrative Approaches to Biodiversity Conservation...... 37
Chapter 6 Principles and Methods for Systematic Area Selection ...... 40 Species Richness...... 40 Complementarity and Rarity...... 42 Area Selection Methods Based on Biodiversity Principles ...... 43
Chapter 7 Research Design...... 47 Systematic Area Selection Methods ...... 49 Focus Group Study ...... 52 Incorporation of Multiple Criteria for Area Selections...... 53
Chapter 8 The Militarized Zone and the Civilian Control Zone...... 57 History of the DMZ and the CCZ...... 57 Geographical Characteristics and Ecosystems...... 59 Social and Cultural Characteristics...... 64 Biodiversity in the DMZ and the CCZ ...... 66 Land Development and Threats to Biodiversity ...... 67 Conservation Efforts and Challenges...... 69
viii Chapter 9 Focus Group Study...... 72 Background...... 72 Understanding Human Values on Biodiversity ...... 73 Focus Group Interview Questions ...... 74 Design of the Focus Group Study...... 74 Data Analysis...... 76 Coding Process...... 76 Content Analysis for Each Classification ...... 80 Attitude on Natural Environment and Biodiversity Conservation...... 80 Agriculture and Species ...... 81 Planning Process Problems ...... 83 Attitude toward Social Interactions ...... 84 Agriculture and Conservation Policy...... 85 Military Forces...... 85 Historical and Cultural Contexts...... 87 Discussion about the Residents' Perspectives...... 88 Application to Multiple Criteria for Area Selections...... 89
Chapter 10 Systematic Area Selections ...... 91 Surrogates and Data Collection ...... 91 Species Surrogates ...... 92 Environmental Surrogates...... 95 Species Distribution Models...... 103 Area Selection Process...... 117 The Use of Expectations in Area Prioritization ...... 117 The Application of Targets ...... 118 ResNet application...... 120 Analysis of ResNet Solutions Using Multiple Criteria...... 126 The Use of MultiCSync to Identify Non-dominated Solutions ...... 130 Results Analysis...... 134 Discussion...... 137
ix Chapter 11 Conclusions ...... 143
Appendix A. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval Form (English) ... 149
Appendix B. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval Form (Korean) ... 151
Appendix C. Transcripts of the Focus Group Interview (English)...... 153
Appendix D. Transcripts of the Focus Group Interview (Korean) ...... 165
Appendix E. Species Occurrence Point Data...... 177
Appendix F. Calculation of the Expected Representation of Each Species .... 187
Appendix G. Prioritization of Conservation Areas using Expectations ...... 190
References...... 191
Vita ...... 205
x List of Tables
Table 1: Species Diversity Indices...... 40 Table 2: Land use in the DMZ and the CCZ...... 64 Table 3: Nodes coding analysis...... 78 Table 4: Nodes classification...... 79 Table 5: Maxent result...... 105 Table 6: Maxent model analysis for the Red-crowned Crane...... 107 Table 7: Accuracy assessment of species' ecological niche models...... 108 Table 8: ResNet input file...... 121 Table 9: Criteria and solutions...... 128 Table 10: Land cover types in the two non-dominated solutions ...... 136
xi List of Figures
Figure 1: The Living Planet Index: Trends in populations of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine species worldwide ...... 5 Figure 2: The DMZ viewed from South Korea...... 9 Figure 3: Red-crowned Cranes and White-naped Cranes in the Chorlwon Plain in the CCZ ...... 9 Figure 4: The three components of biodiversity classified by hierarchical levels of organization...... 17 Figure 5: Spatial scales of species diversity ...... 18 Figure 6: Moral theories and land use...... 20 Figure 7: Niagara Falls State Reserve Plan by Olmsted in 1897...... 24 Figure 8: Boston Metropolitan Park System planned by Eliot in 1893 ...... 24 Figure 9: Wisconsin Heritage Trails Plan proposed by Lewis in 1964 ...... 25 Figure 10: A species richness projection map by Steinitz for the biodiversity plan in the Camp Pendleton, California...... 26 Figure 11: McHarg's Plan for the Valley ...... 27 Figure 12: The METLAND model initiated by Fabos...... 29 Figure 13: The Fresh Kills Park Project to salvage the largest landfill located on Staten Island, New York...... 31 Figure 14: An example of a suitability method developed by McHarg...... 34 Figure 15: Aerial map of the Yangji-ri village in the CCZ...... 48 Figure 16: Yangji-ri village in the CCZ...... 48 Figure 17: MaHarg's layer-cake model...... 50 Figure 18: An integrative model applied for systematic area selection...... 56 Figure 19: The locations of DMZ and CCZ on the border between North and South Korea ...... 58
xii Figure 20: DMZ ...... 58 Figure 21: South Korean soldiers along the DMZ...... 58 Figure 22: Daeseong-dong village in South Korea...... 59 Figure 23: Gijeong-dong village in North Korea...... 59 Figure 24: Three ecological regions in the DMZ and CCZ...... 60 Figure 25: Common Sundew ...... 61 Figure 26: Large-flowered Cypripedium...... 61 Figure 27: James Gentian...... 61 Figure 28: Lychnis kiusiana...... 61 Figure 29: Yongneup wetland in the CCZ...... 62 Figure 30: Chorlwon Plain...... 63 Figure 31: Saemtong, non-freezing spring in Chorlwon ...... 63 Figure 32: Yudo in Gimpo...... 63 Figure 33: A battler field, Paikma Height...... 65 Figure 34: Punch Ball ...... 65 Figure 35: Panmunjeom...... 65 Figure 36: Chorlwon office of the Labor Party ...... 65 Figure 37: The Unification Observation Deck...... 66 Figure 38: The Community Education Center at Yan-ji-ri...... 76 Figure 39: Values development concept...... 80 Figure 40: Roe Deer...... 82 Figure 41: Wild Boar ...... 82 Figure 42: Wild Rabbit ...... 82 Figure 43: Red-crowned Crane...... 83 Figure 44: A sign of landmines in the CCZ...... 87 Figure 45: Species occurrence point data, South Korea ...... 94 Figure 46: Ecoregions in the Korean peninsula...... 95
xiii Figure 47: Digital Elevation Model (DEM) ...... 96 Figure 48: Slope map...... 97 Figure 49: Land cover map...... 99 Figure 50: Climate map data of the Korean peninsula ...... 101 Figure 51: Data input process of the Maxent application...... 104 Figure 52: A spatial distribution model of the Red-crowned Crane in the CCZ...... 112 Figure 53: A spatial distribution model of the Whooper Swan in the CCZ .... 113 Figure 54: A spatial distribution model of the Black Woodpecker in the CCZ...... 113 Figure 55: A spatial distribution model of the White-naped Crane in the CCZ...... 114 Figure 56: A spatial distribution model of the White-tailed Eagle in the CCZ...... 114 Figure 57: A spatial distribution model of the Chinese Egret in the CCZ...... 115 Figure 58: A spatial distribution model of the Chinese Goral in the CCZ ...... 115 Figure 59: A spatial distribution model of the Leopard Cat in the CCZ ...... 116 Figure 60: A spatial distribution model of the Siberian Flying Squirrel in the CCZ ...... 116 Figure 61: ResNet algorithm...... 122 Figure 62: 5 percent target area for conservation in the CCZ and DMZ...... 123 Figure 63: 10 percent target area for conservation in the CCZ and DMZ...... 123 Figure 64: 15 percent target area for conservation in the CCZ and DMZ...... 124 Figure 65: 20 percent target area for conservation in the CCZ and DMZ...... 124 Figure 66: 25 percent target area for conservation in the CCZ and DMZ...... 125 Figure 67: 30 percent target area for conservation in the CCZ and DMZ...... 125
xiv Figure 68: The geographical distance between a ResNet solution (target: 15%), comprised of the red cells, and Sorak National Park...... 129 Figure 69: Crop land distribution in South Korea ...... 129 Figure 70: Red-crowned Crane distribution model in South Korea ...... 129 Figure 71: Analysis of relatioship between 10 percent target area solution and crop land distribution...... 130 Figure 72: Application of MultCSync program to identify non-dominated solutions ...... 132 Figure 73: Non-dominated solution 1 for area selection ...... 133 Figure 74: Non-dominated solution 2 for area selection ...... 133 Figure 75: Land cover types in the non-dominated solution 1 ...... 135 Figure 76: Land cover types in the non-dominated solution 2 ...... 136 Figure 77: The proposed model of systematic area selection for biodiversity conservation ...... 142
xv
Chapter 1. Introduction
The purpose of this research is to propose effective ways to select areas for biodiversity conservation. To define “biodiversity,” I review the key concepts and their historical applications in the field of planning and related fields. After critiques of intuitive and conventional approaches to biodiversity conservation planning, I apply an integrative approach that combines systematic area selection processes and information on human perspectives.
The study focuses on the areas of the Civilian Control Zone (CCZ) and the
Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) in South Korea, where the natural environment recovered from the ruins of battle, and biodiversity has thrived since the cease-fire of Korean War in 1953. However, in spite of a recent increase of public awareness on the significance of the natural environment in the CCZ and the DMZ, extremely limited access because of military security and buried landmines, and the lack of data have been significant barriers for effective biodiversity conservation. In addition, how to measure the value of biodiversity in the region to select areas for conservation is also controversial, while simultaneously considering local residents’ concerns in the CCZ.
Thus, the study examines historical efforts for area selection methods for biodiversity conservation in the CCZ, and explores ways to apply integrative approaches in the context of CCZ. The integrative method is based on using systematic area selection algorithms for biodiversity content analysis and a qualitative research study to understand local residents’ perspectives. Information about values and attitudes concerning local residents’ social and physical environment were obtained from a focus group study, which identified useful criteria in terms of spatial configuration and socio-cultural issues.
1 The multiple criteria are carefully interpreted and applied to evaluate area network options produced from the computer-based area selection analysis. The final area networks represent the best selections based on available data and multiple criteria directly associated with spatial configuration. Other criteria that are closely related with more socio-political issues are interpreted for future implications to enhance the conservation planning process.
In the following chapter, I explore global trends of threats to biodiversity and conservation efforts. In addition, I identify biodiversity values and threats in the CCZ and
DMZ.
2
Chapter 2. Background
GROWING BIODIVERSITY THREATS
Biodiversity is fundamental to the existence of life on Earth. It is not only the variety of living organisms on our planet, but also the interdependence of all these living things, including people. Reflecting the number, variety, and variability of living organisms, biodiversity plays an important role in the way ecosystems function and in the many services they provide. Ecosystem services include soil formation, nutrient production, water cycling, resistance against invasive species, regulation of climate, pollination of plants, and pest and pollution control (GreenFacts 2005). For humans, biodiversity provides many key benefits, including food security, reduction of vulnerability to natural disasters, energy security, and access to clean water and raw materials (GreenFacts 2005).
However, rapid decline in the variety and numbers of the earth’s species is now faster then ever, threatening the well-being of future generations of all organisms.
Edward O. Wilson (1988) warned about the urgency of unprecedented biodiversity decline and argued that biodiversity must be treated more seriously to be indexed, used, and, above all, preserved. According to a study on the threats to biodiversity conducted by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, with cooperation from the Convention on
Biological Diversity, if current patterns of biodiversity loss continue to harm our ecosystems, this will put the well-being of future generations at significant risk (AScribe
2005). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List of
Threatened Species indicates that over 3,500 vertebrate species, nearly 2,000 invertebrate
3 species, and over 5,600 species of plants in the world are at high risk of extinction
(Hilton-Taylor 2002). In the United States alone, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1 , the number of species listed as Threatened or Endangered under the
Endangered Species Act has increased more than sevenfold from 174 in 1976 to 1,310 species as of February 2007.
These rapid increases of the lists worldwide are estimated to be 100 to 1,000 times greater than rates recorded through recent geological time. According to the World Wide
Fund for Nature, the Living Planet Index2 that measures trends in the earth’s biological diversity indicates that the populations of 1,313 vertebrate species – fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals – from all around the world were significantly decreased by about 30 percent between 1970 and 2003. The Living Planet Index reports that the terrestrial species index shows a 31 percent decline on average, while the marine species index shows 27 percent and the freshwater species index shows 28 percent (Figure 1).
Increasing biodiversity loss is generally attributed to factors such as habitat destruction, invasive alien species, overexploitation of natural resources, and pollution
(GreenFacts 2005). However, habitat loss primarily caused by land development is the single largest cause of species endangerment in terrestrial ecosystems (Wilcove et al.
1998). Poorly planned land development results in habitat fragmentation, degradation, and destruction. Thus, as a part of efforts to abate the rate of species extinction, many nations around the world have invested significant sums of money and resources to conserve wildlife habitat and open space (Groves 2003). For example, from 1999 through
2001 the United States alone invested seventeen and a half billion dollars toward open
1 See more at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website, http://www.fws.gov/endangered/
2 The Living Planet Index is calculated as the average of three separate indices that measure trends in populations of 695 terrestrial species, 274 marine species, and 344 freshwater species.
4 space preservation (Benedict and McMahon 2002). The North American Commission for
Environmental Cooperation (CEC) reported in 2007 that the total protected area in North
America has increased from less than 100 million hectares in 1980, to 300 million hectares now, or about 15 percent of the continent’s land surface.3 In Canada, according to the CEC, a biodiversity strategy was developed in 1994 and the amount of protected area has tripled since 1970. Mexico has also created 19 new biosphere reserves in the past
10 years by adopting a three-pronged national strategy for effective management and sustainable use of wildlife.
Figure 1. The Living Planet Index: Trends in populations of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine species worldwide (Source: Loh and Wackernagel 2004)
3 See further details in the article “Significant biodiversity loss across North America, NAFTA body’s State of the Environmental report says” from http://www.cec.org/news/details
5 BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION PLANNING
If fragmentation, degradation, and destruction of habitats are primary reasons for biodiversity decline, planning takes significant roles for biodiversity conservation in evaluating land capacity, allocating appropriate land uses, and directing land management strategies. In fact, biodiversity has often been regarded implicit in virtually almost all work in planning and landscape architecture (Ahern et al. 2006). For example, to guide both certified planners and other professional planners, the American Planning
Association included the statement that planners must “strive to protect the integrity of the natural environment” in its “Ethical Principles in Planning” 4 (American Planning
Association 1992). Similar ethical principles on biodiversity conservation are also established by other related professional associations such as the American Society of
Landscape Architects and the Society of Ecological Restoration International.
However, in spite of the visionary principles, planning policies and programs have not been very successful in conserving biodiversity. Ahern and his colleagues (2006) argued that, in planning and design projects in the United States, biodiversity has often been considered a minor issue or a secondary project goal. Other significant causes of unsuccessful practices of biodiversity conservation in planning and landscape architecture include the lack of good data and rare monitoring, mostly due to cost and convenience
(Ahern et al. 2006). According to Ahern and his colleagues (2006), rare monitoring has been a more significant problem hampering new scientific knowledge advances and the expansion of interdisciplinary collaboration with scientists and decision makers.
4 “Ethical Principles in Planning” was adopted by the American Planning Association in May 1992 (See the details on the website http://www.planning.org/ethics/ethics.html)
6 Methods of area selection for biodiversity conservation have also received considerable attention. In the field of conservation biology, it has been argued that poor work in the identification of areas for biodiversity conservation is one of the major reasons for exacerbating the species extinction crisis (Groves 2003). Leading conservation biologist Robert Pressey argues that areas designated for conservation in the world have often been set aside in ad hoc manners, not in systematic ways to reflect biological diversity (Pressey 1994). While it has been reported that most biological diversity tends to occur in lower elevations, warmer climates, and coastal areas that are more attractive to human occupation and use (Dobson et al. 1997), the locations of areas designated for conservation in the United States and Australia were found strongly biased toward the steepest slopes, the highest elevation, and the most unproductive soils (Scott et al. 2001). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also observed that the highest numbers of listed species in the United States are concentrated in states with high population growth.5
Thus, as the recognition of the problem presented by conventional approaches to biodiversity conservation grows, some scholars advocate the need to explore new alternatives. Timothy Beatley (2000) argues that as the number of species in jeopardy continues to rise, we need to find more integrated, comprehensive biodiversity conservation strategies that are long-range, proactive, and preventive in nature. Craig
Groves (2003) also criticizes the problem of unsystematic area selection for biodiversity conservation and claims significant changes to planning methods and conservation strategies by both nongovernmental organizations and governmental agencies.
5 According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the states containing the highest numbers of listed species include Hawaii (328), California (309), Alabama (116), Florida (113), and Texas (93). Retrieved January 15, 2008 from http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/StateListing.do?state=all
7 BIODIVERSITY THREAT TO THE DMZ AND THE CCZ
Among the increasing number of sites in which biodiversity is significantly threatened in the world, the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) and its buffer Civilian Control
Zone (CCZ) in Korea have received considerable attention nationally and internationally for their valuable status of nature and biodiversity. DMZ and CCZ, the last remaining
Cold War-style frontier after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, have largely been undisturbed for the last 55 years under tight security measures. Following the Korean
War in 1953, the 4-km wide DMZ was designated along the 250-km military demarcation line on both sides of North Korea and South Korea. Along the southern boundary of the
DMZ, the CCZ was also established with a variable width of 5 to 20-km as a buffer for military security by South Korea. While no human access was allowed in the DMZ based on armistice agreement, land uses in the CCZ have been strictly limited to military purposes and agricultural activity (Figure 2). As a result, both the DMZ and the CCZ stretch across the entire width of the Korean Peninsula and encompass a wide variety of ecosystems and landscapes. Neither zone is extensively developed, and both zones have become an important refuge for diverse wildlife, including several internationally endangered species. According to Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Korea
(MOE) (2004), the areas are known to provide habitats for 146 endangered species and more than 2,800 animals and plants (Figure 3). For this reason, there have been a series of movements, though not successful yet, to designate parts of the DMZ and the CCZ as
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World
Heritage Sites or Biosphere Reserves to permanently preserve these sites in cooperation with North Korea and the United Nations.
8
Figure 2. The DMZ viewed from South Korea (by author on February 25, 2007)
Figure 3. Red-crowned Cranes and White-naped Cranes in the Chorlwon plain in the CCZ (by Young-Jae Jeon, journalist)
9 In spite of the growing recognition about the need to conserve the CCZ and the
DMZ, few strategies and guidelines have been developed for effective biodiversity conservation. Scientists and planners attribute this to the lack of ecological inventory data available for policy guidance. In fact, access to the areas is extremely limited due to tight military security and landmines. This limitation has been the most significant barrier for researchers and government agencies to conduct thorough field surveys and observations, and thus to establish conservation plans for the entire region. In addition, the lack of incorporation of socio-cultural criteria in area selection process for conservation also has caused the failure of conservation policy implementation. In 2000, the South Korean government attempted to designate a part of the areas in Chorlwon in the CCZ as a biosphere reserve6 in cooperation with UNESCO, where a vast plain provides wintering habitats for the largest number of endangered Red-crowned Cranes in the Korean
Peninsula, but failed due to local residents’ strong opposition. These problems of limited information for selection caused by the lack of available data and the failure to incorporate social consideration have been major challenges in conserving biodiversity in the DMZ and the CCZ. Thus far, few tools or models have been developed to evaluate areas for biodiversity conservation, resulting in poorly informed decisions for land use and management policy. Consequently, significant encroachment from the southern boundary of the CCZ has occurred by urban and agricultural development without systematic planning. In addition, the destruction of potentially valuable areas for wildlife habitat has significantly increased for the last decade, threatening biodiversity in the region.
6 Designation of biosphere reserves was launched by UNESCO as a part of the Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB) in 1974. The MAB helps establish an international network of biosphere reserves that conserve important biological resources, develop environmentally sound economic growth, and support environmental research, monitoring, and education. (see www.unesco.org/mab)
10 This study seeks to address these challenges by developing a method for landscape planning that draws on knowledge from both conservation biology and social planning. The goal and structure of the study are described in the next chapter.
11
Chapter 3. Study Goals and Outline
The motivation for this research comes from two significant sources; 1) the urgency to conserve biodiversity in the DMZ and the CCZ as they face critical degradation and 2) the need of systematic, integrative frameworks that help establish conservation area networks. Thus, the primary goal of the study is to explore viable ways to select areas for biodiversity conservation based on biological content information and local residents’ values and concerns. In particular, the study attempts to answer the following questions: 1) what are the concerns and issues for biodiversity conservation of the DMZ and the CCZ?; 2) how is biodiversity in the region interpreted and valued by the local residents and what are the socio-cultural issues and criteria associated with biodiversity conservation?; 3) how are the conservation areas ranked by systematic tools and multiple criteria?; 4) what are the opportunities and limitations of using the systematic area selection process in the CCZ?
In order to answer the questions, this study starts from the exploration of theoretical grounds and conceptual debates on biodiversity conservation. In Chapter 4, the study examines a variety of definitions and the philosophical background of biodiversity, and explores diverse values ranging from intrinsic to anthropocentric perspectives. In that chapter, I also review operational issues in conserving biodiversity, such as measurement issues, surrogates, and targets.
In Chapter 5, I focus on theoretical foundations and practices of biodiversity conservation in the history of planning and related fields in the United States. In particular, after reviewing several significant ideas and approaches to biodiversity
12 conservation in planning and related fields, the study provides a critique of conceptual and practical problems. The literature review section in Chapter 5 is intended to establish the justification for the need of integrative approaches. In Chapter 6, I review biodiversity principles and methods developed for systematic area selection. Based on the examination, the framework of this research is described in Chapter 7, followed by the investigation on the historical, geographical, and soci-cultural characteristics of the CCZ and the DMZ in Chapter 8.
In Chapter 9 and 10, area selection tools and a socio-cultural study are incorporated in a way to conserve and promote biodiversity and to reflect human perspectives. For systematic area selection tools that incoporate biodiversity principles such as complementarity and rarity, Maxent, ResNet, and MultCSync were used. Maxent and ResNet are popular tools, especially in the field of conservation biology, and are useful in projecting probable occurrences of species and ranking areas based on biodiversity value.
To elicit socio-cultural information, a focus group study was conducted and is documented in Chapter 9. The focus group study was undertaken to understand the meanings of biodiversity valued by local residents and their gains and losses related to biodiversity conservation. This information from the focus group interview is critical to reflect local concerns and the cultural context in ranking areas for biodiversity conservation. The focus group interview was conducted with eight people living in the territory of the CCZ in Chorlwon, where the largest number of the Red-crowned Cranes in Korea visit annually for wintering. Chorlwon is known for its rich biodiversity. The data from the focus group study were carefully analyzed to elicit multiple social criteria,
13 which were incorporated by using MultCSync software in weighting and ranking a set of conservation area network options produced from ResNet analysis.
In the analysis section of Chapter 10, the sets of areas selected for conservation were evaluated based on ecological processes, environmental characteristics, and species distributions in the DMZ and the CCZ. The integrative model is an iterative process and thus, should be improved by updated data and the identification of additional socio- cultural issues. Consequently, the improved model will help provide regional agencies, central governments, and the international community, with useful frameworks for regional land use policy, proactive conservation strategies, and natural resource management, not only for the DMZ and CCZ but also for other significant places in the world where species and biodiversity are threatened.
14
Chapter 4. The Concepts of Biodiversity
DEFINITIONS OF BIODIVERSITY
The term “biodiversity” was introduced by Walter G. Rosen in the mid 1980s as a contraction of “biological diversity” to refer to the totality of species variability (Takacs
1996). Its use has since been popularized by the scientific community through numerous publications (Sarkar 2005b). However, the definition of biodiversity has remained unsettled with no clear or unanimous agreement on the concept, reflecting the complexity and context-dependence in nature. Conservation biologist Reed Noss (1990) notes that
“biodiversity is not simply the number of genes, species, ecosystems, or any other group of things in a defined area, and a definition of biodiversity that is altogether simple, comprehensive, and fully operational is unlikely to be found.”
Despite the complexity, many scholars have proposed their own definitions from slightly different perspectives based on their needs and contexts. The U.S. Congress
Office of Technology Assessment (1987) defines biodiversity as “the variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur.”7
The Keystone Center (1991) similarly states that “biological diversity is the variety of life and its processes; and it includes the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur.” Emphasizing hierarchical aspects of biodiversity – genes, species, and ecosystems, the World
Resources Institute (WRI), the World Conservation Union (WCU), and the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (1992) define biodiversity as “the totality of
7 See more information on the website of The California Environmental Resources Evaluation System, http://ceres.ca.gov/biodiv/Biodiversity/biodiv_def2.html (accessed July 28, 2007).
15 genes, species, and ecosystems in a region.” More recent definitions view biodiversity as the variety of living organisms, the ways in which they organize themselves, and the ways in which they interact with the physical environment and with one another (Redford and Richter 1999).
From a practical point of view, the concepts of biodiversity are primarily defined from two perspectives: components and scale (Groves 2003). The three components of biodiversity are composition, structure, and function (Figure 4). Each component can be described at different levels of biological organization, from genes to landscapes
(Redford and Richer 1999). According to Redford and Richter (1999), composition refers to the identification of elements within the different levels of biological organization; structure refers to physical organization of the different biological elements; and function refers to ecological processes to maintain structure and initiate reproduction (Groves
2003). Biological diversity is also defined at different spatial scales: alpha, beta, and gamma diversity (Whittacker 1975) (Figure 5). Alpha diversity refers to the number of species that occur at a particular site; beta diversity refers to changes in species composition along a gradient; and gamma diversity refers to the diversity of species encompassing the entire landscape (Whittacker 1975). Groves (2003) argues that we should pay more attention to the conservation of beta diversity because the areas with high turnover in species composition are more vulnerable to biodiversity threats.
Temporal and evolutionary aspects are also considered significant components in definitions of biodiversity. According to The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the
Association for Biodiversity Information, the concept of biodiversity should expand to encompass both ecological and evolutionary processes that allow life to continue adapting and evolving (Groves 2003).
16
Figure 4. The three components of biodiversity classified by hierachical levels of organization. (Source: Noss 1990)
17
Figure 5. Spatial scales of species diversity. The letters inside circles represent different birds or plant species. The diversity within a circle indicates alpha diversity, and a measure of turnover in species is referred to as beta diversity. Gamma diversity indicates the diversity of plants and birds encompassing the entire mountain from bottom to top. (Source: Groves 2003)
Despite concept development and growing public awareness on biodiversity, strong theoretical grounds with clear definitions to support biodiversity conservation have yet to be firmly established. Finding strong bases to answer the question “why is it important to conserve biodiversity?” has been theoretically a complicated issue, and directly involves value problems, which have been in the heart of debates on environmental ethics and biodiversity conservation. David Takacs’ insightful examination on the concept of biodiversity reflects how diverse human perspectives are deeply embedded in the concepts. After interviewing 23 leading conservation biologists to understand the concept of biodiversity, Takacs (1996) explores diverse value-laden characteristics of biodiversity as follows:
The term “biodiversity” encompasses the multiplicity of scientists’ factual, political, and emotional arguments in defense of nature, while simultaneously appearing as a purely scientific, objectivity entity. In the term “biodiversity,” subjective preferences are packaged with hard facts;
18 eco-feelings are joined to economic commodities; deep ecology is sold as dollars and sense to more pragmatic, or more myopic, policy makers and members of public….If biodiversity is a much more complex and dynamic focus for conservation efforts than endangered species, it likewise offers a much more complex and dynamic role for biologists in society at large. (Takacs 1996)
VALUES ON BIODIVERSITY
Noss and Cooperrider (1994) propose four sets of values for conserving biodiversity: direct utilitarian values, indirect utilitarian values, recreational and esthetic values and intrinsic, spiritual, and ethical values. Direct utilitarian values consider all species as objects for the use for direct benefit to humans. Indirect utilitarian values derive benefits from ecosystem services, such as climate stabilization, flood control, and the maintenance of air and water quality. Recreational and esthetic values have generally been implicit in maintaining places such as national parks, refuges, and natural reserves, for their beauty and outdoor recreational uses. Finally, intrinsic values indicate that all species deserve an equal opportunity to persist and, as humans, we have a moral and ethical responsibility to conserve all living things. Direct utilitarian values are criticized for potential danger to the species that appear to have no tangible benefits to humans.
Meanwhile, intrinsic values are also criticized for their failure to lessen current rates of species extinction for post-Industrial Revolution society as a whole (Groves 2003).
Although the term “biodiversity” is not explicitly used, Timothy Beatley’s categorization further expands the dimension of values related to biodiversity conservation. According to the theoretical framework outlined by Beatley (1994), a linear dimension linking anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric stances is divided into four quadrants with teleological and deontological dimensions (Figure 6). Thus, anthropocentric values are broken into two dimensions; “teleological” referring to
19 traditional utilitarianism based on cost-benefit analysis, and “deontological” emphasizing social justice and duties for future generations. Non-anthropocentric values are also divided into teleological referring to expanded utilitarianism, and deontological representing biocentrism and deep ecology (Beatley 1994).
Figure 6. Moral theories and land use (Source: Beatley 1994)
20 Takacs (1996), from his interviews, also summarizes nine distinctive values directly related to biodiversity: scientific, ecological, economic, social amenity, biophilic, transformative, intrinsic, spiritual, and aesthetic. Among these values, three are especially interesting for this study. Scientific value, as the most obvious value that biologists might promote, claims that biodiversity is essential for the scientific endeavor to continue unhindered because of the raw material for biological study or “living library” (Takacs
1996). Biophilic value, proposed by Edward Wilson in his 1984 book Biophilia, is based on the idea that love of nature may have been hardwired into our genes by natural selection. Thus, biophilic value views biodiversity as an essential way to awaken passions encoded in our genes and rekindle human appreciation of and reverence for the Earth’s biotic riches (Takacs 1996). Transformative value emphasizes the potential roles of biodiversity that enable us to reconsider our shallow, consumptive preferences and make us adopt values that are objectively, in some way, better.
The transformative value, first asserted by the philosopher Bryan Norton in his
1987 book, Why Preserve Variety?, is further supported by Sahotra Sarkar. As a way to introduce value for biodiversity that remains anthropocentric but does not lose reverence for nature, Sarkar (2005a) emphasizes the concept of transformative value that advocates a position that biodiversity has value for us because of its ability to transform our demand values.8 Transformative value appreciates that biodiversity does not have a utility value that is routinely traded in the marketplace, and presumes that the human values that are not reducible to demand values are more important than the ones that can be traded in the market (Sarkar 2005a). Thus, the transformative value provides a useful framework in which we motivate the desire to attribute intrinsic value to biodiversity. It also supports
8 Demand value is defined by Sarkar (2005a) as “that satisfies felt preference of an individual.”
21 that biodiversity is more important than mere utility as measured by the demand values determined by the market (Sarkar 2005a).
In this chapter, I reviewed the complex concept and the variety of values related to biodiversity conservation. Given the difficulties of defining the concept, I found it is critical to understand different values that drive a fundamental framework for theory and methods in biodiversity conservation. In the next chapter, I will explore how different disciplines such as planning and conservation biology have defined and applied biodiversity concept for their practices. This study will help illustrate the theoretical and methodological approaches developed in different disciplines, and establish a new framework for effective area selection.
22
Chapter 5. Approaches to Biodiversity Conservation
THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Although the term has not commonly been used historically, “biodiversity” has been an essential issue in the field of planning for its fundamental role in dealing with land uses that significantly affect habitat conservation. Frederick Law Olmsted Sr., known as the founder of American planning and landscape architecture, used the concept of landscape for shaping a city as a living entity that includes humans, nature, and their ongoing interaction. For Olmsted, influenced by the naturalistic theme in the English garden design tradition, the value of biodiversity was permeated through his concept of landscape as a living entity that reflects ongoing interaction between humans and nature.
He also advocated setting aside large natural areas, such as Yosemite, which laid the foundation for the establishment of national parks. Furthermore, focusing on the qualities of scenery for the public (Beveridge and Rocheleau 1995), Olmsted was involved in the planning of Niagara Falls State Reserve (Figure 7) as an internationally significant natural feature.
Olmsted’s protégé Charles Eliot presented a more systematic approach to incorporate natural or biological characteristics overlaying numerous thematic maps. For example, in his plan for the Boston Metropolitan Park System (1893) (Figure 8), Eliot conducted comprehensive surveys of the metropolitan region to understand diverse features of the natural environment. He applied overlay methods using maps of habitats such as vegetation, swamps, ponds, and hills as essential components to maintain or promote biodiversity.
23
Figure 7. Niagara Falls State Reserve Plan by Olmsted in 1897 (Source: Pettena 1996)
Figure 8. Boston Metropolitan Park System planned by Eliot in 1893. The plan linked together five parks or greenspaces on the outskirts of the Boston metropolis. The linkage were accomplished through five shorter coastal river corridors, such as the Charles River Greenway Corrdior to the ocean and the Boston Back Bay area (Source: Fabos 1985)
24 Overlay methods were developed further by George Angus Hills (1961), Philip
Lewis (1996) (Figure 9), and Carl Steinitz (with Parker and Jordan, 1976) (Figure 10).
However, Ian McHarg’s solid theoretical foundation for suitability in ecological planning has had the most influence. Primarily derived from the biological theory of “fitness,” developed by Charles Darwin and Lawrence Henderson, McHarg viewed ecological planning as a process by which humans find the most propitious places that are suitable for their survival (McHarg and Steiner 1998).
Figure 9. Wisconsin Heritage Trails Proposal planned by Lewis in 1964. In this plan, Lewis identified environmentally significant corridors using 220 natual and cultural resources in Wisconsin through his own mapping technique. (Source: Fabos 2003)
25
Figure 10. A species richness projection map by Steinitz and others for the biodiversity plan in the Camp Pendleton, California (Source: Steiner 2000)
Theoretically, McHarg’s concept of ecological fitness clearly pursues the goal of biodiversity, because it requires ideal environments in which every species on earth, including humans seeks out the fittest place for their survival. In his most popular book
Design with Nature (1969), McHarg emphasized that environment – land, sea, air, and creatures – can be changed to make a better fit for people and the other creatures, and we must understand the environment, its creatures, and their interactions (Figure 11).
McHarg’s theory has provided an influential theoretical framework for planners to identify suitable lands for human use and conservation. McHarg’s theory of ecological fitness also has been useful in identifying suitable habitats for individual species, but it provided few guidelines on “how to conserve or promote” biodiversity. This approach
26 spawned a sub-discipline of traditional city and regional planning called either ecological or environmental planning.
Figure 11. McHarg’s Plan for the Valley. The plan sought to protect the “valley floor” from development, around half of the area as part of a greenspace network. (Source: Fabos 1985)
27 Forster Ndubisi (2002) criticized McHarg’s theory for not providing sufficient guidance for understanding the capacity of landscapes for the long-term survival of a protected or endangered wildlife or plant species. In addition, McHarg’s suitability method, requiring inventory and analysis of a full range of biophysical and cultural information can be too comprehensive for many practical planning projects, and the resource commitment often exceeds the financial and human capabilities of many communities (Ndubisi 2002).
Julius Fabos expanded approaches to incorporate biodiversity in planning. He developed a quantitative landscape model called METLAND (Metropolitan Landscape
Planning Model) (Figure 12) to assess urban impacts and to generate improved land use alternatives (Peck 1998). The set of allocation rules used by METLAND model includes: discouraging development in areas of significant resource values and natural and human- made hazards, directing development to locations best suited for it, and ensuring that the ecological carrying capacity of a region is not exceeded (Ndubisi 2002). Fabos describes the relevant landscape resources as ordinal data or parameter, which can be subjected to quantitative assessments supported by computers and GIS (Ndubisi 2002). However, in spite of the advances in comprehensive decision making process and composite landscape assessment using computer-based technology, METLAND has not provided significantly improved methods that explicitly incorporate biodiversity concepts in allocating areas for conservation.
28
Figure 12. The METLAND model initiated by Fabos was aimed to determine land use suitabilities for all types of development within the fastest growing metropolitan landscape. The METLAND model used more quantitative-based parametric approach, allowing the use of infinite number of variables and greater consistency (Source: Ndubisi 2002)
29 Biodiversity has also been a central theme in landscape ecology. Landscape ecologists view the landscape as a living organism that exhibits structure, function, and change, and thus focus on relationships between biodiversity and spatial configuration of landscapes at multiple scales. The leading landscape ecologist Richard Forman (1995) emphasizes that enhancing wildlife and biodiversity is a significant requirement for planning of the whole landscape mosaic.9 Landscape ecologists have focused on spatial configurations based on ecological principles such as patch-corridor-matrix, networks, and edge to provide a conceptual framework for planners and designers to understand how land and ecological processes evolve (Ndubisi 2002).
As a branch of landscape ecology, according to Charles Waldheim (2006), landscape urbanism employs landscape as a lens through which the contemporary city is represented and a medium though which it is constructed. Landscape urbanism rejects the duality of city and nature, and views that landscape, rather than human-made architecture, organizes city and enhances urban experience. Theoretically based on postmodernism, landscape urbanism seeks to produce a “meaningful” or “livable” public realm. James
Corner, a leading landscape urbanism theorist, suggests that the narrow agenda of ecological advocacy is nothing more than a rear-guard defense of an autonomous
“nature” conceived to exist a priori, outside of human agency or cultural construction
(Waldheim 2006) (Figure 13). Landscape urbanism views landscape in the context of urban form, focusing on the leftover void spaces of the city. Although landscape urbanism advocates large infrastructural interventions, it does not yet provide sufficient guidelines or systematic tools to identify areas for biodiversity conservation, especially for areas outside of cities, such as the DMZ and the CCZ.
9 Forman defines a mosaic as the central spatial characteristic of a landscape, exhibiting highly heterogeneous, with habitats ranging widely in type and suitability. (See more in Land Mosaics, 1998.)
30
Figure 13. The Fresh Kills Park Project to salvage the largest landfill located on Staten Island, New York. In this project, Corner sought to propose an extensive new framework plan for creation of new habitat, new activity areas, and circulation systems. (Source: New York City Department of Parks and Recreation website, www.nycgovparks.org)
The concept of biodiversity has been accepted more widely in conservation biology than traditional community and regional planning. Conservation biology emerged from wildlife management and ecology between 1985 and 1987 as a new academic discipline in North America (Sarkar 2005a). Although early efforts were made primarily by ecologists to provide theories to support conservation practice, increasing awareness on rapid loss of biodiversity and environmental problems engendered the urgent need for new approaches and a new discipline for more effective practice of biodiversity conservation (Pullin 2002). Regarding the conjoining between biodiversity issues and conservation biology, Sarkar (2005a) notes that since the introduction of the new term
“biodiversity,” sociologically synergetic interaction between “biodiversity” and conservation biology has resulted in the reconfiguration of environmental studies, in which biodiversity conservation becomes a central focus of environmental concern.
Although it emerged from ecology, conservation biology is explicitly dedicated to halting the rapid decline of biodiversity and claims more prescriptive approaches than its mother science for biodiversity conservation, based on both substantive and normative
31 ethical foundations (Sarkar 2005b). Four postulates proposed by a leading conservation biologist Michael Soule (1985) reflect the prescriptive and value-laden features of conservation biology. They include: 1) diversity of organisms is good and extinction and degradation of diversity is bad; 2) ecological complexity is good and simplification of ecosystems by humans is bad; 3) evolution is good; and 4) biotic diversity has intrinsic value.
Conservation biology is also synthetic in nature and has been significantly influenced by theoretical and methodological developments in primarily four subfields of contemporary ecology: community ecology, population ecology, landscape ecology, and behavioral ecology (Mulder and Coppolillo 2005). On the basis of insights into structure of ecological community and dynamics of population, community and population ecology have provided models for understanding biodiversity, such as island biogeography theory, indicators of species diversity, population viability analyses, and protected area design (Mulder and Coppolillo 2005). Landscape ecology, which also shares its evolution with the development of ecological planning, has provided knowledge on biodiversity, focusing on the context and scales within which to analyze human disturbance and the design of individual reserves. Behavioral ecology has yielded the tools for examining decision-making processes and behavior of predators including human foragers, harvesters, and their prey (Mulder and Coppolillo 2005).
However, while the synthetic features and benefits from ecological science have contributed to theoretical development in conservation biology, skepticism was also engendered because of simplistic applications of biological theory to the problems of conservation. For instance, the use of island biogeography theory to design nature reserves turned out to be unsuccessful (Sarkar 2004). Sarkar (2005a) finds the reason for
32 the simplistic applications of biological principles from the mostly “pure” scientific backgrounds of earlier conservation biologists. These scholars viewed the field as emerging out of ecology or in conjunction with some closely related academic fields, such as demography and population genetics. According to Sarkar (2005a), these scientists overlooked the significant sociopolitical contexts from which actual decisions are made for land use and habitat conservation that affect biodiversity conservation. In a similar vein, a narrow mission and limited focus on the value of biodiversity conservation also have received considerable criticism. Guha (1997) points out that, due to an obsession with the goal of wilderness preservation, western conservation biologists from
“pure” science have largely failed to recognize the conservation value of anthropocentric landscapes and the potential role of local people in conserving their landscapes.
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Although ecological planning and conservation biology share the science of ecology as a common theoretical basis, their methodological approaches for biodiversity conservation differ because of each disciplinary tradition and professional orientation. In ecological planning, area ranking systems based on the comprehensive analysis of opportunity and constraints for human land use have drawn considerable attention. Land suitability methods, pioneered and popularized by McHarg (1969, 1996), have provided useful tools for planners to identify propitious land for both humans and natural environment (Figure 14). However, as was argued similarly by Murphy (2005), in application to conservation planning, land suitability methods tend to focus on the relationship between a particular species and their landscape setting, not the relationships of species among one another that are essential for biodiversity conservation. Another criticism concerns the issue that unless the factors are independent of each other, the
33 same factors such as slope and erosion can be inadvertently counted several times
(Hopkins 1977, Ortolano 1984). These weaknesses, however, have been largely overcome by the significant advancement of GIS for the last decade.
Figure 14. An example of a suitability method developed by McHarg. (Source: Steiner 2000)
34 Developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1980), the Habitat Evaluation
Procedure (HEP) has also provided a notable approach to evaluation of areas for conservation. The HEP assumes that the suitability of a habitat for a particular animal species can be determined by analyzing an area’s vegetative features and related physical and chemical characteristics. According to Ortolano (1984), this habitat suitability is linked to the biologists’ conception of carrying capacity: the maximum number of individuals of a given species that can be supported by an area. However, for its conceptual roots in land suitability methods, the HEP was not successful in examining species diversity and related ecosystem structure (Ortolano 1984).
Despite the development of habitat-based suitability approaches, a primary focus in planning has been given to identifying suitable areas for human land use. Biodiversity issues have received less attention from traditional community and regional planners.
Pointing out the lack of awareness on the significance of biodiversity issues in planning,
Beatley (2000) argues that planners must go beyond setting aside a few areas of protected habitats and need to be more familiar with science of preserve design and biological issues.
Conservation biologists in this respect have paid considerable attention to developing objective and technical methods for determining conservation priorities and selecting areas for biodiversity conservation. Several criteria for setting conservation priorities have been suggested in conservation biology, including: individual species approach, habitats approach, ecosystems approach, algorithm-based systematic approach within habitat and ecosystem, and socioeconomic context approach. Of these, the algorithm-based systematic approaches are regarded as a major step forward in conservation biology for the logic underlying management decisions and the increase of
35 transparency in deliberation (Mulder and Coppolillo 2005). Led by Australian biologists
Robert Pressey and Chris Margules, the systematic methods based on algorithms have been increasingly used to identify areas for conservation. The criteria applied include the number and rarity of species that the site harbors, their vulnerability, the irreplaceability of the particular sites, how well the ecosystem is represented elsewhere, and its complemetarity with other protected sites. However, systematic approaches based on different algorithms in selecting areas are likely to produce distinct and often nonoverlapping areas to be designated for protection (Sarkar 1999). In spite of various efforts to complement the weaknesses with sophisticated methods, the algorithm-based approach has not been very successful, especially when dealing with urgent conservation issues because of managers’ preferences for pragmatic judgment (Mulder and Coppolillo
2005).
The consideration of human values and the social context has also been a challenge for effective implementation of biodiversity conservation both in planning and conservation biology. Challenges in conservation biology are addressed by integrating social science, participatory research, and advocacy with the conventional tools of conservation biology: ecology, population genetics, and modeling (Jules et al. 2002).
Criticizing unsuccessful incorporation of social context in conservation biology, Jules et al. (2002) argue that conservation biologists should explore the dilemmas that become apparent when the social issues are involved as part of their analysis. According to Jules et al. (2002), conservation biologists should educate themselves on the history of their study regions, the economic forces that govern local communities, the political pressures on resource users, and the cultural meaning of the natural environment in which people live and interact in these regions.
36 On the other hand, in ecological planning, the integrative use of socio-cultural and biophysical information has been a central feature. Although their science-based tools for the analysis of biotic components have not been advanced significantly since McHarg’s suitability methods, procedural models to incorporate biotic data and socio-cultural information have advanced. As an alternative method for ecological planning, Frederick
Steiner (2000) provided an organizational framework for studying the biophysical and socio-cultural systems of a place to review where specific land uses may be best practiced. Unlike McHarg’s model, which primarily focuses on inventory, analysis, and synthesis, Steiner’s model places a greater emphasis on the establishment of goals, implementation, administration, and public participation, while following McHarg’s approach to suitability methods for land uses.
However, incorporation of more systematic area selection methods for biodiversity conservation and socio-cultural knowledge using systematic planning processes has been less developed.
INTEGRATIVE APPROACHES TO BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
In different professional contexts, conservation biology and planning have developed their own theoretical, methodological frameworks for biodiversity conservation, but more synthetic approaches that integrate sophisticated reserve selection tools and planning processes have not significantly developed. According to Perlman and
Milder (2005), “pure” conservation planning is often conducted when deciding where to establish a new nature reserve or when determining how to implement the Endangered
Species Act, but conservation values that are influenced and even dominated by humans have not been successfully integrated into landscape planning. This lack of integration is largely due to the legacy of a reductionist scientific culture that isolates specialists in their
37 limited domain (Stoms 2001). According to Stoms (2001), planning is, by nature, a very integrative activity and significant advances can be made from the interaction of academic biologists, geographers, economists, and other disciplines in framing the conservation problems. Thus, Stoms (2001) asserts that a modeling process that integrates biodiversity conservation with land use planning should be developed through multidisciplinary research.
In this chapter, I examined theoretical and methodological approaches to biodiversity mainly from planning and conservation biology. Although one can find many other sub-disciplines associated with biodiversity, I believe that these disciplines are primarily responsible for assessing and allocating areas for biodiversity conservation.
Planning and conservation biology evolved from different disciplinary traditions and social contexts, but they increasingly tend to verge on the goal of biodiversity conservation that is socially and culturally achievable. In planning, although there is still ongoing debate on ways to perceive biodiversity or nature at least, an increasing number of scholars and practitioners are trying to incorporate scientific tools for biodiversity conservation in traditional land use planning processes. Conservation biologists are also aware of the limitations of scientific area selection tools and recently began to incorporate social issues using multiple criteria analysis tools. However, systematic integration of scientific tools and socio-cultural information has not developed significantly in both disciplines, partly due to their very different types of knowledge. Thus, this study seeks to integrate these two different approaches, based on understanding of internal discussions on the ways to select areas for biodiversity conservation and of the unique socio-cultural context of the DMZ and CCZ through qualitative analysis.
38 In the next chapter, I will examine explicit principles for the measurement of biodiversity, such as species richness, complementarity, and rarity. The chapter will also compare the strenghs and weaknesses of the methods that use one or more of these principles. Consequently, the next chapter aims to provide a basis for a new integrative area selection method for biodiversity conservation in the DMZ and the CCZ.
39
Chapter 6. Principles and Methods for Systematic Area Selection
SPECIES RICHNESS
Biodiversity is viewed as irreducible complexity of all life, but no clear consensus on objective principles for area selection for biodiversity conservation has been achieved.
However, significant efforts have occurred to provide explicit principles for the measurement of biodiversity and the identification of objective criteria (Pullin 2002). The simplest way to measure biodiversity is the principle of species richness, which can be applied using indices or surrogate measures. Species diversity indices measure biodiversity at the species level from both the number of species present and their relative abundance in an area (Pullin 2002). The three most commonly used indices include
Simpson’s index, Shannon-Wiener index, and Margalef’s index as follows.
Table 1. Species diversity indices
Index Abbreviation Definition
Simpson D 1 S 2 ∑ pi i=1
Shannon-Wiener H S − ∑ ln pp ii i=1
Margalef I S − )1(
ln N
pi : the fraction of the total sample made up by species i , S : the number of species, N : the number of individuals
40 These indices differ with respect to the relative importance of species richness
(Shannon-Wiener), species abundance (Simpson’s), and total sample size (Margalef’s).
However, they all give high diversity scores to areas with many species, none of which is common or dominant, and give low diversity scores to areas with few species. Although these indices provide fairly simple ways of measuring biodiversity, they require a great deal of data that may be difficult to collect (Pullin 2002). Simply counting the number of species is beyond our capacity for most areas. Formulating a satisfactory definition of diversity when species abundance data are available may be an even more difficult task.
Biodiversity is measured by true surrogate selected by stakholders, which are typically rare species. In conservation planning, estimator surrogates are used to represent true surrogates. Estimator surrogates are species or land cover types that are easier to measure than true surrogates. Thus, surveys have often focused on estimator surrogates that are easy to sample and are well studied such as a prominent bird, mammal, or flowering plant species. Patterns are used as an indicator or surrogate of overall biodiversity (Pullin 2002). Past planning exercises have designed conservation area networks to represent estimator surrogates in an effort to represent true surrogates as well. However, the practice of using one or two charismatic species as estimator surrogates has been criticized, because no surrogate is ideal for all others (Pullin 2002,
Sarkar 2005b). In response to this problem, the multi-taxa approach was developed, which assumes that a diversity of taxa with different ecological requirements is more likely to reflect the patterns of diversity as a whole. The multi-taxa approach has been used where many taxa are poorly studied and a range of invertebrates taxa can be sampled in the same way, but it is also controversial because of the potential for error
(Pullin 2002).
41 Species richness has been used to define “hotspots” of diversity. The concept of hotspots was originally introduced in Myers’ influential worldwide review (1988) of regions, which combine high richness, endemism, and threat to species, but it has been subsequently used in narrower sense of high scores for species richness within continents or countries (Williams 1998). The hotspot method based on species richness relies on species-occurrence data with apparent quantitative rigor, and does not require knowledge of identity of each species. Hotpots have been defined using edemism, giving weight to more narrowly distributed species (Williams 1998).
COMPLEMENTARITY AND RARITY
The principle of complementarity has been advocated strongly by conservation biologists to incorporate the concept of biodiversity into conservation practice.
Introduced by Kirkpatrick (1983), Ackery and Vane-Wright (1984), Margules and
Nicholls (1987), and Margules, Nicholls and Pressey (1988), complementarity has been employed to produce the most space-efficient protected area system by identifying the smallest group of spatial units which contains all species (Williams 1998, Pullin 2002).
Unlike species richness, the use of complementarity requires knowledge of the identities of the surrogates in each area (Willams 1998).
Complementarity has received much attention in conservation biology due to its characteristics closely related to the concept of biodiversity. Sarkar notes (2002) that complementarity naturally captures our intuition of biodiversity and should be used as a crucial rule for efficient area selection. In his study on British breeding birds, Williams
(1998) compares three methods for area selection, each based on the principles of richness, rarity, and complementarity, and concludes that complementarity efficiently finds areas with more bird species when 5 percent of areas that are richest in species are
42 selected, while the richness-based method covers the least (Pullin 2002).
Complementarity is also useful in identifying areas that supplement the existing conservation network, enabling the addition of more species to the list of those within protected areas (Pullin 2002).
However, complementarity alone has not fully resolved the problems in selecting areas for biodiversity conservation. According to Williams (1998), complementarity is not indicative of diversity between groups of species, because the distribution of diversity in one group does not necessarily indicate the distribution of diversity in others where very different kinds of habitats are governed by other factors. Furthermore, in the area selection process, complementarity itself does not consider any rarity issue, which is essential to protect endangered species from extinction. Thus, from the preventive approach, Sarkar (2002) argues that the combined principles of complementarity and rarity provide crucial bases for selecting areas for biodiversity, because complementarity considers all surrogates, regardless of endangerment status, while rarity captures our concern for endangered species.
AREA SELECTION METHODS BASED ON BIODIVERSITY PRINCIPLES
For systematic area selection, it is critical to apply a set of rules designed to achieve particular goals efficiently with a transparency that aids accountability (Williams
1998). Efficiency is significant because land and funding for conservation is limited. In addition, conservation must compete with incompatible land uses. Accountability is also important to the public, who delegate responsibilities. The public needs to be reassured that their values are addressed and limited finanacial resources are not being misused
(Williams 1998). Notable area selection methods that have been popularly applied are combinational scoring systems and rule-based selection algorithms.
43 A combinational scoring system, supported by earlier conservation biologists including Theberge (1989) and Usher (1986), has been used by the TNC in its B Rank
(Biodiversity Ranking) system to evaluate potential conservation areas until their initiation of ecoregional planning (Groves 2003). However, combinational scoring systems have been criticized for requiring much more land to satisfy conservation targets than a complementarity-based approach. According to Groves (2003), combinational scoring systems rank several conservation areas that contain an endangered species high and include most of them in a proposed system of conservation areas, regardless of what other targets are included. Combinational scoring systems may involve adding, multiplying, or normalizing the scores for different species, and have been criticized for requiring assigning arbitrary weights to the species (Williams 1998). An alternative approach is a systematic area selection tool based on logical algorithms emphasizing the principles, such as complementarity and rarity. Williams (1998) asserts that these rule- based selection algorithms are more efficient, transparent, and accountable, and help planners to rapidly assess alternative portfolios of conservation areas through changes in conservation targets, goals, assessments of viability or integrity, or revisions to data sets.
In addition, according to Pressey (1999), the algorithms can assist planners to deal effectively with incomplete information and communicating alternatives or consequences of selections among stakeholders (Groves 2003).
The computerized algorithms have been useful in identifying complementary sets of conservation areas, and practical applications have been introduced in scores of scientific papers for decades (Williams 1998). Although many different types of algorithms have been proposed, they are generally categorized into two types of algorithms: iterative or heuristic algorithms from rule-based approaches and optimization
44 algorithms based on formal mathematical approaches (Groves 2003). Primarily using the principle of complementarity, iterative algorithms select areas in a step-wise manner.
They select areas by first considering which surrogates have been already represented in conservation areas and then proceed to select sites with the greatest number of surrogates not already represented. Algorithms based on the rarity principle select areas that contain rare surrogates first, and these methods have also been used for practical applications.
Iterative algorithms include WORLDMAP (Williams 1998), CODA (Bedward et al.
1992), and C-Plan (Pressey et al. 1995), while SITES (Ball and Possingham 2000, Groves et al. 2000) algorithms use optimization methods (Groves 2003). The iterative algorithms are fast and easy to understand, but they do not guarantee the best solution to the optimization problem. Optimization algorithms provide more efficient solutions for relatively large data sets. In particular, optimization algorithms select a set of areas that satisfy objectives to the greatest degree or least number of conservation areas (Groves
2003). However, optimization algorithms are mathematically complex, relying on techniques such as Integer Linear Programming, and provide only a single solution, leading to a “black box” effect on conservationists and planners who cannot understand the complex algorithms (Groves 2003).
In spite of efforts in advancing technical means for area selection, several criticisms also have emerged. Mulder and Coppolillo (2005) point out that computerized algorithm methods do not eliminate subjectivity since conservation targets and methods are determined by the people in charge of solving problems in context, and they do not suggest how to get it done. They warn that there are no absolute rules for area selection and that practitioners must apply constant vigilance and interpret the results of priority- setting exercises with caution (Mulder and Coppolillo 2005). Pressey (1999) also points
45 out clear limitations of systematic area selection tools in considering information on human concerns and social criteria, and he argues that they should be incorporated into the tools throughout participatory planning process for viable implementation. Recently, in conservation biology, a few procedures for systematic area selection to involve stakeholders’ perspectives have been proposed and applied in case studies. However, more comprehensive procedures that integrate socio-cultural information with scientific area selection tools throughout the entire planning process have rarely been developed.
As was reviewed in this chapter, there has been a significant development of area selection process methods in conservation biology. In particular, systematic algorithms, based on biodiversity principles, are increasingly being incorporated into conservation planning. Algorithm-based area selection tools seek to provide multiple solutions that may be adaptable to a particular socio-cultural context. In addition, systematic algorithms using explicit biodiversity principles such as complementarity and rarity provide more systematic ways to utilize a wide range of biological information at hand.
In this study, I apply algorithm-based tools as a way to incorporate biodiversity principles in area selection for conservation of the DMZ and the CCZ in South Korea.
The application of systematic tools in this case seeks to broaden knowledge on biodiversity priorities when selecting areas for conservation, and may provide improved solutions for effective decision-making. In the following chapter on research design, I describe more details on particular tools for modeling of species distribution and algorithms for area selections, as well as incorporation of multiple criteria derived from a focus group study.
46
Chapter 7. Research Design
This study integrates two methods to propose more effective options for biodiversity conservation in the CCZ: 1) systematic area selection methods using computerized algorithms and 2) a focus group study to understand local residents’ values and priorities in biodiversity conservation. For systematic area selections, the study employs three software programs: Maxent, ResNet, and MultCSync, in conjunction with
GIS. These programs provide a robust and transparent method to select areas for biodiversity conservation, integrating multiple criteria into biophysical information analysis.
A focus group study was also conducted to understand human values and priorities in biodiversity conservation in the local context. In particular, the focus group study aims to elicit information on how local residents perceive the natural environment and value the biodiversity in their relationship with the physical and social environment in the CCZ. For the focus group study, eight people from the Yangji-ri village in the CCZ were recruited for a two-hour discussion. The result of the group discussion was transcribed and analyzed to draw multiple criteria. From the criteria, spatially applicable information will be applied to conservation priority maps produced from the computer- based assessment. The information that is not spatially applicable will also be identified to make recommendations for modeling more effective biodiversity conservation planning in the CCZ.
47
Figure 15. Aerial map of the Yangji-ri village in the CCZ (Source: Google Earth, March 25, 2008)
Figure 16. Yangji-ri village in the CCZ (by author on February 25, 2007)
48 SYSTEMATIC AREA SELECTION METHODS
For systematic area selection tools using biodiversity content information, the study employs two software packages: Maxent and ResNet. Maxent is a general approach for presence-only modeling of species distributions. Maxent estimates a target probability distribution of maximum entropy, subject to a set of constraints that represent incomplete information about the target distribution. When Maxent is applied, the pixels of the study area make up the space on which the Maxent probability distribution is defined, pixels with known species occurrence records constitute the sample points, and the features are climate variables, elevation, soil, vegetation types or other environmental variables, and the function thereof (Phillips et al. 2006). The unit of analysis for Maxent usually consists of raster cells that contain numerical values of biological and environmental surrogates including the number of significant species observed, soil types, land cover, temperature, precipitation, and slope. In this way, Maxent uses similar data layers advocated by McHarg (1969) and Steiner (2000) for ecological inventories that are familiar to most planners. McHarg suggested such layers should be organized from older environmental phenomena such as geology and climate to more fast changing factors like vegetation and wildlife and then on to social information (Figure 17). Today, planners commonly accomplish this through GIS to identify opportunities and constraints for various land uses.
49
Figure 17. McHarg’s layer-cake model (source: Steiner 2000)
The notable advantages of Maxent include: 1) it requires only presence data, together with environmental information for entire study area; 2) it utilizes both continuous and categorical data and can incorporate interactions between different variables; 3) efficient deterministic algorithms have been developed that are guaranteed to converge to the optimal probability distribution; 4) the probability distribution has a concise mathematical definition and is amenable to analysis; and 5) the output is continuous, allowing fine distinctions to be made between the modeled suitability of different areas. Phillips et al. (2006) compared Maxent with GARP (Stockwell and Peters
1999), one of the popular tools to predict wildlife species distribution, and concluded that
Maxent is more efficient for two additional distinctive advantages: 1) it further
50 distinguishes between those with a marginally strong prediction versus those with increasingly stronger predictions, and 2) it more successfully integrates fine topographic data for species, producing more detailed (finer-grained) predictions.
ResNet provides a systematic algorithm for robust and systematic selection areas for biodiversity conservation (Garson et al. 2002). ResNet was invented and provided by the Biodiversity and Biocultural Conservation Laboratory at the University of Texas at
Austin, and has been widely used in the field of biodiversity conservation planning. The algorithms of ResNet are based on the variations and extensions of the one originally proposed by Margules et al. (1988), but it is unique in using dynamic memory allocation.
Thus, there is no constraint on the size of the data set. If a region is divided into a set of places based on geographical coordinates or ecological boundaries, the algorithms of
ResNet order these places by their biodiversity content (Sarkar 2002).
ResNet assumes that a definite target has been set in the form of (1) adequate representation of each surrogate, (2) maximum allowed area, or (3) maximum allowed cost of a proposed set of areas for conservation. The goal of the algorithms used in
ResNet is to achieve the set target efficiently by selecting as few places as possible to meet the conservation goal. These selections are based on the three principles: rarity, complementarity, and richness. Thus, places are ordered according to (1) whether they contain the rarest surrogate after surrogates are ordered inversely by the frequency of species appearance, (2) the number of surrogates they contain which has not met the targeted representation, and (3) the number of surrogates present (Sarkar 2002). In
ResNet, richness is used in only one part of the algorithms. To effectively use ResNet, prediction of the areas of probable presence for each species should be made, due to the limitation of the small number of datasets for species distribution. Thus, once Maxent
51 estimated the suitability of the grid of each species surrogate as a function of the environmental variables at that grid cell, ResNet systematically selects area cells based on the principles of rarity, complementarity, and richness.
In this study, I use species occurrence point data of the entire nation created by
MOE in 2004. The data include several endangered or nationally protected species, including birds species, such as the Black-faced Spoonbill (Platalea minor), the White- tailed Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla), and the Red-crowned Crane (Grus japonensis), as well as mammals such as the Chinese Water Deer (Hydropotes inermis), the Antelope
(Naemorhedus caudatus), and the Wild Boar (Sus scrofa).
FOCUS GROUP STUDY
Despite the development in area selection tools, public preference for and perceptions of the benefits of wildlife have been poorly understood (Montgomery 2002).
The purpose of this focus group study is to understand the local residents’ values and social priorities in conserving the biodiversity in the CCZ. In 2000, the Korean government’s effort to designate areas for conservation in the CCZ faced strong opposition from the local residents. Scientists and planners have not been very successful in incorporating residents’ perspectives and concerns about socio-cultural issues into their analysis of biophysical information for biodiversity conservation. Thus, in this research, a focus group study was conducted to elicit social concerns and priorities that are associated with biodiversity conservation from the local residents. The results were then applied to rank the options of the conservation area network produced from systematic area selection algorithms.
Originating in the 1930s to overcome the limitations of the traditional research- directed interview, focus group studies have increasingly been used in the fields of
52 market research and public policy. The theoretical underpinning of focus group interviews involves the conceptualization of indefinite and dynamic knowledge (Lindsay and Hubley 2006). Therefore, it assumes that knowledge or meaning is at least partially constructed or negotiated between individuals through discourse. This approach for group discourse is based on a growing understanding that the perceptions or knowledge of phenomenon as held by a single individual may not be immediately available for explication unless facilitated or motivated by other factors. Thus, compared to the traditional use of surveys and questionnaires or even the use of open-ended in-depth interviews, focus group studies may be more useful for gaining insight into how people view their environment and the degree of homogeneity in thought, explanations, and rationale.
In conservation planning, there is little agreement on the exact concept and the appropriate level of conservation. The concept and level are largely dependent on social perceptions. In this respect, a focus group study was conducted to explore the values and priorities shared by the local residents for effective conservation of the biodiversity in the
CCZ.
INCORPORATION OF MULTIPLE CRITERIA FOR AREA SELECTIONS
Although area selection tools typically focus on the representation of biodiversity surrogates, effective consideration of multiple criteria in the planning process is critical.
Multiple criteria include sociopolitical factors and spatial configuration of conservation area networks – such as size, shape, alignment, replication, connectivity, and dispersion, which are often significant to the persistence of biodiversity (Sarkar et al. 2006).
As a way to incorporate multiple criteria, two types of protocols have been typically applied: iterative stage protocols and terminal stage protocols (Sarkar et al.
53 2006). Iterative stage protocols consider multiple criteria as an individual site or set of sites for area selection. Terminal stage protocols consider the selection of an entire area network that satisfies biodiversity representation from a set of potential networks. Both iterative and terminal stage protocols can be used simultaneously, with the application of some criteria in area selection processes and of others in the selection of area networks at the final stage. For effective incorporation of multiple criteria, many methods have been proposed, ranging from the well-developed multi-attribute value and utility theories to purely heuristic procedures (Sarkar et al. 2006). The selection of the methods depends on
1) whether the alternative sites or conservation area networks can be ordinally or quantitatively ranked by each criterion; 2) whether the criteria for evaluating alternatives can be ranked ordinally or quantitatively; 3) whether the criteria are independent of each other; and 4) whether the criteria can be compounded (Sarkar et al. 2006). However, it has also been noted that ranking criteria are often arbitrary and increase potential for a loss of transparency.
In this study, MultCSync is used as a way to integrate multiple criteria to the area selection process. MultCSync helps refine the conservation area selection incorporating spatial design criteria such as size, dispersion, and connectivity of individual areas, and negotiating competing social claims on land use, including resource extraction, development, and recreation (Moffett et al. 2005). After biodiversity representation targets are satisfied using Maxent and ResNet, MultCSync enables all alternative networks to be ranked according to social criteria derived from the focus group study.
Sarkar (2005b) argued that a primary task of biodiversity conservation planning is to find out not only adequately represented surrogates but also incorporation of spatial design criteria and social claims on land use. Thus, a set of conservation networks produced
54 from ResNet analysis will be ranked by computing the subset of “non-dominated” alternatives, which are better than at least one criterion and no worse than by any of the criteria. The three refinement protocols that MultCSync provides are: (1) sequential drop of less important criteria, leading to either a new revised non-dominated set or the elimination of some alternatives from the existing non-dominated set, (2) the use of the
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to produce a ranking of all the criteria and the use of it to rank the non-dominated alternatives, and (3) provision of the modification of the AHP.
Developed by Thomas Satty (1980), AHP is a popular multiobjective decision making method. Based on a series of pairwise comparisons, AHP helps estimate a value function to rank the altenative solutions (Collins et al. 2001). In general, the multiple criteria are classified into three categories which are not mutually exclusive: spatial configuration criteria, persistence criteria, and socio-political criteria. In this study, the establishment of multiple criteria is based on a literature review and the focus group study. These methods will help identify critical social issues in biodiversity conservation in CCZ, and set up criteria for evaluating conservation area networks produced from ResNet analysis. The criteria are classified based on the applicability to spatial configurations of the conservation areas in CCZ.
Consequently, the study will apply a systematic area selection model that integrates computer-based algorithms and a focus group interview (Figure 18). This model will be used to evaluate the applicability and to propose recommendations in the context of the CCZ and DMZ. To better understand the context, the following chapter will focus on a brief description of the DMZ and the CCZ.
55
Figure 18. An integrative model applied for systematic area selection
56
Chapter 8. The Demilitarized Zone and the Civilian Control Zone
HISTORY OF THE DMZ AND THE CCZ
The DMZ was established by the Armistice Agreement in 1953 as a result of the cease-fire agreement to stop the Korean War. Along the 250 km-long Military
Demarcation Line, the 4 km-wide DMZ stretches along a wide range of landscapes from the island of Kyodong, Ganghwado, on the west to Myongho-ri, northern Kosong on the east (Figures 19 – 20). The area of DMZ is about 5 percent of the entire Korea peninsula, and the actual width is a bit less than 4 km, because the southern and northern boundaries were moved toward the demarcation line for military visibility. The South Korean Army provides the front line military forces on the south of the DMZ (Figure 21). Inside the
DMZ, the 1,024 DMZ Civil Police authorized by the Armistice and a small number of
American soldiers perform patrol the area.
The DMZ has been rigidly enforced by the Military Armistice Commission that prohibits any human settlement, except two villages: Daeseong-dong on the southern side and Gijeong-dong on the northern side of the DMZ. Daeseong-dong is a traditional type of village strictly controlled by the South Korean government (Figure 22), while Gijeong- dong is created by North Korea for the purpose of propaganda (Figure 23). In the past,
North Korea would send out propaganda using loudspeakers across to Daeseong-dong as many as 20 hours a day, and reciprocal pop music and exhortations blasted back from
South Korea. But these actions were ceased by agreement in 2004. For about half a century, the DMZ was regarded as a significant symbol of separation and ideological conflict between North and South Korea.
57
Figure 19. The locations of DMZ and CCZ on the border between North and South Korea (source: Google Earth, March 23, 2008).
Figure 20. DMZ (looking the North) Figure 21. South Korean soldiers along (source: www.korea-dmz.com) the DMZ (source: www.korea-dmz.com)
58 The Civilian Control Zone (CCZ), a buffer along the southern boundary of the
DMZ from eastern sea to western sea, was established with the official authority of the 8th
American Army commander in chief in 1954. The width of the CCZ ranges from 5 to 20 km and the area is approximately 1,528 km2. After the regulation authority for the CCZ was turned over to the South Korean military, many types of villages were created, including 99 independent safety villages since 1959, 12 reconstructed villages from 1968 to 1973, and two unification villages since 1973, to respond to the planned villages in the border zone of North Korea and to use the land for agriculture. Occupied by 14 cities and two provinces, the CCZ includes 31 villages in five districts: Goseong, Injae, Hwachon,
Yanggu, Chorlwon in Gangwon province and 81 villages in four districts: Yeonchon,
Paju, Gimpo, and Ganghwa in Gyeonggi province. However, while some of the villages in the CCZ are allowed for residency, most of them only permit farming operations.
Figure 22. Daeseong-dong village in Figure 23. Gijeong-dong village in North South Korea (source: www.korea-dmz.com) Korea (source: www.korea-dmz.com)
GEOGRAPHICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ECOSYSTEMS
The DMZ together with CCZ, are divided into three ecological regions: western, central, and eastern (Kim 2001) (Figure 24). Encompassing the cities of Gangwha, Paju,
59 and Yeonchon, the western area provides rich wetland habitats for diverse flora and fauna of high ecological value, including 11 endangered species such as the Yellow Bittern
(Lxobrychus sinensis), the Ruddy-breasted Crake (Porzana fusca), the Gray-faced Green
Woodpecker (Picus canus), and the Black-capped Kingfisher (Halcyon pileata), as well as 13 nationally designated protected species such as the Red-crowned Crane (Grus japonensis), the Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), the White-naped Crane (Grus vipio), and the Common Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) (Kim 2001).
Figure 24. Three ecological regions across the DMZ and the CCZ. (source: www.korea-dmz.com, modified by author)
In the Sachon River near the eastern CCZ, various types of wetlands are developed at the upstream, mid-stream, and downstream. The Imjin River estuary in the western CCZ also provides habitats for internationally rare birds, including Black-faced
Spoonbill (Platalea minor) and indigenous fish species.
The eastern region contains rugged mountains, providing excellent forest ecosystems, and includes a unique wetland called Yongneup on the Mt. Daeam in Inje,
1,280 m above the sea level. Yongneup, designated by MOE as an ecological preservation zone in 1989, is highly valued for unique swamp ecosystems and rare plants.
60 Yongneup consists of one large and two small swamps, providing habitats for more than
191 species of rare plants including Common Sundew (Drosera rotundifolia) (Figure 25),
Large-flowered Cypripedium (Cypripedium macranthum) (Figure 26), James Gentian
(Gentiana jamesii) (Figure 27), and Lychnis kiusiana10 (Figure 28) and 224 species of insects including oriental fruit moth. Over 4,500 years old, Yongneup is also designated as a Ramsar wetland11 in 1997 (Figure 29). An ecosystem in the area around Hyangro
Peak provides excellent habitat for a variety of species, connecting two significant national parks, located on both sides of the border in the eastern region: Kumkang
National Park in North Korea and Sorak National Park in South Korea.
Figure 25. Common Sundew Figure 26. Large-flowered Cypripedium (Source: www.en.wikipedia.org) (Source: www.en.wikipedia.org)
Figure 27. James Gentian Figure 28. Lychnis kiusiana (Source: www.en.wikipedia.org) (Source: www.en.wikipedia.org)
10 Lychnis kiusiana has no common name. 11 Ramsar wetland refers to a wetland adopted in accordance with the Ramsar Convention in 1971, an international treaty for the conservation and sustainable utilization of wetlands. In addition to Yongneup, Upo-neup in Changnyeong, Gyeongsangnam-do is also designated as Ramsar wetland in Korea.
61
Figure 29. Yongneup wetland in the CCZ was designated by Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Korea as ecological preservation zone in 1989 for its high value of unique swamp ecosystems and rare plants (Source: Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Korea, www.yongneup.go.kr)
The central region is composed of forests and plains that are favored by endangered species such as the Red-crowned Crane. In particular, Chorlwon Plain
(Figure 30) provides a vast wintering site for globally rare birds, including Red-crowned
Cranes, White-naped Cranes, White-fronted Geese, Bean Geese, Mallards, and Teals. In
Chorlwon Plain, marshes formed by Saemtong, and artificial lakes attract a variety of endangered migratory birds. Saemtong (Figure 31), designated as Natural Monument No.
245, is a natural spring created during the fourth period of volcanic activity. Saemtong gushes out in Naepo-ri, Chorlwon and flows through 6 km long streams down to Hantan
River in Yangji-ri, providing favorable habitats for wildlife.
The DMZ and CCZ are comprised of diverse landscapes, including forest ecosystems, water bodies, grasslands, farmlands, and wetlands from the eastern mountainous area to the western low wetland area (Kim and Cho 2005). Using several criteria established by IUCN, Ramsar Site, and UNESCO, Kim and Cho (2005) assessed conservation values of the DMZ and the CCZ, and identified areas for conservation: 1) tidal flats in Gyodongdo in Gangwha, 2) Yudo in Gimpo (Figure 32), 3) Chopyeong
62 Island, 4) Eoryong Reservoir, 5) the Sachon River, 6) areas adjacent to the Gyeongeui
Line, 7) the Sewol Stream, 8) the Myeongong Stream, 9) the Chorlwon Plain, 10) Togyo
Reservior, 11) the Yeokgok Stream, 12) Geonbong Mountain, and 13) sand dunes in the east coast. Kim (2001) also identified nine sites for crane habitats in Chorlwon in CCZ and found the Ice Cream Height as the largest one.
Figure 30. Chorlwon Plain Figure 31. Saemtong, non-freezing (Source: www.korea-dmz.com) spring in Chorlwon provides habitats for a variety of wildlife. (by author on February 25, 2007)
Figure 32. Yudo in Gimpo (Source: www.Korea-dmz.com)
63 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS
Due to government’s strict control for military security, socially and culturally unique characteristics have evolved in the CCZ. Most of residents in the CCZ are from outside the CCZ, resulting in a mixture of cultures. According to the report by the Central
Nation Protection Conference in 1987, the rate of native population in the CCZ was less than 10 percent. The reason of the low native population in the CCZ is that much of the area was reclaimed after the war and the administrative authority was transferred to South
Korea. Thus, most villages in the CCZ were built by natives with outsiders gathered from all over the country. About 75.5 percent of the area in the DMZ is forest lands, while 20.3 percent is grassland due to the elimination of vegetation by the military to secure visibility (Kim 2001). In the CCZ, 69.1 percent of the area is forest, and 15.3 percent of land is used for agriculture (Kim 2001) (Table 1). Most residents depend on farming for their livelihoods.
Table 2. Land Use in the DMZ and CCZ (Kim 2001) (unit: m2) Classification Total area Forest land Agricultural land Grassland Others DMZ 907 (100%) 685 (75.5%) 25 (2.8%) 184 (20.3%) 13 (1.4%) CCZ 1,369 (100%) 946 (69.1%) 210 (15.3%) 213 (17.4%)
Several historical heritage sites are also present in the CCZ and the DMZ, including dolmens, Buddhist temple sites, old castle sites, and King Kyongsoon’s tomb.
Popular natural attraction sites for tourism include Indang Water, Mt. Mani,
Sambooyeon, Dootayeon, Mt. Keonbong, Hyangro Peak, and Hwajinpo. Battle fields and monuments are also preserved, including the Paikma Height (Figure 33), Punch Ball
(Figure 34), and Ridgeline of Bloods, four infiltration tunnels, Panmunjeom (Figure 35),
64 and the Chorlwon office of the Labor Party (Figure 36). Observation towers popular for tourists include Unification Observation Deck (Figure 37) and Ulji Observation Deck.
Figure 33. A battle field, Paikma Height Figure 34. Punch Ball (Source: http://tourdmz.com) (Source: www.korea-dmz.com)
Figure 35. Panmunjeom Figure 36. Chorlwon office of the Labor Party (Source: http://www.tongiltour.co.kr) (Source: www.korea-dmz.com)
65
Figure 37. Unification Observation Deck (Source: www.panmunjomtour.com)
BIODIVERSITY IN THE DMZ AND THE CCZ
According to MOE, as of 2002, 18,052 animal and 8,271 plant species have been identified and recorded in South Korea. Among the 1,440 species of vertebrates, 905 fish,
41 amphibians and reptiles, 394 birds, and 100 mammals were identified, while 11,853 species were classified as insects. In South Korea, a variety of wetlands support over one million wintering ducks and geese and a significant percentage of migratory shorebirds across the East Asian-Australasian Flyway. At least 21 Threatened Migratory Waterbirds, as listed in the Asia-Pacific Migratory Waterbird Conservation Strategy, are reported.
However, because of the loss of wetlands, a wide range of species are already facing imminent extinction. Due to rapid urban development and human disturbance, many animals and plants species are threatened, and, as a result, 43 endangered species and 151 threatened species of wildlife and plants are designated for protection by the Natural
Environment Conservation Act of South Korea. With forests covering 66 percent of its territory, Korea has a variety of tree species. However, this rich biodiversity was
66 seriously devastated under Japanese colonialism in the first half of the 20th century and the Korean War from 1950 to 1953. In 1962, the government initiated an ambitious nationwide forestation project across the country. But rich diversity was replaced chiefly with conifers, and habitats for many species gradually disappeared.
However, in the CCZ and the DMZ, biodiversity has thrived under the military control that strictly limits human access. According to MOE (2004), biota include 1,597 plant species (34 percent of all plants of the nation), 106 fish species (12 percent of fish species of the nation), 29 amphibian and reptile species (71 percent of amphibian and reptile species of the nation), 201 bird species (51 percent of all birds of the nation), and
52 mammal species (52 percent of all mammals of the nation). The ecosystems in the
DMZ and the CCZ also provide excellent wintering grounds for a variety of bird species, including the world’s most endangered birds, such as White-naped Crane (Grus vipio) and Red-crowned Crane (Grus japonensis) and habitats for nine rare species of mammals, including Asiatic Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus) and Musk Deer (Moschus moschiferus caudatus) (Kim 1997).
LAND DEVELOPMENT AND THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY
According to CNN, a 1994 biodiversity study reported that almost 30 percent of
Korea’s mammals, 48 percent of reptiles, and 60 percent of amphibians are either extinct or endangered (Easen 2003). Although the DMZ and the CCZ have been a haven for wildlife for more than 50 years since the designation, the pressure of land development has rapidly increased for the last decade. Unlike the DMZ, the CCZ, controlled by South
Korea, has been under persistent threat of development by landowners, who have pressured congressman to legalize development in the CCZ. As a result, the Bordering
Regions Support Act was created by the Korean Congress to promote development in the
67 CCZ in 2000. Since then, local governments and major corporations have sought to develop the area into tourist sites, or to launch economic development. Proposed projects include a veteran museum, a meeting center for separated families, and an industrial complex.
In Paju, six miles away from the DMZ, most of area in the CCZ has recently changed from a military city to a high-tech hub. Paju allowed the LG. Philips to build a new $5 billion plant to produce liquid-crystal display screens and to construct new apartment buildings nearby. This development rush was depicted in the New York Times as follows: “In the geographical gap where North Korean tanks once rolled south, South
Korean bulldozers may soon be rumbling north” (Brooke 2006). Recently, South Korea built a new road and railroad across the border and conglomerate Hyundai built a tourist playground just a few miles into North Korea.
As a result of the recent development rush, symptoms of significant biodiversity threats have been reported. According to environmental groups, valuable habitats and swamps located near the Sachon River have already deteriorated due to the railroad construction (Soh 2000). For development, governments are also recklessly overturning soil to remove the landmines, without consideration of the ecological value of wildlife habitats. Speedy assessment of environmental impact of the Gyeongeui inter-Korean highway project also received harsh criticism. Environmentalists in South Korea argued that it was unreasonable for the government to finish the environmental impact assessment in only two months.
68 CONSERVATION EFFORTS AND CHALLENGES
Recent reports on the ongoing threat to biodiversity in the CCZ have raised the need for a new approach for effective conservation. As a strategy to preserve the rich biodiversity of the DMZ, Kim (1997) proposed the joint development of the Korean
Peace Bioreserves System (KPBRS) to foster trust, understanding, and respect between
North and South Korea. According to Kim (1997), the KPBRS, jointly administered by the two Koreas, would be a system of transboundary reserves, encompassing the entire
DMZ corridor and all related habitats in the adjacent CCZ on both sides. For effective conservation strategy, Kim (1997) suggested that KPBRS should be classified based on three criteria: 1) nature reserve strictly for long-term research, 2) protected landscapes or seascapes, and 3) experimental villages (farming or fishing) with a limited number of families from North and South Korea living together in an environmentally friendly manner. Since the inception of the KPBRS project in 1994, effort has mainly focused on gaining public understanding and support from governments and international society, but an actual agreement for the project between the two Koreas has yet to be achieved.
To prevent further degradation of ecosystems and biodiversity in the CCZ and the
DMZ, Kim and Cho (2005) proposed the creation of a DMZ South-North Korean
Environment Cooperation Committee, by which a joint study for an ecological inventory in the DMZ should be conducted. Kim and Cho (2005) also emphasized the significance of intensive study of wetland systems, the development of habitat management, and the inclusion of the DMZ on the World Heritage List.
However, in spite of the proposals mainly focusing on a political agenda, methodological issues about “how to evaluate biodiversity values and select areas for conservation” with limited data have rarely been discussed. Methodological issues are
69 crucial because potentially significant areas for biodiversity in the CCZ could be easily degraded by increasing development pressure in the near future. Thus, practically adaptable conservation plans should be proposed to help governments and key stakeholders. As Kim and Cho (2005) have emphasized, it is important to identify area- specific conservation values and to develop area network plans for effective biodiversity conservation. The establishment of systematic area networks encompassing the DMZ and the CCZ will provide practical guidelines to direct development or, at least, information to help establish effective conservation strategies.
Landmines were planted by the U.S. Army and the South Korean Army in the
DMZ and the CCZ during the war. Later, the landmines presented a significant challenge potentially for human land use and biodiversity conservation. According to the 2003 report by Ministry of National Defense Republic Korea, the number of mines laid was estimated at 1.1 to 1.2 million, making the DMZ and the CCZ one of the most heavily mined areas in the world (Landmine 2004). The report also estimated 112.5 million square meters of total mined area in the CCZ and DMZ, including 90.7 million square meters of unconfirmed and 21.8 million square meters of confirmed mined areas
(Landmine 2004).
In this chapter, I explored the highly valued biodiversity in the DMZ and the CCZ in the context of history, geography, and socio-cultural characteristics. Based on this review, I also examined recent threats to biodiversity by urban land development and conservation efforts made by governments and planners. However, methodological approaches that incorporate social values defined by key stakeholders with systematic area selection tools are found to be a significant challenge for conserving the biodiversity in the DMZ and the CCZ. Thus, in the following chapter, using a focus group interview, I
70 will explore local residents’ values on biodiversity conservation that will be incorporated into a systematic area selection process.
71
Chapter 9. Focus group study
BACKGROUND
Despite the growing urgency to conserve the CCZ, few strategies and guidelines have been developed for effective biodiversity conservation. Scientists and planners attribute this partly to the lack of ecological data for policy guidance. In addition, access is extremely limited due to tight military security and landmines. This limitation has been a significant barrier to conduct thorough field surveys and observation, necessary for conservation planning. To overcome the data limitations, computer technologies have been advanced recently to provide useful data for bio-physical analysis. However, in spite of improved spatial analysis technology, conservation planning is still effectively blocked by local residents’ opposition.
In 2000, the central government of South Korea, in cooperation with UNESCO, attempted to designate parts of the areas in Yangji-ri, Chorlwon in the CCZ as a biosphere reserve.12 The areas include a vast plain, which provides wintering habitats for the largest number of the endangered Red-crowned Crane in Korean Peninsula. However, the government faced considerable opposition from the local residents. This indicates that while the significance of the biodiversity value in the CCZ and DMZ has been increasingly emphasized by many scholars and planners, the values and perceptions of local residents on the biophysical environment have been poorly understood.
12 Designation of biosphere reserves was launched by UNESCO as a part of the Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB) in 1974. The MAB helps establish an international network of biosphere reserves that conserve important biological resources, develop environmentally sound economic growth, and support environmental research, monitoring, and education. (see www.unesco.org/mab)
72 UNDERSTANDING HUMAN VALUES ON BIODIVERSITY
According to Brown et al. (2004), the exclusion of local knowledge from conservation planning continues, despite the fact that the availability of reliable species data usually lags far behind conservation threats. Thus, it has been argued that the promotion of local knowledge is significant, because it reflects the values and perceptions of the humans who interact most strongly with the natural environments and policies
(Alessa et al. 2003). The inclusion of local knowledge in conservation planning is increasingly considered necessary to develop fully legitimate policies as a foundation on which the goals and practices of conservation are based (Harrison and Burgess 2000).
In this research, a focus group study was employed to understand the local values and perceptions about biodiversity conservation and the related social issues. Focus group studies are useful because they allow individuals to respond in their own words, using their own categorizations and perceived associations. In contrast, survey researches use response categories that are generally prescribed by the researcher (Stewart et al. 1990).
Notable advantages of focus group studies include: 1) direct interactions with respondents provide opportunities for the clarification of responses, for follow-up questions, and for the probing of responses; 2) the synergetic effect of the group setting may result in the production of data or ideas that might not have been uncovered in individual interviews; and 3) the open response format of a focus group study provides an opportunity to obtain deeper levels of meaning, make important connections, and identify subtle nuances in expression and meaning (Stewart et al. 1990). In addition, focus group studies may provide a more rapid and cost-effective means for understanding local residents’ values on biodiversity.
73 In this research, the focus group interview aims to provide insight on biodiversity conservation priorities and social issues addressed by local residents in the CCZ. The priorities and social issues on biodiversity conservation elicited from the focus group discussion were analyzed to establish multiple criteria for the application of systematic area selection tools. The content data from the focus group were analyzed, through the use of the content-analysis software NVIVO.
FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
With a goal to understand the local residents’ values and perceptions on biodiversity conservation in the CCZ, the questions were developed to identify the concerns and priorities defined by local residents in terms of species, the natural environment, agricultural activities, and the social environment. The questions include: 1)
How is the concept of biodiversity perceived by the local residents? 2) What problems are addressed by the local residents in conserving biodiversity? 3) How do the local residents value wildlife species and why? and 4) What social issues are associated with their perception on biodiversity value and conservation?
DESIGN OF THE FOCUS GROUP STUDY
The target population was initially defined as the local farmers in the CCZ.
However, due to the extremely restrictive access and limited information, the village of
Yangji-ri was selected to recruit participants because access is relatively easier.
Participants were not recruited randomly, because I realized that they were wary of the people outside the CCZ. Instead, I met the representative of the Yangji-ri village to ask his help to find discussion participants. After I persuaded the representative, he announced to the community about the focus group discussion through regular
74 community meetings and phone calls. Finally, the time and place for the discussion were set up at 8:00 p.m. on May 31, 2007 at the Community Education Center (Figure 38) in the village of Yang-ji-ri. One week prior to the discussion date, an official request with research information was sent to the community representative to distribute to the discussion participants. The research information included the research purpose, outline, intended use of the data, and the researcher’s contact information. Because of the limitations of time and resources, I took the role of moderator and one person participated as an observer for the discussion.
For the focus group discussion, eight participants showed up: seven men and one woman. Light refreshment and small gifts were provided. All participants were also asked to sign the approval sheets, as required by the Institutional Review Board of the
University of Texas at Austin (see Appendix A and B). After a brief introduction on the research purpose by the moderator, the focus group discussion was conducted for two hours. The entire discussion was tape recorded after verbal agreement by the participants, on the condition that it should not be used for any other purpose but the research.
After the completion of the discussion, the recorded data were carefully transcribed to Korean, and next translated to English for content analysis (see Appendix
C and D). Following the flow of conversation in the transcription process, I tried to reflect the character of participants’ comments in context, picking up incomplete sentences and odd phrases. For systematic content analysis, I used the computer software
NVIVO 7.0, which is designed to integrate coding with new, qualitative ways of linking
(Richards 1999). NVIVO helps analyze the transcript by coding data according to a classification scheme that allows easy identification, indexing, or retrieval of data during analysis. The software also provides capabilities for data management, coding text,
75 retrieving text, and testing theory through the examination of relationships among nodes
(Auld et al. 2007).
Figure 38. Community Education Center at Yang-ji-ri (by author on May 31, 2007)
DATA ANALYSIS
Coding process
To analyze the content of the discussion, the entire transcript was coded in a systematic way. In NVIVO analysis, coding is defined as sections of text in a document that are stored in nodes. A node is an object in a project which represents anything that analysts wish to refer to. For effective coding, the coding criteria were created to understand the relationships between various factors that are assumed to affect residents’ values and perspectives. The criteria include: 1) agriculture and species, 2) agriculture and conservation policy, 3) agriculture and military, 4) daily life activity and military, 5)
76 daily life activity and species, 6) daily life activity and landmines, 7) daily life activity and conservation policy, 8) military and conservation policy, 9) species and conservation policy, and 10) social interactions. Based on, but not limited to the pre-established criteria, a set of words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs in the transcript were carefully coded. In the coding process, a single or multiple codes were assigned to a piece of text that is not mutually exclusive in the criteria. As a result, 32 nodes emerged from the data analysis (Table 2). The nodes also contained the information on references and coverage of particular topics to represent their relative importance. After the nodes were coded, a focused coding was conducted to identify repeating ideas and larger themes by eliminating, combining, or subdividing coding categories. Through this reclassification process, 15 groups of nodes representing key factors affecting local residents’ values emerged (Table 3). Among the groups of nodes, the top seven most influential factors on residents’ value include: 1) attitude on environment and biodiversity conservation, 2) agriculture and species, 3) planning process problem, 4) attitude toward social environment, 5) agriculture and conservation policy, 6) military forces, and 7) historical and cultural context.
Based on the analysis of the relationships among these factors, a conceptual model of residents’ values on conservation was constructed (Figure 39). In this model, the residents’ values are affected the most by their agriculture and daily life activity. It is also identified that the residents’ agriculture has a strong relationship with the behavior of wildlife species in the CCZ. The residents are concerned about ongoing restrictions imposed by the military and landmines, and they hope that conservation policies would not further constraint their lives. According to the analysis, conservation policies also
77 contributed to the increase of particular species that are harmful or beneficial to the residents’ agriculture.
Table 3. Nodes coding analysis
Nodes Coding References Coverage activity restriction by military 6 4.48% area selection problems 3 3.77% attitude on touring programs 1 0.20% attitude to biodiversity conservation 24 14.67% attitude to historic preservation 2 1.16% beneficial species 4 1.63% community-minded 5 3.31% conservation restriction by military 1 0.92% cranes in social context 6 4.44% crop loss and conservation policy 9 6.10% cultural context 3 1.98% development restriction by military 1 1.01% Distrust 15 10.14% farmer's reaction to regulation 7 7.15% farming restriction by military 4 2.58% harmful species for farmers 15 8.41% historical context 10 7.12% human conflict with cranes 1 0.45% increase of Red-crowned Crane 3 2.50% inequity in conservation 5 3.41% lack of government support 11 5.73% participation problem in conservation 6 8.08% perception to harmful species 3 1.77% perception to natural environment 14 9.83% priorities in conservation 7 3.98% problems of government approach 12 7.52% restrictions by conservation policy 7 4.79% rice marketing issues 4 2.71% Social alienation 2 0.45% Threat by landmines 1 1.44% value on Red-crowned Crane 11 5.53% Views on environmental issues 4 2.76%
78 Table 4. Nodes classification
Total Nodes Classification references Views on environmental issues attitude on environment perception to natural environment 42 and biodiversity conservation attitude to biodiversity conservation beneficial species harmful species for farmers perception to harmful species 37 agriculture and species value on Red-crowned Crane rice marketing issues area selection problems participation problem in conservation 22 planning process problems problems of government approach attitude on touring programs Distrust Social isolation 27 attitude toward social interactions community-mind inequity in conservation crop loss and conservation policy agriculture and conservation restrictions by conservation policy 27 policy lack of government support farming restriction by military activity restriction by military development restriction by military 16 military forces conservation restriction by military increase of Red-crowned Crane threat by landmines cultural context historical context historical / cultural context 15 attitude to historic preservation cranes in social context 6 values on crane priorities in conservation 7 conservation priorities human conflict with cranes 1 activity and species farmer's reaction to regulation 7 activity and conservation policy
79 Figure 39. Values development concept
CONTENT ANALYSIS FOR EACH CLASSIFICATION
Attitude on natural environment and biodiversity conservation
The concept of biodiversity was perceived by participants as a variety of wildlife species, and most of them recognized the value of conserving nature and biodiversity in the CCZ and the DMZ. They obtained information on the value of natural environment from media, academic reports, and their direct observations. They said, “There is a variety of species living in this region, including rabbits, eagles, wildcats, and bears. A report on the existence of bears in the CCZ and the DMZ was presented in an international conference last year. The fact that bears are living in this region indicates that ideal food chains are sustained. I heard that there are more than 400 bird species living in our region. We believe that in the CCZ and the DMZ are the most diverse
80 wildlife species including many endangered species in the nation.” However, they were wary of the concept of biodiversity that pays less attention to human life. They noted,
“Biodiversity conservation should sustain a livable place for both local residents and wildlife, but we always have been disadvantaged.”
The participants also provided their knowledge on the places that may support biodiversity in the region. They said, “There are significant habitats for the Red-crowned
Crane in the DMZ adjacent to our village. In winter, they stay at the rice fields in our village for food daytime and go back to their habitat in the DMZ at night.” The non- freezing natural springs, called Saemtong, that are widely spread over the region were also thought as a valuable resource for biodiversity. The participants observed, “We think the Saemtong provides clean freshwater and habitat for a variety of species, including the
Red-crowned Crane.”
Agriculture and species
The participants were all farmers and they were much concerned about how wildlife species affect their agricultural production. In Chorlwon, rice cultivation is a major source of income, and the farmers are very sensitive about any influence of wildlife on their rice and crops. Most participants agreed that Roe Deer, Wild Boar, and Wild
Rabbit are among the most troublesome species to their crops (Figures 40 – 42). They said, “If a boar digs up rice field for an hour in fall, thousands of square meters of the field are spoiled. Roe Deer frequently come down to our crop fields for their food and boars often dig up our back yard to eat sweet potatoes. In addition, some Wild Geese staying until late spring often do significant harm to young rice plants.” Thus, their choices of crops and land use for farming have been also limited by the wildlife species.
81 According to most of the participants, “Due to Roe Deer, we cannot grow peppers and beans anywhere. We are not even able to use the levee of rice paddy for other crops.”
Figure 40. Roe Deer Figure 41. Wild Boar Figure 42. Wild Rabbit (Source: The Encyclopedia Britannica online, www.britannica.com)
However, the Red-crowned Crane was highly favored by the participants, because of its significant association with the market value of their rice product (Figure 43). One said, “About 700 to 800 of the Red-crowned Crane are visiting to our village for wintering every year. This means that our village is in unpolluted environment. Because the Red-crowned Crane is regarded as a symbol of clean environment, the rice produced from our village records the highest price in the nation.” Several focus group participants emphasized the potential value of the Red-crowned Crane significantly affecting rice prices. According to one participant, “Many local governments are striving to draw the
Red-crowned Crane to their regions. For example, Dangjin County in Chungnam province changed their bird symbol to the Red-crowned Crane last year when the increased number of the species showed up in the region. If the Red-crowned Crane disappeared in our region, the market values of our rice product will be significantly decreased.”
82 The participants also claimed that the number of wildlife species harmful to their crops need to be controlled. They observed, “The number of harmful species has significantly increased by government protection. In order to reduce the crop loss, it is necessary to allow farmers to catch a limited number of the harmful species.”
Figure 43. Red-crowned Crane (Source: International Crane Foundation, www.savingcranes.org)
Planning process problems
The problems in conservation planning were also raised in the group discussion.
Four of the participants were particularly critical about the government’s planning process for conservation. On the area selection process for conservation, they argued, “It seems that the government does not sufficiently conduct field surveys or site investigations to evaluate the conservation values and priorities. Instead, they designate areas for conservation in their offices by looking at maps and drawing lines on the desk.
This is the biggest problem.” To support their argument, they said, “A few years ago, the
Cultural Heritage Administration tried to designate the areas of the natural spring,
Saemtong, as a natural monument. However, they did not conduct thorough field
83 investigations, resulting in inaccurate boundaries of conservation area.” According to the focus group participants, this wrong designation caused many inconveniences to farmers in their agricultural activities and made them strongly oppose another designation of areas proposed by MOE for the conservation of the Red-crowned Crane.
Participation in the conservation planning process was also addressed in the discussion. Three participants observed, “The government has not engaged local residents in the conservation planning processes, and failed to inform and persuade the residents to follow their plans. We do not trust them. They just try to force us to follow whatever they decide for the conservation.” The participants commented on a recent exclusion of local residents from the conservation planning process. They said, “Recently, Chorlwon-gun government made the ‘Green Agreement’ in cooperation with environmental groups to remove invasive fish species from the Togyo reservoir that is ecologically significant in our village. However, excluding local residents from their plan to hold a grand fishing competition, they seek to generate economic benefit for them using our ecological resources. We will never overlook this.”
Attitude toward social interactions
The residents’ attitudes toward social interactions were examined through their discussion on distrust, social isolation, and inequity in conservation. Most of all, a deep distrust permeated their attitude toward the central government. One participant observed,
“In the 1970s, the central government politically encouraged farmers to move in the CCZ to promote agriculture. But ironically, now they are trying to impose more regulations that limit agricultural activities and our daily life with no correspondent benefits.” Their distrust was also inspired by planners and scholars. They noted, “Many scholars visited our village to conduct their studies on natural resources and biodiversity values in the
84 CCZ, and we addressed our opinions to several of them. They promised that they would convey the local residents’ opinions to the central government, but nothing has changed since they left. It seems that scholars are not interested in residents’ opinions. Once they left after the field research, no one came back to us.”
In the discussion, the participants also expressed their feelings of social isolation from outside the CCZ. One said, “We have lived in this isolated society with many difficulties and regulations since 1973. But nobody outside the zone could understand.”
They also opposed the designation of areas for conservation followed by selective compensation, which causes a rupture between local residents.
Agriculture and conservation policy
In the discussion, several participants linked crop loss resulting from an increased number of wildlife species to inflexible conservation policies. They said, “Conservation policies strictly prohibit hunting animals in the CCZ. Government and environmental groups, however, have not paid much attention to our crop loss caused by the increased number of wildlife through the strict conservation regulations. We talked this issue to the government and responsible agencies, but compensation has never been made sufficiently. We have no choice but to bear the loss.”
Military forces
Military forces were found to be the most powerful factor affecting residents’ daily life, agriculture, land use, and local governments’ conservation policies. Several of the participants observed, “Our daily life activities are significantly restricted by the military controls. If any of us plays with a firecracker here, armed soldiers will show up right away. At night, the military prohibits us from entering rice fields without
85 permission.” Powerful military forces also strictly regulate any construction or land development activities in the CCZ. One noted, “If I build any structures such as a barn or even a small temporary shelter on my property without permission from military, the structures will be demolished right away. Even local or regional governments are not allowed to do any construction activity without permission from the military. It is really hard to persuade the military.” According to the participants, the military also has posed a significant barrier for conserving natural resources. One participant said, “The ecosystems of Togyo reservoir in our village is threatened by invasive fish species such as bass and bluegill. Thus, environmental groups in cooperation with local governments tried to remove those, but the military did not allow such activities inside the CCZ for security reasons. If the bass and bluegills are not removed from the headstream Togyo reservoir, the increase of the invasive species at downstream outside the CCZ will not be avoidable.” The participants also attributed the increased number of crane species in the village to the military’s tight control of human access. They declared, “Compared to anywhere in the nation, we believe that habitats in the CCZ are more attractive and safe for cranes to stay, due to limited human access and tight security control by the military.”
The issue of landmines was also addressed as a significant concern for the residents (Figure 44). A participant said, “Last year when a group of children visited here for their school field trip, a landmine was found and everybody was so scared, although nobody was hurt. In our village, due to the fear of landmines, no one even attempts to climb hills or mountains around here.” According to the participants, even the military does not know the exact locations of the landmines, due to its shift from their original locations by weather, erosion, and other factors for several decades.
86
Figure 44. A sign of landmines in the CCZ (source: www.korea-dmz.com)
Historical and cultural contexts
Historically, the residents in the CCZ had to go through extremely tight regulation imposed by the military since their settlements in early 1970s. Several participants observed, “In 1970s and 1980s, our activities were strictly regulated by time, and we were forced to wear yellow hats in the field to be easily distinguished from enemies by the military. Many farmers living outside the CCZ had also a difficulty farming their lands in the zone, due to access restriction.” According to the participants, most of the residents moved in the zone from all around the nation in 1970s, as the central government strongly supported mechanized farming for productive use of the land. They demonstrated, “Our village has been a leader in mechanized farming in the nation. When the government imported new farming machines such as tractors and rice-planting machines, they provided them to us on lease so that we took advantage of the new technologies. But now these advantages were significantly reduced.”
87 A few participants also expressed their cultural pride on the region, declaring,
“Historically, Chorlwon, called Taebong, was the capital of the nation. Recently, governmental officials visited our village to enter the DMZ for the restoration of the ruined Goong-ye castle.”
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE RESIDENTS’ PERSPECTIVES
From the focus group discussion, I found that the residents’ values on conservation are primarily affected by whether it is beneficial for their agricultural production and local economy. In terms of the interaction with wildlife species, the residents were concerned about crop loss by an increased number of wildlife species, such as Roe Deer, Wild Boars, Wild Rabbits, and Wild Geese. They believe that the increase was caused by the government’s regulatory policies and should be controlled to reduce the crop loss. On the other hand, they value the Red-crowned Crane, because it makes the market value of their rice product highly competitive. Although they generally agree with the importance of biodiversity conservation, they oppose any conservation policies that constrain their farm work and daily life, since their lives has been strongly restricted by the tight military control and landmines for past several decades.
The participants also have a deep distrust on the conservation planning processes led by governments and scholars. They criticized the government’s unilateral approach in making decisions on what and how to conserve in the region. They emphasized the interdependent relationship between their life and the natural environment, and addressed a strong desire that their voices are heard and effectively reflected in the planning process.
The participants identified the military control as one of the most significant factors affecting humans and natural environment in the CCZ. They tried to explain how
88 the military power has dominated their daily life and natural environment for effective military operations. Among the stakeholders for conservation in the CCZ, according to the participants, the military is the most powerful entity. The military will do little to cooperate with others, unless significant political decisions are made by the central government.
Military controls have also imposed a significant barrier for researchers to conduct field surveys or interviews with residents. In this research, the military forces frustrated my research plan to undertake multiple focus group interviews, limiting my access to villages in the CCZ. Even when I was trying to schedule a focus group interview in Yangji-ri, the residents, including the village representative were wary of strangers from outside the CCZ, and it took longer time for me to persuade and gather them to the group discussion. Even though the turnout was relatively small, I still believe that the participants provided an honest account of local residents’ perspectives. In addition, the process described here can be replicated and expanded by planners involved in future conservation for the CCZ and the DMZ.
APPLICATION TO MULTIPLE CRITERIA FOR AREA SELECTIONS
From the focus group study, I identified significant social issues that should be considered in the systematic area selection process for biodiversity conservation. The issues include the relationship between wildlife species and farming, landmines, and distrust of the local residents in government and experts. The relationship with particular species including the Red-crowned Crane, Roe Deer, and Wild Boar will be explicitly considered in the area selection process. For the Red-crowned Crane, the options will be evaluated by a rule that minimizes the crop land areas that are also predicted to be significant for the Red-crowned Crane across the CCZ and the DMZ. The distribution
89 model of the Red-crowned Crane produced by the Maxent program will receive a weight to include more areas in area network options for conservation. For the troublesome species such as Wild Boars, Roe Deer, and Wild Rabbits, the areas of crop land that are close to their possible distribution areas will be minimized in selecting the options of area selection network. These criteria will be explicitly incorporated in area selection process, using MultCSync program to identify the most appropriate solutions for biodiversity conservation.
Unlike the criteria that are applicable for optimizing spatial configuration, some issues such as distrust, landmines, and military controls are not spatially applicable.
However, these issues also should be carefully considered to enhance planning process, by which the applications of systematic area selections can be more viable. The following chapter will discuss the area selection process that integrates the multiple criteria derived from the focus group interview.
90
Chapter 10. Systematic Area Selections
This chapter describes an integrative approach to select priority areas for the biodiversity conservation of the CCZ and the DMZ. For area selection, I use three tools;
1) Maxent for species distribution models, 2) ResNet for area selection, and 3)
MultCSync for the incorporation of multiple criteria. Given the limited biodiversity content data, Maxent provides a useful method to model spatial distributions of species.
In this study, all species occurrence point data and environmental data of South Korea were utilized for modeling species distribution in the CCZ and the DMZ. Based on the spatial distribution models produced from Maxent, ResNet was applied to select areas systematically for biodiversity conservation, using complementarity and rarity. In the final stage, as a way to incorporate multiple criteria, MultCSync was used to identify non-dominated solutions.
SURROGATES AND DATA COLLECTION
The use of surrogates to represent biodiversity in planning protocols is essential because the standard components of biodiversity cannot usually be surveyed adequately under the constraints of time and budget. As was explained earlier in this study, our knowledge about biodiversity is limited and records of geographical location are biased.
In this study, biodiversity surrogates are represented in two categories; species surrogates and environmenntal surrogates. The selection of surrogates is based on availabity and reliability of data sources. This study uses the species occurrence data produced from a national research by the MOE from 2004 to 2006. For environmental surrogates, 23 surrogates from a variety of sources are identified, including ecoregion, elevation, slope,
91 land cover, and climate data.
Species surrogates
The species surrogate data include 2,960 occurrence points of 131 species in
South Korean territory. Species surrogates include eleven mammals, 48 birds, three reptiles, three amphibians, tweleve insects, 34 plants, two invertebrates, and 18 fish (see
Figure 45 and Appendix E for details). According to MOE, a number of nationally or internationally endangered species were identified. Endangered species registered on the
2007 IUCN’s Red List include six bird species: Swan Goose (Anser cygnoides), Japanese
Night-heron (Gorsachius goisagi), Red-crowned Crane (Grus japonensis), Black-faced
Spoonbill (Platalea minor), Spotted Greenshank (Tringa guttifer), and Spoon-billed
Sandpiper (Eurynorhynchus pygmeus). Nationally endangered species include seven mammals, ten birds, one reptile, and nine plants: Gray Wolf (Canis lupus), Leopard
(Panthera pardus), Sika Deer (Cervus nippon), Common Otter (Lutra lutra), Asiatic
Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus), Chinese Goral (Naemorhedus caudatus), Siberian Musk
Deer (Moschus moschiferus), Chinese Egret (Egretta eulophotes), White-tailed Eagle
(Haliaeetus albicilla), Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), Eurasian Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia), Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), Mute Swan (Cygnus olor), Korean
Ratsnake (Elaphe schrenckii), Japanese Lady’s Slipper (Cypripedium japonicum),
Rosaceae (Cotoneaster wilsonii), V. Martens (Lamprotula coreana), Cockscomb Pearl
Mussel (Cristaria plicata), Liobagrus obesus, Black Shiner (Pseudopungtungia nigra
Mori), Korean Stumpy Bullhead (Pseudobagrus brevicorpus Mori), Miho Spine Loach
(Cobitis choii), and Nakdong Nose Loach (Koreocobitis naktongensis).
Among those, the Red-crowned Crane is internationally threatened and receives a special concern. The Red-crowned Crane is the only crane species that have white
92 primary feathers. They breed in large wetlands in temperate East Asia and winter along rivers and coastal and freshwater marshes in Japan, China, and Korean Peninsula. The
Red-crowned Crane, classified as Endangered under the revised IUCN’s Red List
Categories, prefers to nest and feed in marshes with relatively deep water, and nests only in areas with standing dead vegetation. They are generalist feeders and prefer wetter feeding sites, but also forage along dikes and in croplands. The majority of these cranes migrate along the east side of North Korea and then inland to spend the winter in the
Chorlwon Basin of the DMZ. In 2004, MOE observed 249 Red-crowned Cranes and 401
White-naped Cranes at Chorlwon in the CCZ. However, the Red-crowned Crane has been seriously threatened by loss of habitat caused by agricultural expansion, reed harvesting, river channelization, deforestation, and road building. In South Korea, potential developments in the DMZ and the CCZ pose large-scale threats to their habitats for breeding and wintering. According to MOE (2004), due to human disturbance such as road constructions, the distribution patterns of the Red-crowned Crane in and around the
DMZ and the CCZ are significantly affected annually. In this study, the 2006 data from the government include only four occurrence points of the Red-crowned Crane. Thus, twelve additional species point data for the Red-crowned Crane were added from the field observation research conducted by MOE in 1995, 1999, and 2003.
93
Figure 45. Species occurrence point data, South Korea (Source: Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Korea)
94 Environmental surrogates
The map of Korean terrestrial ecoregions was obtained from the website of World
Wildlife Fund (http://www.worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/; Olson et al. 2001) (Figure 46).
According to the map, the ecoregions of South Korea represent four types: Central
Korean deciduous forests, Changbai Mountain mixed forests, Manchurian mixed forests, and Southern Korea evergreen forests. The types of ecoregion in the DMZ and the CCZ indicate Central Korean deciduous forests and Manchurian mixed forests.
Figure 46. Ecoregions of the Korean peninsula (Source: World Wildlife Fund)
95 Elevation data were obtained from the website of GTOPO30 Digital Elevation
Model (http://edc.usgs.gov/products/elevation/gtopo30) (Figure 47). GTOPO30 is a global digital elevation model resulting from a collaborative effort led by the U.S.
Geological Survey’s Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science in Sioux Falls,
South Dakota. The data represent elevation for the entire world at 30-arc second
(approximately 1 kilometer) resolution. Slope data were obtained from the MOE (Figure
48).
Figure 47. Digital Elevation Model (Source: U.S. Geological Survey)
96 Figure 48. Slope data (Source: Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Korea)
Land cover data were obtained from the website of the Global 2000 Land cover
(GLC2000) (http://www-gvm.jrc.it/glc2000/products/fullproduct.asp) (Figure 49). The
GLC2000, a new global 1 km land cover classification for the year 2000, was created by the European Commission’s Joint Research Center (JRC) in collaboration with over 30 research teams from around the world to provide accurate baseline land cover information to the International Conventions on Climate Change, the Convention to
97 Combat Desertification, the Ramsar Convention, and the Kyoto Protocol. The GLC2000 land cover database has been chosen as a core dataset for the Millennium Ecosystems
Assessment to define the boundaries between ecosystems such as forest, grassland, and cultivated systems.
In the area of South Korea, 16 different land cover types were identified, including two most dominant; needleleaf evergreen forest and cropland. Other land cover types include broadleaf evergreen forest, broadleaf deciduous forest, needleleaf deciduous forest, mixed forest, shrubs, herbaceous, herbaceous with sparse tree, sparse herbaceous, wetland, urban, water, bare rock, bare soil, and rice paddy. In the area of the
CCZ and the DMZ, broadleaf deciduous forest is the most dominant.
98
Figure 49. Land cover map (Source: GLC2000)
99 Climate data for Korea were obtained from the WORLDCLIM
(http://biogeo.berkeley.edu/worldclim/worldclim.htm). WORLDCLIM, developed by
Hijmans, R. et al. (2005), is a set of global climate layers (climate grids) with a spatial resolution of a square kilometer. The bioclimatic variables were derived from the monthly temperature and rainfall values in order to generate more biologically meaningful variables. The bioclimatic variables represent annual trends, seasonality, and extreme or limiting environmental factors. The data layers were generated through interpolation of average monthly data from weather stations on a 30 arc-second resolution grid. In this study, the environmental surrogates include: annual mean temperature, mean diurnal range, isothermality, temperature seasonality, maximum temperature of warmest month, minimum temperature of coldest month, temperature of annual range, mean temperature of wettest quarter, mean temperature of driest quarter, mean temperature of warmest quarter, mean temperature of coldest quarter, annual precipitation, precipitation of wettest month, precipitation of driest month, precipitation seasonality, precipitation of wettest quarter, precipitation of driest quarter, precipitation of warmest quarter, and precipitation of coldest quarter (Figures 50a – c).
100
Annual Mean Temperature Mean Diurnal Range Isothermality
Temperature Seasonality Max Temp. of Warmest Month Min Temp. of Coldest Month
Temp. Annual Range Mean Temp. of Wettest Quarter Mean Temp. of Driest Quarter
Figure 50a. Climate map data of the Korean peninsula (Source: WORLDCLIM)
101
Mean Temp. of Warmest Quarter Mean Temp. of Coldest Quarter Annual Precipitation
Precipitation of Wettest Month Precipitation of Driest Month Precipitation Seasonality
Precipitation of Wettest Quarter Precipitation of Driest Quarter Precipitation of Warmest Quarter
Figure 50b. Climate map data of the Korean peninsula (Source: WORLDCLIM)
102
Precipitation of Coldest Quarter
Figure 50c. Climate map data of the Korean peninsula (Source: WORLDCLIM)
SPECIES DISTRIBUTION MODELS
The entire area of South Korea was divided into cells at the resolution of 0.01º ×
0.01º of longitude and latitude, resulting in 92,201 cells created. These cells enable to identify the spots where species were observed by MOE and to input the information for each cell to create a database using ArcGIS.
Due to the limitation of the small number of data sets for species distribution, the
Maxent 3.1.0 (Maximum Entropy Density Estimation) program was utilized. Maxent computes models of species geographic distributions using an algorithim based on the maximum-entropy principle from statistical mechanics (Pawar et al. 2005). Given a set of species data and environmental variables, Maxent estimates spatial distribution of each species by finding the distribution of maximum entropy. The model for a species is determined from a set of environmental layers (surrogates) for a set of grid cells, including sample locations where the species was observed. The model estimates the suitability of the grid of each species surrogate as a function of the environmental variables at that grid cell. A high value of the function at a particular grid cell represents
103 that the grid cell is predicted to have suitable conditions for that species (Pawar et al.,
2005) (Table 4 and Figure 51).
Figure 51. Data input process for the Maxent application.
104 Table 5. Maxent result
In order to run Maxent, two types of input data are required; 1) coordinate information for each species occurrence points and 2) environmental surrogate cells in a same spatial extent. Maxent processed 131 species surrogates information provided by the MOE and the 23 environmental surrogates from internet web resources. As a result,
Maxent constructed 96 species distribution models, while descarded 35 species for the unreliable number of species point data. Among the 96 species distribution models, 43 species models were selected as useful based on two measures of accuracy: the AUC on test data and the number of hypothesis tests. The AUC, known as the Area Under the
Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve, is currently considered to be the standard method to assess the accuracy of predictive distribution models. The AUC summarizes overall model performance over all possible thresholds to avoid the supposed subjectivity in the threshold selection process, when contuniuous probability scores derived need to
105 be converted to binary presence-absence variable (Phillips et al. 2006).
In this study, species distribution models with an AUC ≥ 0.75 were selected as well-constructed. However, due to the weaknesses of using exculsively one criterion of the AUC, as pointed out by Lobo et al. (2008), I applied an additional measurement criterion for model selection. I retained the species model if more than one hypothesis test was significant for the species. The number of hypotheses that are significant for each species was determined by counting the number of rows in the P-value column that are less than 0.05 in the table generated from Maxent analysis (Table 5). Finally, the 43 species that meet the two criteria are selected as shown in the Table 5.
106
Table 6. Maxent model analysis for the Red-crowned Crane
Cumulative Logistic Fractional Training Test threshold threshold Description predicted omission omission P-value area rate rate Fixed cumulative 1.000 0.084 value 0.924 0.000 0.000 4.19E-01 Fixed cumulative 5.000 0.130 value 0.764 0.000 0.000 5.16E-02 Fixed cumulative 10.000 0.166 value 0.623 0.000 0.000 5.45E-03 Minimum training 41.103 0.392 presence 0.162 0.000 0.000 1.98E-09 10 percentile 41.103 0.392 training presence 0.162 0.000 0.000 1.98E-09 Equal training sensitivity and 41.114 0.393 specificity 0.162 0.250 0.000 1.98E-09 Maximum training sensitivity plus 41.103 0.392 specificity 0.162 0.000 0.000 1.98E-09 Equal test sensitivity and 80.788 0.821 specificity 0.015 0.250 0.000 1.08E-20 Maximum test sensitivity plus 80.788 0.821 specificity 0.015 0.250 0.000 1.08E-20 Balance training omission, predicted area and threshold 9.715 0.164 value 0.630 0.000 0.000 6.17E-03 Equate entropy of thresholded and non-thresholded 15.935 0.200 distributions 0.492 0.000 0.000 4.11E-04
107 Table 7. Accuracy assessment of species’ ecological niche models
Scientific name Common name No. AUC No. signif. records Tests Birds (12 species)
Anser fabalis Bean Goose 23 0.773 11
Bubo bubo Eurasian Eagle- 52 0.751 11 kiautschensis owl
Charadrius Long-billed Plover 57 0.836 11 placidus
Cygnus Tundra Swan 10 0.826 10 columbianus
Cygnus cygnus Whooper Swan 16 0.760 10
Dryocopus martius Black Woodpecker 31 0.823 11
Egretta eulophotes Chinese Egret 14 0.838 6
Gallicrex cinerea Watercock 8 0.879 6
Grus japonensis Red-crowned Crane 16 0.992 9
Grus vipio White-naped 5 0.909 10 Crane Haliaeetus albicilla White-tailed Eagle 8 0.789 1
Strix aluco Tawny Owl 27 0.791 11
108
Scientific name Common name No. AUC No. signif. records Tests Butterflies (1 species) Fabriciana nerippe none 13 0.822 11 C. & R. Felder
Fishes (15 species) Acheilognathus Korean Bittering 85 0.901 11 signifer Berg
Acheilognathus Seomjin Bittering 5 0.912 7 somjinensis
Cottus Tumen River 16 0.986 11 hangiongensis Sculpin Mori Cottus poecilopus Alpine Bullhead 85 0.840 11
Gobiobotia Short-barbel 55 0.886 11 brevibarba Gudgeon Mori Gobiobotia Big-headed 24 0.791 11 macrocephala Gudgeon Mori Gobiobotia Nakdong naktongensis Gudgeon 24 0.910 11 Mori
Iksookimia choii Choi's Spiny Loach 5 0.972 10
Lampetra reissneri Far Eastern Brook 31 0.783 6 Dybowski Lamprey
Microphysogobio Gudgeon 14 0.944 11 koreensis Mori Pseudobagrus Korean Stumpy 10 0.934 11 brevicorpus Bullhead Mori # Pseudopungtungia Black Shiner 56 0.949 11 nigra Mori #
109
Scientific name Common name No. AUC No. signif. records tests Fishes (continued) Pseudopungtungia tenuicorpus Slender Shiner 77 0.904 11 Jeon & Choi
Pungitius kaibarae Short Nine-spined 39 0.988 11 Tanaka Stickleback Pungitius sinensis Chinese Nine- 5 0.909 6 Guichenot spined Stickleback Mammals (5 species) Martes flavigula Yellow-throated 81 0.836 11 Marten
Naemorhedus Chinese Goral 29 0.981 11 caudatus**,#
Prionailurus Leopard Cat 480 0.817 11 bengalensis
Pteromys volans Siberian Flying 30 0.860 10 Squirrel
Ursus thibetanus Asiatic Black Bear 8 0.892 11 **,#
Plants (10 species) Aconitum none 12 0.957 11 austrokoreense Koidz.
Berchemia none 29 0.985 7 berchemiaefolia Koidzumi
Corylopsis gotoana none 25 0.968 11 var. coreana
110
Scientific name Common name No. AUC No. signif. records tests Plants (continued) Hylotelephium none 8 0.985 6 ussuriense D. Leem, sp. nov. Iris odaesanensis none 24 0.911 10 Y. Lee Leontice none 6 0.959 8 microrhyncha S. Moore Lilium cernuum Cernuous Lily 20 1.000 11 Komarov
Millettia japonica none 4 0.985 6 A. Gray
Paeonia obovata Chinese Peony 22 0.999 11 Maxim.
Smilacina bicolor none 16 0.892 9 Nakai
*Listed as "endangered" by IUCN **Listed as "vulnerable" by IUCN #Listed as “nationally endangered” by Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Korea
111 In order to view the geographical distribution models of 43 species constructed by the Maxent, all coordinate information were converted to raster data using the coordiate assignment function in GIS. Each model represents the probable distributions of each species surrogate in the entire geographic region of South Korea, except the Cheju island.
Among the 43 species, the ten species distribution models; Red-crowned Crane, Whooper
Swan, Black Woodpecker, White-naped Crane, White-tailed Eagle, Chinese Egret,
Chinese Goral, Leopard Cat, and Siberian Flying Squirrel are shown in Figures 52 – 60, indicating that darker means the higher probability of presence.
For effective application of the ResNet, the cells in geographic territory of the
CCZ and the DMZ was clipped from the species distribution models. ResNet uses the 66 surrogates including 43 species surrogates modeled from the Maxent analysis and 23 environmental surrogates. The total number of cells for analysis is 3,109.
Figure 52. A spatial distribution model of the Red-crowned Crane in the CCZ
112 Figure 53. A spatial distribution model of the Whooper Swan in the CCZ
Figure 54. A spatial distribution model of the Black Woodpecker in the CCZ
113 Figure 55. A spatial distribution model of the White-naped Crane in the CCZ
Figure 56. A spatial distribution model of the White-tailed Eagle in the CCZ
114
Figure 57. A spatial distribution model of the Chinese Egret in the CCZ
Figure 58. A spatial distribution model of the Chinese Goral in the CCZ
115 Figure 59. A spatial distribution model of the Leopard Cat in the CCZ
Figure 60. A spatial distribution model of the Siberian Flying Squirrel in the CCZ
116 AREA SELECTION PROCESS
The use of expectations in area prioritization
In order to focus on the biodiversity in the area of the DMZ and the CCZ, I clipped the geographic area from the species distribution models of South Korea. The clipped area includes 3,109 cells of 1 km2 resolution, and each cell is defined by the
Maxent analysis as the probability pij that species i occurs in site j. Because the objective of the ResNet analysis is to rank a subset of the species’ modeled distributions to serve as conservation areas, it is critical to apply appropriate values of species distributional data.
One method for solving this problem is to maximize the function Σ i∈ J [1 - ∏j∈
J(1 - pij xj)], which maximizes the probability that each species is covered in the conservation areas and sums the probabilities of coverage over the i species (xj denotes a binary decision variable that is set equal to one if site j is selected to serve as a conservation area and set equal to zero otherwise). Camm et al. (2002) formulate a linearization of this function subject to a constraint on the total size of the conservation area network. However, the approach of Camm et al. requires the assumption that the probability of occurrence of species i in site j is independent of the probability of i being in any other site in the study region. This assumption is not appropriate for the planning exercise for the CCZ presented here. For example, the Red-crowned Crane (Grus japonensis) forage more often in unplowed sites in the CCZ than in plowed sites (Lee et al. 2007). This violates the independence assumption because it is more probable that a crane will forage in an unplowed site j if it is adjacent to another unplowed site j´.
The independence requirement of Camm et al.’s area prioritization model can be avoided by converting the species’ distributional data from probabilities into expectations
117 (Sarkar et al. 2004). In general, expectations are defined on a set of two or more random variables. In this study, the probability of occurrence of a species in four sites at the 1 × 1 km resolution was used to calculate the expected representation of the species in one site at the 2 × 2 km resolution (see Appendix F for details). After the expected representation of each species in each site at the 2 × 2 km resolution is calculated, the expectations serve as one of the data parameters in an optimization model that formalizes the problem of selecting conservation areas in the CCZ and the DMZ (see Appendix G).
The application of targets
To construct conservation area networks, two types of targets were applied in this study: 1) a level of representation for the expected coverage of each surrogate within a conservation area network, and 2) the maximum area of land that can be put under a conservation plan. In general, the actual numbers of these targets are determined by 1) biological knowledge for the target of surrogates and 2) a budget of land that can be designated for conservation action for the target of area.
For the target level for each species surrogate required for ResNet analysis, the study applied ten percent of target areas to the 43 species with sufficiently high quality of distribution models, except five endangered species. Ten percent of the original habitat of each species is commonly adopted as a rule of thumb with no biological justification
(Sarkar et al. 2006). For the five IUCN Red List species, I applied 100 percent target area for conservation. These IUCN Red List species include Red-crowned Crane, Chinese
Egret, White-naped Crane, and Asian Black Bear.
To apply target area for conservation, a constraint was imposed to limit the amount of land that could be put under a conservation plan. In the ResNet software package, heuristic algorithms were implemented to select conservation areas to satisfy the
118 targets of representation for as many species as possible while remaining within this limited land budget (for details, see Illoldi-Rangel et al. 2008). A budgetary ceiling on the total area of land that can be set aside for conservation in the CCZ and the DMZ is a way to impose a limit the amount of land for conservation for following reasons: First, the establishment of conservation areas in the CCZ and the DMZ must compete with other potential land uses, such as agricultural and commercial development and the use of land for security purposes by the military (Westing 1992). The South Korean Army, the DMZ
Civil Police with 1024 officers, and a small number of U.S. forces maintain facilities in the vicinity of the DMZ due to tensions with North Korea. Limiting the total area of the conservation is intended to decrease conflicts with other land uses, such as military use.
Another rationale for limiting the total size of the conservation area network is that sites in the CCZ and the DMZ are among the most heavily mined areas in the world, with 1.1 to 1.2 million mines and 112.5 km2 of mined land (International Campaign to Ban
Landmines 2004). Imposing a constraint on the total area of the conservation network indirectly limits the cost of mine cleanup and the danger of injury to humans and wildlife by land mines.
In this study, several targets of conservation area for an option: 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 percent were applied to understand the different levels of priority for conservation given by ResNet protocol (Figures 62 – 67). Fifteen percent of a target area was used for a further analysis with respect to multiple criteria. This 15 percent of target was derived from a social constraint – the total area of cropland in the CCZ, as described by Kim
(2001). These targets, however, should not be interpreted as suggesting that the biodiversity is being adequately protected by satisfaction of the targets, because the targets may only reflect a limited scope of socio-political constraints (Soule and Sanjayan
119 1998).
ResNet application
After modeling distributions of species surrogates using Maxent, ResNet program was applied to the systematic area selection process for biodiversity conservation. This softeware package implements a Conservation Area Networks (CAN) selection algorithm fully described by Sarkar et al. (2002). ResNet provides a useful tool for systematic conservation planning, while an implicit place prioritization has been tranditionally based on intuitive judgments of biodiversity value. These intuitive judgments also include concern for charismatic or useful species, and the use of criteria extraneous to biodiversity conservation such as scenic value and wilderness quality (Sarkar 2005b).
The algorithms of the ResNet assume that a definite target has been set in the form of adequate representation of each surrogate. The goal of the algorithm is to achieve the set target efficiently by selecting as few places as possible that together reach the conservation goal. To run ResNet, the study uses the environmental surrogate data and the species distribution models produced from Maxent analysis. The place prioritization algorithm is that the first cell is selected by the presence of the rarest surrogate in the data set, and next the CAN is iteratively augmented by adding cells using rarity and complementarity (Figure 61).
In this study, after the probabilistic expectation of the presence of the species was set for each cell in the DMZ and the CCZ, 812 cells were used as input file to run ResNet.
In its first run, ResNet selected about 88 sites, which were treated as permanently excluded when finding the second ResNet solution. This ResNet process was repeated to find the third solution, by treating the first and the second ResNet solutions as a set of permanently excluded cells. However, when ResNet was run to find the fourth solution,
120 250 cells were treated as permanently excluded cells. This indicates that it was not possible for ResNet to find more solutions that satisfied the 15 percent target of representation for all of the species with 250 cells permanently excluded. Thus, from this
ResNet analysis, the three solutions were identified as meaningful, meeting the same level of biodiversity value. These three options are further analyzed by incorporating multiple criteria in the following stage.
Table 8. ResNet input file
121
Figure 61. ResNet: The basic algorithm. The flowchart describes the basic algorithm incorporated in ResNet. Here, initialization is by rarity. No adjacency or redundancy considerations are introduced. (Sarkar et al. 2002)
122
Figure 62. 5 percent target area for conservation in the CCZ and the DMZ
Figure 63. 10 percent target area for conservation in the CCZ and the DMZ
123
Figure 64. 15 percent target area for conservation in the CCZ and the DMZ
Figure 65. 20 percent target area for conservation in the CCZ and the DMZ
124
Figure 66. 25 percent target area for conservation in the CCZ and the DMZ
Figure 67. 30 percent target area for conservation in the CCZ and the DMZ
125 ANALYSIS OF RESNET SOLUTIONS USING MULTIPLE CRITERIA
The ResNet solutions were evaluated by multiple criteria analysis. The criteria measured were: 1) the distance to the demarcation line, 2) total distance from selected areas to Sorak National Park in the CCZ, 3) the number of selected areas with cropland, and 4) the number of areas with the Red-crowned Crane habitat. The first two criteria represent ecological criteria considered important for the persistence of biota in the CCZ and the DMZ. The distance from each conservation area to the demarcation line is a significant criterion in establishing a conservation area network because the DMZ closer to the line is known to have excellent biodiversity. Thus, the distance from the areas selected for conservation to the demarcation line should be minimized to reduce the threat of development and habitat disturbance in the conservation areas. The level of threat and the probability of development of an area increase as function of its distance from the demarcation line because the further an area is from the demarcation line, the closer it is to the Seoul metropolitan area.
An ecological criterion related to connectivity with existing protected areas near the DMZ was also used to refine the ResNet solutions. Incorporating the persistence of threatened species into the conservation plan requires attention to biological processes at the scale of the entire landscape (Margules and Sarkar 2007). One way to address this is to design conservation areas so as to facilitate the dispersal of the species, for example, by locating a new conservation area at a site that establishes connectivity with an existing conservation area (Sarkar et al. 2006). In the Korean context, proposals have been mooted to establish conservation areas to connect the DMZ with Sorak National Park and protected areas in North Korea (Kim 1997, Kim and Prideaux 2003, Kim 2007, Westing
1998). Sorak National Park is a 40,000 ha UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in South Korea
126 that is adjacent to the southeast CCZ (WDPA Consortium 2007). (Only one percent of
Sorak National Park is inside the CCZ as defined here.) Sorak National Park is significant because it provides ecological connectivity with Kumkang National Park located north of the demarcation line in North Korea. One of the potential benefits of this connectivity establishment is that it might facilitate animal migration among different conservation areas, which would decrease the probability of species’ extinction in the event that one conservation area is opened for development. According to Westing (1998), conservation of the mountainous upland area in the eastern part of the DMZ and the CCZ is critical to establish a distinct transfrontier reserve on the Korean peninsula. Thus, the distance from areas selected for conservation in the CCZ and the DMZ to Sorak National Park should be minimized so as to confer ecological connectivity with the National Park (Figure 68).
The criterion three and four emerged as important for the local residents based on content analysis of the focus group transcript. Local residents in Chorlwon wanted to minimize the total amount of cropland put under a conservation plan. Thus, area selection options produced from the ResNet were evaluated to identify the one with the smallest area of cropland in the CCZ and the DMZ (Figures 69 and 71). The content analysis also indicates that stakeholders consider the Red-crowned Crane extremely important. This importance arises in part from the fact that the stakeholders recognize that the crane is a rare species, and they believe that it is important to preserve the crane for future generations. In addition, the stakeholders mentioned that they have an economic incentive to preserve the crane to the extent that consumers are more willing to buy rice from
Chorlwon if rice production is certified as compatible with the persistence of the crane.
The local residents wanted to protect as much the Red-crowned Crane habitat as possible, though their enthusiasm for protecting the crane was dependent upon the
127 magnitude of the economic benefits that would result from such protection. The Red- crowned Crane is also internationally endangered with the population of about 1,500, and
250 – 300 of them are known to spend winter in the DMZ and the CCZ: indeed, the DMZ and the CCZ are considered the most important wintering site for the Red-crowned Crane
(John et al. 2003). To identify options that maximize the habitats of the Red-crowned
Crane in the CCZ and the DMZ, the amount of the Red-crowned Crane habitats in each conservation plan was defined as the number of areas selected for inclusion in the plan that were classified by Maxent as suitable for the Red-crowned Crane with probability
0.75 or greater (results indicated that setting the threshold at 0.5 did not affect the ranking of the plans) (Figure 70).
Based on consideration of the four criteria, the three ResNet solutions were evaluated using GIS (Table 8), and the results were further analyzed with multiple criteria using the MultCSync program.
Table 9. Criteria and solutions
Criteria Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 3 Distance from Demarcation Line 1,027,863 m 892,753 m 877,763 m Distance from Sorak National Park 5,764,506 m 4,998,120 m 5,354,572 m The area of cropland 32 km2 28 km2 34 km2 The area of the Red-crowned 232 km2 234 km2 248 km2 Crane’s habitat
128 Figure 68. The geographical distance between a ResNet solution (target: 15%), comprised of the red cells, and Sorak National Park.
Figure 69. Crop land distribution in South Figure 70. Red-crowned Crane distribution Korea Model in South Korea (reclassified cells higher than 0.75)
129 Figure 71. Analysis of relationship between 10 percent target area solution and crop land distribution
THE USE OF MULTCSYNC TO IDENTIFY NON-DOMINATED SOULTIONS
The MultCSync software package (Sarkar et al. 2004, Moffett et al. 2005) was used to find a conservation plan that minimizes criterion one to three and maximizes the criterion four (Figure 72). MultCSync finds each conservation plan that is “non- dominated.” A plan is said to be non-dominated if it is better than all of the other plans with respect to at least one criterion and no worse than the other plans with respect to the other criteria (Sarkar and Garson 2004). Dominance is equivalent to strong Pareto efficiency (Osborne and Rubinstein 1994). The identification of a non-dominated plan requires only that the alternative plans can be ranked with respect to the criteria.
Dominance is typically viewed as the simplest type of multi-criteria analysis. More sophisticated methods of multi-criteria require additional data.
130 The advantage of finding non-dominated solution is that this method is relatively transparent to stakeholders, requiring little data. Thus, dominance is an appropriate method when it is difficult to obtain data on species and to elicit preferences from stakeholders, as is the case in an isolated region such as the CCZ. Some conservation planning exercises have incorporated economic and social criteria via multi-attribute utility (MAUT) (for example, Bojorquez-Tapia et al. 2004, Moffett and Sarkar 2006).
These include assessments of the value of biodiversity in the CCZ (John et al. 2003, Lee and Mjelde 2007). In contrast with dominance, which requires only that the alternatives can be ranked with respect to the attributes, MAUT requires the decision-maker to assign weights to the attributes (Keeney and Raiffa 1976, Sarkar et al. 2005). The weights for the attributes can be elicited from stakeholders via the AHP or a modified version of the
AHP (Bojorquez-Tapia et al. 2004, Moffett and Sarkar 2006, Moffett et al. 2006).
However, MAUT requires mutual difference independence, in other words, the preference of the decision-maker with respect to one criterion cannot depend on the level of another criterion (Keeney and Raiffa 1976, Dyer 2005, Nau 2007). The preferences of stakeholders in Chorlwon may violate the mutual preference independence axiom. In particular, the stakeholders are willing to conserve the Red-crowned Crane if such preservation does not reduce their livelihoods significantly. Thus, stakeholder preferences with respect to the attribute, “amount of crane habitat” depend on the level of another attribute, “amount of cropland affected.” As a consequence, it would not be approapriate to use MAUT for the present planning exercise, because this violates the mutual independence axiom required by MAUT.
131 Thus, this study applied the MultCSync program and identified two non- dominated solutions using an iterative scoring algorithm that tracks whether an alternative is preferred over another by some criterion (Figures 73 and 74).
Figure 72. Application of MultCSync program to identify non-dominated solutions
132 Figure 73. Non-dominated solution 1 for area selection (340 km2)
Figure 74. Non-dominated solution 2 for area selection (348 km2)
133 RESULTS ANALYSIS
In this study, the total area selected for biodiversity conservation is 340 km2 for non-dominated solution 1, and 348 km2 for non-dominated solution 2. Both solutions were constructed by requiring that ResNet select at most 15 percent of the CCZ and the
DMZ to serve as areas of higher biodiversity value. The two non-dominated solutions have slightly different areas because, after the first pass of cells selection, ResNet removes redundant cells from the conservation area network. Solution 1 contained more redundant cells than Solution 2. As a result, ResNet removed more cells from Solution 1 than from Solution 2. For this reason, the total area of Solution 2 is slightly greater than that of Solution 1. Although the two non-dominated solutions are slightly different, both solutions select approximately the same number of cells in the western, midwestern, and southeastern parts of the CCZ and the DMZ.
The land cover types of the selected areas represent: 1) broadleaf deciduous forest, 2) needleleaf evergreen forest, 3) needleleaf deciduous forest, 4) herbaceous single layer, and 5) cropland (Table 9). In the two non-dominated solutions, more than 60 percent of the selected areas are broadleaf deciduous forest (Figures 75 and 76).
Distributed in the eastern part of the CCZ and the DMZ, needleleaf evergreen forest represents 25.8 percent in non-domination solution 1 and 23.8 percent in non-dominated solution 2. Cropland consists of 9.8 percent of the selected areas in non-dominated solution 2, and 8.2 percent in non-dominated solution 1. The areas primarily covered by herbaceous, single layer are distributed in western part of the CCZ and the DMZ, representing 4.0 percent of total area of non-dominated solution 1, and 4.4 percent of non-dominated solution 2. Needleleaf deciduous forest comprises only 0.88 percent of non-dominated solution 1, and 0 percent of non-dominated solution 2. Because land
134 cover is a significant factor that affects the types of species’ habitat, more specific information in finer scales should be applied for further evaluation of the quality of notional conservation areas proposed here.
In terms of development threat, areas in the western part of the CCZ are under more pressure than other areas, due to proximity to the Seoul metropolitan area. In the two non-dominated solutions, conservation areas in the western part are distributed in slightly different patterns, thus, more information on development status and plans needs to be acquired for further evaluation of the conservation priority areas.
Figure 75. Land cover types in Non-dominated solution 1 for the CCZ and the DMZ (The point data were transformed to 1 km2 cell units)
135 Figure 76. Land cover analysis of Non-dominated solution 2 for the CCZ and the DMZ (The point data were transformed to 1 km2 cell units)
Table 10. Land cover types in the two non-dominated solutions
Number of cells selected (1 cell = 1 km2) Land cover types Non-dominated Solution 1 Non-dominated Solution 2 Broadleaf Deciduous Forest 206 217
Needleleaf Evergreen Forest 88 83
Needleleaf Deciduous Forest 3 0
Herbaceous, Single Layer 15 14
Cropland 28 34 Total 340 348
136 DISCUSSION
This study focuses on proposing an area selection method that integrates computer- based algorithms with information on multiple social criteria for biodiversity conservation. For the algorithms, the principles of rarity and complementarity were used to select three conservation area networks in the CCZ and the DMZ. The three networks were refined to two networks by applying ecological and social criteria elicited from a focus group interview with local residents in the CCZ. After a series of applications and analysis, I found strengths and weaknesses of the integrative method for conservation in the CCZ and the DMZ as follows:
A notable strength of the method is that it provides a systematic way to assess biodiversity value using incomplete (probabilistic) data of species’ occurrence and environment. In particular, Maxent enables planners to rapidly predict species’ geographical distributions based on known occurrence data. In modeling species’ distributions, Maxent mathematically computes the relationship between species occurrence and layers of environmental characteristics. Using well-constructed habitat distribution models, ResNet applies explicit area selection rules, such as complementarity and rarity to maximize biodiversity value. This combined application of algorithms is especially useful to establish conservation area networks in the CCZ and the DMZ, where access to data and resources is constrained significantly.
The integrative method proposed in this study also provides a useful framework to systematically incorporate ecological and social criteria into the area selection process. In this study, the ecological integrity was considered by minimizing the total distance from the conservation areas selected by ResNet to Sorak National Park, and by minimizing the total distance to the demarcation line. However, other ecological principles that enhance
137 spatial configuration need to be further considered. Human perspectives on biodiversity conservation also can be explored and incorporated systematically into the area selection process. In this study, through a focus group interview, the local residents’ perspectives on the Red-crowned Crane and agriculture were incorporated by maximizing the Red- crowned Crane habitats and by minimizing the croplands in the CCZ and the DMZ.
Although I used a focus group interview with a limited number of people to understand the local residents’ perspectives on the biodiversity, diverse values from other stakeholders should be carefully explored and integrated into the area selection processes wherever possible. Thus, additional focus group interviews with other local residents may help accomplish this. In this respect, the focus group study process presented in Chapter 7 and 9 might provide a useful model for future efforts. I also find that focus group studies will be more useful when conducted to understand unidentified critical issues on biodiversity conservation in the CCZ and the DMZ. Thus, the ideal composition of the participants for future focus group study could be expanded to include: the central and local government officials, the military, developers, environmental groups, local residents, and conservation planners. In addition to focus group study, other participatory techniques such as workshops and charrettes may also be applicable, depending on time, budget, and accessibility. However, the identification of legitimate stakeholders and the reconciliation of conflicts among stakeholders remain as significant challenges for future research in the consideration of social and cultural issues in conservation planning.
While the integrative method applied in this study provides a useful framework for biodiversity conservation, I found limitations in the application to the CCZ and DMZ.
First, depending on the quality of data, the number of species distribution models could be significantly reduced by the Maxent run. Maxent requires more than four records of
138 species’ occurrence for modeling, and constructs a limited number of species’ distribution models. In this study, out of 131 species, only 43 species’ distribution models were well constructed, due to the internal rules applied by Maxent. For example, some internationally endangered species such as Black-faced Spoonbill were not considered in the area selection process due to the failure to construct accurate models with Maxent.
Because of the lack of data, the troublesome species for local residents, such as wild boar, roe deer, and wild rabbit were also not considered in the area selection process. If enough data are available to construct habitat distribution models for those species, the distance from the cropland to the habitats of those species should be maximized to reduce the conflict between the farmers and the species in area selection process.
Second, the unit of analysis used in this study is coarse, thus it may overestimate or underestimate the amount of land that is significant for conservation purposes. The areas selected using the integrative method need to be subdivided into smaller units for further analysis, using information on conservation targets, viability, ecological integrity, and other ancillary data sets. Especially when an area selected to be included in a conservation plan encompasses a significant amount of human use, more careful analyses at finer scales are critical. This is likely to be a perennial feature of conservation planning in the CCZ. For example, vulnerable species such as the Red-crowned Crane and the
White-naped Crane routinely forage in the vicinity of agricultural lands. Proscribing agricultural activity in these foraging areas is unacceptable to local stakeholders. Thus, a more judicious approach may involve restricting the harvest of rice in some areas and in certain seasons, since the cranes prefer to forage in unplowed fields. In general, the formulation of conservation plans in the CCZ should be based on collaborative evaluation
139 by a variety of experts, including community and regional planners, biologists, and landscape architects.
Third, in the CCZ and the DMZ, the lack of information on the locations of landmines is one of the significant constraints in the area selection for biodiversity conservation. Some areas that are suspected to contain landmines may be included in conservation areas on the grounds that it is ostensibly unsuitable for human use.
However, this may result in the designation of areas that are not necessary for biodiversity conservation in the CCZ and DMZ. Given that the land available for biodiversity conservation in the CCZ is limited by agriculture and military uses, it is essential that the rationale for the selection of a conservation area should be a site’s biodiversity content, rather than its purported landmine content. This is just one example of conflicts that arise between human needs and biodiversity conservation in the CCZ.
Future research should focus on the ways to mitigate the conflict between human needs and biodiversity conservation.
Finally, the growing distrust of local residents in the CCZ toward government officials and experts is also a significant barrier to the application of the integrative method presented here, as well as conservation efforts in general. Through the field survey and a focus group study, I found that local residents in the CCZ who are directly affected by conservation planning have been largely excluded from the conservation planning process. The residents’ distrust was a significant barrier to conduct focus group study for eliciting information on stakeholders’ perspectives about biodiversity and the natural environment. In the context of the CCZ, the trust of local residents should be promoted through more interactive and participatory planning processes. I think this is
140 essential for the successful implementation of conservation planning for biodiversity in the CCZ and the DMZ.
Based on lessons learned from the present analysis, I propose an area selection model for effective biodiversity conservation (Figure 77). This model aims to provide more viable area selection methods for biodiversity conservation by integrating stakeholders’ values with systematic area selection algorithms. This iterative process includes: 1) identification of problems, 2) establishment of a species’ database, 3) construction of species’ distribution models, 4) systematic area ranking process, 5) multiple criteria application, 6) area selection, and 7) continuing research and evaluation.
In this process, while the area selection rules adhere to biodiversity principles such as complementarity and rarity, stakeholders’ values are strongly reflected in the following three phases: identification of problems, multiple criteria application, and continuing research and evaluation. In this model, particular techniques to understand stakeholders’ values may vary, depending on the budget, time, and social context.
141 Figure 77. The proposed model of systematic area selection for biodiversity conservation
142
Chapter 11. Conclusions
Based on the insight that emerged from the study of theoretical and methodological approaches to biodiversity conservation, I presented an area selection process method for integrating biodiversity content values and the local residents’ perspectives in the context of the DMZ and the CCZ of South Korea. The method is constrained by the fact that it is difficult to carry out field surveys in the CCZ and the DMZ. I attempted to account for this by developing a habitat model for each species and by using GIS data. The habitat models were constructed from species occurrence data to identify other areas in the CCZ and DMZ where the species has not been observed but is likely to occur. The method presented here attempts to account for the significant data restrictions associated with the modeling of biodiversity in the CCZ and the DMZ.
In this respect, the area selection process method proposed in this study is unique for the following two reasons: First, using incomplete data sources, the proposed method helps identify biodiversity core areas, which provide a significant basis for establishing conservation area networks for the entire region of the CCZ and the DMZ. The concept of core areas has been supported by UNESCO’s Biosphere Reserve Program to protect biodiversity and the range of different natural processes. Once core areas are identified, buffer zones and corridors can be easily established to design effective conservation area networks. This is especially significant for the CCZ because if conservation area networks were established based on the core areas, useful guidelines can be provided for planning in the adjacent areas along the southern boundary of the CCZ. Since local governments are currently in a rush for economic development in and around the CCZ,
143 this systematic area selection method would help planners develop conservation plans.
The proposed method also will be more powerful when used in conjunction with other approaches, such as the McHarg’s layer-cake method and other land suitability analysis techniques, which are helpful to identify suitable places for different land uses.
Second, the proposed method seeks to incorporate stakeholders’ perspectives into the systematic area selection process for biodiversity conservation. As the South Korean government has been unsuccessful in reserving the areas in the CCZ for biodiversity conservation due to the local residents’ strong opposition, it is critical to consider stakeholders’ perspectives. In fact, this is not uncommon in conservation processes as identified from many other cases over the world. Unlike traditional area selection processes that rely mostly on expert knowledge, this method promotes understanding of stakeholders’ perspectives to inform area selection process for viable implementation of conservation planning.
Adhering to the principles of systematic conservation planning, the integrative method also provides a more flexible framework that can be adapted in the dynamic social context of the CCZ and the DMZ. Thus, allowing decision-makers to better incorporate social criteria, this process method will make it more likely that a solution will be found that is compatible with the values of the stakeholders.
Due to its limited focus on biodiversity value, the systematic area selection method proposed in this study should not be exclusively used in conservation planning. Thus, for effective application of the proposed method, I suggest recommendations about the future direction of research that need to be considered for effective conservation of the CCZ and
DMZ as follows:
144 First, in addition to biodiversity content analysis, the information about ecological processes needs to be incorporated to the conservation planning. Ecological processes can be understood through examination of the spatial and temporal relationships between environmental characteristics and of historical natural disasters, such as wildfire, floods, and disease. This information is significant because ecological processes are closely related to the spatial changes of habitats and species distributions. For this information, collaboration with experts from diverse backgrounds is essential.
Second, development of research methods to elicit diverse human values is important for successful biodiversity conservation in the CCZ and the DMZ. In this respect, the two exemplary biodiversity conservation plans conducted in the United States are worth paying attention to: New Jersey Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan and Camp Pendleton Biodiversity Plan. These conservation plans are distinguished from conventional conservation efforts for the considerations of the interrelationship between humans and landscape (Steiner 2000). In the New Jersey Pinelands project, individual interviews were undertaken to elicit cultural values from the local residents. In this project, based on the classification of three major cultural regions: forest, agricultural and rural suburban, and coastal, the researchers interviewed 300 Pineland residents to identify culturally significant areas (Steiner 2000). Due to the difficulty in the access to conduct multiple focus group studies, individual interviews with the residents from representative cultural regions may be applicable to the conservation of the CCZ. Another distinctive effort to incorporate human perceptions to conservation is found in the biodiversity plan for Camp Pendleton, the U.S. Marine Corps base north of San Diego, California. In this project, visual preferences were incorporated into the conservation planning process.
Following methods used by the U.S. Forest Service (1974) and Bureau of Land
145 Management (1980) with three phases: preferences, exposure, and value, the visual preferences were assessed by using a set of 26 photographs in the study area that represent the range of land cover types in the region (Steinitz et al. 1996). In this way, the participants ranked the photographs to reflect their visual preferences, and the photographs were then grouped by aggregate value. Using GIS, the resulting values were spatially mapped to identify the most valuable areas to protect for visual qualities. This method also might be useful for the CCZ conservation, because many sites in the CCZ are known for aesthetically unique landscapes that are considered significant to promote eco-tourism programs.
Third, human land use impacts on biodiversity in the CCZ and the DMZ should be considered for effective conservation planning. The human land use impacts in the CCZ and the DMZ can be analyzed by examining urban development patterns, population distributions, and the military training activities. In this respect, the application of scenario development might be useful to incorporate the information about human land use impacts. Scenario development techniques were effectively applied to the biodiversity plan for Camp Pendleton. In this project, Steinitz and his colleagues (1996) simulated six alternative projections of development, based on the analysis of the various plans of the various government entities. The analysis of these plans enabled them to project anticipated needs for housing, recreation, transportation, commerce, and industry.
One of the most distinctive features of this project was the use of a baseline future scenario called “Plans Build Out” that represents the consequences of full implementation of the plans. Steinitz and his colleagues (1996) used this build-out scenario to project future land use impacts on the biodiversity and concluded that under the build-out scenario several kinds of natural habitat and biodiversity will decline dramatically. This
146 scenario development technique might provide a useful framework to incorporate biodiversity issues into land use planning for the effective conservation of the CCZ.
Although the development of multiple scenarios may require considerable public input to incorporate a variety of social issues, the build-out scenario would provide a significant basis on which my integrative area selection method could be applied to better identify critical places for biodiversity conservation in the threat of future land development.
However, even if these recommendations were applied, future conservation of the
CCZ and the DMZ will not be successful without cooperation between South Korea and
North Korea. A consensus has emerged that successfully implementing a transboundary conservation plan requires cooperation between the participating countries, including person-to-person communication (Zbicz 2003). Thus, eventually, it is essential to include
North Korean stakeholders in planning exercises for the entire transboundary region of the DMZ and the CCZ. In the light of the history of mistrust between North and South
Korea since 1953 and the countries’ political and economic differences, the potential obstacles to cooperative conservation planning should not be understated. In this respect, establishment of a transboundary conservation area in the DMZ may provide an opportunity to promote cooperation between North and South Korea and an explicit political settlement to replace the Armistice Agreement.
Traditional conservation approaches in the science arena have placed an emphasis on systematic area selection tools based on ecological principles, while community and regional planning has focused more on democratic planning process to incorporate social issues. The integrative method proposed in this study seeks to provide a useful framework that ranks areas based on biodiversity value and stakeholders’ perspectives.
This will help identify priority areas that must be set aside for biodiversity conservation.
147 In the CCZ and the DMZ, where biodiversity is significantly threatened and regional conservation networks are yet to be established, this method will be more useful, if carefully incorporated as part of ecological planning processes. I hope this integrative method will provide a meaningful basis on which further discussion and improvement can be made to promote effective biodiversity conservation in the CCZ and the DMZ, as well as other places in which similar constraints and opportunities exist.
148 Appendix A. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval Form (English)
149
150 Appendix B. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval Form (Korean)
151
152 Appendix C. Transcripts of the Focus Group Interview (English)
Transcribed and Literally Translated from Korean into English by Jin-Oh Kim
Date: 8:00 p.m. May 31, 2007 Place: Community Education Center, Yangji-ri, Chorlwon-gun, Gangwon Province, South Korea Moderator: Jin-Oh Kim (Primary researcher) Observer: Jong-il Jung Participants: 8 local residents in Yanji-ri Discussion duration: 2 hours Compensation: Small packages of first-aid medications ($ 10 value) and refreshment
Note: M indicates moderator and discussion participants are represented with A, B, C, D, and E
M: Thank you so much for coming. I really appreciate your participation. I have five questions to explore your perspectives and values toward biodiversity conservation in CCZ. And I hope each of you could actively participate in discussion. I will be transcribing and recording the discussion and anything you say will absolutely be confidential. As you read the handout, you can leave whenever you want, but I really wish you stay to the end without any problem. I learned that about 4 to 5 years ago, residents in Yangji-ri had severe conflict with government for UNESCO wetland conservation, and local residents’ perspectives have not been reflected successfully on conservation planning. Thus, this research aims to provide a cornerstone to establish useful priority for biodiversity conservation planning. As residents are just parts of regional ecology, conservation planning should consider their perspectives and needs, rather than just forcing them to comply with sacrifice. I think it is essential for successful conservation planning to understand residents’ perspectives and to incorporate their conservation priorities into area selection process. The purpose of this focus group discussion is to understand how residents in Civilian Control Zone (CCZ) think about their physical environment and value their natural environment and wildlife species. For the first question, what is your difficulty doing agriculture in CCZ? Does unique environment of CCZ make your agricultural activities different from others outside CCZ?
A: Have you ever conducted group interviews with farmers in other regions? And do have any information about it? Can you let us know how they were different and how they responded? We don’t know what is going on other regions and if you let us know about it, it would be easier for us to answer. The question is not clear.
M: In fact, Yangji-ri is in the CCZ and I guess residents’ agricultural activities here have been extremely restricted by military security measures. Could you tell in detail on how the restrictive environment affected your activities in daily life?
B: Sure. There have been many difficulties. Others may think that we have received some compensation for tight security measure, but we have not. We have never received any
153 benefits such as tax reduction since we settled down here in 1973. Especially under the military government, restriction was extremely tight and we had to go through every inconvenience. Our activities were regulated by time and we were forced to wear yellow hats outside to be easily distinguished by military. Many people living outside the CCZ had also difficulty farming their land in the CCZ, due to restrictive access. It is, however, partially getting better than before. Historically, our village has been a leader in mechanized farming in the nation since the government’s strong support in the early 1970s. When the government imported new farming machines such as tractors and rice-planting machines, they provided them to us on lease so that we took advantage of new technology.
C: However, still we are not free from government regulation. Our activities including farming are not 24 hours-free. Many parts of our rice field are still surrounded by barbed wires for military security and at night time farmers are not allowed to enter rice field without prior approval by military.
A: The regulation in our village under the control by the Sixth Division is stricter than our neighbor villages under the control by either the Third or the Fifth Division in CCZ. No other places have more barbed wires than here. Furthermore, at night we are not allowed to enter our rice field for management. In past, we would fight against government to relieve regulations, but now we are just tired of doing that. Although we did not express our feelings, we have been so much distressed by the regulations. By the way, please tell us any information or what your have learned from the study of other villages if you did. Then we refer to the information and tell our story accordingly. Nobody here opposes biodiversity conservation, but what matters is how it would affect residents in the region.
B: Let me tell you some. It was often proposed that Chorlwon needs to be designated as wetland or biodiversity conservation area. But, the designation of areas for conservation would impose more restriction on our activities and property value. If the use of farmland were further restricted by the conservation, our agriculture would be significantly obstructed. In 1970s, the central government politically encouraged farmers to move in the CCZ to promote agriculture. But, now they are trying to impose more regulations that limit agricultural activities and we resist to them. Same is natural environment. Now, in our region we are not allowed to catch wildlife such as Roe Deer, boar or Wild Rabbit, because it is against law. Regulations are too strict for local residents. Roe Deer, boar and Wild Rabbit are among the most harmful species to crops. For example, if one boar digs up rice field for an hour in fall, thousands of square meters of the field will be spoiled. We do not even think about farming corns or beans, because they are the favorites of Roe Deer. Roe Deer frequently come down to our village for their foods and Boars often dig up our backyard to eat sweet potatoes. Can you believe this? Can you believe this? I understand biodiversity conservation is important, but some species could be harmful to crops and farmers. However, crane is good to us. Crane is internationally endangered species and as many as 700 to 800 of them come to our village in winter. This means that our village is environmentally clean, we think. Recently, a few local governments are making their effort to attract cranes to their administrative districts. I heard that Gumi city is investing several million dollars to attract cranes coming from Japan to stay in the city during
154 winter. Thanks to crane, the rice produced in Chorlwon maintains highest value in the nation.
C: I think the only advantage for farming in CCZ is clean water. There is no single factory here, and environment has not been contaminated. But, landmines are a big problem. Last year when children visited here for the school field trip, a landmine was found and everybody was so scared, though nobody hurt. Due to the fear of landmines, nobody attempt to climb hills or mountains around here. I heard that some people in other villages in CCZ often died or hurt by landmines or wildlife such as boar. Mobility of people in CCZ is significantly restricted by landmines at daytime and wildlife at night.
B: Recently, the central government and environmental groups are asserting the need to conserve significant areas in CCZ, including our village area. But, this brings more loss than benefits to farmers. As the harms to crops increase, the local government recently tries to provide financial support for farmers. But this is not enough. Some wild geese staying until late spring often do significant harm to young rice plants.
M: How long has been the harm by wild geese?
B: It has been 4 to 5 years at least.
C: It has been 4 to 5 years since the issue jutted out. In fact, the damage to crops by wild geese has been more than 10 years. In past, nobody listened carefully what we were saying about it. Who would have believed that wild geese staying only for winter did harm to rice plants in May? It is only very recently when the government began to listen what we say, as environmental awareness increases.
A: Government and environmental groups have not paid much attention to our crop loss caused by wildlife. We had no choice but to endure the loss without compensation. That has been a while. In fact, the crop loss by wildlife in our village has increased, as environmental awareness elevates and the regulations for wildlife protection become more restrictive. We talked this issue to government and responsible agencies, but compensations have not been made sufficiently. Here in Chorlwon, rice production has been a major source of income and food, and in past people would catch wildlife when their food sources were scarce for poor production. The harm to crops by wildlife was not so significant at the time. But, now we cannot grow beans in anywhere in our village, due to increased number of wildlife.
M: What species are the most harmful to crops?
B: Roe Deer is the most harmful.
D: Roe Deer and boar.
B: Due to Roe Deer, we cannot grow peppers and beans. Most of areas in our village are rice field, but we are not able to use the levee of rice paddy for other crops. If we grow them, nothing would remain. Thus, now we are not even thinking about growing other
155 crops. I also have a wide area of levee of my rice paddy, but I do not grow anything, due to wildlife.
C: In this area, any construction activities are strictly regulated by military. If I build any structures such as barns on my property without permission, they all will be demolished by military right away. Military regulation is the most powerful in this region. When farmers want to enter their rice paddy for work at night, it is not allowed without prior permission from military.
M: What about Red-crowned Crane? Is it harmful or helpful to your agriculture?
C: Red-crowned Crane is not harmful. But, pheasant is.
D: For the largest number of Red-crowned Crane that is internationally endangered visiting to our village in winter, central government in cooperation with the UNESCO tried to designate wetland conservation areas in our village a few years ago. But, we strongly opposed because designation of conservation areas causes significant decline of land property values. In addition, selective compensations by arbitrary designation boundary may stir up disharmony among residents, and thus finally entire Chorlwon community opposed. In fact, it is unquestionable that the rice produced in Chorlwon is recognized as the highest quality in the nation, due to the Red-crowned Crane. Benefit and loss come together by the birds. Although a voluntary organization to protect Red- crowned Crane was formed by some residents, residents in Chorlwon generally do not want the protection of Red-crowned Crane only. If the number of Red-crowned Crane increased by the protection, the issue on area designation for conservation in Chorlwon will be raised again by government and the UNESCO. Several years ago, government attempted to designate 165 hectare as conservation area for the protection of Samtong, the natural springs in our region, but they failed due to residents’ strong opposition. If our effort to protect Red-crowned Crane help our region be designated as conservation area, we could be trapped by ourselves. This was why we were reluctant to participate in this discussion. We were concerned that this discussion and research would contribute to the resurgence of government’s attempt to designate conservation areas in our region.
M: What are the local residents’ concerns about biodiversity conservation in CCZ?
A: I think government does not pay much attention to local residents in CCZ. Biodiversity conservation in CCZ has been continually raised as a significant issue through public discussions or forums by environmental groups, but it is not significant for us. We, of course, agree to the biodiversity conservation in principle, but our life is bound by regulations for conservation. Government does not understand our stance. They attempt to achieve their conservation goals without understanding local residents.
D: For residents, environment issue could be viewed as a matter of money. The other day, officials from the Cultural Heritage Administration visited our village to enter DMZ for restoration projects of the ruined Goong-ye castle town. In past, Chorlwon, called Taebong, was the capital of the nation. But, these projects should not cause any loss for local residents. We are also concerned about recent cooperative effort by local government and environmental groups to conserve the Togyo reservoir, an ecologically
156 significant resource in our village. In their cooperation and conservation process, local residents should not be excluded. Again, consideration of local residents and their priorities should not be excluded from the process of biodiversity conservation or development.
B: There are many problems in our public policies. It seems that government does not conduct field survey or investigation to designate areas for conservation. Instead, they designate areas for conservation by drawing outlines on their desks by looking at maps. This is the biggest problem.
M: It is a good point. Designating areas for conservation is not just easy work for experts, but I think it is important for experts to make efforts to understand residents’ perspectives and opinions in the process of conservation planning.
C: Researchers need to think about what they would gain or lose by conservation or development on the assumption that they moved in this region. So far, many scholars and government officials visited our village with small gifts to conduct research, but that was it once they left. Sometimes, they just left when we opposed to conservation projects. You don’t have to emphasize conservation here. We think that we have been doing well for ourselves so far. Now the issue is how to increase residents’ income, and we believe this is directly connected with successful biodiversity conservation.
D: I think the most significant is the consideration of local residents in conservation and development.
M: How about the current status of regulations in this region?
C: This is in the CCZ, and there are many strict regulations for military security. Even a little temporary shelter around our rice field is not allowed to construct.
A: We have lived in this way since 1973. Nobody outside the CCZ could understand.
B: Environmental protection or biodiversity conservation should be entrusted to local residents. And experts need to investigate the increase of species that are harmful to farmers, such as boar and Roe Deer. If the increase is high enough to significantly harm crops, the number of the species needs to be controlled in some ways. But, current regulations strictly prohibit us from catching the species in this region. It should be a livable place for both farmers and wildlife, but farmers are always disadvantaged.
M: Do you think the numbers of boar and Roe Deer have significantly increased?
E: Yes, probably 3 to 4 hundred? It is a significant increase anyway.
B: It has been a while since the number of the species increased, though not sure since when exactly. Government policies are just ridiculous.
157 A: I think the numbers of the species were significantly increased as government’s regulations were tightened.
B: Going aside from the main issue, there is a farmer Jong-gee Choi in the age of mid 70s at Hwa-ji-ri, our neighborhood village. After moved in from the North Korea, he started to work as a farm servant and now became rich owning almost 20 hectares of race paddy. According to him, he harvested about 11,200 kg of beans out of the bank around the rice field, and bought a nice car for his son from the profits. But, now it is not possible to grow them due to Roe Deer and other harmful wildlife.
A: I also have about 6,600 square meters of the levee of rice paddy, which is suitable for growing beans. But now it is left with no use because of wildlife.
B: It sounds ideal to live together with Wild Rabbits, boars, and Roe Deer, but too restrictive regulations for conservation make these species harmful to farmers.
M: Do you find any advantages from natural environment or diverse wildlife in the region?
C: So to speak, this is where food chain systems are well preserved, because there are many places inaccessible by humans.
D: For the image of clean environment the rice produced from Chorlwon is recognized as the best quality in the nation. Clean environment gives us both loss and benefit.
B: I think the loss much outweighs the advantages from the image of clean environment. Our activities in daily life are significantly restricted by military. If somebody plays firecracker here, armed soldiers will come right away. Farmer’s income is lagging behind high prices of commodity. Thus, government should help farmers sell their rice products well and thus, raise their income. People are worried about future land development in this region, but farmers do not have anything but agriculture. There is no policy system that could support local resident’ life.
M: Why do you think the largest number of Red-crowned Crane stays here during winter?
B: We make our own effort to protect Red-crowned Crane by participating in the association of Red-crowned Crane protection. According to scholars studying Red- crowned Crane, there are significant habitats inside the DMZ adjacent to our village. They stay at rice field for food in our village daytime and take rest in their habitats inside the DMZ at night without concerning about human interruption.
B: In fact, there are many scholars who obtained their doctoral degrees, thanks to these Red-crowned Crane.
C: The problem is that farmers gain little. Scholars gain academic achievement by studying cranes here and business people gain money by promoting tour programs. Nobody tries to help us once they left, though they speak in plausible ways while staying
158 in here. What we want is to help us sell our rice products more, even when to feed Red- crowned Crane. Then, it would be greatly helpful for reducing annual leftovers of rice products.
M: Is the leftover of rice products increasing or a serious problem?
C: Yes, it is, though not that serious in our village. There are many farmers in other villages in CCZ who suffer from significant leftovers.
M: What do think are the most significant areas for biodiversity conservation in your region?
C: Samtong is unique natural springs widely spread in our region. We think this Samtong provides clean freshwater and habitats for a variety of species, including Red-crowned Crane. Compared to other wetland areas in the nation, our region located in CCZ might be more attractive and secured for Red-crowned Crane to stay. Limited human access to the region for military security makes cranes more successful to breed. However, recent tour programs for winter-bird observation drawing thousands of visitors in winter seem to bother cranes and make some of them to leave. Biodiversity conservation in this region should be pursued in a way that farmers are persuaded and they should be able to make livings. For conservation, government should take responsibility, either by allotment provision to farmers or by monetary compensation.
M: Any other opinions?
A: When government designates areas for conservation, sufficient compensation should be made to residents. Without compensation or other equivalent support, they should not proceed to designate areas for conservation in their own ways.
B: I guess Chorlwon even may lose the advantages of Red-crowned Crane if they moved to other regions.
M: What if Red-crowned Cranes are not coming here any more? Would it be matter to you?
C: Not much problem to farmers.
D: Yes, it is. It will be a huge loss to farmers.
C: Frankly speaking, when such an unexpected is happened in our village, researchers studying crane who have not been helpful for farmers would get more benefits from their new projects, although I do not believe that would happen here suddenly.
D: No. If Red-crowned Crane never come to our village, it would be a big problem for us.
159 B: Right. You (C) should not think that way. Assume that 300 out of total 800 cranes in our region moved to Yeonchun, one of our neighborhood villages. It must be a huge influence to the residents of two villages in different ways.
C: In Yeonchun the Gyonggi province is very supportive to draw cranes to their region, because of its potential economic value. Dangjin in Chungnam province changed their local government’s symbol bird to Red-crowned Crane last year when a few of them suddenly showed up in their region. Yeonchun is also eager to attract cranes for same reason. For them significant is how to best utilize the economic values that could be generated by Red-crowned Crane.
D: 90% of area in Chorlwon is rice field and thus, damage to the image of clean environment may cause significant decrease in the value of rice products. If Red-crowned Crane, a symbol of clean environment, disappeared suddenly from our region, the value of our rice product will be affected significantly.
B: Right. We will be directly affected by the disappearance of Red-crowned Crane.
E: That is right. Farmers will surely be damaged.
D: Conservation in this region should go with generating economic value for residents. For the conservation of the Togyo reservoir in our village, Chorlwon local government recently established “Green Agreement” with environmental groups. They seek to generate economic benefits by holding grand fishing competitions to remove invasive alien species such as bass and bluegill. It seems that they attempt to use our ecological resources for their own profit. We are very upset about it and will never allow them to handle on their own. We believe that benefits generated by the conservation of natural resources should go to the local residents. Local residents should not be excluded in the process of conservation.
M: How has been the role of local residents in the process of conservation planning?
D: Government made plans or policies on their own and brought them to us. And if we opposed them, they stepped back. This has been repeated.
B: The most serious handicap in our region is that local or regional government is not able to do anything without permission from military. Even when they pave a small road in CCZ, there is no way to construct unless military allows entrance of any heavy equipments or machines into the CCZ. It is so hard to make military move. Military has been the most significant barrier for the conservation of Togyo reservoir in our region, because they did not allow any access to the reservoir. We believe that it is useless to remove bass and bluegill from the downstream unless they are removed from the headstream Togyo reservoir.
C: Conservation planning and policies should be beneficial to the entire community in the region. If some of residents suffer and leave their village for restrictive regulations, it would be a big problem to entire community.
160 M: What do think the most significant for effective biodiversity conservation in this region?
A: It is to minimize the harms to crops caused by wildlife.
D: The DMZ exists only in Korea in the world. Unique natural environment in the DMZ has drawn international attentions and there are growing desires for people to enter the DMZ. Because farmers have limited income sources except rice production, eco-tourism or other programs related to natural resources need to be strongly promoted.
B: Our village is in CCZ and our activities are now strictly regulated by military security measures. Thus, biodiversity conservation goes well as long as residents are allowed to do their farming freely. Now a variety of wildlife species are living in this region without much problem and I don’t understand why government is obsessed by designating area for wetland conservation.
A: Conservation planning should be helpful to local residents for their living, but scholars are not interested in that issue. Once they left here after field research, nobody come back to us. We opposed government proposals on designating areas for wetland conservation, because they did not consider residents and their benefits. As government’s regulations get tighter, more crops are harmed by the increased number of wildlife and our choice of crops is significantly limited. So to speak, we have lived in the regulations.
E: We are not even able to grow sweet potatoes because of wildlife.
A: There are certain crops that are especially favored by wildlife. For example, sweet potatoes, potatoes, and hemps are the ones to avoid growing due to wildlife. Beans are also favorite target by Roe Deer and pheasant. If you grow them here, you should not expect anything.
C: In order to reduce the loss of crops, I think it is necessary to allow farmers to catch a limited number of wildlife species that harm the crops.
M: This region is known to public as one of best sites in the nation for watching wintering birds. What benefits does this bring to your community?
B: Touring courses and programs for bird watching in this region are too simple, because of restrictions regulated by military. Times to enter the CCZ in a day are strictly limited and touring buses should enter the CCZ at the same time regardless of the number of buses. Tourists are not allowed to walk around freely to observe birds except limited spots and routes. All we have to do is cleaning wastes left by crowds of people.
C: I believe the restrictive regulation by military actually helps maintain the number of winter-bird species in this region. There are advantages and disadvantages. However, in our village it is necessary to allow tourists to stay even a few hours to freely watch the winter birds.
M: What do you think about conservation values in your region?
161
B: Hantan river close by our village attracts many rafters in summer. But, residents rarely enjoy rafting. And we do not want the river to be polluted by development. If we do not regulate the number of people and development, the river will soon be full of people. That should not be happening. Regulations are also necessary for conservation.
M: Do you know any culturally valuable assets in your region?
B: We don’t have such things. In our neighbor village Dae-ba-ri, there are a historic ice container and a bank site in Japanese colonial era.
C: The site of Hwang-goong, the imperial palace a thousand year ago remains in DMZ close by our village. This indicates that our village was the capital of the nation, where many nobles and their families lived. However, in spite of the notable historic value, the site cannot be restored for its location in DMZ. Anyway, it is getting difficult for farmers to live in this region. Now our biggest concern is selling our rice products next year. Our effort in operating the pension, an accommodation for visitors owned by our community, is not for making money, but for advertising high quality of our rice products to tourists and visitors. This promotes spot bargains between farmers and consumers. This type of privilege should be given to local residents in CCZ.
M: How do you think about wildlife species and biodiversity in this region?
C: There are a variety of species living in this region, including Wild Rabbit, eagle, wildcat, and bear. A report on the inhabitance of bears in CCZ and DMZ was presented in an international conference in 2006. The fact that bears are living in our region indicates that the perfect food chain is maintained. Many places inaccessible by humans in the region also contribute to promoting biodiversity. I heard there are more than 400 bird species living in our region. We believe that no single village has more diverse species including endangered species than us. But, we are not yet successful to using these as economic resources. As a part of effort to maintain clean environment, we are trying to promote environment-friendly agriculture, reducing the use of pesticide for agriculture.
M: Now you do not use pesticide at all?
B: Yes, some still do. But, the percent of households using pesticides has significantly decreased to 20%. In fact, our village started environment-friendly agriculture first in Gangwon province 5 to 6 years ago, when research from Seoul National University reported the high quality of natural water in our region. Togyo reservoir in our region is known for the quality of water and has been a heaven for fish. Can you believe that there is crucian carp 5kg weigh in the reservoir?
C: Most of all, if all of our rice products are sold at good price annually, we don’t have anything to worry about. Now we just don’t have any systems to make it possible. Conservation would not be possible without consideration of farmers.
162 M: I heard that a few years ago you opposed a proposal by government in cooperation with UNESCO to designate areas for biodiversity conservation. Could you tell more about it?
B: In fact, there was a significant problem generated before the government’s proposal. Cultural Heritage Administration tried to designate the areas of natural springs, Samtong, as natural monument. However, they did not conduct any considerate field investigation, resulting in inaccurate setting of the designation boundary for conservation. This wrong designation caused many inconvenience to farmers for their agricultural activity and made farmers strongly oppose to another designation of areas by government for the conservation of crane. If the prior designation of areas by Cultural Heritage Administration for the conservation of Samtong had been successful, farmers would not have strongly opposed to another designation of areas for the conservation of Red- crowned Crane. Government has not been collaborative with local residents and failed to informing and persuading their plans to residents. Local residents do not trust government any more, because government tends to force residents to follow their regulatory conservation plans.
M: How do think local residents’ perspectives are different from those of government officials, environmental groups, and scholars?
A: In fact, many of them visited our village for their research or other needs. We tried to help them and make them understand what we think and want, but nothing came back to us once they left.
B: So far, many scholars visited to study the issue of environment and conservation and we expressed our opinions and perspectives for the future of Chorlwon. Some of them promised that they would convey the residents’ opinions to central government, but nothing has changed since then. We truly wish that researchers could find more desirable ways that make both humans and nature live together in harmony.
A: One thing we would like to ask you is that please let us know how the result of this group discussion is helpful to improve conservation planning. We want to know how our voices are reflected on the research. Until now nobody came back with the result of their research.
M: Sure, I promise to come back to you with the result of research.
C: Government often makes us confusing, because different approaches are proposed by each governmental agency concerning their own issues. Ministry of Environment is focusing on area designation for conservation and Ministry of Tourism is interested in developing eco-tourism programs. Ministry of Defense maintains their duty, emphasizing security issues. They come to us separately with their own plans. There is no integrative approach. They often exclude community leaders and tend to ignore local residents’ opinions. We have never had any chance for group discussion like this. We want to be informed and want to have more conversation.
163 A: It is true that the proposals by different government agencies have made us confused. I wish that researchers and government officials understand this problem and propose more integrative approach for conservation planning.
M: I think it is a time to finish. Thank you so much for your participation.
164 Appendix D. Transcripts of the Focus Group Interview (Korean)
그룹 인터뷰 및 원고 작성자: 김진오
일시: 2007년 5월 31일 오후 8시 장소: 강원도 철원군 양지리 농촌체험관 토론 진행자: 김진오 참관 및 사진촬영: 정종일 참가자: 총 8명 (양지리 주민) 토론시간: 2시간 토론참여 인센티브: 응급 구급약 세트 (1인당 1만원선)
* 참고: M은 토론 진행자를 의미하며 토론참여자들은 A, B, C, D, E 순으로 표기했음.
M: 4-5년전 이 지역이 유네스코 습지보전지역 선정문제로 의견 분분했고 그동안 지역 주민들의 보존 계획과정에서 의견이 잘 반영되어 오지 못한 것 같습니다. 이에 본 연구는 민통선 지역의 생태적 가치에 대한 주민들의 생각과 입장을 이해함으로써 보전계획에 있어 우선 순위를 설정하는데 중요한 기초를 마련하고자 합니다. 주민들도 이 지역 생태계의 일부이기에 환경정책의 방향도 주민들의 희생을 요구하기보다는 현 민통선 지역에 거주하는 주민들이 보다 현재의 쾌적한 환경을 잘 유지하며 살아가도록 해야 할 것입니다. 두루미와 이의 보호를 둘러싼 정부와의 갈등을 보며 어떻게 하면 주민들의 의견과 관점을 반영할 수 있을까가 생태계 보존계획에 핵심적인 주제로 생각되었고 실제 거주하시는 분들의 의견과 이들이 바라보는 자연환경의 가치를 어떻게 판단하고 반영할까 하는 문제가 이번 연구의 핵심이라 하겠습니다. 따라서 이번 토론회의 방향은 야생동물 및 자연환경에 대한 가치를 주민들은 어떻게 판단하는지 여러분들의 의견을 수렴하는 것입니다. 우선, 첫 번째 질문으로 이곳 민통선안에서 농업활동을 하며 살아가는 것은 다른 지역과 비교할 때 어떤 어려운 점이 있다고 생각하십니까?
A: 연구자께서는 경기도나 다른 지역에서 얼마나 토론회를 가져 보셨는지요? 또, 그에 대해 어떠한 정보를 알고 있는지요? 경기도 등 다른 지역에서는 무엇이 다른지 설명해줄 수 있는지 혹은 그 쪽 반응은 어떠했는지를 알려주실 수 있는지요? 우리는 다른 지역에 대해 잘 모르니, 그 곳 사정들을 알려주시면 우리가 느끼는 애로사항을 그에 비춰서 설명할 수 있으리라 생각합니다. 질문이 애매해 의견내기가 어렵습니다.
진행자: 사실 이곳이 민통선내 군사보호지역이라 지금까지도 출입이 자유롭지 못하고 농사활동에 있어서 여러 가지로 많은 제약이 따르는 것으로 알고 있는데 주로 그에 관련된 어려움들이 구체적으로 어떠했는지를 설명해주시면 좋겠습니다.
165 B: 어려운 점 많이 있었습니다. 서울지역 등 다른 지역에 사는 사람들은 우리가 민통선내에서 큰 혜택을 받고 산다고 생각할 지 모르나 전혀 그렇지 않습니다. 1973년 이곳에 처음 정착한 이후 여지껏 세금 혜택 한번 받은 적 없습니다. 특히 군부정권 시절에는 통제가 너무 엄격해 생활하기가 매우 불편했습니다. 활동하는데 있어 시간통제를 받아야 했고 야외에 다닐때는 노란색의 모자를 쓰도록 강요받기도 했습니다. 또, 민통선 밖에 사는 사람들이 농지를 소유하고 관리하는 경우가 많았음에도 통제로 인해 출입이 번거러워 여러 가지로 불편했으나 요즘은 예전에 비해 많이 그나마 부분적으로 많이 해소된 편입니다. 또, 우리 마을은 1970년대 초 박정희 대통령 시절 기계화 실험 영농을 전국에서 처음으로 시작한 곳으로 내무부 주관아래 트랙터, 이양기 등을 임대 형식으로 지원해 직접 관리 운영하도록 하기도 했습니다. 외국에서 신기계가 들어오면 철원에서 시작될 정도로 기계화 영농 이 가장 잘된 지역이라고 볼 수가 있지요.
C: 그러나 사실 지금도 우리 주민들은 통제에서 자유롭지 못합니다. 농사활동도 그렇고 아직도 24시간 마음대로 다닐 수 없는 것이 현실입니다. 군사보호지역이라 논 주변으로 철조망이 존재하며 야간에 군부대의 동의없이는 논에도 마음대로 다닐 수 없습니다.
A: 3사단과 5사단 등이 관할하는 이웃동네에 비해 이곳 6사단 관할지역은 더 엄격하고 통제가 까다로운 편입니다. 어느 지역에도 이렇게 철저히 철조망 친 곳 없지요. 밤에는 논에도 잘 못들어가게 되어 있습니다. 옛날 유신정권이나 전두환 대통령 시절에는 먹고 살기 위해 많이 싸우고 그랬지만, 지금은 싸울 사람도 없고 고생하는 어린 초병들과 싸우기도 지쳤습니다. 그저 얘기 안할 뿐이지 우리가 속터지는 건 그 이상입니다. 그건 우리 살아온 과정 이야기이고 연구자께서는 민통선 생태계 보존과 관련하여 토론하러 왔는데 경기도 지역 등 다른 지역에서는 혹시 해보셨는지 그러면 어떠했는지 그곳의 실정과 경험등 좀 알려 주시면 좋겠습니다. 그러면 그에 비춰 저희들의 의견을 말하겠습니다. 자연생태계 환경 보존 반대하는 사람들은 없습니다. 단지 그곳에서 살아가는 사람들에게 어떠한 영향을 미치느냐가 문제라고 보는데, 연구자께서 그런 얘기 좀 해주셨으면 좋겠습니다.
B: 제가 조금더 말씀을 드릴까요. 철원지역을 습지보전 지역으로 묶겠다는 등 그런 얘기들이 계속 나오고 있는데, 그렇게 되면 농민들 입장에서는 물론 습지보존에 대한 정부로부터의 혜택도 어느 정도 있겠지만 무엇보다도 그로인해 우리는 어떤 규제를 받게 된다는 것입니다. 농지이용에 대한 규제가 강해지면 논둑에 콩하나 심으려고 해도 안됩니다. 민통선 지역에 사람들 밀어넣고 정책적으로 농사짓게 해 놓고 계속 규제만 하려니 농민들은 자연히 반발하게 됩니다. 자연환경도 마찬가지입니다. 이제 우리는 고라니나 멧돼지, 산토끼 한 마리 마음대로 잡지 못합니다. 규제가 너무 심하지요. 이것들은 농민들에겐 작물에 피해를 주는 큰 천적입니다. 가령 멧돼지 한 마리가 가을에 1-2시간 논을 훑으면 수천평의 논을 하루저녁에도 망칠 수 있습니다. 옥수수같은 것은 엄두도 못내지요. 또 콩과류 작물재배는 고라니 때문에 아예 생각도 못합니다. 고라니는 동네 한가운데까지 종종 내려와 농작물을 망치는가 하면
166 멧돼지는 뒷뜰에 심어놓은 고구마까지 먹으려 파헤쳐 놓기도 합니다. 이걸 믿을 수 있겠는지요? 물론 자연환경 보존도 다 좋지만 부분적으로 이런 건 농민들한테 큰 천적이 될 수도 있다는 것입니다. 그나마 야생동물로 인해 좋은 점이 있다면 세계적으로 멸종 위기종인 두루미가 7-800 마리 가량 철원으로 찾아온다는 것이지요. 이건 아직도 이 지역이 오염이 안된 청정한 지역이라는 것을 입증하는 것이라고 우리는 생각합니다. 그래서 대구나 일부 다른 지역 사람들이 이러한 두루미를 자기네 동네로 날아와 중간기착지로 머물게 하려고 무척 애를 쓰고 있습니다. 일본에서 날아오는 두루미의 중간 기착지로 유인하기 위해 구미시 같은 도시는 몇십억까지 투자한다고 합니다. 우리 철원에서 생산되는 오대쌀 값이 전국에서 1위를 차지하는 것은 두루미가 좋아할 만큼 청정한 환경에서 나오는 쌀이기 때문이라고 봅니다.
C: 민통선 안에서 농사지으며 사는 입장에서 좋은 점은 하나밖에 없는 것 같습니다. 물이 깨끗하다는 것이지요. 공장 하나 없어 환경에 대한 인지도가 좋습니다. 그러나 지뢰가 큰 위험요소입니다. 작년에 어린이들이 이곳에 농촌체험 왔다가 지뢰가 발견되어 난리가 난 적도 있지요. 이곳에선 산에도 올라가지도 못합니다. 경로당 어른들도 지뢰 때문에 등산은 커녕 산에는 아예 들어갈 생각조차 못합니다. 심지어 옆동네에선 지뢰로 인해 죽거나 멧돼지에 물려 다치는 일들이 종종 있습니다. 낮에는 지뢰 때문에 밤에는 짐승 때문에 주민들은 다니는데 많은 어려움을 겪고 있지요.
B: 지금 중앙정부나 환경단체들 자연환경 보존을 계속 주장하는데 실제로 농민입장에서는 이로 인해 득보다 실이 많습니다. 야생동물로 인한 농작물 피해가 심각하다 보니 일부 구청에서는 예산을 세워 지원도 좀 해준다고 하지만 그게 흡족하지 않습니다. 겨울철 찾아온 기러기 수만마리가 봄이 되도록 날아가지 않고 늦게까지 남아 모심어 놓은 논을 망쳐 두 번 세 번 다시 모를 심는 경우가 종종 있었습니다.
M: 그런 일이 생긴지 얼마나 되었습니까?
B: 이거 한 4-5년 정도 되었지요.
C: 실제로 불거진 건 4-5년전이고 사실 그전부터 아니 최소한 10년 전부터 피해는 있었습니다. 얘기해봐야 들어주는 사람도 없고. 멧돼지면 몰라도 누가 5월달에 기러기가 논에 피해를 주었다고 하면 믿었겠습니까? 요즘에 와서야 새 때문에 관심을 갖고 얘기를 하나보니 알게 되었지.
A: 요즘에나 생태계 보존 얘기가 나오니 행정당국에서 보상차원에서 서로 얘기가 나오지 과거에는 짐승들이 내려와서 농민들에게 입히는 피해는 누구한테 얘기해봐야 알아주지도 않았습니다. 그냥 농작물이 망가지면 내가 스스로 감수했을 뿐이지요. 그런 일 생겨온지 벌써 오래 되었습니다. 이제는 자연생태 또는 두루미 철새지역 보존으로 관심이 높아지면서 그런 피해도 점점 커지는 것 같아 우리도 환경부나 행정당국에 얘기하지만 실제적으로 피해지역에
167 대한 보상은 매우 미흡한 수준입니다. 이곳 철원은 논농사 지역이라 밭이 없어 먹을 것이 부족했던 옛날에는 개인적으로 몰래몰래 고라니나 일부 야생동물을 잡아먹는 일도 있었지요. 그때는 차라리 지금처럼 크게 피해를 주지는 않았습니다. 지금은 우리 마을 어디에도 콩을 전혀 못심는 실정입니다.
M: 어떤 야생동물들이 농작물에 가장 많은 피해를 주고 있습니까?
B: 고라니가 가장 큰 피해를 줍니다.
D: 고라니와 멧돼지
B: 고라니 때문에 고추도, 콩도 심지 못합니다. 여긴 논밖에 없기 때문에 논두렁을 따라 작물을 심으려 해도 도저히 그럴 수가 없습니다. 심었다가는 하나도 남아나질 않지요. 지금은 숫제 심을 생각조차 안합니다. 저같은 경우도 논두렁이 상당히 넓은데도 그런 것들을 아예 재배하지도 못합니다.
C: 이곳은 내 창고 하나도 군부대 허락없이 짓지 못합니다. 심지어 내가 모르고 지으면 군에서 찾아와 무조건 뜯어 버립니다. 이곳에서는 군법이 최상법이지요. 농사일로 급하게 논에 들어가려 해도 밤에는 군부대의 사전 허락없이는 절대로 못들어 갑니다.
M: 두루미에 대해서는 어떻게 생각하십니까? 피해를 주거나 이로운 점이 있습니까?
C: 두루미가 피해를 입히는 일은 없습니다. 꿩은 좀 피해를 주지만.
D: 두루미는 세계적인 희소가치가 있다고 해서 몇 년전 이곳 철원을 UNESCO에서 습지보존지역으로 지정하려 했는데 그때 우리가 크게 반발했습니다. 왜냐하면 보존지역 지정은 부동산 가치에 대한 큰 손실과 직결되기 때문이지요. 또, 마을에서도 지정지역에 따라 일부 농민들만이 보상을 받게 되는 형평성 문제도 있고 해서 철원주민 전체가 반발했습니다. 사실 두루미 때문에 철원 쌀이 전국 최고급으로 인정받게 되었다는 것은 부인할 수 없습니다. 새로 인해 득도 있고 실도 있는 셈이지요. 그러나, 물론 두루미 보호단체가 자치적으로 있기는 하지만 철원군 전체를 놓고 볼 때는 이곳 주민들은 오직 두루미만 보호하는 것을 원치는 않습니다. 왜냐하면 자꾸 보호해 개체수가 더욱 늘어나게 되면 또다시 UNESCO에서 보존지역 지정 얘기가 나올 수 있다는 것입니다. 일전에는 우리 마을내 사계절 온천수가 나오는 샘통지역을 중심으로 50만평 정도 보존지역으로 묶으려고 했다가 반발에 부딪혀 실패한 적도 있지요. 두루미의 보호에 대한 우리의 노력이 장기적으로 생태보존지역으로 묶이는 계기가 된다면 우리 스스로 발이 묶이는 일이 될 수 있다는 것입니다. 사실 이것 때문에 이번 토론회 협조에 대해 관심을 가지지 않으려 했습니다. 이것으로 인해 UNESCO에서 다시 습지보존지역 지정 얘기가 나올까봐, 그래서 주민들에게 다시 피해가 갈 까봐 걱정이 되었지요.
168 M: 민통선 지역의 생태보존계획에 대한 주민들의 관심과 의견은 어떻습니까?
A: 정부차원에서 지역주민들에 대한 관심이 부족한 것 같다. 여러 환경단체나 토론회, 포럼 등을 통해 이 지역의 생태계 보존문제는 계속 거론되고 있는데 우리 차원에서는 그게 정말 중요한 것이 아닙니다. 물론 생태계 보존이라는 원칙에는 동의하지만 우리의 삶이 정부차원의 규제에 더욱 묶이게 된다는 것입니다. 정부차원에서는 우리의 마음을 이해하지 못합니다. 피해 상황 이런거 모르고 추진합니다.
D: 환경이라고 하는 문제도 결국 주민들에겐 돈이 왔다 갔다 하는 문제가 될 수 있습니다. 얼마전 문화재청장을 비롯, 여러 공무원 인사들과 궁예도성 복원 문제로 DMZ에 함께 들어간 적이 있습니다. 과거 철원은 태봉으로 우리나라 수도였지요. 그러나, 이런 사업들로 인해 지역주민들에게 피해가 가는 일이 있어서는 안될 것입니다. 최근 이슈가 되고 있는 토교저수지도 생태계 보존과 관련해 현재 녹색협약이 추진되고 있는데, 그 과정에서 주민들을 배제한 협약이 되어서는 안될 것입니다. 다시말해 우리지역의 생태보존계획시 주민을 우선 배려하지 않은 생태보존이라든가 주민을 우선시 하지 않은 개발은 결코 바람직하지 않다고 봅니다.
B: 우리나라는 행정에 문제가 많다. 특정 지역을 습지보존지역으로 지정하겠다고 하면 수차례 나와서 실제 보존 가치가 있는지 충분히 현지조사도 나오고 해야 할 텐데, 그런 것 없이 일단 책상에 앉아서 지도만 보고 선을 그어 버립니다. 이는 가장 큰 문제라고 생각합니다.
M: 좋은 지적입니다. 그러나 실제 보존가치가 있는 것인지 판단한다는 것은 전문가들에게 그리 쉬운 일이 아닙니다. 하지만, 실제로 수차례 답사를 나와 주민들의 의견을 수렴하는 등 다각적으로 연구하는 노력은 앞으로도 꼭 필요하다고 생각합니다.
C: 연구자께서 실제로 이곳에 살게 된다고 가정했을 때 보존과 개발에 대한 냉정한 손익계산을 해 볼 필요가 있다고 봅니다. 지금껏 외부에서 많은 학자들이 이곳을 방문해서 선물도 주고 연구도 하고 갔지만 그들은 가고 나면 끝이었습니다. 그들이 왔을 때 주민들이 보존구역 지정에 반발하면 그냥 가버리기도 합니다. 보존은 크게 얘기할 것 없습니다. 지금껏 주민들 스스로도 잘 해왔다고 생각합니다. 이제 중요한 것은 지역주민들의 소득을 어떻게 증대시킬 것인가가 성공적인 생태보존과 직결된다고 봅니다.
D: 환경보존 또는 개발문제에 있어 가장 중요한 것은 현재 거주하는 사람들에 대한 배려라고 생각합니다.
M: 지금 현재 이 지역의 규제상황은 어떻습니까?
C: 민통선이라 엄격한 규제로 묶여 있습니다. 아무것도 못합니다. 논옆에 움막하나 짓지 못하는 현실이지요.
169 A: 우리들은 73년도부터 이렇게 살아왔습니다. 이런 고충 외지인들은 이해하지 못합니다.
B: 주변환경이나 생태보존 등은 우선 그 지역 주민들한테 맡겨야 한다고 봅니다. 또, 멧돼지나 고라니 등 주민들에게 피해를 주는 종들은 개체수가 얼마나 되는지 전문가들이 좀 조사할 필요가 있다고 봅니다. 피해를 줄이는 차원에서라도 주기적으로 개체수 조절이 필요하다고 생각합니다. 그러나 지금은 대책없이 야생동물들에겐 손도 못대게 하지요. 모두가 공존할 수 있도록 해야 하는데 농민들만 피해를 보고 있습니다.
M: 멧돼지나 고라니의 개체가 예전에 비해 많이 증가했다고 보십니까?
F: 아마 3-400마리 정도? 아무튼 상당히 많이 증가했습니다.
B: 그렇게 개체수가 증가한 것도 꽤 된 것 같습니다. 언제부터인지는 정확히 모르겠지만. 그저 정부 정책이 한심할 뿐입니다.
A: 아마도 정부에서 환경에 대한 규제를 강화시키면서 그렇게 된 것 같습니다.
B: 참고로 여담삼아 이야기하면, 인근 화지리 마을에 최종기라는 사람이 있었습니다. 지금 나이가 한 이른 대여섯 되었을텐데 옛날 이북서 이곳으로 넘어와 머슴살이를 하며 돈받는데로 땅을 사 한 6만평 정도 되는 논을 소유하게 되었다는군요. 그분이 그 땅 논둑에 콩을 심으니 140가마가 나왔다고 합니다. 아들이 차를 사달라고 하니 그 콩을 팔아서 차를 사줬다는 얘기가 있습니다. 지금 이곳은 콩 심을 생각조차 못하지만.
A: 저도 논이 약 2천평 정도 있는데 거기도 논둑을 따라 콩을 꽤 심을 수 있지만 야생동물들 때문에 그렇게 하지 못합니다. 그냥 아무것도 못하고 방치할 뿐이지요.
B: 산토끼, 노루하고 멧돼지하고 같이 어울려 살면 좋지만, 이게 너무 강력한 규제만 하다보니 농민들한테는 오히려 천적이 될 수 있습니다.
M: 이곳의 우수한 생태환경이나 야생동물들이 주민들의 삶에 득이 되는 경우는 있는지요?
C: 간단히 말해 이곳은 먹이사슬 체계가 가장 잘 되어 있는 곳입니다. 사람들이 못 들어가는 곳이 많으니까요.
D: 환경이 살아있다는 이미지로 인해 철원 오대쌀이 전국적으로 높은 가치를 인정받고 있습니다. 환경이 살아있음으로 인해 피해와 이득이 공존하고 있는 셈이지요.
B: 그러나 청정한 환경이라는 이미지외에는 실제로는 큰 이득이 없는 것 같습니다. 군사보호구역이라 활동에도 크게 제한을 받는데 가령, 폭죽같은 것은 하지도 못합니다. 했다 하면 군에서 총들고 달려 옵니다. 또, 이곳의 경제적 수익이 물가 수준을 따라가지 못합니다. 특별법이라도 만들어서 쌀을 잘 수매할 수 있도록 정부에서 적극 지원해야 합니다. 그것이
170 중요합니다. 모두가 개발을 걱정하는데 여기서 우리는 농사밖에 할 게 없습니다. 주민들을 지원할 수 있는 시스템이 안되어 있습니다.
M: 다른 주변지역보다 왜 이 지역에 유독 많은 두루미가 찾아 온다고 보십니까?
B: 우리 부락에 두루미보호협회가 만들어져 두루미보호에 우리 주민들이 오히려 적극적으로 참여하고 있습니다. 학자들도 많이 찾아 오고 있구요. 그들에 의하면 두루미가 주로 많이 모이는 지역이 가까운 DMZ 이내에 있는 지역이라고 합니다. 이놈들이 낮에 먹으러 우리 마을에 왔다가 밤에 거기서 쉬는데 아마도 사람들이 접근을 못하는 지역이라 안전하다고 여기는 모양입니다.
B: 사실 우리나라에 이 지역 두루미 때문에 박사된 사람들도 여럿 있습니다.
C: 문제는 우리에겐 별로 득이 되지 않았다는 것입니다. 그 사람들만 연구하고 득보고 또 관광업자들만 와서 돈벌어 가고 있는 실정입니다. 우리 마을에 와서 밥 한끼 사먹은 사람 없지요. 모두 그럴싸하게 이야기는 하지만 가고 나면 그만입니다. 우리가 바라는 것은 두루미가 먹는 먹이라도 우리마을에서 구입해 달라는 것입니다. 작은 것입니다. 수입산 곡식 사다가 뿌리지 말고. 그러면 최소한 쌀 적체되는 일은 없을 것 아닙니까?
M: 쌀 적체가 많이 되고 있습니까?
C: 많이 적체됩니다. 우리마을은 두루미 덕분에 그래도 좀 덜하지만. 실제로 다른 마을은 적체되는 곳 많습니다. 우리마을은 그나마 사정이 나은 편이지요.
M: 이 지역에서 생태적 가치가 높은 지역이 어디라고 생각하십니까?
C: 샘통지역이라고 있는데 이곳은 사계절 물이 얼지 않은 지역으로 옛부터 이 지역에 아주 많이 분포되어 왔습니다. 지금은 그 지역이 조금 축소되었지만 이 샘통이 제공하는 맑은 물이 겨울철 두루미의 서식에 큰 도움이 되는 것 같습니다. 또, 이 지역이 민통선내에 있어 순천이나 서산등 우리나라 다른 지역에 비해 안전한 곳이라 두루미들이 꾸준히 이곳으로 모여드는 것 같습니다. 사람의 왕래가 적다보니 종족번식도 이곳이 더 잘되는 것 같구요. 그러나 최근에는 철새탐조 관광사업이 시작되어 매년 겨울 수천명의 외지 사람들 자꾸 와서 괴롭히다 보니 다른 지역으로 가는 녀석들도 있는 것 같습니다. 지역의 생태환경 보존은 우선 농민들을 설득하고 살 길도 만들어 주어야 합니다. 땅을 전부 매입해서 무상으로 대여해 주던지 아니면 돈으로 보상하든지 말입니다.
M: 이에대해 다른 분들은 의견이 없으신지요?
171 A: 일단은 정부에서 생태계 보전을 위해 환경보전지역을 지정한다면 그 지역 주민들한테 보상이 따라주어야지 막무가내로 하면 안됩니다. 주민들한테 보상없이, 혹은 생활에 큰 도움없이 자기들 마음대로 생태계 보존지역 지정만 하면 안됩니다.
B: 판단하건데 철원군도 이런 식으로 미지근하게 나가다 보면 머지않아 두루미고 뭐고 다 뺏기고 말 수도 있습니다.
M: 만약 이 지역에 두루미가 더 이상 날아오지 않는다면 이 마을에 어떤 영향을 미치리라 생각하십니까?
C: 농민들한테는 큰 손해는 없습니다.
D: 아닙니다. 모르는 소리입니다. 엄청난 실이 옵니다.
C: 솔직히 말하면 그런 예기치 못한 일이 발생했을 때 용역받아서 환경생태 연구하는 사람들, 마을에 득되는 것 전혀 없는 그들이 살판나게 될 것으로 봅니다. 어느날 갑자기 천재지변이 아닌 이상 그럴 일이 발생할 일도 없고.
D: 아닙니다. 만약 두루미가 더 이상 날아오지 않는다면 분명 우리에게도 문제가 발생합니다.
B: 당신 그렇게 따지면 안됩니다. 지금 이곳과 불과 얼마 떨어지지 연천에 만약 여기 날아오던 800마리 두루미중 300마리가 그곳으로 떠난다면 이곳과 그곳 농민들에게 각각 큰 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다.
C: 거기선 도차원에서 두루미를 경제적 가치로 끌어들이려고 하고 있습니다. 충남 당진의 경우 철새가 날아드는데 어느날 두루미가 몇마리 나타나자 군조가 다른 새였는데도 불구하고 재작년부터 군조로 두루미로 바꿔 버렸습니다. 연천도 한때 그 바람이 일었는데 중요한 것은 두루미를 어떻게 경제적 가치로 잘 활용하느냐에 달려 있습니다.
D: 여기 철원군은 90% 이상이 미작지대라 청정한 환경과 이미지의 타격은 농산물 가치에 결정적인 피해를 가져올 수 있습니다. 만약 청정한 환경의 상징인 두루미가 이곳에서 없어진다면 환경문제와 관련되기 때문에 우리 농산물의 품질도 큰 영향을 받게 된다고 봅니다.
B: 그렇습니다. 두루미가 없어지면 직격탄을 받는다고 볼수 있지요.
F: 맞습니다. 우리 농민들도 분명 피해를 받을 것입니다.
D: 이곳의 환경생태 보존은 지역 주민들의 부가가치를 올리는 것과 직결되는 문제입니다. 토교 저수지의 경우 보존을 위해 철원군이 환경단체와 함께 녹색협약을 맺었는데 이에 우리는 불만이 많습니다. 철원군은 토교저수지에 유입된 외래어종인 블루길과 배스를
172 퇴치하려는 목적으로 전국 낚시 대회를 열어 자기네 수익을 올리려 합니다. 우리 마을의 생태환경 자산을 자기네들이 손아귀에 놓고 마음대로 하려 합니다. 우린 이에 가만있지 않을 것입니다. 분명 그 지역 생태환경 보전에 따른 부가가치는 지역 주민들에게 돌아와야 한다고 생각합니다. 결코 지역 주민을 배제해서는 안된다고 봅니다.
M: 지금까지 정부의 생태환경 보전계획이나 정책과정에서 주민들이 역할은 어떠했습니까?
D: 정부가 먼저 독자적으로 계획이나 정책을 수립해 시도하고 주민들이 이에 반발하면 다시 물러서는 일들이 반복되어 왔습니다.
B: 민통선이라는 곳의 가장 큰 핸티캡은 군수나 도지사가 뭘 하려고 해도, 우선 군의 허가가 나지 않으면 절대로 일이 안된다는 것입니다. 마을 진입구에 도로 하나 포장하려 해도 장비 이용허가를 사단에서 해주지 않으면 공사할 방법이 없지요. 군부를 움직이는 것이 그렇게 힘이 듭니다. 지금 환경 단체에서 주장하는 토교저수지 생태보존 문제도 그렇습니다. 토교저수지가 발원지라 블루길, 베스가 한탄강, 연천 등으로 계속 흘러내려 가며 고유 생태계를 파괴하는데 군에서 민통선 구역에 포함된 이 토교저수지에 접근을 허용하지 않아 문제가 더욱 어렵게 되고 있습니다. 하류에서 아무리 블루길, 베스를 퇴치해도 여기 발원지에서 문제가 해결되지 않으면 근본적으로 해결되지 않습니다.
C: 환경생태 보전정책이 실질적으로 마을 주민 모두에게 득이 되지 않으면 안됩니다. 우리 마을에서 한 가구라도 엄격해진 환경규제로 인해 살기가 어려워 이사를 가게 된다면 또, 그런 주민들이 점점 늘어난다면 마을 전체에는 큰 문제가 될 것입니다.
M: 이 지역의 효과적 환경생태 보존을 위해 가장 중요한 문제는 무엇이라고 생각합니까?
A: 농작물에 대한 야생동물 피해를 줄이는 문제입니다.
D: 전세계적으로 DMZ라고 하는 것은 우리나라 밖에 없습니다. 이 DMZ 생태보존을 놓고 국제적 관심이 높아지고 있으며 이 곳의 훌륭한 생태계가 많이 알려져 도시민들이 여기 들어가고 싶어하는 욕구가 커지고 있습니다. 이 곳 농민들이 쌀 생산만으로는 생활에 한계가 있기에 농촌 관광 프로그램 등을 활성화해야 할 필요가 있다고 생각합니다.
B: 이곳 민통선이 군사보호지역으로 묶여 활동에 큰 제한을 받고 있기 때문에 그저 주민들이 농사만 잘 짓도록 놔두면 자연히 생태보존은 잘 될 것입니다. 이 곳엔 아직도 토끼, 노루, 멧돼지 등 별난 놈들이 다 잘 살고 있는데 습지보전 지역으로 특별히 지정할 필요가 있는지 모르겠습니다.
A: 생태보전 계획은 원칙적으로 지역 주민들이 잘 살 수 있도록 함께 고민해야 하는데 많은 학자들이 와서 논문만 쓰고 가면 끝입니다. 습지구역으로 묶는다 하면 일단은 지역주민을 생각하고 그들한테 실질적인 혜택, 이익이 돌아가도록 우선 배려해야 하는데 그게 아니니
173 무조건 반대할 수 밖에 없는 것입니다. 환경에 대한 규제가 심해질수록 곡식에 대한 피해도 늘어나고, 작물의 재배에도 한계를 받게 되며 부쩍 증가한 야생동물도 애를 먹이고 있습니다. 군부 허락없이 마음대로 움직일수 없고. 우리는 규제속에서만 살아온 셈이지요.
F: 심지어 고구마도 못심습니다.
A: 야생동물들이 좋아하는 곡식이 있습니다. 특히 고구마, 감자, 마 등은 심지도 못하지요. 들에 나가면 고라니, 꿩 때문에 콩을 못 심습니다. 심었다가는 남아나는게 없지요.
C: 농작물에 대한 피해를 줄이기 위해서라도 일부 야생동물의 경우는 지역주민들이 제한적으로나마 포획하도록 허락해 줄 필요가 있다고 봅니다.
M: 이곳은 각종 언론 매체를 통해 두루미 등 겨울 철새 관광지로 이름이 나 있는데 이는 지역 주민들에게 어떤 이득을 가져오는지요?
B: 이곳 철원 관광은 민통선이라는 엄격한 환경으로 인해 프로그램과 코스가 매우 단조롭습니다. 자연스럽게 와서 관광을 해야 하는데 관광 출입시간이 엄격히 제한되어 있고 차량은 대수에 관계없이 정해진 시간에 한꺼번에 일률적으로 들어와야 경향이 있습니다. 그들의 관광루트도 엄격히 정해져 있고 실질적으로 우리는 하는 일은 그들이 남긴 쓰레기 청소밖에 없습니다.
C: 사실 그나마 그런 엄격한 통제 때문에 철새 개체수가 유지된다고 봅니다. 장단점이 있다는 얘기지요. 그러나 이곳 양지리만 놓고 볼 때 사람들이 한 두시간만 이라도 마을에 자유로이 머물며 철새구경 할 수 있도록 허용할 필요가 있다고 봅니다.
M: 계획가들이 지역의 보존가치, 그리고 대상지의 보존가치를 따지게 되는데 주민들의 입장에서는 지역의 가치를 어떻게 보시는지요?
B: 주변에 있는 한탄강도 민통선에 인접해 있으며 레프팅 하러 사람들이 종종 찾아오곤 합니다. 그러나 이곳 주민들이 가서 레프팅 즐기는 일은 없습니다. 차라리 개발 안되는게 낫지요. 이러다 보면 나중에는 한탄강에 고기보다 사람들 더 많아 질 것입니다. 그렇게 되면 안된다고 봅니다. 규제도 필요하다고 생각합니다.
M: 이 지역에서 생태적 환경이외에 전통적으로 문화적 가치가 있는 지역이나 자산이 있습니까?
B: 우리 마을에는 그런 건 없습니다. 인근 대바리 마을 주변에는 얼음창고, 일제시대 은행 터가 남아 있습니다.
174 C: 옛날에 임금의 거주지였던 황궁터가 우리 마을 인근 DMZ내에 있습니다. 이 지역이 1천여년 전에는 우리나라 수도였으며 많은 양반들이 살았던 곳으로 역사적으로도 유서가 깊은 곳이지요. 그러나 DMZ내에 있어 우리 자산임에도 불구하고 복원하거나 할 수 없습니다. 무엇보다 이곳 주민들은 갈수록 살기가 힘들어지고 있는 것이 현실입니다. 내년에 얼마나 쌀이 팔릴지가 당장 걱정입니다. 이곳에서 만든 펜션도 관광사업으로 큰 돈벌자고 하는 것 아니라 마을을 알려서 도시민들에게 제대로 쌀값을 받고 팔자는 것입니다. 직거래를 활성화하고. 그 정도에 대한 특혜가 민통선 지역 주민들에게 적극 지원되어야 한다고 봅니다.
M: 철원지역의 생물종과 생물 다양성의 현황에 대해 주민들은 어떻게 느끼고 있습니까?
C: 산토끼, 개구리부터 독수리. 삵, 곰까지 이르기까지 매우 다양하게 분포하고 있습니다. 2006년 국제포럼에서 학자들도 이에 대해 발표했습니다. 곰은 철책에 상관없이 DMZ 안팎을 드나들고 있는데 곰이 산다는 것은 먹이사슬이 잘 유지된다는 증거이지요. 또, 못 들어가는 지역이 많기 때문에 먹이류가 다양하고 따라서 맹금류도 많이 서식합니다. 새 종류만 해도 400종이 넘는다고 들었습니다. 단일 마을 치고는 이처럼 다양한 종이 있는 곳이 드물다고 생각합니다. 멸종위기종도 가장 많고. 이곳의 자산가치를 띄워야 필요가 있는데 아직 본격적으로 그러지 못하고 있습니다. 단지 노력의 일환으로 이곳에선 청정한 환경을 유지하기 위해 친환경 농업을 지향하고 있으며 지금은 농약치는 가구도 급격히 줄었습니다.
M: 이 지역에선 농약을 전혀 사용하지 않는지요?
B: 그건 아닙니다. 그러나 농약치는 가구가 청정한 환경에 대한 인식이 확대되면서 예전에 비해 1/5로 줄었습니다. 여기가 5-6년 전부터 강원도 최초로 친환경농업이 시작된 곳이지요. 물이 살아 있다는 서울대의 연구보고가 알려지면서 그런 노력이 본격화되었습니다. 토교저수지만 해도 물이 깨끗해 고기반 물반입니다. 그 곳에 붕어 5kg 짜리가 있다면 믿으시겠습이까?
C: 무엇보다 지금 생산하는 쌀만 제값으로 모두 판매가 된다면 우리가 무엇을 걱정하겠습니까? 그러한 시스템이 되어 있지 않아 문제이지요. 농민들이 살아야만 환경이 살 수 있습니다.
M: 예전에 UNESCO 와 정부가 공동으로 습지보전지역으로 선정하려 했다가 큰 반발에 부딪힌 적이 있었다고 들었습니다.
B: 사실 문제는 이전부터 있었지요. 예전에 문화재청이 사계절 따뜻한 천연 온천수가 나오는 샘통 주변지역을 중요한 천연기념물로 판단하고 보존지역으로 지정한 일이 있었습니다. 그 당시 제대로 실사조사도 하지 않고 책상에서만 보존지역을 설정해 엉뚱한 지역이 지정되는 바람에 농민들이 농사활동을 하는데 큰 규제를 받았습니다. 가뜩이나 그 문제로 인해 곤란을 겪고 있는 상태에서 정부가 또, 습지지역으로 지정하겠다고 하니 반발할 수 밖에 없었던
175 것입니다. 만약 문화재청에서 그 일을 제대로 처리했더라면 주민들도 그만큼 반발하지는 않았을 것입니다. 습지보전지역으로 묶던지 뭘 하든지 간에 주민들에게 충분히 제대로 알리고 이해하도록 설득해서 함께 진행해오지 않았습니다. 1차적으로 정부에서 다 정해놓고 와서 이 지역이다 하고 규제하려고만 더 이상 주민들이 신뢰하지 못하는 것입니다.
M: 이 지역의 환경생태 보전을 위해 노력하는 공무원, 환경단체, 학계 전문가들에 대한 주민들의 시각은 어떻습니까? 그들을 주민들에 관해 무엇을 이해하고 이해하지 못하는 것 같습니까? 당신들의 생각은 그들과 생각과 어떻게 다르다고 판단합니까?
A: 실제로 그동안 많은 분들이 와서 연구하고 조사하고 갔고, 우리도 그 때마다 큰 기대를 갖고 우리가 생각하고 원하는 것들을 말하며 도움을 주려 했습니다. 그러나 막상 여기를 떠나면 끝입니다.
B: 그동안 여러 박사님들이 환경생태보존 문제로 이곳을 찾아왔고 이에 우리가 생각하는 철원의 발전 방향을 나름대로 열심히 이야기하기도 했습니다. 또 실질적으로 그들이 우리 주민들의 입장을 환경부에 직접 제안하겠다고 얘기하기도 했고. 그러나 지금까지 정책에 반영되는 것 하나도 없었습니다. 연구자님이 이 분야에 이왕 학자로서 더욱 매진해서 연구할 것 같으면 농촌과 환경을 함께 살리기 위한 방안 마련을 꼭 좀 도와주시면 좋겠습니다.
A: 한가지 당부하고 싶은 것은 이번 토론결과가 연구에 어떻게 반영되고 성과가 나오는지 우리 주민들에게도 알려주었으면 좋겠습니다. 우리도 알고 싶습니다. 모두들 와서 연구하고 이야기하고만 갔지 우리에게 돌아오는 이들이 없습니다.
M: 그렇게 약속하겠습니다. 꼭 이 마을에 찾아와 여러분들에게 그 성과를 알려 드리겠습니다.
C: 그동안 정부에서도 부처별로 찾아와 각각 다른 플랜과 제안을 갖고 와서 주민들을 혼란스럽게 합니다. 환경부는 환경부대로 어디를 묶어야 한다고 주장하고, 관광부는 관광사업에만 치중하며 군부는 군부대로 자기네들의 입장을 주장합니다. 어떤 사업을 한다면 좀 통합적인 차원에서 계획이 이루어져야 할 텐데 모두가 각각의 관심만 갖고 와서 논합니다. 또, 그들은 항상 마을대표를 배제해 왔습니다. 실제로 주민들의 입장을 배려하지 않고 무시하는 경향이 있지요. 지금 이 자리처럼 주민들과 함께 공동으로 토의를 한적도 없습니다. 우리가 쉽게 알아듣게 설명이 필요하고 주민들과 보다 많은 대화가 필요하다고 생각합니다.
A: 각 부처마다 다른 입장과 방향 주민들에겐 혼란스러운 건 사실입니다. 학계에서 보다 적극적으로 연구해서 이러한 문제를 정부에 제안했으면 좋겠습니다.
M: 이제 정해진 시간이 다 되어 토론회를 마무리 하고자 합니다. 농사일로 바쁘신데 불구하고 오늘 이렇게 참여해 좋은 말씀 많이 주셔서 대단히 감사드립니다.
176 Appendix E. Species Occurrence Point Data
IUCN Taxonomy English name Korean name Scientific name Class Red List
1 Insect 애기뿔소똥구리 Copris tripartitus II
2 Insect 소똥구리 Gymnopleurus mopsus Pallas II
3 Insect 왕은점표범나비 Fabriciana nerippe C. & R. Felder II
4 Insect 붉은점모시나비 Parnassius bremeri Bremer II
5 Insect 울도하늘소 Psacothea hilaris Pascoe II
6 Insect 고려집게벌레 Challia fletcheri Burr II
7 insect 깊은산부전나비 Protantigius superans II
8 insect 쌍꼬리부전나비 Spindasis takanosis II
9 insect 산굴뚝나비 Eumenis autonoe I
10 insect 꼬마잠자리 Nannophya Pigmaea Ramber II
11 insect 물장군 Lethocerus deyrollei (Vuillefory) II
12 insect 두점박이사슴벌레 Prosopocoilus blanchardi I
177 13 mammal Leopard Cat 삵 Prionailurus bengalensis II LC
14 mammal Gray Wolf 늑대 Canis lupus I LC
15 mammal Leopard 표범 Panthera pardus I LC
16 mammal Sika Deer 대륙사슴 Cervus nippon I LC
17 mammal Common Otter 수달 Lutra lutra I NT
18 mammal Asiatic Black Bear 반달가슴곰 Ursus thibetanus I VU
Yellow-throated 19 mammal 담비 Martes flavigula II LC Marten
20 mammal Chinese Goral 산양 Naemorhedus caudatus I VU
Siberian Flying 21 mammal 하늘다람쥐 Pteromys volans II NT Squirrel
22 mammal Siberian Musk Deer 사향노루 Moschus moschiferus I VU
23 mammal Weasel 무산흰족제비 Mustela nivalis II LC
24 bird Black Woodpecker 가막딱다구리 Dryocopus martius II LC
25 bird Common Buzzard 말똥가리 Buteo buteo II LC
26 bird Upland Buzzard 큰말똥가리 Buteo hemilasius II LC
178 27 bird Eurasian Hobby 새홀리기 Falco subbuteo II LC
28 bird Northern Harrier 잿빛개구리매 Circus cyaneus II LC
29 bird Eurasian Eagle-owl 수리부엉이 Bubo bubo kiautschensis II LC
30 bird Whooper Swan 큰고니 Cygnus cygnus II LC
31 bird Tawny Owl 올빼미 Strix aluco II LC
32 bird Tundra Swan 고니 Cygnus columbianus II LC
Japanese 33 bird 조롱이 Accipiter gularis II LC Sparrowhawk
34 bird Schrenck’ s Bittern 큰덤불해오라기 Ixobrychus eurhythmus II LC
Japanese Paradise- 35 bird 삼광조 Trepsiphone atrocaudata II NT flycatcher
Oriental Honey- 36 bird 벌매 Pernis ptilorhyncus II LC buzzard
Eurasian 37 bird 검은머리물떼새 Haematopus ostralegus II LC Oystercatcher
38 bird Bean Goose 큰기러기 Anser fabalis II LC
179 39 bird Black-eared Kite 솔개 Milvus lineatus II LC
40 bird Ural Owl 긴점박이올빼미 Strix uralensis II LC
41 bird Saunders’ s Gull 검은머리갈매기 Larus saundersi II VU
42 bird Far Eastern Curlew 알락꼬리마도요 Numenius madagascariensis II LC
43 bird Watercock 뜸부기 Gallicrex cinerea II LC
44 bird Pied Harrier 알락개구리매 Circus melanoleucos II LC
45 bird Long-billed Plover 흰목물떼새 Charadrius placidus II LC
46 bird Baikal Teal 가창오리 Anas formosa II VU
47 bird Northern Goshawk 참매 Accipiter gentilis II LC
48 bird Rough-Legged Hawk 털발말똥가리 Buteo lagopus II LC
Western Marsh- 49 bird 개구리매 Circus aeruginosus II LC Harrier
50 bird White-naped Crane 재두루미 Grus vipio II VU
51 bird Swan Goose 개리 Anser cygnoides II EN
52 bird Common Crane 검은목두루미 Grus grus II LC
53 bird Osprey 물수리 Pandion haliaetus II LC
180 54 bird Cinereous Vulture 독수리 Aegypius monachus II NT
55 bird Fairy Pitta 팔색조 Pitta nympha II VU
56 bird Crested Lark 뿔종다리 Galerida cristata II LC
57 bird Hooded Crane 흑두루미 Grus monacha II VU
58 bird Japanese Night-heron 붉은해오라기 Gorsachius goisagi II EN
59 bird Amur Falcon 비둘기조롱이 Falco amurensis II LC
60 bird Merlin 쇠황조롱이 Falco columbarius II LC
61 bird Brent Goose 흑기러기 Branta bernicla II LC
62 bird Chinese Egret 노랑부리백로 Egretta eulophotes I VU
63 bird White-tailed Eagle 흰꼬리수리 Haliaeetus albicilla I LC
64 bird Peregrine Falcon 매 Falco peregrinus I LC
65 bird Red-crowned Crane 두루미 Grus japonensis I EN
66 bird Eurasian Spoonbill 노랑부리저어새 Platalea leucorodia I LC
67 bird Black-faced Spoonbill 저어새 Platalea minor I EN
68 bird Golden Eagle 검독수리 Aquila chrysaetos I LC
181 69 bird Mute Swan 혹고니 Cygnus olor I LC
70 bird Spotted Greenshank 청다리도요사촌 Tringa guttifer I EN
Spoon-billed 71 bird 넓적부리도요 Eurynorhynchus pygmeus I EN Sandpiper
72 amphibian Boreal Digging Frog 맹꽁이 Kaloula borealis II LC
73 amphibian 금개구리 Rana plancyi II
74 amphibian 남생이 Chenemys reevesii II
75 reptile 표범장지뱀 Eremias argus II
76 reptile 비바리뱀 Sibynophis collaris II
77 reptile 구렁이 Elaphe schrenckii I
78 plant 자주솜대 Smilacina bicolor Nakai II
Hylotelephium ussuriense D. Leem, 79 plant 둥근잎꿩의비름 II sp. nov.
Berchemia 80 plant 망개나무 II berchemiaefolia Koidzumi
81 plant 노랑무늬붓꽃 Iris odaesanensis Y. Lee II
182 82 plant 히어리 Corylopsis gotoana var. coreana II
83 plant 세뿔투구꽃 Aconitum austrokoreense Koidz. II
84 plant 대흥란 Cymbidium nipponicum Makino II
85 plant 한계령풀 Leontice microrhyncha S. Moore II
86 plant 가시연꽃 Eurgale ferox Salisbury II
87 plant 깽깽이풀 Jeffersonia dubia Benth II
88 plant 대청부채 Iris dichotoma Pallas II
89 plant Chinese Peony 산작약 Paeonia obovata Maxim. II
Leontopodium coreanum 90 plant 솜다리 II Nakai Nakai
91 plant 애기등 Millettia japonica A.Gray II
92 plant Cernuous Lily 솔나리 Lilium cernuum Komarov II
93 plant 매화마름 Ranunculus kazusensis Makino II
94 plant 노랑붓꽃 Iris odaesanensis II
95 plant 황기 Astragalus membranaceus II
96 plant 연잎꿩의다리 Thalictrum coreanum Lev. II
183 Trientalis europaea var. 97 plant 기생꽃 II arctica Linaeus
98 plant 지네발란 Sarcanthus scolopendrifolius Maki II
99 plant 황근 Hibiscus hamabo Zucc II
Lycoris chinenisis var. 100 plant 진노랑상사화 II sinuolata Traub, K. Tae et S. Ko
101 plant 왕제비꽃 Viola websteri Hemsl. II
102 plant 개느삼 Echinosophora koreensis II
103 plant 으름난초 Galeola septentrionalis Reichb. fil. II
104 plant 나도승마 Kirengeshoma koreana Nakai II
Drosera peltata var. 105 plant 끈끈이귀개 II nipponica nipponica (Masam.) Ohwi
106 plant 섬현삼 Scrophularia takesimensis Nakai II
107 plant 섬시호 Bupleurum latissimum Nakai II
108 plant 미선나무 Abeliophyllum distichum Nakai II
109 plant 광릉요강꽃 Cypripedium japonicum I
184 110 plant 큰연령초 Trillium tschonoskii Maxim II
111 plant 섬개야광나무 Cotoneaster wilsonii I
112 invertebrate 두드럭조개 Lamprotula coreana I
113 invertebrate 귀이빨대칭이 Cristaria plicata I
114 fish Alpine Bullhead 둑중개 Cottus poecilopus II
Far Eastern Brook 115 fish 다묵장어 Lampetra reissneri Dybowski II Lamprey
116 fish Korean Bittering 묵납자루 Acheilognathus signifer Berg II
117 fish Short-barbel Gudgeon 돌상어 Gobiobotia brevibarba Mori II
Pseudopungtungia tenuicorpus Jeon 118 fish Slender Shiner 가는돌고기 II & Choi
Chinese Nine-spined 119 fish 가시고기 Pungitius sinensis Guichenot II Stickleback
Short Nine-spined 120 fish 잔가시고기 Pungitius kaibarae Tanaka II Stickleback
121 fish 칠성장어 Lampetra japonica (Martens) II
185 122 fish Tumen River Sculpin 한둑중개 Cottus hangiongensis Mori II
123 fish Big-headed Gudgeon 꾸구리 Gobiobotia macrocephala Mori II
124 fish Nakdong Gudgeon 흰수마자 Gobiobotia naktongensis Mori II
Liobagrus obesus (SON, KIM and 125 fish 퉁사리 I CHOO)
126 fish Black Shiner 감돌고기 Pseudopungtungia nigra Mori I
Korean Stumpy 127 fish 꼬치동자개 Pseudobagrus brevicorpus Mori I Bullhead
128 fish Gudgeon 모래주사 Microphysogobio koreensis Mori II
129 fish Choi’ s Spiny Loach 미호종개 Iksookimia choii I
130 fish Seomjin Bittering 임실납자루 Acheilognathus somjinensis II
131 fish 얼룩새코미꾸리 Koreocobitis naktongensis I
186 Appendix F. Calculation of the Expected Representation of Each Species
The following notation is required to explain how the expected representation of each species in each site at the km resolution was calculated from the probability of occurrence of each species in each site at the km resolution. Here, denotes the cardinality of a set, and does a non-negative real number. represents the expectation operator. An expectation operator must satisfy the four following axioms (Whittle, 2000):
. (A1.1)
If is a constant, then . (A1.2)
. (A1.3)
. (A1.4)
There is a fifth axiom, which is a continuity requirement, a weak form of which can be derived from the other four axioms. For this reason, the continuity axiom will not be discussed any further here. In order to derive an expectation operatory satisfying (A1.1)- (A1.4), the following notation is required:
Sets
, species in the CCZ and DMZ with accurate Maxent models.
, sites in the CCZ and DMZ at the km resolution.
, sites in the CCZ and DMZ at the km resolution. Each site contains four sites . Hence . 187 , explanatory variables measured on each site at the km resolution. .
Data Parameters
, the probability of occurrence of species at site according to Maxent. .
Random Data
, the value of explanatory variable at site . .
, the representation of species at site . .
In the present analysis, and are treated as random variables. It is assumed that the probability distribution functions of and are not known. The present analysis treats the remote-sensed observation of explanatory variable measured on site as an estimator of . The estimator will be referred to as . Before proceeding, the probability of occurrence of each species in each site, , needs to be normalized as follows. Let , , . Now define . The
’s have the property that . and are used to define the expected representation of species at site as follows:
(A1.5)
It must now be shown that satisfies axioms (A1.1)-(A1.4).
188 Theorem. satisfies the four axioms of an expectation operator.
Proof. The first step is to demonstrate that satisfies (A1.1). If , then
since . Next, it will be shown that satisfies (A1.2). , as desired. The third step is to prove that satisfies (A1.3). Consider two species, and in site .
, as required by (A1.3). Last, it will be shown that satisfies (A1.4).
.
189 Appendix G. Prioritization of Conservation Areas using Expectations
The species’ expectations calculated in Appendix E constitute the input for an optimization model used to select conservation areas in the CCZ and the DMZ at the km resolution. To illustrate this model, in addition to the notation of Appendix E, the following further notation is required:
Data Parameters
, area of site in .
, target for species . .
, land budget. .
Decision variables
, 1 if site is selected. 0 otherwise. .
, 1 if species is represented at or above its target in the selected sites. .
Formulation
(A6) s.t. (A7)
(A8)
(A9)
(A10)
190 References
Ackery, P. and Vane-Wright, R. (1984). Milkweed butterflies, their cladistics and biology. Being an account of the natural history of the Danainae, a subfamily of the Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae. London, British Museum (Natural History).
Ahern, J., Leduc, E., and York, M. (2006). Biodiversity planning and design. Washington D.C., Island Press.
Alessa, L., Bennett, S., and Kliskey, A. (2003). “Effort of knowledge, personal attribution and perception of ecosystem health on depreciative behaviors in the intertidal zone of Pacific Rim National Park and Reserve.” Journal of Environmental Management 68: 207-218.
American Planning Association (1992). Ethical principles in planning. Washington D.C., APA.
Arthur, J., Camm, J., Haight, R., Montgomery, C., and Polasky, S. (2004). “Weighting conservation objectives: maximum expected coverage versus endangered species protection.” Ecological Applications 14: 1936-1945.
AScribe (2005). Convention on biological diversity: Lowered biodiversity a threat to humans. AScribe Newswire. Retrieved July 17, 2007 from http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/
Auld, G., Diker, A., Bock, A., Boushey, C., Bruhn, C., Cluskey, M., Edlefsen, M., Goldberg, D., Misner, S., Olson, B., Reicks, M., Wang, C., and Zaghloul, S. (2007). “Development of a decision tree to determine: Appropriateness of NVIVO in analyzing qualitative data sets.” Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 39(1): 37-47.
Ball, I. and Possingham, H. (2000). Marxan (v1.2). Marine Reserve Design Using Spatially Explicit Annealing. Brisbane, Queensland, AU, University of Queensland.
Beatley, T. (1994). Ethical land use: Principles of policy and planning. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press. 191 Beatley, T. (2000). "Preserving biodiversity: Challenges for planners." Journal of the American Planning Association 66: 5-20.
Bedward, M., Pressey, L., amd Keith, D. (1992). “A new approach for selecting fully representative reserve networks: addressing efficiency, reserve design and land suitability with an iterative analysis.” Biological Conservation 62: 115-125.
Benedict, M. and McMahon, E. (2002). Green infrastructure: Smart conservation for the 21st century. Washington, Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse.
Beveridge, C. and Rocheleau, P. (1995). Frederick Law Olmsted: Designing the American landscape (edited and designed by Larkin, D.). New York, New York, Rizzoli International Publications.
Bojorquez-Tapia, L., de la Cueva, H., Diaz, S., Melgarejo, D., Alcantar, G., Solares, M., Grobet, G., and Cruz-Bellow, G. (2004). “Environmental conflicts and nature reserves: Redesigning Sierra San Pedro Martir National Park, Mexico.” Biological Conservation 117: 111-126.
Brooke, J. (2006). “Koreans find prime property near the DMZ.” The New York Times. New York (January 15, 2006).
Brown, G., Smith, C., Alessa, L., and Kliskey, A. (2004). “A comparison of perceptions of biological value with scientific assessment of biological importance.” Applied Geography 24: 161-180.
Bureau of Land Management (1980). Visual resource program. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Interior.
California Biodiversity Council, “Bioregions and biodiversity” http://ceres.ca.gov/biodiv/Biodiversity/biodiv_def2.html, accessed July 10th 2007.
Camm, J., Norman, S., Polasky, S., and Solow, A. (2002). “Nature reserve site selection to maximize expected species covered.” Operations Research 50: 946-955.
192 Collins, M., Steiner, F., and Rushman, M. (2001). “Land-use suitability analysis in the United States: Historical development and promising technological achievements.” Environmental Management 28(5): 611-621.
Costello, C. and Polasky, S. (2004). “Dynamic reserve site selection.” Resource and Energy Economics 26: 158.
Dobson, A., Rodriguez, J., Roberts, W., and Wilcove, D. (1997). "Geographic distribution of endangered species in the United States." Science 275: 550-553.
Dyer, J. (2005). MAUT – Multiattribute Utility and Value Theories. In multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys. (edited by Figueira, J., Greco, S., and Ehrgott, M.). New York, New York, Springer.
Easen, N. (2003). "Korea’s DMZ: The thin green line." Retrieved November 15, 2007, from http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/08/22/korea.bio.dmz/.
Fabos, J. (1985). Land-use planning: From global to local challenge. New York, Chapman and Hall.
Fabos, J. (2003). “Greenway planning in the United States: Its origins and recent case studies.” Landscape and Urban Planning 68: 321-342.
Forman, R. (1995). Land mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Gangwon Province Department of Tourism Policies. Korea-DMZ website, www.korea- dmz.com, accessed January 25, 2008.
Garson, J., Aggarwal, A., and Sarkar, S. (2002). ResNet Manual (Ver 1.2). Biodiversity and Biocultural Conservation Laboratory, Section of Integrative Biology, University of Texas at Austin.
GreenFacts. (2005). "Scientific facts on biodiversity and human well-being." Retrieved July 1, 2007, from www.greenfacts.org.
193 Groves, C. (2003). Drafting a conservation blueprint: A practioner's guide to planning for biodiversity. Washington D.C., Island Press.
Groves, C., Valutis, L., Vosick, D., Neely, B., Wheaton, K., Touval, J., and Runnels, B. (2000). Designing a geography of hope: A practitioner’s handbook for ecoregional conservation planning. Arlington, VA, The Nature Conservancy.
Guha, R. (1997). "The authoritatian biologist and the arrogance of anti-humanism." The Ecologist 27: 14-20.
Harrison, C. and Burgess, J. (2000). “Valuing nature in context: The contribution of Common-good approach.” Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 1115-1130.
Hijman, R., Cameron, S., Parra, J., Jones, P., and Jarvis, A. (2005). “Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas.” International Journal of Climatology 25: 1965-1978.
Hills, G. (1961). The ecological basis for land-use planning. Research report no. 26. Toronto, Ontario Department of Lands and Forests.
Hilton-Taylor, C. (2002). The 2002 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, IUCN-World Conservation Union.
Hopkins, L. (1977). “Methods for generating land suitability maps: A comparative evaluation.” Journal of the American Planning Association 43: 386-400.
Illoldi-Rangel, P., Fuller, T., Linaje, M., Pappas, C., Sanchez-Cordero, V., Sarkar, S. (2008). “Solving the maximum representation problem to prioritize areas for the conservation of terrestrial mammals at risk in Oxaca.” Diversity and Distributions 14: 493-508.
International Campaign to Ban Landmines (2004). Landmine monitor report 2004: Toward a mine-free world. Report. New York, New York, Human Rights Watch.
194 John, K., Youn, Y., and Shin, J. (2003). “Reserving conflicting ecological and economic interests in the Korean DMZ: a valuation based approach.” Ecological Economics 46: 173-179.
Jules, E., Dietsch, T., Bernier, A., Nickerson, V., Christie, P., Blair, B., Baraloto, C., Paoli, G., and Ferguson, B. (2002). “Toward a more effective conservation biology: including social equity in the formulation of scientific questions and management options” Revista Theomai: Society, Nature, and Development Studies 6: published online, http://revistatheomai.unq.edu.ar/numero6/artomdietsch6.htm
Keeney, R. and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York, New York, John Wiley & Sons.
Keystone Center (1991). “Final consensus report of the keystone policy dialogue on biological diversity on federal lands.” from the website of California Biodiversity Council, http://biodiversity.ca.gov/
Kim, K.-G. (2001). A study on the feasibility as well as an operational strategy to develop DMZ Transboundary Biosphere Reserve between DPR Korea and Republic of Korea (A research report submitted to the UNESCO Jakarta office under the Special Agreement).
Kim, K.-C. (1997). “Preserving biodiversity in Korea's Demilitarization Zone.” Science. 278: 242-243.
Kim, K.-C. (2007). “Preserving Korea’s Demilitarized Corridor for conservation: A green approach to conflict resolution.” In Peace Parks: Conservation and conflict resolution (edited by Ali, S.). Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press.
Kim, K.-G. and Cho, D. (2005). "Status and ecological resource value of the Republic of Korea's De-militarized Zone." Landscape Ecological Engineering 1: 3-15.
Kim, S. and Prideaux, B. (2003). “Tourism, peace, politics and ideology: Impacts of the Mt. Gumgang tour project in the Korean Pennisula.” Tourism Management 24: 675-685.
195 Kirkpatrick, J. (1983). “An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of nature reserves: An example from Tasmania.” Biological Conservation 2: 316- 328.
Landmine, M. (2004, December 5th, 2007). "Landmine report 2004: Republic of Korea." Retrieved November 11th, 2007, from http://www.icbl.org/lm/2004/south_korea#fnB7758
Lee, C. and Mjelde, J. (2007). “Valuation of ecotourism resources using a contingent valuation method: The case of the Korean DMZ.” Ecological Economics 63: 511- 520.
Lee, S., Jablonski, P., and Higuchi, H. (2007). “Winter foraging of threatened cranes in the Demilitarized Zone of Korea: behavioral evidence for the conservation importance of unplowed rice fields.” Biological Conservation 138: 286-289.
Lewis, P. (1996). Tomorrow by design. New York, John Wiley & Sons.
Lindsay, A. and Hubley, A. (2006). "Conceptual reconstruction through a modified focus group methodology." Social Indicators Research 79 (3): 437-454.
Lobo, J., Jimenez-Valverde, A., and Real, R. (2008). “AUC: A misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models.” Global Ecology and Biogeography 17: 145-151.
Loh, J. and Wackernagel, M. (2004). The living planet report 2004. Gland, Switzerland: World Wide Fund for Nature and Cambridge, UK, UNEP-WCMC.
Margules, C. and Nicholls, A. (1987). “Assessing the conservation value of remnant habitat ‘islands’: Mallee patches on the western Eyre Peninsula, South Australia.” In Nature Conservation: The Role of Remnants of Native Vegetation: 89-102 (edited by Saunders, D., Arnold, G., Burbidge, A., and Hopkins A.). Canberra, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.
Margules, C., Nicholls, A., and Pressey, R. (1988). “Selecting networks of reserves to maximize biological diversity.” Biological Conservation 43: 63-76.
196 Margules, C. and Pressey, R. (2000). "Systematic conservation planning." Nature 405: 243-253.
Margules, C., Pressey, R., and Williams P. (2002). “Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation.” Journal of Bioscience 27(4): 311.
Margules, C. and Sarkar, S. (2007). Systematic conservation planning. New York, New York, Cambridge University Press.
Margules, C. and Usher, M. (1981). "Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: a review." Biological Conservation 21: 79-109.
McHarg, I. (1969). Design with nature. New York, The Natural History Press.
McHarg, I. (1996). A quest for life: An autobiography. New York, John Wiley & Sons.
McHarg, I. and Steiner, F. (1998). To heal the earth. Washington, D.C., Island Press.
Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Korea (2004). Ecosystem approach for the investigation, analysis and impact assessment of Demilitarized Zone of Korea. Gwacheon-Si, Republic of Korea.
Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Korea. Yongneup cybertour website, www.yongneup.go.kr, accessed January 12, 2008.
Moffett, A., Dyer, J., and Sarkar, S. (2006). “Integrating biodiversity representation with multiple criteria in North-Central Namibia using non-dominated alternatives and a modified Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Biological Conservation 129: 181-191.
Moffett, A., Garson, J., and Sarkar, S. (2005). "MultCSync: A software package for incorporating multiple criteria in conservation planning." Environmental Modeling & Software 20: 1315-1322.
197 Moffett, A. and Sarkar, S. (2006). “Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation area networks: A minireview with recommendations.” Diversity and Distributions 12:125-137.
Montgomery, C. (2002). "Ranking the benefits of biodiversity: an exploration of relative values." Journal of Environmental Management 65: 313-326.
Murphy, M. (2005). Landscape architecture theory: An evolving body of thought. Long Groves, IL, Waveland Press.
Mulder, B. and Coppolillo, P. (2005). Conservation: Linking ecology, economics, and culture. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Myers, N. (1988). "Threatened biotas: "hot spots" in tropical forests." Environmentalist 8: 187-208.
Nau, R. (2007). “Extensions of the subjective expected utility model.” In Advances in decision analysis: From foundations to applications (edited by Edwards, W., Miles, R., and von Winterfeldt, D.). New York, New York, Cambridge University Press.
Ndubisi, F. (2002). Ecological planning: A historical and comparative synthesis. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Norton, B. (1987). Why preserve natural variety? Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
Noss, R. (1990). "Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach." Conservation Biology 4: 355-364.
Noss, R. and Cooperrider, A. (1994). Saving nature's legacy: Protecting and restoring biodiversity. Washington D.C., Island Press.
198 Olson D., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E., Burgess, N., Powell, G., Underwood, E., D’Amico, J., Itoua, I., Strand, H., Morrison, J., Loucks, C., Allnutt, T., Ricketts, T., Kura Y., Lamoreux, J., Wettengel, W., Hedao, P., and Kassem, K. (2001). “Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on earth.” BioScience 51: 933-938.
Ortolano, L. (1984). Environmental planning and decision making. New York, John Wiley & Sons.
Osborne, M. and Rubinstein, A. (1994). A course in game theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press.
Pawar, S., Koo, M., and Crawford D. (2005). “Protocol for installing and running Maxent.” Biodiversity and Biocultural Conservation Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin.
Peck, S. (1998). Planning for biodiversity. Washington, D.C., Island Press.
Perlman D. and Milder J. (2005). Practical ecology for planners, developers, and citizens. Washington D.C., Island Press.
Pettena, G. (1996). Olmsted: L’origine del parco urbano, e del parco naturale contemporaneo. Firenze, Italy, Centro Di.
Phillips, S., Anderson, R., and Schapire, R. (2006). "Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions." Ecological Modelling 190: 231-259.
Pressey, R. (1994). "Ad Hoc reservations: Forward to backward steps in developing representative reserve systems?" Conservation Biology 8: 662-668.
Pressey, R. (1999). "Systematic conservation planning for the real world." Parks 9: 1-6.
199 Pressey, R., Ferrier, L., Hutchinson, C., Sivertsen, D., and Manion, G. (1995). “Planning for negotiation: Using an interactive geographic information system to explore alternative protected area networks.” In Nature conservation 4: The role of networks (edited by Saunders, D., Craig, J., and Mattiske, E.), 23-33. Sydney, AU, Surrey, Beatty, and Sons.
Pullin, A. (2002). Conservation biology. Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press.
Redford, K. and Richter, B. (1999). "Conservation of biodiversity in a world of use." Conservation Biology 13: 1246-1256.
Richards, L. (1999). “Data alive! The thinking behind NVIVO.” Qualitative Health Research 9(3): 412-428.
Saaty, T. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning priority setting, resource allocation. New York, McGraw-Hill.
Sarkar, S. (1999). "Wilderness preservation and biodiversity conservation." Bioscience 49: 405-412.
Sarkar, S. (2002). "Defining "biodiversity"; Assessing biodiversity." The Monist 85(1): 131-155.
Sarkar, S. (2004). "Conservation biology." Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservation-biology/.
Sarkar, S. (2005a). Biodiversity and environmental philosophy. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Sarkar, S. (2005b). Systematic conservation planning: A primer. Biodiversity and Biocultural Conservation Laboratory, Section of Integrative Biology, University of Texas at Austin.
Sarkar, S., Aggarwal, A., Garson, J., Margules, C., and Zeidler, J. (2002). "Place prioritization for biodiversity content." Journal of Bioscience 27(4): 339-346
200 Sarkar, S., Garson, J., and Moffett, A. (2004). “MultCSync ver 1.0 manual.” Biodiversity and Biocultural Conservation Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin.
Sarkar, S. and Garson, J. (2004). “Multiple criterion synchronization (MCS) for conservation area network design: The use of non-dominated alternative sets” Conservation and Society 2: 433-448.
Sarkar, S., Justus J., Fuller, T., Kelly C., Garson J., and Mayfield, M. (2005). "Effectiveness of environmental surrogates for the selection of conservation area networks." Conservation Biology 19(3): 816.
Sarkar, S., Mayfield, M., Cameron, S., Fuller, T., and Garson, J. (2007) “Conservation area networks for the Indian ecoregion: Systematic methods and future prospects.” Himalayan Journal of Sciences 4(6): 27-40.
Sarkar, S., Moffet, A., Rodrigo, S., and Fuller, T. (2004). “Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation area networks.” Endangered Species Update 21(3): 100-108.
Sarkar, S., Pappas, C., Garson, J., Aggarwal, A., and Cameron, S. (2004). “Place prioritization for biodiversity conservation using probabilistic surrogate distribution data.” Diversity and Distribution 10: 125-133.
Sarkar, S., Pressey, R., Faith, D., Margules, C., Fuller, T., Stoms, D., Moffett, A., Wilson, K., Williams, K., Williams, P., and Andelman, S. (2006). “Biodiversity conservation planning tools: Present status and challenges for future.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31: 123-159.
Scott, J., Davis, F., McGhie, G., and Groves, C. (2001). "Nature reserves: Do they capture the full range of America's biological diversity?" Ecological Applications 11: 999-1007.
Shane, G. (2004). "The emergence of Landscape Urbanism." Harvard Design Magazine 19: 1-8.
Soh, J. (2000). "DMZ - Ecological paradise in jeopardy." Retrieved September 30, 2006, from www.mtholyoke.edu/~jeehan/ppage4p.html. 201 Soule, M. (1985). "What is conservation biology?" BioScience 35: 727-734.
Soule, M. and Sanjayan, M. (1998). “Conservation targets: Do they help?” Science 279: 2060-2061.
Steiner, F. (2000). The living landscape: An ecological approach to landscape planning. New York, McGraw-Hill.
Steinitz, C., Binford, M., Cote, P., Edwards, T., Ervin, S., Forman, R., Johnson, C., Kiester, R., Mouat, D., Olson, D., Shearer, A., Toth, R., and Wills, R. (1996). Biodiversity and landscape planning: Alternative futures for the region of Camp Pendleton, California. Cambridge: Harvard University, Graduate School of Design.
Steinitz, C., Parker, P., and Jordan, L. (1976). “Hand-drawn overlays: Their history and prospective uses.” Landscape Architecture 66: 444-445.
Stewart, D., Shamdasani, P., and Rook, D. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications, Inc.
Stockwell, D. and Peters, D. (1999). "The GARP modelling system: problems and solutions to automated spatial prediction." International Journal of Geographical Information Science 13(2): 143-158.
Stoms, D. (2001). “Integrating biodiversity into land use planning.” American Planning Association 2001 National Planning Conference.
Takacs, D. (1996). The idea of biodiversity: Philosophies of pradise. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Theberge, J. (1989). "Guidelines to drawing ecologically sound boundaries for national parks and nature reserves." Environmental Management 13: 695-702.
U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment (1987). "Technologies to maintain biological diversity." from the website of California Biodiversity Council, http://biodiversity.ca.gov/ 202 U.S. Forest Service (1974). National forest landscape managementVol. 2, Agricultural Handbook Number 462. Washington, D.C., U.S. Governing Priniting Office.
Usher, M. (1986). "Wildlife conservation evaluation: attributes, criteria, and values." In Wildlife Conservation Evaluation (edited by Usher, M.). 3-44, London, UK, Chapman and Hall.
Waldheim, C., ed. (2006). The landscape urbanism reader. New York, Princeton Architectural Press.
WDPA (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press.
Westing, A. (1998). "A transfrontier reserve for peace and nature on the Korean Penninsula." International Environmental Affairs 10(1): 8-17.
Whittacker, R. (1975). Communities and ecosystems. New York, Macmillan Publishing Co.
Wilcove, D., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A., and Losos, E. (1998). "Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States." BioScience 48: 607-615.
Williams, P. (1998). "Key sites for conservation: Area-selection methods for biodiversity." In Conservation in a Changing World (edited by Mace, G., Balmford, A., and Ginsberg, J.). 211-249, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, E. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.
Wilson, E. (1988). "The current state of biological diversity." In Biodiversity (edited by Wilson, E.). 3-18, Washington D.C., National Academy Press.
Wilson, E. (2002). The future of life. New York, Alfred A. Knopf.
Whittle, P. (2000). Probability via expectation (4th edition), Berlin, Springer. 203 World Resources Institute, World Conservation Union, and United Nations Environment Programme (1992). “Global biodiversity strategies.” from the website of California Biodiversity Council, http://biodiversity.ca.gov/
Zbicz, D. (2003). “Imposing transboundary conservation: Cooperation between internationally adjoining protected areas.” In Transboundary protected areas: The viability of regional conservation strategies. (edited by Goodale, U., Stern, M., Margoluis, C., Lanfer, A., Fladeland, M.). New York, Food Product Press.
204
Vita
Jin-Oh Kim was born in Kimhae, Kyung-sang-nam-do, South Korea on June 12, 1969. I received a bachelor degree of Landscape Architecture from Kyung-Hee University in Korea, and worked as a journalist for a professional magazine, the Environment and Landscape Architecture of Korea, for five and a half years. During the work, I wrote more than 100 report articles, focusing on a variety of issues related to landscape design and planning. Soon after retired from the journalist, I studied environmental planning at the School of Planning and Landscape Architecture at Arizona State University and completed a thesis on the preservation of South Mountain Park in Phoenix, Arizona. After graduation from ASU, I pursued doctoral degree at the program of Community and Regional Planning at University of Texas at Austin under the direction of Dr. Frederick Steiner. My research interest includes ecological land use planning, environmental impact assessment, and natural resource conservation planning. I desire to contribute to establish viable guidelines of land use policy for the conservation of the CCZ and the DMZ in Korea and other places that are significantly threatened by growing urban land development.
Permanent address: 3479 Lake Austin Blvd. apt A, Austin TX 78703 This dissertation was typed by Jin-Oh Kim
205