Limits...
Assessment of Coastal Ecosystem Services for Conservation Strategies in South Korea.

Chung MG, Kang H, Choi SU - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: We found strong negative associations between the habitat risks and ecosystem services (aquaculture, carbon storage, recreation, and aesthetic quality) across the coastal counties.Our results showed that the intensity of the habitat risks and the provision of ecosystem services were significantly different between reclamation-dominated and conservation-dominated counties, except for coastal vulnerability.As cultural ecosystem services are evenly distributed throughout coastal areas of South Korea, decision makers may employ them to improve the conditions of coastal wetlands outside of protected areas.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea.

ABSTRACT
Despite the fact that scientific and political consideration for ecosystem services has dramatically increased over the past decade, few studies have focused on marine and coastal ecosystem services for conservation strategies. We used an ecosystem services approach to assess spatial distributions of habitat risks and four ecosystem services (coastal protection, carbon storage, recreation, and aesthetic quality), and explored the tradeoffs among them in coastal areas of South Korea. Additionally, we analyzed how the social and ecological characteristics in coastal areas interact with conservation and development policies by using this approach. We found strong negative associations between the habitat risks and ecosystem services (aquaculture, carbon storage, recreation, and aesthetic quality) across the coastal counties. Our results showed that the intensity of the habitat risks and the provision of ecosystem services were significantly different between reclamation-dominated and conservation-dominated counties, except for coastal vulnerability. A generalized linear model suggested that reclamation projects were dependent on economic efficiency, whereas demographic pressures and habitat conditions influenced the designation of protected areas at a county level. The ecosystem services approach provided guidelines to achieve both sustainable development and environment conservation. By using the approach, we can select the priority areas for developments while we can minimize the degradation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. As cultural ecosystem services are evenly distributed throughout coastal areas of South Korea, decision makers may employ them to improve the conditions of coastal wetlands outside of protected areas.

No MeSH data available.


Distribution of study areas, protected areas, urban areas and reclaimed areas [Data Source: [19–22]]
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4519238&req=5

pone.0133856.g001: Distribution of study areas, protected areas, urban areas and reclaimed areas [Data Source: [19–22]]

Mentions: Study areas consist of the western and southern coastal zones of South Korea, which cover both terrestrial counties and coastal areas (Fig 1). The coastal areas comprise 61 counties with sizes ranging from 3 to 1,006 km2 in area. It also contains 27% of the total population of Korea. The average annual temperatures are between 10 and 15°C, and the annual precipitation varies from 1,200 to 1,500 mm in the central region and from 1,000 to 1,800 mm in the southern region [17]. The sea level change between high and low tide is 256 cm (ranging from 73 to 462 cm)[18].


Assessment of Coastal Ecosystem Services for Conservation Strategies in South Korea.

Chung MG, Kang H, Choi SU - PLoS ONE (2015)

Distribution of study areas, protected areas, urban areas and reclaimed areas [Data Source: [19–22]]
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4519238&req=5

pone.0133856.g001: Distribution of study areas, protected areas, urban areas and reclaimed areas [Data Source: [19–22]]
Mentions: Study areas consist of the western and southern coastal zones of South Korea, which cover both terrestrial counties and coastal areas (Fig 1). The coastal areas comprise 61 counties with sizes ranging from 3 to 1,006 km2 in area. It also contains 27% of the total population of Korea. The average annual temperatures are between 10 and 15°C, and the annual precipitation varies from 1,200 to 1,500 mm in the central region and from 1,000 to 1,800 mm in the southern region [17]. The sea level change between high and low tide is 256 cm (ranging from 73 to 462 cm)[18].

Bottom Line: We found strong negative associations between the habitat risks and ecosystem services (aquaculture, carbon storage, recreation, and aesthetic quality) across the coastal counties.Our results showed that the intensity of the habitat risks and the provision of ecosystem services were significantly different between reclamation-dominated and conservation-dominated counties, except for coastal vulnerability.As cultural ecosystem services are evenly distributed throughout coastal areas of South Korea, decision makers may employ them to improve the conditions of coastal wetlands outside of protected areas.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea.

ABSTRACT
Despite the fact that scientific and political consideration for ecosystem services has dramatically increased over the past decade, few studies have focused on marine and coastal ecosystem services for conservation strategies. We used an ecosystem services approach to assess spatial distributions of habitat risks and four ecosystem services (coastal protection, carbon storage, recreation, and aesthetic quality), and explored the tradeoffs among them in coastal areas of South Korea. Additionally, we analyzed how the social and ecological characteristics in coastal areas interact with conservation and development policies by using this approach. We found strong negative associations between the habitat risks and ecosystem services (aquaculture, carbon storage, recreation, and aesthetic quality) across the coastal counties. Our results showed that the intensity of the habitat risks and the provision of ecosystem services were significantly different between reclamation-dominated and conservation-dominated counties, except for coastal vulnerability. A generalized linear model suggested that reclamation projects were dependent on economic efficiency, whereas demographic pressures and habitat conditions influenced the designation of protected areas at a county level. The ecosystem services approach provided guidelines to achieve both sustainable development and environment conservation. By using the approach, we can select the priority areas for developments while we can minimize the degradation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. As cultural ecosystem services are evenly distributed throughout coastal areas of South Korea, decision makers may employ them to improve the conditions of coastal wetlands outside of protected areas.

No MeSH data available.