Trade-Off Analysis of Ecosystem Services in Regulated River Areas: Supporting, Regulating, and Cultural Services
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Trends in Ecosystem Service Research
2.2. Trends in Ecosystem Service Evaluation Indicators Research
2.3. Methods of Ecosystem Service Analysis
2.4. Trends in Trade-Off Analysis Research
3. Study Scope
4. Research Methods and Procedures
4.1. Research Methods
4.1.1. InVEST Habitat Quality (HQ)
4.1.2. InVEST Carbon
4.1.3. Recreation and Ecotourism
4.2. Research Procedures
5. Results
5.1. Grading Results of Ecosystem Service Evaluation Items
5.1.1. Supporting Services (Habitat Quality)
5.1.2. Regulating Services (Carbon Storage)
5.1.3. Cultural Services
5.2. Results of Ecosystem Service Conservation Value Assessment
5.2.1. Conservation Value Assessment Criteria
5.2.2. Results of Conservation Value Mapping
5.3. Trade-Off Evaluation
5.3.1. Trade-Off Evaluation Criteria
5.3.2. Results of Trade-Off Mapping
5.4. Comparison of Ecosystem Service Evaluation Results Before and After Scenario Application
5.4.1. Results After Scenario Application—Namyangju
5.4.2. Results After Scenario Application—Yongin
6. Conclusions and Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Reid, W.V.; Mooney, H.A.; Cropper, A.; Capistrano, D.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chopra, K.; Dasgupta, P.; Dietz, T.; Duraiappah, A.K.; Hassan, R.; et al. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being-Synthesis: A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Costanza, R.; De Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; Van der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Change 2014, 26, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, R.S.; Alkemade, R.; Braat, L.; Hein, L.; Willemen, L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7, 260–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joo, W.Y.; Kwon, H.S.; Jang, I.Y.; Bae, H.J.; Jung, P.M.; Bang, E.J.; Kim, J.I.; Kim, M.H.; Kim, M.Y.; Park, E.; et al. Establishment of Ecosystem Services Assessment Framework at National Level; National Institute of Korea: Seochun, Republic of Korea, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Maes, J.; Egoh, B.; Willemen, L.; Liquete, C.; Vihervaara, P.; Schägner, J.P.; Grizzetti, B.; Drakou, E.G.; La Notte, A.; Zulian, G.; et al. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pickard, B.R.; Daniel, J.; Mehaffey, M.; Jackson, L.E.; Neale, A. EnviroAtlas: A new geospatial tool to foster ecosystem services science and resource management. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 14, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yi, H.; Güneralp, B.; Kreuter, U.P.; Güneralp, İ.; Filippi, A.M. Spatial and temporal changes in biodiversity and ecosystem services in the San Antonio River Basin, Texas, from 1984 to 2010. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 619, 1259–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, L.; Chen, S.S.; Xu, Y.; Li, G.; Su, W. Impacts of land-use change on habitat quality during 1985–2015 in the Taihu Lake Basin. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yi, H. Ecosystem services valuation and research methodology for mapping ecosystem services: Concepts, trends, issues, and applications. J. Korean Geogr. Soc. 2022, 57, 189–208. [Google Scholar]
- Jang, J.E.; Kwon, H.Y.; Shin, H.S.; Lee, S.C.; Yu, B.H.; Jang, J.; Choi, S.H. Habitat Quality Analysis and Evaluation of InVEST Model Using QGIS-Conducted in 21 National Parks of Korea. Korean J. Environ. Ecol. 2022, 36, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Environment. A Basic Plan for the Management of the Second Waterfront Area of the Yeongsangang—Seamjin River Water System; Ministry of Environment: Sejong-si, Republic of Korea, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Geumgang River Basin Environmental Office. Study on the Establishment of the 4th Basic Plan for Riparian Zone Management in the Geumgang River Basin; Geumgang River Basin Environmental Office: Jeonju-si, Republic of Korea, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Environment of Korea. Fifth National Biodiversity Strategy (2024~2028); Ministry of Environment of Korea: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Jung, P.M.; Cheon, G.S.; Kim, J.S.; Kwon, H. Identify Influencing Factors through Time Series Analysis of Water Supply and Demand in the Han River Watershed Area. Landsc. Geogr. 2023, 33, 13–27. [Google Scholar]
- Koun, H.J. Improved Water Institutional System to Secure Efficient Management and Water Quality in Paldang Basin. Legis. Policy 2013, 5, 149–169. [Google Scholar]
- Kwon, H.; Lee, Y.; Chun, G.; Jung, D. Ecosystem Services Assessment Mapping Manual; National Institute of Ecology: Seocheon, Republic of Korea, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Layke, C.; Mapendembe, A.; Brown, C.; Walpole, M.; Winn, J. Indicators from the global and sub-global Millennium Ecosystem Assessments: An analysis and next steps. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 17, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walpole, M.; Almond, R.E.; Besançon, C.; Butchart, S.H.; Campbell-Lendrum, D.; Carr, G.M.; Collen, B.; Collette, L.; Davidson, N.C.; Dulloo, E.; et al. Tracking progress toward the 2010 biodiversity target and beyond. Science 2009, 325, 1503–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mace, G.M.; Baillie, J.E. The 2010 biodiversity indicators: Challenges for science and policy. Conserv. Biol. 2007, 21, 1406–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Korea National Park Research Institute. 2023 Study on Ecosystem Services Valuation of National Parks: Focusing on 21 National Parks; Korea National Park Research Institute: Gangwon-do, Republic of Korea, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Nelson, E.; Mendoza, G.; Regetz, J.; Polasky, S.; Tallis, H.; Cameron, D.; Chan, K.M.; Daily, G.C.; Goldstein, J.; Kareiva, P.M.; et al. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schimel, D.; Melillo, J.; Tian, H.; McGuire, A.D.; Kicklighter, D.; Kittel, T.; Rosenbloom, N.; Running, S.; Thornton, P.; Ojima, D.; et al. Contribution of increasing CO2 and climate to carbon storage by ecosystems in the United States. Science 2000, 287, 2004–2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Millennium Development Goals Report; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2005.
- Polasky, S.; Nelson, E.; Pennington, D.; Johnson, K.A. The impact of land-use change on ecosystem services, biodiversity and returns to landowners: A case study in the state of Minnesota. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2011, 48, 219–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cochard, R. Natural hazards mitigation services of carbon-rich ecosystems. In Ecosystem Services and Carbon Sequestration in the Biosphere; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 221–293. [Google Scholar]
- Bagstad, K.J.; Semmens, D.J.; Waage, S.; Winthrop, R. A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 5, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neugarten, R.A.; Langhammer, P.F.; Osipova, E.; Bagstad, K.J.; Bhagabati, N.; Butchart, S.H.; Dudley, N.; Elliott, V.; Gerber, L.R.; Arrellano, C.G.; et al. Tools for Measuring, Modelling, and Valuing Ecosystem Services; International Union for Conservation of Nature: Gland, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Isely, E.S.; Isely, P.; Seedang, S.; Mulder, K.; Thompson, K.; Steinman, A.D. Addressing the Information Gaps Associated with Valuing Green Infrastructure in West Michigan: Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services Tool (INVEST). J. Great Lakes Res. 2010, 36, 448–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ament, J.M.; Moore, C.A.; Herbst, M.; Cumming, G.S. Cultural ecosystem services in protected areas: Understanding bundles, trade-offs, and synergies. Conserv. Lett. 2017, 10, 440–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dade, M.C.; Mitchell, M.G.; McAlpine, C.A.; Rhodes, J.R. Assessing ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: The need for a more mechanistic approach. Ambio 2019, 48, 1116–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, K.G.; Odgaard, M.V.; Bøcher, P.K.; Dalgaard, T.; Svenning, J.C. Bundling ecosystem services in Denmark: Trade-offs and synergies in a cultural landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.; Zhao, W.; Liu, Y.; Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Zhai, R. Influence of land use change on the ecosystem serice trade-offs in the ecological restoration area: Dynamics and scenarios in the Yanhe watershed, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 644, 556–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Park, Y.S.; Song, Y.K. Trade-off Analysis Between National Ecosystem Services Due to Long-term Land Cover Changes. Korean J. Environ. Ecol. 2024, 38, 204–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, D.H.; Jung, J.C. The Evaluation of Land Use Regulation Policy in Water Conservation Zone: Focused on the Case of Hanam City. Korea Local Adm. Rev. 2011, 25, 383–402. [Google Scholar]
- Hwang, J.H.; Jang, R.I.; Jeon, S.W. A Study on the Estimation Method of Carbon Storage Using Environmental Spatial Information and InVEST Carbon Model: Focusing on Sejong Special Self-Governing City-Using Ecological and Natural Map. Environmental Conservation Value Assessment Map, and Urban Ecological Map-. J. Korea Soc. Environ. Restor. Technol. 2022, 25, 15–27. [Google Scholar]
Ecosystem Category | Number of Studies | Ratio of Literature (%) |
---|---|---|
Agricultural | 50 | 9.52 |
Agricultural, Urban | 1 | 0.19 |
Agricultural, River | 5 | 0.95 |
Agricultural, Coastal | 1 | 0.19 |
Other | 12 | 2.29 |
Freshwater | 87 | 16.57 |
Freshwater, River | 36 | 6.86 |
Freshwater, River, Marine | 1 | 0.19 |
Urban | 49 | 9.33 |
Urban, Freshwater | 5 | 0.95 |
Forest | 122 | 23.24 |
Forest, Urban | 8 | 1.52 |
Forest, Coastal | 11 | 2.10 |
Forest, Coastal, River | 1 | 0.19 |
Forest, Marine | 3 | 0.57 |
River | 17 | 3.24 |
Grassland | 8 | 1.52 |
Coastal | 48 | 9.14 |
Coastal, Marine | 24 | 4.57 |
Coastal, Freshwater, Marine | 2 | 0.38 |
Coastal, Freshwater, River | 1 | 0.19 |
Coastal, Coastal | 10 | 1.90 |
Marine | 23 | 4.38 |
Total | 525 | 100.00 |
Service Category | ES Evaluation Indicators | Literature |
---|---|---|
Supporting service | Soil formation, Photosynthesis, Primary production, Nutrient cycling, Water cycling | [23] |
Nutrient cycling, Primary production | [17] | |
Nutrient cycling, Soil Formation, Primary production, Habitat | [4] | |
soil conservation, biodiversity conservation | [21] | |
Habitat quality | [24] | |
Regulating service | Air quality, Climate regulation, Water regulation, Erosion regulation, Water purification and waste treatment, Disease regulation, Pest regulation, Pollination, Natural hazard regulation | [23] |
Air quality, Climate regulation | [17] | |
Air quality, Greenhouse gas regulation, Water regulation, Natural hazard regulation, Erosion regulation | [4] | |
hydrological services (water quality and storm peak mitigation), carbon sequestration | [21] | |
carbon storage | [24] | |
carbon storage | [22,25] | |
Cultural service | Spiritual and religious values, Knowledge systems, Educational values, Aesthetic values, Social relations, Sense of place, Cultural heritage values, Recreation and ecotourism | [23] |
Aesthetic | [17] | |
Recreation and ecotourism, Landscape aesthetics, Educational, Heritage | [4] | |
Urban Development | [21] |
Group | Name | Unit | Total Area | Land Purchase Area (a) | Riparian Buffer Zone (b) | Water Source Protection Zone (c) | Special Measure Area (d) | Total Regulated Area (a + b + c + d) (e) | Overlapping Area (f) | Regulated Area (e − f) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Chuncheon | ha | 111,583.44 | 4376.94 | 1570.74 | 175.33 | 0.00 | 6123.01 | 4263.48 | 1859.54 |
% | 100.00 | 3.92 | 1.41 | 0.16 | 0.00 | 5.49 | 1.41 | 1.67 | ||
Wonju | ha | 86,656.50 | 1256.18 | 533.82 | 603.36 | 0.00 | 2393.35 | 533.82 | 1859.54 | |
% | 100.00 | 1.45 | 0.62 | 0.70 | 0.00 | 2.76 | 0.62 | 2.15 | ||
2 | Chungju | ha | 98,209.13 | 4533.34 | 2056.34 | 379.02 | 0.00 | 6968.71 | 2056.34 | 4912.36 |
% | 100.00 | 4.62 | 2.09 | 0.39 | 0.00 | 7.10 | 2.09 | 5.00 | ||
Hanam | ha | 9281.34 | 215.60 | 0.00 | 706.26 | 0.00 | 921.87 | 215.60 | 706.26 | |
% | 100.00 | 2.32 | 0.00 | 7.61 | 0.00 | 9.93 | 2.32 | 7.61 | ||
Gapyeong | ha | 84,089.76 | 6605.45 | 2625.58 | 0.00 | 9238.52 | 18,469.54 | 2625.58 | 15,843.96 | |
% | 100.00 | 7.86 | 3.12 | 0.00 | 10.99 | 21.96 | 3.12 | 18.84 | ||
3 | Yongin | ha | 59,174.27 | 5030.07 | 2646.14 | 153.75 | 18,522.55 | 26,352.52 | 7676.21 | 18,676.30 |
% | 100.00 | 8.50 | 4.47 | 0.26 | 31.30 | 44.53 | 12.97 | 31.56 | ||
Namyangju | ha | 45,961.66 | 2361.16 | 807.81 | 4271.85 | 16,650.22 | 24,091.04 | 7440.82 | 16,650.22 | |
% | 100.00 | 5.14 | 1.76 | 9.29 | 36.23 | 52.42 | 16.19 | 36.23 | ||
4 | Yangpyeong | ha | 87,688.80 | 6540.16 | 3295.85 | 2386.41 | 37,258.64 | 49,481.06 | 12,222.42 | 37,258.64 |
% | 100.00 | 7.46 | 3.76 | 2.72 | 42.49 | 56.43 | 13.94 | 42.49 | ||
Yeoj | ha | 60,739.77 | 7638.46 | 4536.26 | 234.13 | 24,711.86 | 37,120.71 | 4679.62 | 32,441.08 | |
% | 100.00 | 12.58 | 7.47 | 0.39 | 40.68 | 61.11 | 7.70 | 53.41 | ||
5 | Yangpyeong | ha | 42,984.06 | 5839.12 | 961.75 | 8311.78 | 42,984.06 | 58,096.71 | 15,112.65 | 42,984.06 |
% | 100.00 | 13.58 | 2.24 | 19.34 | 100.00 | 135.16 | 35.16 | 100.00 |
Threat | Max_Distance (m) | Weight | Decay Type |
---|---|---|---|
Urban Land | 8000 | 0.90 | Exponential |
Industrial Land | 6000 | 0.48 | Linear |
Rail | 2000 | 0.52 | Linear |
Road | 3000 | 0.75 | Linear |
Agricultural Land | 3000 | 0.65 | Linear |
LULC | Habitat Suitability | Urban Land | Industrial Land | Rail | Road | Agricultural Land |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Used Area | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Agricultural Land | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.0 |
Forest | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.7 |
Grass | 0.35 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Wet land | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
Barren | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Water | 1 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
LULC | C Above | C Below | C Soil | C Dead |
---|---|---|---|---|
Used Area | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Agricultural Land | 14.97857 | 9.985714 | 39.94286 | 4.992857 |
Forest | 53.77895 | 10.75579 | 61.84579 | 26.88947 |
Grass | 1.435833 | 1.435833 | 14.35833 | 0 |
Wet land | 69.51429 | 34.75714 | 139.0286 | 0 |
Barren | 0.055 | 0.055 | 0.55 | 0 |
Water | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
LULC Classification | Type of LULC | Specific Classification Criteria |
---|---|---|
Culture, Sports, and Recreation Facilities | Culture | (1) Includes performance facilities (such as concert halls, theaters, and music halls, excluding movie theaters), and exhibition facilities (such as museums, art galleries, memorial halls, exhibition halls, and galleries). (2) Includes cultural centers (such as cultural halls), fishing sites, riding clubs, observatories, cable cars, and English villages. |
Sports | (3) Includes stadium facilities such as sports fields, horse racing tracks, bicycle racing tracks, car racing tracks, and boat racing tracks. | |
Recreation Facilities | (4) Includes recreational facilities such as amusement parks, resorts, sports parks, and pensions. (5) Includes locations equipped with the essential facilities for filming movies, TV dramas, and other productions. (6) Includes youth training centers, campgrounds, shelters, rest areas, and recreational forests. (7) Includes accommodation within resorts, such as hotels and motels. (8) Includes golf practice ranges (both indoor and outdoor) and facilities within golf clubs (such as clubhouses). | |
Other | (9) Nets of golf practice ranges are classified as parking lots if they are used for parking; otherwise, they are classified as culture, sports, and recreation facilities. (10) Includes artificial waterfalls, fountains, and similar structures. |
Type | Description | Scoring Range |
---|---|---|
Excellent Areas | Regions with high evaluation grades across services, with high supporting, regulating, and cultural service values, making them superior to other regions. | 3–6 |
Average Areas | Regions with moderate evaluation grades across services, requiring management for potential ES improvements. | 7–9 |
Service Management Areas | Regions with relatively low evaluation grades, requiring partial improvement in ES grades to ensure service management. | 10–12 |
Vulnerable Areas | Regions with low evaluation grades across services, where significant improvements in ESV are needed. | 13–15 |
Administrative District | Supporting Services | Grade | Regulating Services | Grade | Cultural Services | Grade | Composite Score | Remarks |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dasan 1-dong | 0.12 | 5 | 13.58 | 5 | 1.21 | 4 | Vulnerable (14) | - |
Dasan 2-dong | 0.25 | 4 | 35.97 | 4 | 0.94 | 4 | Vulnerable (12) | - |
Joan-myeon | 0.62 | 1 | 110.61 | 1 | 0.05 | 5 | Average (7) | Regulated |
Sudong-myeon | 0.56 | 1 | 122.01 | 1 | 0.08 | 5 | Average (7) | Regulated |
Hwado-eup | 0.46 | 2 | 95.54 | 2 | 0.25 | 5 | Average (9) | Regulated |
Administrative District | Supporting Services | Grade | Regulating Services | Grade | Cultural Services | Grade | Composite Score | Remarks |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bojeong-dong | 0.26 | 4 | 49.33 | 4 | 0.38 | 5 | Vulnerable (13) | - |
Singal-dong | 0.22 | 4 | 36.93 | 4 | 0.67 | 5 | Vulnerable (13) | - |
Pungdeokcheon 2-dong | 0.19 | 4 | 34.13 | 4 | 1.74 | 3 | Vulnerable (11) | - |
Idong-eup | 0.47 | 2 | 98.65 | 1 | 0.14 | 5 | Average (8) | Regulated |
Mohyeon-eup | 0.43 | 2 | 89.34 | 2 | 0.21 | 5 | Average (9) | Regulated |
Dongbu-dong | 0.49 | 2 | 105.58 | 1 | 0.22 | 5 | Average (8) | Regulated |
Namsa-eup | 0.38 | 3 | 86.98 | 2 | 0.14 | 5 | Management (10) | Regulated |
Yeokbuk-dong | 0.37 | 3 | 86.98 | 2 | 0.16 | 5 | Management (10) | Regulated |
Yurim-dong | 0.33 | 3 | 72.48 | 3 | 0.34 | 5 | Management (11) | Regulated |
Jungang-dong | 0.34 | 3 | 69.30 | 3 | 0.71 | 5 | Management (11) | Regulated |
Major Category | Description | Subcategory | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Balanced Area | Regions with low levels of trade-off phenomena and synergies that balance the supply and demand of services. | Service Excellence Area | Regions with high evaluation grades for all ES (conservation value assessment grades of 1–2 for all items). |
Service Management Area | Regions with moderate evaluation grades for ES, requiring management for improvement (grades of 3–4). | ||
Imbalanced Area | Regions with high levels of trade-off phenomena, resulting in an imbalance between the supply and demand of services. | Service Imbalance Area | Regions where only one service has a high or low grade, leading to trade-off phenomena. |
Service Vulnerable Area | Regions with low evaluation grades for all ES (conservation value assessment grades of 4–5 for all items). |
Category | Description | Riparian Green Spaces (%) | Recreation and Ecotourism (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Scenario 1 | Change target area codes to 100% mixed forest | 100 | - |
Scenario 2 | Change target area codes to 70% mixed forest and 30% recreation and ecotourism | 70 | 30 |
Scenario 3 | Change target area codes to 50% mixed forest and 50% recreation and ecotourism | 50 | 50 |
Administrative District | Service | Scenario 1 (100%) | Scenario 2 (70%/30%) | Scenario 3 (50%/50%) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Before | After | Change | Before | After | Change | Before | After | Change | ||
Dasan 1-dong | Supporting | 0.12 | 0.42 | 0.30 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.16 | 0.04 |
Regulating | 13.58 | 92.08 | 78.50 | 13.58 | 46.58 | 33.00 | 13.58 | 18.39 | 4.81 | |
Cultural | 1.21 | 1.21 | - | 1.21 | 30.78 | 29.57 | 1.21 | 21.51 | 20.30 | |
Dasan 2-dong | Supporting | 0.25 | 0.45 | 0.20 | 0.25 | 0.38 | 0.13 | 0.25 | 0.32 | 0.07 |
Regulating | 35.97 | 93.27 | 57.30 | 35.97 | 75.27 | 39.30 | 35.97 | 47.43 | 11.46 | |
Cultural | 0.94 | 0.94 | - | 0.94 | 12.62 | 11.68 | 0.94 | 13.87 | 12.93 | |
Joan-myeon | Supporting | 0.62 | 0.60 | −0.02 | 0.62 | 0.60 | −0.02 | 0.62 | 0.67 | 0.05 |
Regulating | 110.61 | 121.09 | 10.48 | 110.61 | 121.09 | 10.48 | 110.61 | 111.34 | 0.73 | |
Cultural | 0.05 | 0.045 | −0.01 | 0.05 | 0.05 | - | 0.05 | 6.40 | 6.35 | |
Sudong-myeon | Supporting | 0.56 | 0.63 | 0.07 | 0.56 | 0.63 | 0.07 | 0.56 | 0.63 | 0.07 |
Regulating | 122.01 | 135.43 | 13.42 | 122.01 | 135.42 | 13.41 | 122.01 | 123.99 | 1.98 | |
Cultural | 0.08 | 0.081 | - | 0.08 | 0.08 | - | 0.08 | 7.54 | 7.46 | |
Hwado-eup | Supporting | 0.46 | 0.62 | 0.16 | 0.46 | 0.46 | - | 0.46 | 0.42 | −0.04 |
Regulating | 95.54 | 122.93 | 27.39 | 95.54 | 90.95 | −4.59 | 95.54 | 77.67 | −17.87 | |
Cultural | 0.25 | 0.25 | - | 0.25 | 21.11 | 20.86 | 0.25 | 11.69 | 11.44 |
Administrative District | Service | Scenario 1 (100%) | Scenario 2 (70%/30%) | Scenario 3 (50%/50%) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Before | After | Change | Before | After | Change | Before | After | Change | ||
Bojeong-dong | Supporting | 0.26 | 0.57 | 0.31 | 0.26 | 0.56 | 0.30 | 0.26 | 0.28 | 0.02 |
Regulating | 49.33 | 111.25 | 61.92 | 49.33 | 108.23 | 58.90 | 49.33 | 44.68 | −4.65 | |
Cultural | 0.38 | 0.38 | - | 0.38 | 2.35 | 1.97 | 0.38 | 36.07 | 35.69 | |
Singal-dong | Supporting | 0.22 | 0.51 | 0.29 | 0.22 | 0.51 | 0.29 | 0.22 | 0.20 | −0.02 |
Regulating | 36.93 | 107.95 | 71.02 | 36.93 | 107.73 | 70.80 | 36.93 | 27.22 | −9.71 | |
Cultural | 0.67 | 0.67 | - | 0.67 | 0.79 | 0.12 | 0.67 | 20.51 | 19.84 | |
Pungdeokcheon 2-dong | Supporting | 0.13 | 0.55 | 0.42 | 0.13 | 0.56 | 0.43 | 0.13 | 0.12 | −0.01 |
Regulating | 15.75 | 107.95 | 92.20 | 15.75 | 107.40 | 91.65 | 15.75 | 11.98 | −3.77 | |
Cultural | 1.63 | 1.63 | - | 1.63 | 2.00 | 0.37 | 1.63 | 16.30 | 14.67 | |
Idong-eup | Supporting | 0.47 | 0.60 | 0.13 | 0.47 | 0.60 | 0.13 | 0.47 | 0.55 | 0.08 |
Regulating | 98.65 | 119.85 | 21.20 | 98.65 | 119.72 | 21.07 | 98.65 | 101.62 | 2.97 | |
Cultural | 0.14 | 0.14 | - | 0.14 | 0.14 | - | 0.14 | 11.6 | 11.46 | |
Mohyeon-eup | Supporting | 0.43 | 0.54 | 0.11 | 0.43 | 0.50 | 0.07 | 0.43 | 0.41 | −0.02 |
Regulating | 89.34 | 116.00 | 26.66 | 89.34 | 107.48 | 18.14 | 89.34 | 76.46 | −12.88 | |
Cultural | 0.21 | 0.21 | - | 0.21 | 5.72 | 5.51 | 0.21 | 10.92 | 10.71 | |
Dongbu-dong | Supporting | 0.49 | 0.60 | 0.11 | 0.49 | 0.57 | 0.08 | 0.49 | 0.32 | −0.17 |
Regulating | 105.58 | 125.89 | 20.31 | 105.58 | 120.60 | 15.02 | 105.58 | 65.46 | −40.12 | |
Cultural | 0.22 | 0.22 | - | 0.22 | 3.67 | 3.45 | 0.22 | 12.34 | 12.12 | |
Namsa-eup | Supporting | 0.38 | 0.56 | 0.18 | 0.38 | 0.49 | 0.11 | 0.38 | 0.44 | 0.06 |
Regulating | 86.98 | 121.09 | 34.11 | 86.98 | 107.65 | 20.67 | 86.98 | 84.13 | −2.85 | |
Cultural | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.02 | 0.14 | 8.87 | 8.73 | 0.14 | 19.26 | 19.12 | |
Yeokbuk-dong | Supporting | 0.37 | 0.58 | 0.21 | 0.37 | 0.58 | 0.21 | 0.37 | 0.14 | −0.23 |
Regulating | 86.98 | 119.78 | 32.80 | 86.98 | 119.77 | 32.79 | 86.98 | 22.45 | −64.53 | |
Cultural | 0.16 | 0.25 | 0.09 | 0.16 | 0.26 | 0.10 | 0.16 | 19.43 | 19.27 | |
Yurim-dong | Supporting | 0.33 | 0.56 | 0.23 | 0.33 | 0.56 | 0.23 | 0.33 | 0.24 | −0.09 |
Regulating | 72.48 | 114.49 | 42.01 | 72.48 | 114.49 | 42.01 | 72.48 | 45.24 | −27.24 | |
Cultural | 0.34 | 0.34 | - | 0.34 | 0.34 | - | 0.34 | 16.37 | 16.03 | |
Jungang-dong | Supporting | 0.34 | 0.57 | 0.23 | 0.34 | 0.57 | 0.23 | 0.34 | 0.35 | 0.01 |
Regulating | 69.30 | 116.48 | 47.18 | 69.30 | 116.47 | 47.17 | 69.30 | 67.76 | −1.54 | |
Cultural | 0.71 | 0.71 | - | 0.71 | 0.72 | 0.01 | 0.71 | 16.53 | 15.82 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Roh, H.; Park, J.; Chon, J. Trade-Off Analysis of Ecosystem Services in Regulated River Areas: Supporting, Regulating, and Cultural Services. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3788. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093788
Roh H, Park J, Chon J. Trade-Off Analysis of Ecosystem Services in Regulated River Areas: Supporting, Regulating, and Cultural Services. Sustainability. 2025; 17(9):3788. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093788
Chicago/Turabian StyleRoh, Heeyoung, Jinsil Park, and Jinhyung Chon. 2025. "Trade-Off Analysis of Ecosystem Services in Regulated River Areas: Supporting, Regulating, and Cultural Services" Sustainability 17, no. 9: 3788. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093788
APA StyleRoh, H., Park, J., & Chon, J. (2025). Trade-Off Analysis of Ecosystem Services in Regulated River Areas: Supporting, Regulating, and Cultural Services. Sustainability, 17(9), 3788. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093788