|
|
|
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ / v.22, no.6, 2008³â, pp.691-706
|
ÇØ¾È ¸Å¸³µµ½Ã ¿ÏÃæ³ìÁö Á¶¼ºÇöȲ°ú ±â´ÉÇâ»óÀ» À§ÇÑ ½ÄÀç¹æ¾È - ¾È»ê½Ã ¿ÏÃæ³ìÁö¸¦ »ç·Ê·Î -
( Planting Plan for Improvement of Buffer Green Space Function in the Vicinity of Railroad in Seashore Reclaimed Land - A Case Study of Buffer Green Space, Ansan City - ) |
| À̰æÀç;ÇѺÀÈ£;¹ÚÇö¾Ö;ÃÖÁø¿ì; ¼¿ï½Ã¸³´ëÇб³ µµ½Ã°úÇдëÇÐ;¼¿ï½Ã¸³´ëÇб³ µµ½Ã°úÇдëÇÐ;(ÁÖ) µ¿ÇØÁ¾ÇÕ±â¼ú°ø»ç;¼¿ï½Ã¸³´ëÇб³ ´ëÇпø;
|
|
|
 |
|
| |
| ÃÊ ·Ï |
| º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼´Â ÇØ¾È ¸Å¸³µµ½ÃÀÎ ¾È»ê½Ã öµµº¯ ¿ÏÃæ³ìÁö¸¦ ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ¿ÏÃæ³ìÁöÀÇ ¹®Á¦Á¡À» ºÐ¼®Çϰí, ¿ÏÃæ³ìÁöÀÇ °ø°£±â´É°ú ½ÄÀç°³³ä¿¡ ÀûÇÕÇÑ ½ÄÀç¹æ¾ÈÀ» Á¦½ÃÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¾È»ê½Ã öµµº° ¿ÏÃæ³ìÁöÀÇ ½ÄÀç¹Ðµµ´Â $0.04{sim}0.17$ÁÖ/$m^2$ À̾ú°í, ³ìÁö¿ëÀû°è¼ö´Â $0.15{sim}1.65m^3/m^2$·Î ³ì·®ÀÌ ºÎÁ·ÇÏ¿© ¿ÏÃæ±â´ÉÀÌ ¹ÌÈíÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¸¶¿îµù ¿ÏÃæ³ìÁöÀÇ Åä¾ç°æµµ´Â $2.72{sim}15kg/cm^2$·Î ½Ä»ý»ýÀ°¿¡ ÀûÇÕÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. ¿ÏÃæ³ìÁöÀÇ ±â´ÉÀ» Çâ»ó½Ã۱â À§ÇØ ¾ß»ýÁ¶·ù ¼½Ä Ãø¸éÀÇ »ý¹°¼½Ä±â´É, ÁÖº¯ ÅäÁöÀÌ¿ë Ãø¸éÀÇ µµ½Ã°ø¿ø±â´É, ½ÄÀç¼öÁ¾ °èÀý¼º Ãø¸éÀÇ °æ°ü°³¼±±â´ÉÀ» °ËÅäÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¿ÏÃæ³ìÁö¸¦ ±â´É¿¡ µû¶ó »ý¹°¼½Ä±â´ÉÀÇ ¿ÏÃæ³ìÁö, ¿ÏÃæ ¹× °æ°ü°³¼±±â´ÉÀÇ ¿ÏÃæ³ìÁö, °æ°ü ¹× µµ½Ã°ø¿ø±â´ÉÀÇ ¿ÏÃæ³ìÁö, ¿ÏÃæ ¹× »ý¹°¼½Ä±â´ÉÀÇ ¿ÏÃæ³ìÁö·Î Àç¼³Á¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¿ÏÃæ±â´É ½ÄÀç¹æ¾È¿¡¼´Â °õ¼Ö µîÀ» ÁÖ¿äÁ¾À¸·Î ¼±Á¤Çϰí, ±³¸ñÁ¾ 0.4ÁÖ/$m^2$, °ü¸ñÁ¾ 0.5ÁÖ/$m^2$·Î ½ÄÀç¹Ðµµ¸¦ ¼³Á¤ÇÏ¿´°í, °æ°ü°³¼± ±â´É¿¡¼´Â ´ÀƼ³ª¹«, »êº¢³ª¹«, »ì±¸³ª¹« µîÀ» ÁÖ¿äÁ¾À¸·Î ¼±Á¤ÇÏ°í ±³¸ñÁ¾ 0.2ÁÖ/$m^2$, °ü¸ñÁ¾ 0.5ÁÖ/$m^2$·Î ½ÄÀç¹Ðµµ¸¦ ¼³Á¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. »ý¹°¼½Ä±â´É¿¡¼´Â »ó¼ö¸®³ª¹«, »êº¢³ª¹«, ÆÏ¹è³ª¹« µîÀ» ÁÖ¿äÁ¾À¸·Î ¼±Á¤Çϰí, ÀûÁ¤ ½ÄÀç ¹Ðµµ¸¦ ±³¸ñÁ¾ 0.06ÁÖ/$m^2$, ¾Æ±³¸ñÁ¾ 0.1ÁÖ/$m^2$, °ü¸ñÁ¾ 0.8ÁÖ/$m^2$·Î ½ÄÀç¹Ðµµ¸¦ Á¦½ÃÇÏ¿´´Ù. |
|
| This study analysed problems of railroadside buffer green space and suggested planting methods according to space function and planting concept in seashore reclaimed land, Ansan city. Planting density of railroadside buffer green zone of Ansan city was $0.04{sim}0.17tree/m^2$, GVZ was $0.15{sim}1.65m^3/m^2$ which is represented of deficiency of buffer function. In addition, soil hardness of mounded buffer green zone was $2.72{sim}15kg/cm^2$. It was examined to have functions in terms of habitat for wildbirds and other organisms, surrounding landuse, urban greens, seasonality, landscape for function improvement of buffer green space. Functions of buffer green space were re-established as habitat for organism, buffer and landscape improvement, landscape and urban park, buffer zone and habitat. It was suggested to select Pinus thunbergii as a dominated species of planting method for buffer function and planting density in canopy and under-canopy layer was $0.4tree/m^2$, $0.5/m^2$ in shrub layer. In terms of landscape improvement function, Zelkova serrata, Prunus sargentii and Prunus armeniaca were selected as major species and it in canopy and under-canopy layer was $0.2tree/m^2$ and $0.5tree/m^2$ in shrub layer. In terms of habitat function Quercus acutissima, Prunus sargentii and Sorbus alnifolia were as major species and it in canopy layer was $0.06tree/m^2$, $0.1tree/m^2$ in under canopy layer, $0.8tree/m^2$ in shrub layer. |
| |
| Ű¿öµå |
| »ý¹°¼½Ä±â´É;°æ°ü±â´É;µµ½Ã°ø¿ø±â´É;½ÄÀç¹Ðµµ;¾ß»ýÁ¶·ù;URBAN PARK FUNCTION;HABITAT FUNCTION;LANDSCAPE FUNCTION;PLANTING DENSITY;WILD BIRD; |
| |
|
|
 |
|
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸÁö / v.22, no.6, 2008³â, pp.691-706
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1229-3857
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200807653005306)
¾ð¾î : Çѱ¹¾î |
|
| ³í¹® Á¦°ø : KISTI Çѱ¹°úÇбâ¼úÁ¤º¸¿¬±¸¿ø |
|
|
|
|
|
|