¶óÆæÆ®¦¢Ä«Æä¦¢ºí·Î±×¦¢´õº¸±â
¾ÆÄ«µ¥¹Ì Ȩ ¸í»çƯ°­ ´ëÇבּ¸½Ç޹æ Á¶°æ½Ç¹« µ¿¿µ»ó°­ÀÇ Çѱ¹ÀÇ ÀüÅëÁ¤¿ø ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®
ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®

Çѱ¹°Ç¼³°ü¸®ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹°ÇÃà½Ã°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹µµ·ÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ý¹°È¯°æÁ¶ÀýÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ýÅÂÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹¼öÀÚ¿øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ç³»µðÀÚÀÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀÚ¿ø½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀܵðÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Á¶°æÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Áö¹Ý°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ý¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ

Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ / v.6, no.2, 1993³â, pp.168-179
¼Ò¹é»ê±¹¸³°ø¿ø µî»ê·ÎÀÇ È¯°æÈѼտ¡ ´ëÇÑ À̿뿵Çâ
( Use Impacts on Environmental Deteriorations of Trail in Sobaeksan National Park )
±ÇÅÂÈ£;¿À±¸±Õ;ÀÌÁØ¿ì; ´ë±¸´ëÇб³ ³ó°ú´ëÇÐ »ê¸²ÀÚ¿øÇаú;È£³²´ëÇб³ Á¶°æ´ëÇÐ;ÁߺÎÀÓ¾÷½ÃÇèÀå;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
¼Ò¹é»ê±¹¸³°ø¿ø µî»ê·Î ¹× ÁÖº¯È¯°æÀÇ ÈѼտ¡ ´ëÇÑ À̿뿵ÇâÀ» ÆÄ¾ÇÇϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© 3°³ÀÇ ÁÖ¿ä µî»ê·Î¸¦ ´ë»óÀ¸·Î 1992³â¿¡ Á¶»ç¸¦ ½Ç½ÃÇÏ¿´´Ù. µî»ê·ÎÆø°ú ³ªÁö³ëÃâÆøÀº ´É¼±ºÎ, Èñ¹æ, ºñ·Îµî»ê·ÎÀÇ ¼øÀ̾úÀ¸¸ç À̿밭µµ¿¡ µû¸¥ Â÷À̰¡ ÀÎÁ¤µÇ¾ú´Ù. µî»ê·ÎÀÇ ¹°¸Å´Â ´Ù¸¥ ±¹¸³ °ø¿ø µî»ê·Î¿¡ ºñÇØ °¡ÆÄ¸¥ ÆíÀ̾úÀ¸³ª ÃÖ´ë±íÀÌ´Â ±×¸® Å©Áö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. ÃÑ 11km 105°³ Á¶»çÁöÁ¡¿¡¼­ °üÂûµÈ ÈѼÕÇüÅ´ Á¾Ä§½Ä, ¾Ï¼®³ëÃâ, ºÐ±â µîÀÇ ºñÀ²ÀÌ ³ô¾Ò°í ÈÑ¼ÕµÈ ÁöÁ¡ÀÇ µî»ê·Î»óÅ´ °ÇÀüÇÑ ÁöÁ¡°ú ¶Ñ·ÇÇÑ Â÷À̸¦ ³ªÅ¸³»¾ú´Ù. ¾à 4.2km±¸°£ÀÇ ´É¼±ºÎµî»ê·Î´Â ÈѼÕÀÌ ½ÉÈ­µÇ°í ÀÖÀ¸¸ç ȯ°æÇÇÇØµµ 4µî±Þ ÀÌ»óÀÇ ¸éÀûÀÌ 10,335$m^2$³ª ¹ß»ýÇϰí ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ÇØ¹ß°í°¡ ³ô¾ÆÁü¿¡ µû¶ó ÁÖ¿¬ºÎÀÇ »óÃþ¼ö°üÀÇ ¿ìÁ¡¼öÁ¾Àº Èñ¹æµî»ê·Î¿¡¼­ ½Å°¥³ª¹«, °í·Î¼è³ª¹«$longrightarrow$½Å°¥³ª¹«·Î, ºñ·Îµî»ê·Î¿¡¼­ ¼Ò³ª¹«, ½Å°¥³ª¹«$longrightarrow$¼Ò³ª¹«$longrightarrow$½Å°¥³ª¹«·Î ¹Ù²î¾úÀ¸¸ç, À̿밭µµÀÇ Â÷À̰¡ ÀÖ´Â ¾çµî»ê·ÎÀÇ ÇÏÃþ¼öÁ¾À» ºñ±³ÇÒ ¶§ öÂß²É, º´²É³ª¹«, È£¶û¹öµé, »êµþ±â³ª¹«µîÀÌ À̿뿵Çâ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ³»¼ºÀÌ Å©°í º¹ºÐÀÚµþ±â. »ê¾Þµµ³ª¹«´Â ³»¼ºÀÌ ¾àÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î ÆÄ¾ÇµÇ¾ú´Ù. ´É¼±ºÎ µî»ê·Î¿¡¼­´Â öÂß²É, º´²É³ª¹«, »êµþ±â³ª¹«, ³ë¸°À糪¹« µîÀÌ °æÀï·ÂÀÌ Å« ¼öÁ¾À¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù.
Use impacts on environmental deteriorations of trail were studied on the three major trails of Sobaeksan National Park in 1992. The entire width and bare width of trail as the trail condition were significantly greater on the more heavily used trail. Maximum depth of trail was not so great in spite of steeper grade of trail in comparison with the other National Parks. Percentages of deepening. rock-exposed. diverged points as the deterioration types of trail which were surveyed at the total of 105 points were high and trail conditions were significantly different from those of non-deteriorated points. On the Ridge trail. the damaged area more severe than Class 4 reaches about 10,335$m^2$ and the deterioration is accelerated. The dominant trees of the the upper layer in trail edge vegetation are changed from Q. mongolica. Aar mono to Q. mongolica for Huibang trail. and from Pinus densiflora. Q. mongolica to P. densiflora and to Q. mongolica for Biro trail as altitude increases. Rhododendron schlippenbachii. Weigelu subsessilis. Salix hulteni. Rubus crataeglfolius were classified for tolerant species and R. coreanus. Vaccinium koreanum for intolerant species to use impacts. Highly competetive species on the Ridge trail were grouped R. schlippenbachii. W. subsessilis. Rubus crataegifolius and Symplocos chinensis for. pilosa.
 
Ű¿öµå
±¹¸³°ø¿ø;À̿뿵Çâ;µî»ê·Î ÈѼÕ;ȯ°æÇÇÇØµµ;µî»ê·Î ÁÖ¿¬ºÎ ½Ä»ý;National park;Use impact;Trail deterioration;Impact rating class;Trail edge vegetation.;
 
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸÁö / v.6, no.2, 1993³â, pp.168-179
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1229-3857
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO199311922082929)
¾ð¾î : Çѱ¹¾î
³í¹® Á¦°ø : KISTI Çѱ¹°úÇбâ¼úÁ¤º¸¿¬±¸¿ø
¸ñ·Ïº¸±â
ȸ»ç¼Ò°³ ±¤°í¾È³» ÀÌ¿ë¾à°ü °³ÀÎÁ¤º¸Ãë±Þ¹æÄ§ Ã¥ÀÓÀÇ ÇѰè¿Í ¹ýÀû°íÁö À̸ÞÀÏÁÖ¼Ò ¹«´Ü¼öÁý °ÅºÎ °í°´¼¾ÅÍ
   

ÇÏÀ§¹è³ÊÀ̵¿