¶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.23, no.6, 2009³â, pp.594-602
ºñ¿ÀÅéÆò°¡¸¦ À§ÇÑ Æò°¡Ç׸ñ ¹× Æò°¡Ã¼°è Á¦¾È
( The Suggestion for Evaluation Items and System for Assessment of Biotope )
ÃÖÀϱâ;¿ÀÃæÇö;¾È±Ù¿µ;ÀÌÀºÈñ; ¼­¿ï¿©ÀÚ´ëÇб³ ÀÚ¿¬°úÇдëÇÐ;µ¿±¹´ëÇб³ ȯ°æ»ýŰøÇаú;¼­¿ï¿©ÀÚ´ëÇб³ ´ëÇпø;¼­¿ï¿©ÀÚ´ëÇб³ ȯ°æ»ý¸í°úÇкÎ;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
º» ¿¬±¸´Â È¿À²Àû ºñ¿ÀÅéÆò°¡¸¦ À§ÇØ ÀϹÝÀûÀ¸·Î Àû¿ëÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â Æò°¡Ç׸ñ ¹× Æò°¡Ã¼°è¸¦ °³¹ßÇϰíÀÚ ÇÏ¿´´Ù. À̸¦ À§ÇØ Áö±Ý±îÁö ¼±ÇàµÈ ¿¬±¸»ç·ÊµéÀ» ºñ±³ °ËÅäÇÏ¿©, Çö½ÇÀû Àû¿ë°¡´É¼ºÀÌ ³ôÀº ºñ¿ÀÅé Æò°¡ Ç׸ñ ¹× Æò°¡Ã¼°è(¾È)À» µµÃâÇϰí, ¼±Á¤µÈ »ç·ÊÁö¿ªÀÇ Àû¿ë°ú ÀÚ¹®È¸ÀÇ µîÀÇ °è¼ÓÀûÀÎ Çǵå¹é °úÁ¤À» ÅëÇÏ¿© È¿À²ÀûÀÎ ºñ¿ÀÅéÆò°¡¸¦ À§ÇÑ Æò°¡Ç׸ñ ¹× Æò°¡Ã¼°è¸¦ Á¦¾ÈÇÏ¿´´Ù. ù°, ºñ¿ÀÅéÆò°¡¸¦ À§ÇÑ Ç׸ñÀ¸·Î´Â ÀÚ¿¬¼º ¹× Çì¸Þ·Îºñ, ´Ù¾ç¼º, ¸éÀû, °í¸³¼º ¹× ¿¬°á¼º, º¹¿ø´É·Â, Èñ±Í¼º µî 6°³ Ç׸ñÀ» Á¦¾ÈÇÏ¿´´Ù. µÑ°, ºñ¿ÀÅé Æò°¡Ã¼°è´Â 1´Ü°è Æò°¡ÀÎ Àüü ºñ¿ÀÅéÀ¯Çü¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Æò°¡¿Í 2´Ü°è Æò°¡ÀÎ °³º° ºñ¿ÀÅé¿¡ ´ëÇÑ »ýÅÂÀû º¸Àü°¡Ä¡Æò°¡·Î ±¸ºÐÇÑ´Ù. À¯ÇüÆò°¡´Ü°è¿¡¼­´Â ÀÚ¿¬¼º ¹× Çì¸Þ·Î ºñ¿Í ´Ù¾ç¼º Ç׸ñÀ» Áß½ÉÀ¸·Î Æò°¡Çϰí, °³º°Æò°¡´Ü°è¿¡¼­´Â °í¸³¼º ¹× ¿¬°á¼º, º¹¿ø´É·Â, Èñ±Í¼º µî°ú °°Àº Ç׸ñÀ» Áß½ÉÀ¸·Î Æò°¡ÇÒ °ÍÀ» Á¦¾ÈÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ºñ¿ÀÅéÆò°¡´Â Áö¿ªÀÇ Æ¯¼ºÀÌ °í·ÁµÇ¾î¾ß ÇϹǷÎ, º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­ Á¦¾ÈµÈ Æò°¡Ç׸ñ ¹× ü°è¸¦ ±â¹ÝÀ¸·Î ÇÏ¿© Áö¿ªÀÇ »óȲ°ú ¿©°Ç¿¡ ¸Â´Â Æò°¡Ç׸ñ ¹× ÁöÇ¥µéÀ» ÃæºÐÈ÷ °ËÅäÇÏ¿© ¼±ÅÃÇϰí ÇÊ¿ä½Ã ¼¼ºÎÆò°¡ÁöÇ¥µéÀÌ Ãß°¡ º¸¿ÏµÇ¾î¾ß ÇÒ °ÍÀÌ´Ù.
The purpose of this study is to derive the usually applicable evaluation items and system for the effective biotope assessment. For this purpose, the evaluation items and system for the biotope assessment be applicable to actuality are drafted by a review on the preceded case studies until now at the inside and outside of the country. And then this study proposed the evaluation items and system for the effective biotope assessment through continual feed back such as field applications in selected case study areas and consultations. First, the six items such as naturalness & hemeroby, diversity, size of area, isolation & connection, restoration ability and rarity for biotope assessment were suggested. Second, the assessment system is divided into the first step assessment as evaluation for the whole biotope types and the second step assessment as evaluation for ecological conservation value of individual biotope. This study suggests that the items such as naturalness & hemeroby and diversity should be evaluated in assessment step for biotope types and the items such as isolation & connection, restoration ability and rarity in assessment step for individual biotope. However, this study suggests that the evaluation items and indicators suitable to the regional conditions should be reviewed enough and selected and also the detail evaluation indicators should be supplemented with the foundation of items and system for biotope evaluation proposed in this study because the biotope evaluation should consider regional characteristics.
 
Ű¿öµå
ºñ¿ÀÅé;ºñ¿ÀÅé Æò°¡;ºñ¿ÀÅéÀ¯Çü;Áö¿ª Ư¼º;BIOTOPE;ASSESSMENT OF BIOTOPE;BIOTOPE TYPES;REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS;
 
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸÁö / v.23, no.6, 2009³â, pp.594-602
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1229-3857
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200912368301449)
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¿