|
|
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ / v.24, no.6, 2010³â, pp.763-771
|
AHP±â¹ýÀ» Ȱ¿ëÇÑ ¾ß»ýµ¿¹°À̵¿Åë·ÎÀÇ ±â´É°³¼±À» À§ÇÑ Æò°¡Ç׸ñ ºÐ¼®
( Using AHP to Analyze the Evaluation Factors Related to Wildlife Passage Management ) |
ÀÌÁø¿µ;³ë¹éÈ£;ÀÌÀå¿ø; Çѱ¹È¯°æÁ¤Ã¥.Æò°¡¿¬±¸¿ø;Çѱ¹È¯°æÁ¤Ã¥.Æò°¡¿¬±¸¿ø;±¹ÅäÇØ¾çºÎ;
|
|
|
 |
|
|
ÃÊ ·Ï |
¼½ÄÁö ÆÄÆíÈ·Î ¹ß»ýÇÏ´Â ¾ß»ýµ¿¹°°ú Â÷·®°úÀÇ Ãæµ¹»ç°í(ÀÌÇÏ '·Îµåų')¸¦ ¹æÁöÇϱâ À§ÇØ 2000³â´ë ÈĹݺÎÅÍ ¾ß»ýµ¿¹°À̵¿Åë·Î°¡ Ȱ¹ßÇÏ°Ô ¼³Ä¡µÇ¾úÀ¸³ª ·Îµåų ¹ß»ýÀº ¿©ÀüÈ÷ °¨¼ÒÇÏÁö ¾Ê°í ÀÖ¾î ¾ß»ýµ¿¹°À̵¿Åë·ÎÀÇ ½ÇÈ¿¼º ºÐ¼®ÀÌ ÇÊ¿äÇϸç, ¼³Ä¡ ÀÌÈÄ ´ÜÆíÈµÈ À¯Áö°ü¸®·Î ÀÎÇØ ¾ß»ýµ¿¹°À̵¿Åë·Î¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Æò°¡ ¹× ±â´É°³¼±À» À§ÇÑ °ü¸®±â¹ýÀÌ ºÎÁ·ÇÑ ½ÇÁ¤ÀÌ´Ù. ÀÌ¿¡ º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼´Â ¾ß»ýµ¿¹°À̵¿Åë·ÎÀÇ À¯Áö°ü¸®¸¦ À§ÇÑ ±âº»¹æÇâ ¹× °ü¸®±â¹ýÀ» Á¦½ÃÇϱâ À§ÇØ ÇöÀç ¼³Ä¡ ¿î¿µµÇ°í ÀÖ´Â 367°³ À̵¿Åë·Î¿¡ Àû¿ëÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â Æò°¡Ç׸ñ°ú Ç׸ñº° Á߿䵵¸¦ AHP ±â¹ý¿¡ ÀÇÇØ ÆÄ¾ÇÇÏ¿´´Ù. ºÐ¼®°á°ú, Æò°¡Ç׸ñÀº 3´Ü°è·Î ±¸ºÐÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾úÀ¸¸ç ÃÑ 10°³ Æò°¡Ç׸ñÀÌ µµÃâµÇ¾ú´Ù. ¾ß»ýµ¿¹°À̵¿Åë·ÎÀÇ À¯Áö°ü¸®¸¦ À§ÇÑ ¿ì¼±¼øÀ§ µµÃâÀ» ¸ñÇ¥(Level 1)·Î ½Ã¼³ÀÎÀÚ, ȯ°æÀÎÀÚ, µ¿¹°ÀÎÀÚ, °ü¸®ÀÎÀÚ·Î ±¸¼ºµÈ Level 2ÀÇ Á߿䵵 ºÐ¼®¿¡¼´Â ȯ°æÀÎÀÚ°¡ °¡Àå Áß¿äÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. Level 3¿¡¼´Â ±¸Á¶ ÀûÇÕ¼º(½Ã¼³ÀÎÀÚ), ÁÖº¯ÁöÇü°úÀÇ Á¶È(ȯ°æÀÎÀÚ), ¾ß»ýµ¿¹° ÀÌ¿ëºóµµ(µ¿¹°ÀÎÀÚ), ¸ð´ÏÅ͸µ ±â±â ¿î¿µ¿©ºÎ(°ü¸®ÀÎÀÚ)°¡ Áß¿ä Æò°¡Ç׸ñÀ¸·Î Á¶»çµÇ¾ú´Ù. Áï ¾ß»ýµ¿¹°À̵¿Åë·ÎÀÇ À¯Áö°ü¸®¸¦ À§Çؼ´Â ÁÖº¯ÁöÇü°úÀÇ Á¶È¿Í ¾ß»ýµ¿¹° ÀÌ¿ëºóµµ¸¦ ¿ì¼±ÀûÀ¸·Î °í·ÁÇØ¾ß ÇÒ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. À̰°Àº ¿¬±¸ °á°ú´Â ¿ì¸®³ª¶ó¿¡ ¼³Ä¡µÇ¾î ÀÖ´Â ¾ß»ýµ¿¹°À̵¿Åë·ÎÀÇ À¯Áö°ü¸® ¹æÇâ ¹× °¢ À̵¿Åë·ÎÀÇ Á¤ºñÀü·«À» ¸ð»öÇϱâ À§ÇÑ Æò°¡ÀÚ·á·Î Ȱ¿ëµÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. |
|
The rapid increase of wildlife passage installation since the late 2000s was aimed to reduce roadkill caused by habitat fragmentation and losses related to road construction, but wildlife-vehicle collisions are now still occurred even near the wildlife passage area. This is the reason that the effectiveness of wildlife passage have not been evaluated in combination with absence of monitoring data and management strategy of the wildlife passage. The AHP method are used, in this study, to identify the evaluation factors affecting the effectiveness of the present 367 wildlife passages in a mitigation measures to reduce road effects on wildlife species. Ten evaluation factors are derived from third levels in the AHP analysis. Priority setting to identify appropriate management strategies in first level is selected among four second levels on facility, environment, wildlife species and management tool. The AHP analysis suggested that neighboring environments are the most important factor at the second level, and passage structure, harmony with natural surroundings, wildlife occurrence and monitoring of the passage are also important factors at the third levels. In summary, effective measurements of wildlife passage management is based on managing the passage with neighboring topography and natural surrounding. This is useful to establish wildlife passage management strategy in order to reduce the negative effects of roads on wildlife species. |
|
Ű¿öµå |
¾ß»ýµ¿¹°À̵¿Åë·Î;»ýÅÂÅë·Î;·Îµåų;Æò°¡Ç׸ñ;¿ì¼±¼øÀ§;°èÃþºÐ¼®Àû ÀÇ»ç°áÁ¤¹æ¹ý(AHP);WILDLIFE PASSAGE;ECOLOGICAL CORRIDOR;ROADKILL;EVALUATION FACTOR;PRIORITY;ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS(AHP); |
|
|
|
 |
|
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸÁö / v.24, no.6, 2010³â, pp.763-771
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1229-3857
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO201015037856287)
¾ð¾î : Çѱ¹¾î |
|
³í¹® Á¦°ø : KISTI Çѱ¹°úÇбâ¼úÁ¤º¸¿¬±¸¿ø |
|
|
|
|
|