IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v24y2022i1d10.1007_s10668-021-01450-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Outdoor recreation planning and management considering FROS and carrying capacities: a case study of forest wetland in Yeongam-gum, South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Heejeong Yun

    (Kangwon National University)

  • Dongjin Kang

    (Seoul National University)

  • Youngeun Kang

    (Gyeongsang National University)

Abstract

Since demand for outdoor recreation in forests has been increasing, a structural planning framework for sustainable use while minimizing ecosystem degradation is needed. Utilizing the recreational opportunity spectrum (ROS) and carrying capacities (CC) have been long-standing tools in management outdoor recreation and tourism. Therefore, this study proposes using FROS (forest recreation outdoor system), LAC (limits of acceptable change), and CC for outdoor recreation in forest wetland in Youngam-gum, South Korea. An analysis of the spatial characteristics of the site—geological features, elevation, slope, viewshed, water system, forest age class, etc.—was carried out. Based on this analysis, an outdoor recreation planning and management framework was developed, including expert elicitation and a field survey of the site. This study found that (1) FROS classified the site as “rural developed” (zone 1), “rural natural” (zone 2), and “semi-primitive” (zone 3); (2) LAC considered spatial characteristics and tourism attractions network around the site by each zone; (3) and ecological CC (104.1–485.5 people per day), physical CC (130.9–445.1 people per day), and social CC (25 people for “PAOT,” or “persons at one time”) were proposed for sustainable management of the site. Compared to previous studies, this study has the novelty of suggesting an integrated outdoor recreation model for sustainable planning and management by introducing systematic zoning and coping with the changing environment. This result can be useful for policy-makers who are concerned with the outdoor recreation of forest wetland to conserve and utilize the site and to prioritize suitable sites depending on the determining variables used in this study.

Suggested Citation

  • Heejeong Yun & Dongjin Kang & Youngeun Kang, 2022. "Outdoor recreation planning and management considering FROS and carrying capacities: a case study of forest wetland in Yeongam-gum, South Korea," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 502-526, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:24:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10668-021-01450-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-021-01450-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-021-01450-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-021-01450-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saarikoski, Heli & Jax, Kurt & Harrison, Paula A. & Primmer, Eeva & Barton, David N. & Mononen, Laura & Vihervaara, Petteri & Furman, Eeva, 2015. "Exploring operational ecosystem service definitions: The case of boreal forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 144-157.
    2. Agimass, Fitalew & Lundhede, Thomas & Panduro, Toke Emil & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "The choice of forest site for recreation: A revealed preference analysis using spatial data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 445-454.
    3. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    4. Peña, Lorena & Casado-Arzuaga, Izaskun & Onaindia, Miren, 2015. "Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and a social evaluation approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 108-118.
    5. Orsi, Francesco & Ciolli, Marco & Primmer, Eeva & Varumo, Liisa & Geneletti, Davide, 2020. "Mapping hotspots and bundles of forest ecosystem services across the European Union," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    6. Vallecillo, Sara & La Notte, Alessandra & Zulian, Grazia & Ferrini, Silvia & Maes, Joachim, 2019. "Ecosystem services accounts: Valuing the actual flow of nature-based recreation from ecosystems to people," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 392(C), pages 196-211.
    7. Zhang, Yingsha & Li, Xiang (Robert) & Su, Qin, 2017. "Does spatial layout matter to theme park tourism carrying capacity?," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 82-95.
    8. Rodella, Ilaria & Corbau, Corinne & Simeoni, Umberto & Utizi, Kizzi, 2017. "Assessment of the relationship between geomorphological evolution, carrying capacity and users' perception: Case studies in Emilia-Romagna (Italy)," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 7-22.
    9. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2015. "Multifunctional recreation and nouveau heritage values in plantation forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 131-151.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zdeněk Odvárka & Jitka Meňházová, 2024. "Innovations in the methodological approach to quantifying and evaluating the supported effects of forests for recreational and educational ecosystem services," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 70(5), pages 235-248.
    2. Kulczyk, Sylwia & Woźniak, Edyta & Derek, Marta, 2018. "Landscape, facilities and visitors: An integrated model of recreational ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 491-501.
    3. Weiyi Yu & Hong Hu & Bindong Sun, 2021. "Elderly Suitability of Park Recreational Space Layout Based on Visual Landscape Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, June.
    4. Karasov, Oleksandr & Heremans, Stien & Külvik, Mart & Domnich, Artem & Burdun, Iuliia & Kull, Ain & Helm, Aveliina & Uuemaa, Evelyn, 2022. "Beyond land cover: How integrated remote sensing and social media data analysis facilitates assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    5. Yue Wang & Qi Fu & Tinghui Wang & Mengfan Gao & Jinhua Chen, 2022. "Multiscale Characteristics and Drivers of the Bundles of Ecosystem Service Budgets in the Su-Xi-Chang Region, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-26, October.
    6. Ciesielski, Mariusz & Stereńczak, Krzysztof, 2021. "Using Flickr data and selected environmental characteristics to analyse the temporal and spatial distribution of activities in forest areas," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    7. Rocchi, L. & Cortina, C. & Paolotti, L. & Boggia, A., 2020. "Recreation vs conservation in Natura 2000 sites: a spatial multicriteria approach analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    8. Ghasemi, Mitra & Charrahy, Zabih & González-García, Alberto, 2023. "Mapping cultural ecosystem services provision: An integrated model of recreation and ecotourism opportunities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    9. Primmer, Eeva & Varumo, Liisa & Krause, Torsten & Orsi, Francesco & Geneletti, Davide & Brogaard, Sara & Aukes, Ewert & Ciolli, Marco & Grossmann, Carol & Hernández-Morcillo, Mónica & Kister, Jutta & , 2021. "Mapping Europe’s institutional landscape for forest ecosystem service provision, innovations and governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    10. Lorilla, Roxanne Suzette & Kalogirou, Stamatis & Poirazidis, Konstantinos & Kefalas, George, 2019. "Identifying spatial mismatches between the supply and demand of ecosystem services to achieve a sustainable management regime in the Ionian Islands (Western Greece)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    11. Serge Garcia & Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu, 2017. "Selected papers from the 2015 Workshop on Non-marketValuation (WONV) in Nancy," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 98(3), pages 145-148.
    12. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    13. Han-Shen Chen, 2020. "The Construction and Validation of a Sustainable Tourism Development Evaluation Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-20, October.
    14. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    15. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    16. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Romain Craste & Bengt Kriström & Pere Riera, 2014. "Non-market valuation in France: An overview of the research activity," Working Papers hal-01087365, HAL.
    17. Kibria, Abu SMG & Costanza, Robert & Soto, José R, 2022. "Modeling the complex associations of human wellbeing dimensions in a coupled human-natural system: In contexts of marginalized communities," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 466(C).
    18. Hermes, Johannes & von Haaren, Christina & Schmücker, Dirk & Albert, Christian, 2021. "Nature-based recreation in Germany: Insights into volume and economic significance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    19. González-García, Alberto & Palomo, Ignacio & González, José A. & López, César A. & Montes, Carlos, 2020. "Quantifying spatial supply-demand mismatches in ecosystem services provides insights for land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    20. Víctor García-Díez & Marina García-Llorente & José A. González, 2020. "Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Madrid: Insights for Landscape Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:24:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10668-021-01450-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.