JFS

(1)

Environmental Science

Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 47-54, March, 2020 https://doi.org/10.7747/JFES.2020.36.1.47

The Process and Method to Set a Mountainous Scenic Site’s Designated Area

Gab Soo Han^1,*, Soonki Kim² and Kwang Min Ham³

1Department of Environmental Landscape Architecture, Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung 25457, Republic of Korea

2Division of Design, Incheon National University, Incheon 22012, Republic of Korea

3Gangwon Urban Regeneration Center, Research Institute for Gangwon, Chuncheon 24265, Republic of Korea

Abstract

A “Scenic Site” is an official heritage category legally defined as a “scenic site of outstanding artistic value with excellent scenic views.” However, the subjective interpretation of the term causes several problems. This study suggested a systematic, organized process of designating a listed area as a scenic site after careful and detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis. Indicators were identified for each of the two analyses, and then scored and weighted. Quantitative indicators were distributed within 5 points for each indicator. Water, which is a natural indicator, based on distance from river boundaries. Forest landscapes were assigned in consideration of forest physiognomy and age class. Land use was allocated in consideration of land cover type and, in case of development site, ‘-’ score was assigned. Cultural heritage conservation area, which is historical and cultural indicator, was distributed by distance within a maximum of 500 meters. Visibility, an indicator of landscape value, was assigned according to the frequency of visibility. The weight of each indicator was calculated by considering the value of each item. The weight of distribution of cultural resources is relatively high, while other items were set the same. In case of land use, however, ‘-’ score was given according to the grade.

Qualitative indicators, on the other hand, were considered terrain, landscape zone, ownership, intellectual boundary, and land category. The applicability of the proposed process and method was examined by applying the existing methods and criteria used for designating scenic spots. Opinions of subject-matter experts were incorporated in the identification of the indicators and in the result review stage. In the future, it is necessary to apply this method while designating scenic sites so as to establish an objective, scientific designation process.

Key Words: Scenic Site, mountainous scenic site, qualitative indicator, quantitative indicator, GIS

Received: September 5, 2019. Revised: February 12, 2020. Accepted: February 12, 2020.

Corresponding author: Gab Soo Han

Department of Environmental Landscape Architecture, Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung 25457, Republic of Korea Tel: 82-33-640-2477, Fax: 82-33-640-2359, E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction

A scenic site is a legally designated place whose surrounding environment forms a beautiful and scenic view at a historical site (Korean Folk Culture Encyclopedia 2019).

Article 2 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act (2018) defines this as a “scenic site of outstanding artistic value with excellent scenic views.” It is important to preserve scenic sites, which have a wider designated or protected

area than other types of cultural heritage and include a variety of scenic resources. As of March 2019, 115 scenic sites have been legally designated as cultural heritage (Cultural Heritage Administration 2019).

In the investigation phase-where an area is identified to be designated as a scenic site-an investigation committee of at least three experts from the Cultural Heritage Committee conducts a field survey. In the absence of guidelines, such investigations mostly rely on qualitative methods, including

(2)

Fig. 1. A flow chart of the study.

experts’ insights and personal experiences. Hence, it is challenging to build a consensus among various stake- holders such as local governments and residents, and difficult to present convincing arguments and evidences.

Mountainous scenic sites are especially challenging: they are designated according to a definition that is either too wide or too narrow compared to other types of scenic sites, making it difficult to establish plans to preserve, use, and manage them. This also raises the problem of infringement of property rights for private land (Cultural Heritage Administration 2014). To solve these problems, a few studies have been conducted on evaluation indicators to designate a scenic site area. Shin et al. (2006) developed evaluation indicators for Eorayeon, Yeongwol (Scenic Site No.

14), including topography, geology, vegetation, wildlife, and cultural landscapes. They analyzed their features and attempted to quantify the evaluation items into a score. Ha and Kim (2014) conducted a viewshed analysis of Bonghwa Cheong-Amjeong and Seokcheon Valley (Scenic Site No.

60) and suggested a technique to designate areas for scenic valley sites. This study selected viewpoints for scenic resources, analyzed weights, and designated scenic grades for sites.

These previous studies are significant as they established efficient ways to reasonably designate an area for a scenic site. However, they had limitations: evaluation indicators were identified and quantified on the basis of individual perspectives, or they leaned too much toward either the quantitative or the qualitative analysis. To designate an area as a scenic site, it is important to conduct an objective quantitative analysis, develop the quantitative indicators that would supplement the analysis, and enact an appropriate process to do so. In this context, this study aims to provide a method and process for identification and re-zoning of the designated area for mountainous scenic sites, which represent natural scenic sites. To do so, this study selected reasonable quantitative and qualitative indicators, applied the indicators to an existing mountainous scenic site, obtained the results, and examined their applicability through expert like professors and researchers review.

Materials and Methods

Quantitative indicators, which are designed to identify

and re-zone the designated area, were adapted from previous studies (Shin et al. 2006; Lee et al. 2013; Choi et al.

2014; Ha and Kim 2014; Kim and Han 2014; Park et al.

2017). Fig. 1 illustrates this study’s major details and process. Relevant literature was reviewed and status surveys of scenic sites were used to investigate scenic resources and each indicator was mapped spatially. The Scenic Site Database Establishment by the Cultural Heritage Administration (2015) was used to reference cultural and scenic resources, as well as to study their characteristics.

Various thematic maps were created, re-classified, and proc- essed using this data. The program used for analyses was ESRI’s ArcGIS 9.3.

Each indicator’s ratings and weightings were applied to existing mountainous scenic sites to obtain the results.

Additionally, qualitative indicators were reflected on to pro- pose an alternative for the designated area. This alternative was compared and reviewed by experts who had previously participated in the process of designating an area as a scenic site, to examine whether the indicators were established cor- rectly or not.

Results and Discussion

The selection process for evaluation indicators The evaluation of a scenic view from an aesthetic per- spective alone may vary depending on the viewers’ sub- jectivity-which includes their cultural background-and sea-

(3)

Table 1. Set indicators for designated scenic site zones

Division Indicators Contents First

step

Second step Natural value Topography Altitude, topography, and boundary of designated zones O -

Water system Water, stream, and waterfall in designated zones O O Animals and plants Habitat of animals and plants in designated zones O - Natural landscape View-points of unique or beautiful landscape O - Mountain landscape Ecological and landscape value of forests O O

Land use Present state of land usage O O

Historic and Cultural value Historic and cultural Age-old traditional culture O - Preservation of

cultural heritage

Cultural assets in designated zones O

O Cultural resources Cultural assets except cultural asset protection zones O - Conservation status Present state of heritage preservation O - Scenic value Scenic type Panoramic/topography/surrounding/point/temporary/detail O -

View-point Distribution of view-point O -

Visibility rating Visibility of landscape resources O O

Distribution of scene resource

Resource of scene target O O

O, means selected.

sonal characteristics. Therefore, it is challenging to select evaluation criteria. Thus, to manage the sites in an efficient, objective manner it is critical to select an appropriate analysis method and evaluation criteria.

In addition, some studies have suggested certain indicators to evaluate natural heritage and scenic views as related to this study. The National Institute of Forest Science (2004; 2012) identified a variety of indicators to evaluate scenic resources in forests, and the following describes their major indicators by item: Forest indicators include forest physiognomy and diameter class; topographic indicators include elevations and slopes; and scenic structure indicators include view distance, view scale, and view diversity. The forest’s use and designated types include resorts, leisure parks, parks, scenic sites, and natural monuments. Negative indicators include power lines, pylons, buildings, land- slides, cut slopes, and bare lands. Kang and Kim (2010) defined evaluation indicators for forest view grades, which included ecological health (the degree of green naturality, ecological naturality, canopy vitality, and pest injury level), scenery (naturality, harmony, diversity, tradition, aesthetics, and rarity), sensitivity (tourism and recreation use level), and interfering elements (damaged lands and artificial structures).

Considering previous research, this study divided evaluation items into natural value, historical and cultural value, and scenic value and established preliminary indicators under each of these items as shown in Table 1. Indicators of natural value included topography, drainage system, animals and plants, natural scenic beauty, and forest view.

Topography is an important element that forms a scenic site’s overall view. Topography sometimes itself becomes a view, and functions to form a skyline and limit the field of view. Considering the above, elevations and ridges were selected as quantitative indicators. A drainage system includes rivers, valleys, and waterfalls. It functions as a scenic resource and an important element in living organism habitats. Animal and plant habitats were selected as scenic resources for their ecological value, and the habitats and their zones were subject to analysis. Natural scenic beauty was selected on the basis of unique topographic features, scenic resources such as boulders, and academic value. The forest view accounts for most of the mountainous scenic sites, and it is a major scenic resource that determines scenic changes across the four seasons. It was selected to reflect forest physiognomy’s universality, particularity, and preservation.

To reflect historical and cultural value, this study included history and culture, cultural heritage preservation,

(4)

Table 2. Set rating and weighting of scenic site

Division Indicators Rating Weight

1(-5) 2(-4) 3(-3) 4(-2) 5(0) -ing

Natural value Water system 40-50 m 30-40 m 20-30 m 10-20 m Less than 10 m 4

Mountain landscape

Orchard, landscape tree plantation

Other species of trees

∙ B≥Age class 5

∙ Artificial forest (≥class 6)

∙ Age class 5

∙ B (≥class 6)

∙ A (≥Age class 6-7)

∙ Valuable forest 2

Land use Living/commercial accommodations

Artificiality installation

Developed land without artificial structure

Treeless land Natural land (4)

Historic and cultural value

Preservation of cultural heritage

Over 500 m 300-500 m 100-300 m Less than 100 m

Within boundary

4

Scenic value Visibility grade Grade 5 Grade 4 Grade 3 Grade 2 Grade 1 4

Historic/cultura/

natural resources

Close to sites Without historicity

Be told via folk tales

Be told via legends

Be told via literature

6

The numbers in brackets applies to the indicator of land use.

Preservation of cultural heritage: Distance from historic-cultural-environmental conservation areas.

Historic/cultural/natural resources: Within mountaintop (≤2-1 km)/rock (≤1 km)/bedrock, small mountaintop (≤500 m)/waterfall etc.

(≤300 m)/historical building, small bedrock, valley (≤100 m), small rock etc.

A, representative of forest physiognomy; Age class, classification of tree age; B, secondary forest physiognomy; Other species of trees, trees except A and B.

cultural resources, land use, and the preservation condition.

Among these indicators, history and culture were selected to reflect historical resources that have been recorded or passed down, while cultural heritage preservation and cultural resources were chosen to reflect the distribution of different cultural heritage sites inside and outside the area.

Land use, which is intended to reflect whether the area is preserved or not, was selected to exclude the areas that neg- atively affect the designation of a scenic site, including developed land or those with various artificial structures.

To reflect scenic value, this study included scenic type, viewpoint, viewshed grade, and the distribution of scenic resources. The scenic type is a key element in under- standing an area’s view and in representing the characteristics of a viewpoint. The viewpoint—that is, where the point of view is located—can represent the area’s scenic view. It is an important element in forming the scenic view and is directly subject to scene management. The viewshed grade is designed to reflect the level of a view; it is viewed directly from a major viewpoint. The more frequently it is viewed, the more scenic importance it has. Viewshed analyses can be conducted in major viewpoints, overlapped together and quantified through re-classification.

To verify the selected indicator’s effectiveness, a ques- tionnaire survey was conducted to collect opinions from experts who had previously participated in the scenic sites designation process. Some items and indicators were partially revised through this process. The indicators that were finally selected for their efficiency and use in identifying valid results included the drainage system and forest view, as well as land use in its natural value, cultural heritage preservation in its historical and cultural value, and scenic resources and viewshed grade in their scenic value.

Evaluation indicators’ ratings and weights

To determine spatial validity of a designated area, it is necessary to spatially map the selected indicators, turn each of them into a score, and collate these to grade spatial value.

Accordingly, this study mapped and graded the selected indicators. For each indicator’s score range and applicability grade, previous studies were considered (The National Institute of Forest Science 2004; Shin et al. 2006;

The National Institute of Forest Science 2012; Lee et al.

2013; Ha and Kim 2014) and the indicators were divided into 5 grades and each grade was rated at one to five points.

A higher score meant a more positive impact on the desig-

(5)

nation of an area as a scenic site (Table 2).

Providing scientific and objective criteria for each indicator is limited. Therefore, in this study, rational distribution was made for each index in consideration of previous studies and legal regulations. The basis of the distribution of each indicator is as follows.

The drainage system is an indicator in natural value, which evaluates one continuous water system formed by a river’s mainstream, its tributaries, its distributaries, swamps, and lakes in a region. There is no overarching theory on the categorization of distance from the drainage system, and it is set differently depending on each study’s needs. This study set 50 meters on both sides from a river’s boundary (i.e., 100 meters with the river in the middle) as the distance at which a drainage system influences a scenic view.

Viewpoints were assigned accordingly. Points were assigned to the forest view, considering forest physiognomy and age class. Of those tree species that account for most of the area, higher points were given to well-preserved regions of at least age class six or seven and places that were home to unique tree species or those with high preservation value.

Areas without trees were excluded from this score.

Considering the type of land cover, land use was divided in- to developed land, land covered with forests, herbs, and crops, and undeveloped land preserved in natural conditions.

This indicator was designed to exclude the developed area when setting a scenic site’s designated area. Each grade was assigned “- (negative)” points in this indicator.

As an indicator of historical and cultural value, cultural heritage preservation was classified and evaluated on the basis of the characteristics of the designated cultural heritage located within the radius of the designated area. A previous study (Ministry of Environment 1999) set the radius of 100m from cultural heritage as a protection zone in its evaluation of the naturality of national parks. Furthermore, the Cultural Heritage Protection Act set forth 500 meters as the maximum distance to establish a preservation zone for history, culture, and the environment. Applying this no- tion, this study regarded the distance of cultural heritage preservation areas as up to 500 meters and divided them in- to grades by distance.

Viewshed, an indicator in scenic value, indicates the land, drainage system, or other environmental elements visible from a viewpoint. When there are multiple viewpoints,

viewshed frequency (i.e., how many times it is viewed) has important scenic value. Accordingly, viewshed frequency was established after setting the horizontal angle, vertical angle, distance, and view height from a viewpoint to the view object. The viewshed was categorized into five grades by frequency. Rating of Visibility grades are scored according to grade. Scenic resources for history, culture, nature, and an indicator in scenic value evaluate the area in which a particular scenic resource can be viewed as the view object;

this could include mountain peaks, towering rocks, and waterfalls. After identifying major scenic resources in old historical texts or documents, this study assigned higher points to scenic resources that had evidence of historical value and lower points to resources that had no such evidence. Additionally, points were assigned based on whether or not they had natural scenic beauty.

Table 2 lists the weight for each indicator. For the ratio of the above items, each value was split appropriately to ensure that all these items added-up to 100. In previous studies, weighting criteria are difficult to prove scientifically, and are inevitably based on the researchers’ reasonable judgment.

As this study examined a scenic site formed around mountain peaks and ridges surrounding cultural resources, the cultural resources were weighted more than others; weighting was applied identically to other indicators. However, land use was not included in the total score, and “- (negative)” points were assigned, which removed “from 0 to -20” depending on the grade.

Selection of qualitative indicators

This study selected such qualitative indicators that were difficult to quantify but essential to manage and designate a scenic site. These indicators, which were selected on the basis of the opinions of responsible public servants and do- main experts, included topography, scenic zone, ownership, cadastral boundary, and type of land. Topography-that is, ridges and slopes-was intended to set the boundary for the designation of a scenic site. The scenic zone refers to the span viewed from a viewpoint and uses the area’s watershed as its range. Ownership was divided into public and private ownership, and the cadastral boundary was included; this was intended to ensure that one parcel of land was not split and designated partially. The type of land was designed to consider land use and reflect the boundary when different

(6)

Fig. 2. Application of quantitative indicators to scenic sites. Bo. of SS means boundary of scenic site. The number in ( ) is scored by rating in a-f , rating

and weighting in g. Fig. 3. Application of qualitative indicators to scenic sites.

types of land were connected. Before an area was selected for designation as a scenic site, it was analyzed first quanti- tatively and then qualitatively.

Indicator’s application process

Fig. 2 describes the application process of the established indicators. Along with quantitative evaluation of the area, a qualitative evaluation was conducted considering topography, ownership, cadastral boundary, and others. The area to which the indicators were applied was Haeinsa, Gayasan (Scenic Site No. 62). The area around Haeinsa was designated as a scenic site in 2009. It is a historical and cultural site with various cultural properties, beautiful mountains and water bodies, and a variety of peaks and valleys. When this area was designated, various complaints were filed as it reflected topography and cadastral boundaries poorly. Some have asked for this designated area to be re-zoned.

Fig. 2 shows the results that applied the points and weights of the quantitative indicators. In Fig. 2, g repre- sents the result scored by the rating and weighting of each

indicator. Grades were further subdivided for analysis by applying qualitative indicators. Grades 1 to 5 were assigned to the area around the mainstream in Hongryudong Valley.

Regarding the forest view, the area around Haeinsa was designated as Grade 2 overall, as it is a typical temperate, deciduous forest. Grade 1 was assigned to the oak and pine tree clusters around Hongryudong Valley. Grade 5 (land use) was assigned to the northwest commercial area, which has an intercity bus terminal and hotels, as well as the southeast downstream area of Hongryudong Valley, where land has been commercially developed. The designated areas of Haeinsa Temple with Jangyeongpan Jeon (National Treasure No. 52) and Sambo Sampan (National Treasure No. 32) were assigned to Grade 2 in cultural heritage preservation. Considering the scenic view, Grades 1 and 2 in the viewshed were assigned, which was relatively high, as viewpoints were established along mountain peaks such as Namsanjeil-bong (1,010 m) south as well as Chilbulbong (1,433 m) and Seojangdae (1,158 m) north.

The results showed high grades around Haeinsa overall as there were many cultural and scenic resources nearby, and relatively higher grades in the northeast from Sangwangbong and the Stone Standing Buddha Statue.

(7)

The west and the southeast had low grades because of land that was developed, including a residential area. Further- more, there were higher grades around Hongryudong Valley, whereas other adjacent areas had lower grades because of developed land.

Fig. 3 shows thematic maps for qualitative evaluation and the final suggested scenic site’s boundaries. While the existing scenic site’s designated area reflected topography, straight-line boundaries were formed in the west and south, which demonstrates that topography and land use are incorporated poorly. The alternative suggested by this study considers topography and cadastral boundaries, excludes developed lands and some part of the east in the existing scenic site, and partially includes the southwest. In the west, the downtown area was excluded because of construction.

The south was included in the designated area considering the valley’s historical and scenic value.

Opinions about this study’s suggested indicators, process, and results were gathered from members of the Cultural Heritage Committee. They found that the categorized items in the quantitative indicators, criteria, points by type of scenic site, and weights by type were appropriate.

Due to the scenic site’s characteristics, however, they re- ported that it would require an expert’s experiential judgment through a site visit. These results imply that when the process of defining and applying this study’s suggested indicators was evaluated positively, an expert’s site visit and experiential judgment should have been used together along with quantitative results by considering the scenic site’s characteristics.

Conclusions

This study proposed a standardized process and method for designating an area as a scenic site. Accordingly, this study examined the validity of this process and method by selecting quantitative and qualitative indicators, assigning points and weights to the quantitative indicators, mapping scenic resources, and applying them to the area.

Although the process of designating an area as a scenic site has relied until now on an expert’s qualitative judgment from his or her field survey, this study is significant as it quantified evaluation indicators and prepared the criteria that could supplement objectivity and reasonableness in

designating and re-zoning a scenic site. Due to the characteristics of a scenic site, designating and re-zoning the site requires an expert’s experiential judgment through his or her site visit along with a combination of quantitative and qualitative data.

Hence, it would be necessary to provide basic data through indicators identified in this study and reflect an expert’s judgment based on his or her site visit in the process of designating a scenic site. In summary, this study suggested the first phase (which derives spatial evaluation results by using quantitative indicators), the second phase (which establishes an alternative by applying qualitative indicators), and the third phase (which makes the final judgment from an expert’s site visit).

This study used five grades to assign points to each indicator, and it was challenging to find suitable previous studies or objective data in setting grades for each indicator.

Even if precise criteria to assign points were selected from some other method, it was insufficient to determine whether the results from such criteria were appropriate. Therefore, this study considered the indicators’ various characteristics and assigned points accordingly. In the future, obtaining more evidence in this regard will be necessary. Furthermore, greater validity of this study will have to be obtained by applying it to various scenic sites.

Acknowledgements

This study was carried out with the support of ‘2016, 2017 Scenic Site related studies’ funded by Cultural Heritage Administration.

References

Choi SH, Kim EJ, Nam JH, Woo JC. 2014. A Study on the Applicability of Decision Support System for the Permission of Forest Land-Use Conversion. J For Environ Sci 30: 45-49. (in Korean with English abstract)

Cultural Heritage Administration (Korea). 2011. A study on inves- tigating landscape resources and building the DB (4th). No.

11-1550011-000451-01.

Cultural Heritage Administration (Korea). 2014. Preservation and application plan by national designation. No. 11-1550000- 001530-01.

Cultural Heritage Administration (Korea). 2019. http://search.

cha.go.kr/srch_org/search/search_sub.jsp. Accessed 6 Aug 2019.

(8)

Ha TI, Kim CS. 2014. The Development of Valley Scenic Site Zoning Method for the Effective Landscape Protection. J Korea Inst Traditional Landsc Archit 32: 183-190. (in Korean with English abstract)

Kang MH, Kim SG. 2010. Development of Evaluation Indices for Forest Landscape Classification. J Korea For Soc 99: 777-784.

(in Korean with English abstract)

Kim KN, Han GS. 2014. Analysis of the Physical Characteristics and Tranquility of the Valley in Gangwon Province. J Korea Forest Sci 30: 152-160. (in Korean with English abstract) Korean Folk Culture Encyclopedia. 2019. Scenic Site. https://100.daum.

net/encyclopedia/view/14XXE0018305. Accessed 5 Jun 2019.

National Law Information Center. 2018. Cultural property protection act. Partial revision. http://www.law.go.kr/%EB%B2

%95%EB%A0%B9/%EB%AC%B8%ED%99%94%EC%9E

%AC%EB%B3%B4%ED%98%B8%EB%B2%95%EC%8B

%9C%ED%96%89%EA%B7%9C%EC%B9%99. Accessed 5 Jun 2019.

Lee GG, Jang HJ, Lee MJ, Jo HK. 2013. A Study on Setting up Method for Visual Management of Forest Landscape and Field Application - Focused on Forest Landscape around High One

Resort in Jeongseon-gun, Gangwon-do -. J Environ Impact Assess 22: 65-78. (in Korean with English abstract)

Lee GG, Park CW. 2012. A Zoning Method for Forest Landscape Management by Visual Quality Assessment. J Kor Soc For Sci 101: 148-157.

Ministry of Environment (Korea). 1999. Establishment of National Park Plan Feasibility Study Criteria.

National Institute of Forest Science (Korea). 2004. A Study on Management of Forest Recreation and Landscape Resources.

National Institute of Forest Science (Korea). 2012. Forest Landscape Resources Survey and Landscape Plan.

Park JM, Yim JS, Lee JS. 2017. Evaluation of a Land Use Change Matrix in the IPCC’s Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry Area Sector Using National Spatial Information. J Korea Forest Soc 33: 295-304.

Shin SJ, Kang CH, Yoo CM, Lee JK. 2006. Study for the Detail Evaluation Indices for Designating Beautiful National Sites:

Focusing on the Eorayeon Area Near the Donggang River in Youngwol. J Korea Inst Traditional Landsc Archit 24: 102-110.

(in Korean with English abstract)