전략환경영향평가 및 환경영향평가 사업에서의 생태면적률 적용 현황 및 한계점 분석 (Analysis of the Status and Limitation of the Biotope Area Ratio on Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국환경복원기술학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국환경복원기술학회지 / 21권 / 1호 / 55 ~ 71페이지
· 저자명 : 박진한, 이동근, 김효민, 성현찬, 전성우, 최재용, 이창석, 황상연

초록

To improve the ecological function of urban areas, the guideline for applying the Biotope Area Ratio to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was developed in 2005 and modified in the July, 2017.
This study investigates whether the guideline has been actually practiced in the real world by searching reports including 648 cases of the Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA) and 471 cases of the EIA. The results show that the 38% of SEIA and the 43% of EIA include sections about Biotope Area Ratio, and the 15% of SEIA and the 25 % of EIA are satisfied the threshold of the Biotope Area Ratio suggested by the guideline. The statistical analysis results show that this low level of practice was not improved through the modification of the guideline in 2017. This is because the guideline is forcibleness, its explanation is unclear, and stockholders’ understanding of it lacks. In addition, lack of tracking management on SEIA and EIA also contributes to the low level of practice of the guideline.
To promote the practice, the efforts to legislate and publicize the guideline are required.

영어초록

To improve the ecological function of urban areas, the guideline for applying the Biotope Area Ratio to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was developed in 2005 and modified in the July, 2017.
This study investigates whether the guideline has been actually practiced in the real world by searching reports including 648 cases of the Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA) and 471 cases of the EIA. The results show that the 38% of SEIA and the 43% of EIA include sections about Biotope Area Ratio, and the 15% of SEIA and the 25 % of EIA are satisfied the threshold of the Biotope Area Ratio suggested by the guideline. The statistical analysis results show that this low level of practice was not improved through the modification of the guideline in 2017. This is because the guideline is forcibleness, its explanation is unclear, and stockholders’ understanding of it lacks. In addition, lack of tracking management on SEIA and EIA also contributes to the low level of practice of the guideline.
To promote the practice, the efforts to legislate and publicize the guideline are required.

참고자료

· 없음