Zoning classes for forest visual landscape management in and around Pyeongchang Winter Olympic area: focused on Alpensia district in the city of Pyeongchang, Gangwon-do

Figures & data

Figure 1. Study area. The Winter Olympic area is shaded in black.

Figure 2. Selection result of viewpoints.

Table 1. Results of viewpoints coordinates.

	Viewpoint coordinates				Viewpoint coordinates
No.	X	Y	Z	No	X	Y	Z
1	348,543	465,327	788	32	347,669	462,416	896
2	349,470	465,721	754	33	346,936	464,405	780
3	349,562	466,255	756	34	346,559	464,481	785
4	349,664	465,839	750	35	346,419	465,068	800
5	349,896	465,440	750	36	346,435	465,392	800
6	350,101	464,686	760	37	346,311	465,985	723
7	350,829	464,265	730	38	349,546	464,740	790
8	350,263	463,909	730	39	349,195	464,163	740
9	349,427	463,160	720	40	348,327	464,173	796
10	349,869	462,766	720	41	348,414	463,915	780
11	349,993	462,367	720	42	348,063	463,704	850
12	349,831	462,071	733	43	348,651	463,489	790
13	349,152	462,206	740	44	347,756	465,862	796
14	348,834	462,098	740	45	344,561	464,284	611
15	348,500	461,817	750	46	349,688	467,449	780
16	348,128	461,672	750	47	348,850	468,347	795
17	347,669	461,607	770	48	351,433	464,817	753
18	347,470	461,391	769	49	352,498	464,235	740
19	348,618	461,213	785	50	354,075	465,990	760
20	349,238	460,658	910	51	352,971	465,615	785
21	348,570	460,680	931	52	350,516	462,470	720
22	347,696	460,814	846	53	351,561	461,820	714
23	348,845	459,779	990	54	351,088	460,676	734
24	348,947	459,434	1,110	55	350,487	460,193	730
25	346,839	459,192	929	56	350,674	459,000	756
26	347,556	457,979	1,414	57	351,187	458,714	754
27	348,219	462,960	750	58	352,222	458,852	744
28	347,680	463,230	760	59	352,646	458,191	735
29	347,146	463,246	760	60	351,591	457,994	763
30	346,667	463,068	770	61	352,547	456,663	716
31	346,769	462,427	782

Table 2. Standard of analysis for visual sensitivity.

Classification	Standards
Altitude	Higher altitude
Slope	Steeper slopes
Direction	Being further south
Vegetation	Higher crown density and simpler vegetation
Artificial landscape factor	Being further from roads, buildings, golf courses, ropeways, and other facilities
View frequency (visual exposure level)	Higher visual exposure and higher view frequency

Note: Corrected and complemented from Korea Forest Service (2011) and Lee et al. (2013).

Table 3. Standard of analysis for landscape management requirement.

Classification	Standards
Distance from the viewpoint	61 viewpoints
Distance from the major landscape resources	Analysis of major ridges, observatories, accommodation, and convention hotels as a major view landscape resource
Region frequently used with a factor affecting the forest	Roadside, ropeway, golf course, and other facilities

Note: Corrected and complemented from Korea Forest Service (2011) and Lee et al. (2013).

Table 4. Forest landscape management grade determination matrix.

		Visual sensitivity
		High	Middle	Low
Landscape management requirement	High	Grade 3	Grade 4		Grade 4
	Middle	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4
	Low	Grade 1	Grade 2		Grade 3

Table 5. Setting of the management direction for forest landscape management grade.

Classification	Management direction
Grade 1 (Conservation zone)	Special region whose landscape should be managedRegion having a high conservation value and a beautiful forest landscapeForest to be preserved legallyRegion needing an improvement to be conserved after restoration
Grade 2 (Buffer zone 1)	Region whose current landscape characteristics should be maintainedNetworking to be connected with the conserved regionsProper region needed to preserve the preserved region
Grade 3 (Buffer zone 2)	Region whose present landscape is partially maintained, but whose excessive landscape design or management should be sublated
Grade 4 (Transitional zone)	Region requiring positive management to improve the present landscapeRegion enabling the artificial utilization of landscape resources on the premise of conservation of buffer zonesRestoration and conservation of the forest landscape zone changed by the road

Note: Corrected and complemented from Korea Forest Service (2011) and Lee et al. (2013).

Figure 3. Analysis result of visual sensitivity.

Figure 4. Analysis result of landscape management requirement.

Figure 5. Result of division of landscape management grade.

Korea Forest Service. 2011. Manual of forest landscape management plan.

 Google Scholar

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 Asses. 22(1):65–78.

 Google Scholar