에머지 방법론을 이용한 갯벌생태계의 가치 평가: I. 에머지 유입 특성

남정호,강대석,NAM, JUNG HO,KANG, DAE SEOK 한국해양학회 2016 바다 Vol.21 No.4

전국 및 지역별 갯벌을 대상으로 갯벌생태계의 생태적 과정을 유지하고 생태계서비스를 제공하는데 기본 토대인 자연환경에너지(태양, 바람, 파도, 강수, 조석 등)를 통한 에머지 유입 특성을 분석하였다. 우리나라 갯벌생태계로 유입하는 자연환경에너지가 공급한 에머지 총량은 $4.98{\times}10^{21}sej/yr$이었는데, 이는 갯벌생태계의 유지에 필요한 기본적인 환경 조건이 제공하는 에머지량에 해당한다. 갯벌생태계로 유입하는 에머지량을 화폐 단위로 환산하면 1조1,412억 원/yr으로, 이것은 갯벌생태계가 제공하는 생태계서비스를 생산하는데 토대가 되는 환경적 조건의 가치에 해당한다. 지역별 갯벌의 면적 차이를 고려하여 단위면적당으로 나타낼 경우 우리나라 연안의 일반적인 조차 분포를 따라 인천-경기 지역에서 부산 지역으로 갈수록 단위면적당 에머지 유입량이 감소하였다. 지역별 갯벌의 단위면적당 에머지 유입량과 단위면적당 수산물 생산의 에머지량을 이용하여 갯벌생태계를 유지하는데 필요한 자연환경에너지의 에머지 유입 특성과 생태계서비스 사이의 관계를 개괄적으로 살펴본 결과 지역별 갯벌로 유입한 에머지량과 수산물 생산의 에머지량 사이에는 아주 명확한 관계가 나타나지는 않았다. 그러나 단위면적당 에머지 유입량이 더 많은 서해안 갯벌에서 생산한 수산물의 에머지량이 남해안 갯벌에서 생산한 수산물의 에머지량보다 더 많아 개별 갯벌생태계의 생태계서비스 잠재력을 나타내는데 자연환경에너지를 통한 에머지 유입량의 활용 가능성을 보여주었다. This study analyzed the characteristics of emergy inputs from environmental sources that are essential in maintaining ecological processes and providing ecosystems services of the tidal flat ecosystems in Korea. Environmental sources provided a total of $4.98{\times}10^{21}sej/yr$ of emergy to the tidal flats of Korea. The emergy inputs from environmental sources were worth 1,141 billion ￦/yr. This is the value of environmental conditions that are the basis of ecosystem services provided by the tidal flat ecosystems. The emergy input per hectare to regional tidal flats decreased along the coastline from northwest to southeast, with the highest input in the Incheon-Gyeonggi area in the central western part of the Korean coast and the lowest input in the Busan area in the southeastern end. This reflects the general distribution pattern of the magnitude of tidal ranges along the Korean coast. There was no a clear-cut relationship between emergy inputs per unit area and fishery production(expressed in emergy quantity) per unit area. However, tidal flats in the west coast with higher emery inputs per unit area produced more fishery products than those in the south coast with lower emergy inputs, suggesting a possibility that the emergy inputs could be used for the rapid evaluation and comparison of the potential for ecosystem service provision by individual tidal flats.

AHP를 이용한 연안,해양보호구역 지정기준 개선 연구

남정호 ( Jung Ho Nam ),육근형 ( Keun Hyung Yook ) 한국환경정책평가연구원 2007 환경정책연구 Vol.6 No.3

우리나라 연안과 해양에 소재한 보호구역은 1990년대 중반 이후 지정개소와 면적이 급속도로 증가하여 전국에 425개소, 10,666.8㎢가 지정되어 있다. 그러나 보호구역제도의 외형적 실적(output)에도 불구하고 지정기준의 객관성 부족과 모호성은 다른 관리문제점인 갈등발생, 지정 후 관리대책 미비, 중복지정 등의 원인으로 기능하고 있다. 연안·해양생태계 보전을 위한 효과적인 정책수단으로 보호구역제도가 기능하기 위해서는 지정과정에서 나타나는 문제점을 해결할 필요가 있는데, 이를 위해서는 현재의 보호구역 지정체계를 개선해야 한다. 지정기준에는 자연환경 요소뿐만 아니라 사회경제적 요소를 포함해야 하며, 세부지표별로 가중치를 부여하여 항목별 중요도를 반영할 필요가 있다. 이 연구에서는 대표적인 연안·해양보호구역인 ‘습지보호지역``과 ‘해양보호구역``을 대상으로 자연환경뿐만 아니라 사회적 여건과 같은 관리적 요소를 고려한 지정기준을 제시하였다. 또한 계층화분석과정(AHP) 기법을 활용하여 개별 지정기준 항목의 가중치를 산정하였고 이를 보호구역 대상지역 평가에 활용할 수 있는 체계를 개발하였다. The Korean government has put mamy efforts into the protection of ecological values of coastal and marine ecosystems since the mid 1990s, recognizing ecological values and economic contributions of coastal and marine ecosystems. Rapid increase of coastal and marine protected areas in terms of number and size implies the innovative change of national policy regarding ecosystem protection. As of the end of 2006, the total number and size of the protected areas account for 425 and 10,666.8㎢ respectively. Despite of this achievement, the current policy regime on the protected areas has not been quite successful dealing with in managerial issues. The ambiguity and the lacking objectivity of designation criteria have, been causes of pending issues such as conflict outbreaks, ``paper parks``, duplicated designation, etc. This paper aims at improving current designation criteria based on AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process). The suggestion of the study covers both the new designation criteria and the weighing factor on each criterion considering different ecological and socio-economic characteristics of ``wetland protected area`` and ``marine protected area``.

논문 : 백제(百濟) 무왕(武王)의 왕비(王妃)와 의자왕(義慈王)의 생모(生母)에 대한 고찰(考察)

남정호 ( Jung Ho Nam ) 역사교육학회 2015 역사교육논집 Vol.55 No.-

As sarira enrichment record was found at the western tower of Mireuksa, many researchers mentioned the relation of the power in the reign of King Mu and the early part of King Euija, King Mu`s queen and King Euija`s biological mother. But many researchers pulled down different conclusions of which King Mu`s queen or King Euija`s biological mother is. In order to explain this, I focused on the story of NihonShoki Hwanggeuk Dynasty`s first year, and I researched to find answers on who was called the ``king`s mother``, King Euija`s biological mother, and how to look at sarira enrichment record`s queen Sataek and princess Sunwha of King Mu Dynasty in Samguk-yusa. Relationship between the ``king`s mother`` and King Euija written in story of NihonShoki in Hwanggeuk Dynasty, analyzed Baekje revolution and knowing that the revolution broke out by the ``king`s mother`s death, helps to find out that the political power basis between her and King Euija was different. Therefore, it`s hard to say that the ``king`s mother`` is King Euija`s biological mother. The ``king`s mother`` from NihonShoki Hwanggeuk Dynasty and queen Sataek from sarari enrichment record are the same person realizing that the ``king`s mother`` is recorded together with SataekJijeok and also the record is only 3 years apart from the period when queen Sataek is recorded. If so, it`s most reasonable to say that queen Sunwha from King Mu Dynasty in Samguk-yusa is the biological mother of King Euija. Many view the origin of queen Sunwha as the force of Iksan, but it`s difficult to say that. Because even though King Euija is son of queen Sunwha, he seemed to focus on his own region after later period of King Mu`s reign and even after he wiped out his enemies who were against his supremacy, he didn`t assign any people from Iksan force to important post. Also, it`s hard to say that queen Sunwha is third daughter of king Jinpyeong of Silla. Because while king Jinpyeong of Silla ceremony for Sukjong is enforced, it`s not to be understandable if he named his daughter related to the Maitreya faith, if she`s third daughter of king Jinpyeong, it`s hard to say that she was married before King Mu came into power considering the age, and it`s less realistic for kingdom of Silla to send out a princess for marriage before King Mu was in power. But it`s possible to say that she remained under name queen Sunwha because of the fact that Dynasty Mu in Samguk-yusa is special enough to be noteworthy, the story went through legendary embellishment. Finally, to examine the point of marriage, queen Sunwha was married before 595 when the King Mu came into power, and queen Sataek was married in the beginning of King Mu`s era which can be concluded as queen Sunwha the first queen of King Mu, queen Sataek the second.

660년 당군과 신라군의 연합 작전에서의 몇 가지 문제

남정호(Nam, Jung-ho) 호서사학회 2018 역사와 담론 Vol.0 No.87

이 논문은 660년 백제 공격에 나선 당군과 신라군의 연합 작전이 어떤 의도를 갖고 어떻게 전개된 것인지를 알아보고자 한 것이다. 이미 당과 신라 연합군의 기본 전략에 대해서는 기존의 연구 성과들이 누적되어 있어 큰 줄기는 밝혀져 있지만 세부적인 면에서 언급되지 않거나 보강이 필요한 부분들을 메워 양국의 연합 작전을 구체적으로 복원해 보고자 하였다. 우선 백제 공격을 결정한 당이 신라에게 덕물도에서 회합하자고한 이유는 당군이 서해 중부 횡단항로를 이용하여 덕물도에 도착하였기 때문이었다. 이 항로에 대한 정보는 신라에서 제공한 것으로 보인다. 이 때 당은 신라에 구체적인 작전 계획은 전하지 않았기 때문에 신라군은 경기도 일대에서 당군과 합군하거나 양국 군대가 따로 진격하는 경우를 모두 염두에 두어야 했다. 그래서 신라군은 남천정까지 북상하였던 것이다. 비록 신라군이 의도한 것은 아니었지만 이와 같은 신라군의 북상은 백제의 방어 전략 수립을 혼란스럽게 만든 효과를 낳았다. 덕물도 회합에서 소정방이 제시한 전략은 수륙 양공 작전과 사비성 남쪽에서의 합군이었다. 수륙 양공 작전은 백제의 방어선을 분산시켜 병력 손실을 최소화하고 빠른 시일 내에 전쟁을 끝내겠다는 속전속결의 전략이었다. 그러나 상대적으로 해로를 이용하는 당군에 비해 육로로 백제 국경을 돌파해야 하는 신라군에게 불리한 전략이었다. 양군이 사비성 남쪽에서 합군하기로 한 것은 백제 방어선이 비교적 약한 곳으로 진격하고자 한 것이었지만, 유사시 의자왕이 남쪽의 전라도 방면으로 피신하여 전쟁이 길어지는 것을 막고자 하는 의도였다. 한편 이 당시 당군이 신라군에게 보급 부대의 역할을 맡긴 것으로 보는 견해가 널리 확산되고 있는데, 군사 전략 상의 문제점과 실제 신라군의 수송 능력 등을 고려하면 당시 신라군만이 전적으로 보급 부대의 역할을 하였다고 보기는 어렵다. 특히 당군이 유인궤로 하여금 별도의 보급 부대를 담당하도록 했던 자료에 근거하면 신라군에게 보급을 전담시킨 것이 아니라 별도의 보급 부대를 운용했음을 알 수 있다. This paper is to find out what intention brought about the allied military operation of Tang Dynasty and Silla to attack Baekjae in 660 and how it was carried out. The existing research results are accumulated and the outline of the basic strategy of the Tang and Silla allied forces is revealed. However, I tried to restructure the united operations of the two countries in detail by filling in areas that are not mentioned or need reinforcement. First, the Tang who decided to attack Baekje decided to meet Silla in Deokmul Island because the Tang army arrived at Deokmul Island using the middle crossing route of the West Sea. Information on this route seems to have been provided by Silla. At that time, the Tang had not given a specific plan to Silla, so Silla army had to keep in mind that either the army with the Tang army in Gyeonggi-do, or the army of the two countries went apart. So the Silla army was up north to Namchenjeong. Although this was not the intention of the Silla army, the Silla army"s advance to the north led to the confusion of Baekje"s defense strategy. The strategy that Su Dingfang proposed during the talk at the Deokmul Island was simultaneous execution of both army and naval attack and to join the forces in the south of Sabi-castle. The intention of the strategy to use both army and naval troops was to distribute defense of Baekjae forces to minimize loss of soldiers and to end the battle soon. However, it was disadvantageous for Silla, which had to break through the Baekje border on land, compared to Tang which was to go from the sea. The reason that the two armies decided to join in the south of Sabi Fortress was to advance to the area where Baekjae’s defense was relatively weak but also, in the event of an emergency, for King Uija to escape to the south in order to prevent the war from lasting long. On the other hand, the opinion that the main role of Silla at that time was taking charge of distributing supplies for the Tang army is spreading widely. However, it is difficult to reckon that the army of Silla took the role considering its actual transportation ability and the issue of military strategy. In particular, the fact Yu Ingye of Tang was running separate ship for supply signifies that they did not made the troops of Silla to take responsibility of distributing supplies.

연구논문 : 서해연안 접경지역 현황 및 남북한 협력관리 방안

남정호 ( Jung Ho Nam ),강대석 ( Dae Seok Kang ) 한국환경정책평가연구원 2004 환경정책연구 Vol.3 No.2

As a result of very limited access due to the military confrontation between South and North Koreas for the last five decades, ecosystems in the transboundary coastal area in the western part of Korean Peninsula have been protected from intensive developments in both Koreas. In the core of the recent two military collisions lies the fishery resources represented as blue crabs as well as the politico-military aspect. Increasing development pressures from both sides as reflected in the South Korea supporting the construction of an industrial complex in Kaesung, North Korea, is the main factor which threatens the sustainable resource base in this region. This research is aimed to develop a cooperative management system for the well-preserved transboundary coastal area between South Korea and North Korea. The Pressure-State-Response (PSR) framework of OECD was used to assess environmental conditions, socioeconomic pressures on the environment of the region, and policy responses of both Koreas to those pressures. Protection of ecosystems, peace settlement, and prosperity of the region and the entire peninsula were proposed as the management goals of the cooperative management system. The designation of the area as a Co-managed Marine Protected Area System (COMPAS) through close cooperation among South Korea, North Korea, and international entities was suggested as a way to achieve those goals. Revision of legal and institutional mechanisms, strengthening knowledge base for optimal COMPAS management, integration of the marine protected area and DMZ (demilitarized zone) ecosystem, enhancing stakeholder participation, building international partnership, and securing financial resources were presented as six management strategies.

2020년 발행 『중학교 역사②』 교과서의 「남북국 시대의 전개」 단원 서술 검토

남정호 ( Nam Jung-ho ) 역사교육학회 2022 역사교육논집 Vol.81 No.-

This paper reviewed the text description of Chapter II of the Development of the Age of the North and South Korea of the Middle School History 2 textbook developed in accordance with the 2015 revised curriculum and currently used in middle schools. First, the differences were confirmed by comparing the 2009 revised curriculum and the 2015 revised curriculum, and problems and improvement directions were presented by comparing the system and quantity of unit composition for each textbook. Then, according to the order of description in the textbook, review the text description of the textbook by dividing it into ① statements that are subject to errors and misunderstandings in historical facts, ② statements that do not reflect academic research results and are controversial in terms of theories, and ③ statements that need improvement. pointed out and suggested improvements. As a result of the review, there were several problems and improvements. The important ones are as follows. First, when comparing the 2009 revised curriculum with the 2015 revised curriculum, it was analyzed that there was no significant difference in the amount of student learning. There was no significant difference in the description system or volume of each textbook. ① As for the narratives that may have errors or misunderstanding of historical facts, first, the international situation in Northeast Asia from the end of the 6th to the 7th century was characterized by the confrontation between the north and south powers of Goguryeo, Baekje, Wa, and Dolgwol, and the east and west powers of Silla and Sui and Tang. It is wrong to describe. Second, it is an error to describe the process of forming an alliance between Silla and the Tang as if Silla took the lead. Third, it is an error to say that the ruling class was divided due to frequent wars of conquest as the cause of Baekje's fall. Fourth, the description of the inhabitants of Balhae as composed of ‘Goguryeo people’ and ‘Malgal people’ is highly likely to be misunderstood in many ways. It should be stated first that Goguryeo is a country made up of several races, and the expression ‘Goguryeo people’ includes various races, so it needs to be corrected. ② As for the narratives that do not reflect the research achievements of Korean ancient history academia or have the potential to be controversial in theory, the first is that the Cheonri Wall, which is said to have been built by Goguryeo in preparation for the invasion of the Tang Dynasty, is controversial. Second, the nationalistic description of the outcome of the war between Goguryeo and Sui-Tang should be revised. Third, it is an error to describe the territory at the time of the unification of the three kingdoms of Silla as a line connecting the Daedong River and Wonsan Bay. At that time, it even occupied the Imjin River basin, and it was only after 735 that it advanced to the Daedong River. Fourth, the statement that Kim Chun-chu was born in Jingol and became the first king does not reflect the research achievements of academia. Fifth, the statement that the role of the opposing party and the painters' meeting in Silla's politics after unification has weakened is different from the research results of academic circles and therefore needs to be revised. ③ As for other descriptions that need improvement, first, Kim Chun-chu's diplomatic negotiation target is often described as Yeon Gaesomun. Second, in the Baekje revival movement, there are cases where the Buyeo style is not described, but it is necessary to describe it because it is a person who has been appointed as king. Third, since Balhae moved the capital several times, the fact should be indicated. Fourth, it is necessary to correct the part that may lead to misunderstandings in the descriptions of 'Dogseosampoomgwa' and the 'Bingonggwa'.

2014년 발행 고등학교 『한국사』 교과서의 삼국시대 정치사 서술 검토

남정호 ( Nam Jung-ho ) 역사교육학회 2016 역사교육논집 Vol.60 No.-

This study reviews the teaching and learning materials and the descriptions about political history of the Three Kingdoms Period in the high school textbooks, Korean History, published in 2014 based on the 2009 Revised National Curriculum. The examination reveals a considerable number of problems, including factual errors, controversial descriptions, and teaching and learning materials of insufficient quality. Some of the factual errors and descriptions causing theoretical disputes are particularly in describing King Taejo of Goguryeo, King Goi and Geunchogo of Baekje, and the political situation in East Asia in the 7th century. In addition, there are many problems in the maps demonstrating the growth of 4th century``s Baekje, the expansion of 5th century``s Goguryeo, the growth of Shila in the 6th century, and the political situations in East Asia between the late 6th century and the 7th century. It appears that these problems originated either from changes in the consensus among historians or inadequate examination of new theories. In other words, the outdated descriptions and data included in the prior textbooks were reused without proper scrutiny. Therefore, this study confirms the necessity for careful and thorough examination of the textbook content in developing and writing new textbooks. Due to too frequent curriculum revisions and releases of new textbooks, it is very difficult for textbook writers to fully review and include new research findings and theories in their new textbooks, especially when we have new history textbooks released almost every three years. This circumstance, therefore, requires great effort of the academic circles of historians in reviewing new textbooks and correcting errors in them.

660년 대백제전에서 발생한 소정방과 김유신의 갈등 사건

남정호(Nam, Jung-ho) 부산경남사학회 2018 역사와 경계 Vol.107 No.-

이 논문은 660년 당과 신라 연합군의 백제 공격 전쟁에 대해 중국 사서들과 한국 사서들이 남긴 기록의 차이점에 주목하여 당시 이 전쟁에 대한 당과 신라의 인식 차이를 살펴보고, 이러한 인식의 차이를 낳은 출발점인 소정방과 김유신 간에 벌어진 갈등 사건의 성격과 그 배경을 밝힌 것이다. 660년 백제 공격 전쟁에 대해 중국 사서들은 웅진강구 전투와 사비성 남쪽 전투를 중요하게 서술한 반면 신라측 사료에는 황산벌 전투를 상세히 기록하고 있다. 이런 차이점은 당은 660년 전쟁에서 신라군의 역할을 인정하지 않고 당군이 주역이었다고 생각하였고, 신라는 그러한 당의 인식에 맞서 신라군이 중요한 역할을 하였다고 생각한 것에서 비롯되었다. 이러한 양국 간의 갈등은 당시 소정방과 김유신의 갈등에서 시작되었다. 이러한 갈등으로 신라측 자료에서는 소정방을 폄훼하거나 신라군의 군기 위반을 감추기도 하였다. 이와 같은 양국 간의 갈등은 당과 신라 간에 전쟁이 발생할 때까지 지속되었다. 이러한 양국 간의 미묘한 신경전의 출발점이 된 660년의 소정방과 김유신간의 갈등 사건은 작전지휘권 및 편의종사권 문제였다. 이러한 신라군의 군기 위반에 대해 신라측에서는 황산벌 전투를 내세워 항변하였지만, 사실 이는 김유신이 신라군의 피해를 최소화하기 위한 전술 운영에서 나왔을 가능성이 크다. 당은 신라군이 백제 평정에 적극적인 역할을 해 주기를 바랐는데, 신라군이 군기를 지키지 못하면서 그러한 역할을 하지 못한 것으로 생각하였다. 따라서 이 갈등은 당과 신라 양국 지휘관들이 자국군의 피해를 최소화하려는 전술 운용, 즉 자국 이기주의의 충돌에서 발생한 것이었다. This paper examines the difference of perception between the Tang and Silla in the time of the war by paying attention to the difference between the records of the Chinese librarians and the Korean librarians in the war of Baekje attack of the Tang and Silla allied forces in 660, It is the nature and background of the conflict between Su Dingfang and Kim Yusin, which is the starting point of this difference of perception. In the 660 Baekje War of War, Chinese librarians described the battle of Woongjin River and the Battle of southern Sabi-castle as important, but Silla dynasty records the Battle of Hwangsanbeol in detail. The difference is that the Tang did not acknowledge the role of Silla in the war of 660, but thought that the Tang army was the protagonist, and Silla thought that Silla had played an important role against the perception of Tang. The conflict between the two countries started with the conflict between Su Dingfang and Kim Yusin. Due to these conflicts, the records of Silla also maliciously assessed Su Dingfang, or concealed the violation of military promises by Silla. Such a conflict between the two countries lasted until a war broke out between Tang and Silla. The conflict between Su Dingfang and Kim Yusin in 660, which was the starting point of the subtle nerves between these two countries, was the issue of operational command and punishment rights. Although Silla defended the battle of Hwangsanbeol against the violation of the military promise of Silla, it is very likely that Kim Yusin came out from the tactical operation to minimize the damage of Silla army. The Tang hoped that Silla could play an active role in Baekje occupation, and thought that Silla could not play such a role if he could not keep his military promise. Therefore, this conflict was caused by the tactical operation of the Tang‘s and Silla"s commanders to minimize the damage of their military, ie, the collision of their own selfishness.

황해 해양환경보전을 위한 협력관리체제 구축방안

남정호(Nam Jung Ho),강대석(Kang Dae Seok) 한국해양수산개발원 2005 해양정책연구 Vol.20 No.2

지역 연안통합관리체제의 성공적 구축 방안

남정호(Jung-Ho Nam),이원갑(Won-Kap Lee) 한국해양수산개발원 1998 해양정책연구 Vol.13 No.1