Biodiversity and Transportation Infrastructure in the Republic of Korea: A Review on Impacts and Mitigation in Developing the Country
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for an opportunity to review the paper. The problem of road and trailway infrastructure and the ways it affect wildlife is crucial these days. Such reviews are also important as they summarise the knowledge we have gained so far and point to areas which require more attention. I am not sure a review regarding a particular country will be interesting to a wide audience, maybe the work should rather appear in a local journal, where it could be reached by Korean wildlife and road managers etc. Nevertheless, I find the paper well written, with many references to examples from abroad which gives the work wider perspective.
I have just a few remarks regarding the paper:
First, there are some linguistic issues across the paper, it mostly reads well, yet, should be checked very carefully. E.g. : line 203: This is also true for the citrus flatid planthopper (Metcalfa pruinose), whose distribution is strongly linked roads and urbanization. Apparently, TO is missing here. There are more such examples across the paper.
line 103, …three nation-wide studies have been conducted…: when you refer to these studies it would be good to know what methods were used, was is based on some survey, was this a systematic field study?
line 110, the Korea Road-kill Observation System (KROS): how does the system work, what are the principals. It is important as only knowing the source of data we can evaluate data quality.
line 208: the bullfrog should have its Latin name given
Author Response
Response to reviewer
First, there are some linguistic issues across the paper, it mostly reads well, yet, should be checked very carefully. E.g. : line 203: This is also true for the citrus flatid planthopper (Metcalfa pruinose), whose distribution is strongly linked roads and urbanization. Apparently, TO is missing here. There are more such examples across the paper.
>> This typo has been fixed (Line 211) and other such corrections have been made throughout the manuscript based on other reviewer comments.
line 103, …three nation-wide studies have been conducted…: when you refer to these studies it would be good to know what methods were used, was is based on some survey, was this a systematic field study?
>> We have added information as to the scope of these studies:
“The first, conducted between 1996 and 2003 along one national highway by independent researchers [...]” (Line 113-114)
“Between 2008 and 2012, 10,940 WVCs were recorded (average 2138 ± 203 per year) across high-speed national highways (overseen by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) [...]” (Line 117-119)
“In June 2018, the Korea Road-kill Observation System (KROS) was launched to collect observation of roadkills in the country through an application released to road menders, or those in charge of roadkill removal [16]. Through this application, road menders take pictures of roadkills they encounter, which are then sent to professional wildlife researchers for identification.” (Line 120-124)
line 110, the Korea Road-kill Observation System (KROS): how does the system work, what are the principals. It is important as only knowing the source of data we can evaluate data quality.
>> We have added information about the system as suggested: “In June 2018, the Korea Road-kill Observation System (KROS) was launched to collect observation of roadkills in the country through an application released to road menders, or those in charge of roadkill removal [16]. Through this application, road menders take pictures of roadkills they encounter, which are then sent to professional wildlife researchers for identification.” (Line 120-124)
line 208: the bullfrog should have its Latin name given
>> Latin name added (Line 215)
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “Biodiversity and transportation infrastructure in the Republic of Korea: a review on impacts and mitigation in developing the country” by Andersen and Jang submitted to Submitted to section: Biodiversity Conservation in the special issue "Impacts of transportation infrastructure on biodiversity in emerging economies" is pertinent as it provides an account of the reality in South Korea on this issue.
The authors present the situation in South Korea with regard to this problem. The presented review is very relevant to know the current situation of the impact of this type of infrastructure in a country with a great economic development and one of the highest GDP in the world. As a country it has carried out a series of mitigation measures to minimize the effect of the construction of roads and railways.
General comments or suggestions that could improve the manuscript
a) It would be interesting to add as an annex a map of the country's protected areas as well as showing where the three nation-wide studies were carried out to serve as a precedent. According to WDPA-WCMC and IUCN (2021), the percentage of land area that is protected is 16.97%, which is a relatively high value. That is why I think it is important to present on a map the protected areas in South Korea, and whether or not the mitigation measures that have been implemented are close to the protected areas.
UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2021), Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and World Database on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (WD-OECM) [Online], October 2021, Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. Available at: www.protectedplanet.net.
b) The effort the country has made in building various structures to facilitate wildlife crossings is interesting and promising as shown in Figure 1.
Except for the publication of Im et al. (2004) very few studies are looking at whether protected areas are effective in protecting biodiversity in a context of high habitat fragmentation due to the construction of transportation infrastructures.
I suggest adding a paragraph on these issues it is important to highlight the importance of protected areas and ecological corridors to protect biodiversity in a geographical context with a major transportation infrastructure network.
c) Regarding section 3.4 Special cases, it is not clear to me the rationale of this section for this review since the relationship between transport infrastructure and biodiversity is not clearly mentioned. Although I could consider it informative for a reader who is not familiar with the reality of South Korea, and I understand that these are two examples of very different situations, one would further favor the development of transport infrastructure and the other would be an example of not favoring this type of infrastructure.
Maybe the wording of this section could be improved to justify its relevance to the manuscript.
Other suggestions
Lines 29-35
This paragraph would be missing some bibliographic references to support what they are arguing. Please add bibliographical references.
Author Response
Response to reviewer
a) It would be interesting to add as an annex a map of the country's protected areas as well as showing where the three nation-wide studies were carried out to serve as a precedent. According to WDPA-WCMC and IUCN (2021), the percentage of land area that is protected is 16.97%, which is a relatively high value. That is why I think it is important to present on a map the protected areas in South Korea, and whether or not the mitigation measures that have been implemented are close to the protected areas.
UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2021), Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and World Database on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (WD-OECM) [Online], October 2021, Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. Available at: www.protectedplanet.net.
>> We have updated Figure 1 to include protected areas. As for the nation-wide studies, we have added information on their scopes in the text:
“The first, conducted between 1996 and 2003 along one national highway by independent researchers [...]” (Line 113-114)
“Between 2008 and 2012, 10,940 WVCs were recorded (average 2138 ± 203 per year) across high-speed national highways (overseen by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) [...]” (Line 117-119)
“In June 2018, the Korea Road-kill Observation System (KROS) was launched to collect observation of roadkills in the country through an application released to road menders, or those in charge of roadkill removal [16]. Through this application, road menders take pictures of roadkills they encounter, which are then sent to professional wildlife researchers for identification.” (Line 120-124)
b) The effort the country has made in building various structures to facilitate wildlife crossings is interesting and promising as shown in Figure 1.
Except for the publication of Im et al. (2004) very few studies are looking at whether protected areas are effective in protecting biodiversity in a context of high habitat fragmentation due to the construction of transportation infrastructures.
I suggest adding a paragraph on these issues it is important to highlight the importance of protected areas and ecological corridors to protect biodiversity in a geographical context with a major transportation infrastructure network.
>> While we agree that this would be an interesting addition to the review, due to time constraints of the review period and the limited information outside of what we have already included in the manuscript, we have opted not to make this addition.
c) Regarding section 3.4 Special cases, it is not clear to me the rationale of this section for this review since the relationship between transport infrastructure and biodiversity is not clearly mentioned. Although I could consider it informative for a reader who is not familiar with the reality of South Korea, and I understand that these are two examples of very different situations, one would further favor the development of transport infrastructure and the other would be an example of not favoring this type of infrastructure.
Maybe the wording of this section could be improved to justify its relevance to the manuscript.
>> We have added the following to add some perspective of the issue in connection with economic development:
“Although it did not primarily focus on transportation infrastructure, the Saemangeum land reclamation project was intended to revitalize and develop rural parts of the country and demonstrates a common issue in the country of favoring economic development to the detriment of the environment.” (Line 233-237)
Lines 29-35
This paragraph would be missing some bibliographic references to support what they are arguing. Please add bibliographical references.
>> We have expanded on first paragraph of the introduction and have added relevant references:
“Transportation infrastructure, notably the construction and use of road networks, has a well-documented impact on biodiversity around the world [1–3]. These impacts can range from abiotic to biotic to ecosystem impacts which are largely considered to have negative effects on biodiversity [1]. Particularly, infrastructure may contribute to biodiversity loss through disturbance and fragmentation [3]. The full range of these effects can be observed in regions with developing infrastructure, particularly in the tropics where biodiversity is high, as species respond to changes in land use and new sources of potential mortality [4,5]. Such regions also face challenges to develop mitigation of biodiversity loss alongside transportation infrastructure [6], where economic growth may be favored over environmental protection [7].” (Line 29-38)
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript ID: diversity-1422884
Type of manuscript: Review
Biodiversity and transportation infrastructure in the Republic of Korea: a review on impacts and mitigation in developing the country
Review
The ecological effect of transportation infrastructure on wildlife populations, which potentially affects every moving terrestrial species, is of growing concern in numerous countries (Bíl et al., 2017; Ferreguetti et al., 2020; Hastings et al., 2019; Kammerle et al., 2017; Kušta et al., 2017; Saenz-de-Santa-María and Tellería, 2015; Seiler and Helldin, 2006; Sullivan, 2011; Zhang et al., 2018, etc,.). Expanding of the wildland-urban interface is related to the road networks densifies (Silva et al., 2020) as present roads are upgraded to accommodate more traffic. Phenomenon is better known in US and West European countries, however its expression is stronger in the developing countries of Africa and Asia. Therefore, review on the impacts of transportation infrastructure in the Republic of Korea, being developed but still developing country, is quite interesting scientific work and deserves publication.
I, however, have several comments on the manuscript, mostly related to insufficient presentation of data and information, which may be very interesting to scientists and practitioners from the other parts of the world.
Title
Title is at least confusing for a non-native speaker. It seems, that development is a goal, but country is already classified as developed, see https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1002230.html. I consulted native speaker, so maybe Title is OK from the language positions, but is not clearly related to the content.
My suggestions are either to remove second part of the title, after colon, or to change the title – starting from the end part. Paper does not deal with “biodiversity” as such in S Korea
Possible titles:
- Transportation infrastructure in the Republic of Korea: a review on impacts on biodiversity and mitigation measures in developing the country.
- Transportation infrastructure in the Republic of Korea: a review on impacts on biodiversity and mitigation measures in the development of the country.
- A review on impacts and mitigation of transport infrastructure in developing the country: case of the Republic of Korea
However, if authors insist in keeping the word “biodiversity” in the Title, please present at least a paragraph on it in the manuscript, with the necessary references. I am sure, not many readers have knowledge on biodiversity of the Republic of Korea.
Keywords: unless data on biodiversity are provided, remove the word from keywords
Abstract
“Roadkill” in absolute most of publications is used as one word, not “road-kill”; please change throughout.
Lines 22–24: language incorrect
Introduction
First paragraph requires references; please check Scholar with keywords “roadkills” and “biodiversity” for the sources.
Even if review is about one country, some introduction to a problem in general is required. This may be a short paragraph, however, requires strong references
It is also expected, that authors present at least some information on the biodiversity of the country and country information (climate, habitats, roads – length, speed, number of lanes, etc. in addition to Lines 86–91). This may be separate chapter or part of the existing ones.
Use long dash for the ranges, Line 83 should read 1962–1971, and throughout the text
Line 128: Prionailurus
Line 166 and throughout: separated “m” from the number, i.e., 50–100 m
Chapter 3.3. Other impact – I prefer spreading of invasive species presentation to be separate from pollution and similar impacts. This is biodiversity.
Lines 232–233: abbreviations used only once, thus not needed
Chapter 4.1. It is really nice achievement of the country to have so many under- and overpasses for wildlife. This part definitely must become wider – please add information on the parameters of these structures and their monitoring.
Are wildlife fences used in the country as a safety and mitigation measure? Please supply with all information available.
Conclusions
This part of the manuscript confirms my previous comment – there is nothing about biodiversity. Final part of this chapter is not related to the text. I suggest re-thinking and rewriting Conclusions to make these compatible with the aim of the review paper.
References
At least few sources should be cited to show general picture (again, search in Scholar with “diversity”, “transport”, or the similar) in the other countries, from Europe and Asia, to give a context to S Korea.
As for the deep knowledge of references concerning the country, I accept Reference part in full.
Author Response
Response to reviewer
Title
Title is at least confusing for a non-native speaker. It seems, that development is a goal, but country is already classified as developed, see https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1002230.html. I consulted native speaker, so maybe Title is OK from the language positions, but is not clearly related to the content.
My suggestions are either to remove second part of the title, after colon, or to change the title – starting from the end part. Paper does not deal with “biodiversity” as such in S Korea
Possible titles:
- Transportation infrastructure in the Republic of Korea: a review on impacts on biodiversity and mitigation measures in developing the country.
- Transportation infrastructure in the Republic of Korea: a review on impacts on biodiversity and mitigation measures in the development of the country.
- A review on impacts and mitigation of transport infrastructure in developing the country: case of the Republic of Korea
However, if authors insist in keeping the word “biodiversity” in the Title, please present at least a paragraph on it in the manuscript, with the necessary references. I am sure, not many readers have knowledge on biodiversity of the Republic of Korea.
Keywords: unless data on biodiversity are provided, remove the word from keywords
>> We have retained the original title as we feel it best represents this review. As suggested, we have added some text on biodiversity in the introduction:
“In terms of biodiversity, South Korea provides habitat to a large number of species relative to its size of 99,713 km2. Currently, there are 50,827 species recorded in South Korea including 7,833 plant species and 29,678 animal species, of which 1,995 are vertebrates [9]. Additionally, 2,289 species are endemic to South Korea, and 267 are endangered. Currently, there are 3,467 protected areas covering 16.97% (16,917 km2) of terrestrial ecosystems and 2.46% (7,979 km2) of marine and coastal ecosystems [10].” (Line 72-78)
Abstract
“Roadkill” in absolute most of publications is used as one word, not “road-kill”; please change throughout.
>> Changed throughout.
Lines 22–24: language incorrect
>> Changed wording to: “To mitigate road impacts more effectively, the country will need more construction, monitoring and consistent management of wildlife crossing structures.” (Line 22-24)
Introduction
First paragraph requires references; please check Scholar with keywords “roadkills” and “biodiversity” for the sources.
Even if review is about one country, some introduction to a problem in general is required. This may be a short paragraph, however, requires strong references
>> We have expanded on first paragraph of the introduction and have added relevant references:
“Transportation infrastructure, notably the construction and use of road networks, has a well-documented impact on biodiversity around the world [1–3]. These impacts can range from abiotic to biotic to ecosystem impacts which are largely considered to have negative effects on biodiversity [1]. Particularly, infrastructure may contribute to biodiversity loss through disturbance and fragmentation [3]. The full range of these effects can be observed in regions with developing infrastructure, particularly in the tropics where biodiversity is high, as species respond to changes in land use and new sources of potential mortality [4,5]. Such regions also face challenges to develop mitigation of biodiversity loss alongside transportation infrastructure [6], where economic growth may be favored over environmental protection [7].” (Line 29-38)
It is also expected, that authors present at least some information on the biodiversity of the country and country information (climate, habitats, roads – length, speed, number of lanes, etc. in addition to Lines 86–91). This may be separate chapter or part of the existing ones.
>> As suggested, we have added some text on biodiversity in the introduction:
“In terms of biodiversity, South Korea provides habitat to a large number of species relative to its size of 99,713 km2. Currently, there are 50,827 species recorded in South Korea including 7,833 plant species and 29,678 animal species, of which 1,995 are vertebrates [9]. Additionally, 2,289 species are endemic to South Korea, and 267 are endangered. Currently, there are 3,467 protected areas covering 16.97% (16,917 km2) of terrestrial ecosystems and 2.46% (7,979 km2) of marine and coastal ecosystems [10].” (Line 72-78)
Use long dash for the ranges, Line 83 should read 1962–1971, and throughout the text
>> Changed throughout.
Line 128: Prionailurus
>> Corrected. (Line 142)
Line 166 and throughout: separated “m” from the number, i.e., 50–100 m
>> Changed throughout.
Chapter 3.3. Other impact – I prefer spreading of invasive species presentation to be separate from pollution and similar impacts. This is biodiversity.
>> As suggested, we have separated this chapter into two, such that invasive species now belongs to chapter 3.3 and other impacts to 3.4. (Line 205-216)
Lines 232–233: abbreviations used only once, thus not needed
>> Abbreviations removed, text changed to “North and South Korea.” (Line 252)
Chapter 4.1. It is really nice achievement of the country to have so many under- and overpasses for wildlife. This part definitely must become wider – please add information on the parameters of these structures and their monitoring.
>> We have added the following to the first paragraph of 4.1, detailing some of the guidelines for wildlife crossing structures, as suggested:
“Guidelines for wildlife crossing structures by the Ministry of Environment Korea include 14 guidelines for overpasses and 11 for underpasses. For overpasses, the compliance rate was found to be greatest for “soil depth over 70 cm for stable growth of plants” (88.2%) and lowest for “installation of an escaping facility in the drainage” (9.8%). For underpasses, the highest compliance was to “appropriateness of locality to connect habitats” (81%) and the lowest were “installation of small ditches for amphibians and reptiles” and “attachment between wildlife fences and underpasses” (both 47.6%) [53].” (Line 263-270)
Are wildlife fences used in the country as a safety and mitigation measure? Please supply with all information available.
>> Clarified that wildlife fences are used for safety and mitigation: “This study suggests that WVCs of mammals and habitat fragmentation could be reduced by installing wildlife fences for safety and mitigation [...]” (Line 280-281)
Conclusions
This part of the manuscript confirms my previous comment – there is nothing about biodiversity. Final part of this chapter is not related to the text. I suggest re-thinking and rewriting Conclusions to make these compatible with the aim of the review paper.
>> We have added the following to the conclusions section:
“In this review, we have demonstrated that the development of transportation infrastructure in South Korea has affected biodiversity directly through roadkills, habitat fragmentation and loss and invasive species, and indirectly through abiotic alterations to the environment.” (Line 333-336)
References
At least few sources should be cited to show general picture (again, search in Scholar with “diversity”, “transport”, or the similar) in the other countries, from Europe and Asia, to give a context to S Korea.
>> We have expanded on first paragraph of the introduction and have added relevant references:
“Transportation infrastructure, notably the construction and use of road networks, has a well-documented impact on biodiversity around the world [1–3]. These impacts can range from abiotic to biotic to ecosystem impacts which are largely considered to have negative effects on biodiversity [1]. Particularly, infrastructure may contribute to biodiversity loss through disturbance and fragmentation [3]. The full range of these effects can be observed in regions with developing infrastructure, particularly in the tropics where biodiversity is high, as species respond to changes in land use and new sources of potential mortality [4,5]. Such regions also face challenges to develop mitigation of biodiversity loss alongside transportation infrastructure [6], where economic growth may be favored over environmental protection [7].” (Line 29-38)
