In order to develop spatial indicator for rural landscape in Korea, we set up basic scale of landscape by "Dong" or "Ri", unit rural community in Korea and then analyzed land use states and topographic conditions for 165 "Ri"s in Anseong(AS) and 174 in Boeun(BE) using GIS application. Based on land use, we divided them into natural landscape, agricultural landscape, and urban landscape and then classified them into six first-landscape patterns according to the relative ratio in same landscape scale (Fig.1, Tab.1). In group 1(M), the ratio of upland including orchard was nearly twice as large as paddy in BE, while it was diametrically opposed in AS. In group 2(MV), paddy was slightly larger than upland, especially irrigated paddy was twice as large as partially irrigated in ratio in BE, however in AS paddy was similar to M. In both regions, the ratio of industrial and cattle shed facilities in urban landscape was relatively larger than other groups and that of residential sections in urban landscape was smallest in group 3(DM). In group 4(PA) and 5(P), the ratio of forest reduced considerably. According to the relative ratio by slope, there were lots of E and F slope in M, and all grades of slope were comparatively evenly distributed in MV and DM in both regions. In case of PA and P, we could find similar slope distribution ratio in BE and ratio of A slope was largest. As a result of making an investigation of topographical distribution, there were overwhelmingly lots of high residuum in M in both regions. In case of PA and P, the ratio of River bed and Alluvial plain was largest and inland flat was the next.

As discussed above, we could classify the agricultural landscape in Korea into six groups and understand their properties. Most of "Ri"s in BE were mainly distributed over M and MV, while those in AS evenly throughout five groups. It is, therefore, highly probable that rural region should be managed according to the proposed landscape patterns.

Key words: spatial indicator, Landscape pattern, GIS, Land use, slope, topographic

Correspondence: mcseo@rda.go.kr (++82-31-290-0298)

Table 1. The types of landscape based on the ratio of landuse at two agricultural regions

Group	Types of landscape	Region	AR of Agric.	AR of Nat.	AR of Urb.	No. of Ri	Ave. area (ha)	STD
			(%)
1	Mountain(M)	AS	17.54	78.19	4.27	43	512.59	237.24
		BE	14.90	83.07	2.03	103	410.04	278.80
2	Mountain Village(MV)	AS	48.31	44.56	7.13	51	284.23	143.57
		BE	44.30	50.89	4.82	51	253.42	130.20
3	Developing Mountain Town(DM)	AS	45.92	35.67	18.41	44	320.54	216.42
		BE	42.07	40.87	17.06	12	158.03	79.15
4	Plain Agriculture(PA)	AS	79.81	13.86	6.33	16	158.65	71.28
		BE	82.09	11.45	6.46	6	176.76	63.02
5	Plain Town(P)	AS	78.56	7.73	13.71	11	195.90	106.46
		BE	77.42	11.94	10.63	1	168.54	0.00
6	Urban District(U)	AS	-	-	-	-	-	-
		BE	2.90	20.96	76.13	1	80.14	0.00

*AR: average ratio

Figure 1. Distribution of the ratio of nature, agriculture, and urban landscape at two agricultural regions.