Hello Mark, I am second-generation Korean-American and I can ask family members for more accurate information, but yes, I think that is true about pieces of land being kept partially undeveloped for burial mounds of ancestors. Traditionally, family members -- usually direct descendents -- go back every year to weed, trim the grass, and offer their respects. I believe the tradition varies slightly upon region as well -- for instance, on the island of Jeju, burial mounds are often found in farm plots, although I do not know if this is because the farms expanded around the graves or if family members were buried deliberately on that land (I think it is more likely the first).
These traditions are very rapidly disappearing, in Korea at least. I was in Korea just last year and visited my grandparents' graves. My grandfather was buried in a stretch of rural forest, while my grandmother was buried in a modern cemetery, her grave one among crammed thousands. South Korea has one of the highest population densities in the world, and indeed land is a most limited resource, something that is especially evident when you visit a Korean park. You will likely encounter just as many, if not more, people there as you would on an average American city street corner. Please note, population density is extremely skewed, with cities overwhelmingly crowded (the Seoul metropolitan area contains a quarter of the entire country's population) and many rural regions suffering from severe lack of young-to-middle-aged adults. Studying natural areas in Korea would be somewhat complicated because most of Korea's forests were stripped during the Japanese annexation and invasion of the early 20th century. Much of the land has since been reforested through efforts made in the 50s/60s/70s, but those forests are not only very young, they were also planted more with industrial pursuits in mind. Therefore, species composition often does not reflect what the native ecology might have looked like. -Grace Ha On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Dixon, Mark <mark.di...@usd.edu> wrote: > I wonder if anyone knows of the tradition in Korea, Japan, or other east > Asian countries in terms of natural areas associated with grave sites. My > understanding is that families (at least in the past) in Korea would have a > semi-natural tract of land that was kept undeveloped and served as a family > burial site. Does anyone else have more information on this? I suppose > such practices would become more challenging with increased population > densities in those countries. > > Mark D. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto: > ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Kirsten Martin > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 11:25 AM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Cemeteries as habitat > > While I agree with the previous sentiment, things are not often as black > and white as "Do we choose urban development or a 'natural' state?". The > continuum of "natural" to "man made" habitats is vast and there are > certainly some semi-natural, or cultural landscapes, that may be of > conservation value for both their cultural and biodiversity value. I work > on heathlands in New England for example. Both the heathlands of North > America and those in Europe were formed by harsh European land use, and > traditional agricultural practices. Today, in the absence of these > traditional practices, these openland systems are reforesting. Now we could > let them reforest, but then what happens to the many openland plants, > insects, birds etc. that call these areas home? In many cases they may go > extinct. Now what? Does it not make sense to manage some of the New England > landscape to be in this semi-natural open state? As a conservation > biologist, I believe part of the role of my field is to protect > biodiversity, even if it means maintaining these "cultural landscapes", > which while sub-par habitat for some, may be ideal (and necessary) habitat > for other species. I agree, this is a slippery slope. Where does "nature" > stop, and where does "urban" begin? When is one intrinsically more valuable > than the other? > > ____________________________________Kirsten MartinVon Holle LabDepartment > of Biology, BL 405University of Central FloridaOrlando, FL 32816 > > > > Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 08:11:54 -0700 > > From: landr...@cox.net > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Cemeteries as habitat > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > > > Ecolog: > > > > Certainly more study is needed with respect to what exactly is going > > on with all forms of life in urban and other cultural places, but > > facts should not be twisted into misrepresentations. Skyscrapers might > > well make habitats, even refuges, for falcons and other species taking > > advantage, say, of feral pigeons and the like, and such populations > > might ironically be all that is left of some species when > > "civilization" finally rots away to repopulate wild places--there are > > lots of effects involved in the incursions of wild things into cities, > > but those effects need to be understood for what they are and no more > > . . . not made into posters and slogans to excuse the outrage to life > > that urban spaces are. That life hangs on, even colonizes such spaces is > no substitute for what has been sacrificed for expediency. > > > > Recognize it, but don't lie about it, Audubon Society recognitions aside. > > > > WT > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "John Mickelson" <jmicke...@yahoo.com> > > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 11:39 AM > > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Cemeteries as habitat > > > > > > Working in NYC and looking at the spatial dimensions of biodiversity > > in this heavily urbanized setting. > > > > Wondering what folks thoughts are re: the extent to which cemeteries > > (and, to a lesser extent: ball fields, play grounds, golf courses > etc...) "really" > > serve as habitat. > > > > Clearly they serve multiple purposes and are utilized by a range of > > flora and fauna (presumably more so within "green" managed programs), > > but should they really form a core element within a comprehensive > > urban conservation plan? > > > > I'm finding myself able to argue both sides..... thoughts? > > > > -John > > > > > > ----- > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2411/4973 - Release Date: > > 05/02/12 > >
