Center for Biodiversity Strategies, Faculty of Mathematics and Sciences, Universitas Indonesia, Depok 16424, IndonesiaDepartment of Agriculture and Resource Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, 6-10-1 Hakozaki, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka City 812-8581,
apanInternational Education Center, Kyushu University, 6-10-1 Hakozaki, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka City 812-8581, JapanCentre for Mountain Ecosystem Studies, Kunming Institute of Botany, Heilongtan, Kunming 650201, ChinaWorld Agroforestry Centre, East Asia Node, Kunming 650201, China
r t i c l e i n f o
rticle history:eceived 28 January 2013eceived in revised form 9 December 2013ccepted 22 December 2013vailable online 21 January 2014
Satoyama is a traditional rural landscape in Japan, where secondary forests often play an essential role andtraditional ecological knowledge has been important in sustaining this human–natural system. However,the definitions of satoyama are multiple and its typical forms have changed over time. This paper reviewsthe satoyama concept, with special reference to its evolving environmental and social significance, andits implications for sustainability of human–natural systems. The satoyama concept is characterized bymulti-functionality, in which social and economic dimensions rather than ecological dimensions, dom-inate. Considering that the usage and management priorities of satoyama have been shaped by theevolving needs of the times, the contemporary needs of society should be accounted for in their continuedmanagement. Today satoyama have the potential to supply important ecosystem services, including thepreservation of important cultural heritage, biodiversity conservation, and education. However, recog-nition and parameterization of potential trade-offs between these services is necessary and will requirediverse site-specific strategies for sustaining satoyamas that foster new relevance, economic options
and innovative management. As a socio-ecological construct, the quality and maintenance of satoyamasystems will depend on the existence of adequate ecological knowledge to support the managementdecisions fitted to respond to current social needs. For many satoyama systems, such knowledge is inad-equate. Ultimately, there is hope that the satoyama concept can be replicated elsewhere, so that landmanagement can be tailored to the needs and capacities of the ecosystems and the communities that
tttih
lsiii
depend on them.
. Introduction
Interest in the study of satoyama systems is increasing notnly in Japan, where the term originated (e.g. Takeuchi et al.,003), because of its relevance to the future management ofuman–ecological systems. Satoyama in its broadest definition is araditional socio-ecological production landscape. Such landscapesre found throughout Asia and elsewhere in forms that are adjustedo regional biophysical conditions (e.g. Kumar and Takeuchi, 2009;élair et al., 2010). In this review we seek to examine the satoyamaoncept by considering its diverse and evolving applications, and
o identify potential gaps in our understanding. We hypothesizedhat satoyama was subject to factors inside and outside the systemtself. In particular little mentioned aspects of satoyama, including
he ecology, economics, and political environment, will be revisitedhereby encouraging a more comprehensive view. The novelty ofhis paper thus stems from its emphasis on considering satoyaman a more critical light, and through integrating environmental anduman orientated perspectives.
The multiple definitions of satoyama will be introduced, fol-owed by, the variability of the satoyama concept over time andpace in the next section. This is followed by the perceived signif-cance of the satoyama concept, including merits and limitationsn the fourth section. In the fifth section, the decline of satoyaman Japan will be considered, and followed by exploration of aspects
hich influence the system today. In the sixth section we considerhe future of satoyama by examining some promising examples.
. Definitions of satoyama
The word satoyama is derived from “sato” (=home village) andyama” (=wooded hills and mountains) in Japanese, and definitionsre multiple and continue to evolve (Table 1). One of the oldest
78 M. Indrawan et al. / Ecological Engineering 64 (2014) 77–84
Table 1Evolving definitions of satoyama.
Definition References Notes
Forests managed by local agricultural communities Takeuchi(2001);Ichikawa et al.(2006)
Based on contemporary definition by Tsunahide Shidei in 1973
Japanese traditional rural landscape, comprised of an integral social andecological network of a village and its surroundings, such as agriculturallands, open forestlands and forests
Fukamachiet al. (2001)
‘In the broadest sense of the term, satoyama is a mixture of forests, wetrice paddies, cultivated fields, pastures, streams, ponds, and irrigationditches surrounding a Japanese farming village-the entire landscapenecessary to supply the needs of a community’
Kobori andPrimack(2003a);Sakamoto(2007)
Referring to Hideo Tabata in 1977
‘a dynamic mosaic of managed socio-ecological systems producing abundle of ecosystem services for human well-being’.
JSSA (2010) Also applicable to managed marine/wetlands environments, or‘satoumi’.‘Satoumi’ refers to coastal areas where human interaction has resultedin a high degree of productivity and biodiversity, and where intenserelationship between human life and traditional culture has led to thecoexistence of humans and nature (Yanagi, 1998, 2006; Morimoto
dn
otavctia2sn
ttnoiotiwepW
3s
itaasgvpa(r
istf2
wlaamcpasbaddgpt2mwseAoao(FgtlsJm
efinitions was given by Tokoro in the Edo Period in 1759 as ‘forestsear the villages’ (Morimoto, 2011).
In recent usage ‘satoyama landscape’ refers to a holistic setf interlinked units, including settlements, rice paddies, agricul-ural fields, bamboo forests, woodlands, and grassland (Yokoharind Bolthouse, 2011), and for this the term ‘satochi’ (=homeillage land) (Takeuchi, 2001) is equivalent. The traditional agri-ultural economy used to depend on integrative management ofhese diverse habitat types. Satoyama in its narrower definitions one central element of this landscape, consisting of man-ged open woodlands and community forests (Fukamachi et al.,001; Takeuchi et al., 2003; Yokohari and Bolthouse, 2011). Oftenatoyama is taken in a cultural context to symbolize affinity toature in the minds of Japanese people.
Yet, when these definitions are considered altogether (Table 1),hey give an impression that the distinction is sometimes blurred tohe extent that the term satoyama may be applied to any landscapeear human settlements. Hence, the first challenge in applicationf the satoyama concept is to clarify the spatial scale at which its used, thereby avoiding the catch-all phrase. In this essay, unlesstherwise stated, satoyama is considered as a human–nature sys-em at the landscape level (Dumbrell et al., 2008). Furthermore,n order to evaluate the general utility of the satoyama concept,
e consider the long-term interaction between humans and theirnvironment, rather than a specific type of satoyama at a particularoint in time (e.g., satoyama landscapes in Japan before the Worldar II).
. Variation in the characteristics and management ofatoyama
The satoyama concept may be applied at multiple spatial scales;ndividual forest lots, the landscape managed by a single family, orhe landscape used by an entire village or cluster of villages (Koborind Primack, 2003a). Deciduous oaks (which were often coppiced)nd pines were common on well drained and poorly drainedoils, respectively. These forests were often interspersed by mosaicrasslands, dominated by Miscanthus sinensis, managed by har-ests and fire (Washitani, 2001). Harvest of timber and non-timber
roducts featured prominently in the management of satoyamand included fuel-wood, charcoal, mushrooms, and wild vegetablesJSSA, 2010). However, there were some cases in which other natu-al resources were more important than forest-based products. For
aM
e
et al., 2009; Duraiappah et al., 2012).
nstance, in the Aso grasslands in Kyushu rural communities pre-erve the grasslands (Takahashi, 2010) as a source for animal feed,hatch, bedding and fertilizer. Furthermore, cow manure is used forertilizing the soil, thus realizing agri-environment services (Pullin,002).
Japan’s mountainous topography also influenced how satoyamaas structured in many rural communities. Small areas of flatter
ands in valleys were utilized for rice paddies, hemmed in by steepnd unstable (particularly considering the earthquakes) slopes lefts forests. As such, rural communities in such areas practiced mixedanagement of the landscape. In other parts of Japan where flat
oastal plains were more extensive, communities specialised inarticular products, such as rice or orchards over larger areas. As
consequence of human management, satoyama forests differ inpecies composition and structure from natural forest vegetation,ut are nevertheless influenced by the pool of species available in
particular region. In Japan, natural forests include boreal forestsominated by evergreen conifers in north and high altitude zones,eciduous broadleaf forests in cold temperate regions, and ever-reen broadleaf forests from the warm temperate to subtropicalarts of the country (Miyawaki, 1984). Moreover, the distribution ofhese natural forest types has changed substantially during the last0,000 years (Tsukada, 1983), leaving a legacy of juxtaposed ele-ents. During the last glacial maximum, the Japanese archipelagoas predominantly covered by boreal cold temperate Fagus and
ubalpine conifer forests. Today in warmer mid-temperate andvergreen oak-laurel forest regions, conifers such as Picea polita,bies firma, and Tsuga sieboldii occur and along the Pacific coastsf Kyushu and Shikoku populations of Fagus japonica exist in
climate warmer than the typical beech forest zone. Laurel-ak forests dominated by evergreen broadleaf trees in Lauraceaee.g., Cinamomum, Machilus), Elaeocarpaceae, Aquifoliaceae, andagaceae, expanded through southwestern Japan after the lastlacial period (Miyawaki, 1984). With the expansion of rice cultiva-ion and population growth during the last 3,000 years, satoyamaandscapes replaced much of these natural forest dominated land-capes, starting with the laurel-oak forest zone in southwesternapan. Elements of laurel-oak forests and other natural forest ele-
ents survived in small patches of sacred forests around shrines
nd temples, along with semi-natural grasslands in places such asount Aso of Kyushu (Kawano et al., 2012).Floristic elements of satoyama forests are radically differ-
nt from these natural climax forests. Takeuchi et al. (2003)
cal Engineering 64 (2014) 77–84 79
eilwcaststdls2ge
aSsfwr(
ssocwawmoa
gtfcnpM1oKifinabmgihsa
tfopet
Fig. 1. Changes of Satoyama landscape in Saitama prefecture. (Note: These airphotos show the current and past satoyama landscapes. The grayscale photo wastaken in 1947 (from the website of Geographical Survey Institute – Japan). Geomet-ric correction has done in the past photo using ArcGIS. These photos are taken inSaitama prefecture adjacent to the north of Tokyo. Satoyama landscape has beenlhT
ddCo(
4
tnethkJaddr
M. Indrawan et al. / Ecologi
mphasized the secondary (italics ours) nature of satoyama forests,n which human activities such as the collection of wood andeaves prevent succession to larger trees and denser shade. Coppice
oodlands were widely utilized to produce fuel-wood and char-oal, which were indispensable to rural households until the rapiddoption of fossil fuels in modern times. Some researchers haveuggested that the climax oak-laurel forests are not ideal, becausehey support less abundant and diverse wildlife than managedatoyama forests (Kobori and Primack, 2003b). However, while it isrue that some disturbance may increase diversity at the local level,ominance of secondary vegetation at larger spatial scales may
ead to homogenization and lower diversity compared to a land-cape dominated by climax or mature forests (Navarro and Pereira,012; Dumbrell et al., 2008). Unfortunately, extensive tracts of oldrowth forests are long gone over large parts of Japan precludingvaluation this possibility.
In the case of satoyama grasslands, succession may need to berrested to prevent transformation to forests (Takeuchi et al., 2003).uch management objectives may support conservation of certainpecies, for instance glacial relict species (i.e. those that arrivedrom continental Asia during glacial times and that will not recoverith the regeneration of natural systems, because there are no
emaining source habitats) in the mountain ranges of Aso and KujuMOEJ, 2010: 180; Matoba et al., 2011).
Different times saw different landscape approaches for theatoyama landscapes (Ichikawa et al., 2006). Transformation ofatoyama was influenced by shifts in economic policies and pri-rities. For instance, in the Edo era (1603–1867), the satoyamaommunity forests were maintained and used by the villagers:oods from the forest were used for construction of buildings
nd fences, as well as for cooking and heating; bamboo shootsere collected for food; grasses and leaves were used as greenanure for fertilizing the wet rice paddy fields. Constant collection
f leaves and wood prevented succession to climax forest (Koborind Primack, 2003a).
Following the Meiji Restoration of 1868, the newly formed Meijiovernment pursued policies of acquiring foreign capital throughhe export of tea and silk. Thus, rising demand for tea, silk, and wooduel led to a different landscape characterized by tea, mulberry, andoppiced woodlands (Yokohari and Kurita, 2003). In the Hiki Hillsear Tokyo, there was an extensive grassland landscape in the Edoeriod, which was replaced by mulberry groves and tea fields in theeiji period, coppiced broad leaves woodlands from 1945 to early
960s, a well-forested landscape that resulted from abandonmentf the previous coppices in the 1970s and 1980s (Yokohari andurita, 2003), and from the 1990s to the present a highly urban-
zed mosaic (Yokohari and Bolthouse, 2011) (Fig. 1). Until 1950s,armers still used grasses and manure to fertilize soil. Beginningn the 1950s and 1960s farmers could buy chemical fertilizers ando longer needed leaves for fertilizer. Less intensive forest man-gement resulted and the area of satoyama utilised by one familyecame smaller (Kobori and Primack, 2003a). Nationwide, com-on land which was a place for collecting leaves and grasses as
reen manure was no longer needed and declined rapidly: whereasn 1955 about 2,200,000 ha was managed as common land, thisas declined to about 900,000 ha today (Nakamura, 2003 in Mit-umata and Murota, 2007). Over the same period, the satoyamarea declined and land use changed.
Also, the fuel revolution which began in the 1950s, diminishedhe need for fuel wood, and without human intervention successionrom coppiced woodlands to dense forest occurred. Abandonment
f coppiced woodlands may also increase risks of colonisation byerennial bamboos (Washitani, 2001). In other places, the gov-rnment encouraged extensive planting of Japanese cedar (Cryp-omeria japonica), replacing other types of woodlands and forming
vic
ost through the sale of land due to inheritance. The construction of residential andighway is a direct driver satoyama landscape changes (with courtesy of ToshimoriAKAHASHI.)
ense dark forests. Although well forested, the monoculture ren-ered the landscape ecologically and economically unproductive.ontinued decline of satoyama was also attributed to the ageingf the rural populations, urbanization and advancing technologiesKamada and Nakagoshi, 1997; Yamashita, 2006, 2009).
. Sustainability of satoyama and biodiversity conservation
The importance of the satoyama-like systems in harnessinghe values of renewable natural resources in human-influencedatural environments is recognized throughout the world (Bélairt al., 2010). For instance, there are comparable agroforestry sys-ems in India, the Kandy home gardens in Sri Lanka and similarome gardens in Borneo, which employ traditional ecologicalnowledge (Kumar and Takeuchi, 2009; ID & AMAN, 2011). Inapan, where as much as one fifth of land could be considereds satoyama in the past, renewed appreciation of this rapidlyegrading landscape from the perspectives of cultural heritage, bio-iversity conservation and sustainable ecosystem management isevitalizing satoyama today.
Nevertheless, satoyama is not necessarily a panacea for biodi-ersity conservation and the maintenance of ecosystem servicesn human dominated landscapes. For instance, the satoyama con-ept is not free from political motives, as was evident while Japan
8 cal En
wvpnti2(a
aocsabmac
vesst2sfiAsFea
iloeu‘s‘WiyenswmtdperilaaTi2ist
puwlisb
scmoa2haAit2tamctthle
oitctonw2atemdtt
ttdse(iea2lssi
0 M. Indrawan et al. / Ecologi
as preparing to host the 10th Conference of Parties to the Con-ention of Biological Diversity in 2010. Japanese government’sush for the satoyama movement seemed to be motivated by aationalistic desire to promote a local concept internationally ando soften the perception of Japan’s performances in national andnternational developments that damage the environment (Knight,010). However, there are also many grass root efforts within Japane.g. Washitani, 2001; Kobori and Primack, 2003b) that should becknowledged.
Rethinking of the management of satoyama also calls for morettention to be paid to ecosystem services and current driversf ecosystem change. In cases where biodiversity conservation isonsidered important, satoyama management can harness a sub-tantial amount of traditional ecological knowledge. For instance,n interview survey in the Noto Peninsula, listed 46 wild edi-le plants, 12 seaweeds, and 19 mushroom species collected toeet a diversity of purposes (Cetinkaya, 2009). This demonstrates
potentially important link between biodiversity conservation andultural preservation.
The landscape harmony concept can provide residents andisitors with significant cultural and social benefits (Durraiapaht al., 2011). In terms of Japan’s response to climate change,atoyama can provide ecosystem services for optimizing carbonequestration and production of renewable biomass as carbon neu-ral energy (Kumar and Takeuchi, 2009; Yokohari and Bolthouse,011). Although it may be also argued that more carbon could beequestered if the forest was simply left to mature, and hence bene-ts need to be assessed by considering alternative land-use options.
major challenge is, therefore, in optimizing multiple benefits ofatoyama, which may sometimes trade-off against one another.urther, given urbanization and various other changes in the soci-ty simply preserving traditional satoyama landscapes over largereas is probably impossible.
Ecological knowledge is a prerequisite for the effective andntegrated management of ecosystem functions. However, few eco-ogical studies have focused on satoyama. This lack of researchn ecological process is apparent when one explores life sci-nce databases. A cursory search of SCOPUS in January 2012sing the key word ‘satoyama’ yielded 61 entries. However, when
satoyama’ was combined with predictors of ecosystem processesuch as ‘metapopulation’, ‘competition’, ‘predation’, ‘resilience’,trophic’, ‘source-sink’, ‘energy flow’, there were zero matches.
hen satoyama was combined with ‘toxicity’ and ‘nutrient’ theres one match each and ‘source population’ and ‘edge effect’ielded two matches each. Although there is research in satoyamanvironments, many studies are published in Japanese and areot necessarily peer-reviewed. Conversely, sometimes the termatoyama is not used and instead other terms, such as secondaryoodland or forests, are used (Kaoru Ichikawa, in literature), whichay inhibit locating relevant information on a satoyama sys-
em. Ecological theories of pertinence include among others: gapynamics, patch dynamics, meta-population theory (patch occu-ancy), and theory of island biogeography (Hanski, 1996; Vellendt al., 2006; Whittaker and Fernández-Palacios, 2007), which cor-esponded to mechanical creation of gaps, rotational management,ncreasing connectivity among the managed sites (such as estab-ishment of wildlife corridors, movement of domestic animals,nd so forth), and manipulation of the size of the managed sitend thus the level of site heterogeneity (Walker et al., 2007).here is also a need to delineate the specific negative and pos-tive impacts of introduced non-native species (Ewel and Putz,
004; Schlaepfer et al., 2011), but often adequate data on ecological
mpacts are lacking. Metapopulation theory is particularly relevant,ince it analyses the effects of landscape configuration on popula-ion persistence, especially for animals that move among habitat
tda(
gineering 64 (2014) 77–84
atches (Hill and Caswell, 1999). Furthermore, there is probably anique implication for the afore-mentioned glacial relict species,hich may differentiate satoyama from other multi-functional
andscapes in continental environments. Ultimately, the complex-ties of the succession process alone cannot be overstated, sinceuccession covers not only ecosystem structure and composition,ut also trophic dynamics and abiotic factors (Chapin et al., 2002).
Nevertheless, scientific information on ecological processes inatoyama is accumulating. For instance, several studies have beenonducted on successional processes under contrasting satoyamaanagement. A few studies have considered plant population ecol-
gy and sometimes community ecology in satoyama. For example, study of rare herbs in semi-natural grasslands (Uematsu et al.,010), reported that land abandonment decreased availability ofabitat, especially when the herbs were adapted to lower levels ofrtificial nutrients, as a result of the consolidation of the grasslands.
decrease in habitat has also occurred through the conversion ofrregular and poorly drained paddy fields into intensive produc-ion paddy fields that rely on mechanized farming (Uematsu et al.,010). Relatively small changes in land-use can tip the ecosys-em balance, thus transforming not only ecosystem structure butlso its functions. Whether ecological change is classified as pri-arily biotic change (extinction and/or invasion), primarily abiotic
hange (e.g. climate change), or perhaps a combination of both,hese changes are common in abandoned agricultural lands. Fur-hermore, whereas succession may bring about hybrid systemsarnessing some of the original characteristics of the historic state,
arger changes resulting in novel ecosystems may also occur (Hobbst al., 2006).
Novel ecosystems designation rests on the premise that changesccurring over ecosystems may gradually bring about stages withncreased vulnerabilities, thereby making them even less resiliento future change (Holling, 2001). Typically, a novel ecosystem isomprised by species whose original distribution does not includehe present location, or which might perform different functions,r both. Hence the formation of novel ecosystems entails changesot only in species composition, but also functions and interactionsithin and between the components of the system (Hobbs et al.,
009). There is a practical implication: novel ecosystems call for better defined management goal as to what extent restorationowards the original ecological integrity is possible (or desirable),specially since the original properties and historical trajectoriesay not even be known. In extreme cases, novel components may
evelop positive feedback responses. This might eventually surpasshe restoration thresholds, prohibiting the system from returningo the former state (Hobbs et al., 2009).
The significance of the biodiversity benefits of satoyama ecosys-ems has often remained an assumption. Especially so, consideringhat satoyama management has mainly been based on the pro-uctive functions and rarely the conservation of biodiversity pere (Takeuchi et al., 2003). The effectiveness in conserving threat-ned species will differ from one management regime to anotherKawano et al., 2009). For instance, between the 1950 and 1960sncreased use of fossil fuels and chemical fertilizers led to manycologically important species on satoyama, including insects andquatic biota, being extirpated from the landscape (Washitani,001). Moreover, satoyama has changed not only at the ecosystem
evel, but also at landscape levels. For instance, in the satoyamaystem in Kamiseya near Kyoto it was found that land-use diver-ity decreased after 1970, but diversity of forest-age distributionncreased (Fukamachi et al., 2001). Furthermore, there is a percep-
ion that satoyama landscapes beget higher beta (inter-habitat)iversity while the moderate disturbance induced through man-gement interventions increases alpha (intra-habitat) diversityWashitani, 2001).
cal En
wvhhw2p2utr2pccooa
ossbtadpa(
5t
DmfttfTsttil(Jalmsl
da3iaoot2
ep
d1deipSmmbn
stsmttwrtms
fiitbtpal
pnstshfs
6
ohsaetn2
rvn
M. Indrawan et al. / Ecologi
However, there does not appear to be much evidence ashether satoyama promotes critical habitat for species of conser-
ation interest, such as restricted range species. Elsewhere studiesave shown that although agro-forestry systems often supportigh-levels of biodiversity locally, such habitats are occupied byidespread species of little conservation concern (e.g. Iiyama et al.,
005). Landscape ecological approaches through vegetation map-ing have been extensively conducted (e.g. Nakagoshi and Hong,001) and are sometimes directly connected with sociological eval-ation. For instance, interviewed inhabitants in a rural area witherraced paddies in south-western Japan suggested a preference ofural parks instead of areas for agricultural purposes (Iiyama et al.,005). Overall, the recreational values of satoyama have increased,articularly through their appreciation by urbanites, and thus espe-ially in areas that are accessible from the cities. With respect tolimate change, satoyama as a managed landscape may offer anpportunity for assisted migration of endangered species. More-ver, given satoyama historically varied from south to north, therere models of what the target landscape should look like.
The fact that satoyama are managed landscapes provides anpportunity to engineer a marriage among different ecosystemervices, including recreation, cultural preservation, and biodiver-ity conservation. However, like all marriages, potential conflictsetween different objectives need to be identified and resolved, andhis will require detailed ecological knowledge about the processesnd the drivers of change. A recent study made an effort to re-efine satoyama according the ecosystem services that satoyamarovides and to put more research emphasis on the ecologicalspects of satoyama that were generally overlooked until recentlyDuraiappah et al., 2012).
. Political and socio-economic factors driving the use ofhe satoyama
Satoyama land use is influenced by evolving public policies.uring some of the early management in Edo period the govern-ent regulated timber production, which led to the recovery of
orests. In recent times, satoyama was initially regulated underhe more limited contexts, such as the development of residen-ial and commercial land, and until recently conservation measuresocused on native forests rather than on satoyama ecosystems.he agricultural politics and policies also significantly affectedatoyama landscapes. Through the Staple Food Control Act of 1942he Japanese government is authorized to control production, dis-ribution, and sale of rice. Since 1969, the Japanese governmentntroduced a set-aside (fallow) policy, paying farmers to keep farm-ands out of production, or to increase planting of certain cropsCremer et al., 1999). About one million hectares, or a fourth ofapan’s total farm land, have been constantly subjected to the setside program and between 1969 and 2000. The Principle and Out-ine of Rice Policy Reform of 2002 encouraged the setting up of
inimal acreage for subsidies. For the satoyama, the exclusion ofmaller acreages farms meant that smaller sized farms were moreikely to be abandoned (Takahashi and Honma, 2009).
The area where fields and rice paddies that have been aban-oned and are no longer cultivated, at least more than one year asn active cultivation, has been increasing since 1990. As of 2010,95,000 ha of agricultural lands have been abandoned due to loss in
ncome generated by the agricultural sector, lack of young farmersnd aging. The area abandoned is equivalent to all the arable land
f Switzerland.Since the Earth Summit in 1992, however the Actn the Promotion of Nature Restoration, the Landscapes Act, andhe Act on Promotion of Ecotourism were introduced (JSSA, 2010:5). These regulations gradually started to reflect light on other
sfita
gineering 64 (2014) 77–84 81
cological services such as biodiversity conservation, watershedrotection, landscape which satoyama provides.
Satoyama in contemporary Japan has also evolved under theynamics of democratic governance (Shimizutani, 2010). In the990s, the authority and revenue resources were increasinglyevolved as the Decentralization Reform Promotion Law came intoffect in 1995 and was followed by a Comprehensive Decentral-zation Law in 2000. Since 2001, debates on the decentralizationrogressed through the ‘Trinity of Reforms’, and in 2009 the Localovereignty Strategy Council was formed. Devolving the manage-ent of satoyama to local communities is likely to see a manage-ent that is more responsive to the needs of these communities,
ut may require improved governance instruments if, for example,ational policies on biodiversity are to be effectively integrated.
There are also positive influencing factors that maintain theatoyama. Religious and cultural practices of Buddhism and Shin-oism, including their observance and festivals helped conserve theatoyama. In olden times, the surroundings of temples were oftenaintained as sacred places. Ecosystem services were thus main-
ained, such as for the purification of the local water sources. Today,he temples’ influence has survived and is even revitalized in manyays, such as through promotion of going off the grid with solar
oof panels or ‘green Buddhism’ (Williams, 2008). Traditional prac-ices related to agricultural production have also contributed to
aintaining satoyama through recognition of the many ecologicalervices it provides.
Also, public appreciation of the cultural and ecological bene-ts of maintaining satoyama is high. In terms of economics, there
s the question of how biodiversity conservation is perceived byhe public. There are instances of clear willingness to pay (WTP)y members of the local communities. In a study, local communi-ies of Aso and surroundings (in the entire Kumamoto prefecture)rovided an indication of WTP for biodiversity conservation. Thennual values are estimated to be 255 million yen (=USD 2.3 mil-ion) for the 594,197 inhabitants (Yabe, 2007).
Yet, in this utilization of public goods there is also the ‘free rider’roblem. The ‘free rider’ considers that biodiversity conservation isot a burden to be shared by all elements of society, but the respon-ibility of designated public entities (Nomura, 2012). Moreover,hey consider that these public entities may not have a respon-ibility to maintain satoyama, but are directly benefitting withoutaving to pay. There is a need to develop mechanisms for payments
or ecosystem services so that those who benefit from the servicesatoyama provides pay those who actually maintain it.
. The way forward
Because of the continuously evolving landscape, the governancef satoyama landscapes is leading towards a paradox. On oneand, traditional landscapes need to be conserved. On the other,atoyama landscapes need to adapt to present day societal needsnd values. Looking ahead is at the very least just important asndeavouring to restore the past (Washitani, 2001). It is importanto restore the productive relationships between the local commu-ities and the respective resources of the ecosystems (Takeuchi,011).
The traditional satoyama system has not been proved to beobust. In today’s satoyama ecosystem benefits, functions and ser-ices that go far beyond the former collection of forestry productseed to be considered (JSSA, 2010). The value of Satoyama is recon-
idered to provide not necessarily fuel wood and charcoal, butxation of carbon, soil protection, and water retention. Satoyama,herefore, has a potential niche in climate change mitigation anddaptation. Also, certain non-timber products such as mushroom
82 M. Indrawan et al. / Ecological Engineering 64 (2014) 77–84
Table 2Examples of innovative responses to changing satoyama provided by contemporary tenure.
Population density(1970–2010)
Initiative Location (reference) Declining resource Responses, especially revitalizationmeasures
Decrease Agricultural mountainvillage
Kyotango, Kyoto (Bélairet al., 2010)
The stagnation of industries – agriculture,forestry, and fishery; increasedabandonment of managed fields andforests
Biogas for power, and secondarily,liquid fertilizer; organic vegetable andpaddy farming; ‘forest dairy farming’(Takeuchi, 2010)
Technology andinstruments
Shimokawa, Hokkaido Depopulation Cyclic forest management to boosteconomic revitalization; wood biomassboiler as energy innovation. Also,planting fast growing willows asenergy resource crop (Osaki et al.,2011); Additional income through averification scheme for credits,generated through thereduction/removal by sinking of GHG(Kobayashi, 2011)
Enhanced naturallandscape andtraditions
Kanakura Wajima,Kanazawa (Bélair et al.,2010)
Population outflow to urban areas and theaging of the population from themid-1990s
Both public and voluntary communityactivities to restore the prosperity ofthe past, and attract city dwellers,including the reviving of abandonedpaddy fields
Enhancing grasslandecosystem
Aso, Kumamoto(Takahashi, 2010)
Underutilization of grassland ecosystem;unique biodiversity
Both public and voluntary communityactivities to maintenance e.g. regularburning of grasslands in spring time;ecotourism; boosting productivity oflocal cow; promotion for increasedconsumption of local agriculturalproducts
Increase Traditional methods Machida, Tokyo(Ichikawa et al., 2006;Bélair et al., 2010)
Rapid residential development from the1970s; uncontrolled ecological succession
Local management of publicly ownedland; vegetation management,infrastructure-related work, ecosystemrestoration; and wildlife interventions;with revival of traditional ecologicalknowledge
Fighting colonizationby perennial bamboos
Itoshima, Fukuoka Residential development from the 1970sBamboo taking over natural pine and oakforests
Local activities to control bamboothrough harvesting bamboo shoots forthe spring dish; using bamboo as
N
stpa
psa
fswc
ote: compiled by the authors.
hould not be discounted (Bélair et al., 2010). Further, althoughraditional ecological knowledge is declining, there is still goodotential for medicinal plants. New business models can be soughtfter (Katoh et al., 2009; Takeuchi, 2011).
When categorised by the population density, those areas whereopulation density has constantly declined since 1970s haveeen transformation of satoyama (Fig. 2). Transformation into
new satoyama system has taken a diversity of forms that
Fig. 2. Population density of the referred cities between 1970 and 2010.
ptp
tai2tctdkpir
ppanwhs
bio-charcoal
oster multiple functions of the ecosystem (Table 2). For instance,atoyama can be a place for the production of bioenergy as a neway of utilizing timbers from forest thinning. In 2004, Shimokawa
ity of Hokkaido prefecture and in 2007, Kyotango city of Kyotorefecture adopted the Biomass Town Vision. The vision promoteshe use of biomass for re-shaping resource utilization in terms ofroduction of renewable energy.
The new satoyama may also be oriented towards increasedourism needs, banking on the beauty of the mosaic landscapend that satoyama landscapes continue to play an important rolen Japanese art and culture (Okada, 1999 in Fukamachi et al.,001; Fukamachi et al., 2011). In Kanakura of Ishikawa prefec-ure and Aso of Kumamoto prefecture, both public and voluntaryommunity activities are conducted to restore and maintain theraditional cultivation practices to keep the landscape and its tra-itional agriculture-related festivities. Given the loss of traditionalnowledge and increased urbanisation, the new satoyama may alsorovide an educational landscape, even to the extent of provid-
ng an open-air museum of historical agricultural management andural lifestyles.
On the other hand, satoyama in areas that have experiencedopulation increases since 1970s provides another service for theublic. Machida city has experienced rapid population increase as
commuter belt near Tokyo, as has Itoshima city which is located
ext to Fukuoka. Many urban residents appreciate driving andalkingaround the leafy peri-urban areas on weekends. Seasonaliking is popular as is collection of wild plants and vegetables inpring and mushrooms in autumn. Market mechanisms such as
cal En
cab
i(ntwrTriltJ2atiBraacc
7
hcatshbp
ttFusmurmfwtdlvmip
lwrtea
ttsdakt
sttiisnd
A
ftEKKMCTYmTa
R
B
C
C
C
D
D
E
F
F
H
H
H
H
M. Indrawan et al. / Ecologi
oncerted marketing (for instance toward the mushroom products)nd certification are needed to enhance these types of ecosystemenefits.
In some cases, where the ecosystems need to be maintainedn their former structure, citizen participation can be fosteredKobori and Primack, 2003a; Katoh et al., 2009). In 1999 alone,o less than 500 NGOs were involved in environmental volun-eerism to manage the satoyama. Such movements may be fosteredith a definite recreation orientation for urban dwellers and envi-
onmental education for children and adults (Washitani, 2001).okyo’s neighbouring prefectures of Chiba and Kanagawa placedegulations to maintain satoyama. Increased multiple stakeholdernvolvement, so as to include networks of landowners, citizens,ocal communities, government at multiple levels and private sec-or representatives has been identified as key requirement inapan’s drive to revitalize satoyama (e.g. Yokohari and Bolthouse,011). Jointly facilitated by Ministry of the Environment of Japannd the United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies,he Satoyama Initiative was adopted at the end of the 10th meet-ng of the Conference of the Parties (COP 10) of the Convention oniological Diversity (CBD) on Oct. 2010. Although not without someeservations (e.g. Knight (2010) concerning the consistency of aimsnd definitions of satoyama), the initiative has really increasedttention for a participatory and cultural based approach for natureonservation and protection of landscape areas, as well as climatehange mitigation.
. Conclusion
Satoyama are production landscapes and throughout historyave changed as a consequence of economic forces and politi-al interventions. Since WWII urbanisation, agricultural reforms,nd market pressures have led the abandonment and degrada-ion of satoyama landscapes throughout Japan. Nevertheless, todayatoyama is recognised as an important component of the culturaleritage of Japan and a set of landscapes that can also supportiodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, and other contem-orary ecosystem services.
What does the Satoyama concept teach us that is relevant tohe management of socio-ecological landscapes in other parts ofhe world? This review offered two basic themes that address this.irst, the detailed records available in Japan make it possible tonderstand satoyama in a historical context that is simply not pos-ible elsewhere. This enables us to appreciate how people haveanaged village resources in a (quasi) sustainable manner and
nder changing economic and political environments. Second, theelatively high population density, the relatively intense manage-ent, and the important role of central governance – in terms of
orestry laws, policies on food production, etc. – provide us with aindow to understand how these elements have interacted to sus-
ain satoyama. With growing global populations, particularly in lesseveloped tropical countries, increased pressure is being placed on
and for agricultural production often at a cost to the future pro-isioning of ecosystem services. Satoyama may provide a usefulodel for understanding how – from social, ecological and polit-
cal perspectives – it is possible to reconcile the goal of increasedroductivity without compromising sustainability.
To revitalise satoyama, and realise the ecosystem services theseandscapes can provide, will require a diversity of approaches,
hich may include both innovative interventions and, conversely, a
eintroduction of the traditional practices. The voluntary measureso maintain satoyama introduce diversity of dimensions, includingnvironment, livelihood, recreation, and above all education. Localdaptation and mitigation to climate change is possible through
H
I
gineering 64 (2014) 77–84 83
he satoyama concept, such as a landscape for carbon sequestra-ion or through application of novel environmental technologies,uch as using bamboo as bio-charcoal. However, central to theseevelopments is the requirement of detailed ecological knowledgebout the ecosystems and their biotic and abiotic components. Suchnowledge is essential to derive accurately functions describing therade-offs between different ecosystem services.
Finally, if the ‘traditional’ part of the satoyama is to be decon-tructed to its very bare essence, this calls for a revitalizing ofhe inter-relationships within a given rural community, in Japanermed as ‘tsunagari’, which is commonly referred to as social cap-tal in social science. In its prospects for transcending cultures theres also hope that the satoyama concept can be replicated in a diver-ity of places – so long as the innovations are tailor made to theeeds and capacities of the ecosystems and the communities thatepend on them.
cknowledgements
MI performed this work as part of Asian Public Intellectual (API)ellowship at Kyushu University. Thanks to the Nippon Founda-ion – and Indonesian Institute of Sciences for supporting API.xperts consulted in Japan included: Aso City Council, Naoko Fujita,aoru Ichikawa, Miyuki Inaba, Jin Ono, Junichi Fujinuma, Yoshikazuato, Naomi Kibe, Yoshiko Kobayashi, Michael Hall, Masamiizuno, Nobukazu Nakagoshi, Kohei Nakano, Keiji Nakashima,
élair, C., et al. (Eds.), 2010. Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity in Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes. Secretariat of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity, Montreal (Technical Series. 52).
etinkaya, G., 2009. Challenges for the maintenance of traditional knowledge in thesatoyama and satoumi ecosystems, Noto Peninsula, Japan. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 16(1), 27–40.
hapin III, F.S., et al. (Eds.), 2002. Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology.Springer, United States.
remer, G.L., et al., 1999. Impact of rice tariffication on Japan and the world ricemarket. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 81 (5), 1149–1156.
umbrell, A.J., et al., 2008. Changes in species diversity following habitat disturbanceare dependent on spatial scale: theoretical and empirical evidence. J. Appl. Ecol.45 (5), 1531–1539.
uraiappah, A.K., et al., 2012. Satoyama-Satoumi Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes of Japan. United NationsPublications, Tokyo.
wel, J.J., Putz, F.E., 2004. A place for alien species in ecosystem restoration. Front.Ecol. Environ. 2 (7), 354–360.
ukamachi, K., et al., 2001. The change of a satoyama landscape and its causality inKamiseya, Kyoto Prefecture, Japan between 1970 and 1995. Landsc. Ecol. 16 (8),703–717.
ukamachi, K., et al., 2011. The biocultural link: isolated trees and hedges insatoyama landscapes indicate a strong connection between biodiversity andlocal cultural features. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 7 (2), 195–206.
anski, I., 1996. Metapopulation ecology. In: Rhodes, O.E., et al. (Eds.), PopulationDynamics in Ecological Space and Time. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,pp. 13–43.
ill, M.F., Caswell, H., 1999. Habitat fragmentation and extinction thresholds onfractal landscapes. Ecol. Lett. 2 (2), 121–127.
obbs, R.J., et al., 2006. Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects ofthe new ecological world order. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 15 (1), 1–7.
obbs, R.J., et al., 2009. Novel ecosystems: Implications for conservation and restora-tion. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24 (11), 599–605.
olling, C.S., 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and socialsystems. Ecosystems 4 (5), 390–405.
chikawa, K., et al., 2006. Transition of the satoyama landscape in the urban fringeof the Tokyo metropolitan area from 1880 to 2001. Landsc. Urban Plan. 78 (4),398–410.
In: Takeuchi, K., et al. (Eds.), Satoyama: The Traditional Rural Landscape of Japan.Springer, Tokyo, pp. 71–79.
Yokohari, M., Bolthouse, J., 2011. Keep it alive, don’t freeze it: a conceptual perspec-
4 M. Indrawan et al. / Ecologi
D & AMAN (Institute Dayakologi & Aliansi Masy Adat Nusantara), 2011. The DayakJalai people and their concept of dahas in Ketapang district, West Kalliman-tan, a case study. In: Alangui, W.V., et al. (Eds.), Indigenous Peoples, Forests &REDD Plus: Sustaining & Enhancing Forests through Traditional Resource Man-agement. Tebtebba Foundation, Baguio, pp. 119–178.
iyama, N., et al., 2005. Ecological and social evaluation of landscape in a ruralarea with terraced paddies in southwestern Japan. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70 (3),301–313.
SSA (Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment) (Ed.), 2010. Satoyama-Satoumi Ecosys-tems and Human Well-Being: Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes of Japan– Summary for Decision Makers. UNU, Tokyo, Japan.
amada, M., Nakagoshi, N., 1997. Influence of cultural factors on landscapes ofmountainous farm villages in western Japan. Landsc. Urban Plan. 37 (1), 85–90.
atoh, K., et al., 2009. Factors maintaining species diversity in satoyama, a traditionalagricultural landscape of Japan. Biol. Conserv. 142 (9), 1930–1936.
awano, N., et al., 2009. Floristic diversity and the richness of locally endangeredplant species of semi-natural grasslands under different management practices,southern Kyushu, Japan. Plant Ecol. Divers. 2 (3), 277–288.
awano, T., et al., 2012. Grassland and fire history since the late-glacial in northernpart of Aso Caldera, central Kyusyu, Japan, inferred from phytolith and charcoalrecords. Quat. Int. 254, 18–27.
night, C., 2010. The discourse of Encultured Nature in Japan: the concept ofsatoyama and its role in 21st-century nature conservation. Asian Stud. Rev. 34(4), 421–441.
obayashi, N., 2011. Sustainable forest management and evaluation of carbon sinks.In: Osaki et al., 2011b.
obori, H., Primack, R.B., 2003a. Participatory conservation approaches forsatoyama, the traditional forest and agricultural landscape of Japan. Ambio 32(4), 307–311.
obori, H., Primack, R.B., 2003b. Conservation for satoyama, the traditional land-scape of Japan. Arnoldia 62, 2–10.
umar, B.M., Takeuchi, K., 2009. Agroforestry in the Western Ghats of peninsularIndia and the satoyama landscapes of Japan: a comparison of two sustainableland use systems. Sustain. Sci. 4 (2), 215–232.
atoba, H., et al., 2011. Use of RAPD analysis to assess the threat of interspecifichybridization to the critically endangered Polemonium kiushianum in Japan. J.Plant Res. 124 (1), 125–130.
iyawaki, A., 1984. A vegetation-ecological view of the Japanese archipelago. Bull.Inst. Environ. Sci. Technol. 11 (1), 85–101.
OEJ (Ministry of Environment of Japan) (Ed.), 2010. The National BiodiversityStrategy of Japan 2010. Government of Japan, Japan.
orimoto, J., et al., 2009. Satoyama–satoumi sub-global assessment in Japanand involvement of the Hokkaido Cluster. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 5 (1),91–96.
orimoto, Y., 2011. What is satoyama? Points for discussion on its future direction.Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 7 (2), 163–171.
akagoshi, N., Hong, S., 2001. Vegetation and landscape of East Asian Satoyama.Glob. Environ. Resour. 5 (2), 171–181.
akamura, T., 2003. Right of Common and Common’s Custom, The Economic Jour-nal of Takasaki City University of Economics. Mitsumata and Murota 2007, 4.,pp. 79–97, Overview and Current Status of the Iriai (commons) System in theThree Regions of Japan – From the Edo era through the beginning of the 21stCentury-, Discussion Paper No. 07-04, Multi-level Environmental Governancefor Sustainable Development, SD, Governance, Kyoto University http://www.sdgovernance.org/internal/docs/SDG-DP-ENo07-04.pdf (accessed 16.01.12).
omura, H., 2012. Framework for improvement of farmland biodiversity in Japan.
J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 55 (9), 1–16.
saki, M., et al., 2011. A mosaic model for increasing stability of independence infood, biomass and energy. In: Morioka, T., et al. (Eds.), Establishing a ResourceCirculating Society in Asia: Challenges and Opportunities. UNU, Tokyo/NewYork/Paris, pp. 201–217.
gineering 64 (2014) 77–84
ullin, A.S., 2002. Conservation Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.akamoto, M., 2007. Satoyama no Minzoku Seibutsugaku. In: Maruyama, T.,
Miyaura, T. (Eds.), Satoyamagaku no Susume (Encouragement of satoyama edu-cation). Showa do, Kyoto, pp. 28–50 (in Japanese).
chlaepfer, M.A., et al., 2011. The potential conservation value of non-native species.Conserv. Biol. 25 (3), 428–437.
himizutani, S., 2010. Local government in Japan: New directions in governancetoward citizens’ autonomy. Asia Pacific Review 17 (2), 99–107.
akahashi, D., Honma, M., 2009. Evaluation of the Japanese Rice Policy Reformsunder the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. In: Contributed Paper Prepared forPresentation at the International Association of Agricultural Economists Con-ference, Beijing, China.
akahashi, Y., 2010. Conservation and Restoration of Aso Grassland by CollaborativeManagement, Messages from Japan’s Green Pioneers: Living in Harmony withNature. Ministry of Environment, Government of Japan, Japan, pp. 101–109.
akeuchi, K., 2001. Nature conservation strategies for the SATOYAMA and SATOCHI,habitats for secondary nature in Japan. Glob. Environ. Resour. 5 (2), 191–198.
akeuchi, K., 2010. Rebuilding the relationship between people and nature: thesatoyama initiative. Ecol. Res. 25 (5), 891–897.
akeuchi, K., 2011. Rebuilding the satoyama landscapes and human–nature rela-tionships. In: Osaki, M., et al., 2011. Designing Our Future: Local Perspectives onBioproduction, Ecosystems and Humanity. UNU, Tokyo/New York/Paris.
akeuchi, K., et al. (Eds.), 2003. Satoyama: The Traditional Rural Landscape of Japan.Springer, Tokyo.
sukada, M., 1983. Vegetation and climate during the last glacial maximum in Japan.Quat. Res. 19 (2), 212–235.
ematsu, Y., et al., 2010. Abandonment and intensified use of agricultural landdecrease habitats of rare herbs in semi-natural grasslands. Agric. Ecosyst. Envi-ron. 135 (4), 304–309.
ellend, M., et al., 2006. Extinction debt of forest plants persists for more than acentury following habitat fragmentation. Ecology 87 (3), 542–548.
alker, L.R., et al. (Eds.), 2007. Linking Restoration and Ecological Succession.Springer, New York.
ashitani, I., 2001. Traditional sustainable ecosystem SATOYAMA and biodiversitycrisis in Japan: conservation ecological perspective. Glob. Environ. Res. 5 (2),119–133.
hittaker, R.J., Fernández-Palacios, J.M., 2007. Island Biogeography: Ecology, Evo-lution, and Conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
illiams, D.R., 2008. Buddhist Environmentalism Today: A Focus on Japan.http://www.kosei-shuppan.co.jp/english/text/mag/2008/08 789 9.html(accessed 11.05.12).
abe, M., 2007. Economic value of ecosystem conservation in Japan: reduction ofstarting point bias by bid effect function. In: Watson, A., et al. (Eds.), Science andStewardship to Protect and Sustain Wilderness Values: Eighth World Wilder-ness Congress Symposium. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, RockyMountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp. 116–122.
amashita, K., 2006. Food and agriculture problems for Japan and the world in theTwenty-first Century. Asia Pac. Rev. 13 (1), 1–15.
amashita, K., 2009. The Agricultural Cooperatives and Farming Reform inJapan (1), http://www.tokyofoundation.org/en/articles/2008/the-agricultural-cooperatives-and-farming-reform-in-japan-1 (accessed 16.01.12).
anagi, T., 1998. Civil engineering and environmental conservation in the coastalsea. JSCE Mag. 83 (12), 32–33 (in Japanese).
anagi, T., 2006. Satoumi-ron. Kouseisha-kouseikaku co., Tokyo (in Japanese).okohari, M., Kurita, H., 2003. Mechanisms of satoyama landscape transformation.
tive on the conservation of continuously evolving satoyama landscapes. Landsc.Ecol. Eng. 7 (2), 207–216.
