Developing Satoyama Quantitative Evaluation Method
Keywords: Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP), Satoyama Evaluation Procedure (SEP) Satoyama, Habitat, Landscape, Wise-Use,
1. Introduction banking in Japan. In Eastern Asia, human wise-use has ensured that Satoyama Therefore, we developed an evaluation method called has been maintained as scenic landscapes and important “Satoyama Evaluation Process (SEP)” based on the ecosystems. In Japan, many Satoyama ecosystems have faced fundamental “Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP)” concepts issues due to both direct impact from development projects of “quality” x “area” x “time”. HEP is the most widely applied and indirect impact from disuse due to reduced use-value. As in the USA will base on other many quantitative ecosystem a countermeasure, projects for the re-establishment of lost evaluation methods all over the world. By comparison with nature have been undertaken in Japan as well as in Europe and HEP, we illustrate the validity of SEP. the US (Takeuchi, 1994). For example, Tanaka (2010) has proposed “Satoyama Banking,” a biodiversity banking 2. Methodology concept specific to Japan. We developed SEP and three 30-year conservation plans for When thinking about restoration of the nature in Japan, we one 6.4 ha Satoyama comprised of former paddy fields and have to consider the peculiarities of Japanese environments. second-growth forests in a suburb of Chiba City in Chiba According to Takeuchi (1994), natural regeneration capacity is Prefecture, Japan. We evaluated these conservation results by very high compared to European countries. For example, in HEP and SEP. Germany, the action principles to maintain healthy wetlands are preservation. On the other hand, in Japan, the action principles to maintain healthy second-growth nature such as wetlands are conservation. In other words, it is “Wise-Use”. In addition, it is clear that the Japanese citizens favor the landscape of the healthy second-growth nature with conservation. Anyway, more than 20 quantitative ecosystem evaluation methods have been developed in Japan purpose of evaluation of corporate green space due to the recent increase in biodiversity conservation awareness by which held the
CBD COP10 in Nagoya. However, there is no comprehensive Figure 1: Aerial photo of the pilot study area quantitative evaluation method incorporating habitat, landscape aesthetic value and human wise-use for Satoyama. It is an obstruction tointroducing biodiversity offsets and 凡 例 凡例 凡例 Storage reservoir Storage reservoir Storage reservoir Wet grassland Wet grassland Wet grassland Dry grassland Dry grassland Dry grassland Wet-Paddy rice agricluture field Wet-Paddy rice agricluture field Wet-Paddy rice agricluture field Not conserved Quercus serrata forest Not conserved Quercus serrata forest Not conserved Quercus serrata forest Uncontrolled Cryptomeria japonica forest Uncontrolled Cryptomeria japonica forest Uncontrolled Cryptomeria japonica forest Quercus serrata forest Conserved Quercus serrata forest Pleioblastus chino Makino region Pleioblastus chino Makino Pleioblastus chino Makino region Wet grassland Pleioblastus chino Makino region Quercus serrata forest 凡例 Quercus serrata forest 凡例 凡例 Storage reservoir Storage reservo ir Storage reservoir Wet grassland Wet grassland Wet grassland Dry grassland Dry grassland Dry grassland Wet-Paddy rice agricluture field Wet-P add y rice agricluture field Wet-Paddy rice agricluture field Not conserved Quercus serrata forest No t conserv ed Querc us serrata f or est vegetation Not conserved Quercus serrata forest Uncontrolled Cryptomeria japonica forest Un con trolled Cryptom eria jap onica forest Uncontrolled Cryptomeria japonica forest Pleioblastus chino Makino region Not conserved Quercus serrata forest Pleiob lastus c hino Makino regio n Wet-paddy rice agriculture field Pleioblastus chino Makino region Dry grassland Quercus serrata forest Quercus serra ta forest Quercus serrata forest 凡例 凡例 Storage reservoir Storage reservoir Wet grassland Wet grassland Dry grassland Dry grassland Wet-Paddy rice agricluture field Wet-Paddy rice agricluture field Not conserved Quercus serrata forest Not conserved Quercus serrata forest Uncontrolled Cryptomeria japonica forest Uncontrolled Cryptomeria japonica forest Pleioblastus chino Makino region Uncontrolled Cryptomeria japonica forest Pleioblastus chino Makino region Storageindex ”. In SEP, “Habitat index” is evaluated by the HSI model Quercus serrata forest Quercus serrata forest reservoir Table 1: Three 30-year Satoyama banking working draft plans
Plan 2:Conservation for paddy Plan 3: Conservation for Before activity Plan 1: No action field paddy field and second-growth forest Legend
Vegetation Before activity Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Not conserved Quercus 3.90 (ha) 3.90 (ha) 3.90 (ha) 0.00 (ha) serrata forest Uncontrolled Cryptomeria 0.80 (ha) 0.80 (ha) 0.80 (ha) 0.00 (ha) japonica forest Pleioblastus chino Makino 0.25 (ha) 0.25 (ha) 0.25 (ha) 0.00 (ha) region Quercus serrata forest 0.00 (ha) 0.00 (ha) 0.00 (ha) 4.95 (ha) Dry grassland 0.83 (ha) 1.16 (ha) 0.16 (ha) 0.16 (ha) Wet grassland 0.25 (ha) 0.25 (ha) 0.09 (ha) 0.09 (ha) Wet-paddy rice agriculture 0.33 (ha) 0.00 (ha) 1.16 (ha) 1.16 (ha) field Storage reservoir 0.03 (ha) 0.03 (ha) 0.03 (ha) 0.03 (ha)
3. The study area and objects of HEP. The study area is 6.39 ha Satoyama comprised of abandoned “Landscape index” is evaluated by average of “Landscape former paddy fields and second-growth forests in a suburb of from ground level” and “Ecological network status”. Chiba City in Chiba Prefecture. The potential natural “Landscape from ground level” is evaluated by average of vegetation is Camellietea japonica vegetation. Since February eight-angle landscape from some readily-accessible location 2015, a NPO has reestablished a 0.4 ha wet-paddy rice on ground level. “Ecological network status” is evaluated by a agriculture field and a little Quercus serrata region in the map of the ecological network on regional biodiversity study area. strategy such as existence or non-existence the map and We developed three 30-year Satoyama banking working quantitative or qualitative conservation target on the map. draft plans in the study area. “Plan 1: no action” is to leave the “Wise-Use index” is evaluated by the average of “primary study area untouched. “Plan 1” is no-action plan. “Plan 2: industry potential” and “tertiary industry potential”. As in the conservation for paddy field” is to rehabilitate 1.16 ha wet- case with HEP, SEP evaluated “the potentials of primary and paddy rice agriculture field. “Plan 3: conservation for paddy tertiary industries” not the “actual activities of them” under field and second-growth forests” is to rehabilitate 1.16 ha wet- each cover type. For example, under SEP, we evaluated that paddy rice agriculture field and 5.23 ha Quercus serrata dry grassland doesn’t have “primary industry potential” and region. wet-paddy rice agriculture field does has “primary industry potential”. 4. Results and Discussion Finally, we evaluated index of quality, “SSI (Satoyama 4-1. Methods of SEP Suitability Index),” by average of “Habitat index”, SEP is very similar to HEP. The only different point is how “Landscape index” and “Wise-Use index”. to evaluate “quality.” SEP evaluates “quality” with not only “Habitat index” but also “Landscape index” and “Wise-Use Figure 2: Mathematical formula for SSI In this study, we calculated the Cumulative Habitat Unit Table 2: How to evaluate of SSI on SEP Large Small How to evaluate category category SSI Habitat HSI model By HSI model of HEP Landscape Landscape from ground By average of eight-way landscape from some readily-accessible location on level ground level. 1.0:Conserved nature or cultural artifact such as shrine 0.5:Not conserved nature 0.0:Artifact Ex.)
0.625
Ecological network By a map of the ecological network on regional biodiversity strategy such as status existence or non-existence and quantitative or qualitative conservation target on the map. 1.0:Mapping of the ecological network with quantitative conservation target on regional biodiversity strategy 0.5: Mapping of the ecological network with quantitative conservation target on regional biodiversity strategy 0.0:the Map is nothing Ex.)
Wise-use Potential the primary 1.0:Area having potential the primary industry industry 0.0:Area having not potential the primary industry Ex.） 1.0: Wet-paddy rice agriculture field, Quercus serrata forest, Cryptomeria japonica region forest 0.0: Dry grassland, Storage reservoir, Pleioblastus chino Makino region and so on Potential the tertiary 1.0:Area having potential the tertiary industry industry 0.0:Area having not potential the tertiary industry Ex.） 1.0: Wet-paddy rice agriculture field, Quercus serrata forest, Cryptomeria japonica region forest, Storage reservoir 0.0: Dry grassland, Pleioblastus chino Makino region and so on
4-2. Evaluating conservation results of the 3 plans in (CHU) used in HEP for the 3 plans. CHU is the index for the accordance with HEP methods. concept of “quality” x “area” x “time”. A HSI model for the We evaluated conservation results of the 3 plans by HEP. We two species has been developed by JEAS and KAMIGO. So selected Rana japonica as indicator species for wetlands such we adapted these models for the pilot study area. The HSI as wet-paddy rice agriculture fields and Sasakia charonda as model is the index for the concept of “quality” in HEP. indicator species for second-growth forests such as Quercus In the results, the “Plan 2: conservation for paddy field” serrata region. The two indicator species are chosen as the produces 10.88 CHU [ha/30year] for Rana japonica by target species in this area by Chiba City and obtained from comparison with “Plan 1” (10.88 [ha/30year] = 39.89 Red Data Books of Chiba Prefecture. [ha/30year] – 29.01 [ha/30year]). The 10.88 CHU [ha/30year] has the potential to offset some impact from development in Japan. Even when biodiversity offsets are mandated by law, projects such as destroying 0.36 ha healthy (HSI=1.0) Table 3: CHU [ha/30year] of the 3 plans by HEP Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Rana japonica 29.01 39.89 39.89 Satoyama over 30 years (10.88 [ha/30year] = 1.0 [HSI] x 0.36 Sasakia charonda 12.95 12.95 74.96 [ha] x 30 [year]) (Table 4). Also, “Plan 3: conservation for paddy field and second-growth forests” produces the same CHU for Rana japonica and 62.01 CHU for Sasaki charonda by comparison with with “Plan 1” (62.01 [ha/30year] = 74.96 Table 4: How much the biodiversity offsets potential of 10.88 CHU [ha/30 year]? [ha/30year] – 12.95 [ha/30year]) [ha/30year] (chart 2). The CHU Quality Area Time [ha/30year] [HSI] [ha] [year] 62.01 CHU [ha/30year] has the potential to offset the impact 10.88 Good 0.36 30 (HSI=1.0) Normal 0.72 30 of some development projects such as destroying 2.06 ha (HSI=0.5) Bad 3.63 30 healthy (HSI=1.0) Satoyama over 30 years (62.01 [ha/30year] (HSI=0.1) = 1.0 [HSI] x 2.06 [ha] x 30 [year]).
Table 5: CSU [ha/30year] of the 3 plans by SEP 4-3. Evaluating conservation results of the 3 plans in Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 CSU 54.88 77.25 136.42 accordance with SEP methods. Table 5 shows the conservation results of the 3 plans by SEP. In the results, the “Plan 2: conservation for paddy field” Table 6: How much the biodiversity offsets potential of 22.37 produces 10.88 CSU (Cumulative Satoyama Unit) [ha/30year] CSU [ha/30 year]? CSU Quality Area Time with “Plan 1” (22.37 [ha/30year] = 77.25 [ha/30year] – 54.88 [ha/30year] [SSI] [ha] [year] 22.37 Good 0.75 30 (HSI=1.0) [ha/30year]) (chart 2). The 22.37 CSU [ha/30year] has the Normal 1.49 30 (HSI=0.5) potential to offset the impact of some development projects Bad 7.50 30 (HSI=0.1) such as destroying 0.75 ha healthy (SSI=1.0) Satoyama over 30 years (22.37 [ha/30year] = 1.0 [SSI] x 0.75 [ha] x 30 [year]) (Table 6). Also, “Plan 3: conservation for paddy field Table 7: each index on the three plans and second-growth forests” produces the CSU [ha/30year] Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 SSI Habitat 0.35 0.51 0.70 with “Plan 1” (81.54 [ha/30year] = 136.42 [ha/30year] – 54.88 Landscape 0.35 0.35 0.75 Wise-use 0.00 0.21 0.98 [ha/30year]). The 81.54 CSU [ha/30year] has the potential to subtotal 0.23 0.36 0.81 offset the impact of some development projects such as destroying 2.72 ha healthy (HSI=1.0) Satoyama over 30 years (81.54 [ha/30year] = 1.0 [HSI] x 2.72 [ha] x 30 [year]). The evaluation results of “landscape” and “Wise-Use” of “Plan 3” are higher than “Plan 2”. Since, the common how conserve of Satoyama should not be changed. conservation targets such as broad-leaved deciduous forest 2. Difference of the results is smaller than HEP due to and wet-paddy field have high points on the “Landscape difference of evaluator’s professional ability. Everyone can index” and “Wise-Use index” one the SEP. In fact, the SEP evaluate “Landscape index” and “Wise-Use index”easily. gets into line the common conservation of Satoyama in Japan. 3. SEP advocates drawing up regional biodiversity strategies, since, “Landscape from ground level” is evaluated by these 5. Conclusions strategies. In addition, SEP advocates that biodiversity offsets This study illustrated three good points and three bad points be the main engine for conservation of nature. of SEP in comparison with HEP. The bad points of SEP are; The good points of SEP are; 1. The indices of SEP's evaluation results lack clarity.. SEP 1. SEP gets into the common conservation target of Satoyama methods do not clearly indicate the key factor of the evaluation results. Hence, similar to HEP, it is necessary to consider the results for each of the individual factors when using SEP. 2. Requiring great care than HEP. 3. Potentially de-emphasising “Habitat index”. We developed SEP to evaluate Satoyama “quality” with “Habitat”, “Landscape” and “Wise-Use”. The character of SEP is general versatility due to easy evaluation of “Landscape” and “Wise-Use”. General versatility is very important. For example, in the USA, the quantity of credits from each wetland mitigation bank is evaluated on the basis of the ratio of “restoration”, “enhancement” and “preservation”. SEP also advocates drawing up regional biodiversity strategies.
Literature Sources Takeuchi K (1994) Spirit of the environmental creation (Japanese language). Tokyo: Tokyo University, pp200. Tanaka A (2006) Theory and Practices for Habitat Evaluation Procedure in Japan (Japanese language). Tokyo: Asakura, pp280. Tanaka A (2010) Novel biodiversity offset strategies: Satoyama Banking and Earth Banking. Conference of International Association for Impact Assessment 2010. JEAS (Japan Association of Environment Assessment ・ Seminar Study Group Natural Environmental Impact Assessment Study the first working) (2006) HSI (Habitat suitability index) model: Great purple emperor, Japan, pp12. KAMIGO HEP teem (2007) KAMIGO development Environmental Impact Statement. Pp342.