Takahashi, T., et al. 2019. Impacts of 150 Years of Modernization
Policies on the Management of Common Forests in Japan: A statisticalanalysis of micro census data. International Journal of the Commons,13(2), pp. 1021–1034. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.936

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Impacts of 150 Years of Modernization Policies
on the Management of Common Forests in Japan:
A Statistical Analysis of Micro Census Data
Takuya Takahashi1, Koji Matsushita2, Yoshio Yoshida2 and Tetsuji Senda2
1

The University of Shiga Prefecture, JP

2Kyoto University, JP

Corresponding author: Takuya Takahashi (tak@ses.usp.ac.jp)

After World War II, Japan’s policy makers believed that common forests were underutilized
because of their legal status and organization method under customary iriai-type ownership andthat modern ownership in the form of group ownership, such as forest producers’ cooperatives,
or as individual, separate ownership, would improve the situation. Thus, the Common Forests
Modernization Act of 1966 was enacted, following successive modernization policies since the
Meiji Restoration in 1868. We evaluated the impacts of the past modernization policies on the
management of common forests by statistically comparing the performance of modernized andnon-modernized 19,690 common forests based on the World Census of Agriculture and Forestry
2000. The performance measures for comparison included planting, weeding, thinning, andharvesting activities. We found less modernized, customary holdings are more active in tending
activities such as weeding and thinning, while modernized holdings may have an advantage inharvesting and timber sales.
Keywords: census data; common forests; iriai; modernization; Japan

1. Introduction
1.1. Background

Common forests constitute a significant portion of forest management worldwide. Twenty one percent
of private forests and seven percent of public forests of the world are managed by communities andindigenous people. (FAO, 2010, p. 122–126) In the past, Japanese governments have tried to intervenein customary (iriai-type) common forests for different purposes. This study examines how the past policy
intervention including the most recent one, since the 1960s, encouraging common forests obtain more
modern legal status such as cooperatives or individual ownership and organize themselves differently,
have affected forest management by those common forests.
There were preceding efforts changing Japanese common forest into more modern types of entities.
This study concerns the accumulating effects of efforts over the past 150 years. After the Meiji
Restoration in 1868, the newly established Japanese government relied on revenue from land taxation
for its financial needs, before the industrialization of Japan. The government divided the country’s
territory into taxable private lands and government lands that represented important assets for thegovernment. Among private lands, forests managed by “hamlets” constituted a considerable portion.
In the 1880s, the government decided to consolidate these hamlets into municipalities such as towns
and villages with public administrations that could provide services such as education, public works,
and agricultural development. This move created inducements for newly established municipalities totake over forests originally owned by traditional hamlets. This could be one reason why “Public (Hamlet)
Forest Reorganization and Unification Project” was promoted from 1910 to 1939 (Handa, 1988; p.
212). The central government played an active role in this project, under the centralist constitutional

1022

Takahashi et al: Impacts of 150 Years of Modernization Policies on the Management of Common
Forests in Japan: A Statistical Analysis of Micro Census Data

set-up of that time. In fact, the governors of prefectural governments were appointed by the central
government. Flooding in 1907 and 1910 was another impetus for pushing the transfer of lands fromhamlets to municipalities, since hamlets were thought to manage their lands unsustainably (Ministryof Agriculture and Forestry, Minister’s Secretariat, 1963; Editorial Committee for 100 Year History of
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 1972).
After World War II, Japan’s recovery from destruction and its subsequent industrial development
presented policy makers with a new challenge, namely, the disadvantaged position of the agricultural andforestry sector compared with Japan’s fast-growing industrial sector. Policy makers believed that common
forests were underutilized from the perspective of timber-producing, plantation forestry, due to their legal
status under customary iriai-type ownership; and that modern ownership, in the form of group ownershipsuch as forest producers’ cooperatives, or as individual, separate ownership, would improve the situation(Matsushita, 2012). In fact, under iriai-rules, important decisions, such as sales of the common forests andtermination of their rights, have to be made based on consensus; majority-based decision making is legally
impossible on such crucial issues. The plantation ratio of iriai-type common forests, 28.8 %, was in fact
lower than that of private owners’ forests, 35.5 %, by 6.7 points. (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry,
Department of Survey and Statistics, 1962; p. 16)
After several years of research by and discussion among governmental bureaucrats and experts, theCommon Forests Modernization Act of 1966 was enacted. (Hereafter, we call this Act “the 1966 Act” or“the Act”). The Act stipulates that “the prefectural staff may handle the complicated procedures of official
registration, which is not required for customary iriai right, and the registration tax shall be exempted or
reduced” (Handa, 1988).
In Japan, since the enactment of the Act, around 30 to 40% of 1.6 million ha common forests as of
the year 1960 have been placed under modern types of ownership such as individual private ownership,
forest producers’ cooperatives, joint ownership, or other types, such as non-profit associations (Takahashi,
Matsushita, and de Jong, 2017). The series of the above-mentioned policies including the enactment of the
Act and the ensuing policy support in Japan are major state interventions and facilitations in commons-typeownership in an industrialized country. It is worth analyzing and evaluating these major policy interventions
and facilitations.
The 1966 Act was initially conceived as a means of increasing the size of non-industrial private forest
ownership by providing additional forest lands to individual owners, as well as establishing cooperative
forestry operations managed by villagers. It is often said that, in reality, many forest producers’ cooperatives
that are supposed to be modern legal entities without customary relationships retain many of their traditional
characteristics such as contributions to community expenses or restrictions on membership (Handa, 2001).
The consequences of modernization policies are thought to be two-sided. On one hand, the modernization
policy led to the establishment of forest producers’ cooperatives and individual ownership, which may betheoretically more suited to the for-profit production of forest products. On the other hand, under theincreasing tendency of decline in forestry activities in Japan until today, such an arrangement, in manycases, has not resulted in the vigorous for-profit forestry activities anticipated and includes burdens suchas corporate tax payments and management tasks for owners. A large scale survey of the effects of themodernization has not been conducted yet, however.
We can find several examples of common forests that have not been modernized, and relatively wellmanaged by commoners (Kasahara, 2000; Kobayashi, 2013). Several scholars are critical about themodernization policy (Kasahara, 1996; Noguchi, 2014). They claim the modernization policy is not effectivein improving forest management practices. We try to evaluate effects of the past modernization policies,
relying on large-scale census data.
Since modernization is a complex and controversial concept, some readers may find the use of term“modern” or “modernization” in this manuscript somewhat inappropriate. This manuscript defines“modernization” as the transformation of the right of common into other types of right (e.g., individualownership, membership of a cooperative, or ownership by the municipality), in line with the definition
used by Japanese statistics officials. We ask the reader not to assume any value judgment from the use of
the term “modern” or “modernization”: indeed, we see modernization as neither good nor bad. For the sakeof operational practicality, we use these terms in the sense the Japanese statistics officials use them. Forest
holdings with multiple right holders are defined as modernized when those holdings do not have all of
the following three customary holding characteristics: 1) use of its revenues for the community (hamlet),2) customary basis of right holders’ right, and 3) the condition that right holders should be residents in thecommunity (hamlet).

Takahashi et al: Impacts of 150 Years of Modernization Policies on the Management of Common
Forests in Japan: A Statistical Analysis of Micro Census Data

1023

In this manuscript, we use terms such as “customary forest holding,” “non-modernized forest,” and “iriai
forest” (Japanese name for “customary use”) interchangeably, and we also consider both “non-customary”
and “modernized” the same type of forestry holdings (i.e., those that do not have “customary” characteristics).

1.2. Use of common forests in Japan

The pattern of utilization of common forests by commoners has changed drastically from the past.
Historically, hamlet residents used common forests to gather wood for fuel, to make charcoal, and to usematerials as fodder, fertilizer, and building or tool materials mainly for household consumption (McKean,
1992). In the early modern era of Japan, the Edo period (1603–1867), each hamlet or groups of hamlets usedcertain tracts of forests under a regime of customary rights before land ownership had been established,since the modern concept of sole land ownership was not recognized at that time. After the modernization
era began following the Meiji Restoration in 1868, the central government assigned the official ownershipof common forests to some hamlets, to members of hamlets, or to the central government itself. On theother hand, the Civil Code of 1896 recognized the customary right of commoners to use common forests,
even when they came under the possession of other people or entities. During the industrialization periodof Japan in the later 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century, commoners started planting trees
for timber harvesting in the future since timber prices were rising due to the expansion of markets. In later
years, reliance on common forests for the purpose of gathering fertilizer or fuel wood decreased because
commoners started purchasing chemical fertilizer or fossil fuel from merchants.
The 1960 World Agriculture and Forestry Census Survey shows the status of common forests after almost
100 years of industrialization of Japanese society. Among 109,909 common forests identified in the survey,
19.9% (21,920 entities) produced forest products, such as timber and fuel wood from February 1959 throughJanuary 1960 (hereafter, we call this period the Year). A total of 11,046 entities (10.1% of all the common
forests) produced timber, 13,145 entities (12% of them) produced fuel wood or charcoal wood during theYear. Among the 21,920 common forests that produced timber products, 4,901 entities (4.5% of the forests)
distributed the products to their members, while the remaining entities accumulated the cash proceedsin the accounts of their communities or distributed the cash proceeds. The above description indicatesthat by the end of the 1950s, the majority of common forests were not being used for the daily household
consumption of the members. This trend has continued to today.

1.3. Literature

We review here the literature on state intervention and facilitation for commons, because past policies
for common forests in Japan ranged from a voluntary one (i.e., the 1966 Act) to interventionist ones (i.e.,
the Public (Hamlet) Forest Reorganization and Unification Project between 1910 and 1939). Dietz et al.
(2002; p. 13) summarized the observation prevalent by the mid-1980s that transitions from governanceas common property of local communities to state governance had led to a deterioration of the resources
involved in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Berkes (2002; pp. 298–300) classified types of cross-scaleinteraction for the purpose of strengthening local-level institutions and identified five such forms, i.e., “state
legitimization of local institutions,” “enabling legislation,” “cultural and political revitalization,” “capacity
building,” and “institution building.” In this paper, Berkes pointed out that commons researchers “lack[ed]theory and guiding principles” (p. 300) in the field of institutional linkages and referred to an opinion
stating that “commons literature tend[ed] to concentrate on local-level institutions to the exclusion of
the outside world that impacts them and shapes them” (p. 300). Anthony and Campbell (2011) identified
the state’s facilitation role in the commons, or in regard to general collective goods, as an extension to
the theory proposed in Governing the Commons by Elinor Ostrom. Anthony and Campbell (2011) listed
four facilitation roles, such as perceived threat of government regulation1, provision of tangible resources,
conferring legitimacy, and transformation of perception, in addition to direct state participation andconsultation. Tedder (2010) called for more practical guidance for state intervention and devised anintervention framework that includes the following three elements: 1) an institution failure model,
2) a state intervention typology, and 3) a set of intervention properties. The state intervention typology
includes the following five types: obstructionist, absent, facilitating, coordinating, and prescriptive. Tedder
also emphasized the lack of research on the role of the state within the commons literature (p. 7).
1

The perceived threat of regulation could lead actors’ behavior to become more cooperative, since actors take into accountthe possibility of direct regulation and, under expected regulation, consider cooperative behavior more beneficial than noncooperation.

1024

Takahashi et al: Impacts of 150 Years of Modernization Policies on the Management of Common
Forests in Japan: A Statistical Analysis of Micro Census Data

Another line of research deals with the situations where the state relinquishes control over common
forests in transition economies. Premrl et. al. (2015) discuss the restitution of forests in Slovenia, and Tran
and Sikor (2006) analyze the devolution of forest lands in Vietnam. Both groups of researchers identified
problems with these governmental policies.
In one of developed countries, Japan, Takahashi, Matsushita and de Jong (2017) examined what factors
have influenced modernization processes by a state, and found the ease of consensus building among
commoners, the cohesiveness, and past labor investment affected modernization processes positively.
The literature in the above clearly demonstrates that there are needs for further research on stateintervention because of its importance in policies for commons, and that this line of research still remains
at the level of creating typologies, requiring having more knowledge on effects of state intervention. To ourknowledge, our project is the first attempt to examine the impacts of state modernization policies on the
management of common forests utilizing the micro data of a national census.

2. Method

We evaluated the impacts of the series of the modernization policies in the past 150 years in Japan on
the management of common forests by comparing the performance of modernized and non-modernized
forests based on the The World Census of Agriculture and Forestry 2000 (hereafter, the 2000 Forestry
Census), the data of which were for the year 2000.2 The performance measures for comparison included
planting, weeding, thinning, and harvesting activities and timber sales performance. We did not include
other aspects of forest-related activities—such as environmental protection and community building—that
are found to be important in common forest management in Japan (Mitsumata et al., 2008; Shimada,2014). That is because data related to activities other than timber production were not collected in the2000 Forestry Census. In fact, since the main objective of the 1966 Act was promotion of timber-producing,plantation forestry, the focus on timber production in this study can be partially justified.
As the published reports on the 2000 Forestry Census did not provide details regarding customary holdings,
we used the micro data of the Census.3 The Census defined customary holdings as the ones responding “Yes”
to any one of the following three questions: 1) Part of or all of revenues from the forests are spent for thehamlet as a whole? 2) Common right to the forest is based upon traditional customs? 3) Right holders
should be the residents of the hamlet? Non-family, group forest holdings under the titles of shrines andtemples, co-ownership, various organizations and cooperatives, property wards, amalgamated (now nonexistent) cities, towns, villages, or hamlets with a minimum size of 10 ha were selected for the following
analyses. These holdings are more likely to represent former iriai-type, customary ownership. Excluded
forestry holdings are the ones with titles of corporations, current municipalities, unions of municipalities,
prefectures, public corporations, and state. Forest holdings that had plantation areas were selected so we
could examine forestry-related activities, as modern Japanese forestry almost always involves plantation
areas. In addition, samples with abnormal data were sorted out.4 As a result, among 32,908 non-family forest
holdings, 19,690 with 1.47 million ha holding areas were selected. Among the 19,690 holdings, 9,482 arecustomary and 10,208 are non-customary.
We compared modernized and non-modernized “group” holdings because we cannot identify modernizedindividual, family ownership among individual, family ownership in our data set. Please note that there
is heterogeneity in terms of their titles among both modernized and non-modernized holdings. Both thenumber of holdings and forest area under customary holdings decreased over the past 40 years. One reason
for this is the above-mentioned policy for modernization of rights of common forests.
We present herein three alternative hypotheses of how modernization has affected forest management.
a)H(positive): Positive influence. Modernized common forests may enjoy enhanced management
owing to various reasons such as improved decision-making mechanisms, intensified attention
from local prefectural governments after modernization, or originally active tendencies of

The statistical office collected the data as of the 1st of February, 2000 for prefectures other than Okinawa, and as of 1st of December,1999 for Okinawa prefecture. Forest management activities and timber harvesting activity concern about the ones during theprevious one year period from these dates.
3
The statistics office publishes only aggregated data. We applied for the “Extended Use (Secondary Use) of Official Statistics” schemewithin the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, and accessed the data thereafter.
4
The abnormal data concern the following holdings; more than 100% of their holding areas were planted, weeded, thinned or
harvested, or more than 500 cubic meters of their timber per hectare was harvested in the past one year, all of which activities aresupposed due to forest management activities related to natural forests, not plantation forests, our subject in this study.
2

Takahashi et al: Impacts of 150 Years of Modernization Policies on the Management of Common
Forests in Japan: A Statistical Analysis of Micro Census Data

b)

c)

1025

modernized forest commons, which enabled them to implement legal modernization.
H(neutral): Neutral influence. Modernized common forests are not so different from nonmodernized forests in terms of their management practices because, even though modernized
forests went through legal modernization, substantial modernization in the areas of theirdecision-making and other managerial aspects may not have occurred, in reality. Therefore,
we may not be able to identify any substantial differences between modernized and nonmodernized forests.
H(negative): Negative influence. Modernization , by imposing new schemes and practices, may
have destroyed traditional iriai forest management schemes and practices, which would
have been effective under certain conditions as self-organizing and self-governing forms ofcollective action (Ostrom, 2009; van Laerhoven and Berge, 2011). Therefore, contrary to policy
intentions, modernized common forests may be less active in terms of forest management
practices.

First, we cross-tabulated the average performance figures of modernized and non-modernized forest
management among the sample, controlling for sizes, agricultural (geographical) regions, and regionalgroups. Next, we estimated Tobit regression models including a customary-holding indicator as anindependent variable for the purpose of examining general tendencies. Since a majority of common forests
analyzed here do not practice forest management activities, the Tobit model, which consider zero activities
as indicators of negative or no willingness to manage forests, would be appropriate for this analysis.

3. Results

We obtained descriptive statistics for selected group forest holdings, as shown in Table 1.
This table shows how much forest lands were modernized. Around 52 % of this sample were modernizedin terms of rules governing forest holdings (v8 = 0.4816, 1–0.4816 = 0.5184). It was found that, in total,
certain forestry activities were not active in the year 2000. Only 0.64% of the total plantation areas were
replanted (in Japan, after the year 2000, it has been very likely that tree planting takes place in previously
planted areas, not in bare lands or natural forests). Only 0.18% of the total plantation areas were harvested.
On the other hand, certain forest tending activities are occurring. Of the total plantation areas, 6.65% and4.02% received weeding and thinning treatment, respectively.
Correlation coefficients were calculated among the variables. We present the correlations among variables
in Table 2.
Some indicators representing forest management activities such as thinning and timber sales (from v1 to v5)
were correlated with customary ownership indicator (v8).
Next, we present comparative cross-tabulation tables of 19,690 non-family forestry operations, controllingholding sizes, agricultural (geographical) regions, and regional groups according to their advances in termsof modernization.
Table 3 is a cross-tabulation table comparing customary (non-modernized) and non-customary(modernized) holdings in terms of forest management performances. In this table, we controlled the size
Table 1: Descriptive statistics for the selected group forest holdings (N = 19690).
No.

Description

Average

S.D.

Minimum

Maximumv1

New planting area/Total plantation area

0.00640.06210

1

v2

Weeding area/Total plantation area

0.06650.187501

v3

Thinning area/Total plantation area

0.04020.13620

1

v4

Harvesting area/Total plantation area

0.00180.02810

1v5

Timber sales volume of standing
trees (m3)/Total holding area (ha)0.47738.3846

0

466.7

v6

Total holding area (ha)74.7284393.5792

10

29649

v7

Total plantation area/Total holding area

0.65010.35510.00051

v8

Customary common holdings*

0.48160.49970

1* Dummy variables. If “yes”, the value is one.

v1
v2
v3
v4
v5
v6
v7
v8

New planting

Weeding

Thinning

Harvesting

Timber sales

Holding area

Plantation ratio

Customary

v2

v3

v4

–0.0067–0.0647–0.00540.01110.08460.00070.16571.00000.0389–0.1158–0.0112–0.00170.03750.10881.00000.16570.0173–0.0023–0.00840.04840.04271.00000.10880.0007–0.0037–0.02930.00310.06071.00000.04270.03750.0846New
Weeding Thinning Harvesting
planting

v1

Table 2: Correlation matrix among variables (N = 19690).

–0.0155

0.0200–0.00291.00000.06070.0484–0.00170.0111

Timber
sales

v5

v7

0.0252–0.0801

1.0000–0.00290.0031–0.0084–0.0112–0.0054–0.1175

1.0000–0.08010.0200–0.0293–0.0023–0.1158–0.0647

Holding Plantation
area
ratio

v6

1.0000–0.1175

0.0252–0.0155–0.00370.01730.0389–0.0067

Customaryv81026
Takahashi et al: Impacts of 150 Years of Modernization Policies on the Management of Common
Forests in Japan: A Statistical Analysis of Micro Census Data

Takahashi et al: Impacts of 150 Years of Modernization Policies on the Management of Common
Forests in Japan: A Statistical Analysis of Micro Census Data

1027

Table 3: Comparison table of forest holdings based on controlling size.

CustomaryNon-customary

Diff. CustomNon-custom

Size

N

New
planting

Weeding

Thinning

Harvesting

Timber
sales

0–25%

2055

0.6%

9.7%

5.2%

0.2%

0.44

25–50%

2335

0.6%

7.4%

4.2%

0.1%

0.22

50–75%

2700

0.8%

6.8%

4.3%

0.2%

0.36

75–100%

2392

0.3%

6.2%

3.5%

0.2%

0.36

0–25%

3269

0.7%

6.4%

3.8%

0.1%

0.62

25–50%

2858

0.6%

5.8%

3.8%

0.1%

0.69

50–75%

2392

0.8%

5.9%

3.7%

0.3%

0.27

75–100%

1689

0.6%

5.4%

3.9%

0.3%

0.89

(All)

19690

0–25%

–0.1%

3.3%***

1.4%**

0.0%

–0.18

25–50%

0.1%

1.5%**

0.4%

0.0%–0.47/

50–75%

0.0%

0.9%/

0.6%

–0.1%

0.09

75–100%–0.2%*

0.8%

–0.4%

0.0%

–0.54//: 10%, *: 5%, **: 1%, ***: 0.1% significance levels.
Diff. indicates non-modernized minus modernized holdings. New planting, Weeding, Thinning, and Harvesting are theratios of areas receiving such treatments to the total plantation areas in one year before February 2000 (for Okinawa,
December 1999). Timber sales are the sales volumes (in cubic meters) sold as standing trees (not as harvested logs) pera hectare of holding areas in one year before February 2000 (for Okinawa, December 1999). Size indicates into which
size category holdings fall.

of forest land holdings. We ranked all the holdings depending on their holding areas, from the smallest
to the largest, and divided them into four categories: 0–25% (more than or equal to 10ha and less thanor equal to 15.3ha), 25–50% (more than 15.3ha and less than or equal to 27.5ha), 50–75% (more than
27.5ha and less than or equal to 67.55ha), and 75–100% (more than 67.55ha). The presented figures
represent simple mean values for each category. We conducted t-tests between customary and noncustomary holdings.
Tables 4 and 5 present similar analyses based on controlling agricultural (geographical) regions andprefecture groups according to their advances in terms of modernization, respectively. In the analysis for
Table 5, we ranked all prefectures depending on their ratios of modernized areas of the 1960 iriai forests from1969 through 2015, from the largest to the smallest, and divided them into four categories: 124.8–33.5%(Advanced; 15 prefectures), 32.0–24.5% (Middle; 15 prefectures), 23.6–0.0% (Remaining; 15 prefectures),Hokkaido and Okinawa, where usual iriai-type customary holdings were not historically recognized. We
employed such categorization based on the degree of modernization since certain unobservable prefecture
characteristics related to the readiness of modernization may have affected decision-making for common
forests.
To summarize these results, we provide Table 6, which provide the numbers of the signs of differences
between non-modernized and modernized common forests.
We identified several general patterns. First, non-modernized (customary) common forests were thinned
more actively than their modernized counterparts were. Out of 17 comparisons, around halves (10 and 8)of the non-modernized minus modernized values (Diff.) for weeding and thinning are positive, respectively.
Second, in terms of harvesting and timber sales, comparisons between customary and non-customary
holdings are inconclusive. The differences between customary and non-customary have four (Harvesting;
2+Timber sales; 2) positive statistically significant signs and five (1+4) negative significant signs. If weexamine only parts of Japan, except for Hokkaido and Okinawa, which have distinct histories before thepre-modern era, we find five negative signs only, which indicate non-customary, modernized forest holdings
perform better in harvesting and timber sales.
Further, we conducted regression-type, Tobit analyses so that we could consider intricate relationships
among the variables influencing forest management (Table 7).

1028

Takahashi et al: Impacts of 150 Years of Modernization Policies on the Management of Common
Forests in Japan: A Statistical Analysis of Micro Census Data

Table 4: Comparison table of forest holdings based on controlling regions.
RegionCustomaryNon-customary

Diff. CustomNon-custom

NNew
planting

Weeding

Thinning

Harvesting

Timbersales

Hokkaido

16

0.0%

6.7%

0.6%

6.3%

2.20

Tohoku

1785

0.5%

7.6%

4.7%

0.2%

0.74

Hokuriku

665

0.7%

13.2%

2.7%

0.0%

0.05

Kanto/Tozan

1262

0.5%

5.1%

3.1%

0.1%

0.13

Tokai

997

0.3%

6.1%

5.2%

0.1%

0.22

Kinki

1864

0.4%

6.0%

4.2%

0.2%

0.24

Chugoku

1208

1.1%

8.0%

2.9%

0.2%

0.44

Shikoku

297

0.4%

3.2%

5.8%

0.4%

0.21

Kyusyu

1387

0.7%

9.8%

5.8%

0.2%

0.32

Hokkaido

447

1.2%

6.8%

6.2%

0.3%

0.22

Tohoku

2985

0.7%

6.8%

3.7%

0.2%

0.71

Hokuriku

393

0.5%

10.6%

2.7%

0.0%

0.03

Kanto/Tozan

1380

0.5%

5.1%

3.9%

0.2%

1.14

Tokai

939

0.5%

4.7%

3.7%

0.1%

0.47

Kinki

821

0.6%

4.4%

3.3%

0.2%

0.16

Chugoku

1088

1.2%

5.8%

2.4%

0.0%

0.26

Shikoku

657

0.5%

3.3%

4.0%

0.1%

0.40

Kyusyu

1498

0.6%

6.4%

4.6%

0.3%

0.83

(All)

19689

Hokkaido

–1.2%

–0.1%

–5.6%

5.9%***

1.97**

Tohoku

–0.2%

0.8%

0.9%*

0.0%

0.03

Hokuriku

0.2%

2.7%/

0.0%

0.0%

0.02

Kanto/Tozan

0.1%

0.0%

–0.8%

–0.2%/–1.01*

Tokai

–0.2%

1.4%/

1.5%*

0.1%

–0.25

Kinki

–0.1%

1.6%*

0.9%/

0.0%

0.07

Chugoku–0.1%

2.2%**

0.5%

0.1%

0.17

Shikoku

–0.1%

0.0%

1.8%/

0.3%

–0.19

Kyusyu0.1%

3.4%***

1.2%*

–0.1%

–0.51

/: 10%, *: 5%, **: 1%, ***: 0.1% significance levels.
Diff. indicates non-modernized minus modernized holdings.
The total number of sample is 19,689 since one case from Okinawa was omitted.

We conducted Tobit regression analyses using performance measures such as new tree planting areas (v1),weeding areas (v2), thinning areas (v3), and harvesting areas (v4) per total plantation areas, as well as timbersales volumes of standing trees (v5) per one hectare of total holding areas (v6) as dependent variables,
while using holding areas (v6), plantation ratios (v7), agricultural region dummies, and an indicator ofcustomary, non-modernized holding as independent variables. The variables representing holding areasand plantation ratios were included because they are known to influence decisions by common forests(Takahashi, Matsushita, and de Jong, 2017). We tested the above-mentioned hypotheses regarding whether
modernization has affected forestry activities or not, and if so, positively or negatively. The indicator of nonmodernization and modernization is the fact that the forest lands was managed under customary rules (v8).55The customary rules involve the following three ones: 1) use of revenue for the hamlet, 2) customary basis of common right, and3) commoners should be residents of the hamlet, as described in the Introduction part in this paper.

Takahashi et al: Impacts of 150 Years of Modernization Policies on the Management of Common
Forests in Japan: A Statistical Analysis of Micro Census Data

1029

Table 5: Comparison table of forest holdings based on controlling regional groups according to theiradvances in terms of modernization.
Thinning

Harvesting

Timber
sales

8.4%

4.4%

0.1%

0.38

0.6%

7.1%

4.0%

0.2%

0.33

1939

0.4%

6.1%

4.4%

0.1%

0.28

17

0.0%

6.3%

0.6%

5.9%

2.07

Advanced

4074

0.7%

5.8%

4.3%

0.2%

0.54

Middle

3110

0.6%

6.1%

3.5%

0.1%

0.52

Remaining

2577

0.7%

5.9%

3.0%

0.3%

0.87

Hokkaido, Okinawa

447

1.2%

6.8%

6.2%

0.3%

0.22

Diff. Custom- Advanced
Non-custom
Middle0.0%

2.6%***

0.2%

0.0%

–0.16

0.0%

1.1%*

0.6% *

0.1%

–0.19

Remaining

–0.3%

0.2%

1.4% ***–0.1%–0.58*

Hokkaido, Okinawa

–1.2%

–0.5%

–5.6%

5.6%***

1.85**

Customary

Regional types bymodernization

N

Advanced

3615

0.7%

Middle3911

Remaining
Hokkaido, Okinawa
Noncustomary

(All)

New
Weeding
planting

19690/: 10%, *: 5%, **: 1%, ***: 0.1% significance levels.

These results indicate customary holdings are more active in weeding and thinning since “Customary”
variable have statistically significant, positive coefficients in “Weeding” and “Thinning” models. The
estimated coefficient for Customary in the Tobit “Weeding” model is 0.0875 (Table 7); this indicates that
forestry holdings with customary rules tend to weed more of its plantation area than non-customary ones(by 8.75%). Compared to the average value of 6.65% (Table 1), this value appears to be substantial. With
regard to thinning activity, the estimated coefficient is 0.0807 (Table 7); this indicates 8.07% more thinningfor customary holdings, while the total average is 4.02%.
“Customary” variable has statistically not-significant coefficient for “New planting”, “Harvesting” and“Timber sales” models in Tobit analyses.6

4. Discussions and Conclusions

We obtained apparently surprising results regarding the effects of modernization. That is, less modernized
forest (“Customary”) holdings measured with the above-mentioned two criteria are more active in forest
tending. We conclude less modernized customary holdings are more likely to practice better forest tending.
H(negative) was supported with respect to forest tending. On the other hand, by controlling sizes, agricultural
regions, and regional advancement in modernization, in our cross-tabulation analyses, we identified apotential advantage for modernized common forest, i.e., harvesting and timber sales activity.
We tentatively conclude that the modernization policy may have mixed results regarding forest
management. In some areas of forest management, possibly areas related to harvesting, the policy may havebeen partially successful in terms of promoting such an activity, whereas in other areas, possibly such as
weeding and thinning, it was not as successful.
We speculate that traditional hamlets may be able to handle forest tending activities better than expectedby past policy makers. In fact, in 1984, one hamlet in Northern Japan was awarded a national Prime Minister’sprize of “Vibrant Community Building”, among other efforts, by utilizing the proceeds from customary forest
holding for the purpose of improving agricultural and community infrastructure (Matsubara, 1989). The
key factors for their success are said to be historically well-organized management scheme and sustaining
controlling power over the residents (Matsubara, 1989). Traditional practices and mentality may be well
suited for tending forests in the long run. On the other hand, modernized forest holdings may be able

6

For the purpose of controlling for endogeneity of modernization decision, we conducted Instrumental Variable (2SLS) regressions
and Propensity Score Matching method. We obtained similar results shown here.

4

5

Regions

Regional groups
0

0

0

0

+
C > Non-C

1

0

0

1

–
C < Non-C

New planting

10

2

5

3

+
C > Non-C

0

0

0

0

–
C < Non-C

Weeding

8

2

5

1

0

0

0

0

2

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

–
C < Non-C

Harvesting+–+
C > Non-C C < Non-C C > Non-C

Thinning

2

1

1

0

+
C > Non-C

4

1

1

2

–
C < Non-C

Timber sales

Numbers indicate how many differences are statistically significant according to t-tests, by signs of differences. “C > Non-C” indicated the mean for customary holdings is larger than the one fornon-customary holdings. “C < Non-C” indicated the mean for customary holdings is smaller than the one for non-customary holdings.

Total

3

Sizes

Table
No.

Table 6: Summary of comparison tables (statistically significant differences).

1030
Takahashi et al: Impacts of 150 Years of Modernization Policies on the Management of Common
Forests in Japan: A Statistical Analysis of Micro Census Data

0.0136

Customary

0.94–2.61**

1.84

–8.99

t-value

0.0875–0.10960.0000–0.2563

16.10***–8.55***

1.51–9.43***

Estimated t-value
Coefficient

Weeding–0.1639–0.1269–0.1198–0.1628–0.1182–0.2309–0.0840–2805.6

0.0118Hokuriku

Kanto/Tozan

Tokai

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

KyushuLoglikelihood

Pseudo R
squared–14.13***–10.52***–7.64***–8.58***–11.44***–10.98***–7.79***–9.64***

0.0219–9649.1

0.0739–0.1589–0.0451–0.0377–0.0095–0.0208

0.1139–0.0001–7.21***–1.98*–5.18***

12.91***–0.02

9.34***–31.70***–13.57**** 5%, ** 1%, *** 0.1% significance levels.
Heteroscedasticity robust standard errors clustered by prefecture were employed.

–0.1635

TohokuThinning

0.0196–7687.8–0.0157–0.0636–0.1639–0.0095–0.0245–0.0472–0.1328–0.0700

0.08070.06700.0000–0.3792–2.18*–13.61***–17.78***–1.53–4.43***–10.09***–14.29***–16.25***8.09***

5.34***

1.44–11.38***Estimated t-value
Coefficient(Agricultural regions, Hokkaido and Okinawa cases are the base-line)–0.08490.0000Holding area

Plantation
ratio–0.6107

Intercept

Estimated
Coefficient

New planting

Table 7: Tobit regression (Customary) analyses results (N = 19690).

0.0214–1260.4–0.0115–0.0576–0.1730–0.0660–0.0616–0.0960–0.2298–0.0850–0.0099–0.03820.0000–0.6682–2.11*–9.73***–7.25***–3.92***–6.16***–7.72***–7.01***–7.19***

–0.63

–1.00

2.50*

–11.19***Estimated t-value
Coefficient

Harvesting

0.0062–4757.3

10.8884–0.3828–5.8549–0.0773

11.5734

9.6700–17.1531

10.9713–0.1335

6.65300.0077–145.0108

7.26***–0.66–3.27***–0.04

6.81***

7.44***–5.69***

7.46***

–0.05

1.74

2.06*

–8.08***

Estimated t-value
Coefficient

Timber sales

Takahashi et al: Impacts of 150 Years of Modernization Policies on the Management of Common
Forests in Japan: A Statistical Analysis of Micro Census Data
1031

1032

Takahashi et al: Impacts of 150 Years of Modernization Policies on the Management of Common
Forests in Japan: A Statistical Analysis of Micro Census Data

to handle better drastic decisions such as forest harvesting and timber sales than conservative customary
holdings by simplifying decision-making processes.
These results suggest several hints for formulating policies affecting common forests in Japan and othercountries in the future.
Here are several caveats. In Japan, during the 1990s and 2000s, forestry activities were stagnating owing totheir persistently low productivity and economic downturn. These unfavorable conditions may have influenced
the above-mentioned results. Overall, economic conditions may have exerted depressing effects on former
common forests. In fact, low levels of investments may have been rather rational responses by modernized,
former customary common forests. Second, we only considered moneymaking forestry activities and excluded
recreational, or spiritual, community-building aspects of forest management. In fact, many common forests
in Japan are related to shrines or temples. Consideration of these other aspects may shed a different lighton the modernization policy. Third, as mentioned above, the current study did not investigate individualownership created out of iriai common forests because of data limitation. Individually-divided ownershipfrom former customary common forests may be managed better than customary or non-customary groupholdings. A policy document in 1960 clearly stated the ideal direction for common forests, for the purpose ofenhancing utilization, was individual privatization (Committee on Fundamental Issues in Agriculture, Forestry
and Fishery, 1960). Historically, plantation forests and forests used by individual families were divided among
them even without governmental policies. Small sizes after individual privatization, however, may have resulted
in inefficiency due to anticommons situation. Inclusion of individual ownership in our analysis is also necessary
for comprehensive evaluation of the modernization policy. Fourth, we tried to assess here the overall impact
of modernization policies over the past 150 years, including the responses of forest holdings to those policies.
Those responses include the transformation or abandonment of customary rules, changes in organizational
formats, and divisions into individual ownership or changes to municipal assets. Therefore, all forest holdings—
either with or without customary rules—have experienced policy interventions. Although in several analyses
we tried to control for the endogeneity effects of decisions made by forest holdings themselves, there is still thestrong possibility we measured not only policy effects but also self-selection effects—that is, non-modernized
forestry holdings may have inherent characteristics that positively affect forest tending activities, and suchcharacteristics may have led to the results obtained in this study. Fifth, please note that even though we tried
to control for size, regional, and past investments (plantation ratios) influences, there could be a possibility thatthe findings may be influenced by heterogeneity of customary and non-customary forest holdings, respectively.
This study contributes to the study of the commons by giving insights into contemporary status
of modernized and non-modernized commons on a national scale and at the micro levels. We hope toinvestigate this issue further by conducting regression-type analyses that are more sophisticated, as suchanalyses could provide more answers to important research questions with statistical hypothesis testing. For
such analyses, the current study will give guidance in formulating models.

Acknowledgements

This work was conducted as a project research of the Statistical Digital Archives of Agriculture, Forestry,
and Fisheries of the Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, and supported by JSPS KAKENHI
Grant Number 15H02871. We thank the Department of Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, andFisheries. We also appreciate comments and suggestions at the 16th International Association for the
Study of the Commons (IASC) Global Conference at Utrecht in 2017 and other meetings as well as the ones
from anonymous reviewers of the Journal.

Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

References

Anthony, D. L., & Campbell, J. L. (2011). States, social capital and cooperation: looking back on Governing
the Commons. International Journal of the Commons, 5(2), 284–302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/
bmgn-lchr.250
Berkes, F. (2002). Cross-scale institutional linkages: perspectives from the bottom up. In National ResearchCouncil (Ed.), The Drama of the Commons (pp. 293–321). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Committee on Fundamental Issues in Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery. (1960). Ringyou no kihon
mondai to kihon taisaku [Fundamental issues and policies in forestry]. Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of Agriculture
and Forestry.

Takahashi et al: Impacts of 150 Years of Modernization Policies on the Management of Common
Forests in Japan: A Statistical Analysis of Micro Census Data

1033

Diez, T., Dolshak, N., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2002). The drama of the commons. In National ResearchCouncil (Ed.), The Drama of the Commons (pp. 3–35). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Editorial Committee of 100 Year History of Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. (1972).
Nourinsuisansyou 100 nensi, zyou, tyuu [The history of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in
100 years, volume one and two]. Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
FAO. (2010). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010: Main Report. Rome, Italy: FAO.
Handa, R. (1988). Policy for the administration of public forests and common forests. In R. Handa (Ed.),
Forest Policy in Japan (pp. 211–225). Tokyo, Japan: Nihon Ringyou Tyousakai.
Handa, R. (2001). Seisan sinrinkumiai to iriai rin’ya no 50 nensi [Fifty-year history of production forest
cooperatives and iriai forests and fields], [in Japanese]. Ringyoukeizai [Journal of Forest Economics], [inJapanese], 26, 6–22.
Kasahara, R. (1996). Tenkan wo semarareru iriairin’ya seisaku [Iriai policy should change its course], [inJapanese]. Nakanihon Iriai Rin’ya Kenkyuukai Kaihou [Journal of Forest Commons], 16, 1–2.
Kasahara, R. (2000). Ringyou kara mita iriairin’ya kindaika seisaku [Examining iriai modernization policy
from the standpoint of forestry [in Japanese]. Nakanihon Iriai Rin’ya Kenkyuukai Kaihou [Journal of Forest
Commons], 20, 9–13.
Kobayashi, T. (2013). Sinzyou-tiku no genzyou to kadai [Current state and challenges for Shinjo Area], [inJapanese]. Iriai Rin’ya Kenkyuu [Journal of Forest Commons], 33, 24–28.
Matsubara, K. (1989). ‘Yutakana mura zukuri’ to burakuyuu rin’ya–Aomori ken, Minamitsugaru gun,
Hiraga mura, Hirohune [‘Vibrant community building’ and common forests: Hirofune, Hiraka village,
Minami-tsugaru county, Aomori prefecture], [in Japanese]. In M. Takei, et al. (Eds.), Rin’ya Iriai Ken: sono
seibi to kadai [Forest Iriai Right: Modernization and Challenge] (pp. 196–208). Tokyo, Japan: Ichiryuusya.
Matsushita, K. (2012). Recent problems and new directions for forest producer cooperatives established incommon forests in Japan. In J. J. Diez [Ed.], Sustainable Forest Management–Case Studies (pp. 161–182).
Rijeka, Croatia: InTech. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5772/29967
McKean, M. A. (1992). Success on the commons: a comparative examination of institutions for common
property resource management. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 4(3), 247–281. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/0951692892004003002
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Survey and Statistics. (Ed.) (1962). 1960-nen
Sekai Nouringyou Sensasu Ringyou Tyousahoukokusyo Kankoukyouyuuhen [The 1960 World Agriculture
and Forestry Census Survey, Report on Forestry, Customary Common Forests], [in Japanese]. Tokyo, Japan:
Nourin Toukei Kyoukai.
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Ministry’s Secretariat. (1963). Nourinsuisansyou
Gyouseisi, 5kan, Zyou [The Administration History of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries,
Volume Five (Part One)], [in Japanese]. Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
Mitsumata, G., Morimoto, S., Murota, T., Tamura, N., & Shimada, D. (2008). Komonzu kenkyuu nofrontier: san’yakaisen no kyouteki sekai [New Frontiers in Commons Research: Communal Use of Mountains,
Grasslands, Seas, and Rivers], [in Japanese]. Tokyo, Japan: University of Tokyo Press.
Noguchi, T. (2014). Iriai rin’ya kindaika seisaku no soukatu to tenbou [A review and prospect of modernization
policy of iriai foersts], [in Japanese]. Iriai Rin’ya Kenkyuu [Journal of Forest Commons], 34, 5–8.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge,
England; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763
Ostrom, E. (2009). Design principles of robust property-rights institutions: what have we learned? In K. G.
Ingram & Yu-Hung Hong (Eds.), Property Rights and Land Policies. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute ofLand Policy.
Premrl, T., Udovč, A., Bogataj, N., & Krč, J. (2015). From restitution to revival: a case of commonsre-establishment and restitution in Slovenia. Forest Policy and Economics, 59, 19–26. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.05.004
Shimada, D. (2014). External impacts on traditional commons and present-day changes: a case study ofiriai forests in Yamaguni district, Kyoto, Japan. International Journal of the Commons, 8(1), 207–235. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.348
Takahashi, T., Matsushita, K., & de Jong, W. (2017). Factors affecting the creation of modern property
ownership of forest commons in Japan: an examination of historical, prefectural data. Forest Policy andEconomics, 74, 62–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.012
Tedder, S. J. (2010). Common Pool Resources and State Intervention: Why, When and How [Ph.D. dissertation].
Vancouver, Canada: The University of British Columbia.

1034

Takahashi et al: Impacts of 150 Years of Modernization Policies on the Management of Common
Forests in Japan: A Statistical Analysis of Micro Census Data

Tran, N. T., & Sikor, T. (2006). From legal acts to actual powers: devolution and property rights in thecentral highlands of Vietnam. Forest Policy and Economics, 8, 397–408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
forpol.2005.08.009
van Laerhoven, F., & Berge, E. (2011). The 20th anniversary of Elinor Ostrom’s Governing the Commons.
International Journal of the Commons, 5(1), 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.290

How to cite this article: Takahashi, T., Matsushita, K., Yoshida, Y., & Senda, T. 2019. Impacts of 150 Years ofModernization Policies on the Management of Common Forests in Japan: A Statistical Analysis of Micro Census Data.
International Journal of the Commons, 13(2), pp. 1021–1034. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.936
Submitted: 28 September 2018

Accepted: 30 June 2019

Published: 30 October 201X

Copyright: © 2019 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

International Journal of the Commons is a peer-reviewed open access journal
published by Ubiquity Press.

OPEN ACCESS