OUIK’s efforts toward
Satoyama and Satoumi Assessment
in NotoBackgroundFebruary 10th, 2014
Wataru Suzuki
Satoyama Initiative Coordinator
United Nations University
Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU‐IAS)

1

Assessment in Action
 Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, MA (2001～2005)
Sub-Global Assessment Network, SGA
 Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services, IPBES (April, 2012 ～) Inclusive Wealth Index, IWI (June, 2012～)



JSSA

 SEPLS developmentdlt iin JJapan anddbbeyondd The Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment, JSSA
(2007～2010)
 Satoyama Initiative （Oct, 2010. COP10)- International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative, IPSI Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems, GIAHS- Noto’s Satoyama and Satoumi (June, 2011)- International Meeting (May, 2013)3

MA’s Sub-Global Assessment

Scope of Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment(JSSA) TIMEFRAME
 Changes that have occurred in satoyama andsatoumi in the past 50 years since the end of WorldWar II.
 GEGRAPHIC SCOP
 Include 5 major clusters throughout Japan toencompassp different ggeographical,g p, climate,,
ecological, social, economic, and politicalcharacteristics:
1. Hokkaido Cluster
2. Tohoku Cluster
3. Hokushinetsu Cluster
4. Kanto‐chubu cluster
5. Western Japan Cluster

MA’s 34 sites of the sub-global assessment
6

5

51

Products

Methodology and Key Concepts

 Provided a valuable scientific data base
 Provided a valuable epistemic community of scholars andpractitioners

Adopting the MA conceptual framework – Ecosystem Services
直接的要因

間接的要因

Policy Brief, 2010(English)

供給サービス

調整サービス

安全
選択と行動の自由基盤サービス

里山・里海

基本的物資

健康
文化的サービス

Cluster Reports‐ 6 Regions, 2010
(Japanese)

社会的関係(JSSA, 2010)

Ecosystem Services 生態系サービス

Human Well‐being 人間の福利

78Summary for Decision
Makers, 2010 (English &Technical Reports– Books, 2012
Japanese)
English – UNU Press
Japanese–Asakura Publishing

What are satoyama and satoumi?
JSSA defines satoyama and satoumi landscapes as dynamic mosaics ofmanaged socio‐ecological systems producing a bundle of ecosystemservices for human well‐being, or “Socio‐Ecological Production
Landscapes (SEPLs)”.

Satoyama

SatoumiSatoyama Initiative adopted the outcome of JSSA

(JSSA, 2010)

9(JSSA, 2010)10

Key Findings from JSSAKey Recommendations from JSSA

• Mosaic composition of different ecosystem types that aremanaged by humans to produce a bundle of ecosystemservices for human well‐being• Significant changes over the last 50 years which have caused
a drop in resiliency of the coupled socio‐ecologicalproduction systems• Continued loss of satoyama and satoumi landscapes has
potentially negative consequences for human well‐being
and biodiversity• Integrated approaches including citizen participation havebeen used increasingly over the past ten years• Critical to the success of a more integrated approach to
ecosystem management is creation of a new “commons”• A Satoyama‐satoumi approach recognizes the mosaic
composition of ecosystem types and their inherent
interlinkages• Need to govern the new “commons” allowing
decentralized decision‐making on the use of land and water
bodies• New “commons”
commons ensure the equitable access and use of
ecosystem services provided by satoyama and satoumi• A ten‐year research programme be established to gain
better understanding of the dynamics of satoyama andsatoumi• Comprehensive, integrated assessment of socio‐ecologicalproduction landscapes in developing and developed
countries
12

11

52

Design Workshop （ March & July, 2013)【Key Challenges of the Community】
1) Making “agriculture” profitable,in combination with social benefits•••

Future Satoyama and Satoumi
Assessment in Noto

Use the socio‐economic framework
Identify and reflect on consumers’ needs
Measure and identify the value of a rural society
in itself (lifestyle, culture, identity, etc.)

2) Moving from a voluntary basis to “sustainability”
sustainability••

Upscale the point system of satoyama‐satoumi conservation
Explore a viable form of employment producing income and quality of life3) Increasing a sense of pride and identity attached to satoyama‐satoumi landscapes••

Assess how people cognize and value the landscapes –including counter‐views
Set up an experimental lab or survey4) Making the local initiative relevant to the global community –not only for knowledge generation
but also for policy processes•••

Provide implications for the agricultural‐based society around the world
Provide suggestions for increasing the wealth by investing in the natural and human capital
feed into the Inclusive Wealth Reports (IWRs) – how to measure capital at the local scale

Scope & Scale

Possible New Assessment in Noto and Hokuriku• Social Scales

 Goal– Household– Community– Municipal– Regional (Noto, Kaga, Hokuriku)– Prefectural (Ishikawa) To provide policy‐related information, which are scientifically credentials
in relation to the significance of biodiversity and ecosystem services andthe contributions of economics and human development from Ishikawa’s
Satoyama and Satoumi, to policy‐makers and relevant stakeholders.

 Objectives• Ecologicalg
Scales To provide scientific bases to meet regional challenges– Ecosystems (forest, agricultural, coastal, wetland, etc.)– Catchments– River basins, coastal areas?

Scientific bases for sustainable use and management of Satoyama and Satoumi include
scientific information, data access enhancement, awareness‐raising, capacity building,contributions of enhancement of designing, strategy and policy. etc.)• Time frame:

 International contributions of region
To input regional‐based information into the international policy processes and actions such

– 25 years (quantitative analysis) – inclusive wealth estimation– 50 years (after 1960 – qualitative/narrative) depending on thedata availability?

as IPBES, CBD, GIAHS, and SI.

53

INTRODUCTION TO TARGET STUDY AREA
Location of Study Area
Sado Island

OUIK RESEARCH PROJECT
Kanazawa

Tokyo
Suzu City

Spatial data collection and perspectives on
the multi‐scale assessment of Noto
Peninsula’s Ecosystem Services

Niigataprefecture

Nanao City

Noto Peninsula
Hakui City

Kanazawa City

Toyamaprefecture

Komatsu City

Regional Environmental Planning Inc.

Ishikawa
prefecture

Chen Siew Fong
Tadashi Masuzawa
Hajime Ise

Gunma
prefecture

Naganoprefecture

Saitamaprefecture

Fukui prefecture

Gifu prefecture

Tokyo pref.

Yamanashi
prefecture

Shiga pref.

Existing ES Indicators for Hoku‐Shinetsu Cluster
Ecosystem Services
Provisioning services

Food

Rice
Seafood
Wood / Timber
Coal (trees)
Electric power

LivingEnergyRegulating services

Cultural services

Native species
Migratory species
Alien species

Seafood
Wood / Timber
Coal (trees)
Electric power

LivingEnergyWater management(agricultural sector)
Flood protection

Recreation

Biodiversity

Food
Rice
Satoyama
Satoumi assessment@ Multiple spatial scale

Water

Artistic value
Spiritual value

Additional
indicators

ES Indicators and criteria for
Hoku‐shinetsu cluster
Rice consumption, production area
Fishery yield
Production volume, timber volume
Production volume
SupplyProvisioning services

ClimateAverage temperature, rainfall
Atmospheric component
CO2 emissions
Transboundary contaminants Levels of particulates (i.e. Yellow Sand),acid rain, endocrine disrupters.

Forest soil
Beach (sand)Ecosystem Services

Rice consumption, production area
Fishery yield
Production volume, timber volume
Production volume
SupplyAtmosphere

Soil

Hoku‐shinetsu ES Indicators

ES Indicators and criteria for
Hoku‐shinetsu cluster

Regulating services

Maintenance rates of ponds, waterways

Hoku‐shinetsu region

ClimateRegional scale

Atmosphere

Average temperature, rainfall
Atmospheric component(extentCO2
ofemissions
the area facing Japan
Transboundary
Levels of particulates (i.e. Yellow Sand),Sea from
to SadoIsland)contaminantsacid Echizen
rain, endocrine
disrupters.

Water

Water management

Maintenance rates of ponds, waterways(agricultural sector)
g WatershedLarge
Fl d protection
Floodt tiIshikawa
DPDams( ff tti storage,t
flood
fl d control
t l
I hik
Prefecturef(effective
scale
capacity)

Dams (effective storage, flood control
capacity)
Watersheds (monetary value)
Soil runoff
Sediment supply

Soil
Cultural services

Traditional crafts
Production volume, number of artisans
Shrine forests (sacred forest) Number of shrine forests, awareness levelof local residents
Traditional festivals
Number of traditional festivals
Environmental education
Participants
Green Tourism
Number of users and facilities

Artistic value

Forest soil
Beach (sand)Traditional crafts

Biodiversity

Rare species
Population / distribution
Common species
Population / distribution
Migratory species (migratory Population / distribution
birds etc)
Hazardous alien species
Population / distribution

Small to
Noto
forestsPeninsula:(sacredNumber of shrine forests, awarenessMedium Shrine
forest)levelCityof local residents
・ Suzu, Nanao, Hakui
Traditional festivals
Number of traditional festivals
WS

Native species
Migratory species
Alien species+ Disaster hazards(heavy snow, landslides…)

Watersheds (monetary value)
Soil runoff
Sediment supply
Production volume, number of artisans

Spiritual value
Recreation+ Renewable energy+ Other food productions

Environmental education Participants
Komatsu
comparison)
Green
Tourism City (forNumberof users and facilities
Rare species
Population / distribution
Common species
Population / distribution
Migratory species
Population / distribution(migratory birds etc)
Hazardous alien species Population / distribution+ Tourism resources+ Types of sceneries+ Wildlife damage

United Nations University (2010). Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment: Experiences and Lessons from Clusters (Hoku‐Shinetsu cluster)

INTRODUCTION TO TARGET STUDY AREA
Distribution of watersheds and multiple scale assessment
study area

Nanao Bay
Suzu City

Nanao City
Hakui City

Watershed divide

Kanazawa City

Kanazawa City

Watershed divide
Komatsu City

Senmaida rice fields

Watershed divide

Nanao Bay
Mt. Fuji54

BASIC DATA – Terrain

BASIC DATA – Surface Geology

TerrainClassification Map (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale)Surface Geology Classification Map (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale)(National Land Numerical Information)(National Land Numerical Information)

Gunma
prefecture

Gunma
prefecture

Naganoprefecture

Gifu prefecture

Naganoprefecture

Gifu prefecture

Yamanashi
prefecture

Shiga pref.

Yamanashi
prefecture

Shiga pref.

BASIC DATA – Large Watershed scaleBASIC DATA – Large Watershed scale

Terrain Classification Map

Surface Geology Classification Map

Soil Classification Map

Vegetation Map(National Land Numerical Information)(National Land Numerical Information)(National Land Numerical Information)(Japan Integrated Biodiversity Information System)

REGULATING SERVICES – Climate

REGULATING SERVICES – Climate

Annual Average Temperature (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale)

Annual Average Precipitation (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale)(National Land Numerical Information)(National Land Numerical Information)

Gunma
prefecture

Naganoprefecture

Gifu prefecture

Gunma
prefecture

Naganoprefecture

Saitamaprefecture

Yamanashi
prefecture

Gifu prefecture

Tokyo pref.

Shiga pref.

Shiga pref.

55

Saitamaprefecture

Yamanashi
prefecture

Tokyo pref.

REGULATING SERVICES – Soil

REGULATING SERVICES – Flood Control

Soil Classification Map (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale)

Flood Hazard Map (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale)(National Land Numerical Information)(National Land Numerical Information)

Naganoprefecture

Gifu prefecture

Yamanashi
prefecture

Shiga pref.

REGULATING SERVICES – Snow hazard control

REGULATING SERVICES – Hazard control

Heavy Snowfall Area Map as of 2007 (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale)

Sediment Disaster and Snowslide Areas (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale, 5km mesh)(National Land Numerical Information)(National Land Numerical Information)

Gunma
prefecture

Naganoprefecture

Gifu prefecture

Gunma
prefecture
Naganoprefecture
Saitamaprefecture

Yamanashi
prefecture

Gifu prefecture

Tokyo pref.

Shiga pref.

Shiga pref.

REGULATING SERVICES – Hazard control
Landslide Data
(National Research Institute for Earth Scienceand Disaster Prevention)

REGULATING SERVICES – Hazard control

Landslide Hazard Map

Flood Hazard Map(National Land Numerical Information)(National Land Numerical Information)

56

BIODIVERSITY SERVICES – Forest Area

BIODIVERSITY SERVICES – Protected Areas

Natural Parks (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale)

Natural Parks Categories (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale)(National Land Numerical Information)(National Land Numerical Information)

Gunma
prefecture

Gunma
prefecture

Naganoprefecture

Naganoprefecture

Gifu prefecture

Gifu prefecture

Shiga pref.

Shiga pref.

BIODIVERSITY SERVICES – Protected Areas

BIODIVERSITY SERVICES – Protected Areas

Wildlife Preserve Categories (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale)(National Land Numerical Information)

Protected Areas Map

Forest Area Classification Map(National Land Numerical Information)(National Land Numerical Information)

Gunma
prefecture

Naganoprefecture

Gifu prefecture

Shiga pref.

BIODIVERSITY SERVICES – RDB species hotspots

BIODIVERSITY SERVICES – RDB species hotspots‐Red Data Book of Ishikawa Prefecture (2009)‐Threatened Threatened I (CR+EN) known habitats, breeding grounds‐Red Data Book of Ishikawa Prefecture (2009)‐Threatened Threatened I (CR+EN) known habitats, breeding grounds

Mammals (n=4)

Amphibians (n=2)

Birds (n=16)

Freshwater fish (n=2)

Habitathttp://www.pref.ishikawa.lg.jp/sizen/reddata/rdb_2009/index.html

57

Breeding

Wintering

Saitamaprefecture

BIODIVERSITYSERVICES –Distribution of
Mammals

Badger （アナグマ）

Japanese serow （カモシカ）

Meles meles

Capricornis crispus

Wildlife damage

Fox（キツネ）

Asiatic Black Bear（ツキノワグマ）

Vulpes vulpes

Selenarctos thibetanus

PROVISIONING SERVICES – Agricultural Areas
Special Agricultural Areas (as of 2007)(National Land Numerical Information)

Transcends
prefectural
boundaries!
Japanese Sika Deer

Japanese macaqueJapanese raccoon（タヌキ）（ニホンジカ）（ニホンザル）

Nyctereutes procyonoides

Cervus nippon

Macaca fuscata

PROVISIONING SERVICES – Farmers’ population

CULTURAL SERVICES – Recreation

Agricultural Census Data

Agricultural Census Data

Tourism Resource Map

Landscape Features Map– All farmers’ population, 1985

– Rice farmer’s population, 1985

(National Land Numerical Information)(National Land Numerical Information)(National Land Numerical Information)(National Land Numerical Information)

CULTURAL SERVICES – Recreation

CULTURAL SERVICES – Recreation

National Cultural Treasure Map

City Parks Map

Accommodation Facilities Count

Accommodation Capacity Count(National Land Numerical Information)(National Land Numerical Information)(National Land Numerical Information)(National Land Numerical Information)

58

Other data sets……
Accumulated data:‐Provisioning, regulating,cultural, biodiversity,
basic data, drivers.

Thank you for yourattention‐ Various ESRI format data
‐ Prefectural annual reports‐ Local government annual
reports‐Not all are in GIS format,
and some are not up to date
‐Best to update GIS data onchange indicators asap (yield,
population change etc)
‐For more information,
speak to UNU‐IAS and OUIK
personnel

59International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto

Outline of this presentation:i. Update IPBES activities and discussions;
ii. Review the state of knowledge in BES*

assessments for the Asia‐Pacific region to
identify gaps and needs for future assessments
contributing to IPBES key functions; andiii. Provide overview of a new research project onsatoyama BES tradeoffs analysis and local
governance model in Noto, Japan.

Trade-offs and Local Synergies inSatoyama Ecosystem Services
10 Feb. 2014
Osamu Saito, Chiho Kamiyama, Shizuka Hashimoto, and
Ryo Kohsaka* BES: Biodiversity and ecosystem services

1

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)

•
•
•

2

IPBES and Scientific communities

Scientific Background:•

Location of BES assessments reviewed in
Asia-Pacific Regions

Policy makers,
stakeholders

Many ecosystem services related
assessments
But only one focused solely on ecosystemservices and human well-being
Fragmented, multiple frameworks andmethodologies
Scientific credibilityy varies

3

Policy support
IPBES‐2 (Antalya, 9‐15 Dec. 2013)

Requests for
information to the
Plenary4

Capacitybuilding

1

Four key functions of IPBES:
1. Knowledge generation
2. Regular and timely assessments
3. Support policy formulation andimplementation
4. Capacity building

Assessments

gaps

2
Catalysing knowledge generation

Scientificcommunities

IPBES‐2 (11 Dec. 2013)(Source) A.K. Duraiappah (2009) Ecosystem Services: The Global Assessment Landscape

3

4

IPBES Work Programme 2014‐2018

Platform goal
Strengthen the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services
for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being and sustainable development
Platform functions, operational principles and procedures

IPBES’s Analytical conceptual framework

Platform work programme 2014–2018: Objectives and associated deliverables
Decision-making body
Responsible for the overall work programme, working through subsidiary bodies, supported by the secretariat
Objective 1: Strengthen the capacity and knowledge foundations of the science-policy interface to implement key functions of the Platform:(a) Priority capacity-building needs to implement the Platform’s work programme matched with resources through catalysing financial and in-kind support(b) Capacities needed to implement the Platform work programme developed(c) Procedures, approaches for participatory processes for working with indigenous and local knowledge systems developed(d) Priority knowledge and data needs for policymaking addressed through catalyzing efforts to generate new knowledge and networking

Objective 2: Strengthen the science-policy interface
on biodiversity and ecosystem services at and acrosssubregional, regional and global levels:(a) Guide on production and integration ofassessments from and across all scales(b) Regional/subregional assessments on biodiversity,
ecosystem services(c) Global assessment on biodiversity and ecosystemservices

Objective 3: Strengthen the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services
with regard to thematic and methodological issues:(a) One fast track thematic assessment of pollinators, pollination and food production(b) Three thematic assessments: land degradation and restoration; invasive alien species; andsustainable use and conservation of biodiversity and strengthening capacities/tools(c) Policy support tools and methodologies for scenario analysis and modelling of biodiversity
and ecosystem services based on a fast track assessment and a guide(d) Policy support tools and methodologies regarding the diverse conceptualization of valuesof biodiversity and nature’s benefits to people including ecosystem services based on anassessment and a guide

Objective 4: Communicate and evaluate Platform activities, deliverables and findings:(a) Catalogue of relevant assessments(b) Development of an information and data management plan(c) Catalogue of policy support tools and methodologies(d) Set of communication, outreach and engagement strategies, products and processes(e) Reviews of the effectiveness of guidance, procedures, methods and approaches to inform future development of the Platform

5

60

6

Gaps and Needs for Assessment Contributing to IPBES Functions

The state of knowledge in BES assessments for the Asia‐Pacific region:
Gaps and Needs for Assessment Contributing to IPBES Functions[Results‐1] Urban, dryland ecosystems and cultural ecosystem services
least assessed; non‐tradable services under‐represented[Method and Materials]
 IPBES Catalogue of Assessments on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services(IPBES, 2012) 58 global to sub‐national scale Asia‐Pacific region studies
 The IPBES Catalogue was used to judge the following:a. Availabilityy of knowledge
g on different information ggroups;
p;b. Gaps in geographical range and integration;c. Level of temporal consideration and scenario use;
d. Gaps in ecosystem types and services assessed;
e. Level of cross‐scale stakeholder engagement andconsideration of trade‐offs;
f. Level of integration of different types of knowledge; andg. Level of policy impact and capacity building.

Table 3. Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services (N=58)
 Forest and marine (including coastal,island, and reef assessments)
ecosystems were the most commonly
assessed (Table 3).
 Urban and dryland ecosystems were
specifically addressed in less than 20%
of assessments
assessments. These are important
areas of attention for the region as 40%
of Asia’s land area is classified as
drylands and much of the region isundergoing rapid urban expansion.
 Cultural services were least addressed inonly 52% of assessments, although‘recreation and tourism’ was relatively
over‐represented in 47%.

Information Group
Most common
ecosystems assessed(>40%)
Least commonly assessed
ecosystems (<20%)

Assessments including

Most common services
assessed (>40%)

Least common services
assessed (>5%)

Frequency
1.Forest and woodland (51.7%)
2. Coastal (43.1%)
3. Cultivated/ agricultural land (41.4%)
10. Island (12.1%)
9. Urban (13.8%)
8. Dryland (15.5%)
provisioning services
79.3%
regulating services
65.5%
supporting services
72.4%
cultural services
51.7%
1. Food (63.8%)
2. Water (55.2%)
3. Recreation and tourism (46.6%)
4. Climate regulation (41.4%)
5. Regulation of water flows (41.4%)
32.
Education;
Genetic
resources
preservation; Human health; Non‐timber
forestry products; Productivity of marine
fish stocks (1.7%)
31. Commercial and recreational fisheries;
Fisheries biodiversity (3.4%)

7

8Gaps and Needs for Assessment Contributing to IPBES Functions

Gaps and Needs for Assessment Contributing to IPBES Functions[Results‐2] Low direct engagement of cross‐scale public, private, and civilsociety stakeholders in trade‐off resolution[Results‐3] Average assessment incorporates at least two different typesof knowledge; citizen science and local and indigenous knowledge under‐
represented

 Cross‐scale linkages could be identified

through stakeholder engagement at
multiple levels.
 Over one third (35%) of assessments
indicated explicit stakeholder
engagement, primarily throughworkshops, meetings, and interviews.
 Assessments specifically seeking tradeunion, women, or farmer stakeholder
engagement were the least common.
 Almost a quarter (22%) of assessments
actively included trade‐off analysis as atool for assessment, but only 7% directly
engaged stakeholders in understanding
different resource uses and addressing
trade‐off and conflict resolutions.

Information Group
Stakeholder engagement process
identified
Most common engagement process
Assessments engaging trade‐off andconflict resolution processes
Average number of stakeholder groups
engagedg g
National/provincial ministries anddepartments
Research organizations and experts
Local government
National/international NGOs
Community‐based NGOs and groups
Private sector and industry
Local residents and householders
Indigenous groups
Resource and conservation managers
Farmers
Women
Trade unions

Frequency

N

34.5%

58*

Resource
user/stakeholder
workshops, meetings,
interviews (15.5%)

58*

 Less than half (45%) of assessments indicated

6.9%

58*

3.2 Stakeholder
ggroups
p

12**

22.4%

58*

17.2%
12.1%
10.3%
8.6%
8.6%
8.6%
6.9%
5.2%
3.4%
3.4%
1.7%

58*
58*
58*
58*
58*
58*
58*
58*
58*
58*
58*

*Unit: assessments, ** unit: Stakeholder groups

the types of knowledge used.
 The most common combination was scientificand resource expert knowledge (24% ofassessments), with citizen science featuring
least commonly in 10% of assessments (Table5).
 21% of assessments included traditional or local
knowledge; and 17% combined it with scientificknowledge as well.
 Private sector and non‐governmentorganization knowledge could also be
considered discrete knowledge sources but are
not specifically considered in the IPBESCatalogue.

9

Table 5. Types of knowledge (N=58)
Information GroupFrequency

Scientific information only

8.6%

Scientific and traditional knowledge

17.2%

Scientific and resource expert knowledge

24 1%
24.1%

Scientific and citizen information

8.6%

Most common knowledge type

Scientificinformation(36.2%)

Resource experts

31.0%

Traditional or local knowledge

20.7%

Least common knowledge type

Citizenscience(10.3%)

10

Research on Trade‐off Analysis and Local Governance Model ofSatoyama Ecosystem Services in Noto Peninsula

Gaps and Needs in BES Assessment in Asia‐Pacific region

Japan Satoyama and Satoumi Asessment

Key findings:
1. Urban, dryland ecosystems and cultural ecosystem services
least assessed; non‐tradable services under‐represented.
2. Low direct engagement of cross‐scale public, private, andcivil society stakeholders in trade‐off resolution
3 Citizen science and local and indigenous knowledge under‐3.
under
represented.

(JSSA, 2012)

Noto Peninsula

Ecosystem Services
Supporting Nutrient cycle
 Soil formation
 Primaryproduction

・・・

Sato‐
y
yama

Provisioning Food Drinking water Wood and fiber Fuel ・・・

Regulating Climate control
 Flood control Water purification
 Disease control

Urban
areas
Sato‐
umi

Cultural Aestetic
 SpiritualEducation
 Recreation
 ・・・

Research on Trade‐off Analysis and Local Governance Model ofSatoyama Ecosystem Services in Noto PeninsulaInter-linkage between different ecosystem
Cross-scale inter-linkages

11

12

61

Satoyama landscapefarmlandOverview of Noto, Ishikawa

Target: Noto Peninsula

Forest Location

Objective: Propose a new local
Traditional Use

Modern Use(e.g. use of various minor forest products)(e.g. forest certification system and tourism)– Northern part of Ishikawa pref.
– 200,000 population (17% of the prefectural
population)

governance model towards
conservation and sustainable useof BES【Subtheme 1】【Subtheme 3】

Development of an integrated ES* inventory
Provisioning services

Other assets
and services

Regulating services(Climate and water
regulation)(Agricultural production)

Cultural services

Allocation
throughlegislation
Customary
Allocation
allocation
through market
withincommunities【Subtheme 2】

ES* synergies (co-benefits) and trade-off analysis
Mosaic structure of landscapee.g. Provisioning services
and regulating services– Agricultural systems are intricately linked toforest as well as fishery systems– Produce bundles of ecosystem services– Model of sustainable use and management of
natural resources

Interlinkage across spatial scales

Notojima• 9 municipalities• 200 thousand pop.
• Aging rate 30%

Sea of Japan

志賀町
七尾市

中能登町
羽咋市

宝達志水町

かほく市

Kaga region• 10 municipalities• 960 thousand pop.
• Aging rate 22%

津幡町
内灘町

ToyamaKanazawa

野々市市

 Challenges

Interlinkage between ES

能登町

穴水町

Noto region

Heritage Systems (GIAHS)

Investigate challenges andopportunities for local
governance and knowledge
generation(e.g. substitution by
resources import andinfrastructure)(Scenery, knowledge, value) Globally Important Agricultural

珠洲市

輪島市

金沢市

川北町
能美市

– Faced with depopulation and aging: about 30 %of people is over 65 years– Sustainability of Noto is in question

e.g. Upstream and downstream

Cost-benefit and knowledge
gap, changes in local andtraditional knowledge

ES cost -benefit sharing and knowledge gap(Spatial scales/ Institution/ Awareness/ Tradition, Culture)

小松市
白山市

加賀市

Gifu
Fukui

*ES: Ecosystem services

13

10

20

30

34.4

23.1
99.4
30.6
11.3
100.0
22.5

36.7

In‐house production

Rice
Vegetable & potato
Meat
Seafood
Pickles
Egg & dairy products
Fruits

30

40

70

80
15.3
42.5

90

14

and sharing within and beyond their communities. Such communal sharing networks
were found to play a central role for maintaining traditional culture in depopulating
local communities, such as local festivals.
 Local and traditional knowledge on how to preserve foods, such as pickles, is also
important to keep food stocks throughout the year in spite of seasonal fluctuations
without increasing dependence on external markets.
 In Notojima, we found that the more a household shares with neighbors, the morevariable food species a household tends to appreciate at home.

100

18.2

40.0
55.0
40.8

Provided from neighbors and relatives

Provided from neighbors andrelatives
Average (%)
SD
15.3
29.2
23.1
26.3
0.6
2.4
30.6
31.3
11.3
19.3
0.0
0.0
22.5
34.4

Purchased from shops andmarkets
Average (%)
SD
18.2
30.3
42.5
27.9
99.4
2.4
40.0
36.7
55.0
36.5
100.0
0.0
58.2
50.3

Number of sharing partners
1516

 Survey period: 9‐16 December 2013
 Total samples: 1,036 (Male: 521 (50.3%), Female: 515(49.7%))
 Spatial attributes of samples: Noto area: 93 (9.0%), Kagaarea: 425 (41.0%), Others：518 (50.0%)
 Regions:

In‐house production
Provided from neighbors etc.
Purchased from markets etc.

Comparison of Daily Food Supply Source

The 2013 Web Survey on ES supply and consumption‐between Noto area, Kaga area and Others‐

Percentage (%)
0

20

40

60

80

100

Noto
Kaga
Others
Noto
Kaga
Others

Noto area
Kaga area

Noto
Kaga
OthersHokkaido:
H
kk id 40 (3(3.9%),
9%) TTohoku:
h k 55 (5(5.3%),3%) K
Kanto:
t 105 (10(10.1%),
1%) ChChubu:b641 (61.9%), Kinki: 107 (10.3%), Chugoku: 27 (2.6%), Shikoku
region: 16 (1.5%), Kyushu region: 45 (4.3%)

Noto
Kaga
Others Types of areas:
•
•
•
•

50
km

Sharing of provisioning services without market transaction

Purchased from shops and markets
In‐house production(Self‐production)
Average (%)
SD
66.5
44.9
34.4
36.3
0.0
0.0
29.4
37.5
33.8
39.6
0.0
0.0
36.7
43.6

20

 People share diverse agricultural products grown in their own farmlands by bartering

66.5

29.4
33.8

10

Number of food species grown or gain0
Rice
Vegetable & potato
Meat
Seafood
PickleEggs & dairy products
Fruits5Prepared by Shizuka Hashimoto

Daily Food Supply Sources in Notojima, Nanao, Noto
Percentage (%)
40
50
60

0

Noto
Kaga
OthersUrban area: 189 (18.2%),
Plain rural area: 246 (23.7%),
Semi‐mountainous rural area: 497 (48.0%),
Mountainous rural area: 104 (10.0%)

Noto
Kaga
Others
Noto
Kaga
Others176218

Change of the self consumption and sharing system:

Flow of food species across different scales

Past and present‐ in‐house, intra‐community and inter‐community ‐Total number of food species
identified by the survey: 298
species

ProportionPti off foodf d speciesishared within community (intra‐
community)

Q: How do you feel about the current situation compared with the past?

Breakdown of food species number
consumed in a house without market
transaction

Proportion of food species
related to out of a house(sharing and/or selling)57%

78.5 %

Decreased,
Food Diversity
0%43%

Increased

No change,

Frequency of sharing
60%

80%

100%

Proportion of food speciesgrown and consumed
in a house(not related to out of a house)

20’s

20’s

30’s

30’s

19

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

80%

100%

40’s

50’s

50’s

Over 60’s

Over 60’s

Food Amount

Proportion of food species
shared beyond community(inter‐community)

0%

Total

40’s

32.6 %
4.1 %

40%

Total

0%

Proportion of food species
sold to more wide scales

20%

20%

Number of sharing partners
40%

60%

80%

100%

0%

Total

Total

20’s

20’s

30’s

30’s

40’s

40’s

50’s

50’s

Over 60’s

Over 60’s

20%

40%

60%

20

Conclusion
1. IPBES Conceptual Framework and Work Programme 2014‐2018
2. Gaps and Needs for Assessment Contributing to IPBES Functions

Thank you

 Common gaps and needs includes low integration of local, indigenous, andcitizen science knowledge; under‐representation of cultural services andnon‐tradable regulating services; and low consideration of cross‐stakeholder priorities in trade‐off analyses.

3. Trade‐off Analysis and Local Governance Model of Satoyama
Ecosystem Services

Acknowledgements
This research was performed as part of the research projects entitled the “Tradeoff Analysis and Local
Governance Model of Satoyama Ecosystem Services” (ES-Tradeoff, FY2013-FY2015, 1-1303) andthe “Workshop to scope activities associated with assessing impacts on biodiversity & ecosystemservices”. The former project has been supported by the Environment Research and Technology
Development Fund of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan, and the latter by the Asia-Pacific
Network for Global Change Research (APN).
The Asia-Pacific workshop on regional interpretation of the IPBES Conceptual framework andknowledge sharing (2–4 September, 2013, Seoul, Republic of Korea) was co-organized by United
Nations University Institute for Sustainability and Peace (UNU-ISP) and the Korea Environment
Institute (KEI). It was undertaken with the support of the Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea
and the Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN) and in cooperation with the Ministryof Environment, Japan and IPBES.

 The Noto research addresses these gaps, proposing a new framework integrating

local stakeholder and scientific knowledge generation for understandings of thesynergetic relationships between under‐represented ecosystem services, such as
co‐beneficial cultural and provisioning services.
 This study also helps identify how social drivers of land management change canhave unexpected feedbacks to BES, which in turn eventually undermines the
positive impact that sharing of various provisioning services has in maintaining
knowledge and cohesion in aging communities.
21

22

63

Outline of the presentation
1. Conditions of ecosystem services––

Develop ecosystem services inventory
Result of data collection and evaluation of ecosystem services

2. How landscape mosaic of Noto changed over time in the past three
decades?

Identifying the characteristics of Noto, Ishikawa
from its land use and ecosystem services– What is the main drivers that cause increase/decrease of mosaic?

Shizuka HASHIMOTO (GSGES, Kyoto Univ.)
Shogo NAKAMURA (GSGES, Kyoto Univ.)

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto

Overview of Noto, Ishikawa•

Provisioning services (1): agricultural produce (cont.)
Category

Location
珠洲市– Northern part of Ishikawa pref.
– 200 thousand population (17% of theprefectural population)

輪島市

Globally Important Agricultural
Heritage Systems (GIAHS)– Agricultural systems are intricately linked
to forest as well as fishery systems– Produce bundles of ecosystem services– Model of sustainable use of natural
resources of “Satoyama” and “Satoumi”•

Challenges

Winter cereals

Barley（大麦）(4)Cereal crops

Corn（トウモロコシ）(9)，Buckwheat（そば）(2)，Foxtail millet（あわ），Millet（きび）(4)，Job‘s Tears（ハトムギ），
Oats（えんばく）

能登町

穴水町

Noto region•

Item
Rice（うるち米）(10)，Gutinous rice（もち米）(7)，Rice for brew（醸造用米）(3)，Antiquity（古代米）(2)

Rice

Beans

• 9 municipalities• 200 thousand pop.
• Aging rate 30%
志賀町

Soybean（大豆）(3)，Azuki bean（小豆）(4)，Other beans（その他豆類）(9)，Peanut（落花生）

Leaf and stem
vegetables

Cabbage（キャベツ）(15)，Lettuce（レタス）(12)，Chinese cabbage（白菜）(12)，Komatsuna（小松菜）(5)，
Crown daisy（春菊）(5)，Spinach（ほうれん草）(18)，Qing geng cai（青梗菜）(3)，Greens for pickling（ツケナ），
Onion（たまねぎ）(20)，Welsh onion（ねぎ）(11)，Potherb Mustard（ミズナ）(9)，Asparagus（アスパラガス）(3)，
Cauliflower（カリフラワー）(3)，Broccoli（ブロッコリー）(9)，Indian spinach（ツルムラサキ），Asitaba（アシタバ），
Red shiso（シソ）(5)，Rakkyo（らっきょう），ベンリ菜，Garlic（ニンニク）(2)，Garlic chives（ニラ）(2)，Victory
onion（ギョウジャニンニク），Japanese parsley（せり），celery（セロリ），oudo（ウド），Chard（フダンソウ），
Hiroshimana（広島菜），Pak choi（シャクシ菜），Mustard greens（からし菜），Petit vert（プチベール），
Brussels sprouts（メキャベツ）(2)，Kale（ケール），Kohlrabi（コールラビ），Turnip（かぶら菜），Rapeseed（なばな），しろ菜，白菜菜，みぶな，Nalta jute（モロヘイヤ），Japanese honeywort（みつば），人参菜（Carrot），コシ
アブラ，ゲンノショウコ，カンゾウ，Okinawan spinach（金時草），Water morning glory（エン菜），Water
morning glory（空心菜），Lettuce（サラダ菜），Lettuce（ちしゃな），Lettuce（サニーレタス），Ostrich fern（コゴミ），Watercress（クレソン），Giant butterbur（ふき），parsley（パセリ），Radish（葉大根），Saltwort（オカヒジキ），
Myoga（みょうが）Fruits andvegetables

Strawberry（イチゴ）(8)，Fig tree（イチジク）(5)，Squash（うり）(3)，Okra（オクラ）(2)，Pumpkin（カボチャ）(33)，
Zucchini（ズッキーニ）(2)，Spaghetti squash（金糸瓜（そうめんかぼちゃ）），小菊かぼちゃ，Cucumber（きゅうり）(14)，melon cucumber（カタウリ），melon cucumber（シロウリ），Watermelon（すいか）(17)，Noto
Watermelon能登すいか(5)，Chile pepper（トウガラシ）(4)，Bell Pepper（ししとう）(2)，（トマト）(19)，Noto mini
tomato（能登ミニトマト），Vegetable pear（ハヤトウリ），Eggplant（ナス）(8)，Muskmelon（メロン）(9)，Pea（エンドウ）(12)，Snowpea pea（さやえんどう）(5)，Pea（スナックエンドウ）(3)，Greenbean（サヤインゲン）(11)，
Paprika（パプリカ）(2)，Bell pepper（ピーマン）(3)，Bitter melon（ゴーヤ），Winter melon（冬瓜）(2)，Bottle
gourd（ユウガオ）

Sea of Japan

七尾市

中能登町
羽咋市

宝達志水町

かほく市

Kaga region• 10 municipalities
内灘町• 960 thousand pop.
• Aging rate 22%

津幡町

ToyamaKanazawa– Faced with depopulation and aging

野々市市 金沢市• about 30 % of people is over 65 years

川北町
能美市

– Sustainability of Noto is in question
小松市
加賀市

白山市

Gifu
Fukui

0

5

10

20

30

40

Source: made based on the GIAHS application document by Noto Regional GIAHS Executive Committee. Number in brackets shows numberof plant species (total 705 species).

50
km

Provisioning services (2): agricultural produce
Item（177）

Root crops

Edible Burdock（ごぼう）(4)，Taro（さといも）(7)，Japanese yam（山芋）(2)，Carrot（にんじん）(15)，Japaneseradish（だいこん）(23)，Radish（はつかだいこん）(4)，Turnip（かぶ（かぶら））(14)，Arrowhead（くわい）(2)，
Jerusalem artichoke（きくいも），八ヶいも，Yakon（ヤーコン）(2)，Lotus（れんこん）

FruitsCitrusMushrooms

Wild vegetables

OthersService

Potato（ばれいしょ）(23)，Sweet potato（かんしょ）(17)
Ume（うめ）(5)，Persimmon（かき）(8)，Kiwifruit（キウイフルーツ）(3)，Japanese chestnut（くり）(12)，Nashi
Pear（ナシ）(6)，Grape（ぶどう）(18)，Apple（りんご）(16)，Peach（もも）(4)，Blueberry（ブルーベリー）(2)，
Apricot（杏），Ginkgo（銀杏）(3)，Goumi（グミ），Cherry（さくらんぼ），Pomegranate（ザクロ），Japanese plum（スモモ）(2)，Loquat（ビワ），Chinese Quince（カリン）Air

Indicator

Climate regulation

Average Temperature，Average Temperature

Climate change

Carbon dioxide Emission

Trans-boundary air pollution

Quantity of asian dust，Acid rain，Endocrine disruptor

Management of agricultural
water

Area of Paddy field，Number of Farm ponds，Maintenance
rate of Agricultural waterway

Water
Flood mitigation

Soil

ForestCoast

Dam（Effective storage capacity，Flood control capacity），
Water Conservation
Soil Erosion
Sediment supply

Unshiu tangerine（みかん），Kabosu citrus（カボス），Citrus sudachi（スダチ），Citron（ユズ）Shitake（しいたけ）(14)，Butterscotch mushroom（なめこ）(3)，Hen of the woods（マイタケ），Trioholoma
matsutake（松茸），ホウキタケ，アカモミタケ，Jersey cow mushroom（アミタケ），enoki mushroom（えのきたけ），Jew‘s Ear Fungus（きくらげ），クリタケ，oyster mushroom（平茸），Wood blewit（ムラサキシメジ），ヤブ
シメジ，雑ゴケ(10)Cultural Services

Tubers androots

Regulating & Cultural services by Hokushinetsu cluster
Regulating Services

Category（13）Wild vegetables（山菜類）(20)

Sesame（ごま），fish mint（ドクダミ），Herb（ハーブ）(3)，Manchurian Wild Rice（マコモ），chocolate vine（アケビ），サルナシ，silvervine（マタタビ），ツクバネ，Hornbeam（シデの葉），Silverberry（グミ），杜仲葉，こまゆみ，
花いかだ，Walnut（胡桃），Chinese desert-thorn（クコの実），Mulberry（桑の実），しその実，marshpepper
knotweed（紅蓼），Japanese Timber Bamboo（マダケ），Henon bamboo（ハチク），カヤノミ，Cranberry（クランベリー），crimson glory vine（山葡萄），Japanese pepper（山椒の実），Chinese date（なつめ）

Artistic

Traditional craft

Spiritual

Shrine/temple forests

Number of Shrine/temple Forests

Traditional festivals

Number of Traditional Festivals（e.g. Kiriko festivals，
Aenokoto，etc）

Production，No. of workers

Recreational
Environmental education
Eco-tourism

Number of participants
Number of faculties，Number of users

Traditional knowledge

Number of Knowledge about Traditional Technique（eg. Salt
production，Charcoal production）

Culture of fermentation

Number of Knowledge about Fermentation，Products（e.g. Nukaduke，Ishiri，Sake）

Other

Source: made based on the GIAHS application document by Noto Regional GIAHS Executive Committee. Number in brackets shows numberof plant species (total 705 species).

Source: made based on JSSA Hokushinetsu cluster report (2012)64

Data of selected agricultural products (1)Paddy Rice（t）

150,000
118,100

Kaga
Noto
81,684

100,000

50,000300

285Data of selected agricultural products (2)Peach（t）

4,248

4,000
3,826

4,000
57,170

67

100

2012

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

Water Melon（t）

30,0000Strawberry（t）

Kaga
Noto

4,000

400

Pumpkin（t）

6,000

4,390

Kaga
Noto

2,970

Kaga
Noto

4,000

3,780
190

200

10,600

Potato（t）

6,000

585
600

10,00042

01978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

20,00010,909

885
49

0

800
Kaga
Noto

20,500Kaga
Noto

2,000 2,880

2,000 1,291

37

0
1980

Asian Pear（t）

6,000

Kaga
Noto

6,000 4,990

82,3001978

Tomato（t）

8,000
Kaga
Noto

200 175

1,944

2,000 1,540
802

2,000

110

585

1,780
6,171

0

0

0

0
1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

2,000

Spinach（t）

1,860

4,000
3,000

Kaga
Noto

1,500

Grape（t）

Apple（t）

1,500 1,280
K…
N…

800
Kaga
Noto

1,000

2,000 2,430

1,000

163

0

1,000 509

Kaga
Noto

400

996
301

500 282

Chestnut（t）

662

600

500

294

565
418

0

138

200
16

0

7

0
1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Cultural services

Perceived landscape values (cultural services)

Questionnaire surveys were conducted in October 2013, to evaluate people’s perception about
seven landscape values (asked to identify top four places for each values)

1. Aesthetic

2. Recreational

3. Learning

5. Historic

6. Therapeutic

7. Cultural

1. Aesthetic
valued for the scenery—mountains, forests, farmland,beaches, tidelands, bays and islands
2. Recreation
valued because they provide places for outdoor, recreation
activities and experiences
3. Learning
valued because we can learn about the environment
4. Spiritualvalued because they are sacred, religious, spiritually important
5. Historicvalued because they are places and things of natural andhuman history
6. Therapeuticvalued because they make people feel better, physically
and/or mentally
7. Culturalvalued because people can continue to pass down wisdom,traditions, and a way of life

4. Spiritual

Delivered to: 8,000 people living in Noto
Respondents: 1,662 (21%)

Point density(point/km2)
0 - 0.1918
0.1918 - 0.6139
0.6139 - 1.1510
1.1510 - 1.8416
1.8416 - 2.7240
2.7240 - 3.7983
3.7983 - 5.1411
5.1411 - 6.5607
6.5607 - 8.0570
8.0570 - 9.7452

Sample questionnaire for aesthetic value
Modified from Alessa et al. (2012)

Regulating services (e.g. flood mitigation by farmland)
Spatial distribution of flood mitigation by
farmland was analyzed using land use
map of Noto with GIS

珠洲市

輪島市

Relationships between the levels of ecosystem services provision andbiodiversity and land use intensity

能登町

ESL

(ESL)

Volume of flood mitigation services• Closely related to the amount of paddy
field• Flood mitigation by dry field is small

⽳⽔町

R(sum)Cr (recreation)
P (max)Ci (education, knowledge,
spirituality)

七尾市
志賀町
七尾市

中能登町
⽻咋市

Flood mitigation
高 : 0.23 m3/m2

high

低:0

宝達志⽔町

naturalbiodiversity
light use

extensive

lowintensive

urban

富山県

Satoyama Index (SI) is used as a proxy indicator
かほく市
津幡町
内灘町

0 2.5 5

10

15

20

25
km

de Groot et al. (2010)

6512

Calculation procedure of Satoyama Index (SI)SI for the year 2006

珠洲市

Characteristics of SI• SI value varies from 0 (homogenous) to 1 (highly heterogeneous)
Procedure
1. Classify individual spatial units (500 meters mesh) containing at least one cell
2. Calculate landscape heterogeneity among the 25 grid cells– Agricultural landscape heterogeneity index (ALHI) is calculated using
Simpson’s diversity index

輪島市

2006

No. of mesh

能登町

7,000
穴水町

加賀
Kaga
能登
Noto

6,000
5,000
4,000

志賀町
七尾市

3,000
中能登町

2,000

羽咋市

1,000

ALHI

1

p

宝達志水町

0
0

かほく市

〜0.1 〜0.2 〜0.3 〜0.4 〜0.5 〜0.6

SI

津幡町

S: number of different land use items in a given spatial unit
Pi proportion of item I to the 35 elementary grids

内灘町

Lower

Legend
凡例

HigherSI(Homogenous)(Heterogeneous)SI（2006）*land use cells classified as ‘urban’ were excluded from the calculations

0.003200 - 0.045714

野々市市 金沢市

Lower

0.045715 - 0.085033

川北町

3. SI is calculated by multiplying the ALHI with the proportion of grid cells classified
as ‘nonagricultural land except “urban”’ within the given spatial unit

0.085034 - 0.108487

能美市

0.108488 - 0.131689
0.131690 - 0.166709*the proportion of the nonagricultural land grid cells was multiplied by 25/24 forstandardizing the range of SI values between 0 and 1
Kadoya and Washitani (2011)SI

0.166710 - 0.210765

小松市

0.210766 - 0.241876

白山市

加賀市

0.241877 - 0.264464
0.264465 - 0.290428

Higher0.290429 - 0.500003

013

Changes of SI value between 1976 and 2006
1976

10

20

30

SI2006-SI1976

2006

珠洲市

5

40

50
km

Increase and decrease of
SI value between 1976
and 2006

珠洲市

輪島市

珠洲市

14

能登町

穴水町
輪島市

輪島市

能登町

穴水町

No. of mesh

能登町

2,500

穴水町

Decrease

Increase

2,000

志賀町

加賀
Kaga
Noto
能登

七尾市
志賀町

志賀町
七尾市

七尾市

中能登町

中能登町

1,500

中能登町
羽咋市

羽咋市

羽咋市

宝達志水町

宝達志水町

かほく市

1,000

宝達志水町

500

かほく市

0

津幡町

かほく市

Change in
SI value

内灘町
津幡町

津幡町

内灘町

内灘町

*Mesh with no change were excluded
凡例
Legend

凡例
LegendSI(1976)
野々市市 金沢市

0.044803 - 0.088889

0.122013 - 0.152540

0.152541 - 0.180307

0.152541 - 0.180307

0

5

10

20

30

0.298116 - 0.544336

0.298116 - 0.544336

50
km

0

5

10

20

30

40

-0.000163 - 0.101026
0.101027 - 0.294082

0

–

–

(farmland abandonment)

3,105

640
1,528

1,000
0

658

362

Noto
能登地域

Kaga
加賀地域

built-up) and underuse(abandonment)
B Development (farmland tobuilt-up)–

A Development•

Increase
Decrease•

50
km

Diverse of plant species but less data available for evaluation
Agricultural production in Noto is smaller than that of Kaga

Just started evaluation based on land use data

Evaluated perceived value of seven cultural services

2. How landscape mosaic of Noto changed over time in the past 30
years?

(forest to farmland andbuilt-up)–

Change in SI (1976-2006)40

Cultural•Landscape mosaic has been decreasing in entire Ishikawa•

Causes of loss of landscapemosaicLegend30

Regulating•

C Development (farmland to

2,000

20

Provisioning••

D Underuse

3,000

10

1. Ecosystem services of Noto

6,000

4,000

5

Conclusion

No.
of mesh
メッシュ類型
1,640-0.032882 - -0.000164

50
km

What are the causes ofchanges?
5,000

 40 % of Noto has faced with theloss of landscape mosaic(20% in Kaga)-0.106134 - -0.032883

白山市

加賀市

0.246716 - 0.274934
0.274935 - 0.298115-0.302244 - -0.106135

小松市

0.211212 - 0.246715

白山市

0.274935 - 0.298115

40

凡例
LegendSI（2006-1976）

0.180308 - 0.211211

小松市
加賀市

0.246716 - 0.274934

能美市

0.088890 - 0.122012

0.122013 - 0.152540

0.211212 - 0.246715

白山市

川北町

0.044803 - 0.088889

能美市

0.180308 - 0.211211

小松市
加賀市

0.003052 - 0.044802

川北町

0.088890 - 0.122012

能美市

野々市市 金沢市

SI(2006)
野々市市 金沢市

0.003052 - 0.044802

川北町–

Mixture of Development and Underuse
are the most significant driver ofchange (57%)
Followed by Underuse of farmland(28%) and Development of farmland tobuilt-up areas

66

Prominent in Noto (40% of Noto faced with the loss)“Development” and “Underuse” are the main drivers causing the loss ofmosaicIntroduction• Kumano Pilgrimage Route• “Kumano Kodo” “Kumano Sankeimichi”– Honshu Island, Kii Peninsula, Mie, Nara andWakayama Prefectures
Latitude: 33°50' 13'' N
Longitude: 135°46' 35'' E (Kumano Hongū Shrine)

Assessing the trail degradation for Nakahechi Route,
Kumano Pilgrimage Routes

Tokyo
Osaka

– "Kii Mountain Range“
Forested area, mountain (NW‐SE):(NW SE): altitudes of 1,000
1,000‐2,000
2,000 m,rugged landscape, shimanto belt, relative shallow soil,
warm and moist climate with an annual precipitation of
3000~4000mm

Kii Peninsula– Three sacred locations"Kumano Sanzan" "Yoshino & Omine" and "Koyasan”– Pilgrimage routes linking the sites"Kumano Sankeimichi", "Omine Okugake‐michi" and"Koyasan Choishi‐michi”

Introduction• As World Heritage Site

• History of Nakahechi Route
Symbol of the beloved
feature of Yatagarasu(“eight‐span crow”), thethree‐legged raven

Landscape planning of Wakayama Prefecture(2009)– Diversity of usage in history–As pilgrimage route–Started in the 10th century–Ari no Kumano‐mode “Procession ofants”in the 15th century–Lost popularity during Meiji period,
national policy of separating Buddhism andShintoism–Leisure and recreational purposes–Saigokujunrei “ Pilgrimage to the west”
in the 17th century embark on recreational
meaning, guidebook, road signs–After World War II, revitalizing of theeconomy brought back visitors–UNESCO inscription– Registered UNESCO World Heritage Site as ‘Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage
Routes in the Kii Mountain Range’ on July 7th 2004.
– First site in Japan registered as a ‘cultural landscape’– One of the onlyy two pilgrimage
p g
g roads to be registeredg
as a World HeritagegSite, the other one ‘Way of St. James', Spain– Brief description from UNESCO Website
The sites ‘reflect(ing) the fusion of Shinto, rooted in the ancient tradition of nature worship inJapan, and Buddhism, which was introduced from China and the Korean Peninsula…and theirsurrounding forest landscape reflect a persistent and extraordinarily well‐documented
tradition of sacred mountains over 1,200 years. The area, with its abundance of streams, rivers
and waterfalls, is still part of the living culture of Japan…’• History of Nakahechi Route• Degradation of the Nakahechi Route– Natural process– Diversity of usage in history• Heavy rainfall• Soil condition– In people’s daily life
– Intermittent local roads– Construction of new roads and pervasion of car (1950s)– Relocation of remote and depopulated villages (1970s)– In forestry– Forestry dates back to ancient times– Great afforestation period and restoration after WWII
– Changing economic situation from domestic to imported woods

Landslide site along
the Nakahechi Routeat Michi‐no‐kawa(photo in 2013)– Cultural aspect• Change of maintenanceentity• Usage behavior• Ill‐managed plantation
forestWakayama Prefecture Museum

Abandoned
householdalong the trail
Densely planted
Japanese cedar trees
in a valley along
Nakahechi route67Study Area

• Necessity to protect the trail from further degradation• Nakahechi Route• Important operational component of cultural landscape

Takijiri‐ōji:
official start , “passage
into the precincts ofthe sacred mountainTakijiri‐ōji
begins”
Kumano Hongū Shrine:
One of the three major
shrines of “Kumano
Sanzan” sacred sites(About 38km)• Tangible and intangible values• Disaster recovery• Research questions:• To characterize the current physical baseline conditions of the
Nakahechi Route• To examine the influential factors on trail condition from both anenvironmental and cultural aspects

Kumano Hongū Shrine• To explore the meaning of trail conservation and restoration under theconcept of cultural landscape– Trail Design & Maintenance– Trail Design & Maintenance From ancient time to early modern period

 Contemporary period and current time Local vs. Broad The restoration and conservation project for roads of historicalimportance, subsidized by the Agency of Cultural Affairs in the 1950s(歴史の道保存整備事業)

 Local efforts fromvillagers & feudallords Volunteer efforts & Michi‐Bushin（道普請)

Paved by stones in Edo
period• Field survey“Kiridōshi” – Soil excavation
for building trails on flatterterrain

Methodology

Sample area divided into 5 segments
and with sample points of
100m intervals– Preparation
GPS Data

Preliminary survey( Sep. Oct. 2013)

Major two impacts are: trail
incision by soil loss and root
exposure

Divided into 5 segments
and made sample points of
100m intervals

Developed a five‐class rating
system for general condition

Avoid the difficulty ofmeasuring rugged terrain fortraditional measuring‐wheel
methodBased on prior application of
condition class methods and in
consultation withmanagement stuff

Segment 1: Hosshinmon‐oji ~Kumano‐Hongu Taisha Shrine68• Sampling and measurement procedures• Sampling and measurement procedures– Field Survey– Measurement• 17 Oct. ~ 5 Nov. avoiding typhoon and unstable weather• 10 times with two people each survey• Sample point & Sample Area
Decide a rectangle sample area centering the sample point: 10m length,
width as with the trail• Sampling and measurement procedures– Measurement– Measurement (Trail condition variables)• Maximum incision: Depth at the deepest site
Nylon line (Original Trail Surface)

Has to be decided
carefully and withconsistency

Environmental• Topography• Landform Grade• Landform Aspect• Vegetation• Forest Type

Current Trail
Surface•Root exposure: measured as percentage along sample area of thesurface characteristics : soil, litter, vegetation, rock, mud, gravel,water, and others up to a total of 1 to increase accuracy•Rate the sample area based on the predefined condition classsystem• Analyses

Cultural• Managerial• Trail Design• Trail Maintenance• Use‐Related Variables• Use type
• Use level

Results1:
 Trail condition indicators

 Assembled in Microsoft Excel 2010

General Condition Class: All 254 samples

 Exported to R studio version0.97.551 for statistical analyses
Descriptive statistics

Class I Barely damaged trail

Inferential statistics

Class II Lightly damaged trail
Class III Moderately damaged trail Attached to attribute table in ArcGIS for visual display

Class IV Highly damaged trail
Class V Severely damaged trail

69

151
32

56
10

4

Segment2&3

Segment1

Results1:
 Trail condition indicators
 Maximum Incision: 241 natural‐surfaced samples
Min. Median Mean Max. NA's
2.00 10.00

12.59 46.00

22

Severe incision: >= 30cm

225

14

Non‐severe incision: < 30cm

Segment4

Segment5

Segment1

Segment2&3

Results1:
 Trail condition indicators:
Root exposure: All 254 samples
Min. Median Mean Max.
0.00 0.025

0.053 0.40

None exposure: 0127

Slightly exposed: (0 <, <= 0.1)

90

32

5

Moderately exposed: (0.1 <, <= 0.25)
Highly exposed: (0.25 <)Segment4

Segment5

Slightly exposed

Highly exposed• Result2 Description Statistics for the influential variables• Result2 Description Statistics for the influential variables•

Moderately exposed

77% of the stone‐
surface
62% of the steps•Cultural variables
Trail Grade(°)

For environmental variables

Trail Slope Alignment Angle(°)[0‐20)

Landform grade(0‐2.9] 54% with Steep upper side‐slope of more than 40°
Forest type
75% Plantation forest, 5% ill‐managed with sparse understory
vegetation, 67% with understory indicating management alreadylagged behind, 28%complex structure indicate a relative timely
management[20‐50)[50‐70)[70‐90)Totals4

1058(0a,0b,0c,0d,0e,0f)(2.9‐5.7]36
8Good 35%
37(1)
7

2

(5.7‐8.5]

27(3)

3

3

((8.5‐11.3]]

19(5)
( )

6

2

7(3)
( )

34(1,1,2,4,0,2)( , , , , , )(11.3‐16.5]

13(2)
15
Susceptible
6 15% 5(1)

7(1)

7(1)

42(6,1,2,2,3,4)

5

9(1)

24(1,2,5,0,1,5)

137
20%

23
17%

50
54%

254
100%

(16.5‐31]
Totals44
9%Good 11%12

58(0,0,2,0,0,2)

538(1,0,0,0,0,4)

Trail Grade: Mean=7.78° Median=6.29° Range=0.5~28°

Cross‐table for trail grade and TSA, with managerial variables represented by(a,b,c,d,e,f) in which, a=Edo stone‐surface; b=Modern stone‐surface;c=Historical Stone steps; d=S50 stone steps; e=S50 timber steps; f=crosspiece.
Figures in bold are samples with “Kiridōshi” style70Model with the smallest AIC

Results3: Influential factors

Variables
Environmental
Landform
Grade(ﾟ) Negative binomial regression analyses using Maximum incision as
condition indicators (Natural‐surfaced samples) Step‐wise selection methods of both direction, smallest AIC

Environmental• Topography• Landform Grade• Landform Aspect• Vegetation• Forest TypeManagerial• Trail Design• Trail Location• Trail grade• Trail Width• TSA• Kiridōshi style• Trail Maintenance• Soil Excavation in 1950s(Shōwa)• Steps construction in
1950s(Shōwa)• Restoration and conservation
activities in modern times (RM)

Subgroup< 20 b20 ~ 3030 ~ 40> 40
None

Managerial
Trail Width(cm)

Use‐Related Variables

Managerial
Soil Excavationin 1950s• Use type
• Use level

Variables
Environmental
Vegetation
Forest Type00.5776 a (0.0082**)0.3030(0.0707 .)0.1744(0.2434)
0.2767(0.1032)

Natural Forestb
Plantation

Managerial
Trail Grade(°)

0.0021(0.0005***)Use‐related
Use Type
Yes
No b

Subgroup

0.4276(0.0000***)000.1726(0.0710 .)0.0912(0.0000***) c

Non‐accessibleby automobile
Accessible byautomobileb

0.5541(0.0097**)0

AIC: 1439.8

a Unstandardized maximum incision coefficients, count of log for maximum incision(cm). b Reference category for categoricalvariables in GLM models. c Two‐tailed t‐test significance.
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Discussion2:

Discussion1:

 Cultural variables with Trail degradation

 Current condition of the trail Good management (Result 3)

 Of the distance from Takijiri‐oji to Hongu Grand Shrine, the majority isin good condition. (Result 1)

Although long and gentle slope are preferred,
construction of steps are necessary for steep slopes
and setting of crosspiece might be a temporal remedy

 Durability of the Nakahechi Route largely due to its general good
design and location. (Result 2 Trail design variables) Lack of management (Result 2)

Hillside design (large TSA) mitigate the steep landform gradeDeterioration of the stone surface

Special protection for parts of the trail of steeper grade (e.g. surface
paved by stone) Inappropriate management (Result 3)
Change of trail width in an inappropriate way

 Spatial variances for different segments (Result 1 Visual display)

Deterioration of the stone‐
paved surface

Discussion3:

English literature:Cole,D.N. 1983. Assessing and monitoring backcountry trail conditions. USAD Forest
ServiceResearch Paper INT‐303. U.S. Department of Agricultural, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden,
Utah, USA.
Marion, J.L., J.F. Wimpey, and O.L. Park. 2011. The science of trail surveys : recreation
ecologyprovides new tools for managing wilderness trails. Park Science28(3):60‐65.
Nepal,S.K. 2003. Trail impacts in Sagarmatha(Mt.Everest) national park, Nepal: a logistic regression
analysis. Environmental Management 32(3):312‐321
Olive,N.D., and J.L.Marion. 2009. The influence of use‐related, environmental andmanagerial factors on soil loss from recreational trails. Journal ofEnvironmental
Management 90(3): 1483‐1493.
Wimpey J and J.L.
Wimpey,J.
J L Marion.
Marion 20112011. Formal and informal trail monitoring protocals andbaselineconditions: great falls park and potomac gorge. Final Research
Report. USDI,U.S. Geological
Survey, Virginia Tech Field Station, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.
Japanese literature:
池田雅之, 辻林浩. 2013.日本人の原風景Ⅱお伊勢参りと熊野詣. かまくら春秋社.
みくまの総合資料館研究委員会. 1996. 熊野の自然と歴史. 和歌山県新宮市教育委員会.
和歌山県本宮町. 1983. 歴史の道（熊の道）整備報告書.和歌山県本宮町.
和歌山県中辺路町. 1983. 歴史の道（熊の道）整備報告書.和歌山県中辺路町.
和歌山木材協同組合．1993. 和歌山県木材史.和歌山木材協同組合．

 Management implication
 Different management approach for different levels of impact
problems and addressing the spatial varianceConstant repairs for slight and moderate damaged part
Technique and financial support from central and local government for“hot‐spot” restoration

 Involve local people, other trail users
Cultural properties vs. Cultural landscape Future steps – Users (Tourist, Nature guide, Local people)
 Users’ perceptions on the trail impact problems and how it affects theirexperiences Landscape values associated with the trail712013 IPBES intersessional
process

Africa Regional Consultation Meeting, Kenya

What is new under IPBES
A paper presented by Rodger Mpande
IPBES Member ( Africa)
International Workshop on Sustainable
Management of Socio –Ecological Production
Landscapes in Noto
Japan, February
2014

Conceptual FrameworkWorkshop, South Africa

Regional and othercontributing activities

Intersessional process

Activities

Timing• Work programme• Requests• Recognizing indigenous and local
knowledge• Survey and writeshop on SES• Catalogue of assessments

Early in 2013

Bureau and MEP meetings

June, Bergen
August, Cape Town

Workshops:• ILK and different knowledge systems• Conceptual Framework

June , Tokyo
August, Cape Town

Open online review of documents

June - July

Activities

TimingRegional consultations- Latin America and Carribbean- Pan-European- Africa- Eastern Europe- Asia-PacificFebruary November

Seoul International Symposium and Workshop on the regional
interpretation of IPBES Conceptual Framework and Knowledge
Sharing

September,
Seoul,

High-level Forum on Biodiversity and Development for Post 2015
and Informal consultation on IPBES and Capacity Building

November, KL

Regional panel discussion in advance of IPBES-2

November,Washington D.C,

Second Plenary

IPBES-2 Agenda• Work programme

Antalya, Turkey
9-14 December 2013

• Financial and budgetary arrangements• Rules and procedures for the operation of the Platform• Communications and stakeholder engagement• Institutional arrangements

72

Work programme deliverables
Objective 1: Strengthen capacity and knowledge foundations of thescience-policy interface to implement IPBES functions

Objective 2: Strengthen thescience-policy interface on
biodiversity and ecosystemservices at and across the
sub-regional, regional andglobal levels

Objective 1: Strengthen the capacity and knowledge foundations of thescience-policy interface to implement key IPBES functions• Priority capacity building needs are matched with resources
thro gh catalthroughcatalysing
sing financial and in kind support
s pportObjective 3: Strengthen
the science-policy
interface with regard tothematic andmethodological issues• Capacities are developed, with support provided by a network on
capacity building• Procedures and approaches for working with indigenous andlocal knowledge systems are put in place• Priority knowledge and data needs are addressed throughcatalysing efforts to generate new knowledge and networks

Objective 4: Communicate and evaluate IPBES activities,
deliverables and findings

Work programme deliverables

Work programme deliverables• Fast track assessment onpollination and food production

Objective 2: Strengthen thescience-policy interface on
biodiversity and ecosystemservices at and across the subregional, regional and global
levels• Guidance on production andintegration of assessments fromacross all scales• Fast track methodologicalassessment on scenarios
analysis and modelling• Regional and/or subregional
assessments on biodiversity andecosystem services• Fast track methodologicalassessment on value, valuation
and accounting• Global assessment on
biodiversity and ecosystemservices

Obj ti 3:
Objective
3 StrengthenStth thethknowledge-policy interface
with regard to thematic andmethodological issues• Thematic assessment on landdegradation and/or invasive
alien species

IPBES institutionalarrangements

Work programme deliverables• Catalogue of relevant assessments

BureauMultidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP)

Responsible for oversight of work programme,
supported by the secretariat

Responsible for scientific oversight of work programme,
supported by the secretariat

Plenary• Catalogue of policy support tools and methodologies

Decision­making body
Responsible for the overall work programme, working
through subsidiary bodies,supportedppbyy the secretariat• C
Communication,i tioutreachth andd engagementt strategies,t t i
products and processesTime­bound and task­specific expert groups for assessments, policy support tools andother studies
Consisting of selected experts, lead by MEP or selected expert Co‐Chairs, one each for deliverables 1 c), 2a), 2 b), 2 c), 3 a), 3 b), 3 c), and 3 d)e­conferencesweb­based meetings
ad‐hoc meetings
for stakeholder engagement
technical support: provided by the secretariat, potentially a technical support unit and relevanttask forcesTime­bound and task­specific task forces on capacity­building and on knowledge and data

• Reviews of the effectiveness of IPBES guidance,
procedures and approaches

constituted by strategic partnerships, led by the Bureau and MEP, delivering 1 a) and 1 b), and 1 d)ad‐hoc meetings,
meetings of the forum andhorizon scanningweb­based meetings, web‐based match­making

e­conferences
for stakeholder engagement

technical support: provided by Secretariat, secondment of staff or potentially a technical support
unit

Objective 4: Communicate and evaluate
IPBES activities, deliverables and findings

Secretariat
Ensure efficient functioning of the Platform through support to the Plenary, the Bureau and MEP, preparation of documents and organization of meetings, facilitation ofcommunications; financial management; delivering 4 a) 4 d)73

IPBES Analytical
Conceptual Framework

Operational conceptual modelof IPBES

Communications andstakeholder engagement

Institutional arrangements

Stakeholder engagement strategy:

UN collaborative partnership arrangements:• Collaboration amongst UN partners in implementation of the work
programme, exchange of information, staffing, financial aspects,
reporting, etc.

Strategic partnerships:• UNEP, UNESCO, FAO and UNDP to enter into an agreement

Secretariat under recruitment• Head of secretariat (D-1)• Programme Officer (P-4, UNEP secondment) – Work programme• Programme Officer (P-4) – Communications and stakeholder engagement• Programme Officer (P-3) – Programme support• Programme Officer (P-3) – Admin & Finance• Associate Programme Officer (P-2) – Programme support• Administrative and finance support staff (3 positions)• Other secondments?

74Indicators for Co-management of
Production Landscapes:

Kā ora te whenua, kā ora te tangata

Joining science, Traditional and Local
Knowledge, policy expertise and consumers forsustainability

If the land is healthy, the people are healthy

andProf. Henrik Moller (University of Otago)
Translated by Dr. Yuki Fukuda (Snow Parrot Ltd.)If the people are healthy, the land will be healthy

Sustainability is a group ‘social
contract’

People collaborate if they …
• are respected• are listened to• have their values accepted• are trusted with responsible and meaningful roles
to set and achieve the goals• feel proud to belong or are members of thecommunity/club/group• We share land, futures and values• We feed and nurture each other• We
W teachth andd learnlffrom eachh otherth• We identify with our place, our nation• … so we must collaborate to reach a sharedvisionSatoyama and Satoumi for
People, Profit and the Planet!

… willing participation is the key
indicator of long term success‘Environmentality’ andCo-management

Kotahitanga: Think holistically
Ki uta , ki tai … from the mountains to the sea

Fikret Berkes, Arun Agrawal
Ecological, social & economic flows• Rooting governance and power in local communities• … to enable participation, responsibility, innovationand collective experiential learning• ‘Co-management’ is not just for the “commons” –private land is as connected socially, economicallyand ecologically

Privateland

andPublicP
bli
land

Ecological, social & economic flows

Satoyama Satoumi , Take a bow!

75

Complementary paradigms for maintaining
and restoring biodiversity and ecosystem services‘Environmentality’ andCo-management
Fikret Berkes, Arun Agrawal

Top‐down• Rooting governance and power in local communities• … to enable participation, responsibility, innovationand collective experiential learning• ‘Co-management’ is not just for the “commons” –private land is as connected socially, economicallyand ecologically

Shallow Power
Devolution

Eg. Regulation / forcing
Fast if compliance in place
Flexible/reversible

Builds ‘Environmentality’… so we need collaborative planners andpoliticians

Deep Power
Devolution

Bottom‐up

Slow to get going
Lasting

Complementary paradigms

Complementary paradigms

for co‐discovery and management intervention

for co‐discovery of how, where and when to intervene

Top‐down• Technical skill to meetcomplexity• Expensive• Power of the ‘etic’

Littleparticipation

Local
practitioner’s
knowledge

A lot ofparticipation

Scientists andpolicy makers
Adaptive
Management
M

Science(External /Expert)
knowledge

Citizens’science

Science(External /Expert)
knowledge• Power of the ‘emic’

Local
practitioner’s
knowledge

Bottom–up• Builds ‘Environmentality’• Solution & problem alreadyowned by practitioners• Stronger uptake

TLK
Participatory Action
Research

Traditional and Local Knowledge (TLK)view of the world: a natural fit with
Satoyama - Satoumi

Traditional Ecological Knowledge(Fikret Berkes 1999, 2008, 2011)“… a cumulative body of knowledge,
practice and belief evolving by adaptive
processes and handed down throughgenerations by cultural transmission,
about the relationship of living beings(including humans) with one anotherand with their environment."

Knowledge

Practise76

BeliefIncorporate Traditional & Local
Knowledge (TLK)

Networks and indicators to cement
and guide collaboration (1)• It’s powerful and complements science!
• It’s locally tuned: many of the sustainability
opportunities emerge from farming withlocal ecology, markets and society• It links to identity and beliefs .. Keys forparticipation in the next Japan Satoyama
and Satoumi Assessment in Ishikawa
Prefecture• An inclusive process and tools needed forcontinuous interaction, monitoring progress,g, accountabilityylearning,• Face-to-face meetings and lots of
conversations .. it’s a slow but enrichingprocess• Get wide range of people involved from thestart and on an equal footing

Networks and indicators to cement
and guide collaboration (2)• Linking dispersed ‘actors’: Farmers, local
business, citizen scientists, scientists, ILK
holders, managers, policy makers, consumers• Agreed and standardised indicators, scored by
the participants themselves (“citizen scientists”)
for adaptive management• Analysis and collective feedback by scholars… who must not take over the process!

• Web-based tool under development 2013-2019• Seeking international collaboration (see handout andreport)• Harmonising sustainability frameworks and indicators• Customer scrutiny and choice• Market access and price premiums… too many eco‐labels? what do they mean? Do
they incentivize sustainable farming?

77

Taramea• Ngāi Tahu has a perfume making tradition using
the plant taramea.

What is the NZ Sustainability
Dashboard?
• Online network• Mainly self-assessed KPIs reported annually• Instant
I t t benchmarkingb hki• Trend analysis, Targets, Trigger points• Automated reporting• Upscaling• Cultural authenticity and sustainability credentials
Sheep/beef & Dairy Conference 2007

Sustainability frameworks andtheir indicators• Defendable, trusted, adaptable• Wide ranging, holistic• Locally grounded while matching andintegrating with international frameworks
and indicators (eg. IPBES, and FAO’s
SAFA protocols)• IUCN host
• UNESCO/ United Nations University (Tokyo)
promoting ILK integration with science• 2014 – 2018 first work program• Framework and indicators under development• Ishikawa Prefecture as a pilot test?

78

SAFA: SAFA: Sustainability Assessment of Foodand Agriculture systems

Environmental
integrity

Economic
resilience

Socialwell-beingGood
governanceIndividual sustainability indicators (1)(Moller & MacLeod 2013, hand-out table)

1. Policy relevant and meaningfulgy
2. Neutral rather than ideologicallybased
3. By preference, quantified
4. Clearly defined and repeatable
5. Broad acceptanceIndividual sustainability indicators (2)Sets of sustainability indicators (1)(Moller & MacLeod 2013, hand-out table)(Moller & MacLeod 2013, hand-out table)

6. By preference performance based
7. Affordable monitoring
8. Affordable modelling
9. Sensitive and specific
10.Link indicators to targets or thresholds

1. Representativeg
2. Declare values and goals
3. Low number of indicators
4. Capacity to upscale
5. Mix of simple and aggregatedindicators
6. Wide scope and integration

79

Balance simplicity andcomplexity

Sets of sustainability indicators (2)(Moller & MacLeod 2013, hand-out table)‘The best explanation is as simple as possible, but
no simpler.’ (Albert Einstein)

7. Trade-off generalisability and specificity
8. Data records and management
9 Linked
9.
Li k d tto standards
t d d andd certification
tifi tirequirements
10.Explanatory and context information monitored
11.Benefits are measured
12.Forward focus‘P f ti is‘Perfection
i attained
tt i d nott whenh ththere iis no llonger
anything to add, but when there is no longer
anything to take away’. (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry)‘Seek simplicity . . . and then distrust it.’ (Alfred
North Whitehead)

Conclusions (1)Conclusions (2)• Satoyama – Satoumi is inspiring and has a lot toteach Eurocentric environmental frameworks• Nest JSSA within FAO’s SAFA and IPBES
frameworks• IncorporateI
TLK,
TLK scienceiandd policyli excellencell• Designing the indicators for learning anddemonstrating progress will be challenging• Use a bottom-up integrating tool to nurture
networks and combine TLK and science• Consider market mechanisms to incentivise
sustainability and nurture Satoyama – Satoumi
principles• Pay most attention to collaborative process andco-design … journey without a road map …
loose goals and milestones• Allow space and time for innovation and change• Be realistic … good things take time!

Thanks!
• NZ’s Ministry of Business, Innovation and
Employment (principle funder of NZ
Sustainability dashboard project)• NZ Wine,, Zesprip & kiwifruit Packhouses,, BioGro,,
Ngāi Tahu• UNU‐IAS, OUIK, Kanazawa University, Ishikawa
Prefectural University, Kyoto University, Ishikawa
Prefecture• Saito Osamu ‐sensei and team80

Wolfgang Holzner, Iris sibirica
a with „Griming/Styria“

Kulturlandschaft and Satoyama
Sustainable management of socio‐ecological production landscapes:
Parallels and differences between Austria and Japan

Pia Kieninger
ピア•キー二ンガー

Outline■ Cultural landscape & the relevance of agricultural land use forthe preservation of landscape quality■ Challenges for the preservation of cultural landscapes■ Two selected types of cultural landscape in Austria■ Alpine pastures & grasslands■ Vineyards■ Landscape governance strategies■ Similarities and differences ‐ need for researchInstitute of Integrative Nature Conservation Research, Department of Integrative Biology &Biodiversity Research, University of Natural Resources & Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

Source: https://maps.google.com/, 19.01.2014

Austria オーストリア

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

1▪ 8.5 mill. inhabitants↔ Japan: 120 mill.
‫ ؙ‬Hokkaido▪ 83,879 km2‫ ؙ‬North Hokkaido▪ 47.5th latitude▪ Very mountainous: ~ 70% ‫ ؙ‬Japan▪ Grossglockner with 3,798 m ‫ ؙ‬富士山▪ Forests: 47.6%↔ Japan: 66.3%▪ Agricultural areas: 38.3% ↔ Japan: 12.1%▪ Like elsewhere in Central Europe, wilderness/untouched nature is very scare,
only on the highest tops of the mountains, or little remnants of virgin forests(3%)  Landscape in Austria / Europe = Cultural landscape: „Kulturlandschaft“

2

Cultural landscape („Kulturlandschaft“)▪ Culture, customs (shaped by centuries of human land use)
▪ Traditional agricultural know‐how and techniques of sustainable land use▪ Hotspot of biodiversity and other ecological functions▪ Place of spiritual, physical and aesthetical well‐being▪ Local identity▪ Economic source: e.g. food production, energy & tourism (GDP: 5.5 % in 2012)____________________________(Sources: STATISTICS JAPAN 2014; FEDERAL RESEARCH & TRAINING CENTRE FOR FORESTS, NATURAL HAZARDS & LANDSCAPE
2012;
STATISTICS AUSTRIA 2013, 2012; MLIT 2011; TIEFENBACH 1998)

Lower Austria – Forest quarter, Kottes(Source: STATISTICS AUSTRIA 2013B)

Alps, view from Mariazell
International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

3„Kulturlandschaft“

4Agriculture – key for cultural landscapes
オーストリアの農業
Trend: less but bigger farms

Mountain Areas
Intermediate LFA
Affected by SpecificHandicaps

80% less favoured areas
Dürnstein in the Wachau, UNESCO World Heritage

Lower Austria – Poppy fieldWoolfgang Holzner▪ Primarily family farms (92.7%)▪ Ø farm size 18.8 ha▪ 54.2% part time
▪ ~ 20% organic farmland↔ Japan: Ø 2,39 ha↔ Japan: 71.5%(Sources: GREEN REPORT OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE 2014; AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURE SURVEY 2010; MAFF 2014, 2013A)

W. Holzner

Lake Neusiedl, National Park

St. Nikolai, Styria, Nature Park Sölktäler,
Narcissus meadow

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

5

81

6

Challenges for the preservation of cultural landscapes

Type 1: Alpine pastures & grasland
Alpine Pastures

Settlement development

Afforestation
Over‐use(HOLZNER ET AL. 2007)

High age

Tullner Feld, Lower Austria
J. Gruber´,www.grossarltal.info

Ski slopes

Under‐use,abandonnement
Großarl, Salzburg

Nomadic shepherd, Rantenalm, Styria

Schneeberg, Lower Austria

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014(KIENINGER ET AL. 2011)

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

7

Biodiversity ‐ 生物多様性

8

Pia Kieninger

Alpine Pastures
ALPINE ZONE
Potential timberline

SUBALPINE

Gentiana pannonica, Styria

Potential timberline
Undergrazed pastures colonized by dwarf shrubs
Pastures(indicating that „the forest comes back“)

Pastures

Grass cutting abandoned on steep slope ‐ Alnus‐shrub invading

Leontopodium alpinum, Großglockner
Pinus
mugo
spreadingundergrazed slopeon
Wolfgang Holzner

ZO N E

MarmotPastures

The European Alps arelisted among the 200
most important eco‐systems to preserve thebiodiversity of the world

Subalpine spruce forest(WWF s.a.).

Gentiana lutea, Tyrol

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_11.02.2014(HIGH) MONTANE ZONE (BELT)___________
Source: WWF 2004 in CIPRA 2014; Fotos: Wolfgang Holzner

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

Wolfgang Holzner

GraslandThe forest is coming!!

Nature Park Sölktäler, StyriaInternational Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014910Type 2: Vineyards • 葡萄畑

Matthias Poelzl

UNESCO World Heritage Wachau

Narcissus radiiflorus,f, dependingpg
on grassland management
Mountain farming:▪ Hard work, need for much labour▪ Outmigration of young people, no successors, degradation of houses and villages▪ Aging population:
10.34% of farm managers = 65+ years↔ Japan: 61.8 % of farm household members
Ø age of a farmer ~50 years↔ Japan: Ø age 65.8 years▪ In four regions in Austria▪ Comparatively small scale farms, with Ø 4.1 ha land and Ø 1.3 manpower▪ High potential for a rich flora and fauna___________

 In many areas, farm‐tourism and other farm‐diversification as additional income(Source: GREEN REPORT OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE 2014)________________(Sources: HIEGELSBERGER 2013; STEIRISCHE STATISTIKEN 2013; STATISTICS JAPAN 2013; MAFF 2013B)

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

11

82

12

Biocultural diversity
Green lizard ‐ Lacerta viridis
Pia Kieninger

Rich structure:
Enough space between the rows
Framed by shrubs and forests
Terraces with slopes, stone or loess walls

Steinfeder ‐ Stipa pennata

Himantoglossum adriaticum___________
Fotos: Wolfgang Holzner
International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

Cypripedium calceolusInternational Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.201413

14

Landscape governance strategies in Austria
1.) Public funding

Challenges for vineyards

EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
Katharina Bardy

1st pillar“PHYTODIVERSITY AND VITICULTURE ‐ANALYSIS AND FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF
AGROPOLITICAL
MEASURES”(HOLZNER(HOLZNER,KIENINGER & WINTER)

Food production& market aid▪ Herbicides/insecticides▪ Sowing vegetation cover poor in
species▪ Frequent mulching/chaffing/mowing▪ Removing of structures (e.g. trees,
pile of stones, vineyard shelters)▪ Abandonment of vineyards on very
steep slopes
International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

2nd pillar

Rural development
Less favoured areas,
Agri‐environmental
scheemes

Direct payment/„single farm
payment“4th axis: Leader (= methodical tool: bottom‐up approaches, co‐operation, networking & integration of the local population).
1staxis:Competitiveness2ndaxis: Environment & 3rd axis: Quality of life

landscape& diversification

2.) Laws and regulations (e.g. NATURA 2000)
Effect of these both main strategies is assessed by biological indicators, e.g. species numbers
International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.201415163.) Consumers support the preservation of cultural landscapes by buying
regional products (PENKER AND KLEMEN 2010)▪ EU protected Geographical Indication▪ Direct marketing (on farm sales, farmer markets, local food co‐operations) =important income source for farmers
4.) (Farm) tourism and tourism fees going into local landscape programmes(PENKER 2009)
Holidays on the farm: 9,895 farms with 113,764 beds =▪ Austria: “Gourmet regions” (113)

11% of the Austrian guest beds

▪ Nature Park (48)

Wolfgang
HolznerGreen lizard

Steinfeder ‐ Stipa pennata
Wolfgang Holzner

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014__________________(Source: Green Report of the Ministry of Agriculture 2014)
International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

17

83

18

5.) Participative integration for the assessment of biodiversity (= involvement offarmers):
Farmers monitoring their „own“ biodiversity

6.) Volunteers in landscape stewardship, collective action & initiatives (KIENINGER& PENKER 2009)▪ „Bergmandl“
Non‐landholders mowing & removing shrubbs & trees, in order to stabilise the agro‐
ecosystem & protect rare grassland plants & animals (KIENINGER & PENKER 2009)▪ *2004 (in line with the Austrian biodiversity
monitoring)▪ 700 farm holdings▪ Set of 50 indicator species of plants & animals▪ Allowance ~4000¥/ha/year© KarlK Hindle

Results▪ Raising commitment of farmers to nature conservation & their status withinsociety▪ Data for the assessment of biodiversity in cultural landscapes

Ophrys insectifera

W. Bejvl

W. Bejvl & A. Pürstinger

Goal▪ Awareness & understanding among farmers for the importance of their
management for biodiversity

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014▪ „Rent a Rebstock (vine plant)“

Local initiative Bergmandl▪ ‫ ؙ‬Tanada – Ownership – System(KIENINGER ET AL. 2009, 2011, 2013)▪ Rising popularity▪ 590 ‐ 800€/year/60 – 100 vine
plant ‫ ؙ‬60 – 100 bottles wine
▪ Collective working days
▪ Urban‐rural exchangeInternational Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

19

20

SEPL´s in Japan‐Europe

Selection of Japan related researchin Vienna

Many similarities▪ Integration of use and conservation▪ Relevance of farming for biodiversity▪ Pressure from land abandonment▪ Food quality linked to place of production
Ohyamasenmaida – Chiba Prefceture

Differences▪ Smaller farm structures in Japan▪ High average age of farmers in Japan▪ Different approaches of landscape governance
Austria: Focus on biodiversity
Measures: Laws, regulations, subsidies
Japan: Focus on humans for the revival on 里山
Measures: Activities involving people

Dürnstein – Wachau ‐ Austria

 Need for more comparative studies

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

AOKI & ARNBERGER 2008
ARNBERGER, AIKOH, EDER, SHOJI, MIENO
2010
BRANDENBURG 2005
“AGED COMMUNITIES AND ACTIVE AGEING ‐BREILING 2006
A CASE STUDY OF VILLAGES IN THE JAPANESE ALPS”
BREILING, HASHIMOTO, SATO, AHAMER
2005(KIENINGER, LINHART, PROCHASKA‐MEYER)
BREILING & HASHIMOTO 2004
HAMASAKI, MIYAGI, PROCHASKA 2011
Planned research projects
HOLZNER, WERGER, IKUSHIMA 1983
HOLZNER & NUMATA 1982
▪ BIOSPHERE RESERVES IN AUSTRIA & JAPANHOLZNER, HAYASHI, GLAUNINGER 1982
(KIENINGER, ÖDL‐WIESER, PENKER, PROCHASKA‐
KIENINGER, PENKER, YAMAJI 2013
MEYER)KIENINGER, YAMAJI, PENKER 2011KIENINGER, PROCHASKA, HOLZNER 2010
▪ PRESERVATION ACTIVITIES OF SEPLS IN AUSTRIAKIENINGER & PENKER 2009
& JAPANKIENINGER, HOLZNER, KRIECHBAUM 2009
(HOLZNER, KIENINGER, LINHART, PROCHASKA‐MEYER)
PROCHASKA 2013
WILHELMDELANEY
2013
International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production
Landscapes in&Noto,
Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014
22
WILHELM 2005

21

„Kulturlandschaft“‐ research at BOKUHIGH MOUNTAIN MANAG.
(HOLZNER ET AL. 2007) ORGANIC FARMING(VACAKLI ET AL. 2011)
HUMAN‐NATURE RELATIONSHIPSRURAL RESILIENCE(KIENINGER ET AL. 2009)(KUMMER ET AL. 2012)
LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE
RIVER LANDSCAPE(PENKER ET AL. 2013)
MANAGEMENT
BIODIVERSITY(BÖCK ET AL. 2013)(Holzner et al. 2006)SUSTAINABLE
RURAL SOCIOLOGYFOREST MANAG.
INTER‐ AND TRANSDISCIPLINARY(LARCHER & VOGEL 2010)(VACIK ET AL. 2013)
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE RESEARCHTRADIT. KNOWLEDGELANDSCAPE AESTHETICSETHNOBOTANY(KIENINGER ET AL. 2013)(PIRKER ET AL. 2012)
ECOSYSTEM SERVICESAGRAR‐ECONOMY(FLINT ET AL. 2013)(KANTELHARDT ET AL.
CLIMATE CHANGE
GENETICS 2013)(CONTI ET AL. 2014)(KROPF ET AL. 2009)
GRASSLAND MANAG.
BOTANY/ZOOLOGY(WINTER ET AL. 2012) BIOMASS(KOCH ET AL. 2011;(BRUCKMAN 2013) PACHINGER 2013)
International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

BOKU‐Satoyama Platform for Nature Conservation‐ & Biodiversity
Research
Vienna Satoyama Study Group “Satoyama Club” (里山研究会)
Better use of inter‐ and (trans‐) disciplinary nature
conser ation and biodiversity
conservation
biodi ersit researchInterdisciplinary collaboration between BOKU scientists &researchers from a broad range of University departments in Vienna.

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

23

84

24

Bibliography

Thank you very much for attention!
ご清聴ありがとうございます!
Wolfgang Holzner

Sincere thanks to the organizers of this workshop.
Contact/information▪ Pia Kieninger: pia.kieninger@boku.ac.at▪ ウィーンの里山研究会: http://satoyamastudies.wordpress.com▪ BOKU‐Satoyama Platform: http://www.boku.ac.at/satoyama.html?&L=1▪ BOKU University: http://www
http://www.boku.ac.atboku ac at

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

AOKI, Y; ARNBERGER, A (2008): A data book of outdoor activities in Austria and Japan. R‐200‐2008, 78; National Institute for
the Environmental Studies, Japan, Tsukuba; ISBN: 1341‐3643.
ARNBERGER, A; AIKOH, T; EDER, R; SHOJI, Y; MIENO, T (2010): How many people should be in the urban forest? A comparisonof trail preferences of Vienna and Sapporo forest visitor segments. URBAN FOR URBAN GREEN. 2010; 9(3): 215‐225.
BÖCK, K; MUHAR, A; OBERDIEK, J; MUHAR, S (2013): Die Wahrnehmung von fließgewässerbezogenen„Ökosystemleistungen“ und Konfliktpotenzialen am Fallbeispiel „Flusslandschaft Enns“. Österr Wasser‐ und Abfallw (2013)
65:418–428.
BRANDENBURG, C (2005): Experience of Japanese Landscape ‐ some selected observation considering the usage of various
materials in Japanese Landscape. Research Report form the National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan, 190, 14‐17.
BREILING, M (2006): Rural Tourism: Experience from Austria and Opportunities for Japan. in "Landscape Planning andHorticluture" J of Awaji Shima Landscape Planning & Horticultural Academy ALPHA. 7/1: 1‐11.
BREILING, M; HASHIMOTO, S; SATO, Y; AHAMER, G (2005): Rice‐Related Greenhouse Gases in Japan, Variations in Scale andTi andTime
d Significance
Si ifif theforh KyotoK
P
Protocol.
l In:
I Paddy
P dd andd WaterW
E i
Environment.
V l 3 1 39 46
Vol.3.1:39‐46.
BREILING, M; HASHIMOTO, S (2004): A Comparison of Watershed Management in Japan with the Danube Region in Europe. In
Limnological Reports Vol.35 pp 41‐57. Proceedings 35th IAD Conference Novi Sad, Serbia and Monte Negro.
BRUCKMAN, VJ (2013): Considerations for sustainable biomass production – Assessing the nutritional status of oak dominatedstands. Energy Procedia, 40: 165‐171** CONTI, L; SCHMIDT‐KLOIBER, A; GRENOUILLET, G; GRAF, W (2014): A trait‐based approach to assess the vulnerability ofEuropean aquatic insects to climate change. HYDROBIOLOGIA. 2014; 721(1): 297‐315.
DÖTZL, M; PEYR, S (2010): Agrarstrukturerhebung 2010 – Betriebsstruktur, Schnellbericht 1.17. [Agricultural Structure Survey,
2010]. STATISTIK AUSTRIA (ed.), Vienna.

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

25

26** FLINT, CG; KUNZE, I; MUHAR, A; YOSHIDA, Y; PENKER, M (2013): Exploring empirical typologies of human‐nature
relationships and linkages to the ecosystem services concept. Landscape urban plan, 120: 208‐217.
HAMASAKI, M; MIYAGI, K; PROCHASKA, I (2011): 『ユタとスピリチュアルケア：沖縄の民間信仰とスピリチュアルな現実をめぐって』. Naha: Borderink.
HIEGELSBERGER, M (2013): Im Wandel – Die Oö. Landwirtschaft und der ländliche Raum. Details zur Agrarstrukturerhebung".
http://www.land‐oberoesterreich.gv.at/cps/rde/xbcr/ooe/PK_Hiegelsberger_NEU_24072013.pdf (verified February 03, 2014).
HOLZNER, W (ed) (2007): Almen. Almwirtschaft und Biodiversität. Grüne Reihe des Lebensministeriums, Band 17,
Bundesministerium für Land‐ und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Böhlau Verlag, Wien.
HOLZNER, W; SAUBERER, N; MILASOWSZKY, N; MOHL, I; BANKO, G; BOGNER, D; WINTER, S; PETERSEIL, J; KRIECHBAUM, M;
KLINGLER, S; ZECH, S; ULBEL, E; KUMMER, S; SCHADAUER, C (2006): MOBI‐e. Entwicklung eines Konzeptes für ein
Biodiversitäts‐Monitoring in Österreich. Lebensministerium, Wien.
HOLZNER, W., WERGER, MJA; IKUSHIMA, I (eds.) (1983): Man´s impact on vegetation. The Hague, Boston, London: Dr. W. Junk
Publishers.
HOLZNER, W; HAYASHI, I; GLAUNINGER, J (1982): Reproductive strategy of annual agrestals. In: Holzner, W., Numata, N. (eds.):
Biology and ecology of weeds. The Hague: Dr. W. Junk Publishers, 111‐121.
Holzner, W; Numata, M (eds.) (1982): Biology and ecology of weeds. The Hague, Boston, London: Dr. W. Junk Publishers.
KANTELHARDT, J.; KAPFER, M.; FRANZEL, M; KIRCHWEGER, S (2013): Development of Efficiency in Alpine Farming ‐ A
Combination of the Malmquist Index Approach and Matching–. [Gewisola 2013, Humboldt‐Universität zu Berlin, Deutschland,Sept25‐27,
2013].
In:
Gewisola,
Schriftenreiheder53.
Gewisola‐Jahrestagung,
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/156136/2/A2‐Kantelhardt‐Development_c.pdf** KIENINGER, PR; PENKER, M; YAMAJI, E (2013): Esthetic and spiritual values motivating collective action for the conservationof cultural landscape‐A case study of rice terraces in Japan. RENEW AGR FOOD SYST. 28(4): 364‐379.
** KIENINGER, PR; YAMAJI, E; PENKER, M (2011): Urban people as paddy farmers: The Japanese Tanada Ownership System
discussed from a European perspective. RENEW AGR FOOD SYST. 2011; 26(4): 328‐341.

KIENINGER, P; HOLZNER, W; ANDRIANOS, L (2011): „Eine uralte Welt verschwindet vor unseren Augen.“ Pastorale
Landnutzung einst und heute: Über die Almwirtschaft in den Sölktälern und den Weißen Bergen. zoll+ Österreichische
Schriftenreihe für Landschaft und Freiraum, 18, 80‐86; ISSN 1025‐2479.
KIENINGER, P; PROCHASKA, I; HOLZNER, W (2010): Steirerkas & Edelweiß. [Poster]. 10th Conference of the Parties (COP) of theConvention on Biological Diversity, OCT 28‐29, Nagoya, JAPAN.
KIENINGER, P; PENKER, M (2009): tanada‐ownership‐system. Kulturlandschaftserhaltung auf Japanisch. zoll+ Österreichische
Schriftenreihe für Landschaft und Freiraum, 14:45‐49.
KIENINGER, P; PENKER, M (2009): Ehrenamtliches Engagement für die Kulturlandschaft. zoll+ Österreichische Schriftenreihe fürLandschaft und Freiraum, 14:92‐94.
KIENINGER, P; HOLZNER, W; KRIECHBAUM, M (2009): Biocultural Diversity and Satoyama. Emotions and the fun‐factor innature conservation ‐ a lesson from Japan. BODENKULTUR, 60(1): 15‐21.
** KOCH, MA; SCHERIAU, C; SCHUPFNER, M; BERNHARDT, KG (2011): Long‐term monitoring of the restoration anddevelopment of limestone grasslands in north western Germany: Vegetation screening and soil seed bank analysis. FLORA.
206(1): 52‐65.
** KROPF, M; COMES, HP; KADEREIT, JW (2009): An AFLP clock for the absolute dating of shallow‐time evolutionary history
based on the intraspecific divergence of s‐western European alpine plant species. Mol Ecol. 18(4):697‐708.
KUMMER, S; MILESTAD, R; LEITGEB, F; VOGL, CR (2012): Building Resilience through Farmers' Experiments in Organic
Agriculture: Examples from Eastern Austria. SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE RESEARCH, 1(2), 308‐321.
** LARCHER, M; VOGEL, S (2010): Qualitative Analysis of Household Strategies and Developments of Austrian Family Farms
engaged in Organic Agriculture. GER J AGRIC ECON. 59(2): 106‐116.
MAFF (2014): 農林水産基本データ集. http://www.maff.go.jp/j/tokei/sihyo/index.html (verified February 03, 2014).
MAFF (2013a): 農家に関する統計. http://www.maff.go.jp/j/tokei/sihyo/data/07.html (verified February 03, 2014).
MAFF (2013b):農業労働力に関する統計. http://www.maff.go.jp/j/tokei/sihyo/data/08.html (verified February 03, 2014).
MAYER, P (2012): Österreichs Wald [Forests in Austria]. BFW ‐ Bundesforschungszentrum für Wald [Federal Research & Training
Centre for Forests, Natural Hazards & Landscape] (ed.), Vienna.

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

27

28

MINISTRY OF LIFE (2014). Grüner Bericht 2013 ‐ Bericht über die Situation der österreichischen Land‐ und Forstwirtschaft[Green Report of the Ministry of Agriculture 2013]. http://www.gruenerbericht.at/cm3/download/viewdownload/82/649‐
gb2013.html (verified February 03, 2014).
MLIT (2011): 平 成 24 年 度 . 土 地 に 関 す る 動 向 . 平 成 25 年 度 . 土 地 に 関 す る 基 本 的 施 策 . http://tochi.mlit.go.jp/wp‐
content/uploads/2013/06/4ff1222d343d23a13a93db92b5877a56.pdf (verified February 03, 2014).
Pachinger, B; Prochazka, B (2013): Which flowering field stripes benefit wild bees? A comparison of seed‐mixtures andmanagement. [Poster]. [60. Seminar of the Association of Institutes for Bee Research, Würzburg, Germany, March 19‐21,
2013], Apidologie, 44: 13‐13.
** PENKER, M; ENENGEL, B; MANN, C; AZNAR, O (2013): Understanding Landscape Stewardship ‐ Lessons to be Learned from
Public Service Economics. J AGR ECON. 2013; 64(1): 54‐72.
PENKER, M; KLEMEN; F (2010): Transaction costs and transaction benefits associated with the process of PGI/PDO registrationin Austria. [International EAAE‐SYAL Seminar: Spatial dynamics in agri‐food systems: implications for sustainability andconsumer welfare. Parma, OCT 27‐30, 2010]. In: Arfini, F., Cernicchiaro, S., Donati, M., International EAAE‐SYAL Seminar., p. 93(abstract), full ppaper
p on CD‐ROM or on http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/95213/2/paper%20completo%20117.pdf.
p
g
p p
p
p
** PENKER, M (2009): Landscape governance for or by the local population? A property rights analysis in Austria. LAND USE
POLICY. 26(4): 947‐953.
PROCHASKA, I (2013): “Kaminchu – Mittlerinnen zwischen Diesseits und Jenseits. Spirituelle Heilung in Okinawa/Japan”[Kaminchu – Mediators between this world and the hereafter. Spiritual healing in Okinawa/Japan], V. Futterknecht e.a. (eds.)
Heilung in den Religionen [Healing in the religions]. Vienna: LIT, 245‐262. STATISTICS AUSTRIA (2013a): Bevölkerungszahl
Österreichs. http://www.statistik.at/web_de/presse/070030(verified February 03, 2014).
STATISTICS
AUSTRIA(2013b):A
tourism
satellite
accountforAustria.
http://www.statistik.gv.at/web_en/statistics/tourism/tourism_satellite_accounts/value_added/index.html (verified February
03, 2014).

STATISTICS AUSTRIA (2012): Agrarstrukturerhebung 2010. http://www.statistik.at/web_de/presse/064587 (verified February
03, 2014).
STATISTICS JAPAN (2014): Population. http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/jinsui/tsuki/index.htm (verified February 03, 2014).
STATISTICS JAPAN (2013): Statistical Handbook of Japan 2013. http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/c0117.htm(verified February 03, 2014).
STEIRISCHE STATISTIKEN (2013): Land‐und Forstwirtschaft: Agrarstrukturerhebung 2010 . Heft 2. Amt der Steiermärkischen
Landesregierung, A7 Landes‐ und Gemeindeentwicklung (ed.), Graz.
http://www.verwaltung.steiermark.at/cms/dokumente/11682776_74838451/d198312b/Heft%202‐
2013%20Agrarstrukturerhebung%20Publikation.pdf (verified February 03, 2014).
TIEFENBACH, M (1998): NATURSCHUTZ IN ÖSTERREICH. Federal Environment Agency – Austria (ed.), Band 91, Wien.
** VACIK, H; TORRESAN, C; HUJALA, T; KHADKA, C; REYNOLDS, K (2013): The role of knowledge management tools insupporting sustainable forest management. FOREST SYST. 22(3): 442‐455.
** VAKALI, C; ZALLER, JG; KOPKE, U (2011): Reduced tillage effects on soil properties and growth of cereals and associatedweeds under organic
gfarming.
g SOIL TILL RES. 111(2): 133‐141.
WILHELM, J; DELANEY, A (2013): No homes, no boats, no rafts: Miyagi coastal people in the aftermath of disaster. In: Tom Gill,
Brigitte Steger and David H. Slater (eds.): Japan Copes with Calamity: Ethnographies of the Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear
Disasters of March 2011. Oxford u.a.O.: Peter Lang. pp. 99‐124.
WILHELM, J (2005): Traditional Ecological Knowledge in the Beliefs of Japanese Fishing Villages. With Special Reference toYoriiso (Miyagi) and the Sanriku Region. In: Japanese Religions, 30(1&2): 21‐53.
WINTER, S*; JUNG, LS*; ECKSTEIN, RL; DONATH, TW; OTTE, A; KRIECHBAUM, M (2012): Controlling the toxic grassland plant
Colchicum autumnale with minimal negative impacts on plant biodiversity. [42nd Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society ofGermany, Austria and Switzerland, Lüneburg, GERMANY, SEP 10‐14, 2012] , Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft für Ökologie, 42:
67.
WWF (s.a.): Alpine Programme. http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/alps/ealp2/ (verified February 03, 2014).

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

29

85

30

里山と里海はどのように結びついているのか？

2014.2.11国連大学国際セミナー

里山と里海をつなぐ陸ガニ類の役割

石川県立大学環境科学科
柳井清治

北日本における森・川・海の物質循環

中島2001(原図Kline,1997)

１.陸ガニが棲む森

本日の講演内容
1. 陸ガ二類の住む森
2. 陸ガニの種類と生活史
3. 森の落ち葉を食べる陸ガニ類
4. 夏の放仔と魚類の利用
5. メガロパの回帰
6. 陸ガニ類の住む場所，消えた場所
7. 森と海を繋ぐ陸ガニの役割・持続的な生態系管理とは？

九十九湾

金沢市

鹿島の森

86

照葉樹の原生林
１９３７年国の天然記念物に指定

アカテガニの特徴

2.陸ガニの種類とその生活史
成体

幼生

親ガニ

Chiromantes haematocheir
西日本・台湾･韓国･中国東部沿岸
・甲羅や爪が赤い・甲羅にスマイルマークがある
･

ゾエア
着底

稚ガニ
アカテガニ

メガロパ

カニのオスとメス
・オスは爪が大きい・腹部が狭い（オス右），広い腹部（メス左）Ecotone

Chiromantes haematocheir

森にすむ

クロベンケイガニ
Chiromantes dehaani

河畔の湿地に住む

木登りと水浴びが大好き

３．陸ガニは何を食べる？
木の葉

キノコ

87

木の実

イモムシ

森の落ち葉を食べるアカテガニの知恵

森の様々な資源を利用する• 陸カニ類は葉を水に浸けて食べる

Mash 葉樹木の緑
room

地面に落ちた枯葉陸カニ類は葉を土中に埋没させて食べる卵を抱えたメスガニ（7月）

４．カニが里海の魚を育む

夏の夜の放仔活動

88

鹿島の森における放仔個体の日変化(2011年）放出された幼生の動き(2012年7月）

欠測
鳥出現

spawning

ライト

30
25

放 20
仔
個 15
体 10

spawnin

(/m)
5

8月20日

8月19日

8月18日

8月15日

8月17日

8月14日

8月16日

8月13日

8月12日

8月11日

8月10日

8月7日

8月9日

8月8日

8月4日

8月6日

8月5日

8月1日

8月3日

8月2日

7月31日

7月30日

7月29日

7月28日

7月27日

7月26日

7月25日

7月24日

7月23日

7月22日

7月21日

0

月齢

陸ガニの幼生を狙うアジ類（九十九湾）

陸ガニの幼生を狙うボラ類（鹿島の森）

スズキの胃内容物

捕獲された魚たち
スズキ
マハゼ

ボラ

ボラの胃内容物
ゾエアで占められる
ﾃﾅｶﾞｴﾋﾞ89

ゾエアはどこまで移動するのか？

九十九湾のゾエア密度の推移のとキンプラ

８月

7月

９月のとキンプラ金沢大学臨
海実験所のとふれあい海洋センター

九十九湾

金沢大学
臨海実験所

富山湾

富山湾

富山湾

富山湾
２０１３年７~９月調査 （金沢大学協力）

魚類によるメガロパの利用（大聖寺川河口）５．メガローパの回帰と上陸まで9月上旬 ゾエア(左）とメガロ－パ(右）1mm

稚ガニの上陸水辺エコトーンの改変の影響

コンクリ

９月下旬~１０月

90

コンクリ ヨシ原＋落葉砂地

６．陸ガニ類の住む場所，消えた場所

土地利用が陸ガニの密度に与える影響

Number of reseaarch sites

森林

高密度

0
1
2
3

低密度

まとめ
– 陸カニは森の落ち葉を主に利用• 木の実，キノコそして昆虫類などを摂食– 陸カニは夏の夜，浜辺でゾエアを海に放仔• 満月に向かって放つカニの数は増加

これまで知られている森林からの間接的物質の流れ
動物プラ
ンクトン

植物プラ
ンクトン

小型魚

カニによる
摂食
再び森へ

– 陸カニのゾエアは海に下り，１ヶ月後メガローパとなり回帰– 陸カニのゾエアの多くはボラ・アジなど小魚に利用• →さらにスズキなど大型魚に利用– 森で育った陸カニは，潟や海の魚類にとって重要な餌– 陸ガニ類の減少は水辺エコトーンの減少が大きく関係– 里山・里海の連続性を回復することが，今後持続的な生態系を作る上で重要

大型魚

ゾエア
メガローパ

水辺エコトーン

川・潟

堤防と住宅地

カニ密度のランク

陸ガニ類を介した森・川・海までの物質循環

分解・栄養分道路

海カニを介した直接的な物質循環91