Developing Satoyama Quantitative
Evaluation Method
Keywords:
Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP), Satoyama Evaluation Procedure (SEP)
Satoyama, Habitat, Landscape, Wise-Use,
It is an obstruction tointroducing biodiversity offsets and
1. Introduction
In Eastern Asia, human wise-use has ensured that Satoyama
has been maintained as scenic landscapes and important
banking in Japan.
Therefore, we developed an evaluation method called
ecosystems. In Japan, many Satoyama ecosystems have faced
“Satoyama
Evaluation Process (SEP)”
based
on the
issues due to both direct impact from development projects
fundamental “Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP)” concepts
and indirect impact from disuse due to reduced use-value. As
of “quality” x “area” x “time”. HEP is the most widely applied
a countermeasure, projects for the re-establishment of lost
in the USA will base on other many quantitative ecosystem
nature have been undertaken in Japan as well as in Europe and
evaluation methods all over the world.
the US (Takeuchi, 1994). For example, Tanaka (2010) has
HEP, we illustrate the validity of SEP.
By comparison with
proposed “Satoyama Banking,” a biodiversity banking
concept specific to Japan.
2. Methodology
When thinking about restoration of the nature in Japan, we
We developed SEP and three 30-year conservation plans for
have to consider the peculiarities of Japanese environments.
one 6.4 ha Satoyama comprised of former paddy fields and
According to Takeuchi (1994), natural regeneration capacity is
second-growth forests in a suburb of Chiba City in Chiba
very high compared to European countries. For example, in
Prefecture, Japan. We evaluated these conservation results by
Germany, the action principles to maintain healthy wetlands
HEP and SEP.
are preservation. On the other hand, in Japan, the action
principles to maintain healthy second-growth nature such as
wetlands are conservation. In other words, it is “Wise-Use”. In
addition, it is clear that the Japanese citizens favor the
landscape
of the
healthy
second-growth nature
with
conservation. Anyway, more than 20 quantitative ecosystem
evaluation methods have been developed in Japan purpose of
evaluation of corporate green space due to the recent increase
in biodiversity conservation awareness by which held the
CBD COP10 in Nagoya. However, there is no comprehensive
quantitative
evaluation
method
incorporating
habitat,
landscape aesthetic value and human wise-use for Satoyama.
Figure 1: Aerial photo of the pilot study area
index”. In SEP, “Habitat index” is evaluated by the HSI model
Table 1: Three 30-year Satoyama banking working draft plans
凡例
凡例
凡例
Storage reservoir
Storage reservoir
Wet grassland
Wet grassland
Dry grassland
Storage
reservoir
Wet-Paddy
rice agricluture field
Dry grassland
凡例
Wet grassland
Storage
reservoir
Not
conserved
Quercus serrata
Plan
2:Conservation
forforest
paddy
Dry
grasslandCryptomeria japonica forest
Uncontrolled
field japonica forest
Wet grasslandCryptomeria
Uncontrolled
conserved Quercus serrata forest
Before Not
activity
Plan 1: No action
Legend
Wet-Paddy rice agricluture field
Wet-Paddy
rice
agricluture
field forest
Quercus
serrata
forest serrata
Conserved
Quercus
conserved
Quercus
serrata
forest forest
Pleioblastus
chino
Makino
region
Not
conserved
Quercus
serrata
Dry
grasslandchino
Pleioblastus
Makino
region vegetation
Pleioblastus
chino
Makino
凡例 Quercus
Wet-Paddy
rice
agricluture
field
serrata
forest
Wet-paddy
rice
agriculture
Wet
Wet grassland
grassland
Dry
Dry grassland
grassland
field
Wet-Paddy rice agricluture field
Storage
reservoir
Not
conserved
Quercus serrata forest
Storage
reservoir
Uncontrolled Cryptomeria
japonica
forest forest
Uncontrolled
Cryptomeria
japonica
Pleioblastus chino MakinoBefore
region activity
Vegetation
Not conserved Quercus
serrata
Quercus serrata
forest
3.90 (ha)
forest
Uncontrolled Cryptomeria
0.80 (ha)
japonica forest
Pleioblastus chino Makino
0.25 (ha)
region
Quercus serrata forest
0.00 (ha)
Dry grassland
0.83 (ha)
Wet grassland
0.25 (ha)
Wet-paddy rice agriculture
0.33 (ha)
field
Storage reservoir
0.03 (ha)
Plan凡例
3: Conservation for paddy
field and second-growth
Storage reservoir forest
Not conserved
Plan 3 Quercus serrata forest
Wet 1grasslandCryptomeria japonica
Uncontrolled
Plan
Plan 2forest
Uncontrolled Cryptomeria japonica fores
0.00 (ha)
Dry
grassland
chino Makino 3.90
region(ha)
3.90Pleioblastus
(ha)
Pleioblastus chino Makino region
Wet-Paddy
rice agricluture
field
Quercus
serrata
forest
0.80Not
(ha)
0.80 (ha)
conserved Quercus serrata
forest
0.00 serrata
(ha) forest
Quercus
Cryptomeria0.25
japonica
forest
0.25Uncontrolled
(ha)
(ha)
0.00 (ha)
Pleioblastus chino Makino region
0.00 (ha)
0.00 (ha)
1.16Quercus
(ha) serrata forest 0.16 (ha)
0.25 (ha)
0.09 (ha)
4.95 (ha)
0.16 (ha)
0.09 (ha)
0.00 (ha)
1.16 (ha)
1.16 (ha)
0.03 (ha)
0.03 (ha)
0.03 (ha)
3. The study area and objects
of HEP.
The study area is 6.39 ha Satoyama comprised of abandoned
“Landscape index” is evaluated by average of “Landscape
former paddy fields and second-growth forests in a suburb of
from ground level” and “Ecological network status”.
Chiba City in Chiba Prefecture. The potential natural
“Landscape from ground level” is evaluated by average of
vegetation is Camellietea japonica vegetation. Since February
eight-angle landscape from some readily-accessible location
2015, a NPO has reestablished a 0.4 ha wet-paddy rice
on ground level. “Ecological network status” is evaluated by a
agriculture field and a little Quercus serrata region in the
map of the ecological network on regional biodiversity
study area.
strategy such as existence or non-existence the map and
We developed three 30-year Satoyama banking working
quantitative or qualitative conservation target on the map.
draft plans in the study area. “Plan 1: no action” is to leave the
“Wise-Use index” is evaluated by the average of “primary
study area untouched. “Plan 1” is no-action plan. “Plan 2:
industry potential” and “tertiary industry potential”. As in the
conservation for paddy field” is to rehabilitate 1.16 ha
case with HEP, SEP evaluated “the potentials of primary and
wet-paddy rice agriculture field. “Plan 3: conservation for
tertiary industries” not the “actual activities of them” under
paddy field and second-growth forests” is to rehabilitate 1.16
each cover type. For example, under SEP, we evaluated that
ha wet-paddy rice agriculture field and 5.23 ha Quercus
dry grassland doesn’t have “primary industry potential” and
serrata region.
wet-paddy rice agriculture field does has “primary
industry potential”.
4. Results and Discussion
4-1. Methods of SEP
SEP is very similar to HEP. The only different point is how
to evaluate “quality.” SEP evaluates “quality” with not only
“Habitat index” but also “Landscape index” and “Wise-Use
Finally, we evaluated index of quality, “SSI (Satoyama
Suitability
Index),”
by
average
of
“Landscape index” and “Wise-Use index”.
“Habitat
index”,
Figure 2: Mathematical formula for SSI
In this study, we calculated the Cumulative Habitat Unit
Table 2: How to evaluate of SSI on SEP
Large
category
Habitat
Small
category
HSI model
How to evaluate
By HSI model of HEP
By average of eight-way landscape from some readily-accessible location on ground
level.
1.0:Conserved nature or cultural artifact such as shrine
0.5:Not conserved nature
0.0:Artifact
Ex.)
Landscape from ground
level
0.625
Landscape
By a map of the ecological network on regional biodiversity strategy such as existence
or non-existence and quantitative or qualitative conservation target on the map.
1.0:Mapping of the ecological network with quantitative conservation target on
regional biodiversity strategy
0.5: Mapping of the ecological network with quantitative conservation target on
regional biodiversity strategy
0.0:the Map is nothing
SSI
Ecological network
status
Potential the primary
industry
Wise-use
Potential the tertiary
industry
Ex.)
1.0:Area having potential the primary industry
0.0:Area having not potential the primary industry
Ex.）
1.0: Wet-paddy rice agriculture field, Quercus serrata forest,
Cryptomeria japonica region forest
0.0: Dry grassland, Storage reservoir, Pleioblastus chino Makino region and so on
1.0:Area having potential the tertiary industry
0.0:Area having not potential the tertiary industry
Ex.）
1.0: Wet-paddy rice agriculture field, Quercus serrata forest,
Cryptomeria japonica region forest, Storage reservoir
0.0: Dry grassland, Pleioblastus chino Makino region and so on
4-2. Evaluating conservation results of the 3 plans in
(CHU) used in HEP for the 3 plans. CHU is the index for the
accordance with HEP methods.
concept of “quality” x “area” x “time”. A HSI model for the
We evaluated conservation results of the 3 plans by HEP. We
two species has been developed by JEAS and KAMIGO. So
selected Rana japonica as indicator species for wetlands such
we adapted these models for the pilot study area. The HSI
as wet-paddy rice agriculture fields and Sasakia charonda as
model is the index for the concept of “quality” in HEP.
indicator species for second-growth forests such as Quercus
In the results, the “Plan 2: conservation for paddy field”
serrata region. The two indicator species are chosen as the
produces 10.88 CHU [ha/30year] for Rana japonica by
target species in this area by Chiba City and obtained from
comparison with “Plan 1” (10.88 [ha/30year] = 39.89
Red Data Books of Chiba Prefecture.
[ha/30year] – 29.01 [ha/30year]). The 10.88 CHU [ha/30year]
has the potential to offset some impact from development
projects such as destroying 0.36 ha healthy (HSI=1.0)
in Japan. Even when biodiversity offsets are mandated by law,
Table 3: CHU [ha/30year] of the 3 plans by HEP
Satoyama over 30 years (10.88 [ha/30year] = 1.0 [HSI] x 0.36
[ha] x 30 [year]) (Table 4). Also, “Plan 3: conservation for
paddy field and second-growth forests” produces the same
Plan 1
Plan 2
Plan 3
Rana japonica
29.01
39.89
39.89
Sasakia charonda
12.95
12.95
74.96
CHU for Rana japonica and 62.01 CHU for Sasaki charonda
by comparison with with “Plan 1” (62.01 [ha/30year] = 74.96
[ha/30year] – 12.95 [ha/30year]) [ha/30year] (chart 2). The
Table 4: How much the biodiversity offsets potential of 10.88
CHU [ha/30 year]?
CHU
[ha/30year]
62.01 CHU [ha/30year] has the potential to offset the impact
of some development projects such as destroying 2.06 ha
10.88
healthy (HSI=1.0) Satoyama over 30 years (62.01 [ha/30year]
= 1.0 [HSI] x 2.06 [ha] x 30 [year]).
4-3. Evaluating conservation results of the 3 plans in
Quality
[HSI]
Good
(HSI=1.0)
Normal
(HSI=0.5)
Bad
(HSI=0.1)
Area
[ha]
Time
[year]
0.36
30
0.72
30
3.63
30
Table 5: CSU [ha/30year] of the 3 plans by SEP
Plan 1
accordance with SEP methods.
Table 5 shows the conservation results of the 3 plans by SEP.
CSU
Plan 2
54.88
77.25
Plan 3
136.42
In the results, the “Plan 2: conservation for paddy field”
produces 10.88 CSU (Cumulative Satoyama Unit) [ha/30year]
Table 6: How much the biodiversity offsets potential of 22.37
CSU [ha/30 year]?
with “Plan 1” (22.37 [ha/30year] = 77.25 [ha/30year] – 54.88
CSU
[ha/30year]
[ha/30year]) (chart 2). The 22.37 CSU [ha/30year] has the
potential to offset the impact of some development projects
22.37
such as destroying 0.75 ha healthy (SSI=1.0) Satoyama over
30 years (22.37 [ha/30year] = 1.0 [SSI] x 0.75 [ha] x 30
Quality
[SSI]
Good
(HSI=1.0)
Normal
(HSI=0.5)
Bad
(HSI=0.1)
Area
[ha]
Time
[year]
0.75
30
1.49
30
7.50
30
[year]) (Table 6). Also, “Plan 3: conservation for paddy field
and second-growth forests” produces the CSU [ha/30year]
Table 7: each index on the three plans
with “Plan 1” (81.54 [ha/30year] = 136.42 [ha/30year] – 54.88
Plan 1
[ha/30year]). The 81.54 CSU [ha/30year] has the potential to
offset the impact of some development projects such as
Plan 2
Plan 3
Habitat
0.35
0.51
0.70
Landscape
0.35
0.35
0.75
Wise-use
0.00
0.21
0.98
SSI
destroying 2.72 ha healthy (HSI=1.0) Satoyama over 30 years
(81.54 [ha/30year] = 1.0 [HSI] x 2.72 [ha] x 30 [year]).
subtotal
0.23
0.36
0.81
The evaluation results of “landscape” and “Wise-Use” of
“Plan 3” are higher than “Plan 2”. Since, the common
how conserve of Satoyama should not be changed.
conservation targets such as broad-leaved deciduous forest
2. Difference of the results is smaller than HEP due to
and wet-paddy field have high points on the “Landscape
difference of evaluator’s professional ability. Everyone can
index” and “Wise-Use index” one the SEP. In fact, the SEP
evaluate “Landscape index” and “Wise-Use index”easily.
gets into line the common conservation of Satoyama in Japan.
3. SEP advocates drawing up regional biodiversity strategies,
since, “Landscape from ground level” is evaluated by these
5. Conclusions
This study illustrated three good points and three bad points
strategies. In addition, SEP advocates that biodiversity offsets
be the main engine for conservation of nature.
of SEP in comparison with HEP.
The bad points of SEP are;
The good points of SEP are;
1. The indices of SEP's evaluation results lack clarity.. SEP
1. SEP gets into the common conservation target of Satoyama
methods do not clearly indicate the key factor of the
evaluation results. Hence, similar to HEP, it is necessary to
consider the results for each of the individual factors when
using SEP.
2. Requiring great care than HEP.
3. Potentially de-emphasising “Habitat index”.
We developed SEP to evaluate Satoyama “quality” with
“Habitat”, “Landscape” and “Wise-Use”. The character of
SEP is general versatility due to easy evaluation of
“Landscape” and “Wise-Use”. General versatility is very
important. For example, in the USA, the quantity of credits
from each wetland mitigation bank is evaluated on the basis of
the ratio of “restoration”, “enhancement” and “preservation”.
SEP also advocates drawing up regional biodiversity
strategies.
Literature Sources
Takeuchi K (1994) Spirit of the environmental creation
(Japanese language). Tokyo: Tokyo University, pp200.
Tanaka A (2006) Theory and Practices for Habitat Evaluation
Procedure in Japan (Japanese language). Tokyo: Asakura,
pp280.
Tanaka A (2010) Novel biodiversity offset strategies:
Satoyama Banking and Earth Banking. Conference of
International Association for Impact Assessment 2010.
JEAS (Japan Association of Environment Assessment ・
Seminar Study Group Natural Environmental Impact
Assessment Study the first working) (2006) HSI (Habitat
suitability index) model: Great purple emperor, Japan,
pp12.
KAMIGO
HEP
teem
(2007)
KAMIGO
Environmental Impact Statement. Pp342.
development