Assessment objectives

The overarching goal of the JSSA is to provide scientifically-credible and policy-relevant information on the significance of ecosystem services provided by satoyama and satoumi landscapes, and their contributions to economic and human development for the use of policymakers.

The specific objectives of the JSSA are to: * improve understanding of the relationship between satoyama–satoumi and biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being; * provide policymakers in Japan with a sound and credible scientific basis for the Satoyama Initiative the Japanese government intends to promote; * establish credible baselines for a number of key ecosystem services provided by satoyama and satoumi; * provide information on possible future trends in ecosystem services provided by satoyama and satoumi under a specific hypothesis on plausible alternative futures; * identify sound policy responses to address the decline in ecosystem services through the use of satoyama and satoumi management in Japan; * provide the scientific basis for the use of satoyama and satoumi in an international context, and in particular, as part of the Satoyama Initiative.

Mandate for the assessment

Conceptual framework and/or methodology used for the assessment

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)

URL or copy of conceptual framework developed or adapted

http://i.unu.edu/media/publication/000/000/689/unu_policybrief_10-07.pdf

Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment (2010) Satoyama-Satoumi Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Socio-ecological Production Landscapes of Japan – Summary for Decision Makers. United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan.
62_Japan_Satoyama_Satoumi_Assessment_(2010)_Satoyama-Satoumi_Ecosystems_and_Human_Well-being_Socio-ecological_Production_Landscapes_of_Japan_Summary_for_Decision_Makers.pdf

System(s) assessed

• Marine
• Coastal
• Island
• Inland water
• Forest and woodland
• Cultivated/Agricultural land
• Grassland
• Mountain
• Urban

Species groups assessed

Provisioning

• Food
• Water
• Timber/fibres
• Ornamental resources
• Energy/fuel
• Non-timber forestry products

Regulating

• Air quality
• Climate regulation
• Regulation of water flows
• Regulation of water quality
• Erosion prevention
• Pollination
• Pest and disease control

Supporting Services/Functions

Cultural Services

• Recreation and tourism
• Art and design
• Education
• Aesthetic values
• Religious values

Drivers of change in systems and services

Yes

Impacts of change in services on human well-being

Yes

Options for responding/interventions to the trends observed

Yes

Explicit consideration of the role of biodiversity in the systems and services covered by the assessment

Yes

Year assessment started

2007

Year assessment finished

2010

If ongoing, year assessment is anticipated to finish

Periodicity of assessment

Unknown

Website(s)

http://archive.ias.unu.edu/sub_page.aspx?catID=111&ddlID=1485

Report(s)

Duraiappah, A., K. Nakamura, K. Takeuchi, M. Watanabe and M. Nishi (2010) “Satoyama-Satoumi Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Assessing Trends to Rethink a Sustainable Future” United Nations University Policy Brief, Number 7, 2010, Tokyo: United Nations University.
unu_policybrief_10-07.pdf

Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment (2010) Satoyama-Satoumi Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Socio-ecological Production Landscapes of Japan – Summary for Decision Makers. United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan.
62_Japan_Satoyama_Satoumi_Assessment_(2010)_Satoyama-Satoumi_Ecosystems_and_Human_Well-being_Socio-ecological_Production_Landscapes_of_Japan_Summary_for_Decision_Makers.pdf

Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment – Hokkaido Cluster (2010) Satoyama and Satoumi: Socio-ecological Production Landscapes in Japan – Experiences from Hokkaido Cluster. Tokyo: United Nations University. (in Japanese)
62_Japan_Satoyama_Satoumi_Assessment_Hokkaido_Cluster_(2010).pdf

Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment – Hokushinetsu Cluster (2010) Satoyama and Satoumi: Socio-ecological Production Landscapes in Japan – Experiences from Hokushinetsu Cluster. Tokyo: United Nations University. (in Japanese)
62_Japan_Satoyama_Satoumi_Assessment_Hokushinetsu_Cluster_(2010).pdf

Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment – Kanto-Chubu Cluster (2010) Satoyama and Satoumi: Socio-ecological Production Landscapes in Japan – Experiences from Kanto-Chubu Cluster. Tokyo: United Nations University. (in Japanese)
62_Japan_Satoyama_Satoumi_Assessment_Kanto-Chubu_Cluster_(2010).pdf

Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment – Seto Inland Sea Group of Western Japan Cluster (2010) Satoyama and Satoumi: Socio-ecological Production Landscapes in Japan – Experiences from Seto Inland Sea. Tokyo: United Nations University. (in Japanese)
62_Japan_Satoyama_Satoumi_Assessment_Seto_Inland_Sea_Group_of_Western_Japan_Cluster_(2010).pdf

Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment – Tohoku Cluster (2010) Satoyama and Satoumi: Socio-ecological Production Landscapes in Japan – Experiences from Tohoku Cluster. Tokyo: United Nations University. (in Japanese)
62_Japan_Satoyama_Satoumi_Assessment_Tohoku_Cluster_(2010).pdf

Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment – Western Japan Cluster (2010) Satoyama and Satoumi: Socio-ecological Production Landscapes in Japan – Experiences from Western Japan Cluster. Tokyo: United Nations University. (in Japanese)
62_Japan_Satoyama_Satoumi_Assessment_Western_Japan_Cluster_(2010).pdf

日本の里山・里海評価 (2010) 里山・里海の生態系と人間の福利: 日本の社会生態学的生産ランドスケープ― 概要版― ，国際連合大学，東京．
JSSA_SDM_Web_JP_2011Feb.pdf

Communication materials (e.g. brochure, presentations, posters, audio-visual media)

Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment Brochure (in English)
62_JSSA_Brochure_EN.pdf

Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment Brochure (in Japanese)
JSSA_Brochure_JP.pdf

Journal publications

Training materials

Other documents/outputs

Tools and approaches used in the assessment

• Indicators
• Scenarios
• Stakeholder consultations
• Response options

Process used for stakeholder engagement in the assessment process and which component

The whole assessment process was governed by a multi-stakeholder board and a governmental advisory committee, representing key users across national and local scales. This included national and local governments, academics, and non-governmental organisations. The Board acted as a governing body to direct the assessment process and provide inputs from their representative institutions. This facilitated identification of users’ needs, endorsement of the results and communication of the outcomes back to the institutions and their field. The governmental advisory committee was created at a later stage in the assessment in response to the need for further commitment from national governmental agencies.

Key stakeholder groups engaged

National and local governments, International and local scientists, and non-governmental organisations

The number of people directly involved in the assessment process

100-1000

Incorporation of scientific and other types of knowledge

• Scientific information only
• Resource experts (e.g. foresters etc)
• Traditional/local knowledge
• Citizen science

Supporting documentation for specific approaches, methodology or criteria developed and/or used to integrate knowledge systems into the assessment

Assessment reports peer reviewed

Yes

Accessibility of data used in assessment

Impacts the assessment has had on policy and/or decision making, as evidenced through policy references and actions

The definition of satoyama-satoumi landscapes provided by the JSSA has been used as a basis of the development of the International Satoyama Initiative that the Japanese government has been promoting.

Independent or other review on policy impact of the assessment

Yes

Lessons learnt for future assessments from these reviews

As the SGAs were an experiment in applying the MA conceptual framework, the assessment process of the JSSA has provided a rich learning experience for the stakeholders involved in the process. Given that the merits were verified in the multiscale assessments’ efforts in the MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), the iterative and bottom-up approach employed by this JSSA has enhanced capacity during the course of the assessment, in which a number of changes and modifications had to be made in accordance with the users’ needs and the dynamic nature of satoyama and satoumi landscapes. Indeed, some tensions arose between the desire to follow top-down and prescribed guidelines and the mission to meet various users’ needs and local/ regional specificities. This process, however, provided some practical lessons for future assessment work which include: 1) identifying a scale that is relevant to the users/stakeholders for better impact and use of the assessment findings for decision-making and policymaking; and 2) defining an assessment scale in accordance with the natural and climatic conditions of conducting the scientific assessment. Although this assessment employs the clustering process, which follows the socio-economic component and the ecological and climate component, the scale in some of the clusters was not very relevant to either the social or ecological scale. The gap between the social and ecological scales needs to be considered when determining assessment scales.

Capacity building needs identified during the assessment

The lack of expertise, capacity and resources (including financial and human resources) to conduct economic valuations.

Actions taken by the assessment to build capacity

Network and sharing experiences, Workshops, Developing/promoting and providing access to support tools, Communication and awareness raising

How have gaps in capacity been communicated to the different stakeholders

By providing a platform to translate scientific knowledge into policy and relevant actions at the local and national levels, it has addressed the needs for information to some extent, and also developed the capacity of assessment practitioners. Compared to 2006, when the JSSA was in its planning phase, the understanding of the MA conceptual framework and the terms of ecosystem services and human well-being, have since been significantly deepened and shared among a wider range of stakeholders. In particular, the JSSA includes the cluster assessments where many of the local assessments were involved and integrated, and during the course of those assessments, many new initiatives and actors have emerged, an example being the Satoyama Science Centre, which was established at Utsunomiya University in 2009.

Gaps in knowledge identified from the assessment

• The assessment shows the important role of human interaction with nature in maintaining and managing the ecosystems of satoyama and satoumi landscapes and in sustaining the benefits derived from them for human well-being, by proving that their underuse is one of the major drivers for the decline in their ecosystem services and biodiversity, particularly those derived from satoyama landscapes. However, it has remained unclear as to what extent humans should intervene in these ecosystems to maintain biodiversity and maximize the ecosystem services that can undergo natural succession. Given that the current knowledge is insufficient to respond to this question, new knowledge, information and data are expected to be brought in. Some quantitative methods would be useful in specifying the level of human interaction needed for the sustainable use and management of biodiversity in satoyama and satoumi landscapes. Also, adaptive management may be an effective tool to facilitate the learning process, where continuous monitoring and feedback enable us to manage the landscapes through reducing uncertainty and at the same time, maximizing ecosystem services from the landscapes.
• The newly developed conceptual framework includes the interlinkages between satoyama and satoumi in terms of ecosystem services, human well-being, time and scale, and policies. However, it is unclear as to what extent the ecosystem services from satoyama landscapes are interlinked with those from satoumi landscapes, and vice versa. As fewer studies on satoumi are given in this assessment, it is hoped that future assessments can pay more attention to satoumi and its connection to satoyama landscapes, so as to provide further scientific linkages between the two.
• Although it has achieved the conceptualization of satoyama and satoumi landscapes as a coupled socio-ecological system, given the lack of a quantitatively scalable definition or typology of these landscapes, this assessment has not fully specified the distribution of these landscapes. In order to allow future monitoring and longitudinal studies for the conservation and management of such coupled systems, there is a need to conduct a more spatially explicit assessment in relation to the local and regional scales (i.e. substantively linking with the finer scales), as well as the social and biophysical factors.
• The economic analysis, including the economic valuation of ecosystem services from satoyama and satoumi landscapes, is a very small part of this assessment. The reasons for this include the limitation of data and information on economic analyses, particularly in the areas of satoyama and satoumi landscapes, and the lack of expertise, capacity and re- sources (including financial and human resources) to conduct economic valuations. As economic analysis is a powerful tool to convince policy and decision-makers on the economic values of satoyama and satoumi landscapes and to evaluate the trade-offs with conventional development strategies and mainstream ecosystem services into development and economic decision-making, it is expected that future assessments will include more economic analysis, and in particular, the valuation of regulating and cultural services.
• There is an unbalanced proportion concerning the social and natural sciences within the assessment, as it is limited in the citations of social science studies. One of the reasons for this gap is the inclusion of a much smaller group of experts and researchers from the social sciences, while the majority of the assessment team are ecologists. However, given that social, cultural and political aspects are the key to issues within satoyama and satoumi landscapes, it would be important to assess how different social groups perceive and understand these landscapes, what feedback signals have been transmitted from urban populations to rural ones (and vice versa), and how adaptation has proceeded at the local community level in accordance with the changes in ecosystems and their services.
• Although the scenario development in this assessment provides qualitative storylines, on which stakeholders can examine policy options depending on their needs, the scenarios are not able to fully and specifically depict the possible changes in ecosystem services, biodiversity and human well-being in the future, as the purely qualitative nature of scenarios did not allow us to do so. Building on the qualitative scenarios developed in this assessment, quantitative scenarios are expected to be developed if more time and resources are allocated for data collection and modelling, so that it can offer the detailed possible changes in ecosystem services and human well-being. Further, given that the cluster assessments have provided detailed data and information as a baseline, it would be important to develop longitudinal research to explore the future of satoyama and satoumi landscapes in more detail. This would then provide better policy options for stakeholders at the local, regional, and national levels.
• Some observations on policy options are made basically through the typological analyses of responses. However, the findings of these response assessments need to be tested through the developed scenarios, so as to provide policy options for users. The quantitative scenarios which allow the in-depth examination of the impact of each policy option under different scenarios would help recommend policy options.
• The JSSA has evolved into a multiscale assessment which includes the cluster assessments, as well as the national assessment. Although the standalone report for each cluster and the national report (which includes the cluster assessment findings) are produced, not much comparison among the clusters and across the scales has been made due to the constraints of time, human and financial resources. In addition, the open process and bottom-up approach in developing the JSSA, led to the selection of a variety of assessment sites grouped into clusters, but did not provide comprehensive national coverage of all ecosystem types and geographical areas concerning satoyama and satoumi landscapes in Japan. Therefore, the methods and approach for a better and more comprehensive multiscale assessment should be further explored in future assessment work.

How gaps in knowledge have been communicated to the different stakeholders

Based on some of the information and knowledge gaps, a new research project was initiated in April 2009 with the support of the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund of the Ministry of the Environment of Japan. This three year research project (2009– 2011) built on the JSSA and aimed to conduct a quantitative assessment of the ecosystem services derived from satoyama and satoumi landscapes, as well as further developing scenarios which include key quantitative data and information needed to provide specific policy options for building a sustainable society in Japan.