Satoyama Landscapes and Their Change in A River Basin context: Lessons for Sustainability

Abstract

Abstract'Satoyama' denotes a mosaic of different landscape-types that has sustained agrarian societies for millennia in Japan. These landscapes have undergone degradation during the past few decades. While satoyama is a consistently referred term in landscape management in Japan, little attention is given to how such landscapes undergo change in large spatial units such as river basins. This study, based on documents and interviews, reviews how watershed level changes affect the functioning of such socioecological systems in the Kuma River Basin in Kyushu. Watershed properties of the Kuma River Basin changed during pre-modern and modern times and each phase left a lasting legacy on the landscape. The article analyzes how ecological connectivity became fragmented by identifying changes in ecosystem services, and concludes that while socio-ecological landscapes have a long history of human use; the human component cannot outgrow the fundamental biophysical processes that maintain ecosystem services and system resilience; these systems can undergo swift and irreversible degradation when ecological connectivity is fragmented. The main lesson for sustainable development is that consideration of historical changes in land use is vital for understanding the connectivity of different components in satoyama landscapes; this insight is important not only for rivers but also for the wider landscapes they connect and the associated integrity.

The Contribution of Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Practices to Forest Management: The Case of Northeast Asia

“…Although naturally regenerated oak forests were widespread in Japanese Satoyama, Pinus densiflora Sieb. and Zucc., trees were instead selected in dry and infertile conditions [9,10]. In the seventeenth century, Cryptomeria japonica D. Don, Chamaecyparis obtusa Sieb.…”

“…Commercial monoculture plantations or urban areas replaced many natural forests, although forests in Japan were relatively well established [9,49]. However, inexpensive foreign timber imports and an aging rural population have reduced domestic timber production since the 1960s [34]; consequently, both traditional community forests and monoculture plantations were abandoned without taking into account public interests and appropriate management operations [19].…”

“…The Japanese government has initiated projects targeting the harmonization of human society with nature and, since 1994, has identified the restoration of the traditional Satoyama system as an important strategy [9]. The applicability of the traditional community forestry system has been piloted at several prefectures including Okayama, Kanagawa, Kyoto, and Ishikawa to activate the management and use of abandoned community forests [9,38]. These projects have been combined with activities of local cooperatives to pilot traditional concepts and community forestry for diverse rural societies in mountainous, grassland, and suburban areas.…”

“…Although much of the traditional knowledge and many practices have faded owing to the broad use of modern forestry systems, legacies remain in current societies, with which the applicability of traditional ecological knowledge can be piloted [5]. This contributes to enhancing the understanding of socioeconomic systems and forest ecosystems [6,7], and encourages research that focuses on traditional ecological knowledge in terms of forest management [8,9]. Therefore, many countries have acknowledged the importance of traditional ecological knowledge for forest management [10,11].…”

“…Accordingly, forests in China were frequently overexploited beyond the allowable quotas as a result of economic growth-oriented development [17,18]. Although forests in Japan were relatively well preserved, many naturally regenerated forests were replaced by monoculture plantations for timber or other land use types [9,19]. South Korea experienced severe deforestation during the same period, owing to Japanese colonization and the Korean War [20].…”