Keywords: Habitat Evaluation Procedure (hep), Satoyama Evaluation Procedure (sep)




Дата канвертавання26.04.2016
Памер98.12 Kb.
Developing Satoyama Quantitative

Evaluation Method


Keywords: Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP), Satoyama Evaluation Procedure (SEP)

Satoyama, Habitat, Landscape, Wise-Use,



1. Introduction

In Eastern Asia, human wise-use has ensured that Satoyama has been maintained as scenic landscapes and important ecosystems. In Japan, many Satoyama ecosystems have faced issues due to both direct impact from development projects and indirect impact from disuse due to reduced use-value. As a countermeasure, projects for the re-establishment of lost nature have been undertaken in Japan as well as in Europe and the US (Takeuchi, 1994). For example, Tanaka (2010) has proposed “Satoyama Banking,” a biodiversity banking concept specific to Japan.

When thinking about restoration of the nature in Japan, we have to consider the peculiarities of Japanese environments. According to Takeuchi (1994), natural regeneration capacity is very high compared to European countries. For example, in Germany, the action principles to maintain healthy wetlands 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. It is an obstruction tointroducing biodiversity offsets and banking in Japan.

Therefore, we developed an evaluation method called “Satoyama Evaluation Process (SEP)” based on the fundamental “Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP)” concepts of “quality” x “area” x “time”. HEP is the most widely applied in the USA will base on other many quantitative ecosystem evaluation methods all over the world. By comparison with HEP, we illustrate the validity of SEP.


2. Methodology

We developed SEP and three 30-year conservation plans for one 6.4 ha Satoyama comprised of former paddy fields and second-growth forests in a suburb of Chiba City in Chiba Prefecture, Japan. We evaluated these conservation results by HEP and SEP.



Figure 1: Aerial photo of the pilot study area





Table 1: Three 30-year Satoyama banking working draft plans

Before activity

Plan 1: No action

Plan 2:Conservation for paddy field

Plan 3: Conservation for paddy field and second-growth forest

Legend


Vegetation

Before activity

Plan 1

Plan 2

Plan 3

Not conserved Quercus serrata forest

3.90 (ha)

3.90 (ha)

3.90 (ha)

0.00 (ha)

Uncontrolled Cryptomeria japonica forest

0.80 (ha)

0.80 (ha)

0.80 (ha)

0.00 (ha)

Pleioblastus chino Makino region

0.25 (ha)

0.25 (ha)

0.25 (ha)

0.00 (ha)

Quercus serrata forest

0.00 (ha)

0.00 (ha)

0.00 (ha)

4.95 (ha)

Dry grassland

0.83 (ha)

1.16 (ha)

0.16 (ha)

0.16 (ha)

Wet grassland

0.25 (ha)

0.25 (ha)

0.09 (ha)

0.09 (ha)

Wet-paddy rice agriculture field

0.33 (ha)

0.00 (ha)

1.16 (ha)

1.16 (ha)

Storage reservoir

0.03 (ha)

0.03 (ha)

0.03 (ha)

0.03 (ha)






グループ化 7184

グループ化 7187

3. The study area and objects

The study area is 6.39 ha Satoyama comprised of abandoned former paddy fields and second-growth forests in a suburb of Chiba City in Chiba Prefecture. The potential natural vegetation is Camellietea japonica vegetation. Since February 2015, a NPO has reestablished a 0.4 ha wet-paddy rice agriculture field and a little Quercus serrata region in the study area.

We developed three 30-year Satoyama banking working draft plans in the study area. “Plan 1: no action” is to leave the study area untouched. “Plan 1” is no-action plan. “Plan 2: conservation for paddy field” is to rehabilitate 1.16 ha wet-paddy rice agriculture field. “Plan 3: conservation for paddy field and second-growth forests” is to rehabilitate 1.16 ha wet-paddy rice agriculture field and 5.23 ha Quercus serrata region.
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 index”. In SEP, “Habitat index” is evaluated by the HSI model

of HEP.


“Landscape index” is evaluated by average of “Landscape from ground level” and “Ecological network status”. “Landscape from ground level” is evaluated by average of eight-angle landscape from some readily-accessible location on ground level. “Ecological network status” is evaluated by a map of the ecological network on regional biodiversity strategy such as existence or non-existence the map and quantitative or qualitative conservation target on the map.

“Wise-Use index” is evaluated by the average of “primary industry potential” and “tertiary industry potential”. As in the case with HEP, SEP evaluated “the potentials of primary and tertiary industries” not the “actual activities of them” under each cover type. For example, under SEP, we evaluated that dry grassland doesn’t have “primary industry potential” and wet-paddy rice agriculture field does has “primary industry potential”.

Finally, we evaluated index of quality, “SSI (Satoyama Suitability Index),” by average of “Habitat index”, “Landscape index” and “Wise-Use index”.


Figure 2: Mathematical formula for SSI




Table 2: How to evaluate of SSI on SEP




Large category

Small

category


How to evaluate

SSI

Habitat

HSI model

By HSI model of HEP

Landscape

Landscape from ground level

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.)



Ecological network status

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

Ex.)



Wise-use

Potential the primary industry

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



Potential the tertiary industry

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 accordance with HEP methods.

We evaluated conservation results of the 3 plans by HEP. We selected Rana japonica as indicator species for wetlands such as wet-paddy rice agriculture fields and Sasakia charonda as indicator species for second-growth forests such as Quercus serrata region. The two indicator species are chosen as the target species in this area by Chiba City and obtained from Red Data Books of Chiba Prefecture.

In this study, we calculated the Cumulative Habitat Unit

(CHU) used in HEP for the 3 plans. CHU is the index for the concept of “quality” x “area” x “time”. A HSI model for the two species has been developed by JEAS and KAMIGO. So we adapted these models for the pilot study area. The HSI model is the index for the concept of “quality” in HEP.

In the results, the “Plan 2: conservation for paddy field” produces 10.88 CHU [ha/30year] for Rana japonica by comparison with “Plan 1” (10.88 [ha/30year] = 39.89 [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) 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 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 62.01 CHU [ha/30year] has the potential to offset the impact of some development projects such as destroying 2.06 ha 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 accordance with SEP methods.

Table 5 shows the conservation results of the 3 plans by SEP. In the results, the “Plan 2: conservation for paddy field” produces 10.88 CSU (Cumulative Satoyama Unit) [ha/30year] with “Plan 1” (22.37 [ha/30year] = 77.25 [ha/30year] – 54.88 [ha/30year]) (chart 2). The 22.37 CSU [ha/30year] has the potential to offset the impact of some development projects 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 [year]) (Table 6). Also, “Plan 3: conservation for paddy field and second-growth forests” produces the CSU [ha/30year] with “Plan 1” (81.54 [ha/30year] = 136.42 [ha/30year] – 54.88 [ha/30year]). The 81.54 CSU [ha/30year] has the potential to offset the impact of some development projects such as 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]).

The evaluation results of “landscape” and “Wise-Use” of “Plan 3” are higher than “Plan 2”. Since, the common conservation targets such as broad-leaved deciduous forest and wet-paddy field have high points on the “Landscape index” and “Wise-Use index” one the SEP. In fact, the SEP gets into line the common conservation of Satoyama in Japan.
5. Conclusions

This study illustrated three good points and three bad points of SEP in comparison with HEP.

The good points of SEP are;

1. SEP gets into the common conservation target of Satoyama in Japan. Even when biodiversity offsets are mandated by law,




Table 3: CHU [ha/30year] of the 3 plans by HEP




Plan 1

Plan 2

Plan 3

Rana japonica

29.01

39.89

39.89

Sasakia charonda

12.95

12.95

74.96







Table 4: How much the biodiversity offsets potential of 10.88 CHU [ha/30 year]?

CHU

[ha/30year]



Quality

[HSI]


Area

[ha]


Time

[year]


10.88

Good

(HSI=1.0)



0.36

30

Normal

(HSI=0.5)



0.72

30

Bad

(HSI=0.1)



3.63

30






Table 5: CSU [ha/30year] of the 3 plans by SEP




Plan 1

Plan 2

Plan 3

CSU

54.88

77.25

136.42







Table 6: How much the biodiversity offsets potential of 22.37 CSU [ha/30 year]?

CSU

[ha/30year]



Quality

[SSI]


Area

[ha]


Time

[year]


22.37

Good

(HSI=1.0)



0.75

30

Normal

(HSI=0.5)



1.49

30

Bad

(HSI=0.1)



7.50

30






Table 7: each index on the three plans




Plan 1

Plan 2

Plan 3

SSI

Habitat

0.35

0.51

0.70

Landscape

0.35

0.35

0.75

Wise-use

0.00

0.21

0.98

subtotal

0.23

0.36

0.81



how conserve of Satoyama should not be changed.

2. Difference of the results is smaller than HEP due to difference of evaluator’s professional ability. Everyone can evaluate “Landscape index” and “Wise-Use index”easily.

3. SEP advocates drawing up regional biodiversity strategies, since, “Landscape from ground level” is evaluated by these strategies. In addition, SEP advocates that biodiversity offsets be the main engine for conservation of nature.

The bad points of SEP are;

1. The indices of SEP's evaluation results lack clarity.. SEP 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 development Environmental Impact Statement. Pp342.






База данных защищена авторским правом ©shkola.of.by 2016
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка