Advertisement

Cultivating relational values and sustaining socio-ecological production landscapes through ocean literacy: a study on Satoumi

  • Takuro Uehara
  • Ryo Sakurai
  • Takahiro Tsuge
Case Study
  • 80 Downloads

Abstract

Sound management of social-ecological systems should reflect diverse values; otherwise, the systems may inadvertently lead to neither fair nor desirable states. Relational values are one of three primary value domains of these diverse values. Since they may strongly motivate care for nature, nurturing these values could be a useful management measure for people involved in management (e.g., policy makers and nonprofit organizations) to realize a desirable state of social-ecological systems. To test this hypothesis, we studied ocean literacy programs at a district junior high school in Hinase District, Okayama, Japan. The district is known as a Satoumi (Japanese coastal socio-ecological production landscape). First, we measured the significance of relational values in the district. Second, we assessed the effect of the ocean literacy programs on cultivating relational values. Third, to test the feasibility of the ocean literacy programs as management measures to cultivate relational values, we used a contingent valuation method, developed in environmental economics, to measure residents’ willingness to support the programs. Our study reveals that relational values are a critical component of Satoumi. Students are promising supporters of Satoumi given the declining and aging population of guardians, a result of the decline in revenues from fishery; moreover, the programs cultivate relational values in students. Residents support the ocean literacy programs, and their willingness to pay for them is connected with relational values. Therefore, ocean literacy can be an effective and feasible management measure for sustaining Satoumi through cultivation of relational values.

Keywords

Relational values Satoumi Ocean literacy Socio-ecological production landscapes Contingent valuation method 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Inamori Foundation, the ESPEC Foundation for Global Environment Research and Technology, and the Casio Science Promotion Foundation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, or writing of the manuscript. We are grateful to the teachers and students at HJHS, the Fisheries Cooperative Association of Hinase, and the residents of the district for their generous support of this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10668_2018_226_MOESM1_ESM.docx (653 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 652 kb)

References

  1. Admiraal, J. F., Van Den Born, R. J. G., Beringer, A., Bonaiuto, F., Cicero, L., Hiedanpää, J., et al. (2017). Motivations for committed nature conservation action in Europe. Environ Conserv, 44, 148–157.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291700008X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aizaki, H., Nakatani, T., & Sato, K. (2015). Stated preference methods using R. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barriball, K. L., & While, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: A discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19, 328–335.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01088.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bishop, R. C., Boyle, & K. J. (2017). Reliability and validity in nonmarket valuation. In P. Champ, K. Boyle, T. Brown (Eds.), A primer on nonmarket valuation. The economics of non-market goods and resources vol 13 (pp 463–497). Dordrecht: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7104-8_12.
  5. Boyle, K. J. (2017). Contingent valuation in practice. In P. Champ, K. Boyle, T. Brown (Eds.), A primer on nonmarket valuation. The economics of non-market goods and resources vol 13 (pp 83–131). Dordrecht: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7104-8_4.
  6. Brown, T. C. (1984). The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Economics, 60, 231–246.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3146184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carifio, J., & Perla, R. (2008). Resolving the 50-year debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Medical Education, 42, 1150–1152.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03172.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chan, K. M. A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., et al. (2016). Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 1462–1465.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Joly, C., Lonsdale, W. M., & Larigauderie, A. (2015). A Rosetta Stone for nature’s benefits to people. PLoS Biology, 13, e1002040.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duraiappah, A. K., Nakamura, K., Takeuchi, K., Watanabe, M., & Nishi, M. (2012). Satoyama–satoumi ecosystems and human well-being. Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes of Japan. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ernst, J. A., Monroe, M. C., & Simmons, B. (2009). Evaluating your environmental education programs: A workbook for practitioners. Washington, DC: North American Association for Environmental Education.Google Scholar
  13. Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  14. Flores, N. E. (2017). Conceptual framework for nonmarket valuation In P. Champ, K. Boyle, T. Brown (Eds.), A primer on nonmarket valuation. The economics of non-market goods and resources vol 13 (pp 27–54). Dordrecht: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7104-8_2.
  15. Freeman, A. M., III, Herriges, J. A., & Kling, C. L. (2014). The measurement of environmental and resource values: Theory and methods (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frey, B. S., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1997). The cost of price incentives: An empirical analysis of motivation crowding-out. American Economic Review, 87, 746–755.  https://doi.org/10.1207/2951373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Governors and Mayors’ Conference on the Environmental Conservation of the Seto Inland Sea (2007). Measurements for the realization of bounty and beautiful Seto Inland Sea: Regeneration of Satoumi (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  18. Gu, H., & Subramanian, S. M. (2014). Drivers of change in socio-ecological production landscapes: Implications for better management. Ecology and Society, 19, 41.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06283-190141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Inoue NHK, K. (2015). Satoumi capitalism: Japanese society works with the coexistence principle. Tokyo: Kadokawa. (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  20. Kallis, G., Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Zografos, C. (2013). To value or not to value? That is not the question. Ecological Economics, 94, 97–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kenter, J. O., O’Brien, L., Hockley, N., Ravenscroft, N., Fazey, I., Irvine, K. N., et al. (2015). What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecological Economics, 111, 86–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klain, S. C., Olmsted, P., Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2017). Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLoS ONE, 12, e0183962.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klain, S. C., Satterfield, T. A., & Chan, K. M. (2014). What matters and why? Ecosystem services and their bundled qualities. Ecological Economics, 107, 310–320.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Komatsu, T., & Yanagi, T. (2015). Sato-umi: An integrated approach for sustainable use of coastal waters, lessons from human-nature interactions during the Edo period of eighteenth-century Japan. In H. J. Ceccaldi, Y. Hénocque, Y. Koike, T. Komatsu, G. Stora, M. H. Tusseau-Vuillemin (Eds.), Marine productivity: Perturbations and resilience of socio-ecosystems (pp 283–290). Cham: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13878-7_30.
  25. MAFF of the Government of Japan (2008). The current conditions and problems of seagrass beds and tidal flats. http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/study/kikaku/moba_higata/pdf/1siryou.pdf (in Japanese). Accessed 14 Jan 2018.
  26. MAFF of the Government of Japan (2016). Survey on the state of fishermen 2015. http://www.maff.go.jp/j/tokei/kouhyou/gyogyou_doukou/index.html. Accessed 14 Jan 2018. (in Japanese).
  27. Matulis, B. S. (2014). The economic valuation of nature: A question of justice? Ecological Economics, 104, 155–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCauley, D. J. (2006). Selling out on nature. Nature, 443, 27–28.  https://doi.org/10.1038/443027a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McGinnis, M. D., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society, 19, 30.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer (Kindle ed.). Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Milcu, A. I., Hanspach, J., Abson, D., & Fischer, J. (2013). Cultural ecosystem services: A literature review and prospects for future research. Ecology and Society, 18, 44.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05790-180344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) of the Government of Japan (2006). Survey on conservation activities. http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/tamenteki/sankou/index.html. Accessed 20 Nov 2017. (in Japanese).
  33. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, n.d. Chapter 4: The Period for Integrated Studies. http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/04/11/1298356_12_1.pdf. Accessed 30 Dec 2017.
  34. Ministry of the Environment (MoE) of the Government of Japan, n.d.(a). Sato-umi net. https://www.env.go.jp/water/heisa/satoumi/en/01_e.html. Accessed 20 Nov 2017.
  35. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  36. Mizuta, D. D., & Vlachopoulou, E. I. (2017). Satoumi concept illustrated by sustainable bottom-up initiatives of Japanese Fisheries Cooperative Associations. Mar Policy, 78, 143–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.01.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MoE of the Government of Japan, n.d.(b). Setouchi net. https://www.env.go.jp/water/heisa/heisa/net/setouchiNet/seto/index.html. Accessed 20 Nov 2017. (in Japanese).
  38. MoE of the Government of Japan, n.d.(c). The current state and roles of mudflats. http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/tamenteki/kaisetu/moba/moba_genjou/. (in Japanese).
  39. NOAA (2013). Ocean literacy: The essential principles and fundamental concepts of ocean sciences for learners of all ages, version 2. Ocean Literacy Network, www.oceanliteracy.net. Accessed 14 Jan 2018.
  40. Norton, B., Costanza, R., & Bishop, R. C. (1998). The evolution of preferences: Why sovereign preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it. Ecological Economics, 24(2–3), 193–211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00143-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Otani, S., Kinoshita, E., Goto, N., & Komatsu, H. (2013). New approach to social survey: Theory and methods. Kyoto: Minerva Shobo.Google Scholar
  42. Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., et al. (2017). Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 7–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Plankis, B. J., & Marrero, M. E. (2010). Recent ocean literacy research in United States public schools: Results and implications. IEJEE-Green, 1, 21–51.Google Scholar
  44. Rosenberger, R. S., & Loomis, J. B. (2017). Benefit transfer. In P. Champ, K. Boyle, T. Brown (Eds), A primer on nonmarket valuation. The economics of non-market goods and resources vol 13 (pp 431–462). Dordrecht: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7104-8_11.
  45. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2003). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  46. Sakurai, R., Uehara, T., & Yoshioka, T. (2018). Students’ perceptions of a marine education program at a junior high school in Japan with a specific focus on Satoumi. Environmental Education Research.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1436698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Segerson, K. (2017). Valuing environmental goods and services: An economic perspective. In P. Champ, K. Boyle, T. Brown (Eds.), A primer on nonmarket valuation. The economics of non-market goods and resources vol 13 (pp 1–25). Dordrecht: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7104-8_1.
  48. Spash, C. L. (2007). Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecological Economics, 63(4), 690–699.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Spash, C. L. (2008). How much is that ecosystem in the window? The one with the bio-diverse trail. Environmental Values, 17(2), 259–284.  https://doi.org/10.3197/096327108X303882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Suškevičs, M., Hahn, T., Rodela, R., Macura, B., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2017). Learning for social-ecological change: A qualitative review of outcomes across empirical literature in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1339594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tanaka, T. (2014). Thinking sustainable circular regional society: Through Satoumi of eelgrass and oyster in Hinase, Okayama. ECPR, 34, 21–26. http://www.ecpr.or.jp/pdf/ecpr34/21-26.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2018. (in Japanese).
  52. Tee, D. D., & Ahmed, P. K. (2014). 360 degree feedback: An integrative framework for learning and assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 19, 579–591.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.901961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. The City of Bizen (2015). Statistics of the City of Bizen. http://www.city.bizen.okayama.jp/data/open/cnt/3/4063/1/H27zentai.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2017. (in Japanese).
  54. Tsurita, I., Hori, J., Kunieda, T., Hori, M., & Makino, M. (2018). Marine protected areas, Satoumi, and territorial use rights for fisheries: A case study from Hinase, Japan. Marine Policy, 91, 41–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Uehara, T., & Mineo, K. (2017). Regional sustainability assessment framework for integrated coastal zone management: Satoumi, ecosystem services approach, and inclusive wealth. Ecological Indicators, 73, 716–725.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.10.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Uehara, T., Niu, J., Chen, X., Ota, T., & Nakagami, K. (2016). A sustainability assessment framework for regional-scale Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) incorporating inclusive wealth, Satoumi, and ecosystem services science. Sustainability Science, 11, 801–812.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0373-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van den Born, R. J. G., Arts, B., Admiraal, J., Beringer, A., Knights, P., Molinario, E., et al. (2017). The missing pillar: Eudemonic values in the justification of nature conservation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1342612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yanagi, T. (2013). Japanese commons in the coastal seas. How the Satoumi concept harmonizes human activity in coastal seas with high productivity and diversity. Tokyo: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54100-4.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Policy ScienceRitsumeikan UniversityIbaraki City, OsakaJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of EconomicsKonan UniversityKobe CityJapan

Personalised recommendations