Economics and Economic Valuation of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Japan

  • Kentaro Yoshida
  • Kiichiro Hayashi
Part of the Ecological Research Monographs book series (ECOLOGICAL)


The United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) warned that human activities have induced dramatic degradation in biodiversity and serious loss of ecosystem services. It stated that biodiversity needed to be addressed at the global level. Considering the significance of the relation between biodiversity and socioeconomic systems, recent studies have scaled up the economic approach to biodiversity. One of the events that pushed the intertwined issues of biodiversity and economy onto the global agenda of international environmental policy was the G8 Environment Ministers Meeting held in 2007 where reference was made to the economic significance of the global loss of biological diversity. In response, the European Union (EU) and the German government-led “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): An Interim Report” (TEEB 2008) was announced in May 2008, drawing global attention as the “Stern Review” of biodiversity. It had been intensively compiling economic findings worldwide for the final synthesis report to be presented at the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD-COP10) in 2010.


Ecosystem Service Conjoint Analysis Core Zone Contingent Valuation Method Regional Survey 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The Environment Research and Technology Development Fund of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan, and Policy Study on Environmental Economics Fund of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan supported this work.


  1. Aizaki H (2005a) Economic valuation of agricultural and rural development projects: Stated preference methods. Association of Agricultural and Forestry Statistics, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  2. Aizaki H (2005b) Choice experiment analysis of consumers’ preference for ecologically friendly rice. Agr Inform Res 14:85–96Google Scholar
  3. Demura K, Yamamoto Y, Yoshida K (eds) (2008) Economic valuation of rural environment: multifunctions, environmental accounting, ecology. Hokkaido University Press, SapporoGoogle Scholar
  4. Fujimoto T (1998) No ga hagukumu kankyo no keizai hyoka CVM (CVM, economic valuation of the environment fostered by agriculture). Association of Agriculture and Forestry Statistics, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  5. Fujimoto T, Miyazaki T, Tanaka K, Morita Y, Nakamura T, Sakamoto H, Tsubouchi Y, Hayashida T (2006) Evaluation of potential recreational benefits of satoyama forest: using GIS and benefit transfer. J Rural Plann Assoc 25(2):99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ito N, Takeuchi K, Kuriyama K, Shoji Y, Tsuge T, Mitani Y (2009) The influence of decision-making rules on individual preference for ecological restoration: evidence from an experimental survey. Ecol Econ 68(8–9):2426–2431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kunimitsu Y (2008) Economic evaluation on public project in rural areas: method and practice of post-evaluation with micro-data. Association of Agriculture and Forestry Statistics, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  8. Kuriyama K (1997) Kokyo jigyo to kankyo no kachi: CVM guidebook (Public works and environmental value: CVM guidebook). Tsukiji Shokan, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  9. Kuriyama K (2000) Environmental valuation and accounting. Nippon Hyoronsha, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  10. Kuriyama K, Shoji Y (2005) Environmental valuation of recreation: an application to the national park management. Keiso Shobo, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  11. Kuriyama K, Kitabatake Y, Oshima Y (1999) The validity of contingent valuation study of Yakusima: the comparison of pilot and final surveys. J Forest Econ 45(1):45–50Google Scholar
  12. Kuriyama K, Terawaki T, Yoshida K, Koroki K (2006) Environmental valuation for the forest zoning: a conjoint analysis study. J Forest Econ 52(2):17–22Google Scholar
  13. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: general synthesis. Accessed 30 Jan 2010
  14. Mitani Y, Shoji Y, Kuriyama K (2008) Estimating economic value of vegetation restoration with choice experiments: a case study of endangered species in Lake Kasumigaura, Japan. Landsc Ecol Eng 4(2):103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nakatani T, Demura K (1997) Shinrin koen no motsu kaki recreation kachi: kojin travel cost ho no tekiyo (Summer recreation values of forests parks: application of individual travel cost approach). J Tourism Res 31:19–28Google Scholar
  16. Nishizawa E, Kurokawa T, Yabe M (2006) Policies and resident’s willingness to pay for restoring the ecosystem damaged by alien fish in Lake Biwa, Japan. Environ Sci Pol 9:448–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Oka T, Matsuda H, Kadono Y (2001) Ecological risk-benefit analysis of a wetland development based on risk valuation using expected loss of biodiversity. Risk Anal 21:1011–1023PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shoji Y (2001) Comparison of the value of outdoor recreation: a case study applying travel cost method and contingent valuation method (papers of the 19th scientific research meeting). J Jpn Inst Landsc Architect 64(5):685–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shoji Y, Yamaki K, Aiko T (2008) Differences in awareness for conservation of endangered spices between stakeholders: a case study for Cypripedium macranthum var. rebunense in Rebun Island. Reg Pol Res 6:97–104Google Scholar
  20. Tanaka H, Kodama Y, Kato K (2004) The analysis of residents’ attitudes toward a habitat for waterfowls by using CHAID. J Rural Plann Assoc 23(3):211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. TEEB (2008) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: an interim report. Accessed 30 Jan 2011
  22. TEEB (2010a) TEEB for local and regional policy makers. Accessed 30 Jan 2011
  23. TEEB (2010b) TEEB: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Accessed 30 Jan 2011
  24. Terada K, Yoshida K (2006) Economic evaluation of food security benefits from farmlands. J Jpn Soc Irrigat Drain Reclamat Eng 246:57–62Google Scholar
  25. Terawaki T (2002) Nogyo no kankyo hyoka bunseki (Environmental valuation analysis of agriculture). Keiso Shobo, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  26. Tsuge T (2001) The valuation of the externalities of forest on citizen’s preferences and possibility of use in a policy-making: a choice experiment study. Environ Sci 14(5):465–476Google Scholar
  27. Yabe M, Yoshida K (2006) Use of stated preference methods for environmental payments in Japan: comparison of contingent valuation method and choice experiments. Q J Int Agr 45(4):437–453Google Scholar
  28. Yamane F, Asano K, Ichikawa T, Fujimi T, Yoshino A (2003) Economic evaluation of the groundwater conservation policy by residents in Kumamoto City: for a cooperation between up and down-stream regions. J Rural Plann Assoc 22(3):203–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yoshida K (1999) CVM ni yoru chusankan chiiki nogyo/noson no koekiteki kino hyoka (CVM-based valuation of public functions of agriculture and rural communities in hilly and mountainous areas). Q J Agr Econ 53(1):45–87Google Scholar
  30. Yoshida K (2003) A demand analysis by stated preference methods as a straw vote for the headwater conservation tax. J Rural Plann Assoc 22(3):188–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yoshida K, Demura K (2006) Stated preference approaches to value environmental benefits of local environmental taxes. Int J Ecol Econ Stat 5(S06):41–50Google Scholar
  32. Yoshida K, Kanai S (2008) Estimating the economic value of improvements in drinking water quality using averting expenditures method and choice experiment. Rev Environ Econ Pol Stud 1(2):64–75Google Scholar
  33. Yoshida K, Nakanishi T (2010) Choice experiments of a forest park improvement program introducing native species. J Rural Plann Assoc 28:189–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Environmental StudiesNagasaki UniversityNagasakiJapan
  2. 2.Ecotopia Science InstituteNagoya UniversityNagoyaJapan

Personalised recommendations