Effects of Environmental Taxes on Forest Conservation: Case of the Water Resources Conservation Fund in Toyota City

  • Keiko NakayamaEmail author
  • Mastoshi Shirai
  • Mitsuo Yamada
Part of the New Frontiers in Regional Science: Asian Perspectives book series (NFRSASIPER, volume 34)


Seventy percent of our country’ s land is occupied by forest. Functions of forest cover not only CO2 reduction but also water source cultivation, conservation of biodiversity, prevention of sediment-related disasters, and so on. Forest conservation is an urgent policy issue for Japan.

Aichi Prefecture Toyota City was the first municipality to implement the forest reservation policy. Since 1994, Toyota City runs a tap water conservation fund to accumulate 1 yen per 1 m3 of water usage. In 2003, Kochi Prefecture, followed by other prefectures, established a forest environmental tax as a poll tax. Furthermore, the national government is similarly planning to introduce a forest environment tax in 2024.

Preceding studies on forest environmental taxes have so far mostly focused on the background of the policies, survey on actual condition, and comparisons with overseas cases. Therefore, in this paper, we consider Toyota City’s taxation elaboration and the forest environmental tax based on efficiency in resource allocation.


Environmental tax Forest conservation policy Cultivation investment Toyota water resources conservation fund 



The authors highly appreciate financial supports from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C), 18 K01631) and Chukyo University Institute of Economics (P15002).

This paper is an extended version of Nakayama et al. (2016) and Nakayama and Shirai (2009). We are grateful to the Toyota City Waterworks Bureau that provided the materials for this study.


  1. Amacher GS, Brazee RJ (2013) Designing forest taxes with varying government preferences and budget targets. J Environ Econ Manag 32(3):323–340. Elsevier. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Choo SH, Lee J, Roberts RK, English BC (2017) Evaluating a tax-based subsidy approach for forest carbon sequestration. Env Conserv, Int J Interdisciplinary Env Sci 44(3):234–243. Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cushing TL, Newman D (2018) Analysis of relative tax burden on nonindustrial private forest landowners in the Southeastern United States. J For 116(3):4. 228–235, 176–182, Elsevier. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gong P, Löfgren KG (2013) Forest taxation, encyclopedia of energy, natural resource, and environmental economics, vol 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 176–182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hall RC (2017) The forest-tax problem and its solution summarized (classic report). Forgotten PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Harada H (2001) Preservation of upstream forest with one ton 1 yen Toyota City water supply conservation fund and project initiatives. Monthly Autonomous Research August 2001 Issue: 56–62 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  7. Honda H (2007) The problem of “forest fund” as eco-goods schemes –based on the point of view of “the nonprofit making business model of social entrepreneur”. Stud Reg Sci 18:51–62Google Scholar
  8. Kamiya K (2000) Case study: about Toyota City water supply conservation fund, Monthly Public Enterprise September 2000 Issue 32(6):72–77 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  9. Kimbell AR, Hickman K, Brown H (2010) How taxes affect America’s private forestland owners? J For 108(2):1, 93–97.
  10. Liu J, Wu F (2017) Forest carbon sequestration subsidy and carbon tax as part of China’s forestry policies. Forests 8(3):58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nakayama K, Shirai M (2009) Burden of public investment costs for forest conservancy in preservation of water supply sources –analysis of the effects of environmental taxes on the destruction of forests. Stud Reg Sci 39(3):553–565. (in Japanese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nakayama K, Shirai M, Yamada M (2007) Economic evaluation of Toyota City water supply conservation project in Aichi prefecture II -analysis of forest environmental tax by optimization problem. Chukyo Econ Rev 18:65–77. (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  13. Nakayama K, Shirai M, Matsumoto A (2016) Environmental preservation policy. Chukyo Univ Inst Econ, Discuss Paper Ser 1609:1–12Google Scholar
  14. Nakayama K, Shirai M, Matsumoto A (2017) Environment conservation policy focusing on forest recharge, in new development of economic theory, application, empirical analysis, the Institute of Economic Research, Chuo University, Study Series 72, pp 145–162 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  15. OECD (1999) The price of water –trends in OED countries-, OECD Library.
  16. Siegel WC (2010) Comments on “how do taxes affect America’s private forestland owners?” J For 108(2): 1, 98–99, Oxford Academic Press.
  17. Stavins RN, Richards KR (2005) The cost of U.S. forest-based carbon sequestration. Prepared by the pew center on global climate change.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keiko Nakayama
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mastoshi Shirai
    • 1
  • Mitsuo Yamada
    • 1
  1. 1.Chukyo UniversityNagoyaJapan

Personalised recommendations