2
1.1 Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes
A landscape can be defined as “an area, as perceived by people, whose character
is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors” (Council
of Europe 2000). Socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS)
can be characterized by a mosaic of different ecosystem types: secondary forests,
timber plantations, farmlands, irrigation ponds, wetlands, grasslands, beaches,
and coastal zones, as well as human settlements. SEPLS are managed via interactions between ecosystems and humans to create various ecosystem services for
human well-being (Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment (JSSA) 2010; Takeuchi
2010; Duraiappah et al. 2012). In Japan, the term satoyama is used for such landscapes (Fig. 1.1 top), while satoumi refers to such seascapes (Fig. 1.1 bottom).
The term “cultural landscapes” is often used synonymously for similar landscapes
where people have developed and sustainably managed the landscape over a long
period of time. According to UNESCO (2008), cultural landscapes represent the
“combined works of nature and of man” and are illustrative of the evolution of
human societies and settlements over time. Examples of cultural landscapes
include the rice terrace landscapes of the Philippines, the Black Forest mountain
range in southern Germany, extensively used mountain grasslands in the European
Alps, and the dehesa agroforestry landscapes on the Iberian Peninsula (Plieninger
and Bieling 2012).
According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), ecosystem services are defined as benefits obtained from ecosystems, including provisioning services such as food and water; regulating services such as the regulation of floods,
droughts, and diseases; supporting services such as soil formation and nutrient
cycling; and cultural services such as recreational, spiritual, and other nonmaterial
benefits. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (IPBES) extended the concept of ecosystem services to nature’s
contributions to people (NCPs) which can capture all types of contributions by
nature, whether these contributions result in gains or losses for humans. The notion
of NCP also recognizes the central and pervasive role that culture plays in defining
all links between people and nature and in emphasizing and operationalizing the
role of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding NCPs (Fig. 1.2). IPBES
identified 18 such categories for reporting NCPs within a generalized perspective
organized into three partially overlapping groups: regulating, material, and nonmaterial NCPs. Even though the concept of NCP is formally approved by IPBES and
used in IPBES assessments, NCP is still quite a new concept and requires a transitional period to be widely acknowledged. Therefore, this book uses the term ecosystem services to represent various tangible and intangible values provided
by nature.
The categories in gray are part of the framework but not the focus of Díaz et al.
(2018). Concepts pointed to by the arrowheads replace or include concepts near
the arrow tails. Concepts in dotted-line boxes are no longer used; following the
present view of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment community, supporting
ecosystem services are now components of nature or (to a lesser extent) regulating NCPs.
O. Saito et al.
1.1 Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes
A landscape can be defined as “an area, as perceived by people, whose character
is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors” (Council
of Europe 2000). Socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS)
can be characterized by a mosaic of different ecosystem types: secondary forests,
timber plantations, farmlands, irrigation ponds, wetlands, grasslands, beaches,
and coastal zones, as well as human settlements. SEPLS are managed via interactions between ecosystems and humans to create various ecosystem services for
human well-being (Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment (JSSA) 2010; Takeuchi
2010; Duraiappah et al. 2012). In Japan, the term satoyama is used for such landscapes (Fig. 1.1 top), while satoumi refers to such seascapes (Fig. 1.1 bottom).
The term “cultural landscapes” is often used synonymously for similar landscapes
where people have developed and sustainably managed the landscape over a long
period of time. According to UNESCO (2008), cultural landscapes represent the
“combined works of nature and of man” and are illustrative of the evolution of
human societies and settlements over time. Examples of cultural landscapes
include the rice terrace landscapes of the Philippines, the Black Forest mountain
range in southern Germany, extensively used mountain grasslands in the European
Alps, and the dehesa agroforestry landscapes on the Iberian Peninsula (Plieninger
and Bieling 2012).
According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), ecosystem services are defined as benefits obtained from ecosystems, including provisioning services such as food and water; regulating services such as the regulation of floods,
droughts, and diseases; supporting services such as soil formation and nutrient
cycling; and cultural services such as recreational, spiritual, and other nonmaterial
benefits. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (IPBES) extended the concept of ecosystem services to nature’s
contributions to people (NCPs) which can capture all types of contributions by
nature, whether these contributions result in gains or losses for humans. The notion
of NCP also recognizes the central and pervasive role that culture plays in defining
all links between people and nature and in emphasizing and operationalizing the
role of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding NCPs (Fig. 1.2). IPBES
identified 18 such categories for reporting NCPs within a generalized perspective
organized into three partially overlapping groups: regulating, material, and nonmaterial NCPs. Even though the concept of NCP is formally approved by IPBES and
used in IPBES assessments, NCP is still quite a new concept and requires a transitional period to be widely acknowledged. Therefore, this book uses the term ecosystem services to represent various tangible and intangible values provided
by nature.
The categories in gray are part of the framework but not the focus of Díaz et al.
(2018). Concepts pointed to by the arrowheads replace or include concepts near
the arrow tails. Concepts in dotted-line boxes are no longer used; following the
present view of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment community, supporting
ecosystem services are now components of nature or (to a lesser extent) regulating NCPs.
O. Saito et al.