Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:29:11.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Urban people as paddy farmers: The Japanese Tanada Ownership System discussed from a European perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2011

Pia R. Kieninger ,
Eiji Yamaji  and
Marianne Penker
Pia R. Kieninger*
Affiliation:
Institute of Integrative Nature Conservation Research, Department of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Research, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Gregor Mendel Strasse 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria.
Eiji Yamaji
Affiliation:
Department of International Studies, Division of Environmental Studies, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa City 277-8653, Japan.
Marianne Penker
Affiliation:
Institute of Sustainable Economic Development, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Feistmantelstrasse 4, 1180 Vienna, Austria.
*
*Corresponding author: pia.kieninger@boku.ac.at
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The degradation of the traditional cultural landscape due to abandonment of agricultural management is perceived as a serious problem in different parts of the world. Rising consciousness concerning this issue in Japan led to the formation of numerous voluntary civil farming programs. This paper presents a multi-method case study conducted in Japan (Ōyamasenmaida, Chiba prefecture) about a highly relevant rural–urban cooperation, where landholders lease out their rice terraces to city dwellers to grow their own rice under the intensive instruction and well-organized support by local farmers and other local experts. The activity is known as ‘Tanada Ownership’ (tanada means rice terrace). It is spread over the country and promises, in contrast to the short-term individualistic European models, long-term rural–urban relations, the valorization of local knowledge and natural resources as well as the maintenance of the rice-terrace landscapes in several regions of Japan. The particular goal of this research is the investigation of the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the system and the motivation of its participants. The Japanese approach is compared with similar European initiatives and conclusions focus on the particularities of the Japanese Ownership System and its transferability to the European context. Despite the innovativeness and popularity of the Ownership System, scientific studies are relatively scarce and none of them published are in English. This article therefore presents an original and important contribution to the scientific community, as it provides insights into the Tanada Ownership System and puts it into an international context by comparing it with European initiatives of voluntary farm work.

Keywords

Japancultural landscape conservationŌyamasenmaida (Chiba Prefecture, Kamogawa City, Japan)Tanada Ownership Systemvoluntary civic engagementvoluntary farm work
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 328 - 341
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Moore-Colyer, R.J. 2004. Kids in the corn: School harvest camps and farm labour supply in England, 1940–1950. Agricultural History Review 52:183–206.Google Scholar
2Moore-Colyer, R.J. 2006. The call to the land: British and European adult voluntary farm labour; 1939–1949. Rural History 17:83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Stenseke, M. 2009. Local participation in cultural landscape maintenance: lessons from Sweden. Land Use Policy 26:214–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Swanwick, C. 2009. Society's attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. Land Use Policy 26:62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Lyson, T.A. 2004. Civic Agriculture: Reconnecting Farm, Food, and Community. University Press of New England, Lebanon, NH.Google Scholar
6Allen, P. and Guthman, J. 2006. From ‘old school’ to ‘farm-to-school’: neoliberalization from the ground up. Agriculture and Human Values 23:401–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Bagdonis, J.M., Hinrichs, C.C. and Schafft, K.A. 2009. The emergence and framing of farm-to-school initiatives: civic engagement, health and local agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 26:107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Saldivar-Tanaka, L. and Krasny, M.E. 2004. Culturing community development, neighborhood open space, and civic agriculture: the case of Latino community gardens in New York City. Agriculture and Human Values 21:399–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9DeLind, L.B. 2002. Place, work, and civic agriculture: common fields for cultivation. Agriculture and Human Values 19:217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Takeuchi, K., Brown, R.D., Washitani, I., Tsunekawa, A. and Yokohari, M. (eds.) 2003. Satoyama – The Traditional Rural Landscape of Japan. Springer-Verlag, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
11MAFF – Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan 2009. Annual Report on Food, Agriculture and Rural and Rural Areas in Japan FY 2009 (Summary). Available at Web site http://www.maff.go.jp/e/annual_report/2009/pdf/e_all.pdf (verified February 8, 2011).Google Scholar
12MAFF – Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan 2008. Annual Report on Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas in Japan FY 2008. Policies on Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas in Japan FY2007. Summary (Provisional Translation). Available at Web site http://www.maff.go.jp/e/annual_report/2008/pdf/e_all.pdf (verified June 22, 2010).Google Scholar
13Kobori, H. and Primack, R.B. 2003. Conservation for Satoyama, the traditional landscape of Japan. Arnoldia 62:2–10.Google Scholar
14Fukuda, H., Dyck, J., and Stout, J. 2003. Rice Sector Policies in Japan – Electronic Outlook Report from the Economic Research Service. Economic Research Service, USDA, p. 1–19. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/rcs/mar03/rcs030301/rcs0303-01.pdf (verified February 17, 2011).Google Scholar
15MAFF – Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan 2003. Fact Sheet No. 1. Available at Web site http://www.maff.go.jp/e/pdf/factsheet.pdf (verified June 22, 2010).Google Scholar
16Takeuchi, K. 2001. Nature conservation strategies for the ‘Satoyama’ and ‘Satochi’, habitats for secondary nature in Japan. Global Environmental Research 5:193–198.Google Scholar
17MOE – Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation Bureau (ed.) 2010. Biodiversity is Life. Biodiversity is our Life. The National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan 2010.Google Scholar
18Kuramoto, N. 2003. Citizen conservation of Satoyama landscapes. In Takeuchi, K., Brown, R.D., Washitani, I., Tsunekawa, A., and Yokohari, M. (eds). Satoyama – The Traditional Rural Landscape of Japan. Springer-Verlag, Tokyo, Japan. p. 23–39.Google Scholar
19Yamaji, E. 2006. Enjoyment of rural amenities by ownership program of rice terraces. Journal of Rural Planning Association 25:206–212 (in Japanese).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Watanabe, T. 2003. Present problems of hilly and mountainous areas under enforcement of the direct payment system. In PRIMAFF Annual Report 2003. Available at Web site http://www.maff.go.jp/primaff/koho/seika/annual/pdf/an2003-6-7.pdf (verified February 17, 2011).Google Scholar
21Aono, S., Kaga, H., Shimomura, Y., and Masuda, N. 2005. Study on landscapes attractiveness to residents from the viewpoint of topographical features in agricultural area at the edge of Senboku Hill. Journal of the Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture 68:753–756 (in Japanese, with English abstract).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Shibata, R. and Masuda, M. 2001. Sustainability of tanada owner system: A case study on obasute tanada, Koshoku City, Nagano prefecture. Bulletin of Agricultural and Forestry Research Center, University of Tuskuba 14:19–28 (in Japanese, with English abstract).Google Scholar
23Agency for Cultural Affairs, Department of Cultural Properties, Division of Monuments and Sites, Japan (ed.) 2003. Nihon no bunkatekikeikan. Nōrinsuisangyō ni kanren suru bunkatekikeikan no hogo ni kansuru chyōsakenkyū hōkokusho (in Japanese).Google Scholar
24MAFF – Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan 2009. Heisei 20 nendo. Chūsankanchiiki tō chokusetsushiharai seido no jisshijōkyō. Nōson shinkō kyoku. Available at Web site http://www.maff.go.jp/j/nousin/tyusan/siharai_seido/pdf/h20_zissi_data3.pdf (verified February 17, 2011) (in Japanese).Google Scholar
25Takao, K., Maeda, M. and Nonami, H. 2003. Residents’ perception of procedural justice in implementing the rice terrace ownership system in Asuka village, Nara prefecture. Journal of Rural Planning Association 22:26–36 (in Japanese, with English abstract).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Yamamoto, W., Yamaji, E., and Makiyama, M. 2002. Consciousness of rural people for ownership program of rice terraces. A case study of oyama-senmaida ownership program in Kamogawa City. Journal of Rural Planning Association 21:115–120 (in Japanese, with English abstract).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Yamamoto, W., Makiyama, M., and Yamaji, E. 2003. Continuity of the labor support of local farmers in ‘Ownership Program’ of rice terraces: case study in Ohyama District, Kamogawa City. Journal of Rural Planning Association 22:112–121 (in Japanese, with English abstract).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Kojima, H., Osawa, S., and Katsuno, T. 2004. Vegetation on the terraced paddy field embankment where has introduced the owner system; Case study in Ohyama Senmaida, Kamogawa City, Chiba Prefecture. Journal of Rural Planning Association 23:1–6 (in Japanese, with English abstract).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Kurita, H., Kimura, Y., Matsumori, K., and Osari, H. 2004. A study on the relationship between physical features of terraced rice fields landscapes and their perception. Journal of Rural Planning Association 23:85–90 (in Japanese, with English abstract).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Ōyamasenmaida Cultural Landscape Preservation Committee 2006. Ōyama no senmaida bunkatekikeikan hozon katsuyō keikaku. Kabushiki kaisha koa, Kamogawashi (in Japanese).Google Scholar
31Kamogawa City 2004. Kamogawashi tōkeishyo – heisei 16 nenban (in Japanese).Google Scholar
32Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan, Cultural Properties Department, Monuments and Sites Division, Committee on the Preservation, Development, and Utilization of Cultural Landscapes Associated with Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2003. The Report of the Study on the Protection of Cultural Landscapes Associated with Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Available at Web site http://www.bunka.go.jp/english/pdf/nourinsuisan.pdf (verified February 9, 2011).Google Scholar
33Yin, R.K. 2002. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Volume 5. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.Google Scholar
34Flick, U. 2009. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Sage Publications Ltd., London, UK.Google Scholar
35National Federation of Land Improvement Association 2010. Zenkoku tanada ōnā seido ichiran. Kamogawashi tanada nōgyō chiku ōnā seido. Available at Web site http://www.inakajin.or.jp/kikin/tanada/tanada_075.html (verified February 17, 2011) (in Japanese).Google Scholar
36ŌSM – Ōyamasenmaida Preservation Association (NPO) 2009. Ango tsūshin Web ban Ōyamasenmaida. Home shiryō daunrōdo. Available at Web site http://www.senmaida.com/down_load/index.php (verified August 15, 2009) (in Japanese).Google Scholar
37ŌSM – Ōyamasenmaida Preservation Association (NPO) 2011. Ango tsūshin Web ban Ōyamasenmaida. Available at Web site http://www.senmaida.com/index.php (verified February 17, 2011) (in Japanese).Google Scholar
38Ishikawa, S., Ae, N., and Yano, M. 2005. Chromosomal regions with quantitative trait loci controlling cadmium concentration in brown rice (Oryza sativa). New Phytologist 168:345–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39Nakagahra, M., Okuno, K., and Vaughan, D. 1997. Rice genetic resources: history, conservation, investigative characterization and use in Japan. Plant Molecular Biology 35:69–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40Bartholomew Ltd (ed.) 1999. The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World – 2000 Millennium Edition. 10th ed. Times Books, London.Google Scholar
41MIC – Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan, Statistics Bureau, Director-General for Policy Planning (Statistical Standards) & Statistical Research and Training Institute 2005. Population Census 2005. Chapter II: Population by Sex and Age. Available at Web Site http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/kokusei/2005/poj/pdf/2005ch02.pdf (verified February 17, 2011).Google Scholar
42MIC – Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan, Statistics Bureau, Director-General for Policy Planning (Statistical Standards) & Statistical Research and Training Institute 2006. Annual Report on the Labour Force Survey 2006. Available at Web Site http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/roudou/report/2006/ft/index.htm (verified February 17, 2011).Google Scholar
43MIC – Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan, Statistics Bureau, Director-General for Policy Planning (Statistical Standards) & Statistical Research and Training Institute 2009. The Statistical Handbook of Japan 2010. Chapter 3 Economy. Available at Web site http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/pdf/c03cont.pdf (verified February 17, 2011).Google Scholar
44Vogl, C.R., Axmann, P. and Vogl-Lukasser, B. 2003. Urban organic farming in Austria with the concept of selbsternte (‘self-harvest’): An agronomic and socio-economic analysis. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 19:67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45Bell, S., Marzano, M., Cent, J., Kobierska, H., Podjed, D., Vandinzskaite, D., Reinert, H., Armaitiene, A., Grodińska-Jurczak, M., and Muršič, R. 2008. What counts? Volunteers and their organisations in the recording and monitoring of biodiversity. Biodiversity Conservation 17:3443–3454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46Miles, I., Sullivan, W.C., and Kuo, F.E. 1998. Ecological restoration volunteers: the benefits of participation. Urban Ecosystems 2:27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47Mühlmann, P. 2009. Zivilgesellschaftliches engagement in der landschaft. Das Modell freiwilliger Arbeit in der Landschaftspflege. Doctoral thesis, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria (in German, with English abstract).Google Scholar
48Coghlan, D. 2007. Insider action research: opportunities and challenges. Management Research News 30:335–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49Kieninger, P. and Penker, M. 2009. Ehrenamtliches Engagement für die Kulturlandschaft. Zoll+ Österreichische Schriftenreihe für Landschaft und Freiraum 14:92–94 (in German, with English abstract).Google Scholar
50Bruyere, B. and Rappe, S. 2007. Identifying the motivations of environmental volunteers. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50:503–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51Moritz, H. 2003. Gemüsezellen an Städter verpachten. Top-Agrar Österreich, Das Magazin für moderne Landwirtschaft 4:40–42 (in German).Google Scholar
52Ryan, R.L., Kaplan, R., and Grese, R.E. 2001. Predicting volunteer commitment in environmental stewardship programmes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44:629–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53Measham, T.G. and Barnett, G. 2008. Environmental volunteering: motivations, modes and outcomes. Australian Geographer 39:537–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54Warburton, J. and Gooch, M. 2007. Stewardship volunteering by older Australians: The generative response. Local Environment 12:43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55Bruno, R. 2010. Selbsternte, Angebot, Standorte, Wien-Hietzing, Roter Berg. Available at Web site http://www.selbsternte.at/index.php?id=94 (verified June 22, 2010) (in German).Google Scholar
56Marsden, T. 2003. The Condition of Rural Sustainability. Royal Van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
57Mather, A.S., Hill, G., and Nijnik, M. 2006. Post-productivism and rural land use: cul de sac or challenge for theorization? Journal of Rural Studies 22:441–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58Enengel, B. 2009. Partizipative landschaftssteuerung. Kosten-Nutzen-Risiken-Relationen aus Sicht der Beteiligten. Doctoral thesis, University of Natural Resources and Life Scienes, Vienna, Austria (in German, with English abstract).Google Scholar
59Nishiyama, M. 2010. Alternative agro-food movement in contemporary Japan. In Tsutsumi, M. (ed.). Turning Point of Women Families and Agriculture in Rural Japan. Gakubunsha, Tokyo, Japan. p. 281–297.Google Scholar
60Yoshino, K., Katayama, C., and Morofuji, K. 2010. The present situation of local supply and consumption of agricultural products from the aspect of acquisition and utilization by local people. In Tsutsumi, M. (ed.). Turning Point of Women, Families and Agriculture in Rural Japan. Gakubunsha, Tokyo, Japan. p. 261–280.Google Scholar
61Kimura, A.H. and Nishiyama, M. 2008. The chisan-chisho movement: Japanese local food movement and its challenges. Agriculture and Human Values 25:49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
62Schlute, R. 2006. Freiwillige in naturschutzverbänden. In Bremer, S., Erdmann, K.-H. and Hopf, T. (eds). Freiwilligenarbeit im Naturschutz. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt, Vol. 37. Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN), Bonn, Germany. p. 79–90 (in German).Google Scholar
63Heinze, R.G. and Olk, T. 1999. Vom ehrenamt zum bürgerschaftlichen engagement. Trends des begrifflichen und gesellschaftlichen strukturwandels. In Kistler, E., Noll, H.-H. and Priller, E. (eds). Perspektiven gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhalts. Empirische Befunde, Praxiserfahrung, Messkonzepte. Edition Sigma, Berlin, Germany. p. 77–100 (in German).Google Scholar
64Lossing, B. and Toennes, A. 1989. Lokale bürgerinitiativen im Umweltschutz – eine schriftliche Befragung. In Noeke, J. (ed.). Bürgerinitiativen und Umweltschutz. Freiwillige und ehrenamtliche Arbeit im Umweltschutz. IFU-Werkstattreihe, Vol. 18. Institut für Umweltschutz der Universität Dortmund, Germany. p. 16–37 (in German).Google Scholar