농촌계획 (Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning)

  • 제26권1호
  • /
  • Pages.1-12
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 1225-8857(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-9493(eISSN)
한국농촌계획학회 (Korean Society of Rural Planning)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

기후변화시대 홍수피해 완화 농지보존 생태계 서비스 지불 (PES)의 효율성 - 일본의 사례를 중심으로 -

The Efficiency of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Preservation of Farmland for Mitigation of Flood Damage in the age of Climate Change - Case study of Japan -

  • 신 와카마츠 미카 (서울대학교 농경제사회학부 지역정보학전공) ;
  • 김홍석 (서울대학교 농경제사회학부 지역정보학전공 및 농업생명과학연구원)
  • Shin, Wakamatsu Mika (Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Brian H.S (Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Research Institute of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Seoul National University)
  • 투고 : 2020.01.07
  • 심사 : 2020.01.31
  • 발행 : 2020.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

다수의 국가에서 농촌이 쇠퇴하는 현상을 확인할 수 있으며, 특히 경작 포기지의 비율이 빠른 속도로 향상되고 있다. 일본에서 경작 포기지의 증가는 농작물의 국내 자급률 감소, 농지의 중요한 기능 중 하나인 자연재해 방지 기능의 상실, 그리고 농촌 지역사회가 계승해 오던 다양한 형태의 무형적 자산의 소실 등을 야기하였다. 농지와 농촌 지역사회 활동의 보존은 지속가능한 개발을 위해 필수적인 요소이다. 생태계 서비스는 농지가 보유한 기능 중 하나이며, 일본의 중산간 지역 직불제는 농지의 보전과 농촌 지역사회 활동을 지원하여 생태계 서비스 보존 및 유지에 일조하기에 생태계 서비스에 대한 지불(PES)이라 볼 수 있다. 본 연구의 목표는 중산간지역 직접지불제도의 혜택을 받는 지역과 RCP8.5 시나리오 하에서의 자연재해 피해액 간의 관계를 파악하여 직불제의 효율성을 간접적으로 검증하는 것이다. 본 연구의 대상지는 일본 홋카이도의 농지 전체이며, 2005년, 2010년, 2015년의 강우량 예측 패널 데이터와 농업 센서스 패널 데이터를 이용하여 한계효과를 구하여 분석하였다. 분석 결과, 중산간지역 직불제 해당지역이면서 농촌 지역사회 활동이 활발할수록 자연재해 피해액이 적었다. 따라서 특히 중산간지역 직불제 해당지역일수록 재해피해 감소를 위해 농촌 지역사회 활동이 필수적으로 요구된다. 본 연구의 의의는 중산간지역 직불제의 효율성을 자연재해 피해액을 통해 검증한 데 있으며, 향후 직불제의 효율성에 대한 논의에 기초자료로 활용될 수 있다.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Antrop, M. J. L.. 2006, Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia? Landscape and Urban Planning, 75(3-4), 187-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.014
  2. Bauer, N., Wallner, A., & Hunziker, M. J. J. o. e. m. 2009, The change of European landscapes: human-nature relationships, public attitudes towards rewilding, and the implications for landscape management in Switzerland. 90(9), 2910-2920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.01.021
  3. Buchecker, M., & Hunziker, M. 2006, The effect of consensus building processes on regional collaboration.
  4. Burton, R. J., & Schwarz, G. 2013, Result-oriented agri-environmental schemes in Europe and their potential for promoting behavioural change. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 628-641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.05.002
  5. Gerrard, J., & Gardner, R. 2002, Relationships between Landsliding and Land Use in the Likhu Khola Drainage Basin, Middle Hills, Nepal. Mountain Research and Development, 22(1), 48-55. doi:10.1659/0276-4741(2002)022[0048:RBLALU]2.0.CO
  6. Ito, J., Feuer, H. N., Kitano, S., & Komiyama, M. 2018, A Policy Evaluation of the Direct Payment Scheme for Collective Stewardship of Common Property Resources in Japan. Ecological Economics, 152, 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.029
  7. Japan Meteorological Agency. 2017, Report of Climate Change in Hokkaido. ver.2. Past 120 years and future. Retrieved from
  8. Jones, R. S., & Kimura, S. 2013, Public goods and externalities. OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 1053.
  9. Keenleyside, C., Tucker, G., & McConville, A. 2010, Farmland Abandonment in the EU: an Assessment of Trends and Prospects. Institute for European Environmental Policy, London.
  10. Komiyama, M., & Ito, J. 2017, Policy Evaluation of the Farmland, Water and Environmental Conservation Improvement Scheme: A Case Study of Shiga Prefecture. Journal of Rural Problems, 53(2), 72-83. https://doi.org/10.7310/arfe.53.72
  11. Lankoski, J. 2016, Alternative payment approaches for biodiversity conservation in agriculture.
  12. Lankoski, J., Lichtenberg, E., & Ollikainen, M. 2004, Performance of alternative policies in addressing environmental dimensions of multifunctionality. In: Helsingin yliopisto, taloustieteen laitos.
  13. Lasanta, T., Nadal-Romero, E., Arnáez, J. J. E. S., & Policy. 2015, Managing abandoned farmland to control the impact of re-vegetation on the environment. The state of the art in Europe. 52, 99-109.
  14. Leimona, B., van Noordwijk, M., de Groot, R., & Leemans, R. 2015, Fairly efficient, efficiently fair: Lessons from designing and testing payment schemes for ecosystem services in Asia. Ecosystem Services, 12, 16-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.012
  15. Matzdorf, B., & Lorenz, J. 2010, How cost-effective are result-oriented agri-environmental measures?-An empirical analysis in Germany. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 535-544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.07.011
  16. Nishizawa, E. 2017, Cost-effectiveness of Agrienvironmental Payments: Theory and Practice. The Agricultural Economics Society of Japan, 88(4), 420-425.
  17. OECD. 2006, The new rural paradigm: Policies and governance: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
  18. OECD. 2010, Linkages between Agricultural Policies and Environmental Effect: Agri-environmental Policy Impact Model, OECD Publishing.
  19. Ogawa, S., Shima, T., Yoshisako, H., & Fukumoto, M. 2005, Evaluation of farmland conservation for preventing soil erosion. Retrieved from
  20. Pachauri, R. K., & Meyer, L. 2014, Climate change 2014 Synthesis Report-Summary for Policymakers. In: Intergovernmetnal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
  21. Renwick, A., Jansson, T., Verburg, P. H., Revoredo-Giha, C., Britz, W., Gocht, A., & McCracken, D. 2013, Policy reform and agricultural land abandonment in the EU. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 446-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.04.005
  22. Samut, P. K., & Cafri, R. 2016, Analysis of the efficiency determinants of health systems in OECD countries by DEA and panel tobit. Social Indicators Research, 129(1), 113-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1094-3
  23. Sidle, R. C., Gomi, T., Akasaka, M., & Koyanagi, K. J. A. 2018, Ecosystem changes following the 2016 Kumamoto earthquakes in Japan: Future perspectives. 47(6), 721-734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-1005-8
  24. Stephenson, D. B., Diaz, H., & Murnane, R. 2008, Definition, diagnosis, and origin of extreme weather and climate events. Climate extremes and society, 340, 11-23. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511535840.004
  25. Swinton, S. M. 2000, More social capital, less erosion: evidence from Peru's Altiplano. Retrieved from https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/21853/ (Accessed 10th January 2020)
  26. Takayama, T., & Nakatani, T. 2011, Preventive effect of the Measure of Direct Payment in Hilly and Mountainous Areas on abandonment of farmlands: evidence from the paddy and upland areas of Hokkaido. Agricultural Information Research, 20(1), 19-25. https://doi.org/10.3173/air.20.19
  27. Tanaka, K. 2015, The cost-effectiveness of Agri-Enviromental Payments under Alternative Targeting Strategies:Empirical Findings from The Conservation Reserve Program in U.S. Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineers G (Environment), 71(3), 93-101.
  28. Uetake, T. 2015, Public goods and externalities: Agrienvironmental Policy Measures in Japan. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers No. 81.
  29. Uetake, T., & Sasaki, H. 2016, Japanese direct payment for environmentally friendly farming and evaluation of its environmental impacts. Nogyo keizai kenkyu.
  30. Van Lier, H. N. J. L., & Planning, U. 1998, The role of land use planning in sustainable rural systems. 41(2), 83-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00061-3
  31. Wunder, S. 2005, Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts.
  32. Yonezawa, K., & Takeuchi, K. 2003, The effects of direct payment in hilly and mountainous areas for maintaining ecological functions at a village scale: A case study in Tokamachi-shi, Niigata prefecture [Japan]. Journal of Rural Planning Association (Japan).