The Japanese River Bureau of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transportation and Tourism (MLIT) manages the network of main rivers, which consists of 109 river basins. Before the amendment of 1997, the Japanese River Law had two major purposes, namely, flood control and water resource management. The old law had been criticized because it could not deal with environmental problems and make people commit to the management of the river basin area. The amendment of the River Law in 1997 added environmental protection in the purpose clause and enacted river basin development planning that requires citizen participation in the planning procedure. Since 1997, 88 river basin areas have had been assigned the master plan of the river basin area, while the development program of 36 rivers has been completed based on the master plan. In this planning process, we can find public involvement and the improvement of the environment. Moreover, there are many public and private partnerships in the river basin area that include the management of embankments and flood plains along the river. Although such participation and partnerships appear to be successful, the quality and quantity of citizen participation and partnerships are not always sufficient. The local people cannot formally influence the decision making of the master plan and development program of rivers, while the river bureau of the central government continues to have complete control over river management. We are facing problems with regard to the redistribution of public and private powers and the empowerment of local people so that they can participate in the entire process of river basin management. In this article, we attempt to discuss the history of Japanese river administration in brief, explore the amendment of the River Law in Japan, and evaluate the results of citizen participation and public and private partnership that would accompany the protection of the natural environment in the river basin areas. We then project the future of Japanese river management that resolves the deficit of the government and market through citizen participation and partnerships.

Adjusting laws and rules to social change requires constant efforts by the people. The river and water management system is no exception. Since the late 1990s, the system has faced two major changes. The first change arose when the River Law was revised in 1997. However, before public participation, which has been one of the most important requirements of the revised River Law, could be established, the second change appeared: the decrease in the population. To adjust the national and local expenditure to the smaller income through less tax payers, we have to continue reforming legislation and the judicature system in order to control administration.

To avoid deprivation of national and local budget among the aged and future generations, we have to continue reforming legislation and the judicature system in order to control administration.

The conflict concerning the River Basin Improvement Plan is focused on the relation between the upper and lower stream, the government, and Local inhabitants. In recent years, such a confrontation is rapidly changing to a new stage: “To fulfill the accountability for the stakeholders by the national government.” In the past 100 years, such a situation has never been witnessed with regard to the River Basin Improvement Planning Technique. Up to the present time, the Yodo River Basin Improvement Plan has always determined the essence and the planning technique of the Japanese River Basin Improvement Plan. The drastic change in the development of the River Basin Improvement Plan is impacting the management of the Yodo River.

The Committee of the Yodo River insisted on the importance of “Openness, Transparency, and Independence” for “The Yodo River Basin Improvement Plan (Draft/Aug.28.2006)” and further care with regard to “Social Consent Building in the Yodo River Basin Improvement Plan.”

The basic principle and definite proposal toward the River Basin Improvement Plan by the Committee of the Yodo River emphasized the importance of the “The Publicity of Information” and “The Opening of the Planning Process.” This manner of thinking coincides with the fundamental attitude of the new river law, although it is rather different from the traditional method of the Yodo River Basin Improvement Planning. This is because a new system requires an explicit planning process in order to introduce decisions made by the local inhabitants.

From the standpoints of river basin governance and the establishment of a citizen society, “River-Ranger”-a program that ensures coordination among stakeholders-is proposed. This new concept is useful for coordination under the new method of River Basin Improvement Planning, and in the future, the importance of this function will increase.

The change in the direction of the planning process with regard to “Social Consent” and “Accountability” is not completely accepted and understood by society. This discussion is rather useful for the formulation of river policy. At the same time, introducing Social Consent in the planning process is not a very easy task. The reason that the Committee of the Yodo River does not approve of the River Basin Improvement Plan is “The Insufficiency of the Explanation of the Necessary Condition.” In other words, in the process involving the new concept of Social Consent, the traditional decision-making system is not useful. Not only the River Basin Improvement Plan but also most of the public works were on the verge of adopting the new system.

“The Yodo River Method” will lead Japanese River Basin Improvement Planning and will become an ideal model of Social Consent after an intensive discussion of the conflict with the stakeholders.

For the last forty years, local residents who are familiar with river management have asserted that the environment is important for the river administration system as well as flood control and water use. Thirty years have passed since the “Environment” was added to the new River Law. However, preservation has been forgotten, and priority has been assigned to maintenance and construction all over the country. “Iikawa” (good rivers) does not refer to construction but the concept of preservation. A sense of dedication to the people of the local area is indispensable. “Iikawa-zukuri” (management of good rivers) has been initiated through public participation in the local area.

How can we integrate the notion of fudo into river management procedures? To answer this question, I explore the meanings of the term fudo in the Japanese tradition, and interpret river management systems on the basis of this notion. There are two major works associated with fudo: the ancient text titled Fudoki and Fudo by Watsuji Tetsuro. These works tell us that fudo does not correspond to a static image of the landscape but instead signifies a dynamic moment that involves interplay between various factors (including humans, nonhuman beings, and natural systems) and leads to the development of unique local conditions. It is important to note that fudo cannot be understood on the basis of the dichotomy between subject and object. The term ”trajectivity,” which I borrow from Augustin Berque, lends a necessary perspective to understanding this notion. I myself interpret fudo in light of the spatiality and temporality of human existence. People dwell in a certain space that possesses unique geographical and climatic conditions. They live there and interact with each other and their environs, and develop local history. Both the geographical conditions and history need to be taken into account in order to recognize the depth of the value of a certain fudo.

In 2006, the Ministry of Land and Transportation promulgated the policy for the biodiversity reconstruction of rivers. This policy is supplemented by the guideline for river landscapes, which was published almost simultaneously. These two official documents herald the arrival of a new trend in Japanese river management policies. What is significant about this new trend is that it requires us to pay careful attention not only to the qualities of ecosystems and landscapes but also to the local lifestyles and culture that have developed in each region. In other words, fudo began to be considered to be an essential element in the process of restoring and managing rivers. The concept of flood control, for example, will be reinterpreted if we incorporate the notion of fudo. Today, flood control mainly focuses on the protection of human life and private property. The quality of ecological conditions and landscapes has not been sufficiently considered in the process of designing flood control procedures. Further, the value of local culture and history has not been taken into account. The notion of fudo teaches us the indispensability of recognizing the ecological, environmental, cultural, and historical values of a place. These values need to be examined in order to determine the type of construction or reconstruction projects that are promoted. The establishment of a new policy for river management is a significant step toward the development of a system of multiperspectival infrastructure management that incorporates the concept of fudo.

The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis proposes that the indicators of environmental degradation first rise and then fall with increasing income per capita. Since this hypothesis was presented as evidence against the limit to growth, it attracted considerable attention and many empirical studies have emerged from the early 1990s. However, recently, some controversial studies have questioned the robustness of these studies. Therefore, this study reexamines the validity of this hypothesis more robustly by applying the parametric approach of instrumental variables estimation and seemingly unrelated regression, and the nonparametric approach. Specifically, we use panel datasets of two environmental indicators of SO₂ and CO₂ for about 90 countries. Then, the future policy implications of the EKC are provided for discussions.

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is one of the key policy measures for creating a sustainable society. We consider that the essence of effective SEA is to ensure the transparency of the administrative procedure on SEA through information disclosure, public participation, and connection to the appeal system. Both programmatic environmental impact assessments under NEPA (1969) of the U.S. and nonproject review (NPR) under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA, 1971) of Washington State are considered to be equivalent to SEA. Under these systems, the federal agencies and/or Washington State agencies are required to conduct a review on the possible environmental impacts caused by the application of policies, plans, and programs. In particular, the NPR system has been characterized as the most advanced system in terms of the level of integration of an SEA with planning processes.

In this paper, we describe the environmental impact assessment (EIA) and SEA process under the SEPA. We also consider the background of the NPR procedure by focusing on the above three institutionalized systems, information disclosure, public participation, and appeal under the SEPA.

This paper discusses the amount of regional social capital (SC) that has been used in municipal solid waste management (MSWM) from the view point of efficiency. Recently, local governments are facing financial difficulties; therefore, they need to use regional capital. Regional SC consists of the capabilities that establish trust, norms, and relevant networks in the region. Every city has regional SC; however, it is unclear whether this regional SC has been used efficiently in MSWM. In this paper, the efficiency in the utilization of regional SC for MSWM is analyzed using data envelopment analysis (DEA). Thirteen ordinance-designated cities in Japan are chosen as case study cities. Finally, the following results are obtained: regional SC is not necessarily used as the main management capacity; instead, technology has served as the main management capacity. Moreover, if the quantity of regional SC is rich, the contribution of regional SC for MSWM does not always increase. However, the contribution of regional SC has increased after the 3R policies were adopted in 2000.

A cooperative delivery system is one of the effective ways to reduce pollution and the logistics cost through the reduction of the total transport distance. However, the effect of a cooperative delivery system is not clarified because this effect depends on the location of the distribution center.

In order to describe this effect, an ”iso-effect curve” is introduced in this paper to show the effect of a cooperative delivery system. Moreover, three case studies are analyzed.

Finally, this paper explains the methodology for clarifying the effect of a cooperative delivery system.