Table 1
Descriptive statistics for the selected group forest holdings (N = 19690).
| No. | Description | Average | S.D. | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| v1 | New planting area/Total plantation area | 0.0064 | 0.0621 | 0 | 1 |
| v2 | Weeding area/Total plantation area | 0.0665 | 0.1875 | 0 | 1 |
| v3 | Thinning area/Total plantation area | 0.0402 | 0.1362 | 0 | 1 |
| v4 | Harvesting area/Total plantation area | 0.0018 | 0.0281 | 0 | 1 |
| v5 | Timber sales volume of standing trees (m3)/Total holding area (ha) | 0.4773 | 8.3846 | 0 | 466.7 |
| v6 | Total holding area (ha) | 74.7284 | 393.5792 | 10 | 29649 |
| v7 | Total plantation area/Total holding area | 0.6501 | 0.3551 | 0.0005 | 1 |
| v8 | Customary common holdings* | 0.4816 | 0.4997 | 0 | 1 |
[i] * Dummy variables. If “yes”, the value is one.
Table 2
Correlation matrix among variables (N = 19690).
| v1 | v2 | v3 | v4 | v5 | v6 | v7 | v8 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New planting | Weeding | Thinning | Harvesting | Timber sales | Holding area | Plantation ratio | Customary | ||
| New planting | v1 | 1.0000 | 0.1657 | 0.0007 | 0.0846 | 0.0111 | –0.0054 | –0.0647 | –0.0067 |
| Weeding | v2 | 0.1657 | 1.0000 | 0.1088 | 0.0375 | –0.0017 | –0.0112 | –0.1158 | 0.0389 |
| Thinning | v3 | 0.0007 | 0.1088 | 1.0000 | 0.0427 | 0.0484 | –0.0084 | –0.0023 | 0.0173 |
| Harvesting | v4 | 0.0846 | 0.0375 | 0.0427 | 1.0000 | 0.0607 | 0.0031 | –0.0293 | –0.0037 |
| Timber sales | v5 | 0.0111 | –0.0017 | 0.0484 | 0.0607 | 1.0000 | –0.0029 | 0.0200 | –0.0155 |
| Holding area | v6 | –0.0054 | –0.0112 | –0.0084 | 0.0031 | –0.0029 | 1.0000 | –0.0801 | 0.0252 |
| Plantation ratio | v7 | –0.0647 | –0.1158 | –0.0023 | –0.0293 | 0.0200 | –0.0801 | 1.0000 | –0.1175 |
| Customary | v8 | –0.0067 | 0.0389 | 0.0173 | –0.0037 | –0.0155 | 0.0252 | –0.1175 | 1.0000 |
Table 3
Comparison table of forest holdings based on controlling size.
| Size | N | New planting | Weeding | Thinning | Harvesting | Timber sales | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customary | 0–25% | 2055 | 0.6% | 9.7% | 5.2% | 0.2% | 0.44 |
| 25–50% | 2335 | 0.6% | 7.4% | 4.2% | 0.1% | 0.22 | |
| 50–75% | 2700 | 0.8% | 6.8% | 4.3% | 0.2% | 0.36 | |
| 75–100% | 2392 | 0.3% | 6.2% | 3.5% | 0.2% | 0.36 | |
| Non-customary | 0–25% | 3269 | 0.7% | 6.4% | 3.8% | 0.1% | 0.62 |
| 25–50% | 2858 | 0.6% | 5.8% | 3.8% | 0.1% | 0.69 | |
| 50–75% | 2392 | 0.8% | 5.9% | 3.7% | 0.3% | 0.27 | |
| 75–100% | 1689 | 0.6% | 5.4% | 3.9% | 0.3% | 0.89 | |
| (All) | 19690 | ||||||
| Diff. Custom-Non-custom | 0–25% | –0.1% | 3.3%*** | 1.4%** | 0.0% | –0.18 | |
| 25–50% | 0.1% | 1.5%** | 0.4% | 0.0% | –0.47/ | ||
| 50–75% | 0.0% | 0.9%/ | 0.6% | –0.1% | 0.09 | ||
| 75–100% | –0.2%* | 0.8% | –0.4% | 0.0% | –0.54/ |
[i] /: 10%, * : 5%, ** : 1%, *** : 0.1% significance levels.
Diff. indicates non-modernized minus modernized holdings. New planting, Weeding, Thinning, and Harvesting are the ratios of areas receiving such treatments to the total plantation areas in one year before February 2000 (for Okinawa, December 1999). Timber sales are the sales volumes (in cubic meters) sold as standing trees (not as harvested logs) per a hectare of holding areas in one year before February 2000 (for Okinawa, December 1999). Size indicates into which size category holdings fall.
Table 4
Comparison table of forest holdings based on controlling regions.
| Region | N | New planting | Weeding | Thinning | Harvesting | Timber sales | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customary | Hokkaido | 16 | 0.0% | 6.7% | 0.6% | 6.3% | 2.20 |
| Tohoku | 1785 | 0.5% | 7.6% | 4.7% | 0.2% | 0.74 | |
| Hokuriku | 665 | 0.7% | 13.2% | 2.7% | 0.0% | 0.05 | |
| Kanto/Tozan | 1262 | 0.5% | 5.1% | 3.1% | 0.1% | 0.13 | |
| Tokai | 997 | 0.3% | 6.1% | 5.2% | 0.1% | 0.22 | |
| Kinki | 1864 | 0.4% | 6.0% | 4.2% | 0.2% | 0.24 | |
| Chugoku | 1208 | 1.1% | 8.0% | 2.9% | 0.2% | 0.44 | |
| Shikoku | 297 | 0.4% | 3.2% | 5.8% | 0.4% | 0.21 | |
| Kyusyu | 1387 | 0.7% | 9.8% | 5.8% | 0.2% | 0.32 | |
| Non-customary | Hokkaido | 447 | 1.2% | 6.8% | 6.2% | 0.3% | 0.22 |
| Tohoku | 2985 | 0.7% | 6.8% | 3.7% | 0.2% | 0.71 | |
| Hokuriku | 393 | 0.5% | 10.6% | 2.7% | 0.0% | 0.03 | |
| Kanto/Tozan | 1380 | 0.5% | 5.1% | 3.9% | 0.2% | 1.14 | |
| Tokai | 939 | 0.5% | 4.7% | 3.7% | 0.1% | 0.47 | |
| Kinki | 821 | 0.6% | 4.4% | 3.3% | 0.2% | 0.16 | |
| Chugoku | 1088 | 1.2% | 5.8% | 2.4% | 0.0% | 0.26 | |
| Shikoku | 657 | 0.5% | 3.3% | 4.0% | 0.1% | 0.40 | |
| Kyusyu | 1498 | 0.6% | 6.4% | 4.6% | 0.3% | 0.83 | |
| (All) | 19689 | ||||||
| Diff. Custom-Non-custom | Hokkaido | –1.2% | –0.1% | –5.6% | 5.9%*** | 1.97** | |
| Tohoku | –0.2% | 0.8% | 0.9%* | 0.0% | 0.03 | ||
| Hokuriku | 0.2% | 2.7%/ | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.02 | ||
| Kanto/Tozan | 0.1% | 0.0% | –0.8% | –0.2%/ | –1.01* | ||
| Tokai | –0.2% | 1.4%/ | 1.5%* | 0.1% | –0.25 | ||
| Kinki | –0.1% | 1.6%* | 0.9%/ | 0.0% | 0.07 | ||
| Chugoku | –0.1% | 2.2%** | 0.5% | 0.1% | 0.17 | ||
| Shikoku | –0.1% | 0.0% | 1.8%/ | 0.3% | –0.19 | ||
| Kyusyu | 0.1% | 3.4%*** | 1.2%* | –0.1% | –0.51 |
[i] /: 10%, * : 5%, ** : 1%, *** : 0.1% significance levels.
Diff. indicates non-modernized minus modernized holdings.
The total number of sample is 19,689 since one case from Okinawa was omitted.
Table 5
Comparison table of forest holdings based on controlling regional groups according to their advances in terms of modernization.
| Regional types by modernization | N | New planting | Weeding | Thinning | Harvesting | Timber sales | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customary | Advanced | 3615 | 0.7% | 8.4% | 4.4% | 0.1% | 0.38 |
| Middle | 3911 | 0.6% | 7.1% | 4.0% | 0.2% | 0.33 | |
| Remaining | 1939 | 0.4% | 6.1% | 4.4% | 0.1% | 0.28 | |
| Hokkaido, Okinawa | 17 | 0.0% | 6.3% | 0.6% | 5.9% | 2.07 | |
| Non-customary | Advanced | 4074 | 0.7% | 5.8% | 4.3% | 0.2% | 0.54 |
| Middle | 3110 | 0.6% | 6.1% | 3.5% | 0.1% | 0.52 | |
| Remaining | 2577 | 0.7% | 5.9% | 3.0% | 0.3% | 0.87 | |
| Hokkaido, Okinawa | 447 | 1.2% | 6.8% | 6.2% | 0.3% | 0.22 | |
| (All) | 19690 | ||||||
| Diff. Custom-Non-custom | Advanced | 0.0% | 2.6%*** | 0.2% | 0.0% | –0.16 | |
| Middle | 0.0% | 1.1%* | 0.6%* | 0.1% | –0.19 | ||
| Remaining | –0.3% | 0.2% | 1.4%*** | –0.1% | –0.58* | ||
| Hokkaido, Okinawa | –1.2% | –0.5% | –5.6% | 5.6%*** | 1.85** |
[i] /: 10%, * : 5%, ** : 1%, *** : 0.1% significance levels.
Table 6
Summary of comparison tables (statistically significant differences).
| Table No. | New planting | Weeding | Thinning | Harvesting | Timber sales | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| + | – | + | – | + | – | + | – | + | – | ||
| C > Non-C | C < Non-C | C > Non-C | C < Non-C | C > Non-C | C < Non-C | C > Non-C | C < Non-C | C > Non-C | C < Non-C | ||
| Sizes | 3 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Regions | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Regional groups | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 0 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | |
[i] Numbers indicate how many differences are statistically significant according to t-tests, by signs of differences. “C > Non-C” indicated the mean for customary holdings is larger than the one for non-customary holdings. “C < Non-C” indicated the mean for customary holdings is smaller than the one for non-customary holdings.
Table 7
Tobit regression (Customary) analyses results (N = 19690).
| New planting | Weeding | Thinning | Harvesting | Timber sales | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimated Coefficient | t-value | Estimated Coefficient | t-value | Estimated Coefficient | t-value | Estimated Coefficient | t-value | Estimated Coefficient | t-value | |
| Intercept | –0.6107 | –8.99 | –0.2563 | –9.43*** | –0.3792 | –11.38*** | –0.6682 | –11.19*** | –145.0108 | –8.08*** |
| Holding area | 0.0000 | 1.84 | 0.0000 | 1.51 | 0.0000 | 1.44 | 0.0000 | 2.50* | 0.0077 | 2.06* |
| Plantation ratio | –0.0849 | –2.61** | –0.1096 | –8.55*** | 0.0670 | 5.34*** | –0.0382 | –1.00 | 6.6530 | 1.74 |
| Customary | 0.0136 | 0.94 | 0.0875 | 16.10*** | 0.0807 | 8.09*** | –0.0099 | –0.63 | –0.1335 | –0.05 |
| (Agricultural regions, Hokkaido and Okinawa cases are the base-line) | ||||||||||
| Tohoku | –0.1635 | –9.64*** | –0.0001 | –0.02 | –0.0700 | –16.25*** | –0.0850 | –7.19*** | 10.9713 | 7.46*** |
| Hokuriku | –0.1639 | –7.79*** | 0.1139 | 12.91*** | –0.1328 | –14.29*** | –0.2298 | –7.01*** | –17.1531 | –5.69*** |
| Kanto/Tozan | –0.1269 | –10.98*** | –0.0208 | –5.18*** | –0.0472 | –10.09*** | –0.0960 | –7.72*** | 9.6700 | 7.44*** |
| Tokai | –0.1198 | –11.44*** | –0.0095 | –1.98* | –0.0245 | –4.43*** | –0.0616 | –6.16*** | 11.5734 | 6.81*** |
| Kinki | –0.1628 | –8.58*** | –0.0377 | –7.21*** | –0.0095 | –1.53 | –0.0660 | –3.92*** | –0.0773 | –0.04 |
| Chugoku | –0.1182 | –7.64*** | –0.0451 | –13.57*** | –0.1639 | –17.78*** | –0.1730 | –7.25*** | –5.8549 | –3.27*** |
| Shikoku | –0.2309 | –10.52*** | –0.1589 | –31.70*** | –0.0636 | –13.61*** | –0.0576 | –9.73*** | –0.3828 | –0.66 |
| Kyushu | –0.0840 | –14.13*** | 0.0739 | 9.34*** | –0.0157 | –2.18* | –0.0115 | –2.11* | 10.8884 | 7.26*** |
| Log likelihood | –2805.6 | –9649.1 | –7687.8 | –1260.4 | –4757.3 | |||||
| Pseudo R squared | 0.0118 | 0.0219 | 0.0196 | 0.0214 | 0.0062 | |||||
[i] * 5%, ** 1%, *** 0.1% significance levels.
Heteroscedasticity robust standard errors clustered by prefecture were employed.