Human Dimensions Studies on Programs for Reducing Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Tochigi Prefecture, Japan

  • Ryo Sakurai
Part of the Ecological Research Monographs book series (ECOLOGICAL)


This chapter introduces a series of human dimensions studies conducted at Tochigi Prefecture, with a specific focus on the Model District Program. In Sect. 5.1, I explain the background of the Model District Program. The results of the interviews and surveys conducted among local residents to understand the impacts of this program are explained. The two issues faced by the program are then highlighted: the sustainability of the intervention and the broad participation of residents. Section 5.2 explains the results of the surveys conducted among local residents of two model districts. Based on social-psychological theories developed in the USA (the Theory of Planned Behavior and the wildlife acceptance capacity model), the study revealed that social norms significantly explained residents’ behavioral intentions, while risk perceptions significantly explained residents’ capacity for wildlife acceptance. Section 5.3 examines some comparative studies carried out over different years and districts. The results revealed in model districts where participatory interventions were implemented, residents were more likely to engage in damage prevention measures. They were also more satisfied with government performance than in neighboring districts not subject to interventions. Over time, however, the number of the participants in model district interventions decreased, indicating the importance of maintaining motivation among residents.


  1. Agee JD, Miller CA. Factors contributing toward acceptance of lethal control of black bears in Central Georgia, USA. Hum Dimens Wildl. 2009;14:198–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckman J, editors. Action control: from cognition to behavior. Heidelberg: Springer; 1985. p. 11–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. London: Prentice-Hall International, Inc; 1980. p. 278.Google Scholar
  4. Akiba H, Miller CA, Matsuda H. Factor influencing public preference for raccoon eradication plan in Kanagawa, Japan. Hum Dimens Wildl. 2012;17:207–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baruch-Mordo S, Breck SW, Wilson KR, Broderick J. A tool box half full: how social science can help solve human-wildlife conflict. Hum Dimens Wildl. 2009;14:219–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carpenter LH, Decker DJ, Lipscomb JF. Stakeholder acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Hum Dimens Wildl. 2000;5:5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Decker DJ, Purdy KG. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Wildl Soc Bull. 1988;16:53–7.Google Scholar
  8. Decker DJ, Brown TL, Siemer WF. Human dimensions of wildlife management in North America. Bethesda: The Wildlife Society; 2001, 447 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Decker DJ, Riley SJ, Siemer WF. Human dimensions of wildlife management. 2nd ed. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  10. Enari H, Suzuki T. Risk of agricultural and property damage associated with the recovery of Japanese monkey populations. Landsc Urban Plan. 2010;97:83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ericsson G, Heberlein T. Attitudes of hunters, locals, and the general public in Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biol Conserv. 2003;111:149–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferraro PJ, Pattanayak SK. Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. Public Lib Sci Biol. 2006;4(4):482–8.Google Scholar
  13. Gigliotti L, Decker DJ, Carpenter LH. Developing the wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity concept: research needed. Hum Dimens Wildl. 2000;5:76–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hashimoto K, Ko K, Fujinaga H, Lutz R. Predictive ability of the theory of planned behavior for mental health outcomes in Japanese vs. Chinese students. J Health Sci. 2008;30:27–37. (in Japanese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  15. Hayabuchi Y. Spillover effect of environmental education. Kyoto: Nakanishiya Press; 2008. (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  16. Hirose Y. Determinants of environment-conscious behavior. Res Soc Psychol. 1994;10(1):44–55. (in Japanese with English abstract).Google Scholar
  17. Hirose Y, Kobayashi H, Shima T. Clarification of the impact of determinant of preference of non-farmers to the Irrigation Water Wheels on motive of conservation action. J Rural Plan. 2010;32:287–92. (in Japanese with English abstract)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Honda Y. Factors affecting non-farmers’ participation in maintenance of irrigation and drainage canals: focusing on styles of irrigation water management and canal maintenance. J Rural Plan. 2011;30:74–82. (in Japanese with English abstract)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hrubes D, Ajzen I, Daigle J. Predicting hunting intentions and behavior: an application of the theory of planned behavior. Leis Sci. 2001;23:165–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jonker SA, Organ JF, Muth RM, Zwick RR, Siemer WF. Stakeholder norms toward beaver management in Massachusetts. J Wildl Manag. 2009;73:1158–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kanuma City. Agricultural damage of Kanuma City. 2008. (in Japanese). Accessed 29 Oct 2012.
  22. Kanuma City. Data of Kanuma city. 2010. (in Japanese).,20117,147,510.html. Accessed 5 Nov 2013.
  23. Kikuchi N. Revived oriental white stork. Tokyo: Tokyo University; 2006. (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  24. Kimura M, Miyagi A, Ide S. Key factors in sustaining river conservation activities by community associations – case of Jichikais’ in Moriyama, Shiga. Environ Syst Res. 2008;36:475–83. (in Japanese with English abstract)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kinoshita D, Kuki Y, Hoshino S, Takeyama E. Present state of the group activities to decrease agricultural damage caused by wildlife and possibility of non-farmers’ cooperation on the activities in paddy areas: cases study in Nantan region, Kyoto Prefecture. J Rural Plan. 2009;27:227–32. (in Japanese with English abstract)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krebs, C. J. 2001. Ecology: Fifth edition. Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco., , 695 pp.Google Scholar
  27. Majic A, Bodonia AMT, Huber D, Bunnefeld N. Dynamics of public attitudes toward bears and the role of bear hunting in Croatia. Biol Conserv. 2011;144:3018–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin SR, McCurdy K. Wilderness food storage in Yosemite: using the theory of planned behavior to understand backpacker canister use. Hum Dimens Wildl. 2009;14:206–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maruyama T. Study about macaques conservation and management system at cities, towns, and villages. Yaseichojyu Kenkyu Kiyo (Bull Wildl Tochigi Prefecture). 2005;31:34–40. (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  30. Maruyama Y. Environmental issues of macaques and people: between nature conservation and damage regarding Japanese macaques. Kyoto: Showado; 2006. (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  31. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Agricultural damage by wildlife in each prefecture. 2007. (in Japanese). Accessed 8 Feb 2018.
  32. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Agricultural damage by wildlife in each prefecture. 2015. (in Japanese). Accessed 22 Jan 2015.
  33. Misaka K. Development of a model of psychological processes for promotion of environmental education. Environ Educ. 2003;13(1):3–14. (in Japanese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  34. Mizuhara T. Introduction to social psychology. The second edition. Theory and practice. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press; 1989. 260pp. (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  35. Murase Y, Takada H, Hirose T. Multivariate statistics using SPSS. Tokyo: Ohmsha; 2009. 351pp. (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  36. Nasushiobara City. Statistical record of Nasushiobara city: 2010. 2010. Accessed 29 Dec 2011.
  37. Nasushiobara City. Statistical record of Nasushiobara city: 2010. 2011. (in Japanese). Accessed 6 June 2011.
  38. Niibe K, Yano Y, Matsuda N, Takahashi Y, Maruyama T. Population of and damage caused by large mammals based on questionnaire survey. Yaseichojyu Kenkyu Kiyo (Bull Wildl Tochigi Prefecture). 2008;34:39–47. (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  39. Nikko City. Data of the city. 2010. (in Japanese). Accessed 3 Nov 2013.
  40. NTT East Japan. Hello Page: Nasushiobara District of Tochigi Prefecture. Individual names. Tokyo: NTT East Japan; 2011.Google Scholar
  41. Ohtomo S. Dual decision making process of environment-risk behavior and the influence of prototype perception of the environmentally nonconscious person. Environ Educ. 2004;13(2):25–34. (in Japanese with English abstract).Google Scholar
  42. Pouta E, Rekola M. The theory of planned behavior in predicting willingness to pay for abatement of forest regeneration. Soc Nat Resour. 2001;14:93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Riley SJ, Decker DJ. Risk perception as a factor in wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars in Montana. Hum Dimens Wildl. 2000;5:50–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roskaft E, Bjerke T, Kaltenborn B, Linnell JDC, Anderson R. Patterns of self-reported fear towards large carnivores among the Norwegian public. Evol Hum Behav. 2003;24:184–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rossi AN, Armstrong JB. Theory of reasoned action vs. theory of planned behavior: testing the suitability and sufficiency of a popular behavior model using hunting intentions. Hum Dimens Wildl. 1999;4:40–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rossi PH, Lipsey MW, Freeman HE. Evaluation: a systematic approach. 7th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication; 2004.Google Scholar
  47. Ryu Y, Sasaki R. Evaluation theories and techniques. Tokyo: Taga Shuppan; 2010. p. 217. (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  48. Sakurai R. Chapter 9: Collaborative approach for coexistence with wildlife in rural regions of Japan. In: Frank B, Gilkman JA, Marchini S, editors. Human-wildlife interactions: turning conflict into coexistence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2019.Google Scholar
  49. Sakurai R, Ueda G, Jacobson SK. Survey of residents regarding the Asiatic black bear at Tajima region of Hyogo Prefecture: designing and conducting questionnaire survey for policy application and management interventions. Wildl Conserv Jpn. 2012a;12(2):33–46. (in Japanese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  50. Sakurai R, Ueda G, Jacobson SK. Effectiveness of the community bear education seminar – conducting pre and post survey at Hidaka Town of Toyooka City in Hyogo Prefecture. Kyosei Stud. 2012b;6:380–92. (in Japanese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  51. Sakurai R, Matsuda N, Maruyama T, Jacobson SK. Overview of the model district program for reducing human-wildlife conflicts in Tochigi Prefecture. Wildl Hum Soc. 2013a;1:47–54. (in Japanese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  52. Sakurai R, Jacobson SK, Ueda G. Public perceptions of risk and government performance regarding bear management in Japan. Ursus. 2013b;24:70–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sakurai R, Enari H, Matsuda N, Maruyama T. Testing social-psychological theories to predict residents’ behavioral intentions regarding wildlife issues – application of theory of planned behavior and wildlife acceptance capacity model. Honyurui Kagaku (Mamm Sci). 2014a;54(2):219–30. (in Japanese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  54. Sakurai R, Matsuda N, Maruyama T, Takahashi Y. Residents’ perceptions of wildlife conflicts at Momurahonden of Nasushiobara city: comparison with previous year and neighbor communities. Yaseichojyu Kenkyu Kiyo (Bull Wildl Tochigi Prefecture). 2014b;39:61–6. (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  55. Sakurai R, Jacobson SK, Ueda G. Public perceptions of significant wildlife in Hyogo, Japan. Hum Dimens Wildl. 2014c;19:88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sorice MG, Conner JR. Predicting private landowner intentions to enroll in an incentive program to protect endangered species. Hum Dimens Wildl. 2010;15:77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sudo H. Determinants of exercise adherence of middle-aged women in the gym. Sport Sci Res. 2008;5:96–107. (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  58. Suwa H, Yamamoto H, Okada I, Ohta T. Path analysis model for development of environmental education program to promote environment-conscious behavior. J Soc Inf. 2006;18(1):59–70. (in Japanese with English abstract).Google Scholar
  59. The Nature Conservation Society of Japan. Wildlife conservation and law from ecological perspectives: toward conservation of biological diversity. Tokyo: Kodansha; 2010. (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  60. Tochigi Prefecture. Biodiversity and Tochigi Strategy: connecting and coexisting lives at Tochigi. Tochigi: Nature Preservation Division, Department of Environment and Forestry, Tochigi Prefecture; 2010. (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  61. Utsunomiya University. The Satoyama wildlife management technologist training program. 2012. (in Japanese). Accessed 23 Mar 2012.
  62. Watanabe O, Ogura S. Relationship between perceptions toward wildlife values and opinions about wildlife management policy in rural areas of central Japan. Wildl Conserv Jpn. 1996;2(1):1–15. (in Japanese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  63. Yamabata N. Mitigate effect on damage to food crops achieved by collaboration of a whole village for chase-off of monkeys: verification in 6 area of Mie Prefecture. J Rural Plan. 2009;28:273–8. (in Japanese with English abstract)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yamabata N. Effect of improved countermeasures to agricultural damage by wildlife on farmers’ awareness of farmland management: a study of community in Mie Prefecture. J Rural Plan. 2010;29:245–60. (in Japanese with English abstract).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yamabata N. Effect of chasing away by village on the home range and appearances of a macaques group: verification in 7 area of Mie Prefecture. J Rural Plan. 2011;30:381–6. (in Japanese with English abstract).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yamamoto T, Nagasawa T. Motivation factors of local residents’ participation in the maintenance works of irrigation and drainage facilities. J Rural Plan. 2010;28:387–92. (in Japanese with English abstract).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yorifuji K, Hirose Y. Determinants of children’s waste-reduction behavior. Environ Educ. 2002;12(1):26–36. (in Japanese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  68. Zinn HC, Manfredo MJ, Vaske JJ. Social psychological bases for stakeholder acceptance capacity. Hum Dimens Wildl. 2000;5:20–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryo Sakurai
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Policy ScienceRitsumeikan UniversityOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations