Showing papers by "Yoshinori Nakagawa published in 2018"

Psychological and Behavioral Predictors of Rural In‐migration

Abstract: In recent times, many studies have been conducted to understand those who migrate to rural areas. However, few have investigated the psychological and behavioral factors that affect people's decisions to migrate to rural areas. This study identifies the psychological and behavioral factors that have been suggested in the psychology literature and in rural studies as factors affecting people's decision to move to rural areas. The study is unique in that it categorizes the psychological states during the process of rural migration decision into three levels and identifies how psychological and behavioral factors affect people at each level. Researchers collected data from 906 respondents in Japan, including 128 people who had migrated to rural areas. The findings show that environmental and health concerns were significantly associated with initiating the procedure of the rural migration decision, while motives related to spiritual growth and employment were strongly connected with completing the procedure by actually migrating to rural areas. These findings contribute to a better understanding of a question that attracts a great deal of political attention in Japan: Why are rural areas gaining popularity especially after the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011? This study represents the first time that the importance of psychological and behavioral traits, as measured by psychometrically sound scales, has been confirmed within a model explaining the decision to migrate to rural areas.

Does deliberation change individual opinions and hence resolve the intergenerational sustainability dilemma in societies

Abstract: The current generation affects future generations, but the opposite is not true. This oneway nature induces the current generation to take advantage of resources without considering future generations, which we call “intergenerational sustainability dilemma (ISD).†While deliberation is known to bring a change in individual opinions and lead to a better group decision in some settings, little is known about whether it resolves ISD. We examine how deliberation changes individual opinions and then can be a resolution for ISD in societies. To this end, an ISD game (ISDG) along with interviews and questionnaires are instituted in rural and urban areas of Nepalese societies. In ISDG, a sequence of six generations, each of which consists of three people, is organized, and each generation chooses either to maintain intergenerational sustainability (sustainable option) or to maximize her own generation’s payoff by irreversibly imposing a cost on future generations (unsustainable option) under “deliberative†process. Our result demonstrates that urban subjects have a wider variety of individual initial opinions and support an unsustainable option more often than do rural subjects. It also shows that individual opinions change through deliberation when subjects in a generation do not share the same initial opinion, reflecting that more urban subjects change opinions. However, we identify that such changes do not work in the direction to enhance intergenerational sustainability and thus urban generations remain to choose an unsustainable option. Our experiment demonstrates that deliberation is not a resolution for ISD.

Concerns for future generations in societies: A deliberative analysis on intergenerational sustainability dilemma

Abstract: “Intergenerational sustainability dilemma (ISD)†is a serious problem in that the current generation tends to choose actions to her benefit without considering future generations. However, little is known about how people deliberate and what kind of “concepts†people bring to decide on ISD in societies. We institute field experiments of an ISD game (ISDG) and conduct qualitative deliberative analysis in rural and urban societies of Nepal. A sequence of six generations, each of which consists of three people, is organized and each generation is asked to choose whether to maintain intergenerational sustainability (sustainable option) or maximize her payoff by irreversibly imposing costs on future generations (unsustainable option) in ISDG. Each generation makes a 10-minutes discussion for the decision, enabling deliberative analysis in ISD. The qualitative deliberative analysis shows that the attitudes and concepts, such as ideas, motivations and reasoning, that people discuss during deliberation vary between urban and rural people. A considerable portion of urban people are identified to be “stable†as an “influencer†that consistently argues her support for unsustainable option, while another considerable portion of urban people are “dependent†as a “conditional follower.†Together with this fact, urban subjects bring concepts not to consider future generations more frequently and widely during their deliberation than do rural people, leading urban generations to choose unsustainable option. Overall, our deliberative analysis finds that urban subjects may be losing concerns for future generations.

Is an intergenerational retrospective viewpoint effective in forming policy preferences for financial sustainability in local and national economies? A deliberative experimental approach

Abstract: Several previous studies have suggested potential benefits of intergenerational retrospective viewpoints to both promote individuals’ policy preferences and resolve intergenerational sustainability issues. This study extends this line of research by conducting a deliberation experiment on the challenging issue of determining financial policy at the municipal and national levels, and assessing the versatility of this process. A total of 353 participants were allocated into retrospective and non-retrospective treatment groups. In each group, participants were asked to read the case-method material created for the study and each individual expressed his or her most preferred options, both before and after experiencing deliberation among a group of four participants. By doing so, the relationships between the roles of the retrospective treatment, individual psychological/behavioral characteristics, and deliberation were clarified. The results confirm that a retrospective assessment influences individuals’ policy preferences at the municipal level but not at the national level. Specifically, with regard to the former, it was found that, for those who are strong in generativity and critical thinking, the retrospective treatment was effective in changing their policy preferences towards more sustainable choices. For those who are average with respect to these traits, the retrospective treatment was effective when coupled with deliberation. For those who are below average in terms of these characteristics, the retrospective treatment was ineffective even when coupled with deliberation. Overall, deliberation and retrospective treatment complemented each other as way to induce more subjects to choose sustainable options. We also discuss implications for the practice of stakeholder workshops such as scenario development, where the difficulty and importance of participants’ disengagement from the present has been recognized (Vergragt and Quist 2011).