Sustainability Science

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 491–513 | Cite as

Divergence of the sustaining and marginalizing communities in the process of rural aging: a case study of Yurihonjo-shi, Akita, Japan

Original Article

Abstract

This study examines the marginalization process of rural communities, which is caused by the decline of community-based autonomy and various activities in relation to the decline and aging of their populations, based on the frameworks that describe the process in three stages. A field survey was conducted in five rural communities in Yurihonjo-shi in Akita Prefecture, Japan. These communities were selected based on their locations, population decline and aging rates, and population sizes and were categorized into two groups, the remote and the central communities. This survey was composed of two sections: (1) a questionnaire-based survey to households and (2) an interview survey with the chairperson of each community. In order to capture the multidimensionality of residents’ daily lives, sustainable development indicators, which are originally designed to capture the well-being of nations, were utilized to develop the questionnaire. The results demonstrated significant differences between the two groups of communities mainly on four aspects: (1) farming type, (2) visits and roles of out-migrated family, (3) self-evaluation of living conditions, and (4) residents’ future concerns. These findings suggest the current state of the remote community can be seen as that of the “marginalizing” community, for which a welfare-based approach is recommended to secure the living conditions of the residents. On the other hand, the current state of the central community is considered as that of the “sustaining” community for which a revitalization approach is recommended in order to rejuvenate the diminishing community functions.

Keywords

Marginalization process Rural communities Population decline Aging population Sustainable development indicators (SDIs) 

References

  1. Amcoff J (2006) Rural population growth in Sweden in the 1990s: unexpected reality or spatial–statistical chimera? Popul Space Place 12(3):171–185. doi:10.1002/psp Google Scholar
  2. Amcoff J, Westholm E (2007) Understanding rural change—demography as a key to the future. Futures 39(4):363–379. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2006.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell S, Morse S (2008) Sustainability indicators measuring the immeasurable. Eathscan, UK, p 228Google Scholar
  4. Berry B (1977) Urbanisation and counterurbanization. Sega Publications, London, p 329Google Scholar
  5. Bijker RA, Haartsen T (2011) More than Counter-urbanisation!: migration. Wiley Online Libr 15. doi:10.1002/psp
  6. Bull M (2008) Challenging tensions: critical, theoretical and empirical perspectives on social enterprise. Int J Entrepreneurial Behav Res 14(5):268–275. doi:10.1108/13552550810897641 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Champion T (1989) Counterurbanization: the changing pace and nature of population deconcentration. Edward Arnold, London, p 226Google Scholar
  8. Champion T, Shepherd J (2006) Demographic change in rural England. The ageing countryside: the growing older population of rural England, pp 29–50Google Scholar
  9. Economic Policy Committee and European Commission (2006) EUROPEAN ECONOMY. The impact of ageing on public expenditure: projectories for the EU25 member States on pensions, health care, long-term care, education and unemployment transfers (2004–2050). Health CareGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission (2009) Ageing report: economic and budgetary projections for the EU-27 Member States (2008–2060). Eur Econ. doi:10.2765/80301
  11. Fujii T, Tarumi A, Fujiwara M (2009) Possibility of village sustainment and resource management. J Jpn For Soc 91:391–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hugo G, Moren-Alegret R (2008) International migration to non-metropolitan areas of higher income countries. Popul Space Place 477:473–477. doi:10.1002/psp CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalantaridis C (2010) In-migration, entrepreneurship and ruralurban interdependencies: the case of East Cleveland, North East England. J Rural Stud 26:418–427. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kasamatsu H (2009) Shokibo koureika shuuraku nosaiseini mukete [For Regeneration of Small Scale and Aging Hamlets]. Bull Shimane Prefect Mt Reg Res Center 5:73–76Google Scholar
  15. Klinthäll M (2006) Retirement return migration from Sweden. Int Migr 44(2):28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. MIC (2011) National Census 2010. Executive Summary, p 4Google Scholar
  17. MLIT (2011) Long-term Outlook 2011Google Scholar
  18. Muilu T, Rusanen J (2003) Rural young people in regional development—the case of Finland in 1970–2000. J Rural Stud 19(3):295–307. doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(03)00003-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Niinuma S (2009) Considerations on the Maintenance of Village Functions and the Sustainability of Residents’ daily Lives at “Marginal Settlements”: the Case of Settlement M of Hinohara-Mura, Tokyo. E-Jurnal GEO 4(1):21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Noguchi K, Sato S, Kobayashi Y, Himeno Y, Siiba N, Terada M (2010) Classification and characteristics of village by living environment evaluation–living environment and the Sphere in Saiki City, Part 1. Jpn Assoc Econ Geogr 3–4Google Scholar
  21. Odagiri T (2009) Nousonsaisei [Regenerating Agricultural Communities in Mountainous Regions]. Iwanami Shoten, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  22. Odagiri T (2011). Shurakusaisei [Regeneration of Rural Community]. Gyousei, Tokyo, pp 35–68Google Scholar
  23. Ohno A (2005) Sanson kankyo shakaigaku jyosetsu [Introduction to Environmental Sociology of Mountain Villages]. Nouson gyoson bunka kyokai, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  24. Ohno A (2008) Genkai shuraku to chiiki saisei [Marginal Community and Regional Regeneration]. Kochi Shinbunsha, Kouchi, p 313Google Scholar
  25. RDPC (2008) Genkai shuraku ni okeru shuraku kinou no jittaitouni kannsuru chousa [Report of the Survey on Community Function in Marginal Community]Google Scholar
  26. Sakuno H (2006) The Problems and expectations of regional development in Hilly-mountainous region and correspondence of Rural Settlements. Jpn Assoc Econ Geogr 52:46–64Google Scholar
  27. Stiglitz J, Sen A, Fitoussi J-P (2010) Mis-measuring our lives, why GDP doesn’t add up. The New Press, New York, p 136Google Scholar
  28. Takegawa T (2010) A study of living conditions of elderly people in depopulating rural districts and challenges of community care: a survey report on living conditions in Nichinan Town, Tottori Prefecture. Tottori Univ J Fac Reg Sci 7(1):2–22Google Scholar
  29. Tamasato E (2009) Koureisyakai to Nousonkouzou [Aging Society and Structure of Agricultural Community]. Showadou, KyotoGoogle Scholar
  30. Tasaki T, Kameyama Y, Hashimoto S, Moriguchi Y, Harasawa H (2010) A survey of national sustainable development indicators. Int J Sustain Dev 13(4):331–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Program in Sustainability Science (GPSS), Graduate School of Frontier SciencesUniversity of TokyoKashiwaJapan

Personalised recommendations