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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Originally “genkai shuraku” in Japanese, this term has not yet been officially translated by Prof. Ohono into English. Alternative translations of meaning can be “marginal settlement,” “marginal hamlet,” or “dying community/settlement.” Similar expressions such as “peripheral” or “remote” are also used in studies on rural communities. Yet, in this study, “marginal community” is used to refer to Ohno’s definition of “genkai shuraku” and “remote” is used to refer to “geographically distant ” areas.
The expression 'shi' indicates a city-level municipality in Japan. In local governance, each prefecture is composed of municipalities, that is either city (shi), town (machi), or village (mura). These categories are defined by the size of the population. For example, Akita prefecture is composed on 13 shi, 9 machi, and 3 mura. In Japanese local governance, 'shi,' although its translation to English is 'city,' does not indicate an urban or populated area.
“Act on Special Financial Measures for Comprehensive Development of Public Facilities for Distant Areas” Act No. 88 of 1962. This law ordains special financial measures to set up systematic and comprehensive development of public facilities for municipalities in which selected distant areas exist. This law aims to redress the significant disparity in living standards and cultural levels of residents between distant and other areas.
Originally it was called the “fukushiteki” approach in Japanese. This term has not yet been officially translated into English by either Niinuma or Sakuno. The authors translated it into English as “welfare-based.”
References
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
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
Bell S, Morse S (2008) Sustainability indicators measuring the immeasurable. Eathscan, UK, p 228
Berry B (1977) Urbanisation and counterurbanization. Sega Publications, London, p 329
Bijker RA, Haartsen T (2011) More than Counter-urbanisation!: migration. Wiley Online Libr 15. doi:10.1002/psp
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
Champion T (1989) Counterurbanization: the changing pace and nature of population deconcentration. Edward Arnold, London, p 226
Champion T, Shepherd J (2006) Demographic change in rural England. The ageing countryside: the growing older population of rural England, pp 29–50
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 Care
European Commission (2009) Ageing report: economic and budgetary projections for the EU-27 Member States (2008–2060). Eur Econ. doi:10.2765/80301
Fujii T, Tarumi A, Fujiwara M (2009) Possibility of village sustainment and resource management. J Jpn For Soc 91:391–397
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
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
Kasamatsu H (2009) Shokibo koureika shuuraku nosaiseini mukete [For Regeneration of Small Scale and Aging Hamlets]. Bull Shimane Prefect Mt Reg Res Center 5:73–76
Klinthäll M (2006) Retirement return migration from Sweden. Int Migr 44(2):28
MIC (2011) National Census 2010. Executive Summary, p 4
MLIT (2011) Long-term Outlook 2011
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
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):21–36
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 3–4
Odagiri T (2009) Nousonsaisei [Regenerating Agricultural Communities in Mountainous Regions]. Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo
Odagiri T (2011). Shurakusaisei [Regeneration of Rural Community]. Gyousei, Tokyo, pp 35–68
Ohno A (2005) Sanson kankyo shakaigaku jyosetsu [Introduction to Environmental Sociology of Mountain Villages]. Nouson gyoson bunka kyokai, Tokyo
Ohno A (2008) Genkai shuraku to chiiki saisei [Marginal Community and Regional Regeneration]. Kochi Shinbunsha, Kouchi, p 313
RDPC (2008) Genkai shuraku ni okeru shuraku kinou no jittaitouni kannsuru chousa [Report of the Survey on Community Function in Marginal Community]
Sakuno H (2006) The Problems and expectations of regional development in Hilly-mountainous region and correspondence of Rural Settlements. Jpn Assoc Econ Geogr 52:46–64
Stiglitz J, Sen A, Fitoussi J-P (2010) Mis-measuring our lives, why GDP doesn’t add up. The New Press, New York, p 136
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):2–22
Tamasato E (2009) Koureisyakai to Nousonkouzou [Aging Society and Structure of Agricultural Community]. Showadou, Kyoto
Tasaki T, Kameyama Y, Hashimoto S, Moriguchi Y, Harasawa H (2010) A survey of national sustainable development indicators. Int J Sustain Dev 13(4):331–360
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Handled by Masahiro Matsuura, University of Tokyo, Japan.
Appendix: Questionnaire for the household survey
Appendix: Questionnaire for the household survey
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kudo, S., Yarime, M. Divergence of the sustaining and marginalizing communities in the process of rural aging: a case study of Yurihonjo-shi, Akita, Japan. Sustain Sci 8, 491–513 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-012-0197-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-012-0197-x