IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i17p4516-d259412.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investigating Gaps in Perception of Wildlife between Urban and Rural Inhabitants: Empirical Evidence from Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Eri Kato

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, Chiba University, 648 Matsudo, Matsudo-shi 271-8510, Chiba Prefecture, Japan)

  • Yuki Yano

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, Chiba University, 648 Matsudo, Matsudo-shi 271-8510, Chiba Prefecture, Japan)

  • Yasuo Ohe

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, Chiba University, 648 Matsudo, Matsudo-shi 271-8510, Chiba Prefecture, Japan)

Abstract

A decline in natural resource management by rural communities has significantly contributed to human–wildlife conflicts, especially crop-raiding, in Japan. Collaborative wildlife management between existing rural stakeholders and new urban stakeholders is essential to address this problem. However, differences in the perception regarding wildlife exist between rural populations, which have ample direct experience with wildlife, and urban populations, which lack direct experience with wildlife. Consequently, this gap in perception can potentially lead to conflicts between stakeholders during collaborative wildlife management. In this study, content analysis, which has been extensively employed to analyze qualitative data, was performed to elucidate the differences in perception of wildlife between urban and rural stakeholders. An online survey was conducted in December 2016 to understand the perception of wildlife by stakeholders, in which 1401 responses were received. The results indicate that the urban individuals did not have a comprehensive understanding of wildlife and any positive views were primarily abstract. Conversely, rural individuals had diverse perceptions, both positive and negative. Therefore, a novel perceptual gap-narrowing approach based on staged interactions with the rural environment, is suggested. Introduction to rural issues through field-based experiences to urban stakeholders is likely to the narrow gaps in perception between urban and rural stakeholders, in order to allow for efficient and collaborative wildlife management.

Suggested Citation

  • Eri Kato & Yuki Yano & Yasuo Ohe, 2019. "Investigating Gaps in Perception of Wildlife between Urban and Rural Inhabitants: Empirical Evidence from Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-13, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:17:p:4516-:d:259412
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/17/4516/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/17/4516/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gordon M. Hickey & Patrick Forest & Jean L. Sandall & Briony M. Lalor & Rodney J. Keenan, 2013. "Managing the environmental science--policy nexus in government: Perspectives from public servants in Canada and Australia," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(4), pages 529-543, February.
    2. Gibson, Clark C. & Marks, Stuart A., 1995. "Transforming rural hunters into conservationists: An assessment of community-based wildlife management programs in Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 941-957, June.
    3. Vincent R. Nyirenda & Bimo A. Nkhata & Oscar Tembo & Susan Siamundele, 2018. "Elephant Crop Damage: Subsistence Farmers’ Social Vulnerability, Livelihood Sustainability and Elephant Conservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    4. Oded Netzer & Ronen Feldman & Jacob Goldenberg & Moshe Fresko, 2012. "Mine Your Own Business: Market-Structure Surveillance Through Text Mining," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 521-543, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Linas Balčiauskas & Hüseyin Ambarlı & Laima Balčiauskienė & Guna Bagrade & Martynas Kazlauskas & Jānis Ozoliņš & Diana Zlatanova & Agrita Žunna, 2020. "Love Off, Fear On? Brown Bear Acceptance by Teenagers in European Countries with Differing Population Statuses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-15, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gal-Tzur, Ayelet & Grant-Muller, Susan M. & Kuflik, Tsvi & Minkov, Einat & Nocera, Silvio & Shoor, Itay, 2014. "The potential of social media in delivering transport policy goals," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 115-123.
    2. Yu Ding & Wayne S. DeSarbo & Dominique M. Hanssens & Kamel Jedidi & John G. Lynch & Donald R. Lehmann, 2020. "The past, present, and future of measurement and methods in marketing analysis," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 175-186, September.
    3. Daniel M. Ringel & Bernd Skiera, 2016. "Visualizing Asymmetric Competition Among More Than 1,000 Products Using Big Search Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 511-534, May.
    4. Levine, Arielle, 2002. "Convergence or Convenience? International Conservation NGOs and Development Assistance in Tanzania," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 1043-1055, June.
    5. Yuchen Du & Junfeng Chen & Yi Xie, 2023. "The Impacts of the Asian Elephants Damage on Farmer’s Livelihood Strategies in Pu’er and Xishuangbanna in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-14, March.
    6. Wainwright, Carla & Wehrmeyer, Walter, 1998. "Success in integrating conservation and development? A study from Zambia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 933-944, June.
    7. Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2010. "Performance payments: A new strategy to conserve large carnivores in the tropics?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 405-412, December.
    8. Karen Ruckman & Nilesh Saraf & Vallabh Sambamurthy, 2015. "Market Positioning by IT Service Vendors Through Imitation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 100-126, March.
    9. Campbell, Bruce & Mandondo, Alois & Nemarundwe, Nontokozo & Sithole, Bevlyne & De JonG, Wil & Luckert, Marty & Matose, Frank, 2001. "Challenges to Proponents of Common Property Recource Systems: Despairing Voices from the Social Forests of Zimbabwe," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 589-600, April.
    10. Sebele, Lesego S., 2010. "Community-based tourism ventures, benefits and challenges: Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust, Central District, Botswana," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 136-146.
    11. Jiyeon Hong & Paul R. Hoban, 2022. "Writing More Compelling Creative Appeals: A Deep Learning-Based Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(5), pages 941-965, September.
    12. David M Frank & Sahotra Sarkar, 2010. "Group Decisions in Biodiversity Conservation: Implications from Game Theory," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(5), pages 1-10, May.
    13. Mahavarpour, Nasrin & Marvi, Reza & Foroudi, Pantea, 2023. "A Brief History of Service Innovation: The evolution of past, present, and future of service innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    14. Xuan Gong & Yunchan Zhu & Rizwan Ali & Ruijin Guo, 2019. "Capturing Associations and Sustainable Competitiveness of Brands from Social Tags," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-20, March.
    15. Paul Zyambo & Felix K. Kalaba & Vincent R. Nyirenda & Jacob Mwitwa, 2022. "Conceptualising Drivers of Illegal Hunting by Local Hunters Living in or Adjacent to African Protected Areas: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-16, September.
    16. Todd Pezzuti & James M. Leonhardt, 2023. "What’s not to like? Negations in brand messages increase consumer engagement," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 675-694, May.
    17. Schneider, Matthew J. & Gupta, Sachin, 2016. "Forecasting sales of new and existing products using consumer reviews: A random projections approach," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 243-256.
    18. Shu-Heng Chen & Ragupathy Venkatachalam, 2017. "Information aggregation and computational intelligence," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 231-252, June.
    19. Dominik Gutt & Jürgen Neumann & Steffen Zimmermann & Dennis Kundisch & Jianqing Chen, 2018. "Design of Review Systems - A Strategic Instrument to shape Online Review Behavior and Economic Outcomes," Working Papers Dissertations 42, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    20. Uttara Ananthakrishnan & Davide Proserpio & Siddhartha Sharma, 2023. "I Hear You: Does Quality Improve with Customer Voice?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(6), pages 1143-1161, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:17:p:4516-:d:259412. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.