Many intervention- or education-based programs, often run by NGOs or local governments have been arising in areas of significant human-wildlife conflict. For many reasons, these programs do not typically evaluate their own success. This research looks at the success of a one-year program in a town in Japan. Previous studies that do look at the success of such programs have mixed results, which are often dependent on length of the program, location, and culture. This type of program is important in Japan, as $200 million USD of damage occurs in agricultural and mountainous areas of Japan each year due to human-wildlife conflicts. Additionally, these programs seek widespread success because collective action is necessary to solving this type of problem. A “Model District Program” was launched in Fukahodo, Japan in 2010. The Nature Preservation Division in Japan ran activities to help solve wildlife damage issues. The model district program sought to equip the community with knowledge and skills to eventually support wildlife damage prevention on their own.
This study compared Fukahodo, the model district, with the adjacent Kuno district as a control. The two cities have similar size, population, and wildlife damage. The researchers distributed questionnaires in both districts to learn about 5 variables: attitudes toward damage control behaviors, perceived behavioral control, subjective norm (expectations of neighbors and family of one's behaviors), risk perception, and social trust. Throughout the year, the model district had 8 activities regarding wildlife damage prevention issues.
The researchers used chi-squared and one-way ANOVA analyses to compare the two districts. The study relied on the Theory of Planned Behavior for understanding and predicting behavioral intentions as well as the Theory of Diffusion and Innovation for spreading ideas and behaviors from early adopters and community leaders to the general public. The study did not collect data on actual behaviors; the authors justified this by citing prior studies that suggest that behavioral intentions are associated with consequent behaviors.
First, the researchers looked at the demographics of respondents. More respondents from Kuno were men than in Fukahodo, but they did not report significant differences in age or experienced wildlife damage between the two districts. Then the researchers analyzed the differences in the five variables: attitudes toward damage control behaviors, perceived behavioral control, subjective norm, risk perception, and social trust. The only statistically significant difference between the two towns was perceived behavioral control (reported knowing how to prevent wildlife damage). This is supported by other similar studies. Then, upon performing a regression analysis, the researchers found that subjective norm and risk perception were both significant explanations of behavioral intentions in Fukahodo and Kuno. Risk perception was a larger predictor in Kuno than in the model district. The results were limited, which aligns with similar studies, saying that longer-term programs may be necessary. One unexpected result was that Fukahodo residents created an “Association for Protecting Satoyama.” This program ran their own activities but there was overlap in themes and participants. Thus, it was difficult for the researchers to separate the successes of the model district program from the activities of the association.
The findings show that this one-year model district program is not as successful as it could be. The differences between the model district and the control district were limited, considering that community engagement was not significantly different. One promising result of this study is that residents from the model district self-reported better knowledge of how to prevent wildlife damage than in the control district. This indicates that the programming in the model district was effective for those who attended. Unfortunately, this was the only statistically significant difference between the two districts in terms of cognitive factors, meaning that the program as it currently is, does not have the ability to create widespread improvements.
The study had numerous limitations. The model district program had already started when they began the study. As a result, the researchers could not perform random assignment. Additionally, the researchers thought that evaluation of the success of the program could be better analyzed through comparing data collected from the same population at the beginning and the end of the program, instead of comparing the model district to a control district. There was also sampling bias. The questionnaires were distributed differently in the two districts, which could have caused different people to fill it out. The study recommends longer programs, even though they could lose motivation and participation after long periods of time. The researchers suggest that programs like this target respected groups or individuals in the community while publicizing (aligning with the Theory of Diffusion of Innovation).
The Bottom Line
<p>This research shows that 1-year programs in Japan that work to counteract wildlife damage have limited success. Comparing and contrasting with similar studies, it appears that the degree and types of success rely heavily on the culture. While subjective norm was found to be a significant predictor of behavioral intentions in Japan, it has not been found significant in many U.S.-based studies. The researchers propose that collectivistic cultures will respond to these programs differently from individualistic cultures. Intervention programs like this need reforms. Whether they should be longer, have more events, or cater more to the interests/worries of the residents, the current system does not appear effective.</p>
Research Partner