Dec., 2014 Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.5 No.

J. Resour. Ecol. 2014 5 (4) 370-380

DOI:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2014.04.013 GIAHS
www.jorae.cn

Exploring Factors Affecting Farmers’ Implementation of

Wildlife-friendly Farming on Sado Island, Japan

NAKAMURA Satoshi1*, TSUGE Takahiro2*, OKUBO Satoru1, TAKEUCHI Kazuhiko3,4 and USIO Nisikawa5,6**

1 Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Tokyo, 1-1-1 Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8657, Japan;
2 Faculty of Economics, Konan University, 8-9-1 Okamoto, Higashinada-ku, Kobe 658-8501, Japan;
3 Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science, University of Tokyo 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8654, Japan;
4 United Nations University, 5-53-70 Jingumae, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 150-8925, Japan;
5 Center for Toki and Ecological Restoration (CTER), Niigata University, Niibo-katagami, Sado 952-0103, Japan;
6 Institute of Nature and Environmental Technology (K-INET), Kanazawa University, Kakuma-mati, Kanazawa 920-1192, Japan

Abstract: Implementing wildlife-friendly farming (WFF) practices is a sound approach to sustain ecological
restoration of farmland. The aims of the study were to explore factors affecting farmers’ implementation of
WFF practices on Sado Island, Japan and to consider the policy implications of disseminating such practices.
All 5010 farming households on Sado Island, who are distributing rice to Japan Agricultural Cooperatives (JA),
were surveyed. In total, 2231 households responded to the questionnaire (response 44.5%). By comparing the
attitudes, beliefs, and attributes of non-certified versus certified farmers, we identified key factors affecting farmers’
implementation of WFF practices. Compared with non-certified farmers, certified farmers: (i) showed a greater
interest in biodiversity and the financial benefits of WFF; (ii) had a larger number of certified farmer friends; (iii) felt
many more pressures and expectations from consumers, in particular; and (iv) were not hampered by bad labor
or farmland conditions when implementing WFF practices. To further disseminate WFF practices in Sado, we
suggest that the information on the effectiveness of WFF on paddy field biodiversity is used in public education, and
opportunities for interchanging opinions are set up between non-certified and certified farmers, as well as between
farmers and consumers.

Key words: environmentally friendly farming; theory of planned behavior; Globally-Important Agricultural Heritage
Systems (GIAHS); crested ibis; eco-label

products”. The role of farming for biodiversity conservation

1 Introduction
The need for a transition to environmentally friendly farming
practices has become apparent in recent years, because of
growing interest in environmental conservation and the
sustainable use of resources. In Japanese agricultural policies,
environmentally friendly farming was first proposed in a
1992 document titled “The Basic Direction of New Policies
for Food, Agriculture, and Rural Areas”. Subsequently, The
Basic Law on Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas, passed in
1999, noted that Japan’s new agricultural policies signified
“an emphasis on the multifunctional roles of farming and
natural cyclical functions” in contrast to former policies
which focused solely on the “supply functions of farm
has been reassessed in recent years (Ide 1998), and “the
promotion of farm production, including an emphasis on
biodiversity” was specified in the Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries of Japan’s (MAFF) 2007 Biodiversity
Strategy (MAFF 2007).
There has been a growing demand for Japanese farmers to
implement biodiversity conservation practices, particularly
for paddy field farming, which serves as the backbone of the
country’s farming. Since paddy fields account for more than
half of Japan’s total arable land area, and function as a sub-
stitute for lost natural wetlands (Fujioka 1998), they can be
considered a significant landscape element, from the stand-
point of those concerned with biodiversity conservation.

Received: 2014-09-17 Accepted: 2014-11-20

* Satoshi NAKAMURA and Takahiro TSUGE contributed equally to this study.
** Corresponding author: Nisikawa USIO. Email: usio@se.kanazawa-u.ac.jp.
NAKAMURA Satoshi, et al.: Exploring Factors Affecting Farmers' Implementation of Wildlife-friendly Farming on Sado Island, Japan
However, a decline in paddy fields’ biodiversity has become
more apparent nationwide, due to qualitative and other
changes in the paddy field ecosystem, including farmland
consolidation and improvements, the use of pesticides, and
the abandonment of farming activities (Nakagawa 1998).
Therefore, “promoting farm production while conserving
or restoring biodiversity” has become an urgent task. In
response to these conditions, Inaba (2005) urged farmers
to reconstruct their water resource environments, and to
promote biodiversity by using winter flooding, fishways,
and by creating deep areas in their paddy fields that will
serve as biotopes for wildlife. Many farming methods and
techniques, including winter flooding and fishways, have
been developed to promote biodiversity as part of Japan’s
environmentally friendly paddy field farming, and programs
have been developed to reduce the use of pesticides and
chemical fertilizers.
The objective of achieving widespread implementation
of environmentally friendly farming practices, including
wildlife-friendly farming (WFF) extends far beyond Japan.
Numerous studies have been conducted overseas to better
understand the factors that have influenced farmers’ de-
cisions to change their farming methods, and led them to
participate in agri-environmental policies, particularly with
regard to the agri-environmental scheme implemented by
the European Union.
Until the 1990s, many studies of agri-environmental pol-
icies focused on socioeconomic and structural factors (e.g.
management scale, family structure) (Potter and Gasson
1988; Wilson 1992, 1996, 1997). Subsequently, it became
apparent that all farmers did not necessarily implement the
same management practices, even when they had similar
growing conditions and farmland locations. Rather, though
different farmers with different values displayed the same
behaviors (Brodt et al. 2006), each farmer perceived the
same level of risk differently (Greiner and Gregg 2011).
This led to the view that farmers are independent deci-
sion-makers, whose attitudes influence their behavior more
than do structural factors. This observation was particularly
apparent in a voluntary program such as the agri-environ-
mental scheme (Battershill and Glig 1997; Willok et al.
1999). However, as recent studies have argued that attitu-
dinal and structural factors are interdependent, it becomes
necessary to investigate both individual farmer’s attitudes
and coexisting structural factors (Wilson 1996). Moreover,
an increasing number of researchers have argued that val-
ues and beliefs play an important role in farmers’ behaviors
(Siebert et al. 2006). However, to date only a few behavior-
al research studies have been conducted on the influence of
values and beliefs on farmers’ behaviors.
Additionally, almost no studies have been conducted on
factors affecting the implementation of environmentally
friendly farming, or WFF in Japan, even though numerous
such discussions have already taken place overseas. Since
Japan has significantly different farming methods and poli-
371
cies, compared to those in foreign countries, factors that will
influence farmers’ decisions with regard to their farming
methods are also believed to be unique to Japanese farmers.
Increasing farmers’ awareness of environmentally friendly
farming practices has been suggested as a key component
of promoting these practices in Japan (MAFF 2005). How-
ever, few studies have been conducted on farmers’ attitudes
and beliefs toward environmentally friendly farming, and
the actual implementation of such practices (but see Kuro-
sawa and Tezuka 2005). Further, it is not clear what type of
educational activities could be effective in advancing objec-
tives for increasing the implementation of environmentally
friendly farming.
With regard to farmers’ decisions on whether to intro-
duce winter flooding, one of the WFF methods, Mineta et
al. (2004) identified various factors including wading bird
conservation, weed control, and expectation towards pro-
ducing high value-added agricultural products. However,
no studies have been conducted with the objective of better
understanding the factors affecting farmers’ decisions to
switch to WFF.
Therefore, the current study examined the factors in-
fluencing farmers’ decisions to participate in certification
programs, primarily by examining their awareness and attri-
butes/characteristics. The objective of this study was to use
the findings obtained from this work, to propose policies
that could effectively promote WFF.
2. Material and methods
2.1 Theory
Behavioral approach is considered a useful way of
comprehending how farmers make decisions with regard to
environmental conservation in farming (Morris and Potter
1995). The theory of planned behavior (TPB) proposed by
Ajzen (1991), is a commonly used behavioral approach
that has been regarded as a useful tool for explaining and
predicting farmers’ behaviors with regard to environmental
conservation and farm animal welfare (Beedell and Rehman
2000; Fielding et al. 2005; de Lauwere et al. 2012).
Based on the TPB, an individual’s behavioral intentions
consist of three elements—“attitudes”, “subjective norms”
and “perceived behavioral controls” (Fig. 1). The element
of “attitude” describes the degree to which performance of
the behavior is positively or negatively evaluated overall
(whether it is evaluated as positive or negative). “Subjective
norms” are an individual’s perceptions of social pressure to
engage or not to engage in a behavior, and they are based
on the individual’s perceptions of whether significant others
believe that the behavior should be performed (called
injunctive norms), or whether they are actually performing
that behavior (called descriptive norms). “Perceived
behavioral controls” represent an individual’s perceived
ability to engage in the behavior successfully, which in turn
influences his/her decision as to whether or not to perform
the behavior, and the ease with which he/she is able to
372
Behavioral beliefs Attitude
(Behavioral belief × toward the
outcome evaluation) behavior
Normative beliefs
(Normative belief × Subjective Intention Behavior
norm
motivation to comply)
Control beliefs Perceived
(Control belief behavioral
× perceived power) control
Fig. 1 A diagram of Theory of Planned Behavior (after Ajzen
1991).
perform the behavior.
The three elements are shaped by a person’s inherent
awareness and beliefs. For example, “attitude” is shaped
by one’s “behavioral beliefs” (person X believes that
the biodiversity will increase following implementation
of WFF), and “outcome evaluation” (person X thinks
that it is desirable for the biodiversity to increase).
“Subjective norms” are shaped by “normative beliefs”
(person X perceives that an administrative body expects
him/her to adopt WFF practices), and “motivation to
comply with the norm” (person X cares whether his/her
administrative body expects him/her to implement WFF).
“Perceived behavioral controls” are determined by one’s
“control beliefs” (person X thinks that the farmland’s
conditions are poor), and “the perceived power of that
control” (person X perceives that it is more difficult to
take part in WFF when farming conditions are poor).
Policy makers, practitioners, and other stakeholders who
aim to promote sustained behaviors in the field of natural
resource management find this information about human
behavior useful. That said, only a limited number of studies
have been conducted on sustainable farming management
practices using this framework, and none of these studies
has incorporated all three elements—“behavioral beliefs”,
“normative beliefs” and “control beliefs” (Fielding et al.
2005).
2.2 Study site
The city of Sado in Niigata Prefecture (Sado Island) was
selected as the study site for this research because, as part of
the Japanese crested ibis (Nipponia nippon) reintroduction
project, Sado has actively promoted rice farming using
WFF practices. Two WFF promotion projects have been
implemented in Sado since 2008. The Japan agricultural
cooperatives (JA) have taken responsibility for one of the
projects. This project restricts the distribution of rice that
has not been grown with pesticide and chemical fertilizer
input reductions of at least 30%.
The other project is a certification initiative called
the “Toki Brand Rice Certification Initiative” (hereafter
Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.5 No.4, 2014
referred to as the certification initiative), implemented by
the Sado Municipal Government. Along with a reduction
of pesticide and chemical fertilizer inputs of at least 50%,
commercial farmers will be certified by the Sado Municipal
Government if they adopt one of the following farming
methods: winter flooding, installation of diversion ditches,
installation of fishways, or installation of biotopes (fallow
flooding), called “biodiversity-enhancing practices” or
Ikimono-wo hagukumu nouhou. Once certified, the Sado
Municipal Government grants them permission to sell the
rice as “Toki Brand” rice. These projects have led to the
willing implementation of WFF in Sado. In FY 2010, 651
farmers were certified by the Sado Municipal Government,
and WFF was implemented in a total area of 1188 ha (Sado
City Statistical Data).
2.3 Preliminary survey
As Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) suggested, a face-to-face
preliminary survey was conducted to explore the important
factors related to the certification initiative. JA and the Sado
Municipal Government selected the farmers who took part
in this study. The selection of participants considered factors
such as the types of landforms represented, the number
of farmers implementing the certification initiative in the
communities, and whether or not these farmers had been
certified. The group selected for the face-to-face preliminary
survey included 19 individuals representing farm households
living in as wide a range of diverse environments as
possible, and including farmers involved in farming-
related associations. The selected group was comprised of
17 family-managed farmers, one owner of an agricultural
cooperative, and one owner of a corporation. In total, 18
farmers were interviewed face-to-face, and one farmer was
interviewed over the phone. During the interview, questions
were asked to identify the advantages and disadvantages of
the certification initiative, to learn what types of individuals
or groups might agree or disagree with the certification
initiative, and to identify environmental or other factors that
had become an impediment to obtaining certification.
2.4 Main survey
2.4.1 Participants
All 5010 households distributing rice to JA were surveyed.
We chose to survey the entire rice farmers because the
number of farmers who had implemented the certification
initiative and farmers’ levels of awareness of the initiative
varied significantly in different regions, due to Sado’s
numerous landforms and localities. Farmers who did not
take part in rice sales were excluded from the survey,
since their conditions were very different from those of the
farmers who took part in rice sales.
JA distributed the questionnaires along with an
informational brochure and a return stamped envelope.
Sado City has two JA cooperatives, and JA Sado distributed
this package of information to 4500 farm households
NAKAMURA Satoshi, et al.: Exploring Factors Affecting Farmers' Implementation of Wildlife-friendly Farming on Sado Island, Japan
on 5 September 2011, while JA Hamochi delivered this
information to 510 farm households on 26 August 2011.
Completed questionnaires were returned anonymously by
mail.
In total, 2231 farm households (589 certified farm
households, and 1642 non-certified farm households)
returned completed questionnaires. The response rate
was 44.5%. Of the questionnaires returned, 1728 farm
households (498 certified farm households and 1230 non-
certified farm households) provided valid responses to
all the questions, and only these responses were used for
subsequent analysis.
2.4.2 Questionnaire
The questionnaire included a range of questions and
statements related to farmers’ awareness and attributes/
characteristics.
With regard to awareness, the survey addressed factors
that were believed to be influencing farmers’ decisions as
to whether or not to implement the certification initiative.
The factors had been identified by referring to the
preliminary survey conducted earlier with the farmers, the
representatives of the administrative bodies, and JA. As
has been suggested by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), a seven-
level rating scale was used to design the questionnaire (7:
Strongly agree; 4: Neither agree nor disagree; 1: Strongly
disagree).
As for “attitude”, we asked respondents to express how
strongly they agreed or disagreed with ten statements,
including five related to behavioral beliefs about the
outcomes of the certification initiative (7: Strongly agree;
1: Strongly disagree). The other five statements related
to outcome evaluations of the certification initiative
(7: Very good; 1: Very Poor). The former part of the
questionnaire asked how strongly respondents felt about
statements in each of two categories. For the category on
benefits, the statements they were asked to respond to were
“the biodiversity in paddy fields will increase with the
farming methods”, “the farming methods are effective in
reintroducing the crested ibis into the wild”, and “revenues
will go up if the farming methods are implemented”. For the
category on costs, the statements were “implementing the
farming methods increases the likelihood of crested ibises
stepping on rice plants”, and “the farming methods require
more labor and costs”. The latter set of statements evaluated
how desirable or undesirable each of the following items
was to the respondent. These statements were: “an increase
in the biodiversity of paddy fields”, “the reintroduction of
the crested ibis into the wild”, “an increase in revenues from
rice sales at a higher price, or by receiving subsidies”, “the
problem that rice plants are stepped on by crested ibises”,
and “an increase in the amount of labor and cost required
for farming”.
Regarding “subjective norms”, we asked eight questions,
consisting of two questions related to descriptive norms,
373
and six questions related to injunctive norms intended
to provide information on the respondents’ normative
beliefs. The former set of questions asked how many of
the respondents’ farmer acquaintances actually practiced
“biodiversity-enhancing practices” (1: Less than 10%; 4:
30% or higher but lower than 40%; 7: 60% or higher),
and to what extent they care about their friends’ farming
practices (7: Strongly agree; 1: Strongly disagree). The
latter set of questions asked whether they felt expectations
from consumers, the Sado Municipal Government, and
JA (7: Strongly feel the expectations; 1: Do not feel any
expectations.) We also asked the respondents to quantify
how they care about whether or not they were expected
to implement the certification initiative by each of these
entities, in order to measure the strength of the intention
to meet these expectations (7: Strongly agree; 1: Strongly
disagree).
With regard to “perceived behavioral control”, we
provided six statements consisting of three asking the
respondents to express whether they felt that the conditions
were undesirable (7: Strongly agree; 1: Strongly disagree),
and three other statements regarding whether or not
the undesirable conditions made it difficult for them to
implement the certification initiative (7: Strongly agree; 1:
Strongly disagree). The former set of statements aimed to
identify to what extent the respondents felt strongly about
“poor farmland conditions (area, shape, drainage)”, “a labor
shortage”, and “poorly set up or maintained irrigation canals
in the surrounding areas”. The latter part of this grouping
addressed the extent to which respondents felt strongly
about each of the following statements: “implementing
the farming methods is difficult if farmland conditions
(area, shape, and drainage) are poor”, “it is difficult to
implement the farming methods if there is a labor shortage”,
and “it is difficult to implement the farming methods
if the surrounding irrigation canals are poorly set up or
maintained”.
With regard to farmers’ attributes/characteristics, we
asked them their age, their sex, where they lived, how many
people lived in their household, how many of these people
engaged in farming, whether they had a successor (yes,
unknown, or no), how much of the household income was
generated from farming (a full-time farmer so all household
income was farm income, a part-time farmer whose primary
income was generated from farming, a part-time farmer
whose primary income was generated from something other
than farming, or, no income was generated from farming
activities), what percentage of sales were direct sales, how
much of the total area farmed was rice paddy fields, how
much of the area farmed was leased land, the names of
town/village sections where their rice paddy fields were
located, how much of their land was farmed using pesticide
and chemical fertilizer inputs and at what levels (pesticide
and fertilizer use had been reduced by 30% or less, pesticide
and fertilizer use had been reduced by 50%, pesticide and
374
fertilizer use had been reduced by 80%, non-pesticide,
non-fertilizer-based production), and how much of their
land was farmed using each of the “biodiversity-enhancing
practices”.
2.5 Overview of data analysis
A t-test was used to determine whether there was a
statistically significant difference between certified and non-
certified farmers’ beliefs, regarding implementation of the
certification initiative. Due to the large size of our sample,
we set the level of significance at 1%.
We also conducted a logistic regression analysis using
the presence or absence of certification (1: certified; 0: non-
certified), as a dependent variable. We used awareness and
farmers’ attributes/characteristics as independent variables.
We used the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) for
model selection, and then investigated the levels of relative
influence of each of the variables, using standardized
logistic regression coefficients.
3 Results
3.1 Certified farmers versus non-certified farmers
3.1.1 Attitudes: Behavioral beliefs
Each of the following beliefs about benefits—whether the
certification initiative helped to increase the biodiversity,
whether it was effective in reintroducing the crested ibis
into the wild, and whether it helped increase farmers’
incomes—was felt more intensely by certified farmers
relative to non-certified farmers (Table 1). Certified farmers
had a significantly higher tendency to evaluate the outcomes
of certified farming positively. In contrast, no statistically
significant difference was found between certified farmers
and non-certified farmers with regard to their beliefs
about the costs likely to be generated by implementing the
farming methods that were part of the certification initiative.
Moreover, both certified and non-certified farmers had
negative beliefs regarding the increased labor and operating
Table 1 The mean scores of “behavioral beliefs about consequences of the certification initiative” and “outcome evaluations”
for certified and non-certified farmers. A seven-level rating scale was used to design the questionnaire for behavioral beliefs (7:
Strongly agree; 4: Neither agree nor disagree; 1: Strongly disagree) and outcome evaluations (7: Very good; 4: Neither good
nor poor; 1: very poor).
Non-certified Certified
Benefits
Enhancement of biodiversity
Reintroduction of the crested ibis
Increased income due to rice sales at a higher price or subsidies
Costs
Problem that rice plants are stepped on by crested ibises
More labor and costs required for farming
** p< .01; *** p< .001
Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.5 No.4, 2014
costs, and the possibility of crested ibises stepping on the
rice plants, thereby indicating no statistically significant
difference between the two groups.
3.1.2 Subjective norm: Normative beliefs
Certified farmers had significantly higher percentages of
certified farmer friends relative to non-certified farmers
(Table 2). In this inquiry, the number of the respondents
who answered with “less than 10%” was the largest among
non-certified farmers, while the number who responded
with “more than 60%” was the largest among certified
farmers. However, no statistically significant difference
was found between these two groups, with regard to the
question asking whether they were care about the farming
methods implemented by their acquaintances, and neither
of them care about the subject. However, the difference
between certified farmers and non-certified farmers with
regard to their levels of awareness of the expectations
from consumers, the Sado Municipal Government, and JA
was found to be statistically significant. Similarly, there
was a statistically significant difference between the two
groups with regard to their responses to the question asking
whether they were care about the expectations of each of
these entities. In other words, these findings revealed that
certified farmers felt the expectations of each of the entities,
and were more aware of these expectations than non-
certified farmers.
3.1.3 Perceived behavioral control: Control beliefs
Regarding the beliefs about farmland and labor force
conditions, no significant differences were evident between
certified and non-certified farmers (Table 3). When asked
whether they felt it was more difficult to implement the
initiative on undesirable farmland or under difficult labor
force conditions, respondents from both groups of farmers
indicated that it was more difficult to do so under these
conditions. However, our findings also showed that certified
farmers’ perceived undesirable farmland and difficult labor
Behavioral Beliefs Outcome evaluation
Non-certified Certified
farmers farmers farmers farmers
4.93 5.59 *** 5.34 5.82 ***
4.75 5.24 *** 5.4 5.77 ***
3.72 4.05 *** 5.92 6.23 ***
4.63 4.48 2.76 2.85
5.24 5.01 2.36 2.51
NAKAMURA Satoshi, et al.: Exploring Factors Affecting Farmers' Implementation of Wildlife-friendly Farming on Sado Island, Japan 375

Table 2 The mean scores of “normative beliefs,” and “their motivation to comply with norms” for certified and non-certified
farmers. Seven-level rating scales were used to design the questionnaire for normative belief of descriptive norms (1: Less
than 10%; 4: 30% or higher but lower than 40%; 7: 60% or higher) and injunctive norms (7: Strongly feel the expectations; 1:
Do not feel any expectations), and for motivation to comply with norms of descriptive norms and injunctive norms (7: Strongly
agree; 4: Neither agree nor disagree; 1: Strongly disagree).
Normative belief Motivation to comply with norms
Non-certified farmers Certified farmers Non-certified farmers Certified farmers
Descriptive norms
Acquaintance farmers 2.25 4.39 *** 3.87 3.96
Injunctive norms
Consumers 4.01 4.87 *** 4.10 4.70 ***
Sado Municipal Government 3.65 4.43 *** 3.35 3.81 ***
JA 3.64 4.39 *** 3.48 3.81 ***
** p< .01; *** p< .001

Table 3 The mean values of “control beliefs,” and “the perceived power of control,” for both certified and non-certified
farmers. A seven-level rating scale was used to design the questionnaire (7: Strongly agree; 4: Neither agree nor disagree; 1:
Strongly disagree).
Control Beliefs The Perceived Power of Control Beliefs
Non-certified farmers Certified farmers Non-certified farmers Certified farmers
Undesirable farmland conditions 4.52 4.48 4.99 4.76 **
Labor shortage 4.43 4.37 5.17 4.74 ***
Poorly set up or maintained irrigation channels 3.95 3.84 5.10 4.97
** p< .01; *** p< .001

force conditions to be less of an impediment than did non-
certified farmers.
3.2 Logistic regression analysis
A logistic regression analysis was performed to explain
which factors strongly influenced farmers’ decisions on
whether or not to pursue obtaining the certification. The
independent variables used for this analysis were farmers’
beliefs (behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, control beliefs,
and outcome evaluations) and attributes/characteristics,
together with the BIC for model selection. With regard to
awareness, we used farmers’ beliefs and evaluations (the
level of importance, influence) as variables for the three
elements consisting of “attitude”, “subjective norms” and
“perceived behavioral controls”. We performed a principal
component analysis on the responses for all the questions
regarding the farmers’ awareness, and then conducted a
cluster analysis using each eigenvalue, in order to confirm
that they could be organized into the set variables. The
results showed that the evaluation of the statements on
“beliefs about costs” (“the certification initiative requires
more labor and costs” and “implementing the certification
initiative creates the possibility of crested ibises stepping
on rice plants”) was classified to the cluster differently from
the one for the statements on other “attitudes”. Therefore,
we set up variables by separating the evaluation into “beliefs
about costs” and “beliefs about benefits”. Similarly, the
“outcome evaluations of certification” were also divided into
“outcome evaluations on costs” and “outcome evaluations
on benefits”. Moreover, with regard to the subjective
norms, “beliefs about the number of farmer acquaintances
who participated in the certification initiative (descriptive
normative beliefs)” and “beliefs about the expectations of
other entities (consumers, the Sado Municipal Government,
and JA) (injunctive normative beliefs)” were classified into
different clusters. Variables were set up by dividing these
variables and the corresponding variables of “motivation to
comply with descriptive norms” and “motivation to comply
with injunctive norms”.
The value of each variable reflected the mean value of
each question included in the variable. Table 4 shows the
mean and standard deviation for each variable, as well as
correlations among variables.
Based on the model selection results, Table 5 shows the
standardized logistic regression coefficients of the variables
selected by the model, ranging from the best model to less
than ΔBIC<2 (the best model and the second best model).
It was revealed that farmers were more inclined to try
obtaining certification if their beliefs about the number of
their farmer acquaintances who were implementing the
certification initiative (descriptive normative belief) were
higher, that is, they thought more, rather than fewer, of
their acquaintances were implementing the initiative. The
standardized logistic regression coefficients showed that
the “descriptive normative belief” was the most influential
factor in having farmers decide to obtain certification.
376 Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.5 No.4, 2014

Table 4 Means, standard deviations (s.d.), and correlations based on seven-level rating scales (7: Strongly agree; 4: Neither
agree nor disagree; 1: Strongly disagree).
Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1. Beliefs about 4.47 1.03 –
benefits
2. Beliefs about costs 4.94 1.10 0.13 –
3. Outcome 5.55 1.08 0.37 0.00 –
evaluation on
benefits
4. Outcome 2.56 1.10 0.16 –0.26 0.12 –
evaluation on costs
5. Descriptive 2.25 1.71 0.14 –0.08 0.07 0.11 –
normative belief
6. Injunctive 3.78 1.41 0.36 0.02 0.24 0.15 0.17 –
normative belief
7. Motivation to 3.87 1.46 0.24 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.37 –
comply with
descriptive norms
8. Motivation to 3.65 1.31 0.22 –0.01 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.65 0.47 –
comply with
injunctive norms
9. Control beliefs 4.30 1.41 0.06 0.14 0.03 –0.08 –0.03 0.07 0.26 0.16 –
10. Importance of the 5.09 1.18 0.13 0.50 0.08 –0.16 –0.01 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.27 –
Control
11. Number of people 3.58 1.69 0.03 0.02 0.06 –0.03 0.02 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.07 –0.02 –
per household
12. Number of people 2.41 1.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 –0.07 0.02 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.07 –0.01 0.54 –
engaging in farming
13. Type of farm 2.68 0.76 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 –0.10 –0.08 0.03 0.18 0.09 –
household
14. Successor(s) 2.23 0.74 –0.03 0.01 –0.07 –0.04 –0.02 –0.10 –0.08 –0.14 0.02 0.03 –0.27 –0.27 0.06 –
15. Age 63.14 10.13 –0.02 –0.10 –0.05 0.08 0.05 0.01 –0.03 0.04 –0.07 –0.07 –0.28 –0.22 –0.16 –0.14 –
16. Direct sales 0.31 0.46 0.03 –0.07 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 –0.04 0.08 0.06 0.04 –0.04 –0.01 –

Although “beliefs about the expectations from other
entities” (consumers, the Sado Municipal Government,
and JA) (injunctive normative belief), were also selected,
these beliefs had a smaller influence than did the descriptive
normative belief. Among the awareness variables, it was
clear that the “importance of benefits” and “beliefs about
benefits” had a positive influence on farmers’ decisions to
pursue obtaining certification, while “the perceived power
of control” had a negative influence on their decision to do
so. With regard to farmers’ attributes/characteristics, “direct
sales” and “the type of farm household” were selected. For
“direct sales”, it was indicated that farmers who participated
in direct sales would be more likely to implement the
certification initiative than would farmers who did not
take part in direct sales. When analyzing the “type of farm
household” data, it became apparent that farmers became
less inclined to implement the certificate initiative as their
level of dependency on the income generated from farming
declined. This was evident from the responses of part-
time farmers whose primary income was generated from
farming, part-time farmers whose primary income was
generated from something other than farming, and farmers
who generated no income from farming, and contrary to
responses from full-time farmers.
3.3 Analysis of correlation
The t-test and the logistic regression analysis showed
that certified farmers felt more strongly about increasing
biodiversity by means of implementing the certification
initiative, and they also felt more strongly about
the expectations of the three entities than did non-
certified farmers. However, these outcomes may have
occurred because their levels of awareness changed
after implementing the certification initiative, rather
than because they had a high awareness before doing so.
Accordingly, with regard to responses to questions that
showed statistically significant differences between the
two types of farmers in this area, we investigated whether
NAKAMURA Satoshi, et al.: Exploring Factors Affecting Farmers' Implementation of Wildlife-friendly Farming on Sado Island, Japan 377

Table 5 Standardized coefficients of the best and second Table 6 Pearson correlations between non-certified farmers’
best logistic regression models based on a model selection. motivation to implement the certification initiative and each
belief.
Standardized logistic
regression coefficients Behavioral Outcome
Best model Second model beliefs evaluation
Descriptive normative belief 0.98 0.96 Enhancement of biodiversity 0.28 *** 0.24 ***
Injunctive normative belief 0.38 0.33 Reintroduction of crested ibis 0.34 *** 0.26 ***
Direct sales: Yes 0.24 0.24 Increased income 0.33 *** 0.07
Importance of benefits 0.27 0.20 Normative Motivation to
belief comply with norms
Beliefs about benefits – 0.20
Acquaintance farmers 0.22 *** –
Perceived power of control beliefs –0.21 –0.23
Consumers 0.34 *** 0.23 ***
Farm household type: Part-time –0.17 –0.20
farmers whose primary income Sado Municipal Government 0.34 *** 0.24 ***
is generated from farming JA 0.34 *** 0.25 ***
Farm household type: Part-time –0.64 –0.66 Control Perceived power of
farmers whose primary income beliefs control beliefs
is generated from something Undesirable farmland – –0.004
other than farming conditions
Farm household type: Part-time –0.87 –0.88 Labor shortage – –0.04
farmers who have no income
generated from farming ** p< .01; *** p< .001

any correlations could be found between the non-certified
farmers’ responses and how motivated they were to
implement the certification initiative. Table 6 shows the
results of this investigation. The investigation revealed
that non-certified farmers would be more motivated to
implement the certification initiative in the future, as their
beliefs became more positive regarding the likelihood
of these farming methods leading to an increase in the
biodiversity, reintroducing crested ibis into the wild, and
increasing their farming incomes. Similarly, it showed that
non-certified farmers, who perceived the expectations of
each of the entities, or were aware of whether they were
expected to implement the certification initiative, were more
strongly motivated to take part in the certification initiative.
These findings implied that farmers implemented the
certification initiative because their awareness had always
been high. They helped to explain the results from the
t-test and logistic regression analysis that certified farmers
showed stronger beliefs about these benefits, and subjective
norms, even though their awareness might have changed
because they had actually implemented the certification
initiative.
4 Discussion and conclusions
The influence of subjective norms is believed to play a
greater role in the intention to perform the behavior, if
that behavior is subject to the public eye (Hirose 1995).
Therefore, it can be inferred that the influence of Japan’s
unique district unit-based paddy field farming style led
to the subjective norm in the awareness variable having
a greater influence in the logistic regression analysis than
would otherwise have been expected, particularly with
regard to descriptive norms and injunctive norms. However,
“the motivation to comply with descriptive norms” and
“the motivation to comply with injunctive norms” were not
selected. Although previous studies on energy conservation
deny the influences of others’ behavior, it has been reported
that individuals actually perform the same behavior as their
acquaintances’ due to social pressures they are experiencing
unconsciously (Nolan et al. 2008). It is possible that the
results of this study are explained by the same phenomenon.
Moreover, since “descriptive normative beliefs” had a
greater influence than “injunctive normative beliefs”, it
appears that many farmers implemented the certification
initiative because they had been influenced by acquaintances
that had been participating in the same activity, rather
than because they had been feeling social pressure to
do so, from other entities. This leads us to conclude that
promoting normal, everyday activities, such as informal
gatherings among farmers, is necessary to the successful
implementation of the certification initiative, in addition
to the top-down approach promoted by past agricultural
policies. Wilson (1996) mentioned the possibility that
factors such as neighboring residents’ participation in the
program planning for the environmentally sensitive areas
may have affected the farmers’ attitudes, and influenced
their decision making. The results from this study suggest
that it is possible to further promote the certification
initiative by making it known to the farmers that the number
of those implementing the initiative has actually increased.
While “the perceived power of control beliefs” was
selected for the model, “control beliefs” was not selected.
This suggests that it is important to help farmers perceive
the feasibility of implementing the initiative, despite
378
unfavorable conditions, rather than being dissuaded from
doing so by the prospect of additional labor costs and less
than optimal farmland conditions. The results of this study
also show that the certification initiative can be promoted
using knowledge and awareness, even when conditions
are not desirable. Previous social psychology studies have
indicated that the feasibility of a behavior can be perceived
by experiencing and observing environmentally friendly
behaviors displayed by others, who in turn can serve as
role models (Nonami 1996). Considering the fact that
non-certified farmers do not have many acquaintances
who are certified farmers, increasing the opportunities for
interchanging opinions between certified farmers and non-
certified farmers is likely to be effective in promoting the
certification initiative. Additionally, it has been reported
that the number of participants involved in environmentally
friendly activities increased significantly when they were
given information describing the environmental and
economic rationales for the activity, and the ways in which
they could take part in a particular activity was outlined (De
Young et al. 1993). Previous studies on organic farming
showed that organic farmers and conventional farmers
obtained their information through different networks
(Jacobson et al. 2003). These examples show that it
may be possible to facilitate the implementation of the
certification initiative by providing non-certified farmers
with information describing how they can become involved
in the program, using the same channels used by certified
farmers.
“Beliefs about benefits” and “the importance of the
benefits” were selected as the awareness variables, while
“beliefs about costs” and “the importance of the costs” were
not selected. Moreover, the t-test showed no statistically
significant difference between certified farmers and non-
certified farmers with regard to their behavioral beliefs
about the importance of whether more labor and expenses
would be required, or whether crested ibises might step on
rice plants. These findings suggest that certified farmers
have implemented the certification initiative because of their
beliefs about the possibility of attaining social benefits, such
as positive impacts on organisms including crested ibises,
and individual benefits such as an increase in their incomes.
The findings also suggest that certified farmers are highly
motivated to achieve such objectives, instead of implying
that they are less perceptive about the expected additional
costs that will be incurred by implementing WFF. It may
be difficult to alter one’s values in the short term. However,
conducting educational activities offers an effective solution
for changing farmers’ “beliefs about benefits” by presenting
how farmland biodiversity has changed, due to the adoption
of different farming methods. The preliminary survey
revealed that some farmers believed that certification does
not necessarily lead to the conservation or restoration of
farmland biodiversity or the crested ibis even though these
are important. Furthermore, previous studies have reported
Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.5 No.4, 2014
numerous instances where environmental conservation or
restoration and animal welfare activities were hampered
by a lack of knowledge (De Young et al. 1993; Alston and
Reding 1998; Jacobson et al. 2003; Lauwere et al. 2011).
With regard to farmers’ attributes/characteristics,
the results showed that farmers became less inclined to
implement the certification initiative as their farming
income decreased. This information corresponds to Japans’
national trend, which shows that full-time farmers take
part in environmentally friendly farming more often
than part-time farmers (Fujie 2003). It has been reported
that environmentally friendly farming tends to require a
considerable amount of labor. This appears to make it more
difficult for part-time farmers to implement the certification
initiative discussed in this study, since they have less time to
spend on farming. As for direct sales, the preliminary survey
revealed that farmers could sell rice at a higher price. The
results showed a positive correlation between a farmer’s
engagement in direct sales and his/her participation in the
certification initiative. This reveals that certified farmers are
more highly motivated to increase their incomes. Although
this analysis alone does not help us understand whether
farmers taking part in direct sales would be more likely to
implement the certification initiative, or whether certified
farmers would be more inclined to take part in direct sales,
we observed both cases during the preliminary survey.
Our analysis of normative beliefs revealed that farmers
considered consumers the most important of the three
entities discussed, i.e. consumers, the Sado Municipal
Government, and JA. Based on this conclusion, it may be
possible to promote the certification initiative by helping
farmers understand that consumers are very concerned
about the safety of farm products for their peace of mind.
Moreover, providing opportunities for direct interactions
with consumers was found to be important during the
preliminary survey, when it was revealed by some farmers
that their interactions with consumers through direct sales
boosted their motivation to implement the certification
initiative.
With regard to “perceived behavioral control”, the
results suggested that it was more important to help farmers
become aware of the ease with which the certification
initiative could be implemented. This indicates that
implementation of the certification initiative can be
facilitated using awareness and other information, even
when conditions are not ideal. Previous social psychology
studies have suggested that the relative ease of conducting a
particular behavior can be increased by knowing of others’
successes (Nonami 1996). Considering the fact that non-
certified farmers do not have many acquaintances who are
certified farmers, increasing the number of opportunities for
certified and non-certified farmers to interact appears to be a
partial solution for promoting the certification initiative. Just
as studies conducted by the European Union have argued,
a top-down approach to implementing agri-environmental
NAKAMURA Satoshi, et al.: Exploring Factors Affecting Farmers' Implementation of Wildlife-friendly Farming on Sado Island, Japan
policies will not gain support, and will create opposition
from local residents, the results of this study have shown
that promoting informal interactions among farmers will
lead to significant knowledge exchanges.
Our analysis showed that farmers’ awareness played a
significant role in their decision to switch to WFF. However,
the case discussed in this study focused on Sado, where
WFF has already been actively implemented. Though we
now understand the influence of awareness and personal
attributes/characteristics in affecting farmers’ decisions
to change their farming methods, different factors may
influence farmers’ willingness to adopt WFF practices in
other areas. In the future, it will be important to investigate
the awareness and attributes/characteristics of farmers while
they are being introduced to WFF.
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all those who
responded to our questionnaires, and to JA Sado, JA Hamochi,
and the Sado Municipal Government who helped us conduct the
surveys. The study was supported by the Ecological Restoration
Programme (a donated programme from Sado City) at CTER.
References
Ajzen I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav. Hum. Decis.
Process, 50:179-211.
Ajzen I, M Fishbein. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Alston D G, M E Reding. 1998. Factors influencing adoption and
educational outreach of integrated pest management. J. Extension., 36(3):
3FEA3.
Battershill M R, A W Glig. 1997. Socio-economic constraints and
environmentally friendly farming in the Southwest of England. J. Rural.
Stud., 13:213-228.
Beedell J, T Rehman. 2000. Using social-psychology models to understand
farmers' conservation behaviour: The relationship of verbal and overt
verbal responses to attitude objects. J. Rural. Stud., 16:117-127.
Brodt S, K Klonsky, L Tourte. 2006. Farmer goals and management styles:
Implications for advancing biologically based agriculture. Agr. Syst.,
89:90-105.
de Lauwere C, M van Asseldonk, J vant Riet, et al. 2012. Understanding
farmers' decisions with regard to animal welfare: The case of changing to
group housing for pregnant sows. Livestock Science, 143:151-161.
De Young R A, A Duncan, J Frank, et al. 1993. Promoting source reduction
behavior: The role of motivational information. Environ. Behav., 25:70-
85.
Fielding K S, D J Terry, B M Masser, et al. 2005. Explaining landholders'
decisions about riparian zone management: The role of behavioural,
normative, and control beliefs. J. Environ. Manag., 77:12-21.
Fujie T. 2003. Expanding the implementation of environmentally friendly
farming. Policy Research Institute, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries Review, 7:16-21 (in Japanese)
Fujioka M. 1998. Crisis in paddy fields warned by herons. In: Ezaki Y,
Tanaka T (Ed.). Waterfront Environment Conservation—From the
Perspective of Biocoenosis. Tokyo: Asakura Publishing Co., Ltd., 34-52.
(in Japanese)
Greiner R, R Gregg. 2011. Farmers’ intrinsic motivations, barriers to
the adoption of conservation practices and effectiveness of policy
instruments: Empirical evidence from northern Australia. Land Use
Policy, 28: 257-265.
379
Hirose Y. 1995. Social psychology on the environment and consumption.
Nagoya: University of Nagoya Press. (in Japanese)
Ide M. 1998. Biota conservation functions. In: Minami K (Ed.).
Environmental conservation and agriculture and forestry. Tokyo: Asakura
Publishing Co., Ltd., 107-118. (in Japanese)
Inaba M. 2005. Environmental creation-based organic rice farming using
biodiversity and natural cyclical functions. Japanese Society of Organic
Agriculture Science Annual Research Report Vol. 5, The Vision and
Possibility of Organic Farming Methods, Commons, Tokyo, 136-152. (in
Japanese)
Jacobson S K, K E Sieving, G A Jones, A Van Doorn. 2003. Assessment of
farmer attitudes and behavioral intentions toward bird conservation on
organic and conventional Florida farms. Conservat. Biol., 17:595-603.
Kurosawa M, Tezuka T. 2005. Awareness of farmers approaching the
sustainable agriculture to improve regional environment: Case study of
environmentally conscious agriculture in Shiga Prefecture. Journal of
Rural Planning Association, 7:61-66. (in Japanese)
Mineta T, Kurita H, Ishida K. 2004. Potential of winter-flooded rice field
in regard to farming and the multifunctionality: Analysis of status by
questionnaire and interview survey to operative farmers. Journal of Rural
Planning Association, 23:61-66. (in Japanese)
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan (MAFF). 2005.
The FY2012 Annual Report on Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas in
Japan. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan. (in
Japanese)
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan (MAFF). 2007. The
MAFF Biodiversity Strategy. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries of Japan. (in Japanese)
Morris C, C Potter. 1995. Recruiting the new conservationists: Farmers'
adoption of agri-environmental schemes in the UK. J. Rural. Stud.,
11:51-63.
Nakagawa S. 1998. Considering consolidation and improvement of
paddy fields and biodiversity conservation. Res J Food Agr, 21:3-8. (in
Japanese)
Nolan J M, P W Schultz, R B Cialdini, et al. 2008. Normative social
influence is under detected. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 34:913-923.
Nonami H. 1996. The active minority promoting the diffusion of
environment-conscious behavior: The effects on the cognitive processes
of the inhabitants in a community. Journal of the Faculty of Literature,
Nagoya University, Philosophy, 42:141-154. (in Japanese)
Potter C, R Gasson. 1988. Farmer participation in voluntary land diversion
schemes: Some predictions from a survey. J Rural Stud., 4:365-375.
Siebert R, M Toogood, A Knierim. 2006. Factors affecting European
farmers’ participation in biodiversity policies. Sociologia Ruralis, 46:318-
340.
Willock J, I J Deary, M M McGregor, et al. 1999. Farmers' attitudes,
objectives, behaviors, and personality traits: The Edinburgh study of
decision making on farms. J. Vocat. Behav. 54:5-36.
Wilson G. 1992. A survey on attitudes of landholders to native forest on
farmland. J. Environ. Manag., 34:117-136.
Wilson G. 1996. Farmer environmental attitudes and ESA participation.
GeoForum, 27:115-131.
Wilson G. 1997. Factors influencing farmer participation in the
environmentally sensitive areas scheme. J. Environ. Manag., 50:67-93.
380 Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.5 No.4, 2014

影响日本佐渡岛农民实施野生动物友好型耕作的因素探究
中村 慧1，柘植隆宏2，大久保悟1，武内和彦3,4，西川 潮5,6

1 东京大学农业和生命科学研究院，日本东京 113-8657, 1-1-1 Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku；

2 甲南大学经济学院，日本神户 658-8501, 8-9-1 Okamoto, Higashinada-ku；
3 东京大学可持续性科学综合研究系统，日本东京113-8654, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku；
4 联合国大学，日本东京150-8925, 5-53-70 Jingumae, Shibuya-ku；
5 新泻大学朱鹮和生态恢复中心，日本佐渡 952-0103, 1101-1 Niibo-katagami；
6 金泽大学自然与环境技术研究所，日本金泽 920-1192, Kakuma-mati

摘 要：野生动物友好型耕作（Wildlife-friendly Farming，WFF）实践是一种维持农田生态恢复的良好方式。本研究的目
的在于探讨影响日本佐渡岛农民实施WFF的因素和提出影响这种实践传播的政策。对佐渡岛上把大米销售给日本农业合作社
（Japan Agricultural Cooperatives，JA）的5010个农户进行了问卷调查，总共收到2231农户反馈问卷（反馈率45％）。通过与未
经认证农民的态度和属性对比，我们确定了影响农民实施WFF的关键因素。与未经认证的农民相比，已认证的农民：（1）对
生物多样性和WFF的经济效益表现出更高的兴趣；（2）拥有更多的已认证农民朋友；（3）感受到了来自消费者的更多的压力
和期望；（4）当实施WFF时，不受恶劣劳动力或农田条件的限制。为了在佐渡岛进一步宣传WFF，我们建议把WFF实践对稻
田生物多样性的有效性信息应用到公共教育中，并在非认证农民和已认证农民之间、农民与消费者之间创建交流的机会。

关键词：环境友好型耕作；计划行为理论；全球重要农业遗产系统（GIAHS）；朱鹮；生态标签