The countryside: A key to building a sustainable society
With challenges such as an aging population and declining disaster response capabilities in rural communities, Japanese society as a whole has been discussing how rural society, commonly called “inaka,” can continue to thrive. As various forecasts suggest, sustaining the diverse ways of life that people have long upheld across different regions will become increasingly difficult.
On the other hand, the importance of land and resource management is gaining recognition, along with a rising interest in non-urban ways of life. The growing use of terms such as “Chiho Shometsu” (Disappearance of Localities) and “Den’en Kaiki” (Return to Rural Living), despite their contrasting meanings, clearly reflects these situations.
The concept of disappearance of localities, introduced by Hiroya Masuda, the former Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications, clearly outlined how regional differences in population reproduction and interregional migration have contributed to Japan’s long-term population decline. His proposal for national strategies to address this issue created a significant stir.
A total of 896 local municipalities at risk of disappearing due to natural population decline were identified, to instill a sense of crisis and urgency among local officials. This initiative served as the basis for today’s regional revitalization policies. On the other hand, the approach of predicting the disappearance of regional municipalities based on demographic trend forecasts, particularly focusing on the proportion of women of childbearing age, has been criticized as a shock doctrine. A tendency to overlook the initiatives of rural municipalities is another issue that cannot be ignored.
While on the other hand, the theory of return to rural living, a series of arguments that started with a question raised by Professor ODAGIRI Tokumi of the School of Agriculture, Meiji University, has stood in contrast to the theory of disappearance of localities, reflecting a growing social interest toward the countryside and regional development.
First of all, the concept of return to rural living represents the expanding interest in rural lifestyles, contrasting with the “age of urbanization” of the 20th century. During this period, the concept of a population with ties to a community spread nationwide. This includes individuals living in multiple locations and support teams from outside communities contributing to local development. These trends seem to align with the growing interest in relocating from cities to rural areas (especially among young people).
Simply put, the most distinctive feature of the two concepts is that the theory of disappearance of localities focuses on preventing population outflows from rural areas, while the theory of return to rural living promotes population exchange and interaction between rural towns and large cities, as well as among rural communities. Migration to the countryside serves as an example of these two opposing ideas.
By the way, surprisingly, about 10 years have already passed since discussions about disappearance of localities and return to rural living began. Although rural regions cannot yet be overly optimistic about their future, it is noteworthy that the societal commitment to sustainability, as exemplified by the SDGs, has grown significantly in these 10 years.
When envisioning a sustainable society, including measures to address climate change, it is highly meaningful to review traditional rural lifestyles and explore ways to adopt and utilize them. Concepts such as “decarbonization” and “circular economy” are now being employed to reconsider the overall framework of the social economy. I believe it is now essential to consider the ideal structure of the social economy, particularly from the perspective of rural communities and economies.
The commodification of rural space: Benefits and drawbacks
Rural regions have functioned as places to produce food and other various resources needed in society. However, at some point after the war, primary industries in rural regions began to decline, weakening their economic base through reduced production activities.
Under these circumstances, some regions have shifted from “spaces for production” to “spaces for consumption,” reflecting the phenomenon that rural areas are targeted for tourism, cultural appreciation, and other consumer-focused activities. This trend is described as “post-productivism” or even the “commodification of rural spaces.”
This form of commodification differs from conventional regional promotion initiatives aimed at revitalizing forestry and promoting traditional crafts, which focus on marketing local products or promoting production activities as commodities. Conventional methods focused on the commodification of goods and services. The commodification in this context refers to strategies to reframe rural aspects, which have sometimes been perceived negatively, as positive, highlighting qualities not found in urban areas. For example, rural areas offer “serenity” as opposed to “liveliness,” clean air and water, expansive green spaces like forests, seasonal agricultural landscapes of rice paddies and fields, rustic roads, and charming old-fashioned houses. In contrast to modern development methods once common, which sought to make farming villages resemble urban cities, this trend aims to utilize rural landscapes while preserving them or subtly enhancing them in inconspicuous ways.
Such commodification may highlight aspects too ordinary for local people to recognize, leading non-rural inhabitants to appreciate their value. In particular, rural living conditions in line with the laws of nature, the promotion of renewable energy, and the reevaluation of organic and natural farming could create opportunities for companies, if they match the social inclination toward “rooted ways of life.”
However, excessive commodification, driven by the need to cater to market demand, has a number of negative impacts. In some cases, only fragments of what local communities have cultivated are commercialized, and overly artificial schemes transform areas into bland theme parks, diminishing their original value. Many places across the nation have experienced issues such as traffic jams caused by visitors seeking a laid-back lifestyle in the countryside and the degradation of scenic landscapes due to new parking lots.
Some past cases can be seen as a waste of resources, with urban development funds invested to build golf courses and ski resorts in rural areas, which were later neglected when visitor numbers declined. The commodification of rural spaces will bring only temporary prosperity and is bound to collapse eventually if it relies on outdated approaches of the last century, such as imposing “urban logic” on rural communities solely to pursue business opportunities. This will only exhaust both companies and local communities.
Instead, I would like to emphasize once again that pursuing measures to sustain resources based on past activities in rural regions and communities is also beneficial for urban capital. Defining the direction while exploring new forms of relationships between urban and rural communities should be valued in today’s society, where the SDGs are actively being promoted.
What kind of strategy, then, is needed to guide local municipalities to their own endogenous development, rather than creating a dynamic where urban dwellers and capital consume products and services of rural communities and regions?
“Shifting the focus from urbanized societies to rural societies” has become a key topic in the study of regional society and economy. An underlying factor is growing doubts about the values of 20th-century “urbanization,” as people confront challenges such as climate change and food safety.
As I mentioned earlier, the expansion of capitalism and the market economy in the 20th century centered on urban growth. Postwar economic growth did not benefit Japan as a whole. Instead, urban cities took away the labor force and production bases from rural communities and regions. This phenomenon is called “uneven regional development” in the field of regional economics and economic geography.
However, rural communities and regions are facing new circumstances. Regional economies are now expected to function with a range of elements, such as nature, culture, leisure, and environmental conservation. Rural communities are currently exploring effective ways to connect local resources such as forestry and agriculture with other functions.
Potential for the shift from “urbanization” to “an era focused on rural regions”
Of course, local specialties and traditional crafts can be highly appealing local resources for urban dwellers. However, I believe that their appeal can be enriched by understanding how they connect to other regional elements.
As an example, I would like to introduce the case of Hita City in Oita Prefecture. Hita City, renowned for producing Hita cedar, is well known for its initiative to create geta (traditional wooden clogs) by repurposing wood scraps generated when processing logs into timber.
In the mountainous region of Hita lies the Onta Sarayama district, known as the center for Ontayaki pottery, a type of traditional pottery. Wood scraps and tree bark from Hita’s forestry production areas are also utilized as fuel in this district. In the village, the soil used for pottery is crushed using a karausu, a device similar to a shishi-odoshi, which operates with water flow. The captivating scene with the rhythmic clanking of the karausu echoing throughout the day, recognized as one of the 100 Soundscapes of Japan, is a valuable cultural asset of the region.
Further research clarified that the water powering the karausu flows from a village with terraced rice paddies lying upstream of Onta. In other words, Ontayaki pottery, a traditional craft, can continue to thrive not only due to the expertise of its potters, but also because of the circle that connects to other regional sectors, such as forestry production and upstream water management to ensure stable supply.
Traditional crafts practiced across Japan are often regarded as regional resources on their own. However, adopting a broader perspective can foster a deeper appreciation of their value in the context of sustainability and new forms of local circulation.
Over the past 10 years since discussions on disappearance of localities and return to rural living began, the challenges faced by rural regions have, in some ways, become clearer. I would like to emphasize that we should more actively pursue the potential for the shift from the age of urbanization to an era focused on rural regions.
This is not about returning to the rural lifestyle of a few decades ago; it is about finding new ways to live and work in today’s rural communities. We should aim for a society that revitalizes both urban cities and rural communities, instead of treating urban and rural matters as unrelated domains.
Companies are also expected to play a key role in shaping a society where diverse entities work together to create multilayered circles. It is equally important for businesses to contribute to creating a region’s common resources (social common resources) and coexist.
* The information contained herein is current as of May 2024.
* The contents of articles on Meiji.net are based on the personal ideas and opinions of the author and do not indicate the official opinion of Meiji University.
* I work to achieve SDGs related to the educational and research themes that I am currently engaged in.
Information noted in the articles and videos, such as positions and affiliations, are current at the time of production.
