Perception and Relocation Intentions of Japanese Youth towards Rural Areas: A Case Study of Visitors in Hanyu-shi, Saitama Prefecture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this article is very-well written and draws from a clear and robust research approach.  It was a pleasure to read, and has the potential to make important contributions for research and practice in several disciplines.  You have used several of your interview citations quite effectively.

 My comments are minor, and designed to help you perfect this already strong piece, and to enhance the potential for future citations.  Some of these relate to definitions and context, along with sources; and others address grammar and style.  A few comments relate to your discussion section.

 Definitions, context, and sources:

 At line 42, please define mobility-led local development as this term is ambiguous and could mean many different things.

 At line 73, adding the definition of place attachment that you are working with would be helpful (e.g. particular dimensions).  There is an extensive set of literature on place attachment, and including this definition (and a source/ sources) would support your article in having relevance to this stream of research.

 At line 98, you cite Amare et al.  Was their focus on a particular geographic area, or comparative ?  It would be helpful to have a sentence or two to explain, and to also theorize about the extent to which the context they describe is relevant (or not) to the location of your case study.  Some of these factors could have some local variations, which are important to understand if appropriate policies are to be developed.  For example, rurality can look very different depending on income levels, infrastructure, etc., and could have corresponding implications for youth willingness to migrate.

Paragraph from Lines 107-120: Sounds like a great case study choice in many respects.  It may (and other communities like it) be an easier sell than other more remote rural areas, which may  be an important point to mention.  You may wish to contextualize this particular case study in comparison to other types of rural area, as different policy incentives may be needed to promote migration to more remote rural areas, if that is desired.  In addition, a bit more information (2 sentences on each?) on the two non-profit agencies you were working with might be helpful.

 At line 455, this point (that prolonged exposure to stressful settings can be potentially detrimental) could benefit from one or more references to support this claim.

Grammar and Style

In figure 3 after Line 28, "Reason for weaken" is not grammatically correct.  Alternatives here could include "Disincentives to relocation" or "Reasons for reluctance"

 You could benefit from a clearer connection between first sentence starting at line 46, and main focus of this paragraph which is on population decline.

 At line 98, instead of "counter urban", this should be "in counter-urban ways". 

 Very clear description of research activities in Section 2.2, thank you.  Later in your discussion/ conclusion, you have an opportunity to also comment on what additional research should/ could be done in more depth now that your work is complete.

 Discussion Section

It would be great to see some more reflection on existing initiatives and their scope of work, compared with additional needs which might help even more in attracting youth migration to rural areas.   At line 186, the participants' experiences are described as exchanges.  Presumably there are no other programs designed to help students/ young adults acquire agricultural knowledge and skills?  This question could become relevant, since skills (or perceived lack of skills for agricultural work in rural areas) may be another disincentive for rural migration.  You might wish to consider some brief mention of this in your discussion section, as skill-building programs can make a significant difference.  For example, in Metro Vancouver there is also an interest in encouraging more young people to take up farming, and there has been a 7-month programme there for over a decade called the Richmond Farm School.  See https://www.kpu.ca/rfs/program-details for more information.  There may be other locations with similar programs that you could mention in passing.

 Overall, with minor revisions, this piece will be a valuable contribution to many fields, with the potential to shape policies to promote youth migration to rural areas where that objective is desired.  I look forward to reading the final version of it.

Author Response

REVIEWER #1

Overall, this article is very-well written and draws from a clear and robust research approach.  It was a pleasure to read, and has the potential to make important contributions for research and practice in several disciplines.  You have used several of your interview citations quite effectively.

My comments are minor, and designed to help you perfect this already strong piece, and to enhance the potential for future citations.  Some of these relate to definitions and context, along with sources; and others address grammar and style.  A few comments relate to your discussion section.

・Thank you for taking the time to review our paper and providing such detailed feedback. We are grateful for your evaluating our paper and making positive and valuable suggestions for improvement. Your feedback has been instrumental in guiding our revisions, and we hope that the revised manuscript will meet your expectations. We appreciate your constructive criticism and will work to address the issues you have raised. Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Definitions, context, and sources:

1. At line 42, please define mobility-led local development as this term is ambiguous and could mean many different things.

• Thank you for highlighting the need for clarity on "mobility-led local development" in our This concept, referenced from a 2018 Economist report and Luke Dilley's article, describes a trend of urban Japanese moving to rural areas, attracted by the positive emotions and community these areas offer. we've added annotations in the manuscript (Line41-44) for a clearer explanation, apologizing for any previous lack of detail. Your feedback has been invaluable in refining and clarifying the manuscript's content.

2. At line 73, adding the definition of place attachment that you are working with would be helpful (e.g. particular dimensions). There is an extensive set of literature on place attachment, and including this definition (and a source/ sources) would support your article in having relevance to this stream of research.

• Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the definition of place attachment. In response to your feedback, wehave included a more comprehensive definition of place attachment, encompassing its various dimensions as applicable to our study's context (Line 76-78) . This definition, along with relevant sources, has been integrated into the manuscript to align our research with the broader discourse in this field. We deeply appreciate your guidance on this matter, which has significantly enhanced the academic rigor and clarity of the article. Thank you once again for your constructive and insightful comments.

3. At line 98, you cite Amare et al. Was their focus on a particular geographic area, or comparative ?  It would be helpful to have a sentence or two to explain, and to also theorize about the extent to which the context they describe is relevant (or not) to the location of your case study.  Some of these factors could have some local variations, which are important to understand if appropriate policies are to be developed.  For example, rurality can look very different depending on income levels, infrastructure, etc., and could have corresponding implications for youth willingness to migrate.

• Thank you for highlighting the need for context around Amare et al.'s research. Their study primarily focuses on the urban and rural dynamics within Nigeria. Weacknowledge that the context they describe might differ significantly from that of our case study's location in Japan. In the revised manuscript (Line 103-106), we have added a brief explanation of their study's geographic focus and have drawn comparisons to highlight relevant similarities and differences. Your input has been invaluable in enhancing the comprehensiveness and relevance of the study.

4. Paragraph from Lines 107-120: Sounds like a great case study choice in many respects.  It may (and other communities like it) be an easier sell than other more remote rural areas, which may  be an important point to mention.  You may wish to contextualize this particular case study in comparison to other types of rural area, as different policy incentives may be needed to promote migration to more remote rural areas, if that is desired.  In addition, a bit more information (2 sentences on each?) on the two non-profit agencies you were working with might be helpful.

• Thank you for your feedback on the case study section (Lines122-129). In the manuscript, we've explained choosing Hanyu-shi for its accessibility and local government's agricultural initiatives, which draw city dwellers for weekend farming. The emphasis of the study on the two local communities, Udokuseiko and Bokura no Shukaijo, serves to exemplify this trend. We have also included their information in this paragraph. We are grateful for your guidance, which has helped in refining the depth and clarity of the case study's presentation in the manuscript.

5. At line 455, this point (that prolonged exposure to stressful settings can be potentially detrimental) could benefit from one or more references to support this claim.

• Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the need for references to support the claim made at line 465about the detrimental effects of prolonged exposure to stressful settings. Following your advice, we have now incorporated relevant citations into the manuscript. Specifically, we have referenced the study "The current status of urban-rural differences in psychiatric disorders," which finds higher rates of mental illness in urban areas compared to rural ones. This research suggests that the complex and busy urban lifestyle is a contributing factor to this disparity. Your guidance has been instrumental in enhancing the academic rigor of our paper. We are grateful for your insightful feedback, which has significantly improved the quality of the manuscript.

Grammar and Style

6. In figure 3 after Line 28, "Reason for weaken" is not grammatically correct.  Alternatives here could include "Disincentives to relocation" or "Reasons for reluctance"

• Thank you for your grammar feedback on the caption of Figure 3（Line 287）. We've updated it to "Reasons for reluctance" for improved clarity and grammatical accuracy. Weappreciate your valuable suggestion.

7. You could benefit from a clearer connection between first sentence starting at line 46, and main focus of this paragraph which is on population decline.

• Thank you for your suggestion to enhance the connection between the opening sentence and the main focus on population decline at line 48-51. We've revised the sentence to provide a smoother transition and better context for the discussion on Japan's demographic trends. This adjustment should improve the paragraph's coherence and clarity.

8. At line 98, instead of "counter urban", this should be "in counter-urban ways".

• Thank you for your suggestion on refining the grammar（Line 103-105 ）. We have already adjusted that sentence in response to your earlier advice 3. Really appreciate for your helpful guidance.

9. Very clear description of research activities in Section 2.2, thank you. Later in your discussion/ conclusion, you have an opportunity to also comment on what additional research should/ could be done in more depth now that your work is complete.

• Really thank you for your positive feedback on the clarity of Section 2.2. We appreciate your suggestion and will indeed reflect on potential avenues for further research in the discussion and conclusion sections of ourworks.

Discussion Section

10. It would be great to see some more reflection on existing initiatives and their scope of work, compared with additional needs which might help even more in attracting youth migration to rural areas. At line 186, the participants' experiences are described as exchanges.  Presumably there are no other programs designed to help students/ young adults acquire agricultural knowledge and skills?  This question could become relevant, since skills (or perceived lack of skills for agricultural work in rural areas) may be another disincentive for rural migration.

You might wish to consider some brief mention of this in your discussion section, as skill-building programs can make a significant difference.  For example, in Metro Vancouver there is also an interest in encouraging more young people to take up farming, and there has been a 7-month programme there for over a decade called the Richmond Farm School.  

See https://www.kpu.ca/rfs/program-details for more information. There may be other locations with similar programs that you could mention in passing.

Overall, with minor revisions, this piece will be a valuable contribution to many fields, with the potential to shape policies to promote youth migration to rural areas where that objective is desired.  I look forward to reading the final version of it.

• Thank you deeply for your insightful feedback. We are truly grateful for your recognition of the critical role that agricultural skill development plays in fostering rural migration amongst the youth. The two organizations featured in our research are indeed centered on nurturing such competencies, drawing individuals who not only have a vested interest in agriculture but who are also keen on enhancing their practical skills through participation. Your advice has highlighted the importance of expressly communicating this within ourstudy, and we will make the necessary clarifications to emphasize the role of these organizations more clearly（Line 194-196）.
• Furthermore, we are inspired by your reference to the Richmond Farm School program. It's a brilliant model that underscores the potential benefits of structured agricultural education. The program's success in Metro Vancouver opens up exciting avenues for similar initiatives in Japan, which could significantly contribute to the revitalization of rural areas. We have add thispart in our discussion, pondering its applicability and potential adaptations suitable for the Japanese context (Line 693-704 ).
• Your recommendationshave not only enriched our research but also broadened our perspective on the practical measures that can support youth in embracing rural livelihoods. We are genuinely appreciative of the time and thought you have put into reviewing our  Your guidance is invaluable, and we are committed to refining my manuscript to reflect these enriching discussions. Thank you once again for your thoughtful and constructive critique.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper. The article is interesting, the researched problem has scientific potential and may be of interest to potential readers.

This study aims to explore the factors that impact Japanese youth's perceptions regarding relocation intentions towards rural areas. The Introduction is relevant and theory-based. The literature review is thorough, providing a comprehensive overview of existing research in the field. The methods are appropriate. The results were clearly presented. The work abounds with many testimonials, which gives it an additional quality.

What could be more elaborated is whether the results can be generalized and whether the authors would have reached the same conclusions if young people who had no experience of living in the countryside had been included in the research.

Pay attention to the citation, as in parts of the article citations appear in square brackets (lines 286 and 294).

Author Response

REVIEWER #2

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper. The article is interesting, the researched problem has scientific potential and may be of interest to potential readers.

This study aims to explore the factors that impact Japanese youth's perceptions regarding relocation intentions towards rural areas. The Introduction is relevant and theory-based. The literature review is thorough, providing a comprehensive overview of existing research in the field. The methods are appropriate. The results were clearly presented. The work abounds with many testimonials, which gives it an additional quality.

・Thank you for dedicating your valuable time to review our paper and for providing such detailed feedback. We are immensely grateful for your positive and valuable suggestions for improvement. Your insights have been crucial in guiding our revisions, and we hope the revised manuscript meets your expectations. We value your constructive suggestions and will endeavor to address the issues you raised. Thank you again for your time and consideration.

- What could be more elaborated is whether the results can be generalized and whether the authors would have reached the same conclusions if young people who had no experience of living in the countryside had been included in the research.

• Thank you for your suggestion regarding the scope of our study. You rightly pointed out that our research primarily included students with some rural experience, which might limit the generalizability of our results. In the final section of our discussion（Line716-718）, we have now acknowledged this limitation and emphasized the need for future research to include young people without any rural background. This expansion in research scope will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the broader youth perspective on rural living. We are grateful for your guidance, which significantly contributes to the depth and relevance of our study. Thank you once again for your valuable advice.

- Pay attention to the citation, as in parts of the article citations appear in square brackets (lines 286 and 294).

• Thank you for highlighting the inconsistency in our citation style. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and rectified the citation format, particularly in the sections you mentioned at lines 291 and 294, to ensure uniformity throughout the document. Your keen observation has helped improve the academic rigor and presentation of our work. We deeply appreciate your attention to detail and valuable input. Thank you once again for your assistance in enhancing the quality of our paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper on a highly relevant topic. It connects well to the international academic discourse of counterurbanisation and rural urban decline. It introduces the reader to the Japanese policy of rural revitalisation and presents empirical evidence on the motives of students for their possible intentions to relocate to rural areas.

There are some minor to intermediate weaknesses that should be addressed:

The paper does not explicitly feature a section on the state of research or the own theoretical approach. Existing research is now presented as part of the introduction. Is the own theoretical approach a Grounded Theory approach? This should be made explicit. The heading "Materials and Methods" is the standard heading of Social Sciences, as far as I know. It might be better to choose your own headings.

Although the paper is well informed, the structure of the argument is not always presented in a totally coherent and convincing way (especiall in the Introduction, Methods and Discussion chapters). I made some comments on that. However, I suggest to ask a native speaker to look for proper reader guidance throughout the text and restructure some of the sentences and paragraphs. There is also some redundancy. For example, the fact that the research is based on 26 interviews has been mentioned several times.

The discussion should also pick up other options for revitalising rural areas, such as international immigration. Why is that not an option in Japan? What is the role of place branding? Are municipal mergers a way to provide better infrastructure? As far as I know this has been done already. Are there any evaluations about that reform that could inform the discussion of results?

 

Some earlier works on the topic are missing from the literature review that might be useful for enhancing the discussion of results:

Ishikawa, Yoshitaka (2011): Recent In-Migration to Peripheral Regions of Japan in the Context of Incipient National Population Decline. In Florian Coulmas, Ralph Lützeler (Eds.): Imploding populations in Japan and Germany. A comparison. Leiden: Brill, pp. 421–442.

Rausch, Anthony S. (2008): Place branding in rural Japan: Cultural commodities as local brands. In Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 4 (2), pp. 136–146.

Elis, Volker (2011): Rural Depopulation and Economic Shrinkage in Japan: What Can Affected Municipalities Do About It? In Florian Coulmas, Ralph Lützeler (Eds.): Imploding populations in Japan and Germany. A comparison. Leiden: Brill, pp. 443–460.

Hara, Toshihiko (2015): A Shrinking Society. Post-Demographic Transition in Japan. Cham: Springer.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although the paper is well informed, the structure of the argument is not always presented in a totally coherent and convincing way (especiall in the Introduction, Methods and Discussion chapters). I made some comments on that. However, I suggest to ask a native speaker to look for proper reader guidance throughout the text and restructure some of the sentences and paragraphs. There is also some redundancy. For example, the fact that the research is based on 26 interviews has been mentioned several times.

Author Response

REVIEWER #3

This is an interesting paper on a highly relevant topic. It connects well to the international academic discourse of counterurbanisation and rural urban decline. It introduces the reader to the Japanese policy of rural revitalisation and presents empirical evidence on the motives of students for their possible intentions to relocate to rural areas.

・Thank you for dedicating your time to review our paper and for providing such insightful feedback. We are truly appreciative of your recognition of our work's connection to the broader academic discourse on counterurbanisation and rural-urban decline. The constructive criticism you offered has not only guided our revisions but also opened up avenues for deeper exploration in future studies. We have diligently worked to incorporate your suggestions, and we believe that these enhancements have significantly strengthened our manuscript. We are eager to see if the revised version aligns with your expectations and adds valuable insights to the field. Once again, thank you for your invaluable contributions and thoughtful guidance.

- The paper does not explicitly feature a section on the state of research or the own theoretical approach. Existing research is now presented as part of the introduction. Is the own theoretical approach a Grounded Theory approach? This should be made explicit.

• Thank you for your insightful feedback. In addressing the methodology of our study, we have employed thematic analysis as our primary method, grounded in established academic research frameworks. Our approach is particularly inspired by the works of K. Kanakis et al. in '“It's the people that keep me here”: Exploring the role of community attachment in increasing length of residency' and Shixian Luo et al. in '“We Need such a Space”: Residents’ Motives for Visiting Urban Green Spaces during the COVID-19 Pandemic.' These studies provided a robust foundation for our thematic analysis, guiding our research design and data interpretation process. We have indicated the sources of these frameworks in the 'Research Framework' section (2.2) of our paper, where the framework diagram clearly cite the reference. Your suggestion has been invaluable in highlighting the need for clarity in our methodological approach, and we have taken steps to ensure our framework's academic grounding is explicitly stated and easily traceable. Thank you once again for your guidance and assistance in enhancing the quality of our research.
• It's the people that keep me here”: Exploring the role of community attachment in increasing length of residency:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016718307666

• “We Need such a Space”: Residents’ Motives for Visiting Urban Green Spaces during the COVID-19 Pandemic

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6806

- The heading "Materials and Methods" is the standard heading of Social Sciences, as far as I know. It might be better to choose your own headings.

• Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion regarding the heading 'Materials and Methods.' However, the choice of this particular heading was in adherence to the specific requirements set by the journal for which this paper is intended. That said, weappreciate your advice on this matter and recognize the importance of aligning the paper's format with standard academic conventions. We plan to consult with the journal's editorial team to discuss the possibility of altering the heading to better suit the content and structure of the research. We are grateful for your meticulous attention to detail and for bringing this matter to our attention. Thank you once again for your valuable input.

-The discussion should also pick up other options for revitalising rural areas, such as international immigration.

Why is that not an option in Japan? What is the role of place branding?

Are municipal mergers a way to provide better infrastructure? As far as I know this has been done already. Are there any evaluations about that reform that could inform the discussion of results?

Thank you sincerely for your insightful suggestions regarding the discussion section of our paper. We have taken your advice into account and incorporated a discussion on the research limitations in the final section of the study（Line 716-724）. We appreciate your recommendation to explore broader strategies for rural revitalization, such as international immigration, place branding, and municipal mergers. These aspects indeed hold significant potential for influencing rural development policies, especially in attracting young demographics. Your suggestions have inspired us to consider these factors more deeply in future research endeavors to provide a more comprehensive understanding of rural revitalization strategies in Japan. Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback, which has greatly contributed to refining the scope and depth of our research.

- Some earlier works on the topic are missing from the literature review that might be useful for enhancing the discussion of results:

• We deeply appreciate your valuable suggestion regarding the inclusion of earlier works in the literature review section of our Following your advice, we have made a concerted effort to enrich the literature review of place attachment by incorporating additional definitions and dimensions from foundational studies in this field（Line 76-96）.
• We are also immensely grateful for the reference materials you have provided. Your recommendations have been instrumental in broadening our understanding and have significantly enhanced the quality of the literature review, allowing for a more comprehensive and insightful discussion of the results.Your guidance has been invaluable in strengthening the academic rigor of our paper. We are confident that these enhancements will contribute to a more thorough and nuanced exploration of the subject matter. Thank you once again for your thoughtful and constructive feedback.

- Although the paper is well informed, the structure of the argument is not always presented in a totally coherent and convincing way (especiall in the Introduction, Methods and Discussion chapters). I made some comments on that.

However, I suggest to ask a native speaker to look for proper reader guidance throughout the text and restructure some of the sentences and paragraphs. There is also some redundancy. For example, the fact that the research is based on 26 interviews has been mentioned several times.

• Thank you immensely for your valuable feedback. One of our authors, a native English speaker, has already provided substantial help in revising our manuscript. Taking your suggestion into consideration, I have also consulted additional native English-speaking colleagues at ourresearch institution. They have conducted a thorough review of the manuscript, aiding in refining its clarity and coherence.
• In response to your observation about the redundancy, particularly the repeated mentions of the 26 interviews, I have attentively revised the manuscript to eliminate these repetitions and enhance the overall clarity of the article. We are deeply appreciative of your thorough review and astute recommendations, which have been crucial in elevating the quality of our manuscript. Once again, thank you for your invaluable guidance and support.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf