3.2.2. Participation in the Hiraenoki Reconstruction Committee Activities

Of the 11 respondents (excluding the committee members), 9 participated every time they were called upon if possible, for example by mowing the grass at the observation site (Table 2).

**Table 2.** Participation in HRC activities by residents (excluding committee members).


In addition, 11 residents (non-HRC members) were asked whether they wanted to participate more in HRC activities (Table 3). All the residents said "no" because they had already fully participated in the activities. Other reasons given by the residents who answered "no" included "age", "I can't do anything if I interfere", "participation does not benefit the residents", and "I feel I was forced to participate".

**Table 3.** Willingness of residents regarding participation in HRC activities (excluding HRC members).


In contrast, HRC members were asked if they wanted residents to participate more in committee activities. Three of the seven members answered that they wanted the residents to participate more actively (Table 4). Their reasons were "not enough participation by the population below the early 60 s" and "I feel that the residents' cooperation is still only approximately 80% at the moment". Conversely, the HRC members who answered "I don't think so" had the following opinions: "we can't force them to participate" and "we would like to expand our activity to the outside of the community and cooperate with other communities rather than inside of the community".

**Table 4.** HRC members perspectives regarding resident participation in HRC activities.


#### 3.2.3. Expectations of the Hiraenoki Reconstruction Committee

The question was asked in an open-ended format. The most common answer was "maintenance and management of the observation site and its further development" (six respondents). Two respondents answered "early completion of restoration work" and "safety measures for the community and observation site". Other responses were as follows: "maintaining the current situation", "releasing fish into the river", "nursery for fireflies", "organizing abandoned farmland", "creating a lively landscape", "installing a walking trail in the community", "creating a place that can accommodate numerous people", "creating a place for visitors to stop by", "not to be second best", "promotion activities for the observation site", "having more children participate", "calling on the administrative construction office to plant trees for erosion control", "holding social gatherings attended by ex-residents", "arranging for flower viewing", "maintaining and utilizing the Kannondo temple and other facilities in the community effectively", "activities that will properly benefit the community", "activities for the internal residents", and "support for residents' marriages".

#### 3.2.4. Evaluation of the Hiraenoki Reconstruction Committee Activities

Regarding whether the HRC activities aligned with their expectations, seven respondents answered "in line", two answered "not in line", and nine answered "can't say either way" (Table 5). The most common reason for "undecided" was that they could not make a judgment because the results were not yet available. Residents who responded "not in

line" felt that the HRC activities were not beneficial to the community and expected the HRC to target the the Hiraenoki Community residents.

**Table 5.** Evaluation of HRC activities.


3.2.5. Challenges of the Hiraenoki Reconstruction Committee

The question was asked in an open-ended format. The most common response was a decrease in the number of bearers owing to depopulation and aging, and the resulting difficulties in long-term maintenance and management" (10 respondents). The second most common response was "There is a difference in views and motivations for reconstruction activities between generations, and relatively young residents do not cooperate well" (7 respondents).

Other opinions expressed by several respondents were that "the observation site has not yet become a gathering place" (4 respondents) and "safety measures have not been taken at the observation site and along the path, posing a risk of injury" (3 respondents). There were also a few comments interpreted as dissatisfaction with the HRC, such as, "The HRC is not open to women's participation", "Insufficient explanation to the residents", and "The HRC is closed and only the leader's opinion is strong".

The following were opinions on the Kunugiyama Observation Site.

#### 3.2.6. Participation in the Hiraenoki Reconstruction Tree Planting Ceremony

Eleven respondents said they "participated and planted trees", three said they "participated but did not plant trees", and four said they "did not participate" (Table 6). The three respondents who answered "participated but did not plant trees" indicated that they were not willing to participate because they felt forced to do so and that they wanted to help the event but felt it was irresponsible to plant trees that they had no way of managing. The four respondents who "did not participate" gave the following reasons: "my schedule did not allow me owing to other commitments", "injury", and "age".

**Table 6.** Participation in the Hiraenoki Reconstruction Tree Planting Ceremony.


3.2.7. Visits to the Observation Site Outside of Maintenance Activities

Seven respondents sometimes visited observations outside of the maintenance work. When asked if it was difficult for them to visit the site, eight respondents answered "not hard", seven answered "hard but want to visit", and three answered "hard, so I don't want to visit" (Table 7). This indicated that the majority felt that it was a burden to visit the observation site. Two of the three respondents who answered that they did not want to visit the observation site were relatively young men in their 50s.

**Table 7.** Opinion regarding the difficulty in visiting the observation site.


3.2.8. Impression of the Landscape at the Kunugiyama Observation Site

When asked if the observation site "feels like a typical Hiraenoki landscape", a photograph was presented to the residents so they could answer based on a common understanding of the question (Figure 8). As a result, eight answered "feels like the typical landscape like Hiraenoki", seven answered that it "does not feel like a landscape like Hiraenoki", and three answered "can't say either way" (Table 8).

**Figure 8.** Kunugiyama observation site (obtained by Yoshio Harada [the first author] on 28 November 2021).

**Table 8.** Opinion on the Kunugiyama observation site as the local landscape of the community.


The reasons given for "feels like Hiraenoki landscape" were "because it could be a new symbol of Hiraenoki Community" (5 respondents), "because it is a place of relaxation" (2 respondents), "because it is better to have it than not to have it" (2 respondents), "because it was built by everyone working together" (1 respondent), and "because it is my expersimmon orchard" (1 respondent). In contrast, the reasons given for "not feeling like Hiraenoki Community landscape" were "It is an unfinished project, and no results have been achieved so far" (2 respondents), "It is not very familiar yet in the community" (1 respondent), "There are no fruit trees, which is the industry of Hiraenoki Community" (1 respondent), "It looks like a landscape that can be found anywhere" (1 respondent), and "The original Hiraenoki landscape is not here" (1 respondent). The reasons given for "can't say either way" were "it's my first time here, and I don't know" and "it's an unprecedented landscape."

3.2.9. Impression of the Landscape View from the Kunugiyama Observation Site

The research question "Do you feel that the view from the observation site is the typical landscape of Hiraenoki?" was answered after a photograph was presented to the residents so that they could answer based on a common understanding (Figure 9). Thirteen

responded that the view was "landscape like Hiraenoki," four answered that it was "not landscape like Hiraenoki," and one answered, "can't say either way" (Table 9).

**Figure 9.** Landscape from the Kunugiyama observation site (obtained by Yoshio Harada [the first author] on 28 November 2021).

**Table 9.** Opinion on the Kunugiyama observation site as the local landscape of the community.


The reasons given for "feels like Hiraenoki" were "because I can see the autumn leaves of persimmons" (9 respondents), "because I can see the houses, roads, and other residential areas" (4 respondents), "because it is lush green" (1 respondent), and "because I have seen this view for a long time" (1 respondent). Opinions also included "It is sad that there are fewer houses" (1 respondent) and "It would be better if we could see Enoki area as well as Daira area" (1 respondent).

The reasons given for feeling "not Hiraenoki-like" were "We can only see Daira area and not Enoki area" (2 respondents), "The persimmon garden facing east in the morning sun is beautiful, but we can only see the south side from the observation site" (1 respondent), and "It is an unknown view from an unknown location" (1 respondent). One respondent chose "I can't say either way" because "I feel it's just an ordinary view of the countryside."

When asked how they felt about the construction site being visible from the observation site, the most common responses were "I want to improve it as a landscape" (5 respondents), "I have given up on it as inevitable" (5 respondents), and "I feel relieved that it is protected from disasters" (5 respondents).

Other responses were "I feel it will create awareness regarding this community being affected by the disaster" (4 respondents), "I feel that we suffered a major disaster" (3 respondents), "I feel anxious about the disaster" (1 respondent), "I do not want to see it if I could because it reminds me of the disaster" (1 respondent), "The landscape will fade if it turns black" (1 respondent), "I feel the construction is too slow" (1 respondent), "I feel it is just a matter of time because the greenery will return in 10 years" (1 respondent), and " I don't feel anything because I was not affected much by the disaster" (1 respondent).

3.2.10. Interaction Inside and Outside the Community after the Establishment of the Observation Site

As for whether the observation site had ever come up in conversation among the residents in the community, 10 respondents answered "yes" and 8 answered "no." However, 6 of the 10 who answered "yes" were HRC members, i.e., more than half of the residents who were not HRC members answered "no" (Table 10).

**Table 10.** Responses regarding whether the observation site had ever come up in conversation among community residents.


With regard to whether interaction with the outside community had increased since the establishment of the observation site, 5 respondents answered "increased" and 13 answered "not changed" (Table 11). However, four of the five respondents who answered "increased" were HRC members. Only 1 of the 11 non-HRC residents responded that it had "increased". Therefore, there was a large difference between the perceptions of HRC members and those of non-HRC residents.

**Table 11.** Opinion on interaction with the outside community.


In terms of opinions regarding outsiders coming in and out of the community, 16 responded "agree", 1 responded "disagree", and 1 responded "neither" (Table 12). One respondent who answered "no" stated that he was afraid of the COVID-19 virus being introduced from the outside. The one respondent who answered "neither" stated that he did not feel any particular concern regarding people from the outside coming in and out of the community, but that people had been passing noisily on the road in front of his house for some time, and he would be concerned if such people were to enter the community in the future.

**Table 12.** Opinion on the Kunugiyama observation site as local landscape of the community.


#### **4. Discussion**

The observation project of the Hiraenoki Community revitalized local pride through landscape creation and involved numerous people outside the community, including the Asakura Extension Center, the Kyushu University Team, NPO Asa-Kuru staff, and children who participated in the Asa-Kuru activities. It provided an opportunity to form connections among people outside the community and residents inside the community. The Kunugiyama observation site is expected to become a "new symbol" for the community and may become an opportunity to recreate the community's identity.

Considering the roles of each entity involved in establishing the observation site, the HRC and cooperative residents played essential roles in planning, preparing project funds, building consensus within the community, and managing the observation site. Conversely, outsiders such as the Kyushu University Team and Asakura Extension Center served as advisors in their respective fields of expertise in the creation of the observation

site. They also acted as links between the Asa-Kuru NPO and the Hiraenoki Community. The NPO Asa-Kuru created contact points and communication opportunities between the community and the children. Furthermore, the HRC activities of the observation site led to new developments such as the formation of the "Hiraenoki Community Guard Group (*Hiraenoki Satomori Kai*)" a consultative body of the HRC, a citizens' group (NPO Asa-Kuru), and a university (Kyushu University Team). Therefore, the case of the Hiraenoki Community is regarded as an example as to how interaction with outsiders led to the reaffirmation of the community's appeal and dissemination to the outside community.

In contrast, our interviews revealed that the HRC faced several issues. Firstly, many residents found it challenging to maintain and manage the observation site. In addition, despite considerable participation in the work, awareness among HRC members and other residents in the community differed. For example, perception differed between men and women, among ex-Daira and ex-Enoki community residents, and in various age groups. The communication and sharing of ideas among them were insufficient. Furthermore, certain residents feel an "atmosphere of coercion" around the HRC activities, including the reconstruction tree-planting ceremony. This necessitates the sharing of objectives and issues between the HRC and other residents. Some residents also mentioned "activities targeting residents" as a challenge for the HRC. The HRC's philosophy of landscape creation is to "make the community a place where residents and others are happy to live". However, there is concern that collaboration with outsiders will obscure the original targets of the HRC activities. As in the case in Mashiki Town, which was damaged by the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake [9], the possibility that the landscape creation activities of the Hiraenoki Community can be a means of achieving revitalization of the local community depends on how much participation and understanding can be obtained from the residents in the maintenance activities for the Kunugiyama observation project.

The ex-residents who had moved out of the community were also insufficiently involved in promoting and sharing information regarding reconstruction activities and did not actively participate in the activities. Given the results of interviews with the ex-residents, it would be very difficult for some ex-residents to live in the Hiraenoki Community again. On the other hand, persimmon orchards and the invitation to the tree-planting ceremony from the HRC played roles in connecting ex-residents with the Hiraenoki Community. Therefore, how to utilize the Kunugiyama observation site as a "new communal place" of the Hiraenoki Community to maintain relationships among current residents and exresidents is an important challenge. It is also essential to achieving the HRC's philosophy to "make the community a place where residents and others are happy to live".

In recent years, there has been increased attention on the "relationship population" in Japan. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan describes the "relationship population" as a term that refers to people who are involved in a variety of ways with the community, i.e., neither the "settled population" who have moved to the area nor the "exchange population" who have come for sightseeing [19]. On the other hand, Sakuno argued that the "relationship population" should be regarded as one of a number of relationships between urban areas and agricultural and fishing village areas in this new era [20]. In communities facing the challenge of a shortage of residents who keep the community functioning due to population decline and aging, the "relationship population" is expected to become new bearers of the community. In our case study, some ex-residents still had a place attachment and strong network to the Hiraenoki Community even if it would be very difficult for them to live in the Hiraenoki Community again. Therefore, it appeared possible to retain them as a "relationship population" even if they could not be retained as a "settled population". Although our limited data does not allow for further discussion, it appears essential in the reconstruction process to find ways to maintain the "ex-settled population" as the "relationship population" in the post-disaster communities if some residents relocate out of communities after disasters. The reconstruction efforts through observation site creation in the Hiraenoki Community suggest the possibilities and challenges of resident-led landscape creation in the face of

aging, depopulation, and reconstruction through cooperation between reconstruction organizations inside and outside the community.

Finally, we were limited in that we could only obtain the opinions of one representative from each household. To understand the perceptions of a wide range of residents in the community, it is necessary to understand the views of other residents, including women. In addition, interviews with ex-residents who have relocated out of the communities after the NKTR are also needed for further discussion. It is also essential to continue participant observation and document resident-led reconstruction activities in the long term.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, Y.H., A.I., K.A., N.S. and T.F.; methodology, Y.H., A.I., N.S. and T.F.; formal analysis, Y.H.; investigation, Y.H., A.I., N.S. and T.F.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.H.; writing—review and editing, T.O. and T.F.; supervision, K.A., N.S. and T.F.; project administration, N.S.; funding acquisition, N.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP18H04152.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** All authors have taken a designated research ethics course required by the universities.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data used to support the findings of this study are included within this article.

**Acknowledgments:** We are deeply grateful to the people of the Hiraenoki Community.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
