3.2.3. PFOs' Forest Management Behaviors and Attitudes

In both regions, the registered person was typically the principal owner (*p* = 0.521). Most primary managers were owners themselves (74.3%) in the EM group, whereas the majority were not managing (50.6%) in the D group (*p* = 0.002). A difference existed in the number of respondents who knew the location of their forest, with the EM group tending to have a higher percentage of respondents who knew the location of their forest (*p* = 0.010). The same was true for the boundaries, with the EM group tending to have more PFOs who knew the boundaries in person (*p* = 0.020). Comparing the frequency of forest visits revealed that the EM group tended to visit the forest more frequently (*p* = 0.002) (Table 6).

**Table 6.** Comparison of forest management behaviors between the two groups in Kunitomi.



**Table 6.** *Cont.*

Note: \* *p*-Value < 0.05.

No differences between regions were indicated in the percentage of PFOs who harvested in the last five years (*p* = 0.742), and the reasons that led to harvesting were similar. Regarding reforestation postharvest, 46.4% of the PFOs in the EM group reforested, whereas 17.1% in the D group did, indicating that PFOs with low motivation for forest management tended not to reforest (*p* = 0.037). The EM group was likelier to prioritize the following factors in their decision to log: the prospect of substantial profit (*p* = 0.015) and reforestation postharvest (*p* = 0.030). However, the D group demonstrated a greater likelihood of selling stumpage with the land (*p* = 0.000) (Table 7).

**Table 7.** Comparison of reasons for harvesting/reforestation and harvesting decisions between the two groups in Kunitomi.



Note: \* *p*-Value < 0.05.
