3.1.1. PFOs' Future Intentions

Differences were observed between the two regions' PFOs' intentions regarding the future forest management scale (*p* = 0.000). In Kunitomi, 47.3% (70 PFOs) belonged to the EM group, whereas 52.7% (78 HHs) belonged to the D group. In Kitakata, 70.9% (185 PFOs) belonged to the EM group, whereas 29.1% (76 PFOs) belonged to the D group.

Differences between the two regions were also seen in forest management intentions (*p* = 0.000). In Kunitomi, most PFOs (29.7%, 46 PFOs) wanted to "sell and transfer" their land, whereas 25.8% (40 PFOs) were "undecided," meaning that they were not thinking about or were considering the future management method. However, in Kitakata, "undecided" was the most common response (30.8%, 88 PFOs), followed by "entrustment" (28.7%, 82 PFOs). PFOs who answered "sell or transfer" accounted for 13.6% (39 PFOs). Overall, these results indicate that PFOs' future management intentions were low in Kunitomi and that many PFOs were willing to relinquish their land (Tables 1 and A1).

**Table 1.** Comparison of future intention to manage forests between two regions.


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

#### 3.1.2. Forest Ownership Size and Forest Conditions

Forest ownership size between the two regions differed, and Kunitomi tended to have smaller forest ownership size than Kitakata (*p* = 0.000). The most prevalent response in both regions was that PFOs were unaware of their forest sizes, with 29.2% (45 PFOs) in Kunitomi and 38.7% (106 PFOs) in Kitakata. Concerning the trends by size of PFOs who were aware of their forest areas, Kunitomi had the highest percentage of PFOs with a forest ownership size of 1–3 ha (34.4%, 53 PFOs), followed by PFOs with a forest ownership size of less than 1 ha. In Kitakata, the highest percentage of PFOs owned 10–30 ha (16.1%, 44 PFOs), followed by those who owned 5–10 ha (11.7%, 32 PFOs). Similarly, the planted forest size was unknown, with the highest percentage of PFOs in Kunitomi (40.1%, 59 PFOs) and Kitakata (41.4%, 110 PFOs). Kunitomi tended to have smaller PFOs than Kitakata (*p* = 0.000) based on the planted forest size known.

Regarding the degree of maturity of planted forests, 46.7% (70 PFOs) of the PFOs in Kunitomi and 60.0% (168 PFOs) in Kitakata indicated that their planted forests were "mature," whereas 0.7% (1 PFOs) in Kunitomi and 2.5% (7 PFOs) in Kitakata said they were "partially" at the harvest stage. The northern region tended to have a greater proportion of mature forests (*p* = 0.014). In addition, 20.7% (31 PFOs) of the respondents in Kunitomi and 12.9% (36 PFOs) in Kunitomi answered that they were unsure. No significant difference was observed between the two regions in the status of the cadastral survey, with 60.9% (95 PFOs) completed in Kunitomi and 58.5% (172 PFOs) in Kunitomi (*p* = 0.161).

Regarding forest registration methods, Kunitomi tended to favor single-title registration, whereas Kitakata favored shared-title registration (*p* = 0.002).

These results indicate that Kunitomi has smaller forest and planted forest areas than Kitakata and that Kunitomi's forest ownership size is smaller than that of Kitakata. In both regions, most PFOs were unaware of their own forest areas and planted forests (Table 2).


**Table 2.** Comparison of forest conditions between the two regions.

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

#### 3.1.3. Demographic Characteristics of PFOs

The largest proportion of PFOs in both regions were in their 60s (Kunitomi: 31.0%; Kitakata: 37.9%), followed by those in their 70s (Kunitomi: 29.0%; Kitakata: 29.1%) (*p* = 0.371). Gender was predominantly male (Kunitomi: 86.5%; Northern: 87.8%) (*p* = 0.764). The relationship between the PFO and FOC was as follows: in Kunitomi, 50.7% (74 PFOs) were cooperative members, 15.1% (22 PFOs) were heirs of cooperative members, and 34.2% (50 PFOs) were unknown. In Kitakata, 83.4% (226 PFOs) were cooperative members, 3.7%

(10 PFOs) were heirs of cooperative members, and 12.9% (35 PFOs) were unknown, indicating that more PFOs in Kitakata were cooperative members than in Kunitomi, whereas more PFOs in Kunitomi were unaware of their relationship with FOC than Kitakata (*p* = 0.000). No differences existed in the two regions regarding the PFOs' primary source of income. 59.1% (94 PFOs) of PFOs in Kunitomi and 63.5% (183 PFOs) in Kitakata reported having a successor (*p* = 0.362).

#### 3.1.4. Awareness of Forest Ownership and Forest Management Behaviors

The proportion of respondents who were registered PFOs was 78.2% (122 PFOs) in Kunitomi and 72.1% (202 PFOs) in Kitakata, with no significant difference between the two regions (*p* = 0.097). The forest was primarily managed by its PFOs in both regions (Kunitomi: 55.0%, Kitakata: 64.0%). In comparison, 40.0% (64 PFOs) of the PFOs in Kunitomi and 28.1% (82 PFOs) in Kitakata indicated that they did not manage the forest (*p* = 0.190). The proportion of PFOs recognizing their forest locations was 75.6% (121 PFOs) in Kunitomi and 73.1% (209 PFOs) in Kitakata, whereas the proportion of PFOs not recognizing the location was 10.6% (17 PFOs) in Kunitomi and 10.8% (31 PFOs) in Kitakata, showing a similar trend (*p* = 0.573). Furthermore, in Kunitomi, 60.9% (98 PFOs) were aware of the PFO's boundaries, whereas 21.1% (34 PFOs) were unaware, and in Kitakata, 67.8% (192 PFOs) were aware, whereas 15.2% (43 PFOs) were unaware. No differences were observed between the two regions (*p* = 0.149). The PFOs' frequency of visits to the forests did not differ between the two regions (*p* = 0.650). The most common response in Kunitomi was "rarely" (23.8%, 38 PFOs), followed by "once a year" (21.9%, 35 PFOs); 3.8% (6 PFOs) of PFOs visited monthly, 18.1% (29 PFOs) visited several times a year; and 9.4% (15 PFOs) of the PFOs never visited. The most common response in Kitakata was "once every few years" (25.7%; 76 PFOs), followed by "almost never" (22.0%; 65 PFOs); 3.0% of PFOs visited monthly (9 PFOs), 19.6% (58 PFOs) visited several times a year; and 6.4% (19 PFOs) of the PFOs never visited (Table A1).

Notably, 73 PFOs (46.8%) in Kunitomi and 125 PFOs (44.8%) in Kitakata (*p* = 0.690) had harvesting experience within the previous five years. Of these, 72 PFOs (excluding 1 PFO in Kunitomi due to no response) and 125 PFOs in Kitakata were compared. The "suitable age of harvesting" was answered by 26.4% (19 PFOs) of the respondents in Kunitomi and 45.6% (57 PFOs) in Kitakata (*p* = 0.010); 6.9% (5 PFOs) of the respondents in Kunitomi and 16.8% (21 PFOs) in Kitakata responded "to earn extra income" (*p* = 0.052). "Recommended from FOC" was selected by 1.4% (1 PFO) in Kunitomi and 6.4% (8 PFOs) in Kitakata (*p* = 0.159). "Recommended from the private logging company" was 51.4% (37 PFOs) in Kunitomi and 25.6% (32 PFOs) in Kitakata (*p* = 0.000). An "increase in timber prices" was unobserved in Kunitomi but was 0.8% (1 PFO) in Kitakata (*p* = 1.000). The "expiration of sharing contract" was unobserved in Kunitomi but was 6.4% (8 PFOs) in Kitakata (*p* = 0.028). "Wind damage, disease, and insect damage" accounted for 11.1% (8 PFOs) in Kunitomi and 3.2% (4 PFOs) in Kitakata (*p* = 0.033). "Others" accounted for 9.7% (7 PFOs) in Kunitomi and 10.4% (13 PFOs) in Kitakata (*p* = 1.000).

We then determined whether these PFOs had reforested postharvest. The results showed that 29.6% (21 PFOs) of the PFOs in Kunitomi and 55.2% (64 PFOs) in Kitakata had reforested, whereas 57.7% (41 PFOs) in Kunitomi and 37.1% (43 PFOs) in Kitakata had not reforested, indicating that more PFOs in Kitakata had reforested (*p* = 0.026). Regarding the intention to conduct harvest and reforest in the future, 20.6% (32 PFOs) of the PFOs in Kunitomi and 31.3% (89 PFOs) in Kitakata wanted to conduct both harvesting and reforestation. In comparison, 10.3% (16 PFOs) in Kunitomi and 8.5% (24 PFOs) in Kitakata wanted only to harvest and not reforest (24 PFOs) in Kitakata. The PFOs who answered that they had no plans to do so were the most numerous in both areas, with 66.5% (103 PFOs) in Kunitomi and 57.7% (164 PFOs) in Kitakata.

When comparing the factors that would be important in the decision-making process for harvesting, the most common factors that differed between the two regions were "reasonable profit" (Kunitomi: 40.4%; Kitakata: 54.6%, *p* = 0.007) and "sell with the land" (Kunitomi: 66.7%; Kitakata: 12.6%, *p* = 0.000). No differences were indicated for "trust of buyer" (*p* = 0.098), "reforestation postharvest" (*p* = 0.211), "only harvesting" (*p* = 1.000), and "the adjacent landowner also harvesting" (*p* = 0.800) (Table 3).

**Table 3.** Comparison of reasons for harvesting/reforestation and harvesting decisions between the two regions.


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