*3.3. In the Case of Kitakata*

3.3.1. Future Intentions of PFOs

Most PFOs in the EM and D groups reported that they were unsure of their forest size (EM group: 32.4%; D group: 48.5%). Most respondents in the EM group (18.8%) owned 10–30 ha, whereas most respondents in the D group (13.2%) owned 1–3 ha, indicating that the EM group tended to own a larger forest. In contrast, a higher percentage of respondents in the D group did not know their owned forest size (*p* = 0.007). Similarly, the plantation forest size of the EM group was the most common (32.0% in the EM group; 57.6% in the reduced size group). As with the forest size, the EM group tended to have a larger planted forest size and to know the size (*p* = 0.000). The maturity of planted forests was most frequently reported as mature by both the EM (63.8%) and D groups (57.5%), although a higher percentage of PFOs in the D group did not know the condition (*p* = 0.006). No differences were observed in the implementation of cadastral surveys (*p* = 0.199) or the method of land registration title (*p* = 0.570) (Table 8).


**Table 8.** Comparison of forest conditions between the two groups in Kitakata.


**Table 8.** *Cont.*

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

3.3.2. Demographic Characteristics of PFOs

No differences were found between the two groups in the PFOs' age distribution (*p* = 0.863) or gender (*p* = 0.156). As for the relationship with FOC, the D group was likelier to be unaware of whether they were members (*p* = 0.004). Regarding succession, the D group was likelier to have no successor (*p* = 0.000). In addition, a higher proportion of the EM group was in agriculture (*p* = 0.042) and forestry (*p* = 0.028) as the primary income sources for the PFOs (Table 9).

**Table 9.** Comparison of PFOs' characteristics between the two groups in Kitakata.


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

#### 3.3.3. PFOs' Forest Management Behaviors and Attitudes

Both groups had the highest percentage of respondents, in which the principal was the registered owner (*p* = 0.981). The principal administrator was the owner himself in both the EM (78.6%) and D groups (64.9%). In both groups, the owner recognized the location (*p* = 0.355) and boundaries (*p* = 0.051) of the owned forest; the highest percentage of owners themselves managed the forest, whereas a higher percentage of the D group did not (*p* = 0.000). Comparing the frequency of visits to the forest revealed that the EM group tended to visit more frequently (*p* = 0.000) (Table 10). No difference was observed between the two groups in the percentage of PFOs harvested in the past five years (*p* = 0.679). Likewise, no difference was observed in the reasons for harvesting among PFOs who had logged before. Regarding reforest postharvest, 63.4% of the PFOs in the EM group fully reforested, whereas 51.6% of those in the D group did not, indicating that PFOs with low motivation for forest management tended not to reforest (*p* = 0.029).


**Table 10.** Comparison of forest management behaviors between the two groups in Kitakata.

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

Differences were also observed in the factors that were important in the decision to harvest. A high percentage of the EM group indicated that they expected to make a substantial profit (*p* = 0.005), whereas a high percentage of the D group indicated that they were willing to sell the land with stumpage (*p* = 0.000) (Table 11).


**Table 11.** Comparison of reasons for harvesting/reforestation and harvesting decisions between the two groups in Kitakata.

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

#### **4. Discussion and Conclusion**

The NSFM aims to realize efficient and sustainable timber production based on consolidating the forest land of PFOs with low future intentions. In this study, we administered a questionnaire to PFOs in Miyazaki Prefecture, one of the most active areas for timber production in Japan, to examine the socioeconomic factors that affect PFOs' future intentions.

The PFOs' willingness to manage forests varies by region [32]. First, this study compared PFOs' future intentions and the factors that might influence them across regions with different forest ownership sizes. In the small-scale region, 52.7% of PFOs desired to reduce the future management scale, whereas 70.9% of PFOs in the large-scale region desired to maintain or increase the management scale. A comparison of the two regions revealed the problems in private forest management. A common problem in small and large regions was the lack of awareness of forests owned by PFOs themselves. In particular, the fact that many PFOs were unaware of the size of their forests and planted forests indicated that PFOs do not have the sources to understand the value of their forests and consider the direction of future forest management. The importance of successors in forest management was also indicated. Additionally, this study revealed the challenges specific to the small-scale regions. The small-scale regions showed fewer future intentions to manage forests. Many PFOs were unaware of the maturity of their planted forests as well as the size of their forests. This may be attributed to the lack of understanding in many PFOs regarding the economic value of their planted forests, which may be one factor that reduces their willingness to manage their forests. Since many PFOs did not understand the value of their forests, their decision-making process regarding forest management was passive, as evidenced by the reasons for their decision to harvest their forest. Additionally, many PFOs

wanted to quit forestry, whereas many did not reforest postharvest (Table 12). These results indicated the need to develop a framework to provide PFOs with enough information to consider future management directions while implementing NSFM. At the same time, since small-scale regions are less willing to manage forests than large-scale regions, aggerating forest management right by municipalities is promising for the sustainable management of forests. However, since the workload of municipalities is excessive [11], the prefectural government should support municipalities in small-scale areas with an emphasis on smallscale regions. PFOs' low willingness to manage their forests may harm timber production, as owner identification and rights identification are particular barriers to timber production in the small-scale region [33,34]. Similar results were obtained for forest and planted forest size, as they influenced the current willingness to manage [13,16,18–20].

**Table 12.** Inter-regional differences of forest management problems.


Next, based on the survey results, we examined the factors affecting the future intentions of PFOs and the forest management behaviors of PFOs with low future intentions. The factor affecting future intention in small-scale regions was the presence of successors [24]. No difference was found in the forest size [13,16,18–20], which was considered a factor while analyzing the results, likely because the forest size was biased toward small-scale. In contrast, forest size, planted forest size, and planted forest maturity were the factors of forest condition that influenced the future intentions in large-scale regions. These results suggest that the economic value of forests affects the future intentions of the PFOs in large-scale regions. In addition, the existence of successors, the relationship with the FOC, and forestry's position as an income source were also indicated as factors. Since it is essential to clarify the forest management behaviors of the PFOs with low future intentions to consider forestry policies, we summarized the characteristics of the forest management behaviors and attitudes of the D group. Among the common issues associated with both regions, the D group tended to have scarce forest management and be willing to dispose of their forestlands. Therefore, these PFOs tended not to implement reforestation because they had less emphasis on the reforest postharvest. In small-scale regions, few PFOs had future management directions and were unaware of the location and boundaries of their forests (Table 13). The D group was not considered interested in the economic value of the forest. There could be two possible causes behind the lack of interest in economic value: first, they do not have information about the forests, and second, they must dispose of the forests due to the absence of successors to inherit them.

Under the Forest Management Law, municipalities must conduct surveys of PFOs' intentions, and some have already begun to do so. Many PFOs are likely to respond to this survey without having all the facts they need to decide on their future forest management intentions. A procedural flaw can be identified regarding the intention survey, which encourages PFOs to make decisions without information about their forests. Before the survey, the government must provide an opportunity for the PFOs to know the location and boundaries of the forest, resource status, and other information. In addition, the omission of local forest ownership size from the criteria for allocating FETT to municipalities is a flaw of this system [5]. FETT is used for "expenses related to forest improvement and its promotion, such as thinning, human resource development and securing of bearers, promotion of timber use, and public awareness." The areas requiring enhanced forest improvement

are those with low future management intentions. Furthermore, the results of this study suggest that many PFOs in small-scale regions would like to outsource management or relinquish their land. Therefore, the administrative burden of conducting the survey and forest management aggregation in municipalities with small-scale regions is considered high. For municipalities, securing finances is the most critical aspect of operating NSFM [30]. These results suggest that FETT allocation criteria could still be considered based on the regional characteristics of ownership size. Differences were also observed in the factors that influenced the decision of forest PFOs to harvest between the two regions with different ownership sizes.

**Small-Scale Regions Large-Scale Regions Common Issues to Both Regions** Forest condition factors - • Owned forest size • Plantation forest size • Recognition of maturity of planted forest - PFOs' characteristics factors • Existence of successor • Existence of successor • Recognition of relationship with FOC • Position of forestry as income source • Existence of successor Trends in management behaviors and attitudes toward owned forests among Group D • Scarce forest management • Want to dispose of land • Less interest in the economic value of owned forest • Undecided future forest management plan • Do not reforest postharvest • Less emphasis on reforests postharvest • Few frequencies of owned forest visits • Do not recognize location of owned forest • Do not recognize boundary of owned forest • Scarce forest management • Want to dispose of land • Less interest in the economic value of owned forest • Do not reforest postharvest • Less emphasis on reforests postharvest • Few frequencies of owned forest visits • Scarce forest management • Want to dispose of land • Less interest in the economic value of owned forest • Do not reforest postharvest • Less emphasis on reforests postharvest • Few frequencies of owned forest visits

**Table 13.** The factors affecting the PFOs' future intention, tendency of D group's forest management behaviors.

This study examined the factors that influence the PFOs' future intentions in small and large regions by categorizing them by their future intentions and comparing the two types. Comparing the two groups revealed that the EM group prioritized economic benefits and the sustainability of the forest resource in their harvesting decisions. In contrast, the D group had more PFOs who wanted to relinquish their land and withdraw from forestry management. The EM group tended to own more forestland, suggesting that the size or economic value of their forest holdings influenced their future willingness to manage their forests. The D group was characterized by less frequent forest visits and a greater proportion of PFOs who lacked basic forest knowledge, such as area, location, and boundaries. These findings suggest that PFOs' lack of knowledge about their forests may result in uninterested in forest management.

The existence of successors is an essential factor in the continuity of forest management [24], in addition to the size, especially planted forest size [18–20]. Therefore, information on the forest owned, forest area, and the availability of successors are factors influencing willingness to future forest management. The forest management behaviors of PFOs with low future willingness to manage revealed issues regarding forest sustainability. In terms of harvesting decisions, the EM group emphasized the economic benefits and sustainability of the resource. However, the D group saw the logging decision as an opportunity to withdraw from forestry management and passively made logging decisions. This suggests that forests owned by PFOs with low future intention goals are a source of the increased abandonment of reforested.

To better reflect effective forest policy through PFOs typologies [14], examining the factors underlying the decisions of typified PFOs is necessary [12]. PFOs who wish to reduce the size of their future management have poorer forest management behaviors and are likelier to abandon the reforested area. Therefore, the method of categorizing PFOs based on their future willingness to manage the forest with resource sustainability and efficiency of operations was considered reasonable. However, promoting the transfer of forests owned by PFOs with a low future intention to forest management is insufficient; measures are also required to increase PFOs' willingness to forest management. Furthermore, PFOs must be given more opportunities to learn enough about their forests to make informed decisions about future management direction. Especially, the NSFM must consider the ways to develop forest information, provide PFOs with opportunities to obtain such information, encourage PFOs who are willing to manage their forests, and strengthen municipal work structures [11].

Therefore, the role of FOCs who have a good understanding of the status of local forests is crucial [26]. In large areas where the economic value of forests is relatively high, strengthening the relationship between PFOs and FOCs may be effective in motivating PFOs to manage the forests. It is expected that PFOs will be more likely to obtain information on their forests from FOCs, which will provide an opportunity for PFOs to recognize the economic value of their forests. In addition, since many PFOs are willing to dispose their lands in small-scale regions, the aggregation of the forest management rights by the municipalities will be required for sustainable forest management. As the workload of municipalities is expected to increase due to this policy, it will be necessary for the prefectural government to support the municipalities with small forest ownership in a focused manner [6,8].

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

**Funding:** This research received JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP19K20509, JP19KK0027 and JP21H03709.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors wish to thank the respondents for their valuable contribution to the completion of this paper.

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