Introduction to the Connectivity of Hills, Humans and Oceans (CoHHO*) Vol.6:
Interaction between humans and nature III*We call it “Mori-Sato-Umi Renkan-Gaku” in Japanese.

Prof. Takahito Yoshioka
Forest Information Laboratory
10. The Kibunka Project (The Wood Culture Project)
Since its foundation, the Field Science Education and Research Center (“FSERC”), Kyoto
University, has attempted to obtain research funds for research of the Connectivity of Hills,
Humans and Oceans (“CoHHO”). In 2009, we received funds to study local societies basedon ecosystem services in a forested watershed environment (“The Kibunka Project” (The
Wood Culture Project)). The study was carried out between 2009 and 2013 and the research
fields of the project were the Yura River watershed in Kyoto Prefecture and the Niyodo River
watershed in Kochi Prefecture.
The purpose of the Kibunka Project was to establish a model of a sustainable wood culture
society based on CoHHO, supported by local forest ecosystem services and economy. We
investigated the environmental effects caused by forest management, such as thinning, andchanges in the local economy due to the distribution of thinned timber, etc.
Although we have not yet drawn a model of the Kibunka Project, we gained many insights
during the five-year project. These findings include the relationship between forest
operations, land use and stream water quality, coastal phytoplankton and fish production. We
elucidated the effects of land use and land cover in forests and villages on the water quality ofrivers and the supply of substances to the sea. For example, Professor Yamashita introducedin this series how nutrients and particles are supplied from forests to the sea. We also showedthat human impacts, such as land use and land modification largely influence material cyclingin the Yura River watershed. In the Kibunka Project, we also conducted a social survey using
questionnaires. “The awareness survey on the use of ecosystem services in the forested
watershed” (awareness survey) targeted people living in the Yura River and Niyodo River
watersheds (consumers of forest resources). “The questionnaire about life based on the forest”
targeted forest union members (forest owners). People’s awareness about forest resources
surveyed in the Kibunka Project will be presented in the following sections.
10-1. People’s awareness of forest resources
In the awareness survey, we asked people about their commitment to products made fromdomestic timber, their image of domestic and imported timber, and their concerns regarding
logging artificial forests. We also applied a conjoint analysis to survey how much extra
people are willing to pay for housing made of domestic timber.
When comparing the images of domestic and imported timber, most people seemed to thinkthat imported timber is cheap. In contrast, domestic timber tended to be associated withpositive feelings, such as good looking, comfortable touch, durable, pleasant fragrance, ecoand body-friendly (Fig. 1). This suggested that the majority of people have a positive imageof domestic timber (CoHHO project support office 2011).
We asked Japanese people (residents in the Yura River and Niyodo River watersheds) how
particular they are about using domestic timber for various products. Most people preferreddomestic timber for tableware and durable consumer goods, such as housing pillars, interior
1©Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University

materials and furniture. On the other hand, they were not so particular about consumables,such as disposable chopsticks, pencils, paper products and fuel (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1. People’s images of domestic and imported timber(CoHHO project support office 2011)https://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/proshien/kibunka/shiryo/ynreport.pdf

Fig. 2. Preference for domestic timber in different products(CoHHO project support office 2011)https://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/proshien/kibunka/shiryo/ynreport.pdf
2©Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University

In addition, we used a conjoint analysis to estimate the level of premium that people feeltowards a house made of domestic timber. The conjoint analysis was conducted with multiple
options (levels) for each of the five features of housing structure (wooden/lightweight steel
frame), floor area, domestic timber usage (volume), durability, and price. As a result, it wassuggested that the price of a house that used 1 m3 more domestic timber for the pillars and/orinterior materials could be 3 million yen higher (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Willingness to pay for 1 m3 of domestic timber use in housing for different
respondents (modified from Okawa et al. 2013)This price was ridiculously expensive (roughly several tens of times higher) compared to theactual transaction price of domestic timber. However, we can still compare the relative
differences in the valuation among different respondents.
People living in wooden houses showed a higher premium price for domestic timbercompared to people living in non-wooden houses (3.85 million yen/m3 vs. 1.18 million
yen/m3). Moreover, people who are concerned about the forest found the value of housingwith domestic timber higher than those who are not concerned about the forest (3.52 million
yen vs. 0.74 million yen). These results suggest that events and education that raise people’sinterest in forests might increase their willingness to buy houses that use more domestic
timber, and thus lead to an increase in the self-sufficiency rate of timber. Although moredetailed market research will be necessary for the national government, local governments,and even construction companies to expand the use of domestic timber for housing
construction, the results obtained from the awareness survey may be useful for policy making.
Using cluster analysis, the respondents in the awareness survey were divided into fourclusters with similar preferences for each of the above mentioned five features of housing
3©Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University

(Okawa et al. 2013). Looking closely at the preferences of the respondents in each cluster, wewere able to distinguish them as follows (Fig. 4):
The cluster 1 was composed of 121 respondents who lived in the middle and lower reachesof the watershed, in their 60s and 70s, mostly unemployed or in agriculture, and non-locals(immigrants to the region). They showed preference towards the use of domestic timber, thesize and durability of housing. Although they were not particular about wooden houses, theaverage willingness to pay for domestic timber was 4.11 million yen/m3, which was very highcompared to the other clusters. Since the respondents’ awareness of domestic timber was very
high, we called this cluster “status”.

Fig. 4. Results of the cluster analysis (modified from Okawa et al. 2013)
The largest cluster, 2, was composed of 188 respondents. People in this cluster were in their
50s to 70s, lived upstream all their lives, and strongly preferred wooden houses. The average
willingness to pay for domestic timber was 2.63 million yen/m3, which was the second
highest value among all clusters. Because of these characteristics, we called this cluster “treefans”.
The cluster 3 consisted of 136 people. As with the cluster 2, they lived upstream all theirlives. However, this cluster included relatively young people in their 20s to 60s. They were
not particular about housing and the average willingness to pay for domestic timber was 2.6
million yen/m3. The cluster 3 was characterized by a slight indifference to houses and trees
compared to the other clusters.
The 176 people classified in the cluster 4 were the oldest, in their 70s and 80s. They lived alltheir lives in the upper reaches of the watershed and were unemployed or in agriculture.
Although they were most particular about wooden houses, the average willingness to pay fordomestic timber was the lowest at 1.02 million yen/m3. The cluster 4 was located far from theother clusters in the dendrogram (Fig. 4). People in this cluster seemed to have different
preferences compared with the other clusters. Since they were elderly people who had lived in
the local area for a long time, it was suggested that they are attached to their familiar
surroundings and want to continue living in their current wooden houses.
Although a definitive conclusion about domestic timber use in Japan could not be drawn yetfrom these results, accumulating information on people’s awareness of wooden houses made4
©Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University

with domestic timber may be advantageous for considering measures to expand the use ofdomestic timber.
10-2. Forest owner’s awareness of forest resources
In “The questionnaire about life based in the forest”, we conducted an awareness survey offorest owners upstream of the Yura River and Niyodo River watersheds. Members of the
Miyama Town Forestry Association and the Niyodogawa Forestry Association were selected,
respectively. Forestry associations are usually made up of forest owners. However, many ofthem no longer live locally, but rather in urban areas.
Conditions needed for private forest management showed regional differences between two
forestry associations, but “cost”, “manpower” and “operation road” were commonly selected.
This suggested that these conditions are indispensable for operating owned forests (Fig. 5).
Many owners living outside of town (absentees) also needed “contractor”, “future forest
prospect”, and “future income estimation”, as well as the three common conditions mentioned
above. Some absentees may have rarely been to their own forests and thus may not be able tolocate them. Moreover, absentees may not know what to do with their forests and may want to
let someone else manage them.
In addition, we asked forest owners about future or ideal image of forests and found similartendencies in both Miyama and Niyodogawa towns (Okawa et al. 2013). Interestingly, it wassuggested that forest owners expected use values from wood production in their own forests,
while they expected non-use values in other forests in the town and in Japan, such asconservation of water resources and the global environment (e.g. absorption of carbon
dioxide) (Fig. 6).

Fig. 5. Conditions needed for private forest management(CoHHO project support office 2012, 2013)■: resident replies, ■: absentee replies.
Left panel: Miyama Town, right panel: Niyodogawa Town.
https://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/proshien/kibunka/Image/121226%20miyama.pdf
https://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/proshien/kibunka/Image/130128%20niyodo.pdf

5©Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University

Fig. 6. Forest owner’s expectations for their own forests and other forests in the town and inJapan (CoHHO project support office 2012, 2013).
Blue line: own forest, red line: forests in the town, green line: other forests in Japan.
Left panel: forest owners in Miyama Town, right panel: forest owners in Niyodogawa Town.
https://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/proshien/kibunka/Image/121226%20miyama.pdf
https://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/proshien/kibunka/Image/130128%20niyodo.pdf

11. Reconsidering the environmental consciousness
11-1. Inside and outside of environmental consciousness
Results of our awareness survey suggested that people’s value of a forest is greatly
influenced by people’s attributes, such as age, location, whether or not they live in a wooden
house, or if they own the forest. We can understand this kind of relationship between people
and forests as a positional relationship; or more figuratively, as a sense of distance.
Furthermore, if “forest” is broadly replaced with “environment”, the sense of distance and thepositional relationship between people and the environment may influence theirconsciousness of the environment and their value judgement.
By the way,
Do you know the word NIMBY?
This is the English abbreviation for “Not In My Backyard”. For example, facilities such as
garbage incinerators, sewage treatment plants, and slaughterhouses are indispensable facilities
for today’s society. Without such facilities, social life would not continue. People tend toagree with a general case, but disagree with specific cases.
“I definitely don’t want nuisance facilities near my house.”
This expresses a residents’ consciousness towards nuisance facilities. It is also called aresident’s ego. The word “nuisance” itself already shows people’s consciousness.
6©Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University

What is the difference between the vicinity of my home and the rest?
There may be a difference between “inside” and “outside” of a person’s consciousness. The
role that forest owners expect from forests (Fig. 6) differed depending on the sense of distanceand the positional relationship between themselves and forests. I think this is a sign that there
is a difference in people’s environmental consciousness between “inside” and “outside”. It
suggests that what separates “inside” and “outside” depends on whether the environment isclose or far from people, whether it is owned or not owned, and so on. Now, I will consider
whether a person is “included” or “not included” in the environment.
11-2. What is “Fūkei (Landscape)”?
There is a word “Fūkei” in Japanese, which means a special type of landscape. According to“Environmental philosophy, utilizing Japanese thoughts in the present” written by Professor
Toshio Kuwako, a Japanese environmental philosopher, “Fūkei” is defined as “the aspect ofhistorical space that appears sensuously in the arrangement of the body” and it is specified by
the arrangement of the body and the historical track of oneself and space (Kuwako 1999). To
put it more simply, the landscape perceived at the space where the body is located is “Fūkei”.
This space does not simply mean physical environments, such as forests, rivers, seas and thesky. It is thought that different history is attached to the physical space. For example, there
was a mountain village where fallen warriors of the Heike Clan hid, a temple that was built bysome emperor, or a temple where some emperor went to write “Waka” poems. There is also a
festival that is held yearly since the Kamakura period, and a hot spring inn where a literary
master stayed and wrote a famous novel, and so on. Of course, it may be the town where “I”,
as the subject of perception, spent his/her childhood, the sea where he/she went on a family
trip, or the country he/she had never visited and had just learnt from textbooks. These“things” attach themselves as historical tracks to physical environments. And when "I"
arrange the body in the space where physical environments combine with historical tracks, "I"
perceive the space as “Fūkei”. Isn’t it such a complicated way of thinking? I suppose it isbecause my explanation is insufficient, but the essence of philosophy is to continuously think
about “What is the world in the first place, and what kind of position do people occupy in thatworld?”. Therefore, it is inevitable that it gets complicated.
Aside from that, according to Professor Kuwako, the relationship among space, things and“I” emerges immediately the moment when “I” recognize “Fūkei”. It’s a difficult expression
again, but in other words, “Fūkei” wouldn’t exist without “I”, and “Fūkei” is uniquely createdby the relationship among these three parties. The concept of “Fūkei” is quite different fromthat of landscape. Therefore, an environmental problem is not just that the space such as
forests and the sea is damaged, but that the relationship among space, things, and “I”, one thatis recognized as “Fūkei”, is damaged. Therefore, the crisis of an environment (“Fūkei” forsome) is also the crisis of “I” (for some). Let’s consider it from the viewpoint of whether aperson is “included” or “not included” in the environment. Since a person is included in“Fūkei”, “Fūkei” is inside the environmental consciousness of “I”. With that in mind, it will
be easier to understand why NIMBY occurs.
I would like to introduce a short story about “Fūkei”, which I heard from a professor. The
professor conducted a field survey with a student. When they were relieved from theirinvestigation, they reached a beach. Garbages, PET bottles, pieces of fishing line andstyrofoam debris were caught in stacked tetrapods. Seeing many tetrapods on the shore, theprofessor suddenly muttered as follows:
7©Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University

“Oh, what a terrible thing humans are doing to nature!”
If you were that student standing next to the professor, what would you have thought about
your teacher’s murmur?
“As you say, humans are terrible creatures that just destroy the environment.”“Tetrapods are meant to protect beaches, roads and homes, so we have to accept
them.”“Such concrete lumps should be removed as soon as possible and returned to theoriginal beach.”
Various words might come to your mind. However, the student said to the professor:“Professor, you say so, but to me it’s a nostalgic Fūkei (scene) where I played with myfriends when I was a kid.”
The professor told me with a bitter smile, “I was surprised to hear his thoughts.”
At that time, I realized that “Fūkei”(or the environment) has such a deep meaning for people.
I am wondering how I can express the meaning of “Fūkei”.
The student might have thought that a natural sandy beach without tetrapods would be nice.
He may also have been bitter about the destruction of the environment by humans. Even so, I
think there was something that made him feel nostalgic from the depths of his heart,
according to the “history of space” and the “arrangement of his body to space”. If so,
removing tetrapods may be a crisis in his “Fūkei”. In other words, it will be a crisis for the
student, or “I”. But he probably knows it is better to get rid of tetrapods. It can be painful if
you think about it too seriously.
11-3. Diversity of the environmental consciousness
From the perspective of “Fūkei”, we can understand that people’s environmental
consciousness is diverse and the reason why it is diverse. In this series, “Introduction to
CoHHO: Figure out how they interact with each other (4)”, the interaction between humans
and nature is discussed using schematic diagrams (Yoshioka 2019). One of the diagrams was
also used in “Introduction to CoHHO: Figure out how they interact with each other (5)”
(Yoshioka 2021a). “Fūkei” argued so far in this article will be considered using the same
schematic diagram in Fig. 7.

8©Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University

Hu m a n s

Ecosystem
Attitudes / Behavior

PeopleSocial, Economic,
and Cultural
Backgrounds

Disturbance①②

Structure

Land Use
WastesResponse

Global Warming etc.

Value Judgments of Environment(Environmental Consciousness)④③

Function

Environmental
ChangeEnvironmental Quality
Ecosystem Services

Na tu r a l
En v ir o n m e n t

Fig. 7. Interaction cycle of humans and nature (Yoshioka 2019 and 2021a)
This whole schematic diagram in Fig. 7 shows exactly the relationship among space, things,
and “I”, which emerges all at once when “I” recognize “Fūkei”. “Recognition of “Fūkei””
may be considered to be partially equivalent to the process (4) “the value judgment ofenvironment”. Of course, the process (4) cannot exist independently, and the processes (1),(2) and (3) should also exist simultaneously. We may say that “Recognition of Fūkei” is torecognize the scheme presented in Fig. 7 as a whole (Yoshioka 2021b). The reason why
people have different consciousness of the environment is that people’s consciousness ofenvironmental qualities and ecosystem services, which is the basis of the process (4) in Fig. 7,
is influenced by individual variations in the relationship among space, things and “I”. The
scenario questionnaire in the previous article of “Introduction to CoHHO (5)” (Yoshioka
2021a) was carried out on the premise that people's environmental consciousness is diverse,and based on the working hypothesis that a common consciousness may be extracted even
within the diverse environmental consciousness (Yoshioka ed. 2009). From this viewpoint, I
recommend that you read the previous article once again. Please also read the book “Methodon surveying people’s environmental consciousness—Environmental scenarios and people's
preferences" (Yoshioka ed. 2009).

12. Objective of CoHHO studies
12-1. Is there human happiness in CoHHO?
As discussed in the previous article, "Introduction to CoHHO: Figure out how they interact
with each other (5), Interaction between Humans and Nature <2>", environmental value is an
important viewpoint when considering environmental protection and conservation. However,I have come to realize that we also need ethical considerations. As a contribution to theuniversity-wide common education program at Kyoto University, the FSERC provides
lectures and practical training courses related to CoHHO. In addition, we offer many smallgroup seminars for new students. From 2008 to 2020, I was in charge of the theme"environmental evaluation" and explained the structure of environmental value and methods
9©Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University

of environmental evaluation. I also touched on topics related to ethics, such as
anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism (see Yoshioka 2021a). Because I am a researcher
in natural science, it was very difficult for me to discuss the essence of human values, morals,
and ethics. However, I noticed that learning these things is essential for understanding theinteraction between humans and nature. I believe that CoHHO studies can be an entrance tothe academic field of the interaction between humans and nature.
In the first article of this series, Professor Yamashita mentioned as follows (Yamashita2019):“In the 21st century, we have to build a harmonious and sustainable global society. For
that purpose, the philosophy of “overall optimization” is indispensable. In this context,
the “overall optimization” is to maximize “entire lasting happiness and benefit,” learningfrom the results of the “individual optimization”.”

CoHHO studies combine to produce an academic field that considers individual ecosystems
and local communities as a whole intertwined system, not as a part. In other words, it has aperspective to optimize the whole, not the part. Although such perspective is necessary for asustainable society and human well-being, it may be insufficient. Carefully thinking about
what “sustainability” and “happiness” is, must be included in CoHHO studies. In other words,
the objective of CoHHO studies could be learning what is necessary to sustain the interaction
cycle between humans and nature, and how to build human happiness from such a cycle.
Ethics is a discipline dealing with happiness (Miki 2011, Maruyama 2004). Miki (2011)
mentions in the section “About Happiness” in “Life Theory Note” as follows (English
translation by T. Yoshioka):“It is modern rigorism that the duty of conscience is opposed to the demand forhappiness. On the contrary, I think that today's conscience is a demand for happiness.
〔partly omitted〕 Is there anything as conscientious as the demand for happiness?” (Miki2011, p.17-18)“The concept that the demand for happiness is the motive for all actions was a common
starting point in previous ethics.” (Miki 2011, p.18)

I used to think that humans do whatever they want in order to be happy. As a result, humanbehavior is limitless, and humans would destroy nature and the environment. Therefore, I
assumed until now that ethics’ role is to warn human beings of their own actions and to
restrain and restrict human behavior.
Therefore, when I read Miki’s “Life Theory Note,” I was surprised to know that happinessshould be freely demanded and that it follows human’s conscience. However, since Miki’s
original articles were published from 1938 to 1941 before the Pacific War (World War II),
happiness and ethics under the social conditions at that time may differ greatly from those in
the 21st century. I think we need to be careful in applying the words as they are in the present
age. But if it is the essence of ethics to pursue how humans should be in order to harmonize
the duty of conscience and the human nature to demand for happiness, we have to think about
the duty of conscience towards nature and the environment, which the demand for humanhappiness leads to. I have come to think that it might be possible to set the objective of
CoHHO studies from this viewpoint. This is because humans cannot live apart from space
10©Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University

including forests, villages, rivers, and the sea, and it is the duty of conscience for humans tobe happy. There may be a source of human happiness in CoHHO, and it may be possible toclarify this and set it as the objective of CoHHO studies (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8. Objective of CoHHO studies
12-2. Study and practice of CoHHO – “CoHHO studies” and “The sea is longing for theforest.” –The idea that the forest and the sea is linked and such linkage supports human life is widely
applied in today’s social activities in Japan regardless of academic contributions from the
FSERC. For example, the activity of “The sea is longing for the forest” in Kesennuma City,
Miyagi Prefecture (NPO: Mori wa Umi no Koibito, https://mori-umi.org/english/) runs longer
than CoHHO studies. The activity has also penetrated deeper and wider into society,especially after the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011. In the 5th Fundamental
Environmental Plan, the Japanese Ministry of the Environment conducts the “Connect andsupport the Forest-Sato-River-Sea” project 2016, specifically targeting 10 demonstration
areas ("Connect and support the Forest-Sato-River-Sea" project 2016). In addition, since theearthquake in 2011, a research project targeting Nishi-Moune Bay in Kesennuma City has
been led by Professor K. Yokoyama of Tokyo Metropolitan University. Nishi-Moune Bay iswhere the activity for “The sea is longing for the forest” originates (Yokoyama 2012).
On the other hand, the FSERC conducted several projects on CoHHO studies, such as “LinkAgain Program” (https://reconnect.kyoto-u.ac.jp/lap/) and “RE: CONNECT project”(https://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wp/blog/archives/33957), which are joint projects with the Japan
11©Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University

Foundation, as well as the Kibunka Project (https://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wp/blog/tags/kibunka)
introduced in this series. The RE: CONNECT project collaborated with citizens and residents,
but before this, research was mainly academic and natural science oriented. Even with thesocial research of the Kibunka Project (see Chapter 10), we could only get a small glimpse of
the link between people and forests. However, a social scientific awareness survey such as aquestionnaire survey is indispensable for CoHHO studies. In addition, in the scenario
questionnaire in the environmental consciousness project of Chapter 9 (Yoshioka 2021a), we
tried to explore people’s consciousness with the collaboration of natural science.
Nevertheless, it has been pointed out that there is a large gap#1 between university research(academia) and social activity (practice). This suggests that the integration of social andnatural sciences has not progressed. I think CoHHO is an academic field that needs to be
deepened in the future.
I introduced the framework of CoHHO studies in three sections of “Interaction between
Humans and Nature”. Although I wish I could show one model that says “This is CoHHO
studies!”, it is still fragmentary. However, I hope I have shown that CoHHO ranges extremely
widely as a so-called academic field. For those who are trying to tackle environmental
problems, or who are interested in the connection between materials and organisms in theecosystem, I recommend that you at least touch the outer frame of CoHHO studies.
【Reference】“Connect and support the Forest-Sato-River-Sea” project (2016) Proposal on the “Connect
and support the Forest-Sato-River-Sea”, Ministry of the Environment, Japan,
September 16, 2016, in Japanese (referred on May 4, 2022).
https://www.env.go.jp/press/102976.html
http://www.env.go.jp/nature/morisatokawaumi/
Kuwako, T. (1999) “Philosophy of the environment: Utilizing Japanese thought in the presentage”, Kodansha, Tokyo, pp.310, in Japanese.
Maruyama, T. (2004) “Applied Ethics Lecture 2: Environment”, Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo,
pp.263, in Japanese.
Miki, K. (2011) “Life Theory Note”, Shinchosha, Tokyo, pp.175, in Japanese. First edition
was published in 1941 by Sogensha. See also the 【Glossary】.
Okawa, C., Shibata, S., Yoshioka, T., Hasegawa, H., Sato, M. and Nose, M. (2013)
Consciousness of residents to the forest resources – Case studies in the Yura River andthe Niyodo River watersheds -, The 124th meeting of the Japanese Forest Society,Iwate University, Morioka, March 26, 2013, in Japanese.
The CoHHO project support office (2011) Summary of the Awareness survey on the use of
ecosystem services in the forested watershed, February, 2011, in Japanese (referred on
May 4, 2022).
http://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/proshien/kibunka/shiryo/ynreport.pdf
The CoHHO project support office (2012) Summary of the questionnaire about the life basedon the forest: Miyama town, December, 2012, in Japanese (referred on May 4, 2022).
http://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/proshien/kibunka/Image/121226%20miyama.pdf
The CoHHO project support office (2013) Summary of the questionnaire about the life basedon the forest: Niyodo town, January, 2013, in Japanese (referred on May 4, 2022).
http://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/proshien/kibunka/Image/130128%20niyodo.pdf
Yamashita, Y. (2019) Introduction to the Connectivity of Hills, Humans and Oceans : Figureout how they interact each other (1) Introduction, March, 2019 (referred on May 4,2022).
https://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wp/blog/archives/26400
12©Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University

https://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Jp_1.pdf
https://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wp/blog/archives/27640
https://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/En_1.pdf
Yokoyama, K. (2012) Revived tidal flats and wetlands in the Kesennuma Moune Bay andtheir significance, Kesennuma Moune Project Symposium “Learning from Earthquakes
and Tsunamis and Creating the Future to Live with the Sea”, International Institute forAdvanced Studies, October 12, 2012 , Organized by: Moune Bay Biological
Environment Research Group, Ariake Sea Revitalization Study Group, NPO Mori wa
Umi no Koibito, (referred on May 4, 2022), in Japanese. https://ocw.kyotou.ac.jp/course/240/?video_id=2340
Yoshioka, T. ed. (2009) “Method on surveying people’s environmental consciousness Environmental scenarios and people's preferences-”, Supervised by the Environmental
Consciousness Project, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Keiso-Shobo,
Tokyo, pp.196, in Japanese．
Yoshioka, T. (2019) Introduction to the Connectivity of Hills, Humans and Oceans : Figureout how they interact each other (4) Interaction between humans and nature <1>,
September, 2019 (referred on May 4, 2022).
http://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wp/blog/archives/27610
https://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Jp_4.pdf
https://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wp/blog/archives/28407
https://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/En_4.pdf
Yoshioka, T. (2021a) Introduction to the Connectivity of Hills, Humans and Oceans : Figureout how they interact each other (5) Interaction between humans and nature <2>,
August 26, 2021 (referred on May 4, 2022).
https://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wp/blog/archives/30193
https://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Jp_5-3.pdf
http://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wp/blog/archives/33056
https://fserc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/En_5.pdf
Yoshioka, T. (2021b) Forest and resilience -Interaction between humans and nature, ”Forest
and resilience - Intersection of different sounds to think and create regional
regeneration, Resilience Initiative, p.18-24, in Japanese.
【Glossary】 (soliloquy named glossary)#1
A large gap between university research (academia) and social activity (practice) in CoHHO
studies.
In connection with the point that there is a large gap between academic research andactivities/practices in society, I have heard the following remark:“Although researchers want to know in detail about the concentration of substances,the mechanism controlling them, and so on, the CoHHO activities in the real world go
further ahead.”
Although I am aware of the limitations of natural scientific research, I have conducted
research projects in CoHHO studies only within a natural scientific discipline. Therefore, it
was a shocking remark for me.
The integration of social and natural sciences was not so easy!
I still think this is right. However, Miki’s “Life Theory Note” (Miki 2011), which inspired
me to think about “happiness” after studying natural science in my career, suggested the13©Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University

relationship between “academia” and “practice” in CoHHO. Such a hint was found in thesection “About the Skepticism” of Miki’s “Life Theory Note” (English translation by T.
Yoshioka):“Skepticism is a connection to the root of things, and dogmatism is a relation to the
purpose. It would be a reason why theorists are skeptical, practitioners are dogmatic,
motivators are skeptical, and consequentialists are dogmatic. However, we must
understand that both dogmatism and skepticism should be methods.” (Miki 2011, p.33)
If a person who aspires to do “academic research” in CoHHO is called a theorist, and aperson who aspires to do "Mori wa Umi no Koibito" activity in society is called a practitioner,
the former is certainly skeptical (or critical), and the latter may be dogmatic (very rude to say
this, but please understand that I am being respectful). However, when I read the lastsentence, I was surrounded by a feeling of relief because it made me understand that both
“dogmatism” and “skepticism” are methods to accomplish something.
But let’s not rush to the conclusion. We have to think deeply about the meaning of this lastsentence.
It says that both “dogmatism” and “skepticism” are methods, so what is the method for? Inother words, the “root” for “skepticism” and the “purpose” for “dogmatism” should be thesame. However, what is that exactly?
According to the concept of CoHHO and the activities of the “Mori wa Umi no Koibito”, the“root” is the mechanism and processes of linkage among forests, humans, and the sea.
Therefore, “skepticism” is targeted towards the structures and controlling factors of themechanism and processes, and the essence of academia would be to elucidate them.
Therefore, scientific methodologies are appropriate and indispensable. On the other hand, if“purpose” is understood as maintaining the proper connection between forests and the sea, or
between humans and nature, then “dogmatism” can mean considering all measures andhaving the spirit and ability to execute them to regain the connection as the ultimate goal. I
suppose it is exactly the practice of “Mori wa Umi no Koibito” activity.
Practice and academia, society and science, and social and natural sciences wereoriginally one!

When implementing the environmental consciousness project, there were many commentson this matter from colleagues.
“It is wrong to think of social and natural sciences as if they are separate. Therefore, you
cannot try and integrate them. Originally, social and natural sciences were notseparate.”

Some may wonder if we can expand the practice/academia ideology to this social/naturalscience framework. However, when I came across Miki’s sentences, I finally understood themeaning of their comments.
In Miki’s “Life Theory Note”, in addition to the consideration of the relationship between
practice and academia mentioned above, the concept of human position with respect to natureand the definition of the environment are discussed. His conceptual consideration is extremely
14©Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto Universityimportant for arguments on ecological and environmental issues, as well as for CoHHO
studies.
However, we have to acknowledge the criticism that there is a problem in Miki’s “Life
Theory Note” from the viewpoint of current research ethics and fairness. This may be due tothe form of writing as notes, the age of publication (original articles were published in“Bungaku-kai” from 1938 to 1941), the background of the period, etc. In fact, plagiarism(unauthorized quotation) from “Propos sur le bonheur” (Alain 1998, original published in
1928) has been pointed out in the section of “About Happiness” in Miki’s “Life Theory
Note”. Miyajima (2019) has discussed as follows:“Due to the nature of the article, it can be said that it is somehow within the permissible
range even if the source is not shown. This defense to Miki’s article is our current
conclusion.”
Regarding the section “About Skepticism” referred to before, I do not know whether any
problems with plagiarism have been pointed out so far. Although we have to acknowledge
such criticism, Miki’s “Life Theory Note” contains a lot of very suggestive texts. There aremany difficult expressions specific to the field of philosophy, but I recommend you read it if
you are interested in ecology, environmental studies, and CoHHO. I would like to findanother opportunity to consider and introduce Miki’s concepts on the environment and therelationship between humans and nature.
【Acknowledgment】
I am very grateful to Professor Mitsushi Miyajima, Laboratory of Applied Ethics, School of
Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toyama, for his guidance on the
manuscript preparation.
【Reference】
Alain (1998) “Kofuku-ron”, translated by Kamiya, M., Iwanami-shoten, pp.325, in Japanese.
Original: Alain (1928) "Propos sur le bonheur", Gallinmard.
Miki, K. (2011) “Life Theory Note”, Shinchosha, pp.175, in Japanese. First edition was
published in 1941 by Sogensha.
Miyajima, M. (2019) Miki Kiyoshi and Alain – On the plagiarism in the Kohuku-ron –,Hokuriku religious culture, 32:1-19, in Japanese.

15©Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University