119

Environmental Research with Citizen Participation:a Tool for Creating a Cooperative Relationship between
Science and Local Knowledge
Yasushi MARUYAMA
Faculty of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo
3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8902, Japane-mail: maruyama@komed.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp

Abstract
The aim of this paper is to discuss the difference between nature conservation and nature restoration as
well as the possibility of Environmental research with citizen participation.
Compared with nature conservation, nature restoration has an expanded domain, techniques, and strategy. These differences make the process of social consensus building more complicated. The technique ofadaptive management tries to address this problem and to introduce a method to enhance collaboration
between science and local knowledge.
However, when we consider the pluralistic and fluid character of the values that are prevalent in society,it appears necessary to pay more attention to the dynamism of values between man and nature. In order tofind this “human-nature relation,” Japanese citizens have started participating in projects which collect not
only biological and ecological data, but also sociological information. Some of these data are used forconsensus building for nature conservation and restoration, tourism, the compilation of hazard maps andvarious other local activities.
Thus participatory research explores in-depth the local characteristics of the “human-nature relation,”based on a renewed need for knowledge. Therefore, it could be argued that the movement of nature restoration links the renewal of ecosystems and the renewal of communities.
Key words: adaptive management, consensus building, nature conservation, nature restoration,
participatory research

1. Preface
The goal of this paper is to substantiate the necessityof citizen participation in nature restoration and to discuss its specific methods.
When seen from a social process perspective, traditional nature conservation and nature restoration are
significantly different. This has largely been influenced
by the application of two concepts, biodiversity and ecosystems (Constanza et al., 1997). The use of these concepts has enabled a comprehensive discussion of various
issues concerning environmental problems, such as
nature conservation and climate change. Furthermore, acomprehensive discussion of the relationship between
the environment and economic activities, such as agriculture, has become possible by means of quantitative
data. In the course of this discussion, the limitations of
the quantity and quality of data that are needed for solving urgent problems have been recognized, and adaptive
management techniques have been introduced (Parma
Global Environmental Research
11: 119-124 (2007)
printed in Japanet al., 1998).
The framework for problem-solving with regard tonature restoration has changed. Conventional nature
conservation puts emphasis on a political discourse inwhich a value judgment between the preservation of thenatural environment, such as natural objects andregional ecosystems, and economic development, which
is likely to negatively influence the natural environment,takes place. The basis of the debate is varied, including
resource utilization, scientific value, the aesthetics oflandscapes, disaster prevention, the right to enjoy nature,and others. The justifiability of nature conservation isthus constructed and strengthened with various positive
values that are associated with the comprehensive concepts of “nature” and “environment.” This logic functions well in the discourse concerning the protection ofexisting nature because nature conservation has littlecompatibility with the logic that characterizes economic
development. In this case, the binary framework of“development or nature” is possible, and it is an appro©2007 AIRIES120

Y. MARUYAMA

priate strategy for nature conservation.
However, despite the efforts for nature conservation,
the present condition of biodiversity indicates an alarming trend. Therefore, we need to reexamine the effectiveness of the conventional conservation framework. It
may have been effective in the justification of nature
conservation in some cases; however, it does not function sufficiently when it comes to nature restoration because there is no “enemy” to protest against. A mutuallyaccepted definition of public good that could guide thedecision-making process is necessary but difficult toachieve. Furthermore, it is not easy for scientific knowledge (or scientists) to play a decisive role in adaptive
management. In short, it appears that a new framework
is needed to take the issue of nature restoration further.
In sum, this paper discusses a new way of generatingknowledge which is necessary for nature restoration.
First, it clarifies that nature restoration requires a target
domain called “human-nature relation” here. This section also includes a summary of concepts, such as therelationship of nature restoration with biodiversity andecosystems. Subsequently, environmental research thatis conducted with the participation of citizens (participatory research), and which explores the “human-nature
relation” is introduced. Finally, a method of forming
social consensus with regard to nature restoration is
proposed.

2. Nature Restoration and “Human-Nature
Relation”
2.1 Nature restoration and adaptive management
Nature restoration has transformed the state of environmental conservation. The following three characteristics distinguish it from the conventional conservation of nature.
The first characteristic is that the domain is expanded.
Conventional nature conservation deals with naturalobjects, species, or natural ecosystems, but nature restoration addresses an expanded domain that also includes
the broad concept of biodiversity, which leads to thesecond character: the diversification of methods. While
nature conservation uses passive techniques, such as themaintenance of remaining ecosystems and legal protection, nature restoration uses additional active techniques,
such as the re-introduction of wildlife and re-naturalization of degraded ecosystems. Finally, nature restoration
employs not only regulatory techniques, such as prohibition of access and restriction of utilization, but it
also considers wise use. This is because the issue nolonger is the overuse of the environment alone, but also
the problem of abandonment of formerly used areas.
Because in Japan continuous resource utilization wasmaintained until recently, the deterioration of the socioeconomic system due to underutilization is a new problem, (Ministry of the Environment, 2002). As a result,the maintenance and reintroduction of continuous
human involvement has become an important issue. Furthermore, the creation and renewal of values that enablehuman intervention are emerging challenges. In otherwords, not only the removal of adverse effects on theecosystem but also the sustainable utilization of the ecosystem must become the framework of the discussion.
The conventional conservation of nature oftencaused a dichotomy between “humans or nature.” However, nature restoration is changing this debate. It can besaid that the concept of sustainability is absorbing theconflict-of-interest debate in relation to the overuse of
the environment.
On the other hand, the concept of nature restoration
also brings with it the diversification and enlargement ofconflicting interests, rendering the task of decisionmaking more complicated. For example, when the protection of anthropogenic ecosystems, such as “village
area and village mountain” (satochi satoyama), i.e. thetraditional rural landscape in Japan, is required, interactions with the owner of the land and those who work on
it need to happen at the very least. In addition, in order
to secure continuous nature restoration, additional human relations must be taken into consideration, whichmight include the circulation of agricultural products
and communication with the consumer. To develop
viable solutions, participation of stakeholders such as
agricultural organizations, consumers, and distributors isessential. Moreover, various scenarios of required actions
become possible. Besides protestation, many other possible actions become available, such as policy proposals,
protection activities, utilization, and involvement of thecorporate sector. This trend is fundamentally different
from the logic of “nature conservation” against “destruction of nature” or “destruction of the environment.”
The expansion of the relationship among interested
parties signifies the diversification of value standards
and diagnosis of circumstances (Wakita, 1995). For
example, resource utilization has begun to be evaluated
not only on the basis of economics, but also on the basisof cultural and spiritual value (Takeuchi et al., 2002). In
this pluralistic co-existence of various interests, there is
no guarantee that environmental conservation always
comes to be one of the top priorities1. Nonetheless, it isevident that the behavior of stakeholders and the issues
themselves are becoming more complex.
The development of nature restoration has led to amore diversified composition of the stakeholders andhas made the process of problem solving more complicated. The kind of nature that is to be “conserved” or“restored,” the way of preservation, and the actors who
participate in the process become issues. In other words,
the concept of nature restoration has made both the“hard” subject of nature itself and the “soft” subject ofhuman-nature relation relevant.
The technique of adaptive management understands
this situation. Parallel with scientific monitoring andevaluation, it points out the importance of social consensus building. In addition, adaptive management intends
to organize problem identification and goal setting
procedures, assuming scenarios such as a case in whichscientific procedure and social consensus building act
separately and a case in which both collaborate(Rossberg et al., 2005).

Environmental Research with Citizen Participation

121

It can also be seen as a method of constructing aconsistent relationship between local knowledge andscientific knowledge, which are concrete for specificlocations and unique to a particular region. There arevarious techniques, including scientific methods, that
can help to understand the state of natural objects andenvironmental conditions. However, no single-dimensional evaluation of the outcome is viable. For this reason, no one framework can provide an optimal solution,and problem-solving based on a paternalistic framework
is unlikely to lead to satisfactory results. Adaptive management, on the other hand, could become a viable
method to solve these issues.

objects. In this event, culture influences the individual toa certain extent through a given value system. However,this system is not always permanent. It is pluralistic andchangeable, and new components can be added. Furthermore, sometimes human well-being is not directly depending on ecosystem services. Friendship is a case inpoint. This integrated totality is defined as “humannature relation.” In this overall system it is determined
whether or not the ideas concerning the concept ofenvironmental conservation and nature restoration areshared.

2.2 The necessity of the “human-nature relation” innature restoration
The new challenge that adaptive management faces
is the pluralistic and fluid character of the values held bysociety. Let’s illustrate this by using the concept of
ecosystem services as an example. This concept was
first employed in the field of economics, and in the
United Nations’ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment it
was classified into four services – provisioning services,
regulating services, cultural (non-material) services andsupporting services. The last contributes to thefunctionality of the first three services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
The significance of this concept resides in the ability
to comprehensively and analytically understand complex and diverse concepts of the value of nature. As aresult, while relativizing traditional arguments about thevalue of nature, the concept of ecosystem services allows to express this value as a combination of functions.
For example, it is possible to present the value of
wilderness in a unified form with multiple functions,such as amenity value and scientific value. The conceptof ecosystem services realizes the presentation of singularities (i.e. the unique local conditions) in a generalframework, which is a prerequisite for successful adaptive management.
However, the problem is that the implicit function of
ecosystem services is not always self-evident. There arevarious cultural frameworks through which the material
aspect of ecosystems and the service aspect of ecosystems relate to each other. The simplest example is foundin the area of cultural (non-material) services. Psychological value and aesthetic value are part of culture itself,
and functions, such as recreation, can only be realized in
the culture that values it. The same can be said about theother categories. For instance, animals can become afood source only if a meat diet is the cultural norm.
However, value as food source does not exist wheremeat is not consumed. Many of the values whichecosystem services suppose are actualized through themediating agents. What the material aspect of ecosystems guarantees is its potentiality.
In addition, it is not limited to the cultural value thatis shared commonly in the society. Ecosystem services
become substantiated only through a private and concrete relationship between the individual and natural

3.1 “Human-nature relationships” and participatory research
The preservation of biodiversity is an important prerequisite for the well-being of humans. However,preserving biodiversity only guarantees the immanentpossibility of receiving some kind of benefit. Specificengagement, such as nature restoration, faces the challenge of goal sharing. For instance, in cases where an
ecosystem has been determined to be scientificallyvaluable, when the value of such an ecosystem service is
not shared among the people of the region, they may
disagree with the proposed level of necessity of environmental conservation. Moreover, as mentioned earlier,cultural mediation for ecosystem services is fluid in
dynamic “human-nature relationships.”
On the other hand, such fluidity could provide thepossibility of inducing secondary effects that would increase the motivation to preserve biodiversity. For
example, human relations in a locality and special feeling about a place could become triggers to activate andencourage environmental conservation. Experimental
winter flooding of rice fields in Osaki city in Miyagi
prefecture and Toyooka city in Hyogo prefecture, which
intends to increase biodiversity and provide habitat forwild birds, is clearly deemed as an environmental conservation effort. However, it produces multiple benefits.
The experiment has been recognized as a rational
agricultural method to activate the soil and control
weeds. It has provided opportunity for farmers to market
their agricultural products as environmentally friendly.
Furthermore, the experiment has become the pride of
the region.
From a historical perspective, very few environmentally-conscious activities exist that serve the purpose ofenvironmental conservation itself. It is often the casethat the primary purpose was something practical suchas food production, while de facto environmental
conservation2 was realized as a secondary effect (Inoue,
2001). Contemporary interpretation of those events calls
for close and careful analyses. Nonetheless, it could beconcluded that our mid- to long-term aim should be thedesign of a social system that makes the activities by
various constituents who are motivated by various values, which are not limited to those associated with environmental conservation, to function as environmentallyconscious activities.

3. Activating Participatory Research

122

Y. MARUYAMA

3.2 Development of participatory researchParticipatory research deserves close attention in thiscontext. There is a relatively long history of citizen
participation in research activities. Participatory research in Japan goes back to before World War II, which
includes biological investigations and local history research by citizens themselves. In the 1970s, activities ofthis kind expanded in the context of nature conservation
campaigns, when nature walks and similar activities
became popular. In the late 1980s, a widely applicabletechnique for investigating the water quality of rivers
and ponds was put forward (Ogura, 1987), and environmental research activities by citizens using this method
were launched.
In this sense, participatory research possesses a certain degree of history. In recent years, the kind of civic
participation activities have been increasing at the samepace as the diversification of types of stakeholders andtheir interests. There is also a movement which promotes participatory research as a technique of monitoring nature restoration operations. It is expected that it
will play an important role in adaptive management
processes (Washitani & Kitoh, 2007).
For example, the nature Conservation Society ofJapan (NACS-J) initiated research activities in whichcitizens investigate the relationship between the natureof a region and its inhabitants (Fig. 1). Another outcomeof the development is the introduction of an environmental impact assessment law. The law sets “rich contact between people and nature” as a criterion that has to
be investigated. It measures day-to-day activities inwhich local residents come into contact with nature. The
technical guidelines were issued in 2002 (“Contact withnature” section in the Environmental Impact Assessment
Technology Study Group edition, 2002). However, somedetails of the investigation technique were problematic,and environmental assessment activities by citizens
were not yet adequate. In addition, the public’s attention
to the pervasive crisis of the loss of biodiversity due tothe abandonment of cultivation raised the interest in amethod to sustain secondary nature in remote and mountainous areas which have hitherto been maintained byagricultural activities within the framework of contem-

porary society.
Accordingly, the NACS-J carried out an investigation regarding human interaction with nature and published its findings concerning the current conditions andcausalities (NACS-J, 2002). Furthermore, the organization published a technical instruction on how to conduct
such research projects, which was titled “Fureai Chosa(investigation of interactions between people and thenatural environment)” (NACS-J Fureai Research Study
Group, 2005). This publication described not only research methods for fauna and flora, but also neighborhood interviews and evaluation of sites by citizens(Fig 2). It was intended to collect basic data about environmental protection activities or environmental assessments. Furthermore, it was attempted to explore thehuman-nature relationships which are expected to provide hints about ideal landscape design. The researchfindings were expected to help to preserve nature in theregion by stimulating awareness of citizens that they are
involved in the local human-nature relations.
There are also attempts to reintroduce traditional
secondary nature, i.e. anthropogenic rural ecosystems bymeans of agricultural activities as a kind of recreation
for urban residents. This shows that there has been asignificant shift from the traditional strategy of nature
conservation campaigns to the development of new
propositions and invention of new models.
While the research of “human-nature relationships”
is born out of the nature conservation movement, there
are participatory investigations that stem from otherorigins. A project called “local study” that appeared
simultaneously in Minamata city and Miyagi prefecture
is a typical example (Yoshimoto, 2001; Yuki, 2001). The
projects are so planned that people living inside andoutside of regions can find together various characteristics, by fieldwork, mapping, and workshops. This undertaking has expanded nationwide; many localities promote events called “search for the existing,” whichsignifies that instead of crying over what is lost or what
they don’t have, one should make an effort to discoverwhat is already there. Some of the localities intend touse the information collected by the project for thepromotion of regional development, e.g. by tourism.

Fig. 1 Participatory research.

Fig. 2 GIS data of “Fureai Chosa” on google map.

Environmental Research with Citizen Participation

Other examples include the creation of a hazard map,
town development, environmental education and various
other local activities.

4. Participatory Research and the Principle of
Nature Restoration
As described above, participatory research projects
have expanded both in type and places. One of the reasons for this rapid expansion was the availability oftools like computers and the Internet. They significantly
simplified tasks associated with research activities andmade the dissemination of research data easier andcheaper than before. In addition, geographic information
systems (GIS) made the visualization of comprehensive
regional data possible. Currently, telecommunicationcompanies and information technology researchers aretrying to develop a new technology that can gather andsummarize information provided by ordinary citizens.
As a result, investigations and the dissemination of theirresults will become even easier.
Moreover, because citizen participation in policy
development and decision-making is becoming morecommon, the quantity and quality of required information have changed. Nature restoration is one of thesepolitical decisions, and it requires data from natural sciences as well as from subjective human judgments andopinions. Similarly, sometimes realignment of goals is
required in the process consensus building (Miyauchi,
2003).
Furthermore, I would like to point out that the significance of the local “human-nature relation” is being
recognized by citizens. In other words, it is not the direct confrontation with global and abstract concepts
such as global environmental problems, but it is the ideathat we should approach the daily and concrete characteristics of “the accessible” issues first (Kada, 2002).
One of the features of environmental problems in thecontext of social issues is that the components of causal
relationships are dispersed temporally and spatially. Thismeans that each constituent of society also has relatively
dispersed power of influence, and it results in a lack ofsense of ownership by individuals. It also leads to asense of pessimism toward meaningful problem solving.
For example, individual power to solve the daunting
problem of global warming is more often than not limited in reality, and any resulting changes are hard to be
detected by an individual person.
When these characteristics of environmental problems are recognized, one can realize the value of setting
immediate goals. In this context, identifying issues in“the accessible” territory is effective and necessary.
Although “the accessible” and “the remote” problems
are physically related, the connection is often not perceived. For this reason, it is highly effective to approachconcrete and “accessible” problem-solving first.
It is a certainty that environmental problems are issues which we have to be concerned about. However,when this universal discourse is simply applied to society at large, the pluralistic problem structure and possi-

123

ble solution paths, which are visible from the perspective of an individual, become opaque. The attractivenessof participatory research is found in its potential ability
to find viable solutions.
Participatory research explores in-depth local characteristics of the “human-nature relation.” Expert facilitators have begun to emerge and support actions on the
ground. These activities are creating a renewed need forknowledge concerning various ecological and socioeconomic issues. Events involving citizens help togenerate and disseminate this knowledge, and this inturn is the basis for new, locally adapted concepts.
Therefore, it could be argued that the movement of
nature restoration provides essential links between the
renewal of ecosystems and the renewal of communities.

Acknowledgements
This paper is based on the 2006 Scientific Research
Fund Grant Research (B) “Environmental ethics study
regarding the concepts of biodiversity and nature
restoration” (Principal Investigator: Shuichi Kito) and,Mitsui & Co Environmental Fund Research “Participatory research of ‘human-nature relation’: Its methods
and database construction” (Principal Investigator:
Noriko Kaihatsu).
References
Alcamo, J., R. Hassan and E. Bennett (eds.) (2003) Ecosystems
and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, Island Pr., Washington, D.C.
Berkes, F. (1999) Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia
and London.
Constanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B.
Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O’Neil, J. Paruelo, R.G.
Raskin and P. Sutton (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387:253-260.
“Contact with Nature” section in the Environmental Impact
Assessment Technology Study Group edition (ed.) (2002) A
Guideline for environmental assessment: contact with nature,
Shizen Kankyo Kenkyu Center. (in Japanese)
Geertz, C. (1983) Local Knowledge. Further essays in interpretive
anthropology, Basic Books, New York.
Inoue, M. (2001) Commons as a system for condominium ofnatural resources. In: M. Inoue and T. Miyauchi, eds., Sociology of Commons, Shin-yo-sha, Tokyo, 1-28.
Kada, Y. (2002) Introduction of environmental science. Environmental Sociology, 9, Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo. (in Japanese)
Ministry of the Environment (ed.) (2002) New National Biodiversity Strategy, Gyosei, Tokyo. (in Japanese)
Miyauchi, T. (2003) The possibility of citizens’ research. Japanese Sociological Reviey, 53:566-578. (in Japanese)
NACS-J Fureai Research Study Group (2005) Value of region:
recommendation of “Research about communion between
human and nature,” Nature Conservation Society of Japan,
Tokyo. (in Japanese)
Nature Conservation Society of Japan (NACS-J) (2002) Communion between Human and Nature in Satoyama. Nature
Conservation Society of Japan, Tokyo. (in Japanese)
Ogura, N. (1987) Research of Accessible Water. Kodansha, Tokyo.
(in Japanese)124

Y. MARUYAMA

Parma, A. M. and NCEAS Working Group on Population
Management (1998) What can adaptive management do for ourfish, forests, food, and biodiversity? Integrative Biology, 1:
16-26.
Rossberg, A.G., H. Matsuda, F. Koike, T. Amemiya, M. Makino,
M. Morino, T. Kubo, S. Shimode, S. Nakai, M. Katoh, T.
Shigeoka and K. Urano (2005) A guideline for ecological risk
management procedures, Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 1: 221-228.
Takeuchi, K., R. D. Brown, I. Washitani and M. Yokohari (eds.)(2002) Satoyama: The Traditional Rural Landscape of Japan.
Springer Japan, Tokyo.
Wakita, K. (1995) Diagnosis of circumstance and strategy in environmental problem. Journal of Environmental Sociology, 1:
130-144. (in Japanese)
Washitani, I. and S. Kitoh (eds.) (2007) Biodiversity Monitoring
for Nature Restoration. Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, Tokyo. (inJapanese)

Yoshimoto, T (2001) Hear wind, contact the earth. Special issueof Modern Agriculture, 52:190-255. (in Japanese)
Yuki, M. (2001) My “local study.” Special issue of Modern Agriculture, 52:14-23. (in Japanese)

Notes
1

There is a problem of misalignment of the temporal axis thatexists between the cycle of ecosystem and life cycle of humans.
Because of it, under a certain condition environmentally
unfriendly behaviors by humans become economically rational.
2
In the field of Conservation Ecology, along with the findings in
Anthropology, it is determined as Traditional Ecological Knowledge (Berkes, 1999). This concept as well as the concept ofLocal Knowledge (Geertz, 1983) have been gaining support
from various fields of academic disciplines.

(Received 31 July 2007, Accepted 6 September 2007)