Keywords

21.1 Introduction

The Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011 resulted in not only the destruction of cities and villages but also the spread of radioactive substances due to the accident in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Iitate village was one of the municipalities affected by the accident despite being located 30–45 km from the power plant, since the Northwestern winds were blowing at the time of the accident. Although the order to evacuate Iitate was later compared to other evacuation orders, it was issued much later than others, on May 15, 2011. As a result of the enormous efforts of the local municipalities, residents, and volunteers to decontaminate and restore the affected areas (e.g., Mizoguchi 2012, 2013; Resurrection of Fukushima 2013), almost all evacuation orders were lifted from the municipalities in Fukushima, including Iitate by 2022 (Table 21.1).

Table 21.1 Municipalities in which decontamination was completed and evacuation orders were lifted
Full size table

Currently, residential functions have been restored in almost all districts of Iitate except for Nagadoro district, which is still designated as a “difficult-to-return zone,” which refers to areas where the annual integral air dose estimation has not reduced to less than 20 mSv (Fig. 21.1). Originally, Iitate was rich in natural resources (75% of the village is mountainous forest) and was selected as one of the Most Beautiful Villages of Japan in 2010. At present, despite the relatively high elevation and snowfall and other challenges to cultivation, agricultural revival in the area has focused on attempting to cultivate rice, colorful flowers, and vegetables that are well suited to the difference in temperature between day and night (Fig. 21.2).

Fig. 21.1
A map of the litate village and 20 administrative districts. Here Nagadoro is highlighted as difficult to return zone, and a star on the map highlights Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

Location of Iitate village and 20 administrative districts

Full size image
Fig. 21.2
Three photos of the rice plant, baby's breath, and napa cabbage.

Agricultural products (rice, baby’s breath, and napa cabbage) in Iitate (Source: authors)

Full size image

Eleven years after the disaster, although physical reconstruction, including infrastructure development, is on track, approximately 50% of residents still feel that Fukushima is yet to be sufficiently rebuilt (Government survey conducted in 2021). Moreover, with village residents gradually returning and population and activity increasing, new challenges arise daily that need to be resolved. Through our ongoing field activities that have continued from 3 months after the accident in 2011 to the present (Mizoguchi 2016), we have observed that excursions and field trips to the affected areas qualitatively changed the awareness of participants, including students (e.g., Osada 2013; Nishiwaki et al. 2018; Ebitani et al. 2021). Further, we have come to believe that the resilience of the village, which has the disadvantage of being on land contaminated by radiation, must go beyond mere technical decontamination and physical reconstruction of infrastructure, and that it is important to educate young people to take up the challenge of creating a new style agriculture.

To pass on the knowledge of what led to the disaster and the lessons learned, it is becoming increasingly important to educate the next generation, who can discover and create solutions for the problems and challenges that constantly arise in agriculture. To this end, a specific learning program should be designed. The following sections will introduce the education program developed in Iitate village, Fukushima, and discuss the results of the qualitative and quantitative research on the feedback from the program participants.

21.2 FPBL: Field- and Project-Based Learning

It is difficult to restore the areas, communities, and agricultural land affected by the nuclear accident by only using specific science and technology in a segmented way. To achieve both physical reconstruction—such as infrastructure and decontamination—and social reconstruction, it is essential to create opportunities for the generation that has been actively involved in reconstruction to interact with younger generations inside and outside the affected areas and collaborate with them to solve issues in real time. It is also important to develop human resources who can discover what they can contribute to reconstruction and development. This goal is not limited to the field of agriculture but is also a challenge for the field of pedagogy. In the following sections, we will briefly describe the educational philosophy that served as the foundation for field- and project-based learning (FPBL), which is introduced and described in this chapter.

21.2.1 PBL: Project-Based Learning

Project-based learning (PBL) is the core concept of FPBL. PBL is a learning theory proposed by the American educationalist John Dewey and refers to a program and process of “learning to solve complex questions and hypotheses about the real world as a project program and its process” (Bender 2012). PBL has also been referred to as “Problem-based learning” (Wood 2003). Under PBL, students or participants learn through active effort to solve issues and problems by setting up hypotheses or research questions from a practical level. Hands-on activities and discussions help individual learning to more efficiently produce creative responses (Redish 2012). Such methods complement traditional input-based learning, which emphasizes the acquisition of information and skills through classroom lectures. By encouraging learners to take an active role in solving the problems set by the project, PBL can be expected to change attitudes toward the future, increase motivation (Sakai et al. 2020), and help participating students to gain a multifaceted understanding of the subject and become more proactive in their learning (Akui et al. 2019).

21.2.2 Open Spiral Model

The Open Spiral Model, a concept proposed by Hiroshi Harashima, advocates opening research and its results and technologies to society to connect academic and social communities. He warned that the gap among specialized knowledge, general knowledge, and terminology can make it difficult to disseminate the technology and value of research to society (Harashima 2016). To overcome this difficulty, he advocated a new relationship between research and society, where research is opened to society on a case-by-case basis and feedback is obtained directly and instantly from society or industry, instead of the traditional relationship where research is linearly connected to society through academia and industry (Fig. 21.3). The FPBL proposed in this chapter also adopts this Open Spiral Model, in which researchers are presented with practical issues by residents and farmers in the affected communities and farmlands, implement experiments and practices in the field, and receive immediate feedback to evolve research and projects.

Fig. 21.3
An illustration portrays the conversion of the academic community to the social community. Both include elements: research, conference, industry, and society. The text at the bottom reads this figure was created by the authors based on Harashima's discussion.

Conceptual transformation of the relationship of academic and community

Full size image

21.2.3 Multidisciplinary Science and STE(A)M

Agricultural education today is a complex science, and solving problems in the field with a single specialty often proves extremely difficult. This is because the complex needs of the field continue to arise under changing conditions: (1) to respond to changes in the natural environment and society, (2) to cope with sudden natural disasters and other burdens, (3) to deal with frictions in culture and values, and (4) to ensure sustainability for the future (Fig. 21.4). In response to this, agricultural education needs to clarify the significance of continued focus on the agricultural field, to convey the importance of continuing to discover issues on one’s own, and to foster a positive attitude toward the repetitive process of hypothesis generation, hypothesis testing, trial and error, and adjustment, in addition to the transfer of specialized knowledge. Fostering such practical and complex comprehensive abilities has been the aim of MST (Mathematics, Science, Technology) education in the 1990s and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) (STEM Education Act of 2015 (H.R. 1020, 114-56) (2015)) or STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, “Arts,” and Mathematics) (e.g., Yakman 2008; Maeda 2013) education proposed in the late 2000s in the USA. They were originally proposed as a way to develop human resources with holistic sensibilities and innovative ideas and attitudes (Allina 2018), but this particular perspective is also needed for agricultural education in the modern era.

Fig. 21.4
A diagram illustrates the need for agricultural education in modern times. The needs include F P B L, response to changes in nature and society, copes up with sudden disasters and other accidents, needs to address friction between cultures and values, and need to address sustainability for future society.

Needs of agricultural education in modern times

Full size image

Integrating the concepts and discussions introduced above, we have proposed and are practicing the FPBL, a learning program that combines PBL with a “field-based” approach (Table 21.2). FPBL simply refers to a program and process in which participants go to the real field, observe the actual issues, and work on research questions or hypothesis verification, as learning based on problem-solving in the field. As a form of learning, it is different from conventional input-based learning, which emphasizes the acquisition of information and skills through classroom learning, and in that FPBL starts with the identification of issues from practical situations and aims to apply the results research to the field. In addition, it aims to develop human resources who can extract issues from the field, think, discuss, and work in a group of diverse and multidisciplinary people, and finally return meaningful results to the field.

Table 21.2 Perspectives on FPBL and comparison with SBL and PBL
Full size table

21.3 Program and Activities in FPBL Practices

With Iitate as a practical field for FPBL, throughout the year, we carry out a cluster of activities that fall into 4 main categories: laboratory, course-work, collaborative, and student led (Fig. 21.5). We implement a hybrid program of education and research to drive the activities as shown in Fig. 21.6.

Fig. 21.5
An infographic of the 4 categories of the F P B L program. They are laboratory activities that include remote animal damage control and compost experiment. Course-work activities that include undergraduate field experiment and graduate school field research. Collaborative activities, and student led activities.

4 Categories of FPBL program

Full size image
Fig. 21.6
Two circular diagrams for research program for the restoration and expansion of agriculture-based livelihoods and education program for the transmission and development of resilience knowledge to future generations.

Structure of hybrid program of education and research

Full size image

As a research program, we aim to foster international-level transdisciplinary research with resilience knowledge and ICT technologies, and to build a foundation for the transmission of a new Japanese-style (small-scale intergenerational) agriculture in Iitate. Specifically, we have conducted tailor-made composting experiments adapted to local field conditions, experiments on radio-wave transmission in mountainous forests, and research on measures against animal damage in farming.

In addition, as an educational program, we have conducted field trips and workshops in Iitate for university students to interact with agricultural practitioners and create opportunities to integrate the academic knowledge and local reconstruction/resilience knowledge for problem-solving and research activities in the field. We have also established and operated field museums, held online information sharing sessions (Table 21.3), and conducted surveys to assess the program’s effectiveness.

Table 21.3 Major examples of online information transmission/publication
Full size table

21.4 Effectiveness of FPBL

This section introduces a summary of the results of the feedback survey conducted before and after study tours. The targeted feedback surveys were conducted in conjunction with study tours conducted in Iitate village on a total of 16 occasions between 2019 and 2021. A total of 97 responses from both the pre- and postsurveys, excluding those that were incomplete, were considered valid responses. The structure of the questions obtained and analyzed is shown in Table 21.4.

Table 21.4 Question items and indicative statements used in the survey
Full size table

The ultimate goal of the FPBL program is the enhancement of the ability to identify cutting-edge academic challenges in the field and the formation and development of sustainable and resilient communities. To this end, the level of awareness and activeness could be evaluated as a measure of the effectiveness of the program. Here, we focus on the concepts of “regional attachment” [an extension of Low and Altman’s concept of “place attachment” (Low and Altman 1992)] and “self-efficacy,” which have recently attracted attention as factors contributing to active participation in activities that make community contributions.

“Regional attachment” is defined as an emotional connection between people and places (Hidalgo and Hernandez 2001). Previous studies have shown that this concept plays an important role in cooperation in activities such as community development, environmental conservation, and disaster prevention (e.g., Brown et al. 2003; Ishimori 2004; Suzuki and Fujii 2008). Further, among the factors that determine human behavior (antecedents, consequences, and cognitive factors), “self-efficacy” (Bandura 1977) focuses on cognitive factors (cognition-based motivation and cognitive representations of entailment). It refers to the expectation of “how well one can perform the necessary behavior to produce a certain result” (Sakano 1986) and has been used in varied fields, such as education, industry, and preventive medicine, since it is a cognitive variable that both precedes and causes behavioral change (e.g., Ryugo and Hohashi 2007; Saotome and Kimura 2011). In the following sections, we will examine whether participants developed “regional attachment” and “self-efficacy” through the FPBL program. For each indicator, items were developed with reference to previous studies (Suzuki and Fujii 2008; Sherer et al. 1982).

First, each item of the Likert-scale question was tabulated and the Mann–Whitney U-test, a nonparametric test, was conducted to determine if there were statistically significant differences between the mean points of indicators in pre- and postconditions. Then, a factor analysis was conducted to extract common factors behind the responses to each item based on a polychoric correlation matrix. Considering the small sample size of the survey, we adopted the least-squares method for the factor analysis, which allows for easy convergence with a small sample size. To determine the appropriate number of factors, we conducted parallel analysis (Thompson 1996), a method used to estimate the error contained in the data, extract the number of factors that have more information (meaningful) than the error, and identify the largest number of meaningful factors. In our analysis, the number of factors assumed was 3 and 2 for the regional attachment and self-efficacy indexes, respectively. In addition, we compared the average of the factor scores between the pre- and postconditions in accordance with the extracted factor structure, as discussed in detail below. For the Mann–Whitney U-test and factor analysis, the statistical analysis software R (ver. 4.1.0) was used, mainly the “psych” package, which is capable of general statistical analysis. Additionally, a summary and introduction of the free-response statements follows the quantitative analysis for discussion. The results are described in detail below.

21.4.1 Basic Information of Respondents and Summary of 2 Indices

Table 21.5 summarizes the information of participants’ gender, course type, and whether this was the first visit to Iitate. The gender and course type of respondents in this survey were generally in line with the proportions of the university student population. About two-thirds of the respondents were visiting Iitate for the first time.

Table 21.5 Basic information of respondents
Full size table

Figure 21.7 shows the results of the Likert-scale responses for “regional attachment” (prefixed with AT_ in the figure) and “self-efficacy” (prefixed with SE_ in the figure) as stacked proportional bar graphs. The results of the Mann–Whitney U-test are also shown in the same figure. The results indicate that the percentage of respondents who chose options 6 and 7 in the postcondition was generally higher than in the precondition, with no differences found in AT_03, SE_06 and SE_13.

Fig. 21.7
A horizontal stacked bar chart plots question versus proportion. It gives values for pre and post. Each bar has different colors stacked which represent numbers from 1 to 7.

Proportional stacked bar chart of 2 Likert-style indices

Full size image

21.4.2 Result of Factor Analysis

Tables 21.6 and 21.7 show the results of the factor analysis for the indicators of “regional attachment” and “self-efficacy,” respectively. The number of factors extracted was 3 and 2, and for both results, the explanation rate of the overall data by the extracted factors (Cumulative Var in the table) was about 60%. The structure of the data was easy to understand, with each item having a factor contribution of 0.4 or more to a single factor.

Table 21.6 Result of factor analysis on regional attachment index
Full size table
Table 21.7 Result of factor analysis on self-efficacy index
Full size table

As for “regional attachment,” Factor 1, consisting of AT_01, AT_04, AT_05 and AT_06, was named “Preference,” because it is a general preference for the target location. Factor 2, consisting of AT_07, AT_08, and AT_09, was named “Cherish,” because it is a set of consciousness to cherish the subject site. Finally, Factor 3, consisting of AT_02 and AT_03, was named “Livability,” because it represents the evaluation of the target area as a place to live.

As for “self-efficacy,” Factor 1, consisting of eight items from SE_07 to SE_14, was named “External,” because it is a factor related to respondents’ efforts and activities toward external environment and people. Also, Factor 2, consisting of 6 items from SE_01 to SE_06, was named “Internal,” because it is a set of items related to one’s internal attitudes and abilities.

Figure 21.8 shows the results of the comparison of distributions, box-and-whisker plots, and correlation analysis for the scores calculated for the 3 factors of “regional attachment.” Considering the probability density plots in the main diagonal of the matrix, a t-test was used for Factor 3, “Livability,” which was found to be normal and equally distributed for both pre- and postcondition, and a Mann–Whitney U-test was used to test whether there were differences in scores of the other two factors between the pre- and postcondition. In the first line of the matrix, whisker box plots are shown for each factor scores in both conditions (upper pink box indicates the results of the precondition and lower blue box indicates those of the postcondition) except for the left cell, which indicates the ratio of samples used (100% for both pre- and postcondition). They show that the differences between the factor scores for the pre- and postcondition of all factors were statistically significant (p < 0.01). In particular, for Factor 2 “Cherish” (the third line of the matrix), the precondition scores were close to a uniform distribution when referring the histogram in the first row and probability density plot in the third row, but the postcondition score shows a keen concentration in the higher level of the score mean. This result indicates that the participants did not show particular tendency for an awareness for this factor, “Cherish,” toward Iitate village before participation, but it was sharply enhanced by the end of the program.

Fig. 21.8
A set of graphs plot for phase pre or post, A T factor 1, A T factor 2, and A T factor 3 with corresponding values. It has a horizontal bar graph, scatter plot, area graph, and box plot.

Pairs plot of the factor scores for regional attachment

Full size image

Figure 21.9 shows the results of the comparison of distributions, box-and-whisker plots, and correlation analysis of the scores calculated for the two factors related to “self-efficacy.” The cell in the middle of the third row (or the scatter plot in the middle of the third line) indicates that there is a strong correlation (for all: 0.743, for pre-condition: 0.716, for post-condition: 0.705 with 1% significant level) between the two factors. Since the probability density plots in the main diagonal of the matrix did not show normality and equal variance between both conditions for both factors, a Mann–Whitney U-test was conducted to determine whether there were differences between the pre- and postcondition scores. The box-and-whisker plots in the first line show different distributions of factor scores for the pre- and postconditions in each factor, and the result of a Mann–Whitney U-test indicates statistically significant difference between conditions (p < 0.01). The probability density plot of Factor 1 “External” shows signs of bimodality in the postcondition score, indicating that some participants showed significant changes in this factor whereas others did not.

Fig. 21.9
A set of graphs plot for phase pre or post, S E factor 1, and S E factor 2 with corresponding values. It has a horizontal bar graph, scatter plot, area graph, and box plot.

Pairs plot of the factor scores for self-efficacy

Full size image

21.4.3 Key Qualitative Results from the Free-Style Responses and Writing

Finally, we present here a few key quotes and comments from the participants, excerpted from the result of the free-style responses and reports.

[Male/Undergraduate/First visit]

10 years have passed since the disaster, and I feel that people are starting to lose interest in Tohoku.

[Male/Master’s course/First visit]

I felt that tours should be held on a regular basis. It is also necessary to know about and share information on the current situation in Fukushima, including images of the current radiation levels and whether it is safe to live or move there.

[Female/Master’s course/second time visit]

I realized that we need to look for a relationship of mutual support that goes beyond the relationship between supporters and recipients.

[Female/Undergraduate/First visit]

People like us who do not live in Fukushima tend to have a fixed impression of Fukushima, and I feel that this may reduce the power of Fukushima’s recovery. Therefore, I believe that the easiest way to contribute to the recovery process is to communicate the current state of Fukushima in a concrete way.

[Male/Doctor/First visit]

Through this field study, I felt that it is important to interact with the people of Fukushima. I could also feel the importance of human connections in the reconstruction and resilience of Fukushima. Therefore, I felt that it is important to think about Fukushima together with the local people while interacting with them.

21.5 Discussion

As part of the evaluation of the FPBL program, two psychological indices, “regional attachment” and “self-efficacy,” were collected and compared before and after the program as part of a feedback survey of the participants. Participants’ scores for place attachment to Iitate after the program experience were significantly higher than those before they participated in the program. In particular, the average score for the “Cherish” factor was significantly higher after participating in the program, suggesting that a positive and sustainable relationship could be formed between the village and the program participants from outside, beyond the learning program anchored to these on-site activities. The overall “self-efficacy” scores also improved after participating in the program. This suggests that the program provided an opportunity for collaboration with the affected areas, which will be necessary on an ongoing basis to pass on the knowledge of resilience and reconstruction to the next generation.

However, it should be noted that AT_03, one of the “Livability” components of the regional attachment factor, did not change after participating in the program. This may be because Iitate still does not have sufficient accommodation and transportation infrastructure for visitors from outside the village and the prefecture. The development of these facilities could be an important foundation for creating and sustaining contact between the village and the outside world when considering the resilience and reconstruction of the disaster-hit area.

In addition, it must be noted that the results for the “External” factor were divided between two groups: those whose scores increased and those whose scores did not increase much. Although the survey alone does not allow us to identify a clear cause for this pattern, the fact that this value tended not to improve in the case of first-time visitors suggests the need for further enhancement of the program’s mechanism for welcoming repeat visitors. Further, identifying local activities that contribute to the improvement of this factor will be necessary to further improve the program.

21.6 Conclusion

This chapter presented a multifaceted FPBL framework and specifics that have been developed and practiced in Iitate village, a site that has experienced 11 years of postdisaster reconstruction. The results of the qualitative and quantitative evaluation on the feedback from the program participants indicate that they were able to acquire a concrete awareness and recognition of the disaster-affected area by actually visiting Iitate by directly observing or hearing about the current situation and being involved in field projects. They also seemed to develop a certain level of regional attachment to the village and a sense of self-efficacy toward reconstruction.

This practical and educational program seeks to address the challenges to the practical issues that have emerged in the village through the path of reconstruction with the collaborative efforts of residents, municipalities, supporters such as voluntary NPOs, and universities. The issues emerging in the field are constantly changing, and we must face a different kind of challenge than we did immediately after the earthquake 11 years ago or after the evacuation was lifted 5 years ago. Therefore, going forward, it is expected that this program and related activities will continue to change and evolve with the challenges that emerge in each stage of recovery and further development.

Eleven years have passed since the disaster and people are gradually returning home. Therefore, the agricultural field in Fukushima is considered as a very important region, being full of new attempts and challenges in terms of agricultural education using the FPBL framework from a global perspective. It is hoped that even after the area is restored to predisaster levels, it will long continue to be a site of practice and research as an area where reconstruction knowledge is passed on to future generations, and that the development and sustainability of the area will be ensured through a system of continuous involvement and collaboration of diverse groups of people in Iitate village and the Fukushima region.