[Jpn. J. Rural Econ┻ Vol┻7┼ pp┻100┡113┼ 2005]

Effects of Image Formation of Rural Lifescape onConsciousness and Willingness toProtect Rural Farming Villages

Shinobu Kitani┢, Tadashi Hasebe┢, Noriaki Nomura┢ andRichard Moore†

The paper aims to evaluate rural farming villages through an ethical view point┻ Themethod of evaluation is to grasp respondents' changes of attitudes in a CVM survey┼where we show them many photos relating to a Japanese rural farming village┻ Thesephotos are classified by trilateral images of the village and we ask respondents to makepair-wise comparisons in each set of photos┻ As a result┼ we can verify that respondentswho have much past experience in a rural farming village would have an image of lifeand their attitudes for CVM judgment are more prone to be vulnerable to visual informa-tion (photos)┻ This means that images of rural lifescape might not be reflected in thevalues calculated through CVM┻

Key words : AHP┼ change of attitude┼ contingent valuation┼ CVM┼ image formation┼lifescape┼ rural farming village┻

1┻　Introduction

Recently┼ many learned experts say that inaddition to agricultural products the multi-functional value of agriculture includes thereduction of natural disasters┼ landscape offarming villages┼ and cultural or historicalmaterials around the villages┻ In fact┼ therehave been many papers which evaluate thesevalues by means of various econometricmethods┼ e┻g┻ hedonic┼ travel cost┼ contin-gent value (CVM)┼ and conjoint method┻These methods are all based on the marketmodels┻ These methods assume that the totalvalue of agriculture can be objectively mea-sured by hypothetical market prices whichmight be determined by behaviors or actionsof rational citizens┻ Is this a reasonable as-sumption？

Much of the value of agriculture should beevaluated as symbolic rather than instrumen-tal because it is related to the labor and lives

┢Tohoku University†Ohio Agricultural Research＆ Development

Center┼ U┻S┻A┻

of citizens living in villages┻1) Referring toSagoff [17]┼ it is fair to say that the worthof the things we love is better measured byour unwillingness to pay for them (p┻68)┻But there is no research that focuses on mea-suring the symbolic value directly┻ Thiswould arise from the fact that we all haveconsidered that the symbolic value can not orshould not be measured┼ even if the value hasan important role in the evaluation of agri-cultural environments┻ Although we admitthere is difficulty in measuring the value┼ itwould be mistaken to evaluate farming vil-lages without considering it┻

Some established researchers who have pre-sented a plausible view of rural farming vil-lages (RFV) take note of the importance ofintrinsic values2) but have not included themin their analyses due to the difficulty in rep-resenting their values numerically┻ So theirpolicy proposals for protecting RFV lack ef-fectiveness when implemented┻ Though it iswrong to measure the values by econometricmethods and add them to the other economicvalues such as productivity┼ it would be im-portant to measure or grasp the meaning of

symbolic values ┣objectively─ by some reason-able methods┻

In fact┼ it is very difficult for persons whodo not live or have not lived in RFV to judgeor meaningfully represent their preferenceson agricultural policies┻ The possible waythat we can do this is to find a number offactors underlying expressions and attitudesfor or against a policy regarding preservationof rural villages┻ Of course┼ researcherssometimes construct surveys using economet-ric methods to ask people's views about re-gional planning and investigate the relationsbetween these views and other attributes┻3)

But this approach is based on economic mod-els which aim to evaluate policies using aneconometric framework (that is┼ economet-rics is based on an aggregation or an averageof subjects' views in policy evaluation)┻ Ifwe try to evaluate a policy in addition to itsaggregated values using econometric meth-ods┼ we think it is necessary to pay attentionto each individual's view and its variation inspace and time┻ Moreover┼ it may be possibleto analyze changes of subject's views afterpresenting some real photos or movies in rela-tion to landscape┼ life┼ or culture of a certainfarming village┻ Citizens have various imagesof rural scenery┼ and those formations werecreated in their environment during the timethey grew up┻ If we present many photos offarming villages repeatedly to them┼ theymight go through a process of image transfor-mation that enables prior experiences to af-fect their attitudes regarding policies aboutfarming village preservation┻

The paper aims to clarify the relationshipbetween attitudes affecting willingness topay for conserving the landscape of ruralfarming villages and the image of rurallifescape┻ By lifescape we mean the interrela-tionship between the daily life of people┼their culture and history┼ and theirenvironment┻4) The relationship might give usa new evaluation framework for preservingRFV┼ which would be related to agriculturalethics┻ The research was conducted using apersonal computer (PC) automatic question-naire system┼ where subjects were young per-sons who were students about 20 years ofage┻ We can assume that they all had littlerelationship with farming villages at the timethey took the questionnaire┻

2┻　Image Formation about Rural Lifescapeand Atitudes for Preserving Faming Villages

1)　Model for image formation about rurallifescape

The attitude for the preservation of RFVmust be influenced by the mental image re-garding rural lifescape┼ and the differences inpast experiences regarding RFV in childhoodbrought about the different images when theytook the PC questionnaire┻ Moreover┼ the ex-periences in RFV were probably acquiredin physical and social environments┼ i┻e┻whether or not they lived near a farming vil-lage or whether their parents were engaged inagriculture┻ We show the causal relationshipstated above in Fig┻ 1┻

We assume that the image of rural lifescapeconsists of the following three components :(1) The image of nature : greenish woods┼

scarlet-tinged (autumn) leaves┼ smallstreams┼ landscape with a hill in thebackground(2) The image of life : cultivating farm-

land┼ children playing in a field┼ enjoyinga relaxing break(3) The image of culture and history :

woods in former residences┼ historicalbuildings┼ temples┼ festivals┼ long-estab-lished traditions

Most environmental economists have as-sumed that the image of nature and historycould partially be reflected by economic val-ues as if we consume lifescape in the sameway we do private goods┻ In fact┼ there areso many papers where authors try to clarifythe economic value of natural landscapes orhistorical and cultural architecture on the as-sumption that we can buy them under somecontingent markets┻5) In this paper┼ the im-age of life is focused on more than the othertwo components of the image┼ because wethink that the image of life is more closelyrelated to an individual's past proximity andcontact with farming villages┻ According toFig┻ 1┼ past proximity and contact are de-fined by natural and social environments andexperiences when a subject was a child┻ Here┼we formulate the first hypothesis┻

H1 : The image of life will be enhanced bynatural and social environments of rural farm-ing villages via past experiences in the farmingvillages┻

101Effects of Image Formation of Rural Lifescape on Consciousness and

Willingness to Protect Rural Farming Villages

Figure 1.　The model for image formation of rural lifescape

2)　Attitude for preservation of RFVTo capture the individual's attitudes┼ we

shall pay attention to their consciousness andwillingness to preserve RFV┻ The attitudemay differ according to their types of imageformation about rural lifescape┻ To clarifythis point┼ we shall discuss the next twoviewpoints┻ First┼ we shall investigate theirconsciousness to preserve farming villages byasking ┣Yes─ or ┣No─ on two different poli-cies : the preservation policy for a specificfarming village and that for all over thecountry┻ It is easier to make their decisionsfor the former policy (local policy) than forthe latter (global policy)┼ because the formerpolicy is the one where subjects can have con-crete ideas about what's going on in farmingvillages┻ Second┼ we shall pay attention to aset of changes in the subject's attitudes aftergiving some visual information about rurallifescape┻

On the process of a PC automated question-naire┼ subjects make paired comparisons ofphotos related to rural lifescape┼ which arestructured according to an AHP (AnalyticHierarchical Process) algorithm┻ (the set ofphotos consists of three groups┼ each ofwhich have five photos corresponding tothree kinds of the images as above┻ As pairedcomparisons are made in each group┼ the re-quired number of comparisons is 30┻ The con-tents of photos are shown in Table 1)┻

What can we expect in this experiment inrelation to the change in their attitudes？First of all┼ we will find the illuminating ef-fect of the testing experience itself┻ That isto say┼ each subject's attitudes for preserva-tion of farming villages will become affirma-tive after making paired comparisons of pho-tos┼ because the photos seem to spark inthem a good impression about rural farmingvillages┻ But our interest was not in this

point┻ According to the viewpoints statedabove┼ we investigated the consistency oftheir consciousness towards preserving RFVin two different policies and the differencesin directions of change in each subject's atti-tudes┼ which might be related to their at-tributes of physical and social environmentsand past experiences in RFV during child-hood┻ On these points┼ we can formulate thenext two hypotheses┻

H2 : After the subject has viewed pairedcomparisons of photos, the consciousness re-garding preservation of rural farming villagesfor all over the country changes more than thatof preservation of specific farming village┻

H3 : The magnitude of the change in the at-titudes regarding preservation of rural farmingvillages after the subject has viewed pairedcomparisons of photos has a significant rela-tion to the subject’s past experiences in RFVand their image of life┻

The second hypothesis can be stated basedon the assumption that after viewing pairedcomparisons┼ the subjects would revise theirexpressions of the consciousness of policieswhich preserve farming villages all over thecountry┼ and would give them more compati-bility with the preservation policy for a spe-cific farming village┻6) We think this phenom-enon could be considered as a learning proc-ess┻ The third hypothesis means that the atti-tudes of subjects who have substantial pastexperiences and an image of life are more vul-nerable and changeable┻ As a note of clarifi-cation┼ the magnitude of the change does notnecessarily mean an aggregation of positivechanges of the subject's attitudes┻ We addhere that there is a possibility of negativechanges in the attitudes of the subjects (froman affirmative attitude to a negative one)┻

102

Table 1.　Explanation of photos given in the AHP survey to form respondents’ images of RFV

Type of image Corresponding photos┼ of which paired comparisons were made

Nature a rice field just after planting┼ a rice field just before reaping┼ an insect stopping on

a flower┼ buds at a footpath between rice fields┼ a farming village from the sky

Life an operation by a cultivator┼ the operation of rice drying┼ a bamboo hat being made

by an old woman┼ children playing in a rice field┼ farmers with smiling faces

Culture and history a Shinto shrine torii surrounded by greenery┼ a children's festival┼ old stone monu-

ments┼ a farming house with thatched roofs┼ a sacred event at a shrine

3┻　Carrying out the Survey and Measuringthe Value of a Rural Farming Village

1)　The flow of the surveyThe set of data we will use in the paper is

one which our research group had surveyed tomeasure a value of the landscape of a ruralfarming village that had received a grandprize by Ministry of Agriculture┼ Forestry┼and Fisheries (MAFF) for the best landscapepanorama┻ The survey had been carried outover two years (1998┡1999) by using a PC au-tomated questionnaire system┼ which wascomposed of two parts┻ One of the parts wasa CVM questionnaire to measure a value ofthe landscape where each subject made a di-chotomous choice (DC-CVM) on whether ornot he would pay a given sum of money toprotect the landscape of the farming village(this was oriented to a purchasing behaviorin a micro-economics framework)┻ The otherpart was an AHP questionnaire to figure outthe subjects' image of the farming villages┻

Figure 2 shows the overall flow of the sur-vey┻ In 1999┼ MAFF implemented a preserva-tion policy of direct payments to hilly andmountainous areas┻ This carried an implica-tion to save farmhouses which were locatedin remote villages disadvantaged in produc-tivity┻ Iide town is such a typical Japanesevillage where rice fields are spread out allover the town┻ In 1994┼ Iide town won thehighest award (the award of MAFF) in thefirst contest for beautiful landscape villagesin Japan┻

In the paper questionnaire┼ subjects' at-tributes related to rural farming village (seeFig┻ 2┼ ①②③)┼ the strength of subject's im-ages of nature┼ life and tradition on farmingvillages④┼ and ┣Yes─ or ┣No─ on the policyof direct payments to hilly and mountainous

areas⑤ were surveyed┻ Questions⑤ and⑥┼and (⑪)and(⑨) which were their respectiveequivalent questions on the repeat test cycle┼correspond to the consciousness regarding thefarm village preservation policy for all thecountry and a specific farming village respec-tively┻ Questions⑦(⑩) and⑧ are for CVM┼and AHP respectively┻ Because subjects wereyoung persons who at the time of the surveydidn't live in rural farming villages┼ someopinions of both policies are shown for refer-ence┼ and a choice of preservation is also ac-cepted in⑤(⑪)┻ Only subjects who answered┣Yes─ in⑥(⑨) were required to answer⑦(⑩)┻ Here┼ we would like to bring up onequestion┻ In DC-CVM┼ willingness to pay agiven sum of money is usually asked using ahypothetical foundation which would receivecontributions and carry out a specified objec-tive⑦(⑩)┻ It seems strange in the theoreti-cal viewpoint of Hicksian measures┼ becausewe are expected to design CVM to represent aperson's decision to buy private goods and beable to get the goods after making a ┣Yes─decision┻ In the usual DC-CVM case┼ it is notguaranteed for any citizen that the landscapeof Iide town would be protected by their pay-ment┼ for the preservation decisively dependson the other citizens' decision to contributeas well (this refers to the problem on publicgoods supply or Social Dilemma in gametheory)┻7) So our group set two types ofquestions :(Type 1) Paying money as a contribution(the usual DC-CVM question method)(Type 2) Paying money as a deficiency in

putting the preservation into practiceIn spite of the impracticality of Type 2┼ in

order to find a difference on effectiveness be-tween the two types┼ we asked for the will-ingness to pay as if the preservation fund had

103Effects of Image Formation of Rural Lifescape on Consciousness and

Willingness to Protect Rural Farming Villages

Figure 2.　The flow of the survey

already been raised up to the necessary sumof money if the subject decided in theaffirmative┻8) Accordingly┼ we formulatedthe following hypothesis :

H4 : Willingness to pay in Type 1 would besmaller than that in Type 2 because of its inef-fectiveness to put the policy into force┻

In the event that a subject opposes theaims of the foundation┼ we shall regard thathe refused to pay to it (Protest bids)┻ Inpractice┼ the subjects of Type 2 were askedabout their willingness to pay whether or notthey opposed the aims of the foundation┻ Werefer to type 1┼ type 2 as T1┼ T2 hereafter┻

The exercise was carried out in PC equippedlecture rooms of universities┼ where we se-lected subjects who were mainly freshman orsophomore undergraduates students┻ Becauseit was necessary for us on the computer toshow each subject a different sum of money(DC-CVM)┼ a different type (T1┼ T2)┼ and togive him/her photos for paired comparisonsin random order(AHP)┼ we could not getmany survey forms completed at a time com-

pared to the usual method of easily distribut-ing assembled surveys to a large class of stu-dents┻ As stated┼ the grounds for selectingsuch subjects was that they would not have avital interest in RFV and would become a piv-otal generation for determining the futurepolicy of preserving RFV┻ Fortunately┼ theycould easily operate personal computers┻ Toconsider the difference in the nature of thesubjects' environments in childhood┼ we alsocarried out the exercise in Hokkaido and Oki-nawa┼ each of which is located at the north-ern and southern ends of Japanese islands re-spectively┻ These areas have largely differenttypes of agriculture from Honshu (the centralmain island in Japan)┻ The number of sam-ples was 631 (269 in Honshu┼ 137 in Hokkai-do┼ and 225 in Okinawa)┻9)

2)　Measurement of willingness to pay forprotecting a specific rural farmingvillage

Figure 3 shows ratios of willingness to payaccording to type and pre and post-AHP┻Willingness to pay on T2 seems higher than

104

Figure 3.　Ratio of willingness to pay according to type and pre- and post-AHP

that on T1┻ In fact┼ we calculated the medianWTP using logistic regression estimationcurves shown in Fig┻ 3┼ and we got ￥305┻58┼￥427┻92 on T1 and ￥491┻54┼ ￥762┻25 on T2┼where the former value was at pre-AHP andthe latter was at post-AHP┼ respectively┻ Inalmost all of the 10 combinations (2 timesand 5 presentations of sum of money) exceptunder the conditions of pre-AHP presented at￥5┼000┼ willingness to pay on T2 was higherthan that on T1┻ Therefore┼ we can say therewas a difference between the two types sta-tistically (nonparametric test at a 5％ signifi-cance level)┻ As a result┼ we posit a fourthhypothesis :

There would be a possibility that many cal-culated values of CVM based on contributionsto a hypothetical foundation have been under-estimated┻

4┻　Factors of Consciousness andWillingness to Protect PFV

1)　Verification of the model for imageformation

The result of path analysis to verify themodel for image formation is shown in Fig┻ 4(residual terms are omitted)┻ Significantcausal relationships are shown by bold lineswith correlation coefficients┻ According tothis diagram┼ the amount of past experiencesof having played during childhood in a RFVare strongly determined by physical distanceto farmlands and whether the parent's homepracticed agriculture or not┼ and this in turnleads to the formation of the image of life┻These results support the first hypothesis H1┻Practice of agriculture at the parent's natalhome gave a direct negative effect on the stu-dent's image of culture and history┻ This

means that students who were not familiarwith agriculture tended to form a strong im-age of culture and history┻ Furthermore┼ theimage of nature was not correlated with at-tributes of physical and social environmentsand past experiences in a RFV in childhood(in fact┼ the correlation coefficient betweenthe image of nature and the amount of pastexperiences of having played in RFV as achild is negative although it is not signifi-cant)┻ As a result┼ the image of life is differ-ent from the other two images┼ and this im-age is only related to attributes of physical/social environments and past experiences inRFV during childhood┻2)　The image of rural lifescape and atti-tudes to preserve rural farming villages

Table 2 shows the result of a regressionanalysis where dependent variables were se-lected from the image formations models inFigure 1 and independent variables are atti-tudes to preserve rural farming villages┻ Tobe specific┼ this meant answering ┣Yes─ or┣No─ regarding the foundation raising a fundfor protecting the landscape of Iide town┼┣Yes─ or ┣No─ on the policy of direct pay-ments to hilly and mountainous areas┼ andwillingness to pay a given sum of money toprotect the landscape┻ According to the re-sults┼ consciousness to support the founda-tion was positively explained by the total im-age of rural lifescape┼ especially on natureand culture/history┻ On the other hand┼ con-sciousness to support the policy of direct pay-ments is positively explained by images oflife and culture/history┼ and negatively bythe image of nature┻ Willingness to pay is al-so explained by the total image of rurallifescape┼ and it is very interesting that a

105Effects of Image Formation of Rural Lifescape on Consciousness and

Willingness to Protect Rural Farming Villages

Figure 4.　Image formation of rural lifescape

Table 2.　Attitudes to protect rural farming villages according to the image of rural lifescape

Independent variablesYes/No on the

foundationYes/No on the

policy of directpayments

Willingness to pay

Pre-AHP Post-AHP Pre-AHP Post-AHP Pre-AHP Post-AHP

Physical dist┻ to farmland －┻082┢ Practice of agriculture

Play in RFV ＋┻073 ＋┻111┢┢Image of nature ＋┻076┢ ＋┻081┢ －┻086┢ ＋┻079┢ ＋┻077 Image of life ＋┻064 ＋┻075┢ ＋┻114┢┢ ＋┻072 ＋┻080┢ Image of culture/history ＋┻112┢┢ ＋┻086┢ ＋┻117┢┢ ＋┻078┢ Disposable income Ё Ё Ё Ё ＋┻088┢ ＋┻076┢

R2 　┻036┢┢ 　┻033┢┢ 　┻027┢ 　┻024┢ 　┻031┢ 　┻043┢┢

　Partial regression coefficients (displayed only when p＜0┻2)┻　┢p＜0┻1┼┢┢p＜0┻05┻

positive and significant correlation betweenwillingness to pay and playing experience inrural farming villages appeared after the AHPexercise┻

To sum up┼ consciousness on preservingRFV is largely influenced by the image of ru-ral lifescape┼ and the image of nature has apositive relation only with respect to the con-sciousness of protecting a specific rural land-scape┻ Images of life and culture and historyhave a relation to the general nation-widepreservation of rural farming villages┻ Past-experience in rural farming villages and theimage of life both enhanced the strength ofthe relationship to consciousness and willing-ness to preserve the RFV after the AHP exer-cise┻

It would be possible to interpret the aboveto mean that only students who had experi-enced rural farming villages in the past andformed their image of life could feel a para-experience in rural villages during the AHP

exercise┻ We shall discuss this point later┻

5┻　Changes in Attitudes on Preserving RFV

1)　Changes in consciousness and willing-ness to pay after the AHP exercise

The ratio of approval for the foundation ofprotecting landscape increases slightly afterthe AHP exercise (81┻1％ to 82┻4％)┼ but wecan see that the result was not significantstatistically┻ Moreover┼ the ratio of subjectswho changed their decisions after the AHP ex-ercise (from approval to opposition or fromopposition to approval) was 6┻0％┻ There-fore┼ we could say that the decision was ro-bust through paired comparisons of photos┻On the contrary┼ the ratio of approval forthe policy of direct payments increased large-ly after the AHP exercise (77┻0％ to 82┻8％ ofthe group excluding those who answered┣can't tell─ in both the pre- and post-AHP ex-ercise)┻ The ratio of ┣can't tell─ decreased to11┻9％ from 19┻5％ and more than half (55％)

106

Table 3.　Change in the relationship of Yes/No between the two policies of creating a foundationfor protecting the landscape and direct payments to disadvantaged farming villages

〈Pre-AHP exercise〉

Protecting landscape

Direct payments Approval Approvala little

Oppositiona little

Opposition Can't tell Total

Approval 104 235 58 9 100 50686┻7％ 88┻3％ 60┻4％ 50┻0％ 83┻3％ 81┻6％

Opposition 16 31 38 9 20 11413┻3％ 11┻7％ 39┻6％ 50┻0％ 16┻7％ 18┻4％

Total 120 266 96 18 120 620

　Gamma coefficient G＝－0┻461┻

〈Post-AHP exercise〉

Protecting landscape

Direct payments Approval Approvala little

Oppositiona little

Opposition Can't tell Total

Approval 141 290 23 3 59 51695┻9％ 93┻9％ 31┻9％ 13┻0％ 77┻6％ 82┻3％

Opposition 6 19 49 20 17 111 4┻1％ 6┻1％ 68┻1％ 87┻0％ 22┻4％ 17┻7％

Total 147 309 72 23 76 627

　Gamma coefficient G＝－0┻857┻　G＝－0┻831：excluding subjects who ┣can't tell─ at pre-AHP┻

of the subjects who responded ┣can't tell─ intheir pre-AHP exercise┼ expressed their ap-proval (83┻3％) during the post-AHP┻ As a re-sult┼ the ratio of approval during the post-AHP was 82┻9％ (refer to Table 5)┻

On the other hand┼ the ratio of subjectswho changed their decisions on the policy ofdirect payments after the AHP exercise (fromapproval to opposition or from opposition toapproval) was 14┻5％ excluding the ┣can'ttell─subjects┻ Although this ratio was quitelarger than that of protecting the landscape┼this fact would not contribute to raising theratio of approval┻ In fact┼ there were a con-siderable number of subjects who changedtheir decisions from approval to opposition(one-third of the subjects changing their deci-sions negatively (23 cases))┻ Uniformly in-creasing the ratio of approval could be con-sidered to be a kind of illuminating effectthat the retest had on the subjects┼ but whaton earth could account for the change of deci-sion on both sides？

As shown in Table 3┼ the correlation be-tween the attitude for protecting landscapeand that for direct payments is significant

and high┻ To pay close attention to the coef-ficients┼ the correlation after AHP was muchhigher than before AHP (from 0┻471 to 0┻857in terms of Ю-coefficients)┻ This means thatthe attitude for protecting landscape changedto be consistent with that for direct pay-ments┼ which was robust through the AHP ex-ercise┻ In other words┼ the consciousness forprotecting a specific rural farming village ex-tends to that of preserving hilly and moun-tainous villages nation-wide┼10) which weposit in the second hypothesis H2┻

The ratio of subjects who are willing to payalso significantly increased from 36┻2％ to42┻8％┻ The number of protests (that is┼ thenumber of subjects who opposed creating thefoundation) was almost the same betweenpre- and post-AHP┼ and more than 80％ ofprotests remained opposed┻ This fact indi-cates that the increase of willingness to paywas simply caused by subjects who changedtheir willingness to pay from not paying┻

When we researchers intend to make sub-jects heighten their consciousness to preserveRFV or guide them to approve such policies┼it is possible to consider the above-stated

107Effects of Image Formation of Rural Lifescape on Consciousness and

Willingness to Protect Rural Farming Villages

facts as illuminating or a commitment ontheir actions┻ Although we cannot avoidthese situations in carrying out this kind ofsurvey┼ our aims to study here was not onthese points┼ but rather to understand somedecision-making structures for preservingRFV and conduct an exercise on the relation-ship of them to the subjects' attributes┻2)　Changes of decision in relation to theimage and past experiences in rural vil-lages

We expected a difference in decision-mak-ing between the groups which would be classi-fied by the image and past experience on RFV(which would give each subject a differentmeaning of farming villages)┻ To investigatethe influence of paired comparisons of photoson an attitude of a specific group for preserv-ing RFV┼ it is insufficient to see only the ag-gregated changes in the group┻ First┼ therewere a considerable number of subjects whocouldn't express their attitudes┼ especiallythose regarding the policy of direct pay-ments┼ and many of them expressed their at-titudes after the AHP exercise┻ Second┼ asstated above┼ we can't see any aspect of thechange without seeing it on both sides (pre-and post-AHP) through individuals┻ We shallgive some indicators based on these points┻

In order to consider the influence of sub-jects who were indecisive about the policy ofdirect payments or resisted creation of thefoundation for protecting landscape┼ we com-puted the ratio of approval after the AHP ex-ercise excluding subjects who couldn't tell orresisted during the pre-AHP┻ We shall listfour indicators as follows ;м : a ratio of subjects who change their de-

cision from opposition (not willing topay) to approval (willing to pay) or itsreverse┼ excluding subjects who can't tellor resist┻Ю : a gamma coefficient between decisions

of pre- and post-AHP┼ in view of consis-tency of their decisions┻㎆ : a ratio of subjects who changed their

decision to approval (willing to pay )from those who opposed (are not willingto pay) during pre-AHP┻㎤ : a ratio of subjects who changed their de-

cision to opposition (not willing to pay)from those who approved (is willing topay) during pre-AHP┻

Both м and Ю indicate the amount of change┼but we want to bring attention to the factthat the smaller value of Ю that appears┼ thelarger the amount┻

In Tables 4 and 5┼ changes of willingness topay and consciousness are shown according toeach attribute related to RFV（Natural/Socialenvironments┼ past experiences in childhood┼and the image of RFV）┻ The symbol ┢meansa significant difference occurred between cat-egories by the statistical test of difference(significant level is 10％)┻ The amount ofchange in the ratio of willingness to pay wasclosely related to three variables : distancefrom farming fields in childhood┼ past expe-rience of playing in farming fields duringchildhood┼ and the image of life┻ Moreover┼we found that a past experience of playingand having an image of life predisposed sub-jects to change ┺not willing┱ to ┺willing┻┱ Inthe retest curious results in the degree of in-creased responses of practicing agriculture atthe parents' natal home┼ the image of na-ture┼ and the image of culture and historyseems to be caused by a recovery processfrom the accidental responses that occurredduring the pre-AHP┻

The amount of change in the ratio of ap-proval for the policy of direct payments tohilly farming villages is closely related tofour variables : distance from farming fieldsin childhood┼ past experience of playing infarming fields in childhood┼ the image oflife┼ and the image of culture and history┻ Inthe group of having been near farming fieldsin childhood┼ we found a considerableamount of subjects who changed their deci-sion from approval to opposition┼ whichmade the ratio of approval lower than anyother categories┻ We also confirmed a similartendency in the group having past experiencesplaying in farming fields during childhood┼the image of life┼ and the image of cultureand history┻ Therefore┼ the ┣vulnerability ofthe decision─ can be considered as a propertythat RFV-familiar subjects have (H3)┻3)　DiscussionHere┼ we shall discuss three points : what

we can say about the change of attitudes forpreserving rural farming villages in relationto the model of image formation┼ how to in-terpret a change in the decision┼ especially anegative change┼ and how to deal with illumi-

108

Table 4.　Willingness to pay for the foundation protecting landscape of Iide town

Attributesin relationto farming

Ratio of willingness to pay Ratio of change of decision

Post-AHPPre-AHP(a) (b)

Amount ofincrease

(b)－Pre-AHP㎆ ㎤ м Ю

Total 36┻2 42┻8 42┻1 5┻9┢ ┻110 ┻032 ┻067 ┻991

Distance from farming fields in childhood

Near 35┻8 43┻9 43┻6 7┻8┢ ┻115 ┻000 ┻057 1┻000Apart from 32┻4 39┻5 38┻8 6┻4 ┻109 ┻045 ┻075 ┻987None 38┻7 42┻6 41┻9 3┻2 ┻084 ┻040 ┻055 ┻992

Practicing agriculture at parents' home

Both 38┻0 40┻8 40┻0 2┻0 ┻097 ┻053 ┻083 ┻987One of them 32┻7 44┻4 44┻3 11┻6┢ ┻152 ┻000 ┻082 1┻000None 37┻9 42┻9 42┻1 4┻4 ┻099 ┻048 ┻065 ┻988

Past experience of playing in farming fields in childhood

Every day 39┻8 51┻2 50┻0 10┻2 ┻200 ┻030 ┻104 ┻984Sometimes 37┻5 44┻0 44┻4 6┻9┢ ┻108 ┻038 ┻069 ┻990None 33┻3 38┻3 37┻0 3┻7 ┻083 ┻028 ┻052 ┻994

The image on RFV

　The image on natural scenery

Essential 40┻4 45┻2 44┻8 4┻4 ┻089 ┻036 ┻056 ┻992A little 25┻9 37┻1 36┻7 10┻8┢ ┻147 ┻000 ┻069 1┻000Unrelated 42┻9 45┻0 39┻1 －3┻8 ┻083 ┻111 ┻056 ┻975

　The image on life scenery

Essential 41┻0 49┻4 48┻7 7┻7┢ ┻150 ┻033 ┻086 ┻987A little 29┻4 35┻2 34┻3 4┻9 ┻078 ┻021 ┻050 ┻996Unrelated 30┻0 28┻3 30┻0 0┻0 ┻000 ┻067 ┻014 1┻000

　The image of culture and history

Essential 45┻1 51┻1 50┻7 5┻6 ┻115 ┻047 ┻056 ┻986A little 34┻2 41┻9 41┻8 7┻6┢ ┻113 ┻014 ┻068 ┻996Unrelated 31┻9 36┻9 35┻5 3┻6 ┻098 ┻039 ┻059 ┻990

Disposable income (pocket money)

┡￥20┼000 34┻7 41┻1 40┻8 6┻1 ┻087 ┻015 ┻052 ┻997┡￥40┼000 33┻2 39┻7 39┻1 5┻9 ┻126 ┻063 ┻085 ┻980￥40┼001┡ 44┻5 49┻6 48┻3 3┻8 ┻091 ┻019 ┻046 ┻998

　Post-AHP(a)：excluding all subjects who resisted against the foundation at pre- or post-AHP┻　Post-AHP(b)：excluding only subjects who resisted against the foundation at post-AHP┻

nating effects or impingement on subjects'decisions by the PC questionnaire system┻

First┼ under the model of image formation┼we assume that an image of life would bedeepened by having a para-experience throughviewing paired comparisons of many photos

on RFV┻ To contrast with an image of natureand to some degree the category of ┣cultureand history─ which are influenced largely byphysical environments┼ an image of life isformed mainly through social relationships orkinship manifested by the subject's own so-

109Effects of Image Formation of Rural Lifescape on Consciousness and

Willingness to Protect Rural Farming Villages

Table 5.　Consciousness for the policy of direct payments to hilly farming villages

Attributesin relationto farming

Ratio of approval Ratio of change of decision

Post-AHPPre-AHP(a) (b)

Amount ofincrease

(b)－Pre-AHP㎆ ㎤ м Ю

Total 77┻0 82┻8 82┻9 5┻9┢ ┻404 ┻061 ┻112 ┻902

Distance from farming fields in childhood

Near 79┻8 81┻7 80┻6 0┻8 ┻400 ┻094 ┻130 ┻836 Apart from 72┻2 81┻0 81┻1 8┻9┢ ┻429 ┻055 ┻127 ┻904 None 77┻8 85┻2 85┻9 8┻1┢ ┻425 ┻036 ┻095 ┻941

Practicing agriculture at parents' home

Both 81┻8 88┻1 84┻6 2┻8 ┻375 ┻000 ┻053 1┻000 One of them 76┻7 82┻8 83┻1 6┻4┢ ┻432 ┻074 ┻130 ┻856 None 77┻9 83┻8 84┻2 6┻3┢ ┻441 ┻063 ┻117 ┻886

Past experience of playing in farming fields in childhood

Every day 78┻2 84┻7 80┻9 2┻7 ┻526 ┻088 ┻154 ┻757┢Sometimes 77┻3 83┻6 84┻0 6┻7┢ ┻457 ┻053 ┻123 ┻891┢None 77┻0 82┻1 83┻3 6┻3┢ ┻319 ┻051 ┻087 ┻941┢

The image on RFV

　The image on natural scenery

Essential 76┻5 81┻6 81┻8 5┻3┢ ┻390 ┻060 ┻110 ┻912 A little 78┻3 86┻0 86┻0 7┻7┢ ┻387 ┻045 ┻097 ┻922 Unrelated 82┻8 82┻1 80┻6 －2┻2 ┻600 ┻125 ┻167 ┻633

　The image on life scenery

Essential 77┻9 85┻6 84┻8 6┻9┢ ┻517 ┻047 ┻119 ┻893┢A little 82┻1 84┻6 84┻9 2┻8 ┻400 ┻080 ┻114 ┻860┢Unrelated 62┻7 66┻0 68┻4 5┻7 ┻091 ┻054 ┻056 ┻985┢

　The image of culture and history

Essential 82┻2 86┻4 84┻4 2┻2 ┻478 ┻047 ┻097 ┻910 A little 81┻8 84┻2 85┻1 3┻3 ┻382 ┻065 ┻098 ┻907 Unrelated 69┻4 79┻1 79┻7 10┻3┢ ┻375 ┻063 ┻132 ┻901

　Post-AHP(a)：excluding all subjects who can't tell about the policy at pre-or post-AHP┻　Post-AHP(b)：excluding only subjects who can't tell about the policy at post-AHP┻

cial experiences in rural villages or parents'own experiences in their natal farming vil-lages┻ So we suppose that the image is notthe one of a specific rural village such asIide┼ but rather one that corresponds to anaffinity with rural villages nation-wide┻Thus┼ we could accept the increase of approv-al on the policy of direct payments whichwas largely brought by the change of deci-sions from opposition to approval┻

Secondly┼ in the group having lived near

the farming fields during childhood┼ somesubjects changed their decisions from positiveto negative as stated above┻ Moreover┼ therewas the same phenomenon in the group hav-ing past experiences of playing in RFV┻ Thesegroups also have many subjects who changedfrom negative to positive decisions┻ That is┼the decision of subjects in these groups seemsto be vulnerable and inconsistent throughoutthe AHP exercise┻

Thirdly┼ although visual and narrative in-

110

formation by the PC questionnaire systemclearly gives strong effects on the attitudefor preserving RFV┼ there were some effectsthat we can not regard entirely as illuminat-ing or impinging on the subjects' decisions bythe PC system┻ An illuminating effect┼ wethink┼ is one which gives all subjects thesame influence (e┻g┻ the same direction ofchange of their decisions)┼ and impingementmeans that our system restricts all subjects'decisions in the same manner┻ Indeed┼ our PCquestionnaire system had such an illuminat-ing effect (impingement on subjects' deci-sions) as a whole┼ but it would be appropri-ate for us that the change of subjects' atti-tudes be considered from some differentviewpoints┼ especially consciousness regard-ing the policy of direct payments┼ because wehave already seen a conformity of the two at-titudes (approval/opposition for/against pro-tecting a specific farming village and farmingvillages all over the country)┼ and because wecan't see the change of decisions in the samedirection┻

In the end of this section┼ we shall try toexplain the change in two contexts : learningprocess (acquiring consistency) and capabili-ty (an ethical point of view)┻ The first pointof view on the alternation of subjects' deci-sions is a learning process┼ where they wouldtry to conform their decisions on the twotypes of policies : protecting a specific land-scape of a rural farming village and on thepreservation of nation-wide┻ Of course┼ thedecisions might not be made using the samestandard┼ but it would be reasonable for usto understand that these two policies wouldbecome common to many subjects after theAHP-exercise┻

The second point is more difficult to under-stand┻ Thus┼ we shall propose a brief frame-work that make sense of the subjects' behav-iors before and after the AHP exercise┻ Intheories on modern distributive justice┼ wecan see some excellent conceptions aboutwhat should be distributed to citizens in or-der to avoid the welfarism which had in-volved the notorious conception┼ utilitarian-ism┻ Some examples are equalisandum┼ socialprimary goods by Rawls [16]┼ capability bySen [19]┼ and resources by Dworkin [4]┻Here┼ we shall focus on capability┻ Sen [19]says that various economical goods to be dis-

tributed should be captured in their ┣func-tionings┼─ and societies should equalize theset of functionings (which is called capabili-ty) on each citizen┻ A set of functioningsdoesn't necessarily mean a utility which isassumed to be brought about by consumingeconomical goods┻ The essential thing is whatthe goods give a citizen comprehensively┻ So┼some say that in some cases capability meansthe number of choices that citizens wouldmake┻ But we think the choices should not becounted as capability if things that would bebrought by them have little meaning┻ Thus┼we want to state that being different fromeconomic goods┼ the evaluation on thingsbrought by the choices are not always posi-tive for citizens┻11)

To apply this discussion to our survey┼ sub-jects who had no connection to RFV and whoopposed preserving RFV changed their mindsand regarded them as favorable goods afterthe AHP exercise┻ On the other hand┼ sub-jects who had been familiar with RFV had PCpara-experiences and changed their minds ac-cording to their past experiences┻ Changeswould occur on both sides (approval to disap-proval/disapproval to approval) and theamount of them here would be larger thanthat of RFV subjects who had no prior con-nection with rural villages┻ In conclusion┼RFV-familiar citizens might have greater ca-pability than RFV-non connected ones in thesense that the former had more various con-textual effects than the latter┻

6┻　Conclusion

We have proved four hypotheses stated insections 2 and 3 using statistical methods┻(1)An image of life was largely formed bypast experiences in RFV and natural/socialaccess to RFV in childhood┻ (2)AHP exercisesgave a conformity of the subjects' attitudeson protecting local and preserving nation-wide RFV┻ (3)Subjects who had much pastexperience in RFV and had formed an imageof life on them tended to change their deci-sions on preserving RFV considerably afterthe AHP exercise┼ but the decisions were notnecessarily positive┻ (4)Willingness to pay inDC-CVM by the usual questioning method(whether or not the respondent will contrib-ute to the foundation for remediating envi-ronments) resulted in a smaller value than

111Effects of Image Formation of Rural Lifescape on Consciousness and

Willingness to Protect Rural Farming Villages

the theoretical compensating surplus┻We shall focus on the third statement and

interpret it in the framework of capability┻Recently┼ many researchers of agriculturaleconomics have emphasized multi-dimension-al functionings of RFV and they have beenmeasuring the values based on using micro ec-onomic models┻ However┼ the values thatwere not directly based on physical propertiesof RFV ; such as social aspects┼ lives┼ and ex-istence of RFV itself ; are easily enhanced incitizens who had no prior connection to RFV┼because we can present information aboutRFV as a favorable economic good┻ The thingthat we would like to say is that we shouldrecognize another kind of value of the RFV┼namely┼ the ethical ┣capability─ viewpointand framework proposed herein┻

1)　Heller [7] says ┣An important element of thedemand for preservation may derive less fromits instrumental utility than from its symbolicmeaning┻─ We suppose symbols have semioticvalues that serve human well-being┼ besides em-blematic ones of charismatic species that wouldserve general nature conservation to which Kon-toleon and Swanson [11] refers┻

2)　We regard the symbolic value as a kind of in-trinsic values┼ to which Primack [15] has re-ferred as justifying the preservation of biodi-versity (p┻239)┻ As Turner [23] has noted┼some symbols may take on multiple meaningssuch as the milk tree for the New Guinea Ndem-bu while others may condense meaning┻ In viewof environmental ethics┼ Callicott [3] says┣Everything equally has an intrinsic or inherentvalue in view of biocentrism┻─ As a warning tothe farm economics of industrialization┼ Ikerd[8] says ┣But perhaps more important┼ rela-tionships between farmers and their customerscan be one of the most important aspects offinding a more desirable interpersonal qualityof life through farming┻─3)　For example┼ see O'Doherty [14]┻4)　Regarding the issue of rural farming from

ethical points of view┼ Thompson [22] took upthe topic of the value of family farming┼Mepham [12] asked how we could manage theinfluence of agribusiness on rural agriculture┻Still further┼ Shrader-Frechette [18] called forthe government to protect family farms┻ Weconsider that the values on ┣rural─ or ┣family─might be embedded in lifescape visions┻ Theterm lifescape was first coined by Bellows etal┻[1]┻5)　For the value of a Japanese historical village┼

Fujimoto [5] measured and compared the re-sults of various market models including┻ Forcomparisons with the values of environmentalassets assuming market mechanisms┼ refer toBishop┼ et al┻ [2] for example┻

6)　Kahneman and Knetsch [9] pointed out thatCVM results are prone to have an embedding ef-fect┻ We don't intend to give any new insightsto the effect here┼ but rather to spark anawareness of the non-use value of farming vil-lages in some respondents┻ Just for reference┼a specific farming village might be a potentialmeans for greater preservation of farming vil-lages as Kontoleon and Swanson [11] notedthat the symbolic nature of the panda might befor greater biodiversity conservation┻7)　Sen [21] pointed out that the independence of

choice in CVM for measuring environmentalpublic goods wouldn't be satisfied┼ becausepeople might expect the other people's contri-bution to the goods┼ which would not happen incase of measuring private goods┻ We think re-searchers of environmental economics haveadopted realizable and practical questionnairesin CVM scenarios┼ but not ones truly faithfulto Hicksian theory yet┼ because it is natural fora policy-maker to suppose a hypothetical fundand contributions to the fund when asking sub-jects' willingness to pay for protecting thelandscape┼ and because they often have been re-quired to aggregate representative sums ofmoney to show the total value of the land-scape┻8)　To ask respondents' willingness to pay，the

inquiry statement figured in the survey is :Type 1┻ Can you afford to pay ┢┢ yen per

month from your income to help supportthis fund？

Type 2┻ Assume that ┢┢ yen per month willcover the insufficiencies of the fund andbe able to keep the town's beautiful scen-ery┻ Can you keep covering the money ex-penses？

9)　Prompt reports on the survey are referred toNomura et al┻[13] and Kitani et al┻[10]．Theformer shows the figures for the PC automatedquestionnaire system for CVM and AHP┼ andthe latter shows some key-results of the sur-vey┻10)　Hasebe┼ et al┻ [6] surveyed the attitudes for

protecting RFV in Korea in the same way wedid here┻ In Korea┼ the increase of this correla-tion after AHP was very small and respondentsapproved the policy of direct payments largerthan those in Japan┻ We think that the differ-ence was caused by the abundance of peoplehaving RFV experiences┼ for many Koreans aremore familiar with RFV than Japanese and are

112

prone to evaluate nation-wide RFV as a use val-ue in the same way that they evaluate a specif-ic RFV┻

11)　Sen [20] differentiates the agency aspectfrom the well-being aspect of a person┻ Hesays┼ ┣Another important issue concerns thevery different roles that the well-being and theagency aspects can have in the use of interper-sonal comparisons for diverse exercises┻─ (p┻70) We think RFV-familiar subjects can onlychange their attitudes as an agent after PCpara-experiences┼ some of which often look likenegative changes in ┺monist┱ conception ofwell-being┻

References

[1]　Bellows┼ B┻ Cχ┼ G┻ Buenavista┼ and M┻Ticsay-Rusco┼ edsχ┼ Participatory Landscape/Lifescape Appraisal┼ Vol┻1┻ SANREM CRSP Re-search report 2┡95┻ Sustainable Agricultural andNatural Resource Management CRSP┼ Universi-ty of Georgia┼ 1995┻[2]　Bishop┼ R┻ Cχ┼ T┻ A┻ Heberlein┼ and M┻ J┻

Kealy┻ ┣Contingent Valuation of EnvironmentalAssets : Comparisons with a Simulated Mar-ket┼─ in K┻ G┻ Willis┼ et al┻ edsχ┼ Environmen-tal Valuation 2χ┼ Edward Elgar Publishing Limit-ed┼ 1999┼ pp┻ 97┡111┻

[3]　Callicott┼ J┻ B┻ In Defense of the Land Eth-ic┻ Albany┼ NY : SUNY Press┼ 1989┻

[4]　Dworkin┼ R┻ ┣What is Equity？ Part 2 :Equality of Resources┼─ Philosophy and PublicAffairs┼ Vol┻10┼1997┼ pp┻283┡345┻[5]　Fujimoto┼ T┻ ┣Rekishiteki Keikan-Iji no

tameno Nochi Hozen-seisaku no Beneki to Hiyouno HyokaЁAsuka-mura ni okeru Keisu-sutadei(Evaluation of Benefits and Costs of RuralLand-Use Policy for the Conservation of Histor-ical Landscape : A Case Study of Asuka Vil-lage)┼─ Noson Keikaku Gakkai-shi (Journal ofRural Planning Association)┼ Vol┻17┼ 1998┼ pp┻40┡50┻[6]　Hasebe┼ Tχ┼ S┻ Kitani┼ and N┻ Nomura┻┣Nosonfuukei no Kachi to Joken-furichiiki enoChokusetsu-siharai (Evaluation of Rural Land-scape and Consciousness of the Direct Paymentfor Less Favored Area)┼─ Nihon Nogyo-Keizai-Gakkai Ronbunshu (Proceedings of Annual Con-ference of the Agricultural Economics Society ofJapan)┼ 2002┼ pp┻166┡169┻[7]　Heller┼ T┻ C┻ ┣The Importance of Nomative

Decision-Making : The Limitations of Legal Eco-nomics as a Basis for a Liberal JurisprudenceЁAs Illustrated by the Regulation of VacationHome Development┼─ Wisconsin Law Review┼1976┼ p┻405┻[8]　Ikerd┼ J┻ Systems in Agriculture and Land

Management┼ the HRM of TX Annual Confer-

ence┼ 2001 (http ://www┻ssu┻missouri┻edu/faculty/ jikerd/papers/EconomicsofSustainableFarming┻ htm)┻[9]　Kahneman┼ D┻ and J┻ L┻ Knetsch┻┣ Valuing

Public Goods : The Purchase of Moral Satisfac-tion┼─ Journal of Environmental Economics andManagement┼ Vol┻22┼ 1992┼ pp┻57┡70┻[10]　Kitani┼ Sχ┼ T┻ Hasebe┼ and N┻ Nomura┻┣Noson Imeji Keisei ga Nousoniji ni TaisuruIshiki to Taido ni Ataeru Eikyo (Effects onConsciousness and Willingness to Defend RuralScenery through the Process of Rural ImageFormation)┼─ Nogyo Keizai Kennkyu Houkoku( Journal of Farm Management Economics )┼Vol┻32┼ 2000┼ pp┻13┡22┻[11]　Kontoleon┼ A┻ and T┻ Swanson┻ ┣The

Willingness to Pay for Property Rights forGiant Panda : Can You Charismatic Species bean Instrument for Nature Conservation？─Land Economics┼ Vol┻79(4)┼ 2003┼ pp┻483┡499┻

[12]　Mepham┼ B┻ ┣Agricultural Ethics┼─ in R┻Chadwick┼ edχ┼ Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics1┻ Academic Press┼ 1998┼ pp┻95┡110┻

[13]　Nomura┼ Nχ┼ S┻ Kitani┼ and T┻ Hasebe┻┣PC Nabigeitogata Chousa Sisutemu niyoru Ka-sousijou Hyoukahou no Kokoromi (A SurveySystem for Contingent Valuation Method byUsing PC Navigation Questionnaire)┼─ NihonKenchiku Gakkai Gijutsu Houkokushu (AIJJournal of Technological Design)┼ No┻12┼ 2001┼pp┻219┡222┻[14]　O'Doherty┼ R┻ ┣Using Valuation to En-

hance Public Participation in Local Planning┼─Regional Studies┼ Vol┻30┼ 1997┼ pp┻667┡678┻[15]　Primack┼ R┻ B┻ Essentials of Conservation

Biology┻ Sinauer Associates Incχ┼ 1993┻[16]　Rawls┼ J┻ Theory of Justice┻ Massachu-

settes : Harvard University Press┼ MA┼ 1971┻[17]　Sagoff┼ M┻ The Economy of the Earth┻

Cambridge : Cambridge University Press┼ 1988┻[18]　Shrader-Frechette┼ K┻ S┻ ┣Agricultural

Ethics┼─ in L┻ C┻ Becker┻ and C┻ B┻ Becker┼edsχ┼ Encyclopedia of Ethics 1┻ Garland Publish-ing Incχ┼ 1992┼ pp┻30┡33┻[19]　Sen┼ A┻ K┻ Commodities and Capabilities┻

North Holland┼ 1984┻[20]　Sen┼ A┻ K┻ Inequality Reexamined┻ NY :

Oxford University Press┼ 1992┻[21]　Sen┼ A┻ K┻ ┣Environmental Evaluation and

Social Choice : Contingent Valuation and theMarket Analogy┼─ The Japanese Economic Re-view┼ Vol┻46┼ 1995┼ pp┻23┡37┻

[22]　Thompson┼ P┻ B┻ Agricultural Ethics┻ IA :Iowa State University Press┼ 1998┻

[23]　Turner┼ V┻ Forest of Symbols┻ Ithaca┼ NY :Cornell University Press┼ 1967┻

(Received October 20┼ 2004 ; accepted January 23┼ 2005)

113Effects of Image Formation of Rural Lifescape on Consciousness and

Willingness to Protect Rural Farming Villages