Leveraging Japanese Sado Island Farmers’ GIAHS Inclusivity by Understanding Their Perceived Involvement

Abstract

Sado Island in the Niigata prefecture is among the first Globally Important Agriculture Heritage Systems (GIAHSs) in Japan and among developed countries worldwide. Recent studies have pointed out the need to incorporate culture and farmer opinions to further strengthen GIAHS inclusivity in rural farming. In connection to this, this study explored whether farmer visibility, which is highlighted by GIAHS designation, actually translates to farmers’ actual perceptions of GIAHS involvement. A survey was conducted among Sado Island farmers to determine their knowledge and perception of their GIAHS involvement, in connection to their perspectives on youth involvement, Sado Island branding, and tourism management. Results showed that 56.3% of Sado Island farmers feel uninvolved or unsure towards the GIAHS, which is in stark contrast with the prevalent farming method in the area, special farming (which complies with GIAHS regulations) (77.3%). Further analyses revealed that farmers who feel that the GIAHS does not promote youth involvement, Sado Island branding, and tourism management have a higher predisposition to perceive themselves as uninvolved towards the GIAHS. This study highlights the need for careful reevaluation and integration of farmer insights and needs into the current GIAHS implementation in Sado Island and in other GIAHSs as well.

1. Introduction

In 2002, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) first launched the Globally Important Agriculture Heritage System (GIAHS) Program during the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa. This is part of the Global Partnership Initiative which aims to tackle issues such as sustainable development, agriculture, and traditional farming practices [1]. In 2015, it became a corporate program of the FAO which was further developed to protect traditional agricultural systems of global importance and enhance the harmonious relationship between people and nature. Specifically, the FAO defines the GIAHS in 2002 as “remarkable land use systems and landscapes which are rich in globally significant biological diversity evolving from the co-adaptation of a community with its environment and its needs and aspirations for sustainable development” [2] (p. 1). The selection criteria to be designated as a GIAHS are: (1) food and livelihood security; (2) agrobiodiversity; (3) traditional knowledge; (4) cultures and social values; and (5) landscape features. Overall, the object of designation is an agricultural system composed of traditional knowledge and practices, landscapes, culture, and biodiversity [3]. Since 2005, the FAO has designated 62 systems in 22 countries and is currently reviewing 15 proposals from eight new countries. These selected sites worldwide provide food and livelihood security for millions of small-scale farmers, as well as sustainably produced goods and services. Furthermore, they contribute to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by bringing together economic, social, and environmental dimensions [1].

The overall objective of designating a GIAHS site is to highlight unique knowledge, practices, and landscapes, as well as supporting dynamic conservation of a site. The conservation of GIAHS sites is also highly advocated, entailing several developmental interventions, such as agritourism activities, adding value to GIAHS food products, technology transfer measures, awareness-raising campaigns, and supportive national policies [3]. It is important to note that designating different sites as GIAHSs can also increase awareness and visibility for farmers who are working in these areas and emphasize the critical role they play in global issues. According to the FAO, the backbone of many GIAHS sites are the small-scale and family farmers, since they contribute to achieving food security, preserving rural knowledge, and protecting agrobiodiversity and fragile landscapes [1]. Therefore, raising farmer visibility is essential, most especially in this modern era when the field of agriculture faces a range of issues, including the declining interest of youths, outmigration from rural to urban areas, farmland abandonment, the transfer of indigenous and traditional knowledge, the prioritization of modernization movements in conflict with agricultural land decline and environmental degradation, among others [4,5,6,7,8]. Improving the image of agriculture can help address these issues, such as highlighting farmer visibility in traditional agricultural systems, which in turn can boost the status of agriculture worldwide. While increasing farmer visibility is important, it is also crucial to know if the importance of GIAHS principles actually translates to the ground level, particularly the farmers’ perceptions on their GIAHS involvement. This paper will focus on this aspect by analyzing Japanese farmers’ GIAHS inclusivity and how this may affect the GIAHS development in Sado Island. In particular, this paper aims to answer the question: Does farmer visibility, which is highlighted by the GIAHS designation, translate to farmers’ actual perceptions of GIAHS involvement?

Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHSs) in Japan and Their Impact on Farmer Involvement

In Japan, sustainable agriculture has been promoted for several years and high importance is given in preserving traditional farming, agro-culture, and biodiversity. This led to the application and acceptance of different sites in Japan as a GIAHS. Aside from the FAO’s initial five selection criteria, Japan added three additional criteria in 2015 to have a more holistic and comprehensive assessment of the GIAHS, which are: (1) enhancing resilience (ecological); (2) establishing the participation of multiple stakeholders and promoting institutions (social); and (3) creating new business models (economic) [9]. At present, there are 11 sites designated as a GIAHS in Japan (Figure 1) [10]. All these sites have demonstrated remarkable use of land systems and landscapes, a good interplay between nature and its surrounding communities, and rich biological diversities, which all contribute to sustainable development. This paper is particularly focused on Sado Island in the Niigata prefecture, which is one of the first GIAHS sites designated in not only in Japan, but also in a developed country.

GIAHS sites are categorized into three major types, namely: landscape, farming method, and genetic resource conservation, of which a majority of Japanese GIAHS sites are classified as landscape types (

Table 1. Japan’s 11 designated GIAHS sites.

GIAHS Designated Sites	System Type	Designation Highlights	Region	Prefecture	Year of Designation
1. Noto’s Satoyama and Satoumi	Landscape	Terraced rice-fields that represent the farming, fishing, and mountain villages indigenous to Japan	Noto	Ishikawa	2011
2. Sado’s Satoyama in Harmony with Japanese Crested Ibis	Landscape	Biodiversity conservation in paddy fields, particularly Toki birds (Japanese crested ibises: Nipponia nippon)	Sado	Niigata	2011
3. Traditional Tea-grass Integrated System in Shizuoka	Farming method	Tea production and cultivation	Kakegawa	Shizuoka	2013
4. Managing Aso Grasslands for Sustainable Agriculture	Landscape	Vast grasslands used to raise cows and horses	Aso	Kumamoto	2013
5. Kunisaki Peninsula Usa Integrated Forestry, Agriculture and Fisheries System	Landscape	Linkage of small irrigation ponds that stabilize agricultural water supply	Kunisaki Peninsula Usa	Oita	2013
6. Ayu of the Nagara River System	Landscape	Active inland water fisheries and fishing of ayu (Japanese sweetfish: Plecoglossus altivelis altivelis)	Nagara River	Gifu	2015
7. Minabe-Tanabe Ume System	Landscape	Preservation of forest and Trees of ume (Japanese apricot: Prunus mume)	Minabe-Tanabe	Wakayama	2015
8. Takachihogo-Shiibayama Mountainous Agriculture and Forestry System	Landscape	Establishment of a composite management system of agriculture and forestry	Takachihogo-Shiibayama	Miyazaki	2015
9. Osaki Kodo’s Traditional Water Management System for Sustainable Paddy Agriculture	Landscape	Utilization of various coping mechanisms to protect rice paddies	Osaki	Miyagi	2017
10. Nishi-Awa Steep Slope Land Agriculture System	Farming method	Cultivation of multiple crops in steep slopes	Nishi-Awa	Tokushima	2018
11. Traditional Wasabi Cultivation in Shizuoka	Farming method	Terraced wasabi (Japanese horseradish: Wasabia japonica) fields	Wasabi Cultivation Region	Shizuoka	2018

) [11]. Out of the 11 GIAHS sites in Japan, eight, including Sado Island are classified as landscape types. Landscape type GIAHS sites comprise 33 of the 62 sites worldwide. This type of GIAHS focuses more on the interconnectedness of various landscape components, such as farmlands, rivers, irrigation canals/ponds, human settlements, among others. In Japan, this is similar to the Satoyama and Satoumi mosaic landscapes, which establish ecosystem services in connection with human well-being [12]. The three remaining GIAHS sites in Japan have a farming method classification system. There are 17 of these in the world, and they focus on the unique, traditional agricultural systems which are effective in biodiversity conservation [11]. The last one is the genetic resource conservation type, whereby traditional agricultural systems contribute to the conservation of genetic resources. There are 12 such GIAHSs in the world, but none in Japan.

The FAO’s initiative to designate GIAHS sites worldwide is essential to address various issues in the field of agriculture. Ever since it was launched in 2002, various studies have been conducted to analyze its sustainability, characterization, the vulnerability of sites, tourism management, biodiversity conservation, among others [13,14,15,16,17]. Most studies focused more on the macro perspectives of the GIAHSs and their potential environmental impacts, which thereby established a wide-ranging knowledge on GIAHSs as a supplement to what the FAO annually provides. These studies are also very useful in crafting environmental policies which can be used to alleviate increasing ecological threats [18]. Therefore, GIAHSs are recognized for their high contribution to rural revitalization and for ensuring the fulfillment of the multifunctional roles of agriculture, such as the creation of resilient landscapes, the preservation of cultural traditions, and the conservation of the natural environment, national land, and water resources [11]. With an expansive bank of research findings, it is ideal to think that this knowledge can actually be absorbed by one of the main caretakers of GIAHS sites: the farmers. However, there are limited studies that can support this. There is still limited literature focusing on micro perspectives, such as farmer participation and perceived GIAHS involvement.

In terms of socioeconomics aspects, it was observed in [19] that livelihood endowments and strategies directly affect GIAHS farmers’ participation in eco-compensation policies. Particularly, the study found that the comprehensiveness of eco-compensation programs, land capital, and material capital are positive factors that provide farmers with incentives to participate in GIAHS conservation and agricultural production, whereas human capital was seen as a negative factor. With regards to sociocultural aspects, Kajihara et al. (2018) discussed the importance of understanding the relationship between culture and agriculture, and highlighted the need for the GIAHS criteria to incorporate culture for more effective management strategies [20]. It is important to note the interplay between farmers’ cultural perspectives and their interaction with their immediate environment, which thereby affects their involvement and mindset towards GIAHS initiatives. This, in turn, contributes to honing the overall cultural development of GIAHS sites and their sustainability. When magnified on a global scale, Sun et al. (2019) conclude that more efforts are needed to understand agricultural heritage systems by combining traditional practices and international experiences [21].

Farmer involvement and decision making can be influenced by a lot of internal and external factors [22]. Various studies have shown that farmers’ decision-making processes are being affected by critical influential factors and that they vary on a case-by-case basis [23]. In a study conducted in the Philippines which tried to measure farmers’ perspectives on a strict agricultural ban, it was found that satisfaction in the farming method used, knowledge about the main crop being grown, and personal experiences in farming are very important factors in their crop adoption decision-making process [24]. Indeed, the perception of being involved in a bigger cause is shaped by farmers’ individual differences and environmental influences. This was shown in another study conducted in the Philippines that focused on farmers’ perspectives on coexisting farming methods, which observed that groups of farmers are affected differently by internal and external factors [25]. Therefore, this enhances the need to understand farmers’ perspectives and opinions, which in turn affect their involvement in various agricultural programs. To gauge the perceived involvement of farmers in this study, it would be vital to know their opinions towards important issues related to GIAHSs. Opinions have the capacity to shape perceptions, whether in an individual or community scale. In this study, three main factors were specifically studied, and they revolved around farmers’ opinions towards the GIAHS’s effects on youth involvement, the capability to enhance agricultural products, and tourism management.

2. Study Area and Methods

The study was conducted in Sado Island, which is located west of the Niigata prefecture shoreline (Figure 2). It is the sixth largest island in Japan, and has a complex ecosystem, with interdependent satoyama and satoumi landscapes. It is widely known as a natural habitat of endangered Japanese crested ibises (locally called Toki in Japanese) because of its satoyama and satoumi landscapes. The Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment (JASS) defines the former term as “landscapes that comprise a mosaic of different ecosystem types including secondary forests, agricultural lands, irrigation ponds and grasslands, along with human settlements” and the latter as “Japan’s coastal areas where human interaction over time has resulted in a high degree of productivity and biodiversity” [12] (p. 2). Sado Island is also famous for its rice produce with the Toki branding, which supports the revival of the Toki birds [26]. Other agricultural crops are also grown, such as persimmons, apples, pears, cherries, oranges, strawberries, watermelons, shiitake mushrooms, among others. Since the island provides suitable habitats for the endangered Toki birds, public and private sectors poured in efforts to support Sado Island’s biodiversity preservation through the environmental conservation agriculture (ECA) program [27], which was a huge factor in its designation as a GIAHS.

Sado Island was selected since it is one of the first GIAHSs in Japan and because it is well supported by the local and national governments. A lot of people contribute to its development, such as the active local community, ECA-supportive consumers, and the research community, who all value the protection of Toki birds. Sado Island is a vulnerable rural region affected regularly by natural disasters, which cause crop failures and livelihood insecurity. One way to alleviate these problems are the Toki bird conservation efforts, which led to the production of certified rice, branded as Tokimai in 2008. It is marketed with a premium price and a portion of the income goes towards to conservation of the Toki birds [27]. This rice is produced in ECA lands which the Toki birds use as feeding grounds throughout the year. Sado Island is a GIAHS where people and Toki birds (wildlife) are living together in harmony. These characteristics of Sado Island warrant conducting research with the objectives mentioned above.

A questionnaire survey method was employed to collect data from ECA farmers in Sado Island. After prior discussion about the survey with key persons, the research objectives and questionnaire were explained in the annual meeting of the Board of Directors of the Council for Promotion of “Toki-to-kurasu-satozukuri” (community development living in harmony with Toki), in cooperation with the Sado Municipality Agriculture Policy Division, in February 2020. The board made the resolution to allow the survey and 415 questionnaires were handed to Toki-to-kurasu-satozukuri council members during the annual general meeting. A total of 279 (67%) responses were received by the end of April 2020.

GIAHS-related factors (i.e., farmers’ opinions towards the GIAHS’s effects on youth involvement, the capability to enhance agricultural products, and tourism management) were incorporated in the questionnaire using a three-point ordinal scale (1–strongly yes, 2–not sure, and 3–strongly no). Sociodemographic factors were also gathered via the questionnaire to obtain baseline data for the farmers. Data were analyzed using ordinal logistic regression and a general linear model in SPSS v.27. Tests of parallel lines and model fit were conducted to determine whether statistical assumptions were met. Lastly, qualitative questions were gathered regarding the farmers’ opinions on the impact of the GIAHS on youth involvement, Sado Island branding, and tourism management. The responses given in local Japanese were translated to English by the authors.

3. Results

To understand the current situation of farmer involvement with the GIAHS in Sado Island, their perceived level of involvement was determined using a three-point scale, which revealed that only 43.7% (122 of 279) of the sampled farmers feel that they are involved in the GIAHS, while 56.3% (157 of 279) feel uninvolved or unsure towards the GIAHS (

Table 2. Frequency distribution table for GIAHS-related and sociodemographic factors among Sado Island farmers.

Variable	Frequency	Percentage (%)
GIAHS involvement
Strongly yes	122	43.7
Not sure	129	46.3
Strongly no	28	10.0
TOTAL:	279	100.0
Opinion on the GIAHS giving pride and confidence to youths
Strongly yes	108	38.7
Not sure	138	49.5
Strongly no	33	11.8
TOTAL:	279	100.0
Opinion on the GIAHS enhancing agricultural products/brand
Strongly yes	165	59.1
Not sure	90	32.3
Strongly no	24	8.6
TOTAL:	279	100.0
Opinion on the GIAHS promoting tourism
Strongly yes	139	49.8
Not sure	98	35.1
Strongly no	42	15.1
TOTAL:	279	100.0
Farming method
Special farming a	215	77.3
Organic farming b	30	10.8
Eco-farming or related c	26	9.4
Conventional farming d	7	2.5
TOTAL:	279	100.0
Environment conservation agriculture’s effects on climate change *
As an adaptation	121	43.4
Reducing the effect	71	25.4
No effect	64	22.9
Others	9	3.2
Selling place for products *
Agricultural cooperatives	260	93.2
Direct to consumers	60	21.5
Michi-no-eki (roadside farmers’ market)	11	3.9
Supermarket	4	1.4
Restaurant	2	0.7
Internet	2	0.7
Central market	1	0.4
Food processors	1	0.4

* Multiple answer. ^a Special farming: uses 50%–80% less fertilizer and pesticide than the conventional farming practice of the locality, and complies with GIAHS regulations. ^b Organic farming: certified as organic by Japanese Agricultural Standards (JAS), or no JAS certification but do not use chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides. ^c Eco-farming or related: environmentally friendly methods based on other standards. ^d Conventional farming: uses chemical fertilizers and pesticides prescribed and practiced in the region.

). Similarly, only 38.7%, 59.1%, and 49.8% of the farmers feel that the GIAHS gives pride and confidence to youths, enhances agricultural products/brand, and promotes tourism, respectively. When viewed at the perspective of their current farming method, which is predominantly special farming (77.3%) (i.e., it complies with GIAHS regulations) and organic farming (10.8%), the farming method and high frequency of farmers who feel unsure or uninvolved towards the GIAHS do not appear to agree with each other.

3.1. Relationship between GIAHS Involvement and Youth Involvement, Tourism, and Branding

To provide an explanation for this observation, various sociodemographic, and GIAHS-related factors relating to Sado Island farmers were used as predictors against their level of perceived involvement towards the GIAHS. The three GIAHS factors evaluated in this study were the common themes of Japanese rural farming, namely: youth involvement, brand promotion, and tourism enhancement [28,29,30]. All three variables were found to be positively related with the GIAHS involvement score, such that farmers who feel that the GIAHS does not promote youth involvement, promote Sado Island brand, and enhance tourism are 17.4%, 38.8%, and 49.4% more likely to feel uninvolved with the GIAHS (

Table 3. Relationship between various GIAHS variables and the farmers’ perceived level of GIAHS involvement using ordinal logistic regression ^a.

Predictor b	Estimate	Odds Ratio	Significance
GIAHS giving pride and confidence to youth in Sado Island	1.747	17.43%	0.000 **
GIAHS enhancing agricultural products and brand of Sado Island	0.946	38.83%	0.005 **
GIAHS promoting tourism in Sado Island	0.706	49.36%	0.004 **

^a Link function: Cauchit: tan(π(F_k(x_i) − 0.5)). ^b Test of parallel lines: Chi-square = 1.750, df = 3, sig = 0.626. Model fit: Chi-square = 117.612, df = 3, sig ≤ 0.001. ** significant at p < 0.01.

).

3.2. GIAHS Involvement and Youth Inclusivity

Eight sociodemographic factors were used as predictors of the Sado Island farmers’ perceived level of GIAHS involvement (

Table 4. Relationship between various sociodemographic variables and the farmers’ perceived level of GIAHS involvement using a general linear model.

Response Variable: GIAHS Involvement
Predictor	Estimate	Significance
Age	3.519	0.111
Farming experience	−0.077	0.119
Farmland size	0.058	0.110
Paddy land size	0.119	0.057
Paddy yield	−0.143	0.371
Perceived intensity of climate change effect	−0.042	0.499
Farming method	0.045	0.749
(1) Organic farming	−0.012	0.393
(2) Special farming	−1.03	0.322
(3) Eco-farming or related	−1.166	0.984
(4) Traditional farming	0.019	-
Exchange program(s) participation/promotion	-	0.238
(1) Not participating	−1.514	0.167
(2) Participating with subsidy	−1.838	0.036 *
(3) Participating voluntarily	−2.199	0.028 *
(4) Participating with pay	−2.311	0.617
(5) Others	−0.238	-

* Significant at p < 0.05. White test for heteroskedasticity: Chi-square = 117.264, df = 107, sig = 0.234. Lack of fit test: F = 1.051, sig = 0.486.

). The effects of age, farm/paddy area, yield, climate change effect perception, and farming method were found to have no significant impact on perceived GIAHS involvement. On the other hand, farmers who reported to be participating in exchange programs, either voluntarily or with subsidy, are more likely to feel involved with the GIAHS. In terms of age, 80.3% (224/279) of the sampled Sado Island farmers are 60 years old and above. Of the 15 farmers who are 49 years old or younger, only one third (5/15) reported being involved in the GIAHS. This underrepresentation of youth in GIAHS activities appears to have contributed to the dilution of the effect of age on GIAHS involvement.

3.3. GIAHS Involvement in Tourism and Branding

Sado Island has become known for their Tokimai brand of rice. This integration of the conservation of the local Toki bird population with local farming has contributed to the 0.6% growth rate of tourism in the Niigata prefecture, which amounts to roughly 400,000 guests using local accommodation since the introduction of the program [31]. This also helped to address the problems of livelihood insecurity in the island, as raised by Su and Kawai (2009) [27]. In this study, the effects of farmer expectations on ECA and selling location on perceived GIAHS involvement were also tested. In terms of selling location, farmers who sell directly to consumers were more likely to perceive themselves to be involved with the GIAHS than those who sell at other locations (

Table 5. Relationship between various selling locations and the farmers’ perceived level of GIAHS involvement using a general linear model.

Response Variable: GIAHS Involvement
Predictor	Estimate	Significance
Direct to consumers	−0.201	0.050 *
Supermarket	0.199	0.552
Restaurant	0.679	0.216
Agricultural cooperatives	0.019	0.907
Central market	0.257	0.709
Michi-no-eki (roadside farmers market)	0.041	0.85
Food processors	−0.501	0.449
Internet	−0.34	0.53

* Significant at p < 0.05. White test for heteroskedasticity: Chi-square = 10.344, df = 13, sig = 0.666. Lack of fit test: F = 1.402, sig = 0.224.

).

In addition to micro-level predictors, the effect of farmer expectations of ECA on GIAHS involvement was also tested (

Table 6. Relationship between farmer expectations of ECA and the farmers’ perceived level of GIAHS involvement using a general linear model.

Response Variable: GIAHS Involvement
Predictor	Estimate	Significance
Carbon sequestration	−0.304	0.012 *
Conservation of biodiversity	−0.252	0.005 **
Conservation of water quality	−0.005	0.956
Underground water terrain improvement	−0.333	0.070
Add value in quality of products	0.063	0.455
Decrease effect of weather hazards	0.09	0.518
Increase farm related income	0.121	0.152
Promote local industry	−0.224	0.019 *
Retain residents in rural area	−0.014	0.942
Others	−0.275	0.226

* Significant at p < 0.05; ** significant at p < 0.01. Breush–Pagan test for heteroskedasticity: Chi-square = 2.820, df = 1, sig = 0.093. Lack of fit test: F = 1.087, sig = 0.323.

). In line with the theme of GIAHSs that relates to ecological conservation, farmers who are participating in the ECA program for carbon sequestration and conservation of biodiversity reasons were more likely to feel involved with the GIAHS, which agrees with previous studies [9,13]. In addition, farmers who are doing ECA to promote the local industry are also more predisposed to feel involved with the GIAHS, which also agrees with other studies, such as in Vafadari (2013), which identifies tourism as a key stimulant of local industry because it opens new jobs and enhances the attraction of rural lifestyles in GIAHS communities [32]. Indeed, the Sado Island tourism webpage features Toki Museum tours, sightseeing, and forest parks [33].

To determine if the farmers’ global perspective on ECA activities influences their perceived involvement towards the GIAHS, their answer regarding the effect of ECA on climate change was used as predictors for their level of perceived involvement with the GIAHS. Here, farmers who believed that ECA is an adaptation to climate change were twice as likely to feel involved with the GIAHS than those who do not (

Table 7. Relationship between farmer-perceived effects of ECA on climate change and the farmers’ perceived level of GIAHS involvement using ordinal logistic regression ^a.

Response Variable: GIAHS Involvement
Predictor b	Estimate	Odds Ratio	Significance
ECA as an adaptation to climate change	−1.09	297.43%	0.002 **
ECA reduces the effect of climate change	−0.665	194.45%	0.068
ECA has no impact on climate change	−0.184	120.20%	0.618
Others	−0.027	102.74%	0.971

^a Link function: Cauchit: tan(π(F_k(x_i)−0.5)). ^b Test of parallel lines: Chi-square = 0.168, df = 4, sig = 0.997. Model fit: Chi-square = 22.906, df = 4, sig ≤ 0.001; ** significant at p < 0.01.

). This agrees with the earlier observation on farmer expectations regarding ECA. Testimonials such as that by Respondent 153 reflect this trend from a farmer’s point of view:

“Produce food that suits climate change. Sell them fresh with safety and good taste. This should be managed through institutional strategy under good leadership. Hotels should use the branded rice produced in Sado.”

4. Discussion

Various studies have emphasized the importance of analyzing farmers’ knowledge and opinions which heavily influence their involvement and productivity in different aspects of agriculture [34,35,36]. In Japan, which is dominated by landscape types that give high value to the linkage of nature, biological diversity, and its surrounding communities, GIAHS sites have been continuously increasing since 2011 [11]. While it is good to see the increase in GIAHS sites in Japan and worldwide, the main caretakers of rural communities—the farmers situated in these sites—should equally be considered. As Rhoades (1984) argues, a full circle should be completed when it comes to the implementation of agricultural technologies and activities, such that farmers are equally involved and a part of the process [36]. Otherwise, the diffusion of technologies would face difficulties and farmers may tend to feel uninvolved, thereby leading to less synchronicity between the agricultural initiative and its target stakeholders.

In this study, the Sado Island’s farmers’ perceived involvement in the GIAHS was explored, and it showed that more than half of the 279 farmers interviewed (56.3%) feel unsure or uninvolved, despite being situated in a decade old GIAHS site. This appears to be contradictory with the primary farming methods being used by the farmers, which focus on ECA and comply with GIAHS regulations. To further understand this disconnect, the study analyzed farmers’ perceived involvement as it related to three common themes of Japanese rural farming, which are: youth involvement, brand promotion, and tourism enhancement. It was found that all three factors are positively related to the farmers’ perceived GIAHS involvement, thereby accentuating their importance when it comes to crafting policies aiming to increase farmer involvement in the GIAHS.

Looking at the age demographics, a huge percentage (80.3%) of farmers are 60 years old and above, which highlights the lack of youth involvement, not only in GIAHS sites, but in various agricultural sectors in Japan. Recent papers, such as that by Reyes et al. (2020), have indeed highlighted the negative effects of farmland abandonment and the underuse of farming resources resulting from Japan’s decreasing and aging rural population [13]. This same sentiment has been observed among the submitted testimonials of the interviewed farmers, such as that by Respondent 269, who stated the following:

“There are many abandoned lands due to lack of successors. Lands are overgrown by various weeds, such as Solidago canadensis var. Scabra, Ambrosia artemisiifolia which flowers yellow during autumn and winter, making it look ugly or not cared for, which is far from the image of GIAHS. First, such land should be managed properly and brought under proper cultivation.”

Sado Island farmers also recognize the alarming issue of farmer shortage in the future because of the increasing trend of youth exodus; hence, they are also voicing their opinions on how to attract people to farm in Sado Island. The narrative of Respondent 131 clearly shows this:

“There will be a shortage of people who will continue farming in the near future. Attract the people who are fed up of city life and loves the countryside to create a natural living environment. People with allergies, retired life, and kids can come to live in Sado. This will create circulatory connectivity in different aspects between Sado and the cities, which will eventually attract the youths to Sado, increase their movements to and fro, making the livelihood more active and connected with the cities as well.”

This highly agrees with the findings of Usman et al. (2021), who highlight the desperate need of rural areas for agricultural workers in connection with Japan’s aging farmers’ population, to mitigate the increase in Japan’s dependency for international food products and high import expenses [37].

Further analyses have shown that farmers’ participation in exchange programs also increases their likelihood to feel involved with the GIAHS. To this end, participation in exchange programs may thus play a key role in not only encouraging the younger generations of farmers, but also enhance the transfer of intangible farming inputs, such as techniques and managerial skills [30]. This view was also shared by Respondent 276, who stated that:

“There is a need to secure people to continue GIAHS. All the GIAHS sites in Japan should come together to promote and enhance it through public relations in universities and colleges and make it part of lectures to get the interest of students who would work on it in the future. First, orient them about GIAHS in general and different GIAHS in Japan, and let them participate in field studies and internships in a GIAHS of their choice for them to interact and learn the local culture, as well as experience the local livelihoods. Afterwards, let them reflect about it and how they can be involved in it in the future to improve.”

This theme was also explored by Yamashita (2021), who focused on how Japanese traditions can be saved by analyzing urban university students’ participation in rural festivals [38]. Interestingly, the case site of the study is also a GIAHS in Japan, particularly the Noto region in the Ishikawa prefecture. The study recommended that better collaborations should be established between urban youths and their participation in rural festivals, which means that more focus should be given in the management of festivals and how outside support can be further increased. These can help alleviate the discontinuation of rural festivals and loss of cultural values. This is also in connection with what Sado Island farmers are voicing out in this study, which is the need to attract youths to Sado Island, thereby implying that they are also aware of the negative consequences if the common trends of youth exodus and rural disinterest will continue.

The narratives of Sado Island farmers and various literature that established the interlinked issues of farmland abandonment, the aging population, youth exodus, and farmer shortages clearly show the need for more policies that would cater to the strengthening of Japan’s agriculture. Based on this paper’s findings, participation in exchange programs may increase the chances of attracting people, especially the youth, to rural areas and help them become more involved in addressing issues in the field of agriculture. With the increase in youth participation, modern solutions can also be applied as rural areas struggle to adapt in the changing world.

With a high growth rate of tourism in the Niigata prefecture, it is not surprising that farmers in this study feel more involved in the GIAHS when they sell directly to consumers. However, looking at the frequency distribution, selling to agricultural cooperatives was the most predominant choice among the farmers (93.5%). This inconsistency was elaborated upon in the testimonials of the farmers, with many entries commenting on the poor uptake of the Tokimai brand across other industries and markets, such as restaurants and supermarkets. This was clearly shown in the response of Respondent 121, who stated that:

“Last year, I participated in the public relations sale of rice in Tokyo station, along with the city officers. Nearly 100% of the passers-by did not know about GIAHS, which is so unfortunate.”

A similar sentiment has been shared by Respondent 141:

“GIAHS alone will not enhance the tourism to brand the hotels, other facilities and services using the branded products of the island.”

Respondent 162 also shared some sentiments on how the GIAHS should complement agriculture:

“It is good to make use of GIAHS for tourism development in the island. However, it is not clear how it helps in enhancing the island’s farming and primary industry. If there is no clear picture/explanation how GIAHS and tourism development can enhance farming, the farmers and youth may not be interested (e.g., How will hotels use rice, vegetables, and fish produced in the island to serve the tourists with a delicious and attractive dish?). It is said that bigger hotels don’t have repeaters (supposedly the food they provide is not delicious) while the homestay pensions serving local food have repeaters. City dwellers visit Sado not only for its nature but also for its food, as well as its hospitable people with warm personalities (heard that the cooks in bigger hotels are dispatched from Kansai (western part of Japan) or foreigners). The concept should be not agriculture for tourism but tourism for developing agriculture.”

These narratives are in line with the point raised by Ohe (2013), who highlights the generation gap between younger and senior generations in recognizing the value of rural tourism, as well as the urban–rural mismatch with regards to rural tourism desires and expectations [29].

This study also found that the Sado Island farmers give high importance to ECA as an adaptation to climate change, thereby highlighting how farmers also prioritize their concern for the environment, in addition to their economic needs. This is also in line with their ECA expectations to promote their local industry, sequestrate carbon, and conserve water quality. Various studies have also shown that farmers’ abilities and individual decisions to adopt environmentally friendly farming methods contribute a lot to mitigating climate change [39,40]. Therefore, maintaining this mindset in farmers is crucial and more studies should be conducted on how to sustain it.

5. Conclusions

Results from the survey in this study have shown a higher incidence of reduced farmer involvement in the GIAHS. While it is one of the direct goals of GIAHS designation to promote awareness and visibility for the farmers working in these sites, results from this study do not support the notion of a direct relationship between farmer visibility and farmer involvement as previously hypothesized. To further understand this observation, the effects of various sociodemographic and GIAHS factors on farmers’ perception towards GIAHS involvement were tested. Negative perceptions of the promotion of youth involvement, Sado Island branding, and tourism management has an enhancing effect on reduced farmer perceptions towards GIAHS involvement. Further evidence presented through the various farmer responses corroborate this observation, prompting an integration of farmer-level input towards the community-level implementation of GIAHSs.

Upon evaluation of the effects of farmer expectations on their perceived GIAHS involvement, it was found that the promotion of local industry has an enhancing effect on farmer involvement. This observation hints at the need for better diffusion of the resulting branding (Tokimai) from the GIAHS initiative to other local industries in Sado Island, as well as the need to target consumers who may not know about Tokimai. Based on farmer responses, there is a need for better uptake of the Tokimai branding across different local industries, such as restaurants, hotels, and supermarkets, for the continuous development of farmer communities and GIAHS sites.

The enhancing effect of carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation towards farmer perceptions on GIAHS involvement was also shown, as expected of an environment-conscious community. This is in alignment with the observation that farmers who feel that ECA is an adaptation to climate change have a higher likelihood of feeling involved with the GIAHS. A study focusing on the effects of various farmer-related factors towards ECA continuation may also provide additional insights on the holistic view of the integration between farmer activities with biodiversity conservation.

While the results of the study cannot be used to fully represent other GIAHS sites in Japan because of the differences in landscape types, locations, and typologies, it can serve well as a reference for local government officials and policymakers on strengthening and developing the GIAHS efforts across Japan, and other countries as well. The study further encourages more research on other GIAHS sites in Japan, with more robust samples and results, which can then contribute to their sustainability. Moreover, studies on GIAHSs around the world with similar characteristics will be needed to enhance the management of GIAHS sites, in connection with the findings of this paper. When magnified on a global scale, the themes explored in this study would lead to a deeper interplay between farmers’ knowledge and perception and GIAHS objectives.