2017 Volume 23 Pages 67-82
The problem of damage caused by wildlife in marginal hamlets (small, declining communities where more than half the population are over the age of 65) is generally accepted to be a concrete manifestation of the deterioration in the relationship between humanity and nature. In order to recover from this kind of impoverished relationship, it is often suggested by environmental sociologists that initiatives are necessary that involve, not only the people of rural districts who are undergoing marginalization, but also urban residents in the capacity of new leaders in these efforts. However, are the values espoused by the sociologists consistent with those of the people actually living in marginal hamlets? Is it not possible that the compelling questions of local inhabitants are being bypassed in favor of a perceived optimal state of interaction between people and nature?
This paper examines the positive reasons why people, living in a marginal hamlet in Akiyama District located at the forefront of wildlife-related damage, and facing the reality of ‘village disappearance' while trying to attract outsiders to their community, have dared to make the choice not to take any preventative measures to stop wildlife causing damage. This positivity was the key to making use of a new freedom arising from the refusal of the village inhabitants to be bound by the idea that the village must continue to exist. This state of ‘interaction between people and nature' that is not premised on the permanence of the village, not only relativizes the support of conventional ‘damage from wildlife' control measures, but also redirects attention to what constitutes ‘problems for people.'
