The name “Field Museum” is widely used in Japan. A field museum seems to be a specific field like a museum with expected functions, but no official definitions are recognized. They differ from an “Eco-museum”, which has an accumulation of numerous studies and arguments about the definition, concept and interpretation.
In this paper, the current situation of “Field Museum” is confirmed through investigation of 127 cases reported in 2016 on websites. The form, target resources, installation management entities, expected functions and survival of field museums are examined, and an overview, the trends and relationships explored by a correlation analysis of items.
As a result, we attempted to define “Field Museum”, but it became clear that a wide variety of field museums have appeared preceding the establishment of the definition. The majority of field museums are not hardware but software facilities, and “projects and concepts”, and “websites and information content” have remarkably increased over time. Currently, many field museums refer to the roles of a museum such as “education”, “exhibition” and “preservation”. On the other hand, many field museums refer to conscious contributions to the local area such as “participation, exchange and community”, “sightseeing”, “information exchange” and “activation”. People are expected to recognize the value of the area resources and take actions for conservation based on the image of the word “Museum”. In the future, “Field Museum” may refer to an area management measure, not a mere expansion of museums.
However, the name “Field Museum” is unstable and lacks sustainability. Clarification of the basis, collaboration among research and educational institutions such as museums, stability of the system, and other factors are required to make the functions sustainable as a regional management method.
JEL Classifications: R59, Z00