Many prefectures have created new strawberry varieties. However, the process of naming varieties has not been studied until now, and thus remains unclear.
This study examines the strategies which a prefecture can take in naming strawberry varieties. It also presents the results of an analysis of variety names using consumer research, and thus aims to learn the naming method which best suits a prefecture’s strategy. The varieties analyzed for this study are: “TOCHIOTOME,” “SACHINOKA,” “SAGAHONOKA,” “BENIHOPPE,” “AMAOU,” “FUKUHARUKA,” “FUKUAYAKA,” and “MOUIKKO.” The results are as follows:
First, the strategy which a prefecture takes is best explained by prefectural production practices and whether other prefectures are engaged in cultivation. There are two strategies which a prefecture that is characterized by a limited production scale and a limited market share can take. One is a strategy in which it captures a larger market share by allowing another prefecture cultivation rights to the variety, and a second aims at branding its product as local without permitting another prefecture to cultivate the variety. When permitting cultivation in another prefecture, it is effective that the name of the creating place is not included in a variety name. When aiming at branding a product as local, it also is effective that the name of the creating place not be included in the variety name. On the other hand, for prefectures with a big production scale, it is effective to include the name of the creating place.
Second, the effectiveness of variety names was examined using consumer research. The consumer research was conducted in Fukushima Prefecture. The features of a variety name with consumers’ high evaluation are “it seems to be delicious,” “it being easy to memorize,” “it is lovely and pretty,” and “it is humorous and entertaining.” When it is hard to memorize similar variety names, evaluation is low. Moreover, suggestive images and nuance are the elements which influence evaluation of a variety name. An evaluation of sound symbolism performed beforehand was also checked using the results of the consumer research, and showed the importance of nuance. Although the name of a creating place is transmitted to consumers through suggestive images, the effect which improves comprehensive evaluation is small. When information is transmitted to consumers in a humorous and entertaining manner, the comprehensive evaluation of a variety name is comparatively poor.
The implication of this study is that variety naming conforms to the strategy of the prefecture which creates the variety.

抄録全体を表示

A Farming Experience Farm is defined as a business unit which satisfies the following conditions. (1) Farmer makes a planting plan;(2) Farmer does not contractually transfer the rights of the farmland to users;(3) Using materials on the farm are provided by farmer;(4) Farmer instructs users who participate for non-profit by sessions;(5) Users continuously experience farm work in the planting period;(6) Farmer collects a fee as the price of admission and harvest;(7) Farmer sells all or part of the harvest in a certain area.
Previous literature shows that the managerial significance of Farming Experience Farms lies in their “ability to provide a grace period from the payment of inheritance tax” and “being more profitable than open field vegetable production.” Within Urbanization Promotion Areas (City Planning Act provides that Urbanization Promotion Areas shall be those areas where urban areas have already formed and those areas where urbanization should be implemented preferentially and in a well-planned manner within approximately the next 10 years.), where land prices are high, the significance of both these aspects in a Farming Experience Farm becomes evident; however, outside such areas, where land prices are low, the significance of these aspects remains elusive. This difference is important when considering any expansion of Farming Experience Farms in regions outside Urbanization Promotion Areas. Thus far, no studies have addressed this issue.
Therefore, in this study, I clarify the problem of expansion of Farming Experience Farms to regions outside Urbanization Promotion Areas through a comparative analysis of farmers who have established a Farming Experience Farm within and outside Urbanization Promotion Areas, and I consider the managerial significance of Farming Experience Farms that are established outside Urbanization Promotion Areas. The subjects of the investigation included five farmers who had established a Farming Experience Farm within Urbanization Promotion Areas and five farmers who had established such farms outside Urbanization Promotion Areas. These farmers are located in Yokohama, Kawasaki, some regions far from urban areas in Kanagawa Prefecture and also Nerima in the metropolitan Tokyo.
The following are the results of the analysis conducted in this paper. Establishing a Farming Experience Farm outside Urbanization Promotion Areas has the significance of “being more profitable than open field vegetable production.” This depends on the price level of the fees per unit area. However, the gross agricultural income of farmers who have established a Farming Experience Farm outside Urbanization Promotion Areas is higher than that of those within these Areas. Moreover, it is likely that the ratio of gross income of Farming Experience Farms to gross agricultural income is low and its contribution to increasing gross income is currently small. This is the problem with expanding Farming Experience Farms in regions outside Urbanization Promotion Areas.
In order to resolve this problem, it is necessary to increase the gross income of Farming Experience Farms. Therefore, increasing the fees per lot or increasing the number of lots is necessary. This investigation reveals that there are some vacant lots in Farming Experience Farms in regions that are located at a distance from urban areas and that the demand for Farming Experience Farm seems to be low. Therefore, we need to increase the demand and establish a reasonable price level for Farming Experience Farms on the basis of distance from urban areas.

抄録全体を表示

The purpose of this study is to examine the characteristics of non-family-type farm succession based on case studies. It also explores the entrance costs associated with procuring management resources in non-family-type farm successions by comparing these with instances in which farm management is newly created.
The following results were obtained:
1) Among those expenses incurred in procuring tangible assets, there were no significant discrepancies between newly created and non-family succeeded farms. Costs associated with accumulating farm land for rice production and growing fruit were lower for non-family succeeded farms.
2) Successors acquire advanced cultivation technology and management knowhow of farm managers. Thus, the costs associated with procuring intangible management resources for successor farms are smaller when compared with newly-created farms.
3) Successors, however, must negotiate transfer and leasing fees for tangible assets with the managers. They also have to maintain a relationship of trust with the managers for several years. Consequently, they must deal with higher adjustment costs.
4) Therefore, in order for non-family-type farm succession to become widespread, it is necessary to provide public support to reduce costs associated with mediation that must take place between the successor and the manager, to enhance the initial investment financing system, and to develop a method for technology and knowhow transmission in a short time period.

抄録全体を表示