This study aims to clarify the relationship between international students' (ISs') motivation (integrative and instrumental), media usage, and intercultural adaptation (sociocultural and academic) during the COVID-19 pandemic by comparing their social support networks (SSNs) with the Japanese language speakers (JLSs), same-language speaker (SLSs), and other-language speaker (OLSs), and whether there are any differences or similarities between ISs from mainland China (MCISs) and other ISs in these relationships. An online survey targeting ISs enrolled at universities in Japan was conducted from November 19 to December 10, 2021. The data from 364 ISs, including 160 MCISs and 200 other ISs, were analyzed. The results indicated that MCISs with higher levels of Japanese language proficiency and integrative motivation, a longer length of stay in Japan, and who mainly chose Japanese to take a course, were able to form larger SSNs with JLSs; this helped them receive more social support from JLSs which had mediating effects on improving their sociocultural and academic adaptations. On the other hand, it was found that in terms of other ISs—those with lower levels of Japanese language proficiency, shorter lengths of stay in Japan, and higher levels of integrative and instrumental motivation—preferred using various kinds of media which had mediating effects on their sociocultural adaptation; whereas demographics including both integrative and instrumental motivations had direct effects on improving their academic adaptation. These results show different ways to improve MCISs and other ISs' sociocultural and academic adaptations in the future.

This study aims to elucidate factors that affect mobility change throughout the seven waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. Specifically, it examines the impact of policy interventions and COVID-19 case numbers on mobility patterns. The study focuses on the effects of the Emergency State Declaration (ESD), the “Pre-emergency measures”, and the “Go To Travel” campaign as significant policy factors. Additionally, it explores how vaccination rates influence mobility changes. The author utilized daily data spanning from March 18, 2020, to October 15, 2022, across 47 Japanese prefectures and employed a Feasible Generalized Least Squares (FGLS) model to analyze the panel data for each wave of the pandemic. Three principal findings emerge from this analysis: First, the positive COVID-19 cases negatively influences mobility, and this effect diminishes as the pandemic persists. Second, both the ESD and the “Pre-emergency measures” effectively reduced mobility, whereas the “Go To Travel” campaign significantly promoted mobility. Third, increases in the vaccination rate correlates positively with mobility increases. With previous studies emphasize the importance of restricting mobility to mitigate the pandemic spread, this study presents a contrasting perspective, highlighting that people's behaviors are inherently influenced by the pandemic situation. This interplay between the pandemic and human mobility should be conceptualized as a dynamic, interactive process.

Although there have been many studies on the concept of risk in previous research, there is no widely accepted concept or definition of risk. Since risk is a concept and does not exist in nature, its essential nature cannot be pursued in ways that are generally considered scientific. This has implications for risk management and risk engineering. To solve this problem, we attempt to abstract the structure that makes people feel a particular way, which is common when people feel that there is some risk in a way that does not specify the field or type of risk, through phenomenology and non-conventional science based on it. The structure of risk from the perspective of the perceiver can be summarized as (1) having a future story that the perceiver does not want to be influenced by surroundings and (2) holding a personal belief, doxa, or conjecture that an incident may affect the progress of that story and prevent it from going forward as expected. Having a future story is the premise for the existence of risk, while holding a person belief about the story's progress is the essential nature of what we generally call risk. This new perspective could trigger a paradigm shift in risk-related academia and practices, such as risk management and risk communication.