政策提言型市民調査はなぜ失敗したか?――野生生物保全分野の経験から――  [in Japanese] Why Did Civic Investigations Go Wrong?: Lessons from Stumbling Blocks in Wildlife Conservation Movements  [in Japanese]

Search this Article

Author(s)

Abstract

<p>市民調査は,観察会型,研究会型,運動型,政策提言型などに類型化でき,専門性と能動性という二軸で整理できる。なかでも社会的意思決定過程という機能を重視するならば,政策提言型市民調査のあり方を議論する必要がある。そこで政策提言を目指した野生生物保全市民調査を事例に,政策提言や政策関与に至らなかった理由や,専門性と能動性の動態を振り返り,政策提言型市民調査が乗り越えるべき課題を整理した。</p><p>カモシカ食害防除活動では,新たな事実や新たな技術を示した点で市民調査の成果はあったが,問題の変化や専門化に対応した目的や手法の再設定ができず,経路依存的状況に陥った。「奈良のシカ」市民調査では政策提言に至ったが,それを実際に政策化する仕組みがなかった。また両事例とも専門家が運営に深く関与したが,前者では専門家の主導が市民の能動性低下と結びつき,後者では政策化を研究者に任せたことで必要な制度作りに市民の関心が向かわなかった。これらの経験からヤクシカ調査では,まず市民参加型調査を行い,そこで高い関心と調査技術を有した島民による市民調査がアレンジされた。</p><p>政策提言型市民調査では,調査技術だけでなく政策化技術の専門家との協働が必要であり,専門家は市民調査の目的や市民の専門性・能動性を踏まえた上で適切なアドバイスを行う必要がある。このような経験を共有しながら社会的意思決定過程としての市民調査の可能性が今後探られるべきだろう。</p>

<p>Civic investigation has a function, not only of data collection and environmental education, but also plays an important role in the social decision making process. Civic investigation can be categorized into four types: observation type; research type; movement type; policy proposal type (policy-oriented civic investigation). It can also be arranged into two axes of specialty and activity, which are the essence of civic investigation.</p><p>For the development of the function of civic investigation as a social decision making process, it is necessary to discuss strategies for "policy proposal type" civic investigations. Therefore I have analyzed the reason why some investigations could not realize policy proposal nor policy participation and the dynamics of specialty and activity in some cases of wildlife conservation movements.</p><p>In the first case, although civic investigation showed the effectiveness of the recognition of the actual circumstances of plant damage, conflicts between Japanese serows and local societies, the movement could not make an alternative policy because it could not reset the purpose and tactics of the investigations and the movement. In the second case, civic investigation could carry out their policy proposal for deer conservation in Nara Park; however, the movement was unsuccessful in policy participation because of the local decision making process without citizen participation. In both cases, experts (professional researchers) fully participated in administration, but their leadership caused a reduction in civic activity in the former case, and the citizens' dependence on researchers who were poor at policy proposal techniques made them unconcerned about policy participation in the latter.</p><p>On the basis of these experiences, a citizen participating method was adopted in the first phase of the population monitoring of Yaku sika deer, and a civic monitoring system, practiced by the islander volunteers, was arranged afterwards in the third case of Yaku-shima Island. In this case, several movements of civic investigation have arisen voluntarily and this situation is effective for broad-scale discussion and preparing the community-involved wildlife management system on the island.</p><p>For the maturity of policy proposal type civic investigation, collaboration is needed with the technical experts, not only in the investigation technique, but also in policy making. In these collaborations, it is necessary for experts to get hold of the purpose and civic specialty/activity, and then, give appropriate advice for strategies and tactics of the civic investigation.</p>

Journal

  • Journal of Environmental Sociology

    Journal of Environmental Sociology 13(0), 33-47, 2007

    Japanese Association for Environmental Sociology

Codes

  • NII Article ID (NAID)
    110008726955
  • NII NACSIS-CAT ID (NCID)
    AN10498448
  • Text Lang
    JPN
  • Article Type
    特集
  • NDL Article ID
    9313847
  • NDL Source Classification
    ZE5(社会・労働--社会問題・社会保障)
  • NDL Call No.
    Z6-B659
  • Data Source
    NDL  NII-ELS  J-STAGE  NDL-Digital 
Page Top