58
Such diverged processes finally resulted in the two best scenarios whose visions’
characteristics were significantly different from each other. The WS participants went
on to discuss the paths that they thought necessary to realize such visions. Table 4.3
below shows the titles and some elements of the visions and paths. One can then be
noted that the contents of these visions and paths reflected some important aspects of
socioeconomic and socio-ecological concerns, which are elaborated as follows.
First, Group A’s best scenario (Table 4.3, left column) indicated that considering
the city’s unique landscape characteristics (see Sect. 4.2.2.1), the WS participants
proposed “dual residency” as a new type of lifestyle to achieve mutual harmony and
benefit between the central and the peripheral areas. For this to be realized, they
acknowledged that given the fact that prioritized allocation of TCG’s budgets and
resources would inevitably be held in the future, the citizens should turn off their
ongoing tendency to depend on administrative services (i.e., government interventions and enterprises) and should instead have the mindset to cultivate and strengthen
the spirit of self-help and/or mutual help compared to that of public help. They
tended to regard such change in the division of roles between public and private
spheres necessary to make their future city sustainable as a more unified entity.
Second, Group B’s best scenario (Table 4.3, right column) contemplated that in
order to earn people’s admiration, the city would want capacity development in term
of its production and education. That is because the WS participants thought that a
place could attract people and have them stay there when residents felt enriched by
and engaged in continuous, life-long learning that would also form the basis of sustainable production and provision of goods and services for its society. Thus, in the
path toward 2064, implementation processes of creating Toyama’s own industries
and businesses (“city’s original quaternary industry”) were understood as vital. In
such processes, the participants envisioned that the citizens should become as creative and unique as possible in their activities of daily living. They then acknowledged that such conduct could take place to a greater degree when the citizens fully
learned and utilized the city’s long-standing rich natural capitals (mountains, rivers,
sea, paddies, and sceneries) and related cultural heritages (traditional arts and food
cultures associated with water, rice, and fishes) that together constitute some important aspects of its socio-ecological landscape.
Table 4.2 Differences in ten key words chosen by each group
Group A
Group B
Civic prides
People gathering
Disaster prevention
New culture
Health/welfare
Transportation
Renewable energy
Education
One of a kind community
Happiness
Internet of things
Good life/rich life/life of affluence
Way of living/way of working
Health
Tourism/migration (moving-in)
Vigorousness/bustling
Labor population
Harmony
Recycle-based society
Love for one’s home town
K. Aoki et al.
Such diverged processes finally resulted in the two best scenarios whose visions’
characteristics were significantly different from each other. The WS participants went
on to discuss the paths that they thought necessary to realize such visions. Table 4.3
below shows the titles and some elements of the visions and paths. One can then be
noted that the contents of these visions and paths reflected some important aspects of
socioeconomic and socio-ecological concerns, which are elaborated as follows.
First, Group A’s best scenario (Table 4.3, left column) indicated that considering
the city’s unique landscape characteristics (see Sect. 4.2.2.1), the WS participants
proposed “dual residency” as a new type of lifestyle to achieve mutual harmony and
benefit between the central and the peripheral areas. For this to be realized, they
acknowledged that given the fact that prioritized allocation of TCG’s budgets and
resources would inevitably be held in the future, the citizens should turn off their
ongoing tendency to depend on administrative services (i.e., government interventions and enterprises) and should instead have the mindset to cultivate and strengthen
the spirit of self-help and/or mutual help compared to that of public help. They
tended to regard such change in the division of roles between public and private
spheres necessary to make their future city sustainable as a more unified entity.
Second, Group B’s best scenario (Table 4.3, right column) contemplated that in
order to earn people’s admiration, the city would want capacity development in term
of its production and education. That is because the WS participants thought that a
place could attract people and have them stay there when residents felt enriched by
and engaged in continuous, life-long learning that would also form the basis of sustainable production and provision of goods and services for its society. Thus, in the
path toward 2064, implementation processes of creating Toyama’s own industries
and businesses (“city’s original quaternary industry”) were understood as vital. In
such processes, the participants envisioned that the citizens should become as creative and unique as possible in their activities of daily living. They then acknowledged that such conduct could take place to a greater degree when the citizens fully
learned and utilized the city’s long-standing rich natural capitals (mountains, rivers,
sea, paddies, and sceneries) and related cultural heritages (traditional arts and food
cultures associated with water, rice, and fishes) that together constitute some important aspects of its socio-ecological landscape.
Table 4.2 Differences in ten key words chosen by each group
Group A
Group B
Civic prides
People gathering
Disaster prevention
New culture
Health/welfare
Transportation
Renewable energy
Education
One of a kind community
Happiness
Internet of things
Good life/rich life/life of affluence
Way of living/way of working
Health
Tourism/migration (moving-in)
Vigorousness/bustling
Labor population
Harmony
Recycle-based society
Love for one’s home town
K. Aoki et al.