The concept of power is a multifaceted and complex theme, and its complexity, consisting of multiple elements, makes uniform definition and measurement difficult (Lukes, 2004). In classical understandings of power in the social sciences, power is viewed as human interaction, and assuming that actors broadly include not only individuals and groups but also positions and roles, it has been conceived as the ability of one actor (A) to make another actor (a) do something that “a” would not otherwise have done (Dahl, 1957). Beyond actors, it includes constituent elements such as bases of power (resources), means, and scope to provide a framework for systematically analyzing the exercise of influence in relationships between actors. On the other hand, in social-ecological systems (SES), in addition to the challenges of traditional power theory, integration of diverse theoretical perspectives and approaches to power dynamics became necessary to address complex governance challenges premised on interdependencies.

Regarding the context of water resource governance, for example, discussions of Adaptive Water Governance (AWG)—which emphasizes collaboration and learning—attempt to incorporate the enhancement of adaptive capacity into governance theory through the contextual complexity of social-ecological systems (SES) and polycentric structures involving diverse institutional actors and citizen participation (Pahl-Wostl and Knieper, 2014; Carlisle and Gruby, 2017). Building on these discussions, refinement of power concepts through the distinction between conduct shaping and context shaping based on the directness and indirectness of impacts on humans (Boonstra, 2016), as well as power exercise in polycentric governance and limitations of polycentric governance theory (Morrison et al., 2019), have also been pointed out.

Additionally, McIlwain et al. (2023) critically reviewed a series of power structure analyses in the AWG context, noting that no common definition of “power” can be found across many studies, and that sociological and social theoretical frameworks (such as Giddens, Foucault, and Lukes) that could integrate discourses and knowledge often overlooked in analysis into AWG are insufficiently utilized. They also raise issues, including insufficient attention to power asymmetries, inadequate response to contextual complexity, and overlooking of pressures within social systems. Shackleton et al. (2023) note that while environmental conservation implicitly engages with power in various ways to achieve conservation outcomes, analytical perspectives on this have been limited, and identify four approaches to power in environmental conservation: actor-centered power, institutional power, structural power, and discursive power. They also propose six analytical guidelines: decision-making, values, ways of understanding conflict, perspectives on winners and losers, participatory schemes, and interventions. Svarstad et al. (2018) identify actor-oriented, neo-Marxist, and Foucauldian approaches as perspectives on power in political ecology, emphasizing the need to combine different power theories to capture the diverse manifestations of power in environmental conflicts and governance. The relational typology presented by Bennett and Satterfield (2018) also emphasizes the need to integrate political ecology and institutionalism in approaching environmental governance, which offers insights into how power shapes institutions and, conversely, how institutions shape power.

In parallel with this diversification of power analysis and integration of theories, institutional approaches concerning the effectiveness of environmental governance have also developed. While Young (2002) does not use the term power, he argues that institutional effectiveness depends on whether institutions “fit” their environment and society, and on the appropriateness of “interplay” with other institutions and “scale.” The view that institutional design and interplay based on norms, values, trust, and knowledge sharing are essential for effective environmental governance implies limitations of coercion-based approaches. As Ostrom (1990) pointed out, coercion-based approaches can achieve rapid behavioral change, but they often generate resistance and may consequently undermine the social relationships necessary for long-term conservation success.

These developments indicate that power in environmental governance operates not through simple coercion or domination but through institutional design and interactions based on norms, values, trust, and knowledge sharing, opening pathways toward more nuanced and context-dependent understandings of power.

Despite theoretical advances, important challenges remain in power analysis in environmental governance. Akamani (2023) identifies institutional requirements (awareness, motivation, capacity, opportunity) for transitioning to ecosystem-based adaptation, noting that the concept of adaptive governance itself may become structured and limit the effectiveness of institutions meeting these requirements. On the other hand, in power structure analysis from polycentric systems approaches, warnings have been issued about the “institutional complexity trap” (where transaction costs increase over time and coordination becomes more difficult), which will lead to actor fatigue, policy stagnation, and reduced system capacity to address diverse governance challenges (Morrison et al., 2023).

These challenges, in addition to long-standing issues including insufficient attention to power asymmetries, inadequate response to contextual complexity, and overlooking of pressures within social systems, suggest that theoretical diversity risks fragmenting research agendas and that efforts to integratively apply these insights are necessary.

As discussed in the previous section, power theory in environmental governance has evolved significantly from classical concepts of coercion and domination to complex processes involving diverse actors. Attempts at theoretical refinement and integration have emerged, including: multilayered understandings of power as actor-centered, institutional, structural, and discursive (Shackleton et al., 2023); integration of different theoretical perspectives such as neo-Marxist and Foucauldian approaches (Svarstad et al., 2018); relational typologies to capture the mutual constitution of power and institutions (Bennett and Satterfield, 2018); and institutional approaches emphasizing institutional fit, interplay, and scale (Young, 2002). These demonstrate that power in environmental governance operates not through simple command-and-control but through dynamic processes of collaboration, learning, adaptation, and knowledge integration.

However, conceptual frameworks for capturing the more nuanced exercise of power that exists between coercive command-and-control and completely voluntary participation remain insufficiently developed. This study proposes the tentative concept of “gentle power” to analyze the mechanisms and its functions operating in this intermediate space. In the context of adaptive governance, “middle-range” conceptual frameworks have been proposed to address tensions between empirical contexts and abstract approaches (Sharma-Wallace et al., 2018; Pahl-Wostl, 2009), and similar significance is expected for this exploratory conceptualization.

Gentle power is provisionally defined as the exercise of power that influences environmental governance through collaboration and relationship-building while respecting stakeholder autonomy. In contrast to Weber’s classical concept of power as “the ability to influence others despite resistance” (Dahl, 1957), this concept focuses on influence that promotes collaboration rather than generates resistance. It also differs from Nye's (2004) concept of soft power in international relations theory (influence through incentives and policy legitimacy as opposed to hard power through coercion). Whereas soft power primarily refers to influence through incentives and attraction, gentle power is understood as influence based not on incentives but on mutual trust, shared norms, and knowledge integration (Table 1). Unlike hard power, which relies on coercion and formal authority to secure compliance, gentle power functions through the demonstration of expertise and sustained collaborative relationships. While it can be understood as a specific form of relational power (Bennett and Satterfield, 2018), gentle power emphasizes the specific mechanisms through which influence is generated in the environmental governance context—trust-building, knowledge integration, and collaborative learning. Most importantly, gentle power provides an analytical framework for understanding how power relations enable the institutional bricolage processes described by Cleaver (2012), thereby explaining the improvisational institution-building. Gentle power demonstrates how influence based on trust and expertise, rather than coercion or incentives, promotes collaborative adaptation by shifting away from the idea of pre-designed institutions and analyzing power dynamics through visible and invisible mechanisms.

Recent research has enriched the discussion over power in environmental governance. Cleaver and Whaley (2018) argue from a critical institutionalist perspective that three interrelated dimensions of adaptive governance should be considered: process (how arrangements are formed and enacted), power (how they benefit some and fail to serve others), and meaning (how they gain legitimacy and persistence). They further emphasize that power operates not only through formal authority and explicit decision-making (visible power) but also through norms, culture, and everyday interactions (invisible power). The political ecology perspective further emphasizes that water governance inherently involves power relations embedded in a “socio-hydrological configuration” in which water and society mutually constitute each other (Zwarteveen and Boelens, 2014). While such analyses often address structural inequalities and adversarial contexts, gentle power focuses on the potential for collaborative practices and knowledge integration to reconfigure power relations at the local level within existing institutional frameworks. It provides an analytical lens for understanding relational dynamics that enable institutional bricolage (Cleaver, 2012) without relying on coercion or purely voluntary coordination. Gentle power works as an invisible power mechanism, operating through trust and expertise rather than formal command.

In the context of social-ecological systems (SES), gentle power is understood to function across multiple dimensions. First, it facilitates the integration of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) with scientific knowledge. Through sustained relationships between knowledge holders and learners, locally-specific knowledge systems are incorporated into conservation practices. Second, it enables collaborative decision-making processes that accommodate diverse perspectives. This is achieved not through top-down directives or complete bottom-up approaches, but in a form where local autonomy is respected within institutional frameworks. Third, legitimacy of practices is constructed through demonstrated effectiveness that provides concrete evidence of conservation outcomes. These functions are consistent with the effectiveness of institutional “fit” and “interplay” pointed out by Young (2002). They also align with observations that power and privilege embedded in institutions, organizations, and human practices can result in inequitable social-ecological practices (SEP) (May, 2022).

To understand these functions of gentle power, Cleaver's (2012) theory of institutional bricolage provides a useful perspective. Cleaver argues that institutions do not function as designed, but rather are formed and evolve through improvisational “bricolage” of existing customs, norms, rules, and social relations on the ground. As this study focuses on environmental governance, three key elements of bricolage, particularly relevant to it, have been involved: utilization of existing institutional resources, creative institutional transformation, and adaptive adjustment to changing circumstances. In this process, hybrid institutions emerge that combine traditional and modern, formal and informal elements, and institutional legitimacy and authority are socially conferred through such bricolage processes. However, Cleaver’s framework does not necessarily explicitly address what kinds of power relations operate in these processes of improvisational institution-building. Therefore, it is not possible to accurately predict how newly introduced institutions will be revised, adapted, socially embedded, or abandoned through institutional bricolage processes (Cleaver, 2002). Gentle power can be positioned as a power mechanism that operates when bricolage occurs improvisationally, manifesting through multiple integrated functions. It contrasts with two extreme approaches: coercive institutional design, which eliminates on-the-ground flexibility and completely voluntary processes, which make coordination costs and legitimacy-building difficult. Gentle power functions as an influence that enables local improvisation within a framework of institutional support while utilizing existing knowledge systems, social relationships, and norms.

Specifically, the following conditions are considered necessary for gentle power to manifest. First is the existence of locally embedded knowledge and practices. Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and practices rooted in local contexts serve as resources that present alternatives to externally designed institutions. This overlaps with Cleaver’s utilization of “existing institutional resources.” Furthermore, when the effectiveness of such local knowledge is substantiated by scientific data such as biodiversity and vegetation recovery, the persuasiveness of these alternatives is strengthened. Second is the integration of institutional framework support with autonomy. Institutional actors such as local governments play a role not in constraining local improvisational initiatives but in providing their foundation and conferring legitimacy. Third is flexibility in adaptive role adjustment. In response to changing circumstances, roles among actors are adjusted in a bricolage-like manner while maintaining conservation goals, rather than remaining fixed. This reframes the adaptability of adaptive governance emphasized by Folke et al. (2005) from the perspective of the quality of power relations. The satoyama conservation activities in Zushi-Onoji examined in this study provide an empirical case demonstrating how gentle power operates in such bricolage processes (Table 1).

Primary sources included the management method survey report (1996) by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government Environmental Conservation Bureau’s in collaboration with the farmers’ association, Machida City’s (2022), Survey on Awareness of Satoyama Environment Conservation and Utilization (2023a), and Machida City (2024). These materials provide detailed information on institutional transitions from conservation area designation to the shift to commissioned management, negotiation processes between local residents and administration, the role of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), and local residents’ awareness. It should be noted that our use of TEK follows the broader conservation science definition (Berkes, 2004) of place-based, multigenerational knowledge systems, rather than referring exclusively to Indigenous peoples’ knowledge. Secondary sources included academic literature on satoyama conservation in Japan (Kitagawa, 2003; Kobori and Primack, 2003a,b; Takeuchi, 2010; Takeuchi et al., 2003; Tagoku, 2010, etc.), literature on satoyama ecology and rice paddy management (Washitani, 2001; Natsuhara, 2013), international literature on community-based conservation (Berkes, 2004; Western et al., 1994), and newspaper reports, positioning this case within a theoretical context.

Data were collected through participation in conservation activities in the Zushi-Onoji area from June 2022 to December 2025. The researcher regularly participated in conservation activities as a member of the citizen supporter organization, Yatomori Club (approximately 27 registered members as of November 2025), observing practices such as farming, water management, and biodiversity surveys. The regular activities were coordinated to support the Machida Rekikan Kanri Kumiai (approximately 10 members). Information (e.g., decision-making processes, knowledge transmission, and inter-organizational relationships) was obtained through interactions with the farmer leader (88 years old as of November 2025) and farmers in their 50s to 80s, Tokyo Metropolitan Government officials, and volunteer members.

Through regular participation in fieldwork as a collaborative team member, the author gained insights into unspoken knowledge practices and social dynamics and developed a nuanced understanding through this sustained participation about how local ecological knowledge is practiced and negotiated in daily interactions, and how power relations operate informally through expertise demonstration, decision-making, and adaptive role adjustments, which aligns with ethnographic traditions in environmental governance research (Cleaver, 2012).

This research was conducted in accordance with ethical principles for research involving human participants. All participant observation activities were undertaken with the knowledge and consent of the involved parties. Confidentiality was maintained for all participants, and personal identifying information was protected. As this study involved non-invasive observation of ongoing conservation activities and voluntary interactions with participants in public or semi-public settings, formal ethics committee approval was not required under institutional guidelines. Nevertheless, all data collection adhered to research ethics principles respecting participant autonomy, privacy, and dignity.

To specifically apply the institutional bricolage perspective presented in Section 2.3, the following analytical methods were employed.

First, as “tracking existing institutional resources,” the study extracted from documentary sources and participant observation data how local traditional knowledge, practices, and norms have been utilized. Specifically, it chronologically tracked how water management techniques, seasonal cycles of farming work, and indigenous knowledge of ecosystem management were incorporated into (or excluded from) institutional conservation plans.

Second, as “process analysis of institutional support,” the study analyzed policy documents from the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and Machida City, minutes of the farmers’ association, and activity records of citizen organizations to clarify how institutional actors have supported and legitimized local autonomy. Particular attention was paid to transitions in formal rules, organizations, and procedures (Ostrom, 2005) and the negotiation processes behind them.

Third, as “observation of adaptive role adjustment,” through participant observation, the study recorded how roles among actors changed according to circumstances. Organizational responses to external changes such as aging and typhoon damage were tracked in detail to elucidate the mechanisms of bricolage-like institutional adjustment.

Through these analyses, this study clarifies the interactions between ecological elements (biodiversity, water management) and social elements (knowledge, organizations, institutions) in the social-ecological systems (SES) framework (Ostrom, 2009), and elucidates how gentle power functions in bricolage processes.

The Zushi-Onoji area, the research site for this study, is located in the Tama Hills in northern Machida City, approximately 35 kilometers southwest of central Tokyo (Figure 2). In the dendritic valley topography called “yato,” hillside forests fulfill water source conservation functions while wetlands and rice paddies at the valley bottom support rice cultivation utilizing abundant spring water, forming an interdependent social-ecological system. Water management in the Zushi-Onoji area relies on traditional irrigation techniques coordinated by the farmers’ association. Irrigation water supply, through small-scale diversion channels from hillside spring water, such as forest streams, represents a characteristic of the Yato valley topography. The system employs simple open channels partly with wooden weirs and earthen levees to manage water flow to valley-bottom rice paddies and wetlands by gravity flow. The farmers’ association coordinates seasonal water allocation, including water temperature regulation, management of supplementary water from ponds, and maintenance of the surrounding environment that enables these practices, following traditional agricultural calendars (Figure 3). These practices maintain year-round wetland conditions supporting amphibian breeding while contributing to methane emission reduction. This landscape exemplifies the hydrosocial cycle (Linton and Budds, 2014), where water flow physically connects the forest-wetland-paddy mosaic via generations of human management decisions—water cycle and social practices are mutually constitutive rather than merely interacting. In the urbanizing Tokyo metropolitan area, such semi-natural environments are rare and highly important for biodiversity conservation as habitats for diverse organisms, including amphibians, aquatic insects, waterfowl, and wetland plants (Ministry of Environment, n.d.). In 1978, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government designated this area as a “Historical Environmental Conservation Area” under the “Ordinance on Nature Conservation and Restoration in Tokyo” (Kitagawa, 2003). Since then, institutional transitions in governance by multiple actors—local communities, administration, and citizens—have been documented, from the establishment of the farmers’ association in 1992, the introduction of commissioned management in 1996, and the launch of various citizen activity groups before and after that period, including the creation of the citizen supporter group that is the subject of this study in 2022 (Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Bureau of Environment, 1996).

Conservation governance in this area has developed through three stages. In each stage, elements of institutional bricolage—local knowledge, institutional support, and adaptive adjustment—have interacted with one another, realizing institutional transformation through gentle power.

The designation of the conservation area in 1978 was a regulatory measure to address rapid urbanization, but it imposed strict restrictions on land use, resource use, and economic activities, creating serious conflict with local farmers (Kitagawa, 2003). Farmland within the conservation area was placed in an economically disadvantaged situation: while development was restricted because it was located in urbanization control areas, the tax preferential measures available to farmland in urbanization promotion areas were not applicable.

In response to this situation, local farmers actively engaged in advocacy activities. In a petition dated December 1977 to Governor Minobe Ryokichi, farmers explicitly stated their opposition to the conservation designation: “We absolutely oppose this designation as residents... Do not sacrifice urban farmers who are actively engaged in agricultural practice to development... We earnestly request development that allows us to work” (petition dated December 20, 1977, Tagoku personal archive). Through these negotiations with the Tokyo Metropolitan Bureau of Environmental Protection, they successfully obtained the application of the “Act on Promotion of Public Land Acquisition” (1972), securing a tax deduction of 15 million yen for land within the conservation area and a commitment from the Tokyo Metropolitan Government to consider land prices in urban development areas when purchasing land (Tagoku, 2010; Sasaki, 2018). This represented one of the earliest examples nationwide where this legal framework was applied for natural environment conservation purposes, which demonstrates that community assertions could reconstruct policy implementation.

At this stage, what is important is not that local farmers advocated for the necessity of conservation, but rather that they sought an institutional framework that would enable maintenance of their livelihood base and fair tax measures. Their negotiations were based on their land management experience and awareness as local residents, serving as a precursor to the conservation activities that would subsequently unfold. From an institutional bricolage perspective, this can be understood as strategic negotiation utilizing the legitimacy of public institutions and local customary rights consciousness as “existing institutional resources” (Cleaver, 2012). Resistance to land use regulations, as an approach to legitimize local interests by utilizing existing legal frameworks, can be positioned as an early manifestation of gentle power.

The second stage is the process by which local knowledge was incorporated into the core of institutional design. After the 1978 designation, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government implemented vegetation management by contracted companies, but local farmers recognized that these management methods were inadequate from the perspective of ecosystem conservation. The following observation was commonly observed: “distant contractors could not implement traditional yato management methods and only performed simple tasks such as mowing overgrown grass” (Tagoku, 2010). Yato ecosystems require delicate management according to seasonal and ecological cycles, such as water level management in rice paddies, periodic cutting of mixed forests, and mowing of grasslands. The uniform management by contractors could not respond to such complex ecological processes.

In response, local farmers submitted a proposal to the Tokyo Metropolitan Government in September 1992, arguing that “urgent measures by local people (farmers) with rich experience and strong attachment to the area are essential for detailed environmental conservation” (proposal dated September 30, 1992, Tagoku personal archive). Based on this proposal, the “Machida Rekikan Kanri Kumiai” (farmers’ association) was voluntarily established in 1992. The establishment charter explicitly stated their purpose: “landowners and stakeholders will participate in environmental conservation projects, providing labor according to their respective capital and abilities based on the spirit of mutual aid, engaging in environmental conservation and vegetation management within the area” (Tagoku, 2010). In 1996, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government introduced a commissioned management system, which formally contracted the association for vegetation management (Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Bureau of Environment, 1996). This institutional transformation was an important turning point where Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) was formally incorporated into the administrative institutional framework. The commissioned management contract specified three management principles determined by the farmers’ association: (1) ensuring biological diversity, (2) maintaining a favorable yato environment, and (3) prioritizing water environment and upstream flood control. Critically, while the Tokyo Metropolitan Government provided financial support through a commissioned contract, specific management methods were left to the association’s discretion as “experts.” The association practiced conservation activities utilizing water management techniques, agricultural calendars, and local knowledge about flora and fauna that farmers had accumulated across generations.

From an institutional bricolage perspective, “integration of institutional framework support with autonomy” was realized at this stage. By being positioned as commissioned experts, formal authority was added to the association members’ knowledge and practices. As Sasaki (2018) notes, this model demonstrated that “satoyama landscapes are best managed following traditional procedures by local farmers,” a recognition that legitimized their expertise. This expertise-based authority was facilitated by the association leader being a full-time farmer with agricultural knowledge and providing learning opportunities for others.

What deserves attention in this process is that the effectiveness of local knowledge was substantiated by ecological outcomes. As a result of conservation activities by the farmers’ association, biodiversity in rice paddies and wetlands was maintained, with the continued presence of species listed in Tokyo’s Red Data Book (Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 2023). The area, contributing to Tokyo’s Biodiversity Regional Strategy Action Plan 2025 (Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 2025) as one of the primary satoyama conservation sites, reflects its ecological significance. Such concrete outcomes demonstrated that local knowledge is eligible as an ecologically valid ecosystem management method, not merely traditional custom, serving as grounds for strengthening collaborative relationships with the administration. Gentle power here exerts influence not through coercion or commands, but through demonstrated expertise and outcomes.

It is notable that incorporating TEK into scientific research has been sustained through mutual verification between the farmers’ association and researchers. Since the 1990s, the association has continuously hosted ecosystem researchers, providing access to the conservation area and traditional knowledge, enabling long-term field studies. Several doctoral students who conducted dissertation research in this area over 20 years ago continue their research with their own graduate students, and some have returned for the research and class, sustaining a research network community among researchers and the association. These collaborative efforts contribute to the Tokyo Metropolitan Government’s periodic Red Data Book publications, where biodiversity data are scientifically documented and verified. The research network itself publishes an informal annual report and shares the achievements with the association and the administrative staff, creating a feedback loop where scientific findings and traditional knowledge guide research questions. This relationship demonstrates that knowledge integration operates as an ongoing dialogue, where traditional ecological practices and scientific monitoring mutually reinforce each other’s legitimacy.

The third stage is the process of adaptive institutional adjustment in response to the new challenges. Entering the 2020s, the aging of core members of the farmers’ association became pronounced. At the time of this study’s participant observation (November 2025), the farmer leader had reached 88 years of age, association membership remained at approximately 10 people, and three members had judged it difficult to participate in conservation activities involving heavy labor due to health issues accompanying aging. Therefore, securing new participants became essential for continuing conservation activities.

While the local government published the 10-year satoyama conservation plan under the master plan and the future vision for 2040 (Machida City, 2022), a citizen volunteer organization, “Yatomori Club,” was established in 2022 to support the association, with the endorsement of the farmers’ association. In addition to this organization, while the public opinion about satoyama conservation varied (Machida City, 2023a; Machida City, 2024), and several other support clubs receiving support from Machida City have already been launched in other satoyama areas within Machida City, each sustainably active (Machida City, 2023b). The difference with this organization is that it aims to cover the area managed by the farmers’ association, assist the association’s activities itself, and cooperate with the farmers’ association. As of November 2025, approximately 27 people are registered, regularly participating in conservation activities at a pace of 4–8 times per month during busy farming periods and 2–3 times otherwise. Among them, Tokyo Metropolitan Government employees or their associates account for half. The number of participants per session is around 10 on “festive” days, such as rice planting, rice harvesting, and harvest festivals, and about 4–6 people participate otherwise. The frequency of activities is determined by the judgment and communication of the club’s vice-representative (a Tokyo Metropolitan Government employee) who lives nearby. This activity framework integrates diverse participants, including urban residents, while maintaining the conventional framework of “management by farmers.”

From the institutional bricolage perspective of “flexibility in adaptive role adjustment,” at this stage the actors of conservation activities are being reorganized according to circumstances. Members of the farmers’ association shifted their role from “practitioners” who performed work themselves to “instructors” who transmit knowledge to volunteers and guide their work. Meanwhile, members of Yatomori Club are positioned not merely as labor providers but as “learners” who directly learn TEK from the farmer leader and understand the significance of conservation.

What was observed through participant observation was the manner in which the farmer leader transmitted knowledge to new participants not imperatively but through demonstration of work and dialogue. For example, in adjusting rice paddy water levels, he explains why that water level is necessary at that time in relation to the life histories of organisms and growth stages of plants. In explaining soil quality, he also refers to uplift from the sea and the discovery of pottery. Such knowledge transmission processes promote participants’ voluntary engagement and understanding, generating intrinsic motivation for conservation activities.

In restoration work after storm damage, club members confirmed the aftermath of the farmers’ association’s fallen tree processing and irrigation channel repairs. Additionally, club members’ participation in the seedling preparation process for rice planting—an important task in rice cultivation—and rice paddy maintenance before planting came to be naturally accepted. This tendency became pronounced in the spring of 2025. In this process, the roles of each actor, which are normally clearly demarcated, were flexibly adjusted, and improvisational cooperative relationships were formed according to circumstances. Such bricolage-like adjustments demonstrate adaptability to unforeseen circumstances that fixed institutional design cannot handle.

At this stage, gentle power functions as “influence that enables institutional flexibility.” The farmer leader integrates diverse actors based on trust acquired through his own expertise and many years of practice, without relying on administrative authority or economic incentives. Participants engage in activities not out of obligation but based on empathy with the significance of conservation and respect for the leader. This relationship was constructed not through coercion but through mutual understanding and collaborative experience.