Example Research Questions

• How does temporary stewardship of a symbolic object (the frog) influence perceived belonging and responsibility toward rural spaces?
• What design nudges (visibility, ritual, narrative framing) most effectively sustain participation in decentralized cultural networks?
• Do playful symbolic interactions (frog journeys) generate measurable increases in place attachment comparable to traditional interventions (murals, festivals)?
• How do participants narrate their experience of “hosting” the frog? Does it shape identity, memory, or future intention to return?
• Can low-cost symbolic rituals (frog tokens) function as scalable tools for rural revitalization and social R&D?

Core Hypotheses

1. Place Attachment
   • H1: Participants who steward the frog report stronger attachment to akiya spaces than those who only visit without stewarding.
   • H2: Place attachment increases with the number of frog handoffs a participant engages in.
2. Social Norms & Prosocial Behavior
   • H3: Publicly visible frog-tracking (webapp map, social feed) increases participants’ likelihood of stewarding compared to private tracking.
   • H4: Descriptive + injunctive norm messaging (e.g., “Most visitors bring Kaeru-chan to the next house, and it’s appreciated”) increases follow-through compared to descriptive-only messages.
3. Community Identity & Cohesion
   • H5: Communities that host the frog more frequently exhibit greater collective identity and collaboration in space upkeep than those that do not.
   • H6: Participation in frog rituals (e.g., leaving a note, taking a photo) fosters stronger social bonds among participants.
4. Engagement & Ritual Design
   • H7: Adding small rituals (e.g., writing a wish or reflection when passing the frog) enhances emotional connection compared to simple handoff.
   • H8: Ritualized stewardship (structured “torch-passing”) creates higher levels of perceived responsibility and care for the space than casual visits.
5. Behavioral Spillovers
   • H9: Stewarding increases willingness to contribute to other forms of community maintenance (gardening, cleaning, hosting events).
   • H10: The more personalized a frog interaction (naming, story logs), the higher the sustained engagement and return visits.

Practical ways to “randomize without excluding anyone”

1. Stepped-wedge (cluster) rollout

   All houses get the frog, but different akiya start specific features at randomized times.

• Example: Month 1 only House A shows the live map + ritual prompt; House B/C just basic handoff. Month 2 B “turns on” features, Month 3 C, etc.
• Compare each house to itself (pre vs post) and to houses not yet “switched on.”

1. Encouragement design (universal access, randomized nudge)

   Everyone can steward; you randomize the “push”:

• Rotating message frames: (a) social-norms prompt, (b) identity/“steward” framing, (c) neutral.

• Visibility: live map pin size, confetti on check-in, leaderboard badge vs none.

• Reminder timing: randomized notification schedule (e.g., morning vs evening).

  Measure differences in uptake, visit chaining, and survey outcomes by nudge arm.