In this study, we identified the factors that affect the frequency of receiving nonmarket fruit and vegetables (FV). For Survey 1, we conducted a cross-sectional survey using a self-administered questionnaire for men aged 50–74 living in city (A) in Gunma, Japan. Participants were asked questions on FV receiving frequency, FV gardening, social cohesion (4–20 points), and basic characteristics. For Survey 2, a similar survey was conducted for residents aged 20–74 in three areas in city (B) in Gunma, but we included more variables. Ordinal logistic regression models were used for the analysis. In Survey 1, the responses of 243 participants were analyzed. The results showed that the FV receiving frequency was positively associated with non-gardeners and social cohesion. In Survey 2, the responses of 791 participants were analyzed. Vegetable receiving frequency was positively associated with rural and suburban areas, family structure, employment status, and non-farmers. The relationship between receiving frequency and social cohesion was similar to that found in Survey 1. In conclusion, in areas with flourishing FV cultivation, it seems to be easy to obtain FV through the social networks of reception, even for individuals who are not cultivating FV themselves.

One important motivation for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive is the creation of non-market environmental benefits such as improved ecological quality, or greater opportunities for open-access river recreation via microbial pollution remediation. Pollution sources impacting on ecological or recreational water quality can be uncorrelated but non-market benefits arising from riverine improvements are typically conflated within benefit valuation studies. Using stated preference choice experiments, we seek to disaggregate these sources of value for different river users, thereby allowing decision makers to understand the consequences of adopting alternative investment strategies. Our results suggest anglers derive greater value from improvements to the ecological quality of river water, in contrast to swimmers and rowers for whom greater value is gained from improvements to recreational quality. We also find three distinct groups of respondents: a majority preferring ecological over recreational improvements, a substantial minority holding opposing preference orderings and a small proportion expressing relatively low values for either form of river quality enhancement. As such, this research demonstrates that the non-market benefits which may accrue from different types of water quality improvements are nuanced in terms of their potential beneficiaries and, by inference, their overall value and policy implications.