IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v139y2022ics1389934122000351.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of forests and forest-related activities on the subjective well-being of residents in a Japanese watershed: An econometric analysis through the capability approach

Author

Listed:
  • Takahashi, Takuya
  • Asano, Satoshi
  • Uchida, Yukiko
  • Takemura, Kosuke
  • Fukushima, Shintaro
  • Matsushita, Kyohei
  • Okuda, Noboru

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to assess the effects of natural capital on overall subjective well-being and forest-related subjective well-being. A questionnaire survey of 1698 urban and rural residents living in a watershed of Japan was conducted in February and March of 2016. Multiple regression and moderation effect analyses are conducted to statistically estimate the respective influences of natural capital, human-made capital, social capital, human capital, and other demographic factors on the above-mentioned two types of subjective well-being. Forest-related activities, human engagement with forests, are supposed to be of great societal and political importance for Japanese society, where past management practices have, at least quantitatively, restored forests from past deforestation. Our statistical analysis tests whether specific engagement with natural capital (forest-related activities) is positively related to subjective well-being. Following the capability approach developed by Amartya Sen, forest-related activities are interpreted as functionings, and the analysis highlights the importance of functionings as links between natural capital and subjective well-being. The results show several forest-related activities have statistically significant effects on overall and forest-related well-being. For respondents living in less forested areas and with less social capital, forest-related activities have stronger effects on their subjective well-being, suggesting that the individual subjective well-being of urban residents and those with less social capital can be enhanced through engagement with forests.

Suggested Citation

  • Takahashi, Takuya & Asano, Satoshi & Uchida, Yukiko & Takemura, Kosuke & Fukushima, Shintaro & Matsushita, Kyohei & Okuda, Noboru, 2022. "Effects of forests and forest-related activities on the subjective well-being of residents in a Japanese watershed: An econometric analysis through the capability approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:139:y:2022:i:c:s1389934122000351
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102723
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934122000351
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102723?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Peter P. Wakker & Rakesh Sarin, 1997. "Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 375-406.
    2. Tsurumi, Tetsuya & Imauji, Atsushi & Managi, Shunsuke, 2018. "Greenery and Subjective Well-being: Assessing the Monetary Value of Greenery by Type," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 152-169.
    3. Biagi, Bianca & Ladu, Maria Gabriela & Meleddu, Marta, 2018. "Urban Quality of Life and Capabilities: An Experimental Study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 137-152.
    4. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2002. "What Can Economists Learn from Happiness Research?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 402-435, June.
    5. Ambrey, Christopher L. & Fleming, Christopher M., 2011. "Valuing scenic amenity using life satisfaction data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 106-115.
    6. Leonie C. Steckermeier, 2021. "The Value of Autonomy for the Good Life. An Empirical Investigation of Autonomy and Life Satisfaction in Europe," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 154(2), pages 693-723, April.
    7. Martin Binder, 2014. "Subjective Well-Being Capabilities: Bridging the Gap Between the Capability Approach and Subjective Well-Being Research," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 15(5), pages 1197-1217, October.
    8. Ambrey, Christopher L. & Fleming, Christopher M., 2011. "Valuing Ecosystem Diversity in South East Queensland: A Life Satisfaction Approach," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115347, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Kant, Shashi & Vertinsky, Ilan & Zheng, Bin, 2016. "Valuation of First Nations peoples' social, cultural, and land use activities using life satisfaction approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 46-55.
    10. Jeffrey D. Sachs & Richard Layard & John F. Helliwell, 2018. "World Happiness Report 2018," Working Papers id:12761, eSocialSciences.
    11. Kopmann, Angela & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2013. "A human well-being approach for assessing the value of natural land areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 20-33.
    12. Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell & Paul Frijters, 2004. "How Important is Methodology for the estimates of the determinants of Happiness?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(497), pages 641-659, July.
    13. Dolan, Paul & Peasgood, Tessa & White, Mathew, 2008. "Do we really know what makes us happy A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 94-122, February.
    14. Uphoff, Norman & Wijayaratna, C. M., 2000. "Demonstrated Benefits from Social Capital: The Productivity of Farmer Organizations in Gal Oya, Sri Lanka," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 28(11), pages 1875-1890, November.
    15. Tsurumi, Tetsuya & Managi, Shunsuke, 2015. "Environmental value of green spaces in Japan: An application of the life satisfaction approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-12.
    16. Flavio Comim, 2005. "Capabilities and Happiness: Potential Synergies," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 63(2), pages 161-176.
    17. Robert Biswas-Diener & Ed Diener, 2001. "Making the Best of a Bad Situation: Satisfaction in the Slums of Calcutta," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 329-352, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chizhi Ma & Weiming Song & Chang Xu, 2023. "Factors Influencing Resident Satisfaction with Afforestation in the Plains: Beijing as a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-12, April.
    2. Dehghani Pour, Milad & Barati, Ali Akbar & Azadi, Hossein & Scheffran, Jürgen & Shirkhani, Mehdi, 2023. "Analyzing forest residents' perception and knowledge of forest ecosystem services to guide forest management and biodiversity conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Takuya Takahashi & Yukiko Uchida & Hiroyuki Ishibashi & Noboru Okuda, 2021. "Subjective Well-Being as a Potential Policy Indicator in the Context of Urbanization and Forest Restoration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-17, March.
    2. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "The role of urban green space for human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 139-152.
    3. Tsurumi, Tetsuya & Imauji, Atsushi & Managi, Shunsuke, 2018. "Greenery and Subjective Well-being: Assessing the Monetary Value of Greenery by Type," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 152-169.
    4. Methorst, Joel & Rehdanz, Katrin & Mueller, Thomas & Hansjürgens, Bernd & Bonn, Aletta & Böhning-Gaese, Katrin, 2021. "The importance of species diversity for human well-being in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    5. Hajdu, Tamás & Hajdu, Gábor, 2011. "A hasznosság és a relatív jövedelem kapcsolatának vizsgálata magyar adatok segítségével [Examining the relation of utility and relative income using Hungarian data]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 56-73.
    6. Welsch, Heinz & Ferreira, Susana, 2014. "Environment, Well-Being, and Experienced Preference," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 7(3-4), pages 205-239, December.
    7. Zerrahn, Alexander & Krekel, Christian, 2015. "Sowing the Wind and Reaping the Whirlwind? The Effect of Wind Turbines on Residential Well-Being," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 112956, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    8. Akay, Alpaslan & Bargain, Olivier B. & Giulietti, Corrado & Robalino, Juan D. & Zimmermann, Klaus F., 2016. "Remittances and relative concerns in rural China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 191-207.
    9. Kopmann, Angela & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2013. "A human well-being approach for assessing the value of natural land areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 20-33.
    10. Jones, Benjamin A., 2018. "Measuring externalities of energy efficiency investments using subjective well-being data: The case of LED streetlights," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 18-32.
    11. Asena Caner, 2016. "Happiness and Life Satisfaction in Turkey in Recent Years," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 127(1), pages 361-399, May.
    12. Katrin Rehdanz & Welsch Heinz & Daiju Naritaa & Toshihiro Okubod, 2013. "Well-being effects of a major negative externality: The case of Fukushima," Working Papers V-358-13, University of Oldenburg, Department of Economics, revised Jul 2013.
    13. Thomas Carver & Arthur Grimes, 2019. "Income or Consumption: Which Better Predicts Subjective Well‐Being?," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 65(S1), pages 256-280, November.
    14. Krekel, Christian & Kolbe, Jens & Wüstemann, Henry, 2016. "The greener, the happier? The effect of urban land use on residential well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 117-127.
    15. Lohmann, Paul & Pondorfer, Andreas & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2019. "Natural Hazards and Well-Being in a Small-Scale Island Society," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 344-353.
    16. Powdthavee, Nattavudh & Stutzer, Alois, 2014. "Economic Approaches to Understanding Change in Happiness," IZA Discussion Papers 8131, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Welsch, Heinz & Biermann, Philipp, 2016. "Measuring nuclear power plant externalities using life satisfaction data: A spatial analysis for Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 98-111.
    18. Wen Xin & Russell Smyth, 2010. "Economic Openness and Subjective Well‐being in China," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 18(2), pages 22-40, March.
    19. Smyth, Russell & Mishra, Vinod & Qian, Xiaolei, 2008. "The Environment and Well-Being in Urban China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 547-555, December.
    20. Stavros Drakopoulos, 2008. "The paradox of happiness: towards an alternative explanation," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 303-315, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:139:y:2022:i:c:s1389934122000351. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.