IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i12p5269-d1673839.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Net-Sufficiency Evaluation Method Focusing on Product Functions Based on the Living-Sphere Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Hideki Kobayashi

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Osaka, Suita 565-0871, Japan)

  • Ryotaro Kaji

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Osaka, Suita 565-0871, Japan)

  • Hidenori Murata

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Osaka, Suita 565-0871, Japan)

Abstract

We are living in a world filled with artifacts, including daily-use and durable products. In the context of sustainable consumption and production (SCP), the term “sufficiency” is an essential keyword. The concept of sufficiency is important for grasping the overall contribution of product functions to the fulfillment of human needs in terms of social sustainability. Sufficiency is also understood to be a necessary component for reducing the environmental impact of daily-use and durable products on the natural environment. Therefore, sufficiency is regarded as a key factor in promoting environmental sustainability. Generally, a product itself is not as essential as the functions it provides to the user. However, product functions have not only positive aspects that satisfy human needs, but also negative aspects that do not. Most existing methods for assessing the satisfaction of human needs are based on direct approaches, such as life satisfaction surveys, which do not take product functions into account. In the previous study, we proposed a living-sphere approach that integrates the traditional engineering design framework with Max-Neef’s framework of needs, relating product functions to fundamental human needs. In Max-Neef’s framework, a key concept is the “satisfier,” which refers to a conceptual method of satisfying universal human needs; however, this concept varies according to regional or local circumstances, such as culture, climate, and history. This study proposes a method to evaluate net sufficiency, which is the overall impact of product functions, both positive and negative, on fulfilling fundamental human needs. Through introducing not only a satisfier that fulfills but also a barrier that obstructs fundamental human needs, it is possible to comprehensively evaluate the degree to which a product’s functions fulfill such needs. Two case studies from Osaka and Hanoi were carried out independently, showing that the proposed method enables comprehensive evaluation of the net sufficiency of meeting fundamental needs in terms of the positive and negative aspects of product functions.

Suggested Citation

  • Hideki Kobayashi & Ryotaro Kaji & Hidenori Murata, 2025. "Net-Sufficiency Evaluation Method Focusing on Product Functions Based on the Living-Sphere Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-26, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:12:p:5269-:d:1673839
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/12/5269/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/12/5269/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tim Cooper, 2005. "Slower Consumption Reflections on Product Life Spans and the “Throwaway Society”," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 9(1‐2), pages 51-67, January.
    2. Van de Kerk, Geurt & Manuel, Arthur R., 2008. "A comprehensive index for a sustainable society: The SSI -- the Sustainable Society Index," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 228-242, June.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Valette-Florence, Pierre, 1998. "A Causal Analysis of Means-End Hierarchies in a Cross-Cultural Context: Methodological Refinements," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 161-166, June.
    5. Yoshinori Kobayashi & Hideki Kobayashi & Akinori Hongu & Kiyoshi Sanehira, 2005. "A Practical Method for Quantifying Eco‐efficiency Using Eco‐design Support Tools," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 9(4), pages 131-144, October.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Alan B. Krueger, 2006. "Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 3-24, Winter.
    7. Walker, Beth A. & Olson, Jerry C., 1991. "Means-end chains: Connecting products with self," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 111-118, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Senik, Claudia, 2009. "Direct evidence on income comparisons and their welfare effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 408-424, October.
    2. Hong, Yan-Zhen & Su, Yi-Ju & Chang, Hung-Hao, 2023. "Analyzing the relationship between income and life satisfaction of Forest farm households - a behavioral economics approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Caporale, Guglielmo Maria & Georgellis, Yannis & Tsitsianis, Nicholas & Yin, Ya Ping, 2009. "Income and happiness across Europe: Do reference values matter?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 42-51, February.
    5. Adam S. Tuzolele Mbuku, 2024. "Evolution of the concept of Homo Economicus in light of advances in Neuroeconomics: towards a more realistic model of economic decision-making [Evolution du concept de l'Homo Economicus à la lumièr," Post-Print hal-04564775, HAL.
    6. Martí­n Leites & Xavier Ramos, 2017. "The effect of relative concern on life satisfaction: Relative deprivation and loss aversion," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 17-18, Instituto de Economía - IECON.
    7. Diriwaechter, Patric & Shvartsman, Elena, 2018. "The anticipation and adaptation effects of intra- and interpersonal wage changes on job satisfaction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 116-140.
    8. Alberto Prati & Claudia Senik, 2024. "Is It Possible to Raise National Happiness?," PSE Working Papers halshs-04850502, HAL.
    9. Andrew E. Clark & Paul Frijters & Michael A. Shields, 2006. "Income and happiness: Evidence, explanations and economic implications," PSE Working Papers halshs-00590436, HAL.
    10. Anna MAFFIOLETTI & Michele SANTONI, 2007. "Emotions, competence and confidence in choice under uncertainty," Departmental Working Papers 2007-31, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    11. Kip Viscusi, W. & Gayer, Ted, 2016. "Rational Benefit Assessment for an Irrational World: Toward a Behavioral Transfer Test1," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 69-91, April.
    12. repec:ipg:wpaper:2014-572 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier l'Haridon & Corina Paraschiv, 2013. "Is There One Unifying Concept of Utility?An Experimental Comparison of Utility Under Risk and Utility Over Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(9), pages 2153-2169, September.
    14. Linnea Polgreen & Nicole Simpson, 2011. "Happiness and International Migration," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 819-840, October.
    15. Friedrich Heinemann & Michael Förg & Eva Jonas & Eva Traut‐Mattausch, 2008. "Psychologische Restriktionen wirtschaftspolitischer Reformen," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 9(4), pages 383-404, November.
    16. Claudia Senik & Andrew E. Clark, 2007. "La croissance rend-elle heureux ? La réponse des données subjectives," PSE Working Papers halshs-00588314, HAL.
    17. Debora Princepe & Onofrio Mazzarisi & Erol Akcay & Simon A. Levin & Matteo Marsili, 2025. "The pursuit of happiness," Papers 2506.10537, arXiv.org.
    18. Yoshiro Tsutsui & Fumio Ohtake, 2011. "Asking About Changes in Happiness in a Daily Web Survey," ISER Discussion Paper 0813, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka.
    19. Pierce, Lamar & Rogers, Todd & Snyder, Jason A., 2015. "Losing Hurts: The Happiness Impact of Partisan Electoral Loss," Working Paper Series rwp14-051, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    20. Tubadji, Annie & Huang, Haoran & Webber, Don J, 2021. "Cultural proximity bias in AI-acceptability: The importance of being human," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    21. Ulrik Berggren & Carmelo D’Agostino & Helena Svensson & Karin Brundell-Freij, 2022. "Intrapersonal variability in public transport path choice due to changes in service reliability," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(6), pages 1517-1547, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:12:p:5269-:d:1673839. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.