Comparison of Japan and OECD Countries in Terms of Well-Being Resources

Ince, Fatma

doi:10.35784/preko.3945

Ten serwis zostanie wyłączony 2025-02-11.

Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Artykuł - szczegóły

Czasopismo

Problemy Ekorozwoju

2023 | Vol. 18, nr 2 | 78--85

Tytuł artykułu

Comparison of Japan and OECD Countries in Terms of Well-Being Resources

Autorzy

Ince, Fatma

Treść / Zawartość

Pełne teksty:

Pobierz

Warianty tytułu

Porównanie Japonii i krajów OECD pod względem zasobów związanych z dobrostanem

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

While evaluating the concept of well-being for sustainability, which is defined as the feeling of having the physical and psychological resources necessary for a good life, it is essential to benefit from different perspectives referring to socio-psychological factors or their possible effects as well as financial and economic data. The aim of this study, which deals with the well-being level in terms of sustainability resources, is to evaluate the OECD countries and examine the differences and similarities in Japan, one of the G8 countries. According to the results of the multidimensional scaling analysis conducted for this purpose, Japan is in the same cluster as Luxembourg, which has the highest positive value, while Germany is one of the countries with the highest rate of divergence from other G8 countries in the difference matrix.

Oceniając koncepcję dobrostanu pod kątem zrównoważoności, którą definiuje się jako poczucie posiadania zasobów fizycznych i psychicznych niezbędnych do dobrego życia, istotne jest skorzystanie z różnych perspektyw odnoszących się do czynników społeczno-psychologicznych lub ich możliwych skutków a także danych finansowych i gospodarczych. Przeprowadzona analiza umożliwiła na wskazanie poziomu dobrobytu pod względem zrównoważonych zasobów w krajach OECD, a także określenie różnic i podobieństw pomiędzy tymi państwami a Japonią, jednym z krajów grupy G8. Zgodnie z wynikami analizy skalowania wielowymiarowego Japonia znajduje się w tym samym klastrze co mający najwyższą wartość dodatnią Luksemburg, podczas gdy Niemcy należą do jednego z krajów o najwyższym wskaźniku rozbieżności w stosunku do innych państwo G8 w macierzy różnic.

Słowa kluczowe

dobrostan ochrona socjalna kapitał naturalny zrównoważony rozwój OECD G8 MDS Japonia

well-being social protection natural capital sustainability OECD MDS Japan

Wydawca

Czasopismo

Problemy Ekorozwoju

Rocznik

2023

Tom

Vol. 18, nr 2

Strony

78--85

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 32 poz., fig., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Ince, Fatma

Mersin University, Turkey (Turcja), fatma_ince@yahoo.com

Bibliografia

1. ALDABBAS M., TEUFEL S., TEUFEL B., SPYCHER J., 2022, Forecasting the Quality of Life in a Future Smart Society, the Case of Switzerland, International Journal of Social Science and Humanity 12(2): 107-112, https://doi.org/10.18178/ ijssh.2022.12.2.1075. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18178/ijssh.2022.V12.1075
2. AYDAN S., BAYIN-DONAR G., ARIKAN C., 2022, Impacts of Economic Freedom, Health, and Social Expenditures on Well-Being Measured by the Better Life Index in OECD Countries, Social Work in Public Health 37(5): 435-447, https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2021.2018083. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2021.2018083
3. BÉRENGER V., VERDIER-CHOUCHANE A., 2007, Multidimensional Measures of Well-Being: Standard of Living and Quality of Life Across Countries, World Development 35(7): 1259-1276, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.10.011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.10.011
4. BRZEZIŃSKA J., 2022, A Study on the OECD Better Life Index Using Multivariate Statistical Analysis, Argumenta Oeconomica 1(48): 235-245, https://doi.org/10.15611/aoe.2022.1.10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15611/aoe.2022.1.10
5. BUJA A., SWAYNE D. F., LITTMAN M. L., DEAN N., HOFMANN H., CHEN L., 2008, Data Visualization with Multidimensional Scaling, Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 17(2): 444-472, https://doi.org/10.1198/106186008X318440. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1198/106186008X318440
6. FINK J., DUCOING C., 2022, Does Natural Resource Extraction Compromise Future Well-Being? Norwegian Genuine Savings, 1865-2018, The Extractive Industries and Society 10112: 1-15,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2022.101127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2022.101127
7. GONZÁLEZ-CARRASCO M., VAQUÉ C., MALO S., CROUS G., CASAS F., FIGUER C., 2019, A Qualitative Longitudinal Study on the Well-Being of Children and Adolescents, Child Indicators Research 12(2): 479-499, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-018-9534-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-018-9534-7
8. HANSEN T., SLAGSVOLD B., 2012, The Age and Subjective Well-Being Paradox Revisited: A Multidimensional Perspective, Norsk Epidemiologi 22(2), https://doi.org/10.5324/nje.v22i2.1565. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5324/nje.v22i2.1565
9. HAQ S., 2003, Future of the G-8, Strategic Studies 23(3): 168-186, http://www.jstor.org/stable/45242486.
10. HECK G., HESS S., 2017, Tracing the Effects of the EU-Turkey Deal Movements, Journal for Critical Migration and Border Regime Studies 3(2): 35-56.
11. HENDERSON K., LOREAU M., 2023, A Model of Sustainable Development Goals: Challenges and Opportunities in Promoting Human Well-Being and Environmental Sustainability, Ecological Modelling 475: 110164, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2022.110164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2022.110164
12. HOUT M. C., PAPESH M. H., GOLDINGER S. D., 2013, Multidimensional Scaling, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 4(1): 93-103, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1203
13. INCE F., 2020, The Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Workforce in Turkey, Smart Journal 6(32): 1125-1134, https://doi.org/10.31576/smryj.546. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31576/smryj.546
14. INCE F., 2023, Digital Transformation and Well-Being, Digital Psychology’s Impact on Business and Society, eds. Anshari M., Razzaq A., Fithriyah M., Kamal A.N., IGI Global, https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-6108-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-6108-2
15. JAPANESE RED CROSS SOCIETY, 2022, Social Well-being Services: Annual Report of 2020-2021, https:// www.jrc.or.jp/english/activity/well-being/ (09.08.2022).
16. KORONAKOS G., SMIRLIS Y., SOTIROS D., DESPOTIS D.K., 2022, The OECD Better Life Index: A Guide for Well-Being Based Economic Diplomacy, Modern Indices for International Economic Diplomacy, eds. Charles V., Emrouznejad A., Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84535-3_2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84535-3_2
17. LAWRENCE J., ARIETTA S., KAZHDAN M., LEPAGE D., O’HAGAN C., 2010, A User-Assisted Approach to Visualizing Multidimensional Images, IEEE transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 17(10): 1487-1498, https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2010.229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2010.229
18. LIBERATI P., RESCE G., 2022, Regional Well-Being and Its Inequality in the OECD Member Countries, The Journal of Economic Inequality 20: 671-700, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-021-09521-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-021-09521-7
19. NAKAJIMA H., MORITA A., KANAMORI S., AIDA J., FUJIWARA T., 2022, The frequency of job participation and well-being of older people in Japan: Results from JAGES study, Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 104720: 1-10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2022.104720. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2022.104720
20. NETO F., 2023, Brazilian International Students’ Satisfaction with Migration Life in Portugal, Journal of International Students 13(2), https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v13i2.4782. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v13i2.4782
21. NISHAAT A., 2022, Understanding the Concepts of Subjective Well-being and Psychological Well-being, The Bulletin of the Graduate School, Soka University 43: 99-108, http://hdl.handle.net/10911/00040868.
22. NOWAK-OLEJNIK A., SCHIRPKE U., TAPPEINER U., 2022, A Systematic Review on Subjective Well-Being Benefits ssociated with Cultural Ecosystem Services, Ecosystem Services, 57: 101467, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101467. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101467
23. OECD, 2022, Resources for Future Well-being, https://stats.oecd.org/ (09.08.2022).
24. PATEL S. R., BAKKEN S., RULAND C., 2008, Recent Advances in Shared Decision Making for Mental Health, Current Opinion in Psychiatry 21(6): 606-612, https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0b013e32830eb6b4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0b013e32830eb6b4
25. SAEEDN., NAM H., HAQ M. I. U., MUHAMMAD-SAQIB D. B., 2018, A Survey on Multidimensional Scaling, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 51(3): 1-25, https://doi.org/10.1145/3178155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3178155
26. SALOM-PÉREZ R., WULTSCH C., ADAMS J. R., SOTO-FOURNIER S., GUTIÉRREZ-ESPELETA G. A., WAITS L. P., 2022, Genetic Diversity and Population Structure for Ocelots (Leopardus Pardalis) in Costa Rica, Journal of Mammalogy 103(1): 68-81, https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyab146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyab146
27. SRIVASTAVA S., CHAUHAN S., MUHAMMAD T., SIMON D. J., KUMAR P., PATEL R., SINGH S. K., 2021, Older Adults’ Psychological and Subjective Well-Being as a Function of Household Decision Making Role: Evidence from Cross-Sectional Survey in India, Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health 10: 100676, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cegh.2020.100676. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cegh.2020.100676
28. SUN J., CROWE M., FYFE C., 2011, Extending Metric Multidimensional Scaling with Bregman Divergences, Pattern Recognition 44(5): 1137-1154, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2010.11.013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2010.11.013
29. TAKAHASHI T., ASANO S., UCHIDA Y., TAKEMURA K., FUKUSHIMA S., MATSUSHITA K., OKUDA N., 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 139: 102723, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102723. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102723
30. UN, 2022, The 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals, New York, https://sdgs.un.org/goals.
31. WILLIAMS M., MUNZNER T., 2004, Steerable, Progressive Multidimensional Scaling, IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization: 57-64, Texas, USA, https://doi.org/10.1109/INFVIS.2004.60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/INFVIS.2004.60
32. ZAND M. S., WANG J., HILCHEY S., 2015, Graphical Representation of Proximity Measures for Multidimensional Data: Classical and Metric Multidimensional Scaling, The Mathematica Journal 17(7): 1-61, https://doi.org/10.3888/tmj. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3888/tmj.17-7

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.35784/preko.3945

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-66f80dcf-c203-43fc-a65a-0c08846da992