Skip to main content

This page has been translated using TexTra by NICT. Please note that the translation may not be completely accurate.
If you find any mistranslations, we appreciate your feedback on the "Request form for improving the automatic translation ".

Second meeting of the Study Group on the Promotion of the Use of Vision for a Digital Garden City Nation Well-Being Indicators for the Realization of area

Overview

  • Date and time: Thursday, March 30, 2023 from 3:00 pm to 4:30 pm
  • Location: Online
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Proceedings
      1. Toward the Promotion of Utilization of local governments Well-Being Indicators in area
      2. Status of efforts in each local governments
        • Sarabetsu-mura, Hokkaido
        • Kibichuo-cho, Okayama
        • Mitoyo City, Kagawa
    3. Exchange of opinions

Materials

References

Minutes

Moderator (Suzuki): Mr. Sarabetsu-mura . I'm Digital Agency.

It is 3 o'clock on time, so I would like to start.

First of all, I would like to give you a note of caution. Everyone in local government who is participating, I am sorry to say that everyone in local government who is not a presenting organization, please turn off the camera and microphone.

I am For the public Group Digital Agency, and I am in charge of Digita. I will be the moderator today.

From now on, we will hold the 2nd "Study Group on the Promotion of the Use of Vision for a Digital Garden City Nation Well-Being Indicators for the Realization of area."

Today, the selected organizations are also in attendance, but the selected organizations other than the presenters are only in attendance, so please make sure that no sound is heard. Please make sure that everyone in the local government other than the presenters turns off their cameras and microphones.

First of all, Mr. Murakami, Director-General of For the public Group Affairs, Digital Agency, would like to say a few words.

Director Murakami: Thank you, , I would like to say a few words. Thank you very much for taking your time today.

Today, I would like to report on the business and survey plans for this fiscal year, and I would like to hear your frank opinions on the direction of the next fiscal year. Thank you very much.

That's all.

Moderator (Suzuki): Mr. Sarabetsu-mura : Thank you very much.

First of all, I would like to ask Chairman Maeno to proceed with the proceedings from here on. Chairman Maeno, thank you very much.

Chairman: . Thank you very much for gathering today, all of the adopting organizations, all of the presenting organizations, and all of the experts. I look forward to lively discussions.

Then, number 1 is "Toward the Promotion of the Use of local governments Happiness Indicators in area."

Moderator (Suzuki): Mr. Sarabetsu-mura I will explain based on the materials.

First of all, on page 2, which is the page on what we have been cherishing so far in our efforts, this page describes the discussions so far on the area Happiness Indicator. Originally, I should have explained it at the first meeting held in December, but I apologize for this time. Prior to the launch of the Study Group, we conducted four discussions in cooperation with experts and relevant ministries and agencies over a period of six months, and the Study Group was launched.

There are three main points that I have placed importance on based on our deliberations and discussions thus far.

The first is that this project will not wait for the finished product, but will start anyway.

Second, while aiming to utilize it in many local government and areas, pay sufficient attention to the fact that it will not be ranked. In addition, it should be developed together with workshops in order to make it a tool to engage citizens.

The third point was that indicators should not be used once and never used again, but should constantly evolve and improve.

Regarding indicators, we are proceeding with a structure of objective indicators and subjective indicators based on the LWC indicators based on your knowledge. Page 15 of today's materials summarizes our efforts so far, so I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it.

Page 3 is about the setting of a simplified version of the questionnaire. At the previous review meeting, I explained that there were shades of gray in local government's efforts to conduct the questionnaire, and I received your opinions. After consulting with Commissioner Nagumo, we set up a simplified version in Digital Agency and promoted the implementation of the questionnaire in local government. As a result, on the right side of page 3, the number of organizations conducting the questionnaire increased from 11 in October to 24, of which 14 utilized the simplified version, and all organizations conducted the questionnaire in Basic local government.

On the next page, there is a list of the implementation status of the questionnaire by the Type2/3 selected organizations. The announcement status on the far right has not been confirmed by the people of local government, so please understand that it may be slightly different from the current status. I think it was difficult to conduct the questionnaire in parallel with the efforts toward the start of the digital TV service in each local government, but we asked them to conduct the questionnaire. This fiscal year, we asked them to conduct the questionnaire in a way that is easy for the people of local government to do.

In particular, I am sorry to have mentioned your name, but Yamanashi Prefecture, which said it would not be implemented as of October, showed a simplified version, and immediately implemented it. As will be introduced later, we are accelerating and promoting efforts such as converting the results of the questionnaire into open data.

In addition, Hiroshima Prefecture, which is listed in the margin, has not been implemented this fiscal year, but at present, we are considering implementing it in the next fiscal year.

Next, on page 5, local government, which conducted the questionnaire, submitted the raw data of the questionnaire, and with the cooperation of Mr. Nagumo, we have realized visualization on the Well-Being Indicator Site. I would like you to visit the site when you have time, but in addition to the results for each local government, the results for each district in local government can also be visualization. A picture is posted below, but if you select the local government selection panel and then select the address panel, you can grasp the characteristics of each district even in the same local government as in the picture on the right.

Next is page 6. This is a summary of the disclosure status of each local government. In addition to posting the results of the questionnaire on the prefecture's website, Yamanashi Prefecture has published the results in CSV format on the data catalog site. Aizuwakamatsu City and Hamamatsu City are promoting various advanced initiatives, and the results are published in a comprehensive manner.

Next, on pages 7 and 8, I would like to explain the content that I would like you to discuss today.

First of all, please take a look at page 7. It is about the voices from the local government where the questionnaire was conducted and what we can see from them.

First, in order to reduce the burden of answers, Digital Agency, which conducted the survey before local government presented the simplified version, said that it is necessary to carefully examine the number of questions. I believe that this point could be resolved to some extent by releasing the simplified version.

Second, as I have shown in the list on page 4, the method of conducting the questionnaire and the method of taking samples vary from local government to Issue, so strictly speaking, it is difficult to make a comparison in some local government. In addition, in order to compare the results in time series, it is necessary to continue to conduct the survey using the same method, and there is the point of how far we should go in showing the people of Okinawa the minimum commonality, such as the unification of the questionnaire items, the method of conducting the survey, and the method of taking samples.

Third, regarding the publication of measurement results, analysis, etc., we are currently requesting the cooperation of all adopting organizations, but at present, only some local government are implementing it. We are wondering whether it is necessary to prepare a unified tool.

This is the next page. The details of the function will be finalized from now on, but we are planning to launch a new index site around the winter of fiscal 2023. In the current site, you can use the index by downloading Excel and using it manually. In addition, Excel comes with a macro, so it is not possible to download it in local government. In addition, there is no upload function for the survey results at present, so it will be a little difficult to use it if you submit the raw data of the survey to Digital Agency.

In the new site, we would like to support this area with a system so that we can reduce manual work. In addition, by maintaining My Page on a user-by-user basis, it is not possible to compare indicators of other local government on the screen on the current site, but we would like to make it possible to compare with any area on My Page, and to reflect dynamic data update so that periodic monitoring is possible. Regarding questionnaires, we would like to consider adding a function that can conduct questionnaires on the site.

On page 9, I would like to list seven points for today's discussion.

First, as Mr. Nagumo explained later, how should the questionnaire be improved?

Second, how should we proceed with training on the analysis of results for employees of local government, which is mainly promoting the utilization of the results?

Third, how should we proceed with measurement and analysis for the utilization of indicators in areas that span more than one local government in line with the actual living conditions of citizens?

Fourth, I would like all local government that are working on digital TV to eventually utilize the Well-Being Indicator. What measures should be taken?

Fifth, at the beginning of this fiscal year, we did not have data for each prefecture, which was inconvenient. In addition, there were cases where extreme figures were obtained in a small local government. I have heard that SCIJ is already working on improvements in this area, but how should we proceed with this?

Sixth, what rules should be required for the disclosure of data, such as the source of citations and the date and time of acquisition of data?

Seventh, should the tools for public announcement be developed in a unified manner, and in what form should they be sought?
In addition, from page 10 onwards, for reference, we have attached materials on the status of adoption and continuation of the fiscal 2022 amendment, Digita Issue, Digital implementation Type, Type2, Type3, TypeX, and X, which are My Number Card use and horizontal deployment case creation type.

That is the explanation of Material 2. Seven points of discussion or other points are also fine. I would like you to discuss them. Thank you.

Director Murakami: Thank you, , I would like to add a few words.

Please go back to page 9. It is as Suzuki explained the whole in an easy-to-understand manner, but I would like you to pick up the points of discussion from here, including a rough impression.

First of all, regarding the questionnaire, we proposed a simplified version last time due to our hardship, and as a result of your understanding, we have decided that all of them have been completed except for two prefectures that could not be implemented due to special circumstances. Thank you very much for your understanding.

However, as I mentioned in the middle of my presentation, I would like to ask if it is necessary to improve these 40 questions further. This is in relation to the questions that Mr. Nagumo will ask later. As mentioned in the second comment from the field, I would like to ask if you could recommend an efficient method, including how to prepare samples, considering the comparison between local government and time series. I would like to ask for your advice.

In addition, although it may not be every year, I have not given up on the full-version-based survey that you originally proposed, so I would like to consult with you about how to use them selectively. This is my first major point.

We summarized it in the form of training on analytical methods. However, rather than the fact that people in area who use this tool are familiar with this tool and that indicators will eventually be produced, our position is that we value the idea of a vision and the creation of a community using indicators. We have already received a lot of cooperation in workshops and other opportunities this fiscal year, but I believe that we need to continue to discuss not only the brushing up of survey methods, but also the results of analyses and the creation of a community using them.

The reason why it is written that we will respond to an area that spans multiple regions is that, in terms of transportation, whether in medical care or education, in order to create services that support sustainable living, it will probably be impossible to have different business operators in each local government. In that sense, although it has been a point of contention for a long time in terms of re-creating the service industry that supports life through design revitalization, we would like to value it as a tool for creating a community that spans multiple regions. Whether it is limited to a part of the local government or expanded across multiple regions, it is the first year, and we started with the local government local government. How will we proceed with this? local government

At the same time, it is somewhat difficult for us to ask the organizations that have adopted Type2/3 to do all of this, but we are also considering how to expand it, including the TypeX organization that Mr. Suzuki explained earlier.

In the latter three areas, there are data-quality issues, and I believe that there will be discussions on how to check them, what to do with the missing data in the case of a small-scale local government, and how to conduct the survey on a prefecture-by-prefecture basis, assuming that the prefecture is a prefecture and that the survey should be conducted in the areas that are featured by the prefecture, since the survey was not automatically conducted on a prefecture-by-prefecture basis and thus the prefectures had quite a lot of trouble. In the case of a basic local government, it is relatively close to the community of people's lives, but how to think about the survey on a prefecture-by-prefecture basis, whether the survey should be conducted on a prefecture-by-prefecture basis, and whether the survey should be conducted in the areas that are featured by the prefecture.

In addition, I think it is necessary to make the data public, including the results of the questionnaire. In order to connect it to research activities based on open data in the future, it is necessary to properly maintain the source of the data, the date and time of acquisition of the data, the format of the data itself, and other matters from the beginning. In fact, we did not make much effort last time, so it is necessary to do such things. In relation to that, there are places where it is necessary to make it public at the end, so at present, even in the list explained by Suzuki, there are more undecided places than planned. I believe that Suzuki will continue to call and ask him to do this.

On the other hand, even if we are suddenly asked to make it public, many people in local government probably do not know what to do and how to make it public. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Yamanashi, who was supposed to make a simple version of the report until the very last minute, made a very good page at once. It was a very impressive event that he jumped out to the front group at once. If we are to ask a wider area again, how is it important to recommend that the report be made public first, including assistance in making the report public? It is not necessary to discuss all of them, but I believe that this is the representative point that must be discussed for next fiscal year.

Either from here or from outside, I would like to have comments on each issue during the free discussion time later.

It was a supplement. That's all.

Mr. Maeno, I will give it back to you. Material 2 is over.

Chairman: Thank you for your comments.

So, in accordance with the proceedings, do you have any comments on the current situation? Is it okay to exchange opinions?

Moderator (Suzuki): Mr. Sarabetsu-mura Please do so.

Chairman: , is it correct to understand that Number 1 is finished? Would you like to join Number 2?

Moderator (Suzuki): Mr. Sarabetsu-mura , but Dr. Nagumo will give an explanation based on Material 3.

Member Nagumo: . Based on Issue, which was mentioned at the previous meeting, we have been conducting various discussions on how to make the questionnaire a little more user-friendly. In doing so, I would like to hear the opinions of Mr. Maeno, Mr. Uchida, and Mr. Sasao, who are the owners of the questionnaire, and Mr. Shirasaka and Mr. Isikawa, who have been working with us since early times. In addition, I would like to hear the opinions of Hamamatsu and Kakogawa City, which are the leading examples, and we are now at a point where we can achieve this level. I would like to hear your opinions on whether we can use this as the standard for next fiscal year.

What was Issue? I would like you to take a look at the ponte picture you are looking at now. First of all, we prepared a fairly full set of 160 questions. On top of that, we asked Mr. local government to choose the one he wanted to use. However, without someone from the authority saying that it would be fine, the local government staff could not say enough about how many dozens of questions we would like to use. As a result, we took a questionnaire that included most of the 160 questions in the local government Public Awareness Survey, which has been conducted since the past, and the results showed that there were too many questions overall. This is the first Issue. So, my first point is whether we can somehow create a standard type and few questions that can relatively guarantee continuity with the previous questionnaires.

The second point is that it was fine up to the third level, but there is no continuity between the categories of the objective indicators, the subjective indicators, and the categories of the questionnaires from each teacher. Therefore, it is necessary to statistically process which ones are connected, what is connected between the movement and traffic of the objective indicators and Dr. Maeno's, and what is connected to Dr. Uchida's. However, it is difficult to do a statistical analysis, so the second major Issue is whether it is possible to make the subjective and objective indicators continuous well.

The third point is that prefectural governments have appeared, and although we did not expect this, Issue has come up with the idea that they must be able to use the prefectural version properly.

After this, I will talk about the countermeasures. But before that, ActiveQoL is still in the demonstration stage, so I would like to temporarily put it off from the standard version of next year, and make it an optional version that you can do it if you want to do it.

In addition, in Sensus City, when I took various questionnaires, I found that there was a great correlation between feeling the city, feeling nature, and being able to walk, but it is not an immediate Well-Being, so I would like to make this an optional simplification.

So, in terms of what kind of form it will be, I made a standard form of 50 questions. This is based on Professor Maeno and Professor Uchida, and I managed to make a compromise so that the subjective and objective are consistent. The category will be increased to 24, but a unified model can be made.

Last time, we conducted a unified nationwide survey of 34000 people. The full-spec version will be conducted once every three years at the smart cities Institute. So, in the last survey, we received suggestions from everyone that it is better to do such a big one on a regular basis. So, that will be guaranteed, and the standard version will be conducted every year with Digita local government Fund at each Issue. The full-spec version will be conducted once every three years at the smart cities Institute.

In addition, we have begun to create a prefectural version. First of all, we have found that objective data will be collected that is almost equivalent to basic local government. Therefore, although it is not the same, it is expected that we will be able to prepare a version in the same category. In terms of subjectivity, as Mr. Murakami said earlier, it may be an individual judgment as to what unit should be used for the entire prefecture, or should only be used for a part of the prefecture that has a smart cities. At present, we have a mesh structure in which we can conduct a questionnaire by postal code district, so I think we will guarantee only the function to add up the questionnaire to a wider area.

As for the last point, many people are cooperating with me, but I think capacity building will be essential. I do a lot of workshops, but depending on who does it, there are workshops that are only individual Well-Being workshops, and there are workshops that are not. So, I will show you a standard format and ask you to localize it and use it. I think it is necessary to guarantee that the process and outcome are somewhat similar.

In addition, there are people who play various roles, such as open data evangelists and area informatization advisors, and I would like to obtain an agreement here that it is necessary to launch a education Training Program within the next fiscal year to develop human resources who can nurture local champions by utilizing the functions of these people, and I would like to start working on that.

I would also like you to see what can be done with visuals. It is like this. The categories match in terms of subjective and objective, 24. So, it is easy to understand what is connected from the bottom. What is meant by combining categories is that there is only one spider chart. Now, there are four spider chart items in terms of subjective and one spider chart item in terms of objective, and Issue has to think about what needs to be done in local government by looking at them. This is a big burden, so I would like to simplify it by making it appear that subjective and objective are overlapped on one item.

I would like to talk about what questions will be left in the 50 questions. In the top layer, how happy are you now? Then, the happiness of area. Then, whether people around you are also feeling happy, and the satisfaction level of life in area. These are secured in the form of questions in the top layer, and two questions are asked in each of the 24 categories you saw earlier. I am very sorry that it is difficult to see, but the parts written in green letters are from Dr. Maeno's original questionnaire, the parts written in ochre are from Dr. Uchida's questions, and some parts are very similar, so I will match them with either of them.

The red part is a new question added to match the subjective and objective categories. Among the red ones, the ones shaded in yellow are originally questions that Dr. Maeno could have 90 questions before making 30 questions, and the results were given once in the preliminary survey. From there, we put them here. The blue ones are originally questions added by the smart cities Institute.

In this way, among Dr. Maeno's questionnaires, the red ones are used continuously from the previous one, the ochre ones are substituted for Dr. Uchida's questions as representative questions, the red ones are those in which Dr. Uchida's questions remain as they are, the green ones are those in which Dr. Maeno's questions are substituted, and the blue ones are just short questions because they are long. Among the smart cities Institute questions, this red one is left.

In order not to be separated, Mr. Maeno and Mr. Uchida's questions were originally structured into questions for each factor so that factor analysis could be performed. All of the factors are left. The green on the left side is Mr. Maeno and the orange is Mr. Uchida. The vertical part is the new category this time, and it is a star list. It does not matter which one you cut off, but Mr. Maeno's categories are all covered, and where they are mapped in the new category is arranged here.

We have also increased the number of objective indicators because we found out that there are some new ones. This is where the red letters are. We have found out about the administration of area, the blessings of nature, the increase in natural disasters, and the creation activity index of the relevant population. We have found out about the introduction of these, and we have increased the number of KPIs for reskilling such as lifelong learning. We have also added various KPIs for diversity.

First of all, I would like to try. This time, I have created a revised version from the perspective of improving the point that there are too many questions and taking it in the direction of creating the impact of the policy.

That's all from me.

Chairman: I know it has been difficult for you to make various adjustments, but thank you very much.

Can I go to 2 next?

Moderator (Suzuki): Mr. Sarabetsu-mura Please do so.

Chairman: , we will have three presentations, followed by an exchange of opinions.

Moderator (Suzuki): Mr. Sarabetsu-mura Please follow that flow.

Chairman: First of all, would you like to visit Sarabetsu-mura in Hokkaidō?

Sarabetsu-mura: This is Sarabetsu-mura, . I will talk about Sarabetsu-mura's efforts for about 5 minutes. I am Yagi of the Sarabetsu-mura Planning Policy Division. Nice to meet you.

Sarabetsu-mura is a small village in the Tokachi region of Hokkaidō. It is a village centered on agriculture. This year, it adopted Type3, and although it has been praised on the street for being a village that takes on challenges, there is a sense of crisis about whether Sarabetsu-mura can be maintained as it is.

As you can see in the table on the lower right, we have only about 17% of our own revenue sources in total from village taxes, usage fees, and fees. Amid a sense of crisis that the village will become what it is if things continue as they are, the current Issue is about the balance of policies, what we need to protect, and what we need to work on. This is published as public materials in Type3. I will omit this.

This is a Well-Being chart of Sarabetsu-mura. There are some items that we have not conducted a questionnaire on, so there are some missing parts. But in terms of medical care and health, I think our village is doing reasonably well, but in terms of shopping, we have found a tremendous number of minus 127. So, how do you shop? There is Obihiro City, which is a core city of Tokachi, and I have hypothesized that everyone is shopping there, and in fact, there are many people like that. In other words, purchases are decreasing, and money is flowing out of the village. However, I had a sense of it, but I have an image that it is being understood from this chart.

In terms of shopping, at the time of taking the Well-Being Questionnaire, the deviation value was very low, but the satisfaction level was not so low. Whether it was because we could get to Obihiro by car, which is about 30 minutes away, or because there are several convenience stores or small supermarkets, we have not yet been able to dig deeper into these areas, but we are currently working on such hypotheses.

I am putting it in the form of a summary. One of our policies is to operate a demand taxi. It costs nearly 10 million yen per year to maintain it, but the number of users is not increasing. By looking at whether this 10 million yen is connected to the happiness of the residents or not based on such indicators, we are considering whether it will lead to better service development in the future, whether it will lead to the improvement of the happiness of the villagers, and whether it will lead to the improvement of the dissatisfaction of the administration.

The main purpose of the administration is described in this article. We believe that the administration must continue to formulate policies by fusing the well-being of the villagers, communication and technology, and life balance. For this purpose, EBPM hopes to utilize the Well-Being Indicator as Sarabetsu-mura.

I'm sorry to say this so quickly, but that's all from Sarabetsu.

Chairman: : Thank you very much for your easy-to-understand presentation.
Then, please go to Kibichuo-cho, Okayama.

Kibichuo-cho: This is Kibichuo-cho, . Nice to meet you.
Now, I would like to introduce Kibichuo-cho's efforts.

First, I would like to give you a brief overview of Kibichuo-cho. Kibichuo-cho is located almost in the center of Okayama prefecture. It is a town in area in the mountains with a population of about 10,000. In addition, it has Kibi Kogen City, which aims to realize a prosperous social welfare based on the philosophy of respect for human beings and priority on welfare developed by Okayama prefecture.

Now, to introduce our efforts, this shows the ease of living and deviation value of area Issue in Tomachi based on area's external environments using national open data as objective indicators. The fields with low values are medical care and health, shopping, eating and drinking, mobility and transportation, and digital life.

Next, as a future image of area that we want to realize, with the vision of creating an engaging community that does not leave anyone behind, since the center is the residents, we aim to improve the well-being of the residents, and we are developing various services to solve area Issue through a single window.

Next, in terms of the overall outline of the project, with the goal of improving the well-being of residents, we aim to implementation business services using data connections infrastructure. In terms of the concept and outline of the utilization of Well-Being Indicator, in order to realize goal, we utilize Well-Being as an indicator to evaluate the well-being of residents, set a Well-Being Indicator as a Tomachi, and conduct survey and hearings with residents. Based on the extracted results, we will conduct hearings with related parties and residents, and comprehensively evaluate them together with the status of KPIs of each project, so that we can improve the specific measures of this project and promote more effective projects.

Next, regarding the structure and development process of the Well-Being Indicator Questionnaire, specific surveys and analyses are conducted based on the Well-Being Indicator as shown in the figure at the bottom left. In addition to surveys and analyses using objective data on the external environment and surveys and analyses using resident questionnaires, surveys and analyses on individual business services are conducted as a set. In addition to resident questionnaires, hearings and discussions are conducted to provide feedback on the survey results and to listen to the voices of residents. Based on the results, we will evaluate and plan businesses and take the next step toward resolving the area Issue issue. Therefore, I believe that one point is that we have systematized the relationship between the Well-Being Indicator for the area Issue and the KPI of business services, and that all of us are working on a common understanding toward achieving the target.

The following is a summary of the results of the Well-Being Survey. Similar to the results of the objective indicators, the results show that satisfaction with shopping, medical institutions, and public facilities is low in the category of convenience of life. This time, when we take a look at the satisfaction level not only in general but also in medical institutions by age and area, the results show that the satisfaction level of the younger generation is low. When we conducted a hearing on this, there were many opinions that it would be necessary to take measures such as taking a day off from work to take an elderly family to a hospital outside of town. I think one of the points will be how Issue will resolve this.

In addition, when looking at the results by region, the satisfaction level of the residents of Kibi Kogen City, where there are many immigrants from urban areas, tends to be low, and I think the results are convincing. In addition, we conducted a survey related to business services, and 86% of the respondents were positive about emergency DX, in which paramedics perform echo examinations under the guidance of doctors, and 63% were satisfied with the child-rearing environment in Tomachi, but some said they wanted to request specific improvements to hospitals and shopping. In addition, 64% of the respondents were positive about dental DX.

Up to here are the results of the questionnaire, but at the same time, we are conducting hearings and discussions with residents and providing feedback on the results of the questionnaire. As expected, the largest number of comments was made in the medical care and health fields, followed by comments on shopping, transportation, and so on. In addition to the questionnaire, we would like to collect and analyze specific areas of dissatisfaction as raw voices, and reflect them in our future business and service development.

Last but not least, in terms of the relationship between the results of the Well-Being Survey and the project measures, the Well-Being Survey is not just a survey. The public and private sectors of Tomachi are working together to discuss the results and lead to measures in the necessary project areas. Therefore, we would like to develop the PDCA cycle and lead to further improvement of the well-being of the residents.
That's all for the explanation. Thank you.

Chairman: : Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for coming to the third local government, Mitoyo City, Kagawa.

Mitoyo City: As you have appreciated in . Nice to meet you.

Then, I would like to explain about the promotion of the Mitoyo Basic Infrastructure Development Project using the Well-Being Indicator.

First of all, regarding Mitoyo City, it is a town with a population of about 60000 located in the western part of Kagawa Prefecture. Places such as Oyaga-hama and Mount Shiude, as you can see in the slide, are attracting attention nationwide, and many people are visiting there even now.

As for the process of enhancing Well-Being and our efforts for this fiscal year, we are conducting questionnaires and workshops in accordance with the LWC indicator utilization flow in cooperation with the Maeno Laboratory of Keio University. We analyzed the environmental factors of Mitoyo City and overviewed the characteristics of area. After that, we conducted a questionnaire for city public office employees, and conducted a questionnaire to evaluate each section of the city on 82 original items and to identify the accompanying policy measures.

Next, we will conduct a workshop to examine scenarios of area's well-being for city officials and citizens, and visualization and discuss the scenarios. After that, we will conduct a design of Mitoyo's Well-Being Indicators, extract questions related to factors important to area from more than 80 questions, and add our own questions to achieve the results of the basic infrastructure project.

As for the questionnaire for citizens, we conducted a survey of about 300 people. As a result, we confirmed that there is a tendency that there are more positive factors than the national average and the Kagawa average in general, and that younger generations have higher expectations for the future.

Next, regarding the utilization policy using Well-Being, Mitoyo City has created a logic tree to visualization the necessary measures and effects to improve the Well-Being of citizens. We are visualization what specific measures will change the lives of residents, how their conditions will change, and what the final impact of the administration will be. It is difficult to understand only with the previous figure, so we are also creating an image of the effects of the measures so that citizens can easily understand them.

In addition, we have created a Mitoyo Future Map that allows citizens and companies to confirm what Mitoyo wants to be in the future and the efforts to realize it. For example, Mitoyo City holds children's conferences and AI human resource education, and it summarizes what points will be improved by various efforts such as this, and what impact it will have on goal and area in area by continuing them. In short, by visualization of the efforts to realize goal in Mitoyo and the points to be improved, we are trying to build a mechanism that can manage, measure, and disclose the social impact of various efforts. By doing so, we are trying to build a mechanism that makes it easier for companies to invest and participate in area. For companies, it is a place of demonstration experiments due to new services, technologies, and competition, and the citizens of Mitoyo are aiming to improve their rich lives by receiving it.

In Mitoyo City, we will promote projects in the cooperation area more and more, but they will naturally require funds, so I would like to consider the structure of finance. Even if I say cooperation in a word, I think that cooperation that is as close to public assistance as possible, for example, in the areas of transportation, education, health, and nursing care, is close to public assistance. On the other hand, there are areas of cooperation that are close to self-help, so I would like to consider fund procurement that matches each pattern. Regarding the part that is exactly close to public assistance, I believe that we can make full use of the current corporate version of the Benefit-Your-Locality Hometown Tax tax system, so at the initial stage, I am thinking of developing businesses using the corporate version of the Benefit-Your-Locality Hometown Tax.

Finally, regarding the operation of the data connections base, in Mitoyo City, where the The Legend of Urashima Taro is located, we have named the data connections base Tamatebako, and we are planning to utilize it to provide cooperation among multiple services necessary for residents to continue to live in prosperity. We will call the services that support the lives of citizens basic infrastructure, and from next fiscal year we will develop and implementation services in the area of mutual assistance. Based on the business data obtained there and the results of the Well-Being Survey, we will formulate policies or disclose them to the public, thereby promoting investment in area and enriching the well-being of residents.

That's all for the announcement from Mitoyo City.

Chairman: : Thank you very much.
Now it's time for an exchange of ideas.

Moderator (Suzuki): Mr. Sarabetsu-mura Committee who wish to speak, please press the show of hands button. Thank you very much.

Chairman: : Mr. Maeno Ohta, please.

Mr. Ohta: I believe that various wisdom has been generated by reducing the number of . Thank you very much.

When I heard the presentations by the three organizations, I thought again that it would be wonderful if there were indicators. Because each situation is different, the way it is used is different, but I have a feeling that area will change if there are indicators like this, so I thought it was a really good example.

I am not an expert on indicators, but I am accompanying the users. At present, about 10 organizations, including the Digita project, are helping them. The key to what I have learned is the vision and community that Mr. Murakami mentioned. I think it is very easy to think about a vision when there are indicators like this. However, it is of course good to discuss a vision because there are indicators and Digita, but there are quite a few that are doing it as their own initiative.

For example, Gunma prefecture, where I am working as an advisor, has a vision from 2021 to 2040, and is conducting a Well-Being Survey there. Mr. Uchida was interviewed in the first survey and gave me various advice, but I also conducted a survey in 2022. Because of such efforts, the Type2 mobility project is conducting design using the results of the survey. In addition, I am also involved in Toyama Prefecture, and I am conducting a fixed point survey of Well-Being.

There is a possibility that such a point is made by incorporating indicators into existing efforts. Both Gunma and Toyama have sustainability in the perspective of Well-Being for future generations. I think this is quite good, and since there is such a good point, I think it would be good if both of them are merged well. When design the next survey, Gunma prefecture has a lot of wisdom in LWC indicators, so it would be good if it could incorporate that wisdom into the survey it is conducting now. The same applies to Toyama prefecture and others.

When we can do that more and more, indicators will really spread, and at that time, how much it is necessary to be able to make horizontal comparisons between area by strictly combining definitions and so on. I would like to understand whether it is good to be able to make comparisons because researchers are participating in this working, or it may be good to be able to make comparisons within a certain range, and there may be gradation.

In terms of the community, I think it is very good that more than 1,000 organizations are engaged in the Digita project. However, while the government is working hard, other stakeholders are not so proactive. Therefore, I think it would be good if there would be more workshops in which children, residents, companies, and social cooperatives are proactively involved, and workshops in which independence and community activities are activated, through children's and multi-generational exchanges, by having this index. The scenario of what to do with the index is good, but I think it would be good if workshops that increase heat quantity would be produced in cooperation with the index.

Although there are various birth pains, I think that vision and community are really keywords, so I thought that it would be good if the wisdom we are doing here could be used well while adapting them to reality.

Most of them are comments, but I think they are very good.

Chairman: I don't need your reply because it's not a particular question. Thank you for your valuable comment.

What do you think of the other members?

Thank you, Mr. Nagumo.

Member Nagumo: , I would like to briefly say that there are 30-40 Ota-san who are communicating with us in various ways by using this indicator regardless of Digita. So, if Digita is included, I think about 100 local government are expressing their intention to create a Well-Being City. Some of them are thinking of creating Well-Being in a circular society, like Gamagori City in Aichi. There are various models emerging. As Mr. local government said earlier, best practices will accumulate somewhere, and if they emerge in a world where merging can be done in the form of building blocks, I think we will be able to see one step ahead.
That's all.

Chairman: .
It is true that a variety of data will come out, but it is very important to collect and summarize this data.

Mr. Uchida, please.

Dr. Uchida: When I saw the efforts of each local government in , I thought that it had a certain meaning to organize and present the indicators as you said. In the past, I have received consultations from various Mr. local government about how to interpret the surveys that they are creating themselves. By having a certain degree of commonality and commonality of concepts, I understand very well the advantages of being able to compare and refer to each other and build a logic model after understanding where we stand.

I think it is very meaningful that we are not only providing indicator items but also providing "concepts." I think it is clear that Well-Being is not something that can be investigated in one sentence of "I am happy," but that it is necessary to conceptualize various elements related to it. As a result, it is easy for each local government to build a logic model. Because I understood the flow very well, I felt again that it was a meaningful project.

In response to that, I believe there were points of contention. Regarding the improvement of the questionnaire, as Mr. Nagumo said, I understand that it was significant to shorten the questionnaire, so I think it is possible to consider setting a certain standard for the number of questions, although it depends on the data. In addition, based on the results of this survey, I think it is better to review the questionnaire once the number of Mr. local government who used the simplified version has increased to a certain extent, or to check it again.

Then, I especially wanted to think about the point that we might not be able to compare all of them for analysis.

Among the indicators, I think there are items that are suggested to be included as musts and those that are optional. If it is an academic paper, it is not possible to make a comparison unless it is taken in exactly the same items, but in this case, I think it is more important to create a logic model properly and how to connect it to the improved services for residents. In that case, I think it is better to firmly consider that sticking to the same indicators is a cross section of the concept. I also felt that it would be more successful in operation if we thought at the granularity that we could make a reference comparison in the same concept.

On the other hand, I think it will be easier to use if we suggest common representative items such as "it is likely that other area will use at least one item in each of several concepts, so it is easy to use for comparison."

That's all I wanted to say.

Chairman: .
Does anyone want to comment on the comments I just made? Is that okay?

Seki-san, please.

Dr. Seki: : When I looked at the examples of utilization by people in local government, I thought it was really easy to understand many things. Thank you very much.

In particular, I thought that logic tree is very important, so I would like to convey it to the places where I support drawing.

In addition, I thought that the process itself, which is to look at the whole picture, do causal search, visualization the scenario, and discuss it, is relatively common in that this should be done, so I thought that it would be easier for each local government to think about it by creating guidance that could advance it for each local government.

In particular, I think it is very important that Mr. Mitoyo City's presentation includes consideration of financial structure. Rather than using it only by local government, I think it will be a tool for thinking about the ecosystem as a set of what a company can do to improve Well-Being.

For example, it has been very difficult to make a business in the public assistance area so far, and there is a social impact bond, but it is very complicated to set up the logic itself, and the evaluation itself costs a lot. In the first place, it ends up being money, so it is good if Well-Being increases at the time of social impact derivation. If we can create a way of thinking in the form of a Well-Being bond as a measurement and goal instead of money, for example, we can create a new incentive for NPOs and such, so I felt that there was a great possibility.

In addition, I am helping Nishiawakura-son, which has also been selected as a decarbonization leading area from the next fiscal year, by taking various indicators of Well-Being, and I thought that it could be used as an indicator in the field of decarbonization and other fields. I am also impressed.

Chairman: .
How about the others?
Mr. Nagumo, please.

Member Nagumo: I think what Mr. Seki just said is a very important point. I think it is exactly the case that the so-called Well-Being Indicator has been created, and if it works well, it could lead to a new thing called Well-Being Impact Bond. I think it is a very important point in terms of the perspective of future evolution that we will develop a mechanism to connect with those who take accountability in some form, and then people who will take risks will come out.

In particular, in smart cities and community development, industry, government, academia, and the private sector appear, so it tends to be difficult to see who will be responsible for what roles and who will take risks. Companies are separated in the form of corporate accounting, and the public is separated in the form of public accounting, so if we consider grouping these as an accounting system that measures the cost on a town or community basis, we will see the connection with finance as Mr. Seki mentioned, so I would like to position it in the form of Issue.

That's all.

Chairman: .
Commissioner Sasao, please.

Member Sasao: . Nice to meet you.

As the members of the Committee said, I saw your examples of local government's analysis, and I was very impressed that it was possible to formulate individual and specific measures from the Well-Being Indicator, and that it had become an extremely useful indicator.

The most important point in the analysis of each local government is to first look at the radar chart, the mean value of each category of the Well-Being Indicator, for example, and the variance, and determine the point of our local government point from how much higher or lower the category value is in our Issue than the mean. I feel that the first stage will start from such a point, and in that sense, I feel that the value of the questionnaire for each category seen by Mr. local government will be very important. In that sense, I feel that the 40 base questions that Mr. Nagumo and others are working on have been narrowed down, and that will be the key in the future.

As a point of concern from the perspective of my research in the field of city planning, I think that Mr. Nagumo, on page 11 of Handout 3, talked about the plan to create a radar chart by comparing the survey items with quantitative data as quality values in the categories of past indicators and future activities, medical care and welfare, shopping, and eating and drinking.

Could you open the screen once? I think it is page 11 of Handout 3. It may be very detailed, but when you look at the whole, some indicators can be replaced with multiple indicators. For example, regarding the indicator of the connection with area, the evaluation axis is made up of multiple question items. However, regarding the items such as medical care and welfare, shopping, and eating and drinking, the relation is made only in the category of life convenience. I think you can judge that the evaluation is high or low from the viewpoint of life convenience by listening to these question items from the viewpoint of life convenience.

For example, if I replace this, I am a little concerned about the fact that the question item "medical institutions is fulfilling" judges that the level of satisfaction in the field of medical care and welfare is high, and whether it is okay to evaluate the level of happiness in the field of shopping and eating and drinking only from the perspective that there is no inconvenience in daily shopping.

Looking at the results of the people in local government, if I say that there is no inconvenience at all, the people who respond will hesitate and the overall score will be quite low. In addition to the perspective of whether or not it is inconvenient when shopping, there is also a study that shows that the quality of the store, for example, has a significant impact on shopping satisfaction. Therefore, I think it is necessary to consider how to listen to the items that have few questions in the future. This is one point I was concerned about.

I'm sorry for the small details, but that's all.

Chairman: Not at all. I think it is an important point.
Does anyone have an answer on this point?

If there isn't, I will answer in general. This is a difficult point. There are about 1,000 studies on happiness alone in a year, so we know a lot of things, so if you listen to all of them, you will have to listen to millions of them. Therefore, Mr. Nagumo and everyone else are working hard to reduce it, but if you reduce it, there is a Issue where you cannot listen to something, as you say, so I think we may have to keep discussing it forever and think about adding or subtracting it if necessary.

I am the moderator, but speaking as a participant, in any case, first of all, by measuring, or by Mr. Nagumo working hard to reduce the number and create a suitable plan, the people of local government also answered, and it is very important that the initial data was obtained, and it is because the initial data was obtained that the current discussions are being made, and I also realized that we can make it better by actively continuing the discussions. Thank you very much.

Member Sasao: In that sense, as Mr. Kibichuo-cho was doing, when Issue points are found in your town, rather than simply interpreting that the shopping and eating and drinking are low-quality, we are conducting individual interviews to determine what factors are hidden there and analyzing the factors. Therefore, I thought it would be good to have Mr. local government understand that just because the points are low, it may not be true that the shopping and eating and drinking in the town are low-quality, and to have him understand this as an opportunity to dig into the factors further. I thought it would be good to spread such a method today.

That's all. I'm sorry.

Chairman: Not at all. Thank you very much. You are absolutely right.
At first, Mr. local government did not know how to make a questionnaire, so we are making a proposal. However, it is very good that there is a discussion within local government about whether it is better for us to listen to this questionnaire more. However, as Mr. Uchida said, it is good to have a central question that everyone hears in common, and there is also a question that shows the individuality of local government, so I would like to reiterate that I was very moved by the three cases of local government. Everyone is working hard to take and analyze various things so that we have come this far. I think it is very wonderful that we have made a start and started to move forward. I think your impressions were similar.
Ota-san, please.

Mr. Ohta: I believe that various wisdom has been generated by reducing the number of questions. However, I would like to talk about the example of Toyama city in terms of the difficulty of creating a questionnaire.

Toyama City also has a vision, and there are about six Well-Being Outcome targets. I don't think we have applied for the Digita Project this year, but we have selected six LWC indicators and are building a service that leads to them. The entrance of the service is a resident portal, and questionnaires can be collected on the portal.

So, for example, if you use a community center service or a transportation service, a log of behavioral data will naturally remain, and as a result, a questionnaire asking if you have increased your friends will be sent to you. If you don't think about it, there will be noise in the service, but in short, the data will automatically accumulate, and it will be possible to analyze whether or not it has a correlation with the LWC index. It is possible to see that there is a correlation and there is not so much correlation, so if you use it well, you can collect various behavioral data and subjective data among the touchpoints of the service for residents, so I think it will be possible to collect data at a fairly high frequency with a much smaller burden. I think that is one way of development.

Chairman: .
Mr. Suzuki, please.

Member Suzuki: I thought was really wonderful, so I would like to thank all the people of 3 local government for your hard work.

This is also something that you all understand. Going forward, we will reduce the number.
Also, I really mean Nagumo san, Otsukaresama deshita.

Next, we will weight each item and measure how important each item is to the citizens. The OECD's BetterLifeIndex is like that, so in that sense, we will select or leave them in the order that the citizens think is important. I think we will leave them while referring to that.

Also, what I would like to see is that what is important is quite different depending on the generation, and I think that elderly people naturally think health and nursing care are very important. Also, today, shopping was quite a topic of conversation, but on the other hand, if it is a place where Amazon or Rakuten can be used, young people do not feel any inconvenience in shopping. In that sense, logistics or transportation is very important, and if home delivery services cannot be delivered, it will be fatal, but as long as they can be delivered, there is no problem in shopping. As Mr. Ota said earlier, when thinking about future town development, there is no need to make a big fuss about shopping because it is difficult now.

In addition, remote education is rapidly developing in education and other prefectures. In particular, GIGA School requires one device per person, so there will be N High School and S High School. Until now, I have thought that education is difficult. However, area is a digital garden city, and digital will have a significant impact on shopping and education issues, as well as remote medical care. I expect that this will have a significant impact on the importance of the current Well-Being. I believe that the next stage will be to discuss future town development, the so-called budget, and the allocation of investment funds collected through the Benefit-Your-Locality Hometown Tax. I believe that this will be a very significant response. I would like to ask you about this in the future.

In any case, I think that the efforts of the people concerned have really made a big step forward. Thank you very much.

Chairman: .
Mr. Inoue, please.

Member Keio University. I'm a little bit of a supporter of Mr. Mitoyo City. As I mentioned in my chat, I'm not only listening to his current sense of happiness, but also listening to his future outlook. If we do this, there will be a considerable generational gap depending on the area. There are area where the elderly middle-aged are very pessimistic about the future, and there are area where they are positive about the future. So, I think it will lead to a sustainability perspective, not just the present perspective. If we listen to his future outlook from the perspective of whether his current level of happiness is sustainable or not, I think it will expand the range of interpretation.

So, it will be an additional question, so it may be a recommended item, but I thought it would be good if you could discuss it.

Chairman: ?"

Member : That's right.

Chairman: .
Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Moderator (Suzuki): Mr. Sarabetsu-mura If you don't have any, Mr. Mitoyo City, Mr. Kibichuo-cho, if you have any impressions or comments from the opinions of the professors who made presentations today, I would like to ask you to speak. What do you think?
I'm sorry to have asked you out of the blue. How about Mr. Mitoyo City?

Mitoyo City: As you have appreciated in , we also consider the structure of finance to be extremely important. Even in the basic local government, we are in a situation where we cannot make various investments only with general revenue resources. Therefore, we would like to promote the collection of funds for the necessary efforts by showing the effect of the entire town. We would like to use this Well-Being Indicator. Thank you very much for your continued support.

Moderator (Suzuki): Mr. Sarabetsu-mura .
Mr. Kibichuo-cho, if you could come, could you give us your impressions and comments?

Kibichuo-cho: This is Kibichuo-cho, . I learned a lot from listening to your various stories. Based on the Well-Being Index, I would like to firmly link it to our measures. Thank you very much.

Moderator (Suzuki): Mr. Sarabetsu-mura , if you have any comments or impressions, please do so.

Sarabetsu-mura: This is Sarabetsu-mura, . In our case, there are of course parts where hypotheses have been proven, so we would like to attack them. We would like to use them well in the part of sharing information with residents while thinking about how to submit them to residents without closing them to the government. So we would like to continue to consider this area. Thank you very much.

Chairman: : Thank you very much.

Director Murakami: Thank you, , may I also speak to you?

Chairman: , please.

Director Murakami: Thank you, .
First of all, I cannot praise my subordinates. This time, Miyuki Suzuki did his best. He did not obediently give me a 24. People around me called him a Miyuki call and made fun of him. He made a considerable number of phone calls, and he was on the verge of being disliked. However, as in My Number Card, when there was an atmosphere in which it was the majority to do it, everyone volunteered to do it, and when they tried it, everyone was happy. Therefore, I would like to make the first point that the Government would like to carefully consider how to make good use of the fact that there are 30 or 40 outside Japan, which Mr. Nagumo introduced, and how to expand the circle more widely.

Next, I would like to talk about the content. I believe that the list of issues in today's materials was too detailed, that it was good to have a more macroscopic discussion, and that it was good to have the content explained by the organization. I thought that I would organize the discussion based on three main directions.

First, we will continue to refine the framework of the survey itself and the analytical method as a survey method. I believe that this will remain the same. We have asked Mr. Nagumo to create a questionnaire based on 50 questions, and if you are fine, we would like to recommend this to a certain extent as de facto. Instead of 40 questions, we will use 50 questions.

At that time, there was a problem of how much it should be shared, and I wrote it in the discussion point table. There was an important suggestion from Mr. Uchida, and of course there was a question, but the commonality of the concept and the clarity of the concept should be taken seriously, and it is not always the case that the details of each issue are the same or not the same. Although it has not yet been verbalized, it is a discussion that is being seen today, and I think that the method of investigation today is probably not so different from the market sentiment, so I think it is necessary to continue to work in this direction, and what to do on a prefectural basis over a wide range. I think this is the first one.

In anticipation of the next expert review meeting, I would like to add the second and third. The second is community building, which Mr. Ohta also mentioned as a keyword. At the same time, Sarabetsu and Mr. Kibichuo-cho are using it well as an argument for specific policy improvement measures. In short, there is a community, and there is a consensus opinion in it, so there is talk about how to make policies, and there is a community behind it. I think it is a two sided structure.

There was probably a communication with a sense of unity behind Mr. Kibichuo-cho's story, and I think the fact that there was a communication about which policy should be taken rather than which policy should be taken is more important.

Behind this, there must be a vision beyond communication. Although the conclusion may be different, I think there are various reasons why there is no vision. However, I think there is a second major issue in the use of community, vision, and policy tools.

The third point at the end may be due to Mr. Inoue's help that the auxiliary line of the logic tree was effective. The logic tree shown by Mitoyo has quite a lot of impressions. The logic tree itself is not derived from the Well-Being Indicator, but by multiplying it, the social impact is achieved.

I am sorry to say that it has been a long time, but for example, in Mitoyo City, community buses are currently suspended on Sundays. The reason is that we are losing 160 million yen. However, if we drive community buses on Sundays, the percentage of elderly people who stay at home increases, and the point is that the cost of medical care increases. The more advanced medical care are used in Dodai medical care, the more expensive the cost of medical care becomes. In Mitoyo City alone, there is an expenditure of about 17 billion yen for medical care. Perhaps the expansion of the deficit by driving on Sundays is less effective in reducing the cost of medical care.

This means that social impact finance will be brought in from outside. At the same time, when considering services that support life due to a declining population in the future, if you look at the balance of payments for public services alone, it tells the fact that public choice will be wrong. By multiplying the result of the Well-Being indicator and the logic tree of both the relationship that supports logic tree and the background of citizens' thoughts on it, conversely, there is a possibility that social impact finance can be brought in from outside instead of relying on Issue Kin for the result. I think Mr. Mitoyo City's presentation was very interesting in that it showed a part of the possibility.

In retrospect, first of all, we will continue to brush up as a survey as we have seen this year.

Second, we can see that the communication and community building that made this happen, and that it has actually led to the polishing of policy tools. We will do this properly.

Third, when multiplied with the logic tree, we can actually see the future of impact finance and the correction of public choice errors, so let's do this firmly. I would be very grateful if we could continue to deepen our discussions on each of them next year while setting a little agenda like this.
That's all.

Chairman: .
As expected from you, Mr. Murakami, although you are in charge of the ministry, you gave me a beautiful summary like an expert rather than an expert, so I don't need to summarize it. But thanks to the efforts of Mr. Deji Agency, Mr. SCI, all the members of the committee, and all the people of local government, it is a really good start. It is a really moving start. There are many things to be done in the future, but I am very excited to do it with the aim of making everyone happy. It is not difficult to take a questionnaire with everyone, but I was able to think that we must be able to work together by sharing our wisdom. Thank you very much.

Then, may I return the moderator?

Moderator (Suzuki): Mr. Sarabetsu-mura .
Finally, I would like to make an administrative communication from the office.

Thank you very much for your valuable opinions today.

I would like to explain the future schedule a little. In April, we plan to hold a briefing session for the people of local government. In addition, based on the progress of the new fiscal year's projects, we plan to hold the next conference around June.

The other day, I sent an e-mail to the members of the Advisory Committee. Their terms of office will end at the end of March, but we would like to ask you to continue to participate in the Advisory Committee. I know you are busy, but I would like to ask for your continued support.
Thank you very much for your valuable opinions today. I would like to close the meeting now. Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule today.