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 ".

Study Group on the Promotion of Utilization of the Well-Being Index (11th meeting)

Last Updated:

Overview

Date and Time:
Wednesday, July 22, 2026, from 9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
Location:
On-line

Agenda

  • 1. Opening
  • 2. Agenda
    • 1. Utilization of the Well-Being Index and Review of Objective Indicators
    • 2. Overall Trend of Subjective Questionnaire Results
  • 3. Exchange of Views

Material

References

Minutes

Digital Agency Secretariat: Ladies and gentlemen of Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to gather today.
Since it is on time, we will now hold the 11th Study Group on the Promotion of Utilization of the Community Happiness (Well-Being) Index.
My name is Digital Agency, and I am in charge of digital public goods in Group of Service for Citizens.
The meeting was held for the first time in about 9 months since the last review meeting, and there is a period of time, but I would like to ask for your cooperation.
First of all, I would like to ask Mr. Maeno, the chairman of the meeting, to lead the proceedings from here on. Mr. Maeno, thank you very much.

Chairman Maeno: Yes. Hello everyone. I'm Takashi Maeno, the chairman.
It's been nine months since we last met, but today's meeting will be a compact one hour meeting, and after Mr. Digital Agency and Mr. Nagumo's explanations, we will have time to exchange opinions, so I hope everyone will feel free to exchange opinions.
First of all, Mr. Digital Agency, please explain based on Agenda (1), Material 2.

Digital Agency Secretariat: Ladies and gentlemen of Based on Document 2, I would like to report on the utilization of the well-being index and the review of objective indicators.
Please note that the order of explanation in the materials has changed from the one distributed to the committee members in advance. We will send the materials again after the meeting.

(Page 1) This is the current status of the utilization of the Community Well-Being index by local governments.
It is currently being used by 272 local governments. As shown on the map, it has spread nationwide regardless of scale, from Hokkaido to Okinawa. Some local governments have established it as a KPI for comprehensive plans, etc., and we have received calls from local governments for the stable and continuous provision of data.

(Page 2) Next, since 9 months have passed since the last meeting, I would like to look back on the previous meeting. Since the committee members have pointed out that the review meeting has not been held for a while and the future direction is difficult to see, I would like to explain how to proceed in the future along with the movement since the previous review meeting.
In July last year, the release was temporarily suspended due to a data error. In the nine months since then, we have been focusing on organizing the data update cycle and thoroughly implementing measures to prevent a recurrence. Specifically, we are taking measures such as revising the manual, clarifying the inspection system, and securing personnel.
In addition, we contacted each of the 204 local governments that were using the index at the time to explain the situation and to restore trust.
On top of that, given that about three years have passed since the provision of this index, we are currently conducting "current status evaluation and survey work to improve the local well-being index site" by local governments. Based on the results of this survey, we hope to have thorough discussions with you at the next review meeting (the second meeting this fiscal year) on how to proceed going forward.

(Page 4) Next, I will explain the review of objective indicators.
Since some local governments use the indicators as part of their comprehensive plans and strategies, major changes may have a direct impact on their planning and operations. For this reason, we have made only minor revisions from the perspective of ensuring the continuity of the indicators, such as organizing and deleting statistics that have been released and data that have yet to be updated.
The KPIs that make up the objective indicators are calculated using various data published by government agencies, local governments, companies, and organizations. This time, however, only data that falls under "data disclosure completed," "survey project completed," and "not updated for a certain period of time and not yet updated for the next time" are subject to deletion.
We plan to delete 6 of the 217 data for the municipal version and 5 of the 210 data for the prefectural version.
Overall, I have heard that the impact on the score calculation is extremely minor, so we are proceeding in this manner.
From the next page, the list of each data is shown as reference material. The data to be deleted this time is shown in red letters, and the data with a part of the index to be deleted is shown in green letters.
Due to time constraints today, I will omit the explanation of each page. However, I have attached it as a reference to confirm that the impact of the review is local, so please refer to it later.

(page 13) Next, I would like to explain the future direction.
The first point is the direction of the review of objective indicators.
We would like to continue this kind of maintenance on a regular basis.
In doing so, we will make a comprehensive judgment from the four perspectives of "continuity," "completeness," "reproducibility," and "credibility," but we also want to consider the impact of the local government that will utilize it.
Second, as I mentioned at the beginning, I would like to ask about the survey work related to the utilization of the Community Well-Being Index. As I mentioned at the beginning, we have been conducting a fact-finding survey since April this year. At the next review meeting, we will share the results, and based on the results, we will share the organized content on the direction and how to proceed going forward.

(Page 15) Finally, I would like to report on the implementation status of the nationwide questionnaire survey in fiscal 2026.
This year, we received 106,519 valid responses, exceeding our target of 100,000, and we published the dashboard last week on July 16th. The number of local governments that were able to secure responses of more than 100 samples reached 572, and we were able to increase the number of target local governments from last year.

(Page 16) This is a comparison with past surveys, and since fiscal 2023, we have received responses from 80000 to 100,000 people each time. We believe that we have been able to maintain a stable data base of subjective indicators on a nationwide scale.
That's all from Digital Agency.

Chairman Maeno: Thank you very much. Next, Mr. Nagumo, please explain Proposal (2) Document 3.

Committee Member Nagumo: Every year, we release a summary of the national survey when it is completed. This year, we have enhanced analyses based on individual questionnaires and so-called "multi-level analyses" in the form of an "add-on" to the conventional one. We have strengthened analyses that connect the individual level and the municipal level in response to the rising level of activities of local governments.

(Page 3) First of all, this is the same table as in previous years. The left side is "happiness level" and the right side is "life satisfaction level." The data is stable, but I have the impression that both are slightly declining. Until last year, there was an atmosphere that life satisfaction level would somehow increase even if happiness level decreased, but this year, I think it will decrease slightly overall.

(Page 4) Also, there has been no major change in "happiness five years from now" and "neighborhood happiness," which is so-called cooperative happiness. However, the overall level of happiness five years from now is lower, and I feel that there is a possibility that there is a lack of brightness about the future of Japan here. By the way, the red color in the graph is the moving average of the last three years, and the green color is the moving average of the three years up to last year. The moving average is taken because it uses the same method as the "World Happiness Report."

(Page 5) Next, the status of the 24 factors is unchanged in all samples. "Medical care and welfare," "Shopping and eating and drinking," "Housing environment," "Elementary and secondary education," "Public space," "Blessings of nature," and "Health" are higher than the average. On the other hand, "Play and entertainment," "Diversity and tolerance," "Employment and income," and "Business creation" are below the average and there are many complaints, and this situation has not changed at all.

(Page 6) If you look at the three well-being indicators in terms of a curve by age group, it is a so-called "U-shaped curve," which is the lowest in the 40s age group. All three indicators have the same shape.

(Page 7) In addition, regarding the relationship between annual household income and subjective happiness, the so-called "Easterlin's paradox," annual income of 20 million yen reached a peak, the same as last year, and after a slight parallel shift, it decreased to about 100 million yen. However, it should be noted that the sample size is small, as noted in red. The data of 30 million yen or more is a reference value, but as noted in the footnotes, 628 samples were from 30 million to 50 million yen, 171 samples were from 50 million to 100 million yen, and 91 samples were over 100 million yen.

(Page 8) As a new attempt started this year, we conducted a cluster analysis using the "k-means method" on the average score of 24 factors. As a result, we found that up to 6 factors can be separated effectively.
If you look at the graph, from the blue at the top to the red at the bottom, the waveforms are slightly different, but they are moving almost in parallel. At a glance, you can see something like a "well-being gap."

(Page 9) To explain in conceptual terms, the blue at the top is the "contented enjoyment type", which accounts for 11.7% of the sample. The subjective happiness level is 7.92, and the average of the 24 factors is 3.98 (out of 5), which is quite high.
This is followed by the "stable maturity type (happiness level 7.18)," "natural fulfillment type (6.61)," "urban standard type (5.95)," and finally the "complex difficulty type" (4.14), showing that there is a considerable difference in happiness level between the top and bottom. A certain breakdown of attribute data has also been found in the form of age structure, household annual income, and final educational background. Since the "no response" group is included in the household annual income, it is a little difficult to see the percentage.

(Page 11) Next is the same correlation coefficient as last year. The top 10 correlation coefficients are listed in descending order for happiness, life satisfaction, and town happiness.
There is a difference compared to last year. Last year, there was a problem that none of the purple items corresponding to "local human relations" were included. "How to live in one's own way (blue)" and "urban environment (orange)," that is, convenience and one's own way, accounted for the correlation of all the indicators, and it was a little difficult for people, but this year, "purple" returned. I think that it was a little abnormal only last year because there was purple the year before last.

(Page 12) In addition, the round-robin correlation coefficients of the 24 factors are shown in a "code diagram." The thick part of the outer arc is closely related to various factors. Where highlighted, they include "child-rearing," "local administration," "public space," "accidents and crime," and "community ties" in the urban environment. Regarding one's own way of life, "culture and art," "abundance of educational opportunities," "employment and income," and "business creation" are all strongly expressed in common.

(Page 13) Regarding multiple regression analysis, the left side shows the results for the last fiscal year, and the right side shows the results for this year. There has been a slight change. Last year, "Connection with the community," "Self-efficacy," and "Health" were included for the level of happiness, and Dr. Maeno also said, "The three elements of physical, mental, and social were all in place," but this year, "Community" fell and "Housing Environment" was included.

As for life satisfaction (page 14), there are some fluctuations, such as an increase in "shopping and eating and drinking," but we consider this to be a fluctuation within the range rather than a major change.

(Page 16) This year, we further advanced it and conducted "structural equation modeling (SEM)."
The dark blue characters on the right side of the figure are the response variables, "subjective happiness" and "life evaluation." We looked at "life satisfaction" and "neighborhood happiness" as mediators. The subjective orange boxes that affect them were changed to "city experience," "community experience," and "growth experience" in order to organize the data. On the far left side, "city function," "community foundation," and "growth foundation" were incorporated as objective data.
One of the key findings here is the order in which the mediator variables, "life satisfaction" (purple) and "neighborhood happiness" (green), come first to the final objective variable. I have come to see that there are quite a few routes from feeling the happiness of people around you (the happiness of the neighborhood), through your own life satisfaction, to personal happiness.

After creating 21 models (page 17) and applying the data, the order of the mediating variables was shown for each segment by population size (metropolitan area, 23 wards, ordinance-designated city, core city, general city), by region, and by score of 24 factors.
If we roughly look at the trends together with last year's survey, we can see that from the north to the Kanto region, the order is "happiness in the community comes first, then satisfaction with life," and from the west to Okinawa, the order is "satisfaction with one's own life first, then happiness in the community."

(Page 18) In addition, the "second level" analysis looked at the individual factors that enter the orange and light blue boxes (latent variables). In this analysis, not all 24 factors are included, and some of them have negative effects. The way these individual factors enter differs considerably depending on the population size and region.

(Page 20) If you look at each path map, you can see that the factors linked to happiness differ depending on the population of the local government and the division of the region. Therefore, when making future comprehensive plans, I think the process of designing policies after clarifying what is linked to happiness should be encouraged.

(page 21) By the way, there is also a factor named "universal lever" that appears in any way of cutting, and it was three factors of "health condition", "housing environment" and "connection with the community".

(Page 22) Finally, this year's version of "GDW" that Mr. Suzuki is promoting. By prefecture, the dark color is this year and the light color is last year, but a slight increase can be seen.

(Page 23) The same trend is seen in 23 wards and ordinance-designated cities.

(page 25) In another "multilevel analysis," I tried to numerically separate the individual effect and the context effect (city effect) of "Is your happiness due to yourself or the city?"

When the four major well-being indicators are listed on page 26, it can be seen that "subjective happiness" and "life evaluation" are greatly influenced by individuals, while "neighborhood happiness" and "life satisfaction" are more influenced by the town.
Therefore, for example, in a newly developed town where urban infrastructure will be built in the future, it is desirable to design a policy with the goal of "satisfaction with life." In a town where the urban infrastructure has already been built and spiritual fulfillment is important, it is better to focus on "subjective happiness."
That's all. Thank you very much.

Chairman Maeno: .
Now, I would like to begin the Q & A session and exchange opinions.
First, I would like to ask why the structure of Mr. Nagumo's analysis results in fiscal 2025 and fiscal 2026 were quite different.
Does that mean that human happiness is fickle, or (I don't think this is the case) that there is no certainty in the data?

Committee Member Nagumo: That's right. There is not much difference when looking at the macro level, but multiple regression analysis shows that the factors that are working are somewhat different. Since the number of municipalities analyzed has increased from last year, there may be some errors, but I feel that the former (changes in people's sense of happiness) is basically responsible. Compared to the degree of happiness, factors related to life satisfaction tend to fluctuate more easily, and I think factors such as "shopping and eating and drinking" are easier to change.

Chairman Maeno: I see. "Satisfaction with life" is easier to move around in. The figure of 500 samples (at the local government level) may be a little low, so it is necessary to continue to monitor it in the future.
Next is a question for Mr. Digital Agency. This is the first review meeting in nine months, but could you explain to everyone once again how you plan to proceed?

Digital Agency Secretariat: Ladies and gentlemen of As I explained earlier, the current survey on the actual utilization of the Community Happiness (Well-Being) Index is scheduled to be completed at the end of September. After sorting out the results in Digital Agency, we hope to hold a review meeting once within the year and report it.

Chairman Maeno: Thank you very much. What do you think, committee members?

Dr. Inoue: . Thank you very much.
The data you presented is very consistent with the results of my analysis of migration, life in other locations, and community relations, and I feel that it is a very convincing result that is analyzed in detail.
I would like to confirm one thing. You conducted a SEM on the slide on page 16. How was the number "586" extracted?

Committee Member Nagumo: 586 is the total number of local governments subject to this nationwide survey. The sample size is 106,000 people, but if you look at it at the local government level, it is 586. By the way, when analyzing at the local government level, the number of samples is 1,000 or 2,000 because it is analyzed on an individual basis.

Dr. Inoue: as a model. Am I correct in understanding that this is just one reference point?

Committee Member Nagumo: This time, the number of latent variables has been reduced, so the analysis has been done well to some extent. When it comes to individual analysis, it seems to be close to the limit. First of all, please keep in mind that the trend value will be like this, and please understand that depending on the number of samples, there may be some suspicious parts.
The analysis was done in Python, but the numerical value of the model fit was secured there. However, the problem of multicollinearity still comes up, so a Bayesian network was also performed behind the scenes. Only those that were supported by both were factored in, so it was done more robustly than usual.

Dr. Inoue: That is the kind of step we are taking. Thank you very much.
The slide models for individual cities, towns, and villages (pages 19 to 20) are too low-resolution to see clearly, but I think it would be interesting if this material also shows some features.

Committee Member Nagumo: We will send the materials separately. This is not a single basic municipality, but it is roughly divided into clusters and analyzed by cluster unit.
For example, Tokyo 23 wards, the sample size is small, but with this as a baseline, how about Shinagawa-ku compared to this? So, a comparison target will be necessary, and this material is being prepared.

Dr. Inoue: That's right. We have just started analyzing the results of a survey on labor shortages at local small - and medium-sized enterprises. We are also interested in whether there are such shortages in depopulated and non-depopulated areas.

Committee Member Nagumo: I see. There are many other methods of analysis, so let's discuss them again.

Chairman Maeno: Mr. Uchida has just come in. Do you have any other comments or questions?

Committee Member Nagumo: , while I am waiting for your opinion, may I say a few words?
What I wanted Professor Uchida to look at the most was the analysis result of SEM on page 16.
The rightmost is the objective variable, which is "subjective happiness" and "life evaluation," between which "life satisfaction" and "neighborhood happiness," which corresponds to Professor Uchida's collaborative happiness, are included as a mediator variable. This model was the most stable. The purple arrow between these two mediators is the path from "neighborhood happiness" to "life satisfaction" and then to the objective variable, which appeared when I did it with national data. If you divide it into various segments on page 17 and do the same thing, the pattern of the mediation order will be different. Roughly speaking, in Hokkaido, Tohoku and East Japan, "neighborhood happiness" passes through "life satisfaction" and then "subjective happiness (personal happiness)," and in Kansai, Kyushu and Okinawa, the opposite is true, "life satisfaction" passes through "neighborhood happiness" and then "subjective happiness (personal happiness)." I think there is something related to Professor Uchida's survey, what do you think?

Member UCHIDA: , thank you very much. I'm sorry for joining you late.
This SEM has a certain degree of relevance. This regional difference is classified by east and west or north and south, not by urbanicity. Does that mean it fits better?

Committee Member Nagumo: It's a little difficult, but in the Tokyo area, for example, the path is from "town satisfaction" to "life satisfaction." It may be a tendency to want something that doesn't exist, but there are cases like that. It varies depending on the area, but roughly speaking, I know that there are two systems, the difference between east and west, and the difference between urban and rural areas. There are subtle differences between last year and this year, and there is no strong tendency to conclude either.

Member UCHIDA: I feel that the start and end points of the arrows for these two are probably correlated rather than clear (cause-and-effect relationship). I think it is difficult to specify a cause-and-effect relationship because it is an SEM at a single point in time. One thing that can be done in the future is to use time-series analysis to analyze whether "life satisfaction" at a certain point in time is related to "happiness in the town" one year later.
In addition, I found it very interesting that there are two pillars of these two factors, each of which is independently related to the "subjective happiness" and "life evaluation" on the right. In addition, regarding what is effective for "town satisfaction" and "life satisfaction" on page 18, "subjective experience" and "community experience" are effective not only for "life satisfaction" but also for "town happiness", and "growth experience" is effective for "town happiness". It is very interesting to see what factors support these two factors.
I think the pass is probably divided into each and analyzed in 23 wards and core cities, but did you see a clear difference here?

Committee Member Nagumo: This is due to individual factors, and the input is quite different. In urban areas, the results show that it is meaningless to enhance the urban infrastructure.

Member UCHIDA: As you said earlier that in Tokyo, it's because it's a big city that the community needs to be connected, and there is a response to things that aren't there.

Committee Member Nagumo: Yes, that's clear. The results show that people in urban areas are looking for connections with people rather than further development of urban infrastructure. On the contrary, people in local areas want urban infrastructure, which is the opposite trend I experienced this time.

Member UCHIDA: 's ordinance-designated cities is small, but there is a reasonable sample size for ordinary cities and metropolitan areas. I think these results make very interesting basic data. Thank you.

Chairman Maeno: How about others?

Committee member Ishikawa: . I don't know who to ask this, but I heard that about 270 local governments are using the index, but I think the way they use it is uneven.
Have you classified the ways in which the well-being index is utilized?

Digital Agency Secretariat: Ladies and gentlemen of Currently, we are conducting a survey to investigate the actual utilization of local governments. Among the approximately 270 local governments, there are those that have included it in their comprehensive plans, those that have held workshops, and those that have received OASIS training implemented by SCI-Japan. We hope to introduce the utilization status of local governments at the next review meeting.

Committee member Ishikawa: .
Regarding the purpose of the question, I thought that it would be possible to see whether there are differences in policy evaluation depending on how it is utilized when evaluating the entire policy. It may not be the theme of this review meeting, but I thought it was an important theme and asked a question.

Chairman Maeno: Yes, thank you. I think that point is also the main theme of this review meeting.

Committee member Ishikawa: This is a review meeting on the use of indicators, and I thought there was another review meeting on evaluation.

Chairman Maeno: I see. It's not being discussed today, but Mr. Shirasaka and Mr. Inoue were working with Mr. Digital Agency to create a logic model. In short, I think it was Mr. Murakami's idea from the beginning that by creating a logic of how policies lead to happiness, he wanted to link vertically divided administration horizontally and make an opportunity to review policies that have become too diverse among local governments in this shrinking society. It just so happened that we didn't talk about that this time, but is it correct to understand that we will continue to work on it for the next time?

Digital Agency Secretariat: Ladies and gentlemen of Thank you very much. We are also investigating such perspectives as part of our investigation work, so I would like to report on it again. Thank you very much.

Chairman Maeno: To be more frank, as Mr. Nagumo and I also realize, well-being and policies are not connected more clearly than expected, and there are some cases where policies are not effective for well-being. Behind the scenes, there are starting to be discussions that a major review may be necessary, such as adding more mediator variables or reviewing the indicators themselves.
This time, we talked about minor changes, but including major changes in the long term, the issues that have come into view and solutions to them are extremely difficult. However, since that was the beginning of our original intention, I think it is important that we do not leave it up in the air.

MIURA Director-General (Digital Agency): This is MIURA in Digital Agency, . Thank you for your very important point. We need to confirm the current situation after working on various issues, including indicators and logic tree, and we are currently conducting the survey that Mr. Tada is referring to.
In particular, from the perspective of Digital Agency, well-being itself is an extremely important perspective, but how it will eventually connect with digital government and digital procurement is being questioned, and we are confirming various matters in that context. In addition, logic tree has been promoted as a tool from the perspective of how to break through the vertical division that cuts across various policy fields, but some say that the process leading to it is difficult, and we are investigating the actual situation.
As for data, it is difficult to obtain data at the municipal level, and I am aware that Mr. Nagumo has worked hard to reach the current specifications. On the other hand, new ones such as the Japan Dashboard have emerged, and I would like to report again on how we think about utilizing such things.

Chairman Maeno: Yes, thank you.

Committee Member Nagumo: This time, after conducting SEM and multilevel analysis, I felt that if we do not first find and work on the chain of how the happiness of citizens leads to "life satisfaction" and "happiness in the town", which leads to "subjective experience" and "experience value", and which objective index ultimately leads to, in the form of backcasting from "happiness", we will end up with many things that do not lead to happiness even if we create many logic models like catalogs.
Therefore, I feel that it would be easier for a limited number of local governments to create a filter that says, "This is the path that leads to happiness," even if it is a rough one.
In addition, when we formulated the 24 factors together with the teachers, we included "culture and art" in the item "How to live in your own way". In fact, "culture and art" are necessary as a way to enrich life, but when we look at the data, we find that the relationship is very deep in the community and that "child-rearing" is also pulled by "local human relations" rather than "urban infrastructure".
I think you have come to see that the world is a little different when you look at it from an ideological perspective and from a data perspective. There is not much difference, but I feel that such fine-tuning is necessary.

Member UCHIDA: In the final multi-level analysis, I feel that the fact that there were considerable macro-level effects in cities on the "level of happiness in the community" and "level of satisfaction with life" is extremely important as an issue to be addressed in the future. I think the most important question in using these indicators is what the government can do.
Happiness is something that individuals feel, so there is a limit to what the administration can do. Even if the administration does various things, it is always questioned whether it is really reaching the happiness of individuals, and I think that you all have doubts.
Therefore, I think it is significant that there was also a macro effect. "Satisfaction with life" and "happiness in the community" can be arranged at the macro level, and as shown in the path I mentioned earlier, by seeing a story line that ultimately leads to the happiness of individuals, I think it will lead to a message that the government can promote "satisfaction with life" and "happiness in the community" and contribute to the creation of a well-being community. I felt that discussions based on actual evidence will be required for the development of indicators and their utilization in the future.
That's all.

Chairman Maeno: Thank you very much.
The discussion has heated up as time runs out, but if there are no other opinions, I would like to bring it to a close.
The issues at hand are very important. The issues that have come to light are difficult in some aspects, but there are also bright signs. I think it is time to summarize this and think about what to do next.
At such meetings, it can be difficult to have in-depth discussions, so I would like to proceed to the next step in various ways, such as individual collaboration between the committee members and Digital Agency.
Well-being is a surprisingly difficult theme, but if it ends with "it was difficult," the momentum will stop. To prevent this from happening, it is important to clarify the results of the digitalization, but I think we have entered the stage of sharing wisdom on the connection with well-being.
In that sense, thank you for having a good discussion today.
Then, I would like to ask Miura Director-General in Digital Agency to summarize. Here's your microphone.

MIURA Director-General: Thank you very much for your time today.
First of all, regarding this minor change, I believe that we must take last year's incident seriously and connect it to the next. I would like to operate it firmly so that there will be no repeat of last year's incident.
I think we also need to pause and think about the kind of debate that we had in the second half.
In addition, how to combine well-being and digital is a very difficult and challenging task.
In fact, last year's incident attracted attention within the Agency, and I would like to consult with you while discussing thoroughly in the second half of this year, including the severe situation. I would appreciate your continued guidance.
It's going to be very hot, and in the bureaucratic world, the Diet session will end this week, so there may be some changes in the system, but I would like to firmly advance this project, so I would like to ask for your continued support.

Digital Agency Secretariat: Ladies and gentlemen of , thank you very much for taking the time out of your busy schedules to join us today and for your valuable comments.
The next meeting will be held before the end of the year, depending on the results of the survey and research project. Thank you for your continued support.
That's all. Thank you very much.

Greater than or