*4.1. Rationales for Forest SWB as a Policy Indicator*

In addition to these findings, based on the following four rationales, we argue that forest SWB can be an additional and promising policy indicator that complements the existing physically oriented indicators focusing on areas and volumes of forests.

The first rationale is that the direct measurement of well-being is preferable to indirect measurements, such as the gross domestic product (GDP). In the field of economics, income or GDP is used as an approximate measure for estimating individual well-being. Although researchers or policymakers frequently use economic indicators such as household income or GDP, such indicators neglect significant aspects of the forest ecosystem services. More specifically, individuals working in forestry constitute a relatively small portion of the population in Japan. In the entire watershed survey, only 0.3% of respondents worked in forestry and 1.4% worked in forestry in the upper watershed survey. Owing to the low profitability of forest management, few individuals work in forestry, even in the upper watershed. However, a significant portion of the respondents in the upper watershed (42%) owned forests. Furthermore, income from forestry constitutes only 0.04% of the GDP in Japan as of 2018 [46]. Only using economic indicators masks the important aspects of forest ecosystem services outside of income, such as venues for recreational activities or the embodiment of family traditions "that are central to quality of life and cultural identity" [47]. Engagement with animals and plants presents a positive correlation with forest SWB among some of the OLS analyses; mountain climbing and management of privately owned forests also had a positive relationship with forest SWB in the upper watershed study. An assessment relying on income measures overlooks these aspects of human–forest interactions because they represent only an insignificant amount in terms of money.

Second, SWB captures the quality of human interactions with forests, an aspect that is often missing in quantitative indicators, such as in the Montreal Process and Pan-European Process for Sustainable Forest Management. Here, we examine these indicators as international standards for sustainable forest management because the international community of policymakers and researchers of intergovernmental panels agreed on these, based on up-to-date knowledge of forest management and the practicality of their applications. For example, the Montreal process includes the following criteria:

Criterion 1: Conservation of biological diversity.

Criterion 2: Maintenance of the productive capacity of forest ecosystems.

Criterion 3: Maintenance of the forest ecosystem health and vitality.

Criterion 4: Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources.

Criterion 5: Maintenance of forest contributions to global carbon cycles.

Criterion 6: Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple socioeconomic benefits.

Criterion 7: Legal, institutional, and economic frameworks for forest conservation and sustainable management.

Criterion 6 reflects the quality of citizen interactions with the forests. This aspect is becoming more significant in urbanized societies because urban residents do not have traditional relationships with forests, such as harvesting trees, mountain vegetables, and mushrooms. A national report from Japan on this process, the "State of Japan's Forests and Forest Management—3rd Country Report of Japan to the Montreal Process" presents the national survey results of changes in public expectations of forests (ranking) for indicator 6.5.b: the importance of forests to people. Currently, the national government cannot

sufficiently monitor the quality of citizen interactions with forests because there is no verified method. Forest SWB may be an indicator of this aspect.

Third, SWB could identify inequalities between populations regarding access to or use of forest ecosystem services. As demonstrated by the reviewed studies, forest ownership, which is more prevalent in the upper watershed, unexpectedly presented a negative correlation with forest SWB. In contrast, urban residents are more likely to enjoy forest ecosystem services. The low levels of forest SWB for forest owners may reflect that forest management heavily burdens them, given the low profitability of timber-producing forestry; on the other hand, urban residents could receive forest ecosystem services without paying a price for them, other than taxes. Such an asymmetric pattern of forest SWB between stakeholders can indicate inequalities surrounding free access to or use of the forest ecosystem services, that is, the public goods nature of certain forest ecosystem services, as well as the cost burden of managing forests.

The fourth rationale is that SWB is a more holistic indicator that can capture subjective perspectives of respondents. The current studies' surveys included not only the economically rational evaluation by the respondents, but also responses of "feelings" towards forests. Forest restoration is a global trend and we face new challenges for improving forests qualitatively. For example, we may further need more forests with giant trees, which inspire visitors aesthetically or spiritually. Forest SWB measurements could better capture the perceived ecological qualities of forests, as well as the psychological and sociological forest–human interactions, such as access to and use of forests.

The current form of forest SWB has some limitations. A thorough representation of the forest ecosystems and the interactions between forests and humans may be limited. Forest SWB is not a rich, fully realistic description of forests or forest–human interactions; rather, it could be considered as a policy "indicator". For example, body temperature alone does not indicate a complete representation of health; however, it is used as an indicator of health because it is useful for monitoring health. This example demonstrates that the simplistic nature of forest SWB does not necessarily invalidate its use as a policy indicator.
