## 3 Results and Discussions
### The Relationship between U-Turn Motivation and the Evaluation of Living Environments  
Table 3 shows the U-turn motivation of the respondents who answered that their current place of residence was not their hometown, based on their overall rating of living environments in their hometowns.  
The results in Table 3 suggest that respondents are not motivated toward U-turn migration as a whole, because the ratio of people whose U-turn motivation ranked high was smaller than the ratio of the other two groups. However, there is an expectedly significant association between higher evaluations of the living environments in hometowns and the motivations toward U-turn migration.  
Table 4 shows all respondents' propensity to stay in their current residence, based on their overall rating of the living environment of their current residence.  
The relationship between willingness to remain at the current residence and the evaluation of the overall living environment also demonstrated a similar tendency. However, a comparison between the data in Tables 3 and 4 reveals some differences. The ratio of respondents whose willingness to stay at their current residences was over 80% when their evaluations of the living environment of their current residence was high. On the other hand, even if their evaluations were low, approximately half the respondents had high willingness to stay in place. In comparison, even though respondents evaluated their hometown's living environment as high, the ratio of respondents with a high U-turn motivation below 40%. As expected, when the evaluation of their hometown's living environments was low, the ratio of respondents whose U-turn motivation was low reached approximately 80%.  
These results suggest that, for all groups, both the inclination to remain in place and to return to their hometowns is strongly influenced by the living environments in each region. However, the results also indicate that people would rather stay in their current places of residence than return to their hometowns, even when their evaluations of the living environments of both locales are similar.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Ratio (Adjusted residuals)**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Level of Willingness to Stay**} \\ \hline  & **N** & **High** & **Medium** & **Low** \\ \hline All respondents & & 1056 & 61.0 & 27.0 & 11.9 \\ \hline Overall rating & High & 567 & 81.7(14.8) & 14.2(\(-\)9.94) & 3.8(\(-\)8.69) \\ of living & Medium & 383 & 39.4(\(-\)10.8) & 46.2(10.5) & 14.4(1.84) \\ environment 1,2 & Low & 106 & 28.3(\(-\)7.27) & 25.5(\(-\)0.39) & 46.2(11.5) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* As described above, the 5-point scale rankings were combined into three ranks: high = 5, 4; medium = 3; low = 2, 1.2 Significant relationships were found at the two-sided 1% significance level (Chi-squared test).  
\end{table}
Table 4: Willingness to remain at the current residence determined by the evaluation of the living environment at current place of residence.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Ratio (Adjusted Residuals)**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Level of U-Turn Motivation**} \\ \hline  & **N** & **High** & **Medium** & **Low** \\ \hline All respondents & & 511 & 23.5 & 37.0 & 39.5 \\ \hline Overall rating & High & 231 & 36.8(6.45) & 37.7(0.29) & 23.5(\(-\)5.87) \\ of living & Medium & 224 & 14.3(\(-\)4.33) & 41.5(1.87) & 44.2(1.91) \\ environment 1,2 & Low & 56 & 5.4(\(-\)3.39) & 16.1(\(-\)3.44) & 78.6(6.33) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* The 5-point scale rankings were combined into three levels for analysis (high = 5, 4; medium = 3; low = 2, 1).2 Significant relationships were found at the two-sided 1% significance level (Chi-squared test).  
\end{table}
Table 3: The difference in U-turn motivation according to the evaluation of living environments in their hometown.