https://doi.org/10.24546/81012892
このアイテムのアクセス数:27件(2024-04-19 16:23 集計)
閲覧可能ファイル
メタデータ
ファイル出力
メタデータID |
|
アクセス権 |
|
出版タイプ |
|
タイトル |
|
その他のタイトル |
|
著者 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
収録物名 |
|
巻(号) |
|
ページ |
|
出版者 |
|
刊行日 |
|
公開日 |
|
抄録 |
This article presents the results of a series of questionnaire surveys which the authors conducted in March, July and October, 2020 covering 16 areas in 13municipalities in the coastal areas of Iwate and Miyagi prefectures in order to identify the perceptions of the directly affected people in the Great East Japan Earthquake that occurred on March11, 2011 on the outcomes of the post disaster recovery as of the 10th anniversary of the Earthquake. The questionnaire consists of four parts: housing and livelihood recovery, recovery of local economy, the reconstruction of local community, and also the “Recovery Calendar” which is a method established in the development process of post-Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake as a means to compare the time flame of individual recovery with regard to the 12 goals. The questionnaire was distributed to 7,895 households, from which 1,273 answers were obtained, with a survey collection rate of 16.1%. While the detailed analysis is yet to follow, this article intends to place the immediate results of simple tabulations. Our intention to focus on the directly affected population in 2011 Tsunami was proven to be met by the survey result that 75.0% of the answering households were heavily affected in terms of the governmental certificate on housing loss(Table 3-2). While 66.9% of the answering households in heavily devastated areas used to own each house on the self-owned land(Table 3-1), the status of housing recovery after ten years is that 34.2% of such households have chosen to be a lessee of the governmental apartments(Table 3-6). A cross tabulation of housing recovery with the residing areas revealed significant differences(Table3-7)which seems to reflect the different mode of town-recovery projects, either the land readjustment projects for land-filling works which resulted in the suspension of housing reconstruction of disaster affected households for several years until the work completion, the government-sponsored relocation projects which were available only for the residents in the designated disaster risk areas, the government sponsored apartment complex in the inland, or the individual relocation areas where each household chose to relocate in safe places outside of the government sponsored projects. Similarly, the results of the question No.5 in the “Recovery Calendar” which was asked about the timing of housing reconstruction show significant differences between the residing areas(Figure 7-2 through 7-17), such that the households which reconstructed by the individual relocation as well as the households chose to end up with the lessee status of public apartment have achieved an early housing recovery, while the housing reconstruction of the households which waited until the completion of the governmental town recovery projects show an obvious delay, such as the Otsuchi town answers showing only 40.0% achievement of housing reconstruction as of the year 2020. As for the livelihood reconstruction, 73.0% of the works or business of the answering households were affected by the 2011 disaster(Table 4-7), while 32.4% of them maintained the original works or businesses, and a total of 27.1% experienced the temporary or permanent cessation of their works or businesses(Table4-5). Less than a half of the answering households have restored the pre-2011 status of the business performance(Table 4-8), on which significant differences are observed in a cross tabulation with the category of industries(Table4-14). The status of housing income, expenditure, saving and borrowings are deteriorating by 40% to 60% compared to the pre-disaster situation(Table4-19 through 4-22). While the results of the question No.4 in the “Recovery Calendar” on the timing of work reconstruction does not show much difference between the areas nor industries, the results of the question No.6 on the timing of household’s income recovery show significant differences between the residing areas(Figure 7-2 through 7-17), with an implication that the households which got involved in the governmental town recovery projects had to endure an obvious delay, as typically seen in the answers in Otsuchi town, Rikuzen-Takata city, etc. where the households answers showing only 50% achievement of household’s income recovery as of the year 2020. As for the status of local economy, significant differences are seen in the answers on the recovery of local economy in regard of the residing areas(Table 5-4), which again implies the effect of the prolonged governmental town recovery projects. Similar results are seen on the answers on the status of the reactivation of the local merchant streets(Table 5-6). A significant relation was found between these answers on the local economy and the answers on the status of population recovery(Table6-2). This tendency also corresponds to the lowest achievement of the question No.10 “economic recovery” among 12 questions of the “Recovery Calendar,” which reveals a particularly worst result in the commercial spots in the rural aquaculture-based economy. An implication is the inapplicability for the rural economy of the urban-oriented town-reconstruction model established in Japanese disaster recovery that prioritizes the residential area’s reconstruction while entrusting the livelihood and economic matters to the capacity of urban industries. A concurrent focus on both residential and livelihood reconstruction must be required or the disaster recovery in the rural socio-economy. Another peculiar tendency of the result of the “Recovery Calendar” is the particularly low achievement of the question No.9 on “overcoming the self-recognition as a disaster victim” across the different areas. While there is a basic tendency of the recovery curb for this No.9 answer that follows the recovery curbs of No.5 on housing reconstruction and No.6 on the timing of household’s income recovery, there are some areas where the the No.9 curb does not improve even after many years of the achievement of housing reconstructions, such as in the curb of Kuwagasaki in Miyako city, which requires a further investigation on the causes. Perhaps, one of the most fundamental goals of the disaster recovery is the “safety”Toward the next disasters, as envisaged in the article 3 of the Law on Recovery from the Great Disasters. However, the results of the No.2 question on “safety” in the “Recovery Calendar” of this survey reveals a significant dismal in almost all areas, which leaves the question of what is the adequate standard of safety for the local residence in the disaster recovery, which are the questions to be further studied for the betterment of future disaster recovery.
|
カテゴリ |
|
|
|
|