housing recovery patterns of the 1995 kobe earthquake victims earthquake... · 2005. 6. 8. · 6.1%...
TRANSCRIPT
Housing Recovery Patterns of the 1995 Kobe Earthquake Victims:
results from 1999 Hyogo random sampled survey
Authors of this Study:
• Reo KIMURA: Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University, Japan ;Research Center for Disaster Reduction Systems
• Haruo HAYASHI: Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Japan
• Shigeo TATSUKI: Department of Social Work, Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan
Background of this Study 1
• Jan. 17th, 1995, Kobe Earthquake occurred• Severe Damage to
Physical Environment & Social Systems• Also Damage to People’s Everyday Life• Hard to Recover Everyday Life
Because NEVER examined the process.
Background of this Study 2• For Disaster Reduction:
① Mitigation: To Construct disaster-resistant structures
→NOT good enough for Kobe Earthquake
+② Preparedness: To Increase the Community Resilience
→Knowing about LIFE RECOVERY gain the Resilience
Framework of this Survey 1
• 1996-1997 Qualitative Research: Gathered Victims’ Personal Descriptionabout Behavior after the event
• Hypothesis: People Experience several Qualitatively Different PHASES along with the Chronological Development after the Event
Table 1 Four Time Phases after the earthquake
time
Ⅰ
Disorientation
Ⅱ
Cognition of
the new realities
Ⅲ
Disaster Utopia
Ⅳ
Reentry to
everyday life
The day ofthe impact onJan. 17, 1995
Few daysafter
Earthquake
The firstsummer afterEarthquake
SARIN gas attackon TOKYO subways
on Mar. 20
100 h 1000 h10 hdisaster
Questionnaire:
• Designed the Questionnaire based on the Hypothesis of 4 time phases of Victims’Behavior Patterns
• Focused on the Change of Residence because Houses are the BASIC part of Everyday-life
Hyogo Prefecture
The impacted area
Hyogo Prefecture
Japan
World
Sampled Population 1
IN-HYOGO group (N=2500)2-step Stratified Random Sampling Method1. Select 2 Areas
Japanese Seismic Intensity Scale 7Cut-off of City Gas Supply
2. 250 Points Selected3. 10 Households Selected per Point
Sampled Population 2
OUT-OF-HYOGO group (N=800)
• Left Hyogo after the Event• Selected from the Hyogo Government
Newsletter Subscribers' list.
Sample Bias
• IN-HYOGO: Randomly Sampled Quantitative Estimates• OUT-OF-HYOGO: Possibly Biased
Keep Wish to Move BACK to Hyogo
Research Overview
Designed & Conducted by Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University (Research Grant from The Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake Memorial Association)
Method Mail Survey
Research Period March 3, 1999 - March 23, 1999
No. of Questionnaires Returned 993 (In-Pref. 683, Out-of-Pref. 313)
Return Rate 30.1% (In-Pref. 27.3%, Out-of-Pref. 39.1%)
No. of Valid Responses 915 (In-Pref. 623, Out-of-Pref. 292)
Valid Response Rate 27.7% (In-Pref. 24.9%, Out-of-Pref. 36.5%)
Table 2 Demographic Characteristics significant coeffecients (1)
Sample size 915 623 ( 100 ) 292 ( 100 )① Sex & Age
Male, under 30 19 10 ( 1.6 ) 9 ( 3.1 )Male, 30-39 72 52 ( 8.3 ) 20 ( 6.8 )Male, 40-49 122 101 ( 16.2 ) 21 ( 7.2 ) **
Male, 50-59 176 148 ( 23.8 ) 28 ( 9.6 ) **
Male, 60-69 187 133 ( 21.3 ) 54 ( 18.5 )Male, 70 and older 111 66 ( 10.6 ) 45 ( 15.4 )Female, under 30 5 1 ( 0.2 ) 4 ( 1.4 ) *
Female, 30-39 20 11 ( 1.8 ) 9 ( 3.1 )Female, 40-49 30 19 ( 3.0 ) 11 ( 3.8 )Female, 50-59 49 28 ( 4.5 ) 21 ( 7.2 )Female, 60-69 55 25 ( 4.0 ) 30 ( 10.3 ) **
Female, 70 and older 67 28 ( 4.5 ) 39 ( 13.4 ) **
② The number of family membersSingle 154 68 ( 10.9 ) 86 ( 29.5 ) **
2 262 167 ( 26.8 ) 95 ( 32.5 )3-5 451 352 ( 56.5 ) 99 ( 33.9 ) **
6 and more 39 34 ( 5.5 ) 5 ( 1.7 ) *
Number (Percentages: N/623*100, In-Hyogo and N/292*100, Out-of-Hyogo) **p<.01, *p<.05 (test of goodness of fit, Chi-square test)
In-HyogoTotal Out-of-Hyogo
Table 3 Demographic Characteristics significant coeffecients (2)
Sample size 915 623 ( 100 ) 292 ( 100 )③ Kinds of pre-disaster housing
Own land and housing 352 282 ( 45.3 ) 70 ( 24.0 ) **
Condominium 95 70 ( 11.2 ) 25 ( 8.6 )Crown corporation housing 32 28 ( 4.5 ) 4 ( 1.4 ) *
Public housing 41 38 ( 5.0 ) 3 ( 1.0 ) **
Company housing 37 21 ( 6.1 ) 16 ( 5.5 )Rental land and own housing 50 26 ( 4.2 ) 24 ( 8.2 ) *
Rental land and housing 108 43 ( 6.9 ) 65 ( 22.3 ) **
Private rental housing 198 113 ( 18.1 ) 85 ( 29.1 ) **
④ Housing damageFully damaged 291 92 ( 14.8 ) 199 ( 68.2 ) **
Fully burned 19 6 ( 1.0 ) 13 ( 4.5 ) **
Half damaged 192 130 ( 20.9 ) 62 ( 21.2 )Half burned 2 1 ( 0.2 ) 1 ( 0.3 )Partially damaged 320 306 ( 49.1 ) 14 ( 4.8 ) **
No damage 89 86 ( 13.8 ) 3 ( 1.0 ) **
⑤ Condition of family membersDead 21 10 ( 1.6 ) 11 ( 3.8 ) *
Serious injured and ill 32 15 ( 2.4 ) 17 ( 5.8 ) *
Little injured and ill 187 102 ( 16.4 ) 85 ( 29.1 ) **
Not injured and ill 665 492 ( 79.0 ) 173 ( 79.0 ) **
Number (Percentages: N/623*100, In-Hyogo and N/292*100, Out-of-Hyogo) **p<.01, *p<.05 (test of goodness of fit, Chi-square test)
Out-of-HyogoIn-HyogoTotal
Work-Based Decision
<30%Incm
Job <29yr4 Fam MemJob Contd
<10%Incm
Pub.Housing
<\0.1Mil
5 Fam Mem
<\1 Mil
50's
<50%Incm
<\3Mil
WrkPlcAffctd
CompanyHousing
30's
WrkPlcNotAffct
All Safe
3 Fam Mem
Work30yr+
No Demolition
Green Tag
CrownCorp.Houseing
WishToStay
6+FamMem.
Detached House
60's
ChngJob(NERQ)
<99%Incm
Yellow Tag
To Non-Hanshin
Lite Injry
SingleFam.
<70%Incm
PrvtRntl Hs
ToSouthHyg
FEMALEHvy Injry
Job<3yr
RntlHs
WishToMove
20'sLowRise
Not the Same Job as before
Chng Job due to ERQ
SemiDtchd
No Evctn.
ToTheSameArea
OUT of Pref.
Red Tag
House Demolition
<\3Mil Fully Burned
3*Incm+
\30Mil+70's
No Phys.Dmg
No Financial Damage
HalfBurnd
80'sNo Jobs
Mid&Hi Rise
40's
2 Fam Mem.
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Sol1
Sol2
<3*Incm Death of Fam. Mem.
IN Pref.
Job<9yr
<2*Incm
ToOutside
Evacuated
To Kansei
QuitPrvJob
<\5Mil.
House OwnedLand Rented
<\10Mil
House &Land Owned
MALE
Housing-Based Decision
Leave Hyogo
② Middle-Aged Families ① Single 20's
④ Elderly Couples ③ No Damage
Stay
In H
yogo
Fig.1 Classification of Respondents Characteristics & Dimensions of Residence Decisions
E
78.4%
NE
18.8%
NR
2.7%
Away
23.6%
Home
72.4%
NR
4.0%
E
36.1%
NE
63.4%
NR
0.5%
NR
6.2%
Home
59.8%
Away
34.0%
No response
3.9%
Away from
home
76.8%
At home
19.4%
NR
2.1%
Away
53.1%
Home
44.8%
Away
79.8%
Home
12.7%
NR
7.5%
Away
76.0%
Home
18.8%
NR
5.1%
Away
15.2%
Home
79.3%
NR
5.5%
Out-of-Hyogo (n=292)
Away
34.2%
Home
62.0%
NR
3.9%
Away
76.1%
Home
16.5%
NR
7.4%
Away
79.7%
Home
14.8%
NR
5.5%
Evacuated
81.9%
Not evacuated
16.5%
No response
1.6%
Fully Damaged -Burned (n=310) Ⅰ on that day
Ⅲ 2
Half Damaged -Burned (n=194)
Partially Damaged (n=320)
Ⅳ Six months Ⅳ Six months
Ⅰ on that day
Ⅱ Few days
Ⅲ Two months
In-Hyogo (n=623)
Home
65.5%
NR
6.7%
Away
27.8%
E
23.4%
NR
1.6%
NE
75.0%
Away
24.4%
NR
4.7%
Home
70.9%
NR
4.1%
Home
81.9%
Away
14.1%
Away
9.7%
Home
86.3%
NR
4.1%
Away
77.1%
Home
15.1%
NR
7.9%
Time
Ⅱ Few days
Ⅲ Two months
NR
0.5%
E
59.3%
NE
40.2%
Fig.2 Patterns of victims’ residence location
Away
35.8%
Home
58.0%
NR
6.1%Away
40.7%
Home
54.1%
NR
5.2%
Away
48.2%Home
47.5%
NR
4.3%
Evacuated
49.6%Not
evacuated
49.2%
Non
response
1.2%
All(n=915) Ⅰ the day of the impact ⅡFew days ⅢTwo months ⅣSix months
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10hr 100hr 1000hr 6 month
Within
Pre
f. M
ove
(%
)
time
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10hr 100hr 1000hr 6 month
Out
of
Impac
ted A
rea(
%)
Emergency Shelters
Relatives' houses
Neighbors' and Friends' houses
Company Facilities
Rented Apartment
Public Temporary Housing
Others
19.2
18.7
49.6
8.8
20.0 24.0
2.6
Fig.3 Victims’ evacuation(1)
Away
15.2%
Home
79.3%
NR
5.5%Away
23.6%
Home
72.4%
NR
4.0%Away
34.2%
Home
62.0%
NR
3.9%Evacuated
36.1%
Non
response
0.5%
Not
evacuated
63.4%
In-Hyogo(n=623) Ⅰ the day of the impact ⅡFew days ⅢTwo months ⅣSix months
time
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10hr 100hr 1000hr 6 month
Within
Im
pac
ted A
rea(
%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10hr 100hr 1000hr 6 month
Out
of
Impac
ted A
rea(
%)
Emergency Shelters
Relatives' houses
Neighbors' and Friends' houses
Company Facilities
Rented Apartment
Public Temporary Housing
Others
45.324.4
13.8
15.6
3.6
14.2
Fig.4 Victims’ evacuation(2)
Away
79.8%
Home
12.7%
NR
7.5%
Away
77.1%
Home
15.1%
NR
7.9%
Away
76.0%
Home
18.8%
NR
5.1%
Not
evacuated
18.8%
Non
response
2.7%Evacuated
78.4%
Out-of-Hyogo(n=292) Ⅰ the day of the impact ⅡFew days ⅢTwo months ⅣSix months
time
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10hr 100hr 1000hr 6 month
Within
Im
pac
ted A
rea(
%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10hr 100hr 1000hr 6 month
Out
of
Impac
ted A
rea(
%)
Emergency Shelters
Relatives' houses
Neighbors' and Friends' houses
Company Facilities
Rented Apartment
Public Temporary Housing
Others
35.445.0
26.6 21.0
Fig.5 Victims’ evacuation(3)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Fully in Pref. (n=97)Half in Pref. (n=127)Partially in Pref. (n=294)No in Pref. (n=81)Fully out of Pref. (n=203)Half out of Pref. (n=61)
(%)
Info
rmat
ion
50
1 week (172h)
Fig.6 Information needs
Time 10h 100h 1000h
Info
rmat
ion
50
1 week (172h)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Fully in Pref. (n=97)Half in Pref. (n=127)Partially in Pref. (n=294)No in Pref. (n=81)Fully out of Pref. (n=203)Half out of Pref. (n=61)
Time 10h 100h 1000h
(%)
Dec
isio
n
50 1 month (720h)
Fig.7 Decision
Conclusion
1. 4 Subgroups needed the Different Government Policy.
2. People who suffered complete damage needed Special care.
3. Within 1 week, 1. Evaluation as to Housing Damage2. Cost-effective way to Deal with Damage Housing
4. Within 1 month, the Whole Picture of Housing Recovery Policy should be provided