housing recovery patterns of the 1995 kobe earthquake victims earthquake... · 2005. 6. 8. · 6.1%...

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


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


Within

Im

pac

ted A

rea（

％）

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Out

of

Impac

ted A

rea（

％）

Emergency Shelters

Relatives' houses


Company Facilities

Rented Apartment


Others

45.324.4

13.8

15.6

3.6

14.2


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


Within

Im

pac

ted A

rea（

％）

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Out

of

Impac

ted A

rea（

％）

Emergency Shelters

Relatives' houses


Company Facilities

Rented Apartment


Others

35.445.0

26.6 21.0


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

housing recovery patterns of the 1995 kobe earthquake victims earthquake... · 2005. 6. 8. · 6.1%...

Documents