3:30 PM - 3:45 PM
[O10-06] Progress of Disaster Recovery Systems: From Build environment to Individual Recovery
★Invited Papers
Keywords:Long term recovery, Urban planning, Individual recovery, Livelyfood
Recovery efforts can be classified into four quadrants, as shown in the diagram, based on the relationship between cost burden and recovery targets. The first quadrant includes public measures targeting towns and regions, such as urban planning projects implemented following the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake and measures taken after the Great East Japan Earthquake, such as the construction of seawalls and the relocation of communities to higher ground. The second quadrant involves private initiatives targeting towns and regions, such as efforts to restore livelihoods. The third quadrant includes private measures targeting individuals, such as rebuilding private homes. The fourth quadrant involves public measures targeting individuals, such as the construction of public housing for those in need.
Traditional recovery measures, beginning with the Great Kanto Earthquake in 1923, primarily focused on the first and fourth quadrants. Recovery efforts were characterized by the construction of safe towns and public housing for those in need, making recovery synonymous with the construction industry.
Since the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, disaster recovery support in the Heisei era expanded to include individual housing (the third quadrant). Additionally, it became evident four years after the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake that even if towns were rebuilt, their vibrancy did not return. Consequently, recovery efforts following the Great East Japan Earthquake extended government support to livelihood restoration (the second quadrant).
In Japan's current recovery framework, "individual recovery," which supports the rebuilding of individual lives, and "community recovery," which focuses on rebuilding safe towns, operate as separate systems. However, during the housing reconstruction support following the 2000 Tottori Western Earthquake, aid was provided on the condition that recipients remain in the region. It is essential to explore recovery strategies that effectively connect "human" and "community" recovery efforts.
Traditional recovery measures, beginning with the Great Kanto Earthquake in 1923, primarily focused on the first and fourth quadrants. Recovery efforts were characterized by the construction of safe towns and public housing for those in need, making recovery synonymous with the construction industry.
Since the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, disaster recovery support in the Heisei era expanded to include individual housing (the third quadrant). Additionally, it became evident four years after the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake that even if towns were rebuilt, their vibrancy did not return. Consequently, recovery efforts following the Great East Japan Earthquake extended government support to livelihood restoration (the second quadrant).
In Japan's current recovery framework, "individual recovery," which supports the rebuilding of individual lives, and "community recovery," which focuses on rebuilding safe towns, operate as separate systems. However, during the housing reconstruction support following the 2000 Tottori Western Earthquake, aid was provided on the condition that recipients remain in the region. It is essential to explore recovery strategies that effectively connect "human" and "community" recovery efforts.