Two Major Elements of Life Recovery After a Disaster: Their Impacts Dependent on Housing Damage and the Contributions of Psycho-Behavioral Factors

Clarification of the individual factors determining the speed and quality of life recovery after massive disasters is crucial in assessing the vulnerability and resilience of individuals and communities. The research, however, remains in its infancy in that the index of life recovery per se is yet to be established; researchers have utilized different sets of variables, and their importance seems to vary across recovery phases potentially reflecting the change in housing situation. In addition, previous research on promoting factors of life recovery has primarily focused on demographic factors and inadequately addressed the psychological and behavioral factors, which has large educational and cultural implications. In this study, to address these two issues, we analyzed the survey data of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami disaster. First, from the multiple questionnaire items relevant to the situations of life recovery, we extracted the major elements by factor analysis and investigated their relationship to subjective sense of life recovery. At this time, we compared the relationships obtained between victims who lost their housing and those who did not. Then, we examined the psycho-behavioral as well as demographic factors promoting these life-recovery elements. The factor analysis provides two recovery elements: Well-being (health and social connections) and Housing Recovery (integrity of residential environment). The main determinant of subjective sense of life recovery was the housing recovery element for victims who had lost their houses, while it was the well-being element for those who did not experience housing loss. Among the demographic factors, a robust effect of income on the housing recovery element was identified in both victim groups while the effect of age and household structures on the two elements varied between groups. We clarified that different psycho-behavioral factors promoted two life-recovery elements. Across groups, contribution of leadership to the housing recovery element and that of neuroticism (negative), emotional regulation, and active well-being to the well-being element were identified. The former finding is consistent with the importance of consensus building in housing reconstruction, and the latter may reflect the role of common psycho-behavioral capacity oriented to individuals’ well-being including social aspects. The two life-recovery elements and their promoting factors thus identified may provide a parsimonious macroscopic framework for the evaluation and promotion of life recovery from disasters, and have practical utility for an educational approach to strengthening community resilience.

Pathways to regional housing recovery from COVID-19

This research examines the consequences of COVID-19 for households in regional Australia, and considers that post-pandemic recovery models designed for large cities such as Sydney or Melbourne may not work in regional areas or less-urbanised states like South Australia or Tasmania.

Modeling Long-Term Housing Recovery after Technological Disaster Using a Virtual Audit with Repeated Photography

Many communities face risks of technological disasters at fertilizer plants and other facilities. Understanding damage and rebuilding of housing supports planners in implementing policies that will enable recovery. Using repeat photography, this study audited housing rebuilding in West, Texas for three years following an explosion. Photos were combined with appraisal data to understand variation in rebuilding across parcels. Results indicate that rebuilding slows dramatically after year 1, leaving many parcels vacant three years post-disaster. Parcels with higher pre-disaster values were more likely to be completely rebuilt. Planners need targeted programming to support rebuilding of lower-value homes and address vacancies.

Ten Years into Recovery after the Great East Japan Earthquake: Evaluation by Post-2015 Frameworks

Devastated by the Great East Japan Earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown on March 11, 2011, Japan’s Tohoku coast has been in the process of disaster recovery for almost a decade. Several international frameworks for disaster risk reduction and sustainable development have also been established during this time. Sharing a holistic approach to comprehensive development principles linking risk reduction, disaster recovery, and development, these three international frameworks are the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2020, 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 2015-2030, and the New Urban Agenda. Although each has its own distinct focus, approach, and connection to disaster recovery, the three frameworks share explicit connections and relationships. This paper considers how the first decade of recovery after the GEJE can be evaluated based on the goals and targets from the frameworks in support of people-centered development. After outlining each framework, and exploring the mutual connections between them, aspects relevant to recovery from each are applied to consider issues and progress of housing recovery after the GEJE. Synthesizing multiple aims and goals from the three frameworks relevant to housing recovery creates a more comprehensive tool for evaluation that can identify which goals have been partially or completely achieved. Yet even with the convergence of their respective goals, achieving the overall shared aim of holistic, equitable, and people-centered recovery for all still requires more coordination and consideration of practical applications beyond frameworks. Keywords: housing recovery; Great East Japan Earthquake; Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction; SDGs; New Urban Agenda