single-dr.php

JDR Vol.6 No.2 pp. 230-235
(2011)
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2011.p0230

Paper:

Comparison of International and Domestic Methods of Providing Housing After Disasters

Kenji Koshiyama

Faculty of Safety Science, Kansai University, 7-1 Hakubai-cho, Takatsuki, Osaka, 569-1098, Japan

Received:
October 20, 2010
Accepted:
March 2, 2011
Published:
April 1, 2011
Keywords:
mass housing restoration, housing supply with public management, housing recovery programs after disasters
Abstract

This paper raises issues of housing supply programs after disasters and compares how Japan, Turkey, and Mexico have supplied newly constructed housing after disasters directly through public organizations. The study results indicate that the planning schemes of these three countries differ in terms of their restoration effects on the cities. This paper also discusses problems involved in the public provision of housing in Japan.

Cite this article as:
Kenji Koshiyama, “Comparison of International and Domestic Methods of Providing Housing After Disasters,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.6, No.2, pp. 230-235, 2011.
Data files:
References
  1. [1] S. Takayori et al., “HUKKOU JUTAKU NO KIHONSESAKU,” Shinsai-fukko-Jutaku no Riron to Jissen: Review of Urban Policy, Vol.18, Kobe Institute of Urban Research, Keiso Shobo, pp. 3-21, 1998 (in Japanese).
  2. [2] Y. Hirayama et al., “SHINSAIHUKKO TO JUUTAKUSEISAKU,” Proposal Housing and Machidukuri learned from the big earthquake, Study group of Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake Support Institute, Toho Shuppan, pp. 9-26, 1999 (in Japanese).
  3. [3] S. Takayori et al., “SEIKATUHUKKO NO KIHONSEISAKU,” Seikatu-fukko-Jutaku no Riron to Jissen: Review of Urban Policy, Vol.19, Kobe Institute of Urban Research, Keiso Shobo, pp. 3-140, 1998 (in Japanese).
  4. [4] Hyogo Prefecture, “SUMAI NO FUKKO NO KIROKU,” 2000.
  5. [5] Y. Hirayama, “JUTAKU FUKKO NO KISEKI TO SONOIMI,” Daishinsai 4 nenhan Jutaku Fukko no Kiseki to Tenbou, Study note of annual meeting architectural institute of Japan 1999, pp. 1-28, 1999 (in Japanese).
  6. [6] Hyogo Prefecture, “A Report of a community research of the disaster recovery public housing,” 2003 (in Japanese).
  7. [7] M. Takada, “JUTAKU FUKKO NO TORIKUMI,” The database of studies and proposals about the decade of Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake Disaster Recovery Process, , 2005 (in Japanese),
    http://web.pref.hyogo.jp/wd33/wd33_000000126.html
  8. [8] S. Sumida et al., “SUMAI MACHIDUKURI NO ATARASHII SHITEN,” Urban Housing Sciences, No.22, pp. 4-38, Associate of Urban Housing Science, 1998 (in Japanese).
  9. [9] Study group of Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake Support Institute, “Proposal Housing and Machidukuri learned from the big earthquake,” Toho Shuppan, 1999 (in Japanese).
  10. [10] N. Yamamoto, N. Maki, “Actual Condition of households living in permanent housing reconstructed on site in Banda Aceh Municipality : Housing recovery after 2004 Indian Ocean Tunami Part 1,” Summaries of technical papers of annual meeting architectural institute of Japan 2008, F-1, pp. 321-322, Architecture Institute of Japan, 2008 (in Japanese).
  11. [11] K. Koshiyama, S. Beniya, and S. Kaminishi, “The Study about the big housing providing after disaster –In case study of the recovery housing program of Mexico Earthquake 1985–,” City planning review, Special issue, Papers on city planning, Vol.35, pp. 415-420, City Planning Institute of Japan, 2000 (in Japanese).
  12. [12] H. Kaji et al., “A study of housing recovery program after the Mexico Earthquake,” Paper of the housing and land program research, Vol.14, pp. 95-120, Housing research and Advancement Foundation of Japan, 1989 (in Japanese).
  13. [13] H. Yamasaki, “The World Megacity No.3 Mexico City,” University of Tokyo Press, 1987 (in Japanese).
  14. [14] A. Terasaka, “The transformation of Islamic-cities –Urban growth and regional structure of Ankara–,” Kokon shoin, 1994 (in Japanese).
  15. [15] H. Kanou, “Research Library Turkey’s City and social conscious,” Institute of Development Economies, 1994 (in Japanese).
  16. [16] Architectural Institute of Japan, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, The Japanese Geographical Society, “Report on the damage investigation of the 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake in Turkey,” Maruzen, 2001.
  17. [17] Itsuki Nakabayashi, “Comparative Study on Housing and City Reborn Process After Great Earthquakes in the Asian Resion,” Final report of the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A1) (13372007), The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2004 (in Japanese).
  18. [18] K. Koshiyama, “SURVEY REPORT ON THE SHELTERS FOR EMERGENCY EVACUATION IN TURKEY EARTHQUAKE 1999,” Journal of architecture and building science, No.13, pp. 271-274, Architecture Institute of Japan, 2001 (in Japanese).
  19. [19] Renovacion Habitacional Popular, “Housing Reconstruction Program: A Memoir,” 1988.
  20. [20] SEDUE, “Vivienda Emergente en la Ciudad de Mexico: La Segunda Fase,” 1988 (in Spanish).
  21. [21] H. Ikeda et al., “Comparative Study on Shelter and Housing Recovery between Earthquake Disaster of Hanshin and Kocaeli Earthquake Disaster of Hanshin and Kocaeli,” Summaries of technical papers of annual meeting architectural institute of Japan 2002, F-1, pp. 223-224, Architecture Institute of Japan, 2002 (in Japanese).
  22. [22] M. Sawada et al., “A Comparative study of Emergency Response consisted by laws between Turkey and Japan,” Summaries of technical papers of annual meeting architectural institute of Japan 2002, F-1, pp. 227-228, Architecture Institute of Japan (in Japanese).
  23. [23] M. Sawada et al., “Various Systems and the Transfiguration that Supported a Reconstruction Process from the Marmara Earthquake in Turkey,” Journal of social safety science, Vol.6, pp. 173-180, Institute of Social Safety Science (in Japanese).
  24. [24] Y. Amano, M. Dohi, “The Popular Sector’s Presence in the Reconstruction Process of the 1985 Mexico City Earthquake,” City planning review, Special issue, Papers on city planning, Vol.43, No.3, pp. 733-738, City Planning Institute of Japan, 2008 (in Japanese).

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Mar. 01, 2021