抄録
In This study examines the aid given by local governments that received evacuees due to the Great East Japan Earthquake and the nuclear power plant accident. The main results are as follows.
1. In Ibaraki Prefecture, Kenpoku, the cities of the northern region of Ibaraki and Rokko, the southeast region of Ibaraki were the areas where radioactive contamination and residential damage in large amounts were found. In response to this level of damage, the greatest number of citizens evacuated outside the prefecture were from Kenpoku region, to the extent the local governments grasped the situation.
2. According to local governments in Ibaraki Prefecture, the grasp rate of citizens evacuating to outside the prefecture was markedly lower than that of citizens evacuating from Fukushima Prefecture to Ibaraki Prefecture. This indicates that the number of evacuees from Ibaraki Prefecture who registered with the National Refugee Information System was extremely low. The reason is that overwhelming majority of citizens evacuating from Ibaraki Prefecture were regarded voluntary refugees, and these individuals saw no reason to register.
3. Between 60 and 70 percent of local governments nationwide gave aid broadly to refugees outside the prefecture without requiring them to be victims of residential damage or to be from towns or villages where the Disaster Relief Law has been applied.
4. Regarding those who evacuated voluntarily, the overall rate of those being aided by local governments nationwide was clearly lower than those evacuating to outside their home prefecture, but among local governments 60% didn't distinguish between the two groups, and 25% established individual requirements for aid.
5. The disparity in aid between refugees to outside the prefecture and voluntary refugees varied by individual, but residential aid differences were relatively small, only slightly above 10 points. This is due, as indicated above, to the fact that a little over 60% of local governments nationwide made no distinction between the two groups in their aid requirements, and also can be seen to reflect that the number of local governments responding with individual measures is high.
6. The number of local governments nationwide with individual support measures engaged in livelihood support for refugees was 20%.
Based on these results, a number of suggestions was made.
