This paper examined the factors affecting residents' acceptance of the support in terms of “trust” to others based on the action research on support for improvement of temporary houses and environment after the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011. We achieved questionnaire and interview research for the residents of temporary houses in Motoyoshi-cho, Kesennuma-city and analyzed how they accepted the supports. The results are as follows they shows that residents depend their decision not only on support based on technological approach but also on social and psychological approach including trust building.
1. Characters of residents' decision to accept the supports
Some residents accept the support (countermeasure to hotness and coldness) because they properly understood the problems and technology with their knowledge or experience. However, other many residents couldn't understand them enough and depend their decision on “trust” to others. The former ones recognize “ability” of the supporters based on skills to archive the improvement. The later ones expect attitude of supporters as volunteers or students more strongly than ability of supporters as experts. For the later ones, sympathy to other residents are also important factors facilitating their decision. In addition, some residents more properly understand supports after acceptance of them than before through their continuous involvement to the improvement (ex. maintenance and repair etc.). Furthermore, limitation of resource and ability of supporters sometimes leads the residents more actively participate to the support.
2. Relationships of factors affecting acceptance of the supports
Uncertainty relating to the technology and the support causes residents to feel them load. They have negative effect on residents' acceptance of the support. Other psychological factors as diffidence and hesitance also affect the acceptance. Continuous involvement (ex. works and maintenance and knowledge sharing) in temporary houses seems to be mere temporary relationships. However, trust building to others and technology acquirement sometime advance through the continuous involvement. In that case residents accept the support and achieve countermeasure by themselves with not only individual effort but support from others. In addition, effect of the support for residents are not only direct effect of the countermeasure (solution of coldness and condensation or technology acquirement) but also indirect effect as acquiring opportunity to communicate with volunteers. Supporters tend to evaluate supports in terms from physical improvement. However, not a few residents regard communication itself as purpose to accept supports.
3. Consideration on the support methods based on the results
Firstly, uncertainty relating to the technology and the supports have to be reduced for keeping better precondition to supplying the support. It is efficient for the supporters to share information and make common recognition and mutual understanding among supporters and residents. Secondary, it is efficient to introduce more concrete and direct communication such as display of improvement model and explanation meeting for residents when residents have to decide acceptance of the support. “Trust” is important because it is difficult to remove uncertainty completely from the support activities. In order to build trust, roles of non-specialist such as students and volunteers are often important and specialists have to conduct them to achieve technological support appropriately. Thirdly, continuous involvement such as maintenance, communication and follow-up to problems are efficient to pull out more active involvement of residents.