More than 15,000 pre-existing housing units were rented by the Kumamoto Prefectural government and provided as temporary housing (from here on referred as “subsidized private-rental housing”) to secure accommodation for people who lost their homes during the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake. This provision of subsidized private-rental housing has been a cause of concern, as it can socially isolate earthquake victims and lead to the outflow of population in an area impacted by an earthquake. This study was conducted in a mountainous area hit by the earthquake, where such issues were likely to become serious. The aim of this study was to comprehend the relocation status of households that lived in the subsidized private-rental housing units and assess the relocation-associated changes in their neighbor relations.
This study was conducted in Minamiaso village, where collapsing of houses and mass landslides were severe. Based on the data provided by Minamiaso Village, we compared the trends in the rebuilding of homes among households living in subsidized private-rental housing to those living in constructed temporary housing. In addition, interviews were conducted at two separate time periods with households that lived in subsidized private-rental housing. The results were studied in relation to the trends in home-rebuilding to analyze the changes in neighbor relations.
There were three typical patterns of relocation found among households living in subsidized private-rental housing. These patterns were: “inside the village to inside of the village,” “outside the village to inside the village,” and “outside the village to outside the village.” While over 80% of the households living in constructed temporary housing had already rebuilt their homes within the village, only about 60% of the households living in subsidized private-rental housing had done so. Further, only about 50% of the households living in subsidized private-rental housing outside the village rebuilt homes inside the village, constituting a major portion of the population outflow from the village.
The neighbor relations that existed before the earthquake had been maintained to a degree through community annual events, continued participation in cooperative work, and residents visiting farmland and properties for management purposes until homes were rebuilt. After rebuilding homes, it was suggested that changes in neighbor relations differed depending on the relocation pattern. Differences were observed in both the “inside to inside” and “outside to inside” households by determining whether the site of the rebuilt home was in the original, pre-earthquake neighborhood or a different neighborhood within the village. While the households that rebuilt homes in their original neighborhoods resumed and maintained their pre-earthquake neighbor relations, the households that built homes outside their original neighborhoods gradually re-centered their neighbor relations in the new neighborhoods. Changes in neighbor relations of “outside to outside” households differed based on the means by which they rebuilt their homes. While the households that constructed new houses built neighbor relations in their new communities, the households that moved to rental housing could not build neighbor relations as easily; they were thus, believed to be at risk of becoming socially isolated.
