- 総合都市研究 (ISSN:03863506)
- no.80, pp.5-39, 2003-03
本研究は、前稿(阪神・トルコ・台湾の比較防災学的考察と課題-活断層地震に対する防災課題及び対策計画の相対化と普遍化-: 総合都市研究第75号)に引き続き、比較防災学の視点から、1995年1月の阪神・淡路大震災、1999年8月のトルコ・マルマラ地震および1999年9月の台湾・集集地震における復旧・復興過程を整理考察するものである。とくに、住宅の再建・復興過程の分析を中心に、都市復興の進め方にも視野を広げ、その特徴と課題を比較考察している。各国・地域の社会文化的・政治的・制度的な相違は、災害に対する意識の違いとなり、それが復旧・復興対策にも大きな違いを与えている。阪神の特徴は、①住宅復旧に向けて、個別に対応した被災者が過半を占めているのであるが、当初の避難にテントは活用されず学校等に開設された避難所を多用し、その後の住宅復旧の自力対応が困難な弱者に対して応急仮設住宅を建設していること、②住宅再建では自力再建を基本としつつも借家層に対する災害復興公営住宅を大量に供給していること、③都市復興では被害が集中したのは木造密集市街地であったが、そのうち都市インフラが未整備の地域(約280ha) では土地区画整理事業や市街地再開発事業によって、都市インフラの整備を行っていること、などに集約できる。トルコ・マルマラ地震からの復興過程では、トルコの災害法による普及復興対策に特徴がある。①住宅復旧に向けて余震への恐怖から自力あるいは公的に提供されたテントが多用され、学校等を避難所としては利用していない。軍用テントも加えて、諸外国からの支援を得て建設された応急仮設住宅は、当初は持ち家層の被災者を対象としていたことも特徴的である。②住宅再建では、持ち家階層で住宅を全壊全焼した有権者を対象に、郊外に住宅団地を急速開発し、復興住宅(恒久住宅)をほとんど無料で供給したこと、③被災した市街地は街路や公園が一定程度整備されているために復興にあたっての基盤整備は不要であるが、区分所有建物が多くて合意形成が困難な状況にあるうえに、断層近辺地域では厳しい建築規制が実施されているため、現地再建が進みにくい状況がある。台湾・集集地震では、①住宅復旧に向けて、トルコと同様にテント等が多用された。応急仮設住宅は民間団体の支援としての供給が特徴的であるが、量的には少なかった。それは、家賃補助としての現金支給策を多くの被災者が希望した結果でもある。②住宅再建では、農村地域での安価な自力再建型住宅など個別の自力再建を基本としつつも、集合住宅の再建には、基金会というNGOの支援を活用した取り組みが特徴的である。③都市復興としては、トルコと同様に日本よりも市街地の基盤施設が整備されているため、一部の地域を除いて市街地整備型の復興ではないこと、断層周辺の建築制限や斜面地で再建不能の地域のために、新規開発(新社区)による復興が進められていることも特徴である。This is a comparative study on the characteristics of urban/housing recovery and reconstruction processes among the Marmara Earthquake of 1999 in Turkey, the 921 Taiwan Great Earthquake of 1999 and the Hanshin-Awaji Great Earthquake of 1995. The recovery and reconstruction processes are different from each other, which were brought in various backgrounds such as a history, social culture, economic situation, legal system for disaster recovery and reconstruction, and so on in each country. In this study, a comparison of the housing recovery and urban reconstruction among three earthquakes is highlighted. The most characteristic points of each recovery and reconstruction in Turkey are as follows; In a case of the Hanshin-Awaji Great Earthquake that occurred in winter, 1) many sufferers were evacuated in to official shelters such as schools and public buildings, not in tents. More than 49,000 units of temporary houses were supplied for approximately 30% of severe damaged houses. 2) More than 53,000 of public houses for rent are built for the poorly and the elderly who had lived in public rent houses before the earthquake, though a large number of damaged houses are rebuilt by themselves of sufferers. 3) Approximately 280 hectare of severely damaged districts are reconsturucted plannedly with the methods of land readjustment and urban redevelopment, because the condition of urban facilities such as streets and parks in these districts were very poor in spite of crowded wooden houses. 4)More than 100 condominiums which were damaged severely are rebuilt by themselves of suffered residents. They are promoted by new legal systems for renewal of condominiums and various public supports. In a case of the Marmara Earthquake in Turkey that occurred in Summer, 1) Many people who were suffered not only severely but slightly, lived in private tents and official tents both of the Red-crescent and the Military, because almost all people were afraid of aftershock and did not want to stay in slightly damaged buildings. The number of public shelter of "tent city" were prepared for more than 100,000 units. The number of private shelters of tents were unknown. The temporary houses were built by not only the national government but by the donation from foreign countries and NGOs. 2) According to Turkish Disaster Law, damaged house owners have a right to take services of temporary houses and to get a permanent house to be reconstructed by the National Government. In this earthquake, such permanent houses which are developed on the suburban hills with good condition of soil are for sale with no-interest loan in spite of high inflation of Turkish economy. It means that permanent houses are approximately "free". On the other hand, sufferers who lived rented houses have no right of permanent houses. Additionally there is no system of public houses for rent of the poorly. They can take a few of public supports for housing recovery. 3) Many parts of damaged buildings were condominiums with shops and offices of mainly 6 stories. The new regulation of building height of 3 stories or less is set in affected built-up areas of every city, because of bad soil condition for high-raised buildings. This regulation makes it impossible to be rebuilt as same scale floor as the former condominium. Therefore, a decision of rebuilding in an original site is unable to be made, though the owner of a house unit of a condominium can get a new permanent house in the suburbs. There is no case of rebuilt condominiums in the built-up areas. 4) An issue of urban reconstruction is not to widening of streets and arrangement of parks but to rebuild the damaged condominiums in built-up areas. In a case of the 921 Taiwan Great Earthquake that occurred also in summer, 1) Many tents were used as a shelter both privately and officially. Many people lived in tents temporarily, because they were also very afraid of aftershocks. More than 90% of sufferers of severely damaged houses choose a subsidy of rental fee support, but only 5% of them choose temporary houses which served by various NPOs. 2) Many of damaged houses are rebuilding by themselves, though there are several difficulties such as traditional land-owner relationships, the natives problems, jobless in villages and so on. The reconstruction of condominiums are progressing according to various supports by NGO of 921 Reconstruction Fund. Two of thirds of 178 damaged condominiums are completed or under construction for rebuilding. 3) There is new building regulation zones along the Fault, in which no-rebuilding were reconstructed. Therefore, it is necessary to develop new communities of houses for sufferers. These are "new community development plan". On the other hand, the urban reconstruction projects in each damaged district are being promoted as a "community-oriented" redevelopment and re-vitalization. Such "community-oriented" redevelopment style is learned from Japan, however there is no system for "community-oriented" nor "public participation" in Turkey.