| Literature DB >> 27007117 |
Kong Joo Shin1, Ryo Nakakido2, Shinya Horie3, Shunsuke Managi1.
Abstract
This paper uses original survey data of the Great East Japan earthquake disaster victims to examine their decision to apply for the temporary housing as well as the timing of application. We assess the effects of victims' attachment to their locality as well as variation in victims' information seeking behavior. We additionally consider various factors such as income, age, employment and family structure that are generally considered to affect the decision to choose temporary housing as victims' solution for their displacement. Empirical results indicate that, ceteris paribus, as the degree of attachment increases, victims are more likely to apply for the temporary housing but attachment does not affect the timing of application. On the other hand, the victims who actively seek information and are able to collect higher quality information are less likely to apply for the temporary housing and if they do apply then they apply relatively later.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27007117 PMCID: PMC4805184 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151928
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Distribution of attachment and information indices (normal-density plot).
Summary statistics: by applied and did not apply.
| Did not Apply | Applied | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| mean | s.d. | mean | S.d. | |
| Newspaper (local) | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0.63 | 0.48 |
| Years in residence | 18.84 | 14.99 | 34.58 | 20.05 |
| Community activities | 0.36 | 0.65 | 0.73 | 0.85 |
| Number of discussants | 0.04 | 0.29 | 0.65 | 1.27 |
| Fireman (dummy) | 0.03 | 0.17 | 0.19 | 0.40 |
| Local occupations | 0.09 | 0.28 | 0.10 | 0.30 |
| Newspaper (nation wide) | 0.36 | 0.48 | 0.07 | 0.26 |
| Weekly magazine | 0.04 | 0.21 | 0.00 | 0.06 |
| Internet access (dummy) | 0.36 | 0.48 | 0.34 | 0.48 |
| Internet information-seeking (dummy) | 0.92 | 0.27 | 0.92 | 0.28 |
| Internet information-seeking | 2.55 | 0.67 | 2.56 | 0.67 |
| Attachment index | 1.19 | 0.87 | 1.83 | 1.03 |
| Information index | 1.55 | 1.10 | 0.92 | 0.75 |
| Age | 46.13 | 10.94 | 53.81 | 12.73 |
| Family income | 3.25 | 1.46 | 2.12 | 1.25 |
| Number of family members | 3.07 | 1.36 | 3.07 | 1.45 |
| Income (per family member) | 1.29 | 0.94 | 0.81 | 0.59 |
| Number of dependents | 1.72 | 0.96 | 1.77 | 1.27 |
| Part-time employment | 0.11 | 0.31 | 0.11 | 0.31 |
| Retiree | 0.04 | 0.20 | 0.15 | 0.36 |
| Unemployed | 0.05 | 0.23 | 0.21 | 0.41 |
| Radiation | 2.74 | 1.81 | 2.98 | 1.98 |
| Observations | 614 | 497 | ||
Applying for temporary housing and the timing of application.
| (1) apply | (2) apply | (3) timing | (4) timing | (5) timing | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Newspaper (nationwide) | -1.025 | 1.432 | |||
| Weekly magazine | -0.147 (0.526) | -0.050 (0.684) | |||
| Internet access | -0.332 | -0.212 (0.301) | |||
| Internet information seeking | -0.225 (0.187) | -0.583 (0.386) | |||
| Information index | -0.507 | 0.586 | 0.902 | ||
| Years in residence | 0.014 | 0.000 (0.008) | |||
| Newspaper (local) | -0.122 (0.102) | 0.343 (0.275) | |||
| Community activities | 0.133 | 0.282 | |||
| Number of discussants | 0.851 | -0.079 (0.100) | |||
| Local occupations | 0.019 (0.179) | 0.270 (0.500) | |||
| Fireman (dummy) | 1.171 | -0.020 (0.345) | |||
| Attachment index | 0.325 | -0.041 (0.139) | -0.070 (0.140) | ||
| Income (per family member) | -0.448 | -0.382 | -0.164 (0.165) | -0.110 (0.198) | -0.144 (0.231) |
| Age | 0.025 | 0.027 | -0.047 | -0.043 | -0.040 |
| Number of dependents | 0.045 (0.052) | 0.042 (0.046) | -0.295 | -0.286 | -0.296 |
| Part-time employment | 0.352 | 0.189 (0.137) | 0.066 (0.457) | 0.004 (0.444) | -0.065 (0.442) |
| Retiree | 0.643 | 0.464 | 0.839 | 0.727 | 0.745 |
| Unemployed | 0.790 | 0.611 | 0.562 (0.357) | 0.445 (0.333) | 0.308 (0.348) |
| Radiation | -0.007 (0.031) | 0.010 (0.028) | -0.069 (0.083) | -0.089 (0.081) | -0.329 (0.216) |
| lnsigma | |||||
| Information index | -0.236 | ||||
| Radiation | 0.103 | ||||
| 1111 | 1111 | 497 | 497 | 497 | |
Standard errors in parentheses.
*p <.1,
**p <.05,
***p <.01
(1) & (2): logit regression, (3) & (4): ordered logit regression, (5): heteroskedastic logistic regression. All models include prefecture fixed effect.
Fig 2Predictive marginal effects of attachment and information indices.
Predictive marginal effects and the likelihood of applying estimated from model (2) of Table 2 using factor polynomial fit. 95% CI is indicated for each unit of indices.
Brant test of parallel regression assumption.
| Variables | Chi2 | p > Chi2 |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment index | 5.67 | 0.129 |
| Information index | 11.47 | 0.009 |
| Income (per family member) | -6.85 | -999.00 |
| Age | 0.35 | 0.950 |
| Number of dependents | 1.94 | 0.586 |
| Part-time employment | 3.25 | 0.354 |
| Retiree | 5.01 | 0.171 |
| Unemployed | 5.42 | 0.144 |
| Radiation | 19.52 | 0.000 |
| All | 94.45 | 0.000 |
| Degree of freedom | 33 |
Fig 3The marginal effects of attachment and information on the timing of application.
Predicted Likelihood estimated from Model (5) of Table 2. Factor polynomial fit with 95% CI.