View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Japanese inter-regional migrationpatterns affected by 2011 Tohoku
Disaster, analyzed with 2015 JapanPopulation Census
1
Prof. Makoto, Okumura International Research Institute of Disaster Science
IRIDeS, Tohoku University, Sendai, JapanE-mail:mokmr@m.tohoku.ac.jp
Swift restoration gathers peoples attention,adding to the direct impact of the disaster
Hazard and Exposure
Vulnerability
Resilience
Activity Level of Socio-economic
TimeImpact ∝Hazard�Exposure�Vulnerability
Loss
2
We conduct a research to capture the restoration trend through population change based on the Annual migration statistics (Quantitative Analysis)
Presented at IDRiM 2017 in Reykjavik (Aug.25)
Migration flows to be enlarged after a disaster! Hyogo Prefecture with Kobe Earthquake in 1995
3
0"
50000"
100000"
150000"
200000"
250000"
300000"
350000"1979"
1981"
1983"
1985"
1987"
1989"
1991"
1993"
1995"
1997"
1999"
2001"
2003"
2005"
2007"
2009"
2011"
2013"
Hyogo%Pref.�
Birth_Hyg" Death_Hyg"Immig_Hyg" Emig_Hyg"
1996FYImmigration Peak
Emigration Peaks in 94�
95FY
Annual Emigration / ImmigrationNumbers from/to each Prefecture
Statistical Analysis of migration flows4
Enlargements by Disaster(s)Migration free from disaster �Normal Migration Pattern�
Disaster Size (measured by annual R.I.A.: Relative Affected Inhabitants)
regressed
Inhabitant Registration Statistics�1973-2013�
Disaster Statistics by Fire Agency
�
�
Fixed Effect of Panel Data Analysis
Annual R.A.I Number of cases Cumulative %
No Disaster 0 296 14.35%
Small Size D. 0 � ������� 857 55.89%
Medium Size D. 0.0001��� ������ 587 84.34%
Large Size D. 0.001� ����� 276 97.77%
Huge Size D. 0.01� 47 100.00%
5
Categorization of Disaster Size ( )Di,t
�Disaster size is captured by annual relative affected inhabitants.(Number of affected inhabitants / prefecture inhabitants)�Variables are categorized in four different size.
R.A.I is prepared annually for each prefecture (1970-2013)excluding Okinawa before 1974.We estimate the effect up to 3 years before.We did not consider Tohoku 3 Prefectures, because of lack of reliable number of affected people in Fire Agency Statistics.
Estimated Enlargement effects by disaster of different size
6
0.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.4
Smal
l sam
e yr
Smal
l 1 y
r b
efo
re
Smal
l 2 y
r b
efo
re
Smal
l 3 y
r b
efo
re
Med
ium
sam
e yr
Med
ium
1 y
r be
fore
Med
ium
2 y
r be
fore
Med
ium
3 y
r be
fore
Larg
e sa
me
yr
Larg
e 1
yr b
efor
e
Larg
e 2
yr b
efor
e
Larg
e 3
yr b
efor
e
Hu
ge s
ame
yr
Hu
ge 1
yr
befo
re
Hu
ge 2
yr
befo
re
Hu
ge 3
yr
befo
re
Emig ImmigR.I.A>0.01
Emigration will shrink after one yearNo negative effect on Immigration• No social decrease of Population
Emigration increase and Immigration decrease Social decrease of population
R.I.A<0.01Effects of
2011 Disaster were not included!
Migration in Fukushima seems different after the Tohoku Earthquake, Tsunami
and Nuclear Accident in 2011
7
Immigration Peak appeared, as well as
Emigration
0"
20000"
40000"
60000"
80000"
100000"
120000"
140000"
160000"
1979"
1981"
1983"
1985"
1987"
1989"
1991"
1993"
1995"
1997"
1999"
2001"
2003"
2005"
2007"
2009"
2011"
2013"
Miyagi&Pref.�
Birth_Myg" Death_Myg"Immig_Myg" Emig_Myg"
0"
20000"
40000"
60000"
80000"
100000"
120000"
1979"
1981"
1983"
1985"
1987"
1989"
1991"
1993"
1995"
1997"
1999"
2001"
2003"
2005"
2007"
2009"
2011"
2013"
Fukushima)Pref.�
Birth_Fksm" Death_Fksm"Immig_Fksm" Emig_Fksm"
Only emigration Peak was appeared
in Fukushima
Let us investigate migration pattern more qualitatively!
TWO NATIONAL STATISTICSMigration Report by Residence Registration
Japan Population Census
Interval Annual 5 years (Questions on migration: once in 10 years)
PublishedContents
Quantitative Info:Numbers of total emigrants and Immigrants of each Prefecture or municipality.
Including Qualitative Info.:Age StructureOrigin and Destination Prefectures
Source Aggregate the residence registration from municipal governments
Exhaustive Survey to the people actually reside. (Direct distribution and collection)
Problem in Fukushima case
Many emigrants do not move registration, in order to keep rights to get support for the people affected by the Nuclear Accidents.
We cannot capture people’s migrations who already return to Fukushima by Oct.2015.
8
NET-MIGRATION ANALYSIS For Age-classes
2
-20000
-15000
-10000
-5000
0
5000
10000
5~ 10~ 15~ 20~ 25~ 30~ 35~ 40~ 45~ 50~ 55~ 60~ 65~ 70~ 75~ 80~ 85~
������
5 year age category�age in period end year�
Fukushima Prefecture 5 years net-migration
(Imigration – emigration)
1995�2000� 2005�2010� 2010�2015�
Negative (loss)
Positive (gain)
Emigration from each Prefecture in the four intervals10
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
01-A
02H*3
03�"3
04��3
05823
06��3
077�3
08<�3
09'$3
10:K3
11�13
12=3
13&�B
146��3
15#/3
16��3
175�3
187�3
19�)3
20ED3
21�F3
22I�3
23!43
24�C3
25.?3
26�B�
27�G�
28��3
29�;3
30 +�3
31M�3
32�(3
33��3
34��3
35��3
36 �3
37J�3
38!�3
39L43
407�3
41�?3
42E�3
430%3
44��3
45��3
46N��3
47,93
@�>1985-90@�>1995−00@�>2005−10
1985-19901995-20002005-20102010-2015
Fukushima is the only prefecture where number of emigrants grew in between 2010-2015.
Immigration to each Prefecture in the four intervals11
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
01-A
02H*3
03�"3
04��3
05823
06��3
077�3
08<�3
09'$3
10:K3
11�13
12=3
13&�B
146��3
15#/3
16��3
175�3
187�3
19�)3
20ED3
21�F3
22I�3
23!43
24�C3
25.?3
26�B�
27�G�
28��3
29�;3
30 +�3
31M�3
32�(3
33��3
34��3
35��3
36 �3
37J�3
38!�3
39L43
407�3
41�?3
42E�3
430%3
44��3
45��3
46N��3
47,93
@�>1975-80 @�>1985-90 @�>1995−00@�>2005−10 @�>2010−15
1975-19801985-19901995-20002005-20102010-2015
There are no particular characteristicsin Tohoku Prefectures
Net Immigration to each Prefecture in the four intervals
12
-200000
-150000
-100000
-50000
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
01-B
02I*3
03�"3
04��3
05823
06��3
077�3
08=�3
09'$3
10;L3
11�13
12>3
13&�C
146��3
15#/3
16��3
175�3
187�3
19�)3
20FE3
21�G3
22J�3
23!43
24�D3
25.@3
26�C�
27�H�
28��3
29�<3
30 +�3
31N�3
32�(3
33��3
34��3
35��3
36 �3
37K�3
38!�3
39M43
407�3
41�@3
42F�3
430%3
44��3
45��3
46O��3
47,:3
9A�?1985-909A�?1995−009A�?2005−109A�?2010−15
1985-19901995-20002005-20102010-2015
Fukushima is the only prefecture where net loss of migration grew in between 2010-2015.
Qualitative Analysis focusing on gender and age.NMF: Non-negative Matrix Factorization
• Non negative factorization Method can show several sex-age migration patterns and give weightings for each region.• Each factor may correspond to objective of migration, but we do
now know the number of factors a priori.
13
XE WEF
=
�n:
Reg
ions
x 2
n:R
egio
nsx
2
m�Sex & Age m�Sex & Agek:factors
k:fa
ctor
sXI WI
How different age-groups jointly move with different purpose?
Next, I show the case of 7 factors division.
Factors: sex and age structure14
0.00E+00
1.00E-02
2.00E-02
3.00E-02
4.00E-02
5.00E-02
6.00E-02
7.00E-02
8.00E-02
9.00E-02
M00
M05
M10
M15
M20
M25
M30
M35
M40
M45
M50
M55
M60
M65
M70
M75
M80
M85+
F00
F05
F10
F15
F20
F25
F30
F35
F40
F45
F50
F55
F60
F65
F70
F75
F80
F85+
MiddleWorker1 DependentFamily2 MiddleFamily3Collage4 SingleWorker5 NewJobWorker6SingleWorker7
Male Female
Scores: What’s happen in each prefecture?15
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
Emig01
Emig03
Emig05
Emig07
Emig09
Emig11
Emig13
Emig15
Emig17
Emig19
Emig21
Emig23
Emig25
Emig27
Emig29
Emig31
Emig33
Emig35
Emig37
Emig39
Emig41
Emig43
Emig45
Emig47
Immig02
Immig04
Immig06
Immig08
Immig10
Immig12
Immig14
Immig16
Immig18
Immig20
Immig22
Immig24
Immig26
Immig28
Immig30
Immig32
Immig34
Immig36
Immig38
Immig40
Immig42
Immig44
Immig46
SingleWorker7 NewJobWorker6 SingleWorker5 Collage4MiddleFamily3 DependentFamily2 MiddleWorker1
Immigration
Emigration
Weightings: What’s happen in each prefecture?16
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Emig01
Emig03
Emig05
Emig07
Emig09
Emig11
Emig13
Emig15
Emig17
Emig19
Emig21
Emig23
Emig25
Emig27
Emig29
Emig31
Emig33
Emig35
Emig37
Emig39
Emig41
Emig43
Emig45
Emig47
Immig02
Immig04
Immig06
Immig08
Immig10
Immig12
Immig14
Immig16
Immig18
Immig20
Immig22
Immig24
Immig26
Immig28
Immig30
Immig32
Immig34
Immig36
Immig38
Immig40
Immig42
Immig44
Immig46
SingleWorker7 NewJobWorker6 SingleWorker5 Collage4 MiddleFamily3 DependentFamily2 MiddleWorker1
Weightings (relative) in Northeastern 10 prefectures17
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
01Ho
kkaido
02Ao
mori
03Iwate
04Miyagi
05Akita
06Yamagata
07Fukushima
08Ibaragi
09Tochigi
10Gu
mma
SingleWorker7 NewJobWorker6SingleWorker5 Collage4MiddleFamily3 DependentFamily2MiddleWorker1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
01Ho
kkaido
02Ao
mori
03Iwate
04Miyagi
05Akita
06Yamagata
07Fukushima
08Ibaragi
09Tochigi
10Gu
mma
SingleWorker7 NewJobWorker6SingleWorker5 Collage4MiddleFamily3 DependentFamily2MiddleWorker1
Emigration Immigration
Dependent Family 2 moved out from Fukushima
Middle Worker 1, New Job Worker 6 moved in to Fukushima
Strongly observed Factors in Fukushima18
0.00E+00
1.00E-02
2.00E-02
3.00E-02
4.00E-02
5.00E-02
6.00E-02
7.00E-02
8.00E-02
9.00E-02
M00
M05
M10
M15
M20
M25
M30
M35
M40
M45
M50
M55
M60
M65
M70
M75
M80
M85
+
F00
F05
F10
F15
F20
F25
F30
F35
F40
F45
F50
F55
F60
F65
F70
F75
F80
F85+
MiddleWorker1 DependentFamily2 MiddleFamily3Collage4 SingleWorker5 NewJobWorker6SingleWorker7
New Collage Students went out
Dependent Family as mothers and children went out
Young Workers (more male than
Male Female
Fleshly gained results
• We adopt the NMF analysis on a dataset of age-sex matrix prefecture versus immigrants, emigrants and stay in three periods.
• 1995-2000 (including Kobe earthquake?)• 2005-2010• 2010-2015 (including effect of 2011)
19
2010-15 ImmigrationFactor Scores
20
� _�
��9P
W6?
�,?
��?
D>?
�(?
C ?
K�?
30?
FZ?
�=?
L?
2�Q
B�"?
-;?
��?
A"?
C�?
�5?
TS?
�U?
X�?
+@?
�R?
:M?
�Q&
�V&
'?
�J?
�7�?
\�?
4?
��?
% ?
��?
* ?
Y"?
+�?
[@?
C�?
�M?
T!?
<1?
�?
�!?
]� ?
8E?
O� �H N�bNH �Ia�# �.`c�$/d �.`c�[$d )/[^G
Young Family Immigrants are observed anywhere and any time,.Only Exceptional Case is Fukushima 2010-2015.
21
� ���
Factor scores in Fukushima in 3 periods
1995-00�� 2005-10�� 2010-15�� 1995-00�� 2005-10�� 2010-15��
������
� � ��!�� ����� ���"���# ���"���# ����
lDisappear of Young Family’s immigration.lNew Job Immigration increasedlIncrease in “Young Family”
Emigration Immigration
22
� ���
Emigration Immigration
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2000 2010 2015 2000 2010 2015 2000 2010 2015
�� �� ������� �������� � �����
�������� ���� �
New Job Workers, Mobility was relatively high in 1995-2000.
KOBE CASE ‘HYOGO Pref.
Emigration Immigration Stay (not move)
Discussion on the result
Unique patterns were observed in Fukushima.• Young Mothers and children decided to emigrate from
Fukushima (Dependent Family 2)• Fear of influence of radioactivity.
• Middle aged (mostly male) workers (Middle Worker1) and young single workers finding the job (New Job Workers6) moved in Fukushima• In order to have works such as disaster recovery or
the radioactive decontamination.• Middle Family and Dependent Family did not enter
Fukushima
• Many households were dismantled.
23
24
FINDINGS
We investigated the effect of disaster on the inter-regional migration in the following 3 years, considering the disaster size.
Small, Meduim, Large Disaster �R.I.A.<0.01�98% cases�Emigration will shrink after one yearNo negative effect on Immigration• No social decrease of Population• External Assistance is not always necessary
Huge Disaster �R.I.A.>0.01�2% of the total cases�Emigration increase and Immigration decrease • Social decrease of population• External Assistance is strongly necessary
25
Future Research Issue
• Consider Disaster type categorization• Consider the external monetary assistance or
designation of “Serious Disaster to be supported”
• Closer investigations, based on the smaller local area data such as municipalities, or different age groups
• Analysis of the effect on economic performance indexes
26
Recommended