Next Article in Journal
Cultivating Agroecological Networks during the Pandemic in Argentina: A Sociomaterial Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Rural Land Right on Farmers’ Income in Underdeveloped Areas: Evidence from Micro-Survey Data in Yunnan Province, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 11
Issue 10
10.3390/land11101781
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Relative Preference for Living in a Safer Place from Natural Disasters: A Case Study at Tokyo, Japan

by
Tomoyuki Takabatake
* and
Nanami Hasegawa
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kindai University, Higashi Osaka City, Osaka 577-8502, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2022, 11(10), 1781; https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101781
Submission received: 1 September 2022 / Revised: 24 September 2022 / Accepted: 28 September 2022 / Published: 13 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Land, Biodiversity, and Human Wellbeing)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
While it would be desirable to encourage people to live in places that are safer from natural disasters to minimize casualties and property damage, few studies have focused on people’s relative preference for living in such places. The present study has sought to clarify the extent to which Tokyo residents consider safety from natural disaster to be more important than other factors relevant to the choice of residential location, as well as what personal attributes may be correlated with this perception. An online survey was conducted to collect 1554 valid responses from residents in the 23 city wards of Tokyo, Japan, and statistical analysis (a chi-square test and multivariable logistic regression analysis) was then applied to the collected responses. The results demonstrated that, on average, 45.1% of the respondents considered that “safety from natural disasters” was relatively important among twelve such factors related to the selection of a suitable residential location. It was also found that showing a hazard map to Tokyo residents or educating them to take more interest in their health and the surrounding natural environment could be effective to increase the number of people preferring to live in safer places.

1. Introduction

Natural disasters imperil human lives and properties. According to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) [1], approximately 1,200,000 people were reported to have perished as a result of natural disasters from 2000 to 2019. Moreover, as a result of global warming, the weather is becoming more volatile and natural disasters are therefore anticipated to occur more frequently and severely in the future [2,3]. While hard countermeasures (e.g., dikes, seawalls, and anti-seismic reinforcement) constitute one effective approach to reduce the danger and harm caused by natural disasters, it would not be realistic to entirely protect human lives and property with hard countermeasures. Soft countermeasures, such as proper evacuation, have some potential for reducing injury and mortality as well [4]. However, difficulties in undertaking proper and timely evacuation during natural disasters have frequently been reported in accounts of past natural disasters (e.g., [5,6,7,8]). In addition, because of the recent outbreak of COVID-19, many people might hesitate to evacuate to a refuge or shelter during natural disasters, as they would wish to avoid spending time in an enclosed space with many other people.
The shortcomings of both hard and soft countermeasures suggest that facilitating the choice, or option, to live in a place that is less prone to natural disasters could be an alternative risk-management approach. In fact, Japan’s ‘Enforcement Regulations of the Building Lots and Buildings Transaction Business Law’ was partially amended in August 2020, as a result of the fact that significant damage due to natural disasters (especially extreme rainfall and flooding) had lately been observed in many places throughout Japan [9]. The amended law mandates hazard maps to be incorporated into real estate paperwork and to be presented and explained during transactions.
There are a number of studies of people’s residential preferences. For instance, Kim et al. [10] investigated the impacts of transport options on residential location choices in Oxfordshire, UK(UK); the results indicated that increases in commuting travel time and costs were significantly correlated with an increased intention to move away from the area in question. Traoré [11] investigated the residential location choices of those living in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, and showed that they would pay more to live close to an urban park than to their workplace. Stokenberga [12] reported that those who live in Bogota, Columbia, prefer to live closer to family members, especially when they need support from their family. Nakaya et al. [13] used Nagaoka City, Japan, as a study area and showed that closeness to their workplace, relatives, and school for their children is more important than land price among householders in their 30s or 40s who were living with small children. In addition to those listed above, residential preferences have been studied in many other places, including China [14], Germany [15], Israel [16], Japan [17,18,19,20,21,22], and Pakistan [23,24].
Some of the existing studies have investigated the relationship between natural disaster risks and residential choices [25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. For instance, house prices in flood-prone areas have been reported to be generally lower than those in flood-free areas [25,26,27,28,29]. According to [28], property values are 5% to 10% lower when they are located within a flood zone. Zhang [30] also indicated that while the risks of flooding significantly influenced people’s decision on purchasing a house, those of hurricanes and toxic chemicals were not salient in house purchase decisions. The residential preferences of people affected by actual natural disasters have also been studied by many researchers [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. Imai and Tada [33] reported that people affected by the 1995 Great Hanshin–Awaji earthquake, which occurred in the Kansai area of Japan, became less likely to prefer to live in a high-rise building. Watanabe and Maruyama [41] examined how people affected by the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake in Japan changed their residential preferences.
As shown, there have indeed been many studies of people’s residential preferences. However, to the authors’ knowledge, none of the existing studies have investigated how likely it is that people will consider safety from natural disasters to be important when they select residential locations, as compared with other relevant residential preference factors, such as rents, safety from crimes [42], the natural environment [43], and accessibility to the workplace [44]. Due to the scarcity of research into preferences for safety from natural disasters, it has also not been clarified what demographics, items that they think are important in life, and attitudes toward natural disasters might have a bearing on any preference to live in an area that is safer from natural disasters than other areas. Thus, the authors of present study aim to clarify (1) the extent to which people consider it important to live in a place that is safer from natural disasters, (2) what personal attributes are associated with the relative preference for living in a safer place, and (3) the extent to which the associated personal attributes affect the relative preference. In the present study, an internet-based questionnaire survey of 2000 people living in Tokyo, Japan was first performed. Then, statistical analysis was applied to further investigate the questionnaire survey results.

2. Methodology

2.1. Study Area

Tokyo, the capital city of Japan, was selected as the study area. The location of the study area is shown in Figure 1. More specifically, a questionnaire survey was conducted among those who live within the 23 city wards in Tokyo. As of March 2022, around 14 million inhabitants of Tokyo live in an area of approximately 2200 km2, with around 10 million of those inhabitants living within the 23 city wards (around 627 km2).
Tokyo has been devastated by natural disasters in the past. For instance, the 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake caused massive damage to Tokyo, with over 140,000 people dead or missing, and around 300,000 houses destroyed [45]. The typhoon of October 1917 generated a significant storm surge in Tokyo and flooded an area of over 200 km2, with over 1500 people dead or missing, and around 180,000 houses inundated [46]. In addition, heavy rainfall generated by the 1947 Typhoon Kathleen caused major flooding in the Arakawa River basin, with around 120,000 houses in Tokyo suffering from inundation [46].
The eastern part of Tokyo 23 city wards (see Figure 1), located downstream of Arakawa River, experienced significant land subsidence caused by groundwater pumping during the development of the area as an industrial zone, mainly during the period of modern Japanese history that is known as the Meiji era (1869–1912). As a result, areas below sea level, currently referred to as zero-meter regions, became widespread across the eastern part of Tokyo. Thus, in the event that the levees of the Arakawa River were to be breached in a worst-case river flooding scenario, it is expected that the zero-meter regions would be extensively inundated in a short time [47]. In addition, as the flooded water would not naturally drain away, inundation would persist over most of this area for more than two weeks. In 2018, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government published an expected storm surge inundation map [48], based on the assumed recurrence of the strongest typhoon in the history of Japan (the 1934 Muroto Typhoon, which had a minimum pressure of 910 hPa), bound on a worst-case route for Tokyo Bay with a relatively high translational speed of 73 km/h (corresponding to the speed of movement of the 1959 Isewan Typhoon). The map predicts that 17 out of the 23 city wards would be inundated; the total area of the predicted inundation is given as 212 km2. Because of a greater degree of past subsidence, the extent of the expected inundation is greater in the eastern part of Tokyo than the other areas, with 99% of Sumida ward, 98% of Katsushika ward, 91% of Edogawa ward, and 68% of Koto ward being inundated. As such, the eastern part of Tokyo faces higher risks of being flooded as compared to other parts of Tokyo.

2.2. Design of the Questionnaire Survey

A total of 21 questions were prepared for each of the respondents. The questions fell into the following five categories: social and demographic characteristics (Q1–Q9); what is considered to be important in the respondent’s life (Q10); disaster preparedness/awareness (Q11–Q17); influence of COVID-19 on their life (Q18–Q20); and residential preference (Q21). The last question (Q21) asked the respondents to rank the factors that are related to residential choices in the order of importance. In the present study, respondents were asked to rank twelve residential preference factors in order of importance. These twelve factors were, 1: quality of the residence itself (size, floor plan, and price); 2: good natural environment (climate and abundance of greenery); 3: ease of commuting to workplace; 4: access to public transportation: 5: distance to relatives, close friends, and lovers; 6: safety from crime; 7: safety from natural disasters; 8: quality of health and welfare services; 9: good environment for child-rearing; 10: attractiveness of local people and culture; 11: abundance of commercial facilities; and 12: abundance of leisure facilities.
The prepared questionnaire survey sheet was distributed to residents of the 23 city wards of Tokyo through the internet. More specifically, responses were collected from a total of 2000 residents in the 23 city wards of Tokyo who were registered with the marketing network of a private company in Japan (Cross Marketing Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), a firm which has over 5 million registrants all over Japan. The questionnaire survey was conducted on January 20th and 21st, 2022. As there were major local differences across the 23 city wards, an allocation was made when collecting responses to ensure that the geographical diversity of Tokyo was captured. Specifically, the 23 city wards were first separated into the three city proper districts shown in Figure 1. These were the western part (Shinagawa, Meguro, Ota, Setagaya, Nakano, Suginami, Nerima, Itabashi, and Kita wards), the central part (Chiyoda, Minato, Chuo, Bunkyo, Toshima, Shinjuku, Shibuya wards), and the eastern part (Adachi, Katsushika, Arakawa, Taito, Sumida, Edo, and Edogawa wards). Then, the number of responses required to collect from each part was calculated, multiplying 2000 with the actual ratio of population that each part has within the 23 city wards, resulting in 326 (central part), 638 (western part), and 1036 (eastern part), respectively. Finally, the responses were collected until the necessary number of responses from each part had been obtained. It should also be noted that the responses were collected only from residents who were in their 20 s to 60 s, as teenagers would be unlikely to be fully acquainted with the issues, and older people unlikely to be planning to move house, other than to a retirement home.
To avoid internally inconsistent responses, the online questionnaire survey sheet was preconfigured so that the respondents could not select impossible responses (e.g., if they answered that they lived alone in response to the question in which household size is asked, they could not select the response indicating that they lived together with a person requiring assistance in the relevant follow-up question). However, to clearly understand the relationship between the relative preference for living in a safer place from natural disasters and respondents’ attributes, 446 responses were not used for the analysis because the respondents selected “Unanswered” in any of the questions (i.e., n = 1554).

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The results of the questionnaire survey were first simply analyzed to understand the respondents’ demographics, and to clarify the extent to which people consider it important to live in a place that is safer from natural disasters. Subsequently, statistical analysis was performed to further investigate the results. More specifically, a chi-square test was applied to clarify what personal attributes are associated with the relative preference for living in a safer place. Then, a multivariable logistic regression analysis was also applied to clarify the extent to which the associated personal attributes affect the relative preference. To perform statistical analysis, the percentages of those who ranked “safety from natural disasters” in the top (1st–6th) and bottom (7th–12th) categories were first calculated by using the responses of the residential preference question (Q21). Here, it was defined that those who ranked it in the top category are the respondents who relatively preferred to live in a safer place from natural disasters. A chi-square test was then applied to the calculated percentages for the relative salience of living in a safer place, and for the responses to each of the other 20 questions.
The authors also conducted a multivariable logistic regression analysis to further identify the attributes that are more likely to affect the relative preference for living in a safer place from natural disasters, and to which extent they would do so. A multivariable logistic regression analysis is a classification algorithm and used to predict whether a given event occurs or not by calculating the possibility of its occurrence. In the present study, the analysis was used to predict whether the respondents ranked “safety from natural disasters” in the top category or not (i.e., it was used as a dependent variable). While the other questions were used as independent variables, retaining all of them in the developed regression model would decrease the accuracy of prediction. Thus, the stepwise selection method with a p-value of <0.20 was applied to retain only the significant variables. Through the multivariable regression analysis (through the developed regression model), the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for each of the retained independent variables could be obtained. When the odds ratio that a variable has is larger (smaller) than 1, it means that those who selected it were more likely to rank “safety from natural disasters” in the top category. As the logistic regression may not converge if a variable with a small number of responses is included as an independent variable, the following responses were dichotomized before being input as independent variables: Q4 (“junior high school,” “high school,” “vocational school,” “junior college” versus “university,” “university [graduate school]”); Q5 (“students,” “househusband/wife,” “part-time job,” “unemployed” versus “company employed,” “civil servant,” “self-employed,” “company officer,” “freelancer”); Q6 (“1” versus “2,” “3–4,” “5+”); Q7 (“none of the above” versus the other responses); Q8 (living in a rented house versus living in a owned house); Q9 (less than average household income in Tokyo (8,000,000 Japanese Yen, JPY) versus greater than the average; Q11 (“high” and “relatively high” versus “normal,” “relatively low,” “low,” or “I don’t know”); Q19 (changed to remote work versus did not change work style); and Q20 (“increased greatly” and “increased” versus “remained the same”). The present study used the statistical software, SPSS Ver.28.0 (International Business Machines Co., Armonk, NY, USA) and BellCurve for Excel Ver.3.22 (Social Survey Research Information Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) to perform the above-mentioned chi-square test and logistic regression analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Respondents’ Demographics

Table 1 summarizes the cross-tabulation results of the respondents’ socio-demographics (Q1–Q9) and relative preference for safety from natural disasters (i.e., the percentage of those who ranked “safety from natural disasters” from 1st to 6th, and that of those who did so from 7th to 12th for Q21).
The number of responses from each part of Tokyo was shown to be nearly equal to the population shares that each of the western, central, and eastern parts have. When focusing on other socio-demographics of the respondents, the results indicated that there were more male respondents (62.5%) than females (37.5%), a response bias that stands in marked contrast to the actual ratio of male (49.0%) and female (51.0%) residents within the 23 city wards of Tokyo [49]. Older residents, in their 40 s, 50 s, and 60 s, were also more likely to become respondents than younger residents in their 20 s and 30 s. The total percentage of the respondents in their 40 s, 50 s, and 60 s was 81.7%, which is higher than the actual share of such age groups (59.1%) in the 23 city wards of Tokyo. More than 60% of the respondents graduated from university (including graduate school), and 17.7% did not have a job outside of their house, which is smaller than the actual percentage of those in employment (34.2%) in Tokyo [49]. These latter biases could be explained by the fact that respondents were disproportionately male and older in age. While 65.6% of the respondents were living with one or more additional householders, most of them (82.7%) did not live with a member who required assistance (i.e., infants, seniors over 75 years old, disabled, or pregnant women). The results also indicated that approximately 45% lived in a rented dwelling (either a detached house or an apartment), and that nearly 70% lived in an apartment rather than a detached house. Around 23% of the respondents who had an annual household income of over 10,000,000 JPY, which is consistent with the percentage of households having over 10,000,000 JPY annual income in Tokyo as reported by government statistics [50].
Table 2 shows the results of responses to the question that asked what respondents considered important in their life (Q10). In Q10, respondents were allowed to select multiple choices from a list of 17 items. The “health” (65.6%), “money” (54.5%), “hobbies” (42.0%), “food and drinks” (38.2%), and “partner” (36.3%) were the top five most frequently selected things. It was also shown that 9.4% of the respondents answered “nothing.”
The results of the responses to Q11–Q17, which are relevant to disaster awareness, preparedness, and experiences, are summarized in Table 3. Around 50% of the respondents answered that their awareness about natural disasters was average, and 21.6% responded that it was high or relatively high. Overall, 13.1% of the respondents had either experienced natural disasters directly or lived with people who had; and 19.0% had relatives or friends who had experienced natural disasters. Among the responses related to disaster preparedness (Q14–Q17), the respondents reported that while a majority had seen a hazard map (68.5%), knew the location of a place of refuge (58.9%) or had stockpiles of essential supplies (82.0%), less than 20% had experience of participating in disaster preparation activities (e.g., evacuation drills).
With regard to the responses on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic (Q18–Q20) (see Table 4), it was observed that only a small percentage increased their household incomes, while 27.8% suffered a decrease and 68.8% remained the same. Additionally, while nearly half of the respondents did not change their work style, 35.9% answered that they changed to remote work either partially or completely. In addition, the results indicate that 40.9% became more reluctant to evacuate to a shelter due to the concerns about COVID-19 transmission.

3.2. Relative Preference for Living in a Safe Place from Natural Disasters

The results of the residential preferences of respondents are displayed in Figure 2. Numbers in the horizontal axis shows the selection ranking of each residential preference factor. Thus, “1” means that respondents thought the factor was the most important, and “12” that it was the least important. The responses were summarized into the percentages of respondents who ranked each factor in the top (1st–6th) and bottom (7th–12th) categories and are shown in Figure 3. Among the twelve factors, the “quality of the residence itself” was the factor most frequently ranked as 1st, with around 50% considering it the most important, and 83.1% selecting it in the top category. The “ease of commuting to workplace,” “access to public transportation,” “safety from crime,” and “abundance of commercial facilities” were also shown to be more popular factors when selecting their residence, with 70.1%, 83.4%, 79.9%, and 56.2% selecting each of them in the top category, respectively. In contrast, “good environment for child-rearing” was the factor most frequently ranked as 12th, with 35.7% considering it the least important, and only 12.7% selecting it in the top category.
The factor “safety from natural disasters” was most frequently ranked as seventh, while 45.1% selected it in the top category. Comparing the percentages in which each factor was selected in the top category, the percentage of “safety from natural disasters” was lower than that of “quality of the residence itself”, “good natural environment”, “ease of commuting to workplace”, “access to public transportation”, “safety from crime”, and “abundance of commercial facilities” but higher than that of the “distance to relatives, close friends, and lovers”, “quality of health and welfare services”, “good environment for child-rearing”, “attractiveness of local people and culture”, and “abundance of leisure facilities”.

3.3. Personal Attributes Associated with the Relative Preference for Living in a Safer Place from Natural Disasters

The percentages by which “safety from natural disasters” was selected in the top and bottom categories for each of the responses are shown in the right columns in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4. When the questions (or responses for the case of questions that allowed multiple choices) had significant associations with the responses regarding whether “safety from natural disasters” was ranked in the top category or not (through the chi-square tests), the significance level was shown with the asterisks: ** <0.01 and * <0.05.
Regarding socio-demographic characteristics, the authors found that current residential area, age, and occupation were all significantly associated with the responses regarding whether “safety from natural disasters” was ranked in the top category or not (with a p-value of <0.01). It was shown that those living in the eastern part, where the risks of natural disasters are relatively higher, were less likely to rank “safety from natural disasters” in the top category than those living in the other areas. In addition, the older that respondents were, the more likely it was that “safety from natural disasters” would be ranked in the top category. The results also indicated that househusbands/wives and those who were not employed were more likely to rank it in the top category. It should also be noted that those living with infants or intellectually disabled people in their family were less likely to rank “safety from natural disasters” in the top category.
When focusing on what they considered important in life, those who thought “health” “social contribution”, “partner”, “food & drinks”, and “natural environment” to be important were significantly more likely to rank “safety from natural disasters” in the top category with a significance level of <0.05. In particular, “natural environment” was the thing most strongly correlated with a relative preference for living in a safer place from natural disasters.
As expected, when respondents answered that they had a higher level of awareness for natural disasters, had experience of seeing a hazard map, knew a place of refuge, and had stockpiles of essential supplies, they also appeared to consider the “safety from natural disasters” to be more important with a significance level of <0.01. However, personal or co-householder experience of natural disasters was shown to not be significantly correlated with a relative preference for safety from natural disasters.
Finally, all the questions related to the impact of COVID-19 were also significantly associated with the responses regarding whether “safety from natural disasters” was ranked in the top category or not. In particular, those who showed increased hesitance to evacuate to a place of refuge for fear of COVID-19 transmission were more likely to rank “safety from natural disasters” in the top category (with a p-value of <0.01).

3.4. Degree of Influence of Personal Attributes on the Relative Preference for Living in a Safer Place from Natural Disasters

Table 5 indicates the variables that were retained in the multivariable logistic regression model by applying the stepwise selection method with a p-value of less than 0.20 (n = 1554). The numbers in Table 5 indicate the adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). As explained earlier, when the variable has an OR larger (smaller) than 1, it means that those who selected it were more likely to rank “safety from natural disasters” in the top category.
Concerning socio-demographic characteristics, those who lived in the eastern part of Tokyo or had a regular job were less likely to prefer to live in a safer place, with OR = 0.75 (CI = 0.61–0.93, p < 0.01) and OR = 0.63 (CI = 0.49–0.81, p < 0.01), respectively. In contrast, the oldest respondents (i.e., over 60 years old) were shown to have a strong preference for living in a safer place with OR = 1.44, CI = 1.11–1.87, and p < 0.01. It should be noted that respondents living with a person who requires special assistance were 1.56 times less likely to prefer to live in a safer place than those who do not. Respondents who considered that “health” and “natural environment” are important in life preferred to live in a place safer from natural disasters, with OR = 1.34 (CI = 1.06–1.70, p = 0.01) and OR = 1.50 (CI = 0.48–1.02, p = 0.03), respectively.
Concerning disaster awareness and preparedness, only the experiences of having seen a hazard map were found to be significant predictors (at p < 0.05), with the odds of preferring to live in a safer place being 1.38 times (CI = 1.08–1.77, p = 0.01) higher than those who had not seen a hazard map. Although the level of awareness about disaster prevention and mitigation, knowing a place of refuge, and stockpiling of essential supplies were all significantly associated with a relative preference for living in a place that was safer from natural disasters in the chi-square analysis (with p < 0.05), none of them were shown to be significant predictors in the multivariable logistic regression analysis.
While all the three questions related to the impact of COVID-19 remained in the final regression model, the questions of “change in work style” and “hesitance to evacuate to a refugee shelter” were shown to have a significance level of less than 0.05. The results indicated that the respondents who had changed to remote work and increased their hesitance to evacuate to a place of refuge due to COVID-19 were 1.31 times (CI = 1.03–1.66, p = 0.03) and 1.44 times (CI = 1.15–1.79, p < 0.01) more likely to rank the “safety from natural disasters” in the top category than those who had not, respectively.

4. Discussion

4.1. Socio-Demographic Factors

The statistical analysis conducted in the present study revealed, first, with a significance level of p < 0.01, that the respondents who lived in the eastern part of Tokyo were less likely to rank “safety from natural disasters” in the top category among the twelve residential preference factors. As explained in Section 2, the eastern part of Tokyo has higher risks of natural disasters. These findings suggest that people living in areas with higher natural disaster risk are relatively indifferent to natural disaster risks when it comes to choosing where to live. The statistical analysis also showed that those who are over 60 years old and those who do not have a regular job were also more likely to prefer to live in a place that was safer from natural disasters. This could be explained by the facts that such people do generally not need to go to work (the typical retirement age is 60 years old in Japan) and therefore consider that accessibility to the workplace is less important, though additional analysis is required to further clarify the reasons behind them. As for households with vulnerable person (e.g., those who are pregnant, infants, and people with disabilities), such households are advised to live in places that are safer from natural disasters, as they have been more severely impacted during past natural disasters [51]. However, the present study indicated that respondents from households with vulnerable members tended to rank “safety from natural disasters” in the bottom category. As vulnerable people often require assistance during their daily life, their households may be more likely to choose residential locations based on other factors (e.g., quality of health and welfare services, or abundance of childcare facilities), resulting in the importance of safety from natural disasters acquiring a lower priority. In fact, the multivariable logistic regression that was additionally performed indicated that such people are more likely to prefer to live in the areas that had good environments for child-rearing. Thus, greater investment in health, welfare, and childcare services around areas with relatively lower disaster risks would be effective in the long term to reduce the possibility of households with vulnerable members being severely affected by natural disasters, as those services would attract such households.
People who consider “health” or “natural environment” to be important in their lives were shown to have a relative preference for living in places that were safer from natural disasters. Thus, educating people to take more interest in their health and the surrounding natural environment could be effective as a means to increase the number of people preferring to live in safer places.

4.2. Disaster Awareness, Preparedness and Experiences and Impacts of COVID-19

Only the experience of seeing a hazard map among the questions related to disaster awareness, preparedness and experiences was shown to be significantly related to a relative preference for living in a safer place in both the chi-square analysis and the multivariable analysis. As explained in Section 1, the Japanese government recently amended its planning code in such a way as to mandate the presentation of hazard maps for the area where people are planning to live during real estate transactions. As those who have seen a hazard map were shown to be more likely to prefer to live in a safer place, the new code may be expected to encourage more Tokyo residents to live in places that are safer from natural disasters.
It has been reported that risk perception can be affected by disaster experiences [52,53], and that those who had experiences of natural hazards are willing to take adaptation measures [54,55]. In Japan, Imai [32] and Imai and Tada [33] reported that people affected by the 1995 Great Hanshin–Awaji earthquake preferred not to live in high-density areas where heavier damage was observed. Recently, Zander and Garnett [56] reported that the decision to move to a safer place was affected by previous experience of nearly all natural disasters in Australia, while similar decisions were not in the Philippines. The present study showed that the experience of natural disasters was not significantly related to the relative preference for living in a safer place among Tokyo residents, neither in chi-square analysis nor in multivariable analysis, an outcome which is in line with the behavior of people in the Philippines [56]. The reason why natural disasters did not affect relative preference for living in a safer place in the case of Tokyo residents may be that no major natural disasters have occurred in Tokyo since the Great Kanto Earthquake nearly 100 years ago.
The impact of COVID-19 on the real estate market has been reported by Balemi et al. [57]. The present study has also found that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant influence on residential choices, overall. Especially, those who have changed their work style to remote work have been found more likely to prefer to live in a place that is safer from natural disasters. It has also been shown that those who showed increased hesitance to evacuate to a shelter due to COVID-19 also prefer to live in a place that is safer from natural disasters.

4.3. Study Limitations

There are some limitations to the present study. First, as the responses were collected from people who registered with a market research company, the results obtained may not perfectly capture the characteristics of Tokyo residents in general. However, as an online survey is simpler and easier to respond than other surveys (e.g., a postal survey or a face-to-face survey), it would be possible to collect responses from a wider range of people via the internet. In addition, during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was difficult to talk to unknown people, face-to-face, in any case.
Second, as the collected responses included a higher percentage of responses from males and older age groups than the average population percentages, it is likely that the opinions of these cohorts may have biased the obtained results to some degree. Thus, it would be useful to supplement the findings by those obtained using different methods and perspectives (e.g., focus group interviews and key informant interviews).
Third, while the present study did not specify which type of natural disasters people might wish to avoid (the better to gain a broader picture of Tokyo residents’ attitudes), it is likely that responses would change according to the type of natural disaster specified, if it were specified. For instance, Zander and Garnett [56] have also reported that their respondents in Australia and the Philippines are more likely to consider that cyclones, floods, and earthquakes would exercise a greater influence on their future migration decisions than heat waves and sea level rise. It will be important, in future work, to investigate the differences in the effects of each individual hazard on people’s residential preferences. In addition, the responses to future surveys may also differ in terms of whether the respondents currently live in the area expected to suffer from specific natural disasters (e.g., whether they live inside a flood-prone area on a hazard map). Focusing on the residential preferences of those living in an area having relatively higher risks of specific natural disasters may also therefore contribute to build a society that is more aware of the potential for natural disasters and more capable of responding appropriately.

5. Conclusions

The present study was designed to clarify (1) the extent to which people consider it important to live in a place that is safer from natural disasters, (2) what personal attributes are associated with the relative preference for living in a safer place, and (3) the extent to which the associated personal attributes affect the relative preference. The questionnaire survey results indicated that, on average, 45.1% of the respondents in the 23 wards of Tokyo, Japan ranked the residential preference factor “safety from natural disasters” in the top category (i.e., 1st–6th) among twelve such factors, meaning that less than half of Tokyo residents consider this factor to be among the most important factors governing their selection of residential locations.
Concerning the personal attributes, the respondent’s current residential area, age, occupation, number of persons requiring assistance whom he/she lives together, the items that he/she consider important in their life, experience of seeing a hazard map, experience of changing work style due to COVID-19, and experience of changing concerns on evacuating to a refuge shelter due to COVID-19 were found to have significant associations with the relative preference for living in a place that is safer from natural disasters. In addition, people who live in a central or western part of Tokyo, are over 60 years old, do not have a regular job, do not live with persons requiring assistance (vulnerable persons), considered “health” or “natural environment” to be important in their life, have experience of seeing a hazard map of the area where they currently live, have changed in their work style due to COVID-19, or have become more reluctant evacuate to a refuge shelter since the outbreak of the COVID-19, were shown to have a stronger preference for living in a place safer from natural disasters. The results also indicated that the experience of a natural disaster on the part of the respondent or another household member was not significantly correlated with any relative preference for living in a safer place.
Based on the findings, showing a hazard map to Tokyo residents, or educating them to take more interests in their health and the surrounding natural environment could effectively work to encourage them to live in places that are safer from natural disasters. In addition, as households with vulnerable members tend not to prefer to live in a safer place, it would be effective to locate more health, welfare, and childcare facilities, which would attract such households, around areas with relatively lower disaster risks to protect them against natural disasters.
Further investigation would be desirable to clarify whether it is possible to relocate people to a safer place from natural disasters in the long run, and, if possible, how effectively it may be achieved.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.T.; methodology, T.T. and N.H.; data curation, N.H.; formal analysis, T.T. and N.H.; writing—original draft preparation, T.T.; writing—review and editing, T.T. and N.H.; visualization, N.H.; investigation, T.T. and N.H.; supervision, T.T.; project administration, T.T.; funding acquisition, T.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by Organization for Promoting Urban Development.

Data Availability Statement

Some of the data (e.g., questionnaire survey results) that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. 2020. Available online: https://www.undrr.org/publication/undrr-annual-report-2020 (accessed on 9 December 2021).
  2. Zander, K.; Wilson, T.; Garnett, S. Understanding the Role of Natural Hazards in Internal Labour Mobility in Australia. Weather. Clim. Extremes 2020, 29, 100261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nagai, R.; Takabatake, T.; Esteban, M.; Ishii, H.; Shibayama, T. Tsunami Risk Hazard in Tokyo Bay: The Challenge of Future Sea Level Rise. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 45, 101321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Takabatake, T.; Esteban, M.; Nistor, I.; Shibayama, T.; Nishizaki, S. Effectiveness of Hard and Soft Tsunami Countermeasures on Loss of Life under Different Population Scenarios. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 45, 101491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yun, N.Y.; Hamada, M. Evacuation Behaviors in the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. J. Disaster Res. 2012, 7, 458–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Takabatake, T.; Shibayama, T.; Esteban, M.; Achiari, H.; Nurisman, N.; Gelfi, M.; Tarigan, T.A.; Kencana, E.R.; Fauzi, M.A.; Panalaran, S.; et al. Field Survey and Evacuation Behaviour during the 2018 Sunda Strait Tsunami. Coast. Eng. J. 2019, 61, 423–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kanai, K.; Nakano, S. Evacuation Behavior of Facilities for the Elderly in the Heavy Rain of July 2018. J. Disaster Res. 2019, 14, 922–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chakma, S.; Hokugo, A. Evacuation Behavior: Why Do Some People Never Evacuate to a Cyclone Shelter During an Emergency? A Case Study of Coastal Bangladesh. J. Disaster Res. 2020, 15, 481–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) Revision of Enforcement Regulations of the Building Lots and Buildings Transaction Business Law. 2020. Available online: https://www.mlit.go.jp/totikensangyo/const/sosei_const_fr3_000074.html (accessed on 16 April 2022). (In Japanese)
  10. Kim, J.H.; Pagliara, F.; Preston, J. The Intention to Move and Residential Location Choice Behaviour. Urban Studies 2005, 42, 1621–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Traoré, S. Residential Location Choice in a Developing Country: What Matter? A Choice Experiment Application in Burkina Faso. Forest Policy Econ. 2019, 102, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Stokenberga, A. How Family Networks Drive Residential Location Choices: Evidence from a Stated Preference Field Experiment in Bogotá, Colombia. Urban Studies 2019, 56, 368–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nakaya, T.; Higuchi, S.; Nakade, B.; Matsukawa, T. Study on Issue for Promotion of Living in Central Area from the Viewpoint of Detached New Build House in Local City. J. City Plan. Inst. Jpn. 2019, 54, 1222–1228. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Xiaoyu, L.; Jian, G.; Fei, C.; Hokano, K. Residential Environment Evaluation Model and Residential Preferences of the Changjiang Delta Region of China. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2007, 6, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Heldt, B.; Gade, K.; Heinrichs, D. Determination of Attributes Reflecting Household Preferences in Location Choice Models. Transp. Res. Proc. 2016, 19, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Frenkel, A.; Bendit, E.; Kaplan, S. Residential Location Choice of Knowledge-workers: The Role of Amenities, Workplace and Lifestyle. Cities 2013, 35, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kikuchi, Y.; Nojima, S. Resident’s Mind about Residence Selection in Suburban Housing Estates-Case Study of 4 Suburban Estates in Fukui City. J. City Plan. Inst. Jpn. 2007, 42, 217–222. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yamasaki, A.; Takami, K.; Ohmori, N.; Harada, N. A Fundamental Study on Individual Life-style and Future Residential Preference. J. City Plan. Inst. Jpn. 2012, 47, 349–354. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yamasaki, A.; Takami, K.; Chikaraishi, M.; Harata, N. Fundamental Study on Measures to Promote Compact Relocation Focused on Showing Merits and Demerits of Residence-Analysis of Individual Residential Location Preference Based on SP Survey. J. City Plan. Inst. Jpn. 2015, 50, 20–27. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shimizu, Y.; Nakayama, T.; Tosano, M. Reserching Factor of the Younger Generation’s Dwelling-place Selection—Investigating Nara’s Departing and Arriving People. J. Archit. Plann. AIJ. 2017, 82, 423–432. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Kondo, N.; Nakano, K.; Tanaka, K. Impact of Community Involvement on Future Residential Choice. Pap. Environ. Inf. Sci. 2019, 33, 347–352. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kondo, N.; Nakano, K.; Tanaka, K. The Impact of Social Attributes and Regional Characteristics on Future Residential Choice. J. City Plan. Inst. Jpn. 2019, 54, 766–771. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Aslam, A.B.; Masoumi, H.E.; Naeem, N.; Ahamad, M. Residential Location Choices and the Role of Mobility, Socioeconomics, and Land Use in Hafizabad, Pakistan. Urbani Izziv 2019, 30, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Masoumi, H.; Aslam, A.B.; Rana, I.A.; Ahmad, M.; Naeem, N. Relationship of Residential Location Choice with Commute Travels and Socioeconomics in the Small Towns of South Asia: The Case of Hafizabad, Pakistan. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Speyrer, J.F.; Ragas, W.R. Housing Prices and Flood Risk: An Examination Using Spline Regression. J. Real Estate Finance Econ. 1991, 4, 395–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Eves, C. The Long-term Impact of Flooding on Residential Property Values. Prop. Manag. 2002, 20, 214–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hunter, L.M. Migration and Environmental Hazards. Popul. Environ. 2005, 26, 273–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bin, O.; Kruse, J.B. Real Estate Market Response to Coastal Flood Hazards. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2006, 7, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pope, J.C. Do Seller Disclosures Affect Property Values? Buyers Information and the Hedonic Model. Land Econ. 2008, 84, 551–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Zhang, Y. Residential Housing Choice in a Multihazard Environment: Implications for Natural Hazards Mitigation and Community Environmental Justice. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2010, 30, 117–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Scheuer, S.; Haase, D.; Hasse, A.; Wolff, M.; Wellmann, T. A Glimpse into the Future of Exposure and Vulnerabilities in Cities? Modelling of Residential Location Choice of Urban Population with Random Forest. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2021, 21, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Imai, N. Influence of the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake Disaster on People’s Preferences for Housing and Residential Areas: Case Study on Residents of Housing of the Housing and Urban Development Corporation in the Disaster Area. J. Home. Econ. Jpn. 1999, 50, 267–279. [Google Scholar]
  33. Imai, N.; Tada, T. Influence of the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake Disaster on People’s Preferences for Housing and Residential Areas of Housing—Case Study on Residents of Housing of the Housing Development Corporation in Nara and Hamamatsu and Urban Noriko. J. Home Exon. Jpn. 2001, 52, 265–276. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hirayama, Y.; Mano, H.; Kasuya, S.; Sato, K. Housing Situations after the Great East Japan Earthquake. J. Archit. Plann. AIJ 2012, 77, 2157–2164. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Asai, H.; Kumagai, H.; Tsukidate, T.; Higuchi, S.; Akiyama, Y. The Consciousness Attitude for the Recovery Public Housing Residents by Earthquake Disaster. AIJ J. Technol. Des. 2015, 21, 1217–1222. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Watanabe, H.; Sato, Y.; Maruyama, T. Residential Preference of Households in Mashiki Town Temporary Housing in Early Stage of Recovery from Kumamoto Earthquake. J. City Plan. Inst. Jpn. 2017, 52, 1094–1100. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tukuda, H.; Yamanobe, K.; Onoda, Y. A Study on the Change of Housing Recovery Opinions Based on Public Housing Registration Data. J. Archit. Plann. Res. 2017, 82, 1–9. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Nagasako, A.; Watanabe, H.; Sato, Y.; Maruyama, T. Changes in Residential Preferences of Households in Mashiki Temporary Housing Following the Kumamoto Earthquake using 2016 and 2017 Surveys. J. City Plan. Inst. Jpn. 2018, 53, 717–723. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kotani, H.; Honda, R.; Imoto, S.; Lata, S.; Bijaya, S.K. Transition of Post-Disaster Housing of Rural Households: A Case Study of the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake in Nepal. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 44, 101443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Surjono, S.; Wardhani, D.K.; Yudono, A.; Mujibur, M.R.K. Residential Preferences of Post Great Disaster in Palu City, Indonesia. Evergreen 2021, 8, 706–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Watanabe, H.; Maruyama, T. Residential Preference Transitions of Disaster Victims: A Case Using Three-wave Panel Data in Mashiki Following the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake in Japan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 54, 102062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Shach-Pinsly, D. Measuring Security in the Build Environment: Evaluating Urban Vulnerability in Human-scale Urban Form. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 191, 103412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Źróbek, S.; Trojanek, M.; Źróbek-Sokolnik, A.; Trojanek, R. The Influence of Environmental Factors on Property Buyers’ Choice of Residential Location in Poland. J. Int. Stud. 2015, 7, 163–173. [Google Scholar]
  44. Yan, X. Evaluating Household Residential Preferences for Walkability and Accessibility across Three U.S. Regions. Transp. Res. D: Transp. Environ. 2020, 80, 102255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tokyo Metropolitan Government. Tokyo’s History, Geography, and Population. 2022. Available online: https://www.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/ENGLISH/ABOUT/HISTORY/history01.htm (accessed on 16 April 2022).
  46. Tokyo Metropolitan Government. Learning from Past Windstorms and Floods in Tokyo. 2022. Available online: https://www.bousai.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/mytimeline/1006345/1006339/1006292.html (accessed on 16 April 2022). (In Japanese)
  47. Expert Committee on Large-Scale Flood Countermeasures, Cabinet Office of Japan. Report of the Expert Committee on Countermeasures against Large-Scale Flooding. 2010. Available online: https://www.bousai.go.jp/kaigirep/chuobou/senmon/daikibosuigai/index.html (accessed on 6 August 2022). (In Japanese)
  48. Tokyo Metropolitan Government. Expected Storm Surge Inundation Area Map. 2018. Available online: https://www.kouwan.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/yakuwari/takashio/shinsuisoutei.html (accessed on 6 August 2022). (In Japanese)
  49. Tokyo Metropolitan Government. Statistics of Tokyo: Average of 2021. 2021. Available online: https://www.toukei.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/roudou/2021/rd21qd1000.htm (accessed on 23 July 2022). (In Japanese)
  50. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. Employment Status Survey. 2017. Available online: https://www.e-stat.go.jp/en/stat-search/files?page=1&layout=datalist&toukei=00200532&tstat=000001107875&cycle=0&tclass1=000001107879&tclass2=000001107881&stat_infid=000031729793&tclass3val=0 (accessed on 10 August 2022).
  51. Cabinet Office of Japan. White Paper on Aging Society 2013 (Entire Edition). 2013. Available online: https://www8.cao.go.jp/kourei/whitepaper/w-2013/zenbun/index.html (accessed on 7 August 2022). (In Japanese)
  52. Weber, E.U. Experience-based and Description-based Perceptions of Long-term Risk: Why Global Warming Does Not Scare Us (yet). Climatic Change 2006, 77, 103–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lawrence, J.; Quade, D.; Becker, J. Integrating the Effects of Flood Experience on Risk Perception with Responses to Changing Climate Risk. Nat. Hazards 2014, 74, 1773–1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nawrotzki, R.J.; Brenkert-Smith, H.; Hunter, L.M.; Champ, P.A. Wildfire-migration Dynamics: Lessons from Colorado’s Fourmile Canyon Fire. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2014, 27, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Hoffmann, R.; Muttarak, R. Learn from the Past, Prepare for the Future: Impacts of Education and Experience on Disaster Preparedness in the Philippines and Thailand. World Dev. 2017, 96, 32–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Zander, K.K.; Garnett, S. Risk and Experience Drive the Importance of Natural Hazards for Peoples’ Mobility Decisions. Clim. Chang. 2020, 162, 1639–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Balemi, N.; Füss, R.; Weigand, A. COVID-19’s Impact on Real Estate Markets: Review and Outlook. Financ. Mark. Portf. Manag. 2021, 35, 495–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 11 01781 g001 550
Figure 1. The location of the study area: the Tokyo Metropolitan Government area is indicated by a line of yellow dashes, while the eastern, central, and western parts of the city proper are indicated with red solid lines. In addition, prefectures surrounding Tokyo are indicated by orange solid lines. (Sources of satellite imagery: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community).
Figure 1. The location of the study area: the Tokyo Metropolitan Government area is indicated by a line of yellow dashes, while the eastern, central, and western parts of the city proper are indicated with red solid lines. In addition, prefectures surrounding Tokyo are indicated by orange solid lines. (Sources of satellite imagery: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community).
Land 11 01781 g001
Land 11 01781 g002 550
Figure 2. Ranking of factors influencing residential preferences amongst respondents (n = 1554). A value of 1 indicates highest preference, and 12 the lowest.
Figure 2. Ranking of factors influencing residential preferences amongst respondents (n = 1554). A value of 1 indicates highest preference, and 12 the lowest.
Land 11 01781 g002
Land 11 01781 g003 550
Figure 3. Percentage of respondents ranking each of the factors in the top (Rank 1st–6th) or bottom (7th–12th) categories (n = 1554).
Figure 3. Percentage of respondents ranking each of the factors in the top (Rank 1st–6th) or bottom (7th–12th) categories (n = 1554).
Land 11 01781 g003
Table
Table 1. Cross-tabulation results of the sociodemographic characteristics and the relative preference of “safety from natural disasters” in residential choices (n = 1554). The number in parentheses indicates the percentage of the response for each question.
Table 1. Cross-tabulation results of the sociodemographic characteristics and the relative preference of “safety from natural disasters” in residential choices (n = 1554). The number in parentheses indicates the percentage of the response for each question.
QuestionResponsePercentages of Those Who Ranked “Safety from Natural Disasters” in the Top Category (1st–6th)Percentages of Those Who Ranked “Safety from Natural Disasters” in the Bottom Category (7th–12th)
Q1: Residential area **Central part (16.3%)52.0%48.0%
Western part (32.5%)47.3%52.7%
Eastern part (51.2%)41.5%58.5%
Q2: GenderMale (62.5%)43.6%56.4%
Female (37.5%)47.7%52.3%
Q3: Age in years **20–29 (5.3%)26.8%73.2%
30–39 (13.0%)33.2%66.8%
40–49 (25.9%)44.3%55.7%
50–59 (34.9%)45.7%54.3%
60–69 (20.9%)57.2%42.8%
Q4: Educational levelJunior high school (1.1%)41.2%58.8%
High school (18.1%)38.8%61.2%
Vocational school (11.3%)43.8%56.3%
(Two-year) Junior college (5.9%)55.4%44.6%
University (undergraduate schools) (56.6%)45.8%54.2%
University (graduate schools) (6.9%)50.0%50.0%
Q5: Occupation **Students (0.8%)46.2%53.8%
Company employee (55.9%)39.5%60.5%
Civil servant (3.3%)47.1%52.9%
Self-employed (6.6%)51.5%48.5%
Company officer (3.5%)51.9%48.1%
Freelancer (3.5%)53.7%46.3%
Part-time job (8.7%)50.4%49.6%
Househusband/wife (8.8%)53.7%46.3%
Unemployed (8.9%)55.4%44.6%
Q6: Number of household members1 (34.4%)44.9%55.1%
2 (27.8%)49.5%50.5%
3–4 (33.5%)41.3%58.7%
5+ (4.2%)48.5%51.5%
Q7: Type of persons requiring assistance who live in the household, including respondents themselves (multiple choices allowed)Infants before entering elementary school (5.6%) **30.4%69.6%
Seniors over 75 years old (7.9%)42.6%57.4%
Physically disabled (3.7%)43.1%56.9%
Intellectually disabled (0.8%) **7.7%92.3%
Pregnant woman (0.6%) *10.0%90.0%
None of the above (82.7%) **46.6%53.4%
Q8: Type of current residenceDetached house (owned) (27.6%) 46.2%53.8%
Detached house (rented) (2.8%)51.2%48.8%
An apartment house (owned) (27.8%)41.4%58.6%
An apartment house (rented) (41.8%)49.1%50.9%
Q9: Annual household income<2,000,000 Japanese Yen (JPY) (10.0%)50.3%49.7%
2,000,000–4,000,000 JPY (17.4%)43.9%56.1%
4,000,000–6,000,000 JPY (21.6%)44.8%55.2%
6,000,000–8,000,000 JPY (15.6%)40.1%59.9%
8,000,000–10,000,000 JPY (12.5%)48.2%51.8%
10,000,000–12,000,000 JPY (7.3%)47.9%52.1%
12,000,000 JPY+ (15.6%)45.1%54.9%
Statistical significance levels: ** <0.01; * <0.05.
Table
Table 2. Cross-tabulation results of items which are important in life and the relative preference of “safety from natural disasters” in residential choices (n = 1554). The number in parentheses indicates the percentage of the response for each question.
Table 2. Cross-tabulation results of items which are important in life and the relative preference of “safety from natural disasters” in residential choices (n = 1554). The number in parentheses indicates the percentage of the response for each question.
QuestionResponsePercentages of Those Who Ranked “Safety from Natural Disasters” in the Top Category (1st–6th)Percentages of Those Who Ranked “Safety from Natural Disasters” in the Bottom Category (7th–12th)
Q10: What are important in your life (multiple choices allowed)Health (65.6%) **50.0%50.0%
Beauty (16.3%)48.0%52.0%
Job (31.5%)44.7%55.3%
Money (54.5%)46.0%54.0%
Status and honor (3.7%)37.9%62.1%
Dreams and aspirations (13.2%)48.3%51.7%
Social contribution (8.4%) **56.5%43.5%
Parents (26.3%)49.0%51.0%
Children and grandchildren (28.1%)47.2%52.8%
Partner (wife, husband, lover) (36.3%) **50.5%49.5%
Friends (19.0%)50.0%50.0%
Pets (11.5%)48.0%52.0%
Hobbies (42.0%)46.2%53.8%
Time (35.1%)48.4%51.6%
Food and drinks (38.2%) **49.8%50.2%
Natural environment (9.9%) **60.4%39.6%
Others (0.4%)50.0%50.0%
Nothing (9.4%) **33.6%66.4%
Statistical significance levels: ** <0.01.
Table
Table 3. Cross-tabulation results of disaster awareness, preparedness, and experiences and the relative preference of “safety from natural disasters” in residential choices (n = 1554). The number in parentheses indicates the percentage of the response for each question.
Table 3. Cross-tabulation results of disaster awareness, preparedness, and experiences and the relative preference of “safety from natural disasters” in residential choices (n = 1554). The number in parentheses indicates the percentage of the response for each question.
QuestionResponsePercentages of Those Who Ranked “Safety from Natural Disasters” in the Top Category (1st–6th)Percentages of Those Who Ranked “Safety from Natural Disasters” in the Bottom Category (7th–12th)
Q11: Awareness about disaster prevention and mitigation **High (4.8%)57.3%42.7%
Relatively high (16.8%)51.7%48.3%
Average (47.9%)47.1%52.9%
Relatively low (15.6%)39.5%60.5%
Low (11.9%)33.5%66.5%
Don’t know (2.9%)31.1%68.9%
Q12: Experience of either yourself or family members living with you being affected by natural disastersYes (13.1%)44.1%55.9%
No (86.9%)45.3%54.7%
Q13: Experience of relatives and close friends (not living together with you) being affected by natural disastersYes (19.0%)47.1%52.9%
No (81.0%)44.6%55.4%
Q14: Experience of seeing a hazard map of your residential area **Yes (68.5%)49.7%50.3%
No (31.5%)35.2%64.8%
Q15: Knowledge about a refuge place in your residential area **Yes (58.9%)50.5%49.5%
No (41.1%)37.4%62.6%
Q16: Experience of participating in disaster preparation activities (e.g., evacuation drills) in your residential areaYes (17.0%)50.0%50.0%
No (83.0%)44.1%55.9%
Q17: Preparation of stockpiles for natural disasters **Yes (82.0%)48.1%51.9%
No (18.0%)31.4%68.6%
Statistical significance levels: ** <0.01.
Table
Table 4. Cross-tabulation results of the impacts of COVID-19 on respondents’ life and experiences and the relative preference of “safety from natural disasters” in residential choices (n = 1554). The number in parentheses indicates the percentage of the item in each category.
Table 4. Cross-tabulation results of the impacts of COVID-19 on respondents’ life and experiences and the relative preference of “safety from natural disasters” in residential choices (n = 1554). The number in parentheses indicates the percentage of the item in each category.
QuestionResponsePercentages of Those Who Ranked “Safety from Natural Disasters” in the Top Category (1st–6th)Percentages of Those Who Ranked “Safety from Natural Disasters” in the Bottom Category (7th–12th)
Q18: Change in household incomes *Increased (3.4%)28.3%71.7%
Decreased (27.8%)48.6%51.4%
Remained the same (68.8%)44.5%55.5%
Q19: Change in work style **Completely changed to remote work (10.7%)47.9%52.1%
Partially changed to remote work (25.2%)48.0%52.0%
Remained the same (completely remote work before the COVID-19) (2.8%)47.7%52.3%
Remained the same (partially remote work before the COVID-19) (3.7%)44.8%55.2%
Remained the same (work almost every day) (40.2%)37.8%62.2%
Not working (17.2%)56.0%44.0%
Q20: Hesitance to evacuate to a refuge shelter due to the COVID-19 transmission **Increased greatly (11.7%)51.1%48.9%
Increased (29.2%)53.5%46.5%
Remained the same (59.1%)39.8%60.2%
Statistical significance levels: ** <0.01; * <0.05.
Table
Table 5. Adjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for individual variables to predict whether they ranked “safety against natural disasters” in the top category (n = 1554). Note: only variables that scored p < 0.20 in the stepwise selection were retained.
Table 5. Adjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for individual variables to predict whether they ranked “safety against natural disasters” in the top category (n = 1554). Note: only variables that scored p < 0.20 in the stepwise selection were retained.
VariableAdjusted Odds Ratio (OR)95% Confidence Interval for Odds Ratio (CI)
Current residential area: “Eastern part” **0.750.61–0.93
Age in years: “60–69” **1.441.11–1.87
Occupation: “Company employee,” “Civil servant,” “Self-employed,” “Company officer,” or “Freelancer” **0.630.49–0.81
Number of persons requiring assistance who live in the household (including respondents themselves): “More than 1 person” **0.640.49–0.85
What is important in your life: “Health” *1.341.06–1.70
What is important in life: “Status and honor” *0.540.30–0.97
What is important in life: “Natural environment” *1.501.04–2.18
Experience of seeing a hazard map: “Yes” *1.381.08–1.77
Stockpiling for natural disasters: “Yes”1.320.97–1.80
Change in annual household income: “Decreased”1.190.94–1.50
Change in work style: “Change to remote work (perfectly or partially)” *1.311.03–1.66
Hesitance to evacuate to a refuge shelter due to the outbreak of the COVID-19: “Increased greatly” or “Increased” **1.441.15–1.79
Statistical significance levels: ** <0.01; * <0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Takabatake, T.; Hasegawa, N. Relative Preference for Living in a Safer Place from Natural Disasters: A Case Study at Tokyo, Japan. Land 2022, 11, 1781. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101781

AMA Style

Takabatake T, Hasegawa N. Relative Preference for Living in a Safer Place from Natural Disasters: A Case Study at Tokyo, Japan. Land. 2022; 11(10):1781. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101781

Chicago/Turabian Style

Takabatake, Tomoyuki, and Nanami Hasegawa. 2022. "Relative Preference for Living in a Safer Place from Natural Disasters: A Case Study at Tokyo, Japan" Land 11, no. 10: 1781. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101781

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop