Rebuilding of victims' livelihoods was a crucial issue in the restoration process in the1995 Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake Disaster. Housing damage assessment influencedmost of the rebuilding of the livelihood in the long term, because the Victim Certificatesissued by the local governments based on the results of the Housing damage assessmentwas required to receive most of the individual assistance measures. In the process ofHousing damage assessment, many complex problems arose, leading to extensivework on the part of the disaster responders. Consequently, a considerable number ofvictims were dissatisfied with the assessment and applied for a resurvey. Due to a floodof requests for resurvey, disaster responders had to work on damage assessment, leavingrelief activities aside.In order to facilitate Housing damage assessment, this paper discusses thefollowing five points: (1) the processes and the problems of assessments performedin the Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake Disaster, (2) the changes in the nature of informationneeded by the victims, (3) the improvements over the present damage assessment, (4)the housing situation in Japan, and (5) the international situation on damage assessment.It is obvious from the results that a poor damage assessment system and the size ofthe disaster produced a very large work load. Differences in appreciation among theinvestigators also contributed to unfair assessments and led to the victims beingincreasingly dissatisfied by the survey results. Finally, a design concept for acomprehensive damage assessment system, which has been derived from theabove five points, is proposed for post-disaster management. 相似文献
This paper examines the link between poverty and land management within the context of New Zealand's almost total removal of subsidies to agriculture since 1984. The impact of these policy changes is explored through the findings from a detailed study of sixteen farms in the North Island hill country. Stress is identified as a primary link between social damage and environmental degradation. This link reinforces the impact of other linkages expressed in reduced production, lower stocking rates, and reduced capital inputs. Deregulation is claimed to be good. This paper shows that in certain circumstances this is not so. 相似文献
While carbon pricing is widely seen as a crucial element of climate policy and has been implemented in many countries, it also has met with strong resistance. We provide a comprehensive overview of public perceptions of the fairness of carbon pricing and how these affect policy acceptability. To this end, we review evidence from empirical studies on how individuals judge personal, distributional and procedural aspects of carbon taxes and cap-and-trade. In addition, we examine preferences for particular redistributive and other uses of revenues generated by carbon pricing and their role in instrument acceptability. Our results indicate a high concern over distributional effects, particularly in relation to policy impacts on poor people, in turn reducing policy acceptability. In addition, people show little trust in the capacities of governments to put the revenues of carbon pricing to good use. Somewhat surprisingly, most studies do not indicate clear public preferences for using revenues to ensure fairer policy outcomes, notably by reducing its regressive effects. Instead, many people prefer using revenues for ‘environmental projects’ of various kinds. We end by providing recommendations for improving public acceptability of carbon pricing. One suggestion to increase policy acceptability is combining the redistribution of revenue to vulnerable groups with the funding for environmental projects, such as on renewable energy.
Key policy insights
If people perceive carbon pricing instruments as fair, this increases policy acceptability and support.
People’s satisfaction with information provided by the government about the policy instrument increases acceptability.
While people express high concern over uneven distribution of the policy burden, they often prefer using carbon pricing revenues for environmental projects instead of compensation for inequitable outcomes.
Recent studies find that people’s preferences shift to using revenues for making policy fairer if they better understand the functioning of carbon pricing, notably that relatively high prices of CO2-intensive goods and services reduce their consumption.
Combining the redistribution of revenue to support both vulnerable groups and environmental projects, such as on renewable energy, seems to most increase policy acceptability.