Japanese inter-regional migration patterns affected by 2011 Tohoku Disaster, analyzed with 2015 Japan Population Census. Prof.

Transcription

1 Japanese inter-regional migration patterns affected by 2011 Tohoku Disaster, analyzed with 2015 Japan Population Census Prof. Makoto, Okumura International Research Institute of Disaster Science IRIDeS, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan 1

2 Swift restoration gathers peoples attention, adding to the direct impact of the disaster Activity Level of Socio-economic Hazard and Exposure Vulnerability Loss Resilience Time Impact HazardExposureVulnerability 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) 2

3 Migration flows to be enlarged after a disaster! Hyogo Prefecture with Kobe Earthquake in " " " " " " 50000" 0" Emigration Peaks in 94 95FY Birth_Hyg" Immig_Hyg" 1996FY Immigration Peak Hyogo%Pref. Death_Hyg" Emig_Hyg" 1979" 1981" 1983" 1985" 1987" 1989" 1991" 1993" 1995" 1997" 1999" 2001" 2003" 2005" 2007" 2009" 2011" 2013" 3

4 Statistical Analysis ofmigration flows 4 Annual Emigration / Immigration Numbers from/to each Prefecture Inhabitant Registration Statistics Migration free from disaster Normal Migration Pattern Enlargements by Disaster(s) regressed Fixed Effect of Panel Data Analysis Disaster Size (measured by annual R.I.A.: Relative Affected Inhabitants) Disaster Statistics by Fire Agency

5 Categorization of Disaster Size ( ) D i,t 5 Disaster size is captured by annual relative affected inhabitants. (Number of affected inhabitants / prefecture inhabitants) Variables are categorized in four different size. Annual R.A.I Number of cases Cumulative % No Disaster % Small Size D % Medium Size D % Large Size D % Huge Size D % R.A.I is prepared annually for each prefecture ( ) excluding Okinawa before 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.

6 Small same yr Small 1 yr before Estimated Enlargement effects by disaster of different size Small 2 yr before Emig Small 3 yr before Medium same yr Medium 1 yr before Immig R.I.A<0.01 Medium 2 yr before Medium 3 yr before Large same yr Large 1 yr before Emigration will shrink after one year No negative effect on Immigration No social decrease of Population Large 2 yr before Large 3 yr before R.I.A>0.01 Huge same yr Huge 1 yr before Huge 2 yr before Huge 3 yr before Emigration increase and Immigration decrease Social decrease of population 6 Effects of 2011 Disaster were not included!

7 Migration in Fukushima seems different after the Tohoku Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Accident in " " " " 80000" 60000" 40000" 20000" 0" Miyagi&Pref. Birth_Myg" Immig_Myg" 1979" 1981" 1983" 1985" 1987" 1989" 1991" 1993" 1995" 1997" 1999" 2001" 2003" 2005" 2007" 2009" 2011" 2013" Immigration Peak appeared, as well as Emigration Death_Myg" Emig_Myg" " " 80000" 60000" 40000" 20000" 0" Fukushima)Pref. Birth_Fksm" Immig_Fksm" Death_Fksm" Emig_Fksm" 1979" 1981" 1983" 1985" 1987" 1989" 1991" 1993" 1995" 1997" 1999" 2001" 2003" 2005" 2007" 2009" 2011" 2013" Only emigration Peak was appeared in Fukushima Let us investigate migration pattern more qualitatively! 7

8 TWO NATIONAL STATISTICS Migration Report by Residence Registration Japan Population Census Interval Annual 5 years (Questions on migration: once in 10 years) Published Contents Source Problem in Fukushima case Quantitative Info: Numbers of total emigrants and Immigrants of each Prefecture or municipality. Aggregate the residence registration from municipal governments Many emigrants do not move registration, in order to keep rights to get support for the people affected by the Nuclear Accidents. Including Qualitative Info.: Age Structure Origin and Destination Prefectures Exhaustive Survey to the people actually reside. (Direct distribution and collection) We cannot capture people s migrations who already return to Fukushima by Oct

9 NET-MIGRATION ANALYSIS For Age-classes Fukushima Prefecture 5 years net-migration (Imigration emigration) Positive (gain) ~ 10~ 15~ 20~ 25~ 30~ 35~ 40~ 45~ 50~ 55~ 60~ 65~ 70~ 75~ 80~ 85~ Negative (loss) 5 year age categoryage in period end year

10 Emigration from each Prefecture in the four intervals Fukushima is the only prefecture where number of emigrants grew in between

11 Immigration to each Prefecture in the four intervals 11 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000, , , , , There are no particular characteristics in Tohoku Prefectures

12 Net Immigration to each Prefecture in the four intervals Fukushima is the only prefecture where net loss of migration grew in between

13 Qualitative Analysis focusing on gender and age. NMF: Non-negative Matrix Factorization 13 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. n:regions x 2 msex & Age XE XI = k:factors n:regions x 2 WE WI k:factors msex & Age F How different age-groups jointly move with different purpose? Next, I show the case of 7 factors division.

14 9.00E-02 Factors: sex and age structure MiddleWorker1 DependentFamily2 MiddleFamily3 Collage4 SingleWorker5 NewJobWorker6 SingleWorker E E E E E E E E E+00 M00 M05 M10 M15 M20 M25 M30 M35 M40 M45 M50 M55 M60 M65 M70 M75 M80 Male M85+ F00 F05 F10 F15 F20 F25 F30 F35 F40 F45 F50 F55 F60 F65 F70 F75 F80 F85+ Female

15 Scores: What s happen in eachprefecture? 15 SingleWorker7 NewJobWorker6 SingleWorker5 Collage4 MiddleFamily3 DependentFamily2 MiddleWorker Emigration Immigration 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

16 Weightings: What s happen in each prefecture? 16 SingleWorker7 NewJobWorker6 SingleWorker5 Collage4 MiddleFamily3 DependentFamily2 MiddleWorker1 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 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

17 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Weightings (relative) in Northeastern 10 prefectures Emigration Immigration SingleWorker7 NewJobWorker6 SingleWorker7 NewJobWorker6 SingleWorker5 Collage4 SingleWorker5 Collage4 MiddleFamily3 DependentFamily2 MiddleFamily3 DependentFamily2 MiddleWorker1 MiddleWorker1 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 17 0% 01Hokkaido 02Aomori 03Iwate 04Miyagi Dependent Family 2 moved out from Fukushima 05Akita 06Yamagata 07Fukushima 08Ibaragi 09Tochigi 10Gumma 0% 01Hokkaido 02Aomori 03Iwate 04Miyagi 05Akita Middle Worker 1, New Job Worker 6 moved in to Fukushima 06Yamagata 07Fukushima 08Ibaragi 09Tochigi 10Gumma

18 9.00E E E-02 Strongly observed Factors in Fukushima MiddleWorker1 DependentFamily2 MiddleFamily3 Collage4 SingleWorker5 NewJobWorker6 SingleWorker7 Young Workers (more male than E E E E-02 New Collage Students went out Dependent Family as mothers and children went out 2.00E E E+00 M00 M05 M10 M15 M20 M25 M30 M35 M40 M45 M50 M55 M60 M65 M70 M75 M80 Male M85+ F00 F05 F10 F15 F20 F25 F30 F35 F40 F45 F50 F55 F60 F65 F70 F75 F80 F85+ Female

19 Fleshly gained results 19 We adopt the NMF analysis on a dataset of age-sex matrix prefecture versus immigrants, emigrants and stay in three periods (including Kobe earthquake?) (including effect of 2011)

20 Immigration Factor Scores Young Family Immigrants are observed anywhere and any time,. Only Exceptional Case is Fukushima

21 21 Factor scores in Fukushima in 3 periods Emigration Immigration lincrease in Young Family ldisappear of Young Family s immigration. lnew Job Immigration increased

22 KOBE CASE HYOGO Pref % Emigration Emigration Immigration Stay (not move) Immigration 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% New Job Workers, Mobility was relatively high in

23 Discussion on the result 23 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.

24 24

25 FINDINGS 25 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.<0.0198% cases Emigration will shrink after one year No negative effect on Immigration No social decrease of Population External Assistance is not always necessary Huge Disaster R.I.A.>0.012% of the total cases Emigration increase and Immigration decrease Social decrease of population External Assistance is strongly necessary

26 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