| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣科技大學 === 工程技術研究所建築學程 === 88 === This study research have been continuously according to PhD. Dr. Lee Wei-yi’s “Research and Analysis of disaster-proof, 921 Chi-chi earthquake in Chu-shan”. This has been focused and pointed to further research and study of the refugees’ immigratory status, activity and behavior within the most serious area nearby Chu-shan and some other relative places. The following contents are including the residents within the refuge area and immigratory activity and phenomenon for improving the living environments. Yet this research has been also focused on high-density residential area after earthquake, for their activity and respondence during the quake-time, and also their modificatory process of residential area, to clarify the connections between refugees and their living spot after quake.
After reviewing all of the relative documents, we have chosen the high-density residential areas within Chu-shan as following: Chung-shan, Chung-cheng, Chu-shan, Yen-ho and Kuei-lin for further research proposal. First of all, we itemize the theory of aftercare and refuge within “Serially Responding Activity and Spot” for actual environmental research. As following results:
1. Refugees’ status
2. Immigratory History of refugees
3. Living spots and status for different attributive residents
4. Motivations of refugees
Conclusive results are:
1. After analyzed and itemized the types of emergency spots for refuge, most of residents have well known how to decentralize to safer areas (spots) after quake, but there are still about 30% of residents remained the abiding status.
2. residentially immigratory history, percentage, frequency and types; most of refugees stayed and lived in the temporary camps and/or other reserved areas (spots) nearby the religious constructions (i.e.: Local Temples) in the initial periods after quake. After settlement, residential refugees will be returning to their original homes or mid-term, long-term camps. According to the research, most of residential refugees had been experiencing and living in their relatival spots (houses) for temporality during their hometown recovery.
3. After analyzed and itemized the temporary living spots and status of refugees for different attributive residents, inseparable connections among the residents’ percentage, differently residential spots and disaster areas. These Top-five spots are temporary camps, original houses, relatival spots (houses), mid-term and/or long-term camps and religious constructions (Local Temples).
4. The play-role by temporarily residential motivations within these Top-fives, the temporary spots (camps) and religious constructions can provide life maintenance and care in the short term of post-disaster. The mid-term and/or long-term camps provide life-recovery of those who lost their hometowns. The relatival spots (houses) provide well-functional facilities for living, and the relatives can also help comfortably recover refugees’ mental thought in the post-disaster era by reunion. For those who returned to their own hometowns, can also recover their living, and express rebuild their homes.
|
|---|
