莫拉克颱風永久屋政策下高雄市受災戶的資源獲取與復原

Households' Resources Acquisition and Life Recovery under Permanent Housing Policy of Typhoon Morakot Disaster in Kaohsiung City

莫拉克颱風災後民間捐款高達252億，重建政策的制定對資源運用極具影響，形塑整體住宅重建的資源分配，尤其在政府災後力求迅速復原的目標下，使得永久屋的重建政策成為莫拉克颱風災後住宅安置政策。本文利用2010至2015年莫拉克颱風災害社會衝擊與復原調查資料，以災戶數比率最高的高雄市為例，進行貫時性資料分析，以了解政府在永久屋政策下的資源分配問題，以及政策是否真的使得入住永久屋者（PHR）得以迅速復原，效益是否彰顯。分析層面包括資源獲取情況及復原情況，後者又含所需復原時間、就業、收入、心理健康、社會網絡。分析結果顯示PHR資源獲取率與種類皆高於NPHR（非入住永久屋者）。復原情況上，PHR平均復原所需時間高於NPHR約4到6個月，PHR平均失業時間比NPHR多2到4個月、PHR相較NPHR需多花一年時間才使得平均家庭收入恢復災前水準、PHR災後相較NPHR在既有社會網絡的互動與緊密性上轉弱。此外，藉由南沙魯里的個案分析呼應永久屋政策在資源分配上的問題，以及日光小林永久屋在復原過程中，就業上的難題。依據研究結果，本文建議政府應將重建任務體制化，納入減災階段任務之一，為將來災後立即須面對的重建工作，奠定基礎，尤其應藉由過去重建經驗，重新檢視現行作法的適切性，如：資源分配原則、重建個別差異性、災民主體性、遷村的集體性、選址的重要性等，並提出具體改善方針。

This research analyzes the data of Social Impacts and Recovery Survey of Typhoon Morakot to find the influences of Permanent housing recovery Policy on households' resources acquisition and life recovery. The survey was performed in four waves (2010, 2011, 2012, 2015) by NCDR. The survey found that resources (e.g. donation, funds, goods, relief) distributed to household affected by the disaster were unbalanced between PHRs (permanent housing residents) and NPHRs (nonpermanent housing residents). The PHRs had more opportunity receiving helps and assistants from governments and NGOs, such as mental therapy, transportation, job offering etc... Additionally, a case study of Nansalu village showed that residents refused to move in Permanent housing (return home) had less opportunity receiving resources. Regarding life recovery, PHRs had 7.5% more unemployment rate than NPHRs, also spent 1 year more to recover the family income back as before. Moreover, PHRs spent an average of 4 to 6 months more to get the life back on track compared to NPHRs. Furthermore, PHRs has weaker connection with their family and friends than NPHRs after Morakot. The case study of Xiaolin village shows the difficulties of life recovery such as job findings, and social network recovering. The results of this study indicate that the government should institutionalize the work of life recovery and housing reconstruction as a disaster mitigation affair, especially emphasizes on issues such as subjectivity of victims, collectivity of migration, diversity of households or villages, and relocation suitability.