Multisite Lifestyle for Older People after the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Multisite living in post-disaster contexts is an emerging important research theme. This report, therefore, is a valuable contribution, and I strongly support its publication.

What the paper does well is the introduction in which the background to the research and its aim are clearly outlined.

What could be improved is as follows:

1. I appreciate as a case report, it isn't a requirement to detail the research procedure. However, including basic information regarding the survey methodology would be helpful, e.g. sampling, data collection and analysis. 

2. The bullet points referred to as 'Public reconstruction housing for Katsurao Village' at the end of Section 2 are confusing. Can you paraphrase and include it as part of the case presentation? Or are they meant to be something else? 

Please have your report proofread before resubmission

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is a case report about the return policy the Japanese government implemented after the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster in 2011. The authors “have interviewed an old lady in her 90s, who is executing “multisite living” at evacuation sites, in order to obtain assurance by neighbors and local community.” They state that  their “findings may provide valuable suggestions on how older people can restart their lives with local community in an aging society after disasters, which could be applicable for any kind of disaster preparedness.”

This is an interesting paper, but I have the following points to revise the paper before publication could be considered.:

 Introduction: Add one or more research questions.

 Literature review: Present earlier studies on the same topic, Japanese and international.

Theoretical frame work: Present theoretical notions you will use to interprete your data

Section 2: Explain your method for data collection. (You will have to code your data, to make a concept indicator model).

It is not clear why Public reconstruction housing for Katsurao Village (Egenokoshi Housing Complex in Miharu Town) (Figure 1) with 3 ● is presented at the end of this section.

Section 3:

The authors state: “This case is typical for nuclear disasters, where multiple sites continue to be 162 maintained, including evacuation centers and places of origin. Nuclear disasters differ 163 significantly from others such as tsunamis and typhoons; they involve concerns about 164 radioactive contamination, which leads evacuees to leave their original residence for a 165 long period [23].” Please present empirical evidence by using earlier studies why this case is typical for nuclear disasters in general. 1 reference No. [23]  is not enough, and it refers only to the Fukushima accident.

Present quotes from you unique respondent. And Use concepts of your theoretical frame work to analyse your data.

Conclusion: Answer one or more research questions.

Add a Limitations section

Add a section discussing the implications for future studies of your study

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Method: It is still not clear how the observatikns have been conducted and what topics (from a theoretical framework) have been used for the interview. It is alsonecessary to explain more in detail the characteristics of this single case study, and discuss validity and reliability. Explain how you coded the results. Also eplian how you deal with intercoder reliability

Data analysis: use a concept indicator model. 

Discussion and Conclusion are too brief, please elaborate.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf