Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tabe20

A comparative study of collective relocation

projects for poverty alleviation and earthquake
reconstruction in rural China in terms of social
integration

Wen Hu & Michio Ubaura

To cite this article: Wen Hu & Michio Ubaura (2023) A comparative study of collective
relocation projects for poverty alleviation and earthquake reconstruction in rural China in
terms of social integration, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 22:3,
1300-1316, DOI: 10.1080/13467581.2022.2080210

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2022.2080210

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group on behalf of the Architectural
Institute of Japan, Architectural Institute of
Korea and Architectural Society of China.

Published online: 13 Jun 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 541

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tabe20
JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING
2023, VOL. 22, NO. 3, 1300–1316
https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2022.2080210

URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN

A comparative study of collective relocation projects for poverty alleviation

and earthquake reconstruction in rural China in terms of social integration
Wen Hu and Michio Ubaura
Department of Architecture and Building Science, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Considering the inherent laws and logical relationships between disasters and poverty, the combi­ Received 24 February 2022
nation of poverty alleviation relocation (PAR) and earthquake reconstruction relocation (ERR) is Accepted 15 May 2022
valuable both theoretically and practically. This study compared PAR and ERR projects on KEYWORDS
a systematic basis in terms of implementation area, mode adoption, construction content, public Collective relocation; social
engagement, and challenges. Moreover, four common types of villages (e.g., enclave, adjacent, integration; poverty
centralized, and infill) and the two resident groups of the re-settler and local groups were alleviation; earthquake
recognized. Regarding the social restructuring after relocation, the performance of the double- reconstruction
directional degree of social isolation (SO) and spatial isolation (SP) between the two resident groups
were evaluated and compared in types, which helps planners predict and clarify the social impact of
the chosen type. The underlying social and spatial reasons affecting the social integration were
explained to propose the corresponding planning measures for social integration promotion.

1. Introduction
People worldwide are relocated by force or voluntarily
with different orientations (Terminski 2013). In rural
China, the massive relocation projects have been mainly
triggered by development and disasters. China has
undergone a large scale of development-induced displa­
cement and resettlement, represented by poverty allevia­
tion relocation (PAR). Considering the principle of
voluntariness, by relocating people from ecological pov­
erty-stricken areas to places with better development
conditions, resettlement can help achieve the improve­
ment of production and living conditions, the alleviation
of poverty, land resources utilization, and the ecological
environment protection (Yang et al. 2020). “Targeted
poverty alleviation” was initially proposed at the end of
2013, and the 13th Five-year Plan (FYP) for poverty alle­
viation relocation was released in 2016 (Zhou et al. 2018).
After years of implementation, China declared the com­
pletion of the relocation task and the “miracle success” of
eliminating absolute poor in early 2021.
In the same period, the Lushan earthquake occurred
in 2013. The earthquake resulted in 196 people dead, 24
missing, and at least 11,826 injured with more than 968
seriously injured. Because of the substantial economic
harm and loss of life, consequently, social and economic
instability may be experienced for prolonged periods
following their aftermath (Moltchanova et al. 2011), and
displaced victims had to be involved in the disaster-
induced resettlement. Influenced by geology and topo­
graphy, the disaster-stricken areas in vast mountainous
Sichuan have a high degree of coincidence with con­
centrated poverty-stricken areas (Zhou et al. 2021).
Given fact that disasters and poverty have inherent
laws and logical relationships, to realize comprehensive
poverty alleviation and become a prosperous society
(Long and Liu 2016), the Poverty Alleviation Office of
the State Council emphasized that: the post-disaster
reconstruction plan should be combined with poverty
alleviation, accompanied by specifically designed plan­
ning to address issues of poverty and vulnerability
(Dunford and Li 2011). Therefore, the combined study
of poverty alleviation relocation (PAR) and earthquake
reconstruction relocation (ERR) is important.
Assimilation and integration theories suggest that
resettlement can be considered successful when an
immigrant is fully integrated into the host society.
Compared with in-situ reconstruction (Alba and Nee,
1997), Cernea (2002) pointed out that reallocated
reconstruction could lead to significant negative effects
on the affected residents due to the loss of shelter, land,
social network, and cultural assets. Compared to off-site
resettlement, such as rural-urban relocation, nearby
relocation within the rural area may result in a smaller
reorganization of all sectors of production and living,
allowing rapid recovery of previous lifestyles, feeling of
belonging, and community cohesiveness, all of which
contribute to social stability and may possibly enhance
social integration (Peng 2013). However, quantitatively,
how do the two main stakeholders, the local group and

CONTACT Wen Hu hu.wen.t4@dc.tohoku.ac.jp Department of Architecture and Building Science, Tohoku University, Sendai, 980-8579 Japan
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of the Architectural Institute of Japan, Architectural Institute of Korea and
Architectural Society of China.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting
of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 1301

re-settler group, assimilate to each other in the PAR and
ERR respectively? What are the social and spatial factors
that influence the integration, respectively? What is the
difference between them? This research aimed to
answer the above questions.
2. Literature review
International data demonstrates that disasters and
poverty are inextricably linked. Therefore, lowering
risks, mitigating catastrophes, and strengthening peo­
ple’s ability to deal with disasters entails poverty
reduction. According to the available research, the
impact of a disaster is proportional to the magnitude,
population size, and vulnerability exposed to the event
(Strömberg 2007; Wisner 1998).Vulnerability is deter­
mined by a multitude of socioeconomic variables,
including the prevalence of poverty and the efficacy
of governance. The impoverished are susceptible due
to their geographical location; nevertheless, a lack of
household income or local government revenue also
makes individuals and areas more vulnerable (Huang
et al. 2011). Natural disasters impoverish farmers in five
ways: they deplete physical, human, financial, natural,
and social capital (Pitchett, Suryahadi, and Sumarto
2000).The impact of the earthquake on poverty-
stricken villages is lower than that on non-poverty-
stricken villages. Data show that the total and per
capita number of collapsed houses of non-poverty
villages are higher than those in poverty villages 2.1
and 1.2 times, respectively (Jia et al. 2018).
However, the inclusion of the poor and vulner­
able in post-disaster reconstruction processes is
a challenging issue that has seldom been addressed
effectively or comprehensively (Rawal et al. 2021).
A review of numerous past experiences revealed
that the reconstruction policies were either unin­
formed and oblivious of the socio-economic inequi­
ties, or inadequate to address such structural issues
for ensuring inclusive and equitable reconstruction
and recovery (Gould 2009; HIC 2005). Nevertheless,
most of the research has only focused on the com­
parisons in policymaking, experience, and outcome
situations between poor families and non-poor
families in or after the reconstruction. Very few
have systematically compared the earthquake
reconstruction relocation projects and poverty alle­
viation projects. The lack of a comprehensive con­
sideration of the above two categories may lead to
duplication, inefficiency, and even conflicting work
paths in actual work, thereby limiting the compre­
hensive performance of the relocation project in
many aspects. Moreover, most research only cap­
tures the one-sided replies of the migrant groups,
leaving out the viewpoints of locals who play an
equally vital role. As a result, this study attempted
to fill the above gaps by conducting a comparative
analysis of PAR and ERR in terms of bi-directional
social integration between the re-settler and local
groups, as well as assessing and determining social
and spatial influencing factors in order to propose
social integration strategies.
3. General comparison
We found ERR generally more challenging than PAR
projects, considering their higher construction standards
and an additional focus on safety and disaster resistance,
higher public engagement, and additional challenges of
psychological reconstruction, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. General comparison between PAR (A) projects and ERR (B) projects.
Implementation PAR: nationwide in rural area, mainly in under-developed western and central China, especially in the key nation-level and province-
area level poverty-stricken counties.
ERR: in severely damaged disaster-stricken areas, in which mountainous area is the most severely affected area due to significantly
larger in the intensity of casualties and economic losses.
Influenced by geology and terrain, the extensive hilly areas are not only disaster-stricken but also have a concentration of poverty
(Gao, Chen, and Fan 2010).
Mode adoption PAR: mainly decided by policy factors, comprehensive integrate and allocate resources to meet the region’s medium and long-term
development goals. The distribution of resources per community is proportional to the severity of the devastation (Yu, et al.,
2008).
ERR: mainly based on condition factors, namely the geological condition of the original site after the disaster and the degree of
damage to the houses2008.
Construction ERR has a stage of “restoration” before a stage of “rejuvenation”, including emergency shelter and prevention education, etc. (Sun
content et al. 2010; Hirayama 2000), while PAR doesn’t.
ERR has relatively higher housing construction standards than PAR in terms of per capital area and investment (Tan 2019).
ERR has more concerns in improving the ability to resist future disasters and enhancing communities’ safety and resilience
(Alexander 2012).
Public ERR: after Lushan earthquake, three dominant approaches were identified as general principles, namely unified planning/unified
engagement reconstruction (UPUR), unified planning/joint reconstruction (UPJR), and unified planning/self-reconstruction (UPSR) (Yang,
Wang, Huang, 2020).
PAR: voluntary, fully planned, mainly unified planning/unified reconstruction (UPUR) headed by the government due to the poor
households’ limited social capital, resulting in insufficient public engagement (Lo and Wang 2018).
ERR has a generally higher level of public engagement and information access, it has a higher “emergency” level due to sudden
displacement.
Challenge PAR: re-settlers’ low relocation willingness, returning to original places, returning to poverty (Zhen 2019).
ERR is confronted with an additional challenge of “mental reconstruction” (Akerkar and Fordham 2017).
1302 W. HU AND M. UBAURA

4. Methodology was proposed by Massey and Denton (1988) for resi­

4.1. Typology
We chose 37 villages for PAR and 29 villages for ERR.
PAR villages are located in Zhushan County and Zhuxi
County, in Shiyan City, considering its large numbers of
relocated population and projects and good nation-
wide praised achievement. ERR villages are located in
the counties of Lushan, Baoxing, Tianquan, and
Yucheng district, which were the most severely
affected area after the Lushan earthquake. Hubei and
Sichuan are neighboring provinces. Geographically,
the above areas all locate in the fringe area of the
Sichuan Basin, in the continuous mountainous area.
Moreover, the strong connections and similarities in
economic, social, and cultural aspects make them com­
parable. Those settlements were chosen for the typol­
ogy study based on available data on resettlement
population and household numbers, as well as discern­
ible boundaries from satellite maps. We did not follow
the administrative territory but focused on the resi­
dence’s actual physical proximity. Because physically
accessible residential clusters sometimes cross admin­
istrative borders, but sometimes smaller.
We classified the villages by defining their demo­
graphical and physical environments from the reloca­
tion perspective. We adopted four dimensions that
dential segregation, namely exposure, concentration,
centralization, and clustering. Adapted from Hu and
Ubaura (2021b), Table 2 shows the difinitions and sim­
plified formulas to gain a more direct understanding of
the resettlement.
Following the above dimensions, we conducted
a cluster analysis for the villages for PAR and ERR
respectively. Four types of villages were determined:
the enclave type, adjacent type, centralized type, and
infill type. Figure 1 shows the case distribution in the
two 2-dimensional graphs. The first graph is the
dimensions of population proportion (X1) and land
use area ratio (X2), which indicates the relocation
intensity. Generally, the centralized type is highlighted
for its higher values of both X1 and X2, indicating that
it has a higher degree of relocation involvement. The
other three types are similar with less intensive reloca­
tion involvement. The second graph contains the
dimensions of average distance (X3) and relative cen­
tralization (X4), reflecting the spatial layout and relative
location of the resettlement. The centralized type has
highly positive centralization; the enclave type has
highly negative centralization; the infill type is in scat­
tered layout for its big average distance; whereas the
adjacent type is in aggregation layout for its relatively
smaller distance.

Table 2. The four dimensions and the calculation method for the resettlement typology.
Dimensions Difinition Description in Resettlement Formula Indication
X1: Exposure Potential contact between two groups Population X (re-settler) proportion PPx = X/T Relocation intensity
X2: Concentration Physical space occupied by a group X land use area ratio LARx = Ax/A
Pn Pn
X3: Clustering Contiguous space a group occupies Average distance between residents Ptt = ti tj dij =T 2 Spatial layout
i¼1 j¼1
X4: Centralization Relative proximity to the center Relative proximity to village center RCE = Px/Py-1 Relative location
Group X: re-settler group; Group Y: local group; X: total population of the re-settler group; Y: total population of the local group; T: total population;
ti=j : total population in unit i/j; dij : the distance of centroids of units i and j
A: total construction land-use area of village; Ax: land-use area occupied by re-settlers; Ptt: average distance between all residents regardless of
the group
RCE: Px and Py are X group and Y group’s average proximity to the village center, respectively.
Pn P n
Px ¼ xi expð dij Þ=X; Py ¼ yi expð dij Þ=Y, in which, xi and yi are the population of X group and Y group in unit i.
i¼1 i¼1
Units were defined using natural element boundaries, land use, and the road network.

Figure 1. Distribution charts of the PAR and ERR cases in the four dimensions.
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING
4.2. Case
We selected the representing cases following the com­
mon standards: 1) Suitable village size: the village should
be of middle size, which guarantees sufficient respondent
and appropriate workload, 2) Similar relocation year: the
relocation year should be in a similar timeframe to ensure
that residency years are uninfluential; also, residents need
time to get to know one another; accordingly, we chose
projects that were completed by the year 2016–2017. 3)
Representativeness: the cases must be representative for
each cluster, implying that it is close to the cluster center
or distinguished at a certain dimension to highlight its
characteristics. 4) Comparability: A and B cases should be
comparable, judging from the proximity of the cluster
distribution in Figure 1.
Starting from PAR(A) case selection, we began with
the adjacent type for its largest cluster size. Based on
the standard 3) representativeness, we chose the
A-Shenjiayin for its proximity to the adjacent cluster
center of PAR (A). Then, we chose another other three
villages to represent the other three villages, because
they all have large distances from A-Shenjiayin village,
highlighting the individualities and characteristics of
the representative types. Following the selection of the
four PAR(A) cases, each ERR(B) case in each cluster was
picked based on its proximity to the PAR case.
Moreover, all cases must adhere to the standards
of 1) and 2), meaning that they all have similar popula­
tion numbers (300–800) and similar relocation years
(2016–2017), thus, make them comparable in pairs.
4.2.1. The enclave type
In this type, the re-settlers have a minority population
and less land-use area than the locals. The re-settlers
live in an enclave, which is far away from the local
clusters. It is often adopted in situations with hard-to-
solve problems, such as a lack of available and ade­
quate land use nearby. The spatial separation contri­
butes to the “independence” between the existing
village and resettlement, as shown in Figure 2.
PAR is represented by Xiling village. The resettle­
ment area is located far away from the local area as
an enclave, whereas residential areas are in
Figure 2. Maps of cases of the enclave type.
1303
medium-sized clusters. There is no public square in
the local area but a small one in the enclave, with
some simple fitness equipment. Re-settlers are
mainly engaged in the recycling of turquoise slag
and the cultivation of shiitake mushrooms. They use
the open space next to the house to build
a mushroom greenhouse.
ERR is represented by Yujia village. It is located in
a national 4A-level scenic spot. The relocated house­
holds live in an enclave located in the north part. The
tourist service center and some public facilities are
located in the buffer area between the local clusters
and resettlement. Based on the industrial business
model of “company + cooperative + base + farmer
households,” it promotes the development of eco-
cultural tourism and builds blueberry and strawberry
center. The local enterprises are awarded by employ­
ing re-settlers, which helps increase income and
achieve economic integration.
4.2.2. The adjacent type
In this type, the re-settlers have a smaller popula­
tion and less land-use area than the locals. The
average distance (“clustering”) is among the smal­
lest, that is, all residents live closer than in other
clusters, thus making the entire village a continuous
aggregation. The “centralization” is approximately 0,
implying that both groups have similar proximity to
the village center because the re-settlers reside
beside the local area adjacently, merging as one
aggregation. The re-settlers can access existing pub­
lic resources and development foundations of the
existing village and form a “ “parasitic” relationship,
as shown in Figure 3.
Shenjiayin village was selected to represent PAR.
The resettlement is located in the northeast, next to
the existing area. The public square, which features
humble facilities, and a government building are
located on the edge. Some Villagers were engaged in
tea, Chinese herbal medicine, and mushroom cultiva­
tion in family unit, while some work in village-level
enterprises engaged in barite mining, processing, and
sales. The re-settlers are mainly engaged in the cultiva­
tion of mushrooms.
1304 W. HU AND M. UBAURA
Figure 3. Maps of cases of the adjacent type.
Chaoyang village was selected to represent ERR. The
resettlement is located adjacently to the old area at the
northwest. To avoid falling into a poverty cycle and
fundamentally realize “continuous blood production,”
industrial concentration area was built to achieve
employment “at their doorstep,” such as tea and kiwi
fruit bases to develop and expand the characteristic
planting and breeding industries of Chinese medicinal
materials.
4.2.3. The centralized type
In this type, the re-settlers and locals are balanced in
population and land use area. An intensive resettle­
ment cluster is centralized and surrounded by several
local clusters, making the re-settlers have a highly posi­
tive relative centralization (X4) higher than the locals.
Normally, it requires a centralized location that can
benefit both groups and a relatively larger area of
continuous land to accommodate the re-settlers. Both
the existing village and resettlement can significantly
benefit from the project and centralized infrastructure,
therefore forming a “symbiosis” relationship, as shown
in Figure 4.
We selected Kongque village to represent PAR.
A relatively large, compact, well-organized resettle­
ment cluster is centralized. It is well equipped and
maintained with large green space and clear spatial
structure, and good functioning with sufficient space
for multipurpose. Its garden-style resettlement make it
a model project for rural revitalization. Villagers use the
Figure 4. Maps of cases of the centralized type.
Internet live streaming combined with e-commerce
and promote local agricultural products such as pota­
toes and mushrooms.
We selected Feixian village to represent ERR. The re-
settler group occupies approximately 56% of the
population and 37% of the land-use area. The resettle­
ment concentratively is located in the middle and it is
composed of Western Sichuan style traditional build­
ings. Relying on the nearby rich historical, cultural, and
natural resources, it has been developed into a popular
scenic spot. The small-sized businesses are developed
in the resettlement, meeting the daily needs of the
nearby population as well as supporting the tourism.
4.2.4. The infill type
In this type, the re-settlers have a smaller population
and land-use area than the locals. Residents live in
a scattered pattern with a high average distance (X3),
whereas the positive “centralization” show that the re-
settlers live relatively closer to the center. It has multi­
ple divided and small-sized clusters, which is distan­
cing from each other. These clusters are embedded in
the existing settlement pattern, like filling the gaps. It is
often adopted in mountainous areas, where available
residential clusters are fragmented. Its even distribu­
tion along the road network indicates an “equal” rela­
tion with the existing village, as shown in Figure 5.
PAR is represented by Qinjiahe village, where re-
settlers dwell across four small clusters, highly depend
on road network. The school, government office
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING
Figure 5. Maps of cases of the infill type.
building, and the public square are located jointly on
the main road, acting as the central complex area.
Located in a scenic spot, with a large area of virgin
forest and mountain tea gardens, the village estab­
lished professional cooperatives such as tea and mush­
room planting.
ERR is represented by Yanxikou village. The village
was “travel on foot only” in the old days, it became rich
with the improvement of road traffic and the simulta­
neous development of medicinal materials and vege­
table cultivation. Moreover, using idle land near the
village cultural activity center as a pilot planting base
for village-level collective economic development and
the guidance from the specialist from “night school”
enabled 37 relocated households to find employment.
4.3. Social integration degree Evaluation
methodology
To evaluate the integration degree, we adopted
socio-spatial isolation indices initially proposed by
I. Schnell and Yoav (2001). They are used to define
an individual’s personal isolation status from the
other group members by examining their social
networks and the activity space in everyday life.
The indices contain social isolation (SO) and spatial
Figure 6. Definition and calculation method of socio-spatial indices.
1305
isolation (SP). The social isolation was measured
along with the three spheres of daily activities:
meetings with mates at work, meetings with
friends and neighbors, and telecommunication.
Four territorial bases in concentric circles desig­
nated the spatial isolation: close vicinity, cluster,
neighborhood, and the village and beyond
(Figure 6). We quantified territorial sphere’s size
based on the walking distances from the respon­
dent’s home, following the definition of “life-
circle”. Then “close vicinity” was defined as
a 1-minute walk, 60 m from home; “cluster” as
a 5-minute walk, 300 m from home; “neighbor­
hood” as a 10-minute walk, 500 m from home,
and “village and beyond” as an area that is farther
than 500 m. SO and SP values were decided by
proportion and weight:
(1) Proportion: The proportions p were between the
number of members belonging to the same
group as the respondent and the number of
members from alternative groups. For SO, with
nq(i) being the number of those encountered by
local i who are also local in activity q, and Nq(i)
being the total encountered population in the
same activity q, the proportion of local i is:
1306 W. HU AND M. UBAURA

Sq ðiÞ¼nq ðiÞ=Nq ðiÞ (2) members of other groups, and the bigger value
expressing higher spatial and social isolation. SO indi­
Similarly, for SP, with nr(i) being the number of locals
cates to what extent the social integration has been
living in territory r where local i lives and Nr(i) being the
achieved; SP indicates the demographic and physical
total number living in that same territory r, the propor­
condition.
tion of local i is:
Sr ðiÞ ¼ nr ðiÞ=Nr ðiÞ (3)
4.4. Data collection
Re-expressing the above proportion p, precisely Sq(i)
and Sr(i) through logistic transformations, The data was collected through a questionnaire survey in
the four selected cases. The survey was conducted
sðpÞ ¼ logðp=ð1 p ÞÞ (4)
through face-to-face and door-to-door interviews in
(2) Weight: Weight was decided by two factors: time November 2019 for PAR and January 2021 for ERR; 454
weight and relative salience. The time weight of and 438 valid questionnaires were collected, respectively,
SO measures the proportion of time that as shown in Table 3. The respondents were picked ran­
a person spends in each of their daily activities, domly and proportionate with the demographic distribu­
respectively. SP’s time weight measures the pro­ tion. Three sections were designated in the questionnaire:
portion of time a person spends in the four above
territories, respectively. Similarly, two other sets (1) SO section: The relative weights calculation is
of weights express the person’s relative salience done by asking people to describe the time
to each of these spatial and social spheres. If Tq(i) duration and salience in three kinds of activities.
is the time spent in activity q and Vq(i) is its As for the proportion part, residents were asked
perceived salience, their product is: to what extent they interact with in-group mem­
bers compared to out-group members during
Wq ðiÞ ¼ Tq ðiÞ Vq ðiÞ (5) work, meeting with neighbors and friends, and
Then, normalize them to get the final weights of the telecommunication. They were asked to choose
three activity spheres: from “never/neither” (0%), “much less” (0–20%),
X “a little less” (20–40%), “about the same” (40–
Wq ðiÞ ¼ W�q ðiÞ= q W�q ðiÞ (6) 60%), “a little more” (60–80%), “much more”
(80–100%), “only with in-group members”
Similarly, If Tr(i) is the time spent at territory r, Vr(i) is its
(100%). Then, the values 0%, 10%, 30%, 50%,
perceived salience, and their product is:
70%, 90%, and 100% were adopted respectively
W�r ðiÞ ¼ Tr ðiÞ Vr ðiÞ (7) as the corresponding proportion answers.
(2) SP section: Weights were obtained by asking
Then, normalize the sum of these products to get the
people to describe time duration and salience
weights of the four territory bases:
X for the four territories. The population propor­
Wr ðiÞ ¼ W�r ðiÞ= r Wr �ðiÞ (8) tion of SP was estimated through map counting,
following these four steps: Step 1, set the home
Combining 1) proportions and 2) weights to get the location of the respondent as the starting point;
social isolation indices and spatial isolation indices: Step 2, draw three concentric circles with
X
SO�ðiÞ ¼ Wq ðiÞSq ðiÞ (9) a radius of 60 m, 300 m, and 500 m, respectively,
q representing the four territories; Step 3, count
household numbers that represent the popula­
and tion of both groups in each territory, multiply by
X
SP�ðiÞ ¼ Wr ðiÞSr ðiÞ (10)
r

Then back-transforming them into the 0–1 scale using Table 3. Basic information of the study cases.
the re-expressions: Sample size
� � Move- Re- % (re-
SOðiÞ ¼ eSO�ðiÞ = 1þeSO�ðiÞ (11) Typology Case in year Total settler Local settler)
PAR Adjacent Shenjiayin 2017 107 43 64 40.2%
and Enclave Xiling 2016 122 40 82 32.7%
Centralized Kongque 2017 97 50 47 51.5%
� � Infill Qinjiahe 2017 128 48 80 37.5%
SPðiÞ ¼ eSP�ðiÞ = 1þeSP�ðiÞ (12) Total 454 181 373 39.9%
ERR Adjacent Chaoyang 2016 98 33 65 33.6%
Enclave Yujia 2016 123 36 87 29.2%
The index of SO and SP may range between 0 and 1, Centralized Feixian 2016 126 65 61 51.6%
with 0 indicating extreme exposure to members of Infill Yanxikou 2016 91 34 57 37.5%
other groups, 1 representing extreme isolation from Total 438 168 270 38.3%

Table 4. Enclave type comparison.
SO Group Village Mean SO value
Re-settler PAR Xiling
ERR Yujia
Local PAR Xiling
ERR Yujia
SP Group Village Mean SP value
Re-settler PAR Xiling
ERR Yujia
Local PAR Xiling
ERR Yujia
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
the average family size, to arrive at a product
that will reflect both groups’ population; and
Step 4, obtain the proportion.
(3) Personal information and opinion section. It
contained social status criteria, including gen­
der, age, education, family size; the social capital
criteria, such as household assets change after
resettlement, whether registered as the tar­
geted poor household after in the poverty alle­
viation identification system; self-accessed
criteria related to the project and disasters,
such as opinions towards the relocation project,
the information access degree in the decision-
making process, frequency and personal appeal
of the public facilities utilization. Additionally,
ERR also contains physical injuries and mental
health condition because of the earthquake.
5. Evaluation results and comparison
How do the mean SO and SP values in PAR and ERR
projects differ across four types and two groups? We
compared the mean SO and SP values for each of the
four types. Apart from the enclave type, we discovered
that the cases of PAR (A) and ERR (B) have a similar SO
degree.
Through a simple effect test using univariate analysis,
Table 4 compared SO and SP mean values of the two
cases of the enclave type, namely Xiling village in PAR
(A) and Yujia village in ERR (B). Both Xiling village groups
were spatially and socially more isolated than Yujia
village. We found two possible reasons behind the pro­
moted integration in the Yujia village. The first was the
high engagement in the well-developed local eco-
tourism industries. Being employed by the local enter­
prises, the re-settlers had a higher mixture in the work­
place in Yujia village than the Xiling village. The second
was that in the buffer area between the enclave and
local clusters, instead of being vacuum in Xiling village,
Yujia village was allocated with public spaces, which
performed as a connection bridge between the two
JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 1307
Mean difference (A-B) Std. Error P
0.892 0.151*** 0.027 0.000
0.741
0.910 0.045** 0.018 0.016
0.865
Mean difference (A-B) Std. Error P
0.975 0.009** 0.003 0.009
0.966
0.987 0.013*** 0.002 0.000
0.974
groups. It indicated that the isolation brought by the
distance could be relieved with widely engaged local
industries and the layout of the public facilities.
The comparisons of the two cases of adjacent
types are shown in Table 5. Except for the re-
settlers’ SP, no statistical differences were found that
Shenjiayin village of PAR(A) was more spatially iso­
lated than Chaoyang village of ERR (B). Clues were
found in the maps in Figure 3. Both resettlements
were adjacent to the local area; however, Chaoyang
village enjoyed a considerably longer shared border
with the local area, increasing the likelihood of
greater mixture along the border. It demonstrates
that the size and shape of resettlement and the
length of the shared border could have
a considerable effect on the spatial isolation of people
residing in border areas. The statistically similar SO
values indicated that the enhancement of spatial
integration did not morph into social integration
promotion.
Table 6 compares two centralized cases, Kongque
village in PAR and Feixian village in ERR. SP values
show that re-settlers in Feixian village were more spa­
tially isolated than the re-settlers in Kongque village. In
the centralized type, a large resettlement area was
centralized together with public facilities, regarded as
the village center that assembles massive residents. In
Feixian village, the resettlement was an integrated area
for tourism, residence, commerce, and public service;
its resettlement was more intensively centralized with
multi-functional public facilities than that of Kongque
village. Therefore, the re-settlers of centralized type
were less likely to travel to wider territory from home,
in other words, longer hours were spent in the nearby
territory of close vicinity, which resulted in the higher
degree of spatial isolation for the re-settler group in
Kongque village. It implies that intensive centralization
benefited re-settlers more than locals in social
integration.
As for the infill type in Table 7, the comparison
shows that the two cases had similar social isolation
degrees. The locals in Yanxikou village of ERR were
more spatially isolated than the locals in Qinjiahe
1308 W. HU AND M. UBAURA

Table 5. Adjacent type comparison.

SO Group Village Mean SO value Mean difference (A-B) Std. Error P
Re-settler PAR Shenjiaying 0.744 −0.038 0.027 0.158
ERR Chaoyang 0.782
Local PAR Shenjiaying 0.827 −0.019 0.020 0.359
ERR Chaoyang 0.846

SP Group Village Mean SP value Mean difference (A-B) Std. Error P

Re-settler PAR Shenjiaying 0.926 0.051** 0.016 0.001
ERR Chaoyang 0.875
Local PAR Shenjiaying 0.924 −0.010 0.012 0.405
ERR Chaoyang 0.934

Table 6. Centralized type comparison.

SO Group Village Mean SO value Mean difference (A-B) Std. Error P
Re-settler PAR Kongque 0.660 0.003 0.029 0.913
ERR Feixian 0.657
Local PAR Kongque 0.700 −0.023 0.030 0.433
ERR Feixian 0.723
SP Group Village Mean SP value Mean difference (A-B) Std. Error P
Re-settler PAR Kongque 0.929 −0.023** 0.010 0.031
ERR Feixian 0.952
Local PAR Kongque 0.880 −0.010 0.011 0.405
ERR Feixian 0.870

village of PAR because of the distribution pattern of
scattered clusters. In both cases, the road network
connected the scattered clusters, contributing to the
“equal” relation between local and re-settlers in infill
type.
With the data in Tables 4–7, the four types are
ranked in Table 8 based on pairwise comparisons of
mean values using a simple effect test in univariate
analysis. The rankings made clear the social impact and
performances brought by relocation when adopting
different resettlement types, which offers the planners
broad references when choosing the appropriate
resettlement type for the relocation project when
deciding the relocation destination and layout. We
discovered that the centralized and infill types were
similarly top-ranked: the centralized type consistently
ranked first with the lowest SO value, demonstrating
the its superior performance in promoting social inte­
gration during the relocation project, and thus is
recommended. The infill type also ranked high with
medium SO values and low SP values, making the infill
type to be the best spatially integrated type. We con­
sider it also a good choice in some circumstances
regarding geographical and land use limitations. The
enclave type was the most spatially and socially iso­
lated type. It shows the natural disadvantage of
enclave type and highlights the “independence”
between the two groups. Therefore, it is suggested as
the last option, but the gaps with other types are
narrower in ERR compared to PAR. The adjacent type
had mid-level performance, making it a considerable
option for its intensive land use pattern, straightfor­
wardness, and cost-effectiveness, as it could make use
of the existing recourses to the largest extent.
6. Social factor comparison
6.1. Residents’ socioeconomic attributes
We compared the socioeconomic attributes of PAR
cases and ERR cases in the two groups, respectively.
We found them similar in social status, such as gender,
age, education level, family size. Differences were
found in their social capital. Residents in ERR cases
generally had higher social capital than those in PAR,
reflected in more devised occupations and smaller
economic gaps between groups. In total, 11% of the
re-settlers in PAR villages were employed in the sec­
ondary and tertiary industries, while those in ERR vil­
lages reached 26.8%. Moreover, 20.2% of re-settlers
and 24.1% of a local group from ERR villages reported
monthly income over 5000 yuan. In contrast, only 5.5%
of re-settlers and 30.4% of locals from PAR villages
reported the same. Considering ERR projects had an
additional working task, higher standard, and chal­
lenge, as mentioned in Section 3, the government
provided them with more financial and legislative
assistance, following “one village, one product” policy
contributes to the local industry, narrowing the gap
between the two groups. However, in the PAR cases,
we observed the lack of employment diversification
and the higher exclusive production mode in
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 1309

Table 7. Infill type comparison.

SO Group Village Mean SO value Mean difference (A-B) Std. Error P
Re-settler PAR Qinjaihe 0.760 −0.011 0.716 0.716
ERR Yanxikou 0.771
Local PAR Qinjaihe 0.747 −0.040 0.095 0.095
ERR Yanxikou 0.787

SP Group Village Mean SP value Mean difference (A-B) Std. Error P

Re-settler PAR Qinjaihe 0.885 −0.009 0.533 0.533
ERR Yanxikou 0.894
Local PAR Qinjaihe 0.870 −0.037** 0.001 0.001
ERR Feixian 0.870

agricultural family workshops, which resulted in the
insufficient integration in local industries and eco­
nomic activities.
As for the projects, we found that the locals in
ERR generally held a more positive view of the
project and increased public engagement. In total,
83% of the locals in ERR held a more positive
attitude, while 76.9% of the locals in PAR held
a neutral opinion. The locals also experienced the
earthquake, making them easier to understand the
situation for the re-settlers, thus showing a more
tolerant attitude toward the possible negative
impacts of the project itself. On the contrary, most
locals in PAR showed indifference and irrelevance.
Moreover, disaster-victims were having a keener
desire to the related information. Data shows
64.1% of re-settlers and 89.4% of locals in PAR
villages thought about themselves uninformed dur­
ing the decision-making process, while only 32.1%
of re-settlers and 63.0% of locals in ERR villages had
no information.
6.2. Influencing social factors
Based on the collected data of personal information
and opinion, two multivariate linear regression
models were adopted, one for the re-settler group
and one for the local group, to determine the rela­
tionship between residents’ socioeconomic charac­
teristics and their social isolation degree (SO). We
summarized the influencing social factors in Table 9
by listing the people’s characteristics that were the
most likely and least likely to achieve social integra­
tion, respectively.
The commonness we summarized for both PAR and
ERR is that we found re-settlers who were older adults
and lived alone, with low income and substantially
decreased asset changes, were least likely to integrate.
It demonstrates that the well-being of the aforemen­
tioned disadvantaged groups warrants special atten­
tion and providing assistance to them is particularly
important. Even when the physical relocation initia­
tives are completed, the focus on these vulnerable
populations in community governance must continue.
Moreover, re-settlers who thought negatively and
uninformed about the project were also found hard
to integrate, revealing the importance of wider public
participation. As concluded by Iwasawa and Onoda
(2016), disseminating information on disaster and
reconstruction involves multistakeholders through
sharing knowledge such as objective perspectives,
the historical background of disaster responses and
the reality of reconstruction. This study reveals that
ERR cases generally had more intensive public engage­
ment than PAR cases, we assumed this fact as one of
the underlying reasons for its better integration per­
formance in Yujia village of enclave type, ERR. It is
conducive to ensuring that in the decision-making
process, the public service demand orientation should
be obtained from the bottom up to make scientific and
reasonable arrangements and planning, providing
a basic framework for other relocation projects as well.
For PAR, economic equality between the two
groups was a big trigger for integration. In PAR, nar­
rowing the economic gap contributed to the integra­
tion because middle-aged re-settlers and residents
with middle-level income were more likely to inte­
grate. Economic status was the main difference

Table 8. Rankings of mean SO and SP value in the four types and two groups respectively in A(PAR) and B(ERR) projects.
Rankings
Value Group Category 1 2 3 4
SO Re-settler PAR Centralized Adjacent ≈ Infill Enclave /
ERR Centralized Enclave ≈ Infill ≈ Adjacent / /
Local PAR Centralized ≈ Infill Adjacent Enclave /
ERR Centralized Infill Adjacent ≈ Enclave /
SP Re-settler PAR Infill Adjacent ≈ Centralized Enclave /
ERR Adjacent ≈ Infill Centralized ≈ Enclave / /
Local PAR Infill ≈ Centralized Adjacent Enclave /
ERR Centralized Infill Adjacent Enclave
If p > 0.05, we judged as statistically equal (“≈”)
1310 W. HU AND M. UBAURA
Table 9. Summary of influencing social factors for the local group and re-settler group.
Social factors Most likely to integrate (lowest SO)
Re-settler
Age Middle age (41-60)
Family size
Monthly income 1000-3000
Above 7000
Asset change Substantially increased
Employment Retail and service
Workplace
Registered poor /
Yes
Physical injury Uninjured or recovered
Opinion
Information access Informed
*The factors that only found significant for the PAR are in orange cells, the ones that only found significant for the ERR are in orange cells, the common
factors are in white cells.
between the locals and re-settlers. When re-settlers
achieved a similar higher income level with the locals,
economic commonness made them believe that they
were accepted by the host society, thus resulting in
higher integration. Economic equality is a necessary
component of social equality. It is very crucial for
them to create a roughly equal community setting in
order to mentally elevate themselves out of poverty as
soon as possible. As a result, policy formulation and
implementation process must be carefully examined
and managed to avoid discriminated treatments to the
largest extent.
For ERR, improving personal social capital promoted
integration, as higher income brought higher integra­
tion. In ERR cases, we also found employment, work­
place, whether they had been recognized as registered
poor, and their physical injury caused by the earth­
quake were relevant for re-settlers. In terms of employ­
ment, for re-settlers engaged in the retail and service,
business owners, and those who worked in the local
tourism industry, their work required larger scope of
interactions, resulting in intensive inter-group interac­
tion and social integration. It demonstrates that
enabling victims to recover and improve social capital
by providing accessible self-development approaches
is of critical urgency and importance. It not only assists
them in becoming more economically integrated with
local business, but it also speeds up their process of
overcoming the physical and mental damages, as well
as the social and economic instability following the
disaster, allowing them to “build back better.”
7. Spatial factor comparison
What are the spatial factors for SO values? Adapted
from Hu and Ubaura (2021a), we summarized eight
candidate factors drawing from the previous research.
They are 1) SP, obtained through evaluation; home
Least likely to integrate (highest SO)
Local Re-settler Local
Middle age (41-60) Above 70 Above 70
4-5 people Single
3000-5000 Under 1000 Under 1000
/ /
Substantially increased Substantially increased /
/
/ /
Out of the village /
/ No / /
/ Unrecovered /
Positive Negative
Informed Uninformed Negative
Uninformed
location factors of 2) distance to another group
(D2AG), 3) distance to the school (D2S), 4) distance to
the public square (D2PS), 5) distance to the main road
(D2MR), obtained through measurement along the
road path; public facility factors of 6) public square
attractiveness (PSA) obtained through
a questionnaire; land use factors of 7) building density
(BD) and 8) road density (RD) in the close vicinity area
through measurement. We built up nine regressions
with the above factors: an overall one for all residents
and the exceptional cases; the other eight specific ones
are for the eight conditions after the adoption of typol­
ogy and group. By determining the most critical spatial
factors that influence SO for different categories, types,
and groups, spatial strategies were accordingly pro­
posed, providing the planners with community-level
spatial planning suggestions and contributing to social
integration.
7.1. Overall factors
Generally, Table 10 presents that PAR is more influ­
enced by the spatial proximity and the demographic
distribution between groups, ERR is more affected by
the attractiveness and accessibility to the public
square. Judging through the P-value and absolute
values of standardized coefficients, for both PAR and
ERR, SP and PSA (public square attractiveness) were
recognized as the top 2 critical spatial factors. It indi­
cates the importance of demographic distribution and
the attractiveness of public space for the common
collective relocation projects in rural China. However,
the order is a little different. For PAR, SP was of the
greatest importance while PSA is the most prominent
one for ERR. It indicates that ERR residents had higher
psychological demands, thus making public activities,
events, and spaces more essential for earthquake vic­
tims who suffered physical, mental, and financial loss,

Table 10. Overall regression on social isolation degree (SO value) and spatial variables for all residents in A and B.
Variables Standardized Coefficients
SP 0.542***
PAR
D2AG 0.149***
D2S -0.041
D2PS 0.152***
SP 0.326***
D2AG 0.117*
ERR
D2S -0.013
D2PS 0.123*
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. The cells in black, dark grey, and light grey are representing the Top 3 most critical factors respectively.
to promote public information disclosure, community
interaction, and psychological reconstruction
(Kobayashi et al. 2016). It means that in the ERR pro­
jects, more effort should be made regarding the public
spaces to aid mental health, including location selec­
tion, functional and spatial design, maintenance and
operations, and events planning, etc.
7.2. Factors for the enclave type
For both PAR and ERR, we recognized the influence of
SP and PSA (public square attractiveness) from Table 11.
The difference is that the factors related to the public
square were more significant for ERR than those in PAR.
Well-designed and accessible public spaces are critical
to relieve the “natural barrier” of the enclave type, which
may explain why Yujia village (ERR) had a significantly
better integration performance than Xiling village (PAR).
We observed that residents who were more attracted by
the public square (PSA) and locals who lived closer to it
(D2PS) were more integrated. A more attractive public
space was built in Yujia village, which contained
a tourists center, a Chinese traditional courtyard, and
the villagers’ activity center. However, the public square
in Xiling village was much smaller, with only several
fitness pieces of equipment, which were rarely used.
Moreover, Yujia village had an accessible public square
located in the buffer area between the enclave and local
clusters, which performed as a connection bridge
between the two groups; while in Xiling village, it was
located in the resettlement entrance but far from the
local area, resulting in inconvenience. We suspected
that as the enclave cannot easily mix with the local
clusters, and more work should be focused on expand­
ing residents’ activity scopes, such as enhancing the
public squares by improving its accessibility with an
appropriate location that bridge both groups.
7.3. Factors for the adjacent type
As shown in Table 12, the “proximity effect” is
highlighted in both PAR and ERR, in which PAR is
the proximity with the same group members, ERR
JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 1311
t Variables Standardized Coefficients t Constant N
14.092 D2MR 0.090** 2.742 -0.275 454
4.485 PSA -0.316*** -9.317
-0.837 BD 0.029 0.915
4.778 RD -0.045 -1.422
7.810 D2MR 0.094** 2.317 0.124 438
1.713 PSA -0.379*** -10.254
0.235 BD -0.055 -1.469
2.361 RD -0.110 -2.503
is the proximity with other group members. SP
plays a more significant role in the case of PAR
than ERR. In contrast, the proximity with another
group (D2AG) is more influential in ERR. Chaoyang
village (ERR) is adjacent by a longer border line,
enabling much more intensive inter-group interac­
tion along the borderline area. Thus, the closer to
the border, the greater social integration. In con­
trast, Shenjiayin village (PAR) is adjacent by
a connection point, the resettlement was con­
nected by a road, making very few re-settlers
lived next door to the locals. Their spatial isolation
(SP) indicated by the demographic distribution in
the territories reflected their interaction chances
better. Reorganize the layout and function of the
existing buildings for better utilization of the out­
door and indoor spaces, which may help to
achieve a suitable building density within the clus­
ter and promote ingroup interaction. For inter­
group proximity, appropriate location, scale, and
shape of the new area should be considered to
minimize the intergroup social distance.
7.4. Factors for the centralized type
For both PAR and ERR, the importance of public square
is emphasized, indicated by the stronger influence of
public square attractiveness (PSA) and the distance to
public square (D2PS), as shown in Table 13. Defined by
the natural characteristics of centralized type, a large-
sized resettlement occupies in the middle together
with designated public facilities. It indicates the impor­
tance of the centralized public square’s accessibility
and its multi-function and space design to meet var­
ious demands. Besides, we also found that Feixian
village (ERR) was influenced by distance to the main
road (D2MR) while Kongque village (PAR) is not. The
importance of appropriate road routing and structure
was demonstrated in Feixian village, where the main
roads carried a higher pedestrian traffic flow in its
centralized tourism-based commercial area, contribut­
ing in activating the vitality of the entire community.
1312 W. HU AND M. UBAURA

Table 11. Regression on social isolation degree (SO value) and spatial variables for enclave type in A and B.
Category- Group Variables Standardized t Variables Standardized t Constant N
village Coefficients Coefficients
PAR- Re-settler SP 0.708*** 5.397 D2MR 0.376 2.911 -4.142 40
Xiling D2AG 0.376 2.911 PSA -0.300** 3.178
D2S 0.403 3.029 BD -0.172 -1.825
D2PS 0.376 2.911 RD -0.133 -1.447
Local SP 0.405*** 3.962 D2MR 0.056 0.484 -4.621 82
D2AG 0.015 0.105 PSA -0.093 -0.767
D2S -0.093 -0.767 BD 0.066 0.642
D2PS -0.064 -0.598 RD -0.104 -1.003
ERR – Re-settler SP 0.675*** 4.495 D2MR 0.246 0.692 -4.273 36
Yujia D2AG -0.175 -0.692 PSA -0.419** -3.716
D2S -0.068 -0.667 BD 0.033 0.160
D2PS 0.031 0.122 RD -0.011 -0.066
Local SP 0.610*** 10.723 D2MR -0.050 0.798 -3.512 87
D2AG 0.019 0.167 PSA -0.223** -3.377
D2S 0.107 -1.312 BD 0.027 0.482
D2PS 0.272* 2.085 RD -0.069 0.952
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. The cells in black, dark grey, and light grey are representing the Top 3 most critical factors respectively.

7.5. Factors for the infill type
For PAR and ERR, traffic related factors and intergroup
proximity played vital roles in contributing to the
social integration, indicated by the fact that, both
cases were substantially influenced by distance to
the main road (D2MR) and distance to another
group (D2AG). In addition, re-settlers in Yanxilou vil­
lage (ERR) were more influenced by the road density
(RD), considering its courtyard layout of resettlements
that 3–5 households as a group; while in Qinjiahe
village (PAR), the resettlement is in determinant lay­
out. Traffic can be improved by proposing proper
route planning for road networks, increasing road
density, and strengthening branch roads to achieve
higher road connectivity. To minimize the intergroup
distance, the proper location, scale, and shape of the
new areas should be considered, and should be
evenly mixed with the old areas (Table 14).
8. Conclusion
Given the usually combined occurrence of disaster
recovery and poverty alleviation tasks in the reset­
tlement project, however, very few studies have
comprehensively examined the above two cate­
gories, thus, may limit the efficiency and

Table 12. Regression on social isolation degree (SO value) and spatial variables for the adjacent type in A and B.
Category- Group Variables Standardized t Variables Standardized t Constant N
village Coefficients Coefficients
PAR- Re-settler SP 0.359* 2.331 D2MR 0.001 0.009 0.230 43
Shenjiayin D2AG 0.052 0.420 PSA -0.442** -2.868
D2S 0.191 1.528 BD -0.024 -0.228
D2PS 0.001 0.009 RD -0.018 -0.144
Local SP 0.875** 10.550 D2MR 0.034 0.306 -0.528 64
D2AG 0.316** 7.193 PSA -0.099* -2.056
D2S 0.083 0.739 BD 0.353*** 3.869
D2PS 0.224* 2.528 RD 0.039 0.902
ERR- Re-settler SP 0.616* 3.919 D2MR 0.126 0.722 -0.943 33
Chaoyang D2AG 0.986** 2.903 PSA -0.112 -0.878
D2S -0.018 -0.096 BD 0.156 0.967
D2PS 0.850* 2.316 RD -0.176 -0.854
Local SP 0.250* 2.212 D2MR 0.052 -0.575 -0.374 65
D2AG 0.333** 2.944 PSA -0.275* -3.190
D2S 0.026 0.327 BD 0.037 0.359
D2PS 0.157 1.538 RD -0.252 -2.134
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. The cells in black, dark grey, and light grey are representing the Top 3 most critical factors respectively.
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 1313

Table 13. Regression on social isolation degree (SO value) and spatial variables for the centralized type in A and B.
Category- Group Variables Standardized t Variables Standardized t Constant N
village Coefficients Coefficients
PAR- Re-settler SP 0.436** 3.496 D2MR 0.081 0.868 -0.994 50
Kongque D2AG 0.151 1.468 PSA -0.410** -3.287
D2S -0.068 -0.667 BD -0.009 -0.079
D2PS 0.006 0.059 RD 0.116 1.090
Local SP 0.146 1.115 D2MR -0.111 -1.368 0.252 47
D2AG 0.751 1.401 PSA -0.200* -2.099
D2S 0.107 -1.312 BD 0.001 0.017
D2PS 0.721*** 7.571 RD -0.031 -0.366
ERR - Re-settler SP 0.317** 3.193 D2MR 0.340*** 3.981 -0.587 65
Feixian D2AG 0.131 1.572 PSA -0.230** -2.826
D2S -0.104 -1.255 BD -0.006 -0.071
D2PS 0.574*** 5.291 RD -0.134 -1.695
Local SP -0.131 -0.943 D2MR 0.056 0.484 0.744 61
D2AG -0.144 -0.479 PSA -0.470*** -4.388
D2S 0.208 1.350 BD -0.182 -1.586
D2PS 0.676* 2.508 RD 0.213 1.748
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. The cells in black, dark grey, and light grey are representing the Top 3 most critical factors respectively.

performance of the relocation project in many
aspects. Our research aims to fill the gaps by
a combination study of poverty alleviation reloca­
tion (PAR) and earthquake reconstruction relocation
(ERR) from a general perspective, as well as
a specific perspective in terms of social integration.
Theoretically, by equally focusing on both groups,
the re-settler group and the local group, this research
helps to assess the relocation projects’ performances in
mutual social integration, respectively in the enclave,
adjacent, centralized, and infill types, is expected to
enhance the understandings of certain bi-directional
social issues in a more concrete physical and spatial
framework, provides theoretical support for the sus­
tainable development of rural society based on social
equality, and contribute to the future establishment of
a comprehensive performance assessment system for
the similar collective relocation projects.
Practically, by comparing performance among reset­
tlement types, the study contributes to the perfection of
the working route in different phases to fully achieve
social integration and enable the true success of collec­
tive relocation projects. While deciding on resettlement
types and relocation destinations, the study provides
planners with concrete proposals and community-level
spatial layout strategies throughout the planning stage.

Table 14. Regression on social isolation degree (SO value) and spatial variables for the enclave type in A and B.
Category- Group Variables Standardized t Variables Standardized t Constant N
village Coefficients Coefficients
PAR- Re-settler SP 0.028 0.261 D2MR 0.467*** 4.814 0.598 48
Qinjiahe D2AG 0.198* 2.203 PSA -0.364*** -3.931
D2S -0.007 -0.089 BD 0.087 1.083
D2PS 0.001 0.018 RD -0.067 -0.764
Local SP 0.657*** 7.247 D2MR 0.201** 3.061 -0.277 80
D2AG 0.160* 2.427 PSA 0.039 0.785
D2S 0.055 1.327 BD -0.001 -0.021
D2PS 0.052 1.240 RD 0.022 0.446
ERR- Re-settler SP 0.496** 3.148 D2MR 0.572** 2.829 -0.318 34
Yanxikou D2AG 0.256 1.017 PSA -0.136 -0.973
D2S 0.399 1.772 BD -0.186 -1.814
D2PS 0.613 1.866 RD 0.874*** 4.887
Local SP 0.360* 2.699 D2MR 0.476*** 4.428 0.249 57
D2AG 0.607* 2.375 PSA -0.218* -2.073
D2S -0.201 -0.830 BD 0.202 1.888
D2PS -0.268 -0.929 RD -0.126 1.234
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. The cells in black, dark grey, and light grey are representing the Top 3 most critical factors respectively.
1314 W. HU AND M. UBAURA
Following the completion of the project, it assists them
in evaluating the potential social impact, anticipating
obstacles, and becoming more prepared and focused
on critical tasks in long-term community governance
and spatial improvement.
Firstly, we made a general comparison between
PAR projects and ERR projects regarding implemen­
tation area, mode adoption, construction content,
public engagement, and challenge. We found ERR
generally more challenging, considering it had
a higher construction standard and additional
focus on safety and disaster resistance, higher pub­
lic engagement, and extra difficulty of psychological
reconstruction.
Secondly, we compared social isolation (SO) and
spatial isolation (SP) in the common type and help
planners predict and clarify the social impact of the
chosen type. We found that ERR were significantly less
socially and spatially isolated than PAR in the enclave
type; the other three types were found similar in SO.
Centralized and infill types could encourage integra­
tion, hence, were recommended to deal with different
land-use conditions. The enclave type was the most
spatially and socially isolated type. Thus it was sug­
gested as the last alternative but still feasible if there
are some pressing concerns.
Thirdly, we compared the social influencing factors
for SO. We found PAR and ERR are similar in social
status, such as gender, age, education level, family
size. Differences were found in their social capital that
residents in ERR cases generally had higher social capi­
tal than those in PAR and a narrower gap between the
two resident groups. As for the projects, we found the
locals’ opinions toward the projects in ERR were more
positive, in contrast with the locals’ indifference and
irrelevance to the project in PAR. For both PAR and
ERR, we found re-settlers who were older adults and
lived alone, with low income and substantially
decreased asset changes, were least likely to integrate.
This shows that the well-being of the vulnerable
groups deserves special attention, and assistance to
them is critical. For PAR, economic equality between
the two groups was a big trigger for integration.
Middle-aged re-settlers, residents with middle-level
income were more likely to integrate, indicating that
narrowing the economic gap to achieve the biggest
commonness between the locals and re-settlers con­
tributed to the integration. Therefore, equality for eco­
nomic activities such as employment opportunities
and access to public well-being will be the critical
point. For ERR, the improvement of personal social
capital directly promoted integration. Higher income
and higher engagement in the local industry brought
higher integration. Therefore, the support for the long-
term development of the local cooperative industry
that improves the income is of great importance.
Finally, we compared the spatial influencing fac­
tors for SO, and summarize the critical spatial fac­
tors to be prioritized in relocation projects while
plannings. We conclude that PAR was more influ­
enced by the spatial proximity and the demo­
graphic distribution between groups. Meanwhile,
ERR was more affected by the attractiveness and
accessibility to the public square considering that
earthquake victims in ERR generally had higher
psychological demands than average poor house­
holds in PAR. For the enclave type, the factors
related to the public square was more significant
for ERR than those in PAR We assumed that well-
designed and located public spaces could be the
critical point to relieve the “natural barrier” of the
enclave type. For the adjacent type, the “proximity
effect” was highlighted, in which PAR is the proxi­
mity with the same group members, and ERR was
the proximity with other group members. For the
centralized type, the importance of the public
square was emphasized in both PAR and ERR. It
was indicated by the stronger influence of public
square attractiveness and the distance to the pub­
lic square. For the infill type, both PAR and ERR,
the road routing and structuring were important in
contributing the social integration acting as
a communication channel, indicated by the dis­
tance to the main road influenced both PAR and
ERR cases.
While we picked only eight examples to represent
the four types in two categories, we must acknowledge
that some factors, such as the cases’ distinctive qualities,
influenced the outcomes. With the limited case for each
type and category, we need to specify that the condition
in the real projects should be considered individually
and comprehensively. Further research cases will enrich
the results, experiences, and measures for each type.
Besides, this study only focused on the social integra­
tion study at a given point of time, we expect the future
study can reveal longer-term evolutionary patterns
through a period of observation, such as conducting
follow-up surveys lasting a few years. We think it may
be helpful to explore this issue from a sustainable devel­
opment perspective and to provide more reliable plan­
ning suggestions for the decision-makers.
In addition, we hope to explore this issue in differ­
ent regions and even countries with different social,
economic, and cultural backgrounds in future studies.
At a macro level, if the local policy and political and
economic environment can be taken into account
more comprehensively, hopefully, the study can pro­
vide us with more referable and expandable research
results, and it would be beneficial to improve the utility
of this study and provide a broader reference for
broader types of cases in different physical, economic
and social settings.
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by JST SPRING, Grant Number
JPMJSP2114.
References
Akerkar, S., and M. Fordham. 2017. “Gender, Place and Mental
Health Recovery in Disasters: Addressing Issues of Equality
and Difference.” International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction 23: 218–230. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.03.014.
Alba, R., and V. Nee. 1997. “Rethinking Assimilation Theory for
a New Era of Immigration.” International Migration Review
31 (4): 826–874. doi:10.1177/019791839703100403.
Alexander, D. 2012. “What Can We Do about Earthquakes?
Towards a Systematic Approach to Seismic Risk Mitigation.”
2012 NZSEE Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Cernea, M. 2002. Impoverishment Risks Livelihood
Reconstruction: A Model Resettling Displacement and
Resettlement, 11–55. World Bank.
Dunford, M., and L. Li. 2011. “Earthquake Reconstruction in
Wenchuan: Assessing the State Overall Plan and
Addressing the ‘Forgotten Phase’.” Applied Geography
31 (3): 998–1009. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.01.001.
Gao, X., T. Chen, and J. Fan. 2010. “Population Capacity in the
Wenchuan Earthquake Reconstruction Areas.” Acta
Geographica Sinica 65 (2): 164–176.
Gould, C. W. 2009. “The Right to Housing Recovery after Natural
Disasters.” Harvard Human Rights Journal 22 169–204 .
HIC. 2005. “Post-tsunami Relief and Rehabilitation: A Violation
of Human Rights (Fact Finding Mission Report No. 8).” New
Delhi, India: Habitat International Coalition.
Hirayama, Y. 2000. “Collapse and Reconstruction: Housing
Recovery Policy in Kobe after the Hanshin Great
Earthquake.” Housing Studies 15 (1): 111–128.
doi:10.1080/02673030082504.
Hu, W., and M. Ubaura. 2021a. “A Study on Social Integration
after Collective Relocation Projects for Poverty Alleviation
in China (Part 1): Focusing on Spatial and Social Isolation.”
Journal of Architecture and Planning 86 (781): 925–935.
doi:10.3130/aija.86.925.
Hu, W., and M. Ubaura. 2021b. “A Study on Social Integration
after Collective Relocation Projects for Poverty Alleviation
in China (Part 2): Focusing on Spatial and Social Isolation.”
Journal of Architecture and Planning, AIJ 86 (789):
2473–2484. doi:10.3130/aija.86.2473.
Huang, Q. H., M. C. Li, Z. J. Chen, and F. X. Li. 2011. “Land
Consolidation: An Approach for Sustainable Development
in Rural China.” Ambio 40: 93–95.
Iwasawa, T., and Y. Onoda. 2016. “The Importance of Local
Oriented Dissemination of Reconstruction: The Design of
Tohoku Reconstruction & DRR Pavilion.” Journal of Disaster
Research 11 (3): 504–511. doi:10.20965/jdr.2016.p0504.
Jia, H., F. Chen, D. Pan, and C. Zhang. 2018. “The Impact of
Earthquake on Poverty: Learning from the 12 May 2008
Wenchuan Earthquake.” Sustainability 10 (12): 4704.
doi:10.3390/su10124704.
1315
Kobayashi, T., Y. Onoda, K. Hirano, and M. Ubaura. 2016.
“Practical Efforts for Post-Disaster Reconstruction in
the City of Ishinomaki, Miyagi.” Journal of Disaster
Research 11 (3): 476–485. doi:10.20965/jdr.2016.p0476.
Kongjian, Y., X. Liang, L. Qing, L. Wenjin, and L. Dihua. 2008.
“Post Quake Resettlement Scenarios: With a Case Study of
Sichuan Wolong Special Administrative Region.” New
Architecture 4: 76–79.
Lo, K., and M. Y. Wang. 2018. “How Voluntary Is Poverty
Alleviation Resettlement in China.” Habitat International
73: 34–42. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2018.01.002.
Long, H., and Y. S. Liu. 2016. “Rural Restructuring in China.”
Journal of Rural Studies 47: 387–391. doi:10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2016.07.028.
Massey, D. S., and N. A. Denton. 1988. “The Dimensions of
Residential Segregation.” Social Forces 67 (2): 281–315.
doi:10.2307/2579183.
Moltchanova, E., N. Khabarov, M. Obersteiner, D. Ehrlich,
and M. Moula. 2011. “The Value of Rapid Damage
Assessment for Efficient Earthquake Response.” Safety
Science 49 (8): 1164–1171. doi:10.1016/j.
ssci.2011.03.008.
Peng, Y. 2013. “Decision Model for Developing Concentrated
Rural Settlement in post-disaster Reconstruction: A Study
in China.” Ph.D. thesis, Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Hong Kong.
Pitchett, L., A. Suryahadi, and S. Sumarto 2000. “Quantifying
Vulnerability to Poverty: A Proposed Measure, Applied to
Indonesia, Policy Research Working Paper.” No. 2437.
Washington: World Bank.
Rawal, V., J. Bothara, P. Pradhan, R. Narasimhan, and V. Singh.
2021. “Inclusion of the Poor and Vulnerable: Learning from
post-earthquake Housing Reconstruction in Nepal.”
Progress in Disaster Science 10: 100162. doi:10.1016/j.
pdisas.2021.100162.
Schnell, I., and B. Yoav. 2001. “The Sociospatial Isolation of
Agents in Everyday Life Spaces as an Aspect of
Segregation.” Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 91 (4): 622–636. doi:10.1111/0004-
5608.00262.
Strömberg, D. 2007. “Natural Disasters, Economic Development,
and Humanitarian Aid.” Journal of Economic Perspectives
21 (3): 199–222. doi:10.1257/jep.21.3.199.
Sun, M. J., B. F. Chen, J. Z. Ren, and T. T. Chang. 2010. “Natural
Disaster’s Impact Evaluation of Rural Households’
Vulnerability: The Case of Wenchuan Earthquake.”
Agriculture and Argricultural Science Procedia 1: 52–61.
doi:10.1016/j.aaspro.2010.09.007.
Tan, X. W. 2019. “The Evolvement of Poverty Alleviation
for Resettled People in 70 Years: From 1949 to 2019.”
Chinese Rural Economy 8 1–17 http://rdi.cass.cn/rdi_
cssn_yjcg/201911/P020191115543950703436.pdf . (in
Chinese).
Terminski, B. 2013. Development-induced Displacement
and Resettlement: Theoretical Frameworks and Current
Challenges. Swizerland: University of Geneva.
Wisner, B. 1998. “Marginality and Vulnerability: Why the
Homeless of Tokyo Don’t ‘Count’ in Disaster Preparations.”
Applied Geography 18 (1): 25–33. doi:10.1016/S0143-
6228(97)00043-X.
Yang, T. T., L. Wang, and L. F. Huang. 2020. “Comparing Three
Approaches to Developing Concentrated Rural Settlement
after the Lushan Earthquake.” Safety Science 125: 104624.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104626.
1316 W. HU AND M. UBAURA
Yang, Y. Y., A. Sherbinin, and Y. Liu. 2020. China's Poverty
Alleviation Resettlement: Progress, Problems and Solutions,
102135. Vol. 98. Habitat International.
Yang, Y. Y., A. Sherbinin, and Y. Liu. 2020. “China’s Poverty
Alleviation Resettlement: Progress, Problems and
Solutions.” Habitat International 98: 102135. doi:10.1016/
j.habitatint.2020.102135.
Zhen, X. Y. 2019. Evaluation of the Effects of Targeted Poverty
Alleviation Policies. China: National Institute of Development
and Strategy, Renmin University of China. (in Chinese).
Zhou, Y., Y. Z. Guo, Y. S. Liu, W. X. Wu, and Y. R. Li. 2018.
“Targeted Poverty Alleviation and Land Policy
Innovation: Some Practice and Policy Implications
from China.” Land Use Policy 74: 53–65. doi:10.1016/j.
landusepol.2017.04.037.
Zhou, W., Z. Ma, S. Guo, X. Deng, and D. Xu. 2021.
“Livelihood Capital, Evacuation and Relocation
Willingness of Residents in earthquake-stricken Areas
of Rural China.” Safety Science 141: 105350.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105350.