Effectiveness of gathering activities and spaces for community recovery in GEJET-2011-affected areas

ABSTRACT Natural disasters are becoming more frequent around the world; as a result, more citizens are losing their homes, and community bonds are becoming weaker. To address this issue, scholars have emphasized the importance of providing diverse gathering spaces and activities within shelters, temporary housing sites, and permanent housing areas, to help rebuild communities. Providing such services helps to strengthen social bonds between different genders and groups, and it can facilitate the recovery of both the built environment and community cohesion. During the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami 2011, many communities lost their settlements and were forced to relocate to new areas or reconstruct the old ones. Based on a series of site visits, interviews, and questionnaire surveys conducted for selected case studies, this study aims to determine the effectiveness of gathering spaces and recovery activities on the rebuilding of communities at different stages after the disaster. Different factors (e.g., gender and dwelling type) are found to be potentially effective at improving the benefits of such services; however, an inclusive approach providing diversified gathering spaces and activities is found to best help reduce bias between the beneficiaries and residents of gathering services and restore the community after a disaster.


Introduction
Alongside its damage to the built environment, the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami 2011 (hereafter referred to as GEJET-2011) was found to damage communities and social structures. National and local governments tried to provide shelters and immediate temporary housing sites to settle affected people and to provide different services to address their needs. Security, food, medical aid, and spaces were provided alongside social support and recovery meetings for the affected areas and communities. Stakeholders and community associations sought to provide support to maintain a social cohesion similar to that before the disaster, by establishing platforms for holding community gatherings and participatory recovery meetings, to reflect residents 'opinions in recovery plans.
This research emphasizes the importance of community recovery and aims to determine the effectiveness of gathering spaces and recovery activities upon the recovery of communities during different stages after a disaster. We ask the following question: What are the relationships between communities, gathering spaces, and gathering activities? It is assumed that the longterm recovery state of the social interactions and community bonds of affected people is impacted by the early-stage provision of gathering spaces and activities designed to assist community recovery in temporary housing sites. Despite the concerns of scholars in the field of community recovery, practical attempts have been made to produce quick recoveries, without considering the specific characteristics of the community. These problems indicate the necessity of research on this topic, because the effectiveness of gathering spaces and activities, as well as their impact upon and relations to socioeconomic factors (e.g., residents' gender, age, and dwelling type), have been studied by other scholars or addressed by stakeholders after disasters. To clarify the aims of this study, we review the background literature in the field of community recovery.

Literature review
To clarify the hypotheses and objectives of the study, this literature review explores the relevant theories from the fields of social cohesion and community resilience, community recovery, gathering spaces and activities, community impacts of dwelling types, social engagement and participation, and gender-based preferences and biases.
Numerous studies have highlighted the crucial impact of social capital in designing a successful recovery and building community resilience and social cohesion after future disasters. (Aldrich 2012;NRC (National Research Council) 2012; Aldrich and Meyer 2015) Social cohesion refers to the level of connectedness and solidarity between groups in society. It identifies two main dimensions of cohesion: the sense of belonging of a community, and the relationships between members of the community itself. (Manca 2014) Social cohesion can also involve feelings of trust, belonging, acceptance, and connectedness, which are often related to positive social interactions. (Jennings and Bamkole 2019) In the field of community recovery, scholars have described different aspects of enhanced community recovery. Many have discussed community recovery following disasters; however, the community development elements are often overshadowed by reliance upon expertise in physical recovery, to facilitate more rapid recovery. (Okada et al. 2018) Song et. al conducted research in Jangsu Village, Korea; they found that community leadership and activity provisions should be reflective, resourceful, and inclusive for the members, to realize a resilient community able to adapt to future challenges. (Song et al. 2018) Cutter and others suggest collaboration between different sectors effective at forming resilient communities when undertaking community recovery, and they suggest measuring the effectiveness of socio-economic factors in disaster damage and recovery, to establish a community based resilient recovery. (Cutter et al. 2008;Cutter, Ash, and Emrich 2014) Russel and Tierney suggest the role of crowds, social movements, organized behavior, and social and community groups in achieving community recovery and community resiliency before and after disasters. (Russell and Kathleen 1994) Johnson and Olshansky compare recovery actions in urban development planning for different post-disaster situations around the world; they demonstrate the resident-opinion-oriented recovery as an optimal framework for achieving recovery after each disaster. (Johnson and Olshansky 2016) Their research showed that a connection to a place and neighborhood contributes to increased civic participation and better social bonds, and they emphasized that recovery happens when the community builds itself as a functioning system. (Johnson and Olshansky 2017) Gathering spaces (e.g., schools, gymnasiums, meeting rooms, community centers, parks, playgrounds, and neighborhood spaces) in residential areas represent pillars of the social life of communities. They act as shared resources in which experiences and values are created through participation and communication. Improving accessibility and encouraging people to extend their knowledge and familiarity with their community through creative activities in gathering spaces could create a wider sense of attachment and discovery. The use of public spaces varies according to the time of day and day of the week, and it is affected by what is offered in a particular place at a particular time; public space use is governed by distinct rhythms and patterns, depending on time, day, and even season. (Worpole and Knox 2007) While gathering spaces in general promote community cohesion, community level gathering spaces also act as organizations, helping people to learn new skills and move on to work or education. This happens through the assignment of volunteer staff and members to such places and the offering of paid work when it becomes available. (Holland 2020) Schumann and Nelan studied an estate of gathering places during the short-term recovery following Hurricane Harvey; they found that the positioning of such places in familiar public spaces (similar to those before a disaster strike) helped the survivors to more easily access mental, emotional, and material assistance provided in such places. They also emphasized the importance of such places from the very early stages of disaster, to facilitate the mental recovery of communities. (Schumann and Nelan 2018) Johnson mentions the pre-disaster strategic planning of temporary housing sites, to avoid further difficulties for the communities following a disaster and address the former issues of temporary housing in under-planned sites. In addition, residents should be empowered to maintain the same pre-disaster social ties (e.g., by allowing them to choose the communities they move to, by maintaining the same neighborhood proximities, and by providing social spaces). (Johnson 2007) Different scholars have studied Japanese communities under temporary housing conditions and the impacts of those conditions upon community recovery from various perspectives. Ueda and Shaw (Ueda and Shaw 2016) reviewed the issue in Kesennuma City after GEJET-2011. The challenges of community management in temporary housing (e.g., leadership, ownership, and participation) can be addressed by hiring social organizations to help maintain neighborhood associations, increase participation, and strengthen community bonds. In addition, Ishikawa (Ishikawa 2015) and Bris and Bendito (Bris and Bendito 2019) reviewed Japanese examples of such situations, in separate studies; they concluded that reflecting the pre-disaster neighborhood arrangement in temporary and permanent housing, according to community members 'opinions, can produce a more resilient post-disaster environment and community. They reported that responding to affected people's needs (e.g., providing meeting rooms, open spaces, and playgrounds) can improve the mental health of the affected people, and that new temporary housing planning should learn from the mistakes of previous temporary housing solutions. Iwasa et al. (Iwasa et al. 2012) reviewed temporary housing solutions employed after the 2004 Chuetsu Flood and Earthquake in Japan; they found that the needs of the communities residing in those sites were not fully met by the providers, and individuals were required to modify the residential units. In addition, this modification behavior was spread between neighbors but not between sites, and this poor communication occurred owing to a lack of resident meeting spaces. The community environments were improved after meeting places named "temporary open cafés" were provided in quiet spaces outside of the temporary housing sites; these offered opportunities to meet, exchange, and discuss issues with the residents. Gagne studied the psychological impacts of the GEJET-2011 disaster on residents and found that after permanent relocation from affected areas, the previous lifestyles of relocated residents who relied heavily on strong social networks and relations were not recovered or were made more difficult, especially in the case of elderly and public housing residents. (Gagné 2020) Previous studies have found that the patterns and strengths of social engagements and participation can vary by sub-population (e.g., gender). They suggest that social engagement and participation in diverse activities can protect older people (especially women), who are at a greater risk of cognitive issues. (Lee and Jean Yeung 2019) However, different genders tended to participate in different gathering activities and locations. Ridgeway demonstrates that when organizational activities are gendered, the background gender frame becomes more relevant for actors, and the biases it introduces affect how people perform those activities and how they are seen in the details. The activities that different groups of people choose to participate in under such conditions may be influenced by the culture of gender hierarchy. (Ridgeway 2009) Gender segregation can arise through the built environment and differences in social skills and interactions. In general, women are considered the primary controllers of social interactions, whereas men are seen as less socially active. Women develop intimate social contacts in smaller groups and tend to have discussions about personal issues, whereas men are more likely to connect over mutual interests with larger groups. (Fehr 1996) Ben Noon and Ayalon studied the interactions of older adults in public spaces with respect to gender; they found significant gender differences in terms of the types of social activities that men and women engage in. Men were more likely to participate in preplanned activities, and women were more likely to engage in spontaneous conversations. In addition, most interactions between older adults were genderhomogeneous. (Ben Noon and Ayalon 2018)

Methods and surveys
The methodology was planned according to the hypotheses; it was assumed that the long-term recovery state of affected people's social interactions and community bonds were influenced by the initial establishment of gathering spaces and activities during the temporary housing period. Furthermore, we assumed that this recovery may be impacted by diversity in the type of housing, gathering spaces, and activities. To gain a better insight into community recovery and the impacts of gathering spaces and activities thereupon, we conducted a series of interviews and questionnaire surveys for selected case studies from the Miyagi and Iwate Prefectures. Interviews with community leaders were undertaken in the form of small group meetings, in which the opinions and knowledge of all attendees were listened to, recorded as notes, scanned, and translated to English from Japanese with the help of interpreters. The questionnaire surveys aimed to collect the experiences and opinions of residents in each affected area. To avoid a low return ratio (owing to the length of time elapsed since the disaster), no random selection method was used, and all households in the selected districts received a questionnaire.

Case studies
For this study, five severely damaged areas in the Miyagi and Iwate Prefectures (Tohoku region) were selected: Aoi-Higashimatsushima City, Tamauranishi-Iwanuma City, Akahama-Otsuchi City, Sakamoto-Yamamoto City, and Shishiori-Kesennuma City. The case studies were selected based on their reputation for successful community recovery and similarities in their characteristics, authority organizations, gathering spaces, and gathering activities. Figure 1 shows the locations of the case studies. The following descriptions were obtained from interviews with community leaders and documents issued by local governments.
Aoi, located in Miyagi Prefecture, is a relocation site in the Omagari area, a coastal town in Higashimatsushima. The temporary housing was located at one site, and the meeting rooms were provided by the neighborhood association to faciliate meetings and collect residents' opinions regarding the neighborhood, gathering spaces, and recovery actvities in the recovery plan. The recovery of Aoi was based on a community-driven approach, and residents and neighborhood associations participated in and commented upon the meetings. As a result, different types of gathering spaces were provided in the neighborhood of the relocated areas, to increase the inclusivity, diversity, and accessibility of gathering spaces and activities offered to residents. The same diversity approach was adopted for housing recovery in this area: relocated households were placed in private detached housing, individual detached-style public housing, and apartment-style mass public housing. Figure 2 depicts the meetings held in the temporary and permanent housing, the community activities in the relocated area, and the support system for elderly residents, which took the form of pet clubs and involvement with the younger generation.
Tamaura-nishi District is a relocation site in the coastal area of Iwanuma City. Residents were moved to three temporary housing sites; however, the community connections and meetings were retained, to produce a community-driven recovery approach and reflect the residents' opinions of the recovery plan. The recovered neighborhood maintained the proximities of the former area, though on a smaller scale. Three similar meeting rooms and parks offered inclusive and shared services within neighborhoods. Moreover, civic centers were shared with Tamauranishi and western Iwanuma, to allow public gatherings and events to be hosted. Based on this community-driven recovery approach, the main housing type in this area (for both public and private housing) was individual detached-style buildings. Figure 3 depicts community recovery meetings held during the temporary housing stage, as well as gathering activities provided after relocation to the permanent site.
The Akahama District of Otsuchi town is a small fishery area located on readjusted and relocated land lots. After the disaster, five different temporary housing sites were established. The school, which represented the main gathering space in the district, was demolished in the disaster; however, meetings and gatherings were held in the remaining gymnasium and temporary meeting rooms established during the temporary housing stage. The community members took a community-driven approach towards recovery, approximately retaining the pre-disaster community connections and meetings. In the numerous meetings held for recovery planning in the temporary housing, residents sought to extend their communication after the recovery. The relocated temporary meeting room and new community center were the only gathering spaces that provided gathering activities to the residents of Akahama. Only the seaside-located houses in Akahama were demolished, and the more elevated land houses survived the disaster; hence, the recovered houses were built on selected relocation sites, and individual detached houses for private and public housing were provided. Figure 4 shows the supportive gathering activities provided in shelters, meetings, and festivals during the temporary housing stage.
Sakamoto is located in the town of Yamamoto in the southern region of Miyagi Prefecture. This area accommodated the relocation houses of the coastal Sakamoto area. The temporary housing sites were located near the recovered land, and existing meeting rooms were used to host gatherings and recovery meetings; however, the meetings were primarily  Aoi-Higashimatsushima, 1&2 meetings during life in temporary housing, after moving to permanent housing 3-6 inclusive festivals from 第14回 住まいのまちなみ賞 pamphlet, 7&8 elderly people`s support system by university students and pet club from "the best town in Japan made by residents" by Takeichi ONO.
oriented toward introducing new residents to current ones and facilitating exchanges regarding regulations. Because of the disaster and depopulation, a school that represented a major gathering space in the area had been closed. After the disaster, the existing elderlies in the meeting room and the new community center offered gathering services for relocated residents and existing members. The recovered houses were detached-style individual private and public housing. Most public-housing residents were singlehousehold elderly people. Figure 5 shows the community's introductory meetings and activities during the temporary housing stage.
The Shishiori neighborhood is located adjacent to the center of Kesennuma City, in Miyagi Prefecture. The current public housing was constructed on temporary housing sites and the former residential lots of those who did not move back after the disaster. The recovery plan was primarily administered by the local government, and residents had a minor involvement in the process and decision making; however, the neighborhood association sought to hold inclusive meetings and activities in their building and at other sites, to keep the connections close. The other gathering spaces provided in the area were the civic center and the open spaces located in public housing sites. Figure  6 shows the government and resident's association meetings during the temporary housing stage, as well as gathering activities in the public housing open spaces following relocation to permanent housing.    Table 1 presents the affected communities, gathering spaces, and recovered areas in terms of the housing and recovered gathering spaces.
The questionnaire surveys were undertaken in March and July 2020. Ten years had passed since the disaster, and it was predicted that the return ratio would be low. To address this issue, it was decided that the distributions should cover all households in each recovered area, with a total of 1783 distributed questionnaires. The Table below shows the number of distributed and returned questionnaire surveys. Table  2 presents the summary of distributed questionnaires as well as number and ratio of the effectively returned questionnaires in each area. Figure 6. Shishiori-Kesennuma, 1 minor meeting during life in temporary housing, after moving to permanent housing 2 community meeting, 3&4 inclusive festival, from 鹿折まちくり協議会, www.facebook.com/shishiorimachikyo/. The questionnaire was divided into two sections: the primary questions pertained to demographic information such as age, gender, and dwelling type; the secondary questions focused on the details of population recovery, the organizations conducting activities and meetings, activity circumstances, activity participation levels, distances to gathering spaces, number of gathering spaces, number and types of gathering activity before and after the disaster, and future suggestions.

Primary results
Because the lifestyles of community members change before and after retirement in Japanese society, we decided to classify the respondents according to these age groups. The questionnaire results (Table 3) showed that most respondents were over 65 years old (above retirement age: 58.5%). The respondents showed equal gender distributions, except for Akahama-Otsuchi and Sakamoto-Yamamoto, where most respondents were female (64% and 63%, respectively). Regarding dwelling types, except for Shishiori-Kesennuma, most respondents lived in private housing. In Aoi-Higashimatsushima, public housing consisted of a combination of reinforced concrete and detached-style public housing; in other areas, only one type of public housing was provided.

Secondary results
Secondary analysis shows the results of the questionnaire regarding recovery initiatives, gathering spaces, and gathering activities. It should be noted that information regarding life in temporary housing was identified through interviews rather than questionnaire surveys. In all areas, the primary authorities that conducted reconstruction meetings with the respondents were neighbors and regional leaders. The recovery processes of Aoi-Higashimatsushima, Tamauranishi-Iwanuma, and Akahama-Otsuchi were based on a community-driven approach, those in Sakamoto-Yamamoto were a mix of community-driven and government-led approaches, and those in Shishiori-Kesennuma were government-led. The primary organizations that provided activities before the disaster, during the temporary housing stage, and after the disaster were neighborhood associations, community associations (including major organizations and local governments), and ward associations, with non-government organization (NGO) consultants as secondary providers. In Table 3. Summary of general demographics from questionnaire survey.

Iwanuma-Tamauranishi
Otsuchi-Akahama addition, for all areas, there was a decrease in the role of parent teacher associations (PTAs) as activity providers after the disaster. (Figure 7) The scale of participated activity provision was identified as mostly one of neighborhood blocks and of several neighbors, followed by community blocks, middle school districts, and temporary housing blocks (during temporary housing). A tendency toward smaller-scale activities after the disaster was noted for all areas. (Figure 8) Regarding the frequency of gathering activities, tendencies toward more frequent participation after the disaster were noted (Figure 9). In addition, the distances from respondents' houses to the gathering spaces were mostly between 5 and 15 min (by foot), and they decreased after the disaster ( Figure 10).
Regarding the type of gathering spaces, the main gathering spaces before and after the disaster were community centers (large-scale buildings) and meeting rooms (small-scale buildings), with schools and gymnasiums as secondary. After the disaster, the main gathering spaces were meeting rooms and community centers, and fewer schools and gymnasiums were used. Nearby private houses in Tamauranishi-Iwanuma and open spaces in Shishiori-Kesennuma were mentioned as the key post-disaster gathering spaces. (Figure 11) The gathering carried out activities before the disaster were mostly large gatherings, including traditional events, environmental cleaning, and athletic competitions; smaller gatherings such as ceremonies, circle activities, and children's activities were conducted to a lesser extent. After the disaster, the number of carried out activities generally decreased, though an increase in circle activities and community development was noted. Smaller decreases were noted in environmental cleaning activities, Bosai activities, and security activities. In terms of gathering activities that respondents chose to participate in before and after the disaster, participatory activities comprised ~50% of the activities offered,       Table 4. Crosstabulation between gathering spaces and participated gathering activities before and after disaster. 484 in all areas. Meanwhile, for most activities, participation after the disaster decreased by 50%, though participation in circle activities and community development activities increased. In addition, participation in environmental cleaning activities and geriatric associations decreased less than in other activities. Regarding suggestions for improvement in gathering activities, traditional events, environmental cleaning, Bosai activities, and community development activities were most frequently selected ( Figure 12). Table 4 shows the cross-tabulation between total activity participation and type of gathering space before the disaster. Before the disaster, most activities took place in meeting rooms, community centers, and schools; after the disaster, they took place in meeting rooms and community centers. Before the disaster, children's activities were mostly held in schools and meeting rooms; after the disaster, meeting rooms were the key gathering space for these activities. Table 5 summarizes the responses to the factors mentioned in the questionnaires and interview surveys. Table 5. Summary of the most selected gathering spaces and activities before disaster, during temporary houisng and after diaster in each area.
The information regarding before and after disaster is gathered from questionnaire surveys. Scoring order is based on the most selected activities and gathering spaces by the respondents based on multiple choice questions. The scoring referrers to selection of each activity and gathering space by respondents(1 st :more than 60%, 2 nd :40-60%, 3 rd: 30-40%, 4 th : 20-30%, 5 th : 10-20%, not selected majorly: less than 10%) The information regarding temporary housing period is gathered from interview survey based on the most frequent used gathering spaces and carried out activities during life in temporary housing.

Cross tabulations
Chi-2 tests were conducted between different cases to determine the associations between different factors relevant to the hypothesis. In Aoi-Higashimatsushima before the disaster, male respondents chose to participate in traditional events more than female respondents (α = 0.020). Female respondents chose circle activities more than male respondents after the disaster (α = 0.014). Male respondents participated more in community development activities than female respondents (α = 0.016). After the disaster, respondents living in private housing chose schools as the main gathering spaces more than other groups (α = 0.039). Respondents living in public housing chose to participate in circle activities more than others (α = 0.001). Respondents living in private housing chose to participate in children's activities more than other groups (α = 0.019). Respondents who participated in two or more activities before the disaster participated in traditional events and environmental cleaning activities more than others. Respondents who participated in two or more activities after the disaster participated in traditional events more than others (α = 0.002). Respondents who participated in three or more activities after the disaster participated in ceremonies more than others (α = 0.018).
In Tamauranishi-Iwanuma, male respondents participated in more activities than female ones before the disaster (α = 0.030). Male respondents participated in security activities more than female respondents before the disaster (α = 0.015). Respondents living in private housing chose to participate in activities more frequently than those living in public housing (α = 0.023). Respondents from private housing chose meeting rooms as their main gathering space more often than other respondents (α = 0.036). Respondents who participated in two or more activities before the disaster participated in traditional events and environmental cleaning activities more than others (α = 0.000). Respondents who participated in two or more activities after a disaster participated in traditional events and circle activities more than others. Respondents who participated in three or more activities after the disaster participated in ceremonies more than others (α = 0.000).
In Akahama-Otsuchi, female respondents participated in activities more frequently than male respondents (α = 0.015). Before the disaster, female respondents chose schools as the main gathering spaces more often than male ones (α = 0.012). After the disaster, female respondents chose to participate in ceremonies more than male respondents (α = 0.032). Female respondents participated in children's activities more often than male ones before the disaster (α = 0.011). Respondents living in private housing participated in more activities than those living in public housing (α = 0.039). Respondents living in public housing chose to participate in circle activities more than other groups (α = 0.001). Respondents who participated in two or more activities before the disaster participated in more traditional events than others (α = 0.016). Respondents who participated in three or more activities after the disaster participated in ceremonies more than other groups (α = 0.002).
In Sakamoto-Yamamoto, female respondents chose closer activities before the disaster (α = 0.015). Male respondents chose more carried out activities than female respondents before (α = 0.010) and after (α = 0.015) the disaster, and they chose to participate in traditional events more than female respondents. Before the disaster, female respondents chose to participate in ceremonies more than male respondents (α = 0.023). Male respondents were more likely to suggest community building activities for future development than female respondents (α = 0.008). Respondents who participated in three or more activities after the disaster participated in ceremonies more than others (α = 0.029).
In Shishiori-Kesennuma, female respondents chose to participate in ceremonies more than male respondents before the disaster (α = 0.000). Male respondents participated in security activities more than female ones during this time (α = 0.039). Respondents living in private housing chose larger-scale activities, and people living in public housing chose those on a scale of several neighbors (α = 0.015). Respondents living in public housing travelled less to access the main gathering spaces than respondents living in private housing (α = 0.028). After the disaster, respondents living in private housing chose schools as the main gathering spaces more than others (α = 0.041). Respondents living in private housing chose to participate in athletic competitions more than other groups (α = 0.012). Respondents living in public housing chose to participate in environmental cleaning activities more than others (α = 0.015). Respondents who participated in two or more activities before the disaster participated in traditional events and environmental cleaning activities more than others (α = 0.003). Respondents who participated in two or more activities after the disaster participated in traditional events and circle activities more than others (α = 0.001). After the disaster, respondents who participated in three or more activities participated in ceremonies more than others (α = 0.001). Figures 13 and 14 show the distribution of carried out and participated gathering activities before and after the disaster, as well as future suggestions regarding the gender distribution of respondents. The results show that female respondents'participation in intimate social activities fell less than that of male respondents. Figure 15 shows the distribution of carried out and participated gathering activities after the disaster, as well as future suggestions regarding the distribution of dwelling types. Respondents living in public housing chose fewer large-scale activities (e.g., traditional events), opting for smaller-scale activities (e.g., circle activities) more often than respondents living in private housing. Figure 16 shows the cross-tabulated distribution of gathering activities with respect to age [under 65 years old (before retirement) and 65+ years old (after retirement)] and gender after the disaster. Male respondents 65 and over participated in the greatest number of activities, particularly in carried out activities, participated activities, and future suggestions.
Male respondents over 65 years old selected more carried out activities than other respondents, primarily selecting traditional events, environmental cleaning, and community development activities. Female respondents over 65 years old mentioned traditional events, circle activities, ceremonies, geriatric activities, and environment cleaning activities as their primary carried out activities. Both groups suggested environmental cleaning, traditional events, Bosai, and community development activities for future development. In addition, female and male respondents under 65 years old mentioned traditional events and environmental activities that were offered and participated in. Both groups suggested traditional events and community development for future development; however, female respondents under 65 requested children's activities more than all other groups.    Figure 17 shows the distribution of gathering spaces cross-tabulated by gender and respondent age [under 65 years old (before retirement) and 65 + years old (after retirement)] after the disaster. In general, all groups exhibited similar tendencies toward the selection of gathering spaces. Male respondent of 65 years and over and female ones less than 65 years old mentioned cafés and restaurants as gathering spaces. However, the under-65 male respondents chose community centers less often as the main gathering spaces. Table 6 shows the gathering activities of respondents living in public housing with respect to area. In Aoi-Higashimatsushima, Tamauranishi-Iwanuma, and Shishiori-Kesennuma, respondents living in public housing chose mandatory and voluntary gathering activities with similar distributions. In other areas, the selection was primarily based on large gathering activities and mandatory activities.

Findings and discussions
The analysis identified the recovery approach, gender, age, and type of dwelling as possible factors determining the effectiveness of recovery gathering activities and spaces upon communities.
Recovery approach: A review of the documents and interview surveys shows that different case studies implemented different approaches toward recovery. Aoi-Higashimatsushima, Tamauranishi-Iwanuma, and Akahama-Otsuchi adopted a community-driven approach for recovery, Sakamoto-Yamamoto took a  two-fold approach consisting of community-driven and government-led initiatives, and Shishiori-Kesennuma adopted a government-led approach for neighborhood recovery (Table 1). Cases exhibiting community-driven approaches implemented a greater number and more diversified range of activities compared to those involving a government-led recovery approach (Figures 2-6). It should be mentioned that the community connections in community-driven cases were strong before the disaster, which may have impacted the recovery approach coordination (Table 1). These results are aligned with the literature and emphasize the concerns of other scholars in the field of recovery and community participation toward rebuilding community cohesion. (Aldrich 2012;NRC (National Research Council) 2012; (Aldrich and Meyer 2015), (Manca 2014), (Jennings and Bamkole 2019), (Okada et al. 2018), (Song et al. 2018), (Cutter et al. 2008), (Cutter, Ash, and Emrich 2014), (Russell and Kathleen 1994), (Johnson and Olshansky 2016), (Johnson and Olshansky 2017) Governing associations: The primary results (Figures 7 and 8) indicate that smaller-scale organizations (e.g., neighborhood and community associations) oversaw conducting gathering services after the disaster; however, the role of PTAs decreased as well. The establishment of gathering spaces and activities for recovery began during the temporary housing period and continued thereafter in most cases. This continuation was more evolved among cases with a community-driven recovery approach (Table 1). In Japan, many schools are closing because of depopulation; this affects the quality and quantity of activities offered in these important gathering spaces. It is assumed that the weakened role of the PTA after the disaster was attributable to this shutting down of schools; it should be mentioned that children's activities also decreased after the disaster (Figures 7 and 11, Table 4). PTA organizations and meetings serve as a fundamental communication channel between community members regarding children's social lives, and this can improve community recovery for both families and children.
Gathering spaces: The distance to the main gathering space was shortened after the disaster; these places were mostly located within a 5 minute walk from the respondents' houses ( Figure 10). The main gathering spaces after the disaster were community centers and meeting rooms (more intimate, smaller gathering spaces); furthermore, schools and gymnasiums (less intimate, larger gathering spaces) became less significant as primary gathering spaces after the disaster ( Figure 11, Table 5). This replacement relocated children's activities into meeting rooms and community centers (Table 4). In addition, the size of gathering space became smaller after the disaster. In cases with community-driven recovery approaches, many small, intimate social gathering spaces were provided, accompanied by several small parks; meanwhile, government-led recovery approach cases offered gathering spaces in a single building with a limited number of parks (open spaces) (Table 1). In Shishiori-Kesennuma, the park (open space) and gathering spaces were located in public housing areas. Hence, the relations between gathering spaces and recovery approaches corroborate the literature findings in the field of gathering spaces and the recovery of such spaces (Worpole and Knox 2007;Holland 2020;Schumann and Nelan 2018;Johnson 2007); however, the act of increasing gathering spaces and the diversity and intimacy of activities may improve the community-driven approaches, according to the background research.
Gathering activities: In most cases, gathering activities were administered immediately after the disaster and in the shelters and temporary housing sites, and community development and Bosai activities were among them (Table 1). In general, both before and after the disaster, numerous gathering activities were offered, though respondents' participation fell by 50% after the disaster; furthermore, they suggested carried out activities more than others (Figure 15). Therefore, the number of participated activities was higher in cases exhibiting community-driven approaches. When the number of participated activities was lower, the respondents mostly mentioned environmental cleaning activities; these are mandatory schedule-based activities conducted by members of In case studies with community-driven, grassroot level organizations gathering spaces were more involving, activities were more diverse and different social factors were more considered Japanese communities, and they cannot be considered as a activity to selectively participate in. When the number of participated activities is higher, more voluntary activities (e.g., traditional events, ceremonies, and circle activities) are chosen (Table 5). A difference was observed between the number of carried out activities, participated activities, and suggested activities: when the number of carried out activities was high, the participation was lower, and suggestions for future developments remained constant. This may be attributable to unsuitable welcoming situations and the scheduling of such activities for the residents. Respondents with a total activity participation of two or more before the disaster participated in traditional events and environmental cleaning activities more than others. Respondents who participated in two or more activities after the disaster participated in traditional events and circle activities more than others. Meanwhile, respondents who participated in a total of three or more activities after the disaster participated in ceremonies more than others. Cross-tabulation of the gathering spaces and activities (Table 4) shows that before the disaster, most activities were hosted in meeting rooms, community centers, and schools; after the disaster, these were held in meeting rooms and community centers. Before the disaster, children's activities mostly took place in schools and meeting rooms; after the disaster, meeting rooms were the main gathering space for children's activities. The analysis results of gathering activities align with the reviewed literature, and they indicate the importance of conducting such activities during the early stages following a disaster, to promote community recovery. (Ueda and Shaw 2016;Ishikawa 2015;Bris and Bendito 2019;Iwasa et al. 2012;Gagné 2020) Gender: According to the cross-tabulations, female respondents tended to choose smaller-scale activities, though they participated more frequently than male respondents. They chose to participate in more intimate social gathering activities (e.g., ceremonies, children's activities, and circle activities). Male respondents chose larger-scale activities, and they were more aware of the different activities offered. Male respondents also participated in mutual-interest activities (e.g., traditional events, community development activities, and security activities) more than female respondents. Most of the gender cross-tabulation associations were identified in Sakamoto-Yamamoto; here, male respondents chose a greater number and variety of activities and were more involved in the recovery process and gathering communications; these results reflect the concerns of the scholars in this field (Ishikawa 2015;Bris and Bendito 2019;Iwasa et al. 2012;Gagné 2020;Lee and Jean Yeung 2019;Ridgeway 2009;Fehr 1996;Ben Noon and Ayalon 2018). This area exhibited a gender-biased environment and events schedule before the disaster (Figures 13 and 14).
Age: Most of the respondents were retired (65 + years old, Table 3); however, the results of gender and age cross-tabulation show that male respondents over 65 years old selected the greatest number and variety of activities. In addition, regardless of gender, respondents over 65 years old and under 65 years old expressed different interests in the selection of gathering activities. Female respondents aged 65 years and under chose children's activities more than others in their future suggestions. All groups chose similar types of gathering spaces as their main locations for activities. (Figures 16 and 17) In the local-government documents and interview surveys, a very similar ratio was found for activity participation and the choice of gathering space for residents of different ages; however, the analysis results and evidence issued by local governments show differences. In Aoi-Higashimatsushima and Shishiori-Kesennuma, the activities differed according to age, and attempts were made to connect the different age groups. (Figures 2 and 6) Type of dwelling: A similar distribution was observed in respondents' dwelling types (54% private housing, 46% public housing; Table 3); however, from the cross-tabulations and Figure 15, several differences were found. Respondents living in private housing chose larger-scale activities, participated more frequently in gathering activities, chose a greater number of activities to participate in, choose schools and meeting rooms as main gathering spaces more frequently, and participated in athletic activities and children's activities more than respondents living in public housing. The results from Aoi-Higashimatsushima, Tamauranishi-Iwanuma, and Shishiori-Kessennuma for respondents living in public housing and private housing differed from those in other areas. In this area, public housing respondents participated in mandatory, large-scale, and intimate social activities, very similar to those living in private housing ( Table 6). The recovery approaches in these areas differed (Aoi-Higashimatsushima and Tamauranishi-Iwanuma, community-driven; Shishiori-Kesennuma, government-led). Similarities were also observed in the location of gathering spaces and parks, as well as the welcoming environment of the activities (Figures 2, 3, and 6; Table 1).
Effectiveness: By reviewing the recovery approaches involving gathering spaces and activities as well as their effectiveness on community recovery in the case studies, we suggest that the recovery should not only consider the physical presence of such spaces but also the social aspects of each community. In fact, the recovery derived from such spaces and activities may have been more effective in cases involving community-driven recovery approaches, community/ neighborhood association authorities, and the establishment of open spaces and parks alongside closed spaces. These cases, by providing numerous intimate social gathering spaces and diverse activities, as well as by welcoming residents of different genders, ages, and dwelling types, may have helped strengthen community cohesion. Paying attention to scholars" concerns regarding community recovery, and considering their suggestions in the recovery process, may be beneficial. Community-driven approaches, undertaken by community and neighborhood associations through identifying community needs and providing residents" suggestions throughout the recovery period, could also assist the recovery of the community. The authors suggest learning from cases such as Aoi-Higashimatsushima, Iwanuma-Tamauranishi, and Shishiori-Kesennuma, which were able to repair their disaster-affected communities by addressing the demands of different groups of residents. The recovery approaches in these cases differed; however, the community and gathering space recoveries of these case studies were considered from similar perspectives.
Among cases of this level of association, the gathering spaces and activities were provided according to the diverse characteristics of the residents; different groups of people became involved in the recovery process and established activities and spaces. This type of establishment might improve the effectiveness of gathering spaces and communities, thereby facilitating the better community recovery of the residents, regardless of their gender, dwelling-type, age, or interests. Diversification of gathering activities and spaces will have a positive effect on the sense of belonging and community among residents, despite their differences. Table 7 presents a summary of the findings.

Conclusion
This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of gathering spaces and activities on the recovery of communities in different stages after the GEJET-2011. By emphasizing long-term community recovery, we tried to determine the relationships between communities, gathering spaces, and gathering activities, via case studies and a literature review. This research can be briefly summarized as follows: the increased role of community and neighborhood associations was primarily a result of community-driven recovery approaches and may have had positive impacts on community recovery. The results of the community recovery in Shishiori-Kesennuma show that whilst the main recovery approach was government-led, community recovery was undertaken by neighborhood associations; furthermore, the gathering spaces and open spaces provided for events were located in the public housing site, which improved outcomes compared to other government-led cases. The tendencies of gathering spaces had changed from formal gathering spaces (e.g., schools and gymnasiums) to less formal gathering spaces (e.g., community centers and meeting rooms). Moreover, the type of gathering activities changed toward more informal activities than formal ones in the selected case studies. Therefore, in the reviewed case studies, the effectiveness of gathering spaces and activities on community recovery may vary according to the gender, dwelling type, and age of the respondents.
Scholars have emphasized the importance of initiating community recovery with maximum resident participation from the shelter and temporary housing stages onwards, and recreating pre-disaster social bonds and modularity can help achieve a resilient community cohesion recovery (Aldrich 2012),(NRC (National Research Council) 2012), (Aldrich and Meyer 2015), (Manca 2014), (Jennings and Bamkole 2019), (Okada et al. 2018), (Song et al. 2018), (Cutter et al. 2008), (Cutter, Ash, and Emrich 2014), (Russell and Kathleen 1994), (Johnson and Olshansky 2016), (Johnson and Olshansky 2017), (Ueda and Shaw 2016), (Ishikawa 2015), (Bris and Bendito 2019), (Iwasa et al. 2012), (Gagné 2020). The results of this study agree with the literature. In areas with communitydriven recovery approaches and in which community recovery measures are established during the shelter and temporary housing stages, fewer differences were observed between the benefits derived by different respondent groups from the gathering spaces and activities. In addition, it can be assumed that the potentially significant role of the community and neighborhood associations, as well as their importance in establishing gathering spaces and activities, may impact the success of the community recovery process. These associations, by identifying community level needs regarding the recovery of such spaces, sought to establish multiple intimate social gathering spaces and diversify their activities according to the different resident groups.
Background studies have warned stakeholders about possible exclusion and separation between public and private housing residents in terms of communities and social interactions (Lee and Jean Yeung 2019;Ridgeway 2009;Fehr 1996; Ben Noon and Ayalon 2018); however, contrasting results were identified in the case studies of this research. Similar tendencies were identified in the selection of gathering spaces and activities among both groups, especially among respondents of community-driven recovery approach cases. In such cases, during the temporary housing stage, diverse inclusive gathering activities were offered by authorities in these areas. This also refers to the crucial role of community level recovery directions from the onset of the disaster, to help residents connect with the residents of other types of housing and to increase trust and a sense of belonging. Hence, the results of dwelling-type factors may differ from the scholars'expectations, and no significant difference was found between the benefits derived by respondents living in different types of dwelling. While the trends of gathering activities changed after the disaster, a smaller number of activities were mandatory (e.g., environmental cleaning), and higher numbers were associated with the selection of recreational voluntary activities.
The results of gender-based cross-tabulation analysis were similar to expectations, and they may accord with background theories regarding genderbased differences and the importance of diversified gathering activities. However, gender-based issues were discussed and addressed in the community-driven approach cases. The results cannot determine whether the gender and age factors regarding activity participation became less biased after the disaster; however, they suggest that the gender-based tendencies changed after the disaster. The results of the gender-based analysis of Sakamoto-Yamamoto may raise concerns about the ongoing gender biases in similar communities, and it indicates the importance of other scholars' concern regarding inclusivity in the provision of activities and spaces, to address existing social issues and to help community recovery following future disasters. (Lee and Jean Yeung 2019;Ridgeway 2009;Fehr 1996;Ben Noon and Ayalon 2018) Differences were found between different age groups (before and after retirement age) in terms of the selection of activities, which could be attributable to different lifestyles; however, similarities were observed in the selection of gathering spaces in both age groups. Male respondents over the age of 65 (after retirement) selected a larger number of activities for participation and making suggestions. Rural areas in Japan are known to be culturally gendered and age-separated environments, and elderly men occupy roles of authority in these communities. This may explain the differences between different gender and age groups amongst the respondents of this research, as well as the types of gathering activities offered.
The study can briefly conclude that in cases with smaller scale governing associations, the gathering spaces and activities were provided according to the diverse characteristics of the residents; different groups of people became involved in the recovery process and established activities and spaces. This type of establishment might improve the effectiveness of gathering spaces and communities, thereby facilitating the better community recovery of the residents, regardless of their gender, dwelling-type, age, or interests. Diversification of gathering activities and spaces will have a positive effect on the sense of belonging and community among residents, despite their differences. This paper attempted to (i) investigate the effectiveness of gathering spaces and activities in GEJET-2011 affected areas, (ii) contribute to the research field of community recovery from a long-term perspective, and (iii) analyze spaces' and activities' relationships to social factors. Therefore, additional research that considers other types of gathering spaces (e.g., shrines and temples, which are fundamental for Japanese communities and their cohesion but form part of a government-led recovery framework) might be beneficial. Because the results present the different possible functions of neighborhood associations and government bodies in the recovery of gathering spaces, we recommend further research focusing on the role of different levels of governing authorities in establishing gathering spaces after disasters.
In contrast with the background research, the results of associations among different factors are here aligned with theories of gender-and agebased social interactions, and these Japanese case studies may reflect more global characteristics. We suggest that stakeholders can contribute towards more resilient future recoveries by considering scholars' concerns from the perspective of community recovery; residents' participation; grass-roots associations; gathering spaces and activities; and gender, age, and socioeconomic differences in their recovery plans.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Yegane Ghezelloo (Ph.D.) Academic Researcher at Kobe University, Japan. Her research interests include public space design and planning, participatory architecture, disaster recovery, and community empowerment. She previously worked as a practicing architect in Iran.