ӸӞ‫ܖٻދ‬࿢‫ܖؾ‬ᄂᆮᅹ

2004 ࠰҅ᢿἋἰἚἻ‫ע‬ᩗᛦ௹‫إ‬ԓ V
The 5th Investigation Report of2004 Northern Sumatra Earthquake                           

㧞
㧜
㧜
㧠
ᐕ
ർ
ㇱ
ࠬ
ࡑ
࠻
࡜
࿾
㔡
⺞
ᩏ
ႎ
๔
Χ

    

㧞
㧜
㧜
㧥
ᐕ
㧡
᦬



ฬ
ฎ
ደ
ᄢ
ቇ
Ⅳ
Ⴚ
ቇ
⎇
ⓥ
⑼

2009 ࠰ 5 உӸӞ‫ܖٻދ‬࿢‫ܖؾ‬ᄂᆮᅹ
May 2009
Graduate School of Environmental Studies
Nagoya University

名古屋大学環境学研究科

2004 年北部スマトラ地震調査報告 V
The 5th Investigation Report of2004 Northern Sumatra Earthquake

2009 年 5 月
名古屋大学環境学研究科

May 2009
Graduate School of Environmental Studies
Nagoya University

i

ƸơǊƴ



ஜ‫إ‬ԓ୿ƸŴǹȞȈȩඌ‫ע‬ᩗȷ඾ඬƷܱ७ƱᘮܹŴƞǒƴƦƷࢸƷࣄ଒ȷࣄᐻཞඞƴƭƍƯŴӸӞ‫ܖٻދ‬࿢‫ܖؾ‬ᄂᆮᅹƷᄂᆮǰȫȸȗƴǑǔᛦ௹ȷ౨᚛ኽௐǛӕǓጻǊƨǋƷưƢŵӸӞ‫ܖٻܖٻދ‬ᨈ࿢‫ܖؾ‬ᄂᆮᅹƸŴ2001 ࠰ 4 உƴྸ‫ܖ‬Ŵ߻‫ܖ‬Ŵʴ૨ᅈ˟ᅹ‫ܖ‬ሁǛ‫ᧉݦ‬ƱƢǔ૙ՃƕኽᨼƠƯŴӸӞ‫ܖٻދ‬ưИƷஜ఍ႎƳ૨ྸᡲઃƴǑǔß್‫׹‬àƷᄂᆮᅹƱƠƯоᚨƞǕǇƠƨŵஜᄂᆮᅹưƸžਤዓࣱ‫ܖ‬ſƱž‫ܤ‬μȷ‫ܖ࣎ܤ‬ſƕᡲઃ૙ᏋȷᄂᆮƷ 2 ஜ௵ƱƳƬƯƍǇƢƕŴ
ž‫ܤ‬μȷ‫ܖ࣎ܤ‬ſƸʴ᧓Ǎဃ෇‫ח‬ǛЈႆໜƱƠƯ‫࣎ܤ‬Ƴ࿢‫ؾ‬Ǜ࢟঺ƢǔƨǊƴ᝻Ƣǔ‫ܖ‬բưƢŵஜ‫إ‬ԓ୿ƸŴž‫ܤ‬μȷ‫ܖ࣎ܤ‬ſȗȭǸǧǯȈƷɟ࿢ƱƠƯŴ૨ྸᡲઃƱƍƏஜᄂᆮᅹƷཎᧈǛஇ‫ٻ‬ᨂƴဃƔƠƨᄂᆮ঺ௐǛᅆƠƨǋƷưƢŵ
ǹȞȈȩඌ‫ע‬ᩗȷ඾ඬƕ 2004 ࠰ 12 உ 26 ଐƴឪƜƬƯƔǒŴ4 ࠰ǛឭƑǔ࠰உƕኺᢅƠǇƠƨŵஜᄂᆮᅹƸ 2005 ࠰ 2 உƴᇹ 1 ഏᛦ௹‫ׇ‬Ǜྵ‫ע‬ƴᡛƬƯˌஹŴዒዓႎƴᛦ௹‫ׇ‬Ǜ෉ᢔƠƯƖǇƠƨŵƜ
Ʒ‫إ‬ԓ୿ƷǷȪȸǺǋŴƜǕư 5 ώႸƱƳǓǇƢŵ
žዒዓƸщƳǓſ
ƱဎƠǇƢƕŴྵ‫ע‬ƴᡫƏƜƱƴǑǓŴಮŷƳ᣻ᙲƳჷᙸƕࢽǒǕƯƍǇƢŵǇƨŴોǊƯஇИƷ‫إ‬ԓ୿ƔǒႸǛᡫƠƯǈǔƱŴᄂᆮȆȸȞƕಊǊƯ‫ޟٶ‬ƴʠƬƯƍǔƜƱƴൢ˄ƖǇƢŵƜǕƜƦɥᡓƠƨ૨ྸᡲઃƷᄂᆮᅹƷཎᧈƴǑǔǋƷưƢŵƞǒƴᛦ௹ƷИ஖െ᨞ƔǒŴҥƳǔᄂᆮ‫ݣ‬ᝋƱƠƯƷžᘮ໎‫ע‬ſᛦ௹ƩƚưƸƳƘŴྵ‫ע‬ƷࣄᐻƴƲƏᝡྂưƖǔƔƱƍƏᙻໜǋࢍƘॖᜤƞǕƯƍǇƢŵ
‫ྸע‬ႎƴƸᢒƍǤȳȉȍǷǢưឪƜƬƨ‫ע‬ᩗȷ඾ඬƴǑǔက‫ٻ‬ƳᘮܹƸŴൿƠƯ˂ʴʙưƸƋǓǇƤǜŵᅶƨƪƷ˰ǉிෙ‫؏ע‬ƸŴᡈƍ‫ݩ‬ஹƴ‫ע‬ᩗȷ඾ඬƴǑǔ‫ٻ‬ƖƳ໎ܹƕʖยƞǕƯƍǇƢŵǹȞȈ
ȩඌ‫ע‬ᩗȷ඾ඬƴǑǔ໎ܹƷܱ७Ʊࣄ଒ȷࣄᐻƷᢅᆉƸŴிෙ‫؏ע‬ưǋӋᎋƴƢǂƖʙ௡Ǜૠ‫ٶ‬ƘԃǜưƍǇƢŵǤȳȉȍǷǢƷྵ‫ئ‬ưࢽǒǕƨᝮ᣻ƳჷᙸƸŴʴ᫏σᡫƷᝠငƱƠƯ‫ٻ‬ЏƴƢǂƖưƠ
ǐƏŵஜ‫إ‬ԓ୿ƴƸɤ᣻Ⴤ‫ٻ‬ኔထư඾ඬƴ᧙Ƣǔ᧸໎ᜒ๫˟Ǜ᧏͵ƠƨƜƱƕ᠍ƬƯƍǇƢƕŴƜƏƠƨգᔎ୍ӏ෇ѣƸŴᄂᆮ঺ௐƷᅈ˟ǁƷᢩΨƱƍƏॖԛưǋ᣻ᙲưƢŵ2009 ࠰ 5 உӸӞ‫ܖٻܖٻދ‬ᨈ࿢‫ܖؾ‬ᄂᆮᅹᧈ‫ ޛ‬ӝ  ᩹

ii

目次（Contents）

はじめに（山口靖）

I. アチェの復興状況と課題（Reconstruction and Problems） [1]
1. バンダアチェおよびスマトラ島北西部海岸地域の津波被災地における復興状況（海津正倫） [3]
2. インド洋地震津波から 4 年後のバンダアチェの復旧・復興状況について（川崎浩司） [8]3. 津波被害とバンダアチェの都市空間構造（高橋誠） [13]

4. 復興支援は届いたか―RAN データベースによる比較分析―（上村泰裕） [21]5. バンダアチェにおける NGO 支援（伊賀聖屋／田中重好／高橋誠） [29]

6. スマトラ地震津波災害への海外支援―何が明らかとなり、何が今後の課題となるのか―（田中重好） [36]7. Community’s perception on reconstruction process in Aceh (Agussabti / Irfan Zikri) [41]8. Changing problems in the post-tsunami reconstruction process at Banda Aceh: victims’
perspectives (Takahashi, M. / Tanaka, S.) [48]9. アチェにおける津波被害復興と紛争被害復興－覚え書き－（島田弦） [57]

II. 災害文化と防災の行方（Disaster Subculture and Preparedness） [63]10. インドネシアに災害文化をどう育てて行くか（田中重好／高橋誠） [65]

11. Proposing the community-based tsunami warning system (Takahashi, M. / Tanaka, S. / Kimata,F. / Nakaseko, T. / Suhirman) [78]12. Tsunami warning and evacuation system in Nishiki of Central Japan (Nakaseko, T. / Kimata, F.
/ Tanaka, S. / Takahashi, M.) [84]13. Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Center roles on disaster and multi-hazard mitigation
activities (Didik Sugiyanto / Nani Eliza) [89]14. 津波から 4 年

バンダアチェで初の津波避難訓練に参加して（木股文昭） [94]15. インドネシアとフィリピンから 10 名の学生を迎え 2008 年ユネスコ青年交流信託基金
事業 大学生交流プログラム「津波被災文化の継承による津波防災意識の向上」の取り組み（木股文昭） [97]III. 定点観測と評価（Monitoring and Assessment） [101]16. 2004 年スマトラ地震津波から 4 年間の GPS 観測で見えてきた地震余効変動とスマトラ断層
での歪み蓄積（木股文昭／伊藤武男／Endra Gunawan／Agustan／田部井隆雄／Irwandi／
Didik Sugiyanto／Meilano Irwan／Mipi Ananta Kusumah） [103]17. Field challenge of continues GPS array maintenance on Sumatra Fault: report of the August
13-14, 2008 AGNeSS continue site investigation (Irwandi / Ito, T. / Kimata, F.) [109]18. Rapid soil evaluation in tsunami effected areas by using soil visual assessment (Helmi) [119]19. 津波発生プロセスを解明するための新データの取得～系統的な津波目撃証言の収集からわかること～（林 能成） [124]

20. 組織としての災害調査（木村玲欧） [134]
あとがき（黒田達朗） [138]
表 紙
裏表紙
編 集

Ulee Lheue の海岸（撮影・高橋 誠、2008 年 12 月 18 日）
バンダアチェ中心部 2 か所の変化（撮影・田中重好）
田中重好・高橋 誠（名古屋大学大学院環境学研究科）

I. Reconstruction and Problems

ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚ߅ࠃ߮ࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉർ⷏ㇱᶏጯ࿾ၞߩᵤᵄⵍἴ࿾ߦ߅ߌࠆᓳ⥝⁁ᴫ
ᶏ ᵤ

ᱜ ୶

ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼␠ળⅣႺቇኾ᡹

1. ߪߓ߼ߦ
2004 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 26 ᣣߦࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉᴒࠍ㔡ḮߣߔࠆᏂᄢ࿾㔡ߦࠃߞߡᒁ߈⿠ߎߐࠇߚᵤᵄߪ‫ޔ‬ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕߩࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉർㇱߩᴪጯ࿾ၞߦᱫ⠪࡮ⴕᣇਇ᣿⠪߇ 170,000 ੱߦ߽߅ࠃ߱ᄙᄢ
ߥⵍኂࠍᒁ߈⿠ߎߒߚ‫ޕ‬ߥ߆ߢ߽‫ޔ‬Banda Aceh Ꮢࠍ฽߻ࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉߩർㇱ߅ࠃ߮ർ⷏ㇱߦ߅ߌࠆⵍኂߪ⪺ߒߊ‫ޔ‬‶†⠪ߩᄢㇱಽߪ‫ޔ‬Banda Aceh Ꮢߩ߶߆ࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉർ⷏ㇱߩ Aceh Besar ⋵‫ޔ‬Aceh Jaya ⋵‫ޔ‬Aceh Barat ⋵ߣർ᧲ㇱߩ Sigri ⋵ߦ㓸ਛߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ᧄޕ‬ႎ๔ߪߎࠇࠄ Banda Aceh Ꮢ๟ㄝ߅ࠃ
߮ࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉർ⷏ㇱߩ࿾ၞߦߟ޿ߡᵤᵄߩⵍኂࠍ᭎ⷰߔࠆߣ౒ߦ‫ߩߘޔ‬ᓟߩᄌൻߦߟ޿ߡ
ႎ๔ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬࿑ 1 ࿾ၞ᭎ⷰ࿑
ࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉർ┵ㇱߦ૏⟎ߔࠆ Banda Aceh ᶏጯᐔ㊁ߪࠕ࠴ࠚᎹߩߟߊࠆᴒⓍૐ࿾ߩᧃ┵ߦ⊒㆐ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬

2. Banda Aceh Ꮢⴝ࿾߅ࠃ߮๟ㄝ࿾ၞߦ߅ߌࠆᵤᵄⵍኂᵤᵄ೨ߩ Banda Aceh Ꮢߩੱญߪ߅ࠃߘ 20 ਁੱ߆ࠄ 25 ਁੱߣ޿ࠊࠇߡ߅ࠅ‫ߩߎޔ‬ᵤᵄߦࠃߞߡߘߩ 4 ಽߩ 1 ߦ㆐ߔࠆ 6 ਁੱએ਄ߩੱ‫ޕߚߞߥߦ†‶߇ޘ‬Banda Aceh Ꮢߪࠕ࠴ࠚᎹ
ߩߟߊࠆᬥᒻߩᐔ㕙ᒻࠍᜬߟᴒⓍᐔ㊁ߩ⥃ᶏㇱߦ᧲⷏⚂ 20 km ߩ᏷ߢᐢ߇ࠆᶏጯᐔ㊁ߦ૏⟎ߒߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᶏጯᐔ㊁ߩ࿾ᒻߪߘߩਛㇱ߅ࠃ߮⷏ㇱߦᐢ߇ࠆࠕ࠴ࠚᎹᴒⓍ࿾ᧃ┵ߩ࠺࡞࠲ᕈૐ࿾߅ࠃ߮ᐓẟߣ᧲ㇱߩᵿႇ೉ߩ⊒㆐ߔࠆㇱಽߣ߆ࠄߥࠆ‫ޕ‬Banda Aceh ߩᏒⴝ࿾ߪ࠺࡞
࠲ᕈૐ࿾ߩᧃ┵ㇱઃㄭߦ૏⟎ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬Ꮢⴝ࿾ർ⷏ㇱߩᶏጯ✢ઃㄭߦߪዊⷙᮨߥᵿႇ߽⊒㆐ߒߡ޿ߡ‫ޔ‬Ulee Lheue ߩ㓸⪭ߥߤ߇┙࿾ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬Banda Aceh Ꮢⴝ࿾ߣߎߩᶏጯ࿾ၞߣߩ㑆ߦߪᐢᄢߥầ᳤ᐔ㊁߇߭ࠈ߇ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᐔ㊁⷏ㇱ߿ਛᄩㇱߣห᭽ߦߘࠇࠄߩᄢㇱಽߪ㙃ᱺᳰߣߒߡ೑
↪ߐࠇߡ޿ߚ‫৻ޕ‬ᣇ‫ޔ‬ầ᳤ᐔ㊁⢛ᓟߩ࠺࡞࠲ᕈૐ࿾ߩㇱಽߦߪ᳓↰߇߭ࠈ߇ࠅ‫ޔ‬㓸⪭߇ಽ

33

I. ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆Ꮣߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߦࠄߐޕ‬ౝ㒽஥ߩ᳚Ửේߩㇱಽߢߪ⥄ὼႇ㒐߇ਥߣߒߡ㓸⪭߿⇌‫ޔ‬ᓟ⢛Ḩ࿾߿ᣥᴡ㆏ߩㇱಽ߇᳓↰ߣߒߡ೑↪ߐࠇߡ޿ߚ߇‫ޔ‬ㄭᐕ‫࠲࡞࠺ޔ‬ᕈૐ࿾ߩㇱಽߢ߽ኅደ߇ᄙߊ
ᑪߜߪߓ߼‫ ߦ․ޔ‬Banda Aceh Ꮢⴝ࿾ߣ Ulee Lheue ߣࠍ⚿߱㆏〝ᴪ޿ߢߩੱญჇട߇㗼⪺ߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬
ߎߩᶏጯᐔ㊁ࠍⷅߞߚỗߒ޿ᵤᵄߪ㗼⪺ߥᶏጯଚ㘩ࠍᒁ߈⿠ߎߒ‫⥃ޔ‬ᶏㇱߩࠕ࠴ࠚ᷼߿
ߘߩ᧲ߩ Ulee Lheue ࿾඙ߢߪᵤᵄߦኻߒߡ૗ࠄㆤࠆ߽ߩ߇ߥ߆ߞߚߚ߼‫ޔ‬ᶏጯ߆ࠄᢙචࡔ
࡯࠻࡞ߥ޿ߒ⊖ࡔ࡯࠻࡞߶ߤߩㇱಽ߇ᶖᄬߒߡߒ߹ߞߚ‫ޔߦࠄߐޕ‬Ulee Lheue ࿾඙ߩ⷏஥ߦ
ᐢ߇ࠆ Lamaway ࿾඙ߢߪ⥃ᶏㇱߦᐢ߇ߞߡ޿ߚ㙃ᱺᳰ߇ᵤᵄߦࠃߞߡቢోߦ⎕უߐࠇ‫ޔ‬ḩầᤨߦߪᶏ㕙ਅߦᴚߔࠆᧄ᧪ߩᐓẟߩ⁁ᘒߦᚯߞߚ‫⥃ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ᶏㇱߦ߭ࠈ߇ࠆᐓẟߩ⢛ᓟߩ࿾ၞߢ߽߆ߥࠅ⎕უߐࠇߚኅደ߇ᄙߊ‫ޔ‬ᑪ‛ߩ 1 㓏ㇱಽߩߺߥࠄߕ 2 㓏ㇱಽ߹ߢ⎕უߐࠇ‫ޔ‬2 㓏ߩო߇ᄢ߈ߊ⎕უߐࠇߡ޿ࠆᑪ‛߽⋡┙ߞߡ޿ߚ‫ޔߦ․ޕ‬Ꮢᓎᚲߣ Ulee Lheue ߣࠍ⚿߱㆏〝ᴪ޿߿ߘߩ⢛ᓟߩ࿾ၞߢߪᲧセ⊛ౝ㒽߹ߢ⪺ߒߊ⎕უߐࠇߚᑪ‛߇ಽᏓߒߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬
Ulee Lheue ᷼ᴒว߆ࠄᵤᵄߦࠃߞߡㆇ߫ࠇߚᏂᄢߥ⊒㔚⦁߇ṫ⌕ߒߚߩ߽ߎߩઃㄭ㧔Punge
Blang Cut ࿾඙㧕ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬৻ᣇ‫ޔ‬㗼⪺ߥᵿႇ೉ߩ⊒㆐ߔࠆ Aceh Ꮉ᡼᳓〝ߩ᧲ߢ߽ᦨ߽ᶏጯࠃࠅߩᵿቯ਄ߦ┙࿾ߒߡ
޿ߚ Pasi ࿾඙߿ Cadek ࿾඙ߩ㓸⪭߇߶߷ቢోߦᶖᄬߒ‫ޔ‬ႇ㑆࿾ߩ㙃ᱺᳰ߽ቢోߦ⎕უߐࠇߚ‫ޔߛߚޕ‬ፉߩ᧲ᶏጯ߳ߣિ߮ࠆਥⷐ㆏ࠃࠅౝ㒽஥ߩ࿾඙ߢߪᑪ‛ߩᱷሽᐲ߇㜞ߊ‫ޔ‬⎕უ⁁ᴫ߽ౝ㒽ߦⴕߊߦᓥߞߡᕆỗߦዊⷙᮨߥ߽ߩߣߥߞߡ޿ߡ‫ࠅࠃࠇߘޔ‬ౝ㒽஥ߢߪ 2 㓏߹ߢ⎕უߐࠇߚᑪ‛ߩ಴⃻₸ߪᕆỗߦૐਅߔࠆ‫ޕ‬Banda Aceh Ꮢ᡽ᐭߦࠃࠇ߫‫ోޔ‬უኅደ 14 ජ᫟‫ޔ‬ඨუኅደ 3 ජ᫟‫৻ޔ‬ㇱ៊უኅደ 4 ජ᫟߶ߤࠍߘࠇߙࠇᢙ߃ߚߣߐࠇࠆ߇‫ⵍߚߒ߁ߎޔ‬ኂ⁁ᴫߦߪ㗼⪺ߥ࿾ၞᏅ߇޽ࠅ‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߘޔ‬㆑޿ߪၮᧄ⊛ߦߪᶏጯ✢߆ࠄߩ〒㔌ߩ㑐ᢙߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޔߣࠆ⷗ߊߒ⹦ࠅࠃޔߛߚޕ‬Ꮍධࠍฃߌߚ࿯࿾᧦ઙߩᏅ⇣ߦࠃߞߡᵤᵄ㜞߿㆚਄〒㔌ߦ㆑޿߇⹺߼ࠄࠇ‫ޔ‬࿾ၞᕈ߇ሽ࿷ߔࠆ‫ޔ‬ߣߊߦ‫ޔ‬᳓ᷓ 3 m ઃㄭࠍႺߦߘࠇࠃࠅᵤᵄߛ߆ߩ㜞޿࿾ၞߢߪోუኅደ߇ථ⿧ߔࠆߩߦኻ
ߒ‫ޔ‬3 m㨪1 m ߩ▸࿐ߢߪ৻ㇱ៊უኅደᢙ߇ථ⿧ߔࠆࠃ߁ߦߥࠆ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ᵤ㜞߇ 1 m ᧂḩߩ࿾ၞߢߪኅደߩ⎕უߢߪߥߊᶐ᳓ߦࠃࠆⵍኂ߇ථ⿧ߒߚߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎࠇࠄߩߎߣߦၮߠ޿ߡ‫ޔ‬ᶏᵤ࡮㜞ᯅ㧔2007㧕ߪ‫ޔ‬Banda Aceh Ꮢౝߩᑪ‛ⵍኂߦߟ޿ߡ
ߘߩ⒟ᐲ߆ࠄ߅߅߻ߨ 4 ࿾ၞߦಽߌߡ⠨߃ࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆߣߒߚ‫ޔߜࠊߥߔޕ‬࿾඙ౝߩ߶
߷ోኅደ߇ోუߒ‫ޔ‬࿯࿾⥄૕߇৻ㇱߢᶖᄬߒߚ࿾ၞ㧔i㧕߇ᶏጯઃㄭߦ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬ౝ㒽ㇱߦะ߆ߞߡ‫ోޔ‬უኅደ߽ߺࠄࠇࠆ߇᭴ㅧ‛ߩᄙߊ߇ᱷሽߒߚ࿾ၞ㧔ii㧕‫ޔ‬ᶐ᳓ⵍኂߪฃߌߚ߇ోඨ
უ߹ߢߦߪ⥋ࠄߥ߆ߞߚ࿾ၞ㧔iii㧕߇㗅ᰴಽᏓߒ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ߇೔㆐ߖߕᑪ‛ⵍኂ߇ోߊߺࠄࠇߥ
޿࿾ၞ㧔iv㧕ߦ⥋ࠆ‫↟ߌࠊࠅߣޕ‬ᄢⵍኂ࿾ၞߪ‫ޔ‬࿯࿾೑↪਄‫ޔ‬ᶏጯ߿ᴡ⇎ߩṪ᧛ߩ߶߆‫ޔ‬ૐᐔߥ࿯࿾ߦᕆỗߦㇺᏒൻ߇ㅴࠎߛᣂ⥝૑ቛ࿾ߦ╓วߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ⵍߩࠄࠇߘޕ‬ኂ⒟ᐲߪᵤᵄ㜞ߦ߶߷Ყ଀ߒ‫ޔ‬࿾ၞ㧔i㧕ߪ߅ࠃߘ 3 m એ਄‫ޔ‬࿾ၞ㧔ii㧕ߪ 1㨪3 m‫ޔ‬࿾ၞ㧔iii㧕ߪ 1 m ᧂḩߣߘࠇߙࠇផቯߐࠇࠆ‫ߩࠄࠇߘޔߚ߹ޕ‬ᵤᵄ㜞ߪන⚐ߥᶏጯ߆ࠄߩ〒㔌ߩ㑐ᢙߢߪߥߊ‫ޔ‬ૐ࿾ߩ࿾ᒻࠍ෻ᤋߒߚ࿯࿾᧦ઙߣኒធߥ㑐ଥࠍᜬߞߡ޿ࠆߎߣ߇᣿ࠄ߆ߦߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬
3. ᵤᵄⵍኂࠍฃߌߚ⷏ᶏጯ࿾ၞ
⷏ᶏጯߦ߅ߌࠆ㗼⪺ߥᵤᵄⵍἴ࿾ߪ‫ޔ‬Banda Aceh Ꮢⴝ࿾߆ࠄߘࠇߙࠇ߅ࠃߘ 10 km‫ޔ‬150km‫ޔ‬270 km ߩ〒㔌ߦ૏⟎ߒߡ޿ࠆ Lho’nga‫ޔ‬Calang‫ޔ‬Meulaboh ߥߤߩ࿾ၞߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬Banda Aceh ․೎Ꮢߩർ⷏ㇱߦ૏⟎ߔࠆ Lho’nga ࿾ၞߢߪᵤᵄ㜞߇ 15 m ࠍ਄࿁ࠅ‫ޔ‬30 m એ਄ߦ㆐ߒߚߣߎࠈ߽޽ࠆ‫⚿ߩߘޕ‬ᨐ‫ޔ‬Lho’nga ࿾ၞߪ߶߷ቢోߦ⎕უߐࠇ‫ߩߤࠎߣ߶ઁޔ‬ᑪ‛߇὾ᄬߔࠆߣ౒ߦᄙߊߩ૑᳃߇‶†ߣߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬Lho’nga ߪ‫⓰⁜ޔ‬ㇱࠍㅢߒߡ Banda Acehᶏጯᐔ㊁ߦㅪ⛯ߔࠆዊⷙᮨߥᶏጯᐔ㊁ߦ┙࿾ߒߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߪ‫ޔ‬ૐ࿾ߩోၞࠍᵞ޿ᵹߔߣ44ȐȳȀǢȁǧƓǑƼǹȞȈȩ޽҅ᙱᢿෙެ‫؏ע‬Ʒ඾ඬᘮ໎‫ע‬Ტෙ඾ദ͒Უ

౒ߦ‫ޔ‬Banda Aceh ᶏጯᐔ㊁ߣߩ㑆ߩ⁜⓰ㇱߦ߹ߢ㆐ߒߚ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬Lho’nga ߩධㇱߢߪᶏጯㇱߦ┙࿾ߔࠆ࠮ࡔࡦ࠻Ꮏ႐߇ᵤᵄߦࠃߞߡ߭ߤ޿៊்ࠍฃߌ‫ޔ‬ᄢဳߩ⽻‛⦁߇ߘߩㄭߊߢᐳ
␂ߒߚ‫ߩߎޔ߅ߥޕ‬࿾ၞߩᶏጯߪ⍾ᵿᶏጯߩߚ߼ߦ߆ߥࠅ㗼⪺ߦ࿁ᓳߒߚߣ޿߁ႎ๔߇ߥ
ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ㧔Wong, 2009㧕‫ޕ‬ߐࠄߦධߩ Calang ߳⛯ߊ⷏ᶏጯߩ࿾ၞߢߪ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬ᢿጀߩ⷏஥ߦ⊒㆐ߔࠆጊ࿾߇ᶏጯ
✢ߦㄼߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬࿾ၞߢߪ‫ޔ‬ጤ⍹ᶏጯߣዊߐߥࡐࠤ࠶࠻ࡆ࡯࠴߇ಽᏓߒ‫ޔ‬ጊ࿾߆ࠄᵹ
ਅߔࠆᴡᎹᴪ޿ߦߪዊⷙᮨߥᴒⓍૐ࿾߇⊒㆐ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬㆏〝ᴪ޿ߦߪዊⷙᮨߥ㓸⪭߇⊒㆐ߒߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᶏጯ✢ߦᴪߞߡ⿛ߞߡ޿ࠆ໑৻ߩ㆏ߪᵤᵄߦࠃߞߡ߭ߤߊ៊ኂࠍฃߌ‫ߩ⾗‛ޔ‬ャㅍߦᄙᄢߥᓇ㗀߇ᒁ߈⿠ߎߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬
Calang ߪ⷏ᶏጯߦ޽ߞߡ‫ޔ‬Aceh Jaya ⋵ߩਛᔃㇺᏒߢ޽ࠆ‫ޔߪߢߎߎޕ‬2005 ᐕ 5 ᦬ߩ࿖ㅪߩ࠺࡯࠲ߦࠃࠆߣ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߩⵍἴ⠪ߪ 98,000 ੱߩ⋵ߩੱญߩ߁ߜ 16,874 ੱߦ㆐ߒߡ߅ࠅ‫ߘޔ‬ߩᄢㇱಽߪ Calang ߩ૑᳃ߢ޽ߞߚߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ߩ↸ߩߎޕ‬ਥⷐㇱߪ⍾Ꮊ਄ߦ૏⟎ߒߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬ߘߩߚ߼‫ޔ‬ᄢㇱಽߩ࿾ၞߪᵤᵄߦࠃߞߡቢోߦᵞࠊࠇߡߒ߹ߞߚ‫⚿ߩߘޕ‬ᨐ‫ߥ߆⼾✛ޔ‬᥊ⷰߪᑪ‛ߩᱷ㜈ߩ߭ࠈ߇ࠆ⨹ᶭߣߒߚ࿯࿾ߦᄌࠊߞߡߒ߹ߞߚ‫ޕ‬

࿑ 2 ࠕ࠴ࠚᎺߩ⋵೎ੱญߣ‶†⠪ᢙ㧔Compiled the data on the map of HIC, Sumatra㧕

Calang ߆ࠄධߦߪ᏷߅ࠃߘ 2 km ߩ㐳޿ᶏጯᐔ㊁߇⛯޿ߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩߘޕ‬㐳ߐߪ 120 km એ਄ߦ㆐ߒ‫⍾ޔ‬ਐߣᵿႇ߇㗼⪺ߦ⊒㆐ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߪߎࠇࠄߩᶏጯᐔ㊁ߩᄢㇱಽߦᐢ߇ߞߡ‫ޔ‬
ᶏጯᐔ㊁✼ㄝㇱߩਐߣบ࿾ߩ✼߹ߢ߅ࠃߘ 2 km ଚ౉ߒߚ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ᵤᵄߪ‫ޔ‬ጊ࿾߆ࠄᶏ߳ߣ
ᵹࠇߡ޿ࠆᎹߦᴪߞߡ⊒㆐ߔࠆᴡᎹᴪ޿ߦ⪺ߒߊଚ౉ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߩ೔㆐〒㔌ߪ Calang ߿ߘߩർߦ૏⟎ߔࠆ Keudepate ߥߤߩૐ࿾ߦ߅޿ߡ⚂ 4 km ߦ㆐ߒ‫ޔ‬ᶏጯߩ⍾ᵿߪ⪺ߒߊᶐ㘩ߐࠇߚ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ᶏጯᐔ㊁ߦᵈߋᴡᎹߩᴡญㇱߪଚ㘩ߦࠃߞߡᐢߊญࠍ㐿޿ߚ⁁ᘒߦߥࠅ‫ޔ‬ᵿႇᏎ߿ᵿႇߪએᓟߩḨ࿾ߪ᳓ၞߦᄌࠊߞߚ‫ޕ‬Banda Aceh ߆ࠄ Calang ࠍ⚻ߡ Meulaboh ߦ⥋ࠆᐙ✢㆏〝ᴪ޿ߦߪᄙߊߩ㓸⪭߇ಽᏓߒߡ
޿ߚ߇‫ߩࠄࠇߘޔ‬ᄙߊ߽ᐙ✢㆏〝ߣ౒ߦ⪺ߒߊ⎕უߐࠇ‫ޔ‬ᶖᄬߒߡߒ߹ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ߐࠄߦධߩ Meulaboh ߦ߅޿ߡ߽⪺ߒ޿ⵍኂ߇⊒↢ߒߚ‫ޕ‬Meulaboh ߪ Ache Barat ⋵ߩਛᔃㇺᏒߢ‫ޔ‬Banda Aceh ߆ࠄ⚂ 250 km ධߦ૏⟎ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬Ache Barat ⋵ߩᵤᵄ೨ߩੱญߪ⚂ 195,000ߢ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߩⷅ᧪ߦࠃߞߡ 13,785 ੱߩ‶†⠪߇಴ߚ‫†‶ޔߡߒߘޕ‬⠪ߩ߁ߜߩ߆ߥࠅߩᢙߪ

55

I. ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆Meulaboh ߩ૑᳃ߢ޽ߞߚߣߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߪ Meulaboh ߩ↸ࠍⷅ޿‫ޔ‬ᶏጯ߆ࠄ 200 m ౝ㒽ߦ෸߱࿾ၞࠍቢోߦ⎕უߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᶏጯ࿾ၞߢߪᵤᵄߪᑪ‛ߩਃ㓏ߦ߹ߢዯ߈‫ޔ‬ᄙߊߩᑪ‛߇⎕უߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬౮⌀ 1 ⷏ᶏጯ㆏〝ߩ઒⸳ᯅߣ⣕ベߒߡ┙ߜᓔ↢ߒߚ࠻࡜࠶ࠢ㧔Aug. 30, 2005㧕ߣߎࠈߢ‫ޔ‬Banda Aceh ߣ Meulaboh ߣߩ㑆⚂ 270 km ࠍ⚿߱⷏ᶏጯ㆏〝ߪ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄᓟߩᓳ⥝ߦߣߞߡᦨ߽㊀ⷐߥ㆏〝ߢ޽ࠆ‫ ޔࠄ߇ߥߒ߆ߒޕ‬2005 ᐕߦ߅ߌࠆᔕᕆ⊛ߥୃᓳߩ޽ߣߪ㆏
〝ߩᓳᣥߪ㗅⺞ߦㅴⴕߖߕ‫ߩ⾗‛ޔ‬ャㅍߦ߆ߥࠅߩᡰ㓚ࠍ᧪ߒߡ޿ߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬ᓟ‫ޔ‬Meulabohߣ Calang ߣߩ㑆ߩ 120km ߦߟ޿ߡߪᣣᧄߩេഥߩ߽ߣߦᑪ⸳߇ㅴߺ‫ⵍޔ‬ἴᓟ⚂ 2 ᐕ߇⚻ㆊ
ߒߚ 2006 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 27 ᣣߦࠃ߁߿ߊ㐿ㅢߔࠆߦ⥋ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޔߛߚޕ‬Calang ߣ Banda Aceh ߩ㑆ߦ㑐ߒߡߪ㆏〝ߩઃߌᦧ߃ࠍ฽߻ᓳᣥ߇ⴕࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆ߇‫ޔ‬2008 ᐕᧃߩᲑ㓏ߢߪ߹ߛቢᚑߦ
ߪ⥋ߞߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬
4. ἴኂ߆ࠄߩᓳ⥝ᣢߦㅀߴߚࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄࠍฃߌߚ࿾ၞߩⵍἴ⁁ᴫߦߪ࿾ၞᏅ߇⹺߼ࠄࠇࠆ‫ߣࠇߘޕ‬หᤨߦᓳ⥝ㆊ⒟ߪᤨ㑆ߣ౒ߦ㗼⪺ߦᄌൻߒߡ߈ߚ‫ޕ‬ⵍἴ߆ࠄ 1 ᐕ߇⚻ㆊߒߚ 2005 ᐕ 12 ᦬ߦߪ‫ޔ‬Banda Aceh ߅ࠃ߮ߘߩ๟ㄝ࿾ၞߦ߅޿ߡߔ
ߢߦ◲⚛ߥ઒⸳૑ቛ߇ฦᚲߢᑪ⸳ߐࠇߡ޿ߚ߇‫ޔ‬ᣂߒ޿ኅደ߿ᑪ▽ਛኅߩᢙߪᔅⷐߥᢙߩ
ࠊߕ߆߅ࠃߘ 4 ಽߩ 1 ߢ޽ࠅ‫⃻ޔ‬࿾ߦߪ߹ߛᄙߊߩ៊ኂࠍฃߌߚᑪ‛߇ᱷߐࠇߡ޿ߚ‫ⵍޕ‬ἴߒߚੱ‫↢ߩޘ‬ᵴߪ቟ቯߖߕ‫઀ޔ‬੐ߣኅࠍᄬߞߚᓐࠄߩᄙߊߪ‫ޔ‬᡽ᐭ߿ߐ߹ߑ߹ߥេഥ⚵❱ߦࠃߞߡᡰ߃ࠄࠇߡ޿ߚ‫⃻ޕ‬࿾ߢߪᡰ⛎ߐࠇࠆࠊߕ߆ߥេഥߢ⌕ߩり⌕ߩ߹߹ߢ↢ᵴߔࠆੱ‫↢ߢ࠻ࡦ࠹ޔ߿ޘ‬ᵴࠍߒߡ޿ࠆੱ‫߽ޘ‬ฦᚲߢ⷗ࠄࠇߚ‫ޕ‬
ߐࠄߦ 1 ᐕ߇⚻ㆊߒߚ 2006 ᐕ 12 ᦬ߦ⃻࿾ࠍ⸰ࠇߡߺࠆߣ‫ޔ‬ᑪ‛߇უṌ⊛ߦ⎕უߐࠇߚ⥃ᶏㇱࠍਛᔃߣߒߡ‫޿ߒߛߚ߮߅ޔ‬ᓳ⥝૑ቛ߇ᑪ⸳ߐࠇߡ޿ߚ‫ߩߘޔࠄ߇ߥߒ߆ߒޕ‬ᢙߪᔅⷐߥᢙߩඨಽ⒟ᐲߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ᓳ⥝૑ቛߩᄢㇱಽߪฦ࿖᡽ᐭ߿ NGO ߥߤߩេഥߦࠃࠆ߽ߩ
ߢ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬15㨪20 ᐔᣇࡔ࡯࠻࡞⒟ᐲߩᐢߐࠍᜬߟ 2㨪3 ㇱደߣบᚲ߅ࠃ߮࠻ࠗ࡟ߥߤ߆ࠄߥࠆ
ࠦࡦࡄࠢ࠻ߥᐔደߩᑪ‛ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߣߊߦᑪ‛߇߶߷ቢోߦ⎕უߐࠇߚᶏጯ✢ߦㄭ޿࿾ၞߢߪ‫ޔ‬ᢙචઙߩᑪ‛߇૑ቛ࿅࿾ߣ
ߒߡᑪ⸳ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ଀߇ᄙߊ⷗ࠄࠇߚ߇‫ޔ‬ᶏጯ߆ࠄ 1㨪2 km ⒟ᐲߩ߿߿ౝ㒽஥ߩ࿾ၞߢߪ‫ޔ‬ㇱಽ⊛ߦ៊უߒߚᑪ‛ࠍୃᓳߒߡ૶↪ߒߡ޿ࠆᚲ߽ᄙߊ‫ߣࠄࠇߘޔ‬ᣂߚߦᑪ⸳ߐࠇߚᓳ⥝૑ቛߣ߇ࡕࠩࠗࠢ⁁ߦᷙ࿷ߒߡ޿ߚ‫ᤨߩߎޔࠄ߇ߥߒ߆ߒޕ‬ὐߢߪߎࠇࠄߩᓳ⥝૑ቛߩ౉ዬ₸ߪ㜞ߊߥߊ‫ޔ‬ⓨ߈ኅ߇߆ߥࠅ⋡┙ߞߡ޿ߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬ℂ↱ߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬㔚᳇࡮᳓㆏ߥߤߩࠗࡦ
ࡈ࡜߇චಽᢛ஻ߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿ߚ߼ߦ↢ᵴߔࠆ਄ߢ߈ࠊ߼ߡਇ⥄↱ߢ޽ࠆ߽ߩ߇ᄙ߆ߞߚߎ
ߣߩ߶߆‫ޔ‬૑ቛߩ㈩ಽߩ઀ᣇߦ໧㗴߇޽ߞߚߎߣߥߤ߽ᜰ៰ߐࠇߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔߦࠄߐޔ‬ᓳ⥝૑ቛ߇ᑪ⸳ߐࠇߚ႐ᚲ߇ਇଢߥߣߎࠈߢ޽ࠆߣ޿ߞߚ໧㗴߽ᜰ៰ߐࠇߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬
㧔Takahashi et al,66ȐȳȀǢȁǧƓǑƼǹȞȈȩ޽҅ᙱᢿෙެ‫؏ע‬Ʒ඾ඬᘮ໎‫ע‬Ტෙ඾ദ͒Უ

2007㧕৻ᣇߢ‫ޔ‬Ꮢౝਛᔃㇱߢߪ߆ߥࠅᓳ⥝߇ㅴߺ‫৻ޔ‬ㇱߦ⎕უߐࠇߚᑪ‛߇ᱷࠆ߽ߩߩ‫ޔ‬⎕៊ߒߚᑪ‛߿᳓ߦ૶ߞߚᑪ‛ߥߤࠍୃᓳߒߡ૶↪ߔࠆߥߤߒߡ‫ߩࠅߥ߆ޔ‬໡ᐫ߿੐ോᚲ
ߥߤ߇ߔߢߦౣ㐿ߒߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬ἴኂ߆ࠄ 4 ᐕ߇⚻ㆊߒߚ 2008 ᐕ 12 ᦬ߦߥࠆߣ‫ޔ‬Banda Aceh ߢߪੱ‫↢ߩޘ‬ᵴߦ߆ߥࠅ⪭ߜ⌕߈߇⷗ࠄࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦߥࠅ‫ߩࠄࠇߘޔ‬୘‫ߩޘ‬૑᳃ߩ↢ᵴౣᑪ߆ࠄᏒᓎᚲ߿⼊ኤ⟑ࠍߪߓ߼ߣߔࠆ౏౒ᣉ⸳ߩᑪ⸳ߥߤߩࠃࠅ౏౒⊛ߥߎߣ߇ࠄߩ┙ߡ⋥ߒߦ⒖ⴕߒߡ޿ࠆߎߣ߇ࠊ
߆ࠆ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬Banda Aceh ߩ᳓ㆇߩ᜚ὐߢ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߦࠃߞߡ࿯࿾߽ࠈߣ߽ᶖᄬߒߚ Ulee Lheue᷼ߢ߽ࠃ߁߿ߊၒ߼┙ߡ߇ቢᚑߒ‫ޔ‬᷼ߩᑪ‛ࠍߪߓ߼ߣߔࠆ᷼ḧᣉ⸳߇ᣂߚߦᑪ⸳ߐࠇߡ
ᬺോࠍౣ㐿ߒߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬߹ߚ‫ޔ‬Ulee Lheue ࿾඙ߦߪㆱ㔍ᣉ⸳ࠍ౗ߨߚᵤᵄࠪࠚ࡞࠲࡯ߣ߽޿߁ߴ߈ 4 㓏ᑪߡߩࡆ࡞
߇ᑪ⸳ߐࠇߡ޿ߚ߶߆‫ੱߚߞߥߣ†‶ޔ‬㆐ࠍၒ⫋ߒߚ႐ᚲߦ┙ᵷߥჄ࿾౏࿦߇ߟߊࠄࠇߡ
޿ߚ‫ޔ߆߶ߩߎޕ‬Banda Aceh Ꮢർㇱߩ Lampulo ࿾඙߿ධㇱ⷏ㇱߩ Ounge Blan Cut ࿾඙ߢߪᵤᵄߦࠃߞߡ᳃ኅߩ㧞㓏ߦਸ਼ࠅ਄ߍߚṪ⦁߿ Ulee Lheue ᷼߆ࠄౝ㒽ߦะߌߡ 2 km ߩ〒㔌ࠍ⒖േߒߡߒ߹ߞߚᄢဳߩ⊒㔚⦁ߥߤߦ㓞ធߒߡ⸥ᔨ⎼߿⸥ᔨ౏࿦߇ߟߊࠄࠇ‫߁ࠃ߇ޘੱޔ‬߿ߊ⌕ߩり⌕ߩ߹߹ߩ↢ᵴ߆ࠄ⪭ߜ⌕߈‫ߩߎޔ‬ᄢἴኂࠍ⸥ᙘߒ‫ޔ‬ᓟ਎ߦᱷߘ߁ߣ޿߁ߎߣ
ࠍ⠨߃ࠆߎߣߩߢ߈ࠆ⁁ᴫߦߥߞߚߎߣ߇߁߆߇߃ࠆ‫ޔߦߊߣޕ‬Ꮢౝߩਛᄩᐢ႐ߦ㓞ធߒߚ႐ᚲߦߪᄢⷙᮨߥᵤᵄඳ‛㙚߇ᑪ⸳ߐࠇߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬2009 ᐕਛߦߪ㐿㙚ߔࠆߣ޿߁‫ޕ‬ߎߩࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬Banda Aceh Ꮢߣߘߩ๟ㄝ࿾ၞߢߪ⌕ታߦᓳ⥝߇ㅴߺߟߟ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬ἴኂ⋥ᓟߩ↢๮ࠍ቞ࠄߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠄߥ޿⁁ᘒ߆ࠄ‫↢ޔ‬ᵴࠍߔࠆߚ߼ߩ୘ੱ⊛ߥᦨૐ㒢ߩⅣႺࠍᢛ߃ࠆ
⁁ᘒ‫ޔ‬࿾ၞ߿↸ో૕ߩਛߢⵍἴ⠪ߩ↢ᵴ߇౞Ṗߦㅴ߻ࠃ߁ߦࠗࡦࡈ࡜ߥߤࠍᢛ߃ࠆ⁁ᘒ‫ޔ‬౏౒ᣉ⸳ߥߤਇⷐਇᕆߢߪ޽ࠆ߇ⵍἴ⠪ߩ↢ᵴࠍᡰ߃ࠆⅣႺࠍᢛ߃ࠆ⁁ᘒ߳ߣᄌൻߒ‫ޔ‬4 ᐕ⋡ߩ 2008 ᐕߩᤨὐߢߪੱ‫ߩޘ‬ᗧ⼂ߦ߽߿߿૛⵨߇ᗵߓࠄࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦߥߞߡ‫ߩ᦭ᦦᧂޔ‬ἴኂࠍᓟ↢ߦ⸥ᙘߔࠆߚ߼ߩߐ߹ߑ߹ߥദജ߇ⴕࠊࠇࠆᲑ㓏ߦᄌൻߒߚߎߣ߇߁߆߇߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬Banda Aceh Ꮢ߅ࠃ߮๟ㄝ࿾ၞߦ߅ߌࠆߩߣห᭽ߩ࿁ᓳ⁁ᘒߩᄌൻߪ‫⷏ޔ‬ᶏጯߩ࿾ၞߦ߅
޿ߡ߽⷗ࠄࠇࠆ߇‫ޔ‬Ბ㓏ߣߒߡߪ Banda Aceh Ꮢ߿ߘߩ๟ㄝ࿾ၞߦᲧߴߡ߿߿ㆃࠇ߇޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬
2008 ᐕᧃߩᲑ㓏ߢߪᑪ‛ߩᓳᣥ߿ᓳ⥝૑ቛߩᑪ⸳߇߶߷⪭ߜ⌕޿ߡߪ޿ࠆ߽ߩߩ‫ޔ‬㆏〝߿౏౒ᣉ⸳ߩᓳ⥝ߪ߹ߛඨ߫ߣ޿ߞߚᲑ㓏ߢ޽ࠆ‫⷏ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ᶏጯർㇱߩ㆏〝ߦ㑐ߒߡߪ‫ޔ‬2008
ᐕ 12 ᦬ߩᲑ㓏ߢߪ‫ߛ߹ޔ‬઒⸳ߩᯅ߇ᱷߞߡ޿ߚࠅ‫ޔ‬ᑪ⸳ㅜਛߩㇱಽ߽ᄙߊ⷗ࠄࠇߚ‫ޕ‬ߣߊߦ‫ޔ‬Banda Aceh ߣ Meulaboh ࠍߟߥ޿ߢ޿ࠆࡂࠗ࠙ࠚࠗߪ‫ޔ‬ർࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉߢᦨ߽㊀ⷐߥ㆏ߩ߁ߜߩ 1 ᧄߢ޽ࠆ߇‫ ޔ‬Banda Aceh ߣ Calang ߩ㑆ߪ߹ߛౣᑪਛߢ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬Banda AcehㇺᏒߣ๟࿐ߩ࿾ၞߣᲧセߔࠆߣ⷏ᴪጯߦ߅ߌࠆᓳ⥝ߩㆃࠇߪ᣿⊕ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬⷏ᶏጯ࿾ၞߩᓳ⥝૑ቛߩᑪ⸳ߪ‫ޔ‬2008 ᐕᓟඨ߹ߢߦ߽߶ߣࠎߤቢੌߔࠆߣߐࠇࠆ߇‫ޔ‬ἴኂߦ⿠࿃ߔࠆ‛ℂ⊛៊ኂߩߺߥࠄߕ‫↢ߩޘੱޔ‬ᵴో⥸ߩ࿁ᓳߦߪߐࠄߥࠆᐕ᦬߇߆߆ࠆߣ
ᕁࠊࠇࠆߒ‫ޔ‬૑᳃ߩ♖␹⊛ߥ࿁ᓳߦߪࠃࠅᄙߊߩᤨ㑆߇߆߆ࠆ߆߽ߒࠇߥ޿‫ޕ‬ߎߩࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬Banda Aceh Ꮢ߿ߘߩ๟ㄝ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬߦࠄߐޔ‬ፉർㇱో૕ߩᵤᵄἴኂ߆ࠄߩᓳ
⥝ߪᓳ⥝ㆊ⒟ߪᤨ㑆ߣ౒ߦ㗼⪺ߦᄌൻߔࠆߣߣ߽ߦ‫ޔ‬㗼⪺ߥ࿾ၞᏅ߇⹺߼ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ߘࠇߣหᤨߦᄙߊߩ໧㗴ὐ߇⸃ᶖߐࠇࠆ߹ߢߦߪ߹ߛߐࠄߥࠆᤨ㑆߇ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄ
ࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬
ᒁ↪ᢥ₂
ᶏᵤᱜ୶࡮㜞ᯅ ⺈㧘ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߦ߅ߌࠆࠗࡦ࠼ᵗᄢᵤᵄߩⵍኂߩ࿾ၞ⊛․ᓽ㧚E-journal
GEO 2(3), 121-131, 2007
Takahashi, M., Tanaka, S., Kimura, R. Umitsu, M., Tabuchi, R., Kuroda, T., Ando, M. and Kimata, F.,
Restoration after the Sumatra Eartquake Tsunami in Banda Aceh: Based on the Results ofInterdisciplinary Researches by Nagoya University. Journal of Natural Disaster Science, 29,
53-61, 2007
Umitsu, M., Tanavud, C. and Patanakanog, B., Effects of landforms on tsunami flow in the plains ofBanda Aceh, Indonesia, and Nam Khem, Thailand. Marine geology, 242, 141-153, 2007
Wong, P. P., Impacts and Recovery from a Large Tsunami: Coasts of Aceh. Polish Journal ofEnvironmental Studies, 18, 5-16, 20097
7

ࠗࡦ࠼ᵗ࿾㔡ᵤᵄ߆ࠄ 4 ᐕᓟߩࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߩ
ᓳᣥ࡮ᓳ⥝⁁ᴫߦߟ޿ߡᎹ ፒ ᶈ มฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮Ꮏቇ⎇ⓥ⑼␠ળၮ⋚Ꮏቇኾ᡹ߪߓ߼ߦ2008 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 23 ᣣ㨪28 ᣣߩᦼ㑆‫⸰ࠍࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃ࡮ࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬໧ߒ‫࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬ᵗ࿾㔡ᵤᵄߦࠃࠆ↟ᄢߥἴኂ߆ࠄ 4 ᐕ߇⚻ㆊߒߚⵍἴ࿾ߩᓳᣥ࡮ᓳ⥝⁁ᴫࠍ⺞ᩏߒߚ‫ޔߪߢߎߎޕ‬2007 ᐕ 12 ᦬ߦታᣉߒߚᵤᵄἴኂ 3 ᐕᓟߩ⺞ᩏ⚿ᨐ㧔Ꮉፒ 2008㧕ߣᲧセߒߥ߇ࠄ‫࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬ࠕ࠴ࠚ࿾඙ߦ߅ߌࠆ⃻࿷ߩ⁁ᴫߦߟ޿ߡႎ๔ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬࠙࡟࡟ࡈࠚ࡝࡯᷼
౮⌀ 1 ߦ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߦࠃࠆ↟ᄢߥᶏጯଚ㘩߇↢ߓߚࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߩᵤᵄ਄㒽࿾ὐߢ޽ࠆ࠙࡟
࡟࿾඙ߩ⃻࿷ߩ᭽ሶࠍ␜ߔ‫ޕ‬2007 ᐕߩ⃻࿾⺞ᩏߩᤨߣห᭽‫ߩߎޔ‬࿾ၞߪ‫ޔ‬ᶏ᳓ᶎ‫ޔ‬ᶏ㊒ࠅ‫ޔ‬᳓ㄝߩᙑ޿ߥߤࠍᭉߒ߻ᄙߊߩ࿾ၞ૑᳃ߢߦ߉ࠊߞߡ޿ߚ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬౮⌀ 1 ฝਅߦ␜ߔ᳓㓙ߩᙑ޿ߩ႐߆ࠄᅏߦ⷗߃ࠆ⿒޿ᑪ‛ߪᣂߒߊᑪ⸳ߐࠇߚ࠙࡟࡟ࡈࠚ࡝࡯᷼ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬೨࿁ߩ⃻࿾⺞ᩏߢߪ‫ߩߎޔ‬๟ㄝ࿾඙ߪࡈࠚ࡝࡯᷼ᑪ⸳ߩߚ߼ߦၒ┙࿾ߩㅧᚑਛߢ޽ߞߚ‫߇ߚߒޕ‬ߞߡ‫ ߩߎޔ‬1 ᐕ㑆ߢ࠙࡟࡟ࡈࠚ࡝࡯᷼ߩ⼔ጯ‫ޔ‬ᣉ⸳╬߇ᑪ⸳ߐࠇߚߎߣߦߥࠆ‫ޕ‬౮⌀ 1 ࠙࡟࡟࿾඙

88Ǥȳȉබ‫ע‬ᩗ඾ඬƔǒ 4 ࠰ࢸƷȐȳȀǢȁǧᲢ߷߃ීӮᲣ౮⌀ 2 ࠙࡟࡟ࡈࠚ࡝࡯᷼

౮⌀ 3 ࠙࡟࡟ࡈࠚ࡝࡯᷼๟ㄝ

99

I. ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆౮⌀ 2 ߆ࠄࠊ߆ࠆࠃ߁ߦ‫࡯࡝ࠚࡈ࡟࡟࠙ޔ‬᷼ߪᄢⷙᮨߥࡈࠚ࡝࡯᷼ߢ޽ࠅ‫࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬ࠚ࿾඙๟ㄝߩ⚻ᷣᵴᕈࠍᜂ߁㊀ⷐߥ᷼ḧᣉ⸳ߣߒߡ૏⟎ߠߌࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ߒޕ‬߆ߒ‫࡯࡝ࠚࡈޔ‬᷼ߣߒߡߩᧄᩰㆇ↪߇ታᣉߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ߽ߩߩ‫ޔ‬౮⌀ 3 ߦ␜ߔࠃ߁ߦ‫ࠚࡈޔ‬࡝࡯߳᷼ߩ㆏〝߇㕖⥩ⵝߢ޽ࠆߥߤ‫౒౏ߦᦝޔ‬ᣉ⸳ߩᢛ஻ࠍⴕߞߡ޿ߊᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬౮⌀ 1 ฝਅࠍ⷗ࠆߣ‫ޔ‬ᶏၞߩਔ┵ߦ⍹Ⓧ⼔ጯ߇▽ㅧߐࠇߡ޿ࠆߎߣ߇ࠊ߆ࠆ‫ޔߣࠆߔ⷗৻ޕ‬ੑ㊀ႇ⼔ጯߩࠃ߁ߦ߽⷗߃ࠆ߇‫ޔ‬౮⌀ 3 ߆ࠄℂ⸃ߢ߈ࠆࠃ߁ߦ‫⃻ޔ‬࿷‫ޔ‬ၒ┙Ꮏ੐߇ⴕࠊࠇ
ߡ޿ࠆ‫࠼ࡦࠗޔߪࠇߎޕ‬ᵗ࿾㔡ᵤᵄߦࠃࠅଚ㘩ߐࠇߚⵍኂၞߩᓳᣥ૞ᬺߩ৻Ⅳߣ޿߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߥ߅‫ޔߪߢߎߎޔ‬౮⌀ࠍ␜ߐߥ޿߇‫ޔ‬೨࿁ߩ⃻࿾⺞ᩏߢ‫࡟࡟࠙ޔ‬࿾඙ߩᴡญၞߦᑪ⸳ߐࠇ
ߚ᳓⦡ߩ᷼ḧᣉ⸳ߪᧂߛ૶↪ߐࠇߡ߅ࠄߕ‫ߦࠄߐޔ‬⠧᧎ൻߒߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬᷼ᓳᣥ⸘↹߇චಽᬌ⸛ߐࠇߡ޿ߥ߆ߞߚ⚿ᨐߩ৻ߟߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬࡜ࡦࡊࡠṪ᷼
౮⌀ 4 ߦ␜ߔ࡜ࡦࡊࡠṪ᷼ߪᴡญ߆ࠄᢙ km ਄ᵹߦ૏⟎ߔࠆᴡᎹ᷼ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬౮⌀߆ࠄࠊ߆ࠆࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬ᄢᄌᵴ᳇ߩ޽ࠆṪ᷼ߢ‫ޔ‬Ṫ᷼ࠍ⸰໧ߒߚߣ߈ߪ┹ࠅߩᦨਛߛߞߚ‫ޕ‬౮⌀ 4 Ꮐਅߦߺ߃ࠆ⦁ߪᦜ⥶ਛߢߪߥߊᐳ␂ߒߡ޿ߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬ℂ↱ࠍṪ᳃ߦ዆ߨߚߣߎࠈ‫ޔ‬ᴡᎹߩᐔဋ
᳓ᷓߪ⚂ 15 m ޽ࠆ߽ߩߩ‫ޔ‬ᐳ␂ߒߚઃㄭߪᭂ߼ߡ᳓ᷓ߇ᵻ޿ߣߩߎߣߛߞߚ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ᐳ␂ߒߚ⦁ࠍേ߆ߔߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߥ޿ߚ߼‫߹߹ߩߘޔ‬᡼⟎ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆࠃ߁ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬౮⌀ 4 ฝਅߪ࡜ࡦࡊࡠṪ᷼ߩࡑࠬ࠲࡯ࡊ࡜ࡦߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ታ㓙ߩߣߎࠈ‫ޔ‬዁᧪‫ߦࡦ࡜ࡊ࡯࠲ࠬࡑޔ‬ᴪߞߡ᷼ḧᣉ⸳ߩᢛ஻࡮᜛ల߇ታᣉߐࠇࠆ߆ߤ߁߆ߪਇ᣿ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬౮⌀ 4 ࡜ࡦࡊࡠṪ᷼ᵤᵄἴኂシᷫ⎇ⓥ࠮ࡦ࠲࡯
౮⌀ 5 ߪ‫࡯࡝ࠚࡈ࡟࡟࠙ޔ‬Ṫ᷼߆ࠄゞߢ⚂ 10 ಽ⒖േߒߚ૏⟎ߦ޽ࠆ‫࡜ࠕࠢࡖࠪޔ‬ᄢቇౝ

1010Ǥȳȉබ‫ע‬ᩗ඾ඬƔǒ 4 ࠰ࢸƷȐȳȀǢȁǧᲢ߷߃ීӮᲣߦ⸳┙ߐࠇߚᵤᵄἴኂシᷫ⎇ⓥ࠮ࡦ࠲࡯㧔Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Center㧕ߩᑪ‛ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ห࠮ࡦ࠲࡯߇੹ᓟߤߩࠃ߁ߦᯏ⢻ߒߡ޿ߊߩ߆⑳⥄りߪචಽᛠីߒߡ޿ߥ޿
߇‫ߩ࡯࠲ࡦ࠮ޔ‬ᑪ‛ߩ↪ㅜߦߟ޿ߡߪᄢቇ⸰໧⠪‫⎇ޔ‬ⓥᛂߜวࠊߖߩߚ߼ߩࠃ߁ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬߹ߚ‫ޔ‬ห౮⌀ߦ␜ߔߣ߅ࠅ‫࡯࠲ࡦ࠮ޔ‬ౝߦߪ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬࿾඙ߩᣂߒ޿ᑪㅧ‛ߦ㑐ߔࠆ⚫੺⾗ᢱ߇ឝ␜ߐࠇߡ޿ߚ‫࠼ࡦࠗޔߣࠆ⷗ࠍࠇߎޕ‬ᵗ࿾㔡ᵤᵄ߆ࠄ 4 ᐕᓟߢ‫ޔ‬ᄙߊߩᵤᵄㆱ㔍ᣉ⸳‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ⸥ᔨᣉ⸳ߥߤ߇ᑪ⸳ߐࠇߚߎߣ߇ࠃߊℂ⸃ߢ߈ࠆ‫ޕ‬౮⌀ 5 ᵤᵄἴኂシᷫ⎇ⓥ࠮ࡦ࠲࡯౮⌀ 6 ᵤᵄඳ‛㙚ᵤᵄඳ‛㙚
౮⌀ 6 ߦ‫ޔ‬ᑪ⸳ਛߩᵤᵄඳ‛㙚㧔NAD Tsunami Museum㧕ࠍ␜ߔ‫߈็ޕ‬ᛮߌ᭴ㅧߣߥߞߡ
޿ࠆߎߣ߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬ᄤ੗ࠍㅢߒߡᄥ㓁ߩశ߇Ꮕߒㄟߺ‫ޔ‬ᄢᄌ᣿ࠆ޿㔓࿐᳇ࠍ߽ߟᑪ‛ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬1111

I. ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆߹ߚ‫ޕ‬౮⌀ 6 ฝਅߪቢᚑ੍ቯߩ┙૕ᮨဳߢ޽ࠅ‫ߦ✛ߪߦ⊛⚳ᦨޔ‬࿐߹ࠇߚㄭઍ⊛ߥඳ‛㙚ߦߥࠆࠃ߁ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ඳ‛㙚ߩౕ૕⊛ߥࠦࡦ࠮ࡊ࠻ߪߤߩࠃ߁ߥ߽ߩߥߩ߆ᛠីߒߡ޿ߥ޿
߇‫↟ޔ‬ᄢߥⵍኂࠍ߽ߚࠄߒߚࠗࡦ࠼ᵗ࿾㔡ᵤᵄߩ⸥ᙘࠍ㐳ᐕ㘑ൻߐߖߥ޿㊀ⷐߥᓎഀࠍᜂ
߁ඳ‛㙚ߣߥࠆߎߣࠍᔃ߆ࠄ␨ࠆ߫߆ࠅߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬߅ࠊࠅߦࠗࡦ࠼ᵗ࿾㔡ᵤᵄ߆ࠄ 4 ᐕᓟߩࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚࠍ⷗ߡᗵߓߚߎߣߪ‫ᤨޔ‬㑆ߪ߆߆ߞߡ޿ࠆ
߇‫⏕ޔ‬ታߦᓳᣥ࡮ᓳ⥝૞ᬺߪㅴࠎߢ޿ࠆߣ޿߁ߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬࿾ၞ૑᳃ߩ㗻߆ࠄߪ‫ޔ‬ᧂ᧪ߦะ߆ߞߡᏗᦸߦḩߜ޽߰ࠇߡ޿ࠆࠃ߁ߦᗵߓߚ‫ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬౮⌀ 7 ߦ␜ߔࠃ߁ߦ‫ࡃޔ‬ࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚ࿾඙ࠍኻ⽎ߦ࿾㔡࡮ᵤᵄⵍἴ࿾ၞߩᓳ⥝ࠍ⋡⊛ߣߒߚࡑࠬ࠲࡯ࡊ࡜ࡦ㧔2007 ᐕ㨪2027 ᐕ㧕߇චಽߦ⼏⺰ߐࠇ‫ޔ‬࿾ၞ૑᳃ߩℂ⸃ࠍᓧߚ߽ߩߥߩߛࠈ߁߆‫ޔ⷗৻ޔ‬૑᳃ߩ↢ᵴߩ⾰߇ะ਄ߒߡ޿ࠆࠃ߁ߦߺ߃ࠆ߇‫ޔ‬ታߪ⽺ንߩᏅ߇᜛ᄢߒߡ޿ࠆߩߢߪߥ޿ߛࠈ߁߆
ߥߤ‫⇼ߥࠈ޿ࠈ޿ޔ‬໧߽ᶋ߆ࠎߢߊࠆ‫ޔߦ߁ࠃߩߎޕ‬㐳ᦼ⊛ߦ⃻࿾⺞ᩏࠍታᣉߔࠆߎߣߦ
ࠃࠅ‫ߩࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬ᛴ߃ࠆ⻉໧㗴ߛߌߢߥߊ‫੹ޔ‬ᓟߩᄢⷙᮨἴኂᓳ⥝ኻ╷ࠍᬌ⸛ߔࠆ਄
ߢᄢᄌ㊀ⷐߥᖱႎࠍᓧࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆߛࠈ߁‫ޕ‬౮⌀ 7 ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚ࿾඙ߩࡑࠬ࠲࡯ࡊ࡜ࡦ

ෳ⠨ᢥ₂Ꮉፒᶈม㧔2008㧕㧦ࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉᴒ࿾㔡ᵤᵄᓟߩࠬ࡝࡜ࡦࠞ࡮࠲ࠗ࡮ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕߦ߅ߌࠆᵤᵄ㒐ἴኻ╷ߩขࠅ⚵ߺߦߟ޿ߡ㧘ฬฎደᄢቇⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼㧦2004 ᐕർㇱࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾
㔡⺞ᩏႎ๔ᦠ IV㧘pp.7-141212

ᵤᵄⵍኂߣࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߩㇺᏒⓨ㑆᭴ㅧ㜞 ᯅ  ⺈ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼␠ળⅣႺቇኾ᡹㧝㧚ߪߓ߼ߦ ⥄ὼἴኂߦߪ‫ⵍߕࠄߥ߆ޔ‬ἴߔࠆ႐ᚲ߇ሽ࿷ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ἴኂ࿃ߣߥࠆࡂࠩ࡯࠼߇޿߆ߦᄢ߈
‫ޔޔ‬ߊߡ߽‫߫ࠇߌߥ޿߇ੱߦߎߘޔ‬ἴኂߦߪߥࠄߥ޿ߒ‫ޔ‬ᄙߊߩੱ‫߇ޘ‬ㆊኒߢഠᖡߥዬ૑ⅣႺ‫ޔޔ‬ߢ↢ᵴߒߡ޿ߚߣߒߡ߽‫ߩ࠼࡯ࠩࡂߦߎߘޔ‬ᓇ㗀߇෸߫ߥߌࠇ߫ἴኂߪ⊒↢ߒߥ޿‫߆ߛޕ‬ࠄ‫⥄ޔ‬ὼἴኂߪ޿߆ߥࠆᗧ๧ߦ߅޿ߡ߽ࡠ࡯ࠞ࡞ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬឵⸒ߔࠇ߫‫ޟޔ‬႐ᚲߪ⥄ὼⅣႺߣ
ੱ㑆ᵴേߣ߇ಝ❗ߐࠇߚߣߎࠈߢ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬ਔ⠪ߩធὐߢ߽޽ࠆ‫ޠ‬㧔ᶏᵤ 2009: 184㧕‫ޕ‬ዋߥߊߣ߽ 20 ਎♿એ㒠ߩ਎⇇ߦ߅޿ߡผ਄ᦨᖡߩੱ⊛ⵍኂࠍ߽ߚࠄߒߚ‫ޔ‬2004 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 26 ᣣߩࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉᴒ࿾㔡ߣࠗࡦ࠼ᵗᄢᵤᵄߪ‫ߩߎޔ‬႐ᚲߩ໧㗴ߣ㑐ㅪߒߡ‫߇ߣߎࠆ߃ᝒߦ߁ࠃߩߤޔ‬ߢ߈ࠆߛࠈ߁߆‫ޕ‬ ࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞࡮ࠬࠤ࡯࡞ߢ⷗ࠇ߫‫ ⚂ޔߪࠇߘޔ‬1,000 km ߦ෸߱ᶏᐩᢿጀߩ⎕უߦࠃߞߡ‫ޔ‬ᢙ⊖ᐕ߆ࠄජᐕߦ 1 ᐲߣ޿߁⿥Ꮒᄢⷙᮨߩ࿾㔡߇᧲ධࠕࠫࠕߣ޿߁ੱญ⒮ኒ࿾ၞߢ⿠ߎߞ
ߚߎߣߦᦨᄢߩ․ᓽ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᄢⷙᮨߥᵤᵄ߇ࠗࡦ࠼ᵗోၞߩᴪጯ࿖ߦ೔㆐ߒ‫ޔ‬10 ߆࿖એ਄ߢᱫ⠪ࠍ಴ߒߚ‫ⵍޕ‬ἴ⠪ߪ࿾ర૑᳃ߩߺߥࠄߕ਎⇇⊛࡝࠱࡯࠻ߦṛ࿷ߒߡ޿ߚᣣᧄ߿᰷☨⽕ߩੱ‫ߢ߹ߦޘ‬᜛ᄢߒ‫ߩߘޔ‬ᐢ߇ࠅ߆ࠄ⷗ࠇ߫‫ޔ‬਎⇇ਛߩ࿖‫⋥߇ޘ‬ធ⊛࡮㑆ធ⊛ߥⵍἴ࿖ߦߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄ߇ⷅ᧪ߔࠆࠃ߁ߔ߇㞲᣿ߥ↹௝ߢࡆ࠺ࠝࠞࡔ࡜ߦ⚊߼ࠄࠇ‫ޔ‬਎⇇ਛߢ➅ࠅ㄰ߒ᡼ᤋߐࠇߚߎߣߦࠃߞߡ‫ޔ‬ኾ㐷ኅߩߺߥࠄߕ‫ߩޘੱߩ߁ߟ߰ޔ‬㑐ᔃࠍ༐⿠ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᢙㅳ㑆એౝߦߪ‫ޔ‬਎⇇ਛ߆ࠄ 20 ం࠼࡞એ਄ߩេഥߩ⴫᣿߇޽ߞߚ߇‫ޔ‬ỗ↟ⵍἴ࿾ߣߒߡⷞ⹺ߐ
ࠇߚ࿾ၞߣߘ߁ߢߥ޿࿾ၞߣߩ㑆ߢេഥࠍฃߌࠆ߆ߤ߁߆ߦ࿾ၞᩰᏅ߇੍⷗ߐࠇߚ㧔ࠫ࡜
࡞࠺ 2005㧕‫ޕ‬ ࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞࡮ࠬࠤ࡯࡞ߢ⷗ࠇ߫‫ᦨߪࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗߦ߆ߒߚޔ‬ᄢߩⵍἴ࿖ߢ޽ߞߚ߇‫ੱޔ‬⊛ⵍኂ߇޽ߞߚߣߐࠇߚߩߪ‫ޔ‬㔡Ḯߦㄭ޿࠽ࡦࠣࡠ࡮ࠕ࠴ࠚ࡮࠳࡞ࠨ࡜࡯ࡓᎺ㧔Nanggroe Aceh
Darussalam ࠕ࠴ࠚᎺ㧕ߩฦ࿾ၞߣർࠬࡑ࠻࡜Ꮊߩ࠾ࠕࠬ㧔Nias㧕ፉߩߺߢ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬࿖ㅪߦࠃࠇ߫‫ߩߎޔ‬࿾ၞߛߌߢᱫ⠪࡮ⴕᣇਇ᣿⠪ 17 ਁੱㄭߊࠍ⸥㍳ߒߚ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޕ‬Ꮊౝߦ⋡ࠍォߓࠇ߫‫ޔ‬Ꮊㇺࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚ㧔Banda Aceh㧕߿ࠕ࠴ࠚࡌࠨ࡯࡞㧔Aceh Besar㧕‫ࡗࡖࠫࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬㧔Aceh
Jaya㧕‫ࠚ࠴ࠕ⷏ޔ‬㧔Aceh Barat㧕ߥߤߩ⷏ㇱᴪጯߦ૏⟎ߔࠆࠦ࠲㧔kota㧕߿ࠞࡉࡄ࠹ࡦ㧔kabupaten㧕ߢ 1 ਁੱએ਄ߩᱫ⠪࡮ⴕᣇਇ᣿⠪ࠍ಴ߔ৻ᣇߢ‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ⠪߇߶ߣࠎߤ⸥㍳ߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿ߣߎ
ࠈ߽⋧ᒰᢙߩ࿾ၞߦ෸߱‫ޕ‬ ߘ߽ߘ߽‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬Ꮊߪࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕߩᦨ⽺࿾ၞߩ߭ߣߟߦᢙ߃ࠄࠇߡ޿ߚ‫ࠊ޿ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ࠁࠆࠕ࠴ࠚ⚗੎ߩỗൻߦࠃߞߡᷓೞߥ໧㗴ࠍᛴ߃ߡ޿ߚ‫ᦨ߇ࠚ࠴ࠕޕ‬ᄢⵍἴ࿾ߦߥߞߚ⢛᥊ߪ‫ޔ‬ၮᧄ⊛ߦ㔡Ḯߩ૏⟎ߣᵤᵄߩᵄേࡔࠞ࠾࠭ࡓߦ㑐ࠊࠆ‫ߣࠇߘޕ‬หᤨߦ‫⽺ߚߒ߁ߘޔ‬࿎߿⚗੎‫⋧ߣࠄࠇߘޔ‬੕ߦ㑐ㅪߔࠆ‫߁޿ߣࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬႐ᚲߩ࿖㓙␠ળ߅ࠃ߮ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ࿖
ౝߢߩᱧผ⊛࡮᡽ᴦ⊛ߥ૏⟎ߠߌ߇ⵍἴ߆ࠄᓳᣥ࡮ᓳ⥝ߩ߆ߚߜࠍ᳿ቯߠߌߚߣ⸒߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߘࠇࠁ߃‫ⵍޔ‬ἴߦࠃߞߡࠕ࠴ࠚߩ⁁ᴫ߇࿖㓙␠ળߦนⷞൻߐࠇߡ޿ߊㆊ⒟ߢㆊ෰ 30 ᐕ㑆ߩ⚗੎߇⚳⚿ߦะ߆ߞߚߣ޿߁ߎߣߪᵈ⋡ߐࠇࠆߴ߈ߛ߇‫ࠆߓ⺰ߢߎߎޔ‬૛⵨ߪߥ޿‫ޕ‬ ᦨᓟߦ‫ޔ߫ࠇ⷗ߢ࡞࡯ࠤࠬ࡮࡞࠽࡚ࠫ࡯࡝ޔ‬ᵤᵄ߶ߤ‫ⵍޔ‬ኂ߇㕙⊛ߦ⿠ߎࠅ‫޿ߢࠇߘޔ‬ߡⵍἴ࿾ߣ㕖ⵍἴ࿾ߣߩႺ⇇߇᣿⏕ߢ‫ޔ‬ਔ࿾ၞ㑆ߩᩰᏅࠍ↢ߓߐߖࠆἴኂߪዋߥ޿‫ⵍޕ‬ἴ࿾ߢߪᄢㇱಽߩᑪ‛߇࿯บߏߣᵹߐࠇ‫ޔ‬࿯࿾⥄૕߇ᶖᄬߒߚߣߎࠈ߽ዋߥߊߥߊ‫ޔ‬࿾ၞߩᱫ੢₸ߪ 80 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ࠍ⿥߃ߚ߇‫ޔ‬㕖ⵍἴ࿾ߪ߹ߞߚߊή்ߩ߹߹ߢ޽ߞߚ‫࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޕ‬ࠚߪߚߒ߆ߦᦨᄢⵍἴㇺᏒߢߪ޽ߞߚ߇‫ⵍ߽ߢࠇߘޔ‬ኂ߇޽ߞߚⓨ㑆⊛▸࿐ߪᏒၞߩࠊߕ
߆ߦඨಽߦߔ߉ߥ޿‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߤޕ‬႐ᚲ߇ᵤᵄߩⵍኂࠍฃߌ‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߤߡߒߘޔ‬႐ᚲ߇ฃߌ

1313

I. ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆ߥ߆ߞߚߩ߆‫ⵍߚߒ߁ߘޕ‬ኂߩ࿾ၞᏅߪ࿾ၞߩ࿾ℂ⊛․ᕈߣߤߩࠃ߁ߦ㑐ㅪߒ‫ߩߘߚ߹ޔ‬ߎߣߪⵍἴᓟߩ࿾ၞߩ޽ࠅࠃ߁ߦߤߩࠃ߁ߥᗧ๧ࠍ߽ߟߩ߆‫ᧄޕ‬Ⓜߢߪ‫ߦࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬߅ߌࠆⵍኂߩ࿾ၞᏅߦὶὐࠍ⟎߈ߥ߇ࠄ‫ߩࠄࠇߎޔ‬໧㗴ߦߟ޿ߡ⼏⺰ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬㧞㧚ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߩ࿾ℂ⊛᧦ઙߣᵤᵄⵍኂߩ࿾ၞᏅ ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߪ߆ߟߡࠢ࠲࡜ࠫࡖ㧔Kutaraja㧕ߣ๭߫ࠇ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬ፉർ⷏┵‫ࠞ࠶࡜ࡑޔ‬ᶏጽߩ⷏ߩ౉ญߦ૏⟎ߔࠆ㧔࿑ 1㧕‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޕ‬Ꮉᴡญ߆ࠄ⚂ 3㨪4 km ਄ᵹߩਔጯߦᏒⴝ࿾߇⊒㆐ߒ‫ޔ‬Ꮢⴝ࿾ਛᄩㇱߩᏀጯߦߪ‫᦭ޔ‬ฬߥࡃࠗ࠻࠘࡜ࡈࡑࡦᄢࡕࠬࠢ㧔Masjid Raya Baiturrahamanࠣ࡜ࡦ࠼ࡕࠬࠢ㧕߇┙࿾ߔࠆ‫࠻࡞ࡂࠬޕ‬᡽ᮭ፣უએ㒠ߩ࿾ᣇ⥄ᴦ೙ᐲᡷ㕟ࠍ⚻ߡ‫ࠢ࡜ࡓޔ‬ࠨ㧔Meuraxa㧕‫ࡦ࡟ࠞ࡟࠙ޔ‬㧔Ulee Kareng㧕‫࠲ࡃࠣࡦ࡞ޔ‬㧔Lueng Bata㧕‫ࡗ࡜࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬㧔Banda Raya㧕ߥߤߩ๟ㄝߩࠢ࠴ࡖࡑ࠲ࡦ㧔kecamatan㧕ࠍࠕ࠴ࠚࡌࠨ࡯࡞⋵߆ࠄ✬౉ߒ‫ޔ‬61.3 km2 ࠍᠩߔ
ࠆ․೎Ꮢߣߥߞߚ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޕ‬Ꮊߩ⛔⸘ߦࠃࠇ߫‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ⋥೨ߩੱญߪ⚂ 264,000 ੱ㧔⚂ 55,000਎Ꮺ㧕ߛ߇‫ޔ‬ታ㓙ߩዬ૑⠪ߪ 30㨪35 ਁੱ߶ߤ޿ߚߩߢߪߥ޿߆ߣ⸒ࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬࿑ 1 ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߩ᭎ⷰ ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߩ⃻࿷ߩᏒⴝ࿾ߪ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬ᎹߣߘߩᵷᎹߦࠃߞߡᒻᚑߐࠇߚᐔ㊁ߩਛ⷏ㇱߩᦨਅᵹㇱ‫࠲࡞࠺ߤ߁ࠂߜޔ‬ᕈૐ࿾ߩᧃ┵ㇱߦ૏⟎ߒ‫ࠍࠢࠬࡕ࠼ࡦ࡜ࠣޔ‬ਛᔃߦߒߡർ⷏
̆ධ᧲ 1.5 km ߶ߤߩᐢ߇ࠅࠍ߽ߟ㧔⹦⚦ߪ‫ޔ‬ᶏᵤ࡮㜞ᯅ 2007㧕‫ޕ‬Ꮢⴝ࿾ߩർ஥ߦߪᐓẟ⿠ḮߩૐḨ࿾߇߭ࠈ߇ࠆ߇‫ޔ‬Ꮢၞർ⷏ㇱߩᶏጯઃㄭߦߪዊⷙᮨߥᵿႇ߇޽ࠅ‫࡟࡟࠙ߦߎߎޔ‬㧔Ulee Lheue㧕ߣ޿߁ฬ೨ߩ㓸⪭߇┙࿾ߔࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬㓸⪭ߪ 1906 ᐕߦ಴ ߐࠇߚฎ޿ᢥ₂ߩઃ㍳࿾࿑ߦ߽ߘߩሽ࿷ࠍ⹺߼ࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈㧔Hurgronje 1984㧕‫ߩࡖࠫ࡜࠲ࠢޔ‬ᄖ᷼ߣߒߡࡑ࡜
࠶ࠞᶏጽࠍ߼ߋࠆ੤ᤃߢฎߊ߆ࠄᩕ߃ߡ߈ߚߣ⸒ࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬
 1924 ᐕߩࠝ࡜ࡦ࠳⵾࿾ᒻ࿑ࠍ߽ߣߦߒߚ 5 ਁಽߩ 1 ᄖ㇌࿑ߦࠃࠇ߫‫ߩ࡟࡟࠙ߩߎޔ‬๟ㄝߦߪߔߢߦᲧセ⊛ᄢ߈ߥᏒⴝ࿾߇޽ࠅ‫߱⚿ࠍߣࡖࠫ࡜࠲ࠢߣ࡟࡟࠙ޔ‬㆏〝߿‫ࡖࠫ࡜࠲ࠢޔ‬Ꮢⴝ࿾ർㇱߩࠕ࠴ࠚᎹߦᴪߞߚߣߎࠈߦߪ⃻࿷߽หߓฬ೨߇ᱷࠆⶄᢙߩ㓸⪭߇ߔߢߦ⹺߼
ࠄࠇࠆ‫ߒ߆ߒޕ‬ᶏጯ⍾ਐ⢛ᓟߩ࡜ࠣ࡯ࡦߣḨ࿾Ꮺߪ߶ߣࠎߤᧂ೑↪ߢ‫ߦ߆ߥߩߘޔ‬᫪ᨋᬀ↢߇ᢔ࿷⊛ߦ⸥タߐࠇߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬ಠ଀ߦ⸥ߐࠇߚ᮸⒳߆ࠄផኤߔࠆߦ‫⃻ޔ‬࿷ߩ᧲ධࠕࠫࠕߩ
ᶏጯૐ࿾ߦᐢ▸ߦሽ࿷ߔࠆࡑࡦࠣࡠ࡯ࡉᨋߦㄭ޿᥊ⷰ߇߭ࠈ߇ߞߡ޿ߚߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ㧔࿑ 2Ꮐ㧕‫⁁ߚߒ߁ߎޕ‬ᴫߪ‫ޔ‬1940 ᐕઍඨ߫ߩࠕࡔ࡝ࠞ⵾ 25 ਁಽߩ 1 ࿾൓࿑ߣ‫ޔ‬1960 ᐕઍೋ㗡ߩ
࠰ㅪ⵾ 20 ਁಽߩ 1 ࿾൓࿑ߦ߅޿ߡ߽ၮᧄ⊛ߦหߓࠃ߁ߦᕁࠊࠇࠆ߇‫ޔ‬1977 ᐕߩࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪ

14
14

඾ඬᘮܹƱȐȳȀǢȁǧƷᣃࠊᆰ᧓ನᡯᲢ᭗೛ ᛗᲣࠕ᡽ᐭ⊒ⴕߩ 5 ਁಽߩ 1 ࿾ᒻ࿑ߢߪᄢ߈ߊᄌࠊߞߡ޿ࠆ㧔࿑ 2 ฝ㧕‫ޕ‬ ߹ߕḨ࿾Ꮺߩࡑࡦࠣࡠ࡯ࡉᨋ߇ಾࠅᜏ߆ࠇߡ㙃ᱺᳰߩ઀ಾࠅ߇ㅧࠄࠇ‫ޔ‬ᶏጯઃㄭߦᣂߒ
޿㓸⪭߇ᑪ⸳ߐࠇߚ‫ߣࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃߪࡖࠫ࡜࠲ࠢޕ‬ฬ೨ࠍᄌ߃‫ޔ‬᳚Ửේ߿ᐓẟߦะ߆ߞߡ
Ꮢⴝ࿾ࠍ᜛ᄢߔࠆࠃ߁ߔ߇⹺߼ࠄࠇࠆ‫ߩߣ࡟࡟࠙ߣࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃߦߊߣޕ‬㑆ߢߪ‫ޔ‬ᣥ㓸⪭ߩ๟ㄝߢࠬࡊࡠ࡯࡞߇㗼⪺ߦߥߞߚ‫ߩࠄࠇߎޕ‬᜛ᄢ࿾ၞߪ੹࿁ߩᵤᵄߩỗ↟ⵍἴ࿾ߦ㊀ߥࠅ‫ߩߘޔ‬ᗧ๧ߢ‫ޔ‬1960㨪70 ᐕઍߪࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚ߇⚿ᨐ⊛ߦᵤᵄࠍߪߓ߼ߣߒߚᴪጯἴኂߦ
ᒙ޿ㇺᏒߦᄌࠊߞߡ޿ߊォᯏߢ޽ߞߚߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬

࿑ 2 ࠢ࠲ࠕ࡜ࡓ㧔Kuta Alam㧕ઃㄭߩ࿯࿾೑↪ߩᄌൻ㧔಴ౖ㧕㒽࿾᷹㊂ㇱ࡮ෳ⻎ᧄㇱ߅ࠃ߮ BAKOSURTANAL Indonesia ߦࠃࠆ‫ޕ‬ ታ㓙ߦᵤᵄߦࠃߞߡ‫ⵍߥ߁ࠃߩߤޔ‬ኂ߇޽ߞߚߩߢ޽ࠈ߁߆‫ߦߢߔޔߪߡ޿ߟߦࠇߎޕ‬޿ߊߟ߆ߩߣߎࠈߢㅀߴߡ޿ࠆߩߢ㧔ᶏᵤ࡮㜞ᯅ 2007; Takahashi et al. 2007㧕‫ߊߏߪߢߎߎޔ‬◲නߦ⸅ࠇߡ߅߈ߚ޿‫ౕޕ‬૕⊛߆ߟᢙ㊂⊛ߦᛠីߒߡ߅ߎ߁‫ࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޕ‬Ꮢ᡽ᐭߦࠃࠇ
߫‫ޔ‬ᑪ‛ⵍኂߪోუ߇ 14,000 ᫟‫ޔ‬ඨუ߇ 3,000 ᫟‫৻ޔ‬ㇱ៊უ߇ 4,000 ᫟߶ߤࠍߘࠇߙࠇᢙ߃‫ޔ‬߹ߚੱ⊛ⵍኂߦ㑐ߒߡߪᵤᵄ೨ߩ⊓㍳ੱญ 264,000 ੱ߶ߤߩ߁ߜᱫ⠪ 55,000 ੱ‫ⴕޔ‬ᣇਇ᣿⠪ 17,000 ੱ߶ߤߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ Ꮢౝฦࠢ࠴ࡖࡑ࠲ࡦᓎᚲ߆ࠄᏒ᡽ᐭߦႎ๔ߐࠇߚ‫ࠨ࠺ޔ‬㧔desa㧕߹ߚߪࠢ࡞࡜ࡂࡦ
㧔kelurahan㧕ߏߣߩ࠺࡯࠲ࠍ⷗ࠆߣ‫ⵍޔ߽ߦ⊛ੱ߽ߦ⊛‛ޔ‬ኂ⁁ᴫߪၮᧄ⊛ߦᶏጯ߆ࠄߩ〒㔌ߦኻᔕߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᶏጯઃㄭߢߪ߶ߣࠎߤߔߴߡߩᑪ‛߇࿯บߩ∥〔ߛߌࠍᱷߒߡ⎕უߐࠇߚ߶߆‫ޔ‬ᶐ㘩߿ᵞជߦࠃߞߡ࿯࿾⥄૕߇ᶖᄬߒߚߣߎࠈ߽⃟ߒߊߥ޿‫ޕ‬࿾ၞߩᱫ⠪࡮ⴕᣇਇ᣿⠪ߩᲧ₸㧔એਅ‫ޔ‬ᱫ੢₸㧕ߪ߅߅߻ߨ 70 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ࠍ⿥߃‫৻ޔ‬ㇱߢߪ 90 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻એ਄ߦ㆐ߔࠆ‫ߚߒ߁ߎޕ‬ỗ↟ⵍἴ࿾ߪᶏጯ߆ࠄ 2 km ߶ߤߩᐢ▸ߥ࿾ၞߦ߭ࠈ߇ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ㜞ߪ߶߷ 3 m એ਄ߢ޽ߞߚߣផ᷹ߐࠇࠆ‫߽ࠅࠃࠇߘޕ‬ౝ㒽஥ߩ࿾ၞߢߪ‫ޔ‬2 㓏એ਄ߪේᒻࠍ
଻ߜߥ߇ࠄ߽ 1 㓏ㇱಽߩო߇⎕უߐࠇߚᑪ‛߇ථ⿧ߔࠆࠃ߁ߦߥࠅ‫ߦࠄߐޔ‬Ꮢⴝ࿾ౝߢߪ
߶ߣࠎߤᑪ‛߇ᐥ਄߹ߚߪᐥਅᶐ᳓⒟ᐲߩⵍኂࠍฃߌߚߩߺߢ޽ߞߚ‫ߩࠄࠇߎޕ‬࿾ၞߢߪᱫ੢₸ߪᕆỗߦૐਅߒ‫ޔ‬Ꮢⴝ࿾✼ㄝㇱߢ 20㨪30 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻⒟ᐲ‫ޔ‬Ꮢⴝ࿾ਛᔃㇱࠃࠅౝ㒽஥ߢߪ߶ߣࠎߤ⸥㍳ߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬ ਔࠛ࡝ࠕ㑆ߦ߅޿ߡⵍኂ⁁ᴫ߇‛⊛ߦ߽ੱ⊛ߦ߽ኻᾖ⊛ߛߞߚߩߪ‫ߩߘޔ‬Ⴚ⇇߇ߜࠂ߁ߤᏒⴝ࿾ർ⷏✼ઃㄭߦ޽ߚࠅ‫ޔ‬ᶏጯ߆ࠄ᧪ⷅߒߚᵤᵄ߇ߎߎߢᵹㅦࠍ⪺ߒߊᒙ߼ߚߚ߼ߢ
޽ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄ⋥ᓟߩⴡᤊ↹௝߆ࠄߪߎߩઃㄭߦᄢ㊂ߩⅽ␕ߩၸⓍ߇⹺߼ࠄࠇ‫ޔ‬

1515

I. ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆߹ߚ᷼߆ࠄᵹߐࠇߚᄙߊߩṪ⦁߇ṫ⌕ߒߚߩ߽ߎߩ޽ߚࠅߢ޽ߞߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬ᗧ๧ߢ‫ޔ‬ਔࠛ࡝ࠕࠍಽߌࠆᵤᵄ㜞 3 m ߣ޿߁ᢙ୯ߪⵍኂߩ⒟ᐲߦߣߞߡ߭ߣߟߩ㎛ߢ޽ࠅ‫ߪߣߎߩߘޔ‬หߓᱫ੢₸࠺࡯࠲ࠍ↪޿ߡࠪࡒࡘ࡟࡯࡚ࠪࡦࠍⴕߞߚᄢኅ߶߆㧔2006㧕ߩ⎇ⓥߦࠃߞߡ߽⏕߆߼ࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬㧟㧚ㇺᏒⓨ㑆᭴ㅧߣߘߩᄌൻ ᵤᵄߦࠃࠆⵍኂ⒟ᐲߦߪ㗼⪺ߥ࿾ၞᏅ߇ሽ࿷ߔࠆ߇‫ߪࠇߎޔ‬ၮᧄ⊛ߦࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚઃㄭ
ߩ⥄ὼ࿾ℂ⊛᧦ઙߣᵤᵄᵹേߦ⷗ࠄࠇߚ࿾ၞ⊛Ꮕ⇣ࠍ෻ᤋߒߡ޿ࠆ‫␠ߪߢࠇߘޕ‬ળ⊛ⷰὐ߆ࠄ⷗ߡ‫ޔ‬ታ㓙ߦⵍኂࠍฃߌߚ࿾ၞߪߤߩࠃ߁ߥ․ᓽࠍ߽ߞߡ޿ߚߩߢ޽ࠈ߁߆‫ޕ‬ㇺᏒߪ৻⥸ߦ␠ળ⚻ᷣ⊛ߦૃߚࠃ߁ߥዻᕈࠍ߽ߞߚੱ‫߇ޘ‬㓸૑ߔࠆ‫⋧ޔ‬੕ߦ⇣ߥࠆⶄᢙߩ࿾඙߇
㓸߹ߞߡ᭴ᚑߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ߪߢߎߎޕ‬ᵤᵄ೨ߩࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߦ߅ߌࠆㇺᏒⓨ㑆᭴ㅧࠍᛠីߔ
ࠆߎߣߦࠃߞߡ‫ⵍ߇ޘੱߥ߁ࠃߩߤޔ‬ኂ⠪ߦߥߞߚߩ߆ߣ޿߁໧㗴ߦߟ޿ߡ⠨߃ߡߺߚ޿‫ޕ‬ ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߩㇺᏒⓨ㑆᭴ㅧߦߟ޿ߡ⼏⺰ߒߚᢥ₂ߪ▤⷗ߩ߆߉ࠅߥ޿‫ߚ߹ޕ‬ᄙߊߩ⊒ዷㅜ਄࿖ߩㇺᏒߣหߓࠃ߁ߦ‫߽ߦߎߎޔ‬ା㗬ߢ߈ࠆ࿾ၞ⛔⸘ߪ߶ߣࠎߤߥ޿‫߁⸒߽߆ߒޕ‬߹ߢ߽ߥߊ‫ੱޔߒ߆ߒޕ޿ߥࠄ߆ࠊߊߚߞ߹ߪߡ޿ߟߦޘੱߩߤߥ࡯࠲࠶ࠝࠢࠬޔ‬ญ᭴ㅧࠍࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚోၞߣ޿߁ᐢ޿▸࿐ߢ⛔৻⊛߆ߟቯ㊂⊛ߦᛠីߔࠆߚ߼ߦߪ⛔⸘࠺࡯࠲ߦ
㗬ࠄߑࠆࠍ߃ߕ‫ߪߢߎߎޔ‬ᶖᭂ⊛ߥℂ↱ߥ߇ࠄࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒ᡽ᐭ⛔⸘࠮ࡦ࠲࡯ߦࠃߞߡ
ࠢ࠴ࡖࡑ࠲ࡦߏߣߦೀⴕߐࠇߚ࠺ࠨ㧛ࠢ࡞࡜ࡂࡦන૏㓸⸘ߩੱญ⛔⸘ࠍ↪޿ࠆߎߣߦߒߚ‫ޕ‬
ߥ߅ 2000 ᐕએ㒠ߩᐕᰴߦ߅޿ߡ⑳ߚߜ߇౉ᚻߢ߈ߚ࠺࡯࠲ߪ‫ੱޔ‬ญᢙ߇ 2000㨪2002 ᐕߣ
2004 ᐕߢ޽ࠆ߇‫ޔ‬਎Ꮺ߿↢ᬺ‫↢ޔ‬ᵴⅣႺߥߤߦ㑐ߒߡߪ 2001 ᐕߩ߽ߩߒ߆ߥ޿‫ߦߺߥߜޕ‬ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߦ߅ߌࠆᐕੱญჇട₸ߩ⋥ㄭ 3 ᐕ㑆ߩන⚐⒖േᐔဋࠍ⷗ࠆߣ‫ޔ‬2002 ᐕ߹ߢᐕ₸ 1.5 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻߶ߤߢផ⒖ߒߡ߈ߚ߇‫ޔ‬2003 ᐕߦ 2 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ࠍ⿥߃‫ޔ‬2004 ᐕߦߪ 6 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ߦ߹ߢ਄᣹ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬ℂ↱ߪਇ᣿ߛ߇‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ೨ᢙᐕ㑆ߦੱญ᭴ㅧ਄߆ߥࠅߩ
ᷙੂ߇޽ߞߚߩߢߪߥ޿߆ߣផኤߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ ౕ૕⊛ߦߪ‫ߦᦠ⸘⛔ޔ‬ឝタߐࠇߚੱญᄌേ࡮᭴ㅧ‫ޔ‬਎Ꮺߩ↢ᬺ‫↢ޔ‬ᵴⅣႺߥߤߦ㑐ࠊࠆᄌᢙࠍ೉ߦ‫ޔ‬89 ࠺ࠨ㧛ࠢ࡞࡜ࡂࡦࠍⴕߦߒߚ࿾ℂⴕ೉ࠍ૞ᚑߒ‫ޔ‬૗࿁߆ߩ⹜ⴕࠍ➅ࠅ㄰ߒߚߩߜߦ‫߽ߣߞ߽ޔ‬㜞޿⺑᣿ജࠍ᦭ߔࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ 8 ᄌᢙࠍᦨ⚳⊛ߦㆬ߮಴ߒ‫࡯ࠜ࠙ޔ‬࠼ᴺߩࠢ࡜ࠬ࠲࡯ಽᨆߦᛩ౉ߒߚ‫ߡߒߘޕ‬ฦࠢ࡜ࠬ࠲࡯㑆ߩ〒㔌ࠍᬌ⸛ߒߡ 89 ࠺ࠨ㧛ࠢ࡞࡜ࡂࡦࠍ 5 ࿾඙㧔A㨪E㧕ߦ㘃ဳൻߒ‫ోޔ‬૕ߦ߅ߌࠆᐔဋ୯ߣߩ஍Ꮕࠍᬌ⸛ߒߥ߇ࠄߘࠇߙ
ࠇߩ․ᕈࠍ⸃㉼ߒߚ㧔⴫ 1㧕‫ߚ߹ޕ‬ฦ࿾඙㘃ဳߩ૏⟎ࠍ࿾࿑ൻߔࠆߣߣ߽ߦ‫ޔ‬2001 ᐕᤨὐߢߩ࠺ࠨ㧛ࠢ࡞࡜ࡂࡦߩ඙ಽ߽૬ߖߡ࿑␜ߒߚ㧔࿑ 3㧕‫ߩࡦࡂ࡜࡞ࠢޔ߅ߥޕ‬ಽᏓၞߪࡃࡦ࠳
ࠕ࠴ࠚߩᣥᏒⴝ࿾ߩ▸࿐ߦ߶߷㊀ߥࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬⴫ 1 ࠢ࡜ࠬ࠲࡯ಽᨆߦࠃࠆ࿾඙㘃ဳ
A
9

B
13

Avg.

Avg.

Avg.

Avg.

Avg.

Avg.

STD

148.4
49.5
ੱญኒᐲ㧔⊖ੱ㧛km2㧕
0.8
14.0
1997㨪2002 ᐕߩੱญჇട₸㧔%㧕
1.0
15.3
ㄘᨋṪᬺᓥ੐਎Ꮺ₸㧔%㧕
34.4
17.9
໡ᬺᓥ੐਎Ꮺ₸㧔%㧕
2.4
18.5
⵾ㅧᬺᓥ੐਎Ꮺ₸㧔%㧕
34.1
22.5
౏ോᓥ੐਎Ꮺ₸㧔%㧕
85.0
81.5
਄᳓㆏᥉෸₸㧔%㧕
11.7
18.5
ᧁㅧ૑ቛ₸㧔%㧕
㧔ᵈ㧕ᐕᰴߪ 2001 ᐕ㧔ੱญჇട₸ࠍ㒰ߊ㧕‫ޕ‬㧔಴ౖ㧕ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒ᡽ᐭ⛔⸘ߦࠃࠅ૞ᚑ‫ޕ‬

47.7
5.8
3.9
16.8
2.8
56.5
85.3
15.9

36.2
27.6
8.0
9.3
3.9
54.3
24.9
19.0

31.4
18.8
26.4
14.2
4.9
22.2
87.2
28.9

51.2
15.0
12.0
16.3
5.9
39.9
71.0
19.9

46.8
19.1
12.1
11.8
6.0
21.7
31.1
14.6

ᜰ ᮡ㨈࿾඙㘃ဳ࠺ࠨ㧛ࠢ࡞࡜ࡂࡦᢙ

C
23

D
21

E
23

ో ૕
89

 ࿾඙ A ߪੱญኒᐲߣ໡ᬺᓥ੐਎Ꮺ₸߇⋧ኻ⊛ߦ㜞ߊ‫ੱޔ‬ญჇട₸‫ޔ‬ㄘᨋṪᬺᓥ੐਎Ꮺ₸‫ޔ‬

16
16඾ඬᘮܹƱȐȳȀǢȁǧƷᣃࠊᆰ᧓ನᡯᲢ᭗೛ ᛗᲣᧁㅧ૑ቛ₸߇⋧ኻ⊛ߦૐ޿ߣ޿߁․ᓽࠍ߽ߟ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕ߿ࠢࠬࡕ࠼ࡦ࡜ࠣޕ‬Ꮢ႐㧔Pasar Aceh㧕ࠍ฽߻ਛᔃㇱߦ߹ߣ߹ߞߡಽᏓߒ‫ޔ‬ㇺᔃ໡ᬺ࿾඙ࠍ᭴ᚑߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬࿾඙ B ߪᄙߊߩᜰᮡ߇
ᐔဋ⊛ߛ߇‫⵾ޔ‬ㅧᬺᓥ੐਎Ꮺ₸߇⋧ኻ⊛ߦ㜞޿ߣ޿߁․ᓽࠍ߽ߜ‫ޔ‬ኅౝᎿᬺࠍਛᔃߣߔࠆ
ᒰ࿾ߩ⵾ㅧᬺߩ․⦡ࠍ⠨ᘦߔࠆߣ‫ޔ‬ዊⷙᮨߥ૞ᬺᚲ߇ᷙ࿷ߔࠆ૑ቛ࿾߇ᗐቯߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ⓨ㑆⊛ߦߪ‫ޔ‬Ꮢⴝ࿾ߩ⷏஥✼ㄝㇱߦⅣ⁁ߦ㈩⟎ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬࿾඙ C ߪ⋧ኻ⊛ߦ㜞޿౏ോᓥ੐਎
Ꮺ₸ߣ᳓㆏᥉෸₸‫ޔ‬ૐ޿ੱญჇട₸ߣㄘᨋṪᬺᓥ੐਎Ꮺ₸ߦࠃߞߡ․ᓽߠߌࠄࠇ‫ޔ‬ㇺᔃ߆ࠄᏒၞർ᧲ㇱߣධ⷏ㇱߦᑧ߮ࠆ᏷ຬߩᲧセ⊛ᐢ޿ᐙ✢㆏〝ߦᴪ޿ߥ߇ࠄᏒⴝ࿾ࠍᄢ߈ߊข
ࠅᏎߊࠃ߁ߦ㈩⟎ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩࠄࠇߎޕ‬࿾ၞߦߪᄙߊߩቭ౏ᐡ߿౏⊛ᯏ㑐‫┙߇ࠬࠖࡈࠝޔ‬࿾ߒ‫ޔ‬หߓߊㇺᔃ๟ㄝㇱߦ૏⟎ߔࠆ࿾඙ B ߦᲧߴߡ᳓㆏᥉෸₸߇㜞ߊ‫ੱޔ‬ญኒᐲ߿ᧁㅧ૑
ቛ₸߇ૐ޿ߎߣ߆ࠄ‫␠ޔ‬ળ⚻ᷣ⊛࿾૏߇Ყセ⊛㜞޿૑ቛ࿾ߣផኤߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬࿾඙ D ߪ㜞޿ੱญჇട₸ߣ౏ോᓥ੐਎Ꮺ₸‫ޔ‬ૐ޿᳓㆏᥉෸₸߇․ᓽ⊛ߢ‫ޔ‬ᱜ⏕ߥߣߎࠈߪ್ὼߣߒߥ޿߇‫ޔ‬ⓨ㑆⊛ߦߪᣂߒߊࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߦว૬ߐࠇߚධ᧲ㇱߦ߹ߣ߹ߞߡಽᏓߒ‫ޔ‬㐿⊒ᐕᰴߩᲧセ⊛ᣂߒ޿૑ቛ࿾ࠍ฽߻ߣផኤߐࠇࠆ‫ᦨޕ‬ᓟߦ‫ޔ‬࿾඙ E ߪੱญኒᐲ߇߽ߞߣ߽ૐߊ‫ޔ‬ㄘᨋṪᬺᓥ੐਎Ꮺ₸ߣᧁㅧ૑ቛ₸߇㜞޿࿾ၞߢ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬Ꮢၞᄖ๟ㇱߦಽᏓߔࠆߎߣ߆ࠄㄘ᧛߿Ṫ᧛ࠍ฽߻࿾ၞߢ޽ࠆߣ⸃㉼ߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬

A: rich residential area, B: poor residential area,
C: fishermen’s village, D: old residential area

࿑ 3 ᵤᵄⵍἴ೨ߩࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߩㇺᏒ࿾ၞ᭴ㅧ㧔Ꮐ㧕ߣ࿾ర૑᳃ߩ⹺⍮࿾࿑㧔ฝ㧕㧔಴ౖ㧕ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒ᡽ᐭ⛔⸘ߦࠃࠅ૞ᚑ㧔Ꮐ㧕‫↰ޔ‬ਛ㧔2005: 39㧕ߦࠃࠆ㧔ฝ㧕‫ޕ‬
⴫ 2 ࿾඙㘃ဳߣ࿾ၞᱫ੢₸ߣߩ㑐ㅪ
A

ᱫ੢₸㓏⚖
N

B
%

N

C
%

N

3
12
9
35
1
1
8
2
15
7
5
10
2
4
15
9
10
13
15
23
Avg. STD Avg. STD Avg.
ᐔဋᱫ੢₸ 30.1 37.2 65.2 29.2 18.5㧔಴ౖ㧕ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒ᡽ᐭ⛔⸘ߦࠃࠅ૞ᚑ‫ޕ‬70%એ਄
20㨪70%20%ᧂḩว  ⸘

D

E

ో ૕

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

4
54
30
26
STD
24.9

㧙
㧙
21
21
Avg.
0.7

㧙
㧙
42
24
STD
0.5

13
3
7
23
Avg.
54.3

50
23
14
26
STD
38.5

26
13
50
89
Avg.
31.5

100
100
100
100
STD
36.6

 એ਄ࠍᢛℂߔࠆߣ‫ߪࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬໡ᬺ࿾඙ࠍㇺᔃߦㄘṪ᧛ࠍ๟ㄝߦߘࠇߙࠇ㈩⟎ߒߚหᔃ౞ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦࠍၮᧄߣߒߟߟ‫␠ޔ‬ળ⚻ᷣ⊛࿾૏ߩ⋧੕ߦ⇣ߥࠆᣂᣥߩ૑ቛ࿾ࠍᚸᒻߦ㈩⟎ߒߚᲧセ⊛න⚐ߥⓨ㑆ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦࠍ๒ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ㇺᔃ๟ㄝߦߪ㐿⊒ᐕઍߩᲧセ⊛ฎ޿૑ቛ࿾߇㈩⟎ߐࠇ‫⷏ޔ‬஥ߦߪᲧセ⊛ૐ޿㓏ጀߩ૑᳃߇‫᧲ޔ‬஥ߦߪਛ㜞ጀ૑᳃ߩዬ૑࿾߇ߘࠇߙ

1717

I. ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆ࠇዷ㐿ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫޿߆⚦ޕ‬ㇱಽߢߪ⋧㆑߽޽ࠆ߇‫↰ߪࡦ࡯࠲ࡄߩߎޔ‬ਛ㧔2005㧕ߦࠃߞߡᓳరߐࠇߚ࿾ర૑᳃ߩ⹺⍮࿾࿑ߣᄢᨒߢ㘃ૃߒߡ޿ࠆ㧔࿑ 3 ฝ㧕‫ޕ‬ ߎ߁ߒߚㇺᏒౝߩⓨ㑆ࡄ࠲࡯ࡦߪᵤᵄⵍኂߦ⷗ࠄࠇࠆ࿾ၞᏅߩⷐ࿃ߢߪߥ޿߇‫ޔ‬ਔ⠪ߪ᣿ࠄ߆ߦኒធߥ㑐ଥߦ޽ࠆ‫߫߃ߣߚޕ‬ᱫ੢₸ߦࠃࠆ࠺ࠨ㧛ࠢ࡞࡜ࡂࡦߩ㓏⚖඙ಽߣ A㨪E ߩ࿾඙㘃ဳߣߩ㑐ㅪࠍ⷗ࠆߣ‫ޔ‬ᱫ੢₸ 70 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻એ਄ߩ࠺ࠨ㧛ࠢ࡞࡜ࡂࡦߩඨᢙߪ࿾඙ E
ߦ‫ޔ‬35 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ߪ࿾඙ B ߦߘࠇߙࠇಽᏓߒ‫ޔ‬ㅒߦᱫ੢₸ 20 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ᧂḩߩ࠺ࠨ㧛ࠢ࡞࡜ࡂࡦߪ࿾඙ C ߣ࿾඙ D ࠍਛᔃߦಽᏓߔࠆ௑ะߦ޽ࠆ㧔⴫ 2㧕‫ߦߺߥߜޕ‬૬⸥ߐࠇߚ࿾ၞߩ
ᐔဋᱫ੢₸߽ߎࠇߦኻᔕߔࠆ‫ޕ‬వㅀߒߚࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬ỗ↟ⵍἴ࿾ߩᄙߊߪ࡜ࠣ࡯ࡦ߿Ḩ࿾Ꮺ߇
1960㨪70 ᐕઍએ㒠ߦᕆỗߥㇺᏒൻߦࠃߞߡ㐿⊒ߐࠇߚ‫߫ࠊ޿ޔ‬ฎ޿ᤨઍߩᣂ⥝࿾ၞߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߪૐ㗫ᐲߦߒ߆⿠ߎࠄߥ޿ࡂࠩ࡯࠼ߢ޽ࠅ‫߇ࠢࠬ࡝ߩߘޔ‬ㇺᏒ㐿⊒ߦ߅޿ߡ੍⷗ߐࠇ
ߡ޿ߚߣߪᕁࠊࠇߥ޿‫ޕ‬ㇺᏒⓨ㑆᭴ㅧߪฦ࿾඙ߩ㐿⊒ᤨᦼߦ߅ߌࠆ⾗ᧄ߿ᮭജߩേะߣߩ
㑐ࠊࠅߢᝒ߃ࠄࠇࠆߴ߈ߢ޽ࠅ‫ߥ⚦⹦ߣߞ߽ߪߦࠆߔ⺰⼏ߡ޿ߟߦࠇߎޔ‬ಽᨆ߇ᔅⷐߢ޽
ࠆ‫⚿ߒ߆ߒޕ‬ᨐ⊛ߦߪ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄⵍኂ߇ᄢ߈߆ߞߚ࿾ၞߪㄘ᳃߿Ṫ᳃‫ޔ‬ഭ௛⠪ߣ޿ߞߚ‫ߜߤޔ‬ࠄ߆ߣ⸒߃߫␠ળ⚻ᷣ⊛࿾૏ߩૐ޿ੱ‫ߩޘ‬ዬ૑࿾ߦ㊀ߥࠆ௑ะߦ޽ߞߚߣ⸒߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ᦨᓟߦ‫ߩࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬ㇺᏒⓨ㑆᭴ㅧ߇ᵤᵄᓟߦߤߩࠃ߁ߦᄌൻߒߚߩ߆ߣ޿߁ߎߣߦ
⸅ࠇߡ߅߈ߚ޿‫ߥ⚦⹦ޕ‬ዊ࿾ၞੱญ⛔⸘ߪ߹ߛ౉ᚻߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿ߚ߼ߦ‫ߊߏޔߪߢߎߎޔ‬◲නߥᢙ୯ߦࠃߞߡ⼏⺰ߒߡ߅ߎ߁‫ޕ‬ ᵤᵄ೨ᓟߢߩੱญᢙߩᄌൻࠍ⷗ࠆߣ‫ޔ‬㜞ߐ 3 m એ਄ߩᵤᵄߦⷅࠊࠇߚ࠺ࠨ㧛ࠢ࡞࡜ࡂࡦ
ߪ߶ߣࠎߤ߇ 2005 ᐕ 9 ᦬ߩᤨὐߢ 2002 ᐕߦᲧߴߡ 50 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻એ਄ߩੱญᷫዋࠍ⚻㛎ߒߡ޿ࠆ৻ᣇߢ‫ޔ‬ౝ㒽ߩ㕖ⵍἴ࿾ߢߪᄢ᏷ߥੱญჇട߇⸥㍳ߐࠇ‫ੱߪߦ߆ߥߩߘޔ‬ญ߇ 1.5 ୚એ਄ߦჇടߒߚ߽ߩ߽޽ࠆ㧔࿑ 4 Ꮐ㧕‫ߩࠄࠇߎޕ‬Ⴧട࿾ၞߩᄙߊߦㆱ㔍ࠠࡖࡦࡊ߇⸳⟎ߐࠇߚߎߣ߽ᓇ㗀ߒߡ޿ࠆ߇‫੹ޔ‬ᓟߎ߁ߒߚㆱ㔍ੱญ߇ᵤᵄ೨ߩዬ૑࿾ߦᏫㆶߔࠆߩ߆‫ޔ‬೎ߩ
႐ᚲߦ⒖ォߔࠆߩ߆‫ߪߣߎ߁޿ߣ߆ߩࠆߌ⛯ࠅ߹⇐ߦߎߘߪ޿ࠆ޽ޔ‬㊀ⷐߥ໧㗴ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ኅᣖߩౣ↢߽㊀ⷐߥ࠹࡯ࡑߢ޽ࠆ‫ⵍ߫߃ߣߚޕ‬ἴ࿾ߩᄙߊߢߪ 2005 ᐕߢ߽ᐕዋੱญ߇Ꮢ
ో૕ߩᐔဋ୯ࠍ 5 ࡐࠗࡦ࠻એ਄ਅ߹ࠊࠆߣ޿߁⁁ᴫߦ޽ࠆ৻ᣇߢ‫ߦߢߔޔ‬ᐔဋ୯ઃㄭ߹ߢ
࿁ᓳߒߚߣߎࠈ߽޽ࠆ㧔࿑ 4 ฝ㧕‫↢ޕ‬ሽ⠪ߩ⚿ᇕ߿ౣᇕ߇৻ㇱߢㅴ߻ߥ߆ߢ‫ߪߣߎߩߘޔ‬ㇺᏒౝߦ߅ߌࠆࠕࡦࡃ࡜ࡦࠬߥੱญ᭴ㅧߦߐࠄߦ㊀ᄢߥᓇ㗀ࠍਈ߃ࠆน⢻ᕈ߇޽ࠆ࿑ 4 ᵤᵄⵍἴᓟߩࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߦ߅ߌࠆੱญ࿾ၞ᭴ㅧ
㧔಴ౖ㧕ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒ᡽ᐭ⛔⸘ߦࠃࠅ૞ᚑ‫ޕ‬ ߜߥߺߦ࿑ 5 ߪ‫ޔ‬2006 ᐕߦㆇ↪ࠍ㐿ᆎߒߚ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄߩ㒽ၞ᷹ⷰᛛⴚⴡᤊ ALOS㧔ߛ޿ߜ㧕ߦࠃࠆࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚઃㄭߩⴡᤊ↹௝㧔AVNIR-2㧕ߩ߁ߜ㔕㊂ߩᲧセ⊛ዋߥ޿᠟ᓇᣣ㧔2006
ᐕ 11 ᦬ 6 ᣣߣ 2008 ᐕ 9 ᦬ 26 ᣣ㧕ߩ߽ߩࠍㆬ߮಴ߒ‫ߦ࡞࡯ࠤࠬ࡯࡟ࠣޔ‬ᄌ឵ߒߚߩߜߦ‫ޔ‬ੱᎿ᭴ㅧ‛߇⊕ߞ߸ߊᶋ߈਄߇ࠆࠃ߁ߦ‫◲ߊߏޔ‬නߥ↹௝ಣℂࠍᣉߒߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ㧔ߥ߅㔕ߣ㒶߿⊕ⶊ⦡ߦỘߞߚᴡᎹߦߟ޿ߡߪᧂಣℂߩ߹߹㧕‫ ߩߎޔߕ߹ޕ‬2 ᐕ㑆ߢ‫ߤࠎߣ߶ޔ‬ᚻ18
18඾ඬᘮܹƱȐȳȀǢȁǧƷᣃࠊᆰ᧓ನᡯᲢ᭗೛ ᛗᲣߟ߆ߕߢ޽ߞߚࠕ࠴ࠚᎹᴡญᏀጯ߆ࠄ࠙࡟࡟᷼ઃㄭߦ߆ߌߡߩ࿾ၞߢ‫ޔ‬ᶏጯႇ㒐ߩୃᓳ߇ㅴ߼ࠄࠇߚߎߣ‫ߚߞ޿ߣ࡜ࠢࠕࠪߪ޿ࠆ޽ޔࡓ࡜ࠕ࠲ࠢ߿ࠨࠢ࡜ࡓޔߚ߹ޔ‬ỗ↟ⵍἴ࿾ߢ㓸⪭߿㙃ᱺ࿾ߩᓳᣥ߇ㅴ߻ࠃ߁ߔ߇⺒ߺขࠇࠆ‫৻ߩߘޕ‬ᣇߢ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߩ⋥ធ⊛ⵍኂࠍోߊฃ
ߌߡ޿ߥ޿Ꮢⴝ࿾ߩධ᧲஥‫ߚߞ޿ߣ࠲ࡃࠣࡦ࡞߿ࡦ࡟ࠞ࡟࠙ޔ‬ᣂ⥝࿾ၞߦ߅޿ߡ‫ޔ‬ᣂߒ޿ᐙ✢㆏〝߇ᢛ஻ߐࠇ‫ߩߘޔ‬๟ㄝߢᏒⴝ࿾߇᜛ᄢߔࠆࠃ߁ߔ߇㗼⪺ߦߥߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩࠄࠇߎޕ‬ㇺᏒ㐿⊒߇ᵤᵄⵍኂߩᓇ㗀ߦࠃࠆ߽ߩ߆ߤ߁߆ߪࠊ߆ࠄߥ޿߇‫ޔ‬వㅀߒߚੱญ࿾ၞ᭴ㅧߩ
ౣ✬ߣ૬ߖߡ੹ᓟ⹦⚦ߦᬌ⸛ߐࠇࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬

࿑ 5 ᵤᵄᓟߦ߅ߌࠆࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߩⴡᤊ↹௝㧔ᵈ㧕᠟ᓇᣣߪ‫ޔ‬Ꮐ㧦2006 ᐕ 11 ᦬ 6 ᣣ‫ޔ‬ฝ㧦2008 ᐕ 9 ᦬ 26 ᣣ‫ޕ‬㧔಴ౖ㧕ALOS㧔ߛ޿ߜ㧕ߦࠃࠆⴡᤊ↹௝㧔AVNIR-2㧕ߦࠃࠅ૞ᚑ‫ޕ‬

࿑ 6 ⵍኂߩ࿾ၞᏅߣ࿾ℂ⊛᧦ઙ㧔ᮨᑼ࿑㧕㧠㧚߅ࠊࠅߦ એ਄ߩ⼏⺰ࠍᢛℂߒ‫ࠆߌ߅ߦࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬ᵤᵄⵍኂߩ࿾ၞᏅߣ࿾ᒻ⊛᧦ઙߣߩኻᔕ㑐ଥ㧔ᶏᵤ࡮㜞ᯅ 2007㧕ߦ‫ޔ‬ㇺᏒⓨ㑆᭴ㅧߣߩ㑐ㅪࠍ㊀ߨวࠊߖࠆߣ‫ޔ‬࿑ 6 ߩࠃ߁ߥᮨᑼ࿑
ࠍឬߊߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆ‫੹ޕ‬࿁ߩᵤᵄߪᢙ⊖ᐕ߆ࠄජᐕߦ 1 ᐲߣ޿߁߈ࠊ߼ߡૐ㗫ᐲߥ⿥Ꮒᄢ

19
19

I. ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆ⷙᮨߩࡂࠩ࡯࠼ߢ޽ࠅ‫‛ߩߘޔ‬ℂ⊛⎕უ⁁ᴫߪၮᧄ⊛ߦߪ⥄ὼ⊛ࡔࠞ࠾࠭ࡓߦࠃߞߡᛠី
ߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬
 ߒ߆ߒ⚿ᨐ⊛ߦߖࠃ‫ޔ‬ỗ↟ⵍἴ࿾ߪ߽ߣ߽ߣᐓẟߥ޿ߒ࠺࡞࠲ᕈߩૐḨ࿾߇޿ࠊ߫ࠬࡊ
ࡠ࡯࡞⊛ߦ㐿⊒ߐࠇߚߣߎࠈߢ޽ࠅ‫߿߿ߪߎߘޔ‬ૐ޿㓏ጀߩੱ‫ߔࠄ᥵߇ޘ‬࿾ၞࠍ฽ࠎߢ޿
ߚ‫৻ޕ‬ᣇߢ‫ޔ‬ㇺᔃ໡ᬺ࿾඙߆ࠄㇺᔃ๟ㄝㇱߦ߆ߌߡߩਛ㜞ጀ૑᳃ߩዬ૑࿾ߪ‫ޔ‬ㇱಽ⊛ߦߪᵤᵄߦࠃࠆ⎕უࠍⵍߞߡ޿ࠆߒ‫ޔ‬ᷓೞߥᵩ᳓ⵍኂ߽⷗ࠄࠇߚ߇‫ޔ‬8 ഀએ਄ߩ૑᳃߇ᱫ੢ߔࠆ
ࠃ߁ߥუṌ⊛ߥⵍኂߪ߹ࠇߢ޽ߞߚ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬ᵤᵄ߇೔㆐ߒߥ߆ߞߚ࿾ၞߪㆱ㔍႐ᚲߣߥߞߚ
ߛߌߢߥߊ‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ࿾ߦኻߔࠆ㘩ᢱߥߤߩᶖ⾌⽷߿ᓳ⥝⾗Ḯߩଏ⛎࿾ߣߒߡᦼᓙߐࠇ‫ࠊ޿ޔ‬ࠁࠆᓳ⥝᥊᳇ߦࠃߞߡ⚻ᷣ⊛ߦߪ߻ߒࠈᵴᴫࠍ๒ߒߚߣ޿߁‫ߩߎޕ‬ὐߦ㑐ㅪߒߡ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄᓟߦࠕ࠴ࠚᎺౝߩઁⵍἴ࿾߆ࠄࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߦ⒖૑ߒߚⵍἴ⠪߇⋧ᒰᢙ޿ࠆߎߣ߇⑳ߚߜߩ⃻࿾⺞ᩏߢࠊ߆ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ߡߞ߇ߚߒޕ‬࿾ၞᄖㇱ߆ࠄߩㆡಾߥេഥ߇ߥߌࠇ߫‫␠ޔ‬ળ⚻ᷣ⊛ߥ࿾ၞᩰᏅߪ᜛ᄢߒ‫ޔ‬ㇺᏒⓨ㑆᭴ㅧߪ߽ߞߣࠕࡦࡃ࡜ࡦࠬߥ߽ߩߦߥࠆߛࠈ߁‫ޕ‬ ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚ߇タࠆᐔ㊁ߪ⼾㙷ߢ޽ࠅ‫ߥ߆⼾ߚ߹ޔ‬ᶏᵗ⾗Ḯߦ߽ㄭ޿߇‫ޔ‬ᵩ᳓߿ᵤᵄߣ޿ߞߚ⥄ὼἴኂߩ࡝ࠬࠢࠍᧄ⾰⊛ߦᛴ߃ߡ޿ࠆ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޕ‬ᢿጀߦ⿠࿃ߔࠆ዁᧪ߩ⋥ਅဳ࿾㔡߽ᔃ㈩ߛ‫ޕ‬ዋߥߊߣ߽ 1960 ᐕઍએ㒠ߩㇺᏒ㐿⊒ߢ‫ߩࠄࠇߎߗߥޔ‬ὐ߇⠨ᘦߐࠇߡ޿ߥ߆
ߞߚߩ߆‫߁߽ߪ޿ࠆ޽ޕ‬ዋߒᢝⴖߔࠇ߫‫ޔ‬વ⛔⊛ߥ↢ᵴ᭽ᑼ߇⥄ὼἴኂߦኻߒߡᒝ޿ߣߪ
৻᭎ߦ⸒߃ߥ޿߇‫ⴕߩࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬᡽ᣉ╷ߦߟ޿ߡߪߣ߽߆ߊ‫␠࡞ࠞ࡯ࡠߩࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬ળߪ⥄ὼἴኂߩ࡝ࠬࠢࠍ࿁ㆱߔࠆ␠ળ⊛ࡔࠞ࠾࠭ࡓࠍౝ࿷ൻߒߡ޿ߥ߆ߞߚࠃ߁ߦᕁࠊࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬੹ᓟߩἴኂߦᒝ޿࿾ၞߠߊࠅࠍ⠨߃ࠆߚ߼ߦߪ‫ߩߎߕ߹ޔ‬ὐ߇⠨ኤߐࠇߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠄߥ޿‫ޕ‬
 ⑳ߚߜߩශ⽎ߢߪ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ೨ߩࠕ࠴ࠚ␠ળߩἴኂ⣀ᒙᕈߣᓳ⥝ᓟߩౣ⣀ᒙൻߣ޿߁໧㗴ࠍᬌ⸛ߔࠆߚ߼ߦߪ‫⚗ޔ‬੎߿⽺࿎ߪ⸒߁߹ߢ߽ߥߊ‫߫߃ߣߚޔ‬ᄤὼ⾗Ḯ㐿⊒ࠍ߼ߋࠆ೑ኂኻ
┙ߣ޿ߞߚ໧㗴‫߮ߚߪ޿ࠆ޽ޔ‬㊀ߥࠆ࿾ᣇ⥄ᴦ೙ᐲᡷ㕟ߦࠃࠆ࿾ᣇ᡽ᐭߩ⚵❱⊛࡮ⓨ㑆⊛ᡷ✬߿‫ࡦࠠࡓޔ‬㧔mukim㧕߿ࠟࡦࡐࡦ㧔gampong㧕ߣ޿ߞߚવ⛔⊛ࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖߩᓎഀߩᄌ
ൻߥߤ‫ࠅࠃޔ‬ᐢ▸ߥ⚻ᷣ߿᡽ᴦߩേ߈߇ࡠ࡯ࠞ࡞␠ળߦਈ߃ࠆᓇ㗀ߦߟ޿ߡ߽ߞߣ⼏⺰߇ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬⻢ㄉ ᧄⓂߪ‫ޔ‬ᨋ ൟ↵✬‫⥄ޡ‬ὼἴኂߣᓳ⥝ᡰេ㧔઒㧕‫ޢ‬㧔ߺࠎ߬ߊታ〣ੱ㘃ቇࠪ࡝࡯࠭㧕‫ޔ‬᣿⍹ᦠᐫ㧔ೀⴕ੍ቯ㧕ߦነⓂߒߚ⺰ᢥߩ৻ㇱߦട╩࡮ୃᱜߒߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ነⓂߦߟ޿ߡ߅⺃޿ߊߛߐߞߚᨋ ൟ↵వ↢㧔࿖┙᳃ᣖቇඳ‛㙚㧕ߦ‫ޕࠆߍ޽ߒ↳␞߅ߡߒ⸥ߦߎߎޔ‬ෳ⠨ᢥ₂ᶏᵤᱜ୶㧔2009㧕㧦ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߦ߅ߌࠆᵤᵄἴኂߣ࿯࿾᧦ઙ㧚દ⮮㆐㓶࡮ᚓ⢻ㅢෘ✬‫ࠕޡ‬ࠫࠕߦ߅ߌࠆ⚻ᷣ⊒ዷߣⅣႺ໧㗴̆␠ળ⑼ቇ߆ࠄߩዷᦸ̆‫ޢ‬᣿⍹ᦠᐫ㧘184-190
ᶏᵤᱜ୶࡮㜞ᯅ⺈㧔2007㧕㧦ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߦ߅ߌࠆࠗࡦ࠼ᵗᄢᵤᵄߩⵍኂߩ࿾ၞ⊛․ᓽ㧚E-journal GEO 2(3), 121-131
ᄢኅ㓉ⴕ࡮⿧᧛ବ৻࡮ᩉỈ⧷᣿࡮੹᧛ᢥᒾ㧔2006㧕
㧦2004 ᐕࠗࡦ࠼ᵗᄢᵤᵄߦࠃࠆࡃࡦ࠳࡮
ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒⴝ࿾ߩᵤᵄ᳚Ử⸃ᨆߣⵍኂ⹏ଔ㧚ᶏጯᎿቇ⺰ᢥ㓸 53, 221-225
ࠫ࡜࡞࠺㧩ࠛ࠼ࡢ࡯࠼㧔2005㧕㧦਎⇇߆ࠄᔓࠇ෰ࠄࠇߚⵍἴ⠪ߚߜ̆ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ‫ޔࡦ࡜ࠗޔ‬ࠕࡈࠟ࠾ࠬ࠲ࡦ‫ߢ࠳ࡦࠟ࠙ޔ‬࿖㓙ᢇេᵴേߩߘߩᓟࠍㅊ߁̆㧚࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞ࠫࠝࠣ࡜ࡈࠖ
࠶ࠢᣣᧄ 11(12), 82-111↰ਛ㊀ᅢ㧔2005㧕㧦ⴝߣੱ߆ࠄ⷗ߚࡃࡦ࠳࡮ࠕ࠴ࠚߩᵤᵄⵍኂ̆2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᴒ࿾㔡ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼⺞ᩏ߆ࠄ̆㧚‫ޡ‬2004 ᐕർㇱࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡⺞ᩏႎ๔‫ޢ‬ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼㧘37-42
Hurgronje, C. S. (Translated by A. W .S. O’Sullivan) (1984): The Achehnese. English Version. New
York: AMS Press
Takahashi, M., S. Tanaka, R. Kimura, M. Umitsu, R. Tabuchi, T. Kuroda, M. Ando and F. Kimata(2007): Restoration after the Sumatra Earthquake Tsunami in Banda Aceh: Based on the Resultsof Interdisciplinary Researches by Nagoya University. Journal of Natural Disaster Science 29(1),
53-61

20
20

ᓳ⥝ᡰេߪዯ޿ߚ߆
̆RAN ࠺࡯࠲ࡌ࡯ࠬߦࠃࠆᲧセಽᨆ̆਄᧛ᵏ⵨ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼␠ળⅣႺቇኾ᡹

ߪߓ߼ߦ
 2004 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 26 ᣣߩࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᴒ࿾㔡ߪ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕ࡮ࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬Ꮊߦᱫ⠪࡮ⴕᣇਇ᣿⠪ 16
ਁ 5000 ੱ૛ࠍᢙ߃ࠆᗌ⑒ࠍ߽ߚࠄߒߚ‫ޕ‬એᓟ 4 ᐕ㑆ߩࠕ࠴ࠚߩᓳ⥝ㆊ⒟ߪ‫ߥ࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣޔ‬ἴኂᓳ⥝ᡰេߩᏂᄢߥታ㛎႐ߣߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬44 ߩ࿖ߣ࿾ၞ‫߮ࠃ߅ޔ‬ᄙᢙߩ࿖㓙ᯏ㑐߿ NGO ߇ᓳ⥝ᡰេߦෳടߒ‫ޔ‬34 ం 3000 ਁ࠼࡞1ߩ⾗㊄߇ᛩ౉ߐࠇߚ‫ࠄࠇߎޕ‬ᄙᢙߩᡰេᯏ㑐ߩ㑆ࠍ⺞ᢛߒߚߩ߇‫ޔ‬2009 ᐕ 4 ᦬ 17 ᣣࠍ߽ߞߡ⸃ᢔߒߚࠕ࠴ࠚ࡮࠾ࠕࠬᓳ⥝ᐡ㧔BRR, Badan
Rehabilitasi dan Rekonstruksi㧕ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬4 ᐕ㑆ߩᓳ⥝੐ᬺߩᚑᨐߪ‫ޔ‬BRR ߦࠃߞߡ⴫ 1 ߩࠃ߁ߦⷐ⚂ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬⴫㧝 ࠕ࠴ࠚ࡮࠾ࠕࠬᓳ⥝⁁ᴫ㧔2009 ᐕ 3 ᦬ 31 ᣣ⃻࿷㧕૑ቛᑪ⸳଻ஜᣉ⸳ᑪ⸳
ቇᩞᑪ⸳
ᢎᏧߩ⸠✵
㆏〝ᑪ⸳
ᯅ᪞ᑪ⸳
ⓨ᷼࡮◲ᤃⓨ᷼ᑪ⸳᷼ḧᑪ⸳ਛዊડᬺᡰេ
ቬᢎᣉ⸳ᑪ⸳࡮ౣᑪ
Ṫ⦁ଏ⛎
ഭ௛⠪ߩ⸠✵
᡽ᐭᣉ⸳ᑪ⸳
㧔಴ᚲ㧕BRR ࡎ࡯ࡓࡍ࡯ࠫ‫ޕ‬

140,304ᚭ
1,115ઙ
1,759ઙ
39,633ੱ
36,96 km
363ઙ
13ઙ
23ઙ
195,726ઙ
3,781ઙ
7,109ઙ
155,182ੱ
996ઙ

BRR ߦ⊓㍳ߐࠇߚᓳ⥝੐ᬺߪ 1,753 ઙߦ߽෸ࠎߛ߇‫ߩߘޔ‬ౝ⸶ߪએਅߩࠃ߁ߦᢛℂߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫⚻ޔߜࠊߥߔޕ‬ᷣ⊒ዷ㧔Economic Development‫ޔ‬409 ઙ㧕‫ޔ‬ᢎ⢒㧔Education‫ޔ‬233 ઙ㧕‫ޔ‬଻ஜ㧔Health‫ޔ‬254 ઙ㧕‫࡮࡜ࡈࡦࠗޔ‬૑ቛ࡮࿯࿾㧔Infrastructure, Housing & Land‫ޔ‬503 ઙ㧕‫ޔ‬೙ᐲᒻᚑ㧔Institutional Development‫ޔ‬131 ઙ㧕‫ޔ‬ቬᢎ㧔Religion‫ޔ‬ઙᢙਇ᣿㧕‫␠ޔ‬ળ㧔Social‫ޔ‬211ઙ㧕‫ޔ‬ㇺᏒ⸘↹࡮ⅣႺ଻⼔㧔Spatial Planning & Environmental Protection‫ޔ‬10 ઙ㧕‫ޔ‬ᄙಽ㊁㧔2ઙ㧕ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎࠇࠄߩ੐ᬺߩ⹦⚦ߪߔߴߡ‫ޔ‬BRR ߩ RAN Database ࠕ࠴ࠚ࡮࠾ࠕࠬᓳ⥝࠺࡯࠲ࡌ࡯ࠬ 2ߣߒߡ౏㐿ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޔߪࠬ࡯ࡌ࠲࡯࠺ߩߎޕ‬੐ᬺߩ㊀ⶄ߿ਇᱜࠍ㒐ߋߎߣࠍᒰೋߩ⋡⊛ߣߒߡ޿ߚ߇‫ޔ‬ᄙߊߩ੐ᬺ߇⚳ੌߒߚ੹‫ߥ࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣޔ‬ἴኂᓳ⥝ᡰេߩ↢߈ߚታ㛎⸥㍳ߣ
ߒߡቇⴚ⊛ߥಽᨆࠍᓙߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ᧄޕ‬Ⓜߪߘ߁ߒߚ⹜ߺߩ┵✜ߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬ᓳ⥝ᡰេߪߔߴߡߩ
࿾ၞߦ஍ࠅߥߊዯ޿ߚ߆㧔1 ▵㧕‫ޔߚ߹ޔ‬ᣣᧄߩᓳ⥝ᡰេߪߤࠎߥ૏⟎ࠍභ߼ߡ޿ߚ߆㧔2▵㧕‫࠲࡯࠺ࠍޔ‬ಽᨆߦࠃߞߡ⚛ឬߔࠆ‫ޔߢ߃߁ߩߘޕ‬ᓳ⥝ᡰេ߇વ߃ࠆࡔ࠶࠮࡯ࠫߩᗧ๧ߦ
ߟ޿ߡ߽⠨߃ߡߺߚ޿㧔3 ▵㧕‫ޕ‬1
2

ᓟㅀߩ BRR-RAN Database ߦࠃࠆ‫ޔߒߛߚޕ‬BRR ߇ᛠីߒߡ޿ߥ޿ᡰេࡊࡠࠫࠚࠢ࠻߽޽ࠆߣ޿߁‫ޕ‬
URL ߪ http://rand.brr.go.id ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬21
21

I. ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆㧝㧚ᓳ⥝ᡰេߪߔߴߡߩ࿾ၞߦ஍ࠅߥߊዯ޿ߚ߆
ฦ࿖᡽ᐭ߿ NGO ߩᓳ⥝ᡰេߪ‫ⵍߩߡߴߔޔ‬ἴ࿾ၞߦ஍ࠅߥߊዯ޿ߚߩߛࠈ߁߆‫ޕ‬಴⾗⠪߇࿾రߩࡄ࡯࠻࠽࡯ߣ⚵ࠎߢታᣉߔࠆࡊࡠࠫࠚࠢ࠻ߪߣ߽߆ߊ‫⥄ޔ‬೨ߢታᣉߔࠆࡊࡠࠫࠚ
ࠢ࠻ߩ႐วߪ࿯࿾ൊ߇ߥ޿ߎߣ߇ᄙ޿ߛࠈ߁‫ޕ‬࿾ၞߩࡃ࡜ࡦࠬࠍ⠨ᘦߔࠆ૛⵨߽ߥߊ‫ޔ‬ਛᔃ࿾ߢᚻᣧߊᚑᨐࠍ᜼ߍࠃ߁ߣߔࠆࡊࡠࠫࠚࠢ࠻߽޽ߞߚ߆߽ߒࠇߥ޿‫ޕ‬
⴫ 2 ⋵Ꮢ೎ߦ⷗ߚⵍἴ⁁ᴫ
㕙
Ⓧ
䐳
ᐔ
ᣇ
ࠠ
ࡠ
䐴

ⵍ
ἴ
೨
ੱ
ญ

ᱫ
⠪
࡮
ⴕ
ᣇ
ਇ
᣿
⠪
䐳
ੱ
䐴

⠪ⵍ
࡮ἴ
ⴕ೨
ᣇ
ਇੱ
᣿ญ
⠪ߦ
ഀභ
ว߼
䐳ࠆ
㧑ᱫ
䐴

ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚ๟ㄝ
2,686
302,405
53,70717.8
ᄢࠕ࠴ࠚ⋵ Kab. Aceh Besar
61
260,478
67,66726.0ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒ Kota Banda Aceh
119
26,303133
0.5ࠨࡃࡦᏒ Kota Sabang
⷏ධᶏጯ
3,703
98,796
16,87417.1
ࠕ࠴ࠚࠫࡖࡗ⋵ Kab. Aceh Jaya
2,426
195,000
13,7857.1
⷏ࠕ࠴ࠚ⋵ Kab. Aceh Barat
3,903
143,985
1,942
1.3࠽ࠟࡦ࡜ࡗ⋵ Kab. Nagan Raya
1,685
115,3583
0.0⷏ධࠕ࠴ࠚ⋵ Kab. Aceh Barat Daya
3,646
192,947
2,652
1.4
ධࠕ࠴ࠚ⋵ Kab. Aceh Selatan
3,577
124,75826
0.0ࠕ࠴ࠚࠪࡦࠠ࡞⋵ Kab. Aceh Signkil
2,052
77,76145
0.1ࠪࡓ࡞⋵ Kab. Simeulue
ർᶏጯ
4,161
517,8985,278
1.0
ࡇ࠺ࠖ⋵ Kab. Pedie
1,901
361,528519
0.1
ࡆ࡞ࡦ⋵ Kab. Bireuen
3,297
523,7171,801
0.3
ർࠕ࠴ࠚ⋵ Kab. Aceh Utara
181
167,362200
0.1ࡠࠢࠬࡑ࠙ࠚᏒ Kota Lhokseumawe
6,041
331,63652
0.0᧲ࠕ࠴ࠚ⋵ Kab. Aceh Timur
262
122,86500.0࡜ࡦࠨᏒ Kota Langsa
1,940
225,0110
0.0ࠕ࠴ࠚ࠲ࡒࠕࡦ⋵ Kab. Aceh Tamiangౝ㒽ㇱNA112,0002
0.0ࡌࡀ࡞ࡓ࡝ࠕ⋵ Kab. Bener Meriah
5,773
160,453469
0.3
ਛࠕ࠴ࠚ⋵ Kab. Aceh Tengah
5,720
86,44800.0
࡛ࠟ࡞ࠬ⋵ Kab. Gayo Lues
4,231
150,77631
0.0᧲ධࠕ࠴ࠚ⋵ Kab. Aceh Tenggara
57,3654297,485
165,1863.8
ว ⸘㧔಴ᚲ㧕㕙Ⓧߪ 2003 ᐕ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬Ꮊ⛔⸘ዪ⺞ߴ‫ ߪઁߩߘޕ‬2005 ᐕ 5 ᦬ 2 ᣣ‫ޔ‬࿖ㅪ⺞ߴ‫ޕ‬
http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/sumatra/products/statistics/ߦࠃࠆ‫ޕ‬

ਇో
᣿૕
⠪ߦ
ഀභ
ว߼
䐳ࠆ
㧑ᱫ
䐴⠪
࡮
ⴕ
ᣇ
32.5
41.0
0.1
10.2
8.3
1.2
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.3
1.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
100.0

ߒ߆ߒ‫߽ߘ߽ߘޔ‬࿾ၞߦࠃߞߡⵍἴߩ⒟ᐲ߇⇣ߥࠆ‫ ⴫ޕ‬2 ߪ‫⋵ޔ‬Ꮢߏߣߩᱫ⠪࡮ⴕᣇਇ᣿⠪ࠍ␜ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ⵍޕ‬ኂߪࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒ‫ޔ‬ᄢࠕ࠴ࠚ⋵‫ߥ⋵ࠚ࠴ࠕ⷏ޔ⋵ࡗࡖࠫࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬ߤߦ㓸ਛߒߡ޿ࠆ‫৻ޕ‬ᣇ‫ ⴫ޔ‬3 ߪ‫ޔ‬ฦ⋵Ꮢߦะߌࠄࠇߚᓳ⥝ᡰេߩⷙᮨߣౝኈࠍ⴫ࠊߒߚ
߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ⵍޕ‬ኂߩᄢ߈߆ߞߚ࿾ၞ߶ߤᓳ⥝ᡰេߩⷙᮨ߽ᄢ߈޿ߎߣ߇ࠊ߆ࠆ‫ޕ‬
࿑ 1 ߪ‫ⵍޔ‬ኂߩᄢ߈ߐߣេഥ㗵ߩ㑐ଥࠍࠃࠅ᣿⏕ߦ⴫ࠊߒߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޔߣࠆ⷗ࠍࠇߎޕ‬ᓳ⥝ᡰេߪⵍἴ⁁ᴫߦᔕߓߡ஍ࠅߥߊዯ޿ߚߣ‫ޔ‬ᄢ╭ߢߪ⸒߃ߘ߁ߢ޽ࠆ‫৻ޕ‬ᣇ‫ޔ‬࿑ 2 ߪฦ⋵Ꮢߦะߌࠄࠇߚᡰេߩ߁ߜࠗࡦࡈ࡜ᢛ஻ߣ଻ஜක≮ࠍขࠅ಴ߒߡᲧセߒߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬2222ࣄᐻૅੲƸ‫ފ‬ƍƨƔᲢɥ஭඲ᘽᲣ

ࠗࡦࡈ࡜߿૑ቛߩᢛ஻੐ᬺߪࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒ๟ㄝߦ㓸ਛߒߡ޿ߚߎߣ߇ࠊ߆ࠆ‫߽ߪࠇߎޕ‬ߜࠈࠎⵍኂ߇ߘߎߦ㓸ਛߒߡ޿ߚߚ߼ߢ߽޽ࠆ߇‫ߞ޽߽⚛ⷐ߁޿ߣߐߔ߿ߒߩࠬ࠮ࠢࠕޔ‬ߚ߆߽ߒࠇߥ޿‫ޕ‬RAN Database ߪ⋵㧔ࠞࡉࡄ࠹ࡦ㧕ࠃࠅ߽⚦߆޿㇭㧔ࠢ࠴ࡖࡑ࠲ࡦ㧕߿᧛㧔࠺ࠨ㧕ߩ࡟ࡌ࡞ߦ߅ߌࠆᡰេౝኈ߹ߢ⺞ߴࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆߩߢ‫ߩߎޔ‬໧㗴ߦߟ޿ߡ੹ᓟ
޿ߞߘ߁⹦ߒ޿ᬌ⸽߇ⴕߥࠊࠇࠆߎߣࠍᦼᓙߒߚ޿‫ޕ‬
⴫ 3 ⋵Ꮢ೎࡮ㇱ㐷೎េഥ㗵ഀว㧔㧑㧕

ஜ

ቛࠗ
࡮ࡦ
࿯ࡈ
࿾࡜
࡮
૑

ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚ๟ㄝ
12.3
9.7
6.9
51.0
ᄢࠕ࠴ࠚ⋵
6.9
12.7
17.3
41.0
ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒ
20.9
11.5
19.8
38.8
ࠨࡃࡦᏒ
⷏ධᶏጯ
11.7
4.2
6.1
69.9
ࠕ࠴ࠚࠫࡖࡗ⋵
8.3
9.5
9.3
59.5
⷏ࠕ࠴ࠚ⋵
20.1
13.5
15.7
37.4
࠽ࠟࡦ࡜ࡗ⋵
18.4
12.8
32.4
14.8
⷏ධࠕ࠴ࠚ⋵
12.8
0.5
34.3
10.8
ධࠕ࠴ࠚ⋵
10.1
1.1
14.7
43.4
ࠕ࠴ࠚࠪࡦࠠ࡞⋵
6.5
15.8
7.1
60.5
ࠪࡓ࡞⋵
ർᶏጯ
13.9
11.9
11.8
41.2
ࡇ࠺ࠖ⋵
16.8
11.1
7.7
52.0
ࡆ࡞ࡦ⋵
19.5
13.8
10.5
45.7
ർࠕ࠴ࠚ⋵
12.5
21.8
14.2
31.6
ࡠࠢࠬࡑ࠙ࠚᏒ
19.1
8.2
27.2
20.7
᧲ࠕ࠴ࠚ⋵
14.7
2.0
75.6
0.2
࡜ࡦࠨᏒ
4.2
1.4
51.8
3.7
ࠕ࠴ࠚ࠲ࡒࠕࡦ⋵
ౝ㒽ㇱ
20.0
1.0
26.7
33.3
ࡌࡀ࡞ࡓ࡝ࠕ⋵
23.3
7.6
36.3
4.6
ਛࠕ࠴ࠚ⋵
1.8
0.4
35.0
27.2
࡛ࠟ࡞ࠬ⋵
8.1
1.2
38.7
7.0
᧲ධࠕ࠴ࠚ⋵
࠾ࠕࠬ
8.5
14.6
8.7
55.2
࠾ࠕࠬ⋵
12.0
13.7
7.6
56.3
࠾ࠕࠬࠬ࡜࠲ࡦ⋵
8.1
13.9
26.5
22.6
ਇ․ቯ࿾ၞ
10.4
11.3
15.3
43.1
ว ⸘
㧔಴ᚲ㧕BRR-RAN Database㧔2009 ᐕ 5 ᦬ 3 ᣣ㧕.

೙
ᐲ
ᒻ
ᚑ

ቬ

4.8
11.8
5.4

␠

ว

ᢎ

ળ

Ⴚㇺ
଻Ꮢ
⼔⸘
↹
࡮
Ⅳ

ߘ
ߩ
ઁ
࡮
ਇ
᣿

1.0
0.5
0.0

6.9
4.4
1.3

1.9
3.4
1.7

5.5
2.0
0.7

14.4
14.6
0.6

3.7
3.5
6.7
13.6
24.6
19.5
5.6

0.0
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3

1.9
4.3
2.6
1.1
2.7
1.9
1.2

1.3
2.5
2.3
4.8
12.8
4.6
1.1

1.2
2.3
1.2
1.8
1.4
4.4
2.0

11.0
7.9
1.6
0.7
0.4
0.5
2.3

10.1
4.4
4.6
10.6
18.2
5.1
38.0

0.3
0.1
0.1
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0

3.9
1.5
2.8
7.0
2.7
2.0
0.6

2.3
2.5
1.4
1.7
1.8
0.0
0.0

4.5
3.9
1.5
0.7
1.2
0.4
0.4

5.0
3.3
3.0
0.8
0.4
0.1
0.2

18.7
26.0
33.9
41.6

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.8
0.2
1.0

0.0
1.0
1.6
1.7

0.3
0.4
0.0
0.6

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2

6.5
4.0
10.9
8.2

0.3
0.1
0.3
0.4

2.4
2.9
4.2
3.9

0.4
0.2
0.7
1.8

3.3
3.0
12.8
5.5

4.1
1.3
26.6
100.0





⢒

଻



ᢎ





⚻
ᷣ
⊒
ዷ

⸘

㧞㧚ᣣᧄߩᓳ⥝ᡰេߪߤࠎߥ૏⟎ࠍභ߼ߡ޿ߚ߆
ࠕ࠴ࠚߩᓳ⥝ㆊ⒟ߪࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ߥἴኂᓳ⥝ᡰេߩታ㛎႐ߢ޽ߞߚߣㅀߴߚ‫ޕ‬ฦ࿖ߩ᡽ᐭ
ᯏ㑐߿ NGO‫ߦࠄߐޔ‬࿖㓙ᯏ㑐߿࿖㓙 NGO ߪ‫ߥࠎߤߢߎߘޔ‬ᓎഀࠍᨐߚߒߚߩߛࠈ߁߆‫ޕ‬ߘߩߥ߆ߢ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄߩᓳ⥝ᡰេߪߤࠎߥ૏⟎ࠍභ߼ߡ޿ߚߩߛࠈ߁߆‫⚻ࠆߌ߅ߦࠚ࠴ࠕޕ‬㛎ࠍ੹ᓟߩ♳ߣߔࠆߚ߼ߦߪ‫⥄ߦࠎߚޔ‬࿖ߩᚑᨐࠍ⹶ࠆߛߌߢߥߊ‫ోޔ‬૕ߩߥ߆ߢߩ૏⟎ߠߌࠍ಄㕒ߦ෻⋭ߔࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ฦ࿖࡮ᯏ㑐߇ߤߩࠃ߁ߥᡰេಽ㊁ߦ಴⾗ߒߚ߆‫ ⴫ߪ⚦⹦ޔ‬4 ࠍߏࠄࠎ޿ߚߛ߈ߚ޿‫ߘޕ‬ࠇߙࠇߩ࿖ߩេഥ㗵ߦߪ‫ޔ‬NGO ߥߤ‫ޔ‬᡽ᐭએᄖߩ࿅૕ߦࠃࠆ಴⾗ಽ߽฽߹ࠇߡ޿ࠆߎߣߦ

23
23

I. ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆࿑  ⵍኂߩᄢ߈ߐߣេഥ㗵ߩ㑐ଥ

࿑ 2 ࠗࡦࡈ࡜ᢛ஻ߣ଻ஜක≮࿑ 3 ࠕ࠴ࠚᓳ⥝ᡰេߦ߅ߌࠆฦ࿖ߩࡊ࡟࠯ࡦࠬ
㧔࠺࡯࠲಴ᚲ㧕ฦ࿖ߩ GDP㧔2007 ᐕ㧕ߪ✚ോ⋭⛔⸘ዪ‫ޡ‬਎⇇ߩ⛔⸘ 2009‫ޕࠆࠃߦޢ‬24
24

ࣄᐻૅੲƸ‫ފ‬ƍƨƔᲢɥ஭඲ᘽᲣ

ᵈᗧߔߴ߈ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߩ࠻ࠢࠚࠫࡠࡊߪࠇߎޔ߫߃⸒ߦࠄߐޕ‬಴⾗⠪ߦᵈ⋡ߒߚ࠺࡯࠲ߢ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬ࡊࡠࠫࠚࠢ࠻ߩታᣉ⠪ߪ಴⾗⠪ߣߪ⇣ߥࠆ႐ว߇ᄙ޿‫ޕ‬ߘߩ߁߃ߢ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬ᓳ⥝ᡰេߦ߅ߌࠆฦ࿖ߩࡊ࡟࠯ࡦࠬࠍ⴫ࠊߒߚߩ߇࿑ 3 ߢ޽ࠆ‫ࠕޕ‬ࡔ࡝ࠞߩሽ࿷߇࿶ୟ⊛ߢ޽ࠅ㧔ోេഥ㗵ߩ 21㧑ࠍභ߼‫ޔ‬࿖ㅪߩ 17㧑ࠍಒߋ㧕‫ޔ‬ᰴ޿ߢ࠼ࠗ
࠷‫ޔࠬ࡝ࠡࠗޔ‬ᣣᧄ‫ࠝߜ߁ߩߎޕࠆ޿ߡ޿⛯߇ߤߥ࠳ࡦ࡜ࠝޔ࠳࠽ࠞޔࠕ࡝࡜࠻ࠬ࡯ࠝޔ‬࡯ࠬ࠻࡜࡝ࠕߪ㧭㧿㧱㧭㧺ߦធㄭߒࠃ߁ߣߔࠆ࿾ၞߩᄢ࿖ߣߒߡ‫ࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗߪ࠳ࡦ࡜ࠝޔ‬ࠕߩᣥቬਥ࿖ߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬ᔕಽߩ⽿છࠍᨐߚߒߚ߽ߩߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫৻ޕ‬ᣇ‫ࠬ࡝ࠡࠗ߿࠷ࠗ࠼ޔ‬ߪߘ߁ߒߚ೑ኂࠍ㔌ࠇߡᓳ⥝ߦදജߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬࿖ജߦᔕߓߚេഥߣ޿߁ⷰὐ߆ࠄߔࠇ߫‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄߪߎࠇࠄߩ࿖ߣᲧߴߡ․೎ᄙߊ಴⾗ߒߚࠊߌߢߪߥ޿ߎߣ߇ࠊ߆ࠆ㧔࿑ 4 ߽ෳᾖ㧕‫ޕ‬৻ᣇ‫ޔ‬࿑ 5 ߪฦ࿖ߩᓳ⥝ᡰេߩ․ᓽࠍ⴫ࠊߒߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᮮゲߪ‫ߩߘޔ‬࿖ߩេഥ㗵ߩ߁ߜ࠰ࡈ࠻ಽ㊁ߩᡰេߦะߌࠄࠇߚഀวࠍ⴫ࠊߒߡ޿ࠆ‫࠻ࡈ࠰ߢߎߎޔ߅ߥޕ‬ಽ㊁㧛ࡂ࡯࠼ಽ㊁ߣ޿߁ߩߪ઒ߩಽ㘃ߢ޽ࠅ‫࠻ࡈ࠰ޔ‬ಽ㊁ߪᢎ⢒‫଻ޔ‬ஜ‫ޔ‬೙ᐲᒻᚑ‫ޔ‬ቬᢎ‫␠ޔ‬ળߥߤߩㇱ㐷‫࠼࡯ࡂޔ‬ಽ㊁ߪ⚻ᷣ⊒ዷ‫࡮࡜ࡈࡦࠗޔ‬૑ቛ࡮࿯࿾‫ޔ‬ㇺᏒ⸘↹࡮ⅣႺ଻⼔ߥߤߩㇱ㐷ࠍ

࿑ 4 ਥߥេഥ࿖ߦߣߞߡߩࠕ࠴ࠚᓳ⥝ᡰេ㧔࠺࡯࠲಴ᚲ㧕ฦ࿖ߩ৻ੱ޽ߚࠅ GDP㧔2007 ᐕ㧕ߪ✚ോ⋭⛔⸘ዪ‫ޡ‬਎⇇ߩ⛔⸘ 2009‫ޕࠆࠃߦޢ‬࿑ 5 ฦ࿖ߩᓳ⥝ᡰេߩ․ᓽ

25
25

I. ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆

⴫ 4 ฦ࿖࡮ᯏ㑐ߩಽ㊁೎ᡰេ㗵㧔㧑㧕
ቬ

␠

ᢎ

ળ

Ⅳㇺ
ႺᏒ
଻⸘
⼔↹
࡮

ਇߘ
᣿ߩ
ઁ
࡮

ว



ஜ

೙
ᐲ
ᒻ
ᚑ

଻





⢒

૑ࠗ
ቛࡦ
࡮ࡈ
࿯࡜
࿾࡮

ᢎ





಴⾗࿖࡮ᯏ㑐

⚻
ᷣ
⊒
ዷ

⸘

࿖
ࠕࡔ࡝ࠞ
࠼ࠗ࠷
ࠗࠡ࡝ࠬ
ᣣᧄ
ࠝ࡯ࠬ࠻࡜࡝ࠕ
ࠞ࠽࠳ࠝ࡜ࡦ࠳ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ
ࡈ࡜ࡦࠬ
ࠬࠗࠬ
ࠬࡍࠗࡦ
㖧࿖
ࠕࠗ࡞࡜ࡦ࠼
࠻࡞ࠦࠪࡦࠟࡐ࡯࡞
㚅᷼ࡁ࡞࠙ࠚ࡯ࠨ࠙ࠫࠕ࡜ࡆࠕ
ࡌ࡞ࠡ࡯
ࠗ࠲࡝ࠕ
ਛ࿖
บḧ
ࠞ࠲࡯࡞
ࡑ࡟࡯ࠪࠕ
࠺ࡦࡑ࡯ࠢ
ࠝ࡯ࠬ࠻࡝ࠕ
࠾ࡘ࡯ࠫ࡯࡜ࡦ࠼
ࡈࠖࡦ࡜ࡦ࠼
ࠕ࡜ࡉ㚂㐳࿖ㅪ㇌
࠴ࠚࠦࠬ࠙ࠚ࡯࠺ࡦ
ࡂࡦࠟ࡝࡯ࠢ࠙ࠚ࡯࠻ࡃࡦࠣ࡜࠺ࠪࡘ
ࡐ࡞࠻ࠟ࡞
ධࠕࡈ࡝ࠞ
࡜ࠝࠬ
ࡐ࡯࡜ࡦ࠼
ࠗࡦ࠼
ࡄࠠࠬ࠲ࡦ
࡞࡯ࡑ࠾ࠕ
ࠤࠗࡑࡦ⻉ፉ
ࡉ࡜ࠫ࡞ࠕࠗࠬ࡜ࡦ࠼

11.1
12.3
17.4
9.8
6.5
5.5
6.8
0.8
18.1
40.8
20.5
16.8
11.2
0.0
2.1
1.0
13.3
0.0
46.2
20.4
5.7
0.1
2.5
9.9
21.2
14.9
19.3
92.1
0.0
10.2
6.1
0.0
0.0
100.0
58.6
0.0
50.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
73.5
35.0
0.0
0.0

5.9
18.5
5.9
8.7
16.4
0.8
16.0
22.6
8.6
4.8
12.0
27.6
48.8
22.7
19.1
8.1
16.2
10.9
0.0
18.4
5.6
42.3
24.8
10.5
26.3
13.8
3.9
0.0
0.0
85.3
32.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.7
0.0
0.0
0.0

10.2
16.9
6.4
8.4
21.7
1.3
11.8
2.3
19.8
1.5
8.2
33.5
1.6
3.8
0.1
4.8
23.5
0.3
53.4
18.3
2.2
2.7
4.1
20.9
0.0
12.5
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.3
100.0
0.0
0.0
4.7
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0

49.2
39.2
48.3
52.6
25.4
76.1
54.9
64.6
36.1
34.6
49.3
3.8
25.8
60.5
75.0
78.3
41.1
66.3
0.0
37.4
79.8
10.6
24.9
18.6
29.0
48.5
65.5
0.0
78.8
0.0
17.4
0.0
100.0
0.0
7.5
100.0
0.0
14.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.0
0.0
10.0

4.6
6.1
4.6
15.6
13.5
10.0
8.2
1.7
3.4
1.7
7.0
8.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
2.0
3.2
0.0
0.1
1.7
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
21.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.0
0.0
0.0
54.5
0.0
0.0
7.5
15.0
0.0
90.0

0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
3.6
0.0
0.4
0.4
5.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.2
0.0
0.0
4.5
0.0
24.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

5.2
2.1
6.5
2.2
5.7
4.1
1.3
2.4
2.4
6.1
0.6
0.1
5.2
7.4
2.9
3.9
2.8
13.9
0.3
2.8
0.0
4.9
16.1
39.8
19.4
3.7
8.9
4.1
21.2
4.0
7.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.2
0.0
0.0
5.4
0.0
0.0
0.0

1.0
2.5
0.3
2.6
3.0
0.4
0.2
4.7
7.4
0.0
1.9
8.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
0.0
0.0

12.5
2.3
10.6
0.1
6.0
1.8
0.8
0.7
4.2
7.0
0.5
1.1
6.2
0.0
0.9
1.8
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.9
0.0
39.4
3.2
0.0
0.0
6.3
1.8
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

21.07
9.11
7.19
5.19
4.57
4.21
2.71
2.29
2.04
1.65
0.77
0.65
0.63
0.51
0.49
0.47
0.45
0.45
0.39
0.36
0.35
0.30
0.22
0.21
0.17
0.13
0.11
0.11
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
67.24

ᯏ 㑐
࿖㓙ㅪว
ⶄᢙ࠼࠽࡯ၮ㊄㧔਎㌁㧕ࠕࠫࠕ㐿⊒㌁ⴕ
᰷Ꮊᆔຬળ
਎⇇㌁ⴕ
࿖㓙⿒චሼ
᳃㑆ၮ㊄
ࠕ࠴ࠚ㨯࠾ࠕࠬᓳ⥝ା⸤ၮ㊄ࠗࠬ࡜ࡓ㐿⊒㌁ⴕ࿖㓙㊄Ⲣ౏␠㧔਎㌁㧕ߘߩઁ࡮ਇ᣿

4.8
9.8
25.3
21.1
0.3
0.0
23.6
0.7
0.0
89.6
0.5

18.7
5.7
0.3
1.7
0.8
0.0
29.9
3.8
4.2
0.0
21.8

43.6
0.0
0.7
13.3
0.1
0.0
9.4
14.7
1.5
0.0
6.3

20.4
54.0
59.9
34.0
0.7
90.3
21.6
54.3
0.0
0.0
52.3

4.8
15.4
8.1
18.2
98.2
9.7
1.7
12.1
0.0
0.0
1.8

0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
4.4
0.0
0.0
9.2

2.4
5.6
0.1
4.6
0.0
0.0
10.2
7.8
92.8
1.9
6.8

0.1
9.1
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

5.3
0.3
2.2
7.1
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.1
1.5
8.5
1.4

17.01
5.71
3.77
1.74
1.49
1.27
0.68
0.42
0.15
0.03
0.48
32.76

㧔಴ᚲ㧕BRR-RAN Database㧔2009 ᐕ 5 ᦬ 3 ᣣ㧕26
26ࣄᐻૅੲƸ‫ފ‬ƍƨƔᲢɥ஭඲ᘽᲣ

ว⸘ߒߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫❑ޕ‬ゲߪ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬Ꮢߣᄢࠕ࠴ࠚ⋵એᄖߩ࿾ၞ߳ߩេഥߩഀวࠍ
⴫ࠊߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߢ߹ߎߤޔࠅ߹ߟޕ‬ᅏ࿾ߦ౉ࠅㄟࠎߢᡰេࠍⴕߥߞߚ߆ࠍ␜ߔᜰᮡߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎࠇࠍ⷗ࠆߣ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄߩᓳ⥝ᡰេߪ޿ߕࠇߩὐߢ߽ਛᐾࠍⴕߊ߽ߩߛߞߚߣ⸒߃ࠃ߁‫ޕ‬㧟㧚ᓳ⥝ᡰេߪߤࠎߥࡔ࠶࠮࡯ࠫࠍવ߃ߚ߆̆৻ߟߩࠤ࡯ࠬࠬ࠲࠺ࠖ̆
ࠕ࠴ࠚߦ߅ߌࠆᓳ⥝ᡰេ੐ᬺࠍ⷗ቇߒߡ‫߽ᦨޔ‬ශ⽎ߦᱷߞߚߩߪ‫ޟ‬ਛ࿖ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ෹
ᅢ᧛‫ߪࠇߘޕࠆ޽ߢޠ‬ਛ࿖ߩነઃߦࠃߞߡᑪ⸳ߐࠇߚᚭᢙ 600 ߶ߤߩ૑ቛ࿅࿾ߢ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᄢࠕ࠴ࠚ⋵ Neuhen ᧛ߩਐ㒺࿾ߦ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬࿾రߩੱߚߜߦ߽ࠃߊ⍮ࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫৻ޕ‬ᣇ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄߩᓳ⥝ᡰេ੐ᬺߪᢙᄙ޿߇‫ߪߢߎߎޔ‬Ყセߩߚ߼ߦ‫߷߶ޔ‬หⷙᮨߩេഥ㗵߇ᛩ౉ߐࠇߚ‫ࡦࡃޟ‬࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚ᡼᳓〝ᓳᣥᎿ੐‫ࠍޠ‬ขࠅ਄ߍࠆ‫ޕ‬ਛ࿖ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ෹ᅢ᧛ߩᑪ⸳ߪ‫ޔ‬ਛ⪇ᘏༀ✚ળߣਛ࿖⿒චሼળ߇಴⾗ߒ‫ޔ‬ਛ⪇ᘏༀ✚ળߣࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ⿒චሼળ߇ታᣉߒߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬BRR ߩ࡝ࠬ࠻ߦߪ‫ޟ‬INFRA 288 IN‫߅ޠ‬ࠃ߮‫ޟ‬INFRA 339 IN‫⊓ߡߒߣޠ‬㍳ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޟߪ⊛⋡ߩߘޕ‬120 ᐔ☨ߩᕡਭ૑ቛࠍ 700 ᚭᑪ⸳ߔࠆ‫ࠅ޽ߢߣߎޠ‬㧔ታ㓙ߪ 606 ᚭ㧕‫ޔ‬2006 ᐕ 3 ᦬ 1 ᣣ߆ࠄ 2007 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 31 ᣣߦ߆ߌߡታ
ᣉߐࠇߚ‫ ⸘✚ޕ‬8,000,000 ࠼࡞߇⾌߿ߐࠇߚߣ޿߁㧔BRR-RAN Database ߦࠃࠆ㧕‫ޕ‬৻ᣇ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬᡼᳓〝ᓳᣥᎿ੐ߪ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄ᡽ᐭ߇಴⾗ߒ‫⽷ޔ‬࿅ᴺੱᣣᧄ࿖㓙දജࠪࠬ࠹ࡓ㧔ᄖോ⋭ߩᄖㇳ࿅૕㧕߇ታᣉߒߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬BRR ߩ࡝ࠬ࠻ߦߪ‫ޟ‬INFRA 96 Bilat‫ߣޠ‬ߒߡ⊓㍳ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ࠍޘੱߩߡߴߔߔࠄ᥵ߦࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޟߪ⊛⋡ߩߘޕ‬ᵩ᳓߆ࠄ቞ࠆ‫ޠ‬ߎߣߢ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬2005 ᐕ 6 ᦬ 22 ᣣ߆ࠄ 2008 ᐕ 1 ᦬ 8 ᣣߦ߆ߌߡታᣉߐࠇߚ‫ ⸘✚ޕ‬10,029,119࠼࡞߇⾌߿ߐࠇߚ㧔BRR-RAN Database ߦࠃࠆ㧕‫ޕ‬࿑ 6 ਛ࿖ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ෹ᅢ᧛ߩ౉ญ
㧔╩⠪᠟ᓇ‫ޔ‬2008 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 27 ᣣ㧕࿑ 7 ਛ࿖ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ෹ᅢ᧛ߩኅਗߺ
㧔╩⠪᠟ᓇ‫ޔ‬2008 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 27 ᣣ㧕࿑ 8 ਛ࿖ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ෹ᅢ᧛ߩ⎼㌏
㧔╩⠪᠟ᓇ‫ޔ‬2008 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 27 ᣣ㧕

2727

I. ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆

2 ߟߩ੐ᬺߪ⾌↪ߩ߁߃ߢߪ߶߷หⷙᮨߢ޽ࠆ߇‫ޔ‬ਔ࿖ߩᓳ⥝ᡰេߩߥ߆ߢߩ૏⟎ߠߌߪᄢ߈ߊ⇣ߥࠆ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޕ‬᡼᳓〝ᓳᣥᎿ੐߇ᣣᧄߩᓳ⥝ᡰេ 1 ం 7954 ਁ࠼࡞ߩ 6㧑ᒙࠍභ߼ࠆߦㆊ߉ߥ޿ߩߦኻߒߡ‫ޔ‬ਛ࿖ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ෹ᅢ᧛ߪਛ࿖ߩᓳ⥝ᡰេ 1,213 ਁ࠼࡞ߩ66㧑ࠍභ߼ࠆ⋡₹੐ᬺߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޔߦࠄߐޕ‬2 ߟߩᓳ⥝ᡰេ੐ᬺ߇વ߃ࠆࡔ࠶࠮࡯ࠫߩࠗࡦࡄ
ࠢ࠻ߦߪᄢ߈ߥ㆑޿߇޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬
࿑ 6 ߣ࿑ 7 ߪਛ࿖ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ෹ᅢ᧛ߩ౮⌀ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬࿑ 8 ߪ෹ᅢ᧛౉ญߦᑪߡࠄࠇߚ⸥
ᔨ⎼ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߪߦߎߘޕ‬ᰴߩࠃ߁ߦ⸥ߐࠇߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬

2004 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 26 ᣣ‫ޔ‬਎⇇ࠍ㔡ᠥߐߖߚࠗࡦ࠼ᵗᵤᵄߪࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ࡮ࠕ࠴ࠚߦᏂᄢߥ
ἴኂࠍ߽ߚࠄߒߚ‫ߩߎޕ‬ἴኂߪਛ࿖ੱ᳃ߩᔃࠍേ߆ߒ‫ోޔ‬࿖ߢᄢⷙᮨߥ൐㊄ࡉ࡯ࡓ߇⿠߈ߚ‫⌒ߩࠎߐ⊝ޕ‬೨ߦᐢ߇ࠆ⸳஻ߩᢛߞߚ૑ቛ࿾‫ޟ‬ਛ࿖ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ෹ᅢ᧛‫ޔߪޠ‬ਛ⪇ᘏༀ✚ળߣਛ࿖⿒චሼળߦ㓸߹ߞߚਛ࿖᳃㑆ߩ૗ජਁ߽ߩ൐㊄⠪ߩ⟵᝙㊄ߦࠃࠅ‫ޔ‬ⵍἴ⠪ߩߚ߼ߦᑪ⸳ߐࠇߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ߪࠇߎޕ‬ਛ࿖ੱ᳃ߩੱ㆏ਥ⟵♖␹ߩ޽ࠄࠊࠇߢ
޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬ਛ࿖࡮ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕਔ࿖ੱ᳃ߩ෹ᅢߩ⽎ᓽߢ߽޽ࠆ‫ߩࠚ࠴ࠕޕ‬࿾ߦᐘ⑔‫ޔ‬቟ካ‫ޔ‬ᐔ๺ߣㅴᱠ߇᳗㆙ߦ㒠⥃ߔࠆߎߣࠍᔃ߆ࠄ␨ࠆߣߣ߽ߦ‫ޔ‬ਛ࿖࡮ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕੱ᳃ߩ
෹ᅢ߇ߣߎߒ߃ߦ⛯ߊߎߣࠍ㗿߁‫ޕ‬ਛ⪇ᘏༀ✚ળળ㐳 ⨄ቲବ  ਛ࿖⿒චሼળᏱോ೽ળ㐳 ᳯ੦ᦤ
2007 ᐕ 7 ᦬ 19 ᣣ৻ᣇ‫ޔ‬࿑ 9 ߪࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚ᡼᳓〝ߢ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬࿑ 10 ߪߘߩ⸥ᔨ⎼ߢ޽ࠆ‫◲ߪߦߎߘޕ‬නߦ‫ޔ‬‫ޟ‬᡼᳓〝ᓳᣥᎿ੐‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄߩੱ‫ ࠅࠃޘ‬2004 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 26 ᣣߩ࿾㔡ߣᵤᵄߢⵍἴߒߚࠕ࠴ࠚߩੱ‫ޘ‬߳‫ޕߚ޿ߡࠇߐ⸥ߌߛߣޠ‬૑ቛᑪ⸳ߩࠃ߁ߦ⃻࿾ߩੱ‫⋥ߦޘ‬ធዯߊᡰេߣ‫ޔ‬᡼᳓〝ߩࠃ߁ߦੱ‫ߩޘ‬቟ోࠍ㑆ធ⊛ߦ቞ࠆᡰេߣߩ㆑޿ߪ޽ࠆ‫߽ࠄߜߤޕ‬ᔅⷐߥᡰេߢ޽ࠈ߁‫ߦ‛ࠅ⿅ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ญ਄ࠍઃߌࠆ߆
ߤ߁߆ߪᢥൻߩ㆑޿ߦ߽ࠃࠆߩ߆߽ߒࠇߥ޿‫ߚߒ߁ߘߒ߆ߒޕ‬㆑޿ߪ޽ࠆߦߖࠃ‫ࠄߜߤޔ‬ߩࡊࡠࠫࠚࠢ࠻߇⃻࿾ߩੱ‫ߦޘ‬ബ߹ߒߩࡔ࠶࠮࡯ࠫࠍવ߃ࠆߎߣߦᚑഞߒߡ޿ࠆ߆ߪ᣿ࠄ
߆ߢߪߥ޿ߛࠈ߁߆‫ޕ‬

࿑ 9 ᣣᧄߩេഥߦࠃߞߡୃᓳߐࠇߚ᡼᳓〝㧔╩⠪᠟ᓇ‫ޔ‬2008 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 25 ᣣ㧕࿑ 10 ᡼᳓〝ᓳᣥᎿ੐ߩ⎼㌏
㧔╩⠪᠟ᓇ‫ޔ‬2008 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 25 ᣣ㧕2828ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߦ߅ߌࠆ NGO ᡰេદ⾐⡛ደ 1  ↰ਛ㊀ᅢ 2  㜞ᯅ ⺈ 2
1㊄ᴛᄢቇੱ㑆␠ળቇၞੱᢥቇ㘃‫ޔ‬2 ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼␠ળⅣႺቇኾ᡹



ߪߓ߼ߦ

‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޟ‬࿾㔡ᵤᵄἴኂ߳ߩᶏᄖᡰេ‫߽ߡ޿߅ߦޠ‬ㅀߴߚࠃ߁ߦ‫ߩߎޔ‬ἴኂߩ․ᓽߩ৻
ߟߪᶏᄖ߆ࠄߩ‫ޟ‬ᡰេ࡜࠶ࠪࡘ‫ޕߚߞ޽ߢޠ‬ㄭᐕߩᄢἴኂߢ޽ࠆ 2008 ᐕ 5 ᦬ 2 ᣣߩࡒࡖࡦ
ࡑ࡯ߩᏂᄢࠨࠗࠢࡠࡦߦࠃࠆᄢἴኂ㧔ᱫ⠪࡮ⴕᣇਇ᣿⠪⚂ 14 ਁੱ㧕‫ޔ‬หᐕ 5 ᦬ 12 ᣣߩਛ࿖྾Ꮉᄢ࿾㔡㧔ᱫ⠪࡮ⴕᣇਇ᣿⠪⚂ 8 ਁ 7 ජੱ㧕ߣᲧセߔࠆߣ‫ߩߎޔ‬ἴኂߩ․ᓽ߇᣿⏕ߦᶋ߆߮਄߇ߞߡߊࠆ‫ޕ‬ੑߟߩἴኂߣ߽ᄢ㊂ߩᱫ⠪࡮ⴕᣇਇ᣿⠪ࠍ಴ߒ‫ޔߦࠄߐޔ‬૑ቛ߿↢↥ၮ⋚߳ᷓೞߥⵍኂࠍ߽ߚࠄߒߚߚ߼ߦ‫ޔ‬ᄢ߈ߥ࿖㓙⊛ߥ㑐ᔃࠍ๭ࠎߛ‫ࠊ߆߆߽ߦࠇߘޕ‬ࠄߕ‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ࿖ߩ᡽ᐭߩᣇ㊎ߦࠃࠅ‫ޔ‬ਔἴኂߢߪ‫ޔ‬㕖᡽ᐭ⚵❱ߦࠃࠆⵍἴ࿾ߢߩ‫ޠߥ↱⥄ޟ‬ᡰេᵴേ߇⸵ߐࠇߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޔ߼ߚߩߘޕ‬࿖㓙ᡰេߪၮᧄ⊛ߦߪ‫ޔ‬㊄㌛⊛ߥᡰេߦߣߤ߹ߞ
ߚ‫ޕ‬ߎࠇߦኻߒߡ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬࿾㔡ߩᡰេ⁁ᴫߪ߹ߞߚߊ⇣ߥࠆ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޕ‬࿾㔡⊒↢એ೨‫ࠕޔ‬࠴ࠚᎺߢߪ‫⚗ޔ‬੎࿾ၞߢ޽ߞߚߚ߼ߦᄖ࿖ߩ㕖᡽ᐭ⚵❱ߩᵴേ߇⑌ᱛߐࠇߡ‫ޔߪ޿ࠆ޽ޔ‬ᒝ޿೙⚂ࠍฃߌߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬Save the Children ߩ⃻࿾ࠬ࠲࠶ࡈߦࠃࠆߣ‫⁁ߚߒ߁ߎޔ‬ᴫਅߢ‫ޔ‬Save
the Children ߇໑৻‫ޔ‬ᵴേࠍ⸵ߐࠇߚᶏᄖ NGO ߢ޽ߞߚߣ޿߁‫⁁ߚߒ߁ߘޕ‬ᴫ߇‫⊒ޔ‬ἴ⋥ᓟ‫ޔ‬৻ᄌߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᄢ㊂ߩᡰេ࿅૕߇ࠕ࠴ࠚߦ౉ࠅ‫ޔ‬᳃㑆࡟ࡌ࡞ߢᢇេᵴേࠍዷ㐿ߒߚ‫ޔࠈߒ߻ޕ‬ߘࠇߥߒߦߪ‫ߩߎޔ‬ᄢἴኂߪਸ਼ࠅಾࠇߥ߆ߞߚߢ޽ࠈ߁‫ޕ‬ߎࠇ߹ߢ‫ޔ‬NGO ో૕ࠍୄ⍑ߔࠆߎߣࠍߒߡߎߥ߆ߞߚ‫੹ޔߦ߼ߚ߁⵬ࠍࠇߘޕ‬࿁ߩႎ๔ᦠߢߪ‫ޟޔ‬ᓳ⥝ᡰេߪዯ޿ߚ߆‫ޟޕߚߌ⸳ࠍ┨ᧄߣ┨߁޿ߣޠ‬ᓳ⥝ᡰេߪዯ޿ߚ߆‫߅ߦޠ‬޿ߡߪࠕ࠴ࠚᎺో૕ߩ࠺࡯࠲ߦߟ޿ߡಽᨆߒߚߩߢ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃߪߢ┨ᧄޔ‬Ꮢౝߦ㒢ቯߒߡ‫ޔ‬NGO ࠍ᭎ⷰߒߡࠁߊ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޔߪࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޕ‬ᎺߩᎺㇺߢ޽ࠅ‫⚗ޔ‬੎⁁ᴫߩਛߢߪ߽
ߞߣ߽ᴦ቟߇ࠃߊ‫ޔߦࠄߐޔ‬ᶏᄖ߆ࠄߩ߽ߞߣ߽‫ޟ‬ㄭ޿‫ޠ‬႐ᚲߦ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ᶏᄖ߆ࠄࡃࡦ࠳
ࠕ࠴ࠚ߳ߩ⋥ⴕଢߪᒰᤨߥ߆ߞߚ߽ߩߩ‫ޔ‬ᣢሽߩⓨ᷼ߪᯏ⢻߇଻ߚࠇߡ޿ߚ‫ޔ߼ߚߩߘޕ‬߽ߞߣ߽ᣧ޿Ბ㓏߆ࠄᶏᄖ NGO ߇౉ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᵴേࠍዷ㐿ߒߚ‫ޕ‬࠺࡯࠲ࡌ࡯ࠬ
ߎߎߢߪ‫ޔ‬BRR ߩ RAN database㧔http://rand.brr.go.id/RAND/‫ ߪࠬ࠮ࠢࠕ⚳ᦨޔ‬2009 ᐕ 2
᦬ 26 ᣣ㧕ࠍ↪޿ߡ‫ޔ‬ἴኂᓳ⥝ᡰេߦ߅ߌࠆ NGO ߩᵴേታ❣ࠍ᭎ⷰߔࠆ‫ౕޕ‬૕⊛ߦߪ‫ޔ‬એਅߩ 9 ߟߩ㗄⋡ߦὶὐࠍᒰߡߥ߇ࠄ‫ޔ‬2004 ᐕ߆ࠄ 2008 ᐕߦ߆ߌߡⴕࠊࠇߚ࿖㓙࡮࿖ౝ NGOߩᵴേࠍ kecamatan㧔ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒߩਅߦ૏⟎ߔࠆⴕ᡽඙㧕೎ߦᢛℂᬌ⸛ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ߎߩ࠺࡯࠲ࡌ࡯ࠬߢᢛℂߒߚ㗄⋡ߪએਅߩߣ߅ࠅߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬Ԙታ㓙ߦᡰេᵴേࠍⴕߞߚ NGO ߩ✚ᢙߣߘߎߢߩ࿖㓙࡮࿖ౝ NGO ߩഀวԙᡰេᵴേࠦࠬ࠻ߩ✚㗵㧔ⷐ᳞㗵㧕Ԛᵴേࡄ࡯࠻࠽࡯㧔2nd level㧕1㧕ߩᢙԛᵴേࡄ࡯࠻࠽࡯㧔2nd level㧕ߩዻᕈInternational NGO (INGO); National NGO (NNGO); Private sector and community; UN;
Bilateral; Academic institutions; Government agency; IFI; BRR SATKER; otherԜᵴേߩ⾗㊄េഥᲣ૕ᢙ
ԝ⾗㊄េഥᲣ૕ߩዻᕈߣഀว 2㧕

29
29

I. ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆

International NGO (INGO); National NGO (NNGO); Private sector and community; UN;
Bilateral; Academic institutions; Government agency; IFI; BRR SATKER; otherԞ⾗㊄េഥߩᒻᘒ 3㧕
Grant㧔⵬ഥ㊄㧕; Loan; Grant and Loan; Unspecifiedԟᄢ߹߆ߥᵴേ㗔ၞ sector
Economic development; Administrative and other costs; Infrastructure, Housing and land;Social; Institutional development; Health; Education; Religion; Spatial planning andEnvironment; UnallocatedԠౕ૕⊛ߥ࠲࡯ࠥ࠶࠻ߥ޿ߒᵴേౝኈ thematic marker
Generates income; Promotes gender equity; Promotes community participation; Disaster risk
reduction; Part of national plan; Generates employment; Positive environmental impact; Builds
government capacity; Women and children; Other; UnspecifiedNGO ߩ✚ᢙ߹ߕ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬Ꮢౝߢᵴേࠍⴕߞߡ߈ߚ NGO ߩ✚ᢙߣ‫ޔ‬࿖㓙̆࿖ౝߩ೎ࠍ⏕⹺ߒߡ߅ߎ߁‫ ⴫ޕ‬1 ߦ⷗ࠆࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬ㆊ෰ 5 ᐕ㑆ߢ‫ޔ‬NGO ߪᑧߴ 878 ࿅૕ߦߩ߷ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޔߒߛߚޕ‬ߎߩ NGO ᢙߪ‫ޔ‬BRR ߦ⊓㍳ߒߚ࿅૕ߩߺߢ޽ࠆ‫ޔߦߊߣޕ‬ዊⷙᮨߥ NGO ߢ‫ޔ‬⍴ᦼ㑆ߢ৻࿁㒢ࠅߩᵴേߒ߆ߒߡ޿ߥ޿႐วߦߪ‫⊓ᧂޔ‬㍳ߩ࿅૕߽ዋߥߊߥߊ‫ߩߦߎߎޔ߼ߚߩߘޔ‬߷ߞߡߎߥ޿‫ࠆ⷗ߢߎߎޔ߼ߚߩߘޕ‬ᢙ୯ߪ‫ޔ‬NGO ߩᵴേࠍ⷗ࠆߣ߈ߩ‫ޟ‬ਅ㒢ߩᢙ୯‫ߢޠ‬޽ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠆߎߣ߇ᅷᒰߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬⚻ᐕᄌൻࠍ⷗ࠆߣ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡⊒↢߇ 2004 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 26 ᣣߢ޽ߞߚߚ߼‫ޔ‬2004 ᐕߩ NGO ᢙ߇ዋߥ޿ߩߪᒰὼߛߣߒߡ߽‫ޔ‬⠉ 2005 ᐕ߇ᦨ߽࿅૕ᢙ߇ᄙߊ‫ޔ‬320 ࿅૕ߦ਄ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬2005 ᐕࠍࡇ࡯ࠢߦ‫ߩߘޔ‬ᓟ‫ߦ߆߿✭ޔ‬ᐕ‫ޘ‬ᷫዋࠍߣߍ‫ޔ‬4 ᐕᓟߩ 2008 ᐕߦߪ 108 ࿅૕ߣߥࠅ‫ోޔ‬⋓ᦼߩ⚂ 3 ಽߩ 1 ߣߥߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬⃻࿾ߢߩࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯⺞ᩏ߆ࠄߪ‫ޔ‬ᄙߊߩ NGO ࿅૕ߪ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬ፉߩⵍἴ࿾ߩਛߢ߽ⵍ
ኂ⠪ᢙ߽ᄙߊ‫ޔߚ߹ޔ‬Ꮊㇺߢ޽ࠆࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߦ౉ࠅ‫ߩߢࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬ᓳ⥝߇ᣧߊㅴࠎ
ߛߚ߼ߦ‫ߩߘޔ‬ᓟ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬એᄖߩ࿾ၞ߳ߣዷ㐿ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޔߪߦߣߎߩߎޔߦࠄߐޕ‬2005 ᐕ 8 ᦬ߦ‫ޔ‬㐳ᦼ㑆⛯޿ߡ߈ߚ⁛┙ࠍ߽ߣ߼ࠆ⚗੎߇‫ࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬᡽ᐭߣ GAM ߣߩ㑆ߢ๺ᐔᙗ┨߇✦⚿ߐࠇߡ‫৻ޔ‬ᔕߩ⚿᧤ࠍㄫ߃ߚߎߣߦࠃࠅ‫ߢ߹ࠇߘޔ‬ෂ㒾ߢ޽ߞߚ࿾ၞ
߽ᰴ╙ߦ቟ቯߒߚߎߣ߽㑐ଥߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ࠇߘޕ‬એ೨ߦߪ‫ޔ‬ᚢ㑵߇⛯޿ߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬NGO ࿅૕ߩᵴേ߇࿾ၞ⊛ߦ೙㒢ߐࠇߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬⴫ 1 ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߦ߅ߌࠆ࿖㓙‫ޔ‬࿖ౝ೎ߩ NGO ࿅૕ᢙߩផ⒖
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

INGO
8
80.0%
207
64.7
179
68.6
130
72.6
74
68.5

NNGO
2
20.0%
113
35.3
82
31.4
49
27.4
34
31.5

Total
10
320
261
179
108


ᶏᄖߩ NGO ߣ࿖ౝߩ NGO ߣߩഀวߪ‫⚻ޔ‬ᐕᄌൻࠍߺࠆ㒢ࠅ‫ߤ߶ࠇߘޔ‬ᄌൻߒߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬ᶏᄖ NGO ߇ో૕ߩ 3 ಽߩ 2‫ޔ‬࿖ౝ NGO ߇ 3 ಽߩ 1 ߩഀวߢ߶߷৻ቯߒߡ޿ࠆ‫✕ޕ‬ᕆᤨߦᶏᄖ߆ࠄߩ NGO ߇ਛᔃߣߥࠅ‫⁁ߚߒ߁ߘޔ‬ᴫ߇ᤨ㑆߇⚻ㆊߔࠆߦߒߚ߇ߞߡ‫ޔ‬࿖ౝߩ NGOߦᒁ߈⛮߇ࠇߚߩߢߪߥ޿߆ߣ޿߁ᒰೋߩ੍ᗐߪ‫ޕߚߞ߆ߥࠄߚ޽ޔ‬ߒ߆ߒ‫ޔ‬ታᢙࠍ⷗ࠆߣ‫ޔ‬ᶏᄖ NGO ߪ 2005 ᐕߩ 207 ࿅૕߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬179 ࿅૕‫ޔ‬130 ࿅૕‫ޔ‬74࿅૕߳ߣᷫዋߒ‫ޔ‬ᢙᄙߊߩ NGO ߇ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚ߆ࠄ᠗ㅌߒߚߎߣ߇ಽ߆ࠆ‫৻ޕ‬ᣇ‫ޔ‬࿖ౝ
NGO ߦߟ޿ߡߪ‫ޔ‬2005 ᐕߩ 113 ࿅૕߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬82 ࿅૕‫ޔ‬49 ࿅૕‫ޔ‬34 ࿅૕߳ߣᄌൻߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᷫዋ₸ߣߒߡߪ‫ޔ‬ᶏᄖ‫ޔ‬࿖ౝ೎ߦᄢ߈ߥᏅ⇣ߪ⷗ࠄࠇߥ޿߇‫ޔ‬ታ㓙ߦᷫዋ࡮᠗ㅌߒߚ NGOᢙߢߪ‫ޔ‬ᶏᄖ NGO ߇ᢙᄙߊࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚ߆ࠄ᠗ㅌߒߡ޿ߞߚߎߣ߇ಽ߆ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎߩ⴫߆ࠄߪಽ߆ࠄߥ޿߇‫ޔ‬NGO ੐ോᚲߢߩࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯߆ࠄߪ‫ޔ‬ᶏᄖ NGO ߇ታ㓙ߩ

30
30ȐȳȀǢȁǧƴƓƚǔ NGO ૅੲᲢ˙᝶Ꭲ‫ދ‬ǄƔᲣ੐ᬺࠍዷ㐿ߔࠆ㓙ߦߪ‫ޔ‬࿖ౝߩ‫ ߥ࡞ࠞ࡯ࡠߪ޿ࠆ޽ޔ‬NGO ߣදജߒߡ‫ޔߪߦᤨޔ‬੐ᬺࠍᆔ⸤ߔࠆᒻߢᵴേࠍⴕߞߚࠤ࡯߽ࠬዋߥߊߥ޿ߎߣ߇ಽ߆ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ ⴫ޕ‬1 ߦ⷗ࠆᶏᄖ NGO ߣ࿖ౝ NGO ߣߩਗⴕ㑐ଥ߇‫ޔ‬਄⸥ߩ቟ቯ⊛ߥ㑐ଥߩሽ࿷ࠍᗧ๧ߒߡ޿ࠆߩ߆ߤ߁߆‫੹ޔ‬ᓟ‫ޔ‬ᬌ⸛ࠍⷐߔࠆߢ޽ࠈ߁‫ޔࠈߒߦࠇߕ޿ޕ‬ਔ NGO ߣߩਗⴕ㑐ଥ߇⛮⛯ߒߡ޿ࠆߎߣߪ‫ޔ‬ਔ࿅૕ߦ৻ቯߩ㑐ଥ߇ሽ࿷ߔࠆߎߣࠍផ᷹ߐߖࠆ‫ޕ‬
એ਄ߩ NGO ࿅૕ᢙߩᄌൻߦ⷗ࠆ⚻ᐕᄌൻߣߪ⇣ߥࠅ‫ޔ‬ᡰេ㊄㗵߆ࠄ⷗ࠆ㧔⴫ 2 ෳᾖ㧕ߣ‫ޔ‬
2005 ᐕߦ⚂ 19 ం 7 ජਁ࠼࡞ࠍࡇ࡯ࠢߦߒߡ޿ࠆ߇‫ࠇߘޔ‬એ㒠‫ ߷߶ޔ‬11 ం࠼࡞㨪10 ం 5 ජਁ࠼࡞ߢផ⒖ߒ‫ޔ‬࿅૕ᢙߩᄌൻ߶ߤ৻ቯߩᷫዋ₸ࠍ␜ߒߡ޿ߪ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬2006 ᐕએ㒠ߦ߅޿ߡ߽‫ޔ‬ᡰេ߇৻ቯߩ࡟ࡌ࡞ߢ⛯޿ߡ޿ࠆ 4㧕‫ޕ‬⴫ 2 ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߦ߅ߌࠆᡰេ㗵ߩផ⒖
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
ว⸘

ో ૕
47,259,737
1,975,080,350
1,111,289,397
1,102,951,372
1,050,007,705
5,286,588,561㊀ᐲߩⵍἴ࿾
39,184,344
1,597,105,489
834,232,681
891,887,100
849,712,579
4,212,122,193

シᐲߩⵍἴ࿾
8,075,393
377,974,861
277,056,716
211,064,272
200,295,126
1,074,466,368
150
ᡰេ㗵

2,000

NGOᢙ

䴿
⊖ 1,500ਁ࠼ 1,000
࡞
䵀
500

100 䴿

50

0

࿅
૕
䵀

0
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

࿑ 1 ᡰេ㗵ߣ NGO ᢙߩផ⒖

NGO ᢙߣᡰេ㗵ߣࠍട๧ߔࠆߣ‫ޔ‬NGO ᢙߩᷫዋ߶ߤ‫ޔ‬ᡰេ㊄㗵ߪᷫዋߒߡ޿ߥ޿‫ߩߎޕ‬ߎߣ߇࿑ 1 ߆ࠄ⷗ߡߣࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬࿾ၞ⊛ߥⵍኂ⁁ᴫߣᡰេ
ᰴߦ‫ߚߒ߁ߎޔ‬࿅૕ߩ࿾ၞ೎ߩ․ᓽߦߟ޿ߡߺߡ߅ߎ߁‫ޕ‬ߘߩ೨ឭߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬඙೎ߩⵍኂ⁁ᴫࠍ⏕⹺ߒߡ߅ߎ߁‫ ⴫ޕ‬3 ߦ⷗ࠆࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬MEURAXA‫ޔ‬KUTARAJA‫ޔ‬KUTA ALAM‫ޔ‬SYIAH KUALA‫ޔ‬JAYA BARU ߪઁߩ඙ߦᲧߴߡ‫ࠍ⟲ޔ‬ᛮ޿ߡᱫ੢࡮ⴕᣇਇ᣿₸߇㜞޿‫ ߩߎޕ‬5 ߟߩ࿾ၞࠍ‫ޟ‬㊀ᐲߩⵍἴ࿾‫ߣޠ‬๭߱‫ޕ‬JAYA BARU ࠍ㒰ߊߔߴߡߩ඙ߪᶏጯߦធ࿾ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬JAYA BARU ߪᶏጯߦ㕙ߒߡߪ޿ߥ޿߇‫ޔ‬MEURAXA
߆ࠄ⛯ߊᐔ࿾ߢ޽ࠅ‫ߌߛࠇߘޔ‬ᵤᵄߩⵍኂ߇ᄢ߈߆ߞߚ࿾ၞߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ฦ࿾ၞߩ૏⟎߅ࠃ߮‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߩᶐ᳓⁁ᴫߪ࿑ 2 ߦ⷗ࠆߣ߅ࠅߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎࠇߦኻߒߡ‫ޔ‬ᶏߦ㕙ߒߡ޿ߥ޿ BANDA RAYA‫ޔ‬BAITURRAHMAN‫ޔ‬LUENG BATA‫ޔ‬ULEE KARENG ߪ‫ⵍޔ‬ኂ߇ዊߐ޿‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߩ೔㆐✢ࠃࠅౝ㒽ߦ޽ࠆ඙ߢ޽ࠆ‫ ߩࠄࠇߎޕ‬4 ߟߩ࿾ၞࠍ‫ޟ‬シᐲߩⵍἴ࿾‫ߣޠ‬๭߱ߎߣߦߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ᡰេ㗵ࠍ‫ⵍޔ‬ኂߩ⒟ᐲߦಽߌߡ⷗ߡࠁߊߣ‫ޔ‬ᒰὼߩߎߣߢ޽ࠆ߇‫ޔ‬㊀ᐲߩⵍἴ࿾߳ߩᡰ
េ㗵߇ᄙ޿‫ߢߎߎޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ᵈᗧߒߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠄߥ޿ὐߪ‫ޔ‬シᐲߩⵍἴ࿾ߦ‫ޔ‬ỗߒ޿ⵍኂࠍߎ߁߻ߞߚ࿾ၞ૑᳃߇‫ޔ‬ᡰេߢᑪߡࠄࠇߚ઒⸳૑ቛߦ౉ዬߒߡ޿ࠆ႐ว߆ࠄߢ߽ಽ߆ࠆ
ࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬シᐲߩⵍἴ࿾ߢߩᡰេߦߪ‫ޔ‬㊀ᐲߩⵍἴ࿾ߩ૑᳃߳ߩᡰេ߽฽߹ࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬

31
31

I. ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆

⴫ 3 ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒߩ඙ߩ᭴ᚑߣੱญ‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ₸
ⵍኂ
⒟ᐲ

㊀ᐲ

シᐲ

ฬ೨
JAYA BARU
MEURAXAKUTARAJA
KUTA ALAMSYAH KUALABANDA RAYABAITURRAHMAN
LUENG BATAULEE KARENG

ᵤᵄ೨
਎Ꮺᢙ
4,459
6,496
4,029
11,424
7,185
4,212
9,314
3,741
3,941

ᵤᵄ೨
ੱญ
22,00531,21820,21755,062
42,776
19,07137,44918,36017,510

ⴕᣇ
ਇ᣿⠪
3,187
3,837
1,388
5,542
2,051
26
434
28
33

ᱫ ⠪
7,470
21,724
13,707
6,407
5,211
30
232
78
89

↢ሽ⠪
11,3485,657
5,122
43,11335,51419,01536,783
18,254
17,388ᱫ⠪࡮ⴕᣇਇ᣿⠪10,65725,561
15,095
11,949
7,262
56
666
106
122

ᱫ⠪࡮ⴕ
ᣇਇ᣿
⠪Ყ₸
48.4
81.9
74.7
21.7
17.0
0.3
1.8
0.6
0.7

⴫ 4 ㊀ᐲߩⵍἴ࿾඙ߣシᐲߩⵍἴ࿾඙ߣߩᲧセ
ో૕
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

10
320
261
179
108

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

8
207
179
130
74

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

2
113
82
49
34

㊀ᐲߩⵍἴ඙
ో NGO
7
70.0%
212
66.3
174
66.7
124
69.3
67
62.0
INGO
6
75.0
136
65.7
117
65.4
87
66.9
44
59.5
NNGO
1
50.0
76
67.3
57
69.5
37
75.5
23
67.6

シᐲߩⵍἴ඙
3
108
87
55
41

30.3%
33.8
33.3
30.7
38.0

2
71
62
43
30

2.9
34.3
34.6
33.1
40.5

1
37
25
12
11

50.0
32.7
30.5
24.5
32.4
࿑ 2 ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒౝߩฦ඙ߩ᭴ᚑ

NGO ߩᵴേ߇‫ⵍޔ߆ߩߚࠇࠊⴕߢߎߤޔ‬ኂߩ⒟ᐲߦࠃߞߡ⇣ߥࠆߩ߆ࠍᬌ⸛ߒߚߩ߇‫ޔ‬
⴫ 4 ߢ޽ࠆ‫ ߘࠃ߅߅ޔߣࠆ⷗ࠄ߆⴫ߩߎޕ‬3 ಽߩ 2 ߩ NGO ߪ㊀ᐲߩⵍἴ࿾ߢᡰេᵴേࠍⴕ
ߞߡ޿ࠆ߇‫ޔ‬ᱷࠅ 3 ಽߩ 1 ߩ NGO ߪシᐲߩⵍἴ࿾ߢᵴേߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩߎޔߡߒߘޕ‬ഀวߪ‫ޔ‬⚻ᐕ⊛ߦ߽ᄌൻ߇⷗ࠄࠇߕ‫৻ޔ‬ቯߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߐࠄߦ‫ޔ‬࿖㓙 NGO ߣ࿖ౝ NGO ߣߩ㑆ߢ߽‫ޔ‬㊀ᐲ̆シᐲߩⵍἴ࿾㑆ߢߩഀว‫⚻ޔ‬ᐕᄌൻߩേะ߽߶ߣࠎߤ৻⥌ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬એ਄ߩߎߣ߆ࠄផ᷹ߐࠇࠆߩߪ‫ޔ‬࿖ౝ‫ޔ‬ᶏᄖߩ NGO ߦ౒ㅢߒߡ‫৻ޔ‬ቯߩ࿾ၞ⊛ߥᵴേߩߔߺࠊߌ߇቟ቯ⊛ߦⴕࠊࠇߡ޿ߚߩߢߪߥ޿߆ߣ޿߁ߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬ὐߦ㑐ߒߡߪ‫੹ޔ‬ᓟߩ⺞ᩏߩਛߢᬌ⸛ߒߡࠁ߈ߚ޿‫ޕ‬NGO ߩᵴേౝኈ
ᰴߦ‫ޔ‬NGO ߇ߤ߁޿ߞߚᵴേࠍߒߡ޿ߚߩ߆ࠍ⷗ߡߺࠃ߁‫ޕ‬
⴫ 5 ߪ‫ޔ‬NGO ߩ߅߅߹߆ߥᵴേ㗔ၞࠍ␜ߒߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫⺑ߪߦࠬ࡯ࡌ࠲࡯࠺ޕ‬᣿߇ߥ޿߇‫ޔߊࠄߘ߅ޔ‬NGO ⥄り߇‫⊓ࠍ࠻ࠢࠚࠫࡠࡊޔ‬㍳ߔࠆ㓙ߦ‫⥄ޔ‬Ꮖߩᵴേ㗔ၞࠍ⥄Ꮖ↳๔ߒߚ߽ߩߩ㓸⸘ߛߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫↳ߩߘޕ‬๔ߪ‫ޔ‬ᒰὼ‫ⶄޔ‬ᢙ࿁╵ߢߥߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޔ߼ߚߩߘޕ‬ߎߎߢߩ✚⸘ߪ‫ޔ‬వߦ⷗ߚ NGO ᢙࠃࠅ߽ᄙ޿‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ฦᐕᐲߩ NGO ว⸘ࠃࠅ߽‫ޔ߫߃଀ޔ‬⚻ᷣ⊒ዷߩ࿅૕ᢙ߇ᄙߊߥߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬32
32ȐȳȀǢȁǧƴƓƚǔ NGO ૅੲᲢ˙᝶Ꭲ‫ދ‬ǄƔᲣߤ߁޿ߞߚࡊࡠࠫࠚࠢ࠻߇ߤߩ૏ߩ NGO ߦࠃߞߡㅴ߼ࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆߩߢ޽ࠈ߁߆‫ోޕ‬૕ߢᦨ߽ᄙ޿ߩߪ‫⚻ޔ‬ᷣ⊒ዷ 355 ࿅૕‫ޔߢ޿ߟޔ‬ᢎ⢒ 275 ࿅૕‫␠ޔ‬ળ 271‫ޔ‬ஜᐽ 249‫ޔ‬ಽ㘃ਇ⢻199 ߣߥߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ዋߥ޿㗄⋡ߣߒߡߪ‫ޔ‬ቬᢎ‫ޔ‬ⓨ㑆⸘↹ߥߤ߇޽߇ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ቬᢎߪ‫ࠢࠬࡕޔߊࠄߘ߅ޔ‬ߩౣᑪᡰេ߇ਛᔃߣߥߞߡ޿ࠆ߽ߩߢ޽ࠈ߁‫ޕ‬ⓨ㑆⸘↹ߦߟ޿ߡߪ⧯ᐓ⺑᣿߇ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠈ
߁‫⃻ޕ‬࿾⺞ᩏ߿ NGO ߳ߩࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯⺞ᩏߢ⷗ߚ㒢ࠅߢ޿߃߫‫ޔ‬ⓨ㑆⸘↹ߩᡰេߪ‫߷߶ޔ‬უṌ⊛ߥⵍኂࠍฃߌ‫ޔ‬࿯࿾Ⴚ⇇߽޽޿߹޿ߦߥߞߚ࿾඙ߢ‫ޔ‬㓸⪭ߩ૑ᚭ㈩⟎‫ޔ‬㆏〝⸘↹‫ޔ‬ࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖߩߚ߼ߩ㓸ળᚲ߿౏࿦ߥߤߩ౒᦭ⓨ㑆ߩ⸘↹ࠍᡰេߔࠆ߽ߩߢ޽ࠈ߁‫ߥߜޕ‬ߺߦ‫ߩߢࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬࿯࿾⊓⸥߇ߥߐࠇߡ޿ࠆഀวߪ‫ޔ‬10㧑⒟ᐲߣ޿ࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫߁ߎޕ‬ߒߚ࿾඙ߢߩ㓸⪭ౣᑪߩߚ߼ߦߪ‫ߕ߹ޔ‬࿯࿾Ⴚ⇇ߩ↹ቯߣ‫ޔ‬㓸⪭ߩⓨ㑆⸘↹ߩ⏕ቯ߆ࠄ⌕ᚻߖߑࠆࠍ߃ߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬
⴫ 5 ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒߦ߅ߌࠆ NGO ߩ߅߅߹߆ߥᵴേ㗔ၞ㧔ో૕㧕
⚻ᷣ⊒ዷ
ⴕ ᡽
ࠗࡦࡈ࡜૑ቛ࡮࿯࿾
␠ ળ
೙ᐲ⊛⊒ዷ
ஜ ᐽ
ᢎ ⢒
ቬ ᢎ
ⓨ㑆⸘↹
ಽ㘃ਇ⢻
ోNGOᢙ

2004
2
0
7
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
3

2005
148
30
104
93
54
101
96
15
10
66
108

2006
95
31
77
79
37
78
81
19
4
56
87

2007
63
36
49
57
12
45
68
7
2
43
55

2008
47
21
27
40
7
23
30
8
5
34
41

ว⸘
355
118
264
271
110
249
275
49
21
199


⴫ 6 ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒߦ߅ߌࠆ NGO ߩ߅߅߹߆ߥᵴേ㗔ၞ㧔⚻ᐕᄌൻ‫ޔ‬᭴ᚑᲧ㧕⚻ᷣ⊒ዷⴕ᡽ࠗࡦࡈ࡜૑ቛ࡮࿯࿾
␠ળ
೙ᐲ⊛⊒ዷ
ஜᐽ
ᢎ⢒
ቬᢎ
ⓨ㑆⸘↹
ಽ㘃ਇ⢻

2004
0.6
0.0
2.7
0.7
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

2005
20.6
4.2
14.5
13.0
7.5
14.1
13.4
2.1
1.4
9.2

2006
17.1
5.6
13.8
14.2
6.6
14.0
14.5
3.4
0.7
10.1

2007
16.5
9.4
12.8
14.9
3.1
11.8
17.8
1.8
0.5
11.3

2008
19.4
8.7
11.2
16.5
2.9
9.5
12.4
3.3
2.0
14.0

ว⸘
355
118
264
271
110
249
275
49
21
199

ਛ૏ߩ࿅૕ߣߒߡߪ‫ⴕޔ‬᡽㧔118 ࿅૕㧕‫ޔ‬೙ᐲ⊛⊒ዷ㧔110 ࿅૕㧕߇޽ߍࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ߎޕ‬ࠇߦߟ޿ߡ߽‫⺑ޔ‬᣿߇ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠈ߁‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޕ‬࿾㔡ߢߪ‫ⴕޔ‬᡽ߩᑪ‛߳ߩ⋥ធ⊛ߥⵍኂ㧔ߚߣ߃߫‫ޔ‬Ꮊᐡ߿⼊ኤ⟑ߩ৻㓏ㇱಽߪᵤᵄߢუṌ‫ޔ‬࿯࿾⊓⸥ᚲ߽ห᭽㧕ߦߣߤ߹ࠄߕ‫ⴕޔ‬᡽⡯ຬߩᱫ੢߽⋧ᒰߥᢙߦߩ߷ߞߚ‫ޔ߫߃଀ޔ߼ߚߩߘޕ‬USAID ߪ‫ޔ‬⡯ຬ⎇ୃ‫ޔ‬ᐙㇱ߳ߩᢎ⢒ߥߤࠍⴕߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ⴕޔߥ߁ࠃߩߎޕ‬᡽ᯏ㑐ߩౣᑪ߳ߩᡰេ߇ߺࠄࠇߚ‫ޕ‬೙ᐲ⊛⊒ዷߦߟ޿ߡߪ‫ౕޔ‬૕⊛ߥౝኈߪਇ᣿ߢ޽ࠆ߇‫ⴕߚߒ߁ߎޔ‬᡽ᡰេߦਗⴕߒߡታᣉߐࠇߚ߽ߩߢ޽
ࠈ߁‫ߦࠄߜߤޔ߫߃ߣߚޕ‬ಽ㘃ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ߇್ᢿߢ߈ߥ޿߇‫଻ߩ߳᧛ޔ‬ஜᵴേߩߚ߼ߩ᜚
ὐᢛ஻߇ㅴ߼ࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆ߇‫଻ޔߪࠇߘޔ‬ஜᵴേߩߚ߼ߩᣉ⸳ᢛ஻ߦߣߤ߹ࠄߕ‫ޔ‬೙ᐲߘߩ߽ߩᣂ⸳޽ࠆ޿ߪᡷᱜ᜛లߦߟߥ߇ߞߡ޿ࠆ߆߽ߒࠇߥ޿‫ޕ‬ߎ߁ߒߚᵴേ߇‫ᤨޔ‬㑆⊛ߦߤ߁ᄌൻߒߚߩ߆ࠍ⷗ࠆߚ߼ߦ‫ޔ‬ฦᐕᰴߩ✚⸘ߩ࿅૕ᢙࠍᲣ
ᢙߣߒߡ‫ߩࠇߙࠇߘޔ‬ഀวࠍ␜ߒߚߩ߇‫ ⴫ޔ‬6 ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬2004 ᐕࠍ଀ᄖߣߒߡ‫ోޔ‬૕⊛ߦߪ‫ޔ‬ฦ㗄⋡ߩ᭴ᚑᲧ߇߶ߣࠎߤᄌࠊߞߡ޿ߥ޿‫߽ߣߞ߽ޔ߫߃ߣߚޕ‬࿅૕ᢙ߇ᄙ޿⚻ᷣ⊒ዷߦ

33
33

I. ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆ߟ޿ߡߪ‫ޔ‬2005 ᐕߦߪ 20.6㧑‫ޔ‬2006 ᐕߦߪ 17.1㧑‫ޔ‬2007 ᐕߦߪ 16.5㧑‫ޔ‬2008 ᐕߦߪ 19.4㧑
ߣᄌൻߒߡ޿ࠆ߇‫ޔ‬ᄌൻߪዊ᏷ߥ߽ߩߦߣߤ߹ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎ߁ߒߚ᭴ᚑᲧߩᷫዋ߇⷗ࠄࠇߥ޿ߣ޿߁ߎߣߪ‫ޔ‬ᒰ⹥ߩ㗄⋡ߦ㑐ߔࠆᡰេߩᔅⷐᕈ߇
ᷫዋߒߡ޿ߥ޿ߣ޿߁ߎߣࠍ㑆ធ⊛ߦ‛⺆ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߒ߆ߒ‫߿߿ޔ‬ᷫዋ௑ะࠍ␜ߔ㗄⋡߽޽ࠆ‫ࠍࠇߘޕ‬ᜪߞߡߺࠆߣ‫ޔ‬೙ᐲ⊛⊒ዷ㧔2005 ᐕ 7.5㧑ψ2008 ᐕ 2.9㧑㧕‫ޔ‬ஜᐽ㧔2005 ᐕ 14.1㧑ψ2008 ᐕ 9.5㧑㧕ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬એ਄ߩ໧㗴ࠍ‫ޔ‬೎ߩⷺᐲ߆ࠄ⠨߃ߡߺࠃ߁‫ޕ‬߽ߞߣ߽࿅૕ᢙ߇ᄙ޿ 2005 ᐕࠍ 100 ߣߒߡ‫ߩߘޔ‬ᷫዋ௑ะࠍ⷗ߚߩ߇⴫ 7 ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬߽ߞߣ߽ᷫዋ௑ะ߇ዋߥ޿ߩߪⴕ᡽ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߦࠇߘޕ‬ኻߒߡ‫ޔ‬2005 ᐕߩ࿅૕ᢙ߆ࠄ‫߷߶ޔ‬
3 ಽߩ 1 ߦ߹ߢᷫዋߒߡ޿ࠆ㗄⋡ߪ‫⚻ޔ‬ᷣ⊒ዷ㧔32㧕‫࡮࡜ࡈࡦࠗޔ‬૑ቛ࡮࿯࿾㧔26㧕‫ޔ‬ᢎ⢒
㧔31㧕߇޽ࠆ‫ߦࠄߐޕ‬ᷫዋ₸߇ૐ޿߽ߩߣߒߡߪ‫ޔ‬೙ᐲ⊛⊒ዷ㧔13㧕‫ޔ‬ஜᐽ㧔23㧕߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬⴫ 7 ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒߦ߅ߌࠆ NGO ߩ߅߅߹߆ߥᵴേ㗔ၞ㧔⚻ᐕᄌൻ‫ޔ‬ᜰᢙᄌൻ㧕
2004
⚻ᷣ⊒ዷ
ⴕ᡽
ࠗࡦࡈ࡜૑ቛ࡮࿯࿾
␠ળ
೙ᐲ⊛⊒ዷ
ஜᐽ
ᢎ⢒
ቬᢎ
ⓨ㑆⸘↹
ಽ㘃ਇ⢻
ోNGOᢙ
ታ ᢙ

13

2005
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
717

2006
64
103
74
85
69
77
84
127
40
85
78
557

2007
43
120
47
61
22
45
71
47
20
65
53
382

2008
32
70
26
43
13
23
31
53
50
52
34
242

ว⸘
355
118
264
271
110
249
275
49
21
199
1,911


⴫ 8 ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒߦ߅ߌࠆ NGO ߩᵴേౝኈ
෼౉Ⴧട
㓹↪ഃ಴
⚻ᷣ⊛ᡰេ
↵ᅚᐔ╬ߩଦㅴ
࿾ၞෳടߩଦㅴ
ᅚᕈߣሶଏ␠ળ⊛ᡰេἴኂ࡝ࠬࠢߩシᷫⅣႺᡷༀ㒐ἴ࡮ⅣႺᡰេ
࿖ኅ⸘↹ߩㆀⴕ
ⴕ᡽⢻ജߩ⏕┙
ⴕ᡽⊛ᡰេ
ߘߩઁ
ಽ㘃ਇ⢻
✚⸘
ో࿅૕ᢙ

2004
1
2
3
0
4
0
4
0
1
1
1
0
1
5
5
19
10

2005
142
116
258
93
117
41
251
10
91
101
93
75
168
101
93
972
320

2006
93
67
160
63
92
44
199
1
55
56
45
34
79
77
85
656
261

2007
62
56
118
40
77
36
153
13
50
63
35
35
70
44
53
501
179

2008
34
25
59
27
37
22
86
1
21
22
14
16
30
16
42
255
108

ว⸘
332
266
598
223
327
143
693
25
218
243
188
160
348
243
278
4285
878


એ਄ߩ‫ߥ߆߹߅߅ޟ‬ᵴേ㗔ၞ‫ߢ߹ߊ޽ߪޠ‬㗔ၞࠍ␜ߒߡ޿ࠆߦߔ߉ߥ޿‫ޕ‬ᵴേౝኈ߇ࠃࠅ᣿⏕ߦߥࠆߩߪ‫ޔ‬ᰴߩᵴേౝኈߩ㓸⸘㧔⴫ 8㧕ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬ᵴേౝኈߦߟ
޿ߡ߽‫ޔ‬BRR ߦᵴേߩ⋡⊛ߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬NGO ⥄り߇⊓㍳ߒߡ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆߣផ᷹ߐࠇࠆ‫⊓ߩߎޕ‬㍳ߩ㓙‫ ߩࠇߙࠇߘޔ‬NGO ߩ࿅૕⥄૕߇⥄ಽߩ࿅૕ߩ⋡⊛ߣߒߡ↳๔ߒߚ߽ߩ߆‫ޔ߽ߣࠇߘޔ‬ࡊࡠࠫࠚࠢ࠻ߏߣߦ↳๔ߒߚ߽ߩ߆ߪ‫⾗ߩߎޔ‬ᢱࠍ⷗ࠆ㒢ࠅ್ᢿߢ߈ߥ޿‫߅ޟޔߦࠄߐޕ‬34
34

ȐȳȀǢȁǧƴƓƚǔ NGO ૅੲᲢ˙᝶Ꭲ‫ދ‬ǄƔᲣ߅߹߆ߥᵴേ㗔ၞ‫ߩޠ‬ᢙ୯ࠍࡊࡠࠫࠚࠢ࠻ߏߣߩᢙ୯ߣផቯߒߡ߅޿ߚ߇‫ߩߢߎߎޔ‬ฦᐕᐲߩ✚⸘ߪ‫ߩߘޔ‬୯ߣ߽⇣ߥߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬
5 ᐕ㑆ో૕ߣߒߡ߽ߞߣ߽ᄙ޿ߩߪ‫ޔ‬෼౉Ⴧടߩߚ߼ߩᡰេ㧔332 ࿅૕㧕ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᰴ޿ߢ‫ޔ‬ࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖ࡮ࠛࡦࡄࡢ࡯ࡔࡦ࠻ߦߟߥ߇ࠆ࿾ၞෳടߩଦㅴ㧔327 ࿅૕㧕‫ޔ‬㓹↪ഃ಴㧔266
࿅૕㧕ߢ޽ࠆ‫ోޕ‬૕ߣߒߡ߽‫ޔ‬෼౉Ⴧട߿㓹↪ഃ಴ߥߤ⚻ᷣ⊛ᡰេ߇ਛᔃߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߒ߆ߒ‫੍ޔ‬ᗐᄖߥ㗄⋡߽⃻ࠇߡߊࠆ‫↵ޔߪࠇߘޕ‬ᅚᐔ╬ߩଦㅴߣ޿߁㗄⋡ߢ޽ࠅ‫ࠇߘޔ‬ߪ 223 ࿅૕ߣᄙ޿‫ߣࠇߎޕ‬ኒធߦ㑐ㅪߔࠆߩߪ‫ޟ‬ᅚᕈߣሶଏ‫߁޿ߣޠ‬㗄⋡ߢ޽ࠈ߁‫ⵍޕ‬ἴᓟߩᡰេߣߒߡ‫↵ޔ‬ᅚᐔ╬߿ᅚᕈߥߤ߇޽ࠄࠊࠇߡߊࠆߩߪ‫ⵍޔ‬ἴએ೨ߩᅚᕈߩ␠ળ⊛࿾૏‫ߦࠇߘޔߦࠄߐޔ‬ㅪേߒߡⵍἴᓟߩᅚᕈ߇ἴኂᒙ⠪ߣߥࠅ߿ߔ޿ߎߣߦኒធߦ㑐ㅪߒߡ޿ࠆߣផ᷹ߐࠇࠆ‫ޔߊࠄߘ߅ޕ‬ᣣᧄߢߩⵍἴᓟߩᡰេ㗄⋡ߣߒߡ‫ࠇ⃻ߚߒ߁ߎޔ‬ᣇߪߒߥ޿ߩߢߪߥ޿߆ߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬‫ޟ‬ἴኂ࡝ࠬࠢߩシᷫ‫߁޿ߣޠ‬㗄⋡ߪ‫ޔ‬ᄢἴኂߩᓟߩᡰេߣߒߡߪ‫ޔ‬ᗧᄖߥ߶ߤዋߥ޿‫ޕ‬ἴኂᢥൻࠍ዁᧪ߦะߌߡ⢒ᚑߒߡࠁߊߚ߼ߩᡰេ߇ዋߥ޿ߣ޿߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎߩ⴫ࠍ‫ޔ‬෼౉Ⴧടߣ㓹↪ഃ಴ࠍ⚻ᷣ⊛ᡰេ‫↵ޔ‬ᅚᐔ╬ߩଦㅴ‫ޔ‬࿾ၞෳടߩଦㅴ‫ޔ‬ᅚᕈߣሶଏࠍ␠ળ⊛ᡰេ‫ޔ‬ἴኂ࡝ࠬࠢߩシᷫߣⅣႺᡷༀࠍ㒐ἴ࡮ⅣႺᡰេ‫ޔ‬࿖ኅ⸘↹ߩㆀⴕߣⴕ᡽⢻ജߩ⏕┙ࠍⴕ᡽ᡰេߣߒߡౣಽ㘃ߒߡߺࠆߣ‫ోޔ‬૕ߣߒߡߪ‫⚻ޔ‬ᷣ⊛ᡰេࠃࠅ߽␠
ળ⊛ᡰេߩᣇ߇ᄙߊߥࠆ‫ⴕޔߦࠄߐޕ‬᡽⊛ᡰេ߇ഀวᄙ޿ߎߣߦ᳇߇ߟߊ‫ޕ‬੹࿁ߩႎ๔ߪਛ㑆⊛ߥ NGO ߦ㑐ߔࠆႎ๔ߢ޽ࠆ‫੹ޕ‬ᓟ‫ࠍ࠲࡯࠺ߚߒ߁ߎޔ‬ၮߦ‫ౕޔ‬૕⊛ߥ NGO ߩᵴേࠍᬌ⸛ߒߡࠁ߈ߚ޿‫ޕ‬ᵈ1㧕2nd level partner ߪ‫ޔ‬NGO㧔1st level partner㧕ߩᡰេᵴേࠍ⵬ቢߔࠆᓎഀࠍᜂ߁⚵❱ߩߎߣࠍ޿߁‫ޕ‬ᵴേߦ߅ߌࠆࠗ࠾ࠪࠕ࠹ࠖࡧߪ޽ߊ߹ߢ 1st level partner㧔࿖㓙࡮࿖ౝ NGO㧕߇᦭ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬2㧕‫ޟ‬ฦ⚵❱㧔funding agency㧕߆ࠄ޿ߊߟߩ NGO ߦኻߒߡ⾗㊄េഥ߇ⴕࠊࠇߚ߆‫ޕߔ␜ࠍޠ‬RAN database ߩᕈᩰ਄‫ޔ‬⒳㘃೎ߩ⾗㊄េഥ࿅૕ߩታᢙࠍഀࠅ಴ߔߎߣߪਇน⢻ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
3㧕ࡂࠗࡈࡦ㧔́㧕ߪ‫ޔ‬ᢙ୯ਇ᣿ࠍᜰߔ‫ޕ‬
4㧕ߎߎߢᛒߞߡ޿ࠆ✚㗵ߪࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒߩᡰេ㊄㗵ߛߌߢ޽ࠆ‫ޟޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ᓳ⥝ᡰេߪዯ޿ߚ߆‫ߢޠ‬㓸⸘ߒߚࠕ࠴ࠚ࡮࠾ࠕࠬో૕ߩᡰេ㊄㗵 34 ం 3 ජਁ࠼࡞ߣ‫࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬ࠚᏒߛߌߩᡰេ㊄㗵ߪ‫ޔࠈߒ߻ޔ‬Ꮢ߳ߩ㊄㗵ߩᣇ߇ᄙߊߥߞߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬⍦⋫ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߎޕ‬ߩ⍦⋫߇ߥߗ↢ߓߚߩ߆ߪ‫⃻ޔ‬࿷ߩߣߎࠈਇ᣿ߢ޽ࠆ‫੹ޕ‬ᓟ‫♖ޔ‬ᩏߒߡࠁ߈ߚ޿‫ޕ‬


35
35

ࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄἴኂ߳ߩᶏᄖᡰេ
̆૗߇᣿ࠄ߆ߣߥࠅ‫ޔ‬૗߇੹ᓟߩ⺖㗴ߣߥࠆߩ߆̆
↰ ਛ ㊀ ᅢฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼␠ળⅣႺቇኾ᡹

2004 ᐕ 12 ᦬ߦ⊒↢ߒߚࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄἴኂߪᧂᦦ᦭ߩἴኂߢ޽ࠅ‫߇ࠇߘޔߦࠄߐޔ‬਎⇇ਛߦⴣ᠄ࠍ߽ߞߡฃߌᱛ߼ࠄࠇߚ‫ޕ‬࿖ㅪߩ㓸⸘ߢߪ‫᧲ߩࠞ࡝ࡈࠕޔ‬ᶏጯ࿾ၞࠍ฽߼ߡ‫ޔ‬ᱫ⠪࡮ⴕᣇਇ᣿⠪ߪ 229,866 ੱߦ෸ࠎߛ‫ޔߪߢࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔ߽ߢ߆ߥޕ‬ᱫ⠪ 130,736 ੱ‫ޔ‬ⴕᣇਇ᣿⠪ 37,000 ੱߣ⊒⴫ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ᵈᗧᷓߊߎߩᢙ୯ࠍ⷗ࠆߣ‫ⴕޔ‬ᣇਇ᣿⠪ߪජੱบߢⷐ⚂ߐࠇߡ߅ࠅ‫৻ޔ‬ᩴบߩ⴫␜ߪߥߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿‫ⴕޔߪߣߎߩߎޕ‬ᣇਇ᣿⠪ߩᱜ⏕ߥᢙ୯߇ਇ᣿ߢ޽ࠆߎߣࠍ‛⺆ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ߪ‫ߥ࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣޟ‬ἴኂ‫⊒ߦޠ‬ዷߒߚ‫ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ἴኂߩⷙᮨ߇Ꮒᄢߢ޽ߞߚ
ߎߣ߿‫ⵍߩߘޔ‬ኂ߇࿖Ⴚࠍ⿥߃㆙ߊࠕࡈ࡝ࠞ⻉࿖ߦ߹ߢ෸ࠎߛߣ޿߁ቴⷰ⊛⁁ᴫߛߌߢ‫ޔ‬ࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡߇‫ߥ࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣޟ‬ἴኂ‫ޕ޿ߥߪߢߩߚߞߥߦޠ‬ߎ߁ߒߚᏂᄢߥⵍኂࠍ߽ߚࠄߒߚ⚿ᨐ‫ߩߤ߶޿ߥߺࠍ଀ߦߢ߹ࠇߎޔ‬ἴኂᡰេ߇ࠗࡦ࠼
ࡀࠪࠕࠍߪߓ߼ߣߔࠆⵍἴ࿾ߦዯߌࠄࠇߚ‫ࡦ࠽ࠕޟޕ‬࿖ㅪ੐ോ✚㐳ߩ✚㗵⚂ 9 ం 7,700 ਁ࠼࡞ߩ✕ᕆᡰេߩ᳞߼ߦኻߒߡ‫ޔ‬᜚಴⴫᣿ߪ 11 ం࠼࡞ࠍ⿥߃‫ޔ‬ฦ࿖᡽ᐭ‫ޔ‬࿖㓙ᯏ㑐‫ޔ‬NGO‫ޔ‬ߘߒߡ᳃㑆ડᬺ߽ෳടߒߡߩ‫ޡ‬េഥ┹੎‫ ╙ޡߪ޿ࠆ޽ޢ‬2 ߩᵤᵄ‫߽ߣޢ‬๭߫ࠇࠆㆊ෰ߦ଀
ߩߥ޿෻ᔕࠍ਎⇇ߪ␜ߒ‫ߚޠ‬㧔ᨋ 2007: 8㧕‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߎޕ‬ᄢ㊂ߩ࿖㓙⊛ߥេഥ߇ࠃߖࠄࠇߚ
ߎߣߪ‫ߩߢ߹ࠇߎޔ‬ἴኂߢߪߥ߆ߞߚߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬ὐߢ߽‫ߩߎޔ‬ἴኂߪ‫࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣޟ‬ߥἴኂ‫ߥ࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣޟޔߢߎߎޕߚߞߥߣޠ‬ἴኂߦߥߞߚ‫ߦࠎߚޔߪߣߎ߁޿ߣޠ‬ἴኂߩⵍኂ߇࿖Ⴚࠍ⿥߃਎⇇ਛߦ෸ࠎߛߣ޿߁ߎߣߦߣߤ߹ࠄߕ‫ޟޔ‬ἴኂߩ✕ᕆᡰេ߿ᓳ⥝ࠍᜂ߁‫⽿ޠ‬ോ߇‫ޔ‬࿖Ⴚࠍ⿧߃ߡ‫ޟ‬ᒁ߈ฃߌࠄࠇߡ޿ߞߚ‫ࠍߣߎ߁޿ߣޠ‬ᗧ๧ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎߩἴኂ߇‫ߥ࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣޟ‬ἴኂ‫␠ߥ߹ߑ߹ߐޔߪߩߚߞߥߣޠ‬ળ⊛ⷐ࿃߇㑐ਈߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄ߇᧪ⷅߒߡ޿ࠆ⍍㑆ߩᤋ௝߇਎⇇ਛࠍ㚟ߌᎼߞߚߎߣ㧔ᖱႎൻ␠ળ㧕‫࡝ࠢޔߦࠄߐޔ‬ࠬࡑࠬભᥜߢ‫࠻࡯࠱࡝ࠆߔߣ߼ߓߪࠍ࠻࠶ࠤ࡯ࡊߩࠗ࠲ޔ‬࿾ߦ㆙ߊ࡛࡯ࡠ࠶ࡄ⻉࿖߆ࠄߩⷰశቴ߇ᄙᢙṛ࿷ߒߡ޿ߡⵍኂߦ޽ߞߚߎߣ㧔ⷰశൻߣⷰశߩࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ൻ㧕ߥߤ߇‫੹ޔ‬࿁ߩ࿾㔡ᵤᵄἴኂࠍ‫ߥ࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣޟ‬ἴኂ‫ߩߣߎߚߒ߁ߎޔߦࠄߐޕߚߞ޿ߡߒߦޠ‬ၮᧄ⊛ߥ⢛᥊ߪ‫ޔ‬ㄭᐕߩ␠ળో૕ߩࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ൻߦ⿠࿃ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄἴኂ߇‫ߥ࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣޟ‬ἴኂߦߥߞߚ‫ޔࠅࠃߦߣߎޠ‬ἴኂᡰេ߽ࠣࡠ࡯
ࡃ࡞ൻߒ‫ߩߘޔߦࠄߐޔ‬ᡰេ࿖ኅ߿ᡰេ࿅૕‫ޔ‬ᡰេ㊄㗵ߪ⩨ᄢߥ߽ߩߦ㆐ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᣧߊ߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬
National Geographic ⚕ߢߪ‫ޔ‬㧱࡮ࠫ࡜࡞࠺߇‫ޟ‬਎⇇߆ࠄᔓࠇࠄࠇߚⵍἴ⠪ߚߜ‫߁޿ߣޠ‬㗴ฬߢ‫ޔ‬࿖㓙ᡰេ߇ࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄߦ߆ߟߡߥ޿߶ߤ㓸ਛߒߡ޿ࠆ৻ᣇ‫ࠇߘޔ‬એᄖߩ࿾ၞߩ
ⵍἴ࿾߿ᚢἴ࿾ߪ‫ޟ‬ᔓࠇࠄࠇߡ‫ߦߣߎࠆ޿ޠ‬ᵈᗧࠍ༐⿠ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ⵍޔ߽߆ߒޕ‬ἴ࿾ߢߪ‫ޟ‬࿖㓙⊛ߥᢇេᵴേ߇ᓔ‫ޔߡߒߦޘ‬ਇ౏ᐔߢ޽ࠆ‫ޠ‬㧔ࠫ࠺࡞࠺ 2005: 85㧕‫ޕ‬ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚࠍਛᔃߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬ᶏᄖ߆ࠄߩᡰេ⚵❱ߪ‫ ߫߃଀ޔ‬2005 ᐕ 4 ᦬ߩᤨὐߩ UNOCHA㧔࿖ㅪੱ㆏໧㗴⺞ᢛᡰេቶ㧕߳ߩ⊓㍳࿅૕ᢙߢ‫ޔ‬535 ࿅૕ߦ㆐ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޕ‬ਛᄩ᡽ᐭߦട߃‫ߩࠄࠇߎޔ‬࿖ㅪᯏ㑐‫ޔ‬ᄖ࿖ߩァ㓌߿᡽ᐭᯏ㑐‫ࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗߦࠄߐޔ‬࿖ౝᄖ߆ࠄ
ߩᄢዊ᭽‫ ߥޘ‬NGO㧔ߎࠇ߇ᦨ߽ᄙ޿㧕߇‫ߥ߹ߑ߹ߐޔ‬ಽ㊁ߢ‫ޔ‬ฦࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖߦ߅޿ߡេ
ഥᵴേࠍ㐿ᆎߒߚ‫ⴕޔߡߞ޽ߦ߆ߥߚߒ߁ߎޕ‬᡽࠮ࠢ࠲࡯ߣ㕖ⴕ᡽࠮ࠢ࠲࡯㑆ߩ㑐ଥ‫ޔ‬㕖ⴕ᡽࠮ࠢ࠲࡯ߩߥ߆ߢ߽⋧੕ߩ㑐ଥ㧔ߣߊߦ‫ޔ‬࿖㓙 NGO 㑆‫ޔ‬࿖㓙 NGO ߣ࿖ౝ NGO 㑆‫ޔ‬࿖㓙࡮࿖ౝ NGO ߣࡠ࡯ࠞ࡞ߥ NGO 㑆‫ޔߦࠄߐޔ‬NGO ߣ࿾ၞࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖ㑆ߩ㑐ଥ㧕ࠍߤ߁଻ߟߎߣ߇‫߽ߣߞ߽ޔ‬ല₸⊛ߥᡰេࠍน⢻ߦߔࠆ߆ߣ޿߁⺖㗴߇‫ޔ‬㊀ⷐߥ߽ߩߣߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬ߔߥࠊߜ‫❱⚵ࠆߥ⇣ߦ⊛⾰ޔ‬㑆ߩᡰេߩ⺞ᢛࡔࠞ࠾࠭ࡓ߇໧ࠊࠇࠆߎߣߦߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬ࠊࠇࠊࠇߪ‫⁁ߚߒ߁ߎޔߢ߹ࠇߎޔ‬ᴫࠍ‫ޟ‬ᡰេ࡜࠶ࠪࡘ‫ࠆ޽ޔ߮ࠃߣޠ‬㕙ߢߪ‫ޟޔ‬ᡰេ36
36ǹȞȈȩ‫ע‬ᩗ඾ඬ໎ܹǁƷෙ‫ૅٳ‬ੲᲢဋɶ᣻‫ڤ‬Უࠗࡦࡈ࡟‫ޟޠ‬ᡰេࡃࡉ࡞‫ߩޠ‬᭽⋧ࠍ๒ߒߡ޿ߚߣႎ๔ߒߡ߈ߚ㧔↰ਛ 2007㧕‫ޕ‬ᣧߊ߆ࠄ⃻࿾⺞ᩏߦߪ޿ߞߚ㧷࡮㧱࡮ࠪࡘ࡞࠷ߩ⸒޿ᣇࠍ୫ࠅࠇ߫‫ޟޔ‬ᵤᵄߩầ߇ᒁ޿ߡࠁߊ㑆߽ߥߊ‫╙ޔ‬ੑߩ‫ޡ‬ᵩ᳓‫ࠍࠚ࠴ࠕ߇ޢ‬ᵞ޿ᵹߒߚ‫ޕ‬࿖㓙⊛ߥេഥᯏ㑐‫ޔ‬࿖㓙⊛ߥ㕖᡽ᐭ⚵❱‫ߐޔ‬ࠄߦᄖ࿖߆ࠄߩᵷ㆜ߐࠇߚァ㓌ߥߤߩᒻߢ‫ޠ‬㧔Schulze 2005: 2㧕‫ࠊࠇࠊޔߪ⼂⹺ߚߒ߁ߎޕ‬ࠇ߇⃻࿾ߢᡰេᵴേߦᓥ੐ߒߡ޿ࠆ㕖᡽ᐭ⚵❱ߩࠬ࠲࠶ࡈ߆ࠄ߽⡞߆ࠇߚ‫ޕ‬ᢙᄙߊߩᡰេ⚵❱߇㓸ਛ⽕㔎ߩࠃ߁ߦ᛼ߒដߌߚߚ߼‫ޔ‬ᷙੂࠍ↢ߓ‫ޔߪࠇߘޔ‬ᡰេߩ⺞ᢛࡔࠞ࠾࠭ࡓߩᰳᅤࠍ৻ጀ㓙┙ߚߖߚ‫ޕ‬ⵍἴ߆ࠄ✕ᕆᲑ㓏‫ޔ‬ᓳᣥᲑ㓏ߣᤨ㑆ࠍ⚻ㆊߔࠆߦߒߚ߇ߞߡ‫ޔ‬ᡰេ࡮ᓳᣥᓳ⥝ࠍ߼ߋࠆ⚵❱㑆ߩ㑐ㅪᕈ߇ᄢ߈ߊᄌൻߔࠆ‫ߦࠇߘޕ‬ᓥߞߡ‫⺞ޔ‬ᢛࡔࠞ࠾࠭ࡓߩ޽ࠅᣇ߽‫ޔ‬᭽⋧ࠍ⇣ߦߔࠆ‫ޕ‬
ࠕ࠴ࠚᎺߩ⚵❱ㅪ㑐ߪ‫ޔ‬ᄢ߈ߊಽߌߡ‫ޔ‬ᓳ⥝ౣᑪዪ㧔BRR: Rehabilitation and Reconstruction
Agency㧕߇ታ⾰⊛ߦᯏ⢻ߔࠆએ೨ߣએ㒠ߢ᭽⋧ࠍ⇣ߦߔࠆ‫ޕ‬BRR ߇ 2005 ᐕ 4 ᦬㧔⊒઎‫ޔ‬ታ㓙ߩᵴേߪ 5 ᦬ࠃࠅ㧕‫ޔ‬ਛᄩ᡽ᐭߩ⋥ロߢ⚵❱ൻߐࠇ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬Ꮊㇺࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߦ⸳⟎ߐࠇߚ‫ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ታ㓙ߩേ߈ࠍߺࠆߣ‫ޔ‬BRR ߇⸳⟎ߐࠇߚ⍍㑆߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬ᄢ߈ߊᄌൻߒߚࠊߌߢ
ߪߥ߆ߞߚ‫ࠍ࡯ࡘࡆ࠲ࡦࠗߥ߹ߑ߹ߐޕ‬ㅢߒߡ‫ޔ‬BRR ߇ᚲᦼߩᓎഀࠍᨐߚߔࠃ߁ߦߥߞߚ
ߩߪ‫ࠄ߆⟎⸳ޔ‬ඨᐕᓟ‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ߆ࠄ 1 ᐕᓟߢ޽ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ⵍޔ߼ߚߩߘޕ‬ἴ߆ࠄ 1 ᐕ߹ߢߪ╙৻Ბ㓏‫ޔ‬1 ᐕ⋡એ㒠ࠍ╙ੑᲑ㓏ߣߒߡᢛℂߔࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆ‫ޕ‬╙৻Ბ㓏ߢߪታ⾰⊛ߦߪ‫ޔ‬࿑ 1 ߦ⷗ࠆࠃ߁ߥ⚵❱ㅪ㑐ߢ޽ߞߚ‫ߩߎޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬Ბ㓏ߢߪ‫ޔ‬࿾ᣇⴕ᡽⚵❱ߪߘࠇ߶ߤᯏ⢻ߒߡ޿ߥ޿‫⊒ޕ‬ἴᓟ‫ޔ‬࿾ᣇⴕ᡽⚵❱߇ࠕ࠴ࠚᎺߩ⍮੐‫ࡦࡃޔ‬࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒߩᏒ㐳ࠍᰳ߈‫ޔߦࠄߐޔ‬ᐡ⥢߇⋥ធᵤᵄⵍኂࠍ⫥ߞߚ߫߆ࠅߢߪߥߊ‫ޔ‬࿾ᣇⴕ᡽⡯ຬ߽ᢙᄙߊᵤᵄߦࠃࠅᱫ੢ߒߚߚ߼ߦ‫ޔ‬࿾ᣇⴕ᡽ᯏ⢻ߪ⪺ߒߊૐਅߒߚ‫ޕ‬࿑ 1 ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߦ߅ߌࠆἴኂᓳ⥝ࠍ߼ߋࠆ⻉㓸࿅࡮⚵❱㑐ㅪ㧦1 ᐕ೨ᓟ߹ߢ

࿑ 2 ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߦ߅ߌࠆἴኂᓳ⥝ࠍ߼ߋࠆ⻉㓸࿅࡮⚵❱㑐ㅪ㧦1 ᐕએ㒠ߎ߁ߒߚਛߢ‫ޔ‬េഥ࿅૕ߣߒߡ߽ߞߣ߽ᵴべߒߚߩߪ࿖㓙ᯏ㑐߿࿖㓙⊛ߥ NGO ߢ޽ߞߚ㧔↰ਛ 2006㧕‫ޕ‬࿑ 1 ߦ␜ߒߚࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬ᡰេߩ⚵❱ㅪ㑐ߣߒߡߪ‫ޔ‬ҋNGO Њ ࿾ᣇ᡽ᐭ Њ ࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖ
߆ࠄ᭴ᚑߐࠇࠆਃⷺᒻҌߪ߁߹ߊᯏ⢻ߒߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬㊀ⷐߥߩߪ‫ޔ‬ҋNGO Њ ࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖЊ ⵍἴ⠪ߩਃⷺᒻҌߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬
ҋNGO Њ ࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖ Њ ⵍἴ⠪ߩਃⷺᒻҌߩߥ߆ߢ‫ߪࠖ࠹࠾ࡘࡒࠦޔ‬㊀ⷐߥᓎഀࠍ
ᨐߚߒߚ‫␠ࠚ࠴ࠕޕ‬ળ߆ࠄ⷗ߚߣ߈ߦ‫ߘࠃޟ‬⠪ߩ࿅૕‫ⵍ߇ޠ‬ἴ⠪ᢇេߦ㊀ⷐߥᓎഀࠍᨐߚ
ߒ߃ߚߩߪ‫ࠍࠖ࠹࠾ࡘࡒࠦޔ‬ᇦ੺ߦߒ߃ߚ߆ࠄߢ޽ߞߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬ᗧ๧ߢߪ‫ߪࠖ࠹࠾ࡘࡒࠦޔ‬ᵤᵄߦࠃߞߡⵍἴ⠪ߩ↢ᵴࠍᡰ߃ࠆߚ߼ߩ␠ળ⊛⾗Ḯࠍ༚ᄬߒߚ߇‫✕߇ࠖ࠹࠾ࡘࡒࠦޔ‬ᕆᤨߦ‫ޔ‬NGO ߆ࠄⵍἴ⠪߳ߣᡰេࠍખ੺ߔࠆߣ޿߁㊀ⷐߥᓎഀࠍᨐߚߒߚ㧔Suhirman 2006a;
Takahashi 2006; ↰ਛ 2006㧕‫ޕ‬ߐࠄߦ‫ޔ‬ᄢ㊂ߦⵍἴ࿾ߦ᛼ߒដߌߚ NGO 㑆ߩ㑐ଥ߽ߘࠇ߶ߤ߁߹ߊㅪ៤߇ขࠇߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬
ⵍἴᓟ 1 ᐕ⋡ߩ⺞ᩏࠍㅢߒߡ‫ޔ‬Suhirman ߪ‫ޟ‬ἴኂᢇេ⚵❱㑆ߩ㑐ଥߪ߁߹ߊㆇ༡ߐࠇߡ޿
ߥ޿‫ޠ‬㧔Suhirman 2006a: 154㧕ߣႎ๔ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡⊒↢એ೨߆ࠄࠕ࠴ࠚߢ⺞ᩏࠍ⛯ߌߡ߈3737

I. ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆ߚ㧷࡮㧱࡮ࠪࡘ࡞࠷ߪᰴߩࠃ߁ߩ߹ߣ߼ߡ޿ࠆ‫✕ޟޕ‬ᕆᢇេߩᲑ㓏ߢߪ‫ޔ‬ᡰេᵴേߪࠦࡒ
ࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ‫⺞߿࡜ࡈࡦࠗޔ‬ᢛࠍ߼ߋࠆ໧㗴ߦ⧰ߒ߼ࠄࠇߡ߈ߚ‫⺞ޕ‬ᢛߪ‫ޔ‬࿖㓙 NGO ߣᵷ㆜ㇱ㓌ߣߩ㑆‫ޔ‬࿖㓙 NGO 㑆‫ޔ‬࿖㓙 NGO ߣ࿾ᣇ NGO ߣߩ㑆‫ޔ‬࿖㓙 NGO ߣ࿾ᣇ᡽ᐭߣߩ
㑆ߣ‫ߢ࡞ࡌ࡟ࠆࠁࠄ޽ޔ‬࿎㔍ߛߞߚ‫ޔߪࠇߘޕ‬ㇱಽ⊛ߦߪ࿅૕㑆ߩ┹੎‫✽ޔ‬ᒛࠅ੎޿߿᳃
㑆ߣァㇱߣߩ෻⋡ߩ⚿ᨐߢ޽ߞߚ‫ߪࠇߘޔߦࠄߐޕ‬ᣂߒߊ߿ߞߡ߈ߚࠃߘ߽ߩߩ‫ޡ‬ኾ㐷ኅ‫ޢ‬߿߶ߣࠎߤ੍஻⍮⼂߽߽ߚߥ޿࿾ၞࠍ‫ޡ‬ਸ਼ߞขߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕߚߞ޽ߢߩ߽ࠆߕ↢ࠄ߆ߣߎޢ‬̖̖᡽╷ߠߊࠅߦᔅⷐߥ࿾ర૑᳃ߣߩᗧ⟵޽ࠆද⼏߽‫ޔ‬࿾రߦ㑐ߔࠆ⍮⼂߽ߒ߫ߒ߫ᰳᅤ
ߒߡ޿ߚ‫߳ࠚ࠴ࠕޕ‬ะߌߡ‫ޢࠆߔ⺖ޡ‬㨇ᓳ⥝ߩ㨉㕍౮⌀ߠߊࠅߦะߌߡߩࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ᡽
ᐭߩขࠅ⚵ߺߦ߽‫ޔ‬࿾రߩੱ‫ߩߣޘ‬ද⼏߇ߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޠ‬㧔Schulze 2005: 27㧕‫ޟޔߡߌߠߟޕ‬ᓳ⥝Ბ㓏ߢ߽̖̖េഥ⾗㊄ߩឭଏ⠪ߩ㑆ߢߩද⼏ߪታᣉ⊛ߦᰳ⪭ߒߡ޿޿ߚߒ‫ޔ‬࿖㓙⊛ߥNGO ߣ࿾ၞ⊛ NGO ߣߩ㑆ߩද⼏ߪᦨૐ㒢ߦߣߤ߹ߞߡ޿ߚ‫ ߩࠄࠇߎޔߚ߹ޕ‬NGO ߣࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕߩ⒳‫ⴕߩޘ‬᡽ᯏ㑐ߣߩ㑆ߩද⼏ߪቭ௥೙ߩᒻᑼਥ⟵⊛ߥᚻ⛯߈ߩߥ߆ߦၒᴚߒߡ
ߒ߹ߞߡ޿ߚ‫⚿ߩߘޕ‬ᨐ‫ޔ‬ᓳ⥝߇ߚࠎߦ‫✭ޡ‬ᘟߢ޽ࠆ‫ࠆߥ߆޿ޔߊߥߪߢߌߛ߁޿ߣޢ‬࿅૕߇‫ߥࠎߤޔߗߥޔ‬ᵴേࠍⴕߞߡ޿ࠆߩ߆ߣ޿߁ᖱႎ߇‫ߦࠄߐޔ‬㊀ⷐߥߩߪ‫ߗߥޔ‬㨇✕ᕆࠍⷐߔࠆߎߣߥߩߦ㨉޽ࠆ੐ᨩ߇ታⴕߦ⒖ߐࠇߥ޿ߩ߆ߦ㑐ߔࠆᖱႎ߇޽ࠄࠁࠆὐߦࠊߚ
ߞߡᰳ⪭ߒߡ޿ߚ‫ޠ‬㧔Schulze 2005: 27㧕‫ߢߎߎޔߒߛߚޕ‬㧷࡮㧱࡮ࠪࡘ࡞࠷߇‫ޟ‬ᓳ⥝Ბ㓏‫ޠ‬ߣ޿ߞߡ޿ࠆߩߪ‫ᤨߩߟ޿ޔ‬ὐ߆ࠄߥߩ߆ߪ᣿⏕ߦㅀߴࠄࠇߡ޿ߥ޿߇‫⺰ޔ‬ᢥߘߩ߽ߩ 2005
ᐕ 11 ᦬ߦ಴ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆߎߣࠍൊ᩺ߔࠆߣ‫⊒ޔ‬ἴ߆ࠄ 3‫ޔ‬4 ࡩ᦬ᓟߩߎߣࠍᜰߒߡ޿ࠆߣផ
ቯߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ౕ૕⊛ߦ‫ⵍޔ߽ߡߺߡ⷗ߢ࡞ࡌ࡟ࠖ࠹࠾ࡘࡒࠦޔ‬ἴᓟ 2 ᐕࠍ⚻ㆊߒߡᤨὐߢ߽‫ߒ߁ߎޔ‬ߚេഥ࿅૕⋧੕ߩ⺞ᢛߪ‫ߩ⨲ޔ‬ᩮ࡟ࡌ࡞ߢߪ߁߹ߊ޿ߞߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬଀߃߫‫ޔ‬ᑪ‛߇߶߷ోუߒߚ࡜ࡦࡊࡠ࡯᧛㧔Lampulo Village㧕ࠍ଀ߦߣߞߡߺࠆߣ‫ޔ‬15ߩ࿅૕㧔ᄖ࿖᡽ᐭេഥᯏ㑐 3‫ޔ‬࿖ㅪᯏ㑐 1‫ޔ‬࿖㓙 NGO 10‫ޔ‬᳃㑆ડᬺ 1 ࿅૕㧕߇૑ቛᓳ⥝ࠍߪߓ߼‫࡜ࡈࡦࠗޔ‬ᢛ஻‫଻ޔ‬ஜ࡮ⴡ↢‫ޔ‬ᢎ⢒ᡰេߥߤߐ߹ߑ߹ߥಽ㊁ߩᡰេࠍ߅ߎߥߞߡ޿
ࠆ㧔Suhirman 2006b㧕‫ޕ‬᡽ᐭ‫ޔ‬࿖ㅪ‫ޔ‬࿖㓙 NGO ߣ޿ߞߚᕈᩰࠍ⇣ߦߒ‫ߦࠄߐޔ‬࿅૕ߩⷙᮨ
߿⋡⊛߇⇣ߥࠆេഥ࿅૕߇৻ߟߩࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖߦ‫ޟ‬᛼ߒነߖߚ‫ᦨߦ․ޔ߼ߚߩߘޕޠ‬ೋߩ 1ᐕ㑆ߪ‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ࿾ߦߪ޽ࠆ⒳ߩ‫ޟ‬េഥࡃࡉ࡞‫ޟޠ‬NGO ࡃࡉ࡞‫ࠍޠ‬ᒁ߈⿠ߎߒߚ‫ޕ‬หᤨߦ‫ߘޔ‬ߩᡰេ࿅૕㑆ߩ⺞ᢛࠍ࿎㔍ߦߒߡ޿ߞߚ‫ޕ‬
BRR ߇ታ⾰⊛ߥᯏ⢻ࠍ⊒ើߔࠆࠃ߁ߦߥߞߚⵍἴ 1 ᐕᓟએ㒠‫ޔ‬࿑ 1 ߦ␜ߒߚ⚵❱ㅪ㑐࿑ߪ‫ޔ‬࿑ 2 ߦ⷗ࠆࠃ߁ߦᄢ߈ߊᄌൻߒߚ‫ޕ‬BRR ߪ‫ޔ‬࿾ᣇⴕ᡽ᯏ⢻߇ૐਅߒߡ޿ࠆߩࠍ⵬޿‫ޔ‬ߐࠄߦ‫ޔ‬ਛᄩ᡽ᐭߩᓳ⥝ᡰេࠍࠃࠅലᨐ⊛ߦߔࠆ௛߈ࠍᦼᓙߐࠇߚߛߌߢߪߥߊ‫ޟޔ‬NPO
ࠗࡦࡈ࡟‫߽ߣޠ‬๭߱ߴ߈ᄢ㊂ߩ NPO ⟲ߣߩ⺞ᢛߔࠆߎߣ߽᳞߼ࠄࠇߚ‫ޕ‬BRR ߇⚵❱ߐࠇߡᓟ‫ޔ‬NGO ߣⴕ᡽⚵❱ߣߩቯᦼ⊛ߥㅪ⛊ળ⼏߇߽ߚࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦߥߞߚ‫৻╙ޕ‬Ბ㓏ߦ߅޿ߡ⚵❱㑆ߦߪ‫ޔ‬ҋNGO Њ ࿾ᣇ᡽ᐭ Њ ࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖߩਃⷺᒻҌߣҋNGO Њ ࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖ Њⵍἴ⠪ߩਃⷺᒻҌ߇ሽ࿷ߒߚ߇‫╙ޔ‬ੑᲑ㓏ߢߪ‫ޔ‬ҋNGO Њ ࿾ᣇ᡽ᐭ Њ ࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖߩ
ਃⷺᒻҌߦઍࠊߞߡ‫ޔ‬ҋNGO Њ BRRЊ ࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖߩਃⷺᒻҌ߇޽ࠄࠊࠇ‫ޔ‬ᓟ⠪߇೨⠪ࠍ⵬ߞߚ‫৻╙ޔߦࠄߐޕ‬Ბ㓏ߢ㊀ⷐߥ௛߈ࠍߒߚҋNGO Њ ࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖ Њ ⵍἴ⠪ߩਃⷺᒻҌ߇‫ޔ‬ҋNGO Њ ࿾ᣇ᡽ᐭ Њ ࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖߩਃⷺᒻҌߣㅪ៤ࠍߣߞߡേ߈ᆎ߼ߚ‫ޕ‬⚵❱㑆㑐ㅪߦߪ‫ޔ‬NGO 㑆ߩ㑐ㅪ߽޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬㜞ᯅߪ‫⊒ޔ‬ἴ߆ࠄ 2 ᐕᓟߩ⺞ᩏႎ๔ߦ߅޿ߡ‫ޔ‬NGO ⚵❱㑆ߦ 3 ߟߩ⋧੕ㅪ៤࡮⺞ᢛߩ႐߇⃻ࠇߚߣㅀߴߡ޿ࠆ㧔㜞ᯅ 2006: 61㧕‫ߪ৻╙ޕ‬‫․ޟ‬ቯߩ࠹࡯ࡑߦ㑐ߔࠆ࠮ࡒ࠽࡯߿ࡢ࡯࡚ࠢࠪ࠶ࡊ‫ߩޠ‬㐿௅‫╙ޔ‬ੑߪ‫࡞ࠞ࡯ࡠޟ‬࿾ၞߩ႐㕙ߢᡰេ⠪㑆‫ߪ޿ࠆ޽ޔ‬ᡰេ⠪ߣⵍᡰេ⠪ߣߩ㑆ߢ⥄ὼ⊒↢⊛ߦ⿠ߎࠆኻ㕙ធ⸅‫ߩޠ‬႐‫ޔ‬╙ਃߦߪ‫߫߃଀ޔ‬࿖㓙⿒චሼ߿ CARE‫ޔ‬Oxfam ߣ޿ߞߚ‫ޟ‬ฦ࿖ᡰㇱࠍ߽ߟࠃ߁ߥᄢⷙᮨߥ‫ޠ‬࿖㓙⊛ߥ NGO ౝㇱߦ߅޿ߡ‫ޔ‬ㅪ៤߿⺞ᢛ߇ⴕࠊࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦߥߞߚ‫⺞ߚߒ߁ߎޔߦࠄߐޕ‬ᢛ߇น⢻ߦߥߞߚߩߪ‫ޔ‬BRR ߇ቯᦼ⊛ߦᡰេ⚵❱ࠍ㓸߼ߚቯ଀ળࠍ㐿௅ߒᆎ߼ߚߎߣ‫ࡦࠗޔ‬࠲࡯ࡀ࠶࠻਄ߦฦᡰេ࿅૕ߩᵴേࠍ߼ߋࠆࡊ࡜࠶࠻ࡎ࡯ࡓࠍ⸳ߌߚߎߣߥߤ߽‫ޔ‬ᄢ߈ߥᓎഀࠍᨐߚߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎߩߥ߆ߢ‫ޔ‬ᰴ╙ߦ‫ޔ‬BRR ߣ NGO㧔ߣߊߦ‫ ߥ࡞࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࠲ࡦࠗޔ‬NGO㧕ߣߩ㑆ߦ‫ߐޔ‬ࠄߦ‫ޔ‬NGO ⋧੕㑆ߦ㧔ߣߊߦ‫ ߥ࡞࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࠲ࡦࠗޔ‬NGO ߣ࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞ߥ‫࡯ࡠߪ޿ࠆ޽ޔ‬38
38

ǹȞȈȩ‫ע‬ᩗ඾ඬ໎ܹǁƷෙ‫ૅٳ‬ੲᲢဋɶ᣻‫ڤ‬Უࠞ࡞ߥ NGO ߣߩ㑆ߦ㧕ㅪ៤ߣ⺞ᢛ߇ㅴࠎߢ޿ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ߎ߁ߒߚ⺞ᢛ߇ㅴࠎߢ޿ߞߚߦ߽߆߆ࠊࠄߕ‫ోޔ‬૕ߣߒߡߺࠇ߫‫ޟޔ‬ᡰេ࿅૕㑆ߩ⺞ᢛࡔࠞ࠾࠭ࡓ߇௛߆ߥ߆ߞߚ‫⚿ߩߘޕ‬ᨐ‫⼾ޔ‬ንߥ⾗㊄⾗Ḯ߇ሽ࿷ߒߡ޿ߚߦ߽߆߆ࠊࠄߕ‫ޔ‬ߘࠇࠄࠍ㓸⚂ߒ‫✚ޔ‬ว⊛ⷞὐ߆ࠄᓳᣥ⸘↹ࠍ┙᩺ߒ‫ߦࠇߘޔ‬ᴪߞߡᔅⷐߥಽ㊁ߦㆡಾߦᝄ
ࠅะߌߡ޿ࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޠ‬㧔↰ਛ࡮㜞ᯅ 2008: 64㧕ߣ޿߃ࠆߩߢߪߥ޿߆‫ޕ‬એ਄‫◲ޔ‬නߦ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬࿾㔡ᵤᵄ߇⊒↢ߒߡએ㒠ߩ‫ࠆߌ߅ߦࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬ᄖㇱ߆ࠄߩᡰេ࿅૕ߩ⁁ᴫࠍ⚛ឬߒߡ߈ߚ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔߦߊߣޕ‬࿾㔡ߦ߅ߌࠆ NGO ߩᨐߚߒߚᓎഀߣ‫ޔ‬ߘࠇࠍขࠅᏎߊ⁁ᴫ㧔ߣߊߦ‫❱⚵ޔ‬ㅪ㑐㧕ࠍ⷗ߡ߈ߚ‫⺞ߩࠇࠊࠇࠊޕ‬ᩏߢߪ‫ߩߎޔ‬໧㗴ߦ㑐ߒߡ‫⺞ߥ⊛⛔♽ߊ߹߁ߤ߶ࠇߘޔ‬ᩏ߇ㅴ߼ࠄࠇߡ߈ߚߣ⸒޿㔍޿‫ߩߘޕ‬ᗧ๧ߢߪ‫੹ޔ‬ᓟߩ⺞ᩏߩਛߢ‫ߦࠄߐޔ‬ᬌ⸛ߒߡࠁߊᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆߣ⠨߃ߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߒ߆ߒ‫ޔ‬ᰴߩὐߢ‫ߪࡑ࡯࠹ߩߎޔ‬㊀ⷐߢ޽ࠆߣ⠨߃ߡ߈ߚ‫ޕ‬Ԙἴኂߩ੹ᓟ߹ߔ߹ߔ‫࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣޟ‬ൻ‫ߊࠁߡߒޠ‬ਛߢ‫ޔ‬ᶏᄖ߆ࠄߩᡰេ߇ⵍἴ࿾ߦᄢ㊂ߩ‫ޟ‬ᵹ౉ߔࠆ‫ޕ߁ࠈ޽ߢޠ‬ԙߘߩᶏᄖ߆ࠄߩᡰេ߇‫✕ޔ‬ᕆᡰេᲑ㓏ߦ߅޿ߡ߽‫ޔߦࠄߐޔ‬ᓳᣥ࡮ᓳ⥝Ბ㓏ߦ߅޿ߡ߽‫ޔ‬㊀ⷐߥᓎഀߪᨐߚߔߢ޽ࠈ߁‫ޕ‬Ԛߘࠇߪ‫╙ޔ߫߃޿⊛⥸৻ޔ‬ਃ਎⇇ߩ࿖‫ޔߪߢޘ‬᡽ᐭߦࠃࠆἴኂᢇេᵴേ૕೙߇వㅴ࿖
ߦᲧߴߡᧂᢛ஻ߢ޽ࠅ‫߁⵬ࠍࠇߘޔ‬ᗧ๧ߢ߽‫ޔ‬ᶏᄖ߆ࠄߩᡰេ߇㊀ⷐߥ௛߈ࠍߔࠆߢ޽ࠈ
߁‫ޕ‬ԛవㅴ࿖߆ࠄߺߡ߽‫࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣޔ‬ൻ߇৻ቯߩ‫ޟ‬ᚑᾫߒߚ‫ޠ‬㧔Ბ㓏ߦ㆐ߒߚ㧕⃻࿷‫ޔ‬ฦ࿖ߦ߅޿ߡ‫ޔ‬ᄢⷙᮨߥ࿖㓙 NGO ߇ᢙᄙߊ⚵❱ߐࠇ‫ߩߘޔ‬࿅૕ߪ‫ޔ‬ᶏᄖ✕ᕆᡰេߦኻߒߡ߽‫ޔ‬⋧ᒰߥࡁ࠙ࡂ࠙߿⚻㛎ࠍ⫾Ⓧߒߡ߈ߚ‫ޕ‬ߢߪ‫ߩߢࠚ࠴ࠕߩߢ߹ࠇߎޔ‬ᶏᄖᡰេߦ㑐ߒߡ‫․ࠆߥ߆޿ޔ‬ᓽ߇ߺࠄࠇࠆߩߢ޽ࠈ߁߆‫ޕ‬ߘࠇߪ‫ᤨ⃻ޔ‬ὐߦ߅޿ߡᥳቯ⊛ߦ߹ߣ߼ߡߺࠆߣ‫ޔ‬એਅߩࠃ߁ߦߥࠆ‫ޕ‬
Ԙᄢ㊂ߦᶏᄖ߆ࠄᡰេ⚵❱߇ᵹ౉ߒߚ߇‫ߩߘޔ‬ᡰេ⚵❱㑆ߩ⺞ᢛ߇߁߹ߊⴕ߆ߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ԙࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߢߪ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߦࠃߞߡ‫ޔ‬࿾ᣇⴕ᡽ߩᐡ⥢߇ᄢ߈ߥⵍኂࠍฃߌ‫ⴕޔߦࠄߐޔ‬᡽⡯ຬ߽ᄢ㊂ߦᱫ੢ߒߚ‫੹ޕ‬ᓟ‫ޔ‬ἴኂߦࠃߞߡ‫ޔ‬࿾ᣇⴕ᡽⚵❱߇⎕უߐࠇࠆߎߣ߇޽ࠆߎ
ߣࠍ‫ޔ߼੍ޔ‬ᶏᄖᡰេᯏ㑐ߪᗐቯߒߡ߅߆ߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠄߥ޿‫ޕ‬ᡰេ⚵❱㑆ߩ⺞ᢛ߇߁߹ߊ
ⴕ߆ߥ߆ߞߚේ࿃ߩ৻ߟߪ‫ޔ‬࿾ᣇⴕ᡽ᯏ⢻ߩᭂ┵ߥૐਅߦ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬Ԛએ਄ߩߎߣߦ㑐ㅪߒߡ‫ޔ‬ᡰេࠍ㐿ᆎߔࠆߦ޽ߚߞߡ‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ࿖ߩἴኂኻᔕߦ㑐ߔࠆⴕ᡽ߩ೙ᐲᢛ஻⁁ᴫ‫ޔ‬ኻᔕ⢻ജ㧔ἴኂ߳ߩ⽷᡽಴േ‫✕ޔ‬ᕆᡰេ‛⾗ߩേຬߥߤ㧕ࠍ੍߼ℂ⸃ߒߡ߅ߊߎߣ߇᳞߼ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ԛᡰេࠍㅴ߼ࠆߦ޽ߚߞߡ‫ޔ‬ᡰេ⚵❱㑆ߩ⺞ᢛߩߚ߼ߦߪ‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ⁁ᴫߦ㑐ߔࠆㄦㅦߢ‫ޔ‬ᱜ⏕ߥᖱႎ෼㓸߇ਇนᰳߢ޽ࠆ‫੹ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬࿁ߩἴኂߢߪ‫ⵍޔ‬ኂ⁁ᴫߦ㑐ߔࠆᖱႎ෼㓸߇ㄦㅦߦߢ߈ߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޔߪߢࠚ࠴ࠕޕ‬ᄢ߈ߥⵍኂࠍⵍߞߚߦ߽߆߆ࠊࠄߕ‫ⵍߩߘޔ‬ἴ⁁ᴫ߇৻ㅳ㑆એ਄વࠊࠄߕ‫ޔ‬ᡰេ߽౉ࠄߥ߆ߞߚࠤ࡯߽ࠬዋߥߊߥ޿‫ޕ‬Ԝⵍἴ⁁ᴫߩᖱႎ߇ᢛℂߐࠇߥ߆ߞߚߩߪ‫ޔߦ৻╙ޔ‬ᖱႎࠍ෼㓸ߒᢛℂߔࠆਥ૕㧔ᧄ᧪ߪ࿾ᣇⴕ᡽ᯏ㑐ߢ޽ࠈ߁㧕߇ᯏ⢻ߒߥ߆ߞߚߎߣ‫╙ޔߦࠄߐޔ‬ੑߦ‫ޔ‬ᖱႎ෼㓸ߩၮ␆⊛ߥ᧦ઙߢ޽ࠆࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦᚻᲑ㧔ߚߣ߃߫㔚⹤࿁✢ߥߤ㧕‫ޔ‬㆏〝✂ߥߤߦᄢ߈ߥⵍኂ
߇⊒↢ߒߚߎߣ‫╙ޔ‬ਃߦ‫ޔ‬㐳ᦼߩౝᚢ߇⛯޿ߡ߅ࠅ‫⚗ޔ߼ߚߩߘޔ‬੎ߩỗߒ޿ⵍἴ࿾ߦ౉
ࠆߎߣߘࠇ⥄૕߇ෂ㒾ߢ޽ߞߚߎߣ߇ේ࿃ߣߒߡᜰ៰ߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ԝ⺞ᢛߦ㑐ߔࠆ⚻㛎߇‫ޔ‬࿖㓙 NGO ߦ⫾Ⓧߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޔ߫߃଀ޔߦ߆⏕ޕ‬࿖㓙⿒චሼᧄㇱߢߪ‫ޔ‬ฦ࿖ߩ⿒චሼ⚵❱ࠍ⛔᜝ߒ‫⋧ޔ‬੕ߦ⺞ᢛߔࠆߎߣߦߪᘠࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ߥ⇣ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ࠆᕈᩰߩ‫⋧ޔ‬੕ߦ⁛┙ߒߚ NGO ߣߩ㑆ߢ‫ⵍޔ‬ἴᓟߩᷙੂߒߚ⁁ᴫߣ޿߁႐㕙ߢ‫⃻ޔ‬࿾ߦ౉ߞߚ⚵❱㑆ߢ⺞ᢛߔࠆߎߣߪᧂ⚻㛎ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬Ԟ࿖㓙⊛ NGO ߩᄙ᭽ᕈ߇‫⺞ޔ‬ᢛࠍ৻ጀ㔍ߒ޿߽ߩߦߒߡ޿ࠆ‫߿⺆⸒ޔߪࠇߎޕ‬ᢥൻߩ㆑޿‫߿ࡦ࡚ࠪ࠶ࡒޔ‬ᵴേᚻᴺߩ㆑޿ߦߣߤ߹ࠄߥ޿‫৻ޔ߫߃ߣߚޕ‬ቯⷙᮨએ਄ߩ‫❱⚵ޔ‬ൻߩ⒟ᐲ߽㜞޿࿖㓙 NGO ߪ‫ޔ‬ዋߥߊߣ߽‫ޔ‬หߓࠃ߁ߥ࿖㓙 NGO ߣߩ㑆ߢᖱႎ੤឵ࠍߔࠆߎߣ
ߪߢ߈ࠆ߇‫❱⚵ޔ‬ൻߩ⒟ᐲ߽ૐߊ‫ޔ‬࿖㓙✕ᕆᡰេߩ⚻㛎߽ዋߥ޿ዊⷙᮨߩ NGO ߪ‫ޔ‬ᄢⷙᮨ39
39

I. ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆ߩ NGO ߇૞ࠅ಴ߔᖱႎࡀ࠶࠻ࡢ࡯ࠢ߆ࠄ߽ᄖࠇߡࠁߊน⢻ᕈ߇㜞޿‫ޕ‬ᒰὼ‫ޔ‬ዊⷙᮨ NGOߪ‫ߚߒ߁ߘޔ‬⢻ജ߽⚻㛎߽ዋߥ޿‫ޕ‬
ԟNGO ਛᔃߩᡰេߩ႐วߦߪ‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ࿾߳ߩᡰេߩ౏ᐔᕈ߇଻ߡߥ޿‫ࠆ޽ޔߡߞ߇ߚߒޕ‬NGO ߇౉ߞߡ࿾ၞߪ‫ޟ‬ᡰេ߇ᚻෘߊ‫ޔ߇ࠆ޿ߡ߈ߢޠ‬೎ߩ NGO ߇ਛᔃߣߥߞߡᡰេ߇ⴕ
ࠊࠇߚ࿾ၞߢߪ‫ޟ‬ᡰេ߇߁߹ߊੱ‫ⷐߩޘ‬᳞ߦᴪߞߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޟ߽ߘ߽ߘޔ߆ߣޠ‬ᡰេߘߩ߽
ߩ߇ਇ⿷ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫߁޿ߣޠ‬੐ᘒ߇↢ߓߡ޿ࠆ‫੹ޕ‬࿁ߩ⺞ᩏߢߪ‫ޔ‬లಽ⺞ᩏߢ߈ߡ޿ߥ޿߇‫ޔ‬ߎ߁ߒߚ‫ޠߥࠄߛ߹ޟ‬ᡰេ⁁ᴫߪ‫✕ޔ‬ᕆᕈ߇㜞޿Ბ㓏߶ߤ‫ޔ‬ᒝ߆ߞߚߣផ᷹ߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬Ԡᡰេߔࠆ஥߆ࠄ⠨߃ߚߣ߈‫ޔ‬ᄢ㊂ߩᡰេ࿅૕㑆ߩ⺞ᢛࠍߔࠆࡔࠞ࠾࠭ࡓࠍߤ߁᭴▽ߔࠆߩ߆ࠍᬌ⸛ߔࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ߩߘޕ‬㓙‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ࿖ߩⴕ᡽⚵❱ߩᕈᩰ‫ⴕޔ‬᡽⚵❱ߣァ㓌ߣߩ㑐ଥ‫ⴕޔ‬᡽⚵❱ߣᶏᄖߩⴕ᡽⚵❱ߣߩ㑐ଥ‫ⴕޔ‬᡽⚵❱ߣ NGO ߣߩ㑐ଥ‫ޔ‬࿖㓙⊛ߥ NGO ߣ࿖ౝߩ NGO ߣߩ㑐ଥ‫ޔ‬࿖ౝߦ߅޿ߡ߽ⵍἴ࿾ߩ NGO ߣ࿖ౝ NGO ߣߩ㑐ଥߥߤ‫ޔ‬ᄙర⊛ߥ㑐ଥࠍ⠨ᘦߔࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ԡⵍἴ⠪޽ࠆ޿ߪⵍἴ࿾߆ࠄ⠨߃ߚߣ߈‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ⠪ߚߜߩ࠾࡯࠭ࠍฃߌઃߌࠆ‫⓹ޟ‬ญ‫⊛ޠ‬ߥ⚵❱߇ᔅⷐߣߥࠆ‫੹ޕ‬࿁ߩࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߩⵍἴ⠪ߚߜߩࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯߆ࠄߺࠆߣ‫ޔ‬BRR
߇ᯏ⢻ߒᆎ߼ࠆએ೨ߦ߅޿ߡߪ‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ⠪‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ࿾ࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖߣ NGO ߣߩ୘೎੤ᷤߦࠃߞ
ߡ‫ߥ߹ߑ߹ߐޔ‬េഥࠍฃߌߡ޿ߚ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬BRR ߇ᯏ⢻ࠍ⊒ើߒᆎ߼ߚⵍἴ 1 ᐕ⋡એ㒠‫ޔ‬BRR
߇ⵍἴ⠪‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ࿾ࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖߩ⓹ญߣߥࠅ‫ޔߚ߹ޔ‬Ꮢⴕ᡽ߩᦨᧃ┵ᯏ᭴߽⓹ญߣߒߡߩ
௛߈ࠍߒߡ޿ࠆ߇‫ߦߎߘޔ‬ᜬߜㄟ߹ࠇߚⵍἴ⠪߆ࠄߩⷐᦸ߇චಽ⡞߈ዯߌࠄࠇߥ߆ߞߚࠅ‫ޔ‬ߐࠄߦߪ‫ߦᦸⷐߩߘޔ‬ኻߔࠆ࿁╵߇ߥ߆ߞߚࠅࠤ࡯ࠬ߇ᢙᄙߊ⡞߆ࠇߚ‫ޕ‬ෳ⠨ᢥ₂ᨋ ൟ↵ 2007‫⿰ޟ‬ᣦ⺑᣿‫ޡޠ‬࿖┙᳃ᣖቇඳ‛㙚⺞ᩏႎ๔ 73 2004 ᐕࠗࡦ࠼ᵗ࿾㔡ᵤᵄἴኂⵍἴ࿾ߩ⃻⁁ߣᓳ⥝߳ߩ⺖㗴‫ޢ‬࿖┙᳃ᣖቇඳ‛㙚ࠫ࡜࡞࠺࡮㧱. 2005‫ޟ‬਎⇇߆ࠄᔓࠇࠄࠇߚⵍἴ⠪ߚߜ‫ޠ‬National Geographic 2005-12
Schulze, K. E. 2005 “Between Conflict and Peace: Tsunami Aid and Reconstruction in Aceh”
http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/global/Publications/HumanSecurityReport/Tsunami/Aceh%20Tsunam
i%20Response.pdf㧔2009.5.12㧕
Suhirman 2006a “Achenese Socio-Cultural Response during Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster” ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼‫ޡ‬2004 ᐕർㇱࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡⺞ᩏႎ๔ II‫ޢ‬ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼Suhirman, 2006b “Mapping Key Actors in Community Housing and Infrastructure Development
after Earthquake and Tsunami in Banda Ache December 2004-December 2006” ฬฎደᄢቇᄢ
ቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼‫ޡ‬2004 ᐕർㇱࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡⺞ᩏႎ๔ III‫ޢ‬ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼
㜞ᯅ⺈ 2006‫ߩࠚ࠴ࠕޟ‬૑ቛᓳ⥝ߣࡠ࡯ࠞ࡞ࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖࠍ߼ߋࠆ⺞ᢛࡔࠞ࠾࠭ࡓ‫ޠ‬ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼‫ޡ‬2004 ᐕർㇱࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡⺞ᩏႎ๔ III‫ޢ‬ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼↰ਛ㊀ᅢ 2006‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޟ‬࿾㔡߆ࠄߩ↢ᵴᓳ⥝‫ޠ‬ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼‫ޡ‬2004 ᐕർㇱࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡⺞ᩏႎ๔ II‫ޢ‬ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼↰ਛ㊀ᅢ 2007‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޟ‬࿾㔡ߣࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖ‫ޠ‬ᶆ㊁ᱜ᮸࡮ᄢ⍫ᩮᷕ࡮ศᎹᔘኡ✬‫ޡ‬ᓳ⥝ࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖ⺰౉㐷‫ޢ‬ᒄᢥၴ↰ਛ㊀ᅢ࡮㜞ᯅ⺈ 2008‫ߩࠖ࠹࠾ࡘࡒࠦޟ‬ᶖṌ߆ࠄౣ↢߳‫ޠ‬ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼‫ޡ‬2004 ᐕർㇱࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡⺞ᩏႎ๔ IV‫ޢ‬ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼4040Community’s Perception on Reconstruction Process in Aceh
Agussabti, and Irfan Zikri
Socio-Economic Department, Agricultural Faculty, and Tsunami Disaster and Mitigation Center,
Syiah Kuala University. Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam, Indonesia.

Abstract: The objective of the research was to assess the community’s perception and satisfaction on thereconstruction process. The survey was conducted in five districts which cover 33 villages and consisted of threevillages in Banda Aceh, four villages in Aceh Besar, 8 eight villages in Aceh Jaya, two villages in Pidie and sixteen
villages in Bireun, with the total of respondent 14.5% of the total housing beneficiaries 5628 households. The resultof research indicated that the reconstruction process has been given positive effects on the community life. Generally,
the housing rehabilitation and reconstruction process were able to fulfil the standard of community basic necessities.
This is indicated from the houses and basic infrastructure facilities conditions which perceived to be better from theprevious conditions, and the improvement of the community livelihoods. The research recommendations are theinstitutional aids (donors/NGOs) should prepare the appropriate exit strategy plan and build good coordination withlocal government and other local institutions so that the economic development and infrastructure reconstruction
could be sustained in the future; for the future programs, the local government is necessary to concern on the main
issues, such as water and sanitation, sustainable economic development, and community access and control to basic
need infrastructure on health, education, and economic resources; and the government and NGOs should formulize abetter and adaptable coordination mechanism system among agencies for rehabilitation and reconstruction process
post-tsunami in Aceh.
Keyword: community perception, reconstruction

BackgroundIn response to the 2004 tsunami and earthquake, the Indonesian and German Governments enteredinto a bi-lateral agreement. Both parties have agreed to undertake the ‘Rehabilitation andReconstruction of Housing and Settlements’ (RRHS) Programme in Aceh Province under theumbrella of Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Board –Badan Rehabilitasi dan Rekonstruksi (BRR).
The Programme is executed by BRR on behalf of the Indonesian Government, financed by KfW on
behalf of the German Government and implemented by GITEC Consult GmbH.
The implementing program collaborating with the Socio-Economic Department, Agricultural
Faculty, Syiah Kuala University agreed to conducting a survey to assess the post construction
process. Overall, the objectives of the survey were to assess the beneficiaries’ household conditions
which cover the housing, infrastructure and economic condition comparing the present with thesituation before tsunami. Nevertheless, this paper only discusses the community’s perception onreconstruction process.
The household survey was conducted to five targeted areas, namely Banda Aceh, Aceh Besar,
Aceh Jaya, Pidie and Bireun. The survey was carried out in 33 villages consisted of three villages in
Banda Aceh, four villages in Aceh Besar, 8 eight villages in Aceh Jaya, two villages in Pidie andsixteen villages in Bireun. The simple random sampling method was employed in determining the
respondents. Data gathering was collected by using structurized questionnaire as an assessment tool,
un-structurized interview with community leader, and observation. The survey has gathered as manyas 819 households or approximately 14.5% of the total 5628 RRHS housing beneficiaries.
Community’s Perception on Reconstruction Process
Conseptually, individual’s perception is affected by personal cognitive and experiences to thesomething matter. The accuracy of perception is affectted by four main factors, namely; (1) thenature of the phenomena being perceived, (2) the ability to perceive, (3) the number of information
had by the perceiver, and (4) the characteristic of the attribute being perceived (Krech, Richard, andEgerton, 1962). This means, those factors are interacting which in the end would determine personal
perception to the object.

41

41

I. Reconstruction and Problems

Perception on Economic Condition
After the tsunami, all of the people economic potentials are destroyed, that the people economic
wheel stopped at that time. Yet, with the numerous helps which had come from various parties,
either from foreign countries or domestic, gradually the people economic condition started to rotate
again. Most of the economic initiators came from the government spending for the rehabilitation andreconstruction, not came from real sectors. This condition draws concerns from many parties on thecontinuity of the people economic condition after BRR and NGOs are out from Aceh. This is causedby the foundation of people economic is not yet strongly constructed to continue the development
processes which have been done for more than 4 years after the tsunami. The respondents’
perception on their economic conditions at the present time can be seen on Table 1.
Tabel 1. Perception to personal economic condition at the present time
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

District
Aceh Besar (N=147)
Aceh jaya (N=155)
Bireun (N=339)
Banda Aceh (N=68)
Pidie (N=110)

Much
worse
2.0
2.6
3.5
5.9
7.3

Perception to personal economic condition (%)
Slightly
Slightly
Much
The sameworse
betterbetter
25.9
40.8
29.9
1.4
32.9
43.2
21.3
0.0
23.0
43.1
28.0
2.4
25.0
44.1
23.5
1.5
30.0
50.0
10.0
2.7

Table 1 shows that approximately 69% respondents have good perception on their personalpresent economic conditions. It shows that the Acehnesse economic conditions 4 years after thetsunami has started to re-improved. At the first period after the tsunami, the economic conditions aremostly destroyed, especially in affected areas. Since the various aids and economic empowerments
implemented by many agencies, many people were able to rebuild their livelihood to the normal
condition comparing before tsunami. However, approximately 31% respondents perceive theirpersonal economic conditions are worse. Those people are generally very poor people before thetsunami and they do not have enough capabilities to access the various economic aids after thetsunami.
Related to the perception to community economi condition at the present, mostly respondents
82% have good perception on community economic condition at the present (Table 2). The
availabity and improvement of economics infrastructure after tsunami are influence to thecommunity economic activity. Many people said they can continue and improve their livelihood
activities supported by availabitity of housing, economic and social infrastructures; and economic
empowerment by many donor/NGOs supported by government such as income generating activity,
capacity building through rehabilitation and reconstruction process.
Table 2. Perception to community economic condition at the present
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

District
Aceh Besar (N=147)
Aceh jaya (N=155)
Bireun (N=339)
Banda Aceh (N=68)
Pidie (N=110)

Perception to community economic condition (%)
MuchSlightly
Slightly
Much
The same
worse
worse
betterbetter
1.4
15.0
42.2
40.8
0.7
1.3
21.3
43.2
34.2
0.0
0.6
12.7
55.5
30.7
0.6
1.5
5.9
44.1
45.6
2.9
4.5
26.4
56.4
10.0
2.7

Meanwhile, 18% the respondents who perceive worse perception on community economic
contion at the present said the economic inequality in ther rehabilitation and reconstruction process.
According to them, there are many economic inequalities in the community as the effect of
empowerment which are considered as not representing the interests of poor people so it often
provokes social jealousy. However, they are still grateful for the aids which have been given by42

42Community’s Perception on reconstruction process (Agussabti and Irfan)

donor/NGOs to the Acehness people because they realize if no one agencies came and help themafter tsunami, they can not imagine that the community economic condition are much worse.
Several respondents gave testimonies related to social economi condition at the persent. Somepeople in Pidie said, there is no significant changing on economic condition comparing with after
tsunami. They said in Acehness: “rumoh memang ka get-get jino, tapi kamo keureuja payah that jino,nyo tamita keureuja beu tajak u gampong gob peu tamita teupat keureuja bangunan atau pi nanyang jak u laot atau peu-peu yang mudah” (our houses are good now, but we have no job anddifficult to find a job now, to look for job we have to go to other villages, and we have no choice, thejobs availabitity are such as a labor for construction work or other unskilled labor). However, they
admitted that they condition was the same comparing before tsunami. Hence, it is no significant
changing on their economic condition.
The other people in Lamdurian, Aceh Jaya stated: “nyo kamoe ban pinah u relokasi, keuno
ekonomi pi payah, lampoh golom na. Ma pajan na tanyo ban di relokasi keuno. Nyo keuh baroe
keuneuk mulai” (we just moved to relocation, economically it is hard, we have no farmland. We justconsidered starting our livelihood now). However, they motivate theirselve and believe they cancontinue their live. They do not want to neglect their hope and endorsement by many agencies
through rehabilitation and reconstruction process. Thus, this condition made most people have good
perception on community economic condition in the future.
Tabel 3. Perception to community economic condition in the future
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Wilayah
Aceh Besar (N=147)
Aceh jaya (N=155)
Bireun (N=339)
Banda Aceh (N=68)
Pidie (N=110)

Perception to community economic condition (%)
MuchSlightly
Slightly
Much
The same
worse
worse
betterbetter
5.4
21.1
52.4
20.4
0.7
3.9
25.2
61.3
9.7
0.0
3.8
16.8
57.8
20.4
1.2
14.7
13.2
50.0
22.1
0.0
7.3
22.7
59.1
9.1
1.8

Table 3 shows that most of people -73%- have good perception on economic condition in the
future. However, some of them stated helpless with current and the future economic condition, andthey do not have good planning yet. They stated: “meunyo ata u keu nyang hana tatu’oh lom, seubabnyan urusan Tuhan. Tanyo ta peugah peu mantong jeut, tapi kon hana teunte, jadi bek tacok but
Tuhan” (we can not see the future, because that is God’s will. We can say anything, but that is
uncertain, so do not take what become God’s prerogative). Generally ther are temporary andunskilled labor. They do not have a permanet job. Some respondents who are optimistic to the
future economic condition stated: “bak ta eu kondisi, meunyo aman aju Aceh, sang na kemudahanaju, hai lage kamoe awai meu sapeu tan na, tapi jino, rumoh kana meuh pi ka tablo” (according tocondusive situation is Aceh, and Aceh could continuously safe, I think the economic conditions
would be easier, like us before, we did not have anything, but now we have a house and we can also
afford to buy gold).
Generally, the community’s perception on economic condition is good. Since the rehabilitation
and reconstruction, the economic condition is slightly improved. It is difficult to assess thecommunity economic condition in the short time and partially, while the rehabilitation andreconstruction process is still going. In addition, the peace and safety issues seem to become theindicator which affects the predictions on economic conditions in the future. Therefore, peace in
Aceh and community economic empowerment, are like “chicken and egg”, interconnected to becapable in developing the future people economic independently and continuously.
Perception on Government Suports in Reconstruction Process
The government’s role in supporting the reconstruction processes is very important, especiallyfor developing area. The tsunami has drawn attentions from many parties, national and international
agencies. Meanwhile, the local government could not function well at the first periode after tsunami,
because many of the civil servants became the victims and the government infrastructure conditions

43

I. Reconstruction and Problems

were damaged. As the effect, the local government showed less participation in the process ofrehabilitation and reconstruction at the first period after the tsunami. In addition, the situation
weakens the coordination among the donors/NGOs and the local government. This condition
influenced the respondents’ perceptions of local government supports in the reconstruction process
after the tsunami (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Community perception of government support in the reconstruction process

Figure 1 shows that most respondents -approximately 52%- do not know the government
support in the reconstruction process, especially in the areas which severely affected by tsunami
seriously, such as Aceh Besar, Aceh Jaya and Banda Aceh. In these areas, most of local government
offices were destroyed, and most of the staffs also became the tsunami victims. Therefore, in the
beginning of reconstruction process, donors/NGOs which helped the victims were difficult tocoordinate with the local government so that to speed up the reconstruction process they could only
coordinated with BRR. In aadition, the direct responses and supports for the victims were mostly
come from donors/NGOs directly at the first periode made the local government supports were notreally obvious.
At the same time, the areas which were not severely affected by the tsunami seriously, such as
Bireun and Pidie, in the first period after the tsunami the local government staffs actively
participated in coordination meetings to administer the various aids, therefore some of the people
perceive the existence of local government supports. Nevertheless, they also said that the local
government supports on the reconstruction process are less than the NGOs/donors.
More than 40% of respondents stated that the local government supports are surely exist, suchas supervision and coordination. They stated: “pakiban mantong dukungan pemerintah teutap na,
hai awak NGO di tamong kon meulapor bak pemerintah cit, menyo hana geu dukung pane geubi
tamong” (the government supports are surely exist, at least when the donors/NGOs came into avillage surely it is reported, if the government did not give any support the NGO was not allowed toenter). The others said: “Pemerintah na cit dukungan, data-data kon bak pemerintah dicok” (There
were supports from local government; the data were surely taken from the government, weren’t
they?). It means, the local government surely exist in the reconstruction process. Moreover, thepeople hope the local government should more concern to support community needs. Tabel 4 shows
the three most important things that must be supported by local government according to community
needed.
Table 4 shows that most of people said that the main point which has to be supported by local
government in the reconstruction process is water and sanitation or availability of clean water.
Currently, the water supply is still main issues for many households. The people feel that the cleanwater is not adequately available, even in Banda Aceh as the capital city of the province, the watersupply from PDAM (water supply agency) so far frequently not running well. Therefore, many
household then buy drinking water. Meanwhile, the shallow well in their house can not usedanymore especially for drinking because of tsunami. Some people stated: “sigohlom tsunami,
seumeurah ie mon, ta jep nyan cit, tapi na cit gampong yang ka di pasang ie lage PDAM, tapi lhueh
tsunami hanjeut ta pakek lee” (before tsunami, we use the water from shallow well for drinking and44

44

Community’s Perception on reconstruction process (Agussabti and Irfan)

washing, several villages also connected by PDAM pipe, however, after tsunami it can not usedanymore).
Tabel 4 . Community perception of the priority of local government support
according to the priority community needs
The priority of local governemnt support according to priority needs (%)
Aceh Besar
Aceh Jaya
BireunBanda Aceh
Pidie
Priority needs
N=147
N=155
N=339
N=68
N=110
1*
2*
3*
1*
2*
3*
1*
2*
3*
1*
2*
3*
1*
2*
3*
1 Tidak tahu
23.1 23.1 27.9 0.6 0.6 1.9 3.8 5.0 11.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 Housing
0.7 3.4 1.4 2.6 0.6 0.0 5.6 1.5 2.1 1.5 4.4 0.0 9.1 4.5 4.5
3 Road access17.0 12.2 4.1 12.3 15.5 4.5 26.0 9.4 5.0 11.8 16.2 5.9 7.3 4.5 8.2
4 Watsan25.2 12.9 6.1 31.0 14.2 11.6 12.7 11.8 8.0 41.2 11.8 7.4 21.8 12.7 6.4
5 Job opportunity
15.6 10.9 10.2 8.4 13.5 19.4 8.0 8.6 4.4 10.3 22.1 14.7 3.6 0.0 6.4
6 Education
2.7 4.8 6.1 3.9 9.7 10.3 11.8 24.2 8.0 10.3 7.4 10.3 16.4 20.0 12.7
7 Power
1.4 0.7 2.0 20.0 4.5 0.0 1.2 1.8 3.5 0.0 4.4 2.9 2.7 4.5 3.6
8 Health
4.1 10.9 12.2 6.5 17.4 25.8 6.5 10.9 13.9 7.4 17.6 17.6 7.3 14.5 19.1
9 Security
0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.9 2.7 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 1.8
10 Livelihood
4.8 8.8 8.2 3.9 10.3 7.7 1.8 2.1 4.1 2.9 5.9 2.9 0.9 4.5 0.9
11 Religious progr.
0.7 2.0 4.1 1.3 2.6 0.0 5.6 5.0 7.4 0.0 1.5 4.4 0.0 0.9 3.6
12 Transportation
0.7 1.4 5.4 5.2 3.2 9.0 2.9 2.7 4.4 5.9 2.9 5.9 9.1 14.5 14.5
13 Other
4.1 8.2 11.6 4.5 7.1 9.7 13.9 16.2 25.4 7.4 4.4 22.1 21.8 19.1 18.2
Note*: 1. First priority
2. Second priority
3. Third priority

The second priority which is considered important to be supported by the local government isroad access. This is because in many locations where the housing reconstruction has finished, yetless supported by the infrastructures availability or the roads construction have not yet finished.
Therefore, the people are hoping that the local government would like to support the construction or
to continue finishing the road infrastructure. In addition, there’s hope from some respondents that the
government would like to build new roads to production centre so that the people mobility could behigher and easier in accessing their economic sources.
The third priority which is important for the local government to support is the creation of job
opportunities. This condition indicates that the economic foundation which was built by BRR anddonors/NGOs after the tsunami are perceived as not strong enough in creating job opportunities andsupporting the people economic continuously. Therefore, there are concerns regarding theuncontinuity of the economic development after BRR and NGOs are out from Aceh after year 2009.
Related to that, the people are expecting support of further economic empowerment program fromthe local government. Other needs which are considered important to be supported by the local
government based on people perceptions are the quality improvement of health and education. Thisis related to the poor quality services for health and education, even though the respondents admitted
that the heath and education equipments and infrastructures are better than before.
Perception on reconstruction process
Conceptually, a response will occur because there is a stimulus, either physical, socio-culturalor environment. Related to that, the reconstruction process is a stimulus which wills result responses,
either in form of perception or behaviour. In this survey, the responses meant are people perception
on the reconstruction process. The perceptions are usually very depended on their knowledge andexperiences related with the reconstruction process itself. The people perception on thereconstruction process can be seen on Figure 2.
Figure 2 shows that people perception on the reconstruction process are classified as good.
Approximately 90% of respondent gave positive judgements on the reconstruction process. It is
indicated by the punctuality of the finishing of many houses, either rehabilitation or reconstruction.
In addition, the qualities of the houses built are good enough and infrastructures are consideredbetter than before the tsunami. Besides, the good perceptions are influenced by the involvement of
the community in the reconstruction process through community based program. Thereby, several
people received additional income through housing reconstruction, and others also can build their45

I. Reconstruction and Problems

own houses by theirselves or directly supervise the housing reconstruction so the houses qualities
built are better (Figure 3).
However, there were a few people who have bad perception of the reconstruction process
because it had not run well. According to them, there were many issues of injustice, corruption,colusion and nepotism, and the lack of transprancy in the reconstruction by some executors or
certain individuals. In addition, people dependability on aids from other parties due to thereconstruction process is now considered increasing, while people awareness on caring, maintaining
and using the aids, tools and buildings which have been given by the donor/NGOs are still low. This
indicates that the unsatisfaction from a few people is more due to the mechanism and aids
distribution system which considered not adequate, and not come from the result of thereconstruction.

Figure 2. Community perception on reconstruction process

Figure 3. The community participation in housing reconstruction process

Conclusions
Generally, community perception of the reconstruction process is good, especially perception toeconomic condition and overall reconstruction process. Comparing with the condition before
tsunami, the availability and condition of social and economic inftrastructures are better now. The
people who have bad perception are mostly influenced by bad personal experiences onreconstruction process, including lack of access to social and economic resources. However, somepeople who satisfied with the reconstruction process and have good perception stated that there someinfrastructures are still not available or not running well now and urgently needed such as watersupply, roads, health and education, including job opportunities. The local governemnet supportingis urgently needed now to provide community needs.

46

46

Community’s Perception on reconstruction process (Agussabti and Irfan)

The reconstruction process is generally considered to run well. Nevertheless, it can not bedenied that there are still some weaknesses in the process, such as the weak coordination between
the local government with NGOs or among the NGOs themselves. This is indicated from the slow
and incomplete package of housing reconstruction as the effect of lack of communication andcoordination among each side involved. Sometime the housing has been built, but it has notsupported by other adequate basic infrastructure facilities such as the availability of power, watersupply, road, and basic health and education facilities. Therefore, the recommendation for the future
to solve these problems could be a lesson learned for the local government and NGOs to formulize abetter and adaptable coordination mechanism system including preparing, organizing, executing andcontrolling of rehabilitation and reconstruction process in disaster affected areas.
Literatures
BPS, 2006. Statistic of Aceh. BPS and BAPPEDA Provinsi NAD. Banda Aceh
BRR, BAPPENAS, Pemda NAD-Nias, Kementrian/Lembaga. 2007. Evaluasi Paruh Waktu:
Rehabilitasi & Rekonstruksi Wilayah dan Kehidupan Masyarakat Provinsi NAD dan
Kepulauan Nias Provinsi Sumatera Utara. Banda Aceh.
BRR, BAPPENAS, 2007. Buku Utama Rencana Aksi: Rehabilitasi & Rekonstruksi Wilayah dan
Kehidupan Masyarakat Provinsi NAD dan Kepulauan Nias Provinsi Sumatera Utara. Banda
Aceh.
CGI, Bappenas, 2005. Indonesia: Preliminary Damage and Loss Assessment the December 26, 2004
Natural Disaster.
Data Bokornas.2005. Buku Utama: Rencana Induk Rehabilitasi dan Rekonstruksi NAD-Nias.
Krech, D., Richard S.C., and Egerton L.B., 1962. Individual in Society. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc. New York.
Sherraden, Michael. 2006. Aset untuk orang miskin: perspekstif baru usaha pengentasan kemiskinan(translated: assets and the poor; a new welfare perspective). Translated by, Sirojudin Abbas(et.al.). PT. RajaGrafindo Persada. Jakarta.
World Bank. 2008. The impact of the conflict, the tsunami and reconstruction on poverty in Aceh.
The World Bank. Banda Aceh/Jakarta.

47
47

Changing Problems in the Post-tsunami Reconstruction
Process at Banda Aceh: Victims’ Perspectives
Takahashi Makoto, and Tanaka Shigeyoshi
Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Japan
1. Introduction
This paper is about changing problems in the reconstruction process from the 2004 Indian Ocean
Tsunami, paying special attention to the victims’ perspectives, and to the time-space differentiationin damage and recovery, with a focus being placed on Banda Aceh, Nangroe Aceh Darussalam,Indonesia. First is a description about what problems the inhabitants in the areas of different
damages have thought of as serious at different times. Indeed, based on classification of the tsunami
damage into the four areas, for example housing reconstruction process can be viewed as shown in
Figure 1 (Takahashi, et al. 2007). We pointed out that as time passes the disaster areas represented inDistricts I, II, and III reflect large differences in the reconstruction processes. We argue that someproblems are solved as time passes while others remain unsolved even three years after the tsunami
even in the lightly damaged area. Second is a description about whose support the inhabitants haveevaluated as helpful for their livelihood recovery. Tsunami-affected areas generally suffer from lackof resources for the recovery, and therefore need various supports from outside not only in the phaseof emergency response but also in the intermediate and longer-term reconstruction. We stress that the
non-governmental sectors play increasingly important roles in addition to the private, while thegovernmental sectors have disappointed victims’ expectations except for overseas governmental
institutions. Last is consideration about the societal factors behind these gaps between needs and aids,
making reference to the vulnerability/resilience of the pre-/post-tsunami Acehnese society.
Area Typologies by Damages to Buildings

I

II

III

3 meters
and more

Height ofTsunamiNotinundated
1-3 meters

Characteristics Totally destroyed
High mortalityof Damages

IV

Remaining
structures

Under 1meter
No human and
Slightly destroyedmaterial damages
Less mortality

Time for Housing
Reconstruction
Solved1 year

2 years

Unsolved

Figure 1. Degree of damages and housing reconstruction process
Source: Takahashi et al. 2007: 59

The information was mainly obtained from the questionnaire survey that we conducted in
December 2007 in collaboration with the Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Center, Syiah
Kuala University (for details, see Takahashi, et al. 2008). The sampling of respondents was basicallyin the quota-sampling method, in part using the snowball-sampling method together, with one

48
48

Changing problems in the post-tsunami reconstruction (Takahashi and Tanaka))

individual per household being sampled, followed by an interview visit. Thirteen target villages(desa/kelurahan, or gampong in the Acehnese context) were intentionally picked up (Figure 2),
based on the preliminary survey about the geographical differentiation in the human and material
damages (Umitsu and Takahashi, 2007), including both severely and slightly damaged areas locatedin the coastal area, the rural-urban fringe, and the downtown of Banda Aceh. Eventually, we could
successfully obtain the valuable information about damage, recovery, support, livelihood and so on
from 693 respondents in total, eventually counting out three under 15 years olds (Table 1).

Figure 2. Location of target villages
A1: Ulee Lheue, A2: Gampong Pie, A3: Gampong Blang, A4 Lampaseh Kota, A5:
Alue Naga, B1: Lam Lumpu, B2: Punge Blan Cut, B3: Lampulo, B4: Lambaro Skep,
C1: Laksana, C2: Keuramat, C3: Bandar Baru, C4: Rukoh, Star:Grand Mosque
Table 1. Target villages and the attribute of respondents
Attribute of respondents
DamageVillage
Average death
degreenumbers
rate (%)
Total*% Male Average age % Locals**
Huge
5
82.3
234
58.1
35.3
91.9
Half
4
52.4
269
47.2
39.2
90.2
Light
4
4.9
187
41.7
40.8
87.8
Total
13
33.2
690
49.4
38.3
90.1
* Excluding 3 respondents under 15 years olds from the samples.
** Person who or whose family had lived in the same village before the tsunami.
Source: Statistics of the city of Banda Aceh, and the authors’ questionnaire survey.

The target villages are classified into three types in terms of the degree of human damages
based on death rate: the first type, namely a village of huge damage, clearly corresponds to theDistrict I mentioned above, with the death rate being 70 and more percent. The second type with 15– 70 percent of death rate contains both severely and slightly damaged sub-areas within its spatial
territory, located in the District II or the boundary of the Districts I and II, and consequently it can be
named a village of half damage. The last type of relatively light damage is in the District III of ourtypology, with less human loss under 15 percent of death rate. These three types of villages arecharacterized also by their distinct locations: the villages of huge damage mainly on the coast andtidal flats, those of half damage within the rural-urban fringe, and those of light damage in thevicinity of the downtown of Banda Aceh.
2. Perceived Problems
What kinds of problem have the inhabitants thought of as serious in each phase of the reconstruction
process? How have these problems changed? First of all, generally, the questionnaire found out thatmost kinds of problem have been resolved gradually or drastically as time passes except for
problems like social activities, education, land and success, which only a few respondents mention

49
49

I. Reconstruction and Problems

as being serious even immediately after the tsunami (Table 2). In particular, problems related tomental and/or physical health, housing and other infrastructure, and economic livelihoods have been
important for the inhabitants themselves.
Table 2. Perceived problems in different phases of reconstruction and places of damage degree

Perceived problems(%, Multiple answer)

Time-series
Immediately after
Degree of damage
Huge Half Light
n.
231
268
187
Mentality
85.7
77.6
65.2
Housing
76.6
70.1
73.8
Food/water
71.4
72.0
65.8
Income
63.2
55.6
47.6
Job
54.1
39.2
33.7
Health
43.3
38.4
25.7
Sanitation
36.8
39.6
38.0
Electricity
34.6
41.0
40.1
Social activities
12.6
3.7
10.2
Education
10.8
8.6
13.4
Land
6.5
2.6
2.1
Succession
0.4
1.9
1.6
Other
0.9
0.7
1.6
Source: the authors’ questionnaire survey.

Percent - multiple ans.

80

One year after
Huge Half Light
229
254
172
59.0
49.6
41.3
70.7
60.6
46.5
42.4
29.1
27.3
58.1
44.1
32.0
45.0
30.3
20.9
12.2
7.5
7.6
32.8
32.7
32.0
32.3
24.8
16.3
8.3
2.4
1.2
5.2
5.5
7.6
4.4
2.0
1.2
0.4
2.0
7.6

Three years after
Huge Half Light
206
219
132
33.0
28.8
27.3
33.0
23.3
22.0
22.8
23.3
15.9
41.3
29.2
25.0
27.2
19.6
13.6
3.4
4.1
3.0
25.2
31.1
37.9
10.2
4.1
7.6
2.4
1.8
3.0
3.4
4.1
6.1
2.4
2.3
1.5
0.9
5.3
6.8
6.8

Mentality
Housing
Food/water
IncomeSanitation
Health
Education

60

40

20

0
Immediately

One yearThree years
Time-series after the tsunami

Figure 3. Time-series changes of some perceived problems
Source: the authors’ questionnaire survey

In details, nevertheless, there are some differences between perceived problems in terms oftime-space variations. Looking at time-series changes of percentage of respondents giving eachproblem as serious, for example, we can identify several types (Figure 3): the first is typically seenin such a problem as education related to social/community activities, which was not serious formost if not all inhabitants even immediately after the tsunami, continuing less serious for three years.
The second is such a kind of problem as food/water and physical health that was serious for many
respondents immediately after the tsunami and drastically improved for the first year of
rehabilitation. The third type includes problems of mental health, housing and income, which weremore serious after the tsunami, being solved gradually as time passes; however these are still serious
for many inhabitants even three years after the tsunami. The fourth is typically seen in a problem ofsanitation that was not perceived as serious by so many inhabitants at first, but which has hardly
decreased percentage of respondents for three years, showing that this has yet been unsolved, rather
being worsen.
Looking at spatial variation makes these tendencies clearer (Figure 4). Above all, a few
respondents have thought of the first type of problem, for example education, as serious on every

50
50

Changing problems in the post-tsunami reconstruction (Takahashi and Tanaka))place of different degrees of damage, and in every phase of reconstruction processes after thetsunami. Small spatial difference that was seen in the physical health problem just after the tsunami
has gradually been lessened. There was little spatial difference in the percentage of respondents, whohave perceived a problem of sanitation as serious, both immediately and one year after the tsunami,
though as three years passed it is mentioned as serious by more respondents in the less damaged area.
As for other problems like mental health, housing, food/water and income, widen gap in percentageof respondents giving these problems can be seen rather in the first phase of the reconstruction,
gradually being declined for the following two years. However, especially for housing and income,even after three years, there is rather some difference between areas of different damage degrees,
reflecting spatially uneven reconstruction processes.

60
40
20
0

80
Percent - multiple ans.

80
Percent - multiple ans.

Percent - multiple ans.

80

60
40
20
0

Huge
Half
Light
Degree of damage - immediately after

60

Mentality
Housing
Food/water
IncomeSanitation
Health
Education

40
20
0

Huge
Half
Light
Degree of damage - one year after

Huge
Half
Light
Degree of damage - three years after

Figure 4. Spatial variations of perceived problems
Source: the authors’ questionnaire survey

In sum, there are some problems that has been solved drastically for the first one year, as
exemplified by problems of food/water and physical health, almost evenly for all the inhabitants’
perception regardless of their living areas’ damages, in addition to some problems like education andsuccession that has been of less importance from the tsunami onward. Many problems, especiallyrelated to mental health, housing and income, have been solved gradually as time passes, however,though there are not a few inhabitants who think of such problems as continuing serious especially inthe area of huge damage. A variety of information including interviews found out that for example inthe severely damaged villages people even now suffer from the symptoms of PTSD, which reminds
them of the terrible experience and sometimes keep them awake, implying how deep the problem isbeing related to the mental, the cultural and the social. Lastly, it is interesting to note that many
inhabitants even in the areas not only of huge but also light damages think of a problem of sanitation
as serious even after three years, implying that the sanitary conditions might be not improved or
relatively worsen. According to some interviews with the locals, they felt that there more recently
have been problems in poor drainage systems causing frequent infections. We later return to thesocial backgrounds of these problems after discussing whose supports the inhabitants haverecognized as helpful for their livelihood recovery.
3. Helpful Supports for Inhabitants
A tsunami by its nature usually not only devastates buildings and human lives but also deprives
affected areas of their potential resources for recovery. In this sense, the affected people generally
suffer from the double deprivation. It is important, therefore, for them to obtain suitable aids on thesuitable occasions between the emergency response and the following reconstruction from without
the affected areas. Indeed, Banda Aceh had fortunately been able to have quite a lot of aid supply atleast from a quantitative point of view. For four years from the tsunami onward, a total of over 500
millions US dollars had been disbursed for the rehabilitation and reconstruction projects, over 80
percent of which are contributed by international/domestic NGOs, overseas governments, andinternational organization including the United Nations, and which concentrate on the first year after
the tsunami (Figure 5). One issue is whether these aids are really of help for example for the51
51

I. Reconstruction and Problems

livelihood recovery from the victims’ perspectives.
A brief analysis of the questionnaire data indicates that for the inhabitants’ recognition, the mosthelpful support for their livelihood recovery derives from their own families and/or private relations
both for the first one year and for three years after the tsunami regardless of damage degrees (Figure6). Focusing on the first year following the tsunami, in particular in the area of huge damage,nevertheless, it is important to note that the human losses might cause shrinking private relationships
decreasing the potentials as mentioned above. Instead, NGOs especially from overseas countries
seemed to play key roles. Foreign governments and the UN organizations are clearly undervalued
from the respondents’ perspectives. In reality, such organizations enter the fields often incollaboration with local NGOs, or sometimes under the umbrella of multi-institution frameworks.
We think that it is really difficult for ordinary people to distinguish between governmental andnon-governmental organizations particularly from overseas countries.

Figure 5. Disbursed contributions from outside organizations
Source: BRR-RAN Database.
Hugely damaged area (point: N = 100)

0

20

40

Lightly damaged area (point: N = 100)60

0Family/relative

Family/relative

International NGO

International NGO

FriendFriendDomestic NGO

Domestic NGO

Local government

Local government

GOI/BRRGOI/BRR

Local community

Local community

UNO/Foreign gov.
Mosque
Other

20

40

UNO/Foreign gov.
MosqueFirst year after the tsunami
Three years after the tsunami

OtherFirst year after the tsunami
Three years after the tsunami

Figure 6. Inhabitants’ recognition of helpful supports for their livelihood recovery
Source: the authors’ questionnaire survey.

52
52

60

Changing problems in the post-tsunami reconstruction (Takahashi and Tanaka))

Rather, it is matter why only a few respondents regarded the roles of domestic governmentalorganizations at the local and national levels as helpful. This is partly related to the lack of functionof the local governments just after the tsunami, as mentioned before (Takahashi, et al. 2007). Indeed,
for longer terms of the several years, they have gradually reestablished their function. More recently,
most if not all the overseas aid organizations including NGOs, playing outstandingly in the firstphase of reconstruction, have already withdrawn from Banda Aceh, or are just before withdrawal.
The local governments including the province, which is scheduled to take over the BRR (Badan
Rehabilitasi dan Rekonstruksi) completely disengaging from Aceh in April 2009, increasingly takeon importance. We argue that at lease at the moment of three years after the tsunami only a few
inhabitants recognize the roles of local and/or national governments as helpful at the same level asNGOs, regardless of growing numbers of respondents that valuate their roles especially in the area oflight damage.
Lastly, it is worthy to note why very few respondents mention the roles of community
organizations including the village and the mosque as helpful for their livelihood recovery. In reality,
according to our field surveys, such a local community organization has not played substantial rolesin the reconstruction at least in the economic terms. This is because the community was itself
devastated physically and socially by the tsunami as well as being financially fragile by its nature.
We should pay special attention to its roles for the reconstruction especially as a coordinatingplanner between the victims and the aid organizations (Takahashi, et al. 2007), and also discuss theirlimits as stressed later.
4. Social Background of Problems
The post-tsunami rehabilitation/reconstruction has seemingly made great progress for several years
in Banda Aceh at least in the physical terms. We would discuss why some problems like housing,income and sanitation are hard to move toward resolution, in spite of much supporting effort ofoutside organizations, in particular NGOs. We mention three points here: firstly, we argue that the
progress of housing reconstruction cannot necessarily lead to returning of refugees to their homevillages, and therefore, to the community reconstruction. According to the BRR-RAN Database, forexample, in Banda Aceh newly building of approximately 15,000 houses was targeted until October
2008, approximately 80 percent of which had already been progressed, while in the whole of Aceh
Province the progressed numbers of housing construction reached 140,000 units in March 2009,
which exceed approximately 120,000 estimated to be of necessity at first. Indeed, in the area of hugedamage mainly located on the coast, most if not all villages have already completed reconstructing
almost all houses that were needed for the local people to resettle (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Housing reconstruction in Banda Aceh
Source: BRR-RAN Database.

However, a brief field observation soon finds that many of such villages are full of empty. In
December 2007, for example, Gampong Blang had already completed 210 houses, approximately
150 of which had not yet been occupied, while in Deyah Raya the percentage of housing occupation
was only 4 percent of newly built houses that had been provided by one nation-wide conglomerate(Figure 8). More recently, in particular at accessible villages to the city of Banda Aceh, these houses

5353

I. Reconstruction and Problems

are increasingly let to not local but new-coming families.
What do make the locals hesitate to return their original villages? One reason is related to
defective houses, which arise from shoddy construction, low performance of workers,
un-conscientious works, inadequate and unfair contracts, and so on. Occupiers for/by themselves
should make up for lack of kitchen, toilet, and even entrance (Figure 8). What is worse is that
housing reconstruction especially in the coastal villages often lacked rebuilding of suchinfrastructure as water supply, sewerage, and electricity. More seriously, another is that built houses
were frequently planned to accommodate exclusively landowners and/or their successors, not those
who wished really to return home. These reasons are probably related to the asymmetric power
relationship between the outside aid organizations and the village authority, which played a role inmaking a community reconstruction plan, but which in reality lacked financial resource, expertiseand negotiating ability.

Figure 8. Landscape of empty houses (left/mid), and a defective house (right)
Table 3. Changing average income before and after the tsunami
DamageDegreePre-tsunami
Avg.

Monthly income (1,000 Rp.)
Immediately after Three years after

STD

Avg.

Huge
1,362
1,635
967
Half
1,399
1,534
1,351
Light
1,356
1,404
1,554
Total
1,375
1,536
1,276
Source: the authors’ questionnaire survey.

Jobless rate after
the tsunami

STD

Avg.

STD

(%)

661
1,418
2,025
1,444

1,283
1,488
1,391
1,388

3,501
1,481
870
2,343

72.3
60.1
41.2
59.1

The second point to be mentioned is, partly related to the first, a problem concerning so-called
economic empowerment. Over the half of respondents had experiences joblessness for three years
since the tsunami, more seriously with being over 70 percent in the area of huge damage (Table 3),
while for some periods following the tsunami, the local market had certainly seen a kind of
economic boom, which is called “disaster capitalism” in the local context of Aceh, because of great
demand for daily necessities of local people and new-coming outsiders, and for durable goods andbuilding materials. Indeed, based on our observations, there was evidence that many families set out
small businesses and industries including small-shop/warung keeping, home industries of food andgroceries, taxi/becak service, construction and so on, sometimes through getting micro-financeservices and job training programs provided by the aid organizations. These probably increased theaverage income especially in the area of light damage immediately after the tsunami. Meanwhile in
the area of huge damage, the decline in average income after the tsunami has not yet been recovered
even after three years passed, and rather, the standard deviation dramatically increases, implying
widening of the income gap (Table 3).
Under the situation of shrinking local consumer-products market, it is increasingly a big issue
for intermediate and longer term, how to construct/reconstruct economic base in the real sense thathas so far concentrated on the primary industries. Our interviews found that many if not most offormer farmers and fishermen had engaged in temporary jobs in housing/road construction, service
industries and other informal sectors. Even now four years after the tsunami, for example, here andthere in the area of huge damage see abandoned cultivated lands and aquaculture ponds. Morerecently, not a few communities have just begun collective action to repair such damaged lands. We
should continue observing these matters from a longer-term perspective, as well as the production
base concerning the utilization of natural resources in Aceh Province at the macro-economic level.

5454

Changing problems in the post-tsunami reconstruction (Takahashi and Tanaka))

Lastly, we would briefly touch on a problem of the living infrastructure including roads, watersupply and drainage, which is for us also related partly to the first point mentioned above, andclosely to the inhabitants’ feelings of unimproved sanitation. According to the BRR-RAN Database,for example, until the end of 2008, the construction or rehabilitation of approximately 66.8
kilometers of drains have been completed or progressed, with areas covered by the flood control orcoastal protection being over 20 square-kilometers, though the number of houses supplied withsewage was approximately 1,500 units in total, only 10 or so percent of newly built houses in thesame period. Based on our interviews with some local staffs of the city government within the
downtown of less damage, seemingly excellent main drainage canals and pipes had been provided incollaboration with overseas aid organizations including JICA (Japan International Cooperation
Agency), while these had never been used without any connections to local drainage ditches andtherefore to each house, more recently seeing frequent small-scale floods.
The situation is more serious in the coastal area of huge damage, which have lacked even watersupply, not to mention drainage. Gampong Blang mentioned above, for example, has alreadyarranged an intra-village network of water pipes, however without any connection to the trunk water
pipe provided by the city government. One reason is that there has been no management mechanism
for the collective consumption at the governmental/administrative level. It has still been unclear whoand by what means to be responsible for reconstructing and/or managing such living infrastructure
within the local community. Another is related to social changes within the local community in the
post-tsunami period. Many inhabitants point to declining community voluntary activities, called
gotong royong in the Indonesian context, which had substantially taken on the management of living
amenities. For this, we can imagine some possible factors, one of which is related closely tochanging ways of thinking about voluntary works affected probably by the pay-for-work-stylemobilization that overseas NGOs often conducted in the emergency rehabilitation scheme in Aceh.
Thus, we can argue that the post-tsunami reconstruction process is given to proliferating luxury built
environments in the sense that it is difficult for local people to handle for themselves.

Figure 9. Interrelationships between concerned actors
Source: Tanaka, 2007: 238.

In sum, we point out a background commonly seen in these three points, that is malfunction of
the local governments and their relationships conceptualized as the upper triangle in Figure 9 thatshows interrelationships between the key actors engaged in the post-tsunami recovery. As alreadymentioned above, the local governments, and that of national level to same degree did/could notfunction well in particular for coordinating between actors from across the globe, not to mention fortaking the initiative. Each aid organization has tended to contact victims through the local
community or sometimes directly, which is to say the channels constituting the lower triangle,
leading to the lack of comprehensive reconstruction scheme, the excessive expectation to the local
community, and the discrepancy between top-down and bottom-up initiatives.
5. Conclusions
These brief and broad descriptions about the inhabitants’ perspectives of changing problems andhelpful supports can be conceptualized as progressive interrelationship of the local societal
vulnerability and resilience, shown in Figure 10. Above all, the catastrophic disaster was brought

55
55

I. Reconstruction and Problems

about by the fact that one of the largest-scale hazards ever experienced occurred in the densely
inhabited and socially vulnerable region. In the affected areas of Aceh, which lost most if not all
potentials for the recovery, great resilience was provided by the mass influx aids, which the local
people have never experienced, especially of the non-governmental sectors from without Aceh. For
the inhabitants themselves, such NGO-driven supports could ad hoc solve some kinds of problem
that are easily understandable about what to be needed, while revealing their inability or difficulty toaddress other kinds of problem constituting something like chronic disease. A societal factor behind
this is related closely to the formation of the post-disaster governance (PDG) that is responsible forthe locality-based comprehensive planning, redevelopment and coordination in the processes fromemergency response, rehabilitation to longer-term reconstruction. In Japan, for example, is usuallyseen the government-initiated mechanism that the local government takes the initiative in not only
responding and recovering but also mitigating and preparing natural hazards, through networking thegovernmental sectors at different levels from the national to the regional, the non-governmental
sectors, and even the private and the voluntary at the neighborhood community. It is clearly difficult
if not impossible to apply the Japan-type mechanism to the Third Worlds, which often have theirlimits to the governmental functions. Therefore, it is urgent to establish an alternative, which mightprobably be mapped out as an arena or platform of inter-organizational networking. Without it, thesociety would be more vulnerable to the future disasters.

Figure 10. Progressive interrelationship of vulnerability and resilience
Acknowledgement: This paper was first presented at the general meeting of the Association of Japanese
Geographers in March 2009, and partly at the Third Annual International Workshop & Expo on Sumatra Tsunami
Disaster and Recovery in December 2008. We acknowledge Dr Kimura of Nagoya University, and Mr. Suhirman of
the Institute of Technology Bandung for their useful suggestion on the questionnaire. We thank Dr Dirhamsyah, Dr
Ridha, Dr Agus Sabti, and other staffs of the Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Center, Syiah Kuala
University for the collaboration. We very much appreciate Mr. Irfan Zikri and Mr. Agus Nugroho for their excellent
assistances in the field.

Reference
Takahashi, M., Tanaka, S., Kimura, R., Umitsu, M., Tabuchi, R., Kuroda, T., Ando, M., and Kimata,F. (2007): Restoration after the Sumatra Earthquake Tsunami in Banda Aceh: based on the
results of interdisciplinary researches by Nagoya University. Journal of Natural Disaster
Science 29(2), 53-61
Takahashi, M., Tanaka, S., Kuroda, T., Kimura, R., and Suhirman (2008): The questionnaire surveyof December 2007: preliminary descriptions. The Investigation Report of 2004 Northern
Sumatra Earthquake Vol.4, Nagoya: Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya
University, 33-44
Tanaka, S. (2007): The Sumatra Earthquake and the community. M. Urano, J. Oyane, and T.
Yoshikawa eds.: FUKKO KOMYUNITEI RON (Post-disaster reconstruction and thecommunity), Tokyo: Koubundou, 235-244 (in Japanese)
Umitsu, M., and Takahashi, M. (2007): Geo-environmental features in the damages of the 2004
Indian Ocean Tsunami in/around Banda Aceh, Indonesia. E-journal GEO 2(3), 142-152 (inJapanese with English abstract)56
56

ࠕ࠴ࠚߦ߅ߌࠆᵤᵄⵍኂᓳ⥝ߣ⚗੎ⵍኂᓳ⥝㧙ⷡ߃ᦠ߈㧙ፉ ↰  ᒏฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮࿖㓙㐿⊒⎇ⓥ⑼࿖㓙දജኾ᡹ߪߓ߼ߦ
2007 ᐕᐲ߹ߢߩ⺞ᩏߢߪ‫ޔ‬ਥߣߒߡർࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄߦࠃࠅ↟ᄢߥⵍኂࠍⵍߞߚࡃࡦ
࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒ෸߮ߘߩ㓞ធ࿾ၞߢ‫ޔ‬ᓳ⥝ㆊ⒟ߦ߅޿ߡ↢ߓߚᴺᓞ໧㗴ࠍ⺞ᩏߒߡ߈ߚ‫ౕޕ‬૕⊛ߦߪ‫ޔ‬࿯࿾࡮⋧⛯࡮ᓟ⷗ߦ㑐ߔࠆ⚗੎ߣߘߩಣℂߦ㑐ߔࠆ໧㗴‫ޔ‬෸߮ἴኂᒙ⠪ߩᮭ೑଻⼔ߦ㑐ߔࠆ໧㗴㧔․ߦᘠ⠌ᴺߦ߅ߌࠆᅚᕈߩ࿾૏ߣߘߩᡷༀߦ㑐ߔࠆขࠅ⚵ߺ㧕ߦߟ޿ߡ⺞ᩏߒߚ‫⺞ߩࠄࠇߎޕ‬ᩏߩ৻ㇱߪ‫ޔ‬2007 ᐕ 6 ᦬ 15㨪16 ᣣߦࠬ࠙ࠚ࡯࠺ࡦ࡮࠙ࡔࠝᄢቇߦ߅
޿ߡⴕࠊࠇߚ࿖㓙ࡢ࡯࡚ࠢࠪ࠶ࡊ “Rule of Law on the International Agenda: Policy , Politics
and Morality” ߦ߅޿ߡႎ๔ߒ‫࡯ࡄ࡯ࡍ࡞ࡈߩߘޔ‬㧔“The Role of Law in the Reconstruction:
Process of the Aceh Tsunami Disaster”㧕ߪ‫ޔ‬New Directions in The Rule of Law㧔Iustus Publisher㧕ߣߒߡ಴ ߐࠇࠆߚ߼ߦ⃻࿷ශ೚ਛߢ޽ࠆ1‫ޕ‬ߒ߆ߒ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬Ꮊߩᵤᵄᓳ⥝໧㗴ࠍ⺞ᩏߔࠆ਄ߢ‫ޔ‬⠨ᘦߒߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠄߥ޿໧㗴ߣߒߡࠕ࠴ࠚᎺ߇ 1970 ᐕઍᓟඨએ㒠‫౒ࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬๺࿖߆ࠄߩಽ㔌ࠍ᳞߼ࠆࠥ࡝࡜⚵❱㧔⥄↱ࠕ࠴ࠚㆇേ Gerakan Aceh Merdeka, એਅ GAM㧕ߣࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ࿖ァߣߩᚢ㑵߇⛯ߊ⚗੎࿾ၞߢ޽ߞߚߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄⵍኂᓟ‫ޔ‬GAM ߣࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ᡽ᐭߪ‫࡮࡝࡯ࠨࠖ࠹ࡂࠕޔ‬రࡈࠖࡦ࡜ࡦ࠼ᄢ⛔㗔ࠄߩખ੺ߦࠃࠅ஗ᚢ࡮๺ᐔߦวᗧߒ㧔2002 ᐕࡋ࡞ࠪࡦࠠⷡ߃ᦠ߈‫ޔ‬Memoryof Understanding of Helsinki, એਅ MoU㧕‫ࠇߎޔ‬એ㒠‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬Ꮊߪᵤᵄᓳ⥝ߣหᤨߦ‫⚗ޔ‬੎ᓟߩᐔ๺᭴▽ߦ߽ขࠅ⚵߻ߎߣߣߥߞߚ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ᵤᵄᓳ⥝ߦᓥ੐ߒߡ޿ߚេഥᯏ㑐࡮NGO ߩ৻ㇱ߽ߘߩᵴേࠍ⚗੎ᓟߩᐔ๺᭴▽ߦ⃻࿷ࠪࡈ࠻ߒߟߟ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ߎߩࠃ߁ߥ⁁ᴫࠍ⠨ᘦߒߡ‫ޔ‬2008 ᐕᐲ⺞ᩏߢߪߎࠇ߹ߢߩᵤᵄⵍኂ࿾ၞߢߩᴺᓞ⚗੎໧㗴ߦട߃ߡ‫⚗ޔ‬੎࿾ၞߢߩ⺞ᩏ߽ⴕ޿‫ޔ‬ᴺಽ㊁ߦ߅ߌࠆᵤᵄᓳ⥝ߣ⚗੎ᓳ⥝ߩᲧセ෸߮㑐ଥߦߟ޿ߡ᣿ࠄ߆ߦߔࠆ⎇ⓥࠍ⹜ߺࠆߎߣߣߒߚ‫ޕ‬ ౕ૕⊛ߦߪ‫ޔ‬2008 ᐕ 12 ᦬ߩ⺞ᩏߦ߅޿ߡߪ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬Ꮢ߆ࠄゞߢ 4 ᤨ㑆߶ߤ᧲ߦะ
߆ߞߚ Pidie Ꮢߦ߅޿ߡ‫ޔ‬೽⋵㐳߳ߩ⡞߈ขࠅ⺞ᩏ‫ᧄࠍࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬᜚ߣߔࠆ NGO ߢߩ⡞߈ขࠅ ⺞ ᩏ 㧔 Yayasan Bungoeng Jeumpa ߅ ࠃ ߮ An-nissa 㧕‫ ࠚ ࠴ ࠕ ޔ‬ᐔ ๺ ౣ ⛔ ว ᐡ 㧔 Badan
Reintegrasi-Damai Aceh‫ޔ‬એਅ BRA㧕Pidie ੐ോᚲߢߩ⡞߈ขࠅ⺞ᩏ෸߮⎇ⓥ⠪߳ߩ⡞߈ขࠅ⺞ᩏ㧔࿖┙ࠗࠬ࡜ࡓᄢቇቇ㐳߅ࠃ߮࿖┙ࠪࡖࠢ࡜ᄢቇ⻠Ꮷ㧕ࠍⴕߞߚ‫ޕ‬
1. ⃻࿾⺞ᩏߦߟ޿ߡ
(1) ⚗੎࿾ၞᵤᵄߦࠃࠆⵍኂࠍ߽ߞߣ߽ⵍߞߚߩߪ‫ޔ‬ᶏጯૐ࿾ߢ޽ࠆࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚ෸߮ߘߩㄭ㇠ߣ‫ޔ‬⷏ㇱ߅ࠃ߮ർㇱߩᶏᴪ޿ߢ޽ࠆߩߦኻߒ‫⚗ߡ޿߅ߦࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬੎࿾ၞ㧔daerah konflik㧕ߣ๭߫ࠇࠆ࿾ၞߪ‫ޔ‬ਥߣߒߡ᫪ᨋጊጪ࿾Ꮺߦㄭធߔࠆㄘ᧛࿾ၞߢ޽ࠆ㧔ߎߩࠃ߁ߥ࿾ၞߢߪ‫ޔ‬ጊጪ࡮᫪ᨋ࿾Ꮺࠍ᜚ὐߣߔࠆ GAM ߣ㗔ၞ▤ℂᚢ⇛ߦၮߠ߈ㄘ᧛ࠍ▤ℂߔࠆ࿖ァߣߩᚢ㑵߇㗫⊒ߒߚ㧕‫⚗ޔߡߞ߇ߚߒޕ‬੎࿾ၞ߇⋥ធߦᵤᵄⵍኂ࿾ၞߣߥߞߚࠤ࡯ࠬߪᄙߊߪߥ޿‫ޕ‬(2) Pidie ⋵೽⍮੐ߩࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯
2008 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 23 ᣣ‫ࠞ࠶࡜ࡑޔ‬ᶏጽߦ㕙ߔࠆࠕ࠴ࠚᎺർጯߩ↸‫ޔ‬Pidie ߦ߅޿ߡห⋵೽⍮੐
1ࡢ࡯࡚ࠢࠪ࠶ࡊߢߩႎ๔ᦠ࠼࡜ࡈ࠻ߪ╩⠪ߩ Web ࠨࠗ࠻ߦ߅޿ߡ౏㐿ߒߡ޿ࠆ㧔see: http://www.gsid.nagoya-u.ac.jp/shimadayuzuru/materials/2007_aceh_paper_draft.pdf㧕

5757

I. ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆ࠍോ߼ࠆ Nazir Adam ᳁ߦࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯ࠍⴕߞߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬᭎ⷐߪᰴߩㅢࠅߢ޽ࠆ㧦
Nazir ᳁ߪ‫⚗ޔ‬੎ߪࠕ࠴ࠚ␠ળో૕ߦᓇ㗀ࠍਈ߃ߚߩߢ޽ࠅ‫⚗ޔ‬੎ߩⵍኂ⠪ߪ GAM ߩᚢ㑵ຬ߿⚗੎࿾ၞߢᱫ੢ߒߚੱ‫ⵍ߇ߡߴߔޘੱߩࠚ࠴ࠕޔߊߥߢߌߛޘ‬ኂ⠪ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬MoU ߦၮߠߊ⚗੎ⵍኂ⠪߳ߩេഥߪߔߢߦ 75 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ቢੌߒߡ޿ࠆ߇‫ߒ߆ߒޔ‬໧㗴ߪ‫ⵍޟ‬ኂ⠪‫ޠ‬ߣ޿߁ࠞ࠹ࠧ࡝࡯ߦ฽߹ࠇߥ޿ੱ‫⚗ޔ߫߃ߣߚޕࠆ޽ߢޘ‬੎ߩ⚿ᨐ‫ޔ‬ㄘᬺߩᯏળ߇ᅓࠊࠇ
ߡ෼౉ࠍᄬߞߚੱ‫⚗ޔ߿ޘ‬੎ߦ⿠࿃ߔࠆ⽺࿎ߥߤߪ‫ޔ‬MoU ߩᨒ⚵ߺߢߪᢇᷣߐࠇߥ޿‫ߒޕ‬߆ߒ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬Ꮊߩ߶ߣࠎߤߩੱ‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߎߪޘ‬ᒻߢߩ⚗੎ߩⵍኂ⠪ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬߹ߚ‫ ߪޘੱߩࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬MoU ߦࠃࠅ⚗੎߇⚳ੌߒ‫⥄ޔ‬ಽߚߜߩ↢ᵴ߇ᄢ߈ߊᡷༀߔࠆߎߣ
ࠍᦼᓙߒߚ‫ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ታ㓙ߦߪ⚗੎ᓟߩេഥߪᲑ㓏⊛ߢ޽ࠅ‫ᦼߩޘੱޔ‬ᓙߣ⃻ታߩᦩ↰ߦߪࠡࡖ࠶ࡊ߇↢ߓߡ޿ࠆ‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߎޕ‬໧㗴ߪ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄⵍኂߦኻߔࠆᡰេߣᲧセߒߚ႐วߦᷓ
ೞߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄⵍኂߦኻߔࠆᓳ⥝ᡰេߢߪ‫ޔ‬਎⇇ਛ߆ࠄេഥ߇㓸߹ߞߚ‫ޔ߼ߚߩߘޕ‬ᵤᵄⵍἴ࿾ၞߩ⚻ᷣߪᵤᵄએ೨ߩ᳓Ḱࠍ⿥߃ࠆ߶ߤߦ഍⊛ߦᡷༀߒߚ‫ޕ‬ਛߦߪ‫ޔ‬૑ቛᡰេߢㄭ
ઍ⊛ߥ૑ቛࠍ޿ߊߟ߽ᚻߦ౉ࠇߚ߽ߩ߽޿ࠆ‫ઁޕ‬ᣇߢ‫⚗ޔ‬੎࿾ၞߦ߅ߌࠆᡰេߦߟ޿ߡߪ
਎⇇ߩ㑐ᔃߪ⭯ߊ‫ޔ‬េഥ㗵߽ዋߥ޿‫⚗ޔ߼ߚߩߘޕ‬੎࿾ၞߩੱ‫ߪޘ‬ᓐࠄ߇ᵤᵄ࿾ၞߦᲧߴ
ߡᏅ೎ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆߣ޿߁ਇḩࠍᛴ޿ߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬឵⸒ߔࠇ߫‫ޔ‬32 ᐕ㑆ߩ⚗੎ߣ 1 ᣣߩᵤᵄߦࠃࠆ‛⊛ⵍኂߪหߓߊࠄ޿ߢ޽ࠆ߇‫␠ޔ‬ળߦਈ߃ߚᓇ㗀ߪ⚗੎ⵍኂ߇ߪࠆ߆ߦᷓೞߥߩߦ߽
߆߆ࠊࠄߕ‫ߦࠇߘޔ‬ኻߔࠆᢇᷣߪዋߥ޿ߣᗵߓߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬೽⍮੐ߩࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯ߢߪ‫ޔ‬GAM ߣࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ᡽ᐭߩઍ⴫⠪ߩ㑆ߢวᗧߐࠇߚ MoU
ߦၮߠߊ⚗੎ᓟᓳ⥝ߩ໧㗴ὐߣ‫⚗ޔ‬੎ⵍኂߣᵤᵄⵍኂߩ૬ሽߣ޿߁ࠕ࠴ࠚߦ߅ߌࠆⶄว⊛⁁ᴫߩ࿎㔍ߐ߇␜ໂߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬(3) BRA-Pidie ੐ോᚲ
MoU ߦၮߠߊ⚗੎ⵍኂ⠪߳ߩᡰេߪ‫ౕޔ‬૕⊛ߦߪࠕ࠴ࠚᐔ๺ౣ⛔วᐡ㧔BRA, Badan
Rekonstruksi-Damai Aceh㧕ࠍㅢߓߡⴕࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬BRA ߩ Pidie ੐ോᚲߢࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯ߒߚ
ߣߎࠈ‫ޔ‬ᰴߩࠃ߁ߥᖱႎ߇ᓧࠄࠇߚ㧦
BRA ߪ‫ޔ‬MoU ߦၮߠ߈ᖱႎࠍⴕߞߡ߅ࠅ‫⾗ߩߘޔ‬㊄ߪ࿖ኅ੍▚㧔APBN㧕߅ࠃ߮࿾ᣇ੍▚㧔APBD㧕ߦࠃߞߡ߹߆ߥࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᡰេߩౝኈߣߒߡߪ‫ޔ‬
㧔1㧕᡼Ἣߐࠇߚኅደ߳ߩᡰ
េ㧔ᤓᐕߪ 1 ᚭ޽ߚࠅ 350 ਁ࡞ࡇࠕ‫੹ޔ‬ᐕߪᑪ▽⾗᧚ଔᩰ਄᣹ߩߚ߼‫ޔ‬400 ਁ࡞ࡇࠕ㧕‫ޔ‬
㧔2㧕⚗੎ߦࠃࠆᧂ੢ੱ߳ߩ⷗⥰㊄㧔৻ੱ 300 ਁ࡞ࡇࠕ㧕‫ޔ‬㧔3㧕⚗੎ߦࠃࠆ㓚ኂ⠪ߦኻߔࠆ⚻ᷣ⊛⥄┙ᡰេ㧔৻ੱ 1000 ਁ࡞ࡇࠕ㧕‫ޔ‬㧔4㧕⚗੎ਛߦࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕァߦࠃࠅ᡽ᴦ‽࡮᡽ᴦ྽ߣߒ
ߡ᜔᧤ߐࠇߡ޿ߚ߽ߩߦኻߔࠆᡰេ㧔৻ੱ 1000 ਁ࡞ࡇࠕ㧕‫ޔ‬㧔5㧕⚗੎ߦࠃࠆቅఽߦኻߔࠆ
ᡰេ㧔੹ᐕߪ৻ੱ 180 ਁ࡞ࡇࠕ‫᧪ޔ‬ᐕᐲએ㒠ߪ੍▚ߦᔕߓߡᡰ⛎㧕‫ޔ‬㧔6㧕࿖ァߩ⼊஻᜚ὐߦ߅޿ߡ᜔⇐ߐࠇߡ޿ߚ߽ߩ㧔tahanan pos㧕ߦኻߔࠆ⵬ఘ㧔100 ਁ࡞ࡇࠕ㧕‫ޕࠆ޿ߡߞߥߣޔ‬ᡰេኻ⽎⠪ߩᛠីߦߟ޿ߡߪ‫ޔ‬㇭㧔kecamatan㧕ࠍㅢߓߡฦ᧛㐳㧔Geucik㧕߆ࠄᖱႎࠍ㓸߼ߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬Pidie ⋵ߦߟ޿ߡߪ߅߅߻ߨ⚳ࠊߞߡ޿ࠆ‫⚗ޔߒߛߚޕ‬੎㓚ኂ⠪ߦኻߔࠆ⚻ᷣ⊛⥄┙ᡰេߦߟ޿ߡߪ‫ޔ‬ኻ⽎⠪ߪ 4,000 ੱ޿ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆ߇‫⊓ߦߢߔޔ‬㍳ߒߚߩߪ 2,400ฬߦߣߤ߹ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬(4) BRA ߦߟ޿ߡBRA ߪ‫ޔ‬2006 ᐕߦ⚗੎ⵍኂࠍฃߌߚᏒ᳃ߦኻߒߡ␠ળ⊛ᡰេࠍឭଏߔࠆߚ߼ߦ⸳⟎ߐࠇߚᯏ㑐ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᡰេߪ‫ޔ‬GAM రᚢ㑵ຬ‫ޔ‬ర᡽ᴦ‽࡮᡽ᴦ྽‫⚗ޔ‬੎ⵍኂࠍฃߌߚᏒ᳃㧔㕖ᚢ㑵ㇱ㐷ߩ GAM ᭴ᚑຬ‫ޔ‬MoU એ೨ߦᛩ㒠ߒߚ GAM ᭴ᚑຬ‫ޔ‬෻ಽ㔌ਥ⟵ࠣ࡞࡯ࡊߩ᭴ᚑຬ
ࠍ฽߻㧕ߦኻߒߡ‫⚻ޔ‬ᷣ⊛⢻ജᒝൻߩߚ߼ߩ⾗㊄ࠍឭଏߔࠆᣇᑼߢⴕ߁‫ޕ‬BRA ߪ‫ޔ‬MoU ߦၮߠ߈⿠⨲࡮೙ቯߐࠇࠕ࠴ࠚ⛔ᴦᴺ㧔2006 ᐕᴺᓞ 11 ภ㧕ࠍᩮ᜚ᴺߣߒ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕߚ߹ޔ‬Ꮢ᳃ߦኻߔࠆ␠ળ⊛ᡰេ෸߮⢻ജᒝൻࡊࡠࠣ࡜ࡓߦ㑐ߔࠆᄢ⛔㗔ᜰ઎㧔Inpres 2005-15㧕‫⼊ޔ‬ኤᴦ቟
⺞ᢛᜂᒰᄢ⤿઎㧔Direktrif Menko Polhukam No. Dir-67/ Menko/ Polhukam/ 12/ 2005㧔15 Dec
2005㧕㧕‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬Ꮊ⍮੐᳿ቯ㧔No. 330/032/2006㧕߇ᯏ㑐ߩ⹦⚦ࠍⷙቯߒߡ޿ࠆ㧔ෳᾖ‫ޔ‬
http://www.bra-aceh.org/history.php㧕‫ޕ‬ᡰេኻ⽎ߩ߁ߜ‫ޔ‬GAM ᚢ㑵ຬ‫߮ࠃ߅ޔ‬㕖ᚢ㑵ㇱ㐷ߩ GAM ᭴ᚑຬ࡮MoU એ೨ߦᛩ㒠ߒߚ58
58ǢȁǧƴƓƚǔ඾ඬᘮܹࣄᐻƱኣʗᘮܹࣄᐻᲢ޽ဋ ࢅᲣ

GAM ᭴ᚑຬ‫ࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗߡߒߘޔ‬࿖ァߩᡰេࠍฃߌߚ෻ಽ㔌ਥ⟵ࠣ࡞࡯ࡊ㧔PETA㧕ߩੱᢙߦߟ޿ߡߪ‫ޔ‬MoU ߦ߅޿ߡวᗧߐࠇߚੱᢙߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬GAM ஥ߦߟ޿ߡߪ‫ޔ‬ᱞⵝ⸃㒰ࠍᒁ߈ᦧ߃᧦ઙߦᡰេ߇ឭଏߐࠇߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬2006 ᐕ߹ߢߦቢੌߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬PETA ᭴ᚑຬߦߟ޿
ߡ߽⸘↹ߦၮߠ߈Ბ㓏⊛ߦᡰេ߇ታᣉߐࠇ‫ޔ‬2007 ᐕ߹ߢߦኻ⽎ 6,500 ੱਛ 4,000 ੱ߇ቢੌߒ
ߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬
ߎࠇߦኻߒ‫ߩઁߩߘޔ‬ᡰេߪ⚗੎ⵍኂ⠪ᡰេ෸߮␠ળᢥൻㇱ㐷ߢߩᡰេࡊࡠࠣ࡜ࡓ㧔ᧂ੢ੱ‫⚗ޔ‬੎ߦࠃࠆ㓚ኂ⠪‫ޔ‬ቅఽ‫ޔ‬᡼Ἣⵍኂࠍฃߌߚኅደ‫ޔ‬ක≮ᡰេࡊࡠࠣ࡜ࡓ‫ޔ‬ᢥൻᵴേ㧕ߦߟ޿ߡߪ‫ޔ‬2007 ᐕ 6 ᦬ᤨὐߢቢੌ₸ߪ‫ޔ‬0 ߆ࠄ 66㧑ߦߣߤ߹ߞߡ޿ࠆ2‫ޕ‬
2. ⚗੎࿾ၞߦ߅ߌࠆᴺᓞ໧㗴(1) ᵤᵄⵍἴ࿾ၞߣߩᲧセࠕ࠴ࠚߦ߅ߌࠆᓳ⥝ߩⶄวᕈߦὶὐࠍᒰߡߚႎ๔ߣߒߡߩ UNDP ႎ๔߇޽ࠆ㧔UNDP,
Access to Justice in Aceh: Making the Transition to Sustainable Peace and Development in Aceh,2006㧕‫ޕ‬หႎ๔ᦠߪ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄⵍኂ࿾ၞߣ⚗੎ⵍኂ࿾ၞߦ߅ߌࠆมᴺ⊛໧㗴ߦߟ޿ߡᰴߩࠃ߁ߦᲧセߒߡ޿ࠆ㧔UNDP, 34-35㧕‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄⵍኂ࿾ߢ౒ㅢߔࠆมᴺ⊛ߥਇḩ- ૑ዬߩ༚ᄬ
- ࿯࿾໧㗴㧔࿯࿾ߩᶐ㘩‫ޔ‬࿯࿾Ⴚ⇇⚗੎‫ޔ‬࿯࿾ᮭ೑ᢥᦠߩ༚ᄬ㧕- ਇᐔ╬ߥᡰេಽ㈩㧔Ꮕ೎‫ޔ‬ਇ౏ᐔߥಽ㈩‫ޔ‬ᳪ⡯㧕- ⋧⛯⚗੎
- ቅఽ߳ߩᡰេߩᰳᅤ
- ᅚᕈߦኻߔࠆኅᐸౝ᥸ജ
- ㆊ෰ߩੱᮭଚኂ
⚗੎ⵍኂ࿾ၞߢ౒ㅢߔࠆมᴺ⊛ߥਇḩ- ࿖ァ‫⼊ޔ‬ኤ‫ޔ‬GAM‫ޔ‬෻ಽ㔌ਥ⟵᳃౓(wanra)‫ޔ‬りరਇ᣿ߩੱ‛ߦࠃࠆㆊ෰ߩੱᮭଚኂ
㧔଀߃߫‫ޔ‬⢿ㄼ‫ޔ‬Აᛂ‫ޔ‬ᜧ໧‫ޔ‬㕖⥄⊒⊛ᄬ〽‫⇛ޔ‬ᑼಣೃ㧕- ⽷↥ߩ⓯ข෸߮⎕უ- ↢⸘ߩ⎕უ- ᡽ᐭ෸߮ㄘ᧛࡟ࡌ࡞ߢߩᳪ⡯- ⚗੎ߦࠃࠆ㕖⥄⊒⊛⒖േ
- ࿯࿾⚗੎㧔․ߦᏫㆶ⠪ߦߣߞߡ㧕- ࿯࿾ᚲ᦭࡮૶↪ߦ㑐ߔࠆ⚗੎- ᅚᕈߦኻߔࠆ᥸ജ
- ⋧⛯⚗੎ߎߩᲧセ߆ࠄࠊ߆ࠆࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄⵍኂ࿾ၞߣ⚗੎ⵍኂ࿾ၞߦ߅޿ߡሽ࿷ߒߡ޿ࠆ⚗੎໧㗴ߦߪ‫ޔ‬࿯࿾⚗੎‫⛯⋧ޔ‬໧㗴‫ޔ‬ኅᐸౝ᥸ജߥߤ౒ㅢߔࠆ໧㗴ὐ߽޽ࠆ‫ߩࠇߕ޿ޔߚ߹ޕ‬࿾ၞߦ߅޿ߡ߽⚻ᷣ⊛࿎┆ߦࠃࠆࠬ࠻࡟ࠬ߆ࠄ↢ߓ߇ߜߥᅚᕈߦኻߔࠆኅᐸౝ᥸ജ߽ᷓೞߢ
޽ࠆ㧔ᅚᕈࠍᡰេߒߡ޿ࠆ NGO ߦࠃࠆߣ‫⚗ޔ‬੎࿾ၞߢߪ㐳ߊ↵ᕈ߇ਇ࿷ߣߥࠆኅᐸ߇ᄙ߆
ߞߚߎߣ߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬ᅚᕈߩ⥄┙ᗧ⼂߇㜞߹ߞߡ޿ࠆߣ޿߁㧕‫ޕ‬߹ߚ‫⚗ޔ‬੎࿾ၞ߅ࠃ߮ㇺᏒㇱߩਔᣇߦ߅޿ߡ‫ޔ‬ㆊ෰ߩੱᮭଚኂ߇໧㗴ߦߥߞߡ޿ࠆߎߣ
ߪࠕ࠴ࠚߦ߅ߌࠆ⚗੎ߩᐢ▸࿐ߥᓇ㗀ߣ㑐ㅪߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬

2

BRA ࠙ࠚࡉࠨࠗ࠻ߦࠃࠆ‫ޕ‬59
59

I. ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆(2) ᐔ๺᭴▽ߦ߻ߌߚᴺ೙ᐲᡷ㕟↟ᄢߥἴኂ߿⚗੎ߦࠃࠅㅢᏱߩ␠ળ೙ᐲ߇⛽ᜬߢ߈ߥߊߥߞߚ࿾ၞߦ߅޿ߡ‫ޔ‬ᴺ೙ᐲߩౣ᭴▽ߪᜬ⛯⊛ߥᐔ๺᭴▽ߦਇนᰳߥขࠅ⚵ߺߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᜬ⛯⊛ߥᐔ๺᭴▽ࡊࡠ࠮ࠬߩฦᲑ
㓏ߦ߅޿ߡขࠅ⚵߻ߴ߈ᴺ೙ᐲ໧㗴ߦߟ޿ߡߩᨒ⚵ߺߣߒߡߪ‫ޔ‬Table 1 ߩࠃ߁ߦ⍴ᦼ⊛໧㗴㧔✕ᕆ⊛࡮↢ሽ⏕଻ߩߚ߼ߩᴺ೙ᐲ᭴▽㧕‫ޔ‬ਛᦼ⊛໧㗴㧔␠ળߩᓳᣥߩߚ߼ߩᴺ೙ᐲ᭴▽㧕‫ޔ‬㐳ᦼ⊛໧㗴㧔ἴኂࠍస᦯ߒ‫ޔ‬ᜬ⛯⊛ߥ⊒ዷࠍน⢻ߦߔࠆߚ߼ߩᴺ೙ᐲ᭴▽㧕ߣ޿߁ᤨ㑆ゲߦᴪߞߚᨒ⚵ߺߣ‫ޔ‬࿾ၞ࡟ࡌ࡞㧔᧛⪭࡮࿾ၞ౒ห૕࡟ࡌ࡞ߢߩ⚗੎⸃᳿ߦ㑐ߔࠆᴺᓞ໧㗴㧕‫ޔ‬࿖ኅ࡟ࡌ࡞㧔࿖ኅᴺ೙ᐲ᭴▽ߦ㑐ߔࠆ໧㗴㧕‫ޔ‬࿖㓙࡟ࡌ࡞㧔࿖㓙⊛ߥᐔ๺᭴▽ᡰេߦ㑐ߔࠆ
ᴺ⊛໧㗴㧕ࠍߣ޿߁ᴺᓞ໧㗴ߩ▸࿐ߦᴪߞߚᨒ⚵ߺߦࠃࠆࡑ࠻࡝࠶ࠢࠬࠍ⸳ቯߔࠆߎߣ߇
ߢ߈ࠆ‫ޕ‬
Table 1: Mapping the legal problem in the peacebuilding process
Up to 1 year
Survival/emergency

Up to 3 – 4 years
Reconstruction

Up to 10 years –Development/sustainable

Short Term

Mid Term

Long Term

Local
National
International

Table 2 ߪ‫ޔ‬࿯࿾໧㗴ߦ㑐ߔࠆౕ૕⊛ᴺᓞ໧㗴ࠍ␜ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬⍴ᦼ⊛ߦߪ‫ޔ‬චಽߦᯏ⢻ߔ
ࠆᴺ೙ᐲ߇ᰳᅤߒߡ޿ࠆ⁁ᘒߢ‫⚗ޔ‬੎ࠍ⸃᳿ߔࠆߚ߼ߦ౒ห૕ߦ߅ߌࠆᘠ⠌⊛ᴺ೙ᐲߩᵴ↪߇㊀ⷐߣߥࠆ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬࿖ኅ࡟ࡌ࡞ߢߪ‫ޔ‬ᓳᣥߩߚ߼ߦᔅⷐߥ⾗Ḯࠍ⏕଻ߔࠆߚ߼ߦᥳቯ
⊛ߥ࿯࿾ߩ೑↪ಽ㈩ࠍⴕ߁ߎߣ߽㊀ⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ਛᦼ⊛ߥᓳᣥᲑ㓏ߦ౉ࠆߣ‫ޔ‬ἴኂએ೨ߦሽ࿷ߒߚᴺ೙ᐲߩ࿁ᓳ‫߮ࠃ߅ޔ‬ᣂߚߥᴺ೙ᐲߩ
ᢛ஻ࠍⴕ߁ᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬࿾ၞ࡟ࡌ࡞ߢߪ‫ޔ‬ἴኂ‶†⠪ߩ࿯࿾⋧⛯߅ࠃ߮࿯࿾ᚲ᦭ߩ⏕ቯࠍⴕ߁߇‫ޔ‬หᤨߦવ⛔⊛ߥᴺ೙ᐲߩਅߢሽ࿷ߒߡ߈ߚᏅ೎ߥߤߩᤚᱜ߽ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬વ⛔⊛ᴺ೙ᐲߦ߅ߌࠆᅚᕈߥߤߩዋᢙ⠪ߦኻߔࠆᏅ೎ߪ‫ޔ‬೎ߩᘠ⠌ߦࠃࠆ଻⼔㧔଀߃߫‫♽↵ޔ‬ኅᣖߦࠃࠆᛔ㙃⟵ോߥߤ㧕ߢࠞࡃ࡯ߐࠇߡ޿ߚ߇‫ޔ‬ἴኂ߿⚗੎ߦࠃࠆવ⛔⊛␠ળߩᄢ߈ߥᄌ
ᦝߪㅢᏱ‫ߩ⼔଻ߥ߁ࠃߩߎޔ‬ᯏ⢻ਇోࠍ઻߁‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬࿖㓙⚗੎ᓟߩᐔ๺᭴▽ߢߪ‫ޔ‬ᣥᡰ㈩࿖ߩ⾗↥෸߮ᴺ⊛⽿છߦ㑐ߔࠆ੤߽ᷤᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬㐳ᦼ⊛ߥᴺ೙ᐲᢛ஻ߪ‫ޔ‬ᜬ⛯⊛ߥᐔ๺⛽ᜬߣ‫ߩߘޔ‬೨ឭߣߥࠆ⚻ᷣ⊒ዷࠍ⋡⊛ߣߒߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬㐿⊒ߩߚ߼ߩᴺ೙ᐲᢛ஻ߣ౒ㅢߔࠆౝኈߣߥࠆ㧔ᴺᗧ⼂ߩะ਄‫ޔ‬ㄭઍ⊛࿯࿾೙ᐲߩ᭴
▽‫ޔ‬࿖㓙␠ળߦࠃࠆᴺᢛ஻ᡰេ㧕‫ޕ‬
Table 2: Example – land law problem in peacebuilding program
Up to 1 year
Survival/emergency

Up to 3 – 4 years
Reconstruction

Up to 10 years –Development/sustainable

Short Term

Mid Term

Long Term

Local

Community level land
dispute resolution under theabsence of applicable law

Land inheritance andgender discrimination in
inheritance

Legal awareness of village
people on their right

National

Tentative allocation of landfor security, humanitarian,or survival purpose

Establishing functional
land law system

Development of land
management mechanism(registration etc.)

Negotiation with former
ruling states on asset andliability

International support fordevelopment of legal
systemInternational6060ǢȁǧƴƓƚǔ඾ඬᘮܹࣄᐻƱኣʗᘮܹࣄᐻᲢ޽ဋ ࢅᲣ(3) ᐔ๺᭴▽ߣᴺ೙ᐲߦ߅ߌࠆ໧㗴ὐ⚗੎ᓟ␠ળߦ߅ߌࠆᴺ೙ᐲᡷ㕟ߪ‫ޔ‬ᜬ⛯⊛ߥᐔ๺ߣ␠ળ㐿⊒ߩߚ߼ߦਇนᰳߩ߽ߩߢ޽
ࠆ߇‫ޔ‬ㅢᏱߩᴺ೙ᐲᡷ㕟ߣߪ⇣ߥࠆ࿎㔍ࠍߣ߽ߥߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޔߦ৻╙ߪࠇߘޕ‬Table 1 ߅ࠃ߮
Table 2 ߢ␜ߒߚࠃ߁ߥ⚗੎ᓟ⋥ᓟߦ߅޿ߡ✕ᕆߦߥߐࠇߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠄߥ޿ᴺ೙ᐲߩ᳿ቯߪ‫ޔ‬ㅢᏱ‫ޔ‬㕖Ᏹߦਇ቟ቯߥ⁁ᴫ‫ޔ‬ኻ┙ߔࠆ㓸࿅㑆ߩߧߋ޿߇ߚ޿ᢜኻᗵᖱ‫ޔ‬෸߮᥸ജ⊛⸃᳿ߦᵹࠇ߇ߜߥ␠ળ⁁ᴫߣ޿߁ⅣႺߩరߢⴕࠊࠇߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠄ޿ߣ޿߁ߎߣߢ޽ࠅ‫╙ߡߒߘޔ‬ੑߦ‫ޔ‬዁᧪ߩᴺ૕೙ߦ㊀ᄢߥᓇ㗀ࠍਈ߃ࠆᴺ೙ᐲߦ㑐ߔࠆ᳿ቯࠍᐔ๺᭴▽ߩೋᦼᲑ㓏ߢⴕࠊࠇߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠄߥ޿ߣ⸒߁ߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ޔߪߣߎߩߎޕ‬ᴺߩ‫〝⚻ޟ‬ଐሽ⊛ᕈᩰ‫⿠ߦޠ‬࿃ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ᴺߩ߽ߞߣ߽㊀ⷐߥᓎഀߩ৻ߟߪ‫ޔ‬ᴺ⊛ⴕὑߦߟ޿ߡ੍᷹น⢻ᕈߣ቟ోᕈࠍઃਈߔࠆߎ
ߣߢ޽ࠅ‫੍ߚ߹ޔ‬᷹น⢻ᕈߪ‫ޔ‬ㆊ෰ߦ₪ᓧߐࠇߚᮭ೑෸߮೑⋉ࠍ‫ޔ‬዁᧪ߦ߅޿ߡᮭജࠍ᦭
ߔࠆ߽ߩ߇ߎࠇࠍ଻⼔ߔࠆߎߣߦࠃࠅೋ߼ߡน⢻ߦߥࠆ‫ޔߒ߽ޕ‬ᣢሽߩᮭ೑߿೑⋉ࠍ೸ᅓߔࠆࠃ߁ߥᕆỗߥᄌൻ߇޽ࠇ߫‫ޔ‬ᴺ೙ᐲߣ␠ળ⒎ᐨߩਇ቟ቯൻࠍ᜗ߊ‫ޔߡߞ߇ߚߒޕ‬ᴺ೙
ᐲߩೋᦼ᧦ઙߪ዁᧪ߩᴺ೙ᐲߩᡷ㕟ߩㆬᛯ⢇ࠍ೙㒢ߔࠆߚ߼‫ޔ‬ᴺ೙ᐲߩᄌൻߪ⚻〝ଐሽ⊛ߦߥࠆ㧔Table 3 ߪ‫ⴕޔ‬᡽ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߦ㑐ߔࠆᐔ๺᭴▽ೋᦼߩ᳿ቯߣߘߩᓟߩᓇ㗀ߦߟ޿ߡ␜
ߒߡ޿ࠆ㧕‫ޕ‬
Table 3: Example of path dependent character of law
Peace Agreement

Base for future public law system

Governing principle (republic, federation etc.)
Representative system (quota for conflicting
parties)

Transitional JusticeBase for administration system

Dismissal, appointment and vetting of judicial
and administration personnel

Base for private law system

Resolution of land dispute, inheritance, truth
and reconciliation

Rule of law

Making legal system necessary forgovernance.

Sustainable peace๺ᐔวᗧߦߟ޿ߡද⼏ߔࠆઍ⴫࿅‫ߪ޿ࠆ޽ޔ‬஗ᚢᓟߩᥳቯ⊛᡽ᐭߪ‫ޔ‬዁᧪ߩᴺ೙ᐲߦᓇ㗀ࠍਈ߃ࠆ᳿ቯࠍᐔ๺᭴▽ߩೋᦼᲑ㓏ߦ߅޿ߡⴕࠊߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠄߥ޿‫ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ㅢᏱ‫ߎޔ‬ߩࠃ߁ߥ᳿ቯᮭ⠪ߩ᳃ਥ⊛ߥᱜ⛔ᕈ޽ࠆ޿ߪ࿖ౝ⊛ᡰᜬၮ⋚ߪਇචಽߢ޽ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬႐ว‫ޔ‬᳿ቯᮭ⠪ߪ‫ޔ‬ᐔ๺᭴▽ߩೋᦼᲑ㓏ߦ߅޿ߡ㊀ⷐߥᴺ⊛᳿ቯࠍぷふߔࠆ‫ߪ޿ࠆ޽ޔ‬නߦ᳿ቯࠍㆱߌࠆㆬᛯࠍߣࠆน⢻ᕈ߇㜞޿3‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߎޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬᳿ቯߩ࿁ㆱߪ዁᧪ߩ࿖ኅ࡮␠ળ⊒ዷߦߣߞߡ㧔ߚߣ߃߫‫ࠆߌ߅ߦ࡞࡯ࡕࠖ࠹᧲ޔ‬Ꮻㆶ㔍᳃ߦࠃࠆ࿯࿾ߩභ᦭߿‫߅ߦࡏ࠰ࠦޔ‬ߌࠆ⥄⼊࿅ߦࠃࠆ⥄⊒⊛ߥᬌ໧ᚲߩ⸳⟎ߥߤ㧕‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߘޔߪ޿ࠆ޽ޕ‬ᴺ⊛໧㗴ߦ㑐ߔࠆೋᦼߩ᳿ቯ߇‫ߩߘޔ‬ᓟߦጁⴕߐࠇߕᣂߚߥ⚗੎ߩⷐ࿃ߣߥࠅ߁ࠆ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޔ߫߃ߣߚޕ‬๺ᐔ੤ᷤߦ߅޿ߡ‫ࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬᡽ᐭઍ⴫࿅ߪ࿖ળߩᮭ㒢ߢ޽ࠆࠕ࠴ࠚ․೎⛔ᴦᴺߩౝኈߦߟ޿
ߡ੤ᷤߖߑࠆᓧߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬๺ᐔวᗧᓟߦࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ࿖ળߩណᛯߒߚࠕ࠴ࠚ․೎
⛔ᴦᴺߪ޿ߊߟ߆ߩὐߦ߅޿ߡ MoU ߩౝኈߣᛶ⸅ߒߡ޿ࠆ4‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬MoU ߢวᗧߐࠇߚ⌀ታ⧯ᆔຬળ߅ࠃ߮ੱᮭⵙ್ᚲߩ⸳⟎ߦߟ޿ߡߪ߹ߛታ⃻ߒߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬ߎߩ߶߆ߦ‫ߡ޿߅ߦࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬໧㗴ߣߥࠆߩߪ‫ࡓ࡜ࠬࠗޔ‬ᴺ㧔ࠪࡖ࡝ࠕ㧕ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄ೨ߦ೙ቯߐࠇࠇߚࠕ࠴ࠚ․೎⥄ᴦᴺ㧔2001 ᐕᴺᓞ 18 ภ㧕ߪ‫ޔ‬ೃ੐ⵙ್▤ロᮭࠍ᦭ߔࠆࠪࡖ࡝
3᧲࠹ࠖࡕ࡯࡞㑑௥ᆔຬળߪ‫ޔ‬UNTAET ߦኻߒߡㆬ᜼ߦၮߠߊ᡽ᐭ߇ᚑ┙ߔࠆ߹ߢ࿯࿾ᚲ᦭ᮭߦ㑐ߔࠆ᳿ቯࠍⴕࠊߥ޿ࠃ߁ߦⷐ᳞ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
4ࠞ࠻࠘࡝࡮ࡔ࡝ࠞ࡝ࠝ㧔⣁ဈ♿ⴕ⸶㧕‫ޡ‬ᐔ๺᭴▽ߩ઀੐㧦ࡈࠖࡦ࡜ࡦ࠼೨ᄢ⛔㗔ࠕࡂ࠹ࠖࠨ࡯࡝ߣࠕ࠴ࠚ
๺ᐔ੤ᷤ‫ޢ‬᣿⍹ᦠᐫ‫ޔ‬2007 ᐕ‫ޔ‬275-280 㗁‫ޕ‬61
61

I. ǢȁǧƷࣄᐻཞඞƱᛢ᫆ࠕⵙ್ᚲ㧔Mahkamah Syariah㧕ߩ⸳⟎‫ࡓ࡜ࠬࠗ߮ࠃ߅ޔ‬ᴺߦၮߠߊ࿾ᣇ᧦଀೙ቯ㧔Qanun㧕ࠍᎺ᡽ᐭ߇ⴕ߁ᮭ㒢ࠍቯ߼ߡ޿ࠆ‫ࡓ࡜ࠬࠗޕ‬ᴺߦၮߠߊ৻ቯߩ⥄ᴦࠍઃਈߔࠆਛᄩ᡽ᐭߦ
ࠃࠆߎߩ‫ޟ‬ቬᢎ⊛ࠕࡊࡠ࡯࠴‫ࠆߌ߅ߦࠚ࠴ࠕޔߪޠ‬ಽ㔌ਥ⟵ࠍ‧೙ߒ‫ޔ‬න৻ߩࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪ
ࠕ࿖ኅߩᨒ⚵ߺߦߣߤ߼ࠆߎߣࠍᗧ࿑ߒߡ޿ߚ5‫ઁޕ‬ᣇ‫ޔ‬GAM ߩ᡽ᴦ⊛ਥᒛߪࠗࠬ࡜ࡓ࿖ኅ
᮸┙ߢߪߥߊ‫ࠈߒ߻ޔ‬᡽ᴦ⊛ਥᮭ‫ౕࠅࠃޔ‬૕⊛ߦߪᄤὼ⾗Ḯ߆ࠄ↢ߓࠆ೑⋉ߩ㈩ಽ߅ࠃ߮
ㆊ෰ߩੱᮭଚኂߦ㑐ߔࠆ⽿છㅊ෸ߢ޽ߞߚ6‫ޕ‬ᢘ⯩ߥࡓࠬ࡝ࡓ߇ᄙᢙࠍභ߼ࠆࠕ࠴ࠚߦ߅޿
ߡ‫ࡓ࡜ࠬࠗޔ‬ᴺࠍฃኈߔࠆⅣႺߪ޽ࠆ‫ઁߒ߆ߒޕ‬ᣇ‫ࡓ࡜ࠬࠗޔ‬ᴺߩㆊᐲߥㆡ↪ߦߟ޿ߡߪ
ࠕ࠴ࠚౝㇱ߆ࠄߩᛕ್߽޽ࠆ‫㉼⸃ࠕ࡝ࡖࠪߡ޿߅ߦࠚ࠴ࠕޔߦ․ޕ‬ᮭ㒢ࠍ᦭ߔࠆࠪࡖ࡝ࠕ
੐ോᚲ Dinas Syariah ߪ‫ࠕ࡝ࡖࠪޔ‬㆑෻ࠍขࠅ✦߹ࠆߚ߼ߦ Wilayutul Hisbah㧔WH㧕ߣ޿߁⚵❱ࠍ⸳⟎ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬WH ߪᴺᓞ਄‫ޔ‬ㅱ᝝ᮭߥߤߪᜬߚߥ޿߇7‫ߩࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗ߫ߒ߫ߒޔ‬ࡔ࠺ࠖࠕߦ߅޿ߡ߽ቬᢎ⼊ኤߣߒߡ⸒෸ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬UNDP ߩႎ๔ᦠߪ‫ޔ‬WH ᭴ᚑຬ߇ᴺߩᡰ㈩ߦኻߔࠆၮᧄ⊛⍮⼂࡮⸠✵ࠍᰳ޿ߡ޿ࠆߚ߼ߦ‫ޔ‬ᮭ㒢ࠍ⿧߃ߚ᜔᧤߿ࠪࡖ࡝ࠕ㆑෻⠪ߦኻߔࠆ᥸ജߥߤߩੱᮭଚኂࠍ⿠ߎߒߡ޿ࠆߣᜰ៰ߒߡ޿ࠆ㧔UNDP 2006, p.93㧕‫ޕ‬

5Moch. Nur Ichwan, “The Politics of Shari'atization: Central Governmental and Regional Discourses of Shari'a
Implementation in Aceh” in Feener, R. Michael & Cammak, Mark E. eds., Islamic Law in Contemporary Indonesia:
Ideas and Institutions, 2007. pp.195-196.
6
Tim Lindsey & M.B. Hooker with Ross Clarke & Jeremy Kingsley, “Shari’a Revival in Aceh” in Feener, R.
Michael & Cammak, Mark E. eds., Islamic Law in Contemporary Indonesia: Ideas and Institutions, 2007, p.222.
7⍮੐᡽઎ Governor's decree 1/2004 ߪ‫ޔ‬Wilayutul Hisbah ߩᮭ㒢ࠍᰴߩࠃ߁ߦቯ߼ࠆ㧦㧔a㧕౒ห૕߆ࠄߩ⧰ᖱ
ฃℂ‫ޔ‬㧔b㧕ࠗࠬ࡜ࡓᴺߦ㆑෻ߒߡ޿ࠆߣ⇼ࠊࠇࠆ߽ߩࠍ〝਄ߢ๭߮ᱛ߼ࠆߎߣ‫ޔ‬㧔c㧕ࠪࡖ࡝ࠕᴺࠍ㆑෻ߒߡ޿ࠆߣ⇼ࠊࠇࠆ߽ߩߦりಽ⸽᣿ᦠឭ␜ࠍ᳞߼ࠆߎߣ‫ޔ‬㧔d㧕ࠞ࠿࡯ࡦߦ㆑෻ߒߡ޿ࠆߣ⇼ࠊࠇࠆᵴേࠍ஗
ᱛߐߖࠆߎߣ‫ޕ‬62
62

II. Disaster Subculture and Preparedness໎ܹ૨҄Ʊ᧸໎Ʒᘍ૾ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕߦἴኂᢥൻࠍߤ߁⢒ߡߡⴕߊ߆
↰ਛ㊀ᅢ࡮㜞ᯅ ⺈㧔ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼␠ળⅣႺቇኾ᡹㧕ᧄⓂߩ⋡⊛ 2004 ᐕߩࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ߪᄢ߈ߥੱ⊛ߥⵍኂࠍ߽ߚࠄߒߚ‫ⵍߚߒ߁ߎޕ‬ኂࠍߛߐߥ޿ߚ߼
ߦ߽‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄኻ╷߇✕ᕆߩ⺖㗴ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄࠍ⚻㛎ߒߚ⃻࿷‫࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬ᵗᵤᵄ⼊ႎࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߩ᭴▽߇࿖㓙⊛ߥᡰេߩ߽ߣߦㅴࠎߢ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄ⼊ႎࠪࠬ࠹ࡓ߇ㆱ㔍ߦ᦭ലߦ௛ߊߚ߼ߦߪ‫⼊ޔ‬ႎߩㅍࠅᚻ߆ࠄߩ⠨ኤߛߌߢߪߥߊ‫⼊ޔ‬ႎߩฃߌᚻߩ஥߆ࠄߩ⠨ኤ߽㊀ⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫␠ޔߪߢߎߎޕ‬ળ߿ੱ㑆ߩ஥߆ࠄ‫⼊ߜࠊߥߔޔ‬ႎߩฃߌᚻߩ஥߆ࠄ‫੹ޔ‬ᓟߩᵤᵄ⼊ႎࠪࠬ࠹ࡓ߇᦭ലߦ௛ߊߚ߼ߩၮᧄ⊛ߥ᧦ઙࠍ‫⼊ޟޔ‬ႎ࡝࠹࡜ࠪ࡯‫߁޿ߣޠ‬᭎ᔨࠍߟ߆ߞߡឭ᩺ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ ⼊ႎߩㅍࠅᚻ㧙ฃߌᚻ‫⼊ޔ‬ႎߩࡂ࡯࠼ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓ̆࠰ࡈ࠻ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߦ㑐ߒߡߪ‫ޔ‬࿑ 1 ߩࠃ
߁ߦℂᔨ⊛ߦᢛℂߢ߈ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬᭎ᔨ࿑ߦහߒߡ⸒߃߫‫ᧄޔ‬Ⓜߪὐ✢ߦ࿐߹ࠇߚ㗔ၞࠍᬌ⸛ߒࠃ߁ߣߔࠆ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬࿑ 1 ⼊ႎߩࡂ࡯࠼ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߣ࠰ࡈ࠻ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓ

ߎࠇ߹ߢߎࠇ߹ߢߩࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯⺞ᩏ߿ࠕࡦࠤ࡯࠻⺞ᩏ߆ࠄ‫ߩࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬૑᳃ߦߟ޿ߡ‫ޔ‬ᰴߩὐ߇᣿ࠄ߆ߣߥߞߚ㧔ᧁ⢆߶߆ 2006; Takahashi et al. 2007; Takahashi et al. 2008; ᨋ߶߆‫ޔ‬
2008㧕‫ޕ‬Ԙ ᵤᵄߩ⃻࿾⺆ߢ޽ࠆ‫ࠍ⪲⸒߁޿ߣޠ࠽࡯ࡉࠗޟ‬⍮ߞߡ޿ࠆੱ߇ዋߥ߆ߞߚߎߣ߆ࠄ
ࠊ߆ࠆࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߦ㑐ߔࠆ৻⥸⊛⍮⼂ߪ߽ߜࠈࠎ‫⥄ޔ‬ಽߩዬ૑࿾ߩᵤᵄߩⵍἴ૕㛎ߦߟ޿ߡ߽‫ߤࠎߣ߶ޔ‬⍮ࠄߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ԙ ࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᒰᣣ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ߇᧪ࠆߣߪ⠨߃߽ߒߥ߆ߞߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬ᗧ๧ߢߪ‫ޟޔ‬࿾㔡㧩ᵤᵄㅪᗐ‫ޠ‬㧔↰ਛ߶߆ 1994; ↰ਛ߶߆ 2006㧕߇ߥ߆ߞߚߣ޿߃ࠆ‫⋥ޕ‬ធ⊛ߦ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄࠍ⋡ⷞߔࠆ߆‫ઁߚߒⷞ⋡ޔ‬⠪߆ࠄߩᖱႎߦࠃߞߡㆱ㔍ߔࠆߒ߆ߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޔ߼ߚߩߘޕ‬ㆱ㔍㐿ᆎߩ࠲ࠗࡒࡦࠣ߇ቢోߦㆃࠇߚ‫ޕ‬Ԛ ߘߩ⚿ᨐ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߦࠃࠆੱ⊛ߥⵍኂ߇ᄢ߈ߊߥߞߚ‫ⵍ⊛‛ޕ‬ኂߦ㑐ߒߡߪㆱ㔍ⴕേએᄖߩⷐ࿃ࠍ⠨ᘦߒߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠄߥ޿ߩߢ‫ޔ‬೎ߩ⼏⺰ࠍ⚵ߺ┙ߡࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ߇‫ޔߪߢߎߎޔ‬ੱ⊛ߥⵍኂߦߛߌ⌕⋡ߒߡ߅ߊ‫ޕ‬એ਄ߩౕ૕⊛ߥ૕㛎⺣ࠍ‫ޔ‬ᨋࠄ㧔ᨋ߶߆ 2008㧕߇ႎ๔ߒߡ޿ࠆ੐଀߆ࠄ⚫੺ߒߡ߅ߎ߁‫ޕ‬

65
65

II. ໎ܹ૨҄Ʊ᧸໎Ʒᘍ૾࡚ࠫࠛ࡞ߐࠎߩ੐଀㧦 ࿾㔡ᓟ‫ޟޔ‬ᐙ✢㆏〝ᴪ޿ߩࠦ࡯ࡅ࡯࡚ࠪ࠶ࡊߦ޿ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ߘߩߣ߈‫ߥ߁ࠃߩ࡯࠲ࡊࠦ࡝ࡋޔ‬㖸߇⡞ߎ߃ߚ‫⷏ޔߡ޿⛯ޕ‬ᶏጯߦ㕙ߒߚࡠ࠶ࠢࠟߩᣇ
߆ࠄ‫ޡ‬ᶏ߇޽߇ߞߡ߈ߚ‫ߣޢ‬ต߮ߥ߇ࠄߚߊߐࠎߩੱ߇⿛ߞߡ߈ߚ‫߇ࠎߐߓ߅ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬‫ޔߢߩߚߞ޿ߣޢߛߣߎ޿ߥ߃ࠅ޽ޡ‬㨇ߘߩ⹤ࠍାߓߥ޿ߢ㨉ᒁ߈⛯߈ᦺߏߪࠎࠍ㘩ߴߡ޿ߚ‫ޠ‬㧔ᨋ߶߆ 2008: 77, 㨇 㨉ౝߪᒁ↪⠪㧕‫ޕ‬࠙ࠖ࡞ࡑࡦߐࠎߩ੐଀㧦 ‫࡯࡝࡟࠙ޟ‬ㄭߊߩ㙃ᱺᳰߦ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡ߢំࠇߡ޿ࠆ㑆ߪ┙ߞߡ޿ࠄࠇߕ‫ޔ‬ᐳࠅߎࠎߛ‫ ߪࠇំޕ‬10 ಽߊࠄ޿⛯޿ߚߣᕁ߁‫઀ߪߣ޽ߩࠇំޕ‬੐ߦᚯߞߚ‫ޕ‬ំࠇ߇߅ߐ߹ߞߡ߆ࠄ 10㨪20 ಽᓟ‫ޔ‬㤥ߊߡ 2 㓏ᑪߩኅࠃࠅ߽㜞޿᳓߇ㄼߞߡߊࠆߩ߇⷗߃
ߚ‫ޡޕ‬᳓߇᧪ߚ‫ߣޢ‬ต߮ߥ߇ࠄ 1 ࠠࡠ⒟ᐲ㔌ࠇߚ⥄ቛ㓸⪭߹ߢ⿛ߞߡᚯࠅዊቇᩞ߳ㅏߍㄟ
ࠎߛ‫ޠ‬㧔ᨋ߶߆ 2008: 77㧕‫ޕ‬ߎߎߢ౒ㅢߒߡ޿ࠆߩߪ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡ߩᄢ߈ߥំࠇ߇߅ߐ߹ߞߚᓟߪ‫ߡߴߔޟ‬ἴኂߪ⚳ࠊߞߚ‫ޠ‬ߣ⠨߃ߡ޿ࠆߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ޔ߼ߚߩߘޕ‬࿾㔡ߩំࠇ߇߅ߐ߹ߞߚᓟ‫ᦺޔ‬㘩ࠍߣߞߚࠅ‫઀ޔ‬੐ࠍౣ㐿ߒߚࠅߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޟޔߦࠄߐޕ‬ᶏ߇޽߇ߞߡ߈ߚ‫ޟޠ‬᳓߇᧪ߚ‫߁޿ߣޠ‬ᒻߢᵤᵄߣ޿߁⸒⪲߇૶ࠊࠇߡ޿ߥ޿‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔߦ߁ࠃߩߎޕ‬࿾㔡ߪ㐳޿ᄢ߈ߥំࠇࠍ߽ߚࠄߒߚ߇‫ޔ‬࿾㔡ᓟߦᵤᵄ߇᧪ࠆ߆߽ߒࠇߥ޿ߣ޿߁ㅪᗐࠍᛴ޿ߚੱߪߏߊ⒘ߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬એ਄ߩᣢ⍮ߩႎ๔੐㗄ߦ㑐ߒߡ‫⊒ޔ‬ἴ߆ࠄ㧟ᐕࠍ⚻ㆊߒߚᤨὐߢߩ‫ޔ‬ฬฎደᄢቇߩࠕࡦ
ࠤ࡯࠻⺞ᩏ⚿ᨐߢ⏕⹺ߒߡ߅ߎ߁‫⺞ޕ‬ᩏᣇᴺ߿ᣣᤨߦ㑐ߔࠆౕ૕⊛ߥ੐ᨩߦ㑐ߒߡߪ‫ߔޔ‬ߢߦ‫ޔ‬೨࿁ߩႎ๔ᦠߦ⸥ߒߚ㧔Takahashi et al. 2008㧕ߩߢ‫ޕࠆߔ⇛⋭ߪߢߎߎޔ‬⴫ 1 ⵍἴએ೨ߩ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߩฬ⒓ߩ⹺⍮
᧛ߩ㘃ဳ
㊀ᐲߩⵍἴ
ਛ૏ߩⵍἴ
シᐲߩⵍἴ
ว ⸘

ਔ ᣇ
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%

3
1.3
7
2.6
5
2.7
15
2.2

ࠗࡉ࡯࠽
30
12.9
62
23.0
23
12.4
115
16.7

ᵤ ᵄ
18
7.7
20
7.4
17
9.1
55
8.0

⍮ࠄߥ޿
182
78.1
181
67.0
141
75.8
504
73.1

ว ⸘
233
100.0
270
100.0
186
100.0
689
100.0

⴫ 2 ࿾㔡߿ᵤᵄߩ⍮⼂㧔‫ߣޠ޿ߪޟ‬࿁╵ߒߚഀว‫ޔ‬㧑㧕ⵍἴએ೨ߦᵤᵄߩߎߣࠍ⍮ߞߡ޿ߚ࿾㔡ߩᤨߦᵤᵄࠍㅪᗐߒߚ
2007 ᐕߩᵤᵄ⼊ႎߩ⺋ႎᤨߦㆱ㔍ߒߥ߆ߞߚ
዁᧪ࠕ࠴ࠚߢ࿾㔡߇⊒↢ߔࠆน⢻ᕈ߇޽ࠆߣᕁ߁
዁᧪‫ޔ‬࿾㔡߇޽ߞߚࠄᵤᵄ߇⿠ߎࠆߣᕁ߁ᵤᵄߩㆱ㔍႐ᚲࠍ⍮ߞߡ޿ࠆᰴߩ࿾㔡ߦ஻߃ߡ޿ࠆ
࿾ᣇ᡽ᐭߩἴኂߩ஻߃ߦᦼᓙߔࠆ

㊀ᐲߩ
ⵍἴ

ਛ૏ߩ
ⵍἴ

シᐲߩ
ⵍἴ

ో૕

ታᢙ

11.0
3.9
64.9
59.7
47.0
76.8
35.4
59.9

12.9
3.6
49.4
58.5
52.8
88.8
32.2
61.0

12.6
2.9
44.7
71.8
50.5
89.3
44.3
63.2

12.2
3.5
53.4
62.5
50.2
84.9
36.5
61.2

559
624
674
691
687
689
684
662

Ԙ ⴫ 1 ߦ⷗ࠆࠃ߁ߦ‫ޟߪ޿ࠆ޽ޠ࠽࡯ࡉࠗޟޔ‬ᵤᵄ‫ߦ⪲⸒߁޿ߣޠ‬㑐ߒߡ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬࿾㔡એ೨ߦ‫ޔ‬⍮ߞߡ޿ߚ߆ߤ߁߆ࠍ⷗ߡߺࠆߣ‫ޟޠ࠽࡯ࡉࠗޟޔ‬ᵤᵄ‫ޠ‬ਔᣇߩ⸒⪲ࠍ⍮ߞߡ޿ߚੱߪࠊߕ߆ 2.2 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻‫ࠍߌߛ⪲⸒߁޿ߣޠ࠽࡯ࡉࠗޟޔ‬⍮ߞߡ޿ߚੱ߇ 16.7 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻‫ޟޔ‬ᵤᵄ‫ࠍߌߛ⪲⸒߁޿ߣޠ‬⍮ߞߡ޿ߚੱ߇ 8.0 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ߣ‫ޔ߷߶ޔ‬4 ಽߩ 1 ߩੱߒ߆ᵤᵄߣ޿߁⸒⪲ࠍ⍮ࠄߥ߆ߞߚ‫ߦࠄߐޕ‬೎ߩ⡞߈ᣇߢߪ‫ࠇߘޟޔ‬એ೨ߦ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߩߎߣࠍ⍮ߞߡ޿ߚ߆‫⾰߁޿ߣޠ‬໧ߦ㑐ߒߡ‫ߣޠ޿ߪޟޔ‬࿁╵ߒߡ޿ࠆߩߪ‫ޔ‬11㨪12 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ߦߣߤ߹ߞߡ޿ࠆ㧔⴫ 2㧕‫ ⴫ޕ‬1 ߦ߅޿ߡ‫⹺ߩ⪲⸒߁޿ߣޠ࠽࡯ࡉࠗޟޔ‬⍮ᐲ߇ⵍኂ⒟ᐲ
ߦࠃߞߡ⇣ߥߞߡ޿ࠆߩߪ‫ޔ‬㊀ᐲ‫ޔ‬ਛᐲ‫ޔ‬シᐲߩ࿾ၞߏߣߩ૑᳃ߩ␠ળ⊛ዻᕈߩ㆑޿߆ࠄ
↢ߓߚன⋧㑐ߢ޽ࠆߣផ᷹ߐࠇࠆ‫߁ߘޕ‬ផ᷹ߔࠆߩߪ‫ ⴫ޔ‬2 ߢ‫ࠇߘޟ‬એ೨ߦ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߩߎߣ6666ǤȳȉȍǷǢƴ໎ܹ૨҄ǛƲƏᏋƯƯᘍƘƔᲢဋɶȷ᭗೛Უ

ࠍ⍮ߞߡ޿ߚ‫ߣޠ‬࿁╵ߒߡ޿ࠆߩߪ‫ⵍޔ‬ኂ⒟ᐲߦ㑐ଥߥ޿‫ⵍޔߦߺߥߜޕ‬ἴ⒟ᐲ㆑޿ߣߒ
ߡߪ‫ޔ‬࿾ၞߩᱫ੢₸ࠍߣࠅ‫ޔ‬㊀ᐲߩⵍἴߣߪᱫ੢₸ 70 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻એ਄‫ޔ‬ਛᐲߩⵍἴߣߪ 15
㨪70 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ᧂḩ‫ޔ‬シᐲߩⵍἴߣߪ 15 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ᧂḩࠍᗧ๧ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ԙ ࿾㔡㧩ᵤᵄㅪᗐߦ㑐ߒߡߩ⾰໧㧔‫ߦ߈ߣࠆ޿ߡࠇំޟ‬ᵤᵄߩߎߣࠍ⠨߃ߚ‫߁޿ߣޠ‬⾰໧㧕ߦ㑐ߒߡߪ‫ⵍޔ‬ኂ⒟ᐲߦ㑐ଥߥߊ‫ޔ߆ߕࠊޔ‬3 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ߩੱߒ߆‫ߣޠ޿ߪޟ‬࿁╵ߒߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄ᧪ⷅએ೨ߦ‫ޔ‬੐೨ߦㆱ㔍ߒߚੱߪ߈ࠊ߼ߡዋߥ߆ߞߚߎߣ߇‫ࠄ߆ߎߎޔ‬ಽ߆ࠆ‫ޕ‬ἴኂᢥൻߩᒻᚑ⁁ᴫᰴߦ‫ߚߒ߁ߎޔ‬ᵤᵄߩⵍἴ૕㛎ࠍߒߚੱ‫⃻ޔ߇ޘ‬࿷‫ߚߞ޿߁ߤޔ‬ἴኂᢥൻࠍ૞ࠅ਄ߍߡ
޿ࠆߩ߆ࠍ‫ޔ‬3 ᐕ⋡ߩࠕࡦࠤ࡯࠻⺞ᩏ⚿ᨐ߆ࠄ⷗ߡߺࠃ߁‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄ߳ߩἴኂᢥൻߦ㑐ߒߡ‫ޔ‬዁᧪ߩ࿾㔡⊒↢‫ߩᤨߩߘޔ‬ᵤᵄ⊒↢ߦ߆߆ࠊࠆ⹺⼂‫ߞ޿ޔ‬ߚࠎ࿾㔡߇⊒↢ߒߚᤨߩㆱ㔍႐ᚲߩ⏕⹺ߣ‫ߩ߼ߚߩߘޔ‬᥉Ბ߆ࠄߩ஻߃ߦ㑐ߒߡ‫ޔ‬዆ߨߚ‫ޕ‬዁᧪‫ߢࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬ᄢ߈ߥ࿾㔡߇⿠߈ࠆน⢻ᕈ߇޽ࠆߣ޿߁⹺⼂ߦ㑐ߒߡߪ‫ోޔ‬૕ߢ 62.5 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ߩੱ߇‫ߦ⼂⹺ߩߎޕࠆ޿ߡߒ⼂⹺ߣޠࠆ޽ޟ‬㑐ߒߡߪ‫ޔ‬㊀ᐲߩⵍኂࠍฃߌߚ࿾ၞ
ߩ૑᳃ߦ㑆ߢ㜞޿ࠊߌߢߪߥߊ‫ޔࠈߒ߻ޔ‬シᐲߥ࿾ၞߢ㜞޿‫ߩߎޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ℂ↱ߪਇ᣿ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬዁᧪࿾㔡߇⊒↢ߒߚᤨߦᵤᵄ߇⊒↢ߔࠆߣᕁ߁߆ߤ߁߆ߦ㑐ߒߡߪ‫ోޔ‬૕ߢ 50.2 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ߩੱ߇ߘ߁੍ᗐߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬ὐߢߪ‫ޔ‬2004 ᐕߩࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ߩ㓙ߦߪ‫ޔ‬0 ߦㄭ߆ߞߚߎߣࠍ⠨߃ࠇ߫‫ޔ‬ᄢ߈ߊᄌൻߒߡ޿ࠆߎߣ߇ಽ߆ࠆ‫ޔߦ߁ࠃߩߎޕ‬࿾㔡߿ᵤᵄߦ㑐ߔࠆ⹺⼂‫੍ߪ޿ࠆ޽ޔ‬᷹ߦ㑐ߒߡߪ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬࿾㔡એ㒠‫ޔ‬ᄢ߈ߊㅴᱠߒߚߣ޿ߞߡ߽ࠃ޿‫ޕ‬ߢߪ‫ޔߡ޿ߠߣ߽ߦ⼂⹺ߚߒ߁ߎޔ‬ታ㓙ߦᵤᵄ߳ߩኻᔕ߇Ḱ஻ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆߩߢ޽ࠈ߁߆‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄ߆ࠄߩㆱ㔍႐ᚲࠍ⍮ߞߡ޿ࠆߣ޿߁࿁╵߇ 84.9 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ߣ㜞޿୯ࠍ␜ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߒޕ‬߆ߒ‫ޔߪࠇߘޔ‬ㆱ㔍ⴕേߩ೨ឭ᧦ઙࠍߥߒߡ޿ࠆߦߔ߉ߥ޿‫ޔߦࠄߐޕ‬ᰴߦ⿠ߎࠆ߆߽ߒ
ࠇߥ޿࿾㔡ߦኻߒߡ‫ౕޔ‬૕⊛ߦ૗߆஻߃ࠍߒߡ޿ࠆ߆ߤ߁߆ߩ⾰໧ߦ㑐ߒߡߪ‫ޔ‬36.5 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ߒ߆‫ޟ‬஻߃ߡ޿ࠆ‫ߣޠ‬࿁╵ߒߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬ߘߩ࿾㔡ߦኻߔࠆ஻߃ࠍ‫ౕޔ‬૕⊛ߥౝኈߦಽߌߡ዆ߨߚߩ߇‫ ⴫ޔ‬3 ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬૑᳃⥄りߩ஻߃ߣߒߡߪ‫ోޔ‬૕ߢߺࠆߣ‫ߣ⫾⾂ޔ‬ㆱ㔍⸠✵߇߶߷หߓ୯ߢ 36 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻‫ޔ‬ᰴ޿ߢ‫ߜ⪭ޔ‬ว߁႐ᚲࠍ੍߼᳿ቯߒߡ޿ࠆߎߣ߇ 19.3 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ߣߥߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄߩ㒐ἴ߳ߩ஻߃ߩ㗄⋡ߣߒߡ㜞₸ߩᜰ៰ࠍ߃ࠆ‫ޟ‬᳓߿㘩ᢱߩ஻⫾‫ޟޠ‬ක⮎ຠߩ↪ᗧ‫ޟޠ‬ᑪ‛ߩ⵬ᒝ‫ ߽ࠇߕ޿ߪߤߥޠ‬5 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻એਅߩ୯ߒ߆␜ߐߥ޿‫ޔߦ߁ࠃߚ߈ߡ⷗ߢ߹ࠇߎޕ‬ἴኂᢥൻߦ㑐ㅪߔࠆ㗄⋡ਛ‫ߩߤࠎߣ߶ޔ‬㗄⋡߇ⵍἴ⒟ᐲߣή⋧㑐ߢ޽ࠆߥ߆ߢ‫ޔ‬໑৻‫ޔ‬ㆱ㔍⸠✵ߛߌߪ‫ޔ‬㊀ᐲߩⵍἴ࿾ߢ 59.3 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ߣ‫ޔ‬ਛᐲ‫ޔ‬シᐲ߇ߘࠇߙࠇ 25.5‫ޔ‬26.1 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ߣᲧセߒߡ‫ߡ߼ࠊ߈ޔ‬㜞޿‫ޕ‬૑᳃߇‫ޔ‬࿾ᣇ᡽ᐭߦኻߒߡᦸ߻ἴኂ߳ߩ஻߃ߣߒߡߪ‫ ⴫ޔ‬4 ߦ⷗ࠆࠃ߁ߦ‫߽ߣߞ߽ޔ‬ᒝߊᦸ߹ࠇߡ޿ࠆߩߪ‫ޔ‬ᣧᦼ⼊ႎࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߩᢛ஻ߢ޽ࠆ‫ోޕ‬૕ߢ⚂ 90 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ߩ૑᳃߇‫ޔ‬
ⴕ᡽߇⼊ႎࠪࠬ࠹ࡓࠍᢛ஻ߔࠆߎߣࠍᦸࠎߢ޿ࠆ‫ࠇߘޕ‬એᄖߪ‫ޔ‬㒐ἴ⸠✵߿㒐ἴᢎ⢒㧔16.4
ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻㧕‫ޔ‬ᢇഥᵴേߩ⚵❱ൻ㧔13.3 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻㧕ߢ޽ࠆ‫ⴕޕ‬᡽ߦࠃࠆ㘩♳߿᳓ߩ஻⫾‫ޔ‬㒐ἴ⸘↹߿ᓳ⥝⸘↹ߩ╷ቯ‫⥄ޔ‬ਥ㒐ἴߩߚ߼ߩ૑᳃ߩ⚵❱ൻ‫ޔ‬ㆱ㔍႐ᚲߩ⛽ᜬ▤ℂ‫ߩઁޔ‬࿾ᣇ᡽ᐭߣߩㅪ៤ߥߤ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄߩ㒐ἴ૕೙ߩਛߢߪᔅߕᜰ៰ߐࠇࠆ㗄⋡ߦ㑐ߒߡߪ‫ޔ߷߶ޔ‬5ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻એਅߩ୯ߒ߆ߣߞߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬ߎߎߢߪ‫ޔ‬૑᳃⥄ࠄߩⴕേߣߒߡ᳓߿㘩ᢱߩ஻⫾ߥߤࠍⴕߞߡ޿ߥ޿ߩߣਗⴕߒߡ‫ⴕޔ‬᡽ߦኻߒߡ߽‫ޔ‬᳓߿㘩ᢱߩ஻⫾ࠍ᳞߼ߡߪ޿ߥ޿‫ޔߦࠄߐޕ‬㒐ἴ⸘↹ߩ╷ቯ‫ޔ‬૑᳃ߩ⚵❱ൻߥߤߦ㑐ߒߡ߽ⴕ᡽ߦᦼᓙߒߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬એ਄ߩᢙ୯ߪ‫৻ޔ‬ᣇߢ‫ޔ‬૑᳃߇ⴕ᡽ߦᄙߊࠍᦼ
ᓙߒߡ޿ߥ޿ߣ޿߁ߛߌߢߪߥߊ‫ⴕޔ߽ߘ߽ߘޔ‬᡽߇‫ߚߒ߁ߘޔ‬㒐ἴ૕೙ࠍߣߞߡߎߥ߆
ߞߚߒ‫⃻ޔ‬࿷ߢ߽‫ߦߣߎߚߒ߁ߘޔ‬ขࠅ⚵ࠎߢ޿ߥ޿ߎߣߩ෻ᤋߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄߢߩ㘃ૃߩࠕࡦࠤ࡯࠻⺞ᩏ⚿ᨐߣᲧセߔࠆߣ‫ޔ‬㒐ἴኻ╷ߦ㑐ߔࠆⴕ᡽߳ߩⷐᦸߪૐ
޿‫ⴕޔ߽ߘ߽ߘޕ‬᡽߳ߩⷐᦸߪ㒐ἴߩቴⷰ⊛ߥ‫ޟ‬ᔅⷐᕈ‫ߢޠ‬᳿߹ࠆߩߢߪߥߊ‫ߢ߹ࠇߘޔ‬67
67

II. ໎ܹ૨҄Ʊ᧸໎Ʒᘍ૾ߩⴕ᡽ߩ㒐ἴኻᔕߩ‫ޟ‬ታ❣‫ࠍޠ‬ၮḰߦߒߡ‫ޔߢޘᤨߩߘޔ‬૑᳃߇್ᢿߒߡ޿ࠆ⚿ᨐߢ޽ࠆߎߣ߇ಽ߆ࠆ‫ޔ߼ߚߩߘޕ‬࿖㓙Ყセࠍߒߡࠁߊߣ‫ⴕޔ‬᡽߳ߩⷐᦸߪ࿖ߏߣߦᄢ߈ߥᏅ߇޽
ࠅ‫ޔ‬ౝኈ⊛ߦ߽ᄢ߈ߥᏅ߇↢ߕࠆߎߣߦߥࠆ‫ޕ‬
⴫ 3 ૑᳃⥄りߩἴኂ߳ߩ஻߃㧔ⶄᢙ࿁╵㧕Ḱ஻ߒߡ޿ࠆ߽ߩn⾂ ⫾㘩ᢱߣ᳓ߩ஻⫾ක⮎ຠߩḰ஻ኅደߩ⵬ᒝㆱ㔍⸠✵㓸ว႐ᚲߩ᳿ቯ
ߘߩઁ

㊀ᐲߩⵍἴ
86
32.6
2.3
4.7
2.3
59.3
17.4
25.6

ਛ૏ߩⵍἴ
102
42.2
2.9
9.8
8.8
25.5
19.6
28.4

シᐲߩⵍἴ
92
33.7
7.6
8.7
15.2
26.1
20.7
35.9

ว ⸘
280
36.4
4.3
7.9
8.9
36.1
19.3
30.0

⴫ 4 ࿾ᣇ᡽ᐭ߳ᦼᓙߔࠆἴኂ߳ߩ஻߃㧔ⶄᢙ࿁╵㧕Ḱ஻ߔࠆ߽ߩ
nㆱ㔍႐ᚲߩ▤ℂ
ᣧᦼ⼊ႎࠪࠬ࠹ࡓ
㘩ᢱߣ᳓ߩ஻⫾ㆱ㔍⸠✵߿㒐ἴᢎ⢒㒐ἴ⸘↹߿ᓳ⥝⸘↹ᢇេ૕೙ߩᢛ஻
࿾ၞ૑᳃ߩ⚵❱ൻઁߩ᡽ᐭߣߩㅪ៤

㊀ᐲߩⵍἴ
144
3.5
86.8
0.0
18.1
3.5
14.6
5.6
0.0

ਛ૏ߩⵍἴ
169
4.1
91.7
4.7
11.2
5.3
14.2
4.7
1.2

シᐲߩⵍἴ
114
4.4
93.9
0.9
21.9
7.9
10.5
6.1
4.4

ว ⸘
427
4.0
90.6
2.1
16.4
5.4
13.3
5.4
1.6

એ਄߆ࠄ⷗߃ߡߊࠆ‫ⵍߩࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬ἴ⠪ߩ㑆ߢᒻᚑߐࠇߟߟ޽ࠆᵤᵄ߳ߩἴኂᢥൻ
ߩౝኈߪ‫ޔ‬Ԙ‫ޟ‬࿾㔡߇⊒↢ߒߚࠄᵤᵄ߇߿ߞߡߊࠆ‫߁޿ߣޠ‬࿾㔡㧩ᵤᵄㅪᗐߩᒻᚑ‫ޔ‬ԙㆱ㔍⸠✵ߩ㊀ⷐᕈߩ⹺⼂ߣ‫ޔ‬Ԛㆱ㔍႐ᚲߩ⏕⹺ߦ㓸ਛߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޔߒߛߚޕ‬࿾㔡㧩ᵤᵄㅪᗐߩ୯ߪ⚂ 50 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ߣߘࠇ߶ߤ㜞ߊߥ޿‫ޔߦࠄߐޕ‬ㆱ㔍⸠✵ߩ㊀ⷐᕈ߇⹺⼂ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆߣ
ߪ޿߃‫ޔ‬ታ㓙ߩㆱ㔍⸠✵ߩ࿁ᢙߪ‫⺞࡯ࡘࡆ࠲ࡦࠗޔ‬ᩏ߆ࠄߪ‫৻ޔ‬ᐕߦ৻࿁⒟ᐲߢ޽ࠅ‫ߘޔ‬ࠇ߽‫⥄ޔ‬ਥ⊛ߦ࿾ၞ⁛⥄ߢታᣉߐࠇߚ߽ߩߢߪߥ޿‫ߚߒ߁ߎޕ‬ὐ߆ࠄ⷗ߡ‫⃻ޔ‬࿷߹ߢߩߣ
ߎࠈࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߢߪ‫ޔ‬ታ㓙ߦ㒐ἴߦᓎ┙ߟἴኂᢥൻ߇⢒ߞߡ޿ࠆߣߪ⸒޿㔍޿‫ޕ‬⼊ႎࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߩᢛ஻ߣߘߩ㒢⇇ࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄࠍ⚻㛎ߒ‫ߩߘޔ‬෻⋭߆ࠄ‫⃻ޔ‬࿷‫߽ߣߞ߽ޔ‬ኻ╷߇ᕆ߇ࠇߡ޿ࠆߩߪ‫ޔ‬ᄥᐔᵗߩ႐วߣห᭽‫࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬ᵗߦ߅޿ߡ߽ᵤᵄ⋙ⷞࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߣ‫⼊ޔ‬ႎࠪࠬ࠹ࡓࠍᢛ஻ߔࠆ
ߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫⼊ޔⷞ⋙ߩߎޕ‬ႎ⊒઎ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓᢛ஻ࠍ߼ߋߞߡߪ‫ޔ‬࿖㓙⊛ߥදജ߇ㅴ߼ࠄࠇߡ
޿ࠆ‫ޔߦߢߔޕ‬2008 ᐕ 11 ᦬ߦ‫ߪߢࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬࿖ౝߩ⼊ႎવ㆐ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓ߇ᢛ஻ߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬ߒ߆ߒ‫⼊ޔⷞ⋙ޔ‬ႎ⊒઎ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓ߇ቢ஻ߐࠇࠇ߫‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߩⵍኂ⠪ߪ㒐ߍࠆߢ޽ࠈ߁߆‫ޕ‬ߎߩߎߣ߇᦭ലᕈࠍ⊒ើߔࠆߚ߼ߦߪ‫ޔ‬એਅߩࠃ߁ߥ᧦ઙ߇ᔅⷐߣߥࠆ‫ޕ‬Ԙ ࿾㔡⊒↢ᓟ‫ޔߦߜ⋥ޔ‬ᵤᵄߩ⊒↢ߩน⢻ᕈߣ‫ޔ‬ᗐቯߐࠇࠆᵤᵄⷙᮨ‫ޔ‬ᓇ㗀▸࿐߇⏕ቯߐࠇࠆߎߣԙ ߎߩᖱႎࠍ‫ⵍޔ‬ኂ⊒↢߇੍ᗐߐࠇࠆ࿾ၞߩ૑᳃ߦ‫ޔߦߜ⋥ޔ‬વ㆐ߐࠇࠆߎߣԚ ߎߩᖱႎࠍฃߌขߞߚ૑᳃߇‫ޔߦߜ⋥ޔ‬ㆱ㔍ⴕേࠍㆬᛯߔࠆߎߣԛ ㆱ㔍ⴕേࠍ᦭ലߥ߽ߩߣߔࠆߚ߼ߦߪ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ೔㆐੍ᗐᤨ㑆ࠃࠅ೨ߦ‫ޔ‬ේೣߣߒߡᓤ
ᱠߢ೔㆐น⢻ߥ▸࿐ౝߦ‫੍ޔ‬ᗐߐࠇࠆᵤᵄ㜞ࠃࠅ߽㜞޿‫ޔ‬቟ోߥㆱ㔍ᚲ߇ሽ࿷ߔࠆߎ
ߣ‫⥄ޔ߇ࠇߘޕ‬ὼ࿾ᒻߩ೙⚂߆ࠄሽ࿷ߒߥ޿႐วߦߪ‫ੱޔ‬Ꮏ⊛ߦㆱ㔍႐ᚲࠍ↪ᗧߒߡ޽ࠆߎߣ‫ޕ‬68
68

ǤȳȉȍǷǢƴ໎ܹ૨҄ǛƲƏᏋƯƯᘍƘƔᲢဋɶȷ᭗೛Უ

ߎߎߢߪ‫⼊ޟޔ‬ႎ⊒઎ψ⼊ႎߩㄦㅦߥવ㆐ψㆱ㔍ⴕേψㆱ㔍࡞࡯࠻ߩ⸳ቯߣㆱ㔍ᚲߩ⏕଻‫ޔ߫ࠇ޽߇ޠ‬ᵤᵄߩෂ㒾ᕈߪ࿁ㆱߢ߈ࠆߣ޿߁೨ឭ߇޽ࠆ‫⃻ޕ‬ઍᣣᧄߦ߅޿ߡߪ‫ޔ‬Ԙ㨪ԛߩ᧦ઙ߇⏕଻ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ߇‫ޔߕࠄࠊ߆߆߽ߦࠇߘޔ‬ᵤᵄ⼊ႎ⊒઎ᤨߩㆱ㔍₸߇ૐ޿‫ߘޕ‬ߩߚ߼‫ޔ‬ታ㓙ߩᄢᵤᵄ߇⊒↢ߒߚߣ߈ߦߪ‫ߊ߹߁ޔ‬ኻᔕߢ߈ߥ޿ߩߢߪߥ޿߆ߣ޿߁ෂᗋ
ߪ‫ޔ‬ᢙᄙߊᜰ៰ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ㧔 ↰ 2003; ศ੗ 2005; ↰ਛ߶߆ 2006㧕‫ޕ‬ߒ߆ߒ‫ߚߒ߁ߎޔ‬ᣣᧄߢߪᵤᵄ⼊ႎߦ㑐ߔࠆ⎇ⓥߪ‫⼊ߦߢߔޔ‬ႎࠪࠬ࠹ࡓ߇ᢛ஻ߐࠇߡ
৻ቯߩ␠ળ⊛ᚑᾫࠍ㆐ᚑߒߚ੐଀ߢ޽ࠅ‫⼊ࠄ߆ࠇߎޔߦ߁ࠃߩࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬ႎࠪࠬ࠹ࡓ
ࠍዉ౉ߒࠃ߁ߣߔࠆࠤ࡯ࠬߣߪ⇣ߥࠆ‫ޔ߫߃ߣߚޕ‬ᣣᧄߢߪ‫⼊ޟ‬ႎᘠࠇ‫߇ޠ‬໧㗴ߣߥࠆ߇‫ޔ‬ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕߢߪ‫⼊ޟ‬ႎߦᘠࠇߡ޿ߥ޿ߎߣ‫߇ޠ‬໧㗴ߣߥࠆ‫ޔߪߢߎߎޔ߼ߚߩߘޕ‬ᣣᧄߦ߅ߌࠆᵤᵄ⼊ႎߣㆱ㔍ⴕേߣߩ໧㗴ߣߪ೎ߩⷺᐲ߆ࠄ‫⼊ޔ‬ႎዉ౉ᦼߩㆱ㔍ⴕേߩ໧㗴ߣߒߡ૗߇ᔅⷐߣߥࠆߩ߆ࠍᬌ⸛ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄߦ߅ߌࠆᵤᵄ⼊ႎߣㆱ㔍ⴕേߣߩ໧㗴ߦ㑐ߒߡߪ‫ޔ‬એਅߩ⺰ᢥ㧔↰ਛ߶߆ 2006; ↰ਛ߶߆ 2007a; ↰ਛ߶߆ 2007b㧕ࠍෳᾖߐࠇߚ޿‫ޕ‬ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߦ߅ߌࠆ⁁ᴫߎߎߢߪ‫ޔ‬Ԙߣԙߣ޿߁ᖱႎࠪࠬ࠹ࡓ㧔ࡂ࡯࠼ߥ᧦ઙ㧕߇ᢛ஻ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆߣ઒ቯߒߡ‫ޔ‬Ԛߣԛߩ࠰ࡈ࠻ߩ᧦ઙߦߟ޿ߡᬌ⸛ߒߡߺࠃ߁‫ޕ‬Ԛߦߟ޿ߡ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬࿾㔡⊒↢߆ࠄ⚂ 2 ᐕඨᓟ‫ޔ‬2007 ᐕ 6 ᦬ߦ‫⺋ޔ‬ႎߢᵤᵄㆱ㔍⼊ႎ߇⊒઎ߐࠇߚ㓙ߩ૑᳃ߩⴕേ߆ࠄᬌ⸽ߒߡߺࠃ߁‫ޕ‬ቢోߦࡀ࠶࠻ࡢ࡯ࠢൻߐࠇߚߣߪ⸒޿㔍޿߇‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬࿾㔡એᓟ‫ߩࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬ᶏጯㄭߊߢߪደᄖߦ✕ᕆ᡼ㅍࠍฃାߢ߈ࠆᣉ⸳
߇⸳⟎ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ࠍ࠻ࠬࡑࠩࡦࡄߩߘޕ‬ㅢߒߡ‫ޔ‬2007 ᐕ 6 ᦬ߦ⓭ὼ㧔ᒰὼ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡ߩំࠇ߽ߥߊ㧕‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄㆱ㔍⼊ႎ߇᡼ㅍߐࠇߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬㓙‫߇ੱߩ޿ࠄߊߩߤޔ‬ㆱ㔍ߒߚ߆ࠍ‫࡯ࠤࡦࠕޔ‬࠻⺞ᩏߢ዆ߨߚ‫⚿ߩߘޕ‬ᨐ㧔⴫ 5 ෳᾖ㧕‫ోޔ‬૕ߢߪ‫ޔ‬33.6 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ߩੱ߇⋥ߜߦㆱ㔍ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߡߒߊࠄ߫ߒޕ‬ㆱ㔍ߒߚߣ޿߁ੱࠍട߃ࠆߣ‫ޔ‬46.5 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ߩੱ߇ㆱ㔍ⴕേࠍߣߞߚ‫৻ޕ‬ᣇ‫ߩߌߛࠇߎޔ‬ᄢⵍኂࠍⵍߞߚߦ߽߆߆ࠊࠄߕ‫ޔ‬53.5 ࡄ࡯࠮ࡦ࠻ߩੱߪㆱ㔍ߒߡ޿ߥ޿‫੹ޕ‬࿁ߩࠕࡦࠤ࡯࠻⺞ᩏߢߪ‫ޔ‬ㆱ㔍⼊ႎ߇⡞ߎ߃ߚߩ߆ߤ߁߆ߦ㑐ߔࠆ⾰໧ࠍߒߡ޿ߥ޿ߚ߼ߦ‫⼊ޔ‬ႎ߇⡞ߎ߃ߡ߽ㆱ㔍ߒߥ߆ߞߚߩ߆‫⼊ޔ‬ႎ߇⡞ߎ߃ߥ߆ߞߚ߆ࠄㆱ㔍ߒߥ߆ߞߚߩ߆߇್ᢿߢ߈ߕ‫ޔ‬ㆱ㔍ⴕേࠍߣߞߚ߆ุ߆ߦߟ޿ߡߒ߆ᖱႎ߇ߥ޿‫ޔ߽߆ߒޕ‬࿾㔡ߩំࠇ߇ోߊߥ߆ߞߚߚ߼‫ޔ‬2004 ᐕߩᤨߩ⚻㛎㧔ᄢ߈ߥ࿾㔡ߩ޽ߣߦᄢ߈ߥᵤᵄ߇᧪ⷅߔࠆߣ޿߁⚻㛎㧕ߣ෻ߒߡ߅ࠅ‫߇ߣߎߩߘޔ‬ㆱ㔍₸ࠍૐਅߐߖߚߣ߽ផ᷹ߐࠇࠆ‫߁ߎޕ‬ߒߚ⇐଻᧦ઙࠍൊ᩺ߒߡ߽ߥ߅‫⼊ޔ‬ႎࠪࠬ࠹ࡓࠍᢛ஻ߒ‫ߜ޿ޔ‬ᣧߊㆱ㔍⼊ႎࠍવ㆐ߔࠇ߫‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߦࠃࠆᱫ⠪ߪ㒐ߍࠆߣ⠨߃ࠆߎߣߪߢ߈ߥ޿‫ޕ‬
⴫ 5 ⵍኂ₸ߦࠃࠆ‫⺋ޔ‬ႎߩ㓙ߩㆱ㔍₸ᱫ੢₸ߦࠃࠆⵍኂ㘃ဳ70㧑એ਄
15㨪70㧑
15㧑એਅว  ⸘

⋥ߜߦㆱ㔍
60
26.3
101
37.7
66
36.9
227
33.6

ߒ߫ࠄߊߒߡㆱ㔍
20
8.8
34
12.7
33
18.4
87
12.9

ㆱ㔍ߖߕ
148
64.9
133
49.6
80
44.7
361
53.5

ో ૕
228
100.0
268
100.0
179
100.0
675
100.0

ԛㆱ㔍႐ᚲߦ㑐ㅪߒߡ‫⃻ޔ‬࿷ߩࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߩ⁁ᴫࠍ⷗ߡߺࠆ‫ޕ‬ᶏጯㄭߊߩ࿾ၞߪ‫ޔ‬࿾ᒻ⊛ߦᐔမߢ‫߇ࡦ࡯ࠣ࡜ߣ߽ߣ߽ޔ‬ᐢ߇ߞߡ޿ߚ‫ⵍޕ‬ἴ⋥ᓟߦ┙᩺ߐࠇߚᓳ⥝⸘↹ߢߪ‫ޔ‬ߎߩ࿾ၞߪᵤᵄߩ✭ⴣ࿾Ꮺߦᜰቯߒ‫ޔ‬૑ቛߩᑪ⸳ࠍ⑌ᱛߒࠃ߁ߣ޿߁ᣇ㊎ߢ޽ߞߚ߇‫⃻ޔ‬࿷ߢߪ‫ߩߎޔ‬࿾ၞߦ‫ߚߞ޽ߣ߽ߣ߽ޔ‬㓸⪭߇ౣᑪߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬࿾ၞߢߪ‫ޔ‬ዊ㜞޿ਐߥߤ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬࿾㔡ߣหⷙᮨߩᵤᵄ߇᧪ⷅߒߚᤨߦ᦭ലߥㆱ㔍႐ᚲߪߥ޿‫ޔ߼ߚߩߘޕ‬ᣣᧄߩេഥߦࠃߞߡᑪ⸳ߐࠇߚᵤᵄㆱ㔍࠲ࡢ࡯ߩ 3 ߆ᚲ㧔౮⌀ 1㧕ࠍ㒰ߊߣ‫ߊߏޔ‬㒢ࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᓤᱠߢߪ 30 ಽએౝߦ቟ోߥ႐ᚲߦߔߴߡߩ૑᳃߇ߚߤࠅ⌕ߌࠆࠃ߁ߦߪߥߞߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬

69
69

II. ໎ܹ૨҄Ʊ᧸໎Ʒᘍ૾౮⌀ 1 ࠪࡖࠢࠕ࡜ᄢቇᷫἴ࠮ࡦ࠲࡯ࠍ౗ߨߚㆱ㔍ᚲ㧔Ꮐ㧕‫ޔ‬ᓳ⥝૑ቛߩ㑆ߦᑪߟㆱ㔍ᚲ㧔ฝ㧕㧔2008 ᐕ 8 ᦬ ↰ਛ㊀ᅢ᠟ᓇ㧕࿑ 2 ⼊ႎࠪࠬ࠹ࡓࠍ᦭ലߦߔࠆ⼊ႎ࡝࠹࡜ࠪ࡯

⼊ႎ࡝࠹࡜ࠪ࡯ߣ‫ࠍࠇߘޔ‬ะ਄ߐߖࠆⷐ࿃
৻⥸ߦ‫⼊ޔ‬ႎ߇ㆱ㔍ⴕേࠍዉߊߚ߼ߦߪ‫⼊ޔ‬ႎࠍ⊒઎ߒવ㆐ߔࠆ஥ߩࠪࠬ࠹ࡓ߇ᢛ஻ߐ
ࠇࠆߎߣߣหᤨߦ‫⼊ޔ‬ႎࠍฃߌขࠅ‫ޔ‬ታ㓙ߦㆱ㔍ⴕേࠍㄦㅦߦⴕ߁஥ߩ㒐ἴ⢻ജ߇ะ਄ߔ
ࠆߎߣ߇ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ߢߎߎޔߡߒߘޕ‬⠨߃ߡ߅߈ߚ޿ߩߪ‫⼊ޔ‬ႎࠍฃߌขࠆ஥ߩ⢻ജߩ߁ߜ‫߽ߣߞ߽ޔ‬ၮ␆⊛ߥ⢻ജߢ޽ࠆ‫⼊ޔߪࠇߘޕ‬ႎࠪࠬ࠹ࡓዉ౉ᦼߦ߅޿ߡ‫ᦨޔ‬ೋߦ₪ᓧߔߴ߈૑᳃ߩ⢻ജߢ޽ࠆ‫⼊ޟ‬ႎ࡝࠹࡜ࠪ࡯‫ޕࠆ޽ߢߡ޿ߟߦޠ‬⼊ႎࠪࠬ࠹ࡓዉ౉ᦼߦ߅޿ߡ‫᦭ࠍࠇߘޔ‬ലߥ߽ߩߦߔࠆߚ߼ߦ‫ޔ‬㒐ἴᚢ⇛਄߽ߞߣ߽㊀ⷐߛߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆߩߪ‫⼊ޟޔ‬ႎࠍᱜߒߊ⹺⼂ߒߡ‫ޔ‬ㆱ㔍ⴕേߦ⒖ࠆ‫ߩߣߎޠ‬ၮ␆ߦ޽ࠆ‫⼊ޟ‬ႎ࡝࠹࡜ࠪ࡯‫ࠍޠ‬ะ਄ߐߖࠆߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫⼊ߥ࠼࡯ࡂޕ‬ႎࠪࠬ࠹ࡓࠍᢛ஻ߒߡ߽‫ޔ‬૑᳃⥄りߩ⼊ႎ࡝࠹࡜ࠪ࡯ࠍ⢒ߡߥ޿ߣ‫⼊ޔ‬ႎߪ૑᳃ߩㆱ㔍ⴕേߦ߻ߔ߮ߟ߆ߥ޿‫ޕ‬৻⥸ߦ‫ߩ߈ᦠߺ⺒ޟߪߣ࡯ࠪ࡜࠹࡝ޔ‬⢻ജ‫⼂ޔ‬ሼ‫ޕ‬ォߓߡ‫ࠆ޽ޔ‬ಽ㊁ߦ㑐ߔࠆ⍮⼂࡮⢻ജ‫ޠ‬㧔ᐢㄉ⧞㧕ߣ⺑᣿ߐࠇࠆ‫⼊ޔߣࠆߔߣߛޕ‬ႎ࡝࠹࡜ࠪ࡯ߣߪ‫⥄ޔ‬ಽ߇ߘߩᤨߦ޿ࠆ႐
ᚲߩ⁁ᴫࠍട๧ߒߡ‫⼊ޔ‬ႎ߇⊒઎ߐࠇߚᤨߦ‫ⴕ߁ߤޔ‬േ㧔ㆱ㔍㧕ߔߴ߈߆ࠍ್ᢿߔࠆ⢻ജߣ޿߁ᗧ๧ߦߥࠆ‫ޕ‬ߢߪ‫⼊ߩߘޔ‬ႎ࡝࠹࡜ࠪ࡯ࠍߤ߁⢒ߡߡⴕߌࠆߩߢ޽ࠈ߁߆‫ߩߘޕ‬ၮ␆ߦ޽ࠆ߽ߩߎߘ‫ޔ‬੹࿁ߩⵍἴ૕㛎ࠍߤ߁ቯ૏ߔࠆ߆ߢ޽ࠆ‫⼊ޕ‬ႎ࡝࠹࡜ࠪ࡯ߣⵍἴ૕㛎ߩቯ૏ߣ޿߁ਔ⠪ߩ㑐ㅪᕈߦ㑐ߒߡ‫ᤨ⃻ޔ‬ὐߢߪ‫ޔ‬లಽߥᬌ⸛⾗ᢱࠍ߽ߞߡߪ޿ߥ޿‫ߩߎޔ߼ߚߩߘޕ‬ੑߟߩ᭎ᔨߩ㑆ߦኒធߥ㑐ㅪ߇޽ࠆ‫ⵍޔߪ޿ࠆ޽ޔ‬ἴ૕㛎ߩቯ૏ߩၮ␆ߩ਄ߦ⼊ႎ࡝࠹࡜ࠪ࡯߇
ᚑ┙ߔࠆߣ޿߁ߩߪ‫⃻ޔ‬࿷ߩߣߎࠈ઒⺑ߦߔ߉ߥ޿‫ޕ‬ߢߪ‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ૕㛎ࠍቯ૏ߔࠆߣߪ‫ࠆߥ߆޿ޔ‬ᗧ๧ߢ޽ࠈ߁߆‫ޕ‬ⵍἴ⚻㛎ߩ୘ੱ߿ࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖߦኻߔࠆലᨐߟ޿ߡ‫ޔ‬ᐢἑᒄᔘߪ‫ⵍޟ‬ἴ⚻㛎ߪ୘ੱ߿ࠦ
ࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖߦᣂߚߥࠆἴኂ߳ߩ⠴ᕈ‫∉఺ߪ޿ࠆ޽ޔ‬ᕈࠍ߽ߚࠄߔ‫ޠ‬㧔ᐢἑ 1984: 116㧕ߣ⺑

70
70

ǤȳȉȍǷǢƴ໎ܹ૨҄ǛƲƏᏋƯƯᘍƘƔᲢဋɶȷ᭗೛Უ

᣿ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬೎ߩ⸒޿ᣇࠍߔࠇ߫‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ⚻㛎ࠍㅢߒߡ‫ߩߘޔ‬࿾ၞߩੱ‫ߩޘ‬㑆ߦ‫ޔ‬ἴኂᢥൻࠍ⢒ߡߡࠁߊ‫ߩߘޔߡߒߘޕ‬ἴኂᢥൻߪ‫ޟ‬୘ੱ߿⚵❱ߩἴኂ⚻㛎ࠍቯ૏ߒ‫ޔ‬㒐ἴ‫ޔ‬ᷫἴߩߚ߼ߩᔃ⊛ኻᔕߣㆡಾߥⴕേߩ↢⿠ࠍߪ߆ࠅ‫ߩ❱⚵ޔ‬ᯏ⢻⛽ᜬߣㆡᔕ⢻ജߩะ਄ࠍน⢻ߦߔࠆ‫ޠ‬㧔ᐢἑ 1984: 119㧕‫ޕ‬એ਄ߩ⼏⺰ࠍ‫ޔ‬࿑ᑼൻߔࠆߣ‫ޔ‬࿑ 2 ߩࠃ߁ߦߥࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄߣࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕߩ‫ⵍޟ‬ἴ⚻㛎ߩቯ૏‫ࠍޠ‬ᡰ߃ࠆ߽ߩ
ᣣᧄߩ␠ળߪ‫ޔ‬ታߦ‫ޔ‬ᄙߊߩⵍἴ૕㛎ࠍ⸥㍳ߒߡ߈ߚ‫⃻ޔ߇ߣߎߩߘޕ‬࿷ߩ㒐ἴᢥൻࠍᡰ߃ߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᱧผ⊛ߦ⷗ࠇ߫‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄߢߪ‫ޔ‬ㄭ਎ᦼߦᕆჇߔࠆ‫ޟޕ‬ἴኂ⸥㍳ߪ‫ޔ‬ㄭ਎ᓟᦼ‫ ߦߊߣޔ‬18 ਎♿ߏࠈએ㒠߇ߗࠎჇ߃ࠆ‫̖̖ޕ‬ା㗬ߔߴ߈࿾㔡⸥㍳ߣߒߡ᦭ฬߥ̖̖ផฎ 7 ᐕ㧔599㧕ߩ࿾㔡߆ࠄᳯᚭᤨઍߩ⚳ࠊࠅ㧔1868 ᐕ㧕߹ߢߩ᦭ᗵ࿾㔡⸥㍳ߪ 4 ਁ 5061 ઙ‫ ߜ߁ߩߎޔ‬13 ਎♿
߹ߢߩ✚⸘ߪ 1908 ઙ㧔0.4㧑㧕‫ ߡ޿⛯ޔ‬17 ਎♿߹ߢߪ 3014 ઙ㧔0.7㧑㧕‫ޔ‬ᳯᚭᤨઍߦዻߔ
ࠆᱷࠅߩ⸥㍳ߪ 4 ਁ 139 ઙ㧔89㧑㧕ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޠ‬㧔ർේ‫ޔ‬2006㧦161㧕‫ޔߦ߁ࠃߩߎޕ‬ᣣᧄߢߪ‫ޔ‬ㄭ਎ᦼએ㒠‫ޟޔ‬ἴኂࠍ⸥㍳ߔࠆᢥൻ‫ޕࠆߔ┙⏕߇ޠ‬ߘࠇࠍ‫ޔ‬દ൓࿾ᣇߩᵤᵄἴኂߦ㒢ቯߒߡߺߡ߅ߎ߁‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄἴኂߩ⸥㍳ߣߒߡ‫߽ߣߞ߽ޔ‬ࠃߊߺࠄࠇࠆߩߪ‫␠ޔ‬ኹߦߺࠄࠇࠆ⸥ᔨ⎼߿⍹⎼ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޔߪࠄࠇߘޕ‬නߦᵤᵄἴኂߩ⸥㍳ߣ޿߁ᗧ๧ࠍᜬߞߡ޿ࠆߛߌߢߪߥߊ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ‶†⠪߳ߩ‫ޟ‬㎾㝬‫ޟ߿ޠ‬ଏ㙃‫߁޿ߣޠ‬ᗧ๧ࠍ߽ߞߡ޿ࠆ㧔౮⌀ 2㧕‫⃻ޔߦࠄߐޕ‬ઍߢߪ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ೔㆐ߩ㜞ߐࠍ␜ߔᮡ⼂߿‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߩᵈᗧࠍଦߔ߽ߩ‫ޔߪ޿ࠆ޽ޔ‬ᵤᵄ߆ࠄߩㆱ㔍႐ᚲࠍ␜ߔᮡ⼂߇ᑪߡࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆ㧔౮⌀ 3㧕‫ޔߪࠄࠇߎޕ‬ฎߊߪ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ೔㆐႐ᚲࠍ␜ߔ‫ޟ‬ᵤᵄ⍹‫⃻ߩޠ‬ઍ ߣ߽⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬౮⌀ 2 1944 ᐕ᧲ධᶏ࿾㔡ߩ㓙ߩᵤᵄߩ⎼㧔ਃ㊀⋵ᄢ♿↸㍪‫ޔ‬㊄⬿ኹ㧕㧔2008 ᐕ 2 ᦬ ↰ਛ㊀ᅢ᠟ᓇ㧕౮⌀ 3 ㆱ㔍〝ߩᜰ␜‫ޔ‬ᶏᛮ⴫␜‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ↪ᔃࠍ๭߮߆ߌࠆ⋴᧼㧔ਃ㊀⋵ᄢ♿↸㍪㧕
㧔2008 ᐕ 2 ᦬ ↰ਛ㊀ᅢ᠟ᓇ㧕71
71

II. ໎ܹ૨҄Ʊ᧸໎Ʒᘍ૾ߎࠇએᄖߦߪ‫ޔ‬વ⛔⊛ߦߪ‫ޟ‬ญ⺑߈‫⃻ޔ߇ޠ‬ઍ⊛ߦߪ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄࠍ‛⺆ࠆ৻⒳ߩ᳃⻦߇ᱷߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬
ߐࠄߦ‫ޔ‬Ꮢ↸᧛‫ޔ‬ᢎ⢒ᆔຬળ‫ޔ‬ቇᩞ‫ޔ‬ㇹ࿯ผ⎇ⓥળ‫․ޔߪ޿ࠆ޽ޔ‬ቯߩ୘ੱ߇✬㓸ߒߚᵤᵄ૕㛎⸥߿ᵤᵄવᛚ⸥߇޽ࠆ‫ޔߪߦᤨޔߪࠄࠇߎޕ‬ዊ⺑߿⛗ᧄ‫ࠆ޿ߡߞߥߦࡔ࠾ࠕޔ‬႐ว߽޽ࠆ‫ߦࠇߎޕ‬㑐ㅪߒߡ‫⃻ޔ‬࿷ߢߪ‫ޔ‬ᣂ⡞ߩ⊒ἴ߆ࠄ৻ቯߩᦼ㑆ࠍ⚻ㆊߒߚᤨߦ⚵߹ࠇ
ࠆ․㓸⸥੐߿‫․ߩߤߥࡆ࡟࠹ޔ‬㓸⇟⚵߽޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬એ਄ߩࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄߢߪ‫ޔ‬ἴኂߦ㑐ㅪߔࠆ⸥㍳߇‫ߥ߹ߑ߹ߐޔ‬ᒻߢᱷߞߡ߅ࠅ‫ߎߩߘޔ‬ߣ߇‫ޔ‬ἴኂ⚻㛎ߩቯ૏ࠍน⢻ߦߒߡ߅ࠅ‫⼊ޔߦࠄߐޔ‬ႎ࡝࠹࡜ࠪ࡯ࠍ㜞߼ߡ޿ࠆ‫ߦࠇߘޕ‬ኻߒߡ‫ޟޔߪߢࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬ἴኂࠍ⸥㍳ߔࠆᢥൻ⊛વ⛔‫߇ޠ‬ᒙ޿‫ޕ‬ᒙ޿߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬2004 ᐕએ೨ߩ࿾㔡߿ᵤᵄߩ⚻㛎߇વᛚߐࠇߡ߅ࠄߕ‫ޔߦࠄߐޔ‬ᵤᵄߩ⃻࿾⺆߽ᶖ߃߆ߌߡ޿ߚߩߢ
޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬⏕߆ߦ‫⃻ޔ‬࿷߹ߢ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬࿾㔡ᵤᵄߦ㑐ߒߡ߽‫ޔ‬ᰴߩࠃ߁ߥ߽ߩ߇಴ ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬⼾↰⋥Ꮘ㧔2005㧕‫ޡ‬౮⌀㓸 ᄢᵤᵄࠕ࠴ࠚߩሶଏߚߜ‫ޢ‬⮮⼱ஜ߶߆㧔2006㧕‫ޡ‬TSUNAMI ࠍߎ߃ߡ‫ޢ‬ᧁ⢆ᢥᤘ߶߆㧔2007㧕‫ߩࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޡ‬ᄢᵤᵄࠍ↢߈ߩ߮ߚੱ߮ߣ‫ޢ‬Japan Aceh Net & Serambi Indonesia㧔2005㧕“Nyawöung”㧔޿ߩߜ㧕㧔ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ⺆࡮ᣣᧄ⺆㧕ߛ߇‫ߩࠄࠇߎޔ‬ᄢඨߪᣣᧄ⺆ߢᦠ߆ࠇߚ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄੱะߌߩᦠ☋ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߪ‛ᦠߩࠄࠇߎޕ‬ᣣᧄੱߦࠕ࠴ࠚߩ⚻㛎ࠍવ߃ࠆߩߦᓎ┙ߟ߇‫ߦޘੱߩࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬ᓎ┙ߟᒻߦߪߥߞߡ޿
ߥ޿‫ߩߘޕ‬ὐ‫ޕࠆ޽ߢ⊛ᦼ↹ߪߺ⹜ߩ࠻࠶ࡀ࡮ࠚ࠴ࠕ࡮ࡦࡄࡖࠫޔ‬੐ታ‫⃻߽ࠇࠊࠇࠊޔ‬࿾ߢߩ⺞ᩏਛߦ‫ᧄߩࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬ደߢ‫ߩߎޔ‬ዊౠሶࠍήᢱߢ౉ᚻߒߚ‫ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ౝኈ⊛ߦਇචಽߢ޽ࠅ‫⃻ߦ⊛⛯⛮ޔߦࠄߐޔ‬࿾ߩੱ‫੹ޔ߿ޘ‬࿁ⵍኂࠍฃߌߥ߆ߞߚ࿾ၞߩੱ‫ߞߣߦߤߥޘ‬ߡ౉ᚻน⢻ߥ߽ߩߦߥࠆ߆ߤ߁߆ߥߤ‫ߩ߆ߟߊ޿ޔ‬ὐߢਇචಽߢ޽ࠆ‫ߢߎߎޔߪߢ⁁⃻ޕ‬ߩ⋡ᜰߒߡ޿ࠆ‫⼊ޔ‬ႎ࡝࠹࡜ࠪ࡯ะ਄ߩၮ␆ߣߥࠆⵍἴ⚻㛎ߩቯ૏ߦߣߞߡਇචಽߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄߩ‫ⵍޟ‬ἴ⚻㛎ߩቯ૏‫ߩ߼ߚߩޠ‬૞ᬺߘߩߚ߼ߩ‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ⚻㛎ࠍ‫ޟ‬㓸ว⊛ߥ⸥ᙘ‫ߦޠ‬ᄌ឵ߒߡࠁߊᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ޟ߁޿ߢߎߎޕ‬㓸ว⊛‫ޔߪߣޠ‬ᣣᧄੱࠍ฽߼ߚᗧ๧ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߘߩߚ߼ߩദജߣߒߡߩ‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ⚻㛎ߩ⡞߈ขࠅ⺞ᩏߣ‫✬ߩߘޔ‬㓸૞ᬺࠍ‫࡜ࠕࠢࡖࠪޔ‬ᄢቇߩ౒ห⎇ⓥ⠪ߣ৻✜ߦㅴ߼ߡ޿ࠆ‫⃻ޕ‬࿷ߩࠊࠇࠊࠇߩ⸘↹ߢߪ‫ޔߕ߹ޔ‬ᣣᧄߩੱ‫ࠗ߇ޘ‬ࡦ࠼ࡀࠕߩᵤᵄἴኂ߆ࠄቇ߱ߣ޿߁⋡⊛ߩ߽ߣߦᣣᧄ⺆ߢ಴ ߒ‫ߦࠇߘޔ‬Ḱ᜚ߒߡ‫ࡦࠗޔ‬࠼ࡀࠪࠕ⺆ࡃ࡯࡚ࠫࡦࠍ಴ ߒߚ޿ߣ⠨߃ߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬⃻࿷ߟߟߌߡ޿ࠆࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯⸥㍳ߩ৻┵ࠍ‫ޔ‬ឝߍ‫⚻ޔ‬ㆊႎ๔ߣߒߚ޿‫ޕ‬ࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯ߩᣣᤨ㧦 2008 ᐕ 11 ᦬ 14 ᣣ‫ᦐ᦬ޔ‬ᣣ㧔11.30㨪12.30㧕
࿁╵⠪㧦ࠬ࡝ ࡉ࡜ࡦ㧔࡜ࡓ࡞ࡓࡊ᧛㧕‫ޔ‬⡯ᬺ㧦ኾᬺਥᇚ‫ޔ‬36 ᱦ‫ޔ‬ᄦ㧦ࠨࠗࡈ࡞ ࡃࡈ࡝㧔ㆇォᚻ㧕‫ޔ‬ሶଏ 4 ੱ㧔ᵤᵄ೨㧦3 ੱ㧕
⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪
⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪

⾰໧⠪

㧔ࠗࡦ࠲࡯ࡆࡘ࡯ࠍⴕ߁೨ߦ‫ޔ‬࿁╵⠪ߢ޽ࠆࠬ࡝ࡉ࡜ࡦߐࠎ߇ᵤᵄߢߥߊߥߞߚኅᣖߩߎߣ
ࠍᕁ޿಴ߒ‫ޔ‬ᵅ޿ߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬㧕
⑳ߞߡᖤߒࠎߢ޿ࠆߩߪᒰὼߢߔࠃߨ‫ߩ⑳ޔߡߞߛޕ‬ᒉ‫ޔߡߒߘޔ‬ᄦߩኅᣖ߹ߢ‫ⵍ̖̖ޔ‬ኂ⠪߇৻ੱߛߌߢߪߥ޿߆ࠄߨ‫ޕ‬߅ฬ೨ߪߥࠎߣ޿޿߹ߔ߆㧫⑳ߩฬ೨ߪࠬ࡝ࡉ࡜ࡦߢߔ‫ޕ‬ᄦߪࠨࠗࡈ࡞ࡃࡈ࡝ߣ޿޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߩߣ߈ߪ‫ߪ⑳ޔ‬㧡㨪㧢ࡨ᦬ߩᅧᆼਛߢߒߚ‫ޔᦺߩߘޕ‬7 ᤨඨߏࠈߦ‫ࠍࠎߪߏᦺޔ‬㘩ߴߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬㧔ᵤᵄߩߣ߈ߦ޿
ߚ႐ᚲࠍ⷗ߖߥ߇ࠄ㧕‫ޕ‬ᒉߣ㧞ੱ‫ޔ‬ኅߩ஥ߢ㘩ߴߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫⓭ޔ߈ߣߩߘޕ‬ὼ㧔㧤ᤨ㗃㧕ᄢ൓ߩੱ߇޽ߜࠄߎߜࠄߦ⿛ߞߡㅏߍߡ޿ࠆ᭽ሶࠍߺߡ‫ޔ‬૗߇⿠߈ߡ޿ࠆߩ߆ߥߣ‫⥄ޔ‬ಽߚߜ߽ᄌߦᕁ޿߹ߒߚ‫ߪ߼ߓߪޔߦ߆ߒߚޕ‬࿾㔡߇޽ࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᒝ޿࿾㔡ߢߒߚ‫ߦߋߔߞ߹ޕ‬ᱠߌߥ޿ߋࠄ޿‫ޔ‬ᒝ޿‫ޔ‬ᒝ޿࿾㔡߇޽ࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡ߩߣ߈ߪߤߎߦ޿߹ߒߚ߆‫ޕ‬7272ǤȳȉȍǷǢƴ໎ܹ૨҄ǛƲƏᏋƯƯᘍƘƔᲢဋɶȷ᭗೛Უ

࿁╵⠪

⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪

⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪

࿾㔡ߩߣ߈ߪኅߦ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡ߞߡᗵߓߚߣ߈ߦ‫ޔ‬૗߇⿠ߎߞߚߩ߆ߥ‫ߣޔ‬ᕁ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬⟵ℂߩᲣ߇‫ޟ‬ᄖߦߦ಴ࠃ߁‫ޔ‬಴ࠃ߁‫߇ߥࠎߺޕߚߒ߹޿⸒ߣޠ‬ᄖߦ಴ߡ‫߁߽ޔ‬ᔺߊߡ‫ߚ߹ޔ‬ኅߩਛߦߪ౉ࠈ߁ߣߒ߹ߖࠎߢߒߚ߇‫⚿ޔ‬ዪ‫ޔ‬ኅߦ౉ߞߡ‫ߣࠆߔߊࠄ߫ߒޔ‬ᄢ൓ߩੱ߇ߺࠎ
ߥ⿛ߞߡ޿ࠆߩࠍ⷗߆ߌ߹ߒߚ‫ޟޕ‬૗߇޽ߞߚߩߛࠈ߁̖̖‫߽ߜߚ⑳ޠ‬ᄌߦᕁ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ߘߩߣ߈‫ޔ‬ᄦ߇ኅߩ೨ߩ㆏〝߹ߢ᭽ሶࠍ⷗ߦⴕ߈߹ߒߚ‫ޔߢߩߥߡ߼ߓߪߪߣߎߥࠎߎޕ‬ᦨೋߪ᳃ᣖ⚗੎߇⿠ߎߞߡ޿ࠆߩ߆ߥߣᕁ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬Ujung Pancu ߦߪࠃߊੱ߇ᵒ߉ߦ߈߹ߒ
ߚ‫⼊ޕ‬ኤ 3 ੱ‫ߦࠢࠗࡃޔ‬ਸ਼ߞߡ‫ޔ‬ㅦ޿ࠬࡇ࡯࠼ߢ⿛ࠅ෰ࠅ߹ߒߚ‫⚗ࠅߪ߿ޕ‬੎ߥߩ߆ߥ‫ߣޔ‬ᕁ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᒉ߽ኅߩ೨ߦ಴ߡ‫ޔ‬૗߇⿠߈ߡ޿ࠆߩࠍ⡞޿ߡ‫ޟޔ‬᳓߇޽߇ߞߚࠃ‫ޕߚߒ߹ࠇࠊ⸒ߣޠ‬ᄦ߇ኅߦᚯߞߡ‫⟵ޔ‬ℂߩᲣߦ‫ޟޔ‬᳓߇޽߇ߞߚࠎߛߞߡ‫ޔ‬Უߐࠎ‫ߩࠆߔ߁ߤޔ‬㧫‫ߣޠ‬⡞޿ߡ‫ޕߚߒ߹޿ߡߖ޽ޔ‬‫ߣߜߚ߽ߤߎޔ߾ߓޟ‬ㅏߍߥߐ޿‫⟵ߣޠ‬ℂߩᲣ߇⸒޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ߜࠂߞߣ⠨߃ࠆߣ‫ޔ‬ᶏ᳓߇޽߇ߞߚࠄߘࠎߥߦ㜞ߊߥ޿ߪߕߢ‫ޔ‬᳓߇߈ߚࠄ‫ߪߜߚ⑳ޔ‬ኅߩደᩮ߹ߢㅏߍࠇ߫ㅏߍࠄࠇࠆߩߢߪߥ޿߆‫ߣޔ‬ᕁߞߚߎߣ߽޽ࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬૶߃ࠆࡃࠗࠢ߇㧝ߟߒ߆ߥߊߡ‫ⷫޔ‬ᚘߩࡃࠗࠢߪࠟ࠰࡝ࡦ߇߹ߛ౉ࠇߡ޿ߥ߆ߞߚߘ߁ߢ
ߔ‫ޕ‬ᄦߣሶଏߚߜߣ‫ߦࠢࠗࡃޔ‬ਸ਼ߞߡㅏߍ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ߘߩߣ߈ߪᧄᒰߦㅅ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬᳓߇޽߇ߞߚߩߪᧄᒰ߆ߤ߁߆‫߽ߜߚ⑳ޔ‬ㅏߍࠆ߆ߤ߁߆
߽‫ߥࠎߺ߇ߜߚੱޔ߽ߢޕ‬ㅏߍߡ⿛ߞߡ޿ࠆ߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬ㅏߍࠆߎߣߦߒ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬޽ߖߞߡ‫߁߽ޔߡߡࠊ޽ޔ‬㗡߇ࡄ࠾࠶ࠢ⁁ᘒߢ‫ޕߚߒߢ߾ߜߏ߾ߜߏޔ‬PersimpanganTugu
߹ߢ಴ࠆߣ‫ ߩ᧛ߩߜߚ⑳ޔ‬Meunasah㧔ዊߐߥࡕࠬࠢ㧕߇ 2 㓏ᑪߡߢ‫ޔ‬᳓߇߽߁ߘߎߦዯ޿ߚ
ߩ߇⷗߃߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬᳓ߣ޿ߞߡ߽‫ޕߨ߆߁ࠂߒߢࠎߚߞߛࠎߥޔ‬㤥߆ߞߚ߆ࠄߢߔࠃ‫ޕ‬ౣ߮⷗ࠆߣ‫ ߩ޽ޔ‬Meunasah ߇ᵤᵄߢ߽߁უࠇ߹ߒߚ‫ߚ᧪ߚߞⴕߦߜߎߜ޽߇ੱޔߡߒߘޕ‬ࠅߒߡ޿ߡ‫ޔ‬ᄢ൓ߩੱ߇ߘߎߦߣߤ߹ߞߡ޿ߚߩߢ‫ޔ߽ߜߚ⑳߆ߥ߆ߥޔ‬೨ߩ߶߁ߦߪㅴ߼
ߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ᰴߪ೨ߩ߶߁ࠍ⷗ࠆߣ‫ߚ߹ޔ‬᳓߇ Lhoknga ߆ࠄ⷗߃ߡ߈ߡ‫߁߽ߣࠆߔ߁ߘޔ‬ㅏߍࠆ႐ᚲ߇
ߥ޿ߣ‫ޕߚߒ߹ߒᦸ⛘ޔ‬ࡃࠗࠢߦ߽ਸ਼ߞߡ޿߹ߒߚ߆‫ޕ‬ߘ߁ߢߔࠃ‫ޔ߇ࠎߖ߹ࠅ޽ߪߢࠢࠗࡃޔ޽߹ޕ‬ේઃ㧔Vespa㧕ߢߔࠃ‫ޕ‬ሶଏߚߜߣਸ਼ߞߡ޿
ࠆߩߢ‫ߪ⑳ޔߡߊ⁜ޔ‬ᓟࠈߩࡃ࠶ࠢ࡜ࠗ࠻ߦᐳߞߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᓟࠈࠍ⷗ࠆ㧝࿁⋡‫߽߇ߣ߭ޔ‬߁ࠕ࡝ߩ೉ߩࠃ߁ߢ‫ޕߚߒߢ޿߬ߞ޿ޔ‬2 ࿁⋡ߪ‫ޔ‬᳓߇߽߁ㄭߠ޿ߡ޿ߡ‫ࠍߜߚ⑳ޔ‬᳓߇ㅊ޿߆ߌߡ޿ࠆࠃ߁ߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬3 ࿁⋡ߪ‫߁߽ޔ‬ᓟࠈࠍ⷗ߚߊߥ߆ߞߚߢߔ‫ޕ‬᳓ߦ㘶ߺㄟ߹ࠇߘ߁ߢߒ
ߚ߆ࠄ‫ޕ‬
Lhoknga ߦⴕߊߣ߈ߪ‫ޔ‬ဈ㆏ࠍ⊓ߞߡ޿ࠆߩߢ‫ޔ‬Lhoknga ߦ߽᳓߇޽ࠆߣߪ‫ޔ‬ᕁ޿߹ߖࠎߢ
ߒߚ‫್߁ߘޕ‬ᢿߒ߹ߒߚߩߢ‫ޔ‬Simpangrima ߦᦛ߇ࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬Glegerute ߆ࠄ౉ߞߡ‫ޔ‬ጊ㧔ਐ㧕ߦ⊓ࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ဈ㆏߇ࠁࠆߊߪߥߊߡ‫ ߷߶߁߽ޔ‬90 ᐲߩ਄ࠅߥࠎߢߔࠃ‫ߤ߁߽ࠍࡄ࠶࡝ࠬޕ‬ߎ߆ߦ⪭ߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬ᚻ⿷߽ⴊߛࠄߌߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬ේઃࠍ⟎޿ߡ‫ޔ‬ᱠ޿ߡ⊓ࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᄦ߇ 3 ⇟⋡ߩሶࠍ‫ ߪ⑳ޔ‬2 ⇟⋡ߩሶࠍᛴ޿ߡవߦ⊓ࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬㗂਄ߦߟ޿ߡ‫߇ੱߪߦߎߘޔ‬ᄢ൓޿ߡ‫ޔ‬100 ੱએ਄߆߽ߒࠇ߹ߖࠎ‫ޕ‬ਅߦߺࠆߣᄦ߇߽߁⷗
߃ߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬⑳߇߹ߚᚯߞߡ‫ޔ‬ᄦࠍតߒ߹ߒߚࠄ‫ޔ‬ᄦߪ〯߹ࠇߡ޿ࠆ⁁ᘒߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬ォࠎߢ‫߹〯ߡߒߘޔ‬ࠇߡߚߺߚ޿ߢߔߨ‫ޕ‬ᄦߩߣߎࠈߦ᧪߹ߒߚ‫ޟޕ‬૗߇޽ߞߚߩ㧫Kiamat㧔ࠗࠬ࡜ࡓᢎߩᢎ߃
ߩਛߩ‫ߩߎޟޔ‬਎ߩ⚳Ὣߩᤨ‫ޠ‬㧕ߓ߾ߥ޿ߛࠃߨ‫ߣޠ‬ᄦߦ⡞޿ߚࠄ‫ޔ‬ᄦߪ‫ߪࠇߎޟ‬ἴኂߛࠃ‫ޠ‬ߣ⸒޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ߏਥੱߪ⷗ߟ߆ࠅ߹ߒߚ߆‫ޕ‬ߘ߁ߢߔߨ‫ޕߚߒ߹ࠅ߆ߟ⷗ޕ‬ਅߩ߶߁ߦតߒߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ォࠎߢ޿ߚߺߚ޿ߢߔߨ‫〯ޕ‬߹ࠇߡ޿ߚߩߢ‫ޔ‬૕߇߈ߞߣߒࠎߤ߆ߞߚࠃ߁ߢߔ‫ޕ‬ᄦߪ‫ޟ‬ำ‫ޔ‬వߦㅏߍߥߐ޿‫߹޿⸒ߣޠ‬ߒߚ߇‫ߪࠇߘޔ‬ήℂߢߔࠃߨ‫ߌߛ⑳ޔ‬వߦⴕߞߡ‫ޔ‬ᄦ߇ߎߎߦᱷࠆߥࠎߡ‫ޕ‬ߘߩߣ߈‫ޔ‬ጊߢߔߏߊᄢ߈ߥ㖸߇⡞ߎ߃߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬᳓ߩ㖸ߢߔ‫ޕ‬ᢙᤨ㑆‫ᤨޔ‬㑆߇⚻ㆊߒߡ‫ޔ‬ඦᓟ 3 ᤨߦߥࠅ߹ߒߚ‫߇߆ߥ߅ߪߜߚ߽ߤߎޕ‬ⓨ޿ߡ‫߇ߤߩޔ‬߆ࠊ޿ߡ‫ߥࠎߺޔ‬ᵅ߈಴ߒ߹ߒߚ‫ߪ੹ޕ‬ἴኂ߇޽ࠆ߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬ᚒᘟߒߥߐ޿ߣሶଏߚߜߦ⸒޿߹
ߒߚ߇‫ޔ‬ሶଏߪ߹ߛዊߐ޿㧔3 ᱦ㧕ߩߢ‫ޔ‬ἴኂߩߎߣߥࠎߡ߹ߛࠊ߆ߞߡ޿߹ߖࠎࠃߨ‫ޕ‬૗߆㘩ߴࠄࠇࠆ߽ߩ߇޽ࠇ߫‫ߣޔ‬ਅߦ߅ࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ቇᩞ߿ࡕࠬࠢߥߤࠍតߔࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬ᄦߦ㗬ࠎߢߺ߹ߒߚ߇‫ޔ߽ߢޔ‬ᵤᵄߢోㇱ߇ߥߊߥߞߚ
ߩߢ‫ޕߔߢ߁ߘ޿ߥ߇ߕߪࠆ޽߇ࠢࠬࡕޔ‬ඦᓟ 6 ᤨߏࠈ߆ࠄ 6 ᤨඨ߹ߢ‫ޔ‬ጊߩⵣࠍ࿁ߞߡ‫ޔ‬ਅࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ߚ᧪ߢࠢ࠶࡜࠻ޕ‬ᄦߩ෹ੱߣ
ળߞߡ‫ޔ‬Lambaro ߦ޽ࠆߘߩ෹ੱߩኅߦⴕ߈߹ߒߚ‫᥅৻ޕ‬ᴱ߼ߐߖߡ߽ࠄ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᰴߩᣣߪ
TVRI ߦⴕߞߡ‫ߦߎߘޔ‬ᒉߣ޿ߣߎߣળ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬᳓ߦᏎ߈ㄟ߹ࠇߚߣ߈߆ࠄߪ‫ޔ‬ਔⷫࠍ⷗ߡ

73
73

II. ໎ܹ૨҄Ʊ᧸໎Ʒᘍ૾

⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪
⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪

⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪
⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪
⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪
⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪
⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪
⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪

⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪

⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪

޿ߥ߆ߞߚߩߢ‫߅ޟޔ‬Უߐࠎߣ߅ῳߐࠎߪή੐ߛߞߚߩ㧫‫ߣޠ‬⡞߈߹ߒߚ߇‫ޔ‬ᓐࠄߪ‫߆ࠊޟ‬ࠄߥ޿‫ޕߚߒ߹߃╵ߣޠ‬ߘߒߡ৻✜ߦ‫ߢߥࠎߺޔ‬តߒߦⴕ߈߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᱫ૕ߪ޽ߜߎߜߦߚߊߐࠎ޽ࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬߹ߚኅߦតߒߦ߈߹ߒߚ߆‫ޕ‬߹ߛߢߔ‫ߎߎޕ‬㧔ኅ߇޽ߞߚ႐ᚲ㧕ߪ߹ߛߏߺߛࠄߌߢߒߚߩߢ‫߹ࠇࠄ᧪ߛ߹ߪߦߎߎޔ‬ߖࠎߢߒߚ‫ߦߎߎޕ‬૑ࠎߢ޿ࠆ෹ੱߣળ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
TVRI㧔᡼ㅍዪ㧕ࠍㅢߓߡ‫ޔ‬តߒߡ޿߹ߒߚ߆‫ޕ‬ߪ޿‫ޕߔߢ߁ߘޔ‬ਸ਼ࠅ‛߇ߥ߆ߞߚߩߢ‫ޔ‬ኅᣖࠍតߒߦ Ajun ߹ߢᱠ߈߹ߒߚ‫ߩߎޕ‬࿾ၞߦ
ߪኅ 1 ߟ߽ᱷߞߡ޿߹ߖࠎߢߒߚߩߢ‫ߪߦߎߎޔ‬តߒߦ᧪߹ߖࠎߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬Ajun ߢតߒߡ߽‫ޔ‬1ੱ߽⷗ߟ߆ࠅ߹ߖࠎߢߒߚ‫ޔߪߌߛࠎߐ޽߫߅ޕ‬Ajun ߦ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕߚߒߢߌߛੱ৻ޕ‬⣻ߩㇱಽߦ㐳޿்㧔ಾࠇ்㧕߇޽ࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᱤ߽߽߁ߥ߆ߞߚߢߔ‫ޕ‬ਸ਼ࠅ‛߇ߗࠎߗࠎߥߊߡ‫ޔ‬Becak㧔ࡌ࠴ࡖ㧦ࠝ࡯࠻ࡃࠗ߿⥄ォゞߢ‧ᒁߔࠆਃベゞ㧕ࠍㆇォߔࠆੱߪ޿߹ߒߚ߇‫ޔ‬Becak ߪ୫ࠅࠇ߹ߖࠎߢߒߚ‫߁߽ޕ‬ᐕነࠅߥߩߢ‫ޔ‬ㆇߴࠄࠇߥߊߡ‫߇⑳߽߆ߒޔ‬ᅧᆼਛߢ‫ޔ‬ㆇ߱ߩߪᰴߩ
ᣣߦߒ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᰴߩᣣ߇‫ࠍࠎߐ޽߫߅ޔ‬ㆇ߮ߦ߹ߚߎߎߦ᧪߹ߒߚ߇‫ޕߚߒߢࠎߖ߹޿߁߽ޔ‬⿒චሼߩ߭ߣ߇ߎߎߩ Ajun ࿾ၞߦ޿ߚⵍኂ⠪ࠍഥߌߦ᧪߹ߒߚ‫ߩߘޔߢߩߥࠇߘޕ‬ᣣߩᄕᣇߪ TVRI ߦ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߩ೨ߪ‫ޔ‬ኅᣖ૗ੱߢߒߚ߆‫ޕ‬⟵ℂߩਔⷫߣᆂ߇ 13 ੱ‫ߩ⑳ޔ‬ኅᣖ߇ 5 ੱ‫ޔ‬Უߩኅᣖ߇ 3 ੱ‫ޔ‬ਥੱߩᒉߩߎߤ߽߇ 3 ੱߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߩ޽ߣߪ‫ޔ‬૗ੱ޿߹ߔ߆‫ޕ‬߅ఱߐࠎ߆ࠄߩ޿ߣߎ߇ 2 ੱߢ‫ߩ⑳ޔ‬ኅᣖߪή੐ߢߒߚ‫⇟৻ޕ‬ਅߩᒉ߇ῳߣᲣߢ‫ޔ‬੢ߊߥࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬੢ߊߥߞߚߩߪ㧫⟵ℂߩῳ‫⟵ޔ‬ℂߩᲣ‫ޔ‬ᒉߚߜߣ 4 ੱߢߔ‫ ߇ࠎߐߓ߅࡮ࠎߐ߫߅ޔߣ޽ޕ‬5 ੱߢߔ‫ߖࠊ޽ޕ‬ߡ 12 ੱ߇੢ߊߥࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ߟ߹ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߩᣣߪኅᣖోຬ߇ኅߦ޿߹ߒߚ߆‫ޕ‬ߘ߁ߢߔ‫ޔᦺߩߘޕ‬㓸߹ߞߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ߪߜߚ⑳ޕ‬᝹㒰߿ ઃߌߥߤࠍߒߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫⟵ޕ‬ℂߩῳߣ⟵ℂߩᲣߪሶଏߚߜߣ⹤ࠍߒߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߩ᳓ߪߤߎ߆ࠄᵹࠇ߹ߒߚ߆‫ޕ‬ᐘ޿ߛߞߚߩߪ‫ޔ‬᳓߇ᢳ߼ߦᵹࠇߡ޿ߡ‫ߦߋߔߞ߹ߒ߽ޔ‬ᵹࠇߡ޿ࠇ߫‫ߪߜߚ⑳ޔ‬ᄙಽ߽߁ㅏߍࠄࠇ߹ߖࠎߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬Ulele ߆ࠄߪጊ߇޽ࠆߩߢ‫ߡߞ߇ᦛޔ‬ᵹࠇ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬᳓ߪዋߒߕߟߢߔ߆‫߽ߣࠇߘޔ‬ᕆߦᄢ߈ߊᵹࠇߡ޿߹ߒߚ߆‫ޕ‬޿޿߃‫ޔ‬ᶏߩᵄߩࠃ߁ߢߒߚࠃ‫ޕ‬᳓ߥߩߦ‫ߩ࠻࠶ࠚࠫޔ‬㖸ߺߚ޿ߥ㖸߇⡞ߎ߃߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᚢ੎ߩࠃ߁ߢߒߚ‫ޕߚߒߢࠎߖ߹ࠅ߆ࠊ߽߆޿޿߫ࠇߔ߁ߤޔߡߞߥߦࠢ࠶࠾ࡄޕ‬ሶଏ߇޿ࠆ
ߩߢ‫ࠍߥࠎߺޔ‬ㆇࠎߢㅏߍ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
2 ᣣ⋡ߪ TVRI ߦⴕ߈߹ߒߚࠃߨ‫ࠄ߆ࠇߛޕ߆ߚߒ߹߈ⴕߦߎߘߡߒ߁ߤޕ‬⍮ࠅ߹ߒߚ߆‫ޕ‬޽ߘߎߦߪ‫߁߽߇ੱޔ‬ᄢ൓޿߹ߒߚ‫ⵍޕ‬ኂࠍฃߌߡ޿ߥ޿ੱ߽ߘߎߦ㓸߹ߞߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
߅㊄ᜬߜߺߚ޿ߥੱߚߜ߇޿ߡ‫ߥ߁ࠃࠆ޿ߡߞ߿ࠍࡊࡦࡖࠠޔ‬㔓࿐᳇ߢ‫ޔߡߡߚࠍ࠻ࡦ࠹ޔ‬ࠟࠬࠦࡦࡠ߹ߢోㇱߩ⸳஻߇޽ࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ήᢱࠦࡦࡠ߇㈩ࠄࠇߚߣ߈߽‫߽ߜߚੱߩߘޔ‬೉ߦਗࠎߢ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕߚߒߢ޿߬ߞ޿ޔߢߩ޿ߚ޿ࠄ߽߇ߥࠎߺޕ‬⑳ߛߞߡ‫ޔ‬ᅧᆼਛߢ‫ޔ‬ਥੱ߇ߤࠎߥߦ߅㗿޿ߒߡ߽‫ޕߚߒߢࠎߖ߹߃ࠄ߽ߪࡠࡦࠦޔ‬Indomie㧔ࠗࡦࠬ࠲ࡦ࠻࡜࡯ࡔࡦ㧕㧞ߟߣ‫⋁ޕ‬㧞ߟߛߌࠍ߽ࠄ޿߹ߒߚ‫߅ޕ‬ḡࠍ߽ࠄߞߡ߈ߡ‫ޔ‬Indomieࠍ㘩ߴߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ߪ⑳ޕ‬ᅧᆼਛߢߒߚ߇‫ޔ‬ਃᣣ㑆ߋࠄ޿޽߹ࠅ㘩ߴࠄࠇ߹ߖࠎߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬ߘߩߣ߈‫ޕ߆ߚߒ߹޿ࠄ߽ߪ࠻ࡦ࠹ޔ‬߹ߛߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬2 ᣣ⋡ߩᄛߪ‫ޕߚߒߢࠎߖ߹޿ߡߞࠄ߽ࠍ࠻ࡦ࠹ߛ߹ޔ‬3 ᣣ⋡ߩᄛߪࡊ࡜ࠬ࠴
࠶ࠢ⵾ߩࡑ࠶࠻ࠍᢝ޿ߡ‫ޔ‬ᄢⓨࠍደᩮߦߦߒߡኢ߹ߒߚ‫ߦߎߘ߽ߜߚ߽ߤߎޕ‬ኢ߹ߒߚ‫ߘޕ‬ߩߣ߈ߪኙ߆ߞߚߒ‫ޕߔߢߚߞ߆ߥߊࠃࠅ߹޽ޔߒߚࠇ߹߆ߦ⯻ޔ‬Indomie ߫߆ࠅࠍ㘩ߴߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬3 ᣣᓟߦߪ᡽ᐭ߆ࠄߩ᦯ߩេഥ߇޽ࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ࠦࡦࡠ߿ߥߴߪ߽ࠄߞߡ޿߹ߖࠎߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᢱℂࠍߔࠆߣ߈ߪ‫ޔ‬ㄭᚲߩੱߦ߅㗿޿ߒߡ୫ࠅ
ߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬TVRI ߦߪ 1 ㅳ㑆޿߹ߒߚ‫ޔߪߣ޽ߩߘޕ‬Lamara ߦ޽ࠆਥੱߩ෹ੱߩߣߎࠈߦ
ⴕ߈߹ߒߚ‫ߩੱޔ߽ߡߒ߁ߤޕ‬ኅߥߩߢ‫ޔ‬ㅅᖺߦߥࠆ߆߽ߒࠇߥ޿ߩߢ‫ޔ‬ᄛߪߘߩኅߦ޿ߡ‫ޔ‬ᤤ㑆ߪ߹ߚ TVRI ߦᚯࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޔߢߩ޿ߥ߇ࡠࡦࠦޕ‬TVRI ߢ߽ࠄߞߚ㝼ߩ➧⹣ࠍߘߩ෹ੱߩ
ኅߦᜬߞߡ޿߈߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
TVRI ߦ߅Უߐࠎߣⷫᚘࠍតߒߚ޿ߩߢ‫ߦࡈ࠶࠲ࠬޔ‬ᖱႎࠍ⡞޿ߡ‫ⴕޔ‬ᣇਇ᣿⠪࡝ࠬ࠻ߦ⊓㍳ߒߡ‫ޔ߽ߢޕߚߒ߹ߒࠍ⹺⏕ޔ‬1 ࡨ᦬ඨㆊ߉ߡ߽‫ߩߎޕߚߒߢࠎߖ߹ࠅ߆ߟ⷗ޔ‬႐ᚲ߆ࠄ⷗
߃ࠆߩ߇ᶏߛߌߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬74
74ǤȳȉȍǷǢƴ໎ܹ૨҄ǛƲƏᏋƯƯᘍƘƔᲢဋɶȷ᭗೛Უ

⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪

⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪

⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪
⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪

⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪
⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪
⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪
⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪

⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪
⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪

⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪

⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪

ߎߩ೨ߩ႐ᚲߪ‫ޔ‬ᄢ߈ߥߏߺ߇޽ߞߡ‫ޔ‬㆏〝߽ㅢࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈߹ߖࠎߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬㆏ߦ޽ߞߚ
ᄢ߈ߥߏߺߪ‫ ߩߘޔ‬1 ㅳ㑆ᓟߦߪ‫߁߽ޔ‬㆏ߩਔ┵ߦነߖࠄࠇ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬૗ᣣ೨߽‫ޔ‬ਥੱ߇ߎߎ
ߦ߈ߡ‫߿ᧁޔ‬㘩ེߩ᫜ߥߤࠍតߒ߹ߒߚ‫ߪߎߎޔߢߩߚߒߢߌࠄߛߺߏޔߪߜߚ⑳ޔ߽ߢޕ‬ㅢࠇ߹ߖࠎߢߒߚ‫ޕ߇ࠎߖ߹ࠇߒ߽߆ࠆ߈ߢࡊࡦࡖࠫࠄߥ↵ޕ‬ߟ߹ࠅ‫ޔ‬TVRI ߦߪ 1 ࡩ᦬㑆ߋࠄ޿ߢߒߚߨ‫ߪߣ޽ߩߘޕ‬㧫
⑳ߪ⿒ߜ߾ࠎࠍ಴↥ߔࠆߩߢ‫ⷫߦࡦ࠳ࡔޔ‬ᚘ߇޿ߡ‫ߪߦࡦ࠳ࡔޕߚߒ߹߈ⴕߦߎߘޔ‬Ꮻࠅߚߊߥ߆ߞߚߩߢߔ߇‫ޕߔߢߩߚߞ߆ߥ߇ߚ߆ߒޔ‬಴↥ᓟߪ‫ߦࡦ࠳ࡔߚ߹ޔ‬ㄫ߃ߦ߈ߡ‫ߣޔ‬⑳ߪ⸒޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬಴↥ᓟ 2 ࡩ᦬㑆‫ߦࠄߜߎࠄ߆ࡦ࠳ࡔޔ‬ᚯߞߡ‫ߦࠢ࠶࡜ࡃߩࠢࠬࡕޔ‬૑ࠎߢ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ࡃ࡜࠶ࠢߦ૑߼ࠆߣ޿߁ᖱႎߪߛࠇ߆ࠄ⡞߈߹ߒߚ߆‫ޕ‬ਥੱ߇ߎߎߦ޿߹ߒߚ߆ࠄ‫ޕߔ߹޿ߡ᧪ߦࠄߜߎߊࠃޕ‬1 ࡩ᦬ᓟߦ‫ߩߎޔ‬࿾ၞߦᖱႎ࠮ࡦ࠲
࡯ߩࠃ߁ߥࠠࡖࡦࡊ߇޽ߞߡ‫ޔ‬ਥੱߪߘߎ߆ࠄᖱႎࠍ߽ࠄ޿߹ߒߚ‫߇ࠢ࠶࡜ࡃޕ‬૞ࠄࠇࠆߣ
⑳ߦ㔚⹤ࠍߊࠇ߹ߒߚ‫ޔߡ߈ߢ߇ࠢ࠶࡜ࡃޕ‬಴↥ᓟߦ‫ߦߎߎޔ‬૑ߺߪߓ߼߹ߒߚ‫ߦࡦ࠳ࡔޕ‬޿ߚߣ߈ߪᔃ࿾߇ࠃߊ޽ࠅ߹ߖࠎߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬ࡃ࡜࠶ࠢࠍ૞ߞߚߩߪߛࠇߢߒߚ߆‫ޕ‬⑳ߪࠊ߆ࠅ߹ߖࠎ‫ޕ‬᡽ᐭ߇ߢߔ߆ߨ‫ޕ‬ࡃ࡜࠶ࠢߦ޿ߚߣ߈‫ޔ‬㘩ຠߪ߽ࠄߞߡ޿߹ߔ߆‫ޕ‬ߘ߁ߢߔߨ‫ޔ☨ޕ‬Indomie‫ޔ‬㝼ߩ➧⹣‫ޔ‬ᴤ‫ޕߚߒ߹޿ߡߞࠄ߽ࠍߤߥࠢ࡞ࡒޔ‬ᵤᵄ߆ࠄ৻ㅳ
㑆ᓟߪ⑳ߚߜߪᄥߞߡ޿߹ߒߚ㧔╉㧕‫ޕ‬㘩ߴ‛߇߅޿ߒ߆ߞߚߢߔ‫ޕ‬ᄖ࿖߆ࠄߩេഥࠍ߽ࠄ
߁೨ߪ‫ޔ‬Indomie ߫߆ࠅ㘩ߴߡ޿߹ߒߚ߇‫ޔ‬ᄖ࿖߆ࠄߩេഥࠍ߽ࠄߞߡ߆ࠄ‫ߢ߹੹ޔ‬㘩ߴߚߎߣߩߥ޿㘩ߴ‛߹ߢ㘩ߴࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈߹ߒߚ‫ᧄޕߤߥࡈ࡯ࡆࡦࠦޔ࠻࠶ࠥ࠽ޔࠫ࡯࠮࠶࠰ޕ‬ᒰߦ߅޿ߒ߆ߞߚߢߔ㧔╉㧕‫ޕ‬ࡃ࡜࠶ࠢߦ૑ࠎߢ޿ߚߩߪ૗ࡩ᦬㑆ߢߒߚ߆‫ޕ‬
8 ࡩ᦬㑆ߋࠄ޿ߢߔ߆ߨ‫ޕ‬CRS ߆ࠄኅߩេഥࠍ߽ࠄߞߡ‫ޔ‬ኅ߇ߢ߈ߡ߆ࠄ‫ߩߘޔ‬ኅߦᒁ⿧ߒࠍߒ߹ߒߚ
ࡃ࡜࠶ࠢߦ૑ࠎߢ޿ࠆᦼ㑆ਛߪߔߴߡ㘩ߴ‛ߦ㑐ߒߡߪࠞࡃ࡯ߒߡߊࠇ߹ߒߚ߆‫ޕ‬ߘ߁ߢߔߨ‫ޕ‬Ფ᦬‫߅ޔߣ޽ޕߚߒ߹޿ߡߞࠄ߽ࠍ☨ޔ‬㊄߽ 3 ࿁߽ࠄ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޔߌߞߛࠎߥޕ‬Jadup ߣ޿޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߩ೨ߪ‫ޔ‬ᄦߩ⡯ᬺߪߥࠎߢߔ߆‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߩ೨ߣᵤᵄߩ޽ߣ߽ㆇォᚻߢߔ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߩ޽ߣߪ‫ޔ‬ㆇォߩ઀੐߇߹ߛߥ߆ߞߚߣ߈ߪ‫ޔ‬㆏߿᧛ߩ᝹㒰ࠍߒߡ‫⛎ޔ‬ᢱࠍ߽ࠄ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ߎߩኅߦᒁ⿧ߒߡ᧪ߚ㗃ߦߪ‫߁߽ߪੱޔ‬㓸߹ߞߡ޿߹ߒߚ߆‫ޕ‬߹ߛߢߔߨ‫߇ߌߛߜߚ⑳ޕ‬࿾రߩੱߦߥࠅ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬
੹ߪ 200 ਎Ꮺߛߌߢߔ߆ߨ‫ޔ‬೨ߪ߽ߞߣᄙ߆ߞߚ᳇߇ߒ߹ߔ߇‫ ߩߎޕ‬200 ਎Ꮺ߇‫ߥࠎߺޔ‬߇૑߻ࠊߌߢߪ޽ࠅ߹ߖࠎ‫ߛ߹ޕ‬ᔺߊߡ‫ޔ‬૑߼ߥ޿਎Ꮺ߽޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬૑߻ߩ߇ߘߩඨಽߋࠄ
޿ߢߔ߆ߨ‫ޕ‬⑳ߪᵤᵄߩ೨߽‫ߦߎߎޔ‬૑ࠎߢ޿߹ߒߚߩߢ‫ޔ‬ᔺߊߪߥ޿ߢߔ‫ޕ‬ߎߎߦ‫ޔ‬ᐝ㔤ߣ߆߽ߚߊߐࠎ޿ࠆߣ޿ࠊࠇ߹ߔ߇‫ޕ‬ᱫ૕ࠍ⷗ߟߌߚߎߣߪ޽ࠅ߹ߔ߆‫ޕ‬ߎߎߦᚯߞߡ᧪ߡ৻ㅳ㑆‫ߩࠢࠬࡕޔ‬೨ߦᱫ૕߇㧟ߟߢ‫ߩࠢࠬࡕޔ‬ਛߪᄙ߆ߞߚߢߔ‫ߎߎޕ‬ࠄㄝߪ޽ࠅ߹ߖࠎߢߒߚߨ‫ޕ‬ߎߜࠄߦᒁ⿧ߒࠍߒߡ㘩੐ߩߎߣߪߤ߁ߢߔ߆‫ޕ‬߽ߜࠈࠎ⥄ಽߢ⾔ࠊߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠅ߹ߖࠎߨ‫ޕ‬ਥੱ߇઀੐ࠍߒߪߓ߼ߡ߆ࠄߪ߹ߛេഥࠍ߽
ࠄߞߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ ⚂ޕ‬1 ᐕᓟߦߪ‫⥄ޔ‬ಽߢ↢ᵴࠍߒߡ޿߈߹ߔ‫ߩߘޕ‬೨ߪ᡽ᐭ߆ࠄߩេഥࠍ߽
ࠄߞߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ߘࠇߪ‫ޟ‬ᵤᵄ‫ࠈߏߟ޿ߪߩ߁޿ߣޠ‬⍮ߞߡ޿߹ߔ߆‫ޕ‬৻ㅳ㑆ᓟߦߢߒߚߨ‫ޟߪࠇߘޕ‬ᵤᵄ‫ޕߔ߹޿޿ߣޠ‬TVRI ߩ࠹࡟ࡆ߆ࠄ⡞޿ߡ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄ߿ਛ࿖
ߦ߅߈ߚߎߣ߇޽ࠆߘ߁ߢߔߨ‫ߡߞߤ߶ࠆߥޕ‬ᗵߓߢߒߚ‫ߩࠚ࠴ࠕޕ‬ᵤᵄߩ߶߁߇߽ߞߣᄢ߈޿ᵤᵄߢߒߚ߆ߨ‫ߪ⑳ޕ‬ዊⷙᮨߩ Kiamat ߛߣᕁߞߡ‫ޔ‬ዊⷙᮨߥߩߦⵍኂ⠪ߪᄙ߆ߞߚߩߢ
ߪ‫ޕߣޔ‬
޿ߟߋࠄ޿߹ߢᵤᵄߩߎߣࠍ⸥ᙘߦᱷߞߡ޿߹ߔ߆‫ޕ‬
3 ࡩ᦬㑆ߋࠄ޿߹ߢߪߕߞߣⷡ߃ߡ޿ߡ‫ޔ‬ᵅ޿ߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ߦࠄߜߎޕ‬ᚯߞߡ᧪ࠆߣᵅߊߒ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߦߟ޿ߡߣ޿߁࡜ࡈ࡝ߩ᱌ࠍ⡬ߊߣᔅߕᵅ߈߹ߔ‫ޔߢ߹੹ޕ‬ᵤᵄߩߎߣࠍᕁ޿಴ߔߣ⥄ὼߣ‫ޔ‬ᶡ߇಴߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ᚒᘟߒߡ߽‫ޔ‬ᚒᘟߒߡ‫ޔ‬ᶡ߇ߎ߷ࠇߡߒ߹޿߹ߔ‫⷗߇ੱࠆ޿ߡߞ߆ࠊޕ‬ࠇ߫‫ޔ‬ᄙಽ‫ޔ‬ℂ⸃ߒߡߊࠇࠆߣᕁ޿߹ߔ߇‫ߊߥ߽⸶ޔߥࠎߺޔߣߊⴕߦ߆ߣࡦ࠳ࡔޔ‬ᶡࠍᵹ
ߒߡ޿ࠆ⑳ߩߎߣࠍࡃࠞߥੱߛߣᕁࠊࠇߡߒ߹޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬

75
75

II. ໎ܹ૨҄Ʊ᧸໎Ʒᘍ૾

⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪
⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪

⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪

⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪

⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪

⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪
⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪
⾰໧⠪
࿁╵⠪

ᖤߒ޿ߩ߇ߥߗ߆ߣ޿߁ߣ‫ޔߦ৻╙ޔ‬ኅᣖߩᱫ૕߇੹߽⷗ߟ߆ࠅ߹ߖࠎ‫␹ޔ޽߹ޕ‬᭽߇᳿߼ߚ߽ߩߢߔ߇‫ޔߦࠄߐޕ‬ኅᣖߩ㓸߹ࠅ߇੹ߪߢ߈߹ߖࠎ‫ޕ‬ኅᣖߩ㓸߹ࠅߦⴕߎ߁ߣߒߡ߽‫ޔ‬ሶଏ߿ኅᣖߩߎߣࠍ⠨߃ߡ‫ޕߔ߹ࠅߥߊߥߌⴕޔ‬⑳‫ޔ‬࿾㔡ߦߪ߹ߛ࠻࡜࠙ࡑߢߔ‫ޕ‬ᒙ޿࿾㔡ߛߣ޽߹ࠅᗵߓߡ޿߹ߖࠎ߇‫ߩࠇំޔ‬ᒝ޿࿾㔡ߛߣ‫ޔ‬૕߇߽߁㔡߃߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߩߎߣߢ߹ߛ࠻࡜࠙ࡑߢߔ‫ޕ‬ኢࠆߣ߈߽ᕁ޿಴ߒߡ޿ࠆߩߢߔ߆㧫ᵅ޿ߚࠅ‫ޔ‬ᄞࠍ⷗ߚࠅߔࠆߎߣߪ㧫ᄞߣ߆ߪ߽߁⷗ߡ޿߹ߖࠎ‫ޕ‬ኅᣖోຬ߇㓸߹ߞߚߣ߈ߩᄞߢߒߚࠄߺߚߎߣ߇޽ࠅ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬᳓ߦᏎ߈ㄟ߹ࠇߡ޿ࠆߣ߈ߩᄞࠍ⷗ߚߎߣ߇ߥߊߡ‫ᧄޔ‬ᒰߦᱷᔨߢߔ‫ޕ‬ᓐࠄ߇᳓ߦ㘶ߺㄟ߹ࠇߚߣᕁ޿߹ߒߚ߆‫ޕ‬⑳ߚߜ߇ㅏߍࠆ೨ߦ‫ޔ‬ᓐࠄ߇߽߁᳓ߦᏎ߈ㄟ߹ࠇߚߩߢ‫ޕߔߢߕߪߚߞߥߦ߁ߘޔ‬᳓߇ 3 ߟߩ㆑߁ᣇะ߆ࠄ߿ߞߡ᧪ߡ‫ޔ‬᳓߇ⷅ޿߹ߒߚߩߢ‫ߪߜߚ⑳ޔ‬᳓ߦᏎ߈ㄟ߹ࠇࠆ೨ߦ‫ޔ‬㆏ࠍᦛ߇ߞߡ‫ޔ‬ጊߦ⊓ࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޔࠄ߆ߔߢޕ‬ጊߦ⊓ߞߡ޿ࠆߣ߈ߦ‫ޔ‬ᄢ߈ߥ῜⊒ߩ㖸߇⡞ߎ߃߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬᳓߇῜⊒ߐࠇߚߘ߁ߢߔߨ‫ޔߣ޿ߥߒ⊒῜ޕ‬᳓߇ഀࠇߥ޿߆ࠄߛߘ߁ߢߔ‫ޕ‬ࠨࠗ࡟ࡦ߇ߥࠆߣߤ߁ߒ߹ߔ߆㧫޽ࠇ‫ߩߎޕࠃߚߒ߹ߒࠅߊߞ߮ޔ‬㑆ߪႎ๔߇޽ߞߚߩߢ‫ߦߥࠎߘޔ‬ᔃ㈩ߪߒ߹ߖࠎߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬೨ߩࠨࠗ࡟ࡦߩߣ߈ߛߣ‫ޔ‬Keutapang ߹ߢ⿛ߞߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ゞߦ߱ߟ߆ߞߚੱ߽޿߹ߒߚ‫⑳ޕ‬ߪሶଏߚߜߣ⾈޿‛ߒߚ޽ߣߦㅏߍ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ࠨࠗ࡟ࡦ߇㡆ߞߡߨ‫੹ޟޕߚߒ߹ߒࠅߊߞ߮ޔ‬࿁ߪߥࠎߛࠈ߁ߥ‫ߣޠ‬ᕁ޿ߥ߇ࠄ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡߿ᵤᵄ߇⊒↢ߒߚߣ߈ߦࠨࠗ࡟ࡦ߇㡆ࠆߣᢎࠊࠅ߹ߒߚ߆ࠄ‫ߪ߈ߣߩߘޕ‬࿾㔡ߣ߆߇ߥ߆ߞߚ
ߩߦࠨࠗ࡟ࡦ߇㡆ࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ߦߥࠎߘޕ‬ᔺߊߪ޽ࠅ߹ߖࠎߢߒߚ߇‫ࠍߤߥ᦯߇ߣ߭ߩઁޔ‬ᜬߞߡ޿ߞߡ‫ޔ‬ㅏߍߡ޿ࠆߩߺߡ‫⥄ޔ‬ಽ߽߁㕖㔍ߒߚ߶߁߇޿޿ߩ߆ߥߣ⠨߃ߡߒ߹ߞߡ‫ޔ‬ዋߒᔺߊߥࠅ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ቇᩞߦ޿ߚሶଏߚߜ߽Ꮻߞߡ߈ߡ‫ޔ‬ᵅ߈಴ߒ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ㅜਛߢሶଏߚߜߣળߞ
ߡ‫ߦ✜৻ޔ‬ㅏߍ߹ߒߚ‫ ߁߽ޕ‬2 ᐲߣ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ߇᧪ߥ޿ࠃ߁ߦߣ␹᭽ߦ㗿߁߫߆ࠅߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬‫ޟ‬Უߐࠎ‫ޔ‬ᣧߊ‫ޔ‬ᣧߊ࡮࡮‫ߡߞޠ‬ሶଏ߇⸒ߞߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬SimpangDodik ߢߪᷦṛߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬‫ޟ‬૗߽ߥ޿ࠃ‫ޔߪߜߚ⑳ޕߚߒ߹޿ߡߞ⸒߇߆ࠇߛߣޠߢ޿ߥߡࠊ޽ޔߢ޿ߥߡࠊ޽ޔ‬ᵤᵄ߇ᧄᒰߦ᧪ࠆߩ߆ߤ߁߆್ᢿߦㅅ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡߇޽ࠅ߹ߖࠎߢߒߚ߇‫ޔ‬ᄢ߈ߥᵄߢ߽⊒↢ߔࠆߩ߆ߥ‫ޕߣޔ‬ߘࠇߦ߽߆߆ࠊࠄߕ‫ޔߕ߃޽ࠅߣߪߜߚ⑳ޔ‬቟ోߥ႐ᚲߦㆱ㔍ߒ⛯ߌ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ߘߩߣ߈ߩࡄ࠾࠶ࠢ⁁ᘒࠍᕁ޿಴ߔߣ‫ޕߨߔ߹߃╉ޔ‬ߢ߽‫ޔߢߩࠆ߆ࠊߣࠎ߾ߜ߁߽ߪ੹ޔ‬࿾㔡߇⊒↢ߒߥ޿႐ว‫ޔ߽ߡߞߥ߇ࡦ࡟ࠗࠨޔ‬ㅏߍࠆߎߣߪߒ߹ߖࠎ‫ޕࠎߖ߹ࠅ⿛ޕ‬ᄦ߇‫ߒ߽ޟ‬࿾㔡߇ߥ߆ߞߚࠄ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡ߩࠨࠗ࡟ࡦ߇ߥߞߡ߽‫ޔ‬ᔺ߇ࠄߥ޿ࠃ߁ߦ‫߇࡯ࠨࡦ࠮ޕߚߒ߹޿ߡߞ⸒ߣޠ‬ᶏߦ⸳⟎ߒߡ޽ࠆߩߢ‫ޔ‬ᶏ᳓਄߇ࠅࠍᗵ
⍮ߒߡ‫ޔ‬㡆ߞߚߩߢߪ‫ߣޔ‬ᕁߞߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ⓨ߇⌀ߞ㤥ߢ‫ޔߡߞ߈ߣߥ߁ߘ᧪߇ߒࠄ޽ޔ‬ᔺߊߥ޿ߢߔ߆‫ޕ‬ᔺ޿ߢߔߨ‫ߪ߈ߣߩߘޕ‬ኅߦ౉ߞߡ‫ߦ․ޔ‬ṚᏎ㧔Angin putting beliung㧕ߪᔺ޿ߢߔ‫ޕ‬㧞࿁߽ἴኂߦ޽ߞߚ߆ࠄߨ‫ߪ߼ߓߪޔ‬ᵤᵄ‫ޔ‬㧞࿁⋡ߪࡃ࡜࠶ࠢ㧔઒⸳࠹ࡦ࠻㧕ߢߩἫἴߢߔ‫ోޕ‬ㇱᄬ޿߹ߒߚ‫ߦੱߚ߹ޔߢ࠻࡯࠲ࠬߩࠄ߆ࡠ࠯ߚ߹ޕ‬㗬ߞߡ޿ࠆ߫߆ࠅߢߔ‫ޕ‬ࡃ࡜࠶ࠢߩἫἴߢ‫ߦߎߤߪߣ޽ޔ‬૑ࠎߢ޿߹ߔ߆‫ޕ‬ߎߩኅߪ߹ߛ㔚Ἦ߇ߟ޿ߡ޿߹ߖࠎߒ‫ޔ‬㔚᳇߽߹ߛㅢߞߡ޿߹ߖࠎߢߒߚߩߢ‫࡜ࡃߩઁޔ‬࠶ࠢߩੱߣ૑ߺ߹ߒߚ‫߅ޕ‬㊄߇⾂߹ߞߚࠄ‫ޔ‬੗ᚭࠍ૞ߞߡ‫ޔ‬㔚Ἦ߽ߟߌߡ‫ޔ‬ኅߦ૑ߺᆎ߼߹
ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ኅ߇ߢ߈ߚߣߒߡ߽‫ߛ߹ޔ‬ᥧ޿ߣ↢ᵴߢ߈߹ߖࠎ߆ࠄߨ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߢߥߊߥߞߚ߽ߩߪߥࠎߢߔ߆‫ޕ‬ోㇱᄬ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ኅౕߥߤ‫ޔ‬ኅ߽ᄬߞߡ‫ߤࠎߣ߶ޔ‬ᱷߞߡ޿߹ߖࠎ‫ޕ‬቟ᔃ࡮቟ో‫ޔ‬᥉ㅢߦᚯߞߚߣ޿߁ߩ߇޿ߟߏࠈᗵߓࠄࠇ߹ߔ߆‫ޕ‬ߎߩᦨㄭߩ㧝ᐕ㑆ߢߔ߆ߨ‫ޔࠅ߹ߟޕ‬ᵤᵄ߆ࠄ㧟ᐕᓟߢߔ‫ޕ‬ቢోߦߢߪߥ޿߇‫ޔ‬೨ߩ↢ᵴߦᚯߞߡ߈ߡ޿߹ߔ‫߽ߢޕ‬೨ߣ㆑ߞߡ‫ⷫߪ੹ޔ‬ᚘ߽ዋߥߊ㧔ඨಽߦ㧕ߥࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬⚻ᷣ㕙ߢ߽᥉ㅢߦᚯࠅ߹ߒߚ߆‫ޕ‬
ߪ޿‫ޕ‬

76
76

ǤȳȉȍǷǢƴ໎ܹ૨҄ǛƲƏᏋƯƯᘍƘƔᲢဋɶȷ᭗೛Უ

ෳ⠨ᢥ₂⮮⼱ஜ߶߆㧔2006㧕‫ޡ‬TSUNAMI ࠍߎ߃ߡ‫␠࡜ࡊࡐޢ‬ᨋ⢻ᚑ࡮቟⮮᡽ቁ࡮⍹↰ℰⓄ࡮Didik Sugiyanto㧔2008㧕‫ޟ‬ᵤᵄㆣㆄ᧦ઙ߇ㆱ㔍ߦਈ߃ࠆᓇ㗀‫ޠ‬ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼‫ޡ‬2004 ᐕർㇱࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡⺞ᩏႎ๔ IV‫ޢ‬ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ
㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼ᐢἑᒄᔘ㧔1984㧕‫↢ޡ‬ሽߩߚ߼ߩἴኂቇ‫ޢ‬ᣂᦐ␠
Japan Aceh Net & Serambi Indonesia㧔2005㧕“Nyawöung”㧔޿ߩߜ㧕㧘ࠫࡖࡄࡦ࡮ࠕ࠴ࠚ࡮ࡀ
࠶࠻㧔ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ⺆࡮ᣣᧄ⺆㧕↰ᢅቁ✬㧔2003㧕‫ޡ‬ᐔᚑ 15 ᐕ 3 ᦬ 26 ᣣ ਃ㒽ධㇱ࿾㔡ߦ߅ߌࠆ᳇઄ᴧᏒ᳃ߩㆱ㔍ߦ㑐ߔࠆ⺞ᩏႎ๔ᦠ‫⟲ޢ‬㚍ᄢቇᎿቇㇱ ↰⎇ⓥቶᧁ⢆ᢥᤘ࡮↰ਛ㊀ᅢ࡮ᧁ᧛⃍᰷✬㧔2006㧕‫⿥ޡ‬Ꮒᄢ࿾㔡߇߿ߞߡ߈ߚ‫ᤨޢ‬੐ㅢା␠ᧁ⢆ᢥᤘ߶߆㧔2007㧕‫ߩࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޡ‬ᄢᵤᵄࠍ↢߈ߩ߮ߚੱ߮ߣ‫ޢ‬ฬฎደᄢቇⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼ർේ♻ሶ㧔2006㧕‫ޟ‬ㄭ਎ߩἴኂ㧦ᢇᷣߣᓳ⥝‫ޠ‬ർේ♻ሶ✬‫ޡ‬ᣣᧄἴኂผ‫ޢ‬ศᎹᒄᢥ㙚
Takahashi, M., Tanaka, S., Kimura, R., Umitsu M., Tabuchi, R., Kuroda,T., Ando, M. and Kimata, F.
㧔2007㧕Restoration after the Sumatra Earthquake Tsunami in Banda Aceh: Based on the Resultsof Interdisciplinary Researches by Nagoya University, Journal of Natural Disaster Science,
Volume 29, Number 2
Takahashi, M., Tanaka, S., Kuroda, T., Kimura, R., and Suhirman㧔2008㧕The Questionnaire Surveyof December 2007: Preliminary Descriptions, ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼‫ޡ‬2004 ᐕർㇱࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡⺞ᩏႎ๔ IV‫ޢ‬ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼↰ਛ㊀ᅢ࡮ዊୖ⾫ᴦ㧔1994㧕‫ޟ‬ἴኂᖱႎߣἴኂᢥൻ‫ޡޠ‬࿾ၞ቟ోቇળႎ๔㓸‫ޢ‬No.4↰ਛ㊀ᅢ‫↰ޔ‬ᷨ౐㇢࡮ᧁ᧛⃍᰷࡮઩࿖ᤐ㧔2006㧕‫ޟ‬ᵤᵄ߆ࠄߩㆱ㔍ⴕേߩ໧㗴ὐߣ⼊ႎવ㆐ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߩ㒢⇇‫⥄ޡޠ‬ὼἴኂ⑼ቇ‫ޢ‬25-2↰ਛ㊀ᅢ࡮㜞ᯅ⺈࡮ㄞ᧛ᄢ↢࡮ᧁ᧛⃍᰷㧔2007a㧕‫ޟ‬ਃ㊀⋵ᄢ♿↸㍪࿾඙ߢߩᵤᵄߩㆱ㔍ߦ㑐ߔࠆࠕࡦࠤ࡯࠻⺞ᩏ⚿ᨐ‫ޠ‬ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼‫ޡ‬2004 ᐕർㇱࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡⺞ᩏႎ๔ IV‫ޢ‬ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼↰ਛ㊀ᅢ࡮㜞ᯅ⺈㧔2007b㧕‫ޟ‬࿾ၞ␠ળߦᩮߑߒߚᵤᵄኻ╷ࠍ⠨߃ࠆ㧦ਃ㊀⋵ᄢ♿↸㍪࿾඙ߩᵤᵄኻ╷߆ࠄ‫ޠ‬ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼‫ޡ‬2004 ᐕർㇱࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡⺞ᩏႎ๔ IV‫ޢ‬ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼⍮㊁ᵏ᣿㧔2006㧕‫ޟ‬ㄭ਎ߩἴኂ㧦ᴡᎹἴኂߣ࿾ၞ␠ળ‫ޠ‬ർේ♻ሶ✬‫ޡ‬ᣣᧄἴኂผ‫ޢ‬ศᎹᒄᢥ㙚⼾↰⋥Ꮘ㧔2005㧕‫ޡ‬౮⌀㓸 ᄢᵤᵄࠕ࠴ࠚߩሶଏߚߜ‫╙ޢ‬ਃᦠ㙚ศ੗ඳ᣿㧔2005㧕‫ޡ‬4 ⋵౒ห ࿾㔡࡮ᵤᵄ⋵᳃ᗧ⼂⺞ᩏႎ๔ᦠ‫᧲ޢ‬੩⚻ᷣᄢቇฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼㧔2005㧕‫ޡ‬2004 ᐕർㇱࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡⺞ᩏႎ๔ I‫ޢ‬ฬฎደᄢቇ
ᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼㧔2006a㧕‫ޡ‬2004 ᐕർㇱࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡⺞ᩏႎ๔ II‫ޢ‬ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼㧔2006b㧕‫ޡ‬2004 ᐕർㇱࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡⺞ᩏႎ๔ III‫ޢ‬ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼㧔2008㧕‫ޡ‬2004 ᐕർㇱࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡⺞ᩏႎ๔ IV‫ޢ‬ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼7777Proposing the Community-based Tsunami Warning System
Takahashi, M.1, Tanaka, S.1, Kimata, F.1, Nakaseko, T.2, and Suhirman3
1
Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan
Formerly Disaster Prevention and Safety Division, Taiki-cho Municipal Office, Mie Prefecture, Japan3
School of Architecture, Planning and Policy Development, Institute of Technology Bandung, Indonesia
2

Abstract: This paper, based on the lessons from Aceh and Japan, first points out the lack both of disaster subculture,especially an earthquake-tsunami association, within the local knowledge, and of collectively responding mechanismsof the local community as well as collapsed local governments, as critical problems that expanded human damages.
Then, the authors argue the significance of community-based disaster preparedness that is basically based on theparticipatory or grassroots mechanism at the local level, and also which is expected to maintain mutuallycomplementary relations with nation-wide and/or international mitigation systems, here, introducing the local
initiatives for preparing tsunamis of Nishiki Town in central Japan, namely Nishiki Scheme. From the authors’viewpoints, the community-based tsunami warning system should concretely be composed of three aspects: more
localized decision-making process, simple and low-cost evacuation places that are importantly appropriate to local
geo-environment, and disaster subculture, which is to say, reproducing, practicing and embodying the local
knowledge about natural environments including awareness of natural hazards and their concerned risks, focusing on
saving human lives themselves not buildings.

1. Introduction
Natural disaster is generally seen as catastrophic restructuring of interrelationships, which thesociety has made with its physical environments for long time, and therefore should be analyzed
from the perspectives of the mixed factors of natural hazards and vulnerability. The vulnerability canbe approached from some different aspects including dangerous geographical locations, fragility ofbuilt environments, and socio-cultural and political-economic conditions. From the perspectives ofsocial sciences, in this sense, it is necessary to investigate how the local society immediately
responds to the natural hazard, and further where the post-disaster society will go, especially being
grown/reduced vulnerability. These questions are closely related to how the local society can/should
prepare the future natural disaster.
In the morning of Sunday, 26 December 2004, the super-giant earthquake and tsunami off theSumatra Island caused severe damages across many countries on the Indian Ocean, killing over 250
thousands people, in particular, Banda Aceh and Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam, Indonesia, withapproximately 165 thousand victims. This event is obviously one of the largest-scale earthquakes in
the world history, estimated as Mw 9.1-9.3, and in fact caused the most serious human damage atleast since the twentieth century. Despite many scientists’ efforts, no one knows exactly whether
such a magnitude natural hazard will occur tomorrow, or 1,000 years later. It is a big problem how to
prepare such an infrequent natural hazard, which brings about enormous damages once it occurs.
In this paper, based on the findings from our three-year field researches in/around Banda Aceh,
we first point to a critical problem that expanded the human damages in the 2004 tsunami disaster,
and which is related to the lack of a disaster subculture in the pre-tsunami Acehnese society. Then,
we propose an alternative disaster preparedness mechanism focussing rather on the locality, throughintroducing the experiences in a small town in Japan, Nishiki, not depending on the over-modernizeddisaster prevention systems. As a concluding remark, we argue that the first priority in post-tsunami
Aceh to reduce the social vulnerability should focus on a kind of grassroots approach rather thanbeing dependent on the top-down.
2. Findings from Aceh
Why such magnitude human damages were brought about in Aceh? Basically an answer is related tothe size of the tsunami itself, and to the affected region’s dangerous location. According to Umitsu etal. (2007), several times of high wave broke over the very low and flat coastal plain, which has been

78
78

Proposing the community-based tsunami warning system (Takahashi et al.)developed as low-rise housing areas with few mangroves and embankments for barriers against
waves, and flowed into the city of Banda Aceh almost without being decayed. There are no official
disaster prevention countermeasures partly because of the breakdown of the local governments. In
addition, the countries across the Indian Ocean including Indonesia lacked the early warning system(EWS), and even if it had already been completed, there were few evacuation places for wide flats.
More seriously, we point to the lack of a disaster subculture (Takahashi et al., 2007). In
particular the notion of “earthquake-tsunami association” (Tanaka et al., 2006), which is to say“after an earthquake, a tsunami likely”, is clearly not evident in local residents’ action. According toHayashi et al. (2007) who try to picturize the local people’s memories just after the earthquake,though some people remembers that they were certainly aware of something unusual, however, they
could harly forecast a coming tsunami. Most if not all of the locals had forgotten the words, Ie Beuna,rendered as “big water” in Acehnese language. Evacuation activity began only after the tsunami waswitnessed by the individual or confirmed in nearby crises of “water is coming”. In addition, the local
community has no mechanisms for collective evacuation, or no standards of conduct in an
earthquake. This is one critical cause of the increase of human loss.
Currently, in the reconstruction processes in many affected countries, the governments’ efforts
to improve a future tsunami disaster response concentrate on introduction of the EWS as well as
modernized infrastructure like sea embankments and buffering forests, with financial andtechnological supports from the international community. Indeed, the central government ofIndonesia establishes warning devices across the region of Banda Aceh, announcing an alarm by theremote control from Jakarta. However, it is doubtful for this kind of EWS to function well. It is
dependent too much on the modern sciences/technologies, and on the centered decision-making
process. It is above all costly, taking much time to be completed. Further, people may suspect thewarning, if they have no information exactly about what a tsunami is. In Japan, which has
established the seemingly perfect nation-wide EWS, most if not all people recently tend not to startin evacuation activities even though receiving a warning (Tanaka et al., 2006).
In this situation, the community-based disaster preparedness mechanism (CDPM) that wewould propose here is expected as a complement to, or a social base for the EWS. We pay special
attention to three matters: first of all, it is important to cultivate disaster subculture including local
knowledge about natural environments and related risks. Second, it is easy for local people to trust
the socially and spatially nearest and so familiar decision-making organization, and for this it isnecessary to decentralize/localize decision-making process. And last, it is an urgent issue to arrange
some kinds of minimum hardware, which is relatively costless and easy-to-ready; focusing on saving
human lives themselves not buildings. Our target is such an infrequent natural hazard as a tsunami,
and for this we should not construct unnecessary tall dike on the coast, which prevents the local
people from seeing the sea, and which cannot be managed by the community voluntary activities. In
the next section, we introduce one unique project for the CDPM in a small town of Japan.
3. Experiences in Nishiki Town
The town of Nishiki, with a population of approximately 2,200 and 1,000 households, constitutes
Taiki-cho municipal district, Mie Prefecture in central Japan. It is located on a small bay head in the
deeply indented coastline facing the Pacific Ocean, and therefore has many times been attacked bytsunamis as well as high tide waters caused by typhoons (for details, see Nakaseko et al., 2008). In
particular, approximately 45 minutes after a huge earthquake occurring at 13:35 on 7 December
1944, an approximately six-meter tsunami rushed to the town, and caused 64 deaths and 447
collapsed houses with 235 heavily destroyed houses.
More recently, in the midnight of 5 September 2004, a big earthquake of Mw 7.4 occurred off
the Kii Peninsula of central Japan, and after a while Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) issued atsunami warning. Eleven municipal governments including those in Mie Prefecture announced anevacuation order to their inhabitants following this warning. However, prior to JMA, the town officeof Nishiki ordered evacuation around 30 seconds after the shaking, and then approximately 80
percent of the inhabitants evacuated, the average in Mie Prefecture being only 8.6 percent. Why did
so many people in this town move into action, despite the fact that there were no substantial damagesby the small tsunami following the earthquake? To answer this question, we examine the evacuation

79
79

II. Disaster Subculture and Preparedness

scheme elaborated by the municipality, which we name “Nishiki Triangle”, composed of three
aspects: evacuation places, disaster subculture, and the local warning system (Figure 1).
Simple, low-cost, accessible within
inhabitants’ neighborhood, based oncommunity management …

Evacuation
Place

DISASTERPREVENTIONSCHEME
Local

Disaster
Subculture

Warning
SystemThinking/deciding for the local
community itself, independentlyof National Government

To localize and embody knowledge
on what a tsunami, what to do in
EQ, where to escape …

Figure 1. Nishiki triangle

3.1. Disaster Prevention Scheme of Nishiki Town
First, the town office physically arranged evacuation places, escaping paths and stairs, andsignboards across the town during the period of 1995-2004, in collaboration with neighborhoodorganizations that in part take responsibility for their managements by inhabitants’ voluntary works.
Basically, these sites are set on at least 10-meter-high places on hillsides. While some shrines,
temples and public facilities are utilized for evacuation, most of newly arranged places look simple
and low-cost to be constructed and/or managed: some have pavilion-type facilities, others are openair only being equipped with emergency supplies. Rather, it is important for inhabitants to have an
evacuation site within five minutes walking from their neighborhood. Five minutes are key time, fora tsunami is estimated to reach the town at minimum within 8.6 minutes in a future earthquake.
Though, basically, the topographical feature might enable inhabitants easily to get to anywhere
higher, even privately owned lands could be appropriated for public utilization, probably based on
the customary law.
Further, it is important to note that, for those who lack accessibility to such higher places
especially within the town center, the town office constructed an evacuation tower, named Nishiki
Tower, by using relatively small amount of the municipal funds: approximately 140 million yen in
1997-1998. Thus, the town’s tsunami prevention scheme first focuses on “evacuation” from, rather
than “protection” against high waves. In reality, the town has only 3.5-meter-high sea embankments.
Second is cultivation of local disaster subculture, focusing not only on local knowledge about
local geographical and social environments, for example what happens in an earthquake in the local
context, who need help in emergency situations within the neighborhood, where to pass through andto escape, and so on, but also on scientific knowledge about a tsunami/earthquake, as well as
integrating and embodying two sets of knowledge. For this, the town office makes and implements
the disaster prevention plan, with its making process being constituted of field excursions,assessments of local socio-spatial conditions, open workshops and special lectures, formulation of aconcrete plan, field drills, and feed back, based on the community participation, which to say, in the“grassroots” framework. In this sense, it is important to note that, though generally in Japan thenational government advocates the municipality to establish a voluntary counter-disaster association
within a neighborhood by delivering a special subsidy, at least at present in Nishiki there are nomunicipal instructions about organizing such an association in the top-down style. It is not necessary
for the town to organize newly a specialized association; there already exists a tight-knit
neighborhood community.
Further, we should stress the role of collective memory about the past experiences to foster thedisaster subculture. As mentioned above, the town has many times experienced disasters of tsunami.
In order to memorize the past tragedies collectively, the municipal government set up a day of 7
December, on which Nishiki had the latest most serious damage in 1944, as a disaster memorial day,and organizes a field drill for response and evacuation every year on this day, in which not only

80
80

Proposing the community-based tsunami warning system (Takahashi et al.)community leaders but also many if not most ordinary people participate. In Japan, 1 September isthe most important day, and 17 January is the second most important day, on which the Great Kanto
Earthquake in 1923 and the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995 happened respectively, for thecentral government and the nation-wide population, and the former is designated as the national
disaster day. However, Nishiki prefers the local context to the national.
Local knowledge/
collective memory/self-judgment on thenatural environmentand related risks

Warning

Any town staffs mustorder whenever they
feel strong shaking
for over 20 seconds,
even before Japan
Meteorological
AgencySCHEME FORLOCALWARNINGSYSTEM

Trust

Evacuation

Aiming that 100% of
inhabitants reallymove into action

following rather the
local instruction
than the national

Inhabitants trust theirown community
activity, even for
misinformation, to

guard their lives

Figure 2. Nishiki circle

Last, most importantly, the town office has attempted to establish its own tsunami warning
system, independently of the national government. According to the scheme, any town staff
can/should push the alarm button equipped in the office, whenever she/he feels strong 20-second
shaking, even before any information about a happing earthquake from JMA. This system is basedon the lay knowledge, and so cannot cover a kind of tsunami earthquake and/or a tsunami fromremoter areas, which should primarily be followed up by JMA. A reader might be afraid that at thefirst view it is seemingly unscientific, and that there is too often misinformation (but, for its
scientific significance, see Kimata and Nakaseko, 2008). However, we argue that for the inhabitants
it is not important. A critical point is that warning and evacuation constitutes an up-spiral processwith a core of trust for the basis of town staffs’ adventurous action, which we name “Nishiki Circle”(Figure 2). Basically, the local people tend to move into evacuating action following their own
judgments, referring to the local knowledge on natural environment and related risks. The warningof the town plays a role only to facilitate their making-decisions.
3.2. Inhabitants’ Attitudes toward a Tsunami
The last is evident in the inhabitants’ attitudes toward a tsunami. The questionnaire survey
asking the inhabitants’ behaviors at the last earthquake of Mw 7.4 in the midnight of 5 September
2004, which we conducted at Nishiki Town in February 2008 with 382 respondents, points out that,first, all or some members of approximately 72 percent of the respondents’ families really evacuated,of which approximately 95 percent thought that a tsunami might come following the shaking (Table1). More importantly, over the half of respondents really initiating action, answered “self-judgment”
as a reason for evacuation, with approximately 38 percent giving “warning from Town Office”
rather than from JAM of the national government (Table 2). These imply that many inhabitants had
acquired some enough knowledge about an earthquake/tsunami, and ability to make a decision basedon their own perception about dangerousness of housing locations, in corresponding to their physicalelevation above sea level (Table 3).
Table 1. Behavior in the earthquake in Nishiki
Behavior in the
Thinking of a
No. Respondents
earthquake
tsunami (%)
Evacuating235
94.5
Not evacuating
93
86.0
Total
328
92.1
Source: the authors’ questionnaire survey in 2008

81
81

Not thinking (%)
5.5
14.0
7.9

II. Disaster Subculture and Preparedness

Table 2. Reason for evacuating (multiple answers allowed)
Reason for evacuatingThinking of a tsunami (%)
Warning from Town Office38.2
Warning from JMA
13.8
Prompted by neighbors
5.8
Prompted by family
7.1
Judged by oneself
52.4
No. Respondents
225
Source: the authors’ questionnaire survey in 2008

Not thinking (%)
46.2
15.4
15.4
38.5
13

Total (%)
38.7
13.9
6.3
6.7
51.7
238

Table 3. Perception of dangerousness of housing location
Housing location

No. Respond.

Under 6 m ASL
198
7 m ASL and more
114
Total
312
Source: the authors’ questionnaire survey in 2008

Safe/Not
dangerous (%)
18.7
68.4
36.9

Dangerous/ Not
safe (%)
77.8
22.8
57.7

No idea (%)
3.5
8.8
5.4

Table 4. Experience of past disasters and attitudes toward the earthquake 2004
Experience of Disaster
Tsunami of Tonankai Earthquake (December 1944)
High-water of Typhoon No. 13 (September 1953)
High-water of Isewan Typhoon (September 1959)
Tsunami of Valdivia Earthquake (May 1960)
Source: the authors’ questionnaire survey in 2008

Evacuating (%)
76.3
75.2
74.0
73.4

Thinking of a tsunami (%)
87.6
87.2
88.4
88.4

Table 5. Inhabitants’ Evaluation of the Disaster Prevention Scheme
Evaluation
Not regret evacuating in the Earthquake 2004
Evaluate the town office’s warning effort, positively
Not mind sometimes misinformation from the town office
Necessary for the town office to continue the scheme
Source: the authors’ questionnaire survey in 2008

Yes (%)
92.8
98.3
85.5
84.1

These knowledge creations seem to be founded on the inhabitants’ experiences of various
coastal disasters in the past, and closely related to the collective memory of them (Table 4). Indeed,even though inhabitants had no direct experiences of such disasters, over three forth of the
respondents have frequently talked about the past tsunamis with families, friends or schoolteachers,
and got the information from local governments, newspapers and TV programs. Therefore, we argue
that most of the inhabitants are consciously and unconsciously pay attention to a tsunami and othercoastal disasters, and that in this sense the disaster subculture is embedded in the local society. Thus,
almost all the respondents who really evacuated in the earthquake of 2004 did not regret theirevacuation activities, even though there were no substantial physical and human damages by thesmall tsunami at that time. As a whole, the inhabitants positively evaluate the town’s performance ofits disaster prevention scheme, and think that it should be continued in the future (Table 5).
Roughly speaking, currently in Japan, the centralized, or top-down style tsunami warning
makes people insensible to natural matter, and JMA’s over estimation or sometimes misinformation
leads to people’s distrust to the government. This is why people recently tend not to evacuate even if
they receive the warning. In contrast, “Nishiki Triangle” is evaluated as a typical model of the
CDPM, which forge and in turn, is forged by the local coherent interrelationships between
constructing and managing built environments, practicing the local warning system, andparticipating in the community and cultivating the disaster subculture. One old man in Nishiki said,“I thought that a tsunami would not come for such a small earthquake, but unwillingly … I felt
obliged to escape. I wanted not to make younger neighbors lose face. They do seriously as much as
possible”, answering to our question “why did you evacuate at that time”.

82
82

Proposing the community-based tsunami warning system (Takahashi et al.)

4. Conclusion
In Aceh, people tend to be distrust of the governments, especially the central government of Jakarta
for the enduring conflict over the past three decades. However, in the Acehnese local community
seems to retain socio-cultural coherence and strong morale to same degree as seen in Gampong
system involving Mosque and/or Tuha Peut (Takahashi and Sasaki, 2006). We argue that it is easier
way to growing resistance to disaster for underdeveloped regions like Aceh to forge a CDPM than towaste time and money on too luxury infrastructure expecting a super-giant tsunami. From ourviewpoints, the CDPM should basically be placed in the participatory, or grassroots framework,
concretely composed of three aspects following “Nishiki Triangle”: the local warning system basedon more localized decision-making process, simple and low-cost evacuation places that more
importantly all the inhabitants are easily accessible to, and disaster subculture, which is to say,producing, maintaining and practicing the local knowledge about natural environments including
awareness of natural hazards and their concerned risks.
The tsunami prevention scheme of Nishiki focuses on “evacuation” not on “protection”, that isdefense not of buildings but of human life itself. Further, “Nishiki Triangle” is based on so-called lay
knowledge unable to address some kinds of tsunami. In this sense, of course, it is not perfect. It is
important to integrate this kind of CDPM appropriately into the top-down approach for functioningin multi-scale social spaces. In particular, it is necessary to arrange some social mechanisms, forexample in governmental framework to compensate lost housings or properties. Indeed, themunicipality of Taiki-cho is spatially composed of coastal and mountainous areas characterized bydifferent types of natural hazards, and then, attempts to make a strategy for aid exchange,
coordination and redistribution at the municipal level for the future when the town is physicallydevastated by a tsunami. The experiences in Aceh and Nishiki pose some important problems about
disaster prevention, mitigation and/or preparedness in all countries including Japan itself, and waysof international aids for post-disaster relief, recovery and/or reconstruction, including politicalstrategies for the community empowerment and endogenous re-development.
Note: this paper was first presented at the International Conference on Tsunami Warning at Bali in November 2008.

References
Hayashi, Y., Ando, M., and Fujita, T. (2007): “Picturizing the memories of tsunami victims”,
Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University ed.: Investigation Reports of2004 Northern Sumatra Earthquake, Vol. 3, 34-40 (in Japanese)
Kimata, F., and Nakaseko, T. (2008): “Onsite tsunami warning system in Nishiki, central Japan:
seismological background”, Proc. International Conference on Tsunami Warning (ICTW), Bali,
Indonesia (in press)
Nakaseko, T., Kimata, F., Tanaka, S., and Takahashi, M. (2008): “Tsunami warning and evacuation
system in Nishiki of central Japan”, Proc. International Conference on Tsunami Warning(ICTW), Bali, Indonesia (in press)
Takahashi, M., and Sasaki, T. (2006): “The role of local communities in the post-tsunami
reconstruction process”, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University ed.:Investigation Report of 2004 Northern Sumatra Earthquake, Vol. 2, 127-131
Takahashi, M., Tanaka, S., Kimura, R., Umitsu, M., Tabuchi, R., Kuroda, T., Ando, M., and Kimata,F. (2007): “Restoration after the Sumatra earthquake tsunami in Banda Aceh: based on the
results of interdisciplinary researches by Nagoya University”, Journal of Natural Disaster
Science, Vol. 29, 53-61
Tanaka, S., Tabuchi, R., Kimura, R., and Wu, G., (2006): “Tsunami evacuation behavior
reconsidered”, Journal of Japan Society for Natural Disaster Science, Vol. 26, No. 3, 183-195(in Japanese with English Abstract)
Umitsu, M., Tanavud, C., and Patanakanog, B. (2007): “Effects of landforms on tsunami flow in theplains of Banda Aceh, Indonesia and Nam Khem, Thailand”, Marine Geology, Vol. 242, 141153

83
83

Tsunami Warning and Evacuation System in Nishiki ofCentral Japan
Nakaseko, T.1, Kimata, F.2, Tanaka, S.2, and Takahashi, M.2
1Formerly Disaster Prevention and Safety Division, Taiki-cho Municipal Office, Mie Prefecture, Japan
2
Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan

Abstract: This paper is about unique efforts to establish the local tsunami warning and evacuation systems in a small
fishery town of Nishiki, Mie Prefecture in central Japan. The town has many times been attacked and severely
damaged by tsunamis: once in approximately 100-150 years. Therefore, these experiences have forced the local
people to make unique preparedness mechanism against a tsunami and other high-wave disasters. The countertsunami scheme, which was elaborated by the town office in the grassroots framework, is composed of: physicallyarranging evacuation places within a five-minute walk from each neighborhood, and escaping paths and stairs andsignboards across the town, organizing participatory field drills based on the risk maps, and most importantly
establishing the local tsunami warning system through the town-wide information channel, or communicationequipment. According to the town scheme, any town staff can/should push the alarm button equipped in the office,whenever she/he feels strong 20-second shaking, independently of and/or sometimes even before any information
about a happing earthquake from Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) of the national government. As a conclusion,
we stress that the really effective tsunami preparedness scheme should be based on the local community mechanism,
through introducing the experiences in Nishiki.

1. Background
Japan is a worldwide well-known tsunami affected county. In the recent hundred years, for example,
approximately ten times of tsunamis has attacked its coastal regions here and there, with a hundred
to hundreds of victims on each occasion. Therefore, the government has attempted to establish thenation-wide tsunami prevention scheme, concentrating on the tsunami warning system as well aswater gates, beach embankments and forests. Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) exclusively takes
a responsibility for collecting information from remote seismometers, calculating and forecastingtime and height of coming tsunamis, and distributing the warning in every tsunami-block region
immediately in three minutes after an earthquake through the telecommunication network (for details,
see the website of JMA, http://www.jma.go.jp/en/tsunami/). A local government in turn takes a rolein ordering or advising evacuation to local people including visitors. Thus, the tsunami prevention
scheme in Japan basically focuses on how to let people escape as soon as possible. However, eventhough Japan might equip the seemingly perfect nation-wide early warning system (EWS) on atsunami, it is pointed out that most if not all people recently tend not to start in evacuation activities
after receiving a warning (Tanaka et al., 2006). How to solve this problem is increasingly a key issue
for the disaster studies in Japan.
In September 2004, for example, Pacific coasts in central Japan had a small tsunami by a big
earthquake of Mw 7.4, named “Kii-hanto Nanto-oki Earthquake”, bringing a few building damages
and no human deaths. Though Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) issued a tsunami warning soon,
it was only ten or so municipal governments to announce an evacuation order following the warningin the focused prefectures located near the earthquake center. More seriously, for example, on
average it was 8.6 percent of the inhabitants who lived in the warning-targeted areas of Mie
Prefecture, really to move into action to evacuate. Here, it is not our intention to discuss why somany people would not evacuate, or how the government should improve performance of the EWS.
We argue that it is evidently impossible to save human life only by completing the EWS. Rather, it isnecessary for tsunami preparedness to be based on some participatory or grassroots mechanisms
compensating for such a nation-wide or top-down warning system. In these situations, it is important
to note that, in the last earthquake, approximately 80 percent of the inhabitants living in tsunamiexpected areas really evacuated in a small fishery town, named Nishiki, located in Mie Prefecture,
which has a long history of severe damages by a variety of coastal hazards and then attempts toestablish its own disaster preparedness mechanism based on the locality. In this paper, we present

84
84Proposing the community-based tsunami warning system (Takahashi et al.)some discussion about possibility and/or problem of onsite tsunami warning system, which issituated as an indispensable part of the community-based disaster preparedness mechanism (CDPM),
through introducing the experiences of Nishiki.
2. Outlining Nishiki
The town of Nishiki, with a population of approximately 2,200 and 1,000 households (2007), is
located on the bottom of a small valley on a bay head in the deeply indented coastline facing the
Pacific Ocean (Figure 1). Nishiki has administratively been a part of Taiki-cho municipal district
since February 2005, which had been formed through at least two times of major consolidation ofseveral former municipalities physically and socio-economically different from each other. Even
now, therefore, Nishiki has a town office as the Taiki-cho municipality’s branch containing Disaster
Prevention and Safety Division, taking independent decision-making to some degree. Fisheries
catching yellowtail, lobster and oyster, and related activities including aquaculture and tourism
characterize the industry, more recently increasingly being depressed. The community has sufferedfrom serious depopulation, -27 percent in the last 20 years, with over 30 percent of the aging
population (2000), as often in the case of remoter rural Japan.

Figure 1. Location of Nishiki Town
Table 1. Recent earthquakes with tsunamis affecting Nishiki Town
Name of Earthquake
Meio
Hoei
Ansei-Tokai and Nankai
Showa-Tonankai
Showa-Nankai
Kii-hanto Nanto-oki

Date
20 September 1498
28 October 1707
23-24 December 1854
7 December 1944
21 December 1946
5 September 2004

Magnitude (Est.)
M8.2-8.4
M8.4-8.7
M8.4
M7.9
M8.0
M7.4

The local people have thanked the sea for its blessings, while hated its sometimes-negative
impacts, as well. Indeed, the submarine faults a couple of hundred kilometers off the town has
repeatedly brought about giant earthquakes often-accompanying tsunamis. For example, for the last
500 years, seven times of big earthquake accompanying tsunamis have been thought of damaging
more or less the town, once in approximately 100-150 years (Table 1), in addition to a lot of hightide-water of typhoons. These experiences have fostered collective awareness of tsunami within thelocal culture, as well as leading to the elaboration of unique CDPM, which is known as Nishiki
Scheme.
2. Tsunami Prevention Scheme of NISHIKI
It is important again to stress that quite number of inhabitants in Nishiki Town really evacuated in
the last big earthquake occurring in the midnight of 5 September 2004 though the town had no
substantial damages by the small tsunami. Reasons for such high-rate of evacuating population arebasically related to the tsunami prevention scheme elaborated by the town office of Nishiki. Fivepoints can be mentioned here: first of all, the town office physically arranged evacuation placesacross the town during the period of 1995-2004, completing 16 sites until 2005, in collaboration withneighborhood organizations that in part take responsibility for their managements by inhabitants’voluntary works (Figure 2). Basically, these sites are set on at least 10-meter-high places on hillsides.

8585II. Disaster Subculture and Preparedness

While some shrines, temples and public facilities are utilized for evacuation, most of newly arranged
places look simple and low-cost to be constructed and/or conserved as a whole: some have paviliontype facilities, others are open-air only being equipped with emergency supplies.
Rather, it is important for inhabitants to have an evacuation site within five minutes walking
from their neighborhood. Five minutes are key time, for a tsunami is estimated to reach the town at
minimum within 8.6 minutes in a future earthquake. Second, therefore, the town attempts to arrange
also paths and stairs, and signboards in order to lead people to the evacuation places on hillsides(Figure 2). Though, basically, the topographical feature might enable inhabitants easily to get toanywhere higher, even privately owned lands could be appropriated for public utilization. Further,
the town has just set to work on buying out and deconstructing privately owned but abandonedbuildings remaining across the town, which seem to threaten people’s evacuation activities bycollapsing over the paths in earthquakes.

Figure 2. Evacuation site, and escaping stair in Nishiki

Figure 3. Nishiki Tower and its cross-section

Third is about care for the inhabitants within the center of the town on a lowest alluvial plain,
which was severely damaged by the tsunami wave in 1944, and which are with a somewhat long
distance to higher places. For this, the town office constructed an evacuation tower, named “Nishiki
Tower”, by using relatively small amount of the municipal funds: approximately 140 million yen in
1997-1998. This tower gets five levels with a tube-shape being resistant to powerful waves: astoreroom of fire-fighting equipments and toilets on the first floor, a meeting room on the second
floor appropriating also for a shelter against a typhoon, a small museum of the town’s experience ofdisasters on the third floor, a shelter in a tsunami on the fourth floor, and an evacuation spacelooking out the townscape on the top floor (Figure 3). The tower has not only substantial functions
for counter-disaster, but also plays a role as symbolizing the town’s long history of experiencing
disasters. Further, the town office sets to work on planning to construct another tower, caring forincreasingly aging population.
As mentioned above, fourthly, the town has many times experienced disasters of tsunami. In
order to memorize the past tragedies collectively, the municipal government set up a day of 7
December, on which Nishiki had the latest most serious damage in 1944, as a disaster memorial day,and organizes a field drill for response and evacuation every year on this day, in which not only
community leaders but also many if not most ordinary people participate. In Japan, 1 September isthe most important day, and 17 January is the second most important day, on which Great Kanto

8686Proposing the community-based tsunami warning system (Takahashi et al.)Earthquake in 1923 and Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995 happened respectively, for thenational government and the nation-wide population, and the former is designated as the national
disaster day. However, Nishiki prefers the local context to the national. Participating in the field drill
embodies the inhabitants’ knowledge, fostering not only their cognitive mapping about where andhow to escape, and who need help, but also their awareness about what a tsunami is and what to doin an earthquake.
Last and most importantly, the town office has attempted to establish its own tsunami warning
system following lessons from the past tsunami disasters, independently of the national and/or
prefectural governments. According to the scheme, any town staff could/should push the alarm
button equipped in the office, distributing evacuation order through the network of outdoor warning
devices over the town, whenever he/she feels strong 20-second shaking, even before any information
about a happing earthquake from JMA, or any command from the town mayor. Though this warning
system is primarily based on so-called lay knowledge and cannot cover a kind of tsunami earthquake
and/or a tsunami from remoter areas, nevertheless, it has evident scientific basis (Kimata andNakaseko, 2008). In sum, the town’s tsunami prevention scheme above all focuses on “evacuation”
from, rather than “protection” against high waves. In reality, the town has only 3.5-meter-high sea
embankments.
3. Local Disaster Subculture
The town office, especially its tsunami warning, certainly plays an important role to facilitate thelocal people’s evacuation from a tsunami. However, it is not enough by itself, and some sociocultural conditions are necessary for the tsunami prevention scheme to function well (for details, see
Takahashi et al., 2008). Further two points are of importance to be mentioned: first, ourquestionnaire survey conducted in February 2008 found out that over half the inhabitants made theirown judgments of moving to evacuation places immediately after the earthquake in September 2004,
thinking of an association between an earthquake and a tsunami. In Nishiki Town, certainly, many if
not most inhabitants have directly experienced some of the past tsunamis and/or high waters
including one in the earthquake in 1944. Nishiki has often seen that older people have habitually
passed the past tragedies down to the younger orally in family and/or community. Some older locals
interestingly remember that they are used to sing a folksong about events on a tsunami day in theirchildhoods. This is one reason for the inhabitants’ intense awareness of a tsunami.

Figure 4. Stone monuments and memorial sign in Nishiki

However, Nishiki has got tsunamis repeatedly, but very much infrequently comparing to a spanof life, once in 100-150 years. In this sense, it is important to note that many villages in coastal Japan
including Nishiki has a culture of communicating from generation to generation by leaving tsunami
events on literal record, ranging from a local historical booklet and a private diary, to inscriptions on
a stone monument and other permanent media (Figure 4). Thus, the collective memory has firmly
embedded a tsunami in the local society, providing critical information for making a decision.
Second is the inhabitants’ trusting relationship with the Town Office. Currently in Japan, thecentralized, or top-down style tsunami warning makes people insensible to natural matter, waiting anearthquake/tsunami on time as a scheduled train. Of course, no one knows exactly when it will come.
However, the more exactly JMA announces the tsunami forecast, for example like “a tsunami of 50
cm is coming in 12 minutes”, the more deeply people tend to be disappointed at a really happy result
if there are few/no dramatic damages. In other words, JMA’s over estimation or sometimes

87
87II. Disaster Subculture and Preparedness

misinformation leads to people’s distrust to the government’s forecast. The worst thing that canhappen is that such a negative learning effect leads to people’s thinking that “escaping is not matterfor security”. This is why people recently tend not to evacuate even if they receive the warning.
One solution to this problem might be that a critical decision should be made by the spatially andsocially nearest organization. In this sense, we argue, a critical point is that in Nishiki warning andevacuation seems to constitute a virtuous circle with a core of “trust” for the basis of town staffs’
adventurous action, which we name “Nishiki Circle”. Thus, it is important to cite one old man’s
words from Takahashi et al. (2008).
I thought that a tsunami would not come for such a small
earthquake [in September 2004] but unwillingly … I felt
obliged to escape. I wanted not to make younger neighbors[community leaders or the town officers] lose face. They
do seriously as much as possible [as an amateur can do].
([ ] added by the authors)

Evacuation Activity

Local Warning System

Self-judgment/Self-responsibility

Experience ÅÆ Risk Awareness
Another is to re-turn our attention to the decision-making
process at the collective level underlying “Nishiki Circle” inFigure 5. Understructure oforder to deconstruct people’s over-dependence upon the EWS
evacuation Activityof JMA, which it has eventually fostered. It is necessary tonote that, basically, the evacuation behavior is initiated depending on the interrelationships between
self-judgment and self-responsibility, which are founded on experience and awareness of risks, withthe warning triggering (Figure 5).

4. Conclusion: Implication to Indonesia
Increasing progress in science and information technology enable developed countries to establish
the nation-wide EWS through telecommunication networks. However, there is a pitfall ofoverlooking the simple fact that people would not necessarily escape even if receiving the warning.
Therefore, we argue that some kinds of grassroots condition are needed to compensate for, or to
support socially and culturally the EWS.
In this sense, the attempts in Nishiki Town are evaluated as a typical model of the CDPM,
which forge and in turn, is forged by the local coherent interrelationships between constructing andmanaging hardware, practicing the local warning system, and participating in the community andcultivating the disaster subculture. It is true also with the case of developing regions like Aceh.
Experiences in Nishiki imply that it is urgent issues to establish the CDPM for preparing a tsunami,
basically in the participatory framework, not relying excessively on the modernized science andtechnology, and on costly built infrastructure; concretely composed of the localized/decentralized
warning system, arrangement of evacuation places that are costless to be constructed and managed,
with their heights being based on the past experiences, and which all the inhabitants can approach ina few minutes, and collective efforts to hand down the tragedy to the generations both orally andliterally.
Note: this paper was first presented at the International Conference on Tsunami Warning at Bali in November 2008.

References
Kimata, F., and Nakaseko, T. (2008): “Onsite tsunami warning system in Nishiki, central Japan:
seismological background”, Proc. International Conference on Tsunami Warning (ICTW), Bali,
Indonesia (in press)
Takahashi, M., Tanaka, S., Kimata, F., Nakaseko, T., and Suhirman (2008): “Proposing thecommunity-based tsunami warning system”, Proc. International Conference on Tsunami
Warning (ICTW), Bali, Indonesia (in press)
Tanaka, S., Tabuchi, R., Kimura, R., and Wu, G., (2006): “Tsunami evacuation behavior
reconsidered”, Journal of Japan Society for Natural Disaster Science, Vol. 26, No. 3, 183-195(in Japanese with English Abstract)88
88

Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Center Roles on
Disaster and Multi-hazard Mitigation Activities
Didik Sugiyanto, and Nani Eliza
Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Center, Syiah Kuala University, Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam, Indonesia

Abstract: TDMRC as a research center for disaster mitigation has performed it roles on disaster issues
right at national and international level favorably. Some of the high achievements of TDMRC during
these almost four years are successfully organized thrice International Workshop (AIWEST-DR) in 2006,
2007, and 2008, conducted the Contingency Plan and facilitated the tsunami drill in Banda Aceh City,and the newest is organized a training course on the lessons learnt from the 2004 earthquake and tsunami.
Beside, TDMRC has also being involved and participated in some seminars, workshops, trainings,
discussion group, and research projects in the area of disasters.

Introduction
As a response to tsunami disaster that devastated Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam on December 26, 2004,
Syiah Kuala University through Rector’s Decree No. 1 Year 2005 established UAR (Unsyiah for
Aceh Reconstruction) which actively participated to mediate the government and the community indesigning blue print for Aceh rehabilitation and reconstruction post-earthquake and tsunami disaster.
Then, Syiah Kuala University established Tsunami Research Center (TRC) as an Information Center
for Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster through Rector’s Decree No. 024 Year 2005. Later, Syiah
Kuala University established Mitigation Center (MC) through Rector’s Decree No. 215 Year 2005.
The identical activity and research programs of the two research centers induced Syiah Kuala
University to merge them to be Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Center (TDMRC)
through Rector’s Decree No. 418 Year 2006.
The main focus of TDMRC is to conduct applied studies in disaster risk reduction in Nanggroe
Aceh Darussalam to produce a strategic concept in accelerating people’s awareness of Disaster Risk
Reduction (DRR), especially earthquake and tsunami. In line with TDMRC vision and mission
TDMRC is making any endeavor to be a center of excellent in information storage and exchange on
tsunami and DRR, review, analysis, and consultancy on DRR policy, disaster education andpreparedness, human resource development and capacity building, and in enhancing research andinnovation in disaster management.
To achieve that purpose, TDMRC has formulated some ideas and initiatives which include:x Encouraging national and international researchers to conduct surveys, research studies,and further education concerning with disaster in Indonesia generally and in Acehspecifically together with researchers from TDMRC and partners.
x TDMRC will collect all data related to disasters to be compiled as valuable information andknowledge which will be stored in a virtual museum that can be accessed globally.
x Developing materials related to disasters, especially disaster preparedness and disaster risk
reduction.
x Conducting training for teachers and developing curriculum related to disaster awarenessand disaster risk reduction.
x Supporting local government in implementation of disaster risk reduction activities anddesigning strategic plans for disaster management.
x Opening access to use TDMRC facilities, especially for disaster actuators and forcommunity in general.
x Developing Aceh Region as an internatinal disaster laboratory which could be a center for
researchers to conduct and develop scientific research about disaster.
Therefore, TDMRC has also formulated a Road Map which is illustrated as Fgure 1 below.

8989II. Disaster Subculture and Preparedness

2005
-

2006

Task Force for After-

Earth Quake and2007

Mitig ation Center SK

Tsunami , Decision-

Letter No 1

2008

CenterKuala University

TDMRC - SK No 418-

Think tank Aceh-

Tsunami Resource

Government

Center, Edu cation

DRMIS forFaculty--

MoU : Hyogo
Prefecture and Syiah-

Indig enous science-

Mitig ation Researc h

Capacity building-

Collaboration with local
government

Tsunami and Disaster

-

-

-

No 215Initiative for the2009

Lessons learned from
Rehabilitaion an d-Capacity bu ilding

reconstructio n-

Virtual Tsun ami Museum

Education Concept-

Culture of prep adeness-Disa ster Qanun-

Evaluation and-Local Action Plan

recommendation for post-

Utilize natural

Rehab Recon

2010-

Mission dan Vision-

Skilled and apllied
Disaster Human
Resource Expert-

laboratory

Achievement ofRegional Research

Fig.1: The ilustration of TDMRC’s road map

As TDMRC new building which is located in Meuraxa had already handed-over on July 28,
2008, TDMRC is now preparing to be a center for spatial data processing and analyzing with thecore researches as follow:-

Seismic surface wave detection before tsunami
Strain accumulation along Aceh segment of Sumatran Fault Zone (SFZ)
Water Vapour Content (WVC) for environmental Monitoring
Landslide monitoring
Post-seismic monitoring
Spatial data re-adjustment

Moreover, TDMRC, as the think-tank of Provincial Government, has also being involved in the
Disaster Risk Reduction Aceh Project (DRR-A) which is funded by MDTF will be implemented by
Provincial Government under direct supervision of Vice Governor and administered and technicallysupported by UNDP. The outputs of this project are:
1. Disaster Risk Reduction (mitigation and preparedness) in Aceh’s communities supported asa normal part of the local government development planning process.
2. Local Government system established to support, respond to and fund community based
initiatives on DRR, preparedness, mitigation and indigenous EWSs in partnership with local
CBOs in Aceh.
3. TDMRC supports DRR decision making in Aceh established, strengthen and integrated withlocal level development planning process.
4. Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Education and Public Awareness programs established andstrengthened in Aceh to make development/disaster linkage understood.

90
90

Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Center (Didik and Nani)

Notes on the DRR-Aceh Project outputs:
1. One of the four outputs is TDMRC as a tsunami and disaster mitigation research center thatwill be implemented by Syiah Kuala University, this research center expected to give
benefit not only for Aceh but for Indonesia and the world as well.
2. Output one has seven activities, including to develop qanun as a priority that expected to beissued in the middle of 2008, so that in 2009 heads of District Disaster Management Body
will be appointed. Head of the body in provincial level will preside over by echelon 1B.
3. Having consideration on the four outputs there should be no overlapping, government andother organizations will be to allocate their future programs to identified gaps.
To winning out this project there are five agents those expected to be actively participated, they
are government as the leader, communities, private and business, universities and/or experts, andmedia.
Activities and Achievements
Since it was established in 2006, TDMRC has conducted and participated in various activities
related to disasters at local, national and international level. TDMRC has also joined and be part ofsome policy group discussion, working group discussion, and round-table discussion on DRR issues.
2006 Activities and Achievements
By the end of 2006, TDMRC conducted its first International Workshop on 6-7 December incooperation with Kobe University, BRR, and Aceh Government along with inauguration of
TDMRC’s activity. This workshop is participated by more than 250 participants from Hyogo
Prefecture Representatives, ITB, Ministry of Research and Technology Republic of Indonesia, SDCNetherland, UNDP, Nagoya University, Kyoto University, Fuji Tokoha University, Anna University
India, ADRC, GSN-TNO, Oregon State University, EMI, CEDIM, People’s University Thailand,some Local and International NGOs those perform their humanity mission in Aceh and staffs andstudents of Syiah Kuala University itself.
At the round-table meeting of the workshop, some counterparts agreed to support TDMRC as a
research center in collecting and disseminating existing data related to tsunami and in performing its
role on reconstruction and rehabilitation processes in Aceh and other tsunami stricken regions withina declaration which had been signed by fourteen representatives from Syiah Kuala University,
Earthquake and Megacities Initiative (EMI), Center for Disaster Management and Risk Reduction
Technology (CEDIM) Germany, RCUSS Kobe University, Anna University India, LPPM – ITB,
CDM – ITB, The People’s University Thailand, BRR Aceh – Nias, Ministry of Research andTechnology Republic of Indonesia, and UNDP Indonesia.
2007 Activities and Achievements
In 2007, TDMRC started to be an active research center since there were some researchcooperation projects offered by BRR Aceh – Nias and Sea Defence Consultant (SDC) one of them isroad show program of tsunami drill which is specifically conducted for communities and elementary
school students joint with Sea Defence Consultant and Indonesian Red Cross (PMI).
In the end of that year, TDMRC conduct the second International Workshop and Disaster Expo
which is attended by more than 200 participants from universities, governments, and local andinternational NGOs. This workshop also enlivened by Bike for Disaster and Hike for Disaster
activity that is also participated by workshop participants and communities around Banda Aceh City.
2008 Activities and Achievements
In early 2008, TDMRC invited to be participated in Symposium on Giant Earthquakes andTsunamis in Thailand which was organized by ERI and University of Tokyo. Then in February, theAceh provincial Government asked TDMRC to collaborate with UNDP Indonesia in facilitating the
MEC – South Africa Delegation Meeting in Banda Aceh. On March, TDMRC invited to attend theInternational Symposium on Climate Change and Human Settlements in Bali. Again, on June,

91
91

II. Disaster Subculture and Preparedness

TDMRC invited to be participated in Comprehensive Tsunami Disaster Prevention Training inTsukuba, Japan by UN-ISDR and ICHARM.
On July 28, TDMRC inaugurate its new building which is located in Meuraxa, Banda Acehalong with DRR-Expo 2008. The building was funded by BRR and managed by TDMRC, Provincial
Government and Banda Aceh Municipality. The building designed to be an escape building as well
as a research center which will accommodate all necessary and important activities and actions in
DRR activities in Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam.
Following up by-mail discussions about AIWEST-DR 2008 (International Workshop 2008),
Kobe University facilitated a Technical Meeting of the Workshop in Kuala Lumpur. The Meeting
was attended by TDMRC representatives as the prime-host of the workshop and the representatives
from Kobe University.
In September, TDMRC invited to be participated in Workshop on Large – Scale Disaster
Recovery in APEC which was held in Taipe, and in October participated in International Workshop
on Enhancing South-south Cooperation on DRM in Asia-Pacific in Jakarta. Then in November andDecember, TDMRC also participated in International Conference on Tsunami Warning (ICTW) in
Bali, IOTWS Fellowship on Sea Level and Application in Netherland and Tsunami Drill in Phuket,
Thailand.
Raising Awareness on Tsunami Disaster Culture Workshop in Japan is one of the latest
international participation of TDMRC. This was organized by Research Center for Seismology,
Volcanology, and Disaster Mitigation, Nagoya University and was held on 28 November – 11
December 2008. In cooperation Mathematics and Natural Science Faculty of Syiah Kuala University,
TDMRC sent to participants to this workshop. The participants of the workshop are from Indonesia,
Philippine, Kenya, Ecuador, Myanmar, and Pakistan.
Beside those international participation mentioned above, in 2008, TDMRC has also
participated in local and national level activities such as: DRR-A Technical Review Meeting,Workshop on Waste Management and Inter-Regional Cooperation, Workshop on Community-Based
EWS, National Workshop on Development of DRR Hyperbase, DRR Coordination Meeting, 2008
Research and Technology National Coordination Meeting, Workshop on Locally Generated
Tsunami, Workshop on Composing Suit for Rehabilitation and Reconstruction, Workshop on
Socialization of Planning and Conducting National Tsunami Drill 2008, Socialization efforts of
DRR and the University’s Role in DRR, Training of Read Down Station (RDS) Tsunami Buoy
Operation, Local Action Plan Discussion for Disaster, Workshop on Promoting Initiatives on DRM,
UN – NGO – Red Cross – Donors Meeting, Focus Group Discussion on the Implementation of DRR,
National Seminar on Utilizing Opportunity and Monitoring Nuclear Power in Indonesia, Training on
End to End Tsunami EWS, The 4th CBDRM National Symposium, Meeting of DRR-Aceh
Preparation – UNDP Project, Workshop on Shaping National Platform of DRR, Indonesian
Research Center Meeting, and some more seminars, workshops, meetings and trainings.
Other activities of TDMRC in 2008 are conducted some research project joint with Nagoya
University, Kyoto University, University of Hawaii, University of Pittsburgh, NIWA New Zealand,
BRR NAD-Nias, and SDC-Netherland.
Joint with SDC, TDMRC had already conducted thrice Tsunami Propagation and Inundation
Modeling for practitioners and experts from some universities in Sumatera and ToT for the Head
Cluster of Elementary School in Banda Aceh and Aceh Besar as one part of Saving the Lives of the
Elementary School Children in Aceh Province Project. Then, TDMRC had also finished the Escape
Building Planning Manual Projects and Survey of the Availability of Escape Buildings in Some
Villages along West Coast.
Beside, TDMRC had also successfully facilitated and organized the National Tsunami Drill in
Banda Aceh City, Asian Regional Forum (ARF) Meeting, Indonesian Research Center Meeting, and
the AIWEST-DR 2008 as the annual agenda of TDMRC.
Highlight Activities
In the last 2 years, TDMRC has made a significant development as a new research center by being asorganizers and participants in many local, national and international disaster issues activities. Someof the highlight activities of TDMRC are:92
92

Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Center (Didik and Nani)

1. AIWEST-DR
AIWEST-DR is the abbreviation of Annual International Workshop and Expo on Sumatera
Tsunami Disaster and Recovery. This workshop is organized to commemorate the 2004 Earthquake
and Tsunami which was struck Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam and other regions around the Indian
Ocean and made it as a lesson learnt in order to prepare the communities in anticipating disasters,
especially earthquakes and tsunamis.
The next AIWEST-DR is planned to be held on November 23-24, 2009 in Banda Aceh. This
workshop is also planned to go along with the 5th year commemoration of the 2004 Aceh Earthquake
and Tsunami which is surely engaging with provincial and municipal government as well as thecommunities.
2. Training Course on Lessons Learnt from the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami Rehabilitation
and Reconstruction Process in Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam.
This course which successfully organized on March 2-6, 2009, is an introduction of the successand failures encountered in the post-tsunami rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts in Nanggroe
Aceh Darussalam as well as the tsunami disaster management strategies currently implemented inthis region which was featuring a combination of in-class oral presentations and site visits to theimpacted areas.
This course is funded by Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) through theCanada-Srilanka University Consortium for Post-Tsunami Restoration Project (CSUC-PTR). This
course, participated by 25 lecturers and staffs from 3 universities and institution of Srilanka, thoseare South-eastern University, Eastern University, Ruhuna University, and Sri Lanka-Canada
Development Fund (SLCDF). There were also 3 participants from University of Waterloo, Canada.
3. Contingency Plan of Banda Aceh City
This contingency plan is arranged to facilitate institutions and concerned party in implementing
their roles, assignments and functions, specifically at the emergency phase. This manual based onvaried sources including valid standards which are suited on requirements, situations, conditions,and experienced in Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam.
The scopes of this activity are: communicate and coordinate with concerned institutions inmunicipal level to prepare the work, collect the primary and secondary data through the field survey
as well as direct interview with the concerned agency/institutions, conduct the risk examination
based on the local experience, examine the capacity of all sectors in the city, direct the concerned
agencies/institutions in order to give them understanding on how to act at the emergency phase,
realizing the permanent procedure of encountering the disasters, evaluate the preparedness of Banda
Aceh Municipality in the emergency phase by create the disaster scenario.
The contingency plan is a cooperation project between TDMRC and The Banda Aceh
Municipality which is funded by BRR NAD-Nias.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Muhammad Dirhamsyah, “Legacy of Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Center(TDMRC) – Syiah Kuala University”, Proceeding International Workshop 2006, 6-7 December
2006
Muhammad Dirhamsyah, “Recent Achievements of Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation ResearchCenter (TDMRC)” - Syiah Kuala University”, Proceeding 3rd AIWEST-DR, 17-19 December
2008
Muhammad Ridha, Didik Sugiyanto, “End-to-End Tsunami Drill In Banda Aceh”, Proceeding
Proceeding 3rd AIWEST-DR, 17-19 December 2008
Muhammad Nazar, Usman Budiman, Muhammad Dirhamsyah, “Aceh Government Disaster
Risk Reduction Strategy”, The 4th Investigation Report of the 2004 Northern Sumatra
Earthquake, 2008
2008 Annual Report of TDMRC
www.tdmrc.org

9393ᵤᵄ߆ࠄ 4 ᐕࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߢೋߩᵤᵄㆱ㔍⸠✵ߦෳടߒߡ
ᧁ⢆ ᢥᤘ
ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼ ࿾㔡Ἣጊ࡮㒐ἴ⎇ⓥ࠮ࡦ࠲࡯

ࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄߩ 2004 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 26 ᣣ߆ࠄ߽߁ 4 ᐕ߇⚻ㆊߔࠆ‫࠻ࡑࠬߩࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޕ‬࡜‫ࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬Ꮢߪ 10 ਁੱࠍ਄࿁ࠆᏒ᳃ࠍᄬߞߚ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޕ‬࿾㔡ᵤᵄߢ߽ߞߣ߽↟ᄢߥⵍኂߛߞߚ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃߩߘޕ‬Ꮢߢೋ߼ߡߩᵤᵄㆱ㔍⸠✵߇ 2008 ᐕ 11 ᦬ 2 ᣣߦⴕࠊࠇߚ‫ޕ‬GPS ᷹ⷰߢࠕ࠴ࠚߩጊਛ߆ࠄᚯߞߚ⑳ߪ‫ޔ‬ᄕᣇߩᏫ࿖߹ߢߩࠊߕ߆ߥᤨ㑆ߥ߇ࠄߘߩㆱ㔍⸠✵ߦ᜗߆ࠇߚ‫ޕ‬ᶏጯ߆ࠄ 1 km ߶ߤ౉ߞߚߣߎࠈ߇ળ႐ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߦߎߘޕ‬ᣂ⸳ߐࠇߚ 4 㓏ᑪߡߩᑪ‛ߦᦺ 9 ᤨ 30 ಽ‫ߣࡦ࡟ࠗࠨޔ‬หᤨߦ࿾రߩੱ‫߇ޘ‬ㆱ㔍ߒ‫ߦߜ߁ࠆߺࠆߺޔ‬ደ਄ߪੱ‫ߢޘ‬ḷࠇߚ‫ޕ‬ᰴߩᵤᵄⷅ᧪ߪߘࠎߥߦㄭߊߥ޿ߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆߛߌߦ‫ߩߎޔ‬ᖤߒ޿ᕁ޿ࠍᰴߩᵤᵄ߹ߢ㐳ߊᒁ߈⛮޿ߢ߽ࠄ޿ߚ޿ߣᏗᦸߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄㆱ㔍⸠✵ߩታᘒ
2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄએ㒠‫ߪߢࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬ᵤᵄㆱ㔍⸠✵߇ᰴߩ࿾㔡ᵤᵄ߇੍᷹ߐ
ࠇࠆࡄ࠳ࡦ߿ࡃ࡝ߢߔߢߦታᣉߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩߢ߹ࠇߎޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ㆱ㔍⸠✵ߪ࿖ߩᯏ㑐߇ᜰዉߔࠆ߽ߩߛߞߚ‫੹ޕ‬࿁‫ޔߪ✵⸠ߩࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬ೋ߼ߡ࿾ᣇ⥄ᴦ૕‫ޔ‬Ꮢ߇ਥ௅ߔࠆ߽ߩ
ߣߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬૑᳃ߩඨᢙએ਄߇ᵤᵄߢ੢ߊߥߞߚ࠙࡟࡟ᶏጯ࿾඙߇ળ႐ߢ޽ࠆ‫ᦺߦ߃߹ߩ✵⸠ޕ‬㘩߇ᝄࠆ߹ࠊࠇߚ‫ߪߕ߹߽ߢࡓ࠙ࠫࡐࡦࠪߪߢࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޕ‬㘩੐ߢᆎ߹ࠆ‫ޕ‬㘩੐ߩ޽ߣ‫ޔ‬ᢘ⯩ߥ߽ࠬ࡝ࡓߢ޽ࠆᓐࠄߪ‫ࠄ߆ࠅ␨ߩࡓ࡜ࠬࠗޔ‬ㆱ㔍⸠✵߇ᆎ߹ߞߚ‫ޕ‬Ꮒᄢ࿾㔡߇ࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᴒߢ⊒↢ߒ‫ࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬᳇⽎ᐡ߆ࠄߩᵤᵄ⼊ႎ⊒઎ࠍ೨ឭߦ‫ޔ‬Ꮢ߇ࠨࠗ࡟ࡦߢᵤᵄㆱ㔍൘๔ࠍੱ‫ߦޘ‬વ߃ߚ‫⸳ߩࡦ࡟ࠗࠨ߽ߣߞ߽ޕ‬஻ߪ߹ߛᢛ஻ߐࠇߕ‫ޔ‬ㆱ㔍࠮ࡦ࠲࡯⣁ߦប߃ߡ޿ߚᶖ㒐ゞ߇ࠨࠗ࡟ࡦࠍ㡆ࠄߒߚ‫ޕ‬ߎߩ࠙࡟࡟࿾඙ߢߪ㜞ߐ 10 m ࠍ⿥߃ࠆᵤᵄ߇ⷅߞߚ‫ޕ‬ᐔမ࿾ߢㄭߊߦ㜞ᚲ߽ߥ޿ߎߣ߆
ࠄ‫ޔ‬4 㓏ᑪߡߩᑪ‛ࠍ 3 ߆ᚲߦᑪ⸳ߒߡᵤᵄㆱ㔍ᚲࠍ⸳ߌߚ‫ޔߪߟ৻ߩߘޕ‬࿾రߩᄢቇߦࠃࠆᵤᵄ㒐ἴ⎇ⓥ࠮ࡦ࠲࡯߇૬⸳ߐࠇࠆ੍ቯߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᑪ‛⥄૕ߦࠝ࡯ࡊࡦࠬࡍ࡯ࠬ߇ᄙߊ⸳
ߌࠄࠇ‫ޔ‬ᄖ஥ߩࠬࡠ࡯ࡊߢደ਄ߦ޿ߟߢ߽⊓ࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ደ਄ߪߜࠂߞߣߒߚㆇേ႐ߦ඘ᢜߔࠆ
ᐢߐ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬⑳ߪደ਄߆ࠄࠨࠗ࡟ࡦᓟߩੱ‫ߩޘ‬േ߈ࠍ⷗቞ࠆ‫ޕ‬ㄭߊߩੱߪᱠ޿ߡ‫ޔ‬㆙ߊߩੱߪࡃࠗࠢ
ߢㆱ㔍ᚲߦነࠅ㓸߹ࠆ‫ࠍࠢࠗࡃޕ‬ᐢ႐ߦ߅޿ߡ‫ࠍࡊ࡯ࡠࠬޔ‬ᱠ߈ᆎ߼ࠆ‫ޕ‬ደ਄ߪᄙߊߩ
ੱ‫ߦߜ߁ࠆߺࠆߺߢޘ‬ḷࠇߚ‫ޕ‬ᣣᦐᣣߢ߽޽ࠅሶଏ߽฽߼ߚኅᣖㅪࠇ߽޿ࠆ‫߆ࡦ࡟ࠗࠨޕ‬ࠄ⚂ 15 ಽߋࠄ޿ߛߞߚ‫ޔࠎࠈߜ߽ޕ‬ㆱ㔍⸠✵ߩ⣁ߢࠊࠇ㑐ߖߕߦ㝼㊒ࠅࠍ⥝ߓࠆ૑᳃߽޿
ߚ‫ޕ‬⼊ኤߩࡋ࡝ࠦࡊ࠲࡯߽਄ⓨࠍᣓ࿁ߔࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬ᵤᵄㆱ㔍࠮ࡦ࠲࡯ߩ๟࿐ 2 km ߩߣߎࠈߦደ
਄߇ㆱ㔍ᚲߣߥࠆ 4 㓏ᑪߡߩࡆ࡞߇ઁߦ 2 ࡩᚲᑪ⸳ߐࠇߚ‫߇ޘੱ߽ߦߎߘޕ‬ㆱ㔍ߒߡ޿ࠆ᭽ሶ߇ߺ߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᥤߐࠍㆱߌࠆߚ߼ደ਄ߢߥߊ‫ߩߘޔ‬ਅߩᣣ㒶ߩߣߎࠈߦੱ‫߇ޘ‬ᄙ޿‫ޕ‬ደ਄ߢߪᅚᕈߩࠕࠫ࠹࡯࠲߇ࡑࠗࠢࠍីࠅ‫ޔ‬㜞឴ߒߚต߮ࠍ⊒ߔࠆ‫ߩߘޔߡߒߘޕ‬⣁ߢ߹ߚߒߡ߽⩻ሶߣ᳓߇↪ᗧߐࠇࠆ‫ࠦࠬࡀ࡙ޕ‬੐ᬺߢฬฎደᄢቇߦ᜗޿ߚࠪࠕࠢ࡜ᄢቇߩቇ
↢߽‫ߪߢࠚ࠴ࠕޟ‬㘩੐ࠍ↪ᗧߒߥ޿ߣᵤᵄㆱ㔍ߦ㑐ߔࠆ㓸ળߦ߽ෳടߒߡߊࠇߥ޿‫ߣޠ‬གྷ޿ߡ޿ߚ‫ޕࠆ޽ߢࠅ߅ߣߩߘޕ‬ᵤᵄߦ㑐ࠊࠆߎߣߥࠄ‫߅ޔ‬㊄߽߽ࠄ߃ࠆ‫ޔ‬㘩੐߽↪ᗧߐࠇࠆߣ޿߁ᄌߥ⠌ᘠ߇૞ࠄࠇߚ߆߽ߒࠇߥ޿‫ޕ‬9494ȐȳȀǢȁǧưИƷ඾ඬᢤᩊ᚞ጀƴӋьƠƯᲢஙᏂ૨ଯᲣ

Fig. 1 ╙ 1 ᵤᵄㆱ㔍࠮ࡦ࠲࡯ߦㆱ㔍ߔࠆੱ‫ޘ‬

Fig. 2 ╙ 1 ᵤᵄㆱ㔍࠮ࡦ࠲࡯ደ਄ߦㆱ㔍ߒߚੱ‫ޘ‬

Fig 3 ᵤᵄㆱ㔍࠮ࡦ࠲࡯ደ਄
㧔ᒰᤨߩᕁ޿಴ࠍ⺆ߞߡ޿ࠆߩߛࠈ߁߆



Fig. 4 ╙ 2 ᵤᵄㆱ㔍࠮ࡦ࠲࡯ߩੱ‫ޘ‬

Fig. 5 ╙ 3 ᵤᵄㆱ㔍࠮ࡦ࠲࡯ߩੱ‫ޘ‬ᣣᧄߦ߅ߌࠆᵤᵄㆱ㔍ߩታᖱᣣᧄߢߪᵤᵄㆱ㔍൘๔ߩᖤߒ޿⚻㛎߇ᄙߊ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬1983 ᐕᣣᧄᶏਛㇱ࿾㔡ߢߪ᳇⽎ᐡߪᚻ⸘▚ߢᔅᱫߦ࿾㔡࠺࡯࠲ࠍಣℂߒ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡⊒↢߆ࠄ 15 ಽߢᵤᵄ⼊ႎࠍ⊒઎ߒߚ‫ߔޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ߢߦᵤᵄߪᴪጯࠍⷅߞߡ޿ߚ‫ޔߡߒߘޕ‬10 ᐕᓟߩ 1993 ᐕർᶏ㆏ධ⷏ᴒ࿾㔡‫੹ޔ‬ᐲߪ࿾㔡ߩ㔡Ḯ᳿ቯಣℂߦ⸘▚ᯏ߇ዉ౉ߐࠇߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡߆ࠄ 5 ಽᓟ‫ᧅޔ‬ᏻ᳇⽎บ߆ࠄᵤᵄ⼊๔߇಴ߐࠇߚ‫ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬㔡Ḯၞߦ૏⟎ߒߚᅏዥፉߢߪߔߢߦᵤᵄ߇ⷅߞߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬߽߁߭ߣߟߪ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ⼊ႎ߇಴ߡ߽‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄㆱ㔍൘๔߇ߢߥ߆ߞߚࠅ‫ޔ‬ㆱ㔍൘๔߇಴ߡ߽
ੱ‫߇ޘ‬ㆱ㔍ߒߥ޿໧㗴߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬2004 ᐕ 9 ᦬ 4 ᣣᷓᄛ‫♿ޔ‬દඨፉᴒߢ M7 ߩ࿾㔡߇⊒↢ߒ‫ޔ‬⊒↢߆ࠄ 7 ಽᓟߦ᳇⽎ᐡߪᵤᵄ⼊ႎࠍ⊒઎ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ታ㓙ߦᦨᄢ 1.5m ߩᵤᵄ߇ⷅߞߚ‫ޕ‬ਃ㊀⋵ධㇱߥߤߢߪᵤᵄ⼊ႎߦၮߠ߈ෂ㒾࿾඙ߩ૑᳃߳ㆱ㔍൘๔߇⊒઎ߐࠇߚ‫ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ㆱ㔍൘๔ࠍ⊒઎ߒߚ⥄ᴦ૕ߪ 3 ಽߩ 1 ߦㆊ߉ߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ᱷࠅߩ 3 ಽߩ 2 ߩ⥄ᴦ૕ߪㆱ㔍൘๔ࠍ಴ߐߥ߆ߞߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬ዋߥ޿ㆱ㔍൘๔߽‫ޔ‬ᄙߊߪ⊒઎߇ᵤᵄ൘๔߆ࠄ 5 ಽએ਄‫ޔ‬࿾㔡⊒↢߆ࠄ

95
95

II. ໎ܹ૨҄Ʊ᧸໎Ʒᘍ૾

10 ᢙಽᓟߣㆃࠇߡߒ߹ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ᷓᄛߣ޿߃ߤ‫ޔ‬ㆱ㔍ߒߚ૑᳃ߪᐔဋ 12㧑ߦㆊ߉ߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬਎⇇߆ࠄ㒐ἴవㅴ࿖ߣ޿ࠊࠇࠆᣣᧄߩኙ‫޿ߒޘ‬ታᘒ߇᣿ࠄ߆ߦߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬ߎߩࠃ߁ߥ⁁ᴫߩਛߢ‫ޔ‬ㆱ㔍₸ 80㧑ߣ޿߁⥄ᴦ૕߇ਃ㊀⋵ߦ޽ߞߚ‫♿ޕ‬൓↸㍪㧔⃻࿷ߪᄢ♿↸㍪㧕ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬㍪ߢߪ 1944 ᐕ᧲ධᶏ࿾㔡ᵤᵄࠍߪߓ߼‫ޔ‬ᾢ㊁ἥᴒߢ⊒↢ߔࠆ࿾㔡ߩߚ߮ߦᄢ߈ߥᵤᵄߦⷅࠊࠇ‫ޔ‬ᄙߊߩੱ๮ߣ⽷↥ࠍᄬߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߪߟߨߦᄢ߈ߥំࠇࠍᗵ
ߓߡ߆ࠄ 10 ಽ߆ࠄ 20 ಽߣ⋥ߜߦⷅߞߚ‫ޕ‬᳇⽎ᐡߩᵤᵄ⼊ႎࠍᓙߟߣ‫⾆ޔ‬㊀ߥㆱ㔍ᤨ㑆߇ߥߊߥࠆ‫⥄ޕ‬ಽߚߜ߇ᄢ߈ߥំࠇࠍᗵߓߚࠄ⋥ߜߦᵤᵄㆱ㔍൘๔ࠍ↸⁛⥄ߢ⊒઎ߔࠆߎߣ
ࠍᬌ⸛ߒߡ޿ߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬⍫వߩ࿾㔡ߛߞߚ‫ޕ‬ᄢ߈ߥំࠇߣߚߛߜߦㆱ㔍൘๔߇⊒઎ߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬ߘߩㆱ㔍ߩ᭽ሶࠍਛቇ↢߆ࠄ⡞ߊᯏળ߇޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ᓐߩኅߢߪ࿾㔡ߩំࠇࠍᗵߓߚߣ߈߆
ࠄ‫ޔ‬ῳ߽ⷫᲣ߽ⷫ⋥ߜߦㆱ㔍ࠍḰ஻ߒ‫ޔ‬૗ߩߚ߼ࠄ޿߽ߥߊㆱ㔍ߒߚߣ޿߁‫ߦ߁ࠃߩߎޕ‬↸ߩㆱ㔍൘๔೨ߦㆱ㔍ߔࠆኅᣖ߽ᄙ߆ߞߚߎߣ㧔↰ਛ࡮ઁ㧘2008㧕‫ޕ‬ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕߢ࿖ߩᵤᵄ⼊ႎߦ߽ߣߠߊᵤᵄㆱ㔍൘๔ߪ᦭ല߆
੹࿁ߩࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߢߩᵤᵄㆱ㔍⸠✵ߪೋ߼ߡ࿾ᣇ⥄ᴦ૕߇ડ↹ߔࠆߣ޿߁ᄢ߈ߥㅴዷ
߇޽ࠆ‫ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ㆱ㔍൘๔ߪࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ᳇⽎ᐡߩᵤᵄ⼊ႎ߆ࠄ⊒ߔࠆߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄߢ߽ᵤᵄ⼊ႎߪ࿾㔡߆ࠄ 3㨪5 ಽᓟߢ޽ࠆ‫⷏ߩࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔߡߒߘޕ‬ᶏጯߪࠬࡦ࠳ᶏḴߦ㕙ߔࠆࠁ߃ߦ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ߇ 10㨪20 ಽߢⷅ᠄ߔࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޟޕ‬᳇⽎ᐡ߇ᵤᵄ⼊ႎࠍ಴ߒߚ߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬Ꮢ߽ᵤᵄㆱ㔍൘๔ࠍ಴ߒߚ‫ߢࠇߘޕ‬ᵤᵄㆱ㔍߇ᚑഞߔࠆ߆ߤ߁߆ߪ‫ޔ‬᳇⽎ᐡᰴ╙‫߁޿ߣޠ‬ᆫ൓ߢߪ᳿ߒߡੱ‫ࠍޘ‬ᵤᵄⷅ᠄߆ࠄㆱ㔍ߐߖࠆߎߣߪߢ߈ߥ޿‫ޕ‬ߣߥࠇ߫‫ࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬Ꮢ⥄૕ߢᵤᵄㆱ㔍൘๔ࠍ⊒઎ߔࠆ૕೙ࠍ⏕┙ߔߴ߈ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄߦធߒߡ߆ࠄ‫ߢ߹ࠇߘޔ‬એ਄ߦ࿾㔡߿ᵤᵄ‫ޔ‬ἫጊྃἫ߇߽ߚࠄߔ
ἴኂߦߟ޿ߡ⠨߃ࠆᯏળ߇ᄙߊߥߞߚ‫ᦨޕ‬ㄭ‫ߩࠄࠇߎޔ‬ἴኂߪ࿾ၞ․᦭ߥ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆߎߣ
ࠍ∩ᗵߔࠆࠃ߁ߦߥߞߚ‫ߩࠄࠇߎޕ‬ἴኂࠍ∛ℂቇߢ଀߃ࠇ߫‫ߦߐ߹ޔ‬㘑࿯∛ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߚߣ߃߫‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄἴኂߪዋߥߊߣ߽ᶏጯ߆ࠄ 3 km ߩ▸࿐ߦ㒢ࠄࠇߚἴኂߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ዊ↢ߩࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬ጊ࿖ߢ↢ᵴߔࠆ߽ߩߦߣࠅ‫ޔ‬ᶏጯㇱ߳಴߆ߌߥ޿㒢ࠅᵤᵄߥߤ⠨߃ߥߊߡ߽ࠃ޿‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߪᶏߦធߔࠆ࿾ၞߩ໧㗴ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬߹ߚ‫৻ޔ‬ㇱߩ࿾ၞࠍ㒰ߌ߫‫ޔ‬㔡ᐲ 3 ߦߥࠆᄢ߈ߥࠁࠇߪᢙᐕߦ 1 ࿁޽ࠆ߆ߥ޿߆ߩ㗫ᐲߢ޽ࠆ‫⥄⑳ޕ‬り‫ޔ‬࿾㔡᷹ⷰߢߩ૕㛎ࠍ㒰ߌ߫‫ޔ‬㔡ᐲ 3 ࠍᗵߓߚߩߪ‫ޔ‬60 ᐕߩੱ↢ߢ 2 ࿁ߛߌߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬1969 ᐕጘ㒂⋵ਛㇱ࿾㔡ߣ 1995 ᐕ౓ᐶ⋵ධㇱ࿾㔡ߛߌߢ޽ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬⒟ᐲߩ㗫ᐲߥࠄ߫‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄㆱ㔍߇ⓨᝄࠅߦߥߞߡ߽໧㗴ߦߥࠄߥ޿ߣ⠨߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬߽ߜࠈࠎ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄㆱ㔍൘๔ߩⓨᝄࠅࠍㆱߌࠆߚ߼ߦ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡ቇߣߘߩ᷹ⷰಣℂ૕೙ߩㅴዷߪ
⛘ኻߦᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ߛ߹ߛ߹ޔࠄߥߗߥޕ‬࿾㔡߿ᵤᵄߦ㑐ߒߡ‫ోߩߘޔ‬૕௝߇᣿⏕ߢߥߊ‫ޔ‬⸃᳿ߔߴ߈⺖㗴߇ᄙ޿‫߇ࠇࠁޔ߫߃ߣߚޕ‬ዊߐ޿ߥ߇ࠄ߽‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄࠍ઻߁ᵤᵄ࿾㔡ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎߩᵤᵄ࿾㔡ߪᣢሽߩ࿾㔡㧩ᵤᵄ⊒ᗐߢߪኻಣߢ߈ߥ޿‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߎޔ߃ࠁߦߥޕ‬࿾㔡߇⊒↢ߔࠆ߆‫ߦ߆޿ޔߡߒߘޔ‬ㄦㅦߦᵤᵄ࿾㔡ࠍ᦭ല⊛ߦᬌ಴ߔࠆ߆߇⺖㗴ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
߅ࠊࠅߦ
2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄ߇⊒↢ߔࠆ߹ߢ‫ߪࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬࿾㔡⊒↢ㆊ⒟ߦ㑐ߒ㊀ⷐߥ⺖㗴ࠍᜬߟࡈࠖ࡯࡞࠼ߥ߇ࠄ߽‫ޔ‬ነࠅઃߌߥ޿࿾ၞߛߞߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬࿾ߢ੹ߪࠁߞߊࠅߥ߇ࠄ߽ߘߎߦ
૑߻ੱ‫ߡߞࠃߦޘ‬࿾㔡߿ᵤᵄߦ㑐ߔࠆ⎇ⓥ߇ᆎ߹ࠅߟߟ޽ࠆ‫ߩߘޕ‬ᗧ๧߆ࠄߒߡ‫੹ޔ‬࿁ߩࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߢߩೋ߼ߡߩᵤᵄㆱ㔍⸠✵‫ߛ߹ߛ߹ޔ‬ᄙߊߩ⺖㗴ࠍ᦭ߒߥ߇ࠄ߽‫ࠄࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬ߒߊዷ㐿ߐࠇࠆߎߣࠍᦼᓙߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬↰ਛ࡮ઁ㧘2008, ਃ㊀⋵ᄢ♿↸㍪࿾඙ߢߩᵤᵄߩㆱ㔍ߦ㑐ߔࠆࠕࡦࠤ࡯࠻⺞ᩏ⚿ᨐ㧘ฬฎደ
ᄢቇⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼‫ޡ‬2004 ᐕർㇱࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡⺞ᩏႎ๔ IV‫ޢ‬㧘113-126.

9696ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕߣࡈࠖ࡝ࡇࡦ߆ࠄ 10 ฬߩቇ↢ࠍㄫ߃
2008 ᐕ࡙ࡀࠬࠦ㕍ᐕ੤ᵹା⸤ၮ㊄੐ᬺ ᄢቇ↢੤ᵹࡊࡠࠣ࡜ࡓ‫ޟ‬ᵤᵄⵍἴᢥൻߩ⛮ᛚߦࠃࠆᵤᵄ㒐ἴᗧ⼂ߩะ਄‫ߩޠ‬ขࠅ⚵ߺ
ᧁ ⢆

ᢥ ᤘ

ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼ ࿾㔡Ἣጊ࡮㒐ἴ⎇ⓥ࠮ࡦ࠲࡯ᵤᵄⵍἴߪ‫↢⊒ߩߘޔ‬㗫❥߇ᢙ 10 ᐕ߆ࠄᢙ 100 ᐕߢ޽ࠅ‫ ߫߃޿ߢ↢ੱߩޘੱޔ‬1 ࿁⚻㛎ߔࠆ߆ߒߥ޿ߩ㗫ᐲߢ޽ࠆ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ᵤᵄߪၮᧄ⊛ߦ࿾㔡߿ἫጊྃἫߩ⊒↢ᓟߦⷅ߁߽ߩߢ
޽ࠆ‫ߚߒߣࠎߜ߈ޔ߫ࠇߥߣޕ‬ᵤᵄ㒐ἴߩᢥൻࠍવᛚߔࠇ߫‫ߪޘੱޔ‬๮ߛߌࠍᢇ߁ߎߣ߇
ߢ߈ࠆ‫ߥࠎߘޕ‬⢛᥊߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄࠍ෩ߒߊ૕㛎ߒߚࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕߩࠬࡑ
࠻࡜‫ߩࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬ቇ↢ߣ‫ޔ‬30 ᐕ೨ߦ∩‫޿ߒޘ‬ᵤᵄⵍኂࠍ⚻㛎ߒߥ߇ࠄ߽੹߿ᵤᵄ߇ᔓࠇ෰ࠄ
ࠇߡ޿ࠆࡈࠖ࡝ࡇࡦߩࠨࡦࡏࠕࡦࠟ߆ࠄ⸘ 10 ฬߩቇ↢ࠍ᜗⡜ߒ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄ‫♿ߌࠊࠅߣޔ‬દඨፉߩᵤᵄⵍἴᢥൻߦធߔࠆᯏળࠍ⸳ߌߚ‫ޕ‬ᓐࠄߪ⻠⟵ߣ⷗ቇ߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡㧩ᵤᵄ⊒ᗐߥߤߩᵤᵄⵍἴᢥൻߩ⛮ᛚ߇ᵤᵄ㒐ἴߢ㕖Ᏹߦ㊀ⷐߥߎߣ‫ߡߒߘޔ‬ᓐࠄߩ࿖‫߽ߢޘ‬ታᣉߢ߈ࠆߎߣ
ࠍᷓߊ⹺⼂ߒᏫ࿖ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᓐࠄ⧯޿ജߩ੹ᓟߩታ〣ߦᦼᓙߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ߪߓ߼ߦࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕߩࠬࡑ࠻࡜ർㇱ‫ߪࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬ਇᕁ⼏ߥߣߎࠈߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄⵍἴߩ⸥㍳ࠍㄡࠇ߫‫ޔ‬ዋߥߊߣ߽ᦨㄭ 100 ᐕ㑆ߦᵤᵄⵍἴࠍ⚻㛎ߒߚߪߕߢ޽ࠆ‫ ߦߩߥࠇߘޕ‬2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄߢߪ↟ᄢߥᵤᵄἴኂࠍ⫥ߞߚ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡ߩំࠇࠍᗵߓߚᤨ‫ޔ‬ዋߒߢ߽ᵤᵄࠍᕁ޿಴
ߖ߫‫߽ޘੱޔ‬ㅏߍߛߒ‫ޔ‬੢ߊߥߞߚ‶†⠪߽ඨᷫߒߚߦ㆑޿ߥ޿‫ߩޘੱޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ਛߦ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡㧩ᵤᵄ⊒↢ㅪᗐ߇ߥ߆ߞߚߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޔ߽ߣߞ߽ޕ‬ᣣᧄߦ߅޿ߡ߽ਃ㒽࿾ᣇߢߪห᭽ߥ
⚻㛎ࠍ᦭ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ਃ㒽ߢߪ 1896 ᐕߩ᣿ᴦਃ㒽ᵤᵄ߆ࠄࠊߕ߆ 37 ᐕߒ߆⚻ߡ޿ߥ޿ߦ߽㑐ࠊࠄߕ‫ޔ‬1933 ᐕᤘ๺ਃ㒽ᵤᵄߢߪ‶†⠪ߪ 3,000 ੱߦ㆐ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ࡈࠖ࡝ࡇࡦ߽ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕߣห᭽ߦࡊ࡟࡯࠻ᴉߺㄟߺᏪ߇૏⟎ߔࠆ‫ޔ߽߆ߒޕ‬ㆊ෰ߩᵤᵄߪ᧲஥ߩࡈࠖ࡝ࡇࡦᶏḴߩߺߥࠄߕ‫⷏ޔ‬஥ߩᶏḴߢ߽⊒↢ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ࠝ࠽࠳ࡦࡒޕ‬ፉߩධ⷏ㇱߦ૏⟎ߔࠆࠨࡦࡏࠕࡦࠟߢߪ 1897 ᐕߩᵤᵄએᓟ‫ޔ‬1976 ᐕߦࠦ࠲ࡃ࠻࿾㔡ᵤᵄߦⷅࠊࠇ‫ޔ‬‶†⠪ߪ 1000 ฬࠍ⿥߃ߚ‫ߩߘߛ߹ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ᓟ‫ޔ‬30 ᐕ૛ߒ߆⚻ㆊߒߡ޿ߥ޿߇‫ࠕࡏࡦࠨޔ‬ࡦࠟߢᵤᵄ߇ోߊᔓࠇ෰ࠇߡ޿ࠆߣ޿߁‫ޕ‬৻ᣇ‫⷏ޔ‬ධᣣᧄߩ♿દඨፉߢߪ‫ޔ‬100㨪150 ᐕߩ㗫ᐲߢධᶏ࠻࡜ࡈߦ⊒↢ߔࠆᏂᄢ࿾㔡ߢ‫ޔ‬9797

II. ໎ܹ૨҄Ʊ᧸໎Ʒᘍ૾ᵤᵄߦⷅࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫৻ޔ߃ࠁࠇߘޕ‬ㇱߩ࿾ၞߢߪᵤᵄⵍἴߩᢥൻ߇વᛚߐࠇߟߟ޽ࠆ‫ߎޕ‬ߩᚑᨐࠍࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ߿ࡈࠖ࡝ࡇࡦߩ⧯ᚻߦવ߃ࠆߎߣߪ㕖Ᏹߦ㊀ⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߚߣ߃߫‫ޔ‬ਃ㊀⋵ᄢ♿↸㍪ߢߪ㔡ᐲ 3 ߩ࿾㔡߇ᷓᄛߦ⊒↢ߒߚߦ߽㑐ࠊࠄߕ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄㆱ㔍ኻ⽎ၞߩ 80㧑ߩੱ‫߇ޘ‬࿾㔡⊒↢ߩ 15 ಽએౝߦㆱ㔍ߒߚ‫ޕ‬2004 ᐕ 9 ᦬ 4 ᣣߩ♿દඨፉᴒ࿾
㔡ߩ಴᧪੐ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߪࠇߎޕ‬ᄢ♿↸㍪࿾඙ߢߪ‫ޔ‬ㆊ෰ߩ᧲ᶏ࿾㔡ߩ⾆㊀ߥᵤᵄⵍἴ⚻㛎߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬↸ߋࠆߺߢ࿾㔡㧩ᵤᵄㅪᗐߦขࠅ⚵ࠎߢ޿ࠆᚑᨐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬߹ߚ‫ޔ‬๺᱌ጊ⋵ᐢᎹ↸ߢߪㇹ࿯ߩஉੱᵿญ᪷㒺߇ 1854 ᐕ቟᡽ධᶏ࿾㔡ߩᵤᵄⷅ᠄ᤨߦᨐ
ߚߒߚᓎഀ߇㜞ߊ⹏ଔߐࠇ‫ޔ‬㨬Ⓑ߻ࠄߩἫ‫ࠆࠁࠊ޿ߡߒߣޠ‬ᵤᵄ㒐ἴߩᢎ⑼ᦠߦߥࠆ‫ࠄߐޕ‬ߦᦨㄭߢߪߘߩ⾗ᢱ㙚߽౏㐿ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎߩࠃ߁ߥ⢛᥊߆ࠄ‫ߩࡦࡇ࡝ࠖࡈߣࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬ቇ↢ࠍ᜗߈‫ޔ‬2 ㅳ㑆ߦࠊߚࠅ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄߦ߅ߌࠆᵤᵄⵍἴᢥൻߩવᛚߩ᭽ሶࠍቇࠎߢ߽ࠄߞߚ‫ޕ‬ᓐࠄߩᗵᗐߪ‫߇ࠊޔ‬࿖ߦ߅޿ߡ‫ޔ‬޿߆ߦᵤᵄ㒐ἴߦขࠅ⚵߻߆⠨߃ࠆ਄ߢ߽⾆㊀ߥᗧ⷗ߦߥࠆߣ⠨߃ࠆ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ฬฎደᄢቇ
ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼ߢߪ‫ޔ‬2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄએ㒠‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߩᦨᄢߩⵍἴ࿾‫ࡦࡃߩ࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚࠍࡈࠖ࡯࡞࠼ߦ⺞ᩏ⎇ⓥࠍᢥℂㅪ៤ߢขࠅ⚵ࠎߢ߈ߚ‫੹ޕ‬࿁ߩ᜗⡜ߪ⑳ߚߜߩ⎇ⓥߩ߭ߣߟߩࠕ࠙࠻࡝࡯࠴ߢ߽޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬੐ᬺߩ⚻✲ࠕ࠴ࠚߢᵤᵄⵍἴࠍ⚻㛎ߒ‫ߩߘޔ‬ᓟߩᓳᣥߣᓳ⥝ㆊ⒟ߦෳടߒߚቇ↢ࠍฬฎደߦ᜗⡜ߒߚߩߪ‫੹ޔ‬࿁ߢ 3 ࿁⋡ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߩࡦ࠼ࡦࡃ߿ࠚ࠴ࠕޕ‬ቇ↢ࠍ‫ ߦߢߔޔ‬2007 ᐕ 2 ᦬ߣ 2008 ᐕ 3᦬ߦߘࠇߙࠇ 3 ฬߣ 2 ฬߠߟ᜗⡜ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬2007 ᐕ 2 ᦬ߪ‫ޔ‬ฬฎደᄢቇห⓹ળၮ㊄ߩេഥࠍฃߌ‫ޔ‬ฬฎደߢⵍἴ૕㛎ߩ੤ᵹࠍታᣉߒߚ‫ޕ‬2008 ᐕ 3 ᦬ߪᐔᚑ 19 ᐕᐲ࿾ၞ⑼ቇᛛⴚℂ⸃Ⴧㅴᵴേផㅴ੐ᬺ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޟ‬ᵤᵄⵍἴ੤ᵹߣ✕ᕆ࿾㔡ᖱႎߦࠃࠆᵤᵄ㒐ἴᗧ⼂ߩะ਄‫ߩޠ‬ᡰេࠍฃߌਃ㊀⋵ᄢ♿↸㍪ߢዊਛቇ↢ߣߩ੤ᵹࠍⴕߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ห⎇ⓥ⑼ߢታᣉߔࠆ
࿾㔡ߣἫጊྃἫߦ㑐ߔࠆ JICA ⎇ୃࠦ࡯ࠬߢ߽‫ޔ‬2007 ᐕᐲߪᄢ♿↸㍪ߩᵤᵄ㒐ἴ⸠✵ߦෳടߔࠆߥߤ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄߩᵤᵄ㒐ἴߦታ〣⊛ߦቇࠎߢ޿ࠆ‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߎޕ‬⢛᥊߇ߎߩ੐ᬺߦሽ࿷ߔ
ࠆ‫ޕ‬੹࿁ߪ‫ޔ‬2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄߩᦨᄢߩⵍἴ࿾ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ‫ࠕࠪࠄ߆ࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬ࠢ࡜ᄢቇߩቇ↢ 7 ฬߣᢎຬ 3 ฬ‫ࠄ߆ࠟࡦࠕࡏࡦࠨߩࡦࡇ࡝ࠖࡈߡߒߘޔ‬ቇ↢ 3 ฬߣࡈࠖ࡝
ࡇࡦἫጊ࿾㔡⎇ⓥᚲߩ⡯ຬ 1 ฬ‫ ⸘ޔ‬14 ฬࠍ᜗⡜ߒߚ㧔⴫ 1㧕‫ޕ‬ෳടቇ↢ߩㆬ಴ߪࠪࠕࠢ࡜
ᄢቇߣࡈࠖ࡝ࡇࡦἫጊ࿾㔡⎇ⓥᚲߦᆔછߒߚ‫ߩࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޕ‬ቇ↢ߢᅚᕈ߇ 5 ฬㆬ಴ߐࠇ
ߚߩߪ⺆ቇ⢻ജߦࠃࠆ‫ޕ‬ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼ߢ㐿௅ߔࠆ JICA ⎇ୃࠦ࡯ࠬߩ⎇ୃ↢ 6 ฬ߽ߎߩᦼ㑆‫ޔ‬⻠⟵ߣ⃻࿾⷗ቇߦෳടߒߚ‫ޕ‬JICA ߆ࠄᵷ㆜ߐࠇߚ⻠Ꮷߦࠃࠅ‫ࡦࡇ࡝ࠖࡈߣࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬ߩቇ↢ߦࠃࠆ⧷⺆ߩ⊒⴫߇࿾రߩੱ‫ߚ߹ޔߦޘ‬࿾రߩੱߩᗧ⷗߇ቇ↢ߦㅢ⸶ߐࠇߚ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬หᤨᦼߦห⎇ⓥ⑼ࠍ⸰ࠇߡ޿ߚࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕߩࠪࠕࠢ࡜ᄢቇߩᢎຬ 3 ฬ߽ᤨ㑆ߩ⸵ߔ㒢ࠅෳടߒߚ‫ߩࠦࠬࡀ࡙߇ߤࠎߣ߶ߪ↪⾌ޕ‬੐ᬺ⾌‫ ߦࠇߘޔ‬JICA ⎇ୃ⾌ߥߤߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬⴫ 1 ෳട⠪࡝ࠬ࠻ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ㧔ోຬ߇ Faculty of Basic Science, Syiah Kuala University㧕ቇ ↢Muhammad Ikbal, Muhammad Sajidin Pasya, Nur Azizah, Nani Eliza, Riska Nurza Yant, Risma
Sunarty, Putri Yasmina Munawwarahᒁ₸⠪

Didik Sugiyanto, Muhammad Syukri, Irwandi

ࡈࠖ࡝ࡇࡦ
ቇ ↢

Van B. Santos*, John Rommel Carreon Adaro*, Abdurrakib Julkipli Damih**ᒁ₸⠪

Labayog Allan Rommel Rosales****
Bachelor of Science in Electronics & Communications Engineering, Ateneo de Zamboanga University** Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, Western Mindanao State University*** Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology

9898ǤȳȉȍǷǢƱȕǣȪȔȳƔǒ 10 ӸƷ‫ܖ‬ဃǛᡇƑᲢஙᏂ૨ଯᲣ

߹ߕ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄߣ਎⇇ߩᵤᵄἴኂߦ㑐ߔࠆၮᧄ⊛ߥ⍮⼂ߩ⚫੺‫ߡߒߘޔ‬ᵤᵄⵍኂߩ․ᓽ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ㒐ἴߦ߻ߌߚขࠅ⚵ߺߥߤࠍ‫ޔ‬࿖ౝߩᵤᵄ⎇ⓥ⠪߇⻠⟵ߒߚ㧔⴫ 2㧕‫ޔߪߕ߹ޕ‬ᵤᵄἴኂ⎇ⓥߩࡄࠗࠝ࠾ࠕߢ޽ࠆ㚂⮮㧔ᣣᧄᄢቇ㧕ߪᵤᵄἴኂߩ․ᓽߥߤࠍታṶ߽฽߼ߥ߇ࠄ⚫੺ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᳯᚭᤨઍએ㒠ߩᣣᧄߩ࿾㔡ᵤᵄἴኂߦขࠅ⚵߻ർේ㧔␹ᄹᎹᄢቇ㧕ߪ‫ޔ‬቟᡽᧲ᶏ࿾
㔡ߦ߅ߌࠆᵤᵄἴኂߣߘߩᓳ⥝ߩ᭽ሶࠍᄖ࿖ߣߩ੤ᵹࠍ฽߼ߥ߇ࠄ⚫੺ߒߚ‫↰ޕ‬ਛߣ㜞ᯅ㧔ฬฎደᄢቇ㧕ߪ 2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄߩࠕ࠴ࠚߢߩ⺞ᩏࠍ߽ߣߦ‫ޔ‬ᓳᣥߣᓳ⥝ㆊ⒟ߦ
߅ߌࠆࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖߩᓎഀߦߟ޿ߡ⻠⟵ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ห᭽ߦ 2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄߩ⺞ᩏ߆ࠄ
ߘߩ․ᓽࠍ቟⮮㧔บḧ⑼ቇ㒮㧕߇ㅀߴߚ‫ޕ‬ㇺม㧔᧲੩ᄢቇ㧕ߪ਎⇇ߢⴕߞߚᵤᵄ⺞ᩏࠍ߽
ߣߦߘߩ․ᓽߦߟ޿ߡᢛℂߒߚ‫ᧁޔߚ߹ޕ‬⢆ߪਛᄩਛᔃߩᵤᵄ⼊ႎࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߢߪੱ‫ࠍޘ‬ᢇ߁ߦᄢ߈ߥ㒢⇇߇޽ࠅ‫ߩဳ࠻ࠗࠨࡦࠝޔ‬ᵤᵄ⼊ႎ߇㕖Ᏹߦലᨐ⊛ߢ޽ࠆߎߣࠍᣣᧄߩታ଀
ࠍ฽߼ߚ⚫੺ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
⴫ 2 ᣣ ⒟11 ᦬ 28 ᣣඦᓟ㐿⻠ᑼߣ᱑ㄫળ

11 ᦬ 29 ᣣඦ೨⻠⟵‫ޟ‬ᣣᧄߦ߅ߌࠆᵤᵄἴኂߩᱧผߣࠝࡦࠨࠗ࠻ᵤ ᧁ⢆ᢥᤘ㧔ฬᄢ㧕ᵄ⼊ႎࠪࠬ࠹ࡓ‫ޠ‬

11 ᦬ 30 ᣣᣣᦐᣣ

12 ᦬ 1 ᣣඦ೨⻠⟵‫ޟ‬ᵤᵄ⎇ⓥ㧦੹ᣣ⊛⺖㗴‫ޠ‬ඦᓟ⻠⟵‫ࠆࠃߦࠖ࠹࠾ࡘࡒࠦ࡞ࠞ࡯ࡠޟ‬ᵤᵄ㒐ἴ㧦ࡃࡦ ↰ਛ㊀ᅢ࡮㜞ᯅ ⺈㧔ฬᄢ㧕࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚࠍ଀ߦ‫ޠ‬

12 ᦬ 2 ᣣ⚳ᣣࡈࠖ࡯࡞࠼࠻࡝࠶ࡊ ਃ㊀⋵ᄢ♿↸㍪࿾඙‫ޟ‬ᵤᵄ㒐ἴࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߩ⷗ቇߣዊਛቇ↢࡮ᇚੱߣߩ੤ᵹ‫ޠ‬

12 ᦬ 3 ᣣ⚳ᣣࡈࠖ࡯࡞࠼࠻࡝࠶ࡊ ਃ㊀⋵የ㣐Ꮢߣ㇊ᥓൎᶆ↸‫ޟ‬ᵤᵄ㒐ἴࠪࠬ࠹ࡓߩ⷗ቇߣᏂᄢᵤᵄߩㆮᕱ‫ޠ‬

12 ᦬ 4 ᣣ⚳ᣣࡈࠖ࡯࡞࠼࠻࡝࠶ࡊ ๺᱌ጊ⋵ᐢᎹ↸‫ޟ‬Ⓑ߻ࠄߩἫࠍ⸰ߨߡ‫ޠ‬㧔᩺ౝ㧦࿾㔡੍⍮ᝄ⥝ળ࡮ᵤ᧛ᑪ྾㇢㧕

12 ᦬ 5 ᣣ⚳ᣣࡈࠖ࡯࡞࠼࠻࡝࠶ࡊ ๺᱌ጊ⋵ᐢᎹ↸‫ޟ‬Ⓑ߻ࠄߩἫࠍ⸰ߨߡ‫ޠ‬

12 ᦬ 6 ᣣඦ೨⻠⟵‫ޟ‬ᵤᵄ߆ࠄߩႎ๔㧦ࠕ࠴ࠚ‫ޠ‬

D. Sugiyanto (Syiah Kuala Univ)⻠⟵‫ߩߢࠟࡦࠕࡏࡦࠨޟ‬ᵤᵄⵍኂ‫ޠ‬

L. Allan R. (PHYVOLCS)㚂⮮િᄦ㧔ᣣᄢ㧕

12 ᦬ 7 ᣣᣣᦐᣣ

12 ᦬ 8 ᣣඦ೨⻠⟵‫ޟ‬2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄߩᣂߚߥᵤᵄ⎇ⓥ⺖ ቟⮮㓷ቁ㧔บḧਛᄩ⑼ቇ㒮㧕
㗴‫ޠ‬

ඦᓟ

⻠⟵‫ޟ‬ᣣᧄߩᢥൻߦᱷࠆᵤᵄⵍኂ‫ޠ‬ඦ೨ࠣ࡞࡯ࡊ⼏⺰㧔࿖೎㧕ඦᓟ⻠⟵‫ޟ‬ᣣᧄߣ਎⇇ߦ߅ߌࠆᵤᵄⵍኂ‫ޠ‬

ඦ೨

ᚑᨐ⊒⴫

ඦᓟ

㐽⻠ᑼߣ᱑ㅍળඦ೨Ꮻ࿖

12 ᦬ 9 ᣣ

12 ᦬ 10 ᣣ

12 ᦬ 11 ᣣർේ♻ሶ㧔␹ᄹᎹᄢ㧕ㇺมཅା㧔᧲੩ᄢ㧕ᰴߦ‫ޔ‬4 ᣣ㑆ߩ੍ቯߢ♿દඨፉߩᵤᵄ㒐ἴవㅴ࿾‫ޔ‬ਃ㊀⋵ߩᄢ♿↸㍪࿾඙ߣየ㣐Ꮢ‫ޔ‬๺᱌ጊ⋵ߩᐢᎹ↸ࠍ⸰ࠇߚ‫ޕ‬㍪↸ߢߪᵤᵄ࠲ࡢ࡯ߦઍ⴫ߐࠇࠆᵤᵄㆱ㔍ᚲࠍ⸰ࠇࠆߣหᤨߦ‫ޔ‬ሶଏߚߜ߿૑᳃ߣᵤᵄ㒐ἴߦ㑐ߔࠆ੤ᵹળࠍ 3 ࿁ߦࠊߚࠅ㐿௅ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ዊቇᩞ‫ޔ‬ਛቇᩞ‫ߘޔ‬ߒߡᇚੱળߣߩ੤ᵹߢߪሶଏ߆ࠄᇚੱ߹ߢᵤᵄ㒐ἴߦ㑐ߒߡታߦ㜞޿㑐ᔃࠍ᦭ߔࠆߎߣߦ
ෳട⠪ߪ㛳߈ߩჿࠍ਄ߍߚ‫ޕ‬ㅒߦ‫ࠄ߆ࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬ෳടߒߚቇ↢ߪᵤᵄߦታ㓙ߦ㘶ߺㄟ߹ࠇߥ

99
99

II. ໎ܹ૨҄Ʊ᧸໎Ʒᘍ૾߇ࠄ߽‫ޔ‬ᔅᱫߦ↢߈ᑧ߮ߚႎ๔ߪ‫ޔ‬㍪ߩሶଏ߿ᇚੱߦᗵേࠍਈ߃ߚ‫ޕ‬የ㣐Ꮢߢߪ‫ޔ‬Ꮢἴኂኻ╷⺖߆ࠄߩᜰ␜ߦࠃࠆᵤᵄ㐷ߩ㐿㐽߿Ꮢߣߒߡߩ㒐ἴ૕೙ߦ㑐ᔃࠍ␜ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᐢᎹ↸ߢߪ‫ޔ‬ห↸಴り⠪ߢ޽ࠆᵤ᧛㧔࿾㔡੍⍮ᝄ⥝ળ㧕ߣᷡ᳓߆ࠄᵤᵄⵍἴߩ᭽ሶ߿‫ޔ‬ᵿญ᪷㒺ߩᨐߚߒߚᓎഀࠍ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ⾗ᢱ㙚߿ᵿญ᪷㒺ߩᑪ⸳ߒߚႇ㒐ߢ⡬⻠ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ߐࠄߦ‫ߩࠄ߆ࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬ෳട⠪ߪࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߢߩᵤᵄⵍἴᓟߩขࠅ⚵ߺࠍ‫ࡦࠨޔ‬ࡏࠕࡦࠟ߆ࠄㆊ෰ߩᵤᵄἴኂߩ⸥㍳ࠍ‫ޔ‬ႎ๔ߒߚ‫ᦨޕ‬ᓟߦ‫ޔ‬ෳട⠪ోຬ߆ࠄ‫੹ޔ‬࿁ᓧߚ⍮⼂ࠍߎࠇ߆ࠄߩ⡯ᬺߢᄢ޿ߦᵴ↪ߒߚ޿ߣᾲ޿ᛴ⽶߇ㅀߴࠄࠇߚ‫ޕ‬ᚑ ᨐ੹࿁ߩ੐ᬺࠍታᣉߒߡ‫ޔ‬ᓧߚᦨᄢߩᚑᨐߪ‫ޔ‬ෳട⠪߇ਛᄩ᡽ᐭߩᵤᵄ㒐ἴኻ╷ᓙߜߢߪ⸃᳿ߒߥ޿ߎߣࠍ⏕⹺ߒߚߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫߽ࠟࡦࠕࡏࡦࠨ߽ࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޕ‬࿾㔡߇⊒↢ߒߡ߆ࠄࠊߕ߆ 10㨪20 ಽߣ޿߁⍴޿ᤨ㑆ߢᵤᵄ߇ⷅ߁‫ޔߣࠆߥߣޕ‬᳿ߒߡ᳇⽎ᐡߥߤߩᵤᵄ⼊ႎ߇⊒઎ߐࠇߡ߆ࠄߩㆱ㔍ߢߪ㑆ߦวࠊߥ޿ߎߣ߇⏕ታߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᒝ޿࿾㔡ࠍᗵߓߚࠄᵤᵄࠍㅪᗐߒ‫ߦߜ⋥ޔ‬ㆱ㔍ߔࠆߣ޿߁࿾㔡㧩ᵤᵄㅪ␲߇㕖Ᏹߦ㊀ⷐߥߎߣ‫ߩߘޔߡߒߘޔ‬ㆱ㔍ࠍᡰ߃ࠆ⚵❱ߣߒߡߩ࿾ၞߩࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖߩᒻᚑ߇㊀ⷐߢ޽ࠆߎߣ߽ℂ⸃ߒߚ‫ޕ‬߽߁৻ߟߩᄢ߈ߥᚑᨐߪ‫ޔ‬නߦ⍮⼂ߣߒߡߢߥߊ‫ౕޔ‬૕⊛ߦ♿દඨፉߩᵤᵄ㒐ἴߩవㅴၞࠍ⸰ࠇ‫↢ߦߎߘޔ‬ᵴߔࠆੱ‫ౕߣޘ‬૕⊛ߥ੤ᵹࠍᜬߞߚߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᄢቇߩᢎຬ߽Ⓧᭂ⊛ߦ࿾ၞߦߢ߆ߌ‫ߣߣߎࠆߔ࠴࡯࡝࠻࠙ࠕޔ‬หᤨߦ‫ޔ‬૑᳃ߩᗧ⷗ߩ੤឵ߩਛߢ⥄ಽߚߜߩ⎇ⓥ߇⹜ߐࠇࠆߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄએᓟ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄߦ߽ᄙߊߩࠗࡦ࠼ࡀ
ࠪࠕߩ⎇ⓥ⠪߇᜗⡜ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ታ㓙ߦᵤᵄߣߘߩᓳᣥߣᓳ⥝ߦෳടߒߚࡔࡦࡃ
࡯ࠍ᜗⡜ߒ‫ߩߘޔ‬ታ〣ࠍ੤ᵹߢ߈ߚߎߣߪᄢ߈ߥᚑᨐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕߣࡈࠖ࡝ࡇࡦ߆ࠄෳടߒߚቇ↢ߣᢎᏧߩᾲᗧ‫⿰ߡߒߘޔ‬ᣦߦ⾥ห޿ߚߛ޿
ߚ⻠Ꮷ߿⃻࿾ߢߩ᩺ౝߩᣇ‫ޔߡߒߘޔޘ‬࿾రߩੱ‫ߩߣޘ‬੤ᵹળߥߤߢㅢ⸶ߦ޽ߚߞߚጊ↰⾆⟤ሶߐࠎ‫ޔ‬᜗⡜ߦ㑐ࠊࠆᢙᄙߊߩታോࠍᜂᒰ޿ߚߛ޿ߚ᳓㊁ᔒ⾆ሶߐࠎߥߤߦᷓߊᗵ⻢
ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬

100
100

III. Monitoring and Assessment‫ܭ‬ໜᚇยƱᚸ̖

2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄ߆ࠄ 4 ᐕ㑆ߩ GPS ᷹ⷰߢ⷗߃ߡ
߈ߚ࿾㔡૛ലᄌേߣࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᢿጀߢߩᱡߺ⫾Ⓧ
Post-Seismic Slip of the 2004 Sumatra Super Giant Earthquake and Strain Accumulation along theSumatran Fault System in Aceh Detected by GPS Measurements for Four Years since 2005ᧁ⢆ᢥᤘ 1 દ⮮ᱞ↵ 1 Endra Gunawan1 Agustan1 ↰ㇱ੗㓉㓶 2
Irwandi3 Didik Sugiyanto3 Meilano Irwan4 Mipi Ananta Kusumah41ฬฎደᄢቇ 2 㜞⍮ᄢቇ 3 Syiah Kuala University 4 Institute of Technology Bandung2004 ᐕࠕ࠴ࠚࠕࡦ࠳ࡑࡦ㧔ࠬࡑ࠻࡜㧕࿾㔡߆ࠄ 1 ࡩ᦬૛ࠅᓟ‫ޔ‬2005 ᐕ 2 ᦬߆ࠄࠕ࠴ࠚ
๟ㄝߢ GPS ᷹ⷰࠍ㐿ᆎߒ‫ ߦߢߔޔ‬4 ᐕ߇⚻ㆊߔࠆ‫⎇ޕ‬ⓥߩኻ⽎ߪ࿾㔡ᤨߩ⎕უㆊ⒟ߩ⸃᣿
߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡ᓟߩ૛ലᄌേߣ⢛ᓟࠍ⿛ࠆᏂᄢߥࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᢿጀߢߩᱡߺ⫾Ⓧߩ⸃᣿ߦࠪࡈ࠻ߒ
ߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬2007 ᐕ 8 ᦬ߦ᭴▽ߒߚ GPS ㅪ⛯᷹ⷰ✂߽㔚ജ੐ᖱߥߤߢ⧰ᚢߔࠆ߇‫⃻ޔ‬࿷߹ߢᄢ߈ߥ࠻࡜ࡉ࡞߽ߥߊ⛮⛯ߔࠆ‫ޔߌࠊࠅߣޕ‬2008 ᐕᐲߪࠕ࠴ࠚߩࠬ࠲࠶ࡈߛߌߢㅪ⛯᷹ⷰὐߩ⛽ᜬ߇น⢻ߥ⁁ᴫߦ⥋ߞߚὐߪᄢ߈ߥᚑᨐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
4 ᐕ㑆ߦ GPS ߢ᷹ⷰߐࠇߚ 2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ߩ૛ലᄌേߦ᣿ࠄ߆ߥ࿾ၞᕈ߇ߺࠄࠇ
ࠆ‫ޕ‬૛ലᄌേߪ࿾㔡ᤨߦᄢ߈ߥߔߴࠅಽᏓࠍߒ߼ߒߚࠕ࠴ࠚ⷏ᶏጯർㇱߢᐕ㑆 20 cm ߦ㆐ߔࠆ߶ߤᄢ߈ߊ‫ޔ‬ධㇱߢߪ 10 cm ߶ߤߣዊߐ޿‫ߩߎޔߚ߹ޕ‬ᄢ߈ߥ૛ലᄌേߩਛߢ߽‫ࠬޔ‬ࡑ࠻࡜ᢿጀᴪ޿ߦฝߕࠇࠍ␜ߔ࿾Ზᱡߺ߇ 1×10-6/yr ߩㅦᐲߢ⫾Ⓧߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬ㅦ޿࿾Ზᱡߺ⫾Ⓧㆊ⒟ߩߥ߆ߢࠢ࡝࡯ࡊㆇേ߇ㅴⴕߒߡ޿ࠆ߆ߤ߁߆ߪ੹ᓟߩ⺖㗴ߣߒߡᱷࠆ‫ޕ‬㧝㧚ߪߓ߼ߦ
਎⇇ਛߢ߽਎♿ߦᢙ࿁ߣ޿߁㗫ᐲߩ⿥Ꮒᄢ࿾㔡‫ޔ‬2004 ᐕࠕ࠴ࠚࠕࡦ࠳ࡑࡦ㧔ࠬࡑ࠻࡜㧕࿾㔡߇⊒↢ߒߡߔߢߦ 4 ᐕ߇⚻ㆊߒߚ‫ޕ‬2 ᐕߦ߅ࠃ߱ GPS ᷹ⷰ߆ࠄ‫ᦨޔ‬ᄢ 3 m ߦ෸߱࿾㔡ᤨߩ࿾Ზᄌേ߇ᬌ಴ߐࠇ‫ޔ‬ផቯߒߚᢿጀߔߴࠅߪࠕ࠴ࠚ⷏ᶏጯᴒߩᢿጀ࠮ࠣࡔࡦ࠻ߢᦨᄢ
ߣߥࠅ 20 m ߦ㆐ߒߚ㧔Irwan et al. 2006㧕‫⷏ࠚ࠴ࠕޕ‬ᶏጯᴒߩࠕ࠴ࠚᶏ⋆ࠃࠅ⷏஥ߩᷓߐ
30 km ࠃࠅ߽ᵻ޿ࡊ࡟࡯࠻Ⴚ⇇ߦᄢ߈ߥߔߴࠅಽᏓ߇ផቯߐࠇߚ‫ ߩߢ߹ࠇߎߪࠇߎޕ‬GPS᷹ⷰ߆ࠄផቯߐࠇߚᢿጀߔߴࠅಽᏓߣᲧセߒ‫ޔ‬᣿ࠄ߆ߦࠃࠅᵻㇱߣߥࠆ‫ޔߤ߁ࠂߜޕ‬ᶏᐩ࿾㔡⸘ߦࠃࠆ૛㔡᷹ⷰߢ૛㔡߇߶ߣࠎߤ᷹ⷰߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿ࡊ࡟࡯࠻Ⴚ⇇ߦኻᔕߔࠆ
㧔Sibuet et al., 2007; Franke et al., 2008㧕‫ޔߜࠊߥߔޕ‬࿾㔡ᤨߦᄢ߈ߥߔߴࠅ߇↢ߓߚࡊ࡟࡯
࠻Ⴚ⇇ߢߪ૛㔡ᵴേ߇ዋߥߊ‫ߩߘޔ‬ઍࠊࠅߦ࿾㔡ᤨߦᄢ߈ߊṖࠄߥ߆ߞߚߣផቯߐࠇࠆࡊ
࡟࡯࠻Ⴚ⇇ߩࠃࠅᷓㇱߣᵻㇱߢ૛㔡߇ᵴ⊒ߦ⊒↢ߒߡ޿ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬⃻࿷߽ 2007 ᐕ 8 ᦬ߦ⸳⟎ߒߚ 20 ὐ߶ߤ߆ࠄߥࠆ AGNeSS㧔Aceh GPS Network for
Sumatra Fault System㧕᷹ⷰ✂㧔Fig. 1㧕ߦ߅޿ߡ GPS ᷹ⷰࠍᐕ 2 ࿁‫ޔ‬6 ᦬ߣ 11 ᦬ߦ➅ࠅ㄰ߒታᣉߔࠆ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޕ‬ፉߩ⷏ᶏጯᴪ޿ࠍࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᢿጀ߇⿛ࠅ‫ߩߘޔ‬㐳ߐߪ 1,200 km ߦ߽㆐ߔࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬ᢿጀߢߪߎߩ 100 ᐕ㑆ߦ߶ߣࠎߤߩ࿾ၞߢ M7 ࠢ࡜ࠬߩ࿾㔡߇⊒↢ߒ‫ޔ‬ᢿጀᄌ૏ㅦᐲ߽ᄢ߈ߊ 1-4 cm/yr ߣផቯߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߘߩߥ߆ߢ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬๟ㄝߩࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᢿጀߢߪᦨㄭ 100 ᐕ㑆ߦ㗼⪺ߥ࿾㔡ᵴേ߽ߥߊ‫ࠆࠁࠊ޿ޔ‬࿾㔡ⓨ⊕ၞߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޔ߽ߒ߽ޕ‬ᢿጀߢࠢ࡝࡯ࡊㆇേ߇ථ⿧ߔࠇ߫‫ޔ‬ᄢ࿾㔡⊒↢ߩน⢻ᕈߪૐ޿߇‫ޔ‬ᢿጀ߇࿕⌕ߔࠆߥࠄ߫‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬߪߢࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬ᢿጀߢߩᄢ࿾㔡⊒↢ࡐ࠹ࡦࠪࡖ࡞ߪ㜞޿ߎߣߦߥࠆ‫ ࠆߌ߅ߦࠚ࠴ࠕޔߜࠊߥߔޕ‬GPS ᷹ⷰߪ‫ޔ‬
2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ߩ૛ലᄌേࠍᬌ಴ߔࠆߣหᤨߦ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬ᢿጀ๟ㄝߦ߅ߌࠆᱡߺ⫾Ⓧ
ㆊ⒟ߩ⸃᣿ߩ⺖㗴ࠍ᦭ߔࠆ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޔߤ߃޿ߣޕ‬Ꮊߢࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᢿጀࠍᮮᢿߔࠆ㆏〝ߪዋߥߊ‫ޔ‬ᶏጯ✢ࠍ㒰ߌ߫ࠊߕ߆ 2 ᧄ‫ ߩߘޔ‬2 ᧄߦᴪߞߡ GPS ᷹ⷰὐࠍ㈩⟎ߒߚ‫ߪߢ⁁⃻ޕ‬ኒߥࠆGPS ᷹ⷰ✂ߩ⸳⟎ߪ㕖Ᏹߦ࿎㔍ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬

103
103

III. ‫ܭ‬ໜᚇยƱᚸ̖

Fig. 1 AGNeSS ࠍ᭴ᚑߔࠆ GPS ᷹ⷰὐ߅ࠃ߮ࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᢿጀߩ૏⟎ᧄ⺰ߢߪ AGNeSS ᷹ⷰ✂ߢ᷹ⷰߐࠇߚ࿾Ზᄌേ߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ߦ઻߁૛ലᄌ
േߣࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᢿጀ๟ㄝߦ߅ߌࠆᱡߺ⫾Ⓧㆊ⒟ࠍਛᔃߦᬌ⸛ߔࠆ‫৻ޔࠎࠈߜ߽ޕ‬ㇱߩ᷹ⷰὐߢߪ 1 ᐕߦḩߚߥ޿᷹ⷰߒ߆ታᣉߢ߈ߕ‫߽ߢ߹ߊ޽ޔ‬ᥳቯ⊛ߥ⚿ᨐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
㧞㧚GPS ᷹ⷰ߆ࠄᬌ಴ߐࠇߚ 2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ߩ૛ലᄌേ

2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡એ㒠ߦታᣉߒߚ GPS ᷹ⷰ߆ࠄᰴߩߎߣ߇᣿ࠄ߆ߦߥߞߡ޿ࠆ
㧔Irwan et al., 2007㧕‫ޕ‬1㧕ࠕ࠴ࠚ⷏ᶏጯർㇱ߆ࠄࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߦ߆ߌߡ 3 m ࠍ⿥߃ࠆ࿾㔡ᤨߩධ⷏ᣇะ߳ߩᄌേ߇ᬌ಴ߐࠇ‫ޔ‬2㧕ߘࠇߦߚ޿ߒߡࠕ࠴ࠚߦ⷏ᶏጯධㇱߢߪߖ޿ߗ޿ 2m ߩ࿾㔡ᤨߩ࿾Ზᄌേ߇ᬌ಴ߐࠇ‫ޔ‬3㧕ߎࠇࠄߩ࿾Ზᄌേ߆ࠄࠕ࠴ࠚ⷏ᶏጯᴒߢߪᦨᄢ 20
m ߦ෸߱࿾㔡ߔߴࠅ߇ࡊ࡟࡯࠻Ⴚ⇇ߩᵻㇱߦផቯߐࠇ‫ޔ‬4㧕ᄢ߈ߥߔߴࠅࠍ␜ߔࡊ࡟࡯࠻
Ⴚ⇇ߪࠕ࠴ࠚᶏ⋆߆ࠄ⷏஥ߦ‫ޔ‬ᷓߐ 30 km ߆ࠄ 10 km ߩ▸࿐ߢ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬5㧕૛㔡᷹ⷰߦࠃࠇ
߫‫ޔ‬૛㔡ᵴേߪ࿾㔡ᤨߦᄢ߈ߥߔߴࠅ߇ផቯߐࠇߚࡊ࡟࡯࠻Ⴚ⇇ߢૐߊ‫ߩߘޔ‬ᷓㇱߣᵻㇱߦ㓸ਛߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬

Fig. 2 ࠪࠕࠢ࡜ᄢቇߩ GPS ᷹ⷰὐߢᬌ಴ߐࠇߚ࿾Ზᄌേ

104
104

2004 ࠰ǹȞȈȩ‫ע‬ᩗ඾ඬƔǒ 4 ࠰᧓Ʒ GPS ᚇยᲢஙᏂ૨ଯǄƔᲣࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߩࠪࠕࠢ࡜ᄢቇߢߪ 2005 ᐕ 2 ᦬ߦ GPS ᷹ⷰࠍ㐿ᆎߒ‫ޔ‬ห 3 ᦬߆ࠄㅪ⛯᷹ⷰࠍታᣉߔࠆ‫࡜ࠢࠕࠪޕ‬ᄢቇߩ࿾⃿‛ℂቇ⎇ⓥቶߩቇ↢ߦࠃࠅ᷹ⷰ߇⛽ᜬߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ߘޕ‬ߩ⚿ᨐ‫ߪߢࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬࿾㔡ᓟ߽࿾㔡ᤨߩ࿾Ზᄌേߣห᭽ߦධ⷏ᣇะ߳ߩᄌ૏߇⛮⛯ߔࠆ㧔Fig. 2㧕‫ޕ‬ߘߩ⚿ᨐ‫ޔ‬2005 ᐕ 3 ᦬એ㒠‫ޔ‬2008 ᐕ 11 ᦬߹ߢߛߌߢ߽ධ⷏ᣇะ߳ 70 cm ߳⒖േߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎߩᄌൻ₸ࠍ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡⊒↢ߩ 2004 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 26 ᣣ߹ߢᄖᝌߔࠇ߫࿾㔡ᓟߩᄌേߪ 1 m ࠍ⿧߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬หߓࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒౝߩၮὐߢߪ࿾㔡ᤨߩᄌേ߇ 3 m ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡ᓟߩ૛ലᄌേߪ࿾
㔡ᤨߩᄌേߩ 1/3 ߦ㆐ߔࠆ‫ޔߦ߆⏕ޕ‬ᄌേㅦᐲߪ࿾㔡⋥ᓟߦᄢ߈ߊ‫ߩߘޔ‬ᓟࠁߞߊࠅߒߡ
޿ࠆ߇‫ޔ‬2008 ᐕߢ߽ᐕ㑆 10 cm ߦ㆐ߔࠆ‫ ߛ߹ޕ‬5 ᐕߪ૛ലᄌേ߇⛮⛯ߔࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ߘߒߡ‫ޔ‬2008 ᐕ 11 ᦬߹ߢታᣉߒߚ GPS ᷹ⷰ߆ࠄ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬Ꮊోၞߢ࿾㔡ᤨߩᄌേߣห᭽
ߦධ⷏ᣇะ߳ 10-20cm/yr ߩ᳓ᐔᄌേ߇ᬌ಴ߐࠇࠆ㧔Fig. 3㧕‫ⷰޕ‬᷹ᦼ㑆ߩ⍴޿᷹ⷰὐߢߪ
ᄌേᣇ૏ߦ߫ࠄߟ߈߇⷗ࠄࠇࠆ߽ߩߩ‫ޔ‬᭎ߒߡධ⷏ᣇะߩᄌ૏ߣߥࠆ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޔߜࠊߥߔޕ‬Ꮊోၞߢ 2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ߩ૛ലᄌേ߇᷹ⷰߐࠇࠆ‫ޔ߽ߣߞ߽ޕ‬2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ߩ૛ലᄌേߪ㔡Ḯၞ߆ࠄ 500 km એ਄߽㔌ࠇࠆࡑ࡟࡯ඨፉߢ߽ᬌ಴ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ㧔Chilieh etal., 2007㧕‫ޕ‬ߒ߆ߒ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬Ꮊߢ᷹ⷰߐࠇߚ૛ലᄌേߪ᣿ࠄ߆ߦ࿾ၞᕈ߇ߺࠄࠇࠆ‫⷏ޕ‬ᶏጯਛㇱߩ
Calan ࠍႺ⇇ߦࠕ࠴ࠚᎺߩർㇱߣධㇱߢ૛ലᄌേߩㅦᐲ߇⇣ߥࠆ‫ޕ‬૛ലᄌേߪ᭎ߒߡർㇱߢᄢ߈ߊ 20 cm/yr‫ޔ‬ධㇱߢዊߐߊ 10 cm/yr ߢ޽ࠆ‫ⷰߪࠇߎޕ‬᷹ߐࠇߚ࿾㔡ᤨߩ࿾Ზᄌേߣ
ኻᔕߔࠆ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡ᤨߩᄌേ߇ᄢ߈߆ߞߚർㇱߢߪ૛ലᄌേ߽ᄢߣߥߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޔߜࠊߥߔޕ‬ᄢ߈ߥ࿾㔡ᤨߩߔߴࠅಽᏓ߇ផቯߐࠇࠆߣߎࠈߢߪ૛ലᄌേ߽ᄢߣߥࠆ‫ޕ‬

Fig. 3 GPS ᷹ⷰ߆ࠄᬌ಴ߒߚ࿾㔡ᓟߩ࿾Ზᄌേ
ᐕ㑆ߩᄌ૏ㅦᐲߢ‫ⷰޔ‬᷹ᦼ㑆߇㐳޿ၮὐߩ⚿ᨐࠍỚ⦡ߢ␜ߔ‫ޕ‬ߘߒߡ‫ⷰޔ‬᷹ߐࠇߚ૛ലᄌേߪࠕ࠴ࠚᎺߩධർߢർㇱ߇ᄢ‫ޔ‬ධㇱ߇ዊߣ޿߁࿾ၞᕈࠍ␜
ߔ߇‫⷏ޔ‬ᶏጯ߆ࠄ᧲߳㔌ࠇߡ߽ᄢ߈ߊᷫ⴮ߒߡ޿ߥ޿‫⃻ޕ‬࿷‫ޔ‬૛ലᄌേߩᢿጀࡕ࠺࡞ࠍ⠨ኤߒߡ޿ࠆ߇‫ޔ‬࿾㔡ᤨߦᄢ߈ߥߔߴࠅࠍ␜ߒߚ࿾ၞ߽‫߇ࠅߴߔޔ‬ዊߐ߆ߞߚ࿾ၞߢ߽‫ޔ‬૛ലᄌേߢߪ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡ᤨߦ⎕უߐࠇߚࡊ࡟࡯࠻Ⴚ⇇ࠃࠅ߽ᷓㇱߢ⊒↢ߒߡ޿ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬

105
105

III. ‫ܭ‬ໜᚇยƱᚸ̖㧟㧚GPS ᷹ⷰ߆ࠄᬌ಴ߐࠇߚࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᢿጀߢߩᱡߺ⫾Ⓧㆊ⒟ࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᢿጀߪࠬࡑ࠻࡜⷏ᶏጯࠍർ⷏߆ࠄධ᧲߳ 1,300 km ߦᷰࠅ❑ᢿߔࠆᏂᄢߥᢿጀߢ
޽ࠆ‫ޔߡߒߘޕ‬1-4 cm/yr ߣ޿߁ᄢ߈ߥᢿጀߔߴࠅㅦᐲ߇ផቯߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ㧔Natawidjaja et al.,2004㧕‫ࠅߴߔߩߘޔ߽߆ߒޕ‬ㅦᐲߪർ⷏┵߶ߤᄢ߈ߊߥࠆ௑ะߦ޽ࠆ‫ࠄࠇߎޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ᢿጀߩߔߴࠅㅦᐲߪਥߦ࿾⾰ቇ⊛ߥ⺞ᩏ‫⥶߽ࠇߘޔ‬ⓨ౮⌀ߦࠃࠆᄌ૏࿾ᒻߩ⺞ᩏ߆ࠄ⼏⺰ߐࠇ‫ޔ‬GPS ᷹ⷰߥߤ߆ࠄታ᷹ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆߩߪੑ▎ᚲߦㆊ߉ߥ޿㧔Genrich et al., 2000㧕‫ޕ‬ᒰὼߥ߇ࠄ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬Ꮊߢߩ 4 cm/yr ߩᄢ߈ߥᢿጀߔߴࠅߪᵈ⋡ߩ⊛ߦߥࠅ‫ޔ‬GPS ᷹߽ⷰ⹜ߺࠄࠇߚ㧔Genrich et al., 2000㧕‫ߪߢࠚ࠴ࠕޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ౝ⚗ࠍℂ↱ߦᄖ࿖ੱߩ┙ߜ౉ࠅ߇⑌ᱛߐࠇࠆߥߤ‫ޔ‬චಽߥᚑᨐ߇ᓧࠄࠇߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ᵤᵄ߇߽ߚࠄߒߚഞ
⟋ߩഞߩ߭ߣߟ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬ౝ⚗ߩ๺ᐔ߇ታ⃻ߒ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕߣߞ߿ޔ‬Ꮊߢߩ GPS ᷹߽ⷰน⢻ߦߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬ߒ߆ߒ‫ޔ‬೨ㅀߒߚࠃ߁ߦ‫ࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬Ꮊߢߪ 2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ߩ૛ലᄌേ߇ 10-20 cm/yr
ߣᄢ߈ߊ‫ߩߎޔ‬ᄢ߈ߥ૛ലᄌേߩਛߢ‫ޔ‬4 cm/yr ߣផቯߐࠇࠆᢿጀߔߴࠅߩᬌ಴ߪ◲නߢߥ޿‫ⷰޔߕ߹ޕ‬᷹ߐࠇߚᐕ㑆ᐔဋߩ᳓ᐔᄌേࡌࠢ࠻࡞ࠍᢿጀߦ⋥ⴕߔࠆᣇะߣᐔⴕߔࠆ 2 ᚑಽߦಽ㔌ߒߚ‫ⴕ⋥ޕ‬ᚑಽߪ߶߷ᶏḴߦ߽⋥੤ߔࠆߎߣ߆ࠄ 2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ߩ૛ലᄌേࠍᗧ๧ߔࠆ‫ߡߒߘޕ‬ᐔⴕᚑಽ߇ࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᢿጀߩߔߴࠅߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ᢿጀߩᐔⴕߔࠆᚑಽߪᢿጀ๟ㄝߩၮὐߢ᭎ߒߡฝߕࠇࠍ␜ߒ㧔Fig. 4㧕‫ޔ‬࿾⾰⊛ߥ⺞ᩏ⚿ᨐߣ৻⥌ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ᢿጀߩධㇱߢർ᧲஥ߦ૏⟎ߔࠆ TNDP ߩ 1 ὐߛߌ߇ 10 cm/yr ߦ߽㆐ߔࠆᄢ
߈ߥᏀߕࠇࠍ␜ߔ߇‫ⷰߪࠇߎޔ‬᷹ᦼ㑆߇߹ߛඨᐕ⒟ᐲߢ޽ࠅ‫ߩ࠲࡯࠺ޔ‬ା㗬ᐲߪૐ޿ߣ⠨߃ࠆ‫ߩࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃ߅ߥޕ‬ὐ߇ධ᧲ᣇะ߳ߩᄌ૏ߣߥࠆ߇‫ޔ‬ᢿጀߪߎߩㇱಽߢ᧲ߣ⷏ߦಽ
ጘߒ‫ⷰߩࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬᷹ὐߪ⷏஥ߩࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᢿጀߩ᧲ߦ૏⟎ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬1 ὐߩ⚿ᨐߛߌߛ߇‫ޔ‬⷏஥ߩᢿጀ߽ߔߴࠅࠍ␜ߔߎߣߦߥࠆ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬᳓ᐔᄌ૏ߪᢿጀߩർ᧲஥ߣධ⷏஥ߢኻᾖ⊛ߦಽᏓߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ධ⷏஥߇✚ߓߡዊߐߥᄌ૏ࠍ␜ߔߩߦኻߒߡ‫ޔ‬ർ᧲஥߇ᄢ߈ߥᄌ૏ࠍ␜ߔ‫ޕ‬

Fig. 4 ᷹ⷰߐࠇߚ᳓ᐔᄌേߩࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᢿጀߣᐔⴕߔࠆᚑಽ
㧔ᐕ㑆ᄌ૏ㅦᐲߢ␜ߔ㧕ߎࠇ߹ߢ‫ޔ‬ᢿጀߢߩᱡߺ⫾Ⓧߪ‫ⷰޔ‬᷹ὐ߇ᢿጀࠍᮮಾࠆ✢⁁ߦ⸳⟎ߐࠇߚߎߣ߆ࠄ‫߅ޔ‬߽ߦ᳓ᐔᄌ૏ߢ⼏⺰ߐࠇߡ߈ߚ㧔Hirahara et al., 2003, 2007㧕‫ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬AGNeSS ߢߪන⚐ߥ✢⁁ߢ߽ߥ޿ߎߣ߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬࿾Ზߩ᳓ᐔ߭ߕߺ߇⸘▚ߢ߈ࠆ‫ⷰޕ‬᷹ߒߚ᳓ᐔᄌേ㧔ᐕᐔဋ㧕

106
106

2004 ࠰ǹȞȈȩ‫ע‬ᩗ඾ඬƔǒ 4 ࠰᧓Ʒ GPS ᚇยᲢஙᏂ૨ଯǄƔᲣ߆ࠄ࿾Ზᄌേࠍ⸘▚ߒߡߺߚ㧔Fig. 5㧕‫ⷰޔ߅ߥޕ‬᷹ᦼ㑆ߩ⍴޿ TNDP ὐߢߩ⚿ᨐߪ㒰޿ߡ⸘▚ߒߚ‫ߚࠇߐ▚⸘ޔߕ߹ޕ‬࿾Ზ᳓ᐔᱡߺ߇ 10㧙6/yr ߦ㆐ߔࠆ߶ߤᄢ߈޿ߎߣ߇᣿ࠄ߆ߢ
޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄߩౝ㒽ߢߪᱡߺ㓸ਛᏪߣ޿߃ߤ߽‫ࠎߖޔ‬ᢿᱡߺߪ 10-7/yr ࡟ࡌ࡞ߦㆊ߉ߥ޿‫ߘޕ‬ࠇߦߚ޿ߒߡࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᢿጀߪ߶߷ 10 ୚ߩᱡߺㅦᐲߣߥࠅ‫⿥ޔ‬ᱡߺ㓸ਛᏪߣ⒓ߒߡ߽ࠃ޿
߆߽ߒࠇߥ޿‫ޕ‬න⚐ߦ޿߃߫‫ޔ‬ᄢ࿾㔡ߩ⊒↢㗫ᐲ߇ᣣᧄߩᱡߺ㓸ਛᏪߩ 10 ୚㜞ߊ‫ޔ‬100 ᐕߏߣߦᄢ࿾㔡߇⊒↢ߒߡ߽ਇᕁ⼏ߢߥ޿‫ޕ‬

Fig. 5 AGNeSS ᷹ⷰ✂߆ࠄᬌ಴ߐࠇߚࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᢿጀ๟ㄝߩ࿾Ზ᳓ᐔᱡߺ

ᰴߦ‫⷏ޔ‬ᶏጯߢߪ‫ޔ‬᭎ߒߡർ᧲㧙ධ⷏ᣇะ߳ߩિᒛ߇ථ⿧ߔࠆ‫ߩߘߡߒߘޕ‬ᱡߺㅦᐲߪ
⷏ᶏጯർㇱ߶ߤᄢ߈޿ߎߣ߇᣿ࠄ߆ߢ޽ࠆ‫ ߦߐ߹ޕ‬2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ߩ૛ലᄌേ߇ᬌ
಴ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎߩ૛ലᄌേߦ઻߁࿾Ზᱡߺߩ⫾Ⓧߪ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬ᢿጀ๟ㄝߢ৻ᄌߔࠆ‫ޔߕ߹ޕ‬ධ㧙ർᣇะߩ⍴❗߇㗼⪺ߦߥࠆ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔߌࠊࠅߣޕ‬ᢿጀߩർㇱ‫ߦ⷏᧲ޔ‬ᢿጀ߇ಽጘߒߚ᧲஥ߩᢿ
ጀߩർ᧲ၞߣ‫ޔ‬ᢿጀߩධㇱ‫ޔ‬ᶏḴ஥߳ᢿጀ߇ಽጘߒߘߩੑߟߩᢿጀߦߪߐ߹ࠇࠆ࿾ၞߢධ
㧙ർᣇะ⍴❗ߩථ⿧ߔࠆ࿾Ზᱡߺ߇⸘▚ߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎߩၞ߆ࠄߐࠄߦ᧲஥ߦߥࠆߣ‫⷏ޔ‬ᶏጯߣห᭽ߦർ᧲㧙ධ⷏ᣇะિᒛߩ࿾Ზᱡߺ߇ౣ߮
಴⃻ߔࠆ‫ޔߜࠊߥߔޕ‬2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ߩ૛ലᄌേߪᢿጀࠍ⿥߃ߚ᧲஥ߩ࿾ၞߢ߽᷹ⷰ
ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ᢿጀ๟ㄝၞߩߺߢᬌ಴ߐࠇࠆධ㧙ർ⍴❗ߩ࿾Ზᱡߺߪ‫ޔ‬ᢿጀߢ⏕⹺ߐࠇࠆᏀߕࠇᄌ૏ߣ৻⥌ߔࠆ‫ޔߜࠊߥߔޕ‬ᢿጀ๟ㄝߢߪᢿጀㆇേߣ৻⥌ߔࠆᱡߺ⫾Ⓧ߇ථ⿧ߒߡ޿ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎߩᢿጀ๟ㄝߢߩධർ⍴❗ߩ࿾Ზᱡߺ߇᷹ⷰߐࠇࠆߎߣߪ‫ޔ‬ᢿጀߢߩࠢ࡝࡯ࡊㆇേ߇ㅴ
ⴕߒߡ޿ߥ޿ߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ߥ⚦⹦ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ᬌ⸛ߪ੹ᓟߩ᷹ⷰࠍ⛮⛯ߒ㐳ᦼ㑆ߩ᷹ⷰ߇ᔅ
ⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬߚ߹ޕ‬ᢿጀਛㇱߢߪ࿾Ზᱡߺ߽ዊߐߊ‫ޔ‬ᢿጀ࿕⌕ߦࠕࠬࡍ࡝࠹ࠖ߇ሽ࿷
ߔࠆߎߣࠍ␜ໂߔࠆ߇‫੹߽ࠇߎޔ‬ᓟߩ᷹ⷰ߆ࠄࠃࠅ᣿⏕ߦߥࠆߣ⠨߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬㧠㧚߅ࠊࠅߦ㧦੹ᓟߩ⺖㗴
2005 ᐕ 3 ᦬ߩᧄᩰ⊛ߥ GPS ᷹ⷰ߆ࠄߔߢߦ 4 ᐕ߇⚻ㆊߔࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬㑆ߩ᷹ⷰ߆ࠄ 2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ߩ૛ലߔߴࠅߦߟ޿ߡ‫ޔ‬એਅߩߎߣ߇⠨ኤߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬1㧕 ࠕ࠴ࠚߢߪ⃻࿷ߢ߽ᐕ㑆 20cm ߽ߩ 2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡ߩ૛ലᄌേ߇᷹ⷰߐࠇࠆߎ
ߣ

107
107

III. ‫ܭ‬ໜᚇยƱᚸ̖

2㧕 ᄢ߈ߥ࿾㔡ᤨߩᄌ૏߇᷹ⷰߐࠇߚࠕ࠴ࠚർㇱߢධㇱߣᲧセߒ‫ޔ‬2 ୚ߩ૛ലᄌേ߇᷹ⷰߐࠇࠆߎߣ3㧕 ࿾㔡ᤨߦᄢ߈ߥߔߴࠅࠍ␜ߒߚࡊ࡟࡯࠻Ⴚ⇇߶ߤᄢ߈ߥ૛ലߔߴࠅ߇ㅴⴕߔࠆߎߣ
4㧕 ⷏ᶏጯ߆ࠄ᧲߳㔌ࠇߡ߽૛ലᄌേߪᄢ߈ߊᷫ⴮ߒߥ޿ߎߣ߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬૛ലߔߴࠅ߇࿾㔡ᤨࠃࠅ߽ᷓ޿ࡊ࡟࡯࠻Ⴚ⇇ߢㅴⴕߔࠆߎߣ
߹ߚ‫⷏ߩ࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬ᶏጯߪ❑ᢿߔࠆࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᢿጀߦߟ޿ߡ߽‫ޔ‬એਅߩߎߣ߇᡿Ვߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬1㧕 ࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᢿጀ๟ㄝ‫ߩߘߌࠊࠅߣޔ‬ർ᧲஥ߢ 10㧙6/yr ߦ㆐ߔࠆ࿾Ზᱡߺߩ⫾Ⓧ߇᷹ⷰߐࠇࠆߎߣ
2㧕 ᢿጀ๟ㄝߢߪᢿጀߩฝߕࠇㆇേߣ৻⥌ߔࠆධ㧙ർ⍴❗ߩ࿾Ზᱡߺ߇ථ⿧ߔࠆߎߣ
3㧕 ᢿጀ࿕⌕ߦ࿾ၞᕈ߇ߺࠄࠇ‫ޔ‬ർㇱߣධㇱߢߪᱡߺㅦᐲ߽ᄢ߈ߊ‫ޔ‬ਛㇱߢߪዊߐ޿ߎ
ߣ
4㧕 ᢿጀㄭறߢߩࠢ࡝࡯ࡊㆇേߪߥ޿ߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ߇⹦⚦ߥᬌ⸛ߪ੹ᓟߩ߆ߛ޿ߢ޽ࠆ
ߎߣᦨᓟߦ‫ޔ‬࿾రߩࠪࠕࠢ࡜ᄢቇߩ⎇ⓥ⠪ࠍਛᔃߦ⁛⥄ߦ GPS ᷹ⷰ߇ታᣉߢ߈ߟߟ޽ࠆ‫ࠪޕ‬ࠕࠢ࡜ᄢቇߦࠃࠆ AGNeSS ߩ▤ℂ⛽ᜬ߇ታ㓙⊛ߥ⺖㗴ߦߥߞߡ߈ߚ‫ߩߎޕ‬㑆ߩ GPS ᷹ⷰࠍ࿾రߢᡰ߃ߚ᷹ⷰὐ๟ㄝߩ૑᳃ߣ‫ⷰޔ‬᷹ߦෳടߒߚࠪࠕࠢ࡜ᄢቇߣࡃࡦ࠼ࡦᎿ⑼ᄢቇߩ
ቇ↢ߦᷓߊᗵ⻢ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ෳ⠨ᢥ₂
Chlieh M., JP Avouac, V Hjorleifsdottir, TRA Song, et al., Coseismic slip and afterslip of the great
Mw 9.15 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake of 2004, Bulletin of the Seismological Society ofAmerica, 97, 1A; p. S152-S173; DOI: 10.1785/0120050631v, 2007
Franke,D., M Schnabel, S Ladage, DR Tappin, S Neben et al., The great Sumatra-Andaman
earthquakes — Imaging the boundary between the ruptures of the great 2004 and 2005
earthquakes, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 269, 118-130, 2008
Genrich J. F., Y Bock, R McCaffrey, L Prawirodirdjo, Distribution of slip at the northern Sumatranfault system, J. Geophys. Res, 105, B12, 28, 327-28,3 41, 2000
Hirahara K., Y Ooi, M Ando, Y Hoso, Y Wada, T, et al., Dense GPS Array observations across the
Atotsugawa fault, central Japan, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(6), 8012, doi:10.1029/2002GL015035,
2003
Hirahara K., M. Ohzono, T. Sagiya, et al., Dense GPS array observations across the Atotsugawa
Fault system in Central Japan, Geodynamics of Atotsugawa Fault System, edited by M. Anod,
25-44, TERRAPUB, 2007.
Irwan M., Y. Ohta, F. Kimata, T. Ito, T. Tabei, D. Darmawan, H. Anderson, H. A. Abidin, M.
Kusuma, D. Sugiyanto, Agustan, Two years GPS observation in Aceh The 3rd Invetigation
Report of 2004 Northern Sumatra Earthquake, Graduate School of Environmental Studies,
Nagoya University, 7-10, 2006
Ito T., Agustan, I. Meirano, T. Tabei and F. Kimata, The construction of new dense GPS observation
network: AGNeSS (Aceh GPS Network for Sumatran Fault System, The 4 th Investigation
Report of 2004 Northern Sumatra Earthquake, Graduate School of Environmental Studies,
Nagoya University, 83-88, 2008
Natawidjaja D. H, K Sieh, SN Ward, H Cheng, et al., Paleogeodetic records of seismic and aseismic
subduction from central Sumatran microatolls, Indonesia, J. Geophys. Res, 109, B04306,
doi:10.1029/2003JB002398, 2004
Sibuet, J. C., S. Singh, R. Apprioual, N. C. Aryanto, J. Begot, et al., 26th December 2004 great
Sumatra-Andaman earthquake: Co-seismic and post-seismic motions in northern Sumatra 26th
December 2004 great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 263,
Issues 1-2, 15 November 2007, 88-103

108
108

Field Challenge of Continues GPS Array Maintenance on
Sumatra Fault: Report of the August 13 – 14, 2008 AGNeSS
Continue Site Investigation
1

Irwandi1, Takeo Ito2, and Fumiaki Kimata2

CS3RG (Computational Seismology and Risk Reduction Research Group)
Geophysics Laboratory, University of Syiah Kuala,Banda Aceh – Indonesia
2
RSVD, (Research Center for Seismology, Volcanology and Disaster Mitigation)
Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Japan

Abstract: This paper explains the field work activity experience and basic understanding for checking the Linux
Trimble 4000SSi Continue GPS System across Sumatra fault in Aceh during August 13-14, 2008. The activity tends
to maintenance and improving system in term of AGNeSS project. There are several internal and external obstacles
during long continue observation. The internal problem such as mistake in linux configuration, inappropriate datalogger, incorrect electrical circuit installation, and decrepit battery. The external problems such as stability ofelectrical power, rain or flood, and the most important is security problem.
Keyword: AGNeSS, Continue GPS Site

1. Introduction
We have constructed a lot of infrastructure on earth to facilitate our life. Actually, we are living in
the world with high potential natural hazard from all direction and location: under land as earthquake,on land as landslide, in the sea as tsunami, on mountain as volcano, in the air as hurricane andclimate change, even from space as asteroid or comet attach. There are various level of disaster fromnon destructive until mega catastrophic. Nowadays in the modern era, the preparedness andprevention from disaster are not only regional awareness but also global awareness demand.
Going into mega earthquake 26 December 2004 disaster in Sumatra subduction zone has ignite
significant global awareness to Australian and Eurasian plate collision along Sunda Trance.
Following the less preparedness and prevention to the catastrophic several disaster appear as
evidences to our awareness for further disaster. Strike slip Sumatra fault is one of following disaster,
but the event not yet appear. Based on paleo-seismicity investigation, since 17’s century, there are
not any significant earthquake at the Aceh seismic gap as part of Sumatra fault system.
The interesting question for the seismic gap describe the complexity of the subduction structure
beneath reflect by a anomaly of Sunda Arc and the important question is the Aceh seismic gap as alock accumulate giant energy or a creep release energy slowly. According to Gutenberg-Richter
relationship, if the fault release energy slowly the frequent low magnitude earthquake should be
happen. Otherwise, the fault accumulate energy going to potential catastrophic in Aceh. Crustal
deformation study based on GPS geodetic is a smart approach to answer for the strange question. In
additions, the measurement is a importance method to identify the type fault system for hazard
assessment and a part of risk reduction process. On the other hand, the long term GPS survey require
a lot off money, expert, and awareness.
Research Center for Seismology, Volcanology and Disaster Mitigation (RSVD) Nagoya
University take responsibility for the investigation. People of Aceh, especially computational
seismology and risk reduction research group (CS3RG), University of Syiah Kuala appreciate to the
RSVD awareness for our fault.
2. CS3RG Joint the AGNeSS
GPS technology was initiated 1973 by United States Department of Defense. The price of GPS very
high and only limited user with specific accuracy. After 16 years the first campaign GPS network
establish in 1989 on Sumatra by GPS Geodynamics Project in Sumatra (GPS-GPS). Second, In 1997

109
109

III. Monitoring and Assessment

Indonesian Land Agency (BPN) constructed additional point and used Leica SR261 single frequency
receiver. Next in middle of July 1997, members of the Agency for Assessment and Application ofTechnology (BPPT), made high precision surveys at 3 with dual-frequency Trimble 4000SSE
receivers. Besides, Caltect team construct GPS sites cover whole Sumatra Island (Sieh 2000). Since
1-7 March 2005 AGNeSS (Aceh GPS Network for Sumatra fault System) started campaign sited in
Banda Aceh (Meilano 2007). In November 2007 AGNeSS constructed eight continue sites (2008).
After missing a continue site in Anak Mayak Site total continue during this investigation is a site inLaboratory Geophysics, Syiah Kuala and 6 site in Field. Recently GPS continue site is showed infigure 1.

Figure 1. Continue site location of AGNeSS

I started joint the AGNeSS team in 20 – 25 Februari 2008 after Muksin motivated andrecommended me to involve in the team for using my ability in electronic and computer. I havelearnt geophysics as though subject and in 2008 I completed Bachelor degree in numericaloceanography modeling. In 2003, I started master degree in Institute Technology Bandung withmajority in Theoretical physics and I completed my thesis in Nonlinear Quantum Field Theory
entitled Skryme, Hardron, and Pentaquake. Moreover, my hobby is in programming with wide
aspects such as microelectronics, computer software, and physical modelling. Recently I am
developing several USB peripheral interfaces by using cheap microcontroller integrated withJOINTS Project (Java Open Instrumentations System).
My awareness for disaster emerges after the giant tsunami destroy my city and unimagined
condition where many victims everywhere with rubbish. I came back to Banda Aceh three days after
tsunami to looking for information about my family. During I stayed in Banda Aceh for two weeks, I
got unimagined experience about catastrophic tsunami and earthquake. I my self felt a lot of
aftershocks every single day and disaster situation in my city. At that time, every people did notunderstand what was happening and the tsunami was a new traumatic word for them. I have an
unforgettable experience during I collected several victims at my relative’s house. At that time, I
asked a question, why people and science cannot know and predict the big phenomena. I kept thequestion and left Banda Aceh to Bandung for continuing my final examination for master degree.
In July 12th 2005, I planned to meet my last close classmate working as Seismologist Analyst
at BMG when he visited Bandung for a Workshop. Unexpectedly, I attended theWorkshop/roundtable Prediksi Gempa Bumi (Earthquake Prediction) ITB Bandung with him. After
finish the one-day workshop, my interest in studying earthquake prediction was initiated. I
understand for recent development after participating in the 9th Workshop on Non Linear Dynamics
and Earthquake Prediction, ICTP (International Centre for Theoretical Physics) Italy October 1-13,
2007. I discussed with Prof. Kossobokov intensively about M8 algorithm and he recommended me
involve with Network of Seismic Hazard in Asia. I joined Workshop/Network Meeting on “Seismic

110
110

Field challenge of continues GPS array maintenance (Irwandi et al.)Hazard in Asia”, Centre for Mathematical Modelling and Computer Simulation (C-MMACS),
Bangalore, India 31 March - 11 April 2008. In addition, SAND-ICTP group (Structure and nonlinear dynamics) offer me a chance to be a participant in ninth Workshop on Three-Dimensional
Modelling of Seismic Waves Generation, Propagation and their Inversion 22 September - 4 October
2008, ICTP, Italy.

Figure 2. CS3RG collaboration and risk reduction research area

Research in natural hazard assessment and risk reduction require comprehensive approach withmultidiscipline. Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Syiah Kuala absolutely
requires a teamwork to facilitate and accommodate the multidiscipline researches and experts. At theend of 2007, I have idea to make a research group related to seismic hazard namely CS3RG(Computational Seismology and Risk Reduction Research Group). The phrase “Computational
Seismology” related to the most of lecturer in Physics Department of Syiah Kuala University study
in this field. The phrase “Risk Reduction” related to our aim how to live in high potential hazard
environment. Nowadays, we have established collaboration and several related activities, including
with Nagoya University, ITB, and BPPT in terms of AGNeSS research activity.
3. AGNeSS Continue GPS Site System
Time based measuring crustal deformation require continue GPS site system monitoring with
continue operating equipment in the field locations. To establish a continue GPS site with the system,
we built construction as show in figure 3 and also to assemble all of components such as:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

GPS Antenna
GPS Receiver
Solar Panel Controller (SunSaver-6)
Lead-acid battery 12V
Switching Power Supply
Relay
Solar Panel

Therefore, all of the components installed in constructed pillar except solar panel that install on theroof of the permission building for electricity source as show in figure 3.
The challenging problem of continue GPS site definitely must support by continue 12 V
electrical power supply for GPS receiver and data logger. The main energy supply by state electricalcompany (PLN = Perusahan Listrik Negara) infrastructure and solar panel as additional supporting
energy. Moreover, the system could not supply only from solar panel. The infrastructure electrical
power of PLN in Aceh province especially in village area is frequently outage power with long
duration. In order to provide continue electrical power, the system equipped with storage electricalenergy in 12V lead-acid battery. Whole components are integrated with solar panel controller(SunSaver-6) and relay as show in figure 4.

111
111

III. Monitoring and Assessment

Figure 3. Continue GPS component and construction in field

Figure 4. Electrical power circuit of GPS continue

According to schematic in figure 4 the solar panel controller joins and manages energy
supplying for all equipments and also store energy in to battery. The solar panel controller takeresponsibility to avoid battery at very low state to make long live. If the battery in low condition ordamage, the solar panel controller blocked power to the load. Whereas the relay keeps priority to theelectrical power rather then solar panel. When the electrical power on, the relay switch on and thesolar panel controller connect to electrical power adaptor. While outtake power, the relay switch off
and the solar panel controller get energy from solar panel. Disadvantages using relay, when theelectrical power in low voltage condition the coil of relay receive threshold voltage and generate
oscillation state which will affect to the data logger and GPS receiver.
4. GPS Receiver Trimble 4000SSi
AGNeSS crutal deformation research activity empower older GPS receiver with several limitation
for continue long time field survey. The Trimble 4000SSi is water resist, robust, and stable

112
112

Field challenge of continues GPS array maintenance (Irwandi et al.)equipment. The 4000SSi is a full-featured dual frequency GPS receiver ideal for high-end survey
applications. The receiver provides versatile operations for geodetic control, photogrammetry andland movement monitoring. In addition to using the receiver for postprocessed surveying, thereceiver can be used for real-time kinematic (RTK) GPS surveying and RTCM differential work.
The receiver is supplied standard with RTCM input, event marker input, 1 PPS output, and an
NMEA navigation interface. These features allow the receiver to be used for hydrographic, marine,
aerial and everyday survey work. The display makes it easy to configure settings, create files andlocate existing sites when necessary (Fugro 2008). However, the main problems are how to supply
continue stable electricity and store the continue output data.
At the receiver attach three connections: GPS antenna, power supply, and data logger. The GPS
antenna is connected to antenna plug. The electrical power supply to PWR 1 I/O with 5 pin jack.
Whereas, the data coming out from plug I/O 2 connect to Linux Data Logger by using 7 pin jackconnector as show in figure 4. Others unused plug have to close with own plugs. Switch off
luminance was selected to reduce electrical power consumption.
The GPS receiver send data through serial RS-232 interface with specific baud rate and format.
CONTROL button at the receiver is used to specify the serial communication format and consider
output data. Select BAUD RATE/FORMAT menu item and choose SERIAL PORT 2 SETTING
if plug I/O2 is used with the following setting as show in GPS screen.
PORT 2 BAUD RATE [ 115200 ] <-- CHANGE
FORMAT [ 8-NONE-1 ] <-- CHANGE
FLOW CONTROL [ NONE ] <-- CHANGE

GPS Trimble 4000 has several kinds data sending via serial connection. The data logger with
program teqc from UNAVCO require two type of data: time stamp and Rinex data. Time stamp
data will activated by push CONTROL button, choose the 1 PPS OUPUT menu and setting asfollowing screen.
1 PPS OUTPUT: [ ENABLED ] <-- CHANGESLOPE: [ NEGATIVE ] <-- CHANGE
ASCII TIME TAGS: [ PORT 2 ] <-- CHANGE

After perform the setting data logger will send the readable ASCII time tags look like following
format: UTC 09.03.12 04:53:54 59. The second type of data will activated by push
CONTROL button, choose the CYCLE PRINTOUTS menu, as show in following screen.
OUTPUT EVERY RECEIVER CYCLE
RT SURVEY DATA <-- NEXT
PORT SELECTION <-- NEXTENABLE [ PORT 2 ] <-- CHANGE

All outputs data in the RT SURVEY DATA menu should be switch off, except if specific datarequired, for example ephemeris data will be sending out if setting following screen
OUTPUT EVERY RECEIVER CYCLE
RT SURVEY DATA <-- NEXT
OUPUT EPHEMERIS <-- NEXTENABLE [ ON ] <-- CHANGE

All data in RT SURVEY DATA menu will be send as unreadable ASCII characters.
5. Linux Data Logger (Rinex Box)
The data sending by GPS receiver via serial port in ASCII time tags and RT survey data format
should be convert to RINEX format and store in huge data. UNAVCO has provided the teqc

113
113

III. Monitoring and Assessment

application for the conversion. Officially the application can be run on PC based operating system,
however in field survey has limited electrical power for continue long time survey. Therefore, lowenergy consumption with minimal feature PC based equipment has to embed in the system.
The AGNeSS has used the PC Engines WRAP (ALIX for new design) system board, which
gives network OEMs a cost-effective SBC (Single Board Computer) platform with network (RJ45).
The SBC has features: CPU 233 MHz AMD, 64 or 128 MB SDRAM, Operating system andapplication stored on Compact Flash card (4GB), power about 3 to 5W at 12V DC (J9. 2.1 mm
center pin = positive) and support Power over Ethernet (PoE) acceptable voltage range +7V to +18V
DC. The SBC support various FreeBSD, linux, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. Connection to serial
console using a DB9 null modem cable. Default serial port parameters are 38400 8N1. Do NOT use
a 1:1 connected serial cable, as the serial port may get damaged (PC Engines 2007).
Voyage linux was selected as data logger operating system and stabil. Voyage Linux is Debianderived distribution that is best run on a x86-based embedded platforms such as WRAP, ALIX andSoekris 45xx/48xx boards. It can also run on low-end x86 PC platforms. Typical installation requires
128MB disk space, although larger storage allows more packages to be installed. Voyage Linux is sosmall that it is best suitable for running a full-feature firewall, wireless access point, VoIP gateway
and network storage device.
The teqc program with others supporting file copy to the linux data logger in directory/home/gps/bin and others required file in certain location. Firstly, when the data logger on, thescript /etc/rcS.d/S99_obs will be executed. Second, the script will execute other script in
new thread.
su gps -c '/home/gps/bin/startgps.csh &'In the startgps.csh script consist a line to execute other script to update OS time.
(sudo -S -s /home/gps/bin/sync_date_init.sh $baud ) < /home/gps/pass.

After the OS time updated successfully, the last command in startgps.csh script will be
executed to perform Rinex data downloading.
/bin/csh -f /home/gps/bin/com2rnx ttyS0 115200 ACEH TRIMBLE 4000SSI …

The com2rnx script will execute teqc two times in different option. First command at line 93
cat $dev | teqc $stream -O.obs L1 -O.int $dtobs +ds $dtobs +err
/dev/shm/start_gps> $tmprnx

and the second command at line 135
cat $dev | teqc +nav $site$doy$seq"."$yy"n" -week $yy":"$doy $stream -O.obs
l1+l2+p1+p2+c1 -O.o $observer -O.ag $agency …

The first command will perform GPS receiver testing. After pass the test, data logger will performmain task to convert RT survey and save required Rinex data as continue long time survey. The task
appear as following process.
teqc +nav ACEH0700.09n -week 09 070 -tr s -O.obs l1+l2+p1+p2+c1 -O.o RSVD -O.ag
NAGOYA_UNIV …

6. Standard Troubleshooting AGNeSS Continue Site
There are several internal and external problem to maintenance continue GPS site. The internal
problems are caused by quality of equipments and installation error, such as:
1. Install home and office equipment use only (data logger)

114
114

Field challenge of continues GPS array maintenance (Irwandi et al.)2. Not suitable voltage specification of equipments
3. Error in linux OS configuration
4. Error in cable installation
5. Error in GPS receiver setting
6. Lead-acid Battery condition
Whereas, the external problems are caused by environment, electricity, and human factor
7. Continuing and stability PLN electrical power
8. Switch of the fuse
9. Rain and flood protection
10. Human factor and Security
The obstacles will affected and destroy the continue GPS system. Therefore, we have developed
standard procedure to check the GPS continue sites.
1. Firstly, check the physical condition, such wetness, warmness, insect, and other appear
problem including lose of equipments.
2. Next, plug in laptop changer in to electricity power and identify the electricity power status.
3. Connect laptop to data logger via LAN connection and check data logger respond by
performing command ping 192.168.1.100.
4. If no respond from data logger, check the voltage each pair terminals at solar panel
controller. According to the voltage we can determine the trouble equipment, such: battery(including liquid acid), switching adapter, relay, and the solar panel controller.
5. If data logger respond the ping request, that indicate all equipment in good condition. Loginto the data logger with command ssh gps@192.168.1.100.
6. Execute ps -ax command to monitor the running application.
teqc +nav ACEH0700.09n -week 09 070 -tr s -O.obs l1+l2+p1+p2+c1 …

7. If the application is running that indicate GPS continue system in good performance torecording and saving data. However, we have to check the increasing file and quality of
Rinex data with command
tail -f /home/gps/rinex/ACEH/ACEH0700.09o

8. Finally, after this short procedure, we start download data from laptop with linux securecopy
scp -rp gps@192.168.1.100:/home/gps/rinex/ACEH

In reality, there was a lot of troubles in field survey with specific and smart solving problem for eachcases such as author experiences is written in following paragraphs.
7. Field Experience and GPS Sites Condition
The field trip of continue GPS sites survey take two routes. First field trip we went from Sigli to
Meulaboh via Gempang route. Second field trip we come back from Meulaboh to Bireuen via
Betong Ateuh route. The field survey route should take time 3 days and we optimize to 2 days. First
trip we checked the UGAD, MALO, TANG, and, MANE site. Second trip we checked the BTBW
and BTAT site. Following paragraph explain experience and suggestion for each sites.
7.1 UGAD site
The UGAD site checking started from 13.40 to 14.00 in August 13, 2008. The physicalcondition of UGAD site good, dry, and no warm equipment, see the picture 01. The battery voltage

115
115

III. Monitoring and Assessment

was 11.85 Volt and electrical power off because the electrical fuse at the school was open (turn off)at that time. After the fuse close (turn on) the electrical power became on. The total data storage inthe rinex/UGAD folder 195MB. The data logger time update did not give correct date. The datalogger can get data (increasing the rinex file) but give incorrect time at the rinex file, for example:
2.10
OBSERVATION DATA G (GPS)RINEX VERSION / TYPE
teqc 2002Mar14
20080624 23:57:25UTCPGM / RUN BY / DATELinux 2.0.36|Pentium II|gcc -static|Linux|486/DX+
COMMENT
BIT 2 OF LLI FLAGS DATA COLLECTED UNDER A/S CONDITIONCOMMENTUGDNMARKER NAMERSVD
NAGOYA_UNIV
OBSERVER / AGENCY
1
TRIMBLE 4000SSI -UnknownREC # / TYPE / VERS
-UnknownTRM23903.00
ANT # / TYPE
0.00000.00000.0000APPROX POSITION XYZ
0.00000.00000.0000ANTENNA: DELTA H/E/N
1 1
WAVELENGTH FACT L1/2
5 L1 L2 P1 P2 C1# / TYPES OF OBSERV
1.0000
INTERVAL
SNR is mapped to RINEX snr flag value [1-9]
COMMENT
L1: 3 -> 1; 8 -> 5; 40 -> 9
COMMENT
L2: 1 -> 1; 5 -> 5; 60 -> 9
COMMENT
teqc windowed: start @ 2008 Jun 25 00:00:00.000
COMMENT
teqc windowed: end @ 2008 Jun 25 23:59:59.000
COMMENT
2008 6 25 0 0 1.0000000 GPS
TIME OF FIRST OBS
END OF HEADER
08 6 25 0 0 1.0000000 0 9G26G30G15G12G 9G 5G24G18G21
9100282.56943 7197345.88145
22521917.7264 22521912.8144
10091091.66146 5489819.25045
24110435.5164 24110435.1644
612490.62546 575650.96646
22090273.1054 22090269.5304
276410.90741 139053.73845
24219188.5434 24219186.1284-6907382.97147 -5060810.36546
21975163.3804 21975157.4964
11404402.19742 4782413.65645
24215420.1454 24215412.4784-3749300.75247 -2021608.79146
21726648.2774 21726642.2874
3400949.66746 2636959.28446
23444335.5374 23444331.1774-2296286.88946 -1714459.79846
23593519.3274 23593515.0484

I tried to repair the incorrect of date information system by changing the receiver configurationfor 2 hour without any success. We left the system with error date receiving data. For the UGAD
electrical power, I suggest to bypass the fuse or make the alternative fuse system at the school.
Whereas the incorrect date information system we have to setup the receiver configuration or replacewith other. I wish to understand the GPS receiver testing more detail. The problem was solved at
next survey after edit the /etc/sudoer file.
7.2. MALO site
The MALO site checking started from 16.20 to 16.40 in August 13, 2008. The physicalcondition of MALO site good, dry, and no warm equipment. The battery voltage was 13.75 Volt andelectrical power on, solar panel voltage 15.30 Volt, and load voltage 13.77 Volt. The last GPS
receiver down 24 July 08, 13:07 UTC. The data logger time dan system is running very well withdata storage 500MB.
This is a good model design for the location.
7.3 TANG site
The TANG site checking started from 17.58 to 20.50 in August 13, 2008. The physicalcondition of TANG site good and dry but the equipment very warm. The battery voltage was 13.48
Volt and electrical power on. The solar cell voltage 23.66 volt and load voltage 24 volt. The lastreceiver power down 09 August 2008 10:58 UTC.
We can not ping to the data logger and download data by using card reader until 1.68GB. In therinex folder still contain other site folder with significant size. The capacity of smart card 66MB
remain and I remove the data (after download) to increase the free space. I replace the adaptor from24 Volt to 15 volt to decrease heat release by adaptor. After long time reparation and testing the data

116
116

Field challenge of continues GPS array maintenance (Irwandi et al.)logger become cold and I can ping and login to the data logger. Finally, the system is running very
well with getting date information and getting correct rinex data increasing. During the reparation I
used my data logger for testing and may be replace with it, I forget make note at the data logger
board. We working during 3 hours.
I suggest to consider the heat release by adaptor switch and always increase the free space eachchecking activity (remove all data after download).
7.4 MANE site
The MANE site checking started from 22.30 to 23.32 in August 13, 2008. The physicalcondition of MANE site good, dry, no warm, but unfortunately the battery voltage was stolen. The
electrical power at that time was on. First, I thing to put new battery (we bring two battery in car),but when we were checking the cable to the battery room no left cable to make connection to newbattery. In other hand, we worried to put new battery without increase protection and security. I havechanged the circuit to direct electricity power supply and running well. The data logger was getting
date update information and correct rinex increasing data. The download data only 45.2MB. I
suggest to improve the security system with redesign and deploy additional lock.
At that time the environment condition was dry and we used Autan (mosquito protection gel)hence no any leech attach us. We left at 23.32 o’clock and the driver have sleep in Sungai Mas(Tutut). We arrived to Meulaboh at 5 o’clock in early morning.
7.5. BTBW site
The BTBW site checking started from 12.38 to 14.30 in August 14, 2008. The physicalcondition of MANE site good, dry, no warm, but the data logger and GPS receiver down. I check theelectrical power ok and solar panel ok but the Sun Saver Board look like burnt. The battery voltage
very low 10.20 Volt. When I was checking the cables I surprised the polarity of solar panel voltage
attach in relay opposite with the polarity of adaptor switch however the label at solar panel (positivesign) install on correct slot. I released the solar panel cable from the Sun Saver Board and I measure
the voltage. I surprise the voltage indicated by Voltmeter different with positive sign label. I thing
the system was running well when the electrical power on (not use the solar panel). But when theelectrical power down the Sun Saver got the wrong voltage polarity from solar panel and make the
Sun Saver Board broken.
I have replaced the new Sun Saver Board and repair the positive label position. The data logger
now is running well with get good date update and correct rinex increasing data. I have downloaded
data about 164MB. I suggest for each continue site we have to check the circuit system by testing inelectrical power on and in electrical power off.
7.6.BTAT site
The BTAT site checking started from 17.10 to 18.00 in August 14, 2008. At that time theelectrical power was down for 15 days, according to the people. She said the battery almost steal bysomeone, but the people immediately looked at the site and the steals run hurriedly. The BTAT siteis has terrible data logger quality. When the last checking with Dr. Takeo Ito the data logger was
sometime ok and sometime not ok. I thing the data logger in problem. I have tried check the datalogger by direct connection to Battery but the data logger still problem. I only download data withcard reader.

Figure 5. Documentary and Commentary Continue Field Survey in BTAT site

117
117

III. Monitoring and Assessment

The Sun Saver circuit can not supply electrical power to circuit, however the solar panel and thebattery (12.17 Volt) in good condition. Possibility of the Sun Saver Board broken because it can nothandle double solar panel. I can not repair the site because the data logger out of order and I can’t
replace with other data logger because my data logger also not good. In Figure 5 show the last sitechecking activity and comment from Prof. Dr. Fumiaki Kimata
I suggest to replace with good data logger quality and consider the capacity of Sun Saver circuit
to handle double solar panel. We have to improve the security of the site especially for battery box.
(at the TANG site use additional key lock for Battery box)
8. Summary Continue Site Condition
Maintenance continue GPS array on Sumatra Fault have problems not only for understanding thesystem but also we have to understand specific sites obstacles including human interaction. Field tripon August 13-14, 2008 describe the condition of continue GPS site:
UGAD site
MALO site
TANG site
MANE site
BTBW site
BTAT site

has electrical problem and the data logger can’t got time from GPS including time
data in the rinex file format.
is running very fine.
is running very well after replace power supply and increase the free space.
is running well with direct electrical power without battery (stolen)
is running very well after replace Sun Saver because solar panel mistake polary.
is has bad data logger quality and can’t run.

Suggestion for next trip to improve the box security by modification and additional lock key androbust electrical/cable circuit.
Acknowledgment: One of us (Ir) would like to thank Dr. Takeo Ito for friendly detail discussion about the continue
GPS system and Prof. Dr. Fumiaki Kimata as AGNeSS head project. I am also thank to my colleague Muksin for his
motivation to joint this research activities. Officially to thank ICTP (International Centre for Theoretical Physics) forworkshop activities: earthquake prediction, seismic hazard, and seismic wave propagation.

Reference
Fugro Instruments – Complete Geophysical Hardware and Software Solutions
http://www.fugroinstruments.com/technicalpapers/index.html 2008
Ito, Takeo, Agustan, Irwan Meilano, Takao Tabei, Fumiaki Kimata. The Construction of New Dense
GPS Observation Network: AGNeSS (Aceh GPS Network for Sumatran Fault System) The 4th
Investigation Report of 2004 Northern Sumatra Earthquake, 2008
Irwandi and Triyanta. Multiplet Mass Spectra of the SU(3) Skyrme Model with Color Symmetry
Breaking and the Guadagnini terms. Indonesian Journal of Physics Vol 17 No. 1, January 2006
Irwandi, Java Open Instrumentation System (Joints) Project: an Open Source Software Alternative
for Low Cost Education and Research Equipment. 2nd Jogja International Physics Conference“Enhancing Network and Collaboration Developing Research and Education in Physics andNuclear Energy” September 6-9, 2007, Yogyakarta-Indonesia
Meilano, Irwan et.al. Two Years GPS Observation in Aceh. The 3rd Investigation Report of 2004
Northern Sumatra Earthquake. Graduate School of Environmental Studies Nagoya University.
2007
PC Engines GmbH, WRAP router platform Versions WRAP.1C / .1D / .1E, WRAP.2B / .2C / .2D/ .2E, German 2007
Sieh, K., and D. Natawidjaja , Neotectonics of the Sumatran fault, Indonesia. J. Geophys. Res.,
105(B12), 28295-28326, 2000

118
118

Rapid Soil Evaluation in Tsunami Effected Areas by Using
Soil Visual Assessment
Helmi
Faculty of Agriculture, Syiah Kuala University, Darussalam – Banda Aceh Indonesia

Abstract: Giant earthquake and tsunami on December 26th 2004 in Asia had been resulted millions hectares ofagricultural land devastated and decreased of their fertilities. Many organization was interested in rehabilitation andrestoration of the lands. It is absolutely needed a soil investigation and evaluation before the restoration program is
implemented. Dealing with the restoration of tsunami effected land, this paper try to reviews a preliminary step in thedevelopment of methodology for soil visual assessment (SVA) for farmer use. SVA was used to describes andevaluates the morphological condition of soils in the tsunami effected areas. This is a more rapid and immediate
method of soil assessment than the conventional sets of soil physical measurements commonly used such as bulk
density, water infiltration, and soil strength, etc.
Keywords: Rapid, Soil, Assesment, Methods

1. Introduction
Soil visual assesment (SVA) can be implemented by emphasizing morphological descriptions of soil
for not only facilitates rapid analysis of a soil’s current condition but also can be used to comparativeof agricultural ground assessments with relatively different in adjoining tree or fence lines, also
permits impact statements and evaluating current land practices (McGarry, 1993). Continuing theevaluations with time facilitates trend analysis, particularly as farm practices change as a result of
impact statements. Rapidity also ensures that either small areas are investigated in detail or large
areas are evaluated quickly. The simplicity of the techniques and the everyday nature of theequipment needed to excavate and then describe the soil ensures that the system is usable by farmers,
hence providing ownership and subsequent use of the collected information to increase theirunderstanding of the impact of their management on their soil.
With SVA, the emphasis is on the assessment of soil physical condition (soil structure units andporosity) as well as soil colour, root development, soil fauna and organic matter status. The system isfirmly founded on decades of pedological (soil description) methods and practices, where mostcountries have a system of describing and semi-quantifying soil condition. The aim of developing
the SVA system presented here, and the main difference between this system and most of thosepresented by Batey (2004), is simplicity. It is foreseen that the main users of this current system will
be farmers in developing countries. As an example, an immediate application of the SVA systembeing developed here is within the Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA) project of
FAO. The LADA project aims to assess and combat land degradation in drylands particularly via thedevelopment and building of “land monitoring tools”. Within the project, the aim is not only to takethe best of these descriptors but also the most robust, readily teachable (in participatory farmer
workshops), most widely transferable (between LADA countries and within country sites), andcross-check the SVA scores and soil photographs with simple yet scientifically tested soil
measurements. As such, the SVA system aims to fill the need for a simple, repeatable, low-costmonitoring system to capture the condition of and trend in (and extent and ramifications of) soil
degradation, organic matter and soil biota (both natural/inherent and anthropogenic) in cropping,grazing and woodlands, worldwide.
2. Methodology
The SVA system is still in the development phase. However, the general aim is to compile a “fieldtest kit” for use by farmers “on-farm”. The system has two levels of methods and tests. The first set
is the “core” tests of the system. Depending on time, budget, availability of apparatus and operator
skills, all or selected measures from the second set of tests should also be conducted. It will be

119
119

III. Monitoring and Assessment

essential to establish a firm link between the SVA scores from the first set of methods and thequantified data from the second set.
It is envisaged that the test kit will consist of procedures and apparatus to qualify and score:¾ Soil structure size, type and grade (e.g. “weak crumb”, “strong platy” and “massive”),¾ Soil porosity size, type and intensity,¾ Soil texture (e.g. clay, sandy loam, and loamy clay),¾ Soil depths (of visible layers, especially degraded layers),¾ Soil colour.
In addition, a set of “simple yet scientifically based” measures will be included in the kit. The
cost of the necessary components for these tests will determine users’ choice of tests included in thispart of the kit.
The measurement apparatus and instructions will concern:¾ Water infiltration,¾ Soil organic matter status (especially labile carbon) (Weil et al., 2003),¾ Soil biota (earthworm counts per unit volume),¾ Soil slaking and dispersion (Field, McKenzie and Koppi, 1997),¾ Soil strength (perhaps the most difficult aspect because of known water-content
interactions),¾ Soil pH (items included: the field kit of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation [CSIRO], barium sulphate, and indicator fluid).
The kit will contain a scoring system and score sheets for each of the above descriptors andmeasures.
3. Methods Used to Describe and Evaluate the Physical Condition of Soil in the Field
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Direct field assessment of soil physical conditions: T. Batey.
The visual assessment of soil structure in the field (the Peerlkamp Scale): T. Batey.
SOILpak method for assessment of soil conditions: D.C. McKenzie.
A guide to tillage management based on surface soil types: J. Lawrie, B. Murphy and I. Packer.
Visual soil assessment (VSA): T.G. Shepherd.
Soil Quality Management System (SQMS): M. Beare.
Le profil cultural: Morphological characterization of cultivated structure at the field scale: H.
Boizard, G. Richard and J. Roger-Estrade.
8. Soil quality scoring procedure: B.C. Ball and J.T. Douglas.
9. Visual soil assessment – spade analysis: L.K. Munkholm.
10. Assessment of soil structure by visual classification of aggregates: P. Weisskopf.
11. Visualise your soil (BIZ) – from observation to management: C.J. Koopmans, J. Bokhorst andE. Herres. Source: From Batey, 2004.
4. Five Features, Recordable in the Field, to Describe Soil Structure Form
Type of pedality provides a description of ped shape, e.g. platy, granular, lenticular and polyhedral.
Size is the average least dimension of peds, used to define class intervals, e.g. small (0-2 mm) or
medium (2-5 mm).
Grade is the degree of development and distinctness of peds, used to express the relative
difference between the strength of cohesion within peds and the adhesion between adjacent peds.
This is highly dependent on current water content. So, commonality of water contents between
descriptions is to be aimed for. Fabric is commonly restricted to Vertisols (cracking clays). It records
the lustre of ped faces, e.g. earthy, sandy, rough or smooth. Orientation is most commonly used for
Vertisols, where peds in the subsoil commonly lie at 45o to each other.

120
120

Rapid soil evaluation in tsunami effected areas (Helmi)

a. Descriptors And Measurement Detail
The morphological descriptions will be based primarily on the evaluation of a block of soil
removed by a spade. The spade technique is described in the SOILpak manual (McKenzie, 1998).
Essentially, a spade with a flat (although usually slightly curved) blade is used to remove an intact“block” of soil, commonly up to 30 cm deep and 25 cm wide. The soil is left on the blade of the
spade for subsequent observations.
First, using a measuring tape (or stick graduated in centimetres), the location of any visible soil
layers are assessed and measured in terms of colour, soil structure (see below), root density, etc.
Then, as described by Batey (2004): “Begin at the original surface and break the spadeful of soil
gently apart by hand. The criteria used are the size, shape, porosity and cohesion of aggregates andlumps (Box 2), the degree of dispersion and breakdown of surface tilth and the amount of root
development. The assumptions made are that fine and medium crumb-sized aggregates, highporosity and the absence of a surface crust are beneficial to root development and crop growth.
Overall, the test assesses the quality of the soil as a medium for root growth.”
As the soil is gently manipulated, the components specified in Box 3 need to be specified andall observations recorded (a photograph is most useful).
The scoring system is currently under discussion. However, scores are attributed to each of thevariables noted in the soil, such as structure type, root penetration/development, and earthworm
counts, and multiplied by weighted values.
The soil measurements to be included in the SVA system are also under discussion. However,
early considerations of three will be presented here. These three represent perhaps the mostimportant indicators of soil structure / physical state, i.e. soil stability to wetting, water infiltration,and soil organic matter status.
b. Soil Stability to Wetting
There are two main types of aggregate collapse when water is added to soil: (i) slaking, which
describes the breakdown of aggregates into microaggregates; and (ii) dispersion, which describes thebreakdown of aggregates into the primary soil particles of sand, silt and clay. The differentiation
between slaking and dispersion is most important.
Generally, the products of slaking can reform to produce larger aggregates, whereas dispersion
into primary particles is irreversible and results in undesirable, massive structure. On the soil surface,dispersed soil appears as a hardsetting layer or a surface crust. It is a major impediment to water
penetration and plant growth, particularly of young, emerging plants.
The determination of the slaking or dispersive nature of a soil is commonly a laboratory test.
However, an appreciation of the phenomenon can be gained in a short time during soil description in
the field (Field, McKenzie and Koppi, 1997). The procedure is as follows. Drop an air-dried
aggregate from the layer under investigation into a dish (e.g. a saucer) or a small clear container(cup) containing water (use rainwater or local irrigation water). After each of 10 minutes and 2 hours(when possible) of immersion, a visual judgement is made of the degree of dispersion on a scale of
0-4 on each occasion (10 minutes and 2 hours). The two scores are added together giving a range ofscores from 0 to 8. The total indicates the following:¾ ҏ0 indicates no dispersion;¾ ҏ1 is slight dispersion, recognized by a slight milkiness in the water adjacent to theaggregate;¾ ҏ2 is moderate dispersion with obvious milkiness;¾ 3 is strong dispersion with considerable milkiness and about half of the original aggregate
volume dispersed outwards;¾ ҏ4 is complete dispersion, the original aggregate completely dispersed into clay, silt andsand grains.
5. Components of Soil Structure and Other Observations to be Recorded
Well-structured soil will part along natural faces (the aggregates part from one another). Poorly
structured soil breaks or snaps where you apply the force. Well-structured dry soil crumbles easily –it is friable.

121
121

III. Monitoring and Assessment

Be aware of the effect of current soil water content on this evaluation. Moist and wet soil can beteased apart easily if it is well structured. Poorly structured wet soil will stretch like plasticine or tearto leave rough surfaces.
a. Roots
Where roots follow cracks, grow around aggregates and do not penetrate them, then structure ispoor. Note any abrupt changes in direction or number of roots.
b. Porosity
If pores are visible to the eye, then they are large enough to allow the movement of water,
nutrients, air and roots to move into and through aggregates. Pores will look like small pits or dark
dots on the faces of aggregates. Well-structured soil has numerous pores. Pore size can be measured
and recorded.
c. Ped ShapeThe shape of unbroken aggregates reveals the quality of structure. Cube-shaped, rounded,
lenticular and polyhedral aggregates indicate good structure, while platy or massive aggregatesindicate poor structure.
d. Ped Size
Small aggregates indicate good structure. Large aggregates indicate poorer structure. To assess:
Break a lump of soil into smaller and smaller pieces, using moderate hand pressure. Take note of thesize of the lump just before you begin tearing through the fabric of the soil, leaving a fine grainy
surface rather than a shiny face. This is the point at which you are no longer breaking soil along
natural fracture planes – you are tearing the aggregate apart. Wet soil can be difficult to examine.
e. Earthworms
Although not a direct measure of soil-structure condition, note earthworm numbers, type (where
known), and size and distribution of burrows and caste material.
Table 1. Simple estimation of K on the basis of 3-D flow from a pond
Time for 50 mm of water to be gonefrom ring with radius 50 mm< 10 min.
< 10 min. < 2 h>2hHydraulic conductivity – K(mm/h)> 36 (fast)> 3.6 (medium)< 1 (very slow)

Table 2. Simple estimation of K on the basis of 1-D flow from a pond
Time for 50 mm of water to be gonefrom ring with radius 50 mm< 30 min.
< 30 min. < 10 h
> 10 hHydraulic conductivity – K(mm/h)> 36 (fast)> 3.6 (medium)< 1 (very slow)

f. Water Infiltration
A major determinant of the cropping potential of a soil is the rate and amount of water that can
infiltrate either through the soil surface or within the soil profile. The following method has beendevised by Cook (CSIRO, Australia). The aim was to derive a simple method for the rapid
estimation of soil hydraulic conductivity. Simplicity, both in apparatus required and field method,
was essential. Although operationally simple, the method is firmly based on fundamental, globallytested and accepted soil physical principles.
The method considers two scenarios:
1.
2.

A ring is only pressed lightly into the soil surface (three-dimensional flow).
A ring is pushed in to a considerable depth (greater than the diameter of the ring), so thatthe flow is essentially one-dimensional.

122
122

Rapid soil evaluation in tsunami effected areas (Helmi)

Cook advises using the three-dimensional method where possible as results will be obtained
more quickly and the time data are more sensitive to the hydraulic conductivity. The onedimensional method is more appropriate where soil cracking or the aggregation of the soil makes it
difficult to seal the ring onto the soil without leaks occurring.
Field equipment is a 1 × 50 mm radius ring (usually metal with a sharpened tip), a container
holding exactly 50 mm of water, and a watch. Tables 1 and 2 present summary hydraulicconductivity data for each of the three- and one-dimensional scenarios, respectively.
g. Soil Organic Matter Status
Most of the functions associated with soil quality are strongly influenced by soil organic matter,
especially the small portion that is termed active organic carbon (Weil, Web site). Techniques havedeveloped to fractionate carbon on the basis of lability (ease of oxidation), recognizing that these
subpools of carbon may have greater effect on soil physical stability and be more sensitive indicatorsof carbon dynamics in agricultural systems than total carbon values (Weil et al., 2003). Moreover,the link between indices of soil physical condition and labile carbon fractions has been investigated
where comparisons of never-cropped land and adjoining farmland across three soil types reported a
substantial loss of carbon with cropping, particularly labile (permanganate oxidizable) carbon.
Weil et al. (2003) have developed a “field kit method” for the determination of potassium
permanganate oxidizable carbon. This is the technique that will be developed for use in the SVA
system, particularly aiming to replace the required technology (a hand-held colorimeter) with a rangeof colour (purple) chips – to represent the range of results found in field soils.
6. Conclusions
The early stages of a simple soil evaluation method, farmer-usable SVA system have been presented.
Descriptive, qualitative information based on soil morphological descriptions of spade-excavatedsoil profiles will be cross-checked and validated with a set of simple, yet scientifically based andknown, environmentally vital, field measurements. The outcome will be a part resolution of acontinuing need for a simple, low-cost monitoring system for capturing the condition of and trend in,and extent and ramifications of, soil degradation and organic matter decline (both natural/inherent
and anthropogenic) in the cropping, grazing and woodlands of the world.
References
McGarry, D. 2005. Comparative assessment of practices and their effects using a soil visualassessment in the role and importance of integrated soil and water management for orcharddevelopment, FAO Report No.10. pp.29-35
Batey, T. 2004. Compendium of methods for the direct field assessment of soil physical conditions.
ISTRO Working Group F on Visual Soil Examination and Evaluation. p.24
Field, D.J., McKenzie, D.C. & Koppi, A.J. 1997. Development of an improved vertisol stability test
for SOIL pak. Aust. J. of Soil Res., 35: 843-852
McGarry, D. 1993. The degradation of soil structure. Chapter 9. In: Land degradation processes inAustralia. Melbourne, Australia, Longman Cheshire
McGarry, D. 2002. Conservation agriculture – what you should know about assessing soil conditionin the field. Course notes of the first international training course on conservation agriculture
for technicians and farmers leaders, from northern Africa and the Mediterranean, Vasto, Italy,
26 May – 1 June 2002. p.29
McKenzie, D.C. 1998. SOILpak for cotton growers. Third edition. Australia, Information Delivery
Unit, NSW Agriculture. P.352
Weil, R.R. http://www.agnr.umd.edu/maes_exe/dividends/weil3.pdf
Weil, R.R, Islam, K.R., Stine, M.A. & Samson-Liebig, S.E. 2003. Estimating active carbon for soil
quality assessment: a simplified method for laboratory and field use. Am. J. Alt. Agric., 18(1):
3–17

123
123

ᵤᵄ⊒↢ࡊࡠ࠮ࠬࠍ⸃᣿ߔࠆߚ߼ߩᣂ࠺࡯࠲ߩขᓧ
㨪♽⛔⊛ߥᵤᵄ⋡᠄⸽⸒ߩ෼㓸߆ࠄࠊ߆ࠆߎߣ㨪ᨋ  ⢻ ᚑ㕒ጟᄢቇ㒐ἴ✚ว࠮ࡦ࠲࡯

㧝㧚ߪߓ߼ߦ
2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࡮ࠕࡦ࠳ࡑࡦ࿾㔡ߣߘࠇߦ઻߁ࠗࡦ࠼ᵗᄢᵤᵄߪ‫᦭ޔ‬ผએ᧪ᦨᄢ⚖ߩᄢ߈ߥⵍኂࠍ߽ߚࠄߒߚ‫ޕ‬ἴኂ⋥ᓟ߆ࠄ࿖㓙ㅪ៤ߦࠃࠆᢇഥ࡮ᢇេᵴേ߇ࠗࡦ࠼ᵗᴪጯ⻉࿖ߢⴕࠊࠇߚߩߣਗⴕߒߡ‫ޔ‬਎⇇ਛߩቇⴚᯏ㑐߇ෳടߒߚ⺞ᩏ⎇ⓥ߇ㅴ߼ࠄࠇߚ‫ᦨߦ․ޕ‬ᄢᵄ㜞 30 ࡔ࡯࠻࡞એ਄ߣ޿߁ᄢᵤᵄߩ⊒↢ࡔࠞ࠾࠭ࡓ߿⎕უജߩ⹏ଔߦߟ޿ߡߪ‫⃻ޔ‬࿾ߦ߅ߌࠆ㒽਄⺞ᩏߦട߃‫ޔ‬ᶏᵗ᷹ⷰ⦁ࠍ૶ߞߚ♖ኒߥᶏᐩ᷹㊂߿૛㔡᷹ⷰ‫ੱޔ‬Ꮏⴡᤊ߇᠟ᓇߒ
ߚ↹௝ߩ⸃ᨆ‫ޔ‬਎⇇ਛߦዷ㐿ߐࠇߚ࿾㔡᷹ⷰ✂࡮࿾Ზᄌേ᷹ⷰ✂ߩ࠺࡯࠲ࠍ૶ߞߚ⊒↢Ḯߩផቯߥߤ‫ޔ‬㕖Ᏹߦᄙߊߩ⎇ⓥ߇਎⇇ਛߢߥߐࠇߡ߈ߚ‫ੱߦߢ߹ࠇߎޕ‬㘃߇⠌ᓧߒߚ޽ࠄ
ࠁࠆ᷹ⷰ࡮⸃ᨆᚻᴺ߇ߎߩ࿾㔡ߦㆡ↪ߐࠇߚߣ޿ߞߡ߽ㆊ⸒ߢߪߥ޿‫⃻ޔ߇ߛޕ‬࿷ߩߣߎࠈ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬ፉ⷏ᶏጯߢ᷹ⷰߐࠇߚ 30 ࡔ࡯࠻࡞ࠍ⿥߃ࠆᄢᵤᵄ߇ߤߩࠃ߁ߥࡊࡠ࠮ࠬߢ⊒↢ߒߚߩ߆ߪᔅߕߒ߽⸃᣿ߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿ 1)‫ޕ‬Ꮒᄢᵤᵄߩ⊒↢ࡔࠞ࠾࠭ࡓߦ⻘߇ᱷߐࠇߡ޿ࠆේ࿃ߩ߭ߣߟߣߒߡ‫ⵍ߽ߣߞ߽ޔ‬ኂ߇ᄢ߈߆ߞߚࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉർ⷏ㇱᴪጯߦ߅ߌࠆ᷹ⷰ࠺࡯࠲ߩਇ⿷߇޽ߍࠄࠇࠆ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޕ‬ፉߩർㇱ࿾ၞߪ᡽ᴦ⊛ߦਇ቟ቯߥ႐ᚲߛߞߚߎߣ߽޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᄢᵤᵄએ೨ߦߪ࿾⃿‛ℂቇ⊛᷹ⷰߩⓨ⊕ၞߛߞߚ‫࠻࡯ࡠࡈߦࠄߐޕ‬ᑼᬌầ௾ࠍ૶߁ㅢᏱߩᶏ㕙᷹ⷰᣇᴺߪ㜞ߐ 10 ࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߣ޿ߞߚᏂᄢᵤᵄߦߪήജߢ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᗧ๧ߩ޽ࠆ࠺࡯࠲ߪขᓧߢ߈ߥ޿‫ޕ‬ᵄ߇೔㆐ߒߚ㜞ߐࠍᵤᵄᓟߦਤᔨߥ᷹㊂ߢ᣿ࠄ߆ߦߔࠆ⎇ⓥ߇ⴕࠊࠇ‫޿ߥ߽ߟߡߣޔ‬ᄢᵤᵄߦⷅࠊࠇߚ੐ታߪ᣿ࠄ
߆ߦߥߞߚ߇‫♖ޔ‬ኒߥ᷹㊂⚿ᨐࠍ㓸߼ߡ߽ᱷᔨߥ߇ࠄᵤᵄߩᤨೞᱧࠍ⍮ࠆߎߣߪߢ߈ߥ޿‫ޕ‬ߟ߹ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᓥ᧪ߩᣇᴺߢߪᤨ㑆ಽ⸃⢻ࠍᜬߞߚᵤᵄ࠺࡯࠲ࠍࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉർ⷏ㇱᴪጯ࿾ၞߦ߅
޿ߡᓧࠆߎߣߪ࿎㔍ߢ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬૗߆ᣂߒ޿ᣇᴺࠍ⠨᩺ߒ᷹ⷰ࠺࡯࠲ࠍలታߐߖࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ߞ
ߚ‫ޕ‬ᧄ⎇ⓥߢߪੱ㑆ߩ⋡᠄⸽⸒߆ࠄ‫ࠆ޽ޔ‬႐ᚲߦ߅ߌࠆᵤᵄߩᤨೞᱧࠍ㓸߼ࠆᚻᴺࠍឭ᩺ߒ‫ޔ‬
ߘߩᚻᴺࠍㆡ↪ߔࠆߎߣߢࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉ⷏ᶏጯߦ߅޿ߡᣂߒ޿ᵤᵄ࠺࡯࠲ࠍขᓧߔࠆ‫ߒߘޕ‬ߡ‫ⷰߩߘޔ‬᷹੐ታࠍ⺑᣿ߔࠆߚ߼ߦⷐ᳞ߐࠇࠆᵤᵄᵄḮࡕ࠺࡞ߦߟ޿ߡ◲නߥ⠨ኤࠍⴕ߁‫ޕ‬㧞㧚ᚻ ᴺᧄ⎇ⓥߢߪᵤᵄ⋡᠄⸽⸒ࠍߘߩ⊒↢ࡔࠞ࠾࠭ࡓߩ⎇ⓥߦ߽ᵴ↪ߔࠆߎߣࠍ߼ߑߔ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄ⋡᠄⸽⸒ߩ෼㓸଀ߪᄙߊ‫ޔ‬2004 ᐕࠗࡦ࠼ᵗᄢᵤᵄߩᦨᄢߩⵍἴ࿾ߢ޽ࠆࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚ๟ㄝ
ߢ߽‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ߆ࠄ↢߈ᑧ߮ߚੱ‫߇⸒⸽ߩޘ‬෼㓸࡮౏⴫ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ 2), 3)‫ߩࠄࠇߎޕ‬૕㛎⺣ߦߪ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ᜼േߣ޿߁ⷞὐ߆ࠄ߽ᄙߊߩᵈ⋡ߔߴ߈⸥ㅀ߇฽߹ࠇߡ޿ࠆ߇‫ޔ‬ἴኂႎ㆏ߩข᧚ㆊ⒟ߢᓧࠄࠇߚ⸽⸒ߢ޽ࠆߚ߼ᵤᵄἴኂߩᖤᗌߐࠍવ߃ࠆߣ޿߁┙႐ߢᦠ߆ࠇߡ޿ࠆ႐ว߇ᄙ
޿‫ޔ߼ߚߩߘޕ‬࿾㔡߇߅߈ߡ߆ࠄⵍኂ߇⊒↢ߔࠆ߹ߢߩᤨ㑆⊛ផ⒖ߦ㑐ߔࠆᖱႎ߇ਲߒߊ‫ޔ‬‫߁޿ߣޠߟ޿ޟ‬ᖱႎࠍ․ቯߔࠆߩ߇࿎㔍ߥ੐଀߽฽߹ࠇࠆ‫⸥ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ㅀߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ੐⽎߇⿠߈ߚ‫ޟ‬႐ᚲ‫․ࠍޠ‬ቯߢ߈ߥ޿႐ว߽޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬૕㛎⺣ࠍ⑼ቇ⊛ߦಽᨆߔࠆߚ߼ߦߪ‫ߞߎ⿠ޟޔ‬ߚ⃻⽎‫⸥ߦ⚦⹦ࠍޠ‬ㅀߔࠆߎߣߦട߃‫ޟߚ߈⿠߇⽎⃻ߩߘޔ‬႐ᚲ‫ᤨޟߣޠ‬㑆‫ߦޠ‬㑐ߔࠆઃᏪᖱႎ߇ᰳ߆ߖߥ޿‫ޔࠅ߹ߟޕ‬ᵤᵄߩ᜼േࠍ⺞ߴࠆߚ߼ߩ⋡᠄⸽⸒ߪ‫ޔ‬‫ޠ⽎⃻ޟ‬
࡮‫ޟ‬႐ᚲ‫ޠ‬࡮‫ᤨޟ‬㑆‫ ߩޠ‬3 ߟ߇࠮࠶࠻ߦߥߞߡ㓸߼ࠄࠇߡ޿ߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠄߥ޿‫ޕ‬ࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯⺞ᩏ߿⡞߈ขࠅ⺞ᩏߣ޿߁ᚻᴺߪ‫ੱޔ‬ᢥ␠ળ⑼ቇ♽⎇ⓥ⠪߿ႎ㆏㑐ଥ⠪߇ਥߦ૶߁ᚻᴺߢ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬ℂ♽⎇ⓥ⠪ߦߪ޽߹ࠅߥߓߺ߇ߥ޿‫ੱߡߒߘޕ‬ᢥ␠ળ⑼ቇ♽⎇ⓥ⠪

124
124

඾ඬႆဃȗȭǻǹǛᚐଢƢǔƨǊƷૼȇȸǿƷӕࢽᲢ௎ Ꮱ঺Უࠄߩਥߚࠆ⥝๧ߪᵤᵄᓟߦ⊒↢ߒߚߎߣ‫߫߃଀ޔ‬࿖㓙េഥߩ઀⚵ߺ߿ࠦࡒࡘ࠾࠹ࠖ࡯߇ᨐ
ߚߒߚᓎഀߩ⸃᣿ߥߤߢ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᚒ‫⥝߇ޘ‬๧ࠍᜬߞߡ޿ࠆᵤᵄⷅ᧪ᤨߩ᭽ሶߣ޿ߞߚߏߊ⍴ᤨ㑆ߩ಴᧪੐ߪ⥝๧ߩኻ⽎߆ࠄߪߕࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޔ߃ࠁࠇߘޕ‬2004 ᐕࠗࡦ࠼ᵗᄢᵤᵄߦߟ޿ߡ
ᄙߊߩੱᢥ␠ળ♽⎇ⓥ⠪߇⥝๧ࠍᜬߞߡࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯⺞ᩏࠍታᣉߒߡ޿ࠆ߆ࠄߣ޿ߞߡ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ᜼േߦ㑐ߔࠆ⋡᠄⸽⸒߇⥄േ⊛ߦ෼㓸ߐࠇߡ޿ߊߣߪ⠨߃ࠄࠇߥ޿‫ޟޕ‬ᵤᵄ᜼േ‫޿ߣޠ‬
߁ℂቇ⊛ߥ⥝๧߆ࠄߩ૕㛎⺣ࠍ㓸߼ࠆߚ߼ߦߪ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡࡮ᵤᵄߦߟ޿ߡߩၮ␆⍮⼂ࠍ〯߹߃ߚ਄ߢ‫ޟ࡮ޠ⽎⃻ޟ‬႐ᚲ‫ޠ‬࡮‫ᤨޟ‬㑆‫ ߩޠ‬3 ὐ࠮࠶࠻ࠍṳࠄߐߕ⡞߈ขࠆߎߣ߇ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ߎޕ‬
ࠇߪℂ♽ߩ⎇ⓥ⠪⥄ࠄ߇ࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯⺞ᩏࠍߒߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠄߥ޿ߎߣࠍᗧ๧ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ᧄ⎇ⓥߢߪ‫ޔ‬ㅪ⛯ߒߚ৻ㅪߩ⹤ߣߒߡ૕㛎⺣ࠍ⡞ߊᎿᄦࠍߒߡࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯ࠍታᣉߒߚ‫ޕ‬߹ߕ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߦ㑐ߔࠆߎߣࠍ⍴ಷ⋥౉ߦ⡞߆ࠇߡ߽‫⥄ޔ‬ಽ߇⋡᠄࡮૕㛎ߒߚߎߣࠍ⥄ಽߩ⸒⪲ߢ⴫⃻ߔࠆߎߣߪ㔍ߒ޿‫ޔߢߎߘޕ‬ᚒ‫ߪޘ‬ᵤᵄ߇⿠ߎࠆ೨߆ࠄߩ಴᧪੐ࠍ㗅⇟ߦ⡞߈ขߞߡ޿߈ߥ߇ࠄ‫ޔ‬Ბ㓏⊛ߦᵤᵄߩᤨߩߎߣࠍ⡞޿ߡ޿ߊߣ޿߁ᣇᴺࠍណ↪ߒߚ‫⎇ᧄޕ‬ⓥߢ
ࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯ࠍታᣉߒߚࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚ๟ㄝ࿾ၞߪ㔡Ḯၞ߆ࠄㄭߊ‫ߩߤޔ‬႐ᚲߢ߽ᔅߕ㔡ᐲ 5એ਄ߩᄢ߈ߥំࠇߦ⷗⥰ࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡ᵄߩવࠊࠆㅦᐲߪ⑽ㅦ 3 ࠠࡠࡔ࡯࠻࡞߆ࠄ 7 ࠠࡠࡔ࡯࠻࡞⒟ᐲߥߩߢ‫ᤨࠆ߼ߓߪࠇࠁ߇ⴝࠆ޽ޔ‬ೞߪ 1 ಽએౝߩ♖ᐲߢ‫ޟ‬หᤨೞ‫ߣޠ‬⠨߃ࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆ‫ޟޔߢߎߘޕ‬࿾㔡ߢࠁࠇߪߓ߼ߚߣ߈ߦ‫ޔߢߎߤޔ‬૗ࠍߒߡ޿ߚ߆‫߁޿ߣޠ‬⾰໧߆ࠄࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯ࠍߪߓ߼ߚ‫ߩߎޕ‬࿁╵߇ᓧࠄࠇࠆߣ‫ࠇំޔ‬ᆎ߼ߩᤨὐߢዬߚ႐ᚲࠍ
⏕ቯߢ߈ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᒁ߈⛯߈‫ߩ߈ߣߩߘޔ߿ߣߎߚߒߦ߈ߣࠆ޿ߡࠇំޔ‬๟ࠅߩ᭽ሶ‫ޔ‬෼߹ߞߡ߆ࠄߩᑪ‛ⵍኂߣ޿ߞߚߎߣࠍ㗅⇟ߦ⡞޿ߡ޿ߊ‫ߩߎޕ‬ᚻ㗅ߢ⾰໧ࠍߔࠆ႐ว‫ߩߘޔ‬ౝኈߪᤨ㑆⊛ߦ㒢ቯߐࠇߚߎߣߢ޽ࠅ‫ߦ߈ߣߩߘޔ‬ዬߚ႐ᚲ߽․ቯߐࠇߡ޿ࠆߎߣ߆ࠄ‫⺞ޔ‬ᩏ⠪‫⺞ⵍޔ‬ᩏ⠪ߩ෺ᣇ߇‫ߩߘޔ‬႐ߩࠗࡔ࡯ࠫࠍ౒᦭ߒߚ਄ߢ⾰໧ࠍߔࠆߎߣ߇น⢻ߣߥࠆ‫ޕ‬ߘࠇࠁ߃‫ޔ‬ౝኈ߇ౕ૕⊛ߢ‫ޔ‬ᖱႎ㊂߽⼾ንߥ࿁╵߇ᓧࠄࠇ߿ߔ޿‫ޕ‬ំࠇ߇෼߹ߞߡ߆ࠄߩ੐ᨩߦߟ޿ߡߪ‫ޔ‬㗅⇟ࠍㅊߞߡ૗ࠍߒߡ޿ߚ߆ࠍ⡞޿ߡ޿ߊ‫ⴕޕ‬േౝኈ߿႐ᚲࠍㅪ⛯⊛ߦ⡞޿ߡ޿ߊߚ߼‫৻ޔ‬ㅪߩⴕേߣߒߡ⥄ಽߩ⸥ᙘࠍᕁ޿಴ߔߎߣ߇
ߢ߈ࠆ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ශ⽎߇ᒝ޿ࠊࠅߦߪ࿾ၞᲤߩᏅ⇣߇ዋߥ޿࿾㔡૕㛎ࠍᦨೋߦ⺆ߞߡ޿ࠆߣ
޿߁ታ❣ߣ⥄ା߇ߎߩᤨὐߢᒻᚑߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫⚿ߩߘޕ‬ᨐ‫ޔ‬ᄙߊߩੱߪᵤᵄ߇᧪ࠆ߹ߢߦߒ
ߡ޿ߚߎߣߣߘߩߣ߈ߩ๟࿐ߩ⁁ᴫࠍస᣿ߦᕁ޿಴ߒ⹤ߔߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆ‫ߩ⹤ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ㅪ⛯ᕈߣ޿߁ⷰὐ߆ࠄౝኈࠍ⏕⹺ߔࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆߚ߼‫⺞ޔ‬ᩏ⠪ߩᣇߢ૗ࠄ߆ߩ૕㛎ߦߟ޿ߡߩ⹤㗴߇ᛮߌߡ޿ߘ߁ߛߣ᳇߇ߟߌ߫‫ޔ‬ㆡಾߥ⵬⿷⾰໧ࠍߒߡ⹦ߒ޿૕㛎⺣ࠍᓧࠆߎߣ߽
น⢻ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߘߩᓟ‫ߡߒߦ߁ࠃߩߤޔ‬ᵤᵄߩⷅ᧪ࠍߒࠅ‫ࠆߥ߆޿ޔ‬ᚻᲑࠍ↪޿ߡ‫ߢ߹ߎߤޔ‬ㅏߍߚ߆ߦߟ޿ߡ⡞޿ߡ޿ߊ‫ߩߎޕ‬Ბ㓏ߦߥࠆߣ‫ޔ‬ዬߚ႐ᚲ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߣߩㆣㆄ᧦ઙߦࠃߞߡ૕㛎⺣ߪήᢙߩዷ㐿ࠍ␜ߔ‫ޔ߇ߛޕ‬㗅ࠍㅊߞߡ⹤ࠍ⡞޿ߡ޿ࠆߚ߼‫ޔ‬⡞߈ᚻߪචಽߦ⹤ߩౝኈࠍㅊ
ߞߡ޿ߊߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆ‫ᦨޔߒ߽ޕ‬ೋ߆ࠄᵤᵄⷅ᧪ᤨߩ⹤ࠍ⡞ߎ߁ߣߒߚ႐วߦߪ‫ߩߘޔ‬႐ߦ޿ߚࠆ߹ߢߩ᧦ઙ߿ⅣႺߦߟ޿ߡߩᖱႎࠍ౒᦭ߒߥ޿ਛߢ⹤ࠍ⡞ߊߎߣߦߥࠆߚ߼‫⹦ޔ‬ߒ޿⹤ࠍᓧࠆߎߣߪ㔍ߒ޿ߛࠈ߁‫ޕ‬ߘߩᓟ‫ޔ‬㜞޿ߣߎࠈ߳ㅏߍᑧ߮ߡᵤᵄࠍⷰኤߔࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߚੱߦኻߒߡߪ‫ ╙ޔ‬2 ᵄ‫ޔ‬
╙ 3 ᵄߩⷅ᧪ᤨߩ᭽ሶߦߟ޿ߡ߽⡞߈ขࠅࠍㅴ߼ࠆ‫ޕ‬ਇᐘߦ߽╙ 1 ᵄߢᵤᵄߦ㘶ߺㄟ߹ࠇߡߒ߹ߞߚੱ߆ࠄߪ‫ޔ‬ᢇഥߐࠇߚ⚻✲߿ߘߩᓟߩ⹤ߥߤ‫ޔ‬㒐ἴ਄ߩᢎ⸠ߣߥࠆ⹤ࠍ⡞޿ߡ޿ߞߚ‫ޕ‬
ㅪ⛯ߒߚ୘ੱߩⴕേߣߒߡᵤᵄⷅ᧪߹ߢߩ⁁ᴫࠍ⸥㍳ߔࠆߎߣߪ‫⸥ޔ‬ᙘࠍᕁ޿಴ߒߡ߽
ࠄ߁ߎߣ߇ኈᤃߦߥࠆߎߣߦട߃‫ᤨޔ‬㑆ߦߟ޿ߡߩ⷗Ⓧ߽ࠅ♖ᐲࠍะ਄ߐߖࠄࠇࠆߣ޿߁
೑ὐ߇ሽ࿷ߔࠆ‫ޟޕ‬ᵤᵄ߇᧪ߚᤨ㑆‫⋥ࠍޠ‬ធ⡞޿ߚ႐วߦߪ‫ޔ޽߹ޟޔ‬10 ಽߊࠄ޿߆ߥ‫ߣޠ‬޿߁࿁╵ߦߥࠅ߇ߜߢ‫♖ޔ‬ᐲࠍផቯߔࠆߚ߼ߩઃടᖱႎ߽ᓧࠄࠇߥ޿‫⺞ޕ‬ᩏ⠪ߪᓧࠄࠇߚ
ᤨ㑆ࠍାߓࠆ߆ାߓߥ޿߆ߩ 2 ߟߩㆬᛯ⢇ߒ߆ߥߊ‫ޔ‬ାߓߚ႐วߦߪ࠺࡯࠲ࠍߥࠆߴߊᄙ
ߊ㓸߼ߡ⛔⸘ಣℂߒߡ⌀ℂߦㄭ޿ᤨ㑆ࠍផቯߔࠆߎߣߦߥࠆ‫ޕ‬ߒ߆ߒ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡ߩំࠇߪߓ߹ࠅߣ޿߁ਁੱߦ⛔৻ߒߚᤨ㑆ේὐࠍၮḰߦߒߡ‫ޔ‬႐ᚲߣⴕേ
ౝኈ‫ޔ‬๟࿐ߩ⁁ᴫߥߤ߇᣿ࠄ߆ߦߥߞߡ޿ࠇ߫‫ߩߟߣ߭ߟߣ߭ޔ‬Ყセ⊛න⚐ߥⴕേߩⓍ▚ߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄⷅ᧪߹ߢߩᤨ㑆ࠍផቯߔࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆ‫ߡߒߘޕ‬୘೎ߩⴕേ߇‫ޔ‬႐ᚲࠍ․ቯ

125
125

III. ‫ܭ‬ໜᚇยƱᚸ̖ߒߚ਄ߢ᣿ࠄ߆ߦߥߞߡ޿ࠇ߫‫ᤨࠆ߆߆ߦࠇߘޔ‬㑆ߩ⷗Ⓧ߽ࠅߪ 1㨪5 ಽ⒟ᐲߩ♖ᐲߢᄙߊߩ႐ว‫ޔ‬ផቯน⢻ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬ᚲⷐᤨ㑆ࠍⓍߺ㊀ߨߡ޿ߌ߫‫ࠆ޽ޔ‬୘ੱߩ૕㛎⺣ߦߟ޿ߡ߅߅߻ߨ 10 ಽ⒟ᐲߩ♖ᐲߢᵤᵄ᧪ⷅᤨ㑆ࠍផቯߔࠆߎߣ߇น⢻ߦߥࠆ‫ޕ‬㧟㧚⋡᠄⸽⸒߆ࠄផቯߐࠇࠆᵤᵄⷅ᧪߹ߢߩ᭽ሶ
ᧄ⎇ⓥߦ߅ߌࠆ⃻࿾⺞ᩏߪ‫ޔ‬2006 ᐕ 11 ᦬ߦ⌕ᚻߒ‫ߩߘޔ‬ᓟ‫ޔ‬2007 ᐕ 2 ᦬‫ޔ‬2008 ᐕ 3 ᦬ߦ߽ㅊടߩ⺞ᩏࠍⴕ޿‫ోߦߢ߹ࠇߎޔ‬ㇱߢ 55 ੱߩ⋡᠄⸽⸒ࠍ㓸߼ߡ޿ࠆ 4), 5)‫ޕ‬⡞߈ขࠅ⺞ᩏߪᨋ⢻ᚑ‫ޔ‬቟⮮㓷ቁ㧔ᒰᤨ‫ޔ‬ฬฎደᄢቇ㧕‫ޔ‬⍹↰ℰⓄ㧔JAMSTEC㧕ߩ 3 ฬ߇ታᣉߒߚ‫⃻ޕ‬࿾ߢ૶ࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆࠕ࠴ࠚ⺆߿ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ⺆߳ߩ⠡⸶ߪ‫࡜ࠕࠢࡖࠪޔ‬ᄢቇℂቇㇱ⻠Ꮷߢ࿾
⃿‛ℂቇ߇ኾ㐷ߩ Didik ߣหቇㇱߩቇ↢ 3 ฬ㧔Putri‫ޔ‬Nani‫ޔ‬Aboy㧕߇ಽᜂߒߚ㧔࿑ 1㧕‫․ޕ‬
ߦ 3 ฬߩቇ↢ߪࠕ࠴ࠚ⺆ࠍᲣ⺆ߣߒߡ޿ࠆߩߢ‫ߣࠗ࡯ࡘࡆ࠲ࡦࠗޔ‬౞Ṗߥࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯ࠪ
࡚ࡦࠍߣࠆ਄ߢ㊀ⷐߥᓎഀࠍߪߚߒߚ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ᄢቇߢ࿾⃿‛ℂቇࠍቇࠎߢ޿ࠆߎߣ߽޽ߞ
ߡ‫⺞ޔ‬ᩏ೨߆ࠄ࿾㔡߿ᵤᵄߦ㑐ߔࠆၮ␆⍮⼂߇޽ߞߚ‫⎇ᧄޕ‬ⓥߢߪ‫ࠇߴ߾ߒࠍ⺆ࠚ࠴ࠕޔ‬ࠆߎߣߦട߃‫ޔ‬࿾㔡߿ᵤᵄߦߟ޿ߡߩℂ⸃߇ᷓߊ‫⾰ޔ‬໧⠪ߩᗧ࿑ߔࠆߎߣߣో૕⊛ߥ⾰໧
ߩᵹࠇࠍℂ⸃ߢ߈ࠆㅢ⸶߇ᰳ߆ߖߥ޿‫ޕ‬ᓐࠄߣߩ಴ળ޿߇ߥߌࠇ߫ߎߩ⺞ᩏߪਇน⢻ߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬࿑ 1 ᵤᵄ૕㛎⠪߳ߩࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯㘑᥊㧔ᵈ㧕ᣣᧄੱ⎇ⓥ⠪߇⧷⺆ߢ⾰໧ࠍߒ‫࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬ࡀࠪࠕੱߩ౒ห⎇ⓥ⠪߇ࠕ࠴ࠚ⺆ߦ⠡⸶ߒߡ⡞߈ขࠅࠍㅴ߼ࠆ‫ޕ‬
࿑ 2 ᧄ⎇ⓥߢߣࠅ޽ߍߚ 6 ੱߩ૕㛎⠪߇ᵤᵄߦㆣㆄߒߚ૏⟎
㧔ᵈ㧕٤ߪᵤᵄߦㆣㆄߒߚ૏⟎ࠍ␜ߒ‫⷗ޔ‬಴ߒߪߘߩ႐ᚲߢᵤᵄߦㆣㆄߒߚੱߩฬ೨ࠍ⴫ࠊ
ߔ‫⇟ޕ‬ภߪᧄᢥਛߩ㗅⇟ߣ৻⥌ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ߎߎߢߪ 55 ੱߩ⋡᠄⸽⸒ߩਛ߆ࠄ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬ፉ⷏ᶏጯߢ㓸߼ࠄࠇߚ 6 ੱߩ૕㛎⺣ߦᵈ⋡ߒ‫ޔ‬ห࿾ߦ߅ߌࠆᵤᵄⷅ᧪ᤨೞߣᵤᵄⷅ᧪೨ߩ᭽ሶࠍ᣿ࠄ߆ߦߔࠆ‫ޔߪࠇߎޕ‬ᵤᵄߩ⊒↢Ḯߣߥߞߚᢿጀ߇ߤߩࠃ߁ߥㆇേࠍߒߡ‫ߩߤޔ‬૏⟎ߦ޽ߞߚ߆ࠍផ᷹ߔࠆ਄ߢߩᚻ߇߆ࠅ
ߣߥࠆ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬࿑ 2 ߪ⋡᠄⸽⸒߇ᓧࠄࠇߚ႐ᚲࠍ␜ߒߚ࿾࿑ߢ‫ߩࠇߕ޿ޔ‬႐ᚲ߽ࡃࡦ
࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒ㇠ᄖߩࠕ࠴ࠚࡌࠨ࡯࡞㇭ߦᚲዻߔࠆ㓸⪭ߢ޽ࠆ‫〒ߩࠄ߆ࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޕ‬㔌ߪ߽ߞߣ߽ㄭ޿ࡐࠗࡦ࠻ߢ 10 ࠠࡠࡔ࡯࠻࡞‫ޔ‬㆙޿ߣߎࠈߢ 30 ࠠࡠࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߊࠄ޿ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߥޕ‬߅‫ߪ⸒⸽᠄⋡ޔ‬ᵗ਄ߢㆣㆄߒߚṪᏧߥߤ߆ࠄ߽㓸߼ߡ߅ࠅ‫ޟࠄ߆⸒⸽ߩߘޔ‬ᴒᵤᵄ‫ߣޠ‬๮ฬߐࠇߚᣂߒ޿⃻⽎ߩ⊒⷗ߣ⊒↢ࡔࠞ࠾࠭ࡓߩ⠨ኤ߽ᣢߦⴕࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆ 6)‫ޕ‬ ࠨࡓࠬ࡝᳁㧔࡜ࡦࡊ࡯ࠢ᧛࡮↵ᕈ㧕⡯ᬺߪࠗࠬ࡜ࡓᢎነኋቇᩞ㧔ࡊࠨࡦ࠻࡟ࡦ㧕ߩᢎᏧߢ‫ޔ‬ᒰᤨ 24 ᱦ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡߇⿠߈ߚߩߪᣣ

126
126

඾ඬႆဃȗȭǻǹǛᚐଢƢǔƨǊƷૼȇȸǿƷӕࢽᲢ௎ Ꮱ঺Უᦐᣣߩᦺߛߞߚ߇‫ߩߎޔ‬ነኋቇᩞߦ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬ំࠇᆎ߼ߡ߆ࠄ 30 ⑽ߊࠄ޿ߢំࠇ߇ᄢ߈ߊߥࠅ 5 ಽએ਄⛮⛯ߒߚࠃ߁ߦᗵߓߚ‫ޕ‬ᐘ޿ነኋ⥢߿ᢎቶߩᑪ‛ߦߪᄢ߈ߥⵍኂߪߥߊ‫↢ߚߒࠍ߇ߌޔ‬ᓤ߽ዬߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬૛㔡߽⛯޿ߚߩߢ‫↢ޔ‬ᓤ࡮ᢎᏧోຬ߇ᩞᐸߦㆱ㔍ߒߚ㧔࿑ 3㧕‫ޕ‬࿑ 3 ᩞ⥢ߦⵍኂߪߥ߆ߞߚ߇ំࠇ߇⛯޿ߚߩߢ↢ᓤోຬࠍᩞᐸߦㆱ㔍ߐߖߚ㧔ᵈ㧕ࠨࡓࠬ࡝ߐࠎߩ૕㛎⺣ࠍ߽ߣߦ⮮↰ື਽߇૞↹‫ޕ‬ߘߩ߹߹ߒ߫ࠄߊᩞᐸߦ޿ߚ߇‫ޔ‬ᶏߩᣇ߆ࠄ῜⎕㖸㧔ㄭߊߦ޽ࠆ࠮ࡔࡦ࠻㋶ጊߩ⊒⎕㖸ߦૃߡ޿ߚ㧕ߩࠃ߁ߥ㖸߇⡞ߎ߃ߡ߈ߚ‫ߒ߆ߒޕ‬ᩞᐸ߆ࠄᶏߩᣇะߦߪᩞ⥢߇޽ࠅ‫ߚ߹ޔ‬ߘߩ⢛ᓟߦߪᄢ߈ߥᧁ߽޽ߞߚߩߢᶏߪ⷗߃ߥ߆ߞߚߚ߼‫ޔ‬૗ߩ㖸߆ߪℂ⸃ߢ߈ߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ߘߩ⋥ᓟ‫ޔ‬㕖Ᏹߦᣧ޿ᵹࠇߢ㜞ߐ 1㨪2 ࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߩ╙৻ᵄ߇ቇᩞߩᩞ⥢ߥߤ޽ࠅߣ޽ࠄࠁࠆ
߽ߩࠍ⎕უߒߡㄼߞߡ߈ߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬⢛ᓟߦߪ㜞ߐ 10 ࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߊࠄ޿ߩ‫ޟ‬㤥޿᳓ߩო‫޿⛯߇ޠ‬ߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬ㅏߍࠆ㑆߽ߥߊ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߦ㘶ߺㄟ߹ࠇ‫ޔ‬᳓ߩਛࠍ਄߳ਅ߳ߣỗߒߊᵹߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡ߢࠁࠇߪߓ߼ߡ߆ࠄᵤᵄ߇᧪ࠆ߹ߢߪ 20 ಽߊࠄ޿ߛߞߚߣᕁ߁‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߦߪ‫ޔ‬ᶏ᳓ߛߌߢߥߊუࠇߚᩞ⥢ߩᱷ㜈ߥߤ߇ߚߊߐࠎᷙߑߞߡ޿ߚߩߢ‫ࠄࠇߘޔ‬ߦ߱ߟ߆ߞߡᚻ߿⿷ߥߤోりߦᄢ߈ߥᕋᚒ߅ߞߚ‫ޕ‬2 ࠠࡠࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߊࠄ޿ᵹߐࠇߡ࡜ࡓ࡞ࡓ
᧛߹ߢ᧪ߚߣߎࠈߢ‫ޕߚ߈ߢ߇ߣߎࠆ߹߆ߟߦᧁ┙ߚ޿ߡ߃ߪޔ‬10 ಽᒙߟ߆߹ߞߡ޿ߚࠄ‫ޔ‬ዋߒ᳓૏߇ਅ߇ࠅᵹࠇߩ൓޿߽ᒙ߹ߞߚߩߢ‫ޔ‬᳓ߩਛ߆ࠄ಴ߡߜࠂߞߣߒߚ㜞߹ࠅ߳ᱠ޿
ߡㅏߍߚ‫ޕ‬ᄢ߈ߥᧁߩਅߦ࠹࡯ࡉ࡞߇޽ߞߡᣣ㒶ߦߥߞߡ޿ߚߩߢ‫ ߢߎߘޔ‬1 ᤨ㑆ඨߊࠄ޿ભࠎߛ‫ޕ‬ዋߒ૕ജ߇࿁ᓳߒߚߩߢ‫ ߚ߹ޔ‬15 ಽߊࠄ޿ᱠ޿ߡ㆏ߦ಴ߚߣߎࠈ‫ࠗࡃ࠻࡯ࠝޔ‬ߩੱ߇ㅢࠅ߆߆ߞߡഥߌࠄࠇߚ‫޿ࠄ߽ߡߖߩߦࠗࡃ࠻࡯ࠝޕ‬㕖Ᏹᢇ⼔࠹ࡦ࠻ߦㆇ߫ࠇߚ‫ޕ‬ ࠺࠺ࠖࠬࠢࡑ᳁㧔ࡠ࠶ࠢࠟ࡯᧛࡮↵ᕈ㧕ᒰᤨ 24 ᱦߢ‫઀ޔ‬੐ߪṁធᎿࠍߒߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡߇߅߈ߚߣ߈ߪࡠ࠶ࠢࠟ࡯᧛ߩࡕࠛ࠾ࠤࡦ
࿾඙ߩ૞ᬺ႐ߢ߹ߛኢߡ޿ߚ‫ޔ߼ߐ߇⋡ߢࠇࠁޕ‬㘧߮⿠߈ߡᄖߦߢߚ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡ߩំࠇߪ 5 ಽߊࠄ޿⛯޿ߚ‫ޕ‬ࠁࠇ߇߅ߐ߹ߞߡ߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬ㇱደߦᚯߞߡ᦯ࠍ⌕ߡㄭߊߩࠦ࡯ࡅ࡯࡚ࠪ࠶ࡊ߳ะ߆ߞߚ‫ࠦޕ‬࡯ࡅ࡯ࠍᵈᢥߒ㘶ߺߥ߇ࠄઁߩቴ߿ᐫߩੱߣ࿾㔡ߩ⹤ࠍߒߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬ࠦ࡯ࡅ࡯ࠍඨಽߊࠄ޿㘶ࠎߛߣߎࠈߢ‫ޟޔ‬᳓߇߭޿ߡ޿ࠆߣ‫ߣޠ‬ᶏጯߦ޿ߚੱ߇ᐫߦ᧪ߡ
⹤ߒߡ޿ߞߚ‫⥄ޕ‬ಽߩ⋡ߢ⏕⹺ߒߚߊߥࠅ‫ޔ‬ㄭߊߩᎹߦ߆߆ߞߡ޿ࠆᯅ߹ߢⴕߞߚߣߎࠈ‫ޔ‬Ꮉ߽ᐓ਄߇ߞߡ޿ߚ‫ࠇߘޕ‬એᄖߦ߽‫ޟޔ‬ᶏጯ߇ 200 ࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߊࠄ޿߭޿ߡ޿ࠆ‫⹤ߚߞ޿ߣޠ‬߿‫ޟޔ‬ଥ⇐ߐࠇߡ޿ߚ࠮ࡔࡦ࠻⦁߇ォⷒߒߡ޿ࠆ‫߽⹤ߚߞ޿ߣޠ‬⡞޿ߚ‫ޕ‬ᄢ߈ߥំࠇ߿ᶏ߇ᐓ਄߇ࠆߣ޿߁↢߹ࠇߡߪߓ߼ߡߩ⇣Ᏹߥߎߣ߇⛯߈‫ޔ‬ኅߩߎߣ߇ᔃ

127
127

III. ‫ܭ‬ໜᚇยƱᚸ̖㈩ߦߥߞߡࡃࠗࠢߦߩߞߡห᧛࡜ࡦࠢ࡟࠶࠻࿾඙ߦ޽ࠆ⥄ቛ߳ะ߆ߞߚ‫⥄ޕ‬ቛ߳ߩ㆏ߩࠅ
ߪ 700㨪800 ࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬࿾඙ߩࡕࠬࠢߩ೨ߦࡃࠗࠢࠍߣ߼ߡᱠ߈ᆎ߼ߡ 20 ࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߊࠄ޿޿ߞߚߣߎࠈߢ‫ޔ‬‫ޟ‬᫪ᨋߩࠃ߁ߥ߽ߩ‫߽ࠅࠃ࡯࡝࠷࠷࠶࠽ࠦࠦ߇ޠ‬㜞޿ߣߎࠈߦ⃻ࠇߚࠃ߁ߦ⷗߃ߚ‫߁޿ߣࡦ࠼ࡦ࠼ࡦ࠼ޕ‬㖸㧔㌂᠄㖸ߩࠃ߁ߥ߽ߩ㧕߇ 3 ࿁ߊࠄ޿ߒߚ߇‫ޔ‬࿖ァ߆㧳㧭㧹ߛߣᕁߞߡߚ޿ߒߡ᳇ߦߪߒߥ߆ߞߚ‫ߋߔޔߣࠆߔߊࠄ߫ߒޕ‬ㄭߊߦዬߚሶߤ
߽㧔Უⷫ߇ዊߐߥሶߤ߽ 2 ੱࠍㅪࠇߡ޿ߚ㧕߇‫ޟ‬᳓߇߈ߚ‫ߢߩߚߞ⸒ߣޠ‬ᝄࠅ㄰ߞߚࠄ‫ޔ‬㔚ᩇ߇ୟࠇࠆߩ߇⷗߃ߚ‫ߦߋߔޕ‬ሶߤ߽ 1 ੱࠍᛴ߈߆߆߃‫߅ޔ‬Უߐࠎߦߪ‫ޟ‬ㅏߍࠈ㧍‫ߣޠ‬
޿ߞߡ 10 ࡔ࡯࠻࡞߶ߤ⿛ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ᓟࠈࠍ⷗ߚࠄ⢛ᓟ 20 ࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߩߣߎࠈߊࠄ޿ߩߣߎࠈ߹
ߢ᳓߇ㄼߞߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬3 ᱠ⿛ߞߚߣߎࠈߢᵤᵄߦ㘶ߺㄟ߹ࠇߚ‫ޕ‬᳓ߩਛߢ 3 ࿁ߊࠄ޿࿁ォߐߖࠄࠇߡ‫⸥ޔ‬ᙘ߇ߥߊߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬ᢙ⊖ࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߥ߇ߐࠇ‫ޔ‬ห᧛࡜ࡦࡄࡗ࿾඙ߩ৻イߩ᳃ኅߩਛ߳ߣㆇ߫ࠇߚ‫ޕ‬ᛴ߃ߡ޿ࠆ
ሶଏߦ‫ߡࠇࠊ⸒ߣޠߡ߈߅ޟ‬᳇ࠍขࠅᚯߒߚࠄ᧍ߩਅߦ޿ߚ‫⥄߁߽ޔߪߦ߈ߣߩߘޕ‬ಽߩ߹ࠊࠅߦߪ᳓ߪߥ߆ߞߚ‫⥄ޕ‬ಽߪᚻ⿷ߦዋߒᕋᚒࠍߒߡ޿ߚ߇‫ޔ‬ሶଏߪή்ߛߞߚ‫⥄ޕ‬ಽߚߜߩ߹ࠊࠅߦߪઁߦੱᓇߪ⷗߃ߥ߆ߞߚ߇‫ޔ‬5 ಽߊࠄ޿ߔࠆߣ૗ੱ߆ߩੱ߇߿ߞߡ߈ߚ‫ޕ‬ࡠ࠶ࠢࠟ࡯᧛ߦߪ 4 ߟߩ࿾඙߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬૑ࠎߢ޿ߚ࡜ࡦࠢ࡟࠶࠻࿾඙ߪ 1,700 ੱ޿ߚੱญ߇ᵤᵄᓟߪ 650 ੱߦᷫዋߒߚ‫ޕ‬⡯႐߇޽ߞߚࡕࠛ࠾ࠤࡦ࿾඙ߪ 2,000 ੱ޿ߚੱญ߇ᵤᵄߢ 400ੱߦᷫዋߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߒ߆ߒޕ‬ᵹࠇ⌕޿ߚ࡜ࡦࡄࡗ࿾඙ߢߪ߶ߣࠎߤᱫ⠪ߪ಴ߥ߆ߞߚ‫߁߽ޕ‬߭ߣߟ‫ࡗ࡜࠙ࠚ࠙ޔ‬࿾඙ߣ޿߁ߩ߇޽ߞߡ‫⋧ޔ‬ᒰߩⵍኂ߇಴ߚߣ⡞޿ߡ޿ࠆ߇‫޿ߒ⹦ޔ‬ᢙሼߪ⍮ࠄߥ޿‫ޕ‬ ࡜ࠗ࡜࠾᳁㧔ࡠ࠶ࠢࠟ࡯᧛࡮ᅚᕈ㧕ᵤᵄߩ೨ߪࡠ࠶ࠢࠟ࡯᧛ߦ޽ߞߚ࡝࠱࡯࠻ࡎ࠹࡞㧔TAMAN TEPILAUT㧕ࠍ⚻༡ߒߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡ߩߣ߈ߪหࡎ࠹࡞ߩ࡟ࠬ࠻࡜ࡦߦ޿ߚ‫ࠍࠇំޕ‬ᗵߓ‫ޔ‬ᄖߦ಴ߡ┻ߩᧁࠍߟ߆ࠎߢ࿾㔡ࠍ߿ࠅㆊߏߒߚ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡ߩ޽ߣࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚᏒౝߦ૑߻ 3 ੱߩሶଏ߆ࠄ቟ุ⏕⹺ߩ㔚⹤ࠍฃߌߚ‫ޕ‬Ꮢౝߦㅏߍࠃ߁ߣᕁ޿‫⥄ޔ‬ቶߦᏫߞߡ᦯ࠍᦧ߃‫ߩࠎ߫߆ޔ‬ਛߦ߅㊄ߥߤᄢ੐ߥ߽ߩࠍ౉
ࠇߚ‫ߣ߰ޕ‬ㇱደߩ⓹߆ࠄᶏࠍ⷗ࠆߣ‫ޔ‬᳓߇߹ߞߚߊߥߊߥࠆ߶ߤߦ߭޿ߡ޿ߡ㛳ߊ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄߦ޿ߚ⚻㛎߆ࠄ‫ߪࠇߎޟ‬ᵤᵄߩ೨⸅ࠇߛ‫ޔࠅ߆ࠊߣޠ‬ᕆ޿ߢㅏߍߨ߫ᱫߧߣᕁ޿ゞ߳⿛ߞߚ‫ߒ߆ߒޕ‬ゞߦਸ਼ࠅㄟࠎߛߣߎࠈߢ‫ޔ‬㜞ߐߩૐ޿╙৻ᵄ߇ⷅ᧪ߒߡᧁ߇ୟߐࠇߡߒ߹޿ㅴ
〝ࠍ߰ߐ߇ࠇߚ‫ޕ‬╙ 1 ᵄߪߔߋߦᒁ޿ߚߩߢ‫ޔ‬ゞ߹ߢߪᵹߐࠇߕߦᷣࠎߛ‫ߢߎߘޕ‬ゞࠍᝥߡߡ‫ߦ✜৻ޔ‬ゞߦਸ਼ࠅㄟࠎߛᒉߩሶߤ߽ࠍߟࠇߡ‫ߩ⋡ޔ‬೨ߩጊߦ㚟ߌ਄߇ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ߘߩᓟ‫ߥ߁ࠃߩ࡯࠲ࡊࠦ࡝ࡋޔ‬㖸ࠍߚߡߥ߇ࠄ╙ੑᵄ߇᧪ߡࡎ࠹࡞ࠍ㘶ߺㄟࠎߛ‫ޕ‬ጊߦ⊓ߞߡᝄࠅ㄰ߞߡߺߚߣߎࠈ‫ޔ‬᳓ߪࡊ࡯࡞ࠍḩߚߒߚࠃ߁ߦ਄᣹ߒߡ޿ߡ‫ ߿࡞࠹ࡎޔ‬200ᧄએ਄޽ߞߚ߿ߒߩᧁߪቢోߦ᳓ᴚߒߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬ጊߩ৻⇟਄߹ߢ਄ߞߡ‫ޔ‬᳓߇ᒁߊߩࠍ߹ߞ
ߚ‫ޕ‬ᤤ 12 ᤨߊࠄ޿ߦጊࠍ㒠ࠅߡ‫ޔ‬ᱠ޿ߡࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߦะ߆ߞߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬ᣣߪㅜਛߩጊߩਛ
ߢኢߡ‫ޔ‬⠉ᣣߩᄕᣇ 5 ᤨߊࠄ޿ߦሶߤ߽ߚߜߦ޽߃ߚ‫ޕ‬ࡎ࠹࡞ߦߪᅚᕈ 4 ฬ‫↵ޔ‬ᕈ 3 ฬߩࠬ࠲࠶ࡈ߇޿ߚ߇‫ߜ߁ߩߘޔ‬ᅚᕈ 2 ฬ‫↵ޔ‬ᕈ 1 ฬ߇ᱫ੢ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߢᵹߐࠇߚᅚᕈߩ 1 ੱߪᵤᵄߢ᦯߇ోㇱߥߊߥߞߡ‫ޔ‬ᄢᕋᚒࠍߒߡ㒽ߦ޽ߍࠄࠇߡ޿ߚߣߎࠈࠍ‫ޔ‬ㅢࠅ߇߆ߞߚ↵ߩੱߦഥߌߡ߽ࠄߞߚߣ⡞޿ߚ‫ޕ‬ ࡃࡂ࡯࡞᳁㧔ࡊࡠ᧛࡮↵ᕈ㧕
ᒰᤨ 33 ᱦߢ⡯ᬺߪṪᏧ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡߇⿠߈ߚᣣߪṪߦ಴ߡ߅ࠄߕ‫ᤨߩߘޔ‬㑆ߪ߹ߛ⥄ቛߢኢߡ޿ߚ߇‫ޔ‬ᒝ޿ំࠇࠍᗵߓኅߩᄖߦ಴ߚ‫߇ࠇំޕ‬ᒝ޿㑆ߪ૗߽ߢ߈ߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޔࠄ߇ߥߒ߆ߒޕ‬⥄ಽߩኅ߽๟࿐ߩኅ߽უࠇࠆࠃ߁ߥߎߣߪߥ߆ߞߚ‫ ߪࠇំޕ‬5 ಽ߆ࠄ 10 ಽߊࠄ޿⛯޿ߚߣᕁ߁‫ޕ‬ំࠇߡ޿ࠆ㑆߽ደᄖߦ޿ߚߚ߼‫ޔ‬๟࿐ߩ᭽ሶߪࠃߊࠊ߆ࠅ‫ޔ‬㖸߽ߣߡ߽ࠃߊ⡞ߎ߃ߚ‫ޕ‬ᶏߩᣇ߆ࠄ૗߆߇῜⊒ߔࠆࠃ߁ߥ㖸߇ 3 ࿁⡞ߎ߃ߚ‫ޕ‬1 ᐲ⋡ߩ㖸ߪំࠇᆎ߼ߡ߆ࠄ 2 ಽᓟߊࠄ޿ߢ‫ߩߘޔ‬ᓟ߽ 2 ಽ㑆㓒ߊࠄ޿ߢ⛯޿ߡ⡞ߎ߃ߚ‫ޕ‬

128
128

඾ඬႆဃȗȭǻǹǛᚐଢƢǔƨǊƷૼȇȸǿƷӕࢽᲢ௎ Ꮱ঺Უࠁࠇ߇ቢోߦ߅ߐ߹ࠄߥ޿߁ߜߦ‫ޔ‬ㄭߊߩኅߩṪᏧખ㑆 20 ੱߊࠄ޿ߢᶏࠍ⷗ߦ޿ߞߚ‫ޕ‬⥄ቛ߆ࠄᶏጯ߹ߢߪ 500 ࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߊࠄ޿㔌ࠇߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬ᶏጯߦ⌕ߊߣ‫ޔ‬ᣢߦầ߇ᴒߦ߭߈ߪ
ߓ߼ߡ޿ߡ㛳޿ߚ‫ޔߪ߈ߣߚ޿߭⇟৻ޕ‬2 ࠠࡠࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߊࠄ޿ᴒ߹ߢ߭޿ߚߣᕁ߁‫ޕ‬ầ߇߭޿ߚ޽ߣߦߪߚߊߐࠎߩ㝼߇ขࠅᱷߐࠇߡ޿ߡ‫ੱߩࠎߐߊߚޔ߼ߓߪࠍੱߚߞ޿ߦ✜৻ޔ‬߇‫ߛ࡯ࠠ࠶࡜ޟ‬㧍‫ߣޠ‬ต߮ߥ߇ࠄ‫ޔ‬㝼ࠍขࠅߦ޿ߞߚ‫⥄ޕ‬ಽߪߥߗ߆㝼ขࠅߦߪෳടߖߕ‫ޔ‬ᶏࠍ⷗ߥ߇ࠄੱߣ⹤ࠍߒߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬ߘ߁ߎ߁ߔࠆ߁ߜߦ‫ޔ‬ᒁ޿ߡᶏᐩ߇⷗߃ߡ޿ࠆ⢛ᓟ 5 ࠠࡠࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߊࠄ޿ߦ߆ߥࠅ㜞޿ᵄ߇ㄼߞߡ߈ߡ޿ࠆߩ߇⷗߃ߚ‫ޕ‬ᵄߩ⦡ߪ㤥ߞ߸߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ᵄߪ 2 ߟ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬1 ߟ⋡ߩᵄߪᶏጯ
✢ߦᢳ߼ߦ౉ߞߡߊࠆࠃ߁ߥᵄߢ‫ࠄ߆ࠈߒ߁ߩߘޔ‬ᶏጯ✢ߦ߹ߞߔߋะ߆ߞߡߊࠆߐࠄߦ
ᄢ߈޿ᵄ߇ㄼߞߡ޿ߚ‫ޔߣࠆߔߊࠄ߫ߒޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬೨ߩᵄߪᓟࠈ߆ࠄ᧪ߚᵄߦ㘶ߺㄟ߹ࠇߡߒ߹ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ߎߩ⇣Ᏹߥᵄࠍ⷗ߚߩߢ‫ޔ‬ኅᣖߣ৻✜ߦⵣጊ߳ㅏߍࠃ߁ߣᕁ޿‫ޔ‬500 ࡔ࡯࠻࡞߶ߤ㔌ࠇߚ⥄ቛ߳ᕆ޿ߛ‫⥄ߒ߆ߒޕ‬ቛߦᚯߞߡ߽⺕߽޿ߥ߆ߞߚߩߢ‫ ߁߽ޔ‬100 ࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߊࠄ޿㔌ࠇߚ⥄ಽߩᲣߩኅ߳ะ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬Უߩኅߦⴕߊㅜਛߢᆄߣሶߤ߽ߚߜߦߪળ߃ߚߩߢ‫ޔ‬ᕆ޿ߢ㜞޿ߣߎࠈ߳ㅏߍࠆࠃ߁ଦߒ৻✜ߦㅏߍߚ‫ޕ‬ᆄߪ‛ࠍᜬߜ಴ߔߚ߼ߦ⥄ቛ߳ነࠅߚ޿ߣ⸒
ߞߚ߇‫ߥࠎߘޔ‬૛⵨ߪߥ޿ߣᕁߞߚߩߢ߿߼ߐߖߚ‫ޕ‬150 ࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߊࠄ޿㔌ࠇߚጊ߳ะߌߡ
৻⋥✢ߦ⿛ࠅ‫ޔ‬ਐߩ਄ߩ㜞޿ߣߎࠈ߹ߢㅏߍࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߚ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߪጊߩ߽߰ߣ߹ߢ೔㆐
ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᶏጯߦ޿ߚ૗ੱ߆ߪㅏߍߕߦ‫ޟ‬ᵄࠃ㧍ߎߥ޿ߢߊࠇ㧍‫ޕࠆ޿ߡ߃ⷡࠍߩߚ޿ߡߞ␨ߣޠ‬ᄢ࿾㔡ߩ޽ߣ‫⥄ޕߚ޿ࠎߐߊߚ߽ੱߚߞⴕߦࠅ␨ߦࠢࠬࡕޔ‬ಽߩᲣ߽ࡕࠬࠢߦⴕߞߚߣᓟ
ߦ⡞޿ߚ߇‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߦ㘶ߺㄟ߹ࠇߡⴕᣇਇ᣿ߦߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬ਐߩ਄ߢߪ㓸⪭ࠍ㘶ߺㄟࠎߛᵤᵄࠍ⌑߼ߡ޿ߚ‫ߩ߼ߓߪޕ‬ᵄߪฝᚻᣇะ㧔ർ஥㧕߆ࠄ߿ߞߡ߈ߡ‫ޔ‬ਐߩ⵿㊁ࠍㅢࠅᏀᚻᣇะ㧔ධ஥㧕߳ᛮߌߡ޿ߞߚ‫ߩߎޕ‬ᵄߩࠬࡇ࡯࠼ߪ޽߹ࠅ
ᣧߊߥ߆ߞߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬ᓟ‫ޔ‬ᶏጯ✢ߩᱜ㕙߆ࠄㅦᐲߩᣧ޿ᵤᵄ߇߿ߞߡ߈ߡ‫ޔ‬㓸⪭ࠍቢోߦ㘶ߺㄟߺߥ߇ࠄਐߩ㣽߹ߢ߿ߞߡ߈ߚ‫ ߩߎޕ‬2 ᵄ⋡ߪࡆ࡯࠴ో૕ࠍⷒ߁ࠃ߁ߦㅴࠎߢ߈ߚ‫ޕ‬ᴒߢߪᵄߩ㜞ߐߪߘࠎߥߦ㜞ߊߥ޿㧔5 ࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߊࠄ޿㧕ߣᕁߞߚ߇‫ޔ‬㒽ߦㄭߠߊߣߤࠎߤ
ࠎ㜞ߊߥߞߚࠃ߁ߦ⷗߃ߚ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߪ 5 ಽ㑆㓒ߊࠄ޿ߦ 3 ࿁߈ߚ߇‫ߩߘޔ‬ᓟ‫ޔ‬ᶏߪߣߡ߽㕒߆ߦߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬1 ᵄ⋡߇߈ߚߩ߇ 8 ᤨ 30 ಽ߆ࠄ 8 ᤨ 50 ಽߊࠄ޿ߩ㑆ߛߞߚߣᕁ߁‫ޕ‬ਐߩ਄ߦߪ 500 ੱߊࠄ޿ㅏߍߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬ᶏ߇ߣߡ߽㕒߆ߦߥߞߚߩߢ‫ޔ‬ㅏߍߚੱోຬߢਐߩ㣽߹ߢ߅ࠅߡ‫ⴕޔ‬ᣇਇ᣿⠪ࠍᝡ⚝ߒߚࠅ‫ޔ‬ᱫ૕ࠍ㓸߼ߚࠅߒߚ‫ߚ߹ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ᵤᵄ߇᧪ࠆ߆߽ߒࠇߥ޿ߣᕁߞߚߩߢ‫ޔ‬ጊߩ㣽߆ࠄߪ޽߹ࠅ㔌ࠇߕߦㅏߍࠄࠇࠆߣߎࠈ߹ߢߢᵴേߪߣߤ߼ߚ‫ޕ‬ਐߩ਄ߦߪ 3 ᣣ㑆޿ߚ‫ࠍࡦࡔ࡯࡜ޕ‬Ⓧࠎߛゞ߇ㆇ⦟ߊㄭߊߦṫ⌕ߒߡ޿ߚߩߢ‫࡜ߩߘޔ‬࡯ࡔࡦࠍ㘩ߴߡߔߏߒߚ‫ޕ‬3 ᣣᓟߦࡂࡦ࠺ࠖ࡯ή✢ᯏࠍᜬߞߡㅏߍߡ޿ߚ⼊ኤ߿ァ㓌ߩੱ߇ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߣߩㅢାࠍ⹜ߺߚ߇‫ޔ‬૗߽෻ᔕ߇ߥ߆ߞߚ‫ߦߎߎ߹߹ߩߎޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ዬߡ߽ߤ߁ߒࠃ߁߽ߥ޿ߩߪ᣿ࠄ߆ߛߞߚߩߢ‫ోޔ‬ຬߢࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߦะߌߡᱠ߈ߛߒߚ‫ࡦࡃޕ‬࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚߩ౉ࠅญ߹ߢⴕߞߚߣߎࠈߢ㓸࿅ㆱ㔍ᚲ߳⺃ዉߐࠇ‫ ⚂ߢߎߘޔ‬1 ࡩ᦬ࠍߔߏߒߚ‫ޕ‬᧛ߩᵤᵄ೨ߩੱญߪ 850 ੱ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄᓟߪ 650 ੱߊࠄ޿ߛࠈ߁‫ޕ‬ ࠿࡞࠺ࠖࡦ᳁㧔ࡄࡠ᧛࡮↵ᕈ㧕ᒰᤨ‫ޔ‬40 ᱦ‫ࡦ࡚ࠪ࡯࠹ࡦ࡜ࡊޕ‬ㄘ႐ࠍ⚻༡ߒߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡ߩߣ߈ߪ‫⥄ޔ‬ቛߦ޿ߚ‫⥄ޕ‬ቛߪᶏጯ߆ࠄ 200 ࡔ࡯࠻࡞߶ߤߩߣߎࠈߦ޽ߞߚ‫⥄ޔߣ޽ߚߞ߹ߐ߅߇ࠇࠁޕ‬ቛⵣߦ޽ߞߚ
ㄘ႐ࠍ⷗ߦⴕߎ߁ߣᕁߞߚ‫ ߪࠇំޕ‬15 ಽߊࠄ޿⛯޿ߚࠃ߁ߦᗵߓߚ‫ޕ‬ᕷሶߩ 1 ੱ߇ᒰᣣ‫ޔ‬ᶏጯ߳ⴕߞߡ޿ߚߩߛ߇‫ޔ‬࿾㔡⋥ᓟߦᏫߞߡ߈ߡ‫߅ޟ‬ῳߐࠎ‫ޔ‬ᶏ߇ߔߏ޿൓޿ߢਅ߇ߞߡ
޿ࠆࠃ‫ߩߘޕߚߞ⸒ߣޠ‬೨ߩ࿯ᦐߩᄛߦ‫ࠄ߆ࠚ࠴ࠕ࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬㊒ࠅੱ߇᧪ߡ޿ߡ‫ޔ‬ᶏ߇ᒁ޿ߚࠄᄢᄌߥߎߣ߇⿠ߎࠆߣ޿߁⹤ࠍ஧ὼߒߡ޿ߚߩߢ‫ޔ‬ᕆ޿ߢሶߤ߽ߚߜࠍߟࠇߡጊ߳ㅏ
ߍߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬㊒ࠅੱ߽৻✜ߛߞߚ‫ ߦ✜৻߽ੱߩࠅࠊ߹ޕ‬100 ੱߊࠄ޿ㅏߍߚ‫ޕ‬ጊ߹ߢߪഀߦ
ㄭߊ 200 ࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߊࠄ޿ߢ߽߰ߣߦߚߤࠅߟߌߚ‫ޕ‬ጊߩ߽߰ߣ߹ߢ߈ߚߣߎࠈߢ‫ޔ‬᳓߇ߖ߹ߞߡ߈ߡ⿷ߪ᳓ߦ૶ߞߡߒ߹ߞߚ߇‫߆ߣࠎߥޔ‬਄ࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߚ‫ᦨޕ‬ೋߩᵤᵄߪ㜞ߐ߇ 3

129
129

III. ‫ܭ‬ໜᚇยƱᚸ̖ࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߊࠄ޿ߛߞߚ߇‫ߩߘޔ‬ᓟࠈߦߪ 10 ࡔ࡯࠻࡞એ਄ߩ㜞ߐߩᵄ߇⛯޿ߡ޿ߚ‫ߦߪ⦡ޕ‬ߏߞߚ⨥⦡ߛߞߚ‫ޕ‬
8 ᤨ㗃࿾㔡߇ᆎ߹ߞߡ‫ ߚߞ߹ߐ߅߇ࠇࠁޔ‬5㧙10 ಽᓟߦߪጊߩᣇ߳ⴕߞߚߣᕁ߁‫ࠄ߆ߛޕ‬ᵤᵄ߇᧪ߚߩߪ 8 ᤨ 20 ಽ߆ 25 ಽ㗃ߛߣᕁ߁‫ߩߘޕ‬ᓟ‫ޔ‬30 ಽߊࠄ޿ߚߜඦ೨ 9 ᤨߊࠄ޿ߦ
ߥࠆߣ‫ޔ‬ᶏߪߔߞ߆ࠅ㕒߆ߦߥߞߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬ߎߩᵄߪࠠࠕࡑ࠶࠻ߛߣ‫ߪ߈ߣߩߘޔ‬ᕁߞߚ‫ޕ‬ጊߩ਄ߦߪ 2 ᤨ㑆ߊࠄ޿޿ߡ‫ߩߘޔ‬ᓟ‫ޔ‬ጊߩⵣߦ޽ࠆ㓸⪭ߦⴕߞߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬ᓟ߽‫߈ߤ߈ߣޔ‬ጊࠍ⿧߃ߡ⥄ಽߩ㓸⪭߳ᚯࠅ‫↢ޔ‬ሽ⠪ࠍតߒߚ߇⷗ߟ߆ࠄߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬1 ㅳ㑆ߪ߶ߣࠎߤ㘩ߴࠆ߽ߩ߇ߥߊ⧰ߒࠎߛ߇‫ޔ‬㧝ㅳ㑆ߊࠄ޿ߒߡᶏጯߦ޿ߚߣߎࠈࠍࡑ࡟࡯ࠪࠕ߆ࠄߩ⦁߇⷗ߟߌߡߊࠇߡ‫ޔ‬㘩ߴ‛߿⴩㘃ߥߤ޽ࠄࠁ
ࠆ߽ߩࠍߊࠇߚ‫ޕ‬ ࡓ࡜ࠨ࡜࠾᳁㧔ࠞ࡞ࡦ᧛࡮↵ᕈ㧕ᒰᤨ‫ޔ‬42 ᱦ‫ޕ‬Ṫᬺߣㄘᬺࠍඨ‫⥄ޕߚ޿ߡߞ߿ߢ޿ࠄߊޘ‬ቛߪᶏᴪ޿ߩࠞ࡞ࡦ㓸⪭߆ࠄ 2ࠠࡠࡔ࡯࠻࡞߶ߤౝ㒽ߦ౉ߞߚ㜞บߦ޽ࠆ࠮ࡦࠢ࡮ࡓ࡜࠶ߦ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡߇⿠߈ߚߣ߈ߪ‫ࠍ࡯ࡅ࡯ࠦߢࡊ࠶࡚ࠪ࡯ࡅ࡯ࠦߩ᧛ࡦ࡞ࠞޔ‬㘶ࠎߢ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬᫹ሶߦᐳߞߡ޿ߚ߇‫ࠎߛࠎߛ߇ࠇំޔ‬ᒝߊߥߞߡ߈ߡ‫߇ߩ߽ߥࠈ޿ࠈ޿ޔ‬ୟࠇߘ߁ߦߥߞߡ߈ߚߩ
ߢ‫ޔ‬ㄭߊߦ޽ߞߚ⥄ಽߩࡃࠗࠢࠍ߅ߐ߃ߡ޿ߚ‫ ߪࠇំޕ‬10 ಽߊࠄ޿⛯޿ߚߣᕁ߁‫߇ࠇࠁޕ‬߅ߐ߹ߞߡ‫⥄ߕ߹ޔ‬ቛ߇ᔃ㈩ߦߥߞߚ‫ ߚ޿ߦ✜৻ޔߢߎߘޕ‬2 ੱߩᆷ㧔ᒰᤨ 14 ᱦߣ 3 ᱦ㧕ࠍࡃࠗࠢߦਸ਼ߖߡ⥄ቛ߳Ꮻߞߚ‫⥄ޕ‬ቛߦߪᆄߣᕷሶ߇ᱷߞߡ޿ߚ߇‫ޔ‬ኅᣖ߽ኅ߽․ߦⵍኂ
ߪߥߊ৻቟ᔃߒߚ‫ޕ‬ߒ߫ࠄߊߔࠆߣ‫ޔ‬ᄸᅱߥ῜⊒㖸߇ᶏߩᣇ߆ࠄ⡞ߎ߃ߡ߈ߚߩߢ‫ޔ‬૗ߩ㖸ߥߩ߆ࠍ⏕⹺ߔࠆߚ߼‫ߚ޿ߢ߹ߤ߶߈ߐޔ‬ᶏጯᴪ޿ߩࠦ࡯ࡅ࡯࡚ࠪ࠶ࡊ߳ᚯࠈ߁ߣᕁ޿ࡃࠗࠢߢ⿛ࠅߛߒ
ߚ‫ޕ‬㆏ߩࠅߩඨಽߊࠄ޿㧔1 ࠠࡠࡔ࡯࠻࡞㧕߹ߢᚯߞߚ⷗᥍ࠄߒߩࠃ޿ߣߎࠈ߹ߢ᧪ࠆߣ‫ޔ‬㓸⪭ߩਛᔃߦ޽ߞߚࡕࠬࠢߩደᩮߛߌࠍᱷߒߡ‫ࡦ࡞ࠞޔ‬㓸⪭ోߡ߇᳓ᴚߒߡߒ߹ߞߡ޿ࠆ
ߩ߇⷗߃ߚ‫ޔߡߒߘޕ‬ᶏߩ᳓߇ߔߏ޿൓޿ߢㄭߠ޿ߡߊࠆߩ߽⷗߃ߚ‫ޕ‬ᶏߩ᳓ߪḧో૕߆ࠄᶐ౉ߒߡ߈ߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬೎ߩ౉ࠅᳯ߆ࠄଚ౉ߒߡ߈ߚ߽ߩ߽޽ߞߡ‫ߩߘޔ‬ਔ⠪߇㓸⪭ߩਛߢวᵹߒߡ㧝ߟߦߥߞߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬ᵤᵄߩ⦡ߪࡒ࡞ࠢ౉ࠅࠦ࡯ࡅ࡯ߩࠃ߁ߛߞߚ‫ޕ‬᳓߇ㄼߞߡ߈ߡ޿ࠆߩߢ‫ޔ‬ᕆ޿ߢࡃࠗࠢߩะ߈ࠍ෻ォߒߡ⥄ቛ߳ᚯߞߚ‫ޔߡߒߘޕ‬ኅᣖࠍㅪࠇߡጊ߳⿛ߞߡㅏߍߚ‫ޕ‬ጊ߳਄ࠆ㆏ߪࡃࠗࠢߢߪㅢࠇߥ޿ߩߢ⟎޿ߡ⿛ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ጊߩ਄
ߦ 3 ᤨ㑆߶ߤṛ࿷ߒ‫ޔ‬ᤤ 12 ᤨ㗃ߦߥߞߡ⥄ቛ߳ᚯߞߚ‫⥄ޕ‬ቛߪዋߒ᳓ࠍ߆߱ߞߚ⒟ᐲߢᄢ
߈ߥⵍኂߪߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬
࿑ 4 ߪ‫ޔ‬6 ੱߩ⋡᠄⸽⸒ߦߟ޿ߡ‫ⴕޔ‬േߩ㗅⇟ࠍᢛℂߒߡ୘‫ⴕߩޘ‬േߩᚲⷐᤨ㑆ࠍ⷗Ⓧ߽ߞߡ࿾㔡⊒↢߆ࠄᵤᵄⷅ᧪߹ߢߩᤨ㑆ࠍផቯߒߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޔߕ߹ޕ‬᛼ߒᵄ߇᧪ࠆ߹ߢߦ
㗼⪺ߥᒁ߈ầ߇޽ߞߚߎߣ߇ᵈ⋡ߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡⋥ᓟߦᶏߩ⷗߃ࠆ႐ᚲߦዬߚ㧔3㧕࡜ࠗ࡜࠾᳁‫ޔ‬㧔4㧕ࡃࡂ࡯࡞᳁ߩ 2 ੱߪ⋧ᒰߥᴒ߹ߢ㗼⪺ߦầ߇߭ߊߩࠍ⋡᠄ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫(ޕ‬2)࠺࠺ࠖࠬࠢࡑ᳁ߣ(5)࠿࡞࠺ࠖࡦ᳁ߩ 2 ੱߪ‫ޔ‬ᶏጯઃㄭߦ޿ߚ⍮ੱ߿ኅᣖ߆ࠄߩᒁ߈ầ⋡᠄⸽⸒ࠍᓧߡ‫ޔ‬ㆱ㔍ⴕേߦߣࠅ߆߆ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᱷࠆ(1)ࠨࡓࠬ࡝᳁‫(ޔ‬6)ࡓ࡜ࠨ࡜࠾᳁ߪᒁ߈ầࠍ⋡᠄ߒߡ޿ߥ޿߇‫ߪࠇߎޔ‬Ⓧᭂ⊛ߦᒁ߈ầ߇ߥ߆ߞߚߎߣࠍ␜ߔ߽ߩߢߪߥߊ‫ޔ‬ਔ᳁ߣ߽ᶏࠍ⷗ࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߥ޿႐ᚲߦ޿ߚߎߣߦࠃࠆ‫ޕ‬߹ߣ߼ࠆߣ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬ፉ⷏ᶏጯߢߪᢙ㨙એ਄ߦ෸߱߆ߥࠅ㗼⪺ߥầ૏ૐਅ߇ߪߓ߼ߦ⿠ߎ
ࠅ‫ߩߘޔ‬ᓟߦᄢ߈ߥᵤᵄⵍኂࠍ෸߷ߒߚ᛼ߒᵄ߇ⷅߞߡ߈ߚߣ⠨߃ࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᰴߦ᛼ߒᵄ߇᧪ߚᤨೞߦߟ޿ߡ⠨߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬6 ᳁ߣ߽‫ޔ‬࿾㔡ߩំࠇ߇߅ߐ߹ࠆ߹ߢߦ 5-10 ಽએ਄ߩᤨ㑆߇߆߆ߞߚߣ⸽⸒ߒߡ߅ࠅ‫ߩߘޔ‬ᓟ‫ޔ‬⍴ᤨ㑆ߢߢ߈ࠆ 2‫ޔ‬3 ߩⴕേࠍߣࠅ߅߃ࠆ
߆‫ᦨࠆ޿ߡߞߣޔ‬ਛߦᵤᵄ߇᛼ߒነߖߡ߈ߚߎߣ߇ࠊ߆ࠆ‫ޕ‬࿑ 4 ߦ␜ߐࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬6 ੱߩ⸽⸒⠪߇࿾㔡ᓟߦߣߞߚⴕേߪᰴߩࠃ߁ߦᢛℂߔࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆ‫ޕ‬(1) ࠨࡓࠬ࡝᳁ߪ 300 ੱߣ޿߁ᢙߩነኋ↢ࠍᩞ⥢߆ࠄᩞᐸ߳ㆱ㔍ߐߖ‫ߎߣߚߒߊࠄ߫ߒޔ‬ࠈߢᵤᵄߦㆣㆄߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬(2) ࠺࠺ࠖࠬࠢࡑ᳁ߪ࿾㔡ᓟࠦ࡯ࡅ࡯࡚ࠪ࠶ࡊ߳ⴕ߈‫ࠍ࡯ࡅ࡯ࠦߢߎߘޔ‬㘶ߺߥ߇ࠄ㔀⺣ߒ‫ޔ‬Ꮉߩ᳓૏ૐਅࠍ⥄ಽߩ⋡ߢ⏕⹺ߒߡࡃࠗࠢߢ 800 ࡔ࡯࠻࡞߶ߤ㔌ࠇߚ⥄ቛ߳Ꮻࠅ‫ޔ‬

130
130

඾ඬႆဃȗȭǻǹǛᚐଢƢǔƨǊƷૼȇȸǿƷӕࢽᲢ௎ Ꮱ঺Უኅߦߚߤࠅߟߊ⋥೨ߢᵤᵄߦ㘶ߺㄟ߹ࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬(3) ࡜ࠗ࡜࠾᳁ߪ࿾㔡ߩ޽ߣ‫ޔ‬3 ੱߩሶߤ߽ߚߜߣ㔚⹤ߦࠃࠆ቟ุ⏕⹺ࠍᷣ߹ߖߡ߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬ゞߢߩㆱ㔍Ḱ஻ࠍㅴ߼ߚ‫ᦨߩߘޕ‬ਛߦỗߒ޿ᒁ߈ᵄࠍ⷗ߡᕆ޿ߛ߇‫ޔ‬Ḱ஻߇߹ߦ޽ࠊߕᵤᵄ߇೔㆐ߒߡߒ߹ߞߚߚ߼ߦ‫ޔ‬ゞࠍ᡼᫈ߒߡㄭߊߩጊ߳ߣ㚟ߌ਄߇ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬(4) ࡃࡂ࡯࡞᳁ߪ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡ߩᓟ‫ޔ‬ᶏ߹ߢ⿛ߞߡ᭽ሶࠍ⷗ߦ޿ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ᶏߪᐓ਄߇ߞߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬෹ੱࠄ߇ขࠅᱷߐࠇߚ㝼ࠍ᝝₪ߔࠆ᭽ሶࠍ⷗ߡ޿ࠆߣߎࠈߢᴒߦᵤᵄ߇ㄼߞߡ޿ࠆߩ
ࠍ⷗ߟߌ‫ߡߞ⿛ޔ‬ኅߦᚯࠅߥ߇ࠄኅᣖࠍតߒ‫ޔ‬㑆৻㜬ߩߣߎࠈߢ㜞บߦㅏߍࠆߎߣ߇
ߢ߈ߚ‫ޕ‬(5) ࠿࡞࠺ࠖࡦ᳁ߪ 15 ಽߊࠄ޿ߣ޿߁㐳ᤨ㑆ߩំࠇࠍᗵߓߚ޽ߣ‫⥄ޔ‬ቛⵣߦ޽ߞߚㄘ႐
ࠍ⷗ߦⴕߎ߁ߣḰ஻ߒߡ޿ࠆߣߎࠈ߳ᶏጯߦ޿ߚᕷሶ߆ࠄᒁ߈ầᖱႎ߇߽ߚࠄߐࠇ
ߚ‫ߢߎߘޕ‬๟࿐ߩੱߦ߽⍮ࠄߖߥ߇ࠄ 200 ࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߊࠄ޿㔌ࠇߚጊ࿾ߦะߌߡ⿛ߞߡ
ㅏߍߡ㑆৻㜬ߩߣߎࠈߢᵤᵄߦߐࠄࠊࠇߕߦᷣࠎߛ‫ޕ‬(6) ࡓ࡜ࠨ࡜࠾᳁ߪំࠇ߇෼߹ߞߚᓟ‫ޔ‬ᶏጯ߆ࠄ 2 ࠠࡠࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߊࠄ޿ౝ㒽ߦ౉ߞߚ⥄ቛ߳ߣሶߤ߽ 2 ੱࠍਸ਼ߖߚ 3 ੱਸ਼ࠅߩࡃࠗࠢࠍ⿛ࠄߖ‫ޔ‬ኅᣖ߿⥄ቛߩή੐ࠍ⏕⹺ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩߘޕ‬ᓟ‫ޔ‬ᶏߩᣇ߆ࠄ⇣Ᏹߥ㖸߇⡞ߎ߃ߚߩߢ‫ߢࠢࠗࡃޔ‬ᶏጯߦᚯࠈ߁ߣ⿛ࠅ‫ߘޔ‬ߩㅜਛߢᵤᵄߦࠃߞߡ㓸⪭߇㘶ߺㄟ߹ࠇߡ޿ࠆߩࠍ⋡᠄ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬
ੱ‛
䋨࿾ฬ䋩

0

10

20

30

㩿㪈㪀䉰䊛䉴䊥᳁䋨䊤䊮䊒䊷䉪䋩

䉉䉏㩿㪉㪀䊂䊂䉞䉴䉪䊙᳁䋨䊨䉾䉪䉧䋩䉉䉏Ꮉ 丏⌕ᦧ䈋 䉮䊷䊍䊷䉲䊢䉾䊒 ầ⏕䶳 ䷣ ᓤ
䈫⒖േ 䈪ඨಽ⒟ᐲ㘶䉃 ⹺ ᒁ ䷮ ᱠ㩿㪊㪀䊤䉟䊤䊆᳁䋨䊨䉾䉪䉧䋩

䉉䉏

㔚⹤䈮䉋䉎
቟ุ⏕⹺

㩿㪋㪀䊋䊊䊷䊦᳁
䋨䊒䊨䋩

䉉䉏

ጊ
⥄ ኅ
ᣖ
ᶏጯ䈻 ᒁ䈐ᵄ䉕⋡᠄ ቛ ត ䷄ㆱ䷄ 䶤 㔍㩿㪌㪀䊇䊦䊂䉞䊮᳁䋨䊌䊨䋩ᩞᐸ䈻ㆱ㔍⺃ዉ

䉉䉏
0

ᒁ

╙ ጊ

ㆱ
ㅏ䈕䉎Ḱ஻ 䶚 ゞ ᵄ1 ䷄
㔍

ᵄ

⇌
Ḱ
஻⏕
⹺

䉉䉏

㩿㪍㪀䊛䊤䉰䊤䊆᳁䋨䉦䊦䊮䋩

40 [ಽ]2km㔌䉏䈢⥄ቛ䈻

ㄭᚲ100ੱ䈒䉌䈇
䈪ጊ䈻ㆱ㔍

ኅᣖ䈱ή
੐䉕⏕⹺

10

20

䶷ᶏ ᒁ
ⴕ䷚ ㄰
䶜⷗ 䶦

ጊ
䷄
ㆱ
㔍

30

40

࿑㧠 6 ੱߩ૕㛎⠪ߩ࿾㔡⊒↢߆ࠄᵤᵄㆣㆄ߹ߢߩⴕേ
㧔ᵈ㧕࿾㔡ߢំࠇᆎ߼ߚᤨὐࠍේὐߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߦㆣㆄߔࠆ߹ߢߩᤨ㑆ࠍ⡞߈ขࠅ߆ࠄᓧࠄࠇߚㅪ⛯ⴕേ߆ࠄផቯߒߚ‫ޕ‬6 ੱߪ⇣ߥߞߚ႐ᚲߢᵤᵄߦㆣㆄߒߡ޿ࠆ߇‫ߩࠇߕ޿ޔ‬႐ᚲߢ߽ᵤᵄߪ࿾㔡ߢࠁࠇߪߓ߼ߡ߆ࠄ 20㨪30 ಽߢ೔㆐ߒߚߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㗼⪺ߥᒁ߈ᵄ߽⋡᠄ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬એ਄ߩ୘‫ⴕߩޘ‬േߦ߆߆ࠆᤨ㑆ࠍ⃻࿾੐ᖱߥߤ߽⠨ᘦߒߡ⹏ଔߔࠆߣ‫ޔ‬࿑ߦ␜ߐࠇߚࠃ
߁ߦ㗼⪺ߥ᛼ߒᵄ߇᧪ߚߩߪ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡ߢំࠇߪߓ߼ߡ߆ࠄ 20 ಽ߆ࠄ 30 ಽߊࠄ޿ߚߞߚ㗃ߢ޽ߞߚߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ ߪࠇߎޕ‬6 ੱߩ⸽⸒⠪ోຬߦ౒ㅢߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬㧠㧚⠨ ኤ
ᧄ⎇ⓥߢᓧࠄࠇߚࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉ⷏ᶏጯߦ߅ߌࠆᵤᵄ⋡᠄⸽⸒ࠍ߹ߣ߼ࠆߣ‫ޔ‬‫ޟ‬㗼⪺ߥᒁ߈ᵄ
߇޽ߞߚߎߣ‫ޟ߮ࠃ߅ޠ‬᛼ߒᵄߪ࿾㔡ᓟ 20㨪30 ಽߢࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉ⷏ᶏጯߦ೔㆐ߒߚߎߣ‫ߣޠ‬
޿߁ 2 ߟߩ․ᓽߦ㓸⚂ߐࠇࠆ‫․ߩߎޔߪߢޕ‬ᓽߪ‫ߦߢ߹ࠇߎޔ‬࿾⃿‛ℂቇ⊛⎇ⓥ߆ࠄឭ␜ߐࠇߚᵤᵄᵄḮࡕ࠺࡞ߢ⺑᣿ߢ߈ࠆߩߛࠈ߁߆‫ޕ‬
Fujii and Satake㧔2007㧕ߪੱᎿⴡᤊ߆ࠄ᷹ⷰߐࠇߚᶏ㕙ᄌേ࠺࡯࠲ߣࠗࡦ࠼ᵗᴪጯߩฦ࿾
ߢ᷹ⷰߐࠇߚᬌầ௾ߩᵤᵄ࠺࡯࠲ࠍ⸃ᨆߒ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬ፉᴒ߆ࠄࠕࡦ࠳ࡑࡦ⻉ፉߣ޿߁ 1,000

131
131

III. ‫ܭ‬ໜᚇยƱᚸ̖ࠠࡠࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߦ߅ࠃ߱ߎߩ࿾㔡ߩ㔡Ḯၞߩਛߢ․ߦᄢ߈ߥߔߴࠅ߇޽ߞߚ႐ᚲࠍផቯߒߡ
޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᓐࠄߩ⸃ᨆ⚿ᨐߦࠃࠇ߫‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬ፉᴒߩᶏᐩਅߦߪᢿጀ߇ᄢ߈ߊߔߴߞߚ㗔ၞ߇޽ࠆ߇‫ߩߘޔ‬႐ᚲߪ㒽߆ࠄ⊖ࠠࡠએ਄㔌ࠇߚᴒว޿ߦ㒢ࠄࠇߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬㒽ߦㄭ޿஥ߦߪ޽߹
ࠅᄢ߈ߥߔߴࠅߪߥ߆ߞߚߣ⚿⺰ߠߌࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆ㧔࿑ 5㧕‫ޕ‬࿑ 6 ߪ‫ޔ‬࿑ 5 ߦ␜ߒߚᢿጀߔߴࠅಽᏓ߆ࠄࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉ⷏ᶏጯߦ߅ߌࠆᵤᵄᵄᒻߩℂ⺰୯ࠍ⸘▚ߒߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬႐ว‫▚⸘ߩࠇߕ޿ޔ‬࿾ὐߦ߅޿ߡ߽‫ޔ‬ᢙࡔ࡯࠻࡞ߣ޿߁㗼⪺ߥᒁ߈ᵄߪ⃻ࠇߕ‫ޔߚ߹ޔ‬ᄢ߈ߥ᛼ߒᵄ߇ᶏጯߦ೔㆐ߔࠆ߹ߢߦⷐߔࠆᤨ㑆ߪ 40 ಽ⒟ᐲߣ߆ߥࠅㆃ޿ߎߣ߇ࠊ߆ࠆ‫⎇ᧄޕ‬ⓥߢᓧࠄࠇߚ⋡᠄⸽⸒ߦ߽ߣߠߊࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉ⷏ᶏጯߦ߅ߌ
ࠆᵤᵄߩ․ᓽߣߪ৻⥌ߒߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޕ‬

࿑ 5 Fujii and Satake㧔2007㧕ߢᓧࠄࠇߚᢿጀߔߴࠅಽᏓ
㧔ᵈ㧕⦡ߩỚ޿ࡑࠬ⋡ߪᢿጀߔߴࠅ߇ᄢ߈߆ߞߚ႐ᚲߢ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬ፉർ⷏ㇱઃㄭߩᶏḴᴪ޿㧔㒽߆ࠄ㔌ࠇߚ஥㧕ߦᐢ߇ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᢿጀߔߴࠅ߇ᄢ߈߆ߞߚ႐ᚲߪᶏᐩ㕙ߩಳಲ߇ᄢ߈ߊߥ
ࠆߩߢᄢᵤᵄߩ⊒↢Ḯߣߥࠆ‫ޕ‬

࿑ 6 ࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉ⷏ᶏጯߦ߅ߌࠆℂ⺰ᵤᵄᵄᒻ㧔ᵈ㧕Fujii and Satake㧔2007㧕ߩᢿጀࡕ࠺࡞߆ࠄ⸘▚ߐࠇߚࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉ⷏ᶏጯߩ 2 ࿾ὐߦ߅ߌࠆℂ⺰ᵤᵄᵄᒻ‫ߩࠇߕ޿ޕ‬႐ᚲߦ߅޿ߡ߽㗼⪺ߥᒁ߈ᵄߪ⷗ࠄࠇߕ‫ޔ‬ᵄ㜞ߩ㜞޿᛼ߒᵄߩ೔㆐ᤨ㑆ߪ࿾㔡⊒↢ᓟ 2,400 ⑽㧔40 ಽ㧕೨ᓟߣߥߞߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬࿑ 4 ߦ߹ߣ߼ࠄࠇߚ⋡᠄⸽⸒ߣߪ৻⥌ߒߥ޿‫ޕ‬ߎࠇߪᵄḮၞ߇㒽߆ࠄ㆙޿ߣߎࠈߦߒ߆ߥ޿ߎߣߦ⿠࿃ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬߦࠄߐޕ‬ፉ⷏ᶏጯߦߪ㆙ᵻߥᶏᐩ࿾ᒻ߇ᐢ߇ߞߡ޿ࠆߚ߼‫ޔ‬᥉ㅢߩᶏၞએ਄ߦ㒽࿾߹ߢ᛼ߒᵄ߇વ៝ߒ

132
132

඾ඬႆဃȗȭǻǹǛᚐଢƢǔƨǊƷૼȇȸǿƷӕࢽᲢ௎ Ꮱ঺Უߡߊࠆߩߦ㐳ᤨ㑆ࠍⷐߔࠆ‫ߩࡊࠗ࠲ߩߎޔߚ߹ޕ‬ᵤᵄᵄḮࡕ࠺࡞ߪᶏᐩߩ࿾Ზᄌേ㊂߇ᄢ߈޿㗔ၞ߇ᴒวߦ㒢ቯߐࠇࠆߚ߼‫ޔ‬ᶏጯ✢ㄭߊߢ࿾㔡⋥ᓟߦᄢ߈ߥᒁ߈ầࠍ૞ࠅ಴ߔߎߣ
߽߻ߟ߆ߒ޿‫ߩߎޕ‬࿾㔡ߦߟ޿ߡߪ‫ޔ‬Fujii and Satake(2007)એᄖߦ߽ᄙߊߩᵤᵄᵄḮࡕ࠺࡞߇ឭ໒ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ߇‫߽࡞࠺ࡕߩߤޔ‬ၮᧄ⊛ߥ․ᓽߪૃߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᶏጯㄭߊ߹ߢᵤᵄᵄၞ߇෸
ࠎߢ޿ߚߣ޿߁⚿⺰߇ᓧࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆࡕ࠺࡞ߪ߶ߣࠎߤሽ࿷ߒߥ޿‫ޕ‬ᵈ 1)એ਄߹ߣ߼ࠆߣ‫⎇ᧄޔ‬ⓥߢᓧࠄࠇߚࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉ⷏ᶏጯߦ߅ߌࠆ 2004 ᐕࠬࡑ࠻࡜࡮ࠕࡦ࠳
ࡑࡦ࿾㔡ߩᵤᵄ᜼േߦ㑐ߔࠆᣂߒ޿ 2 ߟߩ․ᓽ⊛ߥ࠺࡯࠲ߪ‫ޔ‬ᣢሽߩ㆙࿾᷹ⷰ࠺࡯࠲ߩ⸃
ᨆ߆ࠄᓧࠄࠇߚᵄḮࡕ࠺࡞ߢߪ⺑᣿ߔࠆߎߣ߇㔍ߒ޿‫⎇ᧄޕ‬ⓥߢᓧࠄࠇߚ࠺࡯࠲ࠍ⺑᣿ߔࠆߚ߼ߦߪ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߩᵄḮၞ߇߽ߞߣ㒽࿾ߦㄭ޿ߣߎࠈߦߥߌࠄ߫ߥࠄߥ޿‫ߩߘޕ‬୥⵬ߣߒߡߪ‫߇࠻࡯࡟ࡊޔ߫߃ߣߚޔ‬ᴉߺㄟ߻ᶏḴࠃࠅ߽㒽࿾஥ߦሽ࿷ߔࠆߣ޿ࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆ㜞ⷺᐲߩᏂᄢಽጘᢿጀ߇޽ߍࠄࠇࠆ‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߎޕ‬ᢿጀ߇േߌ߫‫ޔ‬㗼⪺ߥᒁ߈ᵄߣᣧ޿࠲ࠗࡒࡦࠣ
ߢߩᏂᄢߥ᛼ߒᵄߣ޿߁ 2 ߟߩ․ᓽࠍᜬߟᧄ⎇ⓥߢᓧࠄࠇߚᣂ࠺࡯࠲ࠍ⺑᣿ߢ߈ࠆน⢻ᕈ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
㧡㧚߹ߣ߼ᵤᵄߩ‛ℂ⊛ࡔࠞ࠾࠭ࡓࠍ⸃᣿ߔࠆߚ߼ߩᣂ࠺࡯࠲ࠍขᓧߔࠆ⋡⊛ߢ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄⷅ᧪೨ᓟߦ
ὶὐࠍߒ߷ߞߚ⡞߈ขࠅ⺞ᩏࠍࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚ๟ㄝߢⴕߞߚ‫⺞ߩߎޕ‬ᩏߦࠃߞߡ‫ޔ‬႐ᚲߣᤨೞߦ㑐ߔࠆዻᕈᖱႎ߇᣿⏕ߥᤨ♽೉⊛ᵤᵄ⋡᠄⸽⸒߇ᓧࠄࠇߚ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޕ‬ፉߢߪ⸘᷹ᯏེߦࠃࠆᵤᵄ࠺࡯࠲߇߶ߣࠎߤߥ޿ߚ߼‫ⷰߩઁߪ࠲࡯࠺ߩߎޔ‬᷹ߣߪ⇣ߥߞߚ⁛┙ᕈߩ㜞޿ᖱႎࠍ߽ߚࠄߔߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ᓧࠄࠇߚᵤᵄ࠺࡯࠲㧔᷹ⷰ㧕ࠍ‫ߦߢ߹ࠇߎޔ‬᳞߼ࠄࠇߡ޿
ࠆᵄḮࡕ࠺࡞߆ࠄ⸘▚ߐࠇࠆᵄᒻ㧔ℂ⺰㧕ߣᲧセߒߚߣߎࠈ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬ፉ⷏ᣇᴒߢߪ࿾㔡ᤨᢿጀߔߴࠅ߇߆ߥࠅ㒽ߦㄭ޿ߣߎࠈߢ߽⿠߈ߡ޿ߚน⢻ᕈ߇㜞޿‫ߪࠇߎޕ‬Ꮒᄢಽጘᢿጀ
߇࿾㔡ᤨߦᵴേߒߡᏂᄢߥᵤᵄࠍᒁ߈⿠ߎߒߚน⢻ᕈ߇޽ࠆߎߣࠍ␜ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬⻢ ㄉ 㐳ᤨ㑆ߩࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯ߦᔕߓߡ޿ߚߛ߈‫⾆ޔ‬㊀ߥᵤᵄ⋡᠄⸽⸒ࠍ߅⹤޿ߚߛ޿ߚ 6 ੱߩදജ⠪ߩ⊝᭽ߦᗵ⻢޿ߚߒ߹ߔ‫౒ࠍ࡯ࡘࡆ࠲ࡦࠗޔߚ߹ޕ‬หߢታᣉߒߚ቟⮮㓷ቁ᳁‫ޔ‬⍹↰ℰⓄ᳁‫ޔ‬Didik Sugiyanto ᳁‫ޔ‬Nani ᳁‫ޔ‬Putri ᳁‫ޔ‬Aboy ᳁߆ࠄ߽‫⎇ᧄޔ‬ⓥࠍㅴ߼ࠆ਄ߢߩ⾆㊀ߥഥ⸒ࠍᄙᢙ޿ߚߛ߈߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬࿑ 5 ߩᵤᵄℂ⺰ᵄ⸘ߪ℄⃿ᄢቇℂቇㇱߩਛ᧛ⴡ᳁ߦ⸘▚ߒߡ޿ߚߛ߈߹ߒߚ‫ߡߒ⸥ޕ‬ᗵ⻢޿ߚߒ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ෳ⠨ᢥ₂1) ᐔ↰⾫ᴦ㧦2004 ᐕࠗࡦ࠼ᵗᄢᵤᵄᵄḮၞධㇱ㧔ࠬࡑ࠻࡜ർ⷏ᴒ㧕ߦ߅ߌࠆᵤᵄ⊒↢ࡔࠞ࠾࠭ࡓߦ㑐ߔࠆ 5 ⇟⋡ߩࡕ࠺࡞઒⺑㧘ᣣᧄ࿾⃿ᖺᤊ⑼ቇㅪวᄢળ੍Ⓜ㓸㧘20082) ᐢἑ౏Ꮘ㧦‫ޡ‬ᶏ␹ⷅ᧪̆ࠗࡦ࠼ᵗᄢᵤᵄ࡮↢ሽ⠪ߚߜߩ⸽⸒̆‫⨲ޢ‬ᕁ␠㧘20073) ࠞ࠻࠘࡝࡮ࡔ࡝ࠞ࡝ࠝ⪺࡮⣁ဈ♿ⴕ⸶㧦‫ޡ‬ᐔ๺᭴▽ߩ઀੐‫ޢ‬᣿⍹ᦠᐫ㧘20074) ᨋ⢻ᚑ࡮቟⮮㓷ቁ࡮⮮↰ື਽㧦ᵤᵄⵍἴ૕㛎ߩ⸥㍳ߣ⛗↹ൻ, ฬฎደᄢቇⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼‫ޡ‬2004 ᐕർㇱࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡⺞ᩏႎ๔ III‫ޢ‬pp.34-40, 20075) ᨋ⢻ᚑ࡮቟⮮㓷ቁ࡮⍹↰ℰⓄ࡮Didik Sugiyanto㧦ᵤᵄㆣㆄ᧦ઙ߇ㆱ㔍ߦਈ߃ࠆᓇ㗀㨪ࡃࡦ࠳ࠕ࠴ࠚ๟ㄝߦ߅ߌࠆ⡞߈ขࠅ⺞ᩏ߆ࠄߩ⠨ኤ㨪㧘ฬฎደᄢቇⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼‫ޡ‬2004ᐕർㇱࠬࡑ࠻࡜࿾㔡⺞ᩏႎ๔Φ‫ޢ‬pp.75-82, 2008
6) Ando, M., Nakamura, M., Hayashi, Y., Ishida, M. and Didik, S.: “Observed high amplitude
tsunami 0.5-20 km away from the northern Sumatra coast during the 2004 Sumatra earthquake”,
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, doi:10.1016/j.jseaes.2009.01.009, 2009
7) Fujii, Y. and Satake, K.: “Tsunami Source of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake inferredfrom Tide Gauge and Satellite Data”, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 97, S192-207, 2007

133
133

⚵❱ߣߒߡߩἴኂ⺞ᩏ
ᧁ ᧛

⃍ ᰷

ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼㧛ฬฎደᄢቇἴኂኻ╷ቶ㧝㧚‫ߦ⊛❱⚵ޟ‬ἴኂ⃻⽎ࠍ⸃᣿ߒߚ޿‫߁޿ߣޠ‬ᗐ޿ἴኂߪ⥄ὼ⃻⽎ߢ޽ࠆߣߣ߽ߦ␠ળ⃻⽎ߣߒߡߩ஥㕙ࠍᜬߟ‫߼ߚߩߘޕ‬ἴኂ੐⽎ࠍ⸃ᨆ
ߒቇℂࠍㅊⓥߔࠆߚ߼ߦߪ‫ޔ‬ἴኂ੐⽎ߦ㑐ㅪߔࠆ⥄ὼ⑼ቇ࡮ੱᢥ␠ળ⑼ቇߥߤߩ޽ࠄࠁࠆ
⎇ⓥ⠪߇⍮ࠍ㓸⚿ߐߖࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ฬฎደᄢቇߦ߅ߌࠆࠬࡑ࠻࡜⺞ᩏߦߟ޿ߡ‫ߩߎޔ‬ᣛᝄࠅᓎࠍᜂߞߚߩ߇‫ޔ‬቟⮮㓷ቁ㧔ᒰᤨ࡮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼ᢎ᝼㧛࿾㔡Ἣጊ࡮㒐ἴ⎇ⓥ࠮ࡦ࠲࡯㐳‫࡮⃻ޔ‬ฬ⹷ᢎ᝼㧕ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬2004 ᐕ
12 ᦬ 26 ᣣߦᵤᵄ߇⊒↢ߒ‫ޔ‬ᐕ߇᣿ߌߡ 2005 ᐕ 1 ᦬਄ᣨ‫ޔ‬቟⮮߇⓭ὼ⎇ⓥቶߦ߿ߞߡ߈ߡ
‫ߣޠ߆޿ߥ߆ⴕߦ✜৻ߦ࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔࠎߐ᧛ᧁޟ‬ჿࠍ߆ߌߡߊࠇߚߩߪ‫ࠎ߳޿ߚޔ‬㛳߈ߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ታߪ‫ߢ߹ࠇߘޔ‬቟⮮ߣ߹ߣ߽ߦળ⹤ࠍߒߚߎߣ߇ߥ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬࿾㔡ቇߩ਎⇇⊛ᮭᆭߢ޽ࠅᐕ߇ 30 ᱦએ਄߽㔌ࠇߡ޿ࠆ቟⮮ߪ‫ޔ‬ᑈਅࠍߪߐࠎߛะ߆޿ߩㇱደߣ޿߁⎇ⓥቶߩㄭធᕈ߇޽ࠆߦ߽߆߆ࠊࠄߕ‫ޔ‬ᔺࠇᄙߊ㆙޿ሽ࿷ߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ഥᚻߣߒߡൕ߼ߡ 2 ᐕ⋡ߩ⑳ߪ‫ޔ‬ߥߗ⥄ಽߦჿ߇߆߆ߞߚߩ߆ࠃߊࠊ߆ࠄߥ޿߹߹‫߅߭ߗޟ‬㗿޿ߒ߹ߔ‫ߣޠ‬㄰੐ࠍߒߚ‫ߒޕ‬߆ߒ‫ޔ‬቟⮮ߪߘߩᤨߦߪ᣿⏕ߥࡆ࡚ࠫࡦࠍᜬߞߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬቟⮮ߪ‫ߦ⊛❱⚵ޟ‬ἴኂ⃻⽎ࠍ⸃᣿ߒߚ޿‫ߣޠ‬⠨߃ߡ޿ߚ‫ߢߎߘޕ‬቟⮮ࠍ฽߻ 7 ੱߩࡔࡦࡃ࡯߆ࠄ᭴ᚑߐࠇࠆ‫ ╙ޟ‬1 ᰴࠬࡑ࠻࡜⺞ᩏ࿅‫⚿߇ޠ‬ᚑߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬1㧕ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕߦ߅ߌࠆἫ
ጊ᷹ⷰߩታ❣ߩ޽ࠆᧁ⢆ᢥᤘࠍ⥄ὼ⑼ቇ⊛⍮⷗߆ࠄߩ⎇ⓥ⠪‫࡯ࠦࠆߌ߅ߦࠕࠪࡀ࠼ࡦࠗޔ‬࠺ࠖࡀ࡯࠲࡯‫⃻ޔ‬࿾ࠪࡖࠢࠕ࡜ᄢቇߣߩ੤ᷤᜂᒰ⠪ߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬2㧕ᣣᧄᶏਛㇱ࿾㔡࡮ਃ㒽ߪࠆ߆ᴒ࿾㔡ߥߤߢߩ⺞ᩏታ❣߇޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬ἴኂ␠ળቇߩኾ㐷ኅߢ޽ࠆ↰ਛ㊀ᅢࠍ␠ળ⑼ቇ࠴࡯ࡓ
ߩઍ⴫⠪࡮⎇ⓥ⠪ߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬3㧕ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ࡮ࡃࡦ࠼ࡦᎿ⑼ᄢቇߩ Suhirman ࠍ‫ޔ‬᡽ᴦੱ㘃ቇ⊛⍮⷗߆ࠄߩࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ࡮ࠗࠬ࡜ࡓᢥൻߩ⎇ⓥ⠪‫ޔ‬ᖱႎឭଏ⠪‫ޔ‬ㅢ⸶ߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬4㧕ⅣႺቇ
⎇ⓥ⑼࿾㔡Ἣጊ࡮㒐ἴ⎇ⓥ࠮ࡦ࠲࡯⎇ⓥຬ㧔ᒰᤨ㧕ߩ Glenda M. BESANA ߪ⥄ὼ⑼ቇ⊛⍮⷗߆ࠄߩ⎇ⓥ⠪ߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬5㧕⼾ᯅᛛⴚ⑼ቇᄢቇߩඳ჻ᓟᦼ⺖⒟ߦ⇐ቇ㧔ᒰᤨ㧕ߒߡ޿ߚ Farid
MULANA ߪࠕ࠴ࠚੱߣߒߡࠕ࠴ࠚߢߩᖱႎ෼㓸‫ޔ‬ㅢ⸶ߣߒߡߩᓎഀࠍᦼᓙߐࠇߡ޿ߚ‫ޕ‬౮⌀ 1 Farid ቛߢߩ㘩੐౮⌀ 2 ᔕធ㑆ߢߩᄛߩ⼏⺰৻ᣇ‫⇟৻ޔ‬ᐕਅߩ⥄ಽߪ૗ࠍߔࠇ߫ࠃ޿ߩ߆‫ޔ‬૗ࠍᦼᓙߐࠇߡ޿ࠆߩ߆ೋ߼ߪࠊ߆ࠄߥ
߆ߞߚ‫߇࡯ࡃࡦࡔߩઁޟߢߎߘޕ‬ᔅⷐߣߒߡ޿ࠆߎߣࠍ₸వߒߡⴕ߅߁‫߁޿ߣޠ‬᳇ᜬߜߢ‫ޔ‬ࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᵤᵄߦ㑐ߔࠆᣂ⡞⸥੐ߩࠬࠢ࡜࠶ࡊ࡮ౠሶ૞ᚑ‫⺞ޔ‬ᩏ࿅ࡎ࡯ࡓࡍ࡯ࠫߦ߅ߌࠆࠦ

134
134

ኵጢƱƠƯƷ໎ܹᛦ௹Ტங஭ྞ഑Უ

ࡦ࠹ࡦ࠷૞ᚑ‫ޔ‬Ꮻ࿖ᓟߩႎ๔ᦠ૞ᚑ‫ࡒࠦࠬࡑޔ‬ฦ␠㧔ฬฎደᢎ⢒⸥⠪ળ㧕߳ߩᖱႎឭଏߥߤߣ޿ߞ
ߚ੐ോዪ⊛ߥ૞ᬺࠍⴕ޿ߥ߇ࠄ‫⃻ޔ‬࿾ߢߪᔃℂቇ⊛࡮␠ળ⑼ቇ⊛⍮⷗߆ࠄࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯╬ࠍⴕߞߚ‫ޕ‬╙ 1 ᰴ⺞ᩏ࿅ߪ‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ 1 ࡩ᦬ඨᓟߩ 2005 ᐕ 2 ᦬
5 ᣣ߆ࠄ 2 ᦬ 12 ᣣ߹ߢߩᣣ⒟ߢ⺞ᩏ߇ⴕࠊࠇߚ‫ޕ‬Ꮢౝߩࡎ࠹࡞߇࿾㔡࡮ᵤᵄߦࠃߞߡߔߴߡუࠇߡ
ߒ߹ߞߚߚ߼‫ ߪߢࠚ࠴ࠕ࡮࠳ࡦࡃޔ‬Farid ߩ⥄ቛߦ㑆୫ࠅߒߡኢᴱ߹ࠅ߿㘩੐ߩឭଏࠍฃߌߚ‫⺞ޕ‬ᩏ࿅ߪᣣਛߪࠣ࡞࡯ࡊන૏ߢⴕേߔࠆߎߣ߽޽ߞߚ
߇‫ޔ‬ᄛߪᔕធ㑆ߢ㑐ଥ⠪ోຬ߇㓸߹ࠅߘߩᣣߩߎ
ߣࠍ⹤ߒ޽޿ߥ߇ࠄἴኂߩో૕௝ࠍ᣿ࠄ߆ߦߒ‫ޔ‬⠉ᣣߩ⺞ᩏࠬࠤࠫࡘ࡯࡞ࠍ᳿ቯߒߡ޿ߞߚ‫ࠇߎޕ‬ࠄߩ⼏⺰ߦࠃߞߡ᣿ࠄ߆ߦߥߞߚᚑᨐߪ‫ޔ‬Ꮻ࿖ᓟ
1 ࡩ᦬ߢೀⴕߐࠇߚ╙ 1 ౠ⋡ߩࠬࡑ࠻࡜ႎ๔ᦠߦ
⸥ߐࠇࠆߣߣ߽ߦ‫੹ޔ‬ᣣ߹ߢߩฬฎደᄢቇࠬࡑ࠻
࡜⺞ᩏ࿅⺞ᩏߩ␆ߣߥߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬㧞㧚ࠪ࠽ࠫ࡯ലᨐ㧔⋧ਸ਼ലᨐ㧕ߎࠇࠄߩ⺞ᩏࠍ⾗㊄㕙࡮೙ᐲ㕙ߢᡰ߃ߡߊࠇߚ
ߩ߇‫ޔ‬ᒰᤨ‫⎇ޔ‬ⓥ⑼㐳ߢ޽ߞߚ㤥↰㆐ᦶߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬቟⮮߆ࠄ‫⺞࡜࠻ࡑࠬޟ‬ᩏ࿅ߩ⚿ᚑߣ╙ 1 ᰴ⺞ᩏߩᢓⴕ‫⾗ޔߦߣ߽ࠍ⺧ⷐߩߡ޿ߟߦޠ‬㊄㕙࡮೙ᐲ㕙ߢߩᄙᄢߥᡰេࠍⴕߞߚߩߪ‫ޔ‬௲⿧ߥ߇ࠄ㤥↰ߩ⧷ᢿߢ޽ߞߚߣᕁ߁‫ޕ‬ᒰᤨߩࡃࡦ࠳࡮ࠕ࠴ࠚߪ‫ޔ‬ᄖോ⋭߆ࠄෂ㒾ᖱႎ߇಴ߡ޿ࠆ࿾ၞߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ෂ㒾ᐲߪ਄߆ࠄ 2 ߟ߼ߩ‫ޟ‬ᷰ⥶ߩᑧᦼࠍ߅൘߼ߒ߹
ߔ㧔㜞޿࡝ࠬࠢ߇઻߁ߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇ߹ߔߩߢ‫ޔ‬ᷰ⥶ߪᑧᦼߔࠆߎߣࠍ߅൘߼ߒ߹ߔ㧕‫ޔߢޠ‬ᵤᵄߩᓇ㗀ߪߐࠆߎߣߥ߇ࠄ‫ޔ‬ᒰᤨߪࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ߆ࠄߩࠕ
࠴ࠚߩ⁛┙ࠍ᳞߼ࠆᱞⵝ㓸࿅‫ޟ‬GAM㧔⁛┙ࠕ࠴ࠚㆇേ㧕‫ߩޠ‬ᵴേ߇޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬᡽ᖱਇ቟ቯߥ࿾ၞߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬⺞ᩏ࿅ߪ‫ᧁޔ‬⢆߿ Farid ߆ࠄߩ⁛⥄ᖱႎߦࠃࠅ‫ޟ‬ታ㓙ߩࠕ࠴ࠚߢߪߘࠇ߶ߤᄢ߈ߥ໧㗴ߪ⊒↢ߒߥ޿‫ߩߣޠ‬⠨߃ࠍ߽ߞߡ޿ߚ߇‫ޔ‬㤥↰ߩ᳿ᢿ߇ߥߌ
ࠇ߫‫⺞ޔ‬ᩏ࿅߇ࠕ࠴ࠚߦะ߆߁ߎߣߪ㔍ߒ߆ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ߥ߅‫ ╙ޔ‬1 ᰴ⺞ᩏ࿅Ꮻ࿖ᓟ‫ޔ‬㤥↰ࠃࠅ‫ߢࠚ࠴ࠕޟ‬࿑ 1 Ꮻ࿖ᓟߩᣂ⡞⸥੐଀૗߆໧㗴߇޽ߞߚࠄ⎇ⓥ⑼㐳ߩ⡯ࠍㄉߒߡ⽿છࠍ㧔2005 ᐕ 3 ᦬ 1 ᣣ ਛᣣᣂ⡞ᦺೀ㧕ߣࠆ‫ⷡ߁޿ߣޠ‬ᖗࠍᜬߞߡߩ᳿ᢿߢ޽ߞߚߎߣࠍ
⍮ࠅ‫ޔ‬㤥↰ߩ⧷ᢿߦߟ޿ߡࡔࡦࡃ࡯㑆ߢᷓߊᗵ⻢ࠍߒߚ㧔ᄢቇ๟ㄝߩ㘶ߺደߩᏨߢ޽ߞߚ߇㧕‫ޕ‬㤥↰߇⺞ᩏ࿅ߩᗧ⟵ࠍ⹺߼ߡߊߛߐߞߚߩߪ‫⺞ޔ‬ᩏ࿅ߦ‫࡯ࠫ࠽ࠪޟ‬ലᨐ‫ߚߒߛ޿⷗ࠍޠ‬ߎߣ߇⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ᓟᣣ‫⺞࡜࠻ࡑࠬޔ‬ᩏߩᚑᨐࠍ‫⿥ޡ‬Ꮒᄢ࿾㔡߇߿ߞߡ߈ߚ㨪ࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᴒ࿾㔡ᵤᵄߦቇߴ‫ޢ‬㧔ᤨ੐ㅢା␠‫ޔ‬2006.11㧕ߣߒߡ਄ᪧߒߚ߇㧔౮⌀ 3㧕‫ޠ߈߇ߣ޽ޟߩᧄߩߘޔ‬ߩਛߢ㤥↰ߪએਅߩࠃ߁ߦㅀߴߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ࡔࡦࡃ࡯ߪ‫ޔ‬ᣣਛߪߘࠇߙࠇߩ⺞ᩏࠍ⃻࿾ߢㅴ߼ߟߟ‫ޔ‬ᄕ㘩ᤨߦߘࠇߙࠇߩᵴേ߿ᚑᨐ
ࠍႎ๔ߒߥ߇ࠄ⠉ᣣߩⴕേࠍ᳿߼߹ߔ‫ޔߚ߹ޕ‬࿾㔡ቇ⠪߇ߣ߈ߦߪ␠ળቇ⠪߇ⴕ߁ⵍἴ⠪߳ߩࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯ߦ߽ෳടߔࠆߥߤ‫ઁޔ‬ಽ㊁ߩ⎇ⓥ⠪ߩ⺞ᩏߦߒ߫ߒ߫หⴕߒ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬

135
135

III. ‫ܭ‬ໜᚇยƱᚸ̖੹࿁ߩቇ㓙⊛⺞ᩏ࿅ߩᗧ⟵ߣߪએਅߩࠃ߁
ߥ߽ߩߢߒࠂ߁‫ޕ‬
㧔1㧕ᢥℂㅪ៤ࠍ⻭ߞߚቇⴚ⊛ߥ⎇ⓥᵴേߪ
ߚߊߐࠎ޽ࠅ߹ߔ߇‫ޔ‬หߓ⺞ᩏኻ⽎ߦะ߈ว޿
ߥ߇ࠄኢ㘩ࠍ౒ߦߒߡᢙᣣ㑆Ớኒߥ⼏⺰ࠍ੤ࠊߒ‫ߩઁޔ‬ቇ໧㗔ၞߦ߅ߌࠆᣇᴺ⺰߿ଔ୯ⷰࠍ
ታᗵߢ߈ࠆᯏળߪઁߦߪߥ޿ߢߒࠂ߁‫ޕ‬
㧔2㧕ߚߣ߃߫‫ޔ‬࿾㔡ቇ⠪ߪ␠ળቇ⠪߆ࠄⵍἴ⠪ߩ⚻㛎ࠍ㑆ធ⊛ߦ⡞޿ߚ਄ߢ‫ޔ‬࿾ᒻߩᄌൻ߿ᵤᵄߩⷙᮨߥߤࠍ↢りߩ߽ߩߣߒߡᬌ⸛ߢ
߈߹ߔ‫␠ޔߚ߹ޕ‬ળቇ⠪ߪ࿾㔡ቇ⠪߆ࠄ㔡ᐲߦ㑐ߔࠆផቯ߿ߘߩ࿾ၞߩㆊ෰ߩⵍἴᱧߛߌߢ
ߥߊ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߩ೔㆐ߔࠆㅦߐ‫ޔ‬ฦ࿾඙ߢߩ࿾⋚ᴉ
ਅߩ⒟ᐲߥߤቴⷰ⊛ߥ੐ታࠍᢎࠊߞߚ਄ߢⵍ
ἴ⠪ߩჿࠍ⡞ߊߎߣ߇ߢ߈߹ߔ‫ޕ‬
㧔3㧕ᢥℂㅪ៤ߪℂ♽߆ࠄᢥ♽߳ߩදജⷐ⺧߇৻⥸⊛ߢߔ‫ޕ‬ℂ♽ߦߣߞߡᢥ♽ߩ⎇ⓥᚑᨐߩ
ࠛ࠶࠮ࡦࠬߪ৻⒳ߩᢎ㙃ߣߒߡ៨ขߒ߿ߔ޿
߽ߩߢߔ߇‫ޔ‬ᢥ♽ߦߣߞߡߪᢙቇ߿‛ℂ࡮ൻቇߥߤߩၮ␆⍮⼂߇ߥ޿ߣℂ♽߳ߩធㄭߪ㔍ߒ޿ߎߣ߇ᓇ㗀ߒߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޔߡߞ߇ߚߒޕ‬ㅢᏱߩ౮⌀ 3 ‫⿥ޡ‬Ꮒᄢ࿾㔡߇߿ߞߡ߈ߚ‫ޢ‬
ᢥℂㅪ៤߇ᢥ♽߆ࠄߩ৻ᣇ⊛⽸₂ߦߥࠅ߇ߜ
ߥߩߦኻߒ‫ޔ‬㧔2㧕ߢㅀߴߚࠃ߁ߦ੹࿁ߩ⺞ᩏߢߪ⋧੕ߦᕲᕺࠍⵍࠆߎߣߢ‫ޔ‬୘೎ߩኾ㐷ಽ
㊁ߦࠃࠆ⺞ᩏ࿅ߦᲧߴߡήⷞߢ߈ߥ޿‫࡯ࠫ࠽ࠪޟ‬ലᨐ㧔1㧗1 ߇ 3 ߦߥࠆࠃ߁ߥ⋧ਸ਼ലᨐ㧕‫ޠ‬߇ᓧࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆࠃ߁ߦᕁࠊࠇ߹ߔ‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߎޔߚ߹ޕ‬ᯏળߦᷓ߹ߞߚ⋧੕ߩା㗬㑐ଥߪ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄߦᚯߞߡ߆ࠄ߽ㅢᏱߩᢎ⢒⎇ⓥߩਛߢᵴ߆ߐࠇࠆߢߒࠂ߁‫ޕ‬㧔એ਄‫ޔ‬㤥↰㆐ᦶ‫ࠅࠃޠ߈߇ߣ޽ޟ‬㧕ᣛᝄࠅᓎߩ቟⮮‫⺞ޔ‬ᢛ࡮੐ോዪ㐳ᓎߩᧁ⢆‫␠ޔ‬ળ⑼ቇࠣ࡞࡯ࡊ࡝࡯࠳࡯ߩ↰ਛ‫ߡߒߘޔ‬⚵❱⊛ߥᓟࠈ⋫ߣߒߡߩ㤥↰߇޿ߚߎߣߪ⺞ᩏ࿅ߦߣߞߡᐘㆇߥߎߣߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޔߦᦝޕ‬ᓳ⥝߇ㅴ߻ߦߟࠇ‫␠ޔ‬ળ⑼ቇ࠴࡯ࡓ߇⁛┙ߒߡ⺞ᩏࠍⴕ߁ߎߣߦߥࠆ߇‫⺞ߩࠄࠇߘޔ‬ᢛ࡮੐ോዪ㐳ᓎߪ㜞ᯅ⺈߇ᜂ߁ߎߣߦߥࠅ‫ޔ‬㜞ᯅߪ࿾ℂቇ⊛ⷰὐ߆ࠄߩ⺞ᩏࠍታᣉߔࠆߛߌߢߪ
ߥߊ‫␠ޔ‬ળ⑼ቇ࠴࡯ࡓߣߒߡߩ⃻࿾ᄢቇߣߩ⺞ᢛᓎ‫ ╙ߪߦࠄߐޔ‬3 ౠ⋡એ㒠ߩႎ๔ᦠߩ✬㓸⠪ߣߒߡ⺞ᩏ࿅ߦߣߞߡߩⷐߣߥߞߡ޿ࠆ‫᦭߇࡯ࡃࡦࡔ⻉ޔ߼ߓߪࠍੱߚߍ޽ߦߎߎޕ‬ᯏ⊛ߦㅪ៤ߔࠆߎߣߢೋ߼ߡᧄ⺞ᩏࠍㅴ߼ࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߚ‫ޕ‬㧟㧚⚵❱✬ᚑߩၮ␆
ࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᵤᵄ⺞ᩏ࿅ߩ⚵❱✬ᚑߣㆇ༡ࠍ⠨߃ߡ޿ߊߣ‫ޔ‬ἴኂኻᔕߦ߅ߌࠆ⚵❱✬ᚑ࡮ㆇ༡ࠍ㘃ૃߒߡ޿ࠆߎߣ߇ࠊ߆ࠆ‫ޔߢߎߘޕ‬ἴኂኻᔕߦ߅ߌࠆ⚵❱✬ᚑ࡮ㆇ༡㧔ICS: Incident
Command System㧕ߦߟ޿ߡએਅߦㅀߴߥ߇ࠄ‫⺞ޔ‬ᩏ࿅ߩ⚵❱✬ᚑߩ޽ࠅᣇߦߟ޿ߡ⠨߃ߚ޿‫ޕ‬ἴኂࠍ⚻㛎ߒߚ⚵❱ߩኻᔕߩ੐଀ࠍಽᨆߔࠆߣ‫ߪߦ⊛⚳ᦨޔ‬એਅߦㅀߴࠆ 5 ߟߩᯏ⢻ࠍᜬߞߚ⚵❱✬ᚑ࡮ㆇ༡ߦ෼᧤ߒߡ޿ࠆߎߣ߇ᄙ޿‫ޕ‬ἴኂ߇ዊߐߌࠇ߫‫ޔ‬1 ੱ㧔ᜰើቭ㧕߇ߔߴߡߩᯏ⢻ࠍᜂᒰߔࠆߎߣ߽ߢ߈ࠆ߇‫ޔ‬ᄢⷙᮨߥἴኂߦ߅޿ߡߪ‫ޔ‬ᜰើቭ߇ߘࠇߙࠇߩᯏ
⢻ࠍੱ‫ߦ❱⚵࡮ޘ‬ᆔછߒߡἴኂኻᔕࠍⴕ߁ᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬㧔࿑ 2㧕‫ع‬ᜰើ⺞ᢛ1㧕ᜰើቭ㧔ᜰើ⺞ᢛ⠪㧕㧔Commander㧕㧦᐀௥㧔ࠬ࠲࠶ࡈ㧕ߩ⵬૒ࠍฃߌߥ߇ࠄ‫⃻ޔ‬႐ኻᔕߦ޽ߚࠆታⴕㇱ㓌ߩᜰើ⺞ᢛࠍⴕ߁‫ޕ‬

136
136

ኵጢƱƠƯƷ໎ܹᛦ௹Ტங஭ྞ഑ᲣCOMMAND

Commander

ਦੱᛦૢ

ਦੱᛦૢ
COMMAND
Command Staff

On-site Staff

FINANCE/ᝠѦሥྸ

OPERATIONSʙకϼྸPLANNINGऴ‫˺إ‬৆

LOGISTICS᝻เሥྸADMINISTRATIONʙకϼྸOPERATIONSऴ‫˺إ‬৆
PLANNING᝻เሥྸLOGISTICS

ࡌѦᝠѦ
FINANCE

Information

ऴ‫إ‬

Human
Resource

Material
Resource

Financial
Resource

ȒȈ

ȢȎ

ǫȍ

࿑ 2 Five capital functions of incident command system‫ع‬᐀௥ᜰើቭࠍ⵬૒ߒߡࠬ࠲࠶ࡈᬺോࠍⴕ߁‫❱⚵ޕ‬ౝㇱߢߪᜰើቭߦኻߒߡߛߌ⽿છࠍ⽶߁߇‫ޔ‬⚵❱ᄖㇱߦኻߒߡߪᜰើቭߣߥࠄࠎߢ⽿છࠍ⽶߁ߎߣߦߥࠆ‫ޕ‬
2㧕ᖱႎ૞ᚢ㧔Planning㧕㧦ἴኂߩ⁁ᴫߦ㑐ߔࠆᖱႎࠍ෼㓸ߒߡ‫⁁ߦ⊛⛯⛮ޔ‬ᴫಽᨆࠍⴕ޿‫ޔ‬ἴኂኻᔕ⸘↹ࠍ╷ቯߔࠆ‫⃻ޕ‬႐ߦኾ㐷ኅࠍᵷ㆜ߒߚࠅ‫ޔ‬ἴኂኻᔕߦ㑐ߔࠆᢥᦠߩ▤ℂ߽ⴕ߁‫ޕ‬
3㧕⾗Ḯ▤ℂ㧔Logistics㧕㧦ἴኂኻᔕࠍߔࠆߚ߼ߦᔅⷐߥ⾗Ḯ㧔ࡅ࠻࡮ࡕࡁ࡮ࠞࡀ࡮ᖱႎ㧕ࠍ⺞㆐࡮ଏ⛎࡮▤ℂߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ᔅⷐߥ⾗Ḯߪ‫ޔ‬ㅢା‫ޔ‬ක≮ᢇ⼔‫ޔ‬㘩ᢱ‫⾗ޔ‬ᯏ᧚‫ޔ‬ゞਔ‫ޔ‬ᵴേ᜚
ὐߩ 6 ߟߦᄢ߈ߊࠊߌࠄࠇࠆ‫⾗ޕ‬Ḯ▤ℂߣ޿߁⸒޿ᣇߢߪߥߊ‫ࠢ࠶ࠖ࠹ࠬࠫࡠޔ‬㧔ࡠࠫ㧕‫ޔ‬౓┢ߣ߽⸒ࠊࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬
4㧕ᐼോ⽷ോ㧔Finance & Administration㧕㧦ἴኂኻᔕߦᔅⷐߣߥࠆੱ੐࡮ᄾ⚂࡮⵬ఘ࡮⚻ℂ
ߦߟ޿ߡ⽿છࠍ⽶߁‫ᤨޔߚ߹ޕ‬㑆⸥㍳ߩ▤ℂ߿‫⷗ߩ↪⾌ޔ‬Ⓧࠅߦߟ޿ߡ߽⽿છࠍ⽶߁‫ޕ‬‫ع‬ታⴕㇱ㓌
5㧕੐᩺ಣℂ㧔Operations㧕㧦ᜰើቭߩᜰ઎ߦ߽ߣߠ޿ߡ⃻႐ኻᔕࠍⴕ߁‫ޕ‬ᜰ઎ߦ޽ࠊߥ޿
੐ᘒ߇಴⃻ߒߚ႐วߦߪ‫⃻ޔ‬႐ߩ್ᢿ߇ఝవߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ἴኂኻᔕߩㅴዷߦߣ߽ߥߞߡ‫ޔ‬᜛ᄢ࡮❗ዊߐࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬╙ 1 ᰴࠬࡑ࠻࡜⺞ᩏ࿅ߦ޽ߡߪ߼ࠆߣ‫ޔ‬ᜰើ⺞ᢛ߇቟⮮‫ޔ‬ᖱႎ૞ᚢ߇↰ਛ‫⾗ޔ‬Ḯ▤ℂ߇ᧁ⢆࡮Farid‫ޔ‬ᐼോ⽷ോ߇ᧁ᧛‫ޔ‬੐᩺ಣℂ߇ోຬ㧔Suhirman‫ޔ‬Glenda ࠍ฽߻㧕ߣ޿߁߆ߚߜ
ߢ‫ߩ❱⚵߇ࠇߙࠇߘޔ‬ਛߢਥᜂᒰߩᯏ⢻ࠍᨐߚߒߥ߇ࠄ‫⎇ޔ‬ⓥ⠪ߣߒߡ߽ⴕേߒߡ޿ߚߎ
ߣ߇ࠊ߆ࠆ‫ޕ‬⃻࿷‫⺞ޔ‬ᩏ࿅ߪ 5 ᐕ⋡‫ޔ‬ႎ๔ᦠ߽ 5 ౠࠍᢙ߃ࠆࠃ߁ߦߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬ᄙᢙߩࡔࡦࡃ࡯ߦᡰ߃ࠄ
ࠇ‫⎇ޔ‬ⓥᚑᨐ߽ᄙጘߦߥߞߡ߈ߚ੹‫ޔ‬ቇ㓙⎇ⓥ‫᦭ޔ‬ᯏ⊛ㅪ៤ߩ޽ࠅᣇߦߟ޿ߡ߽ฬฎደᄢ
ቇࡕ࠺࡞ࠍឭ᩺ߔࠆᤨߦ޽ࠆߣ⠨߃ߡ޿ࠆ‫╩ޕ‬⠪ߪ‫ޔ‬5 ᦬ᧃࠍ߽ߞߡฬฎደᄢቇࠍ㔌ࠇࠆ߇‫ޔ‬ฬฎደᄢቇࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᵤᵄ⺞ᩏ࿅ߩ੹ᓟߩ⊒ዷࠍᔃ߆ࠄ␨ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬㧔ᢥਛ‫ޔ‬ᢘ⒓⇛㧕

137
137

޽ߣ߇߈

2004 ᐕߩ 12 ᦬ 26 ᣣߦࠬࡑ࠻࡜ᴒ࿾㔡࡮ᵤᵄ߇⿠ߎߞߡ߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬4 ᐕࠍ⿥ߔ᦬ᣣ߇ㆊ߉ߚ‫ޕ‬ฬฎደᄢቇⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼ߢߪ‫ߩߎޔ‬㑆ᢙᰴߦᷰࠆ⺞ᩏ࿅ߩᵷ㆜ࠍⴕ޿‫ޔ‬ᢥℂㅪ៤ࠍᢥሼㅢ
ࠅታ〣ߔࠆ⺞ᩏ࡮⎇ⓥࠍⴕ޿‫ޔ‬ႎ๔ᦠߩೀⴕ߽੹࿁ߢ 5 ᐲ⋡ߣߥࠆ‫ޕ‬⑳⥄り߽ 2005 ᐕߩᄐߦೋ߼ߡ⃻࿾ࠍ⸰໧ߒߡએ᧪‫ޔ‬ᐕߦ 1 ᐲߪᢙᣣࠍ߆ߌߡࡃࡦ࠳࡮ࠕ
࠴ࠚߦṛ࿷ߒᏒౝ߿ߘߩ๟ㄝߩ⷗ቇߦ⿞޿ߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬Ფᐕ‫ࠆࠇ⸰ޔ‬ᐲߦⴝߩ᭽ሶ‫᥵ߩޘੱޔ‬ࠄߒ߱ࠅ‫ߪߦࠄߐޔ‬㆏〝ࠍ⿛ࠆゞߩบᢙ࡮ゞ⒳‫ޔ‬Ṫ⦁߿᷼ߩ࠮࡝ߩ᭽ሶ߆ࠄਥⷐߥࡎ࠹࡞
ߩ⋓⴮߹ߢ‫ޔ‬⒳‫ߩޘ‬ᄌൻߦ⥝๧߇ߘߘࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ᒰὼߩߎߣߣߪ޿߃‫⸰ޔ‬໧ࠍ㊀ߨࠆߦߒߚ߇ߞߡᏒⴝ࿾ߩ૑ቛ߿㆏〝ߪᓳᣥ߇㗼⪺ߣߥࠅ‫ᦨޔ‬ㄭߢߪ࿖㓙 NGO ߩ⋧ᰴߋ᠗ㅌ߇␜ߔࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬ᄖㇱ߆ࠄߩੱ⊛࡮㊄㌛⊛ߥᡰេ߽෼᧤
ߦะ߆޿ߟߟ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬2008 ᐕ 12 ᦬ߦ߅ߌࠆ੹࿁ߩ⸰໧ᤨߦߪ‫߽ߢ߹ࠇߎޔ‬ೋ߼ߡⷞኤߦ⸰ࠇ
ߚੱࠍ᩺ౝߔࠆߎߣ߇Ᏹߣߥߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޟ‬Ꮢⴝ࿾ߦ㎾ᐳߒߚ⊒㔚⦁‫ޟޔ߿ޠ‬ደ਄ߦṪ⦁߇ਸ਼ࠅ਄ߍߚ૑ቛ‫ࠍߤߥޠ‬ᆎ߼ߣߔࠆ޿ߊߟ߆ߩ‫ޟ‬ฬᚲ‫ޔ߇ޠ‬ฬታߣ߽ߦࡕ࠾ࡘࡔࡦ࠻ߣߒߡᢛ
஻࡮଻ሽ߇࿑ࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆᆫࠍ⷗ࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈‫ޔ‬ჽ⛘ߥἴኂ߽ߔߢߦᱧผߣߥࠅߟߟ޽ࠆߎ
ߣࠍታᗵߒߚᰴ╙ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬߽ߜࠈࠎ‫ޔ‬਄⸥ߩࠃ߁ߥ‛⾰⊛࡮⴫㕙⊛ߥᓳ⥝ߩᵹࠇ߇ᒝ߹ࠆ㒶ߢ‫ⵍޔ‬ἴ⠪ߩ♖␹⊛⧰∩ߪ◲නߦ≹߃ࠆߎߣߪߥ޿ߩߪᒰὼߢ޽ࠈ߁‫⑳ޕ‬୘ੱߣߒߡߪ 12 ᦬ 26 ᣣߩㅊᖬ⸥ᔨᣣࠍ
⃻࿾ߢㄫ߃ߚߩߪ੹࿁߇ೋ߼ߡߢ߽޽ࠅ‫ⶄޔ‬ᢙߩㅊᖬ㓸ળߦ⥃Ꮸߔࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߚ‫ޕ‬೨ᄛߦᏒਛᔃㇱߩࠣ࡜ࡦ࠼࡮ࡕࠬࠢߢ㐿߆ࠇߚㅊᖬ㓸ળߪ‫⪺ࠄ߆࠲࡞ࠞࡖࠫޔ‬ฬߥ࠙࡜ࡑ࡯߇
ෳടߒߚߎߣ߽޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬ၴౝߦ౉ࠅ߈ࠇߥ޿߶ߤߩੱ߇㓸߹ߞߚ‫ࡓ࡜ࠬࠗߪࠇࠊࠇࠊޕ‬ᢎᓤߢߥ޿ߚ߼ၴౝߦ౉ࠆߩߪ㆙ᘦߒ‫ߌߛ⿷ޔ‬ᷡ߼ߡ౉ญߩ㓏Ბ߆ࠄ㓸ળߩ᭽ሶࠍ⌑߼ߚߛߌߢ޽ࠆ߇‫⋓ߤ߶ࠇߎޔ‬ᄢߥࠗࠬ࡜ࡓߩⴕ੐ࠍ⷗ߚߩߪೋ߼ߡߢ߽޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬෩☽ߥ⺑ᢎ߿␞᜙ߩ᭽ሶߪශ⽎ᷓ޿߽ߩߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ㅊᖬ⸥ᔨᣣᒰᣣߪᶏጯઃㄭߩࡕ࠾ࡘࡔࡦ࠻ߢⴕࠊࠇߚᘨ㔤⑂ߦෳ೉ߒߚ‫ࡕ࡮࠼ࡦ࡜ࠣޕ‬ࠬࠢߩᄢ㓸ળߦᲧߴࠇ߫ෳട⠪߽ዋߥߊ࿾ၞߩ࠙࡜ࡑ࡯ߩᜰዉߦᓥߞߚዊⷙᮨߥ㓸߹ࠅߢ޽ߞߚ߇‫߽ࠇࠊࠇࠊޔ‬ଦߐࠇߡ␞᜙ߩᧃᏨߦㅪߥߞߚ‫ⵍ߽ߣߞ߽ޕ‬ኂߩᄢ߈ߥ࿾඙ߩ৻ߟ
ߢ߽޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᢔળߩᓟ߽ળ႐๟ㄝߢⷫᣖߏߣߦゞᐳߦߥࠅ‫ޔ‬ᕟࠄߊߪ‶†ߣߥߞߚㄭⷫ⠪ߩ౵⑔ࠍ␨ࠆᆫ߇ශ⽎ᷓ߆ߞߚ‫߹ߚ߹ߚޔߚ߹ޕ‬࿾రߩⵍἴ⠪ߩࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯ߦหᏨߔࠆߎ
ߣߦߥࠅ‫ߣ࠻ࡦࡔࡘ࠾ࡕߪ߹޿ޔ‬ൻߒߚ㋕╭ߩᑪ▽‛ߦㅏߍㄟࠎߛᄙߊߩੱ߇‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߩⴣ᠄ߢᑪ‛ߩო߇უࠇࠆߥߤߒߚߚ߼‫⚿ޔ‬ዪߪᄖߦᛩߍ಴ߐࠇߡ๮ࠍ⪭ߣߒߚߣ޿߁૕㛎⺣ࠍ⡊ߦߒ‫ޔ‬ᡷ߼ߡ⥄ὼߩࠛࡀ࡞ࠡ࡯ߩᄢ߈ߐߣੱᎿ‛ߩ㒢⇇ࠍᕁ߁ߎߣߣߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬࿖㓙⊛ߥᡰេ╬ߪ߶߷෼᧤ߒߟߟ޽ࠆߣߪ޿߃‫ޔ‬ජᐕߦ৻ᐲߣ߽޿ࠊࠇࠆࠃ߁ߥᢥሼㅢ
ࠅᧂᦦ᦭ߩἴኂߢ߽޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬ቇⴚ⊛ߥⷰὐ߆ࠄߪ‫ߦࠄߐޔ‬ᚑߔߴ߈ߎߣ߇ᢙᄙߊᱷߐࠇߡ޿
ࠆ‫ޔߕ߹ޕ‬ℂቇ⊛ߥ┙႐ߢߪ‫ޔ‬㗫❥ߥ࿾㔡ߩ㔡Ḯߢ޽ࠆࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉߘߩ߽ߩߩ㐳ᦼ⊛ߥ᷹ⷰ߇㊀ⷐߥ⺖㗴ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߩࠚ࠴ࠕޕ‬ౝ⚗߇޽ߞߚᤨઍߪ᷹ⷰ߇࿎㔍ߥ࿾ၞ߽ᄙ߆ߞߚ߇‫ߘޔ‬ߩ໧㗴߇ήߊߥߞߚ޿߹‫⃻ޔ‬ታ⊛࡮ⴕ᡽⊛⺖㗴ߣߒߡߪ߽ߜࠈࠎ‫ޔ‬ቇⴚ⊛ߦ߽⾆㊀ߥ⺞ᩏ࡮⎇ⓥኻ⽎ߣߒߡ‫ޔ‬࿖㓙⊛ߥදജ૕೙ߩ⏕┙ࠍ೨ឭߣߒߚ᷹ⷰ✂ߩᢛ஻߇ᔅⷐߣᕁࠊࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ᰴߦ‫ޔ‬ἴኂ⎇ⓥߩ┙႐߆ࠄߪ‫ޔ‬࿾᡽ቇ⊛ߥ᧦ઙ߆ࠄઁߩᄢⷙᮨἴኂߦᲧߴߡᄙ㗵ߩេഥ߇㓸ਛߒߚ੹࿁ߩᓳ⥝ㆊ⒟ߩᬌ⸽߇㊀ⷐߥ࠹࡯ࡑߣߒߡ᜼ߍࠄࠇࠆ‫ߦ․ޕ‬࿖㓙 NGO ߿ฦ࿖ߩេഥߩㆊ⒟ߣߘߩലᨐࠍ‫ޔ‬BRR ࠍᆎ߼ߣߔࠆ⃻࿾ߩⴕ᡽⊛ኻᔕߣߩ㑐ㅪ߽〯߹߃ߡ੐ᓟ
⊛ߥ⹏ଔࠍߔࠆߎߣߦࠃࠅ‫੹ޔ‬ᓟߩห⒳ߩᓳᣥ࡮េഥᣇᴺߦኻߒߡ⾆㊀ߥᜰ㊎߇ᓧࠄࠇࠆ
ߩߪ⺰ࠍ଼ߚߥ޿‫ޕ‬ߐࠄߦ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߩⵍኂ߇㓸ਛߒߚᴪጯㇱߩᓳ⥝߇৻Ბ⪭ߒߚ޿߹‫ޔ‬ᡷ߼ߡࠃࠅౝ㒽ㇱߩᣥ⚗੎࿾ၞߩ்〔ߦᵈ⋡߇㓸߹ࠅߟߟ޽ࠆ‫੹ޕ‬࿁ߩႎ๔ᦠߢ߽‫ⷰߩߘޔ‬ὐ߆ࠄߩ⺰ㅀ߇⷗ࠄࠇࠆ߇‫⥄ޔ‬ὼἴኂ߇஧ὼ߽ߚࠄߒߚ✕ᕆㆱ㔍⊛ߥ⚗੎⸃᳿ߣᐔ๺⥄૕ߪ⾆㊀ߥ߽ߩߣ⹺߼
ߚ਄ߢ‫ࠇߘޔ‬એ೨ߩ∩ߺ߇᳿ߒߡ≹ߐࠇߡ޿ߚࠊߌߢߪߥ޿ߎߣࠍ‫⚗ޔ‬੎࿾ၞߩ૑᳃ࠍೋ

138
138



߼ߡߣߒߡࠕ࠴ࠚߩੱ‫ߪޘ‬᳇ߠ߈ᆎ߼ߡ޿ࠆ‫⥄ޕ‬ὼἴኂߩᓳᣥߦߪදജ⊛ߛߞߚ⻉ᄖ࿖߿࿖㓙 NGO ߽‫ޟ‬ౝ᡽‫ߩ߳ޠ‬㑐ਈࠍߪ߫߆ߞߡ߆‫⚗ߢ߹ࠇߎޔ‬੎࿾ၞ߳ߩេഥࠍචಽⴕߞߡߎ
ߥ߆ߞߚ‫⚗ޔߪ޿ࠆ޽ޕ‬੎ᤨߦߪ㑐ਈߒߡ޿ߚᄖ࿖᡽ᐭ࡮NGO ߇⚗੎ߩ⚳⚿ࠍォᯏߣߒߡ᷹ⷰኻ⽎߆ࠄ㒰ᄖߒߡߒ߹ߞߚߎߣ߽޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᴪጯㇱ࡮ౝ㒽ㇱߣ޿ߞߡ߽‫〒ޔ‬㔌⊛ߦߪߘ߁㔌ࠇߡ޿ߥ޿࿾ၞ‫ޔ‬࿾඙߇ߎߩࠃ߁ߥℂ↱ߢᏅ೎ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆߎߣߪ‫ޔ‬࿾㔡࡮ᵤᵄἴኂ߆ࠄ
ߩᓳ⥝߇ㅴ߻ߦߟࠇߡ␠ળ໧㗴ൻߔࠆߩߪᒰὼߢ޽ࠅ‫ߩߎޔ‬໧㗴߳ߩ㑐ᔃ߽ᣂߚߥ࠹࡯ࡑ
ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
ᦨᓟߦߥࠆ߇‫⺞ߩࠇࠊࠇࠊޔ‬ᩏᵴേߦᏱߦදജࠍᗂߒ߹ࠇߥ޿⃻࿾ߩࠪࡖࠢࠕ࡜ᄢቇߣ
ߩቇⴚ੤ᵹߩᒝൻ߽㊀ⷐߥ⺖㗴ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬2008 ᐕᐲ߽‫⃻߇ࡊ࡯࡞ࠣߩࠇࠊࠇࠊޔ‬࿾ߦ⸘ 4 ࿁⸰ࠇߚߛߌߢߥߊ‫ޔ‬వᣇߩᄢቇߩᓳ⥝࠮ࡦ࠲࡯ߩ೽ᚲ㐳ࠍᒰ⎇ⓥ⑼ߩᄖ࿖ੱቴຬߣߒߡ 2ࡩ᦬㑆᜗⡜ߒߡᣣᧄߩἴኂኻ╷߿ᐢߊ␠ળ೙ᐲߩ⷗⡞ࠍᷓ߼ߡ㗂޿ߚ߶߆‫ޔ‬2 ฬߩ⧯ᚻᢎຬ
ࠍ⎇ⓥળߩߚ߼᜗⡜ߔࠆߥߤ‫⋧ޔ‬੕ߩ࿖㓙੤ᵹࠍᷓ߼ࠆദജࠍⴕߞߡ߈ߚ‫ᧄޕ‬ᐕਛߦߪ‫ޔ‬ࠪࡖࠢࠕ࡜ᄢቇ஥߆ࠄ߽ⷐᦸߩ಴ߡ޿ࠆㇱዪ㑆ቇⴚ੤ᵹදቯߩᄢቇ㑆߳ߩᩰ਄ߍࠍ࿑ࠅ‫ޔ‬⚗੎⸃᳿ࠍᄾᯏߣߒߚࠬࡑ࠻࡜ፉ⷏ㇱߩၮᐙᄢቇ߳ߩ᜛ల⸘↹ࠍᡰេߒߚ޿߽ߩߣ⠨߃ߡ޿ࠆ‫⃻ޔࠅࠃߦߣߎߩߘޕ‬࿾ߩἴኂᓳ⥝࡮ᚢἴᓳ⥝ߦ޿ߐߐ߆ߥࠅߣ߽⾗ߔࠆߎߣ߇ࠊࠇ
ࠊࠇߩᏗᦸߔࠆߣߎࠈߢ߽޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
2009 ᐕ 5 ᦬㤥↰㆐ᦶ㧔ฬฎደᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼㧕

ਃ㊀⋵ᄢ♿↸㍪ߢᵤᵄߦ㑐ߔࠆ㒐ἴ⻠Ṷળࠍ㐿௅ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼ᵤᵄ⎇ⓥળߢߪ 2008 ᐕ 7 ᦬ 4 ᣣ㧔㊄㧕ߦ‫ޔ‬ਃ㊀⋵ᄢ♿↸㒐ἴ቟ో⺖ߣදജߒߡ‫ޔ‬ห↸㍪
࿾඙ߢ㒐ἴ⻠Ṷળ߅ࠃ߮ᵤᵄㆱ㔍ߦ㑐ߔࠆࠕࡦࠤ࡯࠻ႎ๔ળࠍ㐿௅ߒ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬㍪࿾඙ߪᤘ๺ 19 ᐕߩ᧲ධᶏ࿾㔡ࠍߪߓ߼‫ࠅ➅ߦߢ߹ࠇߎޔ‬㄰ߒᵤᵄߦⷅࠊࠇߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄἴኂࠍੑᐲ
ߣ➅ࠅ㄰ߐߥ޿ߣ޿߁ᗧ⼂߇ᄢᄌ㜞޿࿾ၞߢߔ‫ޕ‬૑᳃ోຬ߇㜞บߦㆱ㔍ߢ߈ࠆࠃ߁ߦߔࠆߚ߼‫ޔ‬ᄙߊߩㆱ㔍ᚲ߿‫ޟ‬㍪࠲ࡢ࡯‫߇ޠ‬ᢛ஻ߐࠇߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬࿾ၞ⁛⥄ߩᣇᴺߢ᳇⽎ᐡߩᵤᵄ⼊ႎ߇಴ࠆࠃࠅ߽ᣧߊㆱ㔍ߦขࠅដ߆ࠆ઀⚵ߺ߽᭴▽ߒߡ޿߹ߔ‫ߦࠄߐޕ‬ᐕߦ 1 ࿁ߩㆱ㔍⸠✵߽ታᣉߒߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄ㒐ἴߩ਎⇇⊛వㅴ࿾ߣߒߡ⍮ࠄࠇߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼ߢߪ࿾ℂቇ‫␠ޔ‬ળቇ‫ޔ‬ᔃℂቇ‫ޔ‬࿾⃿‛ℂቇߥߤᢥ♽࡮ℂ♽᭽‫ߥޘ‬ቇ໧ಽ㊁ߩ⎇ⓥ⠪߇දജߒߡ‫ޔ‬਎⇇ߦ⹶ࠆߴ߈ߎߩᵤᵄ㒐ἴᢥൻࠍಽᨆߒ‫ޔ‬ห࿾඙ߩߎࠇ߹ߢߩขࠅ⚵ߺࠍࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ߦ⊒ାߔࠆߚ߼ߩ⎇ⓥࠍㅴ߼ߡ߈߹ߒߚ‫੹ޕ‬ᐕ 2 ᦬ߦߪో਎Ꮺࠍኻ⽎ߣߒߚࠕࡦࠤ࡯࠻⺞ᩏࠍታᣉߒ‫ߩߘޔ‬ㅦႎ⊛ߥ㓸⸘⚿ᨐ߇߹ߣ߹ߞߚߎߣ߆ࠄ‫ޔ‬දജ޿ߚߛ޿ߚ࿾ၞߩ⊝ߐࠎ߳ߩႎ๔ળࠍ㐿௅ߔࠆㆇ߮ߣߥࠅ
߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
ႎ๔ળߪห↸㍪⠧ੱ⑔␩࠮ࡦ࠲࡯2 㓏ᄢࡎ࡯࡞ߦߡඦᓟ 7 ᤨ 30 ಽߣ޿߁ㆃ޿ᤨ㑆ߦᆎ߹ࠅ‫ߕ߹ޔ‬㤥↰㆐ᦶ㧔೨⎇ⓥ⑼㐳㧕ߩ᜿ᜦ‫ᧁߡ޿⛯ޔ‬⢆ᢥᤘߦࠃࠆ‫ޟ‬ᵤᵄࠍ⿠ߎߔ߽ߩ‫ޔޠ‬㜞ᯅ⺈ߦࠃࠆ‫࡜࠻ࡑࠬޟ‬࿾㔡ᵤᵄߣⵍኂ‫ ߁޿ߣޠ‬2 ߟߩ⻠Ṷ߇ߥߐࠇ߹ߒߚ‫↰ޔߡߒߘޕ‬ਛ㊀ᅢߦࠃࠆ‫ޟ‬ᵤᵄㆱ㔍ࠕࡦࠤ࡯࠻⺞ᩏ߆
ࠄߺࠆ㍪ߩੱߩ㒐ἴᗧ⼂‫߁޿ߣޠ‬ႎ๔߇ߥߐࠇ‫⻠ޔ‬Ṷᓟߦߪ㍪ߥࠄߢߪߩ⾰໧ߣߣ߽ߦᾲ޿ᗧ⷗੤឵߇
ⴕࠊࠇ‫ޔ‬ᄢᄌ᦭ᗧ⟵ߥળߣߥࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬

㧔ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼ࡎ࡯ࡓࡍ࡯ࠫ www.env.nagoya-u.ac.jp/news/20080704/20080704.html ߦࠃࠆ㧕

139
139

ᘻᘙኡƷϙჇ
Peunayong2005.2.12

2005.12.2

QuickBird ᘓ଩ဒ΂
ᲢFAO ƴǑǔᲣ
2004.6.23
Ĭ Jl. Mohammad Jamĭ Peunayong

2006.12.6

2007.12.3

2008.12.19

2008.12.25
ӷ ɥ
2004.12.28
2007.11.19
Mohammad2005.2.7

2005.12.2

2006.12.6

ዡੑƚᢿЎƷϙჇᲴજࢨȷဋɶ᣻‫ڤ‬ƜƷ‫إ‬ԓ୿ƷЈ༿ƳǒƼƴྵ‫ע‬ᛦ௹Ʒܱ଀ƴ࢘ƨƬƯƸŴ2008/2009 ࠰ࡇଐஜ‫ܖ‬ᘐਰᐻ˟ᅹ‫ܖ‬ᄂᆮᝲᙀя᣿ؕႴ
ᄂᆮ(A)žǤȳȉබ‫ٻ‬඾ඬƷᘮ໎ȷዬ࣯‫ࣖݣ‬ȷࣄᐻᢅᆉƱᅈ˟ႎȡǫȋǺȠſ
Ტᛢ᫆ဪӭᲴ20242025Უ
Ŵ2008 ࠰ࡇӸӞ‫ܖٻދ‬ዮᧈᘶ᣽ኺᝲžǹȞȈȩ໎ܹࣄᐻࢸƷ໎ܹƴࢍƍ‫؏ע‬ƮƘǓƷૅੲſƷя঺ǛӖƚƨŵӸӞ‫ܖٻދ‬࿢‫ܖؾ‬ᄂᆮᅹ㩷
2004 ࠰҅ᢿǹȞȈȩ‫ע‬ᩗᛦ௹‫إ‬ԓ V
㩷Copyright © 2009 Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University. All rights reserved.

ႆᘍଐ2009࠰5உ25ଐ㩷ዻ ᎍӸӞ‫ܖٻܖٻދ‬ᨈ࿢‫ܖؾ‬ᄂᆮᅹᲢဋɶ᣻‫ڤ‬ȷ᭗೛ ᛗᲣ㩷ႆᘍᎍӸӞ‫ܖٻܖٻދ‬ᨈ࿢‫ܖؾ‬ᄂᆮᅹ㩷



Ү Т
ᙌ ஜ

Ƅ464-8601ӸӞ‫ࠊދ‬Ҙᆔғɧᎊထ㩷
http://www.env.nagoya-u.ac.jp/㩷ఇࡸ˟ᅈǯǤȃǯǹ㩷

http://www.kwix.co.jp/㩷ӸӞ‫ܖٻދ‬࿢‫ܖؾ‬ᄂᆮᅹ

2004 ࠰҅ᢿἋἰἚἻ‫ע‬ᩗᛦ௹‫إ‬ԓ V
The 5th Investigation Report of2004 Northern Sumatra Earthquake                           

㧞
㧜
㧜
㧠
ᐕ
ർ
ㇱ
ࠬ
ࡑ
࠻
࡜
࿾
㔡
⺞
ᩏ
ႎ
๔
Χ

    

㧞
㧜
㧜
㧥
ᐕ
㧡
᦬



ฬ
ฎ
ደ
ᄢ
ቇ
Ⅳ
Ⴚ
ቇ
⎇
ⓥ
⑼

2009 ࠰ 5 உӸӞ‫ܖٻދ‬࿢‫ܖؾ‬ᄂᆮᅹ
May 2009
Graduate School of Environmental Studies
Nagoya University