Participants were nine townspeople residing in the evacuation order cancellation area of J town in Fukushima Prefecture, close to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

This study was conducted with the approval of the ethics committee of the research institution (reference 2016-065). The researcher explained to the participant the research purpose and method, the will of voluntary cooperation and withdrawal, the preservation of anonymity and privacy, the data storage method, and the interview recording permission. Participants’ participation was voluntary, and they were asked to notify us if they felt unconformable while sharing their narrative. This is because the research participants suffered from the disaster and experienced a long-term evacuation life, so the possibility of a psychological burden caused by recalling past experiences was taken into consideration. The survey was conducted after all the contents related to research cooperation were explained to the participants, and they signed an agreement to participate.

According to the census, the population of town J in Fukushima Prefecture had more than 20,000 townspeople at the time of the 2011 earthquake. In June 2017, three months after the evacuation order was partially lifted, about 400 residents were disclosed.

The overview of the nine participants is shown in Table 1. Participants were aged 60 - 80 years (eight males and one female). All of them were returning to their own homes. Prior to the earthquake, there were nine married couples four with children, one with a child, one with a child and a grandchild. At the time of the survey, there were nine married couples one with a child, and one couple living only on weekends.

The codes, subcategories, and categories obtained from the participants are shown in Table 2. Hereafter, the word “data” will be written as “ ”, “code” as [ ], “sub-category” as < >, and “category” as [ ]. The narrative of the participants

comprised records of 140 data, 32 codes, 12 sub-categories, and 5 categories. Factors relevant to self-determination to return were represented by five categories. There were two categories that led to the factors that self-determination return significantly: Category 1) [desire to return emerged from life as a long-term evacuee], Category 2) [desire to return was retained by having obtained information about the original place of residence]. There were two categories that led to the factors that continued to maintain the desire to return: Category 3) [the will to return was acquired from long-term life as a refugee], Category 4) [the desire to return was retained while the potential risks of returning were accepted]. There was one category indicated that the decision to return was not just about the individual: Category 5) [people’s apprehension over talking about the importance of the future of the younger generation].

Category 1) included and was derived from eight people. was derived from two codes such as [I kept the attachment of the place where I was originally because I was a man] [I wanted to keep my house full of history]. These were included in the narratives about the survival of home and his fulfillment as the head of the family.

“It’s hard to imagine ending here on my behalf. (B)”

“I think the word is that I want to go back to making a place where I live and building a castle in that place. (D)”

This included that the tangible property that I built up and the heart of my hometown were different from the dimension that I settled with compensation. The property also included content that urges researchers who are third parties to be tired of being unable to return to their homes even though they existed after evacuation.

“I have compensation, but it’s not money. I have my own home and my hometown, but when I get back there, I was told I wasn’t worried. (omitted) I didn’t think it was so hard that I couldn’t go home where I had my property. (C)”

In this way, Category 1 was a collection of contents that would continue to ask why the participants wanted to return, confirm, and make sure reasons.

Category 2) included two sub-categories: and . These were derived from eight people.

was derived from two codes, such as [I knew the situation of the place where I was, I realized that it would not start unless I maintained it]. This subcategory was included in the narratives that knew what was going on in their homes and which prepared them to return home.

“My house is very rough, so I thought I had to go to the house and do some cleanup. (A)”

was derived from two codes, such as [I’ve been preparing to return because I want to go home]. This subcategory was included in the narratives that it was different from my house before the earthquake, but I knew that I was able to prepare while maintaining my desire to return, and frequently returned to my house to proceed with preparations.

“At first, the grass was so stretched and it was really hard to get into the house. I cut the hard grass little by little. (omitted) I never didn’t feel like I couldn’t go home. (A)”

“At first, I didn’t go home every day, but when I realized I went home every day. (H)”

As described above, category 2 summarizes the content that strengthens the desire to return by collecting information on the return destination.

Category 3) included two sub-categories: . These were derived from six people.

was derived from two codes, such as [recognized that unstable evacuation life was a mental stress that affected my health].

“The people around were full of strangers at the evacuation site. The people who lived evacuated apart. (omitted) I’ve been going home at first, and I’ve experienced that people who said they’re going home are getting sick. (G)”

was derived from three codes, such as [the understanding of the family has been a tailwind for the choice of returning home]. This sub-category was included in the data that boosted the families who decided to return.

“I thought I had to go home again because my wife was in tune. (D)”

As described above, Category 3 summarized the changes that were felt during the evacuation life, which supported their desire to return.

Category 4) included three sub-categories: and . These were derived from eight people.

was derived from three codes, such as [I kept my willingness to return even if I heard a different opinion]. In this subcategory, the different opinions and actions of others did not interrupt their desire to return.

“Even if my friend didn’t go home, I thought I was decided to return. (I)”

was derived from three codes, such as [I realized from my knowledge of radiation that the risks of radiation were intimidating]. There were two types of risks that could arise from return. One was related to nuclear power and radiation, and the other was related to the living environment after returning. These risks described what they had endured on returning.

“It’s not a big deal in the year, it’s okay. (A)”

“I’m back because I’m prepared for inconvenience and anxiety. (D)”

was derived from three codes, such as [it is important to compare possible risks when considering the safety aspects of nuclear power plants] [Returning/not returning is not a big difference given the possible disaster risks in Japan]. This sub-category was included in the data where the potential risks of returning were traded off by considering other risks.

“Even if you are in the mountains, the mountains will explode. It is the same everywhere. (E)”

In this way, Category 4) consolidates the content of reconciliation by facing the risks that may return.

Category 5) included two sub-categories: and . These were derived from eight people. This subcategory included narratives about the physical changes during the evacuation that were influenced by mental stress from evacuation life, especially about interpersonal stress when no one is around.

was derived from three codes, such as [Young generations leave their choices for the future to themselves]. was derived from two codes, such as [After returning home, feel the prospect of living with the younger generation]. This category included content that respected the will of the younger generation who once lived with them.

“I think the best thing I can do now is if I do what I like for my child. (F)”

“I thought I had to talk (about returning) soon (to the child). (H)”

The extracted categories were considered to be positioned after the Fukushima Daiichi accident. This was not merely a lapse of time, but evacuees were involved in changes in social conditions, including policies until the evacuation order was lifted, and reluctantly built a prolonged evacuation life. It is thought that the result was that the evacuees had been willing to return while swaying in various information. Figure 1 shows the relationship between the categories of factors that determine the return and the passage of time. The time from the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident to 2017 at the time of the survey was plotted on the horizontal axis. In the upper row, the situation of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, the situation of the town, the social situation such as changes

in the evacuation order area, and the categories in the middle row, and the sustainability is indicated by arrows.

The residents who were evacuated due to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident lost their livelihoods and became unstable in terms of their lives and mental health. The uncertain situation of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and the intricate information on the town, which were reported every day, prolonged the situation where they could not return. Category 1) [desire to return emerged from life as a long-term evacuee] was positioned in such an evacuation life. Then, when it was time to start returning home or review the transition of the area, it became possible to collect information on return destinations. It was thought that this would lead to Category 2) [desire to return was retained by having obtained information about the original place of residence] which strengthened the feeling of return.

However, if the evacuation order is canceled slowly, it will be difficult to retain the intention. Regarding the factors supporting Category 1) and 2), the change in evacuation life supports the willingness to return in Category 3) [the will to return was acquired from long-term life as a refugee], and the category 4) [the desire to return was retained while the potential risks of returning were accepted] that confronts the risks of returning was positioned.

In category 5) [people were apprehensive about the importance of the future of the younger generation], it is difficult to identify the time, but the evacuation triggered the younger generation to live apart from the evacuation destination, so the next time they came back home, it was thought that they would accept themselves to watch over, separated from the life created by generational families.

Participants’ willingness to return could be considered a strong reason for returning. In considering the reasons, we also consider the influence of pre-war or domestic tradition norms, considering the age of participants.

It is said that nostalgia is prone to occur in negative emotional states such as loneliness and depression, and it is said that the feeling nostalgia increases positive emotions [10]. Looking at Category 1) [desire to return emerged from life as a long-term evacuee], it was thought that nostalgia, which is a longing for the past, was involved. participants would have been more likely to cause nostalgia because they had evacuated and left their homeland. It can be imagined that those who were forced to leave their hometown became more aware of the “goodness” of the town where they once lived.

In the same category was contained in expressions that seemed to be a remnant of the home system, such as “duty to protect tombs,” “for generations,” “do not be unfortunate,” and “graves, houses, and property.” This was thought to be related to the family system that continued in Japan for about 50 years after the enforcement of the Civil Code in 1898. The house system is a system in which, among persons with relatives, a narrower range of people belong to one house as head of the family, and the head has authority over the house [11]. Under the house system, it was stipulated that the owner of the house should take over the house, that the continuation of the house and the service of the ancestors be given priority, and that the grave be protected. Although the form itself has collapsed due to the declining birthrate and the progress of nuclear families, it is said that even after the abolition of the system, ideas remain in the consciousness of people [12]. At the age of participants, the tradition of having to return and play a role that they should have played was considered to have been one of the factors that permeated their willingness to return.

Retention of willingness to return was Category 3) [the will to return was acquired from long-term life as a refugee] and Category 4) [the desire to return was retained while the potential risks of returning were accepted].

Category 3), was thought to have encouraged the desire to return to escape or eliminate stressful evacuation life. According to Category 3, , agreement with the family was important in deciding to return. It is probable that the family helped them to return home, as in “I came home after talking with my son” and “I came home because my wife was OK.”

The risks of Category 4) [the desire to return was retained while the potential risks of returning were accepted] were related to the safety aspects of nuclear power and radiation, and the environmental aspects of living. The risk corresponding to this is the above-mentioned illness caused by stress when continuing evacuation. participants have come to terms with these statements—“Be prepared,” “Because I’m old,” “I’m fine at this level,” and “I’m not worried”—about the risks of returning. That is, it is considered a trade-off to reduce the severity of the risk by considering the degree of the risk, not the presence or absence of the risk [13]. After gathering information on the risks and confirming them while checking them on the ground, if the desire to return was strong, it was a factor that boosted the desire to return by making light of safety risks. This confirms that the method of weighting the risk depends to some extent on the will to achieve. These suggest that it is important to confirm each motivation and to support factors that make return decision making difficult.

Category 5) [people were apprehensive to talk about the importance of the future of the younger generation] was that the returning people could be supported by their families and retain their intention to return, at the same time, care for the younger generation and boost their life. This was believed to have been performed by the repatriated side of the elderly.

Among the reasons why the results of the Reconstruction Agency’s survey of residents’ intentions [9] did not return, respondents who said they already had a living foundation or wanted to continue education for their children in the current environment were those who were raising children or working. In such cases, we consider the expression “don’t talk.”

However, because of the parent’s position and the existence of children and grandchildren, consideration for important others backed by bonds may be made. For those who are in the elder or retirement stage of the family development stage [14], the elderly said, “Let’s call,” or “I’m doing what I like now.” It is thought that watching over was an action that encouraged the independent younger generation to choose their life. This is because the younger generation is living apart from themselves, rebuilding their lives on the land, like “building a house and living” and “going elsewhere.” It was supported by what I had confirmed.