Investigates effective policy mixes for balancing demolition and heritage preservation in Japan's vacant houses, suggesting key implications for municipalities.
Purpose Japan’s vacant houses (akiya) simultaneously threaten public safety and embody cultural heritage, creating a policy dilemma between demolition and preservation. This study investigates how four municipalities balance demolition with adaptive reuse and which policy mixes prove most effective across urban–rural contexts. Design/methodology/approach A systematic content analysis of 74 primary documents (Kyoto 22, Setagaya 17, Nagano 16, Tottori 19) was conducted in MS Excel. A structured codebook with five dimensions—intervention type, legal basis, fiscal magnitude, policy objective and heritage linkage—was applied to all documents. A 10% sub-sample was re-coded after a four-week interval, yielding intra-coder reliability = 0.80. Dimension scores were normalised and combined to plot a two-axis demolish–preserve strategy matrix. Findings Kyoto deploys a reuse-dominant portfolio (68%) with strong heritage clauses, placing it in a “preservation-intensive” quadrant of the strategy matrix. Setagaya allocates almost half of its akiya spending to demolition, exemplifying a “hazard-mitigation” approach. Rural Nagano and Tottori emphasise incentive-led renovation (>70% reuse instruments) but diverge on regulatory force, both falling into a reuse-oriented quadrant. Practical implications The demolish–preserve matrix enables local governments to benchmark and adjust their instrument mix. Heritage tax relief and demolition-notice ordinances suit Kyoto-type cities, while targeted demolition subsidies and estate-planning clinics better serve Setagaya-like suburbs. Originality/value This offers a cross-level, instrument-scale comparison of Japanese akiya policy. By bridging demolition and preservation perspectives, it offers a framework that planners in other shrinking regions can use as a rapid diagnostic to align safety, cultural continuity and fiscal capacity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tomoya Wakayama (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: