To recover after the Great East Japan Earthquake, each local government conducted several surveys of the victims' intentions regarding housing recovery, and tried to grasp the latest intentions of the victims.

 However, there is no study that clarifies how the intensions changed concretely after most of the reconstruction projects are completed and the final intentions of housing reconstruction became clear across project and time.

 This study, which follows on the previous one clarifying the intention changes throughout the city, aims to reveal the intention changes by the initial intention and the reconstruction result. As a result, the authors find bellows. Firstly, regarding the transition of recovery method from the initial intention, the final intention tends to differed depending on the recovery method. Whereas 70% of households recovered by “Disaster restoration public housing” intended same methods from the beginning, the numbers for “Collective relocation project for disaster prevention” and “Housing reconstruction on their own” are only 30% and 50% respectively. It is thought that the reason why there are differences how the households changed their intentions is bellows. For “Disaster restoration public housing” households, they tended to have low economic performances. Also, for households intended “Collective relocation project for disaster prevention” and “Housing reconstruction on their own”, these methods are similar to some extent so that there are intention transitions between each other because of changes in social and institutional circumstances. In addition, the households that initially answered “No answer” showed a different trend in housing recovery from those that initially answered so that it is important to consider them separately.

 Secondly, regarding the transition of recovery method from the reconstruction result, while only 20-30% of households that reconstructed by three main methods intended the same methods from 2011, half of them were “No answer” in 2011. Among them, “Collective relocation project for disaster prevention” wishing households made decision quickly relatively, while “Disaster restoration public housing” wishing households took a long time do decide. It is thought that is because of the project institution and characteristics of households etc.

 Thirdly, regarding the transition of recovery place from the initial intention, the authors reveal bellows. Regarding households from “Ofunato city”, because half of them stayed in their pre-disaster area, 70-80% of them recovered in the same area before the disaster. However, households from “Outside of the city” tended to stay in “Inland area” or “City center” and more than half of them could not make decision until around 2016. As a result, most of them recovered in “Inland area”, “City center” and “Outside of the city”. From this, it can be seen that early focused care is necessary for them to make decision.

 Finally, regarding households recovered in “Inland area”, the ratio of households from “Outside of the city” was remarkably high, and some of them positively chose there to carry out “Housing reconstruction on their own”. In addition, since the percentage of households who stayed in “Inland area” temporarily was also high, it can be inferred that the final intention was influenced to a certain extent by the temporal residential area mainly for household from “Outside of the city” without a sense of land. It is also characteristic that their decision-making speed was slow, though they have hardly changed once the intention was decided.