# Higher Education in Emergency Management: What is Happening Elsewhere?[^1]

Neil R Britton, PhD[^2]

Team Leader (International Disaster Reduction Strategies)

Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Research center (EdM)

National Research Institute for Earth Sciences and Disaster Prevention

Kobe, Japan 651 0073

<neil@edm.bosai.go.jp>

### Introduction

For at least 40 years, the USA has dominated disaster research
thinking[^3] and, from the time the 1979 National Governors Association
report[^4] took hold, it has dominated emergency management practice.
This preeminence coincided with the long overdue demise of the
UK-inspired 'civil defence' system. The UK system, at least for many
countries outside the USA, represented the 'first wave' from where
disaster-related solutions were sought, and the USA formed a 'second
wave'. A 'third wave', which we seem to be settling into now and which
has been gradually developing for the past decade, is more eclectic and
represents an intra-national and/or regional focus, albeit recently
around two common influences, sustainable development and a heightened
public demand for increased safety. This third wave is corresponding to
greater emergency management maturity within several nations as they
gain confidence in the robustness of their indigenous systems. As a
consequence many countries have moved away from the relatively
uncritical thinking that came with the importation of emergency
management systems from abroad that characterized the first two waves.
In part, this change reflects the increasing spread of other-country
disaster scholastic centers as well as an opening up of the emergency
management profession to a wider group of personnel bringing in more
diversity[^5].

In this third wave, emergency management not only becomes more focused
on national development activities, but at the same time it is more
broadly based: it has, for instance, started to become linked to wider
governance policy issues[^6]. With this approach, emergency management
becoming incorporated into a wider risk management framework. This
approach helps place emergency management into the context of a
community's economic and social activities. Steps taken to manage risks
of extreme events can be justified to the extent that they deliver a net
benefit to society. Attempts to manage risks, however, will invariably
impose costs as well as benefits. Hence, the social function of
emergency management is shifting from one that only minimizes losses
(for example, reducing loss of life or property damage), but also
maximizes gains (such as supporting sound investment decision-making,
and general community well being)[^7]. A key factor in this new thinking
is the concentration on the 'management' component rather than the
'emergency'. This has widened the focus of emergency management from
being highly task-specific (such as planning and responding to
particular categories of events by engaging dedicated skilled personnel
and resources) to a more generic social function looking at socially
disruptive episodes from a holistic perspective. This, in turn, directs
attention to integration as a central concept[^8].

This is good. Emergency management systems should reflect the
socio-economic frameworks they operate within. Hence, variations between
national systems should be expected, and indeed encouraged. It is
unimaginable that a 'one-system-fits-all' approach could be more
beneficial, let alone feasible, certainly not without a corresponding
global homogenization of the world's societal systems and their
carefully constructed institutions.[^9] Such a process would have to go
well beyond the current pros and cons of globalization[^10]. The third
wave, focused as it is on national systems, does not imply that it is
inappropriate for emergency management systems to borrow common elements
or to otherwise 'learn' from each other. On the contrary, it is very
efficient to do so. Since the education of emergency managers reflects
national requirements, one would expect a blend of variability and
similarity to occur at this level as well.

There is much to be gained by such an interweaving, particularly if by
doing so greater understanding is achieved about how different nations
that may share socio-cultural contexts and/or hazardscapes pursue
similar outputs, even if outcome requirements are different (for
example, some emergency management systems are exclusively 'ambulances
at the bottom of cliffs', whereas others are also 'fences at the top'.
This line of reasoning also goes for nations that have widely different
social, political and cultural environments, or whose expected hazards
may be fundamentally dissimilar. Understanding another arrangement is,
after all, a way to understand ones own, and this in turn can lead to
improvements both within and among social systems. This was underscored
in 1999 when emergency manages and other senior officials from
Australia, New Zealand and the USA met in Christchurch, New Zealand, to
develop a platform for inter-agency cooperation and to explore a series
of topics deemed to be of mutual significance, namely: the direction and
the drivers for emergency management; the tools required; and the needs
and opportunities for professional development[^11]. The ensuing
exchange, particularly the recommended initiatives embraced by the
respective heads of emergency management agencies, gave every indication
that a new era for the practice was about to begin. In the professional
development area, for instance, there was agreement for recognition of
standards and qualifications, alignment of curricula, and a common code
of ethics to be developed. However, as with everything, timing was a
critical element: not long after the first follow-up business meeting in
San Francisco, in 2000, a change of administration in the USA nipped
this promising venture in the bud. And then came September 11, 2001,
which forced a substantial readjustment of national needs on the part of
the USA.

At the time that the USA was distracted by unprecedented events
occurring inside its borders, countries like New Zealand were refining
its own emergency management system in light of new legislation that
reflected a different set of societal needs, which in this case focused
on creating greater organizational integration and integrated risk
management[^12]. And while it may be impossible to prove, and no doubt
controversial to state, it is probable that the attention given to
anti-terrorist activities by the USA actually allowed a more unfettered
'home-grown' approach to emergency management development elsewhere.

The point to all this is that *change is good, differentiation is
important and should be taken up; diversity is good, but
good-ness-of-fit should be encouraged*. Ideally, the focus should be on
this last factor: it is important to create programs that fit the needs
of a national system. It is not a matter of 'keeping up with the
Joneses', creating differences for difference' sake, or rejecting a
specific approach because somewhere else has a similar one. Rather, it
is making sure that whatever approach is being considered fits the
context into which it will be operating.

So, how is this being done outside the USA? This paper will present a
brief description of the New Zealand situation, and then take a short
incursion into what is occurring in Japan. To better appreciate the
activities taking place in both countries, the professional development
material is introduced by detailing relevant contextual information.

### Emergency Management Professional Development in New Zealand

The basis of the professional development framework for New Zealand
emergency management is the new Civil Defence Emergency Management Act,
which came into force in December 2002. This enactment is the last in a
line of legislative reforms that has fundamentally re-shaped the way New
Zealand is approaching risk and hazard management, the details of which
are available elsewhere[^13]. The 2002 Act introduces some important new
strategic directions. For example, it brings the private sector,
specifically utilities, into emergency management strategic
decision-making and the operational context. It also promotes
sustainable management of hazards and risks in a way that contributes to
the well-being and safety of the public and property. In this respect it
links disaster, sustainable hazard mitigation and sustainable
development along the lines proposed by Mileti and his colleagues[^14].
Moreover, the concerns expressed by some researchers that legislation
becomes overly restrictive and hamstrings local needs[^15] have been
overcome by the legislation being explicitly directed to encourage
innovation and provide empowerment at local levels so long as these
actions are not inconsistent with national requirements. To ensure
overall consistency, the Act requires the national administering agency
(a restructured Ministry with new staff and a new mission statement) to
develop a national emergency management strategy that sets out goals,
objectives and measurable targets, and which has to be publicly
notified.

The framework for the national strategy is based on a risk management
approach developed by Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand.
This non-mandatory Standard defines risk management as 'the culture,
practices, processes and structures that come together to optimize the
management of potential opportunities and adverse effects'[^16].
Together with a risk management approach for local governments,[^17] the
Standard is being promoted as the basis for developing a risk-based
emergency management approach and for communicating the concepts of risk
management to all groups and individuals with emergency management
responsibilities.

A specific section of the Act places a statutory obligation on emergency
management agents at locals and national levels to ensure those charged
with delivering the practical components (planning or operational) of
the Act are suitably trained and competent to carry out their designated
function[^18]. To articulate this requirement, the Ministry of Civil
Defence and Emergency Management (MCDEM) developed a scoping paper and a
consultation document in 1999-2000, followed by a Strategic Statement in
2001 to promote continuing and coordinated professional development, all
of which supported the overarching national emergency management
strategy that was released in 2003.[^19] The purpose of the professional
development strategy is to:

1.  Provide local authorities with a direction for emergency management
    professional development (EMPD)

2.  Identify and draw together the various professional development
    programs and activities currently occurring within the New Zealand
    emergency management sector

3.  Build on effective existing strategies, further develop, refine and
    enhance them

4.  Closely align professional development activities with the overall
    direction of the MCDEM[^20].

Part of this strategy connects to the higher education sector, which the
MCDEM is encouraging further interest from. Most of New Zealand's public
universities provide risk, hazard or disaster relevant courses as part
of their routine under- and postgraduate programs. At present, two
universities offer three specific courses, and a third university is
currently preparing a further program. When all courses are operating,
the option coverage will be appropriate for most hazard and emergency
management needs at operational, planning, strategic and management
levels. This suite of higher education programs, which are explained in
more detail below, complement a wider series of emergency management and
development courses available from four Industry Training Organizations
(ITOs), namely the Fire and Rescue Services ITO, the Local Government
ITO, the Public Service ITO, and the Ambulance Education Council. The
MCDEM also delivers and supports selected relevant programs.

The foremost higher education syllabus provided by New Zealand's second
largest university - Massey University - is a postgraduate Emergency
Services Management Program that has been operating since 1991. This is
taken in full- or part-time distance education mode (Massey University
is New Zealand's main provider of distance education programs).
Administered within the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, the
course has input from departments such as geography, management,
planning, psychology, and sociology. It provides core courses in hazard,
risk and emergency management, and has 22 optional courses in
communication, human resource development, information systems,
management development, occupational safety and health, organizational
psychology, planning studies, social psychology, sociology of the
environment, and others.

It has long been recognized that social science hazards research and
education in New Zealand lags behind the earth sciences and engineering
disciplines. To overcome this imbalance, the university has recently
cooperated with the NZ Earthquake Commission to establish a chair in
natural hazards planning that will be located in the Resource and
Environmental Planning Program. Scheduled for commencement in early
2005, the Earthquake Commission Chair in Hazards Planning will play a
catalytic role in advancing hazards research, curriculum development and
teaching in planning and the social sciences. It is intended the Chair
will facilitate the integration of dedicated hazards coursework into
planning and social science curricula at undergraduate and postgraduate
levels as well as provide a mechanism for wider public outreach and
education. Apart from establishing new courses in hazards and
resilience, the appointment will also teach in the Emergency Services
Management Program, thereby helping to ensure the social dimension of
hazards is more effectively taught to students from planning and a range
of other disciplines, as well as emergency services personnel.

Massey University also offers a Diploma in Public Sector Management
within the School of Business that is customized to the student's needs.
This program takes 18 months to complete and focuses on the
organizational context, with core modules in organizational planning,
finance, human resources, policy, evaluation and service delivery.

The Auckland University of Technology has a relatively new modular
program designed for first responders and those involved in risky
businesses such as adventure tourism (which is very popular with
overseas tourists visiting New Zealand) and industrial safety. Designed
to provide opportunities for emergency management sector personnel to
diversify the scope of their education, there are compulsory modules in
hospital pre-care, emergency patient management theory, and crisis/risk
management; and optional modules focus on search and rescue, civil
defence, and a clinical practice specialty.

A third major public institution of higher education, Canterbury
University, is currently developing a one-year Master of Science/Diploma
in Hazard and Disaster Management. This program is designed to enable
science graduate students to assume a professional role in the
management of hazards and disasters, and 'to contribute constructively
to the development of hazard and disaster management principles and
practices in New Zealand'. The intended format is eight papers for the
first year followed by a one-year thesis. In many ways, this program is
designed to complement Massey University's existing Emergency Services
Management offering by focusing more on natural hazards, with an
engineering orientation.

The complementation of Massey University focusing on emergency
management, risk management, and landuse planning; Auckland University
of Technology on first-responders management; and Canterbury University
on hazard management and risk assessment should enable all three to
compete symbiotically and establish a cooperative approach, which was
the original intention, and to provide a coordinated approach to higher
education for the emergency management sector[^21].

It warrants repeating that these programs and the soon-to-be established
chair in hazards planning at Massey University are in response to the
wider social system changes outlined earlier. The 2002 Civil Defence and
Emergency Management Act requires local authorities and essential
services (which include utilities) to develop substantially greater
expertise in integrated hazard and disaster management. New Zealanders,
particularly local and national decision-makers, have become more aware
during the past decade that the challenges they face from living in a
risky environment, whether it is from 'natural', 'technological' or
other-human induced reasons[^22] can be remedied to a large extent by
systematic action.

### Emergency Management Professional Development in Japan

In many ways, Japan offers a distinct contrast to the New Zealand
approach. Whereas New Zealand has been consolidating legal requirements
through the creation of 'umbrella acts', developing 'enabling'
legislation, identifying gaps in practice and systems and encouraging
organizations (and in the case of local authorities, legally requiring
them) to work closer together, as well as developing an all-hazards
approach to hazard management, Japan's approach is more reactive and
fragmented,[^23] , and in this respect is probably closer to the system
that operates in the United Kingdom[^24]. If an issue is identified that
is not currently under the jurisdiction of a particular agency, the
tendency is to create a new one to plug the gap. If a hazard impact or
disaster event identifies a hole in the legislative embroidery, then new
legislation is created. The Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995, for
example, created many new Acts as well as revised existing ones. One of
the current headaches in Japan is the plethora of over 200 separate
pieces of legislation pertaining to hazard and disaster management.
Under this state of affairs, specific legislative requirements often
fall foul of other legal needs, which can result in little or nothing
being done because of bureaucratic concerns that 'by doing something
somewhere a problem will be created elsewhere'. Similarly, while Japan's
exposure to a number of natural disaster risks is among the most serious
in the world, this has not resulted in an 'all-hazards approach to
disaster management and loss mitigation.

The Government of Japan has expended significant financial resources on
natural disaster mitigation and prevention. Since the 1950s it has
routinely spent between 5-8% annually of the national budget (about 0.8%
of GDP), with peaks in 1972 (following the Mt Usu eruption), 1978 (the
Tokai earthquake), 1992 (Mt Unzen eruption) and 1995 (the Hanshin-Awaji
\[Kobe\] earthquake)[^25]. Most of this has gone into structural
mitigation development, which in the 1960s-70s in particular served the
dual purpose of stimulating economic development at local community
levels, and which in more recent years has been the mainstay of Japan's
gigantic construction industry.

Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that the Japanese emergency
management system and associated training programs are more reliant on
technical applications than organizational and personnel development. In
this respect, it reflects the very healthy allocation of funds
Governments at national and prefecture levels inject into research and
technology development related to disaster mitigation,; this received a
significant boost following the Hanshin-Awaji earthquake that supported
earthquake loss reduction research[^26]. Problems that arise from hazard
impacts have tended to be solved by developing or introducing new
technologies rather than by adjusting existing intra- or
inter-organizational structures, systems, processes or practices,
including the education and training of personnel.

Two outcomes characterize this approach. The first is the comprehensive
hazard-specific monitoring systems spread throughout the country that is
designed to detect early warning cues and/or to identify impact
locations as quickly as possible. This requires staff trained in
technical areas of engineering and hazard monitoring: the widespread use
of GIS in emergency management departments for example, is a good
blending of these skill-sets. The second outcome is the absence, until
very recently, of higher education courses in emergency management. On
this latter point, the Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995 proved to be a
learning exercise and helped work through some initial changes in
emergency management training. However, it is a series of predicted
large-scale (Magnitude 8) earthquakes that are expected to occur within
the first half of this century that is currently driving changes in this
sector. The Tokai region earthquake in the Shizuoka prefecture, between
Yokohama and Nagoya; and the Tohankai (southeast) and southern (Nankai)
ocean region earthquakes, have a 40-50% probability of occurring in the
next 30 years and a 100% probability of occurring within 50 years[^27]
(see Figure 1).

![](media/image1.png){width="6.5in" height="3.615972222222222in"}

Figure 1: Japanese epicentural areas and active faults.

Source: Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, 2004.

In Japan, the primary responsibility for emergency management rests with
local government, a term that embraces villages up to prefecture
governments (although the latter tend to be more involved in a
coordinating capacity). This includes personnel training. Most local
government emergency management personnel do not receive systematic
training, and are normally trained on-the-job[^28]. In response to the
lessons learned from the Hanshin-Awaji earthquake[^29], the Hyogo
Prefecture Government and the Cabinet Office of the Government of Japan
in 2002 jointly set up a Disaster Reduction and Human Renovation
Institution (DRI), part of its function of which is to undertake
training in 'disaster management and reduction' by upgrading the
capabilities of officials[^30]. Training is primarily conducted by
in-house academic researchers augmented by practitioners who were
involved in the 1995 earthquake. Bypassing existing programs and
targeting heads and executives of local authority disaster management
units, DRI claims its program is the first of its type in Japan. These
course are non-cumulative and do not lead to accreditation.

Currently there is only one university of Japan that offers full-time
courses that have a bearing on emergency management: Fuji Tokoha
University, a relatively new campus in Shizuoka Prefecture, established
a course in 2003 within its Environment and Disaster Prevention Faculty.
While not explicitly created for emergency management personnel, it is
an innovative program open to people who work in local authorities,
which includes emergency managers. The undergraduate program has a
web-based learning environment and an outreach program, and is designed
to be highly interactive with the local community, which is within the
area designated under threat by the forthcoming Tokai earthquake. By
linking with the community through an outreach program, students are
encouraged to find out who end-users are for hazard and disaster
relevant material, and thus be better able to contribute to the creation
of societal resilience[^31].

### A Concluding Comment

Much has changed in emergency management during the past decade and the
practice of emergency management is still evolving and, at the same
time, growing. One of the most important developments that have taken
place during this time is the effort to locate the emergency manager
within a wider frame of reference. Rather than emergency management
being regarded as an exclusive preparedness- and response-oriented
resource, recent efforts have been made to integrate emergency
management into a wider policy and management practice framework. As
stated earlier, the focus now is on the 'management' rather than
exclusively on the 'emergency'. This shift has been accompanied by a
growing acceptance that emergency management is an integral part of
community decision-making. These developments have prompted the
establishment of new professional development programs for a new breed
of manager. At the heart of this change, at present, is the move to
university-based courses.

Emergency management has always benefited from input by academic
research, and this will continue. The movement of the emergency manager
into the lecture theatre, however, gives a new dimension to this
relationship that is still being 'tried on' by both parties. Present
indications are that it is a comfortable fit and will be a permanent
feature. Not only has this relationship benefited the emergency manager,
but it has also been of considerable help to the university researcher,
who is typically also a teacher. Many new fields of inquiry, and many
new practice options are the by-products of this relationship. This
point should not be overlooked, because amongst other benefits, it is
enabling research findings to directly aid practice, while practice
needs are helping to define research programs.

How these connections take place and what priorities they have differs
from one country to another, even as this limited two-nation survey
illustrates. The New Zealand and Japanese experiences mirror their wider
social circumstances and perception of current national needs. No doubt
both will change over time as those needs are transformed. Nevertheless,
the approaches taken in New Zealand and Japan highlight some interesting
professional development initiatives that might be useful for emergency
managers and professional educators in other parts of the world to
contemplate.

To summarize, the distinguishing features in the New Zealand system are:

1.  A nationally coordinated consensual approach to the development of
    emergency management professional development

2.  Full and part-time courses in distance learning and conventional
    lecture approaches

3.  Establishment of a university chair to aid in the coordination of
    research and teaching, especially in the neglected area of social
    sciences and planning

4.  University- and course-complementation that covers all current
    essential areas and avoids too much duplication

The distinguishing features of the Japanese emergency management
professional development system are:

1.  Technologically-proficient personnel and training programs

2.  On-the-job training for emergency management personnel

3.  Deliberate focus on senior management training

4.  University program linking emergency managers within the local
    authority context using a web-based community outreach delivery
    mechanism.

[^1]: Paper presented at the 7^th^ Annual By-Invitation Emergency
    Management Higher Education Conference. National Emergency
    Management Training Center, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    Department of Homeland Security. Emmitsburgh, Maryland. 8-10 June
    2004.

[^2]: The author would like to thank Sarah Norman, Jim Stuart-Black and
    Tom Roche (Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management, New
    Zealand) and Dr Tony Fernandez (EdM) for reviewing this paper.

[^3]: This is an admittedly arbitrary date based on the creation of the
    Disaster Research Center, established at the Ohio State University
    in 1963 which focused attention on organizational aspects of
    disasters, including disaster-relevant organizations. However,
    adopting this date ignores important earlier research conducted by
    the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), and the National
    Academy of Sciences-National Research Council (NAS-NRC). These
    research centers also influenced social organizational thinking and
    hence, directly or indirectly, on emergency management practice. The
    USA has dominated hazard and hazard management research for a much
    longer time: the often-quoted initiator is geographer, Gilbert
    White's 1945 work from the University of Chicago.

[^4]: National Governors' Association. 1979. [Comprehensive Emergency
    Management: A Governor's Guide]{.underline}. Center for Policy
    Research. National Governors' Association. Washington DC.

[^5]: Refer N R Britton (2004), What's a Word? Opening up the Debate. In
    E L Quarantelli and R W Perry (Eds), [What is a Disaster? New
    Answers to Old Questions]{.underline}. Xilibris, Philadelphia.
    Pp.38-58.

[^6]: N R Britton (1999), Political Commitment. In J Ingleton (ed.)
    [Natural Disaster Management]{.underline}. Tudor Rose. Leicester.
    Pp. 214-117.

[^7]: Ibid. page 215.

[^8]: N R Britton (2002), A New Emergency Management for a New
    Millennium? [The Australian Journal of Emergency
    Management]{.underline}, 16(4). Pp.44-54.

[^9]: *Social institutions* refer to the network of interrelated norms,
    or established behavioural patterns, that provide widely accepted
    and well-know frameworks within which complex social activities are
    carried out, such as language, economic activities, law enforcement,
    interactions between total strangers, formal education, and the
    formation and dissolution of families

[^10]: According to Mittleman (1994), 'the manifestations of
    *globalization* include the spatial reorganization of production,
    the interpenetration of industries across borders, the spread of
    financial markets, the diffusion of identical consumer goods to
    distant countries, massive transfers of population within the South
    as well as from the South and the East to the West, resultant
    conflicts between immigrant and established communities in formerly
    tight-knit neighborhoods, and an emerging worldwide preference for
    democracy. Cited in A Gilbert (1998:181-2), World Cities and the
    Urban Future. In Fu-Chen Lo and Yue-Man Yeung (eds), [Globalization
    and the World of Large Cities]{.underline}. United Nations Press.
    Tokyo.

[^11]: See [Impact 2010: Joint Australian, New Zealand and US Emergency
    Management Workshop]{.underline}. 9-11 March 1999. Christchurch, New
    Zealand

[^12]: Refer N R Britton (2002), Institutional arrangements for total
    risk management in New Zealand: Issues and Solutions. In [New
    Zealand Security]{.underline}, Aug-Sept. pp 4-8.

[^13]: See N R Britton and G C Clark (2000), From [Response to
    Resilience: Emergency Management Reform in New Zealand.
    Natural]{.underline} Hazards Review 1(3), 145-50. see also Britton
    and Clark (2000), Non-Regulatory Approaches to Earthquake Risk
    Reduction: The New Zealand Experience. In [Proceedings of the Twelth
    World Congress on Earthquake Engineering]{.underline}. Auckland, New
    Zealand.

[^14]: D S Mileti and contributing authors (1999), [Disasters by Design.
    A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States]{.underline}.
    Joseph Henry Press. Washington.

[^15]: See for instance S Kroll-Smith and V Gunter (1998), Legislators,
    Interpreters and Disasters: The Importance of How as well as What is
    a disaster. in E L Quarantelli (edt), What is a Disaster?
    Perspectives on the Question. Routledge, London. Pp.160-176.

[^16]: Page 4, in Standards Australia (1999). [Risk Management
    Standard]{.underline} AS/NZS4360 (2^nd^ edition). Standards
    Australia and Standards New Zealand. Sydney and Wellington.

[^17]: Standards New Zealand (2000). *Risk Management Handbook for Local
    Government. SNZ HB 4360:2000.* Standards New Zealand. Wellington

[^18]: Refer Section 17(1)b of the Civil Defence Emergency Management
    Act 2002.

[^19]: MCDEM is currently in the process of re-evaluating its strategic
    direction on professional development to ensure it is able to meet
    the needs of the emergency management sector and incorporate
    international sound practice developments.

[^20]: MCDEM (2001), [Professional Development Strategy
    2002-2003]{.underline}. Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency
    Management. Wellington, New Zealand. Page 2.

[^21]: See MCDEM (2000), Professional Development and Emergency
    Management. A Consultation Document. Ministry of Civil Defence and
    Emergency Management. Wellington, New Zealand.

[^22]: A point to note is whether these and other similar terms are
    starting to lose their salience.

[^23]: See for example, A.L Fernandez and N.R.Britton (2004), Case
    Studies in Reducing Earthquake Disaster Loss Through Research and
    Technology Development. In, [Proceedings of the Asia 2004 Earthquake
    Engineering Conference]{.underline}. Volume 2. Manila, Philippines.
    Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines. Pp.291-306.

[^24]: See, for example, J Stuart-Black, S Norman and E Coles (2004),
    [Bridging the Divide from Theory to Practice. Paper]{.underline}
    presented at the 40^th^ Anniversary Conference of the Disaster
    Research Center, University of Delaware. April.

[^25]: K Sudo, H Kameda and Y Ogawa (2000), Recent History of Japan's
    Disaster Mitigation and the Impact of IDNDR. [Natural Hazards
    Review]{.underline} 1(1), 10-17.

[^26]: A.L Fernandez and N.R.Britton (2004), page 297.

[^27]: O Hisakazu (2003). Enhancing and Utilizing Fragile National Land.
    PowerPoint presentation made by the Vice Minister for Engineering
    Affairs. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. [3^rd^
    Annual Integrated Disaster Risk Management Forum]{.underline}.
    IIASA-DPRI. Kyoto. July 2003.

[^28]: See Y Fukasawa (2003), For Sharing the Hanshin Awaji Experience:
    Establishment of Disaster Reduction and Human Renovation
    Institution. In [Proceedings of the 7^th^ US-Japan Workshop on Urban
    Earthquake Hazard Reduction]{.underline}. Earthquake Engineering
    Research Institute and the Institute of Social Safety Science. 23-26
    March, 2003. Maui, Hawaii.

[^29]: See N R Britton (1995), [Development of the Emergency Social
    System in Kobe Following the Earthquake]{.underline}. Wellington
    Emergency Management Office. See also Lessons for New Zealand
    Lifelines Organisations from the 17 January 1995 Great Hanshin
    Earthquake, [Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for
    Earthquake Engineering]{.underline} Special Issue.

[^30]: Fukasawa (2003).

[^31]: T Komura (2003), Disaster Research from the Perspective of
    Disaster Prevention by Citizens (PowerPoint presentation). In
    [Proceedings of the 40^th^ Natural Disaster Science
    Symposium]{.underline}. Natural Disaster Research Council. Disaster
    Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University. September 30 --
    October 1, 2003. pp.103-5 (in Japanese)