Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 33, Number 1, 2012, pp49-58

Investigating Risk Communication Process for Community’s Disaster
Reduction with a Framework of "Communicative Survey Method"
Yukiko TAKEUCHI*Wei XU**
Yoshio KAJITANI***
Norio OKADA*****Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Japan
Yoshida Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japany.takeuchi@fw7.ecs.kyoto-u.ac.jp**State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, Beijing Normal University,
China; Academy of Disaster Reduction and Emergency Management Ministry of Civil Affairs & Ministryof Education, China
No.19, Xinjiekouwai Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100875, China
xuwei@bnu.edu.cn*** Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Japan
Gokasho, Uji, Kyoto, 611-0011, Japan
kajitani@imdr.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp****Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Japan
Gokasho, Uji, Kyoto, 611-0011, Japann_okada@drs.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp(Received February 21, 2011 Accepted July 6, 2011)
ABSTRACT
Risk communication is considered as an important step of risk management process.
An appropriate risk communication needs holistic learning, facilitation between theinformation sender and receiver, and trust. The paper proposes a new method of risk
communication emphasizing the trust building with the local communities throughcommunicative survey. Applying the method in Nagata elementary school, the paper
provides a case example with illustration and analysis on useful communicative survey,
and exemplifies the shelter planning (shelter location and residents’ assignment) process.
The participants’ ideas and their opinions are best used to adaptively modify and eventuallyreach the most appropriate assignment plan. It is argued that the process builds trust in therisk information and enables residents to take decisive actions.
Keyword: Risk communication, Communicative survey, Questionnaire survey

1. Introduction

people have to make various preparations such as
checking risk areas, developing information system,
and understanding environmental conditions. After

To protect themselves from natural disaster,49

Y. TAKEUCHI, W. XU, Y. KAJITANI, N. OKADA

the Nagasaki Disaster in Japan, in 1982, people were
informed about government’s activities or possible
activities, which were essential for residents’ decision
making and action. Specifically, the development anddistribution of regional hazard maps by the government greatly increased local residents’ understandingof disaster information.

saster prevention. On the other hand, the information
receivers are the communities and individuals who
have a lot of local information. Risk communicationconsists of understanding of risk and implementingof risk reduction plans. To make risk communication successful, three elements are necessary namely
holistic learning, facilitation, and trust. Communication cannot go smoothly when there is a gap between
information sender and receiver. Thus, to reduce gaps,
measures should be carried out through both hardmeasures such as enhancing engineering structures,and soft measures such as disaster education andevacuation training. Soft measures are particularly important for residents. To sustain and save lives, people
need to act. Related literature (e.g., Takeuchi et al.,2005 and Kawashima et al., 2006) tried to develop
and implement supporting tools for the understanding of risk information. However, information sendershould not only try to help local residents understandrisk information, but also need to build relationships
including trust with community people for successful
risk communication. To achieve successful risk communication, trust is the most important element (Hovland and Weiss, 1951). When a risk information sender (e.g. researcher, NPOs/NGOs, and official, among
others) is not trusted by risk information receiver (e.g.
local people, and local association, among others),
risk communication would be difficult to establish.
Communicative Survey method can reduce this kindof distrust gap very well (Takeuchi et al., 2007).

For strategic risk management, people should
apply management methods and develop appropriate
action plans to evaluate vulnerability in the community. A participatory approach is useful for developing
good action plans which should include long-term anddiversified viewpoints for sustainable community development,. Various stakeholders such as the government, community, research institutes, and individuals
should collaboratively develop action plans for disaster risk reduction (DRR) in the community.
A disaster prevention system often has threemajor internal stakeholders. These include the government, community, and the individual members of
the community. Besides these, there are other stakeholders such as the civil society, academe, corporate
sector, media and international agencies. The role of
the government in disaster prevention is that of formulating and executing the disaster management plan,of comprehensively coordinating, formulating, andpromoting the execution of the Basic Disaster Management Plan; and of forming and executing the disaster management operation plan. The community’srole includes preparing materials and machineries in
the region, and practicing disaster management drills,
among others. In addition, individuals should prepare
evacuation routes and emergency bags and perform
other necessary activities. For sustainable and strategic disaster prevention, people and community haveto develop a disaster prevention action plan that includes or covers as much information, opinion, andperspective.

This paper firstly addresses the need for a new
type of social survey characterized by a two-way
communication approach—Communicative Survey
method between information sender (or investigator)
and information receiver (or responder). Furthermore,
the development process and function of risk communication are discussed.
2. Communicative Survey Method

Risk communication is one of support systemsof risk management. Fig. 1 shows the basic risk communication framework developed by Kikkawa (1999).
On the left is the information sender and on the rightis the information receiver. Usually, the information
sender is the government, university, or research institution which has much specialized information on di-

A methodological framework of “Communicative Survey” is proposed here to systematically study
the process of risk communication among concerned
stakeholders by way of participating in and observing
its mutual learning activities. This was first developed
by Takeuchi et al (2007 and 2008) to build trust between risk information sender and receiver based on
50

INVESTIGATING RISK COMMUNICATION PROCESS FOR COMMUNITY’S DISASTER REDUCTION WITH A FRAMEWORK OF "COMMUNICATIVE SURVEY METHOD"

research activity. Risk information sender tries to collect needs and concerns of risk information receiverby using social survey methods such as questionnaire
survey and workshop. In general, it is difficult toobtain minority’s opinion through a simple social survey. During a social survey, the generic opinion is obtained through questionnaires [for quantitative survey]
and focus group discussion [for qualitative survey].
However, it is difficult to understand the minority
opinion, since the statistical analysis mainly gets the
majority views. The key point to understand the minority opinion is the time factor, where the researcher
needs to understand the community well to draw theopinion of the minority groups. The “Communicative
Survey” method can help to collect opinions becauseof its flexibility due to strong and long-term relationship between researcher and community member.
Such information sharing framework is called the“Communicative Survey Method” (Fig. 1). Becauseof the limitations of interactive mode, there is a needto learn direct and collective communication. Thissurvey method is developed based on the following
objectives: (a) to find out the needs and concern ofthe community; (b) to design questionnaire sheet with
community members; (c) to carry out questionnaire
survey among local residents; and (d) to organize aworkshop. More specifically, the design and operationof the “Communicative Survey” framework adopted
in this study is characterized as follows:i) Members (especially the leaders) of the autonomous council (“Jichi-kai” in Japanese)or voluntary disaster prevention organization(“Jisyu-bousai-kai” in Japanese) are identified
as key persons who serve as the bridge for risk
communication between risk management specialist and local residents.
ii) Through a long process of continuous survey,
feedback and risk communication, the specialist and local residents are expected to mutually share and eventually reach a common
understanding of the community’s needs.
Through these activities, trust could be established between risk information sender and receiver.
Needs and concerns of risk information receivers havebeen identified by risk information senders throughlong term and continuous communication. With suchlong-term communication, DRR capacity will bebuild.
3. Study Area
Nagata ward, which is located in the west partof Kobe City, has a long and narrow shape. The northFig.1: Differences between Risk Communication and Communicative Survey(Takeuchi et al., 2008)51

Y. TAKEUCHI, W. XU, Y. KAJITANI, N. OKADA

half of the ward is mountainous while the south halfis plain and next to the bay. The west and east sides
are surrounded by river. During the 1995 HanshinAwaji earthquake, the Nagata Ward area received serious damage when 921 people died and 28,575 houses
collapsed. At present, the ward has a population of
101,677 in 48,225 households (Kobe City, 2011).
After the Hanshin-Awaji earthquake disaster in 1995,
Kobe City established the “Bousai Fukushi Community (Bokomi)”, which is a self-organized community
association for disaster reduction and social/welfare
care in each elementary school. One of the experiences of the Hanshin-Awaji earthquake was that community relationship is very important for community
based disaster risk reduction, and these relationships
are developed through communities’ daily activities.
One of the aims of Bokomi is to develop cooperationin DRR and welfare (Yoshikawa, 2005).

people living in this area are entitled to register in theneighborhood elementary school [for public schools].
Therefore, school community plays an important rolein community DRR and is a good representative element for conducting different DRR activities. Bosai
Fukushi Community (Bokomi) of Nagata ES community published hazard maps in 2000 (Fig. 3) anddistributed these to each household. The hazard map
typically show the hazard [in case of earthquake, it is
the probable intensity], locations of evacuation shelters and open spaces, and important lifeline utilities
like hospitals. In the Nagata ES community, Bokomi
has the role of managing the evacuation center whichis critical when disaster happens. A disaster drill andsports event in collaboration with the women’s association and other associations were organized in 2006.
The Nagata ES community consists of 13 autonomous
councils (“Jichi-kai” in Japanese).

The Nagata Elementary School (Nagata ES)
community is located in the center of Nagata ward.
The Kobe city government designated four schoolsfor evacuation shelter in this area, namely Nagata
Elementary School (Nagata ES), Takatoridai Middle
School (Takatoridai MS), Nagata High School (Nagata
HS), and Miyagawa Elementary School (MiyagawaES) (Fig.2). A typical school community is a clusterof neighborhood, which includes the housing, nearby
roads, school locations, park and parking places. The

After the Hanshin-Awaji earthquake disasterin 1995, several researchers have been assisting the
local government and communities in developing adisaster information system. Nagata ES is one of thecommunities that were assisted through collaboration
to develop a simple GIS system to identify vulnerable
people (e.g. the elderly who require the assistanceduring disasters). Through this activity, a relationshipbased on trust was developed between researcher andcommunity which formed a foundation for the rela-

Nagata Elementary
School Community 

Fig.2: Location of the Nagata ES Community

52

Fig.3: Community Hazard Map of the
Nagata ES Community

INVESTIGATING RISK COMMUNICATION PROCESS FOR COMMUNITY’S DISASTER REDUCTION WITH A FRAMEWORK OF "COMMUNICATIVE SURVEY METHOD"

tively smooth acceptance of the proposed survey by
the community.

Bokomi and Women’s Association in the Nagata ES
community are identified as key persons who serve as
the bridge between researchers and local residents inthe questionnaire survey and information distribution.

4. Flow of Communicative Survey in Nagata
Elementary School

4.1 Check: Collect and Share Problems andConcerns
First part of this communicative survey is“Check” of the CAPD cycle for problem and concern
collection and sharing. The steps are the following:
1. Interview with Bokomi member on the issue of
evacuation activity and make questionnaire basedon Bokomi member’s opinion.
2. Distribute and collect the questionnaire sheets tolocal people through the Bokomi and women’s association.
3. Analyze questionnaire results and make evacuation
simulation.
4. Explain to Bokomi and women’s association the
results of questionnaire and simulation.

The Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle is a management method (Aguayo, 1991) which has been used
for quality management in many cases. It is a continuous improvement cycle of the actions “Plan”, “Do”,“Check” and “Act” often used in production management and quality control in industry. This cycle fits
well with the evolving perspective of participatory disaster planning and management. Okada (2002) introduced this PDCA cycle into urban risk managementtasks which emphasize the diagnosis of the status quo
based on the practice of “Check” and “Act” before“Plan”. Thus the cycle is also called CAPD cycle in
the field of disaster risk management. In practicalcases, the cycle starts from “Check” because the community has undertaken certain measures on its own,hence, it makes sense to start from “Check” and link
it to the next PDCA cycle.

A questionnaire survey was carried out in Julyto August 2006 with the 50 heads of households. The
questionnaire included queries as to disaster experience and evacuation experience, disaster shelter
planning, evacuation route, hazard map and personal
information. A 100% response rate was attained (onthe content of shelter planning, the response rate was90%) with 92% of the respondents having experiencein disaster. By reviewing related literature (e.g., Takagi et al., 2006) and interviewing key people in the“Bousai Fukushi Community” with a focus on earthquake disaster shelter and differentiation of temporary
shelter (primary shelters) and accommodation shelters(secondary shelters), 17 indicators were obtained suchas shelter location safety, evacuation distance, evacuation road condition, lifeline maintenance service, andBosai Fukushi Community (Bokomi) in Nagata
ES community functions as an evacuation management center in times of disaster. Members of the
Bokomi realize the challenges of residential evacuation but know that management of evacuation center
is important. The hearing survey of Bokomi members
finds evacuation issues very evident from the collective community activity at the affected of the Hanshin-Awaji earthquake disaster in 1995 and the post
recovery process.
Fig. 4 presents the communicative survey framework at the Nagata ES community. The leaders of

Fig.4: Communicative Survey Framework in the Nagata ES Community53

Y. TAKEUCHI, W. XU, Y. KAJITANI, N. OKADA

information support, among others. The 17 indicators
were grouped into six categories on the following performance criteria: (1) security; (2) stability and continuity of lifeline service (shortened as stability andcontinuity); (3) accommodation capacity (shortened
as capacity); (4) comfortable; (5) accessibility to shelter (shortened as accessibility), and (6) connectivity
to external resources and information (shortened asconnectivity) according to the work done by Xu et al.
(2006, 2007). The six performance criteria for shelter planning may not be inclusive but are considered
to represent the main features of shelter planning.
Furthermore, the priority issues on disaster srelter
planning in all 17 indicators were identified. Taking
the example of households with disaster vulnerable
members and households without disaster vulnerable
members, the weights of criteria were found to vary
among households (Fig. 5) (Xu, 2007). It should be
noted that Bokomi members feel the aging population issue in this area. On the other hand, the survey
tried to find the difference between with or without
disaster-vulnerable members. Disaster-vulnerable
member here refers to a person who is older than 65
years, younger than 6 years, is handicapped or cannot
evacuate to the shelter without assistance.

Elementally School as evacuation shelter. The Nagata
ES Community has four evacuation shelters but mostpeople prefer to evacuate to Nagata ES. From thisresult, it can be said that there is a high possibilityof overcrowding to occur in this evacuation center
when a disaster happens. This research, therefore,
tried to make simulation focusing on accessibility forvisualization of residents’ shelter assignments. How
to support and whether to support disaster vulnerable
member to evacuate are important issues which needs
to be further reviewed. These results were reported ata workshop in October 2006 participated by 20 people
from the Bokomi and women’s association. On thisworkshop, Bokomi members wanted to know about
people’s evacuation in more detail. Two issues werecleared during the step of “Check”. One is support
system of disaster vulnerable people in evacuation
and another is how to assign residents to other evacuation center and move them away from the Nagata
ES. These issues or concerns drawn from the “Check”
step will be further discussed in the next step “Act” of
CAPD cycle.
4.2 Action: Discuss about Evacuation with
Risk Communication Tool
The Cross Road Game is a discussion tool for
DRR. This tool was developed based on interview
of the people who experienced the Hanshin-Awaji
earthquake (Yamori et al., 2005). The Cross Road
Game needs to choose between a Yes or No answer
and thereafter, a discussion follows to understand thereasons people choose Yes of No. This game does not

From the results of questionnaire survey (Fig. 5),
the biggest concern of the people regarding evacuation center is accessibility, connectivity and security.
There is no obvious difference between the result fornormal people and the one for disaster vulnerable
members. 48 people (N=50) identified the Nagata

Fig. 5: Weights of Performance Criteria for Evacuation Shelter Planning based on the Questionnaire
Survey in the Nagata ES Community (Xu, 2007)
54

INVESTIGATING RISK COMMUNICATION PROCESS FOR COMMUNITY’S DISASTER REDUCTION WITH A FRAMEWORK OF "COMMUNICATIVE SURVEY METHOD"

need to obtain a final answer of Yes or No. Rather,people who have the minority voice on either Yes or
No can voice out their opinion and reasoning. This
provides a basis for discussion of multiple issues.
This communicative survey at Nagata ES Community
selected this Cross Road Game for discussion and applied it to the Nagata ES Community (Takeuchi et al.,2008).

nerable people to evacuate, there were different opinions like:- If there is disaster vulnerable member in my family,
then I will. But it is very difficult.
- During the Hanshin-Awaji earthquake, people cooperated and helped each other. Next time I will doalso.
- I do not have the power.
- I will ask for an expert (Bokomi, fire fighter, etc.)- It is my role. Because I am member of Bokomi.
- Yes, I will. It is a natural thing.
- We do not have relationship and information about
those people.

In 2007 April, a workshop on the Cross Road
Game was held in Nagata ES Community. 29 people
participated from the Bokomi, women’s associationand local residents. This workshop looked at three
Cross Road items, one from general version of Cross
Road Game and two from the Nagata ES version. The
first item is from general version on the “pet” issue
in evacuation situation. The other two are from the
Nagata ES version. They are “Will you help disaster
vulnerable people to evacuate when an earthquake
happens?” and “Will you evacuate to other shelters
if Nagata ES is crowded?” The detailed procedureis shown in Fig. 6. Through this workshop, people
shared some detailed situations in evacuation. The
following are examples of the opinion gathered during the workshop:

About re-evacuation, the following were some of theopinions:- I will be in Nagata ES, because I have already discussed with my family.
- Nagata ES is very near to my house.
- I will go to other school if there is space.
- Nagata ES is located in the mountain area and it isdifficult to reach. Therefore I will evacuate to another school (shelter).
Opinions like these are important in discussions
about community level evacuation plan. For better
implementaion of evacuation plan, Bokomi needs toWith regards to supporting/helping disaster vul-

Fig. 6: Process of Cross Road Game in Nagata ES Community55

Y. TAKEUCHI, W. XU, Y. KAJITANI, N. OKADA

update the hazard map of the community. From “Action” stage of CAPD cycle, people’s detailed opinion
about evacuation can be collected. Therefore, the nextstage would try to find and re-find community situation in the step of “Plan” in CAPD cycle.

DRR point of view.
4.4 Do: Remake the Community Hazard Map
One crucial aspect of evacuation planning is
updating the community hazard map. The Nagata
ES Community developed hazard maps in 2000. The
hazard map is very important risk information. When
updating the hazard map, the results from “Check”,“Act” and “Do” of CAPD cycle are incorporated.
Hazard maps are considered as a large risk communication output and a result of communicative survey.
When the revised version of hazard map is published,community people acquire interest and perception ofrisk information.

4.3 Plan: Rediscover Community throughTown Watching
The aim of “Plan” is to know the community
geographical context (e.g. narrow road, high wall,long and steep road, etc.) in making the evacuation
plan. Town watching is an effective tool for discovering and rediscovering the community. At theworkshop of the Cross Road game, people mentioned
detailed community issues and opinions. To understand issues raised in the workshop discussion, Town
watching was held in August 2007 participated by 5
people from the Bokomi to show actual how discovering and rediscovering of community is done from a

Table 1 describes the activity outline of communicative survey in Nagata ES community. This
communicative survey at Nagata ES community ismade according to the CAPD cycle. As shown in theFig. 7: Town Watching in Nagata ES Community
Table 1: Activity Outline of Communication Survey in Nagata ES Community
Step of
CAPD

Check

Action

Plan

Do

Tool

Primary Target- Questionnaire- Simulation,
analysis- Workshop- Voluntary Disaster
Prevention
Association(Bokomi)- Women’s association- Crossroad game - Voluntary Disaster- Workshop
Prevention
Association- Women’s Association- Town watching - Voluntary Disaster
Prevention
Association- Hazard mapping - Voluntary Disaster
Prevention
Association

OutputComment

Identify and prioritize is- Simulation, which wassues on temporary disaster done based on the findings
shelter and accommoda- of question -naires, had ation disaster shelter
direct relation to community perceptions.
Review identified issues Clarification of the reaon evacuation
sons behind community
opinions of “yes”, “no”.
Identify and check com- Collective watching andmunity simulation related reinforcing of dangerous
to evacuation
places in the community
related to evacuation.
Revisit community and Understanding of risk inproduce updated version formation and importanceof hazard mapof hazard map.
56

INVESTIGATING RISK COMMUNICATION PROCESS FOR COMMUNITY’S DISASTER REDUCTION WITH A FRAMEWORK OF "COMMUNICATIVE SURVEY METHOD"

table, the tools for “Check” are questionnaires, simulation analysis and workshop; for “Action” these arecross-road game and workshop; for “Plan”, it is town
watching; and for “Do”, it is hazard mapping. The
primary targets are mostly voluntary disaster prevention organizations and/or Bokomi (school community) and women association. From “check” of CAPD
cycle, two issues were identified. One is supporting
system for disaster vulnerable people in evacuation, and second is how to reassign residents to otherevacuation center from Nagata ES. From “Action” of
CAPD cycle, people’s detailed opinions about evacuation could be collected. In “Plan”, town watching
was done. From this activity, Bokomi members wereable to reinforce dangerous places in the community.

crossroad game were held. The participants’ ideas
and their opinions are best used to adaptively modify
and eventually reach the most appropriate assignmentplan. The process builds trust in the risk informationand enables residents to take decisive actions.
Trust issue is a challenging problem and difficult to prove with empirical data. However, trust is
the key to decision making process in a community.
People will listen to the leader only when there is atrust to the leader as well as to the local government.
When an external researcher enters the community,
the trust building with the local residents is the mostimportant issue to understand the process, challenges
and solutions of community activities. The communicative survey tries to attain this trust with longer
term involvement with the local leaders and residents,
threfore the local information is properly understoodand used in risk communication. On the other hand,
the information provided by the researchers is usuallydifficult to understand. Thus, visual tools like simulation, cross road, and town watching are necessary
to be used to explain researcher’s information to thepeople and make them understand the results and outputs of the researchers, and imprimenting them into
taking actions at the local level.

5. Discussion and Conclusion
This paper discussed a specific method of risk
communication. A collaborative modeling for shelter
planning (shelter location and residents’ assignment)
has been developed based on which a questionnaire
survey has been designed and conducted in the Nagata
Elementary School Community, with a focus on earthquake disaster. The current administrative residents’assignment plan has been reassessed in the frameworkof this collaborative modeling. To make an overall
assessment of prospective residents’ assignment alternatives based on simulation model, workshops andCommunity people have relationship and trustin general. Specialist and related stakeholders need toFig.8: Effectiveness of Communicative Survey
57

Y. TAKEUCHI, W. XU, Y. KAJITANI, N. OKADA

develop this trust with the community, especially on
the risk information they are providing. Fig. 8 shows
the different steps and processes of the risk communicatiton frame work focusing on this trust. Boxes (1),(2) and (3) denote the sequence of the process, where
Box (1) is the community and people trust, which exists naturally; Box (2) is the relation of specialist with
community leaders; and Box (3) is the collective involvement of the specialists, community leaders andlocal residents. This becomes a comprehensive risk
communication framework where there are three main
outputs: understanding of risk information, building trust on risk information provided and capacity
building of the local community leaders. Generally,
community people do not have direct relationshipwith the risk specialist. Therefore, community people
feel, at first, that researchers will bring good things.
Through communicative survey, however, community
people gain an understanding of risk information andcommunity situation. Thereafter, community people
decide to take action. Such change and effectivenessare capacity building for DRR.

ban Disaster Risk Management, Beijing, China, 2002.
Okada, N.: Integrated disaster risk management (IDRiM)
and governance: a perspective and methodology of enhancing the quality of disaster prevention, International
Risk Governance Council (IRGC), Beijing, China,
September 21-22, 2005.
Takagi A., Hirozumi N., and Sawada M.: A comprehensive
evaluation index for evacuation planning with thecharacteristics of community and residents, submitted
to Journal of Infrastructure Planning Review, 2006 (inJapanese).
Takeuchi, Y., Xu, W., Kajitani, Y. and Okada, N.: Investigating risk communication with “the communicative survey method”, Annuals of Disa. Prev. Rese. Inst., Kyoto
Univ., No.50B, p171-176, 2007 (in Japanese).
Takeuchi, Y., Xu, W., Yamori, K, Kajitani, Y. and Okada, N:
Investigating Risk Communication with “the Communicative Survey Method” –Using Disaster Prevention
Game “Crossroad”- , Journal of Risk Research Japan,
Vol.18, No.1, p39-44, 2008 (in Japanese)
Yamori. K, Kikkawa. T, and Amishiro. T,: Risk Communication learn by disaster risk reduction game –Invitation to Cross Road, Nakanishiya Press, pp75, 2005 (inREFERENCES

Japanese)
Yoshikawa T, : Established “Bosai Fukushi Community” at
183 elementary school –Issue for continuous and sub-Aguayo, R.: Dr. Deming: The American who taught the

stantiality considerate of community character, Japan

Japanese about quality, Fireside, 1991.

Center for Regional Development, No. 188, 2005 (inHovland, C. and Weiss,W.：The influence of source credu-

Japanese)lity on communication effectiveness, 1951

http://www.chiiki-dukuri-hyakka.or.jp/book/month-

Kawashima, K., Tatano, H., and Hatayama, M.: A flood risk

ly/0502/html/t08.html

communication support system to promote safe au-

Xu W., Okada N., and He C.: Conceptual model of shelter

tonomous evacuation, Infrastructure Planning Review,planning based on the Vitae System, Annuals of Disas-Vol.23, No.2, pp.309-318, 2006 (in Japanese).

ter Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University,

Kikkawa, T.: Risk communication: Aiming at mutual under-

No.49B, pp.181-188, 2006

standing and better decision making, Fukumura Press,

Xu W., OKADA. N, TAKEUCHI. Y, and KAJITANI. Y, :pp197, 1999 (in Japanese).

A Diagnosis Model for Disaster Shelter Planning from

Kobe city home page. http://www.city.kobe.lg.jp/ward/kuy-

the Viewpoint of Local People—Case Study of Nagata

akusho/nagata/annai/data.html, 2011
National Research Council,：Improving risk communica-

Ward in Kobe City, Hyogo Prefecture, Japan, Annuals

tion，National Academy Press. Public Opinion Quar-of Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, No.50B, p233-239, 2007

terly，Vol. 151, pp. 635-650, 1989
Okada N, 2002. Disaster Mitigative Urban Diagnosis

Xu W.: Development of a Methodology for Participatory(DiMUDnosis) Viewed as Process of Risk Manage-Evacuation Planning and Management: Case Study ofment, 2nd Japan China Joint EQTAP Meeting on Ur-

Nagata, Kobe. Kyoto University, 2007.

58