Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 30, Number 2, 2009, pp57-69

A Collaborative Action Development Approach to Improving Community Disaster
Reduction Using the Yonmenkaigi SystemJong-il NA*
Norio OKADA**
Liping FANG****Graduate School of Urban Management Engineering, Kyoto University, Japan**Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Japan***Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada(Received March 25, 2009 accepted June 15, 2009)
ABSTRACTThis paper addresses the need for the use of participatory workshop methods to improve
everyday disaster response capacity locally within communities. Most current workshop
methods mainly address disaster risk awareness and focus on personal post-disaster actions,despite an increasing need to create an implementable action plan by moving beyond
enhancing risk awareness. This type of implementable action plan is required in order toenable participants from a local community to collaborate together. A method called theYonmenkaigi system, originally developed in a local community in Japan, is presented forthis purpose. The Yonmenkaigi system is designed to consist of the following steps: carryingout a SWOT analysis, completing the Yonmenkaigi Chart, debating between groups, andpresenting a group action plan. As demonstrated in a case study carried out in the City of
Kyoto, this method shows its relevance and effectiveness in developing collaborative actionplans for preparedness and mitigation in disaster reduction activities in a community.
Keyword: Action plan, disaster prevention, participatory workshop method,
the Yonmenkaigi system

1. INTRODUCTION

approach. A significant lesson about low-frequency/
high-impact disasters was learned from the Great
Hanshin Earthquake disaster (Okada, 2004). This typeof disaster warns us that local residents, victimized bysuch a huge disaster, may not be able to immediately
depend on local government to rapidly set up local
headquarters to direct emergency and crisis management, and to engage in relief and rescue activities as
quickly as possible. This results in more stress andemphasis being placed on the roles of local communities, or “community self-reliance” (kyojo in Japanese),
as well as on self-reliance, or “household/individual

Japan has gained valuable lessons from the 1995
Great Hanshin Earthquake disaster and other large
disasters that subsequently occurred one after anotheracross the whole country and in other parts of the
globe. Accordingly, Japan’s disaster planning andmanagement paradigm was forced to shift. Table 1
compares the conventional 20th-century approach with
the new directions that the 21st-century approach is
required to take. Notably, one of the challenges is tomake a greater shift from a top-down to a bottom-up
57

JONG-IL NA, N. OKADA, L. FANG

Table 1. Conventional disaster planning compared to
21st-century integrated disaster planning and management*
Conventional Disaster Planning
Reactive
Emergency and crisis management
Manual-based countermeasure approach
Predetermined planning (no-surprise)
Sectoral countermeasure approachTop-down approach*Based on Okada (2006)

21st-century Integrated Disaster Planning and Management
More proactive
A more risk mitigation and preparedness approach
A more anticipatory/precautionary approach
A more comprehensive policy-bundle approach
A more adaptive management approach
A more bottom-up approachreliance” (jijo) (Government of Japan, 2008).

a participatory workshop for residents is to share risk
awareness and to provide a means of communication
for participants. However, such workshops have thelimitation that risk awareness does not lead to actionplans in disaster prevention activities. Risk awareness should be changed to implementation actions toimprove the capacity of a local community in disastersituations. Workshop methods need to achieve more
effective action plans at the community level that
include collaborative decision-making techniques between residents and local communities for proactive
disaster management. This paper suggests that theresidents’ participatory workshop method be used todevelop action plans for disaster prevention activities
created by the participants themselves.
In the following sections, we first briefly discuss some of the commonly used workshop methods,
which have been applied in community disaster reduction planning and management. It is important topoint out that workshop methods for collaborative
action development are currently not available. Thisis a missing area in the development and implementation of participatory workshop methods for disasterprevention and mitigation. Then, we specificallypresent the Yonmenkaigi system, which has been designed and used for collaborative action development
in community-citizen vitalization initiatives calledmachizukuri in a mountainous municipality of Chizu
Town, Tottori, Japan (Okada and Teratani, 2005, Tatano and Kanda, 2008).
The paper then introduces the authors’ ongoing
efforts to apply this workshop method to community
disaster reduction action planning (Na et al., 2008a,b).
The method has two main objectives. The first is toobtain knowledge that is linked to action from eachparticipant. The second is to develop a collaborative action plan at the local community level so thatAs a result, governments are now promoting theenhancement of coping capacity and preparedness inlocal communities instead of trying to guarantee themanagement of disasters mainly by the governments
themselves as responsible administrative bodies that
inevitably tend to emphasize the need for top-downcommand control. For these reasons, local residents
who live in disaster-prone areas are now encouraged
to develop a disaster-resilient community as soon as
possible.
The new challenge for local communities is how
to increase awareness of disaster risks, and how todevelop an executable action plan with appropriate
external support provided from the local, municipal,
and/or regional governments as well as from the results of ongoing research endeavors by academia, likethe authors’ such efforts. Equally important is the scientific leverage required to support efforts to enhancea community’s self-reliance capacity. The workshop
method presented here, developed for participatorycommunity-based disaster reduction, is considered
useful. However, it is not yet completely clear whether such commonly used methods adequately serve thepurpose and if so, how effective they are and how,
specifically, they should be used. This paper emphasizes the point that community-based action plans
can only become literally actionable, and therefore
executable, if action plans drafted by local residents
are collaboratively developed and matched together.
If an action plan is collaboratively crafted by local
residents, commitment to implement the plan by local
residents is significantly improved.
Most participation-oriented workshops currently
target rescue and relief activities in post-disaster situations. As currently observed, the general objective of58

A COLLABORATIVE ACTION DEVELOPMENT APPROACH TO IMPROVING COMMUNITY DISASTER REDUCTION USING THE YONMENKAIGI SYSTEM

participants are able to achieve more than enhanced
risk awareness and to develop communication among
themselves. Collaborative activities between residents
and their community are an important and necessary
element in improving disaster prevention activities inlocal communities. Specifically, we focus on a particular jishubosai-soshiki (self-governed community association for disaster reduction) in the City of Kyoto
as the target community group for the implementationof the Yonmenkaigi system.

2) All of the workshops are very dependent onfacilitators not only for their facilitation skills,
but also for setting up workshop themes andscenarios. For example, a facilitator determines the potential disaster risks to the community as well as the roles and responsibilitiesof the community members. As a result, mostof the workshop methods are unable to accurately reflect the views of the local communities regarding their requirements and needs aswell as regarding their capacities.
3) Little attention is paid to the local context. Instead, often, a hypothetical situation is considered in a workshop. As a result, the workshop
is unable to produce a realistic action plan
based on the local context.
4) All of the workshops are of short duration andnormally take place only once. Therefore, it
is not possible to check whether the decisions
and plans derived from the workshops havebeen implemented.
5) The workshop methods focus mainly on risk
awareness and risk communication from anindividual’s viewpoint, rather than on risk
mitigation and preparedness actions from thelocal community’s viewpoint.

2. OTHER WORKSHOP METHODS
A number of workshop methods mainly focusing on post-disaster activities have been proposed inJapan. Table 2 shows the main features of four workshop methods for participatory community-based
disaster reduction in Japan. These workshop methods
are useful in providing a means of communication forparticipants with respect to disaster prevention andenhancing participants’ disaster risk awareness. These
workshop methods are also valuable for stimulating
participants’ interests in disaster reduction activities.
The general characteristics of these methods are as
follows:
1) All of the workshop methods currently focus
mainly on the post-disaster situation, rather
than on the pre-disaster phase or on mitigationand preventive measures.

Table 2. Characteristics of other workshop methods*
Objective

Who Decides
the Theme andScenario
Participants
Facilitator
Typical Size
Outcomes

Visioning Workshop
DIG
Collecting visions and Identifying potential
hopes of residents
hazards and actions
following a disasterSet by a facilitator

Set by a facilitator

Residents
Specialists
One team, one group

Residents
Specialists
Multiple teams, small
groups (10 people)
Communication about Risk communication:
future concerns andRaising awarenessvisions

CROSSROAD
Simulating community decision-making
scenarios following adisasterSet by a facilitator

Scenario Workshop
Simulating evacuation
actions by stakeholders following a disasterSet by a facilitator

Residents
Specialists
Multiple teams, small
groups (5 people)
Risk communication:
Virtual experience

Specialists, Residents
Specialists
One team, one group(10 people)
Risk communication
among stakeholders*Based on Komura and Hirano (1997), Komura (2004), Ichiko et al. (2005), Kikkawa and Yamori (2006), Atsumi and Seki (2008), Seki and Atsumi (2008), and Tsubokawa et al. (2008).
59

JONG-IL NA, N. OKADA, L. FANG

3. THE YONMENKAIGI SYSTEM

management cycle.

3.1 THE CAPD CYCLE IN THE
YONMENKAIGI SYSTEMThe Yonmenkaigi approach is based on the
check-action-plan-do (CAPD) cycle (Okada and Teratani, 2005, Matsuda and Okada, 2006). The process ofa Yonmenkaigi workshop is a reflection of the CAPD
management cycle. The Yonmenkaigi workshop process, which will be discussed below, includes four
steps as shown in Fig. 1: carrying out a SWOT analysis, completing the Yonmenkaigi Chart, debating, andpresenting an action plan chart.

3.2 OVERVIEW OF THE YONMENKAIGISYSTEM
The goal of the Yonmenkaigi system is to develop an action plan for a community through a workshop, particularly in a disaster risk context. The aim
is to make an action plan to reduce disaster risks. In
order to make such an action plan, the method focuses
on four broad aspects that are considered required
issues for future actions. These four aspects (roles)
are management, publication relations (PR) & information, soft logistics, and hard logistics. A group ofindividuals is assigned to each of the aspects. Each ofthese role-sharing elements is combined with a time
dimension. Figure 2 shows the changing perspectivesof the Yonmenkaigi system, which includes both individual and community views through the process ofgroup discussion.

C : Survey the Area
(Check-Action-Plan-Do)

C

Part 1A

SWOT
Analysis
Decide Theme and Scenarios

Idea Generation

P

Part 2 Yomenkaigi
Chart

Idea Clustering
Debating
Idea
Re-clustering

SWOT Analysis

Top-down / Local Community View

Action Plan Chart

D

Part 3Presentation(Collective Commitment)

Yonmenkaigi
Chart

Fig. 1. Process of the Yonmenkaigi system

Bottom-up／Individual View

Each
Group

Each
Group

The first step in the process is to carry out a
SWOT analysis (Hill and Westbrook, 1997). SWOT
analysis involves identification of the strengths andweaknesses of a local community as well as the opportunities of and threats to the community. Analysis
and diagnosis of strengths and weaknesses correspondto check (C) from the CAPD cycle. Participants thendetermine the theme/goal, taking into account theconditions of the community through shared recognition of risks and issues identified in the SWOT analysis. This aspect corresponds to action (A). Once thecheck and action processes are completed, the participants move to the plan (P) aspect in the workshop by
constructing the Yonmenkaigi Chart in which participants set out the vision and action plans. Finally, theworkshop includes debating and creation of an action
plan chart. During this process, participants debatewith each other to improve the action plan and to ensure the implementability of action plan components
as well as ultimately draw up a final action plan chart
for the future. These two processes correspond to thedo phase of the CAPD cycle. In this way, the Yonmenkaigi system follows the process of the CAPD

Debating

Bottom-up／Group View

Action Plan

Top-down / Local Community View

Fig. 2. Integration of individual and local community
views through the Yonmenkaigi system
Participants of the Yonmenkaigi system address a problem based on information and knowledge
obtained from the community diagnosis and thenmake decisions. Afterwards, the participants decide
for themselves on the theme/goal of the action plan.
Finally, they develop an action plan to achieve theirgoal as well as a plan to implement the action plan.
3.3 PROCESS OF THE YOMENKAIGISYSTEM
3.3.1 SWOT Analysis
A Yonmenkaigi workshop starts with a SWOT
analysis (Hill and Westbrook, 1997). During thisphase, a pilot survey of the area is carried out by theparticipants. Town watching is one of the methods
used for conducting this type of pilot survey. Knowledge and information about the present situation of60

A COLLABORATIVE ACTION DEVELOPMENT APPROACH TO IMPROVING COMMUNITY DISASTER REDUCTION USING THE YONMENKAIGI SYSTEM

the community is essential in order to identify its
strengths and weaknesses and to develop an action
plan for it. Town watching can help participants ormembers of the local community reevaluate the issuesof the local area.
Once the survey is completed, participants
get together and identify the strengths and weaknesses of the community through a SWOT analysis.
SWOT analysis consists of four components of thecommunity—strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,
and threats—as shown in Fig. 3. S and W represent
strengths and weaknesses, respectively. These areconsidered to be the internal factors controlled by thecommunity residents themselves. O and T represent
opportunities and threats, respectively. These areconsidered to be external factors including the naturalenvironment as well as socioeconomic trends and patterns.

consider. The facilitator collects all of the proposed
themes and scenarios and presents them on large
sheets of paper (788 mm x 1091 mm), which extend
for several pages. Then, the participants themselves
decide the theme of the workshop and the scenarios toconsider.
After selecting a theme, the participants are
divided into four groups. As shown in Fig. 4, eachgroup of individuals is assigned to the particularrole-sharing activities in one of the four groups ofrole sharing—management, PR & information, soft
logistics, and hard logistics—as mentioned in Section 3.2. Each individual is assigned to a particularrole-sharing group not only according to his/herorganizational responsibilities, vocational activities,
and socioeconomic status, but also according to his/
her talents, abilities, and interests. To achieve a particular theme/goal, actions on the four broad aspectsof management, PR & information, soft logistics, andhard logistics are generally required. However, these
aspects may be modified/redefined depending on specific circumstances of a workshop.

internal factors

SW

external factors

O

T

Stakeholders

Yonmen Stakeholders
Participant
Organizational
Talent, Ability
Position
Vocational
Speciality
Socioeconomic
InterestFour Roles and Functions

Fig. 3. SWOT analysis in the Yonmenkaigi system
SWOT analysis helps participants to see thepresent and future risks to a community and therefore
helps them to recognize future actions required tocope with such risks. Since each of the participants
has a different socioeconomic background, each ofthem perceives different potential and existing risks tothe community. Each of them has different innovativeideas to cope with such problems. SWOT analysis
helps all the participants know each other’s ideas andviews. SWOT analysis provides the participants with
an opportunity to share their ideas and views, which
eventually leads to a holistic and detailed view ofrisks and future action plans. In a SWOT analysis, theparticipants express their views by using various colorsof cards. Generally, four color cards are used in thisprocess, corresponding to the four SWOT categories.

Role

FunctionManagement (M)Top Management

PR & Information (I)Communication

Soft Logistics (S)Human Resources

Hard Logistics (H)Physical Resources

Fig. 4. Four stakeholder roles and functions in the
Yonmenkaigi system

3.3.3 Yonmenkaigi Chart
Once role assignment is completed, the participants are asked to express their action components
and views according to their assigned role by using
color cards in a specially designed chart called theYonmenkaigi Chart, as shown in Fig. 5. The action
components for each of the aspects are divided orcompartmentalized in a time frame. For example,
the action components of each group can be scaled
as within 3 months, within 6 months, within 1 year,
and beyond 1 year. Participants discuss within theirgroups and plan the actions for the assigned aspectaccordingly. The implementable collaborative action

3.3.2 Identification of Themes and the FourGroupsBased on the SWOT analysis, the participants
propose themes as goals as well as scenarios to61

JONG-IL NA, N. OKADA, L. FANG

plan is a coordinated combination of the action plansdeveloped through these four aspects.

knowledge. Debating allows each group and each individual to express and defend their views and ideas
and to criticize others. Through this process, communication is enriched between groups as well as
between participants who observe and listen to eachother’s ideas and views. Inverse debating forces eachgroup to defend what the opposite group intends to
produce as its respective action components. It also
requires each group to criticize the previously revised
version of what the group has planned. Inverse debating is an important feature of the Yonmenkaigi system. Debating can also enhance the implementabilityof action components.
After completing all the debating processes, thegroups separate and share action plan components
as required. Participants work together and own
the entire action plan to achieve their goal/theme incommon. The entire process of general and inverse
debating helps consolidate and upgrade the quality ofactions to be implemented in the collaborative action
plan.

Group C (Soft Logistics)

Plana
Planc

Theme

Pland

After 1 Year
Within 1 Year

Planb
Within 6 Months

Group D (Hard Logistics)

Group A (Management)

Within 3 Months

Group B (PR, Information)

Fig. 5. Typical pattern of the Yonmenkaigi Chart

3.3.4 Debating
The next phase of the Yonmenkaigi system isdebating. The Yonmenkaigi system offers two typesof debating—general debating and inverse debating. General debating involves inter-group debating,whereas inverse debating involves exchanging thepositions and roles of two groups facing each otheracross the Yonmenkaigi Chart. More specifically,
if Group A challenges the ideas of Group B and thetwo groups debate with each other, then it is called ageneral debate. On the other hand, if Group A moves
from its original position to the position of Group B
and Group B moves to the position of Group A andboth groups start to debate according to their newroles, such a debate is called inverse debating, asshown in Fig. 6.

Can

Can

A CannotCannot3.3.5 Action Plan Chart
Participants now determine an implementable
collaborative action plan after debating by using theYonmenkaigi Chart. Action plan components are
rearranged by a time frame and the roles of the fourgroups (management (M), PR & information (I), soft
logistics (S), and hard logistics (H)), as shown in Fig.
7. In this phase, the participants decide and prioritize
the action plans based on a time scale. Prioritization isconducted on a timeline basis depending on the timescale, for example, within 3 months, within 6 months,
within 1 year, and beyond 1 year.

B

Time
3 Months 6 Months

The role
General Debating
Inverse Debating
RuleManagement

PR &Information
B Group

1 YearBeyond
1 YearM
I

A Group
B Group
A GroupDefend My Group
Criticize the Other GroupS
H
Fig. 7. Action plan chart in the Yonmenkaigi system

Fig. 6. Inverse debating in the Yonmenkaigi system
Debating provides an effective platform for
combining different ideas or views and strategicallyprocessing those ideas and knowledge to create new

Based on the action plan chart, the participants
are requested to make a presentation using the roles
and timelines of their entire action plan to an audience62

A COLLABORATIVE ACTION DEVELOPMENT APPROACH TO IMPROVING COMMUNITY DISASTER REDUCTION USING THE YONMENKAIGI SYSTEM

who has not been directly involved in making theplan.
3.4 COMPARISONS WITH OTHER
METHODSThe basic characteristics of the Yonmenkaigi
system are summarized in Table 3. The discussion in
Sections 2, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 shows to what extent theYonmenkaigi workshop method differs from otherworkshop methods. However, for better conceptualization of the uniqueness of the Yonmenkaigi method,
the following points can be made:1) Unlike other workshop methods, in a Yonmenkaigi workshop, the participants themselves,
instead of the facilitator, decide the theme andscenarios and develop the action plan, on theirown, in order to achieve the goal/theme.
2) Each action component of the action plan is systematically examined to ensure a continuing (sequential) relationship between the action components of the same group as well as between othergroups in order to accomplish the action plans.
Debating including general and inverse debatingis introduced for this purpose in the Yonmenkaigi workshop method. Unlike other workshop
methods, participants learn the collaborativedecision-making process using debating.
3) The Yonmenkaigi workshop provides a platform
for face-to-face communication for participants
to become aware of the concerns of others, todiscuss the status quo of their community, andto collaboratively develop implementable actionplans. In this workshop method, the process of

4)

5)

6)

making collaborative action plans is eventuallysystematically incorporated. Other workshop
methods lack this type of system.
Unlike the Yonmenkaigi workshop method,other workshop methods focus more on the individual decision-making process and explore personal or individual capacities and resources tocreate individual actions, rather than focusing on
community-based collaborative action planning.
The Yonmenkaigi workshop method not only
identifies and explores personal capacities andresources as well as individual ideas and views,
it also provides a basis for working together byfocusing on each other’s views. This strengthens
the basis of collective and collaborative action
planning.
Unlike other methods, the Yonmenkaigi system
focuses more on disaster mitigation and prevention rather than on post-disaster situations.
In the Yonmenkaigi workshop method, participants take the roles of both planner and executor
as the subjects of the action plans.

Table 3. Basic characteristics of the Yonmenkaigi system
Application

Disaster mitigation and prevention

Objective

Collecting visions and hopes of residents for proactive disaster reduction planning

Who Decides the Theme and Scenario

The facilitator suggests guidelines and participants determine thetheme and scenarios.

Participants

Self-governed community association for disaster reduction (as representatives of residents)

Facilitator

Specialists

Typical Size

One team (8 to 16 people), four groups (2 to 4 people each)

Outcomes

Development of an action plan for disaster reduction for the local
community
63

JONG-IL NA, N. OKADA, L. FANG

3.5 COLLABORATIVE ACTION
DEVELOPMENT DURING DEBATING
In the Yonmenkaigi workshop method, cards are
an important component or tool for participants to express views and exchange their views and ideas, particularly during the debating phase. There are several
basic rules for the movement of cards, and each of thecard movements bears a particular meaning in placing
and shifting during debating. Card movements reflect
the multi-level knowledge development process ofthe debating practice. Some of the basic rules of card
movements, as illustrated in Fig. 8, are:1) Adding a new card: The addition of a new card
indicates that a new action plan component has
been identified and prepared in order to achieve
the group mission.
2) Moving a card: Moving a card from one group
to another indicates that the action plan component is more suitable or preferable for the shifted
group than for the original group.
3) Deleting a card: Deleting a card indicates thatsuch an action component is no longer requiredor desirable. In other words, it indicates thatsuch an action component cannot be carried out.
4) Renewal of a card: This movement indicates thatreinforcement of an action plan component is needed in order to reduce the weakness of the group.
5) Arrangement of cards: Cards are arranged andgrouped by taking into consideration the timescale of the action plan component.
6) Collaboration of cards: This indicates that thegroups concerned or overlapping groups will
work together and collaborate on the same action plan component. Because each of the groups
has its own limitations, some action plan components require collaboration across the groups tomanage the action plan components.

4. SHUHACHI-BOSAIKAI: A CASE STUDY
4.1 SHUHACHI-BOSAIKAIThe Shuhachi Elementary School area (hereafter called the Shuhachi community) is located in
Nakagyo Ward in the center of Kyoto City in Japan.
It is an urban residential area consisting of traditional
houses, apartments for single people or families,
and factories. The community has 10,939 people asof 2005 over an area of 1.055 km2, divided into 52
smaller community units (chonai or chonai-kai), or
neighborhood associations, which is the smallest collective self-governing unit in Japan (Nitschke, 2003).
The Shuhachi community has a jishubosaisoshiki (self-governed community association fordisaster reduction) comprising a headquarters with
17 people (hereafter called the “Shuhachi-bosaikai”)
and one or two representative members from every
chonai-kai (about 80 people), as illustrated in Fig. 9.
The jishubosai-soshiki in the Shuhachi community isa self-organized group for disaster prevention. It performs self-motivated disaster prevention activities in
the Shuhachi community. Members of the chonai-kai
are changed every one or two years according to chonai-kai rules. The Shuhachi-bosaikai has a partnershipwith the local fire station in the Shuhachi community.
These organizations jointly conduct and manage
general disaster prevention fire drills and night watch
activities in the locality.

Shuhachi Community
Shuhachi-bosaikai
The members
from chonai-kai

Jishubosai-soshiki
Fig. 9. The Shuhachi-bosaikai

Debating:

Add

A
C

A

C

B
D

Move

C

D

A
C

B D

D

4.2 THE SHUHACHI YONMENKAIGI
WORKSHOP
A Yonmenkaigi system workshop was conductedin the Shuhachi community in order to create an
implementable action plan for the “safety and security
mapping of the community.” Eight individuals fromthe Shuhachi-bosaikai participated in the workshop.
The workshop, which lasted three and a half hours,

A
D

C

D

B

B
Collaborate

A
B

ArrangeA

C

B

RenewalA

DeleteD

C
B

Fig. 8. Card movements during debating64

A COLLABORATIVE ACTION DEVELOPMENT APPROACH TO IMPROVING COMMUNITY DISASTER REDUCTION USING THE YONMENKAIGI SYSTEMS• There is a local fire station.
• The Shuhachi community has a large open areain the southern part that can serve as a temporary
evacuation area.
• The local community is active.
• Activities of the Shuhachi-bosaikai• We have many schools as evacuation sites.
O• The Shuhachi community plans to establish a committee to inventory warehouses for storing supplies
after a disaster• Awareness of disasters is growing among residents.

W• Narrow roads• Elderly single residents (800 households)• The difference in awareness depends on the chonaikai.
• We do not have a hazard map.

T
• Increase in apartment buildings• Our community covers the largest area in Nakagyo
Ward.
• Long distance from the north to the south• Traffic jams are terrible in the tourist season.

Fig. 10. Part of the SWOT analysis in the Shuhachi Yonmenkaigi workshop
was held in the Shuhachi community on January 26,
2008. In order to conduct the workshop systemically,
the facilitator (the first author) first introduced therules and method of the workshop to the participants.
To evaluate residents’ level of understanding andawareness of the present situation of the local community, residents, including members of the Shuhachibosaikai, chonai-kai, and local fire station, were asked
to complete a questionnaire from December 22, 2007,
to January 8, 2008. Sixty-five people completed thequestionnaire.
The results of the questionnaire helped the participants carry out a SWOT analysis of the Shuhachi
community, as illustrated in Fig. 10. From the SWOT

analysis, participants learned that the Shuhachi community did not have a hazard map of their community
or a local community housing map.
The participants decided that the theme/goal of
the workshop was to make security and safety mapsof the community and chose a one-year period as arealistic time frame to implement the plan.
Eight participants were divided into four groupsof two participants each to play the roles of management, PR & information, soft logistics, and hard logistics. As shown in Fig. 4, the functions of the fourgroups are top management, communication, humanresources, and physical resources for achieving thetheme/goal of the workshop determined earlier. The

Table 4. Timeline of the Shuhachi Yonmenkaigi workshop
Process
1 Guidance
2 Results of the questionnaire & SWOT
analysis
3 Yonmenkaigi Chart

Time allocated
20 min15 min45 min45 min4 Debating

40 min5 Presentation

20 min6 Questionnaire
Total time

10 min
195 minTime actually spent
21 min (13:24 〜 )20 min (13:45 〜 )90 min (14:05 〜 )Contents
How to use the Yonmenkaigi system
Reviewing information
Determining the theme/goal and assigning role-playing groups
22 min (15:35 〜 )Generating idea cards
Developing an action plan
40 min (15:57 〜 )Card movements in the Yonmenkaigi
Chart
13 min (16:37 〜 16:50) Reorganizing and presenting the collaborative action plan
20 min (18:00 〜 )Surveying opinions of participants
216 min(3 hours 36 minutes)

65

JONG-IL NA, N. OKADA, L. FANG

timeline of the Shuhachi-bosaikai Yonmenkaigi workshop is shown in Table 4. The time frames for theaction plan considered are within 3 months, within 6months, within 1 year, and beyond 1 year.
During the process of generating ideas and developing a collaborative action plan through using theYonmenkaigi Chart, some of the issues consideredwere as follows:
1) It was first determined that there is a need tomake a hazard map in the Shuhachi community.
2) The Shuhachi-bosaikai should explain the importance of making a hazard map to the Shuhachi
community and ask for the help of representative
members of the chonai-kai.
3) The Shuhachi-bosaikai recognizes that it does
not have enough resources to implement the production of a hazard map.
4) The Shuhachi-bosaikai should request the collaboration of other organizations in the Shuhachi
community to carry out this project at the community level.
5) Through this scenario-making process, theShuhachi-bosaikai recognizes the need for collaborative action in the Shuhachi community.

The following examples show changes to the action plan components proposed by the group playing
the role of management (the Shuhachi-bosaikai) after
debating, as illustrated in Figure 11.
1) Arrange—An action component card for thinking about the usefulness of the hazard map wasarranged from within 1 year to within 3 months
in the same group. The participants observedthat the Shuhachi-bosaikai should discuss why itneeds the hazard map in the Shuhachi community before actually producing it.
2) Add—An action component card for creating
education flip boards concerning the need for ahazard map was added as a new action plan component. The participants noted that the Shuhachibosaikai should make the education flip boards
for members of the chonai-kai as necessary inmaking the hazard map.
3) Move—An action component card for who willbe the main organization to make the hazard
map was moved to the group playing the role ofmanagement from the group playing the role of
PR & information. The participants noted the
Shuhachi-bosaikai should be the main organization to carry out the task of making the hazard
map.
4) Collaborate—The action component cards formarking fire extinguishers in the Shuhachi community and meeting with the Shuhachi schools
for the hazard map as well as seven other cards
were shifted to the border areas between thegroup playing the role of management and othergroups. The participants noted that the Shuhachi-

4.2.1 Debating
The participants created 78 action component
cards in the Yonmenkaigi Chart before debating. After
debating, the number of action components increased
to 99 cards, as shown in Table 5. Notice that thecards for collaborative actions are counted in each of
the collaborating groups. Therefore, these cards arecounted more than once.

Table 5. Action plan components before and after debating
PR & InformaHard logistics
Soft logistics (S)tion (I)
(H)
18
18
18
24
Changes to the action plan components after debating
1
0
1
4
2
3
0
3
1
1
0
0
9
8
4
5
8
15
16
18

Management (M)Before debating
Arrange
Add
Move
Collaborate
No change
Total numberof action plancomponents

21

27

21

66

30

Total number of
cards
78
6
8
2
26
57
99

A COLLABORATIVE ACTION DEVELOPMENT APPROACH TO IMPROVING COMMUNITY DISASTER REDUCTION USING THE YONMENKAIGI SYSTEM

bosaikai must work together with other groups
to perform these action components because its
own capacities are limited.

workshop, the participants were asked to fill out aquestionnaire. All eight participants returned thecompleted questionnaire. The questionnaire included
1) understanding of the Yonmenkaigi system and 2)
impact of the participatory workshop method. The
questionnaire results are summarized as follows:
1) I could understand the position of the othergroups through the exchange of roles.
2) The Yonmenkaigi system helped me identify
delicate matters.
3) I now know what we need to do and what weneed to consider, because we have discussed thisthrough oral and written communication using
the Yonmenkaigi Chart.
4) I realize that we have to express our ideas systematically by writing rather than by oral communication only.
5) It is basically the same as PDCA, but it is easy
to do.
6) I found that the different views on S (strengths)
and W (weaknesses) depend on different position in the same situations.
7) I think that the Yonmenkaigi system provides ameans to show that there are many views andmany ways to achieve a project.
To support comment number 5), Fig. 12 illustrates how the CAPD cycle method is incorporated
into the procedures of the Yonmenkaigi system.

Fig. 11. Changes to action plan components after debating in the Shuhachi Yonmenkaigi workshop

4.2.2 Action Plan Chart
The action plan chart was completed throughthe participants’ debating. Only some representative
action components of the action plan chart developed
during the Shuhachi Yonmenkaigi workshop areshown in Table 6.
4.2.3 Analysis and Discussion
On completion of the Shuhachi Yonmenkaigi

Table 6. Partial action plan chart from the Shuhachi Yonmenkaigi workshop
Within 3 Months
Opening the
Shuhachi-bosaikai
meetings

Within 6 Months
Within 1 Year
Beyond 1 Year
Management (M)Request for coopOpening theChecking and diseration from the
Shuhachi-bosaikai
tributing the hazard
Shuhachi community and chonai-kai meet- map
ings
PR & Information (I) Request to the
Recruiting volunContacting the mass Collecting opinions
Shuhachi community teers
media
after distribution
for help in making
the hazard map
Soft logistics (S)Cooperating with the Request for contents Town watching in
Joining thesurveyof the hazard map
the Shuhachi comShuhachi-bosaikai
munityHard logistics (H)Benchmarking theSurveying the con- Deciding on the con- Examining new
hazard map withtents of the hazard
tents of the hazard
education tools forother communities
map
map and the compa- disaster reduction
ny that will produce
the map
67

JONG-IL NA, N. OKADA, L. FANG

Plan

Plan

Do

(Yonmenkaigi Chart)(Debating)(Action plan chart
and Presentation)

Intra-group check(Before Debating)Inter-group check(During Debating)Announcement andCommitment

tation of activities by the Shuhachi-bosaikai haschanged. They planned and implemented a townwatching event for disaster prevention in the local
community for Indonesian officials of disaster prevention partly at the request of Kyoto University in
May 2008. The Shuhachi-bosaikai carried out the
town-watching event based on the action plan chartdeveloped in the Shuhachi Yonmenkaigi workshop, asshown in Table 6.
The Shuhachi-bosaikai opened its meetings andthen asked other organizations in the Shuhachi community to collaboratively participate in the townwatching event because it recognized the need for collaborative actions through the Yonmenkaigi system.
The Shuhachi-bosaikai rehearsed the town-watching
event with the local fire station, Shuhachi Elementary School, and Kyoto University and recorded an
English version of the presentation on education flip
boards for disaster reduction for the Indonesian officials. The Shuhachi-bosaikai also contacted themass media. As a result, the town-watching event was
actually carried out through the collaboration of the
Shuhachi-bosaikai, the local fire station, Shuhachi Elementary School, and the Shuhachi community. The
event was reported by a newspaper, Kyoto Shimbun.

Presentation

C1 for other groups

D1

A1
P1

D

A2 P D
2
2
Action Plan Chart
After
Debating
C2(Presentation)

Debating

C

D

A
C

D

A

P

P

Fig. 12. The CAPD cycle of intra-group and intergroup debating
The Yonmenkaigi system workshop completed at
the Shuhachi community demonstrates the following
two main ideas:
1) The participants have developed a sense of joint
ownership and recognized the critical value ofrole sharing to achieve effective collaborative
actions. They learned “on the job” through theinteractive communication that is systematicallyprovided by the Yonmenkaigi system.
2) The participants constructed an action plan formaking the hazard map suitable for the local
community through the cooperation of participants, without relying on the detailed advice andknowledge of experts and government for thedecision making required to carry out the goal.
As pointed out in Section 3.4, unlike other workshop methods, participants of a Yonmenkaigi workshop themselves determine the theme and scenariosof the workshop, assign roles of four aspects, and develop on their own an action plan to achieve the goal/
theme. However, we should note that much of thesuccess (or failure) of this workshop method depends
on the facilitation skill of the facilitator who has toclearly apply this workshop method. Participants require the guidance and advice of the facilitator, particularly when participants decide the goal and the roleof the four groups through SWOT analysis. The facilitation ability of the facilitator affects the results andthe processes during the phases of the Yonmenkaigi
workshop method. We discovered that the participants
did not have clear definitions for the scope of workof each role through the questionnaire and interviews
after the Shuhachi Yonmenkaigi workshop.
After this Yonmenkaigi workshop, implemen-

5. CONCLUSIONSA participatory workshop method called the Yonmenkaigi system has been presented as a method todevelop collaborative action plans at the community
level. A summary of several other workshop methods
is presented, and the current problem of participants
not going beyond the awareness stage in disaster prevention is identified. The Yonmenkaigi system and its
application to activities of self-governed community
associations for disaster reduction (jishubosai-soshiki)
are presented. Implementable action plans are developed by participants working in collaborative partnerships through the Yonmenkaigi workshop method.
The Yonmenkaigi system serves as a means to movefrom risk awareness to action plan development fordisaster reduction. Through this method, participants
have been shown to expand their capacities and tolearn the importance of collaborative action in disaster prevention.
The Yonmenkaigi system can enhance the understanding of participants. As a future research theme, it
68

A COLLABORATIVE ACTION DEVELOPMENT APPROACH TO IMPROVING COMMUNITY DISASTER REDUCTION USING THE YONMENKAIGI SYSTEM

Study on the Strategic Risk Communication Method

would be interesting to observe the actual actions andimplementation of disaster prevention activities in acommunity. For this purpose, research on how to systematically measure the effects of the Yonmenkaigi
workshop and how to analyze the changes is required.

for Disaster Reduction Oriented Community.” Annalsof the Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto
University, No. 51B, pp. 179-188 (in Japanese).
Na, J., Okada, N., and Fang, L., 2008b. “A Collaborative
Action Development Approach to Improving Local
Community Disaster Prevention Planning.” Book of

REFERENCES

Extended Abstracts, 27th Annual Conference of the Japan Society for Natural Disaster Science, Fukuoka, Ja-

Atsumi, T. and Seki, Y., 2008. “Village Revitalization
Process in a Mountainous Area after the Mid Niigata

pan, September 25-26, 2008, pp. 95-96 (in Japanese).

Prefecture Earthquake: (3) Communication in the Re-

Nitschke, G., 2003. “Street or Neighbourhood: Street-vitalization Process.” Book of Extended Abstracts, 27th

Perspectives on Asia.” Kyoto Journal, September, 55.

Annual Conference of the Japan Society for Natural

Okada, N., 2004. “Urban Diagnosis and Integrated Disaster

Disaster Science, Fukuoka, Japan, September 25-26,

Risk Management.” Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 49-54.

pp. 179-180 (in Japanese).

Okada, N. and Teratani, A., 2005. “The Yonmenkaigi Sys-

Government of Japan, 2008. The 2008 Disaster Prevention

tem, RIIM Report No. 5.” Research Institute of Infra-

White Paper, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese).
Hill, T. and Westbrook, R., 1997. “SWOT Analysis: It’s

structure Management, Japan Civil Engineering Con-Time for a Product Recall.” Long Range Planning, Vol.

sultants Association (JCCA), pp. 35-38 (in Japanese).
Okada, N., 2006. “Perspective on Integrated Disaster Risk

30, No.1, pp. 46-52.
Ichiko, T., Aiba, S., Yoshikawa, J., Nakabayashi, I., andManagement.” In Y. Hagihara, N. Okada, and H. Ta-

Takamizawa, K., 2005. “The Neighborhood Commu-

tano (Eds.), Introduction to Integrated Disaster Risk

nity-training Program for Post-disaster Recovery: To-

Management, Kyoto University Academic Press, pp.

wards Preparing Community-based Recovery Manage-

9-54 (in Japanese).
Seki, Y. and Atsumi, T., 2008. “Village Revitalization

ment.” Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Vol. 27,

Process in a Mountainous Area after the Mid Niigata

pp. 25-39.
Kikkawa T. and Yamori, K., 2006. “Development andPrefecture Earthquake: (4) ‘Participation’ by Residents

Implementation of CROSSROAD: A Training Toolin a Local Community.” Book of Extended Abstracts,for Disaster Preparedness and Response.” Japanese

27th Annual Conference of the Japan Society for Natu-

Journal of Risk Analysis, Vol.16, No. 2, pp. 39-45 (inral Disaster Science, Fukuoka, Japan, September 25-

Japanese).

26, pp. 181-182 (in Japanese).

Komura, T. and Hirano, A., 1997. “DIG (Disaster Imagina-

Tatano, H. and Kanda, M., 2008. “An Introduction to thetion Game).” Proceedings of the Annual Conference ofYonmenkaigi System, RIIM Report No. 6.” Research

the Institute of Social Safety Science, pp. 136-139 (inInstitute of Infrastructure Management, Japan Civil

Japanese).

Engineering Consultants Association (JCCA), pp. 3552 (in Japanese).

Komura, T., 2004. “DIG (Disaster Imagination Game) - The
Guidance for DIG Workshop in a Local Community.”

Tsubokawa, H., Tanaka, M., Hanashima, M., Nagasaka, T.,

Syobo-bosai [Firefighting and Disaster Prevention],and Ikeda S., 2008. “Study of Risk Communication us-

Vol. 10, pp. 92-102 (in Japanese).

ing Disaster Risk Scenarios - Case Study of an Earth-Matsuda, Y. and Okada, N., 2006. “Community Diagnosis

quake Disaster Risk Scenario Making Conducted withfor Sustainable Disaster Preparedness.” Journal of

the Participation of Fujisawa City Residents.” Report

Natural Disaster Science, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 25-33.

of the National Research Institute for Earth Scienceand Disaster Prevention, No. 72 (in Japanese).

Na, J., Okada, N., and Takeuchi, Y., 2008a. “Preparation69