Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 32, Number 1, 2010, pp23-38

Proposal of Regional Safety Factors for Balance in Risk- Response Ability of Local Voluntary
Disaster Prevention Organizations and Their Application to Sendai City, Japan
Takeshi SATO*
Satoru MASUDA**
Yoshiyuki MURAYAMA***
Akihiro SHIBAYAMA*
Masato MOTOSAKA*
Akira MANO**Disaster Control Research Center, Tohoku University, Japan**Graduate School of Economics and Management, Tohoku University, Japan***Faculty of Education, Art and Science, Yamagata University, Japan(Received April 10 . 2009 accepted March 15 . 2010)
ABSTRACTThis paper proposes an evaluation method of Regional Safety Factors (RSF) for local voluntary organizations to support their planning and measures for earthquake disasterprevention/mitigation. The RSF is defined as the ratio of the Emergency Response Potential
Ability (ERA) to Earthquake Disaster Risk (EDR) of each organization. Against the expected Off Miyagi Earthquake with Mj=7.9, which is one scale larger than the usual assumption
model with Mj=7.5, the proposed method is applied to all of the 1,391 organizations in Sendai City. First, based on the evaluated results, variance of earthquake disaster risk over thecity-region is clarified. Second, despite higher risks being expected in some organizations,most of their preparedness levels for emergency response were uniformly low. Therefore,
a strategy for disaster prevention promotion should be developed considering the spatial
risk differences. When a voluntary organization creates a community action plan and/or a
local government decides on a performance-based regional planning for earthquake disaster prevention, this proposed method can be expected with long-range monitoring and reassessments depending on the occurrence interval of the target earthquake scenario.
Keyword: Earthquake preparedness, Emergency response potential ability, Earthquake
disaster risk, Vulnerability, Regional safety factors, Local voluntary disasterprevention organizations

the occurrence probability of earthquakes on major
active faults and subduction-zones in Japan. The Off
Miyagi Earthquake with a magnitude of Mj=7.5±0.1(JMA scale) is one of the major earthquake scenarios
for Miyagi Prefecture whose occurrence probability

1. INTRODUCTION
Miyagi Prefecture is one of the most earthquakeprone regions in Japan. The Earthquake ResearchCommittee under the Japanese government evaluated23

T. SATO, S. MASUDA, Y. MURAYAMA, A.SHIBAYAMA, M. MOTOSAKA, A. MANO

suggest a limitation in the effect of the approach. A
new approach of interactive risk communication has
appeared recently. Masaki et al. (2005) and Matsuda
et al. (2006) applied the risk communication based oncommunity diagnosis in Japan. However, the settingof the evaluation indexes, scale of target areas andtechnical terminology vary according to the situationand disaster type. In any case, the incentive information should be utilized effectively to improve thevulnerability to earthquakes. In Japan, the percentage of neighborhood associations that have foundedvoluntary disaster prevention organizations is rapidly
increasing so that a simple and user-oriented method
and tools for the risk communication should be developed. The organizations are formed voluntarily basedon a sense of solidarity by a shared territorial bond.
The organizing ratio, which is the ratio of the number of households included in the organization to all
households, is 69.9% in Japan (2008). The number for
Miyagi Prefecture is 83.5%.
In this paper, the definition and an evaluation
method for the regional safety factors (RSF) of local voluntary disaster prevention organizations areproposed to support their planning and measures forearthquake disaster prevention/mitigation. As a concluding remark, strategic perspectives are expected to
improve the vulnerability for local voluntary disasterprevention organizations under time and budget constraints to prepare for the next earthquake occurrence.

within 10 years is around 70% based on the estimation on January 1st, 2009. Mj=7.5 events have occurred periodically at an average occurrence intervalof about 37 years. The most recent event with Mj=7.4
occurred on June 12th, 1978.
For all seats of the prefectural governments inJapan, The Earthquake Research Committee (2005)
expressed and compared the influences of different
types of expected earthquakes with tremors equal toor larger than a JMA seismic intensity of Lower 6
in the next 30 years. These results are calculated bythe ‘occurrence probability of an earthquake withina fixed period’ multiplied by the ‘probability that
tremors caused by the earthquake exceed a certain
intensity’. Then a summation is conducted over all
earthquakes. The result was published as the probabilistic seismic hazard maps by the committee. Sendai
City is the largest city in Miyagi Prefecture as theprefectural capital with a population of one million.
Sendai City has several earthquake scenarios. The
major earthquake scenarios are based on the Off
Miyagi Earthquake, the inland earthquake along the
Nagamachi-Rifu fault zone, earthquakes along unspecified active onshore faults and others. Amongthese earthquakes, the Off Miyagi Earthquake is themost influential and has a probability of 79%. The inland earthquake along the Nagamachi-Rifu fault zone
has the secondary influence at 17%. The influence ofthe remaining earthquake consists of only 4%. Sendai
City is highly influenced by the nearby seismic source
region of the Off Miyagi Earthquake, which has an
occurrence probability of higher than 99% in the next
30 years. Against these backgrounds, the Off Miyagi
Earthquake is the most important target scenario for
Miyagi Prefecture and Sendai City.
We conducted a questionnaire survey to grasp
the earthquake preparedness of residents in Miyagi
Prefecture focusing on the spatial difference of theearthquake disaster risk (Sato et al., 2005). As described later in Section 2, the low interest and poor
preparedness among the residents are clarified in spiteof the high probability of the target earthquake occurrence. In addition, the actual situation is such thatthe preparedness is not related to the difference ofthe earthquake disaster risk. The disaster prevention
administrator takes the conventional approach, which
is usually based on the risk message or the persuasive
one-way communication. But Kohiyama et al. (2004)

2. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY ON
EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS OFRESIDENTS IN MIYAGI PREFECTURE
2.1 Outline of survey
A questionnaire survey was performed fromMarch to June 2005 to clarify the present conditionof earthquake preparedness of residents in Miyagi
Prefecture. This work was supported by a Grant-in
Aid for projects that spread research regarding disaster prevention founded by the Japanese Ministryof Education, Science, Sports and Culture. Twelve
neighborhood associations in Miyagi Prefecture wereselected as investigational targets by considering thenumber of households and the different seismic risks
based on Miyagi Prefecture’s estimation of forecast
earthquake damages (2004). Three neighborhood associations were selected from each of the four major
24

PROPOSAL OF REGIONAL SAFETY FACTORS FOR BALANCE IN RISK

cities in Miyagi Prefecture: Ishinomaki, Ohsaki, Shiroishi and Sendai (Fig. 1). Upon the selection of threeneighborhood associations, the relative difference ofthe seismic risk was considered in each city. Table
1 shows a summary of the questionnaire survey ofeach neighborhood association and the physiographic
province as a determinant factor for seismic tremors.
The questionnaire sheets were distributed to all of

the member households of twelve neighborhood associations. Each respondent sent completed sheets bydirect mail to the author except the members of KM
Neighborhood Association in Ishinomaki. The total
average of the response ratio was 37.1%. The numberof responses from KM was especially high at 72.9%,
because the leaders of the association collected thecompleted sheets by hand voluntarily.

Table 1. Summary of questionnaire survey of residents
City

Ishinomaki

OhsakiSendaiShiroishi

Ave.

Neighborhood association

KM

TD

IZ

NK

NS

TK

NG

OK

KS

MN MD

FK

(a) Number of households

630

299

266

450

304

327

750

450

420

320

276

300

399

(b) Number of answers

459

86

107

143

99

84

243

141

170

164

84

80

155

Response Ratio (b/a %)72.9 28.8 40.2 31.8 32.6 25.7 32.4 31.3 40.5 51.3 30.4 26.7 37.1

Physiographic province

A, C

C

F

B

C

B

C

C

E

B

D

E

Notes: Mark of the physiographic province
A: Beach ridge, B: Natural levee, C: Backswamp, D: Mountainous district department land developed for housing, E: Terrace surface, F: Mountainous district
that there were no major differences of preparedness
for a major earthquake among the cities except for a
few specific neighborhood associations.
The Japanese Seismic Design Code for Housing was revised in 1981. Thus houses predating 1981
have become the targets of seismic diagnosis andretrofit. Although respondents who live in the houses
constructed after 1981 are included in the denominator, the consulting ratio of easy diagnosis at 6.0%
is extremely low. In actual fact, the grant-in-aid forseismic diagnosis of wooden houses is only covers
several hundred cases per year in Sendai City government. In addition, the target houses occupy 50% of
all building structures and amount to approximately
150,000 in Sendai. There remain many problematicalwooden houses in urban society and the pace of improvement is slow because such measures as retrofit
or rebuilding are costly.
The situation of concrete block walls is also
problematic. Sendai City government investigated thesafety level of stone and concrete block walls from1997 to 2000. The walls that needed to be repaired
and reinforced amounted to 42% of the investigated
22,851 locations (Sendai City, 2002). Although respondents who have safety walls are included in the
denominator, the ratio of taking countermeasures

OhsakiNS
TK

NK

Ishinomaki
TD
IZ

KM

Sendai
NG

KS
OK

FK
MD
MN
Shiroishi

Fig.1 Location map of four major cities in Miyagi
Prefecture( ★ : location of twelve neighborhood associations)

2.2 Results of survey
Table 2 shows the implementation ratio of threeimportant countermeasures to reduce earthquake disaster risk: 1) seismic diagnosis of wooden houses;
2) removal or reinforcement of block walls; and 3)
prevention of furniture overturning. It was confirmed
25

T. SATO, S. MASUDA, Y. MURAYAMA, A.SHIBAYAMA, M. MOTOSAKA, A. MANO

(removal or reinforcement of the walls) is only 7.0%.
Although fragile block walls were the most serious
factors causing human damage in the Off Miyagi
Earthquake in 1978, the stock of weak walls remains
problematic.
The implementation ratio for preventing furniture overturning is 36.7% on average. This level isequal to or slightly higher than the results in the capital region and Tokai region, which are expected to be
exposed to serious seismic hazards in Japan (Asahi
Inquiry and Research, 2005). The situation in Miyagi
Prefecture is not unique in Japan.
The willingness to cooperate in eight types of
emergency response immediately after an earthquake
disaster by residents in neighborhood associations isshown in Table 3. These operations may contributeto the mitigation of secondary or extended damage.
For example, the ratio of the residents who cooperate in the first aid treatment or rescue operation isapproximately 15% on average. But the residents
with a cooperative mindset do not necessarily havethe skill and knowledge to be able to get things done.
Every row in the table shows that the present situation of earthquake preparedness regarding emergency
response is insufficient in Miyagi Prefecture. The
cooperator ratio on supporting foreigners, row F, isthe lowest at 1.5% on average. It was clarified that theresults were almost the same regarding major earthquake preparedness in Miyagi Prefecture.

Table 2. Earthquake preparedness: countermeasures to reduce earthquake disaster risk
City

Ishinomaki

OhsakiSendaiNeighbor-hoodassociation

KM

TD

IZ

NK

NS

TK

NG

OK

A (%)

3.5

3.5

4.7

4.9

7.1

9.5

7.8

B (%)

6.1

7.0

6.5

4.9

9.1 10.7 11.9

C (%)

ShiroishiKS

Ave. SD

MN MD

FK

4.3 10.0

7.3

3.6

6.3

6.0

2.3

7.8

5.5

4.8

5.0

7.0

2.4

36.6 39.5 35.5 37.8 38.4 29.8 45.7 46.8 45.3 32.3 35.7 17.5 36.7

8.0

4.7

Note: Implementation ratio of the following measures to the total household in each neighborhood association
A: Seismic diagnosis of wooden houses, B: Removal or reinforcement of block walls, C: Preparedness of furniture overturning
Table 3. Earthquake preparedness: Willingness to cooperate in an emergency response
City
Neighbor-hoodassociation

Ishinomaki
KM

TD

IZ

OhsakiNK

NS

SendaiTKNG

OK

Shiroishi
KS

MN MD

FK

Ave. SDA (%)

10.7 14.0 21.5 12.6 18.2 21.4 13.2 15.6 11.2 16.5 14.3 16.3 14.1

3.6

B (%)

12.0 18.6 18.7 23.1 16.2 23.8 16.0 22.0 14.1 22.0 16.7 26.3 17.5

4.3

C (%)

10.2 18.6 16.8 18.2 19.2 19.0 14.4 23.4 10.0 20.1 11.9 25.0 15.6

4.8

D (%)

10.2 17.4 29.0 22.4 19.2 23.8 17.3 16.3 15.9 22.6 16.7 30.0 17.8

5.7

E (%)

6.5 12.8 20.6 17.5 17.2 14.3 10.7

8.5 10.0 12.8 14.3 15.0 11.7

4.0

F (%)

0.9

0.0

1.5

1.4

G (%)

20.9 30.2 37.4 32.9 33.3 36.9 24.3 27.0 24.1 31.7 29.8 43.8 28.1

6.5

H (%)

13.3 16.3 29.0 18.9 22.2 23.8 18.9 15.6 17.6 26.8 25.0 26.3 19.3

5.1

0.0

0.9

2.1

1.0

1.2

1.6

5.3

0.6

2.4

1.3

Note: Cooperator ratio of the following operations to the total residents in each neighborhood association
A: First aid treatment, B: Early fire fighting, C: Rescue operation, D: Instruction to refuge location, E: Collectionof damage information, F: Support for foreigners, G: Transportation of supplies, H: Administration of refuge location

26

PROPOSAL OF REGIONAL SAFETY FACTORS FOR BALANCE IN RISK

The relationship between physical preparedness
to reduce the earthquake risk and damage ratio (levelof risk) is shown in Fig.3. Figure 3 (a) indicates therelationship between the implementation ratio of
countermeasures for furniture overturning and theestimated overturning ratio. The ratio of furniture
overturning in every neighborhood association was
evaluated using the fragility function proposed by
Okada and Kagami (1991). Figure 3 (b) shows therelationship between the diagnosis ratio and the estimated damage ratio of wooden houses. Even if aneighborhood association is exposed to higher risk,
the level of the earthquake preparedness trying to reduce the earthquake risk itself does not increase andremains uniformly lower.
The present situation concerning major earthquake preparedness is not balanced with the disasterrisk estimated in the case of the Off Miyagi Earthquake scenario. The strategic reduction measures ofdisaster risk should be conducted in a cost- and timeeffectively to prepare for the next event occurrence.

2.3 Relationship between risk andpreparedness for earthquake disasterFor the purpose of discussing the relationshipbetween earthquake risk and preparedness, three
predicted damage ratios at the location of the associations are listed in Table 4 as the earthquake disasterrisk being faced by each of the twelve neighborhood
associations, based on the estimation of damages
for the Off Miyagi Earthquake scenario with Mj=7.9
conducted by Miyagi Prefecture government in 2004.
The difference of the risk in location ranges from 0%
to 30% in the case of the wooden house damage ratio.
The relationship between potential manpower
supply (human preparedness to cooperate) and demands for emergency response (damage ratios) are
shown in Fig.2. Figure 2 (a) indicates the relationshipbetween the cooperator ratio for rescue operation andthe estimated damage ratio for wooden houses; 2 (b)the cooperator ratio for first aid treatment and the estimated human damage ratio. Both of the cooperator
ratios are around 15% independent of the earthquake
disaster risk.

Table 4. Major estimated damages as earthquake disaster risk
City

Ishinomaki

Neighbor-hoodassociation

KM

Ohsaki

TD

IZ

NK

A (%)

29.5 35.0

5.5

2.7 14.1

Ave. SD

OK

KS

MN MD

FK

4.6 20.5

8.9

4.6

0.0

0.0

0.0 10.5 11.9

B (%)

77.1 77.5 32.7 34.6 62.7 49.6 61.1 53.9 33.0

0.3

0.3

1.1 40.3 28.3

C (%)

1.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.2

TK

Shiroishi

NG

2.0

NS

Sendai

0.8

0.2

1.0

0.4

0.2

0.5

0.6

㪌㪇㩼

㪌㪇㩼

㪋㪇㩼

㪋㪇㩼

㪊㪇㩼

㪊㪇㩼
㫆㫇㪼㫉㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅㫆㩷㫆㪽㩷㪽㫀㫉㫊㫋㫉㪼㪸㫋㫄㪼㫅㫋
㪉㪇㩼

Cooperative ratio

Cooperative ratio

Note: Damage ratio of the following items research on estimating earthquake forecasted damage for the Off Miyagi Earthquake scenario by Miyagi Prefecture in 2004
A: Wooden houses including collapse, heavily and moderate, B: Furniture overturning, C: Dead and injured㪚㫆㫆㫇㪼㫉㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅㫉㪸㫋㫀㫆㩷㫆㪽 㪉㪇㩼㫉㪼㫊㫈㫌㪼
㫆㫇㪼㫉㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅

㪈㪇㩼

㪈㪇㩼

㪇㩼
㪇㪅㪇㩼

㪇㩼
㪇㩼

㪈㪇㩼

㪉㪇㩼

㪊㪇㩼

㪋㪇㩼

㪌㪇㩼

㪇㪅㪌㩼

㪈㪅㪇㩼

㪈㪅㪌㩼

㪉㪅㪇㩼

㪛㪸㫄㪸㪾㪼㩷㫉㪸㫋㫀㫆㩷㫆㪽㩷㪿㫌㫄㪸㫅Human
damage ratio㪛㪸㫄㪼㪾㪼㩷㫉㪸㫋㫀㫆㩷㫆㪽㩷㫎㫆㫆㪻㪼㫅㩷㪿㫆㫌㫊㪼㫊
Damage ratio of wooden houses(a) Rescue operation(b) First aid treatment
Fig.2 Relationship between emergency response demand and human preparedness

27

㪉㪅㪌㩼

㪈㪇㪇㩼

㪌㪇㩼

㪏㪇㩼

㪋㪇㩼

㪍㪇㩼

㪊㪇㩼
㫀㫆㫅㩷㫉㪸㫋㫀㫆㫊㪼㫀㫊㫄㫀㪺
㪸㪾㫅㫆㫊㫀㫊
㪺㪿㪼㪺㫂 㪉㪇㩼Countermeasure ratio

Countermeasure ratio

T. SATO, S. MASUDA, Y. MURAYAMA, A.SHIBAYAMA, M. MOTOSAKA, A. MANO㪘㪺㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㫉㪸㫋㫀㫆㫋㫆㩷㫇㫉㪼㫍㪼㫅㫋 㪋㪇㩼㪽㫌㫉㫅㫀㫋㫌㫉㪼㫆㫍㪼㫉㫋㫌㫉㫅㫀㫅㪾
㪉㪇㩼

㪈㪇㩼

㪇㩼

㪇㩼
㪇㩼

㪉㪇㩼

㪋㪇㩼

㪍㪇㩼

㪏㪇㩼

㪇㩼

㪈㪇㪇㩼

㪈㪇㩼

㪉㪇㩼

㪊㪇㩼

㪋㪇㩼

㪌㪇㩼

㪛㪸㫄㪸㪾㪼㩷㫉㪸㫋㫀㫆㩷㫆㪽㩷㫎㫆㫆㪻㪼㫅㩷㪿㫆㫌㫊㪼㫊
Damageratio of wooden houses㪦㫍㪼㫉㫋㫌㫉㫅㫀㫅㪾㩷㫉㪸㫋㫀㫆㩷㫆㪽㩷㪽㫌㫉㫅㫀㫋㫌㫉㪼
Overturning
ratio of furniture(a) Furniture overturning(b) Seismic diagnosis
Fig.3 Relationship between risk and physical preparedness
The earthquake was a medium-sized, in-land type so
the damage did not extend to the entire area of Miyagi
Prefecture. The distance from the hypocenter to eachlocation of the associations is included in Table 5.
The distance decay on real disaster lessons is shownin Fig.4. While the information of the occurrence
probability of the Off Miyagi Earthquake had a uniform influence for Miyagi Prefecture residents, theinfluence of the real disaster lesson diminishes similar
to an exponential function in terms of distance fromthe focal point. This suggests that the utilization oflessons of real damage is not easy in a remote area,
where the amplitude of earthquake ground motion diminishes.

2.4 Distance decay effect on real lessons fromdisasterTwo good opportunities to start taking measuresfor preventing furniture overturning in Miyagi Prefecture were presented recently. Table 5 shows theinfluences of the events. One is the information disclosure of the occurrence probability of the Off Miyagi Earthquake scenario by the Earthquake ResearchCommittee (2005). Even though most of the residents
had known the information as one of the risk messages, only 30% of them were sufficiently influenced
to implement the countermeasures by the information.
The other is a real disaster lesson of the July
26th 2003, Northern Miyagi Earthquake with Mj=6.4.

Table 5. Effect of risk message and real disaster lesson
City

Ishinomaki

OhsakiSendaiShiroishi

Neighborhood
association

KM

TD

IZ

NK

NS

TK

NG

OK

KS

MN

MD

FK

Distance (km)*1

7.4

9.1

9.7

27.6

29.2

28.8

33.6

31.3

31.9

67.3

67.3

66.9

Ratio A (%)*2

62.5

73.5

60.5

42.6

55.3

52.0

20.7

22.7

29.9

24.5

16.7

21.4

Average (%)
Ratio B (%)*3
Average (%)

65.5
22.6

26.5
26.9

50.0
31.6

35.2

21.1
25.4

24.4
20.0

40.5

34.8
35.9

20.9
32.5

24.5

36.7

14.3

25.2

Note:
*1 Distance from hypocenter of the 2003 Northern Miyagi Earthquake with Mj=6.4*2 Influence ratio of the countermeasure implementation by disaster lessons*3 Influence ratio of the countermeasure implementation by risk message as earthquake occurrence probability

28

PROPOSAL OF REGIONAL SAFETY FACTORS FOR BALANCE IN RISK

3.2 Definition and evaluation of RSF(1) Regional safety factor: RSF
RSF for an arbitrary voluntary disaster prevention organization in neighborhood i on an arbitrary
point in time k is defined by the following equation.

㪈㪇㪇㩼

Influential ratio

㪏㪇㩼
㪍㪇㩼

㪠㫅㪺㪼㫅㫋㫀㫍㪼 㪋㪇㩼㫉㪸㫀㫆㫐㩷㪔㩷㪇㪅㪍㪐㪼㪄㪇㪅㪇㪉㫏

RSF (i, k ) =

㪉㪇㩼
㪇㩼
㪇

㪉㪇

㪋㪇

㪍㪇

㪏㪇

ERA(i , k )EDR(i, k )(1)

Where EDR (i,k) means earthquake disaster riskin the following Eq. (2), which is defined by the relative value normalized by the maximum value considering the location where each organization is located.
ERA (i,k) of each organization means the emergency
response potential ability in the following Eq. (3),which is defined as the earthquake preparedness levelnormalized by full score using the check sheet in the
APPENDIX.
Equation (1) is interpreted as follows. Earthquake disaster risk can be approximated by a productof the earthquake hazard and the vulnerability ofsociety to earthquake disaster. Vulnerability is evaluated as the reciprocal of the disaster resistance ability.
Therefore, RSF is replaced as the earthquake preparedness level as a product of the disaster resistantability and the emergency response potential ability ofthe organization㪈㪇㪇㪛㫀㫊㫋㪸㫅㪺㪼㩷㪽㫉㫆㫄㩷㪿㫐㫇㫆㪺㪼㫅㫋㪼㫉㩿㫂㫄㪀
Distance from hypocenter(km)Fig.4 Distance decay on real disaster lesson
3. ESTIMATION OF REGIONAL SAFETY
FACTORS FOR NEIGHBORHOODASSOCIATIONS
3.1 Fundamental concept of proposed method
The results of the previous chapter show low
interest and preparedness of the residents in spite of
the high probability of an expected earthquake occurrence. The limit in the effect of a mere risk message
such as earthquake occurrence probability is suggested. Strategies for disaster prevention promotion
should especially consider the spatial differencesof risk. If an effective disaster prevention strategy
based on the risk recognition is progressed, improvement of the vulnerability and the preparedness will
be requested in the region where the earthquake risk
is higher under budget and time constraints. Risk
communication is expected to be the most effective
method of improving the situation. In Japan where
local voluntary disaster prevention organizations arewidely established, an improvement method basedon a community action plan for earthquake disasterprevention/mitigation can be adopted. An evaluation method for regional safety factors (RSF) of theorganizations to support them in creating a plan andtaking measures for earthquake disaster prevention is
proposed. The RSF is defined quantitatively in detaillater as the ratio of the emergency response potential
ability (ERA) to the earthquake disaster risk (EDR)of each organization. If this proposed method withlong-range monitoring depending on the occurrence
interval of the target earthquake scenario is utilized
as incentive information to improve the vulnerability
for the community, we can expect a correction of theimbalance between the disaster risk and emergency
response ability.

(2) Earthquake disaster risk: EDR
EDR is defined as the following equation.

EDR(i, k ) =ª­ r (i, k , m ) ½ pº«®
» × 100 (2)
(
)
⋅
w
m
¾
r (m )max ¿»¯
m =1 «¬¼
M¦

Where i: the number of voluntary disaster prevention organizations in neighborhood, k: the numberof evaluation points in time, m: the number of a certain earthquake disaster risk factor, M: the maximum
number of m, r (i,k,m): the forecast damage ratio
regarding i, k and m, r (m)max: the maximum value ofr (i,m) in the target region on each m at k1 as the firststep of k, p: the strategy coefficient of EDR, w (m):the weight coefficient of m. The summation of w (m)is equal to 1.
The results of the estimated damage investigation for a major scenario earthquake by local government can be used as the risk information of Eq. (2).
As a result of the improvement of social vulnerability
to earthquake disaster, even if strong tremors struck
the organization, EDR could be lower.
29

T. SATO, S. MASUDA, Y. MURAYAMA, A.SHIBAYAMA, M. MOTOSAKA, A. MANO

much effort for the improvement, an organization
located in rank S is in the best condition to handle thescenario earthquake disaster. In the development of
the ranking system, the condition of B of the middle
rank was set at first. The RSF value 2.0, which is on
the border of rank A and B, means that rank A cannot
be realized in the case of an EDR value larger than
50 even if ERA has full scores. The improvement of
the vulnerability is required by all means to advancefurther the rank of RSF. Additional conditions concerning ERA in rank-S and A were subjectively determined.

(3) Emergency response potential ability: ERA
ERA is defined by the following equation.

ª­

q

º

a(i, k , n )ERA(i, k ) = ¦ «®
¾ ⋅ w(n )» × 100
a(n )max ¿»¯n =1 «
¼
¬
N

½

(3)

Where i: the number of voluntary disaster prevention organizations in the neighborhood, k: thenumber of evaluation points in time, n: the number ofa certain emergency response factor, N: the maximum
number of n, a(i,k,n): the preparedness score regarding i, k and n, a(n)max: the full score of a(n) by thecheck sheet in each n, q: the strategy coefficient of
ERA, w(n): the weight coefficient of n, with the summation of w(n) of 1.
The domains of the check sheet are classified
into four groups: knowledge, skill, resource and management. The original categories were proposed by
Takanashi (2000) as four factors to demonstrate emergency response potential ability by local voluntarydisaster prevention organizations. The expansion ofdamage and the occurrence of secondary damage are
reduced by attaining a higher level of ERA. A reasonable preparedness in building/developing the abilityof emergency response for the relief demand in higher
risk areas is required. In addition to the progress ofthe emergency response potential ability, the reduction of the earthquake disaster risk itself by improving
the vulnerability of society to earthquake disaster ismore important.

Rank
D
C
B
A
S

Table 6. Ranking of RSF
Conditions
0.0 ≦ RSF<0.5
0.5 ≦ RSF<1.0
1.0 ≦ RSF<2.0
2.0 ≦ RSF and 0 ≦ ERA<40
2.0 ≦ RSF<5.0 and ERA ≧ 40
5.0 ≦ RSF and 40 ≦ ERA<60
5.0 ≦ RSF and 60 ≦ ERA

100

S
80

A

B
RSF=ERA / EDR=80 / 37=2.2
C

ERA 50D(4) Ranking of regional safety factors
The ranking of RSF as shown in Table 6 isestablished to recognize the position of the organizations and monitor the changing of the condition.
An example of RSF evaluation is shown in Fig.5.
When a voluntary organization creates a community
action plan and/or a local government decides on
performance-based regional planning for earthquake
disaster prevention, this proposed method with longrange monitoring depending on the occurrence interval of the target earthquake scenario can be utilized.
The rules and condition of ranking were originallydesigned by the authors, while referring to the ranking method of the Building Environmental Efficiency(BEE) in the Comprehensive Assessment System for
Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE).
Ranking of five stages from S to D is proposed.
While an organization located in rank D requires

37

0
0

50

100

EDR

Fig.5 An example of RSF evaluation(5) Advancement degree and monitoring of
RSF
The advancement degree is defined by the following dual expression to monitor the changing of
RSF.

30

Į (i, k ) =RSF (i, k )× 100
RSF (i, k − 1)(4)

ȕ (i, k ) =RSF (i, k )× 100
RSF (i ,1)(5)

PROPOSAL OF REGIONAL SAFETY FACTORS FOR BALANCE IN RISK

An advancement degree α(i,k) is defined as
the ratio of the kth evaluation of RSF to one previous evaluation. Another advancement degree β(i,k)
is defined as the ratio of the present value of RSF forthe initial evaluation point in time. Higher values ofadvancement degree mean that the RSF value was
improved during the time to the scenario earthquake
occurrence. Increase in the social vulnerability or decrease in the emergency response potential ability ofan organization causes an advancement degree valueof less than 100%. The importance of advancing the
RSF value by performing periodical evaluation of
RSF and checking the achievement degree for thecommunity action plan by the organization is suggested.

studies by the author.
(2) Results of evaluation
The EDR frequency distribution at 20 pointintervals in each ward is shown in Fig.6. Sendai
City is composed of five wards: Aoba, Miyagino,
Wakabayashi, Taihaku and Izumi. Most of the area of
Miyagino ward and Wakabayashi ward is occupiedby swamp. For example, the accumulated frequency
up to 40 points reached 85% in Izumi Ward, while it
was only 15% in Wakabayashi Ward. The differenceof EDR in Sendai City can be recognized. To correct
the imbalance for earthquake disaster risk, it is suggested that a disaster prevention strategy considering
the spatial difference of the risk is important underbudget and time constraints. If an effective disasterprevention strategy based on the risk recognition isprogressed, the improvement of the vulnerability
and the preparedness will be requested in the regions
where the earthquake risk is higher.

4. APPLICATION OF RSF TO SENDAI CITY
4.1 Evaluation of EDR(1) Applicable condition
EDR is applied to Sendai City under the following conditions. The estimation results of earthquake
damage by local government are used as the risk information. In this paper, we use the earthquake-damage data forecasted for the Off Miyagi Earthquake as
the major earthquake scenario by Miyagi Prefectural
government in 2004. The factors of EDR were selected arbitrarily. For example, damage to building structure, indoor space, outdoor space and humans can beused as the major factors of EDR. The ratio of the collapse of wooden houses, the overturning of furnitureand the collapse of fragile stone and concrete block
walls is nominated as an important damage factor inJapan. The improvable factor by the neighborhood
association should be selected for earthquake disasterprevention planning voluntarily. While the humandamage depends on the previous factors, the ratio of
the casualties is nominated as an important factor fora neighborhood association. As the indicated numberof earthquake disaster risk factors, m was assumed to
be 4. The weight coefficient of m was simply set to be
one quarter.
Evaluation of EDR changes by selecting coefficient p. In the case of p <1.0, the result of severe evaluation is caused. The coefficient p is freely selected
depending on the strategy by local government policy
for earthquake disaster prevention. The coefficient p
was determined as 0.5 here from the former feasibility

Relative frequency
Cumulative
frequency curve⋧ኻᐲᢙ䋬⚥Ⓧ⋧ኻᐲᢙ

100.0%100.0%100.0%
100%

87.5%

80%
60%
40%
20%

14.3%

0%
0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100࿾㔡ἴኂ䊥䉴䉪(Points)
EDR (Points)

Relative frequency
Cumulative
frequency curve⋧ኻᐲᢙ䋬⚥Ⓧ⋧ኻᐲᢙ(a) Aoba Ward
90.8%

100%

98.9% 100.0%

80%
60%
31.6%

40%
20%

0.6%

0%
0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100
EDR (Points)࿾㔡ἴኂ䊥䉴䉪(Points)

Relative frequency
Cumulative
frequency curve⋧ኻᐲᢙ䋬⚥Ⓧ⋧ኻᐲᢙ(b) Miyagino Ward
98.5% 100.0%100.0%

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%

15.0%
4.5%

0%
0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100
EDR (Points)࿾㔡ἴኂ䊥䉴䉪(Points)(c) Wakabayashi Ward31

Relative frequency
Cumulative
frequency curve⋧ኻᐲᢙ䋬⚥Ⓧ⋧ኻᐲᢙT. SATO, S. MASUDA, Y. MURAYAMA, A.SHIBAYAMA, M. MOTOSAKA, A. MANO

for some organizations and an opinion exchange withdisaster prevention administrators were conducted as
the primary evaluation.
The sheet was distributed to every chief of anorganization in Sendai City in July, 2007. An outlineof the investigation is shown in Table 8. The distribution and collection of the sheets was adopted by direct
mail between the chief of each organization and thefire defense office of Sendai City. The response ratio
was 69.5%.

99.4% 100.0%100.0%

100%
80%

61.3%

60%
40%
20%

12.5%

0%
0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100
EDR (Points)࿾㔡ἴኂ䊥䉴䉪(Points)(d) Taihaku Ward
Relative frequency
Cumulative
frequency curve⋧ኻᐲᢙ䋬⚥Ⓧ⋧ኻᐲᢙ

100.0%100.0%100.0%
100%

85.8%

80%

Table 7. Activity level for the local voluntary disasterprevention organization

60%
40%

31.5%

Level

20%

1

0%
0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100

2EDR (Points)࿾㔡ἴኂ䊥䉴䉪(Points)

Relative frequency
Cumulative
frequency curve⋧ኻᐲᢙ䋬⚥Ⓧ⋧ኻᐲᢙ(e) Izumi Ward
97.9% 99.8% 100.0%

100%
80%

3

61.1%

60%

4

40%
20%

13.0%

0%
0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100

5EDR (Points)࿾㔡ἴኂ䊥䉴䉪(Points)(f) Sendai City
Fig.6 Frequency distribution of EDR

Concrete activity
The disaster prevention organization was established. The allotment of the role was decided.
The organization participates in the public activity
for earthquake disaster prevention.
The organization investigates the present condition
regarding local earthquake vulnerability voluntarily. Weak points and the theme of the organization
were clarified.
The organization conducts an investigation thatis more advanced and detailed than level 3. The
organization has been active in earthquake disasterprevention continuously.
The organization creates a community plan to improve the regional earthquake vulnerability voluntarily. The organization can confirm the achievement of the plan and reconsider the plan.

Table 8. Summary of questionnaire survey of the organization chiefs

4.2 Evaluation of ERA(1) Outline of investigation
The authors developed an original check sheet
to construct the data set of a(i,k,n) in Eq.3. The sheet
is composed of 32 check items, which are shown in
the APPENDIX. The cognitive level of earthquake
disaster risk is judged from the knowledge domain.
The higher score of the skill domain means that theorganization has sufficient ability to conduct rescue
operations and first aid treatment. The resource domain is composed of manpower supplies and usefulcooperators in an organization. The organizing ability
is evaluated in the management domain of planningand collaboration. The setting of the activity level ofthe organizations is summarized by a review and investigating the existing research in Table 7. The sheet
was amended and improved by the feedback froma pre-test respondent and a user. In the early stage
under consideration of the sheet, a test investigation

Ward

Number of
Number of
distriburesponses
tions
B
A

Ratio
B/A
(%)

Number ofeffective
responses
C

Ratio
C/B
(%)

Aoba

513

334

65.1

322

96.4

Miyagino

215

152

70.7

142

93.4

Wakabayashi

181

121

66.9

121

100.0

Taihaku

272

208

76.5

197

94.7

Izumi

210

152

72.4

138

90.8

Sendai

1,391

967

69.5

920

95.1

(2) Results of investigation
The highest ratio of positive responses among
check items was 79.6% for “Temporary refuge subspace was prepared in a community area.” The lowest
was 1.9% for “Emergency response training was performed in cooperation with medical facilities.”

32

PROPOSAL OF REGIONAL SAFETY FACTORS FOR BALANCE IN RISK

The average ratio of positive responses sortedby the level of check items on the sheet is shown in
Fig.7. The entire average of level 1 in Sendai City
was 55.8%. Because the decrease in the score is confirmed as the level progresses, the arrangement of thecheck items is suggested to be consistent and valid.

was decided as 1 from a feasibility study by the author. As the number of emergency response potential
ability factors, n was assumed to be 4. The weight coefficient of n was set to be one quarter as well as thecoefficient m.
25
Average=6.8
Averagescore(Points)(Points)ᐔဋᓧὐAffirmative answer ratio
ታᣉ࿁╵₸

100%
Average=55.8%
80%
60%

58.4%
47.3%

54.4%

59.5%

67.8%

40%
20%

20
15
10

THK

AOB MYG WKB

THK

IZM

Ward

IZM

(a) Knowledge(a) Level-1

25
Averagescore(Points)(Points)
ᐔဋᓧὐ

Average=5.0

100%
Affirmative answer ratio
ታᣉ࿁╵₸

6.6

0

Ward

Average=20.6%

80%
60%
40%
20%

7.6

7.4

5

0%
AOB MYG WKB

8.1

5.6

17.3%

23.7% 24.9% 22.0%

19.7%

20
15
10
5

4.5

5.9

6.3

AOB MYG WKB
THK

4.7

THK

IZM

0

0%
AOB MYG WKB

4.7

Ward

IZM

(b) Skill

Ward(b) Level-3

25

Affirmative
answer ratio
ታᣉ࿁╵₸

Averagescore(Points)(Points)
ᐔဋᓧὐ

Average=6.8
100%

Average=8.8%

80%
60%
40%
20%

7.6%

12.5% 9.7% 12.7% 12.3%

20
15
10
5.5

7.2

0
AOB MYG WKB

THK

9.0

5

0%
AOB MYG WKB

7.4

6.1

THK

IZM

Ward

IZM

(c) Resource

Ward(c) Level-5
Fig.7 Average response ratio of each level of check
items on the sheet

25
Averagescore(Points)(Points)
ᐔဋᓧὐ

Average=4.2(3) Results of evaluation
The average score of each of the four domains
with a maximum of 25 points is shown in Fig.8. The
average scores are equally low around 5 points (onefifth of the maximum points).
The evaluation value of ERA changes according
to the selection of coefficient q. In the case of q whichis larger than 1, a result of rather strict evaluation is
obtained. The coefficient q is freely selected like EDR
depending on the strategy by local government policy
for earthquake disaster prevention. The coefficient q

20
15
10
5

4.0

4.7

4.6

AOB MYG WKB

THK

IZM

3.4

4.8

0

Ward

(d) Management
Fig.8 Average score of each domain of ERA
The ERA frequency distribution at intervals of
20 points is shown in Fig.9. The organization with 80
points or more accounts for only 1% (seven organizations), while the organization with less than 40 points
33

T. SATO, S. MASUDA, Y. MURAYAMA, A.SHIBAYAMA, M. MOTOSAKA, A. MANO

80%

Relative frequency
Cumulative
frequency curve⋧ኻᐲᢙ䋬⚥Ⓧ⋧ኻᐲᢙ

97.9% 99.7% 100.0%

100%

87.4%
60.8%

Relative frequency
Cumulative
frequency curve⋧ኻᐲᢙ䋬⚥Ⓧ⋧ኻᐲᢙ

60%

47.4%

40%
20%
0%
0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100࿾㔡ἴኂኻᔕജ
(Points)
ERA (Points)(e) Izumi Ward20%
0%0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100(a) Aoba Ward
94.1%

100%
78.4%

80%
60%

98.7% 100.0%

47.7%

96.3% 99.3% 100.0%

100%

83.0%

80%
60%

52.3%

40%
20%
0%
0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100
ERA (Points)࿾㔡ἴኂኻᔕജ
(Points)

40%(f) Sendai City
Fig.9 Frequency distribution of ERA20%
0%
0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100

4.3 Evaluation of RSF
The RSF can be evaluated from EDR and ERA
by Eq.1. The results of RSF evaluation in each ward
are shown in Fig.10. The correlation coefficient of
EDR and ERA is extremely small because the coefficient is from -0.215 to +0.105.
The RSF frequency distribution at intervals of
20 points is shown in Fig.11. There is only one organization that achieves S-rank; on the contrary, D-rankorganizations occupy half the number of the 930
organizations in Sendai City. For the advance of the
RSF, the necessity of a disaster prevention strategy
considering the spatial difference of the risk is suggested under budget and time constraints. The evaluation result of RSF with long-range monitoring andre-assessments can be used as one of the risk communication tools for local voluntary disaster prevention
organizations.

ERA (Points)࿾㔡ἴኂኻᔕജ
(Points)(b) Miyagino Ward
Relative frequency
Cumulative
frequency curve⋧ኻᐲᢙ䋬⚥Ⓧ⋧ኻᐲᢙ

80.9%

80%

40%

ERA (Points)࿾㔡ἴኂኻᔕജ
(Points)

100.0%

95.0% 98.3%

100%

84.2%

80%
60%

46.7%

40%
20%
0%
0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100
ERA (Points)࿾㔡ἴኂኻᔕജ
(Points)(c) Wakabayashi Ward
Relative frequency⋧ኻᐲᢙ䋬⚥Ⓧ⋧ኻᐲᢙ
Cumulative
frequency curve

96.7% 100.0%100.0%

100%

60%

Relative frequency
Cumulative
frequency curve⋧ኻᐲᢙ䋬⚥Ⓧ⋧ኻᐲᢙ

Relative frequency
Cumulative
frequency curve⋧ኻᐲᢙ䋬⚥Ⓧ⋧ኻᐲᢙ

in the ERA accounts for 80% of the total. The unharmonious actual situation with the difference of the
EDR was confirmed (see Fig.6).

95.7% 99.0%

100%

100.0%

80.3%
80%
60%

49.0%

40%
20%
0%
0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100
ERA (Points)࿾㔡ἴኂኻᔕജ
(Points)(d) Taihaku Ward

34

PROPOSAL OF REGIONAL SAFETY FACTORS FOR BALANCE IN RISK( )䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎶

䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎤

䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎶

䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎥

䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎤

䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎥䎛䎓䎙䎓

ERA (Points)

䎛䎓

ERA (Points)

y g

䎔䎓䎓

䎔䎓䎓

䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎦

䎗䎓䎙䎓䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎦

䎗䎓䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎧

䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎧
䎕䎓

䎕䎓

䎓
䎓

䎕䎓

䎗䎓

䎙䎓

䎛䎓

䎓
䎓

䎔䎓䎓

䎕䎓

䎗䎓

(a) Aoba Ward䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎤

䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎶

䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎥

䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎤

䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎥䎛䎓䎛䎓䎙䎓

ERA (Points)䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎦

䎗䎓䎙䎓䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎦

䎗䎓䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎧

䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎧
䎕䎓

䎕䎓

䎓
䎓

䎕䎓

䎗䎓

䎙䎓

䎛䎓

䎓
䎓

䎔䎓䎓

䎕䎓

䎗䎓

䎙䎓

䎛䎓

䎔䎓䎓

EDR (Points)

EDR (Points)(b) Miyagino Ward
( )(e) Izumi Ward䎔䎓䎓䎔䎓䎓䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎶

䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎤

䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎶

䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎥

䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎤

䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎥䎛䎓䎛䎓䎙䎓䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎦ERA (Points)

ERA (Points)

䎔䎓䎓

䎔䎓䎓
䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎶

䎗䎓䎙䎓䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎦

䎗䎓䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎧

䎵䏄䏑䏎䎐䎧
䎕䎓

䎕䎓

䎓
䎓

䎛䎓

(d) Taihaku Ward䎔䎓䎓

ERA (Points)䎙䎓

EDR (Points)

EDR (Points)

䎕䎓

䎗䎓

䎙䎓

䎛䎓

䎓
䎓

䎔䎓䎓

EDR (Points)

䎕䎓

䎗䎓

䎙䎓

EDR (Points)(c) Wakabayashi Ward(f) Sendai City
Fig.10 Evaluation results of RSF

35

䎛䎓

䎔䎓䎓

96.3% 100.0%100.0%

100%

Relative frequency
Cumulative
frequency curve⋧ኻᐲᢙ䋬⚥Ⓧ⋧ኻᐲᢙ

Relative frequency
Cumulative
frequency curve⋧ኻᐲᢙ䋬⚥Ⓧ⋧ኻᐲᢙT. SATO, S. MASUDA, Y. MURAYAMA, A.SHIBAYAMA, M. MOTOSAKA, A. MANO

79.8%
80%
60%

53.7%

40%
20%
0%
D

C

B

A

S

96.6% 99.9% 100.0%

100%
75.9%

80%
60%

47.8%

40%
20%
0%
D

Relative frequency
Cumulative
frequency curve⋧ኻᐲᢙ䋬⚥Ⓧ⋧ኻᐲᢙ

100.0%100.0%100.0%

S

79.0%

80%
60%

5. CONCLUSIONS
50.3%

40%
20%

(1)

0%
D

C

B

A

S

(b) Miyagino Ward
Relative frequency
Cumulative
frequency curve⋧ኻᐲᢙ䋬⚥Ⓧ⋧ኻᐲᢙ

A

100%

RSF rank࿾ၞ㒐ἴജ䊤䊮䉪

98.3% 100.0%100.0%

100%

84.2%

80%
60%

55.0%

40%
20%
0%
D

C

B

A

S

RSF rank࿾ၞ㒐ἴജ䊤䊮䉪

(c) Wakabayashi Ward
Relative frequency
Cumulative
frequency curve⋧ኻᐲᢙ䋬⚥Ⓧ⋧ኻᐲᢙB(f) Sendai City
Fig.11 Frequency distribution of RSF(a) Aoba Ward

72.6%

80%
60%

(2)

97.0% 99.5% 100.0%

100%

42.6%

40%
20%
0%
D

C

B

A

(3)

S

RSF rank࿾ၞ㒐ἴജ䊤䊮䉪

(d) Taihaku Ward
Relative frequency
Cumulative
frequency curve⋧ኻᐲᢙ䋬⚥Ⓧ⋧ኻᐲᢙC࿾ၞ㒐ἴജ䊤䊮䉪
RSF rank

RSF rank࿾ၞ㒐ἴജ䊤䊮䉪

92.0%

100%
80%

100.0%100.0%

60.9%

60%
40%

32.6%

20%

(4)

0%
D

C

B

A

S

RSF rank࿾ၞ㒐ἴജ䊤䊮䉪

(e) Izumi Ward36

The main conclusions obtained are as follows.
Consciousness and actions of the residents in
Miyagi Prefecture, which will be struck by amajor scenario earthquake, were clarified by aquestionnaire survey. Low interest and preparedness of the residents was shown in spite of thehigh probability occurrence of the Off Miyagi
Earthquake. In addition, as for the situation ofearthquake preparedness, the difference of therisk depending on the location is not reflected.
Therefore, it is necessary to develop a strategy
for disaster prevention promotion considering
the spatial risk differences under time and budget
constraints.
The influence of real disaster lessons diminishes
the further the distance from the focal point. It
was suggested that the utilization of real disaster
lessons and the risk messages based on the scientific estimation is not quite as easy as everyone
had imagined.
An evaluation method for regional safety factors (RSF) of local voluntary disaster prevention organizations to support their planning andmeasures for earthquake disaster prevention/
mitigation was proposed by increasing the social
demand for interactive risk communication. The
proposal method was applied to all of the 1,391
organizations in Sendai City.
If this proposed method with long-range monitoring depending on the occurrence interval of
the target earthquake scenario is utilized as incentive information to improve the vulnerability
for the organizations, we hope to correct the imbalance for disaster risk.

PROPOSAL OF REGIONAL SAFETY FACTORS FOR BALANCE IN RISK

prevention policy of housing from the viewpoint of

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

risk communication effect, Proceedings of the 3rdThis work was supported by a grant-in aid for
projects to spread the results of research on disasterprevention, founded by the Japanese Ministry of
Education, Science, Sports and Culture. We thank themembers of the working group of the project.
Finally, we thank the residents of the twelve
communities and the chiefs of the local voluntary disaster prevention organizations in Sendai City.

annual meeting of Japan Association for Earthquake
Engineering, 82-83. (In Japanese)
Masaki, K. et al., 2005. Creation of karte for regional disaster prevention, Proceedings of the 24th annual meetingof Japan Society for Natural Disaster Science, 213214. (In Japanese)
Matsuda, Y. and Okada, N., 2006. Community diagnosis forsustainable disaster preparedness, Journal of Natural
Disaster Science, Vol.28, No.1, 25-33.
Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, 2008. A disaster pre-REFERENCES

vention white paper, 204 (In Japanese)
Miyagi Prefecture, 2004. Report on the third forecast inves-

Earthquake Research Committee and Headquarters fortigation of earthquake damage (In Japanese)

Earthquake Research Promotion, 2005. Regional char-Sendai City, 2002. Report on the forecast investigation ofacteristics of the probabilistic seismic hazard map,

earthquake damage (In Japanese)

Report: National Seismic Hazard Maps for Japan, 37-

Okada, S. and Kagami, H., 1991. Inventory Vulnerability

43.
Asahi Inquiry and Research, 2005. A national public opin-

Functions for Earthquake Damage Evaluation in terms

ion poll concerning earthquake preparedness, Report:of Intensity Scale of the Japan Methodological Agency,

AIR21, 177, 28-41. (In Japanese)

Journal of the Seismological Society of Japan (Second
edition), 44, 93-108. (In Japanese)

Sato, T. et al., 2005. An analysis of the situation of earthquake preparedness by Miyagi Prefecture residents

Takanashi, S., 2000. Problem of earthquake preparedness,based on a questionnaire survey, Proceedings of the

A Seminar for Earthquake Prevention, 85-89. (In Japa-

24th annual meeting of Japan Society for Natural Di-

nese)
Japan Sustainable Building Consortium, 2004. A Guide tosaster Science, 155-156. (In Japanese)

CASBEE, Nikkei BP, (In Japanese)

Kohiyama, M., Meguro K., Yoshimura M. and Anne S.
Kiremidjian, 2004. Evaluation of earthquake disaster37

T. SATO, S. MASUDA, Y. MURAYAMA, A.SHIBAYAMA, M. MOTOSAKA, A. MANOAPPENDIX: Check sheet to evaluate the emergency response potential ability for local voluntary disasterprevention organization■Level-1 (1 point each)
Check items
Local voluntary disaster prevention organization was established.
Members were decided in each specialized organization group.
Location of emergency response headquarters for the organization was decided.
Temporary refuge subspace was prepared in community area
Major routes to refuge location were decided
Usual activity as organization was performed periodically

Yes

No

Domain
[M]
[M]
[M]
[M]
[M]
[M]

Yes

No

Domain■Level-2 (2 points each)
Check items
Major members were dispatched periodically to emergency response drills by local
governments
Major members were dispatched to lecture classes or seminars for disaster prevention
Major member were dispatched to first aid treatment training by the Red Cross or fireadministration
Useful information for disaster prevention was supplied to households from the organization
Emergency response manual was prepared
Map for disaster prevention was drawn with hazardous information

[S]
[K]
[S]
[K]
[M]
[K]

■Level-3 (3 points each)
Check items
Forecast damage level in community area was recognized based on public research on
estimating earthquake damage
Map for disaster prevention was distributed to all households
Fire safety resources in community area were investigated
Water resources in community area were investigated for suspension of water supply
Emergency response training was performed without electrical supply
Dual system of night and day was prepared■Level-4 (4 points each)
Check items
List of people vulnerable to disaster was prepared in collaboration with social welfare
Rescue resources in an association were investigatedFirst aid treatment resources in the community area were investigatedResources for emergency response were inspected periodically
Useful persons as emergency cooperator with experience in nursing, radio operation,and so forth were investigated
Map for disaster prevention was renewed periodically

Yes

No

Domain
[K]
[K]
[R]
[R]
[S]
[M]

Yes

No

Domain
[M]
[R]
[R]
[R]
[S]
[K]

■Level-5 (5 points each)
Check items
Emergency response was conferred with medical facilities in a community area
Emergency response training was performed in cooperation with medical facilities
Information exchange was performed with other organizations
Agreement on emergency assistance was concluded with other organizations
Emergency response was conferred with corporations in a community area
Disaster prevention community plan was formed to improve fragility against earthquake disaster
Disaster prevention plan was distributed to all households
Achievement degree as contrasted with disaster prevention plan was checked periodicallyNote: Four domains in the sheet:[K]: Knowledge, [S]: Skill, [R]: Resource, [M]: Management

38

Yes

No

Domain
[M]
[S]
[K]
[M]
[M]
[M]
[M]
[M]