Tatsuki, S.

Review:

Long-term Life Recovery Processes Among Survivors of
the 1995 Kobe Earthquake: 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005
Life Recovery Social Survey Results
Shigeo Tatsuki
Professor, Department of Sociology, Doshisha Universty
Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto 602-8580, Japan
E-mail: tatsuki@gold.ocn.ne.jp[Received September 25, 2007; accepted December 4, 2007]

This paper summarizes findings from life recovery
surveys conducted in 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005
among 1995 Kobe earthquake survivors. The 1999
survey (N=915) developed some of the key scales forthe project, including life recovery, physical andpsychologicalstress,familyrelations,andcivic-mindedness. The 2001 study (N=1203)
integrated 1999 study findings and those from 1999
grassroots assessment of life recovery, from which aseven critical element model of life recovery wasconstructed. The effects of these seven criticalelements on life recovery were empirically tested andvalidated by general linear model (GLM) analysis.
The 2003 (N=1203) and 2005 (N=1028) studies focusedboth on life recovery outcomes and on intervening life
recovery processes. Structural equation modeling(SEM)
identified
causallinks
among
recovery-promotion factors, recovery processes suchas event impact stabilization, and event evaluation
through community empowerment, and recovery
outcomes. Event impact was a process through which
impact caused by earthquake damage, loss, and/or
stress was alleviated by housing, household finances,and stress management. Through event evaluation,social ties and community rebuilding efforts directly
or indirectly facilitated the reframing of earthquake
experiences into positive narratives. Research andpolicy implications of these findings are discussed in
the end.
Keywords: The 1995 Kobe earthquake, social survey,
long-term life recovery, GLM, SEM

1. Introduction
This paper summarizes major findings from theHyogo Life Recovery Survey Project, a series of four
consecutive cross-sectional social surveys, in order tostudy long-term life recovery processes among 1995
Kobe earthquake survivors. The first survey was
conducted in 1999, five years after the Kobe earthquake.
Questionnaires were repeatedly administered to those
who resided in the same 330 affected areas out of which
ten respondents were randomly selected each time in484

2001, 2003, and 2005.
The research framework evolved in three stages overthe project’s seven-year period. The first stage was
exploratory because no preceding long-term life
recovery model applicable to an urban mega-disaster(Kawata, 1995 [1]) existed either nationally orinternationally. The first survey, administered in March
1999, was designed to develop several key scales that
could be repeatedly used in subsequent surveys. Amongthese measures, an important development was that oflife recovery, which was designed to quantify thedependent variable for the project. The 1999 survey also
examined demographic, disaster impact, and social
characteristics of those who showed a higher level of life
recovery (Tatsuki and Hayashi, 2000 [2]). The second
stage integrated findings from the 1999 study and fromthe grassroots assessment workshop on life recovery
conducted in summer 1999 (Tatsuki and Hayashi, 2001[3]); refer also to the article by Tamura in this issue).
Based on these findings, the seven critical element
model of life recovery was constructed. This model
guided research framework building for the 2001 Hyogo
Life Recovery Survey. The third stage refined theresearch strategy that was then used in the 2003 and2005 surveys. These two surveys focused on both life
recovery outcomes and intervening life recovery process
variables. The 2003 survey resulted in the constructionof the long-term life recovery process and outcome
model from a mega-disaster (Tatsuki et al, 2004 [4]).
The 2005 survey together with the 2003 and 2004
grassroots assessment workshops conducted in Kobe andsouthern Hyogo areas (Tatsuki, 2004 [5]) confirmed, ingeneral, both internal and external validity of the final
life recovery process and outcome model.

1.1. Preceding Studies on the Recovery Process inJapan and the US
Based on ethnographic interviews (cf., Shigekawa
and Hayashi, 1997 [6]) of Kobe earthquake victims in
Nishinomiya, Aono, Tanaka, Hayashi, Shigekawa, andMiyano (1998 [7]) found three distinctive timeframes invictim disaster response behavior. This provided thebasis for subsequent quantitative analysis that
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.2 No.6, 2007

Long-term Life Recovery Processes Among Survivorsof the 1995 Kobe Earthquake

incorporated the “normalcy-to-disaster-to-recovery”
pattern model using macro level time-series statistics
such as regional power consumption (Takashima andHayashi, 1999 [8]) and Kobe city monthly reports onhousehold and socioeconomic activity statistics(Karatani, Hayashi, and Kawata, 2000 [9]).
Webb, Tierney, and Dahlhamer (2000 [10])summarized results from four large cross-sectional
post-event sample surveys on short- and long-termbusiness recovery after major disasters such as the Loma
Prieta earthquake in 1989, Hurricane Andrew in 1992,
Midwest floods in 1993, and the Northridge Earthquake
in 1994. They observed differential impacts uponbusiness recovery due to disaster severity, business size,
the degree of operational problems such as disruptions in
supply, and employee-related problems, and damage tothe surrounding areas that provide the business customer
base.
Based on numerous longitudinal/ethnographic
interviews with disaster-hit small business owners andNGO leaders, Alesch, Holly, Mittler, and Nagy (2001)[11] pointed out the five most critical variables forlong-term recovery: a) the disaster’s impact on theorganization’s clientele; b) the availability of convenient
substitute goods or services; c) pre-disaster major trends
in the organization’s industry, and the individualorganization’s position in relation to these trends; d) the
extent of financial resources lost by the organization; ande) the owner/operator’s ability to adapt to the new
business environment. These points appear to correspondclosely to those reported by Webb et al. (2000). Alesch etal. (2001) [11] noted common narratives repeated during
interviewers across different disaster sites. These
included misplaced confidence, an illusion of security, afeeling of helplessness to change outcomes, a continuingnightmare, self-imposed limits on recovery efforts,
imprudent use of financial resources, failure to discernchanges in customer bases, an assumption thatcircumstances would return to normal, special impact onretirement age people, and a lack of short-term help.
These common narratives appeared to reflect victims’view of reality and the outside world, which in return
may have strongly influenced what they did or did not do(see also Alesch, 2001 [12] and Alesch and Holly, inpress [13]) .
Although the above studies appear to reflect thecurrent state of the art on the study of long-term recovery
in Japan and the US, they do not appear to have fully
responded to and/or solved some of the research issues
raised at the 1996 Boulder workshop session “What is
known and trends for improving recovery andreconstruction following disasters,” in which Joanne
Nigg, Trish Bolton, Claire Rubin, and Phil Berkeparticipated as panelists. Dennis Wenger, whomoderated the session, summarized the discussion as
follows: a) There exists a “need to shift theconceptualization of recovery from linear andoutcome-based to seeing it as an ongoing and long-term
process;” b) antecedent recovery studies tend to be
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.2 No.6, 2007

“overly descriptive, fragmented, and short-termoriented;” c) not much attention has been paid to link adisaster response phase to a recovery phase; and d) more
research is needed to understand the long-term effects ofdisaster recovery (Wenger, Rubin, Nigg, Berke, andBolton, 1996 [14]).
1996 Boulder workshop session participants agreed
that an attempt should be made to overcome “overly
descriptive, fragmented, and short-term oriented” studies
by incorporating large systematically sampled surveys.
The aforementioned quantitative studies (e.g., Webb,
Tierney and Dahlhamer, 2000 [10]) are cross-sectional,
linear, and outcome-based at best, and thus do not fully
pay attention to ongoing recovery processes. In
comparison, long-term, longitudinal, and ethnographic
studies on disaster victims provided rich insights about
recurring themes (e.g., Shigekawa and Hayashi, 1997[6]; Aono, Tanaka, Hayashi, Shigekawa and Miyano,
1998 [7]); Alesch and Holly, in press [13]). Theirinsights have not yet been fully verified by either
long-term large sample surveys or by those based on
individual as opposed to aggregate data sources.

2. 1999 Study
The 1999 Hyogo Life Recovery Survey aimed to
identify determinants of changes in residence and life
reconstruction among 1995 Kobe earthquake victims.
Based on findings from preceding ethnographic research(Aono, Tanaka, Hayashi, Shigekawa, and Miyano, 1998[7]; Tanaka, Aono, and Hayashi, 1998 [15]; Tanaka,
Hayashi, and Shigekawa, 1999 [16]), the questionnaire
was designed to inquire about residence locations,sources of help, a sense of civic-mindedness, and family
relations at the 10th, 100th, and 1000th hour and at six
months after the earthquake. These time points wereconsidered to correspond to critical boundaries thatsegmented phases of disaster victims’ behavior. For
details on residence relocation patterns and theirdeterminants, see Kimura’s article in this issue.
Regarding the purposes of the current paper, the 1999
study should be noted as the first attempt to construct
standardized measures of life recovery, physical andmental stress, civic-mindedness, and family relations.
These measures were to be repeatedly used in the threesubsequent surveys.

2.1. Methods
2.1.1. Respondents
A random sample mail survey was conducted on
3,300 earthquake victims who experienced severe life
difficulties due to the 1995 Kobe earthquake. The
sample was divided into two groups. One consisted ofthose who stayed within Hyogo prefecture: 2,500 Hyogo
residents were sampled from 250 randomly selected
points with a seismic intensity of 7 and/or with a more
485

Tatsuki, S.

Fig. 1. Dual Scaling analysis of 1999 study civic-mindedness scale items.

than two month cutoff from the city gas supply. The
other group consisted of those who left Hyogo
prefecture: 800 Hyogo residents who left the prefecture
were randomly selected from the subscribers’ list for a
Hyogo Government newsletter aimed at Hyogo victims
leaving the prefecture. 3,300 questionnaires were mailed
at the beginning of March 1999 and 993 (683 Hyogo and313 Hyogo residents who left the prefecture) werereturned by the end of March. Of these, 915 responses(623 or 25.7% from Hyogo and 292 or 37.1% fromoutside of Hyogo) were valid.
2.1.2. Instruments
Based on findings from preceding ethnographic
research, the questionnaire was designed to inquire aboutlife environments at the 10th, 100th, and 1000th hourand month 6 after the earthquake. These time points were
found to correspond to critical boundaries thatsegmented phases of disaster victim behavior (Tanaka,
Hayashi, and Shigekawa, 1999 [16]). The questionnaire
included the following four scales that measured family
functioning,
civic-mindedness,
physicalandpsychological stress, and life recovery.
The family functioning scale is a 16-item Thurstonescale, which measures the two critical dimensions offamily relations, family adaptability and cohesion(Olson, Russell, and Sprenkle, 1979 [17]; Tatsuki, 1999[18]). Family adaptability is defined as a family system’s
486

ability to change its power structure, role relations, andrelationship rules in response to situational anddevelopmental stress. Family cohesion is the emotionalbonding that family members feel to each other.
Normally, moderate family adaptability and cohesion is
optimal; too much or too little is considereddysfunctional. However, Families are known to become
extreme on either dimension in order to adjust to crisis
situations.
The civic-mindedness scale is a 20 question
trichotomous instrument that measures self-governanceand community solidarity. This scale was specificallydeveloped for the 1999 study based on conceptual
clustering of the preceding literature on civil society andcivic-mindedness (Rousseau, 1913/1762 [19]); Kline,
1994 [20]); Burchell, 1995 [21]). Each dimension isbipolar. The self-governance dimension contrasts
valuation based on internal criterion (self-governance)with that based on external/societal criterion. The
community solidarity dimension contrasts cooperation(community solidarity) with non-cooperation. For eachof 20 items, respondents chose one of the bipolar options
on either dimension or a neutral answer (“cannot decide
either”).
The physical and psychological stress scale consistsof 6 physical and 6 psychological stress items selectedfrom 111 stress symptom items part of the 1995 JapanRed Cross Stress Study (Hayashi, Nishio, Sugawara,
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.2 No.6, 2007

Long-term Life Recovery Processes Among Survivorsof the 1995 Kobe Earthquake

Fig. 2. Changes in civic-mindedness pre- & postearthquake: Results from the 1999 Hyogo life recovery
survey (1) (N=993).

Fig. 3. Level of civic-mindedness by degree of recovery:
Results from the 1999 Hyogo life recovery survey (2)(N=993).

Monma, Kohno, Makishima, Numata, and Nemoto, 1996[22]). Factor analysis with a varimax rotation of these 12
items in original Japan Red Cross Study data showed aclear two factor simplex structure with psychologicalstress on the first factor and physiological stress on thesecond.
The life recovery scale is a 14 item 5-point Likert
scale that asks subjective evaluations of life fulfillment
compared to pre-earthquake days, life satisfaction, andfuture prospects. 7 items ask the degree of life fulfillment
in such areas as daily living, work, the meaning of life,social life, enjoyment, hope, and liveliness of everyday
life. 6 life satisfaction items inquire about satisfaction in
everyday life, health, human relationships, household
finance, family life, and work. One item was used to ask
about prospects in the respondent’s life one year fromnow.

weights for the second (horizontal axis) and the third(vertical axis) solutions. The second solutiondifferentiatedbetweencommunity
solidarity/
cooperation (left) and non-cooperation (right)
orientation. The third solution differentiated between
external/societal-criterion-based
(top)
and
selfgovernance (bottom) valuation.
Based on these two axes, items were clearly grouped
into four quadrants. The first quadrant or the top rightcorner was termed self-centeredness, which wascharacterized by high non-cooperation and high external
criterion-based valuation. Self-centeredness items
included such wording as “respect my own rights before
anything else,” “blame someone else for misfortune,”“converse with friends at public speeches,” and “don’t
mind preferential treatment for my benefit.”
While self-centeredness depends on others to feelbetter or one-up on others, narcissistic egoism (bottom
right quadrant) depends on the individual’s value system
alone. Narcissistic egoism items included such wording
as “sometimes do not keep promises,” “won’t follow
rules if I don’t like them,” and “avoids hardship if
possible.”
The top left quadrant was termed conformity/
obedience, characterized by high community solidarityand high external/societal valuation. Conformity/
Obedience items included such wording as “don’t like totell a lie,” “keep my word,” “follow rules even if I don’t
like them,” and “hardship is a challenge.”
In contrast to conformity/obedience, civicmindedness, in the bottom left quadrant, wascharacterized by high self-governance and highcommunity solidarity. Civic-mindedness items included
such phrases as the following:Self-governance
1. Am not overjoyed with good luck
2. I restrain myself from shameless acts
3. I try to be calm if someone upsets me
4. Balance is important when fulfilling desire
5. I take care of myself
6. I try to keep my word
Community Solidarity
1. I collaborate with others to solve problems

2.2. Results
Family Relations. During an emergency, familysystem adjustment to earthquake turmoil wascharacterized by closer family ties (high familycohesion) and by clear parental leadership (i.e., lowfamily adaptability). The majority of families, however,
did not stay at the same level and returned to a morebalanced level between 1,000 hours and month 6:
Respect for individuality and autonomy (i.e., lowered
cohesion) and for more democratic leadership structure(i.e., more balanced adaptability) were recovered.
Families that reported a balanced level of cohesion andadaptability during recovery were the most functional inpromoting individual recovery and in alleviating stress.
For details on findings, see Tatsuki and Hayashi (2000[2]).
Adaptive construction of new reality: A rise of
civic-mindedness. Dimensions of a civic-mindedness
scale. In order to identify basic dimensions ofcivic-mindedness, 20 trichotomous questions wereasked. Dual scaling analysis (Nishisato, 1980 [23]) was
conducted on responses to these questions. The mostdominant solution was a pattern of “cannot decide
either” and second and third response patterns were used
for further analysis. A scattergram (Fig. 1) displays item
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.2 No.6, 2007

487

Tatsuki, S.

Fig. 4. Seven critical elements for life recovery (Jul. to Aug., 1999).

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

I respect others’ rights
I listen to public speeches quietly
I do unto others as I would have done to me
I initiate conversations with neighbors
I take responsibility for consequences

Reflection on pre- to post-earthquake changes incivic-mindedness. Respondents were requested toevaluate their sense of civic-mindedness before and after
the earthquake. Responses from the 6 self-governanceand 6 community solidarity items above were added andscores obtained, respectively. Fig. 2 indicates that bothself-governance (left) and community solidarity (right)
scores increased from pre- to post-earthquake occasions.
Note that although separate scores were obtained fromeach of the other three quadrants of self-centeredness,
narcissistic egoism, and conformity/obedience, noapparent change was observed from pre- topost-earthquake times among these scores. The adaptive
nature of the changed worldview on society is detailed inFig. 3, which shows that those who reported highcivic-mindedness (a sum of self-governance andcommunity solidarity scores) post-earthquake tended torecover better from the disaster (left) and were lessstressed (right) than those who reported low
civic-mindedness. These findings suggest thatearthquake disaster experience caused many survivors tochange their internal value system, that they constructed
a new civic-minded worldview as a result of adaptation
to a new environment, and that these changes incivic-mindedness were responsible for elevating boththeir subjective evaluation of life recovery and theircoping with life stressors.
The 1999 Life Recovery Survey was exploratory anddevelopmental in nature. Four sets of scales developed
showed empirical evidence for continued use. An
operational measure of life recovery was developed first,
488

involving a 14-item life recovery scale covering three
related but conceptually different areas – a level of life
fulfillment compared to pre-earthquake, life satisfaction
in current daily life, and prospects. This scale wasrepeatedly used in the three subsequent surveys as adependent/criterion measure. A Japanese version of
Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scaledemonstrated predicted relations with individual life
recovery: Those who enjoyed functional family
relationships showed significantly higher life recovery.
Third, a physical and mental stress scale developed
demonstrated clear relations to both life recovery andfamilyfunctioning.
Fourth,aconceptofcivic-mindedness was constructed as a predictor of life
recovery and its operationalized measure was developed.
The 1999 survey found a rise in civic-mindedness
among people from pre- to post-earthquake. Those highin self-governance and/or solidarity, two dimensions ofcivic-mindedness, reported higher life recovery andlower physical or mental stress (Tatsuki and Hayashi,
2000 [2]).

3. 2001 Study
The research frame development for the 2001 study
was guided by 1999 study results and by findings thatwere obtained through a series of grassroots stakeholder
assessment workshops on life recovery conducted during
summer 1999 (Kobe City Research Committee on
Disaster Recovery, 2000 [24]); Tatsuki and Hayashi,
2001 [3]). The assessment identified major factors
determining life recovery among those who experienced
damage and loss during and after the 1995 Kobe
earthquake. Residents from all of Kobe’s nine wards andthree special interest groups provided assessments of life
recovery at grassroots workshop sessions. This yielded
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.2 No.6, 2007

Long-term Life Recovery Processes Among Survivorsof the 1995 Kobe Earthquake

Table 1. Overview of 2001 study independent and dependent scales.

1,623 opinion cards which were taken back to thelaboratory, where conceptual clustering was attempted,
creating seven mutually exclusive supercategories –housing, social ties, community rebuilding, physical andmental health, preparedness, economic and financial
situation, and relation to government.
Eachsupercategory was divided into subcategories evaluatedon two dimensions: whether they refer to an individual
or a community as a whole and whether it was recoveredor more work was needed. Fig. 4 shows color-coded
assessment results for subcategories within eachsupercategory or life recovery element. For details on
the 1999 grassroots assessment workshop, see Tamura’s
article in this issue.
The 2001 study aimed to develop valid and reliable
scales for the seven critical life recovery elements. The
scale construction strategy was guided by elaborating
which subcategories were judged to be “more workneeded” within each supercategory. “Number one
priority,” for example, was placed to solve issues related
to housing. Relocation experience due to the earthquake
was used as a measure of housing. Because more work
was needed to empower self-governance and solidarity
in social ties, further item selection and refinements wereattempted in the 1999 study product civic-mindedness
scale. For data analysis, the 2001 study conducted ageneral linear model or GLM analysis to determine
which variables or what combinations of variables best
predicted life recovery outcome among citizens.

3.1. Methods
3.1.1. Respondents
In January 2001, 3,300 questionnaires were mailed toadults over the age of 20 who resided in the
Kobe-Hanshin region at the time of the 1995 Kobe
earthquake, and 1,203 valid responses were returned(36.5%). It had been intended that the same respondents
who participated in the 1999 survey would again be
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.2 No.6, 2007

studied in the 2001 survey, but due to confidentiality
requirements by the Hyogo Prefecture government
commissioning the four consecutive surveys, it became
clear that mailing new questionnaires to the same
respondents would violate the prefecture’s privacy
protection policy because of the lack of signed consent
from 1999 survey participants. For the 2001 survey, ten
new respondents were sampled from each of the same
250 research points that the 1999 study used, and 80
extra points in the Northern and Western wards of Kobe
were included. These two wards were the only two out ofnine wards not surveyed in the previous 1999 survey.
Residents at these new points did not experience asdevastating an earthquake impact as residents at theother 250 points, but suffered from the same degree ofsocioeconomic impact as those residing in the rest of theKobe-Hanshin region. Like the other 250 points, ten
respondents were randomly selected from each of the
new 80 points. Efforts were also made to ensure a genderbalance. The 1999 study surveyed heads of households.
This caused the sample to be unequally male-dominatedin the 1999 study data. The 2001 survey targeted men
and women over the age of 20 to ensure a genderbalance.
3.1.1. Instruments
The 1999 grassroots assessment proposed sevencritical elements that determined life recovery among
Kobe earthquake survivors.
Scales/items wereconstructed to capture each of these elements. These
scales/items were designed as predictor variables in
research design. For the criterion/dependent variable, thelife recovery scale constructed in the 1999 survey wasused for the current study (Table 1).
Life Recovery. The life recovery scale consists of 14
five-point Likert scale items that asked about 1) the
fulfillment of daily activity, social relationship,subjective well-being compared to pre-earthquake days
(7 items); 2) life satisfaction (6 items); and 3) one year489

Tatsuki, S.

prospect (1 item). These 14 items were originallydeveloped in the 1999 Kobe survey and showed
unidimensionality with high reliability (Cronbach’s
alpha was .91) (Tatsuki and Hayashi, 2000 [2]).
Housing. A measure of housing for the 1999 study
was whether respondents experienced relocation due toearthquake damage. It was postulated that relocation
made housing one of the most important critical elementsin the 1999 grassroots assessment workshop. The study
prepared other measures for housing, including how
settled respondents felt at their places, types of current
housing, and the structure of housing units. It became
evident in GLM analysis that relocation experience wasone of the best housing element indicators and the rest
did not provide much empirical support to qualify themfor housing variables.
Social Ties. The civic-mindedness scale is an 8
question
dichotomous
instrument
measuringself-governance and community solidarity. This scale
was originally developed for the 1999 study and wasbased on conceptual clustering of preceding literature on
civil society and civic-mindedness (Tatsuki and Hayashi,
2000 [2]). The scale’s content dimensions were thenqualitatively cross-validated by the 1999 grassroots
assessment workshop on life recovery. For the 2001
study, 8 items were further selected from the original 20
item civic-mindedness scale based on face validity
analysis of original items. Changes were also made fromtrichotomous to dichotomous response options. A neutral
answer option (“cannot decide either”) was excluded in
the hope for controlling response biases toward moderateanswers. Each dimension is bipolar. The self-governancedimension contrasts a strong sense of individuality/
self-control (self-governance) with a weak sense ofindividuality/self-control. The community solidarity
dimension contrasts cooperation (community solidarity)with non-cooperation. For each of the 8 items,
respondents chose one of the bipolar options for either
dimension.
Four items were prepared to ask the level ofcommunity participation. One yes-no answer item asked
about participation in neighborhood clubs andassociations. Three items questioned the degree of
involvement in neighborhood events such as festivals
and sports days on a 3-point (always, sometimes, never)
Likert scale.
Two items measured the degree of social trust, whichenables a person to go beyond personal boundaries andcommunicate with strangers. These items were “Mostpeople are trustworthy” and “Other people may exploit
me if I am not careful (reverse item).” These two yes-no
items were selected from general social trust scale asreported by Yamagishi (1998) [25].
FACESKGIV-16, a measure of family functioning
constructed for the 1999 study (Tatsuki and Hayashi,
2000 [2]) was used in the 2001 study.
Community Rebuilding. The 1999 grassroots
assessment concluded that “community feeling”
490(MacIver, 1924 [26]) was closely associated with andcould be promoted by a sense of communal ownership ofthings such as favorite neighborhood landscape, street
trees, and flowers (Tamura, 1999 [27]). The 1999
grassroots assessment termed these communally owned
goods “urban commons” and indicated that richly
embedded urban commons facilitate active citizenshipfor community rebuilding (Maki, Hayashi, Tatsuki, andTakashima, 2000 [28]). For the 2001 study, 11 concrete
urban commons were used to estimate motivation toward
community rebuilding. Respondents were asked to checktheir sense of communal ownership toward any of these
11 items. The more respondents sensed communal
ownership, the more they were considered as motivatedtoward community rebuilding.
Physical and Psychological Health. Respondents’judgments of physical and mental health were measured
by physical and psychological stress scales consisting of
6 physical and 6 psychological stress items. The scale
was identical to that used in the 1999 study. The scaleconsists of physical and mental stress subscales. The
physical stress subscale is a 6 item 5-point Likert scale
and its Cronbach’s alpha in the 1999 study was .88. The
mental stress subscale is a 6 item 5-point Likert scale.
Cronbach’s alpha in the 1999 study was .91. To measure
respondents’ general health practices, 8 items wereprepared to ask the degree of daily activities such as
drinking, physical exercise, smoking, sleep, balanced
diet, regular breakfast intake, work hours, and stresssymptom awareness (cf., Belloc and Breslow, 1972[29]).
Preparedness. Respondents were asked about theperceived risk of damage caused by the
Nankai-Tohnankai earthquake expected to occur in thenext 5 years. The 6 item 5-point Likert scale (least
probable to most probable) asked about damage such as
personal injury or death of significant others, serious
housing damage, damage to household income andassets, long recovery time, widespread damage to public
facilities, and major changes in community relations.
Economic and Financial Situation. According tomacro economic statistics, local economic activities
returned to the pre-earthquake level. On a
microeconomic level, Kobe citizens often claim that
their household financial situations are only 80% of thepre-earthquake level. To identify subjective evaluationof household financial situations, respondents wereasked to choose from among increase, decrease, or nochange in their household income, expenditures, andsavings after the earthquake.
Relation to Government. The 1999 disaster process
study showed a significant increase in civic-mindedness
among some citizens. The Kobe TQM assessment
indicated that other people still maintained apaternalistic view of the government. Okamoto (1997)[30] classified the relation to government into
paternalistic, liberal, and communitarian orientations.
Based on his model, four questions were asked on how
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.2 No.6, 2007

Long-term Life Recovery Processes Among Survivorsof the 1995 Kobe Earthquake

Table 2. 2001 life recovery survey general linear model analysis results.

to enforce garbage separation rules, how to revitalize
community activities, how to save lives in majordisasters, and how to promote community development.
Respondents were also asked how much money and timethey were willing to spend to maintain their community.
The amount they were willing to pay (WTP) for localpark
maintenance,
community
festivals,
andneighborhood activities was used as a six-item scale ofcommunitarian orientation.
Social Desirability. Questionnaire surveys areaffected by response biases such as social desirability
and defensiveness. To estimate and statistically control
response bias, 10 yes-no social desirability items wereselected from the MMPI lie scale (Oguchi, 2001 [31]).

3.2. Results
Predictor variables in the 2001 study included
earthquake hazard, demographic variables, and sevencritical elements. Their effects on life recovery scores
were examined. Because some predictors werecategorical variables such as house damage (fully, half,
partial, no damage), gender (male, female), generation(young adult, middle, old), occupation (classified into 10
categories), and household financial situation (increase,
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.2 No.6, 2007

decrease, no change), and other predictors were scaled(e.g., indices for social ties, local commons,preparedness, physical and mental health, relation to
government, and social desirability), the General Linear
Model (GLM) was used to examine main and interaction
effects on life recovery scores.
3.2.1. Damage, Demography, andDamage-by-Demography Interaction
Regarding damage directly or indirectly caused byearthquake hazards (i.e., house, furniture, and economic
damage), no main effect was found on life recovery.
Generation and occupation were two of the mostsignificant predictors among demographic variables.
Young adults (those in their 20s and 30s) recovered
significantly better than those in middle (40s and 50s) or
old age (60 and over) (F 2, 910 =14.415, p<.01). Occupation
main effect was also significant (F 9, 910 =3.264, p<.01).
Those who were in agriculture/fishery, students, andadministrative jobs recovered better than those who were
unemployed/retired, in blue-collar or sales clerk jobs.
Although damage main effect was not significant,this did not mean that direct or indirect damage had no491

Tatsuki, S.

impact.
As
Table
2
shows,
significant
locality-by-economic damage (F119, 910 =1.251, p<.05) andhouse
damage-by-occupation-by-generation(F 86, 910 =1.461, p<.01) interaction effects impacted on life
recovery.
Young adults were found to recover better among
most occupational categories. Young adults whose
houses were fully damaged and who were proprietors,
however, had difficulty in recovering their lives. Among
those in their 40s or 50s, two groups were found to havedifficulty – (1) those whose houses were completely
destroyed and who were currently unemployed, and (2)those whose houses were half-damaged and who were
proprietors. For those over the age of 60 whose houses
were fully, half, or partially damaged, those who
engaged in clerical or sales clerk jobs were the least
recovered.
3.2.2. Critical Elements
For critical elements identified by the Kobe TQM
assessment, all components were entered into the GLM
model. All seven critical components turned out to show
significant main effects on life recovery, as detailed
below.
Housing. Whether one experienced house relocation
due to the earthquake was used as a measure for housing.
House relocation tended (F1, 910 =4.242, p<.10) to lower
life recovery scores.
Social Ties. The social ties component was measuredby 1) civic-mindedness, 2) community participation, 3)social trust, and 4) family functioning (i.e., adaptability
and cohesion) scales. Dual scaling (Nishisato, 1980 [23])was used to scale response options and scaled scores
were obtained for each of civic-mindedness andcommunity participation scales. Dual scaling of an 8
item civic-mindedness scale yielded a two-dimensional
structure in which 4 items were loaded high on the first
dimension and reflected community cohesion, while theother 4 items were loaded high on the second
self-governance dimension. Cronbach’s alpha for a
4-item community solidarity subscale was .543 whilethat for the other 4-item self-governance subscale was.147. Community participation items were dual-scaled
and the 3 item scale yielded Cronbach’s alpha .848. The
two item social trust scale was dual-scaled and two item
scale showed Cronbach’s alpha .411. Last, 8 items foreach of family adaptability and cohesion weredual-scaled and scores used to measure family
adaptability and cohesion. Cronbach’s alpha for family
adaptability and cohesion were .916 and .942,
respectively.
All variables designated to social ties showed
moderate to strong effects on life recovery. These
included a sense of civic-mindedness that consists ofself-governance (F1, 910 =4.117, p<.05) and community
solidarity (F1, 910 =5.439, p<.05), the degree of actual
community participation (F1, 910 =8.781, p<.01), andsocial trust (F1, 910 =14.456, p<.01).
492

Family systems also facilitated life recovery. The
Circumplex model of marital and family systems defines
family cohesion and adaptability as the two major
factors deciding family relationship functioning (Olson,
Russell, and Sprenkle, 1979 [17]; Tatsuki, 1999 [18]);
Tatsuki and Hayashi, 2000 [2]). Those whose familycohesion was characterized by moderate levels of familycohesion (F 3, 910 =8.195, p<.01) and family adaptability(F 3, 910 =4.199, p<.01) reported higher life recovery.
Community Rebuilding. Dual scaling analysis of 11
items for urban commons yielded a two-dimensional
structure, where the first dimension contrasted “no” to“yes” and “do not know” and the second dimension
contrasted “yes” to “no” and “do not know.” The first
dimension was interpreted to reflect “definitive versus
non-definitive” attitude, which was a part of response
bias. In contrast, scaled values for “yes,” “no,” and “donot know” options in the second dimension appeared
linear. Because of this, the second dimension solution
was used as the scaled score for urban commons.
Cronbach’s alpha for urban commons scale was .726 forthe current data.
No recovery of everyday life can be sensed in a
no-man’s land. It was hypothesized that recovery of
everyday life was partly attributed to by an increased
sense of stake-holdership in local urban commons. A
sense of stake-holdership would increase people’s
involvement in community affairs and help increase a
sense of normalcy in community life. GLM analysis
results supported this hypothesis and showed that themore respondents were aware of urban commons, thebetter they recovered (F1, 910 =3.684, p<.10).
Physical and Psychological Health. Respondents’judgments on their physical and psychological healthand the degree of daily health practices were measured
by physical stress scale, mental stress scale, and general
health practice index, respectively. 6 items measured
each of physical and psychological stress. Cronbach’s
alpha for physical and mental stress scales were .894 and.943, respectively. Respondents’ general health practices
were measured by 8 item scale. Cronbach’s alpha forgeneral health practices was .537.
To detect non-linear relations between stress and life
recovery, both stress scores were categorized into fourordered categories using quantiles. Psychological stress
was a very strong linear predictor of life recovery(F 3, 910 =34.568, p<.01) – the single most influential
predictor of life recovery among all predictors. The
GLM model (Table 2) accounted for 58.4% of total
variance, one sixth of which was accounted for by
psychological stress (partial h2 = .102). Physical stress
was not found to have a statistically significant impact
upon life recovery (F 3, 910 =0.676, n.s.). General linear
model analysis showed a significant physical-by-mental
stress interaction (F 8, 910 =4.009, p<.01). For those whose
psychological stress was very low or moderately low,
moderate physical stress further facilitated a sense of life
recovery. The degree of general health practices was a
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.2 No.6, 2007

Long-term Life Recovery Processes Among Survivorsof the 1995 Kobe Earthquake

Fig. 5. Normalcy-to-disaster-to-recovery curve model.
Fig. 6. Three recovery curve typologies.

significant predictor of life recovery (F1, 910 =13.291,
p<.01).
Preparedness. The 1999 grassroots assessment
suggested that a sense of life recovery was accompaniedby the heightened sense of preparedness for disaster. The
2001 panel survey thus asked the degree of damage that
respondents
anticipatedfromthepredicted
Nankai-Tohnankai earthquake. Principal component
analysis of the 6 items showed that the first solution
accounted for 71.2% of total variance and only the first
eigenvalue (4.27) exceeded 1, suggesting a clear
unidimensional structure. The 6 item scale yielded
Cronbach’s alpha .918.
Contrary to the hypothesis, it was found thatpessimistic expectation in future disasters – the higher
expectation of personal injuries; death of significant
others; serious damage to housing, income, and assets;
longer time to recovery; and widespread damage to
public facilities and community relations – wassignificantly associated with lower level of life recovery
among respondents (F1, 910 =6.515, p<.01).
Economic and Financial Situation. Respondents
were asked to compare pre-earthquake and current levelsof household income, expenditure, and savings. Results
showed that changes in income was a significant
predictor of life recovery F 3, 910 =10.573, p<.01). The
better off respondents were in income, the betterrecovery they reported. Savings and expenditures did
not, however, predict life recovery.
Relation to Government. 4 trichotomous items wereprepared to ask respondents’ views of the government ineither paternalistic, liberal, or communitarianorientations. Dual scaling analysis of the 4 items
revealed a 2 dimensional structure, where the firstsolution contrasted liberalism versus paternalism and thesecond solution differentiated communitarian from theother two orientations. Cronbach’s alpha forliberalism-paternalism and communitarianism subscales
were .362 and .345, respectively. GLM analysis showedthat the communitarian subscale only weakly affected
life recovery (F1, 910 =2.584, n.s., p=.105). In contrast, thesix item willingness-to-Pay (WTP) scale for community
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.2 No.6, 2007

affairs (Cronbach’s alpha.899) was a significant
predictor of life recovery. Those who are willing to pay
more money and time for community affairs were found
to recover better (F1, 910 =7.806, p<.01). A trend toward
communitarinism and WTP interaction was found(F1, 910 = 3.472, p<.10), suggesting that communitarians
tended to be extraordinarily generous in offering timeand money for community affairs.
Social Desirability. The 10 item social desirability
scale was unidimensional and its Cronbach’s alpha forall 10 items was .536. Social desirability weakly affected
life recovery (F1, 910 = 3.712, p<.10), indicating that partof life recovery variance was weakly explained by thebias of respondents to state their situations as better thanthey actually were. That proportion as measured bypartial h2 was only 0.4% and thus judged negligible.

4. 2003 and 2005 Study
The current paper’s brief review of the literature
showed a need to understand recovery as long-term,
ongoing, individual processes by incorporating asystematic longitudinal methodology. The 2003 and2005 Life Recovery Surveys directly examined theseissues. Two additional sources of general literature weresought to build working models that conceptualized life
recovery as long-term, ongoing, and individual
processes. One source was a sociological view of how
the reality of everyday life was constructed intransactions in a social context (Berger and Luckman,
1966) [32]. Based on this model, a “normalcy-todisaster-to-recovery” curve model was constructed(Fig. 5). Three recovery curves were identified by thismodel, i.e., return to normalcy, struggle for meaning,
and retreat (Fig. 6).
The other rich source of previous literature on humanrecovery was in writings by psychologists andpsychiatrists who had worked with holocaust survivors,
hibakusha, Vietnam veterans, and dying patients (Frankl,
1959 [33]), Lifton, 1967 [34]); Kubler-Ross, 1969 [35]).
493

Tatsuki, S.

Table 3. Overview of seven critical element and life
recovery outcome scales for 2003, and 2005 surveys.

Fig. 7. Two-axis model of life recovery.

Their writings emphasized that victims never regained
the same normalcy as before and that what mattered themost was how one reappraised the past event and madesense of it in the “here and now.” Two axes were
postulated in this model (Fig. 7) – (1) whether theearthquake was conceived to be a major life event(horizontal axis) and (2) whether life change after theearthquake was felt to be positive or negative (verticalaxis).
Because of postulations of life recovery processes,
2003 and 2005 studies prepared three distinctively
different types of variables: (1) Variables such as theseven critical elements that predicted life recovery
processes and recovery outcomes were designated as
independent variables. (2) Recovery process variables
were constructed as intervening variables that were
influenced by independent variables on the one hand andinfluenced life recovery outcomes on the other. (3) Life
recovery outcome measures were treated as dependent
variables. The 2003 and 2005 studies used structural
equation modeling (SEM) that explained causal links
among hazards and demographics, seven criticalelements, life recovery processes and their outcomes asreported by 1995 Kobe earthquake survivors.

4.1. Methods
4.1.1. Respondents
The population of the 2003 and 2005 studies was thesame as that of the 2001 study, about 2.5 million people
who resided in areas hit hardest by the 1995 Kobe
earthquake. This included residents in ten cities in the
Kobe-Hanshin area and those on Awaji Island. The same
330 points were used. Two independent sets of ten
residents over the age of 20 at each point were randomly
selected for each study. The 2003 and 2005
questionnaires were mailed in January of 2003 and 2005.
Valid responses numbered 1,203 (36.5%) for the 2003
survey and 1,028 (31.2%) for the 2005 study.
494

Table 4. Overview of life recovery curve and life change
appraisal model scales.

4.1.2. Instruments
Questionnaire items were divided into four categories– sociodemographic and damage variables, seven criticallife recovery element variables (Tatsuki and Hayashi,
2002 [36]), life recovery process variables, and life
recovery outcome variables.
Sociodemographic and damage. The following
variables were asked in the questionnaire: age, gender,job, family members, types of housing, house damage,household goods damage, lifeline damage, andeconomic damage. For the final analysis, house damage
and household goods damage responses were optimallyscaled and their scores were used.
Seven critical element and recovery outcome
variables. Variables used in the current study (Table 3)
were based on the 1995 grassroots workshop results(Tamura, Hayashi, Tatsuki, and Kimura, 2001 [37]) andGLM analysis of the 2001 Kobe life recovery survey
study (Tatsuki and Hayashi, 2002 [36]).
Life recovery process model variables. Table 4summarizes the recovery curve model and life change
appraisal model variables. Recovery curve model
variables included return to normalcy, struggle formeaning, and retreat. Those for life change appraisal
model were a sense of sense of life change and lifechange directions.

4.2. Results
4.2.1. Integration of Life Recovery Process Models
Tables 5 and 6 show factor analysis results of 17(2003 study) and 13 (2005 study) recovery curve andfive life change appraisal items. Both result clearly
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.2 No.6, 2007

Long-term Life Recovery Processes Among Survivorsof the 1995 Kobe Earthquake

Table 5. 2003 study factor analysis results of 17 recovery curve and 5 life change appraisal model items (promax rotation).

Table 6. 2005 study factor analysis results of 13 recovery curve and 5 life change appraisal model items (promax rotation).

Table 7. 2003 study second-order factor analysis results of
5 factors (promax rotation).

Table 8. 2005 study second-order factor analysis results of
5 factors (promax rotation).

indicated an over time stability of the five factor
structure that corresponded to retreat, struggle formeaning, sense of life change, return to normalcy, andlife change direction. To examine the super-structure
among these five factors, second-order factor analyses
were conducted for both study results (Tables 7 and 8),
showing that the five factors integrated into two
second-order factors, and were interpreted as event
evaluation and event impact. The 2003 study
second-order factor analysis showed event evaluation
was reflected by such first-order factors as struggle formeaning, life change direction, and retreat, while event
impact was characterized by a sense of life change,
return to normalcy, and retreat (Table 7). The 2005
study second-order factor analysis yielded a similar
factor structure where struggle for meaning and lifechange direction characterized event evaluation while
return to normalcy and sense of life change exhibited acore characteristic of event impact (Table 8). These
patterns were identical to 2003 results.
The above integrative analysis implied two different

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.2 No.6, 2007

495

Tatsuki, S.

Fig. 8. 2003 SEM path diagram of long-term life recovery process.

Fig. 9. Bird’s-eye-view of life recovery process: 2003
study results (N=1,203, Jan. 2003).

processes or paths toward life recovery – one throughalleviating or counteracting the event impact caused by
1995 earthquake damage and loss and the other throughevent evaluation where earthquake experience wasreappraised as meaningful. These implications werebased on exploratory analysis of 2003 and 2005 study
data. Causal analysis confirmed the internal validity ofthese postulations on life recovery processes.
4.2.2. Structural Equation Modeling of Life
Recovery Process and Outcome
Figures 8 and 10 show the results of structural
equation modeling (or SEM) of 2003 and 2005 study
data. Results are summarized as path diagrams thatsignify causal directions (arrows) and their magnitude(standardized coefficients) among damage, seven critical496

elements, life recovery processes (i.e., event impact andevaluation), and outcome variables. Variables in squares
are designated as observed measures obtained from data,
while those in ovals are latent variables or postulated
constructs (e.g., seven critical elements) that explainhigh correlations among measures of the same construct.
Both 2003 and 2005 studies showed a high overall fit
between the model and data; GFI=.924, AGFI=.905,
RMSEA=.05 for the 2003 study and GFI=.934,
AGFI=.921, RMSEA=.041 for the 2005 study.
Estimated parameters or coefficients in both models
were all statistically significant at a pre-established
p<.05 level.
Figures 9 and 11 show bird’s-eye-view summaries of2003 and 2005 study results showing major causal
relations among latent variables. Both supported the ideathat two different processes, damage alleviation andcommunity empowerment, influenced life recovery
outcomes.
Event Impact. Based on preceding exploratory
factor analysis, a latent variable – event impact – waspostulated as an intermediary process to alleviate theimpact of damage and stress upon life recovery. In thisprocess, life recovery was directly caused by the degree
to which event impact was stabilized (Figs. 9 and 11).
Event impact was measured by such life recovery
process variables as a sense of life no longer intransition, a sense of normalcy, and no need for retreat(Figs. 8 and 10).
In the 2003 study (Figs. 8 and 9), event impact
stabilization was negatively influenced by the magnitudeof household earthquake damage and positively
influenced by improvements in the three criticalelements of housing, financial situation, and physicalJournal of Disaster Research Vol.2 No.6, 2007

Long-term Life Recovery Processes Among Survivorsof the 1995 Kobe Earthquake

Fig. 10. 2005 SEM path diagram of long-term life recovery process.

Fig. 11. Bird’s-eye-view of life recovery process: 2005
study results (N=1,028, Jan. 2005).

and psychological stress. In other words, when
improvements outweighed damage, event impact wasstabilized, eventually leading to a sense of life recovery.
The 2005 study (Figs. 10 and 11) supported the above
causal path in general. A slight but noteworthy
difference was that event impact stabilization wasdetermined only by housing and financial situations on
the one hand and physical and psychological stress on
the other. This was because the direct 1995 earthquake
hazard effect as measured by house, furniture, or
economic damage disappeared in the 2005 study. People
were not suffering because they were hit by anearthquake a decade earlier but suffered from secondary
effects such as lack of housing/financial adjustment
and/or long lasting physical and psychological stress.
In 2003 study, life recovery was directly influenced
by the housing-finance-stress critical element latent
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.2 No.6, 2007

variable. It influenced event evaluation as discussed
below. Note that these direct effects failed to be
confirmed in the 2005 study, suggesting that theseeffects were temporary and considered peculiar to 2003
study data.
Community Empowerment. Both 2003 and 2005
studies showed that event evaluation, another constructpostulated by the preceding exploratory analysis, played
an important intervening role in the community
empowerment process. This was another path that led tolife recovery (Figs. 8 and 9). The two studies identified acommon community empowerment path where a senseof life recovery was achieved through positive event
evaluation. This was measured by such attempts andfeelings as struggle for meaning, e.g., “I feel strongly
that living has a meaning,” positive life change, and low
need for retreat (path diagram, Figs. 6 and 7). Social ties,
as evidenced by high social trust, civic-mindedness, andbalanced family relationships, exerted an influence insuch a way that respondents’ evaluation of theearthquake experience was reframed into positive
narratives. Influence paths were both direct and indirect.
Indirect were through empowering community building
efforts and/or increasing opportunities to encountersignificant others who provided social and psychologicalsupport for re-socialization to and reconstruction of
post-earthquake reality (Berger and Luckman, 1966[32]; Mead, 1963 [38]).
Active Citizenship. Social ties were found in both2003 and 2005 studies to increase a sense of active
citizenship and government/community/private-sector
partnership. This was considered as a separate
by-product of life recovery processes (Figs. 9 and 11).
Active citizenship was demonstrated by high self- and497

Tatsuki, S.

Fig. 12. Proportion of life recovery elements in 1999, 2003 and 2004 workshops.

community-help preparedness initiatives and by a rise incommunitarianism (“We govern ourselves by our own
hands.”) as opposed to more individualistic liberalism
orientation (“The less the interference from thegovernment, the better government we have.”). In the2003 study, preparedness and relation-to-government
variables were amalgamated but conceptually separated
in the 2005 study. Otherwise, the same interpretation wasapplicable to both study results: Stronger social ties were
responsible for an increase in active citizenship.
In both 2003 and 2005 studies, life recovery
outcomes showed a negative impact upon active
citizenship and government/community/private-sector
partnership, although this relation was more clearly
demonstrated in 2003 results. The 2003 SEM analysis
spotted a downward trend that made people less inclined
to take communitarian attitudes and pay less attention topreparedness efforts as life recovered (Fig. 9). As in the2003 study, 2005 SEM analysis identified a similar
negative effect of life recovery upon civic engagement
activities. Unlike in the 2003 study, a communitarianview of government was found to strengthen the norm ofcivic-mindedness (Fig. 10). This appears to suggest that
although civic activity decreases, a sense of
civic-mindedness emerging over post-earthquake years
was internalized within the value systems of surveyed
respondents. If another occasion should arise,
civic-mindedness would be reactivated into civic
engagement.

5. Discussion
5.1. 2003 and 2004 Grassroots Assessment of Life
Recovery
Tatsuki (2004) [5] reported the findings from the2003, and 2004 grassroots assessment workshops on life
recovery. These workshops were designed as a part of aten-year overall review of social recovery after the 1995
498

Kobe earthquake. The ten-year assessment used thesame workshop method as the 1999 assessment. A
workshop was held at each of Kobe’s nine wards in
2003, and in four neighboring earthquake-hit cities andin Chuo-ward, Kobe in 2004. The seven critical element
category was used to compare three workshop results(Fig. 12). The ten year assessments provided an
opportunity to cross-examine the external validity ofLife Recovery Survey findings.
One of the most striking findings in the 2003 and2004 workshops was the disappearance of housing that
had been listed as one of the most critical issues in 1999
workshops. Note that the last occupant of a temporary
housing unit returned the house key to officials at theend of 1999 in Kobe. This was thanks to about 300
public housing complexes being built within five years
after the 1995 earthquake and supplying more than
46,000 units (Koshiyama et al. 2003 [39]). Likewise,
major house repairs and reconstruction were completed
within the same time scale (see Kimura article in thisissue). This appears to suggest that people were justabout to finish dealing with house damage when the1999 grassroots assessment was conducted and that
housing was felt as one of the timeliest and the mosttalked-about critical elements for life recovery among
workshop participants at the time.
Social ties, the second most talked-about criticalelement for life recovery in the 1999 workshops,
remained the top priority at both 2003, and 2004
assessment workshops. A rise in the proportion of
opinions from 1999 workshops was seen both in social
ties and in the next two critical elements, community
rebuilding and preparedness. This suggested that far
more emphasis was placed on these life recovery
elements almost ten years after the Kobe earthquake. A
rise was also seen in physical and psychological health atthe 2003 assessment in Kobe, hardest hit by theearthquake. This rise was mainly due to an increase in
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.2 No.6, 2007

Long-term Life Recovery Processes Among Survivorsof the 1995 Kobe Earthquake

opinions about its subcategory “struggle for meaning”(Fig. 4, subcategories within critical elements).
Examples include “The earthquake changed my view oflife,” “My values changed,” “I feel a sense of obligation
to keep memories alive and to share them with new
generations of people.”
The life recovery process and outcome model (e.g.,
Figs. 9 and 11), as seen in the 2003, and 2005 Hyogo
Life Recovery Studies, explains the rise in opinions insuch categories as social ties, community rebuilding,preparedness, and physical and psychological health. A
process of event evaluation continued being active
among the 2003 and 2004 workshop participants. Eventevaluation consisted of such variables as struggle formeaning and a sense of positive life change. This process
was facilitated by empowered social ties and community
rebuilding efforts and led to a sense of life recovery andto more civic engagement in preparedness. The
disappearance of housing as an issue is explained by thesame model. The process of event impact peaked during
1999 workshops, mainly due to high satisfaction withhousing, leading to a sense of life recovery at this time.
Toward the end of the decade after the earthquake,
repaired or reconstructed homes became a part of normal
everyday life, and housing was no longer associated withlife recovery. Note that proportionately almost the same
number of opinions was found in economic and financial
situations as a critical element for life recovery
particularly among Kobe residents. This may suggest theimportance of household and local economy
improvement in further alleviating the impact of the
1995 earthquake.

5.2. Policy Implications for Long-term Life
Recovery from Urban Mega-disasters
The current paper examined what constitutes “liferecovery,” what facilitates it, and how it is facilitatedover the long-term. The study resulted in a
grassroots-assessment-based working model (the sevencritical element model of life recovery), which was thentested, validated, and further refined by a series of
empirical studies. The life recovery process and outcome
model, the final product of these research endeavors,
provides a framework for life recovery assistanceprograms and policies for future urban mega-disastervictims/survivors.
At an earlier course of life recovery (i.e., within five
years), housing, income, and physical and psychologicalhealth management issues should be addressed toalleviate event impact. This leads to a sense of normalcy
and stability in everyday life. Policies and programs
geared toward this objective include provisions of manydifferent types of temporal and permanent housing units,
grants and low interest loans, and other housing related
programs, monetary compensation and grants forlivelihood assistance, and public health care services
including stress management programs.
Apart from damage alleviation, another and possibly
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.2 No.6, 2007

longer-term life recovery process, event evaluation, wasidentified. This process was found to be directly
facilitated by social ties in which disaster experience wasreframed into complete, coherent, meaningful narratives.
Social ties also indirectly influenced event evaluation byempowering community rebuilding efforts and/or
through enriching opportunities to encounter significant
others who assisted in re-socialization to andreconstruction of post-earthquake realities. Policies andprograms for event evaluation should include family andcommunity
enrichment/empowerment
andcommemoration and transcending of the experience andits communication, together with its lessons, to the next
generation.
In addition to life recovery, community
empowerment produces a norm for a government/
community/private-sector partnership and civic
engagement in arenas such as preparedness and local
governance. Although life recovery outcomes negatively
affect levels of civic activities over time, the newly
emerged norm of civic engagement remained even a
decade after the earthquake. The concept of civil society
became a reality as a by-product of social recovery.
Policy makers and administrators must thus consider thiswindow of opportunity as an asset for creation of a betterand just post-recovery society.

References:[1] Y. Kawata, “Urban Mega-Disaster,” Nagoya:Kin-Mirai-Sha, 1995 (inJapanese).
[2] S. Tatsuki and H. Hayashi, “Family system adjustment and adaptive
reconstruction of social reality among the 1995 earthquake
survivors,” International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 9,
pp. 81-110, 2000.
[3] S. Tatsuki and H. Hayashi, “Comprehensive Assessment of Life
Recovery Utilizing the Total Quality Control Method: Grassroots
assessment and Construction of Bird’s Eye View of Lire Recovery,”
Urban Policy, 104, pp. 123-141, 2001 (in Japanese).
[4] S. Tatsuki, H. Hayashi, K. Yamori, T. Noda, K. Tamura, and Reo
Kimura, “Model Building and Testing of Long-Term Life Recovery
Processes of the Survivors of the 1995 Kobe earthquake: Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) of the 2003 Hyogo Prefecture Life
Recovery Survey,” Journal of Institute of Social Safety Science, 6,
pp. 251-260, 2004 (in Japanese).
[5] S. Tatsuki, “The Current Status of Self-governance and Solidarity in
Kobe,” Urban Policy, 116, pp. 88-105, 2004 (In Japanese).
[6] K. Shigekawa and H. Hayashi, “A study of disaster process asviewed from disaster responders’ perspectives: The Kobe earthquake
case study,” Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference of theInstitute of Social Safety Science, 370-375, 1997 (in Japanese).
[7] F. Aono, S. Tanaka, H. Hayashi, K. Shigekawa, and M. Miyano, “A
Study of Disaster Victims’ Response Behavior during theHanshin-Awaji Great Earthquake: A Nishinomiya City Case Study,”
Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the Institute of Social
Safety Science, pp. 36-39, 1998 (in Japanese).
[8] M. Takashima and H. Hayashi, “Spacio-Temporal Patterns of
Recovery Process under Large Earthquake Disaseter: A Case Studyfor Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake,” Journal of Institute of Social Safety
Science, 1, pp. 1-8, 1999 (in Japanese).

499

Tatsuki, S.
[9] Y. Karatani, H. Hayashi, and Y. Kawata, “Development of
Socioeconomic Rehabilitation Index based on Kobe Statistics for theGreat-Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake Disaster,” Journal of Institute ofSocial Safety Science, 2, pp. 213-222, 2000 (in Japanese).
[10] G. Webb, K. Tierney, and J. Dahlhamer, “Businesses and Disasters:
Empirical Patterns and Unanswered Questions,” Natural Hazards
Review, 1, pp. 83-90, 2000.
[11] D. Alesch, J. N. Holly, E. Mittler, and R. Nagy, “When small
businesses and not-for-profit organizations collide with natural
disasters,” Paper presented at the 26th Annual Hazard Research andApplications Workshop, Boulder, Colorado, July, 2001.
[12] D. Alesch, “A quantitative and qualitative analysis of smallorganization survival and recovery following a natural hazard event.”
A session summary (recorded by C. L. Reiss), the 2001 Hazards
Research and Applications Workshop.
http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/ss/ss01/s35.html, 2001[13] D. Alesch and J. N. Holly, “Long-term Community Disaster
Recovery: Managing in the Aftermath,” VA:Public Entity Risk
Institute (in press).
[14] D. Wenger, C. B. Rubin, J. Nigg, P. Berke, and T. Bolton, “S96-4
What is Known and Trends for Improving Recovery andReconstruction Following Disasters,” A session Summary (recorded
by C. Streeter), the 1996 Hazards Research and Applications
Workshop, 1996.
http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/ss/ss96.html#4[15] S. Tanaka, F. Aono, and H. Hayashi, “Disaster victims behavior
analysis after the Hanshin-Awaji earthquake disaster,” theProceedings of the 3rd China-Japan-US Trilateral Symposium on
Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, pp. 309-314, 1998.
[16] S. Tanaka, H. Hayashi, and K. Shigekawa, “A Consideration on
Time-series Development of Disaster Process Based on Ethnographic
Study of Disaster Victims’ Responses,” Journal of Japan Society for
Natural Disaster Science, 18-1, pp. 21-29, 1999 (in Japanese).
[17] D. H. Olson, D. H. Sprenkle, and C. S. Russell, “Circumplex Modelof Marital and Family Systems: Cohesion and Adaptability
Dimensions, Family Types, and Clinical Applications,” Family
Process, 18, pp. 3-28, 1979.
[18] S. Tatsuki, “Theoretical and empirical study of family system:
Validation of Olson’s Circumplex model of marital and familysystems,” Tokyo: Kawashima Shoten, 1999 (in Japanese).
[19] J. J. Rousseau, “The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right,”(G. D. H. Cole, Trans.), 1913/1762.
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm[20] G. Kline, “Democracy, Community, and Human Development,”
Journal of Third World Studies, 11-1, pp. 224-244, 1994.
[21] D. Burchell, “The Attributes of Citizens: Virtue, Manners and theActivity of Citizenship,” Economy and Society, 24-4, pp. 540-558,
1995.
[22] H. Hayashi, M. Nishio, K. Sugawara, I. Monma, M. Kohno, T.
Makishima, K. Numata, and Y. Nemoto, “Research Report on Mental
Health Responses that are Needed for Life Support of Elderly
Victims after a Large Scale Disaster,” Tokyo: Japan Red Cross, 1996
(in Japanese).
[23] S. Nishisato, “Analysis of categorical data: Dual scaling and its
Applications,” Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980.
[24] Kobe City Research Committee on Disaster Recovery, “Kobe City’s
Review for Individual Recovery,” Kobe City, 2000.
[25] T. Yamagishi, “Structure of Trust,” Tokyo:University of Tokyo Press,
1998 (in Japanese).
[26] R. M. MacIver, “Community – A Sociological Study,” 3rd Edition,
London:Macmillan, 1924.

500[27] A. Tamura, “Practice of Community Development,” Iwanamishinsho, 1999 (in Japanese).
[28] N. Maki, H. Hayashi, S. Tatsuki, and M. Takashima, “Structure of
Recovery Processes from the 1995 Kobe Earthquake: A summary offindings from the 5th year review by Kobe city government,”
Proceedings of International Workshop on Annual Commemorationof Chi-Chi Earthquake, Volume IV Social Aspect, pp. 210-221,
2000.
[29] N. B. Belloc and J. Breslow, “Relationship of physical health status
and health practices,” Internal Prev. Med, 1, pp. 409-421, 1972.
[30] M. Okamoto, “Civil society, volunteers, and government,” In S.
Tatsuki (Ed.), “Volunteerism and Civil Society,” Kyoto:Koyo Shobo,
1997 (in Japanese).
[31] T. Oguchi (Ed.), “A Study on International Questionnaire Scales
MMPI-2 and MMPI-A,” KN Publisher, 2001.
[32] P. L. Berger and T. Luckman, “The Social Construction of Reality: A
Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.” NY: Doubleday, 1966.
[33] V. E. Frankl, “Man’s Search for Meaning,” NY: Pocket Books, 1959.
[34] R. J. Lifton, “Death in Life: The Survivors of Hiroshima,” NY:
Random House, 1967.
[35] E. Kubler-Ross, “On Death and Dying” NY:Simon &Schuster/Touchstone, 1969.
[36] S. Tatsuki and H. Hayashi, “Seven Critical Element Model of Life
Recovery: General Linear Model Analyses of the 2001 Kobe Panel
Survey Data,” Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop for “Comparative
Study on Urban Earthquake Disaster Management,” pp. 27-46, 2002.
[37] K. Tamura, H. Hayashi, S. Tatsuki, and R. Kimura, “A quantitative
verification of the seven elements model of socio-economic recovery
from the Kobe earthquake,” Journal of Institute of Social Safety
Science, 3, pp. 33-40, 2001 (in Japanese).
[38] G. H. Mead, “Mind, Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social
Behaviorist (Works of George Herbert Mead),” Il:Univ of Chicago
Press, 1963.
[39] K. Koshiyama, S. Tatsuki, I. Kobayashi, Y. Murosaki, et. al.,“Analysis of Sense of Recovery of Residents Living in Disaster
Recovery Public Housing,” Journal of Institute of Social Safety
Science, 3, pp. 237-244, 2003.
[40] J. M. Dahlhamer and K. J. Tierney, “Winners and Losers: Predicting
Business Disaster Recovery Outcomes Following the Northridge
Earthquake,” Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware,
Newark, N.J., 1996.
[41] R. Kimura, H. Hayashi, S. Tatsuki, and K. Tamura, “Determinants
and Timing of Housing Reconstruction Decisions by the Victims of
the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake Disaster: A 2001 Replication,”
Journal of Institute of Social Safety Science, 3, pp. 23-32, 2001 (inJapanese).

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.2 No.6, 2007

Long-term Life Recovery Processes Among Survivorsof the 1995 Kobe Earthquake
Name:
Shigeo Tatsuki, Ph.D.

Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Sociology, Doshisha
Universty

Address:
Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto 602-8580, Japan

Brief Career:
1986-2001 Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Professor, Kwansei Gakuin
University
2001- Professor, Doshisha University
2002- Senior Research Scientist, Disaster Reduction and Human
Renovation Institution

Selected Publications:· S. Tatsuki, and H. Hayashi, “Family system adjustment and adaptive
reconstruction of social reality among the 1995 earthquake survivors,”
International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 9, pp. 81-110, Oct. 2000.
· S. Tatsuki, et al., “The Impact of Risk Perception, Disaster Schema,
Resources, Intention, Attitude, and Norms upon Risk Aversive Behavior
among Marikina City Residents: Structural Equation Modeling with
Latent Variables,” Asian Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Technical Proceedings, 2, pp. 267-276, Mar. 2004.
· S. Tatsuki, “Development of Disaster Response Competency Profile
Indices,” Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Urban
Disaster Reduction, CD-ROM, Nov. 2007.

Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:· Institute of Social Safety Science· The Japan Sociological Society· Japan Society for Natural Disaster Science

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.2 No.6, 2007

501