April 2012
NIRA Report

Indexes for Recovery and Reconstruction
following the Great East Japan Earthquake- December 2011 Update -Executive Summary

Nine months have now passed since the devastating Great East Japan Earthquake. In
early September 2011, NIRA published the report Indexes for Recovery andReconstruction following the Great East Japan Earthquake to provide an overview ofthe status of recovery and reconstruction in the affected areas. Three months later, wehave updated the indexes using the latest data in order to survey the current state ofprogress in recovery and reconstruction.
Taking the region struck by the tsunami following the Great East Japan Earthquake (37cities, towns and villages / Three prefectures) as their focus, the indexes synthesize anumber of indicators which show trends in the status of recovery and reconstruction.
What are indexes for recovery and reconstruction?
The indexes for recovery and reconstruction are made up of two different indexes: An
index expressing the status of recovery of basic infrastructure, and an index expressing
the status of activity, for example in the areas of production and distribution. In bothcases, figures for the period immediately prior to the earthquake and tsunami areconsidered as 100. The index expressing the status of activity was formulated in two
versions: One which analyzed ten fields providing a representative indication of thestatus of activity in the region in question (Version I), and one which additionallyincorporated the number of passengers using regional airports and the volume of freightshipped through them (Version II).
*For a more detailed discussion of the method employed in formulating the indexes forrecovery and reconstruction, see Appendix 7, pp. 50-51, in Indexes for Recovery andReconstruction following the Great East Japan Earthquake –December 2011 Update(In Japanese)1

Figure 1

Trends in index expressing status of recovery of basic infrastructure

The recovery of basic infrastructure in the three prefectures affected (ratio ofresidents living in temporary accommodation, rate of recovery of public
infrastructure such as electricity, gas, and rail, rate of removal of debris, amount ofaid payments, number of convenience stores, etc.) has been at a standstill sinceAugust. (The overall recovery rates of Iwate and Miyagi Prefectures areapproximately 80%, while Fukushima’s is approximately 70%). The ongoing
nuclear crisis in Fukushima Prefecture is restricting recovery efforts, and the index
for Fukushima is therefore lower than those for the other prefectures. The rate ofrecovery is slow in all three of the affected prefectures because there has been
insufficient progress in the recovery of rail services, the removal of rubble, andrecovery in the number of medical facilities.

Figure 2

Trends in index expressing status of activity (Version II)

As of September, all of the three affected prefectures exceeded the figure for theentire country for this index. Increases in sales value at large retail stores, paymentsof fees for medical services, expenditure on public works contracts, and the ratio ofjob openings to job seekers contributed to this result. However, these trends are
believed to be merely temporary, and cannot be considered to indicate a full-fledged
recovery. Activity in the private sector is still recovering, and index of industrial
production and large industrial power consumption are currently stagnant. It should
be noted in particular that factories in the iron and steel, chemical, seafood
processing, and other industries have not returned to full-fledged operation.

2Figure 3

Status of recovery of basic infrastructure by city, town and village

A comparison of the status of recovery in the 37 affected cities, towns and villages
with figures from the period when the previous report was published indicates thatwhile some municipalities are gradually achieving recovery, others have come to astandstill.
The 10 municipalities displaying the highest level of recovery are shown on thefigure below. These comprise: 1) Cities, towns and villages which are displaying
steady recovery overall (Iwaizumi in Iwate Prefecture and Iwanuma, Natori andShiogama in Miyagi Prefecture); 2) Cities, towns and villages which are displaying
steady recovery despite the fact that the removal of debris represents an impediment
to recovery (Shichigahama, Rifu and Tagajo in Miyagi Prefecture); and 3) Cities,towns and villages which have problems, but in which recovery of gas, electricity,
roads and other infrastructure is boosting the overall high level of recovery (Sendaiin Miyagi Prefecture, and Miyako and Kuji in Iwate Prefecture).

3

See Appendix1, pp. 11-18, in Indexes for Recovery and Reconstruction following theGreat East Japan Earthquake –December 2011 Update- (in Japanese), for a list of thedata employed in formulating the indexes for recovery and reconstruction.

NIRA Report

Indexes for Recovery and Reconstruction following the Great East Japan
Earthquake-December 2011 UpdateThe Japanese version of the full report: http://www.nira.or.jp/pdf/1103report.pdfⓒ 2012 by National Institute for Research Advancement (NIRA)

4