京 都 大 学 防 災 研 究 所 年 報 第48号 C 平成17年4月
Annuals of Disas. Prev. Res. Inst., Kyoto Univ., No. 48 C, 2005

Integrated Disaster Risk Management: Research on Methodology of Urban Diagnosis

Norio OKADA, Hirokazu TATANO, Yoshiyuki SUZUKI, Yoshimi HAGIHARA, Yasuhiro
HAYASHI*, and Michinori HATAYAMA* Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University
Synopsis
This paper gives an overview of ongoing research activities under the 21st Century COE
Research Project, primarily carried out in the Division of Integrated Management for Disaster Risk,
DPRI, Kyoto University, for the fiscal year 2004. Illustrations are made to introduce several
research efforts which are intended to promote the methodological development of urban diagnosis.
Further research needs are also addressed to further improve the methodology of urban diagnosis.
Keywords: urban risk diagnosis, spatial-temporal risk, integrated disaster risk management, risk
communication, participatory approach

1.

Introduction

COE research efforts have been performed by
Division of Integrated Management for Disaster Risk,
DPRI, Kyoto University, with a view to developing themethodology of urban (regional) risk diagnosis forplanning and management of safe and secured cities andregions. This paper presents an outline of its related
research work and illustrates how applicable thismethodology is to integrated disaster risk management.
2.

Urban (regional) risk diagnosis for
integrated disaster management

The methodology of urban (regional) risk diagnosis
is intended to make overall assessment of risks inherent
to common space for people living there. Such spatial
risks are considered to change over time. Therefore
urban (regional) diagnosis starts with assessing thecurrent status (status-quo) of common spatial risks, andthen continuously monitors their changes over time.
By definition this methodology includes what iscalled the method of “seismic diagnosis” of houses,

buildings and facilities. However it is important to notethat the methodology is used to make an overall
assessment of the collection of houses, buildings andfacilities located on common space, in stead ofindependently assessing each of them.
(i)Characteristically it should produce information
with “policy-linkage label.” Here “policy”
means “a bundle of diagnosis and prescriptions(countermeasures) to collectively achieve thegoal of a safer and secured life under disasterrisks.” For instance seismic diagnosis needs tobe combined with diagnosis and prescriptions
for enhancing quality of safety and security in acommon living space, such as a neighborhood
community.
(ii)
Urban
(regional)
diagnosis
underlines
identification of the status quo, instead ofimmediately starting planning.
(iii) This means that the PDCA cycle should be
reinterpreted to emphasize the phase of “tocheck” as a starting point of the cycle, rather
than to highlight the phase of “to plan” ascommonly interpreted to be appropriate (see

(iv)model for this view.
(viii)
quick

Change over time

Fig.1). Let us call this reinterpreted PDCA
cycle “CAPD cycle.”
We assume that cities and regions as common
space entailing diverse types of inherent spatial
risks tend to change over time. Urban (regional)
spatial risks need to be viewed also as temporalrisks. Therefore urban (regional) diagnosis
requires continuous monitoring and continuous
updating.
Setting up communication
platform for policy development

slowLife in Community
Land Use
Built Environment
Infrastructure
Social Schemes
Culture and Convention
Natural Environment

ActionFig. 2 Urban spatial system as five-storied vitalmodel

Urban diagnosis

PlanManagement
Cycle

Planning policy
making/ revising

Check
Observingcurrent state

Do
Implementing policy

Fig. 1 Urban diagnostic risk management as PDCA(CAPD) cycle
(v)

(vi)

(vii)

This diagnostic methodology becomes even more
important when specialists and practitioners
usually tend to be limited in information andknowledge and are only aware of segmental
scopes of their professional and jurisdictional
areas. They are likely to be not so much
integrated and thus the methodology serves forthis integration purpose.
To put it otherwise, this methodology can also
support “risk communication” among different
stakeholders whose views, perceptions andinformation are limited and not so much
mutually compatible. For instance, stakeholders
are government people, consultants andengineering experts, researchers, NGOs andcitizens. Participatory approach may beeffectively introduced to set up a common
communication
platformfor
risk
communication among diverse stakeholders.
This diagnostic methodology can be utilized forvertically integrating multiple strata of a city(region) viewed as a vital common
spatial/temporal system. As shown in Fig. 2,
Okada et al has proposed a five-storied pagoda

3.

Case studies

From the above viewpoints and perspectives, ourgroup has been carrying out different types ofapplication research and field works. Just to mention a
few examples of this kind, illustrations are made just in
short. They are Nagata Ward in Kobe, Nagoya-centered
and Osaka-centered metropolitan regions, i.e., Chubu
and Kinki Regions are selected for illustrations.
3.1 Urban diagnosis of disaster recovery process in
Nagata Ward, Kobe City
Okada, Hatayama and others have been
continuously monitoring the recovery process of someresidential areas in the Nagata Ward, Kobe City which
was severely damaged by the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji
Earthquake. This continuous field works have beeneffectively supported by a special type of GIS, called
DiMSIS that can handle temporal changes in
geographical spaces. Figs. 3 and 4 illustrate two samples.
Notably this special type of GIS is suited toaccommodate relevant information by simply pasting on
respective spot different kinds of data such as digital,
qualitative/descriptive and visual (audio-video) ones.
This work can be easily performed and repeated in a field,
and thus information can be continuously updated astime passes.
We intend to repeat this field work andcontinuous monitoring by use of DiMSIS with a view tosystematically accumulate and make urban diagnosis of
the recovery process of this focused residential area.

Community 1,Nagata, Kobe
Just after 1995
Earthquake

h
Fis

e
or
St

Public BathYear 2003（クリックする とビ デオが動きます）

Fig. 3 Display of disaster recovery processwith DiMSIS (1)Community 2, Nagata, Kobe

Just after
1995 Earthquake

ne
bo
r’s
tte
se

Year 2003（クリックするとビデオが動きます）

Fig. 4 Display of disaster recovery processwith DiMSIS (2)3.2 Urban diagnosis in Nagoya and Osaka-Bay areas
under Tokai, Tonankai and Nankai earthquakerisk

One of our COE research strategies is to combine
research resources and data with similar research projects
and funds. This Dai-Dai-Toku (Tokai-Tonakai-Nankai
Earthquake Disaster management) research project is oneof those which have been carried out by Okada andothers, in combination with the 21st century’s COE
research project. This combined research by Okada,Suzuki, Tatano and others aims at(i)
Proposing a new framework for disaster planning
in Japan by incorporating the perspective andmethodology of integrated disaster risk
management, in which urban (regional)
diagnosis constitutes an essential tool.
(ii)
Makingresearch
contribution
totheimplementationofdisaster mitigation
countermeasures combined with increased
regional/urban/community preparedness inNagoyaCity
and
Nagoya-centered
metropolitan region which are considered oneof the most risky areas in anticipation of theTokai-Tonankai- Nankai Earthquake Disaster.
(iii) Adaptive management approach is introduced tosystematically support the case study areas in
making a “social experiment” to set up andfostercommunication
platformforparticipatory approach. The methodology ofurban (regional) diagnosis is introduced toobserve if it can be effectively implemented,
given a specific context and actual field.
Table 1 lists up a set of major research outcomes
expected from this project which is scheduled to be
finalized in the year 2006.

Table 1 Expected Outcome
Regional level

Community level

Tool andsystemdevelopment•Earthquake damage simulator•Social/economic impact
evaluation model•Seismic Diagnosis on wooden
houses (engineers/technicians)•Community carte (residents)•Community earthquake impact
assessment model

ActionPlanning•Performance index on regionaltransportation•Prediction and policy for local
governments’ financial demandby Tokai-Tonankai Earthquake•Reinforcement guidelines(government, technician,residents)

Research team Researchers, (National/local)
and human
government officers,
network
Transportation managers
development

Researchers, engineers,technicians (carpenters,
designers, consultants),
government officers, residents,
NPOneighbors in a community. This classification is not
written on the survey sheet. The 43 questions are based
about, RSY's experience people often raised as paint asanxiety in past workshops. These questions are divided
into seven elements regarding community preparedness:
Housing safety, Storage, Shelter, Special support (theelder, handicapped and infants), Community linkage,
Fire and Emergency contact. Based on answers to thesequestions, the Community Preparedness Index is
calculated as an average score over the whole sample ofcitizens on a scale of 1 to 10 to designate how well they
are prepared. The detailed definition of the index is in the
Appendix of the paper. A radar chart is used to visualize
the result for the other two agents.
The following is a part of the results to show theclassification of the population is attempted here
depending on their self-evaluation,
Fig. 5 shows the distribution of individuals in
Higashiyama community by their CPI and self-evaluatedscore for mutual-preparedness. A group of individuals
located left above could be rather optimistic because
their self-evaluation is relatively high compared to their
low CPI. Contrary, those who are located right below
could be comparatively pessimistic. Based on such
criteria, the population is divided into optimistic (347residents), pessimistic (376 residents) and neutral group(1,903 residents). 987 residents are did not respond.
12

Self-evaluated score (MutualPreparedness)

As a part of this research project the following fieldwork at a school neighborhood level has been conducted.
The Higashiyama elementary school area is locatedin Nagoya, one of the Japanese mega cities with thehighest potential to be damaged by an earthquake.
Higashiyama Area is a typical residential neighborhoodin an urban area. The elementary school area istraditionally the second smallest community unit that has
about 7,000 households, divided into 24 smaller
community units (residents' association).
Rescue Stockyard (RSY) is a nonprofit organization
which has carried out disaster mitigation activities in thiscommunity for two years, such as workshops andfurniture nailing campaigns. RSY and the authors' group(Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto
University) had been collaborating for a year, and agreed
to agree with carrying out survey in this area. One of themain purposes for RSY is to check its influence and theachievement provided by their past activities. The survey
entitled "Community preparedness diagnostic sheet" wasdesigned to meet RSY's needs and as implementation
tool of urban diagnosis.
Whereas several social survey methods can be used
for diagnosis, a questionnaire was selected for the study.
Ever since RSY committed itself to community based
activities, this was the first time it performed a social
survey in the area. Therefore, a questionnaire seemed themost appropriate tool to hear citizens' opinions andattitudes towards disaster and their mitigation behavior.
The survey sheet was distributed to all 6,646 households
through the community organization in December 2004.
The survey questions consist of two parts. The
self-evaluation part asks a respondent to state their selfand mutual- preparedness for an earthquake on a scale of
10. These two questions are used to measure citizens'self-evaluation of preparedness.
The other 43 questions are used to measure"Community Preparedness Index (CPI)". In thesequestions, a respondent is asked if they prepare for anearthquake in action or if they have enoughconsciousness of an earthquake, such as "Have you
secured nailed down your furniture? (Yes, Considering,or No)", and "Do you discuss how to get in contact withyour family in an emergency? (Often, Sometimes, Rare,or No)". Some questions ask about self-preparedness tohelp the individual or family to survive the disaster, andthe others are regarding to mutual-preparedness to help

10

Optimistic
residents

864Pessimistic
residents

2
0
0

2

4
6
CPI averaged over elements

810

Neutral residents

Fig. 5 Cognition gap between residents’ self-diagnosis
and experts’ diagnosis
3.3 Collaborative modeling and application of
option-taking support information system forflood risk mitigation
Okada, Tatano and others have been engaged in the
CREST research project by closely linking it to the 21stCentury’s research project. Methodologically it is also
combined with the NIED’s research projectcommissioned to Okada’s research group. This
combined research activities have dealt with flood risk
mitigation and increased preparedness at community
level. What characterizes the approach adopted is its
emphasis on interactive and collaborative work between
modelers (researchers) and prospective users (residents).
This mutual work of model building and development iscalled“collaborativemodeling.”
Importantly
collaborative modeling is also a process-oriented
approach, in which reducing in size and functions could
mean progress if and only if it contributes to the qualityof risk communication on both ends, modelers on one
hand, and residents on the other.
Just to mention an example of how modelers need toaddress more appropriately users’ concerns, a PC device
to develop a household-based risk curve for an expectedbundle of disaster flood risks. Here again the information
technology of the DiMSIS has been best made use of.
This way we can better tailor the developed simulation
technique to each user’s essential concerns. It is also apart of our research challenge that such an elaborate
simulation technology can be effectively utilized to makelaymen (residents) virtually experience a possible set of
disaster scenarios. We propose to refer to the capacity ofhighly-advanced
simulation
techniqueas“ima-simulator” since it enables people to develop

virtual experiences of scenario disaster situations by wayof activating the capacity of imagination on something
awful and uncomfortable. Further research is intended tobe carried out to overall assess the implementability ofthis simulation technique when we carry out disaster risk
communication in a participatory process.
4.

Conclusions

There are many other pieces of research work
conducted by our research group. For want of space only
a limited number of illustrations have been made.
References
Disaster Prevention Research Institute (2004): Website
of Dai-dai-toku Project,
http://www.ddt33.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/.
CREST (2004): R&D of Hydrological Modeling andWater Resources System,
http://www.yae-mizu.jst.go.jp/yae-mizu/index.html
National Research Institute for Earth Science andDisaster Prevention (2004): Website of Research onsocietal systems resilient against natural disaster,
http://www.bosai.go.jp/sougou/shakai/index.html

都市地域リスク診断技法開発としてみた総合防災研究岡田憲夫・多々納裕一・鈴木祥之・萩原良巳・林康裕*・畑山満則* 京都大学大学院工学研究科
要旨
本研究では、総合防災研究の観点から、災害リスクの下にある都市・地域空間の安全性を空間リスクとして捉えるとともに、専門家や住民が共同でその現状とその時間的変化を診断する方法論(都市地域リスク診断技法)の開発と適用を行う。21世紀COE研究の枠組みの中で、他の関連する研究プロジェクトとも有機的に連携させながら、これまでに実施されている個別研究事例について紹介した。併せて今後の研究の課題について言及している。
キーワード: 都市・地域リスク診断，時空間リスク、総合防災、リスクコミュニケーション、参加型アプローチ