2nd International Conference on Urban Disaster Reduction
November 27~29, 2007

Which Roles are Citizens and the Community to Play in the Field ofDisaster Management?
(Results from the Random Sampled Social Surveys to the Disaster Victimsof the 1995 Kobe Earthquake and the 2004 Niigata Earthquake Disaster)R. Kimura 1*, H. Hayashi 2 and K. Tamura 3
1
2

Disaster Management Office, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan

Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

3. Research Center for Natural Hazards and Disaster Recovery, Niigata University, Niigata, JapanAbstract
The promotion of mitigation or preparedness for impending disasters is a fundamental issue toreduce disaster risks. The experiences from the 1995 Kobe Earthquake clearly demonstrated
that communities, non-government organizations, and citizens must share some of the burdenof natural disasters because government assistance alone is insufficient to overcome
devastating situations. Hence, the question is, “How to divide the responsibilities amongindividuals, communities, and governments for mitigation or preparedness?” We conducted
random social surveys in the impacted area of the 1995 Kobe Earthquake and the 2004 MidNiigata Earthquake. We inquired about the attitudes of the victims and their opinions of ‘who
has to do what’ when it comes to disaster mitigation and preparedness. The Kobe survey wasconducted in Jan. 2005 and had 1,028 valid responses, whereas the Niigata survey was in Oct.
2006 and had 1,013 valid responses. We listed 14 typical countermeasures, and asked theparticipants who was responsible for each countermeasure.
The main results are as follows: 1) Countermeasures can be divided into four groups based on‘who is responsible for what: individuals, government, communities & governments, andindividuals, communities & government, 2) There is not a significant difference between theKobe survey and Niigata survey, indicating that victims, who experienced urban disasters orrural disasters, have similar views about the roles they should play for mitigation andpreparedness.

*

Kankyo-Sougou-kan, Furocho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya-shi, 464-8601, JAPANDisaster management plans constructed by the local government are basic descriptions ofcountermeasures. Who is responsible for each countermeasure must be clearly described inorder to effectively promote mitigation or preparedness at any level.

Keyword: disaster mitigation and preparedness, individual, community, government

1. Introduction
In our modern society where various social functions are interrelated in a complex manner, adisaster significantly affects people and society for a long time because things like asecondary disaster make the disaster’s scale and scope varied, but immense. In addition, thegeographic area affected by disasters is typically large, and the duration of suffering is long.
Moreover, even areas not directly struck by disasters are also affected.
In order to cope with such a disaster, it is necessary that three bodies: individuals,communities, and governments, have predetermined roles before and after a disaster.
Individuals provide self-help to themselves, their families, and neighbors, while communities
provide mutual assistance to local residents and organizations.

National and municipal

governments and disaster response providers, such as utility companies and public services,
provide governmental assistance. When a massive disaster strikes, governmental assistancealone cannot provide a sufficient recovery. Thus, it is imperative that all three forms ofrecovery: self-help, mutual assistance, and governmental assistance, share the responsibilities,
according to what each excels at.
Based on this motivation, we conducted a questionnaire survey asking disaster victims, “Whatthe desired responsibility sharing is among the three bodies from a disaster victim’s point ofview?” The results should provide knowledge and lessons on disaster prevention and recovery.

2. Method of survey
2.1 Overview of questionnaire survey
The data used in this paper were collected from random sample surveys conducted in two
disaster afflicted areas. One set of data, which was collected in January 2005, comes from anurban disaster that occurred in January 1995, the Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe) Great Earthquake.
The other set of data, which was collected in October 2006, comes from a rural disaster that
occurred in October 2004, the Mid-Niigata Earthquake. (Although not used in this paper,
additional multiple random sample surveys have been conducted in these areas.)

Bothrandom sample surveys were conducted in order to reveal the extent of damage and therecovery process of the victims.
Table 1 shows the survey results. Using a stratified two-stage sampling method, each survey
randomly sampled the afflicted area, and then the final survey targets were sampled with theprobability proportional to size so that one person from one household was sampled based on
the Basic Resident Register of each municipality. The response rate was as high as 31.2% in
the January 2005 survey, which was ten years after the Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe) Earthquake.
We feel that the response rate indicates that there is still high interest among the victims in theHanshin-Awaji (Kobe) Earthquake and that our questionnaire was easy to respond to.
Therefore, we believe the reliability of the survey results is high.
Table 1 Survey Overview
Hanshin‑Awaji (Kobe) Earthquake, 1995

Mid‑Niigata Earthquake, 2004

Survey date

January 2005

October 2006

Survey target areas

Areas with intensity 7, areas with nogas supply and Kita‑ward and Nishi‑
ward of Kobe City

Areas with intensity 6 lower ormore in Nagaoka City, Ojiya Cityand Kawaguchi Cho

Survey targets

Men and women of 20 years or older

Men and women of 20 years or older

Method of sampling

Sampled from Resident Register using
stratified two‑stage sampling

Sampled from Resident Register using
stratified two‑stage sampling (50 areas
each from Nagaoka and Ojiya and 7 areas
in Kawaguchi. 20 people from each area)

Number of targets

3300

2140

Number of effective responses

1028

1013

Response rate

31.2%

Survey method

Survey mailed out and mailed in,
written by respondent

47.3%
Survey mailed out and mailed in,
written by respondent

For the survey frame and analysis of survey items other than role sharing among individuals,
municipalities, and governments, please refer to Kimura et al., 2006 [1], Hayashi(eds.)
2006[2], etc. for the 2005 survey on the Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe) Great Earthquake, andKimura et al., 2005 [3], etc. for the 2006 survey on the Mid-Niigata Earthquake.

2.2 Survey items, “Role Sharing among Individuals, Communities, and Governments”
We asked questions in order to inquire about the victims’ desires in role sharing amongindividuals, communities, and governments for each aspect of disaster prevention andrecovery efforts. Our question was as follows: “It has been said that there are three
approaches in disaster prevention and recovery for an earthquake: self-help (help amongindividuals and families), mutual assistance (assistance within neighborhood community
associations and other community groups), and governmental assistance (services provided by
the government and other public bodies). For each of the following activities, what is thedesired ratio of role sharing among individuals, communities, and government? According to
the examples, please provide what you think is the desirable percentage for each body is sothat the total is 100%.” We then asked ten questions about activities such as fall prevention offurniture, etc., providing emergency drills, and assessing and listing vulnerable populations ina disaster such as seniors. In addition to these ten questions, we asked the Hanshin-Awaji(Kobe) Earthquake survivors two questions about tsunamis, and the Mid-Niigata Earthquakesurvivors two questions about flood damage. Again, we requested the respondents distributionof the three bodies’ (individuals, communities, and government) responsibility to total 100%.

3. Survey results
The results shown in Figs. 1 and 2 revealed that there are four types of balance among theroles to be played by individuals, communities, and governments in disaster prevention andrecovery for both Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe) Earthquake and Mid-Niigata Earthquake. The first
type is activities that should be done mainly on the individual level, which include “Fallprevention of furniture, etc.” and “Making residential houses earthquake-resistant.” The next
type is activities that should be undertaken mainly by the governments. This includes“Securing and maintaining evacuation areas for large areas” and “Operation of emergency
shelters.” Although the respondents replied that these activities should be done either by thecommunity or government, they felt that one body must be more than 50% responsible andthe most effective way to conduct disaster management is to have the body, which accounts
for more than half the desired role sharing, takes the initiative.
The third type is a group of activities where “Communities and governments shouldcooperate.” This group includes “Providing emergency drills,” “Assisting vulnerable people
in times of disaster such as seniors,” and “Inspecting dangerous areas within the community.”
The combined percentage of responsibility that victims expect for the communities and thegovernments for this group exceeds 80%, but the victims felt that each body had distinct, butequal responsibilities. This means that citizens do not rely on either the community orgovernment, but felt that these bodies should work together to effectively provide disastermanagement so that the governments provide a system and financial resources, while thecommunities actively provides front line actions.
The final type is activities where “All three bodies: individuals, communities, andgovernments, should cooperate.” This category includes “Disaster management education forchildren,” “Securing means to confirm friends’ and relatives’ safety,” and “Preparing
emergency food and water supplies.” Victims assess that each of the three bodies (individuals,

Governments

Communities

Individuals

Kobe-specific activities
Open/close of tide gate upon tsunami

70.3

Communicating tsunami advisory and warning

68.6

Common activities

Securing and maintaining evacuation site for large area

26.5

62.9

Operating an emergency shelter

7.2

32.8

20.0

21.5

Fall prevention of furniture, etc.

25.6

26.8

33.8

Making residential houses earthquake resistant

14.7

28.5

40.4

Preparing emergency supply of foods and water

14.5

47.0

45.9

Providing means of finding out people’s safety

14.6

42.6

38.3

Disaster education for children

7.6

41.0

42.9

Inspecting dangerous areas in the community

5.3

40.7

44.4

Grasping vulnerable people in times of disaster such as seniors

5.4

31.8

51.7

Providing emergency drills

3.2

26.0

46.2

9.7

68.8

6.2

86.6

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%
100%
N=940～949

Figure 1 Desired role sharing among individuals, communities and governments by victims ofHanshin-Awaji (Kobe) Earthquake of 1995 (Surveyed in 2005)(Third item from the top and below are common items with Niigata)
Governments

Communities

Individuals

Niigata-specific activities
Open/close of water gate upon flood

58.3

Communicating flood advisory and warning

56.1

Securing and maintaining evacuation site for large area

61.6

Operating an emergency shelter

Common activities

37.3

37.7

Inspecting dangerous areas in the community

32.1

Disaster education for children
Providing means of finding out people’s safety

33.6

Preparing emergency supply of foods and water

34.8
23.6

Fall prevention of furniture, etc.

43.9

15.7

45.9

16.4
16.5

29.2

27.7

29.6

36.9

21.0

44.2

8.9

67.5

6.6 5.4
0%

7.7

51.4
43.1

Making residential houses earthquake resistant

5.5

42.8

40.4

Grasping vulnerable people in times of disaster such as seniors

7.7

32.9

49.6

Providing emergency drills

4.4

36.3

87.9
20%

40%

60%

80%
100%
N=883～906

Figure 2 Desired role sharing among individuals, communities and governments by victims ofMid-Niigata Earthquake of 2004 (Surveyed in 2006)(Third item from the top and below are common items with Kobe)

communities, and governments) bear at least 20% of the responsibility. Thus, the message isthat a disaster plan is most effective if all three bodies cooperate by each of them playing its
own defined role. For instance, checking friends’ and relatives’ safety cannot be done unlessthe national or municipal government provides a system to verify the safety, while
communities prepare, maintain, and update a safety checklist such as a list of vulnerable
people in times of a disaster, and individuals are responsible to verify the safety using themethod and checklist provided by the government and community, respectively. From thesesurvey results, we have gained knowledge and lessons from disaster victims that each one ofthree bodies has a different level of role to play in different types of disaster management.
Moreover, disaster victims indicated that individuals, communities, and governments all have

distinct contributions, and that these three bodies must work together to provide
countermeasures against disasters.

3.2 Verification of generality
We have conducted a verification of generality. That is, “What kind of difference is there
between the two survey results on different disasters with different local characteristics, andextents of damage such as Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe) Earthquake and Mid-Niigata Earthquake?”
More specifically, we have conducted a Chi square test for goodness of fit on the twodisasters in terms of the percentage of roles each body: individuals, communities, andgovernment, should play in each activity. The results show that there is not a statisticallysignificant difference between the two disasters for any of the activities. In other words,victims from different disasters had similar expectations for the responsibility of each body
(Total of 10 activities: χ2(2)=0.02-0.87, n.s.).

4. Future plans
We have seen the generality in the way people desire role sharing to be among the threebodies in order to effectively promote disaster management in Japan. Based on this role
sharing, we would like to foster a discussion on what the specific roles each body should playfor each activity area. We would also like to conduct similar surveys on other disasters inJapan and abroad in order to be able to propose desirable organizational structures and role
sharing for disaster management.

References[1] Kimura, R., Hayashi, H., Tatsuki S., Tamura, K., Noda, T., Yamori, K., Kuromiya, A. andUrata, Y., “Developing Victims’ Life Reconstruction Indicators by Social Survey -Ten
Years Monitoring in the Great Hanshin-Awaji(Kobe) Earthquake Disaster-“, Journal ofSocial Safety Science, No, 8, (2006), pp.415-424.(Japanese)[2] Hayashi, H. (ed), “Socio-economic Recovery from the 1995 Hanshin Awaji Earthquake

Disaster-Report of Panel Survey 2005-“, Technical Report DRS-2005-02, Research Center
for Disaster Reduction System, Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University.,(2006) (Japanese)[3]Kimura, R., Hayashi, H., Tatsuki S., Tamura, K., Horie, K. and Kuromiya, A., “DefinedEvacuation and Sheltering Processes of Disaster Victims in 2004 Mid-Niigata Prefecture
Earthquake”, Journal of Social Safety Science, No, 7, (2005), pp.161-170. (Japanese)