thThe 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

WHICH PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS WILL BE RELIED UPON THE
MOST IN THE CASE OF THE NEXT MAJOR DISASTER?
- Results from the random sampled social surveys of the disaster victimsof the 1995 Kobe earthquake and the 2004 Mid-Niigata earthquake disaster 1

2

3

Reo KIMURA , Haruo HAYASHI and Keiko TAMURA
1Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan
2
Professor, Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
3
Associate Professor, Research Center for Natural Hazards and Disaster Recovery, Niigata University,
Niigata , Japan
Email: reo@seis.nagoya-u.ac.jp, hayashi@drs.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp, tamura@gs.niigata-u.ac.jp
ABSTRACT :Once a major disaster hit a community, its victims immediately begin to suffer from many devastating
situations. They need various kinds of help and support from various sources in order to repair the damage
sustained in the disaster, and to return to their normal lives. Many types of organizations try to help them to thisend. In this context, it is relevant to ask exactly what kind of help does a victim rely upon the most? In order todiscover the answer to this pertinent question we conducted random social surveys in the areas affected by the
1995 Kobe Earthquake and the 2004 Mid-Niigata Earthquake. We asked the victims about their attitudes
towards the help and support that had been provided to them from various sources. The actual questions wecomposed were structured as follows: If another damaging earthquake occurred, you might need personal andemotional support, material and financial assistance, or assistance in receiving vital information. For each of thefollowing persons, facilities and organizations, please indicate in which ones you have trust and confidence interms of receiving personal and emotional support. Please circle all those in which you have trust andconfidence, and double-circle the one in which you have the most trust and confidence.” 24 names oforganizations and individuals were then listed below the question.
In both the urban and the mountainous areas, personal and emotional support was sought from close family,such as partners and children. Additionally, urban victims placed confidence and trust in the abilities of lifeline
services and industries to provide such support, whilst rural victims placed greater value on the local
administration and relatives. In terms of material and financial assistance, victims from the mountainous area
showed strong expectation towards government assistance, whilst urban victims saw the speedy recovery ofnormal lifeline utilities as constituting material and financial assistance. Finally, in terms of assistance inreceiving vital information, victims in both the urban and the mountainous areas looked to the mass media toprovide them with information about the scale of the disaster and wider recovery and reconstruction, and to
governmental administrations for information about more immediate life recovery and relief.
KEYWORDS:

quantitative survey, support for victims, personal and emotional support, material andfinancial assistance, assistance in receiving vital information

th

The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

1. INTRODUCTION
Major disasters cause sudden, large-scale shifts in the living environments of those people affected. As a resultof a major disaster, victims may sustain both person and material damage, and struggle to carry on with theirordinary lives as normal. In the extraordinary days that follow any major disaster, then, in order for the victims
to be able to re-establish their everyday lives, effective aid from supporters, working in both mutual assistanceand public assistance, is vitally important to supplement the self-help efforts undertaken by the victims
themselves.
This research sought to uncover the true state of assistance provided to victims in the wake of major disasters,by undertaking a qualitative survey of victims of two major earthquake disasters. It also sought to consider how
disaster relief and assistance could be most effectively provided in the wake of the next major disaster.
2. SURVEY DESIGN
2.1. The two major earthquake disasters considered in this survey
Two major earthquake disasters that occurred in Japan formed the basis of our survey of disaster victims, theKobe (Hanshin-Awaji) Earthquake that struck on January 17 1995 and the Mid-Niigata Earthquake that struckon October 23 2004. 6437 people died as a result of the Kobe Earthquake, and around 250,000 homes were
either fully or partially destroyed. It was an urban disaster in a major urban centre containing both aconcentrated population and complex and advanced urban infrastructure. The Mid-Niigata Earthquake, bycontrast, had a death toll of 68 people, and around 16,000 homes were either fully or partially destroyed. It was
an intermediate and mountainous area disaster, striking an intermediate and mountainous area in the riceproducing area of Japan. By highlighting the nature of assistance provided to victims of disasters in these twoareas, we sought to investigate how disaster victims relief should be provided in urban and in mountainous
regions.
The data used in this report is from a survey about the Kobe Earthquake undertaken in January 2001, six years
after the earthquake struck, and from a survey about the Mid-Niigata Earthquake undertaken in October 2005,
two years after that earthquake struck. 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 withthe probability 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 36.5% in the January 2001 survey,
which was six years after the Kobe Earthquake. We feel that the response rate indicates that there is still highinterest among the victims in the Kobe Earthquake and that our questionnaire was easy to respond to.
Therefore, we believe the reliability of the survey results is high.
For the survey frame and analysis of survey items other than support for victims, please refer to Kimura et al.,2001, Hayashi(eds.) 2002, for the 2001 survey on the Kobe (Hanshin-Awaji) Earthquake, and Kimura, 2007,
Kimura et al., 2007, for the 2006 survey on the Mid-Niigata Earthquake.
Table 1 Overview of two surveys
the Kobe Survey in January 2001

the Mid-Niigata Survey in October 2006

Earthquake occurred in

17 January 1995

23 October 2004

Surveyed Area

Areas where 7 on the seismic scale wasrecorded and gas was stopped + Kobe
City Kita ward and Nishi ward

Areas in Nagaoka City, Ojiya City, andKawaguchi Town, where 6 lower on theJapanese seismic scale was recorded

Surveyed person

Man and woman 20 years or older

Man and woman 20 years or older

Sampling

Sampled from resident register using
stratified two-stage sampling

Sampled from resident register using
stratified two-stage sampling (each 50
points in Nagaoka City and Ojiya City, 7
points in Kawaguchi Town, 20 residents
per point)

Number of surveyed
persons
Number of effective
answers
Rate of effective answers
Method of survey

3,300

2,140

1,203

1,013

36.5%

47.3%

Fill out questionnaire sent by mail andcollect it by mailFill out questionnaire sent by mail andcollect it by mailth

The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

2.2. Structuring the survey questions
In order to establish exactly what kind of assistance was provided to disaster victims, the survey questions werestructured using the following three techniques.
Firstly, victim support was divided into three aspects: personal and emotional support, material and financial
assistance, and assistance for receiving vital information. Simply asking “who provided you with support?” will
not help us to understand the specific nature of the support provided, and therefore will not enable us to takesteps towards providing more effective assistance when disaster next strikes. Our research, then, splits the
support provided into three categories - personal and emotional, material and financial, and vital information –in order to avoid this potential pitfall.
Secondly, we structured the mode of expression used in the survey questions in order that disaster victims could
not directly evaluate the providers of support. If, for example, we were to ask “Which persons, facilities andorganizations were useful in providing you with material and financial assistance after the 1995 Kobe
Earthquake? Please circle all those applicable”, this makes it possible for the respondent to refuse to answer thequestion, responding perhaps instead that “the scale of support may have differed, but everyone did what they
could! I will not single out certain people only.” Equally he or she could circle all of the possible answers. In
order to avoid this, care was taken over the structure of our survey questions, for example: “If anotherdamaging earthquake were to occur, in which of the following persons, facilities and organizations providing
support would you have trust and confidence in terms of receiving financial and material assistance? Pleasecircle all those applicable.” Asking the questions in this way makes it possible for us to reveal the evaluation of,and expectations towards, providers of assistance that disaster victims have, by inquiring as to whom theywould look towards in a future disaster as a result of those persons or organizations already having providingthem with meaningful support in the past.
Thirdly, we drew up two distinct patterns within questions. By asking, “if another damaging earthquake were tooccur, in which of the following persons, facilities and organizations providing support would you have trustand confidence in terms of receiving financial and material assistance? Please circle all those applicable”, there
is a risk that the respondent will exhaustively circle all of the possible answers. As such, we drew up questions
with two pattern answers: “If another damaging earthquake were to occur, in which of the following persons,facilities and organizations providing support would you have trust and confidence in terms of receiving
financial and material assistance? Please circle all those applicable. Please also double-circle the ONE in which
you have the MOST trust and confidence.” The multiple answers (MA, singly circled) gleaned from such aquestion, then, allow us to discover the evaluation of the victims – revealing all of the persons, facilities andorganizations in which they would place trust and confidence in a subsequent earthquake disaster, based upon
their own experiences of earthquake disaster. By contrast, the single answers (SA, doubly circled) help us tounderstand their true expectations – revealing who they would really look to for support in the event of anotherdisaster.
Using these three techniques, earthquake victims provided us with their evaluations of 24 categories of person,
facility and organization that provided support after the Kobe Earthquake, and 29 categories of person, facility
organization that support provided support after the Mid-Niigata Earthquake.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Support aspect determines the most effective supporter
Figures 1 through 6 illustrate the nature of support provided in the three aspects of personal and emotional,
material and financial, and vital information. The figures have been ordered according to the results of the
Mid-Niigata Earthquake victim’s survey, starting at the left with those categories receiving the highest numberof responses. Figures 1 through 3 show the results obtained from asking who the victims thought they would be
able to rely on in the event of a disaster, whereas figures 4 through 6 show the results obtained from asking who
the victims would most like to turn to for support.
Looking at the results showing in which support providers the victims had trust and confidence in terms ofreceiving personal and emotional support (multiple answers, Figure 1), we can see that, in the 1995 Kobe
Earthquake, close relatives such as partner (69%), children (66%) and siblings (56%), together with publicbodies such as lifeline services and industries (57%), medical services (52%) and the police/fire service (39%)
scored highly as providers of support. In addition to blood relations, victims of the 2004 Mid-Niigata

th

The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

Earthquake also looked to local community connections such as neighbors (70%), community and town
associations (42%) and city administrations (55%) for support. In terms of the persons, facilities ororganizations the victims would have the most trust and confidence (single answer, Figure 2), one’s partnerscored significantly higher than any other option in both the urban and the intermediate/mountainous area
(urban: 42%, mountainous: 36%), followed by children (urban: 12%, mountainous: 12%). Whilst in themountainous area local community connections such as the city or town administration (10%) and neighbors(10%) were also expected to provide support, in the urban area this expectation was placed rather upon lifeline
services and industries (8%).
80％
70 6969

70
60

1995 Kobe (Hanshin-Awaji) Earthquake (Urban disaster)
66
62

61
56

59

51

50

2004 Mid-Niigata Earthquake (Intermediate and mountainous area disaster)
55 5354

44

57
52
49

48

47

38

40

* Option in the Mid-Niigata Earthquake survey only
42 41
38 3936
3132

31

37
31

30
20

39
30

28
14

14

28

26
16
14

12

14 14
11
6

10

17
10

9
2

6

5

3 23 53 13
Political groups

Academics

Religious groups* Bus operators* Union groups from same industry

Railway operators

Construction companies

Mass media* Japan Agricultural Cooperatives

Insurance provider

PoliceCompany of employment

National government* Volunteer fire corps

Prefectural government

Mean

Volunteer groups

Parents

Fire service

Self-Defence Forces

Community associations

Lifeline services/ industries

Medical services

Friends

Town/City administration

Siblings

Relatives

Partner

Children

Neighbours

0

Figure 1 Persons, facilities and organizations in which victims would place trust and confidence in terms ofreceiving personal and emotional support in the event of another disaster (multiple answers possible)(Arranged right to left, in order of highest number of responses from the Mid-Niigata Earthquake victims
survey.: same as Figure 1 to Figure 6)
45
40

％

1995 Kobe (Hanshin-Awaji) Earthquake (Urban disaster)

41

2004 Mid-Niigata Earthquake (Intermediate and mountainous area disaster)

36

35* Option in the Mid-Niigata Earthquake survey only

30
25
20

4

4 34 43

0

1

2

0

2 22 32

01 11

1 01 11 10 00 00 00 1000* Union groups from same industry

851* Japan Agricultural Cooperatives

5

Relatives

2
Neighbours

8 82
Town/City administration

5

Self-Defence Forces

10

10

Community associations

1212

15

0 00 00 00
Academics

Construction companies* Bus operators

Railway operators

PoliceInsurance provider

Mass media

Political groups

Fire service

Religious groups* Volunteer fire corps

Prefectural government

Volunteer groups

Company of employment

Friends

Medical services

National government

Lifeline services/ industries

Mean

Siblings

Parents

Children

Partner0

Figure 2 Persons, facilities or organizations in which victims would place the most trust and confidence interms of receiving personal and emotional support in the event of another disaster (single answer)
Looking next at the results showing in which support providers the victims had trust and confidence in terms ofreceiving material and financial assistance (multiple answers, Figure 3), victims from the urban center looked
most to lifeline services and industries (57%), city administration (54%), followed by various family relations,such as relatives (44%). The results for the mountainous area showed most confidence in the local city or town
administration (69%), followed by various family relations, such as relative (52%). These trends were repeatedin the results for of the persons, facilities or organizations the victims would most like to rely on for support(single answer, Figure 4), with victims in the mountainous area looking primarily to local governmental
authorities for assistance, whilst expectations for material and financial assistance amongst urban victims wereconcentrated on the rapid reestablishment of lifeline utilities. We can surmise from these results that theth

The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

victims’ assessments and expectations are based on such factors as urban areas being strongly reliant on thelifeline utilities, a lack of back-up plans in the event of any stoppage of these lifelines, and that so-called life
reconstruction support systems are qualitatively limited and hard to disseminate in the case of a large urban
population.
1995 Kobe (Hanshin-Awaji) Earthquake (Urban disaster)％

2004 Mid-Niigata Earthquake (Intermediate and mountainous area disaster)

69
57

54

50

52
44

49
43

44

42 4440

43
39 37

35

40

28

30

* Option in the Mid-Niigata Earthquake survey only

37

25

37

40
35

31

21

20

15

35 34
28 26 26 29
23 23 23 23
17
13

13

10

8

12

16
11

14
8

46

3 63

3

12
Political groups

60

Mass media

70

Railway operators80

2 31 01
Academics

Religious groups* Union groups from same industry* Bus operators

Construction companies* Japan Agricultural Cooperatives

Insurance provider

Company of employment

Police* Volunteer fire corps

Fire service

Mean

Parents

Medical services

Volunteer groups

Friends

Community associations

National government

ChildrenLifeline services/ industries

Partner

Prefectural government

Self-Defence Forces

Siblings

Neighbours

Relatives

Town/City administration

0

Figure 3 Persons, facilities and organizations in which victims would place trust and confidence in terms ofreceiving material and financial assistance in the event of another disaster (multiple answers possible)
45 ％1995 Kobe (Hanshin-Awaji) Earthquake (Urban disaster)40

2004 Mid-Niigata Earthquake (Intermediate and mountainous area disaster)35* Option in the Mid-Niigata Earthquake survey only

30
18

20
14
9

9 9

7

2

5

4

7

6

6
3

5 45
1

1

3 43

6
3 32

1

2 22 3101 01 10 00 00

0 00 00 00 00 00

000* Bus operators

1110* Union groups from same industry

15* Japan Agricultural Cooperatives

25

23

Railway operators

Academics

Political groups

Construction companies

Police* Volunteer fire corps

Mass media

Religious groups

Medical services

Fire service

Insurance provider

Friends

Company of employment

Volunteer groups

Prefectural government

Parents

Mean

Community associations

Siblings

Neighbours

National government

Relatives

Lifeline services/ industries

Children

Partner

Self-Defence Forces

Town/City administration

0

Figure 4 Persons, facilities or organizations in which victims would place the most trust and confidence interms of receiving material and financial assistance in the event of another disaster (single answer)
Finally, looking next at the results showing in which support providers the victims had trust and confidence interms of receiving assistance in receiving vital information (multiple answers, Figure 5), both the urban andmountainous areas looked to the mass media (urban: 41%, mountainous: 30%) and town or city administrations(urban: 20%, mountainous: 32%) as the main sources of information. The same trends were repeated in termsof those persons, facilities or organizations the victims would place the most trust and confidence (single
answer, Figure 6). From further interviews with victims we were able to establish that they looked to the mass
media for information on the scale of the disaster and on wider social recovery and reconstruction, and to the
local administration for information on more immediate life recovery and relief. It appears that victims look to
the mass media and the local administration, therefore, as two distinct ‘channels’ providing information of two
distinct natures, and expect both sources to provide them with the information which they are seeking.

th

The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

80

1995 Kobe (Hanshin-Awaji) Earthquake (Urban disaster)

％

73 76
70

2004 Mid-Niigata Earthquake (Intermediate and mountainous area disaster)

70
58

60

* Option in the Mid-Niigata Earthquake survey only

50
38 3837

40

3537
2830

30
19

20

37

33
28 26 2825
21 21

25 2424 2523

37

20 2319

18

18

10

1516 17 15
12 11 1310 10

64 24 533 22

7

2 12 21

1

Political groups* Union groups from same industry

Religious groups

Railway operators

Construction companies

Academics* Bus operators

Insurance provider* Japan Agricultural Cooperatives

Parents

Company of employment

Medical services

Volunteer groups

Self-Defence Forces* Volunteer fire corps

Mean

PoliceFire service

Partner

Children

Friends

Lifeline services/ industries

Siblings

Relatives

National government

Neighbours

Prefectural government

Community associations

Mass media

Town/City administration

0

Figure 5 Persons, facilities and organizations in which victims would place trust and confidence in terms ofreceiving assistance in receiving vital information in the event of another disaster (multiple answers possible)
45 ％1995 Kobe (Hanshin-Awaji) Earthquake (Urban disaster)

41

40
35

2004 Mid-Niigata Earthquake (Intermediate and mountainous area disaster)
32

30
25
20

30

* Option in the Mid-Niigata Earthquake survey only

20

15
3

5

33 33 23 22
12

2 12

4

1 31 01 01 11 01 31 01
00 00 00 00 00 00 00

0 00

0

0
* Bus operators

1* Union groups from same industry

5

Railway operators

810* Japan Agricultural Cooperatives

Academics

Political groups

Construction companies

Volunteer groups

Religious groups

Company of employment

Insurance provider

Parents

PoliceSiblings

Medical services

Relatives

Self-Defence Forces

Fire service

Lifeline services/ industries

Friends* Volunteer fire corps

National government

Prefectural government

Neighbours

Mean

Children

Partner

Community associations

Mass media

Town/City administration

0

Figure 6 Persons, facilities or organizations in which victims would place the most trust and confidence interms of receiving assistance in receiving vital information in the event of another disaster (single answer)
3.2. Urban disasters unable to benefit from community connections
Figures 7 and 8 show the overall attitude towards support and assistance displayed by our survey respondents.
Taking Figure 7 as an example, support providers are shown within the three circles (ellipses) representing
personal and emotional support, material and financial assistance, and assistance in receiving vital information.
Their presence in the ellipses indicates that they received above average scores in each relevant aspect. Figure 7
shows, then, that the mass media received an above average score in terms of providing assistance in receiving
vital information, that volunteer groups received above average scores in terms of both personal and emotional
support and material and financial assistance, and that the lifeline services and industries received above
average scores in all three aspects of victim support. These figures allow us to construct an overall picture of
the support provided to disaster victims, through a clear representation of who victims see as providing themwith support, and how effectively.
Looking at the individual people being assessed as support providers (multiple answers, Figures 7), we can see
that, unlike the urban area, disaster victims in the mountainous area were able to place trust and confidence inthe mutual assistance provided through both extended family ties, such as relatives and siblings not living withthe victims’ family, and local community ties, such as local community and town associations. This was thecase for all three aspects of support. Moreover, for both the urban and mountainous areas, most individual
support providers which recorded above average scores also scored highly in terms of victims’ confidence inlooking to them for material and financial assistance. What this implies is that, setting aside those support
providers who offer specialized or limited assistance, such as the mass media, the police and the fire service,th

The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

considering how support providers could best provide material and financial assistance that is appropriate to theneeds of victims at the time of a major disaster will contribute to the improvement of the overall support
structures available to victims at such times.
Personal/
Emotional

Personal/
Emotional

Parents

Lifeline
services

Volunteers
Police/Fire Service

Lifeline
services
Neighbors

Medicalservices
Parents
Relatives

Fire
Service

Friends Partner
Children Siblings
City

Children
City administration

administration

Vital
Information
Mass
media

Material/
Financial

National &Prefectural
governments

Medicalservices
Community
associations Relatives Self
DefenseNeighbors
Siblings
ForcesFriends
Partner

Self
Defence
Forces

Vital
Information

National &Prefectural
governments

Material/
Financial
Volunteers

Mass
media

Figure 7 Persons, facilities and organization in which victims would have trust and confidence in terms ofreceiving support in the event of an earthquake disaster (multiple answers possible)(left figure: 1995 Kobe Earthquake victims, right figure: 2004 Mid-Niigata Earthquake victims)
Furthermore, results on the persons, facilities or organization in which victims would place the most trust andconfidence in terms of receiving support in the event of a subsequent disaster (single answer, Figures 8),
victims from the mountainous area were confident that they would received support from all corners, both fromthe local community in the shape of the local administration and community associations, and from family,such as partners and children. This clearly shows the strength of the social resources available to thecommunities in the mountainous area examined in this survey, which allows the community to overcome theadversity brought about by disaster through a close network of family and relatives, as well as the local
community and local organizations. It also shows the contrastive vulnerability shown by urban areas, whichcannot rely on such social resources.
Personal/
Emotional
Personal/
Emotional

Parents

Siblings
Parents

Partner

Relatives

Children

Self Defense
Force,

ChildrenLifeline
services

Vital
Information
Mass
media

City
adminis-tration

Community
associations

Partner

Material/
Financial
Siblings
Relatives

Vital
Information
Mass
media

NeighborsCityadministration

Material/
Financial
Lifeline
services
National
government

Figure 8 Persons, facilities or organization in which victims would place the most trust and confidence in termsof receiving support in the event of an earthquake disaster (single answer)(left figure: 1995 Kobe Earthquake victims, right figure: 2004 Mid-Niigata Earthquake victims)

th

The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

In addition, it was significant that the only support provider in the intersection of all three circles was thelifeline services and industries. For disaster victims living in urban areas, the timely recovery of lifeline utilities– stopping gas leaks, fixing the electricity supply, ensuring running water is available and that toilets can be
flushed – is more than just the reinstatement of normal social flow; it is seen as an overall relief service,significant in terms of all three aspects of support – personal and emotional, material and financial, and vital
information – in which great trust and confidence is placed.
These results suggest that, in crowded urban areas, it is simply not possible for government administrations toprovide precise and tailored support to the entire body of victims. In the case of mountainous areas, government
administrations should be working to strengthen and improve disaster response policy to allow local authorities
to take charge in the event of any subsequent disasters, and make use of relief structures and systems that arestrongly focused on local community ties. By contrast, families and lifeline services should be looked to inurban centers to provide overall support to victims, whilst ensuring that there is an ample safety net – in theform of public assistance - available for any victims who slip through the cracks. These seem to represent the
optimal structures for the effective provision of support and assistance.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Having divided the support provided to disaster victims into the three categories of personal and emotional
support, material and financial assistance, and assistance in receiving vital information, this research sought todetermine the nature of the support provided to victims, the victims’ evaluation of that support, and their future
expectations in any subsequent disaster.
In both the urban and the mountainous areas, personal and emotional support was sought from close family,such as partners and children. Additionally, urban victims placed confidence and trust in the abilities of lifeline
services and industries to provide such support, whilst rural victims placed greater value on the local
administration and relatives. In terms of material and financial assistance, victims from the mountainous area
showed strong expectation towards government assistance, whilst urban victims saw the speedy recovery ofnormal lifeline utilities as constituting material and financial assistance. Finally, in terms of assistance inreceiving vital information, victims in both the urban and the mountainous areas looked to the mass media toprovide them with information about the scale of the disaster and wider recovery and reconstruction, and to
governmental administrations for information about more immediate life recovery and relief.
Looking at the nature of the overall support provided to victims, our research has made clear that whilst victims
in the mountainous area had expectations for overall support provided holistically from both local communities
ties, such as the local authority and community associations, as well as family and blood ties such as partners
and children, urban victims looked to lifeline services and industries to provide overall relief. As well as
highlighting the paucity of social resources in urban communities, the victims’ evaluations have clearly shownthat the current disaster management policy, in which overall victim support is left to the lifeline services andindustries and the government provides a safety net in the form of public assistance, is an effective approach.

REFERENCES
Kimura, R., Hayashi, H., Tatsuki S. and Tamura, K. (2001). Determinants and Timing of Housing
Reconstruction Decisions by the Victims of the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake Disaster - A 2001
Replication -. Journal of Social Safety Science 3, 23-32. (in Japanese)
Hayashi, H. (ed) (2002). Socio-economic Recovery from the 1995 Hanshin Awaji Earthquake Disaster - Reportof Panel Survey 2005 -, Technical Report DRS-2001-01, Kyoto University, JAPAN. (in Japanese)
Kimura, R. (2007). Recovery and Reconstruction Calendar. Journal of Disaster Research 2:6, 465-474.
Kimura, R., Hayashi, H. and Tamura, K. (2007). Which Roles are Citizens and the Community to Play in the
Field of Disaster Management? (Results from the Random Sampled Social Surveys to the Disaster Victimsof the 1995 Kobe Earthquake and the 2004 Niigata Earthquake Disaster). 2nd International Conference on
Urban Disaster Reduction Proceedings CD-ROM (6pp.).