The International Emergency Management Society
2014 TIEM Annual Conference in Niigata, 2014.10.20 - 23

Comparison between the Life Recovery Processes after the Mid-Niigata
Earthquake and the Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake– Results of a Random Sampled Social Survey Using the Life Recovery Calendar
and GIS-based Spatiotemporal Analysis
KIMURA, Reo1, INOGUCHI, Munenari2, TAMURA, Keiko3, HAYASHI, Haruo4
1

2

Associate Professor, School of Human Science and Environment, University of Hyogo, Hyogo, Japan
Assistant Professor, Research Institute for Natural Hazards and Disaster Recovery, Niigata University, Niigata,Japan
3
Professor, Risk Management Office, Niigata University, Niigata, Japan
4
Professor, Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
Email: rkimura@shse.u-hyogo.ac.jp

ABSTRACT:This study focuses on the life recovery efforts after two earthquakes in the Niigata Prefecture: the Mid-Niigata
Earthquake (October 2004) and the Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake (July 2007). The results of a randomly sampled social
survey conducted in the affected areas and the entire prefecture are analyzed using the Life Recovery Calendar
method, which identifies disaster damage in affected areas and in Niigata to systematically understand the status andprocess of rebuilding lives. Although the magnitude of devastation and the nature of the disasters differ, both cases
have similar life recovery processes. However, the impact of the Mid-Niigata Earthquake lingered over a larger area
for a longer period compared to the Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake.
KEYWORDS:
Mid-Niigata Earthquake, Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake, Random Sampled Social Survey, Life Recovery, Life Recovery
Calendar Method, GIS (Geographic Information System)

1. INTRODUCTION
In an effort to systematically understand the status and process of rebuilding daily routines after a disaster, this study
analyzes the results of a massive randomly sampled social survey that aimed to identify the disaster damage in theaffected and surrounding areas by assessing responses from disaster victims and other citizens. The survey conductedin March 2009 focused on two earthquakes in the Niigata Prefecture: the Mid-Niigata Earthquake on October 23,
2004 (4.5 years prior to the survey) and the Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake on July 16, 2007 (1.5 years prior). The
devastation that these disasters caused and the accompanying recovery efforts had not been seen since the Great
Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe) Earthquake in 1995. Unlike the Great Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe) Earthquake, which wascharacterized by its urban and inland nature, both the 2004 and 2007 earthquakes impacted provincial towns in the
midst of Japan‟s current aging trend.

2. METHODOLOGY
The survey targeted adults in the following three areas: 1) affected areas that experienced a seismic intensity of 6 andabove in the 2004 earthquake, 2) affected areas that experienced a seismic intensity of 6 and above in the 2007
earthquake, and 3) the rest of the Niigata Prefecture. Samples were extracted from the resident register by a two-stage
probability, which was proportional to sampling size (target age and other attributes as of March 1, 2009). First, 1) 69
locations, 2) 56 locations, and 3) 125 locations were randomly sampled from the target areas. Then ten individuals

The International Emergency Management Society
2014 TIEM Annual Conference in Niigata, 2014.10.20 - 23from each location‟s resident register were sampled such that one adult per household was sampled. To attain genderbalance, sampled individuals were carefully identified. This resulted in 50,000 targets for the survey. Questionnaires
were sent by mail, completed by the respondents, and collected by mail. The questionnaires were distributed on
March 15, 2009 with a deadline of April 17, 2009. Reminder postcards were sent to target residents who had yet toreturn the questionnaire by the end of March. (This survey technique is mentioned in other references (Kimura et al.
(2010a, 2010b), Tamura et al.(2010))).

3. RESULTS AND CONSIDERATION OF THE LIFE RECOVERY CALENDAR
The life recovery calendar assumes that recovery is completed by tasks over time and not all at once. Because this is a“linear” rather than a “punctuate” concept, the recovery calendar developed by Kimura et al. (2004) and Kimura(2007) was adopted as a measure to clarify the extent of life recovery processes for individual victims and theaffected areas. Specifically, responses in the questionnaire as to when certain events occurred were compiled as life
recover milestones.
Questions were accompanied by remarks such as “Little is known about how victims recover. Please think about how
your feelings and behaviors have changed over time since the earthquake and circle the time period that fits you
best.”
The following 12 items were used:
1. I understood the extent of the damage.
2. I felt safe.
3. I was prepared to be uncomfortable for a while.
4. Business offices resumed operations.
5. Housing problems were resolved.
6. The disaster no longer impacted my household.
7. Everyday routines resumed.
8. Local activities were restored.
9. I no longer considered myself a disaster victim.
10. The local economy was no longer influenced by the disaster.
11. Local roads were restored.
12. Local schools resumed operations.
Events marking recovery milestones that many victims experienced were selected from the ethnography interview
results targeting the 1995 earthquake and the 2004 Mid-Niigata Prefecture earthquake.

3.1. Life Recovery Calendar of the 2004 Mid-Niigata Earthquake
Figure 1 shows the life recovery calendar of the 2004 earthquake where the horizontal axis shows the logarithmic
time lapse after the earthquake and tsunami; 100 on the left indicates one hour after the earthquake, while 102 hours(100 hours or 2-4 days after the earthquake), etc. The vertical axis shows the response rate for the “feelings, actions,or circumstances” related to each questionnaire item. The time when a milestone is reached coincides with theaccumulated responses exceeding 50%.
A day after the earthquake, more than half of the respondents said they were “prepared to be uncomfortable for awhile” (item 3). Additionally, after a week, more than half “understood the extent of the damage” (item 1), and after
two weeks most indicated that the conditions had improved so that “business offices and local schools resumed
operations” (items 4 and 12). Other items in the recovery process gained momentum rapidly after two months, whichcoincided with the beginning of spring. Respondents felt that “everyday routines resumed” (item 7) after two months,“felt safe” (item 2) after three months, and the “housing problems were resolved” (item 5) and “local activities were
restored” (item 8) after six months. After a year, they indicated that “local roads were restored” (item 11), the“disaster no longer impacted my household” (item 6), and “no longer considered [themselves] disaster victims” (itemThe International Emergency Management Society
2014 TIEM Annual Conference in Niigata, 2014.10.20 - 239). However, more than two years were necessary to feel that the “local economy was no longer influenced by thedisaster” (item10).
① I understood the extent of the damage.(n=537)② I felt safe.(n=527)

100 ③ 99.8 ①
98.9 ⑦ 98.8 ④
98.2 ⑧ 97.5 ⑪
94.9 ②93.9 ⑤100③ I was prepared to be uncomfortable for a while.(n=544)④ Business offices/Local schools resumed operations.(n=491)⑤ Housing problems were resolved.(n=521)
90⑥ The disaster no longer impacted my household.(n=495)

84.8
82.2

⑦ Everyday routines resumed.(n=543)⑧
80Local activities were restored.(n=497)⑨ I no longer considered myself a disaster victim.(n=511)

78.2
80% for the
local economy⑩ The local economy was no longer influenced by the disaster.(n=458)

70Local roads were restored.(n=484)⑪

60

Everyday routinesand a sense ofsafety return.

It takes 10 hours to understandthe magnitude of a disaster.

③

50

②

④

①

It takes about 4 days
to understand theextent of the damage.

⑧⑤

⑦

⑥

⑪

⑨

⑩

Businesses and schools
begin to resume after a
week.

40

Local activities
and rebuilding
start in thespring.

Fewer identify as
disaster victims
after a year.

30

20

10

Many items require over 1,000 hours!
0

Next dayOct.23/2004
100

10
Disorientation

Oct.30

EarlyNov.

Late- Late- Late- Apr. Oct. 2006 20082007 2009
Nov. Dec. Jan. /2005 /2005

102

New Reality Acceptance103
Disaster Utopia

Everyday-life Reentry

104

hours
Creative Recovery

X-axis: log ‘Elapse of Time since the Disaster Occurred’Figure 1 Life Recovery Calendar of the 2004 Mid-Niigata Earthquake (March 2009)

In March 2009, which was 4.5 years after the earthquake, more than 20% of the responses felt that additional time
was necessary for three items: “the disaster no longer impacted my household” (item 6), “I no longer considered
myself a disaster victim” (item 9), and “local economy was no longer influenced by the disaster” (item 10).
Another benefit of the Life of Recovery Calendar method is that the statuses of different regions can be compared.
Almost 90% of the respondents from Nagaoka City (the former Nagaoka City area at the time of the earthquake
excluding Yamakoshi Village area) indicated recovery was complete for all items at the time of the survey (March2009). In contrast, only about 80% of the respondents from Ojiya City felt that “the disaster no longer impacted myhousehold” (item 6) (81.3%), “I no longer considered myself a disaster victim” (item 9) (76.8%), and “local economy
was no longer influenced by the disaster” (item10) (74.3%) (Fig. 2). About 70% of the residents in Kawaguchi Town
said, “I no longer considered myself a disaster victim” (item 9) (71.1%) and “the disaster no longer impacted myhousehold” (item 6) (67.7%), but only 34.5% said, “local economy was no longer influenced by the disaster” (item10).
On the other hand in Yamakoshi Village, which was an independent village at the time of the earthquake and not apart of Nagaoka-shi, the responses to many of the items were less than 50% until two years after the earthquake.
However, the village saw rapid recovery after the two-year point and by the time the survey was conducted, all of theThe International Emergency Management Society
2014 TIEM Annual Conference in Niigata, 2014.10.20 - 23

items attained 90% recovery response, except for two [“the disaster no longer impacted my household” (item 6)(54.5%) and “local economy was no longer influenced by the disaster” (item 10) (63.6%)].
This overall rapid recovery is attributed to the fact that the evacuation order was lifted in almost all areas on April 1,
2007. However, the survey found that Kawaguchi Town was more heavily affected by the earthquake than Yamakoshi
Village for two items [“I no longer considered myself a disaster victim” (item 9) and “the local economy was nolonger influenced by the disaster” (item 10).]① I understood the extent of the damage.(n=364)

Items under 90% are shown.

NAGAOKA City

② I felt safe.(n=357)
100③
I was prepared to be uncomfortable for a while.(n=358)① I understood the extent of the damage.(n=30)② I felt safe.(n=31)
100③ I was prepared to be uncomfortable for a while.(n=32)(in 2004 : before annexation )④ Business offices/Local schools resumed operations.(n=321)

KAWAGUCHI Town
(in 2004 : before annexation )④ Business offices/Local schools resumed operations.(n=27)⑤ Housing problems were resolved.(n=338)
90⑥ The disaster no longer impacted my household.(n=326)

87.5 ⑩86.9 ⑨⑦ Everyday routines resumed.(n=362)⑤ Housing problems were resolved.(n=31)
90⑥ The disaster no longer impacted my household.(n=31)

87.1 ②⑦ Everyday routines resumed.(n=31)⑧80
Local activities were restored.(n=321)

Almost a 90%
recovery for
all items.

⑨ I no longer considered myself a disaster victim.(n=337)⑩ The local economy was no longer influenced by the disaster.(n=295)⑪70
Local roads were restored.(n=308)60⑧80Local activities were restored.(n=31)⑨ I no longer considered myself a disaster victim.(n=31)⑩ The local economy was no longer influenced by the disaster.(n=29)
70⑪ Local roads were restored.(n=30)

71.0 ⑨67.7 ⑥

60

③

④

①

⑤

50

⑦

⑥

⑪ ⑨

⑩

③

⑧

②

④

①

50

⑧⑪ ⑥

⑨

⑦⑤

②

40

70% ofhouseholds
identify as
disastervictims

40⑩ 34.530

30

20

Only 34.5%
for the local
economy

20

10

10

0

Next dayOct.23/2004
100

Oct.30

Disorientation

EarlyNov.

Late- Late- Late- Apr. Oct. 2006 20082007 2009
Nov. Dec. Jan. /2005 /2005

102

10

New Reality Acceptance103
Disaster Utopia

0

100

hours
Creative Recovery

Everyday-life Reentry

Next dayOct.23/2004

104

Disorientation

Oct.30

EarlyNov.

Late- Late- Late- Apr. Oct. 2006 20082007 2009
Nov. Dec. Jan. /2005 /2005

102

10

New Reality Acceptance103
Disaster Utopia

X-axis: log „Elapse of Time since the Disaster Occurred‟

104

hours
Creative Recovery

Everyday-life Reentry

X-axis: log „Elapse of Time since the Disaster Occurred‟① I understood the extent of the damage.(n=11)① I understood the extent of the damage.(n=189)② I felt safe.(n=180)
100③ I was prepared to be uncomfortable for a while.(n=195)

OJIYA City

② I felt safe.(n=12)100③ I was prepared to be uncomfortable for a while.(n=12)④ Business offices/Local schools resumed operations.(n=180)④ Business offices/Local schools resumed operations.(n=11)⑤ Housing problems were resolved.(n=187)
90⑥ The disaster no longer impacted my household.(n=176)⑤ Housing problems were resolved.(n=12)90⑥ The disaster no longer impacted my household.(n=11)⑦ Everyday routines resumed.(n=193)

81.3 ⑥⑧
80Local activities were restored.(n=178)

76.8 ⑨74.3 ⑩⑨ I no longer considered myself a disaster victim.(n=181)⑩ The local economy was no longer influenced by the disaster.(n=167)

70Local roads were restored.(n=177)
⑪

60

③

④

①

② ⑦
⑤⑧⑥ ⑪

50

⑨ ⑩

40

80% ofhouseholds
and local
economies
identify as
disastervictims

YAMAKOSHI Village(in 2004 : before annexation )60% forhouseholds
and thelocal
economy⑦ Everyday routines resumed.(n=12)⑧80Local activities were restored.(n=12)⑨ I no longer considered myself a disaster victim.(n=12)⑩ The local economy was no longer influenced by the disaster.(n=11)

70Local roads were restored.(n=12)⑪

60

11 of 13 respondents who lived in
Yamakoshi during the disaster returned to
Yamakoshi when the survey was conducted.
(2 are in Nagaoka city)③

63.6 ⑩①

54.5 ⑥

②

50

④

40

⑤
30

30

20

20

10

10

⑦

⑧
⑪

⑨

Evacuation
order was lifted
throughout thearea on April 1,
2007.
Rapid recovery⑥ ⑩

0

Next dayOct.23/2004
0

10

10

Disorientation

Oct.3010

New Reality Acceptance

EarlyNov.

Late- Late- Late- Apr. Oct. 2006 20082007 2009
Nov. Dec. Jan. /2005 /2005

2

3

10
Disaster Utopia

Everyday-life Reentry

4

10

hours
Creative Recovery

X-axis: log „Elapse of Time since the Disaster Occurred‟0

Next dayOct.23/2004
100

10
Disorientation

Oct.30

EarlyNov.

Late- Late- Late- Apr. Oct. 2006 20082007 2009
Nov. Dec. Jan. /2005 /2005

102

New Reality Acceptance103
Disaster Utopia

Everyday-life Reentry

104

hours
Creative Recovery

X-axis: log „Elapse of Time since the Disaster Occurred‟Figure 2 Life Recovery Calendar of the 2004 Mid-Niigata Earthquake (Four Major Damaged Local Governments)

3.2. Life Recovery Calendar of the 2007 Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake
Figure 3 shows the life recovery calendar of the 2007 earthquake. More than half of the respondents said, “I was
prepared to be uncomfortable for a while” (item 3) a day after the earthquake, and more than half “understood theextent of the damage” (item 1) after a week. A week after the earthquake, some of the respondents noticed that“business offices and local schools resumed operations” (items 4 and 12), but two weeks were required for the
majority to notice. After a month, they “felt safe” (item 2), and after two months “everyday routines resumed” (item7). The majority felt that “housing problems were resolved” (item 5) after three months. Six months were necessary
for most to note that “local activities were restored” (item 8) and “the disaster no longer impacted my household”(item 6). After a year, most responded that “local roads were restored” (item 11) and “I no longer considered myself adisaster victim” (item 9).
In March 2009 (20 months after the earthquake), less than 90% indicated that “housing problems were resolved”(item 5), “local roads were restored” (item 11), “the disaster no longer affected my household” (item 6), “I no longer

The International Emergency Management Society
2014 TIEM Annual Conference in Niigata, 2014.10.20 - 23

consider myself a disaster victim” (item 9), and “the local economy was no longer influenced by the disaster” (item10). Specifically, 15% felt that housing was still an issue and the roads had yet to be restored (item 11). Moreover,
30% still identified as themselves disaster victims (item 9) and more than half felt that the disaster still influenced the
local economy (item 10).
① I understood the extent of the damage.(n=378)② I felt safe.(n=366)

99.5 ③99.2 ①
96.0
94.2
91.5

100
③ I was prepared to be uncomfortable for a while.(n=371)④ Business offices/Local schools resumed operations.(n=331)⑤ Housing problems were resolved.(n=360)90⑥ The disaster no longer impacted my household.(n=340)

85.6
82.2

⑦ Everyday routines resumed.(n=371)⑧
80Local activities were restored.(n=347)⑨ I no longer considered myself a disaster victim.(n=358)

78.8⑩ The local economy was no longer influenced by the disaster.(n=331)
70Local roads were restored.(n=349)
⑪

60

③
50

40

70.1

Businesses andschools start toresume after aweek.
④

The extent of the damage
is understood thefollowing morning.

①②

It takes 2
months torestoreeverydayroutines.

⑦ ⑤ ⑥ ⑧ ⑨ ⑪

It takes a year for roads
to be restored.
Fewer identify as disastervictims after a year.

⑩

It takes 10 hours tounderstand the magnitudeof a disaster.

48.0
Less than 50% for
the local economy.

30

20

10

0

Many items require morethan 1,000 hours!

Next day

Jul.16/2007
100

10
Disorientation

Jul.23

Jul.30Mid.- Mid.- Mid.- Jan. Jul. Mar.
Aug. Sep. Oct. /2008 /2008 /2009

102

New Reality Acceptance103
Disaster Utopia

Everyday-life Reentry

104

hours
Creative Recovery

X-axis: log „Elapse of Time since the Disaster Occurred‟Figure 3 Life Recovery Calendar of the 2007 Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake (March 2009)

3.3. Comparison between the 2004 and 2007 Earthquakes
To identify the differences in the recovery status between the 2004 and 2007 earthquakes, Fig. 4 superimposes thetwo Life Recovery Calendars. The thinner line N represents the 2004 earthquake and the bolded line marked with thesymbol O indicates the 2007 earthquake. Although the two earthquakes differ in magnitude and nature, they have
similar recovery processes and the time necessary for the accumulated total of each item to exceed 50%. Moreover,
all items except for “local roads were restored” required less time to exceed 50% after the 2007 earthquake faster thanthe 2004 earthquake, leading us to conclude that the 2007 earthquake saw a faster recovery than the 2004 earthquake.

The International Emergency Management Society
2014 TIEM Annual Conference in Niigata, 2014.10.20 - 23

① I understood the extent of the damage.
② I felt safe.

100③ I was prepared to be uncomfortable for a while.
④ Business offices/Local schools resumed operations.
⑤ Housing problems were resolved.
90⑥ The disaster no longer impacted my household.
⑦ Everyday routines resumed.

⑪O
⑥O

⑧
80Local activities were restored.
⑨ I no longer considered myself a disaster victim.
⑩ The local economy was no longer influenced by the disaster.

⑩N⑨O

70Local roads were restored.
⑪

60

50

⑥N
⑨N

O: 2007 EQ N: 2004 EQ
③O ③N
①O ①N

④O ④N

②O

②N
⑦N ⑤ON⑦O⑧ON ⑪N⑩O

40

30

Recovery status of thetwo affected areas in the
Niigata Prefecture at thetime of the survey(March 2009)

20

10

0

Next day

Jul.16/2007
100

10
Disorientation

Jul.23

Jul.30Mid.- Mid.- Mid.- Jan. Jul. Mar. -2010
-2017
-2012
Aug. Sep. Oct. /2008 /2008 /2009

102

New Reality Acceptance103
Disaster Utopia

Everyday-life Reentry

104

hours
Creative Recovery

X-axis: log „Elapse of Time since the Disaster Occurred‟Figure 4 Life Recovery Calendar (Comparison of 2004 EQ (Fine Lines) and 2007 EQ (Bold Lines with Markers))

4. RESULTS AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL PROCESS OF RECOVERY IN
AFFECTED AREAS
We analyzed the life recovery process after the two earthquakes using a Geographic Information System (GIS).

4.1. Geographic spread of identification as a disaster victim between the two earthquakes
In the analysis, the residents who responded that an earthquake has affected them were denoted on a map as location
data based on their postal codes. We performed a Kernel density estimation to identify areas with high concentrationsof affected residents based on the mapping and simulated the distribution of the victims around those areas (Fig. 5).
Areas enclosed in red were believed to be the affected areas of the 2007 earthquakes prior to the social survey inMarch 2009 based on physical information, including the seismic intensity and devastation level.
Geographical analysis indicated that many in areas with an estimated seismic intensity above 6− identified
themselves as victims of the 2004 earthquake as well as those in western Sanjo City, Niigata city center, and Shibata
city center, which had estimated intensities less than 5−. The results in areas with intensity above 6− where serious
devastation were expected, but those far from the epicenter (Niigata City and Shibata City) were not, suggesting that
identification as disaster victims is spread over a wider area than the actual intensity distribution. Although thoseliving in coastal areas, including the former Kashiwazaki City, the former Nishiyama Town districts of Kashiwazaki

The International Emergency Management Society
2014 TIEM Annual Conference in Niigata, 2014.10.20 - 23

City, Kariwa Village, and Izumozaki, where the estimated seismic intensity exceeded 6− strongly identified
themselves as disaster victims, the sense of being a victim was weak in other areas.
A comparison of the two earthquakes shows that while the seismic intensity levels spread in the same way,
identification as a disaster victim greatly differs. The 2004 earthquake had a prefecture-wide impact on residents,
including isolation in the mountainous areas, structural damage throughout the entire area, and damage to industry.
2004 EQ
Mid-Niigata

2007 EQ
Chuetsu-Oki

× Epicenter× Epicenter

DamagedArea

Damaged
Area

Considerationof a Disaster
VictimHigh

Considerationof a Disaster
Victim
High

Low

Low

Figure 5: Distribution of people who consider themselves affected by the earthquake

4.2. Geographical analysis of the time when people no longer defined themselves as disaster victims
Next, we analyzed the time when people no longer defined themselves as disaster victims (item 9) in the Life
Recovery Calendar (Fig. 6). For the 2004 earthquake, less than 25% of the residents in Nagaoka City, Ojiya City, andTochio City felt that they were no longer victims after a week. It took one month (three months) for over 25% of the
Mitsuke City (former Nagaoka City) residents to feel this way. After a year, over 75% of the former Yamakoshi
Village and Kawaguchi Town residents no longer defined themselves as disaster victims, whereas the rest of theprefecture indicated that they no longer defined themselves as disaster victims.
Meanwhile for the 2007 earthquake, the former Takayanagi Town and Yoshikawa Town were the only places where
over 50% of the residents no longer defined themselves as victims a week after the earthquake. Over 25% of the
Izumozaki Town (Kashiwazaki City) residents felt they no longer victims after one month (three months). After ayear, over 50% of the residents in the prefecture, except for those in Kariwa Village, no longer defined themselves as
disaster victims.

The International Emergency Management Society
2014 TIEM Annual Conference in Niigata, 2014.10.20 - 23

2004 Mid-Niigata EQ

2007 Chuetsu-Oki EQ

0-25 %
25-50
50-75
75-1000-25 %
25-50
50-75
75-1000-25 %
25-50
50-75
75-1000-25 %
25-50
50-75
75-1000-25 %
25-50
50-75
75-1000-25 %
25-50
50-75
75-1000-25 %
25-50
50-75
75-1000-25 %
25-50
50-75
75-1001 weekafter EQ

1 month
after EQ

3 months
after EQ

1 yearafter EQ

Figure 6: Geographical differences in the times when residents no longer defined themselves as disaster victims

4.3. Geographical analysis of when residents felt the local economy was no longer influenced by the disaster
Next, we looked at the economic recovery, which is slowest part of the recovery process, by focusing on “local
economy was no longer influenced by the disaster” (item 10) (Fig. 7). For the 2004 earthquake, less than 25% of theThe International Emergency Management Society
2014 TIEM Annual Conference in Niigata, 2014.10.20 - 23

2004 Mid-Niigata EQ

2007 Chuetsu-Oki EQ

0-25 %
25-50
50-75
75-1000-25 %
25-50
50-75
75-1000-25 %
25-50
50-75
75-1000-25 %
25-50
50-75
75-1000-25 %
25-50
50-75
75-1000-25 %
25-50
50-75
75-1000-25 %
25-50
50-75
75-1000-25 %
25-50
50-75
75-1001 weekafter EQ

1 month
after EQ

3 months
after EQ

1 yearafter EQ

Figure 7: Geographical differences in the time period when the residents felt that the local economy was no longer
influenced by the disaster
residents felt an economic recovery a week after the earthquake in Nagaoka City and Ojiya City, but after a monthover 25% of the Muika Town residents felt an economic recovery. After three months, over 25% of Mitsuke City

The International Emergency Management Society
2014 TIEM Annual Conference in Niigata, 2014.10.20 - 23

residents were aware of an economic recovery. Although less than 25% of the residents in Tochio City, Ojiya City,and Kawaguchi Town felt the economy had recovered after a year, the rest of the prefecture felt that the disaster nolonger impacted the local economy. On the other hand, for the 2007 earthquake, the former Takayanagi Town andYoshikawa Town were the only places where over 25% of the residents felt an economic recovery a week after theearthquake. This was also case after a month. However, three months after the earthquake, over 25% of theKashiwazaki City and Izumozaki Town residents felt the economy was no longer affected by the disaster, and after ayear, over 50% of the prefecture residents, except those in Kariwa Village, felt that the local economy was no longer
influenced by the disaster.
In both cases, areas close to the epicenter and those with the greatest seismic intensity experienced the slowest
recoveries. Thus, the observation that “places with serious devastation received more generous support and therefore,
there is no major difference in the economic impacts” is false. The 2004 earthquake clearly impacted a wider area fora longer period than the 2007 earthquake.

4.4. Conclusions from the geographical analysis
Geographical analysis of the recovery process after the two earthquakes reveals similarities and differences. Bothshow a clear relationship between the distance from the epicenter and the recovery speed. Although each item entails
a different recovery speed, areas closer to the epicenter or with a greater seismic intensity have a slower recovery.
This contradicts the notion that areas with intense tremors have a faster recovery because they receive more generous
support for recovery due to scale of physical devastation. In reality, Yamakoshi Village and Kawaguchi Town, whichwere both near the epicenter of the 2004 earthquake, showed the slowest recovery in every item. In fact, analysis of
the recovery status about five years after the earthquake indicates that less than 50% of these residents felt the local
economy has recovered.
Comparing the recovery status one year after each disaster highlights the differences in the recovery speed. Althoughmany of the areas surpassed 50% for all items after the 2007 earthquake, Yamakoshi Village has yet to exceed 50%
five years later. In both cases, the recovery speed of the local economy is slow and many people identify as disastervictims, but after the 2004 earthquake, more areas had less than a 25% response that the recovery is progressing,demonstrating the extent that each earthquake had on the residents. As suggested by the difference in the distributionof identification as disaster victims, a comparison of recovery status shows that the 2004 earthquake had a greater
impact on victims‟ livings.

REFERENCESKIMURA, R., HAYASHI, H., TATSUKI, S. and TAMURA, K. (2004). Psychologically Defined Life Reconstruction
Processes of Disaster Victims in the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, Journal of Social Safety Science, No.6,
241-250.(in Japanese)
KIMURA, R. (2007). Recovery and Reconstruction Calendar, Journal of Disaster Research, Vol.2, No.6, 465-474.
KIMURA, R., TAMURA, K., INOGUCHI, M., HAYASHI, H. and URATA, Y. (2010a). Generalization of Victims‟
Behavior and Life Reconstruction Processes: Socio-economic Recovery from Three Earthquake Disasters Occurredin Hyogo Prefecture in 1995, Niigata Prefecture in 2004 and 2007-, Journal of Social Safety Science, No.13,
175-185.(in Japanese)
KIMURA, R., TAMURA, K., INOGUCHI, M. and HAYASHI, H. (2010b). Influence of Earthquake Disaster
Experience on Risk Perception and Damage Estimation, Proceedings of the 14th Japan Earthquake Engineering
Symposium, 4141-4148.(in Japanese)
TAMURA, K., KIMURA, R., INOGUCHI, M. and HAYASHI, H. (2010). Analyzing the Subjective Evaluation ofGovernmental Assistance under the Impact of Seismic Disaster, Proceedings of the 14th Japan Earthquake
Engineering Symposium, 4149-4156.(in Japanese)