Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 28, Number 1, 2006, pp25-33

Community Diagnosis for Sustainable Disaster Preparedness

1

Yoko MATSUDA1 and Norio OKADA2
Graduate School of Urban Management Engineering, Kyoto University, Japan
2
Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Japan(Received for 13 Mar., 2006 and in revised from 12 Sep., 2006)

ABSTRACTThe paper presents the community diagnosis method which addresses the need for sustainable disaster preparedness at the community level with the assistance of disaster experts. To this end, we present the PDCA management cycle and knowledge creation model. Based on these concept models, we introduce and demonstratecommunity diagnosis as a method of implementing participatory disaster preparedness.
Disaster preparedness is observed as a participatory community management process, where all participating
agents are expected to share knowledge. We discuss the type of knowledge required and how it can be better
accumulated and used. This process is analyzed by the knowledge creation model. Community diagnosis is proposed as a method for completing this knowledge creation cycle to enhance disaster preparedness. We discuss thefirst two phases of community diagnosis. The knowledge externalization phase is designed as a diagnostic survey, the questionnaire survey implying the metaphor that the community s disaster preparedness needs to bechecked. The knowledge combination phase is designed as a prescriptive workshop which is held to find a solution (prescription) to enhance the community preparedness by face-to-face communication.
We present an ongoing empirical study of community diagnosis in urban Nagoya. We also discuss the schemeof the participatory process which makes this study unique. From the tentative results of this community diagnosis, externalized local knowledge regarding repeatability of preparedness and scale of a community is discussed.

1. INTRODUCTION
Japan, one of the most earthquake-prone countries in theworld, has developed various techniques for natural disaster risk
management. The country encounters new challenges every time
it is hit by a disaster. One of the issues raised after the tragedy ofthe Kobe (Hanshin-Awaji) earthquake in 1995 was family andcommunity preparedness: how individual citizens and local communities can prepare in advance to survive earthquakes.
The purpose of preparedness is to anticipate problems in disasters so that methods can be devised to address the problems
effectively and so that the resources required for an effective
response are in place beforehand (Mileti, 1999). Although theimportance of preparedness is known among disaster scientists, atthe policy and practice level, it has not been thoroughly addressed.
After World War II, Japanese disaster prevention policy wasoriented towards investment in infrastructure to mitigate disasterdamages, as typified by high quality dykes or reinforced highway
networks. The policy was helpful in saving many lives and property, but some experts claim that it also made people unaware ofand insensitive to disaster risks.
The Kobe earthquake provided an opportunity to remind people about the earthquake risk, and the importance of non-structural
proactive countermeasures for disasters. The lesson Kobe earth-quake taught people was that the impact of a catastrophic disasterwould exceed the capacity of the public rescue services, therefore,
citizens should have sufficient knowledge and preparation done
instead of depending completely on public services.
Another foreseeable social trend after the Kobe earthquake
was that, not only government-led programs, but also many neighborhood communities autonomously started taking proactive countermeasure to enhance their preparedness, eventually leading to
improvement of the quality of their living environment.
Motivation for such self-help community activities arises from various opportunities: internal discussion of residents, collaboration
with different community associations, or stimulation by third-parties. In most cases, autonomous activities take a participatory
approach because community-initiated activities cannot be sustained without the participation of multiple agents.
The biggest earthquake threat facing Japan is the Tokai and
Tonankai earthquakes. Figure 1 shows the official announcementof the expected epicenter of the Tokai earthquake and seismic
intensity distribution. Geological experts predict that there is a 4050% probability of this catastrophic earthquake occurring within
the next 40 years. This earthquake tends to take place along the
Pacific coast from Tokyo through Nagoya to Osaka and further
south-westwards, the most densely populated metropolitan regionsin Japan. To add to the difficulty, this periodic earthquake with a

KEY WORDS: disaster preparedness, knowledge management, community diagnosis

Y. MATSUDA AND N. OKADA

26

frequency of 100 to 150 years is a twin or triplet earthquake that is
likely to occur concurrently. The magnitude of each earthquake ispredicted to be more than 8 on the Richter scale. In collaboration
with researchers and local governments, the Japanese Government
is now taking a strong initiative in pursuing proactive countermeasures such as infrastructure reinforcement, hazard information disclosure, and raising awareness of the people. Some forward-thinking communities in this region even have started activities toenhance preparedness for these earthquakes.
With the above-stated background in mind, the paper proposesa method of community diagnosis as a scientific instrument forsustainable disaster preparedness at the community level. First,
community preparedness is interpreted as sustainable community
management and knowledge management. Then how to manage
various knowledges using the knowledge creation model is discussed. Based on this, the concept of community diagnosis isreconsidered as a method to manage knowledges. In the second
part, an ongoing challenge of community diagnosis is reported as astudy of a case station (A base for contentious disaster case study).
2. COMMUNITY PREPAREDNESS
2.1

Management perspective of community preparedness
Disaster preparedness can be deemed sustainable only ifknowledge acquisition and appropriate action is continuously
repeated until the day a disaster occurs. Thus, it is closely related
to the management science term of sustainable management. To
be effective it needs to be managed in an integrated manner byincorporating disaster risk management as a part of sustainablecommunity management. Especially, the strategy for disaster preparedness is contingent on the local community s characteristics
and conditions.
The basic management cycle, the PDCA cycle, consists of arepetitive process of Plan-Do-Check-Action (Fig. 2). The cycle
depicts conventional public planning and management (government-led planning) very well, because when the government is
simply the agent leading the process, its goal and problems to besolved are (at least for the government) well-defined and unwavering.
However, in many cases of participatory community manage-

Fig. 1

Expected epicenter and distribution of Japaneseseismic intensity of the Tokai earthquake (Central
Disaster Prevention Council, 2002)

ment, all the agents (participants) need to share the current status(status-quo) in the community before they start planning. In thiscase, the process starts with the phase of Check and Action,and then it is completed as the CAPD cycle (Check-Action-PlanDo). It is shown in Fig. 2 that this cycle should be effectively
repeated in an adaptive manner, with workability of countermeasures and policies being experimentally tested.
If it is assumed that community preparedness by a participatory approach can be interpreted as the CAPD cycle, its management
method must have the following function: 1) to help participating
agents share the current condition, and 2) to provide a communication platform for disaster preparedness policy.
2.2

Role of knowledge for community preparedness
Preparedness can hardly be sustained unless appropriate
knowledge is shared and transferred among the agents. Of course,
knowledge may not be effective until being implemented.
Therefore, we propose considering adapting a countermeasure asa kind of knowledge. In the CAPD cycle, through the phase of
Check, , the agents share a certain kind of knowledge. Let us
examine what kind of knowledge is particularly required for disaster preparedness.
The first type of knowledge is hazard information mostly provided by the government. If people do not know the existence ofsome risk, then there is no motivation to prepare for it. Hazard
maps like that shown in Fig. 1 are a typical methodology to provide hazard information.
The second type of knowledge is know-how information tosurvive disasters. It may include, for instance, how to reinforce
houses, or where to evacuate in an emergency. Such knowledge
can be provided by experienced experts or professionals. The
presence of this knowledge explains why communities cannot be
independent in sustaining disaster preparedness but they require
other agents participation. To some extent, professional knowledge is required to enhance disaster preparedness.
The third type of knowledge that is emphasized in the paper,
is local knowledge provided by residents in the community. Local
knowledge may include the, semi-private (not public) shelters they
have, or their very local evacuation or food storage rules. Theirneeds, questions and opinions on disaster preparation based on

Fig. 2 PDCA (CAPD) management cycle

COMMUNITY DIAGNOSIS FOR SUSTAINABLE DISASTER PREPAREDNESS

their daily lives may well be considered as local knowledge.
Local knowledge is important for community disaster preparedness for the following two reasons. 1) It is hidden in people s
daily life, thus it is difficult to share without installing the designated device, and 2) the end-victims of a disaster are none otherthan community people, and they are eventually responsible for
their own survival and saving their property. Therefore, theirideas, their attitudes and their questions should be thoroughly
taken into account in the management process. Put another way, it
is an advantage of self-help activities to make the most of local
knowledge.
Any of these three kinds of knowledge is essential for community preparedness which needs to be shared. However, it is difficult to implement sharing knowledge in a modern society,because community linkage is less connected so that people lose
opportunities to form a common platform for communication.
This tendency is stronger in urban areas where people have othercommunities in their workplace or personal interest groups. In
addition, usually people are not aware of disaster preparedness ineveryday life, and not willing to think about disasters.
Above all, examination from the knowledge aspect states thatthe management method should be designed 1) to elicit the embedded local knowledge, and 2) to transfer the local knowledge in thecommunity and among the agents.
2.3

Knowledge creation model
The section closely examines managing knowledge to identify
the role of the management method. To this end, we will try to
introduce the knowledge creation model.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) proposed a theory for examining
the organizational knowledge creation. They stated that knowledge creation is a process of knowledge-conversion, which is a spiral process of knowledge socialization (tacit knowledge to a newtacit knowledge), externalization (tacit knowledge to explicit
knowledge), combination (explicit knowledge to a new explicit
knowledge) and internalization (explicit knowledge to tacitknowledge). The process is called the SECI model named after
the initials of each phase (Fig. 3). Nonaka stated that organizational knowledge is created through a continuous dialogue between
tacit and explicit knowledge (Nonaka, 1994).
In the knowledge creation process, ba is another essential andfundamental concept. As a brief explanation of ba, Nonaka andKonno (1998) explain it as follows. Ba can be thought of as ashared space for emerging relationships. This space can be physical (e.g., office, dispersed business space), virtual (e.g., e-mail,teleconference), mental (e.g., shared experiences, ideas, ideals), or
any combination of them. What differentiates ba from ordinary
human interaction is the concept of knowledge creation. Ba provides a communication platform for advancing individual and/orcollective knowledge. In the SECI model, Ba makes knowledge
conversion possible.
Originally, the knowledge creation process model and theconcept of ba were developed for enterprise management, but
recently they have been adapted to public domain issues (Nonaka
et. al., 2003) as a fundamental model for knowledge management.
In line with this philosophy, here we apply the model to community preparedness for disasters.
The SECI model explains that quantitative and qualitativeknowledge conversion is accelerated when appropriate ba is provided.
In Section 2.2 we stated that a desirable method can elicit
embedded local knowledge, and transfer it to other agents. When
we consider the process along with the SECI model, eliciting local
knowledge corresponds to knowledge externalization and transferring it corresponds to knowledge combination. That is to say, providing ba coincides with the management method.
The SECI model determines knowledge conversion facilitators working in each ba. As shown in Fig. 3, a metaphor canplay an important role in externalization. When knowledge without language is changed to documented knowledge, only the concrete concept which has the same embedded structure (whichmeans a metaphor) can play this role. It helps people convert theirtacit knowledge to words. In the combination phase, a face-toface meeting is the efficient way of creating different explicit
knowledge from other knowledge. To combine knowledge, connect externalized knowledge, opportunities to share opinions andinformation directly.
3. COMMUNITY DIAGNOSIS
3.1

Definition
Okada et al. (2001) introduced community diagnosis as atool to externalize tacit knowledge (including ideas, opinions andattitudes) about common space related social problems.
According to Okada (2006), characteristically community
diagnosis is designed analogous to a liberal, sound relationshipbetween medical doctors (corresponding to disaster and urban
experts) and patients (corresponding to local citizens). Moreover,
it is intended to explicitly indicate that the methodology has its
foundation in the vision that cities, regions and communities areliving body systems, not mechanistic bodies as conventionallytreated.
The specific procedure can be interpreted depending on thecontexts. We will establish the following two steps: the diagnostic
survey and the prescriptive workshop. The details of these contents are explained in the next chapter.
3.2

Fig. 3 SECI model (Nonaka, 1994)

27

Community diagnosis as a management method
In the previous chapter, we summarized the conditions of the
management method for sustainable community management.

Y. MATSUDA AND N. OKADA

28

Table 1.

Community diagnosis and as a management method

Fig. 4 The location of the Higashiyama area

Section 2.1 stated the requirement from the community management perspective. Section 2.2 stated the conditions from theknowledge management perspective. Based on these, in Section
2.3 we showed that providing ba corresponds to employing themanagement method. In the previous section, we introduced theidea of community diagnosis.
Here, let us assume community diagnosis is the management
method providing ba. Table 1 shows the relationship between
community diagnosis and the management cycle, local knowledge
creation phase and knowledge conversion facilitator working in ba.
We established two phases in community diagnosis: diagnostic
survey and prescriptive meeting.
Diagnostic survey checks the status-quo, and externalizes hidden local knowledge. In this phase, we note that the name diagnostic survey itself has a special meaning because it is positioned
in the entry of metaphor in the SECI model. For externalization,
the metaphor of the patient-doctor relationship as indicated bydiagnosis helps us illustrate the characteristics of our scientificapproach.
Prescriptive meeting provides ba of a face-to-face meeting inorder to 1) share the survey results by the agents and 2) to combine
the elicited local knowledge. It also plays the role of providing acommunity with a solution (prescription) to enhance the preparedness.
The terms of the last two phases, treatment and improvementof living are derived from the last two phases. In line with the flow

Fig. 5 Collaborative planning of Higashiyama

of community preparedness, these two will play an important rolein community diagnosis. However, these two phases are not dealt
with in this paper.
4. STUDY OF A CASE STATION: HIGASHIYAMA,NAGOYA, JAPAN4.1

A Case station
The Higashiyama elementary school area (hereinafter called
Higashiyama) is located uptown of eastern Nagoya (Fig. 4). It isan urban residential area consisting of traditional houses, new con-

COMMUNITY DIAGNOSIS FOR SUSTAINABLE DISASTER PREPAREDNESSTable 2.

29

List of questions and seven categories

dominiums and apartments for single people. The community has
6,646 households (as of 2004) over an area of 1.5 km2, divided into
24 smaller community units (citizens association, or chonai-kai).
In the urban areas of Japan, an elementary school area (gakku) is
traditionally the second smallest community unit followed by citizens associations.
A non-governmental organization for disaster prevention,
Rescue Stockyard (RSY) has an office in the area. Since RSY ison good terms with community representatives, they have organized disaster preparedness activities such as lectures and furniturenailing campaigns for two years since 2002.
As Community Representatives and the RSY have committed
themselves to community based activities, there was no opportunity for them to learn of residents attitudes and behavior towards
Tokai and Tonankai earthquake risks. Our group selected
Higashiyama as a case station (long-term observation target fordisaster science) (Okada and Gopalakrishnan, 2004) for the community diagnosis. To investigate the questions of these three par-ties, we agreed to conduct a diagnostic survey in this area.
4.2 Study outline(1) Uniqueness of the Higashiyama caseIn the previous chapter, we stated that the community cannot
drive forward the management cycle by themselves but theyrequire experts help. However, we did not mention who shouldorganize community diagnosis. It could be researchers, or it could
be a local government. The uniqueness of the case ofHigashiyama is that the management is implemented as collaborative planning of the three agents of authors group (researchers),
RSY (practical expert) and community representatives (residents)
as shown in Fig. 5.
In particular, at every step of the program, the three agentscollaborate by gathering and pooling their knowledge. In designing the survey, our group developed the survey based on the ideas
and the past experience of RSY. The survey was conducted in thename of the community representative, with the cooperation of RSY.

Y. MATSUDA AND N. OKADA

30

In the prescriptive meeting, the combined knowledge (prescription) was expressed by the community, and analyzed by our group.
Higashiyama s model was made available because of a uniqueencounter of the three agents. Although admitting further verification is required to expand the model as a general community diagnosis model, we investigated the case as one of the new challenges
to meet our research purpose.
(2) Designing the diagnostic survey
As explained in the previous chapter, the diagnostic survey
corresponds to knowledge explanation and the prescriptive meeting to knowledge combination. In the following sections, we
explain the details of these two programs in Higashiyama.
The list of questions for the diagnostic survey is shown in
Table 2. The survey questions consist of two parts. The self-evaluation part asks a respondent to evaluate their self and community
preparedness for an earthquake on a scale of 1 to 10.
The following 43 questions (No.3 to 45) are regarding behavior, present state, and attitude of earthquake preparedness, provided by the three- or four-point Likert scale. The set of questions
covers both family and community preparedness. The source ofthe questions is a list of anxieties raised by past participants inthe workshops organized by RSY. The questions are divided into
seven categories: Housing safety, Storage, Shelter, Special support(the elderly, handicapped and infants), Community linkage, Fireand Emergency contact.
(3) Community Preparedness Index (CPI)The Community Preparedness Index (CPI) is derived from thesurvey responses. CPI is calculated for each category to show thecommunity s level of preparedness. A lower CPI mean less pre-Table 3.

pared in the category, that is, the community is vulnerable to earthquake risk. The index is a source to feedback the survey results to
the residents.
The response for each question is converted to a score. 3point scale questions are scored 1, 5 or 10, and 4-point questions
are scored 1, 5, 7 or 10 depending on the respondent s choice. CPI
is defined as the mean score of the questions in a category over all
respondents in a community (Okada and Matsuda, 2005).
Therefore, all CPIs are shown in the numbers normalized to a scaleof 10.
(4) Conducting the diagnostic survey (Knowledge externalization)
The survey sheets were distributed to all 6,646 households
through the community association in December 2004. Valid
responses totaled 3,613 (response rate 54.4%). For the purpose ofregional comparison, the same diagnostic survey was conducted in
A Town and K Town in Aichi Prefecture. Both of the towns
are suburban areas of Nagoya City, where the population consistsof both commuters to Nagoya and agricultural workers. Note thatin these two towns, the surveys were conducted during the workshop so the samples are biased. Table 3 shows the survey facts.
(5) Distributing a leaflet and organizing the prescriptive meeting (Knowledge combination)
After the survey, a 4-page leaflet with a survey summary andcomments from academic experts were distributed to all the households in the community (Fig. 6).
In April 2004, the prescriptive meeting was co-organized by
the community representatives and RSY. The purpose of theworkshop was 1) to understand Higashiyama s CPI and survey

Survey period and the number of valid responses

Fig. 6 Leaflet for households with survey results summary

COMMUNITY DIAGNOSIS FOR SUSTAINABLE DISASTER PREPAREDNESSTable 4.

31

Community Preparedness Index**: the mean score (CPI) is significantly lower (P < .05) than that of the other two areas.
++: the mean score (CPI) is significantly higher (P < .05) than that of the other two areas.

Fig. 7

CPI (A Town, Higashiyama, K Town)

results, and 2) to collect participants ideas (prescriptions) toimprove Higashiyama s CPI. 24 residents including community
association representatives participated in the workshop. The program consisted of 3 parts, instruction by the RSY representative,
explanation of the survey results including CPI by our group, andgroup discussion for expressing ideas.
4.3 The diagnostic survey results(1) Regional comparison
Table 4 shows the CPIs in the three survey areas. Looking at
Higashiyama s score, the table shows the lowest category is housing safety (3.45), followed by community linkage (4.55). In A andK Towns, the same as Higashiyama s result, the score of housing
safety was the lowest (A Town: 3.35, K Town: 3.46), while thesecond lowest category was storage, (A Town: 4.31, K Town:
4.86) instead of community linkage.
To compare CPI between Higashiyama and the other twoareas, a two-sample t-test was conducted. The two-sample t-test
can detect the difference between the mean values of two different
populations. Here, every pair of CPI score (mean value over thearea) in the same category (3 pair in each category) was tested.
For Higashiyama s score, the fire and community linkage scores
were significantly lower than those of either two towns.
For visualization of the result, the radar charts of CPI are provided for every area (Fig. 7). Comparison of the figures helps residents understand the above result that Higashiyama is vulnerable
in the category of fire and community linkage.
(2) Distribution of individual residents in the community
Figure 8 is a scatter chart showing the individual distributionof the personal Preparedness Index (PI) and self-evaluated score(SES) for community preparedness. A group of individuals locatedFig. 8 Individual distribution (community preparedness)left above seems optimistic because their self-evaluation is relatively high compared to their low CPI. On the contrary, those whoare located right below could be comparatively pessimistic. Basedon such criteria, the population is divided as follows.
Optimistic group (347 households)(SES)−(PI) ≥ 2

Pessimistic group (376 households)

1 ≥ (SES)−(PI) ≥ −1

Neutral group (1,903 households)−2 ≥ (SES)−(PI)This fact implies that researchers should not discuss the community using representative values for all households, but should
conduct additional analysis with clear objectives. It is importantfor community based mitigation activity to treat a community as anaggregation of various households.

Y. MATSUDA AND N. OKADA

32(3) Findings
The survey results show that (1) the vulnerable category for
Higashiyama is specified by statistical regional comparison, and(2) the community is heterogeneous so that analysis with detailed
focus is essential.
4.4 The outcome from the prescriptive workshop(1) Collected combined knowledge
During the prescriptive workshop, participants were asked tolist up ideas and opinions to enhance Higashiyama s earthquake
preparedness and 24 participants listed up the 143 ideas shown in
Table 5 by category.
(2) Findings
An examination of combined knowledge revealed two
remarkable findings. Here these are explained with some representative examples of collected knowledge.
First, it is obvious that the participants already understand theimportance of sustainability for disaster preparedness.
● (Storage) Let us know repeatedly to encourage personal storage.
● (Others) We have a vague consciousness of a disaster. But weneed to be stimulated by posters and other printed materials to bemade constantly aware of it.
The keywords such as repeatedly and made constantly
aware of in the above examples indicate that they are aware of theimportance of repetitive actions and continuous signals in daily
life. This finding also implies that community people realize thatdisaster preparedness is an issue with low priority in their life andis easily forgotten.
The second finding is that participants cognitive unit forcommunity is much smaller than the elementary school area,
which was initially defined as the community by us and RSY.
● (Shelter) It is not possible for all of us to be sheltered in theschool (Officially designated shelter). It s better to have an
unofficial place for evacuation in our neighborhood.
● (Shelter) We asked a neighboring church to open as a shelter inan emergency to the over-80s, and the injured handicapped.
● First is ensuring myself and my family s safety. Second is thesafety of my neighbors. Community s linkage is an importantfactor that needs to be maintained for such a purpose.
For example, their needs for unofficial shelter in their own
neighborhood arise from their actual feeling that the official shelter(Higashiyama elementary school) is still too far for some people.
Not only geographically, but the spatial unit of community fordisaster preparedness raises another question. Higashiyama is the

Table 5.

Number of ideas listed in the workshop

aggregation of more than 7,000 households, and the community
board its 24 citizens associations. Each association has about 100
to 500 households. At first, the RSY and the community board
intended to disseminate preparedness actions through the existing
citizens associations. Through the discussions, it is found that citizens association is far too big organization for community unit
for disaster preparedness.
From the participants, concrete proposals were also listed:● How about making an evacuation map in collaboration with theclub for the elderly?
● I heard the blast of a siren the other day, but I couldn t understand what it meant. I want a recorded tape to learn it.
These findings, the importance of repeatability and the cognitive unit of the community are newly created (combined) knowledge, being the key to preparedness measurement both for thecommunity and RSY. Based on the findings, the community board
decided to provide a short video tape as learning and discussion
material in the smaller units within the neighborhood. In the context of community diagnosis, this resolution will be a curing action
for the community. We intend to continue to monitor and analyze
the process in the Higashiyama area.
5. CONCLUSION
The paper discussed the ongoing research of community diagnosis for disaster preparedness. In the first part of the paper, theknowledge creation process with the SECI model wasis introduced
to explain sustainable community-based disaster preparedness.
Then, the concept of community diagnosis was explained.
In the following part, an observed study of Higashiyama in
Nagoya was discussed from which certain findings were obtained
from the diagnostic survey and the prescriptive workshop. The
survey revealed that (1) the scored vulnerabilities of the community are specified by the regional comparison, and (2) thecommunity s population is heterogeneous. From the workshop as
knowledge combination phase, the diagnostic survey revealed the
new findings of the importance of repeatability and focus on thesmaller unit.
Our research problem was how communities can be managed
to sustain preparedness for disasters. For such a problem forwhich even experts cannot provide an answer, we tried to conduct
the study in an adaptive manner: repeating verification of a presented model on site and its adjustment in the laboratory.
Admitting it is only verified under limited conditions and further
examination is required, the proposed model contributes to implementing sustainable community preparedness.
REFERENCES
Central Disaster Prevention Council, 2002. Press Release:
Tokai jishin ni kakaru higai soutei no kentou joukyou ni tsuite(Damage estimate of Tokai earthquake), http://www.bousai.go.jp/oshirase/h14/020830kisya.html.
Lindell M. K., Perry R. W (eds.), 2001. Facing the Unexpected:
Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United States, National
Academies Press.
Mileti, D.S., 1999. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural
Hazards in the United States, Joseph Henry Press.

COMMUNITY DIAGNOSIS FOR SUSTAINABLE DISASTER PREPAREDNESS

Nonaka, I., 1994. A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge
Creation, Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H., 1995. The Knowledge-Creating
Company: How Japanese Companies Create The Dynamics of Innovation,
Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I, and Konno, N., 1998. The Concept of Ba : Building afoundation for knowledge creation, California Management Review, 40(3),pp. 40-54.
Nonaka, I., Izumida, H., and Nagata, A., 2003. Chishiki kokka ron
josetsu –Aratana seisaku katei no paradigm (Toward the Theory of a
Knowledge-based Country: A New Paradigm of the Policy Process), Toyo
Keizai Shinpo Sha.
Okada N. and Gopalakrishnan, C. 2004. Reflections on
Implementation Science. Proceedings of Fourth Annual IIASA-DPRI

33

Meeting INTEGRATED DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT: Challengesof Implementation.
Okada, N., Kajitani, Y., Kawano, T., Kakumoto, S., and Tatano, H.,
2001. Roles of Community Diagnosis and Usefulness of DiMSIS from theViewpoint of Urban Planning Theory (In Japanese), Disaster Prevention
Research Institute Annual Report, No. 44, B-2, pp.23-34.
Okada, N. and Matsuda, Y., 2005. Risk Communication Strategy for
Disaster Preparedness Viewed as Multilateral Knowledge Development,
2005 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,
CD-ROM.
Okada, N., 2006. Methodology of Urban Disaster Diagnosis forEnhancing Safety and Security of Urban Space and Infrastructure, The
Abstract for the annual meeting of the Disaster Prevention ResearchInstitute, B20.