IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-2

Research article
erd

Impact of Modernization on Disaster-prone Regions
as Factor of Increasing Vulnerability:
Case of Ishinomaki and Kesennuma, Miyagi, Japan
KOJI MIWA*
Extension Center, Institute of Environmental Rehabilitation and Conservation, Tokyo, Japan
Email: koji.miwa.0104@gmail.com
Received 28 January 2016

Accepted 18 October 2017(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Natural disasters have caused many impacts on the modern society mainly indisaster-prone regions. Although modernization has improved disaster prevention measures
based on science and technology, it has also changed the human lifestyle from the traditional
to the modern way, which may increase the disaster risks. This paper studies the relationshipbetween modernization and its adverse effect on a disaster-prone region from the sociologicaland geo-historical approach to analyze the root cause of disaster. It takes up the case of ruralarea, Ishinomaki and Kesennuma cities, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan - where are historicallyvulnerable to geophysical disasters such as earthquake and tsunami. Both cities weresignificantly damaged by the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011 despite the modernizedsociety. The study is based on the qualitative method which mainly constitutes of literature
analysis. The main conclusion is that the Japanese modernization started since 1868 entailed
increased risks for the society. Modernization has certainly produced effective disasterprevention measures based on advanced science and technology and centralized measures led
by the government and economy-oriented development. However, the modernization whichbrought from the West where natural disasters are not as critical as Japan was not always
prioritized over the political and economic competition. Hence, it caused the disaster-prone
area more vulnerable when a disaster topples the capacity of such modern system byincreasing the exposure to hazards under diplomatic and security issues and economyoriented development.
Keywords natural disasters, modernization, vulnerability, root-cause, historical geography

INTRODUCTION
Modernization or ‘developmentalism’ has been regarded as production of wealth and improvementof living condition under capitalism diffused by the West. However, according to Smith (2004), thetrend of disaster in the modern society is resulted from the exploitation of nature, the rapid population
growth, urbanization, social and economic inequality, climate change, political change, economic
growth, technical innovation, social expectations and global interdependence, as the consequence ofmodernization. Modernization has certainly brought a great improvement in disaster prevention
measures with the advanced science and technology. However, the modernization have also deprived
the societies in disaster-prone regions of the community-based adaptation based on their local
cultures and environment. Therefore, several sociologists and anthropologists have criticized theWestern-centric view of development for such byproducts. These locally adapted measures are
considered more effective prevention measure than transferring the Western technology based on thecentralization and economic development (Smith, 2004).
Although Japan has developed with the world-leading technology, it was not able to prevent
huge earthquake disasters, such as the Great Hanshin Earthquake in 1995 with 6,437 deaths, and theGreat East Japan Earthquake in 2011 with 15,883 deaths and 2,676 missing (Japanese Cabinet Office,2011a). Most of the casualties in the latter case were caused by tsunami disaster despite that theregion is historically prone to tsunami and has been equipped with the world-leading hard measures.
Even the government and researchers had predicted 88 percent of possibility of the occurrence ofⒸ ISERD

1

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-2

great tsunami triggered by a huge earthquake in the Miyagi off-coast by 2023 and they had been
warning the local people and improved evacuation measures (Imamura, 2013, pp. 50). The cause of
the disaster has been attributed to several reasons in the previous studies, such as the failure oftsunami warning system (Japanese Cabinet Office, 2011b), the insufficient evacuation road (Sekiya,2011), the loss of culture of disaster in the society (Sekiya, 2011; Yoshihara, 2013; Tanaka, 2013),
and the loss of the local community ties (Yoshihara, 2013). However, there has been no study whichlooked into the root cause of the disaster. As “human sensitivity to environmental hazards is acombination of physical exposure, or the range of potentially damaging events and their variability
at a particular location” (Smith, 2004, p. 10), it is important to investigate the cause why the society
was developed in the vulnerable locations.
OBJECTIVE
The overall research aim of this paper is to study whether the modernization of the Japanese society
led to increased vulnerability to natural disasters by the time of Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011.
It applies sociological and geo-historical approach to analyze the root cause of the disaster. The
history of modernization in Japan starts in 1868 and entails not only development of economy,
science and technology but also diplomatic or security issues. The study takes up the tsunami disasterand focuses on geographical location of affected areas as the main risk factor in Ishinomaki and
Kesennuma cities, Miyagi Prefecture. To limit the study, the research question puts an emphasis on
why and how the population had located themselves in such vulnerable area in the process ofmodernization by the time of the disaster.
METHODOLOGYThis study applies a qualitative method which constitutes literature and data analysis. In order tounderstand the impact of modernization of Japan in the target areas, it studies their historically andsocially significant phenomena during the modernization. Sources of literature, map and population
census are collected from the official documents and reports published by both city and national
governments and other Japanese authorities as well as the literature about the Japanese history fromboth Japanese and foreign authors for the accuracy and objectivity of historical events. Based on thecollected data, the cause of increased disaster risks by developing along the coastal areas was.
Kesennuma and Ishinomaki cities, Miyagi Prefecture were chosen as case study as they suffered themost and the third largest respectively among all the devastated municipalities in the disaster.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
At first, the old maps and the post-disaster maps are compared as seen in Fig. 1 and 2. The old mapof Kesennuma is from 1916 (GSI, 1916) and the one of Ishinomaki from 1929 (GSI, 1929) on theleft side of both figures. In the old maps, the darkened part is mainly populated area inside the circle.
The rest parts are mainly paddy fields or agricultural lands, and few houses for both areas. In the
post-disaster map, red color indicates the limit of tsunami invasion, blue is heavily damaged
residential area created by Tsunami Damage Mapping Team, Association of Japanese Geographers(2011).
As observed from the map comparison, most parts of the heavily damaged area (marked by bluein the post-disaster map) were not neither populated nor developed at all in the initial stage ofmodernization in both cities. They were mainly unused land, paddy fields, agricultural land, or eventhe sea.

Ⓒ ISERD

2

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-2

Fig. 1 Maps of Kesennuma in 1916 (left) and the post-2011 disaster (right)
Source: The 1916 map of Kesennuma is a scale of 1:50,000 from Geographical Information Authority of Japan(GSI) (1916), and the post-disaster map is “Tsunami Damage Map” from the Tsunami Damage Mapping Team,
Association of Japanese Geographers (2011)

Fig. 2 Maps of Ishinomaki in 1929 (left) and the post-2011 disaster (right)
Source: The 1929 map of Ishinomaki is a scale of 1:50,000 from GSI (1916), and the post-disaster map is“Tsunami Damage Map” from the Tsunami Damage Mapping Team, Association of Japanese Geographers(2011)

Table 1 Population changes in Kesennuma and Ishinomaki from the early modern period
Kesennuma

IshinomakiYear

Total population

Kesennuma Town

Year

Total population

Ishinomaki Town/City

1882

17,411

N/A

1889

N/A

18,573

1920

43,824

9,788

1920

102,953

22,067

1940

63,656

17,973

1940

137,327

36,442Note. Total population for Kesennuma and Ishinomaki contains population of municipalities which had notbeen merged with both cities in these periods but were a part of both cities as of the time of disaster occurrence,
11 March 2011.
Source: Data for population of Kesennuma city in 1882 from Kesennumashi-shi-hensan-iinkai (1990); forpopulation of Ishinomaki city in 1889 from Ishinomakishi-shi-hensan-iinkai (1998); adapted for population of
Kesennuma and Ishinomaki in 1920 and 1940 from the 1920 and 1940 Population Census (Statistics Bureau,
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan [MIC]), URL: https://www.e-stat.go.jp/en. accessedon 12 October, 2013.

Ⓒ ISERD

3

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-2

Table 2 Population changes in Kesennuma and Ishinomaki Cities for the post-1945 period
Kesennuma City

Ishinomaki City

Year

Population

Population density (per km2)

Year

Population

Population density (per km2)

1920
1950
1980
2010

43,82476,391
92,24673,489

131.5
229.5
276.6
220.4

1920
1950
1980
2010

102,953
176,925
186,094
160,826

185.2
318.5
333.5
289.4

Note. Total population for Kesennuma and Ishinomaki from 1920 to 1980 contains population of municipalities
which had not been merged yet with both cities in the periods but were a part of both cities as of the time ofdisaster. Population density in 1920 is calculated by using the area of each city as of 2010.
Source. Adapted from the 1950, 1980, and 2010 Population Census (Statistics Bureau, MIC), URL:
https://www.e- stat.go.jp/en. accessed on 16 October, 2013.

The population increase in both cities occurred since the late nineteenth century throughmodernization as seen in Table 1 and 2. Based on these facts, the vulnerable coastal areas weresignificantly developed and populated, increasing the exposure risk to hazards during the process ofmodernization. Both cities also developed their urban area and increased land development for
housing and commercial use. In Kesennuma, the urban area increased from 3.2km2 in 1975 to 6.4km2
in 2005. In Ishinomaki, the population in the urban district was 61,573 in the district area of 6.60
km2 in 1960. It increased up to 103,518 and 23.40km2 respectively by 1995 and 94,342 people and25.89km2 in 2010 by the time of disaster.
The next section looks into the historical causes of these increased risks. Firstly, it discusses theearly modern period from 1868 to 1945, and then the post-1945 period up to 2011.
The Early Modern Period (1868-1945)
Since modernization started in 1868 in Japan, its economy-oriented development in the country waslaunched under the pressure of the West, especially the U.S. which was seeking for more capital
resources in the East Asia at that time. Although there was a strong domestic resistance to the US
demand for opening the Japanese market to the West in the beginning, the Japanese leaders finallygave in. The main terror was the Western military and armed forces as well as the strong industrial
economy which were too strong for then Japan. By concluding unequal treaties with the West, Japan
undertook modernization quickly, aiming to catch up with the industrialized nations. Political,
economic and cultural modernization occurred hand in hand with militarization and industrialization.
In this way, Japan started modernization following the Western technological model, though the aim
was to abolish the unequal treaties and establish an equal relationship with the West under the sloganof ‘fukoku-kyohei’ (literally rich country, strong country). (Duus, 1998; Cullen, 2003; Kito, 2010)
Under such circumstance, Kensennuma and Ishinomaki which were mere small villages at theinitial stage of modernization were soon included in a part of the national modernism plan andencouraged to increase the fishery activity as a means of capital industrial economy. As well as otherindustries, fishery and its related industries were rapidly modernized by the lead of the central
government. The intention was to resist to the western fishing in the Japanese adjacent waters. As
the West advanced in the Japanese adjacent water, the U.S. and the U.K. were overfishing whales
and Russia was hunting sea otters and fur seals to a significant extent. The then Japanese government
was afraid of drying up of her natural resources by the West. Although the people in the area mainly
produced crops and only engaged in coastal fishery just for a self-sufficient living in the pre-modern
period, they were urged to shift to the pelagic fishery under the governmental plan. In 1897 Pelagic
Fisheries Encouragement Act was issued by the central government to subsidize fishery boats,
fishery tools and crews. The government encouraged economic activity by forming the fisherman’s
union. Fish processing industry became the main industry in the area and a number of factories wereconstructed in both coastal cities. Such industry was also important to supply to the military during
the war period to feed the people in the battle fields. Besides the fishing industry, sericulture industryⒸ ISERD

4

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-2

developed in both cities and the number of its factories rapidly increased. Because of the Western
demand, silk was the pivotal source of the Japanese exports to them during the time under the unequal
treaties and helped Japanese modernization. In this way by the end of the Meiji era (1868-1912), thewhole town of Kesennuma and Ishinomaki became a place of production. As both cities were
engaged in the primary industry, the development in the coastal area was highly important for theconvenience of transportation. With such changes, the population grew rapidly in both cities as seenin Table 1.
To conclude this period, development and urbanization of both cities were primarily attributed
to the country’s security and diplomatic issues under the threat of the West and the capitalisticcompetition with them. Vulnerability of the area to tsunami disaster seems to have not beenprioritized at all by the then government because the security issue is a more urgent issue for thecountry’s survival than natural disasters. Therefore, even after the case study area experienced the1896 Meiji-Sanriku Earthquake which caused 21,959 deaths, the both cities kept developing.
Post-1945 Period
With the loss in the WWII, Japan launched a policy of ‘economism’ under the US support by the
Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) which stayed at the first position in the parliament for a long timein this period. The country was initially put under the control of the Supreme Commander for the
Allied Powers, the US occupant authority. The occupation aimed to transform Japan into an ally of
the U.S. Although the U.S. aimed to restrain Japan from her economic development as a punishmentof the WW II, they decided to make Japan “the chief factory of Asia” as the Cold War loomed
problematic for them (Duus, 1998, p. 272). Japan aimed to be independent of the US occupation, toreturn to the international community, and to reconstruct the country. For these, the people wereunited and worked hard which led to the rapid reconstruction and high economic growth since 1950s.
With technological improvement, the Japanese farming was mechanized and thus increased its
productivity and efficiency. It led to a substantial decrease of rural population with a labor force
increasing in service industries in cities. However, to secure the parliament seats by collecting more
votes the LDP distributed money to the countryside, main industries and powerful corporations. This
caused excessive land development and promoted industries in the countryside. For the U.S. it was
important to decrease anti-US sentiment to make Japan a good ally under the Cold War. Under the
Eisenhower’s “New Look” and “Atoms for Peace”, the U.S. accelerated nuclear energy productionin Japan with advertisement of good images of the U.S., and economic development with cooperationof Japanese corporations. (Duus, 1998; Cullen, 2003)
Based on the economism, the fishing industry was also promoted to expand its economy further.
Since 1951, “gyokoseibichokikeikaku” (literally, long term project of fishing port arrangement) was
launched as a national policy, and the Kesennuma port was selected as one of the targets. Since thenthe area of the Kesennuma port was developed with a large investment by the government. Since
1969, the national budget was used for the Kesennuma port selected as a port which needs a ‘special
development’. With the development plan, the area around the port became filled with industries andresidential houses and the land was extended by reclamation of the sea. (Kesennumashi-shi-hensaniinkai, 1993)
Ishinomaki fishing port was also selected as a ‘special development’ was needed in 1973. After
the WW II, Ishinomaki also followed a national policy that focuses on the economic growth.
Ishinomaki city planned to develop the Ishinomaki port and offered industries in the hinterlands ofthe ports along the coast, aiming for a ‘marine products city’. The city organized the inter-industrial
relationship for marine products industries and eventually many manufacturing industry and factories
were built in the coastal industrial zone. (Ishinomakishi-shi-hensaniinkai, 1998)
As the result of economism, economic development in the coastal areas, where are vulnerable
to tsunami disaster, was significant in both cities. It led to the population growth and construction offactories or any other economic activities along the coastal area.
To conclude this period, the causes of increased risks in the both cities by developing in thevulnerable area are mainly attributed to the US occupation and their political and economic strategyⒸ ISERD

5

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-2

as well as the global economic competition, continued from the pre-war period. They were morecritical and certain issues for the Japanese over unpredictable natural disasters. In addition, theeconomic development was important for the Japanese people to recover their confidence after theloss and collapse in the war. It led to the further economic development, losing the local adaptation
skills to natural hazards. The absence of huge natural disasters or tsunami in Japan during the
economic growth period might also promote the people to lose consciousness of the disaster risks.
CONCLUSION
The main driving force that led to the population increase in vulnerable areas in both cities was the
diplomatic and security issues for Japan and economy-oriented development caused by the Western
occupation and the global economy. Under such circumstance, both cities were assigned to develop
the fishery and silk industries for the country’s survival. It led to the population increase and land
reclamation along the coast. Even after the WW II and the modern technology and science developed,
the people kept developing in the vulnerable area under the economism. For the generalization of theresult of this study, because the diplomatic, security and economic issues can be more urgent andcritical than natural disasters for a country’s survival, such pressure can lead a country in disasterprone region to increasing disaster risks, thus vulnerability. Therefore, dispute settlement and peacebuilding are important matters than employment of modern technology or economy to achievesustainable and resilient society. The current global economy standardize the way of living and thecompetitiveness regardless of whether a country is in a disaster-prone region. There is a need forsystem which can prioritize disaster risk reduction and mitigation over profit-maximization.
REFERENCES
Cullen, L.M. 2003. A History of Japan 1582-1941. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Duus, P. 1998. Modern Japan. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, USA.
GSI. 1916. 57-7-1. 5 Manbun-no-1-zumei: Kesennuma [one 50,000th of Kesennuma]. Geographical
Information Authority of Japan, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
GSI. 1929. 58-10-3. 5 Manbun-no-1-zumei: Ishinomaki [one 50,000th of Ishinomaki]. Geographical
Information Authority of Japan, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
Imamura, F. 2013. Jizen-no-tsunami-kenkyu-to-yobou-taisaku [Pre-disaster's research on tsunami andprecautious measures]. In A. Hirakawa, & F. Imamura, Higashi-nihon-daishinsai-wo-bunseki-suru (Vol. 3,
41-53). Akashishoten, Tokyo, Japan.
Ishinomakishi-shi-hensaniinkai. 1998. Ishinomaki-no-rekishi [History of Ishinomaki] (Vol. 2 Tsushi-hen (Geno-2)). Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.
Japanese Cabinet Office. 2011a. Higashi-nihon-daishinsai-ni-okeru-higaigaku-no-suikei-ni-tsuite [About theestimation of the economic loss by the Great East Japan Earthquake]. http://www.bousai.go.jp/2011
daishinsai/pdf/110624-1kisya.pdf (retrieved on 24 April, 2013).
Japanese Cabinet Office. 2011b. Report of the committee for technical investigation on countermeasures forearthquakes and tsunamis based on the lessons learned from the “2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku
Earthquake”. Japanese Cabinet Office, the Government of Japan, Japan.
Kesennumashi-shi-hensan-iinkai. 1990. Kesennumashi-shi III [History of Kesennuma City III]. Kesennuma,
Miyagi, Japan.
Kesennumashi-shi-hensan-iinkai. 1993. Kesennumashi-shi IV -kindai, gendai-hen- [History of Kesennuma
City IV modern version (Vol. IV)]. Kesennuma, Miyagi, Japan.
Kito, H. 2010. Bunmeitoshiteno-Edoshisutemu [The Edo-system as a Civilization]. Ohban Press, Tokyo, Japan.
McDonald, D. 1985. A geography of modern Japan. Paul Norbury Publications, Ashford, Kent, UK.
Sekiya, N. 2011. Nihon-no-bosai-system-no-kansei [Pitfall of the Japanese disaster prevention system]. In
Endo, K., Daishinsaigo-no-shakaigaku, Kodansha, Vol. 6, 237-271. Tokyo, Japan.
Smith, K. 2004. Environmental hazards, Assessing risk and reducing disaster (Fourth Edition ed.). Routledge,
London, UK.
Tanaka, S. 2013. "Soteogai"-no-shakaigaku [Sociology of beyond assumption]. In Tanaka, S. et al.,Higashinihondaishinsai-to-shakaigaku, Daisaigai-wo-umidashita-shakai [The Great Eastern Japan
Earthquake and Japanese Sociology, How a Country Brought Disaster Upon Itself]. Mineruvashobo, 275328. Japan.
Ⓒ ISERD

6

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-2

Tsunami Damage Mapping Team, Association of Japanese Geographers. 2011. Map of the area hit by thetsunami of 11 March 2011, Northeast Japan. http://www.ajg.or.jp/disaster/201103_Tohoku-eq.html.
(retrieved on 14 December, 2013).
Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T. and Davis, I. 2004. At risk, Natural hazards, people's vulnerability anddisasters (the 2nd ed.). Routledge, Oxon, UK.
Yoshihara, N. 2013. Chiiki-community-no-kyo-to-jitsu, Hinan-kodo-oyobi-hinanjo-kara-mietekitamono[Emptiness and fruit of local community, What has been seen from the evacuation action and the refuge].
In Tanaka, S. et al., Higashinihondaishinsai-to-shakaigaku, Daisaigai-wo-umidashita-shakai [The Great
Eastern Japan Earthquake and Japanese Sociology: How a Country Brought Disaster Upon Itself].
Mineruvashobo, 47-69. Japan.

Ⓒ ISERD

7