Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 32, Number 2, 2011, pp53-62

A ScientiÞc Challenge for Society under Sustainability Risks by Addressing Coping
Capacity, Collective Knowledge and Action to Change: A Vitae System Perspective

Norio OKADA**Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University
Gokasho, Uji, Kyoto 611-0011, Japan
Email :n_okada@drs.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp(Received January 31, 2011 Accepted May 6, 2011)
ABSTRACTThis paper points to the need for undertaking field-based, innovative, intellectual
ventures to explore a yet-missing scientiÞc domain of “Implementation Science”. A Vitae
System Perspective is proposed to show that seemingly different research arenas areinterpreted to share common concerns, hotspots and fundamental issues such as how tomanage and realize “more sustainable” society (that is, sustainable management), how
to develop a better methodological leverage toward it and what kind of new scientificframework should be further explored. Illustrations are made to link together three
seemingly different research frontiers. i.e.,IDRiM (Integrated Disaster Risk Management),
CRREM (Conßict Resolution in Resources and Environment Management), and Kasology(sustainable rural development). Some ongoing scientific challenges by the author andothers are introduced and discussed. By referring to interpretively relevant ideas, thoughts
and research works, further allied endeavors to enhance “Implementation Science” forsustainable society are called for.
Keyword: Coping Capacity, Collective Knowledge and Action to Change, Vitae System,
Sustainability Risk Management, Implementation Scienceand Kasology (sustainable rural development). From
this perspective, the author points out that the above
three different research frontier arenas are interpreted
to share common concerns, hotspots and fundamental
issues such as how to manage and realize “more sustainable” society (that is, sustainable management),
how to develop a better methodological leverage
toward it and what kind of new scientific framework
should be further explored.
To illustrate the above points, a focus is placedon the necessity and practice of addressing coping
capacity and collective (multi-lateral) knowledge
and action to change. A point is made that the most

1. Introduction
Recognizing that we live in the century of everincreasing complexity, uncertainty and risks associated with sustainability, this paper points to the needfor undertaking field-based, innovative, intellectual
ventures to explore a yet-missing scientific domainof “Implementation Science”. A Vitae System Perspective is proposed based on author’s long-engaged
scientific ventures flagged by the three seemingly
different research frontiers. i.e., IDRiM (Integrated
Disaster Risk Management), CRREM (Conflict Resolution in Resources and Environment Management),53

N. OKADA

effective and viable way to scientifically address coping capacity is to focus on its changing processes, tomonitor and keep track of such changes, and to qualitatively compare relative differences from one point
in time to another.
Some ongoing scientific challenges by the author
and others are introduced and discussed. By referringto interpretively relevant ideas, thoughts and researchworks , further allied endeavors to enhance “Implementation Science” for sustainable society are called for.

1) survivability (to become alive)2) vitality (to live lively)3) communication (to live together)
Fig. 1 illustrates the three functions modeled as threeedges of a vitae system triangle which represents thecommon space at stake, in light of sustainability. Fig.
2 shows a networking of vitae system triangles with“communication vertex” as common hinges.
This entire living common space has two seemingly contradictory but mutually complementing
functional orientations, one, self-sustainability andanother, inter-sustainability, represented by the horizontal and vertical axes, respectively. As a matterof fact, the two sustainability orientations can hardly
stand on their own and therefore, are thought of as thetwo sides of the same coin. In other words any common space conceived as a living body cannot achievesustainability only by itself; instead one is very muchinterdependent on another staying outside. Beside theabove “communication with outside”, “communication within” the vitae system is also essential for threecardinal functions to become adequately coordinated.
Note that this conceptual model as it is has no
specific implications regarding particular area-related
or managerial characteristics or contents of the region(or city, village, or community) in question. Thus thismodel is totally context-dependent if it is intended tobe applied (and operationalized) to a particular case.
This means that in most cases the actual use of theVitae System Model will require field work-based experience and skills as well cross-disciplinary knowledge on the part of researchers who intend to apply it.
Therefore its perspective takes us to a challenge towards a new academic arena which spans and merges
together different conventional disciplinary spheres.
Interpretatively such a challenge per se is also a creative endeavor to connect together such disciplinary
spheres regarded as distinct Vitae Systems. As long as
we confine ourselves in our own traditional scholarly
community, we cannot take an overview of our community from above and outside and thus fail to takeeven an initial step to relate ourselves with other communities. The Vitae System Model offers us a refreshing way of viewing things in order to guide us to takesuch an initial step forward.
Though the concept of sustainability is holistic
and comprehensive, it is useful to limit its focus on

2. Sustainability Risks related to Vitae Systems
Knowing that the definitions of “sustainability”
abound, the author intends to relate them to comprehensive risks to which “our common living spaces
resided by human (and non-human) agents” such as
regions, cities, villages, and neighborhood communities are increasingly exposed. Given any living space,
the following three cardinal functions are essential toits sustainability (see Okada, 2006).

Fig. 1 Vitae System Model (Prototype)Fig. 2 Networking of Vitae Systems
54

A SCIENTIFIC CHALLENGE FOR SOCIETY UNDER SUSTAINABILITY RISKS BY ADDRESSING COPING CAPACITY, COLLECTIVE KNOWLEDGE AND ACTION TO CHANGE

its particular aspects, for the purpose of planning andmanagement (that is called “sustainable management”) (for example, see Lovins, 2003). The UN
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Types of
Sustainability and some others have listed the following kinds of sustainability with their particularconsiderations for technical cooperation (Wikipedia,
Sustainability).
a) Institutional sustainabilityb) Economic and financial sustainabilityc) Ecological sustainability
In application, the above types of sustainability canbe generalized to wider scopes of considerations. We
may also add the following:d) Social sustainability (including that of our common
living spaces, such as Kasology central issues)e) Energetic sustainabilityf) Natural hazard sustainability (directly addressing
IDRiM central issues)(called “coping capability”).
In author’s view the most effective and viable
way to scientifically address coping capacity is tofocus on its changing processes, to monitor and keep
track of such changes, and to qualitatively compare
relative differences from one point in time to another.
To take an example of integrated disaster risk
management (IDRiM) such a critical change in society may occur after a huge scale of disaster strikes aregion. The 1995 Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake Disasterwas precisely such a case. The 2001 September 11th
New York Terrorist Attack is also considered anothercase. The former belongs to a natural hazard-triggered
disaster, and the latter a malicious intent hazard whichcaused an unprecedented type of urban calamity. The
structural changes may take place, and continue todo so in different periods of time from rescue, relief,
recovery and restoration. The author claims that theVitae System Model will shed light on such structuralchanges occurring particularly in the period of rescue
and relief by modeling the dynamic process of change
as an integration of achieving “survivability” above
all, and then “vitality” and “communication” to follow in a coordinated manner. If we intend to address alonger period of time from rescue and relief, throughrecovery to restoration, it is advised to study thewhole process by applying the methods of adaptive
management which is modeled as the dynamic processes of spirally upgrading Plan-Do-Check-Action(PDCA) Cycles (see Figs. 3 and 4 to be explainedlater). One way to apply the Vitae System Modelis to use it as a set of basic performance criteria to“check” if it remains to be viable for each cycle, interms of “survivability” above all, and then “vitality”
and “communication” to be well coordinated.

3. Coping Capacity and Its Enhancement
One of the essential, and most challenging questions of what we may call “Implementation Science”
for sustainability risk management in the research arenas of IDRiM, CRREM and Kasology is coping capacity and its enhancement under sustainability risks.
Conceptually the level (state) of coping capacity ismodeled as the area of a vitae system triangle which
represents a particular agent (stakeholder) engaged
in sustainability risk management. In anticipation of
objectively identified or perceived sustainability risks,proactive countermeasures need to be introduced wellin advance so that any devastating damage and losses
may be timely and properly avoided or reduced. In
parallel to hardware (facility) development as infrastructure and entitlement, more software types ofcountermeasures (enhancing coping capacity) have tobe specified, chosen and implemented. It is remarked
that operationalization of the concept of coping capacity is not an easy task to do. Challenging scientificissues include:a) How to distinguish between ex-ante (expected) andex-post (revealed) states of coping capacityb) How to develop its “metric“c) How to monitor and make measurementsd) How to examine and assess the process of changing(transforming) the state of ex-ante coping capacity

4. Collective (Multi-lateral) Knowledge and Action
to Change
The primary research concern of implementation for sustainability risk management is how toformulate the process of risk knowledge leading toaction to dispose risks. Interestingly the outcomes ofsuch a knowledge-action process formulation work
are also considered process knowledge and technology, and thus become a typical example of research
focus for Implementation Science. Another importantcharacteristics of implementation-oriented knowledge55

N. OKADA

to action is that it is NOT developed, or owned by individuals but collectively (a collection of individuals)
or multi-laterally. In this relation adaptive management is considered to be effective as a methodologyof sustainability risk management. Fig. 3 shows aprototype model of Plan-Do-Check-Action (PDCA)
cycle process which is considered to have close relationship with adaptive management which requires
to hypothesize “a policy or practice as a viable plan”.
The essential difference between “Do” and ‘Action”
is that“Do” addresses what stakeholders do according to the “Plan” that has been made in the preceding stage, and “Action” refers to what they makeretroactive adjustments according to what they haveachieved “Check” about the performances and viability of the “Plan” that has gone through “Do”. “Action” thus brings in new inputs into plan, and involves
new stakeholders into the participatory platform. One
cycle of “Plan”, “Do”, “Check” and “Action” completes, the same process repeats itself until all stakeholders agree to terminate there.
5. Ecological Sustainability Risk Management as
Recovering Community’s Coping Capacity with
Natural Environment
The concept of Vitae System sheds light on thenotion of “carrying capacity” of the natural environment and offers us another spectrum of its interpretation. “Mighty Nature” is only too vast and beyond
any scope and can last even when human nature
perishes. Therefore when the global communities areconcerned about any limit to the capacity of the natural environment, the logical way to define that aspectof the nature is in terms of people’s capacity to relatethemselves with it. The carrying capacity should be
reinterpreted not only as the one that belongs to thenatural environment itself but in part to any agent
interacting with the natural environment. In thatsense the carrying capacity is not that of the environment itself but relative to, and “communicative” withall agents concerned. From the viewpoint of community’s management the relevant carrying capacity

Action

Plan

Check

Do
Fig. 3 Adaptive Management as Open-ended PDCA
Cyclic Process

Nested Structure of PDCA Cycles
䠄Large, Middle and Small Vehicle-Linkage䠅

Do

Check
D
C
d
c

P

p

Plan

ActionFig. 4 Upgrading Spirally the Processes of Adaptive as Nested PDCA Cycles
56

A SCIENTIFIC CHALLENGE FOR SOCIETY UNDER SUSTAINABILITY RISKS BY ADDRESSING COPING CAPACITY, COLLECTIVE KNOWLEDGE AND ACTION TO CHANGE

should be defined and studied as people’s (community’s) coping capacity with its natural environment,
which needs to be regarded as their perceived partner
agent (another vitae system).

problems which can be patterned as combinations ofspecific contents corresponding to S-V-C risks. An
important implication for any type of the problems isthat disaster reduction management is not simply amatter of dealing with survivability risks (S) such as
risk of loss of life or assets, etc, but it is more holistic
and thus need to be integrated (coordinated) in termsof vitality risks (V) and communication risks (C).
It is worthy stressing that as indicated in CaseIDRiM (4), each type of risk is not always simple but
rather relatively complex and of a multi-stratum, suchas a set of retrofitting failure-safe, illness recovery,
economic survival (due to poverty), etc. This tells
us that it is quite likely that a particular person who
could be, say, very old and difficult to loan moneyfrom a bank gives a priority to overcoming illness andsurviving economic hardship, rather than to implementing retrofitting. Such being the case, retrofitting would quite possibly be NOT IMPLEMENTED,
which is precisely an example of implementation
problem. A knowledge to be developed to get aroundthis difficulty is, for instance, how to make people’s
priority slightly reset (not just by forcing them toadopt that alternative.) Yet uncovered body of knowledge we may need includes people’s risk perception,
attitudinal and behavioral characteristics. This is aperfect example of a theme to be addressed by “Implementation Science”.

6. Three Frontier Research Arenas Placed in Vitae
System Perspective
An attempt is now made to take up the above
stated three distinct research frontier arenas and to
reduce them to a common body of missing knowledgeof what one may call “the meta-problem structure ofsustainability risk management”. That is, the Vitae
System Model provides an effective pointer to thislogical reduction process. Table 1 illustrates how to
specify survivability (S), vitality (V) and communication (C) to different possible patterns of content
specifics-to-risk correspondence in each research arena (see Table 1). Note that there are many other alternative ways of specifications for each arena and that
more exact and realistic details should be specified if
a particular context (socio-cultural, locality, etc.) is set
up. Some remarks are made to discuss peculiaritiesof each research arena.
1) IDRiM as Sustainability Risk Management
Table 1 (a) exemplifies just a few (potentiallymany) types of integrated disaster risk management

Table 1 Specification of Sustainability Risks for IDRiM, Kasology, and CRREM(a) IDRiM
Sustainability risk
S

IDRiM(1)Disaster reduction

IDRiM(2)rescue/relief

IDRiM(3)evacuation

IDRiM(4)1) retrofitting2) illness3) economic survival
V
development
recovery/ restoration
health/ handicap
financial resourcesC
partnershipmutual assistanceearly warning/government
information
assistanceIn the above IDRiM (1) refers to the first conference of IIASA-DPRI International Conference (Forum) on Integrated Disaster Risk Management held in 2001, and IDRiM (2) the second in 2002, IDRiM (3) the third in 2003,
and IDRiM (4) the forth in 2004, respectively.
(b)Kasology
Sustainability risk
Kasology(1)Kasology(2)Sdecline of community
financial bankrupt
V(small) village renewal
community businessCpublic-private partnershipvillage-city exchange
In the above Kasology (1) refers to the first Conference on Kasology International held in 2003, in Chizu, Tottori, Japan, and Kasology (2) refers to the second in 2004 in Arizona, USA.
57

N. OKADA( c) CRREM
Sustainability risk
S
VC

Drama Theory (CRREM)<Persuasion Dilemma>
persuasion failure disasterpersuasion driving energy/costs
persuasive communication skill(d) Kasology & IDRiM (Chizu Case)
Sustainability risk
Kasology & IDRiM(Chizu Case)S(1) disaster reduction(2) social lifeV(1) financial resources(2) persuasion energy(3) persuasion costC(1) protest/ risk acceptance / collaboration(2) persuasion / negotiation skill

resolve conflicts, the common meta-problem structure
again merits analytical attention. Among many gametheory and conflict analysis methods, one theoreticalmodel called Drama Theory is focused.
Drama Theory can be interpreted as a method ofmaking the implicit knowledge of different types ofinternal, psychological dilemmas explicitly treated.
The tension mode of three cardinal functions in the
Vitae System triangle (modeled as an actor or character) being simultaneously activated and coordinatedcorrespond to the active end of a Drama Theory Dilemma, whereas complementary modes of relaxationof at least one of the three cardinal functions, correspond to inactive ends of that Dilemma (see Bryant,2003).
To take an example of Persuasion Dilemma as
shown in Table 1 ( c), if the agent (called Character)
can timely coordinate (synchronize) three cardinalfunctions as sustainability risks, it is interpreted to become a tough side of its “stance” as being “oppressed”(Bryant, 2003). This indicates that there can be different shades of Character’s coping capacity to influenceothers, and their possible combinational patterns produce alternative dilemmatic settings where collaboration is eventually sought after.

2) Kasology as Sustainability Risk
Management
As exemplified in Table 1 (b), Kasology primarily focuses on rural decline as survivability risk but
as importantly it requires other risks to be addressed
and well coordinated with survivability risk. That is,in case (1) village renewal as vitality risk, and publicprivate partnership as communication risk. This casecould include a variant of governance scheme wheremore initiative is taken by the local government suchas introducing appropriate spatial planning and management. Case (2) represents such a situation that asmall municipality is facing a very serious budgetary
deficit resulting in financial bankruptcy. To overcome
this hardship the municipality has to cope with vitality risk (by community business or social entrepreneurship, for example), and also with communication
risk (by promoting village-city exchange activities,
e.g. ) If they fail, it might be the case, particularly inJapan that the municipality will be challenged by thepolitical pressure from the higher level of government
in administrative hierarchy to become amalgamatedwith a larger municipality.
It is interesting to add that in Table 1 (d), caseis made of an overlapping situation of both Kasology
and IDRiM issues taking place at the same time.

7. Illustrations from Field-based Studies3) CRREM as a Methodology of Sustainability
Risk Management
The central concern here is rather methodological. If we highlight the development of a methodologically leverage to enhance coping capacity to1) zero-to-one village renewal movement
Since 1985 the author has long been involved in thefield observations and studies in the municipality of
Chizu-cho, Tottori, Japan. This case area has been58

A SCIENTIFIC CHALLENGE FOR SOCIETY UNDER SUSTAINABILITY RISKS BY ADDRESSING COPING CAPACITY, COLLECTIVE KNOWLEDGE AND ACTION TO CHANGE

going through a series of grass-root vitalizations andsocial innovations under the initiatives of a local
catalyst-led resident group (originally called CCPT
and later practically dissolved into a loose social network of motivated individuals). Particularly the last
decade (1997-2007) has seen an impact making village social innovation venture called “zero-to-one village renewal movement (zero-bunno-ichi Muraokoshi
Undo)” (For this see Sugiman, 2007). This was achallenging social experiment first proposed by thecatalyst group and adopted by the municipal office ofChizu. The target villages were fundamental units ofneighborhood communities which currently consistof the municipality of Chizu and most of which havelong been existent even since (some points of time in)
the Tokugawa Shogunate government period (16031867).
In the author’s view the major objective of this zeroto-one movement was to take a first step towards therecovery of coping capacity at community level. An
expected jump for a challenging and selected communities was to make a critical shift from the stateof practically vanished to a modest but substantial
extent, that is, from near to zero-level (symbolized by“0”) to a level of small but substantial identity (symbolized by “1” ), which is exactly the reason the nameof “zero-to-one” was coined for. It also connotes thatit addresses a change in quality rather than in quantity,
demanding a creative knowledge-to-action leverage
to move an “infinite” load with “almost nothing “.
Interestingly special knowledge-to-action is alsoneeded to find out and actually set an appropriate
fulcrum for this knowledge-to-action leverage. Moreoften than not, such expertise first belongs to a special
local catalyst who has trained his/her five senses toact locally and think globally.
Evidences obtained from Chizu suggest that suchspecial senses may well be developed by a challenger
constantly and intentionally undergoing inside-out/
outside-in inversion processes. Ideally such a special
local catalyst can develop his/her capacity if he/she
lives in a (more) open society where synergy is continuously developed through collaborations between
insiders and outsiders. In reality there are some local
champions who have volunteered to take long-enduring challenges and changed the local society into a
more open environment. Here again the Vitae System
Model offers a new perspective to interpret the role ofa catalyst challenging inside-out/outside-in inversion
processes. The catalyst belongs to a particular inner(home) community corresponding to a triangle unit ofVitae System (see Fig. 1) but is able to imagine andcommunicate with other external communities corresponding to another triangle unit of Vitae System.
Moreover the catalyst has been trained to take a bird’s
eye view of different triangle units of Vitae Systems
interconnected and networked (see Fig. 2) . Insideout/outside-in inversion processes are interpreted as
the processes of a person transiting from one’s own
triangle to another either in imagination or actual
travel together with flying up from one’s own andtaking a bird’s eye view of the networked triangles
including one’s own. Beside a catalyst who belongs
to one’s own community it is also instrumental to involve outsiders in making another kind of inside-out/
outside-in inversion. Chizu has been accumulating
evidences that scientists and experts who have also
volunteered to provide their external knowledge havetaken a substantial role in helping local champions totrain themselves into an expert of inside-out/outsidein inversion.
2) Hayase Village’s latest case of IDRiM,
Kasology and CRREM
The zero-to-one village renewal movement has paved
the way for promoting further resident’s initiatives toactualize multi-stakeholder knowledge-action developments in different communities which have participated in this decade-long movement. Just to mention
one of the latest achievements, Hayase village in
Chizu town has recently completed implementation ofa mini-scale public-private partnership project characterized as a combination of IDRiM, Kasology and
CREEM governance issues.
i)
In October, 2004, a typhoon attacked the municipality and exposed a large rock from thebeneath of an uprooted tree on the hill side ofa bush located near Mr. A’s house. The bush isowned by Mr. B from a local “reputable family.”
Mr. A immediately became aware of high rockfalling disaster risk and this was also recognized
by Mr. B. They as individuals were, however,
not able to take any proactive action to reduceor remove the risk.
ii) The municipality office was approached by Mr.
A about this risk management problem but was59

N. OKADA

not able to come up with any support or mitigation countermeasures on their part, since theyjudged the problem simply as a private issue.
iii) The village self-government association had
just been newly established by reorganizing its
former traditional, inactive community organization, as a significant outcome of its decadelong zero-to-one movement. They timely took
initiative and agreed to mainstream the issue
into their common-interest agenda by offering
partial coverage of the entire estimated costs.
iv) This initiative (facilitated by a local catalyst,
Mr. C ) has helped the municipality join thissmall-scale multi-stakeholder-involving venture
for the benefit of the whole community as wellas its potential positive impact on the rest of thetown. They decided to provide them with somesubsidy to vitalize the community and town,
rather than to directly mitigate disaster risks.
v) As a result in August, 2007 all stakeholders successfully agreed to much up a whole spectrumof one’s own knowledge to a collaborative action, and a construction work started and ended;
the rock was removed. Thus an implementation
came into a real shape by way of Vitae Systemtriangle coordination and networking.
vi) The outcomes include a cost-sharing rule tentatively set and applied, the village self-government association which has increased its solidarity and quality of governance, and the concerned
individuals who have become more confident
in their active roles in their community. The
municipality has also gained new administrativeknowledge to promote synergy by way of encouraging integrated sustainable management as
symbolized by a combination of IDRiM, Kasology and conflict resolution (CRREM)vii) All this provides strong evidence to believe thatboth the concerned village community and themunicipality have increased their coping capacity.
viii) The Vitae System Model is found to be useful inqualitatively formulating and analyzing the processes of enhancing coping capacity through aseries of multi-stakeholder-involved community
activities.

7. Conclusions and Further Steps into FutureThis paper has discussed both the need and someprospective approaches for scientifically addressing
coping capacity to advance sustainability. Though
yet a totally unexplored area of research and scanty ofscientific commitments made, “coping capacity” andits related notions should receive further attention andappreciation as the hotspot of managing sustainability risks. The Vitae System model should be further
examined and extended, particularly in relation to operationalization for a wide area of practical cases.
To complement the foregoing discussions andfindings, two related research concerns of the author’s
are briefly mentioned.
1) Benefiting from and Accommodating Sen’s
Capability Approach
Sen’s Capability approach addresses humanwell-being by focusing freedom of choice, individual
heterogeneity and the multi-dimensional nature of
welfare (Sen, 1979).
In this conceptual framework Nassbaum(2000)
has proposed ten capabilities, i.e., ①Life, ②Bodily
health, ③Bodily integrity, ④Senses, imaginations,and thoughts, ⑤Emotions, ⑥Practical reason, ⑦
Affiliations, ⑧Other species, ⑨Play, and ⑩Political environment. In author’s view Sen’ capability
approach is construed as a broader and more generalframework for the above discussed our coping capacity conceptual model. For instance the primary outcomes of Chizu’s zero-to-one movement activities are
the changed society which underwent democratizationand opening up of the communities to outside, resulting in more freedom of choice, individual heterogeneity and the multi-dimensional nature of welfare. In
other words Sen’s capability is considered a “slowparameter” of what may characterize the synergetic
dynamics of the whole social system in question,
whereas our coping capacity model serves as a “fastparameter”. Notably, common critiques of Sen’s capability approach include its preventive nature fromhaving practical and operational significance as wellas its multi-dimensional, counterfactual, normative
nature. Most of the critiques may also apply to our
coping capacity approach. It is highly likely thatmuch parallelism will be further uncovered between
the two conceptual models by taking research chal60

A SCIENTIFIC CHALLENGE FOR SOCIETY UNDER SUSTAINABILITY RISKS BY ADDRESSING COPING CAPACITY, COLLECTIVE KNOWLEDGE AND ACTION TO CHANGE

lenges to overcome such difficulties

8. Conclusion2) Going beyond Maslow’s Model
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is often depicted asa pyramid consisting of five levels (Maslow, 1943):
the four lower levels are grouped together as deficiency needs associated with physiological needs,
while the top level is termed growth needs associatedwith psychological needs. It is noted that there is astrict hierarchical order assumed. “Deficiency needs
must be met first. Once these are met, seeking to satisfy growth needs drives personal growth. The higher
needs in this hierarchy only come into focus when
the lower needs in the pyramid are satisfied. Once anindividual has moved upwards to the next level, needsin the lower level will no longer be prioritized (Wikipedia Maslow).” The assumed hierarchical structurewith respect to the echelon of pursuit of fundamental
needs is much arguable. For instance, what happenedin 2005 to New Orleans in the Hurricane Katrina Disaster seemed to be quite inconsistent with what thetheory tells: A large portion of individuals who were
believed to have met deficiency needs were found to
be not exactly so; many were highly incapable of handling such a contingent situation which accidentallychallenged individuals to demonstrate if they haveenough capacity after having met lower-level needs
which are thought of as fundamentals already guaranteed in one of the most civilized societies. Anotherevidence is the continued process of rural decline andshrinking community occurring in Japan and otherdeveloped countries (which is exactly the main themeof “Kasology”) since it is considered as a problem ofcommunity’s survivability linked to diminishing its
vitality and communication amidst much wealth ofsociety.
In contrast, the Vitae System Model claims that(i) meeting fundamental needs should be closely
linked to building coping capacity by integrating threecardinal functions, (ii) there are incremental/gradualsteps to upgrade one’s coping capacity but such processes are rather adaptive and not hierarchical, (iii)enhancing coping capacity by cardinal function integration is context-dependent, and (iv) one’s coping
capacity has two mutually complementary dimensions, self- independent, and inter-self dependent.

In conclusion the paper has emphasized thenecessity of scientific challenge for society undersustainability risks, and prospective approaches toaddress coping capacity, collective knowledge and action to change by use of the Vitae System Model havebeen discussed. The new scientific area is proposed tobe called “Implementation Science.” Since the time
the first draft of this paper was presented some developments have been so far made to concretize morefrom conceptual to a level of make it more operational(i.e., operationalization). For instance an attempt has
been made to apply the conceptual model of the Vitae System to a flood evacuation under survivabilitycritical state (Yu et al, 2010).
It is admitted, however, that the above arguments
in favor of the Vitae System Model should receive
further rigorous examinations and critiques from social and human sciences which have their own soundtheoretical foundations as well as field-based findings. What should be stressed is its potential power toprovide a frame of reference to enrich the notion ofsustainability and to link together seemingly remoteareas of research (such as IDRiM, Kasology and
CREEM) which may altogether contribute to the development of sustainability risk management.
REFERENCES
Okada, N. (2006) City and Region Viewed as Vitae
System for Integrated Disaster Risk Management, Annuals of Disaster Prevention ResearchInstitute, Kyoto University, and No. 49B: 131136.
Okada, N. (2007) A Scientific Challenge for Society
under Sustainability Risks by Addressing Coping
Capacity, Collective Knowledge and Action to
Change: A Vitae System Perspective, presented
at the International Symposium on Vitae System,
Kyoto University.
Yu, L., Okada, N. Shen, D., and Li, S. (2010) Vitae
System based agent modeling and simulation ofsurvivability-critical evacuation in undergroundflooding,SMC-IEEE, 10-13 Oct. 2010 3133 –3138.
Lovins, A. et al (2003) The Natural Advantage of
Nations-Business Opportunities and Governance61

N. OKADAin the 21st Century, Erathscan, London.
Bryant, J. (2003) The Six Dilemmas of CollaborationInter-organisational Relationships as Drama,
John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, England: 136173.
Sen, A.K. (1979) 'Utilitarianism and Welfarism', The
Journal of Philosophy, LXXVI: 463-489.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge).
Sugiman, T, (2007) Phase Transition in the Develop-

ment of ‘Communication’ of the Vitae Systems:
Revitalization of a Rural Depopulated Area inJapan, to be included in this Extended Abstract
Booklet on ICVS, Kyoto.
Maslow A.H. (1943) A Theory of Human Motivation,
Psychological Review 50:370-96.
Wikipedia, Sustainablity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Sustainability
Wikipedia,Maslow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

62