COVER STORY • Future Design – Thinking About Our Legacy to the Next Generation • 5Future Design-Based
Risk Communication

By Tetsusei Kurashiki

Risk Communication
The Great East Japan Earthquake and resulting tsunami that struck
northeastern Japan in March 2011 caused major damage topetroleum complexes, and in particular a large tsunami that struck a
storage facility caused a large oil spill, resulting in fires spreading
and completely burning down sections of Kesennuma city. Thesetypes of industrial accidents triggered by natural disasters arereferred to as Natural-Hazard Triggered Technological Accidents(Natech). The concept of Natech was first espoused in the UnitedStates in 1992 (“Natural Disasters as the Cause of Technological
Emergencies: a Review of the Decade, 1980-1989” by Pamela Sands
Showalter and Mary Fran Myers, Natural Hazards Research andApplications Information Center, University of Colorado, 1992), andin recent years research into this subject has gained momentum,
especially in Europe. This has drawn attention to a new field of
research that studies the connection between natural disasters andindustrial accidents (“Assessing and Managing Natech Risks” by
Atsuo Kishimoto, Journal of Japan Society for Safety Engineering,
2014, Vol. 53, Issue 4). There are a multitude of issues to researchwith regard to Natech, including what needs to be done to protect
society and residents’ lives, what extent of risk and risk response
analysis is realistically possible, and what approaches should betaken over the short term and long term.
A report by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology in 2014 pointed out that at the time of the Great East
Japan Earthquake, scientific opinions collected by the scientific andtechnological community were not appropriately provided togovernment agencies and the general public, and the governmentand specialists were unable to release accurate information to the
public because of existing scientific and technological limitations andinaccuracies, creating issues including a lack of dialogue with the
public related to the risks involved (“Policies to Promote Risk
Communication”, Council for Safe and Secure Science andTechnology and Social Cooperation). Local governments are
implementing a variety of steps to release risk-related information,
including releasing the results of potential damage estimates anddistributing hazard maps, but this has not necessarily been sufficientfor increasing risk awareness and appreciation of potential disasters
among the public. Risk communication activities that share various
information and viewpoints through dialogue, joint consideration,and joint action are a useful way to manage risks more appropriately.
https://www.jef.or.jp/journal/

Author Tetsusei Kurashiki

An important aspect of risk communication is that it becomes aform of “communication that creates empathy” by enabling
stakeholders to understand a broad range of positions and opinions,and is able to bring these together as respective changes in behavior.
In a worst-case Natech scenario, however, risk communication flows
among different stakeholders – the local government, companies,
and residents – but does not flow smoothly because, for example,
companies believe they only need to meet legal and regulatory
requirements and barriers exist between different governmental
jurisdictions, meaning that further research and development isneeded in this area. In other words, if communication among various
stakeholders does not function effectively, efforts to bringstakeholders together to identify and resolve future issues may not
succeed. Another issue that has been raised is that risk
communication should be an ongoing activity that deepens mutual
relationships of trust among stakeholders, rather than a temporary
activity.
Given the above, I and other researchers have begun work on a
new academic framework that incorporates Future Design (FD) andare studying workshop designs and facilitation graphics to establish
a framework for ongoing risk communication that brings together abroad range of information to bring about changes in perspective
and behavior.

Workshops Based on FD
We have created the workshop design method shown in Chart 1
for the planning of workshops based on FD (“Validation of an
Integrated Approach of Future Design and Scenario Planning – A
Case Study of Disaster Prevention Workshop” by Yusuke Tateyama,
Kenta Kurasawa, Tetsusei Kurashiki and Keishiro Hara, Journal of theJapanese Society for Engineering Education, 2018, Vol. 66, No. 2).
This particular workshop envisions a time of 120 minutes, with eightgroups of four or five persons each. We used the example of City A,
which has a coastal industrial area, and designated the following
assumptions and issues in consideration of future population changes
and the effect of an earthquake in the Nankai Trough off Japan’s
Pacific coast (i.e. an industrial accident caused by a natural disaster).
• Issue: You are a resident of City A. Think about the facilities City A
will need in 2060, and about what you would propose for a“(Proposed) 2060 Vision for City A” to be formulated together withthe local government.
Japan SPOTLIGHT • March / April 201917

COVER STORY 5

CHART 1

Workshop design
1. Explanation of discussion diffusion andconvergence methodology
2. Introduction of issue(s) (and assumptions)
3. Providing background information
4. Group discussions(Diffusion phase) Consider many proposals andwrite them on tags
(Convergence phase) Arrange the tags into a2-dimensional matrix → Facilitation graphic (1)(Decision-making phase) Prioritize proposals andselect top five

5. Presentation and consideration

Incorporate two
perspectives basedon future design

Incorporate two
scenarios from theperspective of risk
communication

5. Presentation and consideration
6. Questionnaire
7. Facilitation graphic (2)(To lead to next step)

Source: compiled by the author• Assumptions: Assume that in 2060 the population will havecontracted and aged compared with today (the number of young
people declines by 40%, the working-age population contracts by
30%, and the number of older residents increases by 20%). In
addition, assume that an earthquake occurs in the Nankai Troughseveral years earlier (205x).
Each group deliberates using tags and parchment paper. Eachgroup writes the many proposals being considered on the tags in the“diffusion phase”, arranges the tags into a two-dimensional matrix inthe “convergence phase” and then prioritizes the proposals byimportance, selecting the five most important proposals in the“decision-making phase”, to make it possible to “visualize” thethinking within the group.
Then, participants assume the role of residents of City A, and have
two discussions from the following two perspectives.
(A) Present-generation group: Assume you are a resident of City A
who is your current age and living today, and consider what
proposals should be implemented for society in 2060.
(B) Future-generation group: Assume you are a resident of City A
in 2060, and consider what proposals should have been
implemented roughly 40 years earlier.
With regard to Natech, assume the following two scenarios for risk
18 Japan SPOTLIGHT • March / April 2019

communication:(I) A lternative scenario: Assume that an earthquake occurs in the
Nankai Trough in 205x, and that the damage was within theextent predicted.
(II) W orst-case scenario: Assume that an earthquake occurs in the
Nankai Trough in 205x, and that unforeseen events (inparticular, tsunami-triggered fires) occur.
In the alternative scenario, even if the earthquake triggers tsunami,
damage is limited to the areas shown on City A’s hazard map assusceptible to flooding from a tsunami. In the worst-case scenario,
however, there is a concentration of industrial parks in City A’s
coastal area, and the natural disaster causes an industrial accident(tsunami-triggered fire). Furthermore, City A’s current hazard map
does not consider the possibility of a tsunami-triggered fire.

Workshop Results
1. Workshop for University Technical Staff
The following are the results of a workshop held for university
technical staff. The workshop had 31 participants (working in eightgroups), all of whom lived in the Kansai region but none living in City
A, or with relatives living in City A, giving them a third-party
perspective of City A. Participants included both men and women ofa wide range of ages, from their 20s to their 60s.
The following are the results of the questionnaire. When the groupthat addressed the worst-case scenario was asked “How manychanges were made to the proposals in the first and second
discussions?”, there were no replies of “0” and there were changes
in proposal contents and priority ranking when the perspective
changed between present generation and future generation. In
particular, “the future → present groups” that took the future
generation first and present generation second had fewer changes in“priority ranking” than “the present → future groups”. This suggeststhat the effect of future generation-proposals was greater.
Next, comparing by scenario, we surveyed the changes in thenumber of disaster-related proposals between the first and second
rounds. The worst-case scenario saw a greater number of disasterrelated proposals, suggesting that providing a worst-case scenario
makes it possible to promote awareness of danger and risk
perception in individuals. According to the results, even within thesame group, the future generation discussions produced fewer
disaster-related proposals. There was also a tendency for these
proposals to take into account the long-term value to the city and its
residents of the time and costs required.
In response to the issue of whether a present-generation

COVER STORY 5

discussion alone was deemed insufficient, or whether a futuregeneration discussion alone was deemed insufficient for the worstcase scenario, there were more replies to the present-generation
alone question that “It is difficult to produce proposals that involve
costs.” This suggests that it is difficult to take a long-term
perspective, and that if costs are involved, the priority will be lower
because there is less chance of the proposal being implemented. On
the other hand, there were fewer replies that “It is difficult to produce
proposals that involve costs” in answer to the future-generation
alone question, hinting that discussions from a long-term
perspective are possible. This indicates that even when considering
policies for the future without regard for immediate benefit,
incorporating a future-generation perspective is useful.

2. Workshop for Undergraduate and Graduate Students
The above workshop was carried out using the same parameterswith undergraduate students who did not know about the concept ofFD, and with graduate students who were well-versed in the concept.
Initially, we hypothesized that it would be more effective to conduct
the present-generation discussion first, and then change to a futuregeneration perspective that incorporates FD, but it turned out thatthat was not necessarily the case. Among young people in their 20s,
there were instances where it was more effective to take the futuregeneration perspective first and then move to the current-generation
discussion. Taking a future-generation perspective broadened theirhorizons to propose measures thinking of themselves at their current
age in 2060, and then taking a present-generation perspective inwhich they think of themselves as in their 60s (the perspective of
their own grandparents) in 2060 had a clear feature of encouraging
them to reevaluate their initial proposals.

3. Workshop for High School and Technical School Students
As shown above, an FD approach in these workshops makes it
possible to change an individual’s perspective, and in particular
indicates that in younger people a greater sense of affinity has agreater effect. The above workshop was also held with high school
and technical school students to examine the incorporation of theopinions of these young people in government policymaking.
We carried out a questionnaire on disaster prevention andresponse measures from the perspectives of public, cooperative, andindividual, corresponding to whether the measures were carried out
by the government, cooperatively among a region’s residents, orindividuals. The same questions were asked before and after theworkshop, and they are listed in Chart 2. The questionnaire used a
5-level Likert scale, and the numbers shown in the chart are theaverage responses. Before the workshop, items involving public andcooperative measures were ranked low, and although there was anawareness of their importance, there was a trend of indicating a lackof social experience. Nevertheless, when taking the future-generation
approach, both public and cooperative measures were recognized ashaving greater importance, and significant changes in thequestionnaire findings can be seen. The use of this kind of workshop
based on FD can therefore be expected to raise awareness of
individual and cooperative measures in risk communication foryoung people.

Possibilities for FD
We have created, carried out, and analyzed the results of FD- andscenario-based workshops incorporating two generations and two
scenarios. Measures were examined from the perspective of
CHART 2

Questionnaire results regarding
public, cooperative & individual
measures (before & after workshop)“I would like to be involved in government activities to formulate anddecide on measures related to disaster prevention and response.”(Interest in public measures)(1: Not at all; 3: Neither yes nor no; 5: Very much)

3.52

Before the session

4.18

After the session
3

3.5(N=52, p<0.05)

4

4.5

5

“I would like to work together with other local residents in their local
activities related to disaster prevention and response.”(Interest in cooperative measures)

3.81

Before the session

4.43

After the session
3

3.5

4

4.5

5

“I would like to do what I can by myself with regard to disasterprevention and response.”(Interest in individual measures)

4.10

Before the session
After the session
3

3.5

4

4.5

4.61

5

Source: compiled by the author

Japan SPOTLIGHT • March / April 201919

COVER STORY 5

residents of City A, but by looking at the measures from theperspective of a hypothetical future generation we were able toconfirm that by taking a future perspective these workshops
facilitated a thought process that goes beyond the near-sightednessof humans, to a greater extent than with claims of government andcorporate stakeholders. By taking the perspective of future
generations, barriers among stakeholders can be overcome andconstructive dialogue can be expected.
The effect of introducing a future-generation element suggeststhat there are differences among individuals based on participants’personal attributes. Then, introducing the concept of temporalperspective that is being studied in the field of psychology, we areresearching the correlation between time orientation and disasterprevention and response awareness (“Time Orientation Verificationof Disaster Prevention Workshop Using Future Design” by Yusuke
Tateyama, Kenta Kurasawa, Masayoshi Hirayama, Tetsusei Kurashiki
and Keishiro Hara, Journal of the Japanese Society for Engineering
Education, scheduled for publication in 2019). For example, this may
be a useful indicator when considering roles like having forwardoriented people take the role of future generations, and presentoriented people take the role of the current generation, in FD
workshops. In addition, the results of discussions that incorporate
FD show a significant effect in the questionnaire results of presentoriented students, and hold possibilities for disaster prevention andresponse education that raise awareness of disaster prevention andresponse.
The workshops also showed that initially taking a futuregeneration approach to widen perspectives and then following thiswith the same discussion from a present-generation approach andreevaluating the initial outcomes is useful. Based on this, Kaizuka
city in Osaka Prefecture held workshops (July–September 2018) for
residents regarding a project to build new government officebuildings, and based on the FD method considered the concept for a
new office building first from a future-generation perspective andthen from a current-generation perspective looking at the city 40
years into the future. There were three specific types of workshops –“Life in Kaizuka in the past, present, and future”, “Based on that life,
the relationship between the people who live in Kaizuka and the city
government” and “What the new facility should be, based on that
relationship” – and the functions sought in the new government
office buildings were examined.
We are also researching business strategies based on FD. Thereare cases when, after a company announces a vision for its businessstrategy, individual divisions manage their businesses based on thatvision. There are also cases where the formulation of that vision
20 Japan SPOTLIGHT • March / April 2019

Photo: Author

A workshop in progressincludes workshops where prospective senior managers exchange
opinions, or holding tests for salary increases, or internal training
sessions. In those cases, even though they are in the same company,
each division can be seen as a stakeholder. Many divisions face bothissues of “Responding to a drastically changing businessenvironment” and “Creating value and demand from existing
resources that require time to change.” Designating these as issues,
we believe that FD can be suitable for responding to uncertainty inthe business environment and discontinuity versus ongoing change
in existing resources, and are studying workshop designs to
consider future scenarios and strengthen resilience.
In these ways, we expect FD to be applied in a broad range offields, including Natech, policymaking (government’s formulation ofcomprehensive plans), disaster prevention and response education,
government office construction, and business strategies. We hopethat education and research into FD will accelerate further, throughcooperation among related parties in various fields and throughindustrial-academic cooperation.
Finally, I would like to thank Osaka University graduate students
Yusuke Tateyama, Kenta Kurasawa, and Masayoshi Hirayama, whohelped with the writing of this article.

Tetsusei Kurashiki is a professor at the Department of Management ofIndustry and Technology, Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University.