IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

Research article
erd

Issues of Disaster Recovery Management and Application of
GIS and UAV for Resilience in Agricultural Land andInfrastructure
KOJI MIWA
Extension Center, Institute of Environmental Rehabilitation and Conservation, Tokyo, Japan

AYAKO SEKIYAMA*
Faculty of Regional Environment Science, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo, Japan
Email: a3sekiya@nodai.ac.jp

TORU NAKAJIMA
Faculty of Regional Environment Science, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo, Japan

TAKAHIKO KUBODERA
Faculty of Engineering, Osaka Sangyo University, Osaka, Japan

CHIKAHIRO EGAMI
Faculty of Regional Environment Science, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo, Japan

HIROMU OKAZAWA
Faculty of Regional Environment Science, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo, Japan
Received 9 April 2018

Accepted 1 November 2018(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Natural disasters have caused enormous impacts on rural societies in bothdeveloped and developing countries for the recent years. Due to climate change, thefrequency and intensity of extreme weather have increased and it is predicted to be more
rampant for the coming decades. As rural societies are mainly dependent on agriculture, therapid recovery and reconstruction of damaged agricultural lands and infrastructure is crucial
to enhance their resilience. The rapid measures and actions in the post-disaster can reducethe impacts and can help farmers save their livelihoods as well as consumers ensure theirprovisions. This paper focuses on administrative issues in the recovery management in the
post-disaster period in Japan. Especially, it takes up the underlying issues that impede thedisaster recovery process and the application of Geographic Information System (GIS) andUnmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in case of earthquake and flood disasters includingstorms and heavy rainfall. The data was collected through questionnaire survey to theagricultural departments in all the prefectural offices in Japan. From the results, theadministrative issues were attributed to the complexity of project procedures anddocumentation, human resources, rural planning, the lack of capacity in construction
companies, in most of the prefectures. The use of GIS and UAV was limited in many
prefectures due to the lack of knowledge or experience. However, GIS could help therecovery processes quicken for some prefectures. Based on the findings, it is suggested tomake a manual about GIS database building which can be shared among prefectural offices
and farmers to inherit the past lessons and enhance resilience for the future.
Keywords disaster recovery, resilience, rural society, GIS, UAVINTRODUCTION
The impacts of natural hazards have increased due to climate change and caused disasters all over
the world. At the same time, due to the excessive land development and population increase invulnerable areas have also increased the disaster risks. These have brought an urgent need in ourⒸ ISERD

114

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

society to enhance resilience. Paying attention to resilience in rural society, the rapid recovery inagricultural land and infrastructure stricken by disasters is a key to reduce the impacts, saving
farme li elihood and p o i ion o ma ke . Thi pape foc e on he admini a i e i e fo
disaster recovery in agricultural land and infrastructure, and the application of Geographic
Information System (GIS) and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in Japan. In Japan, GIS databaseon agricultural information system was prepared by the Ministry of Agricultures, Forestry and
Fisheries of Japan (MAFF) from 2006 to 2010 and started operating by an association of farmers ineach prefecture called the Land Improvement Association since 2011. UAV has been increasingly
applied in the field of civil engineering, environmental measurement and geographic survey.
In Japan, when agricultural land and infrastructure are damaged by natural disasters above thecertain standa d , he e i a go e nmen alem called he Rehabili a ion P ojec of Di a e
S icken Ag ic l al Land and Facili ie o ppo a pa of he co of di a e ehabili a ion.
The prefectural offices need to collect disaster information from affected municipalities and apply
to the government for funding before launching the rehabilitation works. Therefore, it is important
to conduct swiftly the whole process of the project for the early recovery. For this, MAFF has tried
to simplify the project procedures and has worked out in some cases (Yoshikawa et al., 2007; Arita
et al., 2008; Senda et al., 2013). There has been one case reported that GIS was successfully
applied to the rehabilitation project for simplification of the process (Senda et al., 2013). However,there have been issues which caused the delay and lengthening of the rehabilitation project, due tovarious reasons such as, the inaccessibility in remote areas (Asahiro et al., 2014), the lack of
capacity and limited number of construction companies (Arita et al., 2008), the lack of personnel
and experience of staff in the municipality office (Miyasato, 2007; Arita, 2008), the loss ofmotivation of local farmers and making agreement with them about reconstruction plan (Arita et al.,2009).
These previous studies focused on one single case of a disaster rehabilitation project.
Therefore, there is a need to study which covers more widely to identify the general existing issues
in the rehabilitation project.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this research is to identify the existing delay issues including the application state
and usefulness of GIS and UAV in the Rehabilitation Project of Disaster Stricken AgriculturalLand and Facilities by the administration of Japan. From the results, it aims to form a suggestive
method for improvement of the rehabilitation management. Japan is targeted as a research site as
one of the world-leading countries in the disaster prevention and mitigation measures. It is
expected that the results of this research is applied to other disaster-prone countries. The kind ofdisaster was focused on earthquake including tsunami and flood disasters including heavy rainfall
and storm.
METHODOLOGY
The research applied questionnaire survey for data collection and statistically analyzed the results.
The questionnaire survey sheets were distributed to a section of the agricultural department, whichis in charge of the rehabilitation project, in all the forty-seven prefectural offices and prefecturalLand Improvement Association offices for a few prefectures in Japan. The questionnaire sheet wasconsisted of two versions, earthquake disaster including tsunami, and flood disaster including
heavy rainfall and storm. The questions were mainly concerned about the existing issues that cause
the disaster recovery projects delayed or lengthened in case of the last disaster that each prefecture
experienced since 2000, the application state of GIS and UAV, and the useful GIS data for the
rehabilitation.
The questionnaire sheets were made in Japanese and distributed by email between September
and November 2017 and responded by thirty-one prefectures out of forty-seven prefectures, that is65.9%. Among them, thirty respondents are from prefectural offices and one is from LandⒸ ISERD

115

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

Improvement Association. Prefectures which experienced the rehabilitation project for earthquake
since 2000 were nineteen, and all of the thirty-one prefectures experienced the project caused byflood disasters. The number of valid response was low for some questions due to the lack of
information or still being under the investigation.
The limitation of this research can be attributed to the target of respondents and the limit of theobjective disasters. In Japan, each municipality including city, town or village rather than theprefectural office is more directly in charge of the rehabilitation project. Therefore, there is apossibility to obtain more detailed and accurate data from municipalities than prefectural offices. In
addition to that, the questions about the cause of delay were intended to inquire only about thelatest case that each prefecture experienced after 2000. As the situation and issues vary fromdisaster to disaster, the results can differ depending on the case of disaster selected in eachprefecture.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Cause of Delay and Lengthening in the Rehabilitation Project
The launching time of the first and last rehabilitation project among all the projects in each case ofdisaster after a disaster occurrence is as shown in Fig. 1. For the case of earthquake, most of thefirst disaster project is launched within four months. On the other hand, for the case of flood
disasters, although many cases are implemented within fourteen days, i become lo in i hin
one mon h ando mon h but high again in i hin fo
o i mon h . Fo the last project,most of the cases are launched later than six months. Hence, it takes a long period to implement all
the rehabilitation projects in most of the cases.

Fig. 1 Launching time of the first (left) and last (right) rehabilitation project in each caseNote. *1 Commencement of rehabilitation due to the lack of labor force in construction company*2 Commencement of rehabilitation due to the lack of available construction company

Fig. 2 Procedure taken longer than expectedⒸ ISERD

116

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

The procedures which took longer than predicted were as shown in Fig. 2. Collection ofdisaster information takes long in many prefectures for both disasters. Preparing the application
document of the rehabilitation project plan also takes long due to its complexity especially in thecase of earthquake. Launch of rehabilitation works also takes a long time due to the lack of
capacity or availability of construction companies for both disasters. Compared to the cases ofearthquake, the cases of flood are attributed to more variety of issues. It may be related to the delayof launching time of the rehabilitation work as seen in Fig. 1.
The causes of delay in the project were identified as seen in Fig. 3. Most of the causes are
attributed to the limit of capacity of officers such as the lack of, knowledge about the rehabilitation
project, and labor force in municipalities, and difficulty to control the project team in the time of
emergency. Other main factors are response to the affected farmers such as making agreement withhem fo ehabili a ion plan and indi id al e pon e o each fa me he e fa me a ocia ion i
not formed. Damage which cannot be found immediately after the occurrence of disaster was also
raised.

Fig. 3 Cause of delay in rehabilitation project

Fig. 4 Difficulty of municipalities in the disaster measures in the rehabilitation project

Fig. 5 Issues to be solved to make the rehabilitation project smooth and fasterⒸ ISERD

117

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

Difficulties that municipalities face to cope with disasters in the rehabilitation project variedamong many factors as shown in Fig. 4. The difficulty which most of the prefectures face was thelack of experience by officers in the rehabilitation project. The second highest was theunpredictability of natural disasters. Lack of capacity or availability of construction companies
were also the reasons of delayed. The limit of budget in administration is also a difficulty for themto implement the project and to respond to affected farmers who were exempted from it due to thesmaller scale of damages than the standard of the project regulation.
The issues that officers consider that should be solved to make the rehabilitation projectsmoother and faster were also identified as seen in Fig. 5. From the main answers, it can be divided
into three large groups: 1) simplification of the rehabilitation project process; 2) rural planning thattakes account of disaster occurrence; and 3) introduction of GIS and UAV and development of
human resource in these technology.
Use of Geographic Information System and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Man p efec e did no appl GIS fo he ehabili a ion p ojec in bo h ea h ake and flood
di a e . A een in Table 1, he ea on
he he heed GIS o no a e a ib ed o hei
e pe ience of p epa edne in he p e-di a e ime o he p e ence of killed h man e o ce in
GIS. A he e l , he n mbe of killed office in GIS i ill limi ed in he admini a ion officeand capaci b ilding of office i highl needed.
Table 1 Reasons of GIS usage/non-usage in rehabilitation project by prefectures

Used

No used/almost not

Reasons of GIS usage/non-usage in rehabilitation

Response rate
Eq (n =9) Hy (n =18)

The limited number of skilled officers in GIS

22.2%

5.6%

There was no need to use GIS

55.6%

66.7%

Use of GIS was limited in the pre-disaster time

22.2%

11.1%

There was no experience to use GIS in rehabilitation

44.4%

22.2%

GIS data was not owned

11.1%

0.0%

GIS was not popular at the time of disaster

11.1%
0.0%
Eq (n =5) Hy (n =10)

There were enough experts on GIS

0.0%

30.0%

GIS was regularly used in the pre-disaster time

60.0%

30.0%

There was experience to use GIS in rehabilitation

20.0%

50.0%

Difficulty for field survey

20.0%

0.0%

To make report of the disaster damages

0.0%

10.0%

GIS data which were applied in the project and regarded as important to collect before andafter disasters by officers are shown in Table 2. The required data were relatively similar between
both disasters. Information of farmland owner, utilization of agricultural water, farmland andcadastral map, facility of agricultural water, topographical map, aerial photograph and farmland
area are highly needed to collect in the pre-disaster time. To collect disaster information andidentify whom to contact after the disaster occurrence, the information of farmland owner is
expected to obtain in the pre-disaster and updated regularly. To identify the extent of damage, it isimportant to have information about the state of agricultural water utilization and the water use
facilities, and farmland such as farmland map, cadastral map, and farmland area before disasters.
Topographical map is also useful to compare the affected area between the pre- and post- disastertime as disasters can change topography and the surrounding environmental condition. Therefore
most of these data were also recognized as the data which should be obtained immediately after thedisasters. Images obtained by UAV was relatively high. In the post-disaster, some areas are notaccessible immediately and it is difficult to obtain satellite images of objective area soon. Therefore,
UAV is considered very helpful to collect information of various damages to humans andagricultural infrastructure. The prompt data collection is also expected to enable us to avoid thesecond or third disasters by finding underlying issues. In the real situation in sites, agriculturalⒸ ISERD

118

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

conditions are directly affected by disasters and the pre-disaster state is not measureable anymore
after stricken. Therefore, it is considered very important to obtain various related data since the predisaster time to identify the impact of damage and avoid the unequal treatment or relief to farmers
or arguments among farmers as it causes delay in rehabilitation.
Table 2 GIS data used and considered useful in the rehabilitation project
GIS data that should
GIS data that should
be collected
be prepared in the preimmediately after
disasterdisasterType of GIS data/No. of respondents Eq (n =14) Fl (n =30) Eq (n =5) Fl (n =12) Eq (n =4) Fl (n =7) Eq (n =12) Fl (n =20) Eq (n =11) Fl (n =21)
GIS data that had
GIS data used tobeen owned in the pre- collect disasterdisaster time
information

Farmland gradientState of farmland improvement
Information of planting crops
Farming history
Information of land owner/cultivator
State of irrigation and drainage water
Irrigation and drainage facilities
Topographic map
Soil map
Land-use map
Farmland and cadastral map
Farmland area
Hazard map
Landslide prevention area
Laser profilerdata
Digital orthophoto
Satellite image
Aerial photograph
UAV image

0%
7%
0%
0%
7%
0%
14%
14%
7%
0%
21%
14%
0%
0%
7%
7%
7%
21%
0%

3%
43%
7%
0%
13%
23%
60%
60%
13%
17%
33%
27%
13%
17%
0%
3%
0%
57%
3%

0%
20%
0%
0%
40%
0%
40%
60%
20%
0%
80%
40%
0%
0%
20%
20%
0%
60%
0%

GIS data usedrehabilitation andreconstruction

0%
17%
0%
0%
8%
8%
25%
50%
0%
8%
33%
25%
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
67%
17%

0%
25%
0%
0%
25%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
75%
50%
0%
0%
25%
25%
0%
75%
0%

0%
0%
0%
0%
14%
14%
14%
43%
0%
14%
29%
43%
0%
0%
0%
0%
14%
71%
14%

8%
25%
33%
8%
67%
42%
42%
42%
8%
8%
42%
42%
0%
25%
0%
0%
0%
25%
0%

10%
25%
5%
5%
50%
55%
30%
45%
10%
15%
40%
55%
10%
15%
5%
0% s
15%
45%
10%

9%
27%
9%
0%
27%
27%
36%
27%
9%
18%
18%
18%
0%
27%
9%
9%
36%
9%

14%
19%
0%
10%
29%
29%
29%
33%
10%
19%
43%
33%
10%
14%
5%
0%
14%
43%
24%

Table 3 Reason why prefectures do not introduce UAV
Eq (n =25)
Flood (n =22)

No budget
28%
36%

No experts No experience
36%
56%
45%
45%

No need
8%
14%

Other
4%
0%

UAV was not introduced in most of prefectures. Among thirty-one prefectures, only threeprefectures use it for improvement of agricultural productivity, management of agricultural
facilities, disaster mitigation, collection of disaster information or disaster rehabilitation andreconstruction. Although many prefectures understand the usefulness of UAV for the disastermanagement, they do not have a plan to introduce at the moment. Most of the reasons were no
skilled human resource, no experience and the lack of budge as seen in Table 3. On the other hand,most of prefectures did not know the usefulness of UAV for evaluation of agricultural productivity.
The efo e, if fa me , fa me a ocia ion o p efec e nde and he ef lne and appl UAV
in the daily basis, the data can be accumulated regularly and useful for the time of disaster recovery.
CONCLUSIONAs the results are shown above, the prefectures have faced many administrative issues for disasterrecovery in agricultural land and facilities. For the improvement in the administrative process, thefollowing measures as disaster preparedness in the pre-disaster time are suggested.
1. Creation of opportunities for officers to enhance their knowledge and technique about therehabilitation project and GIS/UAV;
2. Improvement of the rehabilitation project systems such as simplification of documents anddispatch of experienced officers from other prefectures;
3. Rural planning on the premise that disasters occur at any occasion and dissemination of theprocedure of the rehabilitation project to local farmers;
4. Understanding the capacity of construction companies in each local area;
5. Preparation of manual for GIS database application for the rehabilitation project.
Ⓒ ISERD

119

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

These measures are expected to support officers to conduct the rehabilitation process moresmoothly and quickly. In the post-disaster time, as collection of disaster information needs to bedone effectively and rapidly, it is suggested to collect important data quickly by field survey, GIS
database, satellite image and aerial photograph, and furthermore, UAV in case that the disasterstricken areas are not immediately accessible. In addition, to continuously improve the disasterrehabilitation process and use the past experiences, it suggests to make a GIS database manual in
the model of GIS database building as shown in Fig. 6. It can be improved in a way of Plan-DoCheck-Act (PDCA) cycle as the red arrows indicate. During the pre-disaster time, information arecollected in GIS database (Plan). The database is used during the rehabilitation project (Do). Afterthe project, the method needs to be reviewed (Check) and improved and published (Act). Thismodel and manual can be useful for not only Japan but also many countries to enhance rural
resilience by expediting rehabilitation process. Capacity building of not only officers but also
farmers in GIS and UAV will also be important as these technology help them for both disasterrehabilitation and the daily management of agricultural land and facilities to improve theproductivity.
The f
e
d
ill need o co e no onl p efec al office b m nicipali office oob ain mo e acc a e an e and ab ndan ample .

Fig. 6 Flow of a suggestive model of building a GIS database manual
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is supported by Daigaku-senryaku-kenkyu project from Tokyo University of Agriculture.
We would like to thank the prefectures which cooperated with participating the questionnaire
survey.
REFERENCES
Arita, H., Tamai, E. and Iida, S. 2008. Issues on administrative function in the restoration stage of a local
government stricken by the Mid Niigata Prefecture Earthquake. Journal of the Japanese Society of
Irrigation, Drainage and Rural Engineering, 76 (5), 437-440. (in Japanese with English abstract).

Ⓒ ISERD

120

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

Arita, H. and Yuzawa, K. 2009. The characteristics of the small damages and the restoration measures ofagricultural infrastructure in the Mid-Niigata Prefecture Earthquake in 2004. Journal of the JapaneseSociety of Irrigation, Drainage and Rural Engineering, 77 (4), 417-422. (in Japanese with English
abstract).
Asahiro, K., Kanekiyo, H. and Tani, M. 2014. Research into the distribution of damage to farmland in Yame
City, Fukuoka Prefecture, from the heavy rains in the northern part of Kyushu in 2012, and difficulties
for the recovery. Journal of the Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture, 77 (5), 649-654. (inJapanese with English abstract).
Chida, H., Sasaki, K. and Inoue, N. 2013. Utilization of the Midori information system of the Great East
Japan Earthquake Disaster assessment. Journal of the Japanese Society of Irrigation, Drainage and RuralEngineering, 81 (3), 191-194. (in Japanese with English abstract).
Miyasato, K. 2007. Damage and restoration of agricultural facilities and farmland affected by the 2004
Niigata Chuetsu Earthquake. Journal of the Japanese Society of Irrigation, Drainage and RuralEngineering, 75 (3), 189-192. (in Japanese with English abstract).
Yoshokawa, N., Tamai, E., Misawa, S. and Arita, H. (2007). Simplified method for damage assessment
introduced in the Niigata Chuetsu Earthquake. Journal of the Japanese Society of Irrigation, Drainage andRural Engineering, 75 (3), 205-209. (in Japanese with English abstract).

Ⓒ ISERD

121