An Invited Paper Presented at Korean Society for Hazard Mitigation, February 27, 2009, Korea University, Seoul, Korea.

Evacuation and Sheltering Assistance for Persons with Special Needs atTimes of Disaster: Lessons Learned from Typhoon 23, Heavy Rainfall andEarthquake Disasters in the Year 2004
Shigeo TATSUKI 1*1*

Doshisha University, Japan

Abstract

A series of heavy rainfall, typhoon and earthquake disasters caused a proportionately large
number of deaths among the elderly in the year 2004 in Japan. In response to these tragedies,
the national government set up committees to reduce damage within the disaster vulnerable
population for the next three years.

The discussions in the committee led to a newconceptualization that disaster vulnerability was caused by a lack of interaction between aperson’s special needs and the environment’s capacity and resources to meet them. This
person-in-environment model of hazard vulnerability was applied to those who resided in theNankai-Tonankai tsunami hazard-prone area. 123 home care service users were interviewed
in terms of their self-evacuation ability, degree of social isolation, and building weakness aswell as tsunami exposure risks. Results were quantified and scores of person-in-environmentmodel hazard vulnerability were obtained. These scores were then used to visualize sociallycreated vulnerability by means of weighted kernel density mapping of both persons withspecial needs (PSN’s) and persons with special needs at times of disaster (PSND’s).

Keywords: Persons with Special Needs, Disaster, Evacuation and Sheltering Assistance
Hazard Vulnerability, Person-in-Environment Model, GIS Mapping of Social Vulnerability

１*Shigeo TATSUKI, Department of Sociology, Doshisha University, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8580 Japan,
statsuki@mail.doshisha.ac.jp

An Invited Paper Presented at Korean Society for Hazard Mitigation, February 27, 2009, Korea University, Seoul, Korea.

1. Introduction
Future historians will remember the early 21st century in Japan as a time of a highfrequency of natural disasters including strong typhoons, heavy rain falls, floods, land slides,and earthquakes. The scientific community, government, business, as well as the civil society
sectors currently share the view that the Japanese Archipelago has entered into a highearthquake occurrence period since the 1995 Kobe earthquake. The same is true for typhoons.
Figure 1 shows 10-year averages of typhoon disaster casualties by their magnitudes (Fukuma,1993) [1] from 1913 to 2005. Figure 1 indicates that no typhoons of the strongest magnitudeattacked the Japanese islands between 1961 and 1991. However, this trend disappeared andextremely strong magnitude typhoons started causing damage and casualties almost every
year since the end of the 20th century. It should be noted that 5 out of 10 typhoons that hit
Japan in the year 2004 were at the strongest magnitude level. The total number of typhooncasualties during the last 40 years of the 20th century (167 deaths) is approximately the sameas those in the year 2004 alone (163 deaths). In addition to typhoons, heavy rain fall in Julyand the October Niigata-Chuetsu earthquake also caused severe damage and losses within thevery same year.

3Casuaities

2.5
2
1.5

M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6

1
0.5
0-05
2001-00
1991

-90
1981

-80
1971

-70
1961

-60
1951

-50
1941

-40
1931

-30
1921-201913

10NFig. 1 10 Year Averages of Typhoon Disaster Casualties by Magnitudes from 1913 to 2005.
Source: Fukuma (1993) and Meteorological Agency Annual Reports from 1994 to 2005.
Typhoon magnitudes were calculated by means of the maximum wind velocity and radius asproposed by Fukuma (1993).

1

An Invited Paper Presented at Korean Society for Hazard Mitigation, February 27, 2009, Korea University, Seoul, Korea.

It should be noted that more than 60 % of the 2004 natural disaster victims were those
who were over the age of 65. In October, 2004 as a response to these tragedies, the National
government

setup

acommitteeondisaster

information

communicationandevacuation/sheltering to provide assistance for the elderly/disadvantaged population during
heavy meteorological and other disasters. The committee published Evacuation/Sheltering
Assistance Guidelines for Persons with Special Needs at times of Disaster (or PSND) thefollowing March, 2005[2]. Following a series of heavy rainfall, flood and land slide disasters
in the year 2005, another committee conducted field research of the 2005 meteorologicaldisaster sites and revised the guidelines that were published in March 2006[3].

The revised

guidelines emphasized three policies: 1) establishing a special team in each local governmentthat was in charge of communicating disaster information to the target population throughneighborhood associations, 2) encouraging the information sharing of special needs
population within the local government and, if possible, with local neighborhood-based
associations, and 3) planning individualized evacuation/sheltering procedures for each PSND.
In the following years 2006 and 2007, the committee on PSND continued working out policy
directions with regard to collecting/sharing PSND information, workflows and more detailed
procedures to make individualized evacuation/sheltering assistance plans. The author was amember of the committee from fiscal year 2006 to 2007. Based on discussions made during
these years, this paper aims to define the concept of PSND, and to propose a GIS-based
technical solution in order to visualize the whereabouts of PSNDs in order to facilitate
implementation of individualized evacuation/assistance programs for PSNDs.

2. Disaster and Vulnerability: Socially Created Phenomena
Past urban mega-disasters have offered many lessons for society. One valid lesson is that ahazard does not affect an impacted area equally. In other words, the magnitude of hazard
damage (D) is determined not only by hazard (H) itself but also by vulnerability (V) (Blaikieet. al., 1994) [4] or D = f(H, V).
Vulnerability was defined as “the characteristics of a person or group and their situationthat influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of anatural hazard” (Wisner et.al., 2004, p.11) [5]. This implies that disaster is a socially createdphenomenon. The year 2009 marks the 50th anniversary of the 1959 Ise Bay Typhoon thatcaused more than five thousand deaths. Figure 2 illustrates the flooded area in Mie prefectureduring the typhoon attack, which caused banks and levees to collapse due to the high tide and2

An Invited Paper Presented at Korean Society for Hazard Mitigation, February 27, 2009, Korea University, Seoul, Korea.

strong storm surge. Figure 3 shows the 1959 typhoon flooded area and the current (i.e., theKuwana

KuwanaKawagoe

Kawagoe
Yokkaichi

Yokkaichi

Fig. 3 The Current Population Densityand the 1959 Ise Bay Typhoon Flooded
Area OverlayFig. 2 Mie Prefecture Flooded Area due to1959 Ise Bay Typhoon.

strong storm surge. Figure 3 shows the 1959 typhoon flooded area and the current (i.e., theyear 2005 census) population density overlay. It should be noted that the 1959 typhoon flood
attacked central regions of Chukyo Industrial area. The responses to the typhoon disasters,
however, differed among municipalities. Yokkaichi city, one of the leading petrochemicalindustry bases in the country, initiated mitigative measures to encourage re-settlements tohigher ground after the 1959 flood. This made the city less susceptible to future flooding
disasters. In contrast, settlements in the flood-prone area in the township of Kawagoe andparts of Kuwana city increased over the following fifty years. These two municipalities
attracted an influx of new residents who found the location very convenient for commuting toeither Yokkaichi or Nagoya city, the central business region of the Chukyo Industrial area.
As a result, flood disaster susceptibilities in these two regions continued or even increased
over the past 50 years through socio-economically created processes.
The investigation of causes of death due to the 2004 Niigata flooding disasters by Hayashi
and his associates (Hayashi & Tatsuki, 2004 [6]; Hayashi and Tamura, 2005) [7] identified three
types of causes: 1) Rapid water flow which crushed the wooden houses that were near where
the levee broke (3 casualties), 2) drowning during a sudden increase of water level while
being outside (two were on their way to evacuation center) (5 casualties), and 3) drowningbecause no one came to assist them to evacuate when the water level rose above the floor (4casualties). The last category of people shared the following characteristics: They were allover the age of 75, had trouble walking due to age-related illness and thus were receiving
home care services, were either single or in two person (both being elderly) families, andlacked key persons who they could rely on at times of emergency except for formal service
providers. The last characteristic was found to be the most crucial cause of death. Although
they were physically frail, these 4 elderly were able to enjoy everyday life in their own homes3An Invited Paper Presented at Korean Society for Hazard Mitigation, February 27, 2009, Korea University, Seoul, Korea.

thanks to the help available from home care services that were provided by public long termcare insurance programs. The flooding disaster attacked not only house care service users but
also service providers alike making it impossible for them to come to the rescue.
The above investigation results implied that hazard vulnerability was not intrinsic to aperson or group, but it was created due to the lack of interaction between persons who had
special needs for assistance at times of disaster and his/her immediate environment. In otherwords, hazard vulnerability is also created socially. This model was named the person-inenvironment model of vulnerability where vulnerability (V) is defined as a function of person(P) and environment (E) factors or V = f(P, E).
If we incorporate the discussions of 1) disaster as a socially created phenomenon and 2)
hazard vulnerability as also being socially created, we come to the following understanding ofdamage (D) caused by disaster or D = f1(H, f2(P, E))
The above definition provided the conceptual framework for the aforementioned
committees to recommend Evacuation/Sheltering Assistance Guidelines for Persons withSpecial Needs at Times of Disaster[2] [3].

3. GIS Mapping of Persons with Special Needs at times of Disaster (PSND)
Suzan Cutter has been one of the most influential proponents of GIS Mapping of social
vulnerable population (e.g., Cutter, 2006) [8]. In her work, social vulnerability has been
defined according to the model, D = f(H, V), as proposed by Blaikie et.al. (1994) and Wisneret.al. (2004). The indices of social vulnerability thus included 1) lack of access to resources
including information, knowledge, and political power, 2) certain beliefs and customs, 3)
weak buildings or individuals, and 4) infrastructure and lifelines. She obtained census andother street block data related to the above indices and mapped them over the hazard layers.
Using basically a similar technique, however, the current author proposed the person-inenvironment model of vulnerability, i.e., D = f1(H, f2(P, E)). This required the gathering ofindividualized person-in-environment data in order to measure each individual’s socialvulnerability. In order to illustrate the difference from the conventional approach, resultsfrom one of the social vulnerability mapping projects (Ochi & Tatsuki, 2007) [9] are presented
the below.
3.1 Method
The sample consisted of 123 individuals who were using home care services in Kobecity’s Uozaki area that are likely to be flooded by the next Nanka-Tonankai earthquake
tsunami. The population of endangered home care service users in the Uozaki area was 1210.
4An Invited Paper Presented at Korean Society for Hazard Mitigation, February 27, 2009, Korea University, Seoul, Korea.

386 service users were approached by their case managers and 123 agreed to answer theinterview questionnaires. The questionnaire asked three types of variables. The first variable
was concerned about person factor in terms of self-evacuation ability as measured by a levelof required home care services (ranging from pre-care, level 1 to 5). The second set ofvariables asked the degree of social isolation that was measured by gender, age, types ofhome care service being used, family structure, if he or she being alone during day time, types
of key person, and key person address. The third variable examined building weakness(building age) and tsunami exposure risk (bedroom on the first, second floor or above).
3.2 Results
With regard to a person factor, nearly half (58) of the 123 respondents were above carelevel 3, indicating difficulty of self-evacuation. Social isolation variables were analyzed byDual/optimal scaling (see Table 1). The results revealed that those who were female, over 85
years of age, using home-help as opposed to day-care or short-term stay services, living alone,
not living with key person were the highest on the level of social isolation.

Building

Table 1. Dual/Optimal Scaling Results of Social Isolation Variables
OptionFrequency
GenderMale46
Female77
Age
Under 65
1465 - 75
2175 - 855885 30
Shor-term Yes
17StayService No
106
Day-Care Yes
61
Services No
62
69
Home- Yes
Help54Services No
36
Types of Single
40
Family Couple
Living with Son
27
Living with Daughter
16
Living with Partent
12
Living with Grandchild
Living with Sibling
1OptionWeights
0.411-0.265-0.0650.080
0.108-0.284
0.687

Alone
Yes
during Day No
N.A.
Key
SpousePersonSon
Daughter
Daughter in Law
Sibling
Other
N.A.
KeyThe Same
PersonThe Same Block
Address
The Same Ward
The Same CityThe Same Prefctr
Outside Prefctr
N.A.

-0.1240.333-0.351-0.6140.757-1.2470.889-0.0090.463
1.108-0.4380.421

Frequency
5761
532
36
28
5
521563
7
13
8
4
523

OptionWeights-0.8020.774
1.091-0.577-0.2180.142-1.145-0.3030.666-0.198-0.857-1.511-1.251-1.469weakness and hazard exposure risk variables were also Dual-scaled. It showed that those whoresided in wooden houses built before 1981 (after which the new building code wasintroduced) and those whose bedrooms were on the first floor turned out to be more
vulnerable (see Table 2).
Table 2. Dual/Optimal Scaling Results of Building Weakness and Hazard Exposure Risk Variables.

Frequency

WeightBedroom Floor

1st Floor
2nd Floor or ab4974-1.0780.712

When the House

Before 1981
After 1981

4875

-0.4080.259

was built

House Structure

5Frequency
31

Weight-1.550

RC-Reinforced

90

0.537

N.A.

2WodenAn Invited Paper Presented at Korean Society for Hazard Mitigation, February 27, 2009, Korea University, Seoul, Korea.

An overall degree of special needs was then calculated by combining scores for 1) selfevacuation difficulty, 2) social isolation and 3) building weakness/risk exposure. Using thesescores as weights, a weighted kernel density map was created (see Figure 4), which visualized
overall person-in-environment vulnerabilities which was represented by the following
equation: V = f(P, E). In Figure 5, the tsunami hazard exposure factor was entered into theequation, which represented the degree of special needs at times of a tsunami disaster. Interms of formulaic representation, this was equivalent to D = f1(H, f2(P, E)).

SN Index

SND Index

LowLowHighHighFig. 4 Weighted Kernel Density Map of Persons
with Special Needs or PSNs.

Fig. 5 Weighted Kernel Density Map of Persons
with Special Needs at Times of Tsunami Disaster orPSNDs.

The current paper proposed a GIS-based technical solution that helped not only tovisualize the whereabouts of PSNDs but also to facilitate implementation of individualized
evacuation/assistance programs for PSNDs utilizing the GIS data base.
Reference[1] Fukuma, Y. Typhoon Magnitude Index and Evaluation of Disaster Mitigation Measures, Journal ofmeteorological research, 46, 5, pp.159-176, 1993.
[2] Committee on Disaster Information Communication and Evacuation/Sheltering Assistance for the Elderly/Disadvantaged Population during Heavy Meteorological and Other Disasters, Evacuation/Sheltering
Assistance Guideline for Persons with Special Needs at Times of Disaster, (1st Ed.), March, 2005.
(http://www.bousai.go.jp/3oukyutaisaku/youengosya/h16/pdf/no7/03_shiryou1.pdf)[3] Committee on Evacuation/Sheltering Assistance for the Persons with Special Needs at Times of Disaster,
Evacuation/Sheltering Assistance Guideline for Persons with Special Needs at Times of Disaster, (RevisedEd.), March, 2006. (http://www.bousai.go.jp/hinan_kentou/060328/hinanguide.pdf)[4] Blaikie et. al. At Risk (1st Ed.) London: Routledge, 1994.
[5] Wisner et.al. At Risk (2nd Ed.) London: Routledge, 2004,[6] Hayashi, H., & Tatsuki, S. The Cause of Death among 7.13 Niigata Flood Disaster Victims, A presentation
at the Interim Report Forum for the Investigation of the 2004 July Niigata/ Fukusima/Fukui Heavy Rainfall
Disasters, Niigata University, November 19, 2004.
[7] Hayashi, H., & Tamura, K. Profiling Causes of Deaths at the Niigata Flooding Disaster on July 13, 2004.
Journal of Social Safety Science, 7, pp. 197-206, 2005.
[8] Cutter, S. Hazards, Vulnerability and Environmental Justice, London: Earthscan, 2006.
[9] Ochi, Y. & Tatsuki, S. Visualization of Hazard-Vulnerbility Interaction, Disaster Reduction Management, 2,
pp. 90-98, 2007.

6