International Conference in Commemoration of the 10th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake, Taiwan
September 17~21, 2009

Impact Stabilization and Event Evaluation for Life Recovery among the
1995 Kobe Earthquake Survivors (The 1999, 2001, 2003 and 2005 Crosssectional and Longitudinal Life Recovery Social Survey Findings)

1

Shigeo Tatsuki1*
Professor of Sociology, Doshisha University (Japan)

ABSTRACTThis paper summarizes major findings from the Hyogo Life Recovery Survey Project, a series of four
consecutive cross-sectional social surveys conducted in years 1999, 2001, 2003 and 2005 as well as a
2001-2003-2005 longitudinal (panel) survey in order to study long-term life recovery processes
among the 1995 Kobe earthquake survivors. The 1999 survey (N=915) that was conducted five years
after the Kobe earthquake produced some key scales, including life recovery, physical andpsychological stress, family relations and civic-mindedness. The questionnaires were standardized
and then repeatedly administered to those who resided in the same three hundred and thirty impacted
areas out of which ten subjects were randomly selected each time in the years 2001, 2003 and 2005.
The 2001 study (N=1203) integrated the 1999 study findings with those from the 1999 grass roots
assessment on life recovery, out of which the seven critical element model of life recovery wasconstructed. The effects of those seven critical elements on life recovery were empirically tested andvalidated by general linear model (GLM) analyses. The 2003 (N=1203) and 2005 (N=1028) studies
focused not only on life recovery outcomes but also on intervening life recovery processes.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) identified causal chains among recovery promoting factors,
recovery processes such as event impact stabilization and event evaluation through community
empowerment, and recovery outcomes. Event impact was a process through which impacts caused
by earthquake damage, losses and/or stresses were alleviated by housing, livelihood and stressmanagement. Through event evaluation, social ties and community rebuilding efforts facilitated thereframing of earthquake experiences into positive narratives. The 2001-2003-2005 longitudinal(panel) survey (N=289) further elaborated upon life recovery processes and confirmed that rich social
ties facilitated life recovery even among the most disadvantaged population.
Keywords: the 1995 Kobe earthquake, long-term life recovery, cross-sectional and longitudinalsurveys
INTRODUCTION
This paper summarizes major findings from the Hyogo Life Recovery Survey Project, a series of four
consecutive cross-sectional social surveys as well as three time point longitudinal (panel) survey in order tostudy long-term life recovery processes among the 1995 Kobe earthquake survivors. The first survey was
conducted in 1999, five years after the Kobe earthquake. The questionnaires were then repeatedly administered
to those who resided in the same three hundred and thirty impacted areas out of which ten subjects wererandomly selected each time in the years 2001, 2003 and 2005. During these three years, the additional panel
survey was also conducted at the same areas.
The research framework for both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies evolved in three stages over thecourse of the project’s seven-year period. The first stage was exploratory due to the fact that there was nopreceding long-term life recovery model that would have applied to an urban mega-disaster (Kawata, 1995) inrecent years either nationally or internationally. The first survey that was administered in March 1999 wastherefore designed to develop several scales and measures that could be repeatedly employed in the following
surveys. Among those scales and measures, one of the most important developments was that of life recovery,
which was designed to quantify the dependent variable for the project. The 1999 survey also examined
demographic, disaster impact and social characteristics of those who showed a higher level of life recovery*

Corresponding author: Shigeo Tatsuki, Department of Sociology, Doshisha University, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, Japan, tatsuki@gold.ocn.ne.jp

International Conference in Commemoration of the 10th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake, Taiwan
September 17~21, 2009

(Tatsuki & Hayashi, 2000). The second stage integrated the findings from the 1999 study as well as those fromthe grass roots assessment workshop on life recovery conducted in the summer of 1999 (Tatsuki & Hayashi,2001). Based on those findings, the seven critical element model of life recovery was constructed. The model
guided research framework building for the 2001 Hyogo Life Recovery Survey. The third stage refined theresearch strategy that was then employed in the 2003 and 2005 surveys. Those two surveys paid attention not
only to life recovery outcomes but also to intervening life recovery process variables. The 2003 survey resulted
in the construction of the long-term life recovery process and outcome model from a mega-disaster (Tatsuki et al,2004). The 2005 survey along side with the 2001-2003-2005 panel survey (Kuromiya, Tatsuki, Hayashi, Noda,
Tamura, & Kimura, 2006) confirmed, in general, both internal and external validity of the final life recovery
process and outcome model.
THE 1999 STUDY
The 1999 Hyogo Life Recovery Survey aimed to identify determinants of the changes of residence and life
reconstruction among the 1995 Kobe earthquake victims(Tatsuki & Hayashi, 2000). Based on findings from thepreceding ethnographic research (Aono, Tanaka, Hayashi, Shigekawa, & Miyano, 1998), the questionnaire wasdesigned to inquire about residence location, source of help, sense of civic-mindedness and family relations at
the 10th, 100th, and 1000th hour as well as at the six months point after the onset of the earthquake. These time
points were considered to correspond with critical boundaries, which segmented phases of the disaster victims'
behavior.
A. Method
The 1999 study was the first attempt to construct standardized measures of life recovery, physical and mental
stress, civic-mindedness and family relations. Those scales were to be repeatedly used in the following threesurveys. 2,500 In-Hyogo residents were sampled from 250 randomly selected points with a seismic intensity of
7 and/or with a more than two month cut-off from the city gas supply. For comparative purpose, 800 Out-ofHyogo residents were randomly selected from the subscribers' list for a Hyogo Government newsletter aimed at
Out-of-Hyogo residing earthquake victims. 3,300 questionnaires were mailed at the beginning of March 1999
and 993 (683 In-Hyogo and 313 Out-of-Hyogo) questionnaires were returned by the end of March. 915
responses (623 or 25.7 % from In-Hyogo and 292 or 37.1% from Out-of-Hyogo residents) were valid.
B. Results
1) Standardized scales constructed: Life recovery scale is a 14 item 5-point Likert scale. It asks subjective
evaluations of life fulfillment compared with pre-earthquake days, life satisfaction and future prospects.
Principal component analysis revealed that all 14 items loaded high on the first principal axe, suggesting thatthey constituted a unidimensional scale which could be repeatedly used for the following surveys.
Physical and psychological stress scale consists of six physical and six psychological stress items. They wereselected from a total of 111 stress symptom items that were parts of the 1995 Japan Red Cross Stress Study(Hayashi, Nishio, Sugawara, Monma, Kohno, Makishima, Numata, & Nemoto, 1996). Factor analysis with avarimax rotation of these twelve items in the original Japan Red Cross Study data showed a clear two factor
simplex structure. The 1999 study confirmed the same simplex structure, i.e., the mental stress items loadedhigh on the first factor and the physiological stress items on the second factor. These two stress scales were also
supported for repeated use in the following studies.
In order to identify basic dimensions of civic-mindedness, twenty trichotomous questions were asked. A Dual
Scaling analysis (Nishisato, 1980) was conducted to responses to these questions. The most dominant solution
was a pattern of “cannot decide either” and the second and the third response patterns were used for further
analyses. The second solution differentiated community solidarity/cooperation and non-cooperation orientations.
Meanwhile, the third solution differentiated external/societal-criterion-based and self-governance valuations.
Responses from the self-governance and community solidarity items were added and scores were obtained
respectively.
2) A rise of civic-mindedness: Figure 1 indicates that both self-governance (left graph) and community
solidarity (right graph) scores increased from pre- to post-earthquake time. The adaptive nature of their changed
worldview on society was further elaborated in Figure 2, which shows that those who reported high civicmindedness (a sum of the self-governance and community solidarity scores) at post-earthquake time tended to bebetter-recovered from the disaster (left graph) and less stressed (right graph) than those who reported low civicmindedness. These findings suggest that the earthquake disaster experiences caused among many survivors achange in their internal value system, that they constructed a new civic-minded worldview as a result of
adaptation to a new environment, and that these changes in civic-mindedness were responsible for elevating boththeir subjective evaluation of life recovery and their coping with the current life stressors (Tatsuki & Hayashi,
2000).

International Conference in Commemoration of the 10th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake, Taiwan
September 17~21, 2009

8

6

6

40

40

C 4
o
m 2
m
u
0
n
it
y -2
S
o
li -4
ad
ri･ -6
tA･
y

L 30
if
e
R
ec nt 20ov em
er tjus 10
y dry
S Atveco neo 0
re rruce
R

L
if 30
e
R
ec nt 20
ov e
er tm
s
y yjud 10
ServAtco on 0re ecrreu
R

4

S
el 2
f
G
ov 0
er
n
an -2
ce -4
･
ｩ･
･

50

50

8

-6

46
744
109
459
630
908
482
297
669
113
802
245
244
898
567
569
896
509
95
455
142
140
258
807
88
604
739
347
345
80
599
812
846
361
687
103

1604

780
437
803

1352
1602

804

ﾑ

-8
N =

909

BEFORE

909

NOW

861
56
776
723
647
361
714
426
62
437

1352
1276
1370
1776
971
1341

804
803
395

1637
1602
1310

720
1638

455
422
780

N=

-8
N =

907

BEFORE

495
895
505
573
521
540
818
690
869

Figure 1: Changes in civic-mindedness pre- & post-earthquake:
Results from時間
時間
the 1999 Hyogo life recovery survey (1) （N=993)

448

465

Low
High
Past Civic-mindedness

907

NOW

439
523
891
451
806
488
468
863
802
657

C-10

C-10

N=

388

525

Low
High
Current Civic Mindedness

Figure 2: Level of civic-mindedness by degree of recovery: Results from the1999 Hyogo life recovery survey (2)（n=993)

THE 2001 STUDY
The research frame development for the 2001 study was guided by the preceding 1999 study results and also
by those findings that were obtained through a series of grass roots stakeholder assessment workshops on life
recovery that were conducted during the summer of 1999 (Kobe City Research Committee on Disaster Recovery,
2000; Tatsuki and Hayashi, 2001). The aim of the assessment was to identify major factors that determine life
recovery among those who experienced damages and losses during and after the 1995 Kobe earthquake.
Residents from all of Kobe's nine wards and three special interest groups provided their assessments concerning
life recovery at grass roots workshop sessions. This yielded 1,623 opinion cards which were taken back to thelaboratory and conceptual clustering was attempted. In the end, seven mutually exclusive super-categories wereformed. They were housing, social ties, community rebuilding, physical and mental health, preparedness,
economic and financial situation, and relation to government. The 2001 study aimed to develop valid andreliable scales for the seven critical life recovery elements and to examine their impacts upon levels of life
recovery.
A. Method
Table 1 summarizes both life recovery and seven critical element variables and corresponding scales that were
included in the 2001 study questionnaire. 10 earthquake survivors over the age of 20 were randomly sampledfrom each of the same 250 research points as the 1999 study as well as from the 80 extra points in the Northernand Western wards of Kobe. Those two were not surveyed in the previous 1999 survey due to the less severe
direct earthquake damage. In order to validate grass roots workshop results that were obtained from all 9 wards
in Kobe, the remaining two wards were included in the 2001 study. Altogether, 3,300 questionnaires were sent
by mail in January of 2001 and 1,203 valid responses were returned (36.5%).
The predictor variables in the 2001 study included
Table 1. Overview of the independent and dependent variables scales
earthquake hazard, demographic variables and seven
Scale
Description
critical elements. Their effects on life recovery
Housing
Relocation due to the earthquake
Social Ties
Self-Governance, Community Solidarity, Community Participation, Social Trust,scores were examined. The 2001 study conducted a
Community Rebuilding
Awareness of Urban Commons
Physical and Psychological Health Physical and Mental Stress Symptom Checklist, General Health Practices Index
general linear model or GLM analysis to examine
Preparedness
Awareness/Preparedness for the next major earthquake
which variables or what combinations of variables
Economic/Financial Situation
Increase/Decrease in Household Income, Expenditure, and Savings
Relation to Government
Paternalistic, Liberal, and Communitarian Views of Government, Willingness to Pay
best predicted the level of life recovery outcome
Life Recovery
Life fulfillment, Life satisfaction, One year prospectamong the impacted citizens. Table 2 shows theSocial Desirability
MMPI Lie Scale
analysis results.
B. Results
As for the critical elements that were identified by the 1999 Kobe grass root assessment workshops, allcomponents were entered into the GLM model. All of the seven critical components turned out to show
significant main effects on life recovery. The effects of critical elements on life recovery were described in thefollowing paragraphs.
1) Housing: Whether one experienced house relocation due to the earthquake was used as a measure forhousing. House relocation showed a tendency (F1, 1202=4.242, p<.10) that lowered life recovery scores.
2) Social Ties: Social ties component was measured by a) civic-mindedness scale, b) community participation
scale, c) social trust scale and d) family functioning (i.e., adaptability and cohesion) scales. All variables
designated to social ties showed moderate to strong effects on life recovery. Those include a sense of civicmindedness that consists of self-governance (F1, 1202=4.117, p<.05) and community solidarity (F1, 1202=5.439,
p<.05), the degree of actual community participation (F1, 1202=8.781, p<.01) and social trust (F1, 1202=14.456,
p<.01). Family system as measured by family cohesion and adaptability was also found to facilitate life
recovery. Those whose family cohesion was characterized by moderate levels of family cohesion (F3, 1202=8.195,
p<.01) and family adaptability (F3, 1202=4.199, p<.01) reported a higher level of life recovery.

International Conference in Commemoration of the 10th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake, Taiwan
September 17~21, 20093) Community rebuilding: One cannot sense a recovery of everyday life in no man’s land. It was
hypothesized that recovery of everyday life was partly attributed to by an increased sense of stake-holdership to
local urban commons. A sense of stake-holdership would increase people’s involvement in community affairs
and thus would help increase a sense of normalcy in community life. GLM analysis results supported thishypothesis and showed a tendency that the more one was aware of the urban commons, the better one wasrecovered (F1,1202=3.684, p<.10).
Table 2. The 2001 life recovery survey general linear model analysis results4) Physical and Psychological Health: In order
Source of Variance
Type III SS
df
MS
F valueppartial η
to detect non-linear relations between stress and702.311293
2.397
4.360 ***
0.584
Corrected Model
0.000
1
0.000
0.001 n.s.
0.000Intercept
life recovery, both stress scores were categorized
Damage
0.955
3
0.318
0.579 n.s.
0.002
House Damage
into four ordered categories using quantiles.
2.116
9
0.235
0.428 n.s.
0.004
Furniture Damage
2.736
4
0.684
1.244 n.s.
0.005
Economic Damage
Psychological stress was a very strong linear
Demography
7.817
16
0.489
0.889 n.s.
0.015
Locality
predictor of life recovery (F3, 1202= 34.568, p<.01).
Locality*Economic Damage
81.829119
0.688
1.251 **
0.141
0.984
1
0.984
1.790 n.s.
0.002
Sex
It turned out to be the single most influential
15.8482
7.924
14.415 ***0.031
Generation
16.14991.794
3.264 ***
0.031
Occupation
predictors of life recovery among all the
4.222
3
1.407
2.560 *
0.008
House Damage*Sex
69.05886
0.803
1.461 ***
0.121
predictors. The GLM model as presented in table
House Damage*Generation*Occupation①Housing
2 accounted for 58.4% of the total variance, one
Relocation Experience
2.332
1
2.332
4.242 *
0.005
②Social Ties
sixth of which was accounted for by the
13.5153
4.505
8.195 ***
0.026
Family Cohesion
6.925
3
2.308
4.199 ***
0.014
Family Adaptability
psychological stress (partial η2 = .102).
2.263
1
2.263
4.117 **
0.005
Self Governance
2.990
1
2.990
5.439 **
0.006
Community Solidarity
Meanwhile, physical stress was found not to have
4.827
1
4.827
8.781 ***
0.010
Community Activity Participation
7.947
1
7.947
14.456 ***0.016
Social Trusta statistically significant impact upon life
③Community Rebuilding
2.025
1
2.025
3.684 *
0.004
recovery (F3,1202=0.676, n.s.). General linear
Urban Common.s.
④Physical and Mental Stressmodel analyses, however, revealed that there was
1.114
3
0.371
0.676 n.s.
0.002
Physical Stress
57.0083
19.00334.568 ***0.102
Psychological Stressa significant physical-by-mental stress interaction
17.6318
2.204
4.009 ***
0.034
Physical * Psychological Stress
7.306
1
7.306
13.291 ***0.014
General Health Practice(F8,1202=4.009, p<.01).
For those whose⑤Preparedness
3.581
1
3.581
6.515 ***
0.007
Future Earthquake Damage
psychological stress were very low or moderately⑥Economic/Financial Situation
17.4373
5.812
10.573 ***0.034
Incomelow, it turned out that a moderate level of physical
2.473
3
0.824
1.499 n.s.
0.005
Savings
2.928
3
0.976
1.776 n.s.
0.006
Expenditurestress further facilitated sense of life recovery.
⑦Relation to Government
Communitarianism
1.420
1
1.420
2.584 n.s.
0.003
Finally the degree of general health practices was
4.291
1
4.291
7.806 ***
0.009
Willingness to Pay
a significant predictor of life recovery
Communitarianism*WTP
1.909
1
1.909
3.472 *
0.004
2.041
1
2.041
3.712 *
0.004
Social Desirability Bias
(F1,1202=13.291, p<.01).
501.598
910
0.551
Error
1202
1203
Total
5) Preparedness. On the contrary to the*** p<.01 ** p<.05 * p<.10 n.s. Not Significant
hypothesis expectation, it was found that thepessimistic expectation on the future disaster (the higher expectation of personal injuries, death of significant
others, serious damages on housing, income and assets, the longer recovery time, and the wider damages on
public facilities and community relations) was significantly associated with lower level of life recovery among
the studied subjects (F1,1202=6.515, p<.01).
6) Economic and financial situation: Subjects were asked to compare between the pre-earthquake and current
levels of household income, expenditure and savings. Results showed that changes in income was a significant
predictor of life recovery F3,1202=10.573, p<.01). The better off one was in terms of income, the better recovery
he or she reported. Saving and expenditure, on the other hand, did not predict life recovery.
7) Relation to government: GLM analyses revealed that communitarian subscale had a only weak effect onlife recovery (F1, 1202=2.584, n.s., p=.105). On the contrary, six item Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) Scale forcommunity affairs (Cronbach's alpha was .899) was a significant predictor of life recovery. Those who arewilling to pay more money and time for community affairs were found to be better recovered (F1, 1202 =7.806,
p<.01). Finally, a tendency of communitarinism and WTP interaction was found (F1, 1202 = 3.472, p<.10),
suggesting those who were communitarians tended to be extraordinarily generous in offering time and money forcommunity affairs.
2

THE 2003 AND 2005 STUDY
The 2003 and 2005 studies postulated life recovery as long-term, ongoing, and individual processes. Becauseof these postulations, the 2003 and 2005 studies separated three distinctively different types of variables. Firstly,
those variables like seven critical elements that precipitated life recovery processes as well as the recovery
outcomes were designated as independent variables. Secondly, recovery process variables were constructed asintervening variables that were influenced by independent variables on the one hand and also influenced the life
recovery outcomes on the other. Thirdly, life recovery outcome measures were treated as dependent variables.
The 2003 and 2005 studies employed a structural equation modeling (SEM) technique that explained causal
chains among hazard and demographics, seven critical elements, life recovery processes and their outcomes asreported by the 1995 Kobe earthquake survivors (Tatsuki, Hayashi, Yamori, Noda, Tamura, & Kimura, 2004;
Tatsuki, 2007).

International Conference in Commemoration of the 10th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake, Taiwan
September 17~21, 2009

A. Method
The population of the 2003 and 2005 studies was the same as the 2001 study, about 2.5 million people who
resided in the areas that were hit hardest by the 1995 Kobe earthquake. This included residents in ten cities in
the Kobe-Hanshin area as well as those on Awaji island. The identical 330 points were used. Two independent
sets of ten residents over the age of twenty at each point, however, were randomly selected for each study. The
2003 and 2005 questionnaires were mailed in January of 2003 and 2005, respectively. The numbers of valid
responses were 1,203 (36.5%) for the 2003 survey and 1,028 (31.2%) for the 2005 study.
Questionnaire items were divided into four categories, including socio-demographic and damage variables,
seven critical life recovery element variables (Tatsuki and Hayashi, 2002), life recovery outcome variables, andlife recovery process variables. The first three sets of variables were measured by the same scales as the 2001
study (see Table 1). Life recovery processes were measured from two perspectives, life recovery curve and lifechange appraisal perspectives. Life recovery curve perspective included such process variables as return tonormalcy, struggle for meaning and retreat. Those for life change appraisal perspective were sense of sense oflife change and life change directions.
B. Results
Figures 3 and 5 show the results of structural equation modeling (or SEM) of the 2003 and 2005 study data
respectively. The results are summarized as path diagrams that signify causal directions (arrows) and theirmagnitude (standardized coefficients) among damage, seven critical elements, life recovery processes (i.e., event
impact and evaluation) and outcome variables. The variables in squares are designated as observed measuresthat were obtained from the data, while those in oval shapes are latent variables or postulated constructs (e.g.
seven critical elements) that explain high correlations among measures of the same construct. Both 2003 and2005 studies demonstrated high overall fit between the model and the data; GFI=.924, AGFI=.905, RMSEA=.05
for the 2003 study and GFI=.934, AGFI=.921, RMSEA=.041 for the 2005 study. The estimated parameters or
coefficients in both models were all statistically significant at the pre-established p<.05 level.
Figures 4 and 6 present bird’s-eye view summaries of the 2003 and 2005 study results respectively by meansof illustrating major causal relations among latent variables. Both studies supported that two different processes,
damage alleviation and community empowerment, influenced life recovery outcomes.
χ2=1299.727 (df=327)
GFI=.924 AGFI=.905
AIC=1457.727 RMSEA=.050
e23

G ov. H elp Expc t

e22

Mutual Help

e21

.33

.32
Sig.
Other

.19

e16

Life Change
Direction

StruggleFor
Meaning

.59

-.41

.25

e2

.79
Life Recovery(Outcome)

.68

Life
Fulfillment

.42

e3

Prospect for 1
year From now

d1

Urban Commons.34① Hous ing
Hous ehold F inance⑥ Financ ial Sit. -.57
Psy chological Stress④Stress.82.57

Sense of Life
ChangeNormalcy

Household
Damages

-.45

生活復興
感
Life Recovery

e28
e1 4

Phy sical Stress

e20

House & Furniture
Damage

e5

-.54

.38

e 19

DamageAlleviation

Pess imis tic expec tations for Future
Nankai-Tonankai EQ

e2 3

e22

.96

Mutual Help

.4 7

.37

d5
e 21

S elf-Helpe2 7

Liberalis m

e26

WT P

.59
- .3 0e2 5Communitaria nism

e1

Lif e
Satisfaction

e2

Life
Fulfillm ent

e3

One Y ea r
Pros pect

Encountered to
S ig nificant Other.8 0
S ig .
Other

Strugg le for
M eaning⑦Rltn toGov ernment

e16

.26
d2

.7 6

.61

.3 2

.6 3

e8

-.27

.4 0

Realized the im portanceof fa mily a nd friends
Betrayed/T rust
Only Mys elf

e7

Fam ily Cohesion

e1 0

e1 7

.8 4

Fam. Adaptability
Imba lance

e11

e19

社会 意識

-.31

-.34

.3 7

①Housing⑥Financial
Situation.2 2- .5 7

Event Impact
S ta biliz ed
d3- .3 2.4 4

RetreatReturn toNormalcy

e1 5

e 18

④ Phy sical &Psycholog ical
Stress－③Community
地域 活動
Rebuilding
Encounter To
Sig . Other

＋

＋

.47

.51

EQ Damage＋

公・ 共・私 型の⑤Preparedness⑦Relation toGovernment.3 6- .3 8.76-

Community Empowerment

e29

Sens e ofLife Changed1①Housing⑥Income④Stress Manag’t

e6

e9

.4 7

Life Change
Direction

.72

-.36

Event
Eva luation.48

Life Recovery( Outcome)

.54
d4

＋

+
+
震
Event
災の影響
Impact

.61

d7

.19

.5 1
.30

⑤ Preparednes s

S ocia l Trust

Civic-Mindedness.40③Comm unity
Rebuilding

d6

＋

豊 かさ

＋

.1 7

②Social
Ties

.5 1

－

＋

Figure 4: Bird's-eye view of life recovery process: The 2003 study results (N=1,203,
Jan. 2003)

e13

.4 9

-.1 4

.2 5

Gov. Help Ex pct

Urban Comm ons.7 9

Event験の評価
Evaluation
震災体

Life
Recovery
復興 過程
Process②Social
人間 関係の
Ties

e24

e1 8

Civic Engagement＋
地域 における

.27

.43
e12

＋

＋

③Community
地域 活動
Rebuilding

＋

-.16

Figure 3: The final SEM life recovery model for the 2003 study data

The 2005 Study_Model 40
Chi-squared=949.230 (df=360)
GFI=.934 AGFI=.921
AIC=1099.230 RMSEA=.041

＋

＋

e4

-.34

1.11

-.50

d3

＋
Encounter To
Sig. Othere1 3.38 Hous ing Satis faction

.39

.29

＋

ActiveCitizenship
公・共・ 私型の⑤Preparedness
社 会意識⑦Rltn to Gov.

－

.11

Event Impac t
Stabilized

Community Empowerment.47-.21 -.74

.10

e12

.56

.69

e1 7

Civic Engagemen t

d6

-.37
Retreat

.24
e11

.65

Ev entEvaluation

.21

e1 0

Imbalance

F am. Adaptability
Imbalance.64③Community
Rebuilding

e15

d2

-.18

.56

.11

Life
Satis faction

e6

e7-.20 Family Cohesion②Soc ial Ties

.67

⑤ ⑦G ov /Pub/Prvt
Partnership.22

CommunitarianSocial Trust
C ivic-Mindedness

-.14

.25

Liberalism

e1

.47

.63

WTP for Commons

e 25

.36

.43

d5

-.28

e26

e8
e9

.51

Self-Helpe27

After EQ
Pres ent

.73

d7

.85
.68
.21

Figure 5: The final SEM life recovery model for the 2005 study data

＋

Event
Evaluation
震災
体験 の評
価

＋
Hous ing Satisfaction

e4

生活
復興
感
Life
RecoveryHousehold Financee28

Hous e & Furniture
Dam agee5

Ps ycholog ica l S tres s

e14

Physical Stresse20

P ess imis tic ex pecta-tions for Future
Nankai-Tonank ai EQ

e 24

DamageAlleviation

＋

Life
復興 過
程
Recovery
Process＋＋
地域 における②Social人間
関係 の Ties
豊 かさ

＋
＋

①Housing⑥Income－④Physical &PsychologicalStress

Event
Impact
震
災の 影響

－
－

Figure 6: Bird's-eye view of life recovery process: The 2005 study results （N=1,028,
Jan. 2005)

International Conference in Commemoration of the 10th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake, Taiwan
September 17~21, 2009

1) Impact Stabilization: Structural equation modeling postulated a latent variable, event impact, as anintermediary process to alleviate the impact of damage and stress upon life recovery. In this process, life
recovery was directly caused by the degree to which the event impact was stabilized (see Figures 6 and 8). The
event impact was measured by such life recovery process variables as a sense of life no longer in transition, asense of normalcy, and no need for retreat (see Figures 3 and 5).
In the 2003 study (Figures 3 and 4), the event impact stabilization was negatively influenced by the magnitudeof household earthquake damages and positively influenced by improvements in those three critical elements as
housing, financial situation, physical and psychological stress. In other words, when the improvements
overweighed the damages, the event impact was stabilized. The stabilization eventually led to a sense of life
recovery. The 2005 study (Figures 5 and 6) repeatedly supported the above causal path in general. A slight but
worth noting difference, however, was observed: The event impact stabilization was determined only by the
housing and financial situations on one hand and physical and psychological stress on the other. This was due tothe fact that the direct 1995 earthquake hazard effect as measured by house, furniture or economic damages
disappeared in the 2005 study. People were not suffering because they were hit by the earthquake that occurred
ten years ago. Rather, people were suffering from such secondary effects as a lack of housing/financial
adjustment and/or long lasting physical and psychological stress.
In 2003 study, life recovery was also directly influenced by the housing-finance-stress critical element latentvariable. It also exerted an influence on the event evaluation that will be discussed in the below. It should be
noted, however, that these direct effects failed to be confirmed in the 2005 study, suggesting that these effects
were temporary and considered to be idiosyncratic to the 2003 study data.
2) Event Evaluation: Both 2003 and 2005 studies demonstrated that event evaluation, another constructpostulated by SEM analyses, played an important intervening role in community empowerment process. This
was another path that led to life recovery (see Figures 3 and 5). The two studies identified a common
community empowerment path where a sense of life recovery was achieved through positive event evaluation.
This was measured by such attempts and feelings as struggle for meaning (e.g., “I feel strongly that living a life
has a meaning”), life change toward a positive direction and low need for retreat (see path diagram in Figures 4
and 5 in more detail). Social ties, as evidenced by high social trust, civic-mindedness and balanced family
relationships, exerted an influence in such a way that one’s evaluation of the earthquake experiences was
reframed into positive narratives. The influence paths were both direct and indirect. The indirect paths were
through empowering community building efforts and/or increasing opportunities to encounter significant otherwho provided social and psychological support for re-socialization to and reconstruction of the post-earthquake
reality (Berger & Luckman, 1966; Mead, 1963).
THE 2001, 2003 AND 2005 HYOGO LIFE RECOVERY PANEL SURVEY STUDY
Kuromiya, Tatsuki, Hayashi, Noda, Tamura, and Kimura (2006) reported the power of social capital upon life
recovery using Hyogo Life Recovery Panel Survey Study data. The following section summarizes the major
findings.
A. Method
297 subjects responded to the panel survey questionnaires at three different time points, in January of theyears 2001, 2003 and 2005. The respondents resided in the area where a seismic intensity of seven on theJapanese scale was recorded and/or city gas service stopped for more than three months after the quake. In
January of 2001, 3,300 residents who resided in the above-mentioned areas were randomly chosen. The
questionnaires were mailed to them and 1,203 returned. They were the same subjects as reported in the 2001
Hyogo Recovery Survey Study. All were invited to participate in the panel survey and 486 subjects agreed. In
January of 2003, along with the 2003 Hyogo Recovery Survey subjects, those 486 year 2001 panel survey
participants were sent the 2003 survey questionnaires and 364 (66.1 %) responded. In January of 2005, the 2005
Survey questionnaires were also sent to the 364 panel study subjects and 297 (81.6%) responded. Those 297
subjects who responded to all three surveys (in years 2001, 2003, and 2005) formed the Panel Survey sample.
B. Results
1) Four recovery patterns: The 297 life recovery score transitions over three time points of 2001, 2003 and2005 were inputted to a hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward method and square Euclidean distance) and four
distinctive pattern clusters were obtained. Those were 1) + + Type, 2) + Type, 3) – Type, and 4) – –Type (seeFigure 8). Analyses of these patterns suggested that: 1) the ++ Type or those who scored very high on recovery
in year 2001 continued and even increased their life recovery scores in the following two time points, 2) thatthose who scored moderately high (the + Type) or low (the – Type) on recovery maintained their respectivescores in years 2003 and 2005, and 3) the – – Type or those who scored very low on recovery in year 2001
remained low in the following two time points.

International Conference in Commemoration of the 10th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake, Taiwan
September 17~21, 20092) The – – Type characteristics: Kuromiya et. al. (2006) summarized the characteristics of the 65 individuals
who were categorized as being the – –Type. Demographically, they tended to be males who experienced theearthquake in their 50’s to early 60’s. Physical injuries were commonly experienced by them or their family
members. They also tended to report severe damage to household goods. With regard to the seven criticalelements, they had more chance of dwelling in public housing units, showing low social ties/low awareness of
local urban commons, being highly stressed both physically and mentally, engaging in small businesses,
experiencing economic damage to business, and experiencing a decrease in income.
It should be noted that although the – – Type showed a significant decrease in their life recovery scores fromyear 2001 to 2003, there was no further significant change after 2003, suggesting that a time factor alone cannot
explain the 2003-to-2005 within-subject variance and that other factors can be suspected to account for thevariance. The Seven Critical Element Model variables were introduced as between-subject factors in therepeated measure ANOVA analyses for the 65 – – Type subjects. Within-subject contrast tests revealed
moderate to significant time-by-factor interactions from the year 2003 to 2005 in three variables. Those were 1)
number of relocations, 2) level of participation in community activities, and 3) community outlook where therespondents were residing.
3) The power of social capital upon life recovery: The effects of relocations upon repeated measure life
recovery profiles were shown in Figure 7. The 2001-to-2003 profiles all indicate downward shift among fivegroups, i.e., those who moved none, once, twice, three times, and four times or more after the earthquake. In
comparison, those who moved more than four times scored further and deeper decline from 2003 to 2005 while
the other groups remained within the same range or even mildly bounced back in the year 2005. A withinsubject contrast test from year 2003 to 2005 suggested a mild time-by-group interaction effect (F4, 60 = 1.981,
p= .109). This implied that those who were very transient and therefore considered being the least affiliated withlocality were the least resilient ten years after the earthquake.
Secondly, the impact of community activity participation over a repeated measure life recovery score profiles
was illustrated in Figure 8. Those who very often or sometimes participated in community activities showed a
V-shape bounce-back of life recovery means while those who did not participate exhibited a steady decline intheir life recovery scores. A within-subject contrast test from year 2003 to 2005 supported the significant timeby-group interaction (F2, 62 = 3.802, p< .05).
Finally, as Figure 9 shows, a strong V-shape bounce-back of life recovery score from 2003 to 2005 wasobserved among those who reported that their neighborhoods were characterized as “everybody being sociable
and being involved in neighborhood events.” A mild bounce-back was also found among those who described
their neighborhood being “neighbors greeting to each other.” In comparison, 2003 to 2005 declines of life
recovery score were found among those who reported their neighborhood being “no daily interaction amongneighbors”, or “only neighborhood leaders being actively involved.” A significant time-by-group interaction
effect (F3, 61 = 3.489, p< .05) was also evidenced by a within-subject contrast test from year 2003 to 2005.

L
if
e
R
ec
o
v
er
y
S
co
re
M
ea
n
s

L
if
e
R
ec
o
ve
ry
S
co
re
M
ea
ns

L
if
e
R
ec
o
v
er
y
S
co
re
M
ea
n
s

○
+

○

2001

N=65
2001

2003

2001

2003

Figure 7: Number of relocations and changes in life recovery scores among “- -” typerespondents

2003

2005
N=65

2005

2005

N=65

Figure 8: Participation in community activities & changes in life recovery scoresamong “- -” type respondents

Figure 9: Community outlook & changes in life recovery scores among “- -” typerespondents

CONCLUSION
The current paper aimed to examine what constituted “life recovery”, what facilitated it and how on a longterm basis. The study resulted in a grass roots-assessment-based working model (the seven critical element
model of life recovery), which was then tested, validated and further refined by a series of empirical studies.
The life recovery process and outcome model, the final product of these research endeavors, provided aframework for life recovery assistance programs and policies for future urban mega-disaster victims/survivors.
At an earlier course of life recovery (i.e., within five years), housing, income as well as physical andpsychological health management issues should be addressed in order to alleviate the event impact. This leads toa sense of normalcy and stability in everyday life. Policies and programs geared toward this objective include
provisions of many different types of temporal and permanent housing units, grants and low interest loans, andother housing related programs, monetary compensations and grants for livelihood assistance, public health careservices including stress management programs.

International Conference in Commemoration of the 10th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake, Taiwan
September 17~21, 2009

Apart from damage alleviation, another and possibly longer-term life recovery process, event evaluation, wasidentified. This process was found directly facilitated by social ties by which disaster experiences were reframed
into complete, coherent and meaningful narratives. Social ties also exerted indirect influences on event
evaluation through empowering community rebuilding efforts and/or through enriching opportunities toencounter significant others who assisted re-socialization to and reconstruction of the post-earthquake realities.
The policies and programs toward event evaluation, therefore, should include family and community
enrichment/empowerment activities as well as those to commemorate and transcend the experiences to the next
generations.
The 2001-2003-2005 longitudinal (panel) survey further elaborated upon life recovery processes andconfirmed that rich social ties, as evidenced by fewer relocation experiences, more community activity
participations and higher degree of neighbor interactions, facilitated life recovery even among the mostdisadvantaged population.
REFERENCES[1]

Aono, F., Tanaka,S., Hayashi,H., Shigekawa,K., and Miyano, M. (1998). “A study of disaster victims’ response
behavior during the hanshin-awaji great earthquake: a nishinomiya city case study, ” (In Japanese) Proceedings of the
8th Annual Conference of the Institute of Social Safety Science, pp. 36-39.

[2]

Berger, P. L. and Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.
NY: Doubleday.

[3] Hayashi, H., Nishio, M., Sugawara, K., Monma, I., Kohno, M., Makishima, T., Numata, K., and Nemoto, Y. (, 1996).
"Research Report on Mental Health Responses that are Needed for Life Support of Elderly Victims after a Large Scale
Disaster," (In Japanese). Tokyo: Japan Red Cross.
[4]

Kawata, Y. (1995). Urban mega-disaster, (in Japanese) Nagoya:Kin-Mirai-Sha.

[5]

Kobe city research committee on disaster recovery (2000). "Kobe city’s review for individual recovery," Kobe city.

[6]

Kuromiya, A., Tatsuki, S., Hayashi, H., Noda, T., Tamura, K. and Kimura, R. (2006). Four recovery patterns from thehanshin-awaji earthquake: using the 2001, 2003, & 2005 panel data, Journal of Natural Disaster Science, 28(2), pp.4360.

[7]

Mead, G.H. (1963). Mind, self and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist (Works of George Herbert
Mead) Il:Univ of Chicago Press.

[8]

Nishisato, S. (1980). Analysis of categorical data: Dual scaling and its applications. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.

[9]

Tatsuki, S. (2007). "long-term life recovery processes among survivors of the 1995 kobe earthquake: 1999, 2001, 2003,
and 2005 life recovery social survey results," Journal of Disaster Research, Vol.2, No.6, pp. 484-501.

[10] Tatsuki, S., Hayashi, H., Yamori, K., Noda, T., Tamura, K., and Kimura, R. (2004). "model building and testing of
long-term life recovery processes of the survivors of the 1995 kobe earthquake: structural equation modeling (sem) of
the 2003 hyogo prefecture life recovery survey," (In Japanese) Journal of Institute of Social Safety Science, 6, pp.251260.
[11] Tatsuki, S. and Hayashi, H. (2002). “Seven critical element model of life recovery: general linear model analyses of the2001 Kobe panel survey data.” Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop for Comparative Study on Urban Earthquake
Disaster Management, pp. 27-46.
[12] Tatsuki, S. and Hayashi, H. (2001). "Comprehensive assessment of life recovery utilizing the total quality control
method: Grassroots assessment and construction of bird's eye view of lire recovery," (In Japanese) Urban Policy, 104,
pp.123-141.
[13] Tatsuki, S. and Hayashi, H. (2000). “Family system adjustment and adaptive reconstruction of social reality among the
1995 earthquake survivors,” International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 9, pp. 81-110.