However, local governments do not necessarily have an adequate framework or staff of technicians or the like ready to maintain, manage and upgrade their infrastructures. According to a survey conducted on local governments by the MLIT, only a little more than 10% of the local governments maintain a department or group to organize infrastructure maintenance and management activities. Moreover, only about half of the total number of prefectures and that of municipalities surveyed keep ledgers updated to summarize the status of infrastructures under their management. Local governments are thus found late to organize and update information about their infrastructures (Figure 1-3-17, Figure 1-3-18).

(Note) Of those local governments that responded to the survey, those that answered "Keep ledgers of all facilities organized and update them promptly upon completion of improvement or other works" or "Keep ledgers of all facilities organized but update them in a batch as soon as changes build up to some extent, because there are too many of the facilities involved" are classified as "Updated." Those that answered "Keep ledgers of all facilities organized but have too many facilities to catch up with update schedules," "Keep ledgers organized, except for some facilities developed a long time ago" or "Keep ledgers organized, except for many facilities" are classified as "Can't keep up with organization and update schedules." Data presented here is the sum total, by prefecture and municipality, of the number of "Updated" or "Can't keep up with organization and update schedules" responses given in the nine fields of roads, rivers, sand erosion control, sewage systems, ports and harbors, public parks, seacoasts, airports and public rental housing.

Source) Developed by the MLIT from findings of a questionnaire survey conducted on local governments (December 2012).

Seriousness of such status is particularly pronounced in small-size local governments. By size of population, the smaller a local government is, the less it has an understanding of the status of aging infrastructures or the more it uses a simple method of understanding it (Figure 1-3-19).

The reason why local governments have not necessarily taken adequate approaches to maintain and manage their infrastructures is that they have a limited staff of technically versed experts. According to Figure 1-3-20, most local governments cite shorts on budgets and manpower as concerns over aging infrastructures. In addition, about 40% of them mention a lack of technical capabilities as such. These constraints account in part for the inability of the local governments to take smooth responses to aging social infrastructures. Local governments that do

Status of Local Governments' Gaining an Insight into the Status of Aging Infrastructures (by size of population)

not maintain a technical staff tend to resort to simpler methods to understand the aging status or to lack their understanding of the aging status when compared with those that maintain a technical staff. About 40% of the local governments wanting in their understanding of the mid- and long-term costs of infrastructure maintenance, management and upgrade blame it on a shortage of their technical knowledge (Figure 1-3-20 to Figure 1-3-22).