Research on Planning Process of  Community Disaster Management Plan at Tsunami-Hit Area

Tadahiro Yoshikawa

doi:10.20965/jdr.2015.p0736

single-dr.php

« previous

JDR Vol.10 No.sp pp. 736-754

(2015)

doi: 10.20965/jdr.2015.p0736

Paper:

Views over last 60 days: 896

Research on Planning Process of Community Disaster Management Plan at Tsunami-Hit Area

Tadahiro Yoshikawa

Laboratory of Urban Safety Planning
2-032 Gobancho, Chiyoda, Tokyo, Japan

Received:

June 1, 2015

Accepted:

August 3, 2015

Published:

September 1, 2015

Keywords:

Great East Japan Earthquake, tsunami, evacuation behavior, community disaster management plan, planning process

Abstract

We cover surveys and planning covering the process from the review process for evacuation behavior to the formulation of disaster management plans after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. We focus on the community disaster management plan for the Ando district of Otsuchi town in Iwate Prefecture. We also examine processes and methods for transforming review results into documentation planning. Based on findings from a survey on evacuation behavior, we evaluate factors influencing evacuation behavior and analyze findings from a “Survey on the Situation of Death in the Ando District.” Based on results, we discuss workshops held on review meetings on disaster management planning for the Ando district neighborhood association. We close by extracting and summarizing the features and problems of Ando district tsunami disaster management.

Cite this article as:

T. Yoshikawa, “Research on Planning Process of Community Disaster Management Plan at Tsunami-Hit Area,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.10 No.sp, pp. 736-754, 2015.

Data files:

References

[1] Announced by the National Police Agency, Japan, June 13, 2012.
[2] Announced by the Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, April 11, 2012.
[3] T. Yoshikawa, “Points on revision of regional disaster management plan: Lessons on tsunami struck area and Tokyo Metropolitan area in the Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster,” Monthly Jichiken, March 2012 (in Japanese).
[4] Special issue on the Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster: Part I-III, Journal of Disaster Research,Vols.7-9, 2012-2014.
[5] I. Nakamura, “Evacuation theory,” in H. Yoshii and A. Tanaka (Eds.), “An introduction to disaster crisis management,” Kobundo, April, 2008 (in Japanese).
[6] Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MLIT), “Survey report on tsunami damage by the Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster (3^rd report) – Investigation results of evacuation status from the tsunami (prompt report),” December 26, 2011. Central Disaster Prevention Council, “Analysis on interview survey (to residents) regarding the evacuation actions in the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster,” “Working group (the seventh meeting) on the earthquake and tsunami measures based on lessons from the Tohoku-Pacific Ocean Earthquake,” August 16, 2011 (in Japanese).
[7] National Land Agency, Meteorological Agency, Fire and Disaster Management Agency “Guidelines on strengthening of tsunami disaster management in regional disaster management plans,” March, 1998. Working Group on Tsunami Evacuation Measures Promotion Manual, “Manual on promotion of tsunami evacuation measures,” March, 2013 (in Japanese).
[8] The Japan Society of Community Disaster Management Plan (SCDMP), Journal of the Japan Society of Community Disaster Management Plan, Vol.1, Sep. 2014 (in Japanese).
[9] List of Otsuchi-cho officials as of April 1, 2012.
[10] Interview to the members of neighborhood association of Ando District, Oct. 5, 2011.
[11] “Review meetings on disaster management planning of the Ando district neighborhood association” consists of members of Ando district neighborhood association and Otsuchi town officials. As academic experts, the late S. Sakai, T. Mugikura, T. Ogasawara, Y. Kikuchi (Iwate University), M. Urano (Waseda University), J. Oyane (Senshu University) etc. participated in the meeting. Laboratory of Urban Safety Planning (Representative: T. Yoshikawa) is in charge of initiatives, surveys, facilitation, and office work of the meeting.
[12] All these results were calculated excluding “no answer.”
[13] Regarding with response rate (rough estimation), because the number of person in each household could not be unidentified, it was conveniently estimated here as follows. First, the number of answered households was calculated as 185, dividing the number of response 296 by average value of household’s person 1.6 which was estimated using answer sheets that the number of persons could be identified. Then dividing the number of answered households (185 households) by the number of distributing households 254 gave 73% of response rate.
[14] Relative ratio means a ratio calculated among the number of answered persons, not the number of answers, to calculate specific weight for each choice in a questionnaire survey allowing multiple answers.
[15] I. Nakamura, April, 2008. Ibid.
[16] In the survey of Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, those who started evacuation within 9 minutes were 27%, 19 minutes were 55%. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, December 26, 2011. Ibid.
[17] A. Tasaki, “Evacuation behavior in volcanic eruption/floods,” in K. Abe, J. Misumi, and K. Okabe (Eds.), “Behavioral science on natural disaster,” Fukumura Shuppan, 1988 (in Japanese).
[18] Reliability of the data in this survey cannot necessarily be guaranteed because the information obtained in this survey contains many secondary information such as eyewitnesses, guesses, rumors by objective persons themselves, their families, residents of the region etc. Here, taking this limit into consideration, we tried extracting the knowledge of victims’ behavior.
[19] K. Yamori, “Qualitative analysis on quantitative data – Case study of answer sheet survey,” Japanese Journal of Qualitative Psychology, Vol.14, 2015.
[20] “Request for Seven Items” is the 7 subjects to promote disaster prevention in Ando District that the review meeting requested as themes to discuss with government of the town, which are 1) building community facilities; 2) developing evacuation places/loads; 3) developing information communication systems; 4) measures for supporting those who require care in disaster; 5) preparing/managing shelters for evacuation; 6) medical care/sanitation; 7) disaster education/out-reach activities.
[21] According to the survey result (bf Fig. 7), 23% of the answer was “provision of support as much as possible,” many of them were answered by members of neighborhood association and volunteer fire brigades/women firefighting volunteers. In the review meeting, there was an opposition of the opinion over the words of “guide evacuation” mentioned in the disaster prevention handbook. By adjustment of facilitator, the expression was changed to “accompany for evacuation”.
[22] A volunteer fire brigade adopts a “15 minutes rule” as time to stop rescuing/supporting others after an earthquake and start evacuation of themselves. This “15 minutes” corresponded to the “15 minutes” found at “evaluation of staring time for evacuation” in bf Table 4, hence the time should be close to the real feeling of evacuators in this time.
[23] The conventional teaching in tsunami disaster prevention that once a tsunami has coming, each one mustn’t care anything, even its parents, and should escape to higher place.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationa License.

[1] [1] Announced by the National Police Agency, Japan, June 13, 2012.

[2] [2] Announced by the Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, April 11, 2012.

[3] [3] T. Yoshikawa, “Points on revision of regional disaster management plan: Lessons on tsunami struck area and Tokyo Metropolitan area in the Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster,” Monthly Jichiken, March 2012 (in Japanese).

[4] [4] Special issue on the Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster: Part I-III, Journal of Disaster Research,Vols.7-9, 2012-2014.

[5] [5] I. Nakamura, “Evacuation theory,” in H. Yoshii and A. Tanaka (Eds.), “An introduction to disaster crisis management,” Kobundo, April, 2008 (in Japanese).

[6] [6] Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MLIT), “Survey report on tsunami damage by the Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster (3^rd report) – Investigation results of evacuation status from the tsunami (prompt report),” December 26, 2011. Central Disaster Prevention Council, “Analysis on interview survey (to residents) regarding the evacuation actions in the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster,” “Working group (the seventh meeting) on the earthquake and tsunami measures based on lessons from the Tohoku-Pacific Ocean Earthquake,” August 16, 2011 (in Japanese).

[7] [7] National Land Agency, Meteorological Agency, Fire and Disaster Management Agency “Guidelines on strengthening of tsunami disaster management in regional disaster management plans,” March, 1998. Working Group on Tsunami Evacuation Measures Promotion Manual, “Manual on promotion of tsunami evacuation measures,” March, 2013 (in Japanese).

[8] [8] The Japan Society of Community Disaster Management Plan (SCDMP), Journal of the Japan Society of Community Disaster Management Plan, Vol.1, Sep. 2014 (in Japanese).

[9] [9] List of Otsuchi-cho officials as of April 1, 2012.

[10] [10] Interview to the members of neighborhood association of Ando District, Oct. 5, 2011.

[11] [11] “Review meetings on disaster management planning of the Ando district neighborhood association” consists of members of Ando district neighborhood association and Otsuchi town officials. As academic experts, the late S. Sakai, T. Mugikura, T. Ogasawara, Y. Kikuchi (Iwate University), M. Urano (Waseda University), J. Oyane (Senshu University) etc. participated in the meeting. Laboratory of Urban Safety Planning (Representative: T. Yoshikawa) is in charge of initiatives, surveys, facilitation, and office work of the meeting.

[12] [12] All these results were calculated excluding “no answer.”

[13] [13] Regarding with response rate (rough estimation), because the number of person in each household could not be unidentified, it was conveniently estimated here as follows. First, the number of answered households was calculated as 185, dividing the number of response 296 by average value of household’s person 1.6 which was estimated using answer sheets that the number of persons could be identified. Then dividing the number of answered households (185 households) by the number of distributing households 254 gave 73% of response rate.

[14] [14] Relative ratio means a ratio calculated among the number of answered persons, not the number of answers, to calculate specific weight for each choice in a questionnaire survey allowing multiple answers.

[15] [15] I. Nakamura, April, 2008. Ibid.

[16] [16] In the survey of Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, those who started evacuation within 9 minutes were 27%, 19 minutes were 55%. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, December 26, 2011. Ibid.

[17] [17] A. Tasaki, “Evacuation behavior in volcanic eruption/floods,” in K. Abe, J. Misumi, and K. Okabe (Eds.), “Behavioral science on natural disaster,” Fukumura Shuppan, 1988 (in Japanese).

[18] [18] Reliability of the data in this survey cannot necessarily be guaranteed because the information obtained in this survey contains many secondary information such as eyewitnesses, guesses, rumors by objective persons themselves, their families, residents of the region etc. Here, taking this limit into consideration, we tried extracting the knowledge of victims’ behavior.

[19] [19] K. Yamori, “Qualitative analysis on quantitative data – Case study of answer sheet survey,” Japanese Journal of Qualitative Psychology, Vol.14, 2015.

[20] [20] “Request for Seven Items” is the 7 subjects to promote disaster prevention in Ando District that the review meeting requested as themes to discuss with government of the town, which are 1) building community facilities; 2) developing evacuation places/loads; 3) developing information communication systems; 4) measures for supporting those who require care in disaster; 5) preparing/managing shelters for evacuation; 6) medical care/sanitation; 7) disaster education/out-reach activities.

[21] [21] According to the survey result (bf Fig. 7), 23% of the answer was “provision of support as much as possible,” many of them were answered by members of neighborhood association and volunteer fire brigades/women firefighting volunteers. In the review meeting, there was an opposition of the opinion over the words of “guide evacuation” mentioned in the disaster prevention handbook. By adjustment of facilitator, the expression was changed to “accompany for evacuation”.

[22] [22] A volunteer fire brigade adopts a “15 minutes rule” as time to stop rescuing/supporting others after an earthquake and start evacuation of themselves. This “15 minutes” corresponded to the “15 minutes” found at “evaluation of staring time for evacuation” in bf Table 4, hence the time should be close to the real feeling of evacuators in this time.

[23] [23] The conventional teaching in tsunami disaster prevention that once a tsunami has coming, each one mustn’t care anything, even its parents, and should escape to higher place.