In Japan, many recovery plans were instituted after big disasters such as the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake occurred. This study focuses on recent big disasters in Japan, namely the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake, and clarifies the trends of the measures mentioned in the recovery plans of damaged municipalities according to their local characteristics (locations and population trends). In order to show the trends, the Genre Mention Rate (GMR) and the Measure Mention Rate (MMR) are calculated, which depict the mention rate – the importance that certain genres or measures have. In the municipalities damaged by the tsunami caused by the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, the GMRs of community, infrastructure, and culture are high in rural areas. There is not much difference in terms of population trends. In those damaged by the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, the GMRs of lifestyle and industry are high in rural areas, while the GMRs of community and disaster mitigation are low in urban areas. The GMRs of disaster mitigation and community are also high in areas with increasing populations. In the municipalities damaged by the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake, the GMRs are generally high in urban areas, and low in areas with decreasing populations. In this way, depending on the type of disaster and local characteristics of the affected areas, there are many differences in the trends of the measures needed for recovery.

1. [1] Disaster Management, Cabinet Office of Japan, “Recovery/Reconstruction Handbook,” http://www.bousai.go.jp/kaigirep/houkokusho/hukkousesaku/saigaitaiou/output_html_1/images/dept/cao_fukkou/handbook.pdf (in Japanese) [accessed September 10, 2019]
2. [2] K. Terumoto, “A Study on Constructs of Reconstruction Process in Local Communities A Case Study of an Affected Area after the Niigata Chuetsu Earthquake,” J. Archit. Plann. AIJ, Vol.79, No.706, pp. 2809-2817, 2014 (in Japanese).
3. [3] T. Kato, Y. Bhattacharya, H. Sugata, and R. Otagiri, “The Six Principles of Recovery: A Guideline for Preparing for Future Disaster Recoveries,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.8, No.sp, pp. 737-745, 2013.
4. [4] Y. Murosaki, “Life reconstruction after the Great East Japan Earthquake,” Japanese J. of Human Welfare Studies, Vol.6, No.1, pp. 9-18, 2013 (in Japanese).
5. [5] K. Tamura, H. Hayashi, S. Tatsuki, and R. Kimura, “A Quantitative Verification of the Seven Elements of Socio-Economic Recovery from the Kobe Earthquake,” J. of Social Safety Science, No.3, pp. 33-40, 2001 (in Japanese).
6. [6] N. Maki, T. Ota, and H. Hayashi, “Damage Threshold and Long-term Plans for Disaster Recovery: Experience of Japan,” J. of Social Safety Science, No.9, pp. 29-36, 2007 (in Japanese).
7. [7] K. Koshiyama, Y. Murosaki, and H. Takada, “Study on the Reconstruction Planning of Cities Damaged at the Destructive Fire after World War II,” J. Archit. Environ. Eng. AIJ, No.550, pp. 217-223, 2001 (in Japanese).
8. [8] S. Sato and F. Imamura, “A Macroscopic Analysis of Disaster Recovery Plans in the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster – Focus on Plans of Coastal Municipalities’ Affected by the Tsunami Impact in Iwate and Miyagi Prefecture –,” J. of Japan Society for Natural Disaster Science, Vol.31, No.4, pp. 306-315, 2013 (in Japanese).
9. [9] Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, “The Type of Agricultural Regions,” http://www.maff.go.jp/j/tokei/chiiki_ruikei/setsumei.html (in Japanese) [accessed December 13, 2019]
10. [10] O. Murao and T. Hoshi, “Comparative Study of the Post-Tsunami Recovery Plans After the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.9, No.sp, pp. 743-751, 2014.