2.1. Flood DRR Education

In Japan, flood DRR education has been implemented at schools using instructional, supplementary reading, and regional materials prepared by boards of education and local governments. These instructional materials and documents are centered on learning basic knowledge regarding the causes of floods, their damage and effects, preparedness, and evacuation information.

In particular, areas that have experienced flood damage have developed instructional materials and learning practices based on lessons learned from disasters. For example, in Okayama Prefecture, which was affected by the July 2018 heavy rainfall disaster, issues and improvement measures were identified to improve school disaster resilience, enhance teachers’ response capacity, and strengthen DRR education ⁵. In Kumamoto Prefecture, which experienced the July 2020 heavy rainfall disaster, instructional content and points to consider were presented for systematically implementing DRR education and evacuation drills to foster students’ ability to protect their own lives from disasters ⁶. In Miyagi Prefecture, based on flood damage caused by Typhoon Hagibis of 2019 and other disasters, DRR education has been promoted to foster students’ ability to think, judge, and act proactively based on local disaster characteristics ⁷. In Niigata Prefecture, learning is positioned to emphasize not only understanding the mechanisms of floods and the damage they cause, but also assessing and conducting DRR actions independently ⁸.

2.2. Studies on Understanding Floods and Evacuation Judgment Using Map Information

In flood DRR education, in addition to acquiring basic knowledge about floods, learning that enables students to grasp local risks using map information and associate this understanding with evacuation judgment is important. In such learning, in addition to paper hazard maps, the use of map information that allows users to check flood risks on the Web has become widespread. For instance, the “Overlapping Hazard Maps,” operated by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, is a web service that allows users to superimpose hazard information on floods, landslides, tsunamis, and other hazards on a map ⁹. My Timeline is positioned as an initiative for considering preparedness in advance by organizing evacuation actions during water-related disasters chronologically ¹⁰. These resources are important as they provide a basis for grasping local flood risks and considering evacuation actions based on that information.

Moreover, learning to understand disasters based on local topography and inundation characteristics is important. Iida and Kubota ¹¹ revealed that understanding topography is important in learning about inundation prediction, and that the use of 3DCG and physical models improves the accuracy of inundation prediction compared with the sole usage of two-dimensional topographic maps. Further, as a future issue, they highlight the requirement for learning that combines topographical understanding and flood hazard maps.

Furthermore, presenting a hazard map is insufficient in itself; additionally, students must acquire the map literacy required to interpret the map and associate it with judgment. Murakoshi ¹² showed that understanding hazard maps involves not only interpreting symbols and legends, but also inferring information not directly depicted on the map and assessing the limitations or reliability of information. In addition, Maebayashi and Urakawa ¹³ revealed that hazard map representations may lead to misinterpretation and suggested the requirement for educational design that supports interpretation and judgment rather than merely presenting information.

Thus, these previous studies highlight the importance of topographical understanding, hazard map interpretation, and map literacy in flood DRR education. However, they primarily focus on individual factors or cognitive issues, and do not sufficiently examine how to integrate those factors to design lessons in which students learn to grasp local flood risks and identify evacuation sites and evacuation routes. Therefore, even in flood DRR education using Web-GIS teaching materials, designing learning that connects topographical understanding and hazard map understanding with the identification of local risks and evacuation judgment is necessary.

2.3. Studies on DRR Education Using Web-GIS

As a study on the use of Web-GIS in school education, Oda et al. ¹⁴ developed a DRR education training program using Web-GIS for teachers, using flood and landslide disasters as case examples, intended for the high school subject Geography Comprehensive. They highlighted the requirement to strengthen DRR education, issues related to teachers’ DRR knowledge, and their ability to design lessons, and demonstrated the requirement to develop teaching materials and lesson plans and provide teacher support to enable the use of Web-GIS in school settings. This reveals that, in flood DRR education as well, introducing Web-GIS as a technological tool and designing educational programs that can be implemented as lessons by teachers is essential.

Among educational studies using existing Web hazard maps or GIS, previous studies have revealed that Web-based hazard maps can facilitate the grasp of hazardous areas and spatial understanding ¹⁵. Moreover, studies on GIS use in school DRR have revealed that GIS is effective in visualizing hazards, sharing local risks, and supporting safety management ¹⁶. In addition, an international study on flood education programs reflecting regional characteristics demonstrated that the effectiveness of DRR learning is enhanced when flood information specific to local areas is incorporated ¹⁷. These studies indicate that digital maps and Web-GIS can serve not only as means of presenting information, but also as a learning foundation for supporting students’ understanding of local risks and decision-making in DRR education.

In the area of flood DRR education, a previous study empirically verified an earlier version of the Web-GIS teaching material “YOU@RISK Your Flood Evacuation,” developed by the National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience (NIED), with elementary school students ¹⁸. This study highlighted that the learning content required for students to consider evacuation actions and destinations based on weather information, evacuation information, and hazard maps was not adequately presented in school DRR materials, and that many teaching materials developed by DRR specialists were difficult for teachers to use without the assistance of specialists. Further, it highlighted the requirement to help students form concrete images of disasters and strengthen learning for information-based decision-making through practice and evaluation.

Based on these previous studies, flood DRR education requires learning in which students not only acquire basic knowledge about floods, but also understand the relationship between local topography and flood risk and use map information to decide evacuation sites and routes. Moreover, the earlier version of the Web-GIS teaching material “YOU@RISK Your Flood Evacuation” (Fig. 1) had issues such as limited target areas, operational burden at the time of introduction, burden on teachers using the material, requirement for further consideration of elementary and junior high school students, and requirement to strengthen learning that helps students form concrete images of disasters and make decisions based on information.

Thus, a key issue in flood DRR education is how to develop a program that can be implemented in school settings and that integrates the understanding of basic knowledge with evacuation decision-making based on map information, including organizing and reflecting on decision results.

2.4. Objective of This Study

The study aims to develop a flood DRR education program to assist junior high school students in acquiring basic knowledge about floods, understanding the relationship between local topography and flood risk, and developing the ability to use map information to decide evacuation sites and routes, and evaluate the educational effectiveness of this program through school-based practice conducted by teachers. Specifically, we used the Web-GIS teaching material “YOU@RISK for Children—Flood,” developed by NIED, to structure a program that can be implemented in school settings and to evaluate its learning effects.

3.1. Program Background

The flood DRR education program examined in this study is based on a DRR education program for flood disasters (hereinafter, the Guide program), which the authors helped develop and which is presented as a practical example in the Practical Guide for Disaster Education (Junior and Senior High School Edition) compiled by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). The page presenting the program is presented in Fig. 2.

The Guide program comprises three steps: Step 1 concerns learning basic knowledge, including the characteristics of floods, damage and effects, preparedness, and evacuation information; and Steps 2 and 3 use the Web-GIS teaching material “YOU@RISK for Children—Flood” to examine local flood risks, evacuation sites, evacuation routes, and evacuation actions.

Although we retained the three-step structure of the Guide program, the Web-GIS teaching material “YOU@RISK for Children—Flood” used in this study was functionally improved based on requests from schools. Specifically, this involved the addition of the screen “4 Let’s review what we learned,” in which students review the results of their decisions, to the previous three-stage operational process. Accordingly, the learning content and lesson plans of Steps 2 and 3 were modified in this study to reflect the learning process from decision-making to review.

Therefore, the program discussed in this study is based on the Guide program but has been reconfigured, with revised learning content and instructional methods, so that teachers can implement it in class using the functionally enhanced “YOU@RISK for Children—Flood.”

3.2. Theoretical Framework of Program Development

This study employed the ADDIE model, based on Instructional Design (ID) theory, to develop the flood DRR education program. ID theory is a theory and methodology for systematically designing and improving instructional materials, lessons, and learning environments to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal of educational activities ^19,20. The ADDIE model is a framework for systematically developing learning programs using the five stages of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation ²⁰. It has been used in studies on DRR education program development ^21,22. Recently, in Japan, it has been applied not only in the field of DRR, but also for developing various educational programs ^23,24,25,26.

In flood DRR education, in addition to acquiring an understanding of basic knowledge about floods, learning must involve understanding based on connecting local topography with flood risks and using map information to make judgments about evacuation sites and routes. Furthermore, to develop a program that is continuously implementable in school settings, the educational framework must be designed to include the operability of the teaching material, suitability for learners, and lesson planning. Therefore, this study employed the ADDIE model to organize these elements as a series of processes: analyzing learning content, designing learning objectives and instructional processes, developing teaching materials and lesson plans, implementing the program in schools, and evaluating and improving the program based on the implementation results.

The “Analyze” phase involved confirming the Guide program and requests from schools; the “Design” phase involved organizing the three steps and identifying the learning objectives; the “Develop” phase involved developing the teaching material and lesson plans corresponding to “YOU@RISK for Children—Flood”; the “Implement” phase involved implementation at two junior high schools; and the “Evaluate” phase involved analyzing the pre-, post-, and follow-up responses to the flood questionnaire and reflecting the results in the improved program. Thus, based on the ADDIE model, we reconfigured the Guide program, introduced improvements based on the implementation results, and re-evaluated the learning effects of the improved program.

3.3. Organizing the Analysis Stage for Program Development

At the analysis stage of the ADDIE model, we checked the content and structure of the Guide program, and identified the conditions required to apply it to school settings. In the Guide program, Step 1 concerns learning basic knowledge, including the characteristics of floods, damage and effects, preparedness, and evacuation information, and Steps 2 and 3 use the version of “YOU@RISK for Children—Flood” available at the time the Guide was published to consider evacuation sites, evacuation routes, and evacuation actions based on local flood risks ³.

Rather than redesigning the learning content of the Guide program from the beginning, we retained the three-step structure and supplemented the explanatory content of the lesson plans based on expert knowledge regarding flood disasters and weather information while checking the content with teachers. Further, the learning sequence was modified to correspond with the functionally enhanced “YOU@RISK for Children—Flood.” Thus, at the analysis stage, we identified the structure of the existing program, implementation conditions in school settings, modifications to the teaching material’s functions, and learning content that should be stressed in lessons, so that the process would connect to the following stages of design and development.

Specifically, we identified the content regarding the objectives, preparations, flow of learning, and points to consider in instruction, assuming a 50-minute lesson for each step. In particular, we identified points in Steps 2 and 3 that needed to be modified to correspond to the addition of the screen “4 Let’s review what we learned,” where students review the judgment results, in the revised “YOU@RISK for Children—Flood.”

3.4. Program Structure and Learning Sequence

In the flood DRR education program implemented in this study, each step was structured as a 50-minute lesson based on the three-step structure of the Guide program. The step structure, learning objectives, and corresponding questionnaire items of the program are presented in Table 1. The specific wording of the flood questionnaire items is provided in Appendix A. Overall, Step 1 involved learning basic knowledge about flood disasters and preparedness, Step 2 involved using the Web-GIS teaching material “YOU@RISK for Children—Flood” to grasp local flood risks and consider response actions during floods, and Step 3 involved enhancing students’ ability to respond to flood disasters through group discussions and presentations.

Step 1, “Learning about flood disasters and thinking about preparedness against floods,” covered the characteristics of floods, their damage and effects, mechanisms of floods, flood countermeasures, and evacuation information. Emphasis was placed on developing foundational knowledge that provides a basis for interpreting information from hazard maps and Web-GIS and making evacuation decisions in the subsequent learning steps.

Step 2, “Thinking about response actions to protect oneself from floods,” was designed so that students used tablet devices to operate “YOU@RISK for Children—Flood” and individually identified inundation areas, dangerous locations, evacuation sites, and evacuation routes while checking flood risks around their own location or school. Example screens of the Web-GIS teaching material used in this study are presented in Fig. 3. In addition, according to the revised YOU@RISK, students used the screen “4 Let’s review what we learned” at the end of the lesson to organize the grounds for their decisions and reflect on them, thereby verbalizing their own judgments.

Step 3, “Enhancing the ability to respond to flood disasters,” was designed so that students investigated flood risks at specified locations or surrounding areas in groups, based on the individual decisions made in Step 2, and compared and discussed the reasons for selecting evacuation sites and routes. Furthermore, by summarizing and presenting the results of group discussions and reflecting on their own decisions considering others’ views, this step aimed to enhance students’ ability to make decisions based on local risks.

As presented above, this program comprises a three-step learning process, involving understanding basic knowledge about floods, using Web-GIS to grasp local risks and make decisions about evacuation sites and routes, and sharing and reflecting on the decision outcomes, according to the learning objectives of the three steps.

3.5. Outline of Target Schools and Implementation

To conduct a practical verification of the flood DRR education program at junior high schools in areas where flood disasters had occurred in the past, the program was conducted at two schools: Murakami Higashi Junior High School and Mitsuke Junior High School in Niigata Prefecture. The implementation schedules are presented in Table 2. The lessons in this program were implemented by the teachers at each school. Before implementation, the research team shared the lesson plans, teaching materials, lesson procedures, and instructions for using “YOU@RISK for Children—Flood” with the teachers at each school. During implementation, the research team checked the progress of the lessons based on the lesson plans.

Practical Verification 1 involved 58 third-year students in two classes at Murakami Higashi Junior High School, a municipal junior high school in Murakami City, Niigata Prefecture. The school is located in an area where flood damage occurred owing to the heavy rainfall in August 2022, and the program involved students attending school in the area (Fig. 4).

Practical Verification 2 involved 81 first-year students in three classes at Mitsuke Junior High School, a municipal junior high school in Mitsuke City, Niigata Prefecture. Mitsuke Junior High School is located in an area with a history of flood damage from the July 13, 2004 flood disaster, and this implementation targeted first-year junior high school students who belonged to a generation that had not directly experienced that disaster (Fig. 5).

Although both schools are located in areas where flood disasters had occurred in the past, the targeted students belonged to different grades and differed in the time elapsed since the respective disasters. This study primarily aimed not to compare these differences, but to verify the learning effects of the improved program by re-implementing it at a second school after making program improvements based on the results of the initial implementation.

3.6. Structure of the Flood Questionnaire

This study distributed a flood questionnaire to verify the learning effects of the program. The questionnaire comprises items necessary to grasp students’ “understanding of basic knowledge about floods” and “changes in learning achievement related to evacuation decision-making using map information,” which correspond to the objectives of this study. Thus, the questionnaire items were positioned as items that directly assess the learning objectives set for each step. The learning objectives of each step and corresponding questionnaire items are presented in Table 1.

The flood questionnaire comprised 16 items rated on a four-point scale. The responses were “I can do this well (4 points),” “I can do this somewhat (3 points),” “I cannot do this very well (2 points),” and “I can hardly do this (1 point).” The four-point scale was adopted without a neutral option to clearly identify the direction of learning achievement. The questionnaire was answered by each student using their tablet device.

The questionnaire items were structured to correspond to the learning content stressed in each step, allowing us to grasp the achievement levels related to basic knowledge about floods in Step 1, understanding flood risks and evacuation decision-making based on map information in Step 2, and collaborative discussions and presentations in Step 3.

This study assessed the learning achievement level through students’ self-evaluations of the questionnaire items corresponding to the learning objectives. This is based on the approach in ID theory that program evaluation is conducted based on learners’ performance ²⁷.

We explained the objectives and methods of the study to the target schools, and conducted the survey after obtaining approval from the school principals for research cooperation and data handling. The students’ responses to the questionnaire were voluntary, and the results were treated so that individuals could not be identified. Further, it was explained in advance that the data would be used solely for research purposes.

3.7. Analysis Methods

To verify the learning effects of the flood DRR education program, we analyzed the responses to the flood questionnaire. For the pre-post comparison, we analyzed the responses of participants who responded at both time points, and for the three-time-point comparison including the follow-up survey, we analyzed the responses of participants who responded at all three time points.

First, to grasp the changes between before program implementation (first time point) and after program implementation (second time point), we examined the transformations in the mean scores for each of the questionnaire items from Q1 to Q16, and conducted paired-samples \(t\)-tests. Subsequently, to grasp the retention of the learning effects, we used the results of the three time points, comprising the first, second, and follow-up (third) time points, to conduct a repeated-measures ANOVA for each questionnaire item from Q1 to Q16, and analyzed changes over time. The significance level was set at 5% for the statistical tests. In the pre-post comparison, we applied Holm’s method to correct for multiple comparisons. For effect sizes, Cohen’s \(\mathit{dz}\) was calculated for the paired-samples \(t\)-tests, and partial \(\eta^2\) was calculated for the repeated-measures ANOVA.

Furthermore, based on the item-by-item analysis results obtained at the first school, we identified items for which improvement was limited and made revisions to the corresponding learning content and instructional methods. Subsequently, the improved program was implemented at the second school, and the learning effects were re-evaluated using the same questionnaire. In this manner, we verified the learning effects of the flood DRR education program over the three time points of pre-, post-, and follow-up surveys, while using the analysis results of the first implementation to improve the program.

4.1. Practical Verification 1: Murakami Higashi Junior High School

This section presents the analysis results based on the flood questionnaire for the first implementation at Murakami Higashi Junior High School.

4.1.1. Verification of Learning Effects Based on the Flood Questionnaire

Based on the valid responses of students who responded at both the pre- and post-implementation time points (\({n=56}\)), we conducted paired-samples \(t\)-tests for each of the items from Q1 to Q16. As Fig. 6 presents, the post-implementation mean scores were higher for all items. Among the pre-implementation results, the mean scores of Q2 and Q8 were relatively high, while those of Q6, Q9, and Q10 were relatively low. Moreover, among the post-implementation results, the mean scores of Q11–Q13 and Q5 were high, while those of Q6 and Q4 were relatively low.

The results of the paired-samples \(t\)-tests demonstrated significant differences in all items except Q2 and Q8. Specifically, Q4 revealed a significant difference at the 5% level, while Q1, Q3, Q5–Q7, and Q9–Q16 revealed significant differences at the 1% level. However, no significant differences were observed for Q2 and Q8. For the items with significant differences, the effect sizes ranged from \(\mathit{dz}=0.52\) to 1.25, indicating medium to large effects.

Regarding magnitudes of change, items related to the interpretation of map information and decision-making about evacuation, as represented by Q9–Q13, displayed relatively large increases, indicating clear improvements immediately following learning. Moreover, Q2 and Q8 demonstrated some increases in mean scores, but these increases were smaller than those of the other items and were not statistically significant. In particular, Q2 had a relatively high mean score at Time 1 (2.91), suggesting that students may already have had some prior knowledge of the damage and impacts caused by floods before the lesson. In addition, the relatively high baseline score may have limited the magnitude of score improvement, and these factors may partly explain why no significant difference was observed for Q2.

The results of the first implementation indicate that the students’ self-evaluations corresponding to the learning objectives improved in items related to understanding flood mechanisms, evacuation information, and hazard maps, grasping flood risks using map information, considering evacuation sites and routes, and engaging in collaborative discussions and presentations. Thus, regarding statistical significance and effect sizes, the program suggested certain learning effects across the learning process, from acquiring basic knowledge about floods and grasping local risks using Web-GIS to sharing decisions through discussions and presentations. The lack of significant differences in Q2 and Q8 indicates that the improvement immediately following learning was limited with regard to understanding the damage and effects of floods and safe evacuation sites compared with other items.

4.2. Practical Verification 2: Mitsuke Junior High School

This section presents the analysis results based on the flood questionnaire for the second implementation at Mitsuke Junior High School.

4.2.1. Verification of Learning Effects Based on the Flood Questionnaire

Based on the valid responses of students who responded at both the pre- and post-implementation time points (\({n=78}\)), we conducted paired-samples \(t\)-tests for each of the items from Q1 to Q16. As Fig. 7 reveals, the post-implementation mean scores were higher for all items. Among the pre-implementation results, the mean scores of Q15, Q8, and Q2 were relatively high, while those of Q9, Q10, Q6, and Q7 were relatively low. Among the post-implementation results, the mean scores of Q2, Q14, Q8, and Q12 were high, while those of Q9 and Q16 were relatively low.

The results of the paired-samples \(t\)-tests revealed significant differences at the 1% level in all items. The effect sizes for the items ranged from \(\mathit{dz}=0.65\) to 1.46, indicating medium to large effects. Therefore, in the improved program, improvements in students’ self-evaluations were confirmed for all items corresponding to the learning objectives regarding statistical significance and effect sizes.

Regarding magnitudes of change, items related to the interpretation of map information and decision-making about evacuation, as represented by Q9 and Q10, displayed large increases, indicating clear improvements immediately following learning. Moreover, the increases in Q2 and Q15, although relatively small, depicted statistically significant differences. In particular, the finding that significant differences were observed for all items, including Q2 and Q8, for which no significant differences were observed in the first implementation, indicated that improvements in learning achievement as assessed through self-evaluation were confirmed across a broad range of items in the improved program.

4.3. Retention of Learning Effects Over Time

In addition to the effect immediately following learning, this study investigated the retention of learning effects over time. Therefore, the scores of the flood questionnaire at three different time points, that is, pre-implementation (first time point), post-implementation (second time point), and follow-up (third time point), were compared, and a repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted for each item.

At Murakami Higashi Junior High School (\({n=56}\)), significant changes over time were observed in 15 items except Q2. Specifically, Q8 revealed a significant transformation over time at the 5% level, while Q1, Q3–Q7, and Q9–Q16 revealed significant transformations over time at the 1% level (Table 3). The partial \(\eta^2\) values for the items with significant changes over time at Murakami Higashi Junior High School ranged from .08 to .46, indicating medium or larger effects for many items, although the effect sizes varied across items. Regarding the mean scores, those at the second time point were the highest in many items, while those at the third time point were higher than at the first time point, although somewhat lower than at the second time point. In particular, items related to the interpretation of map information and evacuation decision-making, as represented by Q9–Q13, displayed relatively large increases immediately following learning, and exceeded the levels at the first time point in the follow-up survey.

At Mitsuke Junior High School (\({n=78}\)), significant changes over time at the 1% level were observed in all items, Q1–Q16 (Table 4). The partial \(\eta^2\) values for the items at Mitsuke Junior High School ranged from .20 to .53, indicating large effect sizes for all items. Furthermore, the scores at the second time point were the highest in all items, while those at the third time point were higher than at the first time point, although somewhat lower than at the second time point.

The above results demonstrate that, in both Murakami Higashi Junior High School and Mitsuke Junior High School, the scores increased immediately following learning, and although they declined to some extent in the follow-up, they mostly exceeded the levels prior to learning. The levels of decline differed among items, and in particular, items related to the use of map information and evacuation decision-making displayed relatively large increases immediately following learning.

5.1. Educational Effectiveness of the Flood DRR Education Program

The above results suggest that the present program, which was based on the Guide program and whose learning content and lesson plans were improved to correspond to the functionally enhanced “YOU@RISK for Children—Flood,” demonstrated a certain degree of educational effectiveness as a flood DRR education program targeting junior high school students. A key feature of this program lies in providing a concrete form of the learning process, whereby, in addition to the acquisition of basic knowledge about floods, visualization of local flood risks using the Web-GIS teaching material is connected to decisions about evacuation sites and routes.

Flood DRR education in previous studies has often centered on acquiring basic knowledge and understanding evacuation preparedness, and has not sufficiently developed concrete learning processes in which an understanding of local topography and flood risks is linked to map information and connected to evacuation decision-making and actions. In contrast, in the present study, we structured a learning process in which basic knowledge is formed in Step 1, individual decisions are made based on map information in Step 2, and those decisions are discussed in groups and the results presented in Step 3.

Therefore, this study can be positioned as a practical demonstration of a lesson program for junior high school students that connects “knowing” to “making judgments” in flood DRR education by using the ADDIE model as a framework for developing and improving the educational program and by sequentially linking basic knowledge about floods to the recognition of local risks, selection of evacuation sites and routes, and collaborative discussion and explanation.

As the questionnaire used in this study employs a self-evaluation scale, the results represent improvements in the achievement levels related to students’ knowledge acquisition and evacuation decision-making. The evaluation was based on students’ self-evaluations of their achievement of the learning objectives set for the school-based lesson practice; it did not assess differences according to students’ attributes, personal disaster experience, family environment, or other background factors, nor did it evaluate the feasibility of evacuation decision-making or evacuation behavior considering individual circumstances during an actual evacuation.

From this standpoint, the improvement in achievement levels corresponding to the learning objectives brought about by this program provides certain evidence of its learning effects as a flood DRR education program.

5.2. Program Improvement and Re-Evaluation

In this study, we improved the program based on the results of the first implementation, then re-evaluated its learning effects in a second implementation. In the first implementation, issues were observed regarding understanding the damage and effects of floods and safe evacuation sites, forming concrete images of the local area, and verbalizing the reasons for evacuation decisions. To address these issues, the improved program incorporated modifications by employing photographs, providing more detailed explanations, adjusting the time for operating Web-GIS, and altering the method of site selection.

Consequently, significant differences were observed in the second verification in all items, including those that displayed limited improvements in the first implementation. This suggests the effectiveness of revising the learning content and instructional methods based on statistical analysis to improve the quality of flood DRR education programs.

However, this study did not conduct a strict comparison between the two schools, and the students’ grades and local conditions differed. Therefore, the results obtained at the second school cannot be solely attributed to the effect of program modifications. Nevertheless, the finding that the content revised based on the issues identified in the first implementation produced positive results in the second implementation provides evidence of the practical validity of the improved program.

5.3. Retention of Learning Effects and Future Challenges

Although the effects immediately following learning were confirmed, the scores of many items decreased in the follow-up survey. However, the average scores in the follow-up survey at both Murakami Higashi and Mitsuke Junior High Schools, for the most part, exceeded those before learning. This suggests that the program not only raised the achievement levels of comprehension and decision-making immediately following learning, but also maintained these effects to some extent at the time of the follow-up survey.

In particular, content such as the use of map information to identify flood risks and evacuation sites and routes improved significantly immediately following learning, but subsequently declined with the passage of time. These types of learning content are unlikely to be firmly retained after a single lesson, but are likely to become established by repeatedly viewing maps, interpreting them, and explaining one’s own judgments. Thus, in future flood DRR education, it will be necessary to provide learning opportunities on a continuous basis, in which, in addition to one-time lessons, periodic reviews or relearning sessions are conducted and linked to local hazard maps and evacuation drills.

The present study targeted two schools in Niigata Prefecture, where the targeted grades and local characteristics differed. Therefore, caution is required when generalizing the present findings to other areas or different grades. However, our approach, in which a program based on the Guide program was improved and its learning effects empirically verified with junior high school students in flood-affected areas, should present useful implications in developing flood DRR education programs in the future.