community as the resilient factor: the diverse role of communities in the recovery process from the...

ISESEA5

Community as the resilient factor?The diverse role of communities in the recovery process from the 2011 tsunami in Japan

MIYAUCHI Taisuke, Ph.D.Hokkaido [email protected]

1. Background

March 11, 2011, Great East Japan Earthquake

Kitakami

Sendai

Area description of Kitakami, Miyagi, Japan

• 20 communities (hamlets)• Population:

3,896 (Feb., 2011) -> 2,726 (Oct., 2015)

• Population over 65 yrs: 30%• Main industries: fishing (142

engaged), agriculture (86), construction (305), manufacturing

(337), amongst others.

Kitakami

Sendai

Ozashi

Kotaki

KozashiAikawa

Kodomari

OmuroKomuro

ShirahamaNagashioya

TategamiTsukihama

Yoshihama

Oppa

Kayamazaki

Nichoyachi

GyoninmaeOsu

Onagawa

NagaoHonchi

Kitakami

1 km

Casualties in Kitakami

Population before tsunami 3,896

Death toll 276

Households before tsunami 1151

Houses destroyed 　 1096

Ozashi (1)

Kotaki (2)

Kozashi (4)

Aikawa (15)

Kodomari (1)

Omuro (15)Komuro (2)

Shirahama (29)Nagashioya (8)

Tategami (22)Tsukihama (53)

Yoshihama (27)

Oppa (45)

Kayamazaki (23)

Nichoyachi (5)

Gyoninmae (2)Osu (5)

Onagawa (6)

Nagao (7)Honchi (4)

Kitakami

1 km

( ): Death toll

Rebuilding process

1st stage:Emergency help

Evacuation shelter

2nd stage:Temporary housing

3rd stage:Rebuilding projects (fishery, infrastructure,

welfare, housing relocation, etc.)

Army, Government, Civil society groups, Volunteers

Government, Local government, Civil society groups

Government, Local government, Civil society groups, professionals

Workshops on relocation projects

“Community!“

“Community!“

“Community!“

“Community!“

“Community!“

“Community” in the narratives

‘Community’ in the residents’ narratives comprises their lost hamlets, traditions, social links and hopes for the future.

– ‘I would like to relocate together with neighbors. I want to

keep “community”. ’ (Woman, 2011)– ‘Our evacuation shelter was well organised by the

community leaders, and “community” contributes to our rehabilitation. I am proud of the community cohesion.’ (Man, 2011)

Community and resilience

• Available literature stresses on the role of the community for post-disaster resilience.

• Miller and Rivera, 2011, Community Disaster Recovery and Resiliency, CRC Press.

• Amaratunga and Haigh, 2011, Post-Disaster Reconstruction of Built Environment: Rebuilding and Resilience, Wiley-Blackwell.

• Urano et al eds., 2007, Fukko Komyuniti Ron Nyumon (An Introduction to Community Rebuilding from Disaster), Tokyo: Kobundo.

Variation of “community” in the narratives

• Hamlets (residential communities)• Neighboring hamlets• Friend networks• Kinship groups• New-type community groups

• Locals need a combination of different types of communities.

Community as problem

• For some, communities are sometimes regarded as a ‘burden’.

e.g. obligatory community work, no longer ‘useless’ community property, etc.

• In the relocation projects, two different views exist:

Maintaining traditional communities or forming new communities?

Is community a resilience factor or an obstacle?

Does community really have a role in the rebuilding process?

What is the role of the community for individuals?

Purpose

To examine how and what kind of communities function or dysfunction to serve in the process of disaster recovery.

Method

• Qualitative and action research• Mainly semi-structured interviews with key and

lay persons–Repeated interviews with over 50 residents.

• Involvement in the community rebuilding process in collaboration with local government, NGOs, fishermen’s cooperative, and the community.

• Research since 2004.

Outline

1. Background2. Traditional communities3. Change in community and new types

of communities4. Communities in a relocation process5. Conclusions

2. traditional communities

2. traditional communities

Keiyakuko ( 契約講 ): “center in community”

• Traditional community organization in some areas of northern Japan• Each hamlet has Keiyakuko.• Autonomous governing system• Mutual aid system• Conducts traditional rituals• Handles resource management systems or

common property systems• Owns communal property (e.g., forest land, bamboo

forest)• Owns resource usufruct right (e.g., seaweed, forest

resources)

2. traditional communitiesKeiyakuko ( 契約講 ): key in resource managementResource Management body BeneficiaryAbalone fishermen’s cooperative householdFish fishermen’s cooperative householdAquaculture (wakame, kelp, and scallop)

fishermen’s cooperative household

Sea urchin Keiyakuko householdWakame seaweed and kelp collecting

Keiyakuko Keiyakukoand household

Seashore seaweeds Keiyakuko Keiyakukoand household

State forest government and Keiyakuko

household

Communal forest property


Pampas grass Keiyakuko householdCommunal land property


20

• Each community has their own resource management system.

2. traditional communitiesKeiyakuko ( 契約講 ): key in resource management

2. traditional communitiesOther organizations• Inside village

• Kannonko ( 観音講） : young married women’s organization

• Shinrui （親類） : clan, mutual help group

• Shobodan （消防団） (fire brigade): young men’s organization

• Inter-village• Shinseki （親戚） : kinship network

• Gakku （学区） (school district): inter-village community

Multi-layered community system with the core of Keiyakuko

Ozashi

Kotaki

KozashiAikawa

Kodomari

OmuroKomuro

ShirahamaNagashioya

TategamiTsukihama

Yoshihama

Oppa

Kayamazaki

Nichoyachi

GyoninmaeOsu

Onagawa

NagaoHonchi

Kitakami

1 km

Aikawa Gakku

Yoshihama GakkuHashiura Gakku

2. traditional communitiesFunction in disaster• Traditional communities have functioned

• In evacuation shelters: as organizations that manage life in shelters.

• In the rehabilitation process: providing cohesion for rebuilding.

• In relocation projects: as effective bodies for consensus building.

3. Change in community and new types of communities


Change in Keiyakuko• Some Keiyakukos have been converted to

Jichikai ( 自治会） .<- Keiyakuko as burden.

• Jichikai: a non-traditional community organization. No property.

• After the tsunami some Keiyaukos was dissolved.

• Keiyakukos are, in some cases, dysfunctional in relocation projects (to be mentioned later)


Temporary house communities• Start June 2011.• 3 sites (A: 167 households, B: 39, C: 13)• New, big community• Positive and negative views from residents:

• Negative: narrowness, noise, house quality• Positive: (next page)

Temporary House Site A (167)

Ozashi

Kotaki

KozashiAikawa

Kodomari

OmuroKomuro

ShirahamaNagashioya

TategamiTsukihama

Yoshihama

Oppa

Kayamazaki

Nichoyachi

GyoninmaeOsu

Onagawa

NagaoHonchi

Kitakami

1 km

Temporary House Site B (39)

Temporary House Site C (13)


Temporary house communities• Positive view

• “This temporary housing site is composed of people from different villages. But we are from the same area. We are linked. I could feel at home. Good atmosphere.” (Woman)

• “I am from an agricultural village. But some friends here are from fishermen’s villages. I like talking with them. Their stories are so interesting. I feel happy to have a variety of friends. Without the disaster, I could not have become acquainted with some friends here.” (Woman)

Temporary house sites also function as communities …but they will disappear.


New types of community groups• Women’s groups

• Child-raising groups

• Social entrepreneur groups• Community development groups• Community event planning groups

- Some before disaster, mostly after disaster.- Most of them are inter-village groups.- These groups have played a crucial role, along with

traditional community organizations, in the rebuilding process.

3. Change in community and new types of communitiesNew types of community groups: Community development groups


New types of community groups: A community event planning group revived drama theater.

“Kagura Revival Festival”, May 4, 2013, Komuro, Kitakami

• Temporary house communities and new types of community groups have had an impact on the role of community and on people’s understanding of community:

‘ The word “we” used to refer to people in the same hamlet. However, we now call the whole Kitakami people, “we” ’. (Woman)


Temporary house communities and new types of community groups

4. Communities in a relocation process

4. Communities in a relocation processRelocation project: 5 stages

Consensus: 1st stage

Consensus on making tsunami-affected lowland area uninhabitable （ Nov. and Dec.

2011 ）

Consensus: 2nd stageConsensus on who joins the project and where it

will be relocated （ Jan and Feb 2012 ） .

Consensus: 3rd stageConsensus on the design of new settlements

（ from Apr 2012).

Site construction (government)

House construction (individual household)

1/3 completed

Some completed

Housingrelocationprojects

Communityorganizations(Keiyakuko)

Architectgroup University

professionals

Nationalgovernment

CivilSocietygroups

Localgovernment


Community Organizations in relocation projects

• Keiyakukos have played a key role during consensus building in relocation projects.

Shirahama 　(previous hamlet)

Big relocation site in Kitakami (Site B)

Outside Kitakami

Shirahama relocation site

Nagashioya 　(previous hamlet)

15

6

9

10

8

5

Site A

Site B

Site C Site D

Site E

Site F

Site G

Site ISite J

2

1

14

2

29

1210

6

10

6

5

2 2

1

141 1

8

15

12

30

510

2 1

10 63

5

5

1

95

15

24

12

910 5

6

2

町外

Relocation project

Households from previous villages to relocation sites

小滝

1010

48

Site H

21

813

20

2733

95

96 15

216 2

2

Outgoing householdsTotal 170 H/H

• Divided people:• Divided choice

• Differences in relocating sites and subsidies.• Distrust, sense of distance

• Dissolution of traditional communities


Community problems in the relocation projects

• Some Keiyakukos (traditional community organizations) have been dissolved or are being dissolved.

But, …• Communal property remains and it needs to

pay asset tax. This acts as an obstacle to dissolving keiyakukos or reorganizing the communities.


Traditional community system as obstacle

Who pays asset tax?

Who manages forest?

• Need to reorganize and construct the communities.

• Problems:• Previous community vs. new community

• Shrines, rituals, common property, community cohesion etc.


New community building in relocation sites?

• Previous community vs. new community• Moderate opinion:

• “It is hard to build new community system quickly. We will keep the culture of previous communities for a while, especially shrines and rituals. We will gradually start communicating in the new relocation site and then gradually form new community. It takes time.” (Community leader)


New community building in relocation sites?

Conclusion 1: General

1. Traditionally Kitakami’s community system is multi-layered. Social change has altered the forms and functions of these entities.

2. Since the disaster, the function of communities has changed and become even more multi-layered.

3. The role of communities has always been important. Every individual utilizes several aspects of his/her communities.

4. Some implicit and explicit conflicts over communities have occurred due to differences among the people about the communities’ perspectives and direction.

Conclusion 2: Discussion for policy recommendation

1. It should be noted that communities are crucial and continuously in demand.

2. Diverse communities should be revitalised so that people can use them to enhance their stability and rehabilitation.

3. The government and civil society should support such diverse communities and diverse individual needs.

Thank you.

MIYAUCHI Taisuke, Ph.DHokkaido University

[email protected]

community as the resilient factor: the diverse role of communities in the recovery process from the...

Science