How can the human dimensions of disaster impacts be more accurately captured and represented in the analysis, modeling and simulation of disasters?
In order to capture the impacts of the disaster from a human dimensional perspective; establishing the data source directly from residents of affected areas and incorporating the data with the human-based living spaces and places can be a solution. Accordingly; we study cases from Japan and the US by following steps of land use strategies; recovery program design; the process of placemaking; and residents’ involvement capacity. To have a more accurate understanding through surveys and analysis we generated an evaluation model based on the post-disaster recovery concerned elements: Sustainability; Resiliency; Justice; Equity; and Livability; and developed its core on ‘social capital’ and ‘place’ of disaster-affected communities.
What type of data and supporting research infrastructure would be necessary to enable novel, transdisciplinary approaches to answering these and other human-centered disaster questions?
In the field of disaster recovery; spatial data is used to show the level of affectedness of spaces and humans and the conclusion is measured mostly through financial and spatial losses. However; how individuals and communities describe their affectedness by a disaster might be different from these numbers and might be described through their wellbeing; connection to the places; and levels of justice and equity in the affected areas before and after disasters. In order to reflect residents in our research; we overlaid GIS maps; census data; land-use planning; and data obtained from residents’ interviews; field visits to places; and questionnaires. We use resources in our topic from global and domestic literature to contribute globally extensible suggestions; as well contextualized evaluation and solutions.
In what ways can US-Japan collaborations advance these questions in new and important ways?
Japan and the U.S have approached disaster recovery through land use management and placemaking differently; but we could also find similarities. In Japan post-disaster; land use management is part of a collective relocation program that aims to support lives; community ties; settlements; and repetitive losses. The communities are aimed to be kept together by these relocation programs and the vacant lands to be converted into governmental-owned lands facilitating services for the public. In the U.S; post-disaster land use management is based on the government land acquisition to prevent repetitive loss; and pursue freedom of individuals in either selling or keeping the property in hazardous areas. The conversion of the government-owned land to open spaces; parks and natural environment is the main approach. We found it in both countries… (1) Hazardous land acquisition is the main strategy to ensure safety in coastal areas. (2) Land use strategies have direct and indirect impacts on the residents. (3) Displaced people prefer to be closer to hazardous areas. (4) Government sectors; organizations; and communities are taking placemaking actions jointly and independently to redefine urban holes. (5) In placemaking residents’ involvement is more impactful in strengthening social capital than the scale of the place. The next step will conduct and analyze questionnaire surveys in cases to gather residents’ based data regarding land use changes; placemaking; and their demands and expectations from the places.