An emergent framework of disaster risk governance towards innovating coping capability for reducing disaster risks in local communities

Open Access
Article

Abstract

An emergent framework of disaster risk governance is presented as an implementation strategy for integrated risk management that incorporates innovative local coping capabilities that reduce disaster vulnerability. This framework calls for enhancement of self-support and mutual-assistance through strengthening informal or social networking efforts in local communities, rather than depending on formal or institutional governmental-assistance. The framework is supported by a societal platform of disaster risk information, called DRIP, which the NIED (National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention, Japan) has developed since 2006 as a tool that promotes improved disaster risk governance. With the help of DRIP, residents, communities, and other stakeholders, linked horizontally or vertically with social networks, can (1) improve their awareness of disaster risks and management issues by sharing risk information as scientific expertise, experiential knowledge, and local/folk wisdom; (2) customize risk communication through analytic deliberation of risk information by employing risk-scenarios developed by residents themselves; (3) develop collaborative activities for informed decision-making that can fully utilize local resources to reorganize coping capability against disaster risks; and (4) disseminate the generated risk scenarios with action plans to other residents who have not participated in the risk communication process.

Keywords

disaster coping capability risk communication risk governance risk scenario social networks 

References

  1. Alexander, D. 2000. Confronting Catastrophe. Harpenden, UK: Terra Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. —. 2006. Crisis Intervention and Risk Reduction. In Coping with Risks due to Natural Hazards in the 21st Century, edited by W. J. Ammann, S. Dannenmann, and L. Vulliet, 51–56. London: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amendola, A., J. Linnerooth-Bayer, N. Okada, and P. J. Shi. 2008. Towards Integrated Disaster Management: Case Studies and Trends from Asia. Natural Hazards 44(2):163–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ammann, W. J. 2006. Risk Concept, Integral Risk Management and Risk Governance. In Coping with Risks due to Natural Hazards in the 21st Century, edited by W. J. Ammann, S. Dannenmann, and L. Vulliet, 3–23. London: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Birkmann, J. 2006. Measuring Vulnerability to Promote Disaster-Resilient Societies: Conceptual Frameworks and Definitions. In Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards, edited by J. Birkmann, 9–54. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Defourny J., and V. Pestoff, eds. 2008. Images and Concepts of the Third Sector in Europe. WP No. 08/02. EMES European Research Network. http://www.emes.net/fileadmin/emes/PDF_files/Working_Papers/WP_08_02_TS_FINAL_WEB.pdf.
  8. Giddens, A. 1999. Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping Our Lives. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
  9. Goldsmith, S., and W. D. Eggers. 2004. Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ikeda, S. 2006. An Integrated Risk Analysis Framework for Emerging Disaster Risks: Toward a Better Risk Management of Flood Disaster in Urban Communities. In A Better Integrated Management of Disaster Risks toward Resilient Society to Emerging Disaster Risks in Mega-Cities, edited by S. Ikeda, T. Fukuzono, and T. Sato, 1–22. Tokyo: TERRAPUB. http://www.terrapub.co.jp/e-library/nied/index.html.Google Scholar
  11. —. 2011. Is “Beyond the Scope of the Risk-Scenario” out of the Framework of “Risk Analysis”. Japanese Journal of Risk Analysis 21(1): 1–5 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  12. Ikeda, S., T. Sato, and T. Fukuzono. 2008. Towards an Integrated Management Framework for Emerging Disaster Risks in Japan. Natural Hazards 44(2): 267–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IRGC (International Risk Governance Council). 2003. White Paper on Risk Governance. http://www.irgc.org.
  14. Japan Meteorological Agency. 2011. Prediction of the Tokai Earthquake. http://www.jma.go.jp/en/quake_tokai/.
  15. Kawai, T., K. Masuda, and M. Hanashima. 2008. Significance and Problem of “E-Community Platform”: Disaster Risk Communication. Japanese Journal of Risk Analysis 17(3): 33–41 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  16. Lee, T., H. Tsubokawa, and T. Nagasaka. 2011. Re-Organizing of Local Disaster Prevention Capabilities through Scenario-Based Risk Communication: A Case Study of Tsukuba City in Japan. Proceedings of 3rd Global Disaster and Risk Conference, Davos.Google Scholar
  17. Lyall, C., and J. Tait. 2005. New Modes of Governance. Hants, UK: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Masuda, K., T. Nagasaka, S. Nagamatsu, and Y. Usuda. 2007. Enhancement of Risk Governance by Introduction of E-Community Platform in Tsukuba City. Proceedings of SRA-Japan Annual Conference, Volume 20, Tokushima (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  19. McDaniels, T., and M. Small. 2004. Risk Analysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Nagamatsu, S., T. Nagasaka, Y. Usuda, and S. Ikeda. 2008. Measuring Disaster Coping Capacity of Local Communities for Better Risk Governance. Proceedings of 2nd Global Disaster and Risk Conference, Davos, 25–29 August 2008.Google Scholar
  21. Nagasaka, T. 2006. New Mode of Risk Governance Enhanced by an E-Community Platform. In A Better Integrated Management of Disaster Risks toward Resilient Society to Emerging Disaster Risks in Mega-Cities, edited by S. Ikeda, T. Fukuzono, and T. Sato, 89–107. Tokyo: TERRAPUB. http://www.terrapub.co.jp/e-library/nied/index.html.Google Scholar
  22. Nagasaka, T., and S. Ikeda. 2008. Strategy and Methodology for Disaster Risk Governance. Japanese Journal of Risk Analysis 17(3): 13–23 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  23. NIED (National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention). 2010. http://risk.bosai.go.jp/ (in Japanese).
  24. Pestoff, V. A. 1998. Beyond the Market and State-Social Enterprise & Civil Democracy in a Welfare Society. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Renn, O. 2008. Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  26. Schank, R. C. 1990. Tell me a Story: A New Look at Real and Artificial Memory. New York: John Brockman Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Tsubokawa, H., T. Nagasaka, and Y. Usuda. 2008. An Experiment on Evacuation Shelter Management Using Disaster Risk Scenario. Journal of the Institute of Social Safety Science 10: 511–519 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  28. Tsubokawa, H., M. Tanaka, and T. Nagasaka. 2008. Study of Risk Communication using Disaster Risk Scenarios-Case Study of an Earthquake Disaster Risk Scenario Making Conducted with Participation of Fujisawa City Residents. Journal of the Institute of Social Safety Science 17(3): 43–53 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  29. UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2010. What is Disaster Risk Reduction?http://www.unisdr.org/who-we-are/what-is-drr/.
  30. Usuda, Y., T. Nagasaka, S. Okada, A. Amano, and H. Fujiwara. 2008. Disaster Risk Information Platform for Risk Governance. Proceedings of SRA-Japan Annual Conference, Volume 21, 1, Osaka (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TsukubaTsukubaJapan
  2. 2.National Institute for Earth Science and Disaster PreventionTsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations