Gaming Approach to Disaster Risk Communication: Development and Application of the “Crossroad Game”
Recently, empowerment of local residents in disaster-affected areas has been encouraged during the disaster prevention and recovery period. However, local residents still tend to define disaster prevention and recovery work as the responsibility of experts and the government. From a risk communication perspective, these problems are the result of the traditional framing of disaster education as a one-way communication process. In this study, we attempt to overcome the problem of one-way communication. To overcome this problem, we used an interactive communication tool called “Crossroad,” a game to assist people in thinking about a disaster. We first investigate the challenges of risk communication. Next, we introduce the concept and rules of the “Crossroad” game. We also report action research for developing a bottom-up strategy in which local people create their own “Crossroad: Oarai” questions in a community called Oarai Town, Ibaraki Prefecture in Japan. We found that local people from the community composed their own questions, rather than simply answering those from the government, mass media, or others from the outside, which demonstrated that they have the confidence to face such risks alone.
KeywordsEmpowerment Risk communication Crossroad Bottom-up Recovery
- Duke R (1974) Gaming: the future’s language. Sage Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Lee F, Miyamoto T, Kondo S, Yamori K (2015) The disaster recovery process and rashomon effect: the case of Oarai Town, Ibaraki. Jpn Assoc Qual Psychol 14:38–54 (Japanese)Google Scholar
- Kikkawa T, Yamori K, Ajiro T, Hayashi H (2004) “Crossroad: Kobe”: a training tool for disaster preparedness and response. In: Kriz WC, Eberle T (eds) Bridging the gap: transforming knowledge into action through gaming and simulation. SAGSAGA, Munich, Germany, pp 245–253Google Scholar
- Yamori K (2007) Disaster risk sense in Japan and gaming approach to risk communication. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 25(2):101–131Google Scholar