Civil Indicator: General Public’s Cognitive Structure of Policies for Making Resilient Cities

  • Kenshi BabaEmail author
  • Kosuke Shirai
  • Mitsuru Tanaka


This chapter attempts to clarify a cognitive structure of the general public in terms of policies for making cities resilient by analyzing data from web-based questionnaires in nine regions in Japan. The major findings are as follows: (i) Most respondents recognize the risk of earthquakes; most respondents regard “high percentage of elderly population, depopulation,” as a vulnerability; most respondents regard “suspension of administrative activities” as a situation to be generally avoided. However, the scores of most indicators of risk and vulnerability differed among regions. (ii) The cognitive structure in which external forces risk, vulnerability, and situations to be avoided are assumed to determine the attitude to resilience measures was basically supported, but naturally differed among regions in certain details.


Questionnaire Risk perception Vulnerability assessment Acceptability of measures 



The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the respondents who participated in the questionnaire survey and to Ms. Natsumi Ebitani (Graduate school of Agricultural and life sciences, University of Tokyo) and Ms. Izumi Hirata (Graduate school of Engineering, University of Tokyo) who supported for editing.


  1. Adger W (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog Hum Geogr 24:347–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen KM (2006) Community-based preparedness and climate adaptation: local capacity building in the Philippines. Disasters 30(1):81–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergamini N, Blasiak R, Eyzaguirre P, Ichikawa K, Mijatovic D, Nakao F, Subramanian SM (2013) Indicators of resilience in socio-ecological production landscapes (SEPLs), UNU-IAS policy report. UNU-IAS. Retrieved August 5, 2015, from
  4. Cutter SL, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E, Tate E, Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Glob Environ Chang 18:598–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Godschalk D (2003) Urban hazard mitigation: creating resilient cities. Nat Haz Rev 4:136–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hando I, Kubota J (2012) Conceptualism of resilience. In: Kosaka R (ed) Regional resilience: learning from memories of disasters. SHIMIZU KOBUNDO, Tokyo, pp 51–74Google Scholar
  7. ICLEI-Local Government for Sustainability (2012) Preparing for tomorrow strategy 2012–2018, from
  8. Jha AK, Miner TW, Stanton-Geddes Z (eds) (2013) Building urban resilience: principles, tools, and practice. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee MT, Markowitz ME, Howe DP, Ko C, Leiserowitz AA (2015) Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nat Clim Chang 5(November):1014–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Longstaff PH, Armstrong NJ, Perrin K, Parker WM, Hidek M (2010) Building resilient communities: a preliminary framework for assessment. Homeland Secur Aff 1(3):1–23Google Scholar
  11. National Institute of Environmental Studies of Japan (2014) The report on information of heat stroke patients in 2013 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  12. Norris FH, Stevens SP, Pfefferbaum B, Wyche KF, Pfefferbaum RL (2008) Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. Am J Community Psychol 41:127–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sharma D, Singh R, Singh R (2013) Urban climate resilience: a review of the methodologies adopted under the ACCCRN initiative in Indian cities. Asian cities climate resilience working paper series 5. Retrieved October 14, 2015, from
  14. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of Japan (2012) The situation of drought in Japan in 2012, (in Japanese)
  15. Tobin GA (1999) Sustainability and community resilience: the holy grail of hazards planning? Environ Haz 1:13–25Google Scholar
  16. UNISDR. (2012). How to make cities more resilient a handbook for local governments leaders.. UNISDR. Retrieved August 29, 2013, from Scholar
  17. van Aalst MK, Cannon T, Burton I (2008) Community level adaptation to climate change: the potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Glob Environ Chang 18:165–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tokyo City UniversityKanagawaJapan
  2. 2.Mitsubishi Research Institute, Inc.TokyoJapan
  3. 3.Hosei UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations