[Feature: 10 Years Since 3.11] Recovery from the Great East Japan Earthquake from the Perspective of Disaster Sociology

2021/03/05

Image: Beside the torii gate of Isuzu Shrine, built on high ground in Kobuchihama, stand Meiji and Showa era tsunami monuments inscribed with warnings against living in low-lying areas (Photographed February 2021).

Kobuchihama, Ishinomaki City, Miyagi Prefecture. In this fishing village at the southern tip of the Sanriku rias coast on the Oshika Peninsula, the construction of a seawall has finally begun. The proprietress of a local inn, whose selling point was the view of the sunset over the sea, lamented and expressed anger that a seawall was being built in front of her establishment only now, and that the dust and noise from the construction made it impossible to even open windows for ventilation (especially during this COVID-19 pandemic).

It has been nearly 10 years since the Great East Japan Earthquake. Following the five-year 'Concentrated Reconstruction Period' and the subsequent five-year 'Reconstruction and Revitalization Period,' the government decided to extend the existence of the Reconstruction Agency by another 10 years to continue various projects, citing that many projects remain unfinished and support for those living in prolonged evacuation is still necessary (Cabinet decision on December 20, 2019).

Exactly one year ago, on the morning of March 8, 2020, the NHK program 'Sunday Discussion' was scheduled to discuss the current state of recovery as the 10th anniversary approached. However, the program content was suddenly changed and split into '(First Half) How to Face the New Virus / (Second Half) 9 Years Since the Earthquake: Recovery Now.' The time for the recovery discussion was halved and pushed to the back. Public interest had shifted from the status of recovery to the COVID-19 pandemic. This reminded me of the 'fading' of memories and interest, the 'temperature difference' between the north and south, and the Tokyo subway sarin attack that occurred shortly after the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake a quarter-century ago.

In this discussion program, regarding the situation heading into the 10th year, it was first shown that the construction of disaster recovery public housing and recovery roads was progressing. Subsequently, results from a recent survey were introduced, showing that 62% of people in Iwate Prefecture and 55% in Miyagi Prefecture 'still feel like disaster victims,' revealing a significant gap between the completion of public works and the 'actual feeling of recovery.' Seeing this, Professor Masateru Murozaki (Professor at the University of Hyogo and the first president of the Japan Society for Disaster Recovery and Revitalization) likened the current situation to a staircase landing, calling it the 'recovery landing.' While the government speaks of the completion status of budgeted projects, it is vastly disconnected from the actual sense of recovery felt by the victims.

The Japan Society for Disaster Recovery and Revitalization, in which I participate, has organized and conducted discussions in the second phase of the 'Thinking About What Recovery Is' study group over the past two years (please refer to the Society's website).

The society was established at the end of fiscal year 2007 following the comprehensive 10-year review of the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake conducted by various sectors. During its first two years, it launched the first phase of the 'Thinking About What Recovery Is' study group. In the decade following the Hanshin earthquake, non-urban disasters occurred frequently, and it was deemed inappropriate to speak of recovery solely through the completion of public works bearing the name of recovery (recovery urban planning projects = land readjustment projects + urban redevelopment projects, etc.). Therefore, work was undertaken to re-examine what recovery means, what happens to what, and who does what, by scrutinizing interpretations and initiatives from various eras and regions. Just as those discussions had progressed to a certain point, the Great East Japan Earthquake occurred, and society members became involved in areas they had connections with. In my case, it was Kobuchihama, mentioned at the beginning.

In the early 1990s, while I was a graduate student at Mita, I participated in the editing of the 'History of Miyako City (Vol. 2) Folklore Edition' during a seminar led by Professor Hitoshi Miyake, which gave me the opportunity to write about 'Tsunami Folklore.' At that time, the professor introduced me to a classic of tsunami recovery research, 'Tsunami and Villages' (written by Yaichiro Yamaguchi, Koshunkaku Shobo, 1943), which I carried into the field and read deeply. Yamaguchi noted that he began his inspection tour in Kobuchihama and moved north. Over the next quarter-century, I occasionally walked the Sanriku coast following the descriptions in that book, tracing the recovery process unique to Tohoku. For me, Kobuchihama became the starting point of my recovery research and a place of personal connection (for details, see Oyane, 2015).

In disaster area surveys, 'hit-and-run' style research—conducting surveys just for academic achievement and then leaving—is strictly cautioned against. The society holds 'Kurumaza Talks' (roundtable talks) where researchers sit down and talk through the night with local victims. Every year, we hold 'Roundtable Conferences' where victims who worked hard for recovery in various past disaster areas across the country are invited to share their experiences and knowledge. This is a process of 'giving' the achievements and know-how gained from 'taking' support to the next disaster area. Participants often comment that there is a 'give & given' relationship that goes beyond 'give & take.' They say that when they are able to properly verbalize (communicate) their experiences, their feelings of struggle and effort finally make sense, and they feel a sense of recovery for the first time.

For victims to feel a sense of recovery, they need the time and opportunity to properly verbalize their experiences and go through a process of coming to terms with them. If recovery is considered complete simply because civil engineering works like high-ground relocations and seawalls or the construction of disaster recovery public housing are finished, there are still many victims who are not, or cannot be, satisfied. The second phase of the 'Thinking About What Recovery Is' study group explored this point. According to the summary by Hideyuki Kobayashi (Lecturer at Meiji University, who is in charge of 'Sociology of Disasters' at Mita this academic year), it is roughly as follows (Kobayashi, 2020a, 2020b).

Since modernization, Japan has experienced numerous disasters and has formed a certain level of policy schemes to confront them. These have been passed down to the present in a path-dependent manner and practiced as active public investment and urban infrastructure redevelopment (as part of the welfare state experiment). In this context, 'public welfare' is prioritized while restricting basic human rights, forming a so-called 'recovery model' (also referred to as disaster recovery paternalism). At the level of residents in disaster areas, the word 'recovery'—spoken by the parties involved, including their resolve to live on that land again after the disaster—is reclaimed and overwritten by recovery policies as public works. In this process, 'recovery' appears as a policy indicating benefits for the majority in the sense of public welfare, standing as an irresistible 'correctness' before the residents. Over this, internationally authorized discourse and the UN slogan for disaster recovery goals, 'Build Back Better,' are layered. This acts as a path for introducing what is known as 'Shock Doctrine' (disaster capitalism), and the unique Japanese discourse of 'Creative Reconstruction' resonates as a beautiful discourse that masks the 'Shock Doctrine.'

On the other hand, through research practices at various levels of the Great East Japan Earthquake sites, many instances of the actual state of resilience and the shrewdness of victims have been identified and confirmed alongside their struggles. This is a mechanism where individuals choose their own destruction and restoration to adapt to the disaster by incorporating external natural conditions of a major disaster into the internal system of cultural and social requirements, thereby creating creative destruction. These cases have been observed, for example, in initiatives in small fishing villages affected by the tsunami (Oyane, 2015). There, in order to regain and rebuild their lives, the responsibility 'found through deliberation in the community that one owes to oneself' (Saito, 2018) was observed—not as a theory of self-responsibility, but as a fact grasped from clinical experience at the disaster site and the narratives of the parties involved. The 'Thinking About What Recovery Is' study group grasped that while victims engage in the practice of rebuilding their lives with such resolve and understanding, the right of governance by the disaster-affected community—the direct parties involved—to establish the 'life' of those involved should be further recognized.

The true nature of recovery emerges precisely in places where such experiences of the life-rebuilding process (recovery) are narrated and shared from multiple perspectives.

Focusing on disaster recovery theory—a research practice that develops methodologies (data) and concepts (predicates) to represent events while participating in the process of building a sense of recovery and a satisfying recovery process for victims—the Society's Recovery Support Committee has been working on 'Disaster Case Management' for the past few years.

This is a system to provide necessary support to each victim by understanding their individual disaster and living situations, creating plans that combine various support measures accordingly, and having teams of experts support each victim. A group of lawyers belonging to the Japan Federation of Bar Associations' Disaster Recovery Support Committee has played a central role in supporting the activities of the Society's Recovery Support Committee (Tsukui, 2020).

Some local governments have recognized the importance of such efforts and have begun institutionalizing them. In Sendai City, this system is called the 'Victim Life Rebuilding Acceleration Program' and is part of the work of the Reconstruction Bureau's Life Rebuilding Promotion Office. Tottori Prefecture has revised its Crisis Management Ordinance to include disaster case management. Similar system deployments are taking place in Ofunato City and Kitakami City in Iwate Prefecture, and Natori City in Miyagi Prefecture. Furthermore, these movements are being seen not only in earthquake-affected areas but also in areas hit by subsequent floods (such as Iwaizumi Town, Iwate Prefecture) (Tsukui, 2017).

Even where not institutionalized to this extent, there are many cases where needs assessment through door-to-door visits and the dispatch of expert teams have been realized effectively and substantially through past disaster volunteer activities and loose cooperation on the ground. Let's look at one example (Tokozawa and Oyane, 2019, 2020).

In Ishinomaki City, Miyagi Prefecture, Akiko Iwamoto of the local paper 'Ishinomaki Fukko Kizuna Shimbun' continues to pick up the voices of people living in temporary and recovery public housing and report on the current situation through her reporting and delivery activities (face-to-face interviews + hand-delivery serve as monitoring activities and their documentation/listing). There are also initiatives by the Ishinomaki-based 'Japan Car Sharing Association' and 'Mobility Support Rera' that provide support to ensure the daily movements and outings of these interviewees as a matter of human dignity. Dr. Junosa (former Director of the Ishinomaki Municipal Hospital Kaisei Temporary Clinic / Director of the Ishinomaki City Comprehensive Care Center) recognizes and utilizes the medical and socio-ethical significance of such mobility support, continuing to provide home-visit nursing for former residents even after temporary housing was removed, practicing the philosophy of extending medical and nursing care outside the hospital (the basic teaching of Florence Nightingale: the extension of medical and nursing care outside the hospital through the coordination of health, welfare, and medical services). On the side of the recovery public housing that receives this support, the activities of a new neighborhood association organization (Ishinomaki Jichiren, led by Chairman Takashi Masuda) were established to inherit the monitoring history and system from the temporary housing period, placing particular importance on the liaison (cooperation) established during that time. These groups communicate daily, exchange information, and form a loose network to continue their activities.

And we have begun to see cases where the recipients of the various support services mentioned above are gradually participating in the recovery administration side from these life-rebuilding volunteer teams.

Without such networks of voluntary activities, they might have been buried in the gaps of existing recovery administration menus and never become new supporters. Elderly people who used to just wait silently for someone to call out to them in temporary housing are now taking the wheel and cheerfully making rounds to check on others. Victims who were positioned as objects of recovery are turning into supporters and, furthermore, are showing a development where they become subjects in the creation of new recovery systems. Among these new leaders on the ground, some are gaining a place as members with new potential indispensable to recovery administration.

In a small fishing village devastated by the tsunami, Naomi Sato, a housewife who served as a contact point for external support in a position similar to the women's division of a neighborhood association, worked hard to rebuild her life with her remaining children and parents after losing her husband in the tsunami. Following advice from an NGO that came to help, she established the 'NPO We Are One Kitakami' and began working on various local restoration and recovery projects and related annual events (such as preparations for reopening beaches). It is said that 'a bride who came to the fishing village stood at the front and spoke up in the village for the first time,' but her frank personality and careful communication style were recognized. She became involved in consensus-building for recovery public works (as a mediator and translator of the system on the resident side rather than the project side) and became a member of the founding general meeting of the 'Ishinomaki Citizen Public Interest Activity Liaison Council' (formerly 'Ishinomaki NPO Liaison Council'). Because various NGOs from around the world gathered in Ishinomaki after this earthquake, diverse know-how was transplanted, and women like Ms. Sato, wearing those mantles (armor = theoretical armament), have emerged at local disaster sites. The hegemony of the recovery system is gradually being reorganized.

When looking carefully at the sites of recovery from the Great East Japan Earthquake, such new events come into view one after another. However, these may just be cases we happen to encounter that are going well. Nevertheless, if we can identify what premises and conditions combine to give birth to such events, and if we can decipher their mechanisms while collecting, categorizing, and generalizing appropriate cases, we will be able to pass that grammar on to the next disaster site.

We students of sociology have just formed a group with a large-scale KAKENHI grant and embarked on deciphering such mechanisms (the regionally optimal solution for recovery). We are focusing on four keywords: resilience, sustainability, empowerment, and well-being (Kuroda, 2021).

Is there a flexible capacity to respond to disasters (resilience: restoration and recovery power)? And is that society sustainable? Are so-called socially vulnerable people appropriately included in recovery and the political processes that envision it? Has a 'sense of us' been fostered through participation in such social processes? We intend to discuss recovery from multiple perspectives on a different level than the formation of a resilient social infrastructure through the promotion of public civil engineering works. The challenge of sociological recovery research has only just begun.

Hideyuki Kobayashi, 2020a, "Development and Achievements of the 'Continuous Workshop for Thinking About What Recovery Is'—What Kind of Thing is 'Recovery'?" Journal of the Japan Society for Disaster Recovery and Revitalization, No. 15

Hideyuki Kobayashi, 2020b, "A Study on the Implications of 'Disaster Recovery'" Journal of the Japan Society for Disaster Recovery and Revitalization, No. 15

Yoshihiko Kuroda, 2021, "Proposal on How to Proceed with Future Research" (Jan 19, 2021 KAKEN Project ZOOM Meeting Material: 2019-23 Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) = "Comprehensive Study on the Regionally Optimal Solution for Recovery from Large-Scale Disasters")

Jun Oyane, 2015, "Resilience of a Small Beach," in Shinji Shimizu et al. (eds.), New Humans, New Society: Recreating the Story of Recovery, Kyoto University Press

Makoto Saito, 2018, : Satisfaction and Responsibility in a Non-Zero-Risk Society, Keiso Shobo

Shinichiro Tokozawa and Jun Oyane, 2019, 2020, "Stakeholders in the Disaster Mitigation Cycle and the Reality of Pre-disaster Recovery Initiatives (I)(II)" Monthly Report of the Institute of Social Sciences, Senshu University, No. 672, 684

Susumu Tsukui, 2017, "Support for Nuclear Evacuees and Disaster Case Management" Disaster Recovery Studies, Vol. 9

Susumu Tsukui, 2020, Disaster Case Management Guidebook, Godo Shuppan