Support That Disaster Victims of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake Felt and Considerations on How to Formulate Measures for Disaster Management in the Future – Based on a Comparison with the 1995 Great Hanshin Awaji (Kobe) Earthquake, the 2004 Mid-Niigata Earthquake and the 2007 Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake

Abstract

In this study, the results of a large-scale random sampled questionnaire survey of the disaster victims of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake are summarized. This survey was conducted during the period between March and June 2016, five years after the earthquake disaster, and included all men and women of age 20 and older who resided in the three disaster-stricken prefectures that suffered significant damage. In this study, the situation at the time of the disaster and the effective measures for disaster management in the future are examined through two questions: “Who does the disaster victims rely on for life recovery?” and “Based on this experience, who should responsibly implement the measures for disaster management in the future?” The results of these large-scale random sampled questionnaire surveys for the disasters in the past are referenced to compare the 1995 Great Hanshin Awaji (Kobe) Earthquake, the 2004 Mid-Niigata Earthquake, and the 2007 Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake. Analysis of the question, “Which persons and organizations (supporters) were relied upon in life recovery?” shows that three persons and organizations, including, a partner, children, and the town or city administration, are relied upon in all the aspects of personal or emotional, material or financial, and vital information. From all generations and kinds of supporters, people sixty and over constitute the demographic from which the least support is expected. For this generation. the family of a partner, children, mutual assistance from community associations and governmental assistance from the town/city administration are considered as the common support in all aspects. Then, comparing this with other earthquake disasters showed that a quick and careful response to all the earthquake victims by the administrative organizations is limited in large cities where relations between organizations and locals cannot be evaluated and expected. In the analysis of the question, “Who should implement the measures for disaster management in a responsible way?” it is made clear that the division of roles among self-help, mutual assistance, and governmental assistance can be summarized in the following four patterns: Mainly by governmental assistance, mainly by self-help, in cooperation with mutual assistance and governmental assistance, and in cooperation with of self-help, mutual assistance, and governmental assistance, altogether. Comparisons between all the earthquake disasters, lead to the understanding that the disaster victims who experienced a large-scale disaster consider that the measures for disaster management should be implemented by through self-help, mutual assistance, and governmental assistance, altogether, regardless of the disaster and local characteristics. In Japanese society it seems that the division of roles among self-help, mutual assistance, and governmental assistance could generally be proposed.