Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 28, Number 1, 2006, pp25-33

Community Diagnosis for Sustainable Disaster Preparedness

Yoko MATSUDA1 and Norio OKADA2

1
Graduate School of Urban Management Engineering, Kyoto University, Japan
2
Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Japan

(Received for 13 Mar., 2006 and in revised from 12 Sep., 2006)

ABSTRACT

The paper presents the“community diagnosis”method which addresses the need for sustainable disaster pre-
paredness at the community level with the assistance of disaster experts. To this end, we present the PDCA man-
agement cycle and knowledge creation model. Based on these concept models, we introduce and demonstrate
community diagnosis as a method of implementing participatory disaster preparedness.
Disaster preparedness is observed as a participatory community management process, where all participating
agents are expected to share knowledge. We discuss the type of knowledge required and how it can be better
accumulated and used. This process is analyzed by the knowledge creation model. Community diagnosis is pro-
posed as a method for completing this knowledge creation cycle to enhance disaster preparedness. We discuss the
first two phases of community diagnosis. The knowledge externalization phase is designed as a diagnostic sur-
vey, the questionnaire survey implying the metaphor that“the community’ s disaster preparedness needs to be
checked.”The knowledge combination phase is designed as a prescriptive workshop which is held to find a solu-
tion (prescription) to enhance the community preparedness by face-to-face communication.
We present an ongoing empirical study of community diagnosis in urban Nagoya. We also discuss the scheme
of the participatory process which makes this study unique. From the tentative results of this community diagno-
sis, externalized local knowledge regarding“repeatability of preparedness”and“scale of a community”is dis-
cussed.

1. INTRODUCTION quake taught people was that the impact of a catastrophic disaster
would exceed the capacity of the public rescue services, therefore,
Japan, one of the most earthquake-prone countries in the citizens should have sufficient knowledge and preparation done
world, has developed various techniques for natural disaster risk instead of depending completely on public services.
management. The country encounters new challenges every time Another foreseeable social trend after the Kobe earthquake
it is hit by a disaster. One of the issues raised after the tragedy of was that, not only government-led programs, but also many neigh-
the Kobe (Hanshin-Awaji) earthquake in 1995 was family and borhood communities autonomously started taking proactive coun-
community preparedness: how individual citizens and local com- termeasure to enhance their preparedness, eventually leading to
munities can prepare in advance to survive earthquakes. improvement of the quality of their living environment.
The purpose of preparedness is to anticipate problems in dis- Motivation for such self-help community activities arises from var-
asters so that methods can be devised to address the problems ious opportunities: internal discussion of residents, collaboration
effectively and so that the resources required for an effective with different community associations, or stimulation by third-par-
response are in place beforehand (Mileti, 1999). Although the ties. In most cases, autonomous activities take a participatory
importance of preparedness is known among disaster scientists, at approach because community-initiated activities cannot be sus-
the policy and practice level, it has not been thoroughly addressed. tained without the participation of multiple agents.
After World War II, Japanese disaster prevention policy was The biggest earthquake threat facing Japan is the Tokai and
oriented towards investment in infrastructure to mitigate disaster Tonankai earthquakes. Figure 1 shows the official announcement
damages, as typified by high quality dykes or reinforced highway of the expected epicenter of the Tokai earthquake and seismic
networks. The policy was helpful in saving many lives and prop- intensity distribution. Geological experts predict that there is a 40-
erty, but some experts claim that it also made people unaware of 50% probability of this catastrophic earthquake occurring within
and insensitive to disaster risks. the next 40 years. This earthquake tends to take place along the
The Kobe earthquake provided an opportunity to remind peo- Pacific coast from Tokyo through Nagoya to Osaka and further
ple about the earthquake risk, and the importance of non-structural south-westwards, the most densely populated metropolitan regions
proactive countermeasures for disasters. The lesson Kobe earth- in Japan. To add to the difficulty, this periodic earthquake with a

KEY WORDS: disaster preparedness, knowledge management, community diagnosis

26 Y. MATSUDA AND N. OKADA

frequency of 100 to 150 years is a twin or triplet earthquake that is ment, all the agents (participants) need to share the current status
likely to occur concurrently. The magnitude of each earthquake is (status-quo) in the community before they start planning. In this
predicted to be more than 8 on the Richter scale. In collaboration case, the process starts with the phase of“Check”and“Action,”
with researchers and local governments, the Japanese Government and then it is completed as the CAPD cycle (Check-Action-Plan-
is now taking a strong initiative in pursuing proactive countermea- Do). It is shown in Fig. 2 that this cycle should be effectively
sures such as infrastructure reinforcement, hazard information dis- repeated in an adaptive manner, with workability of countermea-
closure, and raising awareness of the people. Some forward-think- sures and policies being experimentally tested.
ing communities in this region even have started activities to If it is assumed that community preparedness by a participato-
enhance preparedness for these earthquakes. ry approach can be interpreted as the CAPD cycle, its management
With the above-stated background in mind, the paper proposes method must have the following function: 1) to help participating
a method of community diagnosis as a scientific instrument for agents share the current condition, and 2) to provide a communica-
sustainable disaster preparedness at the community level. First, tion platform for disaster preparedness policy.
community preparedness is interpreted as sustainable community
management and knowledge management. Then how to manage 2.2 Role of knowledge for community preparedness
various knowledges using the knowledge creation model is dis- Preparedness can hardly be sustained unless appropriate
cussed. Based on this, the concept of community diagnosis is knowledge is shared and transferred among the agents. Of course,
reconsidered as a method to manage knowledges. In the second knowledge may not be effective until being implemented.
part, an ongoing challenge of community diagnosis is reported as a Therefore, we propose considering“adapting a countermeasure”as
study of a case station (A base for contentious disaster case study). a kind of knowledge. In the CAPD cycle, through the phase of
“Check,” , the agents share a certain kind of knowledge. Let us
2. COMMUNITY PREPAREDNESS examine what kind of knowledge is particularly required for disas-
ter preparedness.
2.1 Management perspective of community preparedness The first type of knowledge is hazard information mostly pro-
Disaster preparedness can be deemed sustainable only if vided by the government. If people do not know the existence of
knowledge acquisition and appropriate action is continuously some risk, then there is no motivation to prepare for it. Hazard
repeated until the day a disaster occurs. Thus, it is closely related maps like that shown in Fig. 1 are a typical methodology to pro-
to the management science term of“sustainable management.”To vide hazard information.
be effective it needs to be managed in an integrated manner by The second type of knowledge is know-how information to
incorporating disaster risk management as a part of sustainable survive disasters. It may include, for instance, how to reinforce
community management. Especially, the strategy for disaster pre- houses, or where to evacuate in an emergency. Such knowledge
paredness is contingent on the local community’ s characteristics can be provided by experienced experts or professionals. The
and conditions. presence of this knowledge explains why communities cannot be
The basic management cycle, the PDCA cycle, consists of a independent in sustaining disaster preparedness but they require
repetitive process of Plan-Do-Check-Action (Fig. 2). The cycle other agents’participation. To some extent, professional knowl-
depicts conventional public planning and management (govern- edge is required to enhance disaster preparedness.
ment-led planning) very well, because when the government is The third type of knowledge that is emphasized in the paper,
simply the agent leading the process, its goal and problems to be is local knowledge provided by residents in the community. Local
solved are (at least for the government) well-defined and unwaver- knowledge may include the, semi-private (not public) shelters they
ing. have, or their very local evacuation or food storage rules. Their
However, in many cases of participatory community manage- needs, questions and opinions on disaster preparation based on

Fig. 1 Expected epicenter and distribution of Japanese

seismic intensity of the Tokai earthquake (Central
Disaster Prevention Council, 2002) Fig. 2 PDCA (CAPD) management cycle
 COMMUNITY DIAGNOSIS FOR SUSTAINABLE DISASTER PREPAREDNESS 27

their daily lives may well be considered as local knowledge. Konno (1998) explain it as follows. “Ba can be thought of as a
Local knowledge is important for community disaster pre- shared space for emerging relationships. This space can be physi-
paredness for the following two reasons. 1) It is hidden in people’ s cal (e.g., office, dispersed business space), virtual (e.g., e-mail,
daily life, thus it is difficult to share without installing the desig- teleconference), mental (e.g., shared experiences, ideas, ideals), or
nated device, and 2) the end-victims of a disaster are none other any combination of them. What differentiates ba from ordinary
than community people, and they are eventually responsible for human interaction is the concept of knowledge creation. Ba pro-
their own survival and saving their property. Therefore, their vides a communication platform for advancing individual and/or
ideas, their attitudes and their questions should be thoroughly collective knowledge.”In the SECI model, Ba makes knowledge
taken into account in the management process. Put another way, it conversion possible.
is an advantage of self-help activities to make the most of local Originally, the knowledge creation process model and the
knowledge. concept of ba were developed for enterprise management, but
Any of these three kinds of knowledge is essential for com- recently they have been adapted to public domain issues (Nonaka
munity preparedness which needs to be shared. However, it is dif- et. al., 2003) as a fundamental model for knowledge management.
ficult to implement sharing knowledge in a modern society, In line with this philosophy, here we apply the model to communi-
because community linkage is less connected so that people lose ty preparedness for disasters.
opportunities to form a common platform for communication. The SECI model explains that quantitative and qualitative
This tendency is stronger in urban areas where people have other knowledge conversion is accelerated when appropriate ba is pro-
communities in their workplace or personal interest groups. In vided.
addition, usually people are not aware of disaster preparedness in In Section 2.2 we stated that a desirable method can elicit
everyday life, and not willing to think about disasters. embedded local knowledge, and transfer it to other agents. When
Above all, examination from the knowledge aspect states that we consider the process along with the SECI model, eliciting local
the management method should be designed 1) to elicit the embed- knowledge corresponds to knowledge externalization and transfer-
ded local knowledge, and 2) to transfer the local knowledge in the ring it corresponds to knowledge combination. That is to say, pro-
community and among the agents. viding ba coincides with the management method.
The SECI model determines knowledge conversion facilita-
2.3 Knowledge creation model tors working in each ba. As shown in Fig. 3,“a metaphor can
The section closely examines managing knowledge to identify play an important role in externalization.”When knowledge with-
the role of the management method. To this end, we will try to out language is changed to documented knowledge, only the con-
introduce the knowledge creation model. crete concept which has the same embedded structure (which
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) proposed a theory for examining means a metaphor) can play this role. It helps people convert their
the organizational knowledge creation. They stated that knowl- tacit knowledge to words. In the combination phase, a“face-to-
edge creation is a process of knowledge-conversion, which is a spi- face meeting is the efficient way of creating different explicit
ral process of knowledge“socialization”(tacit knowledge to a new knowledge from other knowledge.”To combine knowledge, con-
tacit knowledge),“externalization”(tacit knowledge to explicit nect externalized knowledge, opportunities to share opinions and
knowledge),“combination”(explicit knowledge to a new explicit information directly.
knowledge) and“internalization”(explicit knowledge to tacit
knowledge). The process is called the SECI model named after 3. COMMUNITY DIAGNOSIS
the initials of each phase (Fig. 3). Nonaka stated that organization-
al knowledge is created through a continuous dialogue between 3.1 Definition
tacit and explicit knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). Okada et al. (2001) introduced“community diagnosis”as a
In the knowledge creation process, ba is another essential and tool to externalize tacit knowledge (including ideas, opinions and
fundamental concept. As a brief explanation of ba, Nonaka and attitudes) about common space related social problems.
According to Okada (2006), characteristically community
diagnosis is designed analogous to a liberal, sound relationship
between medical doctors (corresponding to disaster and urban
experts) and patients (corresponding to local citizens). Moreover,
it is intended to explicitly indicate that the methodology has its
foundation in the vision that cities, regions and communities are
living body systems, not mechanistic bodies as conventionally
treated.
The specific procedure can be interpreted depending on the
contexts. We will establish the following two steps: the diagnostic
survey and the prescriptive workshop. The details of these con-
tents are explained in the next chapter.

3.2 Community diagnosis as a management method

In the previous chapter, we summarized the conditions of the
Fig. 3 SECI model (Nonaka, 1994) management method for sustainable community management.
 28 Y. MATSUDA AND N. OKADA

Table 1. Community diagnosis and as a management method

Fig. 4 The location of the Higashiyama area

Section 2.1 stated the requirement from the community manage-

ment perspective. Section 2.2 stated the conditions from the
knowledge management perspective. Based on these, in Section
2.3 we showed that providing ba corresponds to employing the
management method. In the previous section, we introduced the
idea of community diagnosis.
Here, let us assume community diagnosis is the management
method providing ba. Table 1 shows the relationship between
community diagnosis and the management cycle, local knowledge
creation phase and knowledge conversion facilitator working in ba.
We established two phases in community diagnosis: diagnostic
survey and prescriptive meeting.
Diagnostic survey checks the status-quo, and externalizes hid-
Fig. 5 Collaborative planning of Higashiyama
den local knowledge. In this phase, we note that the name“diag-
nostic survey”itself has a special meaning because it is positioned
in the entry of“metaphor”in the SECI model. For externalization, of community preparedness, these two will play an important role
the metaphor of the patient-doctor relationship as indicated by in community diagnosis. However, these two phases are not dealt
“diagnosis”helps us illustrate the characteristics of our scientific with in this paper.
approach.
Prescriptive meeting provides ba of a face-to-face meeting in 4. STUDY OF A CASE STATION: HIGASHIYAMA,
order to 1) share the survey results by the agents and 2) to combine NAGOYA, JAPAN
the elicited local knowledge. It also plays the role of providing a
community with a solution (prescription) to enhance the prepared- 4.1 A Case station
ness. The Higashiyama elementary school area (hereinafter called
The terms of the last two phases, treatment and improvement Higashiyama) is located uptown of eastern Nagoya (Fig. 4). It is
of living are derived from the last two phases. In line with the flow an urban residential area consisting of traditional houses, new con-
 COMMUNITY DIAGNOSIS FOR SUSTAINABLE DISASTER PREPAREDNESS 29

Table 2. List of questions and seven categories

dominiums and apartments for single people. The community has ties, we agreed to conduct a diagnostic survey in this area.
6,646 households (as of 2004) over an area of 1.5 km2, divided into
24 smaller community units (citizens’association, or chonai-kai). 4.2 Study outline
In the urban areas of Japan, an elementary school area (gakku) is (1) Uniqueness of the Higashiyama case
traditionally the second smallest community unit followed by citi- In the previous chapter, we stated that the community cannot
zens’associations. drive forward the management cycle by themselves but they
A non-governmental organization for disaster prevention, require experts’help. However, we did not mention who should
Rescue Stockyard (RSY) has an office in the area. Since RSY is organize community diagnosis. It could be researchers, or it could
on good terms with community representatives, they have orga- be a local government. The uniqueness of the case of
nized disaster preparedness activities such as lectures and furniture Higashiyama is that the management is implemented as collabora-
nailing campaigns for two years since 2002. tive planning of the three agents of authors’group (researchers),
As Community Representatives and the RSY have committed RSY (practical expert) and community representatives (residents)
themselves to community based activities, there was no opportuni- as shown in Fig. 5.
ty for them to learn of residents’attitudes and behavior towards In particular, at every step of the program, the three agents
Tokai and Tonankai earthquake risks. Our group selected collaborate by gathering and pooling their knowledge. In design-
Higashiyama as a case station (long-term observation target for ing the survey, our group developed the survey based on the ideas
disaster science) (Okada and Gopalakrishnan, 2004) for the com- and the past experience of RSY. The survey was conducted in the
munity diagnosis. To investigate the questions of these three par- name of the community representative, with the cooperation of RSY.
30 Y. MATSUDA AND N. OKADA

In the prescriptive meeting, the combined knowledge (prescrip- pared in the category, that is, the community is vulnerable to earth-
tion) was expressed by the community, and analyzed by our group. quake risk. The index is a source to feedback the survey results to
Higashiyama’ s model was made available because of a unique the residents.
encounter of the three agents. Although admitting further verifica- The response for each question is converted to a score. 3-
tion is required to expand the model as a general community diag- point scale questions are scored 1, 5 or 10, and 4-point questions
nosis model, we investigated the case as one of the new challenges are scored 1, 5, 7 or 10 depending on the respondent’ s choice. CPI
to meet our research purpose. is defined as the mean score of the questions in a category over all
respondents in a community (Okada and Matsuda, 2005).
(2) Designing the diagnostic survey Therefore, all CPIs are shown in the numbers normalized to a scale
As explained in the previous chapter, the diagnostic survey of 10.
corresponds to knowledge explanation and the prescriptive meet-
ing to knowledge combination. In the following sections, we (4) Conducting the diagnostic survey (Knowledge externaliza-
explain the details of these two programs in Higashiyama. tion)
The list of questions for the diagnostic survey is shown in The survey sheets were distributed to all 6,646 households
Table 2. The survey questions consist of two parts. The self-eval- through the community association in December 2004. Valid
uation part asks a respondent to evaluate their self and community responses totaled 3,613 (response rate 54.4%). For the purpose of
preparedness for an earthquake on a scale of 1 to 10. regional comparison, the same diagnostic survey was conducted in
The following 43 questions (No.3 to 45) are regarding behav- “A”Town and“K”Town in Aichi Prefecture. Both of the towns
ior, present state, and attitude of earthquake preparedness, provid- are suburban areas of Nagoya City, where the population consists
ed by the three- or four-point Likert scale. The set of questions of both commuters to Nagoya and agricultural workers. Note that
covers both family and community preparedness. The source of in these two towns, the surveys were conducted during the work-
the questions is a list of“anxieties”raised by past participants in shop so the samples are biased. Table 3 shows the survey facts.
the workshops organized by RSY. The questions are divided into
seven categories: Housing safety, Storage, Shelter, Special support (5) Distributing a leaflet and organizing the prescriptive meet-
(the elderly, handicapped and infants), Community linkage, Fire ing (Knowledge combination)
and Emergency contact. After the survey, a 4-page leaflet with a survey summary and
comments from academic experts were distributed to all the house-
(3) Community Preparedness Index (CPI) holds in the community (Fig. 6).
The Community Preparedness Index (CPI) is derived from the In April 2004, the prescriptive meeting was co-organized by
survey responses. CPI is calculated for each category to show the the community representatives and RSY. The purpose of the
community’ s level of preparedness. A lower CPI mean less pre- workshop was 1) to understand Higashiyama’ s CPI and survey

Table 3. Survey period and the number of valid responses

Fig. 6 Leaflet for households with survey results summary

 COMMUNITY DIAGNOSIS FOR SUSTAINABLE DISASTER PREPAREDNESS 31

Table 4. Community Preparedness Index

**: the mean score (CPI) is significantly lower (P < .05) than that of the other two areas.
++: the mean score (CPI) is significantly higher (P < .05) than that of the other two areas.

Fig. 7 CPI (A Town, Higashiyama, K Town)

results, and 2) to collect participants’ideas (prescriptions) to

improve Higashiyama’ s CPI. 24 residents including community
association representatives participated in the workshop. The pro-
gram consisted of 3 parts, instruction by the RSY representative,
explanation of the survey results including CPI by our group, and
group discussion for expressing ideas.

4.3 The diagnostic survey results

(1) Regional comparison
Table 4 shows the CPIs in the three survey areas. Looking at
Higashiyama’ s score, the table shows the lowest category is hous-
ing safety (3.45), followed by community linkage (4.55). In A and
K Towns, the same as Higashiyama’ s result, the score of housing
safety was the lowest (A Town: 3.35, K Town: 3.46), while the
second lowest category was storage, (A Town: 4.31, K Town: Fig. 8 Individual distribution (community preparedness)
4.86) instead of community linkage.
To compare CPI between Higashiyama and the other two
areas, a two-sample t-test was conducted. The two-sample t-test left above seems optimistic because their self-evaluation is rela-
can detect the difference between the mean values of two different tively high compared to their low CPI. On the contrary, those who
populations. Here, every pair of CPI score (mean value over the are located right below could be comparatively pessimistic. Based
area) in the same category (3 pair in each category) was tested. on such criteria, the population is divided as follows.
For Higashiyama’ s score, the fire and community linkage scores
were significantly lower than those of either two towns. Optimistic group (347 households) (SES)−(PI) ≥ 2
For visualization of the result, the radar charts of CPI are pro-
Pessimistic group (376 households) 1 ≥ (SES)−(PI) ≥ −1
vided for every area (Fig. 7). Comparison of the figures helps resi-
dents understand the above result that Higashiyama is vulnerable Neutral group (1,903 households) −2 ≥ (SES)−(PI)
in the category of fire and community linkage.
This fact implies that researchers should not discuss the com-
(2) Distribution of individual residents in the community munity using representative values for all households, but should
Figure 8 is a scatter chart showing the individual distribution conduct additional analysis with clear objectives. It is important
of the personal Preparedness Index (PI) and self-evaluated score for community based mitigation activity to treat a community as an
(SES) for community preparedness. A group of individuals located aggregation of various households.
 32 Y. MATSUDA AND N. OKADA

(3) Findings aggregation of more than 7,000 households, and the community
The survey results show that (1) the vulnerable category for board its 24 citizens’associations. Each association has about 100
Higashiyama is specified by statistical regional comparison, and to 500 households. At first, the RSY and the community board
(2) the community is heterogeneous so that analysis with detailed intended to disseminate preparedness actions through the existing
focus is essential. citizens’associations. Through the discussions, it is found that cit-
izens’association is far too big organization for community unit
4.4 The outcome from the prescriptive workshop for disaster preparedness.
(1) Collected combined knowledge From the participants, concrete proposals were also listed:
During the prescriptive workshop, participants were asked to ● How about making an evacuation map in collaboration with the

list up“ideas and opinions to enhance Higashiyama’ s earthquake club for the elderly?
preparedness”and 24 participants listed up the 143 ideas shown in ● I heard the blast of a siren the other day, but I couldn’ t under-
Table 5 by category. stand what it meant. I want a recorded tape to learn it.
These findings, the importance of repeatability and the cogni-
(2) Findings tive unit of the community are newly created (combined) knowl-
An examination of combined knowledge revealed two edge, being the key to preparedness measurement both for the
remarkable findings. Here these are explained with some repre- community and RSY. Based on the findings, the community board
sentative examples of collected knowledge. decided to provide a short video tape as learning and discussion
First, it is obvious that the participants already understand the material in the smaller units within the neighborhood. In the con-
importance of“sustainability”for disaster preparedness. text of community diagnosis, this resolution will be a curing action
● (Storage) Let us know repeatedly to encourage personal storage. for the community. We intend to continue to monitor and analyze
● (Others) We have a vague consciousness of a disaster. But we the process in the Higashiyama area.
need to be stimulated by posters and other printed materials to be
made constantly aware of it. 5. CONCLUSION
The keywords such as“repeatedly”and“made constantly
aware of”in the above examples indicate that they are aware of the The paper discussed the ongoing research of community diag-
importance of repetitive actions and continuous signals in daily nosis for disaster preparedness. In the first part of the paper, the
life. This finding also implies that community people realize that knowledge creation process with the SECI model wasis introduced
disaster preparedness is an issue with low priority in their life and to explain sustainable community-based disaster preparedness.
is easily forgotten. Then, the concept of community diagnosis was explained.
The second finding is that participants’cognitive unit for In the following part, an observed study of Higashiyama in
“community”is much smaller than the elementary school area, Nagoya was discussed from which certain findings were obtained
which was initially defined as the community by us and RSY. from the diagnostic survey and the prescriptive workshop. The
● (Shelter) It is not possible for all of us to be sheltered in the survey revealed that (1) the scored vulnerabilities of the communi-
school (Officially designated shelter). It’ s better to have an ty are specified by the regional comparison, and (2) the
unofficial place for evacuation in our neighborhood. community’ s population is heterogeneous. From the workshop as
● (Shelter) We asked a neighboring church to open as a shelter in knowledge combination phase, the diagnostic survey revealed the
an emergency to the over-80s, and the injured handicapped. new findings of the importance of repeatability and focus on the
● First is ensuring myself and my family’ s safety. Second is the smaller unit.
safety of my neighbors. Community’ s linkage is an important Our research problem was how communities can be managed
factor that needs to be maintained for such a purpose. to sustain preparedness for disasters. For such a problem for
For example, their needs for unofficial shelter in their own which even experts cannot provide an answer, we tried to conduct
neighborhood arise from their actual feeling that the official shelter the study in an adaptive manner: repeating verification of a pre-
(Higashiyama elementary school) is still too far for some people. sented model on site and its adjustment in the laboratory.
Not only geographically, but the spatial unit of community for Admitting it is only verified under limited conditions and further
disaster preparedness raises another question. Higashiyama is the examination is required, the proposed model contributes to imple-
menting sustainable community preparedness.

Table 5. Number of ideas listed in the workshop REFERENCES

Central Disaster Prevention Council, 2002. Press Release:

Tokai jishin ni kakaru higai soutei no kentou joukyou ni tsuite
(Damage estimate of Tokai earthquake), http://www.bousai.go.jp/oshi-
rase/h14/020830kisya.html.
Lindell M. K., Perry R. W (eds.), 2001. Facing the Unexpected:
Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United States, National
Academies Press.
Mileti, D.S., 1999. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural
Hazards in the United States, Joseph Henry Press.
 COMMUNITY DIAGNOSIS FOR SUSTAINABLE DISASTER PREPAREDNESS 33

Nonaka, I., 1994. A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Meeting INTEGRATED DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT: Challenges
Creation, Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 14-37. of Implementation.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H., 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Okada, N., Kajitani, Y., Kawano, T., Kakumoto, S., and Tatano, H.,
Company: How Japanese Companies Create The Dynamics of Innovation, 2001. Roles of Community Diagnosis and Usefulness of DiMSIS from the
Oxford University Press. Viewpoint of Urban Planning Theory (In Japanese), Disaster Prevention
Nonaka, I, and Konno, N., 1998. The Concept of“Ba” : Building a Research Institute Annual Report, No. 44, B-2, pp.23-34.
foundation for knowledge creation, California Management Review, 40(3), Okada, N. and Matsuda, Y., 2005. Risk Communication Strategy for
pp. 40-54. Disaster Preparedness Viewed as Multilateral Knowledge Development,
Nonaka, I., Izumida, H., and Nagata, A., 2003. Chishiki kokka ron 2005 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,
josetsu –Aratana seisaku katei no paradigm (Toward the Theory of a CD-ROM.
Knowledge-based Country: A New Paradigm of the Policy Process), Toyo Okada, N., 2006. Methodology of Urban Disaster Diagnosis for
Keizai Shinpo Sha. Enhancing Safety and Security of Urban Space and Infrastructure, The
Okada N. and Gopalakrishnan, C. 2004. Reflections on Abstract for the annual meeting of the Disaster Prevention Research
Implementation Science. Proceedings of Fourth Annual IIASA-DPRI Institute, B20.