Sharing concerns among stakeholders as a driver for sustainable risk communication:

A case study of a series of workshops held in Muraida Community, Shiga Prefecture

Junho CHOI1 and Hirokazu TATANO2

1Ph.D. candidate, Graduate School of Informatics, KYOTO University

(Gokasho, Uji, Kyoto 611-0011, Japan) E-mail: junho@imdr.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp

2 Professor, Disaster Prevention Research Institute, KYOTO University (Gokasho, Uji, Kyoto 611-0011, Japan) E-mail: tatano@imdr.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Countermeasures taken by community residents against potential environmental hazards play an important role in risk management. For example, when residents create hazard maps, they are not just plotting shelter locations for estimated flood areas but are also sharing information such as evacuation routes and timings between the government and community residents. Therefore, if concern assessments of residents are not conducted, they may devote less time to risk management. Residents possess knowledge and understanding of the community concerns that might be harder to grasp by outsiders or experts. In Shiga prefecture, the local government conducts many flood reduction workshops in estimated flood areas. Muraida Community in Workshop City, Japan, conducted eight workshops during the years 2010 through 2012. During these workshops, the important concerns expressed by stakeholders prompted authorities to take

ity to floods. This paper will present an analysis of the concerns expressed during these workshops and discuss the importance of the communication of these concerns among stakeholders.

Key Words : Concern assessment, Community-based disaster reduction, Disaster imagination game, workshop, Sense-making

1. INTRODUCTION In recent years, the use of concern assessments in risk management has been studied with keen interest by those in the field. Simply put, countermeasures taken by community residents (hereafter referred to as

when residents create hazard maps, they are not just plotting shelter locations for estimated flood areas. They are also sharing information such as evacuation routes and timings with both the government and community members. Therefore, if concern assessments of residents are not conducted, the residents may devote less time to risk management. Residents possess knowledge and understanding of community concerns that might be harder to grasp by outsiders or experts. Although experts possess general knowledge about the many kinds of disaster damage, in many cases, they may learn about more specific concerns (e.g., the range and limit of action due to unique community environments or the extent of the route of damage,) through communication with residents. Often, residents facing flood risk cannot share their concerns unless a dialogue develops between members of the communities and officials of local government. Effective communication is the key to creating trust in risk management. Excellent communication is of particular importance. It ensures the involvement of stakeholders in participative risk-related decision making and conflict resolution. Up-to-date information must be communicated so that stakeholders can make informed choices about risk by balancing factual knowledge about it with their own interests, concerns, beliefs, and resources (IRGC White Paper, 2008). In Shiga prefecture, the local government held many flood reduction workshops in estimated flood areas.

－ 1 －

Muraida Community in Maibara City conducted eight workshops during the years 2010 through 2012. Many important concerns were expressed by stakeholders. The valuable information shared by stakeholders

. The aim of this paper is to analyze the process by which residents opinions are elicited and adopted during the creation of flood reduction plans, through the application of the theory of sense-making. According to Weick(2005), sense-making unfolds as a sequence during which people concerned with identity in the social context of other actors engage in ongoing circumstances from which they extract cues. They make plausible sense of these cues retrospectively, while enacting more or less order into those ongoing circumstances. 2. BACKGROUND As social constructionists have emphasized, sense-making is an organizational process by which norms are constructed through shared communication by people in groups. Sense-making is the process by which people give meaning to their experiences. Dervin (1999) pointed out that sense-making assumes that the concept of dialogue pertains specifically to the presence of difference. Without difference, communication, either about differences or about similarities, becomes unnecessary. Difference, as characterized in the literature today, pertains primarily to multiplicities categorized demographically (e.g., ethnicity, race, culture, gender, or class). Sense-making, however, assumes that difference and the human mandate to bridge difference pre-dates any such global moment. From every corner of the globe, that humans have developed to facilitate the sharing of difference. Therefore, by sharing individual experiences during workshops, such as watching and hearing about the vulnerability of places or people or about historical experiences, participants can learn to recognize vulnerable situations. They can then use this information to create successful community disaster management plans.

Fig.1 Tripartite relationship between individual experience, action, and socialization through sense-making 3. STUDY AREA MURAIDA COMMUNITY, MAIBARA CITY City, Shiga prefecture. The population consists of 385 people (111 households, as of December 1, 2011). Muraida is divided into two areas: Kami and Simo. Ryugahana Meeting Hall is considered the community center. Kami and Simo are made up of eight groups. These groups are named Kami-Higashi, Kami-Nishi, Kami-Minami, Kami-Kita, Simo-Naka, Simo-Nishi, Simo-Minami, and Simo-Kita. Each group consists of, on average, thirteen households. In 1959, Typhoon Isewan Vera ) hit central Japan and caused record damage to the region. The region suffered severe damage as a result of high tides and floods. More than 5,000 lives were lost. 4. OUTLINE OF WORKSHOPS PRESENTED IN 2010 Muraida held three workshops in 2010. At the first workshop, held on October 29, 2010, the authors and facilitators, along with organizers from Shiga prefecture government, conducted oral surveys concerning

－ 2 －

flood disaster history. The survey participants had extensive flood experience. They recounted their flood experiences during Typhoon Isewan. The authors learned about flood prone areas. Limited flood damage occurred in Muraida following Typhoon Isewan. Land estimation through a field survey and simulation system was conducted at the second workshop, which was held on December 10, 2010. A third workshop was held on March 3, 2011. The purpose of this workshop was to provide inundation information to members of the resident associations. Overall, the purpose of the three workshops conducted in 2010 was to provide information to residents while gauging the appropriateness of workshop operation.

Pic. 1. Oral survey Pic. 2. Simulation results

Pic. 3. Provision of inundation information to members of resident associations

5. OUTLINE OF WORKSHOPS CONDUCTED IN 2011 In 2011, the authors, staff members from local government, and government representatives conducted five workshops geared toward development of a flood disaster reduction plan. Date Participants from Muraida Main concern 1st workshop

July 26, 2011 Members of resident associations 1. Need for evacuation information. 2. Decision made to participate in the Disaster Imagination Game (DIG).

2nd workshop

October 7, 2011 Members of resident associations Need for information about facilities and route for evacuation action.

3rd workshop

November 27, 2011 Residents (including members of resident associations)

The DIG process.

4th workshop

December 20, 2011 Members of resident associations 1. Need for information about rules for evacuation. 2. Information gained through reflection on the DIG results.

5th workshop

February 3, 2012 Members of resident associations 1. Presentation of a community-based hazard map. 2. Plans for the future

Table 1 Workshops in 2011

－ 3 －

The initial plan was to offer four workshops in 2011. However, the members of the resident associations requested an additional workshop devoted to the discussion of flood risk problems. They also wanted to attempt to solve flood risk problems through participation in the DIG. Almost all of the members of the resident associations attended each workshop. Other residents of Muraida attended the third workshop to participate in the DIG. The workshops provided a field of discussion between facilitators and organizers from Shiga prefecture and residents of Muraida. Using a debate-like format to present ideas on both sides of the issues, the participants and the authors freely exchanged opinions about flood disaster preparedness and possible mitigation plans.

Fig.2 Flow of the Workshops

Pic. 4. Format of Workshop (First Workshop [left] and Second Workshop [right])

6. CONCERNS EXPRESSED DURING THE FIRST AND SECOND WORKSHOPS (PRE-DIG) In Muraida, the workshop participants were the members of resident associations. The first and second workshops were held on July 26, 2011, and October 7, 2011, respectively. (1) Concerns expressed during the first workshop Following Typhoon Isewan, very few floods occurred in Muraida. However, after Typhoon No.6 of 2011, residents expressed concerns about flood risk: a) The members of the resident associations requested easy-to-understand flood warnings. In particular, they requested warnings concerning water levels. They also requested a simple graduated staff gauge to measure flood levels. b) They wanted to know more about the flow of information and how information is delivered because they did not accept the information they received from a related agency during Typhoon No. 6. c) They wanted to know the cause of flooding during Typhoon No.6. d) They wanted to know the identity of the flood warning operator on duty during Typhoon No 6 in 2011

agency) in order to confirm credibility of the information received. e) They wanted to develop evacuation plans for each group. f) They wanted to provide answers to questions (a) through (d) above to those who were not participating in the workshops, such as other residents of Muraida. On the basis of the information shared by the members of the resident associations, the authors and staff members proposed that they participate in the DIG and they accepted.

－ 4 －

(2) Concerns expressed during the second workshop a) The members of the resident association members were concerned that the sluice gate at the mouth of De river was expected to obstruct the flow of the river during flooding. Therefore, they requested the name of the manager and asked that the gate be removed. b) They identified the evacuation and shelter problems that might occur during a flood. In Muraida, there are differences in elevation between the Kami and Simo regions. However, there is only one evacuation and shelter location area designated for both regions. The designated location, Ryugahana Meeting Hall, is located in the center of Muraida. The members noted that this site is not big enough to accommodate the anticipated number of evacuees. In addition, the road to the Ryugahana Meeting Hall is at a lower elevation. Therefore, it may be impossible to evacuate after inundation has begun.

Fig.3 Evacuation way at an inundation situation

c) The members suggested the creation of rules concerning flood risk for vulnerable people d) The members noted that the appointment of a new town officer occurs on a yearly basis. They suggested that the yearly turnover may make it difficult to maintain the flood reduction plan. e) They decided to use the 10 Marugoto-Machigoto Hazard maps as a warning signboard at an expected flood site. This decision was covered by a TV news program on October 20, 2011 (NHK). Further, a newspaper article covering this decision appeared on October 8, 2011, in the Kyoto Shinbun News. The decision was considered newsworthy because this was the first time the maps would be used in Shiga prefecture.

Pic. 5. Marugoto-Machigoto Hazard map design sample and News Article, October 8, 2011, Kyoto Shinbun News.

7. OUTLINE OF THE THIRD WORKSHOP (DIG) The DIG is a method used to help people learn more about disaster prevention. Participants brainstorm to develop ideas that might be used to strengthen local disaster planning. The objectives of the DIG are to

－ 5 －

identify the potential hazards in the area and to identify and recognize the actions that should be taken in the post-disaster phase(Na, 2010). The third workshop focused specifically on the personal views and perceptions of individual attendees. The DIG was conducted in Muraida on November 27, 2011. Prior to the actual exercise, members of the resident associations performed three important activities to improve resident participation: a) They distributed a community newspaper to provide information about the DIG process and to inform residents about when the DIG would occur. b) Group leaders called each household to encourage participation in the DIG. c) The members announced the start of the DIG over the community wireless system on the morning of the event. At a group meeting, a representative from each household was designated to participate in the DIG. A total of 49 residents, each representing a household, participated in the DIG. Their participation is equivalent to approximately 13% of the total population. Alternatively, if the figures are viewed as representative of households, their participation is equivalent to approximately 44% of total households. Komura (2004) and Na(2010) explain the steps in the DIG process as follows: a) The DIG methods and procedures are introduced by a facilitator or group of facilitators to the community members. b) The DIG process begins with risk mapping and risk identification. In order to perform risk mapping, a base map of the local area is provided to the participants. The map is covered with a transparent overlay. The participants, mostly the local residents, are asked to identify and mark the areas of potential strength and weakness on the transparent overlay. Participants generally identify and mark public buildings, roads, and natural resources. They also note the geographical nature of each site. c) Once the participatory mapping is completed, the facilitator introduces a theoretical disaster situation and asks the participants to consider possible actions that could reduce risks and help residents cope with the situation. d) As a culminating activity, results of the discussions are summarized and a presentation of the findings is made to the participants.

Pic. 6. The DIG process (clockwise from left top: guidance, map making, field survey, and presentation of results).

－ 6 －

8. CONCERNS EXPRESSED DURING THE FOURTH AND FIFTH WORKSHOPS (POST- DIG) (1) Concerns expressed during the fourth workshop After reflecting on the DIG results, the members discussed the creation of evacuation rules. Participants identified factors that impact on evacuation. The following issues were discussed: a) Shelter issues Participants decided that two shelters were needed. They designated Sohokuji for the Kami area and Ryugahana Meeting Hall for the Simo area. They also determined the following: -If the water level is high on the route to Ryugahana Meeting Hall, evacuees should go to Kounji. -At the onset of a flood, residents should consider moving to the second floors of their homes. b) Route of evacuation issues If evacuation is necessary, residents should use the town road. If the town road is flooded, residents should detour to the farm road. c) Evacuation system issues Upon receipt of information from the local government, the community leader will contact each group leader to provide information and updates. Each group leader will then contact the residents in their group and relay information. Flood warnings will be broadcast over the community wireless system. d) Hazard map issues The members of the resident associations designated eight Marugoto-Machigoto Hazard maps. Initially, they wanted to designate ten areas. However, flood simulation revealed that two of the ten areas had 0.0m inundation. Hence, they were removed from the list.

Pic. 7. Fourth Workshop Pic. 8. Fifth Workshop (2) Creation of a hazard map that reflected both the DIG results and the findings from past workshops During the fifth workshop, the community leader presented a community-based hazard map that reflected the results from the DIG process. The hazard map included the following: a) The only hazard shown on the map is flood risk. Other hazards were omitted to make the map easy to understand. b) The map includes the eight Marugoto-Machigoto Hazard map as well as the names and locations of each household in each area. c) An asterisk marks the location of possible areas along the evacuation route that may become inundated during a flood. d) A symbol marks a location with relatively low elevation. This symbol warns residents of potential danger if they reside in that area. e) The map indicates that Sohokuji and Kounji are designated as evacuation sites. Ryugahana Meeting Hall is designated as a shelter.

means route to the evacuation g) The map includes a suggested emergency supply list. The community leader suggested that the names of vulnerable individuals and their locations be added to the map. However, he noted that it would be difficult to confirm names and locations.

－ 7 －

(3) Concerns expressed during the Fifth Workshop Following a brief presentation, attendees discussed unresolved problems and plans for the future. The following issues were discussed: a) Dissemination of information on flood reduction facilities Members of the resident associations decided that they will explain the Marugoto-Machigoto Hazard map and use of the simple graduated staff gauge at a general meeting of residents. They will also distribute printed materials. b) Attendees reported that the owner of the sluice gate at the mouth of De river from reformed coastland at the Ane river (Anekawa engan tochi kairyou) district rejected their request to remove the sluice gate. They have requested arbitration from the local government, Shiga prefecture. c) Attendees discussed the difficulties encountered with vulnerable members of the community during risk situations. A workshop focused on this issue will be held during the next year. As a result of the discussions at the fifth workshop, three major questions were identified. First, will the plan continue into the future? Second, how can a bridge be formed between those who participated in the workshop and those who did not participate? Third, what is the most efficient way to address the needs of vulnerable people during flood conditions? Sustainability of the plan is a key concern. Katada et al. (2011) point out that when many individuals decide on evacuation plans in a workshop setting, there is a risk that the plan will not be sustainable. One of the deterrents to sustainability of the Muraida project is that the workshops were conducted by experts and facilitators. After the workshops ended, the experts and facilitators withdrew from the project. Another deterrent is that the members of the resident associations did not consistently attend the workshops because membership in their association changes periodically. In order to ensure sustainability, a management structure must be developed that does not rely on the presence of the facilitators or on consistent attendance by the members of resident associations.

Pic. 9. The presentation by the community leader and the community based hazard map which reflects the DIG results.

The second concern addresses the need for information sharing between attendees and non-participants. In the case of Muraida, the members of the resident associations attended almost all the workshops. It can be assumed that the community residents entrusted the members with full power to create the flood reduction plan. This was an efficient, successful solution. For the first time in Shiga prefecture, many flood prevention tools such as the Marugoto-Machigoto Hazard map and the simple graduated staff gauge were designated in Muraida. The members of the resident associations voluntarily designed a community-based hazard map that reflected the results of the DIG in which they participated. The members of the resident associations realized that they had to find a way to share information with non-participants. They decided to hold general meetings for community residents where they could explain the plan. The third concern raises the question of how to best serve the needs of vulnerable people during floods. Presently, there is no rule in Muraida that addresses this issue. The members of the resident associations stated that they are aware of those vulnerable people who have registered for emergency telephone service. However, if those individuals do not renew their service, contact will be difficult. Information about vulnerable community members is available only to local welfare commissioners. A decision was made to

－ 8 －

contact local welfare commissions and invite them to participate in the next workshop. The next step is to schedule another workshop that will provide opportunities to discuss remaining concerns. In addition, the plan will be explained in detail with each stakeholder in Muraida. 9. CONCLUSIONS By performing concern assessments, the authors gained a better understanding of the problems faced by residents when they attempt to develop a flood reduction plan. Members of resident associations benefitted from dialogues with stakeholders as they created the flood risk reduction plan. Prior to participation in the DIG, potential vulnerabilities in Muraida were identified and discussed. Following DIG participation, concerns were identified and efforts were made to address them. As a result, the residents were able to decide on reasonable evacuation routes and designate shelter locations. For the first time, the Marugoto-Machigoto Hazard map was developed in Muraida in Shiga prefecture. These results show that the use of concern assessments plays a vital role in risk management. Residents facing flood risk need to share their knowledge of the risks faced by their communities with each other and with local government officials. Sense-making is the process by which people give meaning to their experiences. This paper highlights the importance of the use of concern assessments as a means of communication between stakeholders. In addition, trust among stakeholders must be established in order to achieve successful results in risk communication. In Shiga prefecture, the local government conducted many flood reduction workshops in potential flood areas. Muraida Community in Maibara City conducted a series of workshops during the years 2010 through 2012 where local residents expressed their concerns about flood risk. Local officials responded promptly and took action to make the city less vulnerable to floods. Although gains were made, some problems still need to resolved. For example, a plan needs to be devised to support vulnerable community members. Bridges of communication need to be built between participants and non-participants to promote information sharing. However, all of these problems can be solved through the use of sustainable concern assessment during the next workshop. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The authors are heavily indebted to Mr. Yasuhito Oneda and Mr. Yuji Kitamura of Shiga prefectural office. The authors also wish to thank the concerned staff members. Special thanks also go the community members of Muraida for their cooperation. REFERENCES 1) Katada, T., Kanai, M., Kodama, M. and Oikawa, Y.: Development of evacuation system for huge river flooding by WS, Japan

Society of Civil Engineers Journal, Vol. 67, No.1, pp. 14-22, 2011(in Japanese). 2) Na., J.: Adaptation and Implementation of the Yonmenkaigi System Method for Disaster Reduction-oriented Collaborative Action Plan Development at Community Level: Case Studies from Japan and Indonesia, doctoral dissertation, Kyoto University, 2010. 3) Matsuda, Y. and Okada, N.: Community Diagnosis for Sustainable Disaster Preparedness, Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 25-33, 2006. 3) Bajek, R., Matsuda, Y., and Okada, N.: -bosai-soshiki community activities: analysis of its role in participatory community disaster risk management, Natural Hazards, Vol. 44, pp. 281-292, 2008. 4) Sense making Final Report Sensemaking Symposium Command and Control Research Program Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence, 2001. 5) HM Government: Evacuation and Shelter Guidance, 2006. 6) Ohnishi, K.: Disaster prevention education for life long learning- A trial study through the flood disaster map. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Japanese Society of Environmental Education, pp. 8, 2005. 7) Komura, T.: DIG (disaster imagination game) - the guidance for dig workshop in a local community. Syobo-bosai [Firefighting and Disaster Prevention], Vol. 10, pp. 92-102, 2004 (in Japanese). 8) Sanoff, H.: Community participation methods in design and planning, John Wiley & Sons, 2000. 9) Kosuke, N., Kiyoko, T., Katsuaki, T., Mina, A. and Koichi H.: Participatory Workshop as a Creativity Support System, Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5178/2008, pp. 823-830, 2008. 10) IRGC: An Introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework, 2008. 11) Weick, K. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. London: Sage. 12) Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K., and Obstfeld, D.: Organizing and the process of sensemaking, Organization Science, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 409-421, 2005. 13) Dervin, B.: Sense- . Paper presented at a non-divisional workshop held at the meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, 1999. 14) Lee, E.: Working atmosphere and the role of agency influencing collaborative working between health and social welfare services, Korean Journal of Social Welfare, Vol. 62, No. 1, pp.155-183, 2010 (in Korean).

－ 9 －