community as the resilient factor: the diverse role of communities in the recovery process from the...
TRANSCRIPT
ISESEA5
Community as the resilient factor?The diverse role of communities in the recovery process from the 2011 tsunami in Japan
MIYAUCHI Taisuke, Ph.D.Hokkaido [email protected]
1. Background
March 11, 2011, Great East Japan Earthquake
Kitakami
Sendai
Area description of Kitakami, Miyagi, Japan
• 20 communities (hamlets)• Population:
3,896 (Feb., 2011) -> 2,726 (Oct., 2015)
• Population over 65 yrs: 30%• Main industries: fishing (142
engaged), agriculture (86), construction (305), manufacturing
(337), amongst others.
Kitakami
Sendai
Ozashi
Kotaki
KozashiAikawa
Kodomari
OmuroKomuro
ShirahamaNagashioya
TategamiTsukihama
Yoshihama
Oppa
Kayamazaki
Nichoyachi
GyoninmaeOsu
Onagawa
NagaoHonchi
Kitakami
1 km
Casualties in Kitakami
Population before tsunami 3,896
Death toll 276
Households before tsunami 1151
Houses destroyed 1096
Ozashi (1)
Kotaki (2)
Kozashi (4)
Aikawa (15)
Kodomari (1)
Omuro (15)Komuro (2)
Shirahama (29)Nagashioya (8)
Tategami (22)Tsukihama (53)
Yoshihama (27)
Oppa (45)
Kayamazaki (23)
Nichoyachi (5)
Gyoninmae (2)Osu (5)
Onagawa (6)
Nagao (7)Honchi (4)
Kitakami
1 km
( ): Death toll
Rebuilding process
1st stage:Emergency help
Evacuation shelter
2nd stage:Temporary housing
3rd stage:Rebuilding projects (fishery, infrastructure,
welfare, housing relocation, etc.)
Army, Government, Civil society groups, Volunteers
Government, Local government, Civil society groups
Government, Local government, Civil society groups, professionals
Workshops on relocation projects
“Community!“
“Community!“
“Community!“
“Community!“
“Community!“
“Community” in the narratives
‘Community’ in the residents’ narratives comprises their lost hamlets, traditions, social links and hopes for the future.
– ‘I would like to relocate together with neighbors. I want to
keep “community”. ’ (Woman, 2011)– ‘Our evacuation shelter was well organised by the
community leaders, and “community” contributes to our rehabilitation. I am proud of the community cohesion.’ (Man, 2011)
Community and resilience
• Available literature stresses on the role of the community for post-disaster resilience.
• Miller and Rivera, 2011, Community Disaster Recovery and Resiliency, CRC Press.
• Amaratunga and Haigh, 2011, Post-Disaster Reconstruction of Built Environment: Rebuilding and Resilience, Wiley-Blackwell.
• Urano et al eds., 2007, Fukko Komyuniti Ron Nyumon (An Introduction to Community Rebuilding from Disaster), Tokyo: Kobundo.
Variation of “community” in the narratives
• Hamlets (residential communities)• Neighboring hamlets• Friend networks• Kinship groups• New-type community groups
• Locals need a combination of different types of communities.
Community as problem
• For some, communities are sometimes regarded as a ‘burden’.
e.g. obligatory community work, no longer ‘useless’ community property, etc.
• In the relocation projects, two different views exist:
Maintaining traditional communities or forming new communities?
Is community a resilience factor or an obstacle?
Does community really have a role in the rebuilding process?
What is the role of the community for individuals?
Purpose
To examine how and what kind of communities function or dysfunction to serve in the process of disaster recovery.
Method
• Qualitative and action research• Mainly semi-structured interviews with key and
lay persons–Repeated interviews with over 50 residents.
• Involvement in the community rebuilding process in collaboration with local government, NGOs, fishermen’s cooperative, and the community.
• Research since 2004.
Outline
1. Background2. Traditional communities3. Change in community and new types
of communities4. Communities in a relocation process5. Conclusions
2. traditional communities
2. traditional communities
Keiyakuko ( 契約講 ): “center in community”
• Traditional community organization in some areas of northern Japan• Each hamlet has Keiyakuko.• Autonomous governing system• Mutual aid system• Conducts traditional rituals• Handles resource management systems or
common property systems• Owns communal property (e.g., forest land, bamboo
forest)• Owns resource usufruct right (e.g., seaweed, forest
resources)
2. traditional communitiesKeiyakuko ( 契約講 ): key in resource managementResource Management body BeneficiaryAbalone fishermen’s cooperative householdFish fishermen’s cooperative householdAquaculture (wakame, kelp, and scallop)
fishermen’s cooperative household
Sea urchin Keiyakuko householdWakame seaweed and kelp collecting
Keiyakuko Keiyakukoand household
Seashore seaweeds Keiyakuko Keiyakukoand household
State forest government and Keiyakuko
household
Communal forest property
Keiyakuko Keiyakukoand household
Pampas grass Keiyakuko householdCommunal land property
Keiyakuko Keiyakukoand household
20
• Each community has their own resource management system.
2. traditional communitiesKeiyakuko ( 契約講 ): key in resource management
2. traditional communitiesOther organizations• Inside village
• Kannonko ( 観音講) : young married women’s organization
• Shinrui (親類) : clan, mutual help group
• Shobodan (消防団) (fire brigade): young men’s organization
• Inter-village• Shinseki (親戚) : kinship network
• Gakku (学区) (school district): inter-village community
Multi-layered community system with the core of Keiyakuko
Ozashi
Kotaki
KozashiAikawa
Kodomari
OmuroKomuro
ShirahamaNagashioya
TategamiTsukihama
Yoshihama
Oppa
Kayamazaki
Nichoyachi
GyoninmaeOsu
Onagawa
NagaoHonchi
Kitakami
1 km
Aikawa Gakku
Yoshihama GakkuHashiura Gakku
2. traditional communitiesFunction in disaster• Traditional communities have functioned
• In evacuation shelters: as organizations that manage life in shelters.
• In the rehabilitation process: providing cohesion for rebuilding.
• In relocation projects: as effective bodies for consensus building.
3. Change in community and new types of communities
3. Change in community and new types of communities
Change in Keiyakuko• Some Keiyakukos have been converted to
Jichikai ( 自治会) .<- Keiyakuko as burden.
• Jichikai: a non-traditional community organization. No property.
• After the tsunami some Keiyaukos was dissolved.
• Keiyakukos are, in some cases, dysfunctional in relocation projects (to be mentioned later)
3. Change in community and new types of communities
Temporary house communities• Start June 2011.• 3 sites (A: 167 households, B: 39, C: 13)• New, big community• Positive and negative views from residents:
• Negative: narrowness, noise, house quality• Positive: (next page)
Temporary House Site A (167)
Ozashi
Kotaki
KozashiAikawa
Kodomari
OmuroKomuro
ShirahamaNagashioya
TategamiTsukihama
Yoshihama
Oppa
Kayamazaki
Nichoyachi
GyoninmaeOsu
Onagawa
NagaoHonchi
Kitakami
1 km
Temporary House Site B (39)
Temporary House Site C (13)
3. Change in community and new types of communities
Temporary house communities• Positive view
• “This temporary housing site is composed of people from different villages. But we are from the same area. We are linked. I could feel at home. Good atmosphere.” (Woman)
• “I am from an agricultural village. But some friends here are from fishermen’s villages. I like talking with them. Their stories are so interesting. I feel happy to have a variety of friends. Without the disaster, I could not have become acquainted with some friends here.” (Woman)
Temporary house sites also function as communities …but they will disappear.
3. Change in community and new types of communities
New types of community groups• Women’s groups
• Child-raising groups
• Social entrepreneur groups• Community development groups• Community event planning groups
- Some before disaster, mostly after disaster.- Most of them are inter-village groups.- These groups have played a crucial role, along with
traditional community organizations, in the rebuilding process.
3. Change in community and new types of communitiesNew types of community groups: Community development groups
3. Change in community and new types of communities
New types of community groups: A community event planning group revived drama theater.
“Kagura Revival Festival”, May 4, 2013, Komuro, Kitakami
• Temporary house communities and new types of community groups have had an impact on the role of community and on people’s understanding of community:
‘ The word “we” used to refer to people in the same hamlet. However, we now call the whole Kitakami people, “we” ’. (Woman)
3. Change in community and new types of communities
Temporary house communities and new types of community groups
4. Communities in a relocation process
4. Communities in a relocation processRelocation project: 5 stages
Consensus: 1st stage
Consensus on making tsunami-affected lowland area uninhabitable ( Nov. and Dec.
2011 )
Consensus: 2nd stageConsensus on who joins the project and where it
will be relocated ( Jan and Feb 2012 ) .
Consensus: 3rd stageConsensus on the design of new settlements
( from Apr 2012).
Site construction (government)
House construction (individual household)
1/3 completed
Some completed
Housingrelocationprojects
Communityorganizations(Keiyakuko)
Architectgroup University
professionals
Nationalgovernment
CivilSocietygroups
Localgovernment
4. Communities in a relocation process
Community Organizations in relocation projects
• Keiyakukos have played a key role during consensus building in relocation projects.
Shirahama (previous hamlet)
Big relocation site in Kitakami (Site B)
Outside Kitakami
Shirahama relocation site
Nagashioya (previous hamlet)
15
6
9
10
8
5
Site A
Site B
Site C Site D
Site E
Site F
Site G
Site ISite J
2
1
14
2
29
1210
6
10
6
5
2 2
1
141 1
8
15
12
30
510
2 1
10 63
5
5
1
95
15
24
12
910 5
6
2
町外
Relocation project
Households from previous villages to relocation sites
小滝
1010
48
Site H
21
813
20
2733
95
96 15
216 2
2
Outgoing householdsTotal 170 H/H
• Divided people:• Divided choice
• Differences in relocating sites and subsidies.• Distrust, sense of distance
• Dissolution of traditional communities
4. Communities in a relocation process
Community problems in the relocation projects
• Some Keiyakukos (traditional community organizations) have been dissolved or are being dissolved.
But, …• Communal property remains and it needs to
pay asset tax. This acts as an obstacle to dissolving keiyakukos or reorganizing the communities.
4. Communities in a relocation process
Traditional community system as obstacle
Who pays asset tax?
Who manages forest?
• Need to reorganize and construct the communities.
• Problems:• Previous community vs. new community
• Shrines, rituals, common property, community cohesion etc.
4. Communities in a relocation process
New community building in relocation sites?
• Previous community vs. new community• Moderate opinion:
• “It is hard to build new community system quickly. We will keep the culture of previous communities for a while, especially shrines and rituals. We will gradually start communicating in the new relocation site and then gradually form new community. It takes time.” (Community leader)
4. Communities in a relocation process
New community building in relocation sites?
Conclusion 1: General
1. Traditionally Kitakami’s community system is multi-layered. Social change has altered the forms and functions of these entities.
2. Since the disaster, the function of communities has changed and become even more multi-layered.
3. The role of communities has always been important. Every individual utilizes several aspects of his/her communities.
4. Some implicit and explicit conflicts over communities have occurred due to differences among the people about the communities’ perspectives and direction.
Conclusion 2: Discussion for policy recommendation
1. It should be noted that communities are crucial and continuously in demand.
2. Diverse communities should be revitalised so that people can use them to enhance their stability and rehabilitation.
3. The government and civil society should support such diverse communities and diverse individual needs.