Transcript PowerPoint プレゼンテーション - Resilient Cities 2015

Developing a Policy Model for Resilient City;
Implications from Applying Indicators, Status Report
and Scenario Development to Japanese Cities
1 0 . Ju n . 2 0 1 5 @ Bo n n
Kenshi Baba (Ph.D., Professor, Hosei University)
1
Outline
 Background
 Frameworks on Resilient City
 Measuring Risks, Vulnerabilities and Endpoints
and Integrating the Results
 A Public Forum of The UN 3rd World
Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction
 Future Works
2
Background of Resilient City in Japan
A definition of Resilience
The ability of a social or ecological system to absorb
disturbances while retaining the same basic structure
and ways of functioning, the capacity for selforganization, and the capacity to adapt to stress and
change (IPCC, AR4 2007)
Resilient
City; A vision
of city for
21st Century
Great East Japan Earthquake
International trend of resilient city
clarified the urgent issues, such  Concerns are not only on disaster
as robust energy system,
but also on major issues of
community development
environmental policy such as climate
aiming at disaster risk reduction
change, energy, biodiversity
Frequent occurrence of
National Resilience Promotion Office, Cabinet
disasters that seems to
Secretariat
arise from climate change
such as flood, heat wave,
Major concern is on disaster risk reduction
and crop damage
The Roles of Environmental policy to build
resilience has not been clarified
3
A Framework of Policy Model and Indicators
Measuring by administrative
indicator
Resilient
policy
Scenario
development
Vulnerability
Situation to
be avoided
(endpoint)
Realization of policy model
External
force risk
Status report
Policy model
Measuring by civil
Measuring by urban
indicator
indicator
Policy model; A hypothetical flow describing the whole process of policymaking
Indicators; Three kinds of indicators to measure the status of each component of the policy model
Status report; Assessing the degree of resilience based on the measuring results with the indicators
Scenario development; Holding some participatory approaches with the status report to realize the policy model
4
A Framework of Three Measures of Resilient Policy
Resilience
Defensive
capacity
(precautiona
ry measure)
Recovery capacity
(adaptive measure)
Resistance /
robustness
influence to system
Tolerance /
flexibility
Learning
capacity
(transformation
measure)
Threshold of regime
shift occurrence
= Situation to be
avoided
Vulnerability
Exposure amount to external force risk
Range of
unaffected
Range of recoverable
Range of regime
shift occurrence
5
A Framework of Three Types of Resilient Indicators
1. Urban Indicator(UI)
 The experts assess the degree of
resilience objectively for various
facets based on some published
quantitative data such as the Census
2. Administrative Indicator(AI)
 Local governments’ officials assess
the degree of resilience subjectively
in terms of the situation of progress
and preparedness of the existing
based on the questionnaire (selfassessment) and scrutiny on the
administrative plans
3. Civic Indicator(CI)
 The general public and stakeholders
assess the degree of resilience
subjectively in terms of civic life such
as social capital based on the
questionnaire (self-assessment)
Preparedness
Civic life and
of policy (AI) comprehensive activity (CI)
assessment
Urban
quantitative
status (UI)
Framing
gap
Expert(scient
ific evidence)
Uncertainty
⇒ distrust
Public(local
knowledge)
4. Integration of the Assessment Results
Examining the gaps and common points of
the assessment results of the indicators among
relevant actors with the integrated “status
report” to understand the resilience of the city
comprehensively
6
Measuring Risks, Vulnerabilities and Endpoints with
Administrative Indicator(AI)

Identifying indicators;





41 for risks from natural and social external forces
28 for vulnerabilities inherent to local communities
24 for anticipated situations that to be avoided (endpoints)
44 for the state of preparation of resilience measures
Questionnaire to local governments across Japan including Sendai
to assess risks, vulnerabilities and endpoints with the
administrative indicators
Dates
Survey subjects
17th
Table Outline of the questionnaire
March – 25th April, 2014
Local officials in 109 planning, disaster-prevention, and environmental sections of
prefectures, ordinance-designated major cities, and mid-sized cities
Method
Sent and collected by mail
Survey topics
Risks (41 indicators), vulnerabilities (28 indicators), anticipated situations that should be
avoided (24 indicators), preparation of resilience measures (43 indicators) etc.
Responses
(response rate)
148 (45.3%)
7
Measuring Risks, Vulnerabilities and Endpoints with
Administrative Indicator(AI); The Result of 41 Indicators
environmental
disaster-prevention
planning
High ⇐ Score ⇒ Low
8
Measuring Risks, Vulnerabilities and Endpoints with Civic
Indicator(CI)

Identifying indicators;





41 for risks from natural and social external forces
28 for vulnerabilities inherent to local communities
24 for anticipated situations that to be avoided (endpoints)
16 for the state of preparation of resilience measures
Questionnaire to the general citizen living in nine cities across
Japan which have disaster sites including Sendai to assess risks,
vulnerabilities and endpoints with the civic indicators
Table Outline of the questionnaire
Dates
13th
February – 14th Fabruary, 2015
Survey subjects
The general citizens living in nine cities across Japan which have disaster sites
Method
Sent and collected by e-mail and the Internet website
Survey topics
Risks (41 indicators), vulnerabilities (28 indicators), anticipated situations that should be
avoided (24 indicators), preparation of resilience measures (16 indicators), trust to local
governments and scientists etc.
Responses
Approx. 400 for each city (3,953 in total)
9
Measuring Risks, Vulnerabilities and Endpoints with Civic
Indicator(CI); The Result of 28 Indicators
High ⇐ Score ⇒ Low
4
3
2
1
CI (national average)
CI (Sendai)
AI (national average)
10
A Public Forum of The UN 3rd World Conference on
Disaster Risk Reduction
 Time and date; 1 - 5 pm, 14th Mar.
 Venue; Sendai Civic Centre
 Participants; 51 (incl. 18 Sendai citizens who are
the respondents of the questionnaire)
 Agenda
 1 - 3 pm, Information provision
 Climate change; Sendai Regional Headquarters,
Japan Meteorological Agency
 Disaster risk reduction and
gray
infrastructure; Kyushu University
 Ecosystems and green infrastructure; Tohoku
University
 The results of AI and CI; Hosei University
 3 -5 pm workshop in three groups
 What are risks? What are vulnerabilities?
 What are needed in making Sendai more resilient
11
A Public Forum of The UN 3rd World Conference on
Disaster Risk Reduction
Risks
Vulnerabilities
To be resilient
Gr. volcano, aging society,
1 differential between
coastal area and
mountain area, climate
change
weakness of snow
removal system,
inconvenience of public
transportation, weak
communities ties
importance of self-help(water and
food stock, electricity saving),
strengthening communities ties
Gr. destruction of disaster2 prevention forest by
tsunami, nuclear power
plant, volcano, aging
society
weak communities ties,
financial deficit, bad
ground condition,
inconvenience of public
transportation
importance of self-help(increasing
sensitivity for disaster information),
strengthening communities ties,
utilization of green infrastructure
Gr. existence of
3 petrochemical complex
and nuclear power plant,
volcano, dilapidated
infrastructure, climate
change and ecosystem
frequent relocation of
residents(weak
communities ties),
incorrect evacuation
center
importance of selfhelp(understanding evacuation
route), strengthening communities
ties(publishing community
magazine), utilization of green
infrastructure
12
A Public Forum of The UN 3rd World Conference on
Disaster Risk Reduction
 Outcome
 Volcano and climate change as risks and weak communities ties as vulnerability
are indicated commonly
 Especially disaster-affected people indicates importance of self-help as well as
mutual aid and propose some specific actions in short term
 Transdisciplinary approach are required to the experts and local government
 Raising awareness of the citizen for short and long term risks from the entry
point of two major external forces of natural disaster and climate change and
showing a possibility of attitude change
13
Future Works
Status Report
集中豪雨発
生リスク
High ⇐ Score ⇒ Low
The Integrated assessment results of three types of indicators of
60
50
UI, AI, and CI on the four components of the policy model; i)
40
30
自治体財政
避難時混乱
20
external force risk, ii) vulnerability, iii) situation to be avoided, iv) 力
発生リスク
10
0
resilient policy will promote each actor’s understanding of what
to do for building resilient city
災害関連死
復興労働力
i) External force risk
発生リスク
指数
 Urban indicator
ii) Vulnerability
 Administrative indicator
仙台市
平均値
iii) Situation to be avoided
 Civil indicator
iv) Resilient policy
⇑ Assessment result of external
force risk by UI in Sendai (in
comparison with the average of
the government-decreed cities)
4
3
2
⇚ Assessment result of external
force risk by AI and CI in Sendai
1
CI (national average)
CI (Sendai)
AI (national average)
14
ありがとうございました！
Thank you for your kind attention !
If you have any questions, please contact
[email protected]
Acknowledgment;
This study was supported by the Environment Research and Technology
Development Fund (1-1304) of the Ministry of the Environment, and Grantin-Aid for Scientific Research(C) No. 26340122, Japan.
15