Disasters have adversely affected humans since the dawn of their existence. If we look on the past as a model for what we might expect to see in the future, we find that severe events that wreaked havoc on human communities and inflicted high levels of mortality were surprisingly frequent and widespread. Disasters can be caused either by nature, e.g. earthquakes and tsunamis, or can be man-made, e.g. terror attacks and severe industrial accidents. The number of disasters increased threefold within the 1980’s in comparison with the 1960’s, the economic loss increased by a factor of almost nine during the same period, while the number of affected people rose from 147 million a year in the 1980’s to 211 million a year in the 1990’s. This rise in numbers and suffering may have been a contributing factor, why the United Nations designated the 1990’s as the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. Toft and Reynolds reflect on the damages of re-occurring disasters by stating “We owe it [learning] to those who have lost their lives, been injured, or suffered loss to draw out the maximum amount of information from those lessons and to apply it to reduce future suffering.”
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Perspectives
2.1 Definition of a Disaster
2.2 Definition of Active Learning
2.3 Definition of Disaster Management Cycle
2.3.1 Mitigation
2.3.2 Opportunities for active learning during the mitigation phase
2.3.3 Preparedness
2.3.4 Opportunities for active learning during the preparedness phase
2.3.5 Response
2.3.6 Opportunities for active learning during the response phase
2.3.7 Recovery
2.3.8 Opportunities for active learning during the recovery phase
3. Examples
3.1 The Hokkaido – Nansei – Oki tsunami, 12 July 1993
3.1.1 Opportunities for active learning during the mitigation phase
3.1.2 Opportunities for active learning during the preparedness phase
3.1.3 Opportunities for active learning during the response phase
3.1.4 Opportunities for active learning during the recovery phase
3.2 Active foresight after the Hokkaido – Nansei – Oki tsunami
3.3 The Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, 11 March 2011
3.3.1 Opportunities for active learning during the mitigation phase
3.3.2 Opportunities for active learning during the preparedness phase
3.3.3 Opportunities for active learning during the response phase
3.3.4 Opportunities for active learning during the recovery phase
3.4 Active foresight after the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami
4. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper aims to investigate why certain types of disasters, specifically tsunamis in Japan, recur despite the institutional knowledge gained from past events. The research focuses on the intersection of the disaster management cycle and the concept of active learning, seeking to identify the systemic barriers that prevent the transition from mere lesson-learning to the creation of proactive 'active foresight'.
- The theoretical application of the Disaster Management Cycle (mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery).
- The role of active learning in improving organizational and societal resilience.
- Comparative analysis of the 1993 Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki tsunami and the 2011 Tohoku earthquake.
- Evaluation of sociocultural impacts and organizational decision-making processes during crises.
- Identification of gaps between deterministic hazard planning and the reality of extreme events.
Excerpt from the Book
Definition of a Disaster
There is no commonly agreed definition of the term disaster. Historically, the term disaster derives from the Latin roots dis- and astro, meaning “away from the stars” or, in other words, an event to be blamed on an unfortunate astrological configuration (Coppola, 2011: 29). A general definition of disaster is provided by Barrow (1999: 113), who states that a disaster is the realization of a hazard. Definitions of disaster of different organizations depend on their focus. The definition promoted by the World Health Organization mostly focuses on the impact on health (WHO, 1995), whereas the definition of the International Criminal Police Organization focuses on the number of casualties (INTERPOL, 2009). A more general definition, focusing on society, is provided in the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR, 2009: 9) and defines disasters as: “A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources.” Considering the major role the United Nations play in disaster risk reduction and response, this essay adopts their definition.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the motivation for the study, highlighting the increase in disaster frequency and the theoretical necessity of applying lessons learned to reduce future suffering.
2. Theoretical Perspectives: Defines core terminology including disaster, active learning, and the four phases of the disaster management cycle, providing a framework for analyzing crisis management.
3. Examples: Applies the theoretical framework to two Japanese tsunami events to evaluate how active learning opportunities were utilized—or missed—across the different phases of the management cycle.
4. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, noting that while deficiencies are often addressed, a lack of 'active foresight' and an over-reliance on deterministic models prevent the effective management of extreme, dynamic events.
Keywords
Disaster Management, Active Learning, Active Foresight, Tsunami, Japan, Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, Recovery, Resilience, Risk Reduction, Deterministic Approach, Fukushima, Okushiri, Sociocultural Factors
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research?
The work fundamentally explores why disasters continue to happen repeatedly in the same regions, despite the availability of knowledge gained from previous experiences.
What are the central themes of the paper?
The core themes include the disaster management cycle, the application of active learning, the concept of active foresight, and the failure of deterministic risk management.
What is the main research question?
The paper seeks to answer why disasters persist in causing destruction and death in Japan, even when the nation is highly experienced in dealing with seismic and tsunami hazards.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The study utilizes a qualitative literature review combined with a comparative case study analysis of two specific major tsunami events in Japan.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body examines the four phases of the disaster management cycle (mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery) and tests this framework against the 1993 Hokkaido and 2011 Tohoku tsunami events.
How would you characterize this work through keywords?
The study is characterized by terms such as active learning, disaster management, tsunami, resilience, active foresight, and risk reduction.
How did the 1993 Okushiri event influence future planning?
The 1993 event led to the island being labeled a 'fortress island' with significantly raised seawalls and improved warning systems, though the effectiveness of these measures remains debated regarding larger, unforeseen events.
What did the Fukushima case reveal about Japanese disaster planning?
It revealed a significant gap between official 'deterministic' hazard assessments and the reality of extreme events, compounded by organizational problems and cultural biases that discouraged discussing worst-case scenarios.
- Quote paper
- Anonym (Author), 2013, Oportunities for active learning by disasters, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/271675
