Model Building and Testing of Long-Term Life Recovery Processes of the Survivors of the

1995 Kobe earthquake: Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) of the

2003 Hyogo Prefecture Life Recovery Survey

The 29th Annual Hazards Research and Applications Workshop, Boulder, Colorado

July 14, 2004

立木茂雄（ Shigeo Tatsuki, Dpt. of Sociology, Doshisha University ）

林　春男（ Haruo Hayashi, Disaster Prevention Rsearch Institute, Kyoto University ）

矢守克也（ Katsuya Yamori, Disaster Prevention Rsearch Institute, Kyoto University ）

野田　隆（ Takashi Noda, Faculty of Human Life and Environment, Nara Women’s University ）

田村圭子（ Keiko Tamura, Disaster Prevention Rsearch Institute, Kyoto University ）

Research Framework of the 1999 & 2001 Life Recovery Study

• The 1999 Disaster Process Study

• The 2001 Panel Survey Study

As Life is Recovered…

Life Re-adjustment

Life Satisfaction

FactorFactor

FactorFactor

FactorFactor

FactorFactor

Factor

Life Recovery

Number of Opinion Cards for Life Recovery Category Critical Elements (1999 Grass Root Workshop Results)

84

138154154

197

407

489

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

①Housing

②Social T

ies

③Townscape

④Preparedness & Mitig

ation

⑤Physical &

Mental Health

⑥Economic & Financial S

ituatio

ns

⑦Relatio

n to Government

(30.1%)

(25.1%)

(12.1%)

(9.5%) (9.5%)(8.5%)

(5.2%)

Ｎ＝1623 Statements

ReturnTo

Framework

General Linear Model of Life Recovery (2001 Survey Results)

Gender

Settled-ness

Self-Governance

Community Solidarity

Community Participation

Family Cohesion

Family Adaptability

Local Commons

Physical Stress

Mental Stress

House Damage OccupationBY

Generation

Occupation

House DamageB

YB

YB

Y

ＬＩＦＥ　ＲＥＣＯＶＥＲ

Ｙ

Household Saving

Household Saving

Preparedness

Communitarianism

Generation OccupationBYHouse Damage BY

Generation OccupationBY

Generation

Social Desirability

P<.0001

P<..005

P<..05

P<..10

P<..20

House Damage GenerationBYN=1203

“Life Recovery” Reconsidered• The 1999 Disaster Process Study

• The 2001 Panel Survey Study

• The 2003 Panel Survey Study

As Life is Recovered…

Life Re-adjustment

Life Satisfaction

Outcome

Measures

Process

Measures ？

What is known and trends for improving recovery and reconstruction following disasters

a) there exists a need to shift the conceptualiza-tion of recovery from linear and outcome based to seeing it as an ongoing and long-term process.

b) antecedent recovery studies tend to be “overly descriptive, fragmented, and short-term oriented”

c) not much attention has been paid to link a disaster response phase to a recovery phase.

d) more research is needed in order to understand the long-term effects of disaster recovery

(Wenger, Rubin, Nigg, Berke & Bolton, 1996).

Three Recovery Curve Typologies

Time

Withdraw

alIn P

rocessR

ecovered

Retreat

Struggle for Meaning

Everyday Life

Recovered

Life Re-

adjustment

Satisfaction

Life Re-

adjustment

Satisfaction

Life Re-

adjustment

Satisfaction

Time

Time

Life Change Appraisal Model

EQ

being a major life

event

EQ

not being a major life

event

Positive Appraisal

Negative Appraisal

NewConstruction

Retreat

Normalcy

•Berger, P.L., & Luckman, T. Social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. NY: Anchorbooks, 1966. •Frankl, V. E. Man's search for meaning. NY: Pocket Books, 1959.•Holmes, T. & Rahe, R. (1967) "Holmes-Rahe Social Readjustment Rating Scale", Journal of Psychosomatic Research, vol. II.•Lifton, R.J. Death in Life: The Survivors of Hiroshima. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968. •Kubler-Ross, E. On Death and Dying. NY:Simon & Schuster/Touchstone,1969

２次因子空間の構造

- ← Event Evaluation → 　 +

1.0.50.0-.5-1.0

High 　

　←

Event Im

pact →　

　　

Low

1.0

.5

0.0

-.5

-1.0

PositiveReappraisal

Return to Normalcy

EQ Major Life Event

Struggle for Meaning

Retreat

Second Order Factor Analysis Results of Life Recovery Process Scales (22 Items)

Research Framework of the 2003 Life Recovery Process Study

FactorFactor

FactorFactor

FactorFactor

FactorFactor

Factor

Life Re-adjustment

Life Satisfaction

Life Recovery Outcome

Event Impact

Event Evaluation

Life Recovery Process

ExogenousFactorExogenous

FactorExogenous

Factor

Life Recovery Critical Elements

Dependent VariablesIntervening Variables

Independent Variables

Proportion of Life Recovery Critical Element Category Opinions in 1999,2003 and 2004 Workshops

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Housing

Social T

ies

Townscape

Prepare

dness &

Mitigation

Mind an

d Body

Econom

ic & Fina

ncial Situa

tion

Relation to

Government

Changes

in Values

& World

view*

Commem

orate e

xperien

ces/lesso

ns*

1999 Kobe City Workshop (9 wards& 3 SIG's, 1623 opinions)

2003 Kobe City Workshop (9 wards,796 opinions)

2004 Hyogo Prefecture Workshop (5county- level Hanshin- Awaji areas,761 opinions)

＊ are new categories

Model 8

χ2=1299.727 (df=327)GFI=.924 AGFI=.905

AIC=1457.727 RMSEA=.050

Life Recovery(Outcome)

Prospect for 1 year From now

e3

.42Life Adjustment

e2

Life Satisfaction

e1.79

d1

Mental Stress

Physical Stress

Housing Satisfaction

Civic-Mindedness

Pessimistic expecta-tions for Future

Nankai-Tonankai EQ

Self-Help

Mutual Help

Gov. Help Expct

d2

d3

Social Trust

Urban Commons

Present

Civic Engagement

Communitarian

libertarian

House & Furniture Damage

Household Finance

WTP for Commons

After EQ

Fam. AdaptabilityImbalance

Family Cohesion Imbalance

Event Evaluation

PositiveReappraisal

e15

StruggleFor Meaning

e16

Retreate17

Event Impact stabilized

Normalcy

e18

Major Life Event

e19

.38

HousingEconomc/Financl

Stress

Social Ties

Community Activities

Gov/Pub/PrivtPartnership

.36

.47

.64

.56

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

e12

e13

e14

e20

e24

e28

-.50

.68

d5

-.21

-.37.21

.29

.69

.63

.56

.82

.67

d6

Sig.Other

d7

.59

.43

.73

.32

.19

-.20

-.14

.11

.47-.41

HouseholdDamages

.57

.27

-.34

-.541.11

-.45

.24

.11

.39

.38

.34

-.57-.18

.10

.25

-.28

.33

.51

.25

.22

-.74

.65

-.16

e21

e22

e23

e25

e26

e27

Model of Long-Term Life Recovery Process from the 2003 General Survey Data of the EQ Survivors

EQ ImpactAlleviated

Housing Income

Stress Mngmnt

EQDamage

Rich Social Capital

CivicInvolvement

Encounter To

Sig. Other

MeaningIn Life

LifeRecovery

Active Citizenship/Partnership-based

Disaster Reduction

Communitarian libertarian Paternalist

30.8

44.0

40.7

32.8

28.4

23.1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2003 Survey(N=1203)

2001 Survey(N=1203)

Changes in Views of Government from 2001 to 2003 survey

Conclusions• The current study aimed to develop and test

causal models of long term life recovery processes among those who experienced the 1995 Kobe EQ.

• Based on reviews of preceding studies in Japan and US, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was applied to the data obtained by the 2003 Hyogo Prefecture Survey on disaster survivors (N=1203).

• A final SEM model provided causal chains of recovery promoting factors, recovery process and recovery outcome.