Model Building and Testing of LongTerm Life Recovery Processes of the Survivors of the 1995 Kobe ear

1
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
• ????(Shigeo Tatsuki, Dpt. of Sociology, Doshisha
  University)
• ? ??(Haruo Hayashi, Disaster Prevention Rsearch
  Institute, Kyoto University)
• ????(Katsuya Yamori, Disaster Prevention Rsearch
  Institute, Kyoto University )
• ?? ?(Takashi Noda, Faculty of Human Life and
  Environment, Nara Womens University )
• ????(Keiko Tamura, Disaster Prevention Rsearch
  Institute, Kyoto University )

2
Research Framework of the 1999 2001 Life
Recovery Study

• The 1999 Disaster Process Study
• The 2001 Panel Survey Study

Life Re-adjustment
As Life is Recovered
Life Satisfaction
3
Number of Opinion Cards for Life Recovery
Category Critical Elements (1999 Grass Root
Workshop Results)
Return To Framework
4
General Linear Model of Life Recovery (2001
Survey Results)
N1203
House Damage
Generation
BY
House Damage
Gender
House Damage
Occupation
BY
BY
Generation
Generation
Occupation
BY
House Damage
BY
BY
Generation
Occupation
Occupation
BY
Generation
LIFE RECOVERY
BY
Household Saving
Settled-ness
Household Saving
Self-Governance
Community Solidarity
Preparedness
Community Participation
Family Cohesion
Communitarianism
Family Adaptability
Social Desirability
Local Commons
Physical Stress
Plt.0001
Plt..10
Plt..005
Mental Stress
Plt..20
Plt..05
5
Life Recovery Reconsidered

• The 1999 Disaster Process Study
• The 2001 Panel Survey Study
• The 2003 Panel Survey Study

Life Re-adjustment
Process Measures?
OutcomeMeasures
As Life is Recovered
Life Satisfaction
6
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).

7
Three Recovery Curve Typologies
Life Re-adjustmentSatisfaction
Recovered
Everyday Life Recovered
Time
Life Re-adjustmentSatisfaction
In Process
Struggle for Meaning
Time
Life Re-adjustmentSatisfaction
Withdrawal
Retreat
Time
8
Life Change Appraisal Model

• 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. NYSimon
  Schuster/Touchstone,1969

9
2????????
Second Order Factor Analysis Results of Life
Recovery Process Scales (22 Items)
1.0
EQ Major Life Event
Retreat
.5
Struggle for Meaning
0.0
High ? Event Impact ? Low
Positive Reappraisal
-.5
Return to Normalcy
-1.0
1.0
.5
0.0
-.5
-1.0
- ? Event Evaluation ?

10
Research Framework of the 2003 Life Recovery
Process Study
Independent Variables
Dependent Variables
Intervening Variables
Life Recovery Process
Life Recovery Critical Elements
Event Impact
ExogenousFactor
ExogenousFactor
Event Evaluation
ExogenousFactor
11
Proportion of Life Recovery Critical Element
Category Opinions in 1999,2003 and 2004 Workshops
are new categories
12
Model of Long-Term Life Recovery Process from
the 2003 General Survey Data of the EQ Survivors
Encounter To Sig. Other
.32
.36
After EQ
e8
Social Trust
e6
Sig. Other
.73
.47
Present
e9
Rich Social Capital
Civic-Mindedness
e7
d7
.43
-.20
Social Ties
Family Cohesion Imbalance
.33
e10
d5
.63
Gov. Help Expct
.24
e23
-.14
Active Citizenship/ Partnership-based Disaster
Reduction
.51
e11
Mutual Help
Fam. Adaptability Imbalance
e22
.67
Gov/Pub/Privt Partnership
.19
.25
Self-Help
.56
e21
Civic Involvement
.64
Civic Engagement
e12
-.28
e15
Community Activities
e16
.56
e27
.11
e13
.22
Urban Commons
.65
Struggle For Meaning
WTP for Commons
Positive Reappraisal
e26
d6
.59
-.41
.25
.69
Communitarian
.47
e25
Meaning In Life
.38
Event Evaluation
Housing Satisfaction
d2
e4
.11
Housing Income Stress Mngmnt
.34
-.37
.21
Life Satisfaction
Housing
Household Finance
e28
e1
.79
-.57
Economc/Financl
.82
Retreat
-.18
Life Recovery
e14
e17
Mental Stress
Stress
-.16
-.34
Life Recovery (Outcome)
.68
1.11
-.21
Life Adjustment
-.74
Physical Stress
e20
e2
-.54
.39
.42
EQ ImpactAlleviated
EQ Damage
.57
.10
.29
House Furniture Damage
Event Impact stabilized
e5
Household Damages
Prospect for 1 year From now
d1
e3
.38
d3
-.50
.27
-.45
Pessimistic expecta-tions for Future Nankai-Tonan
kai EQ
e24
Normalcy
Major Life Event
e19
e18
13
Changes in Views of Government from 2001 to 2003
survey
14
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 (N1203).
  
• A final SEM model provided causal chains of
  recovery promoting factors, recovery process and
  recovery outcome.