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 ）
Life Recovery Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor 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
Number of Opinion Cards for Life Recovery Category Critical Elements (1999 Grass Root Workshop Results) Return To Framework
General Linear Model of Life Recovery (2001 Survey Results) N=1203 House Damage BY Generation House Damage Gender House Damage BY Occupation BY House Damage BY Generation BY Occupation Generation BY Generation Occupation BY Occupation 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 P<.0001 P<..10 P<..005 Mental Stress P<..20 P<..05
“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
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 Life Re-adjustmentSatisfaction Recovered Everyday Life Recovered Time Life Re-adjustmentSatisfaction In Process Struggle for Meaning Time Life Re-adjustmentSatisfaction Withdrawal Retreat Time
Positive Appraisal EQ not being a major life event EQ being a major life event NewConstruction Normalcy Retreat Negative Appraisal 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. NY:Simon & Schuster/Touchstone,1969
Second Order Factor Analysis Results of Life Recovery Process Scales (22 Items) ２次因子空間の構造 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 →+
Life Recovery Outcome Factor Factor Factor Life Re-adjustment Factor Factor Factor Factor Life Satisfaction Factor Factor Research Framework of the 2003 Life Recovery Process Study Independent Variables Dependent Variables Intervening Variables Life Recovery Critical Elements Life Recovery Process Event Impact ExogenousFactor ExogenousFactor Event Evaluation ExogenousFactor
Proportion of Life Recovery Critical Element Category Opinions in 1999,2003 and 2004 Workshops ＊ are new categories
Model 8 χ2=1299.727 (df=327) GFI=.924 AGFI=.905 AIC=1457.727 RMSEA=.050 libertarian 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 .33 Family Cohesion Imbalance 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 .65 Urban Commons Struggle For Meaning WTP for Commons e26 Positive Reappraisal d6 .59 -.41 .25 .69 Communitarian e25 .47 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 Life Recovery -.18 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-Tonankai EQ e24 Normalcy Major Life Event e19 e18
libertarian Communitarian Paternalist 44.0 32.8 23.1 2001 Survey (N=1203) 2003 Survey (N=1203) 30.8 40.7 28.4 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 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.