1. The document describes the rebuilding process following the 2011 tsunami in Kitakami area of Miyagi, Japan. 2. Kitakami had developed common property systems for managing natural resources through community organizations prior to the tsunami, which fostered strong community cohesion. 3. The housing relocation projects proceeded smoothly through collaboration between community organizations, local government, and other stakeholders, while other areas struggled. The established common property systems and community ties facilitated consensus building.

1. IASC 2003, Kita Fuji, Japan
Common property systems and
resilience following disasters: case
study of tsunami-hit villages in
Kitakami area of Miyagi, Japan
MIYAUCHI Taisuke, Ph.D.
Environmental Sociology
Hokkaido University
miyauchi@let.hokudai.ac.jp

2. Area description of Kitakami, Miyagi, Japan
•
•
•
•
Kitakami
20 communities (villages)
Population: 3,718 (2010)
Population over 65 yrs: 30%
Main industries: fishing (142
engaged), agriculture (86),
construction (305),
manufacturing (337), amongst
others.

3. Kitakami
1 km

4. March 11, 2011, Great East Japan Earthquake
A tsunami-hit area

5. Casualties in Kitakami
Population before tsunami
Casualties (dead and missing)
3,718
265
Households before tsunami
1151
Houses destroyed
1096

6. A community before tsunami
Source: Google Earth

7. The community after tsunami
Source: Google Earth

8. Rebuilding process : Outline
1st stage:
Emergency help
Evacuation shelter
Army, Government,
Civil society groups,
Volunteers
2nd stage:
Temporary housing
Government, Local
government, Civil
society groups
3rd stage:
Rebuilding projects (fishery, infrastructure,
welfare, housing relocation, etc.)
Government, Local
government, Civil
society
groups, profession
als

9. Our research began before the tsunami
• Sociological research since 2004,
on communities and natural
resources
• Findings (before tsunami):
• Dynamism of relationship between
natural resources and communities:
history of usage of natural resources
and related social institutions
• Keywords: common property system,
livelihood strategy, legitimacy, usufruct
rights, commons, semi-domestication

10. Purpose
1. Describe the rebuilding process, with
focus on housing relocation
projects, and reveal the area‟s
resilience
2. Analyze how the common property
system fosters resilience after a
disaster

11. Method
• Action research and qualitative research
1. Pre-tsunami: Qualitative research
• mainly a semi-structured interview research of
key and lay persons
2. Post-tsunami: Action research
• Involvement in the community rebuilding
process in collaboration with local
government, an NGOs, fishermen‟s
cooperative, and the community

12. Housing relocation projects
May 2011: community leaders
demand help from local
government on housing
relocation to hills
July–October 2011: local
government hosts
community talks
October 2011: communitybased consensus
meetings on housing
relocation projects
Ishinomaki Nichinichi
Newspaper, May 23,
2011

13. Consensus building on housing relocation projects
• Community workshops
1. Oct.–Nov. 2011: Consensus workshops
2. Dec. 2011: Consensus workshops
3. Apr.2012 - present: Design workshops
(designing new sites)

14. A housing relocation site（Aikawa, Kitakami）

15. Relocation Projects：Consensus workshops
• Collaboration among community
organizations, local government, architects
organization, universities, and NGO
• Held by community organizations, facilitated by
university professionals (me), instructed by local
government and architects, and recorded by
university students

16. Variety of concerns and focal points came to light from consensus
workshops on relocation project
Hurry up!
Financial constraints
• Concerns about household
financing
• The extent of rebuilding houses is
unclear
• Mortgages are a major concern
• Hurry up! Otherwise, younger
people might go away.
• Hurry up! Otherwise attachment to
the community will disappear.
• Hurry up! We are running out of
time.
Relocation
projects:
Legal constraints
• 330m2 for each household‟s
new site is unreasonable.
Fishermen‟s houses need a
bigger area for processing and
storage in each building site.
Most people want to
participate, some do not,
and some have not yet
decided.
Workshops:
Nov.–Dec., 2011
Community and facilities
•Public facilities such as post
offices and community houses are
needed.
•Road access should be
considered.
•Medical and welfare access
should be considered.
Community attachment
• I want to stay here because of the
attachment.
• I am worried about the community
disappearing.
• Although I want to stay here, the
paucity of industry and job
opportunities concerns me.
• I want this relocation project to
retain our community.
• Stock of qualitative data or narratives are
important.
• Mutual understanding is crucial.

17. Workshop on relocation project

18. Relocation project:
3 stages of consensus building
1st stage
Consensus on making tsunami-affected
lowland area uninhabitable（Nov. and
Dec. 2011）
2nd stage
Consensus on who joins the project and
where relocated. （Jan. and Feb. 2012）
3rd stage
Consensus on design of new settlements.
（from Apr. 2012)
Kotaki
Ohsashi
Aikawa
Kosashi
Kodomari
Ohmuro
Komuro
Shirahama

19. Design workshops starts in April, 2012
Kotaki
Ohsashi
Aikawa
Kosashi
Kodomari
Ohmuro
Komuro
Shirahama

20. Findings from action research
The projects have achieved a relatively smooth process
of consensus building, while other areas especially urban
areas have had difficulties:
• One community‟s relocation project in Kitakami is one of the
first in the nation to be approved by the government.
• In the workshops people stress „community ties‟ and want to
rebuild the community in the relocation project.
• Most people of the communities want to join the relocation
projects in order to stay in their home village, although
some want to go away.
• Urban areas fail to even set up workshops.
Kota
Ohsash
Aikawa
Kosashi
Kodomari
Ohmuro
Komuro
Shirahama

21. The projects achieved a relatively smooth process of
consensus building, while other areas especially urban
areas have had difficulties with it.
because this area has:
1. community cohesion
2. fishing as a stable livelihood
3. collaboration among stakeholders

22. 1. Community cohesion
Common
property
system
community
cohesion
(social capital)
Natural
resource
management
Kotaki
Ohsashi
Aikawa
Kosashi
Kodomari
Ohmuro
Komuro
Shirahama
Community
organization
‘Keiyakuko’

23. 1. Community cohesion:
Common property systems
Multi-layered common property system of natural resources.
Resource
Abalone
Fish
Aquaculture (wakame, kelp,
and scallop)
Sea urchin
Wakame seaweed and kelp
collecting
Seashore seaweeds
Management body
fishermen‟s cooperative
fishermen‟s cooperative
fishermen‟s cooperative
Beneficiary
household
household
household
community organization
community organization
State forest
Communal forest property
state and community
organization
community organization
household
community organization
and household
community organization
and household
household
Charcoal
Pampas grass
Communal land property
community organization
community organization
community organization
community organization
community organization
and household
household
household
community organization
and household

24. 1. Community cohesion:
Common property systems: Seashore seaweed
• Each community has their own resource management
system for seashore seaweed.

25. 1. Community cohesion:
Common property systems: Seashore seaweed
• Each community has its own resource management system
for seashore seaweed, which is operated by the community
organization “Keiyakuko.”
Community name
Rules on seashore seaweeds
Komuro
Ohmuro
Strict closed season by Keiyakuko
Strict closed season with punishment by Keiyakuko. Collective
harvesting for Keiyakuko‟s revenue.
Strict closed season by Keiyakuko and women‟s group.
Collective harvesting for Keiyakuko‟s revenue.
Collective harvesting of one type of seaweed for Keiyakuko‟s
revenue. The other types can be collected by each household,
but strict closed season by Keiyakuko.
Collective harvesting of one type of seaweed for Keiyakuko‟s
revenue.
Kodomari
Aikawa
Kozashi
Kotaki
Each household harvests seaweed, but strict closed season
by Keiyakuko. Seaweed of one offshore rock island has open
access.

26. 1. Community cohesion:
Common property systems: Seashore seaweed
CM = community organization‟s management (revenue to households)
CR = community organization‟s management and revenue
HR = households‟ management and revenue
FM = management of fishermen‟s cooperative (revenue to households)
State forest Communal
usufruct
forest
right
property
charcoal
Pampas
grass
Communal
land
property
CR
CR
CR
Community
name
Shirahama
CM
CM
Komuro
Ohmuro
Kodomari
Sea urchin
Wakame
seaweed
and kelp
collecting
Seashore
seaweeds
HR
CR
HR
HR
CM + CR
Aquaculture
Abalone
Fish
(wakame,
kelp, and
scallop)
CR
CM
CM
CR
CR
CR
CM + CR CM + CR
CM + CR CM + CR
FM
FM
• Every community has a common propertyFM
system.
Aikawa
CM
CM
CR
CR
CR
• Variety of the common systems among communities. CR CM + CR
• Community organizations generate revenue from common CM + CR
Kozashi
CR
property.
Ohzashi
CM
CR
• Households earn revenue due to community resource CM CM + CR
management.
Kotaki
CM
CM
CR
CM + CR
CM + CR
CM + CR
CM + CR
CM + CR

27. 1. Community cohesion:
What is Keiyakuko ?
Keiyakuko:
• Each community has Keiyakuko.
• A traditional community organization
• An autonomous governing system
• A mutual aid system
• Conducts traditional rituals
• Owns communal property (e.g., forest land, bamboo
forest)
• Owns resource usufruct right (e.g., seaweed, forest
resources)
• Handles resource management systems or common
property systems

28. 1. Community cohesion
Common
property
system
community
cohesion
(social capital)
Natural
resource
management
Kotaki
Ohsashi
Aikawa
Kosashi
Kodomari
Ohmuro
Komuro
Shirahama
Community
organization
‘Keiyakuko’

29. 1. Community cohesion
Rituals revived for community rebuilding
“Kagura (sacred dancing) Revifal
Festival”, May 4, 2013, Komuro
village, Kitakami

30. 2. Fishing
as a stable source of income
Population of Kitakami
(1,000 yen)
8,000
1,800,000
7,000
6,000
Fishery production
in the Kitakami area
1,600,000
population
household
1,400,000
5,000
1,200,000
4,000
1,000,000
3,000
800,000
2,000
600,000
1,000
400,000
0
200,000
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
0
1972
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

31. 2. Fishing as a stable livelihood
History of fishing
1930s -
Boat
fishing
Kelp
collecting
Wakame
collecting
1960s -
Wakame
aquaculture
1970s -
Wakame
aquaculture
Kelp
aquaculture
1980s -
Wakame
aquaculture
Kelp
aquaculture
Abalone
Abalone
Seashore
seaweed
Abalone
Scallop
aquaculture
Seashore
seaweed
Seasonal
migrant labor

32. 2. Fishing as a stable source of income
Collaboration among stakeholders in fishing
- Community organizations and key functions
acting as driving forces for these changes.
Community resource management
Community
organizations
(Keiyakuko)
Fishermen‟s
cooperative
Youth group
in
fishermen‟s
cooperative
Social management
Individual
leaders
Innovations
Kotaki
Ohsashi
Aikawa
Kosashi
Kodomari
Ohmuro
Komuro
Shirahama

33. 3. Collaboration among stakeholders
National
government
Community
organizations
(Keiyakuko)
Local
government
Housing
relocation
projects
Fishery
rebuilding
Civil
Society
groups
Architect
group
Fishermen’s
cooperative
University
professionals
Civil
Society

34. 3. Collaboration among stakeholders
1.
Collaboration leads to success in
the projects.
Community organizations
(Keiyakuko and fishermen‟s
cooperative) play a key role in the
collaboration.
National
government
Community
organizations
(Keiyakuko)
2.
Local
government
Housing
relocation
projects
Architect
group
•
Cooperating with other sectors and
consensus building is initiated by the
community organizations.
Fishermen’s
cooperative
Fishery
rebuilding
Civil
Society
groups
University
professions
Civil
Society

35. The projects have achieved a relatively smooth process
on consensus building, while other areas especially
urban areas have had difficulties with it.
because this area has:
1. community cohesion
2. fishing as a stable livelihood
3. collaboration among stakeholders

36. Common property systems and resilience following disasters: case study of tsunami-hit
villages in Kitakami area of Miyagi, Japan
Conclusion
1.
Kitakami was severely hit by tsunami, and the
rebuilding process is being conducted in
collaboration with other actors.
2. Kitakami had developed a common property
system for natural resources, mainly by
community organization, Keiyakuko.
3. The common property system and community
organizations produce resilience following a
disaster and foster community cohesion, which is
proved by the smooth process of relocation
The rebuilding process, including relocation
projects.
projects, has not ended. Further action
research and analysis will be conducted.

37. Thank you.
MIYAUCHI Taisuke, Ph.D
Hokkaido University
miyauchi@let.hokudai.ac.jp