Desktop version

Home arrow Environment arrow Reflections on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident

Social Aspect of Resilience

Assessment of resilience, preferably quantitative assessment, must be the first step to resilience engineering. Since resilience concerns various aspects of system response to changes, there can be multiple measures. The resilience triangle is useful but it cannot be the only measure of resilience.

In addition, we should recognize that resilience is different for different stakeholders. The functionality people expect with a socio-technical system is different for different people, because different people have different interests, sense of values, needs, and so on. In discussing resilience engineering of socio-technical systems, some framework and methodology for resilience assessment that can consider such differences is highly necessary.

Figure 24.7 demonstrates this issue for recovery of infrastructures after the Great East Japan Earthquake. Resilience triangles are drawn here for different stakeholders and for different levels of needs. These results were obtained from the records of activities actually engaged in after the disaster.

Maslow [21] proposed a fi e-layered hierarchy of human needs, and the levels assessed in this example correspond to the basic three layers in Maslow's hierarchy: physiological, safety, and social needs. Figure 24.7 shows the resilience triangles for physiological and social needs. Physiological needs, which include air, water, food, clothing, and shelter, are the most fundamental needs for survival and they are located at the bottom of the hierarchy. Safety needs are located above physiological needs. They are related to individual safety and freedom from fear, which include personal security, fi security, health, protection against hazards and threats, etc. Social needs, which are located next above safety needs, are desires to be liked by others, to have interpersonal relationships, to belong to community, etc.

The assessment measure of each needs level was divided into more elementary measures until basic data on availability of separate infrastructure services were reached (Table 24.1). The basic data on the recovery rate of infrastructures after the earthquake were collected primarily from Internet web pages.

To consider different stakeholders, the persona method was used. The persona method is an attempt proposed by Cooper [22] in 1980s for reflecting different user needs and characteristics in product design. A persona is an imaginary

Fig. 24.7 Resilience triangle of utilities after the Great East Japan Earthquake

Table 24.1 Decomposition of assessment measure

but very specific user model that should be considered in designing products or services. In the persona method, many personas can cover the whole scope of expected users. Three personas of residents in the same town, Kesennuma, but of different features were created and used in this trial referring to opened notes of victims. Persona A is a male employee in his 20s, Persona B is a self-employed businessman in his 40s, and Persona C is a retired male in his 70s. Needs for different infrastructure services were then evaluated for each persona to assess the satisfaction level of physiological, safety, and social needs.

As shown in Fig. 24.7, difference in needs level and stakeholders affect the result of resilience assessment considerably. As for physiological needs, for instance, satisfaction dropped greatly and its recovery delayed for Persona C, because his health condition was poor and healthcare service was relatively critical. As for social needs, recovery of satisfaction was delayed greatly for Persona B, because he could not restart his self-owned business and lost fi independence.

It is a diffi task to establish assessment measures and methods that can cover various aspects of resilience as discussed in the previous section. In addition, however, it is also necessary to consider human perception and human recognition in assessment of resilience as demonstrated in this trial. Otherwise, outcomes of resilience engineering will not match our real needs, and the interests of vulnerable people will be ignored.

Found a mistake? Please highlight the word and press Shift + Enter  
< Prev   CONTENTS   Next >

Related topics