1	Group 3: Long Term Recovery Norio Maki, Charles Eadie, Co-Chairs; Dan Alesch, Mark Fiegener, Osamu Murao, Itsuki Nakabayashi
2	Findings: Housing Significant differences in housing recovery strategies among Turkey, Taiwan, Japan Strategies were similar in early stages, but then diverged Basic needs immediately after disaster are similar Long term other factors determine outcomes (political, cultural, religious, economic, etc) Important to observe through entire process
3	Findings: Housing Aspects to understand differences long term Time Physical environment, scale of damage Human activities Social system Media (messages) Tools, processes, decision-making Context: Culture, History
4	Findings: Housing Taiwan learned and applied lessons of Kobe in providing emergency shelter and management of temporary housing Turkey relocated housing out of hazardous areas as a mitigation strategy Japan had more land constraints limiting relocation as an option Less developed areas have more difficulty managing/enforcing rebuilding efforts (squatters, lack of code compliance,etc become an issue)
5	Findings: Business Recovery Nisqually: Small businesses generally resistant toward mitigation, but some are pre-disposed Perception of risk was not the driving factor Individualists vs. Worriers Assistance to business is limited
6	Findings: Business Recovery Assistance programs are organized according to agency, not focused on the comprehensive problem to be solved Most assistance does not serve business well, but: Business recovery is essential for community recovery Disconnect between need and policy Timing dilemma: must happen quickly for small businesses, but difficult to reassess conditions
7	Findings: Business Recovery Recovery needs to take better account of market forces Kobe and elsewhere (Grand Forks, Homestead) investment was misdirected in some cases due to lack of understanding of larger economic trends Strategically directing investment is easier said than done Build on strengths and resources of an area
8	Findings: Business Recovery Need to develop assistance/technical resources to help communities launch and finance recovery strategies Good partnerships between state/federal funding and local government improve chances for successful recovery Initial projects need multiple funding sources (partnerships)
9	Findings: Recovery Local government must manage the recovery but is hindered by a confusing array of assistance approaches, lack of experience, lack of expertise
10	Findings: Recovery Japanese land use patterns and infrastructure creates a requirement for redevelopment as part of recovery of urban areas
11	Findings: Monitoring Recovery Opportunity to expand use of CD cameras in disaster and recovery management Rapidly changing technologies can be applied to research and disaster management
12	Findings: Organizational Structures and Recovery Local governments respond to extraordinary conditions with substantial improvisation Oftentimes pre-established roles and procedures (including intergovernmental) are ignored or changed Improvisation driven by multiple factors (specialized needs, organizational capacity, individual personalities, urgency, risk factors, communication requirements)
13	Future Research Track long term the relative success of the housing relocation strategies Document and analyze population shifts related to housing and other recovery strategies Continue comparative case studies similar to Northridge/Kobe study
14	Future Research Understand status of pre-event recovery plans and planning Evaluate pre-event planning v/v future events Examine the extent to which local government has capacity/incapacity and impetus to do pre-and post-event recovery planning (how does this compare with other priorities?) Examine decision-making by businesses and individuals related to mitigation
15	Future Research Examine adaptive behavior/improvisation of local government in response/recovery (success factors, problems, etc) Examine how policies/procedures can encourage appropriate flexibility yet maintain effective structure Develop simulation tools for understanding recovery process and preparing for recovery efforts Develop better baseline data about communities linked to GIS database
16	Joint Overall Recovery Finding Recovery is a systemic problem to be solved, but assistance policy/funding is fragmented Research is needed to find best means of integrating recovery policy Recovery planning and mitigation are inextricably linked: mitigation actions can inform recovery planning and vice versa Research and practice should develop and emphasize that linkage
17	Group 4: Co-Chairs: Professor K. Topping, Kyoto University H. Koura, Osaka University
18	Recovery Policy Issues for Further Investigation Opportunities for private business to assist employees with life recovery, home mitigation, and post-event housing; need case studies focused on facilitating and deterring factors for business Need better definition of policies for public acquisition of hazardous lands with varying (known) hazard return frequencies. Better connection between science and policy is needed regarding justification for acquisition/relocation.
19	Recovery Policy Research Need better understanding of the divergence between post-disaster assistance expectations and reality, and how to reconcile these differences in our recovery policies. Need to reconcile the differences between post-disaster response capacities and the latent demand for housing/services.
20	Recovery Policy Research How to utilize social responses research such as the Kobe/LA comparative study for post-disaster loss estimation and planning (challenges loss modeling physical paradigm).
21	Recovery Policy Research Linking mitigation to recovery strategy – need more comprehensive loss/risk assessments (not just structural, but also non-structural, social, operational, functional, etc.) as well as when to begin mitigation and how to prioritize. In addition, need other methods for quantifying the values of (non-structural) mitigation actions such as continuance of operations, institutional integrity/reputation, performance-based approach for operations.
22	Recovery Policy Research Assess recent disaster recovery financing approaches, including subsidies, loans and insurance. Recommend systematic policies for future responses in both countries. Need to evaluate differential impacts of varying mechanisms on different socio-economic groups.