1	LA-Kobe Rebuilding: Key Research Processes and Themes Ken Topping, FAICP Visiting Professor DRS/DPRI Kyoto University
2	Today’s Panel: Lessons from Kobe and Los Angeles Purpose of panel: compare observations from Northridge and Hanshin-Awaji Earthquakes rebuilding and distill lessons informing future earthquake recovery The session includes reports from: U.S. and Japan researchers collaborating in a multi-year NSF-sponsored comparative study assessing redevelopment outcomes other researchers reporting findings from independent research on similar themes
3	Challenges of Comparative Analyses Common characteristics of comparative analyses: Compare same phenomena in two or more different settings and/or timeframes Use similar methods of measurement Apply standard interpretation of findings Cross-cultural comparative studies can be challenging due to: Language barriers Data dissimilarities Differing expectations Incomplete communications
4	NSF LA-Kobe Study Theme: Opportunities to Add Value in Rebuilding “Building back better” - in post-disaster rebuilding communities have opportunities to rebuild in ways which adds safety, economic, functional, cultural, and/or aesthetic value beyond pre-disaster circumstances The term "post-earthquake redevelopment" has been tentatively used in this study to describe this “added value” concept while searching for a more descriptive term
5	NSF LA-Kobe Study Sequence Full study team meetings: January 1999, Kobe (6USJW) July 1999, Kobe March 2000, Los Angeles June 2000, Kobe January 2003, Kobe It has been necessary to address the true nature of collaboration: Our meetings are lively since we do not always agree – within and between U.S./Japan sides We have agreed to mutually confirm key findings and conclusions
6	NSF LA-Kobe Study Approach One question has been how to assure comparability of findings between differing cultural settings The study reflects an effort to address this challenge by pursuing: comparability in the study approach consistency of research methods joint field interviews and other methods of verifying observations agreement on essential findings clear communications
7	NSF LA-Kobe Study Research Focus The study relies on data drawn from seven local case study areas plus each larger region It examines influences of five factors affecting post-earthquake redevelopment outcomes: property ownership and land tenure nature and availability of financing existence of previous plans institutional frameworks government intervention
8	NSF LA-Kobe Study Potential Value Offers specific recovery insights from two large earthquakes striking modern, industrialized cities in developed countries Examines a fine-scale of post-disaster recovery decision-making and community changes for selected districts within regional settings Clarifies effects of five study factors influencing rebuilding outcomes Provide solution-oriented lessons for policy-makers, administrators, and planners
9	Key Words and Issues Reconstruction vs. repair orientation Adaptation of pre-existing programs Recovery policies and laws Influence of pre-event planning Coordination of physical-economic-social recovery Local vs. top-down planning Value of citizen participation Market-oriented rebuilding vs. meeting local needs
10	Common Rebuilding Themes Transportation/infrastructure issues Land ownership questions Institutional complexities Severe housing and small business impacts Economic revitalization issues Controversial public decisions Time required for resolution
11	Common Administrative Challenges Central-provincial-municipal coordination Municipalities as key players City inter-departmental coordination Many others involved: NGOs, community groups, individual volunteers Inadequate pre-disaster plans Insufficient local resources
12	Key Questions How can we coordinate public and private financial assistance? How can housing reconstruction assure space for moderate and low income people? How can recovery and reconstructions programs developed in response to specific disaster conditions include a comprehensive view? How can we build local government capacity for designing and implementing disaster recovery plans and financing schemes?