The Role of Disaster Memorial Facilities in Disaster Risk Reduction: Experiences from the Tohoku Region in Japan

Abstract

Disaster memorials have emerged as pivotal approaches for not only commemorating disasters but also imparting lessons to future generations. However, despite discussions on preservation, little involvement has been reflected in the impacts of different memorial patterns in disaster risk reduction (DRR). This study examines the roles of disaster-related memorial facilities in DRR, exploring how distinct memorial patterns transfer disaster experiences to future generations. This research is based on a quantitative strategy, applying an online questionnaire with 538 respondents who visited the three selected sites under the background of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami (GEJET) to identify their triggers and purpose for visiting, the impact of facilities on raising disaster awareness, the practical contents, and the important roles of DRR. The findings reveal that while all three facilities contribute to DRR with the same most important role as disseminating the lessons of the GEJET, their impact on visitors’ disaster awareness varies. Sendai Arahama Elementary School particularly raises awareness of disaster threats, while the Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museums and the 3.11 Memorial Community Center enhance visitors’ disaster-related knowledge. Visually stimulating exhibits in the facilities, such as remains, photos, and videos, underscore the importance of disaster preparedness, while panels and science exhibits offer comprehensive insights into disaster-related knowledge. However, none of the three sites have significant roles in deepening regional exchange.

1. Introduction

With the increased frequency of various disaster events, society faces the growing challenge of coping with natural hazards. This necessitates the application of advanced natural sciences and development technologies [1]. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) presents a shift toward top-down advocacy of the disaster risk reduction (DRR) agenda, emphasizing technology-driven strategies rather than partnerships with various stakeholders [2]. Despite the rapid development of traditional DRR approaches over the past two decades, many scholars have expressed concerns. Therefore, they called for a more holistic approach that places greater emphasis on collective culture in disaster contexts [1,3,4]. This shift in perspective has led to an exponential growth in studies focusing on collective experiences, indigenous knowledge, and the cultural impact of disasters. Recently, there has been a significant focus on public awareness and education for disaster reduction, emphasizing the importance of transferring lessons and experiences learned from disasters to future generations. Nowadays, various stakeholders have contributed significantly to the development of school-based DRR strategies [5]. However, the existence of effective approaches beyond formal disaster education remains a topic of discussion. In particular, the development of relevant monuments and memorials has received attention as an effective tool. They are not only for mourning but also for communicating disaster-related information and knowledge [6,7].

Disaster memorials could serve multiple functions in the context of DRR [6,8]. These sites become outdoor classrooms by preserving the memory of catastrophic events and educating visitors about disasters’ causes, consequences, and human impacts [9]. They provide tangible connections to historical events, making abstract concepts more relatable and memorable for people of all ages. This experiential learning can stimulate critical thinking about disaster preparedness and risk reduction [10]. Moreover, memorials often become focal points for community engagement, hosting commemorative events, workshops, and educational programs. These activities bring people together, encouraging dialogue and promoting a shared sense of history and identity [8]. They can also inspire civic action, motivating communities to work toward preventing future disasters or mitigating their effects [11].

Despite the recognized potential of disaster memorials to raise public awareness and promote disaster education, their development and maintenance face various challenges and debates. This includes divergent opinions among stakeholders regarding the preservation of these facilities. Moreover, scholars have raised questions about how disaster memories function as dynamic processes that demand both technical knowledge and creative thinking [12]. Concerns about the difficulties in passing down “stories” without long-term preservation and the sustainable use of disaster remains were also highlighted [7,13]. To date, disaster culture studies have primarily explored the specific values of various tangible modes of disaster memorials. For example, they have discussed the role of monuments for people living in disaster-affected areas, the impact of monuments on raising awareness, and the evaluation of some disaster sites by tourists [12,14,15]. However, few studies have addressed the role of different disaster memorialization modes in DRR. In addition, there is little in the literature exploring the specific contents and impacts of memorial facilities in raising disaster awareness and promoting disaster education.

Based on this premise, this study analyzed three selected disaster memorial sites in Miyagi Prefecture in the context of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami (GEJET). Additionally, this study sought to investigate the practical contents of memorial facilities in promoting disaster education and their impacts on changing visitors’ awareness. We aimed to understand the multiple roles played by disaster memorial facilities in DRR, guided by the following three research questions:

(1)

What impacts do memorial facilities have on changing people’s awareness?

(2)

What are the effective contents in memorial facilities for promoting disaster education?

(3)

What are the potential functions of disaster memorial sites for improving transmission methods?

As a result, this study mainly focused on the tangible modes and included three types of facilities:

(1)

Disaster-affected buildings or ruins, also known as “disaster remains”, that are preserved to communicate GEJET lessons and experiences to visitors.

(2)

Disaster recovery memorial museums, which display important information and materials related to the aftermath of the GEJET.

(3)

Memorial community centers that display GEJET-related materials and provide a space for visitors to interact with each other.

By focusing on these aspects, our research contributed to a more comprehensive understanding of DRR. This addressed not only the physical aspects of hazards but also the social and educational dimensions that influence community resilience [16]. Furthermore, this study explored how disaster memorial facilities can indirectly mitigate vulnerability by fostering a culture of preparedness and shared responsibility among local populations. This approach complemented traditional structural measures and aligns with the growing recognition of the importance of non-structural interventions in DRR [17]. In essence, this research aimed to bridge the gap between traditional DRR strategies and the socio-cultural aspects of disaster resilience.

2. Overview of Disaster Memorialization

In the early literature, scholars have investigated “memorialization”, broadly defined as things that “preserve memory and past experiences”. They mainly discussed the memorialization and commemoration of man-made disasters such as cultural atrocities and terrorist attacks [18,19,20,21]. However, few focused on the development of memorials in the aftermath of natural disasters. Simultaneously, there has been limited reporting on the significance of memorials and remains in disaster preparedness and disaster education. Most memorials and related facilities dedicated to man-made violence depict aspects of human conflict, such as details of warfare or the loss of life due to political, religious, or cultural differences [21,22]. In addition, most man-made violence does not occur as frequently as natural disasters. There is consensus on the fact that disaster memorialization can preserve memories and convey valid and authentic messages. However, when analyzed from different perspectives, subtle differences often arise in the definitions of what constitutes the role and value of disaster memorialization. Therefore, this paper defines disaster memorialization as the use of specific information about the disaster and memories of the time to transmit valuable experiences and lessons to future generations.

Earlier research has focused on the function of disaster memorials as a reminder of the past. According to Boret and Shibayama [6], some scholars, represented by Klein, have emphasized memorials as a timeless representation of the past rather than a positive approach to disaster risk management. Conversely, recent studies have delved deeper into the role of disaster memorials in disaster mitigation [6,13]. According to Ishihara [13], the values of existing disaster sites could be categorized into various categories, such as “educational and transmission value”, “industrial and tourism value”, “value examined in terms of psychological care for disaster victims”, and “value as a local resource”. Therefore, there is a need to rethink what disaster monuments and remains may bring to society.

Disaster-related facilities often commemorate the lives lost. Those involved in the construction process wanted to identify the scientific mechanisms of natural disasters to express the history and experiences of affected people during and after the disaster [23,24]. In the past, when information recording was not well-developed, the oral transmission of disaster-related information was the main way of transmitting disaster lessons [25]. Saito and Hiroi [14] conducted a questionnaire survey of residents living in the Nankai earthquake-affected area to investigate the impact of monuments on people’s disaster awareness. According to this study, tsunami monuments do not serve as a sufficient source for preserving a significant amount of knowledge; therefore, it is difficult to evoke concrete and immediate actions [14]. On the other hand, people considered them adequate as a form of immediate and long-term records and believed that they could raise disaster awareness in addition to their visual impact [14]. According to Nishio [26], disaster memorials have evolved as “mediators” that enable local communities to share “collective memories” and individual “requiems” of symbols as objects of prayer, triggering memories. At the same time, he argued that disaster memorials may pass on future lessons and illustrate their significance and usefulness for learning [26].

Miyataki [25] added that during the current period of technological development, it is feasible to leave behind many disaster messages that are very different from traditional messages. However, how to pass on these lessons to the next generation is a considerable problem in the long term [25]. Furthermore, to ensure the preservation of the full value of disaster memorials, their maintenance and operation necessitate the involvement of numerous stakeholders, including academia, the private sector, and local governments [13,26]. Therefore, finding appropriate ways to preserve and develop disaster monuments and remains with the participation of stakeholders has become a major challenge nowadays.

Moreover, disaster memorials serve as multifaceted platforms for public education and community engagement [8,27]. They facilitate the intergenerational transfer of disaster memories and support disaster education [28,29]. By preserving narratives, these sites contribute to community resilience and social memory formation [30,31]. However, the efficacy of memorials in education and engagement varies. Their impact depends on narrative framing, community exchange, and integration with broader DRR strategies [27,29,32]. Some memorials may unintentionally distort certain disasters, potentially limiting their educational value [27]. In post-disaster contexts, memorials serve as spaces for collective healing and shape public perception of disasters [27,32,33]. Regionally, they serve as focal points for community activities, including information exchange and interactive events [8]. However, memorial facilities, as a source of “grief” for the victims, are not used as locations for socializing in Chinese traditional values since they contradict traditional ethics [34]. Critical questions remain about the long-term relevance and sustainability of disaster memorials. Future research should explore how to optimize these sites to meaningfully contribute to DRR and community resilience, balancing educational goals with potential community exchanges [28,31].

As time has changed, various disaster records have been created. It has been found that monuments to disasters, such as memorials, can be built to warn future generations of the importance of survival. Researchers in Asia have widely discussed the development of disaster memorials. They have confirmed their importance, not only for experienced individuals to retain disaster memories but also as teaching materials to raise disaster awareness for future generations. Rittichainuwat [35] explored the disparities in motivations between Thais and Scandinavians, as well as between visitors of various ages and genders, who visit the disaster-stricken island of Phuket. Rittichainuwat [35] believed that curiosity about the tsunami’s outcome and a desire to assist people are the most crucial motivators that drive individuals to visit disaster-affected areas. Nazaruddin [36] stated that museums constructed in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami have gained popularity among local citizens as disaster education, such as out-of-school learning and disaster education tourism. Japan also has a long history of commemorating disasters by building monuments and memorials [23,37]. In particular, the development of related memorials has gained growing recognition after the GEJET.

3. Overview of the GEJET and Memorial Development in Its Aftermath

On the afternoon of 11 March 2011, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck Japan, causing massive damage to the eastern coast of the country. A significant tsunami that followed the earthquake killed tens of thousands of people and destroyed numerous towns, infrastructure, lifelines, and livelihoods [38]. Later, people recognized this as the “Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami (GEJET)”. The dual impact of the earthquake and tsunami caused tragic loss of life and widespread destruction in northeastern Japan. In addition, a nuclear accident occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, causing widespread and prolonged displacement and uncertainty for many communities [39]. The earthquake and tsunami resulted in tens of thousands of casualties and economic losses of more than USD 300 billion, whereas the environmental and social impacts of nuclear leakage and the threat to public safety have continued and evolved over the past decade [40]. Although the GEJET had a tremendous negative impact on the livelihoods and cultural assets of the affected communities and residents, the Tohoku region has made various efforts to recover and rebuild over the past decade [27].

Meanwhile, the national government and other stakeholders have taken several measures to commemorate the disaster. Attempts have been made to preserve the materials and records of the time in various ways so that the information and lessons can be passed on to future generations. Regional governments and individuals placed tsunami signs in many locations to show the extent of flooding and where the tsunami had stopped [14,39]. In collaboration with regional stakeholders, the government held numerous meetings and events to discuss how to preserve the affected buildings as disasters persist [41]. Many cities have also built memorial parks and museums near the areas where their communities once lived.

In the aftermath, memorial sites were established throughout the Tohoku region. The exhibits primarily focused on recounting the events that occurred during and after the disaster [27,28]. Researchers involved in the preservation process sought to present the facilities for disaster education and develop knowledge in DRR [42]. In terms of transmission approaches to disaster lessons, researchers are focusing on investigating the use of facilities for related activities and learning programs. Zhang et al. [8] suggested applying post-earthquake disaster remains for disaster mitigation education and tourism promotion, which could be achieved by developing a collaborative system involving various stakeholders. Oda et al. [5] addressed the significance and usefulness of incorporating future earthquake sites into school education. His research showed that formal disaster education techniques involving disaster relics in elementary and high schools are feasible [5]. At the same time, the need for community-focused initiatives became apparent. Boret and Shibayama [6] conducted a case study on the function of monuments for victims built in the Yuriage community. They argued that memorials serve not only as a place of mourning for victims but also as an effective means of communal social solidarity and information exchange [6]. In recent years, the “3.11 Densho Road” network was built as a platform for disaster awareness exchange to improve the region’s disaster preparedness and promote the development of the afflicted districts [43].

Since the construction of disaster memorial facilities in the past decade, utilization status and visitor evaluations have paved the way for sustainable operations management. Kadokura, Sato, and Imamura [15] conducted two surveys targeting both residents of Sendai City and visitors to two disaster memorial facilities, namely the Sendai 3.11 Memorial Community Center and the Disaster Remain Sendai Arahama Elementary School. The surveys revealed that the visible remains of the structure heightened awareness of disasters, and visitors expressed greater satisfaction with the elementary school compared to the community center [15]. By contrast, the current purpose of the facilities is challenging to achieve, necessitating significant modifications to the exhibitions at the community center or a comprehensive review of their objectives [15]. Matsuoka [44] conducted an investigation into earthquake disaster transmission activities in and around Sendai Arahama Elementary School. He [44] revealed that although there was recognition of the need to enhance local transmission, disaster transmission failed to establish a cooperative system between facilities and resident groups. Resident activities form a weak foundation for the Arahama area’s experiential folklore activities, and as the local landscape shifts and the population ages, memorial structures may lose their significance in the future [44]. Furthermore, based on Kadokura, Sato, and Imamura’s [15] questionnaire research, Watanabe, Sato, and Imamura [45] synthesized information from 47 facilities in the Tohoku region and conducted an online questionnaire survey of 600 people who visited the target facilities and 600 people who did not visit them. They performed a quantitative analysis to classify the characteristics and motives of individuals who visited the facilities, considering their visit goals and behavioral changes [45]. However, they did not thoroughly explore the relationship between the facility’s exhibit contents and the awareness changes of visitors. As a result, this study went in-depth into the analysis of facility exhibition contents and visitors’ changes in disaster awareness.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Research Sites

Disaster memorials, as defined by the 3.11 Densho Road, are facilities that convey the facts and lessons of the GEJE [43]. These facilities must meet at least one of the following principles:

(1)

Facilities for understanding lessons from the disaster.

(2)

Facilities that contribute to understanding disaster prevention and preparedness.

(3)

Facilities for understanding the horror of disasters and the fearsomeness of nature.

(4)

Facilities with historical or academic value related to disasters.

(5)

Other facilities that communicate the facts of the disaster and the lessons learned from it.

This research employed four criteria to select case sites. Firstly, the sites had to qualify as disaster memorials as defined above, facilitating visitors’ understanding of GEJET information. Secondly, facilities need to provide comprehensive source information and background descriptions for widespread public recognition. Thirdly, due to the establishment of many facilities between 2020 and 2021, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic may affect visitor numbers. The scope was narrowed to memorial facilities established and open to the public before 2019 to ensure sufficient survey respondents. Finally, since this study aimed to investigate how disaster memorials enable people to carry out effective disaster transmission, the different features and multiple functions they provide were summarized. Therefore, taking various aspects into consideration, the following three sites were chosen for case studies:

(1)

The Ruins of the Great East Japan Earthquake: Sendai Arahama Elementary School (short for “Sendai Arahama Elementary School”) is located approximately 800 m from the Arahama coast in Wakabayashi ward in Sendai city. This facility preserves and maintains the former Sendai Arahama Elementary School building (Figure 1a). It was opened in April 2017 and aims to help visitors understand the tsunami’s power and threat. Thus, it raises their awareness of disaster prevention through an exhibition of the damaged school building and photos and materials of the aftermath (Figure 1b). It also introduces the history and culture of the Arahama area and memories to pass on the life experience to future generations.

(2)

The Sendai 3.11 Memorial Community Center (short for “3.11 Memorial Community Center”) opened in 2016 and is located at Arai Station on the Tozai Subway Line in Sendai City. The purpose of the center is to disseminate disaster-related information about the coastal region and to hold various community exchange events. It includes an exchange space and various photo exhibitions (Figure 2). It helps visitors to learn about the damage caused by the GEJET and the reconstruction situation in Sendai city and provides visitors with a better understanding of the history of the eastern coastal area. It is hoped that this will allow visitors to think about how DRR may relate to people’s lives.

(3)

The Higashi-Matsushima 3.11 Disaster Recovery Memorial Museum (short for “Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum”) opened in October 2016. It was renewed to commemorate the 10th year of the GEJET and reopened in 2020. It is located inside the old Nobiru Station building, with the Disaster Remain old Nobiru Station platform in the back (Figure 3a). It also includes panels and a tsunami arrival height line to highlight the seriousness of the hazard (Figure 3b). This facility aims to provide disaster-related information and damage situations in Higashi-Matsushima city, thus demonstrating efforts made towards recovery and reconstruction by various stakeholders.

Figure 4 illustrates the geographical distribution and brief characteristics of the three selected disaster memorial facilities in Miyagi Prefecture, depicting their spatial arrangement and coastal proximity within the cities of Sendai and Higashi-Matsushima.

4.2. Materials and Participants

The questionnaire was designed based on previous scholarly research and the multiple functions of the disaster memorial facilities. It comprised four sections and a total of 26 questions in Japanese. The first part collected basic demographic information from respondents (age, gender, address, and occupation). The second part inquired about transmission patterns in disaster memorials. The third part focused on specific facilities, including triggers and purposes for visiting, the impact on disaster awareness after visiting the sites, practical contents, and the perceived roles of the disaster memorial facilities. The final part included an open-ended question inviting respondents’ opinions on disaster memorialization. To ensure the rigor of the questionnaire, a pilot test was conducted in February 2022. This test helped refine the questions and verify the clarity and effectiveness of the survey instrument.

This study aimed to investigate the perspectives of individuals who had visited at least one of three selected disaster memorial facilities in Miyagi prefecture. To achieve this objective, we employed a two-pronged approach to data collection. Firstly, we entrusted Research Panel: Rakuten Insight, Inc. to randomly distribute an online questionnaire to residents of Sendai, Natori, and Higashi-Matsushima. The survey was conducted through their website from 10–18 March 2022. A screening procedure was implemented to identify eligible participants who had visited at least one of the three selected facilities. Initially, 10,000 potential participants from the three cities were screened. The screening process included questions about their willingness to participate in the formal questionnaire and their visitation history to the selected facilities. However, concerns arose about potential difficulties in obtaining sufficient and balanced samples from each facility. To address this issue, we supplemented our online survey with on-site distribution. After obtaining approval from the staff at each facility, we concurrently distributed the same survey at the three facilities. This dual approach aimed to ensure adequate representation from visitors to each facility.

The online questionnaire system was designed to adapt to respondents’ visitation history. After participants indicated which facilities they had visited, the system automatically directed them to questions about those corresponding facilities in the third part of the survey. This tailored approach ensured that respondents only answered questions about the facilities they had visited, enhancing the relevance and accuracy of the data collected. This methodology combined random sampling through the online platform with targeted on-site sampling, ensuring a comprehensive approach to data collection while maintaining focus on this study’s specific objectives. In the Section 5, all data were analyzed using Excel 16.68 and SPSS 29.0 software.

Considering the possibility of significant differences between the data collected through the two methods, we conducted independent sample t-tests (

Table 1. t-test Results comparing the two data collections on respondents’ overall score of changing awareness after visiting the three facilities.

Facility	Research Company		Facility		t	df	Sig. (2-Tailed)
	M	SD	M	SD
Sendai Arahama Elementary School	13.03	4.350	12.88	2.713	0.125	20.376	0.832
3.11 Memorial Community Center	13.39	4.120	13.92	2.503	−0.678	14.929	0.508
Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum	12.85	4.351	13.50	4.078	−0.758	35.888	0.437

Note. M = Mean. SD = Standard Deviation.

). The variable used to check for differences was the overall score of respondents’ impact assessments of seven aspects after visiting each facility. The results clearly showed that there were no significant differences between the two datasets across all three facilities (p > 0.05). Therefore, the two data collection methods adopted had similar impacts on people’s perceptions, allowing us to integrate these two sets of data for analysis.

In detail, a total of 538 valid questionnaires were analyzed.

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the respondents (n = 538).

Characteristics		Sample Size	%
Gender	Male	346	64.3
	Female	192	35.7
Age	Younger than 20	2	0.4
	21–30	56	10.4
	31–40	117	21.7
	41–50	123	22.9
	51–60	144	26.8
	61–70	67	12.4
	71 and above	29	5.4
Address	Sendai city	411	76.4
	Natori city	59	10.9
	Higashi-Matsushima city	52	9.8
	Others	16	2.9
Occupation	Office worker	257	47.8
	Civil servant	53	9.9
	Self-employed	22	4.1
	Fishing	1	0.2
	Freelance	6	1.1
	Professional (doctor, lawyer, etc.)	8	1.5
	Dispatched/contract employee	28	5.2
	Part-time job	41	7.6
	Housewife	42	7.8
	Student	28	5.2
	Unemployed	46	8.5
	Others	6	1.1
Facilities that you have visited	Sendai Arahama Elementary School	356	66.1
	3.11 Memorial Community Center	208	38.6
	Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum	234	43.4

presents the demographic characteristics of the respondents. Specifically, 356 respondents (66.1%) answered the part regarding Sendai Arahama Elementary School. A total of 208 survey participants (38.6%) answered the part regarding the 3.11 Memorial Community Center, and 234 respondents (43.4%) answered the part regarding the Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum. Because respondents who visited two sites or more were counted as one survey participant at a time, the total number of participants who answered questions on each facility is different from the sample size of participants who answered the whole questionnaire. Therefore, the figures in the Section 5 display the total number of respondents to each question.

Nevertheless, we have recognized certain constraints in our investigation. The use of a single post-visit survey design may lead to recall bias, especially for individuals who had their visits a long time ago. For future research, employing a pre- and post-visit comparison might enhance the accuracy of evaluating shifts in disaster awareness. Furthermore, the demographic distribution of the sample was not ideal, since it failed to adequately represent young individuals. This disparity has the potential to restrict our capacity to comprehensively assess the educational influence of the facilities on different age groups, particularly among younger populations. Finally, the study’s exclusive emphasis on visitors limits our comprehension of the wider influence on DRR. Future research should incorporate a comparative analysis between individuals who visit the facilities and those who do not, to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of their impacts on improving disaster awareness. These limitations indicate potential areas for future research to enhance the comprehension of the enduring effects of disaster memorials on awareness and education.

5. Results

5.1. Transmission and Patterns in Disaster Memorials

In this part, we started by asking whether you have learned any lessons from the experience of the GEJET. A total of 527 (98%) respondents provided a positive answer, while only 11 (2%) people replied with a negative response stating that they did not learn lessons. In other words, disaster transmission has been largely achieved among people who visited disaster memorials.

Figure 5 shows 538 respondents’ choice of the three most effective transmission methods. More precisely, the option that received the highest number of responses (n = 402) was “the documents and images saved as records”. The transmission methods were ranked in the following order of effectiveness: “Disaster education at school, such as extracurricular activities regarding DRR” received 218 responses; “storytelling about disaster memories and experiences” received 199 responses; and “disaster-affected buildings that have been preserved to pass on lessons” received 190 responses. The sample sizes for school education, storytelling, and disaster-affected buildings were very similar, but there is a notable difference in the sample size for “documents and images saved as records” compared to the other methods. Furthermore, the method of obtaining information from TV, newspapers, and radio (n = 150) has a larger reach than the method of using the internet and social media (n = 79). “Monuments set up in the disaster-affected area” (n = 36) and “reconstruction memorial park” (n = 27) received very low levels of support from respondents. As a result, individuals typically favor methods that are easily accessible in their daily lives, such as photos and documents. School education regarding DRR is also considered a practical method of transmission. In addition, when people have the chance to visit relevant facilities, they prefer to directly listen to affected people’s disaster experiences or visualize contents related to the damaged situation.

Appendix A includes the cross-tabulation analysis of gender and age.

Table A1. Most effective transmission methods to learn the lessons of the GEJET (Gender Cross-tabulation).

		Age
		Male	Female	Total
Documents and images saved as records	Count	262	140	402
	% within Gender	75.7%	72.9%
Storytelling regarding the GEJET	Count	120	79	199
	% within Gender	34.7%	41.1%
Events related to the GEJET	Count	44	14	58
	% within Gender	12.7%	7.3%
Newspaper, radio, television coverage	Count	92	58	150
	% within Gender	26.6%	30.2%
Internet news and social media	Count	54	25	79
	% within Gender	15.6%	13.0%
Disaster education at school	Count	128	90	218
	% within Gender	37.0%	46.9%
Monuments set up in the disaster-affected area	Count	26	10	36
	% within Gender	7.5%	5.2%
Reconstruction memorial parks	Count	22	5	27
	% within Gender	6.4%	2.6%
Disaster-affected building ruins	Count	128	62	190
	% within Gender	37.0%	32.3%
Memorial facilities	Count	81	41	122
	% within Gender	23.4%	21.4%
Own experiences of the GEJET	Count	78	52	130
	% within Gender	22.5%	27.1%
Others	Count	3	0	3
	% within Gender	0.9%	0.0%

Percentages and totals are based on respondents. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.

of the gender analysis highlighted significant disparities. Although both genders placed a high priority on “documents and images saved as records” (75.7% male, 72.9% female), females had a greater preference for “disaster education at school” (46.9% vs. 37.0% male) and “storytelling” (41.1% vs. 34.7% male). Male respondents showed a small preference for “disaster-affected building ruins” with a percentage of 37.0%, compared to 32.3% for female respondents. Age-wise comparisons (

Table A2. Most effective transmission methods to learn lessons of the GEJET (Age Cross-tabulation).

	Gender
	Younger than 20	21–30	31–40	41–50	51–60	61–70	71 and Above	Total
Documents and images saved as records	1	35	99	100	101	44	22	402
	50.0%	62.5%	84.6%	81.3%	70.1%	65.7%	75.9%
Storytelling regarding the GEJET	0	28	36	44	58	24	9	199
	0.0%	50.0%	30.8%	35.8%	40.3%	35.8%	31.0%
Events related to the GEJET	1	4	20	12	12	9	0	58
	50.0%	7.1%	17.1%	9.8%	8.3%	13.4%	0.0%
Newspaper, radio, television coverage	0	15	29	33	37	23	13	150
	0.0%	26.8%	24.8%	26.8%	25.7%	34.3%	44.8%
Internet news and social media	0	8	20	22	21	6	2	79
	0.0%	14.3%	17.1%	17.9%	14.6%	9.0%	6.9%
Disaster education at school	2	24	46	46	59	28	13	218
	100.0%	42.9%	39.3%	37.4%	41.0%	41.8%	44.8%
Monuments set up in the disaster-affected area	0	3	7	11	8	5	2	36
	0.0%	5.4%	6.0%	8.9%	5.6%	7.5%	6.9%
Reconstruction memorial parks	0	5	5	9	6	2	0	27
	0.0%	8.9%	4.3%	7.3%	4.2%	3.0%	0.0%
Disaster-affected building ruins	1	18	35	38	52	32	14	190
	50.0%	32.1%	29.9%	30.9%	36.1%	47.8%	48.3%
Memorial facilities	1	13	22	25	45	12	4	122
	50.0%	23.2%	18.8%	20.3%	31.3%	17.9%	13.8%
Own experiences of the GEJET	0	15	32	28	32	15	8	130
	0.0%	26.8%	27.4%	22.8%	22.2%	22.4%	27.6%
Others	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	3
	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.8%	0.7%	1.5%	0.0%

Percentages and totals are based on respondents. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.

) indicate that preference for “documents and images” peaks in the 31–40 age group (84.6%) and remains high across all age groups. The 61–70 and 71 and above age groups showed a markedly higher preference for “disaster-affected building ruins” (47.8% and 48.3%, respectively) compared to younger groups. The popularity of newspaper, radio, and television coverage increased with age, reaching its highest point at 44.8% among individuals aged 71 and above. The data revealed a general preference for document-based techniques, with notable variations in secondary preferences across different gender and age groups. This information might be used to develop specific disaster education strategies between different age and gender groups.

5.2. Triggers and Purposes for Visiting the Facilities

Analysis of the triggers prompting participants to visit the three memorial facilities (

Table 3. Top three triggers for people’s visits to facilities.

Facility	Top 1	Top 2	Top 3
Sendai Arahama Elementary School	TV/radio coverage	Invitation of friends	Internet, SNS
3.11 Memorial Community Center	TV/radio coverage	Internet, SNS	Invitation of friends
Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum	TV/radio coverage	Internet, SNS	Invitation of friends

) revealed similar patterns across all sites. The primary trigger for visitation was exposure to related information through television and radio coverage. For the Sendai Arahama Elementary School, the second most common trigger was “invitation from friends”, followed by “internet and social media” as the third. In contrast, visitors to both the 3.11 Memorial Community Center and the Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum cited “internet and social media” as the second most frequent trigger, with “invitation from friends” ranking third. These findings underscore the significant role of broadcast and social media in motivating individuals to visit memorial facilities. Additionally, the data suggest that visitors often tend to experience these sites in the company of others.

The examination of visitation purposes revealed consistency across all three facilities. The primary motivation for participants was to gain knowledge about the extent of damage in the affected areas. The second most prevalent purpose was to learn about post-GEJET reconstruction efforts. Sightseeing emerged as the third most common purpose for visitation across all facilities. This hierarchy of purposes indicated that while educational and informational motivations predominate, there was also a notable touristic element to these visits.

5.3. Impacts of Disaster Awareness Changing after Visiting the Facilities

This section presents the results of the impact of people’s disaster awareness changing after visiting each facility. We asked respondents to fill out Likert questions regarding how they felt about the seven statements after their visits. The detailed data of each facility have been placed in Appendix B.

5.3.1. Impact of Awareness Changes after Visiting Sendai Arahama Elementary School

Analysis of the results from visitors to Sendai Arahama Elementary School reveals significant changes in disaster awareness (

Table A3. Impact of respondents’ disaster awareness changes after visiting Sendai Arahama Elementary School (n = 356).

	Statement	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
1	I was able to know the damage situation in and around the facilities.	185	150	17	3	1
2	I was able to increase knowledge about GEJET.	137	176	33	8	2
3	I was able to raise awareness of preparing for disaster.	150	157	39	7	3
4	I was able to learn about the reconstruction efforts of Sendai city.	97	160	73	22	4
5	I was able to understand the threat of natural disasters.	225	110	19	1	1
6	I was able to understand the importance of various disaster prevention measures.	144	170	34	7	1
7	I was able to deepen local communication.	67	77	133	59	20

). The most pronounced impacts were observed in understanding the damage to the facility and comprehending the threat of natural disasters, with 225 respondents strongly agreeing to the latter. Substantial positive effects were also noted in acquiring knowledge about the GEJET, increasing preparedness awareness, and understanding the importance of prevention activities. However, the impact on understanding Sendai’s recovery progress and deepening local communication was comparatively weaker.

Spearman correlation analysis provides further insights (

Table A4. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients for impact of respondents’ disaster awareness changes after visiting Sendai Arahama Elementary School.

		Statement
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	ρ	1.000	0.607 **	0.589 **	0.472 **	0.598 **	0.524 **	0.273 **
	p (2-t)	.	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
2	ρ	0.607 **	1.000	0.726 **	0.584 **	0.545 **	0.594 **	0.432 **
	p (2-t)	<0.001	.	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
3	ρ	0.589 **	0.726 **	1.000	0.607 **	0.597 **	0.617 **	0.389 **
	p (2-t)	<0.001	<0.001	.	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
4	ρ	0.472 **	0.584 **	0.607 **	1.000	0.379 **	0.616 **	0.590 **
	p (2-t)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	.	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
5	ρ	0.598 **	0.545 **	0.597 **	0.379 **	1.000	0.583 **	0.150 **
	p (2-t)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	.	<0.001	0.005
6	ρ	0.524 **	0.594 **	0.617 **	0.616 **	0.583 **	1.000	0.384 **
	p (2-t)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	.	<0.001
7	ρ	0.273 **	0.432 **	0.389 **	0.590 **	0.150 **	0.384 **	1.000
	p (2-t)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.005	<0.001	.

Note. ρ = Correlation Coefficient. p (2-t) = Sig. (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

), showing the strongest correlation (ρ = 0.726, p < 0.01) between increasing GEJET knowledge and raising preparedness awareness. A strong link (ρ = 0.617, p < 0.01) also existed between preparedness awareness and understanding prevention measures. Most factors demonstrated moderate to strong interconnections, suggesting that improvements in one area often correspond with enhancements in others. Notably, the weakest correlation (ρ = 0.150, p < 0.01) was between understanding disaster threats and deepening local communication, indicating a potential area for improvement. The strong correlation (ρ = 0.607, p < 0.01) between understanding damage and increasing GEJET knowledge underscores the effectiveness of concrete examples in enhancing overall disaster awareness.

These findings highlight the multifaceted nature of disaster education, demonstrating the experience’s success in increasing risk understanding and preparedness while revealing opportunities to better foster community engagement. Future initiatives may benefit from incorporating elements that specifically target areas of weaker impact, particularly in promoting local communication and community involvement in disaster preparedness and response.

5.3.2. Impact of Awareness Changes after Visiting the 3.11 Memorial Community Center

The 3.11 Memorial Community Center significantly influenced visitors’ disaster awareness across multiple dimensions (

Table A5. Impact of respondents’ disaster awareness changes after visiting 3.11 Memorial Community Center (n = 208).

	Statement	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
1	I was able to know the damage situation in and around the facilities.	74	116	13	5	0
2	I was able to increase knowledge about GEJET.	75	108	23	2	0
3	I was able to raise awareness of preparing for disaster.	72	103	28	4	1
4	I was able to learn about the reconstruction efforts of Sendai city.	59	112	32	5	0
5	I was able to understand the threat of natural disasters.	91	89	23	5	0
6	I was able to understand the importance of various disaster prevention measures.	70	106	28	4	0
7	I was able to deepen local communication.	40	57	69	35	7

). The most pronounced impact was observed in visitors’ ability to understand the damage situation in and around the facility, with 190 out of 208 respondents giving positive attitudes. Increased knowledge about the GEJET (n = 183) and enhanced understanding of natural disaster threats (n = 180) followed closely behind. The center also effectively raised awareness of disaster preparedness (n = 175), promoted understanding of various disaster prevention measures (n = 176), and improved knowledge about Sendai city’s reconstruction efforts (n = 171). However, the impact on deepening local communication was notably weaker, with only 97 participants reporting a positive outcome, while 69 remained neutral and 42 disagreed.

Spearman correlation analysis revealed strong interconnections among most factors (

Table A6. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients for impact of respondents’ disaster awareness changes after visiting 3.11 Memorial Community Center.

		Statement
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	ρ	1.000	0.710 **	0.625 **	0.540 **	0.594 **	0.534 **	0.339 **
	p (2-t)	.	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
2	ρ	0.710 **	1.000	0.617 **	0.589 **	0.594 **	0.588 **	0.354 **
	p (2-t)	<0.001	.	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
3	ρ	0.625 **	0.617 **	1.000	0.581 **	0.574 **	0.602 **	0.348 **
	p (2-t)	<0.001	<0.001	.	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
4	ρ	0.540 **	0.589 **	0.581 **	1.000	0.562 **	0.652 **	0.468 **
	p (2-t)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	.	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
5	ρ	0.594 **	0.594 **	0.574 **	0.562 **	1.000	0.703 **	0.237 **
	p (2-t)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	.	<0.001	<0.001
6	ρ	0.534 **	0.588 **	0.602 **	0.652 **	0.703 **	1.000	0.362 **
	p (2-t)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	.	<0.001
7	ρ	0.339 **	0.354 **	0.348 **	0.468 **	0.237 **	0.362 **	1.000
	p (2-t)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	.

Note. ρ = Correlation Coefficient. p (2-t) = Sig. (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

). The strongest correlation (ρ = 0.710, p < 0.01) was found between understanding the damage situation and increasing GEJET knowledge, suggesting that concrete examples of disaster impact effectively enhance overall disaster understanding. Another notable strong correlation (ρ = 0.703, p < 0.01) existed between understanding disaster threats and recognizing the importance of prevention measures, indicating that increased risk awareness is closely linked to appreciating specific prevention strategies. While most factors showed moderate to strong correlations (ρ ranging from 0.534 to 0.652, p < 0.01), the weakest correlations were consistently associated with deepening local communication (ρ ranging from 0.237 to 0.468, p < 0.01).

This pattern suggests that while the center excels in educating visitors about disaster-related issues, there is room for improvement in fostering community engagement. Future initiatives at the center might benefit from incorporating elements that specifically target local communication and community involvement in disaster preparedness and response.

5.3.3. Impact of Awareness Changes after Visiting the Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum

Table A7. Impact of respondents’ disaster awareness changes after visiting Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum (n = 234).

	Statement	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
1	I was able to know the damage situation in and around the facilities.	105	113	13	2	1
2	I was able to increase knowledge about GEJET.	88	126	15	5	0
3	I was able to raise awareness of preparing for disaster.	87	109	31	4	3
4	I was able to learn about the reconstruction efforts of Higashi-Matsushima city.	80	117	29	6	2
5	I was able to understand the threat of natural disasters.	133	81	14	4	2
6	I was able to understand the importance of various disaster prevention measures.	92	114	21	6	1
7	I was able to deepen local communication.	48	66	74	34	12

illustrates the impact of visits to the Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum on visitors’ disaster awareness. The most pronounced impact was observed in visitors’ understanding of the damage situation in and around the facility, with 218 out of 232 respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing. This was followed closely by enhanced comprehension of natural disaster threats (n = 211) and increased knowledge about the GEJET (n = 213). The museum also effectively raised awareness of disaster preparedness (n = 195), promoted understanding of various disaster prevention measures (n = 204), and improved knowledge about Higashi-Matsushima city’s reconstruction efforts (n = 195). However, the impact on deepening local communication was notably weaker, with only 113 participants reporting a positive outcome, while 74 remained neutral and 46 disagreed.

To further understand the relationships between these impacts, Spearman’s rank correlation analysis was conducted (

Table A8. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients for impact of respondents’ disaster awareness changes after visiting Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum.

		Statement
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	ρ	1.000	0.686 **	0.572 **	0.527 **	0.569 **	0.598 **	0.303 **
	p (2-t)	.	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
2	ρ	0.686 **	1.000	0.717 **	0.669 **	0.601 **	0.686 **	0.375 **
	p (2-t)	<0.001	.	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
3	ρ	0.572 **	0.717 **	1.000	0.702 **	0.603 **	0.698 **	0.410 **
	p (2-t)	<0.001	<0.001	.	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
4	ρ	0.527 **	0.669 **	0.702 **	1.000	0.566 **	0.641 **	0.429 **
	p (2-t)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	.	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
5	ρ	0.569 **	0.601 **	0.603 **	0.566 **	1.000	0.655 **	0.212 **
	p (2-t)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	.	<0.001	0.001
6	ρ	0.598 **	0.686 **	0.698 **	0.641 **	0.655 **	1.000	0.383 **
	p (2-t)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	.	<0.001
7	ρ	0.303 **	0.375 **	0.410 **	0.429 **	0.212 **	0.383 **	1.000
	p (2-t)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.001	<0.001	.

Note. ρ = Correlation Coefficient. p (2-t) = Sig. (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

). The analysis revealed several significant correlations. Understanding of GEJET was significantly and positively correlated with comprehension of the damage scenario (ρ = 0.686, p < 0.001), increased awareness of disaster preparedness (ρ = 0.717, p < 0.001), and knowledge acquisition regarding reconstruction efforts (ρ = 0.669, p < 0.001). The level of awareness regarding disaster preparedness showed a significant positive relationship with comprehension of the significance of disaster prevention measures (ρ = 0.698, p < 0.001) and knowledge acquired about reconstruction efforts (ρ = 0.702, p < 0.001). Understanding the threat of natural disasters significantly correlated with all other factors, apart from enhancing local communication. The highest correlation was observed with recognizing the significance of disaster prevention (ρ = 0.655, p < 0.001), while the weakest correlation was found with enhancing local communication (ρ = 0.212, p = 0.001). Significantly, deepening local communication had the least overall connections with other categories, but it was still positively connected. The largest correlation was found with knowing about reconstruction efforts (ρ = 0.429, p < 0.001), while the weakest correlation was observed with understanding catastrophe hazards (ρ = 0.212, p = 0.001).

The findings indicate that the Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum successfully improves visitors’ comprehension of the GEJET, local destruction, and overall disaster awareness. The stable relationships among information acquisition, raising awareness of preparedness, and understanding of prevention methods suggest that the museum’s educational strategy effectively incorporates different parts of disaster education. However, the museum’s ability to enhance local communication appears to be limited, as it has only a minor effect on strengthening community bonds. This aspect could present an opportunity for improvement in the museum’s programming or indicate the difficulties of fostering local involvement within a museum environment.

5.3.4. Comparison among the Three Facilities

A comparison of Sendai Arahama Elementary School, the 3.11 Memorial Community Center, and the Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum reveals similar patterns in visitor impacts, with some notable differences (

Table 4. Ranked impacts of raising awareness after people visit the facilities.

	Sendai Arahama Elementary School	3.11 Memorial Community Center	Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum
1	Understanding disaster threat	Knowing the damage situation	Knowing the damage situation
2	Knowing the damage situation	Increasing knowledge about the GEJET	Understanding disaster threat
3	Understanding the importance of disaster prevention	Understanding disaster threat	Increasing knowledge about the GEJET
4	Increasing knowledge about the GEJET	Understanding the importance of disaster prevention	Understanding the importance of disaster prevention
5	Raising awareness of preparing for disaster	Raising awareness of preparing for disaster	Learning about reconstruction efforts
6	Learning about reconstruction efforts	Learning about reconstruction efforts	Raising awareness of preparing for disaster
7	Deepening local communication	Deepening local communication	Deepening local communication

). Sendai Arahama Elementary School was the most effective in conveying the disaster threat and damage extent, likely due to its preserved state. The 3.11 Memorial Community Center and Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum excelled in educating visitors about the actual damage situation. The Community Center, in particular, surpassed others in increasing knowledge about the GEJET. All facilities effectively raised awareness about disaster preparedness and reconstruction efforts, though to a lesser degree than their primary impacts. Notably, all three facilities had minimal impact on deepening local communication, indicating a potential area for improvement in disaster education strategies. These findings highlight how different memorial approaches can yield varying educational outcomes while sharing common challenges.

5.4. Effective Contents in the Facilities

This section presents the results of effective exhibition contents in each facility, with the goal of “passing on the experiences and lessons learned from the GEJET to future generations” and “raising people’s disaster awareness”. We provided several contents in each facility as options and asked people to choose the most effective ones for (1) passing on the experiences and lessons learned from the GEJET to future generations and (2) raising people’s disaster awareness.

Based on

Table 5. Top three effective exhibition contents for passing on the experiences and lessons learned from the GEJET to future generations.

Facility	Top 1	Top 2	Top 3
Sendai Arahama Elementary School	The damaged school building	Photos and videos	Tsunami arrival height sign
3.11 Memorial Community Center	Photos and videos	Regular events and exhibitions	Sendai coastal map
Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum	Photos and videos	Tsunami arrival height sign	Disaster Remain Former Nobiru Station Platform

and

Table 6. Top three effective exhibition contents for raising visitors’ disaster awareness.

Facility	Top 1	Top 2	Top 3
Sendai Arahama Elementary School	The damaged school building	Photos and videos	Tsunami arrival height sign
3.11 Memorial Community Center	Photos and videos	Sendai coastal map	Regular events and exhibitions
Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum	Photos and videos	Tsunami arrival height sign	Disaster Remain Former Nobiru Station Platform

, the rank of effects on both was almost the same. “Images and videos displayed in facilities” played a crucial part in increasing disaster awareness, as well as passing on valuable lessons and experiences to future generations, especially in the 3.11 Memorial Community Center and Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum. However, the “damaged school building display” was considered more effective than “photos and videos” in Sendai Arahama Elementary School. This demonstrated that displays, such as damaged building ruins, can provide people with visual stimulation and demonstrate the devastating power of the tsunami, thus having a significant impact on raising people’s awareness and disaster transmission to descendants. In addition, the “tsunami arrival height sign” was a bit less effective than “photos and videos” in Sendai Arahama Elementary School and the Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum.

5.5. Most Important Roles of Each Facility in DRR

Figure 6 presents survey participants’ opinions on the role of each facility in DRR. All three disaster memorial facilities recognized their most essential role as “disseminating experiences and lessons and passing them on to the next generations”, while their second important role was “to collect and store materials, photos, and videos regarding the GEJET”. Moreover, Sendai Arahama Elementary School and the Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum recognized “providing opportunities and places to learn about disaster prevention” as their third crucial function. People who visited the 3.11 Memorial Community Center believed the third critical role was to “enhance knowledge and provide opportunities and places to learn about the disaster”. Furthermore, respondents did not see “deepening regional exchange” as an important role in DRR in all three facilities.

The minimal influence of the disaster memorial facilities on local communication is mostly attributed to their design as educational and memorial spaces, which does not fully exemplify their potential for facilitating communication. All three facilities formally designated community communication as a function, but their primary objective was to disseminate information about the disaster. This unintentionally shifted the focus towards past events, possibly overshadowing the current needs of community building. Moreover, the temporary nature of the visits and the diverse characteristics of the guests impeded long-term involvement from the local community.

5.6. Respondents’ Opinions on Disaster Memorialization

To gather qualitative data, respondents were asked an open-ended question regarding their comments or feelings about the disaster memorial facilities and disaster transmission. This question was posed without length restrictions, yielding 239 valid responses. All the answers were categorized into five aspects: respondents’ feelings and experiences regarding the GEJET; their opinions toward disaster memorial transmission; their opinions toward the memorial facilities; suggestions on the development of facilities; and some operation policies by respondents who work in the facilities. The key findings are summarized as follows (

Table 7. Key findings in the open-ended question.

	Key Findings
Respondents’ feelings and experiences regarding the GEJET (n = 18)	(a) When people recalled their memories regarding the GEJET, they expressed their fear of the disaster event. (b) On the positive side, respondents urged people to cherish their current life and prepare for coming disasters. (c) They gave some lessons based on their own experiences, such as “run for your life in case of a tsunami”.
Respondents’ opinions toward disaster memorial transmission (n = 48)	(a) People highlighted the importance of disaster transmission, especially among the younger generation. (b) They highlighted the importance of storytelling. (c) They also mentioned the effectiveness of various tangible patterns that collect and display different kinds of information regarding the disaster events on disaster awareness-raising.
Respondents’ opinions toward the facilities (n = 104)	(a) People visited the memorials for mourning. Some people also stated they live near the facilities. (b) The memorial facilities help people understand the threat of disaster and increase awareness of preparing for the disaster. (c) People had different opinions on what should be included in the facilities, either to pass on memories or present the actual situation of the disaster event. In addition, exhibitions that are easier for the younger generation to understand seemed to be necessary in the facilities. (d) People had concerns about the weathering issues of memorial facilities, the long-term maintenance of facilities, and the need to increase visitors.
Respondents’ suggestions on the development of facilities (n = 56)	(a) Facilities needed to increase their publicity through promotion on social media and the Internet. (b) Innovative technology may provide effective help in improving the exhibition contents. (c) Facilities should also update information and hold events on a regular basis.
Operation policies by respondents who work in the facilities (n = 13)	(a) “Living” and “connecting” were two aspects that people valued in operating the facility. (b) Updating exhibitions and holding regular events were two options for developing the facilities.

). The open-ended responses provided rich, detailed insights into visitors’ perceptions and experiences, indicating a high level of engagement with the memorial sites.

6. Discussion

After visiting the selected disaster memorial facilities, survey respondents indicated that the transmission of disaster lessons and experiences was largely achieved. Memorialization is the act of preserving information and memories related to a disaster. It also serves to impart valuable lessons and experiences to individuals who were not directly impacted by the event [7,23]. In general, the different forms of memorialization do not seem to exist in isolation, as they often collaborate to optimize their effectiveness. The immediacy that the facilities bring provides a more objective image of the situation and the dedication of the stakeholders in the aftermath. With the development of the Internet and the increase in digital materials in recent years, this initiative to store photos and documents in digital archives is gradually becoming mainstream for people to browse related information regarding disaster events [46]. Uchiyama and Hirouchi [47] noted that among various kinds of archives, digital archives are often more suited for personal use in everyday life. This is due to paper copies being frequently maintained in libraries, but museums and other venues contain vital disaster information [47]. Gerster et al. [48] also proposed that providing digital disaster archives with geolocation capabilities can serve as an effective tool for visitors to explore disaster areas as a cost-saving option that contributes to disaster education and provides a broader learning experience for disaster-affected areas. People find it convenient to understand the disaster and learn lessons from it when photos and documents are saved as records. However, commemorative approaches extend beyond archival methods such as photographs and documents. Disaster education in schools also plays a vital role in raising disaster awareness and preparedness among the next generation [49]. Aghaei, Seyedin, and Sanaeinasab [50] emphasized the importance of public awareness and DRR education, especially school education for the younger generation.

In addition, preferences for disaster transmission approaches were considerably influenced by gender and age. While documents and images were universally favored, females preferred schooling and storytelling. Older age groups showed greater interest in disaster-affected building rubble and media coverage. These findings emphasize the importance of tailoring disaster transmission strategies to specific demographic groups. The universal appeal of visual documentation suggests that it has the potential to be a fundamental component of comprehensive dissemination strategies. However, varying secondary preferences emphasize the necessity for multiple techniques that are suitable for different age groups or genders to optimize involvement and efficacy in disaster communication [15]. Thus, the transmission of lessons and experiences to future generations and the raising of disaster awareness become more dependent on the effective integration of various memorizing methods.

6.1. People’s Triggers and Purposes for Visiting the Memorial Facilities

The value of broadcast media, such as television, has increased in disaster transmission for digital archives and disaster memorials [51,52]. Yamamoto [53] also suggested that social media and broadcast media are the primary methods for residents to access information about memorial facilities. The results of this study further support the efficacy of broadcast media in disaster memorialization, as seen by the increase in facility visits resulting from television and radio advertising. The continued appeal of these conventional media platforms can be ascribed to their capacity to offer abundant and readily available information to a wide demographic. Interestingly, this study found that although the Internet and social media are far more developed in current society, people receive significantly less information about disaster memorial facilities through the Internet than through television and radio. The difference in coverage could be attributed to the comprehensive and detailed reporting that broadcast media can provide, offering a deeper understanding and emotional impact that may be difficult to express in concise social media updates. While embracing the benefits of conventional broadcast media, it is crucial to acknowledge the possibilities of digital channels. Future advertising plans for these institutions should adopt a well-rounded strategy, utilizing the huge reach of television and radio as well as investigating the potential of social media and online platforms.

Regarding people’s purposes for visiting these facilities, the intention of providing knowledge about the GEJET aligns with the initial goal of establishing these sites. Furthermore, because most respondents live in Sendai, Natori, and Higashi Matsushima, many people visited the sites with their relatives and friends. While commemorative aspects are significant, individuals expressed a desire to pay their respects to people who lost their lives by visiting the facilities. Garnier and Lahourna [37] described that people who visited the monument held the purpose of remembering the past and paying tribute to victims. Meanwhile, Tang [54] demonstrated that people who visit memorials hold the intention of mourning the deceased and preserving the memory of the past. However, it is imperative to highlight that these memorials have a double function: to commemorate and educate about preparedness. By vividly portraying the devastating impacts of the GEJET, these facilities emphasize the real threats of natural disasters, potentially inspiring visitors to prioritize related actions. Some visitors also stated that they lived nearby or passed by chance. This serendipity also proves its significance. As Ito, Irazawa, and Tagaya [55] argued, it is crucial that when people pass by a disaster site by chance, they come out with the idea that they can prevent future tragedies from occurring because now they can be prepared and ready to respond to impending hazards. The existence of these structures does not indicate an endorsement of future calamities as unavoidable but instead acts as a continual reminder of the necessity for alertness and readiness. The nature travel model provides practical value in raising disaster awareness [55]. By striking a balance between honoring the past with reverence while emphasizing the potential dangers of disasters, these facilities can effectively encourage both emotional recovery and practical readiness. This is due to the necessity for communities to contemplate this possibility to ensure that continuity and sustainability of disaster awareness are maintained.

6.2. Impact on Changing Awareness after Visiting the Disaster Memorial Facilities

The three selected disaster memorial facilities showed similar positive impacts on the changes people experienced after visiting the facilities. All three facilities played an important role in raising disaster awareness, especially in helping people understand the threat. However, each of them possessed unique aspects. Sendai Arahama Elementary School helped visitors raise awareness of disaster threats to a large extent. The 3.11 Memorial Community Center had a greater impact on increasing knowledge about the GEJET than either of the other two facilities. The Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum had a greater impact on understanding the city’s reconstruction efforts. This reflected the fact that the display of the damaged buildings may be more influential in shaping people’s understanding of the horrible earthquake and tsunami, and that images and videos were more helpful in understanding the GEJET and the city’s rebuilding process. However, there was a lack of widespread recognition of all three facilities in enhancing local communication. This also suggested that local information exchange among visitors is not the main function of the three facilities at the current stage. Kadokura, Sato, and Imamura [15] highlighted that people’s understanding of disaster threats and knowledge of the GEJET improved after visiting memorial facilities. Watanabe, Sato, and Imamura [45] stated that memorial facilities are still not sufficient in furthering visitors’ knowledge of disaster prevention strategies and information related to post-disaster reconstruction. This suggested that the selected memorial facilities are still inadequate in helping people to acquire more information about the post-disaster period. At the same time, this study agreed that the three facilities are still inadequate in enhancing information exchange among visitors. Matsuoka [44] raised concerns about the stagnation of the disaster memorialization process because mechanisms for effective communication between facilities and communities in the areas where the memorials are located do not yet exist. Given the relatively realistic presentation of facts at Sendai Arahama Elementary School and the Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum, there are few physical spaces that allow people to conduct long conversations. At the same time, the 3.11 Memorial Community Center failed to achieve its intended goal of facilitating community communication. As Kadokura, Sato, and Imamura [15] suggested, exhibits in the 3.11 Memorial Community Center need to be significantly revised or centrally evaluated for the initially established purposes because the current communication orientation goals are difficult to achieve. Therefore, while updating materials and local exchanges can encourage repeat visitors, fully expanding space and exchange opportunities is also an important direction for the development of disaster memorials.

6.3. Practical Contents in the Disaster Memorial Facilities

According to the findings, ruins and displays of the damaged buildings were the most effective part of Sendai Arahama Elementary School in raising awareness and spreading lessons about disaster preparedness. The damaged school building presented the actual damage at the time, giving people a visual sense of what happened in the past. Photos and videos about the GEJET had a more tangible impact in the other two facilities. The exhibit showed the damage and reconstruction progress over the past decade, giving a complete impression of the disaster’s events. In addition, the tsunami arrival height sign also provided a practical role in effective outreach and education for future generations. Regular events and exhibitions about the GEJET were considered practical parts of the 3.11 Memorial Community Center. By providing materials, especially photos and display boards of the disaster site, the facilities attempted to stimulate people to think about how to respond to disasters beyond human control [56]. The findings also suggested that there were differences between facility displays. Sendai Arahama Elementary School included disaster prevention materials as part of the exhibition. The results validated that remains can be provided as effective content in facilities, producing the same results as discussed in previous studies [15]. In contrast, the 3.11 Memorial Community Center and Higashi-Matsushima Memorial Museum displayed more information about disaster events and did not include many materials that directly demonstrate disaster preparedness in the aftermath [57]. The provision of disaster-related information varies among remains, community centers, and museums.

6.4. Role of Disaster Memorial Facilities in DRR

Disseminating GEJET lessons and experiences to the next generation was the most important role of the three facilities. The second most important role was the collection and storage of materials, photos, and videos about the GEJET. Over the past decade, the academic focus has been on how individuals and societies can effectively integrate a culture of disaster memorialization into disaster mitigation [3,58]. While understanding the plight of others is difficult and prone to negative emotions for those who have not experienced disaster events or whose memories are already fuzzy, making connections between the past and the present through disaster memorials is considered essential for communicating various messages into the future [23,59]. A disaster memorial facility illustrates its educational purpose through a variety of activities, ranging from school curriculum programs to community cultural or historical excursions. Disaster memorial sites, in turn, serve as landmarks for disaster tourism and education [58]. Visitors to the memorials can gain a sense of the scope of the damage while different exhibits illustrate the history and relevance of disaster mitigation strategies. This supports the idea that visitors are impressed by natural disasters and the devastation caused by mass deaths within the memorials, thereby evoking value identification and personal contemplation [60]. This illustrates how memorials prompt individuals to contemplate their personal perspectives on life and the interconnection between humans and nature. In addition, people may acquire knowledge regarding tsunami evacuation and aftermath reconstruction. In other words, the stories and information shared at the memorial site are as concerned with explaining facts and raising people’s awareness as disaster education [26].

Based on the findings in the open-ended question, respondents also provided different opinions on what memorials convey to hand over to future generations. Some made a claim about memorials transmitting memories, while others concentrated more on the truth and the actual situation of the GEJET. Disaster memorials are widely regarded as social tools developed to transmit people’s memories of a specific location, as well as the message of the disaster experience, to others [5]. Various individuals’ reflections frequently accompany the presence of memorial facilities. They have a dual nature that includes not only “remembering and forgetting” but also “protection and fear”. Borland [61] argued that the new forms of commemorative statues reflect the desire of stakeholders to educate future generations about the risks of earthquakes, rather than comforting the bereaved. As a result, they explore ways to preserve memories in the long run, as the weathering of disaster memories can pose concerns for transferring disaster lessons. The memorial acts as a constant reminder of the fear of impending disaster and a solid focus on understanding future disaster prevention strategies, not merely the lives and events that have passed.

In addition to the role previously discussed in previous studies, this result underscored another function of the three facilities described by the survey participants, which is to present memories of the past and provide a bright future for people. Thus, the message extends beyond the personal memories and lessons learned by the affected populations. The memorials show scenes from the time through remains and materials that emphasize what happened behind the tragic events. Communicating the integrity and authenticity of disaster events and providing a bright future for people to carry out disaster mitigation activities is a unique characteristic of disaster memorial facilities.

7. Conclusions

This study examined the role of disaster memorial facilities related to the GEJET in DRR by analyzing three disaster memorial sites. In general, the three facilities have the same role in DRR, but the extent of the impact of different facilities on raising people’s disaster awareness varies. In addition, visually stimulating exhibits (e.g., remains, photos, and videos) were more likely to raise attention about the importance of disaster preparedness, while panels and science exhibits provided visitors with a full context of the story and disaster-related knowledge.

However, there are also some priority issues in the process of developing disaster memorial facilities. Survey participants emphasized the importance of disaster memorial facilities for spreading GEJET lessons and experiences among younger generations. Encouraging the younger generation to visit components of the facility, such as introducing exhibits to younger visitors and expanding the accessibility, would be necessary. In the long run, the exchange of information among visitors regarding disaster preparedness was also considered an important function for the development of disaster memorials. Therefore, understanding how disaster memorial facilities can play a role in local information exchange appears to be a major challenge for the future. In addition, concerns were expressed about the development of memorials. Even among residents, the weathering issue of facilities and the need to encourage more visitors were seen as great challenges. Therefore, it was suggested that there is a need to increase outreach efforts through a variety of means such as regular events, updating exhibition content, and applying innovative technologies to attract new and repeat visitors.

Therefore, we provide three recommendations. Firstly, it is imperative to design exhibition plans and promotion approaches that specifically cater to various demographics. The results of this study indicate notable disparities in preferences among various age and gender groups, particularly on the appeal of visual stimuli versus textual information. Tailoring exhibits to different groups can maximize the educational impact on a wider range of visitors, thereby increasing overall disaster awareness. Secondly, it is critical to incorporate these facilities into educational programs. This strategy has the potential to encourage a more enduring and organized way of spreading knowledge about disaster preparedness. Finally, implementing standardized impact assessments is necessary. Regularly evaluating the effectiveness of these facilities in raising disaster awareness might yield valuable data for continuous improvement. This evidence-based approach shall ensure that these memorials remain relevant and impactful in DRR. Future research should focus on evaluating the long-term outcomes of these policy implementations to further refine disaster mitigation strategies. In addition, future research should utilize different sampling strategies and explore applications in other disaster-prone regions around the globe to gain a more comprehensive understanding of effective disaster memorialization practices globally.

The results of this study may have some potential limitations. Firstly, due to limited sample sizes for specific demographic groups (e.g., the youth or individuals in particular occupations), the study was unable to conduct more in-depth analyses to determine if there were significant differences in how the facilities affected disaster awareness among these specific populations. Secondly, without in-depth interviews with randomized survey respondents, this study was unable to confirm a more emotional understanding and perception of disaster memorial facilities and remains. Thirdly, this study only provided a detailed analysis of facility visitors and did not address the perceptions of other stakeholders, such as local government and facility staff, regarding facility maintenance and ideas for long-term development. Regarding various potential directions for future research, based on the above-mentioned limitations, the amount of data on facility visitors of different demographic groups (especially young people) should be increased. The differences between disaster memorial facilities in formal, informal, and nonformal disaster education should be explored. In addition, additional in-depth interviews with random facility visitors are needed to explore the role of disaster memorialization through qualitative analysis. Finally, questionnaires or in-depth interviews with local government and facility staff will be conducted in a future study to answer the question, “through what processes are various stakeholders involved in the utilization of disaster memorials and remains”?