Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the problem i see is that, as stated in the current version, both urbanization and the recurrent disasters are undermining traditional local culture, with the disasters accelerating the changes.  so the case does not really fit the idea of punctuated entropy ( “a permanent decline in the adaptive flexibility of a human culture........”) caused by the disasters.  the local communities are in decline but what new forms of solidarity are replacing those that are declining? and how are the disasters impacting those? 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

english is good.  article needs some copy-editing but not much.

Author Response

Thank you for your careful reading. I have addressed your concerns in the revisions.

Reviewer 1

the problem i see is that, as stated in the current version, both urbanization and the recurrent disasters are undermining traditional local culture, with the disasters accelerating the changes.  so the case does not really fit the idea of punctuated entropy ( “a permanent decline in the adaptive flexibility of a human culture........”) caused by the disasters.  the local communities are in decline but what new forms of solidarity are replacing those that are declining? and how are the disasters impacting those? 

I added this in introduction:

As another case in point, Dyer (2002) investigated the permanent damage done to the local fishing community, the failures of external assistance, and the post-disaster environmental issues in Prince William Sound after the worst oil-spill in United States history, the Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989. And he analyzed this tragedy using the theoretical construct of punctuated entropy: that is, that a permanent decline in adaptive flexibility of human cultural systems occurred in the environment brought on by the cumulative impact of periodic disaster events that oil spill caused.

In 2011 the Tōhoku area of northeast Japan was hit by 9.0 magnitude earthquake which triggered an extraordinarily large tsunami (Kingston 2012, p. 1). Furthermore, the Hamadōri-coastal area of Fukushima was also impacted by a technological disaster: a nuclear powerplant meltdown that these natural disasters caused. Since then, in these communities many cases of disaster syndrome and secondary trauma have been reported (e.g., Curtis 2012, Morris 2012, Parry 2018, Stradford 2016, Takano 2016, and Umitsu 2016). However, when the Hamadōri area received unprecedented damages caused by this triple disaster, the area already had been suffering from many on-going problems of increasing modernization and urbanization such as the decreasing depopulation of young people. In this study I look at how the acute-fast triple disaster of the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear plant meltdown has interacted together with the chronological-slow disaster of a changing ecological environment and social structure in rural Japan. I examine how these interactions have affected the flexibility of this single human cultural and ecological system. However, I argue that this case is just an exemplar microcosm of the kinds of disasters climate change is increasing causing, and thus the lessons here have greater theoretical and practical impact than just for Japan’s northeast coast. 

Also I added a new conclusion:

 

10. Conclusion

The natural disasters, the technological disaster, and the string of human-imposed disasters (like the government mishandling the needs of the communities) have immediately and directly affected the lives and lifestyles of many local residents in Fukushima. Even in the ten years since 3.11, local residents have been constantly threatened for their physical safety due to aftershocks as well as lingering radiation risks. Furthermore, since the acute-fast disasters occurred during on-going hazards caused by urbanization and globalization, and climate change, the rural Sōsō region had already been impacted by the stress of social, cultural, and economic structural changes. Regardless, the Nomaoi traditional cultural event helped many to deal with loss, PTSD, and disaster syndromes. We saw this in the case of Chōhachi Kan’no, a rider in the Uda-gō troop, who continued to patriciate in spite of losing almost everyone in his family.  But the area remained under tremendous pressure.  A continued decline in population will eventually decimate the region.  The damage done to local food production continues. And it is becoming impossible to sustain some cultural practices.  As I mentioned previously, they cannot have local mushrooms for their lunch on the Noamoi event-days anymore. Furthermore, in losing their neighbors, local people cannot hold the traditional dinner parties a night before the Noamoi event anymore.  Thus, they are losing their communality and unique local traditional cultural practices (like the brining of the two bottles of sake). Depopulation has been threatening the sustainability of the traditional Nomaoi cultural event itself. Throughout this study I saw a permanent decline in the adaptive flexibility of the human cultural system of the Sōsō region caused by the cumulative impact of multilayered disasters and punctuated entropy.

Finally, we must reflect on how revitalization can negatively diminish the social and cultural significance of long-practiced and adaptive traditions. Even if revitalization seems economically feasible, it can ultimately act as a double edge sword as it contributes to the decline of social structure, communal identity, and loss of sustaining local culture. This is not an isolated Japanese social or cultural problem; it might well apply to the cases of many other disaster-areas such as today’s wildfires of Lahaina in Hawaii, California, Canada, and Europe; floods in the United State’s East Coast and parts of Asia, drought in China and the American West; and the any number of other catastrophic disasters caused by global warming.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Comments

The article addresses how a series of natural and human disasters, as well as some underlying systemic changes, have affected the lifestyle and cultural practices (especially the Nomaoi cavalry event) of local people in the area of Japan most affected by the 3.11 Fukushima disasters, using an ethnographic approach.

 

Such a case study has real potential to better understand (and therefore learn from) how a combination of chronic stresses over longer time periods, punctuated by more sudden acute stresses, can threaten the very heart and identity of a community – and importantly to ‘hear’ from the local community their lived experiences and perspectives. In this case the major acute stress (Fukushima 3.11) is one of the worst disasters in modern history, and the roots of the studied cultural event source back to the 12^th Century.

 

Much of the Article does effectively convey the lived experience of the community, and it is in many ways a parable for our time that left this reader with a deep sense of admiration, but also sadness and foreboding, for this community. However, the Article needs to do more than this for the purposes of a social science journal article.

 

Some of this is structural and readily fixed. Thus, the journal asks that Articles follow the traditional ‘Introduction – Methodology - Results – Discussion – Conclusion (optional)’ sequence, and my reading is that this Article’s Sections 2, 3 = Methodology, Sections 4,5,6,7 = Results, and Section 8 = Discussion/Conclusion. While an ethnographic study deserves some structural leeway, especially on how Results are reported, I suggest that the article make these connections (if they are right) much clearer for the reader.

 

Other issues will need more attention:

Comment 1. Literature coverage (Section 1): The literature setting the academic context is quite limited. It should at least explore other work on the cumulative/compounding impact of chronic and acute/disaster stresses, including reintroducing and explaining Dyer (2002) on punctuated entropy which otherwise is only cited in the Abstract.

Comment 2. Research questions (Section 1 or 2): It is unclear what basic issues/ propositions/ hypotheses/ questions the author is addressing. This in turn leaves the final Section 8 unfocused [see also Comment 6].

Comment 3. Methodology (Section 2 and 3): The articulation of methodology is not adequate, yet it is crucial to the reader so that they can better appreciate and position the approach of the author, and how findings can be related to the punctuated entropy framework.

Comment 4. Maps (Section 3 and 4): Maps 1-4, which should really be helpful to understand the case study, need more work to be useful to the reader.

Comment 5. Non-3.11 change driver coverage and interpretation (Section 7): This section is very important to put the 3.11 impacts in context, as it aims to address the main non-3.11 impacts that have impacted Nomaoi over a long period of time. However, it is incomplete and should be more structured to assist a subsequent discussion and conclusion. It is also not clear whether the same ethnographic approach was used to understand these impacts, or there was more reliance on other sources.

Comment 6. Discussion/conclusion (Section 8): As a ‘discussion/conclusion’ section this does not do justice to the rest of the article. There are a number of issues that such an ethnographic study might be expected to identify and inform.

 

Some of the above comments are elaborated on below. If consistent with journal practice, I am happy to further clarify any point directly with the author, as I believe the Article has great potential merit. Although I have currently assessed it as ‘Average’ on several of the Ratings criteria, I rate it High for originality and believe many of the other Ratings can move to High if the comments are well addressed.

 

Elaboration of Comments

Comment 2: Research questions:

L46-49. ‘I examine how this case of punctuated entropy through natural and human disasters—like the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown; the pandemic of 2020; and today’s global warming—have affected this area’s cultural practices ‘

 

This is not an adequate statement of basic ‘issues/ propositions/ hypotheses/ questions’ the author is addressing. This in turn leaves the final Section 8 unfocused (see also Section 8).

 

Comment 3: Methodology

 

L59-63: ‘Here I will ethnographically investigate some of the long-term effects of these changes on the local people’s lifestyles and cultural values, as social relations within the community become loosened under the contradictory policies of the national and local governments—like poorly thought-out and implemented revitalization plans by city officials—which leave residents lost and disoriented’

 

This sentence is an inadequate coverage of methods. As an ethnographic study it needs to state its ontological and epistemological assumptions and framing; clarify the initial personal relationship of the author with the community if any (eg nationality/language/local familiarity and connections); the nature and periods/timing of field work; the approximate number and range of backgrounds of interviewees and how they were identified; the focusing questions and structure of interviews (if any); types of sources of information used other than interviews; approaches to recording and analysing information.

 

Other parts of the article hint at answers to some of these (ie it seems the author is Japanese born and therefore I guess a fluent Japanese speaker, and it reads as though she/he has some emotional connection to the region beyond just the field work. There is nothing wrong with this (as Van Maanen 2011 says the ethnographic researcher may be ‘part spy, part voyeur, part fan, part member’). But the reader needs to know more about this.

 

On framing, it should be clear whether the author started with the punctuated entropy hypothesis to help shape the approach or whether the initial approach was more open ended and the author decided that this framing best describes what was observed.

 

Also on framing, the methodology needs to confirm the Article’s clear later narrative, that it is necessary to identify both chronic/slow and acute/fast drivers of change that have impacted the Nomaoi event over time. This is important to application of a concept of punctuated entropy, and to the complex reality of what shapes a community’s culture over long time periods.

 

Given the large number of non-3.11 chronic and acute drivers of Nomaoi impact identified, it is also necessary to be clearer on whether the same ethnographic approach was used to understand these impacts, or there was more reliance on other sources.

 

The Article frequently mentions it is studying ‘long-term effects’. Given it covers some impacts on Nomaoi back to Meiji (1868) and earlier, as well as disasters right up to the 2020 onwards pandemic and ‘today’s global warming/2023 heat stress’ it needs to clarify what constitutes ‘long term’ effects, and how likely they are to be manifest at the time of the ethnographic study; and how modern anthropological methods/approaches take relatively recent events into account, and conceptualise ‘long-term’.

 

Assessment/ handling of ethics issues should be included for an ethnographic study.

 

Comment 4: Maps

 

Map 1 on the region is useful to describe the locations of Nomaoi, but needs better captioning to explain to the reader (eg Edo period? Soma region vs Soso area?)

 

However, Map 2 of the Hamadori coast/Fukushima is too hard to read and needs better captions, and it is also unclear how it, and Maps 3 and 4 (the 3.11 impact and evacuation zones), relate to Map 1 (the Nomaoi area). Maps are very important to understand the case study and the storyline, so suggest reconsider especially how the impact/evacuation areas can be shown in a way that relates to the Nomaoi cultural region with clearer and compatible labelling of place names wherever possible.

 

Comment 5: Non-3.11 change driver coverage and interpretation

 

L305-315: ’People on the Sōsō area now enjoy an easier life without taking care of high-maintenance animals like horses.’…’However, now owing a horse is an expensive privilege and a marker of social status, just as in other parts of Japan. This change has been accelerating after 3.11, with corresponding changing lifestyles.’

 

L334-5:  ’However since the urbanization started in the mid-1970s in Japan, neighbors hardly get together any more, at least in a cities.’

 

These are just two examples of many where one senses that there are underlying gradual changes taking place in Japanese society that may also be impacting the Nomaoi culture. This raises two issues for the Article:

 

First, it reaffirms that the methodology is right to include these and any other possible relevant ‘slow’ changes (eg modernisation, globalisation, technologisation, urbanisation, consumerism, societal aging etc?) as part of the ethnographic processes and interpretation. These could for example reinforce that ‘traditional’ is now increasingly seen as something ‘for tourists’ rather than ‘for locals’.

 

Second, there is the partly methodological question (see Comment 3) as to what extent and how the study was able to disentangle chronic/slow changes from acute/fast change. This is necessary for example to justify some sentences like L314-5 ‘This change has been accelerating after 3.11, with corresponding changing lifestyles’; and more broadly to relate findings to the punctuated entropy framework.

 

Section 7 is the right place to bring all the related findings together. However, it needs a more structured and complete approach to provide the author’s understanding of how the local communities perceive the impact of non-3.11 related punctations as well as more gradual changes. 

 

As mentioned above gradual changes might include (eg) modernisation, industrialisation, farm mechanisation, globalisation, technologisation, urbanisation, consumerism, demographic (societal aging/young people leaving) etc; and more rapid changes include the punctuated history of Nomaoi prior to 3.11 (eg Civil war ended by Tokugawa Shogunate in 1600s/ Meiji end of shogunate in 1868/ post WW2 national changes and traumas/ nuclear power location decision); and the impact on Nomaoi of other identified events post 3.11 (eg three major aftershocks,  three earthquakes 2011/19/21; 2019 flooding; Covid pandemic 2020 onwards; today’s global warming/2023 heat stress; poor and contradictory national and local policies post 3.11 responses; Wastewater release into fishing grounds 2023.)

 

Most but not all of these are rightly identified or hinted at in the Article but only a few are covered in Section 7 and not in a structured way that helps understanding of both their nature and materiality (some, in addition to the cataclysmic 3.11, will be perceived as much more material than others). Section 7 needs to identify the full set of likely drivers of change and cultural impact, and acknowledge the extent to which these are (or are not) perceived to have impacted the Nomaoi. This is important to demonstrate the cumulative impact of ‘punctuated entropy’, and the complex reality of what shapes a modern community’s culture.

 

Comment 5.1: Unaligned national-local policies/ Culturally insensitive tourist policies?

 

L60-62: ‘…social relations within the community become loosened under the contradictory policies of the national and local governments’

 

L456-60: ‘However, these civic leaders often are not necessarily culturally attuned to the event’s traditions or the cultural pride held by the participants. The following is a letter posted on the South Soma city home page on December 25, 2018, when the towns were still recovering, and while even some local rail service was absent:’

 

It is very credible indeed that national and local governments can become part of the problem rather than part of the solution, especially from the local community perspective, and so inadvertently become threats to local culture that add to the punctuated entropy. However, the current text in Section 7 does not make it clear in what respect the national and local policies relevant to the community have not been aligned; nor exactly how tourist policies were culturally insensitive (eg do the locals not want to encourage any tourism at all, or just a certain type of tourism?).

 

Comment 6: Discussion/conclusion

 

As noted earlier it seems that Section 8 should be the location of the Article’s discussion and conclusions. The first 3 paragraphs (L531-567) are effectively a restatement of some of the more significant impacts of 3.11 covered previously, rather than discussion or conclusion. This is ok but only if they flow naturally as the main pressures on Nomaoi from the previous ‘Results’ Sections 4-7, including the proposed enhanced Section 7 (see Comment 5).

 

The last paragraph mentions just one implication that may well warrant discussion and/or be a conclusion (ie that recovery efforts need to be much more attuned to the local traditions and cultures). However, this seems a quite limited conclusion from such an interesting and significant case study. This is perhaps related to the lack of clear research questions earlier in the Article, as mentioned in Comment 2. I suggest the author reflect on what other key insights or conclusions might be drawn from the study, including any future research themes.

 

As examples, some thoughts that occurred to this reviewer would be to include insights from the study on (eg):

Community resilience: Has the community become significantly less resilient since 2011? And/or has the community changed so much in composition that it now manifests new forms of resilience? From the history it sounds that the event has progressively reinvented itself several times. If so, what might be making it less resilient now? How much is due to 3.11 and how much to broader Japanese societal changes?

Stages of grief and loss: The anecdote in the Introduction about a reaction of ‘numb shock” in contrast to the PTSD ‘chronic and angry’ reminded me of the various works on the ‘stages of grief and loss’ at a personal level (eg moving from disbelief/denial through anger to acceptance etc). How do these apply at the community level faced with the sense of such cultural and traditional loss so clearly being experienced? The ethnographic approach should be ideal to offer such insights.

Cultural ethnography added value: The Fukushima 3.11 is one of the most studied disasters in modern times, but perhaps not previously from such a cultural impact perspective. What additional insights emerge from this perspective and the ethnographic approach, that are less likely to be discovered by non-ethnographic approaches? How might they complement other social science and cultural studies? (As an aside, the recent (Feb 2024) report by the International Science Council ‘Protecting Science in Times of Crisis’ refers to the Fukushima disaster as an example where some of the vulnerabilities of the Fukushima nuclear plants can be traced back to a post WW2 schism between natural/STEM sciences and the social sciences – and so perhaps emerges another example of a national direction with terrible if unintended local consequences.)

                         

These are just examples. I am not suggesting the Article needs to provide answers to all these. What I am suggesting is that the author needs to consider and identify the several important issues thrown up by this important case study, provide such insights as she/he can, and suggest possible pathways to make progress in their being better understood and appreciated.

 

Comment 6.1 Minor clarifications

 

L532-535 ‘Thus, 532 the Fukushima Nuclear Plant was completed in 1982 (Nakase 2016, p. 170). Half a century 533 later, due to changing climate, the Hamadōri residents faced not only a tremendous nat-534 ural disaster, but also a human disaster caused by a nuclear plant meltdown.’

 

Reference here to ‘Half a century’ should be 30 years (1982-2011)? Also in what way was the meltdown ‘due to changing climate’?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is generally very good with only minor improvements needed,

Author Response

Thank you for your very careful reading of my paper and many particular comments. I think I have addressed your concerns in the revisions. You have helped me improve the paper very much! Please see responses to your comments attached and highlighted in yellow:

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the possibility to review to paper titled "Social and Cultural Hazards from the 3.11 Disaster Through Today’s Global Warming: Shifting Conceptions of the Soma Nomaoi Cavalry Event in Fukushima Japan"  that is an anthropological study examining the impact of multiple disasters on the culture and economy of Fukushima's Hamadōri-coastal area. It focuses on the Soma Nomaoi Cavalry tradition, analyzing how events such as the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake, tsunami, nuclear meltdown, the 2020 pandemic, and ongoing global warming have affected this traditional event and the local community. The paper introduces the concept of Punctuated Entropy, which suggests a permanent decline in a cultural system's adaptive flexibility due to the cumulative impact of periodic disasters. The case study takes an ethnographic approach, offering insights into the long-term effects of disasters on lifestyles, cultural values, and social relations within affected communities. It also discusses the shift in focus of the Nomaoi event from cultural to capitalist attractions for tourism, reflecting on the complexities of recovery and cultural preservation post-disaster.

Here are some recommendations for improvement that might be considered:

 

• The abstract is not clear to me, I didn’t get the grasp of what the authors were trying to say. I will suggest you rewrite this section for clarity and easy understanding.

·        Please present in the introduction chapter what you will present in the rest of the paper;

• Please clarify because there are some inconsistencies in dates, such as referencing a tsunami swallowing a town on March 11, 2021, which may be a typo since the Fukushima disaster occurred in 2011​​.
• Clarification is needed on whether the statement about the stallion being dangerous for amateurs to ride refers to a specific horse discussed in the article or is a general statement about stallions​​.
• Some of the URLs provided for sources are incomplete or not formatted correctly, which could hinder the ability of readers to access the referenced materials​​.
• The referencing of images and their sources needs to be clear and consistently formatted throughout the document​​.
• The article states that the Japanese government and TEPCO released radioactive wastewater into the ocean without consulting locals or considering international opinion, which is a significant claim that requires verification for accuracy and balance​​!!!
• Related to cultural and local insights, there are valuable insights into local culture and the impact of the disaster on traditional foods and social customs​​. These sections could be expanded to offer a deeper understanding of the societal changes that have occurred post-disaster.
• The cost of local goods, such as mushrooms, and their affordability post-disaster is mentioned​​. A broader economic analysis could provide context on the sustainability of traditional practices in a changed economic landscape.
• The document contains a section of endnotes and appendices​​. Ensuring that these are correctly linked to the main text and that all information is relevant and up-to-date will be crucial for the reader's comprehension.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Conduct a thorough review for typographical errors, grammatical mistakes, and ensure consistency in terminology throughout the paper.

Author Response

Thank you for your very careful reading of my paper and your comments. I think I have addressed your concerns in the revisions. You have helped me improve the paper. Please see the responses to your comments highlighted in yellow in the file attached:

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this revised and interesting article.

Although the article does not push all the boundaries I suggested could be pursued in an article of this nature, I believe the author has responded sufficiently to my review comments to warrant its publication.

There are number of minor editorial corrections needed to the text for English grammar reasons.

I also noticed the following:

Map 2: I could not see Map 2 referred to in the text; also need to include in either the key to the Map or in the text, the years of the ‘Edo period’ and how the ‘five go troops’ in the Map title relate to the map (ie is each troop geographically based or do all troops come from the whole region)

Pictures: The pictures are useful but not always or consistently referred to in the text.

Please thank the author for their response. This is an original and interesting addition to the ‘ethnography of crises’ literature.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are number of minor editorial corrections needed to the text for English grammar reasons.