The TOKYO Resilience Project is Tokyo Metropolitan Government’s long-term resilience and disaster-preparedness programme aimed at ensuring “safety for the next 100 years.” It sets a roadmap toward the 2040s and combines hard infrastructure (e.g., flood control, seismic retrofitting, lifeline continuity) with soft measures (public guidance, preparedness tools, digital solutions, events).
A core framing is that Tokyo faces five major risks: floods/storms, major earthquakes, volcanic eruption ash/impacts, power & communications disruptions, and infectious diseases, while also recognizing compound disasters.
Map
TOKYO Resilience Project - Aiming for Safety for the next 100 years
General Information
ISIG
In practice, the project operates as a multi-hazard resilience “umbrella”: it strengthens physical protection (e.g., regulating reservoirs and river measures; coastal protection and sea-level-rise readiness; upgrading buildings and lifelines) while also trying to make preparedness “everyday” through accessible products and outreach. Examples of public-facing outputs include:
- a “Disaster Preparedness Tokyo” app designed around “play, learn, use,” which also draws from official disaster-preparedness booklets
- guides and booklets that explicitly consider diverse audiences (women, elderly people, persons with disabilities, children, foreign residents, etc.)
- recurring events and drills, including hands-on tours aimed at foreign residents
- Japanese-language public communication materials that include games and practical content (e.g., “Disaster Quest” and “Disaster Survival Recipes”), alongside VR/metaverse-related materials and archives.
Tokyo is a mega-city with very high population concentration and extremely high economic/functional criticality (government, finance, transport, supply chains, and lifelines). The project is designed to protect both lives and livelihoods and to maintain the functioning of the capital region during major disruption. It was launched in 2002 and upgraded in 2023, presented as a response to Tokyo’s repeated historical exposure to disasters and a worsening risk environment, particularly:
- climate-change-linked intensification of floods/storms
- persistent, high-consequence earthquake risk
- volcanic hazards (notably ash impacts that can disrupt urban functions and require large-scale logistics)
- vulnerability of lifelines and information systems (power + communications) during major events
- epidemic/pandemic risk, with a focus on maintaining socioeconomic activity
In the project’s own framing, these risks can also compound, increasing duration and severity of impacts.
Geographical Scope - Nuts
Population Size
Population Density
Needs Addressed
The project responds to several concrete, recurring DRR gaps and risk drivers in Tokyo:
- Escalating climate and water risks: heavier rainfall, rising sea levels, and more frequent and severe floods/storms increase the probability of wide-area flooding, infrastructure strain, and evacuation challenges.
- High-consequence seismic risk in a dense built environment: Tokyo’s high-rise housing stock, older buildings, and complex lifelines make earthquake impacts potentially catastrophic without continual upgrades (retrofitting, fire prevention, rapid restoration capacity, and safe evacuation).
- Volcanic eruption disruption (ash as a city-stopper): even when direct lava impacts are not the main risk in central Tokyo, ash fall can disrupt transport, logistics, health, and critical services, requiring large-scale planning and continuity measures.
- Lifeline fragility and cascading failure: power and communications disruptions can disable everyday systems (information access, payments, transport, elevators, water supply control systems) and can quickly escalate emergencies, especially in high-rise residential settings.
- Public health / infectious disease continuity: the project treats infectious disease risk as a resilience problem, maintaining essential services and urban activity while reducing risk and protecting vulnerable populations.
- Preparedness behavior gap in everyday life: even with strong infrastructure, outcomes depend on household and community readiness: stockpiling, knowing what to do, and practicing risk-appropriate actions. The project addresses this through public guidance, tools, games/learning formats, and events.
The project is designed for the whole population but explicitly acknowledges diverse needs and different capacities. Groups that require tailored preparedness include:
- Children and families (age-appropriate learning and household planning)
- Older people (mobility, health vulnerabilities, dependence on services)
- People with disabilities (access needs, evacuation and communication requirements)
- Foreign residents and visitors (language and system-navigation barriers during crises)
- High-rise and apartment residents (elevator stoppage, shelter-in-place planning, community coordination inside buildings).
Governance is centralized leadership through the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, combined with a multi-stakeholder delivery model. The project’s framing implies coordination across metropolitan departments, municipalities, communities, and external actors (e.g., businesses, innovators/partners) to implement both hard measures (infrastructure upgrades) and soft measures (preparedness communication and participation).
This case reflects advanced preparedness: a long-term, structured roadmap with integrated, multi-hazard measures (hard + soft), recurring public outputs (tools, guides, events), and an explicit focus on maintaining metropolitan function and accelerating recovery.
Tokyo’s baseline infrastructure is highly developed, but the programme addresses the need to strengthen it against high-impact disruption and cascading failures. The case emphasizes reinforcing lifelines, improving robustness of flood and seismic protection, and ensuring continuity under power/communications outages.
Engagement is used to make preparedness an everyday practice and to increase uptake of risk-reduction measures across a very diverse metropolitan population. The project’s engagement aims to (1) raise public risk awareness across multiple hazards, (2) convert awareness into action (household stockpiles, planning, safer behaviour), (3) strengthen community readiness and cooperation at neighbourhood/building level, and (4) mobilize external actors - municipalities, businesses, schools, and other partners, to amplify preparedness, host activities, and support continuity.
The project engages people through a mix of public communication and participatory formats. Key methods include: (a) accessible guidance and learning materials (booklets, checklists, thematic hazard pages), (b) digital tools and interactive formats (apps and game-like learning) that help residents “play, learn, and use” preparedness knowledge, and (c) public events and hands-on activities (drills, workshops, exhibitions/tours, and targeted initiatives for groups such as foreign residents). Engagement is therefore designed to be both scalable (digital/public materials) and experiential (events and interactive learning), helping different audiences build practical readiness rather than only consuming information.
Decision-making remains primarily with the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and responsible public authorities, particularly for infrastructure investment and policy measures. However, the project increases public and stakeholder influence in an operational sense: residents and communities influence outcomes by adopting preparedness measures (stockpiling, planning, safe behaviours), participating in events and drills, and strengthening mutual support at neighbourhood/building level. Businesses and institutions influence resilience outcomes through continuity planning and cooperation in preparedness activities. The project therefore supports shared responsibility and practical influence over readiness, even if it does not position residents as formal co-decision-makers on public investment priorities.
Long-term empowerment is built through repeated learning and practical preparedness routines, supported by tools and recurring public engagement. The project promotes sustained capability by: (1) maintaining a multi-hazard preparedness knowledge base that residents can revisit, (2) offering interactive/experiential learning (games, events, drills) that turns knowledge into habit, and (3) enabling different groups - children, older people, people with disabilities, and foreign residents to access tailored guidance. At the institutional level, the long-term resilience roadmap strengthens continuity by upgrading protective infrastructure and lifelines while reinforcing preparedness culture, making resilience a sustained, long-term practice.
Vulnerable Groups
Governance
Emergency Preparedness
Infrastructure Readiness
Engagement Level
Empowerment Level
Implementation
The project’s defining feature is its long-term, multi-hazard resilience roadmap: it starts from a future vision for the 2040s and works backwards to define priorities and investment pathways. It combines hard infrastructure upgrades (flood protection, coastal protection, seismic safety, lifeline continuity) with soft preparedness measures (public guidance, tools, events, learning formats), explicitly aiming to maximize the effectiveness of infrastructure through public readiness and usable information.
A second innovation is the programme’s emphasis on everyday usability and behaviour change. Preparedness is delivered through multiple formats to reach different groups: hazard-specific web guidance, a “play–learn–use” preparedness app, stockpiling guidance tools, and public-facing campaigns. The Japanese-language outputs add creative and accessible forms, such as game-like learning (“Disaster Quest”) and practical survival content (e.g., emergency cooking/recipes) to build preparedness culture beyond technical instructions. In parallel, the project includes technology-enabled measures that support operational resilience (e.g., improved information/communications continuity and advanced approaches in flood management and lifelines).
Japanese and English are available on the main project website. Additional multi-language preparedness resources are presented through tools and materials intended for foreign residents, and the preparedness app supports multiple languages and user modes (e.g., children/older adults).
Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) leads and manages the programme through its policy planning and coordination functions, with responsibility distributed across relevant metropolitan bureaus for delivery of sector-specific measures.
TMG has long-standing responsibility for managing disaster risk in a mega-city context and implements large-scale, multi-sector resilience measures across infrastructure, lifelines, public communication, and preparedness programming. The TOKYO Resilience Project formalizes this into a structured, long-term programme (launched 2022 and upgraded 2023).
- Tokyo Metropolitan Government (cross-bureau implementation and coordination)
- National government and relevant agencies (alignment and cooperation)
- Municipalities and local communities (local dissemination, participation, and place-based implementation)
- Emergency services (police, fire), medical institutions, and evacuation-centre operators
- Private sector operators (lifelines, transport, critical services) and businesses (continuity and cooperation)
- Residents (self-support), neighbourhood/community groups (mutual support), and education/youth channels via preparedness learning formats
- Risk framing and vision-setting: define the five major risks and the risk of compound disasters; establish a 2040s resilience vision and backcast a roadmap.
- Programme design and project selection: structure the programme under the five risk areas + compound disasters; identify priority projects and “leading projects,” combining hard and soft measures.
- Cross-bureau alignment: adopt common perspectives across TMG and coordinate relevant bureaus to integrate measures into departmental plans and budgets.
- Delivery of hard measures: implement infrastructure and lifeline upgrades (flood and coastal protection; seismic safety; power/communications continuity; continuity for volcanic ash impacts; public health resilience).
- Delivery of soft measures: provide public guidance, multilingual information, preparedness tools (app, stockpiling guidance), and thematic hazard communication.
- Public participation and reinforcement: run events, drills, and experiential learning formats (including targeted activities for foreign residents and varied age groups).
- Iteration and scaling: upgrade and expand the programme over time, maintaining communication and updating tools/materials.
- Human: cross-bureau programme management; technical experts (engineering, lifelines, public health); communications and engagement staff; partners for events and learning tools.
- Financial: multi-year capital investment for infrastructure upgrades plus recurring budgets for digital tools, content, events, and outreach.
- Technical: engineering and planning capacity; data/communications continuity measures; digital platform and app maintenance; accessibility and multi-language content management.
- Operational coordination: stakeholder coordination with municipalities, emergency services, community actors, and private operators.
Long-term programme with defined phases: launched in 2022 and upgraded in 2023, with a roadmap toward the 2040s. The programme is designed as sustained, medium-to-long-term implementation with staged investment and continuous public communication and engagement.
Experience of the Implementing Organisation in DRM
Target Audience
Resources Required
Timeframe & Phases
Participation Results
Public materials do not present a single consolidated “lessons learned” evaluation section for the whole programme. However, the project embeds several practical lessons that shape its design:
- Compound risk must be assumed: planning cannot treat hazards as isolated events; preparedness must work across multiple scenarios.
- Infrastructure alone is not enough: outcomes depend on household and community readiness, especially in dense urban living where lifeline failures cascade quickly.
- Preparedness uptake improves when it is usable and engaging: varied formats (digital tools, interactive learning, events) help translate knowledge into habits across diverse audiences.
- Continuity matters as much as protection: resilience requires maintaining essential urban functions and enabling faster recovery, including in non-traditional “disaster” scenarios like infectious disease events.
The project is framed around the reality that Tokyo’s risk environment is becoming more complex and disruptive: hazards can occur at any time and in combination, and the impacts are amplified by the city’s dense urban form and dependence on lifelines (power, communications, transport). The programme also highlights societal and behavioral challenges that affect resilience outcomes, such as high-rise living (elevator dependence), uneven household stockpiling, the need to protect people who may struggle to evacuate or access information, and the broader need to maintain daily urban functions during disruptions (including infectious disease events).
The project responds by combining:
- Hard measures (protective infrastructure and lifeline upgrades) with
- Soft measures that reduce “last-mile” failure (clear public guidance, multi-format learning tools, and repeated engagement through events and drills).
It also pushes preparedness from “exceptional” to “everyday,” using digital tools and game-like/experiential learning, and promotes practical shifts that reduce exposure and stress on systems (e.g., encouraging household readiness and strategies that reduce reliance on evacuation centers when appropriate, and continuity planning for disruptions that affect daily mobility and work).
Risk management is structured as a multi-hazard strategy built around five major risks (floods/storms, earthquakes, volcanic impacts, power/communications disruptions, infectious diseases) plus the possibility of compound disasters. Mitigation is pursued through layered measures: protective infrastructure and lifeline continuity upgrades, combined with household/community preparedness (stockpiling, planning, knowing what to do) supported by guidance, tools, and public participation activities. The intention is to reduce both direct impacts (injury, loss, damage) and cascading impacts (information loss, mobility disruption, delayed recovery) by strengthening the system and the population simultaneously.
Where hazard impacts cannot be fully prevented (e.g., ash fall disruption, wide-area lifeline outages), the project prioritizes continuity and rapid restoration: improving the ability to keep critical functions operating and to restore services quickly, while ensuring residents can cope safely during disruption through accessible preparedness information and practical readiness tools.
Risk & Mitigation Plan
Scalability and Sustainability
The TOKYO Resilience Project is sustained through metropolitan institutional ownership and long-term public investment planning. It is designed as a multi-year resilience programme with a roadmap toward the 2040s and is supported by recurring governance, budgeting, implementation capacity across metropolitan bureaus, and continuous public communication. Sustainability is strengthened by combining durable “hard” measures (infrastructure and lifeline upgrades) with repeatable “soft” measures (tools, guidance, events) that can be updated and refreshed over time.
The programme is scalable within Tokyo because it is structured as a portfolio of projects that can expand by adding new measures, increasing coverage, and deepening implementation under each risk area. Its public-facing components (guides, digital tools, games, events) also scale efficiently by reaching many residents at low marginal cost once developed.
Adaptability outside Tokyo is high in concept but requires strong localisation. The programme’s architecture - multi-hazard risk framing + layered mitigation + behaviour change + continuity planning - can be transferred to other metropolitan regions. However, effective adaptation requires tailoring to local hazard profiles, governance structures, lifeline systems, building stock, evacuation/shelter practices, communication channels, demographics (including non-native residents), and institutional responsibilities across levels of government.
Innovation is both organizational and practical: a long-term resilience roadmap plus diverse, user-friendly preparedness delivery. Technology-enabled elements support adoption and learning (digital tools, app-based preparedness, interactive/game-like formats and media outputs), while the programme also includes technology and engineering innovation within protective and continuity measures (lifelines, flood management, and continuity under power/communications disruption). The project’s multi-format approach is intended to reach different age groups and resident profiles and convert preparedness into everyday behavior.
Direct costs (investment scale) are publicly described as a rough project scale: JPY 15 trillion through the 2040s, with JPY 6 trillion planned in the next 10 years. Category-level rough estimates are also provided (e.g., floods/storms JPY 6.6T; earthquakes JPY 9.5T; volcano JPY 2.1T; power/communications JPY 0.6T; infectious diseases JPY 0.6T). Totals across categories do not add up exactly because some projects address multiple risks.
No consolidated public information was found on recurring operational costs (e.g., staffing, platform/app maintenance, ongoing communications, event delivery, and cross-bureau coordination) as a standalone figure for the programme. Operational sustainability is described qualitatively: ongoing costs are supported through institutional capacity and recurring metropolitan budgets and are likely distributed across multiple bureaus and delivery partners.
Resilience programmes scale best when they combine durable structural measures with practical, repeatable public preparedness actions. This case shows that multi-hazard resilience is more implementable when (1) it is organized into a clear risk framework, (2) it includes layered measures that reduce cascading failures, and (3) it is delivered through accessible formats that make preparedness usable for diverse residents. For transferability, the main lesson is that the overall architecture is adaptable, but effectiveness depends on deep localisation of governance roles, lifeline dependencies, hazard scenarios, and communication strategies (including provisions for foreign residents and varied accessibility needs).