Mikio Ishiwatari, Ph.D Japan International Cooperation Agency8 September 2011
The Great East Japan EarthquakeHow Should We Re-establish Disaster Management System?
I. Damage
II. Earthquake & Tsunami
III. How Japanese Technology Worked?
IV. Consideration for Re-establishinng Disaster Management System
Contents
I. Damage
Damage excluding Nuclear Power Plant Disaster
Sector
TOTAL
Amount
16.9 tril. JPY 200 bil. USDBuiliding 10 tril. JPY 120 bil. USD
Lifeline 1.3 tri. JPY 16 bil. USD
Infrastrcture 2.2 tri. JPY 26 bil USD
Agri, fishery 1.9 tri. JPY 24 bil USD
others 1.1 tri. JPY 14 bil USD
Rehabilitation Progress as of 25 August
Evacuee: 38,000 people
Temporaly Shelter Prefabricated and rented house
45,000 people + 89,000 houses
reconstruction plan
evacuation tower
fishery facilities
tsunami dyke
village
Reconstruction Committee Proposed
Project Study on the Effective Countermeasuresagainst Earthquake and Tsunami Disasters
23/04/21
II. Earthquake and Tsunami
Tsunami Deat+Missing
Iwate Miyagi Fukushima
Max. Hight
M
Great East Japa
n
2011 20,0002.7%6576
242312
0.7%11708
1674318
0.1%
18481466358
40.2 m
9.0
Meiji Sanriku
1896 22,00023.9%1815876114
11.5%3452
30019-
38.2 8.2-8.5
Syowa Sanriku
1933 3,0002.0%2667
130846
0.9%307
35964
- 28.7 8.1
Chile 1960 142-
62
-
54
-
4
(9.5)
Death Ratio by TsunamiDeath+Missing/ Population
Source: Cabinet office and others
23/04/21
III. How JPN Technology Worked?
1. 100 yrs ago: Land use & Development2. Last Yr: Prediction==2011, 3.11, 2:46 Earthquake==3. Against Earthquake==30-1 hr laterTsunami==4. Dyke5. Hazard map6. Warning7. Evacuation8. Community
Moved to Highlands in 1896, and Safe This Time
首藤 2011
Yoshihama Town
1. Landuse & Development1. Landuse & Development
2. Development
水谷 (2011)
1. Landuse & DevelopmentKesennuma
Cityin 1906
current
010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,000
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1947
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
100yrs ago
Inundated areas
2. How JPN Gov. predicted?
fukushima
Miyagi 99% in 30 yrs but M 8.0
Fukushima 7% in 30 yrs
Headquarters for Earthquake REsearch Promotoion (2010)
Earthquake Prediction in 2010
MLIT
Tsunami Prediction
40mibaraki Miyagi Iwate
Aomori
fukushima
2. prediction
observed
prediction
3. Counter measures against earthquake worked
Based on lessons learned from Kobe Earthquake in 1994, Retrofitting Work Promoted.
Kobe Earthquake 1995
Urgent Earthquake Detection and Alarm System
MOFA
P wave monitoring station
transformer substation
earthquake
S wave
cut electric supply
UrEDAS Safely Stopped all bullet trains, Shinkansen, before main wave.
3. Against Earthquake
270 Km / h
4. Did Dyke Work?
Fudai Town; 15.5m dike protected town.
If Tsunami is Lower, Dyke Worked, of Course.
Most areas under 10m Elevation level washed away by Tsunami at Sendai and Natori, (Source: PASCO)
East Sendai Highway
High mound road blocked Tsunami4. dyke
Tsunami Higher than Dykes4. dyke
190km / 300kmdamage / total
iwate
miyagi
fukushima
MLIT
Dyke Heighttsunami height
(Source : Website of Tokyo Electronic Power Companyhttp://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110409e9.pdf)
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station
1-11
4. dyke
Project Study on the Effective Countermeasuresagainst Earthquake and Tsunami Disasters
actual timing
issued 3 min. after earthquake
But,estimated height: 3mrevised 6, 10m
fukushima
Miyagi
Iwate
Aomori
PM 2:46 2:493:30
5. Warning
JMA
3m 6m
obs.
6. Hazard Map Did Not Worked Enough
http://www.pref.miyagi.jp/sabomizusi/bousai/bou-ht2.html
Source: GSI
Natori City: Did not show Hazard Areas Predicted Smaller Area
Death in White (Safe Predicted) Area
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Total
Toniwan
Ryouishiwan
Kamaishiwan
Unosumai
65% 35%
white area risk area
modification from Sankei Shinbun
Kamaishi City
6. Hazard Map
Have you seen Hazard Map?
No72.5%
Yes
cabinet office
In Natori and Kamaishi Cities
6. Hazard Map
7. Evacuation
(Source: Research Center for Disaster Prevention in the Extended Tokyo Metropolitan Area, Gunma University)
students started evacuation promptly and voluntarily, following their experiences of evacuation drills.
1. Never stick to original plan.2. Do your best: Try to escape higher3. Lead evacuation
Successful by Students in Kamaishi City
7. evacuation
A: Immediate evacuationB: After some works, EvacuationC: Not evacuationD: No need for evacuation
cabinet office
Evacuation Shelter
南三陸
建物屋上 4 階居室
地盤面(被災前)
釜石
7. Evacuation
8. How Community Responded
Volunteer Firefighting
Organization
(Community-based & Part-time)
At the risk of their own life, • Gate Operation• Tsunami Warning • Tsunami Monitoring• Lead Evacuation
Death and Missiong: 201+48
http://ww.fdma.go.jp
Summary
1. Development (Urbanization and Nuclear Plant)at Risk Area
M9+Fukushima 2. Prediction
7. Evacuation Shelter 5. Hazard Map
4. Dyke M8 Miyazaki/ Iwate
6. Early warning 3min.3m
7. Disaster Management Education at School
How to Prepare?
3. Countermeasures against Earthquake
1,4. Resettlement, Secandary Dyke
>3m
1. Technology functioned, and is needed to develop further
2. Issues: Need to put people at the center of system
Because,
- People utilize warning information for evacuation
- People should understand that technology has limitation: dyke height, estimation or prediction is not always correct
In other words:From Engineering-oriented to Human-oriented
From Supply-driven to Demand-driven
From Structure-based to integrating with community-based
IV. Consideration for Re-establishing Disaster Management System
1. flood warning
3. Risk communication
2. Hazard mapping
Community-based Disaster Management Practices
3. To Share Our Experiences In Return for Support & Kindness from the World
4. To Organize International Panel of Experts to Review Countermeasures Never Closed Process
IV. Consideration for Re-establishing Disaster Management System
Top Related