Meta and Longitudinal Analyses of High Death Rates of Some ... Nakasu... · High Death Rates of Some Particular Municipalities in GEJET 2011.7. ICHARM International Centre for Water

Meta and Longitudinal Analyses of High Death Rates of Some Particular

Municipalities in GEJET

2011.７.

ICHARM International Centre for Water Hazard RisManagement under the auspices of UNESCO

CTI Engineering Co., Ltd. Japan

IRDR (Integrated Research on Disaster Risk)

Forensic Investigations

Meta-Analysis

Longitudinal Analysis

Critical Cause Analysis

Scenario Analysis

Risk Interpretation and Action

Disaster Loss Data

Working Groups

Why some municipalities had high human losses and the others less?

Where those differences come from?

Identify the Uniqueness of High Human Losses of Particular Municipalities

Purpose Utilizing Meta and longitudinal Analyses, we try to examine:

Over view of GEJET in 2011

M 9.0Death Toll 15,690 Missing 4,735Completely Destroyed House 112,901A Partly Destroyed House 144,598

(2011.10.12)

Non Tsunami Affected Area 94 (0.5%)Tsunami Affected Area 20,329 (99.5%)

Epicentral Area (Wave Source Area) :Extending 200 km east to west by 500 km north

to south < From off the coast of Hachinohe to off the coast of Kashima >

Tsunami Arrival :Approx. 30min. to 2.5hr (From north <South Sanriku> to south <South Boso Peninsula>)

North of Iwate Prefecture toOzika Peninsula (220km) :

Ria Coastline 20-30 mMax.40m

South of Ozika Peninsula toIwaki (150 km) : Straight Coastline 10-20 m

Ibaraki Pref. and Chiba Pref.5-10 m

Aomori 5m

Tsunami Height

Over view of GEJET in 2011

Source : FDMA（9Sep.2011）

0～1 ％

1～3 ％

3～5 ％

5～10 ％

10 ％ <

Death Number

<(Death Number / Population) in each Municipalities Inundated Areas>

Dead or Missing

1～9

10～99

100～499

500～999

1000～

Death Ratio

Human Loss Ratio (IA)

Dead-Missing

HLRatio (IA) HLratio IA

(km2)

Kuji 4 0.06% 0.01% 4Noda 38 1.2 0.8 2Fudai 1 0.9 1Tanohata 33 2.1 0.9 1Iwaizumi 7 0.6 0.1 1Miyako 544 3.0 1.0 10Yamada 853 7.5 4.6 5Otsuchi 1449 12.2 10.6 4Kamaishi 1180 9.0 3.1 7Ofunato 449 2.4 1.1 8Rikuzentakata 2115 12.7 8.6 13Kesennuma 1414 3.5 1.9 18Minamisanriku 987 6.9 5.7 10Onagawa 949 11.8 9.2 3Total/Average 10023 6.0% 2.8% 88

Human Loss Ratio : Sanriku Ria Coastal Area

Iwate

Miyagi

Fukushima

Sendai

Morioka

Meta-Analysis : Literature survey and statistical analysis

Longitudinal Analysis : Comparative studies of a set of target areas by temporal and historical perspective.

Data Source for this Study<Open Source Data>1. Central Gov. / 2. Regional Gov. / 3. Organizations / 4. Libraries

internet source, major newspapers, statistical data, raw data historical documents, historical statistics, local newspapers, vernacular magazines

※ <Closed Source Data>Field survey data mainly can be utilized for critical cause analysis

Major Source for this Study (Mainly in Japanese)General info : Cabinet Office, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications,

Fire Defense AgencyVictims related info : National Police AgencyGeographical info : Geospatial Information Authority of JapanLocal info : Iwate Prefectural Gov., Iwate fukko net, Iwate Statistics Data BaseHistorical info : Japan Destructive Earthquake General Survey(Usami, 2003)

Japan Maps Encyclopedia(Yamaguchi et al., 1980)

Methodology (How to investigate)

Investigate Human Loss Ratio (IA) in Some Municipalities

We need following related info. to investigate○Past Experiences Compared to the Past Tsunami Disasters○Age Structures in IA Age Structures of the Death People

Social Change○Evacuation Conditions Distance from Higher Ground Places

Evacuation Methods , Warnings , Education/Training, Health

However, it is not possible to get those direct data, therefore following approacheswere taken

Approach ①Past Experiences : try to estimate HVR (will be explained) and compared to the

past tsunami (Meiji<1896>,Showa< 1933>) disasters.

②Age Structures : try to find elderly population rates, social participation rates including recent trends by prefectural statistical data.

③Evacuation Conditions: Growing population , infrastructures, and evacuation center’s safety in IAs.

Methodology (What do we investigate?)

Following indicator was established to compare to the past tsunami disasters.

(Meiji<1896>,Showa< 1933>)

Human Vulnerability Ratio = Human Loss (HL) Ratio

Completed House Destroyed(CHD) Ratio

= HL numbers / Total Population CHD numbers / Total House numbers

= HL numbers Total Population × CHD numbers / Total House numbers

Therefore, we could estimate

HVR = HL numbers Affected Population

Approaches ①Past Experiences

MiyagiIwate

Why do they reverse the historical trends? Did they learn from the experience?

Approaches ①Past Experiences

HVR (%)

Yamada town and Rikuzentakata city

Rikuzentakata city Yamada town

Approach ② Age StructuresApproach ③ Evacuation Conditions

Over 60s in Reported Total Dead

3 Pref. Average 65％

Rikuzentakata 61％

Yamada 75％

Approaches ② Age Structures Age Structures of Reported Death

Approaches ② Age Structures

Miyako,Ofunatos, and Kuji are included estimations by the impact of annexation.<miyako (2005.6.6) ofunato (2001.11.15)>

Percentage of HH with Elderly Persons over 65

YamadaTown

RikuzentakataCity

CoastalArea Ave.

Iwate Pref.

Present<Year>

57.4<2006>

62.8<2006>

54.3<2006>

46.1<2006>

ChangeRatio

＋26％▲

（2004 -2006）

＋16％▲

（2004-2006）

＋25%▲

（2004-2006）

＋19%▲

（2004- 2006）

Approaches ② Age Structures

Approaches② Age Structures

Aging society with less social participation


Rikuzentakata city Yamada cho

Approach ② Age StructuresApproach ③ Evacuation Conditions

Areas Total Population

Dead Ratio (%) Missing Ratio (%)

Yahagi 1793 18 1 4 0

Yokota 1405 14 1 2 0

Takekoma 1291 38 3 4 0

Kesen 3480 194 6 65 2

Takata 7601 879 12 298 4

Yonezaki 2902 82 3 32 1

Otomo 2025 45 2 17 1

Hirota 3749 42 1 16 0

Total 24246 1312 5 438 2

Rikuzentakata city 2011.7.11

Increasing Population in High Risk Area

Approaches ③Evacuation Conditions

Takaｔa – area (high risk area)s populationYear 1896 1940 1945 1950 1954 1995 2000 2005

Pop. 3,489 4,960 6,060 6,461 6,488 7,605 7,663 7,711

Meiji(1896) Showa(1933)


2000年

1913年 1933年

1968年

1952年

1960-1966 Tsunami Project

Approaches③ Evacuation Conditions

Before

After


TOPICS : In the Takata area (high risk area) , Rikuzentakata city ， 70-80 evacuated and only 3 survived at Civic Gymnasium.

(Source : Kahoku Shinbun)

PrimaryEvacuation Centers

IwatePrefecture

Rikuzentakata city

Total Numbers

411 68

Affected 48 35

Affected Ratio

11.7 % 51.5 %


Affected Primary Evacuation Center

Why some municipalities had high human losses and the others less?

Where those differences come from? Identify the Uniqueness of High Human Losses of

Particular Municipalities

Methods : Meta and Longitudinal Analysis - Development of the HVR.- Surveys of literatures, statistical data sets, and maps.

Conclusion (Try to answer the first 3 inquiries)

Findings: Yamada town : Aging society with low social participation

especially since 1980s Rikuzentakata city : Increasing pop. in high risk areas,

especially after the last tsunami Combination with critical cause analysis should be

implemented to investigate more detail

1.Counter-measures for Aging Societyshould be considered the impact of elderly population.

elderly people is difficult to evacuate.so many people tried to help elderly people and affected.

2. Land Use Regulationshould be recognized past tsunami experience.

land use is one of the most effective way for disaster management Not based on last tsunami but consider every historical tsunami

3. Education and Training should be noticed the importance of education and training

School played a key role in GEJETDifficult to pass down the experience over generations. Tend to rely on the infrastructure as time passes.

4. Evacuation Planning should be remarked the location of evacuation centers and related

planning

These should be considered based on “Worst Case Scenario”

Suggestion for Decision Making from this study

ＭａｎｙＴｈａｎｋｓ

2011.７.

ICHARM International Centre for Water Hazard RisManagement under the auspices of UNESCO

CTI Engineering Co., Ltd. Japan

APPENDIX

Cost Effective ness of Disaster counter measureOverview and explanation

Net Benefit + : Land Use, Flood-Proofing, ProtectionNet Benefit 0 : WarningNet Benefit - : Relief, Insurance

Now Considering

(Gilbert F.White, J.Eugene Haas et al., 1975)

Coastal Landform Condition → Impact to Exacerbation of Disasters

Kuji in Iwate Pref. to Onagawa in Miyagi Pref.：Ria CoastlineIshinomaki in Miyagi Pref. to Minamisoma in Fukushima Pref.：Straight Coastline

Impact of Landform Condition :Sanriku Ria Coastal Area and Straight Coastal Area

Kuji city

Onagawa-cho

Ishinomaki

Minamisoma city

Iwate

Miyagi

Fukushima

Morioka

Sendai

Ria Coastline

Straight Coastline

Ria Coastline StraightCoastline

Dead and Missing

Completely-DestroyedHouse(CDH)Inundated Area(IA) (km2)Population in IAHousehold Numbers in IA

Human Loss (HL) RatioCDH RatioInundated Ratio (IR) inUrban AreaTsunami Height

10,023

35,52688

167,56860,245

6.0%59%

24%20 ～

35m

9,587

61,370375

297,613103,450

3.2%59%26%10 ～

20m

Human Loss Ratio 6 %Ria Coastline・・・・the open sea is deep

Tsunami Height is so HighTsunami Arrival is fast

Meiji（1896） Showa（1933） Chili（1960） GEJET（2011）

Tsunami History

37 27 51

78

Meiji（1896）： PM7:30First Wave ArrivalApprox.35 min After EQ

Showa（1933）： AM 2:30First Wave Arrival Approx.30 min After EQ

GEJ（2011）：PM2:46First Wave ArrivalApprox.30 min After EQ



② Age Structure③ Evacuation Conditions








Yamada town

① Victims Analysis② Trends Analysis and Evacuation Social Background Analysis


Rikuzentakata city

① Victims Analysis② Trends and Evacuation Social Background Analysis

Population Trend in Rikuzentakata city

Trend and Evacuation Social Background Analysis

Population’s Age Structure of Reported Death Toll caused by GEJET (2011) in Yamada-cho and Rikuzen takata city

① Victims Analysis

Over 60s in Total Dead

Yamada 75％

Rikuzentakata 61％

3 Pref. Average 65％

Yamada Rikutaka

Average

How to compare the historical trends under the limitation of data set?この事実はこういうところにもあらわれている。特徴

Human Vulnerability RatioHuman Vulnerability Ratio = Human Loss Ratio / House Destroyed Ratio

= HLN / CDHN ×1/ Average Size of House Hold

Human Loss Ratio : Human Loss Number (HLN) / Total Population (TP)

House Destroyed Ratio : CDH Numbers (CDHN)/ Total House Numbers (THN)

How many people die compared to house collapse in the areas.⇒ If many people evacuated successfully , the HVR become lower

Reported Death Toll ／ Pre Disaster Population

School plays a key role Working time 70s, 80s male ratio higher than female (diff. from past) Same trend with 3 Pref. average（teens, male ratio）

① Victims Analysis

Non-Tsunami Affected Area

TsunamiAffected Areas

Hokkaido 1

Aomori 4

Iwate 4 6,673

Miyagi 17 11,697

Akita

Yamagata 3

Fukushima 40 1921

Ibaraki 8 17

Tochigi 4

Gunma 1

Saitama

Chiba 5 17

Tokyo 7

Kanagawa 4

Total 94（0.5％） 20,329（99.5％）

Death Toll in Non-Tsunami Affected Area and Tsunami Affected Area

Deaths caused by tsunami disaster covered almost all of deaths Source : JDMA

Coastal Landform Condition → Impact to Exacerbation of Disasters

Kuji in Iwate Pref. to Onagawa in Miyagi Pref.：Ria CoastlineIshinomaki in Miyagi Pref. to Minamisoma in Fukushima Pref.：Straight Coastline

Impact of Landform Condition :Sanriku Ria Coastal Area and Straight Coastal Area

Kuji city

Onagawa-cho

Ishinomaki city

Minamisoma city

Iwate

Miyagi

Fukushima

Morioka

Sendai

Ria Coastline

Straight Coastline

Ria Coastline StraightCoastline

Dead and MissingCompletely-DestroyedHouse(CDH)Inundated Area(IA) (km2)Population in IAHousehold Numbers in IAHuman Loss (HL) RatioCDH RatioInundated Ratio (IR) inUrban AreaTsunami Height

10,023

35,52688167,568

60,245

6.0%59%

24%20～35m

9,587

61,370375

297,613103,450

3.2%59%26%

10～20m

Human Loss Ratio 6 %Ria Coastline・・・・the open sea is deep

Tsunami Height is so HighTsunami Arrival is Fast

Historical comparison of tsunami damage in ria coast area

Human Loss Ratio House Destroyed Ratio Human Vulnerability RatioMeiji

(1896)Showa(1933)

GEJ(2011)

Meiji(1896)

Showa(1933)

GEJ(2011)

Meiji(1896)

Showa(1933)

GEJ(2011)

Kuji 4.7 0.7 0 23 13.2 0 20.4 5.3Noda 10 2.5 0.8 19.5 31 19.5 51.3 8.1 4.1Fudai 14.8 9.5 0 23 24.8 0 64.3 38.3Tanohata 7.7 4.7 0.9 11.4 43.1 17.2 67.5 10.9 5.2Iwaizumi 17.4 9.8 0.07 34.2 33.4 4.1 50.9 29.3 1.7Miyako 15.5 3.5 1 23.4 11 16.3 66.2 31.8 6.1Yamada 23.9 0.2 4.6 46.3 40.1 42.2 51.6 0.5 10.9Otsuchi 9.2 0.5 10.6 57.4 55.5 57.8 16 0.9 18.3Kamaishi 51.9 5.2 3.1 54 16.2 19.8 96.1 32.1 15.7Ofunato 21.8 3.8 1.1 40.3 32.9 22 54.1 11.6 5Rikuzentakata 5.4 1.7 8.6 10.3 28.7 40.5 52.4 5.9 21.2Kesennuma 15.5 0.8 1.9 29.9 28.1 33.3 51.8 2.8 5.7Minamisanriku 17.3 0.9 5.7 44.8 12.2 59.8 38.6 7.4 9.5Onagawa 0.04 0.02 9.2 2.4 5.6 75.1 1.7 0.4 12.3

Human Loss Ratio : Human Loss Number (HLN) / Total Population (TP)House Destroyed Ratio : CDH Numbers (CDHN)/ Total House Numbers (THN)Human Vulnerability Ratio = Human Loss Ratio / House Destroyed Ratio

= HLN / CDHN ×1/ Average Size of House Hold= HLN / CDH HLN

How many people die compared to house collapse in the areas.⇒ If many people evacuated successfully , the HVR become lower

Historic Analysis of Death and CHD in Yamada-cho

51y

27y

37y

DeadBuilding Collapse

GEJET

Chili

Meiji

Showa

Trend and Evacuation SB Analysis

Recent Population Change and Industry Situation Change in Yamada-choand Rikuzen takata

（ Exerpted from Iwate Prefecture Living Condition Indicators ）

Population Economy

TotalPopulation

Percentage ofElderlyPersonsHouseholds

Birth rate MunicipalityGrassProduct

BusinessOfficeNumber

EmployeeNumber

Present<Year>

18,745<2010>

57.4<2006>

6.34<2006>

30,455,000<2008>

932<2006>

5,941<2006>

Change Ratio

－25％▼（1980‐2010）

＋26％▲（2004-2006）

－12％▼（2004‐2006）

－7.9％▼（2004‐2008）

－11.1％▼（2001‐2006）

－8.3％▼（2001‐2006）

② Trend Analysis （Yamada ）

A:Meiji(1896)B:Showa(1933)C:Chili (1960)D:GEJET (2011)

Funakoshi Bay

Before Show(1933) Relocation

After

Showa

Relocation

Learn from the experience but could not protect completely

Trend and Evacuation SB Analysis

Meiji（1896）： PM7:30 First Wave Arrival・・・Approx.35 min After EQ

Showa（1933）： AM 2:30 First Wave Arrival ・・・ Approx.30 min After EQ

GEJ（2011）：PM2:46 First Wave Arrival・・・ Approx.30 min After EQ

◆Chili(1960) PM3:00 First Wave Arrival andApprox.PM6:00 Maximum Wave Arrival

Warning Begin at Approx.PM5:00

Situation (what they did and how many minutes to evacuate)

③ Evacuation Social Background Analysis

※ They all have approx.30 min to evacuate.

Photo ： Situation on Tanohama in Yamada-cho

Disaster Recovery Plan after the Showa (1933)

1961’s Situation

③ Evacuation Social Background Analysis (Yamada)

DepopulationEconomic Decreasing→Declining Local Society

In addition, concerning the evacuation,1. Elderly social participation is low2. NPOs numbers ratio is low3. Elderly and singled population is high

(Social systems strength maybe low, Maybe low coping capacity)

→These Impact evacuation activities.

Learning from past experience, two areas (Funakoshi and Tanohama ) relocated to higher grounds. However, these areas are inundated in GEJET, it means the hazard scales are too large to protect completely.

③ Evacuation Social Background Analysis (Yamada)Summary : Why do they reverse the historical trend?

Did they learn from the experience?

Tsunami Height 2-4mSmall damage

Experience sometimes goes negative

Combined JMAs initial information, 3m

③ Evacuation Social Background Analysis (Rikuzentakata)

Combined never come over beyond the railroad track

GEJ (2011)Chilean Tsunami (1960)

2000年

Increasing population in high risk area (past inundated areas, maybe)→ Especially, this is after levees construction (from Interview, maps)

Chilean tsunami experience works negatively

→ Never though tsunami come over beyond the railroad track until they actually saw the tsunami in their own eyes.

Evacuated and survived people were living near the higher grounds because they could evacuate after they actually saw thetsunami coming <interview>

→ Initial 3m’s Tsunami Height information from JMA combined with their experience of Chilean Tsunami (2-4m)

＋Altruism Activity (Helping Others) ・・・・・・・・Against the experience of “Tendenko”→Volunteers Fire Department

21%(27/127 ) Died <Interview> ＋Primary Evacuation Center ・・・・・・・・・・・・・Planning

51%(35/68) Inundated<Iwate: 12 %(48/411)> <Kahokushinbun>

③ Evacuation Social Background Analysis (Rikuzentakata)Summary : Why do they reverse the historical trend?

Did they learn from the experience?


Evacuation TypeEvacuatedNot EvacuatedEvacuated and SufferedCould not Evacuated

Primary Evacuation Center35/68 Inundated<Iwate: 48/411>

Civic Gymnasium <Takata area>

Only 3 / 70-80 Survived

(Source : Kahoku Shinbun)

Altruism Activity (Helping Others)

Volunteers Fire Department

data Died (Interview 20Jul.2011)

①②③Ｄｉｆｆｅｒｅｎｃｅリアス式海岸地域は地形の特徴から被害に遭いやすい

過去の災害との違いに大きな社会の変化があった山田町・・・極端な人口減少、経済衰退、高齢化の進行

様々な社会的指標により地域社会の力が弱かったことが人的被害の誘因の一部となったと考えられる。

陸前高田市・・市全体の人口は、漸減傾向にあったが、沿岸部のリスクの高い市街地に人口が増加、脆弱性を高めて

いた。過去の経験から学んだか

学んだところと学んでいない部分がはっきりとした。山田町では２カ所が昭和津波のあと、高台移転したが、今回の津波では浸水した。陸前高田では、チリでの経験がかえってマイナスとなった。堤防ができると逆に人が移りすんだ。

チリの時の津波高、一定地区のみの被害が、今回の災害情報と結びつき避難行動がなかなか進まない原因となった。

→ Experience sometimes goes wrong, however we need to learn from the experience of “ experience goes wrong”

→ Tend to be influenced last disaster

→ Social change should be considered to mitigate disasters


Levee Height and Simulated Tsunami Height in GEJET in 2011

Under consideration・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

However, water gate was shut down by local officer because of blackout by the earthquakes

Death Toll

Compared to Meiji（1896）, Showa(1933), so many municipalities could successfully mitigate the disasters. However, some are not.

We examined two cases and indicated how and what we can investigate the disasters through meta- and longitudinal analyses

We ve found the followings : 1. Social changes impact the disasters.・・・・diff.

・Yamada (Depopulation, high aging society, and social participation)・Rikuzentakata (Increasing Population in High Risk Area)

2. Disaster reflects the reality of the local Societies.・・・・exp.・Disasters are so much dependent on social characteristics and trends.・Experiences are difficult to be cleared by meta- longitudinal- analyses.

We still have lots of challenges : How can we investigate LPHC disasters by meta- and longitudinal- analyses?1. From field interviews, so many things were realized.

・Tend to be influenced by last disaster. Difficult to pass down the experience over generations. Tend to rely on the infrastructure as time passes.Experience is easy to be disappeared, however infrastructure remains.

・ An altruism action against the experience of “tendenko” is significant to beexamined.

・ Planning are also important points to be investigated.2. A holistic approach (combination with various perspectives) is required. 3. Intensive and extensive investigations should be done to find

more detail about the GEJET disaster.

Conclusion (Try to answer the first 3 inquiries, diff. and exp.)

Documents

Meta and Longitudinal Analyses of High Death Rates of Some ... Nakasu... · High Death Rates of Some Particular Municipalities in GEJET 2011.7. ICHARM International Centre for Water