Asian Disaster Reduction Center2016 Kumamoto Earthquake Survey Report (Preliminary)On 14 and 16 April 2016, earthquakes occurred in the middle of Kyushu Island, in southwestern Japan,
measuring a magnitude 7 (the highest level) on the seismic intensity scale of the Japan MeteorologicalAgency (JMA). The quakes caused 49 deaths in Kumamoto prefecture and 7,996 houses were totally
destroyed in Kumamoto and Oita Prefectures. The direct economic losses are estimated at ¥2.4–4.6
trillion (US$24–46 billion). ADRC gave a preliminary report on the Kumamoto earthquakes and thedamage they caused based on the official reports made by JMA and cabinet office, together with theresults of an ADRC field survey conducted on 18-21 May. ADRC will continuously makerecommendations on DRR/DRM by continuing to investigate the Kumamoto Earthquakes.

1. Overview
1.1 Outline of the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquakes
The first quake (foreshock) occurred on 14 April 2016 at 21:26 in Kumamoto Prefecture. Theepicenter was at 32°44.5′N, 130°48.5′E, at a depth of about 11 km below ground and themagnitude measured 6.5 (Mj). An earthquake with a JMA seismic intensity of 7 was recorded in
Mashiki Town.
About 28 hours later, the second quake (main shock) occurred on 16 April 2016 at 01:25 inKumamoto Prefecture. The epicenter was 32°45.2′N, 130°45.7′E at a depth of about 12km, with the magnitude measuring 7.3 (Mj). A JMA seismic intensity of 7 was recorded in
Mashiki Town and Nishihara Village. Mj7.3 is the same magnitude recorded during the Great
Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995. Also, this was the first time that two successive magnitude 7earthquakes were recorded back-to-back in Japan. These Kumamoto Earthquakes are
considered to have been connected, with the foreshock recorded at the northern end of theHinagu fault, and the main shock recorded at the Futagawa fault.
Source: Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion
http://www.static.jishin.go.jp/resource/monthly/2016/2016_kumamoto_3.pdf

Source: Geospatial Information Authority of Japan

Source: National Disaster Institute for Earth
Science and Disaster Resilience1Asian Disaster Reduction Center
1.2 Outline of Damages
1.2.1 General
Human Casualties
The total number of deaths in Kumamoto Prefecture was 49, with 360 severely injured and1,258 slightly injured as of 24 May 2016.
Pref.
Fukuoka
SagaKumamoto
OitaMiyazaki
Total

Table 1 Human Casualties (persons)
DeathsSeverely Injured Slightly Injured
011704949
360
1,258042303
549
372
1,312

Source: Emergency Disaster Response Headquarters
Note: Another 20 deaths are considered to be quake-related, and 58 injured persons inKumamoto are have not yet been classified.

Building Damage
Housing damage statistics show that across seven prefectures, there 7,996 houses totally
destroyed, 17,886 houses half destroyed, and 73,035 houses partially destroyed as of 24 May
2016. Most of the totally destroyed buildings were in Kumamoto Prefecture, just as were mostof the human casualties. As many as 248 public buildings were damaged in Kumamoto
Prefecture alone.
The five municipalities of Kumamoto Prefecture have resumed operations at locations outsideof their city halls due to damage (as of 23 May 2016).
- Yatsushiro City : To Sencho branch office- Hitoyoshi City : To City hall Annex, Sport Palace, and the Culture Palace- Uto City : To Citizen Gymnasium- Ozu Town: To Nearby Public Facilities- Mashiki Town: To Central community centerPrefectureYamaguchi
Fukuoka
SagaNagasaki
Kumamoto
OitaMiyazaki
Total

Table 2 Building Damage (Buildings)
Housing
Non-Residential Buildings
Totally
HalfPartially
PublicOthers
destroyed destroyed destroyedbuildings
31230
1
1
2
1
7,994
17.81870,609
248
660
245
2,171
8
2
20
7,996
17,866
93,035248
671

Source: Emergency Disaster Response Headquarters

2Fires1616

Asian Disaster Reduction CenterLifelines
Table 3 Lifeline Damage and Recovery
Peak damage
Recovery situation
Electricity 474,000 units blackout (16 Apr.) Mostly restored as of 20 Apr., fullrestoration as of 27 Apr.
Gas
105,000 units outage (16 Apr.) Full restoration at 30 Apr.
Water
445,857 units water outage (16 136 units at 23 May, except in totallyApr.)
destroyed houses
Oil
104 Service Stations closed
More than 90% working as of 24 May
Source: Emergency Disaster Response Headquarters

Transportation
Table 4 Transportation System Damage and Recovery
Peak damage
Recovery situation
Highways
Many road surfaces damaged, 33
All traffic regulations have been canceled as ofsections of bridge damaged, landslides 29 April
National
Displacements and landslides in 15
As of 24 May, seven sections are blocked,
roads
locations
bypass route available
Railways
Much damage to private railway tracks, As of 24 May, service remains suspended on
facilities, and stations
two lines
Shinkansen Deadhead train was derailed, tracks and Full restoration as of 27 Aprilbullet train Kumamoto station were damaged
Airports
Kumamoto airport was closed on 16 Apr 90% passenger flights are in service as of 19 May
Ports
Four major ports affected
Emergency rehabilitation (24 May)
Source: Emergency Disaster Response Headquarters

1.2.2 Evacuation Situation
Figure 1 Evacuation Situation
Transition of evacuation

120,000

Shelters

Evacuees

100,000

2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400

80,0001,200
60,0001,000
800

40,000600
400

20,000200
00
14-Apr
15-Apr
16-Apr
17-Apr
18-Apr
19-Apr20-Apr
21-Apr
22-Apr
23-Apr
24-Apr
25-Apr
26-Apr
27-Apr
28-Apr
29-Apr30-Apr
1-May
2-May
3-May
4-May
5-May
6-May
7-May
8-May
9-May
10-May11-May12-May13-May14-May15-May16-May17-May18-May19-May20-May21-May22-May23-MayAffected municipal governments
provided gymnasiums and otherpublic buildings for use as public
shelters for affected residents
who could not live in their
damaged houses in Kumamoto,Oita, Nagasaki, and Fukuoka
Prefectures. The peak numbersrecorded were 855 shelters and183,882 evacuees as of 17 April.
There were 198 shelters and8,911 evacuees as of 23 May.
Public shelters except Kumamoto
Pref. were closed by 16 May.

Source: Emergency Disaster Response Headquarters3

Asian Disaster Reduction Center
1.2.3 Other Damage: Landslides
Many landslides occurred due to the earthquakes. As many as 136 sediment-related disasters
such as landslides and debris flows were recorded, killing nine people. In addition, 494 riverembankment locations were damaged.
(http://www.bousai.go.jp/updates/h280414jishin/pdf/h280414jishin_27.pdf)

1.2.4 Economic Losses
The direct economic losses are estimated at 2.4-4.6 trillion yen (22.4-43.0 billion USD). It is ascale behind to the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995.
Table 5 Direct Economic Losses Caused by Past Earthquakes in Japan
Direct EconomicLosses
Past Earthquake in JapanSource¥ trillion US$ billion
2016 Kumamoto Earthquakes
Cabinet Office analyst
2.4-4.6
24-46
Cabinet Office for Disaster Management
16.9169
2011 Great East Japan Earthquake
Cabinet Office analyst
16-25
16-25
2004 Chuetsu Earthquake
Niigata Prefecture
1.7-3
17-30
1995 Great Hanshin-Awaji
National Land Agency, Hyogo Prefecture
9.6-9.9
96-99
Earthquake
Source: "Ministerial Conference Materials on Monthly Economic Report," 23 May 2016, Cabinet Office(http://www5.cao.go.jp/keizai3/getsurei/2016/05kaigi.pdf), Calculated as 1USD = 110 yen.

1.3

Comparison with Recent Earthquake Disasters

A comparison of the earthquakes that occurred in Japan and ADRC member countries in recentyears reveals that the magnitude of shaking in the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquakes is same as thatexperienced during the 1995 Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, which was an inland active faulttype earthquake. However, it caused only 49 deaths because the epicenters were not inKumamoto City, the prefectural capital and the second largest city on Kyushu Island. Acomparison against the 2015 Nepal Earthquake and 2009 China Sichuan Earthquake, however,shows that while those earthquakes caused more casualties, the Kumamoto Earthquakes will
result in much higher direct economic losses than were caused by the Nepal Earthquake.
Table 6 Direct Economic Losses Due to Recent Earthquakes in Asia

2016 Kumamoto Earthquakes
2015 Nepal Earthquake2011 Great East Japan Earthquake
2009 China Sichuan Earthquake
2004 Sumatra Earthquake and Indian Ocean
Tsunami1995 Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake

Magnitude
(M)
7.3
7.8
9.0
8.0

Deaths(persons)
49
8,964
19,84687,476

Direct Economic Losses(billion USD)
22.4-43.0
5145-22785

9.1

226,408

9.3

7.3

6,434

87-90

Source: Cabinet Office, EM-DAT, Calculated as 1USD = 110 yen.

4

Asian Disaster Reduction Center2.
2.1

ADRC Kumamoto Earthquake Field Survey Overview
OutlineDates:
18-21 May 201618 May afternoon: Kobe to Kumamoto (overnight at Kumamoto-eki-mae)
19 May all day:Field survey around Kumamoto station, Kumamoto Castle,
Kumamoto City Hall, Aso Ohashi (Red Bridge), Mashiki Town,
Uto City Hall, and Aso city (overnight in Aso city)
20 May all day:Field survey of Aso city area, Aso Shrine, Ozu Town Disaster
Volunteer Center, Mashiki Town. Courtesy call on Prof. Takagi,Kumamoto Gakuen University (overnight in Kumamoto city)
21 May morning: Field survey of liquefaction in the Hiyoshi area, southern
Kumamoto. Afternoon: Kumamoto to Kobe
Survey personnel:
3 personnel (former ADRC Executive Ddirector, Dr. Ogawa, Mr.
Nakao, and Mr. Arakida)
Transportation:
Shinkansen: Kobe-Kumamoto, Rental car: Field survey

2.2

Overview of ADRC Kumamoto Earthquake Field Survey

The survey team visited mostly affected area in Kumamoto prefecture including Mashiki town,
Kumamoto city, Uto city, Ozu town, and Aso city. The team surveyed the overall damages, andconducted interviews at Kumamoto Castle, Kumamoto City Hall, Aso Yamamoto Farm, MashikiTown, and Ozu Town Disaster Volunteer Center.
Overview of the Affected Areas at Time of Survey
The general impression of the affected area was that the damage was similar to the massive
damage caused by the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, in particular, those in Mashiki Town,
which experienced two separate magnitude 7 earthquakes. On the other hand, the area aroundKumamoto railway Station and downtown Kumamoto seemed to have been restored to theirpre-earthquake conditions, and hotels were nearly full due to recovery-related visitors.
Uchinomaki Onsen (hot springs) at the Mount Aso has gradually reopened, and was at fulloccupancy for recovery-related visitors as well.
Generally, major damage was identified above and along the active faults that moved. The
ground separated from north to south, and the area between the two cracks was depressed.
This phenomenon was quite different from what has been seen in past earthquakes in Japan.
Private houses and pump stations seemed not to have any abnormalities, and the pump wasoperating normally.
The speed of recovery of civil engineering structures and lifeline looked quick ,which could beexplained by the limited fact that the damages in the city of Kumamoto, centre of theprefecture, and those to the roadways had been limited to some areas. On the other hand,some city halls remained out of use due to earthquake damage. There was remarkableliquefaction damage along the original Shiorakawa River around Hiyoshi, Kumamoto city, but5

Asian Disaster Reduction Center
the affected residents had not been previously aware of the old land-use style and liquefaction
risks.
Key perspectives of the initial field survey
This survey assessed the extent of damage and recovery, with particular focus on the following
points.
2.2.1 Human resource development for DRR
One of the focus of this initial survey was placed on human resource development for DRR at
local level, since ADRC has long been carrying out many projects for this purpose.
In the case of Kumamoto earthquake, direct supports for the affected population has beenhandled by local government officials in the quake hit areas. Local government officials andvolunteers from all over Japan have joined them in organizing and supporting shelter
operations, sorting and delivery of relief supplies, house damage certification, classroom
reopenings, and public health and nutrition guidance.
The Social Welfare Council of Ozu Town, whose population (30,000), located in a suburban
dormitory town of Kumamoto, with growing population opened a disaster Volunteer Center on
22 April, six days after the quake. Volunteers cleaned up private homes alongside victims,
providing support to help them resume their lives. At the peak, as many as 130 volunteers werereceived per day and the number has decreased to 10 volunteers (as of 27 May) since good
progress has been made on rubble processing and requests for assistance have decreased.
One of the interviewed persons had taken two training courses organized at Disaster ResearchInstitute, Kobe (DRI), which had been established after the Greta Hanshin Awaji earthquake. He
indicated that the damages and indicated that the damage and response timeline following thisdisaster were in alignment with what he had learned at DRI, and stressed that the training
courses thus proved helpful. Disasters can occur under a variety of circumstances. The lessons
learnt of Kumamoto earthquake together with those of past disasters need to be shared toimprove DRR human resource development training course, in close collaboration with theaffected local governments.

Photo 1 Ozu Town Disaster Volunteer Center

2.2.2 Housing damage assessments for rapid reconstructionMore than 90,000 houses were affected by the earthquake. In Japan, local governments
conduct “House Damage Assessment” to determine their degree of damage. In addition,6

Asian Disaster Reduction Centerarchitects conduct “Post-earthquake Quick Inspection of Damaged Buildings” to assess safely tobuildings to withstand aftershocks, while insurance companies conduct damage investigations
for earthquake insurance payments. The post-earthquake quick inspection of damagedbuildings began on 15 April in Mashiki and on 16 April in other municipalities, with the supportof other local governments in Japan and private architects. It is important that the necessary
inspections are quickly and comprehensively performed after a disaster, and that greater
efforts are made to widely disseminate information about the purpose of these systems.

Photo 2 Emergency safety evaluation for buildings and urbanized sites

2.2.3 Affected cultural heritage and possibilities of creative reconstruction by tourism
Kumamoto Castle, a symbol of Kumamoto Prefecture, which was built in the 16th century, hasbeen designated as an important cultural property Japan. Its walls and turret were severely
damaged by the earthquakes. It is feared that it will take a lot of money and time to repair thedamage. At Aso shrine, which is said to have been founded in the 3rd century BC, the towergate and hall of worship were severely damaged. Other buildings that are not classified ashistoric buildings, were also damaged Aso Ohashi, Red Bridge, for example, which is regarded
as a civil engineering heritage, was swept away by a large-scale landslide.
The Kumamoto Recovery and Reconstruction Experts Meeting (chaired by Makoto Iokibe)
established by the Kumamoto prefectural government has announced an emergency proposal
regarding basic reconstruction policies, entitled "Towards Creative Reconstruction from theKumamoto Earthquakes." It proposes that the rehabilitation and reconstruction plan to bemade by the prefecture include considerations for Kumamoto Castle reconstruction given its
position as a tourism resource as well as efforts to strengthen public support for the seismic
diagnosis and reinforcement of private houses . The report also proposes channels for learning
about earthquake disasters and exposed active faults with the cooperation of relevant partners,
and addresses future challenges, such as efforts to revitalize the local tourism industry for earlyreconstruction of the community.
There are several cases in which disaster-stricken areas became tourist’ destination thus
contributing to a participatory process of reconstruction involving local citizens. Japaneseexamples include the Disaster Reduction and Human Renovation Institution which wasestablished after the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, and the Sanriku railway after the Great7

Asian Disaster Reduction Center
East Japan Earthquake. Overseas examples include New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina andVolcano Pinatubo in the Philippines.

Photo 3 Damaged Kumamoto Castle and Aso Shrine

2.2.4 Other
Furthermore, ADRC would like to focus on the following points in the future.
Effective utilization of ICT in affected areas
Affected local governments announced information regarding damage and support services
several days after the main shock, but only individuals with a smart phone or other internet
connection could access that information. Many evacuees only had access to TV or radio as
their source of information. In addition, an emergency public bulletin published in Kumamoto
City was published on 23 April, 7 days after the main quake. The case of Kumamoto will provide
precious lessons to strengthen the community disaster management information infrastructureusing ICT and other technology devices.
Evacuation processIn Japan, for residents who are no longer able to live in their homes due to the effects of adisaster, local governments have designated nearby elementary and junior high school
gymnasiums as public shelters in advance. In this case, there 855 shelters established andapproximately 180,000 people evacuated at the peak. Because evacuees’ privacy is very limitedin the gymnasium, some affected people chose to use their private vehicles as their shelter
even though there is a risk of “economy-class syndrome” (an increased risk of blood clots in thelegs). On the other hand, there were also examples in this quake of support from thecommunity in the form of tents, partitions made of paper, and efforts to take gender needs into
consideration. Since examples exist both in Japan and abroad of evacuation approaches thatare more comfortable for the elderly, of technologies and products for supporting evacuation
measures, and of wide-area evacuation strategies, such tactics should be the subject of further
examination in the future.
8

Asian Disaster Reduction Center
2.3 Future Focus of Research
Based on the results of this survey, ADRC would like to continue to investigate the major
themes, and also to focus on the following points, to promote the sharing of lessons learned
and past experiences with member countries.
- Sharing disaster experiences, disaster education- Evacuation approaches friendly to vulnerable people and challenges (possibilities forwide-area evacuation)- Possibility of disaster tourism for the reconstruction of affected areas- Impact on the supply chain of Kumamoto, Kyushu, and the Asian region- BCP formulation effects for companies, including local governments and small andmedium-sized enterprises- Strengthening the local DRR information infrastructure using cutting-edge technology
such as satellite imagery and ICT equipment
Utilizing Lessons of the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake
to Support Recovery in Kumamoto
Local governments all across Japan sent support to Kumamoto after theearthquake to provide aid to the disaster-affected local governments which
had themselves become victims of the earthquake. Hyogo Prefecture
initiated various response measures after the Great Hanshin-Awaji
Earthquake, which struck the region 21 years ago. Particularly notable is theEmergency and Rescue Team comprised of public school faculty and staff(known as EARTH) which was developed in 2000 based on the experiences Explaining disaster responses to executivesof that earthquake. Under this program, as many as 176 faculty members,teachers, counselors and others have completed the Advanced Training
Course for Instructors to promote DRR education (as of April 2016).
EARTH regularly conducts DRR education and dispatches members todisaster-affected areas when disasters strike. They provided support after
the Sumatra Earthquake, Sichuan Earthquake, and Great East Japan
Earthquake and have been dispatched to other disaster sites within and Workshop on training session for facultyoutside Japan. Likewise, EARTH dispatched approximately 50 members onand teachers
April 16 to assist immediately after the Kumamoto Earthquake. They havebeen providing ongoing support, including shelter management (mainly atschools serving as shelters), mental health care, the dissemination ofdisaster experiences and lessons learned, and the transmission of expertise
accumulated over the course of their various disaster support efforts. In thisway, valuable lessons have been shared with human resources throughout
the prefecture, and these lessons are then passed on to disaster-affectedsites.
Educational support provided after
ADRC would like to share information about these kinds of local government
classes resume
experiences and initiatives with local governments throughout Asia.
Contact: Asian Disaster Reduction Center (ADRC), Mr. ARAKIDA, Mr. NAKAO
Tel: +81-78-262-5540, Fax: +81-78-262-5546, E-mail: rep@adrc.asia

9