Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 34, Number 1, 2012, pp19-39

Damage and reconstruction after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami andthe 2011 Great East Japan tsunami
Anawat SUPPASRI*
Abdul MUHARI*
Prasanthi RANASINGHE*
Erick MAS*
Nobuo SHUTO*
Fumihiko IMAMURA*
Shunichi KOSHIMURA**International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University, Japan(Received March 31, 2012 Accepted July 12, 2012)
ABSTRACTThe 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was one of the world’s worst tsunamis and causeddevastating damage in many Asian countries. Then, in 2011, Japan was hit by a tsunamithat was generated by the greatest earthquake in the country’s history. This paper discusses
the damage caused by these tsunamis and subsequent reconstruction. Introduced first are
the experience gained and lessons learned for future tsunami mitigation, such as tsunami
awareness, proper evacuation building and the memorial parks created in the countries
affected by the 2004 tsunami (Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand). Second, the damage
by the 2011 tsunami to structures designed to protect against tsunamis is summarized.
Most of these structures could not withstand and protect from the tsunami because they
were not designed for such a large tsunami. Human casualties and building damage are
discussed using fatality ratios and fragility curves, respectively. These analyses show thatexperience and awareness help reduce human casualties in the Sanriku area, and wooden
houses damaged by the 2011 tsunami fared better than in previous historical events. Finally,
examples of ongoing reconstruction in Japan are introduced. Most reconstruction efforts
were planned after considering the lessons learned from the tsunami’s impact, and thetowns in question are now strengthening their disaster prevention-related plans to be better
prepared for future tsunamis.
Keyword: The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the 2011 Great East Japan tsunami,
reconstruction, disaster reduction, disaster mitigation

1. INTRODUCTION

quake and tsunami in the region. The earthquake’s
magnitude was estimated at 9.3, which shocked mostscientists at the time. The estimated rupture area
reached approximately one thousand kilometers, thelongest rupture ever recorded. A tsunami was gener-

The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami
occurred on December 26 th, 2004. It was the first
instrumentally and historically recorded major earth19

A. SUPPASRI, A. MUHARI, P. RANASINGHE, E. MAS, N. SHUTO, F. IMAMURA, S. KOSHIMURA

ated, and the maximum tsunami height of approximately 50 m was measured in the Banda Aceh regionof Indonesia. The tsunami caused wide-ranging
damage in 15 countries and approximately 230,000
deaths. Seven years later, on March 11th, 2011, a massive earthquake of magnitude 9.0 occurred off the
Pacific coast of Tohoku (in the northeast region of Japan) and was followed by a devastating tsunami thatagain shocked many scientists with its magnitude.
This time, the rupture length was estimated at 500
km, with a large slip of more than 30 m. A maximum
tsunami height of approximately 40 m was measured,and approximately 20,000 deaths in Japan and one
death each in the United States and Indonesia werereported. A comparison of the two tsunamis is shownin Table 1 (NOAA, 2011). In general, both tsunamis
were generated from a massive M9-class earthquakewith a large rupture area and resulted in a large tsunami of 40-50 m in height. One difference between thetwo events is the ten-fold difference in the number ofcasualties due to the earthquake and tsunami source
locations, which can often lead to a difference in thenumber of affected countries.
This paper will introduce examples of successfulreconstruction based on experiences in the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami-affected countries, namely Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand. The number of deathsin these three countries were reported as 150,000,
35,000 and 8,000, respectively. Section 2 will introduce tsunami-related structures such as a tsunami
memorial park, museum and evacuation building, as
well as stories related to tsunami awareness and selfevacuation. Several damage field surveys of the 2011
Great East Japan tsunami conducted in Iwate andMiyagi prefectures will also be presented. In section
3, damage to structural countermeasures and buildings will be discussed using survey data, and humancasualties will be discussed using statistical data.
Japan is well known for its tsunami countermeasuresand evacuation preparedness. Nevertheless, very
heavy damage was observed on the Sanriku Coast, a
600-km-long shoreline that extends northwards from
Sendai and into the Miyagi, Iwate and Aomori prefectures. Many structural and non-structural facilities
had been constructed along the coast as tsunami countermeasures. In the present study, the effectiveness ofthese measures during the 2011 tsunami is discussed,
showing examples of breakwaters, tsunami gates,
seawalls, control forests and highland residences.
Tsunami damage to communities will be discussed
in two ways: in terms of human casualties, using thefatality rate as a metric, and in terms of building damage, using a fragility curve and comparing the datawith results obtained from historical tsunami events.
The present reconstruction status observed during
field surveys of tsunami-affected areas in Sendai is
introduced. The discussion will include ideas for andefforts toward the construction of a tsunami memorial for the future tsunami disaster prevention in the
Tohoku region (Fig. 1). There are ten possible locations for these memorials: Miyako, Rikuzen-Takata,
Kesennuma, Minami-Sanriku, Onagawa, Ishinomaki,
Shiogama-Matsushima, Sendai, Natori and Iwanuma,
and some interesting ideas, such as the “Sakura Line311” in Rikuzen-Takata, the “Overturned Building”
in Onagawa and the “Hill of Thousand Year Hope” in
Iwanuma, will also be described in detail.
2. EXPERIENCES FROM THE 2004 INDIAN
OCEAN TSUNAMI
2.1 Banda Aceh region, Indonesia
Unlike in Japan, which has a long history of tsunami disasters and implemented countermeasures, theword “tsunami” was not commonly heard in Indonesia before the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Therefore,
it is not surprising that the tsunami of 2004 destroyed
120,000 homes and heavily damaged 70,000 more,

Table 1. Comparison between the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and the 2011 Great East Japan tsunami
Item2004 tsunami

Earthquake magnitude
2

Size of rupture (km )Max. tsunami height (m)No. of deathNo. of affected country
20

2011 tsunami
9.3

91,000*150

500*200

50.9

40.5

230,000

20,00015

Mostly in Japan

DAMAGE AND RECONSTRUCTION AFTER THE 2004 INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI AND THE 2011 GREAT EAST JAPAN TSUNAMI

Figure 1. Map of tsunami-affected areas in Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures
destroying 3,000 government buildings (including
hospitals and schools) and 14 seaports. Nearly 3,000
km of roads in this region was damaged, and 150,000
people lost their lives. Overall, 800 km of coastline
with an average width of 1.6 km was affected by thetsunami.
Because of the breadth and scale of the disaster, the Indonesian government established a special
agency called the Agency for Reconstruction andRehabilitation in Aceh and Nias (BRR Aceh-Nias) to

conduct reconstruction activities in Banda Aceh andthe surrounding areas. This agency began to operate
effectively in mid-2005. With only a four-year tenure,reconstruction activities focused on the developmentof housing (2005 to mid-2007), development of public infrastructure (2005 to 2008), institutional andsocial development (2005 to mid-2009) and economic
development (2005-2009). The agency’s overall reconstruction expenses were 6.7 billion USD, whichcame from the Indonesian government (37%), bilat21

A. SUPPASRI, A. MUHARI, P. RANASINGHE, E. MAS, N. SHUTO, F. IMAMURA, S. KOSHIMURA

eral and multilateral donors (36%), and national andinternational non-governmental organizations (27%).
The redevelopment of areas in the Aceh region
was conducted through a community participatory
method at the village level. For instance, a community
would decide whether their area would be built withthe employment of land consolidation or as it was.
Along with these village-level reconstruction efforts,
facilities and infrastructure for future tsunami mitigation were also prepared at a higher level. Buildingsfor vertical evacuation are now ready for use in Banda
Aceh (Fig. 2a), and evacuation routes have been tested in national and international tsunami drills such as
the IO-wave (Indian Ocean wave of 2009) in which
all countries affected by the 2004 tsunami performed
the drills. Recognizing that experiencing of the enormity of a tsunami is important, the media employed
to spread the tsunami-related experiences of 2004 to
the next generation come in various forms. A tsunami
museum (Fig. 2b) is now established in Banda Acehalong with 85 tsunami poles indicating the height of
the tsunami that hit the area. Other forms of memorial
evidence such as ships, including a large diesel power
plant vessel that was carried approximately 3 km inland, were left in place as a memorial to the next generation.
The case of Simeulue Island is one example that
illustrates the importance of understanding, awareness and future mitigation of tsunami hazards. Thisisland is located 50 km south of the epicenter of the
December 26, 2004, M9.3 Sumatra event. A tsunami
struck the west side of this island in 1907, and theexperience taught the inhabitants that inundationfrom the sea (called “smong” in the local language)

can cause extensive loss of life and property damage
in and around coastal villages. Since the 1907 event,the people of this area have been acutely aware of
the motion of the sea after earthquakes. In 2005, theGovernor of the Island, Buphati Dr. Darmili, notedthat the people of Simeulue all fled the shoreline after
feeling the earthquake, and of the island’s 78,000 inhabitants, only 8 died (Yalciner et al., 2005).
2.2 Galle District, Sri Lanka
Because the island nation of Sri Lanka is quite
far from any active faults, earthquakes and earthquake-induced tsunamis were not considered a major
natural threat before the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami.
Hence, damage to human life and property was a
thousand times more prolific due to the lack of awareness surrounding the event. One of the most devastating natural catastrophes in Sri Lankan history, thetsunami struck an extremely long (about two-thirds ofthe total coastline) coastal area of Sri Lanka, covering
thirteen districts and resulting in over 35,000 casualties and damage to more than 130,000 houses.
Galle became a well-known district after the tsunami because noteworthy damage occurred along its
entire coastline. A total of 4,200 deaths were reported
from the tsunami, with over 500 missing, almost
130,000 persons displaced, and approximately 11,500
houses either partially or completely damaged in the
district (end of January 2005, Department of Census
and Statistics). In addition, severe damages to theGalle port, Galle bus terminal, fishery harbors such
as Galle, Dodanduwa and Hikkakuwa, and the International Cricket Stadium were major reconstruction
challenges left to the community after the tsunami.

(a)

(b)

Figure 2. (a) Evacuation building in the Banda Aceh region in 2009 and (b) tsunami museum in the Banda Acehregion in 200922

DAMAGE AND RECONSTRUCTION AFTER THE 2004 INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI AND THE 2011 GREAT EAST JAPAN TSUNAMI

However, the most noteworthy damage was that near
Peraliya, where the tsunami surge overturned and submerged a Galle-bound train, killing over one thousandpeople. Galle International Stadium, which is considered to be one of the most picturesque cricket grounds
in the world, is situated near the Galle fort and surrounded on two sides by the Indian Ocean. The Stadium was destroyed (Fig. 3a) in the 2004 tsunami but
was rebuilt and hosted international matches again in2007. The Galle bus terminal was totally destroyed in
the tsunami, claiming thousands of lives. A temporary
bus stand was built after the calamity as a temporary
measure, and work on a new modern bus stand commenced in October 2010 and was handed over to the
public in July 2011 (Fig. 3b).
Peraliya, the most devastated area in the Galle
district, is now considered a memorial site for the Indian Ocean tsunami. A number of tsunami memorials
were constructed in this area to sustain the memory ofthis event and to educate the younger generation who
have never experienced a tsunami. Figure 4a showsa memorial built in this fashion, located at the siteof the train accident that resulted in the worst humandisaster in Sri Lankan history. A tsunami photographmuseum at Telwatta, shown in Figure 4b, tells thousands of stories related to the event to show future
generations what happened.
2.3 Phang Nga province, Thailand
Tsunami awareness is the most important factor
to increasing survival rates in countries with no massive tsunami countermeasure structures. Thailand, forexample, has a lower tsunami risk than Japan in termsof both size (maximum height of 15 m) and return period (M9.0 every 600 years). The 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami was the first tsunami in Thailand to be instrumentally recorded, and more than 8,000 deaths werereported. However, most of the Moken population
who live in the Surin Islands of the Phang Nga province survived. They live near the Andaman Sea, andthe first floors of their houses are open spaces. They
use wooden boats for aquaculture, and their ancestorstaught them about the importance of early evacuation
following artificial and natural warning signs (such as
earthquakes and abnormal tides).

(a)

(b)

Figure 3. (a) Galle International Stadium (29/12/2004) and (b) Galle bus terminal (7/2011)

(a)

(b)

Figure 4. (a) Tsunami memorial in Galle (27/4/2010) and (b) tsunami photo gallery in Galle (11/2008)23

A. SUPPASRI, A. MUHARI, P. RANASINGHE, E. MAS, N. SHUTO, F. IMAMURA, S. KOSHIMURA

In 2004, a maximum tsunami height of 15 m attacked Nam Khem village, which had no breakwaters,
seawalls or control forests. As a result, the maximum
tsunami inundation distance was almost one kilometer, causing Nam Khem to become the most devastated village in Thailand, with casualties exceeding
1,000. Consequently, many awareness activities are
now being conducted in this area, and residences havevery high readiness and awareness compared to thosein other areas of Thailand. Two evacuation drills wereconducted, and residents learned about problems they
could encounter during nighttime and rainy evacuations. Evacuation team members are separated fortheir duties during evacuation periods and must know
how to protect themselves without support from thegovernment. Sea observation teams check the receding of a wave if they receive a warning. Patrol teams
look after residents’ belongings. Traffic teams enforce
rules during an evacuation, having pedestrians keep tothe left and vehicles keep to the right without opposition. Rescue teams check houses for abandoned or
disabled individuals. Nursing teams standby with firstaid materials.
Nam Khem now has many good strategies topromote tsunami recognition and awareness amongresidents during tsunami events. A school was chosen
as the local evacuation shelter, and its location was
moved higher above sea level and farther from thecoast in response to lessons learned from the tsunami.
The evacuation route is the main two-lane village
road for vehicles. Two fishing boats that were carried 500 m inland, killing many residents and causing
more housing damage, were left in place as a tsunami

memorial. A memorial park was also constructed next
to the beach for recreation (Fig. 5a), and a memorial gallery (Fig. 5b) was erected inside the park withinformation on tsunamis, evacuation procedures andhistorical damage at Nam Khem.
In Pakarang Cape, Phang Nga, an evacuation
shelter near the beach (Fig. 6a) was constructed in2010 in accordance with shelter regulations statingthat the distance to a safe zone must be greater than
1 km when there is no greenbelt to dissipate tsunami
energy. In Khao Lak, the patrol boat that was incharge of protecting the royal family on their vacation was brought approximately 2 km inland by thetsunami (Fig. 6b). That boat was also kept in place asa symbol of the tsunami, and a small tsunami gallery
was built nearby.
3. THE 2011 GREAT EAST JAPAN TSUNAMI
3.1 Performance of tsunami countermeasures
Tsunami breakwaters: Ofunato city
Ofunato Bay is a long bay that is resonant tolong-period tsunamis such as the 1960 Chilean tsunami. After the Chilean tsunami, breakwaters composed of two parts measuring 290 m and 250 m wereconstructed at the bay’s entrance, leaving an opening 200 m wide. Just after its completion, the 1968
Tokachi-oki earthquake tsunami hit and the breakwaters worked successfully. However, the 2011 tsunami
overtopped the breakwaters, inundating 3 km of thebay’s bottom area and reaching 23.6 m in height.
The broken breakwaters were still submerged in June
2011.

(a)

(b)

Figure 5. (a) Tsunami memorial park in Phang Nga (19/3/2009) and (b) tsunami memorial gallery in Phang Nga(19/3/2009)24

DAMAGE AND RECONSTRUCTION AFTER THE 2004 INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI AND THE 2011 GREAT EAST JAPAN TSUNAMI

(a)

(b)

Figure 6. (a) Tsunami evacuation building in Phang Nga (5/11/2009) and (b) patrol boat from the 2004 tsunami
in Phang Nga (19/3/2009)

Seawalls: Taro village, Miyako city
Taro is a typical example within the areas hit
hardest by tsunamis in 1611, 1896 (15 m high) and1933 (10 m high) (Fig. 7a). In 1934, the town constructed two lines of seawalls 10 m high above meansea level with a total length of 2.4 km. In the 1970s,
the village constructed another two lines of seawalls
10 m high to accommodate the increasing population.
Both sets of walls were designed considering only
the 1933 tsunami. The actual purpose of the seawalls
was not to totally stop a tsunami similar to the eventof 1896 but to mitigate such a tsunami. The population’s tsunami awareness went down when the secondline of seawalls was constructed because the inhabitants felt more secure behind the double construction.

The seawalls worked very well during the 1960 Chiletsunami, and the village became famous as the best
tsunami disaster prevention area in Japan. However,the 2011 tsunami overtopped these two-line seawalls,
and the eastern part of the new seawalls deteriorated(Fig. 7b). The main reasons why the seawalls weredestroyed were that the two seawalls were crossedin an X shape, which concentrated the tsunami at thecenter of the seawalls; the foundations were weak
and unstable because they were located near the river;and the seawalls were not maintained properly or
adequately connected to one another (Suppasri et al.,2012c).

(a)(b)

Figure 7. (a) Height records of historical tsunamis in 1896 (15 m) and 1933 (10 m) in Taro village (9/11/2011)
and (b) destroyed seawalls (9/11/2011)25

A. SUPPASRI, A. MUHARI, P. RANASINGHE, E. MAS, N. SHUTO, F. IMAMURA, S. KOSHIMURA

Tsunami gates: Fudai village, Shimohei district
Fudai was developed along the Fudai River, andit suffered during the 1896 and 1993 tsunamis, whichflooded this river. In 1984, tsunami gates 15.5 m highwere constructed to close the river mouth in case of atsunami. The 2011 tsunami was 17 m high at the gate
and overtopped it but inundated only a few hundred
meters of land behind the gate (Fig. 8a). The majority of Fudai village, including its evacuation shelters(located in primary and secondary schools), was protected and no loss of human life was reported (Fig.
8b).

the 2011 Great East Japan tsunami (Statistics Bureau,2011). Here, data from historical tsunamis that affected the Sanriku area (1896 Meiji, 1933 Showa),
the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and the 2011 Great
East Japan tsunami are compared (The 2011 Tohoku
Earthquake Tsunami Joint Survey Group, 2011 andSuppasri 2012a). The relationship between the maximum tsunami height and the fatality ratio is shown in
Fig. 10a. In general, the fatality ratio increases rapidly
when the tsunami height is larger than 2 m and canbe up to 30% when the tsunami height reaches 3 m. It
is clear that the characteristics of the fatality ratio in
the Sanriku plain area in question are similar to thoseduring historical events. However, the fatality ratio on
the Sanriku ria coast is nearly identical to that of theplain, even though the tsunami height reported on the
coast is much higher. The fatality ratio for historicalevents reached more than 20-50% when the tsunami
height was greater than 20 m but only approximately
10% during the 2011 event on the coast. Though it isdifficult to compare tsunami events, one of the possible reasons for the low fatality ratio could be due tothe effective evacuation. Coastal residents on the Sanriku ria coast had more tsunami experience (in 1611,
1869, 1933 and 1960) and awareness than in the Sendai plain area (no severe tsunami damage since 1611).

Control forest: Rikuzentakata city
This city is well known for its Takata-Matsubara
region, a 2-km stretch of shoreline that was lined withapproximately seventy thousand pine trees. In 1940, it
became a designated cultural property of Japan. Sucha control forest could withstand a tsunami up to 3-5 m,
but the measured height of the 2011 tsunami was 19 m.
As a result, only one tree, 10 m tall and two hundredyears old, remained and the city behind the forest wascompletely destroyed (Fig. 9). This tree became thecity’s symbol of reconstruction.
3.2 Human casualties and the fatality ratio
One way to compare human casualties in eacharea is to calculate a fatality ratio. The fatality ratio in
this study is defined as the number of reported deaths
and missing persons divided by the total population
for historical tsunamis (Yamashita, 2008) and by theestimated population in a tsunami inundation area for

3.3 Building damage and the fragility curve
During the survey, it was observed that the structure of a wooden house was damaged when the tsunami inundation depth was greater than 2-3 m, while nodamage occurred to reinforced concrete (RC) build-

(b)

(a)
Figure 8 . (a) Tsunami disaster prevention memorial (rock on the lower left) behind the tsunami gate in Fudai
village (9/11/2011) and (b) location of Fudai, its tsunami gate and tsunami inundation area
26

DAMAGE AND RECONSTRUCTION AFTER THE 2004 INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI AND THE 2011 GREAT EAST JAPAN TSUNAMI

(a)

(b)

Figure 9 . (a) The only pine tree remaining of the 70,000 trees in Rikuzen-Takata (a) after three months (1/6/2011)
and (b) after one year (29/4/2012)

ings at this depth. In general, one good example of the
impact of tsunamis on three different house types isshown in Ishinomaki city (Suppasri et al., 2012b). Although three houses were inundated at the same depthof 4 m, the damage to each house is totally different.
The RC two-story office had broken windows but nostructural damage. The two-story wooden house haddamage to some walls and columns. The one-story
wooden house totally collapsed. The tsunami fragility
curve developed from previous tsunamis shows that

1896 Meiji
2004 Indonesia
2011 East Japan_Ria

100

the possibility of damage at a 4-m inundation depth
to an RC house, a mixed RC and wooden house anda wooden house is 0.3, 0.7 and 0.9, respectively, as
shown in Fig. 10b (Suppasri et al., 2011).
4. RECONSTRUCTION STATUS AFTER ONE
YEAR IN SENDAI CITY
4.1 New tsunami hazard map
As in other locations in Miyagi prefecture, Send-

1933 Showa
2004 Thailand
2011 East Japan_Plain

Wood

Mix

RC

1

0.8
Damage probalibity

Fatality ratio (%)

10

1

0.1

(b)
0.6

0.4

0.2
(a)
0

0.01
1

10
Maximum tsunami height (m)

0

100

2

4

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Inundation depth (m)Figure 10 . (a) Comparison between the tsunami fatality ratio from this event and from other historical events inJapan and the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and (b) damaged condition of an RC building, two-story
wooden house and one-story wooden house under the same inundation depth of 4 m in Ishinomaki(26/4/2011)27

A. SUPPASRI, A. MUHARI, P. RANASINGHE, E. MAS, N. SHUTO, F. IMAMURA, S. KOSHIMURA

ai city had high tsunami awareness due to the Miyagi
earthquake, which had an estimated magnitude of approximately 7.5-8.0. Many tsunami countermeasures,such as evacuation drills and hazard maps, were implemented among coastal residents. Arahama primaryschool was the only tsunami evacuation building near
the Sendai coast before the 2011 tsunami because theestimated tsunami inundation area was located onlyaround the Tenzan canal, extending approximately
500 m inland. However, the 2011 tsunami generated by the M9.0 earthquake caused a larger tsunami
height and wider inundation area than expected. The
tsunami inundated an area reaching approximately 5
km inland, causing a wide range of damage to Sendai. The Sendai-East expressway helped to protect
against the tsunami by chance in some areas because
the expressway was situated perpendicular to thetsunami inundation direction. After the tsunami, thecity created a new tsunami evacuation map separating the region into two areas (Fig. 11). The first area,
situated from the coast to the prefecture road, is being
raised to 6 m above ground level, and the second area
extends over the inundation area of the 2011 tsunami(Sendai city, 2011). Sendai’s new tsunami hazard
map is shown in Fig. 11. The older tsunami hazard

map based on the Miyagi earthquake, which was
located next to Arahama beach, was found after the2011 tsunami with the damage shown in Fig 12a. A
paper saying “Please do not remove this” was later attached to the map, indicating a need to maintain it asa memorial, but the sign was finally removed during asite visit in late March 2012. A memorial for tsunami
victims was later constructed near the seawall and theold tsunami hazard map at Arahama beach (Fig 12b).
4.2 Arahama primary school
The changes to the condition of Arahama primary school over several visits are shown in Fig. 13. The
first visit to Arahama primary school was on April
16th, about one month after the tsunami. At that time,large amounts of debris were found below the second
floor, including sandy soil from around the school.
Small changes were observed during a visit on May
29th as the asphalt was revealed and some of the debris
removed. On July 25th, most of the debris inside theschool had been removed and the interior was being
cleaned. Open space in front of the school was now
being used as a temporary space for damaged motorcycles that the government could not demolish before
obtaining permission from the motorcycles’ owners.

Area 2

Area 1High way

Prefecture road

Figure 11. New tsunami hazard map in Sendai
28

DAMAGE AND RECONSTRUCTION AFTER THE 2004 INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI AND THE 2011 GREAT EAST JAPAN TSUNAMI

(a)

(b)

Figure 12. (a) Coastal adventure park office (18/1/2012) and (b) Namiwake shrine (18/1/2012)

Figure 13. Arahama primary school on April 16th (upper-left), May 29th (upper-right), July 25th (lower-left), andSeptember 2nd (lower-right)

A message saying, “Thank you for your large afford”
was also found in the fourth floor. On September 2nd,
fences were erected in front of the school prohibiting
people from entering the school grounds.

4.3 Wakabayashi ward
A coastal adventure park in this ward is now
part of a tsunami evacuation area in the ward’s newly
revised tsunami evacuation map because the 2011
tsunami did not reach the top of the park. Information
29

A. SUPPASRI, A. MUHARI, P. RANASINGHE, E. MAS, N. SHUTO, F. IMAMURA, S. KOSHIMURA

about the tsunami’s inundation was gathered inside
the tourist information office of the park, including
the inundation line, the tsunami’s height around thepark and pictures before and after the tsunami (Fig.
14a). A nursing home that evacuated all of its elderly
residents to the primary school before the tsunami
was demolished. The Namiwake shrine gained fameafter the 1611 tsunami because the tsunami stopped
just in front of the shrine’s original location. Due to alarge number of visitors after the 2011 tsunami event,
the shrine finally posted a sign in August 2011 giving
information about the shrine’s legend (Fig. 14 b).

15a). New electricity lines have been observed near
the Sendai airport (Fig. 15b). A park in the Sendai
port with an elevation of 10 m survived the 5-m-hightsunami. The park grounds were being used for theconstruction of temporary houses for disaster-affected
residents during a visit in April 2011. However, thegrounds were then covered in debris in January 2012
(Fig. 16). One of the reasons for this is that disasteraffected residents did not want to live near the sea
and had transportation problems when living in thisarea. An example of an area affected by multiple disasters is Matsushima town (Fig. 17). The water markfrom the 2011 Great East Japan tsunami in March
was located approximately 0.4 m from ground level.
Another water mark was found at the same locationfrom the Roke typhoon (Typhoon No. 15) that attacked most prefectures in central and northeast Japanon September 22nd, 2011. Coastal residents evacuated

4.4 Other areas
Concrete stairs were built along the SendaiEast expressway, which is located approximately 5km from the sea, because many people survived byclimbing onto the expressway during the tsunami (Fig.

(a)

(b)

Figure 14. (a) Coastal adventure park office (18/1/2012) and (b) Namiwake shrine (18/1/2012)

(a)

(b)

Figure 15. (a) Staircase built for access to the surface of the Sendai-East expressway (25/1/2012) and (b) new
electricity line (26/3/2012)30

DAMAGE AND RECONSTRUCTION AFTER THE 2004 INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI AND THE 2011 GREAT EAST JAPAN TSUNAMI

(a)

(b)

Figure 16. Condition of the elevated park at Sendai port (a) after one month (14/4/2011) and (b) after 10 months(25/1/2012)

Figure 17. Water mark of the Great East Japan tsunami on March 11th, 2011 and Typhoon Roke (Typhoon No.
15) on September 22nd, 2011 (20/11/2011)a second time just half a year after the great tsunami.
Heavy rainfall also caused landslides in the tsunamiaffected areas near temporary shelters on high groundor near mountains. This experience taught researchers that more than one disaster may occur at the sametime, and integrated disaster mitigation and management of future events is crucial.

and transported numerous tetrapods inland, including
the boulder mentioned (Fig. 18). This boulder is 3.5 mhigh, 6 m long, 4 m wide and weighs approximately
143 tons. According to the local news, the boulder,which was originally located near the water gate (approximately 300 m from sea), destroyed 6 out of 7houses it hit and killed 3 out of the 6 people in its path
(Iwate Nippo, 2011).

5. FUTURE TSUNAMI DISASTER MEMORIAL ALONG THE TOHOKU COAST

5.2 Sakura line 311: Rikuzen-Takata city
Rikuzen-Takata city was famous for its “TakataMatsubara” or coastal pine tree forest. The 2011 tsunami severely destroyed the stand of approximately
70,000 pine trees, and only one tree survived. The
uprooted trees also became floating debris, increasing damage to the city. Rikuzen-Takata has a plan to

5.1 Tsunami boulder: Taro-Settai area,
Miyako city
After the tsunami, a massive boulder was foundapproximately 750 m inland. A 28-m-high tsunami
overtopped and destroyed a water gate near the sea
31

A. SUPPASRI, A. MUHARI, P. RANASINGHE, E. MAS, N. SHUTO, F. IMAMURA, S. KOSHIMURA

Figure 18. Massive boulder that was moved approximately 450 m by the tsunami in the Taro-Settai area
(9/11/2011)

replant the pine tree as its city symbol in a memorial
park. Another interesting project is called “Sakuraline 311” (Sakura line 311, 2011), which consists ofplanting Sakura trees every 10 m along the 1.7-kmlong inundation line (Kahoku Shinpo, 2011). Approximately 17,000 trees will be required and will
become a new symbol of the city to promote tourism
and show people a clear image of the tsunami hazard
map at the same time. The reconstruction plan for thecity also includes a disaster memorial park.

a plan to keep one large stranded fishing boat as amemorial of the 2011 event (Fig. 19a). The tsunami
inundation mark was also recorded in the tsunami
evacuation building one year later (Fig. 19b) next to
the tsunami evacuation mark that had already been
there before the 2011 event. The city’s fish market has
already recovered after one year.
5.4 Disaster memorial park: Minami-Sanriku
town
Minami-Sanriku was one of the most tsunamiaware communities in the Tohoku region. The town
suffered from many historical tsunami events in thepast, including the 1896 Meiji-Sanriku, 1933 ShowaSanriku, and 1960 Chile tsunamis, so massive structures including tsunami gates and seawalls werealready in place. However, the 2011 tsunami was toolarge and destroyed all of the town’s disaster facilities. Minami-Sanriku has a plan to construct newdisaster prevention facilities on two levels. The first

5.3 Stranded fishing boat and tsunami
inundation mark: Kesennuma city
This city was damaged significantly, not onlyby the fluid force of the 2011 tsunami but also by the
many fishing boats that became debris and the explosion of an oil tank that lit the city on fire for a few
days. Kesennuma organized a contest to collect ideas
from universities, companies and individuals about
the city’s reconstruction. After one year, the city has

(b)

(a)

Figure 19. (a) Large fishing boat transported inland by the tsunami in 2011 (29/4/2012), and (b) 2011 tsunami
inundation mark that was put in a damaged tsunami evacuation building (29/4/2012)32

DAMAGE AND RECONSTRUCTION AFTER THE 2004 INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI AND THE 2011 GREAT EAST JAPAN TSUNAMI

level is for the events with short recurrences, similar
to historical events in the town’s memory, and thesecond level is for large tsunamis with long return
periods, such as the 2011 tsunami (Minami-Sanriku
town, 2011). For this reason, one of the town’s projects is to spread lessons learned and folklore, which
includes the founding of a prayer and memorial park,
museum, disaster record, disaster prevention day andthe employment of a storyteller.

5.6 Large fish oil tank: Ishinomaki city
Unlike communities along the Sanriku coast,
Ishinomaki had comparatively low tsunami damage
from historical tsunamis. Thus, many factories located in Ishinomaki city did not have proper mitigation plans, and most of them were seriously affectedby the tsunami. Among these, a giant fish oil storagetank 11 m high and 9 m in diameter was moved approximately 300 m from its original location by thetsunami (Yomiuri Shinbun, 2011), as shown in Fig.
22a. The tank can be clearly seen by people passing
through the area, but it has been moved to a different
place because it was blocking traffic. Some residents
would like to preserve it as a monument to remind thecommunity of the tsunami, and the city has a plan tomake it a disaster memorial. In late March, it seemedthat the city was planning to incorporate it in a memorial park (Fig. 22b)、however apparently the idea was
not fully supported by residents and finally the city
decided to remove the tank.

5.5 Overturned building memorial andtsunami inundation mark: Onagawa town
Memorable damage from the 2011 tsunami included the overturned buildings in Onagawa. Six 2-4
story reinforced concrete (RC) buildings with pilefoundations collapsed (Fig. 20). This type of structural damage is uncommon during tsunami events insuch buildings, and has become a topic of study forthe structural design of RC and/or evacuation buildings. The town would like to preserve some of thosebuildings as a memorial to educate people about atsunami’s power and its massive impact on the town
(Onagawa town, 2011). At present, the town has decided to keep three buildings: the police station, acommercial building and an organization building.
After one year, the tsunami inundation mark was recorded in front of the Onagawa hospital (Fig. 21a),and the fish market is now recovered (Fig. 21b).

E

F

D

HospitalB

5.7 New seawall construction and tsunami
inundation mark: Shiogama city andMatsushima town
Most of the tsunami-affected areas designed
higher seawall after the tsunami. Some have a plan
to increase the height to be equal to the height ofthe 2011 tsunami, while others do not and some arechanging the seawalls less drastically. Shiogama city

C

A

(a)

(b)

Figure 20. (a) Area map of Onagawa and location of its six overturned buildings A through F (6/4/2011), and (b)example of an overtopped building being saved for a memorial park (Building C) (29/3/2011)33

A. SUPPASRI, A. MUHARI, P. RANASINGHE, E. MAS, N. SHUTO, F. IMAMURA, S. KOSHIMURA

(a)

(b)

Figure 21. (a) Tsunami inundation mark (16/3/2012) and (b) fish market in Onagawa (16/3/2012)

(a)

(b)

Figure 22. Large fish oil tank in Ishinomaki (a) after one month (15/4/2011) and (b) after one year (26/3/2012)
and Matsushima town are located inside a bay area
and were protected by almost 300 small islands in thewater. As a result, only 4-m and 2-m tsunamis wereobserved in the two locations. The sign in Fig. 23a on
the left shows the planned height of 2.7 m for a newseawall in Shiogama. Markings at 3.3 m and 4.3 m
are also shown to give citizens some idea of other tsunami heights. Matsushima is famous as a sightseeing
area due to the above mentioned islands, and tsunami
inundation marks at 2.1 m were built in some areas
over the original 1-m-high seawall (Fig. 23b).

A small 6-m-high hill was situated in the flat plainof this fishing village. A shrine built at the top of thehill was washed away by the approximately 8-m-high2011 tsunami (Fig. 24a). A warning message abouttsunamis after earthquakes and a memorial for the1933 Showa Sanriku tsunami (saying that the tsunami
arrived after 40 min with a height of 3 m) was foundbelow the shrine (Fig. 24b). The city has plans toreconstruct the shrine as a memorial symbol of thedisaster, as well as other projects such as records ofthe damage, lessons learned and a new exchange program for volunteering, research or study focusing on
disaster prevention (Natori city, 2011). A tsunami inundation mark was placed on a column in a pedestrian
bridge that saved many lives during the tsunami (Fig.
25)

5.8 Disaster memorial shrine and tsunami
inundation mark: Yuriage village
Yuriage, located in Natori city, was one of the
populated areas in Miyagi prefecture where tsunami
videos and damage were reported just after the event.
34

DAMAGE AND RECONSTRUCTION AFTER THE 2004 INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI AND THE 2011 GREAT EAST JAPAN TSUNAMI

(b)

(a)
Figure 23. (a) Sign showing new seawall level to be constructed in Shiogama (12/5/2012) and (b) tsunami
inundation mark in Matsushima (12/5/2012)

(b)

(a)
Figure 24. (a) Small shrine preserved as a disaster symbol in Yuriage (18/1/2012), and (b) tsunami memorialstone saying “If earthquake happens, beware of tsunami” (18/1/2012)

(a)

(b)

Figure 25. (a) Pedestrian bridge that saved many lives in Yuriage (30/5/2012) and (b) tsunami inundation markapproximately 2.1 m above ground level (30/5/2012)35

A. SUPPASRI, A. MUHARI, P. RANASINGHE, E. MAS, N. SHUTO, F. IMAMURA, S. KOSHIMURA

5.9 Tsunami inundation mark: Sendai airport
The Sendai airport covers area in Natori and
Iwanuma cities and is located about one kilometerfrom the coast. Though the airport was protected bycoastal seawalls and a 10-m-high control forest, thesemeasures were insufficient and the tsunami inundated
the first floor of the airport terminal. The airport was
reopened one month after the tsunami for a limited
number of domestic flights. There are two marks
showing the inundation depth of the 2011 event on afirst floor column, and some tsunami-related activities
are on display near the arrival lobby (Fig. 26a). In addition, the Sendai airport train line reopened its service
after seven months and used space near its entrance topresent pictures of the earthquake and tsunami damage to the train lines and stations (Fig. 26b). Unfortunately, the displays were removed by late March.

5.10 Hill of thousand years hope: Iwanuma
city
Iwanuma was one of the cities with a coastal pinetree forest along its coast linked from the northernpart of Miyagi prefecture. However, the greenbelt was
heavily damaged, and the city has plans to replant it.
Iwanuma’s seawall was also severely damaged, and atemporary seawall was constructed using innumerable
sand bags (Fig. 27a). The city has an idea to construct
an artificial hill, the height of which varies from 1015 m, using tsunami debris (Fig. 27b). The purpose of
the hill, called the “Hill of thousand years hope,” is tocreate a memorial park and evacuation site for future
tsunamis (Iwanuma city, 2011). This hill will also
help the new seawall to reduce a tsunami’s energy before it reaches the populated area behind it. The town
has plans to use solar energy on a large scale as part

Inundation mark

Tsunami activity panels

(a)

(b)

Figure 26. (a) Tsunami inundation mark in the Sendai airport and (b) display of tsunami damage in the Sendai
airport train station (25/1/2012)

(a)

(b)

Figure 27. (a) Temporary seawall (25/1/2012) and (b) management of debris (25/1/2012)

36

DAMAGE AND RECONSTRUCTION AFTER THE 2004 INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI AND THE 2011 GREAT EAST JAPAN TSUNAMI

of an eco-compact city project.

It is clear that experience and evacuation helped
reduce tsunami death rates in the coastal areas along
the ria coasts of Miyagi and Iwate prefectures. Thisshows the importance of educating for disaster prevention because people who live along the Sanriku
coast have a higher tsunami awareness and better
evacuation strategies than other populations. Overturned buildings in Onagawa could be an example ofa tsunami memorial park that would help warn people
in future generations about major tsunamis withreturn periods much longer than a human lifespan.
The selection of proper tsunami evacuation locations
should be reconsidered in some locations because theexperiences in Minami-Sanriku town and Onagawa
town show that about half of the tsunami evacuation
shelters in those locations were inundated, leading toa great loss of life.
Another important issue raised by the 2011 tsunami was the loss of many firefighters working on
the call of duty when closing tsunami gates. The sea
observation team, as introduced in the case of Thailand, could be an interesting alternative. However it
might be risky for the team members since tsunami
phenomena does not always start by receding waves.
It is possible that the first phase of tsunami would be
the positive wave and immediately attack the coastal
area. Consequently, such sea observation teams are
not a highly recommended alternative; instead thesame outcome can be obtained through surveillancecameras near the coast.
RC structures are still preferable for protecting
against tsunamis. It is necessary to find a balance between a light structure such as wood to reduce shear
forces due to earthquakes, and a stronger structuresuch as RC that can resist hydrodynamic forces froma tsunami. One suggestion from the survey results isthat because a wooden house is fragile at inundation
depths of 2-3 m, the best house to build along thecoast in the future is probably a structure with RC in
the lower floor to protect against tsunami forces andwood in the upper floors to protect against earthquake
forces.
Japan is well known for its advanced tsunami disaster prevention knowledge, but it also suffered great
losses from the 2011 Great East Japan tsunami. Similar to the countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami, Japan has plans to construct memorial parks
and museums using floating debris and damaged

6. Conclusions and recommendations
M9.0-class earthquakes occurred twice in the last
seven years: in 2004 in the Indian Ocean and in 2011
off the Pacific coast of the Tohoku region in Japan.
Both of these earthquakes resulted in huge tsunamis
but had different impact scales. The 2004 tsunami wasa near-field and far-field tsunami that propagated toall 15 countries located along the Indian Ocean coasts.
This paper introduced examples of tsunami recovery
from the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Indonesia, Sri
Lanka and Thailand. Because it was the first historically and instrumentally recorded event in the region,
many tsunami activities have been performed since
it occurred. Some of these include the constructionof tsunami evacuation buildings, tsunami memorialparks and tsunami museums. On the other hand, the2011 near-field tsunami caused devastating damage
concentrated in Japan and had a comparatively small
impact on other countries in Pacific coastal areas.
Recent technology has made it possible to build
massive structures such as breakwaters and seawallsthat can fully protect against 500-1,000-year return
period tsunamis, but these structures are impracticalin terms of budget and time. Nevertheless, the scaleof damage and loss can be reduced by implementing
proper structural design and land use management
techniques. New design methodologies for stronger
and more stable coastal structures should be developed. However, these structures may reduce thetsunami awareness of residents by leading them to believe that the structure fully protects them rather thansimply reducing damage; an example of this thinking
occurred in Taro town. The scenery of an area should
also be considered when contemplating the construction of high seawalls.
Some locations, such as Iwanuma city andRikuzen-Takata city, decided to replant their damaged
control forests. However, although there are plans
for replanting the control forest in Rikuzen-Takata
as a memorial park, there are still issues to be considered, such as the budget and organization of thosein charge, and there is some opposition to this idea
because the forests increased tsunami damage impact
when they turned into debris flow during the 2011
event.
37

A. SUPPASRI, A. MUHARI, P. RANASINGHE, E. MAS, N. SHUTO, F. IMAMURA, S. KOSHIMURA

structures as symbol to recall events and advocate
tsunami awareness among coastal residents. Other
ideas, such as the “Sakura line 311” plan for planting
Sakura trees along the tsunami inundation line andthe “Hill of thousand years hope” that will make useof tsunami debris to build an artificial tsunami escapehill, lead Japan toward the next stage of tsunami disaster prevention. A major difference setting Japanapart from other countries is that it has a longer andricher history of tsunami experience and culture than,for example, Southeast Asian countries.
A good example of this culture is a festival in
the Wakayama prefecture that celebrates a real story
called “Inamura no Hi.” The story originated fromthe Nankai tsunami in 1854. The town leader, Hamaguchi, knew that it would be difficult to convince
people to evacuate away from the tsunami. Therefore,
he set fire to his own rice straw and asked people tohelp him extinguish the fire (in Japanese, “inamura”
means rice straw and “hi” means fire). All of the town
residents came to help him and were saved from thehuge tsunami that destroyed the rest of the village.
Hamaguchi became a hero in the village and spent
his own money to construct a seawall, which later
helped protect the town from the 1944 Tonankai and1946 Nankai tsunamis. In memory of this event, local residents, especially children, help pile dirt on theseawall’s earthen embankment and strengthen theirtsunami awareness every year. Japan can adapt its
own knowledge, for example, by using shrine as atsunami storyteller, employing cutting-edge technology to construct a massive structural countermeasure
and creating media to promote awareness, such as
tsunami videos, numerical simulations and hazard
maps. These measures will help Japan reconstructtowns affected by tsunamis and also be ready for the
next tsunami. In addition, because of this vast knowledge which is updating with number of tsunami event,Japan could play an important role as a leader of tsunami preparedness and awareness country

nian tsunami risk modeling and mapping project andthe Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology (MEXT). The authors greatly appreciate questions and comments from reviewers that
helped to improve the manuscript.
References:
Iwanuma city, 2011. Reconstruction plan home page
http://www.city.iwanuma.miyagi.jp/kakuka/kurasi/seikatu/
matidukuri/untitled112.html (in Japanese)
Iwate Nippo newspaper, 2011:
http://www.iwate-np.co.jp/311shinsai/fukkoplan/
plan110926.html
Kahoku Shinpo newspaper, 2011:
http://www.kahoku.co.jp/spe/spe_sys1062/20111107_03.
htm
Minami-Sanriku town, 2011. Reconstruction plan homepage
http://www.town.minamisanriku.miyagi.jp/modules/
gyousei/index.php?content_id=388 (in Japanese)
Miyagi Prefecture, 2011. Earthquake damage information
http://www.pref.miyagi.jp/kikitaisaku/higasinihondaisinsai/
higaizyoukyou.htm
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)(2011), Historical Tsunami Database at NGDC, www.
ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/tsu_db.shtml
Natori city, 2011. Reconstruction plan home page
http://www.city.natori.miyagi.jp/news/node_14153 (in Japanese)
Onagawa town, 2011. Reconstruction plan home page
http://www.town.onagawa.miyagi.jp/hukkou/index.html (inJapanese)
Sakura line 311: http://sakura-line311.org/ (in Japanese)
Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, 2011. Estimation of number of populationand household in tsunami inundated area
http://www.stat.go.jp/info/shinsai/index.htm (in Japanese)
Sendai city. 2011. Reconstruction plan home page
http://www.city.sendai.jp/fukko/1201143_2757.html (inJapanese)Acknowledgements:

Suppasri, A., Koshimura, S. and Imamura, F., 2011. Developing tsunami fragility curves based on the satellite re-This research was partly funded by the Tokio
Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. throughthe International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS) at Tohoku University, the Willis Research Network (WRN) under the Pan-Asian/Ocea-

mote sensing and the numerical modeling of the 2004
Indian Ocean tsunami in Thailand, Natural Hazards
and Earth System Sciences, 11, 173–189.
Suppasri, A., Koshimura, S., Imai, K., Mas, E., Gokon, H.,
Muhari, A. and Imamura, F., 2012a. Damage charac-

38

DAMAGE AND RECONSTRUCTION AFTER THE 2004 INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI AND THE 2011 GREAT EAST JAPAN TSUNAMI

teristic and field survey of the 2011 Great East Japanevacuation in Japan, Pure and Applied Geophysics (intsunami in the Miyagi prefecture, Coastal Engineeringpress)

Journal, 54(1), Special Issue of 2011 Tohoku tsunami

The 2011 Tohoku Earthquake Tsunami Joint Survey Group,

Suppasri, A., Mas, E., Koshimura, S., Imai, K., Harada, K.

2011. Nationwide Field Survey of the 2011 Off the Pa-

and Imamura, F., 2012b. Developing tsunami fragil-

cific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake Tsunami, Journal of

ity curves from the surveyed data of the 2011Great

Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Series B, Vol. 67 (1)East Japan tsunami in Sendai and Ishinomaki plains,pp.63-66.
Yamashita, F., 2008a. Tsunami and disaster prevention-San-

Coastal Engineering Journal, 54(1), Special Issue ofriku tsunami, Kokon-Shoin publishing, 158 p, ISBN-2011 Tohoku tsunami

13: 978-4772241175 (in Japanese)

Suppasri, A., Shuto, S., Imamura, F., Koshimura, S., Mas, E.

Yomiuri Shinbun newspaper, 2011:

and Yalciner, A. C., 2012c. Lessons learned from the2011 Great East Japan tsunami: Performance of tsu-

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/feature/20110316-866918/

nami countermeasures, coastal buildings and tsunami

news/20111127-OYT1T00791.htm (in Japanese)39