Report of the

APRU-IRIDeS

Multi-Hazards Program

2017 Summer SchoolReport of the APRU-IRIDeS Multi-Hazards Program
2017 Summer School

18-21 July 2017
Tohoku University
Sendai, Japan

IRIDeS, Tohoku University
Regional and Urban Reconstruction Division468-1-S401 Aoba, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai
980-8572 Japan
www. irides.tohoku.ac.jp/

The APRU International Secretariat
IAS Building, 3/F
3019, HKUST, Clear Water Bay, HONG KONG
www.apru.org

Cover：designed by kjpargeter/Freepik

Edited by
Takako Izumi (Associate Professor, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)
Mariko Onodera (Administrative Assistant, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)

2

CONTENTS● Background....................................................................................................................... 5● Opening remarks.............................................................................................................. 7● Presentations..................................................................................................................... 11● Group work discussion..................................................................................................... 37● Field trip............................................................................................................................ 43
Annex I..................................................................................................................................... 48
Annex II................................................................................................................................... 50

Background

Background

The 5th APRU Multi-Hazards Summer School was held at Tohoku University on 18-21 July

2017. Nearly 40 participants from 10 countries participated in the event to learn the lessonslearnt and experience from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, the recovery
efforts in the affected areas and discuss the contribution of academia in the implementationof the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR).

The Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) is a network of 49 premier research

universities from 16 economies around the Pacific Rim. The International Research Instituteof Disaster Science (IRIDeS) in Tohoku University was established in April 2012 as a new

integrated interdisciplinary research team aiming at conducting world leading research on
natural disaster science and disaster mitigation leaning from and building upon past lessons

in disaster management from Japan and around the world. IRIDeS also provides secretariat
services as the regional program hub to the MH Program.

The APRU-IRIDeS Multi-Hazards (MH) Program was established in April 2013. The Pacific
Rim region has high risks to natural disasters and the universities and research institutes
in the region are expected to contribute to reducing disaster vulnerability and risks andstrengthening disaster management capacity to tackle these challenges. The Program aims toharness the collective capabilities of APRU universities for cutting-edge research on disasterrisk reduction (DRR) as well as contribute to international policy making processes on DRR.
The Summer School is one of the key activities under the MH Program.
⃝⃝⃝

The key activities of the MH Program include:
Organization of the annual summer school

Organization of the annual APRU MH Symposium

Foster collaboration in disaster research and information/data sharing between APRU

universities⃝ Contribute to DRR discussions at international and regional levels and to a policy making
process.

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) adopted at the UN World

Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction held in Sendai, Japan in March 2015 emphasized theimportance of the role of academia in focusing on the disaster risk factors, increase research
for regional, natural and local application, support action by local communities and support

the interface between policy and science for decision-making. It is extremely important for
academia to work with different stakeholders to play such key roles. This summer school

is designed to learn from the experience of local government, NGO as well as academia andinclude the lectures not only from the natural science aspect but also the social science5

aspect to enable the participants to understand the diversified elements of DRR. The IRIDeS

continues to host the MH program and contribute to strengthening the disaster science
research and contribute to discussions at international and regional levels to make an
influence on DRR strategy and policy in the region.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
IRIDeS as the main organizer of this summer school would like to extend a sincere

appreciation to the participants and speakers from different sectors who shared wonderfulexperiences and knowledge regarding DRR issues from different perspectives. Theirinvolvement and participation made a great contribution to the success of this event. In

addition, IRIDeS received tremendous support from the APRU secretariat based in Hong
Kong as well as Tohoku University. The organizer is also grateful for valuable suggestions

and advices provided by the faculty members of IRIDeS on the program development andplanning.

Lastly but not least, this summer school was never implemented without hard works

and considerable support by the International Exchange Division of Tohoku University, theAdministrative Office of IRIDeS, and the International and Domestic Liaison Office of IRIDeS.

6

OPENING REMARKSProf. Susumu Satomi
President of Tohoku University

It is a great pleasure for me to welcome you to Tohoku University for “APRU-IRIDeS MultiHazards Summer School Program”.

It has been already 6 years since the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami happened

on March 11, 2011. Due to the warm support from all over the world, the recovery efforts

have greatly progressed. Tohoku University has been also playing an important role in therecovery process. You will visit Onagawa town on 20 July as a field trip and can see theirrecovery efforts. I hope this summer school will give you an opportunity to consider anddiscuss what we can do to strengthen the disaster risk reduction capacity.

The establishment of the International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS)

under Tohoku University is one of our commitments to share our knowledge and experiences
globally. IRIDeS also launched the Multi-Hazards Program together with APRU in April 2013.

Since then, IRIDeS became the program hub and coordinates the program activities. Thissummer school is one of the major events under the Multi-Hazards Program.

In March 2015, the UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction was held in Sendai.

More than 10,000 (ten thousand) people participated in this event. Tohoku University
made significant contributions to this Conference by participating in its preparation andorganizing many events. At the end of the Conference, “the Sendai Framework for Disaster

Risk Reduction” was adopted. It will be a guideline for the implementation of disasterrisk reduction in the next 15 years. I expect that you will discuss universities’ role andcontribution in its implementation process during this Summer School.

After the World Conference, Tohoku University established the Global Center for

Disaster Statistics in collaboration with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

The objectives of the Center include: developing national systems of disaster statistics
and monitoring disaster reduction targets and indicators of the Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction. Also, the World Bosai Forum will be organized in November 2017

in Sendai to share good practices and knowledge on disaster risk reduction and to discuss
the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction with various
stakeholders.

To conclude, I would like to thank the APRU secretariat for their kind support andcooperation. I wish you every success for this summer school program. Thank you.

8Prof. Fumihiko Imamura
Director, Prof. of Tsunami Engineering, IRIDeS, Tohoku University

Good Morning distinguished guests, President Satomi, Christina from the APRU International
Secretariat, dear speakers, and participants. I am Fumihiko Imamura, the Director of

IRIDeS and a professor of Tsunami Engineering. As you know, in 2011, the Great East Japan

Opening remarks

Earthquake and Tsunami caused huge damages in the Tohoku region. In addition to that,after that tsunami, fires and the nuclear accident in Fukushima occurred. It was a series ofdisasters that nobody had experienced before. The experience and lessons learnt from the2011 disaster have to be shared widely in order to contribute to preventing future disasterdamage.

Just one year after 2011, Tohoku University established a new research institute andnamed it International Research Institute of Disaster Sciences (IRIDeS). After the new

IRIDeS building was established, various events were organized such as the APRU multihazards summer schools and other workshops, inviting many researchers and professors tostrengthen international collaborations.

Two years ago, in 2015, the United Nations World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction

was held in Sendai. It brought more than 150,000 participants, including the public. At

the conference, disaster issues as well as development and climate change issues werediscussed. These three phenomena are very serious threats and are important issues in the

global agenda under the strategy of United Nations. As a result of this conference, the Sendai

Framework for DRR was adopted, becoming the international DRR strategy for the next 15
years.

This year, our summer school celebrates its fifth year. The summer school has been an

opportunity to share experiences from the 2011 disaster and discuss what we can do to
mitigate future disaster risks. We should have in-depth knowledge and experience in DRR toprevent disaster damage. Nevertheless, in the beginning of this month, the Kyushu region, inthe southern part of Japan, was hit by heavy rains that caused landslides. As a consequence,
approximately 30 people were killed. This damage was caused by unpredictable weather andalso a lack of risk management. Including such experience, the lessons we have learnt need

to be shared with different stakeholders such as local government, the private sector, NGOs,

and academia. In the summer school, speakers and lecturers are invited from these different
sectors.

I wish you will have a good experience with us, learn various things, and gain

opportunities to think about future disaster mitigation through this summer school. Thankyou very much for your participation and I hope this will lead to further collaborations.

9Ms. Christina Schönleber
Director (Policy & Programs), International Secretariat,
Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU)

Dear President Satomi, EVP Ueki, Professor Imamura, distinguished speakers, colleagues andparticipants.

It truly is a pleasure for me on behalf of Secretary General Chris Tremewan and the

APRU International Secretariat to welcome researchers, students, government officials andpractitioners from Japan and across the Asia Pacific region to this 5th Annual MH Summer

School hosted by Tohoku University’s International Research Institute of Disaster Science,
IRIDeS here at Sendai.

Sendai has been subject to several major earthquakes, most recently the Great East Japan

Earthquake. Following this devastation Sendai has stood out for its resilience and expertise in
rapid restoration of utilities, roads and homes.

APRU are thus very proud that the International Research Institute of Disaster Science

here at Tohoku University, is the host and convener of the APRU Multi Hazard Program Huband as part of this organizes and hosts this annual Summer School. The aim of the APRU MH

Hub is to harness the research capabilities in DRR of APRU member universities around thePacific Rim with the aim to address the shared threats of earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons
and other natural disasters that threaten this region. Over the past 4 years our colleagues

from the Multi Hazard Program Hub, led by Fumihiko Imamura, coordinated by Associate

Professor Takao Izumi and supported by its international Advisory Group have greatly
contribute to shaping the international decision and policy making process for DRR.

APRU consider Capacity building a key objective of this process including informing future

leaders about key challenges of the Asia-Pacific region to guide their thinking how to addressthese through research, policy development and on the ground impact. This MH Summer
School, is a very important activity for doing just that; informing and guiding you the future
leaders of the region by sharing latest knowledge and insights from the perspective of all

stakeholders engaged in DRR. For this reason, I am really happy to see so many participants
coming together from all over the region to engage and learn from this Summer School.

To conclude I would like to thank Tohoku University and IRIDeS for their dedication andexpertise in continuing to develop the MH Program and achieving such far reaching impact.
I wish you all a successful and highly engaging week.

10

PRESENTATIONSInternational DRR Policy Making at the United
Nations
Yuichi Ono
Professor, IRIDeS, Tohoku University

In 2005, Japan hosted the United Nations World Conference on DRR (WCDRR) where the Hyogo

Framework for Action (HFA) was adopted by 168 countries. After 10 years, in 2015, another WCDRR washeld in Sendai, Japan, and the Sendai Framework for DRR (SFDRR) was adopted by 187 countries. The
SFDRR includes four priorities for action:
Priority 1. Understanding disaster risk

Priority 2. Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk
Priority 3. Investing in DRR for resilience

Priority 4. Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery,
rehabilitation and reconstruction.

In addition, the new elements were included in the SFDRR as global targets.

a.	Substantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030, aiming to lower average per 100,000 global
mortalities between 2020-2030 compared to 2005-2015.

b.	Substantially reduce the number of affected people globally by 2030, aiming to lower the average global
figure per 100,000 between 2020-2030 compared to 2005-2015.

c. Reduce direct disaster economic loss in relation to global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030.

d.	Substantially reduce disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services, among
them health and educational facilities, including through developing their resilience by 2030.

e.	Substantially increase the number of countries with national and local disaster risk reduction strategies
by 2020.

f.	Substantially enhance international cooperation to developing countries through adequate andsustainable support to complement their national actions for implementation of this framework by2030.

g.	Substantially increase the availability of and access to multi-hazard early warning systems and disasterrisk information and assessments to the people by 2030.

To measure the progress of the SFDRR implementation, it is crucial to set targets and to have an accurate
estimate of disaster damage and loss data. In the current situation, some of the participating countries
do not have a disaster data-collection system to collect, archive, analyze, and use the disaster damage

and loss data and, therefore, might not be equipped with the same for a long period. Therefore, there aremany policies that have not been developed based on accurate disaster data. Specifically, data on smallscale disasters are missing. In the SFDRR, the member countries are expected to report the progress of
the SFDRR implementation to the UN; the government requires the disaster damage and loss data and its
system to be developed in order to compile a report. In the process, the academia, science, and technology

communities can also provide the government with support for analyzing the data and developing
recommendations.
12Presentations

13

Social and media interests on basic propertiesof tsunami andremaining issues on tsunami
warning and evacuation
Anawat Suppasuri
Associate Professor, IRIDeS, Tohoku University

There were many improvements after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami such as new
ideas of tsunami classification (Level 1 & 2), new design guideline for coastal defense structures andevacuation buildings, new observation technologies and new warning contents and expressions. However,the 2016 Fukushima earthquake and tsunami was the highest tsunami event since 2011. This tsunami only

caused some damage to marine properties, no damage in inland areas but presented several new issues oftsunami generation mechanism and propagation, as well as of organizational responses such as evacuation
procedures and tsunami dissemination. Several issues related to this tsunami are being explained anddiscussed below.

(1) Despite the earthquake's epicenter located in Fukushima Prefecture, the highest observed tsunami

was in Sendai, Miyagi Prefecture. One main reason for this was because of the fault orientation that was
facing to Sendai. In other words, the tsunami wave energy was spread directly towards coastal areas near
Sendai including wave refraction into Sendai bay. (2) It is commonly understood for ordinary persons

that the first wave of a tsunami is the largest wave, however, the second wave observed at Sendai Port
was the largest wave. In addition to the fault orientation, which focused the tsunami into Sendai Bay,wave reflection and refraction were other contributors. Sendai Bay is a very shallow and wide bay. Dueto this coastal topography, the waves are amplified due to wave shoaling and refraction inside the bay.
Also, superposition of the incoming and reflected waves from the Fukushima coast played a role. (3) A

threshold value of tsunami height for tsunami advisory and tsunami warning is 1 m. In Miyagi Prefecture,

the tsunami threat level was then elevated from “advisory” to “warning” two hours after the earthquake
occurrence because the observed 1.4 m of the second wave. This caused some difficulties to local residents
for such sudden change of the tsunami treat level as well as decision-making due to controversial

evacuation suggestions from the local authorities. This issue raised attention towards revising theevacuation guideline in the future. (4) In general, the tsunami height can be amplified or enlarged up to

2–4 times during the runup process. Based on our preliminary survey, tsunami runup higher than theobserved tsunami wave amplitude of 1.4 m at Sendai Port was measured at several sites. The reasons forsuch high runup are the shape of the port trapping the first wave before the arrival of the second wave,

the tsunami occurred during a flood-tide stage that help pushing the wave inside the port and the existing
gentle sloop that assisted wave runup.

As stated above, although these four issues are basic properties of tsunami that are commonly known

to all tsunami or disaster experts, much attentions were paid by social and media which all issues might
not commonly known for them. Especially the last issue, many people do not understand the difference

between the two types of tsunami measurements, (a) tsunami wave amplitude measured at a tide stationand (b) tsunami runup measured on land. These two types of measurements should not be confused or
directly compared because their definitions are different. Nevertheless, this can be a lesson as the tsunami

runup is higher than the observed tsunami amplitude. Therefore, people should keep this fact in mind and14

should act or evacuate accordingly. Role of medias is very important to also convey such measurement
definition together with other warning related information for safer action against future tsunamis.

Presentations

15

Housing Recovery Six Years after the 2011
Great East Japan Earthquake
Elizabeth Maly
Associate Professor, IRIDeS, Tohoku University

The 3.11 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami was a triple disaster—earthquake, tsunami, andnuclear meltdown—causing devastation in the Tohoku region. The disaster struck and recovery is
occurring within the multiple contexts of society, geography, and disaster history in Japan and the affected
region. 6 years after the disaster, community and housing recovery is underway, but challenges remain.
Ongoing Town and Housing Recovery

Vulnerable to many and frequent disasters, Japan also has established laws, policies and precedents fordisaster recovery. However, the scale of GEJE, and the corresponding recovery was unprecedented, and thenational government created a Reconstruction Agency, and a menu of 40 recovery projects fully fundedby the national government. Municipal governments are responsible for making the recovery plans fortheir towns, choosing from these projects. Most municipal governments’ recovery plans include collective
relocation for disaster mitigation (which includes providing lots for private housing reconstruction as wellas public housing) (Figure 1) and construction of disaster recovery public housing (Figure 2).
More complicated recovery in Fukushima

Because of the nuclear meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, radioactive contamination

has led to long term displacement for evacuees. Compared to Iwate and Miyagi Prefectures, which suffered

the most severe tsunami damage, the situation and challenges faced by evacuees in Fukushima is complex.

In the first few years after the nuclear meltdown, two of the differences that show additional challenges for
Fukushima evacuees are shown in Figure 3.

1) The higher number of “indirect deaths” compared to direct tsunami deaths, reflecting the stress andnegative impact of multiple, prolonged, and uncertain evacuation. 2) The large number of people who

evacuated outside their home prefecture. This leads to more complications to provide and access support.
In addition, since the Japanese government makes a distinction between “official” evacuees (who are fromareas with official evacuation orders) and “voluntary” evacuees (who decided to evacuate away from theirhometowns although these areas have been designated “safe”). As the evacuation zones are revised, people
from these areas will lose their access to government support.

Fukushima Prefecture is in the process of constructing public housing as follows: 2,807 units forearthquake/ tsunami evacuees (95% done as of 2.2017); and 4,890 units for nuclear evacuees (66% done
as of 2.2017) (Source: Fukushima Pref. as of 2.2017)

Overall Characteristics and Challenges for Tohoku Recovery⃝

Recovery in coastal areas of Tohoku faces various challenges, including the fact that the disaster area
is not uniform, but rather made up of large cities and small towns, areas that have merged with othermunicipalities. Adapting standard recovery policies to local conditions was/is difficult.

16

⃝

⃝

S ocially, the Tohoku region was also facing the situation of population aging even more rapidly thanJapan overall; in some places, disaster is speeding up the process, as young people may not move backto former hometowns.

Before the GEJE, many households in the disaster area traditionally lived in large single family

detached homes. It is difficult to rebuild in a similar way on their own, or by using government⃝⃝

especially difficult for elderly residents to adjust to.

The reliance on relocation to high land areas is difficult for many reasons, including the fact that

housing relocation programs do not include any other uses, making it impossible to recreate mixed
use pre-tsunami communities with integrated housing, businesses, and shops.

Large scale investment in infrastructure relocation (mountaintop cutting, land preparation) is

disproportionate to future residential population, the futures of new residential areas may not besustainable in the future.

Presentations⃝

supported housing recovery programs. The resulting change in living environments could beFinally, nuclear contamination means long-term relocation, a globally unprecedented situation withno easy solution.

Figure 1. (left) Recovery planning, which relocates residential uses to highland areas. Residential lots
for private rebuilding by homeowners are provided for sale or rent, as well as Disaster Recovery Public
Housing.

Figure 2. (Right). Public Housing is provided in multi-family apartment style buildings, as will as single
family detached houses in more rural areas such as fishing villages.

Figure 3. Additional challenges for Fukushima

evacuees compared to those from Iwate andMiyagi prefecture are reflected by the higher

number of “indirect deaths” compared to direct

tsunami deaths, and the large number of people
who evacuated outside their home prefecture.

17

Eight Personal Characteristics Associatedwith the Power to Live with Disasters as
Indicated by Survivors of the 2011 Great
East Japan Earthquake Disaster
Motoaki Sugiura
Professor, IDAC/IRIDeS, Tohoku University

People perceive, judge, and behave differently in disasters and in a wide range of other difficult

situations depending on their personal characteristics. The power to live, as captured bycharacteristics that are advantageous for survival in such situations, has thus far been modeled
in arbitrary ways. Conceptualizing such characteristics in more objective ways may be helpful forsystematic preparations for future disasters and life difficulties. Here, we attempted to identify the
major factors of the power to live by summarizing the opinions of survivors of the 2011 Great East

Japan Earthquake disaster. We conducted personal interviews with 78 survivors about their survival
experiences and elicited their opinions about the power to live as relevant to those experiences. We

then incorporated these opinions into a questionnaire that was completed by 1400 survivors. Factor

analysis identified eight factors related to the power to live: leadership, problem solving, altruism,
stubbornness, etiquette, emotional regulation, self-transcendence, and active well-being. All factors
showed significant associations with one or more measures of survival success in the disaster.

Based on this eight-factor framework and using the obtained inventory, we are currently

advancing three frontiers in the science of disaster mitigation and recovery. First, we are pursuing
the possibility of using the inventory as a novel tool for disaster education, exploiting the fact thatthe framework is the ultimate summary of the survival experience. Second, expecting the potentialof the inventory as a tool for measuring personal resources in disaster survival, the relationships

between the factor scores and survival-relevant behavior are under validation in behavioral
experiments. Finally, we are conducting functional neuroimaging studies on each factor to obtain its
process-level understanding, hoping for its inspiring innovative technologies to enhance and utilize
these factors.

18Building Resilience and Social Capital in Disasteraffected Communities
Daisuke Sato
Associate Professor, IRIDeS, Tohoku University

In Japan, there are many old historical documents held by local residents in each local community.

Estimated 200 billion records is one of the historical and cultural characteristic of Japan. Now modernsocial changes have destroyed these old networks, mega-disasters like 3.11 make things worse. Sato's
lecture showed the rescue activities of historical document in the 3.11 disaster area, and the meaning of
this, not only rescue materials themselves, but also as psychosocial support for people.

Presentations

19

20

Role of various stakeholders in disaster risk
reduction
Takako Izumi
Associate Professor, IRIDeS, Tohoku University

The implementation of DRR requires the collaboration of various stakeholders such as governments, UN
agencies, international and regional organizations, the private sector, academia, and communities. Eachstakeholder has an important role to play in its contribution to DRR. The role of academia is stated in the
SFDRR:

1) Focus on the disaster risk factors and scenarios.

2) Increase research for regional, national, and local applications.
3) Support action by local communities and authorities.

Presentations4) Support the interface between policy and science for decision making.

In particular, the third and fourth roles could be challenging for academia. A survey was conducted in 2016
by the UNISDR Asia, Science, Technology, and Academia Advisory Group (ASTAAG) across 11 countries on
the degree of application of science and technology, particularly in the following three areas:
1. Science and technology in decision making.
2. Investment in science and technology.

3. Link of science and technology to people.

The lowest score was in the third area, “Link of science and technology to people.” The results, hence,
implied that science and technology did not have a sufficient link to people and had not been used. To
improve this situation, the International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku University,
has been making efforts especially on the following:1) Education, research, and social contribution.

2) Making the best use of research results for practical actions.

3) Strengthening collaboration with local governments and communities.

It is crucial to remind people that science and technology cannot solve everything as it has limitations. It isalso necessary to address DRR issues as social problems and to develop solutions with a social approach.
This requires academia and universities to reform their thinking while considering their roles.

21

22

Disaster Prevention Learning in Elementary
School after the Great East Japan Earthquake
and Tsunami
Kiyoshi Araake
Principal, Takaya Elementary School in Watari town

After the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, the elementary schools in Miyagi prefecture have been
educating students about DRR from a new perspective.

The basic idea of this education is to teach young children what disaster is, what kind of damages arecaused, and what we can do to mitigate the risks through events and topics familiar to them. The students
also learned about the recent major earthquake in Kumamoto, Japan.

In addition, the students learned about the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami; however, many of

the current elementary school students did not remember the disaster because they were too young when

Presentations

it occurred. Therefore, it is important to provide DRR education as a part of other regular subjects. This
will help students learn both the subject and DRR education in a correlated manner.

For example, a tsunami is called “tsunami” in English, too. Therefore, the students in the fifth andsixth grades learn about tsunamis in their English class, facts such as a tsunami covers a distance of 100
meters in 10 seconds, which is as fast as Olympic runners. It teaches the students that they cannot win

the race against a tsunami, just as they cannot win against a famous Olympic runner. In this way, thestudents can realize that once a tsunami hits, they will get caught in it. In math class, the students compare
30-centimeter rulers to their own bodies to understand how high a 30-centimeter wave is. Even a small

tsunami of 30 centimeters can wash people away. Simultaneously, the students can feel how strong thewater pressure is in their swimming classes during the summer.

In this way, the DRR education can be introduced in regular subjects such as English, math (recognizing

quantity), science (action of water), and social studies (geography and Japanese constitution).

Furthermore, besides DRR education, some emotionally stirring stories regarding the disaster are sharedwith the students so as to affect their feelings. For example, a sad experience was shared where a digital
camera with priceless memories was lost when it was washed away by the tsunami. Moreover, appreciative

statements, like expressing gratitude for the relief aid and for the volunteers after the 2011 disaster, wereshared in the class. It is important to encourage the children’s initiative to support others in the disasterand to offer a helping hand to their friends when they are in trouble. Although the objective of our DRR

education is “protecting lives,” it also aims to materialize the healthy growth of children’s minds througheducation.

In the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, great amount of private property was lost and people

were forced to live under difficult conditions; however, simultaneously, people tried to get creative tosurvive under these inconvenient and difficult circumstances. In the class for the students who have notexperienced the 2011 disaster, it is taught that tremendous recovery efforts were made possible for people
to get back to living their life, which is extremely precious.

23

24

Towards disaster risk reduction city – Tagajo~Disaster-resilient city~
Takumi Fujimura

Bureau of Reconstruction Promotion, Office of Mayor, Tagajo City

Tagajo City is located in the eastern region of Miyagi Prefecture near Sendai City, about 12 kilometers awayfrom central Sendai, with a population of 62,000. Tagajo City was greatly damaged by the Great East Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami in 2011. The tsunami hit the city approximately one hour after the earthquake.

The highest wave reached 4.6 meters. One-third (662 ha) of the city was inundated by water, and about
12,000 people fled to evacuation sites such as schools.

A severe and inconvenient evacuation life started. As a result of the tsunami, a total of 188 precious lives

were lost, and over 11,000 houses were destroyed in the city. Factories and offices in the industrial area

Presentations

were almost totally destroyed. Before the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, it was estimated that
there was a 99% probability of an earthquake within 30 years off the coast of Miyagi Prefecture. Therefore,

citizens were relatively prepared for earthquakes, and most were aware of how terrifying tsunamis were.
At the same time, however, most people knew that Tagajo City was never affected by tsunamis in thepast, and thus adopted the mentality that Tagajo would be unaffected even after the large-scale tsunami

warning was issued. As a result, some people did not evacuate quickly, and others who evacuated by cars
were caught in traffic jams, causing many injuries and loss of lives.
There are four major points in the DRR city strategy.

1.	“Developing a disaster-resilient city.” Four strategies have been drawn up, centering on the constructionof infrastructure.

2.	“Increasing DRR capability based on self-help and mutual help.” Two strategies have been implemented

so that citizens and local communities can cope with disasters by themselves, rather than depending
fully on local administrations.

3.	“Sharing disaster experience.” The aim of this strategy is to pass on the experience of disasters
accurately to future generations so that they are not forgotten.

4.	“DRR technology.” This is a strategy that enables companies to maximize their strength and be involvedin projects that only regions damaged by the disaster can engage in, enabling these areas to turn thedisaster experience into something productive and positive.

Under the four goals, eight implementation strategies were established.
Strategy 1: “Building multiple barriers for tsunami.”

Although sea walls will be constructed along the coast as a result of the damages seen in the 2011 disaster,these are only sufficient to cope with tsunamis that will strike once in 100 years. Therefore, when a hugetsunami that occurs once in 1,000 years strikes, overflow and flooding will result. This strategy aims to
overcome this situation by considering evacuation as the basic policy, even though multiple barriers will

be built. Specifically, main projects include the development of evacuation announcement facilities to send

information accurately and swiftly, the construction of evacuation roads, the designation of temporary25

escape buildings to rescue people who are unable to evacuate, and the building of barriers to reduce theforce and speed of tsunamis.

Strategy 2: “Developing earthquake-resilient city.”This strategy aims to increase earthquake-resistant roads and bridges, and to promote the retrofit ofwooden buildings to make them earthquake-resistant.
Strategy 3: “Minimizing flood damage.”

There is a higher risk of flooding due to the fact that the ground has sunk after the Great East Japan

Earthquake and Tsunami, and due to a recent trend of heavy rain in a short period of time. To overcome

this problem, projects such as the development of a rainwater draining system and the construction of new
rainwater drain pumps have been planned.

Strategy 4: “Developing a disaster response system.”During the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, the number of people who evacuated was far greaterthan previously estimated. Thus, evacuation support was insufficient. By reflecting on that experience, wehave reviewed our disaster response system.
Strategy 5: “Enhancing self-help ability.”

The aim of this strategy is to enable citizens themselves to prepare for disasters. Paired with Tohoku

University’s International Research Institute of Disaster Science, we have developed the DRR handbookthat outlines measures on how to cope with and prepare for disasters. We have been holding classes for
citizens making use of this handbook.

Strategy 6: “Strengthening community DRR capacity.”This strategy aims for the improvement of DRR capacity, as well as mitigation of local communities by suchtactics as voluntary emergency drills.

Strategy 7: “Sharing disaster experience.”

Many pictures of the 2011 disaster were taken, and it is crucial to preserve and compile those records
carefully, and to share it with future generations.
Strategy 8: “DRR Research Park Program.”

This strategy seeks to promote DRR technology development as well as the accumulation and creation ofindustries using DRR technology by utilizing space created from factories damaged by the earthquake.
26

As well as to promote the DRR city strategy, the city felt the need to enhance urban development toaccomplish recovery and reconstruction. For this reason, the Tagajo City Library was built, combining
restaurants, a book store, childcare center and a parents’ support center. The aim is to create the best
cultural hub in the Tohoku region.

Tagajo City experienced tremendous loss due to the tsunami. To change the way of thinking from negative

to positive to promote urban development, the city will go on with strong determination to carry out DRR

Presentations

measures and reconstruction.

27

The Power of Localization
Takeshi Komino
General Secretary, Church World Service (CWS) JapanThe Christian World Service (CWS) started its operation in 1945. CWS Japan has three operation pillars:
humanitarian development assistance, advocacy and capacity building. In addition, it has been contributing
to the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR).

The recent disaster trend shows the death toll decreases and economic loss increases. No sufficientattention is given to the capacity and investment to address underlying risk drivers. At the World

Humanitarian Summit (WHS) held in 2016, it was emphasized that nearly 70 million people have been

forced from their homes due to conflict and violence. In the last two decades, 218 million people eachyear were affected by disasters. In order to change these situation, innovation and changes are necessary.
Business as usual is not going to address humanitarian needs.

In this sense, “localization” could be a key. Charter of Change and Grand Bargain resulted from the

WHF indicated that 20-25% of humanitarian funding should be allocated to local agencies. Currently, thebudget goes to local stakeholders less than 0.1 %. Since the financial resources for humanitarian sectors is
not increasing, the limited funding needs to be mobilized efficiently and effectively. Locals understand thecontents and context as well as tradition and culture, therefore, they could know better how to mobilize

and use the resources. In addition, localization requires multi-sectoral collaboration to develop a new idea
for solution together.

There are many case studies that highlight the value of these partnerships: Combining DRR awarenessand peace building in Afghanistan, Cross-boundary flood risk sensitization in Nepal/India, National NGOs
as part of country’s disaster management mechanism in the Philippines etc.

However only a single NGO or organization cannot do everything, but there are many things that a

network can do. It can be a platform for knowledge, provide a support mechanism and facilitate innovation.

The ultimate goal and role of NGOs will solve the unsolved. For that purpose, multi-sectoral collaboration
including academia and the private sector is indispensable.

28

Presentations

29

The TEAMS Project (Tohoku EcosystemAssociated Marine Science)- For Reconstruction from GEJE and For
Restoring a Rich Ocean Through Science Akihiro Kijima
Representative of TEAMS / Professor, Graduate School of Agricultural Science,
Tohoku University

The Great East Japan Earthquake on March 11, 2011 (GEJE) caused immense damage to marine

ecosystems, both nearshore and offshore, on the Pacific coast of northeastern Japan (Tohoku area). The
Tohoku Ecosystem-Associated Marine Sciences (TEAMS) project is the decade-long project to monitor andaid the restoration of marine products in the area by conducting scientific research to clarify the meansby which marine bio-resources can be efficiently but sustainably exploited. It is funded by the Ministryof Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in Japan (MEXT). Tohoku University is the central
representative member, in collaboration with the Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, the Universityof Tokyo (AORI) and the “Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC). Over 200
marine researchers from all over Japan are involved. The marine environments and ecosystems arebeing continuously investigated from coastline to far offshore and from surface to bottom throughout thewater column along the Pacific coast of the Tohoku area. The results obtained are open to fishery-relatedorganizations, local governments, and ordinary citizens through regular series of public lectures andsymposia.

The TEAMS Project includes the construction of a database contributing to the coordination,

management and research to future large-scale disasters within the global community. In the presentation,

we would like to explain what happened in marine environment and ecosystem by GEJE, and how to
restore from the disaster through TEAMS Project activities.

30

Presentations

31

Forecasting and Nowcasting Major
Earthquakes : An Automated Cloud-BasedApproachJohn Rundle
Distinguished Professor and Senior Advisor to APRU MH Program, Departments ofPhysics and Geology, University of California DavisGreat natural disasters are increasing in their impacts primarily because of the movement of growing
populations into at-risk regions. In addition, the rising expense of coping with these problems is falling

more and more on the public rather than on governments, which are often overwhelmed by the expenseand complexity of the problem. The most obvious case of this is Haiti, whose recovery from the 12 January2010 M7.0 Port-au-Prince earthquake remains problematic.

The World Wide Web offers many new and unique opportunities to address problems and challenges

associated with great natural disasters. These examples of complex natural dynamics often occur as

cascading events, such as the failure of the Fukushima reactors following the March 11, 2011 M9.1 Tohoku

earthquake. Great destructive events typically involve four phases: Anticipation, Mitigation, Response andRecovery. Each of these phases has time scales associated with them, and each requires distinct approaches

and technologies to address them. The Anticipation phase involves forecasting the disaster over a varietyof time periods. Intermediate term earthquake forecasting involves time scales of months to decades. Realtime early warning for earthquakes is a special case of Anticipation, but has time scales of only seconds.

Real-time warning for hurricane and typhoon landfalls is another special case with time scales of hours.

Mitigation occurs over days to years, Response over time scales of hours to weeks, and Recovery over timescales of weeks to years. Solutions associated with these phases utilize special knowledge from a variety offields in physical science, engineering, social and medical science, and economics and finance.

Modern information technologies have the potential to unify many of these tasks within a common

organizational framework. Forecasts are computed using automated computational approaches via
data mining and simulations, and are disseminated using IT portal technologies. Planning involves

communication and scenario analysis, which can use approaches as diverse as spreadsheet analysis andvideo gaming. Response involves real-world practice and simulation using first responders and theirequipment. And Recovery involves novel financial approaches, financial analyses and market-based
approaches.

Overshadowing all of these areas is the availability of modern IT, and in particular, social networking

technologies. These played an important role in responding to the disaster of the March 11, 2011 Tohoku
earthquake (e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.1618). Other technologies such as Facebook, Google+, andInstagram illustrate the potential for IT to contribute to solutions in the unfolding cascading processes ofmajor disasters. Yet most of these technologies, designed for the public, are often not well suited to the
distinct needs of the disaster management communities.

In this lecture, I discuss new approaches to these problems. These approaches, grounded in a variety

of modern IT, involve the computation and global dissemination of data from data-driven forecasts, data-

mining, and simulation methods. Development and use of portal technologies, collaboration and social
interaction websites, will be critical. Computational methodologies are only useful in a modern context ifthey are implemented with accessible User Interfaces (UIs). Here we discuss the development and use of
these methods as exemplified by four websites, www.openhazards.com, www.quakesim.org, and http://social.openhazards.com.
32

University Capacity Building to help local
government setup Resilience Community
Yi Chi Tan
Professor, National Taiwan University / Director, Center for Weather Climate andDisaster Research

Global warming impacts of climate and environment changes and it increased frequency of extremely
weather. It causes not only high frequency of disaster, but raising the high intensity of hazard. For examples,

Taiwan 921 earthquake in 1999, South Asia tsunami in 2004, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, United State ofIndiana hail stone in 2006, China Sichuan earthquake in 2008, Typhoon Morakot at Taiwan in 2009, Haiti

earthquake in 2010, Tohoku earthquake and tsunami in 2011, Eastern Australia in 2012, Typhoon Haiyan
at Philippines in 2013, and Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia encountered the most serious floods in past 120

years in 2014. South Asia floods in 2015. Natural hazards threat people’s lives and properties are getting

Presentations

more serious. The most serious disaster caused by improper human operations and developments.

Taiwan is also facing the same situation. People are threatened by all kinds of disasters. However,disasters to be completely dependent on government or outside assistance are difficult to relieve.

Resilience community awareness of disaster prevention and self-help can reduce disaster losses andenhance the effectiveness of rehabilitation reconstruction. In recent years, governments focus on dealing

with resilience communities in Taiwan as well as called academic institutes and non-governmentorganizations together. Therefore, this study presented a practice of cooperation between the local

government and universities to promote the resilience community in Taiwan. This practice could bring
three advantages as followed: strengthen local government connection to districts and communities, theuniversity could put its non-structural methods into practice and the communities could learn to deal withcatastrophic disasters by helping themselves before the government can further assist them.

33

Transdisciplinary approach for building
societal resilience to disasters
Kuniyoshi Takeuchi
Professor Emeritus, University of Yamanashi, Kofu, JapanACECC TC21 (Asian Civil Engineering Coordination Council Technical Committee 21)” Transdisciplinary
approach for building societal resilience to disasters” was established in October 2015 co-chaired by
Kuniyoshi Takeuchi, JSCE, Prof emeritus of UY and Romeo S. Momo, PICE, USec DPWH. Members are fromJapan, Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Korea, USA etc.

TC21 aims to promote the transdisciplinary approach for scientific knowledge based decision-making

for building societal resilience to disasters at national and local levels. Scientific knowledge-based decision

making is a process in which scientific knowledge is systematically used in designing and assessing

alternative courses of action and selecting one, considering political, socio-economic, environmental andrisk impacts when the plan is implemented. Transdisciplinary approach is a methodology of achieving

a common goal by all related players and stakeholders at all levels of all disciplines and sectors working

together, going beyond the limit of disciplinary knowledge and sectoral capacities by creating innovativemeans, and making holistic and transformative solutions possible.

Why transdisciplinary? Gaps between science and practice can only be filled by an integrationof disciplinary knowledge and sectoral capacities where real integration is possible only during

implementation to achieve a common goal. Such synergy of integration of all disciplines and sectors canonly be possible by a transparent decision making process, and vice versa, such transparency is possible
only where many players from different disciplines and sectors work together.

TC21 Case Studies examining recovery processes of selected cases from TC21 points of view:
Ormoc Flood 1991, Philippines triggered by Typhoon Thelma (Uring) hit on 5 November 1991 when
there were dead and missing about 8000. JICA assistance with slit dams and river improvement. Solved
informal residents issue by protecting fence along the river dikes and tested by the similar Tyhoon Koni in
2003. Maintenance is successful local transdisciplinary cooperation.
34

Gorkha Earthquake 2015, Nepal 7.8Mw hit at 11:56 NST on April 25, 2015, killed nearly 9,000 people

and damaged $10 Billion (50% of Nepal GNP). Reconstruction was led by Dept. of Urban Development
and Building Construction (DUDBC) and National Reconstruction Authority (NRA) by a sill and lintel

band method supported by institutional arrangements including 300k Rupee grants subsidy, training of
306 inspection engineers etc. It has been implemented by the transdisciplinary approach involving many
people at national to local levels.

Presentations

35

GROUP WORK DISCUSSIONGROUP WORK

Two groups were asked to develop a project proposal regarding the disaster risk reduction (DRR) for
Earthquakes and Floods.

Group A: Project proposal for Earthquake: Multi-stakeholder network for structural safety
Group A first analyzed the challenges of each stakeholder: academia, government, media, community, theprivate sector, and NGOs. They eventually identified a key issue of network building to achieve structuralsafety. It was determined that the community needed to be at the center as the target group of the project,with all the stakeholders somehow playing a role in providing information, knowledge, coordination,and funding. Among all the stakeholders, NGOs will be the chair for neutral coordination. The firstyear of the project should be devoted to developing a network and building trust. Then, the second

year will be allocated to establishing an engagement plan. From the third year to the fifth, there will be
implementations such as information dissemination, capacity building, and developing safe shelters.

Group A

Earthquake – Structural Safety• Academic/Scientific
Knowledge dissemination on all levels: Funding• Government
Implementation of building codes ; institutional framework
Lack of coordination among agencies• Media
Prioritization; Network & Accessibility of experts• Community
Awareness ; Communication Channels; Accessibility ; Safe Spaces (Relief)• Private Sectors
Business continuity ; Private funding• NGOs( Linkages ) / FUNDING

38

Group A

NETWORK BUILDING

Academic

Lack of coordination
among agencies
・Platform/Structured Network
・Policy Enforcement

Community
Safety・Knowledge
dissemination
・Funding

Government

Awareness, Accessibility

Community
Safe Spaces (Relief)

Daily information
Dissemination

Trust Building

NGOs

Linkages
Funding

Private FundingMedia

Network andAccessibility ofexperts

Private Sector
LegendーChallengeーSolution

Group A: Earthquake Members:
1. NGOs (CHAIR)
2. Academic
3. Government
4. Media
5. Private Sectors
6. Community
 Goals:
1. Increase Awareness and Accessibility
2. Proactive Implementation
3. Capacity Building & Resource Mobilization

Group work discussions

Multi-Stakeholder Network for Structural Safety
 Action Plan (5 Year Plan):
1. Develop Network and Collaboration (Year 1)
2. Establishing Engagement Plan (Year 2: 6 months)- Data Collection- Budget
3. Implementation (Year 2-5)
- Information Dissemination- Capacity Building- Safe Shelter
4. Monitoring and Evaluation

39

Group B: Sustainable Urban/City Planning for Flood DRR in Southeast Asia
This proposed project aimed to develop a flood-resilient community with proper urban planning throughvarious kinds of information, including risk and hazard mapping. It should be useful information forcommunities as well as urban planners. There are two steps: short-term and long-term activities. The

short-term activities include the development of evacuation and communication plans as well as ofinfrastructure and logistics. The long-term activities include development of hazard and probability
mapping and an analysis of demographic data.

The project duration will be three years. The initial outcome includes a flood-risk map that will enableboth government and communities to clearly understand the flood risks. Based on an understanding ofrisk, the community will come up with a recommendation for preparedness, and the plan will then be
submitted to the government as a policy recommendation.
Group B

Sustainable Urban/City Planning for flood DRR: Cases in SEA◎Urban/City Planning＄5 Million

Tools
1. Hazard Map
2. Demographic Data
3. Vulnerability Map

What we wili do
Study area:
SEA-case study

Methods Quantitative
Risk Mappnig→Flood Hazard Map→Historical Flod
→Demography→Socio-economic

40

Qualitative••••

Policy StudyContent Analysis
Interviews
Experts Judgement

Vulnerability Assessment

Duration: 3 Years
Expected
Output• Flood Risk Map• Community
Recommendation• Policy Recommendation

Group B

Sustainable Urban/City Planning for flood DRR in SEA
X Less education
Approach*Evacuate implementation Plan
*Communication Plan
*Logistics*InfrastructureGroup work discussions- A floodable Housing- Land Use Planningdesegregation-Community Disaster Education
Drills41

FIELD TRIP

Field trip to Higashi-Matsushima city and Onagawa town on 20 July2017

The participants joined the field trip to the areas affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami.
The places include the old Nobiru Station in Higashi-Matsushima, the Onagawa Town Hospital, Onagawa
Station and Tohoku University Onagawa Field Center in Onagawa.

Ms. Shuang Guan
Undergraduate Student, Swarthmore College(Intern, National Taiwan University)

As an undergraduate of a liberal arts school in a relatively disaster-safe area of the United States, I came into

the APRU Multi-Hazard Summer School nervous, curious, and ready to learn. The Summer School did notdisappoint; from engaging lectures by researchers and practitioners to time spent getting to know otherparticipants and their work from all over the world, the whole experience was professionally delivered andimpactful. One of the best parts of the program was the field trip to Onagawa, where we were able to seesome of the problems and events discussed in the lectures at the actual sites of the 2011 Great East Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami.

Most memorable for me was the Higashi-Matsushima Earthquake Memorial Museum, located next

to the former Nobiru station destroyed on 3.11. Our visit started with a short film in which there was aheartbreaking story of how an elderly couple had successfully reached the rescue shelter, but the wife decided
to go back to their home because they had forgotten their child’s dog. Because of that dangerous journey, theman was never reunited with his wife. Then we began exploring the exhibition, full of pictures of the damage
done, but also the relief efforts. One museum employee began explaining a map to us that made her think ofher own experience in 2011, when she became separated from her three daughters and was not able to see

one of them for two weeks. After days in a classroom, finally, we were forced to confront these stories while
standing in the area where they happened; the atmosphere was something like a time and space warp. I felt

this again when we trekked up the stairs to the former Onagawa Town Hospital, and saw the shocking pillar

markings for just how high the waters had reached. The field trip helped cultivate my awareness of disasterhistory and how research, story history, and land are all connected. While (re-)building an area to become

more disaster friendly, when constructing dikes, installing warning systems, or planning evacuation routes, I
hope we will not forget to ask what has this land and its community witnessed.

Thank you to the summer school for reminding us that we must learn from history, and learn deeply

through compassion, so that we can work to reduce future tragedies. Thank you so much to all of theorganizers of the summer school for being helpful and patient, and most importantly, for giving us snacks andcoffee to keep us going!
44

Old Nobiru Station

Mr. Rodolfo L. Arias
Master Student, Philippine School of Business Administration
At the start of our bus ride for our field trip, I got a text message from my wife, who was staying at the APA

Field trip

Villa Hotel in Sendai with our two daughters, saying that they felt the building shaking. She said not to worry;the quake was very brief and that they are alright. I guess I didn’t feel the quake because our bus was moving
at that time. Before our trip to Japan, a friend told me that slight tremors are normal occurrences in Japanand that one gets used to it. This was somewhat comforting but still, I shuddered at the thought that thequake could have been much stronger and could have been as destructive as the 2011 Great Earthquake andTsunami that we have been talking about for the past two days. This thought made me a bit anxious but I

somewhat relaxed when I turned my attention to what Prof. Akihiro Kijima of Tohoku University was saying

on the bus microphone. Prof. Kijima acted as our tour guide during the trip. He had a reassuring voice and it
helped calm down my nerves. Prof. Kijima told us how Sendai City was inundated by the 2011 tsunami. He

drew our attention to lines on the façades of some buildings along Route 45 that marked the height of thetsunami wave that hit them. Images of the 2011 destruction shown to us during the sessions at the APRU-

IRIDeS institute flashed back in my mind. I scanned the sceneries on both sides of the road and looked fortraces of the disaster but did not see any. What I saw were well paved roads, clear waterways, building andhouses of fine architecture, wide lush green fields planted to rice and other crops, and scenic seascapes.
Indeed, Japan has done a remarkable job in its recovery and reconstruction efforts since the Great Earthquake
and Tsunami 6 years ago.

Our first stop was the Nobiru Station in the City of Higashimatsushima. The terminal building of thestation, used to be part of the Senseki line, now serves as a memorial museum. A ticket dispensing machinesalvaged from the 2011 ruins serves as a museum piece at the 2nd floor. A grim reminder of the disaster are
the lines displayed inside and outside the museum building marking the 3.7 meter height of the tsunami

45

wave that struck the area. I took a quick look at the railroad track and passenger loading ramp at the back of
the museum. I imagined that on a busy day before March 11, 2011, the station would have been full of people
going about their business oblivious of the disaster that would forever change their lives. The before and afterimages that came to my mind were unnerving.

The next stop was the coastal town of Onagawa. Prof. Kijima took us to the stone memorial marking theheight of the 18-meter tsunami wave. I tried imagining myself trying to survive from that monstrous wall ofwater. I know how to swim but the only thing that I thought doing, if I were by myself, was to run away andclimb to higher ground as fast as I could. I found it difficult to imagine that Onagawa with its scenic verdant

hills and magnificent seascape had been a picture of destruction and sorrow 6 years ago. Truly, munificent
nature can be a raging beast at times. Now, after extensive reconstruction efforts, Onagawa seemed to havebounced back to its old glory. I was pleasantly surprised at results of the redevelopment of the town center. It
now sits on higher ground and affords an exquisite view of the bay.

The last stop was the newly rebuilt Tohoku University Integrated Marine Field Station, also in Onagawa,managed by a group of scientists that includes Prof. Kijima. The station’s goals include efforts to monitor andrestore marine life in the area through scientific research under the Tohoku Ecosystem-Associated Marine
Science (TEAMS) project. I’m quite impressed that Japan’s recovery efforts also gives importance to themarine environment which plays a crucial role in sustaining livelihood in the area that depends heavily on
the fishing industry.

The field trip was an experience I will never forget. It gave me a rare opportunity to see with my own eyes

and feel with my heart Japan’s determination to rise up with strength and pride from the ruins of the 2011
Great Earthquake and Tsunami. It considerably raised my level of knowledge and awareness on Disaster Risk
Reduction Management. The Philippines lies along the same Pacific Rim as Japan. There is a great possibility

that my country would experience a similar catastrophe as the 2011 Great Earthquake and Tsunami. It is only
a matter of time. I hope that armed with what I learned in Japan, I would be able to significantly contribute to
my country’s efforts in disaster preparedness, disaster risk reduction and disaster recovery efforts.

Onagawa Town

46

Tohoku University Onagawa Field CenterANNEX I: APRU-IRIDeS Summer School Program
18-19 and 21 July: Seminar at the IRIDeS building on the Aobayama New Campus,
Tohoku University
20 July: Field trip to Higashi-matsushima city and Onagawa town

July 18
Lessons learnt from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami
09：00 － 09：20 Opening

Opening remarks by President Susumu Satomi (Tohoku University)
Opening remarks by Ms. Christina Schönleber (APRU Secretariat)
Welcoming address by Prof. Fumihiko Imamura (IRIDeS)

09：20 － 09：30 Group photo

09：30 － 10：10 Movie [Great Tsunami]

10：10 － 10：25 Coffee break / moving to the Seminar room

10：25 － 10：35 Introduction of the summer school

10：35 － 10：45 Introduction of APRU

10：45 － 11：45 “International DRR Policy Making at the United Nations” by Prof. Yuichi Ono(IRIDeS)

11：45 － 13：00 Lunch / self-introduction

13：00 － 14：00 “Social and media interests on basic properties of tsunami and remaining issues ontsunami warning and evacuation” by Dr. Anawat Suppasuri (IRIDeS)

14：00 － 15：00 “Housing Recovery Six Years after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake”
by Dr. Elizabeth Maly (IRIDeS)

15：00 － 15：15 Coffee break

15：15 － 16：15 “Eight Personal Characteristics Associated with the Power to Live with

Disasters as Indicated by Survivors of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake
Disaster” by Prof. Motoaki Sugiura (IRIDeS)

16：15 － 17：15 “Building Resilience and Social Capital in Disaster-affected Communities” by
18：30 －

Dr. Daisuke Sato (IRIDeS)

Reception

July 19
Role of different stakeholders: Local governments, Academia, and NGO
09：00 － 10：00 “Role of various stakeholders in disaster risk reduction” by Dr. Takako Izumi(IRIDeS)

10：00 － 11：10 “Disaster Prevention Learning in Elementary School after the Great East48

Japan Earthquake” by Mr. Kiyoshi Araake (Takaya Elementary School,
Watari town)

11：10 － 11：30 Coffee break

11：30 － 12：30 “Towards disaster risk reduction city – Tagajo ~Disaster-resilient city~”
by Mr. Takumi Fujimura (Tagajo City)

12：30 － 13：30 Lunch

13：30 － 14：30 “The Power of Localization” by Mr. Takeshi Komino (Church World Service)

14：30 － 15：30 “The TEAMS Project (Tohoku Ecosystem-Associated Marine Science) For

Reconstruction from GEJE and For Restoring a Rich Ocean Through Science”
by Prof. Akihiro Kijima (Tohoku University)

15：30 － 15：45 Coffee break

15：45 － 16：45 Group work 1: Poster presentation

16：45 － 17：15 Group presentation

July 20: Field trip
Higashi-Matsushima city and Onagawa town

July 2109：00 － 10：00 “Forecasting and Nowcasting Major Earthquakes - An AutomatedCloud-Based Approach” by Prof. John Rundle (University of California Davis)

10：00 － 11：00 “University Capacity Building to help local government setup Resilience
Community” by Prof. Yi Chi Tan (National Taiwan University)

11：00 － 11：15 Coffee break

11：15 － 12：15 “Transdisciplinary approach for building societal resilience to disasters” by
Prof. Kuniyoshi Takeuchi

12：15 － 13：15 Lunch

13：15 － 15：15 Group work 2: Development of a project proposal

15：15 － 15：30 Coffee break

15：30 － 16：30 Group presentation

16：30 － 16：45 Closing

49

ANNEX II : List of Participants

Name
1

Ph.D. Student

Assistant Research Fellow China

Tsinghua University

Ph.D. Student

4

Fajar Shidiq

Researcher

5

Mayu Terada

Undergraduate Student Japan

8

Hina Suzuki

9

10

Hina Kumagai

Terri R. Norton

Master Student

Visiting Scholar

13

Khamarrul Azahari Razak Faculty

15

Noriza R. Tibon

Instructor

17

Rodolfo L. Arias

Master Student

16
18
19
20

21

22

Japan

Undergraduate Student Japan

Meshal Jamal Abdullah

14

Japan

Undergraduate Student Japan

11

12

Indonesia

Master Student

Runa Inoue

7

China

Bismark Adu Gyamfi

6

University
Tsinghua University

Cheng LIU
Jing QianCountryChina

23

Master Student

Japan

Japan

Tsinghua University

Indonesia Defense University

Keio University

Miyagi Gakuin Women's University
Miyagi Gakuin Women's University
Miyagi Gakuin Women's University
Miyagi Gakuin Women's University
Tohoku University

Tohoku University

Mohammad Imam Hasan Reza Senior Lecturer and Fellow Malaysia

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Mohd Muhaimin Ridwan Wong Ph.D. Student

Malaysia

National Defence University of Malaysia

Lualhati S. Macapagal

Philippines Philippine School of Business Administration

Alfredo B. Santiano III
Wilven John C. GadianChristos Gouramanis

Faculty and Editor

Malaysia

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)

Philippines University of the Philippines Diliman
Philippines Philippine School of Business Administration

Master Student

Philippines

Philippine School of Business Administration

Assistant Professor

Singapore

National University of Singapore

Master Student

Queen Suraajini Rajendran Research Fellow

Philippines Philippine School of Business Administration
Singapore

Nanyang Technological University

Yong-jun Lin

Assistant Research Fellow Taiwan

Shuang Guan

Intern (Undergraduate Student) Taiwan(USA) National Taiwan University(Swarthmore College)

National Taiwan University

23

Hali Han

25

Teraphan Ornthammarath Assistant Professor

ThailandAlexis Giguere

Ph.D. Student

USA

University of California Davis

Suwan Shen

Assistant Professor

USA

University of Hawaii

Takeshi Komino

General SecretaryJapan

Church World Service (CWS) Japan

24
26

27

28

29

30

31

50

Yu ZhuStatusIntern (Undergraduate Student) Taiwan(USA) National Taiwan University (Swarthmore College)

Patricia Anne C. Vega

Master Student

Molly Luginbuhl

Ph.D. Student

Christina Schönleber

UK

USA

Mahidol University

University of Reading

University of California Davis

Director(Policy & Programs) Hong Kong APRU Secretariat

Name
32

Yi Chi Tan

StatusProfessor

Country
Taiwan33

Kiyoshi Araake

Principal

35

Fumihiko Imamura

Director/Professor

Japan

Associate Professor

Japan

34

36

37

38

39

Takumi Fujimura

Yuichi Ono

Takako Izumi

Anawat Suppasri

Elizabeth Maly

Professor

Associate Professor

Japan

University
National Taiwan University

Takaya Elementary School, Watari Town

Japan

Tagajo City

Japan

Tohoku University (IRIDeS)Japan

Tohoku University (IRIDeS)

Tohoku University (IRIDeS)

Tohoku University (IRIDeS)

Associate Professor

Japan

Tohoku University (IRIDeS)

Professor

Japan

Tohoku University (IRIDeS)

40

Motoaki Sugiura

Professor

42

Akihiro Kijima

Professor

Japan

Tohoku University (Graduate School of Agricultural Science)

44

John B. Rundle

Professor

USA

University of California Davis

41
43

Daisuke Sato

Kuniyoshi Takeuchi

Professor Emeritus

Japan

Japan

Tohoku University (IRIDeS)
University of Yamanashi

51Regional and Urban Reconstruction Division468-1-S401 Aoba, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai
980-8572 Japan
TEL:+81 22 752 2073
http://aprumh.irides.tohoku.ac.jp/
Mail: application_apruss@irides.tohoku.ac.jp

IAS Building, 3/F
3019, HKUST, Clear Water Bay, HONG KONG
TEL:+852 3469 2552 FAX:+852 2719 5756
http://www.apru.org/ Mail: apru@apru.org