Report of the APRU-IRIDeS Multi-Hazards Program
2013 Summer School

23-25 July 2013
Tohoku University
Sendai, Japan

IRIDeS, Tohoku University
International and Regional Cooperation Office
6-6-40-102 Aoba, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai
980-8579 Japan
www. irides.tohoku.ac.jp/

The APRU Secretariat
NUS Shaw Foundation Alumni House, 2F
11 Kent Ridge Drive, Singapore 119244
www.apru.org

Edited by
Takako Izumi (International and Regional Cooperation Office, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)
Yuko Sato (International and Regional Cooperation Office, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)
Jeremy Piggot (Program Director for Research & Enterprise Partnership, the APRU secretariat, Singapore)2

CONTENTS● Background....................................................................................................................... 5● Opening remarks.............................................................................................................. 7● Presentations..................................................................................................................... 11● Group work discussions................................................................................................... 35● Field trip............................................................................................................................ 43● Acknowledgement............................................................................................................. 48
Annex I........................................................................................................................... 49
Annex II.......................................................................................................................... 50

3

Background

Background

The Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) is a network of 42 premier research
universities from 16 economies around the Pacific Rim. The Pacific Rim is the most dynamic anddiverse region in the world. The world’s three largest economies are located on the Rim along witha rich diversity of developing and developed nations from North America, Latin America, East andSoutheast Asia, Russia, and Australasia. Responding to the increased economic integration of theregion and the formation of APEC, APRU was established in 1997 by the presidents of Caltech,
Berkeley, UCLA and the University of Southern California. APRU members together havearound two million students, 120,000 faculty members and research capabilities related to the key
challenges facing the region. APRU seeks to advance the aspirations of its members and contributeto global society by: 1. Shaping Asia-Pacific Higher Education and Research; 2. Creating AsiaPacific Global Leaders; and 3. Partnering on Solutions to Asia-Pacific Challenges.
Having experienced the catastrophic disaster in 2011, Tohoku University established theInternational Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS) in April 2012. Together withcollaborating organizations from many countries and with broad areas of specializations, basedon the lesson from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, IRIDeS aims to become aworld center for the study of the disasters and disaster mitigation, leaning from and building upon
past lessons in disaster management from Japan and around the world. In addition, IRIDeS intends
to contribute to on-going recovery/reconstruction efforts in the affected areas, conducting actionoriented research, and pursuing effective disaster management to build sustainable and resilient
societies.
IRIDeS together with the APRU launched the APRU-IRIDeS Multi-Hazards Program in
April 2013 to mark the second anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. The
Program builds upon the strengths of eight APRU Multi-hazards symposia over the past decadein countries spanning the Pacific Ring of Fire. IRIDeS now provides secretariat services as theregional program hub harnessing the collective capabilities of APRU universities for cutting-edge
research on disaster risk reduction (DRR) and recovery, shares strategies to cope with campus
disaster risk management, and contributes to international policy making processes on DRR. In
particular, the Program focuses on strategies to deal with low-frequency high-impact disasters andthe role of universities in disaster management.
The key activities of the Multi-Hazards Program include:◦ Organization of the annual summer school◦ Survey the disaster preparedness of APRU universities, and promote ‘best practices’◦ Organization of the annual APRU Multi-Hazards Symposium◦ F oster collaboration in disaster research and information/data sharing between APRU
universities5◦ Contribute to international events on disaster risk reduction, such as the 2015 UN World
Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai, JapanThe 2013 summer school was organized on 23-25 July 2013 at Tohoku University as the first major
activity under the Multi-Hazards Program. The summer school was attended by 31 participantsfrom 9 countries, and it consisted of 17 students, 13 faculty members and 1 APRU secretariat staff.
The agenda of the summer school and the participant list are attached in the ANNEX.

Prof. Susumu Satomi, President of Tohoku University and
Dr Chris Tremewan, Secretary General, APRU at
8th APRU Multi-Hazards Symposium in Tohoku University

8th APRU Multi-Hazards
Symposium in Tohoku University in
September 20126

Prof. Susumu Satomi
President of Tohoku University

It is an honor for me to welcome you to Tohoku University for “APRU-IRIDeS Multi-Hazards
Summer School Program”. I am pleased to meet all of you who gathered from various countries
for this event.
The Tohoku region including Sendai City was severely struck by the Great East Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami on March 11, 2011. It was the largest disaster event recorded in theJapanese history. All the Japanese citizens were devastated by the scale of the damages. Tohoku
University aims to work for and with the communities and local governments in the reconstruction
process. As one of the major universities in the affected areas, I believe that Tohoku University has
an important role to play to contribute to the process. One of the objectives of this summer school
is to share our experiences from the disaster. I hope these lectures will give you an idea on futuredisaster risk reduction.
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 focuses on overcoming a low frequency great disaster and on putting our research results
into practice. IRIDeS also launched the Multi-Hazards Program together with APRU in April thisyear. IRIDeS became the program hub and provides the secretariat service. This summer school is
the first major event under the Multi-Hazards Program.
We are living in a disaster prone region. Due to urbanization, climate change, environmental
and development issues, the disaster risks are getting increased. We have to tackle these issues incollaboration with various stakeholders. We must remember that universities and research institutes
have a critical role to play in disaster risk reduction. As scientists, historians, economists, medical
doctors, we all have different strengths to contribute to reduce disaster risks. I would like toemphasize that disaster risk reduction is not only the issue of science and technology. It also needs
the aspects of history, environment, and social science. We believe that an innovative approach will
be developed through such a collaborative environment.
As universities, we are also encouraged to strengthen the disaster preparedness capacity on
campus. We have a responsibility to protect the lives of students and staff from next disasters. It
will be a great contribution from all of you if you could share the ideas on this matter during thesummer school.
I hope this program gives you an opportunity to exchange views and experiences among theparticipants. Especially for the students, this will be also a great opportunity to meet experts in
disaster areas.
To conclude, I would like to thank the APRU secretariat for their kind support and cooperation.
I wish you every success for this summer school program. Thank you.

8Dr. Christopher Tremewan
Secretary General of APRU

Welcome to you all on behalf of APRU. It is a pleasure and privilege to welcome a diverse, talented
and experienced group of participants from APRU universities and other partner institutions to thisSummer School.
Following on from the APRU Multi-Hazard Research Symposium hosted here last year, this is
Opening remarks

the next major event in APRU’s partnership with the International Research Institute of Disaster
Science (IRIDeS) in Tohoku University.
We are very proud to be a member of that partnership. As you know, the Asia-Pacific region
shares the Pacific Ring of Fire and has recently suffered from a series of disasters. Theseexperiences have impelled us to consider more deeply the role of major research universities in
responding to the needs of our societies under threat of natural hazards.
Through this Summer School, we are about to bring education and research arising from theseexperiences together in ways to benefit not only Japan but also the region. We look forward also tohearing your suggestions as to the most effective ways to do this in the future.
The region, of course, shares not only the uncertainties and risks of the Ring of Fire but also
the challenges of a complex system effects from climate change, increasing extreme events,
demographic shifts, rapid urbanization, fresh water supply, economic inequality and many otherfactors. Responding to uncertainties requires timely and well-focused research collaboration
informed by local knowledge and global science. International cooperation has become more
important as these challenges cross all national boundaries. It is crucial that we get to know eachother and build long-lasting relationships of trust.
In APRU we are speaking about creating Knowledge Action Networks. This means we see that
our task is to relate leading research to policy development and to local knowledge and needs bybringing researchers together with policy makers and community leaders.
APRU is a network of 42 research universities around the Pacific Rim, and adding up thecapability of all these institutions, we are working with around 120,000 academics and two million
students. We aim to mobilise this constituency around our strategic priority of ‘Partnering on
Solutions to Asia-Pacific Challenges’. This partnership with Tohoku University is one of the key
activities under this priority.
On the final day of this event we are going on a field trip to see some of the physical effects
and hear the human stories from the affected areas in the Tohoku region. This kind of experiencealways makes us realize that we deal with these issues not only from a scientific aspect but also
in their human dimension. This also attests to the wisdom of this university including the social
sciences as well as the physical sciences within IRIDeS.
Finally, I wish to express again my gratitude to President Satomi for hosting this event and forhis support of the partnership with APRU. I also thank the organizing team who has constructed
such an interesting program for the next few days. Thank you so much.

9

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

It has been a year since the International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS) wasestablished in April 2012. It was just one year after the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami
occurred in 2011. We have started a new body of research, education and social contribution in
Tohoku University. We have many lessons to share with you.
We are very fortunate to initiate the APRU-IRIDeS Multi-Hazards Program with APRU. Thissummer school is the first major activity under the Program. It is indeed our great pleasure towelcome you to Tohoku University for this summer school. As you know, the Great East Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami caused tremendous damages though we in Japan have experienced anumber of earthquakes and tsunamis as well as have developed various disaster risk reduction
measures. We have never stopped fighting with such natural disasters in our history. Throughthese experiences, we have developed new technology and sciences to introduce a variety of risk
assessment tools and educational materials. However, even these tools and materials are not yet
sufficient to stop occurring natural disasters. We need to put more efforts to reduce risks, and it is
why we are here to discuss what we should do more in case of natural disasters.
For this summer school programme, we have invited the speakers from Tohoku University
as well as others universities. Today, we have 6 lectures. I will speak more about the roles andactivities of IRIDeS and introduce our efforts and cooperation with local stakeholders in therecovery and reconstruction process from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. The
second speaker is Prof. Managi from the Graduate School of Environmental Studies and he willtalk about the economic impact of the 2011 Earthquake and Tsunami. In this afternoon, it starts
with Prof. Shuto who has very long experiences in the research on the tsunami in Japan and othercountries. Then, it is followed by Prof. Motosaka who will speak about the earthquake engineeringand the disaster preparedness experiences in Tohoku University. Also we have invited the cityof Sendai who will introduce their activities in the reconstruction process and their commitment
towards the 2015 UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai. The last lecture fortoday is Prof. Murao who speaks about the review of the Hyogo Framework for Action adopted in
2005. This is our important framework to mitigate disaster risks and strengthen our disaster risk
reduction capacity. Tomorrow, we will have three more lectures, starting with Mr. Suzuki from
Tagajo city. This is another affected area by the Disaster in 2011. Prof. Rundle from University ofCalifornia, Davis, will give a lecture on the web-based approach to earthquakes. The last lecture inthis summer school will be provided by Prof. Romero from University of Chile on his experiencesand views on the Chile earthquake. I am very proud of a variety of these presentations and I hope
you will learn a lot from their knowledge and experiences.
Again, thank you very much for your participation and enjoy the summer program.

10

Role of IRIDeS in Tohoku University / Damages due to the 2011
East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, and the Lessons
Fumihiko Imamura
Deputy Director, Prof. of Tsunami Engineering, IRIDeS, Tohoku University

Having experienced the catastrophic disaster caused by the East Japan earthquake and tsunami in 2011,
Tohoku University established the International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS). Together withcollaborating internal and inter-national organizations/universities from many countries and with broad areas of
specializations and countries, the IRIDeS conducts the world-leading research on natural disaster science anddisaster reduction/mitigation. One of significant activities of international collaboration is the APRU-IRIDeS
Multi-hazards Program started in 2013 with the aims to build upon the strengths of eight APRU Multi-hazards
symposia over the past decade in countries spanning the Pacific Ring of Fire and to harness the collective
capabilities of APRU universities for cutting-edge research on disaster risk reduction (DRR) and recovery.
And the program should share strategies to cope with campus disaster risk management, and contribute tointernational policy making processes on DRR.
The March 11, 2011 East Japan earthquake tsunami disaster devastated the Pacific coast of northeasternpart of Japan. The large number of casualties more than 19,000 and several types of tsunami impact such as
inundation in a large area, destructive force, and change of topography due to the erosion and deposition (Fig.1)
are reported. The tsunami seems to have triggered nearly every imaginable kind of tsunami damage: destructionof coastal structures, tide/tsunami control forests, houses, buildings, and infrastructure due to flooding;
topographical change due to erosion and sedimentation; rubble, offshore aquaculture rafts, and ships sent adrift;
flammable materials spilled and on fire; damage to transportation networks such as roads and rail (including
rolling stock); and even the impact on facilities such as nuclear and thermal power plants. We have beenobtaining results of field surveys as well as analysis by a numerical simulation and satellite image analysis withground truth data, to obtain the data of the tsunami and its disaster, and identify extent of tsunami inundation anddamage, and lessons.
Based on the lessons from the 2011 East Japan earthquake and tsunami disaster (Fig.2), IRIDeS aims tobecome a world centre for the study of the disasters and disaster mitigation, learning from and building upon
past lessons in disaster management from Japan and around the world. The 2011 East Japan Great East Japan
earthquake and tsunami disaster, throughout the IRIDeS will contribute on-going recovery/reconstruction efforts
in the affected areas, conducting action-oriented research, and pursuing of disaster reduction effective disastermanagement towards to build sustainable and resilient societies.
Although reconstruction plans have been drawn up for the areas affected by the disaster in 2012, many local
issues remain unresolved; vigorous debate continues regarding specific issues (Fig.3) and about which projects
should be implemented. Previous measures to address tsunami have been based on a comprehensive approach
involving physical infrastructure to protect existing communities combined with evacuation systems andcommunity-building efforts to address situations when such physical infrastructure is overcome. Although thesethree elements (physical infrastructure, intangible systems, and community building) remain unchanged, we hope
the first step this time can be to reach consensus on an approach toward disaster mitigation (safety level) that canthen be applied to a review of residential and other land use (building restrictions) that fosters the development
of disaster-resilient communities.

12

Presentations

Fig.1 Damage due to the 2011 tsunami, causing erosion and deposition on the coast in Sariku

Fig.2 Attack of the 2011 tsunami on the coast with the green belt which was constructed by Mr.Data 400 years ago based on the experience of the damage
in the 1611 earthquake and tsunami

Fig.3 Idea of tsunami resistant city with multi-layer reduction system (Nature, 2012)13

DISASTER
Shunsuke Managi
Associate Professor of Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Tohoku University

The Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami caused severe damages especially at the coastal area. Almost
all the buildings were destroyed by the disaster, and the people were totally shocked by seeing the devastation
through the tragic pictures and videos. On the other hand, there were also the areas that were less affected, andthe impact by the disaster was not as severe as other areas badly affected. It has proved that the current standardof infrastructure and architecture in Japan is fairly strong and to be proud of.
Normally, the media shows especially the damages which are very striking and severe, and at a result, those
information created the misunderstanding among the public concerning the situation of the affected areas. For
example, the tsunami left a large quantity of debris, and soon a problem on where to dispose the debris arose. The
initial information and message was that the quantity was too much to dispose only in the Tohoku region and the
support from other areas was needed. Therefore, the government requested other prefectures and cities to help its
disposal providing the subsidiary to those who accept the debris. A number of cities raised their hands to respondto the request. Based on our survey conducted one month after the disaster, it was found out that the quantity ofdebris was less than estimated by the government. It often happens that the actual situation is different from theone that has been already reported by media and governments. It is crucial to provide the right information to theright person, otherwise, it may lead to development of a wrong plan and strategy.
With regard to the nuclear power, a number of organizations and associations have been involved in the
nuclear power issue, and the information provided by them are often confusing and missing the main points.
What we have learned from the experiences of the nuclear disaster in Fukushima is that it is crucial to have avariety of energy sources. The public sentiment on the nuclear power is very complex. When the climate issue
started attracting people’s attentions, the government promoted the nuclear power energy. However, after theaccident in Fukushima, the public’ interest was moving from the climate change to a renewable energy. On theother hand, people hardly accept 20% rise of energy cost expected if all the nuclear power plants were stopped.
In other Asian countries, the debates and discussions on the nuclear power have been very active, and theirattentions to the future action and decision by the Japanese government are extremely high.
In order to accelerate the economic recovery in the local affected area, it is crucial to avoid the outflow of the
population. From the survey result, it was found out that if people can expect high income and others will remainin the area, they are willing to continue staying the same area. The fishery is one of the most important industries
in Tohoku and there is no recovery and re-establishment of Tohoku without the re-establishment of fishery. Even
before the tsunami, the production of fishery itself has decreased in the last 20 years due to over fishery, and theincome of fishermen is much lower than 20 years ago. Currently, this industry heavily depends on subsidiaryfrom the government. It has heavily damaged by Fukushima’s nuclear power plant accident and the prospect isvery severe due to cesium and radiation problem. It is suggested to allocate more reconstruction budget for thereconstruction of fabrication facilities, not to reconstruct the ports as it used to be. If the subsidiary can be used
more effectively, it will provide the job opportunities even in other industries which can generate the income.
It is important for us to learn from the history and experiences as many lessons learnt from disasters exist, totransmit and share the information to the public in easy-to-understand ways for the future.

14

Presentations

15

A Century against Floods, Storm Surges and Tsunamis in Japan
Nobuo Shuto
Professor Emeritus, Tohoku University

Japan has suffered from various types of natural hazards every year. Based on these experiences, various disastercountermeasures have been developed.

Flood countermeasures and reaction
To protect the Niigata Plain (rich paddy field) from floods of the Shinano River, The Okouzu Diversion
Channel (watershed) was constructed in 1922. Then, the beach near the mouth of this new channel began toadvance at a rate of 3 m per year. On the other hand, the beach around the river mouth began to recede. Several
jetties and offshore breakwaters were built to protect the beach.
During 1950’s, sabo works (erosion control work) began in the mountainous areas. Construction ofmultipurpose dams for water supply, electric power generation and flood control also progressed to decrease thesand supply to beaches. After several countermeasures were developed, a combination of offshore breakwaters
and groins were identified as effective measures. In some cases, sand artificial nourishment is also added.
Rapid urbanization changes the state of run-off and flood. In addition, in many cities, the development ofunderground towns and subways developed a new type of flood disasters. In order to reduce these impacts, theuse of artificial underground channels for flood control is progressing. In addition, the super embankment, which
can be a new countermeasure to floods, allows floods to overflow the bank without erosion. If the landward slope
is gentler than 3%, overflowing current velocity will be reduced much and no breaching is resulted. The wide
levee areas can be used as the town itself.

Storm surges
In 1934 after the Typhoon Muroto hit the Osaka, the report prepared by JSCE (Japan Society of Civil
Engineers) recommended three methods; 1) construction of defense structures, 2) regulation of ground height forbuildings and 3) regulation of land-use.
The Osaka area was hit again by the Typhoon Jane in 1950. Probability analysis was introduced for the firsttime and resulted in that occurrence probability of the Typhoon Muroto of 1934 was 1 on 813 years. Seawalls

16

along canals were recommended to protect the Osaka city, and these walls could prevent the Second Muroto
Typhoon in 1961.The Coast Law was also enacted in 1956. Based on this law, the Technical Standard for Coastal
Protection Facilities was made in 1958. Sea dikes with three armored surfaces became the national standard.
In 1959, the Ise Bay Typhoon hit and gave a severe damage to the city of Nagoya. In order to protect Nagoya
Port, storm-surge breakwaters and seawalls were constructed, however, it was found out that the storm-surge
breakwaters are not effective for storm-surge but for high wind waves that hit with storm-surge. The City of
Nagoya also introduced a municipal ordinance, land use regulation. It divides the areas into 5 regions, and eachregion, depending on its surrounded condition and environment, has a special regulation such as no wooden
Presentations

houses are allowed or every house should have a shelter higher than 3.5 m.

Tsunamis
After a giant tsunami hit the Sanriku District on June 15 (May 5, in lunar calendar) in 1896, the citizens
were relocated to the higher ground. However, according to Tanakadate & Yamaguchi (1938), many of relocatedfamilies returned to the original low land. The reasons are: 1) Beaches were too far for fishermen, 2) Drinking
waters was insufficient in high ground, 3) People were strongly attached to their ancestral lands, and 4) Tsunamis
are comparatively infrequent, and so on.
After the same area was struck by another tsunami on March 3 in 1933, an idea of the Comprehensive
Tsunami Defense Countermeasures were identified: 1) (Defense structures): Coastal dikes, Sea walls, 2)(Tsunami-resistant town development): Relocation to high ground, Tsunami-resistant areas, Buffer zones,
Tsunami control forests, Evacuation routes, and 3) (Disaster prevention systems): Tsunami precaution, Tsunami
evacuation, and Memorial events
In Miyagi Prefecture, a very strict land-use regulation with legal penalty for violation was introduced. After
this tsunami, an effort began to establish tsunami forecasting. In 1941, a tsunami warning system for the Sanriku
District started.
After the Chilean Tsunami in 1960, the economic development accelerated building concrete structures.
The first tsunami breakwaters in the world were completed in 1968. Many coastal dikes and seawalls as well as
tsunami gates were constructed along the coast and rivers. In case of the 1968 Tokachi-oki earthquake tsunami,
all the structures worked perfectly to prevent the tsunami. Thereafter it became a common belief that any tsunami
could be prevented by structures.
In 1993, a tsunami hit the western shore of Hokkaido. After this experience, tsunami related government
agencies agreed to develop the comprehensive measures to mitigate tsunami damages: the data from the largest
tsunami in the past that has sufficient number of accurate run-up data and the data from the tsunami generated
by the largest earthquake such as the recent seismology. The larger one of the two is the design tsunami. Anothercomprehensive countermeasure is a combination of three means. Major items are as follows: 1) Defense
structures: Sea walls, coastal dikes, tsunami breakwaters, tsunami gate, 2) Tsunami-resistant town development:
Residence on high ground, tsunami resistant buildings, tsunami control forests, and 3) Disaster prevention

17

systems: Forecasting and warning, Evacuation drills, Public education.
In 2004, a committee under the central government provided a manual for preparation of hazard maps against
tsunamis and storm surges. Prof. Katada, Gunma University, introduced a new method, dynamic hazard map, tomake residents understand the importance of early evacuation.
In 2011, May 11, the Great East Japan Earthquake Tsunami devastated the Tohoku region. The highest runup was over 40 m, and nearly 22,000 lives were lost. The tsunami hit the Coast of the Fukushima Prefecturewith run-up height higher than double the estimated one for defense plan. The Nuclear Power Plants, Fukushima
No.1, TEPCO situated on the ground over 10 m high, but was hit by the tsunami 13 m high. Immerged and thenelectric system rupture led to the serious accident of the plants. Hazard maps prepared by local governments had
a negative effect at many places. Many of them who learned they live outside the estimated inundation areas did
not try to evacuate and lost their lives. On the other hand, even though their schools were situated just outside ofthe estimated inundation areas, the students kept the Katada’s three rules: Assumed is only assumed, do your best
under a given condition and be a leader of evacuation and saved their lives.

Conclusions
Structures that can mitigate damages to some extent do not work if they are not well maintained for a longterm. At the same time, high and strong structures may act to deteriorate human’s concern of the nature. We,
human beings easily forget even our own bitter experiences. In addition, once human activity changes the natural
condition, a new type of disaster appears with different magnitude. The power of nature often exceeds our levelof knowledge and learning, and we should live with the nature. This is the way to mitigate natural disasters in the
future generation.

18

Experience of the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake～ For stronger campus against earthquakes ～Masato Motosaka
Professor of International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University

1. Introduction
The 2011 Tohoku earthquake with the magnitude of 9.0 brought huge damage due to not only Tsunami but
also ground vibration. Many ground motion records were obtained by the huge earthquake, which characterized
as long duration and different ground motion amplification due to geological structure. Tohoku University’s
campuses were suffered from the earthquake damage not only research buildings but also research equipments,
especially at campuses at Aobayama hill in Sendai city.
This lecture starts from general description of the Tohoku earthquake, followed by, earthquake preparedness
at the university, damage feature during the earthquake and the recognized problems. Then emergency response
Presentations

and recovery activities are introduced. Toward reconstruction and resilient campus making specific points are
explained. Finally general lessons from the earthquake are additionally addressed.

2. Earthquake preparedness
Tohoku University established a project, “Tohoku University earthquake countermeasure Base Project”,
against the expected Miyagi-ken Oki earthquake in 2007 head by the author. The project tackled with thefollowing subjects as the project reports in 2008. 1) Earthquake circumstance and ground motion prediction 2)
Present-state survey of facilities at each campus from hardware aspect , It is noted that the seismic retrofit ratioof university facilities were 88.5% before the Tohoku earthquake. 3) Present-state survey of Earthquake countermeasures at the university, 4) Investigation of earthquake counter measure at other universities, 5) Earthquake
damage simulation at the university for the predicted earthquakes, 6) Strengthening of future earthquake countermeasures planning and promotion organization, 7) Focused earthquake counter measures in f yr. 2008. “EEW
system installation considering retrofit status of university facilities” and “Practical evacuation training for the
expected earthquake”
It is noted that earthquake preparedness against the earthquake had been done in division level. The following
preparedness was done in case of ‘School of Engineering’. 1) Formulation of various manuals and planning, 2)
Execution of disaster prevention training, evacuation drill, 3) Preparation of emergency stocks, 4) Installation ofEarthquake Early Warning System, 5) Inspection of earthquake counter measures at each office, laboratory

3. Damage feature at Tohoku University and recognized problems
Even if the preparedness, huge amount of facilities’ damage was occurred The estimated total loss is \66,000,000,000 ($ 660,000,000). The recognized problems due to the earthquake are summarized as follows.
1) Stop of education and research; recovery as soon as possible is needed from BCP view point, 2) Repeatedaftershocks cause psychological problem, 3) Building damage on Aobayama campus due to resonance to theamplified ground motion (ref. to Fig.1), and also failure of life lines and land failures due to long duration groundmotion, 4) Topple of fixed equipments; anchoring of heavy equipment (ref. to Fig.2)

19

(a)

(c)

(b)

(d)

Fig.1 Damaged and demolished building. (a) Overview, (b) collapsed corner column, (c) Damage feature of top ﬂoor’s room, (d) Crack at 3rd ﬂoor level bypartial uplifting

Fig.2 Damaged experimental equipments (Chemical Department)20

4. Emergency response and recovery activity
As for response policy just after the earthquake, actual situation of School of Engineering is explained asfollows. Students were recommended to go back to their home town, off-limit to the buildings to promote therecovery work. Lectures were cancelled by the last decade of April Graduation ceremony was also cancelled.
Communication to students and safety confirmation were continuously performed using Information transmission
HP, Safety Confirmation System of Tohoku Univ. at first conveniently then information transmission network ofeach laboratory and telephone. The safety confirmation was continued until March 30. Recovery of laboratory
was done as the following steps; Off limit of buildings, rapid inspection of buildings, tidying up for electricity
Presentations

and water supply. Then, recovery of lifelines, repair of buildings and tidying up laboratory’s inside. It is notedthat recovery of electricity takes 24 days, water supply takes 33 days and gas takes 44days.

5. Towards reconstruction and resilient campus making against earthquakes
Not to cause the same kind of damage, the following earthquake countermeasures were adopted. 1) Adoptionof base-isolated building (ref .to Fig.3), 2) ductile life line countermeasure, 3) land slid countermeasures, and 4)
equipments’ countermeasures not to topple down or installation of base-isolation devise (ref. to Fig.4).
Through the experience of the Tohoku earthquake, is was found that the prepared countermeasures areworked well as for confirmation of evacuation route by disaster training, and Earthquake Early Warning System
makes it possible to gain available time for evacuation. Promotion of the system installation and training
would be recommended. Preparedness of the emergency articles were well prepared due to office inspection.
But Practical training considering injured persons would be needed and it would be needed to reconsider theevacuation response procedure and notification and so on.

New building

Existing building

Fig.3 Adoption of Base-isolated building

21

Fig.4 Fix to strong support frame-not to be extracted from the wall

Fig.5 Installation of base-isolation device

6. Lessons from the 2011 Tohoku earthquake
Regarding hardware, the following lessons were addressed. 1) As for seismic strength of building structure,
new building code and promotion of seismic retrofit was effective to reduce the damage. These are mainly
structural element of the building. Seismic performance of non-structural element and equipments are notsufficient considering total balance of the building. 2) As for utilization of disaster prevention system, earthquake
and tsunami warning systems would be widely promoted together with disaster prevention education to promote
the new technology. Safety confirmation System combined with EEW would be promoted. The useful securingof communication tools (satellite phone) would be efficiently used.
Regarding software, the following lessons were addressed. 1) Problems of refuge plan and evacuation drill,
2) Evacuation drill for not only earthquake but also tsunami, 3) Evacuation drill as collaboration of school andcommunity, 4) Promotion of installation of Earthquake and Tsunami warning system and evacuation drill using
these systems
Through experience of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake, the author emphasized that holistic and well-balanced
earthquake counter measures are necessity in recent too much sectionalized society and that collaboration beyond
each academic field become important to lead synergic combination. Collaboration of Local governments’collaboration and international collaboration are also important.

References
Masato Motosaka, LESSONS OF THE 2011 GREAT EAST JAPAN EARTHQUAKE FOCUSED ON
CHARACTERISTICS OF GROUND MOTIONS AND BUILDING DAMAGE, Proc. International
Symposium on the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, pp.166-185, 2012.
Masato Motosaka and Kazuya Mitsuji, Building damage during the 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku
Earthquake, Soils and Foundations, 52(5), 929-944, 2012.

22

Building a Disaster Resistant City based on the Lessons Learned
from the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami
Hiroshi Ishikawa
Senior Director, World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction Preparation Department, Sendai City

The Great East Japan Earthquake Tsunami devastated the Tohoku region. Sendai City is the largest city in the
Tohoku region with a population of over one million. In Japan, over 15,000 lives were lost in the unprecedented
magnitude 9.0 earthquake and ensuing tsunami. Over 800 precious lives were lost in our city alone. The
economic damage in Sendai City is roughly 15.7 billion US dollars. It was the most complex and extensive
damage that we had ever had.
Through the lessons learn from the Disaster, we believe that the following three initiatives are necessary to build
a disaster-resistant city.
Presentations1) It is important to adopt the concept of “disaster risk reduction.” There is a limitation to mitigate the damages
and impact caused by tsunami only by infrastructures and physical preventative measures such as breakwaters
against the unanticipated huge tsunami and earthquakes.
2) It is crucial to understand the “vulnerability of the city.” Disruptions of lifeline utilities including electricity,water, gas and telecommunications caused tremendous confusion and problems. Due to energy shortage,
all urban functions were declined and recovery work was hindered. Transportation was interrupted andcommunications were shut down.
3) Self-help, cooperation, and mutual support are considered as a basis of assistance. It is not ideal to rely on
public assistance and administration. The local bonds greatly contributed to the rescue of those who required
special care and to management of disaster refuge areas. The cooperation with other municipalities is also a
key.
These are three initiatives toward becoming a disaster-resilient city:1) Development of a disaster-resistant city (development of equipment and facilities and systems)
This approach calls for a multi-faceted protection system which combines improving tsunami counter measuresand reinforcing existing infrastructure, making revisions to refuge area administration policies and information
provision systems, and finally increased cooperation with other cities over a wide area.
◦ Recognizing the disaster risk in communities and the importance of investment in disaster reduction◦ Building a disaster-resistant urban infrastructure (utility lifelines, public buildings, etc)
◦ Taking comprehensive countermeasures against tsunami based on multiple defenses◦ Improving response capabilities for disasters (review of ecacuation centers, countermeasures for persons
unable to return home, provisi of information, BCP formulation etc)
◦ Establishing systems for wide-ranging cooperation, mutual support, etc.
2) Development of self-reliant communities based on mutual support
The government must promote cooperation and face-to-face relationships between the community, schools,
public interest groups, and businesses before a disaster strikes in addition to pursuing higher levels of disaster
preparedness in the community.

23◦ Promoting support activities in local communities (Countermeasures for those who need support,
promotion of participation by women and children in disaster reduction activities)◦ Developing local human resources responsible for reconstruction and disaster reduction (Collaboration
with local communities, schools, public entities, companies, etc)
3) Development of strong disaster-prevention awareness in citizens
It is important to strengthen the disaster-response capability of each citizen through evacuation drills and disastereducation.
◦ Holding disaster reduction seminars for citizens◦ Developing local leaders for disaster reduction and supporting their activities◦ Improving new disaster reduction education
Sendai City has been recognized by the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR)
as a role model in the 2010-2015 World Disaster Reduction Campaign “Making Cities Resilient: My City is
Getting Ready”. In addition, the 3rd UN World Conference on Disaster Reduction is held in Sendai City in 2015.
It is a role of Sendai City to introduce the recovery process, activities to build disaster-resistant communities andour reconstruction projects in collaboration with various sectors.

24

Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 Review from a viewpoint
Osamu Murao
Professor of International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku University

The presentation by Prof. Murao at the Multi-Hazards Summer School consisted of the following five topics: (1)Meaning of Protection of Cities in the History, (2) Disasters in Japan and Background of Hyogo Framework for
Action (HFA), (3) Disaster Management and Disaster Life Cycle, (4) Outline of Hyogo Framework for Action
2005-2015, and (5) A Brief Review of HFA in Japan.
The presentation started with a question, “what is a city?” and referred various risk surrounding a city andhow cities in the world had overcome the threat of disasters and enemies (Fig.1 and Fig.2).
Japanese society has made efforts to reduce disaster damage through devastating experiences in its history
as a disaster-prone country in the world. The second topic focused on the remarkable disasters in Japan and
Presentations

chronological improvements of disaster management (Fig.3 and Fig.4), followed by the HFA backgroundincluding International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR), World Conference on Natural Disaster
Reduction 1994 in Yokohama, and World Conference on Disaster Reduction 2005 in Kobe.
Showing “Disaster Life Cycle,” an idea to deal with disaster management, for the third topic, it presented theFive Priorities for Action in HFA associated with it in the fourth (Fig.5).
Finally, the significance of continuous effort (Fig.6) and recent Japanese disaster management activities
developed in this century were introduced, such as increasing tsunami evacuation towers (Fig.7) and Disaster
Risk Reduction Education Model Projects for Elementary Schools (Fig.8).
Prof. Murao mentioned that the next World Conference on Disaster Reduction will be held in Sendai in 2015,
and that IRIDeS will contribute it as an academic organization in the venue.

Fig.1: A City surrounded by various risks

Fig.2: Architectural design for defense

25

26

Fig.3: Timeline of critical disaster events in Japan

Fig.4: Shirahige Disaster Prevention BaseFig.5: HFA Priority 1 on the Disaster Life Cycle

Fig.6: Japanese efforts to disaster reduction

Fig.7: Tsunami evacuation tower

Fig.8: Disaster Reduction Education Model Proj.

Towards Disaster Risk Reduction City
Manabu Suzuki
Chief, Bureau of Reconstruction Promotion, Office of Mayor, Tagajo City

Tagajo city is located in the east of Miyagi prefecture which is 12 km away from the city center of Sendai.
The population is 62,513 as of May in 2013. Total 188 lives were lost, and 11,000 houses and buildings weredamaged at the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami on 11 March 2011. After the earthquake, the largescale tsunami warning and evacuation announcement were issued, then immediately, the headquarters for disaster
control was established. Within 1 hour after the tremor, the tsunami (the highest 4.6m) came to the city, and one
third of the city was inundated by the water.
A fire broke out at the LPG (Liquefied petroleum gas) complex. The situation was very serious, and no one
was able to go closer to the area. Under the snow falls, the self-defense force and the fire department started
Presentations

the evacuation support. More than 10,000 people evacuated by themselves and stayed at the various evacuation
centers. The life and the situation in the centers were very severe and challenging. The information became
intricate and chaos. Most of the factories and offices were totally destroyed. The next day, when I saw the area
submerged by the tsunami water and the area burned out by fire, I had a feeling of sadness and anger, but I did
not know to whom I should direct the feeling. I was just stunned with anxiousness without hope.
Though Tagajo had tremendous damage by the disaster, all the citizens had a very strong will forreconstruction. The city itself is very small and there is no other land that we can move in and no land at thehigher place, therefore, we had no choice to start the reconstruction on the spot. We set the 3 major goals, namely,
1) Reconstruction of citizens’ lives and of industry, 2) Securing safety and security, 3) Sharing the experiencesfrom the Earthquake and Tsunami.
There are 2 on-going reconstruction projects that made a progress. One of them is the reconstruction for thestreet plants near the factory areas. By replanting all these trees, we hope this areas will be reconstructed towards
the comfortable factory areas. The second project is to develop the disaster public housing complex. Tagajo city
plans to establish 532 houses in 4 areas. In the Sakuragi-area, the construction work has been already initiatedand will be completed in autumn 2014. The childcare center will be also attached to the public housing complex.
We hope it will become a place for children to play and for elderly people to meet and for everyone to develop astrong bond. Also we build the complex that can be a place to evacuate in case of emergencies.

27

We are willing to adopt the concept of disaster risk reduction (DRR) which can minimize the damage. One of
the DRR measures is multiple-defenses. We plan to build sea-walls against the great tsunami in order to weaken
the impact of tsunami. Also, we strengthen the capacity of communication and early warning of tsunami suchas DRR radio, area-mail. In order to evacuate as quickly as possible, the evacuation road to higher places andevacuation tower and buildings plan to be constructed. Developing these multiple DRR measures is one of themost effective DRR measures.
Secondly, we try to collect and accumulate the DRR technologies. One of them is the research anddevelopment of a plant factory that produces lettuce with LED artificial lights. In the factory, 500 lettuces areproduced per day and sold at the markets. Because of this innovation, it will become possible to produce crops
sustainably in case of emergencies due to extreme weather and air pollution. Securing food is one of the priorities
under the emergencies.
The third one is to promote DRR education. As local governments, it is our important role to develop
infrastructures with multiple-defense, however, it is equally important to have the preparedness by education
strengthening the capacity of survival, self-help and protection. For disaster education, a DRR handbook wasdeveloped together with the International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku Universitythat includes the important information at the disaster response and recovery. It will be distributed to all families,
and we hope it will encourage the discussions on the preparedness among the family members. In addition, theschools plan to start the classes using the handbook. In order to promote the DRR education domestically andinternationally, we established the archives that include records, images, and disaster experiences. It aims toreflect the voices of citizens and groups, and share the information on the HP.
We made tremendous loss due to the tsunami. However, we gained lots of experiences, wisdom, surviving
skills as well as incredible support from all over the world. We also had strong determination to start the DRR
measures and we plan to change our way of thinking from negative to positive in the process of reconstruction.
With our current various DRR efforts, we aim to build a resilient city.

28

A Web-Based Approach to Global Earthquake Forecasting
Online Tools for Global Disaster Risk Management
John B. Rundle
Distinguished Professor and Senior Advisor to APRU MH Program
Departments of Physics 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 moreon the public rather than on governments, which are often overwhelmed by the expense and complexity of the
problem. The most obvious case of this is Haiti, whose recovery from the 12 January 2010 M7.0 Port-au-Prince
earthquake remains problematic. Another example is the second M6.3 Christchurch, NZ earthquake whichcaused more than $30 billion USD in damages. It has been estimated that it may take 50 to 100 years to fully
recover (see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Christchurch_earthquake).

Presentations

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 and Recovery.

Figure 1

Each of these phases has time scales associatedwith them, and each requires distinct approaches and technologies to address them. The Anticipation phase
involves forecasting the disaster over a variety of time periods. Intermediate term earthquake forecasting
involves time scales of months to decades. Real-time 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 scalesof hours to weeks, and Recovery over time scales of weeks to years. Solutions associated with these phases
utilize special knowledge from a variety of fields 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 andscenario analysis, which can use approaches as diverse as spreadsheet analysis and video gaming. Response
involves real-world practice and simulation using first responders and their equipment. And Recovery involves
novel financial approaches, financial analyses and market-based approaches. These issues are summarized in thetable shown in Figure 1.
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+, and Instagram29

illustrate the potential for IT to contribute to solutions in the unfolding cascading processes of major disasters.
Yet most of these technologies, designed for the public, are often not well suited to the distinct needs of thedisaster management communities.
In the lecture, I discussed 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, datamining, and simulation methods. Development anduse 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

Figure 2of these methods as exemplified by four websites:

www.quakesim.org , www.e-decider.org , www.openhazards.com , and http://social.openhazards.com .

Of

course, these approaches involve a variety of challenges, which are summarized in Figure/Table 2.
The website www.openhazards.com was organized and initiated to fill the widespread need for global
earthquake forecasting, and its communication to the global public. It has since expanded to include other typesof disasters, as well as the need for disaster education. Given the fact that governments are finding disasterassistance to be beyond their financial means, it will fall increasingly on the global public to address theirown risk management needs. Personal risk management will only be possible if the public has the tools andinformation to make informed decisions.
The forecast we originally developed for the OpenHazards site relies on data-driven approaches derived
from online earthquake catalogs.

We developed

a method to use space-time patterns of small
earthquakes to forecast large events. Until recently,
methods proposed have been based on rates of small
events, either anomalous activation or anomalous
quiescence. Our method is based on the proposition
that the Gutenberg-Richter magnitude-frequency
distribution is a stable statistical distribution overtime. The largest events must eventually “fill in” thedistribution being formed by the smaller events.

30

Figure 3

We showed that large event probabilities can be computed via automated methods and back-tested to optimize
the few parameters in the model. To illustrate the method, we computed probabilities for large earthquakes M>6
in California and M>7 in Japan from 1980 until the present. An example of the application (“app”) that wedeveloped and made operational on the openhazards site is shown in Figure 3.
Finally, I touched on the need for new modesof collaboration through social networking that areneeded for initiatives such as the APRU Multihazards
Presentations

program. I discussed the development and use ofsocial.openhazards.com, a collaboration network built
on Drupal 6 and Open Atrium technology.
A variety of further developments enhance the
Figure 4site beyond its basic functions, including an advanced
search, and features such as an Imageboard (an image

gallery), a Chatter Wall (streaming group conversation messages), and an AppFrames feature (allows the user tocreate apps by linking to external web sites through iFrames). A screenshot of this site is shown in Figure 4. Allof these web sites are fully operational, and the interested user can only see their full functionality by visiting
them and exploring their various capabilities.

31

Geographical and socio-political vulnerabilities and resiliencies
in Chilean recent “natural” disasters1
Hugo Romero
Professor, Department of Geography and Research Centre of Vulnerabilities and Socionatural Disasters (CIVDES) of University of Chile

Chile is a Latin American country that together with several North, Central and South American nations,conforms the Eastern border of the Pacific Ocean Rim, sharing with western Pacific countries the occurrence of
all natural hazards such as earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, floods, volcanic eruptions and landslides. Between
2009 and 2013, a large earthquake and tsunami affected the Chilean central section (February 10th, 2011), killing
more than 500 persons and producing economic losses equivalents to a one eighth of its Gross Domestic Product(GDP). In 2009 and 2013, respectively, Chaitén and Copahue volcanos –located in Southern Chile- have erupted,
and their populations have been evacuated (or have resisted to be evacuated). Since 2010 and due a pervasive La
Niña phenomena, relevant droughts have affected, specially energy, agricultural and urban water uses in Central
Chile, and, on the contrary, have caused serious floods and landslides at the northern Andes highlands, andaround Santiago, the seven million inhabitants country´s capital city, which water sources have collapsed several
days during the last summer as a consequence of mountainous storms. Same natural hazards have affectedthe Latin American countries, being necessary to increase the exchange of scientific information, prevention
strategies and risk reduction practices with the West Pacific region.
According to Rubin and Rossing (2011), regressions predicting mortality for floods and storms in the region,
between 1980 and 2000, are positively correlated with exposure and socioeconomic disparities (measured
using the Gini coefficient), and inversely, with GDP/capita. It means that to interpret correctly the occurrenceof “natural disasters” in Latin America is very relevant to take into consideration not only natural hazards but
also socioeconomic vulnerabilities of local populations. In the case of Chile, exposure is mainly related with thelack of land use planning and enforcement, and, as a consequence, the installation of especially, poorer people,
in hazardous sites like river and streams beds, foothills, dangerous costal zones, and lava and volcanic ashes
flow areas. Urban master plans have allowed the allocation of residential areas trying to solve social urgencies
instead to protect the population in terms of natural hazards. A lack of environmental justice could be observed
everywhere, since social groups that receive less income are located, either at the countryside or in the cities,at hazardouscapes. Such is the case of Talcahuano, one of the most devastated cities by the 27th February
2011 tsunami. Thousand families were living in areas that scientific information has demonstrated that werepreviously flooded by tsunami waves and floods or affected by landslides and water logging. In 2013, in terms ofsocioeconomic disparities and them, sensibility, 63. 5% of the Chilean national population belonged to the lower
middle and poorer social classes, and only 5,4% is a part of the richest group. In the case of Talcahuano, poorer
people occupy near 150 Has of land which has been in previous events completely inundated, while, only 20 Has
of land locate dwellers that belong to the most affluent urban population.
Social vulnerability is mainly related with exposure, sensibility and resilience of local populations. All ofthese components depend, in turn, from socioeconomic and institutional levels of development of countries and

1

Abstract of lecture offered as part of the Summer School of the International Research Institute of Disaster Sciences (IRIDes) of
Tohoku University, Japan, on July 24th, 2013. Research supported by the Millenium Initiative of Scientific Research from the Chilean
Minister of Economy, Support and Tourism.

32

regions. Natural hazards cannot be analysed separately of social vulnerabilities. It seems to be more appropriatedto define socionatural disasters instead of purely natural ones, at least in Latin America, where social disparities
are one of the most outstanding social features.
Reduction of disaster risks, preparedness of the society, urban design and land use planning, material
prevention, and, especially the strength of social capital, are challenges that should be part of a general processof a more even and equalitarian socioeconomic development. Social injustices and uneven development mean
remarkable vulnerabilities that must be urgently reduced in Latin America. If social reforms are not implemented,
socionatural disasters will continue growing their number, magnitude and socioeconomic damages. Many
Presentations

times, disasters could be used like large opportunities to recover previously socioeconomic deprivation zones,
correct economic disparities and recognize the role of grassroots organizations. Top-down procedures that haveoperated in all the Chilean cases must be replaced by bottom-up practices, allowing a democratic participationand decision making processes adopted by local communities, along the whole steps of preparation, coping andrecovering.
In the case of Chile, the last earthquake and tsunami meant the collapse of its centralized and hierarchicalinstitutionality. Lack of electricity produced a complete fail of communication systems and erroneous messages
from the authorities in terms of warning and evacuation of population. Such failures are not only responsibleof many loss of lives, but also of a relevant crisis of credibility affecting the most important services from theState (the Chilean Emergency office depending of the Interior Minister; the Oceanic and Hydrographic Office,depending from the Navy and having responsibility in the functioning of the tsunami warning system). Politicaland juridical responsibilities are still expecting a final decision from the justice, but it is clear than in Chile, thetopic has not been necessarily deeply discussed in academic and institutional terms.
However, on the other hand, several social surveys practiced at local scale have recognized the role ofinstitutions like families, neighbourhood, churches, voluntary fire companies and representatives of the police
at neighbourhood scale, in the performance of successful practices to increase community resilience. Much
more social sciences researches are needed to systematize qualitative and quantitative analyses that facilitate
the construction and strength of social networks and capital at community level like main components of local
resilience.

33

“Campus Safety” Group Work Session, 24 July 2013

A “Campus Safety” group work session was conducted on 24 July to discuss the following specific questions.
Participants of the Summer School where divided up into four groups and provided the following questions to
discuss:1) Does your university have an experience being hit by disaster? If yes, what kind and scale of damages werecaused?
2) What were the issues and challenges under the emergency and recovery phases? What were missing tominimize the damages?
3) How can the capacity of disaster risk reduction (DRR) and preparedness capacities on your campus bestrengthened?
4) Please develop a checklist to ensure the DRR capacities and measures of universities.
5) How can APRU contribute to strengthening this capacity?
Universities should be responsible for the safety and protection of students, staff and visitors on campus. In this
discussion, the focus was on natural disasters. It is extremely important for universities to have a preparedness
and response plan that provides the idea and guide on how to prepare for and respond to emergencies. A variety
of initiatives by universities have been taken on campus safety, i.e., developing a guidebook for emergency,
setting up a communications solution to quickly disseminate an urgent message and alert through multiple
communications mediums, and establishing an emergency management office to coordinate university’s
emergency response and continuity plan and to conduct comprehensive risk assessment as well as training,planning, mitigation and response.
The discussions and international campaigns to advocate the need of a preparedness plan at schools havebeen very active to make schools safer from disasters. However, the discussion on how to ensure the safety ofuniversity campuses is minimal. In this context, APRU as a network of universities and research institutes in the
Pacific Rim, where disaster risks are generally high, would like to promote the importance of “campus safety”
and encourage the member universities to develop a comparative assessment of DRR and preparedness on
campus.

Summary of Discussions:
Each group developed a list of issues and challenges in the disaster preparedness on campuses. Some groups
raised concerns of the existing mechanisms and systems of disaster preparedness on their campuses. Even if asystem and plan existed, not many staff and students were familiar with it, or how the system would work incase of real emergencies. There was a general consensus that universities should ensure all staff and students
are aware of the disaster management systems and procedures and with regular practice drills. At the same time,
universities need to consider “what the most effective and efficient drill is” to make it both practical and realistic.
In addition, the following needs should be emphasized:36✓ Strengthening the communication system that could be used during emergencies✓ Vulnerability and risk assessment (old buildings, chemical hazards, natural gas lines, etc) before disasters
occur,✓ Post-event data collection (oral history, documents, analytical measurements, etc) to use them as data andmaterials for future research and to pass the lessons from disasters to future generations to learn fromIt was also highlighted that universities can play an important role in their wider communities post-disasterthrough harnessing the knowledge and skills of students and faculty members, especially in the fields ofstructural assessment, medical assistance, and psychological support as well as response coordination of student
and staff volunteers.
All the groups recommended that APRU could be a platform to share experiences and knowledge on DRR
between the member universities around the Pacific Rim. Furthermore, the development of a checklist/guidelines
and the provision of mutual support for continuity of study and disaster research were recommended. The APRUGroup work discussions

IRIDeS Multi-Hazards Program endeavors to explore an effective system of data sharing including disastermanagement manuals and disaster archives (interview records with community members etc) and promote bestpractice “campus safety” that all universities may utilize and contribute to.

37

GROUP 1

38

GROUP 2Group work discussions

39

GROUP 3

40

GROUP 4Group work discussions

41

Field trip to the affected areas on 25 July 2013

After the 2-day seminar, the participants joined the field trip to the areas affected by the Great East Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami. The places include Onagawa town, Ishinomaki city, Arahama town, Yuriage town andthe Thousand Year Hope Hill.

Tarnya Kruger
PhD Candidate, Department of Resource Management and Geography,
University of Melbourne

In July 2013, I was fortunate to be one of five PhD students from the University of Melbourne, funded to attend
the APRU Summer School at the University of Tohoku, Sendai in Japan. Like the other four students, thiswas my first visit to Japan and while I only spent one week in the country, the trip was really worthwhile. The
opportunity to experience another culture is always most rewarding, and we found friendly and helpful people
from Tokyo to Sendai. Travelling on the world famous bullet train to Sendai was also a highlight. The gatheringat Tohoku University of approximately 30 participants was most useful in getting to know each other, rather thanat a large conference, where it can be overwhelming. The wonderful food, the dinner and the Bento Boxes forlunch were also a great treat.
The two days of presentations provided an opportunity to learn much about the natural hazards of earthquake
and tsunami, specific to Japan. This gave us insight into the history, where over the centuries Japanesecommunities have endeavored to live with, cope and minimize the impacts of large scale disasters that occur
every couple of decades. The most recent is the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011.
In contrast these hazards are not problematic for Australia, rather bushfires, floods and cyclones are ourconcern. However, there are many parallels in preparing and recovering from any natural hazard. I was mostinterested in the historical preparatory approaches begun in the 1600s, which seemed to use nature to workwith nature, such as the creation of coastal forests and canals. This coastal strip aimed to safely separate the sea
from people. Whilst much of the forest was destroyed in 2011, the landscaping is as an important community
education marker, signalling the ever-present threat of tsunami, where social memory can fade and complacency
takes hold. The new construction of the ‘Thousand Years of Hope Hill’ which we visited during the field trip was
really interesting, reflecting the partnering of government, scientific research and communities in the recovery
process. The hills or mounds act as protection against tsunamis and with new ideas about trees and landscaping
provide an aesthetic and practical safe guard and a memorial for communities and visitors now and in the future,
about the earthquake of 2011.
It is clear that with forecasts of increased intensity and frequency of disastrous events due to climate change,
an interdisciplinary approach to natural hazards is essential. It will be critical that we share knowledge acrosscountries, universities and research disciplines. The APRU network provides an excellent platform for working
together and the summer school is a step in encouraging and fostering interdisciplinary research and learning.
Our group from the University of Melbourne really valued the opportunity to attend Tohoku University and weare most grateful.
44

Liao Kuei-Hsien, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore

The 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami of Japan has once again demonstrated the uncontrollable power ofnature. While I’ve seen numerous reports, images, and videos that document the aftermaths of the catastrophe,
while most of the debris have been cleared, seeing the impacted area in person was still a powerful reminder ofnature’s mighty force of nature and human vulnerability. From Onagawa to Ishinomaki to Arahama to Yuriage,
I saw one terrain after another being taken over by wildly growing vegetation. It was difficult to imagine thatthese places use to be lively towns, full of man-made structures and human activities. The visit to Yuriage was
especially memorable. As I climbed to the top of a small hill and saw an expanse of “green field” that used to
be a town. The green field was seemingly endless, and just down the hill a man was gardening in a lot, probably
where his house used to stand. The man seemed small and humble against a backdrop of the disappeared town ofYuriage.
I don’t know much of the recovery plans of the visited towns, but my understanding is that these areas are
not going to be rebuilt for fear for future tsunamis. This is logical, as any defense structure has limited capacity
and we never know what nature would bring in the future—the best strategy is to avoid the exposure of hazards.
However, it is simply impossible to avoid all hazards, particularly in the modern era where even humans are
Field trip

producing hazards. One could relocate to another area to avoid one type of hazard only to be exposed to another.
I do not believe there is any right way for recovery. My lesson, after seeing the impacted area after two years of
the catastrophe, is that we need to learn to be more humble.

45

Raouffard Mohhammad Mahdi
Master course student, Graduate School of Engineering, Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Kyoto University

The field trip to Tsunami hit area in Sendai was a perfect accomplishment on the 2-day intensive seminarof APRU-IRIDeS Summer School 2013. I had heard a lot about the scale of the disaster, attended many
presentations, and watched tens of video footages on YouTube but never truly had realized how frightening a
big Tsunami could be. We went to different places that were heavily damaged by the Tsunami and could see theprocess of reconstruction and recovery of each area. Also talking to local people and reviewing what happened tothem during the Tsunami and after that was a great lesson from this trip for me. The most impressive thing that I
saw there was the nice harmony between nature, local people and the authorities. Throughout the long history ofJapan, Japanese people have learnt how to turn a disaster to a fortune. Everybody tries to forget the bitterness andsadness of the disaster and look forward to a safer and brighter city and future.

Bruce K. Nelson
Professor, Dept. Earth & Space Sciences, Associate Dean for Research, College of the Environment, University of Washington

I am very pleased that I was able to join the July 25, 2013 full-day fieldtrip to review the tsunami damage
and recovery efforts in the Miyagi Prefecture as part of the Multi-Hazards Program summer school at Tohoku
University. In response to your request for some comments on my experience on the fieldtrip, I would like toemphasize three observations that lead to a suggestion for future workshops:
1. The fieldtrip was immensely important to the success of the summer school.
2. The fieldtrip is a critical venue for discussion and exchange of ideas among participants
3. Without seeing the real effects and scale of the tsunami devastation in person, even as scientists familiar
with the phenomenon, we cannot fully comprehend the scale of the event.
The fieldtrip was very well executed both in terms of logistics and content. I greatly appreciated the effortsof the leaders and organizers. As for most fieldtrips, the critical aspect was that we could have long, detailed
conversations about many issues in a way that is not possible during the sessions at the university. That
opportunity is invaluable. Equally critical was the opportunity to get to know our colleagues. This is so useful ina conference of this size. Several questions and issues arose during the fieldtrip that we could then discuss withlocal experts leading the fieldtrip. Many of these were subjects we could not address from within the confines ofa conference room. The fieldtrip was an essential part of the success of the workshop. A full day is essential.
Discussions occurred on the fieldtrip that did not occur during the seminars for two reasons. First, wewere able to see the scale and on-the-ground effects of the tsunami that led to a different set of questions anddiscussions. No amount of photographs or video can provide the intellectual stimulation that comes from visiting
the sites, and being able to observe details and complexities. Second, many discussions require time to develop

46and mature. This time is not available during 10 minute question and answer periods following powerpoint
presentations, but is available during a fieldtrip. These longer discussions also resulted in developing someunderstanding of people from very different specializations. This is a critical observation: for researchers fromvery different specializations to effectively communicate, it requires extended conversation to learn different
vocabulary, assumptions and perspectives of other disciplines. This time is only available during the ﬁeldtrip.
The variety of disciplines present at the workshop was one of the great strengths of the experience.
Finally, the tsunami destruction was an enormous humanitarian disaster. It is critical for academics to haveat least some personal, first-hand exposure to the effects by visiting the devastated sites. Descriptions, photos
and videos cannot substitute for personal visit. It is critical that academics conduct not only the intellectualand scientific analysis of the disaster, but that they also have some more personal sense of the impacts onlives, families and society. This is a real-world grounding that I believe is an important foundation to academic
analysis.
My observations result in a suggestion I offer for future summer schools/workshops: the fieldtrip is so central
to developing communication among participants and to raising important issues for discussion, that the fieldtrip
should be in the middle of the conference, not at the end. Some introductory presentations and discussion at theuniversity is important to set the context, so it should not be the first event of the workshop, but it should not be
the last event either. The opportunity for the fieldtrip experience to inform subsequent discussion at the workshop
Field trip

would greatly enhance the overall experience.

47

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The first summer school was attended by 31 participants from 9 countries. The organizer
would like to extend a sincere appreciation to the participants and speakers that deeply
contributed to the organization of this event. At the same time, IRIDeS received thetremendous support from the IPPO IPPO NIPPON project, the APRU Secretariat basedin Singapore as well as Tohoku University. The organizer is also grateful for valuablesuggestions and advices given by the faculty members of IRIDeS on the program development
and planning.
This is a kick-start event of the APRU-IRIDeS Multi-Hazards Program, and IRIDeS
together with the APRU secretariat will continue making the efforts to develop the Program
and work together with the member universities to strengthen the roles of universities indisaster risk reduction. IRIDeS looks forward to further collaboration with the APRU institutes
in the future activities.
Lastly but not least, great appreciation goes to the International Exchange Division of
Tohoku University, the staff of the administrative office and the international and regional
cooperation office of IRIDeS for their considerable support, suggestions and hard works tomake this event happen.

48

ANNEX I : APRU-IRIDeS Summer School Program
23-24 July: Seminar at the WPI-AIMR 2F, Katahira Campus, Tohoku University
25 July: Field trip to Onagawa town, Ishinomak city, Arahama town, Yurigage town and theThousand Year Hope Hill

７月 23 日09：00 － 09：25

Opening ceremony

09：25 － 09：40

Introduction of participants

09：40 － 10：40“Introduction of IRIDeS and its roles”(Prof. Fumihiko Imamura, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)

10：40 － 11：00

Coffee break

11：00 － 12：00 “Disaster”
	(Associate Prof. Shunsuke Managi, Graduate School of Environmental
Studies, Tohoku University)
12：00 － 13：00

Lunch

13：00 － 14：00“A Century Against Floods, Storm Surges and Tsunamis in Japan”(Professor Emeritus, Nobuo Shuto, Tohoku University)

14：00 － 15：00	“Experience of the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake –For stronger campus
against earthquakes-“ (Prof. Masato Motosaka, IRIDeS, Tohoku
University)
15：00 － 15：20

Coffee break

15：20 － 16：00

“Building a disaster-resistant city based on the lessons learned from theGreat East Japan Earthquake” (Mr. Hiroshi Ishikawa, City of Sendai)

16：00 － 17：00	“Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Review from a View Point”(Prof. Osamu Murao, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)49

７月 24 日
09：00 － 10：00 “Towards disaster risk reduction city” (Mr. Manabu Suzuki, City of Tagajo)
10：00 － 11：00 “A Web-Based Approach to Global Earthquake Forecasting”(Distinguished Prof. John Rundle, Department of Geology, Universityof California, Davis)
11：00 － 11：20 Coffee break
11：20 － 12：20 “Geographical and Sociopolitical Vulnerabilities and Resilience inChilean Recent “Natural” Disasters” (Prof. Hugo Romero, Department ofGeography, University of Chile)
12：20 － 13：30 Lunch
13：30 － 15：00 Group work (Roles of universities in DRR)
15：00 － 15：20 Coffee break
15：20 － 16：50 Group presentation and discussions
16：50 － 17：00 Closing

７月 25 日：Field trip
Onagawa town, Ishinomaki city, Arahama town, Yuriage town and the Thousand Year Hope Hill

50

ANNEX II : List of Participants

Name

Status

University

Country
based

1

Colette Mortreux

PhD student

University of Melbourne

Australia

2

Connie Kellett

PhD student

University of Melbourne

Australia

3

Jorge León

PhD student

University of Melbourne

Australia

4

Sam Amirebrahimi

PhD student

University of Melbourne

Australia

5

Tarnya Kruger

PhD student

University of Melbourne

Australia

6

Yi Wen Tremewan

Under graduate

University of Melbourne

Australia

7

Hugo Romero

Professor

University of Chile

Chile

8

Ni Hao

PhD student

Zhejiang University

China

9

Zhang Hanbo

MA student

Fudan University

China

10

Raouffard M.

MA student

Kyoto University

Japan

11

Naoki Tagami

MA student

Tokyo University

Japan

12

Naoki Tagami

MA student

Tokyo University

Japan

13

Shunsuke Honma

MA student

Tokyo University

Japan

14

Yuichi Otsuka

Under graduate

Tokyo University

Japan

15

Anawat Suppasri

Associate Professor

IRIDeSJapan

16

Ingrid Charvet

PhD student

IRIDeSJapan

17

Jeremy Bricker

Associate Professor

IRIDeS

Japan

18

Naho Ikeda

Assistant Professor

IRIDeSJapan

19

Natt Leelawat

PhD student

IRIDeSJapan

20

Prasanthi

PhD student

IRIDeSJapan

21

Takako Izumi

Associate Professor

IRIDeSJapan

22

Yuichi Ono

Professor

IRIDeSJapan

23

Tin Tin Su

Associate Professor

University of Malaya

Malaysia

24

Cynthia Zayas

Professor

University of Philippines

Philippines

25

Larisa G. Moskovchenko

Associate Professor

Far Eastern University

Russia26

Liao Kuei-Hsien

Assistant Professor

National University of Singapore

Singapore

27

Goh Yang Miang

Assistant Professor

National University of Singapore

Singapore28

Jeremy Piggott

Program Director

APRU secretariat

Singapore

29

Bruce Nelson

Professor

University of Washington

USA

30

John Rundle

Professor

University of California, Davis

USA

31

Masahiko Haraguchi

PhD student

Columbia University

USA

Mahdi

Ranasinghe

51