Report of the APRU-IRIDeS Multi-Hazards Program
2014 Summer School

22-25 July 2014
Tohoku University
Sendai, Japan

IRIDeS, Tohoku University
International and Domestic Liaison Office468-1-S302 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 Domestic Liaison Office, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)
Yuko Sato (International and Domestic Liaison Office, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)
Akiko Yamada (International and Domestic Liaison Office, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)
Misaki Arakawa (International and Domestic Liaison Office, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)
Andre Edelhoff (Program Director for Research & Enterprise Partnership, the APRU secretariat, Singapore)2

CONTENTS● Background....................................................................................................................... 5● Acknowledgement............................................................................................................. 7● Opening remarks.............................................................................................................. 9● Presentations..................................................................................................................... 15● Group work discussions................................................................................................... 37● Field trip............................................................................................................................ 49
Annex I..................................................................................................................................... 56
Annex II................................................................................................................................... 58

3

Background

Background

The Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) and the International ResearchInstitute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS) in Tohoku University launched the APRU-IRIDeS
Multi-Hazards (MH) Program in April 2013. The Pacific Rim region has high risks tonatural disasters and the universities and research institutes in the region are expected
to contribute to reducing disaster vulnerability and risks and strengthening disastermanagement capacity to tackle these challenges. The Program aims to harness thecollective capabilities of APRU universities for cutting-edge research on disaster risk
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.
APRU is a network of 45 premier research universities from 16 economies aroundthe Pacific Rim. The leaders of Caltech, UC Berkeley, UCLA and USC brought together
the leaders of the region’s research universities and founded this network in 1997. APRU
aims:
◦ To create an association of premier research universities around the Pacific Rim
region.
◦ To foster cooperation in education and research among these universities in areas ofmajor importance to the Pacific Rim community including but not limited to economic
development, science and technology, human resource development, education andenvironmental protection.
◦ To represent these universities and/or their interests collectively in discussions or
meetings with, or assist any of these universities in making any representation or
recommendation to any, advisory or supervisory authority, whether local or foreign,
which are in or concerned with areas relating to education and research in the Pacific
Rim region.
◦ To provide a forum for these universities to meet, discuss, resolve, evaluate, canvass,comment upon and generally to deal with any issue or matter concerning or generally
related areas of importance to the Pacific Rim community.
◦ To enable these universities to become effective contributors to the development of aprosperous and integrated Pacific Rim community.
◦ To contribute to the economic, scientific and cultural advancement of Pacific Rim
economies.
Currently, APRU member universities together have around two million students, morethan 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:5

1. Shaping Asia-Pacific Higher Education and Research,
2. Creating Asia-Pacific Global Leaders and3. Partnering on Solutions to Asia-Pacific Challenges.
The IRIDeS at Tohoku University was established in April, 2012 as a newly integrated
interdisciplinary research team. Together with collaborating organizations from many
countries and with broad areas of specializations, the IRIDeS conducts leading researchon natural disaster science and disaster mitigation based on past lessons in disastermanagement from Japan and worldwide. The IRIDeS aims to contribute to ongoingrecovery/reconstruction efforts in the affected areas, conduct action-oriented research,and pursue effective disaster management to build sustainable and resilient societies.
The IRIDeS also provides secretariat services as the regional program hub to the MH
Program.
The key activities of the MH Program include the following:◦ Organization of the annual summer school◦ Organization of the annual APRU MH Symposium◦ Fostering collaboration in disaster research and information/data sharing among APRU
members◦ Contribution to DRR discussions at international and regional levels and to a policymaking process
The 2014 summer school entitled “Prepare for high impact disasters: towards the UN
World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction” was organized on July 22–25, 2014 at
Tohoku University and attended by 47 participants from seven countries. This year’ssummer school consisted of a seminar with a series of presentations as well as group
discussions on campus safety and regional priorities in DRR. A field trip was also
conducted to Kesennuma City, which was very severely affected by the 2011 disaster.
This was an opportunity to learn about the experiences of the affected city and people
as well as the recovery progress and efforts by local citizens. The APRU and IRIDeS willorganize the MH summer school in 2015 as well and look forward to discussing together
future DRR strategies, academic contributions to a global importance, and learning fromeach other’s experiences in disaster management with participants from all over theworld.

6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTAs the main organizer of this summer school, the IRIDeS would like to extend its sincere appreciation
to the participants and speakers who shared wonderful experiences and knowledge regarding DRR
issues from different perspectives. Their involvement and participation contributed significantly to thisevent’s success. In addition, the IRIDeS received tremendous support from the Tohoku Forum for
Acknowledgement

Creativity, the IPPO IPPO NIPPON project, the APRU secretariat based in Singapore, and Tohoku
University. The organizer is also grateful for valuable suggestions and advice provided by the IRIDeS
faculty members on program development and planning.
Finally, this summer school could never have been implemented without the hard work andconsiderable support of the International Exchange Division of Tohoku University, the Administrative
Office of IRIDeS, and the International Regional Cooperation Office of IRIDeS.

7

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”. I am pleased to meet all of you who gathered fromvarious countries for this event.
It has been already three years since the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami
happened on March 11, 2011. It was the largest disaster event in the Japanese history.
Due to the warm support from all over the world, the recovery efforts have greatly
progressed in collaboration with the communities, the governments, NGOs, the private
sector and academia. Tohoku University has been also playing an important role in therecovery process especially by providing technical assistance. One of the objectives ofthis summer school is to share our experiences from the disaster. I hope this summer
school will give you an opportunity to consider and discuss 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 last year. IRIDeS became the program hub and provides the secretariat service.
This summer school is one of the major events under the Multi-Hazards Program.
We are living in a disaster prone region. Last year, the Typhoon Haiyan caused
tremendous damage in the Philippines. We are facing to various disaster risks due tourbanization, climate change, and development issues. 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. For example, 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 future disasters. I look forward
to hearing your inputs on the campus safety based on the group discussion during thisprogram.
In March 2015, the UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction will be held in
Sendai. We expect more than 6000 people will participate in the conference to discuss
the disaster risk reduction strategy and its framework. The global efforts towards disasterrisk reduction will be more and more required to build a disaster resilient society.
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.

10

Mr. Andre Edelhoff
Program Director for Research & Enterprise Partnership, APRU

It is a great pleasure to welcome you to Sendai for the second edition of the APRUIRIDeS Multi-Hazards Summer School at Tohoku University. The Association of Pacific
Rim Universities is very grateful that Tohoku University offered to host the Multi-Hazards
Program at the International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS) last year.
We are very delighted to have such a well-known and reliable partner working on one of
the topics of greatest concern in the Asia-Pacific economies.
We have seen in 2013:
Opening remarks◦ Cyclone Oswald and Eastern Australia floods, January◦ Lushan earthquake, China, April◦ Alberta floods, Canada, June
◦ Southwest China floods and landslides, July
◦ China-Russia floods, August/September◦ Hurricane Ingrid & Manuel, Mexico, September◦ Typhoon Fitow and floods, China and Japan, October◦ Bohol earthquake, Philippines, October◦ Typhoon Haiyan, Philippines, Vietnam, China, Taiwan, November
Those were the most deadliest and most costly natural catastrophes in the Asia-Pacificregion and worldwide in 2013 only. Most of them, we still remember. Some of them, wewon’t forget. 85% of all fatalities in 2013 had to be mourned in Asia. But also half of the
global economic losses due to natural catastrophes happened in Asia. Cyclonic storms,
earthquakes, fires, flooding, volcanic eruptions, and others have a direct or indirect
impact on the daily life of more or less everyone. Therefore, a stronger international andregional cooperation on hazards and especially on multi-hazards is of utmost importance.
We need to understand the generation and mechanism behind multi-hazards but also
its impact on people and the economy. Hazards do not stop at borders. They are asinternational as the research collaboration on disaster risk reduction should be. As we alllive among the Pacific Rim it is important to establish knowledge action networks on multihazards as early as possible to find solutions from which all of us can benefit. Remember
the person who sits next to you today; you might need her or his skills for your research
project tomorrow.
To establish early career networks among our member universities and beyond as wellas partnering on solutions to Asia-Pacific challenges is one of our objectives in APRU.
APRU is a university network of 45 research universities based in 16 economies among
the Pacific Rim. We are working with 130.000 academics and more than two million

11students in America, Asia and Oceania. Our work is focusing on higher education policies
and university stakeholder groups, on creating leaders among students and among early
career researchers as well as on supporting research networks on the most pressing
issues in the Asia-Pacific region. The latter is the matter why we have convened in Sendai
for the next couple of days. I am looking forward to lively discussions and an exchange of
new experiences and inspiring ideas.
To conclude my opening remarks, I would like to thank the International ResearchInstitute of Disaster Science for hosting this event and special thanks go to Prof Yuichi
Ono and Prof Takako Izumi and their team of the International and Regional Cooperation
Office for designing the program and taking care of our well-being. You have done a great
job.

12

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

I would like to welcome you to Sendai and to Tohoku University. Thank you for enrollingin the second summer school under the APRU-IRIDeS Multi-Hazards (MH) Program.
This summer school aims to share the lessons learned from the 2011 Great East Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami (GEJET) and the ensuing recovery process. The school also
includes discussions on campus safety issues and their contribution to the UN World
Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction to be held in this city in March, 2015. The
mandate for us and our institute is to address the critical issues in disaster risk reduction
and propose appropriate measures to mitigate the impact and damages caused by aOpening remarks

large scale disaster such as the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami.
The International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS) was newly
established in 2012 at Tohoku University. It currently consists of 70 faculty and 70 staff
members, respectively. To mark the second anniversary of the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake
and Tsunami, APRU and Tohoku University decided to launch a new program, which is the
APRU-IRIDeS Multi-Hazards (MH) Program. The IRIDeS provides its secretariat service
as the regional program hub. The program aims to harness the collective capacities
of APRU members for innovative research on DRR and recovery, share strategies forcoping with campus disaster risk management, contribute to international societies, andcooperate with various stakeholders to formulate policy making processes on DRR.
This year’s summer school includes diverse presentations and working group
discussions on different topics. It is designed to understand the international DRR
mechanism and strategy as well as the lessons learned from the experiences andrecovery processes of the 2011 disaster. In addition, on our field trip, you will visit
Kesennuma City, which was one of the most severely affected areas. Your visit will
coincide with that of the Emperor of Japan. In a group discussion, you are expected to
discuss the recommendations toward UNWCDRR, as stated by President Satomi. The
conference anticipates a participation of over 6000 people, including representatives
from the government, NGOs, international and regional organizations, the private sector,
academia, and schools. Academia, in particular, can play a critical role at the conference.
Finally, another important goal of the program is to develop an action plan for improving
preparedness capacity on campus.
I hope you enjoy the summer school your stay in Sendai. Thank you very much.

13

Introduction to International Research Institute of Disaster Science(IRIDeS) Tohoku University
Makoto Okumura
Deputy Director, Prof. of International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University

The experiences of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami (GEJET) were extremely difficult
to overcome. One of the reasons is that it was a complicated disaster comprising the impacts ofearthquake, tsunami, and nuclear power corruption. We have relied on and trusted the capacities
of science and technology. However, the disaster damage cannot be mitigated only by science andtechnology. For example, ancient historical documents and records are useful in understanding thehistory and severity of a disaster. A holistic approach and the involvement of various stakeholders
are very important to confront these challenges. Support from and collaboration with the international
community is also necessary. Hence, we have included “international” in the name of our research
institute.
A year after the catastrophic disaster, Tohoku University established the IRIDeS with the aimof promoting leading research on natural disasters based on lessons learned from GEJET. It also
contributes to regional recovery and a new paradigm on disaster management studies. The IRIDeS
covers a wide range of research areas from disaster science to medical relief, which makes ourinstitute quite unique.
The key concept of disaster management comprises hazard exposure, vulnerability, and resilience.
Disasters are caused by human activities and natural phenomena. The interaction between natural
hazards and human behavior results in exposure, whereas vulnerability stems from weakness in thehuman social system. Resilience implies the speed of recovery. The presence of natural hazards
cannot be controlled or avoided. Engineering can decrease vulnerability and improve disasterprevention by building facilities to reduce the damage and effects of initial impact. To decrease
exposure, land-use control and temporal pre-disaster evacuation are useful and support from social
science and urban planning is extremely crucial. To increase resilience, it is necessary to strengthen
disaster response capacity and establish insurance and special finance arrangements. Moreover, theinvolvement of individuals in the disciplines of social science, economics, and medical science are
critical. It is extremely important to pay attention to these fields and not just traditional DRR disciplines,
such as engineering. Interdisciplinary collaboration and a comprehensive approach are needed,
and therefore the IRIDeS was established with an interdisciplinary structure consisting of sevendepartments and 36 fields.
The IRIDeS has both short-term and long-term objectives:
1．Elucidating mechanisms related to global-scale natural disasters and their impacts
2．Restructuring disaster prevention and reduction technologies based on the lessons of the 2011
GEJET
3．Establishing “Disaster Supportology” and re-evaluating disaster management from a historical
viewpoint
4．Enhancing disaster resiliency and developing multiple fail-safe systems in regional and urban areas
5．Establishing disaster medicine and medical service systems against catastrophic natural disasters

16

6．Designing disaster resilient societies and passing knowledge and lessons from disasters
The IRIDeS has been conducting various events and seminars for the public, such as the IRIDeS
Friday forum, the GEJET watcher, symposia, and issuing newsletters and annual reports. In addition,unique projects include the archival project known as Michinoku Shinroku Den, which collects andarchives disaster information based on interviews, data, and photos and aims to establish a global
standard for archival science. We are promoting utilization of the system and archiving the data incollaboration with industry, academia, government, and citizens. It is also important for the IRIDeS to
enhance its collaboration with government and academia through various activities. Furthermore, itaims to strengthen the educational program by establishing a disaster management program for higher
education and to train internationally prominent researchers in the field of disaster management.

• Principle:• Mission– Establish “practical” disaster management studies• Identify and theorize disaster‐related phenomenon ineach stage of disaster cycle• Establish an area of
disaster management
Disasterstudy that supports
building societies
Preparedness
more resilient toDisaster(Future disaster
impacts
mitigation)
disasters
Disaster• Internationally‐
Cycle
driven research/educational activities– Promote world’s leading research on natural
disasters through:• learning from the GEJE and tsunami;• contributing to the regional recovery; and• set an international paradigm on disaster management
studiesRehabilitation
andReconstruction

Emergency
response1

2• Institutional structure• Origin:– 7 departments, extensive collaboration beyond IRIDeS– IRIS (plural)– Violet (Color of Iris)(Color of Tohoku Univ.)

Hazard andRisk
Evaluation

Human andSocialResponse• Nobility and desire– Logo: reversing Chinese
Character for disaster

Regional and
Urban
Reconstruction

災

災

災

Presentations

IRIDeS: A new institution in a disaster stricken area

– A proverb: “Disaster turns
into blessings”

Research institute inJapan and overseas
3International ResearchInstitute of Disaster Science(IRIDeS)
EndowedResearch
Division

Disaster
Science

Private companies

Disaster
Information
Management
and Public
Collaboration

Disaster
MedicalScience

Affected local
governments
417

Disaster Medical and Public Health Management as DRR/DRM
Shinichi Egawa
Professor of International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University

The world is now facing the increased impacts of disasters. Disaster is always measured by the
number of death, injury and the financial losses. But, it is not easy to measure the implementation
process and the effect of disaster risk reduction (DRR) and disaster risk management (DRM). As theoutcome of International Symposium on Disaster Medical and Public Health Management: Review
of Hyogo Framework for Action in May 2014, the disaster health care professionals declared that thecommunity health resilience and well-being should be an explicit outcome of future framework foraction.
From the experience of large scale disasters, Japan has established the nation-wide systemfor disaster medicine. Disaster base hospitals, Japan DMAT, staging care unit and wide areatransportation system, emergency medical information system and medical/public health coordinator
were established and fully functioned to save the lives of affected people in Great East Japan
Earthquake. In the large scaledisasters, however, the hospitals
themselves can be greatly
damaged and there are gaps
between the medical/public healthneeds and relief operations.
Coordination of medical andpublic health relief is a challenging
issue. Safe Hospitals should beestablished in structural, nonstructural and functional aspects.
Health facilities critically requireplans for continuity of healthoperations/logistics, human resources and prioritized funding strategies.
In Philippines, the shift from the acute mass casualties to the chronic public health problem
was also noted. The Department of Health in national government coordinated the domestic andinternational medical relief in collaboration with World Health Organization. The result was remarkableby avoiding the confusions of information and supply materials, though the number of affected people
was so huge. These two experiences in Eastern Asia will give us the insight of future planning of DRR/
DRM in health sector.
For better response, it is prerequisite to establish, coordinate and promote “accountability,transparency, oversight, professionalism and registry” among health service providers. In community,
engage and empower vulnerable populations including children and disabled to identify their own
needs and develop strategies to lower their risks and enhance their resilience. To increase the mental
health resilience, individual, family and community support, ethno-cultural and socio-demographic

18

considerations, connectedness and communication
are fundamental risk reduction and risk management.
By improving the baseline of health status,
availability and quality of health service, the impact
of disaster is mitigated. To do so, public health andmedical experts must be engaged in the disaster risk
reduction and risk management process at all levels
with a mind that current emerging crises demand aparadigm shift within the global community geared
toward prevention and preparedness.

Presentations

References
1．Shibahara S. The 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and devastatign Tsunami. Tohoku J Exp Med 2011; 223: 305307. doi: 10.1620/tjem.223.305
2．Satomi S. The Great East Japan Earthquake: Tohoku University Hospital’s Efforts and Lessons Learned.
Surg Today (2011) 41:1171–1181. DOI 10.1007/s00595-011-4587-y
3．Ushizawa H, Foxwell AR, Bice S, Matsui T, Ueki Y, Tosaka N, Shoko T, Aiboshi, Otomo A. Needs fordisaster medicine: lessons from the field of the Great East Japan Earthquake. WPSAR Vol 4, No 1, 2013
| doi: 10.5365/wpsar.2012.3.4.010
4．Egawa S, Kodama M, Sasaki H. Installation of Medical and Public Health Coordinator in Japan.
Proceedings of 9th APRU Research Symposium 2013,19

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 ofgrowing 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 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 isthe second M6.3 Christchurch, NZ earthquake which caused 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).
The World Wide Web offers many new
and unique opportunities to address problems
and challenges associated with great natural
disasters. These examples of complex naturaldynamics 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 typicallyinvolve four phases: Anticipation, Mitigation,
Response and Recovery.

Figure 1

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 avariety 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 timescales of only seconds. Real-time warning for hurricane and typhoon landfalls is another special casewith time scales of hours. Mitigation occurs over days to years, Response over time scales of 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 and scenario analysis, which can use approaches as diverse as spreadsheet analysis
and video gaming. Response involves real-world practice and simulation using first responders andtheir equipment. And Recovery involves novel financial approaches, financial analyses and marketbased approaches. These issues are summarized in the table shown in Figure 1.
Overshadowing all of these areas is the availability of modern IT, and in particular, social networking

20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 Instagram 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, areoften not well suited to the distinct needs of the disaster management communities.
In the lecture, I discussed new approaches tothese problems. These approaches, grounded ina variety of modern IT, involve the computationand global dissemination of data from data-driven
forecasts, data-mining, and simulation methods.
Development and use of portal technologies,
Presentations

collaboration and social interaction websites, will be
critical. Computational methodologies are only usefulin a modern context if they are implemented with
Figure 2

accessible User Interfaces (UIs). Here we discuss

the development and use of these methods as exemplified by four websites: www.quakesim.org,
www.e-decider.org, www.openhazards.com, and http://social.openhazards.com.

Of course, theseapproaches 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 types of disasters, as well as the need for disaster education. Given the fact thatgovernments are finding disaster assistanceto be beyond their financial means, it will fall
increasingly on the global public to address
their own risk management needs. Personal risk
management will only be possible if the public
has the tools and information to make informed
decisions.
The forecast we originally developed for
the Open Hazards site relies on data-driven
approaches derived from online earthquake
catalogs. We developed a method to use spacetime patterns of small earthquakes to forecast
large events. Until recently, methods proposed

Figure 321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 astable statistical distribution over time. The largest events must eventually “fill in” the distribution being
formed by the smaller events.
We showed that large event probabilities can be computed via automated methods and backtested 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 we developed and made operational on the openhazards site is shown in
Figure 3.
Mobile applications also of increasing importance in a
web-based approach to risk management. For that reason,
we have extended the functions of the earthquake forecast
and the home damage estimator to mobile environments.
The free app “QuakeWorks” by Open Hazards is now
available on the Apple App Store. At the moment, only theiOS7 version is available, but we plan to produce an Android
version in the near future. With this app, the user can
repeatedly check their seismic hazard as they move aroundFigure 4

from one location to another. The user can also check thepotential damage to any structure of interest.
Finally, I touched on the need for new modesof collaboration through social networking that areneeded for initiatives such as the APRU Multihazards
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 site
beyond its basic functions, including an advanced
search, and features such as an Imageboard (anFigure 5

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

22

A Brief Overview of Computational Modeling for Multi-Hazards
Eric M. Heien, John Rundle
PhD, University of California, DavisThis presentation discussed Computational Modeling and Simulation, specifically the questions of"What is it?" and "Why do we use it?", then its applications to Computational Seismology, and specificexamples involving Virtual California and the Computational Infrastructure for Geodynamics.
Computational modeling involves approximating the behavior of a system on a computer using
a set of well defined rules. The rules are often based on physics equations governing gravity,
temperature, stress, pressure, magnetism, etc. Model details are specified through parameters, suchas gravity. Where we don’t know exact rules we use probabilistic rules and run many simulations. We
can try using different rules, different parameters, to quickly experiment with the system.
Many phenomenon occur too slowly/quickly to see, or occur on spaces too large/small. The Earthchanges over thousands to millions of years, we can’t wait to see what happens, and it can be too
expensive or dangerous to perform real experiments. If you want to test a new bridge design, you
can’t break a few to see what happens. There may be too many parameters to test with real world
Presentations

experiments.
Several slides from the presentation are shown below.

23Current Situation (progress) and Challenges in Reconstruction based on
the Three-year Experience of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami
Yasuaki Onoda
Professor of International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University

1. Reconstruction

Reconstruction after a disaster is extremely challenging, because the situation and needs are diverse
and always changing. Reconstruction activities can be divided into the following ten categories:a)Relief of victims and provision of sheltersb)Construction and management of temporary housesc)Careful damage assessment and development of a reconstruction pland)Collaborative framework and consensus building on reconstruction implementatione)Regeneration and maintenance of affected communitiesf)Reconstruction and promotion of local industriesg)

Coordination of works after the reconstruction stageh)Management of staff working to implement the reconstruction plan	 i )Information and media management

	 j )Relocation to new housing areas and removal of temporary houses

2. Reconstruction and evacuation plans (1, 3)

Evacuation plans should be prepared before a disaster occurs. However, in case of an unprecedented
disaster like GEJET, the original plans must be revised. Unfortunately, in this case, the evacuation plan
was only revised following the development of the reconstruction plan.

3. Temporary housing plan and long-term issues (2, 4, 5, 10)

Providing numerous temporary houses becomes necessary within a short period. At the same time,
the quality of houses affects the community’s sustainability and consensus building. Therefore, thehouse provision is an extremely complicated and challenging matter requiring urgency as well as
detailed planning and consideration.

4. Rational tsunami risk assessment and its adaptation to a reconstruction plan (3, 4, 9)
The basic reconstruction plan developed after GEJET determined that a flood caused by an L1
tsunami (occurrence once per century) could be reduced by seawalls, and the risks of an L2 tsunami(once every 500 to 1000 years) could be reduced by planning in the area where more than a twometer high wave will not be reached (2-2 rule). However, a result of the tsunami simulation of the ria
coast showed that most towns will be flooded with high levels of water by an L2 tsunami. Therefore,
residents have no choice but to live in small land areas developed by cutting into a mountain, eventhough a large seawall was built and a wide plain exists along the coast.

5. Architects and civil engineering consultants: relocation plans to higher ground (3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10)
In the process of reconstruction planning, architects who assisted the reconstruction from GEJET
presented a reasonable suggestion and proposal which follows the basic rules of land development
and best uses the existing potential in the relevant area. However, most proposals were not adapted24

due to difficulty in management as well as public and private distinction.

6. Design of public housing in the reconstruction stage: avoiding solitary death (4, 5, 7, 8, 10)

After the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, a number of affected people lost their lives in isolation
after moving into the disaster-related public houses. Based on research results, some communityoriented disaster housing complexes are now under construction, such as those in Shichigahama andKamaishi.

7. Toward creative reconstruction

Reconstruction cannot be achieved only through sturdy structures such as seawalls, roads, anddisaster housing complexes. It is crucial that reconstructed communities and areas are both valuable
and attractive for many generations and generate sustainable livelihood. However, in many cases,
project and plan implementation becomes an objective of reconstruction, because municipalities needto implement various and numerous reconstruction tasks. Therefore, environmental concerns andconsiderations are insufficient and delayed.
Municipalities relatively successful in the reconstruction process possess the following similarities:
a. Encouraging voluntary life reconstruction by providing detailed information at early stages.
b. Promoting prompt consensus building through rural communities.
c.	Actively collaborating with municipality officers and a third party including experts, scholars, andPresentations

business people.
Based on mutual trust between residents, municipalities, and experts, various issues and challenges
can be overcome by implementing detailed and attentive reconstruction works using local resources.

25

Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 Review from a viewpoint
Osamu Murao
Professor of International Research Institute of Disaster Science, 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 acity and how 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 experiencesin its history as a disaster-prone country in the world. The second topic focused on the remarkabledisasters in Japan and chronological improvements of disaster management (Fig.3 and Fig.4), followedby the HFA background including 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 the Five 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 risk

26

Fig.2: Architectural design for defense

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

Presentations

Fig.3: Timeline of critical disaster events in Japan27

“KAKEAGARE! JAPAN”～ Tohoku-originated tsunami disaster prevention action ～Shunsuke Matsushima
Dentsu, Inc.

Dentsu group together with IRIDeS and Kahoku Shimpo Publishing, Co. (a local newspaper in Miyagi
Pref.) launched “KAKEAGARE! JAPAN” in September 2012 in the aftermath of the Great East Japan
Earthquake and tsunami that caused a tremendous loss of life and property. The aim of this project is
to use the experience and lessons learned from this major disaster to develop a program of tsunami
evacuation drills and create “a culture of evacuation” that habitualizes the practice of evacuation.
The mission of “KAKEAGARE! JAPAN” is;1．To provide resolutions to the issues faced by areas regarding tsunami
evacuation (create
evacuation rules unique to each area).
2．To develop an ongoing tsunami evacuation drill program to be carried out on a regular basis.
3．To promote and to spread the practice of tsunami evacuation drill programs to locations around
Japan and around the world where major tsunamis are projected.
“KAKEAGARE! JAPAN” will provide “variable drill programs” for tsunami evacuation. So that
communities can freely select and combine to meet the evacuation issues they face due to thecharacteristics of their area, such as terrain, population, and location of residential districts.
http://kakegare.jp
Implementation System

Case 01 | Iwanuma, Miyagi Prefecture(September 1,2012)• Located on the Sendai plain, where there is no high ground and no tall buildings exist.
• The only elevated ground is a highway, the Sendai‐Tobu Road. This was chosen as theevacuation site, and a drill was carried out to escape up to the roadway using stairs built after
the earthquake.

Local governments and communities

Governments, neighborhood community associations, local autonomous
disaster prevention organizations, fire brigades, women’s fire prevention clubs,
NPOs and civic groups, boards of education, elementary and junior high schools,
police, fire departments, etc.

Evacuation site
TOHOKUEvacuation site

Coordination/Support“Kakeagare! Japan” Planning Council

Kahoku Shimpo Publishing Co., Local Newspaper Companies

Evacuation site

Local area interaction using newspaper publishing networks, liaison with local governing
bodies, civic groups, etc., and coordinator for local companies, NPOs, civic groups, etc.

Coordination

Tohoku University IRIDeS(International Research Institute for Disaster Science)

Provides drill supervision, verification, surveys, advice for plan drafting,etc. based on scientific knowledge.

IWANUMA

Dentsu Group

Matching, coordination of companies, NPOs, etc., citizen‐
participatory content development, advertising, PR materials, etc.,
utilizing the network of the Dentsu Group.

MIYAGI Pref.

01

Case 01 | Iwanuma, Miyagi Prefecture(September 1,2012)• After the drill was over, a disaster prevention event was held at a junior high school
gymnasium, and the Self‐Defense Forces cooked rice for the public.
• The area rule to “run up to the highway” gained widespread attention and was reported bynewspapers and TV news programs nationwide.

 No. of participants: 1,450(approx. 30% of target residents)

Report on YouTube ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKJKj9moewk

28

2

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

Tagajo city is located in the central-eastern region of Miyagi prefecture. It is beside Sendai city, about
12 km away from central Sendai. The population is 62,756 as of June 2014. Total 188 lives were lostand more than 11,000 houses and buildings were damaged at the Great East Japan Earthquake andTsunami on March 11, 2011. After the earthquake, the large-scale tsunami warning and evacuation
announcement were issued, then immediately, the headquarters for disaster control was established.
One hour after the tremor, the tsunami (the highest 4.6m) hit the city and one third of the city was
inundated by the water. Besides, 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. A maximum of 12,000 people
went to evacuation sites such as schools. The Self-Defense Forces and fire department started theevacuation support under the snowfall. Factories and offices in the industrial area were almost totally
destroyed. The next day, I saw the area submerged by the tsunami water and 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 justPresentations

stunned with anxiety and restlessness.
Though Tagajo had tremendous damage by the disaster, all the citizens had a very strong will forreconstruction. The city itself is very small with no other land to move in and no land at a higher place.
Therefore, we had no choice but to start reconstruction on the spot, which could not be seen in otherdamaged towns. We implemented a “Recovery Plan” and set three major goals: 1) Reconstructionof citizens’ lives and industry, 2) Securing safety and security, 3) Sharing the experiences from the
Earthquake and Tsunami and enhancing attractiveness of towns. At the same time, we felt there was aneed for the city to be strong against disasters in order to start reconstruction on the spot. It was also
necessary for the citizens to make use of the lessons learned from the Earthquake and Tsunami. With
this in mind, we implemented “Tagajo DRR City Strategy” in November 2013 and made a “Declarationof DRR City.”
There are four major points in the “Tagajo DRR City Strategy”:
1) Developing disaster-resilient city
This approach focuses on the construction of infrastructure, and four strategies are drawn up in detail.
◦ Building multiple barriers for tsunami◦ Developing earthquake-resilient city
◦ Minimizing flood damage◦ Developing disaster response system
A large scale tsunami that comes once in 1000 years cannot be guarded only by infrastructure.
Therefore, we implement some projects as multiple-defenses: developing evacuation announcement
facilities, constructing evacuation roads, designating temporary escape buildings and building barriers
such as seawalls, sea banks and green barriers to reduce the force and speed of tsunami. Anothersignificant project is to develop housing complexes with DRR function. We are developing disaster29

public housing complex in an inundated area. To reduce damage of tsunami, the first floor is pilotis
structure, and the second floor or more are used as residences. The complex also works as evacuationbuildings for neighboring residents. Also, another housing complex which has industrial rehabilitation
support function is planned to be developed.
2) Increasing DRR capacity based on self and mutual help
Two strategies are implemented in this approach so that citizens and local communities can cope withdisasters by themselves rather than depending fully on local administrations.
◦ Enhancing self-help ability◦ Strengthening community DRR capacity
We developed a DRR handbook, which includes important information in the processes of eachdisaster response to recovery. This handbook has already been distributed to all the families in Tagajo
city.
3) Sharing disaster experience
The aim of this strategy is to utilize, disseminate and pass on the disaster experience to future
generations. We established archives called “Tagajo ken-bun-oku” on the internet, which include
records, images, disaster experience and so on. We hope to share these information domestically andinternationally. Besides, we would like to strengthen DRR education and awareness based on thesearchives.
4) DRR technology
This strategy is aimed to maximize companies’ strength and share new technologies introduced after
the tsunami disaster. There are mainly three technologies developed: food production technology
unaffected by external environment, production of emergency foods with high nutrition value, andevacuating vehicles guide system. We hope to share these technologies in order to repay the people
who gave us their support for their kindness and thoughtfulness.
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 had strong determination toinitiate the DRR measures and change our way of thinking from negative to positive in the process ofreconstruction. With our current various DRR efforts, we aim to make Tagajo as a resilient city.

30

１. Damage by “the Great East

Tagajo, Miyagi

Tagajo, Miyagi

２. Towards reconstruction

Japan Earthquake & Tsunami”

Outline of reconstruction plans in Tagajo City
◆Reconstruction measures

Tagajo City

Miyagi Pref.

◆Priority issues

Securing safety & security

Rapid restoration

Damages in downtown
area

Sharing disaster experiences reduction measures& enhancing attractiveness of
towns

12km fromdowntown Sendai◆Population: 62,000◆Area:
19.65 km²
◆Density:
approx. 3,100/km²
top in Tohoku area
◆Traffic:
76,000cars／day◆Flooded area:
662ha(1/3 of the city) → 90% downtown◆Max. height of flood: 4.6m
◆Number of Deaths:
188 ( citizen 97, non-citizen 91）◆Destroyed houses:over 11,000（including full, half , partial）◆Approx. 1,400 family have escaped to temporary housing◆Approx. 8,500 cars were floated into the city
◆Volume of rubble :353 kiloton

Date：Aug. 5, 1986
Cause：Typhoon No.10
Total rainfall：394mm
Max. rainfall：37mm/h
Flooded above floor：2,817 houses
Flooded below floor： 1,468 houses

9.22 Heavy Rain
Date：Sep. 22, 1994
Cause：low pressure
Total rainfall：305mm
Max. rainfall ：119mm/h

Date：Jul. 11, 2002
Cause：Typhoon No.6
Total rainfall：171mm
Max. rainfall：43mm/h

Miyagiken-oki Earthquake (subduction)
Date：Jun. 12, 1978
Magnitude：7.4
Seismic intensity：5 (Sendai, Ishinomaki)

1978年

Miyagiken-oki Earthquake (subduction)
Date：May 26, 2003
Magnitude ：7.0
Seismic intensity ：4 (Tagajo )2003年

Date：Sep.22, 2011
Cause：Typhoon No.15
Total rainfall：310mm
Max. rainfall：49mm/h

Miyagiken Earthquake (subduction)
Date：Aug. 16, 2005
Magnitude ：7.2
Seismic intensity ：4 (Tagajo )2005年

Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku Earthquake (epicentral)

Date：Jun. 14, 2008
Magnitude：7.2
Seismic intensity ：3 (Tagajo )2008年

Great East Japan Earthquake (subduction)

Flooded above floor：15houses
Flooded below floor：315houses

Date：Mar. 11, 2011
Magnitude ：9.0
Seismic intensity：5+

2011年

５ ． Tagajo DRR city strategy ②
1

Facilities & systems have been built as thefoundation of local recovery【multiple defenses image】

Evacuation road2

Development of earthquake-resilient city

Developing
disasterresilient city

1

Building multiple barriers fortsunami2

Developing earthquake-resilient
city

Strategy for DRR city
Future plan

3

Minimizing flood damage

4

Developing disaster response
system5

Enhancing self-help ability

6

Strengthening community DRR
capacity

Sharingdisasterexperience

7

Sharing disaster experience

DRR

8

DRR Research Park Program

enhance safety

To save lives:Emergency radio system

prepare for disaster

Increasing
DRR capacity
based on self
and mutual
help

technology

Tagajo, Miyagi

revitalize
minimize damage
improveliving environment restore rapidly local economy

DRR city - Tagajo

・Multiple barriers
・Evacuation roads
・Escape towers
・Dissemination of evacuation
announcement

invigorate city

Tagajo, Miyagi

５ ． Tagajo DRR city strategy ③
5【Project】

Building Multiple barriers for tsunami

Aim

Strategy for DRR city
Mechanism

Miyagiken-hokubu Earthquake (epicentral)

Date：Jul. 26, 2003
Magnitude ：6.2
Seismic intensity ：4 (Tagajo )Tagajo, Miyagi

５ ．Tagajo DRR city strategy ①

Year：869（Heian period）
Magnitude：8.3

9.21 Heavy Rain

2011年

2

Jogan Earthquake（subduction-zone）

7.11 Heavy Rain

2002年

Reconstruction on the spot!
1【Earthquake & Tsunami 】
869年

Flooded above floor ：667houses
Flooded below floor： 903 houses

2000年

3yearsPresentations

8.5 Heavy Rain

Reconstruction

3 years

RecoveryTagajo, Miyagi

３ ．History of natural disasters in Tagajo City

1994年

Development
4years◆Max. seismic intensity: 5+【Heavy rain】

Redevelopment of the
train station area

Disaster risk

RebornDamage◆Location:

1986年

Ｄｄ

Takajo City

Small city
Sendai Port

Sharing disaster
experience
Make use of history,landscape & culture

ＤｄStrong will toreconstructionＤｄ･･flooded downtown area･･flooded non-downtown area

Awareness raising ofdisaster risk reduction

Reconstruction ofindustry and support
to its opening◆Current Status
Sendai City

Housing &employment

Reconstructing citizen’s
lives and industry

Aim

6
Disaster preparedness capacity ofeach citizen is fulfilled

Development of DRR & disaster prevention

Aim【Handbook】

Local DRR capacity as assistanceby pubic bodies is increased【emergency drill】【Project】

Escape tower3

Green barrier

・Local emergency drill
・Voluntary disasterprevention organization

Seawall

Minimizing flood damage

7

Sharing disaster experience

Aim

Disaster experience and records
are disseminated【Project】

Aim

Buildings have earthquake resistant
structure

・DRR education
・DRR handbook
・Tsunami hazard map

Aim Flood damage by heavy rain is
reduced【Project】【Project】

・Earthquake resistant roads and bridges
・Earthquake resistant wooden buildings

・Rainwater draining system
・Rainwater draining pump・Side ditches【Project】
・Sharing experience & lessons【DRR education】【lettuce grown in artificial light】

8

DRR Research Park Program

Aim

Various DRR technology and products
are developed

Tsunami damping Utilize
technology
sustainableenergy4

Development of disaster response system

Aim

Disaster response system including rescue,evacuation and recovery is established【Project】
・Evacuation site management
manual・Stockpile facility
・Distribution base for relief
supplies

Robot
technology

Tagajo【Project】

・Promotion of DRR technology development
・Joint meeting of industry, academia and government
・Joint research with private sector and university

Network &control system

Alternative
food supply
systemDevelopemergency food【image of DRR technology】

31

Campus Safety: how to secure safety and security toward natural
disasters on campus
Takako Izumi
Associate Professor of International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University

The United Nations Office of Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) conducted an awareness campaign
called “Disaster risk reduction (DRR) begins at school” in 2006–2007. Throughout this campaign,
the importance of DRR efforts and countermeasures at schools as well as disaster education werestrongly emphasized. However, the demand of disaster preparedness on university campuses wasoverlooked despite universities being recognized as part of the community. Therefore, once they areheavily inflicted, impacts can be felt beyond campus and also affect communities.
As a network of universities, APRU should be responsible for developing, internationally promoting,and assisting in implementing disaster preparedness on university campuses. The objectives of thisstudy are as follows:◦ To conduct a survey of APRU members on the current status of disaster preparedness on campus
and identify the challenges and recommendations for the future preparedness plan.
◦ To promote the need for campus safety and share the best practices with the APRU members.
◦ To contribute to international events such as the 2015 UN World Conference on Disaster
Risk Reduction by sharing the results of campus safety studies and raising awareness on its
significance.
In the survey results, the following major challenges were addressed to develop the disaster
preparedness capacity on campus:◦ Securing the necessary budget for DRR measures, particularly for infrastructure enhancement◦ A lack of awareness and interest among the campus population in preparing for infrequentcatastrophic events
From the various DRR measures, many universities consider prioritizing the implementation ofevacuation drills, preparation of response, preparedness, recovery plans, developing the capacity ofa response team, and establishing frequent communications between emergency/security offices andfaculty members.
The APRU has received requests through surveys for sharing the best practices of disaster
preparedness on campus, assessment tools, manuals and training materials developed by member
universities, and conducting a workshop on campus safety. The APRU MH program will work on
developing the campus safety program and seek to raise awareness on the importance of disaster
preparedness on campuses among the APRU members.

32

Risk assessment
1. Risk assessment

2. DRR strategy based on risk
assessment
14%

14%

36%

45%
41%

3. Result sharing of risk
assessment

27%

37%

36%

50%

How was it conducted and how was theresult used?
• Followed FEMA’s guideline• 5 years cycle and it is used to identify
and prioritize potential risk reduction
measures and action/work plan
• Top 10 hazards were identified forthe campus and mitigation measures
have been implemented.

Presentations

1

Disaster preparedness mechanism/capacity
1. Safety confirmation system

27%

2. Disaster response handbook

32%

23%
45%
32%

41%

3. Disaster‐proof structure

4. Awareness‐raising activities (drills, guidance etc)
•

14%

5%
24%

18%
71%

68%

•
•
•
•
•
•

Disaster response exercise forincident command staff
Workshop on lab‐safety
Evacuation drill
Annual preparedness fair,quarterly tests of theemergency notification system
Public outreach – community
preparedness workshop on
campusOnline‐fire safety awarenessprogramDisaster response manual233

Practical Education Program for Improving Response Capability to
Survive from Tsunami
Mari Yasuda
Research Associate of International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University

Due to the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami on 11 March 2011, 466 children under theage of 9 years lost their lives. The reasons/problems identified include: a tsunami with that scale has
never been expected, advance preparation was insufficient, and evacuation drill for tsunami was notenforced. There was no education program to provide the wisdom to survive, and these situations
must be changed.
First, it is necessary to develop adequate textbooks to support learning on disasters and disasterrisks. If children have such knowledge and understanding, they can take an appropriate action.
Universities and academic institutions have a responsibility for providing necessary support to suchinitiatives by local governments and schools as well as developing a methodology which enables
children/students to understand the mechanism of nature and the occurrence of disaster as well as theneed of taking action for evacuation.
In 2014, IRIDeS initiated the YUI project to conduct a DRR education program for the 5th gradeof elementary school students. The Program will be organized at 70 schools covering 3,924 students
in 2014. So far, it was also conducted in Thailand and Hawaii. After the event, most of the students
say “Yes, I can do it by myself” and it proves that the event provided the students with certain level ofknowledge and understanding of the importance of “evacuation”. A tsunami is a low frequency disaster,
however, it is crucial to continue practicing the efforts of “GENSAI”, or disaster mitigation.

34

The 3rd UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction～ Message from Sendai, Tohoku
Kazuyuki Numata
Section Chief, World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction Preparation Department, Sendai City

The 3rd UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction

The 3rd UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, organized by the United Nations, will
be held in Sendai on 14-18 March in Sendai, Japan with the main objective of developing the next
framework after the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA). The first and second conferences werealso held in Japan. As Japan has suffered from many disasters, the international community has
expectation of Japan to share their experiences and knowledge. It is expected that the conference will
be participated by more than 40,000 people in both the main conference and the related events suchas public forums and exhibitions.

Importance of investing continuously in Disaster Risk Reduction

Presentations

Sendai City has experienced large earthquakes almost every 40 years, thus preparing for earthquakes
has been an important issue for the municipality. On 12 June, 1978, the Miyagi-ken-oki Earthquakewith a magnitude of 7.4 occurred. As many buildings and brick walls were destroyed, causing many
damages and injuries, a major amendment in the Building Standard Law regarding the earthquake
resistance standard was made in 1981.
In the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995, buildings constructed under the old earthquake
resistance standard were heavily damaged. From that experience, further reinforcement of theearthquake resistance standard was made in 2000. Sendai City has been making commitmentsin earthquake-proof retrofit of buildings constructed under the old standard. The city has provided
subsidies for earthquake resistance assessment and earthquake-proof retrofit of private-ownedbuildings. As for city-owned buildings, earthquake resistance surveys and earthquake-proof retrofit
have been conducted as well. For school buildings, 100% have been already retrofitted before
2011 and there was no injury among the school children who were in the schools when the Tsunami
occurred. In addition, no distinct damage on the city hall building was caused, therefore, theadministrative function was not interrupted due to the building damage.
DRR measures in urban infrastructure were implemented beforehand to prepare for the next
earthquake off the coast of Miyagi Prefecture.
◦ Enforcement of urban infrastructure was made based on the lessons learned from the Miyagiken-oki Earthquake. The scale of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami was muchgreater than anticipated, but the measures proved to be effective.
◦ G as recovered in 37 days. No damages were seen in polyethylene gas pipes, proving its
effectiveness.
◦ As for waterworks, water supply recovered in 18 days, but the sewerage facility suffered hugedamage by the tsunami, taking 4 years to recover completely. There was no major damage toearthquake resistant pipes.
◦ Other than restricting construction of new brick walls which do not satisfy the standard, subsidies
for removal of walls and switching to hedges continued. As a result, there were no casualties due
to destroyed brick walls in 2011.

Importance of preparation for response procedures under emergencies including needs assessment

The first issue to cope with in the reconstruction process is the disposal of massive rubble generated
by the 2011 Tsunami. Incineration was completed in September 2013, and restoration of the rubble site35was completed by March 2014. Recycling rate was over 70%. The rubble separation in the process of
its collection at the affected sites led to its speedy disposal.
All incineration facilities stopped at the time of the earthquake, and human waste disposal facilities
located on the coast areas were totally destroyed by the Tsunami. However, the city began thecollection of human waste from the temporary toilets at the evacuation centers on the next day, andstarted the garbage collection at the evacuation centers 2 days after the disaster. Waste disposal is afight against time, since hygiene problems arise if time is wasted.
In Sendai City, a disaster waste management plan was developed before 2011. Therefore, thedisposal policy could be decided within 1 month after the Tsunami. The city was able to accurately
estimate the volume of rubble, since the method was determined beforehand. It is important to havesuch plan to respond to an emergency immediately after its occurrence.
A factor that made possible the prompt disposal of waste was the collaboration with local suppliers.
Sendai city and they had an agreement on disaster response even before the Tsunami and had acooperation system beforehand.
The most important point in both investment in DRR and disposal of rubble, is the preparation
for disasters in normal circumstances. Steady continuous preparation in ordinary times becomes atremendous power in emergency situations.
Importance of anti-seismic structure

Commitments by Sendai City on earthquake proof retrofit（Under Old Standard）
Othersその他 121 (2%)

BeingburnedIt is highly important for buildings to be earthquake‐proof

PrivateBuildings

焼死

In the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, 80% of the deaths
were caused by building collapse.
About 70% of the buildings constructed under the oldstandard （before 1981) were heavily damaged!
Before 1981
Old Standard0%

1981年以前
1981年以前

旧基準

1982年～
1982年以降

新基準

From 1982
New Standard

20%
Heavy Damage

大破
大破

中破

Heavy/Moderate
Damage40%60%Moderate Damage80%

550 (10%)

Subsidies for earthquake resistance survey:
Wood-framed houses and apartments,
condominiums
Subsidies for earthquake-proof retrofit:
Wood-framed houses and apartments

Cause of
Casualties

100%

No/Slight Damage

中破

軽微・無被害

軽微・無被害Being
crushed4,831
圧死 (88%)City‐owned
Buildings

Police White Paper, Fiscal 1995

An elementary school that went under
additional earthquake‐proof work

・City’s elementary, junior and senior high schools, special schools for the handicapped, etc. （1,119
in total） were 100％earthquake-proof before the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami.
・There were no injuries among students due to building collapse by the 2011 disaster.
・As well as to protect children’s lives, earthquake resistant structure for schools is important toenable schools to function as evacuation center.

No/Slight Damage

Source: Interim report by the survey committee of the building disaster by
the Great Hanshin‐Awaji Earthquake Building and Disaster, 1995

Under the amendment of the Building Standard Law in 2000, further reinforcement of theearthquake resistant standard of wood-frame buildings was made.
For example, it became necessary to have a basic structure/foundation according to
the resistance of land. Regulation on balance of arrangement for earthquake-proof
walls was developed.

・Earthquake resistance surveys for non‐school buildings owned by the city were also conducted.
・If the building did not meet the new earthquake resistant standard, the city decided either to carry out retrofit
work, reconstruct, or shutdown the property.
・There were no cases of termination of administrative functions due to building collapse of city‐owned buildings
by the 2011 disaster.

Disposal of Disaster Waste（２）Enforcement of Urban Infrastructure

Complete Stop in Waste
Disposal

Enforcement of urban infrastructure beforehand
was the key to success.

Mar. １１

DRR measures were implemented to some extent,
based on the lessons learned from the Miyagiken-oki Earthquake (1978).

Mar. １２Mar. １３Mar. １４Mar. １５Gas
・Service to 310,000 households was stopped.
Recovered completely 37 days after the disaster・No damages to polyethylene gas pipes, highly
resistant to earthquakes

Mar. ２４Mar. ２８Mar. ３０Polyethylene gas pipes had no damages

Waterworks
・Water supply: service to 23,000 households was stopped.
Recovered in 18 days
・Sewerage: No damages to earthquake resistant facilities(Huge damage by the tsunami)

・Asbestos・・・Monitoring at all areas within the city. Scattering asbestos waste from pulling down
damaged houses removed and sealed on the spot, taken directly to final disposal site, then buried.

・Subsidies for removal and switching to hedges
・No casualties due to destroyed brick walls. There are still
many remaining, a future issue.

36

All waste incineration plants made emergency stops and were damaged due to vibration from theearthquake
Collection of human waste from temporary toilets at evacuation centers began
Garbage collection at evacuation centers began
Plants resumed operation
Temporary waste storage sites where citizens bring in disaster waste by themselves opened (5 in the city)
Collection of household garbage and human waste resumed
Collection of wet household goods etc. in areas affected by the tsunami began
Temporary recovery of human waste disposal site
Rubble storage site made available to pubic
Removal of disaster waste in areas affected by the tsunami began

Environmental‐friendly
Measures

Brick walls

Water supply recovered in 18
days

Human waste disposal facilities were fully destroyed due to tsunami

・Soil Contamination・・・Asphalt paving and anti‐leak sheet lining at rubble storage sites
・Dioxins・・・Same level of exhaust control facilities as existing waste disposal plants

Investment in developing disaster‐proof urban
infrastructure can be highly effective and valuable.
3Group Session 1: Campus Safety, July 23

A safe campus is defined as follows:“A safe campus is one that provides students the opportunity to pursue their academic potential in anenvironment free of discrimination, intimidation, or threat to physical or emotional well-being. The safe
campus is one that responds to such threats and takes decisive, corrective action to eliminate them. A
safe campus is one that is monitored for safety, one where the various dimensions of the environment
are routinely evaluated and adjustments are made as appropriate. Creating such an environment is
an institutional responsibility and one that requires participation and commitment from multiple parties
within the institution” (Rund, J. A., The changing context of campus, New Directions for Student
services, Volume 2002, Issue 99).
To implement “a safe campus,” it is necessary for universities to maintain an environment wherestudents can continue their study and research activities. The universities must also respondpromptly to disasters, make regular risk assessments on campus, and try to eliminate or reduce risks
if identified. “Campus safety,” in this discussion, focuses only on “safety” against natural disasters,
excluding human-made disasters, crime, and health issues such as pandemics. While someuniversities have already developed preparedness/contingency plans and measures, the survey
indicates that awareness of the need and importance for disaster preparedness on campus has notbeen fully recognized. Universities are facing the challenges of understanding and supporting the
preparedness activities on campus and/or of securing the necessary budget and human resources
to develop preparedness and response plans and other preparedness measures. The APRU MH
Program attempts to raise awareness of the campus safety concept and share the good practices,
tools, and manuals of campus safety initiatives with the APRU members.
Summary
In this group session, the participants were instructed as follows:
1. Please list the priority efforts to ensure “campus safety.”
2. Please develop a checklist to assess the capacity of disaster preparedness on campus.
3. Please develop an action plan to implement “campus safety” at your respective universities.
PriorityIn the priority efforts, most groups addressed the need for the following:◦ Evacuation drills◦ Establishing a backup system of communication◦ Securing a budget◦ Establishing an alert system38In addition, the need for forming a crisis management and response team, developing a contingency
plan, and raising awareness of preparedness were also listed as priorities. It was suggested thatsince a university can be a part of the community, it should be responsible for raising public safety
awareness through community service or training of a disaster and DRR expert. It is important foruniversities to integrate DRR as a subject in the university degree program and curriculum.
Action Plan
One group developed a concrete action plan to implement campus safety. This included four major
activities: hazard, vulnerability, and capacity assessment on campus; developing a preparedness/
contingency plan; consultation and training for the plan; and preparing policies/SOP for implementing
the action plan. The assessment will be the first step in initiating the process of campus safety. Anothergroup stressed the importance of assigning a focal person/office who is in charge of campus safety as
the first step. Once such an office is appointed, the university must allocate a certain amount of funds
and human resources dedicated to managing the campus safety project.
Checklist
A checklist can be a reminder of things to do or points to consider toward achieving a goal. It is used toGroup work discussions

assess the current capacity of campus disaster preparedness and identify deficiencies.
Major elements proposed by the groups in the list include:◦ Campus safety manual◦ Evacuation drills◦ Response team
◦ Tuition fee◦◦ Emergency aid kits
◦ Emergency response
equipment◦ DRR training andawareness/advocacy effort

Hazard, capacity and◦ University damage
Risk assessment andassessment teaminformation sharing◦ Disaster countermeasure ◦ Increase capacity of lecture ◦officerecordings◦ Stockpile of emergency◦ Equipping staff to work ◦items
remotely◦◦◦

Building structure (anti- ◦ Identify student volunteers
earthquake)
Emergency alert system◦ Hazard identification
Back-up system (electricity ◦and communication)

Department linkages andcollaboration mechanism

Develop a pool of trainers

Inter-departmental
information dissemination
protocol◦ Funds allocation◦

Inter-university information
sharing protocol◦ Road safety manual

To substantiate the checklist, it must be further reviewed by DRR and safety experts. Thereafter, the
APRU MH Program must share the checklist with the APRU members.

39

GROUP ACHECK LIST
Response

Recovery□ Handbook

Preparedness□ Emergency Alert
Systems□ Coordinating &Monitoring System□ Drills on Evacuation□ Risk Assessment□ Disaster
Countermeasure Office□ Backup System ‐ Electrical□ Networking□ University Damage
Assessment Team□ Signs□ Tuition Fee ‐ Free, Grants, Reduction

Medical Care ‐ mental health□ Store House
Budget Policy□ Building Structures

Action Plan
Lessons
Recovery &Reconstruction

Evaluation

CrisisManagement
Team

Risk
Assessment

Scenario‐based planning

DamageAssessment

Funding

Training &Drills

Setup
Systems

Relief Effort
Evacuation

Alert &
Warnings

EARTHQUAKEEARTHQUAKEPRIORITY
Communication
Transportation
CrisisManagement
Team

DrillsAlert
System40

ReliefBudgetGROUP B

Dangerous
Materials Etc.
Protection/Safety
Systematic Way
to Figure Out
Student Safety
Guidelines andPlan With Staff
and Volunteers to
Execute to Plan

Do What Only
University Can
Do

GOAL

• To protect students andstaff• Cultivate and awarenessraising for citizens• Learning continuity

Financial Support
Special Role for
Medical Teaching
Univ.

Mental Support
Education of Students
In Drills and Response

Learning andTeaching Prior Plan
Communication
Systems

Online Delivery

Equipping Staff toWork Remotely・Policy for mandatory
recordings of lectures
・Video/audio recording
devices
・Central database

・Provide staff with devices
・How to use
・Annual review

Prepare Staff/Students Identify Network offor Assessment
Leaders – Culture
Changes
Change・Alternative assessment
options
・Change university policy

・Education of Staff
・Identify student volunteers
・Assistance with coaching・Drills

Group work discussions

・Redundancy of systems
・Back-up generator
・Ensure online access via
community centres

Increase Capacity for
Lecture Recordings

Communications
・Establish alert system
・Parents
・Notifications of unsafe
buildings

41

GROUP C
Prepare for High –impact Disasters: towards the
UN World Conference on Disaster Risk
Reduction, Tohoku University, Sendai City,
Japan

Multi-Hazards Priorities in DRR

Our Goal: To create Resilient University Campus
Assumption: The University Campus have set
protocol with Local Government Unit
GROUP “C”
MEI ORIKASAYU YUEGRACE MOLINA
A. OLARINKOYE
AJIBOYETABASSAM RAZA

Draft Action Plan for University Campus
safety and DRR, Group C

July 23, 2014

0No.

Description

1.

9.

Periodic DRR training andAwareness advocacy

Hazard Identification

2.

Hazard Assessment

10.

Develop Pool of trainers

3.

Capacity assessment

11.

Inter-departmental
information dissemination
protocol4.

Campus safety Manual andother ICT material

12.

Availability of Funds

5.

Department linkages
protocol guidelines

13.

Inter-university
information dissemination
protocol14.

Road Safety Manual

15.

Financial Mechanism

6.

July 23, 2014

7.

Emergency Aid Kits in eachdepartment

8.

Emergency Response
Equipments
Draft Action Plan for University Campus
safety and DRR, Group C

Action
Plan
2014
-2020

2

Thank You

July 23, 201442

Draft Action Plan for University Campus
safety and DRR, Group C

4

Description

1

Emergency Alert System for University
Campus through official medium such as,Radio, TV, University Website, and Social
networking sites

2

Development of Contingency Plan i.e.,
Integrated plan in terms of involving all the
department heads for harmonization
purposes.

3

Campus –wide simultaneous evacuation
drills; Crafting policy to have it in every
semester to identify the gaps and fill up to
integrate in Action Plan

4

Integrate DRR as one of the subjects ingeneral courses of the university degree
program curriculum

5

Emergency Management and public safety
awareness through the community service/ROTC/NCCT, etc
Draft Action Plan for University Campus
safety and DRR, Group C

July 23, 2014

Campus Safety Checklist
No Description.

Priority

1

Activity

Time
Frame

BudgetResources

Key Person

HazardVulnerability
and Capacity
Assessment

8 weeks

Approved by the
President and VPFinance and/or
Treasurer

Technical and socio economic
support from designateddepartment personnel

Head
DRRUCC
Under
President
OfficePreparedness,
Prevention andRescue &Response(Development
Contingency
planning)

4 Weeks

Approved by the
President ,VP
Finance and/or
Treasurer

Experts from Planning,
Engineering, Sociology
Geography, Geology, Biology,
Emergency Mgt Dept, etc
Departments

Designatedpersonnel for
DRR by thehead of eachdepartment

Training of theTrainers andevaluation oftheContingency
Plan (Dry Run)

12 WeeksApproved by the
President , VP
Finance andTreasurer

Experts from Planning,
Engineering, Sociology
Geography, Geology, Biology
Department and etc andstudents

Designatedpersonnel for
DRR by thehead of eachdepartment

8 weeks

Approved by VP
Finance andTreasurer-do-Designatedpersonnel for
DRR by thehead of eachdepartment

Preparepolicies/SOP
forImplementationof the Action
July 23, 2014
Plan 2014-2020

Draft Action Plan for University Campus
safety and DRR, Group C

3

GROUP D

PRIORITY

Group D

① Identification of hazards/vulnerability
・Disaster‐resilient buildings
・Mutual support
・Emergency communication system
・Relief service/team・Emergency stockpile
・Personal protective equipment, skills/awareness on what todo・Clear command structure
・Evacuation drill (Special drill on how to deal withdata/hazardous materials)② Alert system (evacuation need, detection tools)

Checklist

Group D

Action Plan

Group work discussions

・Response plan ‐ students‐ senior management
・Recovery plan
・Emergency power system (electricity, water, etc.)
・Guiding sign/map with evacuation route, meeting point
・Emergency announcement on univ. HP(+ back‐up communication system)
・Fire distinguisher
・List of students/faculty with contact numbers
・Hazard map
・Crisis management office ‐ internal‐ external
・Regular training program for everyone on campus(New student, staff)
・Monitoring and evaluation on response/recovery→ how to prepare for next disaster

Group D

・Assign a focal person on emergency in each building(faculty member)・Exercise of focal persons drills
・Review the process
・List of focal persons
・Task force of focal persons (Different department/faculty)
・Post‐disaster inspection team・Timeline/Master plan (evaluation, expertise from outside)・Coordinate disaster response/recovery plan with
community

43

Group Session 2: Recommendations for the 2015 UN World Conference
on Disaster Risk Reduction

The Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (UNWCDRR) will be held on March
14–18, 2015 in Sendai City, Japan. To consider and adopt the post-2015 framework for DRR, several
thousand participants are expected, including distinguished representatives from the government,international organizations, NGOs, the private sector, and other major groups.
The first Preparatory Committee Meeting for UNWCDRR was held in Geneva on July 14–15,
2014. The participating UN member states made an official statement on their DRR initiatives andstrategy, and emphasized critical areas in DRR in their own view. In this group session, the statementsby region were distributed to each group; for example, one group received the statements made by
15 Asian countries. They were then asked to count the following keywords in each statement andcalculate the total number by region to observe which words are most highlighted and emphasized
as greatest concerns in their statements: Link with 2015 SDGs, Link with Climate Change, Link with
Science, Link with Conflicts/Wars, Underlying Risk or Vulnerability, Urban Issue, Education, Disaster
Data (damage and loss), Mainstreaming DRR, Resilience, Exposure, HFA Monitoring, Early Warning
System, Economic Losses, Governance, Disaster Response, Recovery/Reconstruction, Insurance/
Risk Transfer, Capacity Development, Civil Society/NGOs, Local/Community Level, and Regional
Level such as Asia and Africa.
The most highlighted topic in statements was “link with climate change.” Climate change is often
considered as one of the reasons for the increasing scale and frequency of meteorological hazards.
Therefore, DRR and climate change adaptation have a common goal to prepare for future disasters.
Second, “resilience” and “local/community level” are keywords frequently addressed in the statements.
It is understood that the majority of member states presenting the statement acknowledged andemphasized the importance of building resilience and the involvement of local stakeholders. “Resilience”
can be achieved by the participation of various stakeholders, especially from community and local
levels, and with leadership and support on the international and national levels. A first step is toestablish and strengthen collaboration among these different stakeholders for raising awareness,developing capacity, exchanging information, and sharing knowledge to build resilience. On theother hand, it was shown that the linkages of DRR to “conflict inclusive,” “exposure,” “health,” and“human rights” are still of less concern and interest among the states. For example, the health–DRR
relationship is extremely important for hospital preparedness, maintaining regular health and hygiene
conditions, and developing the capacity of facilities, medical staff, systems, and mechanisms. Raisingawareness on the importance and needs of these important elements requires support and strong
advocacy on an international level. One suggestion of this group session for the post Hyogo framework
for Action (HFA) is to highlight the importance of missing essential elements and factors, such as
health, and the impact of conflicts on the DRR progress.

44

Group work discussions

45

Keywords highlighted by each region as greatest concerns in the Statements

OCEANIA & PACIFIC ISLANDS ( 7 )7 COUNTRY STATEMENTS : (1) DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (Oz, NZ)(2) SIDS (Cook, Tonga, Samoa, Nauru, Tuvalu)
TOP PRIORITIES : ① CLIMATE CHANGE LINKAGE ② CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT ③ RESILIENCESIDS

Oz & NZ

・link disasters to climate change.
・call for reduction in GHG emissions
・call for capacity development fromdeveloped
countries
・right for survival⇒ use human rights, justice, language

・building resilience ; improving mitigation(rather than recovery response)
・advocates : government
private sector
NGO
・HFA2 : (1) mainstream DRR into DEV(2) DRR education(3) focus on helping most vulnerable( women, disabilities, children )AMERICAS ( 8 )Most Important Concerns
・Integrate DRR with Climate Change ( 5 )・HFA Monitoring (5)・Local / Community Involvement (4)ASIA (15)TOP PRIORITIES・Resilience (14 times)
・Link with Climate Change (13)・Local/Community Level, Mainstreaming DRR, Governance(12)・Link with 2015 SDGs (11)・Early Warning System (10)46EUROPE (10)・Macro, Big Picture
Global Responsibilities

Climate Change

・Different Ethnics
player,Local/Community Level
Vulnerable Groups
relationship(Children, Women, Elderly)
・KEYWORDS !
Different Context,
Approach,
Sustainability…

Link with 2015 SDGs
Resilience
Economic Losses
International Collaboration
Private Sector

・Already have Large Economic
Assets・not problem / issue oriented

AFRICA (15)DESCRIPTIONDETAILS

HIGH(MOST OF THE COUNTRIESVOICE)The Region Demands for Climate Change
Adaptation and Mitigation along With
Mainstreaming DRR and Regional Cooperation;
Further There Is Need For Developing
Appropriate Methodologies In Estimating Risks,
Vulnerabilities and Early Warning System,
Emphasizing on Disaster Response That Should Be
Gender Sensitive.

Link with Climate Change (6)Link with Science; Mainstreaming
DRR; Capacity Development;
Regional Level (5)Underlying Risk or Vulnerability (4)MEDIUM(SOME COUNTRIES VOICE)

There is substantial concerns towards
resolutions on conflict/war, urban
environment issues, exposure (i.e. people,
property and environment), economic
losses, recovery and reconstruction,
financial mechanism(ex. Insurance andother risk transfer schemes).

Link with 2015 SDGs; Education; Disaster
Data; Resilience; HFA Monitoring;
Governance; Local/Community Level;
International Collaborations; Private
Sector(3)Including Conflict; Urban Issue; Exposure;
Economic Losses; Recovery/Reconstruction;
Insurance/Risk Transfer (2)MILD(JUST LIMITED COUNTRIESVOICE)The region also supports thecoordination of NGO’s and civil society
organizations. Moreover, health matter
global advocacy is recommended.

Civil Society/NGOs; Health (1)Group work discussions

PRIORITY

47

Field trip to Minami-Sanriku town and Kesennuma city on 24 July 2014

The participants visited the affected areas to learn the damage, impacts and experience of the local
people by the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in 2011. The major places visited included
Takano-kaikan, Disaster prevention buildings, Kesennuma Shark Museum, Kesennuma Rias Ark
Museum as well as the Tohoku University Kesennuma Satellite.

Jesusa Grace J. Molina
MA Candidate, Center for Development Studies, Faculty of Arts, The University of Auckland
As one of the participants of the 2nd Multi-Hazards Summer School Program, held at Tohoku
University in Sendai City from July 22 to 25, 2014, I was able to gain an enhanced understanding ofdisaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) processes and mechanisms highlighting the lessons
and experiences from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Together with morethan 30 participants, comprised of postgraduate students, researchers, and DRRM practitioners, I
engaged in dynamic learning and interaction through various methods employed by the program suchas interactive lectures, video presentations, group discussions, and field visit. One of the activities I
enjoyed most was the field visit held on the third day of the program.
The field trip in Kessenuma became an effective avenue for me to see how the Japanese people
were able to concretely put into practice the concepts, theoretical frameworks, and strategies on
rehabilitation and recovery presented by the speakers from the government, academe, private sector,
and NGO. Our visit to the affected areas and relocation sites, and museums, as well as hearing
the testimonies and experiences from the survivors themselves are tangible evidences of how thecommunities initiated the rebuilding efforts through cooperation and multi-stakeholder partnerships.
Although, I have seen the communities wiped out by the tragedy, the survivors are undeniably an
epitome of resilience as they were able to gain back sense of normalcy with dignity and in high spirits
despite the massive destruction and great losses brought about by the tsunami. I particularly admire
the efforts of the curators in the Rias Ark Museum as they were able to exhibit their own photos andpersonal belongings left by the disaster. Their noble act of sharing these personal things is a proof of
how generous they are in spreading awareness and lessons from the disaster for visitors like me. The
presence of such an exhibit will serve as a living legacy of the Japanese people’s resilience and willcontinue to inspire the people all over the world to invest in DRRM.
The experience of Kessenuma also highlighted the importance of preparing for worst casescenarios. Rapid onset disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis can strike anytime and cause
large-scale destruction. This should be a significant and constant consideration for all DRRM
practitioners from different sectors in initiating planning and decision-making processes. The risingfrequency and unprecedented occurrence of big disasters in the recent years should serve as a wake50

-up call for the global community to work together and invest in proactive measures to achieve safer
and resilient nations.

Danny Marks
PhD Candidate, University of Sydney
I can still vividly remember now the afternoon of the Great Japanese Earthquake even though I was
miles away safely living in Bangkok at the time. I was visiting my friend’s apartment and we turned
on BBC to see the news for the day. To our great surprise, we watched live footage of the colossal
tsunami violently hurling car and destroying buildings. I remember being awestruck by the power ofnature but also very saddened by how much devastation it could cause.
Just over three years later, I was fortunate enough to attend the APRU Summer School at the
University of Tohoku in Sendai. One of the biggest highlights of the summer school for me was
the field trip to visit some of the sites I saw on television that day. As a PhD student who is doing
his dissertation on disasters, I found visiting the disaster prevention building, where only 10 of 130
employees survived and which was almost completely wrecked by the tsunami, a poignant reminderof our vulnerability to nature’s fury, despite our best efforts to protect ourselves. It also shows the follyof thinking that we can always protect ourselves from disasters by building seawalls, tide gates, anddykes. In Minami-Sanriku, the seawalls and gates were raised after the 1960 tsunami but was still
not high enough to protect the town from the 2011 tsunami. This failure raises the difficult question of
Field trip

whether people should move away from disaster-prone areas or continue to live with risk because theirlivelihoods are based there and they have lived there for generations, always rebuilding after eachdisaster.
I also found our visit to the Rias Ark Museum fascinating. The Museum has a special exhibition on
the earthquake, full of photos displaying the extent of the devastation but also household items suchas bicycles and washing machines which were completely contorted and shaped in ways normallyunimaginable. I think the Museum is valuable to future generations, both Japanese and foreigners,
because it helps us retain memories from the earthquake. It also reminds us not to forget aboutpast disasters and therefore urges us to instead constantly prepare for and build resilience to futuredisasters.

51

Liza Corro
Dean, University of the Philippines Cebu
I had mixed feelings on our way to Kesennuma. I was curious on how the place had recovered
after its great devastation from the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake. At the same time, I wasapprehensive on what I will see, with my personal experiences still very fresh in my mind on how our
town in Daanbantayan, Cebu, Philippines, was levelled off, after it was left totally defenseless during
the ferocious visit of typhoon Yolanda (with international code name Haiyan), last November 8, 2013.
What first struck me in our initial stop were the two skeletal buildings, left to stand as memorial of
the great tsunami. It was not the tragedy which had beset the place which registered in my mind, but
the heroism of those who made it possible for lives to be spared from the disaster. In the first building
where we stopped, its owner’s selflessness to convert his building into an evacuation center, hadprovided refuge to countless people. While in the other building, the woman who heroically announced
continuously the evacuation, at the expense of her very own life, will forever remain a story to be told
and retold.
Next in my mind were the hills or mounds with artificial forests I saw, which they constructed as
barriers to the sea and future tsunamis. These varied mounds and trees were practical solutions toa very real and expected recurring natural disaster in Japan, which provides at the same time anaesthetic relief to the eyes. But more than these, all the greeneries radiated a feeling of hope among
the residents, that soon, they will recover from their hardships after the calamity that devastatedtheir place. Even the temporary site for the commercial areas amazed me with the resiliency of thetsunami survivors. I had no idea how it was then for them, before the Great East Japan Earthquake. I
speculated it must had been very much different, with bigger and better facilities and more prosperous
residents in their place. But how these people are able to manage and operate their make shiftfacilities, made me silently admire the serenity with which they accepted their conditions.
Discussions I had in the bus ride with my seat mate and the other summer school participants werequite interesting. Upon seeing houses along our field trip's travel route, it sparked a discussion onwhat is a disaster resilient roof. Very striking were the varied answers we each had to contend with,depending on the kind of disaster we experience in our respective places. A heavy roofing material
may be ideal in an area commonly visited by typhoon, but not, if it were in an earthquake prone
country like Japan.
Next were the debris I saw inside the RIAS Museum. From the stuff toys to the refrigerator and car
debris, they really evoked so much sad and painful thoughts, even for someone like me who wasn't
then around during the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011 and the tsunami aftermath. Although
there were no photographs inside the museum to show the people who died during the incident, butthere were two to three paintings which graphically depicted how the people were swallowed by the52

sea. It was as good as a picture was taken during the incident. It really took me a while to take myeyes off those paintings. All those tsunami debris and photographs and paintings inside the RIASMuseum, will forever be a constant reminder of the eventuality of another great disaster, of which weshould always be ready.

But at the same time, it is an innovative and therapeutic way of building

back. They generate income through the ticket sales to the Museum. Even the intermittent stops we
had, to shop for souvenir items along the field trip route. I really appreciated it as an effort to help the
economy of those affected and dislocated by the tsunami.
What was remarkable for me to see, among the tsunami survivors, and the rest of theirstakeholders, is their optimism and the steadfast support they had for each other. Natural disasters
may be beyond man’s control, but it really matters a lot on how man prepares before such calamities
happen, and how they handle, socially, scientifically and psychologically, its aftermath.

Disaster prevention building

Minami-Sanriku Sun Sun shopping village

Field trip

Shark Museum

53Kasey Schultz
PhD student, Physics Department, University of California - DavisIn the 2014 Multi-hazards Summer School at Tohoku University we visited Kesennuma andMinamisanriku. It has now been 3 years since the tsunami, and most of the debris has been cleared
away. The scene in Minamisanriku was hard to believe. Where there was once a thriving fishingvillage, now there is just nothing, only the concrete foundations of the former town. It was as if the city
was wiped off the map in an instant.
It reminded me of my own experiences after Hurricane Katrina, seeing entire neighborhoods
reduced to only their foundations. But hurricanes are fundamentally different than earthquakes/
tsunamis. Hurricane warnings and evacuation notices can be delivered a day or at least many hours
before the storm arrives. In watching the videos of the tsunami it's hard to imagine that even with thesirens and early warning system, that anyone could expect the whole town would be destroyed in amatter of minutes. And to think that all of that happened while it was snowing is unbelievable.
The skeletons of the few buildings that remained serve as important reminders to future
generations. I will never forget the 3 story tsunami evacuation building that was not tall enough toescape the tsunami, or the hotel owner who was confident in the safety of his building and was able tosave many residents.
After seeing Minamisanriku, we moved on to Kesennuma city. Kesennuma had been rebuilding
since the tsunami, and the most striking thing for me was the small blue signs posted around the citythat marked the maximum height of the tsunami in different locations. I think there should be many
more of these signs in all the tsunami affected areas to serve as an every day reminder to neverunderestimate the threat of a tsunami, and as a reminder for future generations once the recent
memories of 3/11 fade into the past.
Also, I think if Tohoku University is going to continue the summer school, that Mr. Suzuki, theresident from Kesennuma, should be involved again. Having lost my home in a natural disaster, I
know it's very difficult for him relive the event by sharing his experience of leaving his home andwatching the tsunami sweep it away. But I believe his first hand account of the tragedy, and his efforts
in organizing community evacuation plans and raising awareness serve as an amazing inspiration toanyone researching or working in the field of natural hazards. Too often we distance ourselves fromthe true impact of these disasters and we only think in terms of numbers; number of fatalities, tsunami
height, earthquake magnitude etc.
The Multi-Hazards Summer School is a truly beneficial experience on many levels. It allows us toappreciate the full range of efforts to minimize the effects of future disasters, from computer simulations
to urban planning to community outreach and education. I am very lucky and very grateful to haveattended, and I hope that the attendance to future Multi-hazards summer schools will only increase.

54

Rias Ark Museum

Field trip

Kesennuma Satellite

55

ANNEX I : APRU-IRIDeS Summer School Program
22-25 July: Seminar at the Katahira Kitamon Commons 2F, Katahira Campus, Tohoku
University
24 July: Field trip to Minami-Sanriku town and Kesennuma city

July 22
09：25 － 09：40

Introduction of participants

09：40 － 10：25	“Introduction to International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku
University”
09：40 － 10：25	(Prof. Makoto Okumura, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)
10：25 － 10：55

Coffee break

10：55 － 11：55“Disaster Medical and Public Health Management as DRR/DRM”

09：40 － 10：25(Prof. Shinichi Egawa, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)

11：55 － 13：00

Lunch

13：00 － 14：00“A Practical Guide to Global Earthquake Forecasting”

09：40 － 10：25(Prof. John Rundle, University of California, Davis)

09：40 － 10：25“A Brief Overview of Computational Modeling for Multi-Hazards”

09：40 － 10：25(Dr. Eric Heien, University of California, Davis)

14：00 － 15：00	“Disaster“ (Research Assistant. Shinya Horie, Graduate School of Environmental
Studies, Tohoku University)
15：00 － 15：20

Coffee break

15：20 － 16：20“Tasks and Problems for Reconstruction Works from the Disaster”

09：40 － 10：25(Prof. Yasuaki Onoda, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)

16：20 － 17：20“Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Review from a 09：4009：40 － 10：25
Viewpoint” (Prof. Osamu Murao, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)

July 23
09：00 － 10：00“KAKEAGARE! JAPAN”(Mr. Shunsuke Matsushima, Dentsu Inc.)

10：00 － 11：00“Data Are Not Enough: Reducing Risk through Information Services”(Dr. Heather Bell, Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, Hawaii)

56

11：00 － 11：20

Coffee break

11：20 － 12：20 “Towards disaster risk reduction city”(Mr. Manabu Suzuki, Tagajo City)
12：20 － 13：20

Lunch

13：20 － 13：50	“Campus Safety Survey” (Assoc. Prof. Takako Izumi, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)
13：50 － 15：50

Group discussion 1: Campus Safety

15：50 － 16：00

Coffee break

16：00 － 17：00

Group presentation and discussion

July 24: Field trip
Minami-Sanriku town and Kesennuma city

July 25
09：30 － 10：30	“Practical Education Program for Improving Response Capability to Survive fromTsunami” (Research assistant: Mari Yasuda, IRIDeS, Tohoku University)
Coffee break

10：45 － 11：45“The 3rd UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction”

Field trip

10：30 － 10：45(Mr. Kazuyuki Numata, Sendai City)
12：00 － 13：00

Lunch

13：00 － 15：00

Group discussion 2: Recommendations towards 2015
UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction

15：00 － 15：20

Coffee break

15：20 － 16：30

Group presentation and discussion

16：30 － 16：45

Closing57

ANNEX II : List of Participants

Name

58

StatusCountry

University

1

Daniel Marks

PhD student

Australia

The University of Sydney

2

Yefeng Ma

PhD student

China

Tsinghua University

3

Jingbing Feng

Research student

China

Fudan University

4

Yu YueMA student

China

Zhejiang University

5

Erina Gyoba

Research worker

Japan

Tohoku University

6

Sachi Suzuki

PhD student

Japan

Tohoku University

7

Sakuya Iwakawa

Under graduateJapan

Miyagigakuin Women's University

8

Mei Orikasa

Under graduateJapan

Miyagigakuin Women's University

9

Isaaki Tatsuta

MA student

Japan

Keio University

10

Mihoko Sakurai

PhD student

Japan

Keio University

11

Garry Leigh Miller

PhD student

New Zealand The University of Auckland

12

Jesusa Grace Jamilosa Molina MA student

New Zealand The University of Auckland

13

Behrooz Balaei Langroudi PhD student

New Zealand The University of Auckland

14

A. Olarinkoye Ajiboye

PhD student

New Zealand Auckland University of Technology

15

Liza Diaz Corro

Dean

Philippines University of the Philippines, Cebu

16

Richelle G. Zafra

Assistant Professor

Philippines University of the Philippines Los Baños

17

Tabassam Raza

Associate Dean

Philippines University of the Philippines, Diliman

18

Chian Siau Chen

Assistant Professor

Singapore

National University of Singapore

19

Alok Bhardwaj

PhD student

Singapore

National University of Singapore

20

Nicholas Cavanaugh

PhD student

USA

University of California, San Diego

21

Eric Martin Heien

Lead Programmer

USA

University of California, Davis

22

Kasey William Schults

PhD student

USA

University of California, Davis

23

J.Quinn Norris

Graduate Student Researcher USA

University of California, Davis

24

John B. Rundle

Professor

USA

University of California, Davis

25

Heather Bell

Dean

Hawaii,USA University of Hawaii at Manoa

26

Masahiko Haraguchi

PhD student

USA

27

Andre Edelhoff

Programme Director Singapore

APRU Secretariat

28

Andrea Donnellan

Principal Scientist

USA

NASA/California Institute of Technology

29

Eric M. Conway

HistorianUSA

NASA/California Institute of Technology

30

Manabu Suzuki

Chief of Bureau

Japan

Tagajo City

31

Masashi Sato

Deputy Manager

Japan

Tagajo City

32

Shunsuke Matsushima

General Manager

Japan

Dentsu Inc.

Columbia University

Name

StatusCountry

University

33

Yasushi Takahashi

General Manager

Japan

Dentsu East Japan Inc.

34

Kazuyuki Numata

Section ChiefJapan

Sendai City

35

Fumihiko Imamura

Director

Japan

Tohoku University (IRIDeS)

36

Makoto Okumura

Deputy Director

Japan

Tohoku University (IRIDeS)

37

Shinichi Egawa

Professor

Japan

Tohoku University (IRIDeS)

38

Osamu Murao

Professor

Japan

Tohoku University (IRIDeS)

39

Yasuaki Onoda

Professor

Japan

Tohoku University (IRIDeS)

40

Yuichi Ono

Professor

Japan

Tohoku University (IRIDeS)

41

Hirofumi Seike

Associate Professor Japan

Tohoku University

42

Jeremy Bricker

Associate Professor Japan

Tohoku University (IRIDeS)

43

Anawat Suppasri

Associate Professor Japan

Tohoku University (IRIDeS)

44

Takako Izumi

Associate Professor Japan

Tohoku University (IRIDeS)

45

Shinya Horie

Assistant Professor

Japan

Tohoku University

46

Yasuto Jibiki

Assistant Professor

Japan

Tohoku University (IRIDeS)

47

Mari Yasuda

Research assistantJapan

Tohoku University (IRIDeS)

Field trip

59