A Methodology for the Standardizationof Information Processing
following the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011
Reo KIMURA
School of Human Science and Environment, University of Hyogo, Japan

Munenari INOGUCHI
Research Institute for Natural Hazards and Disaster Recovery, Niigata University, Japan

Keiko TAMURA
Risk Management Office, Niigata University, Japan

Takashi FURUYA
Center for Risk Management and Safety Sciences, Yokohama National University,Japan

Haruo HAYASHI
Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, JapanSUMMARY:
The Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011 caused a widespread tsunami and building damage. In order tofacilitate rapid and efficient deployment of disaster responses, we developed an initial response system to shareessential operational information. Our group worked as part of the Cabinet Office Mapping Team, beginning on
the day after the earthquake, to provide a common operational picture by providing spatial visualization services
using maps. Through this experience we determined that it was necessary to establish an initial response system.
This system could be used to determine disaster response policies based on damage estimation calculated fromhazard observation information. In addition, this system would also be beneficial in the event that the disasterspreads over a wide area and complex factors hinder the ability to collect damage information. Furthermore, we
also proposed a methodology for the processing of necessary information to obtain a common operational
picture.
Keywords: Processing information in disaster responders; Common operational picture; Standard data format

1. INTRODUCTION
The Great East Japan Earthquake that occurred on March 11, 2011, caused tsunami and liquefaction.
In addition, there was a tremendous amount of human and property damages. This disaster triggered acall for immediate life saving activities, restoration of utilities, and the dispersal of support for victims
across many prefectures throughout Japan.
The effective and efficient implementation of disaster response measures necessitates a sharedcommon operational picture. Sharing a common operational picture involves the dissemination of
information regarding the state of damages and disaster response activities among disaster responders,thus enabling a common understanding of the situation. In Japan, there have been initiatives to realize
a common operational picture through effective and efficient information collection at disaster
response fields. A recent example of this is the Emergency Mapping Center that was established by
the Niigata Disaster Management Headquarters after the Chuetsu Offshore Earthquake of 2007. In thiscase, a common operational picture enabled effective and efficient disaster response activities. In thiscase, a common operational picture enabled effective and efficient disaster response activity via the
mapping.
Based on these experiences, we sought to develop a system to share a common operational picture
to aid in a decision making process at the national level by visualizing information on maps. These
maps provided a common operational picture for the large-scale disaster due to the Great East Japan

Earthquake of 2011. In particular, we extracted information about needs, in order to elucidate thechallenges for realization of sharing a common operational picture on the national level through ourcollaboration with the Cabinet Office. We believe that our system is effective for information
processing and can be used to support the deployment of disaster resources in the future.

2. Overview of Mapped Information Generated by the Emergency Mapping Team to Provide a
Common Operational Picture
The Cabinet Office Mapping Team operated from the day after the earthquake on March 12, 2011
until April 26 at a meeting room within the Cabinet Office. Initially we started our day at 10:00 a.m.,and often continued until well past midnight when we just started the activities. As time progressed,
we managed to end each day at around the end of a normal working day by clearly specifying theworking time; however, we worked seven days a week until the situation stabilized. After April 2
when the system was well established and things were stabilized, we did not work on Saturday
afternoons and Sundays. The Emergency Mapping Team was comprised of the maximum number ofpeople per day during this period at the special meeting room (n=17). For the duration of the activities,
the number of man-day was 278 in total (as counted by a half day). In reality, there were more people
involved; we mobilized more people than 278 man-days due to the back-up system (Figure 1).

EMT headquarters (special
meeting room, Cabinet Office)Discussing mapping needs while considering
requirements from the Cabinet Office

EMT soon after its launch

EMT near the end of the term

Figure 1. EMT meetings

Procedures used for the mapping work were: (1) Organize a list of general affairs and needs; (2)Generate data, figures, and tables; (3) Data processing and spatial processing; (4) Mapping and layout;and (5) Regular updating and mapping. The primary author of this paper was responsible for thegeneration of data, figures and tables, and created a database for mapping and sharing the status
recognition data. The co-authors were responsible for other procedures. Together, we generated maps
in response to requests (Figure 2).
The Emergency Mapping Team (EMT) generated a total of 500 maps during its operational period(March 21 through April 26). The maps were classified into 30 categories that were further subdivided
into the following seven major categories: (1) Hazard observation information (63 maps); (2) Hazard
scenario information [Areas under the nuclear plant evacuation advisory and directive (8 maps),
Planned power outage by Tokyo Electric Power (5 maps)]; (3) Estimated damage compensation[Seismic intensity distribution for each building (1 map), Building distribution within areas underevacuation advisory and directive (5 maps), Building distribution in low-altitude areas (33 maps)]; (4)Actual damage [Isolated people (31 maps), Missing people (38 maps), Injured people (40 maps),
Building damage (23 maps), Fires (13 maps)]; (5) Social infrastructure [Population and number ofhouseholds in each municipality (2 maps), Distribution of population age 65 and over (8 maps),
Facilities that can accept people who require assistance (7 maps), Satellite images of disaster areas (2maps)]; (6) Response policy [Relationship between transportation centers and transportation capability(54 maps), Resources to consider for long-term evacuation designation (1 map), Resources to consider
for specific disaster-afflicted area designation (1 map), Resources to consider for specificdisaster-afflicted local public organizations (5 maps)]; and (7) Disaster response results [Evacuation
center provisions (8 maps), Personal safety confirmation (1 map), Application of rescue methods (9maps), Application of rescue methods and assistance methods (3 maps), Goods procurement (1 map),
Temporary assistance staff dispatch (25 maps), Utility damage recovery (88 maps), Empty maps torecord disaster response results (18 maps), Visualization of the recognition of disasters to the society
by trend leaders (7 maps)].

Project manager
Coordination with
the Cabinet Office
Leader
EMT website
creation anddistribution

General affairs –clarification ofneeds

Data generationand figure andtable creation※Mash-up

Data processing –spatial processing※Mashup: Mashup refers to forming a new service by combining
technologies and contents from multiple sources. This is a featurethat functions as if it were a single web service and is formed by
combining multiple Application Program Interfaces (API).

Coordination withstakeholders

Mapping layout

Administration andarchiving

Regular update,mapping

Figure 2. EMT structure (as of March 17, 2011)(One week after the earthquake, six days after EMT launch)

3. Examples of Maps Generated by the Emergency Mapping Team to Provide a Common
Operational Picture
The 500 maps that were generated by the Emergency Mapping Team resulted from a series ofspatial analyses using information that was superimposed onto maps. This process is commonly called“mashup.” Mashup refers to the formation of a new service by combining technologies and contentsfrom multiple sources. This allows the child to function in a single web service that was formed by
combining multiple Application Program Interfaces (API). Information that was subjected to mashup
by the EMT is schematically presented in Figure 3. There were also issues with the data collected fromthe governments as shown in Table 1: (1) Issues with raw data (data was exchanged as hard copies);(2) Issues with the database (many of the Excel files generates could not be incorporated into the
database); and (3) Issues with making data publicly available (collected data items were not uniform
across different municipalities because they had different intentions and policies in making data
publicly available). Two of representative maps made with mashup are shown.

Response results
DamagesHazardSocial asset

Disaster
response

TsunamiPopulation

Information
on isolated
individuals

Shaking

Buildings

Groundliquefaction

Criticalfacilities andsocialinfrastructure

Publicly available

Paid service

・・・

X

X

Evacuation
centers

Includes sensitive
information

Figure 3. Information mashed up by EMT

Table 1. Characteristics of data from the government in Japan
１．Issues with raw data: Hard copy data is exchanged as a raw data––

Communication through FAX•

FAX is used even when e-mail is available•

Issues with security (copying, altering and leaking) and personal information•

Large amount of forwarded FAXes (Faxing is repeated)

Even if the original is in Excel or Word, data have to be input from a hard copy

２．Issues with database: Many Excel files cannot be used directly as database–

Many municipality staff uses Excel to generate documents•

Cells are connected, a number and its unit are entered in the same cell, and character strings such as“ditto” are entered along with numbers•

Meaning is conveyed by slashes and colors, and figures are inserted•

Various issues emerge at the data analysis stage

３． Issues with making data publicly available: Each municipality has different policies andintensions in making data publicly available–

Different meaning in whether data is publicly available and whether data is updated–

Format is different and information handled is different–

Format changes as time goes by–Location information is missing, which makes it difficult to spatially visualize data

3.1. Map of the Buildings within Areas under the Nuclear Disaster Evacuation Advisory andEvacuation Directive
The map that launched the Emergency Mapping Team (Figure 4 Left). This map is based on ahazard scenario of "radioactive substances have leaked from the Fukushima Nuclear Plant." Affectedareas are identified by concentric circles drawn in areas under evacuation advisory and directive,
centering on the XY coordinate of the Fukushima Nuclear Plant using the buffer feature. More timewould have allowed us to consider wind directions, wind speed, and other environmental factors tomake a more realistic estimate of the shortage of time necessitated us to use concentric circles as thefirst-order approximation. Furthermore, for companies, point data was used to indicate locations of
their buildings. The actual number of buildings was calculated by superimposing this data with a helpof spatial statistical method. An explosion had not happened at the Fukushima Nuclear Plant when we
started the mapping work. This enabled us to grasp the number of buildings that might be exposed toan explosion. Although the number of occupants in each building was not known, it was possible toestimate it by comparing the population and the number of buildings in each region based on the social
statistical information. This map is considered "estimated damage information" because it allowed us
to find out an estimated number of people exposed to radioactive materials. In addition, this map was ameans to support an emergency response even before an emergency strikes. However, an emergency
occurred as soon as the map was generated; therefore, it was not used before an emergency.
Estimated number of buildings in areas under evacuation
directive around the Fukushima Nuclear Plant

Locational relationship among transportation andevacuation centers

Address points within each evacuation zone arespatially tallied to visualize possibility of impact

Evacuation center data from municipalities, relief materials
transportation center data from the Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, and actual traffic datafrom ITS Japan are spatially consolidated to indicate levels ofdifficulty for relief materials to reach victims (easy to difficult)by the distance from each transportation center.

Figure 4. Information that the EMT team mapped for a common operational picture

3.2. Relationship between Transportation Centers and Transportation Possibility
This map superimposes transportation centers for various relief materials and actual transportationroutes to show transportation possibilities to evacuation centers where relief materials are needed(Figure 4 Right). Although air transportation was used, land transportation was the usual mode oftransportation to evacuation centers where relief materials were needed. While the major emergency
transportation routes had a priority in securing its function, an investigation was needed to determine
whether local road emergency transportation routes should have been evacuated.
To gauge the passability, we employed "actual traffic data" from the GPS industry. We superimposedroutes that the government planned to use with originating points and terminating points (evacuationcenters) to not only identify the roads that were passable, but also "whether or not relief materials
could be delivered." This map showed a low possibility of relief materials reaching the northern partof the coastal areas of Iwate Prefecture as seen in Figure 4 right.

4. Information Processing Procedures for a Comprehensive Common Operational Picture in a
Wide-Area Complex DisasterFigure 5 shows the flow of information processing towards sharing a common operational picture thatwas proposed through initiatives for the Chuetsu Offshore Earthquake of 2007. It is imperative that weshare a common operational picture in order to come up with an Incident Action Plan (IAP). To thisend, it is necessary to understand the external situation surrounding an organization, and damages andresponse situations within each sector of the organization. For this purpose, we collected informationfrom the various information systems, other organizations, and various sectors of the organization. An
assumption for this information processing flow was that data regarding damages comes from eachrelated organization quickly and accurately. However, for complex and wide-spreading disaster suchas the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011, information to understand the situation itself was not
sufficient due to reasons including the large number of missing people and the number of buildingsthat were washed away. This forced us to spend a significant amount of time researching this data.
While information collection was given a priority in disaster response, the establishment of an initialaction system and executing relief activities tended to lag behind until the information collection wascompleted and we had a good idea of the extent of damages. It is possible to call it as an "informationcollection imperative principle." It then became an important issue to account for damages that were
not known to establish initial response system and to carry out disaster relief activities as soon as
possible in order to share a common operational picture such as shown in Figure 5.
Informationcollection

Information
processing

Information
analysisPlanexecution

Planning

Disasterinformation
systemCoordinatorwithstakeholders
Mass media

Status analysis group
Understanding
external situation
surrounding
an organization

Information
centerSafety officer
Safetyconsidera-tionsUnderstanding
status of damage
and response
in departments
within the organization

Resource Management
group

Incident
Action
Plan
(IAP)

Plan
execution
Execution OfficerPlanauthoriza-tion

Coordinatorwith otherdepartments

Administrationand finance

Head Information
strategist
CommonOperational
Picture（COP)

SurveillanceMaterial
coordinator

Response
worker

Incident
commander

Coordination
withstakeholders
Coordination officer

Publicity
Publicity Officer

Figure 5. Information flow towards sharing a common operational picture
Based on our experiences in this disaster, we proposed an information-processing framework as
shown in Figure 6. Areas enclosed with dashed lines show a flow to obtain a common operational
picture based on an assumption that actual damage situation is known. However, in the event that an
actual damage situation cannot be determined, a flow to directly connect hazard observation
information from hazard observation equipment was used, This was implemented in normal time, in
response to the initial response system in order to minimize a delay in disaster response. It is importantto utilize a simulation in normal times in order to connect hazard observation information to disaster
response. In normal times, the relationship between a hazard scenario and social asset information(vulnerability) draws a possible damage result. With the aid of this framework, it is necessary tominimize a delay in disaster response by establishing an initial response system without an input of
actual damage information and by having preparation based on possible damages. As disaster response
progresses and actual damages gradually become known, approximated damages can be replaced withactual damages by area or by type of damage. Figure 7 shows an acceleration of disaster response
from the point of view of combination of different information during a disaster and normal time. In
this scheme, data on actual damages and estimated damages are combined to supplement the
deficiencies in damage information in order to accelerate the disaster response.
Simulation

19
Social asset
information

Rebuilding design (Spatial design)

13

Preparation based on
estimated damages

Result ofdamageestimation

Hazardscenario

63

39

Hazardobservation
information

Estimateddamages

Supplements actual
damage informationthat cannot be
obtained
Numbers at the topright corner indicate thenumber of maps

Initialresponse
based onestimateddamages

145

61

160

Informationon actual
damages

Response
policyinformation

Response
resultinformation

Common operational picture

Figure 6. Information processing framework to achieve a comprehensive common operational picture

Visualization of strategic direction
Visualization of
statuses by combining
different information
Informationon actual
damagesCommonoperational
pictureHazardobservation
information

×Hazardscenario＝

EstimateddamagesHazardscenario×

Social asset＝

Estimateddamages

Social asset

×Social asset＝

Disaster
response
information

Disaster
response
information

×Response
resultinformation＝

Disaster
response
information

Hazardscenario

Hazardobservation
information

Estimateddamages

Disaster
response
information

Actualdamageinformation

Response
resultinformation

Classification and tallying

Database
construction

Publicinformation

Damageinformation

ChronologicaleventsDifference
modeling

Process
figures
generatedon each hour

Figure 7. Acceleration of disaster response by combining pieces of information

REFERENCES
T. Furuya, R. Kimura, M. Inoguchi, K. Tamura and H. Hayashi, “Visualization Skill for Common Operational
Picture Aimed for the Effective Disaster Response - Via Practical Activities in Tohoku District Pacific
Ocean Earthquake Emergency Mapping Team in Cabinet Office, ” Journal of Disaster Information Studies,No. 10, pp.68-76, May, 2012. (Japanese)
M. Inoguchi, K. Tamura, T. Furuya, R. Kimura and H. Hayashi, “Proposal of Effective On-Demand MashUp
among Spatial Information from the activity of Emergency Mapping Team - A Case Study of the 2011 off
the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake -,” Journal of Social Safety Science, No. 15, pp.219-229,
November, 2011. (Japanese)
R. Kimura, T. Furuya, M. Inoguchi, K. Tamura and H. Hayashi, “Clarifying the Characteristics of Data Set andData Sharing about Damage and Disaster Responses in Government in Widespread Gigantic Disaster -A
Case Study of the Data of Evacuees in Evacuation Shelters in the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku
Earthquake-, ” Journal of Social Safety Science, No. 15, pp.333-342, November, 2011. (Japanese)