253

Overview of the Environmental Emergency Management Studies
in National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES)
Ryo TAJIMA* and Masahiro OSAKO
Centre for Material Cycles and Waste Management Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies
16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki, 305-8506, Japan*E-mail: tajima.ryo@nies.go.jp

Abstract
Despite its significance in achieving sustainability in an era of frequent disasters, environmental
emergency management (EEM) is a field that has not attracted enough attention from policy makers. This
article provides an overview of and outlook for EEM studies at the National Institute for Environmental
Studies (NIES). For this, a framework is presented for EEM based on recent international literature, andrepresentative works undertaken by NIES are presented in line with this framework to examine research gaps
and outlook. Our analysis shows good coverage of research topics aimed at enhancing understanding of the
impact of environmental emergencies and advancing both pre- and post-disaster actions for disaster waste
management (DWM). Some research gaps are also identified: namely, research on post-disaster assessment ofenvironmental impacts and decision making under emergency circumstances, research on responses andrecovery actions against impacts from hazardous substances released in the course of natural hazard events,
and research collaboration within the EEM discipline and between natural hazard experts (especiallyregarding physical countermeasures).
Key words :	disaster waste, environmental emergency, management, toxic release, Natech

1. Introduction
Environmental emergencies are a serious concern forboth developed and developing countries (Liao et al.,2012; Srinivas & Nakagawa, 2008). They are defined assudden-onset disasters or accidents resulting from natural,technological or human-induced factors, or a combinationof these, that cause or threaten to cause severe
environmental damage as well as harm to human healthand/or livelihoods (UNEP, 2002). They may occur in theform of a discharge of pollutants such as oil,hydrocarbons, hazardous chemicals or radioactive
substances, or the generation of disaster waste that could
result in public sanitation issues and environmental
pollution (Srinivas & Nakagawa, 2008). Compared withgeneral environmental pollution in normal times,
environmental emergencies are characterized by sudden
onset, typically a large volume of pollutant discharge in ashort period of time, and the need for urgent decisions to
be made under stressful circumstances (French &Geldermann, 2005; Liao et al., 2012). The aim ofenvironmental emergency management (EEM) is to
mitigate these environmental impacts by taking
systematic pre-and post- disaster actions.
Despite its significance in achieving sustainability inan era of frequent disasters, EEM is a field that has not
Global Environmental Research
24/2020: 253-260
printed in Japan

attracted enough attention from policy makers. The Joint
UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit points out the policy
gap and highlights the need for a new (or improved)
preparedness framework that integrates environmental
emergencies into disaster preparedness planning andemergency response (JEU, 2013a). In terms of research, aquick search in a scientific database (Web of Science
Core Collection) shows an increasing trend in the numberof studies related to EEM especially in the last ten years.
Some focus on specific types of environmental
emergencies, such as oil spills (e.g., Peterson et al., 2003;
Kujawinski et al., 2011) or “Natechs,” i.e., natural-hazard
triggered technological accidents (e.g., Young et al.,
2004; Krausmann et al., 2011); and others focus on
specific aspects of EEM such as decision making on
initial responses (e.g., Hernandez & Serrano, 2001; Liaoet al., 2012; Wang et al., 2020). There has been noattempt, however, to construct an integrated theory on
EEM.
The aim of this article is to present an overview ofrecent EEM studies as a first step toward constructing acomprehensive EEM theory, with a special focus on theworks undertaken at the National Institute forEnvironmental Studies (NIES), where EEM research has
been conducted extensively and most comprehensively inJapan, mainly since the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake. The©2020 AIRES

254

R. TAJIMA and M. OSAKOEEM framework is presented in Chapter 2 based onrecent international literature, and the representative
works undertaken at NIES are presented in line with theframework in Chapter 3 to discuss research gaps andoutlooks. Details on issues and research related toradioactive substances are dealt with in other articles inthis special issue.

2. Environmental Emergency Management
Framework
2.1 Object of Environmental Emergency Management
The environmental impacts of disasters can be
categorized by being triggered by natural hazard events(e.g., earthquakes, flooding, tsunamis) or technologicalhazards (e.g., chemical factory accidents). Another aspect
is whether the impact is caused directly by the disaster orfrom response and recovery from the disaster. Based onthese two aspects, at least four types of disaster-induced
environmental impacts can be indicated (Table 1). The
first is disturbances in the natural environment. An
example is the damage caused by the 2004 Indian Ocean
Tsunami to coral reefs, sea grass beds and other elementsof coastal ecosystems (Srinivas & Nakagawa, 2008). This
type of impact may have both negative and positive
impacts on local sustainability.
The second is disaster waste generated through thedestruction of the built environment. Disaster wastes aredifferent from wastes disposed of in normal times as they
include both household waste and industrial waste andare often mixed at source. They pose short-term sanitation
risks (e.g., odor, pests) and public health risks (e.g.,
infection), and over the longer term, environmental risks
from inappropriate treatment and disposal (Brown et al.,2011; JEU, 2013b). Serious environmental impacts may
occur when disaster wastes are contaminated withhazardous substances such as asbestos.
The third is release of hazardous substances. The
cause of such releases may be industrial accidents
triggered by human/ system errors, or Natechs triggeredby natural hazard events, such as power plant explosions
triggered by tsunamis (e.g., Young et al., 2004;
Krausmann et al., 2011). Releases of hazardous
substances may result in acute environmental and healthimpacts. In addition, recent studies highlight chronic

environmental and health impacts. For example, the 1989
Exxon Valdez oil spill had delayed, chronic and indirect
effects from petroleum contamination in the marine
environment, including, e.g., decreased sea otter survival
due to chronic exposure to residual petroleumhydrocarbons from sediment contact and ingestion ofbivalve prey (Peterson et al., 2003).
The fourth is impacts caused by disaster recovery
and reconstruction, from both natural and technologicalhazards. As disaster recovery is a resource intense project,environmental concerns from intensified resource
depletion can have detrimental effects on the long-termsustainability of disaster-impacted countries (UNEP &SKAT, 2007; Chang et al., 2010). Reconstruction projects
may also have direct and long-term environmental
impacts, e.g., impacts on water quality caused by landclearing projects to develop new housing sites (Spaling &Vroom, 2007).
Among the environmental impacts listed in Table 1,“(1) Disturbances in the natural environment” and “(4)Environmental impacts of disaster recovery” are different
from “(2) Generation of disaster wastes” and “(3) Releaseof hazardous substances” in that the impact on humansociety does not appear in the immediate aftermath of thedisasters, and thus their management does not share thecommon characteristics of EEM, i.e., urgent need andstressful circumstances of decision making (French &Geldermann, 2005). In this manuscript we focus on (2)and (3) in Table 1 as the target of EEM. However, thisdoes not mean ecosystem disturbances and environmental
impacts of reconstruction are less important. They canhave a significant impact on sustainability of the strickenarea after reconstruction and rehabilitation and should bemanaged under different management theories and tools.
2.2 P rocess of Environmental Emergency Management
Similar to the disaster management cycle (Collins,2009), which embraces both pre-disaster activities(mitigation, preparedness, early warning) and postdisaster activities (relief, recovery, rehabilitation), EEM
also has both pre- and post-disaster dimensions as
illustrated in Fig. 1.
2.2.1 Post-disaster EEM Actions
The first two steps of post-disaster EEM are
identification and assessment of potential environmental

Table 1 Environmental impacts of disasters and target ofenvironmental emergency management (EEM).
Direct result of the hazard
Triggered bynatural hazard

Result of disaster
response(1) Disturbance on natural (4) Environmental
impact of disasterenvironment
recovery(2) Generation of disaster
waste

(3) 
Release of hazardous (4) Environmental
Triggered bysubstance
impact of disastertechnological hazard
Object of EEM
recovery(including Natech)

Fig. 1 Environmental emergency management framework.

Overview of the environmental emergency management studies
impacts. This can be done at two different levels ofconcreteness. At a relatively abstract level, the type ofenvironmental impact (disaster wastes, hazardous
substances, etc.) and its urgency is identified, to guidecommon-sense response actions. Rapid Environmental
Impact Assessment (REA) is a tool for this, in which
potential environmental impacts in disaster situations canbe defined and prioritized shortly after the disasteroccurrence (Hauer & Kelly, 2018). At a more concretelevel, actions to identify potential impacts differ
according to the type of environmental impact. The
impact of disaster wastes is identified by estimating theamount and composition of disaster wastes. Here,
identification of impact (=estimation) is undertaken fordifferent purposes at different phases of the disaster waste
management (DWM) process. In the early response
phase, a very rough estimation is made to decide the scaleof DWM and necessary resources and external assistance.
In later phases, after undertaking the initial response
actions and initiating disaster waste treatment, morecertain numbers can be acquired through measurement
and calculation to facilitate decisions on the selection oftreatment and disposal options (Tajima et al., 2018). To
assess the potential impact of disaster wastes and theurgency and scale of DWM, the amount of disaster
wastes is compared with the waste disposal capacity ofthe stricken area, the existence of putrefactive andhazardous wastes is ascertained, and the degree ofseparation (or mixture) of accumulated disaster wastes isevaluated (JEU, 2013b). In terms of hazardous
substances, it is important to identify the released
substances quickly through emergency monitoring andassess their impact in terms of toxicity, concentration andquantity (Young et al., 2004). Simulation of thetransportation and dispersion of hazardous substances istypically undertaken. Identification and assessment of
impacts may become problematic when the released
substance is unknown, especially in the case of largescale Natechs that involve multiple industrial accidents.
In these cases, there are risks from released chemicals
and their side products (e.g., from fires) that are notanticipated in normal times. The Flash Environmental
Assessment Tool (FEAT) can help responders prioritize
measures to reduce impacts from chemicals throughdecision trees and lookup tables (Posthuma et al., 2014).
The next two steps of post-disaster EEM are initial
response to the impact (impact reduction) and treatment/
disposal of the impact sources. For disaster wastes,
collection and treatment of hazardous and putrefactive
disaster wastes are the highest priority (JEU, 2013b).
Following this is the collection of other non-hazardous
disaster wastes (e.g., concrete from demolition) to reduce
sanitation risks. Recycling and reuse of materials andappropriate treatment and disposal are then undertaken,
considering the balance between the conflicting
environmental (recycling rate, carbon footprint) and255

economic (direct cost) benefits and impacts (Amato et al.,2019). Mathematical models to support decisions on
disaster waste processing systems under high uncertainty
are being widely studied (e.g., Habib et al., 2019; Chenget al., 2018). To implement collection, treatment anddisposal, DWM requires specific management tasks
including procurement, financing, and planning (Tajima,2020). For hazardous substances, measures to reduce
impact, including emission reduction (limiting thesources), dispersion (limiting the pathways) andevacuation (removal of impact receptors) are
implemented (Posthuma et al., 2014). In some occasions,prophylactic drugs and antidote agents are used to reduce
health impacts (Georgiadou et al., 2010). Such decisions
are based on the characteristics of the site (e.g., location,
surrounding environment) and the environmental andhealth standards to follow. Studies on methods andmodels to support decisions on initial response, based for
instance on a case-based reasoning approach, have been
widely studied (e.g., Hernandez & Serrano, 2001; Liao etal., 2012; Wang et al., 2020). After these response actions,the released substances and contaminated water/soils arecollected using adsorbent materials or by physicalremoval to a reasonable extent and disposed of throughthe usual hazardous waste management stream.
Another important element of post-disaster EEM isoverall management of the response and recovery
process. The entire post-disaster EEM process needs tobe monitored and evaluated because situations
surrounding environmental emergencies become clear
and new issues and needs arise over time. Overallmanagement is also important because environmental
impacts at the intersection of disaster wastes andhazardous substances can occur, such as contamination ofdisaster wastes by hazardous substances.
2.2.2 Pre-disaster EEM Actions
The aim of pre-disaster actions is to effectively
reduce and respond to the impact of a foreseeable
disaster. The lessons learnt through post-disaster EEM
should guide pre-disaster EEM. Based on theoreticalgrounds in capacity development for disaster risk reduction(Hagelsteen & Becker, 2013), we considered four key
elements of pre-disaster EEM actions: preparedness
planning, training, institutional arrangements and physicalcountermeasures (Fig. 1). Pre-disaster EEM should be
dynamic and continuous, and to enhance synergistic
effects, these actions should not be undertaken in
isolation (Karunasena & Amaratunga, 2016).
The first element is preparedness planning, the coreof preparedness (USEPA, 2008; JEU, 2013b). Scholars inemergency management state that preparedness planning
is a process of generating emergency response measuresand protocols, and the written plan represents a snapshotof that process (Perry & Lindell, 2003). Anotherimportant implication of preparedness planning in EEM
is that considering the large uncertainties of the256

R. TAJIMA and M. OSAKO

emergency context, the fundamental principles of
response and priorities should be specified whereas theamount of operational details should be minimized (Perry& Lindell, 2003). For DWM this means identification ofdifferent waste management approaches and required
resources including personnel, vehicles, staging anddisposal sites, and recycling technology/facilities (Brown& Milke, 2016). The same principle applies to hazardous
substances, but current research and practice seem more
inclined to use detailed quantitative risk assessments forplanning. One example is the procedure for Natech risk
assessment which consists of (1) characterization of thenatural event, (2) identification of target equipment, (3)identification of damage states and reference scenarios,(4) estimation of damage probability, (5) evaluation ofconsequences in reference scenarios, (6) identification of
credible combinations of events, (7) frequency/
probability calculations for each combination, (8)consequence calculations for each combination, and (10)calculation of risk indices (Antonioni et al., 2009).
Mapping of those risks is also an effective practice(Girgin & Krausmann, 2013). Another importantcomponent of preparedness planning is to establish acoordination framework and personal relationships
between organizations that will be required to coordinate
in post-disaster EEM (Perry & Lindell, 2003). Unlike
waste management and chemical accident management innormal times, EEM requires involvement of natural
hazard experts and other disaster respondents such as
military, civil engineers and social welfare staff.
The second element is training, which increases theeffectiveness of preparedness plans. Preparedness plans
are only effective when knowledge, skills and attitude(KSA) are transferred to emergency responders, and that
KSA is applied effectively to real world performance(Ford & Schmidt, 2000). Typical training methods
include lectures, workshops, drills, tabletop exercises andfunctional exercises, the latter being a more active type oflearning. Training courses are also effective venues fordeveloping inter-organizational coordination (Perry &Lindell, 2003).
The third element is institutional arrangements suchas enactment and revision of laws and regulations.
Legislation on waste management (e.g., mandatory
recycling targets) can either enhance or compromise
recycling of disaster wastes (Brown & Milke, 2016).
Restricting industrial development in disaster-prone areas
through land-use planning, building codes and safety
regulations may reduce the risk of toxic releases after
natural hazard events (Krausmann & Cruz, 2013).
Regarding hazardous substances, standards for
emergency exposure play a critical role because
environmental standards developed for environmental
management in normal times may not be applicable toacute and short-term exposures.
The final element, physical countermeasures,

reduces the impact of natural hazard events and ensures
the availability of resources and functions needed for
response actions. Regarding disaster wastes, flood
prevention facilities and anti-seismic reinforcement of
housing can decrease the amount of disaster wastes,
which in turn facilitates environmentally friendly disposal
in terms of pollutant emissions (Hirayama et. al., 2013;
Wakabayashi et al., 2017). Reinforcement of installations
and equipment in various ways such as by anchoring andusing safe equipment design can also help reduce theimpact of disasters (Krausmann et al., 2011).
Just as with post-disaster EEM, it is important to get
an overview of the capacity development process andactions for preparedness. As environmental emergencies
are dependent on local situations, analysis of the existingrisks and capacity of the responding organizations isnecessary for effective preparedness capacity
development (Hagelsteen & Becker, 2013).

3. Environmental Emergency Management
Studies at NIES
3.1 Understanding Impacts of Environmental
Emergencies
NIES has conducted research aimed at elucidating
the impact of environmental emergencies, focusing
mainly on the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, as
little was known about the environmental impact oftsunamis and tsunami-induced industrial accidents.
Regarding disaster wastes, the characteristics of disaster
wastes from the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and theirdisposal process were summarized by Osako and Tajima(2014). A large concern regarding these disaster wastes,
apart from those radioactively contaminated, was impactof tsunami sediments, amounting to ca. 10 million tons.
Oguchi et al. (2013) summarized the state of chemical
pollution and concluded that although some reports
indicated levels in excess of environmental standards forlead, arsenic, fluorine and oil, the overall level ofpollution was low. In terms of hazardous substances,
Kanaya et al. (2016) investigated the ecologicalconsequences of the fuel spills and subsequent
conflagrations that resulted from the tsunamis following
the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. The results indicated that
although sediment in the bay still contained high levels ofpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) four years after
the disaster, no negative impacts of the PAHs weredetected in the dominant macrozoobenthos. A series ofenvironmental emergency monitoring actions were also
conducted to clarify the release and impact of someinorganic elements, persistent organic pollutants (POPs),
microorganisms and pests, mainly near the evacuation
centers and temporary storage/treatment sites for disaster
wastes (Nakajima et al., 2019). Hashimoto et al. (2019)
investigated the health and sanitation risks of debris
stored at a temporary storage site on its surroundings andOverview of the environmental emergency management studies
found higher outdoor concentrations of certain
microorganisms known to be respiratory allergens
compared to in a normal environment. The effects ofparticulate matter (PM) derived from tsunami sediments
on human health were studied and it was concluded thatthe overall concentration of PM was low but thatvulnerable people may need special care (Suzuki et al.,2019). The impact of the 2011 Tohoku tsunami on thelocal ecology and population were also evaluated. It was
found that a large-scale tsunami caused mass mortality ofintertidal organisms over a broad spatial scale but did not
significantly affect the genetic diversity of the local
populations (Miura et al., 2017; Miura et al., 2019).
Kanaya et al. (2019) reached a similar conclusion fromstudies in Fukushima and Ibaraki prefectures, but theyalso pointed out the detrimental impact of restoration
work after 2016 on faunal diversity and mortalities ofsome marine taxa.
Comparing among the four types of environmental
impacts of disasters indicated in Table 1, the research at
NIES seemed to cover (1) ~ (4) relatively well, and somework has been done at the intersection of (2) and (3).
Studies on other disasters could enhance generalization of
their findings, as most of the work solely concerns the2011 Tohoku earthquake.
3.2 
Development of Post-disaster EEM Theory andTechnology
Studies on post-disaster EEM at NIES aresummarized in Table 2. Regarding identification of
impacts, methods to estimate the amount of disaster
wastes were developed, implemented and reviewed toenhance their accuracy (e.g., Hirayama et al., 2013;
Tajima et al., 2018). A rapid screening method forasbestos was developed to help enhance disaster waste
treatment while controlling health risks (Yamamoto et al.,2018). For hazardous substances, works related todeveloping and applying a technology that could quickly
identify and quantify substances existing in post disasterenvironments, namely AIQS-GC (Automated
Identification and Quantification System using gas
chromatograph-mass spectrometry), were undertaken(e.g., Nakajima et al., 2019). On the other hand, there has
been no particular research regarding assessment of the
impact that could facilitate decision-making in the initial
response.
Regarding the response and treatment/disposal step,257

research efforts have focused mainly on disaster wastes.
For example, based on practical experience in providing
technical assistance to management of temporary storagesites, management methods to prevent spontaneous fires,a potential risk during the initial response phase of DWM,
were clarified (Endo & Yamada, 2012). Regarding
disposal of disaster wastes, work has been done toconfirm the risk of generating dioxins from incinerationof wooden disaster wastes saturated with sea water, andergonomic studies have been done on factors related toefficient hand separation. To enhance recycling oftsunami deposits, their properties were investigated andmethods and standards for environmentally andphysically safe recycling as geomaterials were clarified(e.g., Katsumi et. al., 2017). These research activities
contributed to production of guidelines for effective
utilization of reconstruction materials recycled fromdisaster wastes (Japanese Geotechnical Society, 2014).
Research on overall management was intensely
undertaken regarding disaster wastes. Tasks and functions
necessary for a DWM project were clarified from in
depth research on various DWM cases in Japan, anddifferences related to the scale of the responding local
government were analyzed (e.g., Tajima, 2020)
The first research gap indicated in Table 2 is researchon assessing impacts, a missing link between results ofimpact identification and response actions. The research
outputs mentioned above could contribute more to EEM
by linking the results of impact identification to existingassessment tools such as REA, or by developing tools or
systems to aid post-disaster EEM decision making.
Another research gap in EEM worth noting is research on
response methods and processes and their overallmanagement, specifically for toxic releases underemergency circumstances. The current response methods
and procedures summarized in the Japanese guidelines do
not anticipate Natechs (Ministry of the Environment,2009), which could hinder effective responses to toxic
releases after large-scale natural hazard events andNatechs under stringent resource restrictions.
3.3 Development of Pre-disaster EEM Theory andTechnology
Research on pre-disaster EEM at NIES issummarized in Table 3. With regard to preparedness
planning, DWM planning principles have beensummarized (e.g., Tajima et al., 2013a), extensively

Table 2 Main research items of post-disaster EEM (environmental emergency management) research at NIES.
Identification of impacts(debris, pollutants, etc.)
Assessment of impacts
Initial response to (reduction of) the impacts
Treatment and disposal of impact sources
Overall management

Disaster wastes
Estimation of disaster waste
Rapid screening for asbestos
No particular research output
Methods of managing temporary storage sites
Methods and strategies for recycling tsunami sediments
Tasks and functions of DWM (disaster waste management)

Hazardous substances
Environmental monitoring system
No particular research output
No particular research output
No particular research output
No particular research output

258

R. TAJIMA and M. OSAKO

Table 3 Main items studied in pre-disaster EEM (environmental emergency management) research at NIES.
Preparedness planning
Training

Disaster wastes
Principles of DWM (disaster waste management) planning
Development of training methods and theories

Institutional arrangements
Physical countermeasures
Overall capacity management

Impact of institutional arrangements on the DWM process
No particular research output
Online tools to evaluate resilience of local waste management systems

guided by principles of preparedness planning for
emergency management (Perry & Lindell, 2003). Other
works related to overall management in post disaster
DWM also help inform the planning process by pointing
out the necessary tasks, functions and resources. No
particular work has been done to develop preparedness
planning for hazardous substances, including research
related to development of quantitative planning models
and tools using linear programming and its applied
methods, which have been rather well studiedinternationally (see 2.2.2 above). Training has gained
special attention and works have been undertaken withregard to both disaster wastes and toxic releases. Notably,
theories and methods for DWM training have beendeveloped, including workshops (Tajima et. al, 2015) andfunctional exercises for local government officers (Tajima
et al., 2019), with workshops applied to enhance civic
action among residents (Mori et al., 2020). Thesemethods were developed based on understanding of thenecessary KSAs for DWM personnel (Tajima et al.,2014). Research has been undertaken in collaboration
with several prefectural governments and citizen groups
in Japan, referring to the theory of action research(Stringer, 2014). Training to gain technical skills needed
to use AIQS-GM has also been undertaken (Nakajima etal., 2019).
Another item that has received attention regarding
both disaster wastes and hazardous substances isinstitutional arrangements. For disaster wastes, the effects
of definitive and provisional institutional arrangements
for DWM on actual management processes in the 2011
Tohoku earthquake have been analyzed, and suggestions
have been made for future development (Tajima et al.,2013b). For hazardous substances, domestic and overseas
efforts in response to accidents and disasters with releaseof chemical substances have been investigated, mainly
from the viewpoint of exposure levels, and a list of
substances deserving high-priority management has beendeveloped (Koyama & Suzuki, 2019). In addition, NIES
researchers have been extensively involved in thedevelopment of various EEM guidelines, including, e.g.,
the DWM guidelines of Japan’s Ministry of theEnvironment (Ministry of the Environment, 2018). No
particular research has been conducted so far regarding
physical countermeasures for disaster wastes andhazardous substances. For overall capacity management,
online tools to evaluate the resilience of local waste

Hazardous substances
No particular research output
Implementation of training to familiarize people with
AIQS-GC
Development of priority lists of chemicals in emergencies
No particular research output
No particular research output

management systems from various viewpoints have beendeveloped (e.g., Tajima & Osako, 2017). They areintended to help local governments plan for capacity
development, by recognizing the risks in their waste
management system and their current capacity to respond,
adapt to and cope with disaster wastes. This is associatedwith an online information platform for disaster waste
management developed by NIES, in which technical andadministrative guidance, reports on DWM experience, a
database of local DWM plans and other materials forindividual and organizational learning are consolidated.
One gap obvious from Table 3 is research on
physical countermeasures. This is usually studied bystructural dynamics experts. Collaboration with external
natural hazard experts on physical countermeasureswould have important implications in preparedness
planning (e.g., the role of treatment facilities, postdisaster functionality of disposal facilities) andinstitutional arrangements (e.g., provision of incentives).
Another issue regarding collaboration is inadequate
interaction between disaster waste and hazardous
substance researchers on preparedness planning, training
and capacity management. For example, methods andtheories on training for EEM could be developed andimplemented more efficiently by integrating the findings
from works undertaken for disaster wastes and toxic
releases. A tool to evaluate the capacity to manage
hazardous substance releases similar to the tool developed
for disaster wastes could benefit from integration toenhance awareness of both issues by local governments.

4. Conclusions
Since 2011, research on EEM has been undertaken
extensively by NIES, mainly driven by the needs andissues recognized in EEM practice. This article has
attempted to clarify the overall framework of EEM, andgive an overview of associated research conducted at
NIES. Our analysis shows good coverage of research
topics aimed at enhancing understanding of the impact ofenvironmental emergencies and at advancing both preand post-disaster actions for DWM. Some research gaps
have also been identified, namely, research on postdisaster assessment of environmental impacts anddecision making under emergency circumstances,
research on response and recovery actions against
impacts from hazardous substances released by natural

Overview of the environmental emergency management studies
hazard events, and research collaboration within the EEM
discipline and among natural hazard experts (especiallyregarding physical countermeasures) . Finally, we shouldnote that to enhance EEM in an age of limited publicresources (budgetary and staff), future research should
focus on synergetic benefits for development in normal
times and response in emergencies. Innovations intechnologies and governance structures of normal-timeenvironmental management are required in a way thatmainstreams EEM.
References
Amato, A., Gabrielli, F., Spinozi, F., Galluzzi, L.M., Balducci, S.
and Beolchini, F. (2019) Strategies of disaster waste management
after an earthquake: a sustainability assessment. Recourses,
Conservation & Recycling, 146, 590–597.
Antonioni, G., Bonvicini, S., Spadoni, G. and Cozzani, V. (2009)
Development of a framework for the risk assessment of na-tech
accidental events. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 94,
1442–1450.
Brown C. and Milke, M. (2016) Recycling disaster waste:feasibility, method and effectiveness. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 106, 21–32.
Brown C., Milke, M. and Seville, E. (2011) Disaster waste
management: a review article. Waste Management, 31, 1085–
1098.
Chang, Y., Wilkinson, S., Seville, E. and Potangaroa, R. (2010)
Resourcing for a resilient post‐disaster reconstruction
environment. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the
Built Environment, 1(1), 65–83.
Cheng, C., Zhang, L. and Thompson, R.G. (2018) Reliability
analysis for disaster waste management systems. Waste
Management, 78, 31–42.
Collins, A.E. (2009) Disaster and Development. Routledge,
London.
Endo, K. and Yamada, M. (2012) Fire prevention at temporary
deposit of disaster waste. Journal of Japan Waste Management
Association, 65(306), 113–117. (in Japanese)
French, S. and Geldermann, J. (2005) The varied contexts ofenvironmental decision problems and their implications for
decision support. Environmental Science & Policy, 8(4), 378–
391
Ford, J.K. and Schmidt, A.M. (2000) Emergency response training:strategies for enhancing real-world performance. Journal ofHazardous Materials, 75, 195–215.
Georgiadou, P.S., Papazoglou, I.A., Kiranoudis, C.T. and Narkatos,
N.C. (2010) Multi-objective evolutionary emergency response
optimization for major accidents. Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 178, 792–803.
Girgin, S. and Krausmann, E. (2013) RAPID-N: Rapid natech risk
assessment and mapping framework. Journal of Loss Prevention
in the Process Industries, 26, 949–960.
Habib, M.S., Sarkar, Bl, Tayyab, M., Saleem, M.W., Hussain, A.,
Ullah, M., Omair, M. and Iqbal M.W. (2019) Large-scale disaster
waste management under uncertain environment. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 212, 200–222.
Hagelsteen, M. and Becker, P. (2013) Challenging disparities incapacity development for disaster risk reduction. International
Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 3, 4–13.
Hashimoto, K., Kawakami, Y., Nakayama, S.F., Suzuki, G.,
Shiraishi, F., Nitta, H. and Nakajima, D. (2019) Fly infestation
and airborne microorganism pollution in schools adjacent to259

temporary debris storage sites after the Great East Japan
Earthquake. Indoor Environment, 22(1), 45 – 53.
Hauer, M. and Kelly, C. (2018) Guidelines for rapid environmental
impact assessment in disasters [version 5], 101p.
Hernandez, J.Z. and Serrano, J.M. (2001) Knowledge-basedmodels for emergency management systems. Expert Systems
with Applications, 20, 173 – 186.
Hirayama, N., Yamada, M., Ishigaki, T. and Kawata, Y. (2013)
Effective reduction of disaster debris impact on landfill system.
Sardinia 2013 Proceedings, 12 pp.
Japanese Geotechnical Society (2014) Guideline for effective
utilization of reconstruction materials recycled from disaster
wastes, 96 pp. (in Japanese)
Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit (JEU) (2013a) Integrationof environmental emergencies in preparedness and contingency
planning. 35 pp.
Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit (JEU) (2013b) Disaster
waste management guidelines. 42 pp.
Kanaya, G., Maki, H., Chiba, F., Miura, K., Fukuchi, S., Sasaki, H.
and Nishimura, O. (2016) Impacts of fuel spills caused by theGreat East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami on the subtidal softbottom communities of a semi-enclosed bay located on the
Sanriku Coast. In: Urabe J. and Nakashizuka T. (eds), Ecological
Impacts of Tsunamis on Coastal Ecosystems, 7, Springer, Tokyo,
223–250.
Kanaya, G., Taru, M., Yuhara, T., Unagami, T., Miura, O., Nakai,S., Itoh, H. and Suzuki, T. (2019) Macrozoobenthos of theSamegawa River (Iwaki, Fukushima Prefecture) and the Momiya
River (Hitachi, Ibaraki Prefecture) tidalflats, Japan: Diversity
shifts following the 2011 earthquake and effects of ongoing
restoration works. Japanese Journal of Benthology, 73(2), 84–
101.
Karunasena, G. and Amaratunga, D. (2016) Capacity building forpost disaster construction and demolition waste management: A
case of Sri Lanka. Disaster Prevention and Management, 25(2),137–153.
Katsumi, T., Okawara, M., Kawashima, M., Endo, K., Sakanakura,
H., Iwashita, S., Takai, A. and Inui, T. (2017) Soils recoveredfrom disaster debris: characterization and utilization. Journal of
JSCE, 5, 145–156.
Koyama, Y. and Suzuki, N. (2019) A study on target chemical
substances for environmental contamination management indisasters and accidents. Journal of Environmental Chemistry,
29(3), 95–105. (in Japanese)
Krausmann, E., Cozzani, V., Salzano, E. and Renni, E. (2011)
Industrial accidents triggered by natural hazards: an emerging
risk issue. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 11, 921–
929.
Krausmann, E. and Cruz, A.M. (2013) Impact of the 11 March
2011, Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami on the chemicalindustry. Natural Hazards, 67, 811–828.
Kujawinski, E.B., Kido Soule, M.C., Valentine, D.L., Boysen,
A.K., Longnecker, K. and Redmond, M.C. (2011) Fate ofdispersants associated with the deepwater horizon oil spill.
Environmental Science & Technology, 45, 1298–1306.
Liao, Z., Wang, B., Xia, X. and Hannam, P.M. (2012)
Environmental emergency decision support system based on
artificial neural network. Safety Science, 50, 150–163.
Ministry of the Environment (2009) Guidance note on making
response manuals for industrial accident involving chemicals at
local governments. (in Japanese)
Ministry of the Environment (2018) Disaster waste management
guidelines. (in Japanese)
Miura, O., Kanaya, G., Nakai, S., Itoh, H., Chiba, S., Makino, W.,
Nishimura, T., Kojima, S. and Urabe, J. (2017) Ecological and

260

R. TAJIMA and M. OSAKO

genetic impact of the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake Tsunami onintertidal mud snails. Scientific Reports, 7, 44375.
Miura, O., Kanaya, G., Nakai, S., Itho, H. and Chiba, S. (2019)
Prevalence and species richness of trematode parasites only
partially recovers after the 2011 Tohoku, Japan, earthquake
tsunami. International Journal of Parasitology, 49(13–14),
1023–1028.
Mori, T., Osako, M. and Nakayama, I. (2020) Practice andevaluation of workshop to promote civic action for disaster
waste management. Japanese Journal of Environmental
Education, 30(1), 1_68–73. (in Japanese)
Nakajima, D., Suzuki, G., Nakayama, S.F., Shiraishi, F., Nitta, H.,
Koyama, Y., Yagishita, M., Miyawaki, T., Nakashima, H.,
Kimura, J. and Kadokami, K. (2019) Environmental monitoring
during disasters using automated identification andquantification system (AIQS): Utilization in the Great East
Japan Earthquake. Journal of Environmental Chemistry, 29(3),129 – 137. (in Japanese)
Oguchi, M., Takigami, H., Endo, K. and Osako, M. (2013)
Occurrence of chemicals in tsunami deposit generated in the
Great East Japan Earthquake. Journal of Japan Society for Safety
Engineering, 52(1), 11–18. (in Japanese)
Osako, M. and Tajima, R. (2014) An outline of disaster waste
management for the Great East Japan Earthquake from atechnological and administrative point of view. Global
Environmental Research, 18, 73–80.
Perry, R.W. and Lindell, M.K. (2003) Preparedness for emergency
response: Guidelines for the emergency planning process.
Disasters, 27(4), 339–350.
Peterson, C.H., Rice, S.D., Short, J.W., Esler, D., Bodkin, J.L.,
Ballachey, B.E. and Irons, D.B. (2003) Long-term ecosystem
response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Science, 302(5653),
2082–2086.
Posthuma, L., Wahlstrom, E., Nijenhuis, R., Dijkens, C., de Zwart,D., van de Meent, D., Hollander, A., Brand, E., den Hollander,
H.A., van Middelaar, J., van Dijk, S., Hall, E.F. and Hoffer, S.
(2014) The flash environmental assessment tool: Worldwide firstaid for chemical accidents response, pro action, prevention andpreparedness. Environment International, 72, 140–156.
Spaling, H. and Vroom, B. (2007) Environmental assessment after
the 2004 tsunami: a case study, lessons and prospects. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal, 25(1), 43–52.
Srinivas, H. and Nakagawa, Y. (2008) Environmental implications
for disaster preparedness: Lessons learnt from the Indian Ocean
Tsunami. Journal of Environmental Management, 89, 4–13.
Stringer, E.T. (2014) Action Research [4th ed.], Sage journals.
Suzuki, G., Nakajima, D., Nakayama, S., Shiraishi, F., Tamura, K.,
Takigami, H. and Nitta, H. (2019) PM2.5, PM10, TSP and heavy
metals in house dust collected from evacuation centers in Miyagi
Prefecture at the time of the Great East Japan Earthquake. Indoor
Environment, 22(1), 35–43.
Tajima, R. (2020) Comprehensive structure of a disaster waste
management project based on the Japanese experience. The 6th
3RINCs, Abstracts.
Tajima, R., Hirayama, N., Mori, T., Kawahata, T., Takata, M. andOsako, M. (2015) Effectiveness of workshop training method ondevelopment of intentions and attitudes towards disaster waste
management. Journal of Japan Society for Natural Disaster
Science, 34 (special issue), 99–110.
Tajima, R., Hirayama, N. and Osako, M. (2013a) Theory andpractice of pre-disaster planning for disaster waste management.
Internet Journal of Society for Social Management Systems,
9(1), SMS13–4303.
Tajima, R., Tasaki, T. and Osako, M. (2013b) Impact of Institutions
on the management of disaster wastes in the Great East Japan

Earthquake. Journal of the Japan Society of Material Cycles andWaste Management, 25, 1–15. (in Japanese)
Tajima, R., Hirayama, N., Takata, M., So, S. and Osako, M. (2018)
Methods for estimating the amount of disaster waste: A review
based on disaster response and management perspectives.
Journal of the Japan Society of Material Cycles and Waste
Management, 29, 104–118. (in Japanese)
Tajima, R., Mori, T., Hirayama, N., Takata, M. and Osako, M.
(2014) Identification of competencies required for disaster waste
management by public sector – based on the results of apractitioners’ workshop. Journal of Social Safety Science, 24,
211–221. (in Japanese)
Tajima, R., Mori, T., Natsume, Y. and Osako, M. (2019)
Effectiveness of a functional exercise on disaster waste
management for exercise participants and its determinants.
Journal of Social Safety Science, 34, 115–124. (in Japanese)
Tajima, R. and Osako, M. (2017) Development of a disaster
resilience evaluation tool for a local waste management system.
Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of Japan Society ofMaterial Cycles and Waste Management, 143–144. (in Japanese)
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2002) Further
improvement of environmental emergency prevention,
preparedness, assessment, response and mitigation: note by the
Executive Director. UN, Nairobi, 14 pp.
UNEP and SKAT (2007) After the Tsunami: sustainable building
guidelines for South-East Asia. UNEP, Nairobi, 64 pp.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2008)
Planning for natural disaster debris, NSEPA, 94 pp.
Wakabayashi, Y., Peii, T., Tabata, T. and Saeki, T. (2017) Life cycle
assessment and life cycle costs for pre-disaster waste
management systems. Waste Management, 68, 688–700.
Wang, D., Wan, K. and Ma, W. (2020) Emergency decision-making
model of environmental emergencies based on case-based
reasoning method. Journal of Environmental Management, 262,
1–10.
Yamamoto, T., Toyoguchi, T. and Kida, A. (2018) Study on rapid
screening methods for asbestos in disaster debris. Bunseki
Kagaku, 67(4), 207–212. (in Japanese)
Young, S., Balluz, L. and Malilay, J. (2004) Natural andtechnologic hazardous material releases during and after natural
disasters: a review. Science of the Total Environment, 322, 3–20.

Ryo TAJIMA
Ryo Tajima is a senior researcher at the Centre forMaterial Cycles and Waste Management
Research, National Institute for Environmental
Studies, Japan. His main research field is policy
and planning for waste management underdisaster and normal circumstances. He is involved
in local and national efforts to draft guidelines
and plans and to design training programs for disaster waste management.

Masahiro OSAKO
Masahiro Osako, who holds a doctorate ofengineering, serves as director of the Material
Cycles Division, National Institute forEnvironmental Studies (NIES). His specialty isenvironmental engineering, focusing on waste
management. Since the Fukushima nuclear
accident that resulted from the Great East Japan
Earthquake in 2011, he has been dedicated not only to conducting various
researches to properly manage radioactively contaminated wastes but also
to playing an important role in the relevant policy-making by the national
government. He also chairs the research committee on technologicalstrategies for the final disposal out of Fukushima in the Society of
Remediation of Radioactive Contamination in the Environment.
(Received 17 September 2020, Accepted 21 December 2020)