Platform on Water and Disaster-Community-

Miho OHARA (International Centre for Water Hazard andRisk Management (ICHARM),
Public Works Research Institute (PWRI), Japan1

41 Victims due to Severe Rainfall at Northern Kyusyu, 2017
Asakura City, Fukuoka Pref.
Death: 31, Missing 4

Touhou Village, Fukuoka Pref.
Death: 3

Hita City, Oitaka Pref.
Death: 3
As of 2017.9.7

37 Victims due to Severe Rainfall at Northern Kyusyu, 2017

Causes of DeathAge of Victims(Analysis from witnessing)Staying or supporting elder people
90's
5%Infant 20's
3% 5%

30's
3%

Type 1:No Evacuation(Staying at home)

40's
3%

At Home,
18.9%

50's
5%

80's
30%
60's
22%
70's
24%

81%: Over 60 years oldUnknown,
35.1%

Middle ofAction, 2.7%
Middle ofEvacuation,
8.1%

At home(Disabled),
18.9%

At Relative's
home, 2.7%
Unknown(House waswashedaway),
13.5%

Type 2:No Evacuation(Disabled)
Type 3: In Action (Outside)Kinu River Flood in Joso City （Sep, 2015)-Dyke Breach at 12:50 on Sep 10, 2015
-Total Inundated area: 40㎢ (1/3 of Joso City)-Death:2 (Total population: 61,483)

Kinu River Flood in Joso City （Sep, 2015)
More than 4,200 people were rescued.
Among them, 1,339 people were rescued
by HELICOPTER.

Why didn‘t people evacuate??

Human Behavior Model
By Atsushi Tanaka

Criteria

Comparison
ActionPerception
DisturbanceWhy people didn’t evacuate in Northern Kyusyu-Judged they need not evacuate because of Type 1
misunderstanding of hazard size.

Criteria

Comparison
ActionPerception

Type 1-Didn’t hear evacuation
orders although they weresuccessfully provided.

Type 2&3
Disturbance-Disability ofevacuation.
-Wrong action

Kinu River Flood in Joso City （Sep, 2015)
Flood Control Act:
Governors of prefectures must publish flood hazard map
and announce expected water level to local governments.

Inundation
Area

Flood Hazard Map

Actual inundation
almostcorresponds toanticipated riskarea.

Why people didn’t evacuate in Joso City
-60% have never seen Hazard Map.
(Yamada, 2016)

Criteria-Judged they need not evacuate
because of overconfidence instructural measures.

ComparisonAction
Perception-Didn’t hear evacuation
orders although there
were loudspeakers.

Disturbance-Disability ofevacuation.
-Wrong action

Necessity of More Effective Tool for Disaster Imagination

2D Static Hazard Map

Current Type

３D Dynamic Hazard Map

From Hazard information to Risk Information

1：20 after Dyke BreachHeight (m)Can Walk
流速（m/s)Flow Velocity(m/s)

Evacuation Difficulty Index

Risk Assessment Activity in the Philippines
Pampanga River Basin:

Calumpit Municipality:

Catchment Area: 10,434 km2
River Length: 260 km

Population: 112,007
Households: 22,402
Area: 5,625 haPampanga RiverBag Bag River
LabanganRiverAngat River

Labangan River2011 Typhoon Pedring
Calumpit
Municipality

Metro Manila

Source: OCD-3/PRFFWC

Why people didn’t evacuate in Calumpit-No evidence-based hazard
map & risk assessment

Criteria-Accustomed to annual floods but not
prepared for big events.
-Need to understand difference
between ordinary and extreme events.

Comparison

ActionPerception-Insufficient loudspeakers
for providing evacuation
information

Disturbance-Disability ofevacuation-Wrong action-Insufficientevacuation space

Risk Assessment Activity in the Philippines
OrdinaryFlood

Probability Map of Inundation
above First Floor Level(10 Years)

HighFlood(30 Years)

ExtremeFlood(100Years)

Measurement of Houses

Sharing risk assessment results with people
Community Workshop

Next Step: Information platform for understanding risk
From Paper to ICT Tool which can provide more realistic
risk information at their locations

Visualization using Google Earth Street View

Information & Data & Organizational Platform
Information Platform
Data ManagementPlatform

Organizational
Platform

June 15, 2017

Platform on Water-related Disasters