Literature DB >> 26392623

Response to the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami disaster.

Shunichi Koshimura1, Nobuo Shuto2.   

Abstract

We revisited the lessons of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake Tsunami disaster specifically on the response and impact, and discussed the paradigm shift of Japan's tsunami disaster management policies and the perspectives for reconstruction. Revisiting the modern histories of Tohoku tsunami disasters and pre-2011 tsunami countermeasures, we clarified how Japan's coastal communities have prepared for tsunamis. The discussion mainly focuses on structural measures such as seawalls and breakwaters and non-structural measures of hazard map and evacuation. The responses to the 2011 event are discussed specifically on the tsunami warning system and efforts to identify the tsunami impacts. The nation-wide post-tsunami survey results shed light on the mechanisms of structural destruction, tsunami loads and structural vulnerability to inform structural rehabilitation measures and land-use planning. Remarkable paradigm shifts in designing coastal protection and disaster mitigation measures were introduced, leading with a new concept of potential tsunami levels: Prevention (Level 1) and Mitigation (Level 2) levels according to the level of 'protection'. The seawall is designed with reference to Level 1 tsunami scenario, while comprehensive disaster management measures should refer to Level 2 tsunami for protection of human lives and reducing potential losses and damage. Throughout the case study in Sendai city, the proposed reconstruction plan was evaluated from the tsunami engineering point of view to discuss how the post 2011 paradigm was implemented in coastal communities for future disaster mitigation. The analysis revealed that Sendai city's multiple protection measures for Level 2 tsunami will contribute to a substantial reduction of the tsunami inundation zone and potential losses, combined with an effective tsunami evacuation plan.
© 2015 The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  disaster resilience; post-disaster recovery and reconstruction; the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami disaster; tsunami countermeasure

Year:  2015        PMID: 26392623     DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0373

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci        ISSN: 1364-503X            Impact factor:   4.226


  6 in total

Review 1.  Evolution of tsunami warning systems and products.

Authors:  Eddie Bernard; Vasily Titov
Journal:  Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Towards developing a model for the evaluation of hospital disaster resilience: a systematic review.

Authors:  Saeed Fallah-Aliabadi; Abbas Ostadtaghizadeh; Ali Ardalan; Farin Fatemi; Bijan Khazai; Mohammad Reza Mirjalili
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-01-29       Impact factor: 2.655

3.  Cervical cancer screening rates before and after the Great East Japan Earthquake in the Miyagi Prefecture, Japan.

Authors:  Yasuhiro Miki; Toru Tase; Hideki Tokunaga; Nobuo Yaegashi; Kiyoshi Ito
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-03-11       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Machine learning-based tsunami inundation prediction derived from offshore observations.

Authors:  Iyan E Mulia; Naonori Ueda; Takemasa Miyoshi; Aditya Riadi Gusman; Kenji Satake
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2022-09-19       Impact factor: 17.694

5.  Factors Affecting the Cervical Cancer Screening Behaviors of Japanese Women in Their 20s and 30s Using a Health Belief Model: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Zhengai Cui; Hiromi Kawasaki; Miwako Tsunematsu; Yingai Cui; Masayuki Kakehashi
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-08-31       Impact factor: 3.109

6.  Statistical Analysis of the Effectiveness of Seawalls and Coastal Forests in Mitigating Tsunami Impacts in Iwate and Miyagi Prefectures.

Authors:  Roshanak Nateghi; Jeremy D Bricker; Seth D Guikema; Akane Bessho
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-10       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.