Disaster Resilient Cities

Concepts and Practical Examples

Yoshitsugu Hayashi, Yasuhiro Suzuki, Shinji Sato, Kenichi Tsukahara

• Publisher: Butterworth-Heinemann
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9780128098622
• eBook ISBN: 9780128103944
• Topic: Technology & Engineering
• Subtopic: Civil Engineering
• Index: Technology & Engineering

Disaster Resilient Cities: Concepts and Practical Examples discusses natural disasters, their complexity, and the exploration of different ways of thinking regarding the resilience of structures. The book provides a blueprint for structural designers to better prepare structures for all types of natural hazards during the design stage.Brief and readable, this book analyzes various examples of disaster damage from earthquakes, tsunamis, and floods, together with their causal mechanisms. Practical methods to plan and design structures based on their regions, cities, as well as the particular countermeasures are also included for study.- Proposes new methods and policies for enhancing structural resilience for key urban infrastructure- Includes examples of disaster damage as a result of earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, and their structural countermeasures- Presents case studies that cover specific mega disasters, such as the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, Super Typhoon Hyan, and Bangkok flood

Chapter 1

Introduction

Sync Reading Stream

What's this?

Introduction

Key Message

Since the beginning of the 21st century, as changes in the global environment and social structures have increased the threat of natural disasters, the significance of resilience has been attracting global attention. Tracing the global-scale changes from the 1990s reveals why resilience is needed now and what hope the term “resilience” represents. To improve resilience, it is important to clarify the causes and mechanisms that may lower resilience, and to design specific measures to halt their progression.

Chapter 1.1

Introduction—Why Is Resilience Lost?

Y. Suzuki*; Y. Hayashi^†; K. Tsukahara^{‡ *} Disaster Mitigation Research Center, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan
^† Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan
^‡ Graduate School of Engineering, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

Abstract

Since the beginning of the 21st century, as changes in the global environment and social structures have increased the threat of natural disasters, the significance of resilience has been attracting global attention. Tracing the global-scale changes from the 1990s reveals why resilience is needed now and what hope it represents. To improve resilience, it is important to clarify the causes and mechanisms that may lower resilience, and to design specific measures to halt their progression.

Keywords

Resilience; Disaster; Earthquake; Tsunami; Disaster prevention

1.1.1 Resilience Now Gaining Attention

Resilience is originally a concept that began to be used in psychology and social ecology in the 1970s, meaning the ability to recover from a negative event. As many natural disasters have occurred since the beginning of the 21st century, such as the Indian Ocean earthquake off the coast of Sumatra, Indonesia, large-scale hurricanes in the United States, super-typhoons in the Philippines, the Great East Japan Earthquake and large tsunami in Japan, and the massive flooding in Bangkok, the term has been used in a broader sense in association with disasters. At many international organizations and government agencies, “disaster resilience” is becoming a keyword [1–4].

The Millennium Development Goals, or MDGs, eight objectives for the international community in the 21st century established by the United Nations in 2000, did not include disaster prevention. In response to the subsequent international efforts to place a greater focus on disaster prevention and a series of massive disasters that took place in the 2000s, however, some objectives related to disaster prevention or disaster mitigation were set in the proposal for the Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs, submitted to the president of the UN General Assembly in Aug. 2015 [5]. Among them, “Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” is particularly noteworthy. The SDGs, setting the improved resilience in cities and the human living environment as an objective, were finally adopted at the UN Summit in Sep. 2015.

The Japanese government emphasizes the importance of national resilience. One reason for this is that though Japan had implemented various disaster countermeasures under the Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act and several other relevant laws since the Ise Bay Typhoon in 1959, the inadequacy of these measures in responding to the Great East Japan Earthquake, a large-scale disaster, demonstrated Japan’s lack of ability to achieve recovery and reconstruction smoothly. The fundamental plan for national resilience, titled “Building national resilience—creating a strong and flexible country,” [6] was approved by the cabinet on Jun. 3, 2014 and emphasizes two points in its basic concept: (1) assuming the possibility of the worst cases without preconceptions; and (2) preparing comprehensive measures incorporating national land policy and industry policy, not limited to the scope of narrowly defined disaster prevention. As reported by the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission of the National Diet of Japan, the Great East Japan Earthquake was not a disaster of a kind that had never occurred before. Similar tsunamis that followed the Jougan Earthquake in 869 and the Keicho-Sanriku Earthquake in 1611 were excluded from the assumptions for formulating disaster measures, resulting in huge damage, even causing an accident at a nuclear power plant [7]. Reflecting regret for this, the fundamental plan above declares preventing the same mistake from being made again as the primary goal of national resilience.

It is necessary to observe calmly the situation of society today and in the near future, and review the whole picture of national land structures and social preparedness, which could not be captured within the conventional framework of disaster prevention. In this sense, resilience has been increasingly seen as important.

1.1.2 Why Resilience Has Become an Issue Now

In Japan, the concept of resilience first attracted public attention in the aftermath of the Kobe Earthquake in 1995. This earthquake provided a major turning point requiring a review of Japan’s disaster prevention systems at the end of the 20th century.

The Kobe Earthquake was caused by movement of an active fault that lies from Awaji Island to around Kobe. The presence of this active fault became known in the 1970s and it was even designated as a fault that requires precautions in the early 1980s [8,9], though it was not included as a target of disaster prevention measures. Before 1995, because of the lack of active provision of information on hazards, most residents were unaware of the risk of the active fault and believed that a major earthquake would not take place in their living area. People were, therefore, shocked when they saw modern buildings and expressways collapse. The “myth of safety” was destroyed. It was a painful lesson from which people learned that although the postwar efforts had prepared Japan sufficiently for small- or medium-scale, highly frequent natural disasters, such as typhoons, the country’s preparedness for low-frequency, high-consequence disasters was totally insufficient. Recognizing the inability to prevent disasters completely resulted in the emergence of an approach that placed greater emphasis on “disaster mitigation” than on “disaster prevention.” After this earthquake, people began to doubt the earthquake resistance of nuclear power plants.

The Great Sumatra Earthquake in 2004 took place in the sea around the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which was an area where a major earthquake was unlikely to occur according to the general plate tectonics theory. It was a huge earthquake with a magnitude of between 9.1 and 9.3. A large tsunami hit the coast of the Indian Ocean, leaving deaths and the missing totaling over 170,000 in Indonesia, 40,000 in Sri Lanka, 20,000 in India, and 5,000 in Thailand. Images of the tsunami devastating tourism spots and cities shocked people around the world. Entering the 21st century, we have seen global warming and other environmental challenges escalating. Signs of severer weather disasters, such as sea level rise and torrential rainstorms, have been increasingly observed worldwide. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 killed nearly 2,000 people in the United States, while tornados, snowstorms, and droughts took place all around the world. Rainstorms and floods began to occur frequently in Europe.

Under these circumstances, in Japan, a sense of fear of large-scale natural disasters also began to rise around 2005. The authors, Hayashi and Suzuki, as part of our activities on the Science Council of Japan, gathered academic information concerning natural disasters and in 2007 formulated a proposal regarding the basic idea of mitigating damage from natural disasters in the future (Policies for the creation of a safe and secure society in light of increasing natural disasters around the World) [10]. This proposal presented as the policies that the Japanese government should take: (1) a paradigm shift from a “short-term perspective focusing on economic growth” to “long-term creation of safe and secure societies”; (2) infrastructure improvement based on a consensus on the level of disaster safeguard required; (3) reform of national land use from a long-term perspective; (4) well-balanced use of physical and management countermeasures; (5) reform of depopulated areas based on vulnerability assessment and recognition of potential risks; (6) establishment of integrated disaster management policies and strategies by the national and municipal governments; (7) development of public awareness of and preparedness for disasters by utilizing hazard maps; (8) promotion of education for natural disaster mitigation; (9) promotion of activities by NPOs and NGOs; (10) promotion of international cooperation in disaster mitigation; and (11) building sustainable strategies and taskforces for natural disaster mitigation.

The proposal above officially pointed out for the first time in Japan that vulnerability to disasters is an issue that influences the entire structure of society and national land, and that vulnerability has been increasing in modern society, which is often considered safer than before. It is particularly noteworthy that the proposal presented as the first policy “paradigm shift” from “short-term perspective focusing on economic growth” to “long-term creation of safe and secure societies.”

Unfortunately, the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake took place before this proposal was effectively employed in establishing and implementing national or municipal policies.

1.1.3 Issues on Resilience Raised by the Great East Japan Earthquake

Among many issues raised by the Great East Japan Earthquake, the four issues below are particularly significant for resilience in terms of social preparedness.

First is the issue of “exclusion from assumptions.” While seismologists were unable to predict a massive earthquake with a magnitude of 9.0 in the Japan Trench, geology and history recognized that a tsunami had swept deep into the Sendai Plain, causing serious damage, in the aftermath of the Jougan Earthquake in 869 and the Keicho-Sanriku Earthquake in 1611. The Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion therefore announced in 2004 that a large interplate earthquake could occur along the Japan Trench off Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures. The Central Disaster Management Council of the Cabinet Office, however, decided not to consider this possibility in disaster countermeasures, and Tokyo Electric Power Company and the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency followed this decision.

The regulatory guide for reviewing seismic design of nuclear power reactor facilities established by the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan in 2006 includes a provision: “Safety functions of the Facilities shall not be significantly impaired by tsunami which could be reasonably postulated to hit in a very low probability in the service period of the Facilities.” This sentence allowed an interpretation that measures are not necessarily to be taken if a tsunami is scientifically likely to hit the facilities but such a tsunami is judged not to be reasonably postulated [11].

Information on the risk of a large earthquake is often an “inconvenient truth,” considering its social impact. While failure to scientifically predict a M9.0 earthquake is generally seen as the major cause of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, the social weakness in the ability to assume an inconvenient truth (failure to accept the presence of an inconvenient truth and decide to take proper action) was actually the biggest problem. We understand that regret for this is reflected in the statement of “assuming the possibility of the worst cases without preconceptions” included in the fundamental plan for national resilience mentioned previously. The attitude of always seeking “long-term reasonableness in view of future generations” without turning away from inconvenient truths is required for disaster countermeasures from now on.

Second is the issue of vulnerability underlying the national land structure and social situation. As resilience has the meaning of pliable flexibility, it is important not only to be prepared directly for a purpose, but also to take indirect measures so as to secure some allowance, or margin of error, in the measures. A system developed through the excessive pursuit of rationalization, placing top priority on economic efficiency, will collapse when it exceeds an anticipated level, leaving no allowance. To enhance resilience, our “short-term economic efficiency first” policy should be abandoned. This is not easy, though it is very important.

Modern society, developed through the pursuit of convenience, is vulnerable to disasters. Cell phone networks will become congested in the event of a disaster, as there is no redundancy in the system. The conventional attitude of trying to construct towns and buildings even in places that are vulnerable to disasters by fully utilizing technological capabilities should also be reviewed. If locational conditions are bad, high maintenance and management cost is required, undermining long-term sustainability. It is important to take a well-balanced approach by making use of the allowance created not only through pushing (protecting with infrastructure) but also pulling (withdrawing from use of the land).

To achieve this, as suggested by the aforementioned proposal of the Science Council of Japan in 2007, a paradigm shift is necessary. Withdrawal from the use of land may generate conflict with individual property rights or vested interests and therefore requires strong political leadership and high public awareness of resilience. Even policies that are not associated with short-term economic benefits should be carefully examined from the perspective of long-term reasonableness, taking into consideration the benefits and losses for future generations. If they are considered necessary, the results of examination should be presented to the public and the efforts should be made to obtain social consensus on well-balanced investment allocation for the future. Academia must construct theories and conduct verifications based on objective data to s...

Table of contents

• Cover image
• Title page
• Table of Contents
• Contributors
• Copyright
• Preface
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Emerging Crisis in Resilience over the World
• Chapter 3: Learning Disaster Resilience from the Great East Japan Earthquake
• Chapter 4: Regional Grand Design for Improving Disaster Resilience
• Index
• Sync with Jellybooks