Tonankai Erthquake Mitigation Initiative Project Daidaitoku Okada Subproject

1
Tonankai Erthquake Mitigation Initiative Project
(Daidaitoku Okada Sub-project)

• Entire Project Headed by Prof. Yoshiaki Kawata,
  DPRI, Kyoto University
• Sub-project led by Norio Okada,
• DPRI, Kyoto University

2
(No Transcript)
3
Tokai
Nankai
4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
Chronology of Catastrophic Earthquakes Around
Suruga-Nankai Trough
(http//www.greencompass.net/ )
13
A Japans Challenge towards Anticipatory and
Participatory Urban Disaster Risk Management
Case Study of Tonankai Earthquake Disaster
Initiative

• Norio Okada and Hirokazu Tatano Professor of
  Integrated Disaster Risk Management, Disaster
  Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University,
  Gokasho, Uji, Kyoto, 611-0011 JapanIUEPA,
  Louisville, KY, 8 Sept.2004 

14
Project Period 2002-2006

• Purpose Implementation-oriented Research
  Initiative in Disaster Risk Mitigation
• Expected Outcomes
• -achievable, visible and transferable by 2006
• -customers, stakeholders-available outputs
• -unique and research value-added approach
• -academic initiative

15
Major Challenges

• Anticipatory approach supported by the
  methodology of urban diagnosis and adaptive
  management
• Participatory process involving multiple
  stakeholders
• Integrated disaster risk management to be linked
  with urban and regional planning and management.

16
Lessons from the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake
Disaster

• Low-frequency, high-impact disaster
• (catastrophic disaster) requires a special
  approach
• different from the conventional one
  familiar to Japan
• Coordinated approach to maximize the
  integrated capacity for the region to cope
  with holistic aspects
• of such a catastrophic disaster
• Failure-masked approach to fail-safe, risk
  management approach

17
(No Transcript)
18

• City/Region/Community
• Viewed as a Five-storied Pagoda
• (Pagoda Model)

19
Conventional and 21st century disaster plan
20
Multi-level Participatory Approach

• impact of the earthquake would be immense and
  distribute across regions and down to local
  communities
• coping capacity need to be fostered on community
  level in anticipation of the Tonankai Earthquake.
  
• administrators and experts engaged in
  inter-regional disaster management are expected
  to work together and develop effective mitigation
  countermeasures and implement them in advance.

21
Table 1 Occurrence Probabilities
PredicedltSource?????? Earthquake Investigation
Committee(2001)gt
22
Model Size
4.Yamanashi 5.Shizuoka 6.Toyama 7.Ishikawa
8.Aichi 9.Mie 10.Gifu
1.Hokkaido
2.Tohoku
11. Kinki
12.Chugoku
7
6
10
4
3.Kanto
8
5
9
13.Shikoku
Industrial Sectors 1 Agriculture, Forestry
Fishery 2 Mining Manufacturing 3
Construction Services
14.Kyushu Okinawa
23
Disaster Scenario

• Tokai Earthquake
• Transport infrastructure (highway, railway) is
  damaged, and for 3 months it is out of service
  due to restoration. Traffics have to go on
  detours.
• Congestion of the main Detour (Chuo Route)
• Assuming congestion of Chuo Route, congestion
  effect is inserted exogenously (Scenario 2, 3).

24
Highway Network

• Assumption on Commodity Transport
• We assume that Commodity is transported by the
  Shortest Path (in terms of Transit Time) of all
  paths in the Network linking Origin and
  Destination.
• This makes us possible to consider the Choice of
  Detour. And we reflect the change of transit time
  on transport cost rate (F) in our SCGE model.

Osaka
Nagoya
Tokyo
Shizuoka
Central city of each region
Other nodes
Boundary of the regions
Highway
ExpresswayHighway
25
Region 2
Disaster -Damage to Transport Infrastructure
damaged
Utility of Consumer
damaged
Region 1
26
Economic loss results in lower utility
Region 2
Disaster -Damage to Transport Infrastructure
damaged
Utility of Consumer
damaged
Region 1
27
Economic loss results in lower utility
Region 2
Disaster -Damage to Transport Infrastructure
damaged
Utility of Consumer
damaged
Region 1
28
Economic loss results in lower utility
Region 2
Disaster -Damage to Transport Infrastructure
damaged
Utility of Consumer
damaged
Region 1
29
Region 2
Disaster -Damage to Transport Infrastructure
damaged
Utility of Consumer
damaged
Region 1
30
Region 2
Disaster -Damage to Transport Infrastructure
damaged
Utility of Consumer
damaged
Region 1
31
Region 2
Disaster -Damage to Transport Infrastructure
damaged
Utility of Consumer
damaged
Region 1
32
Region 2
Disaster -Damage to Transport Infrastructure
damaged
Utility of Consumer
damaged
Region 1
33
Economic loss results in lower utility
Region 2
Disaster -Damage to Transport Infrastructure
damaged
Utility of Consumer
damaged
Region 1
34
Economic loss results in lower utility
Region 2
Disaster -Damage to Transport Infrastructure
damaged
Utility of Consumer
damaged
Region 1
35
(No Transcript)
36
? ? ? (2) ??????????
in Disaster -2 Damage to People or Production
Capital
37
Region 2
Disaster -Production capital damage or Human
damage in Region 1
Utility of Consumer
Region 1
damaged
38
Region 2
Disaster -Production capital damage or Human
damage in Region 1
Utility of Consumer
Region 1
damaged
39
Region 2
Disaster -Production capital damage or Human
damage in Region 1
Utility of Consumer
Region 1
damaged
40
Region 2
Disaster -Production capital damage or Human
damage in Region 1
Utility of Consumer
Region 1
damaged
41
Region 2
Disaster -Production capital damage or Human
damage in Region 1
Utility of Consumer
Region 1
damaged
42
Economic loss results in lower utility
Region 2
Disaster -Production capital damage or Human
damage in Region 1
Utility of Consumer
Region 1
damaged
43
Economic loss results in lower utility
Region 2
Disaster -Production capital damage or Human
damage in Region 1
Utility of Consumer
Region 1
damaged
44
Economic loss results in lower utility
Region 2
Disaster -Production capital damage or Human
damage in Region 1
Utility of Consumer
Region 1
damaged
45
Region 2
Disaster -Production capital damage or Human
damage in Region 1
Utility of Consumer
Region 1
damaged
46
Region 2
Disaster -Production capital damage or Human
damage in Region 1
Utility of Consumer
Region 1
damaged
47
Region 2
Disaster -Production capital damage or Human
damage in Region 1
Utility of Consumer
Region 1
damaged
48
Region 2
Disaster -Production capital damage or Human
damage in Region 1
Utility of Consumer
Region 1
damaged
49
Economic loss results in lower utility
Region 2
Disaster -Production capital damage or Human
damage in Region 1
Utility of Consumer
Region 1
damaged
50
Economic loss results in lower utility
Region 2
Disaster -Production capital damage or Human
damage in Region 1
Utility of Consumer
Region 1
damaged
51
Production Structure of Firm 1
Output
Leontief type
Compound Factor Forming Value-added

Intermediate Goods
Cobb-Douglas type
Fundamental Compound Factor
Purchased from other/the same region
Knowledge
Cobb-Douglas type
Cobb-Douglas type

Business Trip
Labor
Capital
52
Regional Economic System
Region k
Intermediate goods
Commodity
Firm i
Household
Labor, Capital
Highway for Commodity Transport
Railway for Passenger Transport
Intermediate goods
Region l
Commodity
Intermediate goods
Firm j
Household
Labor, Capital
53
Main Result
(Trillion yen)
(10 Thousand yen)
Scenario 1
Losses per Employed Person
Transport-related Losses
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Mie
Gifu
Kanto
Aichi
Kinki
Tohoku
Toyama
Hokkaido
Shizuoka
Ishikawa
Shikoku
Chugoku
Yamanashi
Kyushu, Okinawa
Losses per employed person under scenario 1
54
Collaborative Modeling(Regional-Professional )

• Participatory Approach-oriented
• Alternative Policy-making Process
• Policy Prioritizing Process from among a Policy
  Bundle
• Scenario-based, Contingency-context
• System Engineering-endorsed
• Economically-endorsed
• Socio-culturally Tailored

55
???????? NPO????????????????
GIS?????? ????????????
56
?????????? ??????(?1,336???) ??????(???10?)
??????

• ?????????? ?1?2003?11?6?
• ?2?2003?12?9?
• ?3?2004?1???

?1???????????
????????????
?????????????????????????????????????
?????????? ????????? ?
57
Collaborative Modeling(Community-Laymen )

• Starting with Shared Views of Status-quo
• Community Diagnosis
• Building up Evidences, Experiences and
  Confidences
• Fostering Coping Capacity (Plan-Do-Check-Act
  Cycle Repeated
• Before-During-After Disaster (Case station)

58
Reinforcing buildings
(Landuse and Built Environment)
Broad Road
Fostering Community of Mutual Assistance
(Infrastructure)
Building Inspection and Auditing System
(Life in community)
(Social Schemes)
Disaster Robust Culture (Culture and Convention)
59
Fix Your Furniture to Wall or Floor

• At least in Bedroom
• Let us start Check (Status-quo) and Act!
• Plan is not enough, Do, Check and Act!
• Let experts assist, involved and mutually learn
  (Co-learn)
• Let other residents involved and disseminate the
  small and smart technology
• Let an NPO involved as catalist

60
We are archtecting and implementing adaptive
management in Research Development

• More to Come in Future
• Thank you!