single-dr.php

JDR Vol.8 No.5 pp. 974-980
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2013.p0974
(2013)

Survey Report:

Case Study for Local Municipal Program for Seismic Risk Assessment

Nobusuke Hasegawa

*National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention, 3-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0006, Japan

Received:
April 25, 2013
Accepted:
September 4, 20
Published:
October 1, 2013
Keywords:
seismic risk, disaster-prevention community planning, local management
Abstract

The national seismic hazard maps for Japan present useful information on local earthquake environments, but we have not yet found a practical use for these maps in earthquake-disaster prevention and mitigation measures practiced by residents. The use of these maps requires risk rather than hazard information. This article discusses what is needed for the use of seismic risk information in local areas. If risk information is to be used, risk must be defined, and who uses it and what for must be made clear. I define house damage risk based on probabilistic seismic hazard as a seismic risk, regarding it as information that contributes to goal setting and planning for earthquakedisaster prevention and mitigation measures by residents in disaster-prevention community planning discussed by Kawabata [1]. Accordingly, the use of seismic risk information requires efforts in disasterprevention community planning. This article selects two cases of workshops held to raise the awareness of residents about disaster prevention and discusses the promotion of disaster-prevention community planning. As a result, both cases showed changes in awareness about local disaster-prevention capacity to varying degrees, and it is confirmed that this awareness is promoted to disaster-prevention community planning through the following essentials: (i) monitoring changes in the awareness of residents about disaster prevention and (ii) setting up methods and human resources for disaster-prevention community planning in the area. Efforts in disaster-prevention community planning by residents has been effectively developed in areas involving local municipal government. It is confirmed that this requires local management, i.e., a system using methods such as taking town walks, creating disaster-prevention maps, and playing disaster imagination games. These in turn cause the government to prepare menus selectable by residents in line with their situations and as a service to residents that promotes disaster-prevention community planning.

Cite this article as:
N. Hasegawa, “Case Study for Local Municipal Program for Seismic Risk Assessment,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.8, No.5, pp. 974-980, 2013.
Data files:
References
  1. [1] H. Kawabata, “Development of a management system for disaster mitigation activities in local community,” J. Archit. Plann., AIJ, Vol.73, No.631, pp. 1899-1906, 2008 (in Japanese).
  2. [2] H. Iizuka and Y. Sakai, “Investigaiton on Cost-Effectiveness in Retrofitting of Existing Pre Code-Revision Wooden Houses by Seismic Intensity Index Corresponding to Actual Structural Damage,” The 12th Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium, CD-ROM, 2006 (in Japanese).
  3. [3] T. Yamaguchi, Y. Mori, and H. Idota, “Effective strategy for upgrading wooden houses and risk information for advancement of upgrading. A strudy on decision-making tools for promoting aseismic reinforcement of old wooden hoses (Part 2),” J. Struct. Constr. Eng., AIJ, Vol.73, No.632, pp. 1719-1726, 2008 (in Japanese).
  4. [4] Y. Mori and H. Idota, “Upgrading strategy of wooden houses and school buildings considering risk of overflow of refugees – case study at nagoya –. A study on decision-making tools for promoting aseismic reinforcement of old wooden houses (Part 3),” J. Struct. Constr. Eng., AIJ, Vol.74, No.646, pp. 2189-2197, 2009 (in Japanese).
  5. [5] Y. Mori, K. Shimada, N. Ogura, H. Idota, K. Ibuki, and S. Terada, “Seismic risk information for wooden house owners provided on web site. A study on decision-making tools for promoting aseismic reinforcement of old wooden house (Part 4),” AIJ J. Technol. Des., Vol.17, No.37, pp. 829-834, 2011 (in Japanese).
  6. [6] Cabinet Office, “Seismic Risk Assessment for Nankai Trough earthquake (first report),” p. 3, 2012 (in Japanese),
    http://www.bousai.go.jp/jishin/nankai/taisaku/pdf/2_1.pdf [accessed September 2, 2013]
  7. [7] Cabinet Office, “Seismic Risk Assessment for Nankai Trough earthquake (second report),” p. 14, 2013 (in Japanese),
    http://www.bousai.go.jp/jishin/nankai/taisaku_wg/pdf/20130318_shiryo3.pdf [accessed September 2, 2013]
  8. [8] H. Hayashi, “New Disaster Management Polycy in Japan after 2011.3.11 Disaster: Towards Disaster Resilient Japan through Public and Private Partnership,” Geotechnical Engineering Magazine, Vol.61, No.3 Ser. No.662, pp. 1-5, 2013 (in Japanese).
  9. [9] Cabinet Office, “Earthquake disaster prevention map created technical documentation,” p. 120, 2005 (in Japanese).
  10. [10] J. Miyakoshi, Y. Hayashi, and N. Fukuwa, “Relationship Between Damage Ranks with Different Criteria Based on Building Damage,” AIJ, Vol.46B, pp. 121-134, 2000 (in Japanese).

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, IE9,10,11, Opera.

Last updated on Oct. 22, 2018