JDR Vol.12 No.5 pp. 916-925
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2017.p0916


Differences Between Scientific Prediction and Subjective Expectation of Focal Region and Seismic Intensity of Nankai Trough Giant Earthquake

Kan Shimazaki and Yoshinobu Mizui

National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience (NIED)
Tennodai 3-1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan

Corresponding author

March 23, 2017
June 30, 2017
Online released:
September 27, 2017
October 1, 2017
Nankai Trough Giant Earthquake, focal region, seismic intensity, spatial perception, subjective assessment

This study quantitatively analyzes the differences between the actual focal region of the Nankai Trough Giant Earthquake, which is expected to occur in the future, and the conceptual focal region drawn on the map by 595 students. It also examines the differences between the subjective expectation and the scientific prediction of the seismic intensity at the residence of the respondents, to find out the relationship between such differences and the variables of respondents such as residence, attributes and experiences, and others. As a result of the examination, the following findings are clear: the subjective expectation of the focal region of the Nankai Trough Giant Earthquake deviates largely eastwards; those who have their own residence and parents’ home in the area forecasted to be affected by the Nankai Trough Giant Earthquake recognize the focal region of the earthquake better; and those who have taken measures toward disaster prevention such as stocking goods for emergencies and participating in disaster drills account for a smaller percentage of respondents who underestimated seismic intensity at their residence.

Cite this article as:
K. Shimazaki and Y. Mizui, “Differences Between Scientific Prediction and Subjective Expectation of Focal Region and Seismic Intensity of Nankai Trough Giant Earthquake,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.12 No.5, pp. 916-925, 2017.
Data files:
  1. [1] Earthquake Research Committee of The Headquarters For Earthquake Research Promotion, “Long-Term Evaluation of Nankai Trough Earthquake Activity (2nd Edition),” 2013, [accessed Feb. 10, 2017]
  2. [2] T. Hori, S. Miyazaki, and N. Mitsui, “A Model of Earthquake-Generation Cycle with Scale-Dependent Frictional Property – Preliminary Results and Research Plan for a Project of Evaluation for Coming Tokai, Tonankai, and Nankai Earthquakes,” Journal of Disaster Research, Vol.4, No.2, pp. 111-117, 2009.
  3. [3] Central Disaster Prevention Council Disaster Management Measures Conference Nankai Trough Great Earthquake Response Study Working Group, “About the Nankai Trough Measures against the Giant Earthquake (Final Report) – Earthquake Image of the Nankai Trough Megathrust Earthquake –,” 2013, [accessed Feb. 20, 2017]
  4. [4] H. Summala, “Risk control is not risk adjustment: The zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications,” Ergonomics, Vol.31, pp. 491-506, 1988.
  5. [5] S. Lichtenstein, P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, M. Layman, and B. Combs, “Judged Frequency of Lethal Events, Journal of Experimental Psychology,” Human Learning and Memory, Vol.4, pp. 551-578, 1978.
  6. [6] M. L. Finucane, P. Slovic, C. K. Mertz, J. Flynn, and T. A. Satterfield, “Gender, race, perceived risk: The “white male” effect. Health,” Risk, & Society, Vol.2, pp. 159-172, 2000.
  7. [7] A. R. Wyler, M. Masuda, and T. H. Holmes, “Seriousness of Illness Rating Scale,” Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Vol.11, pp. 363-375, 1968.
  8. [8] J. A. Groeger and I. D. Brown, “Assessing one’s own and others’ driving ability: Influences of sex, age, and experience,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol.21, pp. 155-168, 1989.
  9. [9] C. J. Colbourn, “Perceived Risk as a Determinant of Driver Behavior,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol.10, pp. 131-141, 1978.
  10. [10] J.-P. Mulilis, T. S. Duval, and K. Bovalino, “Tornado Preparedness of Students, Nonstudent Renters and Nonstudent owners: Issues of PrE Theory,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol.30, pp. 1310-1329, 2000.
  11. [11] D. Dooley, R. Catalano, S. Mishra, and S. Serxner, “Earthquake preparedness: Predictors in a community survey,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol.22, pp. 451-470, 1992.
  12. [12] F. P. McKenna and J. L. Crick, “Hazard perception in drivers: A methodology for testing and training,” TRL contractor report 313, Crowthorne, UK: Transport and Road Research Laboratory, 1991.
  13. [13] A. D. Hamish, “Hazard and Risk Perception among Young Novice Drivers,” Journal of Safety Research, Vol.30, No.4, pp. 225-236, 1999.
  14. [14] T. Katada, M. Kodama, and H. Saeki, “Study on Residents’ Recognition of a Flood Hazard Map and Promotion Measures of its Recognition,” Annual Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol.48, pp. 61-67, 2004.
  15. [15] T. Ichiko, “A Discussion for “self-active Tunami Evacuation” in the Great East Japan Earthquake – Comparative analysis between Yamada Town and Ishinomaki City,” Journal of Japan Association of Earthquake Engineering, Vol.15, No.5, pp. 31-40, 2015.
  16. [16] Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport, “What is the focal area,” [accessed Jun. 30, 2016]
  17. [17] National Institute of Earth Science and Disaster Resilience, “Conditional Exceedance Probability Map of Nankai – Tonankai – Linked Earthquake,” 2014, [accessed Feb. 10, 2017]

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

Last updated on Apr. 05, 2024