single-dr.php

JDR Vol.15 No.7 pp. 878-889
(2020)
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2020.p0878

Paper:

Towards a Comparative Framework of Adaptive Planning and Anticipatory Action Regimes in Chile, Japan, and the US: An Exploration of Multiple Contexts Informing Tsunami Risk-Based Planning and Relocation

Naoko Kuriyama*1,†, Elizabeth Maly*2, Jorge León*3, Daniel Abramson*4, Lan T. Nguyen*4, and Ann Bostrom*5

*1Department of Architecture, Graduate School of Engineering, Kobe University
1-1 Rokkodai, Nada, Kobe, Hyogo 657-8501, Japan

Corresponding author

*2International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku University, Miyagi, Japan

*3Department of Architecture, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Valparaíso, Chile

*4Department of Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington, Washington, USA

*5Evans School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Washington, Washington, USA

Received:
May 18, 2020
Accepted:
November 5, 2020
Published:
December 1, 2020
Keywords:
risk-based planning, earthquake, tsunami, disaster governance, residential relocation
Abstract

Coastal regions around the Pacific Ring of Fire share the risk of massive earthquakes and tsunamis. Along with their own political-economic, cultural and biophysical contexts, each region has their own history and experiences of tsunami disasters. Coastal areas of Washington State in the U.S. are currently at risk of experiencing a tsunami following a massive Magnitude 9 (M9) earthquake anticipated in the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ). Looking ahead to consider adaptive planning in advance of a tsunami following this M9 event, this paper explores how lessons from recent megaquake- and tsunami-related experiences of risk-based planning and relocation in coastal areas of Japan and Chile could inform anticipatory action in coastal Washington State. Based on a comparison of earthquake and tsunami hazards, social factors, and the roles of government, this paper outlines a framework to compare policy contexts of tsunami risk-based planning and relocation in three Ring of Fire countries, including factors shaping the possible transfer of approaches between them. Findings suggest some aspects of comparative significance and commonalities shared across coastal communities in the three countries and at the same time highlight numerous differences in governance and policies related to planning and relocation. Although there are limitations to the transferability of lessons in disaster adaptive planning and anticipatory action from one national/regional context to another, we believe there is much more that Washington and the Pacific Northwest can learn from Japanese and Chilean experiences. In any context, risk reduction policies and actions need to garner political support in order to be implemented. Additional case study research and detailed analysis is still needed to understand specific lessons that may be applied to detailed risk-based planning and relocation programs across these different national contexts.

Cite this article as:
Naoko Kuriyama, Elizabeth Maly, Jorge León, Daniel Abramson, Lan T. Nguyen, and Ann Bostrom, “Towards a Comparative Framework of Adaptive Planning and Anticipatory Action Regimes in Chile, Japan, and the US: An Exploration of Multiple Contexts Informing Tsunami Risk-Based Planning and Relocation,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.15, No.7, pp. 878-889, 2020.
Data files:
References
  1. [1] J. Gomberg et al., “Planning for a subduction zone observatory,” Eos, Vol.97, Issue 10, doi: 10.1029/2016EO052635, 2016.
  2. [2] K. Crowley and J. R. Elliott, “Earthquake disasters and resilience in the global North: Lessons from New Zealand and Japan,” The Geographical J., Vol.178, No.3, pp. 208-215, 2012.
  3. [3] D. Johnston, R. Pettersson, G. Downes, D. Paton, G. Leonard, K. Pishief, and R. Bell, “Developing an effective tsunami warning system: lessons from the 1960 Chile earthquake tsunami for New Zealand coastal communities,” Kotuitui: New Zealand J. of Social Sciences Online, Vol.3, No.2, pp. 105-120, 2008.
  4. [4] S. Platt and E. So, “Speed or deliberation: a comparison of post-disaster recovery in Japan, Turkey, and Chile,” Disasters, Vol.41, No.4, pp. 696-727, doi: 10.1111/disa.12219, 2017.
  5. [5] V. P. B. Valenzuela et al., “Comparative analysis of tsunami recovery strategies in small communities in Japan and Chile,” Geosciences, Vol.9, No.1, Article No.26, 2019.
  6. [6] E. Maly et al., “Advances of international collaboration on M9 disaster science: scientific session report,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.15, No.7, 2020.
  7. [7] A. Frankel et al., “2014 Update of the Pacific Northwest Portion of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol.31, No.1_suppl, pp. S131-S148, 2015.
  8. [8] R. Olshansky and S. Chang, “Planning for disaster recovery: Emerging research needs and challenges,” Progress in Planning, Vol.72, Issue 4, Chapter 2, pp. 200-209, 2009.
  9. [9] A. Rumbach, C. Makarewicz, and J. Németh, “The importance of place in early disaster recovery: a case study of the 2013 Colorado floods,” J. of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol.59, Issue 11, pp. 2045-2063, doi: 10.1080/09640568.2015.1116981, 2016.
  10. [10] Y. Araki, A. Hokugo, and S. Masuda, “The Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami: Lessons for land use,” M. Banba and R, Shaw (Eds.), “Land Use Management in Disaster Risk Reduction: Perspectives and Cases from a Global Perspective,” pp. 325-351, Springer, 2017.
  11. [11] K. Iuchi, “Disaster risk management and its relationship to land use geographies vulnerable to water-related disasters: An analysis of the Japanese legislative system,” S. Greiving, M. Ubaura, and J. Tesliar (Eds.), “Spatial Planning and Resilience Following Disasters: International and Comparative Perspectives,” Policy Press, 2016.
  12. [12] M. Ubaura, “Changes in land use after the Great East Japan Earthquake and related issues of urban form,” V. Santiago-Fandiño, S. Sato, N. Maki, and K. Iuchi (Eds.), “The 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami: Reconstruction and restoration,” pp. 183-203, Springer, 2018.
  13. [13] K. Iuchi and R. Olshansky, “Revisiting Tohoku’s 5-Year recovery: Community rebuilding policies, programs and implementation,” V. Santiago-Fandiño, S. Sato, N. Maki, and K. Iuchi (Eds.), “The 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami: Reconstruction and restoration,” pp. 91-111, Springer, 2018.
  14. [14] M. Ubaura, “Urban planning and reconstruction after the Great East Japan Earthquake,” S. Greiving, M. Ubaura, and J. Tesliar (Eds.), “Spatial Planning and Resilience Following Disasters: International and Comparative Perspectives,” Policy Press, 2016.
  15. [15] S. Masuda, “The issues for buffer zone and group relocation projects,” Disaster Recovery and Revitalization Review, Vol.5, No.3, pp. 73-79, 2014 (in Japanese).
  16. [16] T. Kondo, “Planning challenges for housing and built environment recovery after the Great East Japan Earthquake: Collaborative planning and management go beyond government-driven redevelopment projects,” V. Santiago-Fandiño, S. Sato, N. Maki, and K. Iuchi (Eds.), “The 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami: Reconstruction and restoration,” pp. 155-169, Springer, 2018.
  17. [17] T. Kondo and Y. Karatani, “Spatial planning for housing recovery after the Great East Japan Earthquake,” S. Greiving, M. Ubaura, and J. Tesliar (Eds.), “Spatial planning and resilience following disasters: International and comparative perspectives,” Policy Press, 2016.
  18. [18] Y. Contreras Gatica and C. Arriagada Sickinger, “Reconstrucción Exclusionaria. Lo Comunitario y Las Políticas Públicas En Ciudades Menores e Intermedias Chilenas Afectadas Por El Terremoto y Tsunami Del 27F2010. Los Casos de Constitución y Dichato,” Revista de Geografía Norte Grande, No.64, pp. 83-107, 2016 (in Spanish with English abstract).
  19. [19] H. Fritz et al., “Field Survey of the 27 February 2010 Chile Tsunami,” Pure and Applied Geophysics, Vol.168, pp. 1989-2010, 2011.
  20. [20] M. G. Herrmann Lunecke, “Urban planning and tsunami impact mitigation in Chile after February 27, 2010,” Natural Hazards, Vol.79, No.3, pp. 1591-1620, doi: 10.1007/s11069-015-1914-4, 2015.
  21. [21] C. Irazábal and M. Marchant, “Learning from 27F: A comparative assessment of urban reconstruction processes after the 2010 Earthquake In Chile,” Columbia Global Centers, 2015 (in Spanish).
  22. [22] C. Martínez Reyes, “Factores de vulnerabilidad y reconstrucción posterremoto en tres localidades costeras chilenas: ¿generación de nuevas áreas de riesgo?,” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Études Andines, Vol.43, No.3, pp. 529-558, 2014 (in Spanish with English abstract).
  23. [23] A. Boyd, “Chapter 5: long-term recovery planning: goals and policies,” J. C. Schwab (Ed.), “Planning for post-disaster recovery: next generation,” American Planning Association, 2014.
  24. [24] M. K. Lindell, “Recovery and reconstruction after disaster,” P. T. Bobrowsky (Ed.), “Encyclopedia of Natural Hazards,” Springer, 2013.
  25. [25] C. B. Rubin (Ed.), “Emergency management: the American experience 1900–2010,” 2nd edition, CRC Press, 2012.
  26. [26] G. Smith, “Planning for post-disaster recovery: a review of the United States disaster assistance framework,” Island Press, 2012.
  27. [27] R. T. Sylves, “Chapter 15: Federal emergency management comes of age: 1979–2001,” C. B. Rubin (Ed.), “Emergency management; the American experience 1900–2010,” 2nd edition, CRC Press, 2012.
  28. [28] R. Olshansky and L. Johnson, “Clear as mud: planning for the rebuilding of New Orleans,” APA Planners, 2010.
  29. [29] E. Maly, Y. Kondo, and M. Banba, “Experience from the United States: Post-Katrina and Sandy,” M. Banba and R. Shaw (Eds.), “Land Use Management in Disaster Risk Reduction: Perspectives and Cases from a Global Perspective,” pp. 79-106, Springer, 2017.
  30. [30] M. Esteban, V. Tsimopoulou, T. Mikami, N. Y. Yun, A. Suppasri, and T. Shibayama, “Recent tsunami events and preparedness: development of tsunami awareness in Indonesia, Chile and Japan,” Int. J. of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.5, pp. 84-97, 2013.
  31. [31] T. Kondo, “Compensation or assistance? Law and policy for post-disaster housing recovery in the U.S and Japan,” Y. Kaneko, K. Matsuoka, and T. Toyoda (Eds.), “Asian law in disasters toward a human centered recovery,” Routledge, 2016.
  32. [32] Reconstruction Agency, “Current situation and challenges of reconstruction,” https://www.reconstruction.go.jp/topics/main-cat1/sub-cat1-1/material/2020.4_genjoutokadai.pdf (in Japanese) [accessed May 8, 2020]
  33. [33] B. F. Atwater et al., “The orphan tsunami of 1700: Japanese clues to a parent earthquake in North America,” 2nd edition, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1707, University of Washington Press, 2015.
  34. [34] R. Herrendörfer, Y. van Dinther, T. Gerya, and L. A. Dalguer, “Earthquake supercycle in subduction zones controlled by the width of the seismogenic zone,” Nature Geoscience, Vol.8, pp. 471-474, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2427, 2015.
  35. [35] S. L. Bilek and T. Lay, “Subduction zone megathrust earthquakes,” Geosphere, Vol.14, No.4, pp. 1468-1500, doi: 10.1130/GES01608.1, 2018.
  36. [36] K. M. Cruikshank and C. D. Peterson, “Cascadia Convergent Zone: An Example of Primary Convergent Seismogenic Structure,” Open J. of Earthquake Research, Vol.8, No.2, pp. 132-164, doi: 10.4236/ojer.2019.82009, 2019.
  37. [37] J. Gomberg and the Cascadia 2007 and Beyond Working Group, “Slow-slip phenomena in Cascadia from 2007 and beyond: A review,” GSA Bulletin, Vol.122, No.7-8, pp. 963-978, doi: 10.1130/B30287.1, 2010.
  38. [38] T. H. Heaton, “Evidence for and implications of self-healing pulses of slip in earthquake rupture,” Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, Vol.64, No.1, pp. 1-20, doi: 10.1016/0031-9201(90)90002-F, 1990.
  39. [39] R. Kulkarni et al., “Statistical analyses of great earthquake recurrence along the Cascadia Subduction Zone,” The Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol.103, pp. 3205-3221, doi: 10.1785/0120120105, 2013.
  40. [40] A. G. Lindh, “Comment on “Statistical analyses of great earthquake recurrence along the Cascadia Subduction Zone” by Ram Kulkarni, Ivan Wong, Judith Zachariasen, Chris Goldfinger, and Martin Lawrence,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol.106, pp. 2927-2934, doi: 10.1785/0120150069, 2013.
  41. [41] C. Goldfinger, I. Wong, R. Kulkarni, and J. W. Beeson, “Reply to “Comment on ‘Statistical analyses of great earthquake recurrence along the Cascadia Subduction Zone’ by Ram Kulkarni, Ivan Wong, Judith Zachariasen, Chris Goldfinger, and Martin Lawrence” by Allan Goddard Lindh,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol.106, pp. 2935-2944, doi: 10.1785/0120150282, 2016.
  42. [42] Resilient Washington Subcabinet Project Team, Washington Military Department’s Emergency Management Division, “Resilient Washington Subcabinet Report: Findings and Recommendations,” 2017, https://mil.wa.gov/asset/5ba420648fb16 [accessed May 14, 2020]
  43. [43] N. J. Wood, J. Jones, S. Spielman, and M. C. Schmidtlein, “Community clusters of tsunami vulnerability in the US Pacific Northwest,” Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol.112, No.17, pp. 5354-5359, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1420309112, 2015.
  44. [44] A. Sewell, “Tsunami’s effects in California offer clues about future, more powerful seismic events,” Los Angels Times, March 20, 2011, https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2011-mar-20-la-me-california-tsunami-20110321-story.html [accessed May 15, 2020]
  45. [45] National Centers for Environmental Information (NOAA), “Southern Chile Earthquake and Tsunami, 22 May 1960,” https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/22may1960.html [accessed May 15, 2020]
  46. [46] U.S. Census Bureau, Quick facts, 2019, Extracted on February 15, 2019.
  47. [47] Office of Financial Management, “Estimates of April 1 population by age, sex, race and Hispanic origin,” 2020, https://www.ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-research/population-demographics/population-estimates/estimates-april-1-population-age-sex-race-and-hispanic-origin [accessed October 20, 2020]
  48. [48] M. J. Pollock et al., “Preparedness and community resilience in disaster-prone areas: cross-sectoral collaborations in south Louisiana, 2018,” American J. of Public Health, Vol.109, pp. S309-S315, 2019.
  49. [49] F. Rezaei, M. Keyvanara, M. H. Yarmohammadian, and M. R. Maracy, “The roles and responsibilities of community-based organizations in responding to public health emergencies: a systematic review,” Iranian Red Crescent Medical J., Vol.21, No.4, doi: 10.5812/ircmj.90967, 2019.
  50. [50] H. Gleckman, “Fannie, Freddie, and the mortgage interest deduction,” Tax Policy Center, 2011, https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/fannie-freddie-and-mortgage-interest-deduction [accessed November 13, 2020]
  51. [51] United States Housing and Urban Development, “Housing Choice Voucher Fact Sheet,” https://www.hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8 [accessed November 13, 2020]
  52. [52] A. Greer and S. Brokopp Binder, “A historical assessment of home buyout policy: Are we learning or just failing?,” Housing Policy Debate, Vol.27, No.3, pp. 372-392, 2017.
  53. [53] P. R. Berke, W. Lyles, and G. Smith, “Impacts of federal and state hazard mitigation policies on local land use policy,” J. of Planning Education and Research, Vol.34, No.1, pp. 60-76, 2014.
  54. [54] P. Berke et al., “Adaptive planning for disaster recovery and resiliency: An evaluation of 87 local recovery plans in eight states,” J. of the American Planning Association, Vol.80, No.4, pp. 310-323, 2014.
  55. [55] L. Pearce, “Disaster management and community planning, and public participation: How to achieve sustainable hazard mitigation,” Natural Hazards, Vol.28, pp. 211-228, doi: 10.1023/A:1022917721797, 2003.
  56. [56] J. C. Schwab (Ed.), “Hazard mitigation: Integrating best practices into planning,” Planning Advisory Service Report No.560, American Planning Association, 2010.
  57. [57] Quileute Tribe, “About the Move to Higher Ground Project,” https://mthg.org/about/2017 [accessed May 15, 2019]
  58. [58] R. Ollikainen, “Quileute Tribe gets $44.1 million to build school on higher ground,” Peninsula Daily News, October 12, 2018, https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/news/quileute-tribe-gets-44-1-million-to-build-school-on-higher-ground/ [accessed November 13, 2020]
  59. [59] Water and Land Resources Division, Department of Natural Resources and Parks, King County, “2013 King Country Flood Hazard Management Plan Update and Progress Report,” 2013, https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2013/kcr826-2013.pdf [accessed November 13, 2020]
  60. [60] K. J. Mach et al., “Managed retreat through voluntary buyouts of flood-prone properties,” Science Advances, Vol.5, No.10, Article No.eaax8995, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax8995, 2019.
  61. [61] A. Sorenson, “Consensus, Persuasion, and Opposition: Organizing Land Readjustment in Japan,” Y.-H. Hong and B. Needham (Eds.), “Analyzing Land Readjustment: Economics, Law, and Collective Action,” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, pp. 89-114, 2007.
  62. [62] Y.-H. Hong and I. Brain, “Land Readjustment for Urban Development and Post-Disaster Reconstruction,” Land Lines: Newsletter of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2012.
  63. [63] A. Sorensen, “Conflict, Consensus or Consent: Implications of Japanese Land Readjustment Practice for Developing Countries,” Habitat International, Vol.24, Issue 1, pp. 51-73, 2000.

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

Last updated on May. 11, 2021