JDR Vol.18 No.3 pp. 233-245
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2023.p0233


The Anticipated Nankai Trough Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan: Determinant Factors of Residents’ Pre-Event Evacuation Intentions

Kanan Hirano*, Yo Fukushima* ORCID Icon, Hiroaki Maruya* ORCID Icon, Motoyuki Kido* ORCID Icon, and Motoaki Sugiura*,**,† ORCID Icon

*International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku University
468-1 Aza-Aoba, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8572, Japan

**Institute of Development, Aging and Cancer (IDAC), Tohoku University
Sendai, Japan

Corresponding author

July 1, 2022
January 25, 2023
April 1, 2023
evacuation behavior, tsunami, Nankai Trough earthquake, risk perception, questionnaire survey

As a countermeasure against M8–9 class Nankai Trough earthquakes, the Japan Meteorological Agency started a service to release “Nankai Trough Earthquake Extra Information (Megathrust Earthquake Alert).” This alert is released after an M8.0 or higher earthquake occurs and the possibility of a subsequent earthquake is evaluated to be higher than usual. This is an innovative attempt at disaster mitigation in Japan as it encourages residents in the predefined area to pre-evacuate for one week when tsunami risk is higher. However, the factors influencing the evacuation behavior of residents are unknown. In this study, we investigated factors contributing to residents’ pre-event evacuation intentions using the hierarchical multiple regression analysis. We focused on the extent to which the recognition of the hazards and risks of the Nankai Trough earthquake and the response to the Extra Information, which are changeable by the local governments’ public relations activities, contributed to pre-event evacuation intentions after controlling for disaster-related general attitude and sociodemographic factors. Further, we paid special attention to residents’ degree of recognition of this information by checking the accuracy of their understanding of whether they lived within the pre-event evacuation area. The results showed that the recognition factors were relevant but less so than the general attitude toward disaster and more so than the sociodemographic factors. In addition, residents’ recognition accuracy was low. Our results suggest that it is important for local governments to make adequate efforts to encourage residents to evacuate.

Cite this article as:
K. Hirano, Y. Fukushima, H. Maruya, M. Kido, and M. Sugiura, “The Anticipated Nankai Trough Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan: Determinant Factors of Residents’ Pre-Event Evacuation Intentions,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.18 No.3, pp. 233-245, 2023.
Data files:
  1. [1] M. Ando, “Source mechanisms and tectonic significance of historical earthquakes along the Nankai Trough, Japan,” Tectonophysics, Vol.27, No.2, pp. 119-140, 1975.
  2. [2] The Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion, “Imamadeni kouhyou shita katsudansou oyobi kaikougata jishin no choukihyoka kekka ichiran [Long-term evaluations of active faults and subduction-zone earthquakes],” 2022 (in Japanese). [Accessed June 16, 2022]
  3. [3] Central Disaster Management Council, “Nankai Trough kyodai jishin no higaisoutei nitsuite (dai-ichiji houkoku) [The investigation committee of the model of great earthquakes along the Nankai trough, Interim Report],” 2012 (in Japanese). [Accessed June 16, 2022]
  4. [4] R. Sugimori, K. Ariizumi, and K. Satake, “Origin time of the 1854 Tokai earthquake recorded in the logbook of the Russian frigate Diana,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.17, No.3, pp. 409-419, 2022.
  5. [5] Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), “‘Nankai Trough jishin rinjijyouhou’ tou no teikyou kaishi nitsuite [About the start of provision of ‘Nankai Trough Earthquake Extra Information’],” 2019 (in Japanese). [Accessed June 16, 2022]
  6. [6] Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, “Nankai Trough jishin no tayouna hasseikeitai ni sonaeta bousaitaioukentou guideline (dai-ippan) [Guidelines for formulating disaster risk management measures based on various Nankai Trough earthquake scenarios (1st Edition)],” (in Japanese). [Accessed June 16, 2022]
  7. [7] M. K. Lindell and S. N. Hwang, “Households’ perceived personal risk and responses in a multihazard environment,” Risk Anal., Vol.28, No.2, pp. 539-556, 2008.
  8. [8] A. Buylova, C. Chen, L. A. Cramer, H. Wang, and D. T. Cox, “Household risk perceptions and evacuation intentions in earthquake and tsunami in a Cascadia Subduction Zone,” Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., Vol.44, 101442, 2020.
  9. [9] C. Chen et al., “Households’ intended evacuation transportation behavior in response to earthquake and tsunami hazard in a Cascadia Subduction Zone city,” Transp. Res. Rec., Vol.2674, No.7, pp. 99-114, 2020.
  10. [10] M. K. Lindell et al., “Immediate behavioural responses to earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand, and Hitachi, Japan,” Disasters, Vol.40, No.1, pp. 85-111, 2016.
  11. [11] M. Sugiura et al., “Psychological processes and personality factors for an appropriate tsunami evacuation,” Geosciences, Vol.9, No.8, 326, 2019.
  12. [12] H.-L. Wei et al., “Assessment of households’ responses to the tsunami threat: A comparative study of Japan and New Zealand,” Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., Vol.25, pp. 274-282, 2017.
  13. [13] E. J. I. Apatu, C. E. Gregg, N. J. Wood, and L. Wang, “Household evacuation characteristics in American Samoa during the 2009 Samoa Islands tsunami,” Disasters, Vol.40, No.4, pp. 779-798, 2016.
  14. [14] S. A. Fraser et al., “Tsunami response behaviour during and following two local-source earthquakes in Wellington, New Zealand,” Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., Vol.16, pp. 123-133, 2016.
  15. [15] T. Tomita et al., “Results of post-field survey on the Mw 8.3 Illapel earthquake tsunami in 2015,” Coast. Eng. J., Vol.58, No.2, 1650003, 2015.
  16. [16] A. Tanner and R. Reynolds, “The near-miss of a tsunami and an emergency evacuation: The post-exposure effects on future emergency preparedness and evacuation intentions,” Nat. Hazards, Vol.104, No.2, pp. 1679-1693, 2020.
  17. [17] F. Makinoshima, F. Imamura, and Y. Oishi, “Tsunami evacuation processes based on human behaviour in past earthquakes and tsunamis: A literature review,” Prog. Disaster Sci., Vol.7, 100113, 2020.
  18. [18] A. Dhellemmes et al., “Tsunami awareness and preparedness in Aotearoa New Zealand: The evolution of community understanding,” Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., Vol.65, 102576, 2021.
  19. [19] R. Lachman, M. Tatsuoka, and W. J. Bonk, “Human behavior during the tsunami of May 1960: Research on the Hawaiian disaster explores the consequences of an ambiguous warning system,” Science, Vol.133, No.3462, pp. 1405-1409, 1961.
  20. [20] F. Kato, Y. Suwa, and H. Hayashi, “Decision making on evacuation from tsunami of the earthquake off Chishima islands in 2006,” Annu. J. Hydraul. Eng., Vol.53, pp. 865-870, 2009 (in Japanese).
  21. [21] T. Ujihara and H. Abe, “Nankai Trough kyodaijishin niyoru tsunamihinan wo soutei shita Okayama-shi enganbu jyuumin no hinankoudou tokusei ni kansuru kenkyu [A study on the evacuation behavior characteristics of residents in the coastal areas of Okayama City, assuming tsunami evacuation due to the Nankai Trough mega earthquake],” Sangyou Keiei Kenkyukai Kenkyu Houkokusyo [Research Report of Industrial Management Research Society], Okayama University, No.49, pp. 1-55, 2014 (in Japanese).
  22. [22] T. Yasuda, K. Yoshida, and T. Kono, “Survey and analysis on evacuation decision of residents in areas where tsunami embankment construction is proceeded,” J. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng., Ser. B2 (Coast. Eng.), Vol.75, No.2, pp. I_1369-I_1374, 2019 (in Japanese).
  23. [23] S. Yasumoto, R. Ishihama, S. Morino, and N. Sekiya, “Social responses to ‘Information Relating to the Nankai Trough Earthquake,’” J. Disaster Inf. Stud., No.18-1, pp. 95-105, 2020 (in Japanese).
  24. [24] S. K. Rød, C. Botan, and A. Holen, “Risk communication and the willingness to follow evacuation instructions in a natural disaster,” Health Risk Soc., Vol.14, No.1, pp. 87-99, 2012.
  25. [25] Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, “Nankai Trough jishin ni kakaru chiiki shitei [Area designation related to the Nankai Trough earthquake],” (in Japanese). [Accessed June 16, 2022]
  26. [26] K. Terumoto, “Issues of tsunami evacuation measures and tsunami risk perception: A case study of Kainan City, Wakayama Prefecture,” J. Jpn. Soc. Nat. Disaster Sci., Vol.32, No.3, pp. 261-278, 2013 (in Japanese).
  27. [27] T. Ujihara, H. Abe, and M. Sasaki, “Preparation properties and its effects on evacuation activity for tsunami – For regions with tsunami-inexperienced residents –,” J. City Plan. Inst. Jpn., Vol.49, No.1, pp. 120-127, 2014 (in Japanese).
  28. [28] S. Yasumoto, R. Ishihama, S. Morino, and N. Sekiya, “Social responses to ‘Information Relating to the Nankai Trough Earthquake’: A questionnaire survey for former residents of Shizuoka and Kouchi City,” Res. Surv. Rep. Inf. Stud., Interfaculty Initiat. Inf. Stud., Univ. Tokyo, Vol.36, pp. 107-153, 2020 (in Japanese).
  29. [29] Tree-maps, “Zip code geocoding,” (in Japanese). [Accessed March 2, 2023]
  30. [30] Yahoo Japan, “Yahoo! Geocoder API,” (in Japanese). [Accessed June 16, 2022]
  31. [31] P. Wessel and W. H. F. Smith, “A global, self-consistent, hierarchical, high-resolution shoreline database,” J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth, Vol.101, No.B4, pp. 8741-8743, 1996.
  32. [32] P. Wessel, W. H. F. Smith, R. Scharroo, J. Luis, and F. Wobbe, “Generic mapping tools: Improved version released,” Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, Vol.94, No.45, pp. 409-410, 2013.
  33. [33] B. G. Tabachnick and L. S. Fidell, “Multiple Regression,” B. G. Tabachnick and L. S. Fidell, “Using Multivariate Statistics,” 7th Edition, pp. 99-166, Pearson Education, Inc., 2019.
  34. [34] “Nankai Trough no jizenhinanchiiki, 6 wari ga mishitei, corona eikyou mo [Pre-event evacuation area of Nankai Trough, 60% is undesignated, Corona influence],” The Asahi Shimbun, April 27, 2020 (in Japanese). [Accessed June 16, 2022]
  35. [35] Shizuoka City, “Nankai Trough jishin rinji jyouhou happyou-ji niokeru Shizuoka-shi no taiou [Response of Shizuoka City under release of the Nankai Trough Earthquake Extra Information],” (in Japanese). [Accessed June 16, 2022]
  36. [36] M. Ando et al., “Interviewing insights regarding the fatalities inflicted by the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake,” Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., Vol.13, No.9, pp. 2173-2187, 2013.
  37. [37] S. Nakahara and M. Ichikawa, “Mortality in the 2011 tsunami in Japan,” J. Epidemiol., Vol.23, No.1, pp. 70-73, 2013.
  38. [38] S. Tatsuki, “Old age, disability, and the Tohoku-oki earthquake,” Earthq. Spectra, Vol.29, No.1_suppl, pp. 403-432, 2013.
  39. [39] Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, “Higashinihon daishinsai ji no jishin-tsunami ni kansuru jyuumin ankeeto chousa [The questionnaire survey to residents about evacuation behaviour under the Great East Japan Earthquake],” 2012 (in Japanese). [Accessed June 16, 2022]
  40. [40] O. Hiroi et al., “Evacuation Activities at the Tokachi-oki earthquake, 2003,” Res. Surv. Rep. Inf. Stud., Interfaculty Initiat. Inf. Stud., Univ. Tokyo, Vol.23, pp. 1-161, 2005 (in Japanese).
  41. [41] H. Yoshii, I. Nakamura, H. Nakamori, and Y. Jibiki, “The information dissemination and behaviors of the inhabitants in the 2 earthquakes in Hokkaido 2006–2007,” Disaster-Inf. Manag., Vol.14, pp. 1-55, 2008 (in Japanese).
  42. [42] Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, “Higashinihon daishinsai ji no jishin-tsunami nikansuru syuuraku hearing chousa [The hearing survey to communities about evacuation behavior under the Great East Japan Earthquake],” 2012 (in Japanese). [Accessed June 16, 2022]
  43. [43] S. Sato, Y. Hirakawa, A. Shinka, and F. Imamura, “Did disaster tradition activities promote tsunami evacuation behavior?: Case study using questionnaire survey in Rikuzentakada City, Iwate Prefecture,” J. Soc. Saf. Sci., Vol.31, pp. 69-76, 2017 (in Japanese).
  44. [44] J.-C. Gaillard et al., “Ethnic groups’ response to the 26 December 2004 earthquake and tsunami in Aceh, Indonesia,” Nat. Hazards, Vol.47, No.1, pp. 17-38, 2008.
  45. [45] T. Ogasawara, M. Nakahata, Y. Matsubayashi, and S. Sakai, “Survey on evacuation against 2011 Tohoku Earthquake Tsunami in Kushimoto Town in Wakayama Prefecture,” J. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng., Ser. B3 (Ocean Eng.), Vol.69, No.2, pp. I_37-I_42, 2013 (in Japanese).
  46. [46] S. Ohtomo, R. Kimura, and N. Hirata, “The influences of residents’ evacuation patterns in the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake on public risk perceptions and trust toward authorities,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.12, No.6, pp. 1139-1150, 2017.
  47. [47] M. Inoguchi, T. Sekikawa, and K. Tamura, “Developing a web-based supporting application for individual evacuation plans through hazard risk and geographical analyses,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.12, No.1, pp. 6-16, 2017.
  48. [48] S. Ohtomo, R. Kimura, Y. Kawata, and K. Tamura, “The determinants of residents’ evacuation behavior in the torrential rain in Western Japan in 2018: Examination of survey data of victims in Okayama Prefecture,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.15, No.7, pp. 1011-1024, 2020.

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

Last updated on Apr. 22, 2024