2011 japanese tsunami case study

• 0 Shopping Cart

Case Study – The 2011 Japan Earthquake

Cambridge iGCSE Geography > The Natural Environment > Earthquakes and Volcanoes > Case Study – The 2011 Japan Earthquake

Background Information

Location : The earthquake struck 250 miles off the northeastern coast of Japan’s Honshu Island at 2:46 pm (local time) on March 11, 2011.

Japan 2011 Earthquake map

Magnitude : It measured 9.1 on the Moment Magnitude scale, making it one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded.

Japan is a highly developed country with advanced infrastructure, technology, and a robust economy. The nation has a high GDP, an efficient healthcare system, and extensive education. However, it’s also located in the Pacific Ring of Fire, making it prone to earthquakes.

What caused the 2011 Japan earthquake?

Japan is located on the eastern edge of the Eurasian Plate. The Eurasian plate, which is continental, is subducted by the Pacific Plate, an oceanic plate forming a subduction zone to the east of Japan. This type of plate margin is known as a destructive plate margin . The process of subduction is not smooth. Friction causes the Pacific Plate to stick. Pressure builds and is released as an earthquake.

Friction has built up over time, and when released, this caused a massive ‘megathrust’ earthquake. The enormous tension released as the plates shifted caused the seafloor to uplift, triggering the earthquake and subsequent tsunami .

The amount of energy released in this single earthquake was 600 million times the energy of the Hiroshima nuclear bomb.

Scientists drilled into the subduction zone soon after the earthquake and discovered a thin, slippery clay layer lining the fault. The researchers think this clay layer allowed the two plates to slide an incredible distance, some 164 feet (50 metres), facilitating the enormous earthquake and tsunami.

The earthquake occurred at a relatively shallow depth of 20 miles below the surface of the Pacific Ocean. This, combined with the high magnitude, caused a tsunami (find out more about  how a tsunami is formed  on the BBC website).

What were the primary effects of the 2011 Japan earthquake?

• Ground Shaking : Extensive damage to buildings and infrastructure.
• Landfall: Some coastal areas experienced land subsidence as the earthquake dropped the beachfront in some places by more than 50 cm.

What were the secondary effects of the 2011 Japan earthquake?

• Tsunami : A giant tsunami wave resulted in widespread destruction along the coast.
• Fatalities : Around 16,000 deaths were reported, mainly resulting from the tsunami.
• Injuries : 26,152 were injured, mainly as a result of the tsunami.
• Nuclear Crisis : The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was damaged, leading to radiation leaks.
• Economic Loss : Estimated at over $235 billion.
• Displacement : Around 340,000 people were displaced from their homes.
• Damage: The tsunami destroyed or damaged 332,395 buildings, 2,126 roads, 56 bridges, and 26 railways. Three hundred hospitals were damaged, and 11 were destroyed.
• Environmental Damage : Coastal ecosystems were heavily impacted.
• Blackouts: Over 4.4 million households were left without electricity in North-East Japan.
• Transport: Rural areas remained isolated for a long time because the tsunami destroyed major roads and local trains and buses. Sections of the Tohoku Expressway were damaged. Railway lines were damaged, and some trains were derailed.

What were the immediate responses to the 2011 Japan earthquake?

Tsunami Warnings and Prediction :

• The Japan Meteorological Agency issued tsunami warnings three minutes after the earthquake.
• Scientists predicted where the tsunami would hit using modelling and forecasting technology.

Search and Rescue Operations:

• Rescue workers and 100,000 members of the Japan Self-Defence Force were dispatched within hours.
• Some individuals were rescued from beneath rubble with the aid of sniffer dogs.

Radiation Protection Measures:

• The government declared a 20 km evacuation zone around the Fukushima nuclear power plant.
• Evacuees from the area around the nuclear power plant were given iodine tablets to reduce radiation poisoning risk.

International Assistance:

• Japan received help from the US military.
• Search and rescue teams from New Zealand, India, South Korea, China, and Australia were sent.

Access and Evacuation :

• Access was restricted to affected areas due to debris and mud, complicating immediate support.
• Hundreds of thousands were evacuated to temporary shelters or relocated.

Health Monitoring :

• Those near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown had radiation levels checked and their health monitored.
• Measures were taken to ensure individuals did not receive dangerous exposure to radiation.

What were the long-term responses to the 2011 Japan earthquake?

Reconstruction Policy and Budget:

• Establishment of the Reconstruction Policy Council in April 2011.
• Approval of a budget of 23 trillion yen (£190 billion) for recovery over ten years.
• Creation of ‘Special Zones for Reconstruction’ to attract investment in the Tohoku region.

Coastal Protection Measures:

• Implementing coastal protection policies like seawalls and breakwaters designed for a 150-year recurrence interval of tsunamis.

Legislation for Tsunami-Resilient Communities:

• Enactment of the ‘Act on the Development of Tsunami-resilient Communities’ in December 2011.
• Emphasis on human life, combining infrastructure development with measures for the largest class tsunami.

Economic Challenges and Recovery:

• Japan’s economy wiped 5–10% off the value of stock markets post-earthquake.
• Long-term response priority: rebuild infrastructure, restore and improve the economy’s health.

Transportation and Infrastructure Repair:

• Repair and reopening of 375 km of the Tohoku Expressway by the 24th of March 2011.
• Restoration of the runway at Sendai Airport by the 29th of March, a joint effort by the Japanese Defence Force and the US Army.

Utility Reconstruction:

• Energy, water supply, and telecommunications infrastructure reconstruction.
• As of November 2011: 96% of electricity, 98% of water, and 99% of the landline network had been restored.

How does Japan prepare for earthquakes, and what was its impact?

Japan has a comprehensive earthquake preparedness program, including:

• Strict Building Codes : Buildings are constructed to withstand seismic activity.
• Early Warning Systems : Advanced technology provides early warnings to citizens.
• Education and Drills : Regular earthquake drills in schools, offices, and public places.

Impact of the 2011 Earthquake

The extensive preparation in Japan likely saved lives and reduced damage during the 2011 earthquake. However, the unprecedented magnitude of the event still led to significant destruction, particularly with the tsunami and nuclear crisis.

The 2011 Japan earthquake illustrates the complexity of managing natural disasters in even the most developed and prepared nations. The event prompted further refinements in disaster preparedness and response in Japan and globally, highlighting the need for continuous assessment and adaptation to seismic risks.

The 2011 earthquake occurred off Japan’s Honshu Island, measuring 9.1 on the Moment Magnitude scale, one of the strongest ever recorded.

Triggered by a ‘megathrust’ in a destructive plate margin, the Pacific Plate subducted the Eurasian Plate, releasing energy equivalent to 600 million Hiroshima bombs.

Primary effects included extensive ground shaking and significant land subsidence in coastal areas.

Secondary effects included a massive tsunami, around 16,000 deaths, 26,152 injuries, a nuclear crisis at Fukushima, over $235 billion in economic loss, displacement of 340,000 people, and widespread damage to infrastructure and the environment.

Immediate responses included rapid tsunami warnings, extensive search and rescue operations, radiation protection measures, international assistance, and evacuation strategies.

Long-term responses focused on reconstruction policies, coastal protection, tsunami-resilient community development, economic recovery, and transportation and utility restoration.

Japan’s extensive earthquake preparedness, including strict building codes and early warning systems, likely reduced damage, but the magnitude still caused significant destruction.

Check Your Knowledge

Coming soon

Test Yourself

The natural environment, share this:.

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

Please Support Internet Geography

If you've found the resources on this site useful please consider making a secure donation via PayPal to support the development of the site. The site is self-funded and your support is really appreciated.

Search Internet Geography

Top posts and pages.

Latest Blog Entries

Pin It on Pinterest

• Click to share
• Print Friendly

Case Study: How does Japan live with earthquakes?

Japan lies within one of the most tectonically active zones in the world. It experiences over 400 earthquakes every day. The majority of these are not felt by humans and are only detected by instruments. Japan has been hit by a number of high-intensity earthquakes in the past. Since 2000 there are have been 16000 fatalities as the result of tectonic activity.

Japan is located on the Pacific Ring of Fire, where the North American, Pacific, Eurasian and Philippine plates come together. Northern Japan is on top of the western tip of the North American plate. Southern Japan sits mostly above the Eurasian plate. This leads to the formation of volcanoes such as Mount Unzen and Mount Fuji. Movements along these plate boundaries also present the risk of tsunamis to the island nation. The Pacific Coastal zone, on the east coast of Japan, is particularly vulnerable as it is very densely populated.

The 2011 Japan Earthquake: Tōhoku

Japan experienced one of its largest seismic events on March 11 2011. A magnitude 9.0 earthquake occurred 70km off the coast of the northern island of Honshu where the Pacific and North American plate meet. It is the largest recorded earthquake to hit Japan and is in the top five in the world since records began in 1900. The earthquake lasted for six minutes.

A map to show the location of the 2011 Japan Earthquake

The earthquake had a significant impact on the area. The force of the megathrust earthquake caused the island of Honshu to move east 2.4m. Parts of the Japanese coastline dr[[ed by 60cm. The seabed close to the focus of the earthquake rose by 7m and moved westwards between 40-50m. In addition to this, the earthquake shifted the Earth 10-15cm on its axis.

The earthquake triggered a tsunami which reached heights of 40m when it reached the coast. The tsunami wave reached 10km inland in some places.

What were the social impacts of the Japanese earthquake in 2011?

The tsunami in 2011 claimed the lives of 15,853 people and injured 6023. The majority of the victims were over the age of 60 (66%). 90% of the deaths was caused by drowning. The remaining 10% died as the result of being crushed in buildings or being burnt. 3282 people were reported missing, presumed dead.

Disposing of dead bodies proved to be very challenging because of the destruction to crematoriums, morgues and the power infrastructure. As the result of this many bodies were buried in mass graves to reduce the risk of disease spreading.

Many people were displaced as the result of the tsunami. According to Save the Children 100,000 children were separated from their families. The main reason for this was that children were at school when the earthquake struck. In one elementary school, 74 of 108 students and 10 out of 13 staff lost their lives.

More than 333000 people had to live in temporary accommodation. National Police Agency of Japan figures shows almost 300,000 buildings were destroyed and a further one million damaged, either by the quake, tsunami or resulting fires. Almost 4,000 roads, 78 bridges and 29 railways were also affected. Reconstruction is still taking place today. Some communities have had to be relocated from their original settlements.

What were the economic impacts of the Japanese earthquake in 2011?

The estimated cost of the earthquake, including reconstruction, is £181 billion. Japanese authorities estimate 25 million tonnes of debris were generated in the three worst-affected prefectures (counties). This is significantly more than the amount of debris created during the 2010 Haiti earthquake. 47,700 buildings were destroyed and 143,300 were damaged. 230,000 vehicles were destroyed or damaged. Four ports were destroyed and a further 11 were affected in the northeast of Japan.

There was a significant impact on power supplies in Japan. 4.4 million households and businesses lost electricity. 11 nuclear reactors were shut down when the earthquake occurred. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was decommissioned because all six of its reactors were severely damaged. Seawater disabled the plant’s cooling systems which caused the reactor cores to meltdown, leading to the release of radioactivity. Radioactive material continues to be released by the plant and vegetation and soil within the 30km evacuation zone is contaminated. Power cuts continued for several weeks after the earthquake and tsunami. Often, these lasted between 3-4 hours at a time. The earthquake also had a negative impact on the oil industry as two refineries were set on fire during the earthquake.

Transport was also negatively affected by the earthquake. Twenty-three train stations were swept away and others experienced damage. Many road bridges were damaged or destroyed.

Agriculture was affected as salt water contaminated soil and made it impossible to grow crops.

The stock market crashed and had a negative impact on companies such as Sony and Toyota as the cost of the earthquake was realised.  Production was reduced due to power cuts and assembly of goods, such as cars overseas, were affected by the disruption in the supply of parts from Japan.

What were the political impacts of the Japanese earthquake in 2011?

Government debt was increased when it injects billions of yen into the economy. This was at a time when the government were attempting to reduce the national debt.

Several years before the disaster warnings had been made about the poor defences that existed at nuclear power plants in the event of a tsunami. A number of executives at the Fukushima power plant resigned in the aftermath of the disaster. A movement against nuclear power, which Japan heavily relies on, developed following the tsunami.

The disaster at Fukushima added political weight in European countries were anti-nuclear bodies used the event to reinforce their arguments against nuclear power.

Privacy Overview

Pin it on pinterest.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Learning from Megadisasters: A Decade of Lessons from the Great East Japan Earthquake

March 11, 2021 Tokyo, Japan

Authors: Shoko Takemoto,  Naho Shibuya, and Keiko Sakoda

Today marks the ten-year anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake (GEJE), a mega-disaster that marked Japan and the world with its unprecedented scale of destruction. This feature story commemorates the disaster by reflecting on what it has taught us over the past decade in regards to infrastructure resilience, risk identification, reduction, and preparedness, and disaster risk finance.  Since GEJE, the World Bank in partnership with the Government of Japan, especially through the Japan-World Bank Program on Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Management in Developing Countries has been working with Japanese and global partners to understand impact, response, and recovery from this megadisaster to identify larger lessons for disaster risk management (DRM).

Among the numerous lessons learned over the past decade of GEJE reconstruction and analysis, we highlight three common themes that have emerged repeatedly through the examples of good practices gathered across various sectors.  First is the importance of planning. Even though disasters will always be unexpected, if not unprecedented, planning for disasters has benefits both before and after they occur. Second is that resilience is strengthened when it is shared .  After a decade since GEJE, to strengthen the resilience of infrastructure, preparedness, and finance for the next disaster, throughout Japan national and local governments, infrastructure developers and operators, businesses and industries, communities and households are building back better systems by prearranging mechanisms for risk reduction, response and continuity through collaboration and mutual support.  Third is that resilience is an iterative process .  Many adaptations were made to the policy and regulatory frameworks after the GEJE. Many past disasters show that resilience is an interactive process that needs to be adjusted and sustained over time, especially before a disaster strikes.

As the world is increasingly tested to respond and rebuild from unexpected impacts of extreme weather events and the COVID-19 pandemic, we highlight some of these efforts that may have relevance for countries around the world seeking to improve their preparedness for disaster events.

Introduction: The Triple Disaster, Response and Recovery

On March 11th, 2011 a Magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck off the northeast coast of Japan, near the Tohoku region. The force of the earthquake sent a tsunami rushing towards the Tohoku coastline, a black wall of water which wiped away entire towns and villages. Sea walls were overrun. 20,000 lives were lost. The scale of destruction to housing, infrastructure, industry and agriculture was extreme in Fukushima, Iwate, and Miyagi prefectures. In addition to the hundreds of thousands who lost their homes, the earthquake and tsunami contributed to an accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, requiring additional mass evacuations. The impacts not only shook Japan’s society and economy as a whole, but also had ripple effects in global supply chains. In the 21st century, a disaster of this scale is a global phenomenon.

The severity and complexity of the cascading disasters was not anticipated. The events during and following the Great East Japan Earthquake (GEJE) showed just how ruinous and complex a low-probability, high-impact disaster can be. However, although the impacts of the triple-disaster were devastating, Japan’s legacy of DRM likely reduced losses. Japan’s structural investments in warning systems and infrastructure were effective in many cases, and preparedness training helped many act and evacuate quickly. The large spatial impact of the disaster, and the region’s largely rural and elderly population, posed additional challenges for response and recovery.

Ten years after the megadisaster, the region is beginning to return to a sense of normalcy, even if many places look quite different. After years in rapidly-implemented temporary prefabricated housing, most people have moved into permanent homes, including 30,000 new units of public housing . Damaged infrastructure has been also restored or is nearing completion in the region, including rail lines, roads, and seawalls.

In 2014, three years after GEJE, The World Bank published Learning from Megadisasters: Lessons from the Great East Japan Earthquake . Edited by Federica Ranghieri and Mikio Ishiwatari , the volume brought together dozens of experts ranging from seismic engineers to urban planners, who analyzed what happened on March 11, 2011 and the following days, months, and years; compiling lessons for other countries in 36 comprehensive Knowledge Notes . This extensive research effort identified a number of key learnings in multiple sectors, and emphasized the importance of both structural and non-structural measures, as well as identifying effective strategies both pre- and post-disaster. The report highlighted four central lessons after this intensive study of the GEJE disaster, response, and initial recovery:

1) A holistic, rather than single-sector approach to DRM improves preparedness for complex disasters; 2) Investing in prevention is important, but is not a substitute for preparedness; 3) Each disaster is an opportunity to learn and adapt; 4) Effective DRM requires bringing together diverse stakeholders, including various levels of government, community and nonprofit actors, and the private sector.

Although these lessons are learned specifically from the GEJE, the report also focuses on learnings with broader applicability.

Over recent years, the Japan-World Bank Program on Mainstreaming DRM in Developing Countries has furthered the work of the Learning from Megadisasters report, continuing to gather, analyze and share the knowledge and lessons learned from GEJE, together with past disaster experiences, to enhance the resilience of next generation development investments around the world. Ten years on from the GEJE, we take a moment to revisit the lessons gathered, and reflect on how they may continue to be relevant in the next decade, in a world faced with both seismic disasters and other emergent hazards such as pandemics and climate change.

Through synthesizing a decade of research on the GEJE and accumulation of the lessons from the past disaster experience, this story highlights three key strategies which recurred across many of the cases we studied. They are:

1) the importance of planning for disasters before they strike, 2) DRM cannot be addressed by either the public or private sector alone but enabled only when it is shared among many stakeholders , 3) institutionalize the culture of continuous enhancement of the resilience .

For example, business continuity plans, or BCPs, can help both public and private organizations minimize damages and disruptions . BCPs are documents prepared in advance which provide guidance on how to respond to a disruption and resume the delivery of products and services. Additionally, the creation of pre-arranged agreements among independent public and/or private organizations can help share essential responsibilities and information both before and after a disaster . This might include agreements with private firms to repair public infrastructures, among private firms to share the costs of mitigation infrastructure, or among municipalities to share rapid response teams and other resources. These three approaches recur throughout the more specific lessons and strategies identified in the following section, which is organized along the three areas of disaster risk management: resilient infrastructure; risk identification, reduction and preparednes s ; and disaster risk finance and insurance.

Lessons from the Megadisaster

Resilient Infrastructure

The GEJE had severe impacts on critical ‘lifelines’—infrastructures and facilities that provide essential services such as transportation, communication, sanitation, education, and medical care. Impacts of megadisasters include not only damages to assets (direct impacts), but also disruptions of key services, and the resulting social and economic effects (indirect impacts). For example, the GEJE caused a water supply disruption for up to 500,000 people in Sendai city, as well as completely submerging the city’s water treatment plant. [i] Lack of access to water and sanitation had a ripple effect on public health and other emergency services, impacting response and recovery. Smart investment in infrastructure resilience can help minimize both direct and indirect impacts, reducing lifeline disruptions. The 2019 report Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity found through a global study that every dollar invested in the resilience of lifelines had a $4 benefit in the long run.

In the case of water infrastructure , the World Bank report Resilient Water Supply and Sanitation Services: The Case of Japan documents how Sendai City learned from the disaster to improve the resilience of these infrastructures. [ii] Steps included retrofitting existing systems with seismic resilience upgrades, enhancing business continuity planning for sanitation systems, and creating a geographic information system (GIS)-based asset management system that allows for quick identification and repair of damaged pipes and other assets. During the GEJE, damages and disruptions to water delivery services were minimized through existing programs, including mutual aid agreements with other water supply utility operators. Through these agreements, the Sendai City Waterworks Bureau received support from more than 60 water utilities to provide emergency water supplies. Policies which promote structural resilience strategies were also essential to preserving water and sanitation services. After the 1995 Great Hanshin Awaji Earthquake (GHAE), Japanese utilities invested in earthquake resistant piping in water supply and sanitation systems. The commonly used earthquake-resistant ductile iron pipe (ERDIP) has not shown any damage from major earthquakes including the 2011 GEJE and the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake. [iii] Changes were also made to internal policies after the GEJE based on the challenges faced, such as decentralizing emergency decision-making and providing training for local communities to set up emergency water supplies without utility workers with the goal of speeding up recovery efforts. [iv]

Redundancy is another structural strategy that contributed to resilience during and after GEJE. In Sendai City, redundancy and seismic reinforcement in water supply infrastructure allowed the utility to continue to operate pipelines that were not physically damaged in the earthquake. [v] The Lifelines report describes how in the context of telecommunications infrastructure , the redundancy created through a diversity of routes in Japan’s submarine internet cable system  limited disruptions to national connectivity during the megadisaster. [vi] However, the report emphasizes that redundancy must be calibrated to the needs and resources of a particular context. For private firms, redundancy and backups for critical infrastructure can be achieved through collaboration; after the GEJE, firms are increasingly collaborating to defray the costs of these investments. [vii]

The GEJE also illustrated the importance of planning for transportation resilience . A Japan Case Study Report on Road Geohazard Risk Management shows the role that both national policy and public-private agreements can play. In response to the GEJE, Japan’s central disaster legislation, the DCBA (Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act) was amended in 2012, with particular focus on the need to reopen roads for emergency response. Quick road repairs were made possible after the GEJE in part due to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT)’s emergency action plans, the swift action of the rapid response agency Technical Emergency Control Force (TEC-FORCE), and prearranged agreements with private construction companies for emergency recovery work. [viii] During the GEJE, roads were used as evacuation sites and were shown effective in controlling the spread of floods. After the disaster, public-private partnerships (PPPs) were also made to accommodate the use of expressway embankments as tsunami evacuation sites. As research on Resilient Infrastructure PPPs highlights, clear definitions of roles and responsibilities are essential to effective arrangements between the government and private companies. In Japan, lessons from the GEJE and other earthquakes have led to a refinement of disaster definitions, such as numerical standards for triggering force majeure provisions of infrastructure PPP contracts. In Sendai City, clarifying the post-disaster responsibilities of public and private actors across various sectors sped up the response process. [ix] This experience was built upon after the disaster, when Miyagi prefecture conferred operation of the Sendai International Airport   to a private consortium through a concession scheme which included refined force majeure definitions. In the context of a hazard-prone region, the agreement clearly defines disaster-related roles and responsibilities as well as relevant triggering events. [x]

Partnerships for creating backup systems that have value in non-disaster times have also proved effective in the aftermath of the GEJE. As described in Resilient Industries in Japan , Toyota’s automotive plant in Ohira village, Miyagi Prefecture lost power for two weeks following GEJE. To avoid such losses in the future, companies in the industrial park sought to secure energy during power outages and shortages by building the F-Grid, their own mini-grid system with a comprehensive energy management system. The F-Grid project is a collaboration of 10 companies and organizations in the Ohira Industrial Park. As a system used exclusively for backup energy would be costly, the system is also used to improve energy efficiency in the park during normal times. The project was supported by funding from Japan’s “Smart Communities'' program. [xi] In 2016, F-grid achieved a 24 percent increase in energy efficiency and a 31 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions compared to similarly sized parks. [xii]

Schools are also critical infrastructures, for their education and community roles, and also because they are commonly used as evacuation centers. Japan has updated seismic resilience standards for schools over time, integrating measures against different risks and vulnerabilities revealed after each disaster, as documented in the report Making Schools Resilient at Scale . After the 2011 GEJE, there was very little earthquake-related damage; rather, most damage was caused by the tsunami. However, in some cases damages to nonstructural elements like suspending ceilings in school gymnasiums limited the possibility of using these spaces after the disaster. After the disaster, a major update was made to the policies on the safety of nonstructural elements in schools, given the need for higher resilience standards for their function as post-disaster evacuation centers [xiii] .

Similarly, for building regulations , standards and professional training modules were updated taking the lessons learned from GEJE. The Converting Disaster Experience into a Safer Built Environment: The Case of Japan report highlights that, legal framework like, The Building Standard Law/Seismic Retrofitting Promotion Law, was amended further enhance the structural resilience of the built environment, including strengthening structural integrity, improving the efficiency of design review process, as well as mandating seismic diagnosis of large public buildings. Since the establishment of the legal and regulatory framework for building safety in early 1900, Japan continued incremental effort to create enabling environment for owners, designers, builders and building officials to make the built environment safer together.

Cultural heritage also plays an important role in creating healthy communities, and the loss or damage of these items can scar the cohesion and identity of a community. The report Resilient Cultural Heritage: Learning from the Japanese Experience shows how the GEJE highlighted the importance of investing in the resilience of cultural properties, such as through restoration budgets and response teams, which enabled the relocation of at-risk items and restoration of properties during and after the GEJE. After the megadisaster, the volunteer organization Shiryō-Net was formed to help rescue and preserve heritage properties, and this network has now spread across Japan. [xiv] Engaging both volunteer and government organizations in heritage preservation can allow for a more wide-ranging response. Cultural properties can play a role in healing communities wrought by disasters: in Ishinomaki City, the restoration of a historic storehouse served as a symbol of reconstruction [xv] , while elsewhere repair of cultural heritage sites and the celebration of cultural festivals served a stimulant for recovery. [xvi] Cultural heritage also played a preventative role during and after the disaster by embedding the experience of prior disasters in the built environment. Stone monuments which marked the extent of historic tsunamis served as guides for some residents, who fled uphill past the stones and escaped the dangerous waters. [xvii] This suggests a potential role for cultural heritage in instructing future generations about historic hazards.

These examples of lessons from the GEJE highlight how investing in resilient infrastructure is essential, but must also be done smartly, with emphasis on planning, design, and maintenance. Focusing on both minimizing disaster impacts and putting processes in place to facilitate speedy infrastructure restoration can reduce both direct and indirect impacts of megadisasters.  Over the decade since GEJE, many examples and experiences on how to better invest in resilient infrastructure, plan for service continuity and quick response, and catalyze strategic partnerships across diverse groups are emerging from Japan.

Risk Identification, Reduction, and Preparedness

Ten years after the GEJE, a number of lessons have emerged as important in identifying, reducing, and preparing for disaster risks. Given the unprecedented nature of the GEJE, it is important to be prepared for both known and uncertain risks. Information and communication technology (ICT) can play a role in improving risk identification and making evidence-based decisions for disaster risk reduction and preparedness. Communicating these risks to communities, in a way people can take appropriate mitigation action, is a key . These processes also need to be inclusive , involving diverse stakeholders--including women, elders , and the private sector--that need to be engaged and empowered to understand, reduce, and prepare for disasters. Finally, resilience is never complete . Rather, as the adaptations made by Japan after the GEJE and many past disasters show, resilience is a continuous process that needs to be adjusted and sustained over time, especially in times before a disaster strikes.

Although DRM is central in Japan, the scale of the 2011 triple disaster dramatically exceeded expectations. After the GEJE, as Chapter 32 of Learning From Megadisasters highlights, the potential of low-probability, high-impact events led Japan to focus on both structural and nonstructural disaster risk management measures. [xviii] Mitigation and preparedness strategies can be designed to be effective for both predicted and uncertain risks. Planning for a multihazard context, rather than only individual hazards, can help countries act quickly even when the unimaginable occurs. Identifying, preparing for, and reducing disaster risks all play a role in this process.

The GEJE highlighted the important role ICT can play in both understanding risk and making evidence-based decisions for risk identification, reduction, and preparedness. As documented in the World Bank report Information and Communication Technology for Disaster Risk Management in Japan , at the time of the GEJE, Japan had implemented various ICT systems for disaster response and recovery, and the disaster tested the effectiveness of these systems. During the GEJE, Japan’s “Earthquake Early Warning System” (EEWS) issued a series of warnings. Through the detection of initial seismic waves, EEWS can provide a warning of a few seconds or minutes, allowing quick action by individuals and organizations. Japan Railways’ “Urgent Earthquake Detection and Alarm System” (UrEDAS) automatically activated emergency brakes of 27 Shinkansen train lines , successfully bringing all trains to a safe stop. After the disaster, Japan expanded emergency alert delivery systems. [xix]

The World Bank’s study on Preparedness Maps shows how seismic preparedness maps are used in Japan to communicate location specific primary and secondary hazards from earthquakes, promoting preparedness at the community and household level. Preparedness maps are regularly updated after disaster events, and since 2011 Japan has promoted risk reduction activities to prepare for the projected maximum likely tsunami [xx] .

Effective engagement of various stakeholders is also important to preparedness mapping and other disaster preparedness activities. This means engaging and empowering diverse groups including women, the elderly, children, and the private sector. Elders are a particularly important demographic in the context of the GEJE, as the report Elders Leading the Way to Resilience illustrates. Tohoku is an aging region, and two-thirds of lives lost from the GEJE were over 60 years old. Research shows that building trust and social ties can reduce disaster impacts- after GEJE, a study found that communities with high social capital lost fewer residents to the tsunami. [xxi] Following the megadisaster, elders in Ofunato formed the Ibasho Cafe, a community space for strengthening social capital among older people. The World Bank has explored the potential of the Ibasho model for other contexts , highlighting how fueling social capital and engaging elders in strengthening their community can have benefits for both normal times and improve resilience when a disaster does strike.

Conducting simulation drills regularly provide another way of engaging stakeholders in preparedness. As described in Learning from Disaster Simulation Drills in Japan , [xxii] after the 1995 GHAE the first Comprehensive Disaster Management Drill Framework was developed as a guide for the execution of a comprehensive system of disaster response drills and establishing links between various disaster management agencies. The Comprehensive Disaster Management Drill Framework is updated annually by the Central Disaster Management Council. The GEJE led to new and improved drill protocols in the impacted region and in Japan as a whole. For example, the 35th Joint Disaster simulation Drill was held in the Tokyo metropolitan region in 2015 to respond to issues identified during the GEJE, such as improving mutual support systems among residents, governments, and organizations; verifying disaster management plans; and improving disaster response capabilities of government agencies. In addition to regularly scheduled disaster simulation drills, GEJE memorial events are held in Japan annually to memorialize victims and keep disaster preparedness in the public consciousness.

Business continuity planning (BCP) is another key strategy that shows how ongoing attention to resilience is also essential for both public and private sector organizations. As Resilient Industries in Japan demonstrates, after the GEJE, BCPs helped firms reduce disaster losses and recover quickly, benefiting employees, supply chains, and the economy at large. BCP is supported by many national policies in Japan, and after the GEJE, firms that had BCPs in place had reduced impacts on their financial soundness compared to firms that did not. [xxiii] The GEJE also led to the update and refinement of BCPs across Japan. Akemi industrial park in Aichi prefecture, began business continuity planning at the scale of the industrial park three years before the GEJE. After the GEJE, the park revised their plan, expanding focus on the safety of workers. National policies in Japan promote the development of BCPs, including the 2013 Basic Act for National Resilience, which was developed after the GEJE and emphasizes resilience as a shared goal across multiple sectors. [xxiv] Japan also supports BCP development for public sector organizations including subnational governments and infrastructure operators. By 2019, all of Japan’s prefectural governments, and nearly 90% of municipal governments had developed BCPs. [xxv] The role of financial institutions in incentivizing BCPs is further addressed in the following section.

The ongoing nature of these preparedness actions highlights that resilience is a continuous process. Risk management strategies must be adapted and sustained over time, especially during times without disasters. This principle is central to Japan’s disaster resilience policies. In late 2011, based on a report documenting the GEJE from the Expert Committee on Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster Management, Japan amended the DCBA (Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act) to enhance its multi-hazard countermeasures, adding a chapter on tsunami countermeasures. [xxvi]

Disaster Risk Finance and Insurance

Disasters can have a large financial impact, not only in the areas where they strike, but also at the large scale of supply chains and national economy. For example, the GEJE led to the shutdown of nuclear power plants across Japan, resulting in a 50% decrease in energy production and causing national supply disruptions. The GEJE has illustrated the importance of disaster risk finance and insurance (DRFI) such as understanding and clarifying contingent liabilities and allocating contingency budgets, putting in place financial protection measures for critical lifeline infrastructure assets and services, and developing mechanisms for vulnerable businesses and households to quickly access financial support. DRFI mechanisms can help people, firms, and critical infrastructure avoid or minimize disruptions, continue operations, and recover quickly after a disaster.

Pre-arranged agreements, including public-private partnerships, are key strategies for the financial protection of critical infrastructure. The report Financial Protection of Critical Infrastructure Services (forthcoming) [xxvii] shows how pre-arranged agreements between the public sector and private sector for post-disaster response can facilitate rapid infrastructure recovery after disasters, reducing the direct and indirect impacts of infrastructure disruptions, including economic impacts. GEJE caused devastating impacts to the transportation network across Japan. Approximately 2,300 km of expressways were closed, representing 65 percent of expressways managed by NEXCO East Japan , resulting in major supply chain disruptions [xxviii] .  However, with the activation of pre-arranged agreements between governments and local construction companies for road clearance and recovery work, allowing damaged major motorways to be repaired within one week of the earthquake. This quick response allowed critical access for other emergency services to further relief and recovery operations.

The GEJE illustrated the importance of clearly defining post-disaster financial roles and responsibilities among public and private actors in order to restore critical infrastructure rapidly . World Bank research on Catastrophe Insurance Programs for Public Assets highlights how the Japan Railway Construction, Transport and Technology Agency  (JRTT) uses insurance to reduce the contingent liabilities of critical infrastructure to ease impacts to government budgets in the event of a megadisaster. Advance agreements between the government, infrastructure owners and operators, and insurance companies clearly outline how financial responsibilities will be shared in the event of a disaster. In the event of a megadisaster like GEJE, the government pays a large share of recovery costs, which enables the Shinkansen bullet train service to be restored more rapidly. [xxix]

The Resilient Industries in Japan   report highlights how diverse and comprehensive disaster risk financing methods are also important to promoting a resilient industry sector . After the GEJE, 90% of bankruptcies linked to the disaster were due to indirect impacts such as supply chain disruptions. This means that industries located elsewhere are also vulnerable: a study found that six years after GEJE, a greater proportion of bankruptcy declarations were located in Tokyo than Tohoku. [xxx] Further, firms without disaster risk financing in place had much higher increases in debt levels than firms with preexisting risk financing mechanisms in place. [xxxi] Disaster risk financing can play a role pre-disaster, through mechanisms such as low-interest loans, guarantees, insurance, or grants which incentivize the creation of BCPs and other mitigation and preparedness measures.  When a disaster strikes, financial mechanisms that support impacted businesses, especially small or medium enterprises and women-owned businesses, can help promote equitable recovery and help businesses survive. For financial institutions, simply keeping banks open after a major disaster can support response and recovery. After the GEJE, the Bank of Japan (BoJ) and local banks leveraged pre-arranged agreements to maintain liquidity, opening the first weekend after the disaster to help minimize economic disruptions. [xxxii] These strategies highlight the important role of finance in considering economic needs before a disaster strikes, and having systems in place to act quickly to limit both economic and infrastructure service impacts of disasters.

Looking to the Future

Ten years after the GEJE, these lessons in the realms of resilient infrastructure, risk identification, reduction and preparedness, and DRFI are significant not only for parts of the world preparing for tsunamis and other seismic hazards, but also for many of the other types of hazards faced around the globe in 2021. In Japan, many of the lessons of the GEJE are being applied to the projected Nankai Trough and Tokyo Inland earthquakes, for example through modelling risks and mapping evacuation routes, implementing scenario planning exercises and evacuation drills , or even prearranging a post-disaster reconstruction vision and plans. These resilience measures are taken not only individually but also through innovative partnerships for collaboration across regions, sectors, and organizations including public-private agreements to share resources and expertise in the event of a major disaster.

The ten-year anniversary of the GEJE finds the world in the midst of the multiple emergencies of the global COVID-19 pandemic, environmental and technological hazards, and climate change. Beyond seismic hazards, the global pandemic has highlighted, for example, the risks of supply chain disruption due to biological emergencies. Climate change is also increasing hazard exposure in Japan and around the globe. Climate change is a growing concern for its potential to contribute to hydrometeorological hazards such as flooding and hurricanes, and for its potential to play a role in secondary or cascading hazards such as fire. In the era of climate change, disasters will increasingly be ‘unprecedented’, and so GEJE offers important lessons on preparing for low-probability high-impact disasters and planning under uncertain conditions in general.

Over the last decade, the World Bank has drawn upon the GEJE megadisaster experience to learn how to better prepare for and recover from low-probability high-impact disasters. While we have identified a number of diverse strategies here, ranging from technological and structural innovations to improving the engagement of diverse stakeholders, three themes recur throughout infrastructure resilience, risk preparedness, and disaster finance. First, planning in advance for how organizations will prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters is essential, i.e. through the creation of BCPs by both public and private organizations. Second, pre-arranged agreements amongst organizations for sharing resources, knowledge, and financing in order to mitigate, prepare, respond and recover together from disasters and other unforeseen events are highly beneficial. Third, only with continuous reflection, learning and update on what worked and what didn’t work after each disasters can develop the adaptive capacities needed to manage ever increasing and unexpected risks. Preparedness is an incremental and interactive process.

These lessons from the GEJE on the importance of BCPs and pre-arranged agreements both emphasize larger principles that can be brought to bear in the context of emergent climate and public health crises. Both involve planning for the potential of disaster before it strikes. BCPs and pre-arranged agreements are both made under blue-sky conditions, which allow frameworks to be put in place for advanced mitigation and preparedness, and rapid post-disaster response and recovery. While it is impossible to know exactly what future crises a locale will face, these processes often have benefits that make places and organizations better able to act in the face of unlikely or unpredicted events. The lessons above regarding BCPs and pre-arranged agreements also highlight that neither the government nor the private sector alone have all the tools to prepare for and respond to disasters. Rather, the GEJE shows the importance of both public and private organizations adopting BCPs, and the value of creating pre-arranged agreements among and across public and private groups. By making disaster preparedness a key consideration for all organizations, and bringing diverse stakeholders together to make plans for when a crisis strikes, these strengthened networks and planning capacities have the potential to bear benefits not only in an emergency but in the everyday operations of organizations and countries.

Back to Top

Additional Resources

Program Overview

• Japan-World Bank Program on Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Management in Developing Countries

Reports and Case Studies Featuring Lessons from GEJE

• Learning from Megadisasters: Lessons from the Great East Japan Earthquake  (PDF)
• Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity  (PDF)
• Resilient Water Supply and Sanitation Services: The Case of Japan  (PDF)
• Japan Case Study Report on Road Geohazard Risk Management  (PDF)
• Resilient Infrastructure PPPs  (PDF)
• Making Schools Resilient at Scale  (PDF)
• Converting Disaster Experience into a Safer Built Environment: The Case of Japan  (PDF)
• Resilient Cultural Heritage: Learning from the Japanese Experience  (PDF)
• Information and Communication Technology for Disaster Risk Management in Japan
• Resilient Industries in Japan : Lessons Learned in Japan on Enhancing Competitiveness in the Face of Disasters by Natural Hazards (PDF)
• Preparedness Maps for Community Resilience: Earthquakes. Experience from Japan  (PDF)
• Elders Leading the Way to Resilience  (PDF)
• Ibasho: Strengthening community-driven preparedness and resilience in Philippines and Nepal by leveraging Japanese expertise and experience  (PDF)
• Learning from Disaster Simulation Drills in Japan  (PDF)
• Catastrophe Insurance Programs for Public Assets  (PDF)
• PPP contract clauses unveiled: the World Bank’s 2017 Guidance on PPP Contractual Provisions
• Learning from Japan: PPPs for infrastructure resilience

Audiovisual Resources on GEJE and its Reconstruction Processes in English

• NHK documentary: 3/11-The Tsunami: The First 3 Days
• NHK: 342 Stories of Resilience and Remembrance
• Densho Road 3.11: Journey to Experience the Lessons from the Disaster - Tohoku, Japan
• Sendai City: Disaster-Resilient and Environmentally-Friendly City
• Sendai City: Eastern Coastal Area Today, 2019 Fall

[i]   Resilient Water Supply and Sanitation Services  report, p.63

[ii]   Resilient Water Supply and Sanitation Services  report, p.63

[iii]   Resilient Water Supply and Sanitation Services  report, p.8

[iv]   Resilient Water Supply and Sanitation Services  report, p.71

[v]   Resilient Water Supply and Sanitation Services  report, p.63

[vi]   Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity  report, p.115

[vii] Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity  report, p.133

[viii]   Japan Case Study Report on Road Geohazard Risk Management  report, p.30

[ix]   Resilient Infrastructure PPPs  report, p.8-9

[x]   Resilient Infrastructure PPPs  report, p.39-40

[xi]   Resilient Industries in Japan  report, p.153.

[xii]   Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity  report, p. 132

[xiii]   Making Schools Resilient at Scale  report, p.24

[xiv]   Resilient Cultural Heritage  report, p.62

[xv]   Learning from Megadisasters  report, p.326

[xvi]   Resilient Cultural Heritage  report, p.69

[xvii]   Learning from Megadisasters  report, p.100

[xviii] Learning from Megadisasters  report, p.297.

[xix]  J-ALERT, Japan’s nationwide early warning system, had 46% implementation at GEJE, and in communities where it was implemented earthquake early warnings were successfully received. Following GEJE, GOJ invested heavily in J-ALERT adoption (JPY 14B), bearing 50% of implementation costs. In 2013 GOJ spent JPY 773M to implement J-ALERT in municipalities that could not afford the expense. In 2014 MIC heavily promoted the L-ALERT system (formerly “Public Information Commons”), achieving 100% adoption across municipalities. Since GEJE, Japan has updated the EEWS to include a hybrid method of earthquake prediction, improving the accuracy of predictions and warnings.

[xx]  Related resources: NHK, “#1 TSUNAMI BOSAI: Science that Can Save Your Life”  https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/ondemand/video/3004665/  ; NHK “BOSAI: Be Prepared - Hazard Maps”  https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/ondemand/video/2084002/

[xxi]  Aldrich, Daniel P., and Yasuyuki Sawada. "The physical and social determinants of mortality in the 3.11 tsunami." Social Science & Medicine 124 (2015): 66-75.

[xxii]   Learning from Disaster Simulation Drills in Japan  Report, p. 14

[xxiii]  Matsushita and Hideshima. 2014. “Influence over Financial Statement of Listed Manufacturing Companies by the GEJE, the Effect of BCP and Risk Financing.” [In Japanese.] Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineering 70 (1): 33–43.  https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jscejsp/70/1/70_33/_pdf/-char/ja .

[xxiv]   Resilient Industries in Japan  report, p. 56

[xxv]  MIC (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications). 2019. “Survey Results of Business Continuity Plan Development Status in Local Governments.” [In Japanese.] Press release, MIC, Tokyo.  https://www.fdma.go.jp/pressrelease/houdou/items/011226bcphoudou.pdf .

[xxvi]   Japan Case Study Report on Road Geohazard Risk Management  report, p.17.

[xxvii]  The World Bank. 2021. “Financial Protection of Critical Infrastructure Services.” Technical Report – Contribution to 2020 APEC Finance Ministers Meeting.

[xxviii]   Resilient Industries in Japan  report, p. 119

[xxix]  Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc. 2019. “The Role of Insurance Industry to Strengthen Resilience of Infrastructure—Experience in Japan.” APEC seminar on Disaster Risk Finance.

[xxx]  TDB (Teikoku DataBank). 2018. “Trends in Bankruptcies 6 Years after the Great East Japan Earthquake.” [In Japanese.] TDB, Tokyo.  https://www.tdb.co.jp/report/watching/press/pdf/p170301.pdf .

[xxxi]  Matsushita and Hideshima. 2014. “Influence over Financial Statement of Listed Manufacturing Companies by the GEJE, the Effect of BCP and Risk Financing.” [In Japanese.] Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineering 70 (1): 33–43.  https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jscejsp/70/1/70_33/_pdf/-char/ja .

[xxxii]   Resilient Industries in Japan  report, p. 145

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

On This Day: 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami

On March 11, 2011, a magnitude (Mw) 9.1 earthquake struck off the northeast coast of Honshu on the Japan Trench. A tsunami that was generated by the earthquake arrived at the coast within 30 minutes, overtopping seawalls and disabling three nuclear reactors within days. The 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami event, often referred to as the Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami , resulted in over 18,000 dead, including several thousand victims who were never recovered.

The deadly earthquake was the largest magnitude ever recorded in Japan and the third-largest in the world since 1900. 

How It Happened

The 2011 event resulted from thrust faulting on the subduction zone plate boundary between the Pacific and North America plates, according to the U.S. Geological Survey .

This region has a high rate of seismic activity, with the potential to generate tsunamis. Past earthquakes that generated tsunamis in the region have included the deadly events of 1611 , 1896 , and 1933 .

The March 11, 2011 earthquake generated a tsunami with a maximum wave height of almost 40 meters (130 feet) in the Iwate Prefecture . Researchers also determined that a 2,000-kilometer (1,242-mile) stretch of Japan’s Pacific coast was impacted by the tsunami.

Following the earthquake, a tsunami disabled the power supply and cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors, causing a significant nuclear accident . All three nuclear cores largely melted in the first three days. 

As of December 2020, the Japan National Police Agency reported 15,899 deaths, 2,527 missing and presumed deaths, and 6,157 injuries for the Great East Japan event.

In Japan, the event resulted in the total destruction of more than 123,000 houses and damage to almost a million more. Ninety-eight percent of the damage was attributed to the tsunami. The costs resulting from the earthquake and tsunami in Japan alone were estimated at $220 billion USD. The damage makes the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami the most expensive natural disaster in history. 

Although the majority of the tsunami’s impact was in Japan, the event was truly global. The tsunami was observed at coastal sea level gauges in over 25 Pacific Rim countries, in Antarctica, and on the west coast of the Atlantic Ocean in Brazil.

The tsunami caused $31 million USD damage in Hawaii and $100 million USD in damages and recovery to marine facilities in California. Additionally, damage was reported in French Polynesia, Galapagos Islands, Peru, and Chile. 

Fortunately, the loss of life outside of Japan was minimal (one death in Indonesia and one death in California) due to the Pacific Tsunami Warning System and its connections to national-level warning and evacuation systems. 

From Peril to Preparedness

To learn from the tragedy in Japan, researchers collected extensive data on tsunami wave forces and building performance. This facilitated improvement in tsunami mitigation strategies, such as building codes. Over 6,200 tsunami wave measurements were collected in Japan and the Pacific region. 

Several thousands of lives across the world were lost to large, far-afield tsunamis prior to the establishment of the Pacific Tsunami Warning System in 1965. The Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami demonstrated that despite the severity of the natural hazard the investment in the warning system has been a success. 

Japan is often considered the country most prepared for tsunamis but still lost numerous lives in this event. Nonetheless, experts believe many lives were saved in Japan and elsewhere due to the existing warning and mitigation systems.

An effective tsunami warning system relies on the free and open exchange and long-term management of global data and science products to mitigate, model, and forecast tsunamis. NCEI is the global data and information service for tsunamis. Global historical tsunami data, including more information about the Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami, are available via interactive maps and a variety of web services.

For more information on how you can prepare for a tsunami, visit the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program . Also, visit NCEI’s Natural Hazards website for more earthquake and tsunami data, images, and educational materials.

Kong, L., P. Dunbar, and N. Arcos (2015). Pacific Tsunami Warning System: A Half-Century of Protecting the Pacific 1965-2015. Honolulu: International Tsunami Information Center.

Satake, K. (2014). Chapter 24, The 2011 Tohoku, Japan, Earthquake and Tsunami. Extreme Natural Hazards, Disaster Risks and Societal Implications, Cambridge University Press, p. 340-351.

UNESCO/IOC (2012). Summary Statement from the Japan - UNESCO - UNU Symposium on The Great East Japan Tsunami on 11 March 2011 and Tsunami Warning Systems: Policy Perspectives 16 - 17 February 2012

Broken links updated.

Related Links

Article tags, related news.

May 24, 2024

January 15, 2022 Tonga Volcanic Eruption and Tsunami

May 23, 2024

Visualizing Disasters: New Hazardous Event Posters Available

August 25, 2023

On This Day: 2009 Samoa Islands Tsunami

Premium Content

Japan's 2011 megaquake left a scar at the bottom of the sea. Scientists finally explored it.

A towering cliff in the Japan Trench of the Pacific Ocean “is unlike anything that’s been observed by science before.”

They were enveloped in an oppressive darkness. The sun, miles above, had vanished long ago. Through tiny windows, they could see the seafloor’s sediments glimmering in the submersible’s headlights. Curious fish flitted around their vessel.

Carefully navigating the inky-black waters was a little like “driving in a car at midnight along a mountain road,” says Hayato Ueda , a geoscientist at Niigata University in Japan and one of the sub’s two occupants.

Ueda and pilot Chris May searched the darkness in their claustrophobic vessel, and eventually a lofty geologic monument emerged from the shadows: an 85-foot-tall cliff climbing into the ocean above. The exposed crest of a cataclysmic rift in Earth’s crust, exactly where Ueda predicted it would be, was part of one of the worst disasters in modern history.

This cliff is a scar of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake that struck off Japan’s eastern shores. That year, on March 11, the magnitude 9.1 temblor deep within the Pacific Ocean unleashed a catastrophic tsunami that hit Japan, killing around 20,000 people and leaving half a million homeless.

In the past decade, scientists have studied the quake by decoding its seismic waves and scanning the depths with sonar. But getting a detailed understanding of what caused the seafloor to convulse required something that initially seemed impossible: examining part of the rupture site in person, within the Japan Trench, almost five miles below the waves.

In 2022 scientists made that ambitious mission a reality. They secured a privately owned deep-sea vessel, the DSV Limiting Factor —a submersible cleared to safely take people down to the crushing, benighted seafloor.

For Hungry Minds

Plunging into the Japan Trench, the divers eventually came upon the incongruous cliff. As reported in a study the journal Communications Earth and Environment , the team determined that this cliff represented the top of a section of a chunk of crust that jumped up by over 190 feet during the 2011 earthquake.

This appears to be “the very absolute tip of the fault that generated that massive earthquake,” says Harold Tobin , director of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network at the University of Washington, who wasn’t involved in the study. “In this one place, the tip came all the way to the surface and pushed everything up. And they tagged it, they identified it directly in the field. And that’s incredible.”

Uplift features like this have been observed on land, but this is the first time one has been glimpsed by humans in a deep-sea subduction zone trench. This “is unlike anything that’s been observed by science before,” says Christie Rowe , an earthquake geologist at McGill University who was also not involved with the study.

Decoding a disaster

The entire rupture happened over a vast section of the abyss. To have created so much uplift, the fault responsible must have moved about 330 feet near the epicenter during the quake—the largest fault movement of its kind on record. The violently uprooted cliff that resulted was part of the reason the quake generated a calamitous tsunami.  

The location of this megaquake is not so surprising. The Japan Trench is a major quake-making machine ; since 1973, it has produced nine temblors above magnitude 7. This frequent shaking occurs because the trench is a subduction zone, where the colossal Pacific tectonic plate is being forced underneath the Okhotsk microplate.

But even so, the 2011 quake proved surprisingly powerful. It struck a little westward of the Japan Trench, about 18 miles below the seafloor, causing a gargantuan rupture over a 24,000-square-mile area. Seismic waves from the event and sonar-like mapping conducted by ships before and immediately after the quake suggested the fault responsible moved as much as 200 feet—an almost unbelievable amount, and still less than the recent expedition has ascertained.

“The Tohoku earthquake was obviously a massive watershed event. It’s a game changer in lots of ways,” says Tobin. Unraveling that fault’s behavior matters not just to Japan, but to anywhere in the world that will one day experience its own subduction-zone triggered tsunami, including the U.S. Pacific Northwest , which was inundated by a major tsunami three centuries ago.

The geologic jolt in Japan seemed so extreme that scientists wanted to find the physical evidence of it at the site itself. “It’s like what a geologist would do in the field,” says Tobin. “Except this happens to be eight kilometers [five miles] below the surface of the water.” At those high-pressure depths, most submersibles—including robotic ones—would malfunction or implode .

Enter: DSV Limiting Factor . Built by the American manufacturer Triton Submarines , and funded and owned by Victor Vescovo —an investor, former naval officer, and undersea explorer—this highly durable two-person vessel can dive down to 36,000 feet, making it one of the only submersibles capable of the journey into the Japan Trench.

“It’s an incredible submarine,” says Tobin.

You May Also Like

The story of Turtle, one of the world's first submersibles

The lost continent of Zealandia has been mapped for the first time

Haunted Appalachia? These ancient mountains witnessed the birth of man and monster

Illuminating the abyss.

In September 2022, drifting on the Pacific’s midnight-blue waves aboard the support boat DSSV Pressure Drop , Ueda and his colleagues perused their geologic and bathymetric charts. “I had to decide the exact point where the submersible will land,” he says. “I carefully read topography from the map and selected the most probable point where the fault features could exist.”

A proverbial X was scored on the map. They were ready. On September 4, Ueda and pilot Chris May climbed into the two cramped seats of the DSV Limiting Factor and began their quest into the depths.

After several hours they reached the seafloor within the Japan Trench. Ueda had visited oceanic depths before, but nothing this deep and dark. Throughout their dive, video cameras mounted on the outside of the submersible recorded their traversal, including the approach to the 85-foot-high cliff that did not exist prior to the 2011 quake.

“On the way floating up to the sea surface, I had much time—I don't remember well, but perhaps two hours or more—to consider about what I saw,” says Ueda. When he rewatched the video recordings from the dive, he became confident: this was something known as fault scarp, a part of the earthquake’s surface breakthrough that causes a change in elevation.

But the cliff was only the very top of the uplift. To properly measure its scale, the submersible had risen to the feature’s peak—and as it ascended, its pressure sensors were used to calculate the height difference between the basin floor at the clifftop. It was 194 feet—the seafloor’s vertical displacement at this location during the 2011 megaquake, according to the study.

The seafloor likely rose along many parts of the gigantic rupture in the Pacific, but this section jumped up by the height of a 14-story building. “That displacement is at least part of the tsunami source,” says Tobin.

Quakes of the deep

Using this new information, the team estimates that the fault slipped by 260 to 400 feet in total at this location during the earthquake—a staggering amount, perhaps twice as much as previously suspected.

It’s a reasonable calculation, says Judith Hubbard , an earthquake scientist at Cornell University not involved with the study. But reconstructing fault geometry on land is troublesome. Doing the same work on the seafloor—doubly so. And in tectonic terms, this part of the crust is a tangled nightmare. “This is a really complicated area. There’s a huge amount of stuff going on,” Hubbard says.

Crucially, though, “they didn’t overdo their claims,” says Tobin, who considers the evidence direct, robust, and elegant. Scientists knew the 2011’s rupture’s slip was tremendous. “This case is as bulletproof as you’re ever going to get,” he says.

The 2011 quake still retains much of its mystery. This site represents just a small section of an expansive rupture, and each part behaved uniquely during the fault’s mighty jolt. “It is difficult to provide an idea or story about the entire disaster,” says Ueda.

But this study has already set a new benchmark for untangling the depths and enigmas of subduction zone megaquakes. “I didn’t know it was technically possible” to make this journey to the seafloor, says Rowe. “I’m super pumped. It’s like being an astronaut.”

This work will bring protective benefits to Japan’s shores, and it will no doubt provide scientific succor to other coastal nations. Over the past two decades, an increasing number of tsunami early-warning systems have been placed in the world’s oceans. They rely on catching the seismic waves from aquatic quakes and quickly analyzing them.

But scientists are sometimes surprised. A tsunami can be forecast, but it can be more significant than predicted, or considerably smaller—or even nonexistent. The most important question is: “How big is that scarp on the seafloor? Because that’s your tsunami trigger,” says Rowe.

Using this study and other research to tweak tsunami forecast models could bolster efforts to save lives in future geologic disasters.

“It was surely fantastic to see such important features that nobody has ever seen. I'm honored to find it,” says Ueda. But he recounts his discovery with a somber note. “It might be this cliff that took more than 20,000 lives.”

Related Topics

• EARTHQUAKES
• SUBMERSIBLES

The surprising source of Turkey's volcanoes lies more than 1,000 miles away

Iceland's latest eruption is quieting down—but the explosive upheaval isn't over yet

Bob Ballard and James Cameron on what we can learn from Titan

A rare and puzzling ‘domino effect’ triggered 4 powerful quakes in Afghanistan

A huge volcano near Naples has been convulsing. What does it mean?

• Paid Content
• Environment
• Photography
• Perpetual Planet

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• History Magazine
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

In tsunami preparedness, it turns out there can be strength in beauty. Rows of green hills strategically arranged along coastlines can help to fend off destruction from tsunamis while preserving ocean views and access to the shore. For some communities, they may offer a better option than towering seawalls.

Plans for a tsunami mitigation park in Miyagi Prefecture, Japan, combine a seawall, hills and vegetation. (Image credit: Morino Project)

Those are the findings of a peer-reviewed paper by a team of researchers who have tried to quantify how tsunami waves of different heights interact with mounds of various sizes and shapes arranged near the water’s edge. The research was published on May 4 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Giant seawalls are the conventional approach to mitigating tsunami risk. Japan, for example, has built hundreds of miles of concrete walls, taller than 40 feet in some places, at a cost of more than $12 billion since tsunami waves crashed through seawalls and flattened coastal communities throughout eastern Japan in March 2011.

But seawalls tend to be expensive to build, tough on local tourism and fishing industries, disruptive to coastal communities and environmentally destructive – and failures can be catastrophic, said senior study author Jenny Suckale, an assistant professor of geophysics in the School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences (Stanford Earth).

“If the wall collapses, the consequences are life shattering,” said Suckale, whose collaborators on the study include scientists from the Naval Postgraduate School, the New Jersey Institute of Technology, MIT and Indonesia’s Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. Seawalls can not only create a false sense of security that can discourage swift evacuations, she explained, they can also end up breaking apart into blocks of rubble that tsunami waves then toss throughout a city.

“It’s sort of intuitive that the moment you see it as a threat, you build a wall,” Suckale said. But while it’s true that seawalls can address some tsunami risks, the factors that make a place livable can be far more complicated. “Most coastal communities want to maximize their well-being, not minimize their risk at the expense of everything else,” she said. “Do you really want to live behind a huge concrete wall because there is a small chance that a big tsunami will hit you? Let’s put more options on the table and have an informed debate.”

Having more options on the table is especially important in places where resources for coastal protections are scarce, said study co-author Abdul Muhari, who leads the coastal disaster mitigation division of the Indonesian Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. “By having the analysis in our paper, tsunami-prone countries now have a fundamental basis for evaluating hills as a less-expensive way to mitigate tsunami risks,” he said.

Customizable and green

Coastal forests can help put the brakes on tsunami flow speeds in nearby towns and villages. These and other nature-based solutions are increasingly important in plans for coastal risk management, the researchers write. Yet it takes decades for trees to grow sturdy enough to provide meaningful protection.

A concrete wall on the coast of Japan. (Image credit: iStock)

And, according to the new study, vegetation has little effect on an incoming wave’s energy. Plants may still play an important role in fighting erosion, however, thereby helping to maintain the shape, height and spacing of hills that make them effective.

An alternative solution cropping up on coastlines in tsunami-prone countries around the world seeks to combine the best of both worlds: the tunability and immediacy of an engineered barrier and the coastal access and ecological function of a more porous green zone.

Until now, designs for these projects, known as tsunami mitigation parks, have been informed more by aesthetics than science. “Right now, our designs are not strategic enough,” Suckale said. “This paper is a starting point for understanding how to design these parks to derive maximum risk mitigation benefits from them.”

Design matters

By numerically modeling what happens to a tsunami wave when it slams into a single row of hills, the researchers show mounds can reflect and dampen a tsunami wave’s destructive power about as well as a typical seawall can. And in the event of a huge, one-in-a-thousand-years kind of tsunami, they will fail no worse than even the most imposing walls. As a result, the study finds, there’s little extra value to be gained from combining walls and hills – a common approach in designs from Constitución, Chile to Morino, Japan.

“These hills reflect a surprising amount of wave energy for small and intermediate tsunamis,” Suckale said. Customizing the shape of the hills based on the shape of the coastline, the direction that tsunamis are likely to approach from, and other site-specific factors can help to maximize the amount of energy reflected back. This is key, Suckale said, because “energy is really your main enemy.”

That’s because if a tsunami inundates an area at full throttle with even one foot of water, Suckale said, it will leave few survivors. “It just slams everything. You can’t stay on your feet, and once you fall, it’s very dangerous. It throws cars at buildings. You’ll easily be knocked over by things carried in the water.”

The study also points to the need for homes and infrastructure to be set back behind a broad buffer zone, because hills can speed up flows and increase damage in the area immediately surrounding the park. To avoid this unintended consequence, the researchers suggest considering designs with multiple staggered rows of hills that are larger toward the shore and smaller inland.

“Our study shows that design matters. There’s a wrong and a right spacing; there’s a wrong and a right shape,” Suckale said. “You should not use aesthetic criteria to design this.”

Suckale is an Assistant Professor of Geophysics, a Center Fellow, by courtesy, at the Woods Institute for the Environment, and a member of the Institute for Computational and Mathematical Engineering (ICME) at Stanford. Co-author Adrian F. Santiago Tate is a PhD student in Geophysics. Co-author Brent Lunghino worked on the research as a graduate student in Stanford’s Institute for Computational and Mathematical Engineering. He’s now affiliated with the company ClimateAI.

Additional co-authors are affiliated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the New Jersey Institute of Technology, the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., and the Directorate of Sustainable Utilization of Coastal Zone and Small Islands, the Directorate General of Marine Spatial Management and the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries in Jakarta, Indonesia.

The research was supported by Stanford Earth, the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program, and the Office of Naval Research.

To read all stories about Stanford science, subscribe to the biweekly  Stanford Science Digest .

Media Contacts

Josie Garthwaite, School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences: (650)497-0947, [email protected]

Examining the potential of natural disaster monuments as surrogate indicators for disaster hazards in Japan

• Original Paper
• Published: 28 May 2024

Cite this article

• Jun Sakamoto   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1765-7661 1  

Japan is prone to natural disasters because of its diverse topographical, geological, and climatic conditions. It is vital to gain a deeper understanding of disaster-prevention measures to mitigate these effects. One aspect of this understanding is the construction of natural disaster monuments to educate future generations about lessons learned from past disasters. This study focuses on the location and distribution of these monuments and examines their potential as surrogate indicators of disaster hazards. To achieve this, we employ a two-pronged approach. The first approach is to analyze the relationship between the location of disaster monuments and disaster hazards. It involves plotting the locations of monuments from a database and investigating the relationship between the disaster covered by each monument and the current hazard using a hazard map portal site. The second approach is to assess the potential for disaster hazard mapping based on the disaster monuments. It involves creating Voronoi maps based on the location of disaster monuments and applying them to the entire national land area. It produced a disaster hazard map for Japan, including areas with no disaster monuments. The results provide aggregate information on the relationship between the location of disaster monuments and disaster hazards and the effectiveness of the Voronoi diagram-based disaster hazard maps. In many cases, the current hazard at the location of disaster monuments still exists, and 70% of the areas around tsunami-related monuments are still exposed to tsunami hazards. Additionally, this study suggests that Voronoi maps are promising for disasters and can accurately represent specific disaster hazard areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The Risk Atlas of Mexico City, Mexico: a tool for decision-making and disaster prevention

Hazard regionalization of debris-flow disasters along highways in china.

Geo-hydrological disasters in the Uttarakhand Himalaya: assessment and mapping

Andrienko G, Fabrikant SI, Griffin AL, Dykes J, Schiewe J (2014) Geoviz: interactive maps that help people think. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 28(10):2009–2012. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2014.937719

Article   Google Scholar  

Baumwoll J (2008) The value of indigenous knowledge for disaster risk reduction: a unique assessment tool for reducing community vulnerability to natural disasters. Webster University, Missouri

Google Scholar  

Boret SP, Shibayama A (2018) The roles of monuments for the dead during the aftermath of the Great East Japan earthquake. Int J Disast Risk Reduct 29:55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.09.021

Cardona OD (2013) The need for rethinking the concepts of vulnerability and risk from a holistic perspective: a necessary review and criticism for effective risk management. Mapping vulnerability. Routledge, pp 37–51

Cariolet JM, Vuillet M, Diab Y (2019) Mapping urban resilience to disasters—a review. Sustain Cities Soc 51:101746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101746

Daimon H, Miyamae R, Wang W (2023) A critical review of cognitive and environmental factors of disaster preparedness: research issues and implications from the usage of “awareness (ishiki)” in Japan. Nat Hazards 117(2):1213–1243

Fackler M. (2011) Tsunami warnings, written in stone, New York Times, 20 April, available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/world/asia/21stones.html

FDMA, National Disaster Lore Information, https://www.fdma.go.jp/publication/database/database009.html

Fujii M, Tamano E, Hattori K (2021) Role of oral transmission in disaster prevention education-significance of disaster folklore in modern times. J Disast Res 16(2):241–243. https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2021.p0241

Garnier E (2019) Lessons learned from the past for a better resilience to contemporary risks. Disaster Prev Manag 28–6:778–795. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-09-2019-0303

Garnier E, Lahournat F (2022) Japanese stone monuments and disaster memory–perspectives for DRR. Disast Prev Manag Int J 31(6):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-03-2021-0089

GSI (2020) Mapping “Natural Disaster Legacy Monuments”, disaster lessons passed down by our ancestors-the “natural disaster legacy monument,” a new map symbol, has been established to disseminate the lessons learned from disasters. J Rural Plann Assoc 38(4):466–467. https://doi.org/10.2750/arp.38.466

GSI (2024) Geospatial Information Authority of Japan’s Natural disaster monument: https://www.gsi.go.jp/bousaichiri/denshouhi.html

Iizuka T, Kuroyanagi A, Sugahara R (2018) Study on belief and disaster tradition as a disaster culture in flood-stricken area. J City Plann Inst Japan 53(2):108–115. https://doi.org/10.11361/journalcpij.53.108

Isoda Y, Muranaka A, Tanibata G, Hanaoka K, Ohmura J, Tsukamoto A (2019) Strengths of exaggerated tsunami-originated placenames: disaster subculture in Sanriku Coast. Japan ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf 8(10):429. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8100429

Iuchi K, Maly E (2016) Roles of people, community and planning in recovery after mega-disasters: a symposium synopsis. J Disast Res 11(3):512–516. https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2016.p0512

Iwaka K, Kozuki Y, Yamanaka R, Tanabe S, Murakami H (2011) Values and applications of earthquake and tsunami stone monuments in Tokushima. J Jpn Soc Civ Eng Ser B 67(2):1261–1265. https://doi.org/10.2208/kaigan.67.I_1261

Matsuo Y, Wada K, Yamamoto M, Nakano S (2010) A study on making good use of disaster mitigation skills included in the historical sayings of Shikoku region to raise ability for regional disaster prevention. J Jpn Soc Nat Disast Sci 29(3):393–411

Mikulecký P, Punčochářová A, Babič F, Bureš V, Čech P, Husáková M, Zanker M (2023) Dealing with risks associated with tsunamis using indigenous knowledge approaches. Int J Disast Risk Reduct 86:103534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103534

Mingren W. Japanese Tsunami Stones (2018). These centuries-old monuments save lives today. https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/japanese-tsunami-stones-these-centuries-old-monuments-save-lives-today-021807

MLIT (2020) White paper on land, infrastructure, transport and tourism in Japan. https://www.mlit.go.jp/hakusyo/mlit/r01/hakusho/r02/index.html

MLIT (2024). Hazard Map Portal Site: https://disaportal.gsi.go.jp/

National Land Information Division (2024) National Spatial Planning and Regional Policy Bureau, MLIT of Japan’s National Land Numerical Information. https://nlftp.mlit.go.jp/ksj/

Okatani T (2022) Relationship between “Shizensaigaidenshohi” (monument of natural disaster) and topographic characteristics or scale of natural phenomenon in case of flood disaster. J Jpn Cartogr Assoc 60(2):12–18. https://doi.org/10.11212/jjca.60.2_12

Oyama K, Kumahara Y, Fujimoto S (2017) Characteristics and disaster prevention significance of stone monuments related to floods and landslides in Hiroshima prefecture. Geogr Sci 72:1–18. https://doi.org/10.20630/chirikagaku.72.1_1

Saiga M, Fujii T, Ganzu Y, Matsumi Y (2011) Investigation on the disaster prevention consciousness of inhabitant for flood hazard and measuremes[sic] for the improvement. J Jpn Soc Civ Eng Ser F6 (Saf Probl) 67(2):I_185-I_190

Saito Y, Hiroi U (2020) The effect of tsunami monument on people’s awareaness of pre-disaster in tsunami lore—the case of Nankai earthquake tsunami affected area. J City Plann Inst Jpn 553:880–887. https://doi.org/10.11361/journalcpij.55.880

Sato S, Hirakawa Y, Shinka A, Imamura F (2017) Did disaster tradition activities promote tsunami evacuation behavioir? Case study using questionaire survey in Rikuzentakada city, Iwate prefecture. J Soc Saf Sci. https://doi.org/10.11314/jisss.31.69

Sato S, Shinka A, Kawashima A, Imamura F (2018) Interregional comparative evaluation of awareness of past tsunami events just before the 2011 east great earthquake disaster occurring. J Jpn Soc Civ Eng Ser B2 (Coast Eng) 74(2):I_505-I_510. https://doi.org/10.2208/kaigan.74.I_505

Suppasri A, Muhari A, Ranasinghe P, Mas E, Shuto N, Imamura F, Koshimura S (2012) Damage and reconstruction after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and the 2011 Great East Japan tsunami. J Nat Disast Sci 34(1):19–39. https://doi.org/10.2328/jnds.34.19

Suppasri A, Shuto N, Imamura F, Koshimura S, Mas E, Yalciner AC (2013) Lessons learned from the 2011 Great East Japan tsunami: performance of tsunami countermeasures, coastal buildings, and tsunami evacuation in Japan. Pure Appl Geophys 170:993–1018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-012-0511-7

Suzuki H (2019) Visualization of natural disasters over the past 1600 years on a map -publication of a Disaster Chronology Map. J Inf Sci Technol Assoc 69–6:250–255. https://doi.org/10.18919/jkg.69.6_250

Toshigawa H, Goto M et al (2020) Releasing information about natural disaster monument. Proc General Meet Assoc Jpn Geogr. https://doi.org/10.14866/ajg.2020s.0_132

Van Luik A, Patterson R, Shafer D, Klein T (2013) Memory saves lives: inter-generational warnings effectiveness-13556. In: Proceedings of the conference: WM2013: waste management conference: international collaboration and continuous improvement, Phoenix, AZ, USA, pp 24–28

Download references

JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 22K04580 supported this work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Science and Technology, Kochi University, Kochi, Japan

Jun Sakamoto

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jun Sakamoto .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sakamoto, J. Examining the potential of natural disaster monuments as surrogate indicators for disaster hazards in Japan. Nat Hazards (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06705-y

Download citation

Received : 04 February 2024

Accepted : 21 May 2024

Published : 28 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06705-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Natural disaster monument
• Voronoi diagram
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research