A classification of mitigation strategies for natural hazards: implications for the understanding of interactions between mitigation strategies

Abstract

The unexpectedly poor performances of complex mitigation systems in recent natural disasters demonstrate the need to reexamine mitigation system functionality, especially those combining multiple mitigation strategies. A systematic classification of mitigation strategies is presented as a basis for understanding how different types of strategy within an overall mitigation system can interfere destructively, to reduce the effectiveness of the system as a whole. We divide mitigation strategies into three classes according to the timing of the actions that they prescribe. Permanent mitigation strategies prescribe actions such as construction of tsunami barriers or land-use restrictions: they are frequently both costly and “brittle” in that the actions work up to a design limit of hazard intensity or magnitude and then fail. Responsive mitigation strategies prescribe actions after a hazard source event has occurred, such as evacuations, that rely on capacities to detect and quantify hazard events and to transmit warnings fast enough to enable at risk populations to decide and act effectively. Anticipatory mitigation strategies prescribe use of the interpretation of precursors to hazard source events as a basis for precautionary actions, but challenges arise from uncertainties in hazard behaviour. The NE Japan tsunami mitigation system and its performance in the 2011 Tohoku disaster provide examples of interactions between mitigation strategies. We propose that the classification presented here would enable consideration of how the addition of a new strategy to a mitigation system would affect the performance of existing strategies within that system, and furthermore aid the design of integrated mitigation systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Anderegg CR (2000) The Ash Warriors. United States Government Printing Office, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ando M, Ishida M, Hayashi Y, Mizuki C, Nishikawa Y, Tu Y (2013) Interviewing insights regarding the fatalities inflicted by the 2011 great East Japan earthquake. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13(9):2173–2187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Coetzee C, Van Niekerk D (2012) Tracking the evolution of the disaster management cycle: a general system theory approach. J Disaster Risk Stud 4(1):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  4. Diamond J (2012) The world until yesterday: What can we learn from traditional societies? Viking Press, New York

  5. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (2011) Learning from earthquakes: the Japan Tohoku tsunami of 11 March 2011. https://www.eeri.org/wp-content/uploads/Tohoku_Japan_March_11_2011_EERI_LFE_ERI_ITST_Tsunami.pdf

  6. Esteban M, Tsimopoulou V, Mikami T, Yun NY, Suppasri A, Shibayama T (2013) Recent tsunamis events and preparedness: development of tsunami awareness in Indonesia, Chile and Japan. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 5:84–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fujinawa Y, Noda Y (2013) Japan’s earthquake early warning system on 11 March 2011: performance, shortcomings, and changes. Earthq Spectra 29(s1):S341–S368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Garcia C, Fearnley CJ (2012) Evaluating critical links in early warning systems for natural hazards. Environ Hazards 11(2):123–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Geller RJ (2011) Shake-up time for Japanese seismology. Nature 472:407–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Godschalk DR, Brower DJ, Beatley T (1989) Catastrophic coastal storms (Chapter 2: alternative approaches to mitigating coastal storm hazards). Duke University Press, Durham, pp 23–48

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kanamori H (2012) Earthquake hazards: putting seismic research to most effective use. Nature 483:147–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim DH (1994) Systems thinking tools: a user’s reference guide. Cambridge, Mass., Pegasus Communications

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lay T (2012) Seismology: why giant earthquakes keep catching us out. Nature 483:149–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lindell MK, Prater C, Perry RW and Nicholson WC (2006) Chapter 7, “Hazard Mitigation” in Lindell MK, Perry RW, Prater C, Nicholson WC, Fundamentals of Emergency Management, FEMA. pp 155–179. http://training.fema.gov/hiedu/aemrc/booksdownload/fem/. Accessed 2 Feb 2015

  15. Lipscy PY, Kushida KE, Incerti T (2013) The Fukushima disaster and Japan’s nuclear plant vulnerability in comparative perspective. Environ Sci Technol 47(12):6082–6088

    Google Scholar 

  16. McAdoo BG, Moore A, Baumwoll J (2009) Indigenous knowledge and the near field population response during the 2007 Solomon Islands tsunami. Nat Hazards 48:73–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mileti D (1999) Disasters by design: a reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Joseph Henry Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mileti DS, Sorenson JH (1990) Communication of emergency public warnings: a social science perspective and state-of-the-art assessment. Oak Ridge, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mitchell M (2009) Complexity: a guided tour. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mori N, Takahashi T, Yasuda T, Yanagisawa H (2011) Survey of 2011 Tohoku earthquake tsunami inundation and run up. Geophys Res Lett 38(7). doi:10.1029/2011GL049210

  21. Noggerath J, Geller RJ, Gusiakov VK (2011) Fukushima: the myth of safety, the reality of geoscience. Bull At Sci 67:37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Punongbayan RS, Newhall CG, Bautista MLP, Garcia D, Harlow DH, Hoblitt RP, Sabit JP, Solidum RU (1996) Eruption hazard assessments and warnings. In: Newhall CG, Punongbayan R (Eds.). Fire and mud: eruptions and lahars of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines. Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology, Quezon City/University of Washington Press, Seattle and London

  23. Ramalingam B, Jones H, Reba T, Young J (2008) Exploring the science of complexity: ideas and implications for development and humanitarian efforts. Working paper 285. Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London

  24. Sasagawa T, Hirata K (2012) Tsunami evaluation and countermeasures at Onagawa nuclear power plant. In: Proceedings of 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon 24–28 Sep 2012. http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/WCEE2012_4545.pdf

  25. Shibata A (2012) Importance of the inherited memories of great tsunami disasters in natural disaster reduction. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on engineering lessons learned from the 2011 great East Japan earthquake, 1–4 March 2012, Tokyo, Japan

  26. Shibayama T, Esteban M, Nistor I, Takagi H, Thao N, Matsumaru R, Mikami T, Aranguiz R, Jayaratne T, Ohira K (2013) Classification of tsunami and evacuation areas. Nat Hazards 67(2):365–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Stein S, Geller RJ (2012) Communicating uncertainties in natural hazard forecasts. Eos 93:361–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Stein S, Okal EA (2011) The size of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake need not have been a surprise. Eos 92:227–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Suppasri A, Muhari A, Ranashinghe 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 Disaster Sci 34:19–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Suppasri A, Yasuda M, Abe Y, Fukutani Y, Imamura F, Shuto N (2015) Relocation after tsunamis in the Sanriku area and the condition of fishing villages two years after the 2011 great East Japan tsunami. Post-tsunami hazard: reconstruction and restoration—advances in natural and technological hazards research 44:331

    Google Scholar 

  32. UNISDR PPEW (2006) Global survey of early warning systems: An assessment of capacities, gaps and opportunities toward building a comprehensive global early warning system for all natural hazards. Platform for the promotion of early warning (UNISDR—PPEW), UN: p 46

  33. UNISDR (2007) “Terminology” http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology#letter-m Accessed 27 Feb 2014

  34. Voight B (1990) The 1985 Nevado del Ruiz volcano catastrophe: anatomy and retrospection. J Volcanol Geoth Res 42:151–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ye L, Lay T, Kanamori H (2013) Ground shaking and seismic source spectra for large earthquakes around the megathrust fault offshore of northeastern Honshu, Japan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(2B):1221–1241

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Victoria Sword-Daniels for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript, and Chris Kilburn, Steve Edwards for comments and encouragement regarding the concepts presented here. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments that motivated substantial changes to the manuscript. This work was not directly funded.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carina Fearnley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Day, S., Fearnley, C. A classification of mitigation strategies for natural hazards: implications for the understanding of interactions between mitigation strategies. Nat Hazards 79, 1219–1238 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1899-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mitigation strategies
  • Warning systems
  • Natural hazards
  • Risk
  • Precursors
  • Policy