Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 80, Issue 3, pp 1425–1441 | Cite as

Anatomy of cascading natural disasters in Japan: main modes and linkages

  • Mieko Kumasaki
  • Malcolm King
  • Mitsuru Arai
  • Lili Yang
Original Paper

Abstract

In order to contribute to the development of risk assessment, cascading natural disasters which are sequences of natural hazards was studied, and the patterns of the interactions between natural disasters were investigated. The data were collected from the database of Japanese newspaper. The relationships between each natural hazard were emerged and divided into four modes: striking, undermining, compounding, and blocking modes. Striking mode means a primary disaster provides sufficient energy to move a significant mass or to propagate the energy through media. In undermining mode, a primary disaster lowers the resistance or weakens a system maintaining mass and causes to collapse. Compounding mode of the linkage shows that a primary disaster reduces the strength of a system. Its difference from undermining mode is that this mode adds to the amount of mass affected. Blocking mode is found in an event blocking steady flows. The results are important for understanding of the impact of these types of cascading natural disaster and so are valuable as a basis for the identification, description, and development of countermeasures.

Keywords

Cascading natural disaster Risk assessment Interaction patters Striking Undermining Compounding Blocking 

References

  1. Abdolhamidzadeh B, Abbasi T, Rashtchian D, Abbasi SA (2011) Domino effect in process industry accidents—an inventory of past events and identification of some patterns. J Loss Prev Process Ind 24:575–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abe K, Ziemer RR (1991) Effect of tree roots on a shear zone: modeling reinforced shear stress. Can J For Res 21(7):1012–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Afforestation and Forestry-Road Association of Hyogo (2008) The damage of windfall trees by typhoon 2004, and measures for consequences. http://www.chisanrindou.net/data/pdf/books/book12.pdf. Accessed 25 Mar 2015
  4. Annen C, Wagner J-J (2003) The Impact of Volcanic Eruptions During the 1990s. Nat Hazards Rev 4:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aon Corporation (2012) Thailand floods event recap report. Impact Forecasting, March 2012. http://thoughtleadership.aonbenfield.com/Documents/20120314_impact_forecasting_thailand_flood_event_recap.pdf. Accessed 25 Mar 2015
  6. Bebi P, Kulakowski D, Rixen C (2009) Snow avalanche disturbances in forest ecosystems—state of research and implications for management. For Ecol Manag 257:1883–1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beltaos S, Prowse TD (2001) Climate impacts on extreme ice-jam events in Canadian rivers. Hydrol Sci J 46(1):157–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bertman S (2003) Handbook to life in ancient Mesopotamia. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 204Google Scholar
  9. Brimer RC (1995) Logistics networking. Logist Inf Manag 8(4):8–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bryant E (2006) Natural hazard. Cambridge University Press, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  11. Changa JI, Lin C-C (2006) A study of storage tank accidents. J Loss Prev Process Ind 19:51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chapman D (1994) Natural hazards. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Chigira M, Yagi M (2006) Geological and geomorphological characteristics of landslides triggered by the 2004 Mid Niigta prefecture earthquake in Japan. Eng Geol 82:202–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Corbin J, Strauss A (1990) Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual Sociol 13(1):3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Costa JE, Schuster RL (1988) The formation and failure of natural dams. Geol Soc Am Bull 100(7):1054–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eaves YD (2001) A synthesis technique for grounded theory data analysis. J Adv Nurs 35:654–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission (2010) Commission staff working paper: risk assessment and mapping guidelines for disaster management. Brussels, December. http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/about/COMM_PDF_SEC_2010_1626_F_staff_working_document_en.pdf
  18. Fiegel GL, Kutter BL (1994) Liquefaction mechanism for layered soils. J Geotech Eng 120:737–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geospatial Information Authority of Japan. http://www.gsi.go.jp/chibankansi/chikakukansi40005.html Accessed 25 Mar 2015
  20. Hamilton RM (2000) Science and technology for natural disaster reduction. Nat Hazards Rev 1(1):56–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harper MA, Thornton MA, Szygenda SA (2007) Disaster tolerant systems engineering for critical infrastructure protection. In: 1st annual IEEE systems conference, Honolulu, HI, 9–13 Apr 2007, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  22. Hibiya T, Kajiura K (1982) Origin of the Abiki Phenomenon (a Kind of Seiehe) in Nagasaki Bay. J Ceanogr Soc Jpn 38:172–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hirayama K, Yamazaki M, Shen HT (2002) Aspects of river ice hydrology in Japan. Hydrol Process 16:891–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Honda K, Terada T, Yoshida Y, Isitani D (1908) Secondary undulations of oceanic tides. J Coll Sci Imp Univ Tokyo Jpn 24:1–113Google Scholar
  25. Inverson RM (2000) Landslide triggering by rain infiltration. Water Resour Res 36(7):1897–1910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson JB, Ripepe M (2011) Volcano infrasound: a review. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 206:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ju-Jiang H (2000) Chi-Chi earthquake induced landslides in Taiwan. Earthq Eng Eng Seismol 2:25–33Google Scholar
  28. Kakinuma T, Fukita K (2011) A numerical study on long-wave generation and propagation due to atmospheric-pressure variation. J JSCE B2 (Harb Eng) 67(2):156–160Google Scholar
  29. Kakinuma T, Asano T, Inoue T, Yamashiro T, Yasuda K (2009) Survey on February 2009 Abiki Disaster in Urauchi Bay, Kamikoshiki Island. J JSCE B2 (Harb Eng) B2-65(1):1391–1395Google Scholar
  30. Kanamori H (1972) Mechanism of tsunami earthquakes. Phys Earth Planet Inter 6(5):346–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kappes MS, Keiler M, Elverfeldt KV, Glade T (2012) Challenges of analyzing multi-hazard risk: a review. Nat Hazards 64:1925–1958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kato K, Yamasato H (2013) The 2011 eruptive activity of Shinmoedake volcano, Kirishimayama, Kyushu, Japan—overview of activity and volcanic alert level of the Japan Meteorological Agency. Earth Planets Space 65:489–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kawamata K, Takaoka K, Ban K, Imamura F, Yamaki S, Kobayashi E (2005) Model of tsunami generation by collapse of volcanic eruption: the 1741 Oshima-Oshima Tsunami. Tsunamis Adv Nat Technol Hazards Res 23:79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keller EA, DeVecchio DE (2012) Natural hazards, 3rd edn. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, pp 143–145Google Scholar
  35. Krausmann E, Cruz AM (2013) Impact of the 11 March 2011, Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami on the chemical industry. Nat Hazards 67:811–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krausmann E, Mushtaq F (2008) A qualitative Natech damage scale for the impact of floods on selected industrial facilities. Nat Hazards 46:179–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kreibich H, Bubeck P, Kunz M, Mahlke H, Parolai S, Khazai B, Daniell J, Lakes T, Schroter D (2014) A review of multiple natural hazards and risks in Germany. Nat Hazards 74:2279–2304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levin J (2009) Hammurabi. Inforbase Publishing, NewYork, pp 54–55Google Scholar
  39. Marzocchi W, Mastellone ML, Di Ruocco A, Novelli P, Romeo E, Gasparini P (2009) Principles of multi-risk assessment, Interaction amongst natural and man-induced risks. Natural Risk Assessment (NaRAs) Project. http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/pdf/multi-risk_assessment.pdf
  40. Marzocchi W, Garcia-Aristizabal A, Gasparini P, Mastellone ML, Ruocco AD (2012) Basic principles of multi-risk assessment: a case study in Italy. Nat hazards 62(2):551–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meunier P, Hovius N, Haines JA (2008) Topographic site effects and the location of earthquake induced landslides. Earth Planet Sci Lett 275(3–4):221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mignan A, Wiemer S, Giardini D (2014) The quantification of low-probability–high-consequences events: part I. A generic multi-risk approach. Nat Hazards 73:1999–2022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miles SB (2011) Participatory model assessment of earthquake-induced landslide hazard models. Nat Hazards 56:749–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miyabuchi Y, Hanada D, Niimi H, Kobayashi T (2013) Stratigraphy, grain-size and component characteristics of the 2011 Shinmoedake eruption deposits, Kirishima Volcano, Japan. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 258:31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Montrasio L, Valentino R (2008) A model for triggering mechanisms of shallow landslides. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 8:1149–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nagai K, Hattori Y, Ashikari M (2010) Stunt or elongate? Two opposite strategies by which rice adapts to floods. J Plant Res 123:303–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nirupama N (2013) Tsunami versus storm surge: a brief review. Nat Hazards 69:1123–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ohbo N, Horikoshi N, Yamada T, Tachibana K, Akiba H (2004) Dynamic behavior of a underground motorway junction due to large earthquake. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 1–6 Aug 2004. Paper no. 1215Google Scholar
  49. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2012) Global modelling of natural hazard risks, enhancing existing capabilities to address new challenges. OECD Global Science Forum, Sept 2012. http://www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/Final%20GRMI%20report.pdf. Accessed 25 Mar 2015
  50. Pearce AJ, Watson AJ (1986) Effects of earthquake-induced landslides on sediment budget and transport over a 50-yr period. Geology 14:2–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Podolskiy EA, Nishimura K, Abe O, Chernous PA (2010) Earthquake-induced snow avalanches: I. Historical case studies. J Glaciol 56(197):431–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reddya MC, Paula SA, Abrahama J, McNeesea M, DeFlitchb C, Yena J (2009) Challenges to effective crisis management: using information and communication technologies to coordinate emergency medical services and emergency department teams. Int J Med Inform 78:259–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rodrígueza CE, Bommerb JJ, Chandler RJ (1999) Earthquake-induced landslides: 1980–1997. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 18:325–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schmidt J, Matcham I, Reese S, King A, Bell R, Henderson R, Smart G, Cousins J, Smith W, Heron D (2011) Quantitative multi-risk analysis for natural hazards: a framework for multi-risk modelling. Nat Hazards 58:1169–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Seed RB, Cetin KO, Moss RES, Kammerer AM, Wu J, Pestana JM, Riemer MF, Sancio RB, Bray JD, Kayen RE, Faris A (2003) Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: a unified and consistent framework. In: 26th annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, keynote presentation, H.M.S. Queen Mary, Long Beach, CA, 30 Apr 2003Google Scholar
  56. Shao WY (2010) Critical rainfall intensity for safe evacuation from underground spaces with flood prevention measures. J Univ Sci A (Appl Phys Eng) 11(9):668–676Google Scholar
  57. Showalter PS, Myers MF (1992), Natural disasters as the cause of technological emergencies: a review of the decade 1980–1989. Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Working paper #78Google Scholar
  58. Stimberis J, Rubin CM (2011) Glide avalanche response to an extreme rain-on-snow event, Snoqualmie Pass, Washington, USA. J Glaciol 57(203):468–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sui J, Koehler G (2001) Rain-on-snow induced flood events in Southern Germany. J Hydrol 252:205–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. The Applied Multi-risk Mapping of Natural Hazards for Impact Assessment (ARMONIA) Project (2007) http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/pdf/publications/fp6/natural_hazards/armonia.pdf
  61. The Asahi Shimbun. Corporate Report 2012 http://www.asahi.com/shimbun/company/2012.pdf. Accessed 25 Mar 2015
  62. The Shimbun Joho, No. 5618, 2014Google Scholar
  63. Tohno I, Shamoto Y (1986) Liquefaction damage to the ground during the 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu (Japan sea) earthquake in Aomori Prefecture, Tohoku, Japan. Nat Disaster Sci 8(1):85–116Google Scholar
  64. Udo K, Sugawara D, Tanaka H, Imai K (2012) Impact of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami on beach morphology along the Northern Sendai Coast. Coast Eng J 54(1):15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wait RB Jr, Pierson TC, Macleod NS, Janda RJ, Voight B, Holcomb RT (1983) Eruption-triggered avalanche, flood, and lahar at Mount St. Helens—effects of winter snowpack. Science 221(4618):1394–1397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wilson T, Stewart C, Cole J, Johnston D, Cronin S (2010) Vulnerability of farm water supply systems to volcanic ash fall. Environ Earth Sci 61:675–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wirtz A, Kron W, Low P, Steuer M (2014) The need for data: natural disasters and the challenges of database management. Nat Hazards 70:135–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Xu L, Meng X, Xu X (2014) Natural hazard chain research in China: a review. Nat Hazards 70:1631–1659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yoshitake Y (1992) Notes on liquefaction for reclamation dike design. J JSIDRE 60(9):813–818Google Scholar
  70. Young SR, Sparks RSJ, Aspinall WP, Lynch LL, Miller AD, Robertson REA, Shepherd JB (1998) Overview of the eruption of Soufriere Hills volcano, Montserrat, 18 July 1995 to December 1997. Geophys Res Lett 25(18):3389–3392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhou H, Wang W, Hecht M (2013) Three-dimensional derailment analysis of a crashed city tram. Veh Syst Dyn Int J Veh Mech Mobil 51(8):1200–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mieko Kumasaki
    • 1
  • Malcolm King
    • 2
  • Mitsuru Arai
    • 3
  • Lili Yang
    • 2
  1. 1.Yokohama National UniversityYokohamaJapan
  2. 2.Loughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK
  3. 3.The University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations