Topic: Japan’s Natural Disasters

1. Introduction

Paragraph 1: Thesis:  In response to disaster occurrences, Japan has strived to ensure effective response strategies and countermeasures are conducted to manage the resultant effects of natural disasters.

Paragraph 2: Topic sentence to speak about Japan’s landscape.

Detail 1: Most of the houses are built on slopes thus are vulnerable to floods

Paragraph 3: Natural disasters have been in occurrence for decades.

            Detail 1: Causes of disasters – overpopulation, urbanization, anthropogenic disturbances on the earth's surface

            Detail 2: The 2018 Japan Floods and 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami

 

2. The 2018 Japan Floods

Paragraph 1

            Topic Sentence: Japan is a country that is susceptible to floods

            Detail 1: Year and Cause of the floods

            Detail 2: Impacts of the floods and areas affected- Ehime, Kochi, Saga, and Gifu (Lin et al., 2020).

Paragraph 2

            Topic Sentence: The disaster had huge impacts

            Detail 1: List the impacts

Paragraph 3

Topic sentence: Japan carried out several countermeasures to minimize the risks associated with the floods

Detail 1: Response actions: Relocation, damage assessments, evacuation, search and rescue.

1. Response 1: Evacuation
   1. Stakeholders involved, methods used to alert residents on evacuation, reception of evacuation orders (CWS, 2019).
   2. Challenges during evacuation: Resistance, Physical inabilities, people were skeptical of the flood’s magnitude, Hazard maps did not produce accurate evacuation routes, crowded roads (CWS, 2019).
2. Search and Rescue (Council Report, 2018)

1. Number of people rescued and organizations involved
2. Modes and technology used
3. Challenges encountered – Destruction of electricity, road and rail networks, inadequate and unskilled rescuers, communication problem, Late responses by the rescuers
4. How the challenges were overcome – dispatching more secures in highly-hit areas, government restored electricity.

3. Rapid Assessment (PBV, 2018)

1. Who conducted the assessments and why?

4. Relocation

 

3. The 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami

Topic sentence:  The 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami was an impactful disaster in the country’s history.

Detail 1: The earthquake occurred on March 11 at 14:46 local time along the east coast of Japan, destroying more than 400 000 buildings (Leelawat et al. 2015, Zaré & Afrouz, 2012).

Detail 2: The earthquake destroyed major transportation systems and infrastructure and the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant

1. Recovery action 1: Formulating recovery plans (Leelawat et al., 2015).

1. The municipalities took part in developing the plans
2. The budget estimate was  USD 290 billion

 

2. Recovery action 2: Housing units

1. More than 656 houses had been constructed in Otsuchi (Relief Web, 2020

 

3. Recovery action 3: Fishing Villages

Topic Sentence: The Tohoku earthquake was mostly a coastal and rural catastrophe

1. The coastal municipalities and Fisheries agency developed budgets (Murakami et al., 2014).
2. Challenges – lack of collaboration among stakeholders and fish farmers

 

4. Conclusion

Topic Sentence: Japan is the leading disaster-prone country worldwide

Detail1: From these two disasters, it is clear that Japan faced huge human, environmental and economic losses.

Detail 2: Disaster response and recovery

Detail 3: Japan ought to have proper disaster management strategies.

 

Introduction

Natural disasters have significant impacts on environmental, human, and sustainable development. Currently, global warming resulting from natural and anthropogenic activities remains the world’s greatest cause of natural disasters. Some of the disasters include earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons, volcanic eruptions, cyclones, and floods. Major natural disasters cause a loss in one way or the other, depending on the intensity. Countries prone to natural disasters include United States, China, the Philippines, Indonesia, Japan, and India. Despite being a developed country, Japan is one of the world’s leading disaster-prone countries. It has experienced the worst twenty-first century natural disasters. However, in response to such occurrences, the country has strived to ensure effective response strategies and countermeasures are conducted to manage the resultant effects of those natural disasters.

Nearly two-thirds of Japan's land area is mountainous. Particularly, the delicate geological structure of the hilly regions makes them particularly vulnerable to landslides and mudslides in the event of a major earthquake or volcanic eruption (Lin et al., 2020). Most of the houses are built on slopes thus are vulnerable to floods, mudslides, and landslides. Nevertheless, the houses are built with wood, which can easily be destroyed by water or landslides (Lin et al., 2020).

Floods, tsunamis, and earthquakes are natural disasters that have been occurring worldwide since time immemorial, and they continue to challenge humankind. Majorly ignited as a result of climate change due to urbanization, overpopulation, and anthropogenic disturbances on the earth's surface, the risk of floods is constantly increasing. The history of natural disasters in Japan is traced back to the 6^th century. Since then, a series of disasters have been recorded in the 20^th century, such as the Wakayama flood, Great Ansei earthquake, 2019 Kyoto Animation Fire, and Great Hanshin flood (Wikipedia). The most recent flood occurred in 2018, and the deadliest earthquake occurred in 2011. These natural disasters are recorded as the deadliest since they covered large areas and had great impacts on the environment and people's livelihoods.

2018 Japan Floods

Japan is a country that is susceptible to floods. The deadliest freshwater disaster hit South West region of Japan.  The catastrophic floods resulting from torrential rains occurred in July 2018 (Lin et al., 2020).  In recent years, Japan has experienced high-frequency torrential rains, and the frequency of severe weather events is increasing. Referred to as "Heavy rain of July, Heisei 30," these floods triggered landslides, resulting in numerous deaths and the evacuation of millions of people (Bandaru et al., 2020). The most hit regions included Ehime, Kochi, Saga, and Gifu (Lin et al., 2020). These floods remain Japan's deadliest disaster surpassing the Nagasaki floods of 1982.

The disaster had huge impacts. For instance, industries and transportation services suspended their operations within and around the scope (Bandaru et al., 2020). As a result, Japan suffered significant damages in its major economic sectors such as fisheries, agriculture, and forestry. Additionally, the unexpected lockdown resulted in a severe shortage of food, water, and shelter, causing people to suffer from physical, psychological, and health-related stress (Bandaru et al., 2020).

In light of the disaster, Japan carried out several countermeasures to minimize the risks associated with the floods. The country carried out response tactics such as assessing the extent of the damage, search and rescue, relocating residents of the affected areas, and evacuating them. In addition, the Japanese government, its partners, and well wishes came together to support the affected population.

Response 1: Evacuation

From the area’s weather forecast presented by Japan’s meteorology department, predictions showed areas within Kurashiki City would continue to experience heavy rains (CWS, 2019). As a result, the city officials had started preparing for emergency evacuation on July 5 (CWS, 2019). The residents received the first evacuation orders the following day. People within the suspected areas were alerted through mobile phones, radio, television, and using loudspeakers (CWS, 2019). The orders were made late in that people were unsure of where they would shelter. Few minutes into the alerts, signs of flooding were already visible, and within few hours, one-third of the region was already flooded (CWS, 2019).

According to CWS Japan (2019), of all of the deaths caused by these floods, the majority died in their houses. These were a result of delays in evacuation. The reasons for the challenges experienced towards ensuring evacuation are numerous. From the death cases, it is evident that some residents had challenges evacuating while others were resistant. Many people did not run for safety immediately after the first warning was issued until the following days (CWS 2019).

The evacuation process faced various challenges. One of the reasons for failure to evacuate was physical inability. Physically challenged and the elderly could not leave their houses by themselves (CWS, 2019). Moreover, by the time people had started evacuating, it was already dark. Consequently, the movement for people in that category was difficult. Another reason was ignorance by the residents. The majority of the people were skeptical of the magnitude of the floods. As a result, most of them underestimated the floods' dangers (CWS, 2019). They dismissed the water would rise to unmanageable levels, and thus they failed to heed the evacuation orders.

Additionally, the evacuation orders did not provide specific places where people were supposed to go. The Hazard Map, for instance, only provided the areas designated for sheltering but failed to show the routes towards shelters (CWS, 2019). This made people meet the floods head-on hence the loss of their lives. Another challenge encountered is that the residents did not have enough time to prepare for evacuation. As stated earlier, the offices responsible delayed in relaying evacuation orders and alerts. To worsen the matter, the residents had not been alerted before preparing for such a disaster. This immensely affected the evacuation process as it was already too late when they wanted to evacuate at sunrise (CWS, 2019).

Nevertheless, although there was the provision of hazard maps and evacuation advisories, many people did not understand the immediate impact of the threat. Besides being ignorant, most of the people were indecisive about evacuating; hence they perished. Victims who were evacuated also faced challenges. For instance, the roads that led to the shelters were overcrowded, forcing some victims to be involved in accidents during evacuation (Council Report, 2018). Furthermore, evacuation routes were full of debris flows in some areas, which hindered movement (Council Report, 2018). All the above challenges disrupted evacuation efforts.

Response 2: Search and Rescue

Thousands of citizens, organizations, and humanitarian agencies assisted in search and rescue missions for the floods' victims. Since the floods came abrupt, many people were reported missing. In collaboration with its partner organizations, the government dispatched people to conduct 24hour rescue and search operations. According to the Council Report (2019), more than 50,000 people were involved in rescue operations. Some of them include emergency services, local military, fire and police departments, non-governmental organizations, and volunteers.

Due to the magnitude and scope of the floods, the rescuers used suitable technologies and means of transport to retrieve the victims. Aircraft and water vessels (Council Report, 2018) were the frequently used means. Aircrafts such as helicopters were used to rescue those trapped on roofs (Wikipedia), while boats retrieved those who were drowning or had perished. In few instances, victims could call for help by posting their location on social media (Wikipedia). This was easy as the rescuers could easily find their way towards them. Nevertheless, the Japanese soldiers patrolled door-to-door, inquiring about the degree of safety of the residents and rescuing those in distress (Wikipedia). Overall, everyone played a role in rescuing the victims.

Although few people were reported to have succumbed due to the floods, some challenges were encountered during the rescue operations. There was widespread damage to roads and telecommunication services necessary to support the search and rescue missions (Council Report, 2018). Destruction of electricity, rail, road and sewerage water networks slowed down emergency responses. Communication and transportation are vital for a search operation; thus, its absence slowed down or, in some instances, paralyzed rescuing the victims. Also, communication as a tool is vital in allocating resources needed in rescuing victims during any disaster. Insufficient information due to poor communication hindered resource allocation to the affected areas (Council Report, 2018).

 Another challenge is that the number of rescuers was insufficient as the scope of the floods was very wide (Council Report, 2018). Additionally, the rescuers could not effectively respond to the requests as the number was overwhelming. Lastly, emergency operations encountered difficulties in obtaining permission to access private property for garbage disposal, which further slowed the recovery process (Council Report, 2018).

The rescuers overcame the challenges in several ways. First, the government dispatched specialists along with the volunteers during the operations. The presence of at least one skilled personnel prevented any negative impact on the rescue team. Second, pump vehicles were dispatched to unclog blocked rivers and sewer lines (Council Report, 2018). Third, volunteers also helped to remove sediments and garbage on roads and small rivers in some areas (Council Report, 2018). Finally, electricity was restored in some urban areas for communication and sight purposes, hence enhanced search and rescue operations.

Response 3: Rapid Assessment

Various non-governmental organizations formulated a joint emergency relief team to conduct environmental and needs assessments. In addition, the organizations deployed response teams to gather information on what was happening in the affected areas to cover the ground. The assessments informed the stakeholders of the scope and magnitude of the floods. They also provided comprehensive data on what kind of support was needed in different regions (PBV, 2018).

The data obtained informed various decisions for flood management. For instance, the basic needs for a certain region could be determined, the conditions and capacities of the rescue shelters could be provided, and the number of homes destroyed could be estimated (PBV, 2018). This information was very instrumental in establishing the response actions. In cases where the shelters were overpopulated, proper coordination and management efforts were provided (PBV, 2018). The government and humanitarian agencies recruited more volunteers to help with the management activities as well. Additionally, in regions where basic needs were insufficient, the assessments' data helped quantify the items needed (PBV, 2018). The rapid assessment was vital for disaster management.

Response 4: Relocation of the Victims

Planned relocation was also among the response strategies of flood management during the disaster. The majority of the victims initiated the relocation processes themselves. Some went to nearby towns to start new lives, while others went to their relatives in flood-free zones. As a result, more than 23,000 people were forced out of their homes and were internally displaced. Temporary shelters provided by the government housed the flood victims.

The 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami

The 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami was an impactful disaster in the country’s history. It occurred on March 11 at 14:46 local time along the east coast of Japan, destroying more than 400 000 buildings (Leelawat et al. 2015, Zaré & Afrouz, 2012). This three minutes earthquake disrupted the pacific plate causing a 130-kilometer length by 159 kilometers width along it (Zaré & Afrouz, 2012). Its aftermath effects were so intense. It destroyed major transportation systems and infrastructure and the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant (Zaré & Afrouz, 2012). Ten years later, the Japanese government is still rebuilding the affected areas.

Recovery action 1: Formulation of plans

Fukushima’s recovery has been a multi-sectoral and joint effort from various arms of the government: the national, municipal, and local governments. Involving various levels was paramount for inclusivity. The municipalities affected developed the plan, formulated their budgets, and submitted them to the relevant ministries (Leelawat et al., 2015). The recovery and reconstruction were expected to cost USD 290 billion (Leelawat et al., 2015).

Recovery Action 2: Rebuilding Housing Units

Ten years later, the recovery and reconstruction of the heavily hit areas continued. Several structures have been erected to replace the ones destroyed. In its 29^th Progress Report, the Japanese Red Cross Society (JRCS) report indicated major reconstruction efforts by 2019. Supported by Taiwan Red Cross, the Japanese government erected 656 housing units in Otsuchi (located in Iwate Prefecture) by November 2019 (Relief Web, 2020).  Joint efforts with international organizations and other countries also saw Japan reconstruct Minamisanriku TowNnHospital located in Miyagi Prefecture (Relief Web, 2020).

Recovery Action 3: Rebuilding Fishing Villages

            The Tohoku earthquake was mostly a coastal and rural catastrophe. This recovery action was developed to cater to the rural areas hit by the earthquake. A special committee was set up to collect data on the affected rural communities. As most rural communities depend on the natural environment for their livelihoods, the earthquake and tsunami had destroyed them (Murakami et al., 2014). These communities depended on fishing activities.

            To start recovery processes, the affected municipalities formulated detailed recovery plans. The Fisheries Agency also formulated budgets to reconstruct the fishing villages and fishing port facilities (Murakami et al., 2014). Two years later, plans to relocate the fishing communities to higher grounds were underway (Murakami et al., 2014). The challenges faced here were lack of collaboration and differing ideologies on the activities to be implemented. 

Problems encountered during the recovery process include but are not limited to inadequate funding, inadequate construction materials, unskilled personnel, and difficulties when obtaining land and acquiring bidders for projects (Leelawat et al., 2015).

Conclusion

Japan is the leading disaster-prone country worldwide. The 2018 Japan Floods and the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami remain the most impactful natural disasters of the country. The effects of these disasters have been immense hence causing the country millions to strategize recovery actions. From these two disasters, it is clear that Japan faced huge human, environmental and economic losses. Lives were lost, houses and other buildings were destroyed, vegetation was swept away, people were evacuated, and many lost their dwellings, and sources of livelihoods were thwarted.  

On the other hand, recovery from a disaster is an emergency management reaction that occurs concurrently with a response to a disaster. The fundamental goal is to restore the disrupted activities by the disasters. Years have passed since the occurrence of the disasters, but Japan continues to revive its fallen towns, destroyed infrastructure, and dwindling economy. As a country prone to disasters, Japan ought to have proper disaster management strategies. Overall, the manifestations of disasters are unpredictable. However, to challenge these disasters, joint efforts among Japan's stakeholders are fundamental to promote disaster stronger interventions.