Multiple disasters management: Lessons from the Fukushima triple events

Abstract

It has been five and a half years since the Great East Japan Earthquake (GEJE) in March 2011. This study summarize management and policy lessons from the GEJE. The recovery efforts that followed the triple disasters: the earthquake, tsunami and meltdown of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant are in progress. The experience of the GEJE and tsunami prompted the building of embankments throughout the Pacific coastal side of the Tohoku region. The Cabinet’s Reconstruction Headquarters used at least 19 trillion yen ($158 billion) for intensive reconstruction over five years through 2015. The local government of the affected area accelerated the decontamination of commercial land which is an important action for the recovery. The central government introduced the Electricity Business Act for implementing voluntary energy conservation measures for peak energy seasons. The GEJE has had an indirect effect on the health of the disaster victims via job uncertainty as well. Decontamination is crucial in bringing people and businesses back to the affected area and promoting sustainable economic recovery because it reduces uncertainty about the short and long-term health risks. An efficient health and occupation plan for the victims is essential for the integrated approach to multiple disaster management

Going Back: Radiation and Intentions to Return amongst Households Evacuated after the Great Tohoku Earthquake

“…People from tsunami-affected towns state that they are unlikely to return home, despite the scale of the ongoing reconstruction efforts (Cho 2014;Managi and Guan 2017). This effect is not related to the scale of the destruction in the home town (as measured by the death-rate due to the disaster), but to the fact of having some exposure to the tsunami.…”

“…In March 11th, 2011 after an undersea earthquake deep off the north-eastern coast of Japan, a large tsunami hit the shore, causing flooding and large scale losses of life accompanied by widespread damage to property, particularly in the prefectures of Miyagi, Iwate and Fukushima (Managi and Guan 2017;Onuma et al 2017). The 15 m tsunami that breached the flood defences surrounding the Fukushima dai-ichi nuclear power stations in the municipality of Ōkuma, Fukushima inundated the power plants and left them under several metres of sea-water.…”

Decomposition analysis of corporate carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions in Japan: Integrating corporate environmental and financial performances

“…The account‐closing year of FY2011 (the base year) includes the year of GEJE (March 11, 2011) (Hayes et al, ), and/or the next year. GEJE generated triple disasters: the biggest earthquake (magnitude 9.0) on record, tsunami, and the nuclear problem of Fukushima (Managi & Guan, ). According to the Fire and Disaster Management Agency of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (), the death toll was 19 630 and 2569 missing.…”

“…Given data availability, this study targets 225 Japanese listed firms in 16 manufacturing sectors for the fiscal years (FY) 2011 to 2015 as an application example of a CO 2 decomposition model among the three models. Because FY2011 is the year after the Great East Japan Earthquake (GEJE) (March 2011), this study investigates how CO 2 emissions changed as the supply of electricity recovered in that period (Hayashi, ; Hayes et al, ; Managi & Guan, ).…”

“…Given data availability, this study targets 225 Japanese listed firms in 16 manufacturing sectors for the fiscal years (FY) 2011 to 2015 as an application example of a CO 2 decomposition model among the three models. Because FY2011 is the year after the Great East Japan Earthquake (GEJE) (March 2011), this study investigates how CO 2 emissions changed as the supply of electricity recovered in that period (Hayashi, 2012;Hayes et al, 2017;Managi & Guan, 2017 Among the 16 sectors, as of 2015, the change in total CO 2 emissions is statistically significantly positive for equity and significantly negative for the TATR and leverage, and it is not significantly correlated to the carbon intensity, the energy intensity, or the COGSR. Regarding the first question above, this thus indicates that absolute CEP is not significantly correlated to relative CEP (carbon intensity and energy intensity).…”