Vulnerability Characteristics of Tsunamis in Indonesia: Analysis of the Global Centre for Disaster Statistics Database

Paper: Vulnerability Characteristics of Tsunamis in Indonesia: Analysis of the Global Centre for Disaster Statistics Database

1,† 2 3 4 1 Anawat Suppasri∗ ,AbdulMuhari∗ ,Syamsidik∗ ,RidwanYunus∗ ,KwanchaiPakoksung∗ , 1 1 5 Fumihiko Imamura∗ ,ShunichiKoshimura∗ ,andRyanPaulik∗

1 ∗ International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku University 468-1 Aoba, Aramaki-Aza, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-0845, Japan †Corresponding author, E-mail: [email protected] 2 ∗ Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Jakarta, Indonesia 3 ∗ Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Center (TDMRC), Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh, Indonesia 4 ∗ United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Indonesia Country Office, Jakarta, Indonecia 5 ∗ National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), Wellington, New Zealand [Received April 24, 2018; accepted October 15, 2018]

Regional disaster data are important for understand- tsunami disaster data for the GCDS database. ing the characteristics of disasters and for identify- ing potential mitigation measures. However, many countries have no official disaster database that in- Keywords: global centre for disaster statistics, tsunami, cludes information such as numbers of deaths or dam- vulnerability, Indonesia, disaster database aged buildings for each disaster event. The Global Centre for Disaster Statistics (GCDS) was established to assist countries and organizations in the collection 1. Introduction of disaster data. At present, a significant amount of tsunami disaster data are available from Indone- The third World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduc- sia, which will be used to demonstrate its applica- tion (WCDRR) was held in Sendai on March 2015. At tion for analyzing vulnerability characteristics of his- that time, a new framework for disaster risk reduction, torical tsunamis. There are 53 data points covering referred to as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk 13 tsunami events between the year 1861 and 2014. Reduction (SFDRR), was adopted by 187 countries, and Based on data availability, five tsunami events, namely included seven global targets. This new framework will the 1977 Sumba, the 2004 Indian Ocean, the 2006 be applied between 2015 and 2030. In addition, post- Java, the 2010 Mentawai, and the 2011 Great East 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were also Japan, were selected. Numbers of deaths and dam- adopted in September 2015, with 17 global goals and aged buildings were used in combination with hazard 169 targets. These targets include reducing mortality, the data to estimate vulnerability, defined as the ratio be- numbers of affected people, and direct economic losses tween maximum flow depth against death and build- from disasters. The development of detailed disaster dam- ing damage ratios. Numbers of evacuees were initially age and loss-related information is crucial for measuring used to estimate actual numbers of exposed population and monitoring these targets. but it was later discovered that this parameter overes- timated the exposed population in certain cases. As 1.1. Tsunami Hazard-Related Information from aresult,thisstudypresentsthevulnerabilitycharac- Historic Tsunami Databases teristics of people and buildings in Indonesia, exposed to unusual or extreme tsunamis, mostly in a condi- There are few hazard databases in the tsunami research tion without or with limited access to official warn- field, namely (1) Global Historical Tsunami Database op- ings. In brief, a maximum flow depth of 5 m caused erated by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association an approximate 100% death ratio in the majority of (NOAA), USA [1], (2) Historical Tsunami Database for Indonesian tsunamis in this study. On the other hand, the World Ocean by Tsunami Laboratory, Novosibirsk, death ratio in the 2011 Japan tsunami was limited to Russia [2], and (3) Japan Tsunami Trace Database, In- 10% because of the early warning and high disaster ternational Research Institute of Disaster Science, To- awareness. Effective disaster risk reduction activities hoku University, Japan [3]. The main purposes of these such as official warnings, evacuations, and tsunami ed- databases are to collect and store hazard damage data, fol- ucation were observed for certain locations. Lastly, lowing tsunami disasters. Of these, NOAA’s global his- adding hazard and population data at the village level toric tsunami database is the most widely used because is recommended for improving the collection of future of its regularly updated information, completeness, global coverage area, and long coverage period. Therefore, the

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.13 No.6, 2018 1039 Suppasri, A. et al.

Table 1. Overview of the GCDS database focusing on tsunamirelated events in Indonesia.

Year Source location No. of points Main damage information Other damage related information 1861 SW Sumatra 1 b Not available 1973 Unknown 1 d Crops 1977* Sunda Islands 5 b,c,d Education related facilities, crops 1979 Lomblen Island 1 b,d,e Not available 1991 Unknown 1 b,d Not available 1992 Flores Sea 1 b,g Education related facilities 1994 South of Java 1 b,d Not available 2004* West of Sumatra 21 a,b,c,d,e, f,g,i Health and education related facilities, crops, roads 2006* South of Java 9 b,c,d,e,g,i Offices, kiosks, infrastructures, rice fields, health, education and worship related facilities, roads 2010∗ Sumatra 1 a,b,c,d,e,g,i Offices, education and worship related facilities 2011* East of Japan 1 b,e,g,i Roads, health and worship related facilities 2012* NW Sumatra 9 b,c Offices 2014a NMoluccasIslands 1 No damage Infrastructures * = events that were analyzed and discussed in this study, a = losses (million rupias), b = number of deaths, c = number of injuries, d = number of missing, e = number of evacuees, f = number of affected people, g = number of major damaged buildings, h = numbers of moderate damaged buildings, and i = numbers of minor damaged buildings

maximum tsunami height data from the NOAA database sia, where data are available for few historical tsunami are the most commonly used. events. These data must be supplemented with other The estimated maximum flow depth was obtained by sources to form a tsunami disaster statistics database for subtracting the maximum tsunami height by land eleva- Indonesia. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate tion (MSL) at the same position from a substantial number how GCDS data from historic tsunami events in Indone- of sources, namely Lidar measurement data from the In- sia could be used to identify people and building vulner- donesian National Agency for Disaster Management [4], abilities to hazard exposure, and determine the impact of contour map from Indonesian National Institute of Aero- disaster risk reduction (DRR) measures on lowering such nautics and Space [5], and ALOS (Advanced Land Ob- vulnerability. Recommendations for the collection of fu- serving Satellite) PALSAR (Phased Array type L-band ture tsunami disaster data are determined to improve vul- Synthetic Aperture Radar) [6]. In addition to hazard- nerability research activities and disaster statistics report- related data, damage information was stored for each ing for GCDS. tsunami event. The NOAA database contains general in- formation about tsunami sources (earthquake, landslide, volcanic eruption, etc.) and occurrence times. For every 1.2. Tsunami Damage-Related Information from single tsunami height, information on its validity, distance the GCDS Database from the source, arrival time, wave period, numbers of The GCDS database provides 53 district- or city-level death, numbers of injured and missing persons, and num- damage data points from 13 tsunami events between 1861 bers of destroyed houses was stored. and 2014. Each data point includes the occurrence year, The Global Centre for Disaster Statistics (GCDS) was source location, number of points, main damage infor- established in March 2015 under collaboration between mation, and other damage-related information, which are the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and summarized in Table 1 and the targeted tsunamis in this the International Research Institute of Disaster Science study is shown in Fig. 1.Certaintsunamieventsprovide (IRIDeS) at Tohoku University. Each organization is as- only one tsunami information data point for each repre- signed the task of collecting global disaster data from sented location. historic events and centralizing them in a global disas- In other cases, one point is available for one adminis- ter statistics database. There are seven pilot countries, trative area such as district or city, even though there are namely Cambodia, Indonesia, thePhilippines,Maldives, asignificantnumberofvillagesaffectedbytherespec- Myanmar, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. At present, only a cer- tive tsunami. Although the GCDS database consists of no tain amount of disaster data from the Indonesian gov- tsunami hazard information, additional damage and im- ernment are ready for utilization in database develop- pact information is provided, such as numbers of evac- ment and research activities. However, data are often not uees, affected people, damaged infrastructure, and pub- available or are incomplete for all disaster types. This lic facilities at city or district level; however, not for all is the case for tsunami, a frequent disaster in Indone- events. It has been established from a previous study [7]

1040 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.13 No.6, 2018 Vulnerability Characteristics of Tsunamis in Indonesia: Analysis of the Global Centre for Disaster Statistics Database

Fig. 1. Locations of the targeted tsunamis in this study.

Table 2. Outlines of the target tsunamis in this study.

Tsunami events Earthquake Maximum tsunami Earthquake type Local warning condition magnitude height [m] 1977 Sumba 8.0 (Ms) 15 Normal fault outer-rise No official warning 2004 Indian Ocean 9.1 (Mw) 50.9 Megathrust No official warning 2006 Java 7.7 (Mw) 20.9 Tsunami earthquake Limited official warning 2010 Mentawai 7.8 (Mw) 16.9 Tsunami earthquake Limited official warning 2011 Great East Japan 9.1 (Mw) 2.8 Megathrust / distant tsunami Official warning

that city or district levels provide considerable uncer- population in the tsunami-affected area was estimated by tainty for vulnerability analysis, as the exposed popula- the total numbers of deaths, injured and missing persons, tion (numbers of population in tsunami inundation area) is and evacuees. D and M measure the vulnerability scale of often overestimated. For the GCDS database, numbers of coastal residents and buildings, whereas D/M can be used evacuees are used as representatives of the exposed popu- to demonstrate an evacuation condition. A minimal D/M lation. Using these numbers might substantially overesti- value can reflect substantial numbers of people evacuated mate the exposed population. from buildings that experienced major damage.

1.3. Vulnerability Indexes In this study, there are four indexes used in the compar- 2. Target Tsunamis ison of tsunami vulnerability, namely death and missing Combining tsunami hazard information from NOAA ratio (D), major damaged building ratio (M), and death together with damage information from the GCDS and missing persons per major damaged building ratio database enables their relationship to be investigated. (D/M), as defined below in Eqs. (1)–(3). Data availability provides five historic tsunami events for b analysis: the 1977 Sumba, the 2004 Indian Ocean, the D = ...... (1) (b + c + d + e) 2006 Java, the 2010 Mentawai, and the 2011 Great East g Japan tsunamis (Fig. 1 and Table 2). M = ...... (2) Each tsunami event has a different hazard reflected in (g + h + i) the reported number of casualties. Major outlines of the D b targeted tsunamis including earthquake magnitude, maxi- = ...... (3) M g mum tsunami height, earthquake types, and local warning conditions as summarized in and discussed in the It should be noted that there is no population data in Table 2 following subsections. the GCDS database; therefore, it was assumed that the

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.13 No.6, 2018 1041 Suppasri, A. et al.

2.1. 1977 Sumba Tsunami tsunami [18]. This contributed greatly to the 500 fatalities Large tsunami waves were generated after an unusually caused by this tsunami. To analyze the vulnerability, this large normal faulting earthquake occurred off the south- event has a sufficient number of data points in the GCDS west coast of Sumba Island. This was the largest outer- database. The nine points include tens of fatalities for four rise earthquake ever recorded in Indonesia [8]. A field districts: Kebumen, Tasikmalaya, Cilacap, and Ciamis. survey [9] reported maximum tsunami heights of 8 m in These damage data points will be compared with those Sumbawa Island and 4–5 m in Bali, Lombok, and Sumba from a previous study [19], which reported a 10% death Islands. They also reported damage details (numbers of ratio at 3 m flow depth for Ciamis district and 5–15% at deaths, missing and injured persons, damaged houses and 2.5–3.5 m flow depth at village level. It should be noted ships) of a significant number of villages in Lombok and that the previous study made assumptions to estimate the Sumbawa Islands. The highest ratio of deaths and major exposed population. As it reported from a questionnaire damaged buildings was 1.62 in Lunyuk, Sumbawa Island survey [20], minimal numbers of residents received the and approximately 0.20 in Awang and Kuta in Lombok official warning; however, not all of them reported prior Island. knowledge of tsunami awareness and education.

2.2. 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami 2.4. 2010 Mentawai Tsunami This was the first devastating tsunami in written history This event occurred off the west coast of Sumatra Is- for the Indian Ocean region. Its return period was deter- land in the Mentawai Islands region. Similar to the 2006 mined to be approximately 550–700 years [10, 11]. The Java tsunami, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake generated a tsunami affected not only Indonesia, but also other coun- large tsunami of approximately 10 m [21]. The previ- tries in the Indian Ocean such as Thailand, Sri Lanka, ous study estimates a death ratio of 25–50% for 3.5– India, Maldives, and certain African countries. A mag- 6.0 m flow depths based on observations from four vil- nitude 9.3 earthquake generated a large tsunami of more lages (Asahan, Sabeu Gunggung, Mentei, and Tumalei). than 20 m in Indonesia, where Banda Aceh was the most The tsunami struck at night time and the island landscapes damaged area, with more than 230,000 fatalities [12]. made evacuation difficult for local people. Tsunami ar- There was neither a national [13] nor regional tsunami rival times were significantly short for several coastal vil- warning coverage in the Indian Ocean region at that lages, as short as 9 min in some cases [22]. Nevertheless, time [12]. This led to the large numbers of casualties. minimal numbers of casualties in Tumalei village in the There are 21 points (mainly in Aceh province) in the North Pagai Island were reportedasaresultofpriortrain- GCDS database for this event. The damage-related data ing and education about tsunami awareness by various or- will be compiled with hazard data (tsunami height) from ganizations [21]. Furthermore, few deaths were reported the NOAA tsunami database for further analysis. Previous in other villages in the North Pagai Island because of res- studies [14] and [15] investigated the relationship between idential buildings being located at higher elevations after tsunami hazard against casualty and building damage in apreviousearthquakeandtsunamiin2007[22].There Banda Aceh, in the form of fragility functions. Although is just one point representing the Mentawai Islands in the asubstantialamountoffluctuationinthedeathratioplots GCDS database for this event. against the flow depth is observed, the proposed fragility functions indicate that death ratios rapidly increase when the flow depth exceeds 2 m (10% death ratio), reaching 2.5. 2011 Great East Japan Tsunami 90% at 5 m. This is the only distant tsunami discussed in this study. It is important to note that prior to the 2004 Indian The largest earthquake magnitude of 9.0 ever recorded in Ocean tsunami, the majority of buildings in the coastal Japan generated more than 20–30 m of tsunami that de- area of Aceh were made from wooden material and were stroyed a substantial amount of coastal areas in the north- semi-permanent. Non-engineered buildings could also be east region of Japan. A substantial number of countries found around the coastal area as they were more afford- around the Pacific rim issued official tsunami warnings, able for the coastal communities [16]. As in the case of and event information was extensively reported by televi- Aceh, the plotted ratios in this study represent the condi- sion and social media. Although there were more than tion before the 2004 tsunami. The present housing con- 18,000 deaths in Japan, only two deaths were reported ditions in the study area may differ from prior to the outside Japan: one in Indonesia and another in the US. tsunami, as a substantial amount of reconstruction pro- In contrast, the 1960 Chile tsunami caused more than 140 cesses have taken place over the past decade. deaths in Japan, due to no such regional warning system at that time [13]. Therefore, the importance of tsunami warning, media, and education for distant tsunamis is 2.3. 2006 Java Tsunami clearly demonstrated by this event. In Jayapura City, Tsunami flow depths of 7 m were generated by a where one death was observed, the average flow depth magnitude 7.7 earthquake off Java Island. The tsunami was 1.5 m [23]. The GCDS database contains one data occurred from an unusual “tsunami earthquake” [17] point for this event, with a report of more than 60 evac- which had a minor shaking effect but produced a major uees and 30 houses damaged or destroyed. There is no

1042 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.13 No.6, 2018 Vulnerability Characteristics of Tsunamis in Indonesia: Analysis of the Global Centre for Disaster Statistics Database

2006 (Previous study) 2004 (GCDS) 2006 (GCDS) 2010 (GCDS) 2011 (GCDS) 100,000 d + +

b 10,000 Ciamis

1,000

100

10 No.f of death and missing, and death of No.f

1 1101001,00010,000100,000 No. of major damaged building, g

Fig. 2. Relationship between numbers of major damaged buildings and human casualties.

Fig. 3. Relationship between maximum flow depth, and available data from NOAA database to estimate the flow death and missing ratio. depth in Jayapura City.

3. Results and Discussions depths. A trend between the maximum flow depth, and 3.1. Relationship Between Major Building Damage death and missing ratio (D)canbeseenfromvillage- and Human Casualties level data from all local tsunamis in previous studies as 5–20% for 2–4 m (2006 Java tsunami), 25–50% for 3.5– This relationship can be observed using the GCDS In- 4.5 m (2010 Mentawai tsunami), and as high as 70–90% donesian database. District-level damage data for the for 3.0–7.0 m (2004 Indian Ocean tsunami). In contrast, 2004 Indian Ocean, 2006 Java, 2010 Mentawai, and 2011 this ratio was 10% at 5 m maximum flow depth for the Great East Japan tsunami events are plotted in Fig. 2.A 2011 Japan tsunami as a result of the official warnings single data point for Ciamis district was determined by and higher tsunami awareness [7], as well as only one village-level data from the previous 2006 Java tsunami death in Indonesia because of an effective distant tsunami study [19], which reported building damage and casu- warning [23]. alty data from a substantial number of villages in the dis- Although the GCDS has few data points at district level, trict. A simple linear relationship can be interpreted by the the majority align well with those of previous studies. For number of deaths and missing persons (b + d)equivalent the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, district-level death ratios to between 1 and 10% of major damaged buildings (g). were considerably lower than those at village level. This This relationship can be established for tsunami-affected indicates that the number of people evacuated leads to an areas with very low tsunami awareness and evacuation be- overestimation of the exposed population, or the low reso- havior. lution of land elevation data overestimates maximum flow depths (i.e., Aceh Besar and Aceh Barat in Fig. 3). Although the maximum flow depth on Simeulue Island 3.2. Relationship Between Maximum Flow Depth, could not be estimated and plotted because of absent land and Death and Missing Ratio elevation data, the low death ratio observed in the 2004 Death ratio and maximum flow depth reported for vil- Indian Ocean tsunami was influenced by high tsunami lages in Banda Aceh for the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami awareness and evacuation rates [24]. are shown in Fig. 3 [14, 15]. For the 2006 Java tsunami, For the 2006 Java tsunami, Ciamis district’s 8.5% death assumptions were made [18] to estimate exposed popula- ratio at 2.19 m flow depth was reported from the GCDS tion and subsequent death ratios for five villages in Ciamis data, closely corresponding to 9% at 3 m observed from district. In anothercase,deathratiosforvillagesexposed the corresponding study [19]. In contrast, the previous to the 2010 Mentawai tsunami were estimated from dam- study on the 2010 Mentawai tsunami [21] estimated a 30– age reported from interviews with local villagers during 50% death ratio compared to 3% from GCDS data. This afieldsurvey[20].Foralleventsdescribedhere,the suggests that the latter considerably overestimated the ex- 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami appears to provide an up- posed population compared to the actual population iden- per limit for death ratios at corresponding maximum flow tified in the previous study [22].

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.13 No.6, 2018 1043 Suppasri, A. et al.

2006 (GCDS) 2010 (GCDS) 2011 (GCDS) flow depth accuracy is also observed in Fig. 5.Maximum 100

M flow depth for Aceh Barat in GCDS data is estimated at 90 11 m, while measured maximum flow depths were be- 80 tween 4 and 6 m [14, 15]. This explains the outlying 70 GCDS data point relative to those plotted for other loca- 60 tions and tsunami events. For the 2006 Java tsunami in 50 Cilacap, a D/M ratio of 5 for 2 m maximum flow depth is (%) observed. This resulted from a low evacuation ratio where 40 only 11% of residents received an official warning [20]. 30 20 10 3.4. Discussions

Major damaged building ratio, building damaged Major 0 In general, there are three steps for safe tsunami evac- 0246uation; (1) issuing an official warning and evacuation Maximum flow depth (m) education, (2) making the decision to evacuate, based on tsunami risk perception or previous experience, and Fig. 4. Relationship between maximum flow depth and ma- (3) selecting an unobstructed route to a safe destina- jor damaged building ratio (M). tion [23]. As lessons from the past tsunamis in this study, strengthening these three steps, especially warning and

2006 (Previous study) 2004 (GCDS) education, will reduce human vulnerability, as revealed 2006 (GCDS) 2010 (GCDS) in previous studies on the Indonesian tsunami [18, 19] in 2011 (GCDS) comparison with the 2011 Japan tsunami [7]. The rela- 10 tionship identified between the maximum flow depth and other damage information can be used to provide a death Cilacap ratio estimate for Indonesian populations exposed to fu- ture tsunami events. The death ratio is expected to be re- M / 1 duced where official warnings are issued to exposed pop- D ulations and tsunami education precedes future tsunami events.

0.1 Aceh Barat 4. Conclusions building ratio, building 4.1. Tsunami Vulnerability and DRR Perspectives 0.01 This study demonstrates the GCDS database ap-

Death and missing per major damaged major per missing and Death 051015 plication for analyzing tsunami vulnerability in DRR Maximum flow depth (m) perspectives. Vulnerability characteristics of unusual tsunamis were identified, including Indonesia’s largest Fig. 5. Relationship between maximum flow depth, and recorded tsunami event (2004 Indian Ocean tsunami) and death and missing per major damaged building ratio (D/M). two tsunami earthquakes (2006 Java tsunami and 2010 Mentawai tsunami). The relationship identified between maximum flow depth and other damage information could 3.3. Relationship Between Maximum Tsunami be used for preliminary tsunami damage assessments. In brief, a 5 m maximum flow depth resulted in a 100% death Flow Depth, Major Damaged Building Ratio ratio for the target tsunamis in this study. In contrast, for and Death per Major Damaged Building Ratio the 2011 Japan tsunami, a 10% death ratio was reported In this study, major damaged building ratios (M)were for this flow depth, where exposed populations received calculated based on three events: the 2006 Java, 2010 official warnings and high tsunami awareness. For In- Mentawai, and 2011 Japan tsunamis (Fig. 4).Onlyfour donesian locations such as Simeulue and North Pagai Is- data points represent these events; however, it can be ob- lands, tsunami education and planned evacuation routes served that M increases when the maximum flow depth to higher elevations could reduce vulnerability to future increases. tsunami events. Number of deaths per major damaged building ratio Although exposed populations in Indonesia received (D/M)canbeobservedtobeincreasingwiththeincrease official warnings for minor distant source tsunami, DRR in maximum flow depth (Fig. 5).Thisisbecausethe2004 activities could reduce vulnerability for such events in fu- Indian Ocean, 2006 Java, and 2010 Mentawai tsunamis ture. Number of deaths from the 2011 Japan tsunami was either created higher than expected waves and had lim- limited to one person in Indonesia as a result of an of- ited warning time or low evacuation ratios. The influ- ficial warning and information transfer by television and ence of low resolution land elevation data on maximum social media. Effective tsunami warning and education

1044 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.13 No.6, 2018 Vulnerability Characteristics of Tsunamis in Indonesia: Analysis of the Global Centre for Disaster Statistics Database are important for reducing future tsunami vulnerability in [2] Historical Tsunami Database for the World Ocean (HTDB/WLD), Institute of Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Geo- Indonesia and other developing countries, where financial physics, Tsunami Laboratory, Novosibirsk, Russia, http://tsun.sscc. support for structural mitigation measures such as break- ru/tsunami-database/index.php [accessed March 11, 2018] waters, seawalls, and flood gates is limited [25,26]. [3] Japan Tsunami Trace Database, International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University, http://tsunami-db.irides. tohoku.ac.jp/tsunami/toppage.php [accessed March 11, 2018] [4] Indonesian National Agency for Disaster Management, https:// 4.2. Limitations and Future Improvements bnpb.go.id/en/bnpb-laravel [accessed March 29, 2018] [5] Indonesian National Institute of Aeronautics and Space, https:// Recommendations for GCDS database improvements lapan.go.id/ [accessed March 29, 2018] for tsunami events are described as follows: [6] ALOS – PALSAR, http://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/ALOS/en/about/palsar. htm [accessed March 29, 2018] -Addinghazard-relatedandpopulationdata. [7] A. Suppasri, N. Hasegawa, F. Makinoshima, F. Imamura, P. Latcharote, and S. Day, “An Analysis of Fatality Ratios and the Fac- tors That Affected Human Fatalities in the 2011 Great East Japan Damage-related data in the present format were not Tsunami,” Frontiers in Built Environment, Earthquake Engineering, sufficient for the vulnerability analysis in this study. Mega Quakes: Cascading Earthquake Hazards and Compounding Population data (at the time of disasters) integrated Risks, Vol.2, No.32, pp. 1-13, 2016. [8] A. R. Gusman, Y. Tanioka, H. Matsumoto, and S. Iwasaki, “Analy- with other tsunami hazard databases, official lo- sis of the Tsunami Generated bytheGreat1977SumbaEarthquake cal and central government statistics databases, and that Occurred in Indonesia,” Bulletin of the Seismological Soci- ety of America, Seismological Society of America, Vol.99, No.4, world population open data inventories [27] will en- pp. 2169-2179, 2009. hance database application for analyzing population [9] K. Kato and Y. Tsuji, “Tsunami of the Sumba earthquake of August 19, 1977,” J. of Natural Disaster Science, Vol.17, No.2, pp. 87-100, vulnerability from historical tsunami events. 1995. [10] K. Monecke, W. Finger, D. Klarer, W. Kongko, B. G. McAdoo, -Estimationofmaximumflowdepth. A. L. Moore, and S. U. Sudrajat,“A 1,000-year sediment record of tsunami recurrence in northernSumatra,”Nature,Vol.455, Tsunami maximum flow depth estimates in this pp. 1232-1234, 2008. study were dependent on both measured tsunami [11] K. Jankaew, B. F. Atwater, Y. Sawai, M. Choowong, T. Charoen- titirat, M. E. Martin, and A. Prendergast, “Medieval forewarning flow depths from NOAA’s global historic tsunami of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Thailand,” Nature, Vol.455, database and inferences from land elevation data. pp. 1228-1231, 2008. [12] A. Suppasri, K. Goto, A. Muhari, P. Ranasinghe, M. Riyaz, M. Af- There were many locations where land elevation data fan, E. Mas, M. Yasuda, and F. Imamura, “A decade after the 2004 resolution was not sufficient to derive maximum flow Indian Ocean tsunami: The progress in disaster preparedness and future challenges in Indonesia, SriLanka,ThailandandtheMal- depths estimates for data points. Therefore, the dives,” Pure and Applied Geophysics, Vol.172, No.12, pp. 3313- GCDS database should include tsunami flow depth 3341, 2015. data published from a range of reliable sources such [13] A. Suppasri, P. Latcharote, J. D. Bricker, N. Leelawat, A. Hayashi, K. Yamashita, F. Makinoshima, V. Roeber, and F. Imamura, “Im- as peer reviewed historic tsunami databases and jour- provement of tsunami countermeasures based on lessons from the nal publications. 2011 great east japan earthquake and tsunami – Situation after five years –,” Coastal Engineering J., Vol.58, No.4, p. 1640011, 2016. [14] S. Koshimura, T. Oie, H. Yanagisawa, and F. Imamura, “Develop- -Downscalefromdistricttovillagelevel. ing fragility curves for tsunami damage estimation using numerical model and post-tsunami data from Banda Aceh, Indonesia,” Coastal This study used numbers of evacuated people to Engineering J., Vol.51, No.3, pp. 243-273, 2009. estimate the numbers of exposed population when [15] S. Koshimura, Y. Namegaya,andH.Yanagisawa,“Tsunami Fragility – A new measure to assess tsunami damage,” J. Disaster calculating death ratios. This method resulted in Res., Vol.4, pp. 479-488, 2009. areasonablevillagelevelexposedpopulationesti- [16] A. Ghobarah, M. Saatcioglu, and I. Nistor, “The impact of the 26 December 2004 earthquake and tsunami on structures and infras- mate for the 2006 Java tsunami, but a large district- tructures,” Engineering Structures, Vol.26, pp. 312-326, 2006. level overestimate for the 2010 Mentawai tsunami. [17] C. J. Ammon, H. Kanamori, T. Lay, and A. A. Velasco, “The 17 It is expected that estimating populations exposed to July 2006 Java tsunami earthquake,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol.33, p. L24308, 2006. tsunami at village level could reduce the tendency [18] K. Satake and Y. Tanioka, “Sources of Tsunami and Tsunamigenic to over-estimate population exposure at district or Earthquakes in Subduction Zones,” Pure and Applied Geophysics, larger spatial scales. Vol.154, No.3-4, pp. 467-483, 1999. [19] S. Reese, W. J. Cousins, W. L. Power, N. G. Palmer, I. G. Te- jakusuma, and S. Nugrahadi, “Tsunami vulnerability of buildings and people in South Java – field observations after the July 2006 Java tsunami,” Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol.7, Acknowledgements pp. 573-589, 2007. This study was funded through IRIDeS, Tohoku University, by [20] A. Muhari, S. Diposaptono, and F. Imamura, “Toward an Inte- the Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.; the Willis grated Tsunami Disaster Mitigation: Lessons Learned from Previ- ous Tsunami Events in Indonesia,” J. of Natural Disaster Science, Research Network (WRN); and JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Young Sci- Vol.29, No.1, pp. 13-19, 2007. entists (B) “Applying developed fragility functions for the Global [21] K. Satake, Y. Nishimura, P. S.Putra,A.R.Gusman,H.Sunen- Tsunami Model (GTM)” (grant no. 16K16371). Dr. Anawat Sup- dar, Y. Fujii, Y. Tanikoka, H. Latief, and E. Yulianto, “Tsunami source of the 2010 Mentawai, Indonesia earthquake inferred from pasri appreciates the great assistance from Dr. Shaun Williams, tsunami field survey and waveform modeling,” Pure and Applied NIWA, on the 2006 Java tsunami data. Geophysics, Vol.170, pp. 1567-1582, 2013. [22] Syamsidik and D. C. Istiyanto, “Tsunami Mitigation Measures for Tsunami Prone Small Islands: Lessons Learned from the 2010 Tsunami around the Mentawai Islands of Indonesia,” J. of Earth- References: quake and Tsunami, Vol.7, No.1, p. 1350002, 2013 [1] Global Historical Tsunami Database, National Geophysical Data [23] S. Diposaptono, A. Muhari, F.Imamura,S.Koshimura,andH. Center / World Data Service (NGDC/WDS), National Geophysical Yanagisawa, “Impacts of the 2011 East Japan tsunami in the Papua Data Center, NOAA, doi:10.7289/V5PN93H7, https://www.ngdc. region, Indonesia: field observation data and numerical analyses,” noaa.gov/hazard/tsu db.shtml [accessed March 11, 2018] Geophysical J. Int., Vol.194, pp. 1625-1639, 2013.

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.13 No.6, 2018 1045 Suppasri, A. et al.

[24] A. Suppasri, N. Shuto, F. Imamura, S. Koshimura, E. Mas, and A. C. Yalciner, “Lessons learned from the 2011 Great East Japan tsunami: Performance of tsunami countermeasures, coastal build- Name: ings and tsunami evacuation in Japan,” Pure and Applied Geo- Abdul Muhari physics, Vol.170, No.6-8, pp. 993-1018, 2013. [25] F. Imamura, “Dissemination ofInformationandEvacuationProce- Affiliation: dures in the 2004-2007 Tsunamis, Including the 2004 Indian Ocean. Head of Coastal Disaster Mitigation Section, J. of Earthquake and Tsunami, Vol.3, No.2, pp. 59-65, 2009. Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries [26] A. Suppasri, N. Leelawat, P. Latcharote, V. Roeber, K. Yamashita, A. Hayashi, H. Ohira, K. Fukuki, A. Hisamatsu, D. Nguyen, and F. Imamura, “The 2016 Fukushima Earthquake and Tsunami: Pre- liminary research and new considerations for tsunami disaster risk reduction,” Int. J. of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.21, pp. 323-330, 2017. Address: [27] World Population Data, http://www.worldpopdata.org/ [accessed 8th floor, Mina Bahari III Bld., No.16 Medan Merdeka Timur, Jakarta March 22, 2018] 10110, Indonesia Brief Career: 2012- Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University 2015- Head, Coastal Disaster Mitigation Section, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Name: Selected Publications: Anawat Suppasri A. Muhari, I. Charvet, T. Futami, A. Suppasri, and F. Imamura, “Assessment• of tsunami hazards in ports and their impact on marine Affiliation: vessels derived from tsunami models and the observed damage data,” Associate Professor, International Research In- Natural Hazards, Vol.78, Issue 2, pp 1309-1328, 2015. stitute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku A. Muhari, S. Kure, J. D. Bricker, and Y. Fukutani, “Evacuation decision University during• the flood: a case from the 2013 Jakarta flood,” Tohoku J. of Natural Disaster Science, Vol.50, pp. 257-262, 2014. A. Muhari, F. Imamura, S. Koshimura, and J. Post, “Examination of three• practical run-up model for assessing tsunami impact on highly populated areas,” Natural Hazard and Earth System Science (NHESS), Address: Vol.11, pp. 3107-3123, 2011. 468-1 Aoba, Aramaki-Aza, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-0845, Japan Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations: Brief Career: Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE) 2010- Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Disaster Control Research Center, • Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS) Tohoku University • European Geosciences Union (EGU) 2012- Associate Professor, International Research Institute of Disaster • Science, Tohoku University Selected Publications: A. Suppasri, K. Fukui, K. Yamashita, N. Leelawat, O. Hiroyuki, and F. Imamura,• “Developing fragility functions for aquaculture rafts and eelgrass in the case of the 2011 Great East Japan tsunami,” Natural Name: Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol.18, pp. 145-155, 2018. Syamsidik A. Suppasri, N. Leelawat, P. Latcharote, V. Roeber, K. Yamashita, A. • Hayashi, H. Ohira, K. Fukui, A. Hisamatsu, D. Nguyen, and F. Imamura, Affiliation: “The 2016 Fukushima Earthquake and Tsunami: Preliminary research and Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Cen- new considerations for tsunami disaster risk reduction,” Int. J. of Disaster ter (TDMRC), Syiah Kuala University Risk Reduction, Vol.21, pp. 323-330, 2017. Lecturer, Civil Engineering Department, Faculty A. Suppasri, P. Latcharote, J. D. Bricker, N. Leelawat, A. Hayashi, K. of Engineering, Syiah Kuala University Yamashita,• F. Makinoshima, V. Roeber, and F. Imamura, “Improvement of tsunami countermeasures based on lessons from the 2011 great east japan earthquake and tsunami – Situation after five years –,” Coastal Engineering J., Vol.58, No.4, p. 1640011, 2016. Address: Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations: Jl. Prof. Dr. Ibrahim Hasan, Gp. Pie, Banda Aceh 23233, Indonesia Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE) Brief Career: • Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS) 1999- Junior Teaching Staff, Syiah Kuala University • European Geosciences Union (EGU) 2009- Joined TDMRC, Syiah Kuala University • 2017- Visiting Scholar, Georgia Institute of Technology 2018- Visiting Scholar, IRIDeS, Tohoku University Selected Publications: “Development of accurate tsunami estimated times of arrival for tsunami-prone• cities in Aceh, Indonesia,” Int. J. of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.14, No.4, pp. 403-410, 2015. “Changes in coastal land use and the reasons for selecting places to live in• Banda Aceh 10 years after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami,” Natural Hazards, Vol.88, No.3, pp. 1503-1521, 2017. “Numerical simulation of the impacts of reflected tsunami waves on Pulo Raya• Island during the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami,” Vol.20, No.6, pp. 489-499, 2016. Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations: Indonesian Disaster Experts Association (IABI) •

1046 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.13 No.6, 2018 Vulnerability Characteristics of Tsunamis in Indonesia: Analysis of the Global Centre for Disaster Statistics Database

Name: Name: Ridwan Yunus Fumihiko Imamura

Affiliation: Affiliation: Risk Assessment Advisor, Indonesian National Professor and Director, International Research Disaster Management Agency Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku University

Address: Address: Taman Pagelaran, Jalan Mawar VII G.8/10 Ciomas, Bogor, Indonesia 468-1 Aoba, Aramaki-Aza, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-0845, Japan Brief Career: Brief Career: 2007-2008 GIS Specialist, UNDP 1993-1995 Associate Professor, Asian Institute of Technology 2008-2010 Information Management Specialist, UNDP 1997-1998 Affiliated Associate Professor, Disaster Prevention Research 2011-present Information Management Specialist, UNDP/BNPB Institute (DPRI), Kyoto University 2000- Professor, Disaster Control Research Center, Tohoku University 2014- Director, International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University Selected Publications: D. N. Nguyen, F. Imamura, and K. Iuchi, “Public-private collaboration Name: for• disaster risk management: A case study of hotels in Matsushima, Kwanchai Pakoksung Japan,” Tourism Management, Vol.61, pp. 129-140, 2017. A. Suppasri, N. Leelawata, P. Latcharotea, V. Roebera, K. Yamashitaa, Affiliation: A.• Hayashia, H. Ohirab, K. Fukuic, A. Hisamatsub, D. Nguyenb, and F. Post-Doctoral Researcher, International Re- Imamura, “The 2016 Fukushima earthquake and tsunami: Local tsunami search Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), behavior and recommendations for tsunami disaster risk reduction Article Tohoku University reference,” Int. J. of Disaster Risk Reduction, doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.12.016, 2017. N. Leelawat, A. Suppasri, O. Murao, and F, Imamura, “A Study on the Influential• Factors on Building, Damage in Sri Lanka During the 2004 Address: Indian Ocean Tsunami,” J. of Earthquake and Tsunami, Vol.10, No.2, doi: 468-1 Aoba, Aramaki-Aza, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-0845, Japan 10.1142/S1793431116400017, 2016. Brief Career: Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations: Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE) 2009-2013 Researcher, Department ofWaterResourcesEngineering, • Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University American Geophysical Union (AGU) • Japan Society for Natural Disaster Science (JSNDS) 2016- Research Associate, Department of Infrastructure Engineering, • Kochi University of Technology 2017- Post-Doctoral Researcher, International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University Selected Publications: K. Pakoksung, A. Suppasri, and F. Imamura, “Systematic evaluation of different• infrastructure systems for tsunami defense in Sendai City,” Geosciences, Vol.8, No.5, p. 173, 2018. K. Pakoksung and M. Takagi, “Mixed Zero-Inflation method and probability• distribution in fitting daily rainfall data,” Eng. J., Vol.21, No.2, pp. 63-80, 2017. A. Sriariyawat, K. Pakoksung, T. Sayama, S. Tanaka, and S. Koontanakulvong,• “Approach to estimate the flood damage in Sukhothai Province using flood simulation,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.8, No.3, pp. 406-414, 2013. Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations: Engineering Institute of Thailand (EIT) • Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE) •

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.13 No.6, 2018 1047 Suppasri, A. et al.

Name: Shunichi Koshimura

Affiliation: Professor, International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku University

Address: 468-1 Aoba, Aramaki-Aza, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-0845, Japan Brief Career: 2000-2002 Research Fellow, JSPS 2002-2005 Research Scientist, Disaster Reduction and Human Renovation Institute 2005-2012 Associate Professor, Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University 2012-present Professor, International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University Selected Publications: Y. Bai, C. Gao, S. Singh, M. Koch, B. Adriano, E. Mas, and S. Koshimura,• “A Framework of Rapid Regional Tsunami Damage Recognition From Post-event TerraSAR-X Imagery Using Deep Neural Networks,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, Vol.15, No.1, 2018. S. Koshimura, “Fusion of real-time disaster simulation and big data assimilation• – Recent progress,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.12, pp. 226-232, doi: 10.20965/jdr.2017.p0226, 2017. Y. Bai, B. Adriano, E. Mas, and S. Kos himura, “Machine learning based building• damage mapping from the ALOS-2/PALSAR-2 SAR imagery: Case study of 2016 Kumamoto earthquake,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.12, pp. 646-655, doi: 10.20965/jdr.2017.p0646, 2017. Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations: Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE) • Institute of Social Safety Science • Japan Society for Computational Engineering and Science (JSCES) • Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering (JAEE) • American Geophysical Union (AGU) •

Name: Ryan Paulik

Affiliation: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Re- search

Address: 301 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai, Wellington 6021, New Zealand Brief Career: 2004- Victoria University of Wellington 2008- Auckland Regional Council 2011- National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Selected Publications: K. Gokesch, K. von Elverfeldt, T. Glade, E. Berman, M. Br¨undl, F. D. de Oliveira,• S. Frigerio, S. Greiving, M. S. Kappes, M. Keiler, J. P. Malet, W. Marzocchi, R. Paulik, S. Reese, and G. Smart, “Multi-hazard risk concepts: A review of theory, applications and challenges,” Progress in Physical Geography (in review). Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations: New Zealand Coastal Society (NZCS) •

1048 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.13 No.6, 2018