Environmental Risk: Earthquake in Japan - Case Study Example

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK Earthquake in Japan 1. Environmental Risk Issue Rationale “Earthquake elicits some of the most intense fears that human beings can experience” (Palm & Carroll 1998, p.1). The reason for selecting this environmental risk is the intensity or the magnitude of risks that a man would face whenever the ground shakes violently. Similar to what Palm & Carroll (1998, p.1) reported, victims of this type of catastrophe are commonly expressing terror, panic, shock, and fear because of the awesome force of the earth. Home to over 4 million people, Kobe Japan was hit by a strong earthquake in January 17, 1995 that resulted to the loss of thousand of lives and billion dollars worth of property. The earthquake was so strong that it damaged over 152,000 buildings and killed 5.378 people. The unexpected and strong earthquake brought unimaginable economic disaster and shocked the people of Japan (Sawada & Shimizutani 2008, p.1). The earthquake that shook Kobe in 1995 occurred because of a major strike-slip fault (Hayward Fault), which is similar to the San Andreas Fault located between the Pacific and the North American Plates. Researchers believe that the Hayward fault may produce strong earthquakes once every 150 to 200 years (Marinos 1997, p.976). In addition, choosing this particularly large and devastating environmental risk can bring considerable knowledge of the way nature can affect the stability of life on earth. Many environmental risks are predictable and controllable but earthquake are much larger and inherently unpredictable thus studying this natural risk can help shed light on some issues particularly on matters like general public perception of unexpectedly occurring risks and governmental preventive and rehabilitation approach on such large and devastating events. 2. Logic Tree A logic tree is generally viewed as a hierarchical list of various components of a problem (Rasiel & Friga p.11). It is normally based on a sequence of analytical inquiries constructed in a tree format to enable identification of risk exposures and underlying results or consequences (August 2004, p.37). The following logic tree is a representation of Japan’s existing problem on strong and devastating earthquake Logic or Fault Tree 3. Quantification of Logic Tree – Identification of Scientific Approach Logic trees are diagrams to show how different causes of an incident or disaster are related to each other. In other words, a logic or fault trees is a graphical representation of the logical relationship between elements in a particularly system that are associated with the occurrence of some unpleasant or destructive events (A. It offers various ways to present logic of a model, analysis of system failure, modeling the potential impact of large disastrous events, and model the reliability of even a complicated system (Hartford & Baecher 2004, p.70). Typically, the failure data is use to quantify the logic tree so one can identify the frequency of occurrence of a certain event. Fault trees is a top-down logic trees where events are related through various logic gates that would give the frequency of probability of an event to happen while event trees reveals the possible results of the incident (Skelton 1997, p.81). In a fault tree, quantitative risk assessment is being done in a logical order. The OR gates gives a description of the situation where the following event may occur provide one or more related events exists while the AND gates gives the description of a situation where the output needs constant existence of all the input events (Skelton 1997, p.81). Normally, Boolean algebra symbols is use to describe the types of gates. The Boolean logic associated with fault trees provides two outputs of events. One is failure and the other is success. For instance, a quantitative evaluation of logic trees can be determined by say Output= X+ Y, where output is the result of events X and Y. In this equation, either X and Y must occur to have an output (Modarres et al. 1999, p.220) 4. Scientific Knowledge Weakness One of the notable problem with fault tree logic quantification is the fact that the probability of a risk occurring and the results of such risk must be known earlier before any credible fault tree can be drawn (Stewart & Melchers 1997, p.60). The features of a logic tree and the quantification through Boolean logical values can be “both strength and weakness” (Ringdahl 2001, p.122). For instance, the approach has the ability to describe faults particularly in complex system in a simplified way but the degree of differences that could happen in the real world cannot be considered through analysis. According to Ringdahl (2001, p.122), Fault Tree analysis have the following weakness. First, it is time consuming since comparatively more detailed. Second, one cannot use it without sufficient training. Third, although its results may appear convincing, it does not take into account all possible sources of error. Fourth, it is not generally applicable since it cannot guarantee that all faults are identified. Fifth, the tree is flexible thus it can have same content but in different form. Lastly, since it requires details, documents and other relevant materials must be available before any meaningful analysis can be done. In addition, a fault tree may not be easy to understand since it may not follow a system of flow diagram that leads to failure. Particularly in a large fault tree, it may be difficult to see the system failure modes and identify the significant events that would cause system failure. As mentioned earlier, a fault tree can be constructed in various manners thus; their appearance may confuse the reader (Harford & Baecher 2004, p.70). 5. Assessment of the feasibility of controlling risk In assessing the risk involved in earthquakes occurring in Japan, one would notice that the Japanese are very aware of the risk and investing on protective measures for the future. However, it is also noticeable that the people are more interested in the precise location of occurrence than generally prepare for the worst. For instance, the government and most of people of Japan believes that they are well prepared for such disaster since they that sophisticated seismic technologies installed. The Kobe 1995 earthquake is one good example of unexpected strong earthquake that even the most sophisticated structures built to withstand the force cannot cope. The feasibility of controlling the risk lies within the Japanese themselves since earthquakes are generally not a thing to control but to monitor and predict. One of the major barriers identified is the unique perception of risk where risk is being considered as a precise occurrence that can be predicted where and when to occur. Another is the geographical location of Japan that lies within the Hayward Fault, which unfortunately is a source of strong earthquakes to be expected. Controlling the risk may be only feasible through human efforts and general acceptance that a risk is anywhere or anytime is inevitable. As presented in the logic tree, human perception and preparation plays a major role in reducing the impact of the risk and therefore must be prioritize in any effort to control the risk. Although, it is not possible to determine how strong the earthquake would be in the future, maximizing the preparation for the worse-case scenario would be a much better solution than relying on predictions and location of the earthquake to occur. More importantly, the Japanese must be prepared to accept the reality that earthquakes is an integral part of their society and therefore unavoidable and must be always considered in their planning and activities in life. 6. Comparison of the likelihood and magnitude of risk in chosen context with other environmental risk Compared to other environmental risk in terms of likelihood and magnitude of risk, earthquake according to Marinos (1997, p.976) is an “integral part” of the Japanese population. In fact, the degree of damage and earthquake awareness in Japan compared to other country like the US is far greater. According to Wisner (2004, p.293), the earthquake that happened in Kobe, Japan in 1995 is of great significance it reveals the false sense of preparedness in the minds of the government since they assume that their seismic protection would help minimize their losses. Consequently, since nobody expecting that a 7.2 Richter scale earthquake would devastate a modern city like Kobe, thousands of people were killed and many lost their homes. The earthquake in Kobe, Japan compared to other disaster is greater in terms of economic loss. Wisner (2004, p.293) added, that Japan had suffered severe economic loss greater than any other disaster in world history. Unlike other places, the Kobe area according to Gunn (2007, p.639), is dominated by the Philippine Tectonic Plate’s subducting action. Consequently, Kobe has much greater number of faults that any other region of the country thus a quake with intensity so great that hit Kobe in 1995 devastated the entire city, collapsing buildings to rubble, halts major transport systems, and vital lifelines provisions. The destruction leads to various consequences such as loss of water supplies that were badly required to cope up with subsequent fires. The firestorm across Kobe and by late January 17, 1995, 234 fires and five hundred conflagrations consumed most past of Kobe (Gunn 2007, p.641). Moreover, the liquefactions that occurred in Kobe’s waterfront is another problem unique compared to other environmental risk. The large liquefaction destroyed roads, nearby housing and warehouses, and reduced the ground level in the area by more than 10 meters. Moreover, the aftershocks that came later even destroyed other inland areas. 7. Risk Perception – An evaluation of people’s perception of risk in the chose case study In a survey conducted by Sawada & Shimizutani (2008, p.1) after the Kobe, Japan earthquake, showed that people of the area who suffered considerable losses due to the strong earthquake changed their consumption behavior. However, they were able to adopt various risk-coping devices to reduce the impact of shocks caused by the fearful earthquake. According to Milleti & Fitzpatrick (1993, p.6), many researchers are interested in finding out if prediction of an earthquake changed the way people perceive the risk. In one study, data shows that people are more often perceived greater risk of physical harm and economic losses. Many of them are worried that the earthquake would affect their family in the near future and most of the people interviewed see future losses because of the anticipated earthquake. In general, most people take protective actions whenever they can (Miletti & Fitzpartrick 1993, p.77). In a similar study conducted by Palm & Carroll (1998, p.45) to Kobe Japan to find the different attitudes concerning risk-taking of the population, majority of the people sees earthquake as harmful. However, even though their country has sophisticated machineries to predict future earthquake, most of them do not believe that their scientist can precisely predict the time and location of the coming earthquakes. The attitude of people and how Japanese perceived risk is not actually surprising. According to Douglas (1992, p.40), the Japanese do not need the work ‘risk’ because they are culturally inclined about “formal probability, technical limits of certainty, degrees of safety, and the idea of danger” (Douglas 1992, p.40). In other words, the Japanese are culturally conditioned to such risk probability and need no further convincing. However, the only problem with this brand of risk perception is the location to which the earthquake will strike. In one study by Witherick & Tidmarsh (1997, p.21), although the Japanese is expecting a big earthquake to happen in one of its major cities, the basic problem comes from forecasting exactly when or where the earthquake will occur. Consequently, the Japanese tend to balance their preparation with the probability of earthquake occurring in an area. 8. Reference List August J. 2004. RCM guidebook: building a reliable plant maintenance program. PennWell Books Douglas M. 1992. Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. London, UK: Routledge Gunn A. 2007. Encyclopedia of Disasters: Environmental Catastrophes and Human Tragedies. US: Greenwood Publishing Group Hartforn D. & Baecher G. 2004. Risk and uncertainty in dam safety. UK: Thomas Telford Marinos P. 1997. Engineering geology and the environment: proceedings: International Symposium on Engineering Geology and the Environment: Athens, Greece, 23-27 June, 1997. US: Taylor & Francis Mileti D. & Fitzpatrick C. 1993. The Great Earthquake Experiment: Risk Communication and Public Action. US: Westview Press Modares M., Kaminsky M., & Krivtsov V. 1999. Reliability engineering and risk analysis: a practical guide. US: CRC Press Palm R. & Carroll J. 1998. Illusions of Safety: Culture and Earthquake Hazard Response in California and Japan. Boulder, Colorado, US: Westview Press Raisel E. & Friga P. 2001. The McKinsey mind: understanding and implementing the problem-solving tools and management techniques of the world's top strategic consulting firm. Canada: McGraw-Hill Professional Ringdahl L. 2001. Safety analysis: principles and practice in occupational safety. US: CRC Press Sawada Y. & Shimizutani S. 2008. How Do People Cope with Natural Disasters? Evidence from the Great Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe) Earthquake in 1995. Journal of Money, Credit & Banking. Volume: 40. Issue: 2-3. 2008. p. 463, Ohio State University Press, US: Gale, Cengage Learning Skelton B. 1997. Process safety analysis: an introduction. UK: IChemE Stewart M. & Melchers R. 1997. Probabilistic risk assessment of engineering systems. UK: Springer Wisner B. 2004. At risk: natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters. UK: Routledge Witherick M. & Tidmarsh C, 1997. Japan. China: Heinemann LINKS to Google Books Marinos (1997) http://books.google.com/books?id=fhngYMnDhVoC&pg=PA976&dq=perception+of+risk+kobe+japan&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=perception%20of%20risk%20kobe%20japan&f=false Witherick & Tidmarsh (1997) http://books.google.com/books?id=TaYCFsA6bfIC&pg=PT22&dq=perception+of+risk+kobe+japan&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=perception%20of%20risk%20kobe%20japan&f=false Wisner (2004) http://books.google.com/books?id=qMmvGH1Ce64C&pg=PA292&dq=kobe+japan+earthquake+compare&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false Gunn (2007) http://books.google.com/books?id=4YzF-DT__aIC&pg=RA1-PA639&dq=kobe+japan+earthquake+compare&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false Skelton (1997) http://books.google.com/books?id=49Yb4EfZYwkC&pg=PA81&dq=logic+tree+quantitative&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=logic%20tree%20quantitative&f=false Stewart & Melchers http://books.google.com/books?id=TwHKl_1cylEC&pg=PA56&dq=logic+tree+boolean&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=logic%20tree%20boolean&f=false Modaress et al. (1999) http://books.google.com/books?id=IZ5VKc-Y4_4C&pg=PA220&dq=logic+tree+boolean&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=logic%20tree%20boolean&f=false Ringdahl (2001) http://books.google.com/books?id=p1-nzlTafgIC&pg=PA122&dq=logic+tree+weakness+disadvantage&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false Harford & Baecher (2004) http://books.google.com/books?id=hD8_sS1u7gIC&pg=PA70&dq=fault+tree+disadvantage&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=fault%20tree%20disadvantage&f=false August (2004) http://books.google.com/books?id=YfFFFR84mowC&pg=PA36&dq=logic+tree&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=logic%20tree&f=false Read More