Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Indirect economic impacts of the Great East Japan Earthquake: approach by Spatial Computable General Equilibrium Model
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Indirect economic impacts of the Great East Japan Earthquake: approach by Spatial Computable General Equilibrium Model

1,262
views

Published on

Yoshio KAJITANI1, Hirokazu TATANO2 …

Yoshio KAJITANI1, Hirokazu TATANO2

1Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Japan; 2Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Japan


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,262
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. IDRC, Davos, 2012 Production Capacity Losses Due to the 311 Disaster –Facility Damage and Lifeline Disruption Impacts Hirokazu Tatano and Yoshio Kajitani 1 Disaster Prevention Research Institute Kyoto University
  • 2. Contents Production Capacity Loss Estimation (production/operation ability under damaged resources) (supply side) significant information Regional Economic Loss Estimation (Spatial General Equilibrium Model (SCGE) ) (including demand side, supply-chain impacts, etc) 2 Disaster Prevention Reasearch Institute Kyoto University
  • 3. Processed Food (Fish) Factory3 Disaster Prevention Reasearch Institute Kyoto University
  • 4. How to evaluate “Capacity Loss” ofindustrial sector ? Hazard -Tsunami Exposure -Ground Motion -Distribution of Firms -Evacuation Area (Number of Employee) (Nuclear) Vulnerability -Functional Fragility Curve From Capacity Losses previous (Facility Damage) disaster Lifeline and surveys Disruption Resilience Status -Lifeline Resilience Factor -Recovery from Facility Damage Production Capacity Losses due to compared Facility Damage/recovery and with actual Lifeline Disruptions production index (industrial sector)4 Disaster Prevention Reasearch Institute Kyoto University
  • 5. Hazards: Earthquake Ground Motion Response Spectrum for velocity 20 km radius h: damping Factor (20%) From F1NP T: natural period (Suetomi, 2011)5 Disaster Prevention Reasearch Institute Kyoto University
  • 6. Tsunami Inundated Area6 Disaster Prevention Reasearch Institute Kyoto University
  • 7. Functional Fragility Curve 1 State I 100% (No Damage) 0.9 Excess Probability of Occurance 0.8 State II 0.7 <100% 0.6 State III 0.5 <66% State 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 State IV <33% (Severe Damage) 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 Spectral IntensityBased on the surveys to the firms damaged by 2004 earthquake disaster Nakano, 2011 7 Disaster Prevention Reasearch Institute Kyoto University
  • 8. Lifeline Resilience Factor Production level Normal(=1) Resilience factor 0 t1 t2 t3 Time Lifelines Electricity Water Gas (utilities) supply supply supply disrupted restored restored restored Kajitani and Tatano, 2005, 2009 Based on the surveys in Tokai regions8 Disaster Prevention Reasearch Institute Kyoto University
  • 9. Recovery of Facilities from the EQ Damage 120 100 80 Create Hazard curve type 60 function 40 Non- Manufacturing 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Based on the Surveys by Nakano et al., 2012 (Manufacturing 700, Non-Manufacturing 1300 in the part of Tohoku region, excluding Tsunami region)9 Disaster Prevention Reasearch Institute Kyoto University
  • 10. Loss Estimation with Resilience: Production Capacity Facility Damage+Recovery Business Interruption Losses (Facility Damage+Recovery+Lifelin Impacts) Facility Damage+Recovery +Lifeline Impacts Facility Damage Time Facility Damage+Lifeline Impacts Lifeline Resilience 1 Disaster Recovery of Gas Recovery of Water Factor 0 Recovery of Electricity10 Disaster Prevention Reasearch Institute Kyoto University
  • 11. Est. Result (Transport. Manf. in Fukushima) Facility Damage & Recovery & Lifeline Impacts Facility Damage & Lifeline Impacts Facility Damage & Recovery 1 0.9 0.8 0.7Production Capacity 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 3/11 4/10 5/10 6/9 7/9 8/8 9/7 10/7 11/6 12/6 11 Disaster Prevention Reasearch Institute Kyoto University
  • 12. 12 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0 1 Mining Construction Food Apparel & Textile Wood & Wooden Products Paper-Pulp Chemicals Refinery & Coal Glass Stone Clay Steel Non-Ferrous Metal Products General Machinery Electric Machinery Information & Comm. Device Electronic Parts Transport Eq Precision Machinery Other Manufacturing Estimated Capacity Losses Communication TransportationDisaster Prevention Reasearch Institute Kyoto University Ground Motion, Tsunami, and Nuclear(20 km radius) Retail & Wholesale Financial & Insurance Real Estate Medical Service Other Services Iwate Miyagi Ibaragi Tochigi Fukushima Around 30% of capacity is lost
  • 13. Index of Industrial Production (IIP) All sectors Transportation Steel 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 013 Disaster Prevention Reasearch Institute Kyoto University
  • 14. Estimated Results 1 (March, 2011) Facility Damage Facility Damage and Lifeline Impacts Facility Damage and Recovery Facility Damage, Recovery, and Lifeline Impacts 1 Tochigi 0.9 Ibaragi 0.8 0.7 Iwate Estimated 0.6 0.5 Fukushima 0.4 Miyagi 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Index of Industrial Production (Mar/Feb)14 Disaster Prevention Reasearch Institute Kyoto University
  • 15. Estimated Results 3 (May, 2011) Facility Damage Facility Damage and Lifeline Impacts Facility Damage and Recovery Facility Damage, Recovery, and Lifeline Impacts IbaragiTochigi 1 0.9 0.8 Iwate 0.7 Estimated 0.6 Fukushima 0.5 0.4 0.3 Miyagi 0.2 0.1 0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Index of Industrial Production (May/Feb)15 Disaster Prevention Reasearch Institute Kyoto University
  • 16. Conclusion (Capacity Loss Estimation) Development of Capacity Loss Estimation Model (Hazard, Vulnerability, Exposure, Resilience) Relatively good relationships between “estimated” and “observed”. (reasonable benchmark data is used) To be continued for the latter part of study (connection with regional economic models) 16 Disaster Prevention Reasearch Institute Kyoto University