About Earthquakes

Earthquake Risk and Emergency Management Strategies

Earthquakes typically occur without notice and have the potential to wreak significant harm and death. To tackle this ongoing threat, most developed countries have developed sophisticated emergency management strategies. The United States and Japan were chosen for comparison in this research because they share the same magnitude of risk and have both undergone significant earthquakes in the recent ten years.

Devastating Earthquakes and Seismologists’ Challenges

Both the United States and Japan have experienced numerous and devastating earthquakes. When Japan and the United States are combined, they account for one-fifth of the world’s most deadly earthquakes in history. Although seismologists’ equipment has advanced considerably in recent years, precise warnings are still impossible to provide. According to Powell, and Thomas (2016), the technology has only assisted in providing certain time windows for the occurrence of earthquakes in the order of decades. Unfortunately, the time windows limit what can be done incase such a disaster occurs and implementing other well-known techniques used in other disasters is not practical. It is significant to comprehend why these two countries approach problems as they do and the advantages of each system. This paper compares how the government actions, input from stakeholder’s international aid and other factors (Obermeier, 2013).

Governance and Responsibilties of United States and Japan

To tackle the risks associated with earthquakes United States has always operated under a shared governance system whereby all localities are given the responsibility to mitigate, prepare for, and recover from effects of earthquakes. The loss reduction efforts of earthquakes are solely controlled by the local governments. The state government assists in planning and comes to help when the local governance is overwhelmed. The federal government, on the other hand, concentrates on coordinating emergency support functions in cases where the federal agencies are involved in disaster management. On the contrary, Japan depends on local governments to develop local emergency plans, directing recovery efforts and executing most of the first responder duties. The central government retains the major responsibilities for funding mitigation or resilience tasks (Keranen, Savage, Abers and Cochran, 2013).

Coordination and Response Systems

A high level of coordination must be maintained to ensure an efficient response effort. The United States have the ICS system that facilitates this coordination. Although it has shortcomings, it has been useful in assisting different levels of government and emergency personnel. The US also have the NRH that is responsible for laying the federal government role in response case. In Japan, the Japan disaster countermeasures basic act of 1961 doesn’t cover leadership and management in engineering (Graehl, Kelsey, Witter, Hemphill-Haley and Engelhart, 2015).

US Foreign Disaster Assistance

The office of US foreign disaster assistance has unique emergency response capabilities that help those suffering in the worst crises around the world. It is responsible for coordinating the response to disasters by the government. OFDA fulfills its mandate of alleviating human suffering, saving lives and reducing the social and economic impact of disasters in the world. It partners with USAID functional bureaus and other US government agencies. In cases where a large-scale disaster occurs the OFDA deploys a disaster assistance response team to manage optimal US government response while close working with relief agencies, local officials and the international community (Darienzo, Peterson, and Clough, 2012).

Differences in Approach and Policies

The approaches to preparedness and intervention to earthquakes by the Japanese and the US are very different. The US technique is defined by the bottom-up framework, strong laws, all hazards approach, clear lines of control between the local and the federal levels. The Japanese system, on the other hand, depends on the development of advanced technology an approach that is technologically proficient in managing staff emergencies, integrated earthquake drills, on the job training and a single hazard strategy.

Decentralization and Adaptation to Policies

The Japanese central government does not hold a single agency with the power of FEMA through the DHS. This decentralization is also reflected in fragmented policies. Instead of amending the current legislations new pieces are to fill the gap. The compartmentalization leads to duplication of jurisdictional overlap and adequate cooperation or communication. Localities or prefectural governments have to sift through several policies to obtain assistance with disaster. The United States, on the other hand, the US has a record of what is known as social engineering. When policies don’t meet the needs of citizens, it is modified to fill this void. These adaptations are evident examples of FRP changed to NRF and formation of the DHS.

Conclusion

Regarding the achievement of earthquake resilience, both Japan and United states have a long way to go. However, at the end of it all, both countries need to do is put in place a comprehensive law that will automatically pull together all the bills set apart for disaster management into one that will equally balance mitigation and preparedness efforts. The two countries need to learn how the different technologies they use work how differently they are prepared for the disasters.

References

Darienzo, M. E., Peterson, C. D., & Clough, C. (2012). Stratigraphic evidence for great subduction-zone earthquakes at four estuaries in northern Oregon, USA. Journal of Coastal Research, 850-876.

Graehl, N. A., Kelsey, H. M., Witter, R. C., Hemphill-Haley, E., & Engelhart, S. E. (2015). Stratigraphic and microfossil evidence for a 4500-year history of Cascadia subduction zone earthquakes and tsunamis at Yaquina River estuary, Oregon, USA. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 127(1-2), 211-226..

Keranen, K. M., Savage, H. M., Abers, G. A., & Cochran, E. S. (2013). Potentially induced earthquakes in Oklahoma, USA: Links between wastewater injection and the 2011 Mw 5.7 earthquake sequence. Geology, 41(6), 699-702.

Obermeier, S. F. (2013). Liquefaction evidence for strong earthquakes of Holocene and latest Pleistocene ages in the states of Indiana and Illinois, USA. Engineering Geology, 50(3), 227-254.

Powell, C. A., & Thomas, W. A. (2016). Grenville basement structure associated with the Eastern Tennessee seismic zone, southeastern USA. Geology, 44(1), 39-42.