Multi-Hazard Evaluation Using Cluster Analysis—For Designated Evacuation Centers of Yokohama

Abstract

Hazard maps are usually prepared for each disaster, including seismic hazard maps, flood hazard maps, and landslide hazard maps. However, when the general public attempts to check their own disaster risk, most are likely not aware of the specific types of disaster. So, first of all, we need to know what kinds of hazards are important. However, the information that integrates multiple hazards is not well maintained, and there are few such studies. On the other hand, in Japan, a lot of hazard information is being released on the Internet. So, we summarized and assessed hazard data that can be accessed online regarding shelters (where evacuees live during disasters) and their catchments (areas assigned to each shelter) in Yokohama City, Kanagawa Prefecture. Based on the results, we investigated whether a grouping by cluster analysis would allow for multi-hazard assessment. We used four natural disasters (seismic, flood, tsunami, sediment disaster) and six parameters of other population and senior population. However, since the characteristics of the population and the senior population were almost the same, only population data was used in the final examination. From the cluster analysis, it was found that it is appropriate to group the designated evacuation centers in Yokohama City into six groups. In addition, each of the six groups was found to have explainable characteristics, confirming the effectiveness of multi-hazard creation using cluster analysis. For example, we divided, all hazards are low, both flood and Seismic hazards are high, sediment hazards are high, etc. In many Japanese cities, disaster prevention measures have been constructed in consideration of ground hazards, mainly for earthquake disasters. In this paper, we confirmed the consistency between the evaluation results of the multi-hazard evaluated here and the existing ground hazard map and examined the usefulness of the designated evacuation center. Finally, the validity was confirmed by comparing this result with the ground hazard based on the actual measurement by the past research. In places where the seismic hazard is large, the two are consistent with the fact that the easiness of shaking by actual measurement is also large.