International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 54 (2021) 102050

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Multi-hazard earthquake-tsunami loss estimation of Kuroshio Town, Kochi

Prefecture, Japan considering the Nankai-Tonankai megathrust
rupture scenarios
Katsuichiro Goda a, b, *, Raffaele De Risi c, Flavia De Luca c, Ario Muhammad c,
Tomohiro Yasuda d, Nobuhito Mori e
a
Department of Earth Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
b
Department of Statistical and Actuarial Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Bristol University, Bristol, United Kingdom
d
Kansai University, Suita, Osaka, Japan
e
Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The Nankai-Tonankai Trough is the primary source of major subduction earthquakes in western and central
Multi-hazard loss estimation Japan, and the preparedness against future Nankai-Tonankai megathrust subduction events is of critical
Earthquake importance. This study develops a novel multi-hazard catastrophe model for the future Nankai-Tonankai meg­
Tsunami
athrust subduction earthquake and tsunami based on a stochastic earthquake source modeling approach, and
Nankai-Tonankai trough
Critical hazard-risk map
applies it to Kuroshio Town, Kochi Prefecture, Japan, that faces significant seismic-tsunami hazards due to the
Nankai-Tonankai subduction earthquakes. The earthquake-tsunami catastrophe model incorporates the sto­
chastic rupture sources, spatially correlated ground motion fields, tsunami inundation simulations, detailed
building portfolio data, seismic and tsunami fragility models, and building damage cost estimation. It produces
the multi-hazard and single-hazard loss distributions, accompanied by detailed earthquake rupture scenarios,
shaking-tsunami hazard intensity distributions, and building damage distributions. The earthquake-tsunami loss
estimation results for Kuroshio Town indicate that the tsunami loss tends to increase with the magnitude more
significantly than the shaking loss and contributes more towards the increase in the multi-hazard total loss with
the earthquake magnitude. Importanly, the new multi-hazard tool facilitates the identification of critical multi-
hazard loss scenarios and leads to integrated hazard-risk maps that are particularly useful for disaster risk
reduction and management purposes.

1. Introduction
People and assets in active subduction regions are exposed to sig­
nificant seismic and tsunami risks due to possible megathrust subduc­
tion earthquakes. In the last two decades, moment magnitude (M) 9-
class megathrust events caused catastrophic consequences in Indian
Oceans, Chile, and Japan (e.g. Refs. [1–3]. Globally, there are other
subduction regions, where M9-class subduction earthquakes are ex­
pected to occur in the future, including the Cascadia region off the Pa­
cific Northwest [4] and the Makran region off Pakistan and Iran [5]. The
fault rupture is the main and common trigger, resulting in strong
shaking as primary peril and tsunami, landslide, and liquefaction as
secondary peril. Earthquake loss due to secondary peril is not negligible
and can exceed the primary shaking loss [6]. In evaluating the earth­
quake impact due to a future megathrust subduction event, it is essential
to consider multi-hazard loss generation processes because spatial pat­
terns for shaking and tsunami damage/loss are different.
Probabilistic multi-hazard analysis is the fundamental step for
assessing natural disaster risk accurately [7]. A multi-peril methodology
that allows the risk quantification in economic terms is necessary to
evaluate the cost-benefit effectiveness of available risk mitigation op­
tions [8–10]. For earthquake-related perils, recent advances in seismi­
c/tsunami science and engineering have led to the development of new
multi-hazard catastrophe models for earthquakes and tsunamis (e.g.

* Corresponding author. Department of Earth Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
E-mail address: kgoda2@uwo.ca (K. Goda).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102050
Received 28 November 2020; Received in revised form 12 January 2021; Accepted 12 January 2021
Available online 20 January 2021
2212-4209/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Goda et al.
Fig. 1. (a) Nankai-Tonankai Trough source region and (b) location of the target case-study site Ogata district in Kuroshio Town, Kochi Prefecture. The fault plane
geometry of the 2012 CDMC models is shown in panel (a).
Refs. [11,12]. Herein, the term multi-hazard is used to emphasize that
common earthquake source features of strong shaking and tsunami are
captured through physical parameters of earthquake rupture. In the new
multi-hazard catastrophe models, simulations of shaking and tsunami
hazard processes are conducted sequentially by maintaining the source
dependency. More specifically, a multi-hazard loss model for Japanese
subduction earthquakes and tsunamis developed by Goda and De Risi
[11] is based on stochastic modeling of earthquake ruptures with het­
erogeneous slip distribution and can be used for different earthquake
magnitudes. In their model, seismic-tsunami loss of wooden buildings is
evaluated using empirical fragility functions that were derived from
seismic/tsunami damage data in Japan.
The Nankai-Tonankai Trough region of western and central Japan
(Fig. 1a) is anticipating a recurrent megathrust subduction event in the
near future. Since 684 A.D., the Nankai-Tonankai Trough hosted 9
events of M8.0+ [13,14], leading to a mean recurrence period of circa
150 years. The most recent events were the 1944 Tonankai earthquake
and the 1946 Nankai earthquake, rupturing the eastern and western
parts of the Nankai-Tonankai Trough, respectively. When the trough
segments rupture separately, the earthquake magnitude tends to result
in smaller magnitudes (typically less than M8.5). On the other hand,
geological evidence from the past earthquakes indicates that synchro­
nous ruptures of the Nankai and Tonankai segments occurred, such as
the 887 Ninna, 1361 Shohei, and 1707 Hoei events [15,16], resulting in
greater moment magnitudes (M8.6 and above). For preparing against
future earthquake-tsunami disasters in western and central Japan, the
Central Disaster Management Council (CDMC) of the Japanese Cabinet
Office developed national tsunami source models (hereafter, 2012
CDMC models) by considering the synchronous M9 rupture scenarios
involving multiple segments and produced tsunami inundation maps for
municipalities in the affected regions. Recently, Goda et al. [17]
generated a realistic set of 1000 stochastic earthquake source models of
M8.7 to M9.1 based on the fault plane geometry of the 2012 CDMC
models by using empirical source scaling relationships [18] and sto­
chastic synthesis of heterogeneous slip distribution [19]. Subsequently,
they performed Monte Carlo-based tsunami inundation analyses by
focusing upon coastal communities in Kuroshio Town of Kochi Prefec­
ture, Japan (Fig. 1b). Their results provided valuable insights into the
degree of uncertainty associated with regional and local tsunami hazard
assessments.
This paper presents the first multi-hazard portfolio loss estimation
study for the future Nankai-Tonankai megathrust subduction earth­
quake and tsunami by considering 1000 stochastic earthquake rupture
scenarios of M8.7 to M9.1. The study site is the Ogata district of Kur­
oshio Town, Kochi Prefecture (Fig. 1b), which is one of the most exposed
municipalities subject to the Nankai-Tonankai events in south-western
Pacific region of Japan. The earthquake rupture models for the
2
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 54 (2021) 102050
Nankai-Tonankai earthquake are generated from empirical scaling re­
lationships of earthquake source parameters and stochastic synthesis of
earthquake slip distributions [17]. Shaking intensity modeling is con­
ducted based on a ground motion model for Japanese subduction
earthquakes [20] together with intra-event spatial correlation [21],
whereas tsunami inundation modeling is performed by solving
nonlinear shallow water equations [22]. To enable realistic and accurate
estimation of shaking- and tsunami-induced losses, local site conditions
for amplifying shaking intensity (250-m grids from the J-SHIS, http
://www.j-shis.bosai.go.jp/en/) and 10-m grid elevation data, which
also reflect in-situ coastal defense structures, are used. The
high-resolution elevation data are provided by the Japanese Cabinet
Office and are based on a 5-m grid digital terrain model derived from
airborne laser surveys and aerial photographic surveys by the Geospatial
Information Authority of Japan (see Ref. [17]. The results are combined
with empirical fragility functions that are applicable to conventional
wooden buildings in Japan for shaking damage [23–25] and for tsunami
damage [26]. The main results from the developed catastrophe model of
a building portfolio subject to megathrust subduction earthquakes and
tsunamis are the multi-hazard and single-hazard loss distributions,
accompanied by detailed earthquake rupture scenarios,
shaking-tsunami hazard intensity distributions, and building damage
distributions. The new multi-hazard tool facilitates the identification of
critical multi-hazard loss scenarios and leads to integrated hazard-risk
maps that are particularly useful for disaster risk reduction and man­
agement purposes. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 in­
troduces the key characteristics of the Nankai-Tonankai megathrust
subduction events. In Section 3, the multi-hazard portfolio loss esti­
mation model for the Nankai-Tonankai earthquakes and tsunamis is
developed. In Section 4, numerical loss estimation results for the Ogata
district of Kuroshio Town are discussed by focusing upon the
multi-hazard and single-hazard loss distribution characteristics and the
identification and visualization of critical loss scenarios. This is followed
by a list of conclusions and pending work for the future studies.
2. Nankai-Tonankai megathrust earthquake and tsunami
The Nankai-Tonankai Trough is the primary source of major sub­
duction earthquakes in western and central Japan, and their seismic
activities are induced by tectonic movements of the Philippine Sea Plate
and the Eurasian Plate with slip rates between 40 and 55 mm/year [27].
Current estimates of the spatial distribution of slip deficit rates indicate
that the potential of a future megathrust event is high [28,29], and thus
enhancing the preparedness against future Nankai-Tonankai megathrust
subduction events is of critical importance.
The Nankai-Tonankai Trough region can be broadly divided into the
Nankai and Tonankai segments, as shown in Fig. 1a. The Nankai
K. Goda et al.
Fig. 2. Multi-hazard earthquake-tsunami loss estimation framework.
segment spans from Hyuga-nada, Shikoku Island, and western Kii
Peninsula and ruptured many times in the past. There is abundant evi­
dence that earthquakes originating from the Nankai segment are capable
of producing intense ground shaking and large-scale coastal inundations
due to tsunamis (e.g. Ref. [30]. The rupture history of the Tonankai
segment, which spans from eastern Kii Peninsula, Enshu-nada, and
Tokai, is also well studied (e.g. Refs. [15,16]. The past Tonankai events
caused widespread shaking and tsunami effects in the central Pacific
region of Japan.
For tsunami hazard mapping of a future Nankai-Tonankai mega­
thrust event, the CDMC developed eleven M9-class earthquake source
models by considering that the synchronized rupture across both the
Nankai and Tonankai segments is possible. The eleven source models
reflect (a limited number of) different rupture scenarios in terms of lo­
cations of large slip concentrations (i.e. asperities) within the rupture
plane (see Goda et al. [17] for more details). The main subduction
interface of the 2012 CDMC models can be represented by a set of 5669
sub-faults, each sub-fault having a size of 5 km by 5 km, with the total
fault plane area of 1.44 × 105 km2 (Fig. 1a). The geometrical parameters
(i.e. strike, dip, and rake) of the sub-faults are variable over the curved,
steepening fault plane along the dip direction. The models are intended
to represent extreme scenarios that can be used for improving regional
Fig. 3. Building distribution in the Ogata district of Kuroshio Town. (a) Elevation, (b) average surface shear-wave velocity based on J-SHIS, (c) zoomed area near the
vertical evacuation tower, and (d) photo of the vertical evacuation tower.
3
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 54 (2021) 102050
and local tsunami disaster preparedness, such as construction of coastal
defense structures and planning of tsunami evacuation. Using the fault
plane geometry of the 2012 CDMC models, Goda et al. [17] generated
1000 stochastic source models for future Nankai-Tonankai megathrust
events.
3. Multi-hazard earthquake-tsunami loss model for the Nankai-
Tonankai megathrust
Building upon the stochastic source models and tsunami inundation
analyses conducted by Goda et al. [17] for future Nankai-Tonankai
megathrust events, an earthquake-tsunami loss model for the
Nankai-Tonankai events is developed in this section. Although a
comprehensive earthquake impact assessment due to multiple hazards
has been conducted by the Japanese Cabinet Office for national disaster
management and mitigation purposes, these estimates are derived for a
limited number of worst-case earthquake scenarios and are insufficient
to quantify the uncertainty of the seismic-tsunami damage and loss of a
coastal community. The developed multi-hazard loss model for future
Nankai-Tonankai earthquakes addresses this research gap by consid­
ering numerous stochastic earthquake rupture scenarios (in terms of
fault geometry and earthquake slip distribution) and by propagating the
K. Goda et al.
Fig. 4. (a) Stochastic source modeling, (b) shaking hazard footprint modeling, and (c) tsunami hazard footprint modeling.
uncertainty from earthquake rupture, shaking-tsunami hazard intensity,
to multi-hazard damage-loss assessment. The multi-hazard loss estima­
tion is based on the methodology proposed by Goda and De Risi [11];
which was developed for the Tohoku region of Japan, and consists of
four major modules: (i) exposure modeling, (ii) seismic-tsunami foot­
print modeling, (iii) seismic-tsunami fragility modeling, and (iv) risk
assessment. A computational procedure of the multi-hazard loss esti­
mation is illustrated in Fig. 2, by linking with major modules that are
described in subsequent subsections. Since the multi-hazard risk
assessment methodology that is implemented for the Nankai-Tonankai
megathrust is largely identical to the framework presented in Goda
and De Risi [11]; the computational modules are described succinctly in
the following subsections. Furthermore, because detailed descriptions of
the stochastic source modeling and tsunami inundation analyses for the
Nankai-Tonankai earthquakes can be found in Goda et al. [17]; expla­
nations for this aspect are kept brief as well.
3.1. Exposure model
Kuroshio Town is a municipality in Kochi Prefecture (Fig. 1b) that
faces significant seismic-tsunami hazards due to the Nankai-Tonankai
subduction earthquakes. As of September 2020, the population and
household number of Kuroshio Town are 10,905 and 5,475, respec­
tively. According to the 2012 national seismic-tsunami hazard assess­
ments conducted by the Japanese Cabinet Office, shaking and tsunami
hazard levels that need to be considered for Kuroshio’s earthquake
disaster risk reduction strategy and planning are the Japan Meteoro­
logical Agency Seismic Intensity scale VII (highest, equivalent to the
Modified Mercalli Intensity of X to XII) and the assessed tsunami wave/
run-up height of 34 m [31].
The Ogata district is one of the main populated areas in Kuroshio
Town along the coast (Fig. 3a). Houses and facilities (see black polygons
in Fig. 3a,c) are distributed on an alluvial plain surrounded by Fukigami
River and Kakize River. Within the area shown in Fig. 3a, approximately
4
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 54 (2021) 102050
6500 people live in 2700 households. Along the two local rivers, sed­
imental deposits are prevalent and thus larger ground shaking intensity
is expected in the river plain areas. This can be seen in Fig. 3b, which
shows the average shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m (Vs30) ob­
tained from J-SHIS (250-m mesh grids). Values of Vs30 at locations of
the houses and local facilities are typically less than 300 m/s (e.g.
NEHRP site class D), indicating that local site conditions are relatively
soft. The beach areas of the Ogata district are mainly used for recrea­
tional and agriculture purposes, and many of the residents live in inland
areas, which are behind vegetated sand dune/hills having 10-m eleva­
tion. This can be seen in Fig. 3c. In this zoomed area, a tsunami evac­
uation tower was constructed for local residents living in low-lying areas
(Fig. 3d). The evacuation space is at the tower’s top floor and is 18.2 m
above the mean sea level. By taking into the tower’s land elevation of
4.0 m, the critical inundation depth at the tower for safe evacuation is
14.2 m. This critical depth can be used to evaluate the adequacy of the
tsunami evacuation tower under extreme situations.
To develop a building exposure model for the Ogata district, a na­
tional GIS database maintained by the Geospatial Information Authority
of Japan (https://www.gsi.go.jp/kiban/) is utilized. The dataset in­
cludes geographical coordinates and property plot boundary data of
individual buildings, and thus building footprint areas of individual
buildings can be calculated. Since the current version of the earthquake-
tsunami catastrophe model is developed for low-rise wooden buildings
(note: this limitation is due to the availability of suitable seismic fragility
functions; Section 3.3), screening of the building information contained
in the original dataset is performed in two stages. First, general building
area statistics of Japanese wooden buildings are consulted. By assuming
that the average building footprint area is lognormally distributed with
mean = 100 m2 and coefficient of variation (CoV) = 0.32 [32], the in­
terval of the mean minus/plus two standard deviations can be obtained
as 51 m2 and 178 m2. In the first screening stage, all buildings that have
the footprint areas less than 50 m2 and more than 200 m2 are excluded.
In the second screening stage, visual inspection of the selected buildings
K. Goda et al.
Fig. 5. (a) Shaking fragility functions, and (b) tsunami fragility functions.
is conducted in comparison with Google Earth images of the area, and 56
buildings are manually identified as non-residential. The building
database for the Ogata district after the 2-stage screening procedure
contains 3018 buildings and is used for the multi-hazard loss estimation
as described in the following sections. The spatial distribution of the
selected buildings is shown in Fig. 3a and c. It is noted that the calcu­
lated statistics of the building footprint area of the selected buildings in
Ogata (mean = 101 m2 and CoV = 0.36) are consistent with the assumed
statistics in the first screening stage (i.e. mean = 100 m2 and CoV =
0.32). For the loss estimation purposes, the unit construction cost for
typical wooden buildings is obtained from the Japanese building cost
information handbook [33] and is assumed to be lognormally distrib­
uted with mean = 1600 US$/m2 and CoV = 0.32 (assuming 1 US$ = 100
yen). In calculating the total building replacement cost (= total footprint
area times unit construction cost), the total footprint area is estimated by
multiplying the building footprint area of each individual property (as in
the original building database) by a factor of 1.3, which is considered to
be applicable based on the building/construction statistics from Con­
struction Research Institute [33] and the Japanese Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (http://www.mlit.go.jp/toukeijo
uhou/chojou/stat-e.htm). Based on the above building cost information,
the expected total cost of the 3018 buildings in Ogata is 628 million US$.
3.2. Hazard model
A stochastic source model captures the spatial uncertainty of earth­
quake rupture for a given earthquake magnitude. In generating the
stochastic rupture models for the Nankai-Tonankai megathrust events,
the 2012 CDMC fault plane (Fig. 1a) is adopted as baseline. The sub-
faults of the 2012 CDMC model are mapped onto a 2D rectangular
matrix with the size of 153 (along-strike) by 54 (down-dip). The source
uncertainty is characterized by empirical prediction equations of
earthquake source parameters and stochastic synthesis of earthquake
slip [18]. For a magnitude value, eight source parameters, i.e. fault
width, fault length, mean slip, maximum slip, Box-Cox power param­
eter, correlation length along dip, correlation length along strike, and
Hurst number, are generated. Once the geometry and position of a sto­
chastic source model are determined, a random heterogeneous slip
distribution is generated using a Fourier integral method, where
amplitude spectrum is represented by von Kármán spectrum and
random phase [19]. To generate a slip distribution with realistic
right-heavy tail features, the synthesized slip distribution is converted
via Box-Cox power transformation. The transformed slip distribution is
then adjusted to achieve the suitable slip characteristics, such as mean
5
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 54 (2021) 102050
slip and maximum slip. In this study, stochastic synthesis of constrained
random slip distributions is performed to generate 1000 stochastic
source models having earthquake magnitudes in the range between
M8.7 and M9.1 [17]. The synthesized earthquake source models reflect
possible variability of tsunamigenic earthquakes from the
Nankai-Tonankai Trough in terms of geometry, fault location, and slip
distribution (Fig. 4a). These rupture models are used to perform Monte
Carlo simulations of shaking intensity and tsunami inundation in the
Ogata district of Kuroshio Town.
For a given earthquake source model, shaking and tsunami hazard
intensities at building locations are evaluated by using a ground motion
model and by solving non-linear shallow water equations (NSWE) for
initial boundary conditions of sea surface caused by an earthquake
rupture, respectively. In this study, the peak ground velocity (PGV) is
selected as shaking hazard parameter and the maximum inundation
depth is adopted as tsunami hazard parameter. The choice of PGV as
seismic hazard measure is owing to its compatibility with empirical
seismic fragility functions in Japan (Section 3.3). The local site condi­
tions are based on the J-SHIS average shear-wave velocity database
(Fig. 3b). The PGV ground motion model by Morikawa and Fujiwara
[20] together with the intra-event spatial correlation model of Goda and
Atkinson [21] is used to generate spatially correlated ground motion
fields for the 1000 stochastic sources (Fig. 4b).
On the other hand, tsunami propagation and inundation simulations
are performed using a well-tested NSWE TUNAMI computer code by
Goto et al. [22]. The initial water surface dislocation due to an earth­
quake rupture is evaluated based on the analytical equations by Okada
[34] and Tanioka and Satake [35]. The computational domains are
nested with 2430-m, 810-m, 270-m, 90-m, 30-m, and 10-m grids.
High-resolution elevation data together with coastal/riverside structural
data (e.g. breakwater and levees) and surface roughness data are taken
into account to ensure the accuracy of local tsunami inundation analyses
(note: the mentioned data are the same as the 2012 CDMC models). The
run-up calculation is based on a moving boundary approach [36], where
a dry/wet condition of a computational cell is determined based on total
water depth relative to its elevation. The maximum inundation depths at
the building locations are determined by subtracting the land elevations
from the maximum inundation heights. Tsunami simulations are con­
ducted for all 1000 stochastic sources by considering a time step of 0.1 s
to satisfy the Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy condition and tsunami simula­
tion duration of 3 h. Moreover, the effects of ground deformation are
taken into account by adjusting the elevation data prior to the tsunami
simulation run. However, the effects of tidal variations (e.g., mean high
water level) are not considered in the simulations. For each of the
K. Goda et al. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 54 (2021) 102050

Fig. 6. (a) Shaking damage map, (b) tsunami damage map, and (c) combined shaking-tsunami damage map. The background color map shows to local eleva­
tion data.

stochastic source models, a detailed local tsunami inundation map can
be obtained (Fig. 4c).
3.3. Fragility and damage model
A vulnerability model relates the hazard intensity and the building
damage via an impact severity metric (e.g. damage ratio). In the
developed multi-hazard catastrophe model, damage ratios for shaking
and tsunami are estimated by applying seismic and tsunami fragility
functions. For shaking damage, the adopted seismic fragility models are
three empirical functions for low-rise wooden buildings in Japan
[23–25], which were developed based on shaking damage data from the
1995 Kobe earthquake, seven crustal earthquakes that occurred between
2003 and 2008, and the 2011 Tohoku earthquake, respectively. The
three seismic fragility functions are combined by considering equal

Fig. 7. Histogram of the combined shaking-tsunami loss for the building Fig. 8. Scatter plot and histograms of the shaking loss and tsunami loss for the
portfolio in the Ogata district. building portfolio in the Ogata district.

6
K. Goda et al.
weights. Using the lognormal model, the adopted equations for the three
damage states, i.e. partial damage dsPD, half collapse dsHC, and total
collapse dsTC, are:
[ ( ) ( )]
1 ln(PGV) − 4.340 ln(PGV) − 4.650
P(DS > dsPD ) = 2 × Φ +Φ
3 0.358 0.400
(1)
[ ( ) ( ) (
1 ln(PGV) − 4.650 ln(PGV) − 4.771 ln(PGV) − 4.930
P(DS > dsHC ) = Φ +Φ +Φ
3 0.382 0.394 0.415
[ ( ) ( ) (
1 ln(PGV) − 4.950 ln(PGV) − 5.071 ln(PGV) − 5.630
P(DS > dsTC ) = Φ +Φ +Φ
3 0.429 0.402 0.576
Note that PGV is in cm/s, and Φ(•) is the standard normal distribu­
tion function. For each equation (i.e. damage state), the first, second,
and third terms on the right-hand side of the equations correspond to the
equations suggested by Yamaguchi and Yamazaki [23]; Midorikawa
et al. [24]; and Wu et al. [25]; respectively. Midorikawa et al. [24] did
not develop a seismic fragility function for the partial damage state.
Therefore, the weight for the seismic fragility function for Yamaguchi
and Yamazaki [23] is doubled with respect to that for Wu et al. [25] (see
Equation (1)). The weighted seismic fragility functions for the partial
damage, half collapse, and total collapse damage states are shown in
Fig. 5a (note: the individual functions vary significantly; see Goda and
De Risi [11]. The seismic damage ratios for the partial damage, half
collapse, and total collapse are assigned as 0.03–0.2, 0.2–0.5, and
0.5–1.0, respectively [37].
For tsunami damage, the tsunami fragility model developed by De
Risi et al. [26] based on the tsunami damage data from the 2011 Tohoku
event is adopted. The fragility model is expressed in terms of tsunami
flow depth, and the following five tsunami damage states are consid­
ered: minor, moderate, extensive, complete, and collapse. The equations
for the tsunami fragility functions are not shown here because the
multinomial logistic regression model, i.e. M3 model with the model
parameters listed in Table 3 of De Risi et al. [26]; is relatively compli­
cated and repeating the same information and explanations that can be
found in De Risi et al. [26] is unnecessary. The tsunami fragility func­
tions for the five damage states are shown in Fig. 5b. The tsunami
damage ratios for the damage ratio ranges of 0.03–0.1, 0.1–0.3, 0.3–0.5,
0.5–1.0, and 1.0, respectively (http://www.mlit.go.jp/toshi/toshi-h
ukkou-arkaibu.html).
3.4. Risk assessment
A damage ratio of each building due to ground shaking is determined
by identifying the shaking damage state for a given PGV value and then
by simulating a uniform random variable within the lower and upper
bounds of the respective damage state. The same procedure can be
adopted for determining the tsunami damage ratio. The shaking and
tsunami damage ratio maps of the buildings in the zoomed area of the
Ogata district (Fig. 3c) are illustrated in Fig. 6a and Fig. 6b, respectively.
The earthquake source for the shaking-tsunami risk assessment is shown
in Fig. 4a, and the corresponding PGV and inundation distributions for
this scenario are shown in Fig. 4b and c, respectively. It can be observed
from Fig. 6a and b that the shaking damage is more uniformly spread
among the buildings in the zoomed area because the PGV intensity for
this scenario is relatively high (exceeding 100 cm/s2; Fig. 4b) and thus
the half-collapse and collapse damage states can be induced (Fig. 5a). On
the other hand, the tsunami damage is more severe on the eastern side of
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 54 (2021) 102050
the zoomed area (i.e. closer to the coast) than the western side of the
area (Fig. 6b). This is consistent with the tsunami inundation pattern
shown in Fig. 4c, where the eastern side of the zoomed area experiences
flow depths of 3–4 m, while the western side experiences flow depths of
0–2 m. With flow depths of 3–4 m, the probability of major tsunami
damage becomes significantly higher in comparison with flow depths of
0–2 m (Fig. 5b).
)]
(2)
)]
(3)
Subsequently, for each building, a greater of the estimated shaking
and tsunami damage ratios is adopted as the final damage ratio of the
building. A multi-hazard loss value is calculated by sampling a value of
the building replacement cost (Section 3.1) and then by multiplying it
by the final damage ratio. For the illustrative cases shown in Fig. 6a and
b, the combined damage ratios of the buildings in the zoomed area of the
Ogata district are displayed in Fig. 6c. The final seismic-tsunami damage
ratio map reflects the estimated damage patterns from both shaking and
tsunami risk assessments. The shaking damage is distributed more
randomly over the area but the tsunami damage is systematically
distributed along the coastal side. It is noteworthy that the above-
mentioned approach of calculating the combined shaking-tsunami
damage ratio does not account for the interaction between shaking
and tsunami damage (including tsunami debris effects) explicitly. For
the present study, this limitation is alleviated because the tsunami
fragility model by De Risi et al. [26] is based on the tsunami damage
data from the 2011 Tohoku event that include the effects due to shaking
damage. Nevertheless, when a multi-hazard loss model is developed for
a different region, it is desirable to consider such shaking-tsunami
damage accumulation effects (e.g. Ref. [38].
Finally, by repeating the risk assessments for all selected buildings
and all earthquake scenarios, multi-hazard and single-hazard loss sam­
ples can be obtained for the building portfolio of interest (e.g. Fig. 3). By
plotting the loss percentiles of the single-hazard and multi-hazard loss
samples against the sample size of the earthquake scenarios, the stability
of the simulated loss data is examined. In the post-processing stage of the
multi-hazard loss estimation, associations of the synthesized earthquake
scenario, simulated PGV distribution, inundation depth distribution,
and single-hazard as well as multi-hazard damage ratio distributions (i.
e. Figs. 4 and 6) are retained. This facilitates the development of critical
hazard-risk scenario maps that can be utilized in managing multi-hazard
disaster risks. Such new multi-hazard risk management tools will be
demonstrated in Sections 4.3 and 4.4.
4. Multi-hazard loss estimation results
This section presents numerical loss estimation results for the Ogata
district of Kuroshio Town using the 1000 stochastic source models for
the M8.7 to M9.1 Nankai-Tonankai Trough megathrust rupture sce­
narios. Section 4.1 focuses upon the characteristics of the simulated loss
samples for the multi-hazard and single-hazard cases. In Section 4.2, the
shaking-tsunami hazard intensity distributions of the vertical evacua­
tion tower in Ogata are investigated. By linking the calculated portfolio
loss percentiles with other multi-hazard characteristics, two types of
critical hazard-risk scenario maps can be derived. The first type is based
on an individual event that corresponds to a certain loss percentile and
thus various results, such as the earthquake source, hazard intensity
footprint, and damage severity, can be associated directly. These results
7
K. Goda et al.
Fig. 9. Scatter plot and histograms of peak ground velocity and inundation depth at the vertical evacuation tower in the Ogata district (Fig. 3d).
are discussed in Section 4.3. As the second type of critical loss scenario
maps, the averaged scenario loss results of the source, intensity, and
damage characteristics that cause specified ranges of the multi-hazard
loss can also be useful for disaster risk management purposes. Such
multi-hazard loss estimation results are explored in Section 4.4.
4.1. Loss distributions for building portfolio in Ogata
The building portfolio loss samples for the 1000 stochastic source
models of the Nankai-Tonankai megathrust events are obtained from the
developed multi-hazard catastrophe model. Fig. 7 shows a histogram of
the combined shaking-tsunami loss for the building portfolio in the
Ogata district, whereas Fig. 8 shows a scatter plot and histograms of the
shaking loss and tsunami loss for the building portfolio in the Ogata
district. In these two figures, the loss samples are distinguished for two
magnitude ranges (M8.7-8.9 and M8.9-9.1). From Fig. 7, it can be
observed that the combined loss tends to increase with the earthquake
magnitude. By inspecting single-hazard loss histograms shown in Fig. 8
(the top and right panels of the scatter plot), the tsunami loss tends to
increase with the magnitude more significantly than the shaking loss,
and thus contributes more towards the increase in the combined loss
with the earthquake magnitude as shown in Fig. 7. In other words,
tsunami risk is more nonlinearly affected by the earthquake size than
shaking risk, and this observation is consistent with the results reported
in Goda and De Risi [11] for the building portfolios in the Tohoku region
of Japan.
With regard to the estimated shaking loss based on the developed
multi-hazard catastrophe model, the increase in earthquake magnitude
results in a larger earthquake rupture area (as per empirical scaling re­
lationships), and thus there is more chance that the distance from the
rupture plane to the building sites becomes closer. On the other hand,
8
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 54 (2021) 102050
the increase in earthquake magnitude itself does not result in the
increased ground motion intensity due to the saturation of magnitude
scaling as incorporated in the ground motion model by Morikawa and
Fujiwara [20]. This is the main reason that the effect of earthquake
magnitude on the shaking loss is limited, as seen on the top panel of
Fig. 8.
In contrast, the tsunami loss is more influenced by the increase in
tsunami potential energy due to larger earthquakes [39]. The tsunami
potential energy is the sum of the squared sea surface dislocation values
caused by an earthquake rupture and accounts for the combined effects
of earthquake magnitude and other source characteristics, such as slip,
depth, strike, dip, and rake, on the sea surface dislocation. For the same
set of the Nankai-Tonankai stochastic source models, Goda et al. [17]
demonstrated that the inundation area, which is an accurate predictor
for local tsunami loss [40], is strongly correlated with tsunami potential
energy. Therefore, a more significant increase in the tsunami loss is
expected with the increase in earthquake magnitude, as seen in the right
panel of Fig. 8, than the shaking loss. It is also noticeable that the
tsunami loss histograms exhibit bimodal loss distributions, i.e. a lower
mode at tsunami losses less than 200 million US$ and a higher mode at
tsunami losses greater than 200 million US$. When a large loss occurs in
Ogata, the earthquake asperities tend to be located off Shikoku Island
and thus massive tsunami waves are directed towards the target coastal
areas.
Lastly, from the scatter plot shown in Fig. 8, it is not possible to
identify a clear dependency between the shaking loss and the tsunami
loss. This may be due to (at least) two reasons. One reason is that the
current ground motion model does not account for locations of asperities
in computing the ground shaking intensity (i.e. the site-to-source dis­
tance depends only on the overall fault model and does not reflect local
features of the earthquake rupture) and its predicted intensity is
K. Goda et al. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 54 (2021) 102050

Fig. 10. Earthquake source models (a,c,e,g) and initial vertical deformation distributions (b,d,f,h) of the 16th, 50th, 84th, and 97.5th percentile loss scenarios
identified based on the combined shaking-tsunami loss for the building portfolio in the Ogata district (Fig. 7).

saturated with respect to earthquake magnitude. In addition, the ground
motion variability term, such as between-event variability, does not
depend on the (average) earthquake slip. An obvious refinement of the
developed multi-hazard catastrophe model is to implement hybrid
ground motion simulations (e.g. Refs. [41,42] to capture more local
source characteristics in the shaking footprint estimation. The other
reason for the lack of clear dependency between the shaking loss and the
tsunami loss is the consideration of local target areas for the loss esti­
mation in this study. When the multi-hazard loss estimation is per­
formed for a wider region (e.g. Shikoku or western Japan), the bimodal
characteristics of the regional tsunami loss distribution will become less
noticeable, and the regional shaking loss distribution depend more on
the earthquake magnitude. These are future research topics and are
outside of the scope of the current study.
4.2. Multi-hazard shaking-tsunami hazard intensity at vertical evacuation
tower in Ogata
Before investigating the source, hazard, and damage characteristics
at different combined loss levels in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, it is interesting
to examine the shaking and tsunami hazard intensities at the vertical
evacuation tower in Ogata (Fig. 3d). For this purpose, information on
PGV and inundation depth at the vertical evacuation tower is extracted
and is shown as a scatter plot and histograms in Fig. 9 by distinguishing
the two magnitude ranges. The PGV distributions (top panel) have
similar unimodal shapes for the two magnitude ranges with the repre­
sentative PGV values of 80 cm/s and the extreme PGV values exceeding
250 cm/s. The inundation depth distributions (right panel) exhibit the
right skewed distributions with large concentrations at inundation depth
of 0 m (i.e. the site is not inundated, noting that the tower is at 4.0 m

9
K. Goda et al.
Fig. 11. Peak ground velocity (a,c,e,g) and inundation depth (b,d,f,h) of the 16th, 50th, 84th, and 97.5th percentile loss scenarios identified based on the combined
shaking-tsunami loss for the building portfolio in the Ogata district (Fig. 7).
above the mean sea level). There are two cases where tsunami depth
becomes greater than the critical depth of 14.2 m; the chance of expe­
riencing such incidence may be regarded as sufficiently small given that
extreme rupture scenarios are simulated in this study [17]. Importantly,
the multi-hazard catastrophe model can produce useful outputs that feed
into advanced engineering analyses. For instance, the joint multi-hazard
intensity values are particularly useful for examining the structural
integrity of the vertical evacuation tower under extreme
seismic-tsunami loading conditions.
10
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 54 (2021) 102050
4.3. Critical hazard-risk maps based on individual multi-hazard loss
scenarios
Each of the multi-hazard loss results shown in Fig. 7 can be directly
associated with the corresponding earthquake source, hazard intensity
footprint, and damage severity. In other words, critical hazard-risk
scenario maps can be identified based on the combined loss distribu­
tion. To demonstrate how such joint scenario maps can be produced
from the multi-hazard catastrophe model based on stochastic earth­
quake sources, four loss levels are selected: 16th, 50th, 84th, and 97.5th.
These four loss levels are indicated in Fig. 7. In the following, the
earthquake source models and initial vertical deformation profiles, PGV
K. Goda et al.
Fig. 12. Shaking damage ratios (a,d,g,j), tsunami damage ratios (b,e,h,k), and combined damage ratios (c,f,i,l) of the 16th, 50th, 84th, and 97.5th percentile loss
scenarios identified based on the combined shaking-tsunami loss for the building portfolio in the Ogata district (Fig. 7). The background color map shows the
elevation for the range of 0 m (gray) and 20 m (white).
and inundation depth hazard intensity distributions, and shaking,
tsunami, and combined damage distributions at the selected four port­
folio loss percentiles are mainly focused upon to investigate how the
above-mentioned hazard-risk characteristics change with the combined
portfolio loss levels in Ogata.
Fig. 10 shows the earthquake source models and initial vertical
deformation distributions corresponding to the 16th, 50th, 84th, and
97.5th percentile loss scenarios. Generally speaking, when the loss levels
are low, an earthquake source model has either broader spatial distri­
bution of earthquake slip (e.g. 16th percentile scenario) or large as­
perities but not directly facing the target site (e.g. 50th percentile
scenario). When the loss levels are high, the locations of large asperities
are directly off the target site (e.g. 84th percentile scenario), and the
spatial size of the asperity tends to become larger (e.g. 97.5th percentile
scenario). Essentially the same trends can be seen in the initial vertical
deformation distributions. Note that the initial vertical deformation
distributions can be used to calculate the tsunami potential energy and
thus are useful as a more accurate predictor of tsunami loss [17,39].
Fig. 11 shows the PGV and inundation depth distributions in the
Ogata district that correspond to the 16th, 50th, 84th, and 97.5th
percentile loss scenarios. The locations of the buildings are also dis­
played on the maps. When the loss levels are relatively low (e.g. 16th
11
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 54 (2021) 102050
and 50th percentile scenarios), intense levels of shaking hazards (100
cm/s to 200 cm/s in terms of PGV) can cause moderate-to-extensive
shaking to the buildings (Fig. 5a). On the other hand, for the cases
shown in Fig. 11, the extent of tsunami inundation is limited to the
coastal areas where not many people live (Fig. 11b and d). As the loss
levels increase (e.g. 84th and 97.5th percentile scenarios), the extent of
the tsunami inundation expands rapidly as shown in Fig. 11f and h. By
recognizing that the majority of the wooden buildings can be severely
damaged or washed away at the water depth of 2–4 m (Fig. 5b),
buildings in inundated areas with light blue color will experience severe
damage or collapse. In contrast, the shaking intensity levels for the 84th
and 97.5th percentile scenarios are similar to that of the 50th percentile
scenario.
Fig. 12 shows the building-by-building damage ratios due to shaking,
tsunami, and combined shaking-tsunami effects, corresponding to the
16th, 50th, 84th, and 97.5th percentile loss scenarios. To show the local
variations of the simulated damage ratios at individual buildings, the
maps zoom in the vicinity of the vertical evacuation tower in the Ogata
district (Fig. 3c). The background filled contour map displays the ground
elevation, which can be viewed as local topographical indicators (i.e.
low elevation locations tend to experience higher local shaking ampli­
fication and higher tsunami inundation). As inferred from the PGV
K. Goda et al. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 54 (2021) 102050

Fig. 13. Average shaking-tsunami hazard-risk maps for the 16th (13.5th to 18.5th) percentile loss scenarios for the building portfolio in the Ogata district (Fig. 7). (a)
Earthquake source model, (b) initial vertical deformation distribution, (c) peak ground velocity, (d) inundation depth, (e) shaking damage ratio, (f) tsunami damage
ratio, and (g) combined damage ratio. The background color map in (e), (f), and (g) shows the elevation for the range of 0 m (gray) and 20 m (white).

distribution maps shown in Fig. 11a, c, 11e, and 11g, the shaking
damage extent of the buildings in the zoomed area is relatively low for
the 16th percentile loss, whereas the damage extent is moderate for the
50th, 84th, and 97.5th percentile loss cases. It is also noted that severely
damaged buildings due to strong shaking are distributed more randomly
within the area because the intra-event spatial correlation of ground
motion variability decays rapidly over a short distance; for instance, the
intra-event correlations at 1 km and 5 km distances are 0.74 and 0.57
based on the average model by Goda and Atkinson [21]. The tsunami
damage ratios of the buildings in the zoomed area are initially zero for

12
K. Goda et al. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 54 (2021) 102050

Fig. 14. Average shaking-tsunami hazard-risk maps for the 50th (47.5th to 52.5th) percentile loss scenarios for the building portfolio in the Ogata district (Fig. 7). (a)
Earthquake source model, (b) initial vertical deformation distribution, (c) peak ground velocity, (d) inundation depth, (e) shaking damage ratio, (f) tsunami damage
ratio, and (g) combined damage ratio. The background color map in (e), (f), and (g) shows the elevation for the range of 0 m (gray) and 20 m (white).

13
K. Goda et al. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 54 (2021) 102050

Fig. 15. Average shaking-tsunami hazard-risk maps for the 84th (81.5th to 86.5th) percentile loss scenarios for the building portfolio in the Ogata district (Fig. 7). (a)
Earthquake source model, (b) initial vertical deformation distribution, (c) peak ground velocity, (d) inundation depth, (e) shaking damage ratio, (f) tsunami damage
ratio, and (g) combined damage ratio. The background color map in (e), (f), and (g) shows the elevation for the range of 0 m (gray) and 20 m (white).

14
K. Goda et al. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 54 (2021) 102050

Fig. 16. Average shaking-tsunami hazard-risk maps for the 97.5th (95th to 100th) percentile loss scenarios for the building portfolio in the Ogata district (Fig. 7). (a)
Earthquake source model, (b) initial vertical deformation distribution, (c) peak ground velocity, (d) inundation depth, (e) shaking damage ratio, (f) tsunami damage
ratio, and (g) combined damage ratio. The background color map in (e), (f), and (g) shows the elevation for the range of 0 m (gray) and 20 m (white).

15
K. Goda et al.
the 16th and 50th percentile loss scenarios (Fig. 12b and e), while they
increase rapidly to nearly 1.0 at higher loss levels (Fig. 12h and k). Since
the combined damage ratios of the buildings are defined based on the
larger of the shaking damage ratios and the tsunami damage ratios for
the individual buildings, the characteristics of the combined damage
ratios for given loss levels are affected by the more dominant hazard
characteristics at the considered loss levels.
4.4. Average critical hazard-risk maps
It is noteworthy that the earthquake source models, hazard intensity
maps, and damage ratio maps shown in Figs. 10–12 are based on indi­
vidual events for specific loss levels. The results for similar loss levels (e.
g. results for the 500th and 501th scenarios as ranked based on the
multi-hazard portfolio loss metric) can exhibit different characteristics
in terms of earthquake rupture, hazard intensity distributions, and loss
contributions. To capture more general features of the critical hazard-
risk scenario maps, the average characteristics of the critical hazard-
risk scenario maps that correspond to a range of loss levels are investi­
gated in this section. In the following, the four selected loss levels are
still focused upon, but respective ranges of the loss levels are broadened
by taking the representative loss level minus and plus 2.5%. For
instance, in developing the average critical hazard-risk scenario maps
for the 84th percentile loss level, all loss events that cause the combined
portfolio loss between 81.5th and 86.5th levels (51 cases for the 1000
stochastic source models). To attempt a different way of organizing and
visualizing the results, seven hazard-risk metrics, as shown in
Figs. 10–12, i.e. earthquake source model, initial vertical deformation
profile, PGV distribution, inundation depth distribution, shaking dam­
age ratio, tsunami damage ratio, and combined damage ratio, for the
same loss levels are consolidated into one figure. Such integrated
average critical hazard-risk scenario maps for the 16th, 50th, 84th, and
97.5th percentile loss levels are shown in Fig. 13, 14, 15, and 16,
respectively.
An important observation from all average critical hazard-risk sce­
nario maps shown in Figs. 13–16 is that notable general trends of the
earthquake sources, hazard intensity, and damage severity emerge. For
instance, the earthquake source model for the representative 16th
percentile loss scenario (Fig. 13a) shows a broad slip concentration in
the middle of the Nankai and Tonankai segments. This broad slip con­
centration is moved to the Nankai segment off Shikoku Island when the
representative 50th percentile loss scenario is considered (Fig. 14a).
With the increase of the representative loss level, the maximum value of
the earthquake slip increases from 20 m for the 50th percentile
(Fig. 14a), to 30 m for the 84th percentile (Fig. 15), and to 40 m for the
97.5th percentile (Fig. 16a). Similar gradual increases of the initial
deformation profile, hazard intensity, and damage ratio can be observed
by comparing the respective figure panels shown in Figs. 13–16.
From earthquake-tsunami disaster risk management perspectives,
using the average critical hazard-risk scenario maps may be more
effective in conveying the uncertainty associated with the predictions of
earthquake-tsunami consequences, because scenario-to-scenario vari­
ability of the hazard-risk maps can be largely smoothed or suppressed.
This is one of our motivations to compare individual critical hazard-risk
scenario maps (Figs. 10–12) and averaged critical hazard-risk scenario
maps (Figs. 13–16). Moreover, it should be emphasized that the average
earthquake source models are different from national earthquake source
models, such as the 2012 CDMC models (see Ref. [17]. The former has
the connections to the multi-hazard loss distribution of the target
building portfolio, whereas the latter does not have such linkage. In this
regard, the critical earthquake scenarios and related hazard and risk
maps are more useful for disaster risk management purposes and can be
utilized for other more advanced analyses, such as earthquake-tsunami
evacuation planning based on agent-based simulation and stochastic
earthquake modeling [43].
16
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 54 (2021) 102050
5. Conclusions
A new multi-hazard catastrophe model for a coastal building port­
folio exposed to the future Nankai-Tonankai megathrust subduction
earthquake and tsunami was developed. The earthquake-tsunami ca­
tastrophe model incorporated the stochastic rupture sources, spatially
correlated ground motion fields, tsunami inundation simulations,
detailed building data, seismic and tsunami fragility models, and dam­
age cost estimation. The main results from the developed catastrophe
model were obtained as the multi-hazard and single-hazard loss distri­
butions, accompanied by earthquake rupture scenarios, shaking-
tsunami hazard intensity distributions, and building damage distribu­
tions. The model was demonstrated by focusing upon the Ogata district
of Kuroshio Town, Kochi Prefecture, which is one of the most exposed
municipalities subject to the Nankai-Tonankai events in south-western
Pacific region of Japan.
The case study application of the new earthquake-tsunami catas­
trophe model highlighted the following observations and conclusions.
• The tsunami loss tends to increase with the magnitude more signif­
icantly than the shaking loss, and contributes more towards the in­
crease in the multi-hazard total loss with the earthquake magnitude.
The multi-hazard loss distribution has a wide variation in the esti­
mated loss values and thus it is important to consider a wide range of
possible earthquake rupture scenarios to quantify this uncertainty.
• The multi-hazard catastrophe model can produce useful input data
for more advanced earthquake-tsunami engineering analyses. The
joint multi-hazard intensity values (peak ground velocity and
maximum tsunami inundation depth) at the vertical evacuation
tower in Ogata were used for illustrating such applications.
• The major advantage of the multi-hazard catastrophe model based
on the stochastic source modeling approach is that critical hazard-
risk scenario maps can be developed by linking the calculated port­
folio loss percentiles with other multi-hazard characteristics, such as
earthquake source, hazard intensity footprint, and damage severity.
In this study, two types of such critical hazard-risk scenario maps
were demonstrated. The individual-scenario-based critical hazard-
risk maps are useful to maintain a one to one relationship among
the loss results, hazard estimations, and damage assessments,
whereas the average-scenario-based critical hazard-risk maps can
capture notable general trends of the earthquake sources, hazard
intensity, and damage severity that emerge at specified portfolio loss
levels. The latter is particularly useful for disaster risk management
purposes.
The developed multi-hazard loss model can be extended in various
ways. Two important improvents for the future development can be
mentioned. One is to implement hybrid ground motion simulations to
capture more local source characteristics in the shaking footprint esti­
mation. This will improve the earthquake shaking prediction of mega­
thrust subduction events by incorporating more detailed features of the
earthquake ruptures, such as strong motion generation areas and as­
perities. This is likely to reveal the dependency between the shaking
damage/loss and the tsunami damage/loss, which is masked by the
limitations of the current multi-hazard catastrophe model. The other is
to extend the stochastic rupture scenarios to a wider range of earthquake
magnitudes by considering different rupture patterns (e.g. individual
versus synchronized rupture scenarios of the Nankai and the Tonankai
segments). The latter will lead to probabilistic earthquake-tsunami
hazard-risk analysis.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
K. Goda et al. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 54 (2021) 102050

Acknowledgements [19] P.M. Mai, G.C. Beroza, A spatial random field model to characterize complexity in
earthquake slip, J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth 107 (2002), https://doi.org/
10.1029/2001JB000588.
The work was supported by the Leverhulme Trust (RPG-2017-006), [20] N. Morikawa, H. Fujiwara, A new ground motion prediction equation for Japan
the Canada Research Chair program (950–232015), the NSERC Dis­ applicable up to M9 mega-earthquake, J. Disaster Res. 8 (2013) 878–888.
covery Grant (RGPIN-2019-05898), and the Japan Society for the Pro­ [21] K. Goda, G.M. Atkinson, Intraevent spatial correlation of ground-motion
parameters using SK-net data, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 100 (2010) 3055–3067.
motion of Science Joint Research Project (19039901-000829). The [22] C. Goto, Y. Ogawa, N. Shuto, F. Imamura, Numerical Method of Tsunami
tsunami simulations were performed using BlueCrystal Phase 3, which Simulation with the Leap-Frog Scheme, vol. 35, IOC Manual, Paris, France, 1997.
was supported by the Advanced Computing Research Centre of the [23] N. Yamaguchi, F. Yamazaki, Estimation of strong motion distribution in the 1995
Kobe earthquake based on building damage data, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 30
University of Bristol. (2001) 787–801.
[24] S. Midorikawa, Y. Ito, H. Miura, Vulnerability functions of buildings based on
References damage survey data of earthquakes after the 1995 Kobe earthquake, Journal of
Japan Association of Earthquake Engineering 11 (2011) 34–47.
[25] H. Wu, K. Masaki, K. Irikura, S. Kurahashi, Empirical fragility curves of buildings in
[1] S. Murata, F. Imamura, K. Katoh, Y. Kawata, S. Takahashi, T. Takayama, Tsunami –
northern Miyagi Prefecture during the 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku
to Survive from Tsunami, World Scientific, 2010, p. 302.
earthquake, J. Disaster Res. 11 (2016) 1253–1270.
[2] W. Siembieda, L. Johnson, G. Franco, Rebuild fast but rebuild better: Chile’s initial
[26] R. De Risi, K. Goda, T. Yasuda, N. Mori, Is flow velocity important in tsunami
recovery following the 27 February 2010 earthquake and tsunami, Earthq. Spectra
empirical fragility modeling? Earth Sci. Rev. 166 (2017) 64–82.
28 (2012) 621–641.
[27] Y. Yokota, T. Ishikawa, S. Watanabe, T. Tashiro, A. Asada, Seafloor geodetic
[3] S. Fraser, A. Pomonis, A. Raby, K. Goda, S.C. Chian, J. Macabuag, M. Offord,
constraints on interplate coupling of the Nankai Trough megathrust zone, Nature
K. Saito, P. Sammonds, Tsunami damage to coastal defences and buildings in the
(2016), https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17632.
March 11th 2011 Mw9.0 Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami, Bull. Earthq.
[28] H. Baranes, J.D. Woodruff, J.P. Loveless, M. Hyodo, Interseismic coupling-based
Eng. 11 (2013) 205–239.
earthquake and tsunami scenarios for the Nankai Trough, Geophys. Res. Lett. 45
[4] H. Park, D.T. Cox, M.S. Alam, A.R. Barbosa, Probabilistic seismic and tsunami
(2018) 2986–2994.
hazard analysis conditioned on a megathrust rupture of the Cascadia subduction
[29] H. Kimura, K. Tadokoro, T. Ito, Interplate coupling distribution along the Nankai
zone, Frontiers in Built Environment 3 (2017) 32, https://doi.org/10.3389/
Trough in southwest Japan estimated from the block motion model based on
fbuil.2017.00032.
onshore GNSS and seafloor GNSS/A observations, J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth 124
[5] P. Momeni, K. Goda, M. Heidarzadeh, J. Qin, Stochastic analysis of tsunami hazard
(2019) 6140–6164.
of the 1945 Makran subduction zone Mw 8.1-8.3 earthquakes, Geosciences 10
[30] K. Tanigawa, M. Shishikura, O. Fujiwara, Y. Namegaya, D. Matsumoto, Mid- to
(2020) 452, https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10110452.
late-Holocene marine inundations inferred from coastal deposits facing the Nankai
[6] J.E. Daniell, A.M. Schaefer, F. Wenzel, Influence of secondary hazards in
Trough in Nankoku, Kochi Prefecture, southern Japan, Holocene 28 (2018)
earthquake loss, Frontiers in Built Environment 3 (2017) 30, https://doi.org/
867–878.
10.3389/fbuil.2017.00030.
[31] Central Disaster Management Council (CDMC), Working Group Report on Mega-
[7] J. Selva, R. Tonini, I. Molinari, M.M. Tiberti, F. Romano, A. Grezio, D. Melini,
Thrust Earthquake Models for the Nankai Trough, Japan. Cabinet Office of the
A. Piatanesi, R. Basili, S. Lorito, Quantification of source uncertainties in seismic
Japanese Government, Tokyo, 2012. http://www.bousai.go.jp/jishin/nankai/nan
probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis (SPTHA), Geophys. J. Int. 205 (2016)
kaitrough_info.html.
1780–1803.
[32] K. Goda, J. Song, Uncertainty modeling and visualization for tsunami hazard and
[8] W. Marzocchi, A. Garcia-Aristizabal, P. Gasparini, M.L. Mastellone, A. Di Ruocco,
risk mapping: a case study for the 2011 Tohoku earthquake, Stoch. Environ. Res.
Basic principles of multi-risk assessment: a case study in Italy, Nat. Hazards 62
Risk Assess. 30 (8) (2016) 2271–2285.
(2012) 551–573.
[33] Construction Research Institute, Japan Building Cost Information 2011, 2011,
[9] A. Mignan, S. Wiemer, D. Giardini, The quantification of low-probability–high-
p. 547. Tokyo, Japan.
consequences events: part I. A generic multi-risk approach, Nat. Hazards 73 (2014)
[34] Y. Okada, Surface deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space, Bull.
1999–2022.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 75 (1985) 1135–1154.
[10] K. Mitchell-Wallace, M. Jones, J. Hillier, M. Foote, Natural Catastrophe Risk
[35] Y. Tanioka, K. Satake, Tsunami generation by horizontal displacement of ocean
Management and Modelling, Wiley, 2017, p. 506.
bottom, Geophys. Res. Lett. 23 (1996) 861–864.
[11] K. Goda, R. De Risi, Multi-hazard loss estimation for shaking and tsunami using
[36] Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE), Tsunami Assessment Method for Nuclear
stochastic rupture sources, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 28
Power Plants in Japan, 2002. https://www.jsce.or.jp/committee/ceofnp/Tsunam
(2018) 539–554.
i/eng/JSCE_Tsunami_060519.pdf.
[12] H. Park, M.S. Alam, D.T. Cox, A.R. Barbosa, J.W. van de Lindt, Probabilistic seismic
[37] A. Kusaka, H. Ishida, K. Torisawa, H. Doi, K. Yamada, Vulnerability functions in
and tsunami damage analysis (PSTDA) of the Cascadia Subduction Zone applied to
terms of ground motion characteristics for wooden houses evaluated by use of
Seaside, Oregon, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 35 (2019)
earthquake insurance experience, Architectural Institute of Japan Journal of
101076.
Technology and Design 21 (2015) 527–532.
[13] M. Ando, Source mechanisms and tectonic significance of historical earthquakes
[38] N. Attary, J.W. van De Lindt, A.R. Barbosa, D.T. Cox, V.U. Unnikrishnan,
along the Nankai Trough, Japan, Tectonophysics 27 (1975) 119–140.
Performance-based tsunami engineering for risk assessment of structures subjected
[14] E. Garrett, O. Fujiwara, P. Garrett, V.M.A. Heyvaert, M. Shishikura, Y. Yokoyama,
to multi-hazards: tsunami following earthquake, J. Earthq. Eng. (2019), https://
A. Hubert-Ferrari, H. Brückner, A. Nakamura, M. De Batist, the QuakeRecNankai
doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2019.1616335.
team, A systematic review of geological evidence for Holocene earthquakes and
[39] D. Melgar, A.L. Williamson, E.F. Salazar-Monroy, Differences between
tsunamis along the Nankai-Suruga Trough. Japan, Earth Sci. Rev. 159 (2016)
heterogeneous and homogenous slip in regional tsunami hazards modelling,
337–357.
Geophys. J. Int. 219 (2019) 553–562.
[15] S. Fujino, H. Kimura, J. Komatsubara, D. Matsumoto, Y. Namegaya, Y. Sawai,
[40] K. Goda, N. Mori, T. Yasuda, Rapid tsunami loss estimation using regional
M. Shishikura, Stratigraphic evidence of historical and prehistoric tsunamis on the
inundation hazard metrics derived from stochastic tsunami simulation,
Pacific coast of central Japan: implications for the variable recurrence of tsunamis
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 40 (2019) 101152.
in the Nankai Trough, Quat. Sci. Rev. 201 (2018) 147–161.
[41] A. Pitarka, R. Graves, K. Irikura, H. Miyake, A. Rodgers, Performance of Irikura
[16] O. Fujiwara, A. Aoshima, T. Irizuki, E. Ono, S.P. Obrochta, Y. Sampei, Y. Sato,
recipe rupture model generator in earthquake ground motion simulations with
A. Takahashi, Tsunami deposits refine great earthquake rupture extent and
Graves and Pitarka hybrid approach, Pure Appl. Geophys. 174 (2017) 3537–3555.
recurrence over the past 1300 years along the Nankai and Tokai fault segments of
[42] A. Frankel, E. Wirth, N. Marafi, J. Vidale, W. Stephenson, Broadband synthetic
the Nankai Trough, Japan, Quat. Sci. Rev. 227 (2020) 105999.
seismograms for magnitude 9 earthquakes on the Cascadia megathrust based on 3D
[17] K. Goda, T. Yasuda, N. Mori, A. Muhammad, R. De Risi, F. De Luca, Uncertainty
simulations and stochastic synthetics, Part 1: methodology and overall results, Bull.
quantification of tsunami inundation in Kuroshio Town, Kochi Prefecture, Japan
Seismol. Soc. Am. 108 (2018) 2347–2369.
using the Nankai-Tonankai megathrust rupture scenarios, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst.
[43] A. Muhammad, R. De Risi, F. De Luca, K. Goda, N. Mori, T. Yasuda, Agent-based
Sci. 20 (2020) 3039–3056.
modelling of existing tsunami evacuation plan in Kuroshio Town, Kochi, Japan, in:
[18] K. Goda, T. Yasuda, N. Mori, T. Maruyama, New scaling relationships of
17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Sendai, Japan, Paper
earthquake source parameters for stochastic tsunami simulation, Coast Eng. J. 58
C003862, 2020.
(2016) 1650010.

17