JOURNAL OF JAPAN SOCIETY OF HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES
Online ISSN : 1349-2853
Print ISSN : 0915-1389
ISSN-L : 0915-1389
Volume 33, Issue 4
Displaying 1-7 of 7 articles from this issue
Original research article
  • Takahiro ENDO, Yoshinao MORI, Taikan OKI
    2020Volume 33Issue 4 Pages 144-155
    Published: July 05, 2020
    Released on J-STAGE: August 01, 2020
    JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

     Securing a minimum volume of water for drinking and domestic purposes is vitally important in the aftermath of an earthquake. Currently, water supply systems across Japan are being reconstructed to ensure that they are earthquake-resistant. Disaster emergency wells are one means of supplementing basic water demand. Such wells are often privately owned, but are used for public purposes such as first-aid water supply in emergency situations. Although some case studies of disaster emergency wells have been reported after major earthquakes, how widely such wells are adopted in municipalities in Japan has not been investigated. This paper conducts a survey of the prevalence of disaster emergency wells in 20 ordinance-designated cities in Japan and describes evaluation of institutional effectiveness using criteria based on experiences following the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake. Survey results reveal that only 12 of those 20 cities have established disaster emergency wells and that Chiba, Kawasaki, Kumamoto, Nagoya, Sagamihara, and Yokohama cities have more effective institutions than other cities do. Finally, this paper presents future challenges for disaster emergency well management, including the need to increase their prevalence and, in combination with land use policy, to ensure their maintenance and their combined use with other water supplies.

    Download PDF (1007K)
Review article
  • Tsutomu YAMANAKA, Maki TSUJIMURA
    2020Volume 33Issue 4 Pages 156-163
    Published: July 05, 2020
    Released on J-STAGE: August 01, 2020
    JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

     Although residence time is a key concept in hydrological studies, some confusion has arisen about similar terms. Here, we re-examine various concepts related to residence time and present a definition of each term and their characteristics in different systems. Then we recommend limited use of the term ‘residence time’ as general term involving ‘turnover time (i.e., conventional residence time),’ ‘age,’ ‘mean age,’ ‘transit time,’ and ‘mean transit time.’ We should distinguish these terms clearly when their values are shown. Additionally, we clarify correspondence among estimation methods and concepts/terms, and state remarks in interpreting estimation results. Finally, as ways forward in residence time studies, we emphasize the following: (1) combined use of tracers and numerical models and (2)appropriate selection and multi-faceted application of simple and well-defined indices of residence time.

    Download PDF (758K)
Commentary article
feedback
Top