- Wiley Online Library

Click
Here
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, C06032, doi:10.1029/2009JC005587, 2010
for
Full
Article
Tsunami damage reduction performance of a
mangrove forest in Banda Aceh, Indonesia inferred
from field data and a numerical model
H. Yanagisawa,1 S. Koshimura,2 T. Miyagi,3 and F. Imamura2
Received 20 June 2009; revised 4 December 2009; accepted 18 December 2009; published 30 June 2010.
[1] Since the 26 December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the role of mangrove forests as
natural defenses protecting coastal communities from tsunami disaster has been
highlighted. However, some mangrove forests were destroyed by that tsunami. They are
expected to have lost their protective functions. In this study, we develop a fragility
function to assess the mangrove trees’ vulnerability, expressed as the damage probability
of mangrove trees, based on field surveys and numerical modeling of the 2004 Indian
Ocean tsunami in Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Based on the fragility function, we reconstruct a
numerical model of tsunami inundation including the performance of mangrove forests in
terms of reducing tsunami damage. The model reveals that a 10 year old mangrove forest
in a 500 m wide area can reduce a tsunami’s hydrodynamic force by approximately
70% for an incident wave of 3.0 m inundation depth and a wave period of 40 min at the
shoreline. The model also shows, for a tsunami inundation depth of greater than 4 m, that a
10 year old mangrove forest would be mostly destroyed and that it would lose its
force reduction capacity. Moreover, approximately 80% of a 30 year old mangrove forest
would survive a 5 m tsunami and absorb 50% of the tsunami’s hydrodynamic force.
Citation: Yanagisawa, H., S. Koshimura, T. Miyagi, and F. Imamura (2010), Tsunami damage reduction performance of a
mangrove forest in Banda Aceh, Indonesia inferred from field data and a numerical model, J. Geophys. Res., 115, C06032,
doi:10.1029/2009JC005587.
1. Introduction
[2] Mangroves are believed to be one of the world’s most
productive types of vegetation, providing considerable
economic and ecological service to local people [e.g.,
Saenger, 2002; Mann, 2000]. Mangroves densely vegetate
at the confluence of land and sea in tropical and subtropical
areas, where they play a special role in protecting human life
and property from natural disasters such as storm surges,
coastal erosion, and tsunamis [Mazda et al., 1997; Saenger,
2002; Wolanski, 2007]. However, mangrove ecosystems are
threatened by deforestation for economic development:
globally, one‐third of mangrove habitats have disappeared
over the last 50 years [Alongi, 2002].
[3] Since the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, which caused
the most catastrophic tsunami disaster in recorded history,
several observations of mangrove forests’ role in protecting
human lives from the disaster have been reported
[Danielson et al., 2005; Kathiresan and Rajendran, 2005;
Iverson and Prasad, 2007]. Accordingly, governments’
recognition of the role of mangrove forests as coastal pro1
Tokyo Electric Power Services Co., Ltd.,Tokyo, Japan.
Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.
Department of Regional Management, Tohoku Gakuin University,
Sendai, Japan.
2
3
Copyright 2010 by the American Geophysical Union.
0148‐0227/10/2009JC005587
tection and its attendant benefits is increasing; mangrove
plantations have become an important part of disaster
management planning [Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA), 2005; Walton et al., 2006; Check, 2005].
Although tsunami mitigation effects of mangrove forest
have been emphasized, some studies have indicated analytical weaknesses of the preliminary reports of mangrove
forests’ protective role in the 2004 tsunami [Kerr et al.,
2006; Vermaat and Thampanya, 2006a; Kerr and Baird,
2007; Bhalla, 2007; Baird and Kerr, 2008; Feagin et al.,
2008; Srinivas et al., 2008]. Those studies showed that the
role of other coastal features, in particular, bathymetry,
ground elevation, topographic profile and distance from the
coast, must be considered as variables to explain tsunami
damage reduction behind mangrove forests. Furthermore,
some researchers have reported that the massive tsunami
severely damaged mangrove habitats and that they have lost
their protective functions [Dahdouh‐Guebas, 2006; Wolanski,
2007; Yanagisawa et al., 2009a]. Consequently, the vulnerability of mangrove forests to tsunamis has been raised as a
problem of assessment of its functions and limitations in use
as coastal protection [Kerr et al., 2006; Wolanski, 2007;
Asano, 2008; Yanagisawa et al., 2009a]. Since mangrove
forests’ protective role has been reported, considerable controversy has arisen surrounding its tsunami defense functions
[e.g., Kathiresan and Rajendran, 2005; Kerr et al., 2006;
Vermaat and Thampanya, 2006a, 2006b]. To explore these
C06032
1 of 11
C06032
YANAGISAWA ET AL.: TSUNAMI REDUCTION EFFECTS OF MANGROVES
C06032
Figure 1. (a) The epicenter and rupture area of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami [Chlieh et al., 2007].
(b) Map of study sites in Banda Aceh with measured tsunami height [Borrero, 2005; Tsuji et al., 2006].
Satellite images of the coast of Banda Aceh (IKONOS) (c) before and (d) after the 2004 tsunami (18 June
2004 and 29 December 2004, respectively). White dotted lines in Figures 1c and 1d mark the mangrove
area before the tsunami event.
important debates, a quantitative approach must be taken to
assess mangrove forests’ protective capabilities with particular consideration of prior damage to the forests.
[4] Field measurements have been done in some studies
by uprooting of trees (not mangroves) around river channels
or coasts to determine the strength of trees against uprooting
force [Imai and Suzuki, 2005; Asano, 2008]. Yanagisawa et
al. [2009a] recently proposed a fragility function to estimate
the damage probability of mangrove trees associated with
bending stress caused by tsunami flow, using observed
damage data for Pakarang Cape, Thailand and numerical
modeling of the tsunami. Especially in earthquake engineering studies, to estimate the performance of structures
against strong ground motion [e.g., Shinozuka et al., 2000],
development of vulnerability information in the form of a
fragility function is a widely practiced approach when
numerous uncertain factors such as the tree characteristics,
floating debris, and local behavior of the tsunami flow are
involved [Koshimura et al., 2009]. However, these uncertain effects related to the fragility function are not quantified
and might differ among regions and be affected by site
conditions. For that reason, a comparative study investigating the vulnerability of mangrove trees among regions
should be undertaken to assess damage probability and to
confirm the model’s applicability.
[5] This study specifically assesses the performance of
mangrove forest in reducing tsunami hazard and mangrove
forests’ vulnerability against tsunamis using field surveys
and numerical modeling of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami
in Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Based on field data of mangrove
damage and numerical model results, we develop a fragility
function of mangrove trees and compare it with previous
study to examine interregional differences. Finally, we
assess the tsunami damage reduction performance of mangrove forests using a numerical model including the proposed fragility function, which can simulate tsunami flow
under arbitrary conditions of coastal features such as
bathymetry, ground elevation, topographic profile, distance
from the coast and presence of mangrove forests.
2. Study Area
[6] We conducted a field investigation of a mangrove
forest and numerical modeling of tsunami at Banda Aceh,
Indonesia (Figure 1). Although the Banda Aceh coast had
been widely covered by a mangrove forest in previous
decades [Parish and Yiew, 2005], large areas of mangrove
forest were exploited for aquaculture as shrimp or fish
ponds. Consequently, only small and scattered patches of
mangrove forest remained by the time of the 2004 tsunami.
2 of 11
C06032
YANAGISAWA ET AL.: TSUNAMI REDUCTION EFFECTS OF MANGROVES
C06032
Figure 2. (a) Sketch of a Rhizophora tree with dense prop root structures. The stem diameter is measured at breast height (DBH; approximately 1.3 m above the top of roots). (b) Mangrove area interpreted
from posttsunami satellite imagery (190 ha). Mangrove trees photographed at (c) study site 2, (d) study
site 4, and (e) study site 5 (Figure 1b). Figure 2c shows surviving trees with more than 20 cm DBH.
Figure 2d shows surviving and destroyed trees; although two mangrove trees in Figure 2d exhibited a
similar condition (e.g. tree characteristics, location, and ground condition), one had survived and the other
had been destroyed. Figure 2e shows the completely destroyed mangrove area.
Unfortunately, the massive tsunami on 26 December 2004
caused serious damage not only to the delicate mangrove
ecosystems but also to the residential areas inland. The
tsunami inundated 4 km inland, causing human damage
estimated at more than 70,000 in Banda Aceh [JICA, 2005].
Tsunami heights above tide level when the tsunami attacked
Banda Aceh around this area were estimated to have been
approximately 3–12 m (Figure 1b) [Borrero, 2005; Tsuji et
al., 2006].
3. Methodology to Investigate Mangrove Damage
and Hydrodynamic Features of Tsunami
sp. with dense prop root structures (Figure 2a). To investigate the specific dimensions of mangrove trees and the
damage by the 2004 tsunami, we measured the stem diameter at breast height (DBH; approximately 1.3 m above the
top of the roots), stem diameter at the top of roots, and the
position of each tree using a Global Positioning System
(GPS) device for adult trees whose DBH was greater than
5 cm. In this study, we defined surviving trees as those that
withstood the tsunami and which did not suffer severe
damage such as breakage or washing away. In all, 697 trees
were sampled throughout the mangrove forest; various stem
diameters and locations were selected.
3.1. Field Survey
[7] Field surveys of the mangrove forest were conducted
during 12–16 Dec 2006. We selected five study sites of mangrove forests, which were mainly dominated by Rhizophora
3.2. Modeling of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami
[8] Recent developments of numerical models of a tsunami enable us to determine detailed hydrodynamic features
of tsunami flow [Koshimura and Yanagisawa, 2007].
3 of 11
C06032
YANAGISAWA ET AL.: TSUNAMI REDUCTION EFFECTS OF MANGROVES
Table 1. Dimensions of Fault and Tsunami Source Parameters for
the 2004 Earthquake and Tsunami Eventa
Segment
N
H
(km)
L
(km)
W
(km)
Strike
(°)
Dip
(°)
Slip
(°)
D
(m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
10
10
10
10
10
200
125
180
145
125
380
150
150
150
150
150
150
323
335
340
340
345
7
15
15
15
15
15
15
90
90
90
90
90
90
11
20
15
15
8
8
a
As modified from Oie et al. [2006] and Koshimura et al. [2009]. N is
the number of fault segments, H is the depth of the upper edge of each fault
segment, L is the strike length of the fault, W is the downdip width, and D is
the fault displacement.
C06032
merged bathymetry/topography data [Koshimura et al.,
2009]. The grid size varies from 1860 m to 23 m from
Indian Ocean to the coast and land of Banda Aceh, constructing a nested grid system [Koshimura et al., 2009]. For
bottom friction, we used the constant roughness coefficient
n in the form of Manning’s formula, depending on land use
conditions: 0.02 for bare ground and grass, 0.025 for sea and
rivers, and 0.05 for vegetation other than grass [e.g., Latief
and Hadi, 2007]. For friction in mangrove and populated
areas, we used the variable roughness coefficient estimated
by the equivalent roughness model, considering the occupancy ratio of trees (or houses) in a control volume/area [cf.,
Yanagisawa et al., 2009a; Koshimura et al., 2009]
Synolakis and Bernard [2006], for example, modeled the
1993 Okushiri tsunami in Japan using Method of Splitting
Tsunami (MOST) code based on the nonlinear shallow
water wave equation. To examine the hydrodynamic features of tsunami inundation flow in mangrove forest, we
performed numerical modeling of the 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami. We used a nested model to integrate two different
tsunami codes: for transoceanic propagation (linear shallow
water wave equation) and for nearshore propagation and
coastal inundation (nonlinear shallow water wave equation)
[Goto et al., 1997]. The coastal inundation model includes
the bottom friction term in the form of Manning’s roughness
formula [Goto et al., 1997].
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
D4=3
n0 ¼
ð CD AÞ þ n20 ;
2gV
ð4Þ
where n′ is the variable roughness coefficient (equal to n in
equations (2) and (3)), D is the tsunami inundation depth
(water level above the ground surface), g denotes the
acceleration of gravity, V is the volume of water per unit
area on the bottom floor (m−2) and n0 is the bottom
roughness coefficient without trees or houses, A is the
projected vertical sectional area of trees/houses per unit area
on the bottom floor (m−2). We determine the projected area
of trees per unit area by multiplying DBH by both the tree
density and tsunami inundation depth [Yanagisawa et al.,
2009a]. We then disregard the number of destroyed trees
to determine the resistance of the mangrove forest because the
consumption of tsunami energy during the tree destruction
@ @M @N
þ
þ
¼ 0;
ð1Þ process is considered to be minor: the tsunami has a long
@t
@x
@y
wave period and penetrates continuously across the forest
area long after the trees have been destroyed [Yanagisawa et
al., 2009a]. The tree densities of surviving mangrove areas
@M
@ M2
@ MN
@ gn2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
þ
þ gD þ 7=3 M M 2 þ N 2 ¼ 0; were determined from satellite images after the 2004 tsuþ
@t
@x D
@y D
@x D
nami (Figure 1d) by estimating the forest area and number
ð2Þ of trees. The drag coefficients C for trees and houses were
D
determined following Yanagisawa et al. [2009a] and
Koshimura et al. [2009] (CD = 0.7–1.2 for trees and CD =
@N
@ N2
@ NM
@ gn2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
þ
þ
þ gD þ 7=3 N M 2 þ N 2 ¼ 0:
2.0
for houses). Furthermore, for the prop roots of Rhizo@t @y D
@x D
@y D
phora sp. which are apparently highly resistant to tsunami
ð3Þ
inundation flow, we assumed n0 = 0.04 as the bottom fric[9] Therein, h and h respectively represent the water level tion [Latief, 2000; Yanagisawa et al., 2009a].
and the still water depth, M and N respectively signify
discharge fluxes in the x and y directions, D is the total water
4. Damage and Tsunami Impact on Mangrove
depth (= h + h), g denotes gravitational acceleration, and n is
the Manning’s roughness. The staggered leapfrog finite Trees
difference method was used to discretize the equations 4.1. Result of Field Survey
numerically [Goto et al., 1997]. As initial conditions of the
[10] Figure 2b depicts the area of mangrove forest before
model, we calculate the vertical seismic deformation of the the tsunami extending approximately 190 hectares along the
land and sea bottom using the theory presented by coast of Banda Aceh, as inferred from visual inspection of
Manshinha and Smylie [1971]. The tsunami source para- IKONOS satellite imagery acquired on 18 June 2004. The
meters of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami were determined 2004 tsunami severely damaged mangrove forests (Figures 1c
from Oie et al. [2006] and Koshimura et al. [2009] (Table 1). and 1d): trees with DBH less than 10 cm were mostly
To create computational grids for tsunami propagation, we destroyed (Figures 2 and 3). From satellite images obtained
used 1 arc min grid (approximately 1860 m) of digital after 2004 tsunami, we determined tree densities of the
bathymetry and topography data (GEBCO) published by the surviving mangrove areas in study sites as 0.005–0.009 (m−2).
British Oceanographic Data Centre [1997]. In addition to Additionally, we found that there were few surviving manGEBCO data, we compiled local bathymetric charts of grove trees other than Rhizophora sp.: trees of other genera
northern Sumatra (1:125,000) and digital photogrammetric such as Bruguiera sp. and Sonneratia sp. were completely
mapping of the Banda Aceh coastal region to construct destroyed in the study area, probably because prop roots of a
4 of 11
C06032
YANAGISAWA ET AL.: TSUNAMI REDUCTION EFFECTS OF MANGROVES
C06032
tsunami inundation depth (tsunami height from ground
level) whereas the tsunami inundation depths at other sites
were approximately 3–6 m [Borrero, 2005]. Based on these
results, we found that more than 50% of mangrove trees
with 20–25 cm stem diameter could survive a tsunami of
less than 6–7 m, although mangrove trees were destroyed
completely under 7–9 m or higher tsunamis.
4.2. Validation of the Numerical Modeling of the 2004
Indian Ocean Tsunami
[11] The numerical model results were validated through
comparison with observed tsunami waveforms in tide gauge
record, the measured tsunami heights and the extent of
inundation zone. We first compared the tsunami record
observed in the tide gauge at Sibolga (Figure 1a) with the
modeled tsunami waveform (Figure 4a). According to the
measured data [Rabinovich and Thomson, 2007], the first
tsunami with approximately 120 min wave period reached
Sibolga at 107 min after the earthquake. The computed
arrival time, wave period and height of the tsunami were
consistent with the observed waveform (Figure 4a). Figures
4b and 4c portray the measured tsunami heights [Borrero,
2005; Tsuji et al., 2006] and the extent of the inundation
zone [JICA, 2005] versus the results from our numerical
model. The model results are also consistent with measured
data in terms of the tsunami height (RSME = ±1.2, Figure 4b)
and the extent of inundation zone (approximately 94%
agreement). Through the model validation above, we conclude that our numerical model is useful with confidence to
estimate the hydrodynamic features of the tsunami which
attacked the mangrove forest at Banda Aceh. According to
our numerical model results, the tsunami front arrived at the
coast of Banda Aceh approximately 80 min after the
earthquake and inundated the city up to 4.0 km inland
(Figure 4c). The computed variable roughness coefficients
n′ ranged from 0.04 to 0.05 in mangrove areas.
5. Vulnerability of Mangrove Trees Against a
Tsunami
Figure 3. Frequency distributions of surviving and destroyed
mangroves at (a) study site 1, (b) study site 2, (c) study site 3,
(d) study site 4, and (e) study site 5.
Rhizophora tree, forming a dense structure and extending all
around (Figures 2a and 2c), contribute to resistance of tsunami flow even in the soft ground of tidal flat; other genera
without prop roots were uprooted easily. Figure 3 portrays
the frequency of destroyed and surviving trees sampled at
each study site (Figure 1b). At study sites 1–4, the survival
rate increases concomitantly with increasing stem diameter,
indicating that the bold trees are stronger generally. However, when we compare the survival rates of sites with
regard to the same stem diameter, the survival rate seems to
decrease westward (from 1 to 4). Mangroves were completely destroyed at the site 5 (Figure 3e) because the west
coast of Banda Aceh was attacked by more than 7–9 m
5.1. Strength Indicator of a Mangrove Tree
[12] According to Yanagisawa et al. [2009a], damage to
mangrove trees can be categorized into the following five
patterns: (1) broken at stem or prop roots, (2) uprooted and
inclined, (3) uprooted and fallen down, (4) uprooted and
swept up by tsunami flow, and (5) lost bearing capacity
because of ground erosion. However, Rhizophora trees were
destroyed only slightly in the patterns resembling patterns
(2)–(4) because the prop roots of Rhizophora trees are sufficiently thick to resist the tsunami flow [Yanagisawa et al.,
2009a]. When we are not concerned with pattern (5) related
to ground erosion, pattern (1) is mostly applicable as the
damage pattern of Rhizophora trees (Figure 2c). To discuss
the mangroves’ strength, we use a general strength indicator
of timber [e.g., Zhang, 1994], i.e. the bending strength of a
tree is estimated using the bending stress when a tree is
broken. Therefore, bending stress, especially maximum
bending stress by tsunami during its inundation, is useful as
a representative factor of the strength of a mangrove tree
against tsunami flow [Yanagisawa et al., 2009a]. Based on
the linear elastic theory, the relation between the bending
5 of 11
C06032
YANAGISAWA ET AL.: TSUNAMI REDUCTION EFFECTS OF MANGROVES
C06032
Figure 4. (a) Comparison of measured data to the modeled water level at Sibolga [Rabinovich and
Thomson, 2007]. (b) Comparison between measured tsunami heights and modeled maximum tsunami
heights [Borrero, 2005; Tsuji et al., 2006]. Circluar and triangular dotted data show data measured by
Borrero [2005] and Tsuji et al. [2006], respectively. Dotted lines in Figure 4b show the range of root‐
mean‐ square error (RSME = ±1.2) (c) Comparison of the computed inundation area to the extent of
tsunami inundation area surveyed by (JICA) [2005].
moment Md and the bending stress s was estimated using
the following equation:
Md ¼ W :
ð5Þ
[13] In that equation, W is a section modulus of a circle
(W = pd3/32) and d is DBH in a sampled tree. Because the
tsunami is a shallow water wave, the tsunami current
velocity is assumed to be vertically uniform. The tsunami
bending moment to estimate the tsunami bending stress is
calculable using the following equation [Yanagisawa et al.,
2009a]:
1
Md ¼ CD d ð D Hb Þ2 u2 :
4
ð6Þ
[14] Therein, u is the computed current velocity, d is
DBH, r is water density, D is the tsunami inundation depth,
and Hb is the height at a broken point. The drag coefficient CD
is determined from Coastal Engineering Research Center
[1984] (CD = 0.7–1.2). Here, we assumed that trees were
vertically rotated when the tsunami force broke them. Then,
the broken point is defined as the center of rotation. In
Rhizophora sp., Hb is determined approximately at the joint
between the stem and prop roots because most Rhizophora
trees were destroyed at this joint, which is inferred as the
most fragile point (Figure 2c). In this study, Hb = 1.47 m is
represented by taking the mean value of the height at broken
points from 697 sampled trees.
[15] We used a Geographical Information System
(ArcGIS) to integrate both field data (DBH and damage) and
tsunami hazard data (computed current velocity and inun-
dation depth). Using GIS, we showed each location of
mangrove trees as point data sampled in the field survey,
and overlaid its locations with the spatial distribution of
tsunami hazard data. For numerical modeling, combined
with the field data, the tsunami bending moment on each
tree was calculated sequentially during the tsunami inundation. The maximum bending moment was determined
from the time series. We then determined the maximum
bending stress st as a strength indicator of mangrove
destruction, substituting the maximum bending moment for
equation (5).
5.2. Developing the Fragility Function of a Mangrove
Forest
[16] Integration of the numerical model, field measurements, and GIS analysis reveals a relation between the
damage probability of mangrove trees and the maximum
bending stress in the form of a fragility function [Yamaguchi
and Yamazaki, 2001; Koshimura et al., 2009]. The flow to
obtain the fragility function is determined from our previous
approach [Koshimura et al., 2009; Yanagisawa et al., 2009a].
To estimate the damage probability in terms of maximum
bending stress, 50 sample data points of surviving and destroyed trees are grouped. Furthermore, the damage probability in each group is defined as the number of destroyed
trees divided by the total number in each group (50 sampled
trees in each). Consequently, we obtained the histogram
presented in Figure 5a as a discrete set of the number of
destroyed and surviving trees and the maximum bending
stress. The maximum bending stress in Figure 5a is determined by taking the median value within a range that includes
50 trees in it. We can see from Figure 5a that the ratio of the
number of destroyed trees to surviving ones increases as the
6 of 11
C06032
YANAGISAWA ET AL.: TSUNAMI REDUCTION EFFECTS OF MANGROVES
C06032
involved in the fragility functions might not be large, at least
in these two cases. We further determined parameters of the
fragility function, combining them with damage data of
mangrove trees in Banda Aceh and Pakarang Cape
[Yanagisawa et al., 2009a], and determined the parameters
l, z, to be, respectively, 2.57, 0.92 (Figure 6b; r2 = 0.94).
These proposed fragility functions are useful as preliminary
information to assess the vulnerability of mangrove trees in
areas prone to tsunami damage, when a tsunami bending
stress is assumed.
6. Performance of Mangrove Forest and its
Capacity in Tsunami Hazard Reduction
Figure 5. (a) Histogram of the number of surviving and
destroyed trees related to maximum bending stress for groups
of 50 data points. The value of the maximum bending stress
on the horizontal axis is the median value in each group.
(b) The fragility function for mangrove trees in Banda Aceh,
Indonesia.
maximum bending stress increases; mangrove trees are
severely destroyed by more than 42 Nmm−2 of maximum
bending stress.
[17] Using least squares fitting of the discrete set of
damage data (black circles in Figure 5b) assuming the following lognormal distribution function [Yamaguchi and
Yamazaki, 2001], we obtain the fragility function (fragility
curve), which indicates the damage probability Pd as a
function of the maximum bending stress st
Pd ðt Þ ¼ ½ðlnt Þ= :
6.1. Method to Simulate the Reduction of Tsunamis in
Mangrove Forest
[19] We simulate tsunami reduction in mangrove forest
using a numerical model including the resistance law of a
mangrove forest and its destruction [Yanagisawa et al.,
2009a]. The numerical model for tsunami propagation and
coastal inundation is based on the leapfrog finite difference
method of the nonlinear shallow water wave equation. We
employed equivalent roughness formula (equation(4)) to
calculate the resistance of mangrove forest. In the roughness
formula, the damage probability (fragility function) is
included as functions of bending stress by tsunami flow.
Consequently, at each time step in the numerical model of
tsunami inundation, Manning’s roughness n is recalculated
using the flow condition (inundation depth and current
velocity) and the probability of tree destruction (equation(7)).
However, the stumps including prop roots of destroyed trees
ð7Þ
[18] In that equation, l and z respectively denote the mean
and standard deviation of lnx, and F is the cumulative distribution function of the standard normal distribution. The
fragility function for the damage probability of Rhizophora
trees is obtained when the two parameters of equation (7), l
and z are determined using least squares fitting on a lognormal probability plot. Results show that the parameters of
l and z were determined respectively as 2.54 and 0.90
(Figure 5b; coefficient of determination r2 = 0.87).
According to Yanagisawa et al. [2009a], l and z, which
were determined from damage data in Pakarang Cape,
Thailand, were, respectively, 2.50 and 0.94. Although a
fragility function might include the local uncertain conditions such as tree characteristics, floating debris, and local
behavior of tsunami flow, fragility functions determined from
damage data in Banda Aceh, Indonesia closely resemble that
of Pakarang Cape, Thailand (Figure 6a, |Error| < 0.023).
This fact indicates that the difference of uncertain effects
Figure 6. (a) Comparison of fragility functions between
Banda Aceh and Pakarang Cape (|Error| < 0.023). (b) Fragility
function combining damage data of mangrove trees in
Banda Aceh and Pakarang Cape [Yanagisawa et al., 2009a].
7 of 11
C06032
YANAGISAWA ET AL.: TSUNAMI REDUCTION EFFECTS OF MANGROVES
C06032
grove forest. Here, we define the simplified form of
hydrodynamic force [e.g., Hatori, 1964] as an indicator
F ¼ u2 D:
ð9Þ
[21] The constant parts are deducted from drag force F
F ¼ 1=2CD u2 A:
ð10Þ
Therein, r is the water density, CD is the drag coefficient,
u is the current velocity, and A is the projected area. Here,
we consider a simple model condition related to the ground
level and mangrove forest as a preliminary test. For the
coastal landform, we simplify the nearshore bathymetry
and topography of Banda Aceh as an example to discuss
the tsunami reduction performance of a mangrove forest
(Figure 7a). The question of the protective role of mangrove
forest is whether the tsunami damage is reduced by the
presence of a mangrove forest when conditions of other
coastal features such as ground elevation, topographic profile, and distance from coast are the same in the scenarios
with and without mangroves. Therefore, testing of two
model scenarios (with and without mangrove forest) is
performed given equivalent conditions of other coastal
features. For the mangrove forest, we assume 10 year old
Rhizophora trees (tree density of 0.6 trees m−2 and DBH =
7 cm), 20 year old Rhizophora trees (tree density of 0.2 trees
m−2 and DBH = 15 cm) and 30 year old Rhizophora trees
(tree density of 0.1 trees m−2 and a DBH = 20 cm) [Alongi,
2002]. The offshore incident wave condition in the numerical model test is assumed as one‐sided sine wave of 40 min
period, which is dominant period of the 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami [Abe, 2006].
Figure 7. (a) Numerical conditions; the incident wave’s
period is assumed to be 40 min, and the coastal landform
was simplified from the nearshore of Banda Aceh. The
(b) maximum tsunami inundation depth and (c) hydrodynamic force with and without mangrove forest.
remained after the tsunami in the study areas (Figure 2c). We
therefore assumed that the friction of prop roots (n = 0.04)
has remained even if mangrove trees had been broken by the
tsunami flow. This numerical model can simulate tsunami
reduction effects of mangrove forest and their limitations
under arbitrary conditions of coastal features such as
bathymetry, ground elevation, topographic profile, and distance from the coast.
[20] The tsunami reduction effect of mangrove forest is
estimated using the numerical model results of two model
scenarios, i.e. with or without the mangrove forest, in terms
of the following reduction index:
Rd ¼
a0 a
:
a0
ð8Þ
In the above equation, a is the value of tsunami inundation
depth D or hydrodynamic force with the mangrove forest
considering its destruction, and a′ is the value of tsunami
inundation depth or hydrodynamic force without the man-
6.2. Results and Discussion
[22] Figures 7b and 7c show the modeled maximum water
level and maximum hydrodynamic force (u2D) of the tsunami in the area with and without mangrove forest (500 m
width). The tsunami yields 3 m inundation depth at the
shoreline in the case where mangroves do not exist. The
results indicate that the maximum water level and hydrodynamic force behind the mangrove forest are greatly
reduced by mangrove’s resistance, although the tsunami
height was temporarily increased at the front of the mangrove forest (Figure 7b) because the mangrove forest
blocked the tsunami current and the water mass accumulated
in front of it. Moreover, the maximum hydrodynamic force
was increased at offshore areas (Figure 7c) because mangrove
forests reflected part of tsunami wave and generated a high‐
velocity current backward to offshore areas. Performing
numerical model tests under several scenarios of incident
wave height of 40 min period, Figure 8 depicts a summary
of the reduction rate in terms of the inundation depth,
hydrodynamic force and inundation distance from shoreline.
Comparison of the performance of tsunami reduction rate
between the tree ages of forests shows that the 10 year old
mangrove forest contributes the most effectively to reducing
the tsunami energy in the case of a 3 m inundation depth: the
model shows that a 500 m wide mangrove area reduces the
maximum tsunami inundation depth by 38% and the maximum hydrodynamic force by approximately 70% in areas
behind the mangrove forest (Figures 8a and 8b). On the
8 of 11
C06032
C06032
YANAGISAWA ET AL.: TSUNAMI REDUCTION EFFECTS OF MANGROVES
nami inundation depth or hydrodynamic force rather than
inundation distance [Hatori, 1964; Koshimura et al., 2009].
In Banda Aceh, the houses were destroyed to a considerable
degree by the greater than a 20 m3/s2 hydrodynamic force of
the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, although they remained at
20% in 6 m 3/s 2 hydrodynamic force [Koshimura et al.,
2009]. The model results imply that the assumed mangrove forest would have reduced a 20 m3/s2 hydrodynamic
force to about 6–8 m3/s2. The assumed mangrove forest
might mitigate 60% of structural damage. These results
underscore that the mangrove forest can mitigate tsunami
disasters, although they can not completely stop the tsunami
flow. As presented in Figures 8a and 8b, the tsunami reduction performance of 20 year old or 30 year old mangrove
forest is more effective than 10 year old when the tsunami
inundation depth exceeds approximately 4 m because
10 year old mangroves were largely destroyed by the more
than 4 m tsunami and its reduction performance decreased
(Figure 9). Table 2 presents a summary of the reduction rate
of hydrodynamic force versus the tsunami inundation depth
of the incident wave and forest width. Table 2 shows that we
can determine the performance of the mangrove forest in
terms of its growth, width and the inundation depth of the
incident tsunami. The numerical model results underscore the
necessity of preserving a forest over a long period (>20 years)
to mitigate a large tsunami disaster effectively: a young
mangrove forest such as 10 year old forest would lose its
protective capability against a large tsunami impact (>4 m).
However, a forest’s protective role should not be overestimated when a tsunami inundation depth is greater than
6–9 m, even when a mangrove forest that is more than
30 years old of 500 m width is assumed.
7. Concluding Remarks
Figure 8. Reduction rate of (a) inundation depth, (b) hydrodynamic force, and (c) inundation distance versus inundation
depth at shoreline in 10 year old, 20 year old, and 30 year old
mangrove forest.
other hand, the model results show that mangrove forests are
mildly effective for reducing inundation distance (Figure 8c)
because the forest is permeable to a body of water. However, the extent of tsunami damage is correlated with tsu-
[23] Combined use of damage data related to mangroves
and numerical results of the 2004 tsunami produced a fragility function to assess mangrove forest vulnerability. The
proposed fragility function is useful for preliminary
assessment of potential mangrove damage in a tsunami‐
prone area. Based on the fragility function, we developed a
numerical model to assess the tsunami reduction effect of a
mangrove forest. Our numerical results, as a preliminary
test, showed that mangrove forests can be a reasonable
countermeasure when used as a bioshield for tsunami mitigation as long as catastrophic damage to the mangrove
Table 2. Reduction Rate of Hydrodynamic Force by the Assumed
Mangrove Foresta
10 year old forest
20 year old forest
30 year old forest
Figure 9. Destruction rate of mangrove forest with 500 m
width versus inundation depth at shoreline in 10 year old,
20 year old, and 30 year old mangrove forest.
Tsunami Inundation Depth (m)
Width
(m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
100
300
500
100
300
500
100
300
500
0.40
0.60
0.76
0.33
0.52
0.69
0.30
0.48
0.65
0.42
0.60
0.71
0.34
0.51
0.63
0.28
0.46
0.58
0.35
0.58
0.69
0.33
0.52
0.62
0.26
0.45
0.56
0.12
0.30
0.45
0.26
0.48
0.59
0.23
0.43
0.54
0.05
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.30
0.42
0.19
0.37
0.48
0.04
0.08
0.10
0.07
0.15
0.19
0.13
0.28
0.37
0.04
0.07
0.09
0.04
0.09
0.11
0.07
0.17
0.23
0.03
0.07
0.09
0.03
0.07
0.09
0.05
0.10
0.13
a
Wave period of incident wave is 40 min. Values with more than 70% of
destruction rate are shown in bold.
9 of 11
C06032
YANAGISAWA ET AL.: TSUNAMI REDUCTION EFFECTS OF MANGROVES
forest does not occur beyond its threshold level. Consequently, reforesting or preserving mangrove forests in
deforested areas such as Banda Aceh might mitigate future
tsunami disasters. However, it is important to note that
mangrove barriers can not completely halt tsunami flow. For
that reason, it is necessary to integrate several countermeasures such as warning systems, education for disaster
prevention, and mangrove forests to prevent a widespread
tsunami disaster.
[24] The protective role of coastal trees as a tsunami
defense has been discussed for more than 100 years [e.g.,
Tanaka, 2009], with detailed preliminary reports appearing
after the 2004 tsunami [e.g., Danielson et al., 2005;
Kathiresan and Rajendran, 2005; Iverson and Prasad, 2007].
However, the effectiveness of coastal trees observed in the
field survey might be affected by the role of other coastal
features such as bathymetry, ground elevation, and distance
from the coast [e.g., Kerr et al., 2006]. There is little
empirical support for the protective role of coastal trees
based on field observations. Therefore, our proposed
numerical model can play a role in exploring the considerable controversy surrounding the protective capacity of
coastal trees, in particular, mangrove forests. Additional
studies are necessary to verify mangrove forests’ protective
role, as reported in a preliminary report, using a quantitative
approach such as our proposed model. However, our study
requires the following improvements.
[25] First, this study was performed in local areas, which
might mean that the proposed fragility functions are not
universal measures to assess the vulnerability of mangrove
forests, although the fragility functions between Banda
Aceh, Indonesia and Pakarang Cape, Thailand are almost
identical. As described above, the fragility function should
include numerous uncertain effects, which might be influenced by interregional conditions such as tree characteristics, local tsunami behavior, and floating materials.
Therefore, future studies must be undertaken to support a
wider investigation of the vulnerability of mangrove forests
and to examine differences between fragility functions in
various cases.
[26] Second, the capacity of mangroves as a tsunami
defense could differ depending on local conditions such as
the wave period, bathymetry and mangrove forest conditions, although this study examined the reduction effect of
mangrove forest under simple conditions. In particular, the
tsunami wave period might influence the capacity of mangroves as a tsunami defense because the tsunami with a long
wave period tends to penetrate mangrove forests [Harada
and Kawata, 2004]. Moreover, tsunami flows at a gap
between two mangrove forests become faster as the gap
becomes smaller [Thuy et al., 2009]. Especially, mangrove
trees are prone to be damaged at gaps such as small channels
[Yanagisawa et al., 2009b], possibly because of higher
tsunami current velocity in the gap. Therefore, additional
studies must be undertaken to examine the reduction effect
of mangrove forests under various conditions in the model
to conduct detailed estimation of the capacity of mangrove
forest for tsunami defense.
[27] Acknowledgments. The authors gratefully acknowledge M. Affan,
J. Takashima, and H. Sato for the support they provided during our field
C06032
survey and K. Goto and H. Nakamura for providing usuful comments. This
study was financially supported by a Grants‐in‐Aid for Scientific Research
from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (18201033 and
19681019) and Industrial Technology Research Grant Program in 2008
(08E52010a) from the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development
Organization (NEDO) and International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems
(ISME).
References
Abe, K. (2006), Dominat periods of the 2004 Sumatra tsunami and the
estimated source size, Earth Planets Space, 58, 217–221.
Alongi, D. M. (2002), Present state and future of the world’s mangrove
forests, Environ. Conserv., 29, 331–349.
Asano, T. (2008), Time varying tsunami attenuation ability of coastal forests
based on forest growth models, Coastal Eng., 50, 325–348.
Baird, A. H., and A. M. Kerr (2008), Landscape analysis and tsunami damage
in Aceh: Comment on Iverson and Prasad (2007), Landscape Ecol., 23,
3–5.
Bhalla, R. S. (2007), Do bio‐shields affect tsunami inundation?, Curr. Sci.,
93, 831–833.
Borrero, J. (2005), Field survey of northern Sumatra and Banda Aceh,
Indonesia after the tsunami and earthquake of 26 December 2004, Seismol.
Res. Lett., 76, 309–318.
British Oceanographic Data Centre (1997), The Centenary Edition of the
GEBCO Digital Atlas [CD‐ROM], Liverpool, U. K.
Check, E. (2005), Natural disasters: Roots of recovery, Nature, 438, 910–
911.
Chlieh, M., et al. (2007), Coseismic slip and afterslip of the great Mw 9.15
Sumatra‐Andaman earthquake of 2004, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 97, 152–
173, doi: 10.1785/0120050631.
Coastal Engineering Research Center (Eds.) (1984), Structural design:
Physical factores, in Shore Protection Manual, vol. 2, chapt. 7, pp. 100–
242, Dep. of the Army, Washington, D. C.
Dahdouh‐Guebas, F. (2006), Mangrove forests and tsunami protection, in
McGraw‐Hill 2006 Yearbook of Science and Technology, edited by
McGraw‐Hill editors, pp. 187–191, McGraw‐Hill, New York.
Danielson, F., et al. (2005), The Asian tsunami: A protective role for
coastal vegetation, Science, 310, 643.
Feagin, A. R., et al. (2008), Vegetation’s role in coastal protection, Science,
320, 176–177.
Goto, C., Y. Ogawa, N. Shuto, and F. Imamura (1997), Numerical method of
tsunami simulation with the leap‐frog scheme, IUGG/IOC Time Project
Manuals Guides 35, 35 pp., U. N. Educ. Sci. and Cult. Organ., Paris.
Harada, K., and Y. Kawata (2004), Study on the effect of coastal forest to
tsunami reduction, Ann. Disaster Prev. Inst. Kyoto Univ., 48C, 161–166.
Hatori, T. (1964), A study of the damage to houses due to a tsunami, Bull.
Earthquake Res. Inst., 42, 181–191.
Imai, K., and A. Suzuki (2005), A method based on the pipe model for estimating the surface area and volume of coastal forest trees, and their lodging resistance (in Japanese with English abstract), Ann. J. Hydraul. Eng.,
49, 859–864.
Iverson, L. R., and A. M. Prasad (2007), Using landscape analysis to assess
and model tsunami damage in Aceh province, Sumatra, Landscape Ecol.,
22, 323–331.
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) (2005), The study of the
urgent rehabilitation and reconstruction support program for Aceh province and affected areas in north Sumatra, final report.
Kathiresan, K., and N. Rajendran (2005), Coastal mangrove forests mitigated tsunami, Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci., 65, 601–606.
Kerr, A. M., and A. H. Baird (2007), Natural barriers to natural disasters,
Bioscience, 57, 102–103.
Kerr, A. M., A. H. Baird, and S. J. Campbell (2006), Comments on
“Coastal mangrove forests mitigated tsunami” by K. Kathiresan and
N. Rajendran, Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci., 67, 539–541.
Koshimura, S., and H. Yanagisawa (2007), Developing fragility functions
for tsunami damage estimation using the numerical model and satellite
imagery, paper presented at 5th International Workshop on Remote
Sensing for Post Disaster Response, Multidiscip. Cent. for Earthquake
Eng. Res., Washington, D. C., 10–12 Sept.
Koshimura, S., T. Oie, H. Yanagisawa, and F. Imamura (2009), Developing
fragility functions for tsunami damage estimation using numerical model
and post‐tsunami data from Banda Aceh, Indonesia, Coastal Eng., 51,
243–273.
Latief, H. (2000), Study of tsunamis and their mitigation using a green belt
in Indonesia, Ph.D. thesis, 110 pp., Tohoku Univ., Sendai, Japan.
Latief, H., and S. Hadi (2007), The role of forests and trees in protecting
coastal areas against tsunamis, in Coastal Protection in the Aftermath
of the Indian Ocean Tsunami: What Role for forests and Trees?, edited
by Susan Braatz et al., pp. 5–35, Food and Agric. Organ., Bangkok.
10 of 11
C06032
YANAGISAWA ET AL.: TSUNAMI REDUCTION EFFECTS OF MANGROVES
Mann, K. H. (2000), Ecology of Coastal Waters With Implications for
Management, 406 pp., Blackwell Sci., Malden, Mass.
Manshinha, L., and D. E. Smylie (1971), The displacement field of inclined
faults, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 61, 1433–1440.
Mazda, Y., M. Magi, M. Kogo, and P. N. Hong (1997), Mangroves as a
coastal protection from waves in the Tong King Delta, Vietnam,
Mangroves Salt Marshes, 1, 127–135.
Oie, T., S. Koshimura, H. Yanagisawa, and F. Imamura (2006), Numerical
modeling of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and assessment in Banda
Aceh, Indonesia (in Japanese), Ann. J. Coastal Eng. 53, 221–225.
Parish, F., and C. T. Yiew (2005), The role of mangrove in protecting
coastlines from Tsunamis, paper presented at Seminar on Earthquake
and Tsunami Disaster Reduction, Asia Pac. Econ. Cooper., Earthquake
Tsunami Asia Pac., Jakarta, Indonesia, 27–28 Sept.
Rabinovich, A. B., and R. E. Thomson (2007), The 26 December 2004
Sumatra tsunami: Analysis of the hide gauge data from the World Ocean,
part 1. Indian Ocean and South Africa, Pure Appl. Geophys., 164, 261–
308.
Saenger, P. (2002), Mangrove Ecology, Silviculture, and Conservation,
360 pp., Kluwer Acad., Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Shinozuka, M., M. Q. Feng, J. Lee, and T. Naganuma (2000), Statistical
analysis of fragility curves, J. Eng. Mech., 126, 1224–1231.
Srinivas, V., A. H. Baird, A. M. Kerr, and S. Ram (2008), Coastal bio‐shields
and their putative role during large weather related disturbance events, in
Studies on Vulnerability and Habitat Restoration Along the Coromandel
Coast, 1st ed., edited by R. S. Bhalla, S. Ram, and V. Srinivas,
pp. 87–100, U. N. Team for Tsunami Recovery Support, Pondicherry,
India.
Synolakis, C. E., and E. N. Bernard (2006), Tsunami science before and
beyond Boxing Day 2004, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. A, 364,
2231–2265.
Tanaka, N. (2009), Vegetation bioshields for tsunami mitigation: Review of
effectiveness, limitatons, construction, and sustainable management,
Landscape Ecol. Eng., 5, 71–79.
Thuy, N. B., K. Tanimoto, N. Tanaka, K. Harada, and K. Iimura (2009),
Effect of open gap in coastal forest on tsunami run‐up investigations
by experiment and numerical simulation, Ocean Engineering, 36,
1258–1269.
C06032
Tsuji, Y., et al. (2006), Damage and height distribution of Sumatra
earthquake‐tsunami of December 26, 2004, in Banda Aceh city and its
environs, J. Disaster Res., 1, 103–115.
Walton, M. E. M., G. P. B. Samonte‐Tan, J. H. Primavera, G. Edwards‐
Jones, and L. L. Vay (2006), Are mangroves worth replanting? The direct
economic benefits of a community‐based reforestation project, Environ.
Conserv., 33, 335–343.
Wolanski, E. (2007), Protective functions of coastal forests and trees
against natural hazards, in Coastal Protection in the Aftermath of the
Indian Ocean Tsunami: What Role for forests and Trees?, edited by Susan
Braatz et al., pp. 157–179, Food and Agric. Organ., Bangkok.
Vermaat, J. E., and U. Thampanya (2006a), Mangroves mitigate tsunami
damage: A further response, Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci., 69, 1–3.
Vermaat, J. E., and U. Thampanya (2006b), Mangroves mitigate tsunami
damage: A further response, Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci., 69(1–2), 1–3.
75, 564. (Erratum, Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci., 75, 564, 2007.)
Yamaguchi, N., and F. Yamazaki (2001), Estimation of strong motion distribution in the 1995 Kobe earthquake based on building damage data,
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 30, 787–801.
Yanagisawa, H., S. Koshimura, K. Goto, T. Miyagi, F. Imamura,
A. Ruangrassamee, and C. Tanavud (2009a), The reduction effects of
mangrove forest on a tsunami based on field surveys at Pakarang Cape,
Thailand and numerical analysis, Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci., 81, 27–37.
Yanagisawa, H., S. Koshimura, K. Goto, T. Miyagi, F. Imamura,
A. Ruangrassamee, and C. Tanavud (2009b), Damage of mangrove
forest by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami at Pakarang Cape and Namkem,
Thailand, Pol. J. Environ. Stud., 18, 35–42.
Zhang, S. (1994), Mechanical properties in relation to specific gravity in
342 Chinese woods, Wood Fiber Sci., 26, 512–526.
F. Imamura and S. Koshimura, Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku
University, Aoba 06‐6‐11, Aramaki, Sendai 980‐8579, Japan.
T. Miyagi, Department of Regional Management, Tohoku Gakuin
University, Tenjinzawa 2‐1‐1, Izumi‐ku, Sendai 981‐3193, Japan.
H. Yanagisawa, Tokyo Electric Power Services Co., Ltd., Higashi‐Ueno
3‐3‐3, Taito‐ku, Tokyo 110‐0015, Japan. ([email protected].
ac.jp)
11 of 11