Abstract Tsunami preparedness is fundamentally enhanced having available a comprehensive catalogue of procedures to be applied one by one thus ensuring a fully working evacuation plan over time. All these procedures are grouped into three basic steps to be performed subsequently: a first step in order to generate a fully valid first instance of an evacuation plan, a second step needed to install and to disseminate the evacuation plan, and a third step to deploy, integrate and maintain the plan in a long-term. The application of each procedure requires input from previously applied procedures as well as other input to be obtained from scientific insights (expected wave height, expected arrival time of the first tsunami wave) obtainable through the analysis of realistic scenarios. The output of each procedure may trigger other procedures (within the current step or by going back towards a procedure of a previous step). Thus the whole methodology mirrors a nested and recursive approach. Though the whole methodology is based on the use of dedicated tools (GIS tools, simulation tools) it should also be applicable by decision makers not having available the full range of such tools. In such cases responsible stakeholders have to switch to a more qualitative approach by using some rules of thumb or just normal logical thinking. Proposing this kind of framework it clearly addresses the needs of many decision makers in the world in enhancing the tsunami preparedness in their communities. First tests along some Mediterranean communities have shown the applicability of realistic scenarios thus producing inundation and further maps with which all other procedures of this framework could subsequently be worked out.
[1]
T. Drabek.
Social Processes in Disaster: Family Evacuation
,
1969
.
[2]
Bm Voght.
Issues in Nursing Home Evacuations
,
1991
.
[3]
L. Matias,et al.
Design of a sea-level tsunami detection network for the Gulf of Cadiz
,
2009
.
[4]
S. Tinti,et al.
Scenarios of giant tsunamis of tectonic origin in the mediterranean
,
2005
.
[5]
Freddy Vinet,et al.
A spatial analysis of the December 26th, 2004 tsunami-induced damages: Lessons learned for a better risk assessment integrating buildings vulnerability
,
2011
.
[6]
B. Riley,et al.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
,
2009
.
[7]
Gerassimos A. Papadopoulos.
Natural Hazards – Nonlinearities and Assessment
,
2011
.
[8]
S. Reese,et al.
Tsunami vulnerability of buildings and people in South Java - field observations after the July 2006 Java tsunami
,
2007
.
[9]
M. Lindell,et al.
Evacuation planning in emergency management
,
1981
.
[10]
Eve Gruntfest,et al.
Status report on flood warning systems in the United States
,
1989
.