Natural Hazards

, Volume 86, Issue 2, pp 619–643 | Cite as

Community disruptions and business costs for distant tsunami evacuations using maximum versus scenario-based zones

  • Nathan Wood
  • Rick Wilson
  • Jamie Jones
  • Jeff Peters
  • Ed MacMullan
  • Tessa Krebs
  • Kimberley Shoaf
  • Kevin Miller
Original Paper


Well-executed evacuations are key to minimizing loss of life from tsunamis, yet they also disrupt communities and business productivity in the process. Most coastal communities implement evacuations based on a previously delineated maximum-inundation zone that integrates zones from multiple tsunami sources. To support consistent evacuation planning that protects lives but attempts to minimize community disruptions, we explore the implications of scenario-based evacuation procedures and use the California (USA) coastline as our case study. We focus on the land in coastal communities that is in maximum-evacuation zones, but is not expected to be flooded by a tsunami generated by a Chilean earthquake scenario. Results suggest that a scenario-based evacuation could greatly reduce the number of residents and employees that would be advised to evacuate for 24–36 h (178,646 and 159,271 fewer individuals, respectively) and these reductions are concentrated primarily in three counties for this scenario. Private evacuation spending is estimated to be greater than public expenditures for operating shelters in the area of potential over-evacuations ($13 million compared to $1 million for a 1.5-day evacuation). Short-term disruption costs for businesses in the area of potential over-evacuation are approximately $122 million for a 1.5-day evacuation, with one-third of this cost associated with manufacturing, suggesting that some disruption costs may be recouped over time with increased short-term production. There are many businesses and organizations in this area that contain individuals with limited mobility or access and functional needs that may have substantial evacuation challenges. This study demonstrates and discusses the difficulties of tsunami-evacuation decision-making for relatively small to moderate events faced by emergency managers, not only in California but in coastal communities throughout the world.


Tsunami Evacuation Response California Business Vulnerable populations 



This study was supported by the US Geological Survey (USGS) Land Change Science Program and the Science Application for Risk Reduction (SAFRR) project. We thank Anne Wein of the USGS for thoughtful discussions in the early stages of the work. We thank Mara Tongue of the USGS, Kevin Richards of the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, and anonymous journal reviewers for their insightful reviews of earlier versions of the article. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.


  1. Barberopoulou A, Borrero J, Uslu B, Kalligeris N, Goltz J, Wilson R, Synolakis C (2009) Unprecedented coverage of the Californian coast promises improved tsunami response. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 90(16):137–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernard E (2005) The US National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program: a successful state-federal partnership. Nat Hazards 35:5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernard E, Mofjeld H, Titov V, Synolakis C, González F (2006) Tsunami–scientific frontiers, mitigation, forecasting, and policy implications. Philos Trans R Soc A 364:1989–2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. California Geological Survey (2014) California tsunami evacuation playbook—City of Alameda, Alameda County, Playbook No. 2014-Alam-01Google Scholar
  5. Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup (2013) Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquakes—a magnitude 9.0 earthquake scenario. Oregon Dept of Geology and Mineral Industries, Portland, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  6. Cox D (1977) The costs of tsunami false alarms in Hawaii. University of Hawaii Environmental Center, Honolulu, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  7. Cutter S, Emrich C, Bowser G, Angelo D, Mitchell J (2011) 2011 South Carolina hurricane evacuation behavioral study. Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute. Accessed 17 June 2016
  8. Dash N, Gladwin H (2007) Evacuation decision making and behavioral responses: individual and household. Nat Hazards Rev 8(3):69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2013) Hazus—MH flood technical manual: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Accessed 17 June 2016
  10. Geist E (2005) Local tsunami hazards in the Pacific Northwest from Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquakes: Reston, Va. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1661-BGoogle Scholar
  11. Gladwin C, Gladwin H, Peacock W (2001) Modeling hurricane evacuation decisions with ethnographic methods. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 19(2):117–143Google Scholar
  12. Groves M (2008) University of California Los Angeles health center readies move. Los Angeles Times. Accessed 15 Feb 2016
  13. IMPLAN Group (2015) IMPLAN System data. Accessed 26 Sept 2015
  14. Infogroup (2012) Employer database. Accessed 1 Oct 2012
  15. Jayasuriya S, McCawley P (2008) Reconstruction after a major disasters: Lessons from the post-tsunami experience in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI), Tokyo. ADBI working Paper series, No. 125Google Scholar
  16. Kuba M, Dorian A, Kuljian S, Shoaf K (2004) Elderly populations in disasters—Recounting evacuation processes from two skilled-care facilities in central Florida. Natural Hazards Center, Boulder, Quick Response Research Report 172Google Scholar
  17. Lander J, Lockridge P, Kozuch J (1993) Tsunamis affecting the west coast of the United States 1806–1992. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Geophysical Data Center, Boulder. NGDC Key to Geophysical Research Documentation No. 29, USDOC/NOAA/NESDIS/NGDCGoogle Scholar
  18. Mayunga J (2012) Assessment of public shelter users’ satisfaction—lessons learned from south-central Texas flood. Nat Hazards Rev 13(1):82–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mimura N, Tasuhara K, Kawagoe S, Yokoki H, Kazama S (2011) Damage from the great East Japan earthquake and tsunami—a quick report. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 16:803–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. National Geophysical Data Center/World Data Service (2016) Global historical tsunami database. Accessed 16 June 2016
  21. National Ocean Service (2016) Tides and currents Accessed 9 May 2016
  22. National Research Council (2011) Tsunami warning and preparedness—an assessment of the U.S. Tsunami Program and the nation’s preparedness efforts. Committee on the Review of the Tsunami Warning and Forecast System and Overview of the Nation’s Tsunami Preparedness, Ocean Studies Board, National Research CouncilGoogle Scholar
  23. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (2013) Tsunami evacuation map Seaside & Gearhart, Oregon. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. Accessed 10 Oct 2014
  24. Papathoma M, Dominey-Howes D, Zong Y, Smith D (2003) Assessing tsunami vulnerability, an example from Herakleio, Crete. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 3(5):377–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. (1999) Hurricane Bonnie assessment–review of hurricane evacuation studies utilization and information dissemination.” United States Army Corps of Engineer report, 09-828.00.
  26. Rother K (2001) Surviving the flood—Texas Medical Center’s unsinkable spirit. Accessed 26 Sept 2015
  27. Schultz C, Koenig K, Lewis R (2003) Implications of hospital evacuation after the Northridge, California, Earthquake. N Engl J Med 348:1349–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. State of California (2016) Exercise 2016 CA-Tsunami Participant Handbook: Associated with California FASTER/Playbook Communication Exercise 2:00PM March 23, 2016, unpublished report, California Office of Governor’s Office of Emergency Management and California Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  29. Toya H, Skidmore M (2007) Economic development and the impacts of natural disasters. Econ Lett 94(1):20–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability—a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognit Psychol 5(2):207–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2012) At-risk, behavioral health and community resilience (ABC). Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. Accessed 26 Sept 2015
  32. U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016) Consumer Price Index—all urban consumers, series identification #CUUR0000SA0. Accessed 26 Sept 2015
  33. U.S. Census Bureau (2007) North American Industry Classification System. U.S. Census Bureau Web site. Accessed 1 April 2007
  34. U.S. Census Bureau (2010) 2010 TIGER/Line® Shapefiles. U.S. Census Bureau Web site. Accessed 26 Jan 2012
  35. U.S. Census Bureau (2012) American FactFinder. U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed 26 Sept 2015
  36. Uslu B, Borrero J, Dengler L, Synolakis C (2007) Tsunami inundation at Crescent City, California generated by earthquakes along the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Geophys Res Lett 34:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Walsh T, Caruthers C, Heinitz A, Myers III E, Baptista A, Erdakos G, Kamphaus R (2000) Tsunami hazard map of the southern Washington coast—modeled tsunami inundation from a Cascadia subduction zone earthquake. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources Geologic Map GM-49, OlympiaGoogle Scholar
  38. Wein A, Rose A, Wing S, Wei D (2013) Economic impacts of the SAFRR tsunami scenario in California. USGS. Open-File Report 2013-1170-HGoogle Scholar
  39. Western Region Homeland Security Advisory Council (2012) Regional Shelter Plan Template, concept of operations. Accessed 26 Sept 2015
  40. Whitehead J (2003) One million dollars per mile? The opportunity costs of hurricane evacuation. Ocean Coast Manag 46(11–12):1069–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Whitmore P (2003) Tsunami amplitude prediction during events: a test based on previous tsunamis. Sci Tsunami Hazards 21:135–143Google Scholar
  42. Wilson R, Miller K (2014) Tsunami emergency response playbooks and FASTER tsunami height calculation: background information and guidance for use. California Geological Survey Special Report 236Google Scholar
  43. Wilson R, Barberopoulou A, Miller K, Goltz J, Synolakis C (2008) New maximum tsunami inundation maps for use by local emergency planners in the State of California, USA. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 89(53), Fall Meeting Supplement, Abstract OS43D-1343Google Scholar
  44. Wilson R, Barberopoulou A, Borrero J, Bryant W, Dengler L, Goltz J, Legg M, McGuire T, Miller K, Real C, Synolakis C (2010) Development of new databases for tsunami hazard analysis in California. In Lee W, Kirby S, Diggles M (eds) 2010, Program and abstracts of the Second Tsunami Source Workshop; July 19–20, 2010. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1152Google Scholar
  45. Wilson R, Admire A, Borrero J, Dengler L, Legg M, Lynett P, Miller K, Ritchie A, Sterling K, McCrink T, Whitmore P (2013) Observations and impacts from the 2010 Chilean and 2011 Japanese tsunami in California (USA). Pure appl Geophys 170(6/8):1127–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zeigler D, Brunn S, Johnson J (1981) Evacuation from a nuclear technological disaster. Geogr Rev 71(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Western Geographic Science CenterUnited States Geological SurveyPortlandUSA
  2. 2.California Geological SurveySacramentoUSA
  3. 3.Western Geographic Science CenterUnited States Geological SurveyMenlo ParkUSA
  4. 4.ECONorthwestPortlandUSA
  5. 5.Department of Family and Preventive MedicineUniversity of Utah School of MedicineSalt Lake CityUSA
  6. 6.California Governor’s Office of Emergency ServicesSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations