Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 53, Issue 1, pp 43–61 | Cite as

Estimating probable maximum loss from a Cascadia tsunami

  • Dale Dominey-Howes
  • Paula Dunbar
  • Jesse Varner
  • Maria Papathoma-Köhle
Original Paper

Abstract

The Cascadia margin is capable of generating large magnitude seismic-tsunami. We use a 1:500 year tsunami hazard flood layer produced during a probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment as the input to a pilot study of the vulnerability of residential and commercial buildings in Seaside, OR, USA. We map building exposure, apply the Papathoma Tsunami Vulnerability Assessment Model to calculate building vulnerability and estimate probable maximum loss (PML) associated with a 1:500 year tsunami flood. Almost US$0.5 billion worth of buildings would be inundated, 95% of single story residential and 23% of commercial buildings would be destroyed with PML’s exceeding US$116 million. These figures only represent a tiny fraction of the total values of exposed assets and loss that would be associated with a Cascadia tsunami impacting the NW Pacific coast. Not withstanding the various issues associated with our approach, this study represents the first time that PML’s have ever been calculated for a Cascadia type tsunami, and these results have serious implications for tsunami disaster risk management in the region. This method has the potential to be rolled out across the United States and elsewhere for estimating building vulnerability and loss to tsunami.

Keywords

Tsunami Cascadia Building vulnerability assessment Loss PTVA model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

NOAA/NGDC is thanked for providing the resources to enable Dale Dominey-Howes and Papathoma-Köhle to participate in this study. Two anonymous referees and Filippo Dall’Osso are thanked for making numerous helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript all of which significantly improved the final version.

References

  1. Bernard B, Dengler L, Yim S (2007) National Tsunami Research Plan: report of a workshop sponsored by NSF/NOAA. NOAA Technical Memorandum OAR PMEL-133, 135 p. http://nctr.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs.html
  2. Dominey-Howes D, Papathoma M (2007) Validating a tsunami vulnerability assessment model (the PTVA Model) using field data from the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Nat Hazards 40:113–136. doi: 10.1007/s11069-006-0007-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Grundy P, Thurairaja A, Walker G (2005) Some reflections on the structural engineering aspects of tsunami. In: Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Butler B (eds) Proceedings, Australian Earthquake Engineering Society, Albury, New South Wales, p 7-1-7-4Google Scholar
  4. Kelsey H, Nelson A, Hemphill-Haley E, Witter R (2005) Tsunami history of an Oregon coastal lake reveals a 4600 year record of great earthquakes on the Cascadia subduction zone. Bull Geol Soc Am 117(7–8):1009–1032. doi: 10.1130/B25452.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Losey R (2005) Earthquakes and tsunami as elements of environmental disturbance on the Northwest coast of North America. J Anthropol Archaeol 24:101–116. doi: 10.1016/j.jaa.2005.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Matsutomi H, Shuto N, Imamura F, Takahashi T (2001) Field survey of the 1996 Irian Jaya earthquake tsunami in Biak island. Nat Hazards 24:199–212. doi: 10.1023/A:1012042222880 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Nelson A, Kelsey H, Witter R (2006) Great earthquakes of variable magnitude at the Cascadia subduction zone. Quat Res 65:354–365. doi: 10.1016/j.yqres.2006.02.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Papathoma M (2003) Tsunami vulnerability assessment using a geographic information system with special reference to Greece. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Coventry University, UK, 289 pGoogle Scholar
  9. Papathoma M, Dominey-Howes D (2003) Tsunami vulnerability assessment and its implications for coastal hazard analysis and disaster management planning, Gulf of Corinth, Greece. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 3:733–744Google Scholar
  10. Papathoma M, Dominey-Howes D, Zong Y, Smith D (2003) Assessing tsunami vulnerability, an example from Herakleio, Crete. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 3:377–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Peters R, Jaffe B, Gelfenbaum G (2007) Distribution and sedimentary characteristics of tsunami deposits along the Cascadia margin of western North America. Sediment Geol 200:372–386. doi: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2007.01.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Satake K, Atwater B (2007) Long-term perspectives on giant earthquakes and tsunamis at subduction zones. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 35:349–374. doi: 10.1146/annurev.earth.35.031306.140302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. The Tsunami Pilot Study Working Group (2006) Seaside, oregon tsunami pilot study—modernization of FEMA Flood Hazard Maps, Joint NOAA/USGS/FEMA special report, 94 p, 7 appendices. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1234/
  14. Wood N (2002) Vulnerability of port and harbor communities to earthquake and tsunami hazards in the Pacific Northwest. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Geosciences, Oregon State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  15. Wood N, Good J (2004) Vulnerability of port and harbor communities to earthquake and tsunami hazards: the use of GIS in community hazard planning. Coast Manage 32:243–269. doi: 10.1080/08920750490448622 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wood N, Good J, Goodwin R (2002a) Reducing vulnerability of ports and harbors to earthquake and tsunami hazards. In: Proceedings, solutions to coastal disasters, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, pp 949–963Google Scholar
  17. Wood N, Good J, Goodwin R (2002b) Vulnerability assessment of a port and harbor community to earthquake and tsunami hazards: integrating technical and expert and stakeholder input. Nat Hazards Rev 3(4):148–157. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2002)3:4(148) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dale Dominey-Howes
    • 1
  • Paula Dunbar
    • 2
  • Jesse Varner
    • 3
  • Maria Papathoma-Köhle
    • 4
  1. 1.Australian Tsunami Research Center, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental ScienceUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.National Geophysical Data CenterNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)BoulderUSA
  3. 3.Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES)University of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  4. 4.Department of Geography and Regional ResearchUniversity of ViennaWienAustria

Personalised recommendations