the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 27 Apr 2023
Tsunami Risk and Alert Perceptions in Five Municipalities bordering the French Mediterranean Basin
Abstract. Since the major tsunami that occurred in 2004, many studies have dealt with the evacuations, hazard mapping and awareness-actions, rather than on the perceived tsunami risk nor on alert perceptions declared locally by the population. In this study, we analyzed a sample of 750 answers to a face-to-face questionnaire, gathered from residents or workers in 5 densely-urbanized municipalities (e.g., Bandol, Bastia, Cannes, Six-Fours-Les-Plages, Sanary-sur-Mer), likely to be hit by a tsunami and bordering the French Mediterranean basin. Results first confirmed the tendency to underestimate the tsunami risk, as only 15.6 % identify tsunami as a risk. However, 48.7 % declare they should take protective actions if they feel ground-shaking on the seafront, and even 65.3 % if they also see a anormal sea movement. In contrast, the efficacy of alerting tools and the actors who can alert them are overestimated, as 44.7 % of the respondents think they should be alerted by sirens and 11.7 % by SMS, while such tools are not systematically present and rarely cover tsunami evacuation zones. And only 29.4 % correctly identify the official alert senders: mayors or prefectures. In contrast, 55.7 % declare they go high ground if they receive such instructions in one Alert SMS. The age, gender, residency status or location of the respondents explain a few differences in the collected data. However, relationships between tsunami risk and alert perceptions appear statistically not corelated. All the knowledge produced in this study finally might help the municipalities further develop awareness-actions and information on the tsunami, and inform what strategy they may apply in a short future to better increase the tsunami preparedness.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(8858 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(8858 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-558', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Jun 2023
The paper is well written, clear in its objectives and effective in its presentation of results. As acknowledged by the authors themselves, the sample used has some significant limitations, but these have been sufficiently discussed and adressed. The main value of the paper is that it provides important data on a relatively little-studied area such as the Mediterranean coasts of France and sheds light on the limitations of the warning channels that can be used for overcoming the so-called last mile issues. The results of the MCA could perhaps have been more clearly explained, but the reviewer acknowledges that this is a subjective assessment and that the paper can therefore be published without further changes.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-558-RC1 -
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Johnny Douvinet, 25 Jun 2023
Thanks for this nice comment
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-558-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Johnny Douvinet, 06 Jul 2023
Thansk for this nice comment
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-558-AC1
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Johnny Douvinet, 25 Jun 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-558', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Jul 2023
The manuscript surveys the tsunami risk and tsunami alert perception of the population living or working in five areas on the French coast. The surveyed area is indeed defined within the perimeter of the tsunami evacuation areas. Four of the locations studied are in the south of France and one location is in Corsica. The five areas face the Mediterranean Sea on different sides.
The issues addressed in the manuscript are essential to develop virtuous interventions and tsunami risk mitigation policies aimed at the local population and tourists as well as to implement more effective hazard and uncertainty communication tools. The study takes an international perspective and increases the data availability on tsunami risk perception and tsunami alert perception in the NEAMTWS area.
The addressed issues are also of multilevel interest: local, national and European.
However, the manuscript has many shortcomings that affect various aspects.
A) conceptual gaps,
B) methodological shortcomings,
C) shortcomings in data analysis and output presentation
D) inaccuracies and errors of form.
Specifically, some references cited in the text are not included in the bibliography. Further bibliography on risk perception and tsunami risk perception is recommended, paying particular attention to the complexity of the constructs and how they are addressed.
L35 - there are references to specific data without cited bibliography
L64 and others - there are references to the manuscript by Carles et al., 2023 which is published in French. It is recommended to include other references rather than referring to a single native-language text, especially when dealing with important concepts or validation of flood zones with respective parameters.
L68 - There is intense debate concerning the definition of "natural risks". It is suggested to inform about it. However, it is preferable to use 'natural hazards'.
L71-94-101 etc. there are important generalised shortcomings on risk perception concept. This also emerges as a contradiction in terms in e.g. L94 and 95. The paper deals specifically with tsunami risk and alert perception, therefore, risk perception must be well structured.
The authors also survey the perception (a sociologically complex and irreducible concept; Slovic, 1980) by considering only stimuli perceived through the senses. This is a theoretical/conceptual error. Therefore, the theoretical focus is shifted from perception to sensation, a psychological concept, see e.g. Graham and Ratoosh, 1962.
Section 3.2.2; 4.2.3 and Figure 2.
Major methodological and data analysis discrepancies emerge. Unfortunately, the appendix is not available to provide a direct comparison with the questionnaire administered to the respondents. However, the questions described in section 3.2.2 do not match the data presented in the graphs and commented in section 4.2.3. Some of the questions have been reformulated and do not accurately reflect the original text. Confusion between questions Q7 and Q8 where part of the text has been removed, losing its meaning.
Furthermore, the authors extracted categories from open questions (e.g. Q8 and Q10) without explaining the methodological procedure. The categories are not mutually exclusive and the data presented in this way are not statistically robust. To carry out such an operation, it is essential to describe the procedure, the instrument used and to present the categories.
Since the authors have very interesting data and in-depth interviews, I suggest that the authors review the entire manuscript because, as mentioned above, it is of relevant importance and submit it once the shortcomings have been fixed.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Johnny Douvinet, 06 Jul 2023
Dear reviewer,
Thanks for your comments. Please find a few answers, following the different points you have suggested.
A. Conceptual gaps: We will in the next weeks improve several gaps on the tsunami risk perception risk and on the alert perception, by increasing the number of bibliographical references (without limiting ourselves to the work of Graham and Ratoosh, 1962; for example Rittichainuwat, 2013; Arce et al., 2017; Ong et al., 2023, recalling also that the recent Rehnn and Grohamm support a conceptual framework since the beginning of the 2000’s years). Limiting perception to the five senses was surely reductive. As indicated in the text, we will qualify this statement and firther position this perception in relation to the complexity of the concepts and works referring to it. The term "natural hazards" will be used again.
B. Methodological shortcomings: Indicate the precise questionnaire in the appendix and remain faithful to the questions asked, while rechecking the figures obtained and shown in the text and on the graphs. Questions Q8 and Q10 will be revised or corrected, but it is surprising to read this remark. Question Q8 is a closed question. The answers to question Q10, on the other hand, have been reclassified and a more precise explanation of how this is done needs to be provided.
C. Shortcomings in data analysis and presentation of results: The delimitation of the land area to be evacuated and the spatial reference point chosen in France should be better positioned in relation to the choices made elsewhere (Italy, Japan).
D. Inaccuracies and errors of form: The bibliography will be completely revised.
Sure, as this second reviewer suggest it, this paper is of relevant importance and we will submit a new version asap, if the fixed shortcomings are validated.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-558-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Johnny Douvinet, 06 Jul 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-558', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Jun 2023
The paper is well written, clear in its objectives and effective in its presentation of results. As acknowledged by the authors themselves, the sample used has some significant limitations, but these have been sufficiently discussed and adressed. The main value of the paper is that it provides important data on a relatively little-studied area such as the Mediterranean coasts of France and sheds light on the limitations of the warning channels that can be used for overcoming the so-called last mile issues. The results of the MCA could perhaps have been more clearly explained, but the reviewer acknowledges that this is a subjective assessment and that the paper can therefore be published without further changes.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-558-RC1 -
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Johnny Douvinet, 25 Jun 2023
Thanks for this nice comment
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-558-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Johnny Douvinet, 06 Jul 2023
Thansk for this nice comment
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-558-AC1
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Johnny Douvinet, 25 Jun 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-558', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Jul 2023
The manuscript surveys the tsunami risk and tsunami alert perception of the population living or working in five areas on the French coast. The surveyed area is indeed defined within the perimeter of the tsunami evacuation areas. Four of the locations studied are in the south of France and one location is in Corsica. The five areas face the Mediterranean Sea on different sides.
The issues addressed in the manuscript are essential to develop virtuous interventions and tsunami risk mitigation policies aimed at the local population and tourists as well as to implement more effective hazard and uncertainty communication tools. The study takes an international perspective and increases the data availability on tsunami risk perception and tsunami alert perception in the NEAMTWS area.
The addressed issues are also of multilevel interest: local, national and European.
However, the manuscript has many shortcomings that affect various aspects.
A) conceptual gaps,
B) methodological shortcomings,
C) shortcomings in data analysis and output presentation
D) inaccuracies and errors of form.
Specifically, some references cited in the text are not included in the bibliography. Further bibliography on risk perception and tsunami risk perception is recommended, paying particular attention to the complexity of the constructs and how they are addressed.
L35 - there are references to specific data without cited bibliography
L64 and others - there are references to the manuscript by Carles et al., 2023 which is published in French. It is recommended to include other references rather than referring to a single native-language text, especially when dealing with important concepts or validation of flood zones with respective parameters.
L68 - There is intense debate concerning the definition of "natural risks". It is suggested to inform about it. However, it is preferable to use 'natural hazards'.
L71-94-101 etc. there are important generalised shortcomings on risk perception concept. This also emerges as a contradiction in terms in e.g. L94 and 95. The paper deals specifically with tsunami risk and alert perception, therefore, risk perception must be well structured.
The authors also survey the perception (a sociologically complex and irreducible concept; Slovic, 1980) by considering only stimuli perceived through the senses. This is a theoretical/conceptual error. Therefore, the theoretical focus is shifted from perception to sensation, a psychological concept, see e.g. Graham and Ratoosh, 1962.
Section 3.2.2; 4.2.3 and Figure 2.
Major methodological and data analysis discrepancies emerge. Unfortunately, the appendix is not available to provide a direct comparison with the questionnaire administered to the respondents. However, the questions described in section 3.2.2 do not match the data presented in the graphs and commented in section 4.2.3. Some of the questions have been reformulated and do not accurately reflect the original text. Confusion between questions Q7 and Q8 where part of the text has been removed, losing its meaning.
Furthermore, the authors extracted categories from open questions (e.g. Q8 and Q10) without explaining the methodological procedure. The categories are not mutually exclusive and the data presented in this way are not statistically robust. To carry out such an operation, it is essential to describe the procedure, the instrument used and to present the categories.
Since the authors have very interesting data and in-depth interviews, I suggest that the authors review the entire manuscript because, as mentioned above, it is of relevant importance and submit it once the shortcomings have been fixed.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Johnny Douvinet, 06 Jul 2023
Dear reviewer,
Thanks for your comments. Please find a few answers, following the different points you have suggested.
A. Conceptual gaps: We will in the next weeks improve several gaps on the tsunami risk perception risk and on the alert perception, by increasing the number of bibliographical references (without limiting ourselves to the work of Graham and Ratoosh, 1962; for example Rittichainuwat, 2013; Arce et al., 2017; Ong et al., 2023, recalling also that the recent Rehnn and Grohamm support a conceptual framework since the beginning of the 2000’s years). Limiting perception to the five senses was surely reductive. As indicated in the text, we will qualify this statement and firther position this perception in relation to the complexity of the concepts and works referring to it. The term "natural hazards" will be used again.
B. Methodological shortcomings: Indicate the precise questionnaire in the appendix and remain faithful to the questions asked, while rechecking the figures obtained and shown in the text and on the graphs. Questions Q8 and Q10 will be revised or corrected, but it is surprising to read this remark. Question Q8 is a closed question. The answers to question Q10, on the other hand, have been reclassified and a more precise explanation of how this is done needs to be provided.
C. Shortcomings in data analysis and presentation of results: The delimitation of the land area to be evacuated and the spatial reference point chosen in France should be better positioned in relation to the choices made elsewhere (Italy, Japan).
D. Inaccuracies and errors of form: The bibliography will be completely revised.
Sure, as this second reviewer suggest it, this paper is of relevant importance and we will submit a new version asap, if the fixed shortcomings are validated.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-558-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Johnny Douvinet, 06 Jul 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 282 | 172 | 26 | 480 | 12 | 17 |
- HTML: 282
- PDF: 172
- XML: 26
- Total: 480
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Johnny Douvinet
Noé Carles
Pierre Foulquier
Mathieu Peroche
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(8858 KB) - Metadata XML