6. The Dec. 26, 2004 Tsunami Disaster in Indian Ocean

6-2. Field Survey
6-2-1. Sri Lanka
１）

Background and Purpose
The massive tsunami hit Sri Lanka on December 26, 2004, causing 30,959 deaths, with
5,443 missing. It forced approximately 556,000 to evacuate. (source; UN/OCHA, February 42005).
The ADRC conducted a field survey immediately after the tsunami hit Indian Ocean
countries. The objectives of this survey were as follows,(1) To grasp the extent of the damage by tsunami and research the activities of relevantorganizations(2) To explore and assess the needs for future assistances.

２）

Mission Period
From December 28, 2004 to January 5, 2005

３）

Dispatched Members
Akihiro Teranishi (Senior Researcher of ADRC)
SriGauri Sankar (Visiting Researcher of ADRC)
Si Sira R. N. Colombage (Assistant of ADRC)

４）

Survey Contents
Date
28 Dec.

29 Dec.

30 Dec.

Hikkaduwa
Galle

31 Dec.
1 Jan.

ColomboTrincomalee

2 Jan.

Kinnya3 Jan.

Kinnya-Colombo
National Disaster
Management Center
Embassy of Japan
Arrival in Japan

4 Jan.
5 Jan.

５）

Place
Departure from Japan
National Disaster
Management Center
JICA Office
Embassy of Japan
Local ＮＧＯ
ＵＮＤＰ

Contents－
Visited to relevant organizations to explain them about
the purpose and itinerary of the survey as well as tocollect information about damages, means oftransportation and safety.

Headed to Galle from Colombo. Interviewed to the
local residents on the way to Galle and visited the place
where a train was washed away.
Visited the government office and evacuation camps togather to information about relief situations andproblems in Galle.
Also, visited a fishing village to interview theresidents.
Preparation for the move
Visited the government office.
Surveyed the damage of yhe city. Visited a temporary
clinic and evacuation comps to interview the local
people.
Reported the results of the survey and discussed thefuture contributions.
―

Survey Results(1) National Disaster Management Center
Nimal Hettiarachchi, Director of National Disaster Management Center, which is incharge of disaster relief in Sri Lanka, and other are engaged in collecting information

6. The Dec. 26, 2004 Tsunami Disaster in Indian Ocean

about disaster.
(2) Hikkaduwa
The tsunami washed out 8 cargo trains and killed 1,500 passengers. A local resident
who watched the news of Sumatra earthquake on TV said that the idea of tsunami would
hit Sri Lanka never came up to his mind.
(3) Galle
Many wooden houses were destroyed. One of the government officials dispatched
to Galle was busy to deliver relief materials. He said that the most urgent matter was thelack of drinking water and sanitation. Schools had been turned into refugee camps
operated by volunteer workers.
Fishermen asked for donations of boats and nets for their livelihood.
(4) TrincomaleeCountermeasures were discussed by relevant organizations set up by the
representatives of the national government. Not only the local population but also
government officials did not know even the word of “tsunami”. Council members paid
their attention to the tsunami brochure which the ADRC developed for Papua New
Gunea.
(5) Kinya
A hospital near the sea was damaged severely and many patients became victims.
The relief materials failed to reach many evacuees because only one person was running
the refugee camp.

６）

Issues(1) Public awareness raising and education about the basic knowledge of disasters including
tsunami(2) Enhancement of the national and local governments' disaster management capabilities(3) Assistance to reconstruct livelihood of victims

Fig. 6-2-1-1 Train Wreck (Galle)6. The Dec. 26, 2004 Tsunami Disaster in Indian Ocean

Fig. 6-2-1-2 Affected Hospital (Trincomalee)6. The Dec. 26, 2004 Tsunami Disaster in Indian Ocean

6-2-2. Thailand
１）

Background and Purpose
The massive tsunami of December 26, 2004, severly affected six provinces facing theAndaman Sea in Thailand. It claimed over 5,200 dead, half of whom were from abroad.
Thousands of people are still missing.
From December 30, 2004 to January 2, 2005, the ADRC conducted a survey inThailand. In cooperation with the Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation,
Ministry of Interior, Government of Thailand, the team visited two heavily damaged
provinces; Phuket and Phangnga Province.

２）

Mission Period
From December 30, 2004 to January 2, 2005

３）

Dispatched Member
Dr. Tomohiko Hatori (Senior Researcher, Asian Disaster Reduction Center)
Akiko Nakamura (Researcher, Asian Disaster Reduction Center)

４）

Survey Contents
On December 31, 2004, the team conducted the field survey in Khao Lak Village,
Nam Kem Village and Takua Pa City in Phangnga Province. On January 1, 2005, the teamvisited several beaches (i.e. Patong Beach, Kamala Beach, Karon Beach and Surin Beach)in the Western Phuket Island. The damage situationsvaried between locations.

５）

Survey Results
Known as fine resort area for foreign tourists, Khao Lak Village was greatly affectedby the devastating tsunami four times. The largest wave was the third one, which was morethan ten meters high. In Nam Kem Village, where many fishermen resided in low-risehouses, the tidal waves reached more than 500 meters inland from the coast. They
destroyed the ground floors of the most houses, and washed away the village, claiming
many lives of the local people.
No early warning was issued for evacuation and it is considered as one of the maincauses for the loss of many lives. In addition, the lack of knowledge on tsunami caused
heavy mortality. It is also reported that many people went into the sea to catch fishes when
the sea pulled back immediately before the tidal waves came.
Considering that the affected areas in Thailand include world famous beach resorts,
and that tourism is one of the major industries for the country, how to promotereconstruction and recovery successfully will be a critical issue. The team made thefollowing three recommendations to make Thai society less prone to tsunami: 1)
establishing multi-national information sharing system on earthquakes and tsunami, 2)
improving information dissemination inside the country, including the one for foreign
tourists, 3) raising public awareness of tsunami disaster risks and informing foreign touristsof the evacuation procedure.

Fig. 6-2-2-1 Damaged Temple on Kamala Beach (Phuket)

6. The Dec. 26, 2004 Tsunami Disaster in Indian Ocean

6-2-3. Indonesia
１）

Background and Purpose
The massive tsunami hit Indonesia on December 26, 2004. The ADRC investigation
team, consisting of Dr. Bambang Rudyanto, former senior researcher of the ADRC, and Mr.
Masaru Arakida, senior researcher of the ADRC, went to Banda Aceh, Indonesia, one of themost severely affected areas by the huge tsunami disaster on December 26, 2004, and madesome considerations on the applicability of earth observation imagery to disaster reduction.

２）

Mission Period
January 7 to 11, 2005

３）

Dispatched Member
Masaru Arakida (Senior Researcher, Asian Disaster Reduction Center)
Bambang Rudyanto (Associate Professor of Wako University, former Senior Researcher,
Asian Disaster Reduction Center)

４）

Survey Results
This survey was conducted to:- determine the extent of the damage and analyze the current situation- identify needs and problems
Counterpart of Indonesian government: BAKORNAS PBP(1) BAKORNAS Operation Center （Jan. 8 2005）- A tele-conference system was available via communication satellite.
- It was hard to collect information because no one knew the total damages.
- IBM donated and installed 200 computers for volunteer workers to input and update
human and material damages.
- Image data from IKONOS and QuickBird were displayed.
(2) City of Banda Aceh（Jan. 8 2005）
Because of rubbles, we could not reach the coastline. We went around the fish
market, prison, etc., about 3-5 km inland from the sea.
Even a building whose roof appeared undamaged on the EO image had had its
ground floor severaly damaged by the tsunami.
A GPS camcorder was used to use GIS image data.
Color-coded images, such as ASTER images, which showed the affected areas red,
were useful for the preliminary investigation before the survey.
If the GIS allows damage estimation based on EO images, the Headquarters could
have started rescue and relief operations at a much earlier stage.
Can we estimate the height of the tsunami using images of the tsunami area and
DEM data?
Few people survived in the tsunami area.
→The mortality rate in tsunami area was quite high.

6. The Dec. 26, 2004 Tsunami Disaster in Indian Ocean

Fig. 6-2-3-1 Banda Aceh, Collapsed Department Store

Fig. 6-2-3-2 Banda Aceh, Medan hotel and Fish Boat

(3) Bakornas in Jakarta
EO images from IKONOS, QuickBird, Landsat, and SPOT are available displayedin the Center.
It was apparent that these image data were not used to develop actual
countermeasures.
Most of the HQs staff could not use EO images themselves.
They did not know how to utilize images for their works. They need much more
additional information from EO images, including the extent of the tsunami area,
number of affected people, which road is available, etc.
the headquarters staff have insufficient knowledge, skills and processing time.
Therefore, quick reports, including more detailed EO image analyses, are necessary.

6. The Dec. 26, 2004 Tsunami Disaster in Indian Ocean

6-2-4. Maldives１）

Background and Purpose
The massive tsunami hit Maldives on December 26, 2004, causing 82 deaths, with 26
missing, 1,313 injured and 29,577 displaced & homeless (as of Dec. 26, 2004). Consideringthat the population of the country is 290,000, the impact of the tsunami was enormous for thecountry. There are 199 inhabited islands in the country, of which 53 islands were severely
affected by this disaster. Resort islands, in particular, have been suffering serious damage totourism, which is a major industry of the country.
The ADRC dispatched a senior researcher to Maldives as a member of a JICA mission.
The mission objects were:- To survey the current situation of the tsunami disaster in Maldives, and- To carry out a needs assessment for Japan's future assistance.

２）

Mission Period
January 26-31, 2005

３）

Dispatched Member
Dr. Tetsushi Kurita (Senior Researcher, Asian Disaster Reduction Center)

４）

Survey Contents
Date
Jan.26

Place

Description－

Arrival to Male
Department

ofExternal

Resources,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Survey schedule check
Following NDMC report

Jan.27National Disaster Management Center-Disaster situation analysis-Future plan

Male Island

were constructed with Japan’s ODA

Gemendhoo Island, Dhaalu Atoll

Survey of affected local island

Jan.28Vilufushi Island, Thaa Atoll

Survey of affected local island

Jan.29Male

Report writing

National Disaster Management Center
Ministry of Finance and Treadury
Jan.30Survey on damage to fisheries andagriculture
Discussion on future assistance

Ministry of Fisheries, Agriculture & Survey on dmage to fisheries andMarine Resources
Departure from Male

５）

Inspection of the seawalls which

agriculture－

Survey Results- Field Survey in Male Island
In the survey of Male Island, the mission inspected the seawalls which wereconstructed with Japan's ODA (Official Development Assistance). It is reported that theseawalls built around the island protected the City of Male from the devastating tsunami.

6. The Dec. 26, 2004 Tsunami Disaster in Indian Ocean

The mission verified the structural stability of the seawalls.
- Field Survey in Local Islands
The field survey in Gemendhoo Island, Dhaalu Atoll and Vilufushi Island, Thaa Atoll,found that there were many collapsed fishermen's houses. These houses were vulnerable totsunamis because residents themselves had constructed them with coral stones and burnt
gypsum. On the other hand, most of public buildings (e.g. island office, mosque and school)
were not affected severely because they had been constructed by contractors according to
the Building Code.
Maldives is highly prone to tidal waves since the highest elevation point of the countryis 1.5 m above sea level. Based on the traces of the recent tsunami, it is estimated that 2-3
meter-high waves struck the country.
- Future Plans
As a countermeasure against tsunamis, the Government of Maldives has started thedevelopment of the Safe Islands Programme. According to this programme, Safe Islands
with coastal protection and safety zones, such as artificial high ground for emergency
evacuation and public buildings for vertical evacuation, will be constructed. In the future,
residents in the vulnerable islands like Gemendhoo Island will be relocated to the Safe
Islands. The Government of Maldives is expecting international assistance for thisprogramme.

Fig. 6-2-4-1 Presentation of Disaster by Minister of Planning & National Development(Second person from right)

6. The Dec. 26, 2004 Tsunami Disaster in Indian Ocean

Fig. 6-2-4-2 Sea Wall in Male

6. The Dec. 26, 2004 Tsunami Disaster in Indian Ocean

6-2-5. India
１）

Background and Purpose
The massive tsunami hit India on December 26, 2004, causing devastating damage on
the country. The ADRC dispatched a senior researcher to India in order to assess the damage
and identify the needs of the tsunami affected areas.

２）

Mission Period
March 2-4, 2005

３）

Dispatched Member
Ms. Etsuko Tsunozaki, Senior Researcher of ADRC

４）

Supported by
Ministry of Home Affairs (Government of India), State Relief Commissioner of Tamil
Nadu, Collector of Cuddalore, Relief Commissioner of Pondicherry

５）

Survey Contents
From March 2 to 4, 2005, a senior researcher of the ADRC visited thetsunami-affected areas in the State of Tamil Nadu and the UT of Pondicherry. India lost
thousands of lives and suffered extensive damage to livelihood and economy in the States ofTamil Nadu, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh, and the Union Territory (UT) of Pondicherry as wellas on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The number of casualties exceeded 10,000 and morethan 5,000 people were still missing (as of March 31 2005).
Relief efforts in response to the tsunami in India were coordinated efficiently by the
Ministry of Home Affairs as the nodal agency at the national level; by the Relief
Commissioners at the state and UT levels, by the Collectors at the district level. It should be
noted that not only the governments carried out relief activities, but also, UN agencies,
community members, individuals and local NGOs as well as the private sector responded to
the needs of the affected communities. At present, short to medium-term recovery andreconstruction activities, such as reconstruction of public facilities, repair of infrastructure,
replacement of boats, mental health care and so on, are being carried out, coordinated among
all the stakeholders. The challenges are still enormous for all the affected communities torecover entirely, and a long-term recovery plan is currently being developed to that end.

Fig. 6-2-5-1 Ruined fisherman’s hut in
Pondicherry

Fig. 6-2-5-2 Temporary shelters constructedby the state of Tamil Nadu

6. The Dec. 26, 2004 Tsunami Disaster in Indian Ocean

6-2-6. Field Survey on Awareness of Tsunami Risk
At the initiative of UNESCO/IOC, various plans/activities are currently under discussion
for improving disaster management systems including development of a Tsunami Early Warning
System in the countries surrounding the Indian Ocean. Raising public awareness for disaster
reduction is the key for the successful implementation of such plans/activities. The ADRC
conducted a field survey on tsunami risk awareness in Sri Lanka to identify the current situationand characteristics of community's capacity to respond to natural disasters for the purpose of
proposing appropriate methods to designate potential high risk areas for tsunami, and develop
strategies for disseminating tsunami knowledge and raising public awareness regarding tsunami
disasters.

Survey Contents- Questionnaire survey on tsunami risk awareness among the general public (Expected
number of respondents: 1,000)- Questionnaire survey on tsunami risk awareness among school children (Expected
number of respondents: 1,000)- Interview survey on natural disaster management with government officials (Expected
number of respondents: 50-100)- Field survey on the damage by the tsunami in the target area
- Proposal for effective methods to deliver risk information to the general public andactivities for raising public awareness for disaster reduction in Sri Lanka.
２） Target Area
Galle District, Sri Lanka
３） Period of Field Survey
March 1-14, 2005 (March 1-12, 2005 survey in Galle district)４） Result of the survey (Preliminary report as of 22 March, 2005)(1) Questionnaire survey among the general public
A local survey team consisting of 23 members conducted a questionnaire survey
among the residents in the target area, selected by simple random sampling, and received
1,324 responses.
Table 6-3-2-1 Ratios of the number of sample (by division)
Total number of households
DS division
Ratioofnumberof(survey of 2001)
respondents(%)(tentative figure)
Benthota
10.2
11,801
Balapitiya
14.9
15,570Ambalangoda
13.5
18,328
Hikkaduwa
22.1
23,838Galle four Gravets
22.2
19,931
Habaraduwa
17.1
14,215
１）

Fig. 6-3-2-1 Interview to the affected people living in the6. The Dec. 26, 2004 Tsunami Disaster in Indian Ocean

Answers to the question that which mode most catered the information
you wanted to know

Answers to the question that what is the effective ways
to utilize the lessons for preventing/mitigating a
tragedy from recurring (multiple answers)

Information through
Otherstelephone call from
0.8% No Answer
others
1.4%
0.8%
Information bycommunity leaders/
government officers
8%
TV
20.7%

Verbalcommunication withfamily members
and/or neighbors
40.3%

Integrating tsunami disaster reduction
into school curriculum

78.3%

Distributing of the posters/leaf lets
on the tsunami

14.4%

Holding community-based w orkshops
on regular basis

27.0%

Setting up a sign f or tsunami
w arning/ evacuation

Radio
18.7%

Newspaper
5.2%

68.4%

Establishing a memorial monumenton the tsunami disaster

5.1%

Establishing a museum on tsunami

4.7%

0%

Information by the
Police officers/or
the Fire brigades
4.2%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Internet
0.2%

Fig. 6-3-2-2 Result of the questionnaire survey among residents (extract)
The collected answers to the 19 questions clearly show the current status of thecapabilities for disaster management of the residents in the target area. As the two graphs aboveshow, promotion of disaster reduction education at schools would contribute to publicawareness raising.

(2) Questionnaire survey among school children
The survey covered mainly fifth-grade school children (aged 10) at the schools
selected with the regional demographic differences taken into consideration. The ADRC
survey team visited the schools, and asked the principals for cooperation for thequestionnaire survey.
Table 6-3-2-2 Numbers of collected answers (by school)
Name of School

Shariputra Maha Vidyalaya
Uswatunhasana Maha Vidyalaya
Sudharma Maha Vidyalaya
Southlands College
C.W.W. Kannangara Maha Vidyalaya
Gintota Maha Vidyalaya
Alloyseus College
Rohana Maha Vidyalaya
Mahamaya Balika Vidyalaya
Peraliya Jinaratana Vidyalaya

DS divisionHabaraduwa
Galle
Galle
Galle
Galle
Galle
Galle
Habaraduwa
Hikkaduwa
Hikkaduwa

Number of sample
SchoolChildren

Teachers

51
28
66
285
16
134
270
60
18
25

2
1
1
9
1
4
5
5
1
2

Siddharta Madya Maha Vidyalaya

Balapitiya

55

2Hegalle Maha Vidyalaya
Martin Wickramasinghe Kanishta Vidyalaya
Total

Balapitiya
Habaraduwa

77
27
1,112

2
1
36

Remarks

MuslimGirls school

Boys school

Grade 6Girls school
Randombe
Kanishta
Vidyalaya(united)6. The Dec. 26, 2004 Tsunami Disaster in Indian Ocean

Fig. 6-3-2-3 Children filling in the survey sheets (Habaraduwa)
Answers to the question that have you studied how to escape from anatural disater either at school or home
Answers to the question that would you like to study about natural
disasters
No answer
0.2%

No answer
0.2%

Would not like to
9.4%

Never studied
27.2%

Studied at school
29.4%

Studied at home
43.2%

Would like to
90.4%

Fig. 6-3-2-4 Result of the questionnaire survey among school children (extract)
The collected answers to the 12 questions clearly show the current status of thecapabilities of school children for disaster reduction in the target area. The two graphs
above clearly show the lack of school education for disaster reduction. It should be required
to develop a school curriculum taking the importance of studies for disaster reduction into
consideration.
(3) Questionnaire and interview survey among government officials- Questionnaire survey
The ADRC survey team visited each organization, and asked the head of theorganization for cooperation to conduct the questionnaire survey in his/herorganization.

6. The Dec. 26, 2004 Tsunami Disaster in Indian Ocean

Table 6-3-2-3 Collected numbers of the survey sheets (by organization)

Organization
NDMC
Administrative
District of Galle

DS division officePlanning
Education
HealthPoliceNavy
Ambalangoda
Balapitiya
Benthota
Galle four Gravets
Habaraduwa
Hikkaduwa
Total

Name of the head of
the section
Mr. Hettiarachchi
Ms. Piyadasa
Ms. Dahanayake
Ms. Gamage
Mr. Silva
Mr. Somapala
Mr. Ravindra
Mr. Ariyaratne
Mr. Jayalal
Mr. Gunawardena
Mr. Samarasekara
Ms. Piyaratne

Number of
respondents
18
9
12
15
8
16
5
4
6
7
5
5
110

Is there any training/seminar available in your office to study about
natural disasters?
No Answer
0.0%

Yes
29.1%

No
70.9%

Fig. 6-3-2-5 Result of the questionnaire survey among government officials (extract)

6. The Dec. 26, 2004 Tsunami Disaster in Indian Ocean-

Interview survey
In addition to the questionnaire survey, the ADRC team conducted an interview
survey with the heads of the target organizations.
Table 6-3-2-4 List of the interview survey

Organization

Heads
Title

NDMC
Administrative
District of Galle

Planning
Education
HealthPoliceDS division officeNavyAmbalangoda
Balapitiya
Benthota
Galle four Gravets
Habaraduwa
Hikkaduwa

Director
District Secretary
Director
Director
Deputy Secretary
DeputyProvincial
Director
SeniorSuperintendent
Commander
Divisional Secretary
Divisional Secretary
Divisional Secretary
Divisional Secretary
Divisional Secretary
Divisional Secretary

Name
Mr. Hettiarachchi
Mr. Hewavitharana
Ms. Piyadasa
Ms. Dahanayake
Ms. Gamage
Mr. Gunawardena
Mr. Silva
Mr. Somapala
Mr. Ravindra
Mr. Ariyaratne
Mr. Jayalal
Mr. Gunawardena
Mr. Samarasekara
Ms. Piyaratne

The result of the interview survey revealed the main problems in many of theorganizations; lack of coordination among the government organizations; andinadequate capabilities of officers who have to deal directly with residents matters.
Besides, many told about the urgent necessity of a tsunami early warning system.
(4) Field survey on the damage by the tsunami in the target areas
Table. 6-3-2-5 Damage statuses in the target areas in Galle district (as of March 1, 2005)

No.

DS division

Dead/
Missing

InjuredAffected

Evacuee(people)(people)(people)Property
Damage90

31,51017,06628,442
14,782

Totally
1,061
1,284

1,342
59

132

59,973
4,343

59,973
2,906

3,164
348

2,236
176

14
3

196
18
2,805

84

16,0001,000
129,892

15,490333
121,926

1,167
8
7,032

1,996
74
7,680

5

(people)

1
2

Galle
Habaraduwa

916
274

3
4

Hikkaduwa
Ambalangoda

5
6Balapitiya
Benthota
Total

-

306

Half
2,619
579

Number
of
Camps
0
2

24

6. The Dec. 26, 2004 Tsunami Disaster in Indian Ocean

Fig. 6-3-2-6 Damaged house near the coast (Hikkaduwa)

Fig. 6-3-2-7 Tent set up on the discharged sediment (Hikkaduwa)
The situation of the area was now shifting from the emergency relief phase to therecovery phase. It was observed that construction of the temporary houses and permanenthouses had started. Disposal of a massive amount of debris was considered as one of the big
issues to be quickly solved.

５）

Conclusion
The successful development of a Tsunami Early Warning System in theareas surrounding the Indian Ocean requires considerations on how to ensure
effective delivery of risk information, and to educate the population as to what
action to take in case of warning. The survey result will be of great help for theconsideration in Sri Lanka. The result will also be applied to the future study forother areas and countries.