1

In cooperation with the Civil Defense Division of the State of Hawai‘i Department of Defense, 

the Office of Planning of the State of Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development, 

and Tourism, and the Pacific Disaster Center

Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity 

to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi

Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5208

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
This page left intentionally blank.
Variations in Community Exposure and 

Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the 

State of Hawaiÿi

By Nathan Wood, Alyssia Church, Tim Frazier, and Brent Yarnal

In cooperation with the Civil Defense Division of the State of Hawaiÿi Department of Defense, the Office of Planning of the State of Hawaiÿi Department 

of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, and the Pacific Disaster 

Center

Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5208
ii

U.S. Department of the Interior

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Mark D. Myers, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007

This report and any updates to it are available at:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5208/

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Wood, N., Church, A., Frazier, T., and B. Yarnal, 2007, Variations in community exposure and sensitivity to tsunami 

hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigation Report 2007-5208, 38 p.

Cataloging-in-publication data are on file with the Library of Congress (://www.loc.gov/).

Produced in the Western Region, Menlo Park, California

Manuscript approved for publication, August 28, 2007

Text edited by James W. Hendley II

Layout by David R. Jones

FRONT COVER—The communities of Punaluÿu (left) and Honolulu (right) on the island of Oÿahu.
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................3

Methods and Data .........................................................................................................................................3

Study Area .............................................................................................................................................4

Land-Cover Data ...................................................................................................................................4

Population Data.....................................................................................................................................5

Economic Data ......................................................................................................................................7

Critical-Facilities Data..........................................................................................................................7

Composite Indices of Exposure and Sensitivity...............................................................................8

Statistical Methods...............................................................................................................................8

Results .............................................................................................................................................................9

Land Cover.............................................................................................................................................9

Population ............................................................................................................................................11

Residential Populations ............................................................................................................11

Employee Populations...............................................................................................................14

Dependent Populations ............................................................................................................14

Tourist Populations ....................................................................................................................14

Economic Assets.................................................................................................................................17

Critical and Essential Facilities.........................................................................................................19

Composite Indices of Community Exposure and Sensitivity........................................................20

Statistical Relationship to Land-Cover Data ..................................................................................23

Summary........................................................................................................................................................26

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................27

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................27

Glossary.........................................................................................................................................................29

Appendix A. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes .................................30

Appendix B. Overview of Project Database............................................................................................32

Appendix C. Supplemental Maps of Exposure and Sensitivity Results ..............................................33

Figures

1. Oblique photographs of (A) the community of Punaluÿu (B) the community of Ewa Beach, 

(C ) the Ala Wai Boat Harbor near Waikïkï Beach, Honolulu, and (D) Honolulu Harbor. ...........2

2. Map of the State of Hawaiÿi, including census-designated places that intersect 

tsunami-evacuation zones....................................................................................................................5

3. Map of land-cover type for the Island of Oÿahu.................................................................................6

4. Distribution of land-cover classes (by area) in tsunami-evacuation zones for the 

State of Hawaiÿi ......................................................................................................................................9

5. Amount and percentage of land-cover cells classifed as developed in 

tsunami-evacuation zones..................................................................................................................10

6. Number and percentage of residents in tsunami-evacuation zones...........................................12
iv

7. Number and percentage of employees in tsunami-evacuation zones ........................................15

8. Sum and percentage of hotel average daily visitor (ADV) estimates ..........................................16

9. Amount and percentage of total parcel value (minus exemptions) .............................................18

10. Types of businesses in tsunami-evacuation zone...........................................................................19

11. Map of composite exposure and sensitivity values........................................................................21

12. Frequency histogram of the sum of normalized exposure and sensitivity indices....................23

13. Comparison of normalized exposure and sensitivity indices ........................................................24

14. Sum of normalized exposure and sensitivity indices for selected community assets..............25

15. Scatter-plots comparing the distribution of land and of residents in 

relation to tsunami-evacuation zones...............................................................................................26

Tables

1. Demographic characteristics for residential populations. .............................................................11

2. Summary of the amount and percentage of dependent-population 

facilities in tsunami-evacuation zones...............................................................................................14

3. Summary of the amount and percentage of public-venue locations in 

tsunami-evacuation zones ...................................................................................................................17

4. Summary of the amount and percentage of economic assets in 

tsunami-evacuation zones ...................................................................................................................17

5. Summary of the amount and percentage of critical- and essential-facilities in 

tsunami-evacuation zones ...................................................................................................................20

6. Composite exposure and sensitivity values for communities in the 

tsunami-evacuation zone .....................................................................................................................22

7. Statistical results for simple linear regression analyses comparing the 

amount of land and the amount of selected community assets ....................................................26
By Nathan Wood1

, Alyssia Church2, Tim Frazier2, and Brent Yarnal2

Abstract

Hawaiÿi has experienced numerous destructive tsunamis 

and the potential for future events threatens the safety and 

economic well being of its coastal communities. Although 

tsunami-evacuation zones have been delineated, what is in 

these areas and how communities have chosen to develop 

within them has not been documented. A community-level 

vulnerability assessment using geographic-information-system tools was conducted to describe tsunami-prone landscapes on the Hawaiian coast and to document variations in 

land cover, demographics, economic assets, and critical facilities among 65 communities. Results indicate that the Hawaiÿi 

tsunami-evacuation zone contains approximately 80,443 

residents (seven percent of the total population), 67,113 

employees (eleven percent of the State labor force), and 

50,174 average daily visitors to hotels (44 percent of the State 

total). With regards to economic conditions, the tsunamievacuation zone contains 5,779 businesses that generate $10.1 

billion in annual sales volume (both eleven percent of State 

totals), and tax parcels with a combined total value of $36.1 

billion (18 percent of the State total). Although occupancy 

values are not known for each facility, the tsunami-evacuation 

zone also contains numerous dependent-population facilities 

(for example, child-day-care facilities and schools), public 

venues (for example, religious organizations and parks) and 

critical facilities (for example, fire stations). The residential 

population in tsunami-prone areas is racially diverse, with 

most residents identifying themselves as White, Asian, or 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, either alone or 

in combination with one or more race. Fifty-three percent 

of the households in the tsunami-evacuation zone are renter 

occupied. The employee population in the tsunami-evacuation 

zone is largely in accommodation and food services, health 

services, and retail-trade sectors. 

Results indicate that community vulnerability, described 

here by exposure (the amount of assets in tsunami-prone 

areas) and sensitivity (the relative percentage of assets in 

tsunami-prone areas) varies considerably among 65 coastal 

communities in Hawaiÿi. Honolulu has the highest exposure, 

Punaluÿu has the highest sensitivity, and Näpili-Honoköwai 

1

 U.S. Geological Survey

2

 The Pennsylvania State University

has the highest combination of exposure and sensitivity to 

tsunamis. Results also indicate that the level of communityasset exposure to tsunamis is not determined by the amount 

of a community’s land that is in tsunami-evacuation zones. 

Community sensitivity, however, is related to the percentage 

of a community’s land that is in the tsunami-prone areas. This 

report will further the dialogue on societal risk to tsunami 

hazards in Hawaiÿi and help identify future preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery planning needs within coastal 

communities and economic sectors of the State of Hawaiÿi.

Introduction

The 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake and tsunami 

devastated communities throughout the Indian Ocean and 

demonstrated to the world how tsunamis are significant threats 

to the safety, security, economic well being, and natural 

resources of many coastal communities. The State of Hawaiÿi 

has also experienced many catastrophic tsunamis in the past 

century (Landers and Lockridge, 1989; Dudley 1999) and 

is likely to experience more in the future, generated either 

by near-field sources in the Hawaiian Islands or by far-field 

sources from around the Pacific Ocean. 

Near-field tsunamis that affect Hawaiÿi are generated 

when local earthquakes, submarine slides, or landslides cause 

a vertical displacement of the overlying or adjacent water 

column (Walker, 1999; Walker, 2002). Although locally devastating to nearby shorelines and striking within minutes of the 

initial ground disturbance, near-field events typically lack the 

energy to travel long horizontal distances (Lockridge, 1998). 

Tsunami-related geologic deposits found at more than 300 

meters above sea level on Länaÿi Island are believed to be the 

result of a nearby submarine slide that occurred over 100,000 

years ago (Moore and Moore, 1984). A recent near-field event 

was the 1975 tsunami, generated by a magnitude 7.2 earthquake on the Big Island of Hawaiÿi, that killed two people and 

caused $1 million in property damage (Landers and Lockridge, 

1989; Goff and others, 2006). A review of locally generated 

tsunamis indicates average recurrence intervals of approximately 20 years for destructive tsunamis (Walker, 1999).

Far-field tsunamis, also referred to as teletsunamis, are 

created by earthquakes generated on the seismically active 

Pacific Ocean margin and strike Hawaiian coastlines several 

Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to 

Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi
2 Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi

hours after the earthquake (Walker, 2005a; Walker, 2005b; 

Tang and others, 2006). Primary sources for previous farfield tsunamis that have struck Hawaiÿi include the KurilesKamchatka-Aleutian region to the north and northwest and 

South America to the southeast (Cox and Mink, 1963). A farfield tsunami in 1960, generated by a magnitude 8.6 Chilean 

earthquake, had a maximum run-up height of 35 feet in Hilo, 

killed 61 people and caused $24 million in property damage 

(Eaton and others, 1961; Lachman and others, 1961; Cox and 

Mink, 1963; Mader and Curtis, 1991; Johnston, 2003; Atwater and others, 2005). Another significant far-field event was 

the 1946 tsunami, generated by a magnitude 7.3 earthquake 

in the Aleutian Islands, that killed 159 people and caused $26 

million in property damage (Landers and Lockridge, 1989; 

Dudley and Stone, 2000). Recent work on far-field tsunami 

potential suggests that wave run-up is fairly focused and, 

given a detailed tsunami warning, limited evacuations of 

specific areas may be more appropriate than statewide evacuations (Walker, 2004).

Tsunamis, both near-field and far-field events, are 

constant threats to coastal communities and the potential 

for inundation is significant for low-lying areas along the 

Hawaiian coast. Occupation and use of tsunami-prone land, 

however, varies considerably in Hawaiÿi, from small villages 

(fig. 1A) to dense residential communities (fig. 1B) to large 

cities with significant industrial and commercial sectors (fig. 

1C and 1D). These variations in the geographic distribution 

of human settlement influence how communities are vulnerable to tsunamis. A tsunami may cause damage to individual 

assets and communities, but the cumulative choices a society 

makes with regards to land use prior to an event set the stage 

for these losses (Mileti 1999; Wisner and others, 2004). The 

combination of hazardous landscapes and vulnerable human 

systems create the risk for future disasters. Although much 

has been done to improve our understanding of tsunami 

hazards and to develop warning systems in the United States 

(for example, the Pacific Tsunami Warning System), less has 

been done to understand community vulnerability to these 

hazards, specifically the potential impacts on people and 

infrastructure (Walker, 2005a; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2006). 

In 2006, the State of Hawaii Department of Defense, 

Civil Defense Division (HSCD) contacted the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) seeking technical assistance in assessing community vulnerability to tsunami hazards in Hawaiÿi. 

Tsunami-evacuation zones have been developed for the 

State (Curtis 1991) but the HSCD was interested in knowing 

what community assets were in these areas and how community vulnerability to tsunamis varies across the State. The 

HSCD focuses on forging partnerships with Federal, State, 

and local agencies, volunteers, and private organizations to 

communicate the potential effects of coastal hazards and on 

developing preparedness and response procedures. Two local 

HSCD partners are the State of Hawaiÿi Office of Planning 

(OP) and the Pacific Disaster Center (PDC). Two functions 

relevant to this project that the OP administers are the StateFigure 1. Oblique photographs of (A) the community of Punaluÿu 

(B) the community of Ewa Beach, (C ) the Ala Wai Boat Harbor 

near Waikïkï Beach, Honolulu, and (D) Honolulu Harbor.

A

B

C

D
Methods and Data 3

wide Geographic Information System (GIS) Program and the 

Hawaiÿi Coastal Zone Management Program, which seeks 

to educate the public on coastal hazards. The PDC provides 

applied-research support to the disaster-management and 

humanitarian-assistance communities of the Asia-Pacific 

region and beyond. To complement current efforts to educate 

communities about tsunamis in Hawaiÿi, the HSCD, OP, 

PDC and USGS developed a formal partnership in 2006 to 

better understand and communicate societal vulnerability to 

tsunamis in Hawaiÿi. 

Community vulnerability, defined here as the attributes 

of a human-environmental system that increase the potential 

for hazard-related losses or reduced performance, is primarily determined by how communities occupy and use hazardprone land. Vulnerability is characterized by the exposure, 

sensitivity, and resilience of a community and its assets in 

relation to stressors, either chronic or sudden (Turner and 

others 2003). Vulnerability has been described as hidden 

weaknesses that are uncovered when a system experiences an 

extreme physical event (Bogardi, 2004). Vulnerability assessments focus on identifying system weaknesses and why 

they may exist (for example, social, political or economic 

forces). Vulnerability assessments are also required elements 

of natural-hazard mitigation plans that must be prepared and 

adopted by local and State governments to qualify for project 

grant funds under the U.S. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, 

as mandated by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 

2000), Public Law 106-390. 

Understanding community vulnerability to a hazard is 

critical if public officials and private citizens are to mitigate 

risk and prepare before an event, as well as respond and 

recover effectively after an event. Understanding how community vulnerability varies to a regional hazard (for example, 

tsunamis) allows local and State decisionmakers to prioritize limited mitigation and emergency-planning resources, 

as well as provides context for response exercises. In some 

cases, vulnerability assessments can help determine the need 

for site-specific hazard assessments (Curtis, 1999) or risk 

assessments, which differ from a vulnerability assessment 

by focusing on determining the joint probability of an event 

occurring and the subsequent damage or loss of a specific 

asset. In other cases, vulnerability assessments are the 

preferred products if risk assessments are unattainable (due 

to the inability to precisely measure physical events or asset 

fragility) or are not needed (for example, if the intended riskmanagement strategies are evacuation plans and awareness 

programs) (Weichselgartner, 2001). 

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to describe tsunami-prone 

landscapes on the Hawaiian coast and to document geographic 

variations in community vulnerability to tsunamis. Data presented in this report include descriptions of land cover, human 

population, economic assets, and critical facilities relative to 

tsunami-evacuation zones. For the purposes of this study, the 

vulnerability analysis is limited to the exposure and sensitivity 

of assets to tsunami hazards at the community level, summarized by tsunami-evacuation zones and by specific community. 

This study does not address natural resources, individual- and 

household-level issues, social capital and networks (Alwang 

and others, 2001; Pelling, 2002) or community resilience, 

a third component of vulnerability and defined here as the 

ability to withstand, absorb, adapt to, and recover from losses 

(Turner and others, 2003). It also does not seek to identify 

the underlying determinants of the variations in community 

vulnerability (Wisner and others, 2004).

To understand tsunami risk, policymakers, emergency 

managers, and private citizens must understand the potential 

for extreme events and the vulnerability of communities that 

occupy tsunami-prone land. This report provides an initial 

estimate of community exposure and sensitivity to tsunamis 

in Hawaiÿi and results of this community-level analysis are 

intended to serve as a foundation for additional risk-related 

studies and outreach efforts. Knowledge on regional vulnerability issues generated by this project will help identify and 

tailor future preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery 

planning efforts within specific communities and economic 

sectors in the State of Hawaiÿi.

Methods and Data

To describe tsunami-prone landscapes and community 

vulnerability to tsunamis on the Hawaiian coast, we used 

geographic-information-system (GIS) tools and publiclyavailable geospatial data to create spatial overlays of hazard 

and socioeconomic data. Details on each of the socioeconomic 

datasets used in this analysis follow an overview of our analytical approach and the study area.

Vulnerability calculations and comparisons are limited to 

the exposure and sensitivity of the urban footprint and certain 

assets, including developed land, populations (residential, 

employee, and tourists), economic assets and critical facilities. 

Selected socioeconomic assets were chosen because U.S. jurisdictions are encouraged to collect similar data when they inventory community assets in the development of State and local 

mitigation plans (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

2001). Exposure is defined as the amount of an asset (for 

example, the number of residents of a town) within a tsunamievacuation zone. Sensitivity is defined as the relative impact of 

losses to an entire community (for example, the percentage of a 

community’s workforce in a tsunami zone) and is calculated by 

dividing the amount of an asset in a tsunami-evacuation zone by 

the total amount of that asset in the community. For example, if 

community A has 100 businesses in a tsunami-evacuation zone 

(representing 10 percent of the local economy) and community 

B has 30 businesses in a tsunami-evacuation zone (representing 90 percent of the local community), then community A has 

a higher economic exposure because it has more businesses 

in the tsunami zone, but community B is more economically 

sensitive because it has a higher proportion of its businesses in 
4 Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi

the tsunami zone. Exposure and sensitivity values of various 

socioeconomic characteristics are calculated and reported 

for each community. Certain values are then normalized and 

combined to create overall indices of community exposure 

and sensitivity to tsunami hazards in Hawaiÿi. Finally, we 

perform statistical analyses to determine if the distribution of 

community assets depends on the amount of land in tsunamievacuation zones.

Before calculating exposure and sensitivity values, all 

geospatial data were processed to share the same datum 

(North American Datum of 1983) and projection (Universal 

Transverse Mercator coordinate system zone 4N). This particular datum and coordinate system were chosen to conform 

to existing GIS data from the State of Hawaiÿi’s GIS database. Spatial analysis of vector data (for example, business 

points and tax-parcel polygons) focused on determining if 

points or polygons were inside the tsunami-evacuation-zone 

polygons. Slivers of polygons that overlap administrative 

boundaries and tsunami zones are taken into account during analysis and final values were adjusted proportionately. 

Spatial analysis of raster-grid data (for example, land-cover 

data) was conducted in a raster environment to maintain data 

quality. 

Because of the short project timeline established by project partners, no new datasets were generated and no fieldwork 

was conducted to verify the accuracy of any geospatial data 

discussed in this report. Therefore, we cannot guarantee initial 

data accuracy; results should be considered first approximations and developed solely for the purposes of generating 

discussions for additional, more-detailed studies. 

Study Area 

This study focuses on all land within the State of 

Hawaiÿi, including the counties of Hawaiÿi, Honolulu, Kauaÿi, 

and Maui. The State of Hawaiÿi does not have incorporated 

cities; therefore, census-designated place (CDP) boundaries 

from the U.S. Census Bureau were used to delineate communities (Hawaiÿi Office of Planning, 2007; U.S. Census Bureau, 

2007a). A census-designated place is a delineation used by 

the U.S Census Bureau to identify areas of settled concentrations of populations that are identifiable by name and are often 

defined in cooperation with local or tribal officials but are not 

legally incorporated and lack separate municipal governments 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2007a).

 Tsunami-prone land is spatially delineated by a series of 

tsunami-evacuation polygons developed in 1991 for the State 

(Hawaii Office of Planning, 2007). The tsunami-evacuation 

zones available for the entire State are based on historical 

evidence and one-dimensional models of topography that do 

not take into account the effects of sea-floor changes (Curtis, 

1991). The development of new tsunami-inundation maps 

using historic data from past tsunami events and two-dimensional numerical models that incorporate bathymetric variations is currently underway. To date, updated tsunami-inundation models and maps are limited to the island of Oÿahu (Wei, 

2004) and completion of the entire State’s coastline will take 

several years. Due to the State-level perspective and timeliness of this assessment, tsunami-evacuation zones developed 

in 1991 are used in the GIS analysis. However, analysis can 

be updated based on methods outlined in this report as new 

information on tsunami-inundation potential becomes available in the coming years.

Based on a spatial overlay of CDP and tsunami-evacuation-zone data, there are 65 CDPs (hereafter called communities) in the State of Hawaiÿi that contain tsunami-prone land 

(fig. 2). Note that figure 2 does not show all CDP boundaries in the State of Hawaiÿi, only those that overlap with the 

tsunami-evacuation zones. Niÿihau Island is not shown in the 

Kauaÿi County portion of the map because it contains no CDP 

boundaries; any assets on this island are reflected in Kauaÿi 

County totals. Community assets in the area formerly known 

as Kalawao County, now considered a Maui County judicial 

district, are reported in the non-CDP portion of Maui County. 

Further spatial analysis to characterize land in tsunami-evacuation zones and to assess socioeconomic variations focuses on 

69 geographic units, which includes the 65 communities and 

the non-CDP portions of the four counties. Official names and 

spellings of geographic features and communities throughout 

the report follow recommendations of the Hawaiÿi Board on 

Geographic Names (2007).

Land-Cover Data

A first step in understanding the potential loss from 

tsunamis is to determine what kind of land use and land cover 

(LULC) are in predicted hazard zones, with specific attention 

given to patterns of human development. To characterize land 

cover in tsunami-prone areas, we use 2000-2001 land-cover 

data compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s (NOAA) Coastal Change Analysis Program 

(C-CAP), a nationally standardized land-cover database for 

the coastal regions of the United States (NOAA CSC 2007; 

Dobson and others, 1995) and part of the National Land Cover 

Database (NLCD) effort through the interagency MultiResolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium (Homer 

and others, 2004; Loveland and Shaw, 1996). NLCD products, 

including LULC, percent impervious cover, and percent canopy cover, are automatically derived from Landsat Thematic 

Mapper (TM) and Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM) 

digital satellite imagery, which is produced at a 30-meter spatial resolution. C-CAP data has a reported accuracy standard 

of 85 percent (Dobson and others, 1995). 

NOAA C-CAP data generated before 2005 has 22 landcover classes, with human development primarily represented 

by low-intensity developed and high-intensity developed 

classes. Low-intensity developed cells contain 25 to 75 percent 

of impervious surfaces, are a mix of constructed and vegetated 

surfaces, and typically represent small buildings, streets, 

and cemeteries. High-intensity developed cells contain more 

than 75 percent impervious surfaces, have little or no vegeta-
Methods and Data 5

tion, and typically represent heavily built-up urban centers, 

large buildings, and large paved surfaces, such as runways 

and interstate highways (Dobson and others, 1995). Figure 3 

shows 2000 land-cover data for the island of Oÿahu, in which 

the high concentration of high- and low-intensity developed 

land-cover cells in the southeastern corner denote the highlydeveloped areas of Honolulu.

As one indicator of community exposure and sensitivity 

to tsunami hazards, we calculate the amount and percentage of 

developed land, defined here as land-cover cells classified as 

either low- or high-intensity developed, in relation to tsunamievacuation zones and to CDP boundaries. This information 

does not translate to loss potential of any specific asset within 

a cell, as land classified as developed could be, for example, 

interstate highways, parks, residential homes, or commercial 

parks. However, comparing landscape compositions at the 

regional scale does provide some insight into the relationship between developed areas and predicted hazards within 

communities and we assume that community vulnerability 

increases with greater amounts and percentages of cells classified as developed in tsunami-prone areas.

Population Data

The high number of casualties associated with 2004 

Sumatran-Andaman event demonstrated how tsunamis are 

significant threats to human safety in coastal communities. All 

individuals occupying tsunami-prone land have the potential 

to be injured or killed, but demographic factors like age, race, 

gender, and socioeconomic status can amplify the potential for 

losses and create varying recovery times (Morrow, 1999; Cutter and others, 2003; Laska and Morrow, 2007). In addition, 

risk-reduction, response, and recovery strategies will differ 

for each community depending on their relative number of 

residents, employees, dependents, and tourists that may be at 

risk from tsunamis.

To determine the number and type of residents in the 

tsunami-evacuation zones, we use block-level population 

counts and demographic data from the 2000 U.S. Census (U.S. 

Bureau of Census, 2001). Additional demographic attributes 

are available for larger census areas (for example, block 

groups and census tracts); however, we believe it is inappropriate to use data at these scales because of the significant size 

Figure 2. Map of the State of Hawaiÿi, including census-designated places that intersect tsunami-evacuation zones.

Kapa`a

Lhu`e

Kalihiwai

Lawai

Anahola

Po`ip

Princeville

Kilauea

Wailua

Pkal Village

`Ele`ele

Waimea

Kekaha

Hanam`ulu

Hanalei

Hanapp

Kaumakani

County of Kaua`i

Hilo

Kailua

Kalaoa

Hnaunau-Np`op`o

Puak

Hlualoa Hawaiian 

Beaches

Captain Cook

Hawaiian 

Paradise Park

Hala`ula

Kahalu`u-Keauhou

Lauphoehoe

Kukuihaele

County of Hawai`i

Khei

Kahului

Wailea-Mkena

P`ia Lhain

Wailuku

M`alaea

K`anapali

Hna

Npili-Honokwai

Waihe`e-Waiehu

Kapalua

Kaunakakai

County of Maui

Honolulu

Kailua

Hau`ula

L`ie

Ppkea

Wai`anae

Mkaha

Nnkuli

Kane`ohe Station

Hale`iwa

Mokul`ia

M`ili

Waialua

`Ewa

Beach

Kahuku

Waimnalo 

Beach

Punalu`u

Mkaha 

Valley

Hickam Housing

Ka`a`awa

Kawela Bay

Iroquois 

Point

City and County

of Honolulu

Pacific Ocean

Pacific Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

Hawai`i

L  na`i Maui

Moloka`i

Kaho`olawe

O`ahu

Kaua`i

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

Census-Designated Place
6 Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi

differences between evacuation polygons and larger blockgroups. Results presented later in the report portray the sum of 

population or demographic values and not the total number of 

blocks for the following residential-population characteristics 

of Census block-level data:

•	 Total population 

•	 Hispanic or Latino population

•	 White alone or in combination with one or more other 

races

•	 Black or African American alone or in combination 

with one or more other races

•	 American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more other races

•	 Asian alone or in combination with one or more other 

races

•	 Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander alone or in 

combination with one or more other races

•	 Median age

•	 Population less than 5 years in age

•	 Population more than 65 years in age

•	 Female population

•	 Households

•	 Renter-occupied houses

•	 Female-headed households, with children

Other local at-risk populations are employees. For coastal 

states like Hawaiÿi, most businesses are near the shore; therefore, many individuals occupy tsunami-prone land for their 

jobs, representing a significant evacuation issue for emergency 

managers. Employee analysis is based on the 2006 infoUSA 

Employer Database, a proprietary database comprised of 

georeferenced point files representing businesses, each with 

attributes of employees, sales volume and North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. Analysis is 

based on a point’s presence within a tsunami-evacuation zone. 

Employee results presented here are the sum of employees and 

not the number of business. Additional business-related analysis is provided in the economic portion of the report.

Figure 3. Map of land-cover type for the Island of Oÿahu.

0 105 km

2000 Land Cover of O`ahu Island

North Honolulu

Pacific Ocean

Land Cover Class

Tsunami-evacuation zone

Bare Land

Cultivated Land

Estuarine Forested Wetland

Evergreen Forest

Grassland

High Intensity Developed

Low Intensity Developed

Palustrine Emergent Wetland

Palustrine Forested Wetland

Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland

Scrub/Shrub

Unconsolidated Shore

Water
Methods and Data 7

In addition to residents and employees, a third category 

of local at-risk individuals are dependent populations, defined 

here as individuals who temporarily reside in facilities where 

they would be dependent on external assistance to evacuate 

and recover. Facilities with such populations include adult 

residential care, child day care, correctional facilities, hospitals, outpatient-care centers, psychiatric and substance-abuse 

hospitals, and schools. We used the infoUSA Employer Database and specific NAICS codes (appendix A) to identify the 

location of these dependent populations. We summarize the 

total number of facilities and not the number of individuals in 

each facility, which was beyond the scope of this limited study. 

Tourists represent the fourth significant population 

component in coastal communities, a segment that can often 

outnumber residents and employees in hazard-prone areas 

(Wood and Good, 2004). To develop realistic preparedness 

and response strategies, emergency managers need to know 

where large numbers of tourists are; however, unlike resident 

and employee populations, there is no consistent census of 

tourist numbers. To gauge the whereabouts of tourists in this 

study, we simply identify two areas where tourists are likely to 

congregate—public venues and hotels.

Identifying public venues provides some insight on 

where significant numbers of tourists and local residents may 

congregate during the day and where significant evacuation 

issues may exist if a tsunami occurs. Although we cannot determine how many people visit these sites at a given 

time, knowing where public venues are provides emergency 

managers with some insight on community vulnerability hotspots. Using NAICS codes in the 2006 infoUSA Employer 

Database (appendix A), we focus on the following publicvenue facilities: 

•	 Aquariums

•	 Botanical gardens

•	 Colleges, universities, trade schools 

and other educational facilities

•	 Historical places

•	 Libraries

•	 Museums

•	 Parks

•	 Religious organizations

•	 Shopping centers and malls

•	 Sporting facilities

•	 Theaters

•	 Zoos

In addition to the “historic places” code in the infoUSA 

Employer Database, we also use information from the 

National Park Service’s National Registry of Historic Places 

(National Park Service, 2007) to determine how many historic 

places are in tsunami-evacuation zones. Historic-place data are 

point files, so spatial analysis is based on whether a point is in 

or out of an evacuation zone. Due to the relatively low number of sites, point locations were verified and revised using 

address information gathered from the Internet. 

To gauge the number of overnight tourists that may be at 

risk from tsunamis, we used hotel data provided by the Office 

of Planning that included georeferenced business points, each 

with an average-daily-visitors (ADV) estimate. The database 

includes all moderate to large hotels, but not smaller hotels, 

bed and breakfast facilities, or campgrounds. Therefore, 

results should be considered as estimates and not exhaustive 

statements of tourist populations. 

Economic Data

Tsunamis, like most extreme natural events, pose significant threats to the economy of coastal communities. For this 

study, we focus on two elements of the Hawaiian economy—

tax base and the business community. Tax base is represented 

by current parcel values and is considered an attribute of community vulnerability because communities rely on property 

taxes for local services. Although communities can typically 

expect disaster-relief aid from State and Federal sources, as 

well as from non-profit organizations and private donations, 

funds for longer-term recovery typically come from the local 

tax base. If an extreme natural event destroys property, parcel 

values will decrease and the tax base of a community subsequently shrinks. If a community’s tax base drops dramatically 

due to disaster-related damage, then a community may have 

a harder time with disaster recovery. Tax-parcel analysis is 

based on the 2006 tax parcel dataset for the State of Hawaiÿi 

(Hawaiÿi Office of Planning, 2007), and parcel-polygon 

attributes include property value, content value, exemptions to 

property values and exemptions for content value (all in 2006 

U.S. dollars). 

Variations in the potential impact of a tsunami on the 

business community are gauged by looking at the distribution of businesses, employees and sales volumes generated 

by these businesses, as reported by the infoUSA Employer 

Database. In addition to summaries of businesses, employees, 

and sales volume for each community, the distribution of these 

attributes by business type was calculated for the State. Comments on regional and local labor-market conditions, such as 

the dominance of specific sectors in the tsunami-evacuation 

zone and for the entire State, are based on the number and 

distribution of employees, an indicator routinely used by the 

private and public sector to evaluate economic health and market trends (Marshall, 1989, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007a).

Critical-Facilities Data

Certain facilities are important for short-term response 

and long-term recovery of a community following a tsunami 

and are identified by the 8-digit NAICS code attached to 

each business in the infoUSA database (appendix A). For the 

purposes of this study, critical facilities are those considered 

important for short-term response operations and essential 

facilities are those considered important for long-term recovery. This list is not meant to be exhaustive of all facilities that 
8 Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi

will be important immediately after a tsunami strikes or during 

reconstruction efforts, merely beginning estimates of certain 

facilities for further discussions within the State of Hawaiÿi. 

The facilities identified for this study include:

Critical facilities

•	Civil-defense facilities

•	Fire stations

•	National-security facilities

•	Police stations

•	Ambulance services

•	Hospitals

•	Outpatient-care centers

•	Offices of physicians

•	Electric facilities

•	Public-works facilities

•	Gas facilities

•	Radio and television facilities

•	Waste-water facilities

•	Water and sewer facilities

Essential facilities

•	Banks and credit unions

•	Courts and legal offices

•	Gas stations

•	Government offices

•	International-affairs offices

•	Grocery stores

Composite Indices of Exposure and Sensitivity

Emergency managers, especially those with State or Federal agencies, assess community vulnerability often in relative 

terms to prioritize limited resources. To facilitate comparisons 

for the communities presented in this report, we developed 

composite indices of community exposure and sensitivity to 

tsunami hazards in Hawaiÿi. These indices of exposure and of 

sensitivity are based on the amounts and percentages, respectively, of developed lands, residents, employees, hotel ADV 

estimates, and total tax parcel values (minus exemptions) in 

each of the 65 communities and in the non-CDP areas of the 

4 counties. Information on facilities was excluded from this 

analysis because the actual number of individuals at each site 

was not gathered. 

Composite indices of exposure and sensitivity were 

developed for each of the 69 geographic units by first normalizing values in each category (developed land-cover cells, 

residents, employees, hotel ADV estimates, and parcel values) 

to the maximum value found within that category. For example, normalized values are Amountnormalized = Amountoriginal / 

Amountmaximum for exposure values and Percentagenormalized

= Percentageoriginal / Percentagemaximum for sensitivity values. 

Normalizing data to maximum values creates a common data 

range of zero to one for all five categories and is a simple 

approach for enabling comparisons among disparate datasets. 

The five normalized values are then added together, resulting in one final score with a data range of 0 to 5 for each of 

the 69 geographic units. This is done for both exposure and 

sensitivity values. These composite scores are a relative score 

to compare the overall exposure and sensitivity for each of 

the 69 geographic units and have no stand-alone meaning for 

an individual community. A final score that integrates the two 

composite scores (exposure and sensitivity) is determined for 

each of the 69 geographic units by first normalizing each of 

the composite scores to maximum values (4.13 for composite 

exposure and 4.63 for composite sensitivity), creating common 

data ranges of zero to one for each of the indices and minimizing any weighting bias between the indices. These normalized 

composite indices are then simply added with no additional 

weighting, resulting in a final score with a potential range 

from zero to two. 

Statistical Methods

The purpose of this study is to describe tsunami-prone 

landscapes on the Hawaiian coast and to document variations 

in community exposure and sensitivity to tsunamis. Nonparametric descriptive statistics, including medians and quartiles, 

are used to summarize variations among communities instead 

of means and standard deviations because several datasets 

were found not to follow a normal distribution, based on 

D’Agostino normality tests at α = 0.05 (Zar, 1984). 

One hypothesis that arises in the process of documenting these variations is that community exposure is directly 

related to the amount of land in the tsunami-evacuation zone; 

that is, more community land in the tsunami zone means 

greater exposure of community assets. To test this hypothesis, 

we conducted a series of simple linear regression analyses 

between land-area data and the various community assets, 

including developed lands (lands classified as either low- or 

high-intensity developed), residents, employees, parcel values 

(total value minus exemptions), and hotel ADVs. Simple linear 

regressions were conducted for exposure values (the amounts 

of community land and amounts of various community assets 

in tsunami-evacuation zones) and for sensitivity values (the 

percentages of community land and percentages of various 

community assets in tsunami-evacuation zones). The goal was 

to see if the distribution of community assets depends on the 

amount of land (by area) in tsunami-evacuation zones. We did 

not assume that the amount and percentage of community land 

in tsunami-prone areas are the only factors that determine asset 

distributions, but we did want to test whether they are significant determining factors. The independent variable was the 

amount or percentage of land, regardless of land-cover class, 

within a community. The dependent variables were the various community assets. In all cases, we were only concerned 

with testing the null hypothesis that no statistically significant 

relationship exists and not with determining the x-intercept (α) 

or slope (β) of the regression line. Statistical significance of a 

regression relationship is tested using an analysis of variances, 
Results 9

where significance is assumed if calculated Fisher (F) values 

comparing the mean squares of the linear regression and residuals are greater than 3.98, which represents the critical F-value 

for a one-tailed test at α = 0.5 and 67 degrees of freedom (Zar, 

1984). Tests are done with an assumption of normality in the 

distribution of residuals (or homoscedasticity), based on a 

graphical examination of residual plots (Zar, 1984). 

For both the exposure and sensitivity tests, we calculate 

the Pearson product-moment-correlation coefficient (r), the 

square of the Pearson product-moment correlation (r

2

), the 

Fisher value (F), and the corresponding P-value. A P-value 

of less than 0.05 denotes a significant statistical relationship 

between land area and the specific community asset. A P-value 

of greater than 0.05 suggests that differences in the variances 

of the populations being compared (for example, land-area and 

number of residents) are too large to propose that a relationship exists.

Results

Results of the GIS-based analysis are summarized by 

tsunami-evacuation zone and by CDP-based community. An 

accompanying database provides data on individual communities and evacuation-zone maps (appendix B). Because of the 

vast amounts of data used in this analysis, this report focuses 

on overviews of the geospatial data, regional trends and graphics. The report is organized around four community characteristics: (1) land cover, (2) population, (3) economic assets, 

and (4) critical and essential facilities. In each section, third 

quartile values are noted on bar-graphs so that readers can 

quickly identify those communities that are above the 75th percentile in a given category. Quartiles are also used to organize 

map-based summaries of selected exposure and sensitivity 

results (appendix C), which are provided to help visualize spatial variations in community vulnerability. After reviewing the 

results of each socioeconomic category, we provide composite 

indices of exposure and sensitivity. 

Land Cover

Based on the spatial overlay of 2000–2001 C-CAP data 

with CDP boundaries and the tsunami-evacuation zones, the 

distribution of land-cover types (by area) in tsunami-prone 

land was determined for the entire Hawaiian coast (fig. 4). 

Percentages represent the amount of land area classified as a 

specific land-cover class (for example, grassland) relative to 

the total hazard-prone area. For the purposes of this report, 

all wetland-related C-CAP categories are aggregated into one 

class. Results indicate that the dominant land-cover classes in 

the tsunami-evacuation zone are bare land (20 percent), scrub/

shrub (20 percent), grassland (16 percent) and forest (16 percent). Twelve percent of the land is classified as low-intensity 

developed and five percent is high-intensity developed. A combined value of 17 percent for developed land may seem low 

but is fairly high, considering that the percentage of developed 

land in the northern Piedmont ecoregion (which includes the 

western portions of New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, 

and the District of Columbia and is considered one of the most 

developed areas in the Nation) was only 27 percent in 2000 

(Auch, 2005).

Although most tsunami-prone land is not classified as 

low- or high-intensity developed, these areas may attract recreationists and transient populations, such as tourists, who can 

dominate the daily population of many coastal communities 

(Wood and others, 2002; Wood and Good, 2004). In addition, 

these undeveloped areas may represent significant natural 

resources or ecosystem services (for example, water-quality 

improvement) and their damage or loss due to a tsunami could 

negatively impact nearby communities or the region.

Results indicate that the amount (fig. 5A) and percentage 

(fig. 5B) of developed land (cells classified as either high- or 

low-intensity developed) varies significantly across the State 

of Hawaiÿi. The median and third quartile (75th percentile) for 

the amount of developed land in CDP and non-CDP land is 

0.40 km2

 and 0.82 km2, respectively, suggesting most communities have small amounts of developed land in tsunami-evacuation zones. However, certain communities, such as Honolulu, 

Hilo, and Kahului (fig. 5A), are well above the third quartile. 

The greatest amounts of developed land in tsunami-evacuation 

zones overall are in non-CDP portions of the County of Maui 

and the City and County of Honolulu. 

Although only a few communities have high amounts 

of developed land in tsunami-evacuation zones, many have a 

large percentage of their urban footprint in those zones (fig. 

5B). For example, communities like Hanalei and Haleÿiwa 

have low amounts of developed land in tsunami-evacuation 

zones (0.4 and 1.2 km2

, respectively), but these lands represent 

close to 100 percent of their communities. Conversely, some 

communities have relatively high amounts of developed land 

Figure 4. Distribution of land-cover classes (by area) in tsunamievacuation zones for the State of Hawaiÿi.

High-Intensity Developed (5%)

LowIntensity 

Developed

(12%)

Cultivated Land (4%) 

Wetland (1%)

Unconsolidated

Shore (1%) 

Water (3%)

Unclassified (1%)

Bare Land

(20%)

Grassland

(16%)

Scrub/Shrub

(20%)

Forest

(16%)
10 Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi

Figure 5. Amount and percentage of land-cover cells classifed as developed in tsunami-evacuation zones, 

organized by census-designated place.

Percentage of Developed Land in

Tsunami Evacuation Zone

0% 50% 100%

3rd Quartile 

(37%)

0 4.0 8.0

Amount of Developed Land in

Tsunami Evacuation Zone (km2)

3rd Quartile (0.84 km ) 2

Hilo

Hawaiian Paradise Park

Hawaiian Beaches

Captain Cook

Kahalu`u-Keauhou

Kailua (Hawaii)

Kalaoa

Hala`ula

Kukuihaele

County of Hawai`i - non-CDP

Hnaunau-Np`op`o

Hlualoa

Puak

Lauphoehoe

Honolulu

Hickam Housing

Iroquois Point

`Ewa Beach

Wai`anae

Waialua

Hale`iwa

Kawela Bay

Kahuku

Hau`ula

Punalu`u

Ka`a`awa

Kailua (O`ahu)

City/County of Honolulu - non-CDP

Nnkuli

M`ili

Mkaha

Mkaha Valley

Mokul`ia

Ppkea

L`ie

Kne`ohe Station

Waimnalo Beach

Hanalei

Princeville

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Kapa`a

Wailua

`Ele`ele

Kaumakani

Waimea

Kekaha

County of Kaua`i - non-CDP

Klauea

Hanam`ulu

Lhu`e

Po`ip

Lwa`i

Hanapp

Pkal Village

Waihe`e-Waiehue

Wailuku

Kahului

Kapalua

Kaunakakai

County of Maui - non-CDP

Hna

P`ia

Khei

Wailea-Mkena

M`alaea

Lhain

Npili-Honokwai

K`anapali

Hilo

Hawaiian Paradise Park

Hawaiian Beaches

Captain Cook

Kahalu`u-Keauhou

Kailua (Hawaii)

Kalaoa

Hala`ula

Kukuihaele

County of Hawai`i - non-CDP

Hnaunau-Np`op`o

Hlualoa

Puak

Lauphoehoe

Honolulu

Hickam Housing

Iroquois Point

`Ewa Beach

Wai`anae

Waialua

Hale`iwa

Kawela Bay

Kahuku

Hau`ula

Punalu`u

Ka`a`awa

Kailua (O`ahu)

City/County of Honolulu - non-CDP

Nnkuli

M`ili

Mkaha

Mkaha Valley

Mokul`ia

Ppkea

L`ie

Kne`ohe Station

Waimnalo Beach

Hanalei

Princeville

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Kapa`a

Wailua

`Ele`ele

Kaumakani

Waimea

Kekaha

County of Kaua`i - non-CDP

Klauea

Hanam`ulu

Lhu`e

Po`ip

Lwa`i

Hanapp

Pkal Village

Waihe`e-Waiehue

Wailuku

Kahului

Kapalua

Kaunakakai

County of Maui - non-CDP

Hna

P`ia

Khei

Wailea-Mkena

M`alaea

Lhain

Npili-Honokwai

K`anapali

Hawai`i

County

Hawai`i

County

Honolulu

City/County

Kaua`i

County

Kaua`i

County

Maui

County

Maui

County

Honolulu

City/County
Results 11

(such as Honolulu, Hilo, and Kahului) in the tsunami-evacuation zones, but this developed land represents a small percentage of total land in these communities. Thus, in regards to 

development patterns, results indicate that certain communities 

have high exposure to tsunami hazards, but other communities 

have high sensitivity to the same threats.

Population

Residential Populations

Results indicate that tsunami-evacuation zones contain 

approximately 80,443 residents and 26,854 households (table 

1), both representing 7 percent of State-level totals. The total 

number (fig. 6A) and CDP percentage (fig. 6B) of residents in 

tsunami-evacuation zones varies significantly across the State 

of Hawaiÿi. The median and third quartile (75th percentile) 

for the CDP and non-CDP land is 654 and 1,795 residents, 

respectively. Similar to land-cover results, certain communities 

have high numbers of residents in tsunami-evacuation zones 

(for example, Hilo and Honolulu), whereas others have high 

percentages of their residents living in tsunami-evacuation 

zone (for example, Hanalei and Haleÿiwa). Results indicate 

that ÿEwa Beach has the highest number of residents (5,576) in 

the tsunami-evacuation zone, while Haleÿiwa has the highest 

percentage (99 percent) of their residents in the tsunami-evacuation zone. 

Studies have shown that certain demographic groups can 

have unique needs during an evacuation and in post-disaster 

recovery (Morrow 1999; Ngo 2003; Laska and Morrow, 2007). 

We focus here on State-level aspects of age, gender, tenancy, 

and race for residential populations; demographic variations 

among communities and counties can be found in the accompanying database (appendix B). Comments on demographic 

sensitivity of the residential population are based on trends 

observed by social scientists in past disasters throughout the 

world and are not meant to imply that all individuals of a 

certain demographic category will exhibit identical behavior in 

the event of a disaster. In addition, variations in local cultures 

and individual or community resilience, aspects not covered in 

this report, will influence the extent of these unique needs. 

One demographic characteristic that influences an individual’s sensitivity is age (Morrow, 1999; Ngo, 2001; Balaban, 

2006; Laska and Morrow, 2007; McGuire and others, 2007). 

For example, a survey of Indonesian households impacted 

by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami demonstrated that mortality was highest for the youngest and oldest age groups (Rofi 

and others, 2007). Younger populations, defined here as less 

Table 1. Demographic characteristics for residential populations. 

Population Evacuation

Zone

State of Hawai‘i

Total (2000)

Tsunami-Zone 

Percentage1

State

Percentage1

Maximum Community 

Percentage

Total Population 80,443 1,211,537 n/a n/a 99%

Hispanic or Latino Population 7,784 87,699 10% 7% 26%

Race—White alone or in combination with 

one or more other races 43,181 476,162 54%2 39%2 98%

Race—Black or African American alone or 

in combination with one or more other 

races

2,061 33,343 3%2 3%2 14%

Race—American Indian and Alaska Native 

alone or in combination with one or more 

other races

2,209 24,882 3%2 2%2 8%

Race—Asian alone or in combination with 

one or more other races 29,741 703,232 37%2 58%2 95%

Race—Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander alone or in combination with one 

or more other races

27,125 282,667 34%2 23%2 80%

Population under five years old 5,950 78,163 7% 6% 15%

Population over 65 years 8,763 160,601 11% 13% 40%

Female population 39,517 602,866 49% 50% 78%

Number of Households 26,854 403,240 n/a n/a 99%

Renter-Occupied Households 14,358 175,352 53% 43% 99%

Single-mother Households 1,917 23,619 7% 6% 18%

1

In-hazard percentages refer the percentage of individuals (or households for the last two rows) in the tsunami-evacuation of a specific demographic category. 

State percentages refer to the percentage of individuals (or households for the last two rows) in the State of a specific demographic category

2

The sum of percentages by race will not sum to 100 percent, as individuals are able to report multiple race categories in Census Bureau reports.
12 Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi

Figure 6. Number and percentage of residents in tsunami-evacuation zones, organized by census-designated place.

0% 50% 100%

3rd Quartile 

(44%)

0 3,000 6,000

3rd Quartile 

(1,795)

Hawai'i

County

Hawai'i

County

Honolulu

City/County

Honolulu

City/County

Kaua'i

County

Kaua'i

County

Maui

County

Maui

County

Hilo

Hawaiian Paradise Park

Hawaiian Beaches

Captain Cook

Kahalu'u-Keauhou

Kailua (Hawaii)

Kalaoa

Hala'ula

Kukuihaele

County of Hawai'i - non-CDP

Honaunau-Napo'op'o

Holualoa

Puako

Laupahoehoe

Honolulu

Hickam Housing

Iroquois Point

'Ewa Beach

Wai'anae

Waialua

Hale'iwa

Kawela Bay

Kahuku

Hau'ula

Punalu'u

Ka'a'awa

Kailua (O'ahu)

City/County of Honolulu - non-CDP

Nanakuli

Ma'ili

Makaha

Makaha Valley

Mokule'ia

Pupukea

La'ie

Kane'ohe Station

Waimanalo Beach

Hanalei

Princeville

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Kapa'a

Wailua

'Ele'ele

Kaumakani

Waimea

Kekaha

County of Kaua'i - non-CDP

Kilauea

Hanama'ulu

Lihu'e

Po'ipu

Lawa'i

Hanapepe

Pakala Village

Waihe'e-Waiehue

Wailuku

Kahului

Kapalua

Kaunakakai

County of Maui - non-CDP

Hana

Pa'ia

Kihei

Wailea-Makena

Ma'alaea

Lahaina

Napili-Honokowai

Ka'anapali

Hilo

Hawaiian Paradise Park

Hawaiian Beaches

Captain Cook

Kahalu'u-Keauhou

Kailua (Hawaii)

Kalaoa

Hala'ula

Kukuihaele

County of Hawai'i - non-CDP

Honaunau-Napo'op'o

Holualoa

Puako

Laupahoehoe

Honolulu

Hickam Housing

Iroquois Point

'Ewa Beach

Wai'anae

Waialua

Hale'iwa

Kawela Bay

Kahuku

Hau'ula

Punalu'u

Ka'a'awa

Kailua (O'ahu)

City/County of Honolulu - non-CDP

Nanakuli

Ma'ili

Makaha

Makaha Valley

Mokule'ia

Pupukea

La'ie

Kane'ohe Station

Waimanalo Beach

Hanalei

Princeville

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Kapa'a

Wailua

'Ele'ele

Kaumakani

Waimea

Kekaha

County of Kaua'i - non-CDP

Kilauea

Hanama'ulu

Lihu'e

Po'ipu

Lawa'i

Hanapepe

Pakala Village

Waihe'e-Waiehue

Wailuku

Kahului

Kapalua

Kaunakakai

County of Maui - non-CDP

Hana

Pa'ia

Kihei

Wailea-Makena

Ma'alaea

Lahaina

Napili-Honokowai

Ka'anapali

Percentage of Residents in

Tsunami Evacuation Zone

Number of Residents in

Tsunami Evacuation Zone
Results 13

than 5 years in age, often require direction and assistance to 

evacuate due to their immaturity and size. They are also prone 

to developing post-traumatic stress disorders, depressions, 

anxieties, and behavioral disorders as a result of their inability to comprehend and process effects of a disaster (Balaban, 

2006). Our results indicate that 7 percent of individuals in the 

tsunami-evacuation zone are under the age of 5 years, equal 

to the State percentage (table 1). For the 65 communities, the 

percentage of individuals in the tsunami-evacuation zone that 

are under the age of 5 years ranges from 0 to 15 percent, with 

maximum values found in Iroquois Point.

Older populations, defined here as over 65 years in age, 

are also disproportionately more vulnerable than other age 

groups. Research suggests the individuals aged 65 years or 

older may require assistance in evacuation due to potential 

mobility and health issues, are often reluctant to evacuate, may 

require special medical equipment at shelters (McGuire and 

others, 2007), and are more apt to lack social and economic 

resources to recover (Morrow 1999; Ngo 2001). Results indicate that 11 percent of individuals in the tsunami-evacuation 

zone are over 65, slightly lower than 13 percent for the entire 

State. For the 65 communities, the percentage of individuals in 

the tsunami-evacuation zone that are over the age of 65 ranges 

from 0 to 40 percent, with maximum values found in Lïhuÿe.

Gender differences also influence an individual’s sensitivity to a stressor (Enarson and Morrow 1998; Bateman and 

Edwards, 2002). Preliminary work by Oxfam (2005) in the 

wake of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami suggests that women 

had a disproportionately higher mortality rate. In general, 

research suggests that although women tend to be more 

risk-averse and more likely to respond to warnings than men, 

there are more documented reports after disasters of women 

with post-traumatic stress (Ollenberger and Tobin, 1998) and 

a higher incidence of abuse against women (Enarson, 1999). 

Women tend to have a higher risk perception and demonstrate 

higher preparedness planning, but also are more likely to be 

single parents or primary care givers and have lower incomes, 

special medical needs, and less autonomy. These aspects of 

heightened vulnerability issues for women to extreme natural events are believed to be reflections of broader cultural, 

political, and economic inequalities within a society (Morrow, 

1999; Bateman and Edwards, 2002). Results indicate that 

49 percent of individuals in the tsunami-evacuation zone are 

women, slightly lower than 50 percent for the entire State. 

For the 65 communities, the percentage of residents in the 

tsunami-evacuation zone that are female ranges from 0 to 78 

percent, found in the non-CDP areas of Maui County. Singlemother households may have unique evacuation and recovery 

issues, as they are more likely to be poor and have fewer 

resources (Laska and Morrow, 2007). Results indicate that 

7 percent of households in the tsunami-evacuation zone are 

single-mother households, similar to the 6 percent State total. 

For the 65 communities, the percentage of households in the 

tsunami-evacuation zone that are single-mother households 

ranges from 0 to 18 percent, found in Kahului.

Tenancy is another factor that influences individual 

sensitivity to stressors, as studies have shown that renters are 

less likely to prepare for catastrophic events than homeowners 

(Morrow 1999; Burby and others, 2003). Theories on why this 

is the case include higher turnover rates for renters may limit 

their exposure to hazard-related outreach efforts, renters typically have lower incomes and fewer resources to recover, renters may lack the motivation to invest in mitigation measures 

for property they don’t own, owners may also lack this motivation because costs may be hard to recover, and many preparedness campaigns pay less attention to renters (Burby and others, 

2003). After a disaster, renters also have little control over the 

speed with which rental housing is repaired or replaced (Laska 

and Morrow, 2007). Results indicate that 53 percent of households in the tsunami-evacuation zone are renter-occupied, 

higher than the 43 percent State average (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2000). For the 65 communities, the percentage of households 

in the tsunami-evacuation zone that are renter-occupied ranges 

from 0 to 99 percent, with maximum values found in Hickam 

Housing, Iroquois Point, and Käneÿohe.

In addition to certain age, gender, and tenancy characteristics, households of racial and ethnic minorities also tend 

to be more vulnerable to extreme events and have higher 

mortality rates (Morrow, 1999). This reflects not characteristics of the individual but of historic patterns of racial and 

ethnic inequalities within a society that result in minority 

communities more likely to have inferior public services, 

infrastructure and building stock (Laska and Morrow, 2007) 

and to be excluded from disaster planning efforts (Morrow, 

1999). Minorities that speak a language other than the primary 

language of an area can also have higher vulnerability, as 

language barriers could hinder the effectiveness of awareness 

campaigns, evacuation procedures, and post-disaster recovery opportunities. Racial diversity is high for residents in the 

tsunami-evacuation zone and the dominant races are White (54 

percent), Asian (37 percent), and Native Hawaiian and other 

Pacific Islander (34 percent). Percentages in table 1 and the 

accompanying database in the race categories do not sum to 

100 percent because individuals were able to report multiple 

races in Census 2000. 

Self-reported racial and ethnic characterizations for individuals in tsunami-evacuation zones largely mimic State-level 

characteristics (table 1). For example, 3 percent of the residents in tsunami-evacuation zones and 3 percent of residents 

in the State report themselves as Black or African American 

alone or in some combination with one or more other races. 

The only large differences between in-hazard zone percentages and State percentages were observed for individuals who 

reported their races as White or Asian. For those individuals 

that report their race as White alone or in combination with 

one or more other races, the in-tsunami-zone percentage (54 

percent) is higher than the State average (37 percent), suggesting that this demographic group is more likely to be living 

in low-lying areas along the coast. The opposite is true for 

individuals that report their race as Asian alone or in some 

combination with one or more races. Here, the in-tsunami-
14 Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi

zone percentage (37 percent) is lower than the State average 

(58 percent), suggesting that this demographic group is more 

likely to live in-land. 

Employee Populations

Results indicate that 67,113 people are employed at 5,779 

businesses located in Hawaiian tsunami-evacuation zones, representing 11 percent of the employees in the State of Hawaiÿi. 

The median value for the percentage of employees working 

in the tsunami-evacuation zones of CDPs is 15 percent for the 

region and the third quartile (75th percentile) is 54 percent. 

Similar to residential populations, the amount (fig. 7A) and 

percentage (fig. 7B) of employee populations in tsunami-evacuation zones vary considerably in the State of Hawaiÿi. Again, 

certain communities such as Honolulu and Hilo have high 

numbers of employees in tsunami-evacuation zones (9,725 

and 9,444, respectively) that represent lower percentages 

of total employees (4 percent and 37 percent, respectively). 

Other communities have much lower numbers of employees in 

tsunami-evacuation zones, including Hanalei (862 employees), 

Iroquois Point (225 employees), and Punaluÿu (109 employees), but, in each of these cases, these employees represent 100 

percent of the community’s workforce.

Dependent Populations

Results indicate that there may be significant numbers of 

dependent-population facilities in the tsunami-evacuation zone 

(table 2). The highest number of dependent-population facilities in the tsunami-evacuation zone were outpatient-care facilities (242), followed by schools (41), child day-care facilities 

(19), adult residential-care facilities (7), and psychiatric and 

substance-abuse hospitals (4). On the basis of these results, a 

follow-up study to confirm the location and determine the size 

of these dependent populations may be warranted.

Results of the dependent-populations analysis should be 

considered preliminary for four reasons. First, no fieldwork 

was conducted to verify the location accuracy of the businesses. 

Second, the results summarize the number of facilities, not the 

number of individuals in the facility, and no extra weighting is 

given to larger facilities. Third, in working with the infoUSA 

Employer Database, we learned that similar facilities were 

sometimes coded differently. For example, a facility with the 

word “Hospital” in its name was coded as a hospital in some 

cases but as an outpatient-care facility in other cases. Fourth, 

we also learned that the category “Schools” includes not only 

elementary and secondary education facilities, but also dive, 

parachute, and dance schools. Therefore, results should not 

be considered a definitive assessment of the distribution of 

facilities, but instead should be considered preliminary for the 

purposes of initiating discussions and future analytical efforts. 

On the basis of this preliminary study, although we believe 

the infoUSA Employer Database in its raw form is effective at 

determining regional trends, ground-truthing is necessary before 

the data can be used in an operational or tactical sense.

Tourist Populations

Results indicate that there are 152 hotels (representing 

49 percent of all hotels in Hawaiÿi) and 50,174 average daily 

visitors (representing 44 percent of overnight tourists) in the 

various tsunami-evacuation zones of Hawaiÿi. The median 

ADV value of zero and third quartile ADV value of 529 

indicate that most communities do not have high numbers of 

overnight guests. In other words, the presence of overnight 

guests is not evenly distributed across the study area and most 

overnight guests are clustered in approximately one-third of 

the 65 communities in this study (fig. 8A). The largest ADV 

numbers are in Honolulu (10,940), Käÿanapali (8,914), and 

Puakü (5,054). Similar to residential-population numbers, the 

low overall ADV values found in most communities translate 

into high percentages of overnight tourists occupying the 

tsunami-evacuation zones of these communities, demonstrated 

by a high third-quartile value of 75 percent (fig. 8B). 

Results indicate that there are significant numbers of public venues in tsunami-evacuation zones that likely attract high 

numbers of tourists, including 240 parks, 121 religious-service 

facilities, 42 historic places, 21 shopping centers, 7 museums, 

and one aquarium (table 3). The 121 religious-service facilities in the tsunami-evacuation zone present both opportunities 

and challenges for the emergency-management community. 

An obvious challenge is the large number of individuals that 

would be in a tsunami-evacuation zone if an event were to 

strike during a religious service. The high number of religious 

organizations in tsunami-evacuation zones, however, presents 

an education/outreach opportunity for county and State emergency managers to work with religious leaders in disseminating tsunami-hazard and community-resilience education materials developed by the emergency-management community. 

Similar concerns expressed previously on the use of the 

infoUSA Employer Database apply to public venues. For 

example, in working with the data, we realized that a wide 

range of businesses are classified as “colleges and universities,” including not only 2- and 4-year colleges, technical 

schools, and trade schools, but also flight schools, and even 

Table 2. Summary of the amount and percentage of dependentpopulation facilities in tsunami-evacuation zones. 

Facility Evacuation 

Zone

State 

Total Percentage

Adult-residential-care facilities 7 131 5%

Child-day-care facilities 19 215 9%

Correctional facilities 0 10 0%

Hospitals 0 21 0%

Outpatient-care facilities 242 3,523 7%

Psychiatric and substance 

abuse hospitals 4 32 13%

Schools 41 518 8%
Results 15

Figure 7. Number and percentage of employees in tsunami-evacuation zones, organized by census-designated place.

Hilo

Hawaiian Paradise Park

Hawaiian Beaches

Captain Cook

Kahalu`u-Keauhou

Kailua (Hawaii)

Kalaoa

Hala`ula

Kukuihaele

County of Hawai`i - non-CDP

Hnaunau-Np`op`o

Hlualoa

Puak

Lauphoehoe

Honolulu

Hickam Housing

Iroquois Point

`Ewa Beach

Wai`anae

Waialua

Hale`iwa

Kawela Bay

Kahuku

Hau`ula

Punalu`u

Ka`a`awa

Kailua (O`ahu)

City/County of Honolulu - non-CDP

Nnkuli

M`ili

Mkaha

Mkaha Valley

Mokul`ia

Ppkea

L`ie

Kne`ohe Station

Waimnalo Beach

Hanalei

Princeville

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Kapa`a

Wailua

`Ele`ele

Kaumakani

Waimea

Kekaha

County of Kaua`i - non-CDP

Klauea

Hanam`ulu

Lhu`e

Po`ip

Lwa`i

Hanapp

Pkal Village

Waihe`e-Waiehue

Wailuku

Kahului

Kapalua

Kaunakakai

County of Maui - non-CDP

Hna

P`ia

Khei

Wailea-Mkena

M`alaea

Lhain

Npili-Honokwai

K`anapali

Hilo

Hawaiian Paradise Park

Hawaiian Beaches

Captain Cook

Kahalu`u-Keauhou

Kailua (Hawaii)

Kalaoa

Hala`ula

Kukuihaele

County of Hawai`i - non-CDP

Hnaunau-Np`op`o

Hlualoa

Puak

Lauphoehoe

Honolulu

Hickam Housing

Iroquois Point

`Ewa Beach

Wai`anae

Waialua

Hale`iwa

Kawela Bay

Kahuku

Hau`ula

Punalu`u

Ka`a`awa

Kailua (O`ahu)

City/County of Honolulu - non-CDP

Nnkuli

M`ili

Mkaha

Mkaha Valley

Mokul`ia

Ppkea

L`ie

Kne`ohe Station

Waimnalo Beach

Hanalei

Princeville

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Kapa`a

Wailua

`Ele`ele

Kaumakani

Waimea

Kekaha

County of Kaua`i - non-CDP

Klauea

Hanam`ulu

Lhu`e

Po`ip

Lwa`i

Hanapp

Pkal Village

Waihe`e-Waiehue

Wailuku

Kahului

Kapalua

Kaunakakai

County of Maui - non-CDP

Hna

P`ia

Khei

Wailea-Mkena

M`alaea

Lhain

Npili-Honokwai

K`anapali

Hawai`i

County

Hawai`i

County

Honolulu

City/County

Kaua`i

County

Kaua`i

County

Maui

County

Maui

County

Honolulu

City/County

Percentage of Employees in

Tsunami Evacuation Zone

0 5,000 10,000 0% 50% 100%

Number of Employees in

Tsunami Evacuation Zone 

3rd

Quartile 

(54%)

3rd Quartile (693)
16 Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi

Hilo

Hawaiian Paradise Park

Hawaiian Beaches

Captain Cook

Kahalu`u-Keauhou

Kailua (Hawaii)

Kalaoa

Hala`ula

Kukuihaele

County of Hawai`i - non-CDP

Hnaunau-Np`op`o

Hlualoa

Puak

Lauphoehoe

Honolulu

Hickam Housing

Iroquois Point

`Ewa Beach

Wai`anae

Waialua

Hale`iwa

Kawela Bay

Kahuku

Hau`ula

Punalu`u

Ka`a`awa

Kailua (O`ahu)

City/County of Honolulu - non-CDP

Nnkuli

M`ili

Mkaha

Mkaha Valley

Mokul`ia

Ppkea

L`ie

Kne`ohe Station

Waimnalo Beach

Hanalei

Princeville

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Kapa`a

Wailua

`Ele`ele

Kaumakani

Waimea

Kekaha

County of Kaua`i - non-CDP

Klauea

Hanam`ulu

Lhu`e

Po`ip

Lwa`i

Hanapp

Pkal Village

Waihe`e-Waiehue

Wailuku

Kahului

Kapalua

Kaunakakai

County of Maui - non-CDP

Hna

P`ia

Khei

Wailea-Mkena

M`alaea

Lhain

Npili-Honokwai

K`anapali

Hilo

Hawaiian Paradise Park

Hawaiian Beaches

Captain Cook

Kahalu`u-Keauhou

Kailua (Hawaii)

Kalaoa

Hala`ula

Kukuihaele

County of Hawai`i - non-CDP

Hnaunau-Np`op`o

Hlualoa

Puak

Lauphoehoe

Honolulu

Hickam Housing

Iroquois Point

`Ewa Beach

Wai`anae

Waialua

Hale`iwa

Kawela Bay

Kahuku

Hau`ula

Punalu`u

Ka`a`awa

Kailua (O`ahu)

City/County of Honolulu - non-CDP

Nnkuli

M`ili

Mkaha

Mkaha Valley

Mokul`ia

Ppkea

L`ie

Kne`ohe Station

Waimnalo Beach

Hanalei

Princeville

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Kapa`a

Wailua

`Ele`ele

Kaumakani

Waimea

Kekaha

County of Kaua`i - non-CDP

Klauea

Hanam`ulu

Lhu`e

Po`ip

Lwa`i

Hanapp

Pkal Village

Waihe`e-Waiehue

Wailuku

Kahului

Kapalua

Kaunakakai

County of Maui - non-CDP

Hna

P`ia

Khei

Wailea-Mkena

M`alaea

Lhain

Npili-Honokwai

K`anapali

Hawai`i

County

Hawai`i

County

Honolulu

City/County

Kaua`i

County

Kaua`i

County

Maui

County

Maui

County

Honolulu

City/County

Percentage of Average Daily Visitors

in Tsunami Evacuation Zone

0% 50% 100%

3rd Quartile (81%)

6,000 12,000

Sum of Average Daily Visitors

in Tsunami Evacuation Zone

3rd Quartile (529)

0

Figure 8. Sum and percentage of hotel average daily visitor (ADV) estimates, organized by census-designated place.
Results 17

dance academies. Therefore, the “Colleges and Universities” 

category should not be considered a summation of the traditional use of this term, namely two- and four-year colleges. 

Economic Assets

Results indicate that total tax parcel value (minus exemptions) for parcels in tsunami-evacuation zones is approximately $36.1 billion (table 4), representing 18 percent of the 

state total, and that the exposure and sensitivity of communities with regards to total tax parcel value (minus exemptions) varies significantly across the State of Hawaiÿi (fig. 9). 

The median value for exposed, total tax-parcel value (minus 

exemptions) per CDP is approximately $186 million and the 

third quartile per CDP is $517 million. Certain communities, 

such as Honolulu and Käÿanapali, have over $3 billion in total 

tax parcel value (minus exemptions) in tsunami-evacuation 

zones. As was the case with other socioeconomic data, the 

high amounts of exposed tax parcel value in communities like 

Honolulu (approximately $4.6 billion) represent small percentages (8 percent) of the community’s tax base. Although many 

communities have relatively low amounts of tax parcel value 

in the tsunami-evacuation zones, the exposed parcels represent 

a high percentage of a community’s tax base, a finding also 

observed in the distribution of residential and employee populations. Communities such as Hanalei, Mokulëÿia, Haleÿiwa, 

Kawela Bay, and Punaluÿu are near the third quartile value of 

$517 million, but in each case, almost 100 percent of their tax 

base is in the tsunami-evacuation zone. 

Results indicate that there are 5,779 businesses with 

67,113 employees that generate over $10 billion in sales 

volume in tsunami-evacuation zones of Hawaiÿi, representing 11 percent of all businesses, employees, and generated 

sales volume in Hawaiÿi (table 4). The percentages of exposed 

businesses, employees, and sales volume demonstrate high 

correlations amongst each other; therefore, following past 

research (Marshall, 1989) that suggests that employee distributions are the best indicator for characterizing economic 

conditions, we use the distribution of employees to describe 

community economic profiles in the State of Hawaiÿi. Figure 

7 was presented earlier to visualize variations in the amount 

and percentage of employees in tsunami-evacuation zones. 

As previously stated, high numbers of employees in tsunamievacuation zones represent significant evacuation issues for 

local and State emergency managers. However, high percentages of employees in tsunami-evacuation zones represent 

economic fragility for a community, as unemployment could 

increase dramatically overnight if a tsunami injures or kills 

employees or if it damages or destroys businesses. Even if 

a business escapes damage or physical disruption from an 

extreme event, it may still experience significant customer and 

revenue loss if the neighborhood and other businesses around 

it are damaged, leading customers to shop elsewhere. Neighborhood effects have been found to be especially important for 

retailers that rely on foot traffic (Chang and Falit-Baiamonte, 

2002), a potentially significant issue for tourist-related retail 

along the Hawaiian coast. Therefore, knowing where there are 

high amounts and percentages of employees helps identify 

potential economic recovery issues. 

Results indicate that larger communities, such as Honolulu and Hilo, have significant numbers of employees in evacuation zones but these numbers represent a small proportion 

of the economies of these locales (fig. 7). Smaller communiTable 3. Summary of the amount and percentage of public-venue 

locations in tsunami-evacuation zones. 

Table 4. Summary of the amount and percentage of economic assets in tsunami-evacuation zones. 

Public Venue Evacuation 

Zone

State 

Total Percentage

Aquariums 1 1 100%

Botanical gardens 1 9 11%

Colleges and universities 3 57 5%

Historical place 1 7 14%

Historic place (NRHP)1 42 190 22%

Libraries 8 89 9%

Museums 7 22 32%

Parks 240 1567 15%

Religious organizations 121 1083 11%

Shopping centers and malls 21 91 23%

Sporting facilities 1 3 33%

Theaters 5 23 22%

Zoos 0 3 0%

1

NRHP refers to the National Registry of Historic Places.

Economic Asset Evacuation Zone State of Hawai‘i

Total

Tsunami-Zone

Percentage

Community

Median 

Percentage

Community 

Maximum 

Percentage

Businesses 5,779 50,676 11% 25% 100%

Employees 67,113 560,043 12% 15% 100%

Sales volume (in U.S. dollars) $10,106,230,000 $89,379,406,000 11% 14% 100%

Total tax-parcel value minus exemptions (in U.S. dollars) $36,095,041,411 $201,157,457,407 18% 26% 99%
18 Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi

Figure 9. Amount and percentage of total parcel value (minus exemptions), organized by census-designated place.

Hilo

Hawaiian Paradise Park

Hawaiian Beaches

Captain Cook

Kahalu`u-Keauhou

Kailua (Hawaii)

Kalaoa

Hala`ula

Kukuihaele

County of Hawai`i - non-CDP

Hnaunau-Np`op`o

Hlualoa

Puak

Lauphoehoe

Honolulu

Hickam Housing

Iroquois Point

`Ewa Beach

Wai`anae

Waialua

Hale`iwa

Kawela Bay

Kahuku

Hau`ula

Punalu`u

Ka`a`awa

Kailua (O`ahu)

City/County of Honolulu - non-CDP

Nnkuli

M`ili

Mkaha

Mkaha Valley

Mokul`ia

Ppkea

L`ie

Kne`ohe Station

Waimnalo Beach

Hanalei

Princeville

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Kapa`a

Wailua

`Ele`ele

Kaumakani

Waimea

Kekaha

County of Kaua`i - non-CDP

Klauea

Hanam`ulu

Lhu`e

Po`ip

Lwa`i

Hanapp

Pkal Village

Waihe`e-Waiehue

Wailuku

Kahului

Kapalua

Kaunakakai

County of Maui - non-CDP

Hna

P`ia

Khei

Wailea-Mkena

M`alaea

Lhain

Npili-Honokwai

K`anapali

Hilo

Hawaiian Paradise Park

Hawaiian Beaches

Captain Cook

Kahalu`u-Keauhou

Kailua (Hawaii)

Kalaoa

Hala`ula

Kukuihaele

County of Hawai`i - non-CDP

Hnaunau-Np`op`o

Hlualoa

Puak

Lauphoehoe

Honolulu

Hickam Housing

Iroquois Point

`Ewa Beach

Wai`anae

Waialua

Hale`iwa

Kawela Bay

Kahuku

Hau`ula

Punalu`u

Ka`a`awa

Kailua (O`ahu)

City/County of Honolulu - non-CDP

Nnkuli

M`ili

Mkaha

Mkaha Valley

Mokul`ia

Ppkea

L`ie

Kne`ohe Station

Waimnalo Beach

Hanalei

Princeville

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Kapa`a

Wailua

`Ele`ele

Kaumakani

Waimea

Kekaha

County of Kaua`i - non-CDP

Klauea

Hanam`ulu

Lhu`e

Po`ip

Lwa`i

Hanapp

Pkal Village

Waihe`e-Waiehue

Wailuku

Kahului

Kapalua

Kaunakakai

County of Maui - non-CDP

Hna

P`ia

Khei

Wailea-Mkena

M`alaea

Lhain

Npili-Honokwai

K`anapali

Hawai`i

County

Hawai`i

County

Honolulu

City/County

Kaua`i

County

Kaua`i

County

Maui

County

Maui

County

Honolulu

City/County

0% 50% 100%

3rd 

Quartile 

(61%)

0 $5 Billion

Amount of Total Parcel Value (minus

exemptions) in Tsunami Evacuation Zone

3rd Quartile 

($517 million)

Percentage of Total Parcel Value (minus 

exemptions) in Tsunami Evacuation Zone
Results 19

ties, such as Hanalei and Punaluÿu, may have much smaller 

numbers of employees in evacuation zones, but face relatively 

larger threats to their economies from a tsunami.

The distribution of employees by business type (fig. 10) 

indicates that the highest numbers of employees in the State of 

Hawaiÿi are in accommodation and food services (15 percent), 

health care and social assistance (13 percent), and retail trade 

(13 percent). The percentage of employees in the accommodation and food services sector is almost double the national 

average of 8.3 percent (2005 value) for the same industry sector (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007b), reflecting the dominance of the tourism sector in the State of Hawaiÿi economy. 

The employee distribution for businesses in the tsunamievacuation zone largely mimics the distribution for businesses 

in the entire State. The only deviations from the State-level 

distribution to the evacuation-zone businesses are the increase 

in the accommodation and food services businesses (from 15 

percent to as much as 27 percent) and the decrease in health 

care and social assistance businesses (from 13 percent down 

to 6 percent). Again, the results reaffirm that tourism-related 

businesses dominate tsunami-prone areas (27 percent of businesses compared to a national average of 8.3 percent) and that 

most accommodation and food services businesses in the State 

occupy low-lying areas near the coastline.

Critical and Essential Facilities

Results indicate that there are several critical and essential facilities in tsunami-evacuation zones (table 5). The 

highest number of facilities in tsunami-evacuation zones 

is offices of physicians (231 offices). The low number of 

exposed hospitals (0) and outpatient-care centers (7), but high 

number of exposed physician offices, suggests that community 

hospitals may be able to handle casualties during the immediate response phase of a disaster; however, communities may 

experience difficulties in maintaining medical services during 

the longer-term recovery phase. Long-term community recovery may also be hampered by the potential loss of the numerous essential facilities in tsunami-evacuation zones, including 

banks and credit unions (50), government offices (99), grocery 

stores (35) and gas stations (23). Due to the terms of use of the 

infoUSA Employer Database, we are unable to provide maps 

of critical and essential facilities in relation to tsunami-evacuation zones. Interested parties should contact Hawaiÿi State 

Civil Defense or the Hawaiÿi Office of Planning for additional 

information related to this dataset.

In most cases, the relative percentages are low for most 

categories when comparing facilities in tsunami-evacuation 

zones to State totals. A logical next step for analysis is to 

determine the locational accuracy of critical and essential 

facilities that are highlighted as being in tsunami-evacuation 

zones, due to concerns expressed previously on the accuracy 

of the infoUSA Employer Database. Another area for further 

investigation is the redundancy of facility functions in an area. 

For example, results presented here may indicate that a community’s police stations are in the tsunami-evacuation zone. 

Agriculture, Forestry,

Fishing and Hunting

Mining

Utilities

Construction

Manufacturing

Wholesale Trade

Retail Trade

Transportation

and Warehousing

Information

Finance and Insurance

Real Estate and

Rental and Leasing

Professional, Scientific,

and Technical Services

Management of Companies

and Enterprises

Administrative and Support

and Waste Management

Educational Services

Health Care and

Social Assistance

Arts, Entertainment,

and Recreation

Accommodation

and Food Services

Other Services

(except Public Admin.)

Public Administration

Nonclassified

0% 10% 20%

Percentage of Employees, 

by Business Sector

In Tsunami Evacuation Zone

In State of Hawaii

30%

Figure 10. Types of businesses in tsunami-evacuation zone, 

organized by North American Industry Classification code.
20 Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi

If a neighboring community also has the same issue, then the 

ability to maintain order for the region is compromised even 

more. However, if a neighboring town has similar facilities 

that are not in tsunami-evacuation zones, resources could be 

shared between communities. 

Composite Indices of Community Exposure and 

Sensitivity

 To synthesize the numerous datasets reported here and 

determine which communities are the most vulnerable to tsunamis in Hawaiÿi, composite indices of exposure and sensitivity were created by adding the normalized values of developed 

land, residents, employees, hotel ADV values, and total parcel 

value (minus exemptions). The composite exposure index is 

based on the amount of each attribute, whereas the composite 

sensitivity index is based on the percentage of each attribute 

for a geographic unit. Table 6 summarizes the composite 

exposure and sensitivity values (each with a range from 0 to 

5) for the 65 communities and the non-CDP areas of the four 

counties. Figure 11 provides the same results in a map-based 

format to better visualize spatial variations in composite scores 

across the state. Note, in figure 11, colored points near the 

county names represent the scores for the non-CDP portions 

of each county. In both table 6 and figure 11, higher composite 

values indicate higher relative exposure or sensitivity values. 

These scores are meaningless for individual communities and 

only provide insight on the relative vulnerability of communities to tsunamis in Hawaiÿi. In general, high composite 

exposure scores are found in Honolulu, Hilo, and the western 

shore of Maui island (fig. 11). No spatial trend is discernible 

for composite sensitivity scores, as low and high values are 

found on each island (fig. 11).

A frequency histogram illustrates the distribution of 

composite exposure and sensitivity values (fig. 12), with the 

x-axis showing the sum of the five normalized values with a 

range of 0 to 5, summarized here in 0.5 increments, and the 

y-axis noting the number of communities for each category. 

Results portrayed in table 6, figure 11, and figure 12 indicate 

that most communities have low composite exposure and 

sensitivity values. Exposure values are skewed heavily to the 

lowest bin of 0.0 to 0.5, where 58 of the 69 geographic units 

have composite exposure values of 1.0 or less, demonstrated 

in figure 11 by the numerous green dots that represent scores 

less than 1.0. It is possible that a community in this lowest bin 

may have a high number of exposed assets in one category 

(for example, residents), but overall, a low composite exposure 

score indicates that most of its assets are not in tsunami-prone 

areas. The highest composite exposure value is 4.13, denoting 

the city of Honolulu on the island of Oÿahu (fig. 11). The high 

skewness of the distribution to the lowest composite-score bins 

(less than 1.0) indicates that the community assets exposed to 

tsunamis is consistently and significantly higher in Honolulu 

than in the other communities, expressed by the high number 

of green points in figure 11. 

Unlike the composite relative exposure values, the composite relative sensitivity values do not skew as strongly to the 

lowest bin and have a bimodal distribution, with the highest 

peak in the 0.0 to 0.5 bin and a secondary peak in the 2.0 to 

2.5 bin (fig. 12). The highest composite sensitivity value is 

4.63 for the community of Punaluÿu, located on the northeastern coast of Oÿahu (fig. 11). A score of 4.63 indicates that the 

percentage of community assets in the tsunami-evacuation 

zone is consistently high. Punaluÿu is a small community 

where 74 percent of its residents, 100 percent of its employees 

and average daily visitors, 91 percent of its developed land, 

and 94 percent of its total tax value are in the tsunami-evacuation zone. The large number of communities with scores 

between 2.0 and 4.0 indicates, however, that Punaluÿu is not as 

anomalous for composite sensitivity values, as Honolulu is for 

composite exposure values.

As noted earlier, certain communities have high relative 

exposure values and others have high relative sensitivity. Figure 13 graphically portrays this by showing composite exposure and sensitivity values back to back for each community. 

Although both categories share a common data range of 0 to 

5, the exposure scale is reversed for easier visual comparisons. 

As noted elsewhere in this report, some cities have high expoTable 5. Summary of the amount and percentage of critical- and 

essential-facilities in tsunami-evacuation zones.

Critical facilities Evacuation 

Zone State Total Percentage

Civil-defense facilities 0 7 0%

Fire stations 8 42 19%

National-security facilities 6 43 14%

Police stations 5 79 6%

Ambulance services 4 8 50%

Hospitals 0 21 0%

Outpatient-care centers 7 110 6%

Offices of physicians 231 3,405 7%

Electrical facilities 2 11 18%

Public-works facilities 2 10 20%

Gas facilities 1 2 50%

Radio and television facilities 4 42 10%

Waste-water facilities 1 8 13%

Water and sewer facilities 3 10 30%

Essential facilities

Banks and credit unions 50 415 12%

Courts and legal offices 6 70 9%

Gas stations 23 156 15%

Government offices 99 629 16%

International-affairs offices 0 31 0%

Groceries 35 243 14%
Results 21

Figure 11. Map of composite exposure and sensitivity values. Values range from 0 (lowest) to 5 (highest) and are the 

sum of the normalized values (each from 0 to 1) of residents, employees, developed land, parcel value, and average 

daily visitors in each community.

County of Kaua'i

County of Hawaii

County of Maui

City and County

of Honolulu

Composite Sensitivity Index

4.0 - 5.0

3.0 - 3.9

2.0 - 2.9

1.0 - 1.9

0.1 - 0.9

0

Composite Exposure Index

County of Kaua'i

County of Hawaii

County of Maui

City and County

of Honolulu

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

Kaua'i

Hawai ' i

Maui

Moloka'i

Kaho'olawe

O ' ahu

Lana'i

Lawai

Kapa'a

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Princeville

Kilauea

Wailua

'Ele'ele

Waimea

Kekaha

Hanalei

Kaumakani

Lihu'e

Hanama'ulu

Po'ipu

Hanapepe

Pakala Village

Hilo

Kailua

Kalaoa

Hawaiian 

Beaches

Captain Cook

Hawaiian 

Paradise Park

Hala'ula

Kahalu'u-Keauhou

Kukuihaele

Laupahoehoe Puako

Holualoa

Honaunau-Napo'op'o

Kahului

Wailuku

Ka'anapali

Waihe'e-Waiehu Kaunakakai Kapalua

Napili-Honokowai

Lahaina

Ma'alaea

Kihei

Wailea-Makena

Hana

Pa'ia

Honolulu

Kailua

Hau'ula

Wai'anae

Hale'iwa

Waialua

'Ewa Beach

Kahuku

Punalu'u

Hickam Housing

Ka'a'awa

Kawela Bay

Iroquois 

Point

La'ie Pupukea

Mokule'ia

Makaha Valley

Makaha

Ma'ili

Nanakuli

Waimanalo Beach

Kane'ohe Station

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

Kaua'i

Hawai ' i

Maui

Moloka'i

Kaho'olawe

O ' ahu

Lana'i

Lawai

Kapa'a

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Princeville

Kilauea

Wailua

'Ele'ele

Waimea

Kekaha

Hanalei

Kaumakani

Lihu'e

Hanama'ulu

Po'ipu

Hanapepe

Pakala Village

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

Hilo

Kailua

Kalaoa

Hawaiian 

Beaches

Captain Cook

Hawaiian 

Paradise Park

Hala'ula

Kahalu'u-Keauhou

Kukuihaele

Laupahoehoe Puako

Holualoa

Honaunau-Napo'op'o

Kahului

Wailuku

Ka'anapali

Waihe'e-Waiehu Kaunakakai Kapalua

Napili-Honokowai

Lahaina

Ma'alaea

Kihei

Wailea-Makena

Hana

Pa'ia

Honolulu

Kailua

Hau'ula

Wai'anae

Hale'iwa

Waialua

'Ewa Beach

Kahuku

Punalu'u

Hickam 

Housing

Ka'a'awa

Kawela Bay

Iroquois 

Point

La'ie

Pupukea

Mokule'ia

Makaha Valley

Makaha

Ma'ili

Nanakuli

Waimanalo Beach

Kane'ohe Station
22 Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi

Table 6. Composite exposure and sensitivity values for communities in the tsunami-evacuation zone.

Range Composite Exposure Values Composite Sensitivity Values

4.0 to 5.0 Honolulu Nāpili-Honokōwai Punalu‘u

3.0 to 3.9

Hanalei

Hale‘iwa

Kā‘anapali

Kahalu‘u-Keauhou 

Kawela Bay 

Kekaha

Lā‘ie

Mokulē‘ia

2.0 to 2.9

Hilo

Honolulu City/County (non-CDP)

Kā‘anapali

Nāpili-Honokōwai

Hau‘ula

Hōlualoa

Iroquois Point

Ka‘a‘awa

Lāhainā

Mā‘alaea

Mā‘ili 

Nānākuli 

Pā‘ia 

Pākalā Village

Puakō

Pūpūkea

Waimea

1.0 to 1.9

‘Ewa Beach

Kahului

Kīhei

Nānākuli 

Lāhainā 

Puakō

‘Ewa Beach

Hāna 

Hilo

Kapa‘a 

Kahului

Kailua (Hawai‘i)

Kaunakakai

Kīhei

Līhu‘e

Mākaha

Po‘ipū

Waialua

Wai‘anae 

Wailua

Waimānalo Beach

0 to 0.9

Anahola

Captain Cook

‘Ele‘ele

Hala‘ula 

Hale‘iwa

Hāna 

Hanalei

Hanamā‘ulu 

Hanapēpē

Hau‘ula

Hawai‘i County (non-CDP)

Hawaiian Paradise Park

Hawaiian Beaches

Hickam Housing

Hōnaunau-Nāpō‘op‘o 

Iroquois Point

Ka‘a‘awa

Kahalu‘u-Keauhou Hōlualoa

Kahuku

Kailua (Hawai‘i)

Kailua (O‘ahu)

Kalaoa

Kalihiwai

Kāne‘ohe

Kapa‘a 

Kapalua

Kawela Bay

Kaua‘i County (non-CDP)

Kaumakani

Kaunakakai

Kekaha

Kīlauea

Kukuihaele

Lā‘ie

Laupāhoehoe

Lāwa‘i 

Līhu‘e 

Mā‘alaea

Maui County (nonCDP)

Mā‘ili

Mākaha

Mākaha Valley

Mokulē‘ia

Pā‘ia 

Pākalā Village

Po‘ipū

Princeville

Punalu‘u

Pūpūkea

Waialua

Wai‘anae

Waihe‘e-Waiehu

Wailea-Mākena

Wailua

Wailuku

Waimānalo Beach

Waimea

Anahola

Captain Cook

‘Ele‘ele

Hala‘ula

Hanamā‘ulu 

Hanapēpē

Hawai‘i County (non-CDP)

Hawaiian Beaches

Hawaiian Paradise Park

Hickam Housing

Hōnaunau-Nāpō‘op‘o 

Honolulu

Honolulu County (nonCDP)

Kahuku

Kailua (O‘ahu)

Kalaoa

Kalihiwai

Kāne‘ohe

Kapalua

Kaua‘i County (nonCDP)

Kaumakani

Kīlauea

Kukuihaele

Maui County (nonCDP)

Laupāhoehoe

Lāwa‘i 

Mākaha Valley

Princeville

Waihe‘e-Waiehu

Wailea-Mākena

Wailuku
Results 23

sure values but low sensitivity values; for example, the city of 

Honolulu has the highest composite exposure value (4.13), but 

one of the lowest composite sensitivity values (0.37). Similar 

examples of this characteristic include the community of Hilo 

and the non-CDP portions of Honolulu County. In contrast, 

other communities have low exposure values but high sensitivity values; for example, the community of Punaluÿu has 

the highest composite sensitivity value (4.63) but one of the 

lowest exposure values (0.17). Other examples of this include 

the communities of Kahaluÿu-Keauhou, Puakö, Iroquois Point, 

Mokulëÿia, Haleÿiwa, Läÿie, Hanalei, Päÿia, and Kekaha. The 

few communities that have relatively high composite values 

in both categories include the communities of Kahului, Kïhei, 

Käÿanapali, and Näpili-Honoköwai.

To provide some insight on which communities have the 

highest combined exposure and sensitivity to tsunamis, we 

normalized the composite exposure and sensitivity values to 

maximum values found in each category (thereby creating a 

common data range of zero to one and minimizing any bias 

between categories) and then added the normalized indices 

(fig. 14). The final index is, again, numerically meaningless 

for a given community but does offer a glimpse of relative 

exposure and sensitivity throughout the region. The communities with the highest combined values are Näpili-Honoköwai, 

Käÿanapali, Honolulu, Punaluÿu, Haleÿiwa, and Hilo. Some 

communities are primarily vulnerable to tsunamis due to the 

exposure of their assets (for example, Honolulu), whereas others are vulnerable due to higher community sensitivity to the 

potential losses (for example, Punaluÿu and Haleÿiwa).

There are several reasons that this relative assessment 

of vulnerability to tsunamis should only be considered a first 

approximation and not a final statement. First, these calculations focused only on a selection of variables—developed 

land, residents, employees, parcel values, and hotel ADVs. 

Follow-up studies of community vulnerability should include 

the exposure and sensitivity of additional community assets, 

such as cultural resources or natural resources. Second, 

the final index assumes an equal weighting of community 

exposure and sensitivity factors. There is a dearth of current 

research on the relative importance of either in determining the 

overall vulnerability of a community; however, future research 

may suggest that a different weighting is used. Third, these 

calculations do not include variations in community resilience, 

another key component of vulnerability. The ability of a community to withstand, absorb, adapt to, and recover from losses 

defines its resilience, and—with other conditions remaining 

the same—greater resilience lowers a community’s vulnerability to extreme events. For example, if two communities have 

identical community assets in tsunami-prone land, but one has 

a tsunami education programs, a well-rehearsed evacuation 

plan, a coordinated response network, redundant critical infrastructure, and a holistic post-disaster recovery plan, then that 

community would probably have greater resilience. Despite 

their similar asset distributions, the same extreme natural event 

would mean a short-term crisis in the more resilient community and a longer-term disaster in the other community

Statistical Relationship to Land-Cover Data

Simple-linear regression analyses were performed to test 

the hypothesis that the distribution of assets in a community 

depends on how much of a community’s land, regardless of 

type, is in the tsunami-evacuation zone and were done for 

values of exposure (the amounts of land compared to the 

amounts of various assets in tsunami-evacuation zones) and of 

sensitivity (the percentages of land compared to the percentage 

of various community assets in tsunami-prone areas). Relationships between land-cover data and socioeconomic data are 

considered significant if statistically-derived p-values are less 

than 0.05.

Results indicate that some, but not all relationships are 

significant (table 7). For exposure values, the relationships 

between the amount of tsunami-prone land in a community and 

the amount of most community assets are not statistically significant, including residents (p = 0.70), employees (p = 0.41), 

and hotel visitors (p = 0.16). The relationships are significant 

between the amount of land and the amount of developed land 

(p << 0.01) and total parcel value (p = 0.02); however, low 

explained variance ( 2) values for these assets (0.28 for developed land and 0.08 for parcel values) suggest that the relationships, although statistically significant, are not strong.

For sensitivity values, relationships are statistically 

significant between the percentage of tsunami-prone land of 

a community and the percentage of most community assets, 

including developed land (p << 0.01), residents (p << 0.01), 

employees (p << 0.01), and parcel value (p << 0.01). The only 

exception is the percentage of a community’s hotel visitors, 

which is not significantly related to the percentage of tsunamiprone land (p = 0.92). Unlike the significant exposure relationships, r

2

 values for sensitivity comparisons are moderately 

Figure 12. Frequency histogram of the sum of normalized exposure 

and sensitivity indices.

0

10

20

30

40

50

0.0 - 0.5

0.5 - 1.0

1.5 - 2.0

2.0 - 2.5

2.0 - 2.5

2.5 - 3.0

3.0 - 3.5

3.5 - 4.0

4.0 - 4.5

4.5 - 5.0

Exposure Values

Sensitivity Values

Number of Communities

Sum of Selected Normalized Community Assets

r
24 Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi

Figure 13. Comparison of normalized exposure and sensitivity indices.

Exposure Values Sensitivity Values

12345 0 1 2 3 4 5

Sum of Normalized Indices

12345 0 1 2 3 4 5

Hawai'i

County

Hilo

Hawaiian Paradise Park

Hawaiian Beaches

Honaunau-Napo'op'o

Captain Cook

Kahalu'u-Keauhou

Holualoa

Kailua (Hawaii)

Kalaoa

Puako

Hala'ula

Kukuihaele

Laupahoehoe

County of Hawai'i - non-CDP

Honolulu

City/County

Honolulu

Hickam Housing

Iroquois Point

'Ewa Beach

Nanakuli

Ma'ili

Wai'anae

Makaha

Makaha Valley

Mokule'ia

Waialua

Hale'iwa

Pupukea

Kawela Bay

Kahuku

La'ie

Hau'ula

Punalu'u

Ka'a'awa

Kane'ohe Station

Kailua (O'ahu)

Waimanalo Beach

City/County of Honolulu - non-CDP

Kaua'i

County

Hanalei

Princeville

Kilauea

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Kapa'a

Wailua

Hanama'ulu

Lihu'e

Po'ipu

Lawa'i

'Ele'ele

Hanapepe

Kaumakani

Pakala Village

Waimea

Kekaha

County of Kaua'i - non-CDP

Maui

County

Waihe'e-Waiehue

Wailuku

Kahului

Kapalua

Kaunakakai

County of Maui - non-CDP

Hana

Pa'ia

Kihei

Wailea-Makena

Ma'alaea

Lahaina

Napili-Honokowai

Ka'anapali
Results 25

strong, ranging from 0.34 for employees to as much as 0.73 

for residents. 

Two graphs are provided to help visualize the differences between the non-significant and significant relationships 

reported above. Figure 15A is a scatter-plot comparing the 

amount of community land in tsunami-evacuation zones with 

the amount of residents in tsunami-evacuation zones (both 

normalized for visual ease) for the 69 geographic units. No 

statistically significant relationship exists between the two 

datasets (p = 0.70, r

2 ≤ 0.01) and this is evident in figure 15A

by the lack of any discernible trend in the points relative to 

the calculated regression line. Conversely, figure 15B shows 

the percentage of community land compared to the percentage 

of residents, in which a statistically significant relationship is 

present (p << 0.01). An r

2

 value of 0.73 is reflected in a distinct clustering of points around the calculated regression line.

These results suggest that the amount of land in the 

tsunami-evacuation zone of a CDP does not have an important 

influence on the quantity of most assets––such as number of 

residents, number of employees, or hotel visitors––found in 

the tsunami-evacuation zones of the 65 Hawaiian communities or the non-CDP land of the four counties. In other words, 

two communities with the same amount of tsunami-prone land 

have made, and possibly still are making with new development, different land-use decisions on how much and what kind 

of development is in these threatened areas. The tsunami is 

the physical trigger that damages buildings and injures people, 

but the cumulative set of land-use decisions made over long 

periods sets the stage for these losses by creating unsafe conditions (Weichselgartner, 2001). 

Results do show that the percentage of a community’s 

land that is in tsunami-prone areas increases the percentage of its assets––such as the percentage of a community’s 

workforce––located in the hazard zone. These findings suggest 

that there are few common patterns of asset distribution in the 

tsunami-evacuation zone from community to community, but 

consistency within individual communities. Consequently, 

knowing the amount of tsunami-prone land in a community 

does not indicate the level of community exposure, but knowing how much of a community’s total land is located in a 

tsunami-prone area provides some insight on how sensitive a 

community is to tsunamis.

Figure 14. Sum of normalized exposure and 

sensitivity indices for selected community 

assets.

Sensitivity

Exposure

0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Sum of Normalized Composite 

Exposure and Sensitivity Values

Captain Cook

Hickam Housing

Kahuku

Kukuihaele

Hawaiian Beaches

Kalaoa

Wailuku

Kalihiwai

Hawaiian Paradise Park

Kaumakani

Princeville

County of Maui (non-CDP land)

Kapalua

Anahola

Kaunakakai

Iroquois Point

Wailua

Waialua

Waimea

Kailua (Hawaii)

City and County of Honolulu (non-CDP)

Kekaha

Kahului

Kawela Bay

Hilo

Hanalei

Honolulu

Kahalu'u-Keauhou

Hala'ula

County of Hawai'i - non-CDP

'Ewa Beach

Wai'anae

Hale'iwa

Hau'ula

Punalu'u

Ka'a'awa

Kailua (O'ahu)

Kapa'a

'Ele'ele

County of Kaua'i - non-CDP

Waihe'e-Waiehue

Honaunau-Napo'op'o

Holualoa

Puako

Laupahoehoe

Nanakuli

Ma'ili

Makaha

Makaha Valley

Mokule'ia

Pupukea

La'ie

Kane'ohe Station

Waimanalo Beach

Kilauea

Hanama'ulu

Lihu'e

Po'ipu

Lawa'i

Hanapepe

Pakala Village

Hana

Pa'ia

Kihei

Wailea-Makena

Ma'alaea

Lahaina

Napili-Honokowai

Ka'anapali

0 0.5 1.0 1.5
26 Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi

Summary

Data and graphs presented in this report are provided to 

support a collaboration of the State of Hawaiÿi Department of 

Defense Civil Defense Division, the State of Hawaiÿi Office 

of Planning, the Pacific Disaster Center, and the USGS that 

focuses on improving understanding of community vulnerability to tsunamis in Hawaiÿi. The purpose of the assessment 

was to characterize the landscape in tsunami-evacuation zones 

of the State of Hawaiÿi and to compare community exposure 

and sensitivity, based on various socioeconomic attributes, to 

tsunamis. 

Results indicate that there are significant variations in 

community exposure and sensitivity to tsunami hazards, with 

regards to the distribution of developed land cover, populations, economic assets, and critical facilities. Some communities, such as Honolulu and Hilo, have high exposure to 

tsunamis, because they have large amounts of their assets in 

tsunami-prone land; however, these large amounts represent 

a small percentage of the community. Other communities, 

such as Punaluÿu and Hanalei, are considered highly sensitive 

to tsunamis, where small amounts of assets in tsunami-prone 

areas represent large percentages of a community’s total. It 

is up to policymakers, land-use managers, emergency managers, nonprofit organizations, and private citizens to determine where to allocate limited risk-reduction resources and 

attention––to the communities with high loss potentials, to 

communities that may be incapable of adapting to the loss of 

significant percentages of their assets, or to a specific demographic or economic sector. Results also indicate that the level 

Table 7. Statistical results for simple 

linear regression analyses comparing 

the amount of land and the amount of 

selected community assets.

Figure 15. Scatter-plots comparing the distribution of land and of residents in relation to tsunami-evacuation zones.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Amount of Land in Tsunami-Evacuation Zone 

(normalized to maximum amount)

Number of Residents in Tsunami-Evacuation Zone

(normalized to maximum amount)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Land in Tsunami-Evacuation Zone

Percentage of Residents in Tsunami-Evacuation Zone

R = < 0.01

p = 0.70

2 R = 0.73

p << 0.01

2

Community

Regression line

or 

Regression

significance 

between land-cover 

with:

Exposure Values Sensitivity Values

R R2 F 1 p R R2 F 1 p

Developed land 0.53 0.281 25.80 << 0.01 0.85 0.721 172.05 << 0.01

Residents 0.05 <0.01 0.15 0.70 0.86 0.731 182.18 << 0.01

Employees 0.10 0.01 0.68 0.41 0.58 0.341 34.00 << 0.01

Hotel visitors 0.17 0.03 2.04 0.16 0.01 < 0.05 0.01 0.92

Total parcels value 0.29 0.081 6.16 0.02 0.68 0.461 57.38 << 0.01

1

A regression relationship is considered significant at p < 0.05 if F > 3.98, as F0.05(1),1,67 = 3.98.
References Cited 27

of community-asset exposure to tsunamis is not determined by 

the amount of land in tsunami-evacuation zones. Community 

sensitivity, however, is related to the percentage of a community’s land in the hazard-prone areas. 

Information presented in this report will further the dialogue on reducing risk to tsunami hazards in Hawaiÿi and help 

identify future preparedness, mitigation, recovery planning, 

and outreach activities within the coastal communities and 

economic sectors of the State of Hawaiÿi. Follow-up studies to 

document community resilience would complement this report 

and provide the State of Hawaiÿi with a more complete picture 

of community vulnerability to tsunamis. In addition, results 

of this study may also help public officials determine where 

site-specific risk assessments and more-detailed tsunami-inundation modeling efforts may be warranted to further detail the 

threats posed by tsunamis to coastal communities in Hawaiÿi.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the “Risk and Vulnerability 

to Natural Hazards” project managed by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Geographic Analysis and Monitoring (GAM) 

program. Susan Benjamin, Len Gaydos, Ben Sleeter, Mara 

Tongue, and Henry Wolter of the USGS, Cheryl Anderson and 

Walter Dudley of the University of Hawaiÿi, and Craig Tasaka 

of the State of Hawaiÿi Office of Planning gave insightful 

reviews of the manuscript. We also thank Jeanne Johnston 

and Faye Chambers of the HSCD, Sharon Mielbrecht of 

the PDC, and Dwayne Meadows for their comments on the 

manuscript and their involvement in this collaborative project. 

Photographs were supplied with permission by Andrew Short, 

professor in the School of Geosciences at the University of 

Sydney. A community list with proper spelling and diacritical marks was provided by Craig Tasaka, coordinator for the 

Hawaiÿi Board of Geographic Names. This project grew from 

a series of discussions held at the 2006 annual meeting of 

the Pacific Risk Management ÿOhana (PRIMO). We thank 

the PRIMO Navigators Council for creating this collaborative environment and for also providing us time at the 2007 

PRIMO annual meeting to discuss this project with meeting 

participants.

References Cited

Alwang, J., Siegel, P., and Jorgensen, S., 2001, Vulnerability—

a view from different disciplines: Washington, D.C., The 

World Bank, Social Protection Discussion Paper Series No. 

0115, 42 p.

Atwater, B., Cisternas, M., Bourgeois, J., Dudley, W., Hendley 

II, J., and Stauffer, P., 2005, Surviving a tsunami—lessons 

from Chile, Hawaii, and Japan: Reston, Va., U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1187, 18 p.

Auch, R., 2006, Land Cover Trends Ecoregion 64: U.S. Geological Survey [http://edc2.usgs.gov/lt/regions/eco64.php, 

last accessed July 3, 2007].

Balaban, V., 2006, Psychological assessment of children 

in disasters and emergencies: Disasters, v. 30, no. 2, p. 

178–198.

Bateman, J., and Edwards, B., 2002, Gender and evacuation—

a closer look at why women are more likely to evacuate for 

hurricanes: Natural Hazards Review, v. 3, no. 3, p. 107–117.

Bogardi, J., 2004, Hazards, risks and vulnerabilities in a 

changing environment—the unexpected onslaught on 

human security?: Global Environmental Change, v. 14, p. 

361–365.

Burby, R., Steinberg, L., and Basolo, V., 2003, The tenure 

trap—the vulnerability of renters to joint natural and technological disasters: Urban Affairs Review, v. 39, no. 1, p. 

32–58.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2007a, 

State and area current employment statistics overview: 

[http://www.bls.gov/sae/790over.htm, last accessed July 1, 

2007].

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2007b, 

United States economy at a glance: [http://www.bls.gov/

eag/eag.us.htm, last accessed July 1, 2007].

Chang, S., and A. Falit-Baiamonte, 2002, Disaster vulnerability of businesses in the 2001 Nisqually earthquake: Environmental Hazards, v. 4, p. 59–71.

Cox, D., and Mink, J., 1963, The tsunami of 23 May 1960 in 

the Hawaiian islands: Bulletin of the Seismological Society 

of America, v. 53, no. 6, p. 1191–1209.

Curtis, G., 1991, Hawaii tsunami inundation/evacuation map 

project final report: Hawaii State Civil Defense Agency, 27 

pp.

Curtis, G., 1999, Evaluation of tsunami risk for mitigation 

and warning: Science of Tsunami Hazards, v. 17, no. 3, p. 

187–192.

Cutter, S., Boruff, B., and Shirley, W., 2003, Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards: Social Science Quarterly, v. 

84, no. 2, p. 242–261.

Dobson, J. , Bright, E., Ferguson, R., Field, D., Wood, L., 

Haddad, K., Iredale, III, H., Klemas, V., Orth, R., and 

Thomas, J., 1995, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program—guidance for regional implementation: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration technical report NMFS 123, version 1.0.
28 Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi

Dudley, W., 1999, The Pacific Tsunami Museum—a memorial 

to those lost to tsunamis, and an education center to prevent 

further casualties: Science of Tsunami Hazards, v. 17, no. 2, 

p. 127–134.

Dudley, W., and Stone, S., 2000, The tsunami of 1946 and 

1960 and the devastation of Hilo town: Virginia Beach, Va., 

The Donning Company Publisher.

Eaton, J., Richter, D., and Ault, W., 1961, The tsunami of May 

23, 1960, on the Island of Hawaii: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, no. 51, p. 135–157.

Enarson, E., and Morrow, B., 1998, The gendered terrain of 

disaster: Westport, Conn., Praeger, 275 p. 

Enarson, E., 1999, Violence against women in disasters—

a study of domestic violence programs in the U.S. and 

Canada: Violence Against Women, v. 5, no. 7, p. 742–768.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2001, State and 

local mitigation planning how-to guide No. 2—understanding your risks: Federal Emergency Management Agency 

no. 386-2, [http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.

do?id=1880, last accessed August 21, 2007].

Goff, J., Dudley, W., deMaintenon, M., Cain, G., and Coney, 

J., 2006, The largest local tsunami in 20th century Hawaii: 

Marine Geology, v. 226, p. 65–79.

Hawaiÿi Board on Geographic Names, 2007, Board on Geographic Names: [http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/gis/bgn/, last 

accessed June 12, 2007].

Hawaiÿi Office of Planning, 2007, Hawaiÿi Statewide GIS 

Program: [http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/gis/download.htm, 

last accessed July 20, 2007].

Homer, C., Huang, C., Yang, L., Wylie, B., and Coan, M., 

2004, Development of a 2001 National Landcover Database 

for the United States: Photogrammetric Engineering and 

Remote Sensing, v. 70, no. 7, p. 829–840.

InfoUSA, 2006, Employer Database: [http://www.infousagov.

com/employer.asp, last accessed November 1, 2006].

Johnston, J., 2003, Personal accounts from survivors of the 

Hilo tsunamis of 1946 and 1960—toward a disaster communication model: unpub Masters thesis, University of 

Hawaiÿi, 142 p.

Lachman, R., Tatsuoka, M., and Bonk, W., 1961, Human 

behavior during the tsunami of May 1960: Science, v. 133, 

no. 3462, p. 1405–1409.

Lander, J., and Lockridge, P., 1989, United States tsunamis 

(including United States possessions), 1690-1988: Boulder, 

Colo., U.S. Department of Commerce, National Geophysical Data Center, Publication 41-2.

Laska, S., and Morrow, B., 2007, Social vulnerabilities and 

Hurricane Katrina—an unnatural disaster in New Orleans: 

Marine Technology Society Journal, v. 40, no. 4, p. 16–26. 

Lockridge, P., 1998, Potential for landslide-generated tsunamis in Hawaii: Science of Tsunami Hazards, v. 16, no. 1, p. 

31–38.

Loveland, T.R., and Shaw D.M., 1996, Multi-resolution land 

characterization—building collaborative partnerships, 

in Scott, J.M., Tear, T.H., and Davis, F.W., eds., GAP 

Analysis—a landscape approach to biodiversity planning: 

Bethesda, Maryland, American Society for Photogrammetry 

and Remote Sensing, p. 79-85.

Mader, C., and Curtis, G., 1991, Modeling Hilo, Hawaii, 

tsunami inundation: Science of Tsunami Hazards, v. 9, no. 

2, p. 85–94.

Marshall, J., 1989, The structure of urban systems: Toronto: 

University of Toronto Press, 394 p.

McGuire, L., Ford, E., and Okoro, C., 2007, Natural disasters 

and older US adults with disabilities—implications for 

evacuation: Disasters, v. 31, no. 1, p. 49–56.

Moore, J., and Moore, G., 1984, Deposit from a giant wave on 

the Island of Lanai, Hawaii: Science, v. 226, no. 4680, p. 

1312–1315.

Morrow, B., 1999, Identifying and mapping community vulnerability: Disasters, v. 23, no. 1, p. 1–18.

Mileti, D., 1999, Disasters by design—a reassessment of natural hazards in the United States: Washington, D.C., Joseph 

Henry Press.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal 

Services Center (NOAA CSC), 2007, Hawaiÿi land cover: 

[http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/lca/hawaii.html, last accessed 

July 17, 2007].

National Park Service, 2007, National registry information 

system: [http://www.nr.nps.gov/, last accessed July 17, 

2007].

Ngo, E., 2003, When disasters and age collide—reviewing 

vulnerability of the elderly: Natural Hazards Review, v. 2, 

no. 2, p. 80–89.

Ollenberger, J., and Tobin, G., 1998, Women and post-disaster 

stress, in Enarson, E., and Morrow, B., eds., The Gendered 

Terrain of Disasters: Westport, Conn.: Praeger, p. 95–108.

Oxfam, 2005, The tsunami’s impact on women: Oxfam Briefing Note [http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/

conflict_disasters/downloads/bn_tsunami_women.pdf, last 

accessed July 17, 2007].
Glossary 29

Pelling, M., 2002, Assessing urban vulnerability and social 

adaptation to risk: International Development Planning 

Review, v. 24, no.1, p. 59–76.

Rofi, A., Doocy, S., and Robinson, C., 2006, tsunami mortality 

and displacement in Aceh province, Indonesia: Disasters, v. 

30, no. 3, p. 340–350.

Tang, L., Chamberlin, C., Tolkova, E., Spillane, M., Titov, V., 

Bernard, E., and Mofjeld, H., 2006, Assessment of potential 

tsunami impact for Pearl Harbor, Hawaiÿi: National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Technical Memorandum 131, 36 p.

Turner, B.L., Kasperson, R.E., Matson, P.A., McCarthy, J.L., 

Corell, R.W., Christensen, L., Eckley, N., Kasperson, J.X., 

Luers, A., Martello, M.L., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A., and 

Schiller, A., 2003, A framework for vulnerability analysis in 

sustainability science: Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences, v. 100, no. 14, p. 8074–8079. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, Census 2000—Census 2000 Gateway: [http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html, last 

accessed December 1, 2006].

U.S. Census Bureau, 2007a, Cartographic boundary files: 

[http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/pl_metadata.html, 

last accessed July 1, 2007].

U.S. Census Bureau, 2007b, NAICS—North American Industry Classification System: [http://www.census.gov/epcd/

www/naics.html, last accessed April 1, 2007].

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2006, U.S. Tsunami 

preparedness—Federal and State partners collaborate to help 

communities reduce potential impacts, but significant challenges remain: Washington, D.C., Report no. GAO-06-519. 

Walker, D., 1999, Issues related to local tsunamis in Hawaiÿi: 

Science of Tsunami Hazards, v. 17, no. 2, p. 71–84.

Walker, D., 2002, Locally generated tsunamis in Hawaiÿi: a 

low cost, real time warning system with world wide applications: Science of Tsunami Hazards, v. 20, no. 4, p. 177–186.

Walker, D., 2004, Regional tsunami evacuations for the State 

of Hawaii—a feasibility study based on historical runup 

data: Science of Tsunami Hazards: v. 22, no. 1, p. 3–22.

Walker, D., 2005a, Critical evaluations for the State of Hawaiÿi 

subsequent to the 26 December 2004 Asian tsunami: Science of Tsunami Hazards, v. 23, no. 1, p. 17–24.

Walker, D., 2005b, Ocean-wide tsunamis, magnitude thresholds, and 1946 type events: Science of Tsunami Hazards, v. 

23, no. 2, p. 3–8. 

Wei, Y., 2004, Improving warning systems and evacuation 

maps: Ka Pili Kai, University of Hawaiÿi Sea Grant Program, v. 26, no. 4, p. 12–13.

Weichselgartner, J., 2001, Disaster mitigation—the concept 

of vulnerability revisited: Disaster Prevention and Management, v. 10, no. 2, p. 85–94.

Wisner, B. Blaikie, P, Cannon, T, and Davis, I., 2004, At 

risk—natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters: 

2nd edition, New York, Routledge, 471 p.

Wood, N., Good, J., and Goodwin, R., 2002, Vulnerability 

assessment of a port and harbor community to earthquake 

and tsunami hazards—integrating technical expert and 

stakeholder input: Natural Hazards Review, v. 3, no. 4, p. 

148–157.

Wood, N., and Good, J., 2004, Vulnerability of a port and 

harbor community to earthquake and tsunami hazards: the 

use of GIS in community hazard planning: Coastal Management, v. 32, no. 3, p. 243–269.

Zar, J., 1984, Biostatistical analysis, 2nd edition: New Jersey, 

Prentice Hall, 718 p.

Glossary

Dependents—Individuals who temporarily reside in facilities where they would be dependent on external assistance to 

evacuate and recover, including adult residential care, child 

day care, correctional facilities, hospitals, outpatient-care centers, psychiatric and substance-abuse hospitals, and schools. 

Exposure—The first component of vulnerability, focusing on 

the amount of an asset (for example, the number of residents 

of a town) within a tsunami-evacuation zone.

Resilience—The third component of vulnerability, focusing 

on a community’s ability to withstand, absorb, adapt to, and 

recover from losses.

Sensitivity—The second component of vulnerability, focusing on the relative impact of losses to an entire community 

(for example, the percentage of a community’s workforce in 

a tsunami zone); for population data, it refers to differential 

impacts between demographic groups (for example, differences based on age of individuals or race).

Vulnerability—The attributes of a human-environmental 

system that increase the potential for hazard-related losses or 

reduced performance; characterized by the exposure, sensitivity, and resilience of a community and its assets in relation to 

stressors, either chronic or sudden (Turner and others, 2003).
30 Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi

Appendix A. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes 

The following is a list of community assets that can be extracted from the infoUSA Employer Database. Numbers refer 

to the eight-digit code of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007b). 

Critical Facilities Essential Facilities

Public Order

Police stations

Federal: 92212002

Police departments: 92212003

Sheriff: 92212004

State Police: 92212005

Fire stations

County Fire: 92216001

Local Fire: 92216003

State Fire: 92216004

Civil Defense

Civil Defense: 92219001

County: 92219003

National Security

Federal: 92811003

State: 92811007

Medical Services

Hospitals: 62211002 

Outpatient care centers: 

Childbirth education: 62141003

Pregnancy counseling: 62141005

Clinics: 62149301

Physician offices: 62111107

Ambulance services: 62191002

Utilities

Wastewater treatment:

City: 92613001

County: 92613002

Water and sewage companies: 22131003

Gas companies: 22121002

Electric companies: 22112202

Public works: 23731004

Radio and TV Broadcasting: 51511203

Gas stations: 44719005

Banks and Credit Unions: 

Banks: 52211002

Credit Unions: 52213003

Retail Grocers: 44511003

Courts and legal counsel

Federal Courts: 92211004

State Courts: 92211006

City Legal Counsel: 92213001

County Legal Counsel: 92213002

State Legal Counsel: 92213004

Government offices:

City government offices: 92112006, 92113001, 92119001

County government offices: 92112007, 92113002, 92119002

State government offices: 92112008, 92113005, 92119006

Federal government offices: 92112009, 92119003

Government weather offices: 92119000

International affairs offices: 92812003
Appendix A 31

The following is a list of community assets that can be extracted from the infoUSA Employer Database. Numbers refer to 

the eight-digit code of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007b)—Continued. 

Public venues Dependent Populations

Libraries

City: 51912001

Federal: 51912003

Institutional: 51912005

Public: 51912006

State: 51912011

Shopping centers and malls: 53112008

Public venues:

Museums: 71211001

Historical Places: 71212001

Botanical Gardens: 71213003

Aquariums: 71219001

Zoos: 71213006

Parks: 71219004

Theaters: 71111007

Spectator Sports: 71121203, 71121204

Religious Organizations

Christian Science: 81311005

Church Organizations: 81311006

Churches: 81311008

Clergy: 81311009

Convents and Monasteries: 

Mediation Organizations: 81311011

Mosques: 81311015

Religious Organizations: 81311021

Retreat Houses: 81311023

Spiritualists: 81311025

Synagogues: 81311026

Places of Worship (non-theistic): 81311031

Hospitals

Hospitals: 62211002

Mental Health Services: 62221001

Psychiatric treatment facilities: 62221003

Outpatient Care Centers

Childbirth education: 62141003

Pregnancy counseling: 62141005

Clinics: 62149301

Offices of physicians: 62111107

Ambulance services: 62191002

Adult residential care

Adult care facilities: 62311001

Hospices: 62311011

Nursing homes: 62311016

Nursing home services: 62311018

Rest homes: 62311020

Retirement communities: 62331101

Homes – adult: 62331203

Senior citizens services: 62331205

Residential care homes: 62331206

Sheltered care homes: 62399000

Group homes: 62399007

Foster care: 62399013

Day care centers – adult: 62412002

Child day care

Babysitters: 62441001

Childcare centers: 62441002, 62441003

Pre-schools: 62441005

Nursery schools: 62441006

Schools

Religious schools: 61111004

Schools: 61111007

Schools with special academics: 61111010

Home schooling: 61111016

Colleges: 61131009

Correctional Facilities

State: 92214002

Federal: 92214003
32 Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi

Appendix B. 

Overview of Project Database

Additional data on the distribution of assets within specific 

tsunami-evacuation zones and CDPs is provided in the database that accompanies this report. 

Database worksheet—“By Evacuation Map”

Information on specific evacuation-zone maps (for 

example, the number of employees in tsunami-evacuation map 

64) can be found in the “By Evacuation Map” worksheet in the 

project database. Rows 3 through 87 refer to specific tsunamievacuation zone maps, rows 88 – 91 are county-level summaries, and rows 92 – 97 are descriptive statistics, including a 

state total, minimum value, 1st quartile, median, third quartile, 

and the maximum value found in the study area. 

The first four columns identify the evacuation map name 

(A), the map number (B), the island where this zone is (C), 

and the county where this zone is (D). The remaining columns 

note the number or amount of a specific attribute in a given 

tsunami-evacuation zone. Land-cover attributes (columns 

E – H) refer to the number of cells with 30-meter resolution; 

however, the amount of cells can be converted to areas (km2) 

by multiplying by 0.0009. Residential and employee population attributes (columns I – W) refer to the total number of 

people, except for columns T-V which refer to the number of 

households. Dependent population and public venue information (columns X – AQ) refers to the number of facilities and 

not the number of people at each location. Hotel information 

includes the sum of average daily visitors (column AR) and 

the number of hotels (column AS). Parcel data include property value (AT), content value (AU), total value (AV), property 

value minus exemptions (AW), content value minus exemptions (AX) and total value minus exemptions (AY). Business 

information includes the number of business, employees and 

sales volume (columns AZ – BB). Critical and essential facilities information (columns BC – BV) refers to the number of 

facilities.

Database worksheets—“By CDP”

The above information summarized by tsunami-evacuation zone is also summarized by census-designated place 

(CDP) in a series of “By CDP” worksheets. In the numerous 

“By CDP” worksheets, rows 3 – 67 refer to the 65 CDP that 

have land in a tsunami-evacuation zone and rows 68 – 71 

refer to the non-CDP land in the four counties (Maui, Kaua‘i, 

Hawai‘i, and Honolulu). Rows 72 – 75 are county-level summaries and rows 76 – 81 provide descriptive statistics similar 

to the “By Evacuation Map” worksheet.

In the “By CDP” worksheets (for example, Land Cover, 

Population, Economy, and Facilities), the first four columns 

identify the CDP name, a geographic identifier, island name, 

and the county name. We developed a geographic identifier 

for each CDP that identifies the county (for example, Ma 

= County of Maui, Ka = County of Kaua‘i, Ho = City and 

County of Honolulu, and Ha = County of Hawai‘i) and a 

number. We assigned numbers by starting with one community 

on an island and going clock-wise around an island. Sorting 

and graphing information by the geographic identifier allows 

one to graph and visualize information in a consistent fashion 

based on geographic location. The remaining columns in the 

four “By CDP worksheets” note the following for each CDP:

•	 The amount of an attribute located in the tsunami-evacuation 

zone of the CDP (“In Evacuation Zone”);

•	 The CDP’s total amount (“CDP Total”); and 

•	 The percentage of an attribute in the tsunami-evacuation 

zone of a CDP (“% of CDP”), which is derived by dividing 

the “In Evacuation Zone” amount by the “CDP Total.” 

Again, land-cover data refer to the number of 30-meter 

cells, residential and employee data refer to the number of 

individuals, parcel data refer to 2006 U.S. dollars, and facility data refer to the number of facilities. Demographic data 

includes an additional attribute noted as “% of Total Population in Evacuation Zone.” While “% of CDP” notes the 

percentage of a demographic category of a CDP in the hazardprone area, “% of Total Population in Evacuation Zone” notes 

the percentage of residents in the evacuation zone of a CDP 

that are a certain demographic group. For example, a “% of 

CDP” value of 34 in the Hispanic or Latino population category indicates that 34 percent of the Hispanic population of a 

CDP is in the tsunami-evacuation zone. A “% of Total Population in Evacuation Zone” value of 34 in the Hispanic or Latino 

population category indicates that 34 percent of the residents 

in the evacuation zone are Hispanic. 

Database worksheets—“By State-Business 

Types”

The distribution of business types are summarized in the 

database worksheet “By State - Business Types.” Rows in this 

worksheet are the 21 industry types, based on the first two digits of the North American Industry Classification System code 

attached to each business in the infoUSA Employer Database. 

Information on businesses, employees and sales volume are 

each sorted by business type.
Appendix C 33

Appendix C. 

Supplemental Maps of Exposure and 

Sensitivity Results

Some readers of this report may wish to see results in a 

map-based format, rather than bar graphs. However, including 

both types in the main body of the report would slow down 

the narrative and overwhelm the reader. Therefore, map-based 

versions of the amount and percentage of developed land (fig. 

5), residents (fig. 6), employees (fig. 7), hotel average-dailyvisitor (ADV) values (fig. 8) and total parcel value minus 

exemptions (fig. 10) are provided here. Exposure values are 

actual amounts, organized by quartiles. In the case of hotel 

average daily visitor (ADV) values, the 1st and 2nd quartiles 

are both zero; therefore the legend only notes the 3rd quartile 

(529) and the maximum. Values for community sensitivity, 

defined here as the percentage of a community’s asset in the 

tsunami-evacuation zone, are percentages and organized in 25 

percent increments.
34 Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi

County of Kaua'i

County of Hawaii

County of Maui

City and County

of Honolulu

County of Hawaii

County of Maui

City and County

of Honolulu

County of Kaua'i

Percentage of 

Developed Land 

in TsunamiEvacuation 

Zone

75 - 100%

50 - 74%

25 - 49%

1 - 24%

0%

0.8 - 7.3

0.4 - 0.79

0.1 - 0.39

0.01 - 0.09

0

Amount of 

Developed Land 

in TsunamiEvacuation 

Zone (km )2

Appendix C. Continued.

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

K a u a ' i

H a w a i ' i

M a u i

M o l o k a ' i

K a h o ' o l a w e

O ' a h u

L a n a ' i

Lawai

Kapa'a

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Princeville

Kilauea

Wailua

'Ele'ele

Waimea

Kekaha

Hanalei

Kaumakani

Lihu'e

Hanama'ulu

Po'ipu

Hanapepe

Pakala Village

Hilo

Kailua

Kalaoa

Hawaiian 

Beaches

Captain Cook

Hawaiian 

Paradise Park

Hala'ula

Kahalu'u-Keauhou

Kukuihaele

Laupahoehoe Puako

Holualoa

Honaunau-Napo'op'o

Kahului

Wailuku

Ka'anapali

Waihe'e-Waiehu Kaunakakai Kapalua

Napili-Honokowai

Lahaina

Ma'alaea

Kihei

Wailea-Makena

Hana

Pa'ia

Honolulu

Kailua

Hau'ula

Wai'anae

Hale'iwa

Waialua

'Ewa Beach

Kahuku

Punalu'u

Hickam Housing

Ka'a'awa

Kawela Bay

Iroquois 

Point

La'ie

Pupukea

Mokule'ia

Makaha Valley

Makaha

Ma'ili

Nanakuli

Waimanalo Beach

Kane'ohe Station

P a c i f i c 

O c e a n

P a c i f i c 

O c e a n

P a c i f i c 

O c e a n

P a c i f i c 

O c e a n

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

K a u a ' i

H a w a i ' i

M a u i

M o l o k a ' i

K a h o ' o l a w e

O ' a h u

L a n a ' i

Lawai

Kapa'a

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Princeville

Kilauea

Wailua

'Ele'ele

Waimea

Kekaha

Hanalei

Kaumakani

Lihu'e

Hanama'ulu

Po'ipu

Hanapepe

Pakala Village

Hilo

Kailua

Kalaoa

Hawaiian 

Beaches

Captain Cook

Hawaiian 

Paradise Park

Hala'ula

Kahalu'u-Keauhou

Kukuihaele

Laupahoehoe Puako

Holualoa

Honaunau-Napo'op'o

Kahului

Wailuku

Ka'anapali

Waihe'e-Waiehu Kaunakakai Kapalua

Napili-Honokowai

Lahaina

Ma'alaea

Kihei

Wailea-Makena

Hana

Pa'ia

Honolulu

Kailua

Hau'ula

Wai'anae

Hale'iwa

Waialua

'Ewa Beach

Kahuku

Punalu'u

Hickam 

Housing

Ka'a'awa

Kawela Bay

Iroquois 

Point

La'ie

Pupukea

Mokule'ia

Makaha Valley

Makaha

Ma'ili

Nanakuli

Waimanalo Beach

Kane'ohe Station

P a c i f i c 

O c e a n

P a c i f i c 

O c e a n

P a c i f i c 

O c e a n

P a c i f i c 

O c e a n
Appendix C 35

County of Kaua'i County of Kaua'i

County of Hawaii

County of Maui

City and County

of Honolulu

County of Hawaii

County of Maui

City and County

of Honolulu

Number of 

Residents in 

TsunamiEvacuation 

Zone

Percentage of 

Residents in 

TsunamiEvacuation 

Zone

44 - 100%

12 - 43%

2 - 11%

1 - 2%

0%

1,795 - 5,576

654 - 1,794

121 - 653

1 - 120

0

Appendix C. Continued.

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

Kaua'i

Hawai ' i

Maui

Moloka'i

Kaho'olawe

O ' ahu

Lana'i

Lawai

Kapa'a

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Princeville

Kilauea

Wailua

'Ele'ele

Waimea

Kekaha

Hanalei

Kaumakani

Lihu'e

Hanama'ulu

Po'ipu

Hanapepe

Pakala Village

Hilo

Kailua

Kalaoa

Hawaiian 

Beaches

Captain Cook

Hawaiian 

Paradise Park

Hala'ula

Kahalu'u-Keauhou

Kukuihaele

Laupahoehoe Puako

Holualoa

Honaunau-Napo'op'o

Kahului

Wailuku

Ka'anapali

Waihe'e-Waiehu Kapalua Kaunakakai

Napili-Honokowai

Lahaina

Ma'alaea

Kihei

Wailea-Makena

Hana

Pa'ia

Honolulu

Kailua

Hau'ula

Wai'anae

Hale'iwa

Waialua

'Ewa Beach

Kahuku

Punalu'u

Hickam Housing

Ka'a'awa

Kawela Bay

Iroquois 

Point

La'ie

Pupukea

Mokule'ia

Makaha Valley

Makaha Ma'ili

Nanakuli

Waimanalo Beach

Kane'ohe Station

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

Kaua'i

Hawai ' i

Maui

Moloka'i

Kaho'olawe

O ' ahu

Lana'i

Lawai

Kapa'a

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Princeville

Kilauea

Wailua

'Ele'ele

Waimea

Kekaha

Hanalei

Kaumakani

Lihu'e

Hanama'ulu

Po'ipu

Hanapepe

Pakala Village

Hilo

Kailua

Kalaoa

Hawaiian 

Beaches

Captain Cook

Hawaiian 

Paradise Park

Hala'ula

Kahalu'u-Keauhou

Kukuihaele

Laupahoehoe Puako

Holualoa

Honaunau-Napo'op'o

Kahului

Wailuku

Ka'anapali

Waihe'e-Waiehu Kaunakakai Kapalua

Napili-Honokowai

Lahaina

Ma'alaea

Kihei

Wailea-Makena

Hana

Pa'ia

Honolulu

Kailua

Hau'ula

Wai'anae

Hale'iwa

Waialua

'Ewa Beach

Kahuku

Punalu'u

Hickam Housing

Ka'a'awa

Kawela Bay

Iroquois 

Point

La'ie Pupukea

Mokule'ia

Makaha Valley

Makaha

Ma'ili

Nanakuli

Waimanalo Beach

Kane'ohe Station

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean
36 Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi

County of Kaua'i County of Kaua'i

County of Hawaii

County of Maui

City and County

of Honolulu

County of Hawaii

County of Maui

City and County

of Honolulu

Number of 

Employees in 

TsunamiEvacuation Zone

Percentage of 

Employees in 

TsunamiEvacuation 

Zone 

75 - 100%

50 - 74%

25 - 49%

1 - 24%

0%

693 - 9,725

209 - 692

1 - 208

0

0

Appendix C. Continued.

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

K a u a ' i

H a w a i ' i

M a u i

M o l o k a ' i

K a h o ' o l a w e

O ' a h u

L a n a ' i

Lawai

Kapa'a

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Princeville

Kilauea

Wailua

'Ele'ele

Kekaha Waimea

Hanalei

Kaumakani

Lihu'e

Hanama'ulu

Po'ipu

Hanapepe

Pakala Village

Hilo

Kailua

Kalaoa

Hawaiian 

Beaches

Captain Cook

Hawaiian 

Paradise Park

Hala'ula

Kahalu'u-Keauhou

Kukuihaele

Laupahoehoe Puako

Holualoa

Honaunau-Napo'op'o

Kahului

Wailuku

Ka'anapali

Kaunakakai Kapalua Waihe'e-Waiehu

Napili-Honokowai

Lahaina

Ma'alaea

Kihei

Wailea-Makena

Hana

Pa'ia

Honolulu

Kailua

Hau'ula

Wai'anae

Hale'iwa

Waialua

'Ewa Beach

Kahuku

Punalu'u

Hickam Housing

Ka'a'awa

Kawela Bay

Iroquois 

Point

La'ie

Pupukea

Mokule'ia

Makaha Valley

Makaha

Ma'ili

Nanakuli

Waimanalo Beach

Kane'ohe Station

P a c i f i c 

O c e a n

P a c i f i c 

O c e a n

P a c i f i c 

O c e a n

P a c i f i c 

O c e a n

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

K a u a ' i

H a w a i ' i

M a u i

M o l o k a ' i

K a h o ' o l a w e

O ' a h u

L a n a ' i

Lawai

Kapa'a

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Princeville

Kilauea

Wailua

'Ele'ele

Waimea

Kekaha

Hanalei

Kaumakani

Lihu'e

Hanama'ulu

Po'ipu

Hanapepe

Pakala Village

Hilo

Kailua

Kalaoa

Hawaiian 

Beaches

Captain Cook

Hawaiian 

Paradise Park

Hala'ula

Kahalu'u-Keauhou

Kukuihaele

Laupahoehoe Puako

Holualoa

Honaunau-Napo'op'o

Kahului

Wailuku

Ka'anapali

Waihe'e-Waiehu Kaunakakai Kapalua

Napili-Honokowai

Lahaina

Ma'alaea

Kihei

Wailea-Makena

Hana

Pa'ia

Honolulu

Kailua

Hau'ula

Wai'anae

Hale'iwa

Waialua

'Ewa Beach

Kahuku

Punalu'u

Hickam Housing

Ka'a'awa

Kawela Bay

Iroquois 

Point

La'ie

Pupukea

Mokule'ia

Makaha Valley

Makaha

Ma'ili

Nanakuli

Waimanalo Beach

Kane'ohe Station

P a c i f i c 

O c e a n

P a c i f i c 

O c e a n

P a c i f i c 

O c e a n

P a c i f i c 

O c e a n
Appendix C 37

County of Kaua'i County of Kaua'i

County of Hawaii

County of Maui

City and County

of Honolulu

County of Hawaii

County of Maui

City and County

of Honolulu

Number of 

Hotel ADV in 

TsunamiEvacuation Zone

Percentage of 

Hotel ADV in 

TsunamiEvacuation 

Zone 

75 - 100%

50 - 74%

25 - 49%

1 - 24%

0%

529 - 10,942

1 - 528

0

Appendix C. Continued.

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

Kaua'i

Hawai ' i

Maui

Moloka'i

Kaho'olawe

O ' ahu

Lana'i

Lawai

Kapa'a

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Princeville

Kilauea

Wailua

'Ele'ele

Waimea Kekaha

Hanalei

Kaumakani

Lihu'e

Hanama'ulu

Po'ipu

Hanapepe

Pakala Village

Hilo

Kailua

Kalaoa

Hawaiian 

Beaches

Captain Cook

Hawaiian 

Paradise Park

Hala'ula

Kahalu'u-Keauhou

Kukuihaele

Laupahoehoe Puako

Holualoa

Honaunau-Napo'op'o

Kahului

Wailuku

Ka'anapali

Kaunakakai Kapalua Waihe'e-Waiehu

Napili-Honokowai

Lahaina

Ma'alaea

Kihei

Wailea-Makena

Hana

Pa'ia

Honolulu

Kailua

Hau'ula

Wai'anae

Hale'iwa

Waialua

'Ewa Beach

Kahuku

Punalu'u

Hickam Housing

Ka'a'awa

Kawela Bay

Iroquois 

Point

La'ie Pupukea

Mokule'ia

Makaha Valley

Makaha

Ma'ili

Nanakuli

Waimanalo Beach

Kane'ohe Station

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

Kaua'i

Hawai ' i

Maui

Moloka'i

Kaho'olawe

O ' ahu

Lana'i

Lawai

Kapa'a

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Princeville

Kilauea

Wailua

'Ele'ele

Waimea Kekaha

Hanalei

Kaumakani

Lihu'e

Hanama'ulu

Po'ipu

Hanapepe

Pakala Village

Hilo

Kailua

Kalaoa

Hawaiian 

Beaches

Captain Cook

Hawaiian 

Paradise Park

Hala'ula

Kahalu'u-Keauhou

Kukuihaele

Laupahoehoe Puako

Holualoa

Honaunau-Napo'op'o

Kahului

Wailuku

Ka'anapali

Waihe'e-Waiehu Kaunakakai Kapalua

Napili-Honokowai

Lahaina

Ma'alaea

Kihei

Wailea-Makena

Hana

Pa'ia

Honolulu

Kailua

Hau'ula

Wai'anae

Hale'iwa

Waialua

'Ewa Beach

Kahuku

Punalu'u

Hickam Housing

Ka'a'awa

Kawela Bay

Iroquois 

Point

La'ie Pupukea

Mokule'ia

Makaha Valley

Makaha

Ma'ili

Nanakuli

Waimanalo Beach

Kane'ohe Station

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean
38 Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawaiÿi

County of Kaua'i County of Kaua'i

County of Hawaii

County of Maui

City and County

of Honolulu

County of Hawaii

County of Maui

City and County

of Honolulu

Total Parcel Value

(minus exemptions) 

in TsunamiEvacuation Zone

Percentage of 

Total Parcel Value 

(minus exemptions) in 

Tsunami- Evacuation 

Zone 

75 - 100%

50 - 74%

25 - 49%

1 - 24%

0%

$516M - 4.6B

$186M - 516M

$34M - 186M

$1 - $34M

0

Appendix C. Continued.

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

Kaua'i

Hawai ' i

Maui

Moloka'i

Kaho'olawe

O ' ahu

Lana'i

Lawai

Kapa'a

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Princeville

Kilauea

Wailua

'Ele'ele

Waimea

Kekaha

Hanalei

Kaumakani

Lihu'e

Hanama'ulu

Po'ipu

Hanapepe

Pakala Village

Hilo

Kailua

Kalaoa

Hawaiian 

Beaches

Captain Cook

Hawaiian 

Paradise Park

Hala'ula

Kahalu'u-Keauhou

Kukuihaele

Laupahoehoe Puako

Holualoa

Honaunau-Napo'op'o

Kahului

Wailuku

Ka'anapali

Kaunakakai Kapalua Waihe'e-Waiehu

Napili-Honokowai

Lahaina

Ma'alaea

Kihei

Wailea-Makena

Hana

Pa'ia

Honolulu

Kailua

Hau'ula

Wai'anae

Hale'iwa

Waialua

'Ewa Beach

Kahuku

Punalu'u

Hickam Housing

Ka'a'awa

Kawela Bay

Iroquois 

Point

La'ie Pupukea

Mokule'ia

Makaha Valley

Makaha

Ma'ili

Nanakuli

Waimanalo Beach

Kane'ohe Station

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

0 10 km

North

Kaua'i

Hawai ' i

Maui

Moloka'i

Kaho'olawe

O ' ahu

Lana'i

Lawai

Kapa'a

Kalihiwai

Anahola

Princeville

Kilauea

Wailua

'Ele'ele

Waimea

Kekaha

Hanalei

Kaumakani

Lihu'e

Hanama'ulu

Po'ipu

Hanapepe

Pakala Village

Hilo

Kailua

Kalaoa

Hawaiian 

Beaches

Captain Cook

Hawaiian 

Paradise Park

Hala'ula

Kahalu'u-Keauhou

Kukuihaele

Laupahoehoe Puako

Holualoa

Honaunau-Napo'op'o

Kahului

Wailuku

Ka'anapali

Waihe'e-Waiehu Kaunakakai Kapalua

Napili-Honokowai

Lahaina

Ma'alaea

Kihei

Wailea-Makena

Hana

Pa'ia

Honolulu

Kailua

Hau'ula

Wai'anae

Hale'iwa

Waialua

'Ewa Beach

Kahuku

Punalu'u

Hickam Housing

Ka'a'awa

Kawela Bay

Iroquois 

Point

La'ie

Pupukea

Mokule'ia

Makaha Valley

Makaha

Ma'ili

Nanakuli

Waimanalo Beach

Kane'ohe Station

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean

Pacific 

Ocean
This page left intentionally blank.
Wood and others—Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in the State of Hawai‘i—Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5208