Sustainable Development Plan for the tsunami

Sustainable Development Plan for the tsunami affected 

affected
coastal stretch of Cuddalore District.

Presented by:
db
Department of Planning
School of Architecture & Planning , Chennai – 25.
TSUNAMI…the killer wave

“Tsunami Strikes Coastal Tamil Nadu…
“… the Tsunamis that hit Coromandel coast of India on

Sunday were caused by a massive earthquake on the Indian Ocean

near Sumatra in Indonesia. Similar waves have hit six other countries,

claiming thousands of lives. Tamil Nadu was one of the worst

affected due to Tsunami. “

DEC 26, 2004 …

 TSUNAMI in TAMILNADU
DISTRICTS NO.OF POPULATION HOUSES NO.OF HUMAN NO.OF
AFFECTED VILLAGES AFFECTED DAMAGED LIVES LOST INJURED
AFFECTED

CHENNAI 25 65322 17805 206 9

KANCHEEPURAM 44 100000 7043 128 11

THIRUVALLUR 6 15600 4147 29 0

CUDDALORE 51 99704 15200 617 214

VILLUPURAM 33 78240 9500 47 30

NAGAPATTINAM 73 196184 36860 6063 1922

THIRUVARUR 0 0 0 21 0

TANJAVUR 22 29278 3 30 421

KANNIYAKUMARI 33 187650 31175 824 525

TUTICORIN 23 30505 735 3 0

THIRUNELVELI 10 27948 630 4 4

RAMANATHAPURAM 0 0 6 6 0

PUDHUKOTTAI 25 66350 1 15 0

TOTAL 345 896781 123105 7993

Tsunami waves in coastal Tamil Nadu
 CUDDALORE 6.8-9.10 ph
Subbauppalavadi

6.8-9.10 ph
Devanampattinam

REASONS FOR CHOOSING CUDDALORE

1.71 to 6.5 EC
• the second most affected coastal stretch of the state. 
6.8-9.10 ph
Nananedu
• the tsunami devastation is not uniform along the coast.  
g

• diversified landform along the stretch.

• continuous changing of the geomorphology of the shore line.
continuous changing of the geomorphology of the shore line
6.8-9.10 ph
Madalapattu

• presence of barrier islands, lagoons & estuaries along the coast line.
Vellar estuary

Killai 6.55 EC

Pichavaram

Coleroon estuary
 AFFECTED COASTAL STRETCH 
under study  57.5 km CHENNAI
PONDICHERRY
CUDDALORE 6 8 9 10 ph
6.8-9.10 h
Subbauppalavadi

6.8-9.10 ph
Devanampattinam

71 to 6.5 EC

6.8-9.10 ph
1.7

Nananedu

TAMIL NADU

6.8-9.10 ph CUDDALORE District:
Madalapattu
Total population   ‐ 22,85,395 No.of blocks 6
Total area                     3678sq.km. No. of Municipalities  5
Vellar estuary D it
Density per sq.km.      620
k 620 No. of Panchayat Union 13
Latitute  15°11’‐12°35’ No. of Town Panchayats     16
Killai 6.55 EC Longitude 78°38’ ‐ 80° No. of Village Panchayats    681

Pichavaram
PICHCHAVARAM

Coleroon estuary
The tsunami devastation was not uniform in the entire study area.. Some are
were severely, moderately and least affected
were severely, moderately and least affected

No. of settlements affected :  26 nos.
N
No. of affected population
f ff d l i :  99704
99704
No. of families affected :  11804
No. of Persons evacuated :  61054
Loss of Human Lives :  617
Male :  110
Female :  285
Child :  222
PRELUDE – jointstudio

FACTS ON TSUNAMI & IDENTIFICATION OF STUDY AREA

LITERATURE STUDY PHYSIOGRAPHICAL DATA
IMPACTS OF TSUNAMI TOPOSHEET
ON INDIA BASE MAP PREPARATION
DISASTER ASSESSMENT
OF STUDY AREA
SEA WATER INUNDATION
DAMAGES TO PROPERTYAND BUILDINGS
CHARACTERISTIC OF
POST TSUNAMI LANDFORMS
LIFE LOSS
CUDDALORE DISTRICT
TSUNAMI DATABASE
RELIEF MEASURES TAKEN ASSESSMENT OF SOCIO-CULTURAL/
SOCIO CULTURAL/
PHYSIOLOGICAL &ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES

INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
CONNECTIVITY SECTORAL ANALYSIS

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS

SUSTAINABLE GUIDELINES ,
SITE SPECIFIC PROPOSAL MACRO & MICRO LEVEL PROPOSALS
SECTORS

• Demography
• Physiography
• Physical Landforms
• Infrastructure
• Physical
• Socio ‐ Economic
• Institutional Framework
• Connectivity
DEMOGRAPHY
Population Data
Decadal Growth
DECADAL POPULATION GROWTH
Occupational Pattern
Occupational Pattern 90
80
70 1971-1981
OBSERVATION 60
50 1981-1991
40
SFluctuating growth rate 30
20
1991-2001
Out Migration 10
0

THIRUCHOPURAM
M
CUDDALORE
GUNDUUPPALAVADI

PERIYAPATTU
ANDARMULLIPALLAM
KUDI KADU
PACHAVANKUPPAM

SULAMBIMANGALAM

KOTHADAI

ARYAGOSTHI
Severity of Natural Hazards during  the 

SUBAUPPALAVADI

THIYGAVALI

KILLAI
KAYALPATTU

VILLAYANALLUR
-10

decade 1981‐91
Change in Occupation Pattern
DEMOGRPAHY

PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN DECADES

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1971-1981 1981-1991 1991-2001

PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN DECADES

Occupation
Fishing
Agriculture

Observation
Decline in Fishing Cultivation in SUBAUPPALVADI 
due to change in Occupation Pattern
g p
Decrease in Agricultural activities
PHYSIOGRAPHIC FEATURES
Geotechnical & Natural Hazard zones
Geotechnical & Natural Hazard zones

Geomorphology
Geohydrology
Wind Direction
Rainfall
Cyclonic Disturbances & Statistics
Cyclonic Disturbances & Statistics
Cyclone Disaster Zoning

Earthquake Hazard zones
Wind & Cyclone prone zones
Coastal Vulnerability Scale
Disaster Assessment
Disaster Assessment
PHYSIOGRAPHIC FEATURES
Parameters for landform analysis
Matrix showing comparitive analysis of settlements

1897
409
10
910

1656
2172 1508
766
908

30
30
75
490
1094
676
7276
1212

1989

715
 PHYSICAL LANDFORMS

• Average distance of water inundation along the study area is 350 mts.
mts

• Devastation of man‐made property after 400 mts from HTL is minimal.

• Settlement, which has elevation more than 3m, had no property damage or human loss.

• Most of the settlement are near to the coast and parallel to the coast.

• Cashew, Palms got affected the most, whereas Coconut and Casuarinas got less affected.

• S l
Settlement, which
hi h had
h d vegetation
i and
d sand
d dune
d cover in
i front
f off it,
i had
h d less
l i
impact i front
in f off Tsunami.
T i

• Average height of sea waves is between 10 ft and 15 ft and direction of the sea wave is perpendicular to the coast.

• Bathymetry contour had a role to play in Tsunami devastation. Shallow coastline suffered the most.

• River mouth openings got closed after Tsunami.

• The coastal terrain changed after Tsunami varying between +10m to ‐50m.
BASE MAP
BASE MAP
 CONNECTIVITY

• EXISTING LINKAGES ‐
• ROLE OF CONNECTIVITY d i TSUNAMI
ROLE OF CONNECTIVITY during TSUNAMI

• PROPOSAL

EXISTING LINKAGES
ROADWAYS
WATER WAYS

ROLE OF CONNECTIVITY
SOTHTHIKUPPAM
SINGARATHOPPU

NEED FOR BETTER CONNECTIVITY
FIRST LEVEL EVACUATION CENTRES
NODAL CENTRES
 This was a low lying area, flat terrain, with not 
much vegetation in the front. 
The settlement was more like an island. 
The tsunami water inundation was high in this 
devanampattinam
place.
Hence by landform analysis, it lies under a risk 
singarathoppu
zone. But the death toll for this place , 
happened to be nothing
happened to be nothing. 
Presence of a Connecting Bridge saved.
soththikuppam

CASE 1: SINGARATHOPPU
CASE 1:  SINGARATHOPPU

The entire settlement is located in a level 
higher than the mean sea level. And it also 
had a fantastic tree belt in front of their
had a fantastic tree belt in front of their 
residence . 
By our landform analysis, all these features 
should have saved the settlement.
But the death toll for these settlements is 
23. Period. 
Absence of a connecting bridge to the main 
MGR thittu
land

CASE 2 : SOTHTHIKUPPAM
INFERENCES:
The settlements with better connectivity 
suffered less loss.
Better connectivity in terms of roads 
facilitated immediate relief measures.
Movement assessment:
the movement during Tsunami was mostly 
away from the sea. That is a horizontal 
movement perpendicular to the coast
movement perpendicular to the coast.
GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSALS
EVACUATION CENTRES:
EVACUATION CENTRES:
NODAL CENTRES:
ROAD RE –
ALIGNMENT
 GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSALS
EVACUATION CENTRES:
Immediate evacuation centres in each settlement within reachable distance,at the same time at a safer distance. 
These are high rised structures or structures present in a highly elevated land.
Existing structures like school or a community hall is identified for the purpose.

NODAL CENTRES:
Among the 26 settlements, few settlements are identified as NODAL CENTRES 
based on the following parameters :
a, Population size
P l ti i
b. Degree of Connectivity
c. Facilities available.
d. Locational Advantage
e. Safety factor.
These are the rehabilitation centers at next higher order.
These are the rehabilitation centers at next higher order. 

Each of such settlement takes charge of few other hamlets, within the given distance.
These centers take care of :
Road connectivity
Economic connectivity
Socio‐cultural connectivity   and
Communication facilities

ROAD RE – ALIGNMENT
The East Coast Road is either directly or indirectly connected to each settlement. The linking distance varies from1 km to 6 km.
h d i i h di l i di l d h l h li ki di i f k 6 k the higher 
h hi h
order road, did had a role to perform during a disaster. And since horizontality is followed in connectivity settlement, there should be a 
vertical road, parallel to the coast, connecting all these which would lead to CUDDALORE or CHIDAMBARAM.11
 SOCIO‐ECONOMIC
SOCIO ECONOMIC ASPECTS
ASPECTS
• Lifestyle Pattern
• Economic Aspects
Economic Aspects Study of Socio‐Economic Pattern on Tsunami 
Study of Socio Economic Pattern on Tsunami
• Social & Economical Impacts Impact
• Coastal Realities • Assessment of Damages
• People’s Perception

Analysis of Existing Situation
POOR
40%
WELL OFF
60%

Identification of Issues & 
LIFE STYLE Problems

40% WELL OFF

POOR

60%

Formulation of Strategies
 INSTITITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
• Hierarchy of Existing Institutional Setup
• The Relief Efforts
The Relief Efforts
– The Central Government
– The state Government
– Non – Governmental  Organiosations

• Immediate Short Term Measures
• Middle Term Measures
• Long Term Measures
• Observations & Issues
SPECIFIC AREA ACTION PLAN

PUDUKUPPAM
Kottadai panchayat
Chidambaram Taluk
Total Population 1389
Ground Water 10’ – 15’
TSUNAMI @ 0 Hr

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

POST TSUNAMI
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

• AFFECTED POPULATION     =    1094
• HOUSES AFFECTED  =  359 (TOTAL)
• FULLY AFFECTED HOUSES     =      86
• PARTIALLY AFFECTED            =     273
PARTIALLY AFFECTED = 273
• NO. OF BOATS AFFECTED      =       48
• AREA AFFECTED = 1.5KM FROM HTL
• LIFE LOST     ‐ 103 INHABITANT               76 OUTSIDERS
• COASTAL EROSION BY 6M ‐ 8M
• APPRX. 160 KUTCHA HOUSES OF
FISHERMEN SWEPT AWAY
• 48 BOATS OF THE VILLAGE GOT DAMAGED
• FISH PROCESSING FACTORY GOT WASHED AWAY
• BREAKS IN BLACK TOP ROADS
• SALINITY IN GROUND WATER
PROPOSAL
WORK SHELTER
 OUR SINCERE THANKS TO 
SINCERE THANKS TO

PROF.S.RAVI,DR.S.P.SEKAR,

ANNA UNIVERSITY CHENNAI

ANNA UNIVERSITY,CHENNAI ,

PROF.SHOVAN.K.SAHA AND ALL STAFF MEMBERS OF SPA,DELHI 

FOR HAVING MADE THIS JOINT STUDIO A SUCCESS

FOR HAVING MADE THIS JOINT STUDIO A SUCCESS