**2.2 Remote tsunami risk**

It is believed that on the Northwest of the "Rivera plate" (**Figure 2**), along the Gulf of California where the Pacific Plate slides north with respect to the North American plate, generation of tsunamis in this zone is unlikely [15, 22]. This is


**Table 2.**

*Remote tsunamis- historical data taken from [22] except for the last two tsunamis that occurred in 2018.*

consistent with historical data (**Table 2**); it can be seen that data on "small" and "moderate" tsunamis generated by remote sources; for example, the two most recent 2010 Chile and the 2011 tsunamis (**Figure 5**) where the maximum wave heights registered were < 1.0 m. However, it is worth mentioning that the historical data showed that there were two tsunamis that registered the height of waves up to 2.4 and 2.5 m; that is, those generated in Chile (1960) and Alaska (1964), respectively (**Table 2**).

**199**

*The Risk of Tsunamis in Mexico*

such a system.

**Figure 5.**

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94201*

**3. A Mexican tsunami early warning system**

*The 2010 Chile tsunami (left) and the 2011 tsunami in Japan (right) [29].*

related to safety and disaster management systems [30–32].

As mentioned in previous sections, tsunamis (and earthquakes) are unpredictable and can happen any time. Therefore, there is a need for an effective tsunami early warning system (TEWS). A system which should include not only the technical aspect but also the human issue. This section presents a preliminary model for

In particular, it considers the Pacific and the Caribbean coasts of Mexico (Section 2). However, only those aspects associated with the "structural-organisation" of the proposed model will be discussed in some detail (i.e., the five interrelated subsystems associated with systems 1–5 and its channels of communication as shown in **Figure 6**). The proposed model is based on previous research on issues

In the context of this case study, the overall function of systems 2–5 (MTEW-SMU) is to establish the key tsunami safety policies aiming at maintaining tsunami risk within an acceptable range; this implies allocating the necessary resources, for

Further, it is important to highlight that one of the key functions within the MTEW-SMU is that related to System 2, which is associated with what it is called here MTEW-CC (Mexican Tsunami Early Warning-Coordination Centre); its key function is the monitoring, detection of a tsunami through the following coordination centres: TSZ-CC (Tsunami Southern Zone-Coordination Centre), TNZ-CC (Tsunami Northern Zone Coordination Centre), and TCZ-CC (Tsunami Caribbean Zone Coordination Centre), as shown in **Figure 6**. The process of the flow of key information and decision making process is briefly described in **Table 3**; **Table 4**, on the other hand, presents some of the key actors involved in the existing system

In general, communities living in active seismic areas and along coastal regions are vulnerable to tsunamis. These natural hazards are not that common and unpredictable, but powerful and with devastating consequences to those communities in

example, to build response capabilities at national and community levels. System 1, on the other hand, embraces the following three subsystems: TNZO (Tsunami Northern Zone Operations), TSZO (Tsunami Southern Zone Operations), and TCZO (Tsunami Caribbean Zone Operations) with their associated management units (TNZ-SMU, TSZ-SMU & TCZ-SMU). These three operations of system 1 were considered given the fact that the risk of tsunamis comes

from local and remote tsunami sources as mentioned in Section 2.

when compared with the features of the model.

*Natural Hazards - Impacts, Adjustments and Resilience*

**Date Region Magnitude Tsunami (places** 

1952 Kamchatka, USSR 8.3 La Paz, BCS

1960 Chile 8.5 Ensenada, B.C.

1963 Kuril, Islands, USSR 8.1 Acapulco

1964 Alaska 8.4 Ensenada, B.C.

1968 Japan 8.0 Ensenada, B.C.

1975 Hawaii 7.2 Ensenada, B.C.

1976 Kermadec Islands 7.3 San Lucas, B.C.S.

2004 Indonesia 9.0 Manzanillo

2010 Chile 8.8–9.0 Manzanillo

2011 Japan 9.0 Ensenada, B.C.

1995 Chile 7.8 Cabo San Lucas <1.0

1957 Aleutian Islands 8.3 Ensenada, B.C. 1.0

1960 Peru 6.8 Acapulco 0.10

**hit, Mexico)**

Salina Cruz

La Paz, B.C.S. Mazatlán Acapulco Salina Cruz

Salina Cruz Mazatlan La Paz, B.C.S.

Manzanillo Acapulco Salina Cruz

Manzanillo Acapulco

Manzanillo Puerto Vallarta Acapulco

Puerto Vallarta Manzanillo Acapulco

Lazaro Cardenas Zihuatanejo

Cabo San Lucas Acapulco

Huatulco Puerto Angel Acapulco

**Max. height waves (m)**

> 0.5 1.2

2.5 1.5 1.1 1.9 1.6

<1.0

2.4 1.2 1.1 0.8

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

1.22 0.24 0.60

0.32 0.36 0.62

0.70 0.70 0.29 0.72

consistent with historical data (**Table 2**); it can be seen that data on "small" and "moderate" tsunamis generated by remote sources; for example, the two most recent 2010 Chile and the 2011 tsunamis (**Figure 5**) where the maximum wave heights registered were < 1.0 m. However, it is worth mentioning that the historical data showed that there were two tsunamis that registered the height of waves up to 2.4 and 2.5 m; that is, those generated in Chile (1960) and Alaska (1964),

*Remote tsunamis- historical data taken from [22] except for the last two tsunamis that occurred in 2018.*

2018 Indonesia 7.5 — — 2018 Indonesia AK Vulcano tsunami — —

**198**

**Table 2.**

respectively (**Table 2**).

**Figure 5.** *The 2010 Chile tsunami (left) and the 2011 tsunami in Japan (right) [29].*
