Emergency response, intervention, and societal recovery in Greece and Turkey after the 30th October 2020, MW = 7.0, Samos (Aegean Sea) earthquake

Abstract

On 30 October 2020, an M w = 7.0 earthquake struck the Eastern Aegean Sea with considerable impact on Samos Island in Greece and the area of Izmir in Turkey. It was the most lethal seismic event in 2020 worldwide, and the largest and most destructive in the Aegean Sea since the 1955 earthquake that also affected both countries. The Civil Protection authorities in Greece and Turkey were effectively mobilized responding to the earthquake emergency. The main response actions comprised initial announcements of the earthquake and first assessment of the impact, provision of civil protection guidelines through emergency communication services, search and rescue operations,medical care, set up of emergency shelters and provisions of essential supplies, psychological support, as well as education, training activities and financial support to the affected population. From the comparison of the Civil Protection framework and the implemented response actions, it is seen that actions at both sides of the eastern Aegean Sea, followed a single-hazard approach in disaster management with similar response activities coordinated by a main Civil Protection agency, which was in close cooperation with the respective authorities at a national, regional and local level. Based on the presented information, it is concluded that the post-earthquake response and emergency management were satisfactory in both countries, with valuable lessons learnt ahead of the next major earthquake. To this end, many aspects can be further addressed to enhance community resilience and introduce a multi-hazard approach in (natural and man-made) disaster management.

The Impact of Earthquakes on Public Health: A Narrative Review of Infectious Diseases in the Post-Disaster Period Aiming to Disaster Risk Reduction

“…This approach was successfully used in the case of devastating earthquakes that hit Greece during the COVID-19 pandemic, where maintaining physical distance between evacuees was a measure to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the earthquake-affected communities [ 187 , 188 , 189 ]. In particular, after the 2020 Samos Mw = 7.0 earthquake during the second wave of the pandemic in Greece, hotels were used to house homeless and evacuees in order to avoid overcrowding in the open-air earthquake camps that had been set up in football fields on the island [ 190 ]. After the 2021 Thessaly earthquakes during the third pandemic wave in the country, more types of emergency shelters were used, including campervans, container-type structures, hotel rooms, and houses of relatives and close friends [ 188 , 189 ].…”

Multi-Hazard Emergency Response for Geological Hazards Amid the Evolving COVID-19 Pandemic: Good Practices and Lessons Learned from Earthquake Disaster Management in Greece

“…For disaster management, public authorities from all levels of government, Civil Protection agencies and security and armed forces, are mobilized. The main actions taken by agencies during the response to an earthquake disaster can be divided into 11 categories [6,19,22]:…”

Infectious Diseases Associated with Hydrometeorological Hazards in Europe: Disaster Risk Reduction in the Context of the Climate Crisis and the Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic

“…As can be seen from the above, the management of the flood impacts and possible associated infectious disease outbreaks has already been a complex issue and a typical example of multi-hazard management that requires a truly interdisciplinary approach. This issue has become even more complex during the evolving COVID-19 pandemic as many relevant studies and cases around the world show that conflicting issues emerge between response actions and pandemic mitigation measures [ 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 ]. For example, emergency actions, such as SAR operations among others, require close and frequent contact not only with the flood-affected local population and authorities, but also with other professionals, rescue teams and volunteers from different areas with different epidemiological characteristics.…”

“…Furthermore, many people including evacuees; responders; and volunteers share areas, surfaces, items, and equipment not only in the emergency shelters but also in several other sites of the affected area. These actions could pose higher risk for disease transmission within the affected community and have the potential to create SARS-CoV-2 clusters within the affected area, which will affect emergency response and slow down the recovery process [ 146 ].…”

“…As the parallel occurrence of hydrometeorological hazards, infectious diseases, and the evolving COVID-19 pandemic has shown, multihazard conditions have a high potential to amplify related disasters. In order to reduce this potential, a multihazard approach in disaster management and disaster risk reduction is required, with the following actions being the most important, as recommended by literature reviews and expert panels (e.g., [ 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 ]): Improving whole-of-society coordination mechanisms to aid preparedness, including health, transportation, travel, security, and other crisis first responders. Setting up emergency camps or makeshift settlements for displaced people forced to flee their homes.…”