Chapter 28. Trapped on the Seashore, Seaborne Evacuation, and the Impact of Exposure to PM2.5: Demonstration of the UrbanEXODUS Evacuation Model


L. Filippidis, P. J. Lawrence, D. Blackshields and J. Ewer
Fire Safety Engineering Group, University of Greenwich, London, UK

Part of the book: The Challenges of Disaster Planning, Management, and Resilience


The 2021 wildfire season affected large communities in over ten countries around the Mediterranean basin consuming an area almost double the area burnt by wildfires over the past twelve years. In many cases, people were exposed to hazardous combustion products that caused mass multimodal evacuations, including pedestrian, vehicle, and seaborne evacuations as well as a large number of fatalities. Evacuation modelling can be used to better understand the processes involved, including the interactions between those processes. Such a model is urbanEXODUS, utilised during the final exercise (FSX3) for the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 project IN-PREP. The tool was used as part of a training platform for incident managers in collaborative response to large scale disasters. The scenario deployed during the FSX3, and presented in this work, involved a traffic accident and cascading effects that start a wildfire at a forested area, initiating a multi[1]modal evacuation of the local community. The model, able to simulate multi-modal evacuations, includes pedestrian and vehicle evacuation, and through the development of a flow model, a simplistic representation of boat evacuation. The model is also able to determine the effect of wildfire products using two different datasets that include (a) wildfire perimeter data and (b) smoke plume data that include PM2.5 concentration levels. The former limits the escape routes, causing engulfment and fatalities. The latter, through the development of a novel fractional dose model, determines the acute exposure of agents to PM2.5 in relation to the World Health Organisation (WHO) daily mean Air Quality Guidelines (AQG). The model demonstrates key evacuation performance results, including evacuation times, escape route usage and number and locations of fatalities. The results indicate that 6% of the entire population were unable to leave the area and are considered as fatalities. With regard to the evacuees, 69% utilised the road network to leave the area, while 31% utilised the seaborne evacuation. Exposure to PM2.5 was zero for 84% of the evacuees, while for 1% it was less than the AQG. However, 15% of the agents received a dosage of PM2.5 on average of 7.6 times the AQG (range 1.0 – 28.3, SD = 5.8). This level of exposure is expected to cause health problems including respiratory, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disorders. The model offers detailed evacuation information that is practically impossible to obtain otherwise, allowing crisis managers to make risk-informed decisions when planning for a crisis.

Keywords: multimodal evacuation simulation, seaborne evacuation, wildfire, fractional dose model, casualty estimation, PM2.5, computer simulation


[1] The Guardian. (2021). “Summer of fire: blazes burn across Mediterranean with more extreme weather
forecast.” The Guardian. Accessed 26 September 2021.
[2] ERCC Emergency Response Coordination Centre. (2021). ECHO Daily Map of 27 August 2021.
Accessed 12 January 2022.
[3] Harokopio University of Athens. (2021). Web App on the Greece 2021 Wildfires. Accessed 12 January
[4] CNN. (2018). “Cars turn to molten metal as Greek wildfires wipe villages off the map.” CNN. Accessed
12 January 2022.
[5] CBS News. (2018). “Greece fire death toll mounts, along with desperation and anger.” CBS News.
Accessed 03 September 2020 greek-government-response-preparedness.
[6] Lekkas E., et al. (2018). The July 2018 Attica (Central Greece) Wildfires. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15202.96966.
[7] Kathimerini. (2006). “H Κασσάνδρα πληγή όλης της Ελλάδας [Kassandra is the scourge of all
Greece].” Accessed 12 January 2022. olis-tis-elladas/.
[8] IN. (2006). “Πύρινη κόλαση στην Κασσάνδρα Χαλκιδικής με ένα νεκρό [Fiery hell in Kassandra
Halkidiki with one dead].” Accessed 12 January 2022. kolasi-stin-kassandra-xalkidikis-me-ena-nekro/.
[9] Wildfire Today. (2021). “Wildfires in Greece force thousands to evacuate, some by ferry.” Wildfire
Today. Accessed 12 January 2022. thousands-to-evacuate-some-by-ferry.
[10] Xanthopoulos, G., & Athanasiou, M. (2019). “Attica Region, Greece July 2018: A tale of two fires and
a seaside tragedy.” Accessed 12 January 2022.
[11] Christakis, G. (2021). “2018 Attica wildfires: the intersection of governance failures and climate
change.” HPHR. Edition 31. Accessed 12 January 2022.
[12] Wakefield, J. C. (2010). “Combustion products: a toxicological review.” Public Health England. ISBN
978-0-85951-663-1. Accessed 12 January 2022.
[13] Veeraswamy, A., Galea, E. R., Filippidis, L., Lawrence, P. J., Haasanen, S., & Gazzard, R. J. (2018).
“The simulation of urban-scale evacuation scenarios with application to the Swinley Forest fire.” Safety
Science, 102, 178-193. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.07.015.
[14] Filippidis, L., Lawrence, P. J., Pellacini, V., Veeraswamy, A., Blackshields, D., & Galea, E. R. (2020).
“Multimodal Wildfire Evacuation at The Microscopic Level.” Conference: SafeGreece 2020. 193-196.
Athens. Greece. ISSN 2654-1823.
[15] Marsella, S., Pozzi, D., Marzoli, M., Ferrucci, F., Filippidis, L., Lawrence, P. J., Veeraswamy, A., &
Garibaldi, C. (2019). “Evacuation Planning as a Key Factor in Disaster Management: the contribution
of the H2020 IN-PREP Action.” Conference: Complexity, Informatics and Cybernetics. IMCIC 2019.
[16] Filippidis, L., Lawrence, P. J., & Argiris, I. (2020). “Large Scale Evacuation Modelling: Planning and
TTX – Application on the Medieval City of Rhodes.” Conference: 3rd Scientific Forum for Disaster
Risk Reduction in Greece. Athens. Greece. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21847.70566/1.
[17] Lawrence, P. J., Veeraswamy, A., Martin-Gallego, D., Blackshields, D., Filippidis, L., Pellacini, V., &
Galea, E. R. (2019). “Coupled Pedestrian, Wildfire and Vehicle Modelling for WUI Crisis
Management.” Conference: GEO-SAFE Wildfire Conference – Addressing the Challenges of Bushfire
Management. Melbourne. Australia.
[18] Lawrence, P. J., Filippidis, L., Veeraswamy, A., & Galea, E. R. (2016). “Utilising OpenStreetMap for
Urban Evacuation Analysis.” Conference: The 24th GIS Research UK. GISRUK.
[19] EU Horizon (2020). Innovative Action project. “An INtegrated next generation PREParedness
programme for improving effective inter-organisational response capacity in complex environments of
disasters and causes of crises (IN-PREP).” Grant agreement ID: 740627. Accessed 13 January 2022
[20] EU Horizon (2020). Innovative Action IN-PREP. Accessed 13 January 2022.
[21] Lopez, P. A., Behrisch, M., Bieker-Walz, L., Erdmann, J., Flötteröd, Y., Hilbrich, R., Lücken, L.,
Rummel J., Wagner, P., & Wießner, E. (2018). “Microscopic Traffic Simulation using SUMO.”
Conference: 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC).
2575-2582. DOI: 10.1109/ITSC.2018.8569938.
[22] Horni, A., Nagel, K., & Axhausen, K. W. (2016). Multi-Agent Transport Simulation MATSim. London:
Ubiquity Press. DOI: 10.5334/baw.
[23] Tolhurst, K., Shields, B., & Chong, D. (2008). “Phoenix: development and application of a bushfire risk
management tool.” The Australian Journal of Emergency Management., 23, 47–54.
[24] Tymstra, C., Bryce, R. W., Wotton, B. M., Taylor, S. W., & Armitage, O. B. (2010). “Development and
structure of Prometheus: The Canadian Wildland Fire Growth Simulation Model.” Natural Resources
Canada. Canadian Forest Service. Northern Forestry Centre. Information Report NOR-X-417.
[25] Monedero, S., Ramirez, J., & Cardil, A. (2019). “Predicting fire spread and behaviour on the fireline,
Wildfire analyst pocket: A mobile app for wildland fire prediction.” Ecological Modelling., 392, 103-107.
ISSN 0304-3800. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.11.016.
[26] Finney, M. A. (2004). “FARSITE: Fire Area Simulator, model development and evaluation.” U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Research Paper RMRS-RP-4 Revised.
[27] Miller, C., Hilton, J., Sullivan, Α., & Prakash, Μ. (2015). “SPARK – A Bushfire Spread Prediction
Tool.” Environmental Software Systems. ISESS, 2015. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-15994-2_26.
[28] Lawrence, P. J., Pellacini, V., & Galea, E. R. (2020). “The Modelling of Pedestrian Vehicle Interaction
for Post-Exiting Behaviour.” Collective Dynamics., 5, 271-279. ISSN 2366-8539.
DOI: 10.17815/CD.2020.60.
[29] Stein, A. F., Draxler, R. R., Rolph, G. D., Stunder, B. J. B., Cohen, M. D., & Ngan, F. (2015). “NOAA’s
HYSPLIT Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion Modeling System.”, Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society., 96, 12, 2059-2077. DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00110.1.
[30] Intelligence for Environment & Security – IES Consulting SRL (IESC). Italy. Accessed 13 January 2022
[31] Miller, C., Hilton, J., Sullivan, A., & Prakash, M. (2015). “SPARK – A Bushfire Spread Prediction
Tool.” In Environmental Software Systems. Infrastructures, Services and Applications, edited by
Denzer R., Argent R.M., Schimak G., Hřebíček J. ISESS 2015. IFIP Advances in Information and
Communication Technology., 448, 262-271. Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-15994-2_26.
[32] Mueller, D., Schulze, J., Ackermann, H., et al. (2012). “Particulate matter (PM) 2.5 levels in ETS
emissions of a Marlboro Red cigarette in comparison to the 3R4F reference cigarette under open- and
closed-door condition.” Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology., DOI: 10.1186/1745-6673-7-14.
[33] Michaels, R. A. (1998). “Permissible Daily Airborne Particle Mass Levels Encompass Brief Excursions
to the “London Fog” Range, Which May Contribute to Daily Mortality and Morbidity in Communities.”
Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene., 13, 6, 385-394. DOI: 10.1080/1047322X.1998.10389562.
[34] Tsuji, H., Fujimoto, H., Matsuura, D., Nishino, T., Lee, K. M., & Yoshimura, H. (2013). “Comparison
of biological responses in rats under various cigarette smoke exposure conditions.” Journal of
Toxicologic Pathology., 26, 2, 159-174. DOI: 10.1293/tox.26.159.
[35] Gaylor, D. W. (2000). “The use of Haber’s Law in standard setting and risk assessment.” Toxicology.
149, 1:17-19. ISSN 0300-483X. DOI: 10.1016/S0300-483X(00)00228-6.
[36] Chemical Hazards and Poisons Report: Issue 24. 2009. Chemical Hazards and Poisons Division, Public
Health England. ISSN 1745 3763.
[37] Maynard, R. L., & Purser, D. A. (2016). “Haber’s Law and its Application to Combustion Products.” In
Toxicology, Survival and Health Hazards of Combustion Products edited by Purser D.A., Maynard R.L.,
Wakefield J. Royal Society of Chemistry. 248-259. DOI: 10.1039/9781849737487-00248.
[38] Urbanski, S. P., Hao, W. M., & Baker, S. (2008). “Chapter 4 Chemical Composition of Wildland Fire
Emissions.” Developments in Environmental Science. Elsevier, 8, 79-107. DOI: 10.1016/S1474-8177(08)00004-1.
[39] Cascio, W. E. (2018). “Wildland fire smoke and human health.” Science of The Total Environment. 624,
586-595. ISSN 0048-9697. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.086.
[40] WHO. (2021). “WHO global air quality guidelines. Particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), ozone,
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide.” Geneva: World Health Organisation, License:
[41] WHO. (2021). “New WHO Global Air Quality Guidelines aim to save millions of lives from air
pollution.” Accessed 14 January 2022. 22-09-2021-new-who-global air-quality-guidelines-aim-to-save-millions-of-lives-from-air-pollution.
[42] Shou, Y., Huang, Y., Zhu, X., Liu, C., Hu, Y., & Wang, H. (2019). “A review of the possible associations
between ambient PM2.5 exposures and the development of Alzheimer’s disease.” Ecotoxicology and
Environmental Safety., 174, 344-352. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.02.086.
[43] Purser, D. A. (2020). “Particulates from Combustion Sources: Formation, Characteristics and Toxic
Hazards.” In A Handbook of Environmental Toxicology – Human Disorders and Ecotoxicology edited
by D’Mello J.P.F. 406-423. CABI, LCCN 2019016396.
[44] Aguilera, R., Corringham, T., Gershunov, A., et al. (2021). “Wildfire smoke impacts respiratory health
more than fine particles from other sources: observational evidence from Southern California.”, Nature
Communications, 12, Article number 1493. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-21708-0.
[45] Sharma, S., Chandra, M., & Kota, S. H. (2020). “Health Effects Associated with PM2.5: a Systematic
Review.” Current Pollution Reports., 6, 345-367. DOI: 10.1007/s40726-020-00155-3.
[46] National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter – Final Rule. (2013). Federal Register.
78:10:3181. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
[47] EPA. Patient Exposure and the Air Quality Index. Accessed 14 January 2022.
[48] EPA. Air Quality Guide for Particle Pollution. Accessed 14 January 2022.
[49] European Environment Agency. European Air Quality Index. Accessed 14 January 2022.


Publish with Nova Science Publishers

We publish over 800 titles annually by leading researchers from around the world. Submit a Book Proposal Now!