Papale Volcanic Hazards, Risks and Disasters

1. Auflage 2014
ISBN: 978-0-12-396476-2
Verlag: Elsevier Science & Techn.
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 532 Seiten

Volcanic Hazards, Risks, and Disasters provides you with the latest scientific developments in volcano and volcanic research, including causality, impacts, preparedness, risk analysis, planning, response, recovery, and the economics of loss and remediation. It takes a geoscientific approach to the topic while integrating the social and economic issues related to volcanoes and volcanic hazards and disasters. Throughout the book case studies are presented of historically relevant volcanic and seismic hazards and disasters as well as recent catastrophes, such as Chile's Puyehue volcano eruption in June 2011. - Puts the expertise of top volcanologists, seismologists, geologists, and geophysicists selected by a world-renowned editorial board at your fingertips - Presents you with the latest research-including case studies of prominent volcanoes and volcanic hazards and disasters-on causality, economic impacts, fatality rates, and earthquake preparedness and mitigation - Numerous tables, maps, diagrams, illustrations, photographs, and video captures of hazardous processes support you in grasping key concepts

Autoren/Hrsg.

Papale, Paolo

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Front
Cover;1
2;Volcanic Hazards, Risks,
and Disasters;4
3;Copyright;5
4;Contents;6
5;Co-editors;12
6;Contributors;14
7;Editorial
Foreword;18
8;Introduction;22
9;Chapter 1 - Global Distribution of Active Volcanoes;28
9.1;1.1 INTRODUCTION;28
9.2;1.2 PATTERNS IN GLOBAL VOLCANISM AND THEIR ASSOCIATED HAZARDS;30
9.3;1.3 POPULATIONS PROXIMAL TO VOLCANISM;32
9.4;1.4 PATTERNS IN VOLCANO-RELATED FATALITIES;37
9.5;ACKNOWLEDGMENTS;41
9.6;REFERENCES;41
10;Chapter 2 - Basaltic Lava Flow Hazard;44
10.1;2.1 INTRODUCTION;44
10.2;2.2 WHAT MAKES A LAVA FLOW HAZARDOUS?;46
10.3;2.3 IMPACTS;52
10.4;2.4 MITIGATION;62
10.5;2.5 CONCLUSIONS;69
10.6;REFERENCES;70
11;Chapter 3 - Impacts from Volcanic Ash Fall;74
11.1;DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS CHAPTER (MODIFIED FROM UN, 2009):;74
11.2;3.1 INTRODUCTION;75
11.3;3.2 ASH FALL CHARACTERISTICS AND HOW THEY INFLUENCE IMPACTS;78
11.4;3.3 VOLCANIC ASH IMPACT: SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL DIMENSIONS;98
11.5;3.4 QUANTIFYING VULNERABILITY TO ASH FALL;104
11.6;3.5 MITIGATING ASH FALL IMPACTS;108
11.7;3.6 MOVING FORWARD;110
11.8;ACKNOWLEDGMENTS;111
11.9;REFERENCES;111
12;Chapter 4 - Volcanic Ash Hazards and Aviation Risk;114
12.1;4.1 INTRODUCTION;114
12.2;4.2 A VOLCANOLOGICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL HAZARD;115
12.3;4.3 DEVELOPMENT OF A GLOBAL FRAMEWORK TO AVOID ASH CLOUDS;119
12.4;4.4 EYJAFJALLAJÖKULL SHIFTS PERCEPTION OF RISKS AND GALVANIZES EFFORTS TO QUANTIFY HAZARDS;129
12.5;4.5 CONCLUSIONS;131
12.6;REFERENCES;132
13;Chapter 5 - Pyroclastic Density Current Hazards and Risk;136
13.1;5.1 INTRODUCTION;136
13.2;5.2 PDC GENERATION AND DYNAMICS;138
13.3;5.3 HAZARDOUS BEHAVIORS OF PDCS;141
13.4;5.4 HAZARD SCENARIOS AND PROBABILISTIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT;145
13.5;5.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS;158
13.6;ACKNOWLEDGMENTS;160
13.7;REFERENCES;160
14;Chapter 6 - Lahars at Cotopaxi and Tungurahua Volcanoes, Ecuador: Highlights from Stratigraphy and Observational Records an ...;168
14.1;6.1 INTRODUCTION;169
14.2;6.2 TERMINOLOGY AND FUNDAMENTALS OF LAHAR GENERATION;170
14.3;6.3 PRIMARY LAHARS AND THEIR GENERATION AT COTOPAXI;173
14.4;6.4 THE FEBRUARY 12, 2005 RAIN-GENERATED LAHAR IN THE RÍO VAZCÚN CANYON, BAÑOS;189
14.5;ACKNOWLEDGMENTS;193
14.6;REFERENCES;194
15;Chapter 7 - In situ Volcano Monitoring: Present and Future;196
15.1;7.1 INTRODUCTION;196
15.2;7.2 GROUND DEFORMATION;197
15.3;7.3 GRAVITY OBSERVATIONS;202
15.4;7.4 IN SITU MONITORING OF VOLCANIC GASES;205
15.5;7.5 SEISMOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS;212
15.6;7.6 INFRASONIC;218
15.7;7.7 CONCLUSIONS;219
15.8;ACKNOWLEDGMENTS;220
15.9;REFERENCES;220
16;Chapter 8 - Using Multiple Data Sets to Populate Probabilistic Volcanic Event Trees;230
16.1;8.1 INTRODUCTION;230
16.2;8.2 PROBABILISTIC VERSUS DETERMINISTIC FORECASTS;231
16.3;8.3 CONCEPT OF THE VOLCANIC EVENT TREE;233
16.4;8.4 HOW CAN PROBABILITIES BE ESTIMATED AT EACH NODE AND BRANCH OF A VOLCANIC EVENT TREE?;233
16.5;8.5 A HANDY EXCEL-BASED TOOL FOR BUILDING YOUR OWN TREE;236
16.6;8.6 IMPORTANCE OF DOCUMENTING THE BASIS FOR ALL PROBABILITY ESTIMATES;238
16.7;8.7 REMOTE PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF PROBABILITY TREES;239
16.8;8.8 APPLICATIONS OF THE MULTIPLE DATA SETS METHOD, BY VDAP AND OTHERS;239
16.9;8.9 APPLICATIONS OF PROBABILISTIC VOLCANIC EVENT TREES;253
16.10;8.10 PUBLIC PRESENTATION OF PROBABILISTIC EVENT TREES?;254
16.11;8.11 FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS;254
16.12;REFERENCES;256
17;Chapter 9 - Operational Short-term Volcanic Hazard Analysis: Methods and Perspectives;260
17.1;9.1 INTRODUCTION;260
17.2;9.2 THE BRADYSEISMIC CRISES AT CAMPI FLEGREI IN 1982–1984;263
17.3;9.3 SHORT-TERM BET_VH SETTING FOR CAMPI FLEGREI;265
17.4;9.4 OPERATIONAL SHORT-TERM PVHA: THE ROLE OF REAL-TIME MONITORING DATA IN BET_VH;271
17.5;9.5 OPERATIONAL SHORT-TERM PVHA: RESULTS;271
17.6;9.6 FINAL REMARKS;284
17.7;REFERENCES;284
18;Chapter 10 - Human and Structural Vulnerability to Volcanic Processes;288
18.1;10.1 INTRODUCTION;288
18.2;10.2 HUMAN VULNERABILITY AND BUILDINGS;289
18.3;10.3 BUILDING VULNERABILITY IN MAIN VOLCANIC PROCESSES;298
18.4;REFERENCES;312
19;Chapter 11 - Cost–Benefit Analysis in Volcanic Risk;316
19.1;11.1 ASSESSING CRISIS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES;316
19.2;11.2 THE ROOTS OF VALUE-BASED DECISION-MAKING;318
19.3;11.3 THE APPLICATION OF CBA;320
19.4;11.4 INTERFACE BETWEEN VOLCANOLOGISTS AND DECISION-MAKERS;323
19.5;11.5 CONCLUSION;326
19.6;REFERENCES;327
20;Chapter 12 - Volcanic Risks and Insurance;328
20.1;12.1 INTRODUCTION;328
20.2;12.2 INSURED LOSSES FROM VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS;329
20.3;12.3 VOLCANIC ERUPTION—AN INSURABLE RISK?;329
20.4;12.4 PRACTICE AND PRINCIPLES;330
20.5;12.5 MANAGING THE INSURANCE RISK;331
20.6;12.6 RATING VOLCANIC ERUPTION RISK;333
20.7;12.7 VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS—AN UNDERESTIMATED RISK?;335
20.8;12.8 LOCAL EVENTS—CITIES AT RISK;336
20.9;12.9 GLOBAL EVENTS;338
20.10;12.10 CONCLUSION;339
20.11;REFERENCES;340
21;Chapter 13 - Extreme Volcanic Risks 1: Mexico City;342
21.1;13.1 MEXICO CITY AND THE METROPOLITAN ZONE OF THE VALLEY OF MEXICO;342
21.2;13.2 VOLCANIC HAZARD ASSESSMENTS FOR MC;345
21.3;13.3 POSSIBLE SOURCES FOR ASHFALL IN MC;348
21.4;13.4 A MULTISOURCE, PROBABILISTIC APPROACH FOR HAZARDS ASSESSMENT;355
21.5;13.5 LIVING WITH THE EVERLASTING POSSIBILITY OF THE FORMATION OF A NEW VOLCANO IN THE VICINITY OF MC: DEALING WITH FALSE ALARMS;365
21.6;13.6 FUTURE PERSPECTIVES;374
21.7;13.7 SUMMARY;375
21.8;ACKNOWLEDGMENTS;376
21.9;REFERENCES;376
22;Chapter 14 - Extreme Volcanic Risks 2: Mount Fuji;382
22.1;14.1 INTRODUCTION;382
22.2;14.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF FUJI VOLCANO;384
22.3;14.3 ERUPTIVE HISTORY OF FUJI VOLCANO;385
22.4;14.4 GEOPHYSICAL MONITORING;391
22.5;14.5 SECTOR COLLAPSE OF FUJI VOLCANO;391
22.6;14.6 ASHFALL DAMAGE ON ELECTRICITY IN THE TOKYO METROPOLITAN AREA;394
22.7;14.7 CONCLUSION;400
22.8;REFERENCES;401
23;Chapter 15 - Volcanic Gas and Aerosol Hazards from a Future Laki-Type Eruption in Iceland;404
23.1;15.1 INTRODUCTION;404
23.2;15.2 THE AD 1783–1784 LAKI ERUPTION;405
23.3;15.3 FREQUENCY OF ICELANDIC ERUPTIONS AND LIKELIHOOD OF A LAKI-TYPE ERUPTION;409
23.4;15.4 VOLCANIC GAS AND AEROSOL HAZARDS FROM A FUTURE LAKI-TYPE ERUPTION;409
23.5;15.5 DISCUSSION;417
23.6;15.6 SUMMARY;419
23.7;ACKNOWLEDGMENTS;420
23.8;REFERENCES;420
24;Chapter 16 - Explosive Super-Eruptions and Potential Global Impacts;426
24.1;16.1 INTRODUCTION;426
24.2;16.2 SUPERSIZED ERUPTIONS;427
24.3;16.3 THE NEXT SUPER-ERUPTION?;428
24.4;16.4 PRODUCTS OF SUPER-ERUPTIONS;429
24.5;16.5 EFFECTS OF SUPER-ERUPTIONS;434
24.6;16.6 SOCIETAL IMPACTS OF SUPER-ERUPTIONS;440
24.7;16.7 SUMMARY AND FUTURE CONCERNS;440
24.8;ACKNOWLEDGMENTS;441
24.9;REFERENCES;441
25;Chapter 17 - Integration of European Volcano Infrastructures;446
25.1;17.1 RATIONALE;446
25.2;17.2 STATE OF THE ART OF THE EUROPEAN VOLCANOLOGICAL RIS;448
25.3;17.3 GAP ANALYSIS AND SOCIAL OR SCIENTIFIC NEEDS;456
25.4;17.4 PRINCIPLES OF THE VOLCANO OBSERVATION RI;458
25.5;17.5 CURRENT INITIATIVES IN THE INTEGRATION OF EUROPEAN VOLCANO RIS;463
25.6;17.6 POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION AND FUTURE EVOLUTIONS;464
25.7;17.7 CONCLUDING REMARKS;467
25.8;ACKNOWLEDGMENTS;468
25.9;REFERENCES;468
26;Chapter 18 - Integrated Monitoring of Japanese Volcanoes;472
26.1;18.1 INTRODUCTION;472
26.2;18.2 TARGET VOLCANOES FOR MONITORING;473
26.3;18.3 MONITORING VOLCANOES;475
26.4;18.4 OBSERVATIONAL RESEARCH BY THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER RESEARCH INSTITUTES;477
26.5;18.5 INTEGRATED MONITORING OF VOLCANOES IN JAPAN;480
26.6;18.6 ROLE OF THE CCPVE IN THE INTEGRATED MONITORING OF VOLCANOES;482
26.7;18.7 PERSPECTIVES;484
26.8;ACKNOWLEDGMENT;485
26.9;REFERENCES;485
27;Chapter 19 - Integrating Efforts in Latin America: Asociación Latinoamericana de Volcanología (ALVO);488
27.1;19.1 VOLCANISM IN LATIN AMERICA;488
27.2;19.2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE LATIN AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF VOLCANOLOGY;505
27.3;19.3 ALVO FIRST STEPS;508
27.4;19.4 A CRITICAL VIEW INTO THE SWOT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF VOLCANOLOGY IN THE LATIN AMERICAN REGION;511
27.5;19.5 FUTURE PERSPECTIVES;519
27.6;19.6 SUMMARY;520
27.7;ACKNOWLEDGMENTS;520
27.8;REFERENCES;521
28;Index;522

Leseproben

Introduction

Paolo Papale1, John C. Eichelberger2, Sue Loughlin3, Setsuya Nakada4,  and Hugo Yepes5,     1Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Rome, Italy,     2University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.,     3British Geological Survey, Murchison House, Edinburgh, UK,     4Volcano Research Center, Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan,     5Instituto Geofìsico, Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Calle Ladròn de Guevara e Isabel La Catòlica, Quito, Ecuador

Apart from impact by large celestial bodies, a large volcanic eruption represents the single event with the highest destructive potential on Earth. This simple consideration should be sufficient to provide a motivation to this book, as well as to the increasing flow of papers published yearly in the international scientific literature on volcanic hazards, risks, and disasters. Although a rare event never witnessed during historical times, a new Yellowstone-size super-eruption somewhere in the world has a probability not very dissimilar to that of a large nuclear accident, and is up to one order of magnitude more probable than the impact with a 200-m large meteorite. The consequences of such a gigantic eruption would extend all over the world: the rapid injection into the stratosphere of the order of 1012?tons of finely fragmented magma and 1010?tons of sulfur dioxide would cause a several years-long dramatic decrease in the Sun's radiation reaching the Earth's surface, forcing the world into a volcanic winter. Besides such global effects, any form of life up to several tens or hundreds of kilometers around the vent would be lost. Much smaller, but still large, explosive eruptions with frequencies of a few every centuries can cause great devastation, affect the global climate, and destroy the social and economic fabric over regional areas. And even relatively small eruptions from volcanoes close to heavily urbanized areas, like Naples, Auckland, or Mexico City, can result in enormous tragedies and economic breakdown sufficient to bring down an entire country.

Volcanic hazards originate from a variety of processes: volcanic ash injected into the atmosphere may cause disruption to air traffic routing; damage airframes, critical components, and engines; and even cause engine shutdown; the fallout from umbrella clouds can mantle vast areas with layers of pumice and ash, causing roof collapses, shutting down road traffic and lifelines, destroying crops, damaging infrastructure, and affecting critical systems and human and animal health; pyroclastic flows and surges with up to more than 100?km/h speed, originating from the collapse of explosive eruption columns or of viscous lava domes, can destroy any form of life in their path; lahars forming from the mobilization of rapidly accumulated ash by rain, or from the quick melting of volcanic glaciers, can be as much devastating as pyroclastic flows; partial or total collapse of the edifice of submarine volcanoes, volcanic islands, or nearshore volcanoes, can cause large tsunamis and comparably large devastation; and so on. Such a variety of hazardous phenomena, the potentially global impact of volcanic eruptions, and the consideration that about 800?million people in all continents live close enough to active volcanoes to be substantially affected by their activity, put volcanic risks among the most relevant natural risks on Earth.

During recent decades volcanology has rapidly evolved from a specialist branch of the natural sciences based on observations and descriptions, to become a quantitative multidisciplinary field of study in its own right. The original observational character is complemented in modern volcanology by precise measurements, both remote and in situ, involving sophisticated networks of very precise instruments and extensive use of air- and space-borne technologies; by ambitious laboratory experiments aimed at reproducing physical and chemical processes under a range of conditions, including subcrustal pressure and temperature conditions from magma genesis to storage regions to volcanic conduits, as well as subaerial conditions dominated in explosive eruptions by particulate flows traveling up to supersonic velocities; by the development of increasingly sophisticated physical and mathematical models solved with the aid of supercomputing facilities; by the development of appropriate methods based on probabilities and statistics in order to deal with the large uncertainties dominating volcanic hazard forecasts; and last but not least, by an increasing use of social science methodologies in order to address volcanic risk assessment and volcanic risk reduction.

Anticipating volcanic eruptions is in several respects a less prohibitive task than anticipating the occurrence of earthquakes. Unlike earthquakes, the location of many volcanoes and volcanic fields is known and therefore they can be monitored more efficiently; moreover, the transfer of magma toward the Earth's surface is a process that translates into geophysical and geochemical signals allowing anticipation of a volcanic eruption if sufficient monitoring is in place. Nevertheless, there is complexity that makes the anticipation of eruptions challenging. For example, frequently erupting, open-system volcanoes may in some cases enter new eruption styles with few precursory signals detected; closed system volcanoes may display unrest phenomena for years then have large accelerations over a short time period leading to eruption, leaving little time for civil protection measures. The most intriguing volcanic systems are represented by calderas, that is, depressions left as a consequence of structural collapses following the evacuation of huge masses of magma in a short time during large-magnitude eruptions. Calderas may persist in unrest conditions for decades, periodically showing variations with amplitudes such that they would almost certainly lead to an eruption if observed at more typical stratovolcanoes. On the contrary, some observations suggest that calderas can originate a new eruption following a phase characterized by signals much less relevant than those observed in other periods not followed by any eruption.

What is more difficult to deal with, is the fact that irrespective of the nature of the volcano, still no clear general relationships exist between the intensity and duration of observed preeruptive variations, and the intensity and magnitude of the subsequent volcanic eruption. This uncertainty makes effective and timely communication between scientists and civil protection essential, and has significant implications for civil-protection operations requiring short-term preparedness by all. Much of our capability to forecast the eruption size is based on statistical analysis of previous eruptions, with only limited or exceedingly uncertain links with preeruptive observations. This uncertainty around short-term forecasting is one of the current major limits of volcanology, and one of the major reasons for concern in terms of civil protection operations and planning.

Besides the challenges presented above, getting prepared for volcanic eruptions, or anticipating and mitigating volcanic risks, is a complex issue that involves many more experts than just volcanologists, and many more disciplines than just the science of volcanoes. Risk reduction decisions may have substantial consequences on society, like closing schools, shutting down productive activities, evacuating urbanized areas, or also allowing people to get back home after a crisis, so this all requires careful consideration of costs and benefits; especially when considering that forecasts of volcanic activities are dominated by uncertainties, implying additional risks related to perceived “false alarms.” As for other aspects of human life, no way exists to escape from uncertainties. We can only reduce uncertainties; they cannot be eliminated—even in principle—when dealing with highly complex systems dominated by nonlinear processes as for volcano dynamics. Governmental representatives, public officials and more generally decision-makers, as well as the societies themselves, should know that living in the proximity of active volcanoes implies acceptance of a risk that, once again, can be reduced but not eliminated. Driving a car in the traffic or on a freeway equally implies acceptance of a risk; whereas, the single person may have the illusion that such a risk is under control as he or she holds the wheel, public officials do not—they know that every time a person gets in a car and turns the engine on, a percentage likelihood exists of having an accident, and a nonzero percentage likelihood of dying in that accident.

Volcanic risks, as well as the risks associated to other natural phenomena, cannot be eliminated. Risks increase as societal vulnerabilities grow. On the lower extreme, poverty, illiteracy, marginalization, and lack of infrastructure are some of the structural factors that lie behind risks; but even developed countries often fail to pursue effective risk reduction policies. Although the risks exist, disasters are not natural. Rather, they are the evidence, brought up by natural phenomena, of the existence of previous vulnerability conditions. Governments and societies should not pursue the illusion of eliminating the volcanic risks (as well as other natural risks) by simply investing in more science; instead, they should invest in science as well as in complementary sectors—like urban planning, redesign, and relocation of critical...