9.4 sustainable management of hazards

Question 1

What are the problems of sustainable hazard management?

Answer 1

• wealth/level of development
• number/type of hazards
• frequency of hazards
• population growth

Question 2

What were the difficulties of sustainable hazard management in the Philippines - Mount Pinatubo?

Answer 2

1. Wealth: continuous cycle of poverty due to disasters - no resources left for the next one. Few people can afford insurance to cover losses, lack of technology. Balance spending on disaster resistant infrastructure with basic services - many schools/hospitals unable to withstand hazard as too expensive
2. Population growth: 19 million 1950 to over 100 million: more people in vulnerable locations = more people to evacuate
3. Human activity: inadequate draining systems and deforestation, contributes to flooding and reduces barriers to landslides: even though cutting trees banned after 2011 typhoon still illegal logging
4. number/type of hazards: multiple, can’t mitigate same way for typhoon as can earthquake, but evacuation same: modifying vulnerability most sustainable strategy (evacuation) as can’t mitigate: cant afford buildings
5. frequency of hazards: aid wont continue forever: decrease over time

Question 3

Why is there more success with volcano management than other hazards in the Philippines?

Answer 3

1. prediction/monitoring - easier to predict than flooding: e.g mt Pinatubo: seismometers and tilt meters meant that population was informed about serious threat on the daily through TV which meant by 13th June people were evacuated within 10-20km of the volcano, saved at least 5000 lives
2. Risk perception: through updates on TV able to understand the significant risk which meant people evacuated,e.g 200,000 people evacuated to the Velodrome in Quezon City whereas for tropical storms less coverage = different perception
3. Costs of monitoring/preparation only US$56 million, much cheaper than damage whereas earthquake proof buildings much more expensive/harder to prepare for floods

Question 4

Sustainability of Montserrat eruption management 1997

Answer 4

1. Social:
2. conversion of St John’s hospital to main island hospital: long term improvement of facilities
3. $17 million dollars for housing: help to replace damaged houses
4. Use of exclusion zone helping to reduce deaths and resettlement to the north helped to save lives
5. Economic:
   - 75 million funding: development of Little Bay Port to replace Plymouth facilities: increased employment in long term as well as trade benefits
   Tourist industry gradually recovering: attraction of the volcano

Question 5

Unsustainability of management of Montserrat eruption 1997

Answer 5

Social:
- 2/3 population left after eruption (7,000 people) and 4,000 to UK - loss of community
- dependence on aid: large funding from UK gov
- tourism: people still visiting volcano but it is still active - hazard
- inequality between those who could evacuate/those who couldn’t: lack of space for people
- overcrowding in temporary shelters such as Salem

Economic:
- significant loss of workforce = difficult for recovery
- 70% rise in rent for accommodation: issues of inequality
- reliance on British aid: 400 million since 1995
- fishing industry limited by exclusion zones

Since the eruption, despite a boom in 2002 the population has now declined and aid is now decreasing leaving the island with a bad economic outlook

Question 6

what is the hazard management used in montserrat?

Answer 6

• extensive seismograph network established around volcano to measure earthquake strength/depth
• earthquake deformation meters/tiltmeters put in place show signs of ground swelling
• satellite location GPS used to check ground movements
• pH rainwater monitored - indicate magmatic gas content
• geologists regularly flew into dangerous area to check growth of dome

Question 7

HIC - Japan successful management of earthquakes/tsunami

Answer 7

1. Monitoring and prediction:
   - Japan Meteorological Agency able to predict: e.g tsunami warnings 3 mins after earthquake
   - issue: not everyone followed it 58%
2. Evacuation drills/plans**:
   - annual drills on 1st September = good preparation
3. Engineering/infrastructure:
   - shock absorbers/flexible foundations and sea walls
   EV: not always enough, e.g Tohoku earthquake - sea wall not enough for 10m tsunami
   - also means if buildings destroyed = much more costly to repair

Question 8

solutions for managing hazards in mount pinatubo

Answer 8

1. Early warning systems and monitoring:
   - PHIVOLCS with US Geological survey set up monitoring network before 1991 - tracked emissions etc saved around 75,000 lives
2. Evacuation planning:
   - Clark Air base 15km east of volcano completely evacuated due to ashfall damage
3. Lahar control structures:
   - over 23 dikes, retention basins and sabo dams
   - Japans JICA supported lahar mitigation with over $100 million in funding/expertise
4. Reforestation and Land Use planning:
   - no-build zones