What measures are available to help people cope with living in tectonically active locations?

Include mitigation and adaption strategies, together with assessment of risk and resilience.
ACs are more able to invest in the most advanced protection and often expertise is sent to
LIDCs.
Volcanic Management:
Prediction:
• Remote sensing (long term changes, crater, temperatures)
• Ground deformation (tiltmeters and laser beams)
• Seismicity (earthquakes precede eruption)
• Geophysical Measurements (magnetism)
• Gas (sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide)
• Hydrology (Gases released absorbed in water)
Protection:
• Trenches to divert lava
• Barriers to slow lava flow
• Explosives to divert flow
• Pour water on lava to slow flow
• Hazard Mapping determines areas at risk. Plan emergency supplies, evacuations and
relief centres. Hazards different areas may experience. (Indonesia, Mount Merapi),
however lava doesn’t always follow predicted route.
• Resistant building design- pitched roofs
Recovery:
• Compensation schemes
• Tax breaks
• Incentives to relocate
• Foreign Aid to help developing countries recover economic base by funding
monitoring, evacuation, emergency shelter and infrastructure.

There are various strategies to manage hazards from volcanic
activity:
Case Study – Indonesia, LIDC:
Vulnerability =

Conservation area where its unsafe to live.
Financial assistance for moving.
Volcano observation centre monitors over 60 volcanoes.
Community preparedness scheme.
Loss =
Cleared river channels for lahars and to reduce flood risk.
Debris used for rebuilding infrastructure.
Evacuation into temporary shelters.
Emergency services.
Case Study – Italy, AC:
The Event (Etna, Sicily) =
Mine explosions divert lava.
Diverting and slowing via earth barriers and concrete blocks.
Channelling
Vulnerability =
Volcano Risk Service, monitoring and warnings.
Building design, pitched roof.
Surface ground deformation.
Loss =
Government resources, tax breaks and restoration.

There are a range of impacts people experience as a result of
earthquake activity:
Case Study – Tõhuku, Japan 2011:
Earthquake Impacts
The Earthquake =
Pacific and North American Plates off mainland, high tsunami risk.
9.0 Magnitude and up to 8.0Mw aftershocks.
Undersea megathrust earthquake, seabed rose 7m.
Impacts =

Responses =
Reinforced buildings not strong enough, collapsed.
Evacuations, including exclusion zone around Fukushima.
30 second advance warning on TV and mobiles.
Temporary shelters
Aid – USA and China
Case Study – The Gorkha, Nepal 2015:
Earthquake Impacts
The Earthquake =
Indo-Australian and Eurasian plate collision.
High soil water content.
7.8M and 51 5+ magnitude aftershocks.
46% unemployment rate and 70% rely on agriculture.
Impacts =

Responses =
90% Nepalese army involved in ‘Operation Crisis Relief’ → 3 phased; immediate response,
co-ordinating rescue/relief and follow-up recovery
Asian Development Bank provided $3 million for initial relief and $200 million for phase 1
rebuilding
UK Disasters Emergency Committee aid appeal → Tearfund provided shelter and provisions
Red Cross = initial quality of life restoration in first 3 months. WASH (water, sanitation +
hygiene promotion) pipelines / water tanks. 5 day construction training using local materials
+ seismic technology considering monsoon rainfall + winter insulation.