Volcanic hazards and impacts
Volcanic Hazards and Impacts (Cambridge 9696)
1. Why study volcanic hazards?
Volcanoes are a major natural hazard that can cause loss of life, damage to infrastructure, and long‑term environmental change. Understanding the processes, types of hazards and their impacts enables geographers to assess risk, plan mitigation and evaluate management strategies.
2. Global distribution of volcanoes & plate‑boundary processes
Volcanoes occur principally in three tectonic settings, each linked to a specific plate‑boundary type used in the syllabus:
- Convergent boundaries (subduction zones) – e.g., the Pacific “Ring of Fire”, the Andes, the Japanese archipelago. About 75 % of the world’s active volcanoes lie in this belt.
- Divergent boundaries (mid‑ocean ridges and continental rifts) – e.g., the Mid‑Atlantic Ridge, the East African Rift.
- Intraplate/Hot‑spot volcanism – e.g., the Hawaiian Islands, the Canary Islands.
3. Types of volcanoes – comparison table
| Volcano type | Typical plate setting | Dominant magma composition | Characteristic eruption style | Typical primary hazards |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shield volcano | Intraplate hot‑spot or divergent ridge | Basaltic (low silica, low viscosity) | Effusive lava flows, low‑level ash | Lava flows, minor ash fall |
| Stratovolcano (composite) | Convergent subduction zone | Andesitic to rhyolitic (intermediate to high silica, high viscosity) | Explosive Plinian or Vulcanian eruptions | Pyroclastic density currents, extensive ash fall, lahars |
| Cinder cone | Often on the flanks of larger volcanoes; can occur in any setting | Basaltic to andesitic (moderate viscosity) | Short‑lived Strombolian eruptions | Tephra fall, small lava flows |
| Lava dome | Convergent subduction zone (often within stratovolcanoes) | Rhyolitic (very high silica, very viscous) | Explosive dome growth, often accompanied by pyroclastic blasts | Explosive blasts, pyroclastic flows, ash fall |
4. Why do volcanic hazards differ? (Physical drivers)
Eruption style – determined mainly by magma viscosity and gas content.
- Low‑viscosity, gas‑rich basaltic magma → effusive lava flows, relatively low‑temperature hazards.
- High‑viscosity, silica‑rich magma → gas pressure builds, leading to explosive eruptions that generate pyroclastic density currents, high ash columns and lahars.
Conduit geometry – narrow conduits increase pressure, favouring explosive activity.
Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) – a logarithmic scale that combines erupted tephra volume, plume height and eruption column characteristics:
$$\text{VEI}= \log_{10}\!\left(\frac{V}{10^{4}\ \text{km}^{3}}\right)+1$$
Each unit increase represents roughly a ten‑fold increase in erupted material. Higher VEI values are associated with wider hazard zones (ash fall, PDCs, climate effects).
5. Volcanic hazards – primary and secondary
| Hazard | Primary / Secondary | Typical impacts | Key vulnerability factors |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lava flows | Primary | Destruction of buildings, roads, agricultural land; long‑term alteration of topography. | Physical: proximity to vent, slope gradient. Human: low‑rise housing, lack of diversion infrastructure. |
| Pyroclastic density currents (PDCs) | Primary | High‑speed, high‑temperature flows that can obliterate structures and cause immediate fatalities. | Physical: valleys or topographic channels that funnel currents. Human: settlements in low‑lying “run‑out” zones. |
| Volcanic ash fall | Primary | Roof collapse, respiratory problems, disruption of transport, damage to crops and machinery. | Physical: prevailing wind direction, distance from vent. Human: building material strength, availability of masks, dependence on aviation. |
| Lahars (volcanic mudflows) | Secondary | Rapidly moving debris flows that can bury settlements and damage infrastructure downstream. | Physical: steep slopes, river valleys, loose unconsolidated deposits, heavy rainfall. Human: settlements on alluvial fans, inadequate drainage, deforestation. |
| Volcanic gases (SO₂, CO₂, H₂S) | Primary & Secondary | Acid rain, vegetation damage, health hazards, contribution to climate change. | Physical: gas‑rich magma, vent morphology. Human: lack of ventilation in homes, occupational exposure, proximity to vents. |
| Volcanic tsunamis | Secondary | Coastal inundation and loss of life caused by flank collapse, submarine eruptions or large landslides. | Physical: steep submarine slopes, proximity of vent to coast. Human: coastal settlements, tourism infrastructure, early‑warning capacity. |
6. Physical and human vulnerability factors
- Physical vulnerability
- Steep volcanic slopes and river valleys – channel lahars and debris flows.
- Proximity to vents, PDC pathways and ash‑fall zones.
- Soil type – loose, unconsolidated material increases lahar risk.
- Topography – valleys can concentrate PDCs and lahars; coastal settings enable volcanic tsunamis.
- Human vulnerability
- Population density and settlement patterns (e.g., towns built on alluvial fans or low‑lying coastal zones).
- Socio‑economic status – poorer communities have less resilient housing, limited access to protective equipment and lower capacity to relocate.
- Land‑use practices – agriculture on volcanic slopes, deforestation that removes natural lahar barriers.
- Building standards and infrastructure quality – roof design, road networks, drainage systems.
- Governance and values – effectiveness of local emergency services, public awareness programmes, and political willingness to enforce zoning.
7. Measuring eruption size – Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI)
The VEI quantifies eruption magnitude on a scale from 0 (non‑explosive) to 8 (mega‑colossal). It is based on:
- Erupted tephra volume
- Maximum plume height
- Qualitative description of eruption column and style
Higher VEI values correlate with wider impact zones (ash, PDCs) and stronger climate effects.
| VEI | Typical eruption volume | Plume height | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | < 10⁴ m³ | < 100 m | Typical Hawaiian lava‑flow eruption |
| 1 | 10⁴–10⁶ m³ | 100 m–1 km | Strombolian activity |
| 2 | 10⁶–10⁷ m³ | 1–5 km | Typical cinder‑cone eruption |
| 3 | 10⁷–10⁸ m³ | 3–15 km | Small Plinian eruptions |
| 4 | 10⁸–10⁹ m³ | 10–25 km | Mount St Helens 1980 (VEI 5) |
| 5 | 10⁹–10¹⁰ m³ | 25–35 km | Mount Pinatubo 1991 (VEI 6) |
| 6 | 10¹⁰–10¹¹ m³ | 35–45 km | Tambora 1815 (VEI 7) |
| 7 | 10¹¹–10¹² m³ | 45–55 km | Krakatua 1883 (VEI 6‑7) |
| 8 | > 10¹² m³ | > 55 km | Super‑volcano eruptions (e.g., Toba ≈ 74 ka) |
8. Impacts of volcanic eruptions
- Human health – respiratory diseases from ash inhalation; toxic gas exposure (SO₂, CO₂, H₂S).
- Economic loss – damage to housing, infrastructure, tourism, agriculture and aviation.
- Environmental change – short‑term acidification, vegetation loss; long‑term soil fertility improvement from volcanic ash.
- Climate effects – large eruptions inject sulphur aerosols into the stratosphere, reflecting solar radiation and causing temporary cooling (e.g., Mt Pinatubo 1991 lowered global temperatures by ~0.5 °C for 2–3 years).
- Social disruption – evacuations, displacement, loss of cultural heritage sites.
9. Case study – Mount Pinatubo (1991)
Background: Located on the Luzon island arc (convergent subduction zone). The eruption was VEI 6.
- Eruption characteristics
- Explosive Plinian eruption; ash column reached 35 km.
- Extensive PDCs and tephra fall over a 500 km radius.
- Voluminous lahars persisted for >5 years, reshaping river valleys.
- Monitoring & early warning
- Seismic network detected increasing earthquake swarms 2 weeks before eruption.
- Gas‑emission sensors recorded a sharp rise in SO₂ flux.
- Satellite imagery showed rapid deformation of the volcanic edifice.
- Data triggered evacuation orders for >200 000 people.
- Post‑eruption mitigation
- Construction of lahar diversion channels and concrete check‑dams in the Sacobia and Pasig river basins.
- Resettlement programmes moved vulnerable communities out of high‑risk valleys.
- Re‑forestation of slopes to stabilise soils.
- Evaluation of management
- Evacuation saved an estimated 70 % of lives that would have been lost without early warning.
- Lahar channels reduced downstream damage by ≈ 70 % but require regular maintenance; occasional breaches still caused localized flooding.
- Resettlement improved safety but created socio‑economic challenges for displaced families.
- Overall, the integrated monitoring‑evacuation‑mitigation approach is regarded as a success, demonstrating the value of coordinated volcanic risk management.
10. Data‑skill sidebar – interpreting volcanic information (AO2)
Task 1 – Hazard map interpretation
- Identify the zones most at risk from PDCs and explain why they are confined to those areas.
- Discuss how topography influences the distribution of lahar‑risk zones.
Task 2 – VEI time‑series graph
- Identify the period with the highest frequency of VEI ≥ 5 eruptions and suggest a geological reason.
- Explain how an increase in VEI values over time could affect global climate.
11. Mitigation and risk management (evaluation – AO3)
- Monitoring – seismic, gas, deformation and satellite data provide early warning; however, false alarms can cause “warning fatigue”.
- Zoning and land‑use planning – restricting settlement in high‑risk zones reduces exposure, but may conflict with existing land‑ownership patterns and economic needs.
- Early warning systems – rapid alerts save lives, yet effectiveness depends on public awareness, evacuation routes and transport infrastructure.
- Public education – drills and information improve preparedness; cost‑effective but requires continuous community engagement and evaluation.
- Engineering solutions – lahar diversion channels, reinforced roofs and ash‑fall barriers can reduce damage; they are expensive, need regular upkeep and may have limited lifespan.
Overall, a combination of scientific monitoring, sensible land‑use policy, community‑based preparedness and targeted engineering works offers the most robust strategy, provided that cost‑benefit analyses and long‑term maintenance are incorporated into planning.
12. Summary
Volcanic hazards arise from a range of primary and secondary processes that are controlled by magma properties, eruption style, conduit geometry and local topography. The severity of impacts depends on both physical (e.g., slope, river valleys) and human (e.g., population density, socio‑economic status, governance) vulnerability factors. Accurate monitoring, effective land‑use planning and community‑based preparedness are essential for reducing risk, as illustrated by the Mount Pinatubo case study. Mastery of data interpretation (hazard maps, VEI trends) and critical evaluation of mitigation options are key skills for the Cambridge 9696 syllabus.
Create an account or Login to take a Quiz
Log in to suggest improvements to this note.