sign in sign up
<<
Home , Izalco (volcano), Momotombo, Pacaya, San Salvador (volcano), San Vicente (volcano), Telica (volcano)

Volcanic Threat in : Assessment and Comparison of Volcanic Hazards and Associate Vulnerability in , , and Costa Rica V11C-2072 José Luis Palma, William I. Rose and Rüdiger Escobar Wolf

Figure 1. Map of Population Density and Volcanoes in Central America Summary Figure 2. Volcanic Threat in Central America This presentation shows an assessment of the volcanic threat posed by the 23 18 250.0 The Volcanic Threat score is calculated by multiplying a Hazard most active and best documented volcanoes in Central America (Figures 1 & 2). It Threat score Score with an Exposure Score associated to each . Both Hazard score also includes a preliminary evaluation for all volcanoes in Guatemala (Figure 3). 16 the Hazard and Exposure scores are subdivided in groups of Exposure score scores that are related to specific type of information. The Hazard The results are compared to the threat posed by 10 high and very high threat .

200.0

14 volcanoes of the United States. The methodology used for the quantification of

score is obtained by adding the Past Hazards, Potential Hazards

e and Historical Unrest scores. The Exposure score is obtained by volcanic threat is based on the score system developed by Ewert et al. (2005, r

o 12 . c adding the logarithm of the population within 30 kilometres of the

s 16°N 2007) as part of the Framework for a National Volcano Early Warning System

e 150.0 e summit (Log VPI30km), the Historical Impact and Development r r (NVEWS) in the United States. u 10 o s c scores. s o

Guatemala t p a

x Past Eruptions score: it includes factors related to the VEI of

# e

E 8 r # Honduras

, Volcanic Threat results:

h eruptions within the past 500 and 5000 years, recurrence interval

d 100.0 T ## # r a of eruptions, and the occurrence of hazards in the Holocene: 1) Based on the threat groups defined in NVEWS, in Central America at least 22 # # z 6 ## # a # ### H pyroclastic flows, flows that reached populated areas, lahars volcanoes classify as Very High Threat volcanoes (Figure 2, Table 1). ### # # # # 4 and tsunamis. Santa María # # # 50.0 2) Among volcanoes with similar threat score, the exposure score in Central El Salvador 14°N Potential Hazards score: it includes information about potential # ## # American volcanoes is generally higher than in U.S. volcanoes (Figure 2). # # # Fuego Agua # 2 sector collapses, hydrothermal explosions and source of ####### # permanent water/ice on the edifice. 3) One of the main difficulties in completing the dataset is the lack of information Santa Ana ## # 0 0.0 Historical unrest score: it considers observations of seismicity about past activity and volcanic unrest for Central American volcanoes. Using l l l r t a r a y o Ilopango k a o o a a e e e s e a a o ú a n o n a a s # a e í j a t a i o b e Nicaragua y e r b o g g n g n n k n y u c z e g ó b c n á i indirect sources of information the dataset was completed for all volcanoes in l u e

i associated with volcanic activity, ground deformation and n l n b d i l i i l d u i a a t l l n n n o a e a g a u e o n A g l l e a c e ó m t a ü i m a a i o r

s s a

i e V a a t c o r a u # I A l e P z

M c s p r r l o g a k v d a a V i u i h i I

l n s p a t T

r evidence of degassing. M t # F A

i o Guatemala (Figure 3). a e e e

# H l w g s s R a r a e o t o # # O V u K n i # P

g l Cosigüina # M t c t

n . o u I o m R # a S l a t h T e C n l n a n n l m r

a Historical Impact score: it concerns about historical evacuations A C d o a c S S S # o A a e San Cristóbal o n

n # S C L S A a n a C S Y # M and fatalities. ó S S ### 12°N c Comparison of the vulnerabilities to volcanic hazards between countries has been

Momotombo n # i Development score: it groups indices related to the exposure of

# R local aviation, power and transportation infrastructure, major analyzed in terms of the Human Development Index (HDI) and population density Masaya ## development around the volcano, and whether it constitutes a around volcanoes (Table 2). The vulnerability to volcanic events of El Salvador, Concepción Figure 2. Volcanic threat scores of 23 volcanoes in Central America (Guatemala, El significant part of a populated island. Nicaragua and Guatemala is greater than that of Costa Rica, and much greater # Salvador, Nicaragua y Costa Rica) and, for comparison, 10 U.S. volcanoes categorized # Population ## as high or very high threat volcanoes by Ewert et al. (2005, 2007). The plot also shows than the vulnerability in the United States. Rincón de la Vieja Individual scores are shown in Table 1. 110000 # the Hazard and Exposure scores for the same volcanoes. In this analysis the factors # Arenal ## that quantify the population living downstream and the regional aviation exposure were # # 10°N not considered. Table 2. Vulnerability and the Human Development Index (HDI) 0 Poás Costa Rica Irazú Turrialba The HDI is one of the development indicators contained in the Human Development Report, published an- nually since 1990, commissioned by the United Nations Developing Programme (UNDP) for countries 0 100 200 300 400 500 Figure 3. Volcanic Threat in Guatemala worldwide. It is based on three indicators: Km 1. life expectancy at birth, as a measure of population health and longevity, The dataset for Guatemala was completed using all published 92°W 90°W 88°W 86°W 84°W 20 300.0 2. education index, measured by adult literacy rate and the combined enrolment ratio for primary, second- 8°N Threat score information available as well as personal knowledge and inferences on ary and tertiary schools, and Figure 1. This map shows all volcanoes active in the Holocene (white triangles) and historically (green 18 Hazard score the past and current activity of each volcano. Owing to the sparse or 3. standard of living, measured by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita. Exposure score triangles). The colors in the map represent the logarithm of the population obtained from the LandScan 250.0 non-existent data on the characteristics and age of the deposits, Countries are categorized with High Human Development (70 countries) with an HDI between 0.968-0.8, database (LandScan 2007). On each volcano a circle of 30 km radius enhance the area and population 16 insufficient monitoring, and low number of geophysical studies on Medium Human Development (85 countries) with HDI between 0.798-0.502, and Low Human Develop- .

non-erupting volcanoes, the completion of the hazard score was difficult. ment (22 countries) with HDI between 0.499-0.336 (Human Development Report, HDR, 2007/2008).

most likely to be affected by volcanic events. In total, more than 20 million people live within 30 km from

14 volcanic centers in Central America, which is roughly 50% of the total population. Some information could only be obtained from indirect sources of data

e 200.0 r .

o such as the predominant composition of the products, morphology of the

c Table 2. Comparison of the Human Development Index (HDI) between countries in Central America s 12

e volcanic edifice, comparison with similar volcanoes, and photographs. e r

r and the United States for 2005 (HDR 2007/2008). u o s

c Hazard factors that couldn’t be inferred from indirect sources were left o

10 150.0 s p

t x

Table 1. Volcanic hazard, exposure and threat scores of the 23 most active a blank (or with a zero), so the final score can be still considered a Literacy School E e

r (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) , h d minimum. The Regional aviation exposure factor was estimated from the HDI Country Life expectancy rate enrolment Educa�on GDP per capita HDI r

and best documented volcanoes in Central America. 8 T a

z rank (years) (index) (%) (%) (index) (PPP US$) (index) (index)

a number of people arriving and leaving every year to and from the Aurora

H 100.0 12 United States 77.9 0.881 99.0 93.3 0.971 41,890 1.000 0.951 6 International airport in (DGACG 2008), and set equal to s

48 Costa Rica 78.5 0.891 94.9 73.0 0.876 10,180 0.772 0.846 t n

E all volcanoes in Guatemala (3.76). n o m i

k

e 103 El Salvador 71.3 0.772 80.6 70.4 0.772 5,255 0.661 0.735

t R 0 l l 4 3 D T l p

m a a

U

I 110 Nicaragua 71.9 0.782 76.7 70.6 0.747 3,674 0.601 0.710 a s c c u 50.0 R p A E E E Volcano name Status Type S i

i i P t r t d t o r r c A E 118 Guatemala 69.7 0.746 69.1 67.3 0.685 4,568 0.638 0.689 l e R R R r s O V n

o o a

e e t a Z t t R

e 2 P O O O g v r s t p z

s s (a) life expectancy at birth; (b) % aged 15 and above 1995-2005, in the case of the U.S. this value was estimated i A i e o X H a o a n C C C

m differently; (c) combined gross enrolment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary school; (d) literacy rate and school P P h H u H S L H i D E S T S 0 0.0 enrolment combined; (e) PPP= purchasing power parity, income. l t a r a y e e k d o e e s a n e a a a e a o n o o n a a o o s n í t l l i a b r r Santa María Historical Stratovolcano 12 1 3 16 6.1 2 5 13.1 209.1 e e r u u o g n n n g k y á u u n c g á e n i g e á l u e r r i l a d l u l t u i r a l q t q t n o i e n a a g q e e u a n n i y e u l l p u t h i i m a o r m o t F s a e e

I a c h o e i c u l a A o

b e l

M El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala exhibit a much lower GDP and HDI compared to the U.S. and s l r a l k a h d C Santa Ana Historical Stratovolcano 10 3 3 16 6.1 2 4 12.1 193.3 a V u h p p i

n c a A p m a

F F c

o o e T e l , b H w s g e R M C e m a e u t O e u K i

P T r g t t t j t t T o o . o u l a m a R Figure 3. Volcanic threat scores for 23 volcanoes in Guatemala and l t h S Costa Rica. These three countries are also characterized by a high population density around volcanic a n y l x n a a

Fuego Historical Stratovolcano 11 1 2 14 6.0 2 5 13.0 181.8 l r g I V a u A o a

a c S S B e A T a z c C i - L a t S A l Y e e m 10 volcanoes in the United States (Ewert et al. 2005, 2007). The plot centers, in many cases with houses or ‘fincas’ built on the flanks of historically active volcanoes (Figure 4, San Salvador Historical Stratovolcano 10 1 2 13 6.4 2 5 13.4 174.6 a n u u u T p a J a m Q l i S also shows the Hazard and Exposure scores for the same below). Indeed, many people are obliged to inhabit hazardous areas because of the socio-economical en- Pacaya Historical 9 1 3 13 6.4 2 5 13.4 174.0 i u u q i C volcanoes. In these results the exposure factor that quantifies vironment they live in, and they become more vulnerable to natural disasters. Education and access to

Irazú Historical Stratovolcano 9 2 2 13 6.2 2 5 13.2 172.0 h

C population living downstream was not considered. quality information influence people’s awareness of the threat that communities face living or working near Almolonga Historical Stratovolcano 11 2 1 14 6.0 1 5 12.0 168.3 active volcanoes. Furthermore, volcano monitoring and disaster mitigation plans in Central America are im- Arenal Historical Stratovolcano 10 1 3 14 5.0 2 4 11.0 153.7 Rincón de la proving but they are still at a basic level. Vieja Historical Complex volcano 10 2 2 14 4.9 1 4 9.9 138.3

Turrialba Historical Stratovolcano 10 1 2 13 5.8 0 4 9.8 127.6 10000000 Telica Historical Stratovolcano 9 1 2 12 5.6 1 4 10.6 126.7 References Acknowledgements San Cristóbal Historical Stratovolcano 8 2 2 12 5.5 1 4 10.5 126.2 1000000 Poás Historical Stratovolcano 6 2 2 10 5.9 1 5 11.9 119.5 DGACG 2008. Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil de Guatemala, passenger statistics, accessed online from This work was supported by U.S. National Science Fundation PIRE/OISE 0530109. Cosigüina Historical Stratovolcano 10 1 2 13 4.2 2 3 9.2 119.2 http://www.dgacguate.com/dgac/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=41&func=selectcat&cat=7 on December 5, 2008. n o

We thank John Ewert for helpfull discussions i

t 100000

Ilopango Historical 9 0 1 10 6.4 0 5 11.4 114.4 a Almolonga Ewert et al. 2005. An Assessment of Volcanic Threat and Monitoring Capabilities in the United States: Framework for a on the topic. l u

Masaya Historical Caldera 8 1 2 11 6.3 0 4 10.3 113.0 National Volcano Early Warning System.USGS open-file report 2005-1164. p Agua o 10000

Concepción Historical Stratovolcano 8 1 2 11 5.0 1 4 10.0 109.7 P San Salvador San Miguel Historical Stratovolcano 6 2 2 10 5.9 1 4 10.9 108.9 Ewert 2007. System for Ranking Relative Threats of U.S. Volcanoes. Natural Hazards Review v.8 p.112-124. Telica Izalco Historical Stratovolcano 9 0 0 9 6.1 2 4 12.1 108.8 1000 Masaya HDR 2007/2008. Human Development Report 2007/2008. http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008 Figure 4. Population density Historical Stratovolcano 10 0 2 12 5.0 0 4 9.0 107.7 Irazú around selected volcanic centers Remote Sensing for Hazard Mitigation and Acatenango Historical Stratovolcano 8 2 1 11 6.0 0 3 9.0 99.1 LandScan 2007. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, LandScan 2007™/UT-Battelle, LLC 100 expressed by the Volcano Resource Protection in Pacific Latin San Vicente Holocene Stratovolcano 5 2 1 8 5.9 1 4 10.9 87.4 VPI (5 km) VPI (10 km) VPI (15 km) VPI (20 km) VPI (30 km) Population Index (people living America. Wisner et al. 2003. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. Second Edition. Taylor & Francis Books within the specified distance). Agua Holocene Stratovolcano 3 2 0 5 6.4 0 5 11.4 56.9 Ltd. 464p. http://www.geo.mtu.edu/rs4hazards