Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience A Community Science Position Paper European Science Foundation (ESF) Authors The European Science Foundation was established • Hans-Peter Plag in 1974 to provide a common platform for its Member and Sea Level Rise Initiative, Organisations – the main research funding and Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA research performing organisations in Europe – to • Sean Brocklebank advance European research collaboration and School of Economics, University of Edinburgh, UK explore new directions for research. ESF provides • Deborah Brosnan valuable services to the scientific and academic One Health Institute, University of California Davis, communities – such as peer review, evaluation, Davis, CA, USA career tracking, conferences, implementation of new • Paola Campus research support mechanisms and the hosting of European Science Foundation, Strasbourg, France high-level expert boards and committees – with the aim of supporting and driving the future of a globally • Sierd Cloetingh competitive European Research Area. ESF currently Department of Earth Sciences, Utrecht University, has 66 member organisations in 29 countries. The Netherlands www.esf.org • Shelley Jules-Plag Tiwah UG, Rossbach, Germany • Seth Stein Group on Earth Observations (GEO) Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA The Group on Earth Observations (GEO) is an intergovernmental organisation developing and implementing the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). GEO’s vision is a future wherein This document considers the disaster risk decisions and actions, for the benefit of humankind, associated with extreme geohazards and are informed by coordinated, comprehensive and addresses the challenges of disaster risk sustained Earth observation and information. GEO reduction for these low-probability, high- has currently 97 Member Countries and is supported impact events. The paper was supported by by 80 Participating Organisations. the European Science Foundation (ESF). It was www.earthobservations.org initiated at the high-level ESF-COST conference on ‘Understanding Extreme Geohazards: The Science of the Disaster Risk Management Cycle’ held in Geohazard Community of Practice (GHCP) November 2011 in Spain (see www.geohazcop. org/workshops/Sant_Feliu_2011). The Declaration The GHCP is a Community of Practice (CoP) on Extreme Geohazards and the Reduction supporting the Group on Earth Observations (GEO). of Disaster Risks, which resulted from this The GHCP brings together groups and individuals conference is reproduced in Appendix C. involved in various aspects of geohazards, including research, monitoring and risk assessments, mitigation, and adaptation. The GHCP aims to provide a link between the broad geohazards community of practice and GEO in order to ensure that the needs of this community are taken into account in the development of GEOSS; to facilitate support and participation of this community in the building of GEOSS; and promote the use of GEOSS for geohazards-related applications. The GHCP also provides a communication and coordinating platform for high level policy makers and the broader geohazards community. www.geohazcop.org

Cover picture: Bárdabunga , Iceland, 13 September 2014. © iStock ISBN: 978-2-36873-197-0 Contents

Forewords 3

Summary of Key Findings 6

Executive Summary 7

Abstract 11

1. Introduction 13

2. Global Disasters and Catastrophes 15

3. Extreme Geohazards 19 3.1 Knowing the Upper End of the Hazard Spectrum 19 3.2 Impacts of Extreme Geohazards and Associated Risks 20 3.3 and 22 3.4 Extreme Weather and 24 3.5 Bolides 24 3.6 Volcanoes 24 3.7 Comparison of Geohazards and Other Natural Hazards 30

4. Disaster Risk, Resilience, Antifragility and Adaptive Capacity 33

5. Cost–Benefit Analysis of Planning for Extreme Geohazards 37

6. Confronting Disaster Risks for Extreme Geohazards 40 6.1 Governance for Extreme Geohazards 40 6.2 Knowledge Assessments and Research Needs 42 6.3 Monitoring and Early Warning 44

7. Conclusions and Recommendations 48

Acknowledgements 51

Acronyms and Abbreviations 51

References 52

Appendices 59 • Appendix A: Glossary 61 • Appendix B: Overview of Earthquakes in the Last 2,000 Years 62 • Appendix C: Declaration on Extreme Geohazards and the Reduction of Disaster Risks 66

– derived from space, airborne, land and marine net marine and – derived land from space, airborne, working to expand the use of satellite imagery and and imagery of satellite use the to expand working role to helping increase works in essential –play an but today, written, was ever, more than it vital is havewould we judge”. as judged In his third letter on sunspots (December, on sunspots letter 1612) third his In By using Earth observation data and information, information, and observation data Earth By using Foreword GEO – to risk help improve phases of disaster all Satellites (CEOS)Satellites of space – the arm coordination factual data is needed is data to investments drive to reducefactual and to provide critical decision makers with facility behaviour, forgov beapriority every should future in close collaboration with national space agencies national with closecollaboration in systems urban improve response the of individuals, do not yet fully understand. Our existence on the on the existence Our understand. notdo yet fully management (DRM) on a global basis. global a on (DRM) management working for developing countries, ment, particularly more can importantly, and, to hazards munities recon to allow interactions, their and mechanisms is hazards to natural vulnerability our and planet oping sustainable development sustainable reducing oping and policies capable tools and observation of systems analysing these data and providing new information. providing and data these to Mark Wesler, Galileo Galilei writes “the mod “the writes to MarkWesler, Galilei Galileo unstable and difficult to interpret. Observing these these to interpret. Observing difficult and unstable through the Committee on Earth Observation on Earth Committee the through to factorssoci risk make and disaster underlying The hazards. ofto natural societies resilience the to continue to observe the Earth and invest and our to continue to Earth observe the by natural and human-induced hazards. The GEO human-induced and hazards. by natural resources and capabilities in the development the in resources of capabilities new and applications for the full cycle of disaster manage of cycle disaster applications for full the events. to extreme relatedand infrastructures had seen what weauthority, they they see, if since ernment. exposure and vulnerability to disaster risks posed risks to disaster vulnerability and exposure change. more climate of adaptableety effects to the former of writers observations ern deprive any all societies can enhance the resilience of exposed com of exposed resilience the enhance can societies prediction of Earth’s and the of past the struction surface data to support governments data devel are surface that community is developing is decision-support and tools community often are controlled by that complex mechanisms The Earth is a complex, dynamic system we system acomplex, is dynamic Earth The The Group on Earth Observations (GEO) Observations GroupThe on Earth is Earth observations (EO) observations information and Earth Four hundred years have passed since this letter letter Four years have hundred this since passed ------vation data and relatedvation and data information. well as the international organisations in which they they which in organisations international the as well Paper questions serious about how raises current the from high-frequency natural and human-induced and from natural high-frequency for extreme geohazard events and their potentially potentially for geohazard events extreme their and ing, and mitigate and respond to hazards will help respond and will mitigate to and hazards ing, to coordinated systems frominformation globally impact with dramatic consequences on dramatic society. with impact nity increasingly demand broad and timely access to broad demand timely and increasingly nity domains. Specifically, crisis management resulting managementresulting crisis Specifically, domains. public should take into account the essential con essential into account the take should public management challenges facing the global commu global the facing management challenges providemonitor, risk, warn assess early predict, moves government, leaders in private forward, the many entities around the world, and no single no single world, and the around entities many occur, the flow of data from various countries, as as flow countries, the occur, from of various data to their eventual outcomes. eventual to their and issues observationsto these oftribution Earth an event of effect have could global tial a or regional where poten the hazards, of extreme case the in true when events such so that, coordination tion and reduce loss of life and property at the local, national national local, at the property reduce and loss of life response requires regional/international collabora regional/international requires response and tools it needs to inform policy in these critical critical these in policy it tools to needs inform and and risk reduction disaster The level. regional and and future global population can be better prepared be better can population global future and represented,are worksis particularly smoothly. This high-quality, integrated and sustained Earth obser Earth sustained integrated and high-quality, extreme events requires capacities that generally eventsextreme requires capacities generally that sector, society, members and general of civil the country is able to acquire the comprehensive able is the to acquire country data calamitous impacts. As this important discussion discussion important this As impacts. calamitous beprovided effective cannot alone; by one country The treatise contained in this Science this Position in treatise contained The Group on Earth Observations (GEO) Observations Earth on Group Moreover, observations areowned by Earth of geospatial use and More dissemination timely Secretariat Director,Secretariat Barbara J. Ryan Ryan J. Barbara

------

Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 3 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 4 Risk and Increasing Resilience Increasing and Risk 27 November–227 December 2011), co- was which Spain, Management Cycle’ (Sant Feliu Guixols, de Examples and forensic analyses were forensic and presentedExamples analyses for Model (GEM) experts Foundation. The (IRDR), the International Union of Geodesy and Union and of International Geodesy the (IRDR), Natural hazards that occur frequently on our occur that hazards Natural working under the auspices of the LESC Standing Standing auspices the LESC of the under working even and bring disasters global cause might which Life, Earth and Environmental Sciences, SRG-LEE) Sciences, Environmental and Earth Life, Sciences Unit, (LESC) Environmental and Earth Life, Development Programme (UNDP), the Group Group the (UNDP), Programme Development Paper Paper Foreword Committee (nowCommittee Scienti the Geophysics (IUGG), United the Nations Office Risk Science The Disaster of the Geohazards: Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), (UNESCO), Organization Cultural and Scientific Science Position Paper from high- the originated for Project Services (UNOPS),for ProjectUnited the Services Nations issues and needs for the future, and identified the the identified and forfuture, needs and the issues representativesincluding organi of international depending on their intensity.Science The on their Position depending decades and caused huge loss of human life and cat and life causedhuge loss of and decades human dynamic planet are increasingly causing loss causing increasingly are planet dynamic on Earth Observations (GEO), Observations on Earth Global the and of sustainability. of beyond limits the society stressed global already our of human life and damage to goods and infra and to goods damage and life of human the Integrated Research on Disaster Risk Integratedon Disaster the Research of low-probability high-impact events, effects tial reviewed the understanding of extreme geohaz of- extreme reviewed understanding the and COST. and as the ideal platform to promote ideal action. the as this the regions planet. different of in damage astrophic last have the that in of occurred a number disasters how, the and ards why, when events. of and these extensive dissemination at specialised international international at specialised extensive dissemination level research conference ‘Understanding Extreme level research Extreme conference ‘Understanding sations such as the United the sations as such Nations Educational, sponsored Science Foundation European by the structures at the local, regional and global scale, scale, global and regional local, at the structures conferences (AGU meetings and Science Policy existing main the idea on of the documenting curred The initiative thatthe led initiative preparationto this The of The conference gathered a variety of experts, The conference experts, of gathered a variety In the course of its preparation and thanks to of course its preparation the thanks In and con experts the discussions of course the the In Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster the Disaster Reducing Geohazards: Extreme f c Review Groupc Review for analyses the poten the analyses - - - - - 2013, European Geosciences Union 2014, Geosciences Global 2013, European Risk Forum 2014, Forum 2014)Risk GEORISK Science the Position Paper has gained the attention and inputPosition attention and the Paper gained has Conference Geosciences 2012, Union European impacts that amajor have would that hazard impacts on our its content and taking the paper well beyond paper its the well its content taking and itoring system that could provide timely warning provide could warning that system itoring timely decades. It also underlines the need the to develop underlines It also decades. management, disaster risk reduction, resilience, reduction, risk resilience, disaster management, an of establishing urgency the paper highlights modern society, which would provide guidance to provide would society,modern which guidance originally planned Executive Summary format. Executive Summary planned originally expanding further thus experts, of scientific other the methodology to assess the potentially global global potentially the to assess methodology the the mounting risk of catastrophic effects popuon of risk effects catastrophic mounting the but emphasis puts on special of geohazards, types be exposed to a very large volcanic eruption. The eruption. volcanic large to avery be exposed reduce vulnerability where possible and increase where increase possible and reduce vulnerability and increasingly interconnected society modern increasingly and and policy makers in order makers in to develop robust policy risk and and sustainability plans in the coming years and years and coming the in plans sustainability and effective dialogue with international organisations international organisations with dialogue effective lations and infrastructures should our growing growing our should infrastructures lations and should such amajor event such should hazardous develop. concludes that preparedness requires a global monconcludes preparedness requires that aglobal general resilience in the face of surprise events. It face of surprise the in general resilience The ScienceThe Position severalPaper addresses Chair of the ESF Scienti of the ESF Chair Professor, Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Sciences, Atmospheric and Earth Ocean, Professor, Director, Mitigation and Adaptation Research Research Adaptation and Mitigation Director, Norfolk, Va, USA Norfolk, Institute (MARI) Old Dominion University, University, Dominion Old (MARI) Institute Earth and Environmental Sciences, SRG-LEE Sciences, Environmental and Earth European Science Foundation (ESF), Foundation European Science Review Group for Life, Earth and Environmental Environmental and Earth Life, for Group Review Sciences Senior Science Officer in charge of the Scienti of charge the in Officer Science Senior Professor Dr Hans-Peter Plag Hans-Peter Dr Professor Professor Dr Reinhart Ceulemans Reinhart Dr Professor Dr Paola Campus Paola Dr

f c Review Group for Life, Life, for Group c Review

f c c - - RESCUE: Responses to Environmental and Societal Societal and to Environmental Responses RESCUE: Challenges for our Unstable Earth. Unstable our for Challenges ESF reports, notably in the ESF-COST publication ESF-COST the notably reports, in ESF Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Sustainable on Conference Nations with the message of RESCUE, but it further but it further of message RESCUE, the with earlier in have outlined been well Planet Earth with work concerned. of researchThe the communities I am very pleased that ESF has been able has to sup ESF pleased that very I am Foreword with a reference to Galileo Galilei’s writ Foreword Galilei’s areference with to Galileo Position Paper is very timely and addresses key addresses Position and Paper timely very is ing on sunspots and related observations. At our related and our At observations. on sunspots ing issues of hazards, resilience and sustainability sustainability and resilience ofissues hazards, network with associated rapidnetwork with response system. needs acomprehensive monitoring enhanced and society reason, our For resilience. and this nications port the initiating Conference subsequent the and initiating the port opportunities for improved as opportunities well as collaboration opment endorsed Rio+20 at Goals the through the contributions the of from experts. arange through to a large number of stakeholders and will generate of number will stakeholdersto and alarge elaborates concepts Devel related Sustainable to the concerted actions in the future. the concerted in actions commu communities, large jeopardise heavily can statecurrent of development, space geohazards and The social elements of the challenges involved elements thechallenges The social of This Science PositionThis aligned Paperis not only ESF Chief Executive Martin Hynes Martin I note that Director Ryan introduces herI note introduces Director Ryan that I have no doubt that this Paper will beof interest I have Paper will no doubt this that

– United - - - -

Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 5 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 6 • • • • • • • • • • • of Key Findings Summary parable to other possible mega-disasters from from mega-disasters possible other to parable relatively frequent associatedrisk with hazards on the reduction focuses risk Disaster (DRR) failure. of andchains effects cascading through in can ards geohaz extreme that destruction ofextent the the have illustrated earthquakes Recent large disasters. ate global have geohazards to gener potential Extreme the for hazards, but rather to develop antifragile but rather to developfor antifragile hazards, prediction errors and of reducing uncertainties goal science not D3R, does haveIn primary the or prevent).dict to pre events difficult are high-consequence that (low-probability, ‘ Black Swan’ as disasters well as prepare for recover and disasters from expected needed communication to adequately and tion, coopera trust, public the facilitate aggressively (D3R) more could Resilience programmes and toward integrated shift DRR A paradigm conditions. environmental long-term large in changes tially development to adapt of to capabilities poten the and resilience, of general economic social and increase an of infrastructure, vulnerability the also ain require reduction will DRR Efficient eruptions. volcanic extreme ated with invested to signi A cost–bene food security. tation and on transpor impacts to mitigate warnings timely f , extreme com risks, disaster extreme associated with events these are Under today’s circumstances, Holocene. the during events occurred that eruption comparableto an most to extreme the not has been exposed far,So civilisation modern eruptions. for true volcanic is particularly This DRR. in grosslyare underestimated from Threats low-frequency, high-impact events considered. sufficiently low-probability,with events not is high-impact associated risk the while major impacts, with basis several billion dollars per year should be should per year dollars several billion basis to provide system warning early for abasis an as required volcano-monitoringis system A global oid impacts. f ict on a modern society, particularly ict on society, a modern particularly f t analysis shows that on a global shows on aglobal that t analysis f cantly reduce associ risk cantly the oods, pandemics and aster and pandemics oods, ------• • • • processes and strengthen resilience through through resilience processes strengthen and realistic assessment of the risk and the identi the assessment and risk of the realistic Holocene the provide would ing for abasis a took that place eruptions dur volcanic extreme of one simulation or moreA model-based global Forum. Worldthe Economic out assessment by carried Risk Global the and of USA, of Defense the out Department by the carried DefenseReview Quaternary the Change, Intergovernmental on by Climate Panel the used the processof amalgam an be process could This events. high-impact these preparedness to cope with our and geohazards, including hazards, extreme associated risk with global repeatedly the process needed international is to assess An capital. increased social prior of adisaster. occurrence to the purposes for warning early threats emerging to cover be extended should Disasters of cases and on SpaceMajor InternationalCharter The of failure. andchains effects cascading cation of potential f - - occur during less frequent events at high-impact the during occur continues losses to so. do Most increasing of the recent in and decades increased dramatically has to geohazards Exposure nomic fabric changed. has environment embedded socio-eco the and built the of much notsensitivity do over the change time, ardous event. andfar- the in near both effects, indirect from especially vulnerabilities, estimate low, very is to we reliably knowledge lackability the prob hazard the When hard –is to assess. assets of the vulnerability the and hazard, to the exposed productthe ofprobability, hazard of value assets conventionally de as Risk certainty. with assess to difficult are environment on society and on the hazards of the impacts the particular in evidence; aboutideas basedon are indirect them civilisation. of for long-term the essential is sustainability erty prop and events life high-impact pose to human rare, these that challenges the to cope. Addressing economy global exceedof capacity the could the that disasters cause might eruptions volcanic and tsunamis, earthquakes, hazards, to natural exposed areas situated in industries crucial megacities and With impacts. economic social and secondary through extent reach could aplanetary potentially are major that threats droughts and bility. economy, sta global and the impact food security have to severely hazards potential the natural catastrophes by caused Global extreme hazards. the impacts of direct the amplifying effects to domino lead dependencies can environment global and built complexincreasingly The to beunderrated. tends posedevents by extreme threat serious the rare, are they Because tendand to have impacts. high surprises, as events: occur extreme are rare, they of bynature such the reduction are challenged risk disaster in catastrophes. Efforts and disasters global cause could that hazards anthropogenic and to abroad exposed is ensemble of natural Humanity Catastrophes and Disasters of Global Causes Potential Hazards: Extreme Executive Summary While the probabilities of most natural hazards hazards of probabilities the most natural While most hazards, Given extreme of these nature the eld of the haz offeld the f ned – - - - - - rare, surprising, and have potentially huge have impact and potentially surprising, rare, or to not do X-eventsevents lead, lead, that are that the by system coupled human–natural complex the in processes of the triggered understanding require an for assessments hazards extreme Risk Global Disasters and Catastrophes quences. its conse event determine and by this triggered of processes are ahazard)occurrence the that and event the to between bemade (the a distinction therefore risk requires disaster the Understanding disasters. eventsardous global to and regional cause even moderate of haz allows complexity societies increasing The upper spectrum. end hazard of the reduce the disasters induced by the occurrence of induced by occurrence the reduce disasters the To and resilience global increase be unparalleled. would impacts disaster today,occur resulting the were Holocene. amega hazard such the to If ing dur several times occurred that geohazards largest Recent by major are dwarfed the rise. geohazards continues to to hazards such exposed areas live in of number people the as wholosses increasing are events these high-impact and during losses occur signi cause floods and tsunamis eruptions, volcanic landslides, earthquakes, as such Geohazards Geohazards Extreme of event. class this into fall to prepareExtreme for. geohazards difficult and surprising are that those are times long impact over impacts but total very large time unfolding bemuch longer. can Eventstime have that ashort but impact the short, is time unfolding the hazards, For natural many understood. and less well-studied ‘when’), the lead toily how X-events hazards such is events not (although hazards necessar most natural for ‘why’ and ‘how’ the we understand Although ampli life ern of complexity mod the Increasingly, of everything’. region lead collapse could to ‘the that of ‘normal’ the These areoutside life. X-events outliers on human f cant loss of life and property. and loss Most ofcant life of these f es the impacts of natural hazards. hazards. of natural impacts the es - - - - -

Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 7 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 8 asteroid impacts. including recurrence periods, similar with hazards natural other all than associated risk pose ahigher 1815 Hence eruptions volcanic eruptions. extreme werethat rampant aft Laki the1783and er Tambora diseases and emphasised widespread by the famine problems water as food and security, in drastic effatmospheric climate and leadand to can ects have can eruptions more severe through impacts Volcanic state. to a pre-civilisation humanity Tobathe return could eruption 74,000 years ago consequences.major Events global of scale on the Holocene the have would eruptions during had scarcity, largest the water energy and food, facing connected civilisation sent conditionsof aglobally Under pre- the scale. resource supplies on global and infrastructure anthropogenic climate, impact century. last the during we that have fact the been lucky underline and risk present disaster helpthe to conditionsassess can under hazards extreme of these Simulation crisis. worsen sustainability and the scale on aglobal age dam- eventsextreme unparalleled cause today could wereeties much today. less complex than Similar today, soci- as extent same to human the areas and environment not into hazardous was built sprawling low, was density population the the because asters causedmajor years rarely dis- few thousand last the 12). years (Figure few hundred last have ofnumber that eruptions the place taken in near-field ofvolcano. the Th by a illustrated is is effthat oft ects the in direct impacts en exceed the indirect large induce can gases and ash volcanic For were eruptions, volcanic impacts larger local. wereeruptions of these direct and relatively minor but one All impactedpopulation. immediately the have oft to ratio fatalities of high in a en resulted of disasters. adisproportionate experience number countries more as level same developedto of the hazards are exposed that poor countries general, In damage. or greatest out most fatalities to the cause turn that those not are necessarily magnitude largest the with aconsequence, earthquakes As the infrastructure. amplifi are asters poor building with areas ed in Th indirectly. tsunamis, through dis- eresulting infl can they tion and, 8),ict (Figure directly both destruc- the years have illustrated 2000 last the have could onsociety. hazards modern these impacts of the understanding scientific requires asolid acceptable at an economic hazards costextreme Th lastdecades few the in eruptions e volcanic Th during that occurred earthquakes extreme e Large volcanic haveeruptions volcanic to Large potential the throughout occurred that geohazards Extreme Adaptation and mitigation effAdaptation mitigation and to reduceorts sensi- be reduced exposure. and by sensitivity reducing can mainly it risk obvious is that assets, exposed of value the the and hazard, toity, the sensitivity product the probabil- of as hazard risk Considering hazards. catastrophes and asters causedby natural effdis- ective to programme theglobal riskreduce of an time limited a very of developing in challenge crucial faces the by 2100, 12 humanity billion ing reach- population prospect the global ofWith the Capacity Adaptive and Antifragility Resilience,Disaster Risk, a severe society. modern for our threat represent eruptions larger Consequently, 7and VEI 21 the in eventan occurring of such consequences. extreme probability The have 7eruption could arecurrence of lion, aVEI for 12 bil- heading and abovepopulation 7 billion that unfold during and aft and during unfold that incidents theis needed. er processes on the information or reduce, impacts, the events increase, hazardous can extreme with actions reduction risk strategy. disaster global ful therefore is resilience aprerequisite for success- any community social redundancy, and technology emergency.an water on food and reserves, Afocus fi event the forcient in passengers of the lifeboats have should aship as just suf- civilisation, global for our aim bethe should provision of ‘lifeboats’ the extent, global apotentially For with hazards of communities. design of the be developed part as preparedness General to needs damage. escalating rapidly and of number fatalities increasing an cause be increased preparedness for frequent events that benefi immediate an and needed, urgently t would eventsextreme by are developing general resilience Eff civilisation. our preparedto be better orts for of complexity dueincreasing to the increasing is risk events, of their extreme low such probability Despite the to unfold. eventwhen an started has room to increase preparedness little leaving times, oft are for mitigation adaptation and postponed. en low. awarenessrisk generally is Th erefore,the costs infrequent are and they that is geohazards extreme on perception. risk gation depends Thof challenge e miti- adaptation and in to engage Willingness risk. the represent against exposure and insurance tivity global population was far below 1 billion; with a with below 1billion; far was population global when but the at one atime occurred Index]. All Volcanic tookeruptions place Explosivity [VEI: During the Holocene, at least seven VEI 7 Holocene, the at seven least VEI During For a better understanding of inter- how human For understanding abetter have unfolding short geohazards Extreme st century is 5–10%. is century disaster. However, the largest hazards are global in in However,disaster. global are hazards largest the event ahazardous into a more easily turn can tion corrup awarenessrisk and poverty combined with developing world, the where in low than countries much are moreards monitored closely wealthy in haz potential aresult, uneven across world. As the highly are risk, to mitigate means and capabilities risks. disaster for reductionfoundation the of global approach provides complex a antifragile society. An increasingly on our impact from their tofor learn us enced opportunity frequently present important an arethatexperi Themajor resilience. geohazards emptive to preparedness increase action general and requires pre- for geohazards extreme preparing rise, sea level and change climate including changes, slow for works management adaptive While Geohazards for Extreme Confronting Disaster Risks risk. reduce this to measures to take it timely and is disaster, global a in result could society modern on our impacts 21 the 7 eruption in ofchance a VEI there a5–10% is 10,000years, last the events during 7 at seven least VEI With risk. high associated with economic impacts. indirect and damage property itlow not does and of consider value VSL; of costs a it of loweruses those neglects VEI; and eruptions 8 low endconsiders it because of risk only VEI the $1.1–7.0 the is at very estimate per year. This billion is alone for risk the fatalities ofpopulation 7billion, a and (VSL) million, life’ of $2.22 of‘value statistical 1.4 of year between x10ular partic any in of arandom personprobability dying a in results this starvation, through mainly ulation, pop 10% global of the event an such kill would that have afrequency of 1.4 events/Ma. to 22 Assuming 8eruptions volcano VEI monitoring. in per year lion order the invest should of in $0.5–3.5humanity bil for rapidavailable to allow preparations shows that were warning bereduced atimely could if by 50% of risk fatalities the that assuming 8 eruption and A cost–bene Geohazards for Extreme of Analysis Planning Cost–Benefit processes. these needed data to understand the collect would needs to be observatory developed A human that Risk awareness and monitoring, as well as the the as well as awareness monitoring, and Risk are also The more frequent 7 eruptions VEI f t analysis based upon based aToba-liket analysis VEI -7 and 2.2 x10 2.2 and st st Century. The Century.

-6 . With a a . With ------chemical variables, and infrasound to emerg detect infrasound and variables, chemical seismicity, changes, gravity displacements, surface combine should system A monitoring place. not in is eruption volcanic extreme impending for an ing warn give could timely that ‘system of systems’ GEO), comprehensive a monitoring Observations, Group of the efforts on the Earth ple through (for observations exam Earth global coordinate preparedness. and stability global on of awarning such impacts the tomade understand need to efforts be and developinglimited is hazard extreme an that to awarning community global our need to be identi variables to bemonitored observatory by ahuman Essential effects. lead to could cascading that system socio-economic global the in weaknesses to identify present under help conditions can hazards extreme of selected Simulation stages. itsearly ience in is appropriate needed, if assessments and, responses. risk needed is to global coordinate structure ernance gov international An support warnings. of early in for geohazards system monitoring global developed need to bemade efforts towards a and well- nature, • geohazards: extreme from risk to needs be developed. ing proactive it in decision-mak using and knowledge availablescienti the process for understanding To futile. is overcomeedness abetter issues, these consequences preparthe that beso extreme would that preparations,acommon belief and of making cost the acceptable including strategies of socially enti sci the between sensitivity, a disconnect political lowprepared low include perceived likelihood, core. for to the not Reasons society being modern 7or larger) challenge would eruption(VEI canic vol alarge particular, In geohazards. of extreme poorly is prepared to meet challenge Humanity the Recommendations Conclusions and eruption. main of the ahead magnitude potential their assess eruptions and volcanic ing • stand the threats and reduce the risk particularly reduce and particularly risk the threats the stand under to better planning contingency Scenario geohazards; of extreme impacts the to minimise private scale the sector on aglobal and communities governments, by implemented response and to be mitigation preparedness, ings, support science of warn geohazards in extreme framework for strategic scientific A global Although signi Although resil disaster on community focusing Research Several elements are needed to address the global elementsSeveral are needed global the to address f c communities and decision-makers, and lack the c communities ed. Research on the response on the Research of fed. f cant efforts have efforts cant been made to f c ------

Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 9 10 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience early warning purposes. warning early for to cover and threats paredness of emerging cases pre at increasing aimed actions to include extended on Space Major be and should Disasters Charter International existing step, the immediate an As • • • global disaster risk. disaster global of reducingthe goal the with general resilience to preparedness increase and measures dinating coor and threats global to emerging responding governance capable global informed system ofAn eruptions; volcanic extreme for emerging ing to provide system monitoring warn early A global geohazards; extreme of riskassociated on with information the Improved dissemination awareness risk through effects; to cascading lead could that weaknesses by systemic reducing - - - tored in wealthy countries than in the developing the in than countries tored wealthy in economic crisis. aglobal cause could ply chains disruptions fromsupof resulting effects Cascading numbers of large fatalities. water causing security, lead to could eruptions severe problems for food and of effects volcanic Atmosphericstate. climatic and to apre-civilisation humanity return could years ago quences. EventsToba the like about eruption 75,000 Holocenethe today have would conse major global during eruptions scarcity, largest the energy and water food, facing connected civilisation globally severe Under present threat. the of conditions a mostbolides), the pose eruptions volcanic large and droughts, floods, landslides, tsunamis, quakes, disasters. global and regional cause can erate hazards even mod of society complexity modern increasing harm’s in megacities –are way.ing of the Because environments – includ urban growing particular, In recent in continues to and do so. decades matically increased dra has rapidly. to geohazards Exposure embedded socio-economic fabric have increased of the environment vulnerability the and built of the muchnot sensitivity over the change time, do hazards of probabilities most natural the While riskmanagement. tend tothey be ignored disaster in them, with experience lacks society modern rare and are they catastrophes. Because and disasters global lead to can hazards anthropogenic and of natural crisis. sustainability the worsen and scale on a global damage unparalleled cause could years afewago hundred occurred today.hazards Even some events oflarge the that it if were to such exposed challenged be extremely would interconnected society globally modern, Our much was lower. societies of complexity human the ronment not did sprawl and areas, into hazardous low, was envi density built today population the becausecomparedrarely caused major to disasters These events century. last the experienced during those were that than much occurred larger hazards 11,700 started that epoch geo extreme years ago, recent most geological the Holocene, the During Abstract humanity. The extremes of the broadextremes of The ensemble humanity. to threat underestimated and – poseaserious Potential hazards are much are more moni Potential hazards closely earth eruptions, (volcanic geohazards Among events high-impact –rare, hazards Extreme ------needs to be designed and implemented. and toneeds bedesigned observation system asocio-ecological support this, reduction. risk Toto be akey element disaster in creates capital that needs resilience social building and capital, on social depends strongly Resilience its infancy. in still is resilience disaster community processes to increase these and facilitates that ity of how to the reducecomplexunderstanding The event lead fromthat ahazardous disaster. to the processes need on the to focus also strategies tion hazards. of detection extreme early not needed, to is least supportfor the geohazards system monitoring reason, awell-developedglobal possible effective to response. formulate an this For as much to get forewarning as it critical is nature, in global are hazards largest the world. Because for early warning purposes. for warning early preparedness awareness and threats of emerging at increasing aimed actions to include extended on SpaceMajorbe should and Disasters Charter International existing step, the immediate an As • geohazards: extreme with associated risk per year. order the invest of in $0.5 billion to be willing should humanity eruptions, volcanic large associated risk with disaster the a reduction in • • • • global disaster risk. disaster global of the reducing goal the with general resilience to preparedness increase measures and dinating coor and threats global to emerging responding capable of system governance global informed an eruptions; volcanic extreme for emerging ing to provide system monitoring warn early a global geohazards; extreme associated risk with global of on the information dissemination ofincrease awareness risk through effects; lead to could cascading that weaknesses systemic needed knowledge to reduce by risk addressing the to create the planning contingency scenario geohazards; of extreme impacts the response and to minimise mitigation edness, prepar science support ofgeohazards in warnings, framework for scientific extreme strategic a global A first-order cost-benefit shows for that analysis In addition to the hazards, disaster risk reduc risk disaster hazards, to the addition In Several elementsSeveral needed are to reduce global the - - - - - 11 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience extreme hazards are based on indirect evidence, and and evidence, arebased on indirect hazards extreme Most processes about the ideas causethem. that ing understand- and hazards the been on characterising Wong, 2014).2004b; frequency (Hempsell, their to underestimate dency how,when, there aten- is and occur, why and they about limited is knowledge experience, normal the outside rare are and of they Because impacts. high tend and to have surprises, as arerare,occur they events: of extreme nature by such the are challenged 2008). Eff Smil, risk reduction disaster 2002; in orts catastrophes and (e.g. Bostrum, disasters global cause could that hazards anthropogenic and natural effinform risk disaster reduction (DRR). in orts to impacts potential of the understanding ough requires athor- hazards these risk associated with low extreme is from the zero, but and far is century Th this in any such of event e happening probability compared effhazards to their times. in earlier ects of impact extreme the amplify would services these on water, health food, and as such sewage, services of other dependency the and transportation, and power, as such internetvices the communication, of ser- availability on the dependency society. Our interconnected interdependent and aglobally in disasters global to trigger potential the today has Thexperience. anythese occurrence e of of events from exceeded eventsto us that the byknown far 11,700started events extreme occurred years ago, Holocene,the most recent the that epoch geological property. and During loss of life increasing encing experi- is a consequence events, of humanity these As bolides. and droughts floods, eruptions, volcanic ards, including earthquakes, landslides, tsunamis, frequently to is geohaz- exposed society modern Our l l l Introduction 1. A major focus in natural hazards research has hazards natural in A major focus to abroad exposed is ensemble of Humanity underestimated. Thunderestimated. on extremehazards of impacts e associatedfrequency events of risk and these may be (Mason al. larger et be much could number but actual the known, are years (Ma) million 36 last the eruptions during plete. For about volcanic example, 45 largest of the record the most cases in events of extreme incom- is illustrate the scale of disasters that can becaused can that of disasters scale the illustrate heat and waves droughts floods, tropical cyclones, eruptions, volcanic tsunamis, by earthquakes, recent of the nomic impacts major events triggered attime. any occur events could that evenis more so for less frequent more and extreme Th losses are inadequate. resulting the mitigating is riskand proceduresthat for disaster reducing the (Stein2014) to &Stein, estimate and difficult are events extreme associated with risks the that both Typhoon and 2013 in earthquake, illustrate Haiyan 2011 the generatedquake, by Tohoku the earth- Sumatra-Andaman causedby the Ocean Indian the in tsunami 2012, 2004 the in Sandy and 2005 in Katrina events Hurricanes as such Recent of civilisation. modern term sustainability for long- the essential is property and pose to life events high-impact rare, these that challenge the space. Addressing operating safe ries of humanity’s bounda- outside the community even global and the regions, countries, push could and crisis tainability hard –is to quantify. hazard to the exposed of value assets and assets, of the sensitivity product –the probability, of hazard defined tionally of events these low, is probability conven- as risk effthe near-in the and far-field. both Because ects, from indirect those especially certainty, with assess to difficult are environment society modern the and Th and eco- societal and long-lasting global e sus- to add humanity’s hazards natural Extreme , 2004). As aconsequence, As the , 2004). 13 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 14 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience but are not limited to:but not are limited includeneeds to consider These of issues. arange developing approaches risk reduction to the of this and fromhazards extreme resulting risk disaster the events.to even beinadequate for much smaller out are turning of many which policies, on various tematic approach problem, torely the instead and However,crucial. have societies not adopted- asys caused by low-probability, is hazards high-impact disasters global therisk of Therefore, addressing outside of experience is society. modern that the extent to an community global the challenge and disasters some ofevents those global cause would Today, at time. any occur can past the nessed in comparablegeohazards to some wit of those on resources. However, demands other extreme given it, against resources defending to expend appropriate an to determine sensible and level of and to itsoccurrence predict it difficult making event specific any rare, that is is disasters of global on today’s civilisation. global inflict events would similar that compared damage to the small was disasters of the scale the communities, were that forimpacted the extreme caused disasters events these much lower. was societies Although of connectivity global and complexity the and today less than far was hazards to these property and of life when exposure occurred tsunamis, and earthquakes, majorbe that eruptions, volcanic past events. of However, these ity reason may main the low the is probabilprocesses. One reason for this socio-economic and services, and infrastructure crucial use, land to planning betends ignored in of rare such events on impact civilisation potential Holocene the earlier. The and during infrequently areas. hazardous into sprawls infrastructure, or crucial dangerous tially poten environment, including more built of the more at grow risk populations common as and become will consequences. disasters Such global Section (see 10,000fatalities or more than damage in $100 more causing those than as billion defined beloosely can which hazards, caused by natural events. infrequent high-impact Majoring disasters dur Most losses of occur these hazards. to these exposed are morebecause people infrastructure and losses have mainly centuries, beenpast increasing, the During management. risk events for disaster of extreme challenge the and hazards, by natural are dwarfed by the largest hazards that occurred occurred that hazards largest by the dwarfed are impacts global with caused disasters that ards A systematic approach to the understanding of approachA systematic understanding to the risks the for assessing difficulty A fundamental Disturbingly, the recent the haz majorDisturbingly, natural 2), have can even and enormous national - - - - - 3. 2. 1. from extreme geohazards on a global level. Finally, level.Finally, on aglobal geohazards from extreme reduce and to risk address aiming strategies ance govern and monitoring research, develop to 5 of Section analysis the 6uses Section geohazards. from extreme resulting disasters for risk global tial reduce would poten for that the measures analysis 5 shows Section a genericgeohazards. cost-benefit to extreme of society modern vulnerability the 4explores 3. approaches Section Section to reduce in Thesecond introduced. is addressed is question reduction risk global associated with goals societal the and risks global to characterise terminology where2, the Section in is addressed firstissue The core recommendations. recommendations. core conclusions the presents and 7summarises Section 6. 5. 4.

What do we know and not we do and know know?What accomplish? to problem the is whatWhat we are and trying facilitate disaster risk reduction? risk disaster facilitate governance and societal processes could What involved? uncertainty the and assumptions given various strategy optimal the is What strategies? benefits of of each and costs these the are What goals? available are to strategies achieve our What - - such events on a modern society. In recent disasters, eventssuch recent on society. amodern In disasters, of impacts resulting the to no assess data almost are there exist, of hazards ofoccurrence extreme the ity poorprobabil –of the –albeit estimates Although context. this in have utility statistics and limited theory are hampered probability that byfact the hazards for assessments extreme Risk uncertain. highly is occurrence frequency of the their stood and under even are ‘why’ less and well questions of ‘how’ to ornot aX-event. does lead, leads, complex event by then an system gered that this in need to consider hazards processesextreme the trig assessments for of society.system amodern Risk complex exposed, the with hazard interaction of the X-event from by the ageohazard results triggered A to X-events understood. and even is less studied (Wong,understood 2014). lead How hazards such more frequent ‘when’ the less well is geohazards ‘why’, and for most ‘how’ of the the understanding progress been in made has significant Although of geohazards. impacts the amplifies life modern of complexity the increasingly, aspects: similar has of life.” modern infrastructure preserve critical the to levels necessary of complexity increasing nentially expo from “the results increasedoccurrence their X-events concludes and that caused by humans, how, on focuses events why Casti these and occur. about when, much known less is aresult, As studies. X-events to not do scientific lend themselveseasily region, normal on whereas the focus mainly studies out scientific points that Casti lapse of everything’. lead col region to could ‘the and outside ‘normal’ the X-events found are that life. outliers are on human huge impacts have and potentially surprising, rare, (2012)Casti ‘X-events’ defines events are as that l l l Catastrophes and Global Disasters 2. For less frequent the events, the high-impact caused disasters by geohazards The in recent rise - - - - - needed by humans, and the social fabric came as fabric as came social the and needed by humans, services environment, the built the with hazards the of interactions caused by the disasters resulting the 2010 in Iceland eruption in were not unexpected, Eyjafjallajökull the and 2005 US in the in Katrina of occurrence Hurricane the Forage. while example, dam the amplified effects unanticipated cascading • ries: catego (2004a) Hempsell three introduced cause. events. of class into this prepare fall for. geohazards Extreme to difficult and be surprising can times long impact over impact total but very large times unfolding bemuch longer. can time Events impact short with but the short, is time unfolding the geohazards, For or to not do disaster. lead, many lead, that cesses subsequent the and pro eventhazardous occurring the between it to sense distinguish makes hazards, For natural event of orthe terms costs fatalities. in of impact’ ‘total the and experienced, are benefits or costs the which during time’ ‘impact an end, to its event’s from an time’ beginning ‘unfolding temporal development. (2012) Casti an defines low. is ofnumber hazards preparedness that for notare and alarge understood of society modern inherent vulnerabilities the which the extent to events These highlighted a surprise. • • Extinction a few percent of the population dies. a few percent dies. population of the Global at risk. serious place civilisation that and dies of world’s population the human aquarter than Global place. takes majorand species extinction killed is on Earth life of all aquarter more than An important characteristic of X-events characteristic important their is An X-events differ in terms of the disasters they disasters the in terms of X-events differ

Disasters Catastrophes Level are global scale events in which events which in scale global are Events are events in which more areevents which in are so devastating that that so are devastating - - - 15 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 16 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience to improve tsunami early warning in the Indian Ocean. Indian the in warning early tsunami improve to lenging, particularly in cases where communities where cases communities in particularly lenging, chal is also time impact Estimating earthquake. of the impacts beyond direct the disaster of full the epidemics)(including prolonged development the subsequent Haiti, events in au-Prince earthquake 2010thethe case of in although Port- short, often are times unfolding For earthquake, an occurred. to alevel comparablereturn before to that event the to it for impacted takes community the time the is developmenttime impact The disaster. of the full have of the time point in been noticed the and eventof a developing hazardous signs could first point when the the between time the as time ing we consider unfold caused by the geohazards, of case disasters the In some in cases. be difficult may time impact and unfolding the Estimating present-day the to estimate X-ness of events. past X-ness of recent and major events disasters causing the to equation characterise used is This time. of event, I the and time unfolding the δE impacted region), the in deaths annual total the ble (e.g. gross domestic on product the impact or ofevent), impact the the E where (2012)event. Casti defines: relative oftative the an indication importance X-events,assess a simple equation gives a quanti to quantitatively it not is straightforward Although • category: recent rienced in history,we afourth introduce order moreIn to include frequent events expe country-speci tsunami, the by impacted 1. to most In areas close is other basis acountry on Xcomputed where rupture, the to adjacent region small this arelatively in shock, only aglobal X-ness and ahigh has 2008) event &Synolakis, (Okal fatalities of number alarge caused M=9.1 earthquake Sumatra 2004 the 1. Although Figure r X R S h T fatalities. fatalities. and/or 10,000 more damage causing than in lion Major h h the change in the ensemble the event, due to the U in change the T a( (I = (x x, ,x t) δE ,t X E ,t (I

is the X-ness the is event of an (a of measure )= Disasters )= ,t (1 )= − p 0 h T I S ma U+ (I h a( x U ,t are those exceeding $100 exceeding those are bil r x, h T t) )· I (I (I ) S ,x ,t h a( )| ,t x, the impacted ensem the t) t= )d (I t i 0 ,t − )· t 0 v( t fi the impact impact the α( are small. However, the global scale of the disaster resulted in a large effort effort alarge in resulted disaster the of scale global the However, small. Xare of c values a, t) x, dt t) . (1) ------preferable associated impacts ondirect tothe focus it most cases is in were and widespread, extremely economicimpacts indirect the of Eyjafjallajökull, of 2010 case the the too. In eruption challenging, be can impacted population the Estimating period. to shut nuclearpower down for plants aprolonged 2011the Japandecision after in Tohoku earthquake the example is place prior event. in towas the An which to that to similar asituation notdo return in hazard planning, which resulted in a number of anumber in resulted which planning, hazard in 8assumed magnitude Japan exceeded maximum the theof coast The off M=9.0population. earthquake low was comparedber of impacted to fatalities the (Figure 2010 in Chile in M=8.8 earthquake the hand, other event. On the hazardous of the magnitude to the 2011) X-ness arelatively in high compared resulting (of Daniell, damage order the of billion; US$2–5 causedsigni traffic air cloud with event (Figure volcanic a minor was Iceland eruption volcanic in 2010 The surroundings. its immediate and Prince of Port-au- inhabitants approximately million two represents which 5–15% 300,000, more than of the to from 85,000 ranging estimates with uncertain (Figure earthquake impactedarea (Figure the in 1% less than people of the killed deaths, 100,000 cyclone, caused morethan which Burma 2008 The (Figure died population total 4% of3% and the Indonesia Aceh, (Figure felt in relative 2008), was impact but highest the Synolakis, to some Ocean (Okal extent & Indian the around to life. threats with wide tsunami, which impactedmost countries which tsunami, wide ocean- causedan earthquake Sumatra-Andaman event. caused byage the For 2004 the example, dam expressed or the of number by deaths the The relative importance of disasters is poorlyis disasters The of importance relative 4) low avery X-ness has num the because 3), ash of but interactions the the 2), is of number deaths the 6). For 2010 the Haiti 1), where between f cant economiccant 6). - - is the total population in the region considered. Hazards are: EQ: earthquake; T: tsunami; C: cyclone. C: cyclone. T: tsunami; earthquake; EQ: are: Hazards considered. region the in population total the Eis and δ years, in time impact Iis hours, in time unfolding Uis disasters. major recent of 1. X-ness Table Region Sichuan, China Province Frontier NW Pakistan, Aceh, Indonesia Port-au-Prince, Haiti Burma Hazard EQ EQ EQ,T EQ C 2008 2005 2004 2010 2008 Year 120 30 15 15 U 2 10 10 I 2 3 5 130,000–170,000 85,000–350,000 δ E 100,000 80,000 70,000 is number of deaths in the region, region, the in deaths of number E is 20,000,000 10,000,000 12,500,000 2,000,000 4,271,000 assumptions. false by hampered was and the scienti the and infrastructure, of planning the suf not was hazards seismic scienti components. Moreover, crucial of functioning the on infrastructure of dependency complexity and extreme high with aregion in tsunami the by triggered effects domino the of because mainly X-ness, a medium has Japan in earthquake Figure planning. use land and codes building for abasis as hazards seismic of functions density probability of scienti of use the to due is extent large a to which X-ness, low very a has Chile in earthquake 2010 M=8.8 The 4. Figure traf air the of resilience improve to made being are efforts disaster, economic the of aftermath the In Europe. in system org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia via org/licenses/by/2.0)], (http://creativecommons. [CC-BY-2.0 Johnson Ethan Cpl. Lance by photo Corps, Marine US By Right: Commons. Wikimedia via domain], [Public photo Navy US By Left: with the complex air traf air complex the with cloud ash the of interaction through X-event economic an into 2010 in turned Iceland in Eyjafjallajökull of eruption minor relatively The 3. Figure ensemble considered. the are loss economic the or fatalities the whether of independent X-ness, high a has Haiti in earthquake 2010 M=7.1The 2. Figure fi E ciently integrated into into integrated ciently fi The 2011 5. The M=9.0 c knowledge of of c knowledge fi fi c knowledge of the the of c knowledge c system. c system. 0.004 0.04–0.05 0.007 0.05–0.17 0.008 fi c knowledge c knowledge X fi c 17 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 18 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience years. years. 100 next the in 18% an ofhas materialising chance that arisk ignoring implies measures DRR and events for preparation 500-year not in accounting Forexample, for DRR. challenge large poses a This close to is 10%chance 1% and respectively (Table 2). For63%. or a 1,000-year 10,000-year event, this a100-yearthat event at once least about is occurs chance the a Poisson distribution, assuming tury, years). or amillion years, 1,000 (e.g. acentury, interval agiven time events within to refer used is averagequency’ to the of number ‘fre The term on Earth. 10,000-yearany interval within occurs typically eruption that largest the is eruption A10,000-year volcanic on Earth. val inter this once within occurs typically that flood thelargest is flood 500-year a Thus, given period. the within on at once Earth least anywhere ring event of an occur to refer used is likelihood to the fatalities. the X-nessthe of selected events considered is on based (Figure effects cascading In the context of X-events, ‘recurrence interval’ context of the X-events,In ‘recurrence interval’ It is important to note that within any given any cen to note within It important that is 5). Table In Figure 1and 6, 6, - - - - chance that at least one event occurs in 100 years. years. 100 in occurs event one least at that chance Cthe and century, per events of number average the i.e. century, N an i.e. occurs, event one Poisson distribution. a We assume years. 100 given any within place takes event one least at that chance the and events of intervals Recurrence 2. Table N 10 100 500 1,000 10,000 100,000 is the number of years in which on average average on which in years of number the N is F 10 1 0.2 0.1 0.01 0.001 is the frequency in a in frequency the Fis event, -year killed. population local of percentage and cyclones and tsunamis, earthquakes, recent selected of toll Total death 6. Figure

in % C in 99.99 63.21 18.13 9.516 0.995 0.100 l l l Geohazards Extreme 3. quakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, of extinction. edge to the humanity bringing and of course history the changing impacted humanity, environment on the haveimpacts and dramatically have cases most extreme produced long-lasting very loss of and property. death Th significant causing e scales, regional and at local settlements human Thhas hazards e ofrecurrence natural impacted en oft Spectrum Hazard of the 3.1 turned out to by unexpectedly large, such as the 1920 the as such large, out to by unexpectedly turned of Anumber earthquakes management. risk disaster (Wong, 2014) analyses hazard seismic modern in and question ofevents whetherextreme accounted are for have property and the raised loss of life significant caused that recent the ‘extreme’ earthquakes ticular, par- In for of knowledge decisionuse the making. alimited and decision and making, to policy edge knowl- available ofa lack the of transfer efficient Th hazards. to these indicated havedisasters also ese society of modern vulnerability of the understanding our and hazards of natural knowledge our gaps in storms. solar and temperatures, extreme tropical cyclones, storms, include hazards natural Other severe by them. conditions triggered or events other impacts extinction-level due to direct to from major disasters anything cause can hazards geo- deformation. Extreme subsidence surface and oftbecause they ,and/or landslides, en cause considered geohazards also are as droughts and Floods etc. slope instabilities, soils, expanding and subsidence, shrinking , as such of life, loss and of property lead to damage can face that sur- deformations other and Earth’s of the bolides, Recent major disasters have highlighted existing existing haveRecent major disasters highlighted consideredGeohazards here earth- include Knowing the Upper End End Upper the Knowing the next large but unexpected event might occur. occur. event but large unexpected might next the question of the where raises It also management. risk aconsequencements as and not are accounted for in assess- risk events in large are underestimated these frequency of the and size maximum of the whether Tohoku, Th earthquakes. Japan, the questions is raises 2011 the and 1960 the Chile, China, Haiyuan/Gansu, to the scale of the disaster caused by a hazard. causedby ahazard. disaster of the scale to the capital contributes social and by a hazard, triggered is process the that impacts fabric also state of social the Th hazards. by the causeddirectly damage e the than Thfailures. be more can impacts severe indirect ese of triggered achain in of impact ahazard direct the amplify can that new vulnerabilities associated with level of today’stechnological environment is built Th impacts. indirect and direct potential the high e order of in olism’ societies to modern understand ‘metab- and consideration form, functioning, of the process these requires Understanding to adisaster. may which or may and not unfold cesses that lead pro- resulting the and of ahazard, occurrence the is, event, the that between to distinguish important is It spectrum. not does consider full hazards the the However, spectrum. solely hazard on of the to focus low end the probability, high-impact associated with risk the socio-economic of fabric the illustrates ability environment vulner- the and built of the exposure onto them projecting and today’s and sensitivity hazards. of the understanding scientific solid acceptable at an economic cost requires a hazards of extreme inducedoccurrence by the disasters the events. to Reducing these resilience increased global foruisite effand risk management disaster ective catastrophe, aprereq- is to global major disasters consequences events extreme from with including Understanding the full spectrum of geohazards, of geohazards, spectrum full the Understanding Reviewing the known extreme events of the past events extreme past of the known the Reviewing 19 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 20 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience means that no numbers were reported. reported. were which zero, is waves numbers no heat that for means people affected of number the years, several in example, For issues. accounting or information missing to due fi affected the the to that Note fatalities of percent. in ratio the Ris population fatalities. to according listed are Hazards $. US million in is Damage advanced_search/index.html. http://emdat.be/ at available tool the using IDD, the from extracted were 2013. to 1980 Data period the for statistics Disaster 3. Table theare leading floods population, ofterms affected (Table hazards other and droughts 4). floods, In than impactedpopulation among more fatalities tend eruptions volcanic to and cause Earthquakes (Table hazards from natural Figure ing 3and result damage and accounted for most fatalities people. of affected number total the and damage presentare total the in tistics/, respectively. Particularly large uncertainties www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/sta Preventionthe Web at available http:// database and www.emdat.be/advanced_search/index.html (IDD),Database Disaster International from the extracted data pile (Muir-Wood,quantities 2012). Tables 4com 3and of annualised for determination the allow that lack of the comprehensive is risk aster databases economic impacts. global significant in result can interdependentsociety,and major hazards global interconnected increasingly an In harder to quantify. (domino) but are these cascading other effects, and disruptions supplyeconomy chain through havethe also negative worldon effects disasters 19,000 2012). (Vervaeck deaths & Daniell, Such approximately losses and billion $700 and $400 between causing time, of all expensive earthquake most the as earthquake the classifying in resulted (World 2011). damages in Bank, estimates Other to $122–235 leading billion buildings, over 400,000 people nearly 16,000 severely and damaged killed 2011 the ple, in Tohoku which Japan, earthquake, forexam werehighlighted, vulnerabilities These infrastructure. local and population local toare the risks worldthe primary at once the least adecade, happenFor which somewheremajor geohazards, in Risks Associated and 3.2 Earthquakes and tsunamis Volcanoes Droughts Floods Hazard Extreme temperaturesExtreme - dis in trends and disasters assessing in issue An During the last few decades, earthquakes have earthquakes few decades, last the During Impacts of Extreme Geohazards Geohazards of Extreme Impacts using the tool available the at http:// using gures are reproduced as given in the IDD without rounding. The fi The rounding. without IDD the in given as reproduced are gures Events 3,741 865 499 461 160 Fatalities 866,882 229,080 166,921 561,540 25,539 7). - - - - in a highly populated region or megacity might cause cause populatedregion might or megacity ahighly in its occurrence geohazard not is extreme high, very cover. on land use of impact land the and change to climate due both increasing is risk and scale, local havethe at also effects catastrophic can Landslides have on people impacts infrastructures. and large floods flash and hurricanes tornadoes, scale, local the At across more areas. geographical extended more frequently and weather events occurring are aster-related databases. - most dis not in events included these currently are Nevertheless, high. extremely for was devastation However, populated. potential their notareas highly 2013) Chelyabinsk, and 2009; Sulawesi, affected recent the in (Tunguska,or past impacts 1908; droughts. and of floods that than larger generally is quakes Hence, X-ness eruptions. the volcanic and of earth for earthquakes than for floods smaller magnitude two ordersis population ratio toof affected of deaths However, second. being droughts the with cause cal records of such events, thus making it nearly records making cal of events, such thus derives from alack histori ofgeohazards, accurate of extreme particular, in and, of geohazards past structures and on ofimpact populations the edge Holocene. the during quently of more events have extreme that happened infre evenrecurrence is to the population more vulnerable The world’sgrowing associated tsunamis. the and 2011 and Sumatra-Andaman Tohoku earthquakes 2004 by the consequences, illustrated as devastating been captured is low.been captured is knowl The poor relatively events extreme have that probability the because eventsfrequency extreme on society modern of low- impacts potential the understand to fully Although the rate or the of of alarge occurrence Although extreme change, context of climate the In the explosionsThe majorinatmosphere bolide The statistics of a few decades are insufficient insufficient are decades of a few statistics The 1,766,356,773 3,277,580,121 158,794,738 97,822,633 Affected 4,476,906 gures have considerable uncertainties uncertainties considerable have gures 737,379 Damage 619,190 117,612 54,327 2,870 0.546 0.032 0.007 0.570 0.171 R - - - - caveat on the accuracy of the numbers. the of accuracy the on caveat a Table 3for See percent. in population affected the to fatalities of ratio the Ris fatalities. to according ordered are Hazards US $. million in is v11.08. Damage version: Data Belgium. Brussels, Louvain, de Catholique University by maintained Database, Disaster International OFDA/CRED the is database The statistics/. Data from http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/ 2008. to 1980 period the for statistics disaster Detailed 4. Table population affected to deaths of number 7e: of ratio deaths of 7d: number population affected of 7c: Number $1,000 in 7b: Total damage occurrences of 7a: Number through http://www.emdat.be/advanced-search/ accessible Database Disaster International the is 2013. Source and 1980 between period time the for Hazards 7. Natural Figure Wild Landslide Volcano Heatwave Tsunami Earthquake Hazard wave Cold Cyclone 7c 7a fre Events 2,887 1,211 366 294 706 182 156 126 140 410 73 18 Fatalities 558,565 385,630 195,843 229,551 402,911 89,889 20,008 11,595 25,197 3,532 1,666 4,780

Per year Per 13,298 13,893 19,261 6,753 3,100 7,916 690 400 869 165 122 57 2,809,481,489 1,551,455,122 496,560,639 136,333,515 Affected 12,710,204 5,766,092 4,080,791 2,481,879 6,875,103 7,031,523 4,614,411 7e 7d 7b 69,637 53,498,452 96,878,672 Per year Per 17,122,781 4,701,156 438,283 242,466 198,831 237,073 140,717 159,118 85,582 2,401 Damage 533,371 397,334 351,079 76,949 42,807 10,046 21,990 31,511 6,060 5,902 2,871 807 Per year Per 18,392 13,701 12,106 0.346 2,653 1,087 1,476 209 204 758 99 28 0.038 0.036 0.283 0.285 0.029 0.007 0.081 9.249 5.072 1.948 0.617 0.169 R 21 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 22 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience Deadliest great earthquakes on record. record. on earthquakes great Deadliest 8. Figure of provided. major is impacts geohazards potential areview of the sections, following the In services. power, portation, health and water, food, sewage, trans communication, of availability uninterrupted inter-connected on the depends that globally society to a threat aglobal pose eruptions volcanic and conditions. even worst levels the under environmental global regional and decisions supportat actions and local, to enable timely of structures such sustainability the to assure it crucial ments ormaking megacities, emergencyand centres settle are locatedlarge in people.mation and Most decision-making of the of infor transfer efficient dependent and on fast 2014),and areas heavily in hazardous often located Division, Population Affairs, Social and Economic megacities (Unitedaround of Nations,Department progressively are of travel. Societies clustering rate the and of goods exchange the increasing communicationsmoting progressivelyand revolutions have rapid triggered development, pro technological and industrial the changed: matically to interpret events. past times of moreeffects historical recent events during the environment,events using and on populations andextreme large of past effects the to reconstruct have descriptions.Scientists qualitative efforts made for allows which memories of populations, ancestral events these haveSometimes of become the part structures. and to communities inflicted damage real of the estimate arealistic impossible to extract Extreme earthquakes, impacts of large bolides, bolides, of large impacts earthquakes, Extreme In the last two centuries, the planet has dra has planet the centuries, two last the In - - - - - ate extremely high tsunami waves, water the since tsunami high ate extremely ofbody water (such or alake fjord) as may gener a limited hitting landslides Aerial water bodies. or large areas on oceanic ofby bolides impacts landslides, stratovolcanoes located on islands, and sub-marine and becausedby subaerial can tsunamis degrees of poverty. high with areas available in not are preparedness resilience sufficiently and to increase means the and into disasters, hazards turn can Poverty, corruption, with often paired rience adisproportionate of number disasters. more as level developed of expe hazards countries or greatest damage. most fatalities the cause notdo necessarily nitude mag largest the with consequence, earthquakes the (Figure infrastructure poor building with 9). (Figure tsunamis through indirectly (Figure inflict can they destruction years (see Table the B) illustrate Appendix 8in 2000 last the during earthquakes to extreme Large 3.3 slides have occurred along most of the continental most have continental of the along slides occurred (Panizzo of height about 250 metersreached amaximum al. et of height aboutmum 525 1960; meters Fritz (Miller, (1958), tsunami Bay, Alaska, reached which amaxi Lituya thethe for case was This disperse. cannot Harbitz Harbitz In addition to shallow off-shore earthquakes, off-shore to shallow addition earthquakes, In same to the exposed poor countries general, In areas in areamplified disasters The resulting Earthquakes and Tsunamis , 2009) and of the Vajont of, 2009) the and (1963), tsunami which et al. et (2014) al. et land show submarine that , 2005; Zaniboni & Tinti, 2014). &Tinti, Zaniboni , 2005; 8) directly and and 8) directly 10). a As - - - - - noes or submarine landslides in river may be in deltas landslides noes or submarine flows debris active volca- around Large-scale this. of ice change sheets could melting increase in an although hazards, tsunami pared to earthquake com- most regions in negligible is cycles glacial and changes related to climate landslides submarine Thheights. giant associated with hazard tsunami e run-up tsunami extreme may potentially cause mis tsuna- landslide-generated hence and earthquakes, inducedby megathrust may exceedistics tsunamis character- tsunami authors conclude land-slide that generation. Th tsunami determine that landslides e are properties of these travel and distance discharge, velocity, mass acceleration, maximum dimensions, Th several volcano and flanks. margins e physical earthquakes. in-land by caused Destruction 10. Figure earthquakes. offshore by caused Destruction 9. Figure infrastructure. Direct impacts of tsunamis are of tsunamis impacts Direct infrastructure. of coastal for planning the guidance and insight provide can hazard more assessment tsunami of the events. for A scenario-based extreme these vals oftinter- long recurrence unjustifiably en on based wateror on large basins. oceans the in impact inducedby an tsunamis large there haveper century, been no recent records of one times to two Earth the hit tsunami significant on to a average cause that enough large bolides it estimated is Although observations. of sufficient open question due to an alack still is uncertainties and hazards, of recurrence intervals, estimation (2014) al. et Harbitz more frequent. highlight that Th is infrastructure coastal critical of design e 23 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 24 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience FE: frequency of eruption; O: known/estimated occurrences in the Holocene. Holocene. the in occurrences known/estimated O: eruption; of frequency FE: * plus two suspected. two * plus Table 5. Classi 5. Table level 2002; event (e.g. extinction even Bostrum, an catastrophe or aglobal in result oid easily could aster of impact alarge the Indeed, area. populated one should adensely hit damage, catastrophic have to extensive cause Bolides to potential the 3.5 scale. the local at have effects catastrophic also can Landslides peopleon both infrastructures. and have scales, floods at ahuge flash impact local and Tornadoes, areas. geographical extended hurricanes more more in frequently and events occurring are weather extreme change, context of the climate In and Landslides 3.4 centres across globe. the warning tsunami to of accelerateience and establishment plans the prompted governments resil to develop local both tsunamis epicentre. of such effects The catastrophic away of kilometres from people the thousands killed 11, 2011 Tohoku generated waves earthquake which March or the earthquake Sumatra-Andaman 2004 December 26, the Friday Good earthquake, Alaskan 27, March the Earthquake, 1964 1960May Chile 22, by the triggered those as such tsunamis Large plans. awareness increase develop and resilience threat, governments require the local to which lem, assess more is prob impacts a local of tsunami Mitigation scales. global and reach can regional effects cading - cas and indirect while zones, torestricted coastal VEI 7 3 2 4 8 6 5 1 0 Extreme Weather Extreme Bolides Bolides > 100 km m > 10,000,000 m > 1,000,000 > 0.1 km > 1,000 km > 1,000 > 10 km > 1km m > 10,000 < 10,000 m < 10,000 V fi cation of volcanic eruptions. V: ejecta volume; EC: eruption classi EC:eruption volume; V: ejecta eruptions. volcanic of cation 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Supervolcanic Ultra-Plinian Plinian Plinian Pelean/Plinian Vulcanian Strombolian Hawaiian Hawaiian EC

/

Ultra-Plinian /

/ Strombolian

Pelean

/

Vulcanian - - - Colossal Explosive Gentle Severe Mega-colossal Super-colossal Paroxysmal Cataclysmic Effusive D buildings. buildings. theshock people of wave1,000 effects due to the on 2000 stood at 500 million or more, a figure certain certain or more, afigure million stoodat 500 2000 year at the from risk volcanoes in directly ulation to 16 below). pop the to some estimates, According (see scale 14 on a global Figures almost communities Far-reachingimpacted communities. entire effects people devastated and of amillion aquarter than more 1700Since eruptions have volcanic AD, killed 3.6 et al. et 2013; Avramenko Pichon (Le tons of TNT kilo 500 around estimated energy releasedblast an The over of Chelyabinsk, city Ural Mountains. the closeto the disintegrated fireball Earth-impacting 15, of TNT. On February 2013, kilotons 50 alarge atmosphere equivalent to about energy released an the detonation the in that It been estimated has region, Sulawesi Indonesia. the hit bolide a large 1975; Vannucchi al. et (Harkrider,megaton 1964; Ben-Menahem, of TNT equivalent to 1 more energy estimated than an ing km overflattened which 3000 1908), 30, (June generatedFireball explosion an Tunguska The populated. were that not highly areas in fortunately Earth, of the surface the struck (Gulick al. et extinction caused mass and years ago approximatelyoccurred 65.5 million that impact of abolide result to believed bethe is Mexico Yucatan crater the impact in Peninsula, 2008). Chicxulub The Smil, 2004b; Hempsell, Only in the last century a number of large bolides bolides anumberof large century last the in Only Volcanoes fi cation; D: description; PH: plume height; height; plume PH: description; D: cation; > 30 km > 30 km 1–5 100–1,000 m 315 km > 50 km > 50 km > 40 km 2,035 1,025 km < 100 m PH , 2014) injuredmore and than , 2015). On October 9, 2009 et al. et ≥ 100 yrs Weekly Daily Few months Few ≥10,000 yrs yrs ≥ 1,000 ≥10 yrs yr ≥1 Persistent FE , 2013; Gorkavyi 2 of forests, releas forests, of , 2013). 2013). , 51 3,477 Many 868 0 5* 166 421 Many O et al. et - - - , VEI. VEI. Th2000). thecloseto be been defined has to scale is −7.0, where as been defined has of size eruption scale magnitude problem,come alogarithmic this depositedthe (Mason material of density into account the volume’ taking without ‘bulk it on based estimated that is is lem VEI of the eff of possible indicator climate a better A prob- ects. related is eruption, of the size not to the necessarily atmosphere, ejected intothe is gas which dioxide fur 11). (Figure eruptions However, of sul- amount the of the explosivity the plume to characterise resulting of height the the and erupted of material the ume 1982). &Self, (Newhall vol-eruption the It uses of impact volcanic climatic the oped to estimate Table in summarised is 5.system tors have been proposed. Adescriptive classification diff Many straightforward. indica- and erent scales not is hazardousness and size their measuring forms, and of range settings a wide in occur cesses that eruptions. of warnings timely to capacity reliable develop make and scientists their to grow. Ththatthe more important all is makes it at height between Flight Levels FL 200 and FL 350. FL and travel 200 FL Levels Flight aircraft between commercial height at most that Note size. eruption the measure to (right) height plume eruption the and the of (left) acombination tephra uses that erupted the of scale volume asemi-logarithmic (1982) is &Self Newhall by introduced (VEI) Index Explosivity Volcanic The eruptions. Figure 11. Th devel-(VEI)was eIndex Explosivity Volcanic complex are eruptions volcanic Because pro- Measures for the magnitude of volcanic eruptions. Several indicators have been proposed to measure the severity of volcanic volcanic of severity the measure to proposed been have indicators Several eruptions. volcanic of magnitude the for Measures m is the erupted mass in kg (Pyle, 1995, (Pyle, kg eruptedin the is mass et al. et , 2004). To, 2004). over- M = log = 10 ( m ) greater than 5. greater than of aVEI with eruptions large’ ‘very as qualify Laki) (Tambora, 1500, since three ties only and Krakatau of terms casual- in greatest disasters volcanic nine 20 the in disaster (Colombia) 1985 in causedone worst of the volcanic 3eruption of Nevado Ruiz del VEI by the triggered For mudflows example, damage. resulting to the related loosely only is eruption, the i.e. hazard, the Thof eruptions. volcanic of magnitude and size e impact the have toage beencharacterise used also 4. 3and of between VEI estimated an eruption of Eyjafjdisruptive reached only allajökull 7. extremely the VEI that reaching noting It worth is Tambora the only 1815 with eruption in occurred, 5or more of eruptions 1500, VEI 20 more than Since destroyed Pompeii Herculaneum. 79 AD and 5eruption of Vesuvius6. For VEI the example, in lower values than had years VEI 2,000 last the ing dur- eruptions of most of devastating 8. Several the examples). VEI None reachedof these maximum the Holocene the in (see eruptions 5,000 Table 6for Mount St. Helens in 1980 has a higher VEI than five than VEI 1980 HelensMount in St. ahigher has It is worth noting that the VEI 5eruption of VEI the that noting It worth is Thdam- amount the of and number e of fatalities have values for more been determined VEI than th century. As Table As century. 5shows, of the 25 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 26 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience what would be the consequenceswhat bethe aviation? would for civil future, the in Range Aleutian the in 6 eruptionoccur anew Novarupta Should lives. VEI of human sands thou saving prevented thus aviation disasters, civil However, travel airspace. air European grounding 2011) Daniell, lion; derived from of closure the most economic loss $5 (estimated and bil US$2 between Secondthe World War for about onelarge week. The since Europe in travel level of disruption air highest createda height of approximately which the 9 km, 3to 4eruption generated plume with ash VEI an minor This volcano Eyjafjallajökull. of Icelandic the eruption the to goforward back recall afew years and on eruptions society,volcanic modern it straight is America. North Europe and China, temperatures in mal generated summer’, and without year ‘the as abnor 1816,year Tambora’s following recalled is eruption, the planet: of several the areas epidemics in and ine led and to fam harvest impacted the heavily which temperature changes reached km) triggering and 43 (Tambora’s altitudes at high height column ash stratosphere the in ash byfor injecting long periods theclimate impacted eruptions These distances. long-term as global losses at well and regional as tsunamis) emissions, gas and ash flows, pyroclastic generation (through the of distances at local tures area) struc and generated loss of life immediate (except remoteness due Novarupta, to the of the (1912) (1991). Pinatubo and eruptions of these Each (1783), Tambora (1815), (1883), Krakatau Novarupta Thera 7 include (≈1630BC), AD), Vesuvius Laki (79 detail. 2001), have in impacts the for been studied which Yellowstone Christiansen, BC; (around 640,000 2012; Svensson al. 1987; et Williams, 2001), Toba (around & Chesner,Rose 74,000 BC; oferuptions Taupo Wilson, BC; (around 24,000 have More recent been identified. the examplesare events/Ma 22 as tomany down 1.4 and event/Ma as Periodswith over Ma. 36 past pulses the two but seem time to in cluster in distributed evenly arethese that eruptions not indicate The authors have 8eruptions been VEI identified. 42 Ma, 36 eruptions. of impact volcanic research to reduce direct the and of importance monitoring the illustrates This zone of restricted access had not been established. a and studies, scientific and based on monitoring had not been issued been much greater awarning if have life would The loss of 57but causedonly deaths. of mankind, history the in eruptions deadliest of the Mason Mason When focusing on the potential impact of impact potential on the focusing When of 5, 6or More aVEI recent with eruptions large (2004) report that during the past past the (2004) during report that al. et , 2013), and ------gists, volcanologists and the aviation industry and and aviation the and industry volcanologists gists, (VAACs) meteorolo were between set up to liaise 1982. 1991in In Centers Volcanic Advisory Ash Group Volcanic Study the Warning established Ash (ICAO) Organization Aviation Civil International 1994). (Casadevall, land safely and engines the restart to managed pilot mthe of 5,000 more than a fall After failed. engines four All Airport. International into Anchorage descending Mount Redoubt while from cloud of ash volcanic athick through flew 867 KLM Indonesia. Jakarta, in emergency landing makea successful and engines three toaged restart power man pilot when to the of aheight m, 3,650 without 16 adescentnext aircraft of the minutes, for the causing, failed, engines four All Indonesia. generatedash eruption byof the Mount Galunggung, of 11,300 minto acloud altitude of volcanic at an 867 (15 Flight KLM December 1989).and BA 9flew BA 9(24 June1982) Flight Airways ples British are exam The moststriking functioning. normal their blocking aircraft’sengines, the inside coating a glass into from turning ash resulting eruptions, volcanic causedby aviation come closeto has disasters very highly populated areas. areas. populated highly consequences eruption direct ofstriking a the large of risk epidemicsbe the some would and tion, of loss of energy,potential contamina water soil and systems, hydrogeological local and agriculture ing short- impact care, changes long-term and climatic to tools support health and medications including oftion provisions goods, of numerous primary consequent with interrup traffic to air disruption area? Mediterranean the of heart the located 7eruptions in VEI generating of potential the with area an Fields, at Phlegraean eruption or an 79 AD, in one occurred to the that of eruption Vesuvius from similar aPlinian result consequences years ago? What would 200 only at Tambora occurred say, which 7, to that VEI similar consequences bethe of,would eruption, of alarger what of goods, of type any exchange the inhibiting of travellers and week, inconveniencing thousands for Europe a in traffic blocked Europe Northern air eruptionin 3–4 aVEI if obvious question arises: An eruption. volcanic ofsubject big threat alarge to the constantly is of exchange goods and communications scale, at alarge that it make Europe clear South and Iceland Hawaii, Papua New Guinea, America, South Islands, Aleutian Alaska, Peninsula, Kamchatka of eruption. subject tovolcanic risks over airspace flying to pilots warnings early issue As a consequenceAs of episodes the these over recent several instances civil In decades, Immediate a Immediate Indonesia, in Japan, active many The volcanoes nd long-term casualties, long-termnd long-term casualties, ------VEI: Volcanic Explosivity Index. Index. death. of Explosivity cause Volcanic Main VEI: MCD: fatalities. major and/or impacts global to regional with eruptions volcanic major of Overview 6. Table 640000 BP 73000±4000 BP 26500 BC 5677±50 BC 5550±100 BC 4350 BP 1610±14 BC 79 230 969±20 1280 1477 1580 1600 1631 1650 1660 1783-85 1815 1882 1902 1883 1902 1912 1919 1980 1985 1991 2010 2010 2011 Year Yellowstone Toba, Indonesia Oruanui, NewZealand Crater Lake Kurile Kikai Santorini Vesuvius, Italy Taupo Changbai, China Quilotoa Baroarbunga, Iceland Billy Mitchell Huaynaputina Vesuvius, Italy Kolombo Long Island Laki andGrimsvoth,Iceland Tambora, Indonesia Galunggung, Indonesia Santa Maria,Guatemala Krakatau, Indonesia Mount Pelee,Martinique Novarupta, Alaska Kelut, Indonesia St Helens Nevado delaRuiz,Colombia Pinatubo Eyjafjallajökull, Iceland Merapi, Indonesia Puyehue-Cordon Caulle,Chile Location VEI 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 5 6 6 4 6 5 3 6 4 4 4 1000 3000 2500– 150 140–150 80–220 99 2.8–3.8 120 76–116 21 10 14 30 60 30 14 150 20 21 >0.1 15–30 1 0.03 6–16 0.25 0.3 km 3 unknown Deaths >5,000 92,000 36,000 29,000 25,000 3,400 3,500 9,400 4,000 5,100 847 353 57 0 population; MCD:starvation Killed upto60%oftheglobal MCD: ashfl ows MCD: mudandlavafl ows deaths are forIcelandonly MCD: famineandfl uorinepoisoning; MCD: starvation MCD: mudfl ows MCD: tsunami MCD: pyroclastic fl ow MCD: mudfl ows MCD: MCD: failingroofs Caused severe airtraffi cdisruption MCD: pyroclastic fl ows Comment 27 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 28 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience of the last millennium. The The consequences for Iceland millennium. last of the repercussive events socially and climatic important cloud (Figure ash the of distribution alarge aerosols in resulted sulfuric eight-month the impact, of emission direct little there was Although about Iceland. 9,350 in deaths 13). (Figure below 1billion far was population Holocene global the the in took placeknown while However, eruptions sevenvolcanic of the largest six events today’s have. under lar conditions might recurrence of the simi what impacts to assess us recent provide may centuries examplesthat allow Some eruptions during of larger the scale. global resource and supplies on a infrastructure pogenic 2Ma. last the during eruptions selected and years 2,000 last the during eruptions volcanic Major 12. Figure The eruption of Laki in Iceland in in Iceland 1783 caused Laki The eruption of anthro climate, impact also can eruptions Large 14) one most of the causing - - famine and from fluorine poisoning after the fissure fissure the after from fluorine poisoning and famine the 20–25% in estimated died population of the An –were Hardships catastrophic. Mist the as – known in the UK because of breathing problems. because of breathing Impacts UK the in people 25,000 died estimated An fallout. ash of the of 1783 because ‘sand-summer’ the as known was summer the Great In Britain, India. and Peninsula Arabian the southern affected also The eruption of its 1784 population. one-sixth in cost it roughly Egypt afflicted that famine The resulting Africa. in precipitation reducing soon circulations, over areas mon Indian and eruptionweakened African Laki the fluoride werethat that There is released. evidence tons of hydrogen fluorosisskeletal 8 frommillion the and of horsesof because dental 50% died and tle, of sheep, of cat 80% 50% Around ceased. eruptions Table 6. see eruptions, the on details 2100. by For 12of billion population aglobal for heading are we that indicate studies global population. Recent and Holocene, the during 7eruptions VEI 13. Figure - - examples. as detail more in presented are eruptions 1. These anomaly has been of blamed for has severity the the anomaly climate pattern of mer astormierwinter. This and of Europeexperienced acooler Part sum USA. of coast the east subsequent the and along months by snow frost and June in are illustrated impacts Climate problems globe. the around agricultural decreased by significant about 0.4–0.7 Kcausing Unitedern Average States. temperatures global north the fog in caused persistent dry aerosol veil’ 19 of the worst the famine in Hemisphere, resulting much Northern of the in livestock died and failed asummer’. Crops without ‘year the as known ‘volcanic winter’, 1816 the and including became (Figure cloud ash The times. historic 71,000, in fatalities, of number direct largest the eventvolcanic with Europe. to several years weather of in extreme of The eruptions contributed Mexico. Gulf the and America, were North Europe, reported throughout scale. global to acontinental at infrastructure disrupting crucial impacts far-reaching have today would them of most and impacts environmental large had eruptions volcanic 7.Table Historic Iceland eruption in 1783. in eruption Iceland Laki, the during ash volcanic by impacted areas of Extent 14. Figure th The eruption of Mount in Tambora 1815the is century. The resulting ‘stratospheric The sulfate century. resulting Deaths 36,000 92,000 29,000 25,000 14,300 3,500 3,400 9,350 4,011 5,110 15) caused global climate anomalies that that 15) anomalies climate causedglobal Ruiz, Colombia Martinique Pelee, Mt. Tambora, Indonesia Indonesia Tambora, Volcano Kelut, Indonesia Unzen, Japan Unzen, Laki, Iceland Iceland Laki, Krakatau, Indonesia Indonesia Krakatau, Vesuvius, Italy Galunggung, Indonesia Vesuvius, Italy 1- 2 1 1 2. Only deaths in Iceland are counted. are Iceland in deaths 2. Only - - 1902 1883 1985 1882 1631 1783 1792 1919 Year 1815 in the ocean. ocean. the in collapsed when they generatedwhich tsunamis the flows, were coast by pyroclastic affected Sumatran aof number and places on Strait the of Sunda the area Alarge atone over height. estimated min 30 27, with 1884 explosions followed was by atsunami, August of the Each of height km. 80 estimated an atmosphere injected into the was of TNT. Ash to megatons 200 at estimated is released energy The 16). (Figure reached and Asia western Australia cloud coveredash of South-East fraction alarge away. km 4,800 The Mauritius near of Rodrigues island the in and Westernaway Perth, Australia in be heard could 3,110 most and intense the was km 1816. in Bengal in originating worldwide the as spread of cholera of a new strain 1816 between Mediterranean ern 1819, and well as east the and Europe southeast epidemic in typhus increasing activity, the August 27, August the activity, increasing 1884 eruption several months of After deaths. caused 36,500 Mount Tambora eruption in 1815. in eruption Tambora Mount Figure 79 The eruption of Krakatau, Indonesia, in Indonesia, 1883Krakatau, The eruption of Extent of area impacted by during the the during ash volcanic by impacted area of 15. Extent Starvation Tsunami Ash flows Ash Cause of death of Cause Starvation Mudflows Ash flows Ash Tsunami Mud and lava flows lava and Mud Mudflows VEI 6 6 4 3 7 ? 5 ? ? 5 - 29 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 30 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience for several years by sharply reducedfor several yearsby sharply temperatures. reduced besignificantly would crop yields global that of crops possibility the is destruction diate consideration.” beaminor would upper the tropospherein to tolerable returned levels, concentrations the of ash until flights commercial to necessity or suspend the to machinery, damage world. Compared food-related to these the impacts, compounded by much the reduced around harvests trophe unprecedented it be history, and could in alone- bea catas would regions. This populated people one world’s of in the most densely 2 billion one of seasons crops or two needed to feed some destroy at least Asia, Southeast people throughout of tensof millions besides killing location would, notes today “a that Toba-sized asimilar in eruption (2008)5–15 Smil 2007). Kfor several years (Jones, temperatures by mid-latitude cooling and etation, al. et 10more al. cm et than (Matthews coveredwhich of to adepth Asia much of Southeast km 800 releasedabout roughly which 74,000 years ago, 8Toba VEI the example was Sumatra in eruption 2008). One &Blake, Self (Self, 2006; mate changes or short generate long-term can and dramatic cli biosphere the impact they ment, as levels at different environ on the of number fingerprints significant eruptions leave volcanic Large a level high. very is global and regional supplyfood in local, at the reductions of risk dramatic 7orthe 8, oftions VEI eruption, 1883. 1883. eruption, Indonesia Krakatau, the of impact direct of Extent 16. Figure Perhaps even more threatening than the imme Perhaps the than even more threatening These examples illustrate that for erup volcanic illustrate examples These , 2012), to destroy enough much of veg the 3 of ash and aerosols into the atmosphere, aerosols the into and of ash , 2012; Petraglia , 2012; Petraglia - - - - - tons of SO of tons injected about 17 which eruption, Pinatubo mega complex. of is eruptions impact volcanic For the al. et (Mandeville eruption for1991 more the 6Pinatubo than magnitude VEI order to bean of estimated is eruption Mt. Mazama amount SO of The previously thought. than may be larger degassed sulfur of mantle amount the created which Oregon, that Crater indicated Lake, about 7,700 oferuption Mt. Mazama years B.P., the during magmas of the degassing of the A study major eruptions (Mandeville during of SO temporal distribution and amount dioxide (SO of sulfur is eruptions impacts climate potential the al. et (Parry changes larger for sharply lossesincrease that and on crop yields, negative effect have would Kelvin a substantially of afew even that afall suggests Assessment Reports IPCC 2007 The on agriculture. warming global of effects the estimating literature emerging the temperature drop, but getfrom some we can hint from a multi-year such global expect losses we might present,At crop of the there no are good estimates well be that a change along the lines indicated in in indicated lines the along a change be that well it and could temperatures, of extreme impacts the increasing rapidly is change climate Anthropogenic 17). (Figure impacts change climate and viruses, storms, core at the solar include lenge civilisation related hazards. to these mainly are DRR successesin events, and on these focused is aconsequence, As DRR damage. and of loss of life fraction have main causedthe droughts, and floods as well as tsunamis, combined with earthquakes few decades, of last upOver the to several decades. at recurrence intervals hazards natural impactful For most the society, modern among are geohazards Hazards Natural Other and 3.7 for food security. be devastating present-day under which impact, could conditions have 7eruption could climate amuch larger VEI al. et (Kirchner pattern warming winter and tropospheric cooling summer hemisphere northern on the separates into a which (Stenchikov cooling tropospheric global a and stratospheric associatedwarming with was impact climate the that indicate studies model three years (Ward, 2009). It can be expected that a a years (Ward, that three 2009). beexpected It can of 0.5 average Kover cooling causedan tion global The most important volcanic gas in terms in terms of gas important volcanic The most Other hazards that have that to chal potential hazards the Other Comparison of Geohazards Comparison of Geohazards 2 into the middle and lower and stratosphere, middle into the 2 ), but few studies have), but on the few studies focused , 1999). erup Pinatubo The , 2007). , 2009). The climate , 2009).climate The et al. et et al. et 2 emission emission 2 , 2009). 2009). , for the the for , 1998), 1998), , - - - created a vulnerability to solar storms that did not did storms that to solar created avulnerability power and internet, has on communication, ety response. a global most recent triggered which case, Th e 2014 the is inoutbreakAfrica Ebola of West response. international to an leads pandemic tial of apoten- sign any awareness and risk, of the global Thtime. has eventsglobal led a to these eof memory at that population 5% 3and global ofbetween the from 1918 lasted which pandemic, to 1920, killed (e.g. deaths Hays, 2003). Thmillion Flu’ ‘Spanish e 75 estimated to 200 an history, causing human ics in pandem- one was most of devastating 1346–53, the years the in Europe in peaking Black Death, called Th loss of of terms catastrophes the life. in so- e trophes. catas- to global from major ranges impact disasters Thfull upfew decades to centuries. in uncertainty e of a on timescales hazard most important be the could thus change climate of anthropogenic impacts effand wateron security. food ects e combined Th catastrophe of due to global potential indirect the with hazards of the impacts lead to higher could frequency and magnitude drought and flood in achange Likewise, disasters. of global potential the temperature events with into major hazards extreme soon turn (IPCC) could assessments Change Intergovernmental on Panel Climate the events. Note that DRR focuses mainly on events experienced in the recent past, i.e. events with recurrence periods of 10 of years. 100 to periods recurrence with events i.e. past, recent the in experienced events on temperature mainly extreme focuses and DRR that storms Note solar events. are included Not hazards. natural with associated risk disaster the of comparison 17. Qualitative Figure Thsoci- dependency ofmodern high extremely e have toPandemics global cause potential the (SMPAG) pur- created was 2013 primary the in with Group Advisory Planning Space Missions the Earth, approaching NEO of alarge warning early any with responseinternational needed capacity is to deal that Acknowledging possible techniques. deflection development the as well of as threats impact of NEO follow-up, detection, includes characterisation and Mitigation objectnear-Earth (NEO) threat. impact of United the part Nations’as effthe mitigate to ort http://minorplanetcenter.net/IAWN for details) (see Network established was Warning (IAWN) al. et (Schweickart be established” for should ures action set of program and preparatoryinternational meas- an of humanity, welfare collective to the threat object] represent long-term Earth impacts a global, [near- NEO conclusion “because that was A main Schweickart 2008; (e.g. Smil, studies 2012). to replace (Kappenman, mostof grid difficult the parts the among also are they and storm, magnetic a geo- in to power fail the aremostin grid likely high-voltage transformers particular, quences. In conse- global havelong-lasting could devastating interdependencies, and tions acomparable storm 1927 2012).in (Kappenman, Under today’s condi- earth storm the hit solar powerful last when the exist impact events has been assessed in several recent events in impact been assessed has Thless-frequent, associated high- risk with e , 2008). Recently the International Asteroid , International 2008). the Recently et al. et , 2008). 2008). , 31 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 32 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience warning. warning. coordinated response early to an internationally an possible as to early have and eruption as looming a to detect need mechanisms to develop global Therefore,preparation urgent an there efforts. is global any itwithout if occurred Flu, Spanish the than population percentage global ofa higher the scarcity) food in particular, effects, indirect many (through the kill easily eruptionvolcanic could of Amajor amajor that as impact. seriously as tion of threat amajor the erup take volcanic should al. et impactors these (Mason than risks larger ciated with 8or (magnitude more) eruptions volcanic asso are For ofMa. large up recurrence to periods 1Ma, X-events, cause could exceed recurrence 1 periods threat mitigation planning activities.” to conduct and NEO opportunities, mission and development of options for collaborativeresearch of information, exchange the through threat NEO pose “to prepare response international for to an a It is worthwhile to note that for large bolides that that to note forbolides that large It worthwhile is , 2004). Consequently, the global community Consequently, community , 2004). global the - - and community vulnerability to these hazards, and and hazards, to these vulnerability community and environment built of the probability, sensitivity their and hazards between weences, distinguish (Taleb, 2012).of antifragility to pre-eventnot return just core at conditionsis the Thresilience. and disaster from a to learn e ability concept the of within addressed is disturbances ing to recover and hazards to cope result- with from the Th hazard. the cope with ofa community e ability to ecosystem or an socio-economic system human of a ability the and of occurring, a hazard ability management need prob- to into account take the sciences (e.g. social and 2003). Brooks, approaches diff particular, In the natural er between (e.g. &Walker, used terms to the Dolan ings 2003). from diffexperts diff assign erent fields erent mean- not has been developed and yet, common language effA on climate view hazards. and natural other ects a with developing particularly is which field, nary a relatively is to new hazards interdiscipli- systems andTh natural human of vulnerability studythe of e hazards. to natural exposed communities those adaptive capability; (4) livelihood. (3) (2) antifragility; and resilience vulnerability; and (1) communities: of sustainable aspects risk disaster be developed to progress measure towards four Glavovic (2013), should metrics that it suggested is Following geohazards. by extreme particular, in and, hazards catastrophes and asters causedby natural effdis- ective to global theprogramme risk reduceof an time limited avery of developing in challenge (Gerland by 2100 prospect the 12 and ofbillion it reaching seven billion exceeding population global the With l l l AdaptiveCapacity and Antifragility Resilience, Risk, Disaster 4. Following the approach the sci- Following common to natural decisions on that risk is A generalassumption of vulnerability from the results risk Disaster et al. et , 2014), crucial faces the humanity occurrences of extreme geohazards. geohazards. of extreme occurrences future associated with risk disaster the to assess how be used evidence to can past understand tant (Box 1). Th efactorsthese separationimpor- is of risk the factorsproduct determines three of these Th hazards. to potential assets of the exposure the e on all spatial and temporal scales. and spatial on all vulnerability increases lack of the redundancies, as interconnected well world, as increasingly an in on, so and water, health, food, transportation, sewage, power, as such services communication, between interdependencies increasing the particular, In of interdependentlism processes communities. and a metabo- and respect lowto failures, with resilience with environment infrastructure, to high-tech built have dueof to the a transition changed vulnerability and sensitivity areas many in increased, has exposure While 2000. in million 1900 30 to more in lion than Tokyo, 1mil- from roughly size increased in which example is extreme An megacities. including areas, hazardous in infrastructure crucial and areas urban havefew decades last the seen rapid development of particular, over In time. have dramatically changed exposure and vulnerabilities sensitivities, because hazards these associated risk with about disaster the 3). Section out in However, little us tells past the (as pointed spectrum end hazard of extreme the the providespast on recurrence,except information for Th relevant societies. to human intervals time the us PDF much not over does their change during time by recurrence determined the as most geohazards, diff equation very the is factors in three erent. For dependence of the time the that fact from the results complication Another extremes. the for probabilities reliable to estimate insufficient are available statistics the because approach risks the may underestimate As pointed out earlier, for extreme hazards this pointed this outAs earlier, for hazards extreme 33 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 34 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience overall community vulnerability and, if possible, the possible, the if and, vulnerability community overall al. et (e.g. water reservoirs, Amos large extraction through hazards seismic change can action Human 2007). (e.g.PDF droughts Solomon and for al. et floods of more periods and rapid the snow change melt can precipitation Increased pipelines. roadsand threaten that led has to increased landslides which Alaska, and Canada northern in of permafrost melting increasing example the is An PDF significantly. precipitationin the temperature) and modify can changes (in particular climate Likewise, landslides). PDF the of (e.g.change a hazard droughts, for floods, However, significantly can use land some cases, in options p. to impact there limited are hazards, reduction of sensitivity of assets to hazards and and to hazards ofreduction assets of sensitivity The main measures for risk reduction lie in a forlieriskmeasures reduction The main most geo including hazards, For most natural X r r X R associated risk r(I) risk associated with a hazard, we can use we can ahazard, with a of value tion a asset of the sensitivity the S considered the in recurrence interval, occur I intensity with hazard the that probability (PDF)the giving hazard function of the density where by given T, rence interval time equation for agiven h hazard Risk to the hazard. In many publications, the sen the publications, many In hazard. to the were asset the to if be exposed asset tocause an would ahazard damage the to indicate used is resource groundwater. as such Here, ‘sensitivity’ or ecosystem anatural toeconomic an system, acity, or asocio- infrastructure, transportation a building, from asingle system be any can Assets risks. high may leadval to unrealistically long inter avery while risk, the underestimate may seriously interval a time short Selecting val. dependent inter chosen on recurrence the time strongly is risk The monitoring. adaptation and of mitigation, assessment prioritising and (2)Equations (3) and provide for abasis risk 2013).(modified from &Jules-Plag, Plag R Box 1 Box S S h , 2014) most recently, and, fracking. T h T h h T a( h h T a( (I (I = = (x (x x, x, x ,x ,x t) to hazard h to hazard t) δE ,t δE ,t x E E ,t (I ,t (I is the location,t the is )= )= )= ,t )= ,t . To R risk total the assess (1 (1 )= )= − − p p 0 0 h T I h T I S S ma U+ ma U+ (I (I at intensity I, at intensity h a( h a( x x U U ,t ,t r x, r x, expressed in currency is currency expressed in h T t) h T t) )· )· I I (I (I (I (I ) S ) time, p time, S and intensity I, intensity and ,x ,t ,x ,t h a( h a( )| ,t )| ,t x, x, t) exposed at loca exposed t= )d t) t= )d (I (I and v and the probability probability the t i t i 0 0 ,t ,t − − with recur )· )· associated associated t being the the being t 0 v( 0 v( t t α( α( a, a, t) t) the the x, will will x, dt dt (3) t) (2) t) - - - - - . - . , X r R S change (‘resilience’ means the ability to anticipate, ability the (‘resilience’ means change to adapt to ability the preparedness and includes A recent 2006). definition (Walker & Salt, structure postponed. often are mitigation adaptation and low, awareness risk and generally is for costs and infrequentare they that is of geohazards extreme Protection (CCP)Climate challenge The campaign. to to aCities for commit events were more willing had suffered more cities that fromthose extreme that (2008) found al. et on perception. risk Zahran depends mitigation adaptation and in to engage willingness risk, of the for analysis aquantitative equation [see (2) Equations (3)] and provides abasis risk the While risk. the against tion areinsurance mitiga Adaptation and of assets. exposure spatial turbance while retaining its basic function and and itsbasic function retaining while turbance - of to absorb asystem dis ability the resilience, is reduce pre-stress increase sensitivity, can while adaptation can particular, over In change time. can also assets of the Sensitivity well. as change can value their and a given change location can at assets anthropogenic and natural Both time. (2) Equation factors in three depend on All ring. occur independentactually fire of the building, another be more than sensitive tohazards fire may Forof asset. one the example, building but alatent is characteristic occurring actually not does here, depend hazard on the sensitivity 2003; Glavovic, (Allen, 2013).ability) defined As (contextual vulner or stress change cope with to system of asocial ability the tors determining set of the socio-economic as fac vulnerability al. et nerability) (e.g. & Adger, 2000; Kelly Sr. Pielke (outcome climate in by changes vul inflicted al. et events (Nicholls ofhood weather- of impacts climate-related and likeli of terms the in to consider vulnerability tend scientists Climate avoid misunderstanding. to ‘vulnerability’ rather than used is ‘Sensitivity’ ards, climate change will change p change will change climate ards, for climate-related haz Particularly on time. T interval time within occurring p probability The by t we of denote If it. impact adaptation at the time sitivity factor is denoted as ‘vulnerability’. factordenoted is ‘vulnerability’. as sitivity h T on sensitivity by α( on sensitivity h h T a( (I = As mentionedAs above, relevant another term (x x, ,x , 2012), while social scientists often often consider, 2012), scientists social while t) δE ,t E ,t (I )= )= ,t (1 )= − p 0 h T I S ma U+ (I h a( x U of a hazard h of ahazard ,t r x, h T t) t), t), )· I (I (I ) then sensitivity is given is sensitivity then S , 1999) damage or the ,x ,t h a( )| ,t x, t) t= )d (I t i 0 ,t of intensity I of intensity − also depends depends also )· . t 0 v( t α( a, t) x, dt t) (4) . ------precursors and models capable of quantifying and and capable models precursors of and quantifying these detect can that systems Monitoring to years. over to occur a longer of period weeks likely very of DRR. focus the to so preparedness be has population of the minutes, a few as short be as can times warning For tsunamis, mitigation. for basis fabricthis the is social the and environment the built Preparedness both of effects. to avoid and cascading on infrastructure impacts event to phase of mitigate an are crucial initial the during Therefore,warnings immediate unreliable. event to happen going is absent are or particular a that warnings early and short, extremely is time unfolding the For earthquakes, of communities. design of the ness to needs bedeveloped part as prepared General to event unfold. an started has room to preparedness increase when little leaving events bereduced. should rare but these high-impact associated risk with aster - dis global the that there aconsensus is if societies, of adaptation modern of major parts significant requires risk poseagrosslyunderrated eruptions, volcanic extreme particular in geohazards, extreme that understanding growing The threats. emerging new and about knowledge risks adapt to changing sea However, level rise. to important it also is and change climate as such times, long unfolding resilience. social and ecological between link to accountfor has on this ecosystems of impacts (Rockström spaceoutside operating for safe of humanity the be acceptable could but for which state, ecosystems, gression into anew ecosystem may put global the trans whose boundaries Thereareglobal 2007). al. et large (Rial often quite are which variations climate natural with coupled 2005) Council, forcing Research (National climate human biosphere interference, including to human global of the resilience to the linked is humanity of resilience scale, global a On resilience. ecological and social between link there aclear is livelihoods, resources environmental for and their ecological on depending for communities Particularly bance. face of distur the in itself toecosystem maintain of the ability the is resilience system, ecological an For change. environmental and political social, of aresult as stresses internal and external with to cope ability the is resilience For system, asocial (Adger, related are 2000). resilience ecological 2013). White House, The disruptions; and Social respond recover to, and withstand, rapidly from prepare and conditions for, adapt to and changing For precursors eruptions, volcanic are extreme times, have unfolding short geohazards Extreme for eventsAdaptive with important is capacity et al. et , 2009a,b). Decisions on mitigation Decisions on mitigation , 2009a,b). , 2004; Meko al. et , 2004; - - - , optimal strategy is to is avoid where areas strategy hazardous optimal spectrum. risk the in forappears of detection changes important processes of monitoring socio-ecological and risk, and vulnerability impact conditions environmental and interaction The of societal of DRR. part gral need inte systems to be an warning Early ad hoc. less are developed risks often ments and of global al. rapidly are developing (e.g. et scale Bernknopf local events. Tools and scales forfor assessment risk all at point starting assessment risk the is Athorough ard. into account. this take to has DRR Effective adaptiveincrease capabilities. develop or resilience, DRR, in capacity to engage have and less fragile are livelihood their to secure are struggling that Communities DRR. in engage interdependencies. from global rect resulting risk indi thesethe events of is challenge Themain risk. reduction direct of the for asignificant ingredients event extreme of an are likelihood the assessing that unfold during and after events needed. is after and during unfold that processes on information the reduce, impacts, the or events increase, hazardous can with interactions DRR. requisites for successful any therefore are resilience pre community social and redundancy, on water food and reserves, technology event the emergency. in ofpassengers an Afocus for have its should aship lifeboats as just sufficient civilisation, for global aim be the should ‘lifeboats’ equipped with Being challenging. extremely is DRR principle. just-in-time a on economy an extent to a large operating with conflict in is this again, and, important, reserves equally is economy. of the globalisation Having with extent to some conflicts modularity and for redundancy The andfar-reaching need impacts. effects cascading to avoid central are modularity and redundancy Global environment crucial. is ness built of the recognised. ingly recovery the - increas in is phase, events, particularly of impact hazardous the limiting capitalin of social The role helpsand of to reducedisasters. scale the reduces interdependencies modularity Increasing events. hazardous after and during availability vice help ser to ensure can redundancy and exposed, it is toenvironment which adapted hazards to the a built be reduced also through can possible. Risk efficient DRR, but is crucial for to capacity any but crucial is efficient DRR, - for tools assess but and methodologies , 2006), For hazards with predominantly local scales, the the scales, local predominantly For with hazards of haz the depend strategies scale on the DRR on depends of community livelihood The For a better understanding of how human For understanding abetter extent, global potentially with For hazards the For robust events hazardous at scales, regional ------35 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 36 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience rapidly escalating damage. rapidly escalating and of number fatalities increasing an cause that prepared morebe better frequent to handle events also that benefitwe be would immediate would The 100 next happen years. the could events,year that in to be preparedand for or 10,000- possible 1,000 1 in respect hazards extreme to the precautionary with society. To reduce urgent need there an risk, is to be of modern complexity increasing due to the ing - increas is risk of events,low such their probability (Casti, 2012). Despite ‘collapse of the everything’ the lead levels to and or pre-civilisation pre-industrial to have to reduce potential hazards the civilisation database. economic ecological and help could socio- to increase the technology modern post-event the andin Datause of Big The phases. availablecollected are currently Much data of the processes. these needed data tolects understand col that lacking is observatory Currently, ahuman It also needs to needs beemphasised extreme that It also - of civilisation. One worldwide hopes the death that of civilisation. greatest be the would catastrophe dawn the since it that repeated world, modern but the it likely is in Toba the be if would loss ofthe life eruption were reduced fromfollow the food supply. would which comparison loss of to the life in pale populatedarea –likely adensely near very occurred eruption the –unless would but destruction such etc.), (damage to buildings, physical destruction tial substan cause also would eruption on ascale such severely and to An adecade, reducing crop yields. by 5–15 climate global the Kforing aperiod of up people; (2) and billion feed two by cool indirectly, one of seasons crops or two destroying needed to thus kilometres, square area of several million an (1) ametre or over so of by ash depositing directly, food supply:devastate would future near the in (2008) today?tion Smil noted arepeat that of Toba given any year.in 714,000 years)in eruption occurs aM8 or that larger (about years) 45,000 1.4 1in and x10 x 2.2 of between 10 in a probability results This totions be 1.4 events/Ma to 22 (see 3.6). Section forfrequency of M8erup bound the such or larger lower the (2004) estimate theory,value etal. Mason (Rose &Chesner, time that 1987). extreme Using at living population human of the of 60% death the to be responsible arethought changes for climatic atmosphere,of resulting intothe debris the and km released years ago, about 2500–3000 75,000 ered (see occurred 3). Section which eruption, This what now is Toba Lake (in Indonesia) consid is eventeruptionfrom ofvolcanic the scale on the of a damage potential the first eruptions, canic To vol extreme associated risk with the estimate l l l Geohazards for Extreme Cost-Benefit of Planning Analysis 5. What would be the consequences bethe would of aM8What erup It is impossible to guess with precisionIt impossible is with to guess what –6 (about one one (about –5 –5 3 ------2006). For of sake the round it2006). numbers, assumed is world’sof (Taubenberger the population &Morens, 5% 3% and between 1918 killed which flu pandemic, some 20 ofin the than fewer fatalities to expect beunrealistic would of aftermath Toba’sago, but years it eruption 75,000 the seen in 60% the rate bemuch would less than US is $9.1 million (Trottenberg & Rivkin, 2013). (Trottenberg $9.1US is &Rivkin, million appropriate the in VSL road for potential fatalities the Transportation that recently has determined veyof onDepartment VSL The calculations). US choose freely (see for a sur & Aldy, 2003, Viscusi when to they purchase willing are they than policies government more through ‘purchase’ or less safety government not should force policies to taxpayers idea that is –the risks to mortality reduce own their spend see how money own people much of their will of idea death). to the is probability Basically, ticular how pay would much to they avoiddirectly a par area),polluted people (e.g. or by by survey asking pay for car, aless asafer or ahouse in will sumers at (e.g. con howmarket data much by extra looking more jobs), dangerous for performing from product at how much of workers premium awage demand (e.g.lated market eitherdata from labour looking calcu (VSL). life typically are VSLs of astatistical the value saved life The of value one change. is called to save expect we can by which some policy life each approachtional on value been to has put amonetary tradi The risks. to reduce mortality spending the a decision needsto how be made much it worth is out not to beoverly number). sensitive to this turn exceed greatly will costs the reduce mortality resources to benefits of the clusion allocating that (the asurprise con as 10% eruption occurred the if rate beabout would here worldwide the fatality that To cost–benefit (CBA), proceed the with analysis th century’s tragedies, such as the the as such tragedies, century’s ------37 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 38 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience principle, with enough warning and the right tech right the and warning enough principle, with in ard can, Asteroids posed by eruptions. volcanic factor of 40. to pay by a willingness raise sources might these or more. order Incorporating by an of magnitude damage expected the raise could costs additional these Incorporating scale. ageohazard at this with beassociated might which life, ofdown civilised break partial and conflict large-scale potential with of lives lost), associated costs much larger the and relative cost to the stockto (whichbe small are likely capital losses to the including from loss ofapart life, costs all ignores this double. Thirdly, roughly would to pay willingness the and million, be closer to $4 worldwide the average then VSL used, are would estimates &Aldi Viscusi the If income changes. rate with (or this VSL rises at half about falls) only (2003) the that &Aldy Viscusi suggest range. the end of one-for-one high at the actually is estimate worldwide the The averageably understates VSL. one-for-one VSL rises the that income prob with Secondly, assuming damage. double expected the at least would calculation the in these Including damaging. be very and occur also could which eruptions smaller there eruptions; many are scale be too low.might Firstly, it considers Toba- only corresponds to $1.1–7.0 this billion, per year. billion of over just Givenpopulation risk. 7 aglobal this to pay $0.16 between $1.00 and to per year eliminate average the person be willing should million, $2.22 1.4 between is x10 year particular any in of arandom personity dying 1.4between x10 given any is year event in the that occurs ability rate 10% prob is the and fatality the If calculated. economy be global on the can impacts and damage due costs to considering without alone fatalities lion. 2013), aworld mil Bank, VSL of $2.22 suggesting world the average than larger income (Worldtimes average the that US citizen’s income over just is four out It much. turns as one is a quarter VSL which ofUS level the one have is should quarter which income an for-one with so income, acountry with referred one- VSL rises the that to above suggests world the average. than DOT The review wealthier to pay more much are for US citizens that safety, and people willing are wealthier into account that taken of 10,000risk nate afatality. a1in to pay (or aboutis $910 be) should to elimi willing that a US citizen assumes theDOT that means This Now cost of the aToba-scale eruption from the To have a VSL for whole the world, it needs to be It not is possible to completely avoid- haz the estimate this why reasons three main Thereare −6 and 2.2 x10 2.2 and −7 −7 and 2.2 x10 2.2 and −5 , then the probabil the , then −6 . With aVSL of .With ------ments to determine optimal crop plantings for crop a plantings optimal ments to determine experi agricultural large-scale be possible to run one it years’notice, would ornot two With obvious. what to where plant is exactly butsouth’, knowing crops have would now. to ‘move speaking, Broadly are planted they places same that the be planted in to preservethen food supply, the crops not would world by cools 5–15 Kfor aperiod of several years, the if knowledge: Finally, aside. beset could cattle to or produce to used feed ethanol corn currently For much risks. example, of the the mitigate could storage large-scale of ayear warning, only even with cost). (though at higher strategy: Storage another is bere-designed to could generatecessing less waste pro and of foodGiven transport systems time, proportion we foodgrow that of the goesto waste. foodmore became as a large tant scarce: currently of food supply the become would much more impor Organisation storage knowledge. and organisation, by bemitigated losses can these Given warning, of food supply. the disruption the in origins their abovediscussed have The losses warning. sufficient givenbe possible much of loss toof the mitigate life, it be stopped. Nevertheless, would volcanoes cannot but nology, large to no be diverted cause damage, the probability of a VEI 7 event occurring in any any in 7event occurring of aVEI probability the we and assume 10,000 years, last the in eruptions benefit from greater monitoring. theexpected of the lower than boundary is less This per year. or about $370 million 15 million, x $24.7 cost aboutto US only levels would of monitoring rest the world of the up bringing then Earth, of the US represents the that about 1/15 surface land of the Survey, (US 2013). Geological hazards cano Given for vol provides million $24.7 Survey Geological per year. For reference, 2014 the for US budget the $3.5 exactly, but itknown alot is billion less than Toba-likeamountis not coming? eruption The is Tobaanother coming. is if in advance knowing theper year. of value is That at somewhere least $3.5 $0.5 and between billion be worth would risk of the half per year, eliminating repeat at $1.1 least be worth would to $7.0 billion from aToba- of risk death the eliminating that be reduced Given could toll by half. death expected the that of sake itfor roundassumed is the numbers, To starvation. be conservative, and unnecessary all even bepossible It might to avoid climate. in change abrupt from follow an such otherwise would which cooler climate. temporarily example. Thereexample. have 7 been at seven least VEI eruption of Mount Tambora 1815 in provides an For more 7 events, far the the frequent VEI How much it would out another cost to if find avoid could strategies Such deaths of many the - - - - total costs. costs. total the greater ofthan times or thousands be hundreds 10 benefitsmay total or larger, the 100 then times lower, benefits are times expected the three if and or are two costs monitoring actual the If costs. the at are 10 than least system larger monitoring times of benefits aglobal the Nevertheless, volcanoes. monitoring there no are that economies in of scale overestimate, it since assumes possibly asubstantial is this per year; at are $370 system toring million moni of costs of aglobal Conservative the estimates food-supply-related avoidable eruption. of costs an non- the of volcanoand sizes whole distribution into account the be 10 taking to larger 100 times may benefits per year. actual The $3.5and billion $0.5 between are ofbenefits increased monitoring ing system. reduction risk byin developing areliable monitor need the to invest assets) comparable, is underlining of value times sensitivity times probability hazard 8event, associated (i.e. risk the aVEI than likely more orders to three two event,of magnitude being 8 events aVEI havethese would than alesser impact given toorder year beon the of 7x10 To up, of conservative sum the estimates −4 . Although Although . - - 39 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 40 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience monitoring systems, based on synergetic technolo on based synergetic systems, monitoring network approach ofholistic beaglobal would (see an such 6.2). tool supporting Section Amain research needed focused is risk, the assess and ties (Section 6.1). To vulnerabili the understand better process relevant stakeholders for acommunity all makers. policy and scientists social and natural including challenge, this stakeholders facing principal the all involving governance and related issues hazards to these and policy social, logistic, technical, scientific, ing approach,needs to- on be based aholistic address of aconsequentand robust programme resilience developmentThe DRR programme effectivean of • include: geohazards from extreme resulting risks help confrontdevelop can that programmes global 2004a). (Hempsell, population global the at aquarter least loss of the in catastrophes resulting global cause toneeds level beon intermediate events can that of DRR focus Aparticular threat. the to multiply potential the has and risks these increases society The of 2004b). complexity (Hempsell, modern tion a few percent popula of global the kill could which level disasters, events to global from extinction risks range These scale. on aglobal lenge humanity chal geohazards extreme with associated Risks l l l Geohazards for Extreme Risks Disaster Confronting 6. • • extreme geohazard? geohazard? extreme help could reduceorlarge of a effects What the generated geohazards? or by extreme large emergencies the copeable with to efficiently geohazard? or of extreme alarge occurrence the to of face countries of readiness status the is What What kind of infrastructures are currently avail currently are of infrastructures kind What A governance process needed is together to bring need questions that Key to be answered to - - - - - grammes of Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Resilience and Reduction Risk of Disaster grammes phenomena pro and geohazards associated with of the developmentthe of adeeper understanding comprehensive allow would of data such analysis (Section 6.3). scale anda global systematic The recorded data (or on real-time) near quality high real-time in sharing and capablegies of acquiring balancing of costs and benefits of policies aimed at benefits of aimed of policies and costs balancing overwhelming. are hazards anthropogenic others, in and major to risks, address resources insufficient are developing of world, economic the some parts In hazards. from anthropogenic threats the and signi depend will consensus such Any hazards. extreme associated with risk on howsus disaster to address proposed by Taleb (2012).of antifragility the principle behind reasoning the main is ety. This complex soci increasingly on an impacts from their to learn opportunity present important hazards an These reduction risk programmes. international of focus main the are geohazards Such not at all. proactive evidence-based, required. management is For events, these times. unfolding short events with for extreme applicability It limited has so forth. sea and level rise, climate, in a slow as such change Adaptive management works for best slow changes, Geohazards 6.1 (D3R) warnings. to early issue ticular country once or twice a century, or perhaps acentury, once or twice country ticular apar somewhere world, but the strike may in only Preventing disasters from recurring involves from recurring the Preventing disasters There however,is, a needconsen for a societal few years at every least Major occur geohazards Governance for Extreme Governance for Extreme f cantly on the available on economic the resourcescantly - - - - that using scientific knowledge, particularly dur particularly knowledge, scientific using that near-misses and ofrecentdisasters the show past possible as to develop effectiveing The an response. to much get forewarn as it critical and is nature, in global are hazards largest world. Butoping the devel the in monitored than countries wealthy in much are moreFirstly, hazards closely potential of problem. kinds two across world, creating the of many. livelihood the and life, decisions have economy, impact can to that bemade where consequential DRR, in exist also difficulties these Likewise, innovation. directional dence and be mastered on based only evi can which of acrisis, context the in system knowledge scientific current the associated with difficulties the illustrate IPCC the around L’Aquila discussions the and earthquake 2009 ations?the of The aftermath controversythe in for what provided is a contribution as deliber to the liability havescientist higher a role to with assume put correctfor to use? itor the being being Orwould no and liability responsibility a rather vague with who creates expert ‘peer-reviewed’the knowledge be dence-based governance. scientist still the Could deliberativeevi of science in participation liability and question relatesA central responsibility to the for science. evenmore and liability responsibility transition may cause events. extreme This with associated risk disaster the to address necessary is abroad (Mauser base ing stakeholder al. et co-development and co-design of involv knowledge to put so atransition whoof could it those to use, created is knowledge Most independently scientific governance of knowledge. a democratising and capable deliberative of supporting not is fully ety ticipation community. of the governancepar and of democracy deliberative with implementedframework be the can context in This risk outcomes processes. associated societal and by Glavovic (2013) disaster to define beused can groups. The four-order societal scheme all proposed governance requires representation for DRR from Participatory, deliberative risks. the of increasing to instead more risk reduced and resilience disaster Governance innovations lead that to needs ensure crisis. out lead sustainability of us and risk the more reduce Only innovation can crisis. disaster ity sustainabil to risk the coupled and risk this disaster increased innovation, the has urban particular in events. future of probabilities the the infer to uncertainties for significant accounting mated, benefits have and risks the that is to be esti balance DRR (Stein & Stein, 2014). (Stein &Stein, DRR of this aspect Acrucial The current dialogue between science andscience soci between dialogue current The Risk awareness and monitoring is highly uneven awareness highly is monitoring and Risk decades, recent during innovation Paradoxically, , 2013) ------thresholds havethresholds brought forefront to the impor the Recent eventsthreshold. have that exceeded these environment robust only to is built acertain Any robustness of infrastructure. the on increasing reductionrisk focused has disaster attention in Much its infancy. in still is to disasters leading cesses how pro to reduce facilitates that complexity the of understanding The be modified. can and disaster processes on create the event that but the also alone, ties. of communi compromising livelihood without the adaptive and capacities resilience byrisk increasing reduce disaster can the that strategies community and risks of deliberations disaster to inform tant impor very is about geohazards knowledge extreme out much developing world. ofDemocratising the through into disasters hazards turn conditions that management contributes use to land informed and codes poverty, alack of and building corruption, 6.3). Secondly, low awareness risk combined with (see hazards of detection extreme early Section the needed support foris of system geohazards in ing monitorglobal that a well-developed suggests This reduce can disasters. phase, warning early the ing Economic Forum, 2014). Forum, Economic 18 (Figure or impacts World and ofterms likelihood in risks notdoes global cover these in geohazards but World risks, global assesses Forum Economic The its impacts. and change fromrisks climate the is to IPCC restricted The to scales. regional on morefocus more and frequent at local hazards 2008). programmes Traditional (e.g. DRR ture Smil, relegated litera scientific to the still is geohazards from resulting Current risk assessment of global from disasters. provides to basis enable the lessons to be learned implemented and to needs bedesigned system that observation Therefore,socio-ecological a hazard. the after and prior, data lection of sufficient during approach (Taleb,‘antifragile’ 2012) col requires the This about hazard. processesby the the triggered more to learn present opportunity disasters aunique or nearly cause, cause, that of hazards Occurrence create beakey must element and resilience of DRR. capital can social on building Afocus assistance. norms of cooperation mutual and strong community benefits derived collective as from defined capital, on social depends strongly Resilience resilience. in networking social fabric and social of the tance DRR should focus not only on the hazardous hazardous on notthe only focus should DRR At present, DRR-relatedarefragmented. efforts ------41 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 42 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience areas. haveand hazardous of advanced the knowledge our processes and causes of of geohazards the standing Major have research efforts improved under our to society. threat the and of geohazards knowledge to improve community geohazards the national conference work the recognised done inter by the geohazcop.org/workshops). this of The participants conference 2011 held in (see Spain in http://www. TechnologyScience and level (COST) research high CooperationFoundation (ESF)–European in Science European the during undertaken was cycle management risk disaster the and posed to DRR challenges the and geohazards of high-impact ing A comprehensive review understand of current the Needs Research and 6.2 diagram: in terms of impacts. From World Economic Forum (2014). Forum Economic World From impacts. of lower terms in likelihood; diagram: of terms in diagram: Upper Forum. Economic World the to 2007–2014 according Landscape Risk Global Evolving 18. Figure Knowledge Assessments - - - frequent to exceptional weather events, likely are increasingly with associated warming, global with regions, together mountainous and lowlands coastal river in basins, growth Rapid population Europe. in numeroushave and fatalities damage caused heavy rock and falls recent landslides catastrophic past, the In of erosion risks to desertification. higher and mayland lead water uplifting levels and declining hand, other habitats. On the human and systems eco of local thesustainability affecting directly increases, of risk flooding the subsides, or land rise, (Figure 19). sea-, When lake- or ground-water levels environment the and onit geohazards impacts of terms how in but also of changes slow landscape Topography society, aresult as not influences only (Cloetingh deep Earth, surface and atmospheric and processes surface deep Earth, Continental topographyContinental of interface at is the et al. et , 2007; Cloetingh & Willet, 2013a). &Willet, Cloetingh , 2007; - currently but on different time scales, needs to be needs scales, time but on different currently of con processes, operating spectrum of this it, use our to engineer and to predict its future system, present the we to are state Earth of understand the If century. last of the impacts anthropogenic ful up present, power to and the the and millennia over changes environmental last and the climate movement, theages icenatural on of crustal effects development the and of residual river systems, subsidence long-termthe of tectonic uplift, effects include These scales. of time range on awide ing aconsequence is system of processes operat Earth available. matologic are data regions wherein good (paleo-) topographic cli and recently we have that been able to its effects model but it only is of civilisation, beginning the since known beenThat has topographyclimate influences & Haq, 2015). poorly (Cloetingh understood still is relative contribution respective of the components the changes, environmental and geohazards cause activities processes human and natural Although 2013b). & Willet, assessmenthazard (Cloetingh akey control volcanic for and accumulation, seismic quanti the permit time but same at the may hazards, present additional changes topography These changes. localised and short-term cause eruptions volcanic and quakes active deformation earth zones, Along failures. rock devastating and exacerbate of risk flooding the The present state and behaviour of the shallow The presenttheandshallow behaviour of state f cation of stress and strain cation strain of and stress - - - - - with a number of urgent research needs. Besides a a of anumber Besides research urgent needs. with linked is geohazards of extreme challenge the that 2012) of Practice, ration (Geohazards Community conferencethe conference concluded the in decla 2010). of Practice, Community time, same the At Observations (GEO) Geohazards (in particular, of (GHCP) Practice Group of the on Earth Community Team, Geohazards the and 2004) Theme Geohazards the and Marsh and Geohazards International of Third the Declaration Workshop on (IGOS-P)Partnership Frascati (see 2007 the Strategy IntegratedTheme Observing of Global work the acknowledged ards Geohazards of the 2011 ESF The risk. conference extreme geohaz - on disaster the addressing is community international Hyogofor the Framework example of how an is the current The conducted. process towards a follow-on ways and to are being reduceter risks, risks, these - generalon public disas the decision and makers, governments, informing programmes international haveadapt to, hazards been Likewise, developed. endeavour. this System in (EPOS) amilestone is Observing Plate European the of implementation (Holm al. et society by human use of modes to evaluate its sustainable others, with tion to collabora forecast in its evolutionchanges, and, to monitor its statesystem, of the to describe TOPO-EUROPE by ESF, initiated programme, is the taken up by challenge The understood. better Many measures required to measures prepareMany for, and et al. et Cloetingh (after Europe Central and Western in tectonics environmental and demography between link the demonstrating Europe, in movements vertical to due vulnerability Figure 19. , 2013). The recent Areas of of Areas , 2007). , 2007). - - 43 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 44 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience acities include structures which arenot which designed structures acities include Most meg of the complex infrastructures. hosting andareas often in megacities, locatedhazardous progressively are Modern societies around clustering 6.3 necessary. is risks global on emerging reaction so research to into the warnings published, event of an such threat were emerging on to the be react awarning would if community how global the is poorly is known major What eruption. volcanic for alooming comparableare warning to atimely of These warnings several years to decades. scales on time system proposedand warning early an impacts sidered change of threat abrupt the climate variables have not yet. been defined events. the essential hazardous Here, too, after and environment prior, natural and during built the with to provide interactions observations about human required is observatory ahuman Likewise, observed. severeprice with consequences stability. for social food global the increase of would bio-productivity Under today’sknown. fishery, areduction strained bio-production on eruptions not marine are large risk. disaster the helpsent to assess conditionscan pre under hazards of selected extreme Simulation of its development field. ascientific as beginning the is at failure of andchains effects of cascading possibility into account the taking resilience aster - dis Community risks. hidden reveal underlying quest of to the part is disasters lead to global can and by geohazards extreme are triggered that eruptions. volcanic for model extreme global on asimilar needs to focus (Silva al. et engine” OpenQuake the assessment risk and called for hazard seismic open-source development release of software and objective been the has steps towards this first the worldwide. risk One of earthquake communicate and to calculate initiative an in openness and ency transpar buy-in, and collaboration global science, (Moss risks al. et global to address ning adaptation and science begin areonly Mitigation need understood. to bebetter of society modern PDFs, vulnerabilities their the including hazards, extreme of nature the of the understanding better needed to identify the essential variables to be essential the needed to identify of features state-of-the-artto combine main the The Global Earthquake Model Model (GEM) Earthquake “aims The Global The US National Research Council Council Research (2013)The US National con be will system observing A socio-ecological of fallout For of ash the impacts the example, processes mentioned As above, understanding Monitoring and Early Warning Early and Monitoring , 2014)., Research , 2013). 2013). , - - - - - given the complexity and global connectedness connectedness global and given complexity the particularly orasters high, catastrophes extremely is into anew post-Holocene- dis of risk global the era, Holocene from planet ofthe the transition the with lead combinationconsequences. to extreme can In geohazards even moderate scenarios, multi-hazard Moreover,connected civilisation. context of the in context of acomplex, the in globally particularly high, extremely is hazards byphes these triggered However, or catastro disasters of risk global the them. to protector organisations against relief cities designing it not is that worth to think ural consequences. devastating to havelikely are failure of caused chains by effects the geohazards, to extreme communities fragile ing - expos When of failure. lead to chains can this and elements to areexposed hazards, infrastructure and human crucial hosting buildings Many increased. dramatically has services community and property loss of risk offrequent large the life, geohazards, that evenimplies for more This exist. those if codes, no adherence to building with built poverty high with areas in or buildings buildings, historical include These to of resist impact geohazards. the mandate to catalogue all near-Earth objects greater objects near-Earth all to catalogue mandate acongressional has NASA threats. extraterrestrial comparable place for monitoring in tohazards those increase. a risk order of identification rapidand to assure analysis in to real-time operational near centres data mit in - trans to monitor and used planet area of the every criteria be performance should quality high such networks with local regional and available global, the low very all downtime: and standards ational oper high having data, quality high recording very planet. of the part every in ings warn help early issue might which parameters and phenomena the all of comprehensive monitoring level based onof is resilience ofand a significant developmentthe risk disaster reduction of effective step towards acrucial context, this events.ardous In of- haz spectrum large forrobust avery resilience a need implies to geohazards build extreme with importance. utmost of is the threats considered. potential Monitoring be should spectrum end hazard of extreme the the Therefore, associated towith risks efforts the reduce 2014).becomes (WMO, to some arbitrary extent of major hazards society, definition the of global nature precarious the society. Considering modern related to the availability of reliable networks related availability to the To associated risks the becapable of addressing Because extreme geohazards are rare, it rare, are nat is geohazards extreme Because At present,At forgeo there no is system monitoring tightly is warnings issue early to The ability - - - - - et al. et of major (Druitt forecasting eruptions Recent research attempts made to has improve watercycle. modified potentially and climate colder asharply adequate in crop yields to maintain essary research nec agricultural reserves perform the and to food increase of beenough several years would period event. Awarning advance actual of the in years beknown would ideally they –that change of and multi-year climate fallout immediate of the terms in –both so are large geohazards by extreme 2009). (Plagtions &Pearlman, deforma surface of monitoring Earth for global the provide stations abasis ground-based tracking with space-basedexample, complemented observations For area. level that the of in risk assess and Earth region of the ofhensive acertain status on the view more compre a provide can networks monitoring different with acquired of data types other with information this integrating systems: monitoring need tocases, be complemented additional with However,2004b). some in might, monitoring such atmosphere the or in (e.g. surface, Hempsell, Earth’s on the onphenomena many information occurring crucial provide can systems monitoring Satellite policy. of space focus infrastructure prime be the catastrophes should of global threat the addressing to viable.” them make Hempsellconcludes that improved and of terms size in economicsture improvementa significant space of the infrastruc control or provide require escape havens, safe but all either prevent,sible could that space systems or “there several are pos- that (2004a)Hempsell finds geohazards. catastrophic potentially monitor to date facilities. fromandEarth-based observation spacecraft AIM by the away measurable both is Didymos that in of dynamics the to to modify is prove ability the AIDA cooperationthe of goal main The missions. medium and small future enabling technologies to demonstrate time asteroid same at the and system binary Dydimos the to characterise goal the has that of mission opportunity asmall is AIM (AIM). (DART) ESA-led the Asteroid Mission and Impact impactor Double Testoid Asteroid kinetic Redirect independent components,of US-led two aster the up made is Assessment (AIDA).Deflection AIDA Asteroid mission and Impact mitigation hazard precursor on the asteroid NASA and be-tween ESA asteroiding (see i). cooperation example the is An approach of impact to an reduce of an threat the help would that technologies way todemonstrate under also are Efforts object be catastrophic. would of impact an such the as size, in one kilometre than Monitoring is important because the risks posed risks because the important is Monitoring aman with There is no equivalent organisation , 2012; 2012; , ------of Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, Washington, Columbia, British of Alaska, Center areas the serves (ATWC) Palmer, Alaska, in Alaska centres. The Warning Tsunami warning (NOAA) operates tsunami two Administration Atmospheric and Oceanic National of the (NWS) world. The the National around Service Weather recordedshares data distributed stations by seismic and acquires (IRIS) for Institutions Network (GSN) Incorporated of the Research Seismographic For Global the example, scale. global of increase risk? tial thepoten assess networks to monitoring different through acquired of information integrationof the level current what the Given is geohazard, aspecific of geohazard? (2) agiven type eters associated with key param on specific scale on aglobal information acquire to today available are networks monitoring developmentther needed. is not possible fur and robustand forecasts still are reliable availabledata, of currently amount limited 2014;Sheldrake, 2014), Bebbington, the but with Currently more than 11,000 more pro stations Currently CGNSS than (Hammond al. et 1mm/year than better is (CGNSS)GNSS achievable The accuracy stations. network of Continuous aglobal bination with com in (SAR) satellites Radar Aperture Synthetic on bebased alow could of number aservice such principle, In eruptions. volcanic ofareas potential deformation covering surface at the least Earth low-latency providing no service on information (e.g. al. et Plag (InSAR) Radar InterferometricAperture Synthetic through System (GNSS) Navigation Global Satellite the and on based stations space-geodetic tracking through rate measurements of both deformations, ground accu for of highly techniques availability the Despite progress scale. in on aglobal rather than regional scales, and on local mostly hazards volcanic have techniques ofmonitoring supported studies havemonitoring, These for been used decades. infrared and satellite analysis, geochemical tion, waves, on based seismic deforma ground systems, region. Ocean Indian the for developed been has service monitoring atsunami 2004, in Greatthe earthquake Sumatra Following area. Pacific the in centre for tsunamis warning international and national the as acting and areaof Hawaii the of monitoring ble function dou Center the has Ewa (PTWC) Hawaii, in Beach, Tsunami Pacific Warning the California; and networks to collect data at a local, regional or at a data local, networks to collect monitoring have developed organisations tional During the past few decades, several interna few decades, past the During Two key questions to are: ask (1) How many For volcano monitoring, traditional observation observation traditional monitoring, For volcano , 2009), there is currently , 2009), there currently is , 2011). 2011). , ------45 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 46 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience Organization, 2011).Organization, moni infrasound global The for Comprehensive the Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty eventsous (CTBTO Preparatory Commission hazard particular, in 2008) and, Organization, for Comprehensive the Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBTO change Preparatory Commission climate including phenomena, natural of monitoring and detection to the contributing ble of significantly but explosions, nuclear capa is all to detect designed been has of 337 atotal facilities, with stations clide radionu hydroacoustic and infrasound, seismic, Ban-Treaty (CTBTO), Organization comprising System (IMS) Comprehensive of the Nuclear-Test- International Monitoring The network. by aglobal forecasts. of short- weather accuracy medium-range the and atmosphere of the improving and modelling the in progress have of significant generating potential the al. et Pichon al. et Le ies (Kulichkov, 2009; atmospheric specific as stud Watada, 2009), well as (Wilson (Garcés ors (ReVelle, 2009), severe Edwards, storms 2009; mete landslides, of monitoring , include technology applications of infrasound Additional of1995). (Chen eruptions case volcanic &Christie, the aviation authoritiesin civil the and populations to both valuable tool to helpwarnings early issue extremely an therefore, constitutes, monitoring 2009).nologies Infrasound (Campus &Christie, tech monitoring traditional through retrievable information the beyond often going eruptions, canic of vol characteristics the into insight a significant provides monitoring waves. Infrasound infrasound atmosphere, into the energy of generating their part volcano volcanoes alarge since inject monitoring for great has potential 2009). Infrasound & Haak, (Gossard threshold audible &Hooke, 1975; Evers atmosphere below the afrequency range the with waves acoustic detects in propagating technology extensive1950s).quite development the during This (after technology are-emerging its by infrasound, have complemented been volcanoes monitoring benefits. societal immediate have would a service applications other many with Moreover, system. warning early such of an part as provide service for a basis a surface-displacement low-latency could aroutine, urements in analysis meas SAR selected with stations html). Combining unr.edu/billhammond/gpsnetmap/GPSNetMap. archives to (see data public data vide http://geodesy. only by a number of local networks but primarily networks bybut of anumber primarily local only In the last 15 years, the traditional systems for systems 15 traditional last the the years, In Infrasound technology is today supported is not technology Infrasound , 2009; Drob al. et , 2009; et al. et et al. et , 2009) and earthquakes (Mikumo & & (Mikumo earthquakes , 2009) and et al. et Hetzer , 2009; , 2009). These latter studies studies , 2009).latter These , 2009), auroras auroras 2009), , , 2009; Blanc Blanc , 2009; ------data from around 110 from around data stations. CTBTO receive risk tsunami 11ahigh tres in with countries cen warning present, At tsunami precise warnings. to and more help issue them timely Oceans, Indian Paci covering the those particular centres, in warning to real-time tsunami near in information provides CTBTO the tsunami, and earthquake Great Sumatra 2004 the Following stations. coustic to be issued. warnings early relevant to the enabling information all with safety, aviation for responsible institutions national and international the as its Member well as States, CTBTO provides The decade. last the in be essential Network been to proven volcano has monitoring to component Infrasound ofCTBT the IMS of the Centre. Data The contribution International the from station to the transmission data and ability avail requirementsdata strict for quality, data extremely compliancewith Austria) in (Vienna, Centre Data International CTBTO to the data ing send operational, fully currently are and been built worldwide. Most have stations ofdistributed these stations of consists 60 networktoring IMS of the the full integration of all the existing local, regional regional local, existing the integrationof all full the development. sustainable and munities to contribute and com toprogress resilient DRR in akey position to in facilitate CTBTO puts the istic character unique This Centre. Data International reference to the asingle real-time near point, in data worldwide transmitting and distributed gies, technolo different from on based four stations data of acquisition high-quality simultaneous to the thanks warnings early issuing and hazards natural contribution toble monitoring acrucial of providing context. role this in networkplay acrucial can infrasound IMS CTBTO quences of The major eruptions. volcanic or extreme fromthe conse scale global and on a regional suffer could which areas in butby also eruptions, volcanic affected locally areas in not only warnings early ing issu of capable volcanoes for network monitoring aglobal need urgent forthere an is consolidating 2014).that implies (UNISDR, This droughts and mis tsuna earthquakes, cyclones, place for in floods, are systems warning most early that fact the highlights also The report systems. these lenges associated with major the chal worldwide analyses and distributed systems warning early overview existing oferal the area agen Core 2.3 area 2, indicator Priority under Reduction’ provides Risk Disaster in Challenges regularly recorded hydroa and seismic regularly by IMS The recent report of the UNISDR ‘Progress and ‘Progress The UNISDR recentthe report of Volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis are tsunamis and Volcanoes, earthquakes CTBTO might also play a key role in facilitating play akey role facilitating also in might CTBTO network capa is conclusion, IMS CTBTO In the f c and c and ------and training. education dissemination, information, to contribute will infrastructure EPOS The ment forecasting. and thereforeis - invaluable for assess improving hazard preventiondevelopments disaster research, and in lead to new lead events, to butthat catastrophic will processes and dynamics tive research Earth on the innova stimulate not only will data quality high of prompt the as continuouswell availability and as research infrastructure multidisciplinary to the open access Indeed, evident. is mitigation and tion preven of terms disaster in EPOS coordinated in of users. abroad among community services sciences and Earth the worldwide in interoperability foster will of EPOS Establishment simulations. and/or experiments producedtory by computational labora in acquired networks, monitoring Earth solid recorded data by the multidisciplinary of the use and access increase will researchnational infrastructures people. its and Earth the facing help challenges solve grand the space and science to marine environmental, with plans implementation promote and gaps existing identify will EPOS system. complex Earth solid and dynamic the understand and monitor to ties on new e-science build opportuni will EPOS euro. million of value 500 atotal science, with Earth solid for but research advanced infrastructures European diverse the integrating is five EPOS years. coming (see plan tation http://www.epos-eu.org) for the System its (EPOS) implemen in Plate Observing European the to include (ESFRI) Infrastructure Scientific Scale for Forum Large Strategy European geohazards. of extreme case the even property save in and life to helping thus become moremight streamlined, advanced warnings early of sufficiently delivery future the scenario synergetic (GEOSS). this In Observation System of Systems Earth Global the of establishment the and DRR in common targets achievement the of facilitating GEO, the thus with Centre, 2014),and Joint Research UNISDR with Reduction’, Commission, Risk European Disaster Joint Centre’s the Research lished for ‘Science Report (which Commission recently European pubthe with aclose synergy generating in be instrumental might also role This technologies. monitoring IMS four networks on based the monitoring global and opment in this context is the decision the context byis the opment this in The social impact of the activities promotedtheimpact activities of and The social trans- and national Integration of existing recent important example devel of an An ------47 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 48 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience much to investscience how and in to lever best 2014).(Stein Stein, and choices These include how how and geohazards to respondextreme to them Choices need to be onmade to whether prepare for eruptions. volcanic rence of events, such especially to prevent –means occur no limited –orthe very have humans and basically geohazards, of extreme management for hazards. extreme ence-based contribute framework would that to risk Therefore,there is a need to movesci global to a decision-making. it in for and using knowledge availablescientific the a process for understanding fromtheoflack science.often of Rather,result they of result a lack are rarely the disasters the answered, need to be questions still scientific many Although hazards. of the understanding scientific a solid acceptable at an economichazards cost requires of extreme occurrence inducedby the disasters the events. to Reducing these resilience increased global aprerequisiteis management and risk for disaster events, extreme including of geohazards, spectrum icy- decision-makers. full and the Understanding toavailable polof geohazards knowledge the in events. high-impact low-probability to resilience increasing not there does is imply that this frequent hazards, more the to cope with increasingly level learn global to the local from the communities processes. While socio-economic and infrastructure, use, of land raresuch event planning to the beignored tends in any impactof Holocene. on society Thepotential the during occurred that geohazards largest by the aredwarfed impacts global with caused disasters property.and The thatrecent have major geohazards loss of life increasing and large cause Geohazards l l l Recommendations Conclusions and 7. The recent extreme disasters havedisasters The recent extreme revealedgaps Human activities do not occurrence the drive activities Human - - - - decision-making is crucial. crucial. is decision-making science a process in for with integrating engaging developing and particular, In impacts. their and geohazards extreme of the scale the with surate commen is that sectors scale at the all to mobilise include howalso investment. They scientific age of scientific knowledge. knowledge. scientific of reasons not alack is these among What futile. is consequences preparednessthat that so are extreme belief the some cases, in and, hazard, extreme for an acceptable cost of the preparing include strategies decision-makers; reasons for lack of the socially and communities scientific between a disconnect sensitivity, event, and hood low of an such political events. of extreme simulation through of to society modern exploreand weaknesses the Taleb, 2012) antifragile; (becoming disasters past from to learn be necessary will it effects, cascading and hazards Todiscourse. cascading understand byscientific science the dicted or in to beincluded mitigation. key role preparation, and in responseunique and where be required, science a has response will cal geopoliti international An country. individual any of capabilities political and beyondis financial the to respond events to these response ability the and catastrophe. The cost and of disaster global trigger events these have supply to and potential chains, the transportation, security, food climate, on effects far-reaching to their Due earthquakes. largest the than less are frequentthat more but far impactful eruptions volcanic large is risk global main the age, have been the main cause of fatalities and dam and of cause have fatalities main been the Reasons for this include the low the perceived include for this Reasons likeli Although in the last few decades earthquakes few earthquakes decades last the in Although Why are we are notWhy prepared events? for extreme to eventsbepre not are likely cascading Many - - - - - • geohazards: from risk extreme global are needed the to address Thereare conditions. several coretal thatelements long-term environmen large in changes potentially to adaptive cope and community, with capabilities awareness risk across the including resilience, community in increase an of infrastructure, tivity for improved warnings. early itfrequent provide and would geohazards, a basis improve would ofsystem detection more timely the the Likewise, needed research hazards. on extreme improve for urgently database observational the events extreme but also would for looming ings notbe capablewould warn only of timely providing a Such system a volcano is system. monitoring ards communities. of livelihood the compromising adaptive and capacities resilience without increasing by risk reduce disaster can the that strategies nity commu and risks on disaster deliberations inform order in to important very is geohazards extreme about knowledge Democratising world. developing much of the throughout into disasters hazards turn management creates use conditionsland to the informed and codes alack of and building ruption, hazards. ofdetection extreme not needed, early is to least support the hazards geo for system monitoring global strong a that suggests This reduce can disasters. phase, warning early the during particularly knowledge, to scientific ters near-misses and show of past the adherence that - disas possible to effective developThe response. an as much forewarning requires as hazards extreme of nature global developing world. The the in than much more monitored closely countries wealthy in are hazards potential aresult, across world. As the short and DRR will require a reductionsensi in will DRR short and in terms of knowledge assessment. As of today, As ofassessment. terms knowledge in model IPCC from the of and terms monitoring in account tracking lessons learnedfrom NEO into aframework take Such could geohazards. of extreme impacts global detrimental the imise order private in the to min scale sector on a global and communities, governments, by implemented responses are and that mitigation paredness, pre science up-date integrate into warning, and seamlessly It also should hazards. extreme and scienti a tactical delivering framework be capableshould ard science. This of geohaz extreme strategic for framework scientific global a be made establish to effort synergistic It recommended and is ajoint international that For extremely are some lead times eruptions, geohaz at- extreme aimed A key element DRR in risk-awarenessLow poverty, combined cor with uneven awareness highly is monitoring and Risk fc response to hazards ------• • • • • holders and decision makers. A goal should beholders should decision and Agoal makers. stake bedeveloped cooperationshould in with worst scenarios, case likely including scenarios, of event analysis scientific rational and odological A meth be selected. should geohazards extreme or generic afew specific reduce Forand risk. this, threats the understand to better beused planning It recommended is contingency scenario that disciplines. other but requires support by sub-discipline by asingle be solved cannot of complexity which the lenges, pose major cycle, chal topographic the life as controlled topographicthat development, well as processes dynamic of events underlying the and timing and dimensions the nothat longer exists, topography with from dealing Apart analysis. paleo-topography to inherent problems complex Thereare years. however10 some or so million last the recent during the but past also during only evolution of topography not to needs beassessed, environment. the The temporal and geohazards topography, interrelation of between the gained be It recommended is understanding abetter that events. high-impact to low-probability exposed being society modern from resulting threats on global knowledge the framework availabletono is scientific assess such and reduce the risk of global disasters. In this con this In reducedisasters. and ofrisk the global resilience to preparedness increase and measures global coordinate and threats global emerging to respond could that structure governance global It considered is to develop informed important an eruptions. extreme emerging of detection early benefits besidesmajor the societal componentswaves. monitoring have Both would of displacementsand infrasound surface Earth of solid operational monitoring bethe would Two system core monitoring elements of this eruptions. volcanic extreme for emerging warning early of providing goal the tem placebe put with in - sys It monitoring recommended is aglobal that scenarios. emergency for with coping training through and hazards with associated risk on the information clear and cise of con dissemination through population the in It recommended is riskawareness that be increased beavailable. should dictates scenario the that those rather be available, than will that resources the with for situation how the to manage bedeveloped Options should beassessed. should implementation cost of the not and implementing, of difficulties the including constraints, and ties opportuni political byexisting stakeholders. The comes by recognised science identified those and out and hazards cascading the to work through ------49 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 50 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience sions to prepare event. for an such deci event extreme inform for and an potential the of lead understanding todeveloping could abetter phaseevent where the hazardous the is during data accessto having Forarchives. geohazards, extreme be activated to give access to comprehensive data can charter the of adisaster, case the In a crisis. happened created has already and has disaster the where applies to cases only charter current The adisaster. cause might hazard extreme a looming increase preparedness accesscould to or data where terscharter.org) to be extended cover where cases Technological (see Disasters https://www.disas- EventUse the of in or Space Facilities of Natural on Cooperation Coordinated to Achieve the recommended Charter the it that also is warning, step to support research immediate into early an As disaster risk management. management. risk disaster for provide would guidance planning contingency scenario and risk, of impending system any ance govern global hazards) the extreme inform would science geohazards (andextreme science for other recommended the frameworktext, for strategic - - Mandeville and Max Wyss. Wyss. Max and Mandeville Charles Connor, Green, David Charles Bernknopf, Lewis Richard their comments:valuable for draft reviewers the of final anear to thank we like would particular, In for support. itsinput and community the thank like to The authors would cated meetings. (GEO) Observations Earth at conferences dedi and of (GHCP) Practice Community ofGroup the on Geohazards of the participants authorsof the with interactionsthe of many is result document This Acknowledgements - GHCP GEOSS GEO GEM ESFRI ESF EPOS D3R DRR DART CTBTO COST CGNSS CCP CBA ATWC AIM AIDA Acronyms Abbreviations and VEI VAAC UNISDR SMPAG SAR PTWC PDF NWSv NOAA NEO IRIS IPCC InSAR IMS IGOS-P IDD ICAO IAWN GSN GNSS

Pacific Tsunami Warning Center TsunamiPacific Warning Technology Cooperation Science and European in Synthetic Aperture Radar Radar Aperture Synthetic European Science Foundation Foundation Science European Group Group Advisory Planning Missions Space Double Asteroid Redirect TestDouble Asteroid Redirect Continuous GNSS GNSS Continuous Asteroid Impact Mission Asteroid Mission Impact Global Seismographic Network Network Seismographic Global Near-Earth Object Disaster Risk Reduction Reduction Risk Disaster National Weather Service Service Weather National Global Navigation Satellite System System Satellite Navigation Global European Plate Observing System PlateEuropean Observing Geohazards Community of Practice Community Geohazards Organization Organization Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban-Treaty Administration Administration Atmospheric and Oceanic National Alaska Tsunami Warning Center Tsunami Warning Alaska Global Earthquake Model Model Earthquake Global Organization Organization Aviation Civil International Assessment Deflection Asteroid and Impact Probability Density Function Function Density Probability Cost-benefit analysis International Monitoring System System Monitoring International Radar Radar Aperture Synthetic Interferometric Partnership Strategy Observing Global Integrated Cities for Climate Protection Cities for Climate Seismology Seismology for Institutions Research Incorporated Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Resilience and Reduction Risk Disaster International Disaster Database Database Disaster International Systems Systems of System Observation Earth Global Volcanic Explosivity Index Index Volcanic Explosivity Group on Earth Observations Observations Group on Earth Reduction Reduction United Risk for Nations Disaster Office Change Change Intergovernmental on Panel Climate Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers Volcanic Advisory Ash International Asteroid Warning Network Asteroid Warning International Scientific Infrastructure Infrastructure Scientific Scale for Forum Large Strategy European 51 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 52 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience Amos, C. B., Audet, P., W. Audet, B., Hammond, C., C. Amos, reduction the and Vulnerability 2003. K., Allen, ecological and Adger, Social W. 2000. N., References Campus, P. & Christie, D., 2009. The P. 2009. D., Campus, & Christie, and risk Vulnerability, 2003. N., Brooks, –analyzing risks Existential 2002. N., Bostrum, Farges, L., Ceranna, Pichon, A., Le E., Blanc, Wood, J., N. S. Rabinovici, L., R. Bernknopf, 1975.Ben-Menahem, A., of parameters Source 2014. S., M. Long-term forecasting Bebbington, V., I. Ionov, Glazyrin, Avramenko, I., G. M. Nature California, groundwater central depletion in driven 2014. by G., and seismicity Uplift &Blewitt, A., I. Johanson, R., Burgmann, London. 170–184, Routledge, Worlda Globalising in Development and study, Natural Disasters in approach: community-based APhilippines Geography Human in related?, they are resilience: Progress nature13275. nature13275. IMS Infrasound Network: Worldwide Infrasound IMS U.K. Norwich, University Anglia, of East (CSERGE), Sciences, of School Environmental Environment Global on the Research Economic and Centre and forResearch Social rep., Tyndall Change Centre for Climate framework, Tech.adaptation: Aconceptual risks.html. http://www.jetpress.org/volume9/ at Available Technology and Evolution J. hazards, related and scenarios extinction human Springer. Studies for Atmospheric Monitoring Infrasound in atmospheric of the study dynamics, the waves gravity and of acoustic monitoring for scale Global 2009. T., &Herry, J., A., Marty, and Management Assessment Risk J. Int. policies, mitigation and assessments risk regional on GIS-based models influence of hazard The 2006. B., L. & Dinitz, 9201(75)90072–2. Interiors Planetary and of the Earth Physics stations, at four signals of seismic synthesis and analysis explosion 1908, Siberian of June 30, the from 1500–1515. Int. J. Geophys. explosivity, of volcanic 119 Atmospheres Res. Geophys. J. superbolide, Chelyabinsk caused by the airwave the V., V., &Karpeev, A. 2014. of Simulation (12), 7035–7050. , 509 , 11 , 24 (1), 1–35, doi: 10.1016/0031– (7501), doi: 10.1038/ 483–486, (3), 347–364. , 6 , edited by M. Pelling, pp. Pelling, by, edited M. (4/5/6), 369–387. , 9 , 197 , , (3), (3), , CTBTO Preparatory Commission for the Preparatory Commission CTBTO Cloetingh, S., Ziegler, P. A., Bogaard, P. Ziegler, P. Bogaard, S., J., A., Cloetingh, 2013b. D., S. Linking &Willet, S. Cloetingh, Cloetingh, S. & Willet, S. D., 2013a. D., TOPO- S. &Willet, S. Cloetingh, U., 2015. Haq, B. and S. Inherited Cloetingh, and 2001.Quarternary The L., R. Christiansen, Chen, P. & Christie, D. R., 1995. Infrasonic 1995. Infrasonic P.Chen, D. R., &Christie, 2012. X-Eventsof Collapse –The L., J. Casti, T. 1994. The J., Casadevall, 1989–1990 eruption change_ information/2008/01122008_climate_ org/ Tech. rep., http://www.ctbto. CTBTO, monitoring, change climate for source untapped regime: verification an ban The test-nuclear 2008. Organization, Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Global and Planetary Change Planetary Global and processes, of coupled deep Earth-surface group, 2007. geoscience The TOPO-EUROPE: &TOPO-EUROPEWortel, J., M. working Torsvik,H., T., Wenzel, F., Vincente G., de Thybo, W., A., Stephenson, Spakman, R. A., Soesoo, S., Sliaupa, Peters, G., C., Pascal, Mosar, Oncken, J., O., Matenco, G., L., A. Heidbach, O.,Jones, G., Green, J., A. Gallart, A., Friedrich, Facenna, C., R., Carbonell, J.-P., P., H. Brun, Burov, Bunge, B., Z., E. F., T., Ben-Azvraham, R. Beekman, Balen, van G., Bada, M., I. P. Artemieva, A., Andriessen, Union Geophys. Am. Trans. processes, Eos, surface and deep earth topography, topography, continental and deep Earth the between coupling of the EUROPE: Understanding science.1258375Review. Science sea level and change. landscapes Prof PapUS Geol Surv 729, 1–146. Tech. Montana, and Idaho, Wyoming, rep., Pliocene Yellowstone Plateau of field volcanic Canada, November 2 November Canada, Montreal, Volcanic Warning Group, Ash Study Organization, Aviation Civil International for aviation Proceedings safety, in 2nd Meeting Implications system: monitoring international of explosionsdetection volcanic CTBT by the York. Everything Research Volcanology J. Geothermal operations., aircraft on impacts of redoubt volcano, Alaska: Studies Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric waves, in observations of infrasonic f leadmin/user_upload/public_ , , Springer. 347 f , 62 nal_web.pdf. nal_web.pdf. , HarperCollins Publisher, New , HarperCollins no. 6220, DOI: 10.1126/ no. 6220, (1), 301–316. 301–316. (1), Tectonophysics , , CTBT. CTBT. , 94 (5), 53–54. 53–54. (5), , 602 , 58 , 1–14. 1–14. , , 1–118. 1–118. , Geohazards Community of Practice, 2010. of Practice, Community A Geohazards 2009. Pichon, A., &Le M., Willis, M., Garcés, Fritz, H. M., Mohammed, F., Mohammed, &Yoo, M., H. Fritz, 2009. J., Evers, L. G. & Haak, H. W., H. The &Haak, 2009. G. Evers, L. Centre, Joint Research Commission, European W. Meteor 2009. Edwards, generated N., Dungan, T. E., F., Costa, Deloule, H., Druitt, Drob, Picone, & D. P., Michael J., Meier, R., R. Understanding &Walker, 2003. H. J., I. A. Dolan, 2011. E., J. CATDAT The Damaging Daniell, for the Preparatory Commission CTBTO Tech. of Community rep., Geohazards Observations, Group ofPractice the on Earth of Community for Geohazards the Roadmap Studies for Atmospheric Monitoring Infrasound in sea, song of the the Deciphering pacific: the in swells observations of open ocean Infrasonic Geophysics Applied and Pure anniversary, 50th tsunami generated impact mega- bay landslide Lituya Monitoring for Studies Atmospheric Infrasound some history, in and early its propagation of infrasound, characteristics 27314-8. 978-92-79- ISBN Commission, rep., European 2014. reduction, risk Tech. Science for disaster Springer. Studies for Atmospheric Monitoring Infrasound in and observation, Theory infrasound: 482 volcano, at Nature a caldera growth reservoir and transfer of magma timescales to monthly 2012. Decadal B., &Scaillet, M., Studies for Atmospheric Monitoring Infrasound in for passive atmosphericsignals remote sensing, Inversion 2009. M., of infrasound M. Garcés, 0749-0208. ISSN Brazil, Itajaí, Symposium, Coastal International Research Coastal J. related change risks, climate to communities of coastal vulnerability Daniell-02.02.pdf VOLC-Data-1st-AnnualReview-2010-James- com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CATDAT- review, Available at: http://earthquake-report. –2010 Database in year –the Earthquakes web.pdf. user_upload/public_information/2011/CSA_ http://www.ctbto.org/ CTBTO, Tech. of ctbto uses data, scientific rep., and civil –the welfare promoting human 2011. and Organization, warning Disaster Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (7383), 7780. , Springer. , Springer. 39, SI , 166 , Proceedings of the 8th 8th of the , Proceedings (1-2), 153–175. f leadmin/ , Springer. , , Harkrider, D. G., 1964. Theoretical and observed Theoretical Harkrider, 1964. D. G., 2014. H., Lvholt, F., C., Harbitz, &Bungum, Hetzer, C. H., Gilbert, K. E., Waxler, R., & & Waxler, R., E., K. Gilbert, Hetzer, H., C. investigation The 2004b. M., C. Hempsell, for potential The space 2004a. M., C. Hempsell, – Disease of Burden The 2003. Hays, N., J. Hammond, W. C., Blewitt, G., Li, Z., Plag, H.-P., Plag, Z., Li, G., W. Blewitt, Hammond, C., Barton, L., G. P. Christeson, S. S., Gulick, Gossard, E. &Hooke, W., E. Gossard, 1975. Waves in Glavovic, B. C., 2013. innovation Glavovic, C., Coastal B. N., Li, Ševčíková,H., E., A. P., Gerland, Raftery, 2012. of Practice, Community Geohazards Gorkavyi, N., Rault, D. P. F., Da Newman, Rault, A., N., Gorkavyi, J. Geophys. Res. atmosphere, the Geophys. in J. wavesacoustic-gravity from explosive sources 1341–1374. howand likely? Natural Hazards how extreme tsunamis: landslide Submarine 10.1130/G32968.1. Talmadge, C. L., 2009. Generation 2009. of L., Talmadge, C. Interplanetary Society British catastrophes,J. global of natural Interplanetary Society British catastrophes,J. global intervention in Cultures Western in Response Human and Epidemics 5295–5321. and InSAR measurements, Geology measurements, InSAR and from GPS Sierraof western U.S. the Nevada, 2011.& Kreemer, C., Contemporary uplift crater, impact Chicxulub of the characterization 2013. J., Urrutia-Fucugauchi, Geophysical F.,P. V., J. A. Morgan, Grieve, R. J., & Propagation and Waves-their Gravity Generation and Infrasound Atmospheric the Atmosphere: imperative, Science century, this unlikely stabilization population 2014. J., World &Wilmoth, K., G. T., Heilig, Bay, N., Buettner, G., Lalic, J., Chunn, K., B. Fosdick, L., Spoorenberg, D., T.,Gu, Alkema, Feliu_2011/sant_feliu_declaration_i.php. http://www.geohazcop.org/workshops/Sant_ availableat Observations, Group on Earth of of Practice the Community Geohazards Tech. Risks, of rep., Disaster Reduction the and Geohazards on Extreme Declaration available at http://www.geohazcop.org Observations, Group ofPractice the on Earth bolide, bolide, stratospheric Chelyabinsk belt due to the dust 2013. &Dudorov, M., New E., A. A. Silva, doi:10.3390/su5030934. Reviews of Geophysics of Reviews , Geophys. Res. Lett. Res. Geophys. 346 , Rutgers University Press. Press. University Rutgers , Sustainability , Elsevier Scientific Publishing. Publishing. Scientific Elsevier , (6206), 234–237. , , 57 57 , 2–13. 2–13. , 14–21. , , , 5 40 , (3), 934–954; (3), 934–954; 51 (17), 4728–4733. (1), 31–52. 31–52. (1), , 72 , , 69 27 (3), (3), (24), (24), , doi: 53 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 54 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience Marsh, S. & the Geohazards Theme Geohazards &the S. 2004. Marsh, Team, Mandeville, C. W., C. Webster,Mandeville, Tappen, D., J. C., Le Pichon, A., Ceranna, L., Pilger, C., Mialle, P., Mialle, C., Pilger, L., Ceranna, Pichon, A., Le Vergoz, L., Y., Pichon, Cansi, A., Ceranna, Le J., Kirchner, I., Stenchikov, I., Graf, H.-F.,Kirchner, G., Robock, Kelly, P.and &Adger, Theory W. M. 2000. N., 2012. J., storm Aperfect of planetary Kappenman, 2007. C., The Jones, S. Tobasupervolcanic S., Cloetingh, P., E., Holm, M. Goodsite, Kulichkov, S., 2009. On the prospects On the 2009. for acoustic Kulichkov, S., 29783012. 29783012. Integrated Global Observing Strategy. Strategy. Observing Global Integrated ThemeReport, Geohazards Tech. rep., IGOS Oregon, Crater Lake, oferuptions Mt.Mazama, pre-climactic and climactic the during petrologic evidence for open-system degassing Stable 2009. isotope and R., C. &Bacon, E., Hauri, A., Sasaki, Taylor, A., Timbal, E., B. Lett. Res. Geophys. sensors, infrasound CTBTO ever largest detected by 2013 fireball Russian Brown, Herry, D., P., 2013. N., &Brachet, The Springer. 629–646, pp. Studies for Atmospheric Monitoring Infrasound in sensing, remote atmospheric for monitoring & Drob, Contribution 2009. D., of infrasound Springer. Studies for Atmospheric Monitoring Infrasound in hurricanes, by deep-ocean microbaroms J. Geophys. Res. Geophys. J. eruption, volcanic 1991 the following Mount Pinatubo cooling summer and warming of winter simulation 1999. J., model Climate &Antuna, A., Change adaptation,Climatic facilitation and change to climate vulnerability assessing practice in planetary-proportions. energy/the-smarter-grid/a-perfect-storm-of- on Nov. 2014 4, at http://spectrum.ieee.org/ proportions, p. 173-200, Springer. Allchin, Asia South in Populations of Human History and Evolution The in implications, paleoanthropological eruption: Tephra-fall and India deposits in policy and science Environmental Research, Change Global sciences in human and social natural, the 2013. between Collaboration R., Zondervan, & D. J., Lang, B., Moldan, M., Agnoletti, 19039–19055. 19039–19055. Atmospheric Studies Atmospheric Infrasound Monitoring in for atmosphere, middle of the structure fine of the sounding , 40 , 47 (14), 3732–3737. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta , 325–352. 325–352. , IEEE Spectrum IEEE , edited by M. D. Petraglia & B. &B. D. Petraglia by, edited M. , 28 , Springer. , 25–35. 25–35. , , pp. accessed , 104 , , 73 , , , National Research Council, 2013. Council, Abrupt Impacts Research National Radiative 2005. Council, Research National catastrophe Muir-Wood, 2012. Annualized R., Smith, C., M. Lemos, A., G. Meehl, H., R. Moss, 1960. D., Giant waves Bay Alaska, Miller, Lituya in Mikumo, T. Acoustic-gravity 2009. &Watada,Mikumo, S., A., C. Baisan, Meko, A., Woodhouse, D., C. Matthews, N. E., Smith, V. C., Costa, A., Durant, Durant, V. A., Costa, Smith, C., E., N. Matthews, &Oppenheimer, C., D. M., Pyle, G., B. Mason, Mauser, M., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, Schmalzbauer, M., Rice, Klepper,Mauser, G., M., of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises of Change: Climate Anticipating Studies. Life and Division on Earth Climate, and on Board Atmospheric Sciences Committee, Research Climate Change, Climate on Effects Forcing on Radiative Committee D.C., Washington, Press, Academies National uncertainties addressing and concept the change: of climate Expanding forcing August 2012. 26–30 Davos, Conference, Risk and Disaster of the 4 Proceedings reduction, in long term risk driving and mortalities science.1239569. science, water: Practice-relevant high and adaptation T. –hell 2013. change J., Climate Wilbanks, W. Washington, & Turner M., L., B. A., II, E. Seyller, S., R. Pulwarty, A., Kumar, C., S. W., Mote,J. P. D. M., Liverman, W., Moser, W., J. Hurrell, Katzenberger, C., H. Hartmann, Furlow, L., A., J. Goddard, J., Edmonds, L., K. Ebi, S., Dessai, J., A. Busalacchi, B., S. Broomell, P., Brasseur, D., Behar, G. R., J. Arnold, B., J. ProfUSGS Paper 354-C:51–83. Monitoring for Studies Atmospheric Infrasound in sources, waves from earthquake Lett. Res. Geophys. upper Colorado Basin, River W., the M. in Salzer, 2007. drought Medieval & K., M. Hughes, J., J. T., Lukas, Knight, Quaternary International Quaternary Taupoand Volcanic New Zealand, Zone, Toba, from Examples Indonesia eruptions: tephra deposits from super-Ultra-distal 2012. &Pearce, G., J. N. D. M., Pyle, J., A. s00445–004–0355–9. Volcanology of Bulletin explosive on eruptions Earth, frequencytheandlargest of The size 2004. Environmental Sustainability Environmental in Current Opinion sustainability, for research: co-creation the of knowledge change global 2013. Transdisciplinary H., &Moore, R., Leemans, H., Hackmann, S., B. , 34 Science , L10705, doi:10.1029/2007GL029988. doi:10.1029/2007GL029988. L10705, , , 66 , (8), 735–748; doi:10.1007/ 342 , 696–698, DOI: 10.1126/, 696–698, , 258 , 5 , 54–79. 54–79. , (34), 420-431. 420-431. (34), th International International , Springer. , The , The , Plag, H.-P. 2013.Plag, S., Sea-level &Jules-Plag, rise Wilby, D. F. Niyogi, Sr., R. A., R. Pielke, Petraglia, M. D., Ditchfield, P., Ditchfield, D., Jones, S., M. Petraglia, O. F., P., J. Palutikof, Canziani, van L., M. Parry, P., M., Girolamo, De Risio, Di A., Panizzo, Okal, E. A. & Synolakis, C. E., 2008. Far-field 2008. E., C. &Synolakis, A. E. Okal, F. &Marchand, J., Hoozemans, J., M. R. Nicholls, 1982. The S., volcanic &Self, G. C. Newhall, Elsevier. Elsevier. Resources Essential to Threats Vulnerability: Understanding and Addressing vol. 4of Climate Sr., T. Suding, &K. Seastedt, to Climate Ecosystems Vulnerability in ecosystems, of coastal and doi:10.1029/2011GM001086. al et Monogr. Sharma Ser., vol.S. 196, by edited A. Perspective Complexity The Hazards: Natural and Events Extreme perspective, in a bottom-up, resource-based vulnerability events extreme and using complexity with (2012), Suding T. K. and Seastedt, Dealing Adegoke, J. Kallos, G. Dairuku, K. Hossain, International Quaternary years, over 140,000 last India the in occupation history hominin and change, environmental super-eruption, volcanic 2012. N., J. The &Pal, R., Korisettar, Toba New York, and United Kingdom NY, USA. UniversityCambridge Cambridge, Press, Change Climate Panel on Intergovernmental of the Report to Assessment the Fourth II Group of Working Vulnerability.and Contribution Adaptation ChangeClimate Impacts, 2007: 2007. eds., E., P. C. Linden der &Hanson, J., 5 Science System Earth and Natural Hazards reservoirs, artificial events Italian in landslide Great 2005. &Petaccia,A., A., Maistri, 995–1015. Geophys. J. Int. J. Geophys. Ocean, Indian the in tsunami hazard from mega-thrust earthquakes 9 Change Global Environmental analyses, global sea-levellosses due to global and regional rise: 1999. wetland and risk M., flood Increasing JC087iC02p01231. Res. Geophys. J. volcanism, for historical explosive magnitude of estimate An (VEI): index explosivity Studies. Life and on Earth Division on Atmospheric Climate; Sciences and Board Its Impacts; and Change Climate Abrupt Monitoring and Understanding on Committee D.C., Washington, Council, Research National , S69–S87. (5), 733–740. 733–740. (5), . 345–359, AGU, D. C., Washington, , 258 , 87 , 119–134. 119–134. , , 1231-1238, doi:10.1029/ , edited by R. A. Pielke Pielke A. by, edited R. , pp. 163–184, , , Geophys. Geophys. , 172 (3), (3), , , , Rockström, J., Steffen, Steffen, J., K., Persson, Rockström, W., Noone, Rockström, J., Steffen, Steffen, J., K., Persson, Rockström, W., Noone, Rial, J., Pielke Sr., R., Beniston, M., Claussen, Claussen, M., Beniston, Sr., Pielke R., J., Rial, ReVelle, waves D. Acoustic-gravity O.,2009. Pyle, D. M., 2000. Size of volcanic eruptions, in in of eruptions, volcanic Size 2000. D. M., Pyle, Pyle, D. M., 1995. Mass and energy budget of budget 1995. energy D.and M., Mass Pyle, Beutler, S., Bettadpur, Z., H.-P.,Plag, Altamimi, Global 2009. eds., H.-P. M., Plag, &Pearlman, V. D., Walker, J., Liverman, Hansen, B., J., Lenton,T. Scheffer, E., M., Lambin, F. I., S. Chapin, Steffen, A., J., K., Persson, W., Noone, W., R. Fabry, Corell, Rockström, L., Karlberg, M., U., Falkenmark, Svedin, R., Costanza, K., Snyder, S., P. Sörlin, H., Rodhe, Leeuw,der S., T., Hughes, van A., C. Wit, De B., Nykvist, H., Schellnhuber, C., M., Scheffer,Folke, M., Lenton,T. E., Lambin, F. Chapin, I., S. Å., 461 space Nature for operating A safe humanity, P., Crutzen, &Foley, K., 2009. J., Richardson, D., Walker, J., Liverman, Hansen, B., J., W., R. Fabry, Corell, V. L., Karlberg, M., U., Falkenmark, Svedin, R., P. Costanza, K., Snyder, S., Sörlin, H., Rodhe, Leeuw,der S., T., Hughes, van A., C. Wit, De B., Nykvist, H., Schellnhuber, C., M., Scheffer,Folke, M., Lenton,T. E., Lambin, F. Chapin, I., S. Å., Climatic Change Climatic system, climate Earth’s the within thresholds critical feedbacks and Nonlinearities, 2004. J., &Salas, J., Reynolds, R., Prinn, N., Ducoudre, Cox, P., Noblet- J., de H., Held, Canadell, M., Springer. Studies for Atmospheric Monitoring Infrasound atmosphere, the from sources impulsive in in H. H. of volcanoes Encyclopedia Lett. Res. Geophys. eruptions, volcanic explosive Berlin. pp. 15–88, Verlag, Springer Pearlman, & M. 2020 in Planet a Changing on of aGlobal Society the Requirements Meeting System: Observing geodesy, Global Geodetic in of tools modern achievements, and goals, 2009. The C., Woodworth, P.,K., &Zuffada, P., Poli, M., Schreiber, U., Senior,Pearlman, C., E. Pavlis, A., Nothnagel, C., Noll, C., Ma, J., Hinderer, Komjathy, A. J., Mannucci, A., Gross, R., Forsberg, R., A., Donnellan, D., Crossley, Cazenave, A., G., Beyerle, G., Heidelberg. Planet in 2020 aChanging on of aGlobal Society Requirements the Meeting System: Observing Geodetic et al et , 472–475. 472–475. , , 5 , 563–566. ., pp.., 263–269, Press. Academic , Springer Verlag, Berlin, Verlag, Springer , Berlin, , 65 , 11–38. 11–38. , , edited by Sigurdsson, by, edited Sigurdsson, , edited by, edited H.-P. Plag , , 55 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 56 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience Stenchikov, G. L., Kirchner, I., Robock, A., Graf, A., Robock, I., Kirchner, Stenchikov, L., G. Nature: 2014. J., Stein, against Playing S., Stein, Stein, J. & Stein, S., 2014. S., Gray &Stein, J. comparison Stein, swans: Z., Chen, M., Manning, D., Qin, Solomon, S., The trends: and V., Global catastrophes Smil, 2008. V., Monelli, Silva, M., Crowley, Pagani, H., and consequences effects The of very 2006. S., Self, Jones, T. F., L., von D., Dunk, der R. Schweickart, Sheldrake, T.,Sheldrake, 2014. of Long-term forecasting Consequences of 2008. S., &Blake, S. Self, Rose, W. 1987.Rose, &Chesner, A., I. C. of Dispersal 13,857. eruption, eruption, 1991from the volcanic Mount Pinatubo Radiative forcing L., 1998. & Thomason, A., Lambert, G., Grainger, R. C., J. H.-F., Antuna, Oxford). Sons, Works. and Wiley John (Wiley World Uncertain an in Hazards Natural to Economics Mitigate Science and Integrating 1297. mitigation, assessment hazard and financial and of natural USA. NY, New York, and United Kingdom Cambridge, Change Climate Panel on of the Intergovernmental Report of Working Ito Assessment the Fourth Group Contribution Basis. Science Physical The 2007: 2007. eds., Climate Change L., H. Miller, & Tignor, B., M., K. Averyt, M., Marquis, years 50 next 1427. assessment, risk open-source formodels seismic software earthquake global the openquake engine, 2014. R., Development &Pinho, D., of the Sciences Engineering and Physical A: Mathematical, Royal Soc. Trans. explosive Phil. large eruptions, volcanic Committee. of Space Explorers Object Near-Earth response, Tech. for global call rep., Association AsteroidA threats: 2008. S., & Camacho-Lara, Volcanology and Geothermal Res. Geothermal and Volcanology J. eruptive histories, to merge analogous approach Ahierarchical eruption hazards: 41–46. Elements supereruptions, explosive 15 great the Toba in ash Geology 75 eruption, ka., ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/. Society and space Ecology foroperating humanity, safe the exploring boundaries: Planetary P., Crutzen, &Foley, K., 2009. J., Richardson, , 913–917. 913–917. , , 14 J. Geophys. Res. Geophys. J. (2), http://www. [online] 32, URL: Natural Hazards Natural Hazards , MIT Press. Press. , MIT , Cambridge University, Cambridge Press, , 364 , (1845), 2073–2083. 103 , , 72 (D12), 13,837– (D12), 72 (3), 1279– , (3), 1409– (3), 286 , 4 (1), (1), , 15–23. 15–23. , , Ward, P. L., 2009. Sulfur dioxide initiates global global initiates dioxide Ward, Sulfur P. 2009. L., – Thinking Resilience 2006. D., Walker, &Salt, B. The of value 2003. W. &Aldy, E., J. Viscusi, K. 2012. J., CATDAT Vervaeck, &Daniell, A. Taubenberger, 1918 2006. &Morens, D. M., K. J. Vannucchi, P., Morgan, J. P., Della Lunga, Vannucchi, P., Lunga, P., J. Morgan, Della Survey, 2013. Geological Bureau highlights, U.S. ofUnited and Economic Nations,Department 2014. in Progress challenges and UNISDR, 2013. on S., Trottenberg, Guidance R. P. &Rivkin, Taleb,Things thatgain – 2012. N., Antifragile N. Blunier, T., B., Bigler, Clausen, M. Svensson, A., 517 Films Solid ways, Thin four in change climate World aChanging in People and Ecosystems Sustaining Uncertainty and Risk world, J. the throughout estimates review of market acritical life: a statistical accessed on September 21, 2013. earthquakes-database-2011-annual-review/ report.com/2012/01/09/catdat-damaging- review. Availableannual at http://earthquake- 2011 Database – Earthquakes Damaging Biomed. Rev. pandemics, mother of the all influenza: Letters Science Tunguska Planetary and event, Earth site at the 1908 ofmetamorphism the 2015. evidence of Direct ancient shock W. &Morgan, J., L., C. Andronicos, D., 53,Bh USGS. SER.A/352). Tech. rep. (ST/ESA/ Highlights, Revision, World Prospects:2014 The Urbanization 2014. Division, Population Affairs, Social Vienna. reduction, Tech. rep., UNISDR, for post-2015 the risk framework for disaster developmenttowards the indicators of policy reduction risk –acontribution disaster Transportation. of Department U.S. guidance, departmental Revised analyses, of Transportation Department U.S. in life treatment economic of the of value astatistical fromdisorder Past Tobaat the eruption (74 the of BP), ka Climate ice cores Antarctic and of Greenland linking 2013. Direct M., F., &Winstrup, Wilhelms, P., Wegner, Vallelonga, M., Vinther, B. R., A., R., Uemura, J. Steffensen, M., Severi, P., Udisti, I., O.,Schwander, Seierstad, S. J., Rasmussen, F., Popp, Parrenin, Kohno,M., T., S., Kipfstuhl, K., Kawamura, J., S. Johnsen, K., Goto-Azuma, Fischer, D., Fujita, S., Dahl-Jensen, H., B., H. , 3188–3203., , 9 , Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. USA. D.C., Washington, Press, , Island (2), 749–766. , 409 , 17 , 69–79. 69–79. , , , 168–174. 168–174. , 27 , Random House, Inc., New York. Inc., House, , Random (1), 5–76. 5–76. (1), , Zaniboni, F. & Tinti, S., 2014. F. S., &Tinti, Numerical Zaniboni, Grover, Brody, A., Vedlitz, D., S., S. H., Zahran, World 2014 2014. Forum, Economic Risks Global World 2013. Bank, Development group, data ed. World 2011. Bank, The recent earthquake Wong, 2014. I., How how how big, bad, often: 2014.WMO, Weather –understanding &climate Wilson, C. R., Szuberla, C. A. L., & Olson, J. V., J. &Olson, L., A. C. Szuberla, R., C. Wilson, 2001.26.5 N., J. The ka Oruanui C. Wilson, 2012. 73Toba Didka the M., super-Williams, 2013. House, White Executive Order –Preparing Natural Hazards modelling, Application of 1D Lagrangian 1963 of the simulations Vajont Italy: landslide, doi:10.1068/c2g. Policy and C: Government Environment policy, and Planningchange to commitment climate- local explaining capacity: and Vulnerability 2008. C., & Miller, Forum. Tech. Edition, – Ninth rep., World Economic Worldbank-free pdf, Bank. world development 2013, indicators World Update 2011 March japan.pdf. EAP Resources/550192-1300567391916/ INTEAPHALFYEARLYUPDATE/ http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ Update Pacific and Asia East Asia, East for Japan: implications in tsunami and 72 Natural Hazards analyses? hazard seismic events extreme are accounted modern for in 10.1016/0377-0273(94)90038-8. Tech.extremes, doi: WMO, Rep.2, and for variability preparing and risks Atmospheric Studies Atmospheric Infrasound in Monitoring for signals, infrasonic associated waves geomagnetic/auroral and Mountain Antarctica: and from Alaska observations of infrasound High-latitude 2009. 133–174. overview, and introduction an Neweruption, Zealand: International Quaternary models, climate and cores, ice geomorphology, stable isotope geochemistry, analysis, pollen archaeology, prehistoric genetics, from insights effect? eruption have enduring an on December 9, 2014.climate-change order-preparing-united-states-impacts- gov/the-press-office/2013/11/01/executive- Accessed at https://www.whitehouse.Change, United ofthe Climate States forImpacts the (3), 1299–1309. , 1 , Retrieved 23 November 23 , Retrieved 2012; J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. Volcanol. Geotherm. J. , 70 , Springer. (1), 201e567–592. , , 269 26 , 544–562, 544–562, , , 87–93., Economic , 112 , , 57 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience

Appendices 59 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience livelihoods, ecosystems, and national security. national and ecosystems, livelihoods, property, health, to life, change-related damage of, effects andrespondthe to, recoverfrom climate- ameliorate to prevent,necessary protect against, capabilities apply,the exercise to sustain build, and and equip, train, organise, to plan, taken actions Preparedness radiation. cosmic and storms, solar viruses, storms, others, among includes, above, defined this as geohazards event. Besides caused is by that anatural a hazard Natural occurring. ally of eruption actu independent the of probability the considered eruption is volcanic hazard, extreme an large a very Thus, of its occurrence. probability the independent it of if occurred pose athreat would Here, occur. to denote hazard we that asituation use event of an to probability the as defined is hazard some disciplines, events. scientific of In hazardous to used denote incidence the also is term hazard the paper, context of the or this erty, environment. In prop health, to life, athreat poses that a situation Hazard waves, bolides. and heat droughts, floods, eruptions, volcanic tsunamis, landslides, earthquakes, including Earth, solid the or with interact originate that hazards coversand all broad is of paper, geohazards definition of this the context the In temporal scales. and of spatial range involves that a hazard processes geological at awide Geohazard impacts. economic orlosses and material, environmental widespread involving or human, a society munity of acom functioning of the disruption a serious Disaster becomes less clear. hazards natural and anthropogenic between tion distinc the planet, on the actions of human impact increasing With economicand downturns. of resources, mismanagement failure, infrastructure terrorism, accidents, to, wars, but not are limited include, environment. These built the in originating or actions from human primarily resulting a hazard Appendix A: Glossary Anthropogenic :

: hazard : : :

hazard : - - - - Vulnerability event the cause. can damage the is capability the and place, event of the probability taking the is intent the hazards, context of the natural In harm. to inflict ‘capability’ and product the of is ‘intent’ Threat asset. of value the the and hazard, to the asset exposed of an probability,hazard vulnerability product It the is of to belost due to ahazard. likely is here that to denotevalue used term is the the Risk disruptions. from rapidly recover respond to, and withstand, conditions and changing to anticipate, prepare for, ability the adapt to and Resilience period. given the within at once on least Earth anywhere event of an occurring toused refer likelihood to the context of X-events, the is in recurrence interval Recurrence everything” (Casti, 2012). (Casti, everything” of lead regioncollapse to could “the that ‘normal’ outside the outlier An life. on human huge impacts potentially has and event surprising, rare, is an that X-event sciences (e.g. social and 2003). Brooks, the natural between approaches differ particular, &Walker, (e.g., used terms Dolan to the 2003). In different field meanings put from different experts not has been developed and yet, common language A hazards. and natural other effects on climate view a with developing is particularly which field, nary arelatively is new interdiscipli to hazards systems and natural of human vulnerability the of study The to ahazard. exposed if to damage experience asset here of to term used denote is an the a characteristic : : : :

interval: :

- 61 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 62 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience Overview of Earthquakes in the Last 2,000 Years 2,000 Last in the Appendix B: of Earthquakes Overview Table 8. 1 September 1923 1 September 1923 3 February 1922 11 November 1920 16 December 1908 December 28 1906 31 January 1877 10 May 1868 13 August 1833 November 25 1755 1 November 1751 May 25 1730 8 July 1707 October 28 1703 31 December 1700 January 26 1687 October 20 1604 November 24 1575 16 December 1556 January 23 1138 October 11 893 March 23 869 13 July 856 December 22 526 19 May Date 20 September 1498 September 20 Overview of known earthquakes during the last 2,000 years up to 2012. to up years 2,000 last the during earthquakes known of Overview Kanto Region, Japan Region, Kanto Russia Peninsula, Kamchatka Chile Region, Atacama China Ningxia-Gansu, Italy Calabria, Reggio and Messina Colombia–Ecuador Chile Iquique, Chile Arica, (now Indonesia) India East Sumatra, Lisbon, Portugal Concepcion, Chile Valparaiso, Chile Hoel, Japan Japan Region, Kanto America North Cascadia, Peru Lima, Chile Arica, Valdivia, Chile Shaanxi, China Syria Aleppo, Iran Ardabil, Sendai, Japan Qumis, Iran Turkey Antioch, Location Honshu, Japan Honshu, 35.4 54 -28.5 36.6 38.3 1 -19.6 -18.50 -2.5 36 -36.83 -32.5 33.0 35.0 -15.2 -18.5 -39.8 34.5 34.0 36.1 38.28 38.5 36.23 Latitude 139.0 161 -70.0 105.32 15.6 -81.5 -70.23 -70.35 100.5 -11 -73.03 -71.5 136.0 140.0 -75.9 -70.4 -73.2 109.7 138.1 36.8 48.30 143.8 54.14 Longitude 9 8 7.9 8.5 8.5 8.6 7.2 8.8 8.8 9.0 8.8–9.2 8.7 8.5 8.7 8.6 8.2 8.2 8.5 8.5 8.2-8.3 8.6 11 – 8.6 Magnitude 143,000 100s 235,502 70,000 1,000 2,541 25,000 numerous 80,000 ~ 5,000+ 5,233 5,000 ~ 830,000+ thousands 150,000 ~1,000 45,000-200,000 250,000 Fatalities 5 6 0 51-10 5,233 but probably up to 10,000. up probably but 5,233 Tsunami and fire caused most deaths. most caused fire and Tsunami homeless. 1.9 million estimated an leaving destroyed, were homes 570,000 Over causeway. Enoshima the on people 50 estimated an and Kamakura in beach Yui-ga-hama along 100 people about many, including killed tsunami The minutes. within Peninsula Izu of coast east the and Islands Izu Peninsula, Atsunami region. coastal cities, especially in Coquimbo. in especially cities, coastal in people hundred several killed tsunami The Australia. away as far as observed was and killed. were residents 70,000 some and destroyed were Messina in structures a12quake, mtsunami to http://tsun.sscc.ru/ttt_rep.htm according by tsunami died 3,000 Zealand. New and Japan Hawaii, in recorded was which 15 blocks. some river the of course the Changed Talca. and Curico Cauquenes, Chillan, Concepcion, of cities the Destroyed Chiba, Kanagawa, and Shizuoka, and caused widespread damage throughout the Kant the throughout damage widespread caused and Shizuoka, and Kanagawa, Chiba, of prefectures surrounding Yokohama, of city Tokyo, port the devastated Earthquake destructive a triggered It to Coquimbo. Copiapo from damage extensive caused earthquake The Huining. and Longde of cities the in collapsed houses the all Nearly County. Guyuan in killed were people 30,000 than More County. Xiji in Sujiahe of village the buried A landslide earth the after Moments damage. heavy suffered also mainland Italian the on Reggio tsunami adestructive Triggered tsunami adevastating Triggered A tsunami tsunami ahuge Triggered to http://tsun.sscc.ru/ttt_rep.htm According areas. adjoining and Lisbon destroyed totally Almost tsunami. huge a triggered and fires Caused tsunami a Triggered Kyushu. and Shikoku Honshu, throughout damage to severe moderate Caused major a triggered It fire. subsequent and shaking to the due people 2,300 killed and Edo Shook people. the atsunami triggered It Ica. and Callao to Lima, damage severe Caused killed. was population the of 60% counties some in and destroyed, was area wide km 840 An affected. were Anhui and Jiangsu Hunan, Hubei, Shandong, Hebei, Gansu, Henan, Shanxi, Shaanxi, of provinces the in 97 counties than More reported. were 31,000 casualties and 26,000 between tsunami. alarge Triggered atsunami Triggered casualties. 45,096 had and destroyed half was Damghan of city The buildings. the of most destroyed Fire 300,000. just was population city’s the later decades some and damaged, greatly was Antioch of city The Notes The tsunami was also noted in Costa Rica, Panama, Mexico, California and Japan. and California Mexico, Panama, Rica, Costa in noted also was tsunami The event. this for recorded was height a1.8 Hawaii mrun-up AtHilo, Tumaco, Colombia. Japan. and Hawaii from reported also deaths some with Chile, northernmost now Seychelles. the in damage Also Bengkulu. one fatality. one least at causing Hawaii, reached it when 6 mhigh still was tsunami The deaths. reported of 8mtsunami an Triggered 16 of m. height up run amaximum had Tsunami to Chillan. Serena from tsunami amajor Triggered atsunami Triggered disruption. river to due of Valdivia flood subsequent the Caused tsunami (up to 10 m in some place), which resulted in more than 5000 casualties. 5000 than more in resulted which place), to (up 10 some m in (or multiple tsunamis) in the Pacific Ocean was produced by the earthquake, earthquake, the by produced was Ocean Pacific the in tsunamis) multiple (or tsunami (10 m maximum in some areas) which increased the death toll to at least least to at toll death the increased which areas) some in (10 mmaximum with waves up to 10 m high struck the coast of Sagami Bay, Boso Bay, Boso Sagami of coast the to 10 struck up waves mhigh with m high) that caused significant damage to the coast of Chile Chile of coast the to damage significant caused that 7 mhigh) (max which caused wide spread flooding of the Sendai plain. Sendai the of flooding spread wide caused which that struck the coast of Japan. of coast the struck that struck nearby coasts, causing even more devastation; 91% devastation; of more even causing coasts, nearby struck that caused considerable damage in Kamchatka, with a number anumber with Kamchatka, in damage considerable caused that flooded all southern part of western Sumatra from Pariaman to Pariaman from Sumatra of western part southern all flooded The death toll associated with this event is uncertain, but but uncertain, is event this with associated toll death The that inundated the lower parts of Valparaiso. It caused damage damage caused It Valparaiso. of parts lower the inundated that . The maximum recorded run-up height was 5 m in 5min was height run-up recorded maximum . The . A total of 2,541 people died, mainly in Peru and what is is what and Peru in mainly died, 2,541 of people . Atotal 40,000 died due to tsunami due died 40,000 that killed most of of most killed that . . - ō

1 September 1923 1 September 1923 3 February 1922 11 November 1920 16 December 1908 December 28 1906 31 January 1877 10 May 1868 13 August 1833 November 25 1755 1 November 1751 May 25 1730 8 July 1707 October 28 1703 31 December 1700 January 26 1687 October 20 1604 November 24 1575 16 December 1556 January 23 1498 September 20 1138 October 11 893 March 23 869 13 July 856 December 22 526 19 May Date Kanto Region, Japan Region, Kanto Russia Peninsula, Kamchatka Chile Region, Atacama China Ningxia-Gansu, Italy Calabria, Reggio and Messina Colombia–Ecuador Chile Iquique, Chile Arica, (now Indonesia) India East Sumatra, Lisbon, Portugal Concepcion, Chile Valparaiso, Chile Hoel, Japan Japan Region, Kanto America North Cascadia, Peru Lima, Chile Arica, Valdivia, Chile Shaanxi, China Japan Honshu, Syria Aleppo, Iran Ardabil, Sendai, Japan Qumis, Iran Turkey Antioch, Location 35.4 54 -28.5 36.6 38.3 1 -19.6 -18.50 -2.5 36 -36.83 -32.5 33.0 35.0 -15.2 -18.5 -39.8 34.5 34.0 36.1 38.28 38.5 36.23 Latitude 139.0 161 -70.0 105.32 15.6 -81.5 -70.23 -70.35 100.5 -11 -73.03 -71.5 136.0 140.0 -75.9 -70.4 -73.2 109.7 138.1 36.8 48.30 143.8 54.14 Longitude 7.9 8.5 8.5 8.6 7.2 8.8 8.8 9.0 8.8–9.2 8.7 8.5 8.7 8.6 8.2 8.2 8.5 8.5 8.2-8.3 8.6 11 – 8.6 Magnitude 9 8 Overview of Earthquakes in the Last 2,000 Years 2,000 Last in the Appendix B: of Earthquakes Overview 5,233 5,000 ~ 830,000+ thousands 150,000 ~1,000 45,000-200,000 250,000 Fatalities 143,000 100s 235,502 70,000 1,000 2,541 25,000 numerous 80,000 ~ 5,000+ 11 0 51-10 5 6 5,233 but probably up to 10,000. up probably but 5,233 Tsunami and fire caused most deaths. most caused fire and Tsunami homeless. 1.9 million estimated an leaving destroyed, were homes 570,000 Over causeway. Enoshima the on people 50 estimated an and Kamakura in beach Yui-ga-hama along 100 people about many, including killed tsunami The minutes. within Peninsula Izu of coast east the and Islands Izu Peninsula, Atsunami region. course of the river some 15 blocks. some river the of course the Changed Talca. and Curico Cauquenes, Chillan, Concepcion, of cities the Destroyed major a triggered It fire. subsequent and shaking to the due people 2,300 killed and Edo Shook people. the atsunami triggered It Ica. and Callao to Lima, damage severe Caused killed. was population the of 60% counties some in and destroyed, was area wide km 840 An affected. were Anhui and Jiangsu Hunan, Hubei, Shandong, Hebei, Gansu, Henan, Shanxi, Shaanxi, of provinces the in 97 counties than More reported. were 31,000 casualties and 26,000 between tsunami. alarge Triggered atsunami Triggered casualties. 45,096 had and destroyed half was Damghan of city The buildings. the of most destroyed Fire 300,000. just was population city’s the later decades some and damaged, greatly was Antioch of city The Notes Chiba, Kanagawa, and Shizuoka, and caused widespread damage throughout the Kant the throughout damage widespread caused and Shizuoka, and Kanagawa, Chiba, of prefectures surrounding Yokohama, of city Tokyo, port the devastated Earthquake Coquimbo. in especially cities, coastal in people hundred several killed tsunami The Australia. away as far as observed was and destructive a triggered It to Coquimbo. Copiapo from damage extensive caused earthquake The Huining. and Longde of cities the in collapsed houses the all Nearly County. Guyuan in killed were people 30,000 than More County. Xiji in Sujiahe of village the buried A landslide killed. were residents 70,000 some and destroyed were Messina in structures a12quake, mtsunami earth the after Moments damage. heavy suffered also mainland Italian the on Reggio Japan. and California Mexico, Panama, Rica, Costa in noted also was tsunami The event. this for recorded was height a1.8 Hawaii mrun-up AtHilo, Tumaco, Colombia. tsunami adestructive Triggered Japan. and Hawaii from reported also deaths some with Chile, northernmost now tsunami adevastating Triggered to http://tsun.sscc.ru/ttt_rep.htm according by tsunami died 3,000 Zealand. New and Japan Hawaii, in recorded was which A tsunami Seychelles. the in damage Also Bengkulu. tsunami ahuge Triggered tsunami a Triggered Kyushu. and Shikoku Honshu, throughout damage to severe moderate Caused areas. According to http://tsun.sscc.ru/ttt_rep.htm According areas. adjoining and Lisbon destroyed totally Almost tsunami. huge a triggered and fires Caused 16 of m. height up run amaximum had Tsunami to Chillan. Serena from tsunami amajor Triggered atsunami Triggered disruption. river to due of Valdivia flood subsequent the Caused one fatality. one least at causing Hawaii, reached it when 6 mhigh still was tsunami The deaths. reported of 8mtsunami an Triggered tsunami (up to 10 m in some place), which resulted in more than 5000 casualties. 5000 than more in resulted which place), to (up 10 some min (or multiple tsunamis) in the Pacific Ocean was produced by the earthquake, earthquake, the by produced was Ocean Pacific the in tsunamis) multiple (or tsunami (10 m maximum in some areas) which increased the death toll to at least least to at toll death the increased which areas) some in (10 mmaximum with waves up to 10 m high struck the coast of Sagami Bay, Boso Bay, Boso Sagami of coast the to 10 struck up waves mhigh with m high) that caused significant damage to the coast of Chile Chile of coast the to damage significant caused that 7 mhigh) (max which caused wide spread flooding of the Sendai plain. Sendai the of flooding spread wide caused which that struck the coast of Japan. of coast the struck that struck nearby coasts, causing even more devastation; 91% devastation; of more even causing coasts, nearby struck that caused considerable damage in Kamchatka, with a number anumber with Kamchatka, in damage considerable caused that flooded all southern part of western Sumatra from Pariaman to Pariaman from Sumatra of western part southern all flooded The death toll associated with this event is uncertain, but but uncertain, is event this with associated toll death The that inundated the lower parts of Valparaiso. It caused damage damage caused It Valparaiso. of parts lower the inundated that . The maximum recorded run-up height was 5 m in 5min was height run-up recorded maximum . The . A total of 2,541 people died, mainly in Peru and what is is what and Peru in mainly died, 2,541 of people . Atotal 40,000 died due to tsunami due died 40,000 that killed most of of most killed that . . - ō

63 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 64 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience Overview of Earthquakes in the Last 2,000 Years 2,000 Last in the Appendix B: of Earthquakes Overview 11 April 2012 11 April 2011 March 11 2010 February 27 2010 12 January 2007 12 September 2005 March 28 2004 December 26 1976 July 27 1965 4 February 1963 13 October 1960 May 22 1957 9 March 1952 4 November 1950 15 August 1946 1 April Date 28 March 1964 March 28 Indian Ocean Northern Sumatra, (Tohoku earthquake) Region Japan Maule, Chile Port-au-Prince, Haiti Sumatra, Indonesia Nias Region, Indonesia Indian Ocean Indonesia, Sumatra, Tangshan, China States United Alaska, Island, Rat Kuril Islands Valdivia, Chile States United Alaska, Island, Andreanof Kamchatka, Russia Tibet Assam, States. United Alaska, Island, Unimak Location United States United Alaska, Sound, William Prince

0.77 2.31 38.32 -35.84 18.451 -4.517 2.085 3.30 39.61 51.21 44.81 -38.24 51.56 52.76 28.5 52.75 Latitude 61.02

92.45 93.06 142.37 -72.72 -72.445 101.382 97.108 95.87 117.89 -178.5 149.54 -73.05 -175.39 160.06 96.5 -163.5 Longitude -147.65

8.2 8.6 9.0 8.8 7.0 8.5 8.6 9.1 7.6 8.7 8.5 9.5 8.6 9 8.6 8.6 Magnitude 9.2 10 15,870 523 230,000-316,000 25 1,303 230,000-3000,000 242,419 density) population to low (due 0 5,700 density) population to low (due 0 widely vary Sources ~1,000 1,526 density) population to low (due 165 Fatalities 125 (due to low population density) population to low (due

damaged the port at Talcahuano. Minor damage in San Diego, California. Diego, San in damage Minor Talcahuano. at port the damaged 1m. Max small. were Russia. Eastern and Japan California, Mexico, Ecuador, Peru, at observed was It damage. little ru/ttt_rep.htm. ~1,180 to http://tsun.sscc. killed Tsunami according Chile in Alaska. island people Aleutian Australia, southeast Zealand, New eastern Philippines the Japan, Hawaii, Chile, southern biggest-earthquakes-since-1900-3384698). (http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/world-s- zero toll Death Oahu. on villages two destroying 10 dead due to heart attacks and shock. Triggered only small tsunamis small only Triggered shock. and attacks to heart due 10 dead 16.4 of km. adepth at Indonesia, Sumatra, Aceh, 618 Banda of SSW km Centred km. 22.9 of adepth at Indonesia, Sumatra, Aceh, Banda SW of km 434 Centred tsunami ahuge Triggered atsunami Triggered years. 200 in region in earthquake Worst injured.hundred a over and 25 dead, Atleast Sumatra. of coast west the on collapsed buildings Many (1300) earthquake by the killed were people Most tsunami. asmall Triggered tsunami huge to the due died people Most 1976 5, 1976 August and 22, July between earthquake by asignificant struck be would region Tangshan the that concluded already had Department Prediction and Analysis (SSB) Bureau Seismological State the of Chengamin Wang struck, earthquake the before amonth half than More atsunami Triggered landslides caused Tremors atsunami Triggered ttt_rep.htm tsunami alarge Triggered converging. plates continental by two caused was quake this Instead, subduction. oceanic by an caused been not to have earthquake known largest the Also killed. were 1,526 and people Tibet, and Assam both in destructive was earthquake The tsunami wide apacific Triggered Notes axis by estimated 10 to 25 cm. cm by estimated axis figure Earth the shifted and 2.4 meast island) main (the Honshu moved Earthquake area. Sendai the in inland to 10km up Travelled Miyako. min 40.5 of height reached Tsunami tsunamis. to due Miyagi and Iwate Fukushima, in occurred Damage Sendai. in occurred damage sciencedaily.com/l/3519/Russia-Kamchatka-Peninsula http://earthquakes. deaths. no but damage, US$1,000,000 causing Hawaii Impacted island. Unimak obliterated It houses, buildings, and infrastructure. Nearby, a27-foot tsunami Nearby, (8.2 m) infrastructure. and buildings, houses, engineered inadequately to many damage or destruction great sustained Anchorage Oregon, and California. Tsunamis also caused damage in Hawaii and Japan. and Hawaii in damage caused also Tsunamis California. and Oregon, Columbia, British in property and people as well as communities, Alaskan other and Kodiak, Seward, Whittier, affected severely tsunamis Post-quake ground. to high climbing wave, the out-ran survivors there; lived who people 68 the of 23 killing Chenega, of village Triggered a 4.5 mtsunami a4.5 Triggered

there were more than 10,000 deaths caused by the tsunami. by the caused deaths 10,000 than more were there Tsunami which devastated several coastal towns in south-central Chile and and Chile south-central in towns coastal several devastated which caused but Island Amchika 2mat and Island 10 over of Shemya mon Hawaii in damage in $5,000,000 16 caused mand reached that alert issued for the entire Indian Ocean Region but tsunamis tsunamis but Region Ocean Indian entire the for issued alert . Centred closest to Enoshima, Miyagi, at a depth of 32 km. Most Most km. 32 of adepth at Miyagi, to Enoshima, closest . Centred . causing destruction and loss of life on the Kamchatka Peninsula. Peninsula. Kamchatka the on life of loss and destruction causing affecting affecting 35ft) and (26ft tsunami amajor triggered and . 159 of the casualties occurred in Hilo, Hawaii. Hawaii. Hilo, in occurred . 159 casualties the of created. . According to http://tsun.sscc.ru/. According . destroyed the the destroyed . 11 April 2012 11 April 2011 March 11 2010 February 27 2010 12 January 2007 12 September 2005 March 28 2004 December 26 1976 July 27 1965 4 February 1964 March 28 1963 13 October 1960 May 22 1957 9 March 1952 4 November 1950 15 August 1946 1 April Date Indian Ocean Northern Sumatra, (Tohoku earthquake) Region Japan Maule, Chile Port-au-Prince, Haiti Sumatra, Indonesia Nias Region, Indonesia Indian Ocean Indonesia, Sumatra, Tangshan, China States United Alaska, Island, Rat States United Alaska, Sound, William Prince Kuril Islands Valdivia, Chile States United Alaska, Island, Andreanof Kamchatka, Russia Tibet Assam, States. United Alaska, Island, Unimak Location

0.77 2.31 38.32 -35.84 18.451 -4.517 2.085 3.30 39.61 51.21 61.02 44.81 -38.24 51.56 52.76 28.5 52.75 Latitude

93.06 142.37 -72.72 -72.445 101.382 97.108 95.87 117.89 -178.5 -147.65 149.54 -73.05 -175.39 160.06 96.5 -163.5 Longitude 92.45

9.0 8.8 7.0 8.5 8.6 9.1 7.6 8.7 9.2 8.5 9.5 8.6 9 8.6 8.6 Magnitude 8.2 8.6 Overview of Earthquakes in the Last 2,000 Years 2,000 Last in the Appendix B: of Earthquakes Overview (due to low population density) population to low (due 125 5,700 density) population to low (due 0 widely vary Sources ~1,000 1,526 density) population to low (due 165 Fatalities 10 15,870 523 230,000-316,000 25 1,303 230,000-3000,000 242,419 density) population to low (due 0

Oregon, and California. Tsunamis also caused damage in Hawaii and Japan. and Hawaii in damage caused also Tsunamis California. and Oregon, Columbia, British in property and people as well as communities, Alaskan other and Kodiak, Seward, Whittier, affected severely tsunamis Post-quake ground. to high climbing wave, the out-ran survivors there; lived who people 68 the of 23 killing Chenega, of village a27-foot tsunami Nearby, (8.2 m) infrastructure. and buildings, houses, engineered inadequately to many damage or destruction great sustained Anchorage ru/ttt_rep.htm. ~1,180 to http://tsun.sscc. killed Tsunami according Chile in Alaska. island people Aleutian Australia, southeast Zealand, New eastern Philippines the Japan, Hawaii, Chile, southern landslides caused Tremors biggest-earthquakes-since-1900-3384698). (http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/world-s- zero toll Death Oahu. on villages two destroying atsunami Triggered converging. plates continental by two caused was quake this Instead, subduction. oceanic by an caused been not to have earthquake known largest the Also killed. were 1,526 and people Tibet, and Assam both in destructive was earthquake The island. Unimak obliterated It tsunami wide apacific Triggered Notes were small. Max 1m. Max small. were 10 dead due to heart attacks and shock. Triggered only small tsunamis small only Triggered shock. and attacks to heart due 10 dead 16.4 of km. adepth at Indonesia, Sumatra, Aceh, 618 Banda of SSW km Centred km. 22.9 of adepth at Indonesia, Sumatra, Aceh, Banda SW of km 434 Centred 10 to 25 cm. cm by estimated axis figure Earth the shifted and 2.4 meast island) main (the Honshu moved Earthquake area. Sendai the in inland to 10km up Travelled Miyako. min 40.5 of height reached Tsunami tsunamis. to due Miyagi and Iwate Fukushima, in occurred Damage Sendai. in occurred damage tsunami ahuge Triggered California. Diego, San in damage Minor Talcahuano. at port the damaged atsunami Triggered years. 200 in region in earthquake Worst injured.hundred a over and 25 dead, Atleast Sumatra. of coast west the on collapsed buildings Many (1300) earthquake by the killed were people Most tsunami. asmall Triggered tsunami huge to the due died people Most 1976 5, 1976 August and 22, July between earthquake by asignificant struck be would region Tangshan the that concluded already had Department Prediction and Analysis (SSB) Bureau Seismological State the of Chengamin Wang struck, earthquake the before amonth half than More Russia. Eastern and Japan California, Mexico, Ecuador, Peru, at observed was It damage. little atsunami Triggered Triggered a 4.5 mtsunami a4.5 Triggered ttt_rep.htm sciencedaily.com/l/3519/Russia-Kamchatka-Peninsula http://earthquakes. deaths. no but damage, US$1,000,000 causing Hawaii Impacted tsunami alarge Triggered

there were more than 10,000 deaths caused by the tsunami. by the caused deaths 10,000 than more were there Tsunami that reached 16 m and caused $5,000,000 in damage in Hawaii Hawaii in damage in $5,000,000 16 caused mand reached that which devastated several coastal towns in south-central Chile and and Chile south-central in towns coastal several devastated which caused but Island Amchika 2mat and Island 10 over of Shemya mon alert issued for the entire Indian Ocean Region but tsunamis tsunamis but Region Ocean Indian entire the for issued alert . Centred closest to Enoshima, Miyagi, at a depth of 32 km. Most Most km. 32 of adepth at Miyagi, to Enoshima, closest . Centred . causing destruction and loss of life on the Kamchatka Peninsula. Peninsula. Kamchatka the on life of loss and destruction causing affecting affecting 35ft) and (26ft tsunami amajor triggered and . 159 of the casualties occurred in Hilo, Hawaii. Hawaii. Hilo, in occurred . 159 casualties the of created. . According to http://tsun.sscc.ru/. According . destroyed the the destroyed . 65 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience 66 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience • Recognising developed 2010, in progress the then. since and made (GHCP) Observations (GEO) of Group the on Earth of Practice Community Map Geohazards of the WorkshopInternational Road the on Geohazards; 2007 on Third of the Frascati the lar Declaration work, particu in on this intend to build declaration, the in identified needs the addressing in and, nity work commu geohazards done international by the Spain. Guixols, de Feliu held on November 27 Sant 2011 in –December 2, RiskCycle’, Management Science theThe Disaster of Geohazards: Extreme ‘Understanding on conference Science Technology and level (COST) research high CooperationScience in Foundation (ESF)–European European the agement were cycle reviewed during man risk disaster posed to the challenges the and geohazards of high-impact understanding current The hazards. of the understanding scientific solid acceptable at an economichazards cost requires a of extreme occurrence by induced the disasters the events. Reducing to these resilience increased global a prerequisiteis managementrisk and for disaster events, extreme the including of geohazards, trum spec full the Understanding decision-making. and to available policy- of geohazards knowledge the disasters The in revealedgaps recent extreme processes. socio-economic and infrastructure, use, of land rare event to tends be ignored planning in any such of impact civilisation on our potential The few millennia. last the during occurred that ards geohaz largest by the dwarfed are impacts global with recent disasters the major causing geohazards time, same the At management. risk for disaster events of extreme challenge of the us remind and becaused by geohazards, can that of disasters scale the of recentnomic impacts events extreme illustrate and eco societal and long-lasting global events. The extreme high-impact, during losses occur of these loss of property. lives and increasing and Most large cause floods and associatederuptions tsunamis and volcano landslides, earthquakes, as such Geohazards Preamble Risks of Disaster Reduction the and Geohazards Appendix C: on Declaration Extreme • stand the causes and processes and causes of geohazards; the stand Major have researchunder efforts been made to have been developed; requiredures to prepare for, adapt and to, hazards - meas many and areas, hazardous of the knowledge advances have our been achievedSignificant in The participants of this conferencethethis of Therecognise participants

that: ------• • that: particular in organisations, tions Emphasising • • • • • • Realising • • • • The failure to significantly impactsthe reduce to significantly failure The key to is reduction; risk areas, urban growing rapidly in particularly use, of land Proper planning hazards; to potential buildings existing how, and where choosing to build by adapting and bereduced can by properly vulnerability and sure Few to but reduce expo options exist geohazards, increases; society of global connectivity harm’s put is in inter way the and infrastructure more to as increase and events population likely are consequencesindirect andextreme of direct The hazardous areas; into expanding population due to agrowing ing - rapidly increas is geohazards, particularly hazards, natural livesthrough andThe loss properties of conducted; being are ways and to reduce risks, risks, these disaster on general public the decisionments, and makers, govern informing programmes International response rescue; and due is by to delayed geohazards or inefficient caused disasters in toll ofdeath the fraction A large corruption; including cles, enforcement obsta hampered is by organisational environment eitherare absent, built or asafe tating facili legislation and laws, regions, rules, many In hazards; to the exposed community the and management professionals planners, and disaster sciences, social and natural the projects integrating research discourage that challenges faces structural disciplines academic traditional the in Research information; to understand, easy and available a lack of publicly perceptionequate and inaccurate and risks of the hamperedAdaptation is to inad geohazards by an orcorruption, opaque decision making; from levels poverty, of high suffering munities reduction risk Disaster rarely happens com in decision makers; local and regional, national, many to extends harm’s gap in also communities way; this science the researchbetween and and programmes due to agap partially is on society of geohazards strengthen the role of science in disaster risk reduc risk role the of sciencedisaster strengthen in to aims (UNESCO) Organization Cultural and Scientific The United Educational, Nations of many

that:

the international

importance programmes

of

the

- contribu and ------

• needthat the Cycle’, declare Management Extreme Level We, Risks of Disaster Reduction the and Geohazards Appendix C: on Declaration Extreme • • • • • • • recurrence; intensity, locations, and potential their to assess to improve and geohazards of extreme ability our nature of the understanding tomade our increase be research effort interdisciplinary A focused hazards; due to natural of causes of disasters the standing level science conferences under improving our high a of number beenfacilitating ESF has The research outreach and projects; ciplinary - innovative trans-dis and via multi- sustainability promote georisk, basic and research on geohazards, (IUGS), Sciences Geological of Union International Geophysics and of Geodesy (IUGG), the and Union (ISPRS), International the Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry for Society Inter-national Union (IGU), Geographical International the the including unions, scientific international Several for basis reduction risk measures; scientific developing is the (UNISDR) Reduction Disaster for United the Strategy Nations International (ISSC) and Sciences Council Social International of Science (ICSU)Council co-sponsored by the International of the Programme Scientific Risk (IRDR) Integrated Disaster Research on The education; and building capacity research, monitoring, blending ment units manage disaster (UNOPS) developing is natural The forProjectUnited Services NationsOffice response, recovery; and warning, early ness, prepared i.e. management cycle; risk ofphases the four the blocks informing building developing the Practice of of is GEO Community Geohazards The manner; a timely events to hazardous detect in and hazards natural the understand to required monitoring the provide Observations The Group(GEO) to Earth on aims to disasters; ties of communi nations resilience and the increase to measures of implementation the facilitates The Hyogo Framework for Action (2005–2015) ties; scienceand education communi for affected the for members team building capacity include which projects research inter-national interdisciplinary continued support of increasingly through tion the

Research participants Geohazards:

Conference of The the

Science on ESF-COST

‘Understanding of the High- : Risk - - - - -

• • • • • • • • • • • • ards; ards; harm’sin way to protect themselvesfrom geohaz effectiveare waysprogrammes to empowerthose educational where community-based countries, ing develop in level, particularly education local at the and dedicated resourcesto be efforts Organised pose to society; hazards these challenges to major help and the recognise geohazards with authorities’ perception and associated risks of the citizens’ be developed the in to support achange A dedicated outreach education and programme cycle; management risk phasesof disaster the sciences all to address social and natural integrate the oped which research be devel programmes Interdisciplinary reduction; risk geohazard research disaster and support of beshared in freely of geohazards ing understand relevantData and monitoring to the prevention,disaster response recovery; and support of in events, and ofdetection hazardous implemented to provide for observations research, be system geohazard monitoring A sustained an authoritative scientific body (such authoritative body IPCC).an scientific the as through assessment bearticulated of this results the and beestablished ter due risk to geohazards - A process integrated assessment for of an disas bodies; intergovernmental and mental govern agencies and to funding distributed and beprepared geohazards, due risk to extreme aster - dis of increasing challenges societal and scientific paper, white the A community-based addressing rapidly; more bereached disaster-impactedthat can populations so developing countries, in improved, particularly be capabilities rescue and response Low-technology risks; governance disaster mitigate fostered, to poorly help developed regions with be experts local with collaboration International constraints; religious and cultural social, and available resources, vulnerabilities, local to specific betailored measures mitigation Preparedness and environment; for built asafe planning and for makers reduction developing risk legislation icy State-of-the-art products be developed to help pol hazards; to future buildings of existing vulnerability the how, whatwhere and to build where and to reduce decisions on transparent and informed make can relevant citizens that and governmental bodies so bedisseminated on geohazards Information ------67 Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience

European Science Foundation 1 quai Lezay-Marnésia • BP 90015 67080 Strasbourg cedex • France Tel: +33 (0)3 88 76 71 00 Fax: +33 (0)3 88 37 05 32 www.esf.org

April 2015 – Print run: 1000 Graphic design: Dans les villes, Strasbourg