D.3.1 Case Studies of Geophysical Hazards Notes

Volcanic Hazards

Case Study from MEDC: Mount St. Helens, USA (1980)

Location and Context

1. Mount St. Helens is located in Washington State, USA, part of the Cascade Range.
2. The eruption on May 18, 1980, was one of the most destructive in US history, leading to 57 deaths.
3. After the eruption, the summit of Mount St. Helens was gone, forests were obliterated and rivers followed new courses. More than 150 new lakes and ponds were formed, and existing lakes filled with sediment, flooding their banks.

Vulnerability and Resilience

Low Vulnerability:

1. Advanced monitoring and evacuation plans saved lives.
2. Strong governance and infrastructure facilitated recovery.

Challenges:

1. The scale of the eruption was underestimated, highlighting gaps in preparedness.

Case study from LEDC: Mount Merapi, Indonesia (2010)

Location and Context

1. Mount Merapi is one of Indonesia's most active volcanoes, located on the densely populated island of Java.
2. The eruption in October 2010 was part of a series of eruptions that year.
3. Over 350,000 people were evacuated from the affected area and 353 people died.

Vulnerability and Resilience

High Vulnerability:

1. Limited early warning systems and evacuation plans.
2. Poverty and dense population increased risk.

Recovery Efforts:

1. International aid provided temporary shelters and food.
2. Long-term recovery was slow due to economic constraints.

Earthquake Hazards

Case Study from MEDC: Tōhoku, Japan (2011)

Location and Context

1. A magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck off the coast of northeastern Japan on March 11, 2011.
2. The earthquake triggered a massive tsunami and the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
3. The earthquake and tsunami resulted in over 18,000 dead. The great majority of those killed overall were drowning victims of the tsunami waves. In addition, more than half of the victims were age 65 years or older.

Vulnerability and Resilience

Moderate Vulnerability:

1. Advanced technology and governance reduced earthquake impacts.
2. Tsunami risks were underestimated.

Recovery Efforts:

1. Rapid response and rebuilding, but long-term challenges remain in Fukushima.

Case Study from LEDC: Haiti (2010)

Location and Context

1. A magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck near Port-au-Prince on January 12, 2010.
2. The earthquake was shallow, with an epicenter just 25 km from the capital.
3. It resulted in over 220 thousand people killed, 300 thousand, 1.3 million displaced, and nearly 100 thousand houses destroyed in the Port-au-Prince area and in much of southern Haiti.

Vulnerability and Resilience

High Vulnerability:

1. Poverty, overpopulation, and weak governance exacerbated impacts.

Recovery Efforts:

1. International aid was crucial but often poorly coordinated.
2. Long-term rebuilding remains slow.

Mass Movement Hazards

Case Study from MEDC: Oso Landslide, USA (2014)

Location and Context

1. A massive landslide occurred near Oso, Washington, on March 22, 2014.
2. The area had a history of smaller landslides.

Impacts:

1. Human Losses: 43 deaths.
2. Economic Damage: $60 million in property and infrastructure losses.
3. Environmental Effects: River sedimentation disrupted ecosystems.

Vulnerability and Resilience

Moderate Vulnerability:

1. Gaps in land-use planning and public awareness.

Recovery Efforts:

1. Rapid response and rebuilding, but long-term risk management remains a challenge.

Case Study from LEDC: The Vargas Tragedy, Venezuela (1999)

Location and Context

1. Intense rainfall in December 1999 triggered landslides in the Vargas region of Venezuela.
2. The area is characterized by steep slopes and dense, unregulated settlements.
3. The number of casualties is estimated to be between 10,000 and 30,000, the exact figure is difficult to determine as there is no reliable census data from the region at that time, especially about shanty towns and small communities that were completely destroyed.

Vulnerability and Resilience

High Vulnerability:

1. Poor governance and lack of disaster planning.

Recovery Efforts:

1. Slow and uneven, with many survivors remaining homeless for years.

Comparative Analysis: MEDCs vs. LEDCs

Preparedness and Response

1. MEDCs: Advanced technology, governance, and infrastructure reduce vulnerability but cannot eliminate it entirely.
2. LEDCs: Limited resources and governance increase vulnerability, leading to higher casualties and slower recovery.

Economic and Social Impacts

1. MEDCs: Higher economic losses in absolute terms due to the value of infrastructure but lower death tolls.
2. LEDCs: Higher human costs and longer recovery times due to poverty and weak systems. Economic losses lower in absolute terms, but usually more impactful if considered in relative terms (e.g. compared to the value of GDP).