
An infographic, “Myanmar Earthquake 2025 Educational Sector Impact & Recovery Roadmap,” was created. Myanmar Earthquake 2025 Educational Sector Impact & Recovery Roadmap
*Please note that these are my research results, for my memo.
An infographic, “Myanmar Earthquake 2025 Educational Sector Impact & Recovery Roadmap,” was created. Myanmar Earthquake 2025 Educational Sector Impact & Recovery Roadmap
*Please note that these are my research results, for my memo.
Growing up, many of us were taught that natural disasters are inevitable acts of nature beyond human control. This perspective changed dramatically for me when I started working at a research institute. My senior researcher emphatically told me, “The natural disaster is not natural.” This profound statement transformed my approach to disaster research, helping me understand that human decisions often determine whether natural hazards become catastrophic disasters.
The Forgotten Tragedy of Armero
On November 13, 1985, the Nevado del Ruiz volcano in Colombia erupted after 69 years of dormancy. The eruption triggered massive mudflows (lahars) that rushed down the volcano’s slopes, burying the town of Armero and claiming over 23,000 lives. This catastrophe stands as Colombia’s worst natural hazard-induced disaster and the deadliest lahar ever recorded.
What makes this tragedy particularly heartbreaking is its preventability. Scientists had observed warning signs for months, with seismic activity beginning as early as November 1984. By March 1985, a UN seismologist had observed a 150-meter vapor column erupting from the mountain and concluded that a major eruption was likely.
Despite these warnings, effective action to protect the vulnerable population never materialized. The devastation of Armero wasn’t simply the result of volcanic activity but the culmination of multiple human failures in risk communication, historical memory, and emergency response.
When Warning Systems Fail: Communication Breakdown
The Armero disaster epitomizes what disaster researchers call “cascading failures” in warning systems. Scientists had created hazard maps showing the potential danger to Armero in October 1985, just weeks before the eruption. However, these maps suffered from critical design flaws that rendered them ineffective.
One version lacked a clear legend to interpret the colored zones, making it incomprehensible to the general public. Devastatingly, Armero was placed within a green zone on some maps, which many residents misinterpreted as indicating safety rather than danger. According to reports, many survivors later recounted they had never even heard of the hazard maps before the eruption, despite their publication in several major newspapers.
As a disaster researcher, I’ve seen this pattern repeatedly: scientific knowledge fails to translate into public understanding and action. When I conducted fieldwork in flood-prone regions in Thailand, I discovered a similar disconnect between technical risk assessments and public perception. Effective disaster mitigation requires not just accurate information but information that is accessible and actionable for those at risk.
The Cultural Blindspots of Risk Perception
The tragedy of Armero illustrates how cultural and historical factors shape how communities perceive risk. Despite previous eruptions destroying the town in 1595 and 1845, causing approximately 636 and 1,000 deaths respectively, collective memory of these disasters had seemingly faded as the town was rebuilt in the same location.
In the hours before the disaster, when ash began falling around 3:00 PM, local leaders, including the town priest, reportedly advised people to “stay calm” and remain indoors. Some residents recall a priest encouraging them to “enjoy this beautiful show” of ashfall, suggesting it was harmless. These reassurances from trusted community figures likely discouraged self-evacuation that might have saved lives.
My research in disaster-prone communities has consistently shown that risk perception is heavily influenced by cultural factors, including trust in authority figures and historical experience with hazards. In Japan, for instance, the tsunami markers that indicate historic high-water levels serve as constant physical reminders of past disasters, helping to maintain community awareness across generations.
Systemic Failures and Institutional Response
The Armero tragedy wasn’t just a failure of risk communication or cultural blind spots—it revealed systemic weaknesses in disaster governance. Colombia was grappling with significant political instability due to years of civil war, potentially diverting governmental resources from disaster preparedness. Just a week before the eruption, the government was heavily focused on a guerrilla siege at the Palace of Justice in Bogotá.
Reports suggest there was reluctance on the part of the government to bear the potential economic and political repercussions of ordering an evacuation that might have proven unnecessary. This hesitation proved fatal when communication systems failed on the night of the eruption due to a severe storm, preventing warnings from reaching residents even after the lahars were already descending toward the town.
In my research examining large-scale flood disasters, I’ve found that effective disaster governance requires robust institutions that prioritize public safety over short-term economic or political considerations. My 2021 comparative analysis of major flood events demonstrated that preemptive protective actions consistently save more lives than reactive emergency responses, even when accounting for false alarms.
Learning from Tragedy: The Path Forward
The Armero disaster, while devastating, catalyzed significant advancements in volcano monitoring and disaster risk reduction globally. Colombia established specialized disaster management agencies with greater emphasis on proactive preparedness. The
Colombian Geological Service expanded from limited capacity to a network of 600 stations monitoring 23 active volcanoes.
The contrast with the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines demonstrates the impact of these lessons. There, timely forecasts and effective evacuation procedures saved thousands of lives. The memory of Armero remains a powerful reminder of the consequences of inadequate disaster preparedness.
As I’ve emphasized in my own research on disaster resilience in industrial complex areas, building sustainable communities requires integrating technical knowledge with social systems. My work developing social vulnerability indices demonstrates that effective disaster risk reduction must address both physical hazards and social vulnerabilities.
Remember, disasters may be triggered by natural events, but their impact is determined by human decisions. By learning from tragedies like Armero, we can create more resilient communities prepared to face future challenges.
From Tragedy to Leadership: The Birth of ADRC
The Asian Disaster Reduction Center (ADRC) was established in 1998 following the devastating Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake (commonly known as the Kobe Earthquake) that struck Japan in 1995. This catastrophic event became a catalyst for change, transforming how Japan—and later Asia—approached disaster management and resilience.
Kobe’s Remarkable Recovery Journey
Kobe’s recovery story stands as a powerful testament to resilience and strategic rebuilding. Within just 9 years after the earthquake, Kobe’s population returned to pre-disaster levels—an extraordinary achievement considering the scale of destruction. This recovery wasn’t merely about rebuilding structures but reimagining the city’s future role.
HAT Kobe: A Hub for Disaster Reduction Excellence
Today, Kobe has reinvented itself as a global center for disaster reduction policies and activities. The area known as HAT Kobe hosts numerous disaster-related organizations, including ADRC. The name “HAT” carries dual significance:
This wordplay perfectly captures Kobe’s transformation from a disaster-struck city to a knowledge hub that helps others prepare for and respond to unexpected disasters.
Learning From Kobe: A Model for Disaster Recovery
Kobe’s recovery process offers valuable lessons for communities worldwide facing similar challenges. The city demonstrates how effective post-disaster planning can transform tragedy into opportunity, creating not just infrastructure but institutional knowledge that benefits others.
ADRC’s Mission Across Asia
ADRC plays a vital role in sharing disaster reduction expertise with its member countries throughout Asia. The organization:
Resources for Disaster Management Professionals
ADRC maintains comprehensive resources that disaster management professionals can access:
These resources provide valuable insights into regional disaster management systems, country-specific approaches, and up-to-date information on current disaster situations across Asia.
Building Regional Resilience Together
Through organizations like ADRC and the example set by Kobe, Asian countries are developing stronger collaborative approaches to disaster risk reduction. By learning from past experiences and sharing knowledge, communities across the region are better prepared to face future challenges with resilience and determination.
On May 26, 1983, a powerful 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck the Sea of Japan, triggering a devastating tsunami that would change Japan’s approach to disaster preparedness forever. This catastrophic event, officially known as the 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu earthquake, claimed 104 lives and reshaped coastal communities along the Japanese coastline.
Three Critical Aspects of the 1983 Tsunami Disaster
1. Unexpected Tsunami Location Challenged Historical Beliefs
A longstanding belief persisted among coastal communities that tsunamis never struck the coast of the Sea of Japan. This normalcy bias—the tendency to minimize threat warnings and assume things will function as normal despite signs to the contrary—significantly amplified the disaster’s impact. Communities along the western coast had not prepared adequately for such an event, leaving them vulnerable when waves struck shores in Aomori and Akita Prefectures and along the eastern coast of Noto Peninsula.
2. First Globally Broadcast Tsunami Disaster
The 1983 tsunami marked a historic milestone in disaster reporting as the first tsunami disaster broadcast worldwide in real-time. Civilians with home video cameras captured footage that was incorporated into media coverage, providing unprecedented documentation of the disaster as it unfolded. This extensive coverage catalyzed significant improvements to Japan’s tsunami warning system, enhancing wireless tsunami information transmission from the Sea of Japan to local areas.
3. Tragic Impact on Schoolchildren
One of the most heartbreaking aspects of the disaster involved a school excursion caught in the tsunami’s path. Forty-three schoolchildren were struck by the waves, with thirteen losing their lives. Teachers present during the disaster found themselves unable to protect all their students—a tragedy that would find haunting parallels during the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Both devastating events occurred during daylight hours, presenting unique challenges for evacuation and response.
Legacy and Lessons Learned
The 1983 Sea of Japan earthquake and tsunami fundamentally changed Japan’s understanding of tsunami risk zones and highlighted the dangers of complacency in disaster preparedness. The disaster’s documentation and worldwide broadcast raised global awareness about tsunami dangers and influenced modern early warning systems that continue to evolve today.
For more information about normalcy bias and its impact on disaster response:
As highlighted in the Bangkok Post article, “More must be done to fight climate change“, Thailand faces significant challenges from various natural disasters. This analysis presents a national risk assessment mapping to help identify priority areas for disaster management.
Table 1 Disaster data in Thailand
The EM-DAT database analysis covers disasters from 1900 to 2014. Notably, the most severe impacts—measuring deaths, affected populations, and economic damage—have occurred primarily since the 1970s. Two catastrophic events stand out in Thailand’s disaster history:
These events have dramatically shaped Thailand’s approach to disaster risk management.
Figure 1 National Risk Assessment Mapping in Thailand
The above visualization presents Thailand’s risk assessment map created using EM-DAT data spanning 1900-2014. This frequency-impact analysis by damage type offers a straightforward yet comprehensive overview of Thailand’s disaster risk landscape.
To properly contextualize these risks, we employ two complementary evaluation matrices:
Figure 2 Risk matrix options (1)
Figure 3 Risk matrix options (2)
The risk assessment mapping (Figure 1) clearly identifies flooding as Thailand’s most critical disaster risk requiring immediate attention and resources. According to the evaluation matrices shown in Figures 2 and 3, flood events necessitate:
This preliminary analysis serves as a foundation for more detailed research. A report for the conference (Conference: 13th International Conference on Thai Studies) has published a more comprehensive examination of these findings.
Additional Resources
For more information on disaster risk reduction in Southeast Asia, visit the natural hazards research journal (open access) .
1991 Unzen Fugendake Volcano Eruption Killed 43 people. This disaster has taught a lot of lessons. The key words are media, volunteer firefighters, police officers, and an evacuation area. The people were all dead in the evacuation area. During the volcano eruption, media people tried to get into the area to shoot pictures, videos, and report. They went into the local people’s houses. The residents were worried about their belongings in their houses. So many volunteer firefighters (12) also went into the area to check, and police officer (2) also did that. The taxi drivers (4) bring them into the area. They all died in the area. Katia Krafft and Maurice Krafft, world’s famous French volcanologists were also dead during the disaster.
Wikipedia (Katia and Maurice Krafft)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katia_and_Maurice_Krafft
Wikipedia (Unzen Fugendake Pyroclastic flow, Japanese)
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%9B%B2%E4%BB%99%E5%B2%B3#1991.E5.B9.B46.E6.9C.883.E6.97.A5.E3.81.AE.E7.81.AB.E7.A0.95.E6.B5.81
One of the most significant volcanic disasters we must know about is the 1985 Nevado del Ruiz volcano eruption. Approx.23000 citizens in Armero city were dead. The cultural aspects were embedded in this disaster. The disaster was predicted. The hazard maps indicate that the city will be affected by a volcanic eruption and lahars. Both priest and mayor told the citizens to stay in the same place because they were afraid of panic before the time, but did not tell them to evacuate. That made tragedy. The people in the city tended to follow both persons because of the culture, which is a religious and vertically structured society. There were also other factors*.
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevado_del_Ruiz#Eruption_and_lahars
After the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004, we started collecting information on the tide gauge records around the Indian Ocean. In 2008, we also discussed the emergency management aspects for future possible tsunamis in the Indian Ocean at Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC)*, International Tsunami Information Center**(ITIC), and Univ. of Hawaii Sea Level Center(UHSLC)***.
*Pacific Tsunami Warning Center
We can confirm the present tsunami warning information.
The PTWC is the world’s core center for tsunami warnings.
As you may know, the tsunami is a Japanese word. The name comes from the Hiro village (many Japanese settlers lived there) in Hawaii, severely affected by the tsunami in 1968. The villagers called the wave “Tsunami.”
**International Tsunami Information Center
They have important historical tide gauge records.
***University of Hawaii Sea Level Center
http://uhslc.soest.hawaii.edu/
We can confirm the sea level is rising around the globe.
Extra……..(^^)
The famous Hitachi company’s symbol image tree in Hawaii was found.
I want to introduce you to two disaster technology websites: DRH Asia-Disaster Reduction Hyperbase and Global DRR Technology.
1) DRH Asia
This site provides qualified information about DRR technology. Its content is easy to grasp, making it possible to transfer DRR technology. The content comes from many Asian countries and has been reviewed by experts. The challenge is the limited number of contents.
The following is an example of the contents.
Earthquake Early Warning and its Application to Mitigate Human and Social Damages (Figure 1)
Figure 1
We can understand the quality and availability of the content.
2) Global DRR Technology
This site focuses on an online Community of Practice(CoP) in Disaster Risk Reduction(DRR). Although the content is limited, the site can be easily accessed. The case study site is incredibly visually appealing.
The site below is an example of a case study site. (Figure 2)
Figure 2
ADRC is established in 1998 after the Kobe Earthquake. Kobe city’s population had caught up the same level before the disaster in 9 years. Kobe reinvents itself as a center of disaster reduction policies and activities in the world. There are so many disaster-related organizations in HAT Kobe. The HAT means “Happy and Active” and also “surprised” in Japanese. This is a good example to refer to for the disaster recovery process. We can learn the lessons from Kobe. ADRC contributes to disaster reduction policies and activities for member countries in Asia. We can check member countries disaster management systems, country reports, and others. We can also confirm the updated disasters on the ADRC’s website.
*ADRC member countries information site.
http://www.adrc.asia/disaster/index.php
** Disaster Information
http://www.adrc.asia/latest/index.php
You cannot copy content of this page