Category Archives: Disaster Management

【Disaster Research】When Nature Meets Human Error: Lessons from History’s Deadliest Volcanic Mudflow 40 Years Ago

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.

【Disaster News】FEMA Cuts before Hurricane Season: What you need to know

DALLE 20250304

Today, I gonna talk about the FEMA cost cuts.

Hurricane season is just 3 months away, but FEMA just lost 200 employees. Should you be worried?

 The Trump administration has made major budget cuts to FEMA and other disaster agencies as part of a government streamlining effort guided by Elon Musk.

These cuts don’t just affect FEMA – they’ve also hit HUD and NOAA, agencies crucial for weather forecasting and housing recovery after disasters.

States like Texas, which depend heavily on federal disaster funds, could face delayed or reduced assistance during emergencies.

Local officials in Houston, still rebuilding from past storms, now question how these changes will impact their disaster preparations.

 Some Republicans argue these cuts eliminate waste, while critics warn they’ll cripple response times when disasters strike – especially with storms becoming more frequent and severe.

If you live in a disaster-prone area, now might be the time to strengthen your personal emergency plans before hurricane season arrives.

News Source: Houston Chronicle

【Disaster Research】Thailand Natural Disaster Risk Assessment: A Comprehensive Analysis (Revised)

18 Replies

Understanding Disaster Risk Profiles in Thailand

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.

Historical Disaster Impact Analysis

Table 1  Disaster data in Thailand

em-dat_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.

Risk Assessment Mapping Framework

riskmapping_thailand
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.

Risk Evaluation Matrices

To properly contextualize these risks, we employ two complementary evaluation matrices:

riskoption1
Figure 2 Risk matrix options (1)

riskoption2
Figure 3 Risk matrix options (2)

Key Findings and Priorities

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:

  • Extensive management systems
  • Comprehensive monitoring networks
  • Immediate action planning and implementation

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) .

Day_198 : Characteristics of Earthquake Disasters

In most cases, when a strong earthquake occurs, many people die as buildings collapse. For example, in the Kobe earthquake, more than 90% of the 5,000 people who died lost their lives within 15 minutes immediately after the quake. For this reason, it is essential to build buildings well to reduce the number of people who die in earthquakes. This will prevent fires, make it less likely that people will lose their homes and become permanent refugees, and reduce the problems of relief and rebuilding.

In developing countries, especially in arid and semi-arid regions, earthquakes cause many deaths. In such areas, sun-dried bricks called “adobe” are common building materials, and buildings made of these bricks often collapse easily in earthquakes, burying many people alive. In developing countries, for economic reasons, standards for building earthquake-resistant buildings are usually low, and construction is often inadequate. Therefore, even earthquakes that are not strong can easily cause severe damage. In addition, in regions with many wooden houses, such as Central America and Southeast Asia, buildings can collapse and catch fire.

Day_197 : The Science of Lightning: A Fascinating Force of Nature

Ever caught yourself staring at the sky, mesmerized by lightning during a storm? This natural marvel is not only captivating but also perilous. Despite centuries of study, the intricacies of lightning strikes continue to be a field of active research. In this exploration, we delve into how lightning forms, its types, associated dangers, and the science of thunder, providing insights for both enthusiasts and the casually curious.

Formation of Lightning

Lightning originates from electric charges accumulating in the atmosphere. This process begins as the sun warms the Earth, causing air to rise, cool, and form clouds. Inside these clouds, the movement of water droplets and ice particles generates an electrical charge. A significant charge difference between parts of the cloud or between the cloud and the ground can ignite a spark—lightning. The intense heat from a lightning strike causes air to expand, creating thunder.

Types of Lightning

Lightning manifests in various forms, including:

Cloud-to-Ground Lightning: The most familiar type, where a bolt strikes from the cloud to the Earth.

Intra-Cloud and Cloud-to-Cloud Lightning: Occurring within or between clouds, respectively.

Ball Lightning: A rare phenomenon of a glowing orb appearing during storms, whose origin remains a mystery.

The Thunder Phenomenon

Thunder is the sound produced by the rapid expansion of air around a lightning bolt. Timing the gap between seeing lightning and hearing thunder can estimate the distance of the strike—every five seconds equals approximately one mile.

Dispelling Lightning Myths

Contrary to popular belief, lightning can strike the same place more than once, especially if it’s a tall structure. Also, while buildings offer better protection than being outdoors, they are not entirely safe from lightning strikes.

Staying Safe During Storms

To minimize risk during thunderstorms:

Stay indoors and unplug electronics.

Seek shelter in a vehicle or sturdy building if outside.

Keep away from tall objects like trees and poles.

Spread out if in a group to reduce the risk of multiple injuries.

Tracking and Protecting Against Lightning

Modern technology, including lightning detectors and mappers, helps track and analyze lightning activity. For protection, lightning rods and surge protectors can safeguard buildings and electronics from strike-induced damages.

Lightning and Climate Change

There’s growing evidence that climate change may increase lightning frequency by creating more thunderstorm conditions. However, further research is needed to understand this relationship fully.

In Conclusion

Lightning, a compelling display of nature’s might, offers much to learn and appreciate. Understanding its science not only enhances our wonder but can also guide us in safeguarding against its dangers. So next time a storm lights up the sky, remember the fascinating science behind each bolt.

Day_195 : Scientists and Disaster Management Controversy issues with a L’Aquila Earthquake Case

The L’Aquila earthquake, which struck the Abruzzo region of Italy on April 6, 2009, was a significant case study for both scientists and disaster risk management professionals for several reasons. With a magnitude of 6.3, this earthquake caused extensive damage to the medieval city of L’Aquila, resulting in the deaths of more than 300 people, injuring over a thousand, and leaving tens of thousands of people homeless. Beyond the immediate physical damage and tragic loss of life, the L’Aquila earthquake raised important issues related to earthquake prediction, risk communication, and the responsibilities of scientists and authorities in disaster risk management.

Scientific Aspects and Controversies

The occurrence of earthquakes sparked a controversial debate over the ability to predict earthquakes and the communication of seismic risks to the public. Before the earthquake, a series of tremors were felt in the region, leading to heightened public concern. A week before the major earthquake, a meeting of the Major Risks Committee, which included government officials and scientists, was held to assess the situation. The committee concluded that it was not possible to predict whether a stronger earthquake would occur but reassured the public, suggesting a low likelihood of a major event. Unfortunately, the devastating earthquake struck shortly thereafter.

This situation has led to significant controversy, particularly regarding the role and communication strategies of scientists and government officials in disaster risk management. Critics argued that reassurances were misleading and contributed to a false sense of security among the population.

Legal and Ethical Issues

In a highly controversial decision, six Italian scientists and one government official were initially found guilty of manslaughter in 2012 for underestimating the risks and failing to adequately warn the population. This verdict was widely criticized by the international scientific community, which argued that it was unreasonable to expect scientists to accurately predict earthquakes. The verdict was largely overturned in 2014, with the convictions of scientists being annulled and the sentence of the government official being reduced.

Disaster Risk Management Implications

The L’Aquila earthquake underscored the importance of effective disaster-risk management and communication strategies. Key lessons include:

  1. Communication of Uncertainty: It highlighted the need for clear communication of scientific uncertainty to the public. Conveying the inherent uncertainties in earthquake prediction is crucial for helping individuals and communities make informed decisions about risk reduction and preparedness.
  2. Public Education and Preparedness: The tragedy reinforced the need for ongoing public education on disaster preparedness and the importance of building earthquake-resilient communities.
  3. Building Codes and Urban Planning: Ensuring strict adherence to earthquake-resistant building codes and urban planning practices is vital in reducing the vulnerability of buildings and infrastructure.
  4. Multi-disciplinary Approach: The event demonstrated the importance of a multi-disciplinary approach that includes not only seismologists but also engineers, urban planners, emergency management professionals, and policymakers in disaster risk management planning and response.
  5. Ethical Responsibilities: The aftermath raised questions about the ethical responsibilities of scientists and the balance between preventing public panic and ensuring preparedness.

The L’Aquila earthquake remains a case study of the complex interplay among science, policy, ethics, and public communication in the context of natural disaster risk management.