This infographic was presented at RIHN in Japan as part of the Prof. Ito project, as part of the Feasibility Study. The infographic website is: https://disasters.weblike.jp/IOT%20v2.html
The presented numbers should be confirmed. Especially, the foreigner’s death toll and the Thai national death toll, with their proportion, are under reinvestigation.
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.
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.
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) .
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.
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.
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:
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.
The methodology involves a comprehensive approach to developing Flood Disaster Preparedness Indices (FDPI) for Thailand, with a focus on the cases of Ubon Ratchathani and Hat Yai. The FDPI was developed as a typhoon committee’s project as well as an ICHARM project. The outcome was polished, altered, and customized, and we are using the Indices as a selp capacity assessment tool.
Methodology
The development of Flood Disaster Preparedness Indices (FDPI) in Thailand was driven by a need for a standardized set of indicators that could assess the flood preparedness of local communities comprehensively. The methodology was designed to address the complexities of flood disaster management, acknowledging the balance between structural and non-structural measures (UNISDR, 2015) and the significance of community-based disaster risk management, especially in developing countries (Maskrey, 2011).
Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
An extensive literature review was conducted to understand the existing frameworks and measures used globally for evaluating disaster preparedness, with a particular emphasis on flood disasters. This review helped in identifying gaps in existing indices and provided a theoretical basis for developing a new set of indices that are universally applicable, considering both structural and non-structural elements of disaster risk management (Twigg, 2004; UNISDR, 2009).
Field Surveys and Data Collection
Field surveys were conducted in Bangkok, Ubon Ratchathani Province, and Hat Yai District, including interviews and questionnaire surveys. The surveys aimed to gather first-hand information on local disaster preparedness levels, community awareness, and existing infrastructure. This approach aligns with participatory methods recommended in disaster preparedness research, emphasizing local knowledge and engagement (Gaillard & Mercer, 2013).
Creation of Indices and Diagrams
Based on the literature review and field survey data, a comprehensive set of indices was created. The indices covered various aspects of disaster preparedness, from infrastructure and planning to community awareness and leadership. The creation of these indices was informed by best practices in disaster management literature, including the importance of comprehensive planning, community involvement, and the integration of local and scientific knowledge (Paton & Johnston, 2001; Cutter et al., 2008).
Analysis
The collected data were analyzed using principal component analysis and cluster analysis to identify key components of flood disaster preparedness and to categorize communities based on their preparedness levels. This analytical approach is consistent with methodologies used in similar studies, facilitating the identification of patterns and trends across diverse datasets (Jolliffe & Cadima, 2016).
Validation and Iteration
The FDPI was subjected to several rounds of validation, including expert reviews and community feedback sessions. This iterative process ensured the reliability and applicability of the indices across different communities, addressing the need for flexible and adaptable disaster preparedness tools (Few, 2007).
Source Papers
Moving forward, it is crucial
Hurricane Sandy, which struck the East Coast of the United States in October 2012, is often cited as a case where disaster management and the use of a disaster management timeline played a crucial role in mitigating impacts and facilitating recovery. The response to Hurricane Sandy involved extensive pre-event planning and post-event recovery efforts that spanned the four phases of disaster management: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.
1. Mitigation
Prior to Hurricane Sandy, New York had already invested in some mitigation measures based on lessons learned from previous storms, though the scale of Sandy’s impact highlighted the need for more extensive measures.
How New York Used Mitigation:
The city had begun to implement its PlaNYC initiative, aimed at preparing the city’s infrastructure for the impacts of climate change, including rising sea levels and more frequent severe weather events.
2. Preparedness
As Hurricane Sandy approached, New York’s state and city officials took several steps to prepare for the impending storm.
How New York Used Preparedness:
Evacuation Orders: Mandatory evacuation orders were issued for residents in low-lying areas, known as Zone A, affecting approximately 375,000 people.
Public Information: Information was disseminated through multiple channels, including social media, to keep the public informed about the storm’s progress and safety measures.
Transit Shutdown: The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) shut down subway, bus, and commuter rail services in anticipation of the storm to protect the system and its users.
3. Response
Once Hurricane Sandy made landfall, the response phase was immediate, with efforts focused on life-saving measures and ensuring the safety of the affected population.
How New York Used Response:
Emergency Services: First responders and emergency services worked tirelessly to rescue those stranded by the floodwaters and to provide immediate aid.
Power Restoration: Efforts were quickly organized to restore power to the millions of residents left in the dark.
Supply Distribution: Critical supplies, including food and water, were distributed to residents, especially in the hardest-hit areas.
4. Recovery
The recovery from Hurricane Sandy has been long-term, with efforts ongoing in some areas years after the storm.
How New York Used Recovery:
Rebuilding Infrastructure: Significant investments were made to rebuild and strengthen the city’s infrastructure, including electrical grids, transportation systems, and coastal defenses.
Resilience Planning: The storm’s impacts led to a heightened focus on resilience and the development of more robust plans to protect against future disasters, such as the “Rebuild by Design” competition that sought innovative solutions for coastal protection.
Community Support and Rebuilding: Efforts were made to support affected communities through the rebuilding process, including financial assistance for homeowners and businesses.
Lessons Learned and Implementation
The response to Hurricane Sandy highlighted the importance of preparedness and the need for robust mitigation and recovery planning. New York’s experience with Sandy has informed subsequent disaster management efforts, emphasizing the need for resilient infrastructure, comprehensive planning, and community involvement in disaster preparedness and recovery strategies.
The use of a disaster management timeline in the context of Hurricane Sandy demonstrated how proactive and reactive measures can mitigate the impact of such events and aid in the recovery process. It also showed the importance of continuous improvement in disaster management plans, incorporating lessons learned to enhance future preparedness and response efforts.
Rosen, Y., & Yakubov, N. (2013). Hurricane Sandy: Lessons Learned from the Severely Damaged Coney Island Hospital, Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 28(6), 643. https://doi.org/10.1017/
Barthel, E. R., Pierce, J. R., Speer, A. L., Levin, D. E., Goodhue, C. J., Ford, H. R., Grikscheit, T. C., & Upperman, J. S. (2013). Delayed family reunification of pediatric disaster survivors increases mortality and inpatient hospital costs: A simulation study. *Journal of Surgical Research*, 184(1), 430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.
Deitchman, S. (2013). Enhancing Crisis Leadership in Public Health Emergencies. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 7(5), 534. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.
Schmeltz, M. T., González, S. K., Fuentes, L., Kwan, A., Ortega-Williams, A., & Cowan, L. P. (2013). Lessons from Hurricane Sandy: A Community Response in Brooklyn, New York. *Journal of Urban Health*, 90(5), 799. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Freund, A., Zuckerman, N., Luo, H., Hsu, H.-H., & Lucchini, R. (2014). Diesel and Silica Monitoring at Two Sites Following Hurricane Sandy. *Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene*, 11(9), D131. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Solecki, W., & Rosenzweig, C. (2014). Climate Change, Extreme Events, and Hurricane Sandy: From Non-Stationary Climate to Non-Stationary Policy. *Journal of Extreme Events*, 01(01), 1450008. https://doi.org/10.1142/
Johnson, D. A. (2023). Exploring the Effectiveness of 311 Data in Disaster Recovery and Response: A Case Study of Hurricane Sandy in New York City. *Academic Commons*. Columbia University. https://academiccommons.
Petkova, E. P., Beedasy, J., Oh, E. J., Sury, J., Sehnert, E. M., Tsai, W.-Y., & Reilly, M. J. (2017). Long-term Recovery From Hurricane Sandy: Evidence From a Survey in New York City. (Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness). https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (n.d.). Remembering Sandy Five Years Later. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov
These references cover a range of topics related to the impact of Hurricane Sandy, including healthcare challenges, family reunification, crisis leadership, community responses, monitoring of environmental hazards, policy changes due to climate change, the effectiveness of using public data for disaster recovery, and long-term recovery challenges faced by residents.
I wanted to share with you a brief overview of the timeline for disaster management. As someone with extensive experience in this field, I believe integrating this timeline with empirical insights from past disasters could further enhance the effectiveness of disaster management strategies.The timeline consists of four main phases: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery, based on the disaster management cycle. Mitigation focuses on reducing the impact of disasters through long-term measures. Preparedness involves planning and preparing to respond to a disaster. The response phase is activated when a disaster occurs, and the recovery phase focuses on restoring the affected community.Implementing the timeline requires collaboration and coordination, community involvement, and continuous improvement. By understanding and utilizing this timeline, disaster management professionals can effectively plan for and respond to disasters, ultimately reducing their impact on communities.
A timeline for disaster management typically outlines the chronological steps and phases involved in preparing for, responding to, and recovering from disasters. This timeline can be crucial for organizations, governments, and communities to manage the impacts of disasters efficiently. The timeline usually spans before, during, and after a disaster occurs and is divided into four main phases: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Here’s a brief overview:
1. Mitigation
Mitigation involves efforts to reduce the impact of disasters. This phase includes long-term measures aimed at minimizing or altogether avoiding the effects of disasters. Examples include building dams or levees to prevent flooding, enforcing building codes to withstand earthquakes, and implementing fire management strategies in wildfire-prone areas.
How to use:
Implement building and infrastructure standards that can withstand natural disasters.
Conduct environmental assessments and hazard analyses to identify risks and vulnerabilities.
Develop and enforce land-use policies that consider hazard-prone areas.
2. Preparedness
Preparedness focuses on planning and preparing to respond to a disaster. This phase involves training, exercises, establishing emergency plans, stocking supplies, and ensuring communication systems are in place.
How to use:
Conduct drills and exercises for emergency services and the public.
Develop and disseminate emergency plans, including evacuation routes and shelter locations.
Educate the community about disaster risks and how to prepare for them.
3. Response
The response phase is activated when a disaster occurs. It includes immediate actions taken to ensure safety, such as search and rescue operations, providing emergency services, and offering immediate relief to affected individuals.
How to use:
Activate emergency operations centers and disaster response plans.
Deploy emergency services and first responders to the affected areas.
provide emergency communications and information to the public.
4. Recovery
Recovery involves restoring the affected community to normal or better conditions. This phase can be short-term, focusing on immediate needs, or long-term, focusing on rebuilding and rehabilitation.
How to use:
Assess the damage and prioritize recovery efforts.
Support affected individuals and communities through rebuilding and financial assistance programs.
Review and revise disaster management plans based on lessons learned.
Implementing the Timeline
Collaboration and Coordination: Work with local, national, and international bodies to share information and resources.
Community Involvement: Engage the community in all phases to ensure that disaster management efforts are inclusive and meet the needs of all affected populations.
Continuous Improvement: Regularly review and update disaster management plans based on new information, technologies, and lessons learned from past events.
By understanding and utilizing this timeline, disaster management professionals can effectively plan for and respond to disasters, ultimately reducing their impact on communities.
A timeline can be derived from the disaster management cycle. The precise timetable for community disaster management is more specific, with intervals of two days, one day, three hours, during the disaster, and so forth.
In reference to:
What is the disaster management cycle?
You cannot copy content of this page