Hazardous Earth - Case Study - Italy - Managing Volcanoes Flashcards
Background of Italy (3)
- Tectonic setting - complicated by several fracture zones in the Mediterranean - African/Eurasian plates meet.
- Eruption history - several well documented eruptions in past + Mount Etna (Sicily) = one of most active volcanoes in world.
- Economic development - AC = able to utilise resource base effectively and efficiently.
How does Italy manage volcanic events? (3)
Local scale success in slowing/diverting lava flows from Etna:
1) Earth barriers
2) Large concrete blocks dropped into lava flow
3) Channels dug to divert flowing lava away from settlements.
How does Italy mitigate against vulnerability from volcanoes? (7)
- Monitoring provides accurate information to the volcanic risk service (CFCRV) = basis for decision making (i.e. evacuation orders etc).
- Work of CFCRV
a) Long-term analysis of eruption patterns of individual volcanoes
b) Constant monitoring - e.g. a) seismometers, tilt metres, analysis of gas emissions; b) satellite surveys - e.g. infra-red to detect heat
c) Well-established alert-level sequence understood by emergency services, all levels of govt + local communities
d) Closure of airports and air space when threatened by ash in atmosphere
e) Work carried out to identify vulnerable households to offer affordable solutions - e.g. adding a pitched roof to existing flat roof = shed ash fall.
How does Italy mitigate against losses from volcanic activity? (3)
- Italian govt has resources to compensate individuals and businesses/restore infrastructure.
- Timely evacuation based on accurate data + well-trained public services (i.e. fire, police, military) = casualties have been minimal.
- Vesuvius = closely monitored with evacuation plans in place.
Limitations to Italy’s mitigation against volcanic losses (5)
- Houses, farms, livestock, orange and lemon groves and tourist facilities have been destroyed in recent decades ALTHOUGH as Italy is AC, able to rebuild.
- Vesuvius challenges
a) Location close to Naples (600,000 people live in the ‘red zone’ = survival rates would be low)
b) Confidence in possibility of accurately predicting an eruption = low
c) Evacuation plans widely criticised for being inadequate/poorly understood by pop (evac. = significant economic gamble - expensive mistake is false alarm).