Fireside tales: understanding experiences of previous eruptions and factors influencing the decision to evacuate from activity of Volcán de Fuego

Abstract

Volcán de Fuego (Guatemala) is an active stratovolcano capable of large (VEI~ě2) explosive eruptions like that of 3 rd June 2018, which triggered pyroclastic flows that devastated the community of San Miguel Los Lotes and caused hundreds of fatalities and severe long-term socioeconomic impacts. Future volcanic risk mitigation efforts are likely to involve temporary evacuation of local communities, the success of which requires cooperation between locals, scientists, and decision-makers. However, locals' experiences of eruptive activity, and how these experiences influence their responses to evacuation, have not been studied in detail. In 2019 we conducted an investigation of these themes through qualitative research methods involving semi-structured interviews that focussed on direct experience as opposed to volcanic risk perception. We found substantial differences between scientists' and locals' observations of Fuego's activity. Furthermore, a clear disparity emerged between communities on Fuego's west and east flanks in terms of direct prior experience of eruptions and communication with authorities. These findings have serious implications for future evacuation efforts at Fuego and at other highly populated active volcanoes. Resumen El Volcán de Fuego (Guatemala) es capaz de erupciones catastróficas como la del 3 de junio de 2018, cuando flujos piroclásticos destruyeron la comunidad de San Miguel Los Lotes y causaron numerosos muertos e impactos socioeconomicos severos en el largo plazo. Al futuro, la mitigación del riesgo volcánico implicará la evacuación de las comunidades locales, cuyo éxito requiere la cooperación entre autoridades y la población. Sin embargo, se sabe poco sobre cuales son las experiencias de actividad eruptiva de estos grupos, y cómo estas experiencias afectan sus respuestas a la evacuación. En 2019 realizamos una investigación de estos temas y encontramos diferencias significativas entre las observaciones científicas y de la población de la actividad de Fuego. Además, surgió una disparidad entre las comunidades en diferentes flancos del volcán en términos de la experiencia vivida de las erupciones anteriores y de la comunicación con autoridades. Estos resultados tienen implicaciones para los futuros esfuerzos de evacuación en Fuego y en volcanes análogos.

Hawaiʻi residents' perceptions of Kīlauea's 2018 eruption information

“…Our findings suggest that the most meaningful area of improvement for future eruption communications both in Hawai ' i and other volcanically active regions include 1) making official eruption information easier for residents to access and interpret and 2) continuing to strengthen the trust and credibility of official sources/messengers of this information among the impacted communities. These lessons, which apply most readily to the LERZ due to the high proportion of negative perceptions from LERZ participants regarding HVO's eruption communications, are consistent with those provided by Williams et al [2020] [Haynes et al 2008;Donovan et al 2014;Naismith et al 2020].…”

“…Covello [2003] stated that successful crisis communication includes using "clear, non-technical language appropriate to the target audience," and Sellnow et al [2009] described the importance of effectively tailoring one's messages to fit the needs of a particular group or population. McBride [2017] found that official earthquake preparedness documents in Christchurch, New Zealand, did not effectively prepare residents for the 2010-2011 Canterbury Sequence due to containing "overly long, jargon-laden text," while vulnerable populations living on active volcanoes in Indonesia or Ecuador have been most resilient to hazards from these volcanoes when they have access to the relevant scientific information [Mei et al 2013;Few et al 2017;Naismith et al 2020]. In fact, local people's trust in scientists at Tungurahua Volcano, Ecuador, has resulted from the direct, sustained interactions (i.e.…”

Analyzing Explosive Volcanic Deposits From Satellite‐Based Radar Backscatter, Volcán de Fuego, 2018

“…However, the series of PDCs in Barranca Las Lajas extended over 12 km from the summit, longer than all the other flows, and buried the town of San Miguel Los Lotes (Figure 1d), killing several hundreds of people. Official numbers report 332 people missing as a result of the eruption, although the death toll could be as high as 2,900 people (Naismith et al., 2020).…”

Varying processes, similar results: How composition influences fragmentation and subsequent feeding of large pyroclastic density currents

“…Pyroclastic Density Currents (PDCs) are the most hazardous direct consequence of explosive volcanism. They are estimated to be responsible for 28.1% of the casualties of volcanic eruptions documented between 1500 AD and 2017 (Brown et al, 2017) with the last disaster to date being the 3 June 2018 Volcàn Fuego (Guatemala) PDCs that killed between 332 and 2,900 people (Naismith et al, 2020). PDCs can be produced by a wide spectrum of processes from transient mechanisms such as gravitational collapse of a lava dome or of an eruptive column to long-lived sustained mechanisms such as pyroclastic fountaining (Branney and Kokelaar, 2002;Sulpizio et al, 2014;Lube et al, 2020).…”