9:00 AM - 10:30 AM
[G02-P09] Disaster prevention education on the relativity of assumed disasters in hazard maps - using volcanic disasters as an example
Keywords:Hazard map, Eruption, Assumed hazards
Disasters can be of various sizes. In the case of volcanic disasters, large eruptions have widespread effects, while small eruptions have only limited effects. Wherever there is such a spectrum of disaster magnitude, we must have a hypothetical volcanic eruption. Otherwise, hazard maps cannot be created.
It is very difficult to determine the assumed eruption. If the assumed eruption is too small, the possibility of an eruption that deviates from the assumption will increase, which may cause serious human casualties. If the assumed eruption size is too large, an eruption may be too small despite evacuation precautions, resulting in serious damage to the local economy and the lives of evacuees. How can we minimize the damage to the local economy while protecting the lives of residents? This is a difficult question with no answer.
The author has been involved in the preparation of hazard maps for several volcanoes. Based on this experience, I would like to discuss how the assumed eruptions have been determined.
In any case, the assumed eruption is of a certain magnitude and is relative. The hazard maps drawn based on them are only a rough guide. If we do not know this fact, we will regard the boundaries drawn on the hazard map as absolute, which is very problematic from the viewpoint of disaster prevention.
In disaster prevention education, it is important to understand that the assumed disasters on hazard maps are relative, and that the range of hazards created for the assumed disasters is also relative. For this purpose, it is a prerequisite to know the spectrum of disaster magnitude.
Current geography textbooks are very comprehensive in their descriptions of disaster prevention. However, only one of the five textbooks I checked mentions disasters outside the scope of hazard maps. In addition, we could not find any reference to the spectrum of disaster magnitude.
In the current textbooks on basic geoscience, three of the five textbooks we checked mention disasters outside the scope of hazard maps. The spectrum of the magnitude of disasters is likely to be read by very attentive learners of basic geoscience.
A correct understanding of hazard maps is the foundation for disaster prevention. If we teach geography and basic geology together and devise a learning method, it will be possible to provide disaster education for students to understand hazard maps correctly.
It is very difficult to determine the assumed eruption. If the assumed eruption is too small, the possibility of an eruption that deviates from the assumption will increase, which may cause serious human casualties. If the assumed eruption size is too large, an eruption may be too small despite evacuation precautions, resulting in serious damage to the local economy and the lives of evacuees. How can we minimize the damage to the local economy while protecting the lives of residents? This is a difficult question with no answer.
The author has been involved in the preparation of hazard maps for several volcanoes. Based on this experience, I would like to discuss how the assumed eruptions have been determined.
In any case, the assumed eruption is of a certain magnitude and is relative. The hazard maps drawn based on them are only a rough guide. If we do not know this fact, we will regard the boundaries drawn on the hazard map as absolute, which is very problematic from the viewpoint of disaster prevention.
In disaster prevention education, it is important to understand that the assumed disasters on hazard maps are relative, and that the range of hazards created for the assumed disasters is also relative. For this purpose, it is a prerequisite to know the spectrum of disaster magnitude.
Current geography textbooks are very comprehensive in their descriptions of disaster prevention. However, only one of the five textbooks I checked mentions disasters outside the scope of hazard maps. In addition, we could not find any reference to the spectrum of disaster magnitude.
In the current textbooks on basic geoscience, three of the five textbooks we checked mention disasters outside the scope of hazard maps. The spectrum of the magnitude of disasters is likely to be read by very attentive learners of basic geoscience.
A correct understanding of hazard maps is the foundation for disaster prevention. If we teach geography and basic geology together and devise a learning method, it will be possible to provide disaster education for students to understand hazard maps correctly.