Dynamic Risk at Fuego Volcano: Communities living in a post-eruption but still persistently active context.

2018年6月3日，危地马拉福戈火山喷发，整个村庄被火山碎屑流淹没，造成了悲惨的后果。火山喷发已促使约1.2万人疏散。这一事件导致了危险、暴露和脆弱性的变化，表明了持续和未来风险的复杂和动态性质。这一建议试图描述在自然环境中观察到的这种动态风险，并理解动态风险与社会之间的相互作用。6月3日福戈火山爆发后，疏散导致一些地区的风险暴露减少，但脆弱性(物质、系统、功能、社会、经济和政治)仍然很高，是不断演变的风险的一个关键组成部分。特别是，系统性和功能性脆弱性被认为是高度动态的。这提供了一个机会，以调查福戈不断变化的危险情况，以及暴露的变化和高度动态的系统和功能脆弱性，如何在恢复和持续喷发风险管理的背景下影响风险。这是一个紧迫的机会：我们必须描述随时间变化的危险、暴露和脆弱性的特征。虽然可以对危险的性质进行追溯性调查，但需要在发生时记录暴露(疏散和重新安置)和脆弱性的变化，以应对不断变化的危险和社会经济条件。例如，重要的是在天气或重型机械造成进一步破坏之前，记录已经受到火山碎屑流影响的建筑物的物理脆弱性，或者记录受影响的排水沟旁边的道路封闭，这可能构成因道路封闭而隔离的社区对火山碎屑流或火山碎屑流的系统性脆弱性的主要因素。危地马拉通常不会记录关于这种粒度的系统性脆弱性的信息，因此不会提供给以后的研究。通过这项拟议的工作，我们将收集前所未有的脆弱性数据集，记录受火山碎屑流影响的建筑物在任何进一步破坏之前的物理脆弱性。然而，当考虑到火山水流灾害和泥石流对生命的风险时，基础设施的物理脆弱性可以减少为二元效应(受影响或未受影响)。实际上，系统性和功能性脆弱性是更重要、更难确定的未知因素。因此，一个关键的研究组成部分是检验这样一种假设，即对于与火山流动有关的灾害而言，与热风灾害相比，造成风险的根本原因是广泛存在的系统性脆弱性，而不是潜在影响足迹的有形脆弱性。这一点很重要，因为目前开展的许多关于火山学风险的工作都是由用于研究火山坠落危险的框架领导的，但水流影响和风险是非常不同的。该项目符合联合国仙台减少灾害风险框架，以及更广泛的火山学社区最近为参与和提高我们做好风险工作的能力而采取的举措。我们将使用火山学现场方法、法医方法和采访相结合的方法来收集信息。

An eruption of Fuego volcano, Guatemala, on 3rd June 2018, had tragic outcomes when an entire village was inundated by pyroclastic flows. The eruption has prompted evacuations of around 12,000 people. This event resulted in changes to hazard, exposure and vulnerability, demonstrating the complex and dynamic nature of ongoing and future risk. This proposal seeks to characterise this dynamic risk observed in the natural environment, and understand the interactions between dynamic risk and society. Following the 3rd June eruption of Fuego, evacuations have resulted in reduced exposure in some regions, however, vulnerability (physical, systemic, functional, social, economic and political) remains high and is a key component of the evolving risk. In particular, systemic and functional vulnerability are believed to be highly dynamic. This provides an opportunity to investigate how the evolving hazard situation at Fuego, combined with changes in exposure and highly dynamic systemic and functional vulnerability, play out to affect risk in a context where both recovery and continued eruption risk management are ongoing.This opportunity is urgent: we must characterise changing hazard, exposure and vulnerability through time. Although the nature of the hazard can be investigated retrospectively, documenting changes to exposure (evacuations and reoccupations) and vulnerability as they respond to changing hazard and socio-economic conditions needs to be done as it occurs. For example, it is important to document physical vulnerability on buildings already impacted by the pyroclastic flows before further damage by weather or heavy machinery occurs, or document road closures next to affected drainages which can constitute a major element of the systemic vulnerability to lahars or pyroclastic flows of a community isolated by that road closure. Information on systemic vulnerability at this level of granularity is not normally documented in Guatemala, thus will not be available for later study. Through this proposed work, we will collect an unprecedented dataset on vulnerability, documenting physical vulnerability of buildings impacted by pyroclastic flows before any further damage. When considering risk to life by volcanic flow hazards and lahars however, physical vulnerability of infrastructure can be reduced to a binary effect (impacted or not. It is actually systemic and functional vulnerability that are the more important, and harder to ascertain, unknowns. A key research component, therefore, is to test the hypothesis that for volcanic flow related hazards, in contrast to tephra hazards, it is widespread systemic vulnerability and not physical vulnerability of the footprint of potential impact that is the root cause of risk. This is important because much of the work currently undertaken on risk in volcanology is led by frameworks used for tephra fall hazards, yet flow impacts and risk are very different. The project is will-aligned with the UN Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, as well as recent initiatives in the wider volcanology community to engage and improve our capacity to do risk well. We will use a combination of volcanology field approaches, forensic approaches, and interviews to gather the information.