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

2018年6月3日，危地马拉的Fuego火山爆发，造成了悲惨的后果，整个村庄被火山碎屑流淹没。火山爆发导致大约12，000人撤离。这一事件导致危害、风险和脆弱性发生变化，表明当前和未来风险的复杂性和动态性。该提案旨在分析自然环境中观察到的这种动态风险，并了解动态风险与社会之间的相互作用。在6月3日Fuego火山爆发后，疏散导致一些地区的风险降低，但脆弱性（物理，系统，功能，社会，经济和政治）仍然很高，是不断变化的风险的关键组成部分。特别是，系统和功能脆弱性被认为是高度动态的。这提供了一个机会，可以调查富埃戈不断变化的危险情况，加上暴露量的变化以及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正在进行的背景下影响风险。这个机会是紧迫的：我们必须描述随着时间的推移而变化的危险、暴露和脆弱性。虽然可以对灾害的性质进行回顾性调查，但需要在灾害和社会经济条件发生变化时记录暴露（疏散和重新就业）和脆弱性的变化。例如，在天气或重型机械造成进一步损害之前，必须记录已经受到火山碎屑流影响的建筑物的物理脆弱性，或记录受影响排水系统附近的道路封闭情况，这可能构成因道路封闭而孤立的社区对火山泥流或火山碎屑流的系统脆弱性的一个主要因素。在危地马拉，通常没有关于这一粒度的系统脆弱性的资料，因此无法用于以后的研究。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进一步损坏之前的物理脆弱性。然而，当考虑到火山流灾害和火山泥流对生命的风险时，基础设施的物理脆弱性可以减少到二元效应（受影响或不受影响）。实际上，系统和功能脆弱性才是更重要、更难确定的未知数。因此，一个关键的研究组成部分是检验这样一种假设，即与火山喷发灾害相比，与火山流有关的灾害是广泛的系统脆弱性，而不是潜在影响足迹的物理脆弱性，这是风险的根本原因。这一点很重要，因为目前在火山学风险方面开展的大部分工作都是由火山灰坠落危险的框架领导的，但流动的影响和风险是非常不同的。该项目将与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的倡议保持一致，以参与并提高我们的风险管理能力。我们将使用火山学现场方法，法医方法和访谈相结合来收集信息。

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.