Improving resident volcanic risk perception and preparedness following the 2021 Cumbre Vieja eruption

Written by Rosie Rice

PhD Candidate, Cambridge

VolcanoStories Collaborator

Volcanoes have both fascinated us as a species and facilitated our development for millennia; owing to the many benefits of living on volcanic lands, such as fertile soils, building materials, and tourism many communities have chosen to make their home on the flanks of active volcanoes across the world (Brown et al., 2015). However, despite all that they offer us, volcanoes can take everything away, and change our lives in an instant. For those living on volcanic lands, it is crucial to understand the risks associated with living close to a volcano. How individuals think about understand that risk is called Risk Perception.

Risk perception varies between individuals, it could be thought of like a pair of glasses through which we view the volcano; each of us have different prescriptions, types on lenses, frames etc, and therefore our experience of viewing the volcano is different and depends on the factors that make us who we are (age, gender, education, disability, income etc.). Therefore, understanding how people perceive the risk associated with a particular volcano, and how that affects their behaviour is a key challenge for scientists. This report will investigate risk perception on La Palma, and explore ways to improve preparedness of residents.

On the 19th September, an eruption began along the Cumbre Vieja ridge, on the island of La Palma, changing the lives of residents overnight. Over the course of 85 days, the eruption led to the evacuation of ~7,000 people, and the destruction of 1,345 homes (Cabildo de La Palma, accessed 2023). The 2021 eruption was the third eruption to occur within living memory (San Juan 1949; Teneguía 1971), therefore the people of La Palma have experience of sharing their beloved island with a ‘volcanic beast’. Despite living on a volcanic island and the experience of previous eruptions, residents expressed they felt unprepared for the devastation caused by the 2021 eruption, within interviews. It is important we learn from this eruption and try and understand the factors that shaped how residents understood volcanic risk before the eruption, so that changes can be made to better prepare residents for the next eruption. So, what shaped residents’ risk perception? And how can we better prepare residents for the next eruption? 

There are many factors that shape our perception of risk, and can depend on our age, gender, sexuality, where we live, how much experience we have with the hazard etc. There have been many theories on risk perception; Slovak & Peters (2006) proposed we contemplate risk either as analysis or as feelings. Risk as analysis involves us judging risk based on scientific findings or reason, whereas risk as feelings describes our instinct regarding risk (Slovak & Peters, 2006). When we calculate how risky a particular event or action is, there are many factors that influence our mental processes, which are called heuristics and biases. In terms of Risk Perception in La Palma, the following examples are important to think about:

Table 1. Table of Heuristics and Biases relevant to thinking about Risk Perception in the context of La Palma, information taken from: https://thedecisionlab.com/biases [accessed November 2023].

In La Palma, risk perception is heavily influenced by identity, memory, place attachment and culture (Rice 2022;2023). Volcanoes are central to culture in La Palma, with each eruption moulding the Palmerian identity and way of life. Once cooled, old lava flows are used for Banana plantations or vineyards, helping cultivate La Palma’s largest economic sector. Previous eruptions in La Palma, such as the Teneguía eruption, are remembered fondly for the natural show of a lifetime observed by locals. Many residents watched the 1971 eruption on the neighbouring Montaña San Antonio (a cone remnant of a previous eruption) [See Figure 1].

Figure 1. Residents watching the 1971 eruption of Teneguía on the island of La Palma

The eruption of Teneguía was significantly less destructive, the eruption itself was smaller in size, and occurred in the sparsely populated area of Fuencaliente (Araña, 1999). This, coupled with fond memories of Teneguía, led to many residents and even officials underestimating the risk associated with the 2021 Cumbre Vieja eruption, as many expected ‘another Teneguía’. This is an example of how previous experience can influence risk perception in the present; many residents had a positive experience (or no experience) of the 1971 eruption, leading them to underestimate the risk of the 2021 eruption. We also see an example of dissonance; despite volcanism influencing the culture and identity of residents, and their acknowledgement of living on a volcanic island, many felt unprepared for the 2021 eruption, and underestimated the risk of living on a volcanic island.

Figure 3. The breakdown of factors that can affect an individuals volcanic risk perception.

Another factor that appeared to influence perception of risk during the 2021 eruption was residents’ attachment to their homes, and the island itself (Rice, 2023). In La Palma, homes signify the struggles and work of ancestors, peoples past, present, and future and act as focal points for families and communities. Alongside this, residents are strongly attached to the island, personifying it as generous and bountiful in the way it provides. La Palma is known locally as ‘La Isla Bonita’ (The beautiful island), as many are drawn to the island’s natural beauty. Residents feel so strongly and positively about the benefits of living in La Palma, that the risk of a destructive eruption is underestimated. These are just a few factors that affected risk perception during the 2021 volcanic crisis [a summary can be found in Figure 3]. It is important that scientists and policy makers understand what factors influence risk perception so that preparedness activities can be targeted.

So what is preparedness? And why is it relevant?

The UNDRR define preparedness as “The communities, and capacities developed by governments, response and recovery organisations, communities and individuals to effectively anticipate, respond to and recover from the impacts of likely, imminent or current disaster”. In essence – what can we do to be ready for an eruption?

In interviews collected for VolcanoStories residents expressed they felt unprepared for an eruption, particularly being evacuated. This could be for many reasons; underestimation of risk, failure to educate the public, lack of understanding of early warning systems, and poor communication. In the Canary Islands, a Volcanic Traffic Light Alert System (VTLAS) is used to communicate level of volcanic risk to the public and trigger an emergency management plan (PEVOLCA). Within interviews, residents expressed a lack of understanding of what each stage of the traffic light meant, and confusion as to why the eruption began when the VTLAS level was yellow (2/4). Alongside this, failure to educate the public on volcanic hazards and their associated risks before the eruption, combined with poor risk communication during the eruption left the population unprepared to cope with such a destructive eruption.

So what can we learn? And how can we be better prepared for the next eruption?

La Palma has, and will continue to be, shaped by volcanic eruptions, therefore it is crucial we become better prepared. We can look to other islands exposed to volcanic hazards to learn how the population are prepared; Hawaii is an island state exposed to volcanic hazards similar to those in La Palma (e.g. Lava Flows, Ash fall etc). Before the 2018 Kilauea eruption, education programmes on volcanic hazards had severely lacked the inclusion of social science, and thus were not as effective as desired (Wei, 2022). Scientists have investigated the extent to which households are prepared for lava flows from an eruption, making suggestions for how to improve preparedness of the population that are useful to consider when thinking about improving preparedness in La Palma.

The following examples are taken from Gregg et al., (2004):

1. Knowing the different types of volcanic hazards that can occur, along with the risk posed to both the individual and property.
2. Being familiar with the various pre-cursory signals of eruption, and how they are presented (earthquakes, deformation, gas emissions), listening to official information.
3. Knowing where to obtain both emergency information and assistance.
4. Creating and maintaining an emergency supply kit
5. Knowing the different and likely range of warning periods, and what personal items that can be removed from a property within those periods.
6. Having an evacuation plan that includes knowing where and how to contact family. This plan should be known by the family before an eruption.

It is critical we learn how to improve preparedness following the devastating 2021 eruption, so that residents feel better prepared for the next eruption. The above list are just some examples of strategies that can be adopted to improve preparedness of residents. Any development of strategy and policy by volcanologists, civil defence or island government must include social science, linking social networks with administrative and monitoring agencies (such as PEVOLCA). There is a lot to learn, and much room for improvement both within policy and education strategies, areas which I hope to explore in future articles for VolcanoStories. Crises offer opportunity for change; throughout history, volcanic eruptions have provided key opportunities for us to learn about volcanic systems, monitoring, and risk management. The lessons emerging from the 2021 Cumbre Vieja eruption aren’t just for La Palma, the near-by island of Tenerife also faces the threat of a volcanic eruption, improving policy and education across the Canary Islands could not be more timely or important.

Bibliography

Araña, V., 1999. Comentarios sobre la erupción del Volcán Teneguía en 1971. Enseñanza de las Ciencias de la Tierra, 7(3), pp.262-266.

Brown, S.K., Auker, M.R. and Sparks, R.S.J., 2015. Populations around Holocene volcanoes and development of a Population Exposure Index. Global volcanic hazards and risk, pp.223-232.

Cabildo de La Palma [accessed Nov 2023] https://www.opendatalapalma.es/

Domingues, R.B., de Jesus, S.N. and Ferreira, O., 2021. Place attachment, risk perception, and preparedness in a population exposed to coastal hazards: A case study in Faro Beach, southern Portugal. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 60, p.102288.

Gregg, C.E., Houghton, B.F., Johnston, D.M., Paton, D. and Swanson, D.A., 2004. The perception of volcanic risk in Kona communities from Mauna Loa and Hualālai volcanoes, Hawai‵ i. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 130(3-4), pp.179-196.

https://thedecisionlab.com/biases [accessed November 2023].

Rice, R., 2022. Remembering to Forget: How memories of the Teneguía (1971) eruption shaped the response to the Cumbre Vieja eruption, La Palma (Canary Islands), Unpublished

Rice, R., 2023. Making Sense of Place: Exploring attachment to place in the context of the Tajogaite eruption, La Palma (Canary Islands). Unpublished.

Slovic, P. and Peters, E., 2006. Risk perception and affect. Current directions in psychological science, 15(6), pp.322-325.

Tompkins, M.K., Bjälkebring, P. and Peters, E., 2018. Emotional aspects of risk perceptions. Psychological perspectives on risk and risk analysis: theory, models, and applications, pp.109-130.

UNDRR [accessed Nov 2023] https://www.undrr.org/terminology/preparedness

Wei, H.L., 2022. Exploring Household Preparedness for Volcanic Eruptions of Kīlauea and Mauna Loa, Hawai ‘i. Natural Hazards Review, 23(4), p.05022005.

Wolff, K., Larsen, S. and Øgaard, T., 2019. How to define and measure risk perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research, 79, p.102759.