Italy - Managing Volcanoes Case Study

• Background of Italy

  1. Tectonic setting - complicated by several fracture zones in the Mediterranean - African/Eurasian plates meet.
  2. Eruption history - several well documented eruptions in past + Mount Etna (Sicily) = one of most active volcanoes in world.
  3. Economic development - AC = able to utilise resource base effectively and efficiently
• How does Italy manage volcanic events?

  Local scale success in slowing/diverting lava flows from Etna:

  1. Earth barriers

  2) Large concrete blocks dropped into lava flow

  3) Channels dug to divert flowing lava away from settlements
• How does Italy mitigate against vulnerability from volcanoes?

  1. Monitoring provides accurate information to the volcanic risk service (CFCRV) = basis for decision making (i.e. evacuation orders etc).
  2. Work of CFCRV
  3. Long-term analysis of eruption patterns of individual volcanoes
  4. Constant monitoring - e.g. a) seismometers, tilt metres, analysis of gas emissions; b) satellite surveys - e.g. infra-red to detect heat
  5. Well-established alert-level sequence understood by emergency services, all levels of govt + local communities
  6. Closure of airports and air space when threatened by ash in atmosphere
  7. Work carried out to identify vulnerable households to offer affordable solutions - e.g. adding a pitched roof to existing flat roof = shed ash fall
• How does Italy mitigate against losses from volcanic activity?

  1. Italian government has resources to compensate individuals and businesses/restore infrastructure
  2. Timely evacuation based on accurate data + well-trained public services (i.e. fire, police, military) = casualties have been minimal
  3. Vesuvius = closely monitored with evacuation plans in place
• Limitations to Italy's mitigation against volcanic losses

  1. Houses, farms, livestock, orange and lemon groves and tourist facilities have been destroyed in recent decades ALTHOUGH as Italy is AC, able to rebuild.
  2. Vesuvius challenges
  3. Location close to Naples (600,000 people live in the ‘red zone’ = survival rates would be low)
  4. Confidence in possibility of accurately predicting an eruption = low
  5. Evacuation plans widely criticised for being inadequate/poorly understood by pop (evac. = significant economic gamble - expensive mistake is false alarm)