Management of geomorphological hazards comes in many ways. There is prediction, warning people of hazards meaning actions can be taken to reduce their impact through either evacuation or through modifying the landscape. Improvements in technology in recent years has improves our prediction success with new technology such as seismographs. However only MEDC’s can usually afford the technology for prediction and therefore our knowledge of technology and plate boundaries has not really increased our ability to manage hazards, but it has increased are scope of prediction. Another approach to managing hazards is through prevention, which in theory is ideal as it ill stop any problems from occurring in the first place. However this is slightly unrealistic and usually the best that can be achieved from this is some control and reduction of the impact a hazard will cause. An example of this can be seen along the San Andreas fault in California where they have lubricate areas along the fault with sea water; meaning that when there is a slip between the plates, and earthquake will be caused would be less as the fault has not slipped to the same extreme. Another example comes from the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004, where so many countries were devastated by this as there was too little time to react, however countries such as Kenya could react quickly as they had been warned and they reacted quickly by moving thousands of Tourists off of their beaches. Protection is the other way to manage a hazard, where the aim is to protect property from the impact of the hazard, but this can also happen with insuring against losses (in MEDCs) and the supply of aid (in LEDCs).
Our success of managing hazards can be summed up in their success, for example on Mt Etna, diverting the flow of lava with dynamite was more successful than the Japanese where they thought they were prepared for earthquakes but the Kobe earthquake had a large detrimental effect on their society. With earthquakes there has also been many developments in the more economically developed world where there is suitable capitol for modifying the vulnerability. Building design is a vital element in protecting against earthquakes. There can be large concrete weights in a building to act as a pendulum, shock absorbers built into the foundations of the building and cross bracing to hold the building together when it shakes. The difference in construction technologies and their effectiveness to protect against earthquakes can easily be seen in a comparison between an MEDC and an LEDC. For example in California in the 1989 earthquake (7 on the Richter scale) and the 1988 earthquake in Armenia. With well constructed buildings and preparation fo earthquakes in California, only 60 deaths occurred, but in Armenia more than 25000 people died due to many building collapses in the Earthquake.
As most volcanic eruptions mainly occur on plate boundaries, our knowledge has become invaluable for saving people’s lives. However this has not usually been through intervention, but through modifying the vulnerability. Volcanic activity is mainly associated with rift valleys (such as in Africa which has many volcanoes such as Mount Kilimanjaro), Near subduction zones (which is associated with the ring of fire) over hot spots such as the Hawaiian islands or along oceanic ridges where plates are moving apart. This knowledge helps us as we then know where the more dangerous areas are to settle. However as volcanoes have incredibly fertile soil at their base, many people are keen to live their and think that the opportunity cost was worth it. With volcanoes, are ability to predict them is not excellent, for example the Nevado Del Ruiz volcano had small scale activity in the 1980s, however the experts could not predict when exactly it could erupt. When it did finally erupted in 1985, almost the entire population had remained in the area due to poor prediction. The problem occurred not through lack of technological knowledge but through the uncertainty of the volcanic activity. With protection against volcanic activity, there is not much choice a person can take. (40 minutes)
The threat of avalanches and land slides are more geomorphological threats that can be managed. We can manage avalanches through; controlled explosions reducing the size of an ice pack, risk management strategies can be set up attempting to control human activity such as road closure and ski route closure, and also we can engineer solutions such as fences, deflection structures, afforestation and avalanche sheds. Land slides can also be managed through improved technology, we can; engineer the slope such as improve drainage, terrace, or stabilise the base of the slope. We can also involve land use planning in areas that we believe to be in a danger zone due to our knowledge of plate tectonics, slopes and climate, by not allowing construction in areas that are designated high risk.
In conclusion, I believe that to some extent, our improved knowledge of plate tectonics has increased our ability to manage geomorphological hazards, but not significantly enough to be a huge advantage to us. Our predictions are much better than they used to be, as we know the areas we should monitor due to our knowledge of plate boundaries and hot spots. Also we know how certain aspects of our geology are effected and therefore we can protect against them, for example we know how P,S and L waves work in Earthquakes and therefore we can build infrastructure that will be able to with last these. However manageing the event itself is largely unsuccessful, with people getting injures due to failed attempts. There have only been a few attempts of successful modification of the event such as Etna. Therefore I come to the conclusion that our ability to modify vulnerability has improved from our knowledge, but our ability to modify the event has not to a large extent due to resources.
