Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
It is beyond the scope of this chapter to present data generated from all 52 questions.
The questions we present here were selected on the basis of the information they pro-
vide (i.e. we believe they have generated signifi cant data which may be useful to emer-
gency managers charged with the responsibility of the ongoing development of risk
mitigation procedures). An electronic copy of the questionnaire is available at http://
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci. net/9/251/2009/nhess-9-251-2009-supplement..pdf
or from the corresponding author.
DISCUSSION
A unique opportunity was presented during and after the evacuation exercise to as-
sess resident knowledge, behavior and perception of Katla, jökulhlaup hazard, and the
evacuation plan--a task which had never been done for volcanic hazards in Iceland. A
short time window was offered to capture residents' views of the exercise before they
forgot this practical experience of risk mitigation. Our small sample size reflects this
brief window of opportunity but the data collected provide an in-depth account stem-
ming from a mixed methods approach which incorporated field observations, semi-
structured interviews with emergency management officials, and questionnaire survey
interviews with residents.
The problem of poor communication became evident through our fi eld observa-
tions at the EC and was later reiterated during interviews with emergency management
offi cials and residents. The issue of communication between scientists, emergency
management offi cials, and the public can inhibit a successful response to evacuation
orders (Chester et al., 2002). During the exercise, communication of the evacuation
warning was not adequate and some residents were unaware the drill had commenced.
This was confi rmed in a post-exercise assessment report, where it was stated that the
evacuation warning was not communicated effectively to residents (Almannavarnir,
2006). Effective communication not only refers to broadcasting hazard information
but also the public and media's ability to understand the nature, meaning, and intent
of the warning (Dominey-Howes et al., 2007). Communication strategies should be
developed with respect to the intended audience and in consideration of social psycho-
logical factors which may infl uence whether or not people assimilate this information
and respond accordingly (Paton and Johnston, 2001).
The particular role of communication was noted by the president of the Inter-
national Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) during the 2008 International
Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth's Interior (IAVCEI) confer-
ence held in Iceland. He emphasized the need for successful communication in volcanic
crises and questioned the reliance on modern technology to relay hazard information.
This strong dependence on modern technology created problems during the evacua-
tion exercise. To exacerbate this situation, approximately half the farmers in this region
stated they do not carry a mobile phone with them at all times and it is these residents
who are most likely to be away from a landline. It is therefore critical they receive an
evacuation message through an alternative mode. The sweepers in some regions were
able to notify those residents who were unaware that the evacuation had commenced.
However, through our interviews we were able to ascertain that certain residents were
not contacted by phone or sweeper.
