3.5 4.a, 5.a - Volcanic risk and responses in Iceland and the Philippines

Living in active volcanic environments

People live near volcanoes because opportunities, attachment and constrained choices coexist with hazard. Risk is not continuously visible: long intervals between damaging events can allow housing, businesses and infrastructure to become established. Relocation involves more than drawing a safer location on a map; people need land, employment, services and social connections there.

Iceland's advanced economy includes settlements, fishing activity, tourism and geothermal infrastructure on its Reykjanes Peninsula. Grindavík's location connects households with a harbour, workplaces and community networks; proximity to the Svartsengi energy area illustrates the use of geothermal resources. Icelandic volcanic landscapes also attract visitors. These benefits do not show that every resident consciously accepted the same risk or that geothermal income compensates each displaced household.

In the emerging and developing economy of the Philippines, Mayon is an active stratovolcano in Albay, south-eastern Luzon. Farming around its slopes supports livelihoods; weathered volcanic material can contribute to productive soils, although fertility also depends on rainfall, soil development and management. Markets, tourism, family land and cultural attachment help maintain settlement. Limited income, land tenure and affordable alternatives can make permanent relocation difficult even where hazards are understood.

In both countries, a home may represent savings, identity and access to work rather than an easily replaceable building. Remaining or returning can reflect constraints as well as preference. National development categories are broad comparative labels, not measures of every household's vulnerability. The Icelandic Met Office's 2024 scientific overview and the Philippine government's 2018 account of Mayon-related livelihood disruption anchor these contrasting geographical settings.

Iceland volcanic impacts

The Sundhnúkur crater row and Svartsengi system on Reykjanes experienced a sequence of intrusions and eruptions, rather than one continuous lava flow with an unchanging footprint. On 10 November 2023, magma propagated into a long sheet-like intrusion, or dyke, beneath the Grindavík area. Ground deformation and faulting damaged infrastructure and property, and the town was evacuated. The Icelandic Met Office's 8 February 2024 research account explains that considerable damage occurred even before magma erupted at the surface.

An eruption began on 18 December 2023, followed by further episodes in January and February 2024. On 14 January a new fissure opened close to Grindavík and lava entered the town. The Met Office's dated January updates describe lava movement, new cracks and changing hazard assessments. These observations distinguish deformation, lava and gas hazards, rather than assigning all impacts to an ash explosion.

Households faced repeated displacement, uncertain access to belongings, interrupted routines and the possibility that homes and workplaces could not be used. Damage to roads and utilities disrupted services and economic activity. Tourism and businesses around the affected area faced closures and changing access, while protecting energy infrastructure required engineering and public expenditure. Environmental change included burial beneath lava, new fractures and air-pollution risk whose direction depended on winds. The impacted area was serious but geographically specific: it did not mean all Icelandic settlements or all international air routes were closed.

Political consequences included decisions about access restrictions, protection priorities, financing and support for property owners. A 12 August 2024 government-service update recorded 852 property purchases through the public response company, representing 93% of applicants at that date. This is evidence of a major response to displacement and financial uncertainty, not 93% of every resident permanently rehoused or a claim that the hazard had ended. Decisions about property and possible return connect volcanic processes to public finance, fairness and the future of the community.

Philippines volcanic impacts

Mayon's January 2018 activity involved ash emissions, lava fountaining and flows, rockfalls and pyroclastic density currents. This stratovolcano's mixed hazard profile contrasts with treating every Icelandic fissure episode as an equally ash-rich eruption. PHIVOLCS raised Mayon to Alert Level 4 on 22 January; its contemporary bulletin archive documents monitoring and the continuing hazardous activity.

The 29 January 2018 NDRRMC update reported by the Philippine News Agency recorded 89,962 affected people, including 69,425 being served in evacuation centres. These are different categories: affected people are not all injured, and not all displaced households stay in a centre. Counts also change through an event, so they should retain their date rather than be combined with another day's totals.

Evacuation reduced exposure to fast flows and other hazards but interrupted farming, schooling and normal household life. Crowded temporary settings required food, safe water, sanitation, learning spaces and health services. Leaving livestock or crops created anxiety and income pressure; people outside the most dangerous flow zones could still experience ash, disrupted transport and reduced trade.

Environmental effects included deposition over fields and settlements and altered drainage conditions. Ashfall damaged crops and contaminated surfaces; fresh loose material could later be remobilised by heavy rain. A 31 January government agriculture account reported losses affecting rice, corn, high-value and fibre crops. This harmed both production and farm income, while markets could experience changing supplies and prices. A deposit's possible long-term contribution to soil formation does not cancel immediate crop loss.

The event also required political coordination among national agencies and local governments: officials set restrictions, operated centres, allocated funds and planned recovery. These decisions affected whose needs were prioritised and how support reached dispersed households. The NDRRMC final Mayon report collates the response. The eruption affected Albay particularly strongly, rather than producing uniform devastation across the entire Philippines.