Volcanic Eruptions in Iceland

The volcanoes in the region have remained quiet for nearly 800 years, until an eruption in 2021 in Fagradalsfjall (Wei-Haas, 2024). Some scientists are suspecting the peninsula of Reykjanes is entering a new period of volcanic activity, and possibly the beginning of centuries of geologic unrest. The area sits on top of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge dividing the North American and Eurasian plates.

Usually in this region, eruptions can be seen every five years, though since 2021, eruptions can be seen every 12 months (Volcanic Eruptions in Iceland, n.d.). Due to its interesting geographic location, as the ridges underneath separate, large amounts of magma rise and fill in the gaps. This not only leads to more and more eruptions, but the "tourist volcanoes" are easy enough for any hiking ability to visit where fire meets ice.

How have the recent volcanic eruptions affected local communities? What challenges are locals facing with the increased number of eruptions? What are they doing to prepare and recover from eruptions? How is this impacting their economy? What populations are more at risk from volcano hazards in this region?

My focus is on the country of Iceland, where volcanic activity and eruptions are very common, though the country also sees other extreme environmental hazards such as flooding, landslides, and earthquakes. The fact that this country lies right on top of the North American and European plates makes it particularly susceptible to frequent volcanic activity, usually lasting days to weeks, happening on average every few years. Recently, the eruptions in the southwest portion of the island have increased, making it more important and essential to remain on constant alert. The map below shows the volcano locations in the southwestern part of the country near the capital Reykjavik. Most of this area of the country is sparsely populated and outside of the volcanically active zone, with only 3-4 people per square mile (Gudmundsson et al., 2021). The country has a relatively low vulnerability score, yet its people are all equally at risk to the dangers of environmental hazards and the effects of climate change, namely tephra fallout from volcanic eruptions and melting glaciers.

Chapter 22: Evacuation Versus Shelter-In-Place

Knowing whether to evacuate or shelter in place in response to an active volcanic eruption is crucial and incredibly dependent upon the severity and pace of the impending hazard. In 2023, there was a series of volcanic eruptions that took place in the southwestern peninsula of Iceland. Because the area is constantly monitoring additional eruptions, residents are actively prepared to evacuate at a moments notice as safety precautions, which was seen many times throughout the 2023 eruptions.

Different hazards generally recommend one of two preparedness responses: evacuations or shelter in place. Evacuations are generally recommended for floods, tropical cyclones (to include hurricanes and typhoons), wildfires, landslides, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions, while shelter in place is generally recommended during tornadoes and earthquakes. There are exceptions to each of these, and often depend on the specifics of the situation. 

The purpose of the responses of evacuation and sheltering are to keep as many people safe as possible during a hazard. Depending on the severity of the situation, getting people out of the danger zone before the hazard reaches damage potential keeps them safe. Alternatively, evacuation during earthquakes and tornadoes may not be the best idea, in which case sheltering in place or in a place of refuge is best. This chapter discussed each hazard individually and which protective actions were best.

Sheltering in place may keep people safe indoors, but if the structure they are in is not able to withstand tornadoes or earthquakes, it may be best to evacuate before the hazard hits. During the hazard, it is dangerous to evacuate because there is a risk of injury from collapsing structures and debris. Similarly with tornadoes, wind speed and flying debris is likely to cause injury so evacuations should only be used if there is enough time to leave the area. For sheltering, there may be more physical challenges than anything else. In regards to evacuations, it not only depends on the options (mandatory or advisable), but also the ability to accomplish the evacuation itself. Elderly and disabled residents may have more difficult times getting out, and could also pose serious health risks. With mass evacuations, egress roads can become congested with high traffic volumes. In developing countries, where economies, communications, transport, and emergency response systems are limited, there is a higher possibility for death and injury because protective action options are also limited.

What I read in the chapter matches what protective actions have been implemented during the volcanic eruptions in Iceland: evacuations. With close monitoring, residents are often able to successfully evacuate prior to dangerous eruptions. There are often a series of earthquakes before an eruption, so the people have been able to be aware of the pending environmental hazard. It was mentioned, though, that residents who are further away from the eruption sites, shelter in place may be suitable and protect them from the lighter ashfalls.

Enhancing Infrastructure Resilience through Ash-Resistant Solutions

Executive Summary: Volcanic eruptions present significant challenges to infrastructure in Iceland, particularly through the deposition of volcanic ash which can damage buildings, roads, and essential services. Currently, there are no universally implemented volcanic building codes or performance guidelines that govern infrastructure design in areas prone to volcanic hazards, nor do they mandate vulnerability assessments or the development of fragility functions (Wilson et al., 2014). Additionally, the diverse range of infrastructure system designs, configurations, and components complicates the ability to apply generic vulnerability assessments across all sectors. To bolster infrastructure resilience, Iceland must adopt and enhance ash-resistant infrastructure strategies. This brief outlines the current state of ash-resistant infrastructure in Iceland, proposes improvements, and recommends policy adaptations to better protect against volcanic ash impacts.

Context or Scope of Problem: Volcanic ash can cause extensive damage to infrastructure, impacting buildings, transportation networks, and utilities. In Iceland, frequent volcanic activity makes it imperative to develop and maintain ash-resistant infrastructure to ensure that essential services remain functional and communities can recover quickly. The current strategies include using durable materials and regular maintenance, but there is room for improvement in integrating these practices into broader resilience planning.

Policy Recommendations: To enhance Iceland's infrastructure resilience against volcanic eruptions, a multifaceted approach is essential. First, updating building codes and standards is critical. This involves revising national codes to mandate the use of ash-resistant materials for new constructions and major renovations. Generally, flat roofs are at a higher risk of damage and collapse compared to roofs with steep pitches. Additionally, roofs constructed from smooth materials such as sheet metal or glass are more prone to shedding volcanic ash, whereas roofs made from rougher materials like thatch, asphalt, or wooden shingles are less likely to do so (USGS, n.d.). Building codes should specify the use of reinforced concrete, metal roofing, and high-quality asphalt shingles, which are known to withstand ash accumulation effectively. Additionally, developing comprehensive design guidelines for ash-resistant infrastructure, including recommendations for sloped roofs and advanced drainage systems, will help ensure that new buildings can handle ash impacts. To incentivize compliance, a certification program could be introduced, providing tax breaks or subsidies to property owners who upgrade their buildings to meet these enhanced standards. Engaging architects, engineers, and construction professionals in this process and ensuring local building authorities enforce the updated codes through regular inspections will be crucial.

Investing in ash-resistant infrastructure requires significant financial resources and strategic planning. The government should allocate dedicated funding for upgrading critical infrastructure, including public buildings, transportation networks, and utility systems. This includes retrofitting existing structures with ash-resistant features such as reinforced roofs and advanced filtration systems. The main danger from ashfall is the increased pressure they put on buildings from the sides. If this pressure exceeds the strength of the walls and roof, it can cause structural damage or even collapse. Windows and doors are particularly vulnerable because they can’t handle much pressure and are easily damaged by debris (Wilson et al., 2014). To support innovation, pilot projects should be initiated to test and demonstrate new technologies, such as self-cleaning coatings and automated ash management systems. Public-private partnerships can play a key role here, with private sector companies specializing in ash-resistant technologies contributing both expertise and investment. Establishing co-funding agreements and corporate sponsorships can further bolster these efforts, leveraging the private sector’s resources and commitment to resilience.

Developing comprehensive ash management plans is another crucial aspect of enhancing resilience. Standardized maintenance protocols should be established for regular ash removal and infrastructure upkeep, including detailed procedures for inspections and preventive measures to minimize damage. Currently, volcanic vulnerability and risk assessments are less developed than hazard assessments. Although research has expanded knowledge on volcanic impacts, damage mechanisms, and mitigation strategies, it has not yet led to robust quantitative models for land-use planning and infrastructure codes, except for residential buildings. Moreover, volcanic hazards are often overlooked in critical infrastructure planning, including site selection, design, and contingency planning (Wilson et al., 2014). These protocols should be integrated into broader emergency response plans, ensuring coordination among local authorities, maintenance crews, and emergency services. Forming specialized ash management teams trained in these protocols will enhance the effectiveness of response efforts. To support community readiness, public education campaigns should be launched to raise awareness about volcanic ash risks and the importance of ash-resistant infrastructure. Regular community drills should be organized to practice ash management and evacuation procedures, with educational materials provided to guide residents and businesses in protecting their properties.

Finally, enhancing data collection and analysis is essential for informed decision-making. Investing in advanced monitoring systems will enable real-time tracking of volcanic ash dispersion and accumulation, providing valuable data for infrastructure management. Integrating this data with geographic information systems (GIS) will create detailed maps of ash impacts, aiding in planning and response. Collaboration with academic institutions and research organizations will facilitate studies on volcanic ash behavior and its impact on infrastructure, informing resilience strategies and policies. Developing data-sharing platforms will ensure that relevant stakeholders, including government agencies and the public, have access to critical information for managing ash-related challenges.

In conclusion, to effectively enhance infrastructure resilience against volcanic eruptions, Iceland should focus on advancing ash-resistant infrastructure strategies. This involves updating building codes, investing in resilient materials, developing comprehensive ash management plans, and strengthening community preparedness. Vulnerability assessments are inadequate because there are no specific volcanic construction or design codes, nor are there performance guidelines that would encourage and enable thorough vulnerability evaluations (Wilson et al., 2014). By integrating these recommendations into national policies and practices, Iceland can improve its ability to withstand and recover from the impacts of volcanic ash, ensuring greater safety, stability, and faster recovery for its communities.

In Iceland, where volcanic activity is a frequent and impactful occurrence, news media play a crucial role in shaping public understanding and response to eruptions. The media's coverage influences how communities perceive risks, prepare for disasters, and recover from them. However, reporting on these complex events presents challenges, such as avoiding sensationalism and accurately conveying scientific information. Despite these difficulties, media coverage is essential for raising awareness, providing timely updates, fostering community support, and advocating for improved risk management policies. Understanding the dual impact of news media helps in navigating the delicate balance between informing the public and managing the risks associated with volcanic eruptions.

Recent volcanic activity in Iceland, particularly since the 2021 Fagradalsfjall eruption, suggests the Reykjanes Peninsula may be entering a period of increased volcanic unrest. This heightened activity challenges local communities with frequent tephra fallout that damages infrastructure, disrupts essential services, and poses health risks. Vulnerable populations, including those with lower incomes and the elderly, are disproportionately affected by these eruptions, exacerbating social and economic disparities. News media play a critical role in this context, offering essential updates and raising awareness but often face challenges like sensationalism and misinformation. Effective media coverage and robust infrastructure improvements, such as ash-resistant building codes and comprehensive ash management plans, are crucial for enhancing resilience and ensuring equitable support across affected communities.

Barsotti, S., Di Rienzo, D. I., Thordarson, T., Björnsson, B. B., & Karlsdóttir, S. (2018). Assessing impact to infrastructures due to Tephra fallout from Öræfajökull volcano (Iceland) by using a Scenario-Based approach and a numerical model. Frontiers in Earth Science, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00196

Gudmundsson, M., Hrafnsdóttir, H., Örvar Bjarnason, J., & Ragnheiður Árnadóttir, H. (2021, September). Volcanic hazards and risk management in Iceland. Consorseguros Digital.  https://www.consorsegurosdigital.com/en/numero-15/front-page/volcanic-hazards-and-risk-management-in-iceland 

Ómarsdóttir, I. L., Pétursdóttir, G., Bird, D. K., & Gísladóttir, G. (2022). Community resilience through the lens of social support: Recovering from the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption in Iceland. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 81, 103272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103272

USGS. (n.d.). Impacts & Mitigation - Design & Construction. Volcanic Ashfall Impacts Working Group. https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanic_ash/design_construction.html

Volcanic eruptions in Iceland. (n.d.). https://www.visiticeland.com/eruption/

Wei-Haas, M. (2024, February 20). Iceland’s Recent Volcanic Eruptions Are Unleashing Deep Secrets. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-are-beginning-to-unravel-the-secrets-of-icelands-recent-eruptions-180983818/

Wilson, G., Wilson, T., Deligne, N., & Cole, J. (2014). Volcanic hazard impacts to critical infrastructure: A review. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 286, 148–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2014.08.030