Case Study: Mount Merapi
Mount Merapi earthquake facts
- Name – Mount Merapi
- Location – Java, Indonesia
- Date – 25th October–30th November 2010
- Magnitude – VEI 4
- Plate boundary – Destructive plate boundary where the Indo-Australian plate is subducting below the Eurasian plate
- Type of volcano – Stratovolcano or composite
Location of Mount Merapi
Location of Mount Merapi
Impacts of the 2010 Eruption of Mount Merapi, Indonesia
|
Primary impacts |
Secondary impacts |
Social |
353 deaths Injuries and illness e.g. sulphur dioxide gas caused skin irritation and breathing problems Damage to over 19,000 homes and properties Displacement of 350,000 people |
Nearly half of the people affected by the eruption suffered mental health issues e.g. stress, anxiety, depression Disruption to services such as healthcare and education Disruption to religious and traditional practices |
Economic |
Economic losses of £450 million due mainly to impact on farming, tourism and manufacturing Destruction of property and infrastructure e.g. 30 bridges were damaged Disruption of trade and economic activity e.g. about 2500 flights cancelled |
Food prices increased due to destruction of crops and livestock Slower economic growth and development due to closure or relocation of businesses, decline in tourism, damage to crops etc. Tourism fell by 30% (domestic tourists) and 70% (international tourists) |
Environmental |
Destruction of biodiversity, habitats and ecosystems e.g. over 200 hectares of forest were damaged Poor air and water quality |
Acid rain damaged ecosystems Long-term pollution of land and rivers |
Political |
Pressure on government to co-ordinate emergency response Social unrest, looting and political instability |
Conflicts over government response and food shortages e.g. some residents claimed that the compensation scheme was inadequate and unfair |
Factors affecting vulnerability
- The number of deaths, injuries and displacement of population was high during and after the eruption
- People were vulnerable to the impacts of the hazard
- People refused to leave their homes, which made them more vulnerable to the impacts of the eruption
- The reasons people stayed included:
- Caring responsibilities for elderly parents
- Responsibilities for livestock
- Long-term residency and a subsequent unwillingness to leave
- Cultural beliefs
- Population density in the area has increased
- Local people don't always believe that scientific monitoring is accurate, relying instead on traditional warning signs
- Communication regarding the dangers of the eruption was slow and ineffective