ArticlePDF Available

Ecosystem approach for natural hazard mitigation of volcanic tephra in Iceland: building resilience and sustainability



Living in Iceland, a highly volcanically active island with a historical eruption frequency of 20–25 events per 100 years, involves risks from lava, pyroclastic flows, tephra-fall, and floods from glacier/snow-covered volcanoes. Volcanic eruptions can have detrimental effects on human health, societies, and ecosystems. Eruptions in 2010–2011 proved the value of pre-event planning for some natural hazards. An additional focus is needed on pre-disaster mitigation responses for the effects of tephra-fall on vegetation: As outlined under the UNISDR Hyogo/Sendai Framework for Action, healthy ecosystems and environmental management are key actions in disaster risk reduction (DRR). Iceland's most serious environmental problem is the degraded state of common rangeland in the highlands, where tephra-fall has been catastrophic. Tephra (airborne volcanic material) affects hydrology, air quality, and ecosystems by direct burial or post-eruptive transport, extending its influence far beyond the initial eruption area. Resilience to tephra-related disturbances depends on an ecosystem's overall health. Tall, vigorous vegetation has greater endurance; its initial survival is more likely, while sheltering minimizes secondary transport and hastens recovery. Areas that are sparsely vegetated and already stressed are more vulnerable; there, tephra remains unstable and can cause further damage. Reclaiming vulnerable land and building healthy ecosystems, as represented by the Hekluskógar project, improve the ability of these areas to endure tephra-fall, increasing their resilience and reducing the associated costs to society. Successful DRR for tephra-fall, through the revegetation of degraded land, will require effective governance, multi-sector coordination, and the alignment of policies on land use, agriculture, natural resource management, and climate change mitigation.
Ecosystem approach for natural hazard mitigation
of volcanic tephra in Iceland: building resilience
and sustainability
Anna Marı
Received: 19 June 2014 / Accepted: 6 May 2015
ÓThe Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at
Abstract Living in Iceland, a highly volcanically active island with a historical eruption
frequency of 20–25 events per 100 years, involves risks from lava, pyroclastic flows,
tephra-fall, and floods from glacier/snow-covered volcanoes. Volcanic eruptions can have
detrimental effects on human health, societies, and ecosystems. Eruptions in 2010–2011
proved the value of pre-event planning for some natural hazards. An additional focus is
needed on pre-disaster mitigation responses for the effects of tephra-fall on vegetation: As
outlined under the UNISDR Hyogo/Sendai Framework for Action, healthy ecosystems and
environmental management are key actions in disaster risk reduction (DRR). Iceland’s
most serious environmental problem is the degraded state of common rangeland in the
highlands, where tephra-fall has been catastrophic. Tephra (airborne volcanic material)
affects hydrology, air quality, and ecosystems by direct burial or post-eruptive transport,
extending its influence far beyond the initial eruption area. Resilience to tephra-related
disturbances depends on an ecosystem’s overall health. Tall, vigorous vegetation has
greater endurance; its initial survival is more likely, while sheltering minimizes secondary
transport and hastens recovery. Areas that are sparsely vegetated and already stressed are
more vulnerable; there, tephra remains unstable and can cause further damage. Reclaiming
vulnerable land and building healthy ecosystems, as represented by the Heklusko
project, improve the ability of these areas to endure tephra-fall, increasing their resilience
and reducing the associated costs to society. Successful DRR for tephra-fall, through the
revegetation of degraded land, will require effective governance, multi-sector coordination,
and the alignment of policies on land use, agriculture, natural resource management, and
climate change mitigation.
Keywords Disaster risk reduction Resilience Volcanic tephra Governance Policy
Sustainability analysis Threshold Volcanic ash Restoration ecology Recovery
Hazard Communities Wind erosion Air quality Human health Ash storm
&Anna Marı
Soil Conservation Service of Iceland, Gunnarsholt, 851 Hella, Iceland
Nat Hazards
DOI 10.1007/s11069-015-1795-6
Agriculture Ecosystem services Environmental degradation Ecosystem resilience for
mitigation of natural disasters Ecosystem restoration Hyogo framework of action
Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction Ecosystem stressors Mitigation
1 Introduction
Ecosystems in Iceland are at risk both from natural hazards and from unsustainable human
activities. In terms of natural hazards, Icelanders have, since 1967 (Act nr. 30/1967),
developed responses to volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, oceanic floods, snow avalanches,
weather, wildfires, and glacier outburst floods (jo
¨kulhlaups) (NCIP-DCPEM 2005a). Risk
management in Iceland is currently based on the ‘‘Hyogo Framework for Action, Building
the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters’’ of the UN International Strategy
for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) (2013); this framework incorporates assessment,
prevention, mitigation, monitoring, early warning, and preparedness. In 2005, the Civil
Protection and Emergency Management team of the Icelandic National Commissioner of
Police completed hazard assessment, risk analysis, and response plans regarding volcanic
eruptions and associated glacier outburst floods in South Iceland (NCIP-DCPEM 2005b);
these plans were followed, in 2006, by a public awareness campaign incorporating
evacuation drills for all the inhabitants of potentially threatened areas. During the next
eruption (Eyjafjallajo
¨kull 2010), the response plan was successful, with respect to
evacuations and all other planned mitigation measures. However, responses to the dispersal
of volcanic ash, or of tephra in general, had not been included in the plan, and Iceland,
along with all of Europe, was unprepared for the resulting extensive closure of airspace and
the associated global economic effects. The local, regional, and global effects of tephra,
defined as airborne volcanic material of any size, proved to be an important aspect of
volcanic hazards left out of the otherwise successful pre-event risk management plan.
During a disaster, attention is understandably focused on direct impacts, relief, and
recovery operations. Major events like the 2010 eruption of Eyjafjallajo
¨kull, however, can
potentially act as thresholds, changing dominant ways of thinking and acting by placing
tradition—in this case, traditional land-use patterns—under critical review (Birkmann et al.
2008). In Iceland, the 2010 tephra-fall event may create a paradigm shift toward embracing
concepts of sustainability. By exploring the consequences of decisions that affect human
and ecosystem integrity (Sidle et al. 2013), the potential for an ecosystem role in disaster
risk reduction (DRR) for tephra-fall is revealed.
While ecosystem management is not a new concept, research is needed to maximize its
benefits for DRR and to ease its uptake by communities, disaster management practi-
tioners, policy makers, and decision makers (PEDRR 2010). Ecosystem-based DRR has
been suggested for various hazards, such as landslides, flooding, avalanches, storm surges,
wildfires, drought, and climate change (ProAct Network 2008; Sudmeier-Rieux and Ash
2009; World Bank 2010). With regard to volcanic eruptions, however, DRR measures have
focused primarily on direct impacts, such as land-use planning in at-risk areas or effective
emergency plans for the evacuation of people (EEA 2010). To reduce the indirect impacts,
for example, on ecosystems, human health, or global temperature, requires measures at a
supranational level. This is a more challenging issue because, as yet, there have been no
quantitative evaluations of these indirect effects (EEA 2010). There exists a knowledge gap
regarding ecosystem-based approaches of DRR for volcanic hazards. This article helps
Nat Hazards
close that gap by presenting for the first time a unique approach to reducing the effects of
remobilized tephra, increasing the initial survival of vegetation, and improving both social
and ecosystem resilience to future tephra-fall events.
2 Natural systems, disruptions, and resilience
Change is a constant of natural systems. Abrupt events, such as earthquakes, severe
weather, or volcanic eruptions, whether singular or repeated, often cause the largest
damage to a natural system, as there is limited time for the system to adapt. Disruptions
often last longer than the original event itself, initiating chain reactions that lead to further
damage. This fact is well known from Iceland’s eruptive history, as secondary effects have
led to changes in climate, crop failure, and famine, either locally or on a larger scale; it is
also known from global climate history, as abrupt events have led to the socioeconomic
collapse of societies (Alley 2000; Hodell et al. 1995; Steingrı
´msson 1998; Thordarson and
Self 2003).
A natural hazard is defined by the United Nations (UNISDR 2009) as a ‘‘Natural
process or phenomenon that may cause loss of life, injury, or other health impacts, property
damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental
damage.’’ A disaster is a serious disruption in the functioning of a community or a society,
causing widespread human, economic, or environmental losses that exceed the ability of
the affected community or society to cope using its own resources (UNISDR 2009).
Disaster risk reduction is important to lessen these effects through reduced exposure,
lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the envi-
ronment, and improved preparedness for adverse events (Birkmann et al. 2013; UNISDR
The effects of a natural hazard depend not only on its magnitude, but also on the
society’s vulnerability, its culture, and its state before each event (Birkmann et al. 2013).
The society’s dependence upon land use in the affected areas, the distribution of the
population, governance, risk perception, prior experience, and even luck can all play a role.
The key to having a resilient society is the ability to absorb shocks, bounce back, learn, and
adapt. Resilience has been defined by the UNISDR (2009) as: ‘‘The ability of a system,
community, or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to, and recover
from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the
preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions.’
Mitigation of natural hazards is vital to meet the long-term aims and multiple objectives
of sustainability, i.e., safeguarding the environment as well as human living conditions,
while meeting the needs of both current and future generations (El-Masri and Tipple 2002).
Ecosystems contribute to reducing the risk of natural hazards in multiple ways. The extent
of buffering depends on the ecosystem’s health and on the intensity of the event (Bignami
et al. 2012; Boyd et al. 2005; Dugmore et al. 2007). Ecosystems sustain human livelihoods
and contribute to the ability of communities to withstand and recover from disasters
(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Ecosystem health is thus closely linked to the
idea of sustainability, which implies the ability of the system to maintain its structure
(organization) and function (vigor) over time in the face of external stress (resilience)
(Costanza 1992,2012). The term ‘‘sustainable ecosystem’’ implies also that resource use,
or the demand for ecosystem services, does not exceed the supply for both present and
future generations (Sudmeier-Rieux and Ash 2009). The state of ecosystems and their land-
Nat Hazards
Nat Hazards
use history contribute to their resilience to tephra-fall disturbances, as the following ex-
amples from Mexico and Iceland show. The Paricutin eruption in Mexico in 1943–1953
demonstrates the effects of prior land use: In areas affected by tephra-fall, successional
progress still differs according to the pre-eruptive ecosystem state 50 years after the
eruption ceased. In areas with prior intense land use, such as bare agricultural fields and
other barren areas, plant cover remains low (\10 %) and succession proceeds at a slower
pace than in areas that were covered by forests at the time of the eruption (Lindig-Cisneros
et al. 2006). An example of the effect of post-eruptive land use comes from Iceland
(Dugmore et al. 2007): After the tephra-fall from an eruption of Hekla in 1104 AD, the
recovery of vegetation was reduced due to continued grazing pressure, thus limiting the
natural succession of the degraded ecosystem. This geomorphic instability persisted in
some areas until 1300 AD. However, after the deposition of new tephra from an eruption of
Hekla in 1300 AD, a change in the human impact on the area (perhaps the complete
removal of grazing pressure) allowed the landscape to stabilize.
3 Volcanic activity in Iceland
Volcanism is prevalent in Iceland due to the island’s location on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
Active volcanic regions cover 30 % of the island, with a historical (the last 1100 years)
eruption frequency of 20–25 events per 100 years, or 1 every 5 years, on average (Thor-
darson and Larsen 2007). Risk of tephra-fall in Iceland is therefore considerable, as 78 %
of all historical eruptions were explosive, with tephra making up [95 % of the eruptive
material (Thordarson and Larsen 2007).
Large eruptions cause widespread dispersal of tephra: Icelandic tephra is found in the N
Atlantic Ocean, in the Norwegian Sea, and in Europe (Haflidason et al. 2000). NW
European lake and peat sediments of the past 1000 years show that tephra from Iceland
reached N Europe with a mean return interval of 56 ±9 years, suggesting that, for any
10-year period in the last millennium, there is a 16 % probability of a tephra event leaving
detectable deposits in N Europe (Swindles et al. 2011). The probability in Iceland is much
higher, as the effects of smaller eruptions are more localized.
Explosive eruptions are more common than effusive ones, and the frequency of ex-
plosive silicic eruptions in Iceland is high, or 1 every 200–300 years. Eruptions that emit
1–10 km
of tephra occur on average once every 1000 years, and larger events ([10 km
tephra) occur roughly once in 100,000 years (Thordarson and Larsen 2007). In terms of the
Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI), there is one VEI 5 event every 100–200 years and one
VEI 6 event every 500–1000 years (Gudmundsson et al. 2008). These large events are
likely to deposit tephra over most of Iceland, with the greatest damage to vegetation
expected within the 20-cm isopach or 70–80 km from the volcano; severe damage could
also occur at tephra thicknesses of less than 20 cm. The probability of a tephra-fall event
with a thickness of [20 cm has been estimated as being highest in S Iceland, in the areas
bFig. 1 Potential mitigation in S and SE Iceland in areas most likely to experience tephra events, based on
location of most active volcanoes, frequency of tephra layers in soil (Larsen and Gı
´slason 2013), and
prevailing wind patterns (Jo
´nsson 1990,2010). Circles indicate frequency of tephra layers in soil (Larsen
and Gı
´slason 2013); aland elevation, main roads, and structures (Map Viewer 2013), bsoil erosion (Arnalds
et al. 2001), cvegetation (Agricultural University of Iceland 2013)
Nat Hazards
near Vı
´rdal (1/50), Landeyjar (1/200), Vestmannaeyjar (1/250), and Hornafjo
¨rður (1/
1000) (Viðlagatrygging I
´slands 2011).
The most active volcanic centers in Iceland are Grı
¨tn, Hekla, and Katla (Fig. 1).
¨tn leads with 70 historical eruptions; the tephra volume per event is 0.01 to
[0.5 km
(Thordarson and Larsen 2007). The 1783–1784 Laki (or Laki-Grı
eruption caused significant environmental and climatic effects, when 14.7 km
of lava
covered 565 km
of land and 0.4 km
of tephra covered 7,200 km
within the 0.5 cm
isopach; fine ash affected the entire island, over 100,000 km
(Thordarson and Self 1993,
2003). Sulfur release (120 Tg of SO
) to the atmosphere caused vegetation damage across
Iceland and the death of 60 % of the grazing livestock, mainly due to chronic fluorosis.
Widespread famine caused the death of 25 % of the Icelandic population within 2 years
(Snævar 1993; Steingrı
´msson 1998; Thordarson and Self 1993). Laki was a catastrophic
disruption, especially for an isolated peripheral region, as Iceland was at the time. Similar,
but less severe, impacts of this eruption were observed elsewhere in the N hemisphere
(Thordarson and Self 2003). Eruptions such as Laki are low-probability, high-impact
events. If such an event were to occur today, it would constitute a major European health
hazard and likely cause an excess mortality in Europe of 29,000 in the first year and
142,000 due to long-term exposure to particles smaller than 2.5 lm in diameter (Schmidt
et al. 2011).
The volcano Hekla historically produced 1–2 eruptions per century until 1947 (Tho-
rarinsson 1967), with tephra volumes of 0.01–2 km
per event (Thordarson and Larsen
2007). The largest historical event, in 1104 AD, caused complete destruction within 70 km;
tephra blanketed half the country, with 55,000 km
within the 0.2-cm isopach (Gud-
mundsson et al. 2008; Thorarinsson 1979).
The historical eruption frequency of the third most active volcano in Iceland, Katla, has
been 1–3 per century, with tephra volumes of *0.01 to [1km
per event; all these
eruptions have been associated with major glacial outburst floods (Thorarinsson 1975). The
total volume of erupted magma is 25 km
, making Katla (until the eruption of Ba
¨tn in 2014–2015) the most productive system in historical time (Larsen
2000; Thordarson and Larsen 2007). The largest event associated with Katla was the
´eruption of 934 AD, producing a minimum of 4 km
of basaltic tephra (Larsen
Other examples of large explosive eruptions include the 1875 event in Askja (SE
Iceland), which caused abandonment of farms within 60–70 km distance when 1.83 km
tephra erupted in 17 h (Carey et al. 2010; Thorarinsson 1944). The VEI 6-level eruption of
¨kull in 1362, the largest plinian event of the last millennium, deposited 10 km
tephra, causing long-term devastation of large areas in SE Iceland (Thorarinsson 1958).
Changes in volcanic activity are expected in the near future. Volcanism in Iceland has a
marked periodicity; this, combined with climatic change and the correspondingly reduced
surface pressure from melting glaciers, suggests that the cyclic behavior of volcanic ac-
tivity is about to enter its next active phase (Larsen et al. 1998; Sigmundsson et al. 2010).
There is an increased probability of activity in the E Iceland volcanic zone, where 80 % of
all historical eruptions have occurred and the four most active volcanoes are located
(Thordarson and Larsen 2007). An eruption can be expected every 2–7 years at Grı
with parallel activity in nearby Ba
´rðarbunga (Larsen et al. 1998;O
´ttir et al. 2011).
Geophysical monitoring suggests the entry of magma beneath Hekla and the W Vat-
¨kull area in recent years, while for the last few decades an impending Katla eruption
has been expected (IMO 2011). In 2006, the probability of a Katla eruption was estimated
to be 20 % within the next 10 years (Eliasson et al. 2006). The latest event is the
Nat Hazards
2014–2015 non-explosive fissure eruption from the Ba
´rðarbunga system (Gudmundsson
et al. 2014; Sigmundsson et al. 2015). The largest effusive eruption in Iceland since the
Laki eruption in 1783–1784 AD, it produced more than 1 km
of lava, covering 85 km
area north of Vatnajo
¨kull, and released up to 11.2 Mt SO
into the atmosphere (IMO
4 Effects of volcanic tephra
Volcanic eruptions cause a wide range of hazards, of which tephra is by far the most
widespread. Distal impacts over large regions occur due to exposure to tephra, gases,
aerosols, and volcanically modified precipitation, and the additional impacts on climate
and weather (Lacasse 2001; Self 2006). The scale of influence on the environment and
human society can be varied and complicated, due to the nature of the hazard dispersal; the
effects are always local, but they can also be regional or even global.
Large explosive eruptions in Iceland have induced significant and long-lasting local
impacts, e.g., as shown by the multi-decadal or multi-centennial response of biological
proxies after tephra damages the vegetation cover, causing increased soil erosion, in-
creased sedimentation rates, and pronounced landscape destabilization (Larsen et al. 2011,
2012). Tephra-fall can damage vegetation, soil life, and overall ecosystem function. The
most drastic tephra events leave behind a barren surface of sterile substrates that require
decades or even centuries of natural primary succession to restore (Fridriksson 1981;
Thorarinsson 1979).
Tephra can damage vegetation by direct burial, heat, or breakage. Volatiles can adhere
to tephra particles and, through dry or wet deposition, can cause lesions, defoliation, or
plant death, as seen in the Laki eruption of 1783–1784 (Steingrı
´msson 1998). Stresses to
ecosystems caused by tephra include the inhibition of photosynthesis, changes in the water
budget (drought, surface flow, or waterlogging), and changes to predation and disease
vulnerability; these may all result in structural changes in the plant community (Antos and
Zobel 1985; Cook et al. 1981; Zobel and Antos 1987). Post-eruptive transport of tephra (by
water or wind) can be severe (Arnalds et al. 2013), leading to further damage or burial in
new areas. Wind erosion with tephra-laden air causes abrasion and desiccation and un-
covers plant roots, as well as reducing the soil depth (Hagen and Casada 2013). Tephra in
an open landscape can be blown back and forth, becoming a source of dust storms for
Volcanic eruptions can have a wide range of impacts on human health; arguably, these
impacts are more varied than for any other kind of natural hazard (Hansell et al. 2006;
Horwell and Baxter 2006). Tephra-fall modifies hydrology and lowers air quality, affecting
human health both directly, through inhalation or the abrasion of skin and eyes, and
indirectly through impacts on terrestrial and aquatic environments (Carlsen et al. 2012;
Gudmundsson 2011; Thorsteinsson et al. 2012). Resuspended tephra particles prolong
these health hazards. Aerosolization experiments on tephra, using the recent Eyjafjal-
¨kull (2010) and Grı
¨tn (2011) eruptions, show the ease of re-dispersal to the air;
resuspension also caused a substantial increase in the concentration of respirable airborne
ash particles, increasing the potential health hazard (La
¨hde et al. 2013).
Post-eruptive processes extend the area of influence of a volcanic eruption some dis-
tance from the initial deposition area and can last for years. In 2013, 2–3 years after the
two 2010–2011 eruptions, resuspension of tephra by wind caused repeated episodes of poor
Nat Hazards
air quality, with concentrations up to 1000–6000 lg/m
in Fljo
´tshverfi, S Iceland
(50–90 km away from the eruption sites) and up to 100–1100 lg/m
in Reykjavı
(140–220 km away), which are well above the recommended limit of 50 lg/m
2013). Post-eruptive resuspension of tephra has limited the quality of life in Iceland, as
reported in the media as late as 2013, by causing reduced visibility, ground transportation
hazards, property damage (such as sandblasted vehicles), and road closures. Similar effects
were seen in Chile after the Mt. Hudson eruption of 1991, where remobilization of ash by
wind was observed for at least 10 years after the eruption, causing significant problems in
some areas and greatly hindering the re-establishment of agriculture (Bitschene 1995).
Tephra-fall is the only volcanic process that shows a damage gradient. In contrast to
lava flows and pyroclastic flows, which cause the total devastation of the affected arable
land and vegetation (Bignami et al. 2012), the severity of tephra-fall on agriculture gen-
erally increases progressively with tephra thickness, although its effects are linked to those
due to social resilience and economic and political factors. In Iceland, tephra-fall has often
caused farms to be abandoned. In the lowlands, a tephra thickness of 8–10 cm has led to
farm abandonment for a year or less and 15 cm to abandonment for 1–5 years, while
30–50 cm of tephra has caused farms to be abandoned for a minimum of decades. In the
highlands, a 20-cm-thick tephra-fall caused permanent abandonment (A
´ttir 2013;
Thorarinsson 1979). Similar effects on society have been observed in other countries, the
key determinant of the re-occupation of farms being recovery of the vegetation (Wilson
et al. 2010). Damage to agricultural land or water resources can also have significant
impacts on the society’s long-term economic growth (Mitchell et al. 2013).
5 Costs of natural hazards
The costs to society of even a moderate volcanic eruption can be substantial, as shown by
the two Icelandic eruptions of 2010–2011. Both were moderate size events, with VEI
indices of 3–4 (Gudmundsson et al. 2012). The prolonged 2010 Eyjafjallajo
¨kull eruption
(lasting 39 days), combined with persistent NW winds, dispersed low concentrations of
fine ash over a large part of Europe. This ash caused an unprecedented, large disruption to
air traffic, with the cancelation of 108,000 flights, interrupting the travel of 10.5 million
passengers and costing the airline industry in excess of $1.7 billion in lost revenue
(Eurocontrol 2010). Although there was hardly any direct damage from this eruption, it
revealed the vulnerability of modern society’s interconnected economies. The conse-
quences of interruptions in supplies of goods to industrial firms worldwide meant that
gradually more and more economic sectors were affected by the volcano, in addition to
other subsequent negative effects on the global economy.
Comparing this eruption to that, a year later, of Grı
¨tn, we can see how the cir-
cumstances at the time of an eruption can affect the amount of global economic damage. In
2011, Grı
¨tn (at least VEI 4) produced more European tephra fallout in the first 24 h
than occurred during the entire 2010 Eyjafjallajo
¨kull eruption, with the bulk volume of
tephra 2–3 times greater (Gudmundsson et al. 2012). However, the short duration of the
eruption and the absence of strong upper atmospheric winds prevented the dispersal of
tephra at the scale observed in 2010 (Marzano et al. 2013); thus, the larger eruption had a
lesser effect on global society.
In Iceland, the costs to society of natural hazards are generally high regardless of the
circumstances. The effects of tephra-fall, being immediate, long-term, and widespread,
Nat Hazards
lead to persistent costs for years afterward. The economic cost of recovery constitutes a
major burden on Icelandic society. Tephra-fall and the repeated floods due to the
2010–2011 events led to damages in transportation, agriculture, and tourism. Costs to the
Icelandic government for urgent tasks in the affected areas were 11.3 million USD in May
2012 (Prime Minister’s Office 2011). Additional costs were covered by the annual budget
provisions of various government institutes. Damage to insured property, by the end of
2011, was 3.43 million USD (Viðlagatrygging I
´slands 2011). Damage to uninsured
property, such as machinery, fields, drainage systems, home power stations, emergency
responses, and cleanup, has not been accounted for. Various other indirect and secondary
losses, such as social or environmental issues (including damage to ecosystems) and loss of
production are unquantifiable in monetary value.
A 2011 European study showed that if DRR initiatives can reduce the cost of damages
by less than 1 %, then from an economic standpoint such DRR actions can be justified
using cost–benefit analyses (European Commission 2011). Cost–benefit analyses are,
however, only a decision-making tool. It is rare that all costs and all benefits are assessed
and included in a quantitative assessment, while the assessment of risk, the study found, is
politicized in all DRR decisions (European Commission 2011). Investing in ecological
restoration should be considered, instead, as a high-yielding investment (De Groot et al.
2013). Studies have shown that healthy and resilient ecosystems contribute to climate
change adaptation, as well as to disaster risk reduction (CBD 2009; Doswald et al. 2014;
Munang et al. 2013; Renaud et al. 2013; World Bank 2010). Investing in preventive
measures, including maintaining healthy ecosystems, can be more cost-effective than
simply bearing the costs incurred by natural hazards (through inaction) or paying the costs
(including construction and maintenance) of engineered solutions to DRR (Jones et al.
2012; PEDRR 2010; UNISDR 2011; World Bank 2010).
6 Vulnerability of Icelandic ecosystems
Iceland’s climate is humid and cool-to-temperate. Iceland is near the boundary between the
midlatitude westerlies and the polar easterlies; cyclones pass frequently, and shifts between
frost and thaw are common. The mean annual range of precipitation is 400–2000 mm. The
mean annual range of temperature is 2–6 °C, with the mean July range being 6–10 °C
(Einarsson 1976). Cool summers considerably limit the yield and growing potential for a
range of plants. The growing season is short, i.e., days above 4 °C range from 89 to
144 day/year (Fridriksson and Sigurðsson 1983). Natural succession is slow, and
revegetation (with minimal human input) generally requires a long recovery time (decades)
to turn degraded land into healthy ecosystems.
Iceland’s most serious environmental problem is the degraded state of common
rangeland in the highlands. Andosols, the main soil type in Iceland, are characterized by a
general lack of cohesion (Arnalds 2004) and are vulnerable to degradation and erosion if
the vegetation cover is weakened. At the time of settlement, c. 871 AD, 60 % of Iceland
was vegetated and some 25–40 % covered by forest (Arnalds 1987). The current state of
Icelandic ecosystems is often far from the expected climax vegetation for the climate.
Birch woodland is the natural climax vegetation in Iceland, and lowland areas up to about
300 m.a.s.l. are within the subalpine vegetation zone. Above this limit, and in the outer-
most coastal districts in the northwest, north, and northeast, arctic-alpine vegetation
dominates (Hallsdo
´ttir and Caseldine 2005). At present, after 1100 years of added stress
Nat Hazards
from unsustainable land use, about 95 % of the forest has been lost; only 27 % of the
country remains vegetated, and natural forests cover *1.2 % of the total area (Arnalds
1987; Gunnarsson et al. 2005). Surveys show that 40 % of the country is ‘‘considerably,’
‘severely,’’ or ‘‘extremely’’ eroded (Arnalds et al. 2001).
7 Disaster risk reduction and natural hazards
The risk of volcanic eruptions cannot be avoided in Iceland, as the area of possible impact
for the largest events covers the whole island. The Icelanders’ only option is to live with
the risk and to aim to minimize it through DRR action, lessening the cost society has to
bear (A
´ttir 2013; Kelman and Mather 2008). The value of a DRR effort is threefold:
in disaster preparedness, quicker recovery, and cost reduction.
By building up healthy ecosystems, DRR increases the resilience of both society and
ecosystems to future volcanic events, improving their ability to survive tephra-fall and/or
minimizing the disruption (A
´ttir 2013). An ecosystem’s resilience to the deposition
of tephra depends on several factors: the depth of burial, the species’ capability to re-
generate when buried, the diversity of responses, seasonality, water availability, and the
toxicity of the tephra. Vigorous ecosystems generally have greater endurance and shorter
recovery times. Already stressed ecosystems are more vulnerable to the additional stress of
tephra-fall. Research on stability domains indicates that efforts to reduce the risk of un-
wanted state shifts due to disturbances should address the gradual changes that affect
resilience, rather than merely controlling the fluctuations caused by the disturbance (Folke
et al. 2004; Scheffer et al. 2001). Stability domains, for ecosystems, typically depend on
slowly changing processes that affect land use, nutrient stocks, soil properties, and the
biomass of long-lived organisms (Scheffer et al. 2001). However, once degraded,
ecosystems need human input to reverse these processes and to cross thresholds of energy,
nutrients, and the availability of seeds, before it is possible to transition to a more pro-
ductive state. Such actions have more than a century-long history in Iceland. The methods
traditionally used for revegetation in Iceland, i.e., fertilization and/or seeding and planting,
are also applicable to emergency revegetation after tephra-fall. DRR strategies that im-
prove the overall health of ecosystems, on the other hand, would be preventive, and the
experience gained could aid in planning post-eruptive recovery.
Vegetation is one of the main factors affecting dust emission and dust storm frequency
(Engelstaedter et al. 2003; Shinoda et al. 2011; Tegen et al. 2002). Taller vegetation has
higher surface roughness, resulting in less dust emission. When visibility data were used to
develop a global map of annual dust storm frequency (Engelstaedter et al. 2003), a
comparison with vegetation cover revealed an inverse correlation with the leaf area index
(an index of vegetation density) and net primary productivity; the highest storm frequency
was found in desert/bare ground environments, while a magnitude lower storm frequency
occurred in areas with dense vegetation cover. This underscores the importance of
vegetation in dust retention.
Vegetation acts as a bioshield reducing wind erosion (Aubault et al. 2015; Breshears
et al. 2009; Webb and Strong 2011). The standing biomass modifies the near surface wind
profile and alters soil and atmospheric characteristics (soil structure, surface stability, and
air moisture). Vegetation controls wind erosion through various processes: (1) by shel-
tering the ground surface from erosive forces, reducing the friction velocity under the
biomass to lower levels at the soil surface, creating wakes of reduced mean wind velocity,
Nat Hazards
and covering a portion of the ground, thereby limiting the erodible area; (2) through
momentum extraction from the wind, by absorbing a part of the total shear stress of the
wind and thereby decreasing the shear stress acting on the ground and on the downstream
plants; and (3) by trapping and intercepting windborne particles to further reduce their
transport capacity (Hagen and Casada 2013; Shao 2000; Wolfe and Nickling 1993).
Stronger winds are required to initiate erosion in vegetated areas. The threshold velocities
required to initiate the saltation effect of wind erosion generally increase with both leaf
area index and canopy height (Hagen and Casada 2013). Standing biomass reduces the
surface loss from abrasion by the saltating sand grains an average of 35 % (Hagen and
Casada 2013).
Land cover in Iceland is characterized by seminatural surfaces (95.2 %), while agri-
culture areas cover only 2.4 %, according to the Corine land classification system (Na-
tional Land Survey of Iceland 2009). Plowing to remove tephra is only possible on a very
limited part of these agricultural areas. Removal of tephra and recovery of an ecosystem
thus depend mainly on natural processes. Recovery via extant vegetation and re-
colonization will likely play a role in the post-eruptive natural revegetation and succession
processes. Efficient post-event buildup of ecosystems depends on natural regeneration
ability of the site, through species, microsite, and successional patterns (Titus and
Tsuyuzaki 2003). Tephra-induced changes exert strong selective pressures, by filtering
intolerant species out of the community (Maun 2004). A species’ response to disturbance is
typically classified into three processes: tolerance, avoidance, and regeneration (Burylo
et al. 2012; Lavorel and Garnier 2002). Tolerance to tephra-fall is very dependent on the
vegetation’s height, as partial burial is easier to withstand than complete burial (Burylo
et al. 2012). Experience from volcanoes in Japan shows that a species’ survival following
an eruption occurs either via a seed bank or through vegetative recovery, provided that
disturbance gradients such as the thickness of the tephra-fall and/or the ground surface
stability do not exceed the species’ tolerance (Tsuyuzaki 2009; Tsuyuzaki and Hase 2005).
Post-eruptive erosion can also be beneficial if buried plants are uncovered in time to aid in
the recovery.
Healthy ecosystems bounce back more quickly after tephra-fall. Surface stabilization is
achieved, as the tephra is removed into the soil more quickly via root action and by adding
new organic material onto the surface. Surviving vegetation provides a local source of
seeds, while the shelter provided by vegetation both living and dead reduces secondary
transport. In areas with little or no vegetation, on the other hand, the fallen tephra is
unstable and easily moved repeatedly by erosion, causing further abrasive damage. This
effect was clearly observed in S Iceland after the recent eruptions. Research on the Hekla
eruption of 1104 AD indicates a rapid surface stabilization of areas with deep vegetation
cover, due to the vegetation subsequently growing through 35 cm of tephra. Other areas,
by contrast, were affected by erosion cutting into the underlying sediments and experi-
enced prolonged phases of instability, with discrete episodes of surface transport; such
processes continued until 1300 AD (Dugmore et al. 2007). History thus suggests that DRR
actions to produce healthy ecosystems can lessen post-eruptive tephra transport, producing
fewer incidents of low air quality, less disruption, and reduced cleanup, resulting in less
cost to society and better human and ecosystem health.
The degraded common rangelands in the highlands of Iceland are especially vulnerable
to tephra-fall events. Eroded surfaces like these, which are barren or have a partial
vegetation cover of sparse and low-growing plants, are easily disrupted. The resilience of
this rangeland to catastrophic events can be drastically improved by reclamation efforts, as
well as by reducing the grazing intensity. Diminished dependence on land use in certain
Nat Hazards
high-risk areas would lower the country-wide risk of societal disturbance by tephra-fall
events. Improved overall ecosystem status could also provide future options for changed
post-eruptive land use, initiated as emergency short-term solutions or as a permanent land-
use change. Risk reduction actions have additional positive spin-offs, including decreased
erosion, increased soil fertility and water-holding capacity, and preservation or enhance-
ment of carbon stocks, biodiversity, and wildlife habitat, providing health and recreational
8 Effective governance and policies
Land-use practices affect ecological processes in several vital ways, causing changes to the
composition, structure, and function of ecosystems. Environmental laws and agricultural
incentives both influence land use, but policy changes or new incentives are often needed
to implement management practices aiming for long-term environmental goals. Effective
governance of DRR requires an alignment of policies, including those pertaining to
agriculture, land-use planning/zoning, natural resource management, climate change
mitigation through revegetation, and restoration of native forests. Coherent legislation,
cross-sector integration, and effective knowledge sharing are all needed to make ecosys-
tem-based DRR approaches successful and to maximize their potential benefits. In Iceland,
the following policies need to be taken into consideration when designing DRR approaches
to tephra-fall.
8.1 Agricultural policies
Agricultural areas in Iceland are mainly in the lowlands, below 200 m.a.s.l., and cover
\1.2 % of the country’s total land area, whereas potentially they could cover an estimated
\6 % (Snæbjo
¨rnsson et al. 2010). Traditional agriculture is based on rangeland grazing
and on haymaking for indoor feeding during winter.
Agricultural subsidies have put pressure on Iceland’s ecosystems. From the 1950s to the
early 1980s, subsidies rewarded production, leading to an increased number of sheep until
production limitation quotas were set in 1978 and revised in 1985. Positive changes were
brought about through the work of the Soil Conservation Service of Iceland, which has
battled land degradation since 1907 (Olgeirsson 2007). In recent decades, two voluntary
land restoration incentive programs, ‘‘The Farmers Heal the Land’’ (since 1990) and ‘‘The
Land Improvement Fund’’ (since 2003), have led to farmland improvement, moving the
initiative and responsibility from the state to the local authorities and land users. A policy
change in 2000 encouraged sustainability, as the Icelandic government signed a contract
with sheep farmers on partial cross-compliance agricultural support. Participation is vol-
untary; farmers meeting the land-use quality criteria get up to 22.5 % more in subsidies.
Under this program, grazing should be sustainable on land in acceptable condition.
However, from an environmental perspective, the criteria are not stringent enough, and
continued land use is allowed if improvement plans are made. Furthermore, the definition
of ‘‘sustainable land use’’ is not scientific, but instead based on criteria agreed upon
between the sheep farmers and the government. Sanctions against overexploitation are
limited. Laws to control grazing on degraded land exist in theory (for example, Act.
6/1986, 17/1964), but in practice any attempts to enforce them have not led to real grazing
Nat Hazards
A global comparison of case studies suggests that, in seven out of eight cases, the
economic consequences of land degradation are much higher than the costs of related
inaction, even when the costs of degradation are defined only in terms of decreased crop
yields (Nkonya et al. 2011). Reasons for failing to take action against land degradation are
often based on policy (Braun et al. 2012). Improved land health and the improved economy
of rural areas could be obtained if agricultural policies had less emphasis on production and
more of a focus on environmental values. This finding is in line with a recent synthesis by
OECD (2010) on the linkage of agriculture policy and rural development, suggesting that,
faced with heterogeneity in rural areas, the continued shift from a sectoral emphasis toward
place-based policies is likely to lead to increasingly effective policies.
8.2 Land-use planning and wilderness protection in the central highlands
Iceland’s interior highlands are uninhabited, yet they are influenced by land-use planning
and socioeconomic pressures. They are important as common grazing areas for lowland
sheep-farming communities. Each municipality manages its adjacent areas, which extend
toward the center of the country. Legislation passed in 1998 (Act. 58/1998) to clarify the
ownership of the highlands provided a legal basis for the Icelandic state to own both the
land and the land rights that are not subject to private ownership. This act led to an ongoing
legal procedure disputing private and governmental claims. Stakeholders are diverse, with
conflicting economic interests. Farmers, landowners, municipalities, power companies,
various types of tourism, recreational users, and nature conservationists all have divergent
visions of nature and land use. New legislation on planning (Act 123 of 2010) is intended
to provide a coordination platform for sectoral plans regarding these central highlands.
Land-use intensification generally leads to reduction in both response diversity and
functional redundancy, thereby reducing an ecosystem’s resilience to future disturbances
(Laliberte et al. 2010). Successful resource management should aid in ecosystem buildup,
not add to the chronic stress that makes the effects of the disturbances permanent (Mori
et al. 2013).
8.3 Rural policies
Rural development often involves areas with declining income, declining employment, and
a falling population; it is concerned with stimulating economic growth, creating new
sources of income, and preventing the further decline of rural populations (OECD 2009).
Iceland is no exception: More than half of the population lives in the city of Reykjavı
after persistent urbanization and depopulation of rural areas during the last century. About
7 % of the nation lives in areas with small local population clusters, where diverse em-
ployment and services cannot be maintained (Bjarnason 2010). Remote marginal lands
face the possibility of being withdrawn from production; they experience high transport
costs and are only marginally profitable. They are also more likely to be linked with
adverse environmental effects, such as erosion due to mismanagement. Agriculture and
rural development in these sites could benefit from a diversification of policies.
8.4 Climate change mitigation through revegetation
Increasing carbon sequestration in the soil and in vegetation through reclamation of de-
graded or desertified land is an important part of Iceland’s climate change actions for the
Nat Hazards
UNFCCC (Art. 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol). In Iceland, revegetation on 83.21 kha removed
167 Gg CO
eq. (Net—Net accounting) in 2010, compared to 1990 (Environment Agency
of Iceland 2012). Revegetation is also a part of ten major tasks of an Icelandic govern-
mental action plan from 2010 to curb greenhouse gas emissions. This strategy aims for a
50–75 % overall reduction by 2050, compared to 1990, yet the trend from 1990 to 2010
suggests a 30 % increase in these emissions (Environment Agency of Iceland 2012). The
effectiveness of this policy goes hand in hand with the funding provided: Since 2003, funds
to the Soil Conservation Service of Iceland have decreased by 30 %. To reach the emission
reduction target, more effort should be put into the removal of carbon through revegetation.
Early action accumulates more carbon with more climate benefits.
9 Reclaiming vulnerable land and building healthy ecosystems
National strategies for the restoration of native Icelandic woodlands, set forth in 2007, aim
to increase forest cover to 10 % of the island in the future (Ministry for the Environment
2007). Various projects contribute to this effort, such as revegetation by the Soil Con-
servation Service of Iceland and regional afforestation programs. Birch (Betula pubescens)
has been the only forest-forming tree species in Iceland since the Holocene. Birch and
willow species (Salix spp.) have good potential for natural regeneration, often being early
colonizers in natural succession and key species in ecosystem development. On severely
degraded land, land reclamation is often necessary prior to afforestation to stabilize the
surface, halt soil erosion, restore ecosystem functioning, and provide sites for seeds.
Restoration strategies for Iceland’s native forests are well presented in the Heklusko
project (Heklusko
´gar 2015). This 900 km
woodland restoration of native birch and wil-
lows near Hekla volcano, S Iceland, aims to reduce the potential damage from future Hekla
eruptions by increasing ecosystem resilience and limiting the secondary distribution of
tephra to nearby regions. When the project began in 2005, Heklusko
´gar was mostly
comprised of desertified land at a fairly low elevation. Forest remnants, historical accounts,
and place names, however, suggested that forests had grown there in the past which, in the
post-settlement period, were degraded over time as human land use and tephra-fall events
led to severe erosion.
Ecosystem functioning in Heklusko
´gar now remains hampered by nutrient-limited soil,
low water-holding capacity, unstable surfaces, and extensive frost heaving, which together
limit its natural recovery and the establishment of seedlings. Revegetation through fertil-
ization and seeding helps to overcome these ecological thresholds, stimulating a natural
succession of local flora and aiding ecosystem development. The extent of the area and the
input needed, however, place practical limits on this otherwise very successful woodland
restoration attempt. Self-seeding is promoted by strategic placement of tree seedlings,
which in the future will act as sources for seed dispersal and further colonization by wind-
dispersed species.
The success of the startup at Heklusko
´gar is credited to the fact that planning and
management is a joint effort of various stakeholders: landowners, governmental officials,
scientists, and extension officers. It represents an alignment of policies toward a united
goal of sustainability and DRR. A similar buy-in by all stakeholders will be necessary to
expand the Heklusko
´gar concept to areas near other active Icelandic volcanoes. This
expansion will first, however, require a determination of which areas will see most benefit
from the Heklusko
´gar approach; such areas may not be those that are most at risk from a
Nat Hazards
tephra-fall event. Predictions of volcanic impact zones are in general a difficult task that
often constrains DRR action (Bignami et al. 2012), since in Iceland, as stated above, the
whole island can endure damage in the largest eruptions. Areas of influence for smaller to
medium eruptions, however, are usually regional, with a directional extent. In these re-
gional focus areas, a new risk assessment for volcanic hazards, currently in progress, will
provide the information needed to plan a more detailed, long-term DRR action.
Identifying high-risk zones, based either on the expected frequency of volcanic erup-
tions or on their degree of impact, can aid in directing DRR actions, as well as improving
their ease of execution and increasing their expected social value. Areas that face multiple
natural hazard risks (e.g., of different frequency or magnitude, as well as possibly inter-
acting risks) could arrive at effective multi-risk approaches through a cost/benefit analysis
of DRR actions. Actions such as those represented by the Heklusko
´gar project are likely to
be most successful outside of the zone of extreme impacts, from areas of medium impact
toward the edge of the impact zone. In zones where extreme impacts are likely, any
preventive DRR action is likely to have limited value. There, only post-eruptive
revegetation can stimulate natural succession on fresh volcanic deposits.
Preliminary results, based on the location of Iceland’s most active volcanoes, the fre-
quency of tephra layers in the soil (Larsen and Gı
´slason 2013), and the prevailing wind
patterns (Jo
´nsson 1990,2010), suggest that areas in S and SE Iceland are the most likely to
experience tephra-fall events (Fig. 1).This region of expected tephra-fall, stretching
270 km along the southeast coast, is also considered ‘‘fragile’’ in the sense of rural de-
velopment, with negative trends regarding population, age structure, and employment
(Bjarnason 2010). The population in this area has fallen by 13 % during the last decade
(Bjarnason 2010). Cultural and behavioral barriers have to be addressed. Rural commu-
nities in S and SE Iceland, for instance, may be unwilling to change their traditional land-
use patterns and thereby affect rural cultural events, such as the autumn sheep gathering
from communal areas. There may also be uncertainty about whether property rights based
on tradition will be lost, if this type of land use is discontinued. Information could over-
come these barriers, so that resistance to change does not limit progress toward sustainable
land use. Changes through regulatory governance and involving local stakeholders can
guide these rural communities toward a more sustainable use of natural resources.
Natural systems have large absorption capacities; yet once tipping points are reached,
they can suddenly crash, with devastating consequences for other economic and social
systems (United Nations ESCAP 2013). Ecosystems at risk should receive priority for
management interventions to enhance their resilience or restore the desired stability do-
main. Building resilience will mean addressing a nexus of converging threats. One key is to
understand how land use exacerbates episodic disturbances that can reshape systems.
Effective land-use planning can be applied as DRR, diminishing existing stress by building
up healthy ecosystems, thereby enhancing the ecosystems’ resilience and reducing societal
vulnerability to natural hazards (EEA 2010). Land-use planning does, however, have un-
resolved challenges. Few disaster risk management systems have been able to employ
land-use planning or to influence investment policies to encourage effective disaster risk
management (Johnson 2011; UNISDR 2011).
Planning for recovery after a disaster is likewise missing in most countries, with a few
exceptions such as China, Canada, and New Zealand, where disaster recovery is linked to
broader projects of governance (Mitchell 2006). Iceland could benefit from forming a
recovery plan for ecosystems that have endured tephra-fall, following New Zealand’s
example of making sustainability the guiding principle of all public actions taken during
the recovery phase of disasters (Mitchell 2006).
Nat Hazards
The state of an ecosystem determines its tolerance to disturbances and affects its re-
covery time (Grandy et al. 2012; Lindig-Cisneros et al. 2006). The extensive ecosystem
degradation in Iceland, coupled with the island’s short growing season, ensures that post-
eruptive ecosystem recovery is a long-term process. A preventive DRR approach through
healthier ecosystems, combined with a post-event approach of planning for sustainability,
could speed up this recovery. Positive tipping points may occur in the recovery process,
when human interventions in degraded ecosystems allow their processes and populations to
recover (Olgeirsson 2007; Westley et al. 2011). Ecosystem functioning and the traits that
lead to enhanced ecosystem resilience and succession in Iceland need to be explored while
planning this ecosystem recovery process. It is within this context that the Heklusko
concept is most successful. With its effective stakeholder participation, alignment of
policies, use of local flora, and heterogeneous solutions tailored to fit the local environ-
ment, the concept can be transferred to other regions that are likely to be at risk of tephra-
10 Conclusions
As volcanic activity in Iceland is expected to rise in the future, increased natural hazard
risks can be anticipated. Eruptions in 2010–2011 proved the value of pre-disaster planning
for some volcanic hazards, but a new focus is needed on pre-disaster mitigation responses
for the effects of tephra-fall on vegetation. As outlined in the UNISDR Hyogo Framework,
healthy ecosystems and environmental management are key actions in disaster risk re-
duction (DRR). The Hyogo Framework further recommends that policymakers take six
steps toward DRR: assessment, prevention, mitigation, monitoring, early warning, and
preparedness (UN-ISDR 2013). The assessment here of the tephra-fall problem has shown
that vulnerability exists due to current land use in Iceland and that the underlying risk
factors could be reduced. Prevention of tephra-fall events is impossible, but improved
ecosystem health could prevent further degradation and move systems away from negative
ecosystem tipping points (Sidle et al. 2013). Mitigation has been shown to improve
ecosystem resilience. Monitoring improves knowledge on ecosystem status, detects subtle
signs of resilience loss (Sidle et al. 2013), and suggests improvements. Such monitoring is
important to set up in Iceland. Early warning immediately prior to events is irrelevant here,
as ecosystem processes operate on long-time scales. Preparedness can be obtained from
studying past events and through sustainable practices. Societal DRR benefits will include
the economic and human health benefits of healthy ecosystems and their services prior to
an eruption, while, afterward, those ecosystems that survive tephra-fall will reduce the
secondary transport of tephra. Post-eruptive benefits to society will be faster recovery for
the economy, transport, and agriculture, and, first and foremost, better air quality.
The Hyogo Framework is due to expire in 2015, and a wide consultation process is
currently shaping its successor, the post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction. The
new Sendai DRR framework was endorsed at the Third UN World Conference for Disaster
Risk Reduction in Sendai, Japan on March 14–18, 2015 (UNISDR 2015). At its core are
four priorities for action: (1) understanding disaster risk, (2) strengthening disaster risk
governance to manage disaster risk, (3) investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience,
and 4) enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to ‘‘Build Back Better’
in recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. These priorities are directly aligned with our
approach here: (1) we have strengthened the evidence base for an ecosystem approach to
Nat Hazards
DRR for volcanic tephra-fall; (2) we have pointed out governance issues in Iceland that
need to be strengthened for effective DRR; (3) we have suggested an alignment of various
policies regarding land-use, land degradation, and rural development in order to strengthen
the sustainable land-use management of ecosystems and form an integrated natural re-
source management approach that incorporates DRR; and (4) we have suggested that
heightened ecosystem resilience is the key to disaster preparedness and to efficient
Vulnerability to tephra-fall is dynamic, changing in both space and time, and depends
on a complex relationship between nature and society. Societal changes in governance, the
understanding of hazards, technology, coping mechanisms (before, during, and after), and
the resources available to DRR or post-event response actions all fluctuate over time.
Consider, for instance, the difference in vulnerability between the pre-industrial subsis-
tence farming community, where the effects of major eruptions could lead to nationwide
crisis, depression, and famine (Thordarson and Self 2003), and the modern society that can
follow online the real-time measurements of activity during an ongoing volcanic eruption.
All communities need the skills, capacity, and experience to cope and adapt. Among these,
an awareness of risk and vulnerability can enable informed decision making. We have
linked here volcanic eruptions to ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction and the need for
sustainable land-use management, although the use of ecosystems as ‘‘bioshields’’ is not a
panacea and should be accompanied by other measures, e.g., early warning systems, dis-
aster preparedness, and emergency actions, to decrease people’s vulnerability to natural
hazards (Feagin et al. 2010). However, if Iceland’s currently unsustainable land-use
practices are continued, the country’s vulnerability to tephra-fall will increase; the mini-
mum benefit of DRR would be to limit that increase in vulnerability. Alternately, a weak
framework of legislation and policy, poor land-use planning, and inertia to change are
some of the economic, political, scientific, and social components contributing the most to
environmental degradation.
Ecosystem services are essential for sustainable livelihoods, both immediately and in
the long term. The restored habitats of an ecosystem-based DRR effort will improve the
capacity of both ecosystems and people to withstand future extreme natural hazards.
Investments in sustainable land management can offer cost-effective solutions (De Groot
et al. 2013) to reducing a community’s vulnerability to natural hazards such as volcanic
eruptions. It costs less (in economic, social, and political terms) to prevent or mitigate
hazards than it does to clean up and fund recovery after a disaster (Anderson 1990).
Ecosystem-based DRR in Iceland could also merge the goals of sustainable and rural
development. Combining ecosystem restoration in degraded areas with long-term views of
rural development, nature protection, agriculture, and resource management leads to a
proactive, cost-effective alternative to the reactive, emergency-response expenses, while
pooling limited resources for rural, agriculture, and ecological development provides more
leverage toward sustainability and resilience. In the long term, DRR investments have a
high rate of return and contribute to sustainable economic development (European Com-
mission 2013). But investing in prevention, versus only reacting to disasters, requires
political will, resources, and an adherence to long-term political strategies that recognize
the value of ecosystems and the need for DRR solutions.
The key messages presented in this article are not only relevant for DRR in Iceland but
are also valid for other regions, especially in other volcanic areas where people depend
strongly on natural resources, where environmental conditions are degraded, and where the
growth of vegetation is limited by harsh environmental conditions. The innovative ap-
proach suggested here aims to reduce environmental vulnerabilities in order to reduce the
Nat Hazards
primary and secondary effects of volcanic tephra on ecosystems and human health. The
opportunities that effective ecosystem management provides for DRR, in terms of de-
creasing the vulnerability of both people and ecosystems to future extreme events, should
be given high priority in disaster management planning. Encouraging the sustainable use
and appropriate management of fragile ecosystems now has an additional aim: to reduce
risk and vulnerabilities to natural hazards.
Acknowledgments I thank Nancy Marie Brown, Magnu
´hannsson (SCSI), Arna Bjo
´ttir (SCSI), Guðmundur Halldo
´rsson (SCSI), and anonymous reviewers for their help in im-
proving the manuscript.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Inter-
national License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
´ttir AM (2013) Gro
´ður og eldgosava
´. Forvarnagildi gro
´ðurs gegn hamfo
¨rum af vo
¨ldum eldgosa og
´sku. Sky
´rsla til nefndar um gerð hættumats vegna eldvirkni. [Vegetation and volcanic
eruptions. Ecosystem- based Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR). Report for risk assessment regarding
volcanic eruptions in Iceland] Rit Landgræðslu rı
´kisins nr 1/2013 1:66
Alley RB (2000) The two-mile time machine: ice cores, abrupt climate change, and our future. Princeton
University Press, Princeton
Anderson M (1990) Analyzing the costs and benefits of natural disaster responses in the context of de-
velopment. Environment Working Paper 29, World Bank, Washington
Antos JA, Zobel DB (1985) Recovery of forest understories buried by tephra from Mount St. Helens.
Vegetatio 64:103–111
Arnalds A (1987) Ecosystem disturbance in Iceland. Arct Alp Res 19:508–513. doi:10.2307/1551417
Arnalds O (2004) Volcanic soils of Iceland. Catena 56:3–20. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2003.10.002
Arnalds O, Tho
´ttir EF, Metu
´salemsson S, Jo
´nsson A
´, Gre
´tarsson E, A
´rnason A (2001) Soil erosion
in Iceland. Soil Conservation Service, Agriculture Research Institute, Reykjavı
´kEnglish translation,
originally published in Icelandic (1997)
Arnalds O, Thorarinsdottir EF, Thorsson J, Waldhauserova PD, Agustsdottir AM (2013) An extreme wind
erosion event of the fresh Eyjafjallajokull 2010 volcanic ash. Sci Rep 3:7. doi:10.1038/srep01257
Aubault H, Webb NP, Strong CL, McTainsh GH, Leys JF, Scanlan JC (2015) Grazing impacts on the
susceptibility of rangelands to wind erosion: the effects of stocking rate, stocking strategy and land
condition. Aeolian Res 17:89–99. doi:10.1016/j.aeolia.2014.12.005
Bignami C, Bosi V, Costantini L, Cristiani C, Lavigne F, Thierry P (2012) Handbook for volcanic risk
management: prevention, crisis management, resilience. MIAVITA Project—European Commission
under the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, Orleans
Birkmann J et al (2008) Extreme events and disasters: a window of opportunity for change? Analysis of
organizational, institutional and political changes, formal and informal responses after mega-disasters.
Nat Hazards 55:637–655
Birkmann J et al (2013) Framing vulnerability, risk and societal responses: the MOVE framework. Nat
Hazards 67:193–211. doi:10.1007/s11069-013-0558-5
Bitschene P (1995) Environmental impact and hazard assessment of the August 1991 eruption of Mt.
Hudson (Patagonian Andes). In: Bitschene P, Mendia J (eds) The August 1991 eruption of the Hudson
volcano (Patagonian Andes): a thousand days after. Cuvillier Verlag, Universidad Nacional de la
Patagonia San Juan Bosco, Go
¨ttingen, pp 2–15
Bjarnason T (2010) Demographics, transportation and settlement development. Part of the 2020—moving
Iceland forward initiative November 2010. The Prime Minister’s Office, University of Akureyri. http:// 2013
Boyd WE, Lentfer CJ, Parr J (2005) Interactions between human activity, volcanic eruptions and vegetation
during the Holocene at Garua and Numundo, West New Britain. PNG Quat Res 64:384–398
Nat Hazards
Braun J, Gerber N, Mirzabaev A, Nkonya E (2012) The Economics of land degradation. An issue paper for
global soil week, Berlin 18–22 Nov 2012. Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of
Bonn, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington and Berlin
Breshears DD, Whicker JJ, Zou CB, Field JP, Allen CD (2009) A conceptual framework for dryland aeolian
sediment transport along the grassland-forest continuum: Effects of woody plant canopy cover and
disturbance. Geomorphology 105:28–38. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.12.018
Burylo M, Rey F, Dutoit T (2012) Responses of five woody species to burial by marly sediment: the role of
biomass allocation pattern flexibility J. Plant Ecol 5:287–293. doi:10.1093/jpe/rtr030
Carey RJ, Houghton BF, Thordarson T (2010) Tephra dispersal and eruption dynamics of wet and dry
phases of the 1875 eruption of Askja Volcano. Iceland Bull Volcanol 72:259–278
Carlsen HK et al (2012) Health effects following the Eyjafjallajo
¨kull volcanic eruption: a cohort study. BMJ
Open 2. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001851
CBD (2009) Connecting biodiversity and climate change mitigation and adaptation: report of the second ad
hoc technical expert group on biodiversity and climate change. Technical series no. 41. Secretariat of
the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal
Cook R, Barron J, Papendick R, Williams GI (1981) Impact on agriculture of the Mount St. Helens
eruptions. Science 211:16–22
Costanza R (1992) Toward an operational definition of ecosystem health. In: Costanza R, Norton B, Haskell
BJ (eds) Ecosystem health: New goals for environmental management. Island Press, Washington,
pp 239–256
Costanza R (2012) Ecosystem health and ecological engineering. Ecol Eng 45:24–29. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.
De Groot RS, Blignaut J, van der Ploeg S, Aronson J, Elmqvist T, Farley J (2013) Benefits of investing in
ecosystem restoration. Conserv Biol 27:1286–1293. doi:10.1111/cobi.12158
Doswald N et al (2014) Effectiveness of ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation: review of the evi-
dence-base. Clim Dev 6:185–201. doi:10.1080/17565529.2013.867247
Dugmore AJ, Church MJ, Mairs K-A, McGovern TH, Perdikaris S, Ve
´steinsson O (2007) Abandoned farms,
volcanic impacts, and Woodland management: revisiting Þjo
´rdalur, the ‘‘Pompeii Of Iceland’’. Arct
Anthropol 44:1–11. doi:10.3368/aa.44.1.1
EAI (2013) Measurements of air quality by the Environment Agency of Iceland. Umhverfisstofnun I
´slands. Accessed 20. March 2013
EEA (2010) Mapping the impacts of natural hazards and technological accidents in Europe—an overview of
the last decade. EEA, Copenhagen. doi:10.2800/62638
Einarsson MA
´(1976) Climate of Iceland. Iðunn, Reykjavı
´k, In Icelandic (Veðurfar a
Eliasson J, Larsen G, Gudmundsson MT, Sigmundsson F (2006) Probabilistic model for eruptions and
associated flood events in the Katla caldera. Iceland Comput Geosci 10:179–200. doi:10.1007/s10596-
El-Masri S, Tipple G (2002) Natural disaster. Mitigation and sustainability: The case of developing
countries. Int Plan Stud 7:157–175. doi:10.1080/1356347022013223
Engelstaedter S, Kohfeld KE, Tegen I, Harrison SP (2003) Controls of dust emissions by vegetation and
topographic depressions: an evaluation using dust storm frequency data. Geophys Res Lett 30:4.
Environment Agency of Iceland (2012) Emissions of greenhouse gases in Iceland from 1990 to 2010.
National Inventory Report 2012. Submitted under the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. Environment Agency of Iceland, Reykjavı
Eurocontrol (2010) Ash-cloud of April and May 2010: Impact on Air Traffic STATFOR/Doc394. Euro-
control, Brussels
European Commission (2011) Study on the impacts of the developments of certain aspects of EU disaster
risk management. Final report. European Commission, Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid and
Civil Protection (ECHO), Strasbourg
European Commission (2013) Green paper on the insurance of natural and man-made disasters vol
COM(2013) 213 final European Commission, Strasbourg
Feagin RA et al (2010) Shelter from the storm? Use and misuse of coastal vegetation bioshields for
managing natural disasters. Conserv Lett 3:1–11. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00087.x
Folke C, Carpenter S, Walker B, Scheffer M, Elmqvist T, Gunderson L, Holling CS (2004) Regime shifts,
resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:557–581. doi:10.
Fridriksson S (1981) Effect of tephra on vegetation. (In Icelandic: A
´hrif gjo
´sku a
´ður) Ra
1981 2:174–177
Nat Hazards
Fridriksson S, Sigurðsson FH (1983) The effect of air-temperature on grass growth (In icelandic: A
lofthita a
´grassprettu). J Icel Agric Res 15:41–54
Grandy S, Fraterrigo JM, Billings SA (2012) Soil ecosystem resilience and recovery. In: Wall DH et al (eds)
Soil ecology and ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, Oxford. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/
Gudmundsson G (2011) Respiratory health effects of volcanic ash with special reference to Iceland. A
review. Clin Respir J 5:2–9
Gudmundsson MT, Larsen G, Ho
¨skuldsson A
´, Gylfason A
´G (2008) Volcanic hazards in Iceland. Jokull
Gudmundsson MT et al (2012) Ash generation and distribution from the April-May 2010 eruption of
¨kull. Iceland Sci Rep. doi:10.1038/srep00572
Gudmundsson A, Lecoeur N et al (2014) Dike emplacement at Bardarbunga, Iceland, induces unusual stress
changes, caldera deformation, and earthquakes. Bull Volcanol 76(10):7
Gunnarsson KS, Eysteinsson T, Curl SL, Thorfinnssont T (2005) Forest Sector Entrepreneurship in Europe:
Country Studies. Iceland Acta Silvatica et Lignaria Hungarica Spec Ed 2005:335–346
Haflidason H, Eiriksson J, Kreveld SV (2000) The tephrochronology of Iceland and the North Atlantic
region during the middle and late quaternary: a review. J Quat Sci 15:3–22
Hagen LJ, Casada ME (2013) Effect of canopy leaf distribution on sand transport and abrasion energy.
Aeolian Res 10:37–42. doi:10.1016/j.aeolia.2013.01.005
´ttir M, Caseldine CJ (2005) The Holocene vegetation history of Iceland, state of the art and future
research. In: Caseldine C, Russel A, Harðardo
´ttir J, Knudsen O
´(eds) Iceland—modern processes and
past environments. Developments in quaternary science. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 319–334. doi:10.
Hansell AL, Horwell CJ, Oppenheimer C (2006) The health hazards of volcanoes and geothermal areas.
Occup Environ Med 63:149–156. doi:10.1136/oem.2005.022459
´gar (2015) The Mt. Hekla afforestation project. Heklusko
´gar. Accessed 2015
Hodell DA, Curtis JH, Brenner M (1995) Possible role of climate in the collapse of Classic Maya
civilization. Nature 375:391–394
Horwell CJ, Baxter PJ (2006) The respiratory health hazards of volcanic ash: a review for volcanic risk
mitigation. Bull Volcanol 69:1–24. doi:10.1007/s00445-006-0052-y
IMO (2011) Hættumat fyrir eldgos. The Icelandic Meteorological Office.
nr/2278. Accessed 31 Aug 2012
IMO (2014) 100 days of continuous eruptive activity in Holuhraun. Icelandic Met Office.
Johnson C (2011) Creating an enabling environment for reducing disaster risk: recent experience of
regulatory frameworks for land, planning and building in low and middle-income countries., Back-
ground paper prepared for the, 2011. Global assessment report on disaster risk reductionUNISDR,
Jones HP, Hole DG, Zavaleta ES (2012) Harnessing nature to help people adapt to climate change. Nat Clim
Change 2:504–509. doi:10.1038/nclimate1463
´nsson T (1990) Hvert liggja gjo
´skugeirar? Na
´tt 60:103–105
´nsson T (2010) Hvert berst gosaska? Veðurstofa I
´sland/Icelandic Met Office.
Kelman I, Mather TA (2008) Living with volcanoes: the sustainable livelihoods approach for volcano-
related opportunities. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 172:189–198. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.007
Lacasse C (2001) Influence of climate variability on the atmospheric transport of Icelandic tephra in the
subpolar North Atlantic. Glob Planet Change 29:31–55. doi:10.1016/s0921-8181(01)00099-6
¨hde A et al (2013) In vitro evaluation of pulmonary deposition of airborne volcanic ash. Atmos Environ
70:18–27. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.12.048
Laliberte E et al (2010) Land-use intensification reduces functional redundancy and response diversity in
plant communities. Ecol Lett 13:76–86. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01403.x
Larsen G (2000) Holocene eruptions within the Katla volcanic system, south Iceland: Characteristics and
environmental impact. Jokull 49:1–28
Larsen G, Gı
´slason SR (2013) Gjo
´ska. In: So
´lnes J, Sigmundsson F, Bessason B (eds) Na
Eldgos og jarðskja
´lftar. Viðlagatrygging I
´fan, Reykjavı
´k, pp 130–143
Larsen G, Gudmundsson MT, Bjo
¨rnsson H (1998) Eight centuries of periodic volcanism at the centre of the
Icelandic hotspot revealed by glacier tephrostratigraphy. Geology 26:943–946
Larsen DJ, Miller GH, Geirsdottir A, Thordarson T (2011) A 3000-year varved record of glacier activity and
climate change from the proglacial lake Hvitarvatn. Iceland Quat Sci Rev 30:2715–2731. doi:10.1016/
Nat Hazards
Larsen DJ, Miller GH, Geirsdottir A, Olafsdottir S (2012) Non-linear Holocene climate evolution in the
North Atlantic: a high-resolution, multi-proxy record of glacier activity and environmental change
from Hvitarvatn, central Iceland. Quat Sci Rev 39:14–25. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.02.006
Lavorel S, Garnier E (2002) Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from
plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Funct Ecol 16:545–556. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2435.2002.00664.x
Lindig-Cisneros R, Galindo-Vallejo S, Lara-Cabrera S (2006) Vegetation of tephra deposits 50 years after
the end of the eruption of the Paricutin Volcano, Mexico. Southwest Nat 51:455–461. doi:10.1894/
Map Viewer, IS 50 V (2013) National land survey of Iceland (Landmælingar I
Marzano FS, Lamantea M, Montopoli M, Herzog M, Graf H, Cimini D (2013) Microwave remote sensing of
the 2011 Plinian eruption of the Grı
¨tn Icelandic volcano. Remote Sens Environ 129:168–184.
Maun MA (2004) Burial of plants as a selective force in sand dunes. In: Martinez ML, Psuty NP (eds)
Coastal dunes, ecology and conservation, vol 171. Ecological studies. Springer, Berlin, pp 119–135.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press,
Washington, DC
Ministry for the Environment (2007) Vernd og endurheimt ı
´slenskra birkisko
´ga. Sky
´rsla og tillo
¨gur nefndar.
(Protection and restoration of Icelandic birch forests). Reykjavik, Iceland
Mitchell JK (2006) The primacy of partnership: scoping a new national disaster recovery policy. Ann Am
Acad Polit Soc Sci 604:228–255. doi:10.1177/00027162052s86044
Mitchell T, Jones L, Lovell E, Comba E (eds) (2013) Disaster risk management in post-2015 development
goals: potential targets and indicators. Overseas Development Institute, London
Mori AS, Furukawa T, Sasaki T (2013) Response diversity determines the resilience of ecosystems to
environmental change. Biol Rev 88:349–364. doi:10.1111/brv.12004
Munang R, Thiaw I, Alverson K, Liu J, Han Z (2013) The role of ecosystem services in climate change
adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:47–52. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.
National Land Survey of Iceland (2009) CLC2006, CLC2000 and CLC-Changes in ICELAND. Final report
national land survey of Iceland/Landmælingar I
NCIP-DCPEM (2005a) Almannavarnir og a
´fallaþol ı
´slensks samfe
´lags. Sky
´rsla almannavarnara
´ðs. National
Commissioner of the Icelandic Police Department of Civil Protection and Emergency Management,
NCIP-DCPEM (2005b) Hættumat vegna eldgosa og hlaupa fra
´vestanverðum My
¨kli og Eyjafjal-
¨kli (In icelandic). National Commissioner of the Icelandic Police Department of Civil Protection
and Emergency Management, Ha
´fan, Reykjavı
Nkonya E et al (2011) The economics of land degradation—towards an integrated global assessment, vol
66., Development economics and policyPeter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New
York, Oxford, Wien
Nytjaland, Icelandic Farmland Database (2013) Agricultural University of Iceland.
Kortavefsja/default.aspx. Accessed 2013
OECD (2009) Farmland Conversion—the spatial implications of agricultural and land-use policies. OECD,
OECD (2010) Agricultural policies and rural development: A synthesis of recent OECD work. OECD, Paris
´ttir BA, Larsen G, Sigmarsson O (2011) Holocene volcanic activity at Grı
¨tn Ba
´rdarbunga and
¨ll subglacial centres beneath Vatnajo
¨kull. Iceland Bull Volcanol 73:1187–1208
Olgeirsson FG (2007) Sa
´ðmenn sandanna: Saga landgræðslu a
´slandi 1907-2007. Landgræðsla rı
PEDRR (2010) Demonstrating the Role of Ecosystems-based Management for Disaster Risk Reduction.
Background paper to the 2011 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction
Prime Minister’s Office (2011) Rı
´rnin samþykkir fja
´rveitingar vegna fyrstu aðgerða ı
¨lfar eld-
gossins ı
¨tnum. News, 10.6.2011. Accessed
27.mars 2012
ProAct Network (2008) The role of environmental management and eco-engineering in disaster risk re-
duction and climate change adaptation. Ministry of the Environment, Finland, UN International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Gaia Group
Renaud FG, Sudmeier-Rieux K, Estrella M (eds) (2013) The role of ecosystems in disaster risk reduction.
United Nations University Press, Tokyo–New York–Paris
Nat Hazards
Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C, Walker B (2001) Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature
Schmidt A, Ostro B, Carslaw KS, Wilson M, Thordarson T, Mann GW, Simmons AJ (2011) Excess
mortality in Europe following a future Laki-style Icelandic eruption. PNAS 108:15710–15715
Self S (2006) The effects and consequences of very large explosive volcanic eruptions. Phil Trans R Soc A
Shao Y (2000) Physics and modelling of wind erosion. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht
Shinoda M, Gillies JA, Mikami M, Shao Y (2011) Temperate grasslands as a dust source: knowledge,
uncertainties, and challenges. Aeolian Res 3:271–293
Sidle RC, Benson WH, Carriger JF, Kamai T (2013) Broader perspective on ecosystem sustainability:
consequences for decision making. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:9201–9208. doi:10.1073/pnas.
Sigmundsson F, Pinel V, Lund B, Albino F, Pagli C, Geirsson H, Sturkell E (2010) Climate effects on
volcanism: influence on magmatic systems of loading and unloading from ice mass variations with
examples from Iceland. Phil Trans R Soc A 368:2519–2534. doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0042
Sigmundsson F, Hooper A et al (2015) Segmented lateral dyke growth in a rifting event at Bardarbunga
volcanic system, Iceland. Nature 517(7533):191–195
¨rnsson A, Hjartardo
´ttir D, Blo
¨ndal E, Pe
´tursson JG, Eggertsson O
´, Halldo
´rsson O
´(2010) Sky
nefndar um landnotkun - Athugun a
´notkun og varðveislu ræktanlegs lands. Ministry of Fisheries and
Agriculture, Reykjavı
Snævar S (1993) Hagly
´sing I
´slands (economic description of Iceland). Heimskringla, Ha
´laforlag Ma
´ls og
menningar, Reykjavı
´msson J (1998) Fires of the Earth: the Laki eruption 1783–1784. University of Iceland Press,
Sudmeier-Rieux K, Ash N (2009) Environmental guidance note for disaster risk reduction: healthy
ecosystems for human security. Revised Edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
Swindles GT, Lawson IT, Savov IP, Connor CB, Plunkett G (2011) A 7000 years perspective on volcanic
ash clouds affecting northern Europe. Geology 39:887–890. doi:10.1130/G32146.1
Tegen I, Harrison SP, Kohfeld K, Prentice IC, Coe M, Heimann M (2002) Impact of vegetation and
preferential source areas on global dust aerosol: results from a model study. J Geophys Res-Atmos
107:36. doi:10.1029/2001JD000963
Thorarinsson S (1944) Tefrokronologiska studier pa Island Geografiska Annaler 26:1–217
Thorarinsson S (1958) The O
¨kull eruption of 1362 Acta naturalia Islandica II:1–100
Thorarinsson S (1967) The eruptions of Hekla in historical times. The Eruption of Hekla 1947–1948 I.
Societas Scientiarum Islandica, Reykjavik, pp 1–170
Thorarinsson S (1975) Katla og anna
´ll Ko
¨tlugosa (Katla and its historical eruptions) A
´k Ferðafe
´slands 1975:125–149
Thorarinsson S (1979) On the damage caused by volcanic eruptions with special reference to tephra and
gases. In: Sheets PD, Grayson DK (eds) Volcanic activity and human ecology. Academic Press, New
York, pp 125–159
Thordarson T, Larsen G (2007) Volcanism in Iceland in historical time: volcano types, eruption styles and
eruptive history. J Geodyn 43:118–152
Thordarson T, Self S (1993) The Laki (Skafta
´r Fires) and Grı
¨tn eruptions in 1783–1785. Bull Volcanol
Thordarson T, Self S (2003) Atmospheric and environmental effects of the 1783–1784 Laki eruption: a
review and reassessment. J Geophys Res-Atmos 108:29. doi:10.1029/2001jd002042
Thorsteinsson T, Jo
´hannsson T, Stohl A, Kristiansen NI (2012) High levels of particulate matter in Iceland
due to direct ash emissions by the Eyjafjallajo
¨kull eruption and resuspension of deposited ash.
J Geophys Res. doi:10.1029/2011JB008756
Titus JH, Tsuyuzaki S (2003) Distribution of plants in relation to microsites on recent volcanic substrates on
Mount Koma Hokkaido, Japan. Ecol Res 18:91–98. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1703.2003.00536.x
Tsuyuzaki S (2009) Causes of plant community divergence in the early stages of volcanic succession. J Veg
Sci 20:959–969. doi:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2009.01104.x
Tsuyuzaki S, Hase A (2005) Plant community dynamics on the volcano Mount Koma, northern Japan, after
the 1996 eruption. Folia Geobotanica 40:319–330
UNISDR (2009) United Nations 2009 UNISDR terminology on disaster risk reduction. The United Nations
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva
UN-ISDR (2013) The WMO disaster risk reduction. A framework for disaster risk management derived
from the Hyogo framework for Action 2005–2015. World Meteorological Organization. http://www. Accessed 5.jan.2013 2013
Nat Hazards
UNISDR (2011) Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction. Revealing risk redefining development
summary and main findings. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva
UNISDR (2015) Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. A/CONF.224/CRP.1. UN World
Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction.
Disaster_Risk_Reduction_2015-2030.pdf. 2015
United Nations ESCAP (2013) Building resilience to natural disasters and major economic crises. United
Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), Bangkok
Viðlagatrygging I
´slands (2011) A
´rsla 2011. Viðlagatrygging I
´slands (Iceland Catastrophe Insurance),
Webb NP, Strong CL (2011) Soil erodibility dynamics and its representation for wind erosion and dust
emission models. Aeolian Res 3:165–179. doi:10.1016/j.aeolia.2011.03.002
Westley F et al (2011) Tipping Toward sustainability: emerging pathways of transformation. Ambio
40:762–780. doi:10.1007/s13280-011-0186-9
Wilson T, Cole J, Cronin S, Stewart C, Johnston D (2010) Impacts on agriculture following the 1991
eruption of Vulcan Hudson, Patagonia: lessons for recovery. Nat Hazards 57:185–212. doi:10.1007/
Wolfe SA, Nickling WG (1993) The protective role of sparse vegetation in wind erosion. Prog Phys Geogr
17:50–68. doi:10.1177/030913339301700104
World Bank (2010) Convenient solutions to an inconvenient truth: ecosystem-based approaches to climate
change. World Bank, Washington. doi:10.1596/978-0-8213-8126-7
Zobel DB, Antos JA (1987) Composition of rhizomes of forest herbaceous plants in relation to morphology,
ecology, and burial by tephra. Bot Gaz 148:490–500
Nat Hazards
... Our results show that mitigating the risks of coastal disasters such as tsunami, flood, storm surge, and coastal inundation are the primary functions of Eco-DRR (Glaser et al., 2015;Huq and Stubbings, 2015;Seijger et al., 2015). In terms of the regional distribution, nine (Keenan, 2016;Glaser et al., 2015;Sejiger et al., 2015;Arnold, 2012;Kolahi et al., 2012;Ahmed et al., 2013;Ágústsdóttir, 2015). ...
This study focuses on the potential for governing coastal disaster risks in developing countries through a mangrove ecosystem-based approach to understand the factors contribute to the success of coastal, mangrove ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction strategies. The interactive governance theory is utilized to understand the relations between the social and natural systems at the multi-levels, but especially at the local level. The research employed a mixed qualitative and quantitative method, including a review of literature and policy documents, field survey, interview and focus group discussion. The case study of Indonesia and India are selected since they have both suffered recently from coastal disasters including the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004 and coastal erosion induced flooding and using mangrove ecosystems as protection against ongoing coastal disaster. The research shows that the interactive governance approach and governability assessment framework is useful for assessing the relevance of Eco-DRR. It produces four potential governing pathways which could increase governability of Eco-DRR, namely 1) coordination; 2) goodness of fit; 3) social mobilization, and 4) learning and adaptiveness. However, the research also revealed that despite government support, both in Indonesia and India, the mangrove Eco-DRR programmes are more projects undertaken primarily by non-governmental and financed by foreign actors. This raises the question whether coastal developing countries have the capacity and resources to undertake programmatic, systematic coastal disaster risk reduction governance in the short and long term, addressing the growing long-term coastal disaster risks as a result of climate variability and change.
Full-text available
Nature-based solutions and their application in Iceland to date
Full-text available
For active volcanoes, knowledge about probabilities of eruption and impacted areas becomes valuable information for decision-makers to develop short-and long-term emergency plans, for which probabilistic volcanic hazard assessment (PVHA) is needed. High-resolution or spatially extended PVHA requires extreme-scale high-performance computing systems. Within the framework of ChEESE (Center of Excellence for Exascale in Solid Earth;, an effort was made to generate exascale-suitable codes and workflows to collect and process in some hours the large amount of data that a quality PVHA requires. To this end, we created an optimized HPC-based workflow coined PVHA_HPC-WF to develop PVHA for a volcano. This tool uses the Bayesian event tree methodology to calculate eruption probabilities, vent-opening location(s), and eruptive source parameters (ESPs) based on volcano history, monitoring system data, and meteorological conditions. Then, the tool interacts with the chosen hazard model, performing a simulation for each ESP set or volcanic scenario (VS). Finally, the resulting information is processed by proof-of-concept-subjected high-performance data analytics (HPDA) scripts, producing the hazard maps which describe the probability over time of exceeding critical thresholds at each location in the investigated geographical domain. Although PVHA_HPC-WF can be adapted to other hazards, we focus here on tephra (i.e., lapilli and ash) transport and deposition. As an application, we performed PVHA for Campi Flegrei (CF), Italy, an active volcano located in one of the most densely inhabited areas in Europe and under busy air traffic routes. CF is currently in unrest, classified as being in an attention level by the Italian Civil Protection. We consider an approximate 2,000 × 2,000 × 40 km computational domain with 2 km grid resolution in the horizontal and 40 vertical levels, centered in OPEN ACCESS EDITED BY
Volcanic ecosystem services (ES) is a subject that has been overlooked by the vast ecosystem services literature, where the spotlight has been focused on the many ecosystem disservices (ED) of volcanic hazards. This study conducts a literature review using the Search, Appraisal, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) framework, identifying the main ES common to volcanic environments. The Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services typology is utilised to provide a classification of volcanic ES. A diverse array of 18 ES are identified, categorised as follows: provisioning (8), regulation and maintenance (2), and cultural (8). Resilience is a key property underpinning the ecological processes, functions and productivity of Andosols, which are often some of the most fertile soils on the planet. However, careful management of Andosols, volcano-themed national parks and geothermal energy resources remains necessary to ensure that the flow of related ES is sustainable. Through sustainable soil and geothermal energy resource management, volcanic ES can make a long-term contribution to the tackling of climate change, including the partial offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions released via volcanic degassing during eruptions. Sustainable tourism management can ensure the protection, conservation and economic development of volcanic sites of high geo-heritage value, including national parks and geoparks, where the distinct aesthetics of such environments underpin the recreational and tourist experience.
Using air quality monitoring data of 2018, 2020 and 2021 from national monitoring stations in Hangzhou, the disaster cycles, with levels of ozone (O3), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and coarse particulate matter (PM10) were determined. The damage to human health from pollutants, which represents the loss of open space functionality, was determined by a review of the literature. Using the theory of resilience evaluation, a correlation was established between pollutant concentrations and system functions, and resilience performance curves of different types of open spaces were constructed for the urban open space pollutant disaster cycle to evaluate the resilience and related properties for open space responses to O3, PM2.5, and PM10 pollution disasters. The results indicate that open spaces in scenic and cultural areas are more resilient to pollution than residential areas and commercial transportation residential mixed zones. All open spaces were the most robust to PM10 and had the highest redundancy for O3 and PM10, while had the lowest redundancy for PM2.5. All open spaces responded most rapidly to PM2.5, partly because of larger scale meteorological changes in cities. All open spaces had the strongest resilience to PM10 disasters, followed by O3 disasters, with the worst resilience to PM2.5 disasters, with a resilience index range of [0.5, 1]. The results and methods can help enhance urban resilience by bringing new ideas and broadening urban resilience theory and research. The strategy of enhancing greenery in urban open spaces was found to significantly reduce the impact of air pollution disasters, thereby reducing human health damage to users of open spaces. This is significant for enhancing urban resilience and building urban health infrastructure.
Full-text available
The integration of archives of society with archives of nature has helped scholars to date extreme events precisely. This approach has led to collaboration between the natural sciences and the humanities. While it has helped to highlight the dimensions of nature-induced disasters and their societal consequences, it has often led to rather monocausal explanations, promoting nature as the prime agent in history. The field is currently experiencing a shift away from monocausal explanations. Cultural factors need to be examined as well in order to analyze their contribution to disasters properly. To aid in this endeavor, we introduce the “Interdisciplinary Nature-Induced Disaster index” (INID-index), a tool to successfully integrate historical material into research on natural extreme events and their impacts on past societies. Eldgjá (ca. 934–940 CE) and Laki (1783–1784 CE)—the two major Icelandic eruptions of the Common Era—will be used as case studies to demonstrate the benefits of the index. A third contrasting study on a volcanic event in around 913 CE highlights the desiderata that the index can indicate, and its limitations. We consider this paper an offer to make transparent the questions that historians ask themselves and an example of a way to increase understanding across disciplinary cultures.
Full-text available
Indonesia is blessed with abundant natural resources and a very strategic geographical position. It's located on the equator, between 2 continents of Asia & Australia, between 2 Indian & Pacific oceans, the ring of fire, and three geological plates of Eurasian, Pacific, and Indo-Australian geological plates. However, earth's damage and global climate change due to anthropogenic and natural conditions have become a painful reality. As leaders on earth, humans have caused much damage and havoc to the only planet we live in. Volcanic and tectonic earthquakes often occur in Indonesia and result in environmental and humanitarian disasters that are economically, environmentally, socially, culturally, and environmentally harmful. Global climate change has further exacerbated hydrometeorological disasters in the form of lightning, tropical storms, heavy rains, floods in the rainy season, drought in the dry season, and landslides. Excessive exploitation of natural resources up to 1.7 times beyond the earth's carrying capacity and contrary to the universe's nature makes the earth's future more damaged. Lack of food, water, and energy supplies has triggered new conflicts that are widespread throughout the world. Tropical ecosystems have an essential role in global climate change, biodiversity, life cycle, bioeconomic, social culture, and environment. Multi-disaster mitigation due to geological, volcanic, hydrometeor, and climate change factors must be anticipated. An integrated multi-hazard management system with firm policy, regulation, leadership, infrastructure, participation, socio-culture based on nature and community would be the best solution.
Full-text available
Volcanic activity impacts ecosystems sometimes with multiple, complex and long-lasting consequences, including volcanic tephra (airborne material) causing widespread disruptions. We study the effects of tephra deposition around two tropical lakes of Ecuador using a multi-proxy analysis of lake sediment archives spanning the last 2000 years. We present the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation (pollen), aquatic macroinvertebrate fauna (chironomids) and organic matter (stable isotopes) in: (i) a high elevation, stream-connected, open alpine grassland (Andean páramo) and (ii) a mid-elevation, stream-isolated, pre-montane forest. Páramo vegetation showed a slight increase in herbs and quick recovery after the tephra deposition; however, the aquatic community suffered a regime shift not reversed today c. 1500 years after the event. In the pre-montane location, the canopy opened up following tephra deposition, and it took c. 150 years to return to pre-impact levels. At the forested site, no major changes in the aquatic fauna were observed related to the tephra deposition. We hypothesise that the forest acted as a protective barrier preventing a large fallout of ash into the aquatic system. Forest not only acted as a buffer for ash falling into the water from the air, but also prevented landslides of tephra by enhancing soil stability, contrary to what was observed in the open system. We demonstrate the protective ecosystem service that forests play in sustaining ecological resilience and water quality facing natural (volcanic) disturbance. The ongoing deforestation of tropical regions therefore might increase the vulnerability of aquatic ecosystems, threatening the water quality for ecosystems and human populations.
Full-text available
The National Hydraulic Research Institute of Malaysia reported that by 2050, the east coast of the country will suffer increasing substantial rainfall, sea-level rise, and recurrent flooding. The effects of coastal threats, vulnerability, and adaptation measures are increasingly becoming more critical for coastal communities than before. Hence, this study aims to measure the levels of community awareness and adaptation strategies to coastal hazards and to analyze the differences of awareness on the basis of socioeconomic factors. The research is based on a household survey (n = 498), which is randomly conducted in 11 locations on the Pahang coast. Findings indicate that more than half of household heads have high levels of awareness regarding coastal hazard impacts, such as human casualties; losses of mangroves, coastal forests, aquatic, wildlife, and livestock resources; and damage to residential properties, coastal infrastructures, agriculture, and economic activities. An independent sample T-test and one-way ANOVA demonstrate household heads who are elderly (x̅ = 2.57, p < 0.01); experienced (x̅ = 2.48, p < 0.01); educated (x̅ = 2.65, p < 0.01); healthy (x̅ = 2.42, p < 0.01); and with an improved socioeconomic status (x̅ = 2.42, p < 0.05) having high levels of awareness. This study suggests that education and awareness-raising, including capacity building, play essential roles in the further understanding and decision making of coastal hazards and adaptation strategies. Moreover, the principal component analysis model identifies that structural and non-structural measures and community-based adaptation measures are essential to protect the coast. The study can contribute to the knowledge of community awareness and adaptation to coastal hazard literature that can be implemented on a global scale.
A 2.5 km stretch of a sandur (glacial outwash plain) neighbouring a wetland in South-east Iceland was monitored from 1 September 2015 to 2 September 2016. Improved understanding of the hydrological regime at this sandur-wetland boundary is warranted as local farmers are losing ground to the frequent flooding of their wet meadows despite the existence of elevated berms. A series of water wells were installed across a sandur-wetland boundary, to monitor water table fluctuations, determine flooding extent and assess groundwater inflow. Flooding occurred rapidly in the sandur during 19 weather events, which included modest and heavy rainfall, and glacial outburst floods (jökulhlaups). Water levels on the South-western edge of the wetland responded in sync with the sandur during flooding, indicating a connectivity via groundwater exchange across the coarse, non-vegetated berm. We estimated that between 6 June and 31 August, 11,275 m3 of groundwater flowed from the sandur to this part of the wetland. This contrasted with the South-eastern edge of the wetland, which had an older, vegetated berm. Here, only 7446 m3 of groundwater flowed from the sandur to the wetland. Overall, these modest water inputs accounted for 76% of seasonal evaporation loss from the wetland (191 mm).
Full-text available
Aims In eroded lands of the French Southern Alps, burial of early established seedlings under marly sediment weakens the effect of vegetation on soil stabilization and sediment trapping. Therefore, this protective role is largely dependent on species' resistance to burial, and the understanding of species' tolerance to this environmental disturbance is highly valuable for basic knowledge on plant succession and for ecological restoration purposes. Methods The response of five woody species with contrasting ecological requirements and natural habitats—three tree species, Pinus nigra, Robinia pseudoacacia and Acer campestre, and two shrubs, Ononis fruticosa and Hippophae rhamnoides—to experimental burial under marly sediment was studied. Seedlings were exposed to three burial levels: no burial (control), partial burial (50% of seedling height) and complete burial (100% of seedling height). Burial tolerance was evaluated based on seedling survival, height and biomass. Biomass allocation to shoots and roots and soluble sugar and starch contents in roots and stems were measured to identify plant traits that determine species response to burial. Important Findings All species survived partial burial but only A. campestre seedlings emerged from complete burial. Tree species were more tolerant to burial and buried plants showed no significant differences with control. The two shrubs were found less tolerant and buried plants showed slower growth than controls. The results showed that species response was not related to initial soluble and starch content in roots and stems, but instead to biomass allocation pattern flexibility.
Richard Alley, one of the world's leading climate researchers, tells the fascinating history of global climate changes as revealed by reading the annual rings of ice from cores drilled in Greenland. In the 1990s he and his colleagues made headlines with the discovery that the last ice age came to an abrupt end over a period of only three years. Here Alley offers the first popular account of the wildly fluctuating climate that characterized most of prehistory--long deep freezes alternating briefly with mild conditions--and explains that we humans have experienced an unusually temperate climate. But, he warns, our comfortable environment could come to an end in a matter of years. The Two-Mile Time Machine begins with the story behind the extensive research in Greenland in the early 1990s, when scientists were beginning to discover ancient ice as an archive of critical information about the climate. Drilling down two miles into the ice, they found atmospheric chemicals and dust that enabled them to construct a record of such phenomena as wind patterns and precipitation over the past 110,000 years. The record suggests that "switches" as well as "dials" control the earth's climate, affecting, for example, hot ocean currents that today enable roses to grow in Europe farther north than polar bears grow in Canada. Throughout most of history, these currents switched on and off repeatedly (due partly to collapsing ice sheets), throwing much of the world from hot to icy and back again in as little as a few years. Alley explains the discovery process in terms the general reader can understand, while laying out the issues that require further study: What are the mechanisms that turn these dials and flip these switches? Is the earth due for another drastic change, one that will reconfigure coastlines or send certain regions into severe drought? Will global warming combine with natural variations in Earth's orbit to flip the North Atlantic switch again? Predicting the long-term climate is one of the greatest challenges facing scientists in the twenty-first century, and Alley tells us what we need to know in order to understand and perhaps overcome climate changes in the future.