‘The severity of the impacts of the volcanic hazards experienced in a place is affected more by the
nature of the plate boundaries than the level of development of a place.’
To what extent do you agree with this view? [20 marks]
Volcanic hazards are experienced commonly along plate boundaries, both at destructive and
constructive. At destructive boundaries, the denser oceanic plate is subducted under the less dense
continental plate. Eruptions at this boundary are generally more violent than at a constructive
boundary, where the two plates are moving apart. Human responses to these tectonic hazards can
limit the severity of the impacts with effective planning and preparation. Some impacts, however,
may not be limited by the wealth of the country.
It could be argued that plate boundaries play a larger role in affecting the severity of the impacts of
volcanic hazards. For example, Eyjafjallajökull, Iceland is located on a constructive plate boundary.
This erupted in majorly in 2010, however no deaths were reported. This is arguably due to the less
violent nature of the shield volcano located here. Alternatively, Montserrat is located on a
destructive boundary, renowned for its more violent eruptions. These cause pyroclastic flows,
setting alight forests and also caused a reported 19 deaths. This difference in the severity of local
impacts can be argued as a direct result of the nature of the eruptions, with faster flows and more
tephra at a destructive boundary. This difference in severity, is therefore as a result of the differing
impacts due to the situational factors, not the level of development of a country.
Alternatively, the level of development of the country could play the largest role in affecting the
severity of the impacts of volcanic hazards. For example, no deaths were reported from the Icelandic
eruption in 2010, however 19 deaths were reported from the Montserrat eruption in 1995. The GDP
per capita in Montserrat is only $3,400 compared to Iceland’s GDP of $67,000. The effectiveness and
accessibility to sufficient planning and preparation, including first aid and evacuation plans are more
easily accessible in an HIC as they have a higher budget to facilitate more purchasing. These can
make huge difference to impacts faced on a local scale, reducing the number of deaths, as seen in
Iceland. These immediate impacts can be minimised on a local and national scale, as budgeting has
less limitations to keep its inhabitants safe. Therefore, it could be argued that immediate impacts
can be reduced with sufficient planning and preparation, made more achievable in countries with a
higher level of development.
Lastly, the development of a place could be argued to play the no role in affecting the severity of the
long-term impacts of volcanic hazards. Although the Icelandic eruption in 2010 recorded no deaths,
volcanic ash and dust was emitted to a height of over 10km. This causes major disruption not only on
a local scale, as travel and respiratory ease was disrupted but also on a global scale. Airlines across
the globe lost $130,000,000,000 a day due to the severe disruption. No level of development can
mitigate against a cloud of gas and ash, and volcanoes are indiscriminate as to their profound
effects. This is generally relative to long term effects, as the clearing of an ash cloud can take weeks.
Despite this devastation originating in an HIC, no amount of money can prevent the inevitable
natural processes during volcanic eruptions. Therefore, the level of development in a country plays
little role in managing the severity of impacts on a long term and global scale.
Ultimately, no level of development can influence the inevitable disruption from volcanic activity on
a global scale. However, level of development can hugely reduce the severity of immediate impacts
on a local scale by reducing loss of life, whilst type of plate boundary plays the largest role on
influencing the nature of the eruption and the aftermath of global disruption. A combination of all
factors is what wholly determines the severity of the impacts of volcanic hazards, with each aspect
nature of the plate boundaries than the level of development of a place.’
To what extent do you agree with this view? [20 marks]
Volcanic hazards are experienced commonly along plate boundaries, both at destructive and
constructive. At destructive boundaries, the denser oceanic plate is subducted under the less dense
continental plate. Eruptions at this boundary are generally more violent than at a constructive
boundary, where the two plates are moving apart. Human responses to these tectonic hazards can
limit the severity of the impacts with effective planning and preparation. Some impacts, however,
may not be limited by the wealth of the country.
It could be argued that plate boundaries play a larger role in affecting the severity of the impacts of
volcanic hazards. For example, Eyjafjallajökull, Iceland is located on a constructive plate boundary.
This erupted in majorly in 2010, however no deaths were reported. This is arguably due to the less
violent nature of the shield volcano located here. Alternatively, Montserrat is located on a
destructive boundary, renowned for its more violent eruptions. These cause pyroclastic flows,
setting alight forests and also caused a reported 19 deaths. This difference in the severity of local
impacts can be argued as a direct result of the nature of the eruptions, with faster flows and more
tephra at a destructive boundary. This difference in severity, is therefore as a result of the differing
impacts due to the situational factors, not the level of development of a country.
Alternatively, the level of development of the country could play the largest role in affecting the
severity of the impacts of volcanic hazards. For example, no deaths were reported from the Icelandic
eruption in 2010, however 19 deaths were reported from the Montserrat eruption in 1995. The GDP
per capita in Montserrat is only $3,400 compared to Iceland’s GDP of $67,000. The effectiveness and
accessibility to sufficient planning and preparation, including first aid and evacuation plans are more
easily accessible in an HIC as they have a higher budget to facilitate more purchasing. These can
make huge difference to impacts faced on a local scale, reducing the number of deaths, as seen in
Iceland. These immediate impacts can be minimised on a local and national scale, as budgeting has
less limitations to keep its inhabitants safe. Therefore, it could be argued that immediate impacts
can be reduced with sufficient planning and preparation, made more achievable in countries with a
higher level of development.
Lastly, the development of a place could be argued to play the no role in affecting the severity of the
long-term impacts of volcanic hazards. Although the Icelandic eruption in 2010 recorded no deaths,
volcanic ash and dust was emitted to a height of over 10km. This causes major disruption not only on
a local scale, as travel and respiratory ease was disrupted but also on a global scale. Airlines across
the globe lost $130,000,000,000 a day due to the severe disruption. No level of development can
mitigate against a cloud of gas and ash, and volcanoes are indiscriminate as to their profound
effects. This is generally relative to long term effects, as the clearing of an ash cloud can take weeks.
Despite this devastation originating in an HIC, no amount of money can prevent the inevitable
natural processes during volcanic eruptions. Therefore, the level of development in a country plays
little role in managing the severity of impacts on a long term and global scale.
Ultimately, no level of development can influence the inevitable disruption from volcanic activity on
a global scale. However, level of development can hugely reduce the severity of immediate impacts
on a local scale by reducing loss of life, whilst type of plate boundary plays the largest role on
influencing the nature of the eruption and the aftermath of global disruption. A combination of all
factors is what wholly determines the severity of the impacts of volcanic hazards, with each aspect
