Resident stakeholder perceptions of lava flow hazard diversion strategies and protective measures for infrastructure and commercial and private property on Kīlauea and Mauna Loa volcanoes, Hawai‘i

• Main Authors: Reeves, Ashleigh, Gregg, Christopher, Lindell, Michael K, Joyner, Timothy A, Houghton, Bruce
• Format: Others
• Published: Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University 2018
• Subjects: lava; mitigation; diversion; protective measures; Geology; Volcanology
• Online Access: https://dc.etsu.edu/asrf/2018/schedule/25

Decisions to interfere with the natural path of lava are constrained by geological, engineering and logistical factors; and legal, environmental and socio-cultural considerations. Lava flows erupted from several volcanoes around the world have threatened people and their property, motivating them to take actions to prevent or slow its advance by diverting the flow direction using channels, berms and explosives or obstructing the lava by quenching with water or armoring. Property to be protected has included government, public, commercial and private property ranging from cities and harbors to personal property. The earliest known attempt to influence the path of lava occurred in 1669 on Mount Etna, Italy, but more recent experience there occurred in the 1980s-90s. Several eruptions at Kīlauea and Mauna Loa volcanoes in Hawai‘i also provided abundant experience (1881, 1935, 1942, 1955, 1960 and several times during the on-going 1983- present eruption of Kīlauea). Additional experience relates to experimental tests and an untested berm on Mauna Loa. Most recently though, local businessmen on Kīlauea constructed earthen berms to protect their property and the local utility authority constructed novel protective structures around electric utility poles. Decisions to use mitigation strategies may be based on expert scientific opinion, but public opposition has been reported to alone be able to prevent lava mitigation. In 2014, public opinions about the use of traditional mitigation strategies (diversion by berms or bombing) to protect commercial and residential areas of Puna were mixed among residents, but there appeared to be no opposition to a new mitigation strategy that protected key areas of the electrical infrastructure and supply of electricity. To help understand public opinion about this and various mitigation strategies and people’s acceptance of additional risk to personal property to help protect important elements of their community, we conductied questionnaire surveys among residents on Kīlauea and Mauna Loa as part of a multi-university NSF Hazards SEES project. We evaluated crisis experience, hazard zonation, and community bondedness, in addition to socio-demographic and cultural factors, with beliefs concerning mitigation, including effectiveness of mitigation strategies for lava flows and others hazards; financial and legal considerations; and requirements for specialized knowledge, skills and cooperation.