Jökull - 01.01.2021, Qupperneq 88

Gísladóttir et al.
Álftaver. Bird and Gísladóttir (2018) report that some
residents did not comply to evacuation orders dur-
ing the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption due to caring
for elderly and incapacitated family members, car-
ing for livestock or believing the messages were not
relevant to them. As livelihoods diversify from agri-
culture into tourism (see Bird and Gísladóttir 2018),
further non-compliance may occur as a result of duty
of care to patrons who are out sightseeing and unac-
counted for. These are just a few of the environmental,
social, individual-level and event-orientated variables
that impact decision-making in response to warnings
(Mileti and Peek, 2000, Lindell and Perry, 2004, Dash
and Gladwin, 2007, Sorenson and Sorenson, 2007,
Lindell and Perry, 2012).
Collectively, these studies highlight the need for
participatory approaches that promote ongoing and
inclusive dialogue that leads to the co-production of
knowledge. It is within this space that realistic plans
that address residents’, as well as officials’ concerns
can be developed and implemented. Ongoing con-
siderations of ‘social scenarios’ combined with the
physical, will ensure that authorities, scientists and
local residents alike have a more holistic understand-
ing of the diverse and complex range of events that
might occur. Without collaboration among all stake-
holders, participatory approaches are likely to be in-
effective at the policy level (Mercer et al., 2008). In
some countries, such as New Zealand, the United
States and Colombia, governments mandate partici-
patory approaches (Cadag et al., 2017). An excellent
example of the success of this in Colombia is provided
by García and Mendez-Fajury (2017).
While the full-scale evacuation exercise held in
2006, deemed a success by emergency management
officials, tested different situations (e.g. actors were
employed to role play residents that refused to evacu-
ate), it was developed as an official top-down activ-
ity (Bird et al., 2009). That is, residents were ex-
pected to evacuate upon receipt of the evacuation no-
tice for the mock eruption. Their views of the fac-
tors that would impact their decision-making during a
real eruption were not taken into consideration. Af-
ter the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption, Bird and Gísla-
dóttir (2012) report that officials’ views appeared to be
more aligned with residents in terms of the risks posed
by tephra and lightning. However, it is apparent that
current plans (i.e. Plan B) have also been developed
without local residents’ input. As postulated by Pow-
ell and Colin (2008), residents have valuable knowl-
edge and perspectives and in our democratic societies,
they should at the very least, have a say in decisions
that affect their lives.
CONCLUSIONS
Importantly, this paper has contributed to the scien-
tific literature by bringing together detailed accounts
of what people felt and experienced during the 1918
Katla eruption. This includes the production of unique
visual representations of the sheep round up activity
and location of sheep herders and the escape routes
they took to travel back to Álftaver once they realised
that Katla had erupted and a jökulhlaup was approach-
ing. From their descriptions, and the routes they took,
it is clear the farmers at Álftaver knew their envi-
ronment; at the mention of Katla, they knew exactly
where they needed to go to remain safe. The descrip-
tions also tell us about the nature of the jökulhlaups
in 1918, with a ‘pre-flood’ devoid of ice and trav-
elling at a much faster rate than the ice-laden main
flood. This pre-flood caused river crossings to become
quickly impassable.
Armed with this knowledge, residents questioned
emergency response strategies which instructed them
to follow evacuation routes that lay bare across the
flood conveyance paths, with potentially poor vis-
ibility due to bad weather and tephra fall. While
officials should be commended for addressing resi-
dents’ concerns by developing a ‘Plan B’, it appears
that local residents were not involved in its devel-
opment, despite the critical knowledge they have of
their local area from both a social and environmental
perspective.
This paper therefore argues for the adoption of a
participatory approach, that includes ongoing and in-
clusive discussions between officials and people at-
risk and leading to the co-production of knowledge.
From this base, more appropriate emergency response
strategies that adequately reflect and accommodate lo-
cal knowledge, perspectives and planned behaviour
86 JÖKULL No. 71, 2021