Search

In 2013, scientists implemented a binational exchange for emergency planners and responders in communities near Nevado del Ruiz in Colombia and volcanoes of the Cascade Range of the United States (US). This program was designed to promote understanding of volcanic disasters and effective mitigation options, motivate participants to strengthen emergency planning efforts, and promote trust-building among participants. The 2013 Binational Exchange was funded by the Volcano Disaster Assistance Program (VDAP), a joint U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) program.During a week-long visit to Colombian emergency response agencies, Nevado del Ruiz, and lahar-destroyed ruins of the city of Armero and the region of Viejo Rio Claro, US participants became familiar with Colombian counterparts who have had recent and frequent experiences addressing volcanic crises. Aging survivors and authorities of the Nevado del Ruiz catastrophe of 1985 gave participants first-hand accounts, and ideas for improved preparedness and response. While in the US, Colombian participants observed emergency response capabilities and facilities, and received training in systems of incident command. Colombians made presentations to the US public and officials about the similarities of lahar risks in both nations.This article describes the 2013 Binational Exchange as an experiential learning event and uses results of post-exchange discussions and interviews as evidence of steps achieved within the learning process. Six years hence, this article provides examples of progress with volcano hazards mitigation in both nations. The article offers the binational exchange model as an effective tool that employs both experiential learning and socialization of participants to create a highly motivating and effective learning environment.

Developing spatially explicit models of Ecosystem Services (ES) distribution and diversity across the territory has been increasingly attracting the interest of researchers and policy-makers due to its potential to operacionalize and mainstream the ES concept into existing planning and policy tools. In this paper we explore the use of social media photographs to model the spatial distribution of people preferences for cultural ecosystem services (CES), map their hotspots, identify the determinant variables as well as the spatial correlation between CES. This research was applied in the Sudoeste Alentejano and Costa Vicentina Natural Park (PNSACV) located in Southwestern Alentejo, Portugal. A collection of 1378 geo-tagged digital images taken inside the Park and posted in the Flickr web platform between 2004 and 2015 were analyzed and classified according to a tailored list of CES. To model CES spatial distribution it was used a species distribution model – Maxent – adapted to combine the observation of CES occurrence with biophysical and infrastructural variables. This method allowed us to identify and map the social preferences for CES in this area. The distance to the ocean and distance to touristic and cultural infrastructure were the most determinant variables to explain CES distribution in PNSACV. Another relevant result of this study was the identification of pairs of CES (such as Recreation & Aesthetics services) with a significant spatial overlap. Using social media data can be an expedite and cost-effective way to identify and map CES, although this approach embodies some challenges and biases that need to be considered. The use of species distribution models, such as Maxent, can be particularly valuable to support the design of future scenarios and assist decision-making on land use planning.

The montado (in Portugal) or dehesa (in Spain) is an agrosilvopastoral system found in the Iberian Peninsula. Due to its high environmental value, its protection forms part of European biodiversity strategies, but recent management trends are threatening its sustainability. The need to understand the drivers of change and associated impacts means that launching an integrative monitoring of this system is urgent. This article identifies critical elements of the socioeconomic system to be considered within a socio-ecological monitoring of montados and conducts a review of potential indicators based on generally available data. We conclude by pointing out that monitoring of this socio-ecological system faces multiple challenges, such as limited data availability, the difficulty of defining a set of indicators that reflects the complexity of montados, and the integration of data of different natures and diverse temporal and spatial scales. The approach presented in this research can be adapted to similar agroforestry systems.

Made available in DSpace on 2018-12-11T17:15:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2018-02-01 The ecosystem service (ES) concept is becoming mainstream in policy and planning, but operational influence on practice is seldom reported. Here, we report the practitioners’ perspectives on the practical implementation of the ES concept in 27 case studies. A standardised anonymous survey (n = 246), was used, focusing on the science-practice interaction process, perceived impact and expected use of the case study assessments. Operationalisation of the concept was shown to achieve a gradual change in practices: 13% of the case studies reported a change in action (e.g. management or policy change), and a further 40% anticipated that a change would result from the work. To a large extent the impact was attributed to a well conducted science-practice interaction process (>70%). The main reported advantages of the concept included: increased concept awareness and communication; enhanced participation and collaboration; production of comprehensive science-based knowledge; and production of spatially referenced knowledge for input to planning (91% indicated they had acquired new knowledge). The limitations were mostly case-specific and centred on methodology, data, and challenges with result implementation. The survey highlighted the crucial role of communication, participation and collaboration across different stakeholders, to implement the ES concept and enhance the democratisation of nature and landscape planning. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Bush Estate Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25 Social-ecological Systems Lab Department of Ecology Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Calle Darwin no. 2, Campus de Cantoblanco Finnish Environment Institute, P.O. Box 140 Institute of Landscape Ecology Slovak Academy of Sciences, Akademická 2 Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences Constantine the Philosopher University, Trieda A. Hlinku 1 Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG Ltd.), Rómer Flóris u. 38. Department of Decision Sciences Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8. Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Permoserstraße 15 CoKnow Consulting – Coproducing Knowledge for Sustainability, Jesewitz CENSE – Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2829-516 Caparica Institute of Ecology and Botany MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Alkotmány u. 2-4. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) Edifici Z (ICTA-ICP), Carrer de les Columnes s/n, Campus de la UAB Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Gaustadalléen 21 Environmental Change Institute, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road Wageningen University and Research Environmental Research (Alterra), P.O. Box 47 European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, FR-75231 Paris Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford Urban Environment and Territorial Sustainability Area Energy and Environment Dividision Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia C/Geldo, Edificio 700 University of Bucharest - Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability, Splaiul Independentei 91-95 European Commission – Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via E. Fermi 2749 Institute of Landscape Ecology Slovak Academy of Sciences, Štefánikova 3 UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av. 24-A, 1515 CEP: 13506-900, Rio Claro IRSTEA National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture UMR TETIS, 500 rue JF BRETON Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC CONICET), Houssay 200 Leuphana University of Lüneburg Faculty of Sustainability Institute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Scharnhorststraβe 1 IBRAD (Indian Institute of Bio Social Research and Development), VIP Road, Kestopur, Prafulla Kanan Department of Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014 University of Helsinki Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), P.O. Box 20412-0200 Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), CC 332 (9400), Río Gallegos Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral (UNPA) Río Gallegos Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) INCLINE – Interdisciplinary Climate Change Research Group Instituto de Astronomia e Geofísica USP – Universidade de São Paulo, R. do Matão, 1226 - Butantã Wageningen University & Research – Marine (WUR), P.O. Box 57 National Institute for Research and Development in Forestry “Marin Dracea”, Eroilor Blvd 128 Institute of Nature Conservation and Landscape Management Szent István University, Páter Károly u. 1. Norwegian University of Life Science (NMBU), Universitetstunet 3 Department of Applied Research and Agricultural Extension Madrid Institute for Rural Agricultural and Food Research and Development (IMIDRA), Ctra. Madrid-Barcelona (N-II), KM. 38.200, 28802 Alcalá De Henares Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric) Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), P.O. Box 5003 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Fakkelgården VISTA Analyse A/S, Meltzers gate 4 University of Girona, Plaça de Sant Domènec, 3 Basque Centre for Climate Change, Alameda de Urquijo 4 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Postboks 5685 Sluppen De Økonomiske Råd, Amaliegade 44 UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av. 24-A, 1515 CEP: 13506-900, Rio Claro

En la zona de influencia del volcán Nevado del Huila, más específicamente en la cuenca del río Páez, han ocurrido flujos de escombros en periodos recientes, como los ocurridos en 1994 (de origen sismotectónico) y en 2007 (de origen volcánico, como consecuencia de la actividad eruptiva y su interacción con la masa glaciar). Este hecho revela la recurrencia de estos eventos y, por tanto, la susceptibilidad que la cuenca del río Páez posee para la generación de este tipo de fenómenos, impactando enormemente a los pobladores asentados en su zona de influencia, con pérdidas de vidas humadas y daños a la infraestructura y al ecosistema. Con base en las evidencias dejadas por los flujos de escombros ocurridos en 1994 y 2007, fueron recolectados datos geológicos y topográficos directamente en campo con el fin de modelar el comportamiento de los flujos a lo largo de la cuenca del río Páez, siguiendo la metodología Lahar-Z propuesta por Iverson y otros (1998). Los resultados muestran que los valores obtenidos sobreestiman las áreas transversales de inundación y subestiman los volúmenes involucrados al ser comparados con los valores reales.

El volcán Nevado del Huila se encuentra localizado al SW de Colombia; su comportamiento ha sido principalmente efusivo y de composición predominantemente andesítica, aunque en su último desarrollo se han generado flujos de lava, domos y algunos flujos piroclásticos. El 18 de febrero y el 17 de abril de 2007 se registraron eventos eruptivos freáticos; los cuales estuvieron asociados a una columna de aproximadamente 4 km de altura, formación de una fisura de 2 km de largo en dirección N-S, reacomodación del sistema de grietas glaciares preexistentes, generación de cenizas que cubrieron el pico Central, una nueva fisura que atravesó los costados SW y NE del pico Central con una longitud de 2,3 km, pérdida parcial del glaciar El Oso (al E) y formación de dos lahares pequeños que se encaminaron por los cauces de los ríos Páez y Símbola, afectando importante infraestructura vial y dejando incomunicada la población del área de influencia del volcán. Hasta la actualidad, los cambios morfológicos que ha venido sufriendo la masa glaciar incluyen fusión paulatina, debido a la interacción con los gases calientes que emanan permanentemente de las fumarolas presentes a lo largo de las dos grandes fisuras generadas recientemente, basculamiento y fusión de bloques de hielo cercanos a los bordes de estas grandes fisuras; y pérdida parcial de algunos frentes de lenguas glaciares. Estudios anteriores sobre el retroceso glaciar en el volcán estimaban la desaparición de esta masa glaciar hacia los años 60-70 de este siglo, sin considerar en esta tendencia aceleraciones debidas a erupciones volcánicas o sismos. Por tanto, estos cambios, causados por la reciente actividad volcánica y los efectos posteriores a ella, seguramente están generando un retroceso glaciar mucho más acelerado, que llevará a una extinción más rápida de esta masa glaciar.

El estudio geológico y geomorfológico de las inmediaciones del Cerro Morasurco permitió cartografiar las geoformas volcánicas aun conservadas y pertenecientes a la actividad del Volcán Morasurco en el sur de Colombia. Fue posible identificar tres (4) unidades de flujos piroclásticos y al menos cinco (5) unidades lávicas. Así mismo se logró identificar dos (2) diferentes etapas eruptivas, una primera, de carácter efusivo, con erupción de grandes coladas de lavas de andesitas basálticas y una segunda, de carácter más explosivo, que genera destrucción parcial del edificio volcánico y la erupción de grandes cantidades de material piroclástico, que cubrió gran parte del área estudiada. El primer episodio lávico tiene una composición que varía de fenoandesitas basálticas de dos piroxenos a fenoandesitas horbléndicas, de la serie calco-alcalina, con contenido medio en SiO2 y K2O. La petrografía indica una importante acción de mezcla de magmas y desequilibrio de las cámaras magmáticas donde evolucionaron los magmas. Edades de trazas de fisión en circón y K-Ar en roca total permitieron definir la actividad efusiva entre 1.8-2.2 Ma, mientras que en los depósitos correspondientes a la destrucción del edificio volcánico se obtuvo una edad de 1.94±0.13 Ma. Las características geoquímicas indican que la composición aparentemente estuvo constante a lo largo de la evolución del volcán. Además la comparación entre estos resultados y los datos publicados para el volcán Galeras indican que los procesos magmáticos no cambiaron mucho a lo largo del tiempo y que ambos edificios podrían estar asociados a un mismo sistema magmático. A field study of the Morasurco volcano in southern Colombia allows the understanding of volcanic geoforms and to identify five lava flows and three pyroclastic flows from its major volcanic activity. Furthermore, the existence of two eruptive stages was stablished, the first, an effusive stage with eruption of large amounts of basaltic lavas, and a second stage with partial destruction of the volcanic edifice and the emission of large amounts of pyroclastic material that cover a large portion of the studied area. The first stage has a composition which varies between two pyroxene basaltic fenoandesite and hornblendic fenoandesite of the calcalkaline series of medium K2O. The petrography as well as other disequilibrium textures, indicate magma mingling within the magmatic chamber. Zircon fission tracks and K-Arages of 2.02±0.27 Ma, 1.95±0.52 Ma and 1.94 0.28 Ma were obtained for the effusive activity and an age of 1.94±0.13 Ma was obtained for the explosive event that destroyed the volcanic cone. Major and trace elements from five samples show constant geochemical characteristics along the volcanic evolution. The constant geochemical composition and the similarities seen when compared with published results from the Galeras Volcano suggest that these two volcanic centers may belong to the same magmatic system.