# data[].attributes.body
The extent of the impacts caused by a volcanic eruption is dependant on a multitude of factors, such as the type of eruption, either effusive or explosive, and the size of volcano it came from, such as a super-volcano. Other external factors can also increase or decrease the impact of the eruption, which can also include the management plans to mitigate tectonic hazards and the socio-political landscape in the region of eruption. The impact of an eruption can also be dependant on the environment around the volcano, which can cause a greater impact effect on the surrounding region; However, the type of eruption from a volcano is the primary factor which determines its impact on a social, environmental  and socio political scale.

# data[].attributes.body
Explosive eruptions can cause huge impacts. They are the most violent type of eruption, and can send ash, gas and lava high up into the atmosphere. They occur where cooler, more viscous magma reach the surface of the volcano, and cannot escape easily, dissolved gases also can't escape easily, which builds up a large pressure until gas explosions blast rock and lava fragments up into the air. Lava flows are much more thick and sticky and do not flow downhill as easily. These eruptions often cause huge pyroclastic flows, which is a high density mixture of hot fragmented solids and expanding gases ejected by the violent nature of the explosive nature, they are very deadly, and burn everything in their path. These cause huge impacts, which can be seen through the volcano eruption in Montserrat, in 1995-7. There was a massive loss of vegetation due to the pyroclastic flows and lahars. The pyroclastic flows, and ash destroyed agricultural land. This had a huge impact on the people living in montserrat as farming was their livelihood. Therefore, the type of this explosion had a large impact and changed the impacts on the people. If the eruption had been less violent, and the pyroclastic flows had not occurred then the land would not have been destroyed. The volcano also releases hydrogen sulphide gas, and so2 which can cause acid rain. This acid rain can then poison plants and animals living in montserrat. Some of the pyroclastic flows reached the sea, killing the marine habitats and covering the coral reefs in ash. Another way the volcano impacts affected the population is through the exclusion zone. The exclusion zone was set up in Montserrat in the south half of the island, including the island's capital, Plymouth. This was set up to reduce any impacts from the large pyroclastic flows, and it stops people entering. The volcanic activity along with the exclusion zone has caused the population of montserrat to decrease by 75%. If the volcano had been a less violent type of eruption, then there would not have been such a worry about pyroclastic flows and the exclusion zone would not have been set up, and people would not have lost their homes. Therefore, the impact of the volcanic eruption is closely linked to the type of the eruption.

# data[].attributes.body
Different types of volcano can cause varying levels of environmental impacts. Effusive volcanoes generally produce less tephra and dont damage as much as explosive eruptions, however, super volcanoes produce massive amounts of tephra including ash

Not all environmental impacts of volcanic eruptions are bad. Volcanic ash makes soil very fertile so lots of plants or crops can grow there. Super volcanoes ash reaches further than effusive and explosive volcanic eruptions, so a larger area gets more fertile land from the ash. For example, Yellowstone is a super volcano and during its last eruption ash travelled all the way to the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific ocean and it was 7 metres thick in North Montana.

However environmental impacts can also depend on the land around the volcano, for example Montserrat had lots of jungle around the volcano that was damaged, so lots of plants and animals were killed, so lots of environmental damage, but in a more barren place, a volcano of the same size and VEI would cause less environmental damage because there’s less environment to be damaged. Also, the eruption of Eyjafjallajokull, lots of the impacts were from the flooding caused by the glacier melting which wouldn't be an issue in a place with no ice. Super volcanoes can cause longer term environmental impacts because the massive ash clouds can get into jet stream? And affect the weather all around world for example the year with no summer in 1815 was caused by an eruption of a super volcano in Indonesia of Mount Tambora. The year without a summer caused a famine because the ash blocked the sun so it was too cold for a good harvest in many places.

So levels of environmental impacts of volcanoes are mostly due to type of volcano, as type often correlates with amount of tephra and destructiveness of eruptions, but can also be influenced by what the land is like around the volcano.

WWW: lots of good facts and explanation of the facts + using facts to support geography knowledge to explain the point you are making.

EBI: I don't know

# data[].attributes.body
Peer reviewed by Emma

A volcanic eruption causes a response wherever in the world it takes place, therefore suggesting that the type of eruption does cause a certain impact, however, a countries development can also affect this impact. One of the major impacts of significant volcanic eruptions are the management plans that are put in place after the eruption to be prepared for the next one, this is often made around the type of eruption that was seen by the volcano most recently. However, a countries level of development often determines the amount of management that is undertaken in preparation for the next volcanic eruption, and therefore can be seen as a main factor in the impact of a volcanic eruption. Generally, the more advanced a country is, the more successful their management plan will be because they have the professionals to work on it and the money to carry it out in an effective way. However, despite this seeming logical, the management of earthquakes in Rabaul, Papa New Guinea  shows that less developed countries can still have a very developed and effective plan, therefore suggesting that the development of a country does not completely affect the impact of an eruption. Rabaul practiced evacuating hazard areas frequently after an increase in volcanic activity in 1983, when 2 large earthquakes took place in September 1994, people moved to safe areas on their own. This was seen as a huge success because the volcanic eruption that followed badly damaged the capital but only 3 people died. This therefore shows that despite countries development often leading to the degree of impacts after a volcanic eruption, it is not a definite factor and therefore a limited argument. It also shows that the management plan was initially put in place due to the increase in volcanic activity, linked to it's type of eruption. In summary, the type of eruption is initially related to the impact because it causes the countries to create a management plan for any future eruptions. Therefore the level of development of a country plays a role in determining the success of this management plan, but as seen in Rabaul, it is not necessarily the underdeveloped countries that have the most devastating impacts.

WWW: Good usage of a case study to illustrate an argument
EBI:

# data[].attributes.body
Despite the development of countries allowing, in most cases, mitigation of a volcanic eruption, the rarer cases of a super-volcanoes is undoubtedly an aspect that cannot be largely mitigated by development - meaning that the type of eruption has to bear significant influence on the impact of a volcanic eruption. In this sense, the extensive amounts of tephra released by the eruptions of super volcanoes will have extensive implications on all nations regardless of development. Considering that a super volcano VEI ranks as 8, over 1000 cubic kilometres of tephra is released; having unprecedented impacts unseen from 'norma' volcanic eruptions. Taking the Yellowstone eruption 640,000 years ago, the eruption was considered to have a VEI of 8. Keeping this in mind, ash deposits from the eruption reached 7m thick in Northern Montana, reached as far as Mexico and the Pacific Ocean and is likely to have caused noticeable, though temporary, decrease in global temperatures. No level of development can be acclaimed to have to ability to successfully and significantly mitigate the impacts of a super volcano eruption - particularly of this size. Other examples include the Taupo eruption around 30,000 years ago in New Zealand which deposited ash over 15cm deep over 620 miles  away. It is likely that the affects of a Supervolcano in a modern society would completely destroy national and global markets, and, due to the sheer size of the volcano, no areas of a nation (notably where the eruption may take place) will go unaffected. Therefore, it is convincing to argue that type of eruption (super volcano) can have huge impacts regardless of development. However, it is notable to say the point is somewhat undermined by the idea of recency - as the frequency of super volcano eruptions are significantly less than that of 'regular eruptions'. The next prospected eruption for Yellowstone is not for another 100,000 years.

Peer reviewed by Susie
WWW: really good use of case study detail to explain the points you were making
EBI: slightly more detail on the recency would be nice but overall very good :)

# data[].attributes.body
However, it could be argued that the impact of a volcano is not related to the type of eruption and is influenced more by external environmental factors. The surrounding environment will have an impact in mitigating or worsening the effects of an eruption. The Eyjafjallajökull (E15) eruption in 2010 is an example of how external environmental factors can worsen the impacts of an eruption. The eruption itself had a VEI of 4 and occurred at a constructive plate margin (generally less explosive than destructive) however still managed to send ash as far as 10km into the atmosphere and into the jet stream, spreading across Europe and paralysing air movement and coating Europe with a $2.6 billion loss in GDP. These impacts were due not to the eruptive power but instead the overlain ice cap that melted as magma rose and laval emitted on the surface. The mix of water and lava increased the explosivity and led to the formation of glassy ash with 58% silica which can melt jet engines. This phreatomagmatic eruption thereby led to thin, glassy ash able to be easily transported by the jet stream as well as flooding of arable land and disruption to people's livelihoods, both negative environmental and socioeconomic impacts. However, it could be argued that the development of Iceland allowed for effective mitigation of these impacts on people and that, long term, more positive benefits were brought to the arable land and farmers as the lava provided fertile soil and warmer conditions causing a good crop season. Therefore, while in Iceland’s case, E15 has individual environmental factors that worsened the severity of the eruption, the development of a country has a greater impact of being able to reduce such impacts and even capitalise and take economic advantages of them.

WWW: Lots of specific details within evidence backing the points you make
EBI: You started off making the point that environmental factors are more influential, but finish with development being more influential?

George

# data[].attributes.body
The type of eruption is related to the socio-political impacts of the eruption. A larger, explosive volcanic eruption will cause more damage to infrastructure, mortality rates, and the country’s ability to continue to run properly. For example, in Montserrat, the soufriere hills volcano erupted as an explosive eruption, which led to Plymouth (the capital of Montserrat) being evacuated, and an exclusion zone being established in the south of Montserrat, displacing many people and disrupting their lives as they had to leave their homes, along with all of their belongings and places of work. This meant that people couldn’t work, had to rely on friends or the government to provide accommodation, and had to live with very little belongings. Because of this disruption, people returned to their farms in the exclusion zone as it is the only form of income for them, and a later pyroclastic flow killed 19 people as it travelled across this farmland. Smaller, less damaging eruptions will cause less disruption than this as the hazards are much smaller and more contained, meaning fewer evacuations, smaller exclusion zones and therefore less loss of jobs, homes, belongings and political stability.

Www: good use of an example
Ebi: maybe develop it a bit more and add some more AO2 or something

# data[].attributes.body
In conclusion, the type of eruption has the biggest effect on the impacts of a volcanic eruption. Although the level of development of an area can help mitigate many of the impacts, such as deaths, by having management strategies and evacuating the population it cannot entirely stop many impacts. There is no way to prevent lahars or pyroclastic flows that destroy everything in their path, and these are characteristic of certain eruption types. Environmental factors such as the presence of ice can have alter the impacts of a volcanic eruption, such as the eruption of E15, however, they are not the biggest determining factor in how much long-term damage an eruption will cause. The amount of tephra and the presence of pyroclastic flows cause larger amounts of long-term damage than issues caused by the melting of ice. Eruptions that are highly explosive have had reproductions on the entire world's climate for extended periods of time. In addition, no amount of infrastructure or other environmental factors can alter the impacts of a supervolcanic eruption due to its sheer magnitude. Therefore, the type of eruption does have the biggest effect on the impact of a volcanic eruption.

Izzy
WWW: good decisive conclusion made, using evidence from the other paragraphs
EBI: maybe develop slightly more to have a good finishing sentence that isnt the same as the beginning of the paragraph