Intergenerational transmission of historical memory of volcanic risk in Mexico

Abstract

Collective memory is built on concepts and meanings that a population shares and builds over time. These contents are perpetuated through oral transmission from generation to generation. In the case of populations exposed to volcanic risk, coexistence with the volcano is part of their history and daily life. The present study focuses on understanding the meanings, perceptions, and responses facing (before and after) volcanic crises. All these are taken from the collective memory that has been transmitted intergenerationally after the new stage of activity of the Popocatepetl volcano in 1994. It was carried out with qualitative methodology, based on symbolic interactionism, integrating elements of ethnography and grounded theory. People of different age groups from a Mexican community near the Popocatepetl volcano participated. The techniques used were in-depth interviews, focus groups, and participant observation. The historical memory of the volcano’s activity before and after the last reactivation was reconstructed, thus evidencing the generational processes.

Keywords

historic memory intergenerational construction of risk risk perception symbolic interactionism volcanic risk

Introduction

Living in the vicinity of an active volcano involves learning to live and coexist with a certain number of hazards that can be harmful to individual health and that can also affect the environment. These can be clearly identified physically (fumaroles, smells, sounds), or they can be assumed in daily life in a social dynamic where the cognitive and affective interpretations of each population come into play (landscape, presence, anthropomorphic interpretations). In Mexico, active volcanoes continue to be a natural threat that affects several populations and for which most of the people living in their surroundings are not sufficiently prepared because they have different versions of the hazards. In order to better understand how to approach this type of population, it is necessary to know how they construct their relationship with the volcano, what their perceptions are, what is preserved in their collective memory, and how this information is transmitted. In this framework, the present study focuses on understanding the meanings, perceptions, and responses facing (before and after) volcanic crises. All these are taken from the collective memory that has been transmitted intergenerationally after the new stage of activity of the Popocatepetl volcano in 1994.

Volcanism in Mexico

Central Mexico is crossed by the Trans-Mexican volcanic belt, where there are 16 active volcanoes, including Popocatepetl. This volcano is considered to be in high risk level in the country by scientists, because more than 25 million people live within 100 km of the crater (De la Cruz and Ramos, 1992). The activity of this volcano has been intermittent since its birth about 780,000 years ago (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Comisión Estatal del Agua y Medio Ambiente del Estado de Morelos and Centro Universitario para la Prevención de Desastres Regionales (CUPREDER) de la Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla (BUAP), 2005: 154). On 21December 1994, Popocatépetl had a strong seismic activity that consisted of explosions which generated a 7 km-high ash column that produced a fallout that reached 50 km to the north and east (López-Vázquez et al., 2008; Macías et al., 1995). Pyroclastic flows, lahars, and ash fall are the principal hazards threatening the closest villages near the Popocatépetl volcano. This situation led geologists and volcanologists to elaborate a risk map that contemplates: pyroclastic flows, tectonic faults, landslides, mudflows, and ash fall (Centro Nacional de Prevención de Desastres (CENAPRED), 2001; Macías, 2005; Instituto de Geofísica de la UNAM and Centro de Geociencias, 2017) in order to define more precisely the level of risk in each geographic zone around the volcano. Within the closest volcanic risk zones, approximately 15 km away, there are many populations that have been established in the area for centuries and have developed integrating the presence of the volcano throughout its history. Since its reactivation in 1994, Popocatepetl has had uninterrupted activity that has forced the population to evacuate on several occasions and to remain on constant alert, as the possible increase in the magnitude and intensity of eruptions, which could lead to the destruction of their villages, is not ruled out (CENAPRED, 2012).

Intergenerational exchange, historical memory

The exchanges of meanings between different generations in the process of constructing the historical memory of a population living near a volcano, such as Popocatepetl in Mexico, can allow us to delve deeper into the complex relationships between society and nature. Intergenerational relationships can produce both continuity and changes in the patterns of memory and social behavior of a population, referred to in some sociological studies as trajectories or transitions, respectively. A trajectory is understood as the course that, over time, the behavior, ideas, political positions, general attitudes and way of thinking of a person, a social group or an institution follows. In this framework, trajectories can be understood as processes of continuation, reproduction, persistence, prolongation, permanence, subsistence, or stability of patterns, models, or norms of behavior. On the contrary, a transition is the action and effect of passing from one way of being or being to a different one (Caballero, 2014).

Historical memory and perception of volcanic risk

Historical memory and the oral transmission of meanings are concepts closely related to the perception of risk. Risk perception can be understood as an evaluative process that allows people to define when a situation is threatening or not, the level estimated by each person and collective, the benefit that living in that situation can generate (cost-benefit evaluation), how acceptable it is for the person to be close to that hazard (López-Vázquez and Marván, 2018; Slovic, 2000; Slovic et al., 1982), and social trust in prevention and intervention agencies (Bronfman and López-Vázquez, 2011; Siegrist and Cvetkovich, 2000), among other variables. In this way, we can understand that perception is built around different personal, social, contextual, and historical factors that will give rise to what we call risk perceptions (Slovic, 2000). From the point of view of social interactions, these perceptions determine the concept and extent of a risk that is transmitted from generation to generation. They are fundamental to define the collective acceptance of a given hazard and are also the support of the symbolic relationship that orients the social behavior of acceptance or rejection (Douglas, 1996). So, the social construction of meanings is elaborated on the basis of experience and personal and collective interpretations. Then, it is understood that disasters result from the interaction of geophysical (disasters due to natural hazards) and historical, cultural, psychological, political, economic, and social aspects (Beck, 2012; Briones, 2005; Castillo, 2014; Douglas, 1996; Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982; Duclos, 1987; García, 2005; Lavell, 2005; López, 2011; Narváez et al., 2009; Ojeda, 2016; Ojeda and López-Vázquez, 2017; Tierney, 2014; Urteaga and Eizagirre, 2013).

In the case of volcanoes and the population of indigenous descent settled in their surroundings, volcanoes are important referents of the territory as mythical actors, persons, or deities (Broda, 2009). According to Glockner (2012), for most people of these communities volcanoes are sacred beings and have a dual nature; they are considered like people and mountains at the same time. Through personification, a kind of subjective immunity is given, equating human and volcano, so that the latter become less threatening (González, 2008).

In this framework, legends and myths about volcanoes are also constructed and circulated. According to Juárez (2012), the volcano, although it is a deity and controls from above, when personified through conversation it becomes close to the community, it is with them. As Glockner (2000) says, there is still a deep belief that God is still in the world and does not live only in the sky, and can be reached through the volcano who serves as an intermediary between men and God, an idea that is similar to that of other indigenous cultures. These ideas about volcano make part of the population identity.

In a study on volcanic risk carried out in a community near the crater of the Colima volcano, Padlog (2007) affirms that the idea of not to abandon volcano territory is clearly influenced by community identity, which lasts over time, as it is timeless.

Generations and socialization processes

Despite the reasons mentioned beforehand and current advances in the field of volcanology, social scientific knowledge about the relationships between populations and volcanic territories is still insufficient. This deficiency makes it challenging to implement risk management actions in accordance with community contexts. To this end, it is necessary to know both the reproduction processes and change of meanings toward a volcano with which people have lived for long periods of time. This is the reason why studying intergenerational relationships involved in the construction of historical memory takes on a special relevance.

Generations, understood as abstract groups with limitations that are difficult to define, share the same period of time with their socio-historical determinants, identification processes, and social relations that affect them and other groups. These elements originate reproduction and change of patterns in society (Caballero, 2014; Caballero and Baigorri, 2013; Gutiérrez and Herráiz, 2009; Leccardi and Feixa, 2011). In an environment classified as risky, generational processes imply reciprocal influences within an age group or between two or more generations to signify and resignify risk (Ojeda and López-Vázquez, 2017).

Each generation develops its own meanings and transmits them to other generations, the process during which memory becomes dynamic. Memory contains aspects of individual and collective history. Historical memory is understood as the ability to remember and resignify the past in relation to the present and the future. Collective memory, on the contrary, includes the set of significant memories of a group and the intergenerational transmission of social events or transformations (Bugueño, 2008; Oddone and Lynch, 2008). Guichard and Henríquez (2011) also relate the concept of memory with that of generation and state and that the study of memory is possible by accessing the direct testimony of the people who constructed the meanings of an event in connection with their contemporaries. This aspect highlights the importance of social position of an age group at a given time.

There are some studies that relate historical memory to generational processes, such as the research conducted by Oddone and Lynch (2008), which analyses the construction of generational historical memory in Argentina and concludes that historical memory can be an organizing principle of generational processes, affected especially by significant or dramatic events, but enriched by each generation in particular territories; in conclusion, the hypothesis of the existence of a generational collective memory is supported. Another study about the historical and collective memory from two catastrophes in Chile, the 1939 earthquake in Chillán and the 1960 earthquake in Concepción and Valdivia, showed that these events served as background for the meanings attributed to the earthquake of 2010 (Guichard and Henríquez, 2011). In this work, it is shown that each age cohort takes as references particular events that mark them, giving way to generational memories, in this case, for example, people over 60 years old who lived through catastrophes talk about how these experiences marked them as a group.

A study on historical memory in Putre, in the Tarapacá Volcanic Complex, Chile, showed how the memory about the activity of the volcano is practically nonexistent because no eruptions have been recorded in a long period of time. This lack of social memory could hinder education and prevention in the face of volcanic risk. It would be important to insist on rescuing the ancestral culture from the Andean Aymara cosmovision and not focus actions only from the scientific perspective (Romero and Albornoz, 2013). In another study in Chile, about the 2010 earthquake, it was found that the memory of that event is expressed differently depending on the age of the people, the context, and the particular situation of the population; that is, in some cases the affective and emotional impact may be greater in adolescents and adults, but it could also be greater in children and older adults. Collective memories also play an important role given the emotional connection that is produced, since it should be noted that the historical memory surrounding the disaster works through the popular knowledge transmitted intergenerationally and is an important resource to avoid eventual tragedies (Concha and Henríquez, 2011).

As can be seen in the above empirical background, there are important links between memory and intergenerational processes, so it is possible to suggest that the study of these categories can contribute to the understanding of the social construction of the perception of risk. In this framework, the present study focuses on understanding the meanings, perceptions, and responses facing volcanic crises, considering the collective memory that has been transmitted intergenerationally after the new stage of activity of the Popocatepetl volcano in 1994.

Methodology

The study was conducted in the town of Tetela del Volcán, Morelos, Mexico, which has approximately 20,356 inhabitants (Gobierno del Estado de Morelos, Secretaría de Hacienda, 2014) and is one of the closest municipalities to the Popocatépetl volcano located 15 km from the volcano crater within the high volcanic danger zone. As mentioned above, this volcano reactivated in 1994 and since then the activity has been continuous (CENAPRED, 2012).

For the purposes of this study, it is worth mentioning that this town has not experienced a volcanic catastrophe for several generations, but some inhabitants have directly experienced the manifestations of volcanic activity in the past or learned about them from their ancestors, and the current generations have observed the constant activity since 1994. In 2000 and 2001, the nearest towns were evacuated due to the risk of a possible major eruption.

The research was developed with a qualitative methodology, based on symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1982; Mead, 1973), where the construction of meanings from social relationships is taken into account. Here, people construct meanings around the volcanic phenomenon through their interactions with people of different generations at different historical moments. The collection, information analysis, and results writing were done following (1) the guidelines from the radical images of Blumer (1982) with respect to the principles of symbolic interactionism and (2) the scheme of López-Moreno and Alvarado (2011), which contemplates intergenerational relationships.

The research process was carried out in a rigorous manner, reflexively planning and systematizing each stage of the research. This approach allowed flexibility, since attention was paid to the context novelties and to the unanticipated findings (Padlog, 2009). Six phases were carried out: approach and familiarization with the context, definition of both the problem and population, deepening, systematization, return of emerging to the population and finally, analysis, conclusions, and writing of the experience.

Participants and techniques

The participants comprised 75 men and 61 women who were classified into three age groups: (1) 53 adolescents and young adults (Ado-Y) between 12 and 34 years, that is, born between approximately 1981 and 2003; (2) 63 adults (Adu) between 35 and 57 years, that is, born approximately between 1980 and 1958; and (3) 20 older adults (O-Adu) aged 58 years and older, who were born in 1957 or earlier (see Table 1). Considering the reactivation of the volcano in 1994, according to the choice of age of the participants, there is a group of people who grew up observing the manifestations of an active volcano, but also others who have lived through both stages, before and after the reactivation.

Table 1.

Classification of participants and age groups according to interview techniques.

Technique	12–34	35–57	58 or older	Total
Deep individual interviews	4	6	4	14
Focus groups	10	6	-	16
Group interview	-	-	4	4
Workshop	2	9	1	12
Community meetings	37	42	11	90
Total	53	63	20	136

We worked with people from the community of different age groups, gender, and social roles. The diverse occupations and social roles of the participants included: teachers, students, parents, shopkeepers, members of organized productive groups, government officials, and housewives. The sectors from which the participants came from: family, school, organized groups, and government.

Inclusion criteria were also taken into account: (1) being a resident or working full time in the municipal capital of Tetela del Volcán; (2) willingness to participate and informed consent or informed assent for minors between 12 and 18 years of age; (3) being at least 12 years old. The inclusion of participants was carried out with different sampling strategies: by reference from other researchers, by convenience according to ease of access and ascription to an institutional or community sector, by snowball, or by need of information saturation; this last criterion consisted of linking new participants until the information became reiterative and was considered sufficient to meet the research objectives (Fusch and Ness, 2015).

For the fieldwork, elements of ethnography were taken up again, in particular the contextual and reflexive perspective (Guber, 2001), a framework from which it is assumed that reality is constructed and defined as it is investigated, according to the characteristics and interactions of the people in the particular context, which the researcher needs to reflect holistically. In this framework, the process was conducted between February 2013 and October 2016. The techniques developed were: (1) individual in-depth interviews (Vela, 2008), (2) group interview, (3) focus groups with parents and teachers, and with students belonging to a student brigade (Gutiérrez, 2011), (4) workshop with representatives of different community sectors, (5) community meetings with representatives of sectors such as education, health, neighborhoods and productive sector, spaces for socialization, agreement, feedback, and return of emergents. These techniques were accompanied by participant observation (Guber, 2001) and recorded in the field diary. Table 1 shows the participants according to each of the techniques developed:

Diary and field notes, audio recordings, photographs, and video recordings were used for participant’s information collection. We obtained a formal consent from all the participants, which stipulated the objectives of the study, procedures, and their right to leave the study if they decided to do so. To respect anonymity and confidentiality, pseudonyms or codes were used and care was taken in the storage of both physical and digital information. From the beginning, the community approved the development of the project and we communicated the progress and results to them in order to ensure that the information corresponds to the reality of the participants.

With regard to the analysis of information, below is a synthesis of the elements worked on (Ojeda- Rosero et al., 2020). The participants were organized into three age groups: (1) adolescents and young adults (Y-Ado; (2) adults (Adu); and (3) older adults (O-Adu, to facilitate the organization and analysis of information. For the qualitative analysis, elements of grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin, 2002) were used, which consisted of generating concepts and their relationships based on analytical categories derived from the information obtained, including a thematic analysis (Charmaz, 1991, 2001; King, 2004; Mieles et al., 2012). To obtain the results, the contents were refined based on the aspects of pertinence, relevance, density, clarity, and coherence, taking into account the technique of selective coding and constant comparison (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 2002).

Results

According to the speeches of the interviewed participants, we were able to identify a difference in the stories and experiences of the perceptions that correspond to the period before the last activity period of the volcano in 1994 and another that corresponds to the period after this reactivation period. The following is a summary of the most relevant aspects of these two stages.

Intergenerational transmission of the memory created from the dormant and active periods before 1994

One of the first aspects that can be distinguished in people’s discourse is related to the way they handle the feeling of fear toward the Popocatepetl volcano. It is observed that from generation to generation it has been transmitted that there is no need to fear the volcano because it has not caused and will not cause damage. The elders have transmitted this idea to the new generations and that is why it is present in people of different ages, as can be found in the following words of an older adult and a teenager: “. . . our ancestors, our parents, as I say from generation to generation, have been transmitting to us not to be afraid because in this place it has not caused significant damage” (O-Adu). A mother that witnessed the volcano’s activity when she was young mentions: “. . . my mother has told me . . . she tells us to be calm, nothing is going to happen. When I was a child I always thought the same . . .” (Y-Ado).

It is scientifically proven that, in the eruptive history of volcanoes, several generations may pass without activity, or it may not be strong enough to cause significant damage to the surrounding population. Between 1697 and 1919 (more than 200 years), there are no reports of eruptions and emissions of solid materials from Popocatepetl, so numerous excursions to the crater are recorded and there is evidence of sulfur dioxide exploitation due to the abundance of this mineral (UNAM et al., 1995). Before the 1994 reactivation, the volcano was not significantly active for nearly 70 years (Macías, 2005). These intermittent periods have caused people to generally perceive the volcano as inactive.

However, in spite of the temporal distance between the periods of activity, the memory of these volcanic events that were told by their ancestors is noticeable in the narratives. An adult woman tells us about a period of activity at the beginning of the last century that her grandmother and great-grandmother told her about. In addition, it can be noted in her story, how from an early age the idea of not being afraid of the volcano is transmitted, as this has been the experience of past generations:

Long time ago when I was a child my great grandparents used to talk to us about the volcano. My grandmother told us that the volcano moaned as water boiling in a pot. But my grandmother says that it was all the time, during the night, during the day, sometimes for four days, even weeks; it sounded horrible, horrible . . . (Focus Group of parents and teachers)

In this regard, it is documented that Popocatepetl had a period of activity approximately between 1919 and 1938 (CENAPRED and UNAM, 1995; Macías, 2005), which coincides with the period mentioned by some of the great-grandparents. In a study carried out in Hueyapan (Morelos), the elderly population talks about the volcanic activity at the beginning of the twentieth century and compares the volcanic activity of that time with the current one. They affirm that volcano activity at the beginning of the century was of greater magnitude than that of 1994, and that if nothing happened in the first one, there is no reason to fear in this second period of activity. This point of view is taken into account by the new generations since there is a high respect for the elders (Vera, 2009). In this study, we can verify the importance of the role of ancestors in the social construction of volcanic risk.

About volcanic risks perceptions

The falling of ashes is among the main memories that the elderly from Tetela have regarding the activity of the Popocatépelt. This is the case for a woman born in 1927, who told her son about what his grandmother told her: “. . . She talks to me about her memories of the time when she was a child . . .” “. . . when your grandfather was born, during 1920s–1930s, ashes were falling . . .” (Adu). At that time, the interpretation of this event was that the volcano was alive, this according to an old man: “. . . my grandparents say that there were a lot of ashes falling, but since there was not much communication (scientific or governmental) they just mentioned that the volcano was alive . . .” (Participant number 3, meeting with fruit merchants, O-Adu).

The abundant falling of ashes is registered in the memory of people who experienced it during the twentieth century and in those who heard, orally, about this volcanic event. It is important to note that in Tetela this circumstance is the reason why the elderly population are not scared, since they know this volcano’s manifestation before the mass communication media made any coverage of it. Thus, the media diffusion of these events since 1994 has had an effect on younger populations, since they now perceive these volcanic incidents as danger signals, and not as just a reflection of the volcano’s life: “. . . older people . . . they say they are not afraid as they know how the volcano reacts . . .” (Participant number 2, fruit merchant meeting, Adu).

From the end of the first decade of the twentieth century until its reactivation in 1994, the participants have not experienced significant events of volcanic activity: “. . . since 1940s there was nothing until 1994. Then, the generations living from 1940 to 1994 did not see anything . . .” (Adu). This is the reason why David also expresses that people that have not seen activity consider that the volcano is part of the landscape. A landscape implies a humanized nature “as part of a whole integrated through an aesthetic sense . . . which takes form from the different cultures, symbols and moral values given to the earth” (Concheiro and Quintana, 2002). It is important to highlight that during this time, there were neither references about the Popocatépetl nor acceptance of falling of ashes as warning signals in the technical-scientific sense as it is perceived today (Macías, 2009).

Within this context, people that experienced alternating periods of volcanic activity and dormancy threaded different relationships with the volcano in their territory, recalling those relationships built by their ancestors. That way, the population explored, knew, grew, constructed, and reconstructed ideas and developed activities around the volcano. This was directly experienced by people that were either 22 years or older at that time, who now represent young, adult and elderly populations.

Perceptions and collective memory about the volcanic context after the new activity period on 1994

This second category of results has its origin in the analysis of the participant’s speech in relation to the dual perception of the volcano, seen as both a part of the landscape and a risk factor.

The year of 1994 is conceived as the beginning of a new historical time for the Popocatépelt volcanic activity, which involves all the contemporary generations. After 70 years of quiescence, the Popocatépelt emitted ashes, which elicited concern among inhabitants and authorities (CENAPRED, 2014). According to Macías (2009), it was a surprise “to observe the volcano with new eyes, whose familiar smoking figure was never associated with a sense of danger.” This is the beginning of a new age, when old and new elements amalgamate or, in other words, a time in which the social construction of the risk’s perception by the new generations turns into a complex situation involving a new scenario: the possible danger that the volcano had become. This vision of the volcano as a threat would be coinciding with the vision that the government and scientists manage from their discourse and publications, thus integrating into a more global vision of the risk perception of the volcano as a threatening factor.

About evacuations

Among the diverse incidents experienced during the last 20 years, the evacuations are what have imprinted the populations the most. The first massive evacuation in the volcanic threat zone had to be carried out in December 2000 due to the increased activity of Popocatepetl (Vera, 2009). With the evacuation, Tetela del Volcán was almost empty; the people who left tried to take some of their belongings with them. On the contrary, people who did not evacuate testify to the volcanic activity, especially the ash fall. Eduardo, one of the adult participants in this study, who was an adolescent at the time, confesses to having felt a lot of fear, and comments that he no longer feels that fear now, as he thinks that it decreases with increasing age.

There are other moments that have impacted the community. In December 2000, the volcanic activity increased causing new warning concerns (CENAPRED, 2014). The elderly generations have carried out the task of communicating these new events to the younger generations. A grandfather narrated to his grandson, now an adolescent, that in 2000 the volcano emitted lava, gasses, and ashes: “My grandfather told us . . . that in one occasion he was taking care of his lambs near the river . . . he fell asleep and when he woke up everything was white, everything was covered with ashes” (Adolescent students focus group). The mother of a student also reports the perception about an event that happened in December 2000, during the days of Christmas celebrations and communities gathering. A woman told us,

. . . when my daughter was a baby, the volcano produced smoke and sounds and many more things. It was in December 2000, I remember that all people were celebrating . . . and when we saw that people were in turmoil and when we saw through the church’s windows that the volcano was spewing lava, smoke and ashes were also coming out and it sounded like a big truck was coming. (Adu)

People remember that the Army came and many people abandoned the town, only taking their documents and the minimal elements to survive, leaving everything else in their houses.

This new increase in volcanic activity, according to a 25-year-old young male, generated such a level of uneasiness in their parents and people of his age that they had to evacuate, even though some people claimed that nothing would happen. The difficult situation was heightened by the bad conditions of the roads, which would complicate a massive evacuation, and by the decision made by some relatives to remain in Tetela. The feeling of insecurity among children and adults is notorious in this narrative. Therefore, it is important to consider the relationship between the feeling of insecurity and the stress brought on by the volcanic manifestations (López-Vázquez et al., 2008) in people from different generations.

A young man told us,

. . . in 2000, I was 10 years old, I experienced the volcano’s activity when I was in 5^th grade of elementary school. That experience impacted me deeply, imagine a boy seeing a volcano explosion . . . at that time there was not much information and our parents, who were very worried about us, decided to evacuate . . . I had friends that said—no, this is a bad situation—they thought that the volcano was about to explode . . . but everybody around us said that nothing will happen . . . since the roads were in very bad shape to evacuate, I thought that if the volcano exploded the people in Tetela would not be able to leave. ( fruit merchants meeting, Y-Ado)

Young people also know about these events of 2000 from the narratives of their grandparents: “. . . In 2000 they had said that the volcano was about to explode and, according to my grandparents, Tetela was empty as many people had moved out leaving everything behind and just a few people stayed in the town” (Participant number 9, fruit merchants meeting, Y-Ado). Since there were some people staying in Tetela while others decided to leave, younger people understood that there were two real possibilities: to evacuate or not. In addition, the notion of “not to evacuate” was reinforced by grandparents such as “they left everything abandoned,” which was negatively associated with this action.

Calm after activity period

Apart from the events when the activity of the volcano increased significantly, life in Tetela has mostly been relative calm. This is also observed in the narratives from the community: “. . . Eh . . . an average of 10 years, approximately . . . the noise was, how can I say it, very loud and lasted between five to ten minutes. However, after the noise, the volcano exploded. After that, it remained calm . . .” (O-Adu).

Thus, fear and acceptance can coexist during the volcanic activity. It is also presented by an adolescent: “So, at the same time you are afraid, but it is something normal, which we are used to” (Adolescent students focus group). The constant volcanic manifestations induce familiarization among different generations, which also reflects an absence of surprise during the volcanic phenomena. The same reasoning is presented by a teacher: “The volcano’s action seems ordinary and consecutive; people stopped seeing it as risky and we just see it as the volcano is there, it is still present . . .” (Adu).

These experiences clearly show how people’s perception of risk is built on daily experiences which will have a direct influence on people’s decisions and behavior (to evacuate or not, to have prevention strategies, to ignore the danger, etc.).

Final remarks

Reality is constructed in the interaction between people and the surrounding context. In order to understand reality, human beings go through long processes of individual and social learning through which we configure memory (Berger and Luckmann, 1968). Our results, as it was expected, allow us to know better about meanings of the volcano, perceptions about volcanic risks, and some responses facing volcanic eruptions taking into account the collective memory that has been transmitted intergenerationally after the new stage of activity of the Popocatepetl volcano. It was also corroborated how information and meanings about the volcanic risk are transmitted from generation to generation. We can deduce that when the immediate environment is an active volcano, whose manifestations have been witnessed by different generations, memories are preserved, thanks to the collective memory, and each person remembers them and gives them meaning based on the particular context of his or her time.

Concerning the meanings about the volcano risk, the importance of a healthy coexistence between human beings and the natural environment was observed. According to Glockner (2009), the myths on the side of the cult of nature and Popocatepetl reflect the search for a harmonious relationship with them, which takes precedence over considering the volcano as a utilitarian resource. This, according to Moser (2003), has to do with the individual and collective history that involves the relationships between different social and age groups. Thus, the resistance to remain in the geographical location, despite the presence of volcanic hazards, also represents struggles for territories, since this is a very important factor of collective identity (Padlog, 2007). This also shows the complex decisions faced by the younger generations living near the volcano after 1994. In a study based on the relationship with a community settled near the Galeras volcano in Colombia, Mamián (2013) states that the struggle for the territory evokes the conception of the volcano as a living being that symbolizes the ancestral memory of the native cultures, which must be preserved.

It was observed that intergenerational processes can be studied taking into account the reproduction of old patterns as well as the changes in these patterns (Caballero, 2014). The elements are preserved in memory and also transformed over time. Regarding coexistence with volcanic risk, people apparently think that since the Popocatepetl volcano has not caused damage before, it is not going to do so now. The memory of certain events related by the elders is transmitted from generation to generation and younger people give them credibility. In this sense, the idea has a memory trajectory of continuity coming from elders to new generations.

Relationships of people in collective interactions allow to give cognitive and emotional particular meanings to different objects. In our study, we can confirm that in the memory of the population, the perceptions of risk and actions that have been carried out to protect themselves from a possible event are transmitted from generation to generation, and this trajectory of thinking makes possible the social links around the reconstruction of the facts. The events are able to leave significant meanings on the interpretation that people and collectives make of their past, present, and future (Pizarro, 2006; Ruiz-Carrillo and Estrevel-Carrillo, 2008; Sampedro and Baer, 2003).

According to responses facing volcanic risks, it is imperative to pay attention to how evacuations are being approached in Mexico. Some authors recommend reviewing the integral conditions in which they occur, including previous experiences, trust in institutions, shelter conditions, participation, and other community characteristics. Particularly in people in volcanic risk zone, a concern to address refers to the care of farmland and belongings at the time of evacuations (López-Vázquez et al., 2015). In a scenario characterized by uncertainty, important efforts must be made to reduce the impact of an evacuation or resettlement (Ferrés et al., 2015).

When the past of a population is interpreted, it is possible to see the position that the subject occupies in the tradition and the present social relations (Piper-Shafir et al., 2013). In this way, we can understand on the one hand the resistance to evacuation, and on the other hand how the simple idea of leaving the territory around the Popocatepetl volcano is nonexistent since it is part of the life history of all its inhabitants. Memory work in communities and associated social ways of learning needs to be studied vertically between generations as much as horizontally (MacEwen et al., 2016). These findings provide insights into the importance of the intergenerational interpretations and the relations given in a community life. Community memory is important to give continuity to the history, to better understand the risk they are exposed, and to create better resilient strategies to face a potential event. It is also important to improve coordination between the different actors (scientists, government, media, population) to guarantee an adequate process of prevention and attention to volcanic risk.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Dayra Elizabeth Ojeda Rosero

Esperanza López-Vázquez

Author biographies

Dayra Elizabeth Ojeda Rosero is a Psychologist, Specialist in University Teaching, Specialist in Social Management and Magister in Ethnoliterature from the Universidad de Nariño in Colombia; She has a PhD in Psychology from the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, México. Currently, she works as a full time teacher at the Psychology Department from the Universidad de Nariño. She is a researcher of the Libres Pensadores group and the Instituto Andino de Artes Populares (IADAP). Her research focuses on social and community psychology, in emergency and disaster risks as well as in relationships and intergenerational processes.

Esperanza López-Vázquez, PhD, completed her doctorate and Master’s degree in Social Psychology at theUniversité Toulouse Le-Mirail in France, and undergraduate studies in Social Psychology at the Universidad Metropolitana-Xochimilco in Mexico. She is a researcher professor at the Centre Universidad Autó noma del Estado de Morelos in Mexico, where she carries out research in the field of Social Psychology and Environmental Psychology. She was the founder president of the Society for Risk Analysis Latin-America in 2008. Her research focuses on risk perception and psychological factors of communities living near natural hazards as well as environmental behavior facing climate change.

References

Beck

(2012) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.

Berger

Luckmann

(1968) La construcción social de la realidad. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Amorrortu.

Blumer

(1982) El interaccionismo simbólico, perspectiva y método. Barcelona: Hora D. L.

Briones

(2005) La complejidad del riesgo: un análisis transversal. Revista de la Universidad Cristóbal Colón 20(3): 9–17.

Broda

(2009) Simbolismo de los volcanes. Los volcanes en la cosmovisión mesoamericana. Revista De arqueología mexicana XVI(95): 40–47.

Bronfman

López-Vázquez

(2011) A cross-cultural study of perceived benefit versus risk as mediators in the trust-acceptance relationship. Risk Analysis 31(12): 1919–1934.

Bugueño

(2008) Memoria y olvido social: Conectores intergeneracionales que nos consienten la conjugación del tiempo. Revista F@ro 7(4): 1–4.

Caballero

(2014) Tres tiempos: Cambio social en tres generaciones de mujeres en México. México: Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos AM Editores.

Caballero

Baigorri

(2013) ¿Es operativo el concepto de generación? Aposta: Revista de Ciencias Sociales 56(1): 1–45.

10.

Castillo

(2014) La construcción social y los imaginarios sociopolíticos del desastre: una reflexión sobre las inundaciones en Zona Diamante. El Cotidiano 187: 249–263.

11.

Centro Nacional de Prevención de Desastres (CENAPRED) (2001) Diagnóstico de Peligros e Identificación de Riesgos de Desastres en México. Atlas Nacional de Riesgos de la República Mexicana. Secretaría de Gobernación México (versión electrónica 2014). Available at: http://www.cenapred.gob.mx/es/Publicaciones/archivos/36-DIAGNSTICODEPELIGROSEIDENTIFICACINDERIESGOSDEDESASTRESENMXICO.PDF (accessed 10 May 2015).

12.

Centro Nacional de Prevención de Desastres (CENAPRED) (2012) Historia de la actividad del volcán Popocatépetl: 17 años de erupciones. Available at: http://www.cenapred.gob.mx/es/Publicaciones/archivos/225-HISTORIADELAACTIVIDADDELVOLCNPOPOCATPETL-17AOSDEERUPCIONES.PDF (accessed 10 May 2015).

13.

CNPOPOCATPETL-17AOSDEERUPCIONES.PDF (accessed 10 May 2015).

14.

Centro Nacional de Prevención de Desastres (CENAPRED) (2014) Volcanes. Peligro y riesgo volcánico en México (versión electrónica). Available at: http://www.cenapred.gob.mx/es/Publicaciones/archivos/2-FASCCULOVOLCANES.PDF (accessed 10 May 2015).

15.

Centro Nacional de Prevención de Desastres (CENAPRED) and Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) (1995) Volcán Popocatépetl: Estudios realizados durante la crisis de 1994–1995. México: Secretaría de Gobernación.

16.

Charmaz

(1991) Good Days, Bad Days: The Self in Chronic Illness and Time. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

17.

Charmaz

(2001) Grounded theory. In: Emerson

(ed.) Contemporary Field Research. Long Grove IL: Waveland, pp. 335–352.

18.

Concha

Henríquez

(2011) Memoria histórica vivida y transmitida en torno a los terremotos de 1939–1960 de los habitantes del Gran Concepción. HAOL 24: 187–199.

19.

Concheiro

Quintana

(2002) La madrecita tierra: Entre el corazón campesino y el infierno neoliberal. In: Unidad Central para el Desarrollo Social, UNICEDES Tierra, Agua y Maíz II, Realidad y utopía. México: Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos.

20.

De la Cruz

Ramos

(1992) Volcanes 4. México: CENAPRED.

21.

Douglas

(1996) La aceptabilidad del riesgo según las ciencias sociales. Barcelona: Paidós.

22.

Douglas

Wildavsky

(1982) Risk and Culture. An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

23.

Duclos

(1987) La construction sociale du risque: le cas des ouvriers de la chimie face aux dangers industriels. Revue Française De Sociologie 28(1): 17–42.

24.

Ferrés

Escobar

Bowman

(2015) Reflexiones de los vulcanólogos sobre su papel profesional en la gestión del riesgo volcánico en el contexto de América Latina. Revista Geológica De América Central 52: 9–31.

25.

Fusch

Ness

(2015) Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report 20(9): 1408–1416.

26.

García

(2005) El riesgo como construcción social y la construcción social de riesgos. Desacatos 19: 11–24.

27.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

28.

Glockner

(2000) Así en el cielo como en la tierra. México: Editorial Grijalbo.

29.

Glockner

(2009) Mitos y sueños de los volcanes. Revista de arqueología mexicana XVI(95): 64–69.

30.

Glockner

(2012) Los volcanes sagrados. Mitos y rituales en el Popocatépetl y la Iztazíhuatl. México: Prisa ediciones-Punto de lectura.

31.

Gobierno del Estado de Morelos, Secretaría de Hacienda (2014). Agenda estadística anual del poder ejecutivo 2014. Available at: http://www.hacienda.morelos.gob.mx/documentos/Agenda%20Estadistica/Agenda%20Estadistica%202013-2014 (accesed 15 june 2016)

32.

González

(2008) Metáforas y esquemas culturales en la percepción del riesgo geológico en el Estado de Colima. In: Carlos Reyes

(ed.) Memoria IV Foro Colima y su región: Arqueología, antropología e historia. México: Gobierno del Estado de Colima and Secretaría de Cultura, pp. 1–15.

33.

Guber

(2001) La etnografía: Método, campo y reflexividad. Bogotá: Grupo editorial Norma.

34.

Guichard

Henríquez

(2011) Memoria histórica en Chile: una perspectiva intergeneracional desde Concepción. Reis 135: 3–26.

35.

Gutiérrez

(2011) Grupo de Discusión: ¿Prolongación, variación o ruptura con el focus group? Cinta Moebio 41: 105–122.

36.

Gutiérrez

Herráiz

(2009) La sinergia intergeneracional. Espai Social 9. Available at: http://www.espaisocial.net/docs/revistas/espai_social_09.pdf (accessed 15 June 2016).

37.

Instituto de Geofísica de la UNAM and Centro de Geociencias (2017) Actualización del Mapa de Peligros del Volcán Popocatépetl. México: UNAM.

38.

Juárez

(2012) Las montañas humanizadas: Los volcanes del altiplano central. Revista electrónica del Centro de Estudios Interdisciplinarios de las Culturas Mesoamericanas, CEICUM, KinKaban 1(1): 64–70.

39.

King

(2004) Templates in the thematic analysis of text. In: Cassel

Symon

(eds) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 256–270.

40.

Lavell

(2005) Los conceptos, estudios y práctica en torno al tema de los riesgos y desastres en América Latina: evolución y cambio, 1980-2004. Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO). Available at: http://bibliotecavirtual.clacsoorg.ar/ar/libros/flacso/secgen/lavell.pdf (accessed 15 January 2017).

41.

Leccardi

Feixa

(2011) El concepto de generación en las teorías sobre la juventud. Última década CIDPA Valparaíso 34: 11–32.

42.

López

(2011) Trama y urdimbre del riesgo a desastre en una comunidad campesina: Santiago Xalitzintla, Puebla. Master Thesis, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Mexico.

43.

López-Moreno

Alvarado

(2011) Emergencia de las relaciones intergeneracionales en una escuela pública urbana. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales 9(1): 255–268.

44.

López-Vázquez

Marván

(2018) Introduction to risk psychology. In: Marván

López-Vázque

(eds) Preventing Health and Environmental Risks in Latin America. Cham: Springer, pp. 1–12.

45.

López-Vázquez

Marván

Dorantes

(2015) La evacuación por inundaciones y su impacto en la percepción de riesgo y el estrés postraumátco. Psicología y Salud 25(2): 261–271.

46.

López-Vázquez

Marván

Flores-Espino

, et al. (2008) Volcanic risk exposure, feelings of insecurity, stress, and coping strategies in México. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 38(12): 2885–2902.

47.

MacEwen

Garde-Hansen

Holmes

, et al. (2016) Sustainable flood memories, lay knowledges, and the development of community resilience to future flood risk. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 42: 15–28.

48.

Macías

(2005) Geología e historia eruptiva de algunos de los grandes volcanes activos de México. Boletín de la Sociedad Geológica Mexicana LVII(3): 379–424.

49.

Macías

Carrasco

Delgado

, et al. (1995) Mapa de peligros del volcán Popocatépetl, escala 1:250,000. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Instituto de Geofísica.

50.

Macías

(2009) La disputa por el riesgo del volcán Popocatépetl. México: Publicaciones de la Casa Chata.

51.

Mamián

(2013) Tejiendo pensamiento y vida. In: Instituto Andino de Artes Populares (ed.) Memorias en movimiento. Tejiendo pensamiento y vida desde los entornos culturales de San Juan de Pasto. Colombia: Universidad de Nariño, pp. 210.

52.

Mead

(1973) Espíritu, persona y sociedad: Desde el punto de vista del conductismo social. Barcelona: Paidós.

53.

Mieles

Tonon

Alvarado

(2012) Investigación cualitativa: el análisis temático para el tratamiento de la información desde el enfoque de la fenomenología social. Universitas Human 74: 195–225.

54.

Moser

(2003) La psicología ambiental en el siglo XXI: El desafío del desarrollo sustentable. Revista de Psicología de la Universidad de Chile 12(2): 11–17.

55.

Narváez

Lavell

Pérez

(2009) La Gestión del Riesgo de Desastres: Un enfoque basado en procesos. Lima: Secretaría General de la Comunidad Andina.

56.

Oddone

Lynch

(2008) Las memorias de los hechos socio-históricos en el curso de la vida. Revista Argentina de Sociología 6(10): 121–142.

57.

Ojeda

(2016) Construcción intergeneracional de la Percepción del Riesgo volcánico. PhD Thesis, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, México.

58.

Ojeda

López-Vázquez

(2017) Relaciones intergeneracionales en la construcción social de la percepción del riesgo. Desacatos 54: 106–121.

59.

Ojeda-Rosero

Hindrichs

López-Vázquez

(2020) Proceso analítico en el desarrollo de una teoría sustantiva de la percepción del riesgo volcánico. In: Hindrichs

(ed.) Entre el campo y la teoría: estrategias de categorización inductiva y deductiva en investigación cualitativa. México: El Colegio Mexiquense, A. C. pp. 149–174.

60.

Padlog

(2007) La ‘amistad’ entre el conocimiento científico y el conocimiento de sentido común. In: Romo

Fignoni

Padlog

(eds) El caleidoscopio de las identidades: voces y miradas múltiples. México: Universidad de Guadalajara, pp. 129–181.

61.

Padlog

(2009) La potencia del enfoque cualitativo para el estudio de la percepción del riesgo. Espacio Abierto 18(3): 413–421.

62.

Piper-Shafir

Fernández-Droguett

Iñíguez-Rueda

(2013) Psicología Social de la Memoria: Espacios y Políticas del Recuerdo. Psyké 22(2): 19–31.

63.

Pizarro

(2006) Tras las huellas de la identidad en los relatos locales sobre el pasado. Cuadernos de Antropología Social 24: 113–130.

64.

Romero

Albornoz

(2013) Erupciones volcánicas, en Chile: La educación de los jóvenes en Putre. Revista Retratos de la Escuela 7(13): 513–527.

65.

Ruiz-Carrillo

Estrevel-Carrillo

(2008) Construcción del sujeto e ideología social. Tiempo de Educar 9(18): 183–198.

66.

Sampedro

Baer

(2003) El recuerdo como olvido y el pasado extranjero. Jóvenes, constitución y cultura democrática. Revista Estudios de Juventud, January, 2003, pp. 93–108.

67.

Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Comisión Estatal del Agua y Medio Ambiente del Estado de Morelos and Centro Universitario para la Prevención de Desastres Regionales (CUPREDER) de la Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla (BUAP) (2005) Modelo de ordenamiento ecológico y por riesgo eruptivo del territorio del volcán Popocatépetl y su zona de influencia. Available at: http://uniciencia.ambientalex.info/infoCT/Modordecorieerutervolpopzoninfmx.pdf (accessed 15 June 2016).

68.

Siegrist

Cvetkovich

(2000) Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis 20(5): 713–719.

69.

Slovic

(2000) The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan Publications.

70.

Slovic

Fishhoff

Lichtenstein

(1982) Why study risk perception. Risk Analysis 2(2): 83–93.

71.

Strauss

Corbin

(2002) Bases de la investigación cualitativa. Técnicas y procedimientos para desarrollar la teoría fundamentada. Colombia: Universidad de Antioquia.

72.

Tierney

(2014) The Social Roots of Risk. Producing Disaster, Promoting Resilience. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

73.

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Secretaria de Gobernación, Centro Nacional de Prevención de Desastres (CENAPRED) and Comite Científico Asesor CENAPRED – UNAM (1995) Volcan Popocatepetl estudios realizados durante la crisis de 1994-1995. México. Available at: https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/portal/resource/pt/des-8618 (accessed 15 June 2016).

74.

Urteaga

Eizagirre

(2013) La construcción social del riesgo. EMPIRIA. Revista Metodológica de Ciencias Sociales 25: 147–170.

75.

Vela

(2008) Un acto metodológico básico de la investigación social: la entrevista cualitativa. In: Tarrés

(ed.) Observar, escuchar y comprender: Sobre la tradición cualitativa en la investigación social. México: Editorial Porrúa, El Colegio de México and FLACSO, pp. 63–95.

76.

Vera

(2009) Ancianos, tiemperos y otras figuras de autoridad en dos comunidades del volcán Popocatépetl. La otra visión del riesgo volcánico. In: Macías

(ed.) La disputa por el riesgo del volcán Popocatépetl. México: Publicaciones de la Casa Chata.