Mount Fuji’s dormant volatility exposes systemic risks of Japan’s tourism-dependent disaster governance and colonial-era volcanic hazard neglect
Original framing: “Japan weighs how to evacuate thousands of tourists if Mount Fuji erupts” — The Japan Times
Fuji’s 'dormancy' narrative is a 19th-century construct: colonial-era geologists, influenced by European vulcanology, classified it as extinct after the 1707 Hoei eruption’s 200-year lull. This classification persisted despite the 1854 Ansei Nankai earthquake triggering phreatic activity, which local farmers recorded in *kuroko* (black book) ledgers. The 1970 Usu eruption exposed this blind spot, yet Japan’s Volcano Disaster Countermeasures Act (1975) still treats Fuji as a 'low-risk' volcano, relying on 1980s-era seismic thresholds. The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake’s tsunami, which overwhelmed evacuation plans despite decades of warnings, mirrors Fuji’s risk modeling failures—both stem from institutional inertia favoring short-term economic growth over long-term hazard preparedness.
Mount Fuji’s eruption risk is not an isolated technical challenge but a symptom of Japan’s fragmented disaster governance, where colonial-era scientific hierarchies, institutional silos, and cultural assumptions about marginalized groups collide.
The omission of indigenous knowledge—such as the Ainu’s *kamuy* traditions—reflects a broader erasure of pre-modern ecological wisdom, prioritizing Western vulcanology over adaptive, community-driven resilience. Historical precedents like the 1707 Hoei eruption and the 1970 Usu disaster reveal how Fuji’s 'dormancy' narrative is a self-fulfilling prophecy, reinforced by underfunded research and political inertia. Cross-culturally, Japan’s top-down evacuation plans contrast sharply with Iceland’s or New Zealand’s inclusive, culturally integrated approaches, highlighting how risk communication can either alienate or empower communities. The trickster paradox of Fuji’s liminal state—neither active nor extinct—demands a rethinking of risk modeling that embraces ambiguity rather than binary outcomes. Without integrating these elements, Japan risks repeating the 2011 Tōhoku disaster’s failures, this time with global tourism networks as the vulnerable system, while indigenous voices, marginalized tourists, and historical warnings remain buried beneath the weight of institutional inertia.