<p>You're asking</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Why do human populations concentrate near fault lines, volcanoes, etc.?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But the real question is </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Do human populations concentrate near fault lines, volcanoes,
  etc.?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And the answer is not necessarily positive. Let's look at where earthquakes are:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/GqgOw.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/GqgOw.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>and active volcanism:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/DWSgB.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/DWSgB.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>Both maps are from <a href="https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/volcano-map.html" rel="noreferrer">Volcano Discovery</a>. Here's a population density map:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/2TyT2.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/2TyT2.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>Couldn't find the source for that, but a similar interactive website is this one: <a href="http://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/" rel="noreferrer">http://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/</a></p>

<p>Finding a 1:1 correlation between these two natural hazards and population density is very hard. Most of the World's population reside in India, China, Europe, central Africa, and east North America. All of these areas not particularly hazardous in terms of fault lines and volcanoes. Other volcano-abundant areas are only populated if they're around the tropics (Mexico, Indonesia).</p>

<p>So no, the answer is that human population do not concentrate near fault lines or volcanoes more than they concentrate elsewhere.</p>

<p>On a local scale, however, <a href="http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/soil.htm" rel="noreferrer">volcanic soils</a> are <a href="https://prezi.com/iu7x2cylj6gw/soil-fertility-in-volcanoes/" rel="noreferrer">fertile</a> and an excellent place to grow food. This might attract people to volcanoes, because food is vital for life and a maybe-yes-maybe-no threat of a volcano (particularly if it's not obviously active) is a lower priority thing for most people. Also see the interesting story of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo" rel="noreferrer">Pinatubo</a>.</p>

<p>Sometimes, people did not know there was a hazard. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par%C3%ADcutin" rel="noreferrer">Parícutin</a> is a volcano in Mexico that just appeared out of nowhere in 1943. Christchurch, NZ, was considered a low earthquake risk zone until it was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch#History" rel="noreferrer">struck by several quakes</a> in the recent years.</p>

<p>There is some truth to your two guesses that storms provide water for food and mountains lead to rivers which also provide water for food. But it's not a direct relationship. Think of the Nile river, which gets the water from mountains far south but feeds millions in Egypt. There are many more other examples.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-02T05:11:28.017Z
2017-09-02T05:11:28.017Z
Gimelist
<p>I've noticed that many places with large populations tend to be prime zones for natural disaster.</p>

<p><em>Examples:</em> Silicon Valley = earthquakes, Houston = hurricanes and floods, Japan = tsunamis and earthquakes, Santa Maria = volcano, Vesuvius = volcano, etc.</p>

<p>This doesn't seem like a coincidence, especially given that people would naturally want to stay <em>away</em> from disaster-prone sites. Clearly there must be a benefit to living in such places.</p>

<p>My <strong>guess</strong> has always been that it probably goes something like this:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Active fault zone → mountains &amp; volcanoes → rain &amp; <strong>water</strong> → fertile soil &amp; wildlife → <strong>food</em></strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Or maybe like this:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Storms/monsoons → rain &amp; <strong>water</strong> → fertile soil &amp; wildlife → <strong>food</em></strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>But I really have no idea, and this has been a question I've had for a long time.</p>

<p>Is this accurate? Is there more than meets the eye? Is it maybe partly a coincidence?<br>
Explanations would be greatly appreciated, since all I have right now is just a guess.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-31T06:18:49.863Z
This is probably a case of [cherry picking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking) or [confirmation bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). The question that needs to be answered first is: **Do** human populations concentrate near...
Jan Doggen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-02T10:35:17.360Z
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/64987/discussion-on-question-by-mehrdad-why-do-human-populations-concentrate-near-faul).
gerrit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-24T07:51:18.643Z
well when most cities were established the concept of fault lines or tectonic plates had not been discovered.
oliver
<climate><volcanology><earthquakes><natural-disasters>
Why do human populations concentrate near fault lines, volcanoes, etc.?
user541686
# Why do human populations concentrate near fault lines, volcanoes, etc.?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-08-31)

I've noticed that many places with large populations tend to be prime zones for natural disaster.

*Examples:* Silicon Valley = earthquakes, Houston = hurricanes and floods, Japan = tsunamis and earthquakes, Santa Maria = volcano, Vesuvius = volcano, etc.

This doesn't seem like a coincidence, especially given that people would naturally want to stay *away* from disaster-prone sites. Clearly there must be a benefit to living in such places.

My **guess** has always been that it probably goes something like this:

> *Active fault zone → mountains & volcanoes → rain & **water** → fertile soil & wildlife → **food***

Or maybe like this:

> *Storms/monsoons → rain & **water** → fertile soil & wildlife → **food***

But I really have no idea, and this has been a question I've had for a long time.

Is this accurate? Is there more than meets the eye? Is it maybe partly a coincidence?  
Explanations would be greatly appreciated, since all I have right now is just a guess.

**Tags:** climate, volcanology, earthquakes, natural-disasters

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This is probably a case of [cherry picking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking) or [confirmation bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). The question that needs to be answered first is: **Do** human populations concentrate near...  
> **username_2**: Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/64987/discussion-on-question-by-mehrdad-why-do-human-populations-concentrate-near-faul).  
> **username_3**: well when most cities were established the concept of fault lines or tectonic plates had not been discovered.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2017-09-02. Score: 14 | Accepted answer

You're asking

> Why do human populations concentrate near fault lines, volcanoes, etc.?

But the real question is

> Do human populations concentrate near fault lines, volcanoes,
> etc.?

And the answer is not necessarily positive. Let's look at where earthquakes are:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/GqgOw.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/GqgOw.png)

and active volcanism:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/DWSgB.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/DWSgB.png)

Both maps are from [Volcano Discovery](https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/volcano-map.html). Here's a population density map:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/2TyT2.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/2TyT2.jpg)

Couldn't find the source for that, but a similar interactive website is this one: <http://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/>

Finding a 1:1 correlation between these two natural hazards and population density is very hard. Most of the World's population reside in India, China, Europe, central Africa, and east North America. All of these areas not particularly hazardous in terms of fault lines and volcanoes. Other volcano-abundant areas are only populated if they're around the tropics (Mexico, Indonesia).

So no, the answer is that human population do not concentrate near fault lines or volcanoes more than they concentrate elsewhere.

On a local scale, however, [volcanic soils](http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/soil.htm) are [fertile](https://prezi.com/iu7x2cylj6gw/soil-fertility-in-volcanoes/) and an excellent place to grow food. This might attract people to volcanoes, because food is vital for life and a maybe-yes-maybe-no threat of a volcano (particularly if it's not obviously active) is a lower priority thing for most people. Also see the interesting story of [Pinatubo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo).

Sometimes, people did not know there was a hazard. [Parícutin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par%C3%ADcutin) is a volcano in Mexico that just appeared out of nowhere in 1943. Christchurch, NZ, was considered a low earthquake risk zone until it was [struck by several quakes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch#History) in the recent years.

There is some truth to your two guesses that storms provide water for food and mountains lead to rivers which also provide water for food. But it's not a direct relationship. Think of the Nile river, which gets the water from mountains far south but feeds millions in Egypt. There are many more other examples.


---

