In an MEDC, this statement would apply more suitably as the money available to invest in the prediction and mitigation of volcanic hazards is greater. Because of this, certain impacts such as lava flows (especially Rhyolitic) can be prepared for more effectively with diversion flows etc. also in an MEDC there is more likely to be a standardised model for coping with a volcanic hazards. For example in Japan there are school classes on dealing with an eruption and what to do when it does occur. However, what cannot be dealt with before the eruption occurs are hazards such as pyroclastic flows and ash/tephra cloud as these are unpredictable in their spread apart from when previous eruptions indicate where a pyroclastic flow may be directed. To deal with these types of immediate hazards, there must be quick response to areas affected to try and help those affected. In an ideal world, there could be a ‘one size fits all’ approach to post-eruption impacts but this is not possible as LEDCs on the whole do not have the money or resources to create such a fast reaction service. For example the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, the locals were notified of the eruption due to the fact there were 2 US military bases in the vicinity. If it were not the case, it is probable that the LEDC government would not have been able to prepare and respond as effectively.
All volcanic eruptions are not the same however as is shown on the volcanic explosivity index as different volcanoes display different types of eruption. These vary massively from heavily magmatic to mainly ash and dry tephra. This makes it difficult to produce one plan to deal with all volcanic hazards. No 2 eruptions will be identical even from the same volcano and so creating a one size fits all model for dealing with volcanic hazards produced by