Abstract
In this perspective piece, we reflect on scientific progress in volcanic risk reduction and its prospects for future development. In spite of recent advances, a dichotomy still exists between the products of academic research and the desire for practical applications. The main themes to emerge are (1) the need to find the most effective ways to explain the ever growing amount and complexity of volcanological data to non-specialist stakeholders, and (2) how to transfer to future generations of applied scientists the lessons from practical experience that are often missed by theoretical guidelines. Recommendations for sustaining progress in these fields include improving the accessibility of knowledge and data, embracing novel tools to communicate volcanic risk and uncertainty for decision making, and investing effort on transferring practical experience across generations.
En este breve artículo, reflexionamos sobre los adelantos científicos para la reducción del riesgo de erupciones volcánicas y en las oportunidades para continuar progresando. A pesar de avances recientes, todavía existe un desfase entre los resultados de investigaciones científicas y su aplicación práctica. Los temas clave que identificamos son (1) la necesidad de encontrar maneras más efectivas de explicar la cantidad incremental de información volcanológica (y su creciente complejidad) a todos los grupos interesados, especialmente los no-especialistas y (2) cómo transmitir y transferir, a futuras generaciones de cientificos, la experiencia y los aprendizajes prácticos que no figuran en directrices y manuales. Recomendaciones para mantener avances en estos campos incluyen: mejorar la accesibilidad de la información y datos científicos, adoptar nuevas técnicas para comunicar: el riesgo volcánico, la incertidumbre en información científica y para apoyar la toma de decisiones, e invertir en transferir experiencia práctica a las generaciones futuras.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The core principles for managing volcanic emergencies were codified in the 1970s by the pioneering work of Michael Fournier d’Albe. Building on UNESCO’s definition of risk as the product ‘hazard x vulnerability x value’, he recognised four priorities for reducing volcanic risk (Fournier d’Albe 1979): (1) to reduce hazard by improving the information conveyed in hazard maps (notably how often a hazard occurs); (2) to reduce vulnerability by incorporating into emergency response plans fundamental differences in the time-scales of social response and of the evolution of volcanic phenomena; (3) to advance monitoring and forecasting by the systematic collection of precursory data and improved methods of analysis and (4) to support decision making by formalising algorithms to define the threshold values of precursory signals required to trigger a particular emergency response, such as an evacuation.
These objectives have not changed in the past 50 years (Pallister et al. 2019), and, as described in companion papers to this collection, significant progress has since been made in modelling volcanic systems (Sparks et al. 2022; Aguilera et al. 2022), forecasting eruptions (Kilburn and Bell 2022) and the design of advanced monitoring techniques (Ramsey et al. 2022; Poland and Zebker 2022; Thelen et al. 2022). Low-cost sensors (Crawford et al. 2021; Granados-Bolaños et al. 2021) and processing methods (Garthwaite et al. 2019) have further enhanced monitoring capabilities in countries with limited economic resources. At the same time, hazard maps are being redesigned to assist decision making by taking greater account of the cultural and social perceptions of their audience (Calder et al. 2015; Lindsay and Robertson 2018; Clive et al., 2021).
Progress, however, has brought new challenges. Recent advances have generated data at an accelerating rate (Papale and Garg 2022), creating barriers to dissemination by lengthening the time needed to process the amount of new material and, because of the additional resources required for acquisition and processing, by widening the gap between economically rich and poor countries. Overcoming these barriers is as important as obtaining the data, and new strategies are needed to break through the bottlenecks that impede the smooth translation of scientific information into practical emergency management.
Scientific information for volcanic risk reduction, planning and management
Between 1900 and 1980, the background death toll as a proportion of the populations exposed to eruptions decreased by a factor of about five (Auker et al. 2013; Brown et al. 2017). It has remained almost constant since then (Auker et al. 2013; Brown et al. 2017), in spite of a global increase in vulnerability and risk (Chester et al. 2000). The sustained low rate since 1980 has been attributed to general improvements in communicating hazards, managing emergencies and social resilience (Auker et al. 2013; Brown et al. 2015; Pallister et al. 2019). The change is indeed cause for optimism, but with caveats.
First, economic costs have been increasing and, between 1980 and 2019, eruptions caused some US$12 billion of damage (Munich Re n.d.). This follows the encroachment of human activity into volcanic districts, regardless of warnings about the potential hazard.
Second, the most hazardous eruptions with a Volcano Explosivity Index of 5 or more tend to occur at intervals of decades. As a result, comparing outcomes between 1980–2000 and 2000–present may be deceptive, because it coincides with a decrease in the number of such events from four in 1980–2000 (Mount St Helens 1980; El Chichón 1982; Pinatubo 1991; and Cerro Hudson 1991) to only two since then (Puyehue-Cordón Caulle, 2011 and Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai, 2022), both of which also happened to occur in remote locations. The decrease in number is likely to be a statistical fluctuation, and so a longer interval is required for a robust evaluation of sustained progress in emergency management.
Third, the background death rate excludes individual eruptions that killed 5000 people or more (Auker et al. 2013) and, for fatalities since 1980, accounts for less than one third of the total number of lives lost. Most deaths in this period occurred in just one event: the 1985 eruption of Nevado del Ruiz, Colombia, which killed more than 23,000 people (Voight 1990; Siebert et al. 2010; Auker et al. 2013). The eruption occurred after 68 years in repose, and the urgency of the response was hampered by unfamiliarity with the threat from the volcano (Voight 1990; Tilling 2009). Although this example may be viewed as an exception to general improvements in hazard management, it comes at the cost of having taken by far the greatest number of lives.
Long repose intervals promote delays in planning for volcanic emergencies, resulting in the need to design and implement plans after the start of unrest. Recent examples include the responses at Pinatubo in 1991 (Newhall and Punongbayan 1996; Sinclair 2019; Newhall 2021), and at the Chilean volcanoes Chaitén, in 2008, and Calbuco, in 2015 (Carn et al. 2009; Diaz Bouquillard 2019). The responses were successful, but in each case teams had to rely on last-minute decisions to compensate for the absence of formalised emergency plans. As summarised by Newhall and Punongbayan (1996), even when progress was being made with precautionary actions, ‘the margin by which risks were successfully mitigated … [were] alarmingly narrow’.
The lack of formalised emergency plans continues today against a background of an ever-increasing number of published lessons, guidelines, advice and recommendations for best practice (UNDRO 1985; IAVCEI 1999, 2016; McGuire et al. 2009; Pallister et al. 2019, Lowersten et al. 2022). It shows that, although advice and lessons can be translated into theoretical guidelines, they are less readily transformed into practical policy changes (Donahue and Tuohy 2006; Mafimisebi and Hadleigh-Dunn 2018), even when the path to change has been clearly formulated (Bretton et al. 2018a, b b, Tsang & Lindsay 2020). This problem is especially acute in countries with dormant volcanoes (many of which are not regularly monitored), where ‘real-world’ experience of volcanic emergencies is lost between generations of both scientists and emergency managers and, as a consequence, mistakes are repeated and similar lessons persistently rediscovered, such as the need for appropriate behaviour and communication strategies (e.g. Newhall and Punongbayan 1996; Solana and Spiller 2007; Barclay et al. 2008; Solana et al. 2008, 2017; McGuire et al. 2009; Brown et al. 2015; Harris 2015). Outstanding goals remain to develop novel and efficient methods for (a) translating scientific knowledge into practical, actionable information and (b) transferring experience and intangible knowledge to later generations.
Translating scientific knowledge into practical information
Evaluations of responses to emergencies, such as the UNDRR’s Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction or GAR (UNDRR 2019), indicate that the incorporation of scientific advances into emergency procedures is often delayed by a lack of accessibility to essential information and by poor understanding of its relevance by non-specialists. Some observatories, especially those that monitor volcanoes in frequent eruption, have successfully bridged this gap, regardless of the economic resources of the country (e.g. Piton de la Fournaise, France (Peltier et al. 2022), Merapi, Indonesia (Mei et al. 2013) and Kīlauea, USA (Williams et al. 2020)). We suggest that even better results could be achieved if the broader academic community shared responsibility for converting data into forms accessible for practical response methods, as illustrated below.
(1) Improving the accessibility of knowledge by broadening sources, audiences, languages and platforms. The latest scientific findings are typically published for academic audiences in journals, some with expensive subscriptions. They are mostly written in English, and practical applications are rarely made explicit (c.f. Peltier et al (2022)). Uptake is thus necessarily limited among non-English speaking and non-academic audiences. Advances have been achieved with articles on applied volcanology featuring more frequently in volcanological and disaster-related journals (most notably with the creation of the Journal of Applied Volcanology). Even so, the articles still cater primarily for scientific audiences. An implicit assumption appears to be that volcano observatories should take responsibility for translating the most up-to-date scientific information into a form appropriate for emergency planners (Pallister et al. 2019). Meeting such a responsibility is often impractical, owing to a lack of resources in low-income countries and at volcanoes with long recurrence intervals.
A potential solution is for the wider academic community to assist in preparing information designed for decision makers. Methods of support include disseminating research results in non-academic fora; applying visual aids, such as infographics (Charlton et al. 2020) and film (Hicks et al., 2017); using accessible terminology in local languages (e.g. Harris et al. 2017) (particularly when information refers to a specific volcano) and increasing partnerships to co-design dissemination strategies with end users (Hicks et al. 2017, 2019).
(2) Designing novel systems to improve data analysis and accessibility. Contrasting obstacles to disaster risk reduction are a lack of available data on the one hand and an overload of data on the other. Lack of data is a long-established problem (UNDRR 2019) and remains acute at remote and dormant volcanoes. The problem of data overload has emerged with the growth of new technology and data-gathering capabilities. Satellites and low-cost ground-based instruments have greatly enhanced the amount of geophysical and geochemical data that can be acquired for volcano monitoring (Papale and Garg 2022; Poland and Zebker 2022). Larger amounts of data are generally seen as an asset for interpreting volcanic unrest. Paradoxically, however, they can hinder decision making during a crisis. First, they increase the possibility of unprocessed data (and related metadata) being disseminated in a form that is not user-friendly and so open to the spread of misinformation. Second, greater amounts of raw data require more complex processing and can yield a greater choice of interpretation (Newhall, pers. comm.)—a combination that may promote greater uncertainty in selecting the most appropriate information for operational use. Big data projects may thus inadvertently widen the gulf between advances in research and advances in emergency management.
A strategy for closing the gulf is to present data and metadata in forms designed for all decision makers, rather than for scientific analysis alone and to present data already analyzed in open-access, user friendly formats, such as the WOVOdat database of volcanic unrest (WOVOdat n.d. Newhall et al. 2017, Costa et al. 2019). This could be developed further by including case studies of how data have been used during volcanic crises (e.g. how was it acted upon by different stakeholders, or, if not used, why was it discounted). Another example is the EU Copernicus Emergency Management Mapping Service, which was activated in 2020–2021 for the eruptions of La Soufrière on St Vincent, in the Caribbean, and of La Palma in the Canary Islands (Copernicus n.d.). A natural extension would be to create so-called data cubes, which organise data into multi-dimensional (or multi-parameter) spreadsheets, so that users can select the relevant combination of information required to investigate a particular question. They are well established in business analysis (Chin 2020a,b) and have been emerging in the geosciences (Lewis et al. 2017; CommonSensing Project n.d.). Data cubes designed for shared use by all stakeholders (Wilkinson et al. 2016) would be ideally suited in volcanology as a common source for emergency managers and scientists.
(3) Improving visualisations, models, maps and support systems. Maps continue to be one of the principal methods of displaying and communicating information on volcanic hazard and risk and to support decision making and planning (e.g. Nave et al. 2010; Calder et al. 2015; Charlton 2017; Pallister et al. 2019; UNDRR 2019; Charlton et al. 2020; Clive 2021; Lowenstern et al, 2022). Advances in communicating spatial hazard information have been facilitated by computer-assisted visualisations of maps that include perspective and topographic detail (Haynes et al. 2007), incorporate people’s experiences (Taylor et al. 2020), compile real-time observations through citizen-science initiatives (Sandri et al. 2020; EUROVOLC n.d.) and support integrated decision making by combining scientific, geographical, political and socio-economic information, as illustrated by the Kassandra project (n.d.) for planning resilient urban growth in times of climate change (Fig. 1). Continuing goals are to capture the limitations and uncertainty of the data displayed, to consider cascading and coincidental hazards and to show gradations in threat. A potential drawback is that maps of increasing complexity can become less intuitive (Schmidt et al. 2011), and so, for operational purposes, compromises can be expected between how much information is displayed and how readily it is understood.
(4) Increasing efforts for effectively communicating uncertainty before and during an emergency. This is a recurring topic and highlights a protracted problem. Methods for forecasting the basic features of an eruption (such as size, style, volume and duration) are still in development and hence forecasts are still uncertain. New work has thus focused on methods for better managing and communicating uncertainty (e.g. Doyle et al. 2014a, b a,b, Harris 2015), for designing simple volcanic alert systems (Fearnley et al. 2017) and for exploring the benefits of legally binding protocols on how this information is presented (Bretton et al. 2018a, b a, b). Artificial intelligence and machine learning are also promising tools for removing bias in interpreting data and reducing delays in decision making. In medical circles, for example, such tools have provided diagnoses that are more reliable than those by human experts (Savage 2020), while machine learning has shown promise in identifying volcanoes with analogous behaviour to assist forecasting procedures (Costa et al, 2019). Investing in these support tools is a priority for scientists in charge and decision makers.
Transferring experience across generations
Transferring experience between generations is the second key field for development in the next decade. While the skills for the collection and analysis of monitoring data are routinely passed on through training and volunteer programmes at volcano observatories, intangible skills—from confidence in interpreting and communicating data to managing the stress of responsibility during a crisis—are rarely addressed (but see Newhall (2021)). In the case of emergency response, the traditional method of transferring experience through mentoring and internships is complicated by the limited resources and opportunities available for these activities and the practicalities and logistics involved (e.g. allowing trainees from external institutions or countries to observe discussions by scientific advisory committees or by emergency managers during a crisis).
For members of volcano observatories, experience is normally transferred by attending bespoke international conferences (Pallister 2019), such as IAVCEI’s Cities on Volcanoes programme, or through simulation exercises (Marzocchi and Woo 2007; Constantinescu et al. 2016; Lowenstern et al 2022). The methods are supportive but cannot always be fully realised. For example, the cost of international meetings can present financial and language barriers to prospective participants. Exercises provide opportunities to improve operational procedures (Doyle et al. 2015), but they cannot replicate the pressure and responsibility of a live emergency. To address such limitations, civilian emergency services use body-worn cameras during crises to train staff in responding to low-frequency high-risk situations. Although not without controversy (Lum et al. 2019), such cameras have proved invaluable for recalling incidents accurately, transferring experience and reviewing and improving decision making (SHP 2018, Richards et al. 2018 and practitioners’ pers. comm.), and they show promise as a potential asset in volcanic emergencies.
Prospects for the future
Great strides have been made in preparing for volcanic emergencies since the basic requirements were codified more than four decades ago (Fournier d’Albe 1979). Scientific advances have increased understanding of how volcanoes behave; technological advances have increased the range and quality of techniques available for monitoring volcanoes and for processing the data obtained; advances in governance have promoted agreed policies on disaster risk reduction; and advances in social-science studies have increased awareness of how populations react under stress. Nevertheless, gaps remain in the smooth transformation of new data into useful and practical information. A dichotomy still exists between the products of academic research and the need for practical applications, which in turn reflects dichotomies between research-based and observatory-based scientists, between countries rich and poor in resources for emergency management and even between planning for crises at frequently and rarely erupting volcanoes. Resolving these dichotomies will drive a step change in the support available to practitioners for designing new and effective emergency procedures and, with these, for better protecting vulnerable communities against the threat from volcanic behaviour.
References
Aguilera F, Apaza F, Del Carpio J, Grosse P, Jimenez N, Ureta G, Inostroza M, Baez W, Layana S, Gonzalez C, Rivera M, Ortega M, Gonzalez R, Iriarte R (2022) Advances in scientific understanding of the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes: a review of contributing factors. Bull Volcanol 84:22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-022-01526-y
Auker MR, Sparks RSJ, Siebert L, Crossweller S, Ewert J (2013) A statistical analysis of the global historical volcanic fatalities record. J Appl Volcanol 2:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-5040-2-2
Barclay J, Haynes K, Mitchell TO, Solana C, Teeuw R, Darnell A, Crosweller HS, Cole P, Pyle D, Lowe C, Fearnley C (2008) Framing volcanic risk communication within disaster risk reduction: finding ways for the social and physical sciences to work together. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 305(1):163–177
Bretton RJ, Gottsman J, Christie R (2018a) Hazard communication by volcanologists: part 1—Framing the case for contextualisation and related quality standards in volcanic hazard assessments. J Appl Volcanol 7:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13617-018-0077-x
Bretton RJ, Gottsmann J, Christie R (2018b) Hazard communication by volcanologists: part 2—Quality standards for volcanic hazard assessments. J Appl Volcanol 7:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13617-018-0079-8
Brown S, Loughlin S, Sparks RSJ, Vye-Brown C, Barclay Jenni, Calder E, Cottrell E, Jolly G, Komorowski JC, Mandeville C, Newhall C, Palma J, Potter S, Valentine G (2015) Global volcanic hazard and risk. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316276273.004
Brown SK, Jenkins SF, Sparks RSJ, Odbert H, Auker MR (2017) Volcanic fatalities database: analysis of volcanic threat with distance and victim classification. J Appl Volcanol 6:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13617-017-0067-4
Calder E, Wagner K, Ogburn SE (2015) Volcano hazard maps. In: Loughlin SC, Sparks RSJ, Brown SK, Jenkins SF, Vye-Brown C (eds) Global hazards and risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 335–341
Carn SA, Pallister JS, Lara L, Ewert JW, Watt S, Prata AJ, Thomas RJ, Villarosa G (2009) The unexpected awakening of Chaitén volcano, Chile. Eos, Tans Am Geophys Union 90:205–206. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009EO240001
Charlton DH, Kilburn CRJ, Edwards SJ (2020) Volcanic unrest scenarios and impact assessment at Campi Flegrei caldera, southern Italy. J Appl Volcanol 9:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13617-02000097-x
Charlton DJ (2017) Making maps that matter: four ways to improve hazard maps. https://www.preventionweb.net/blog/making-maps-matter-four-ways-improve-hazard-maps (accessed 28 February 2022)
Chester DK, Degg M, Duncan AM, Guest JE (2000) The increasing exposure of cities to the effects of volcanic eruptions: a global survey. Global Environmental Change Part b: Env Hazards 2:89–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1464-2867(01)00004-3
Chin C (2020a) OLAP != OLAP Cube. Business intelligence for practitioners Holistics blog. https://www.holistics.io/blog/olap-is-not-olap-cube/ Accessed 10 Oct 2021
Chin C (2020b) The rise and fall of the OLAP cube. Business intelligence for practitioners Holistics blog https://www.holistics.io/blog/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-olap-cube/ . Accessed 10 Oct 2021
Clive MAT, Lindsay JM, Leonard GS, Lutteroth C, Bostrom A, Corballis P (2021) Volcanic hazard map visualisation affects cognition and crisis decision-making. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 55:102102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102102
CommonSensing (s.d.) Building climate resilience with small island nations. https://www.commonsensing.org.uk/ Last accessed 26 Feb 2022.
Constantinescu R, Robertson R, Lindsay JM, Tonini R, Sandri L, Rouwet D, Smith P, Stewart R (2016) Application of the probabilistic model BET_UNREST during a volcanic unrest simulation exercise in Dominica, Lesser Antilles. Geochem Geophys Geosys 17:4438–4456. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GC006485
Copernicus (n.d.) Emergency Management System: Mapping. https://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/list-of-activations-risk-and-recovery. Last accessed 24 Feb 2022
Costa F, Widiwijayanti C, Win NTZ, Fajiculay E, Espinosa-Ortega T, Newhall CG (2019) WOVOdat—the global volcano unrest database aimed at improving eruption forecasts. Disaster Prev Manag 28(6):738–751. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-09-2019-0301
Crawford B, Hagan DH, Grossman I, Cole E, Holland L, Heald CL, Kroll JH (2021) Mapping pollution exposure and chemistry during an extreme air quality event (the 2018 Kīlauea eruption) using a low-cost sensor network. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(27).
Diaz Bouquillard L (2019) Administrando la Comunicación de Riesgos en una Emergencia Sanitaria, “El caso de la erupción del Volcán Calbuco”, Chile 2015. Rev Española De Comunicación De Salud 10:94–101. https://doi.org/10.20318/recs.2019.4443
Donahue AK, Tuohy RV (2006) Lessons we don’t learn: a study of the lessons of disasters, why we repeat them, and how we can learn them. Homeland Security Affairs 2:1–28. http://www.hsaj.org, 10/10/2021
Doyle EEH, McClure J, Paton D, Johnston A (2014a) Uncertainty and decision making: volcanic crisis scenarios. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10:75–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.07.006
Doyle EEH, McClure J, Johnston A, Paton D (2014b). Communicating likelihoods and probabilities in forecasts of volcanic eruptions. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 272https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2013.12.006
Doyle EEH, Paton D, Johnston DM (2015) Enhancing scientific response in a crisis: evidence-based approaches from emergency management in New Zealand. J Appl Volcanol 4:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13617-014-0020-8
EUROVOLC (n.d.) Citizen science tool for observation of volcanic events. https://eurovolc.bgs.ac.uk/
Fearnley C, Winson AEG, Pallister J, Tilling RI (2017) Volcano crisis communication: challenges and solutions in the 21st century. In: Fearnley CJ, Bird DK, Haynes K, McGuire WJ, Jolly G (eds) Observing the volcano world. Springer, Berlin, p 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/11157_2017_28
Fournier d’Albe EM (1979) Objectives of volcanic monitoring and prediction. J Geol Soc 136:321–326. https://doi.org/10.1144/gsjgs.136.3.0321230
Garthwaite MC, Miller VL, Saunders S, Parks MM, Hu G, Parker AL (2019) A simplified approach to operational InSAR monitoring of volcano deformation in low-and middle-income countries: Case study of Rabaul Caldera, Papua New Guinea. Frontiers in Earth Science, 240.
Granados-Bolaños S, Quesada-Román A, Alvarado GE (2021) Low-cost UAV applications in dynamic tropical volcanic landforms. J Volcanol Geoth Res 410:107143
Haynes K, Barclay J, Pidgeon N (2007) Volcanic hazard communication using maps: an evaluation of their effectiveness. Bull Volcanol 70:123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-007-0124-79
Harris AJ (2015) Forecast communication through the newspaper part 2: perceptions of uncertainty. Bull Volcanol 77(4):1–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-015-0902-6
Harris AJ, Belousov A, Calvari S, Delgado-Granados H, Hort M, Koga K, Wulan Mei ET, Harijoko A, Pacheco J, Prival JM, Solana C, Þórðarson Þ, Thouret JC, van Wyk de Vries B, (2017) Translations of volcanological terms: cross-cultural standards for teaching, communication, and reporting. Bull Volcanol 79(7):1–10
Hicks A, Armijos MT, Barclay J, Stone J, Robertson R, Cortés GP (2017) Risk communication films: process, product and potential for improving preparedness and behaviour change. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 23:138–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.04.015
Hicks A, Barclay J, Chilvers J, Armijos MT, Oven K, Simmons P, Haklay M (2019) Global mapping of citizen science projects for disaster risk reduction. Front Earth Sci 7:226. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2019.00226
IAVCEI (1999) Professional conduct of scientists during volcanic crises. Bull Volcanol 60:323–334
IAVCEI (2016) Toward IAVCEI guidelines on the roles and responsibilities of scientists involved in volcanic hazard evaluation, risk mitigation, and crisis response. Bull Volcanol 78:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-016-1021-8
Kassandra project (n.d.). The first integrated support system for resilient cities. https://www.kassandraproject.org/ Accessed 10 Oct 2021.
Kilburn CRJ, Bell AF (2022) Forecasting eruptions from long-quiescent volcanoes. Bull Volcanol 84:25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-022-01532-0
Lewis A, Oliver S, Lymburner L, Evans B, Wyborn L, and 24 others (2017) The Australian geoscience data cube—foundations and lessons learned. Remote Sensing Environment 202:276–292.http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.03.015
Lindsay JM, Robertson RE (2018) Integrating volcanic hazard data in a systematic approach to develop volcanic hazard maps in the Lesser Antilles. Front Earth Sci 6:42
Lowenstern JB, Wallace K, Barsotti S, Sandri L, Stovall W, Bernard B, Privitera E, Komorowski JC, Fournier N, Balagizi C, Garaebiti E (2022) Guidelines for volcano-observatory operations during crises: recommendations from the 2019 volcano observatory best practices meeting. J Appl Volcanol 11:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13617-021-00112-9
Lum C, Stoltz M, Koper CS, Scherer JA (2019) Research on body-worn cameras: what we know, what we need to know. Criminol Public Policy 18(1):93–118
Mafimisebi OP, Hadleigh-Dunn S (2017). Strategies for disaster risk reduction and management: are lessons from past disasters actionable? In: Madu CN, Kuei CH (eds) Handbook of disaster risk reduction and management World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/10392
Marzocchi W, Woo G (2007) Probabilistic eruption forecasting and the call for evacuation. Geophys Res Lett 34:L22310. , https//doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031922
McGuire WJ, Solana MC, Kilburn CRJ, Sanderson D (2009) Improving communication during volcanic crises on small, vulnerable, islands. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 183:63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.02.019
Mei ETW, Lavigne F, Picquout A, de Bélizal E, Brunstein D, Grancher D, Sartohadi J, Cholik N, Vidal C (2013) Lessons learned from the 2010 evacuations at Merapi volcano. J Volcanol Geotherml Res 261:348–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2013.03.010
Munich Re (n.d.) Volcanic eruptions. The Earth’s ring of fire. www.munichre.com/en/risks/natural-disasters-losses-are-trending-upwards/volcanic-eruptions-the-earths-ring-of-fire.html (accessed 28 February 2022)
Nave R, Isaia R, Vilardo G, Barclay J (2010) Re-assessing volcanic hazard maps for improving volcanic risk communication: application to Stromboli Island. Italy, Journal of Maps 6:260–269. https://doi.org/10.4113/jom.2010.1061
Newhall CG (2021) Volcanic hazard mitigation that could have been derailed but wasn’t: Pinatubo, Philippines, 1991. Front Earth Sci 9:1080. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2021.743477
Newhall CG, Punongbayan RS (1996) The narrow margin of successful volcanic-risk mitigation. In: Scarpa R, Tilling RI (eds) Monitoring and mitigation of volcano hazards. Springer, Berlin, pp 807–838
Newhall CG, Costa F, Ratdomopurbo A, Venezky D., Widiwijayanti C, Win NTZ, Tan K, Fajiculay E (2017) WOVOdat—an online, growing library of worldwide volcanic unrest. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 345: 184–199, ISSN 0377–0273, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2017.08.003
Pallister J, Papale P, Eichelberger J (2019) Volcano observatory best practices (VOBP) workshops—a summary of findings and best-practice recommendations. J Appl Volcanol 8:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13617-019-0082-8
Papale P, Garg D (2022) Big volcano science: needs and perspectives. Bull Volcanol 84:20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-022-01524-0
Peltier A, Chevrel MO, Harris AJL, Villeneuve N.(2022). Reappraisal of gap analysis for effusive crises at Piton de la Fournaise. J Appl. Volcanol. 11, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13617-021-00111-w
Poland MP, Zebker HA (2022) Volcano geodesy using InSAR in 2020: the past and next decades. Bull Volcanol 84:27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-022-01531-1
Ramsey MS, Harris AJL, Watson IM (2022) Volcanology 2030: will an orbital volcano observatory finally become a reality? Bull Volcanol 84:6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-021-01501-z
Richards P, Roberts D, Britton M, Roberts N (2018) The exploration of body-worn video to accelerate the decision-making skills of police officers within an experiential learning environment. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 12(1), 43–49.
Sandri L, Ilyinskaya E, Duncan M, Nayembil M, Reitano D, Barsotti S, Bonadonna C, Nave R, Geyer A, Selva J (2020) EUROVOLC tool for citizen science observations of volcanic phenomena. European Geosciences Union, General Assembly 04-08 May 2020. 10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-13428
Savage N (2020) How AI is improving cancer diagnostics. Nature 579:S14–S16. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00847-2
Schmidt J, Matcham I, Reese S, King A, and 6 others (2011). Quantitative multi-risk analysis for natural hazards: a framework for multi-risk modelling. Nat Hazards 58:1169–1192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9721-z
SHP (2018) Safety and Health Practitioner. Four reasons why emergency services should wear body cameras. https://www.shponline.co.uk/workplace-violence/four-reasons-why-the-emergency-services-should-wear-body-cameras/
Siebert L, Simkin T, Kimberly P (2010) Volcanoes of the world, 3rd edn. Smithsonian institution & Univ of California Press, Berkley, Los Angeles
Sinclair G (2019) Processes of policy mobility in the governance of volcanic risk. PhD thesis, Lancaster University. https://doi.org/10.17635/lancaster/thesis/798
Solana C, Spiller C (2007) Communication between professionals during volcanic emergencies. Eos Trans Am Geophys Union 88:28
Solana C, Kilburn CRJ, Rolandi G (2008) Communicating eruption and hazard forecasts on Vesuvius, Southern Italy. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 172:308–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.027
Solana MC, Calvari S, Kilburn CRJ, Chester D, Duncan A (2017) Supporting the development of procedures for communications during volcanic emergencies: lessons learnt from the Canary Islands, Spain and Etna and Stromboli, Italy. In: Fearnley CJ, Bird DK, Haynes K, McGuire WJ, Jolly G (eds) Observing the volcano world p 289–304. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/11157_2016_48.
Sparks RSJ, Blundy JD, Cashman KV, Jackson M, Rust A, Wilson CJN (2022) Large silicic magma bodies and very large magnitude explosive eruptions. Bull Volcanol 84:8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-021-01510-y
Taylor FE, Millington JDA, Jacob E, Malamud BD, Pelling M (2020) Messy maps: qualitative GIS representations of resilience. Landsc Urban Plann 198(103771):1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103771
Thelen WA, Matoza RS, Hotovec-Ellis AJ (2022) Trends in volcano seismology: 2010 to 2020 and beyond (2022) Bull Volcanol 84, 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-022-01530-2
Tilling RI (2009) El Chichón’s “surprise” eruption in 1982: lessons for reducing volcano risk. Geofísica Internacional 48:3–19
Tsang SWR, Lindsay JM (2020) Lava flow crises in inhabited areas part I: lessons learned and research gaps related to effusive, basaltic eruptions. J Appl Volcanol 9:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13617-020-00096-y
UNDRO (1985) Volcanic Emergency Management, Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Coordinator (UNDRO) and United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. United Nations, New York
UNDRR (2019) GAR—Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. https://gar.undrr.org/ Retrieved 4 Oct 2021.
Voight B (1990) The 1985 Nevado del Ruiz volcano catastrophe: anatomy and retrospection. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 44:349–386
Wilkinson M, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg I, Appleton G, and 49 others (2016) The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 3:160018 https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18
Williams DM, Aver, VF, Coombs ML, Cox DA, Horwitz LR, McBride SK, McClymont RJ, Moran SC (2020) U.S. Geological Survey 2018 Kīlauea Volcano eruption response in Hawai'I—after-action review. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2020–1041, 56 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20201041.
WOVO (n.d.) Data on volcanic unrest. https://www.wovodat.org/ Accessed 28 Feb 2022
Acknowledgements
We thank Chris Newhall, Kathy Cashman, Andrew Harris and an anonymous reviewer for their recommendations on improving our manuscript and for guiding us to the final dichotomies to be resolved.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Editorial responsibility: K.V. Cashman
This paper constitutes part of a topical collection: Looking Backwards and Forwards in Volcanology: A Collection of Perspectives on the Trajectory of a Science
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Solana, C., Kilburn, C.R.J. Translating research into operational procedures for reducing the risk from volcanic eruptions. Bull Volcanol 84, 56 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-022-01563-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-022-01563-7