Sixteen years have passed since the last global volcanic event and more than 25 since a volcanic catastrophe that killed tens of thousands. In this time, volcanology has seen major advances in understanding, modelling and predicting volcanic hazards and, recently, an interest in techniques for reducing and mitigating volcanic risk. This paper provides a synthesis of literature relating to this last aspect, specifically the communication of volcanic risk, with a view to highlighting areas of future research into encouraging risk-reducing behaviour. Evidence suggests that the current 'multidisciplinary' approach within physical science needs a broader scope to include sociological knowledge and techniques. Key areas where this approach might be applied are: (1) the understanding of the incentives that make governments and communities act to reduce volcanic risk; (2) improving the communication of volcanic uncertainties in volcanic emergency management and long-term planning and development. To be successful, volcanic risk reduction programmes will need to be placed within the context of other other risk-related phenomena (e.g. other natural hazards, climate change) and aim to develop an all-risks reduction culture. We suggest that the greatest potential for achieving these two aims comes from deliberative inclusive processes and geographic information systems.
A volcano alert level system (VALS) is used to communicate warning information from scientists to civil authorities managing volcanic hazards. This paper provides the first evaluation of how the decision-making process behind the assignation of an alert level, using forecasts of volcanic behaviour, operates in practice. Using interviews conducted from 2007 to 2009 at five USGS-managed (US Geological Survey) volcano observatories (Alaska, Cascades, Hawaii, Long Valley, and Yellowstone), two key findings are presented here. First, that observatory scientists encounter difficulties in interpreting scientific data, and in making decisions about what a volcano is doing, when dealing with complex volcanic processes. Second, the decision to move between alert levels is based upon a complex negotiation of perceived social and environmental risks. This research establishes that decision-making processes are problematic in the face of intrinsic uncertainties and risks, such that warning systems become complex and nonlinear. A consideration of different approaches to negotiating uncertainty and risk that are deliberative would, therefore, be beneficial in volcanic hazard management insofar as these suggest effective practices for decision-making processes in assigning an alert level.
warning system (EWS) for all natural hazards and communities. Certainly, the scope of the disaster, with 8 the tsunami causing loss of life in 14 countries, pointed to the need for a readily translatable, easily 9 understood alert system that could be disseminated quickly via diverse communication media. More 10 often, however, standardisation has been the goal and product of nation-state planning; a trend 11 accelerated in post-9/11 United States (U.S.) and Europe as part of the drive toward increased 12 'securitisation'. Whereas warning systems and response measures associated with natural hazards have 13 historically emerged from local and regional networks, now a more explicit, top-down demand for cross-14 contextual protocols has become the norm. These protocols benefit those responsible for management of 15 a standardised warning system, insofar as it enables scientists, for example, to 'constrain work practices 16 and define, describe, and contain representations of nature and reality ' (Fujimura 1987, p.205). Protcols 17 also establish political control and legal accountability, particularly during dynamic situations such as 18 natural hazard crises however, a number of difficulties have also ensued (Hogle 1995; Timmermans and 19 Berg 1997;Timmermans and Epstein 2010). These relate to the simplification of what are complex 20 volcanic events and systems, such that more targeted response efforts are hindered, but also to an 21 accompanying shift away from the description (and explanation) of particular events towards a set of 22 warning icons and words that lend themselves to very particular (that is, aviation) communities. 23 24 Globally, volcano alert level systems (VALS; also referred to as status levels, condition levels, or colour 25 codes) are used to provide warnings and emergency information in relation to volcanic unrest and 26 eruptive activity, typically based upon forecasts arising from observation, monitoring and data analysis. 27 VALS are a key sub-system within a volcano early warning system, and address the development and 28 communication processes of warnings both prior to and during a hazard 'event,' which can occur in the 29 2 form of fall deposits (ash), to flow processes (lahars and pyroclastic flows), to volcanic gases, earthquakes 30 and tsunamis. Typically, scientists assess the state of the volcano to forecast future behaviour and assign 31 an alert 'level' -thereby anticipating a 'linearised' set of physical processes (i.e. that follow a linear 32 progression) -that provides public and civil authorities a framework that can be used to gauge and 33 coordinate their response to a developing volcano emergency. In 1985, the United Nations Disaster Relief 34 Organisation (UNDRO) published the report 'Volcanic Emergency Management' outlining one of the 35 first examples of a VALS, described as 'Stages of Alert of Volcanic Eruption' (UNDRO 1985, p.54). The 36 report provided strong guidance in relation to limiting panic during volcanic crises via public 37 announcements, decided pri...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.