No abstract

No abstract

Lava flows have threatened and/or inundated inhabited areas and/or their supporting networks 38 times at 12 volcanoes in the past 70 years. A systematic evaluation of these events has not been undertaken, making it hard to compare eruptions, create lava flow vulnerability models to support impact assessments, and deduce best practices for managing lava flow crises. In this paper, we summarise all 38 basaltic lava flow crises and conduct a gap analysis by evaluating published literature. Eleven data types that could support enhanced physical impact studies and/or research on the societal effects of lava flows were identified. Four of the data types (preparation actions and narrative, eruption narrative, response narrative, and evacuation data) have been well-documented (i.e. documented in at least half the eruptions). Communication approaches and recovery narratives have been included in at least a quarter of the studied eruptions, and their documentation in the literature is increasing with time. Five data types (lava flow attribute data, detailed physical impact data, and information on lava flow hazard modelling, community reactions, and applications of learnings) have only been documented a handful of times each. We suggest that standardisation of data collection and data storage could increase the frequency with which these data types are documented. Finally, we use the case studies to extract lessons about how community understanding of volcanic hazards influences community resilience and how lava flow modelling can inform planning. We also describe lessons relating to evacuation processes, mitigation methods, and recovery.

Lava flows can cause substantial physical damage to elements of the built environment. Often, lava flow impacts are assumed to be binary, i.e. cause complete damage if the lava flow and asset are in contact, or no damage if there is no direct contact. According to this paradigm, buried infrastructure would not be expected to sustain damage if a lava flow traverses the ground above. However, infrastructure managers ("stakeholders") have expressed concern about potential lava flow damage to such assets. We present a workflow to assess the thermal hazard posed by lava flows to buried infrastructure. This workflow can be applied in a pre-defined scenario. The first step in this workflow is to select an appropriate lava flow model(s) and simulate the lava flow's dimensions, or to measure an in situ lava flow's dimensions. Next, stakeholders and the modellers collaborate to identify where the lava flow traverses buried network(s) of interest as well as the thermal operating conditions of these networks. Alternatively, instead of direct collaboration, this step could be done by overlaying the flow's areal footprint on local infrastructure maps, and finding standard and maximum thermal operating conditions in the literature. After, the temperature of the lava flow at the intersection point(s) is modelled or extracted from the results of the first step. Fourth, the lava flow-substrate heat transfer is calculated. Finally, the heat transfer results are simplified based on the pre-identified thermal operating conditions. We illustrate how this workflow can be applied in an Auckland Volcanic Field (New Zealand) case study. Our case study demonstrates considerable heat is transferred from the hypothetical lava flow into the ground and that maximum operating temperatures for electric cables are exceeded within 1 week of the lava flow front's arrival at the location of interest. An exceedance of maximum operating temperatures suggests that lava flows could cause thermal damage to buried infrastructure, although mitigation measures may be possible.

Lava flows can cause substantial and immediate damage to the built environment and affect the economy and society over days through to decades. Lava flow modelling can be undertaken to help stakeholders prepare for and respond to lava flow crises. Traditionally, lava flow modelling is conducted on a digital elevation model, but this type of representation of the surface may not be appropriate for all settings. Indeed, we suggest that in urban areas a digital surface model may more accurately capture all of the obstacles a lava flow would encounter. We use three effusive eruption scenarios in the well-studied Auckland Volcanic Field (New Zealand) to demonstrate the difference between modelling on an elevation model versus on a surface model. The influence of surficial features on lava flow modelling results is quantified using a modified Jaccard coefficient. For the scenario in the most urbanised environment, the Jaccard coefficient is 40%, indicating less than half of the footprints overlap, while for the scenario in the least urbanised environment, the Jaccard coefficient is 90%, indicating substantial overlap. We find that manmade surficial features can influence the hazard posed by lava flows and that a digital surface model may be more applicable in highly modified environments.