Risk assessments face legal scrutiny

Bretton, Richard; Aspinall, Willy

doi:10.1038/550188b

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Likewise, we can make short-term forecasts based on other readily observable traits of the system (e.g., dome growing toward east vs. dome growing toward northwest). The fact that our model also accounts for epistemic uncertainty is critical for hazard assessment as quantitative analysis of data is necessary for fully defensible decision making (Bretton and Aspinall, 2017). Probabilistic volcanic hazard maps such as those developed in Connor et al (2012); Volentik and Houghton (2015); Biass et al (2016); Mead and Magill (2017) represent the state of the art in volcanic hazard assessment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Statistical Models for Pyroclastic Density Current Generation at Soufrière Hills Volcano

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Statistical Models for Pyroclastic Density Current Generation at Soufrière Hills Volcano

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Ineffective communication can lead to decision-makers making ill-informed decisions (US/NRC 1996;Solana et al 2008) with associated direct and indirect consequences. Recent cases, including the L'Aquila case, have shown that legal consequences may flow from communication inadequacies (Lauta 2014a(Lauta , 2014bBretton 2014, Bretton et al 2015, 2017Scolobig et al 2014;Scolobig 2015;Doyle et al 2015;Alexander 2014aAlexander , 2014bBretton and Aspinall 2017).…”

Section: Effective Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hazard communication by volcanologists: Part 1 - Framing the case for contextualisation and related quality standards in volcanic hazard assessments

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific communication is one of the most challenging aspects of volcanic risk management because the complexities and uncertainties of volcanic unrest make it difficult for scientists to provide information that is timely, relevant, easily comprehensible and trusted. When poorly handled, scientific communication can cause social, economic and political problems, and undermine community confidence in disaster management regimes. This is the first of two related papers that together investigate the interface between the scientific consideration of volcanic hazards and the governance of volcanic risks. Both papers are principally concerned with issues of risk governance, and their focus is hazard communication by volcanologists at this hazard-risk interface (the interface) during periods of volcanic unrest. In this paper, we argue that the working practices of contextualisation must be more methodical and propose four quality assurance standards that will enhance hazard assessments. To improve hazard communication between volcanologists and risk-mitigation decision-makers (decision-makers), we argue that volcanologists need to adopt a more iterative and structured approach that openly embraces the benefits, and confronts the challenges, of stakeholder-orientated 'contextualisation'. Our analysis of the published literature reveals evidence of a slow paradigm shift from practices based upon strict linear technocratic approaches to more iterative stakeholder participation. The extent of this shift varies in different regions, however, the rules and practices of deliberation often appear ad hoc and unstructured. Since there is currently insufficient guidance for managing the practicalities and standards of contextualisation, we introduce two novel concepts; the 'scrutiny dimension' of risk governance, which is the slow changing governance context that may influence the processes of contextualisation, and the dynamic 'equilibrium of contextualisation', which is the metastable product of regulatory standards, natural and organisational constraints, and stakeholder pressures. We argue that the working practices of contextualisation must be more structured and should strive to be open, transparent and fully articulated. Contextualisation, which meets proposed quality assurance standards of materiality, proximity, comprehensibility and integrity, will enhance hazard assessments and, thereby, the utility of their outputs. In our second paper (Bretton et al, J Appl. Volcanol.

show abstract

“…This is now clarified as "Potential for Increased Activity." In January 2017, legal proceedings against the JMA were instigated by some bereaved families arguing that the JMA should have raised the alert level (Bretton and Aspinall, 2017).…”

Section: Case Study: Mt Ontake Japanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stochastic Modeling of Past Volcanic Crises

Woo

2018

Front. Earth Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The statistical foundation of disaster risk analysis is past experience. From a scientific perspective, history is just one realization of what might have happened, given the randomness and chaotic dynamics of nature. Stochastic analysis of the past is an exploratory exercise in counterfactual history, considering alternative possible scenarios. In particular, the dynamic perturbations that might have transitioned a volcano from an unrest to an eruptive state need to be considered. The stochastic modeling of past volcanic crises leads to estimates of eruption probability that can illuminate historical volcanic crisis decisions. It can also inform future economic risk management decisions in regions where there has been some volcanic unrest, but no actual eruption for at least hundreds of years. Furthermore, the availability of a library of past eruption probabilities would provide benchmark support for estimates of eruption probability in future volcanic crises.

show abstract

Risk assessments face legal scrutiny

Cited by 5 publications

References 3 publications

Dynamic Statistical Models for Pyroclastic Density Current Generation at Soufrière Hills Volcano

Dynamic Statistical Models for Pyroclastic Density Current Generation at Soufrière Hills Volcano

Hazard communication by volcanologists: Part 1 - Framing the case for contextualisation and related quality standards in volcanic hazard assessments

Stochastic Modeling of Past Volcanic Crises

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About