Standardisation of the USGS Volcano Alert Level System (VALS): analysis and ramifications

Abstract

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...

Challenges and Benefits of Standardising Early Warning Systems: A Case Study of New Zealand’s Volcanic Alert Level System

“…This was also identified by Thompson et al (2015) in using probabilistic volcanic hazard maps. We found that taking into account the local context is vital, which supports the findings of numerous recent research in volcanic crisis communication (Haynes et al 2007;Fearnley et al 2012;Potter et al 2014). Providing supporting information using other means helps to alleviate these issues.…”

Synthesis of global satellite observations of magmatic and volcanic deformation: implications for volcano monitoring & the lateral extent of magmatic domains

“…4A) and levels of detail, with an emphasis on uncertainty. For example, the United States Geological Survey operate dual volcano alert level systems to accommodate both the aviation industry, who require hazard information as rapidly as possible, and those responsible for hazard response on the ground who may prefer a lead time to inform and educate decision makers (Fearnley et al, 2012). While relevant information for long-term infrastructure and public service planning should capture broad changes between years or decades, monitoring data that feeds into decisions about evacuation must be available on much shorter timescales in as near to realtime as possible (Tilling, 2008).…”

Rational volcanic hazard forecasts and the use of volcanic alert levels

“…Such evaluations are usually expressed in terms of alert levels (e.g., Fearnley et al 2012), represented by a series (usually three to five, but they can be more) of discrete levels, determined by volcano scientists on the basis of their observations and expert knowledge, each one implicitly (or in some cases explicitly) associated with a different "likelihood", which, in turn, is sometimes tied to associated actions. The arguments that I develop here demonstrate that such alert level tables are dominantly developed and used through an 'intuitive approach' , rather than through rational thinking that should drive scientific evaluations.…”