The Need to Quantify Hazard Related to Non-magmatic Unrest: From BET_EF to BET_UNREST

Sandri, Laura; Tonini, Roberto; Rouwet, Dmitri; Constantinescu, Robert; Mendoza-Rosas, Ana Teresa; Andrade, S. Daniel; Bernard, Benjamin

doi:10.1007/11157_2017_9

Cited by 12 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Within this opinion chapter, we highlight some critical aspects of the probabilistic forecasting method, without entering in the technical and operational details (see Tonini et al 2016 andSandri et al 2017 for further reading).…”

Section: Probabilistic Forecastsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deterministic Versus Probabilistic Volcano Monitoring: Not “or” But “and”

Rouwet

Constantinescu

Sandri

2017

Advances in Volcanology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Volcanic eruption forecasting and hazard assessment are multi-disciplinary processes with scientific and social implications. Our limited knowledge and the randomness of the processes behind a volcanic eruption yield the need to quantify uncertainties on volcano dynamics. With deterministic and probabilistic methods for volcanic hazard assessment not always being in agreement, we propose a combined approach that bridges the two schools of thoughts in order to improve future volcano monitoring. Expert elicitation has proven to be an effective way to bind deterministic research within a probabilistic framework aiming to reduce the uncertainties related to any hazard forecast; yet, numerous exercises based on expert elicitation have revealed that the attempt to reduce uncertainties led to the creation of new ones, often unquantifiable, created by human nature and reasoning during stressful situations. Such reasoning ignores the complexity of volcanic processes and the fact that every scenario has a probability to occur. The recent probabilistic methods and tools marry probabilistic and deterministic approaches and lead to unprecedented models. Nevertheless, probabilistic hazard assessment is often misunderstood as not all of the researchers involved have backgrounds in such matters. A probabilistic method cannot stand-alone as it depends on data input obtained by deterministic approaches. We propose that, given the symbiotic relationship between the two methods, a probabilistic framework can play a role of moderator between various deterministic disciplines, thus creating a coherent environment for discussion and debate among seismologists, geodesists, geochemists. This can be achieved by training all scientists involved in hazard assessment, probability theory and data interpretation, while at least one group member objectively uses the information provided to produce the probabilities. Hence, numerical outcomes can be interpreted transparently as they represent the quantification of experts' knowledge and related uncertainties. A probabilistic method that incorporates the joint opinions of a group of multi-disciplinary researchers facilitates a more straightforward way of communicating scientific information to decision-makers. Resumen extendidLa previsión de erupciones volcánicas y la evaluación del peligro son procesos multidisciplinarios, con implicaciones tanto científicas como sociales. Nuestro conocimiento limitado de los procesos detrás de una erupción volcánica y su aleatoriedad genera la necesidad de cuantificar las incertidumbres sobre las dinámicas del volcán y de mejorar la política de la toma de decisiones durante una crisis volcánica. Sabiendo que existe un desacuerdo sobre el uso de métodos determinísticos o probabilísticos durante la evaluación de la peligrosidad volcánica, revisamos ambos métodos y proponemos un enfoque que sirve como puente entre las dos escuelas de pensamiento y que pueda mejorar las capacidades de monitoreo volcánico en el futuro, hacia el reconocimiento en tiempo de m...

show abstract

Section: Probabilistic Forecastsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deterministic Versus Probabilistic Volcano Monitoring: Not “or” But “and”

Rouwet

Constantinescu

Sandri

2017

Advances in Volcanology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While this can in practice be addressed in models through epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties, ambiguities in the interpretation will remain. (2) Ambiguity, uncertainty and ignorance (Stirling 2010) have impact on probabilistic forecasting of duration, spatio-temporal evolution, causal relationship between sequential events and outcomes of unrest episodes (see Sandri et al 2017) and on remedial actions to mitigate current and future adverse effects. Uncertainties in the decision-making process may give rise to "false alerts" (i.e., false positives; see Table 2) and actions by civil protection with adverse impacts on the compliance of affected communities in future unrest events.…”

Section: The Caveats Of Volcanic Unrest Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

Volcanic Unrest and Pre-eruptive Processes: A Hazard and Risk Perspective

Gottsmann¹,

Komorowski²,

Barclay³

2017

Advances in Volcanology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…To quantify the possible eruptive threat from unrest episodes, several groups have developed Bayesian Event Tree (BET) (figure 2) that include an assessment of the likelihood that the unrest is caused by 'magma on the move', geothermal or tectonic activity, or some other process [9,[11][12][13]. The eruption hazard from non-magmatic unrest (geothermal, tectonic, volatile accumulation and release, or other) is generally lower than magmatic unrest.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thoughts on the criteria to determine the origin of volcanic unrest as magmatic or non-magmatic

Pritchard

Mather

McNutt

et al. 2019

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As our ability to detect volcanic unrest improves, we are increasingly confronted with the question of whether the unrest has a magmatic origin (magma on the move) or a non-magmatic origin from a change in the hydrothermal system (fluids that are not magma on the move) or tectonic processes. The cause of unrest has critical implications for the potential eruptive hazard (e.g. used in constructing Bayesian Event Trees), but is frequently the subject of debate, even at well-studied systems. Here, we propose a set of multi-disciplinary observations and numerical models that could be used to evaluate conceptual models about the cause of unrest. These include measurements of gas fluxes and compositions and the isotopic signature of some components (e.g. H 2 , He, C, SO 2 , H 2 O , CH 4 and CO 2 ), the spatial and temporal characteristics of ground deformation, thermal output, seismicity, changes in gravity, and whether there is topographic uplift or subsidence spanning hundreds to thousands of years. In several volcanic systems, both magmatic and non-magmatic unrest is occurring at the same time. While none of these observations or models is diagnostic on its own, we illustrate several examples where they have been used together to make a plausible conceptual model of one or more episodes of unrest and whether eruptions did or did not follow the unrest. This article is part of the Theo Murphy meeting issue ‘Magma reservoir architecture and dynamics’.

show abstract

The Need to Quantify Hazard Related to Non-magmatic Unrest: From BET_EF to BET_UNREST

Cited by 12 publications

References 25 publications

Deterministic Versus Probabilistic Volcano Monitoring: Not “or” But “and”

Deterministic Versus Probabilistic Volcano Monitoring: Not “or” But “and”

Volcanic Unrest and Pre-eruptive Processes: A Hazard and Risk Perspective

Thoughts on the criteria to determine the origin of volcanic unrest as magmatic or non-magmatic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About