Gill Jolly

Communicating the status of volcanic activity: revising New Zealand’s volcanic alert level system

The communication of scientific information to stakeholders is a critical component of an effective Volcano Early Warning System. Volcanic Alert Level (VAL) systems are used in many countries as a tool within early warning systems to communicate complex volcanic information in a simple form, from which response decisions can be made. Such communication tools need to meet the requirements of a wide range of end-users, including emergency managers, the aviation industry, media, and the public. They also need to be usable by scientists who determine the alert levels based on integration and interpretation of volcano observations and monitoring data.This paper presents an exploratory review of New Zealand’s 20-year old VAL system, and for the first time globally, describes the development of a VAL system based on a robust qualitative ethnographic methodology. This involved semi-structured interviews of scientists and VAL end-users, document analysis, and observations of scientists over three years as they set the VAL during multiple unrest and eruption crises. The transdisciplinary nature of this research allows the system to be revised with direct input by end-users of the system, highlighting the benefits of using social science methodologies in developing or revising warning systems. The methodology utilised in this research is applicable worldwide, and could be used to develop warning systems for other hazards.It was identified that there are multiple possibilities for foundations of VAL systems, including phenomena, hazard, risk, and magmatic processes. The revised VAL system is based on the findings of this research, and was implemented in collaboration with New Zealand’s Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management in July 2014. It is used for all of New Zealand’s active volcanoes, and is understandable, intuitive, and informative. The complete process of exploring a current VAL system, revising it, and introducing it to New Zealand society is described.

Introducing the Volcanic Unrest Index (VUI): a tool to quantify and communicate the intensity of volcanic unrest

Accurately observing and interpreting volcanic unrest phenomena contributes towards better forecasting of volcanic eruptions, thus potentially saving lives. Volcanic unrest is recorded by volcano observatories and may include seismic, geodetic, degassing and/or geothermal phenomena. The multivariate datasets are often complex and can contain a large amount of data in a variety of formats. Low levels of unrest are frequently recorded, causing the distinction between background activity and unrest to be blurred, despite the widespread usage of these terms in unrest literature (including probabilistic eruption-forecasting models) and in Volcanic Alert Level (VAL) systems. Frequencies and intensities of unrest episodes are not easily comparable over time or between volcanoes. Complex unrest information is difficult to communicate simply to civil defence personnel and other non-scientists. The Volcanic Unrest Index (VUI) is presented here to address these issues. The purpose of the VUI is to provide a semi-quantitative rating of unrest intensity relative to each volcano’s past level of unrest and to that of analogous volcanoes. The VUI is calculated using a worksheet of observed phenomena. Ranges for each phenomenon within the worksheet can be customised for individual volcanoes, as demonstrated in the companion paper for Taupo Volcanic Centre, New Zealand (Potter et al. 2015). The VUI can be determined retrospectively for historical episodes of unrest based on qualitative observations, as well as for recent episodes with state-of-the-art monitoring. This enables a long time series of unrest occurrence and intensity to be constructed and easily communicated to end users. The VUI can also assist with VAL decision-making. We present and discuss two approaches to the concept of unrest.

Observing the volcano world: volcano crisis communication

This volume, Observing the volcano world: volcanic crisis communication, focuses at the point where the ‘rubber hits the road’, where the world of volcano-related sciences and all its uncertainties meet with the complex and ever-changing dynamics of our society, wherever and whenever this may be. Core to the issues addressed in this book is the idea of how volcanic crisis communication operates in practice and in theory. This chapter provides an overview of the evolution of thinking around the importance of volcanic crisis communication over the last century, bringing together studies on relevant case studies. Frequently, the mechanisms by which volcanic crisis communication occurs are via a number of key tools employed including: risk assessment, probabilistic analysis, early-warning systems, all of which assist in the decision-making procedures; that are compounded by ever-changing societal demands and needs. This chapter outlines some of the key challenges faced in managing responses to volcanic eruptions since the start of the 20th century, C. Fearnley (&) Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK e-mail: c.fearnley@ucl.ac.uk A. E. G. Winson Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3FL, UK J. Pallister U.S. Geological Survey, David A, Johnston Cascades Volcano Observatory, 1300 SE Cardinal Court, Building 10, Suite 100, Vancouver, WA 98683-9589, USA R. Tilling U.S. Geological Survey, Volcano Science Center, 345 Middlefield Rd, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA https://doi.org/10.1007/11157_2017_28

Volcanic Crisis Management

Potentially destructive phenomena such as volcanic eruptions occur independently of any human action. Volcanic disasters may occur when a social group fails to respond to a threatening situation resulting from volcanic activity. Society should thus react to a potential threat and reduce the future impacts of a disaster. Volcanic crisis management is a framework whereby scientists, emergency managers (civil protection), and communities work together to develop and implement a set of preparedness and response measures aimed toward the mitigation of the effects of an eruption. In this chapter, we outline some general principles for volcanic crisis management.

Deformations occurring in the city of Auckland, New Zealand as mapped by the differential synthetic aperture radar

Auckland is the largest city in New Zealand with a current population of more than one million. It is situated on a basaltic volcanic field with a total area of 360 square km and which consists of over 50 individual largely monogenetic volcanoes. The most recent and largest eruption occurred 600 years ago, and was witnessed by local inhabitants. It is anticipated that the chance of reawakening of a dormant volcano is very low; however, a new volcano could be created at any time in a new location within the field. In order to study ground deformations in the Auckland region twenty six ENVISAT ASAR images (Track 151, Frame 6442, IS2, VV) were acquired, spanning the period from 18 July 2003 to 9 November 2007. Over a hundred differential interferograms with perpendicular baselines of less than 500 meters were calculated and analyzed. Stacking, Small Baseline Subset and Permanent Scatterers processing algorithms were used to determine spatial and temporal patterns of surface deformation as well as average rates. A number of localized deformation regions were consistently observed by all three techniques. Three regions of subsidence are believed to be caused by groundwater extraction. The nature of uplifts is currently unclear, but a linear feature paralleling the regional tectonic fabric may be related to a hidden fault. The observed temporal deformation pattern is noisy but appears to be close to linear.

Volcanic Crisis Communication: Where Do We Go from Here?

This volume brings together a wealth of undocumented knowledge and first hand experience to provide a platform for understanding how volcano crises are managed in practice, with contributions from authors all over the globe ranging from observatory volcanologists and scientists, government and NGO officials and practitioners, the insurance sector, educators, and academics (multiple disciplines), and last but by no means least, vulnerable and indigenous populations. These diverse contributions have provided valuable insights into the various successes and failures of volcanic crises. This final chapter seeks to summarise the key contributions to identify trends and determine the vital future directions for volcanic crisis communications research.

Conceptual Development of a National Volcanic Hazard Model for New Zealand

We provide a synthesis of a workshop held in February 2016 to define the goals, challenges and next steps for developing a national probabilistic volcanic hazard model for New Zealand. The workshop involved volcanologists, statisticians, and hazards scientists from GNS Science, Massey University, University of Otago, Victoria University of Wellington, University of Auckland, and University of Canterbury. We also outline key activities that will develop the model components, define procedures for periodic update of the model, and effectively articulate the model to end-users and stakeholders. The development of a National Volcanic Hazard Model is a formidable task that will require long-term stability in terms of team effort, collaboration and resources. Development of the model in stages or editions that are modular will make the process a manageable one that progressively incorporates additional volcanic hazards over time, and additional functionalities (e.g. short-term forecasting). The first edition is likely to be limited to updating and incorporating existing ashfall hazard models, with the other hazards associated with lahar, pyroclastic density currents, lava flow, ballistics, debris avalanche, and gases/aerosols being considered in subsequent updates.

Satellite remote sensing of volcanic activity in New Zealand

Mt Ruapehu is New Zealand¿s most active volcano. In 2007, the volcano produced a large lahar following a crater lake dam wall breach, in addition to a minor eruption and small associated lahars. Here, satellite remote sensing and image processing is used to extract the path of the major lahar, and to compare the results achieved through classification of ASTER visible and near infra-red imagery to those derived from ALOS-PALSAR L-band synthetic aperture RADAR data. This study also details how remote sensing can be used to derive temperature values useful for monitoring volcanic activity. Eleven ASTER thermal images were acquired to extract the temperature of the crater lake and a linear correlation coefficient (r2) of 0.94 was achieved when compared to field survey. The results herein demonstrate the utility of satellite remote sensing for mapping and monitoring volcanic activity in New Zealand.

Evaluating life-safety risk for fieldwork on active volcanoes: the volcano life risk estimator (VoLREst), a volcano observatory’s decision-support tool

When is it safe, or at least, not unreasonably risky, to undertake fieldwork on active volcanoes? Volcano observatories must balance the safety of staff against the value of collecting field data and/or manual instrument installation, maintenance, and repair. At times of volcanic unrest this can present a particular dilemma, as both the value of fieldwork (which might help save lives or prevent unnecessary evacuation) and the risk to staff in the field may be high. Despite the increasing coverage and scope of remote monitoring methods, in-person fieldwork is still required for comprehensive volcano monitoring, and can be particularly valuable at times of volcanic unrest. A volcano observatory has a moral and legal duty to minimise occupational risk for its staff, but must do this in a way that balances against this its duty to provide the best possible information in support of difficult decisions on community safety.To assist with consistent and objective decision-making regarding whether to undertake fieldwork on active volcanoes, we present the Volcano Life Risk Estimator (VoLREst). We developed VoLREst to quantitatively evaluate life-safety risk to GNS Science staff undertaking fieldwork on volcanoes in unrest where the primary concerns are volcanic hazards from an eruption with no useful short-term precursory activity that would indicate an imminent eruption. The hazards considered are ballistics, pyroclastic density currents, and near-vent processes. VoLREst quantifies the likelihood of exposure to volcanic hazards at various distances from the vent for small, moderate, or large eruptions. This, combined with the estimate of the chance of a fatality given exposure to a volcanic hazard, provides VoLREst’s final output: quantification of the hourly risk of a fatality for an individual at various distances from the volcanic vent.At GNS Science, the calculated levels of life-safety risk trigger different levels of managerial approval required to undertake fieldwork. Although an element of risk will always be present when conducting fieldwork on potentially active volcanoes, this is a first step towards providing objective and reproducible guidance for go/no go decisions for access to undertake volcano monitoring.

National-level long-term eruption forecasts by expert elicitation

Volcanic hazard estimation is becoming increasingly quantitative, creating the potential for land-use decisions and engineering design to use volcanic information in an analogous manner to seismic codes. The initial requirement is to characterize the possible hazard sources, quantifying the likely timing, magnitude and location of the next eruption in each case. This is complicated by the extremely different driving processes at individual volcanoes, and incomplete and uneven records of past activity at various volcanoes. To address these issues, we carried out an expert elicitation approach to estimate future eruption potential for 12 volcanoes of interest in New Zealand. A total of 28 New Zealand experts provided estimates that were combined using Cooke’s classical method to arrive at a hazard estimate. In 11 of the 12 cases, the elicited eruption duration increased with VEI, and was correlated with expected repose, differing little between volcanoes. Most of the andesitic volcanoes had very similar elicited distributions for the VEI of a future eruption, except that Taranaki was expected to produce a larger eruption, due to the current long repose. Elicited future vent locations for Tongariro and Okataina reflect strongly the most recent eruptions. In the poorly studied Bay of Islands volcanic field, the estimated vent location distribution was centred on the centroid of the previous vent locations, while in the Auckland field, it was focused on regions within the field without past eruptions. The elicited median dates for the next eruptions ranged from AD2022 (Whakaari/White Island) to AD4390 (Tuhua/Mayor Island).