Sarah K. Brown

Global database on large magnitude explosive volcanic eruptions (LaMEVE)

To facilitate the assessment of hazards and risk from volcanoes, we have created a comprehensive global database of Quaternary Large Magnitude Explosive Volcanic Eruptions (LaMEVE). This forms part of the larger Volcanic Global Risk Identification and Analysis Project (VOGRIPA), and also forms part of the Global Volcano Model (GVM) initiative (http://www.globalvolcanomodel.org). A flexible search tool allows users to select data on a global, regional or local scale; the selected data can be downloaded into a spreadsheet. The database is publically available online at http://www.bgs.ac.uk/vogripa and currently contains information on nearly 3,000 volcanoes and over 1,800 Quaternary eruption records. Not all volcanoes currently have eruptions associated with them but have been included to allow for easy expansion of the database as more data are found. Data fields include: magnitude, Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI), deposit volumes, eruption dates, and rock type. The scientific community is invited to contribute new data and also alert the database manager to potentially incorrect data. Whilst the database currently focuses only on large magnitude eruptions, it will be expanded to include data specifically relating to the principal volcanic hazards (e.g. pyroclastic flows, tephra fall, lahars, debris avalanches, ballistics), as well as vulnerability (e.g. population figures, building type) to facilitate risk assessments of future eruptions.

Characterisation of the Quaternary eruption record: analysis of the Large Magnitude Explosive Volcanic Eruptions (LaMEVE) database

The Large Magnitude Explosive Volcanic Eruptions (LaMEVE) database contains data on 1,883 Quaternary eruption records of magnitude (M) 4 and above and is publically accessible online via the British Geological Survey. Spatial and temporal analysis of the data indicates that the record is incomplete and is thus biased. The recorded distribution of volcanoes is variable on a global scale, with three-quarters of all volcanoes with M≥4 Quaternary activity located in the northern hemisphere and a quarter within Japan alone. The distribution of recorded eruptions does not strictly follow the spatial distribution of volcanoes and has distinct intra-regional variability, with about 40% of all recorded eruptions having occurred in Japan, reflecting in part the country’s efforts devoted to comprehensive volcanic studies. The number of eruptions in LaMEVE decreases with increasing age, exemplified by the recording of 50% of all known Quaternary eruptions during the last 20,000 years. Historical dating is prevalent from 1450 AD to the present day, substantially improving record completeness. The completeness of the record also improves as magnitude increases. This is demonstrated by the calculation of the median time, T50, for eruptions within given magnitude intervals, where 50% of eruptions are older than T50: T50 ranges from 5,070 years for M4-4.9 eruptions to 935,000 years for M≥8 eruptions. T50 follows a power law fit, suggesting a quantifiable relationship between eruption size and preservation potential of eruptive products. Several geographic regions have T50 ages of <250 years for the smallest (~M4) eruptions reflecting substantial levels of under-recording. There is evidence for latitudinal variation in eruptive activity, possibly due to the effects of glaciation. A peak in recorded activity is identified at 11 to 9 ka in high-latitude glaciated regions. This is absent in non-glaciated regions, supporting the hypothesis of increased volcanism due to ice unloading around this time. Record completeness and consequent interpretation of record limitations are important in understanding volcanism on global to local scales and must be considered during rigorous volcanic hazard and risk assessments. The study also indicates that there need to be improvements in the quality of data, including assessment of uncertainties in volume estimates.

Global volcanic hazards and risk

1. An introduction to global volcanic hazard and risk S. C. Loughlin, C. Vye-Brown, R. S. J. Sparks, S. K. Brown, J. Barclay, E. Calder, E. Cottrell, G. Jolly, J.-C. Komorowski, C. Mandeville, C. Newhall, J. Palma, S. Potter, G. Valentine, B. Baptie, J. Biggs, H. S. Crosweller, E. Ilyinskaya, C. Kilburn, K. Mee and M. Pritchard 2. Global volcanic hazard and risk S. K. Brown, S. C. Loughlin, R. S. J. Sparks, C. Vye-Brown, J. Barclay, E. Calder, E. Cottrell, G. Jolly, J.-C. Komorowski, C. Mandeville, C. Newhall, J. Palma, S. Potter, G. Valentine, B. Baptie, J. Biggs, H. S. Crosweller, E. Ilyinskaya, C. Kilburn, K. Mee and M. Pritchard 3. Volcanic ash fall hazard and risk S. F. Jenkins, T. M. Wilson, C. Magill, V. Miller, C. Stewart, R. Blong, W. Marzocchi, M. Boulton, C. Bonadonna and A. Costa 4. Populations around Holocene volcanoes and development of a Population Exposure Index S. K. Brown, M. R. Auker and R. S. J. Sparks 5. An integrated approach to Determining Volcanic Risk in Auckland, New Zealand: the multidisciplinary DEVORA project N. I. Deligne, J. M. Lindsay and E. Smid 6. Tephra fall hazard for the Neapolitan area W. Marzocchi, J. Selva, A. Costa, L. Sandri, R. Tonini and G. Macedonio 7. Eruptions and lahars of Mount Pinatubo, 1991-2000 C. G. Newhall and R. Solidum 8. Improving crisis decision-making at times of uncertain volcanic unrest (Guadeloupe, 1976) J.-C. Komorowski, T. Hincks, R. S. J. Sparks, W. Aspinall and CASAVA ANR project consortium 9. Forecasting the November 2010 eruption of Merapi, Indonesia J. Pallister and Surono 10. The importance of communication in hazard zone areas: case study during and after 2010 Merapi eruption, Indonesia S. Andreastuti, J. Subandriyo, S. Sumarti and D. Sayudi 11. Nyiragongo (Democratic Republic of Congo), January 2002: a major eruption in the midst of a complex humanitarian emergency J.-C. Komorowski and K. Karume 12. Volcanic ash fall impacts T. M. Wilson, S. F. Jenkins and C. Stewart 13. Health impacts of volcanic eruptions C. Horwell, P. Baxter and R. Kamanyire 14. Volcanoes and the aviation industry P. W. Webley 15. The role of volcano observatories in risk reduction G. Jolly 16. Developing effective communication tools for volcanic hazards in New Zealand, using social science G. Leonard and S. Potter 17. Volcano monitoring from space M. Poland 18. Volcanic unrest and short-term forecasting capacity J. Gottsmann 19. Global monitoring capacity: development of the Global Volcano Research and Monitoring Institutions Database and analysis of monitoring in Latin America N. Ortiz Guerrero, S. K. Brown, H. Delgado Granados and C. Lombana Criollo 20. Volcanic hazard maps E. Calder, K. Wagner and S. E. Ogburn 21. Risk assessment case history: the Soufriere Hills Volcano, Montserrat W. Aspinall and G. Wadge 22. Development of a new global Volcanic Hazard Index (VHI) M. R. Auker, R. S. J. Sparks, S. F. Jenkins, S. K. Brown, W. Aspinall, N. I. Deligne, G. Jolly, S. C. Loughlin, W. Marzocchi, C. G. Newhall and J. L. Palma 23. Global distribution of volcanic threat S. K. Brown, R. S. J. Sparks and S. F. Jenkins 24. Scientific communication of uncertainty during volcanic emergencies J. Marti 25. Volcano Disaster Assistance Program: preventing volcanic crises from becoming disasters and advancing science diplomacy J. Pallister 26. Communities coping with uncertainty and reducing their risk: the collaborative monitoring and management of volcanic activity with the Vigias of Tungurahua J. Stone, J. Barclay, P. Ramon, P. Mothes and STREVA.

An introduction to global volcanic hazard and risk

The aim of this book is provide a broad synopsis of global volcanic hazards and risk with a focus on the impact of eruptions on society and to provide the first comprehensive global assessment of volcanic hazard and risk. The work was originally undertaken by the Global Volcano Model (GVM, http://globalvolcanomodel.org/) in collaboration with the International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth’s Interior (IAVCEI, http://www.iavcei.org/) as a contribution to the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015 (GAR15), produced by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UN ISDR). The Volcanoes of the World database collated by the Smithsonian Institution (Siebert et al., 2010, Smithsonian, 2014) is regarded as the authoritative source of information on Earth’s volcanism and is the main resource for this study (data cited in this report are from version VOTW4.22).

Increased rates of large-magnitude explosive eruptions in Japan in the late Neogene and Quaternary

Abstract Tephra layers in marine sediment cores from scientific ocean drilling largely record high‐magnitude silicic explosive eruptions in the Japan arc for up to the last 20 million years. Analysis of the thickness variation with distance of 180 tephra layers from a global data set suggests that the majority of the visible tephra layers used in this study are the products of caldera‐forming eruptions with magnitude (M) > 6, considering their distances at the respective drilling sites to their likely volcanic sources. Frequency of visible tephra layers in cores indicates a marked increase in rates of large magnitude explosive eruptions at ∼8 Ma, 6–4 Ma, and further increase after ∼2 Ma. These changes are attributed to major changes in tectonic plate interactions. Lower rates of large magnitude explosive volcanism in the Miocene are related to a strike‐slip‐dominated boundary (and temporary cessation or deceleration of subduction) between the Philippine Sea Plate and southwest Japan, combined with the possibility that much of the arc in northern Japan was submerged beneath sea level partly due to previous tectonic extension of northern Honshu related to formation of the Sea of Japan. Changes in plate motions and subduction dynamics during the ∼8 Ma to present period led to (1) increased arc‐normal subduction in southwest Japan (and resumption of arc volcanism) and (2) shift from extension to compression of the upper plate in northeast Japan, leading to uplift, crustal thickening and favorable conditions for accumulation of the large volumes of silicic magma needed for explosive caldera‐forming eruptions.

Development of a new global Volcanic Hazard Index (VHI)

Background Globally, more than 800 million people live in areas that have the potential to be affected by volcanic hazards, and this number is growing [Chapter 4]. The need for informed judgements regarding the global extent of potential volcanic hazards and the relative threats is therefore more pressing than ever. There is also an imperative to identify areas of relatively high hazard where studies and risk reduction measures may be best focussed. Various authors have tackled this task at a range of spatial scales, using a variety of techniques. At some well-studied volcanoes, the geological record has been used in combination with numerical modelling to create probabilistic hazard maps of volcanic flows and tephra fall [Chapter 6 and 20]. Such sources of information can be hugely beneficial in land use planning during times of quiescence and in emergency planning during times of unrest. Unfortunately, creating high-resolution probabilistic hazard maps for all volcanoes is not yet feasible. There is therefore a need for a methodology for volcanic hazard assessment that can be applied universally and consistently, which is less data-and computing-intensive. The aim of such an approach is to identify, on some objective overall basis, those volcanoes that pose the greatest danger, in order that more indepth investigations and disaster risk reduction efforts can then be focused on them. Previous methods An index-based approach to volcanic hazard assessment involves assigning scores to a series of indicators, which are then combined to give an overall hazard score. Indicators typically include measures of the frequency of eruptions, the relative occurrence of different kinds of eruptions and their related hazards, the footprints of these hazards, and eruption size. Indices are well suited to the problem of volcanic hazard assessment, as they allow the decomposition of the complex system into a suite of volcanic system controls and simple quantitative variables and factors that jointly characterise threat potential. Ewert (2007) presented an index-based methodology for assessing volcanic threat (the combination of hazard and exposure) in the USA, to permit prioritisation of research, monitoring and mitigation.

Global Volcanic Hazards and Risk: Global monitoring capacity: development of the Global Volcano Research and Monitoring Institutions Database and analysis of monitoring in Latin America

Background Volcanic eruptions can cause loss of life and livelihoods, damage critical infrastructure and have long-term impacts, including displaced populations and long-lasting economic implications. Many factors contribute to disasters from natural hazards. One of these is the institutional capacity to enable hazard assessment for pre-emergency planning to protect populations and environments, provide early warning when volcanoes threaten to erupt, to provide forecasts and scientific advice during volcanic emergencies, and to support post-eruption recovery and remediation. Volcano observatories play a critical role in supporting communities to reduce the adverse effects of eruptions [Chapter 15]. Their capacity to monitor volcanoes is thus a central component of disaster risk reduction. The resources are not available for extensive monitoring of all 596 historically active volcanoes. The availability of resources varies on local, national, regional and global scales, resulting in highly variable monitoring levels from volcano to volcano. Some countries have observatories dedicated to volcano monitoring, others monitor from within larger organisations, and still others have no permanent monitoring group. Individual volcanoes may have large comprehensive monitoring networks of multiple monitoring systems whilst a neighbouring volcano is unmonitored. It is therefore vital to understand the monitoring capacity at local, national, regional and global scales to establish how well volcanoes are monitored, the distribution of monitoring equipment, the human resources, experience and education and the instrumental and laboratory capabilities. To this end a database has been developed: Global Volcano Research and Monitoring Institutions Database (GLOVOREMID). GLOVOREMID In 2011 IAVCEI funded the development of VOMODA (Volcano Monitoring Database), whose main purpose was to obtain a realistic diagnosis of volcano monitoring and training of the human resources working on volcanological research and monitoring institutions (VRMI) in Latin America. In 2013, VOMODA was adopted and adapted for worldwide use as GLOVOREMID. The Global Volcano Model (GVM) supports this work. It is currently in both Spanish and English. This database will contribute to improving communication and cooperation between scientists and technicians responsible for volcano monitoring and may help to reduce the effects of volcanic crises. GLOVOREMID can be accessed online via http://132.248.182.158/glovoremid/.