USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · 70248917

The diversity of volcanic hazard maps around the world: Insights from map makers

Abstract

The IAVCEI Working Group on Hazard Mapping has been active since 2014 and has facilitated several activities to enable sharing of experiences of how volcanic hazard maps are developed and used around the world. One key activity was a global survey of 90 map makers and practitioners to collect data about official, published volcanic hazard maps and how they were developed. The survey asked questions about map content, design, and input data, as well as about the map development process and key lessons learned. Here we present the results of this global survey, which are then used to quantitatively describe and summarise current practices in volcanic hazard map development. We received entries related to 89 volcanic hazard maps (78% long-term/background maps and 22% short-term/crisis hazard maps), covering a total of 80 volcanoes across 28 countries. Although most maps captured in the survey are volcano-scale maps of stratovolcanoes that show similar types of content, such as primary hazard footprints or zones, they vary greatly in input data, communication style, format, appearance, scale, content, and visual design. This diversity stems from a range of factors, including differences in map purpose, the methodology used, the level of understanding of past eruptive history, the prevailing scientific and cartographic practice at the time, the state of volcanic activity, and variations in culture, national map standards and legal requirements. Experiences and lessons shared by our respondents can be divided into six main themes: map design considerations; the process of map development; map audience and map user needs; hazard assessment approach; map availability and accessibility; and external (e.g., political) influences. Insights shared included the importance of: visual design elements, map testing and evaluation, working with stakeholders and end users to improve a map’s efficacy and relevance, and considering possible unanticipated uses of hazard maps. These free-form text insights (i.e., responses to open-ended questions) from map makers and practitioners familiar with the maps lend depth and clarity to our results. They provide a rich complement to our more quantitative analysis of design elements and of approaches used to determine and delineate map zones. Results from our global survey of hazard map makers and practitioners, together with insights from other key initiatives of the Working Group on Hazard Mapping such as the Volcanic Hazard Maps Database (VHMD; https://volcanichazardmaps.org/ ), provide a snapshot of the wide variety of volcanic hazard maps generated over the past decades, and improve our understanding of the diversity across volcanic hazard mapping practices. These initiatives represent important steps towards fulfilling the aims of the Working Group, namely, to construct a framework for a classification scheme for volcanic hazard maps and to promote harmonized terminology, as well as to identify and categorise good practices and considerations for volcanic hazard mapping.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jan Lindsay, Danielle Charlton, Mary Ann T. Clive, Daniel Bertin, Sarah E. Ogburn, Heather M. Wright, John W. Ewert, Eliza S. Calder, Bastian Steinke. 2023-09-11. The diversity of volcanic hazard maps around the world: Insights from map makers. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13617-023-00134-5

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Getting the story straight: Common misconceptions around volcanoes and eruptions with case studies of recent events

The ability to rapidly disseminate scientific knowledge across the world has never been greater. This is paralleled by the ability of rumors to spread equally far and fast. Popular misconceptions can take root and, without correction, take on the appearance of facts. Commonly misunderstood topics include those with attention-grabbing phrasing (e.g. “Pacific Ring of Fire”, “supervolcanoes”, or “mega-tsunamis”), the intersection of volcanic research with high-profile science topics (climate or human health), aspirational science goals (eruption forecasts), and basic terminology (volcanic ash versus smoke, or magma “chambers”). In this paper, we describe eighteen misconceptions grouped in six themes (seismology, volcanoes and climate, systems and structures, volcanic hazards, timescales, photographs and footage) commonly encountered by volcanologists who are actively engaging with the public and media both during and between eruptions. Each misconception description is accompanied by takeaway points and summaries of recent research to assist the reader with the information necessary to describe the issues. Finally, we present seven case studies where incorrect information was widely shared and counteracted at well-known volcanoes and recent eruptions at Mount Agung (Bali, Indonesia), Mount Etna (Sicily, Italy), Kīlauea (Hawaii, U.S.A.), Tajogaite (La Palma, Spain), La Soufrière (St. Vincent), Taal Volcano (Philippines), and Yellowstone caldera (U.S.A.). This work is intended to help both volcanologists and non-specialists get the story straight, and to effectively communicate processes and scales of volcanism and volcanic hazards, impacts, and risks.

Journal of Applied Volcanology

Seeing is believing: Livestream video monitoring of Hawaiian eruptions

Livestream video has become a crucial tool for volcano monitoring in recent years, building upon the use of webcam snapshots that have been common for the past two decades. In Hawaii, livestream video was first tested in 2018, and today, livestream video is a vital tool for the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory and partner agencies (National Park Service and Hawaiʻi County Civil Defense) as well as the public. Its role in volcano monitoring has been highlighted by the 2024–present summit eruption of Kīlauea—where three livestream video feeds provide a continuous and easily accessible view of the activity for the public. Here, we describe the methodology and equipment used for the livestream cameras in Hawaii and discuss the benefits and challenges of livestream video monitoring. We show how the nature of livestream video has fundamentally changed volcano monitoring, providing an “up-close” view to the world that was previously limited to observatory field staff. The livestream video feeds, coupled with the historical summit lava fountains, have provided an unprecedented level of engagement with the public, both local and worldwide.

Hawaii

PDCD-DAT: A global database of pyroclastic density current deposit field data

Pyroclastic density currents represent one of the deadliest hazards posed by active volcanoes. Analysis of their deposits provides valuable insights into their internal dynamics and informs numerical simulations of pyroclastic density currents which underpin many volcanic hazard assessments. We present PDCD-DAT, a global database of pyroclastic density current deposit characteristics compiled from peer-reviewed literature. The database includes both quantitative datasets (e.g., grain size, density, bedform dimensions, thickness) and qualitative descriptors (e.g., sedimentary structures, lithofacies). PDCD-DAT includes data from 85 source publications, covering 97 eruptions or eruptive phases, and 214 individual depositional units from 55 globally distributed volcanoes. Eruptions recorded in the database range from VEI 1–8. We highlight examples of potential applications of the database, which include (i) comparison of single deposit case studies to global datasets, (ii) informing input parameters and conditions for numerical and analogue models of pyroclastic density currents, (iii) validation of numerical and analogue models against a wide variety of natural case study deposit architectures, and (iv) estimating hazard impact metrics of pyroclastic density currents from past eruptions. We show that the database represents a useful tool for improving our ability to model pyroclastic density currents, predict their associated hazards, and understand the relationships between the internal dynamics of pyroclastic density currents and the properties of their deposits. PDCD-DAT is integrated with the FlowDat Mass Flow Database, which provides a sustainable platform for the database. We aim for PDCD-DAT to be expanded in the future through addition of pyroclastic density current deposit datasets from new field studies conducted by the volcanology research community.

Journal of Applied Volcanology