www.ucl.ac.uk/volcanoscope
VOLCANOSCOPE
Increasing the resilience to volcanic hazards by enhancing
the capability and delivery of eruption forecasts
Recommendations from a Scoping-Study for NERC-ESRC, April 2011
Corresponding Author: Christopher Kilburn, University College London ([email protected])
Objectives of the scoping study.
Rationale.
Forecasting procedures: new science.
Communicating forecasts: new social science.
Innovation from interdisciplinary studies.
Application to multi-hazards.
Measures of success.
Programme funding and objectives.
Volcanoscope recommendations from the NERC-ESRC questionnaire.
…1
…1
…1
…2
…2
…3
…3
…3
…3
Objectives of the Scoping Study.
To evaluate strategies (1) for applying existing and new forecasting models to volcanic eruptions, and (2) for
identifying methods to improve how forecasts are communicated effectively to vulnerable communities.
Rationale.
Effective forecasting aids resilience. A community’s resilience to a hazard increases with its preparedness to
respond under threat; preparedness is enhanced when a hazard can be forecast with enough time to allow a
practical response; and forecasts are effective when their uncertainty can be assessed and when they are
communicated in a manner readily understood by those who are responding to an emergency. Increasing the
effectiveness of forecasts is especially urgent at volcanoes that have not erupted for several generations,
because (1) the threatened communities are likely to have little or no experience of volcanic unrest, and (2)
long repose intervals normally precede large explosive eruptions, including the most damaging volcanic
events in the historical record.
Useful forecasts must be reliable and communicated in an understandable way to those organising the
response to a volcanic emergency. Improved reliability depends on a better scientific understanding of the
processes that control how volcanoes evolve from a state of tranquillity to an eruption. Improved
communication depends on a better social-scientific understanding of how forecasts are developed by
scientists and perceived by decision makers and the vulnerable communities they represent. The same
fundamental principles apply to forecasting all types of natural hazard, including those that commonly affect
the UK.
Forecasting Procedures: New Science.
Eruption forecasts rely on recognising changes in the state of a volcano that become increasingly pronounced
with time and then extrapolating those changes into the future to determine when they become unsustainably
large, at which time an eruption is expected. At volcanoes reawakening after centuries of repose, the
precursory changes are typically interpreted with reference to changes that have been observed before
eruptions at similar types of volcano elsewhere. The approach is empirical and contains large uncertainty,
because it is not evident that the patterns observed at one volcano can be applied without qualification to any
other. Forecasts based on empirical studies must therefore rely on probabilities of occurrence, rather than on
the deterministic evaluations that might be available from physical models.
Ground deformation and local seismicity have provided the most reliable precursory signals to date.
They are expressions of the response of the crust to a change in applied pressure (from the magma). New
1
www.ucl.ac.uk/volcanoscope
physical models that account for their joint behaviour have thus the potential (1) for reducing the uncertainty
in forecasts and (2) for developing deterministic forecasts and identifying their limitations. A key feature of
the second aim is that, even if available, deterministic methods are of practical value only if they can provide
reliable forecasts sufficiently ahead of time to enable an effective emergency response (such as an
evacuation); when the response requires more time than a deterministic model can provide, then evaluations
must rely on probabilistic forecasts with their attendant uncertainties.
For any type of forecast, a major cause of poor implementation is inadequate explanation of the
associated uncertainties. Two principal classes of uncertainty are (1) those due to the science itself (from
inherent uncertainties in the model to uncertainties in measuring data), and (2) those due to a
misunderstanding of the limitations of forecasts by non-scientists who have to respond to the forecast. The
first class lies in the scientific camp; the second belongs to the social-science camp, but may have
repercussions in the framing of scientific programmes.
Communicating Forecasts: New Social Science.
Forecasts are useless if they are not communicated effectively to those who must respond to an emergency.
The conventional strategy follows a so-called top-down approach, in which regional, national or international
bodies of experts recommend standardised methods for delivering forecasts. Although standardisation
identifies common themes to be addressed during emergencies, it does not account for the diversity of local
cultural, social and ethnic factors that determine how decision-makers and communities will respond in an
emergency. To enhance the communication of forecasts, therefore, it is essential to integrate the top-down
approach with a bottom-up approach that focuses on the information needs of vulnerable communities and
on how procedures for releasing forecasts can be adapted to meet their requirements. Account must also be
taken of the cultural, social and ethnic factors that determine the perceptions of scientists providing the
forecasts. Two key features of the social-scientific dimension, therefore, are ethnographic studies (1) of how
selected groups know and live with their local volcano; and (2) how volcanologists currently translate the
products of their work to non-scientific communities.
Five core groups of participants can be identified in the design, delivery and receipt of forecasts:
•
•
•
•
•
Vulnerable
Communities
Vulnerable communities.
Local decision makers, or emergency planners, who
have responsibility for emergency procedures.
Local monitoring scientists.
External scientists liaising with local scientists.
International and national bodies (such as NGOs)
that have established relations, in particular, with
local communities.
NGO
NERC-ESRC
VOLCANO
Monitoring
Scientists
Emergency
Planners
It is important that a NERC-ESRC programme does not disrupt the dynamics among the three local
groups. Within the narrow framework of forecasting eruptions, it is recommended that the NERC-ESRC
programme liaises initially with local peer groups, such as monitoring scientists and NGOs, who will then
advise on developing links with vulnerable communities and political decision makers. In this way, the local
groups (rather than external members from the NERC-ESRC Programme) will retain overall authority on the
delivery of forecasts.
Innovation from Interdisciplinary Studies.
Until now, the UK’s academic structure has maintained an artificial gulf between science and social science.
Entrenched views typically perceive scientists as unemotional individuals, who can only solve problems that
involve numbers and Greek symbols, whereas social scientists wear their hearts on their sleeves and solve
problems through empathy and long sentences. Such stereotyping is counter-productive and has no place in a
flourishing academic community. Interdisciplinary programmes will not only break artificial barriers, but
will also identify new goals for pure and applied research in science and social science.
2
www.ucl.ac.uk/volcanoscope
Most interdisciplinary research is driven by an imperative to create socially robust and publicly
accountable science. In addition, by forcing scientists and social scientists to re-evaluate their research
objectives together, interdisciplinary studies offer a largely untapped opportunity to develop innovative
methods for defining aims and objectives that may enhance both research communities. Interdisciplinary
studies are thus important not only for applying and disseminating scientific results, but also for identifying
new goals for future research, whether in a single discipline or as part of an interdisciplinary programme.
Application to Multi-Hazards.
Volcanoes are multi-hazardous by nature and so the results from studies in volcanic districts have natural
links to other types of hazard. For example, an understanding of hazardous gravity flows on volcanoes - from
lava flows and pyroclastic flows to mudflows and debris avalanches – is likely to find application to
landslide studies. Moreover, the problems of perceiving hazards at volcanoes that erupt at intervals of
centuries address problems similar to those for infrequent earthquakes and landslides.
As a result, the identification of landslides as a linking hazard in the IRNH Announcement of
Opportunity (AOU) is somewhat forced and misleading. In the first case, emplacement of a suite of flows
automatically overlaps with conventional landslide studies. In the second, the AOU suggests that landslides
can provide a link between volcanic and seismic hazards. This is questionable. Earthquake-triggered
landslides are a special case of slope failure with modest application elsewhere; equally, methods for
analysing most landslides associated with volcanoes cannot easily be transferred to earthquake-triggered
events. Rather than use landslides as a secondary process to link other hazards, it would prove more effective
to establish a separate interdisciplinary study directed specifically at landslides. In this way, the complete
range of landslide-triggering processes (including hurricanes, storms and human activity, as well as
earthquakes and volcanoes) could be analysed coherently and comprehensively.
Measures of Success.
A perception exists that the scientific and social-scientific communities apply different criteria for judging
the success of a programme: the scientific community prefers publications in high-impact, peer-reviewed
journals, while the social-science community prefers practical evidence of impact among the communities
being studied. An interdisciplinary programme may therefore demand greater evidence of success than usual,
by expecting both publications and practical impact. The increased rigour will further encourage each
community to consider the measures of success of the other; this will enhance both communities separately
and in collaboration. A statement clarifying measures of success for interdisciplinary programmes would
avoid ambiguities in a future call for proposals.
Programme Funding and Objectives.
Volcanoscope has focussed on forecasting eruptions. It is evident from the AOU and companion scoping
studies that the range of topics to be covered is beyond that of a single consortium-sized project. Although a
potential budget of ~£3 million is heartening, the amount per participating group is in fact quite modest when
calculated over a five-year period, especially if funding is sought to support post-doctoral researchers.
Outputs and their impact would be significantly enhanced if the proposed call for funding represents the first
round in a longer-term programme of interdisciplinary studies.
Volcanoscope Recommendations from the NERC-ESRC Questionnaire.
What is your definition of ‘resilience’ and what does ‘increasing resilience’ most likely involve?
To emphasise its practical features, resilience is understood to measure the capacity of a community to
survive a volcanic emergency and to return to a quality of life better than or similar to that which it had
before the emergency. Key methods of increasing resilience include:
• Long-term preparation for an emergency, so that vulnerable communities can respond quickly and
efficiently. Preparation includes (1) land-management policies that maximise the economic and social
benefits of living near a volcano when it is not an immediate threat, and (2) planning for responses
during an emergency.
• Developing reliable forecasts of an eruption and effective means of communicating forecasts. The
vulnerable communities may extend beyond the volcano to those affected by “knock-on” consequences
of an eruption.
3
www.ucl.ac.uk/volcanoscope
What new science, or developments of existing science, will have the biggest impact on resilience?
• Improved forecasting methods, both deterministic and probabilistic.
• Application and development of physical models of volcanic hazards (e.g., volcanic flows and tephra
dispersal) to forecast their range and magnitude of impact. The results can be used to improve existing
hazard maps.
What are the practical steps that can be taken to increase resilience?
• Establish real-time methods for forecasting eruptions and hazards.
• Understanding what vulnerable communities expect from their leaders and decision-makers.
• Effective delivery of hazard messages to national and local decision-makers and the media. Foreign
advisors should perhaps not engage directly with local communities, but only through appropriate local
decision makers.
• Testing that the modes of delivery have been effective and, in particular, ensuring that political leaders
are properly aware of the impact of volcanic hazards.
• Ensuring that the modes of delivery are self-sustaining and do not require future foreign assistance.
What existing international projects and international information sources can be utilised?
• Ongoing national and international programmes. Their availability changes with time and so the
potential for collaboration must be under continuous review.
• Archive volcanological data potentially available from Smithsonian Institution, the World Organisation
of Volcano Observatories and specialist groups within IAVCEI.
• Volcanological and social science data are available scattered across the published literature. These need
to be collected into usable data banks.
In the IRNH programme, what should the balance be between commissioning science publishable in the
highest quality peer-reviewed journals versus science with ‘impact’ in increasing resilience?
This is an artificial division. Projects will use top-rated science and social science (both new and existing) to
meet the aims of the programme. The use of such material should lead naturally to publications in “the
highest quality peer-reviewed journals” (as perceived by both the scientific and social scientific
communities), just as for any traditional programme. The novelty of the IRNH programme is that it must
also provide practical benefits to vulnerable communities during the lifetime of a project – or within a small
number of years afterwards. If it doesn’t, what is the purpose of the IRNH programme? Excellent science
and social science must be used to be useful. Special provision might be made for the long-term
sustainability of practical results, but this may be beyond the scope of the programme.
What focus should there be in terms of developing new models, undertaking new fieldwork, data collection,
experiments, etc.?
Forecasting strategies, in particular, will be enhanced (1) by developing new physical models of precursors
and new social-science models of the behaviour of key groups and of the transmission of forecasts to endusers; (2) by establishing comprehensive data-sets of recorded precursors, for testing new models, and of
eye-witness accounts of emergencies, to inform the design of new response strategies and to help avoid the
same mistakes being repeated; and (3) by developing and enhancing methods for acquiring precursory data
in real time, from community maintenance of low-cost monitoring networks to satellite-based measurements.
Should there be a geographical/geo-political focus to research? If so, where should that be and why?
The IRNH programme aims to produce methods that will increase the resilience to volcanic hazards across
the world. The focus must therefore be on methods that can be transferred among volcanic regions. To obtain
evidence of transferability, different volcanoes and their communities must have been involved and the
results compared. Such evidence might be found on among geographically-linked areas, but not necessarily
so. A geographical focus is thus not compulsory. The main determinant would be to ensure a sufficient and
tractable sample of different volcano types.
4
www.ucl.ac.uk/volcanoscope
How should collaboration be developed effectively with regional partners in order to ensure proper
knowledge exchange? How should this program be used to enhance capacity in this area (both in the study
region, and in the UK research community)? What existing national resources (NERC, RCUK, government
etc.) can be drawn on? What links can be made to other programmes in the Natural Hazards theme,
particularly in regard to uncertainty and risk?
Collaboration and capacity-building would be most effective through a two-way exchange of information
between the UK and regional partners from the start of the programme. It is crucial to appreciate that the UK
can learn from the existing coping strategies of regional partners, as well as offering assistance.
How could the study feed into multi-hazard risk assessment and how should the research program translate
into effective hazard mitigation?
• Volcanoes are “multi-hazardous” by nature (e.g., they involve eruptions, earthquakes and landslides) and
so provide an excellent test case for testing methodologies against different hazards. One key aspect is
the quantification of probabilistic forecasting methods in real time.
• The interdisciplinary links in the programme have application to all hazards – e.g., the effective delivery
of warnings and understanding the needs of local communities are important regardless of the specific
hazard being addressed. All procedures must be capable of adapting to peculiar features of individual
hazards.
• The effective translation of findings into mitigation procedures may require changes in legislation to be
ratified by national or regional governments. It is thus important to engage with governmental bodies,
either directly (in the UK) or via regional partners.
• Hazard mitigation is part of resilience and so is an integral feature of the existing programme.
Exceptions are the application to mitigating hazards of engineering, of preventative health measures for
people and animals, and of the protection of food, water and energy resources. These aspects could be
tackled in collaboration with, for example, the EPSRC and MRC; however, they should be designated as
separate programmes, to avoid swamping the current programme with an unrealistic number and range
of objectives.
5