may also have political and financial motives for distorting or ‘spinning’ the scientific, technological or political changes or discoveries: e.g. climate change denial.

Consequently, films by children and youth, for children and youth allow students to take control of the process for themselves, with no other motive other than helping others. This is a yet unexplored realm of research within disasters and yet has been explored in other fields. However, Sharpe (2016) points to the work of Taylor (2002) who cites studies that go beyond an ego-centred motivations, such as: inclusive of spirituality, a transpersonal realm of development (Cochrane 1981; Hunter 1980; Scott 1991; Sveinunggaard 1993; Van Nostrand 1992), compassion for others (Courtenay et al. 1998; First and Way 1995; Gehrels 1984), and a new connectedness with others (Gehrels 1984; Laswell 1994; Weisberger 1995).

Furthermore, the role of the teacher in the transmission of curricula, can be a positive influence in development of critical thinking. A good teacher should allow for the provision of interesting counterpoints to certain arguments, while the inclusion of opposing views are given space with students given the time to explore, debate and decide for themselves. Having said this, the role of the curricula can be used to address any factual misconceptions (about natural hazards, the risk they pose and appropriate responses) in order to contribute to students ‘schema’ of understanding (existing frameworks of ideas and concepts; e.g., Rumelhart and Norman 1978) of hazards and human response to disaster. If students have realistic expectations about the nature of natural hazards and the steps that can be taken towards preparing for them, it is more likely that they will do so in the future when they are adults, while also developing their sense of self-efficacy as adolescents.

These issues will be explored further in the discussion section, which follows the second case study in which emergency go-bags were created and the impact of the overall curricula and practical implications and learning was tested using an online survey.

## 9 Case Study Two: ‘Go-Bags’ and Post Curricula Survey

During the ‘Go-Bag’ lessons students were encouraged to talk about what might be useful to include in an emergency ‘Go-Bag’. This took the form of a ‘Think, Pair, Share’ exercise in which time was given over to individual thinking before student ideas are shared with a neighbour and then with the class. The contents of two emergency go-bags held in the geography department were examined before students voted on which was better and why. This allowed for the development of critical thinking as well as reflection and re-purposing of thoughts in the light of new learning. A homework task was set out introducing the edu4hazards.org website and focusing on the emergency kit or ‘Go-Bag’ page. Students were informed that these items are ‘ideal’ for a Go-Bag, but they might think of others too.

A further caveat was introduced in order to be as inclusive as possible: students and their families were encouraged to keep costs low and not spend more than £5.00–£8.00 on their kits or ‘Go-Bags’. Suggestions were shared with students about the likely places to find such items, including online sources. A week or two was allowed for the completion of homework tasks as it was understood that if resources were sourced on the internet using free delivery it might take longer. It is therefore important that practical considerations are thought out before setting such tasks and discussing these with colleagues prior to the lessons taking place allows for a consistent expectations across the year group.

Lesson time was given over to students bringing in and talking through what they had in their kits, with students asking questions and making suggestions for improvement. Again the method used was ‘two stars and a wish’ (see Table 1) so that the process is not about overtly criticising, but learning from and developing ideas further. In this way, students self-evaluate with guided learning facilitated by the teacher. This allows for a more equal student-teacher and student-student interaction facilitated by reducing any power relationships and hierarchy, in order to promote more of an exchange, with each
party supporting and gaining from the other. Again critical thinking is fundamental, with learning process facilitated by the teacher, similar to the ‘guided discovery’ approach used in international development and advocated by Bruner (1961).

The questionnaire approach was used to ascertain the level of understanding students had developed as well as understanding how they did or did not engage with the material, the practical tasks and the impact on extending learning into the family home. While there was a small element of group activity and development of critical thinking in class, the ‘Go-Bag’ homework exercise was designed to allow students to explore how they might prepare themselves and the extent to which family members became involved in the process.

# 10 Data Collection and Analysis

## 10.1 Case Study One: Volcanic Hazard Films

Several types of data was collected in this part of the study, including observations of student learning and an analysis of their knowledge and understanding tested through the making of the volcanic hazard films. The following section describes what was carried out, including an analysis of the significance of the film-making process as a way of framing new learning. As students were responsible for their own films, they had to synthesise what they had learned, thinking though the most appropriate ways to communicate risk both visually and via the narrative. The significance of this and its effect on deeper learning, including the wider impact on community hazard resilience is also encompassed in the interpretation and discussion section that later in the chapter.

Observations/Teacher account of making and editing phases included the authors observations coupled with discussions with the other classroom teachers in the department. Again this was part formal and part informal especially during the chaos of teaching and learning how to edit

videos, which was a new skill for some teachers in the department. Being an observant and reflective practitioner was an effective methodology for analysing pedagogical approaches and learning outcomes. These reflections are also associated with transformational learning practices (Mezirow 1995) that might allow for teachers to make sense of what they are doing in order to learn from, test, reflect, test and learn as a continuation of their professional development.

Classroom observations during the ‘premieres’ of student-made videos was a purposefully discrete process that allowed students to explore their roles as responsible media, whose role was to inform and engage learners of a similar age by critiquing their own and others films. These self and peer evaluations and discussions of videos were useful for (re)-framing what messages were important, the role played by media in education and learning, as well as the need for accurate, independent and trusted content.

Consequently, discussions about each film became an important part of the evaluative process, as students realised and acknowledged their mistakes in a nurturing environment, in which learning from mistakes became integral to deeper learning outcomes. Discussions of negative implications included:

* ‘What would happen if videos were put on YouTube with the wrong or exaggerated information?’;

* ‘What did you learn or understand about how you can protect yourself in the event of a volcanic hazard?’;

* ‘What shouldn’t you do when treating a burn?’

The videos were evaluated by students using a ‘Geography-Factor’ (an ‘X-Factor’ format that provided a framework for them to think differently, allowing them to hold different perspectives and viewpoints as they analysed the videos), in order to hold their attention and to take on various roles for feeding back. This also challenged students to acknowledge their own ‘automatic thoughts’ (Mezirow 1995) and reactions when
seeing something for the first time and allowed for
more considered and reflected upon responses.
Furthermore they learned to be analytical while
also understanding the position of others.

Researcher analysis of videos was carried out
in an open manner and shared with students as a
way to summarise how an ‘expert’ might critique
the videos and the legitimate reasons for doing
so.

Formal assessment of the module was carried
out in an end of unit examination and given an
England and Wales National Curriculum Level
mark. Scores were based on students overall
knowledge and understanding, A higher weight
being given to understanding borne out by an
ability to explain, reason and argue the merits of
enacting responsible behaviours and actions
regarding hazard preparation, including those for
volcanic hazards.

These written tests (including differentiated
versions for students of a lower ability) were also
used to assess overall knowledge and under-
standing four weeks after completing this initial
part of the unit of work.<fnref n="3" />

## 10.2 Case Study Two: ‘Go-Bags’ and Post-curricula Survey

Three weeks after the completion of the scheme
of work, which included the unit on flooding
following the overall hazards lessons and
activities, an online post-hazard survey was
produced<fnref n="4" /> and students asked to complete.
These were completed by 175 students. The aim
of the survey was to evaluate their level of
engagement with the curriculum, the impact of
practical tasks, such as making their own
‘Go-Bag’ and the extent to which the use of a
practical task that required parental input,
helped or impacted on discussions of safety and
practical preparedness in the home. The most

salient findings from a research perspective are
included below:

* 114 students (65%) reported talking to parents about what they had been learning about. This is significant as it shows a high level of engagement, but this was also not an accident, as the homework task actively encouraged students to talk to parents when putting a kit together.

* Consequently, 130 (74.3%) reported putting emergency kits('Go-Bags') together with their parents. Of these, 65 (37.1%) were helped by mothers, 19 (10.9%) by fathers, with 37 (21.1%) helped by both and the remaining 13 (7.4%) helped by a sibling in the family home.

* A further 109 students (65%) discussed what they had been learning in class which included hazards and preparedness generally.

* In terms of the utility of the ‘Go-Bags’ exercise, only 20 students (10.9%) claimed that they no longer had the bag or it was thrown away, which meant that just over 88% still had their kits and with 47% reporting that the kit was in a place easily accessible to all (e.g. by the front door, in a cupboard under the stairs etc.).

In terms of the curricula leading to better
levels of preparedness, students were asked: *Do you think that your household is better prepared for emergencies as a result of what you have learned about and shared with you family?* In
response to this, 96 students (54.9%) reported
that there household was better prepared, with 27
(15.4%) saying no and 47 (26.9%) not sure. This
was in fact very helpful. Because a large pro-
portion of students were not sure, teachers asked
why this was the case. Reasons that were fed
back, included: being more prepared in some
ways but not in others such as not having
equipment in a ‘Go-Bag’ for the whole family;
parents not taking the exercise seriously or
believing that there might be an occasion to use
the kit. This led to conversations about how a
go-bag might be useful for holidays in places
where there were risks of earthquakes, flooding

<footnote n="3">³See: http://www.edu4drr.org/page/curriculum-1; Unit 1;
Lesson 7).</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴See: http://www.esurveyspro.com/SummaryReport.aspx?
SurveyId=37283&sel=0.</footnote>
and volcanic eruptions. This neatly rounded the learning off, as this was also one of the first conversations about hazards and risk that had taken place at the beginning of the unit.

This engagement with the practical task of making an emergency kit/go-bag led to further discussion about what students were learning. This included (according to parents and students at parent-teacher conferences) talking about the video tasks and the reasons for actively preparing for disasters even in a country where disasters are often seen as part of the ‘other’ because they happen to other people, despite large scale flood events and even events such as heatwaves in 2003, which killed 2091 in England alone (Johnson et al. 2005).

Some students commented that their parents carried emergency kits for the car. A few noted that their parents already had a kit in their car and this led to classroom discussions surrounding the reasons for this (with reasons including that it came with the car or they had decided that it was a prudent precaution when children were born) which also allowed for students to understand how their parents looked after them in previously unseen or unheard ways.

## 10.3 Post-lesson Parent-Teacher Conferences

There is evidence that the curriculum reached beyond the classroom, as parents from different classes (around twenty across the year group) engaged in animated discussions with all of the teachers from the geography department at parent-teacher conferences about the ‘Go Bags’ homework exercise. Some reported as liking it for engaging ‘their son/daughter in doing something practical’, while others reported enjoying being involved with their son/daughter’s school work. Some parents reported that they also engaged with the practical aspect of preparing kits as well as learning about what happens elsewhere.

Furthermore, some parents also talked about their own experiences of hazards, trauma, and preparedness in their country of origin, but these were not noted down at the time, for ethical reasons.

# 11 Interpretation/Discussion

Interpretation and discussion of the two case studies are carried out below in order to frame their relative importance to overall impact of the learning on both students and their families.

## 11.1 Case Study 1: Volcanic Hazard Films

Students responded well to the idea of making videos/films that were made by people their own age, for people their own age. Providing trusted sources of information was discussed as well as *why* these were trusted sources of information, such as use of the latest scientific information to aid student understanding. This allowed students to assimilate information for themselves as well as thinking how they might synthesise it for others. Different learning styles, in particular intrapersonal, interpersonal, artistic, linguistic and kinaesthetic (learning through movement or the physicality of undertaking a task) were accessed and utilised in order to help students learn while also providing them the opportunity to teach others. Playing roles or writing the dialogue required students to think about what they might do in the event of a volcanic crisis.<fnref n="5" /> Again, this allows critical thinking and reflection skills to be developed as well as being able to show empathy for others by thinking about the implications of disasters on families in different parts of the world.

Furthermore, by understanding the effects of volcanic eruptions, it also allowed students to ask questions of why and how. These questions are provided as a sub-menu on the www.edu4hazards.org website<fnref n="6" /> as well as the answers

<footnote n="5">⁵Student written, directed and edited video in French can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jSLqIE0TWw&list=PL8785FE43DBE2F748&index=4.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶This website was created by the author in 2007 as a way of engaging children and youth in learning what simple practical measures could be effectively carried out to prepare for natural hazards. It's development and subsequent early use as an educational tool can be found in the UNISDR publication: Towards a Culture of Prevention: Disaster Risk Reduction Begins at School: Good Practices and Lessons Learnt' UNISDR (2007).</footnote>
which are provided on web pages when students interact with the menu. This sets up a chain of self-discovery that is not directed by a teacher or educator telling students to look or explore; they do this for themselves! Students would ask questions based on what they had seen and this allowed the author to talk about this with them or to direct them to explore further, suggesting other websites they could look at too.

By involving students on their own terms, allowing them to explore their own interests (through the media and specific hazard-topic) they took charge of the learning and produced their own educational materials. This allowed for a high level of participation, both in the classroom and independently, as students were empowered to make their own choices about what to film, how to film it and the information that it should contain.

- Through active planning and participation, students gained a deeper understanding of why actions (such as preparing 'Go-Bags' specific to volcanic crises) are effective at reducing risk while taking steps to ensure their own safety following a natural hazards event.

- Students shared the 'difficulties' of planning, filming and editing, thus allowing for socially constructed learning to take place and enabling transformative learning through a process of critical reflection. Teachers observed that some groups worked well together immediately, while other's struggled to get the balance right, needing more time to negotiate personality conflicts for instance. This type of group dynamic is important to acknowledge and learn from.

- The film-making making, editing and critiquing allowed students to engage in an evaluative and reflective process. This allowed them to be rigorous with the evaluation of their own and others films, while learning about how to respond to volcanic eruptions, as they thought about and acted out how to successfully demonstrate the correct behaviours.

Central to this pedagogical approach was the empowerment of students as knowledge bearers to others and their reflection on their own learning process (i.e., metacognition; Sterling 2011).

## 11.2 Case Study Two: Go Bags and Post-lesson Survey

Of the surveys completed, a high proportion (75%) reported that they had collated their emergency kits with their parents. This actively involved parents in asking the reasons for such an exercise, with several parents (six or seven across the department) calling the department to ask for clarification or wanting to know more.

A large proportion of returned surveys (almost 55%) reported that they did feel more prepared as a family following the lessons, with their corresponding activities and individual projects (the films) and home learning (the 'Go-Bags'). This was an important finding as it supported earlier suggestions by Gordon et al. (1999) and Peek (2008), that students can be agents of change within the family with regard to responding to the hazard risk.

However, there were still almost 27% that were unsure, which initially suggested that perhaps not enough had been done to engage students. However, on further inquiry (asking the students), it was found that the barrier was the result of some parents dismissing the exercise as "not useful", because they didn't believe that a hazard event would precipitate the use of 'go-bags' and evacuations. Students facing such obstacles in their own families might be challenged by these views. However, this should not be seen as a barrier but an opportunity to engage in debate and learning across the family. However, if they can make up their own mind and carry out their own protective behaviours, these thoughts and actions may allow them to gain personal efficacy and slowly transform their own learning in order to be better prepared personally.
## 11.3 Case Study Two: Parent-Teacher Meetings

Conversations with parents at parent-teacher meetings allowed for further reflection as well as parents to show their interest or ask questions about the learning. The bullet points below summarise the key points from these meetings:

* Sharing lesson(s) with parents and siblings allowed for a wider form of transformative learning to be initiated within the local community as well as within the school and classroom.

* Students acted as important agents of change by discussing the film project and ‘Go Bags’ with their parents and other relatives.

* This ‘bottom-up’ approach to learning about volcanic hazards led to a wider discussion about hazards in their families.

## 12 Conclusions

The filming and ‘Go-Bags’ lessons incorporated practical skills which used authentic, practical tasks and peer evaluation that could play a role in transformative learning. In particular, having the spaces for relational learning and reflection may allow students to negotiate potential cognitive conflicts that occur when their new knowledge and understanding may be threatened by the views of others who are important influences in their life, such as the views of parents, the content of religious teachings or other socio-cultural influences. Mezirow (2000) refers to this process as *Reflective Dialogue* in which a consensus is negotiated with others regarding prior learning, assumptions and actions. However, Mezirow’s transformative learning theory has focused on the development of the adult mind to coping with change brought about through experience of training, but it may well mean that this may occur earlier than previously thought and this study tends to support this premise.

Experiential learning, reflection and the act of playing out the threats from hazards provides a space to move beyond knowledge and towards action. By planning, scripting and then acting out and filming in films about volcanic hazards, students placed themselves in the role of reacting to the threat appropriately, while being in a safe, unthreatening environment. As mentioned earlier this allowed students to draw on a range of learning styles and skills while learning new ones, including developing empathy for others, critical thinking skills, intrapersonal skills (following instructions and thinking about and acting on them in the most appropriate way) as well as opportunity for creativity and more.

In terms of volcanic crises communication, the research presented here illustrated that children can and do act as agents of change for their families, supporting prior research that highlighted the importance of engaging children in learning about disasters (e.g., Gordon et al. 1999; Peek 2008). In particular, students reported a higher belief in the efficacy of the family to face future hazard events as the result of their learning, task completion and practical exercises. However, the use of the questionnaire also allowed for further reflection and for a probing of the reasons for uncertainty that still existed in some cases. This could then be discussed further and resolved to a certain extent. This is significant because it shows that deeper reflection could occur with guidance from the teacher as a way of working through problems and unexpected outcomes together.

Furthermore, reflection and evaluation (peer- and self-) are key building blocks to improving self-efficacy and new ways of thinking which Mezirow (2012), describes as allowing individuals to “...negotiate and act on our own purposes, values, feelings, and meanings rather than those we have uncritically assimilated from others—to gain greater control over our lives as socially responsible, clear thinking decision-makers” (2012, p. 76).

Finally, aside from these media, others such as puppetry, performance, and music are also
excellent ways of getting across messages about risk, response and preparedness.<fnref n="7" /> To this end, the author has also developed a comic strip to tackle hazard safety and preparedness for very young children which includes volcano safety alongside, earthquake, tsunami, lightning, flood, evacuations and family planning for such events. This has been used as a pilot project in Iran (Sharpe and Izadkhah 2014) before being produced as a book for children in Pakistan by UNESCO.<fnref n="8" /> In particular, the research described by Sharpe and Izadkhah (2014) show that even at a young age, complex cognitive process were engaged in order for learners to take their new knowledge, place it within the context of their own experience and re-tell it to others.

This pattern of reflection, reasoning and testing is important for deeper learning, which may hold the key to truly resilient individuals and communities. The work outlined here supports this assertion while providing ideas and resources that might usefully be applied to engaging communities in thinking about their own risks and in response, developing their own efficacies in planning and preparing for them.

It is hoped that education and learning that use creative and engaging lessons, materials and resources will continue to challenge and engage children and youth in learning how to prepare for and respond to natural hazard threats and that this has the ability to translate into home safety when students engage their parents in discussion and more importantly, action through practical exercises such as the creation of emergency ‘Go-Bags’ for the home.

## References

Ambrose SA, Bridges MW, DiPietro M, Lovett MC, Norman MK (2010) How learning works: seven research-based principles for smart teaching. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco

Blake J (1999) Overcoming the ‘value-action gap’ in environmental policy: tensions between national policy and local experience Local Environ 4(3)

Boud D, Cohen R, Walker D (1993) Understanding learning from experience. In: Boud D, Cohen R, Walker D (eds) Using experience for learning. SRHE & Open University Press, Buckingham, pp 1–17

Bruner J (1961) The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review 31(1):21–32

Courtenay B, Merriam SB, Reeves PM (1998) The centrality of meaning-making in transformational learning: How HIV-positive adults make sense of their lives. Adult Educ Q 48:65–84

Demos/Green Alliance (2003) Carrots, sticks and sermons: influencing public behaviour for environmental goals. A Demos/Green Alliance report produced for Defra: http://www.demos.co.uk/files/CarrotsSticks-Sermons.pdf

Dewey J (1938) Experience and education. Macmillan, New York

Fenwick TJ (2001) Experiential learning: a theoretical critique from five perspectives. Information Series No. 385

First JA, Way WL (1995) Parent education outcomes: insights into transformative learning. Fam Relat 44:104–109

Foley G (ed) (1995) Understanding adult education and training, 2nd edn. Allen & Unwin, Sydney, pp 225–239

Gardner H (1993) Multiple intelligences: the theory in practice. Basic Books, New York, NY

Gardner H (1999) Intelligence reframed: multiple intelligences for the 21st Century. Basic Books, New York

Gehrels C (1984) The school principal as adult learner. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto

Goodyear P, Steeples C (1998) Creating shareable representations of practice. Adv Learn Technol J (ALT-J) 6(3):16–23

Gordon NS, Farberow NL, Maida CA (1999) Children and disasters. Burner/Mazel, Philadelphia

Hunter EK (1980) Perspective transformation in health practices: a study in adult learning and fundamental life change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, CA

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2013) Public awareness and public education for disaster risk reduction: key messages. Accessed online at http://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/103320/Key-messages-for-Public-awareness-guide-EN.pdf. Accessed May 2016

Johnson H, Kovaats RS, McGregor GR et al (2005) The impact of the 2003 heatwave on mortality and hospital admissions in England. Health Statistics Q 25:6–11

Kayes DC (2002) Experiential learning and its critics: preserving the role of experience in management learning and education. Acad of Manage Learn Educ 1 (2):137–149

Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

<footnote n="7">⁷The resources and information to use these activities can be found on the edu4drr website (www.edu4drr.org).</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸See: http://unesco.org.pk/education/documents/2014/publications/Learningaboutdisasters.pdf.</footnote>
Kolmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8 (3):239-260. doi:10.1080/13504620220145401

Laswell TD (1994) Adult learning in the aftermath of job loss: exploring the transformative potential. In: Hymans M, Armstrong J, Anderson E (eds) 35th annual adult education research conference proceedings. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, pp 229-234 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 381 616)

McCarthy DDP, Crandall DD, Whitelaw GS, General Z, Tsuji LJS (2011) A critical systems approach to social learning: building adaptive capacity in social, ecological, epistemological (SEE) systems. Ecol Soc 16(3)

Mezirow J (1995) Transformative theory of adult learning. In: Welton M (ed) In defense of the lifeworld. State University of New York Press, Albany

Mezirow J (2000) Learning to think like an adult: core concepts of transformative theory. In: Mezirow J et al (eds) Learning as transformation. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 3-34

Mezirow J (2012) Learning to think like an adult: core concepts of transformation theory. In: Taylor EW, Cranton P (eds) The handbook of transformative learning. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 73-95

Mitchell JT (2009) Hazards education and academic standards in the Southeast United States. Int Res Geogr Environ Educ 18(2):134-148

Moss R (1983) Video, the educational challenge. Croom Helm Ltd, London and Canberra

Peek L (2008) Children and disasters. Child Youth Environ 18. Retrieved Aug 2011, from http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/181/index.htm

Ronan KR, Johnston DM (2003) Hazards education for youth: a quasi-experimental investigation. Risk Anal 23:1009-1020

Rumelhart D, Norman D (1978) Accretion, tuning and restructuring: three modes of learning. In: Cotton JW,

Klatzky R (eds) Semantic factors in cognition. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

Scott SM (1991) Personal transformation through participation in social action: a case study of the leaders in the Lincoln Alliance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska

Sharpe J (2007) Education for hazards website. www.edu4hazards.org Accessed May 2015

Sharpe J (2016) Understanding and unlocking transformative learning as a method for enabling behaviour change for adaptation and resilience to disaster threats. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction 17:213-219

Sharpe J, Izadkhah YO (2014) Use of comic strips in teaching earthquakes to kindergarten children. Disaster Prevent Manage 23(2):138-156

Sharpe J, Kelman I (2011) Improving the disaster-related component of secondary school geography education in England. Int Res Geogr Environ Educ 20(4): 327-343

Sterling S (2011) Transformative learning and sustainability: sketching the conceptual ground. Learn Teach High Educ 5(11):17-33

Sveinunggaard K (1993) Transformative learning in adulthood: a socio-contextual perspective. In Flanery D (ed) 35th annual adult education research conference proceedings, Penn State University, University Park, PA, pp 275-280

Van Nostrand JA (1992) The process of perspective transformation: Instrumental development and testing in smokers and ex-smokers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Women's University, Denton

Wahlberg AAF, Sjoberg L (2000) Risk perception and the media. J Risk Res 3(1):31-50

Weingart P, Pansegrau P (2003) Perception and representation of science in literature and fiction film. Public Understand Sci 12:227-228

Weisberger RD (1995) Adult male learners in a community college setting: possibilities of transformation. Ed. D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts
**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

<figure><img src="image_237.png" /></figure>
# Role of Social Media and Networking in Volcanic Crises and Communication

Sally S.K. Sennert, Erik W. Klemetti and Deanne K. Bird

## Abstract

The growth of social media as a primary and often preferred news source has contributed to the rapid dissemination of information about volcanic eruptions and potential volcanic crises as an eruption begins. Information about volcanic activity comes from a variety of sources: news organisations, emergency management personnel, individuals (both public and official), and volcano monitoring agencies. Once posted, this information is easily shared, increasing the reach to a much broader population than the original audience. The onset and popularity of social media as a vehicle for eruption information dissemination has presented many benefits as well as challenges, and points towards a need for a more unified system for information. This includes volcano observatories using social media as an official channel to distribute activity statements, forecasts, and predictions on social media, in addition to the archiving of images and other information. This chapter looks at two examples of projects that collect/disseminate information regarding volcanic crises and eruptive activity utilizing social media sources. Based on those examples, recommendations are made to volcano observatories in relation to the use of social media as a two-way communication tool. These recommendations include using social media as a two-way dialogue to communicate and receive information directly from the public and other sources, stating

S.S.K. Sennert (✉)
Department of Mineral Sciences,
U.S. Geological Survey, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, DC, USA
e-mail: kuhns@si.edu

E.W. Klemetti
Department of Geosciences, Denison University,
Granville, OH, USA

D.K. Bird
Risk Frontiers, Department of Environmental
Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
that the social media account is from an official source, and posting types of information that the public are seeking such as images, videos, and figures.

# 1 Introduction

Public interest in volcanic eruptions is high, especially on social media. Social media is simply social conversation through web-based platforms, encompassing a variety of examples including social networking platforms (e.g. Twitter, Facebook), media sharing platforms (e.g. YouTube, Instagram), crowdsourcing platforms (e.g. Ushahidi, Crisismappers), and others such as blogs, discussion forums, chat rooms, wikis, and apps. Social media not only allows critical information to be disseminated but also publicly discussed; it provides an opportunity for concerned individuals to communicate related issues, express attitudes and share knowledge and experiences of events through stories, photographs, and video. As such, officials use social media to collect data from people affected by volcanic eruptions (e.g. Carranza Tresold 2013).

However, information shared on social media is often not clearly organized and can cause confusion; it may not always be accurate and the sources can be difficult to identify. Nevertheless, as a two-way communication tool, social media give official agencies and the public an opportunity to dispel rumours circulating via social media and other media sources (Bird et al. 2012; Bruns et al. 2012). Where traditional news sources often sensationalize a volcanic event and provide very little follow-through, social media can be used as a means for community connection and support after an event, or for preparedness in times of quiescence.

Despite the obvious benefits, many official agencies, including most volcano observatories, lack guidelines on how to use these cost-effective communication tools to their full potential (Disaster Management SofS Working Group 2014; Dufty 2015) and have not integrated social

media into their core communications strategy. There is a wealth of information disseminated every minute via social media platforms. However, many agencies are unsure about the best methods for capitalizing on this valuable resource. Users want the most up-to-date and accurate information about on-going volcanic eruptions and they want it rapidly and to be easily accessible. Volcano observatories that do use social media, especially to post official information, images, and data from eruptions tend to have a large group of followers (in excess of 10,000), which includes bloggers and traditional media.

We provide examples of two projects that require collecting and then disseminating information regarding volcanic crises and eruptive activity: the Weekly Volcanic Activity Report, a joint product of the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports_weekly.cfm) written by one the authors (Sennert); and, ‘Eruptions’, a blog written by another of the authors (Klemetti) (www.wired.com/category/eruptions/). We do not offer a comprehensive look at the use of social media in all aspects of crisis communication; instead, we look at the use of social media by these two projects and offer a set of recommendations for that usage by volcano observatories and other official agencies.

# 2 The Weekly Volcanic Activity Report

The Smithsonian Institution's Global Volcanism Program (GVP) and the US Geological Survey's Volcano Hazard Program collaborate to produce the Weekly Volcanic Activity Report (WVAR), which summarizes new and on-going volcanic
activity globally. It is posted on the GVP website every Wednesday and is widely redistributed online.

WVAR was created for timelier reporting of volcanic activity on a global scale and quickly began serving the needs of humanitarian response agencies, military commands, travellers, businesses, scientists, and the general public. It has become a very popular site because it gives readers a snapshot of worldwide eruptive activity and unrest in one place. On average, WVAR received about 21,900 page views from 7620 unique visitors per week in 2014, with increased usage surrounding notable eruptions. Since its inaugural issue in November 2000 through the end of 2014, the regular, consistent, and thorough reporting has resulted in 10,575 individual summaries included in almost 740 weekly reports on over 270 volcanoes.

WVAR aims to include all volcanic activity that occurred on Earth during the week leading up to its online publication. About 20 sub-aerial volcanoes are erupting at any given time (Siebert et al. 2010). Some of the criteria considered in the report-generating process include: raising or lowering of the hazard status; the release of a volcanic ash advisory by a Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre (VAAC); and/or, a verifiable report of new or changing activity as noted in the media or by observers. It is important to note that volcanic activity meeting one or more of these criteria may occur during the week, but may not be included in the WVAR because details about the event were not available. In addition, more than a dozen volcanoes globally have displayed more-or-less continuous eruptive activity for decades or longer, and such routine activity is typically reported on a monthly basis unless a special report is issued.

The core of the WVAR process consists of rapid information gathering, data evaluation, and summarization. The WVAR editor has relied heavily on combing through electronic information channels such as the official websites of volcano observatories. Some observatories that do not have an on-line presence may distribute activity bulletins through email. To obtain primary source data, around 40 trusted websites are

visited almost daily, including observatories, Volcanic Ash Advisory Centres (VAACs), civil protection agencies, and meteorological offices. The majority of the websites (29) are volcano observatories, and are visited first (along with two additional meteorological offices) for accurate and up-to-date eruption information. Therefore the content and reliability of each WVAR depends heavily on the accuracy and timeliness of reports posted to these observatory websites.

In cases where an eruption occurs from a volcano that is poorly or not regularly monitored, or a larger event occurs, the information search is expanded to any and ideally all available sources, including social networking platforms, satellite image analysts, gas emission experts, marine biologists, etc. Eruption information from these more transient sources will likely be included if that is the only source of information and/or the source is deemed credible.

## 2.1 The Contribution of Social Media to the Weekly Volcanic Activity Report

One of the challenges in assessing the state of world-wide volcanic activity in any given week is managing the amount of information available to a user; for just one volcano the source data may be just a sentence or two to well over 100 pages for large events covered by multiple sources. Therefore the greatest disadvantage posed by social media is the additional glut of unedited information. This includes posts from official sources and amateur volcanologists (e.g. a traveller captures an eruption with their phone camera as they pass by on an airplane and instantaneously uploads it). But how much real and accurate information can we glean from an explosion of details on so many platforms from official and amateur sources? Sifting through thousands of Twitter posts, for example, from official and non-official sources about an eruption is prohibitively time-consuming. Moreover, the information can be: (1) difficult to verify; (2) repetitive; (3) transient/ephemeral; (4) not archived; and, (5) not always searchable. A user needs to know
where to go for the correct information; events can be missed if one incorrectly assumes that a lack of information on an observatory page means that no volcanic events are occurring.

The greatest advantage to social media comes when those platforms are the only sources of information about an eruption, or provide additional and critical details of the event. Therefore, the WVAR editor seeks eruption information from various social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, blogs, and YouTube. In several instances over the past few years, the WVAR has sourced critical information not just about large and/or sensational eruptions [e.g. Eyjafjallajökull (2010), Merapi (2010), and Sinabung (2013)], or more unusual events [e.g. Kverkfjöll (2013)], but also about regularly erupting volcanoes (e.g. Sheveluch and Etna), from sometimes chance encounters with social media posts. In one case, details of an explosion including photographs were garnered from a social media connection with an observatory scientist; the details were not shared on the official observatory website until a later date.

In a second case, the WVAR editor sourced volcanic activity information after being directed to an official civil protection Facebook page from a travel blog. The official website had a very brief summary of the event but more comprehensive information (written details, dates, pictures, and an over-flight video) about the event was gleaned through a Facebook page. However, due to the blog-style of Facebook and lack of sufficient data-searching capabilities and archiving, it was difficult and time consuming to revisit the post a few days later to ensure all relevant information had been collected. Despite this, the Facebook posts yielded a better understanding of the event and allowed a more accurate summary of the eruption. Again important details of the event were discovered by chance and could have easily been missed; the official civil protection website did not offer the same details.

Since timely information about eruptions can be crucial to humanitarian efforts, scientists, report writers, and a variety of other users, it is critical that observatories establish reliable channels for the dissemination of eruption

information. The two examples described above expose challenges in using social media as a source for information: when are social media sites complimentary to observatory websites and when are they supplementary? Anecdotal evidence suggests that observatory representatives have varying perceptions of social media: some view the extra effort as a burden and therefore post randomly and sparingly while others prefer to post on social media rather than through the observatory website. This highlights the need for observatories to clarify how their information is disseminated to stakeholders so that users know where to go first for official, accurate, timely, consistent, and archived eruption information.

An October 2014 examination of 33 observatory, meteorological office, and civil protection websites showed that all but three provided another means of information distribution, in addition to the official observatory website, by way of links on the website. These include social networking platforms, email distribution lists, and news feeds. Regarding social networking platforms, almost half the observatories use Facebook (48 %) and Twitter (42 %), followed by YouTube (24 %), Google+ and Google Groups (15 %), photo sharing sites (6 %), and one link to Pinterest (3 %). Email distribution lists accounts for 39 and 18 % use RSS/CAP feeds. For the most part links to these other outlets were visible somewhere on the main page, although not all were easily found, and a few were embedded on sub-pages. Two additional observatories use Twitter (Table 1, data for volcano observatories, monitoring agencies or emergency management groups that utilize Twitter) but do not obviously link to their Twitter accounts from their websites so were not included in this tally. Clearly most observatories are utilising social media, but how and to what degree varies.

## 3 ‘Eruptions’ Blog

‘Eruptions’ blog is one of the most popular sources for information on volcanic activity on social media. Information is gathered for
<table><caption>**Table 1** Volcano observatories, monitoring agencies, or emergency management on Twitter</caption><thead><tr><th>Organization</th><th>Handle</th><th>Country</th><th>Followers</th><th>Following</th><th>Tweets</th><th>Frequency</th><th>Language</th><th>Date joined</th><th>Notes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ONEMI*</td><td>@onemichile</td><td>Chile</td><td>602,360</td><td>0</td><td>13,179</td><td>Frequent</td><td>Spanish</td><td>February 2010</td><td>Public relations</td></tr><tr><td>USGS*</td><td>@usgs</td><td>USA</td><td>424,310</td><td>68</td><td>7452</td><td>Frequent</td><td>English</td><td>April 2008</td><td>Twitter verified, all geosciences</td></tr><tr><td>CONRED*</td><td>@conredguatemala</td><td>Guatemala</td><td>227,139</td><td>115</td><td>27,522</td><td>Frequent</td><td>Spanish</td><td>February 2010</td><td>Some automated tweets (earthquakes)</td></tr><tr><td>IG Ecuador</td><td>@igecuador</td><td>Ecuador</td><td>136,909</td><td>392</td><td>5964</td><td>Frequent</td><td>Spanish</td><td>September 2010</td><td>Some automated tweets (earthquakes)</td></tr><tr><td>OVSCORI</td><td>@ovsicori_una</td><td>Costa Rica</td><td>94,777</td><td>78</td><td>4843</td><td>Frequent</td><td>Spanish</td><td>September 2009</td><td>Some automated tweets (earthquakes)</td></tr><tr><td>PHIVOLCS</td><td>@phivolcs_dost</td><td>Philippines</td><td>74,272</td><td>9</td><td>1067</td><td>Somewhat frequent</td><td>English</td><td>September 2012</td><td>Also reserved @phivolcs, Some automated tweets (earthquakes)</td></tr><tr><td>ONEMI*</td><td>@onemi</td><td>Chile</td><td>67,432</td><td>0</td><td>379</td><td>Inactive since 2009</td><td>Spanish</td><td>December 2007</td><td>Official announcements</td></tr><tr><td>RSN</td><td>@rsncostarica</td><td>Costa Rica</td><td>54,909</td><td>105</td><td>3061</td><td>Frequent</td><td>Spanish</td><td>August 2009</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>INSIVUMEH</td><td>@insivumehgt</td><td>Guatemala</td><td>45,388</td><td>1</td><td>7947</td><td>Frequent</td><td>Spanish</td><td>April 2012</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>BNPB*</td><td>@bnpb_indonesia</td><td>Indonesia</td><td>32,812</td><td>118</td><td>3856</td><td>Frequent</td><td>Indonesian</td><td>August 2011</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>GNS Science</td><td>@geonet</td><td>New Zealand</td><td>31,243</td><td>5</td><td>9136</td><td>Frequent</td><td>English</td><td>September 2009</td><td>Some automated tweets (earthquakes)</td></tr><tr><td>SGC</td><td>@sgcol</td><td>Colombia</td><td>18,883</td><td>77</td><td>3278</td><td>Frequent</td><td>Spanish</td><td>June 2010</td><td>Mainly links to reports</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued)
<table><caption>**Table 1 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Organization</th><th>Handle</th><th>Country</th><th>Followers</th><th>Following</th><th>Tweets</th><th>Frequency</th><th>Language</th><th>Date joined</th><th>Notes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>AVO</td><td>@alaska_avo</td><td>USA</td><td>13,311</td><td>3</td><td>1050</td><td>Sporadic</td><td>English</td><td>January 2009</td><td>More active during eruptions, quiet during other periods</td></tr><tr><td>IGN Spain</td><td>@ignspain</td><td>Spain</td><td>6187</td><td>349</td><td>3198</td><td>Frequent</td><td>Spanish</td><td>September 2010</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>GNS Science</td><td>@gnscience</td><td>New Zealand</td><td>2764</td><td>22</td><td>331</td><td>Somewhat frequent</td><td>English</td><td>April 2010</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CRHED Guatemala</td><td>@crhedgt</td><td>Guatemala</td><td>2283</td><td>757</td><td>10,456</td><td>Frequent</td><td>Spanish</td><td>April 2011</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CENAPRED</td><td>@cenapred</td><td>Mexico</td><td>2173</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>Inactive</td><td>Spanish</td><td>September 2010</td><td>Also @monitoreoV</td></tr><tr><td>IGP</td><td>@igp_peru</td><td>Peru</td><td>1973</td><td>526</td><td>1735</td><td>Somewhat frequent</td><td>Spanish</td><td>July 2011</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PVMBG</td><td>@vulkanologi_mbg</td><td>Indonesia</td><td>1945</td><td>14</td><td>236</td><td>Frequent</td><td>Indonesian</td><td>August 2013</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MVO</td><td>@mvoms</td><td>UK (Montserrat)</td><td>634</td><td>4</td><td>717</td><td>Sporadic</td><td>English</td><td>June 2010</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Afar Rift Consortium</td><td>@afar_rift</td><td>Ethiopia/UK/US</td><td>245</td><td>54</td><td>134</td><td>Sporadic</td><td>English</td><td>June 2010</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>INETER*</td><td>@ineter</td><td>Nicaragua</td><td>64</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>Inactive</td><td>Spanish</td><td>June 2010</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SERNAGEOMIN</td><td>@sernageomin</td><td>Chile</td><td>55</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>Somewhat frequent</td><td>Spanish</td><td>November 2014</td><td>Biblioteca</td></tr><tr><td>POVI</td><td>@povi_cl</td><td>Chile</td><td>43</td><td>2</td><td>62</td><td>Sporadic</td><td>Spanish</td><td>February 2014</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>*Geological surveys or emergency management agencies that tweet often about volcanic activity. # Frequent = multiple times per week; somewhat frequent = multiple times per month; sporadic = multiple times per year, usually associated with elevated activity; inactive = has not tweeted in over a year. All Twitter data from 10 November 2014</footnote>
‘Eruptions’ via filtered Google News reports, Twitter, and volcano observatory websites. Readers also leave comments with information of on-going eruptive activity gleaned via traditional news sources, blogs written by amateur enthusiasts, and observations of volcano webcams.

Since its inception in May 2008, the ‘Eruptions’ blog has received over 5 million visits and from 1 May 2012 to 1 May 2013, the blog had 1.978 million page views. This traffic shows the strong interest in volcanology by the general public and the demand for accurate, scientific information on current activity worldwide along with research in volcanology. A Twitter account (@eruptionsblog) is partially linked to the blog. This account has over 8750 followers (as of 18 November 2014) and is primarily used to tweet information about new and on-going eruptions, both from material produced for the blog and from outside sources.

## 3.1 Using Twitter to Source Volcanic Crisis Information: From the Public

Twitter is one of the primary sources for information published on ‘Eruptions’. Whenever a new eruption occurs, Twitter is one of the first places where images of the activity can be found, typically taken by the general public on their phones or digital cameras. Local media reports often appear on Twitter soon after an eruption has begun, typically much faster than they will appear in a Google News search for the volcano or region (especially if it is not in English).

Crowdsourcing data on volcanic activity or via citizen science activities during volcanic eruptions has been attempted on a number of platforms (Klemetti 2010), such as Twitter, Flickr, and Instagram. For example, Pyle and Oxford University’s Earth Sciences Class of 2015 (2014) used data gleaned from a variety of social media platforms along with published photographs of the area to estimate the ash fall for the February 2014 eruption of Kelut in Indonesia. They found exponential decay of ash away from the volcano that was similar but larger

than that from Kelut’s 1990 eruption. This suggests that collecting ash fall information from social media might be a quick way to calculate the magnitude of the eruption without sending experts to different locations around the volcano or to get information from officials during a time of crisis.

## 3.2 Using Twitter to Source Volcanic Crisis Information: From Official Sources

The most effective Twitter accounts from volcano monitoring agencies release the following types of information through their primary account: images of eruptions, links to official releases about the on-going activity, updates from volcanologists (brief and timely), information about precautions and evacuations (especially from disaster agencies), and links to webicorders and webcams. This information is especially important during periods of increased media attention leading up to and during an event. An excellent example is how the Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO) (@alaska_avo) uses Twitter to quickly send updates on the changes to the alert status of Alaskan volcanoes (Fig. 1a). They also post images of the volcanoes that are linked back to their official sources (with credit) hosted on the AVO website (Fig. 1b). These tweets are clear and succinct, and they direct readers back to the original source of the material for more information. Most importantly, they are timely—typically tweeted within an hour of the change in status of the volcano.

However, very few volcano observatories have Twitter accounts (Table 1). Those that have accounts vary their use from very active (posting multiple times a day or week) to inactive. However, even those that are inactive have significant numbers of followers looking for information. The accounts with the most followers are those not singularly dedicated to volcano monitoring, such Chile’s Oficina Nacional de Emergencia del Ministerio del Interior (@onemi-602,360 followers), United States Geological Survey (@usgs-424,310 followers), and Guatemala’s
<figure><img src="image_238.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Examples of uses of Twitter by the Alaska Volcano Observatory (@alaska_avo). **a** Image of the November 2014 eruption of Pavlof with link to AVO page; **b** statement on the elevated alert status at Shishaldin on October 28, 2014 with link to additional information</figcaption></figure>

Coordinadora Nacional para la Reducción de Desastres (@conrdguatemala—227,139 followers). However, Ecuador’s Instituto Geofisico (@igecuador) and Costa Rica’s Observatorio Vulcanológico y Sismológico (@ovsicora_una) have over or nearly 100,000 followers.

Interestingly, Latin American volcano monitoring agencies have embraced the use of Twitter the most, with active Twitter accounts for OVSI-CORI, IG Ecuador, Instituto Nacional de Sismología, Vulcanología, Meteorología e Hidrología (@insivumehgt), Servicio Geológico Colombia (@sgcol), Instituto Geofisico Peru (@igp_peru), and Proyecto Observación Villarrica Internet (@povi_cl). Adoption of Twitter as an avenue for public outreach and distribution of information in other parts of the world has been much slower, although both the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (@phivolcs_dost) and Indonesia’s Pusat Vulkanologi dan Mitigasi Bencana Geologi (@vulkanologici_mbg) have recently become more active.

In a study on the media response to the eruption of Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökull in 2010, Lee et al. (2012) posits that traditional media

underutilised and under-reported the scientific information from the eruption in their coverage. Instead, they used sources from the travel industry for many of their reports due to a focus on the air travel disruption caused by the eruption. This lack of a scientific voice meant that the public reaction to the decision to close the airspace was heavily influenced by industry voices in the media rather than the scientific data and interpretations (Suw Charman-Anderson, pers. comm.).

This situation could have been mitigated to some degree by use of social media, such as Twitter, for official sources to send timely and accurate information about the eruption directly to the public, rather than relying on more traditional and slower information distribution methods such as press releases and conferences. Additionally, misinformation during the eruption (such as the erroneous reporting of an eruption of Katla) could have been corrected faster if such information was released through official channels on Twitter rather than only adding a statement to the Iceland Meteorological Office (IMO) website (http://en.vedur.is) (Suw Charman-Anderson, pers. comm.).

Another example is the recent eruption near Iceland’s Barðarbunga starting in August 2014. Information about the start of the eruption quickly spread on Twitter, but from unofficial sources such as the Icelandic media (e.g., @RUVfrettir) or non-volcano monitoring government agencies such as Iceland’s Department of Civil Protection and Emergency Management (@almannavarnir). This led to confusion about when the eruption actually occurred as there were reports of subglacial eruptions under Vatnajökull that ended up being unfounded. Official confirmation of the Barðarbunga eruption was not received until the IMO website was updated. The consequences of a subglacial versus subaerial eruption are very different from a hazard perspective, so clear information dissemination is vital. This confusion may have been avoided if IMO had been using an official Twitter account to disseminate this information directly to the public as soon as it was available.
## 4 Discussion and Recommendations to Volcano Observatories Regarding the Use of Social Media

Posting to social media platforms can seem like an extraneous and unnecessary activity during a time of volcanic crisis. However, as the above-mentioned case studies highlight, there are real advantages to utilising social media as a tool to convey information quickly and directly. One key aspect to a volcano observatory's use of social media is constant contact. Even when there are no volcanic crises, different audiences are looking for information. These audiences include (but are not limited to): local residents, tourists, students both near and far, researchers, news media, and government officials. Social media should be used to convey authoritative information about volcanic activity, as well as content on how to prevent/mitigate and prepare for, respond to and recover from a volcanic eruption (Fig. 2).

Some best-practice advice and suggestions for volcano observatories or monitoring agencies in relation to social media include:

1. **Use it.** Social media is a two-way dialogue to communicate and receive hazard and risk information. Traditional forms such as press releases or conferences allow for the mainstream media to add their agenda to the information. Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook cut out this middleman so that critical information is directly conveyed.

2. **Make it official.** State in the account information that the social media account is official. This can add authority to the information released and stop confusion with people tweeting/posting volcanic information as enthusiasts rather than volcano monitoring officials. Twitter does “verify” accounts, but there is no way to request verification, so each observatory should state it clearly. This also means putting a direct link to the social media feeds on the main website as well, which adds authenticity and authority to the account.

3. **Post images and figures.** The types of information most often sought out by the public are images of the eruption or figures of data (such as webicorder traces). Provide these in the social media feed, but be sure to stamp each figure with a date/time. This prevents older images or images of other volcanoes being distributed across social media platforms.

4. **Update volcano status information.** If volcanoes are moved up or down in alert status, tweet/post a brief statement with this information, even if accompanying information is not ready. However, be sure to tweet/post a link to any additional information when it is ready as a lack of timely information reduces trust that the account is official.

5. **Remain active.** Even if there is no on-going crisis, tweet/post information about volcanoes, images or links to webcams, new research or equipment installation. This allows for the public to know that work is being done between eruptions. Also, if the main website or Facebook page is updated, tweet/post about it and provide a link.

6. **Separate automated tweets.** Some volcano monitoring agencies or observatories post automated tweets for events such as earthquakes. This information is valuable but can easily overwhelm a Twitter feed, especially in seismically active areas. Separate that information into a separate feed that is only used for tweeting seismic (or other) information, especially if it is automatically generated.

7. **Tweet/post links to press releases.** If information is released as press releases, informational statements or if press conferences are webcast, tweet/post those links in a timely fashion.

8. **Sign off on observations and statements.** If possible, direct observations and interpretations of events are very useful for the public, bloggers, and the media. If such information can be tweeted/posted, have the scientist “sign” the tweet/post with their initials [e.g., (EK)] so that verification can be made of the information. This helps add trust to the tweets/posts.
<figure><img src="image_239.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Examples of how social media can be used throughout the disaster cycle, during periods of heightened activity and quiescence. Please note, some of these</figcaption></figure>

activities, such as mythbusting, can be done at any point throughout the cycle

9. **Be aware of myths and, inaccurate views and reporting.** If possible, observatories should monitor social media sites that provide information and/or discussion on an impending or on-going eruption as sometimes well-meaning people share inaccurate views or trolls purposefully offer false information. To counter these, observatories and/or disaster management agencies can post a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) Fact Sheet or Mythbusters Fact Sheet in an effort to dispel associated myths.

Volcano observatories must decide how they can most efficiently and effectively disseminate their very important information on eruptions and unrest, let users know where, how, and what kinds of information is being posted, and then follow through with consistency. A statement on the observatories main page describing how they

distribute the most up-to-date information (a social media use plan) would be a simple yet effective improvement. The icons for links to social media should be prominent if that is one of the main avenues they use to disseminate information to users. This approach does not lock in an observatory to follow a plan that may not work for them due to staffing issues, degraded internet service, lack of funds, etc. but gives flexibility to change and grow, as long as they communicate those changes in a social media use plan.

## 5 Conclusion

There is no doubt that a large proportion of the general public has embraced social media and expects to have the ability to communicate information via its various sources. Significantly, social media are two-way communication tools allowing
official agencies to rapidly interact with the public and each other in real-time. Social media platforms offer a creative alternative to traditional media (e.g. radio, television) for communicating risk information. They allow volcano observatories to share knowledge and experience of events, and promote through stories, photographs, and videos the utility of volcano monitoring, even during periods of quiescence. As such, social media can be used to generate continued public interest and trust, whether or not an eruption is imminent.

The case studies shown here demonstrate the high demand for accurate and timely volcanic information during a crisis, both pragmatically (for people living nearby) or to satisfy curiosity. Social media such as Twitter can meet those demands as part of an overarching communication strategy. However, Twitter should not be the only social media instrument used and other more traditional forms of media should not be replaced with social media. Overall, social media should be embraced as an additional way to directly communicate with the general public and complement existing strategies. In order to ensure that they remain relevant, however, volcano observatories will have to keep up with the most prominent trends as Twitter and Facebook may be replaced by other platforms in the future.

**Disclaimer** Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

**Open Access** This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, a link is provided to the Creative Commons license, and any changes made are indicated. The images or other third party material in this

chapter are included in the work's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if such material is not included in the work's Creative Commons license and the respective action is not permitted by statutory regulation, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to duplicate, adapt, or reproduce the material.

## References

Bird D, Ling M, Haynes K (2012) Flooding facebook— the use of social media during the Queensland and Victorian floods. Aust J Emerg Manage 27 (1):27–33

Bruns A, Burgess J, Crawford K, Shaw F (2012) #qldfloods and @QPSMedia: crisis communication on twitter in the 2011 South East Queensland Floods. ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, Brisbane

Carranza Tresold JA (2013) Social media maps a volcano's aftermath: tracking the consequences of the guatemalan eruption, esri ArcNews

Disaster Management SofS Working Group (2014) Building a system of systems for disaster management workshop: joint issues statement, CSIRO

Dufty N (2015) The use of social media in countrywide disaster risk reduction public awareness strategies. Aust J Emerg Manage 30(1):12–16

Klemetti EW (2010) Using the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption as an example of citizen involvement in scientific research, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2010, Section: Education and Human Resources, Session: Public Participation in Geoscience Research: Engaging Citizen Scientists III, San Francisco, California

Lee B, Preston F, Green G (2012) Preparing for high-impact, low-probability events. Lessons from Eyjafjallajökull. The Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, London. ISBN 978 1 86203 253 8

Pyle D and Oxford University's Earth Sciences Class of 2015 (2014) Ash fallout from the 2014 Kelut eruption: a preliminary analysis

Siebert L, Simkin T, Kimberly P (2010) Volcanoes of the world. University of California Press, Berkeley
# Part Three Summary: Communicating into the Future

Deanne K. Bird and Katharine Haynes

The chapters that form Part Three explore diverse and wide-ranging communication and engagement processes, where old practices and new technologies are brought together to reduce the impact of volcanic crises in an increasingly globalised world. The chapters highlight challenges of working across disciplines, sectors, institutions, and negotiating differing politics and cultural practices and knowledges. Overall, Part Three demonstrates that trans-disciplinary and multi-organisational partnerships that include social scientists, health professionals, civil defence experts and community members alongside volcanologists, are key to successful volcanic risk reduction. These partnerships must be developed well before a crisis in order that trust, shared meaning and effective working relationships are developed. Part Three also considers progress made and identifies areas that need to be addressed to ensure the success of volcanic crisis communication in the near and long term.

In order to set the scene, Chester et al. in the chapter entitled “Communicating Information on Eruptions and Their Impacts from the Earliest Times Until the Late Twentieth Century” detail a

historic overview of the communication and dissemination of volcanic information. Case studies of the Azores, Portugal and Mt Etna, Italy provide contrasting examples of how responses to volcanic crises and their communication have evolved over time.

Pyle in the chapter entitled “What Can We Learn from Records of Past Eruptions to Better Prepare for the Future?” also considers how observations and accounts, before the advent and application of instrumental monitoring, provide unique perspectives of volcanic processes and impacts and how they can aid future decision-making. Through a retrospective analysis of eruptions of the Kameni islands, Santorini, Greece and Soufriere, St Vincent, Pyle looks at the sequence of volcanic processes and the resulting social, economic and political consequences caused by these events. These case studies highlight the valuable detail contained within contextual data on volcanic activity and how that can be applied to enhance our capacity for reducing risk, particularly where there is a lack of instrumental monitoring.

The importance of community participation, particularly the use of local knowledge is well highlighted by Gabrielsen et al. in the chapter entitled “Reflections from an Indigenous Community on Volcanic Event Management, Communications and Resilience”. To date, Ngāti Rangi, an indigenous tribe of Aotearoa, New Zealand living on the flanks of Ruapehu, have not always been included in decision-making during volcanic events despite the benefits their local knowledge would bring to the process,

<footnote>D. K. Bird (✉)
Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences,
University of Iceland, 101 Reykjavik, Askja, Iceland
e-mail: dkb@hi.is</footnote>

<footnote>K. Haynes
Department of Geography and Planning, Macquarie
University, Sydney 2109, Australia</footnote>
particularly in relation to communications and
warnings. This chapter however, details how the
situation is improving through a community-led
initiative where the Ngāti Rangi have set up their
own monitoring, information collection, and
communication systems.

Cadah et al. in the chapter entitled “Fostering Participation of Local Actors in Volcanic Disaster Risk Reduction” discuss, through the lead author’s first hand experiences, case studies of community based DRR at Mount Rainier, USA and Bulusan, Philippines. With references to wider case studies and literature, the chapter identifies the key principles and important considerations for fostering community-based participation. However, the chapter concludes by warning against a rigid and standardised procedure for participation as each volcano and at risk community will have their own specific context and needs. Cadah et al. therefore highlight that flexibility and the development of customized approaches is the way forward.

Further highlighting the need to fully appreciate and comprehend the nuances of each particular locale, Wilmhurst in the chapter entitled “There is no Plastic in Our Volcano: A Story About Losing and Finding a Path to Participatory Volcanic Risk Management in Colombia” describes how the best intentions can lead to failure. A stakeholder workshop, bringing together scientists, government officials, emergency service personnel and at-risk communities was conducted in an effort to create dialogue and cooperation and develop a new participatory path for the management of volcanic risk associated with Galeras, Colombia. On the fourth day, however, the workshop took a very different path, one of mistrust and miscommunication. This chapter challenges all stakeholders to critically think about their role in DRR and how their own assumptions, biases, perceptions and beliefs influence their work. This chapter takes the reader on a journey of getting lost and finding the way again highlighting the many important lessons learnt along the way, many of which are centred around trust.

Continuing the theme of trust, Newhall in the
chapter entitled “Cultural Differences and the

Importance of Trust Between Volcanologists and Partners in Volcanic Risk Mitigation” looks at context in relation to cultural differences. As with Wilmhurst, Newhall focuses on the local level, where those in positions of responsibility: scientists, civil defence officials, land managers, engineers, politicians and journalists, as well as at-risk populations, differ greatly with respect to culture. Each of these groups has different concerns, goals, language, approaches, ways of learning and resources. In this chapter Newhall argues that a key to bridging these is trust, which can be earned through understanding and acceptance of, and respect for, the inherent differences. Based on personal experience, Newhall provides a snapshot view of three case studies: Mount St. Helens, USA 1980; Pinatubo, the Philippines 1991; and, Usu, Japan 2000, to highlight the issues of trust and its importance for volcanic risk mitigation. Newhall concludes with some valuable recommendations on how to incorporate professionalism and cross-cultural sensitivity alongside personal touches in every interaction between volcanologists and those who use volcanological information.

In “International Coordination in Managing Airborne Ash Hazards: Lessons from the Northern Pacific”, Igarashi et al. examine efforts to bridge cultural divides. Considering air-borne volcanic ash often impacts multiple international jurisdictions, efforts in managing this hazard involve coordination of stakeholders from multiple countries. Through the lens of the 2009 eruption of Sarychev-Peak Volcano in the Kurile Islands and the 2013 eruption of Kliuchevskoi Volcano on the Kamchatka Peninsula, Igarashi et al. identify the challenges of international coordination and strategies to overcome these to ensure the provision of coherent and consistent messaging.

Doyle and Paton further showcase the impor-
tance of creating a ‘shared meaning’ between
agencies in “Decision-Making: Preventing
Miscommunication and Creating Shared Meaning
Between Stakeholders” by examining individual
and team decision-making and the critical role of
relationships and communication between science
advisors, emergency managers and decision
makers. Doyle and Paton stress that in order to ensure all stakeholders have a shared understanding of the situation and, each other's functions and responsibilities during a time of crisis, they must have built strong relationships through prior training and development.

The communication of probabilities and uncertainties continues to be the Achilles heel of otherwise successful volcanic risk discourse. In "Using Statistics to Quantify and Communicate Uncertainty During Volcanic Crises" Sobradelo and Marti explore the statistical meaning of probability estimates and their role in the quantification and communication of uncertainty during volcanic crises.

Blong et al. in the chapter entitled "Insurance and a Volcanic Crisis—A Tale of One (Big) Eruption, Two Insurers, and Innumerable Insureds" further our understanding by examining potential issues between the insurance sector and policyholder. Using a realistic disaster scenario of a large eruption, the chapter describes two companies' very different yet possible approaches to managing the situation. This analysis highlights the numerous insurance-related challenges to consider. Blong et al. argue that clear communication between the insurance sector and policyholder is dependent on informed understanding of the nature of volcanic hazards and terminology, insurance words-ings and potential losses. The chapter also explores examples of insurance case law from the: 1991 eruption of Pinatubo in the Philippines; 1995 eruption of Ruapehu in New Zealand; 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens in the USA; and, 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption in Iceland, to further highlight issues that arise in interpreting insurance contracts.

Clear communication, through the use of standardised Volcanic Alert Level (VAL) systems, is also central to the next chapter. Used as a communication tool to inform at-risk populations of the status of activity at specific volcanoes, Potter et al. in the chapter entitled "Challenges and Benefits of Standardising Early Warning Systems: A Case Study of New Zealand's Volcanic Alert Level System" explore standardising VAL systems across New Zealand and

internationally. While the benefits are many, the key challenges further highlight the importance of context; that is, the uniqueness of each volcanic system, different needs and perspectives of end-users and, different response actions associated with the spatial and temporal differences in activity.

Volcanic hazard maps are a major tool for the visual communication of hazard and risk to a wide range of audiences. Maps are a coded form of communication, and the visual design and ability of the receiver to decode the message significantly impacts on how hazard maps are understood and applied. Thompson et al. in the chapter entitled "More Than Meets the Eye: Volcanic Hazard Map Design and Visual Communication" review case studies of volcanic crises and interdisciplinary research that addresses the relationship between hazard maps, visual design, and communication. They conclude that future technological innovations will create improved opportunities for people to read, process, and share visual information. However, audience needs and perspectives must continue to be understood in order that hazard maps and visual communications are accessible and meet the needs of users.

To exemplify the importance of the visual representation of hazard and risk, Webley and Watson in "The Role of Geospatial Technologies in Communicating a More Effective Hazard Assessment: Application of Remote Sensing Data" provide a detailed summary of how satellite imagery and geospatial technologies inform real-time analysis, communication and decision-making. Case studies from the 2010 eruption of Merapi, Indonesia; 2012–13 eruption of Tolbachik on the Kamchatka Peninsula; and, 2014–15 eruption of Bárðarbunga, Iceland further illustrate how remote sensing data have been applied during volcanic crises. Overall, Webley and Watson identify important aspects of sensors and technologies relevant to volcanic hazard assessment in a way that is easy to understand with limited knowledge of remote sensing methodologies.

While the science of volcanology rests within a positivist tradition, risk communication does not and is very much socially framed by the
values and cultures of both the sender and receiver of the message. Dixon and Beech, in the chapter entitled “Re-enchanting Volcanoes: The Rise, Fall, and Rise Again of Art and Aesthetics in the Making of Volcanic Knowledges”, remind us of this and take an expanded notion of communication to outline the history of how knowledge of volcanoes was produced and disseminated during the 18th and 19th centuries, thus bringing Part 3 back to reflect on past experiences and learnings.

The notion of the past informing present-day preparedness activities is explored by Kitagawa in the chapter entitled “Living with an Active Volcano: Informal and Community Learning for Preparedness in South of Japan”. Kitagawa provides a local perspective of how residents have learned to live with the everyday threat of volcanic hazards with respect to Sakurajima Volcano in Japan. Emanating from these lessons are two local lores: ‘do not rely on authorities’ and ‘be frightened effectively’, which Kitagawa argues, enhance preparedness through the development of agency and being alert but not alarmed. At the community level, collaborative partnerships have had a positive influence on enhancing community participation and collective efficacy, where decisions are made and information and ideas are exchanged. This approach has led to societal-level empowerment and trust between individuals and officials.

Dohaney et al. in the chapter entitled “Using Role-Play to Improve Students’ Confidence and Perceptions of Communication in a Simulated Volcanic Crisis” argue that the theory, skills and protocols behind effective volcanic crisis communication are often not taught to young scientists. To address this gap, Dohaney et al. outline and evaluate an innovative role-play exercise where University students are able to practice crisis communication through a realistic real-time scenario. The methodology successfully increases

students’ confidence to communicate and knowledge of science communication.

Sharpe in the chapter entitled “Learning to Be Practical: A Guided Learning Approach to Transform Student Community Resilience When Faced with Natural Hazard Threats” also investigates the use of a classroom based learning approach to move beyond knowledge creation to promote action. The methodology used experiential learning, reflection and the act of playing out the threats from hazards allowing students aged between 11 and 14 to explore key issues of risk, response and preparedness for themselves and their family. The lessons were planned in order to fit within the National Curriculum and involved guided research and investigation through websites, videos and mapping exercises; the creation of student films; and, a homework task to produce an emergency Go-Bag with parents. A questionnaire completed by the students three weeks after the learning identified that 75% of the sample had collated their emergency kits with their parents and 55% felt more prepared as a family. This aligns with previous research that suggests that with the right support, students can be agents of change within the family.

The final crisis communication tool to be considered is social media. Sennert et al. in “Role of Social Media and Networking in Volcanic Crises and Communication” examine the role of social media as an often preferred source for news. Focusing on two projects, led by the first and second authors of this chapter, a set of recommendations are made in an effort to assist volcano observatories and government officials in using various social media platforms to their advantage. As new technologies and platforms are developed, some of these recommendations may become obsolete. Overall, however, many of them will remain pertinent to volcanic crisis communication, well into the future.
**Open Access** This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, a link is provided to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

<figure><img src="image_240.png" /></figure>
# Volcanic Crisis Communication: Where Do We Go from Here?

Carina J. Fearnley, Deanne Katherine Bird, Katharine Haynes, William J. McGuire and Gill Jolly

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.

## 1 Observing the Volcano World

Each part of the volume has explored three key themes: (i) the need to understand the multiple hazards involved in a volcanic crisis; (ii) lessons learned from past crises; and (iii) the tools available for effective communication during a crisis. There are a number of overarching lessons which are discussed below.

### 1.1 Managing Individual Hazards During a Crisis

Volcanic activity is unique in having a particularly large and diverse portfolio of associated phenomena capable of causing death and injury, societal and economic disruption, and damage to population centres and attendant infrastructure. These hazards vary in scale geographically from those proximal to the volcano, to those that can affect the regional or global climate. Many of these hazards occur during volcanic eruption, but some can occur during times of unrest, or even quiescence. Volcanoes present the ultimate natural hazard challenge with multiple hazards often occurring at the same time requiring bespoke decisions, actions, and warnings for at-risk communities. Given this diversity a ‘one size fits all’ approach does not provide the most effective means of addressing the communication

C. J. Fearnley (✉)
Department of Science and Technology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
e-mail: c.fearnley@ucl.ac.uk

D. K. Bird
Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences,
University of Iceland, Askja, 101, Reykjavik, Iceland

K. Haynes
Department of Geography and Planning, Macquarie
University, Sydney 2109, Australia

W. J. McGuire
Department of Earth Sciences, UCL Hazard Centre,
University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
e-mail: w.mcguire@ucl.ac.uk

G. Jolly
GNS Science, 1 Fairway Drive, Avalon, Lower Hutt
5010, New Zealand
e-mail: G.Jolly@gns.cri.nz
of volcanic hazards. Although general principles apply, this generally requires that information is adapted or tailored for the particular hazard in addition to considering the local dynamics of vulnerable communities that need to respond to these warnings. The chapters in Part One of this volume demonstrate how this approach may be utilised successfully to tackle a variety of specific hazards whilst at the same time maintaining trust. The challenge remains that with many people already leading complicated lives, the need to deal with several warnings for just one volcano poses the threat that populations will not engage. Here adopting a range of communication tools appropriate to the particular context can assist in not only communicating the hazard, but also in fostering relationships that provide additional monitoring data and warning information.

## 1.2 Lessons Identified from Crises Observed

Fundamental lessons have been learnt from a number of volcanic crises. Often these lessons have been learnt the hard way with many relatively minor volcanic events leading to tragedy. It is clear that transparency and solid relationships with stakeholders lead to the success of volcano monitoring and crisis management initiatives. Whilst poor relations may initially prevail, they can be rebuilt over time, through open lines of communication. However, operating in areas of political and social instability presents significant problems in terms of stakeholder collaboration and also partnership with vulnerable communities focused on more pressing concerns to their daily security. Conflict can also emerge amongst those directly responsible for volcanic crisis management; blame and conflict between competing scientific groups in particular, have the potential to be highly disruptive. Frequently this type of conflict is the result of adopting unclear or exclusive protocols. To avoid or ameliorate this situation the use of mediators can be highly successful and should be encouraged where appropriate.

Countries have differing approaches as to whether they integrate the physical and social sciences. Often a barrier is thrown up between these two worlds, with little willingness to breach this divide, or to unite it. In countries where the social and physical perspectives of the volcano are integrated, meaningful communication that adapts over time is developed facilitating a more holistic and robust programme of management that benefits both sides of the divide. Yet, many countries (largely Western) seek to maintain two separate and distinct perspectives. The chapters from Part Two demonstrate that sharing knowledge and experience is important to successfully address any new crisis as long as this is done in a transparent, sensitive manner, and with humility. The best results occur when this is conducted well before a crisis and ensuring that all aspects of risk are addressed; particularly work that reduces underlying vulnerabilities and builds the capacities of the local population, responsible stakeholders and institutions. It is hoped that in time, barriers can be eroded and there can be more scope for discussion, deliberation, and integration of multiple perspectives. It can be done; we only have to look at the successful examples of Mt Pinatubo (1991) and Merapi (2010) to appreciate this. Learning new perspectives, languages, and disciplines requires significant effort and parties on both sides need to have patience and willingness to facilitate this growth.

## 1.3 Understanding the Role of Communications

A wide range of communication tools cut across the various stakeholders, disciplines, policies, and hazards associated with volcanic crises. Many have been used for centuries; centred around simple forms of communication and collaboration. Indigenous populations today still provide valuable insights that can assist in the management and communication of volcanic crises. There have been some particularly successful examples whereby partnerships between
indigenous populations and volcano observato-
ries have enabled different knowledges and
values to be brought together in order to find
sensible solutions for all, for example as seen at
GNS in New Zealand and CVGHM in
Indonesia.

Technology is providing an impressive new
set of tools to aid in the communication of ideas
and practices from using: remote sensing and
GIS to help visualise crises and potential sce-
narios, to developing more engaging maps that
enable people to identify areas of danger and
safety, to the role of social media. The chapters
in Part Three of this volume demonstrate that
whilst these tools can give us eyes and ears to
information that was previously impossible (e.g.
satellite data and social media) there is plenty of
evidence to suggest that communication is still
largely about trust, building relationships and
shared understandings. As revealed in many of
the narratives in this book, trust is typically hard
to develop and is very easy to lose. Building and
maintaining trust and ensuring a shared under-
standing of processes and outcomes can only
occur through effective consultation. Building
human relationships is therefore as important for
successful volcanic crisis management as the
utilisation of new methods and technological
advancements.

Social media enables a more democratic
multi-directional process of communication
empowering the public to be part of a dialogue,
as the receivers of the latest data, or the providers
of first-hand observations and feedback. How-
ever, the abuse of social media can present a
threat to an institution's credibility and authority
as a knowledge source. It is, therefore, important
to be active in the management of social media,
even if this requires additional resources.

Clear communication is dependent upon an
informed understanding of the nature of volcanic
hazards and risks. Increasingly statistics are being
used to try and make sense of and communicate
the uncertain nature of volcanic hazards to a range
of stakeholders. The very process of developing
event trees and assessing the likelihood of events
can play a vital role in preparing for the unknown,
bringing various scientific data sets together to

form the basis of coherent decisions. It is
important, however, to remember that models are
only as good as the data they incorporate and
utilise, and that whilst extremely valuable, such
tools constitute just one of many. Yet, with
healthy levels of scepticism such tools are bene-
ficial and are increasingly being used. Indeed the
role of insurance remains significant in providing
the security required during such devastating
events, and significant modelling and statistical
innovation stems from the work in this sector.

Education, via formal or participatory
approaches is a vital component of effective
communication, involving as it does the receipt
or donation of information and learning that is
required for a successful outcome to volcanic
crises. The use of role-play, simulations, and the
adoption of innovative ways of learning for all
age ranges and stakeholders enables prepared-
ness actions and facilitates a speedy, more
effective, response to a crisis. Giving an indi-
vidual the power to make informed decisions
during a crisis is potentially the most life-saving
act possible.

2 Where Are We Now?

This book should be thought of as constituting a
first small step in revealing the state of the art,
bringing together a collection of revealing and
helpful narratives. Many more stories remain to
be documented, and future trends and potential
directions are constantly emerging. First, there is
clearly a need for more data; to gain a better
understanding of how the volcano world is
observed within different contexts. Continuing to
document and publish volcanic crisis communi-
cation experiences, both negative and positive,
will generate continued data for future analysis
on what leads to successes and failures, and what
kind of practices may be suitable to adopt in
different contexts.

Second, there is a need to build on the nar-
ratives presented in this volume, so as to move
from the descriptive to the comparative and
analytical, in order that lessons identified can
become lessons learned. It is hoped that the
information and ideas presented here will allow
those who wish it, to conduct further scrutiny and
analysis. There is always a requirement for con-
tinued description of crises, but theoretical anal-
ysis is where, ultimately, the most gains will be
made.

Third, continuous feedback and engagement
are critical requirements in this field of research.

Whilst it is important to recognise their intrinsic
academic value, which is frequently overseen, it
is also vital to share these stories not just for, but
also with various stakeholders, with the goal of
moving towards developing more robust vol-
canic crisis communication and management in
the future. To do this, let's make space for these
stories; let's value them.

**Open Access** This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, a link is provided to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter
are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license,
unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.
If material is not included in the chapter's Creative
Commons license and your intended use is not permitted
by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you
will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder.
# Erratum to: Crisis Coordination and Communication During the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull Eruption

Deanne K. Bird, Guðrún Jóhannesdóttir,
Víðir Reynisson, Sigrún Karlsdóttir,
Magnús T. Gudmundsson and Guðrún Gísladóttir

**Erratum to: Chapter “Crisis Coordination and Communication During the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull Eruption” in: D.K. Bird et al., Advs in Volcanology, DOI 10.1007/11157_2017_6**

The original version of the chapter was inadvertently published with an incorrect affiliation

for the author Deanne K. Bird, which was corrected to “Institute of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland” in chapter “Crisis Coordination and Communication During the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull Eruption”.

The updated online version of this chapter can be found at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11157_2017_6
Index

*Note*: Page numbers followed by *f* and *t* refer to figures and tables, respectively

A

Abnormalcy bias, 687, 688

Acidic LAZE plumes, 91

Acoustic flow monitors, 200

Action research approach, 510, 718

Active hydrothermal features as tourist attractions, 85

challenges of hazard communication, 92–95

challenging factors related to hazards in, 94t

definitions of hazard, risk and vulnerability, 87

hazard and crisis communication, 98

alerting the public, 98–99

hazard management, 99

authorities reluctant to announce evacuations,
100–101

people reluctant to respond to warnings, 99–100

hazards and risks in hydrothermal areas, communi-
cated to public, 96–98

hydrothermal tourist sites, challenges of, 88

direct use of hot springs as tourist attraction, 88–90

potential hazards, 90–92

hydrothermal versus geothermal, 88

main stakeholders and responsibilities, 99

visitor safety, 86–87

Yellowstone, 103

Active Volcanic Hazard Zone (AVHZ), 137

Active volcano, living with, 677

agency and knowledge as a basis for positive outcome
expectancy, 684

be frightened effectively, 684

developing preparedness through collaborative pro-
jects, 684–685

do not rely on authorities, 683–684

Kyojo as a contributor to empowerment and trust, 686

Kyojo encompassing community participation and
collective efficacy, 685–686

level 3 warning, challenge of living under, 686–687

methodological and theoretical considerations,
680–681

Sakurajima volcano's activities, 681–682

Taisho Eruption, 682–683

Active volcanoes of Colombia, 338f

Advanced Land Imager (ALI) sensor, 649t, 651

Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection
Radiometer (ASTER) sensor, 649t, 651, 652,
653f

Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer
(AVHRR), 644, 649t, 652

Advisory Committee for Popocatépetl Volcano, 237

Aegean Bronze Age 'Minoan' culture, 449

Aeronautical Information Services, Air Traffic Control,
and Air Traffic Flow Management, 55

Aesthetics, 665, 672–673

Affective processing system, 553

Agriculture, 42–43

and critical infrastructure, 166

volcanic ash impacts on, 25–26t

Airborne ash hazards, international coordination in
managing, 529

challenges and visions of future, 535–544

impacts of volcano eruption onto air traffic (case
study), 533–535

Volcanic Ash Advisory Centres (VAACs) and vol-
cano observatories

related to volcanic ash clouds in Northern Pacific
region, 531–533

Airborne Infrared Remote Sounder (AIRS), 644, 645f,
649t

Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs), 530, 543, 545

Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC), 533, 534

Air traffic, impacts of volcano eruption onto (case study),
533–535

Air Traffic Management Systems, 55, 58

Air Traffic Service Communication (ATSC), 543

Air travel, 52, 740

Akita, Japan, 90

Alaska, 24, 126, 530, 532, 739

Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO), 24, 38, 532, 739

Alert levels, 195, 310

Alessi, Giuseppe, 435

Allègre, C., 356, 358f

Ambae Island, Vanuatu, 465

Ambrym (Vanuatu), 74

American Geographical and Statistical Society, 670

American military bases, 191

Analytical (or Type 2) decision making, 554

Analytical processing systems, 553

Anchorage, 54, 324, 540

Anchorage Area Control Center (ACC), 531

Anchorage Flight Information Region (FIR), 531
Anchorage Meteorological Watch Offices (MWO), 531

Anthropac 4.9 software, 325

Aotearoa New Zealand, 464, 468, 474

Aquino, Corazon, 194

Arithmetical means, 576

Armero, 5, 193, 227, 340, 341, 344, 624

Art, 665–674

Ash, 29, 30–34, 39, 41, 44, 53, 60, 152, 165, 239, 272, 279, 280, 534, 535, 540, 541, 543, 585, 588, 595, 609, 622, 631, 682

Ash clouds, 8, 54, 57–58, 59, 60, 174, 185, 533, 534, 541f, 543, 598

Ash fall, 14, 24, 37, 55, 272, 283, 284, 472, 588, 591, 594–595, 635f, 686

Ashfall mapping, public involvement in, 38

Ash forecasting products, 34–38

Aso volcano, eruption of, 421

Asphyxiation, 166

Association of Nasa Cxhācxha Councils, 343

ASTER Urgent Request Protocol (URP), 651

ASTER Volcano Archive, 647t

The asymmetry principle, 507

Auckland Volcanic Field (AVF), 608

Auckland Volcanic Science Advisory Group (AVSAG), 557

Audiences, 191–192

Authentic learning, 695

Aviation, 8, 26, 34, 35, 51–63, 166, 529, 532, 535, 544, 545, 603, 609

Aviation colour code (ACC), 532, 605, 609

Azores, 420, 426–432, 427f
major eruptions on islands of, 428t

Azores Monitoring Centre, 74

Azufrado River, Colombia, 340

Ballistic projectiles, 122

Barangay Pasbul, 196

Bárðarbunga Volcano, 653–655

Basalt, 44, 150–152, 184, 359, 607

Basaltic lava, 150, 374

Bayesian approach. See Subjectivists

Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN), 10, 446

Bayesian Event Tree (BET) analysis, 10, 558

Bayesian statistics, 10, 292

BEAM/SNAP (software), 647t

Beehives, 212

Be frightened effectively, 684

Benavente earthquake (1909), 430

Berthier, Paul M., 435

Besançon, J., 358f

Bishop Tuff, 172

Black or White Smokers, 88

Blame gaming, 397
and blame avoidance, 405

Blanche Bay, 212

Boeing B747, 53

Botolan, 198, 200

Briefing and video, 193–195

British Airways Flight 9, 8

Brussels-based Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, 422

Bucao River, 201

Buea, 378

heavy rainfall in, 386

recovery and reconstruction, 388–389

volcanic ash impacts on, 26t

Bulusan Volcano (Philippines), locally-led crisis and evacuation management at, 488–490, 490f

Bureau of Land Management, 179

Business Interruption (BI), 596

B

Bailey, Roy, 176

Bakingili Village, 404

Ballistic ejecta, 165

Ballistic hazards, 121, 165

assessments of, 124–127

case studies, 134t

2012 Eruptions of Upper Te Maari, Tongariro, New Zealand, 134–137

2014 Eruption of Mt. Ontake, Japan, 139–141

Sakurajima Volcano, Japan, 138–139

Yasur Volcano, Vanuatu, 137–138

communication and risk management strategies, 127
on-going challenges in, 133–134

volcanic crisis, 132–133

volcano quiescence, 129–132

critical issues, 142–143

reflections on the four case study volcanoes, 142

risk management, 122–124

understanding context and assessing risk, 141

C

Caesar, Julius, 433

Calbuco (2011), 166

Caldera earthquakes, 209, 210f, 212f, 213f, 217f, 218f, 220f, 411

Caldera seismicity, 210, 217

California-Central Nevada Seismic Belt, 172

California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 176

California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (CEPEC), 182

California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES), 182, 185

California Volcano Observatory (CalVO), 185

Cameroon Volcanic Line (CVL), 374, 375, 400, 400f, 401, 402

location of, 376f

Camp Aguinaldo, 194

Campi Flegrei, 86, 208

Canarian Civil Protection, 294
Canaries, 290, 293–295, 300
volcanic emergencies in, 298–299, 301

Canterbury Earthquake, 696

Capelinhos eruption, 430

Cape Verde, Atlantic Ocean, 362–366

Carbon dioxide, 66
hazards from, 71–74
health effects of, 68t
release, 167

Carbon monoxide, 70, 74
health effects of, 68t

Career public servants, 517

Cartography, 38, 631

Catalog of Active Volcanoes of the World (1951–1975),
424

Catalogue of Active Volcanoes of the World (1960s), 426

CENAPRED (National Center for Disaster Prevention),
236, 237, 243

Cenozoic volcanic structures, 374

Centenary Project, 680, 684, 685

Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters
(CRED), 422

Centre of Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation
(CVGHM), 13, 109, 310, 315, 317

Cerro Machín volcano, 338
risk communication activities in, 345–348

Chalfant Valley earthquake, 178f

Check-back systems, 262

Chilean volcanoes, 166

Chloride compounds, health effects of, 68t

Chã das Caldeiras, 364f, 365

Cities on Volcanoes (COV), 183

citizens, 517, 519–520

Citizen science, 38

Civil Committee of the Zapatista Front of National Lib-
eration (CCFZLN), 331, 332

Civil defence advice for ashfall, Sistema Nacional de
Protección Civil, Colima, México, 40f

Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM), 608,
614

Civil Defence leaders and land Managers, 518

Civil Defense, 195, 517, 520

Civil Protection (CP) authority, 247

Civil Protection Act No. 82, 2008, 273

Civil Protection and Security Council, 273

Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), 483

Clark Air Base, 192, 194, 524

Clean-up operations, 44

Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite
Observations (CALIPSO) satellite, 79f

Co-eruptive, 375

Cognitive dissonance, 504

Colima Housing, 330

Collaborative projects, developing preparedness through,
684–685

Collapse, 36, 63, 109, 110, 172, 182, 346, 362, 365, 588,
596, 607, 608, 626, 648, 651, 660, 682, 700

Collective efficacy, 681, 685–686, 687

Colombia, volcanic risk communication in, 335, 339–348

Colombian Geological Survey (SGC), 339, 344, 345, 347,
349

Communication, 693–695
during volcanic crisis, 291

2011–2012 eruption of El Hierro, Canary Islands,
293–295

aspects of format and storage of information, 301

development of protocol, in Canaries, 298–299

eruptions of Etna and Stromboli, Italy, 295–298

financing aspects, 300–301

inexperience, 293

legal aspects, 301

organisational cultures, 291

uncertainty, 291–293

for lahar event, 261–262, 263

external communication, 265–266

internal communication during planning process,
263–264

internal communication during response, 264–265

technical capacity, 266–267

of natural hazard, 58–60

understanding role of, 752–753

Communication, shared meaning, 556–558

Communication challenges, in context of volcanic crisis
management, 399–400

Communication demands of volcanic ashfall events, 23

complex communication environment, 29–30

disaster risk reduction context, 27–29

during recovery, 45–46

idealised flow of communication between key partic-
ipants, 30f

ongoing communication demands, 44–45

sector-specific considerations for communication of
ashfall hazards and risks, 39

agriculture, 42–43

clean-up, 44

infrastructure, 43–44

public health, 39–42

standard protocols, 39

for assessment of hazards from leachable elements,
39

for assessment of respiratory health hazards, 39

tools for ash hazard characterisation and dissemina-
tion, 30–34

ash forecasting products, 34–38

hazard maps (background and crisis), 34

informal communication, 38

media releases, 38

public involvement in ashfall mapping, 38

volcanic ash impacts on society, 25–26t

Communication of science, 708

Communication of volcano-related information in New
Zealand, 608–609

Community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM), 8

Community-based disaster risk reduction (CBDRR), 117,
483, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492–494

Community-based emergency educators, 485

Community-based warning, 113–114
and response systems, 13
Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), 184

Community Engagement Theory (CET), 678, 680

Community participation, 681, 685–686, 687

Community resilience, 398, 399, 405, 406, 748

Comoros, Indian Ocean, 359–362

Complex communication environment, 29–30

CONACYT (Mexican National Science Council), 248

CONAFE (Consejo Nacional de Fomento Educativo), 329

Confirmation bias, 507

Conscious competence model, 503–504

Conscious incompetence, 504

Construction of protective shelters, 126t

Contingency planning, 214–215, 316–317

Continuous real-time telemetered ground deformation monitoring, 230

Convoluting emission plume, 226f

Cooke-Aspinall method, 10

Cook Inlet, Alaska, 24

Coordinated Incident Management System (CIMS), 259

Cordons, 137

Cordón Caulle eruption, Chile (2011), 25t, 26t

Crater Lake, 473

outgassing, 375, 379

warning levels, 260t

Crisis communication, 411, 696, 751

complexities of volcanic crisis communication, 4–5

effective crisis communication, 411

framing of, 157, 397–398

key events, 5–9

lessons identified from crises observed, 752

managing individual hazards during crisis, 751–752

understanding role of communications, 752–753

Crisis communication and blame management in Cameroon, 395

1999 eruption of Mt. Cameroon, 402

blame gaming and blame avoidance, 405

flaws in crisis communication, 403–404

blame gaming, 397

communication challenges, 399–400

framing, 397–398

lava flow hazard map around Mt. Cameroon, 401f

meaning-making, 396–397

organisational structure, for management of 1999 Mt.

Cameroon eruption, 404f

paradox of frequency, 398–399

policy failure, 398–399

South West Region (SWR) of Cameroon, 401, 403

volcanic hazards, 400–402

Crisis management, 101, 108, 114, 116–117, 402, 752

Crisis Period (1983–1985), 210

Crossed transaction, 505

Cross Polar Trans East Air Traffic Management Providers Working Group (CPWG), 542

Crowd-sourcing, 447

Cry-wolf reduction, 193

Cultural differences and importance of trust between volcanologists and partners, 515

cultural differences among players at volcanoes, 516–520

scientific communication, literature of, 516

scientists and non-scientists, trust between, 521

Mount St. Helens 1980, 521–522

Pinatubo 1991, 522–524

Usu 2000, 524–525

Culture, 8, 46, 115, 155, 160, 292, 307, 310, 419, 464, 507, 511, 516, 562, 578, 615, 746

Cumbal Volcanic Complex (CVC), risk communication activities in, 344–345

Curriculum development, 695

## D

Dalanaoan, 200

Dam-break lahar, 254

at Ruapehu, 255

Dangerous Geography, 717, 719

Debris, 44, 166, 239, 245, 280, 341, 386, 491, 596

Decade volcanoes, 421, 439

Decision-making, 13–14, 549

future response capacity, developing, 563–565

incident management and naturalistic decision making, 554–555

individual processing systems, 553–554

people and organizations, 560

organizational characteristics, 561

trust, 561–563

work-family relationships, 563

shared meaning in multi-agency response, 555

communication, 556–558

uncertainty, 558–560

Degree of confidence (or certainty), 575

Department/Directorate of Civil Protection (DCP), 402

Department of Civil Protection and Emergency Management (DCPEM), 273, 274, 276, 277, 279, 281, 282

Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), 199

Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), 199

Develocorder, 213

Dieng Volcanic Complex, Java, 71

Digital Elevation Models (DEMs), 14

Disaster mitigation, in Indonesia, 308–310, 319

Disaster risk management, 337, 388, 399, 553

Disaster risk reduction (DRR), 11, 27–29, 481, 482, 500–501, 503, 508, 509–510

Bulusan Volcano (Philippines), locally-led crisis and evacuation management at, 488–490, 490f

considerations for policy and practice of, 492–493

Mount Rainier (USA), disaster preparedness at, 484–488, 485f

participation, inclusion, and empowerment of local actors in, 490–492

participatory approaches to, 483–484

Diseases, 40, 41, 42, 116
Disruptive eruptions, 166

Diversity of hazards, 396

Do Canto, Ernesto, 430, 432f

Domes, 45, 110, 174f, 238, 239, 240, 244, 245, 452, 648

Do not rely on authorities, 678, 683–684

Durkheim, Emile, 323

E

Early Warning System (EWS), 5, 11–13, 343, 601

communication of volcano-related information in New Zealand, 608–609

lessons learnt from NZ case study, 614–615

New Zealand’s VAL systems, 609–610

standardising multiple systems into one for all volcanoes, 610–614

New Zealand’s volcanic risk setting, 605–608

recommendations for reviewing/developing VAL system, 615

producing draft version of revised VAL system and seeking feedback, 617

releasing revised system in collaboration with stakeholders, 617

understanding challenges and benefits of existing VAL system, 616–617

understanding context, 615–616

volcanic crisis communication, 617–618

Earth Movement, 597

Earthquake Commission (EQC) policy, 590

Earthquakes, 15, 44, 56, 73, 86, 103, 157, 172, 176, 183, 184, 208, 209, 216, 219–220, 225, 230, 341, 347, 379, 429, 430, 452, 587, 591, 592, 596, 614, 678

Eastern California, 174

Eastern Ruapehu Lahar Warning System (ERLAWS), 256, 259, 260, 261, 262, 266

East New Britain Provincial Government, 215, 231

Ecomuseum, 685

Economic pressure, 115, 550

Economy, volcanic ash impacts on, 26t

EDS (Eruption Detection System), 132, 256, 261

Educational research, 695

Educational resources in response to natural hazard risks, 715

approach, 718–719

data collection and analysis, 724

go-bags and post-curricula survey (case study), 725–726

post-lesson parent-teacher conferences, 726

volcanic hazard films (case study), 724–725

disasters and geography, 717

film-making, importance of, 720f, 722–723

interpretation/discussion, 726

go bags and post-lesson survey (case study), 727

parent-teacher meetings (case study), 728

volcanic hazard films (case study), 726–727

lessons, 719–720

methods, 719

school context, 717–718

volcanic hazard films (case study), 720–722

Ego states, 504

Ejido, 322

El Chichón, Mexico, 6t

Eldfell eruption, Iceland (1973), 26t

Election, 111, 178, 708

Electronic distance measuring (EDM) network, 213

El Hierro, Canary Islands, 290, 293, 299

Emerald Lakes, 137

Emergency Coordination Center (ECC), 521

Emergency management, 5, 7, 95, 254, 259, 261, 464, 698

Emergency managers, 11, 38, 41, 99, 291, 485, 556, 692

Emergency Managers and Emergency Services, 31t

Emergency Operations Centre (EOC), 256, 550, 562

Emergency response plans, 125t

Engineer Fortunato Dejoras, 191

Engineers, 198, 199, 517, 518, 520

Enlightenment, 422, 435

ENVI (Environment for Visualizing Images), 646, 647t, 658f

Epasa Moto, 406

Epicenters for earthquakes, 175f

Epistemology, 519

Erebus (Antarctica), 74

Erta Ale (Ethiopia), 74

Eruption Detection warning System (EDS), 256

Eruptions, communicating information on, 419

Azores, 420, 426–432

eruption catalogues from 1825 to 1981, 424t

global picture, 420–421

Mount Etna, Sicily, 420, 432–437, 433f

scientific information, communicating, 421–426

Eruption scenario, 587–588

Eruptions blog, 736

using Twitter to source volcanic crisis information from official sources, 739–740
from the public, 739

EUMETSAT (European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites), 646t

EUROCONTROL (European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation), 278

EuroHEAT project, 78

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 29–30, 42

Evacuation, 197, 226f, 317–318

Events and responses timeline (1994), 222t

Exclusion or restriction zones, 126t

Ex-hacienda San Antonio, 322

Exhalations, 239, 245

Expert elicitation, 8, 135, 137, 155, 292, 604

Exposure, 9, 25t, 36, 41, 42, 87, 132, 275, 475, 488, 574, 587

Extreme volcanic risk, communicating, 149

extreme eruptions, 150

linear model, 152–153

single event communication, 158

professionalising volcanology, 159–160

systemic volcanic risk, 155

managing communication, 155–157
nature of communication, 157–158

volcanic risk scenarios, 150

large magnitude basaltic eruptions, 150–152

large magnitude explosive eruptions, 152

volcanic risk webs, 152–155

Eyjafjallajökull, Iceland, 6t, 9, 29, 42, 58, 166, 271, 412, 520, 597

ash and aerosol cloud, 79f, 80

beyond Eyjafjallajökull 2010, 284–286

civil protection and emergency management in Iceland, 273–274

crisis coordination and communication during, 276

14 April 2010 events, 277–279

20 March 2010 events, 276–277

demand for accurate and timely information, 280–284

impact on local residents, 279–280

methods, 274–276

## F

Family involvement in the employment experience, 563

Famine, 66, 67, 166

Farmers and Agricultural Agencies, 32t

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 531

Federal Emergency Management Agency–National Disaster Preparedness Training Center, 184

Federal Register, 179

FIDUCAL (Foundation for Scientific Research and University Development of Caldas), 339, 340

Film-making, importance of, 720f, 722–723

Filson, John, 179

Flemish Interuniversity Council—University Development Cooperation, 375

Flight Information Region (FIR), 193, 531

Flooding, 15, 44, 266, 341, 378, 386, 468, 633, 725

Fluctuating activity, 216–219

Flujo de lodo, 193

Fluoride compounds, health effects of, 68t

Focus group discussions (FGDs), 378, 379–385t, 387, 414

Focus groups, 616

Fogo Volcano, Cape Verde, Atlantic Ocean, 362–366

Forecasting, 8, 9, 10, 35–36, 57, 76, 174, 274, 311, 356, 572, 574, 575–577, 617

Frutuosa, Gaspar, 430, 437

Fumaroles, 74, 165, 308, 344

FUTUREVOLC project, 286

## G

Galeras, Colombia, 6t

Galunggung volcano, 8, 53

Gareloi Volcano, Alaska, 126

Gases, 65–80, 166

Gas transport models, 73

Gazelle Peninsula, 206, 207f, 209

Gegerbuaya, 311

Geographical Information Systems (GIS), 14, 17, 518, 634, 655, 656, 659, 660

Geomatica, 647t

Geo Park, 685

Geoscientists, 517

Geospatial technologies, role of, 641

applications during volcanic eruptions, 646

Bárðarbunga Volcano and Its 2014–2015 eruption, 653–655

Merapi Volcano and its 2010 eruption, 648–651

Tolbachik Volcano and Its 2012–2013 eruption, 651–653, 652f

Geo-spatial tools and Virtual Globe applications, 655–659

real-time data, accessing, 646

remote sensing basics, 643–646

Geo-spatial tools and Virtual Globe applications, 655–659

Geostationary Earth Orbit Tagged Image File Format (GEOTIFF), 656

Google Earth, 656, 658f

Google Earth Engine, 659

Google Earth Pro, 656, 657f, 659

Google Maps Engine, 659

Hierarchical Data Format (HDF), 656

Geostationary Earth Orbit Tagged Image File Format (GEOTIFF), 656, 657f

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES-R), 644, 649t

Geothermal field, 88, 192, 337

Geothermal water, 88, 89

Geothermal wonderlands, New Zealand, 91

German Administration of New Guinea, 206

Geysers, 86, 165

Global Air Navigation Plan, 61

Global communication structures and decision-making systems, 155–158

Global cooling, 67, 152

Global flight routes, 154f

Globalisation, 466

Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment-2 (GOME-2) sensor, 649t, 653

Global positioning system (GPS), 228, 274, 452, 643

Global Volcanism Program (GVP), 421, 448, 734

Global Volcano Programme dataset, 452–453

Global warming, 573

Gluckman, Sir Peter, 4

GNS Science and Massey University, 466

Go-bags and post curricula survey, 723–724
data collection and analysis, 725–726
interpretation/discussion, 726–727

Google Earth Pro, 656, 658f, 659

Governance, 8, 142, 153, 156, 358, 359, 579

Government, 13, 24, 29, 77, 99, 116, 153, 156, 158, 159, 189, 197, 206, 214, 215, 231, 285, 290, 293, 294, 297, 299, 311, 312, 314, 317, 325, 330, 331, 346, 349, 361, 388, 397, 398, 399, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 430, 483, 490, 493, 502, 511, 562, 579, 595, 598, 684
Government Delegate, 388, 390

Graham, William, 179

Grande Comore Island, 359–362

Graniceros, 332

Great dry fog, 76–80

Greet Harbour, 211, 212, 217

Grimsvötn (2011), 38, 166, 285

Ground deformation, 174, 210, 213, 220

Guadeloupe, Caribbean, 355–359

Guria, 216

## H

Hamilton, Sir William, 666, 667, 669f

Handover Request Sheet (HRS), 537

Hawaiian Islands, 75

Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park, 90

Hazard

definitions of, 87

and risk assessments, 125t

and risk education resources, 126t

and risk maps, 125t, 634

Hazard assessment, 126, 346, 579, 623, 635, 641–660, 747

Hazard communication, 12, 95, 101, 175–183, 311, 312
  challenges of, 92–95

Hazard/danger zones and safe areas, 214f

Hazard education and risk communication, 92

Hazard intensity measure, 36–37

Hazard management, 99

authorities reluctant to announce evacuations,
  100–101

natural hazard management, 469, 475

people reluctant to respond to warnings, 99–100

Hazard maps, 13–14, 34, 110, 124, 126, 135, 138, 199, 337, 345

design and visual communication, 621–636

pre-eruption, 196

Hazards from leachable elements, assessment of, 39

Hazard Watch, 175

Heimaland Temporary Service Centre, 279

Herbart, JF, 323

Hernsheim, Edward, 208

Hill, David, 176

Holocene offsets, 172

Holuhraun eruption, 158, 159

Hot springs as tourist attraction, 88–90

How we learn, understanding of, 695

Huila, Colombia, 6t

Humboldt, Alexander Von, 671

Hunt, Captain Dwayne, 214

Hurricane Michelle, Cuba, 337

Hydrogen chloride, 70, 74

Hydrogen fluoride, 70, 74

Hydrogen sulfide ($H_2S$) gas, 66, 68t

Hydrothermal activity, 16, 86, 88, 98, 99, 100, 165, 590

Hydrothermal areas, 91f

vulnerability in, 87

Hydrothermal eruptions, 91

Hydrothermal events, 165

Hydrothermal fluids, 219

Hydrothermal hazards, 86, 87t, 101, 166

Hydrothermal tourist sites, challenges of, 88, 94t

direct use of hot springs as tourist attraction, 88–90

potential hazards, 90–92

Hygo Framework for Action (HFA), 565, 715–716

HYPERION (sensor), 649t, 651

## I

IASI (Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer)
(EUMETSAT), 649t

Iceland, 89

civil protection and emergency management in,
  273–274

Eyjafjallajökull (see Eyjafjallajökull, Iceland)

insurance case law in, 597–598

Icelandic Coast Guard, Icelandic Red Cross, National
Health Care System, rescue teams (ICE-SAR),
274, 282

Icelandic Meteorological Office (IMO), 57, 274, 281

Idealized program to reduce volcanic risk, 7f

ILWIS (Integrated Land and Water Information System),
647t

Imagine (software), 647t

Impact of precursory activity (I), 213–216

Implicit communication, 556

Incident Command System (ICS), 13, 14, 176–178

Incident Control Point (ICP), 254, 256, 263, 267

Incident management and naturalistic decision making,
554–555

Incompetency, blame management of, 398

Indigenous communities, 342, 343, 463–476

Indigenous Cumbal Reserve, 345

Indigenous knowledge/groups, 389, 464, 629

Individual processing systems, 553–554

Indonesia, 413, 648f

disaster mitigation in, 308–310

gaps in communication, 310

hazard perception, 312

mandate and policy, 312–313

problems and solutions in communicating hazards,
  313

building trust, 313–315

role of media, 313

steps of knowledge transfer and communication, 315

contingency plan, 316–317

evacuation drills, 317–318

leadership, 318–319

simulation (table top exercises), 317

socialization, 315–316

volcano activity in, 310t

Indonesia National Disaster Agency, 308

Informal communication, 38, 388

Information, availability of, 216

Information deficit model, 505

Information demands, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31–33t, 43

Information flow during volcanic activity, 311f
Information products and activities, evolution of, 33t

Information transfer, 313

Infrastructure, 43–44
volcanic ash impacts on, 25t

INGEOMINAS (National Institute of Mining and Geo-
logical Research—nowadays Colombian Geo-
logical Survey—SGC), 339, 340, 341,
342–343, 344

INGV (National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology) method, 10, 295, 297–298

InSAR (Interferometric synthetic aperture radar), 274, 449

Institute of Earth Sciences (IES), Iceland, 274, 281
Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (IVS), 532
Instructional communication research, 693–695
Instrumental volcano surveillance and community awareness, 205–231

lessons, 228–230
precursory activity (I) (1971–1985), 208–213
characteristics of Rabaul volcanic crises, 208–209
impact of, 213–216
volcanic crises period (1971–1985), 209–213

precursory activity (II) (1985–1994), 216–221
fluctuating activity, 216–219
outbreak of twin eruptions, 220–221
Ultimate Crisis, 219–220

Ultimate Crisis and outbreak of eruptions, responses to, 221–228
community response, 225–226
outcomes, 226–228
response of government authorities, 221–225
timeline of events and responses, 221

Insurance and volcanic crisis, 585
clean-up costs, 594–595
eruption scenario, 587–588

hours clause, 593–594
insurance case law, 596

Iceland, 2010, 597–598
New Zealand, 1995, 596–597
Philippines, 1991, 596
United States, 1980, 597

insurance policy wordings, 589–592
modelling and communicating volcanic risk, 586–587
range of insurance responses, 588–589
stakeholders, 595–596

Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR) program, 27
Integrated Rural Development Foundation of the Philip-
pines (IRDF), 488

Interactive communication system, 387

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 155, 578

International Airways Volcano Watch (IAVW), 35, 52, 54–55, 63, 166, 531
elements and relationships, 56f

International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth's Interior (IAVCEI), 8, 110, 183, 193, 290, 551, 558, 565t, 685

International Association of Volcanology and the Earth's Interior, 55

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), 35, 61, 531, 603
Aviation Colour-Code, 57t, 611t

International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR), 439, 603, 615

International Volcanic Health Hazard Network (IVHHN), 33, 39, 40

Irrationality of people, 502

ISAVIA (national airport and air navigation service pro-
vider of Iceland), 274, 278

Island communities, risk and crisis communication for, 366–367

Italian Civil Protection and MIA-VITA (a European research project), 366

Italian Geographical Society, 670

Italy, 208

Iztaccihuatl Volcanoes, 238

J

Japanese Jigoku—Hellish Experience, 94–95

Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), 532

Jet-turbine running temperatures, 52

Joint Information Center (JIC), 14

Joint Operations Center (JOC), 14

K

Kabiu, 229f

Kagoshima City, earthquake in, 679f, 683
volcanic preparedness in, 678

Kagoshima Prefecture, 684, 686

Kaikohe-Bay of Islands Volcanic Field (KBOIVF), 608

Kamchatka Peninsula, 531, 532, 533, 542

Kamchatka Volcanic Eruption Response Team (KVERT), 532, 651

Kameni Islands, Santorini, Greece, 449–451

Karthala, Grande Comore, Comoros, Indian Ocean, 359–362

Katla, 272, 273f, 276

Kaupapa Māori techniques, 464

Kawasan Rawan Bencana (KRB), 109

Keane, Hugh Perry, 454

Kelso Washington, 182

Kelud and Merapi, 312

Kelut eruption, Indonesia, 58

Kelut volcano, in East Java, 115
2007 volcanic crisis of, 115–116

Keyhole Markup Language (KML), 656

Keyhole Markup Zipped (KMZ), 656

Key to events, 177t

Kīlauea Volcano, Hawaiʻi, 68–69, 69f, 74, 75

Kliuchevskoi Volcano, 534–535, 539, 542, 545

KLM flight 867, 8

Knowledge transfer and communication, 315–319

Kokopo Telephone Exchange, 224

Kolombos volcano, 452

Krafft video, 199

Krakatoa, 1883, 447
Kumba, 378

heavy rainfall in, 386

interactive communication system in, 387

recovery and reconstruction, 389

Kyojo, 679, 685

as contributor to empowerment and trust, 686

encompassing community participation and collective efficacy, 685–686

L

La Grande Soufrière, Guadeloupe, 6t

Lahars, 12, 13, 15, 34, 56, 190, 196, 198, 199, 200, 245, 254, 256, 341, 517, 624, 628

Lahar warnings, 199–201

Lake Kivu, 73

Lake Monoun, 73, 375

Lake Nyos Disaster (LND), 73, 375, 402, 406

Laki (Iceland) eruption, 167

Laki (Lakigigar) eruption 1783–1784, 76–80

Laki Fissure eruption (1783–4), 150

Land managers, 517, 518, 520

LANDSAT-8 (Land Remote-Sensing Satellite (System)-8), 649t, 653

Landslides, 72, 122, 124, 308, 341, 386, 389, 521, 522

Mount Cameroon, 374–378, 378, 379

Land use planning, 125t

La Primavera Volcanic Complex, Mexico, 127

L'Aquila case, 4

Large magnitude basaltic eruptions, 150–152

Large magnitude explosive volcanic eruptions (LaMEVE), 152, 154f, 422

Large magnitude volcanic eruptions, 150

La Soufrière de Guadeloupe, Guadeloupe, Caribbean, 354, 355–359, 367

Late stage precursory activity, 228, 229

Lava, 34, 70, 75, 76, 90, 103, 109, 122, 135, 138, 150, 176, 185, 238, 297, 298, 361, 364, 374, 401, 403, 404, 439, 456, 457, 591, 622, 648, 653, 656, 681, 682

Lava flow hazard map around Mt. Cameroon, 401f

Lava flows, 165, 374

Lawrence, Andrea Mead, 179

La Yerbabuena, 322

methodology, 325

process of human resettlement and volcanic risk, 326

impressions of process of human relocation, 326–327

meanings of process of human relocation, 327–332

social representation, theoretical foundations of, 323–324

Leadership, in disaster management, 318–319

Learned helplessness, 506

Learning, 716

Legionella bacteria, 92

Levelling surveys, 210f, 211, 213, 217f

LIDAR (light detection and ranging) sensing, 58

Limbe, 378, 386

communication in, 388

heavy rainfall in, 386

landslides in, 387

recovery and reconstruction, 389

volcanic eruptions in, 386

Lindley, David, 225

Living near active volcano, 231

Local hazard level systems, 180t

Local newspaper, use of, 216

Locations of care centres for evacuees, 224f

Logistical arrangements

civil defence personnel, planning, 230

for volcano monitoring teams, 230

Long Valley Caldera, USA, 6t, 172, 173f, 174f, 175f, 178f, 186, 411

geologic map, 176

local hazard level systems for, 180t

Long Valley Monitoring Project, 176, 182

Long Valley–Mono Lake area, 184

Long Valley Observatory (LVO), 183, 185

Color-code system (1997), 180t

Los Angeles Times, 176

Loss, definition of, 592

Loss occurrence, 589, 590, 593

M

Macdonald, Gordon A., 216, 439

Magma-filled dykes, 219

Magmatic gas emissions, 174

Malumboy, 200

Mammoth Fire District, 184

Mammoth Lakes, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 182

City Manager for, 181

Police Department, 184

Town Council, 183

Town Manager, 183, 185

Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, 179, 184

Mammoth Mountain volcano, 174

Mammoth Scenic Loop, 178

Manam eruptions during 2004–05 in Papua New Guinea, 59

Māori/Iwi in New Zealand and Ngāti Rangi, 467–471

Maps, 13–14, 34, 110, 130–131, 132, 138, 199, 363, 426, 622–623, 624, 626, 634–636, 747, 753

Maraunot/BalinBaquero/Bucao river system, 198

Marella/Sto, 200

Masaya, 74, 208

Masking, 396

Mātauranga, 464

Mātauranga Māori, 468, 476

Matua te Mana, 464, 471, 474, 475–476

Matupit Island, 207, 208–209, 211, 212, 217, 219–220, 225, 228

Maximum earthquake magnitude, 228

Meaning-making, 396–397

Media, 31t, 33t, 38, 99, 116–117, 155, 230, 265, 308, 313, 521–522, 617, 622, 734 See also News media; Social media and networking, in volcanic crises and communication
Mefite D'Ansanto, Italy, 73

Memorandum of Understanding with the Ministry of
Civil Defence and Emergency Management
(MCDEM), 608

Merapi, Indonesia, 6t, 108, 109

Merapi 2006 eruption, 26t

Merapi Volcano and its 2010 eruption, 648–651

Merapi-type pyroclastic flows, 110

Mercury, health effects of, 68t

Mesoamerican cultures, 331

Messina earthquake of 1908, 430

Metals, health effects of, 68t

Meteorological Watch Offices, 54, 56, 57, 58, 60

MetService, 35, 609

Mexico, 16, 236, 240, 412, 447

Middle-sized earthquakes, 587

Minamidake crater, 681

Ministry of Territorial Administration and Decentralisation (MTAD), 389, 402

Miscommunication, 17, 132, 175, 491, 512

Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
(MODIS), 644, 649t, 652

Moimoi Tahuarangi, 472

Mono and Inyo County Emergency Operations Plan, 184

Mono and Inyo County Office of Emergency Services, 184

Mono and Inyo County Unified Commands, 184

Mono County, 176

Basic Emergency Plan of, 178

Board of Supervisors, 179

Public Health, 184

Sheriffs, 185

Mono-Inyo volcanic chain, 172, 174

Mono Lake, 172, 184

Mont Pelée, Martinique, 455

Montserrat, West Indies, 45, 130, 446, 627
volcanic crisis on, 41

The Monument to the Distrust of Science, 683

Mortality crisis, 77

Mt. Ambae, 627, 628f

Mount Cameroon, 373, 414

5-year bilateral capacity building project, 375

crisis communication and blame management (see
Crisis communication and blame management
in the Cameroon)

discussion, 389–390

focus group discussions, 377–379

general setting and types of natural hazards, 374–375

Government Delegate, 388

historical eruptions, 374

project motivation, 375–377

results, 379

crisis response structure and communication, 388

hazard and risk perception and preparedness,
379–388

recovery and reconstruction, 388–399

risk awareness and communication efficiency, 375

town planning service, 387

Mount Cameroon volcanic eruption (MCE), 401, 403,
405, 406

Mount Etna, Italy, 74, 292, 295–298, 420, 426, 432–437,
433f

silent 2004 eruption at, 292

Mt Fuji, 141

1707 eruption of, 595

Mount Hood volcano in Oregon, USA, 634

Mt. Ontake, Japan, 95, 129, 130, 133, 139–141, 142, 678
risk management and communication strategies, 134t

Mt. Pelée, Martinique, 1902, 5, 110, 111, 355, 356, 455

Mount Pinatubo, 8, 117, 186, 190, 199, 337, 411–412,
482, 523, 698, 752

Mount Rainier (USA), disaster preparedness at, 484–488,
485f

Mount Rainier National Park (MRNP), 487

Mount Rainier Volcano Work Group, 485

Mt. Ruapehu, 16, 132, 254, 255f, 412, 469, 475, 610

Mount St. Helens, 6t, 176, 182, 420, 515, 521–522, 597

Multi-agency response, shared meaning in, 556–558

Multidisciplinary risk communication, 337, 349

Multifunctional Transport Satellites (MTSAT), 649t

Mýrdalsjökull (Katla), 272

N

Naegleria fowleri, 92

National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM),
247

National Broadcasting Service, 283

National Center for Disaster Prevention (CENAPRED),
236–237

National Civil Protection System of México, 236

National Commissioner of Police (NCIP), 273

National Disaster and Emergency Services (NDES), 222

National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC), 191,
523

National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB), 308, 312

National Disaster Prevention and Management Programme, 402

National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
Council (NDRRMC), 191

National Earthquake Information Centres PDE catalogue,
210

National Geographical Institute (IGN), 294, 295

National Incident Command systems, 14

National Incident Management System (NIMS), 14

National Meteorological Agency (AEMET), 295

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), 644

National Park Service, 179

National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster
Prevention in Japan (NIED), 129, 139

National Risk Observatory, 402

National System for Disaster Prevention and Response
(SNPAD), 339t, 343

Natural hazard management, 469, 475

Natural hazards, 87, 131, 185, 319, 374–379, 389, 390,
396, 400, 403, 463–464, 465, 466, 468–469,
473, 474–475, 577–578, 580, 586, 617, 634,
672, 692, 698, 717, 721
Naturalistic decision making processes, 554, 564

Naturalization, 324

Nea Kameni, Santorini, 450–451

Network of Volcanic and Seismological Observatories of Colombia, 337

Nevado Del Huila Volcanic Complex (NHVC), 341, 344, 349

risk communication activities in, 341–344

Nevado del Ruiz Volcano (NRV), 6t, 193, 337, 338, 350, 482

disaster, 512

eruption, in 1985, 4, 5

risk communication activities in, 339–341

New Britain Island, 206, 207f

New challenges, 15–18

News media, 191, 244, 519, 520

New Zealand, 1995
communication of volcano-related information in,
608–609

Earthquake Commission (EQC), 608

insurance case law in, 596–597

Volcano Alert Level (VAL) systems, 609–610

standardising multiple systems into one for all vol-
canoes, 610–614

volcanoes in, 606f
risk setting, 605–608

Ngāraratuatara (Rotorua), New Zealand, 89

Ngāti Rangi, 465, 468, 469–471, 746

1945 eruption, 472

1995/1996 series of eruptions, 472

consultation and involvement pre-2007 lahar,
472–473

current communication, 473

experiences, 471

Tangiwai disaster of 1953, 472

Ngati Rangi Marae, 465

Ngati Rangi Tribe, 464

Nicaragua, 208

Non-damage Business Interruption (NDBI) policies, 598

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs), 191, 342, 483, 488, 489, 751

Non-profit organizations (NPOs), 483

Non-scientists, 505, 516, 518

Normal-Advisory-Watch-Warning, 185

Normalcy bias, 686–688

North American Plate, 174

Northeast (NE) earthquakes, 217

Notice of Potential Volcanic Hazards, 176, 179

NOTices to Air Men (NOTAMs), 54, 57

Notice-Watch-Warning system, 182

Noxious gases, 165

Nudge theory, 508

Numerical modeling, 34

Nyiragongo (Democratic Republic of Congo), 74

O

Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC), 533

Objectification, 324

Observatoire Volcanologique du Karthala (OVK),
359–361, 362

Observatoire Volcanologique et Sismologique de
Guadeloupe (OVSG-IPGP), 366

Observatoire Volcanologique et Sismologique de
Martinique, 366

Observing volcanic crises, 411–414

Occasional pyroclastic flows, 174

Odds, 578

Office of Civil Defense (OCD), 191

Official warning versus community-based warning,
113–114

Okada, Hiromu, 524

One voice, speaking with, 413

On-site seismic data processing, 214

Ontakesan Volcano Disaster Prevention Council, 141

Ontake Volcano, 678

Optical and Radar Federated Earth Observation
(ORFEO), 647t

Opticks, 647t

Oral tradition, 465, 471, 474, 520

Organizational characteristics, 561

Origin of Species (Darwin), 429

OSSO Corporation, 342, 343

Outbreak of twin eruptions, 220–221

Outcome expectancy, 677, 679, 681, 684

Owens Valley earthquake (1872), 172, 173f

Ozone Mapping Profiler Suite (OMPS), 649t, 653

Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI), 649t

P

Pacaya volcano eruption, Guatemala (2010), 44

Pacific Organized Track System (PACOTS), 533

Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre (PTWC), 603

Paerangi, 469

Páez River, Colombia, 341, 344f

Palangiangia, 229f

Paoha Island, 172

Papua New Guinea, 9, 53, 59, 206

Paradox of Frequency, 396, 398–399

Parallel processing systems, 553

Participatory 3D mapping (P3DM), 488, 489, 634

Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) approach, 483

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
methods, 317, 466

Participatory techniques, 553

Parícutin, Mexico, 1943, 447

Past eruptions
instrumental records of, 448–449
and preparations for future events, 445

Past eruptive activity, catalogued records of, 448

Paton's Community Engagement Theory (CET), 678,
680, 683, 684

Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient, 704

People and organizations, 560
organizational characteristics, 561
trust, 561–563
work-family relationships, 563
Perceptions of crisis communication instrument (PCC),
700, 701t, 705, 705f, 706

Permanent danger zone, 197, 488

Personal communications, 197–198

PEVOLCA (Plan de Emergencias Volcanicas de Canarias), 294, 295, 299

Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS), 191, 489, 523, 524, 532

Philippines, insurance case law in, 596

Physical (volcano-related) events, 221

Physical scientists, 519

Pinatubo, Philippines, 6t, 13, 522–524, 594f, 698

Pinatubo, the USGS-Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) team, 10, 13

Pinatubo Lahar Hazards Taskforce (PLHT), 199

Pinatubo lahars, 199

Pinatubo Volcano Observatory (PVO), 194

Plastic in volcano, 503–506

Plinian eruption, 587

Plugging effect, 507

PNPRU (National Emergency Preparation and Response Plan), 362

Pointe-à-Pitre, 336

Points of Agreement, 509

Points of Conflict, 509

Policy, 27, 153, 160, 402, 517

Policy failure, 398–399, 405, 406

Politicians, 517, 518, 520

Ponte, Gaetano, 437

Pools of boiling mud and water, 165

Popocatépetl Scientific Committee (PSC), 237, 246–247, 249

Popocatépetl Volcano, Mexico, 126, 235
evolution of the activity influencing public perception
of hazards, 240–243

future challenges, 248–250

geologic setting and eruptive history, 237–239

mitigation strategies since 1994, 243–246

ongoing unrest, eruptive activity, and volcanic crisis,
239–240

scientific strategies and scientific challenges, 246–248

Port Moresby, 216, 222, 224

Portuguese intellectual history, 430

Positive outcome expectancy, agency and knowledge as a
basis for, 684

Post-eruption lahar messages, 198

Potentially-active volcano, 231

Power failure, 108

Precursors, 452–453

Precursory activity (I) (1971–1985), 208–213

Precursory activity (II) (1985–1994), 216–221

Pre-eruption hazard map, 196

Pre-eruption messages, 192–193

Pre-eruption risk communication, 284

Preliminary Map of Potential Volcanic Hazard Complex
Cumbal, 344

Preliminary Potential Volcanic Risk Maps, 337

Preparedness, 13, 43, 77, 139, 294, 308, 313, 314, 317, 343, 362, 403, 405, 475, 483, 484, 485, 564, 629, 678–681, 683–686, 717–718, 725, 726, 729, 734, 748

Primary amoebic meningoencephalitis (PAM), 82

Principal Surveyor, 213

Principles of Geology (Lyell), 429, 435

Private Business, 29, 33t

Probabilistic cost benefit analysis, 558

Probabilistic volcanic hazard map data visualisations, 632f

Probability, 10–11, 14, 52, 87, 124, 126–127, 154, 174, 573, 574–575, 577–578

Probability tree, 196–197

Procedures, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 58, 63, 70, 90, 97, 133, 139, 260, 264, 266, 286, 290, 538, 541, 543, 564

Protected site status, 86

Protection of property, 230

Protocols, 8, 39, 290, 312, 361, 553

Provincial and Regional Disaster Management Agencies
(BPBD), 308, 312

Provincial Disaster Committee (PDC), 214

Provincial Disaster Plan (PDP), 214

Public health, 39–42, 166
crystalline silica, 41
particulate matter, 42
volcanic ash impacts on, 25t

Public Health Agencies, 32t

Public Information Unit (PIU)
establishment of, 215
initiatives of, 216

Puhipuhi-Whangarei Volcanic Field (PWVF), 608

Punongbayan, Raymundo, 193

Putative volcano, 421

Puyallup River Valley, 484–485

Puyehue-cordón Caulle (2011), 166

Pyroclastic Density Currents (PDCs), 12, 108, 165, 166, 586, 587–588, 591, 593

building trust in hazard and risk communication, 116

communicating PDC hazard zones, 108–110

improving crisis management capabilities for risk
reduction of, 116–117

people reluctant to evacuate, 114–116

warning people, 110
difficulties in providing timely warnings, 110–111
modern versus traditional warning tools, 111–113
official warning versus community-based warning,
113–114

Pyroclastic flows, 15, 66, 108, 109, 110, 114, 152, 174, 194, 196–197, 201, 226–227, 239–240, 244, 245, 311, 314, 341, 344, 346, 505, 517, 520, 524, 626, 648, 682

flow hazard, mitigating, 107

Q

Queen Elizabeth Park (QEP), 207f, 221

Quezon City, 196
R

Rabaul Caldera, 206, 207, 209f

Rabaul Gourier, 216

Rabaul Town, 221, 223
aerial view of, 229f

Rabaul Volcano, Papua New Guinea, 6t, 206, 208, 221
1994 eruption of, 412
frequency of eruptions at, 208
larger Rabaul earthquakes, 218t

Rabaul Volcanological Observatory (RVO), 206

RADAR (Radio Detection and Ranging), 643

RadarSAT-2 (CSA), 649t, 650f

Ralum, 223, 224

Rau-hā-moa, 469

Realistic Disaster Scenarios (RDSs), 587

Real-time data, accessing, 646

Real-time warning systems, 125t

Recovery plans, 45

Recupero, Giuseppe, 435, 436f

Red Crater, 607

Redoubt volcano, 8, 53

Red Union of Small Farmers, 322

Red-VTLAS, 244

Re-enchanting volcanoes, 665
aesthetics, fall and rise again of, 672–673
gentleman’s report, 667–670
scientist’s synthesis, 670–672

Regional Disaster Coordinating Council (RDCC 3), 199

Remote sensing, 17, 58, 124, 154, 422, 446, 448,
643–646, 649, 651, 653, 655–656, 659–660,
747

REMOTE-VIEW (software), 647t

Renaissance, 421, 422, 426, 434

Rescue services, 125t

Resilience, 17, 30, 44, 45, 78, 117, 286, 398, 405, 406,
464–466, 474, 476, 586, 717

Respiratory diseases, 42, 66, 67, 74, 166

Respiratory health hazards, protocol for assessment of, 39

Resurgent dome deformation, 183

Retrospective analysis of volcanic crises, 449
challenges for future, 457–458
Kameni Islands, Santorini, Greece, 449–451
eruption progress, 451–452
precursors, 452–453
Soufrière, St. Vincent, 453
eruptive history and impacts, 453–457

Rhyolite, 172, 174, 607

Risk and crisis communication best practices, 692, 694,
695–697 *See also* Risk communication

Risk and vulnerability, 87

Risk communication, 8, 43, 70, 92, 114, 116, 131, 133,
139, 156, 157, 336–338, 354, 355, 366, 367,
491, 500, 502–506, 512, 553, 692, 696, 710
in Cerro Machin Volcano, 345–348
in Nevado Del Huila Volcano, 341–344
in Nevado Del Ruiz Volcano (NRV), 339–341
recommendations, 348–350
in Volcanic Complex Cumbal, 344–345
during volcanic emergencies in Colombia, 339–348

Risk ladder, 522, 523f

Risk management, 29, 92, 94, 99, 100, 101, 126t

at Galeras volcano, 499
plastic in volcano, 503–506
rebuilding the trust, 508–512
risk perception around galeras, 501–503
working with different ways of knowing, 506–508
and mitigation systems, 124

Risk maps, 337, 342f

Rittmann, Alfred, 436f, 437

Role-play, 691, 695
data analysis, 700–702
data collection, 699–700
educational research, 695

implications for teaching of volcanic crisis communication and future work, 710

instructional communication research, 693–695

risk and crisis communication best practices, 695–697

science communication, best practices of, 706–707

students’ communication confidence, improvement of,
702–705, 707–708

study participants, 699

volcanic crisis communication
improvement of student perceptions of, 705–706
student perceptions of best practice in, 708–710

volcanic hazard simulation, 697
design and development of, 697–698
happenings during, 698–699

volcanic risk communication training, importance of,
692–693

Rongo, 471
Rotorua, New Zealand, 89
Royal Society's Krakatoa Committee, 447

RSAM (Real-time Seismic Amplitude Measurement),
241–242

Ruapehu Alpine Lifts (RAL), 596, 597
Ruapehu Crater Lake dam-break lahar, in New Zealand,
253

anticipated lahar, 255–256

background, 254–255
communication, 261–262

Crater Lake warning levels, 260t

lahar event, 262–263
method for communication research, 263

planning a response to, 256–261

results and discussion, 263
external communication, 265–266
internal communication, 263–265
technical capacity, 266–267

Ruapehu volcano, 36f, 39, 132f, 465, 466–467, 474, 629

Rūaumoko, 471

S

Sabit, Julio, 198
SABO dams, 11, 108, 111
Saint-Pierre, 110
Sakurajima Museum, 685, 687
Sakurajima Taisho Eruption Monument, 683
Sakurajima Volcanos (SV), Japan, 133, 138–139, 142, 678, 681, 748

overview, 681

risk management and communication strategies, 134†

Taisho eruption, 682

damage brought about by, 682

Salazar, António, 429

San Andreas, 174

San Guillermo parish church, Bacolor (Philippines), 594f

San Marcelino, 200

Santorini, Greece, 449–451

Sao Miguel Island, 74

Sarychev-Peak Volcano, eruption of, 543

Satellite imaging, 278, 364, 532, 533, 656, 735, 747

Savo Island, 465

School, 138, 328, 329, 331, 342, 357, 377, 387, 389, 399, 485, 486, 489, 490, 717

Science communication, best practices of, 706–707

Scientific Alert Level (SAL), 609, 611†

Scientific Committee for the Assessment and Surveillance of Volcanic Phenomena (CSEV), 299

Scientific communication during volcanic crises, 572

Scientific information, communicating, 421–426

Scientism, 507

Scientist-in-Charge (SIC), 183

Scientists and non-scientists, trust between, 521

Mount St. Helens 1980, 521–522

Pinatubo 1991, 522–524

Usu 2000, 524–525

Seaquake, 590

Secretary of National Defense Fidel Ramos, 194

Seismic crises (1980–1985), 211†

Seismic data acquisition, 213, 230

Seismicity, 10, 71, 72, 103, 135, 140, 174, 184, 208–212, 216–217, 219, 239, 241, 243f, 245f, 249, 355, 362, 452, 456

Seismic monitoring equipment, 224

Seismic swarms, 209, 219

Self-reported communication competence instrument (SPCC), 700, 703, 703f, 704f, 706

Sendai Framework for Action (SFA), 27

Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, 156, 692

Seventh Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration, 286

Shannon-Weaver model of communication, 692

Shared meaning, 553, 555
in multi-agency response (communication), 556–558
uncertainty, 558–560

Short wave infrared (SWIR), 651

Showa Crater, 681

Sicily, 292, 296f, 420–421

Sierra Nevada, 172, 173f, 183

Significant Meteorological Information (SIGMET), 533, 609

SIGnificant METeorological information about aviation weather hazards (SIGMETs), 54, 57, 58

Silicosis, 41

Simulation (table top exercises), 317

Sinabung, Indonesia, 6†, 311

pyroclastic flows of Sinabung volcano, 314f

SINAPROC (National Civil Protection System of México), 236, 237, 240, 250

Single event communication, 158–160

Skin burns, 166

Small islands states

challenges of volcanic crises on, 353

Fogo Volcano, Cape Verde, Atlantic Ocean, 362–366

Karthala, Grande Comore, Comoros, Indian Ocean, 359–362

La Soufrière de Guadeloupe, Guadeloupe, Caribbean, 355–359

risk and crisis communication for island communities, 366–367

Smithsonian Institution Global Volcanism Program, Washington D.C., 590

Social and religious organizations, 483

Socialization, 315–316, 413

Social media and networking, in volcanic crises and communication, 733

discussion and recommendations to volcano observatories, 741–742

eruptions blog: using Twitter to source volcanic crisis information, 736

from official sources, 739–740

from public, 739

Weekly Volcanic Activity Report, 734–736

Social representation, theoretical foundations of, 323–324

Societal impacts, 24–26†

Software de Procesamiento de Imágenes (SOPI), 647†

Solomon Islands, 465

Somerville, Mary, 670

Soufrière, St. Vincent, 453–457

Soufrière Guadeloupe, 192

Soufrière Hills, Montserrat, 6†, 593
eruption of, 593

Soufrière Hills volcano, 8, 45, 626

Southern Emergency Management Plan, 262

Spanish National Research Centre (CSIC), 294

Spasmodic bursts, 176

Speccatori, Joe, 216

Spinning Enhanced Visible and Infrared Imager (SEVIRI), 649†

SPIRITS (software), 647†

St.Vincent

1718 eruption of, 454

1812 eruption of, 455

eruptive sequences at, 457f

Stakeholder engagement, 126†, 508

Stakeholders, 4–5, 14, 29, 34–35, 45, 99, 130, 236, 310, 317, 362, 502

Standardisation, 603–605, 616

State of California Governer's Office of Emergency Services (CalOES), 176

Statistics, communication of, 578–579

Statistics and probabilities in the quantification of uncertainty

concepts, definitions and misconceptions, 573

disciplines and schools of thought, 574–575
forecast, reliability of, 575–577

measures of uncertainty, 574

Stealth magma supply events, 184

Stratosphere, 167

Stromboli, Italy, 122, 130, 295–298, 296f

Strombolian-style activity, 374

Students' communication confidence, improvement in,
702–705, 707–708

Subjectivists, 575

Sublime, 667, 669, 670, 671

Suburban hydrothermal activity, Rotorua, New Zealand,
591f

Sulfate aerosol, 66–67, 68t, 74, 76, 78, 80

Sulfur dioxide, 68t, 70, 74, 75, 76

Sulphur Creek, 208

Super-eruption, 153

Super-ordinate mental model, 563

Supervolcanoes, 159, 160, 607

Support to Aviation Control Service (SACS), 647t

Swift trust, concept of, 562

Syn-eruptive degassing, 355

Systemic volcanic risk, 155

managing communication, 155–157

nature of communication, 157–158

T

Table top exercises (TTX), 310, 317

Taisho Eruption, 678, 680, 681, 682, 684, 685, 686

damage brought about by, 682

population response of, 682

delayed and divided responses, 682–683

panic followed by false rumours, 683

Talwat, 207, 223, 226, 226f

Tambora Volcano, Indonesia, 67, 446–447

Tāne Māhuta, 468

Tangiwai disaster of 1953, 472

Taranaki Volcano, 608

Taupo Volcanic Centre (TVC), 607

Taupo Volcanic Zone (TVZ), 467, 605, 607, 608

Tavana, 207

Tavurvur emission plume, engulfing Rabaul Town, 223f

Tazieff, H., 356, 358f

Telemetering electric tiltmeters, 220, 230

Telemetry links, 224

Telephone communications, 224

Telephone exchanges, 230

Te Maari, 464

Te Maari Crater, 607

eruption at, 607f

Te One Tapu, 471

TerraSAR (Astrium), 649t

Thermal infrared (TIR) data, 651

Threat, assessing, 9

Tide gauges, 213, 217, 220, 230

Tiemperos, 332

Tiko, 404

Timely warnings, providing, 110–111

Time workers, 332

Tohoku tsunami, 225

Tolbachik Volcano and its 2012–2013 eruption, 651–653,
652f

Tomas River, 201

Tongariro National Park, 135, 464

Tongariro National Park Management Plan 2006–2016,
466

Tongariro River, 255

Tongariro Volcanic Centre (TVC), New Zealand, 131f,
133, 466, 467, 607, 629, 630f

Torahiko Terada, 684

Tourist, 74, 84–101, 131, 133

Town meetings and meetings, with special interest
groups, 216

Town planning service, 387

Toxic gas emissions, 90, 94, 97, 400

Traditional knowledge, 117, 464, 466, 471, 474–475, 520

Transactional Analysis (TA), 504, 505

Troposphere, 167

Trust, 561–563

Tsunami, 165, 219, 228, 298, 308, 386, 588, 591, 592,
603, 683, 719

Turagunan, 229f

Twitter, 739–740

Two-color geodimeter data, 182

Typhoon Yunya, 13, 596

Typhoon Diding, 596

Typology for volcanoes, 458

U

Ultimate Crisis, 219–220, 225

Ultimate Crisis and outbreak of eruptions, responses to,
221–228

Uncertainty

assessing and communicating, 9–11

quantifying and communicating, 572–573

communication of statistics, 578–579

concepts, definitions and misconceptions, 573

disciplines and schools of thought, 574–575

forecast, reliability of, 575–577

measures of uncertainty, 574

statistics and probabilities, role of, 573

using probabilities to communicate uncertainty,
577–578

volcano forecast, communication of, 579

shared meaning, 558–560

Unconscious competence, 504

Uncontrolled urbanisation, 386

Unified Command System (UCS), 178, 184

Uniform ground-based and aviation warning system, 181t

UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction) Sendai Framework for
Action (SFA), 27

UNDHA (United Nations Department of Humanitarian
Affairs) mission, 227

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage sites,
464
United States, insurance case law in, 597

U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 179, 521

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 5, 13, 175, 213, 237, 485, 487, 521–522, 523, 532, 646t

hazard warning systems (HWS), evolution of, 180t

Volcano Disaster Assistance Programme (VDAP) team, 10

Volcano Hazards Program, 103

volcano observatories, 15

-wide systems, for hazard statements, 180t

U.S. National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS), 9

University of Alaska, 532

Unusual hybrid earthquakes, 219

Upper Te Maari, Tongariro Volcanic Complex, New Zealand, 133, 134–137

risk management and communication strategies, 134t

Urgent Request Protocol (URP), 651

Usu 2000, 524–525

Utility Managers, 32t

## V

Vanuatu Meteorology and Geo-Hazards Department (VMGD), 138

VEI (Volcanic Explosivity Index) 6 eruption, 192, 196, 201, 293, 586, 587

Very long period (VLP) earthquakes, 643

Vigias, network of, 519

Villarica (Chile), 74

Virtual Globes, 656, 659

Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS), 649t

Visitor safety in hydrothermal environments, 86

Visual communication, 624
complex content, communicating, 624–627
considering audience perspectives, 627–630

Visual design, 630
exploring and testing different designs, 631–634
visualising hazard in different formats, 634

Vog hazards, 74–76, 76f

Volcanic activity, 389, 590, 591

Volcanic aerosols, 185

Volcanic Alert Bulletins (VABs), 614

Volcanic Alert Level (VAL) systems, 138, 747
bulletins and media advisories, 125t

Volcanic ash, 166

Volcanic Ash Advisories (VAAs), 35, 54, 531, 609

Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre (VAAC), 35, 54, 57, 58, 155–156, 278, 530, 531–533, 597, 603, 609, 735

areas of responsibility of all VAACs, 531f
at Tokyo, 532–533, 535, 540
at Washington, 534

Volcanic ash and aviation, 51

challenges, 57
ash-cloud detection and forecasts, 57–58
communications, 58–60
science challenges, 60–61

International Airways Volcano Watch (IAVW), 54–55

volcano monitoring, 55–57
warning system enhancements, 61–63

Volcanic Ash Graphic (VAGs), 533, 534f

Volcanic ash risk mitigation, enhancement of, 61–62t, 63

Volcanic Ash Transport and Dispersion (VATD), 35

Volcanic Cloud Monitoring, 647t

Volcanic Complex Cumbal, 338
risk communication activities in, 344–345

Volcanic crises, 290, 695, 727, 747–748, 752
1971–1985, 209–213

Merapi, Indonesia, 112f
at Rabaul, 208

retrospective analysis of, 449
social media and networking, 733–743
and unrest, 228

Volcanic crisis communication, 617–618

implications for teaching of, 710
improvement of student perceptions of, 705–706
student perceptions of best practice in, 708–710

Volcanic Disasters Assistance Program, 156

Volcanic environments, 93, 99, 101, 492–493, 673

Volcanic eruptions, 4, 24, 58, 63, 122, 185, 207, 286, 308, 406, 532, 586, 589, 590, 592, 594, 596, 646–648, 727, 734, 751

Volcanic gases, 65, 166
developing risk mitigation strategies for CO₂ flows and accumulations, 71–74
great dry fog, 76–80
health effects of volcanic gases, 68t
insidious hazards, 66–71
monitoring and communicating vog hazards, 74–76
perspectives for future, 80

Volcanic Global Risk Identification and Analysis Project (VOGRIPA), 422

Volcanic hazard films (case study), 720–722
data collection and analysis, 724–725
interpretation/discussion, 726–727

Volcanic hazard maps into the future, 634–636

Volcanic hazards, adapting warnings for, 165–167, 189–202

audiences, 191–192

lahar warnings, 199–201
briefings and video, 199
hazard maps, 199
personal factors, 200–201
probabilities of lahars, 200
short-term, immediate, 199–200

lessons to remember, 201–202
post-eruption lahar messages, 198
pre-eruption messages, 192–193

warnings preparation and presentation, 193–198
alert levels, 195
briefing and video, 193–195
personal communications, 197–198
pre-eruption hazard map, 196
probability tree, 196–197
recommendations for evacuation, 197

Volcanic hazards assessments, 214

Volcanic hazard simulation, 697
design and development of, 697–698

happenings during, 698–699

Volcanic Observations and Warning Centers (VOWCs),
532, 533

Volcanic risk communication training, importance of,
692–693

Volcanic risk scenarios, 150

large magnitude basaltic eruptions, 150–152

large magnitude explosive eruptions, 152

volcanic risk webs, 152–155

Volcanic sulphate, 167

Volcanic Traffic Light Alert System (VTLAS), 236, 240, 241f, 244, 245, 246, 249

Volcanic unrest and hazard communication, in Long
Valley Volcanic Region, California, 171–186

geologic setting and background, 172–174

hazard communication (1978–2000), 175–183

maintaining community awareness and preparedness,
183–185

Volcano Activity Notice (VAN), 14

Volcano Alert Bulletin (VAB), 608

Volcano Alert Level (VAL) systems, 605, 609–610, 615
producing draft version of revised VAL system and
seeking feedback, 617

releasing revised system in collaboration with stakeholders, 617

understanding challenges and benefits of existing
VAL system, 616–617

understanding context, 615–616

Volcano alert levels, 14, 208, 315t

Volcano Alert Notifications (VANs), 184

Volcano alert systems (VALs), 236

Volcano Colima in Mexico, 413

Volcano contingency plan (VCP), 214, 225

Volcano Disaster Assistance Program (VDAP), 11, 213

Volcano Disaster Prevention Council, 139, 141

Volcano Early Warning System (VEWS), 9, 11, 12, 16

Volcanoes of the World (1981), 422

Volcano explosivity indices (VEI), 651

Volcano hazards program, 176, 734

Volcanological and Seismological Observatory of Popayán (OVSPo), 343

Volcanology, quantifying and communicating uncertainty
in, 572–573

professionalising, 159–160

Volcano monitoring, 55–57, 125t, 213–214

Volcano Notification Service (VNS), 185

Volcano Observatory Notice for Aviation (VONA), 14,
54, 57, 184, 532, 603, 609

Volcano quiescence, 129–132

Volcano-tectonic (VT) earthquakes, 208

Volcano-tectonic (VT) energy, 248

Volcano Traffic Light Alert Systems (VTLAS), 412

Volcview, 647t

Volcán de Colima, Mexico, 321

VOLFilm (Multilingual and multiplatform films database), 117

VOLKAM Sheet, 542, 543–544, 544f

Voluminous lava flow, 401

Volunteer labour, 44

Vulcan Island eruption, 208, 212, 227f

Vulnerability, 42, 43, 61, 74, 87, 100, 116, 117, 127, 129,
399

## W

Waiata, 465, 468, 470, 471, 472

Waikato Regional Council (New Zealand), 97–98

Waikato Stream and Tongariro River, 256

Waimangu Volcanic Valley, New Zealand, 96–97

Wajib Latih, 314, 315, 316, 317, 319

Wall painting, 421

Ward, Brian, 214

Warning signs, in Japan and Iceland, 92f

Warnings preparation and presentation, 193–198

Warning system enhancements, 61–63

Warning tools, modern versus traditional, 111–113

Washington Emergency Management Division, 487

Weekly Volcanic Activity Report (WVAR), 734, 735, 736
contribution of social media to, 735–736

Whangaehu River, 254, 255, 263, 470, 590

White Mountains, 172

Winstone Pulp International (WPI), 473

Wisner, Ben, 337, 482, 490, 492

Work-family relationships, 560, 563

World Organization of Volcano Observatories (WOVO),
55, 117

WOVOdat, 448

Worlds of life, 323

## X

X-year floodplain, 199

## Y

Yasur Volcano, Vanuatu, 123f, 133, 137–138, 142

risk management and communication strategies, 134t

Year without a Summer of 1816, 447

Yellowstone, 16, 89, 97, 100, 101, 103, 607

Yellowstone National Park, USA, 97, 100

Yellowstone Volcano Observatory (YVO), 103

Youngest Toba Tuff (YTT) eruption, 152

## Z

Zafferana Etnea, 297

Zambales Lahar Scientific Monitoring Group (ZLSMG),
199, 200

Zapatista Front, 331

Zonation, 124–125

Zones, 13–14, 27f, 73, 93, 107–117, 142, 143, 210, 214f,
308, 314, 315, 387, 626, 627