Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70260205

Following the tug of the audience from complex to simplified hazards maps at Cascade Range volcanoes

Abstract

Volcano-hazard maps are broadly recognized as important tools for forecasting and managing volcanic crises and for disseminating spatial information to authorities and people at risk. As scientists, we might presume that hazards maps can be developed at the time and with the methods of our discretion, yet the co-production of maps with stakeholder groups, who have programmatic needs of their own, can sway the timing, usability, and acceptance of map products. We examine two volcano hazard map-making efforts by staff at the U.S. Geological Survey. During the 1990s and early 2000s scientists developed a series of hazard assessments and maps with detailed zonations for volcanoes in Washington and Oregon. In 2009, the National Park Service expressed the need for simplified versions of the existing hazard maps for a high-profile visitor center exhibit. This request created an opportunity for scientists to rethink the objectives, scope, content, and map representations of hazards. The primary focus of this article is a discussion of processes used by scientists to distill the most critical information within the official parent maps into a series of simplified maps using criteria specified. We contextualize this project with information about development of the parent maps, public response to the simplified hazard maps, the value of user engagement in mapmaking, and with reference to the abundance of guidance available to the next generation of hazard-mapmakers. We argue that simplified versions of maps should be developed in tandem with any hazard maps that contain technical complexities, not as a replacement, but as a mechanism to broaden awareness of hazards. We found that when scientists endeavor to design vivid and easy-to-understand maps, people in many professions find uses for them within their organization’s information products, resulting in extensive distribution.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 42.08636486144181° to 48.90824166864729° latitude; -124.62276091044785° to -120.18889174031804° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Carolyn L. Mastin, David W. Ramsey, William E. Scott, Lisa M. Faust, Joseph A. Bard, Patti Wold. 2024-04-15. Following the tug of the audience from complex to simplified hazards maps at Cascade Range volcanoes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13617-024-00142-z

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

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

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

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

Journal of Applied Volcanology↗

Seeing is believing: Livestream video monitoring of Hawaiian eruptions

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

Hawaii↗

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

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

Journal of Applied Volcanology↗