Volcano alert level systems: managing the challenges of effective volcanic crisis communication

Abstract

Over the last four decades, volcano observatories have adopted a number of different communication strategies for the dissemination of information on changes in volcanic behaviour and potential hazards to a wide range of user groups. These commonly include a standardised volcano alert level system (VALS), used in conjunction with other uni-valent communication techniques (such as information statements, reports and maps) and multi-directional techniques (such as meetings and telephone calls). This research, based on interviews and observation conducted 2007–2009 at the five US Geological Survey (USGS) volcano observatories, and including some of the key users of the VALS, argues for the importance of understanding how communicating volcanic hazard information takes place as an everyday social practice, focusing on the challenges of working across the boundaries between the scientific and decision-making communities. It is now widely accepted that the effective use, value and deployment of information across science-policy interfaces of this kind depend on three criteria: the scientific credibility of the information, its relevance to the needs of stakeholders and the legitimacy of both the information and the processes that produced it. Translation and two-way communication are required to ensure that all involved understand what information is credible and relevant. Findings indicate that whilst VALS play a role in raising awareness of an unfolding situation, supplementary communication techniques are crucial in facilitating situational understanding of that situation, and the uncertainties inherent to its scientific assessment, as well as in facilitating specific responses. In consequence, ‘best practice’ recommendations eschew further standardisation, and focus on the in situ cultivation of dialogue between scientists and stakeholders as a means of ensuring that information, and the processes through which it is produced are perceived to be legitimate by all involved.

Volcanoes on borders: a scientific and (geo)political challenge

“…Communication with the public and also between scientists and between decision-makers is a complex, non-linear process (Donovan and Oppenheimer 2014;Fearnley and Beaven 2018;Marzocchi et al 2012;Paton 2008). In general, many of the issues that are faced routinely in volcanic crises, such as the need for outreach when the volcano is quiet, and the importance of transparency, also apply in cross-border situations.…”

“…Volcano alert level systems and warning systems are complex and varied (Fearnley and Beaven 2018;Fearnley et al 2012;Potter et al 2014;Winson et al 2014). They also typically apply at national or sub-national level (with the exception of the aviation code).…”

“…Again, there is an opportunity here for international collaboration between neighbouring nationstates to avoid contradictory or controversial cases in which different decisions are made across a border (as occurred at Nabro, for example). This also requires social scientific input, because alert protocols are fundamentally social systems, both in how they are designed and implemented and in their impacts Donovan et al 2017;Eiser et al 2015;Fearnley and Beaven 2018). Different systems across a border might be justified, for example, if there is significant cultural divergence but would need to be communicated and translated to the appropriate neighbours.…”

Hazard communication by volcanologists: Part 1 - Framing the case for contextualisation and related quality standards in volcanic hazard assessments

“…The perception that the production of scientific information has been respectful of stakeholders' divergent values and beliefs, unbiased in its conduct, and fair in its treatment of opposing views and interests. Cash et al (2003) and Sarrki et al (2014) adopted by Fearnley and Beaven (2018) in the context of volcano alert systems.…”

Risk perception at a persistently active volcano: warnings and trust at Popocatépetl volcano in Mexico, 2012–2014

“…Volcanic alert levels, like that in Fig. 2 for Popocatépetl, provide important communication tools for volcanologists and are widely used (Fearnley and Beaven 2018). As in other hazard domains, alert level systems are boundary objects: they allow communication across the 'boundary' between science and society (Star and Griesemer 1989) and may serve different functions on each side.…”