Volcano hazards program in the United States

Tilling, Robert I.; Bailey, Roger C.

doi:10.1016/0264-3707(85)90045-6

Cited by 19 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As emphasized by Tilling and Bailey [1985], the effective mitigation of volcanic risk builds from a foundation of long-term basic research on volcanoes, inactive as well as active (Figure 1). An improved knowledge of "how volcanoes work," the focus of a recent international symposium [Tilling, 1987b[Tilling, , 1988a, is the common point of departure for all volcanic hazards studies.…”

Section: Of Volcanic Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Volcanic hazards and their mitigation: Progress and problems

Tilling¹

1989

Reviews of Geophysics

Self Cite

189

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the beginning of the twentieth century, volcanology began to emerge as a modern science as a result of increased interest in eruptive phenomena following some of the worst volcanic disasters in recorded history: Krakatau (Indonesia) in 1883 and Mont Pelée (Martinique), Soufrière (St. Vincent), and Santa María (Guatemala) in 1902. Volcanology is again experiencing a period of heightened public awareness and scientific growth in the 1980s, the worst period since 1902 in terms of volcanic disasters and crises. A review of hazards mitigation approaches and techniques indicates that significant advances have been made in hazards assessment, volcano monitoring, and eruption forecasting. For example, the remarkable accuracy of the predictions of dome‐building events at Mount St. Helens since June 1980 is unprecedented. Yet a predictive capability for more voluminous and explosive eruptions still has not been achieved. Studies of magma‐induced seismicity and ground deformation continue to provide the most systematic and reliable data for early detection of precursors to eruptions and shallow intrusions. In addition, some other geophysical monitoring techniques and geochemical methods have been refined and are being more widely applied and tested. Comparison of the four major volcanic disasters of the 1980s (Mount St. Helens, U.S.A. (1980), El Chichón, Mexico (1982); Galunggung, Indonesia (1982); and Nevado del Ruíz, Colombia (1985) illustrates the importance of predisaster geoscience studies, volcanic hazards assessments, volcano monitoring, contingency planning, and effective communications between scientists and authorities. The death toll (>22,000) from the Ruíz catastrophe probably could have been greatly reduced; the reasons for the tragically ineffective implementation of evacuation measures are still unclear and puzzling in view of the fact that sufficient warnings were given. The most pressing problem in the mitigation of volcanic and associated hazards on a global scale is that most of the world's dangerous volcanoes are in densely populated countries that lack the economic and scientific resources or the political will to adequately study and monitor them. This problem afflicts both developed and developing countries, but it is especially acute for the latter. The greatest advances in volcanic hazards mitigation in the near future are most likely to be achieved by wider application of existing technology to poorly understood and studied volcanoes, rather than by refinements or new discoveries in technology alone.

show abstract

Section: Of Volcanic Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Volcanic hazards and their mitigation: Progress and problems

Tilling¹

1989

Reviews of Geophysics

Self Cite

189

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A long-term volcanic hazard assessment, based on the past behavior of a given volcano, is the basic tool for the evaluation of volcanic risk, on which sound land-use planning and risk-mitigation actions are based. If the volcano escalates towards eruption conditions, such an assessment needs to evolve to a short-term assessment based on the results of a monitoring system (Tilling and Bailey 1985;Banks et al 1989;Tilling 2001;Marzocchi et al 2004Marzocchi et al , 2008.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probability hazard map for future vent opening at the Campi Flegrei caldera, Italy

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Campi Flegrei caldera is a restless structure affected by general subsidence and ongoing resurgence of its central part. The persistent activity of the system and the explosive character of the volcanism lead to a very high volcanic hazard that, combined with intense urbanization, corresponds to a very high volcanic risk. One of the largest sources of uncertainty in volcanic hazard/risk assessment for Campi Flegrei is the spatial location of the future volcanic activity. This paper presents and discusses a longterm probability hazard map for vent opening in case of renewal of volcanism at the Campi Flegrei caldera, which shows the spatial conditional probability for the next vent opening, given that an eruption occurs. The map has been constructed by building a Bayesian inference scheme merging prior information and past data. The method allows both aleatory and epistemic uncertainties to be evaluated. The probability map of vent opening shows that two areas of relatively high probability are present within the active portion of the caldera, with a probability approximately doubled with respect to the rest of the caldera. The map has an immediate use in evaluating the areas of the caldera prone to the highest volcanic hazard. Furthermore, it represents an important ingredient in addressing the more general problem of quantitative volcanic hazards assessment at the Campi Flegrei caldera.

show abstract

“…Core elements of this responsibility-research, monitoring, and communication-are not in doubt, yet the potential fourth element-risk, which is the potential loss of societally important assets caused by volcanic activity-has not been adequately addressed. Even as early as 1985, USGS scientists foresaw the determination of risk as another important aspect of volcano hazards assessment (Tilling and Bailey, 1985). More recently, the USGS scientists and managers have emphasized risk reduction as an important component of the Bureau's (USGS) core mission of preparedness (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007; Holmes and others, 2013;Ludwig and others, 2018), as stakeholder demand for risk reduction has risen.…”

Section: Preparednessmentioning

confidence: 99%