Volcanic risk ranking for Auckland, New Zealand. II: Hazard consequences and risk calculation
- 477 Downloads
In a companion paper, a methodology for ranking volcanic hazards and events in terms of risk was presented, and the likelihood and extent of potential hazards in the Auckland Region, New Zealand investigated. In this paper, the effects of each hazard are considered and the risk ranking completed. Values for effect are proportions of total loss and, as with likelihood and extent, are based on order of magnitude.
Two outcomes were considered – building damage and loss of human life. In terms of building damage, tephra produces the highest risk by an order of magnitude, followed by lava flows and base surge. For loss of human life, risk from base surge is highest. The risks from pyroclastic flows and tsunami are an order of magnitude smaller. When combined, tephra fall followed by base surge produces the highest risk. The risks from lava flows and pyroclastic flows are an order of magnitude smaller. For building damage, the risk from Mt. Taranaki volcano, 280 km from the Auckland CBD, is largest, followed by Okataina volcanic centre, an Auckland volcanic field eruption centred on land, then Tongariro volcanic centre. In terms of human loss, the greatest risk is from an Auckland eruption centred on land. The risks from an Auckland eruption centred in the ocean, Okataina volcanic centre, and Taupo volcano are more than an order of magnitude smaller. When combined, the risk from Mt. Taranaki remains highest, followed by an Auckland eruption centred on land. The next largest risks are from the Okataina and Tongariro volcanic centres, followed by Taupo volcano.
Three alternative situations were investigated. As multiple eruptions may occur from the Auckland volcanic field, it was assumed that a local event would involve two eruptions. This increased risk of a local eruption occurring on land so that it was equal to that of an eruption from Mt. Taranaki. It is possible that a future eruption may be of a similar, or larger size, to the previous Rangitoto eruption. Risk was re-calculated for local eruptions based on the extent of hazards from Rangitoto. This increased the risk of lava flow to greater than that of base surge, and the risk from an Auckland land eruption became greatest. The relative probabilities used for Mt. Taranaki volcano and the Auckland volcanic field may only be minimum values. When the probability of these occurring was increased by 50%, there was no change in either ranking.
KeywordsAuckland region Auckland volcanic field Mt. Taranaki Multiple hazards Risk assessment Taupo volcanic zone Volcanic loss
- Allen SR (1992) Volcanic hazards in the Auckland volcanic field. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, pp 1–153Google Scholar
- Allen SR, Smith IEM (1994) Eruption styles and volcanic hazard in the Auckland volcanic field, New Zealand. Geosci Rep Shizuoka Univ 20:5–14Google Scholar
- Auckland Engineering Lifelines Group (2001) Volcanic ash review, Part 1. Auckland Regional Council Technical Publication No 144. Auckland Regional Council, Auckland, New Zealand, pp 1–50Google Scholar
- Auckland Regional Council (1999) Auckland engineering lifelines project, final report, stage one. Auckland Regional Council Technical Publication No 112. Auckland Regional Council, Auckland, New Zealand, pp 1–286Google Scholar
- Baxter PJ (1990) Medical effects of volcanic eruptions. Bull Volcanol 52:532–544Google Scholar
- Baxter PJ (2000) Impacts of eruptions on human health. In: Sigurdsson H, Houghton BF, McNutt SR, Rymer H, Stix J (eds) Encyclopedia of volcanoes. Academic, San Diego, CA, pp 1035–1043Google Scholar
- Beca Carter & Ferner (2002) Contingency plan for the Auckland volcanic field. Prepared for the Auckland Regional Council, Auckland, New Zealand, pp 1–65Google Scholar
- Blong RJ (1984) Volcanic hazards: A sourcebook on the effects of eruptions. Academic, Sydney, Australia, pp 1–424Google Scholar
- Blong RJ (2003) Building damage in Rabaul, Papua New Guinea, 1994. Bull Volcanol 65:43–54Google Scholar
- Cassidy J, Locke CA, Miller CA, Rout DJ (1999) The Auckland volcanic field, New Zealand: geophysical evidence for its eruption history. In: Firth CR, McGuire WJ (eds) Volcanoes in the Quaternary. Geological Society Special Publication No 161. The Geological Society, London, pp 1–10Google Scholar
- Cousins WJ, Heron DW (2001) An assets model for New Zealand buildings for use in risk studies. Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences 2001/3, Lower Hutt, New Zealand, pp 1–19Google Scholar
- Johnston DM, Nairn IA, Thordarson T, Daly M (1997) Volcanic impact assessment for the Auckland volcanic field. Auckland Regional Council, Auckland, New Zealand, pp 1–208Google Scholar
- Magill CR, Blong RJ (2004) Volcanic risk ranking for Auckland, New Zealand. I: Methodology and hazard investigation (this volume)Google Scholar
- Paton D, Johnston DM, Gough J, Dowrick D, Manville V, Daly M, Batistich T, Baddon L (1999) Auckland volcanic risk project: Stage 2. Auckland Regional Council, Auckland, New Zealand, pp 1–99Google Scholar
- Peterson DW, Tilling RI (2000) Lava flow hazards. In: Sigurdsson H, Houghton BF, McNutt SR, Rymer H, Stix J (eds) Encyclopedia of volcanoes. Academic, San Diego, CA, pp 957–971Google Scholar
- Sandiford A, Alloway BV, Shane P (2001) A 28 000–6600 cal yr record of local and distal volcanism preserved in a paleolake, Auckland, New Zealand. New Zeal J Geol Geop 44:323–336Google Scholar
- Spence RJS, Pomonis A, Baxter PJ, Coburn AW, White M, Dayrit M, Field Epidemiology Training Program Team (1996) Building damage caused by the Mount Pinatubo eruption of June 15, 1991. In: Newhall CG, Punongbayan RS (eds) Fire and mud: eruptions and lahars of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines. Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology, University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA, pp 1055–1061Google Scholar