Advertisement

Bulletin of Volcanology

, Volume 74, Issue 3, pp 705–723 | Cite as

Combining long- and short-term probabilistic volcanic hazard assessment with cost-benefit analysis to support decision making in a volcanic crisis from the Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand

  • Laura Sandri
  • Gill Jolly
  • Jan Lindsay
  • Tracy Howe
  • Warner Marzocchi
Research Article

Abstract

By using BET_VH, we propose a quantitative probabilistic hazard assessment for base surge impact in Auckland, New Zealand. Base surges resulting from phreatomagmatic eruptions are among the most dangerous phenomena likely to be associated with the initial phase of a future eruption in the Auckland Volcanic Field. The assessment is done both in the long-term and in a specific short-term case study, i.e. the simulated pre-eruptive unrest episode during Exercise Ruaumoko, a national civil defence exercise. The most important factors to account for are the uncertainties in the vent location (expected for a volcanic field) and in the run-out distance of base surges. Here, we propose a statistical model of base surge run-out distance based on deposits from past eruptions in Auckland and in analogous volcanoes. We then combine our hazard assessment with an analysis of the costs and benefits of evacuating people (on a 1 × 1-km cell grid). In addition to stressing the practical importance of a cost-benefit analysis in creating a bridge between volcanologists and decision makers, our study highlights some important points. First, in the Exercise Ruaumoko application, the evacuation call seems to be required as soon as the unrest phase is clear; additionally, the evacuation area is much larger than what is recommended in the current contingency plan. Secondly, the evacuation area changes in size with time, due to a reduction in the uncertainty in the vent location and increase in the probability of eruption. It is the tradeoff between these two factors that dictates which cells must be evacuated, and when, thus determining the ultimate size and shape of the area to be evacuated.

Keywords

Auckland Volcanic Field Base surge Bayesian event tree Volcanic hazard Cost benefit analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Graham Leonard for providing the maps of the area investigated. This work was undertaken through the DEtermining VOlcanic Risk in Auckland (DEVORA) project co-funded by the NZ Earthquake Commission and the Auckland Council. GJ was supported by the NZ Foundation for Research Science and Technology (GHS-FRST) contract C05X0804 under the Natural Hazards Research Platform. JL was supported by a grant from the New Zealand Earthquake Commission EQC. We are grateful for the comments of two anonymous reviewers, which significantly improved the quality of the manuscript.

References

  1. Allen SR, Smith IEM (1994) Eruption styles and volcanic hazard in the Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand. Geosci Repts Shizuoka Univ 20:5–14Google Scholar
  2. Allen SR, Bryner VF, Smith IEM, Ballance PF (1996) Facies analysis of pyroclastic deposits within basaltic tuff-rings of the Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand. NZ J Geol Geophys 39:309–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aranda Gomez JJ, Luhr JF, Pier JG (1992) The La Brena—El Jaguee Maar Complex, Durango, Mexico; 1, geological evolution. Bull Volcanol 54:393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aspinall WP, Woo G, Voight B, Baxter PJ (2003) Evidence-based volcanology: application to eruption crises. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 128:273–285. doi: 10.1016/S0377-0273(03)00260-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker EJ (1987) Warning and evacuation in hurricanes Elena and Kate. Sea Grant Project IR-85-11, Florida State University, TallahasseeGoogle Scholar
  6. Baxter PJ, Neri A, Todesco M (1998) Physical modelling and human survival in pyroclastic flows. Nat Hazards 17:163–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bebbington MS, Cronin SJ (2010) Spatio-temporal hazard estimation in the Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand, with a new event-order model. Bull Volcanol 73(1):55–72. doi: 10.1007/s00445-010-0403-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beca Carter Hollings Ferner (2002) Contingency plan for the Auckland Volcanic Field. Auckland Regional Council Technical Publication 165Google Scholar
  9. Belousov A, Belousova M (2001) Eruptive process, effects and deposits of the 1996 and the ancient basaltic preatomagmatic eruptions in Karymskoye lake, Kamchatka, Russia. Spec Publ Int Assoc Sedimentol 30:35–60Google Scholar
  10. Cas R, Simpson C, Sato H (1993) Newer Volcanics Province—processes and products of phreatomagmatic activity. Report 1993/64, Australian Geological Survey OrganisationGoogle Scholar
  11. Chough SK, Sohn YK (1990) Depositional mechanics and sequences of base surges, Songaksan tuff ring, Cheju Island, Korea. Sedimentology 37(6):1115–1135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Connor CB, McBirney AR, Furlan C (2006) What is the probability of explosive eruption at a long-dormant volcano? In: Mader HM, Coles SG, Connor CB, Connor LJ (eds) Statistics in volcanology, 1st edn. Geological Society, London, pp 231–242Google Scholar
  13. Crowe BM, Fisher RV (1973) Sedimentary structures in base-surge deposits with special reference to cross-bedding, Ubehebe Craters, Death Valley, California. Geol Soc Amer Bull 84:663–682. doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1973)84663 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dellino P, Mele D, Sulpizio R, Volpe LL, Braia G (2008) A method for the calculation of the impact parameters of dilute pyroclastic density currents based on deposit particle characteristics. J Geophys Res 113:B07206. doi: 10.1029/2007JB005365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dow K, Cutter SL (2002) Emerging hurricane evacuation issues: hurricane Floyd and South Carolina. Nat Hazards Rev 3:12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drabek TE (1969) Social processes in disaster: family evacuation. Soc Probl 16:336–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gençalioğlu-Kuşcu G, Atilla C, Cas R, Kuşcu I (2007) Base surge deposits, eruption history, and depositional processes of a wet phreatomagmatic volcano in Central Anatolia (Cora Maar). J Volcanol Geotherm Res 159:198–209. doi: 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2006.06.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gevrek AI, Kazanci N (2000) A Pleistocene, pyroclastic-poor maar from central Anatolia, Turkey: influence of a local fault on a phreatomagmatic eruption. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 95:309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gutmann JT (1976) Geology of Crater Elegante, Sonora, Mexico. Geol Soc Amer Bull 87:1718–1728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Houghton BF, Wilson CJN, Smith IEM (1999) Shallow-seated controls on styles of explosive basaltic volcanism: a case study from New Zealand. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 91:97–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jaquet O, Carniel R, Sparks S, Thompson G, Namar R, Di Cecca M (2006) DEVIN: a forecasting approach using stochastic methods applied to the Soufriere Hills Volcano. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 153:97–111. doi: 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2005.08.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jaquet O, Connor C, Connor L (2008) Probabilistic modeling for long-term assessment of volcanic hazards. Nucl Technol 163:180–189Google Scholar
  23. Kalbfleisch JD (1985) Probability and statistical inference. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Kienle J, Kyle PR, Self S, Motyka RJ, Lorenz V (1980) Ukinrek Maars, Alaska; I, April 1977 eruption sequence, petrology and tectonic setting. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 7:11–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lambeck K, Chappell J (2001) Sea level change through the last glacial cycle. Science 292:679–686. doi: 10.1126/science.1059549 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindsay J, Marzocchi W, Jolly G, Constantinescu R, Selva J, Sandri L (2010) Towards real-time eruption forecasting in the Auckland Volcanic Field: application of BET_EF during the New Zealand National Disaster Exercise Ruaumoko. Bull Volcanol 72:185–204. doi: 10.1007/s00445-009-0311-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lindsay JM (2010) Volcanoes in the big smoke: a review of hazard and risk in the Auckland Volcanic Field. In: Williams et al (ed) Geologically active. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 63–72Google Scholar
  28. Magill CR, McAneney KJ, Smith IEM (2005) Probabilistic assessment of vent locations for the next Auckland Volcanic Field Event 1. Math Geol 37(3):227–242. doi: 10.1007/s11004-005-1556-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marzocchi W, Woo G (2007) Probabilistic eruption forecasting and the call for an evacuation. Geophys Res Lett 34:L22310. doi: 10.1029/2007GL031922 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marzocchi W, Woo G (2009) Principles of volcanic risk metrics: theory and the case study of Mount Vesuvius and Campi Flegrei, Italy. J Geophys Res 114:B03213. doi: 10.1029/2008JB005908 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marzocchi W, Zaccarelli L (2006) A quantitative model for the time-size distribution of eruptions. J Geophys Res 111:B04204. doi: 10.1029/2005JB003709 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marzocchi W, Sandri L, Gasparini P, Newhall CG, Boschi E (2004) Quantify- ing probabilities of volcanic events: the example of volcanic hazard at Mount Vesuvius. J Geophys Res 109:B11201. doi: 10.1029/2004JB003155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marzocchi W, Sandri L, Furlan C (2006) A quantitative model for volcanic hazard assessment. In: Mader HM, Coles SG, Connor CB, Connor LJ (eds) Statistics in volcanology, 1st edn. Geological Society, London, pp 31–37Google Scholar
  34. Marzocchi W, Sandri L, Selva J (2008) BET_EF: a probabilistic tool for long- and short-term eruption forecasting. Bull Volcanol 70:623–632. doi: 10.1007/s00445-007-0157-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marzocchi W, Sandri L, Selva J (2010) BET_VH: a probabilistic tool for long-term volcanic hazard assessment. Bull Volcanol 72:705–716. doi: 10.1007/s00445-010-0357-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mattson PH, Alvarez W (1974) Base surge deposits in Pleistocene volcanic ash near Rome. Bull Volcanol 37(4):553–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ministry-Of-Transport (2008) Transport monitoring. Strategy and sustainability. The social cost of road crashes and injuries. ANNUAL UPDATE, SEPTEM- BER 2008, June 2008 update ISSN 1173-1370, Ministry of transportGoogle Scholar
  38. Moore JG (1967) Base surge in recent volcanic eruptions. Bull Volcanol 30:337–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Newhall CG, Hoblitt RP (2002) Constructing event trees for volcanic crises. Bull Volcanol 64:3–20. doi: 10.1007/s004450100173 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Orsi G, Di Vito MA, Isaia R (2004) Volcanic hazard assessment at the restless Campi Flegrei caldera. Bull Volcanol 66:514–530. doi: 10.1007/s00445-003-0336-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Orsi G, Di Vito MA, Selva J, Marzocchi W (2009) Long-term forecast of eruption style and size at Campi Flegrei caldera (Italy). Earth Planet Sci Lett 287:265–276. doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2009.08.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Self S, Kienle J, Huot Jp (1980) Ukinrek Maars, Alaska; II, deposits and formation of the 1977 craters. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 7:39–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Selva J, Costa A, Marzocchi W, Sandri L (2010) BET VH: exploring the influence of natural uncertainties on long-term hazard from tephra fallout at Campi Flegrei (Italy). Bull Volcanol 72:717–733. doi: 10.1007/s00445-010-0358-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Selva J, Orsi G, Di Vito MA, Marzocchi W, Sandri L (2011) Probability hazard map for future vent opening at the Campi Flegrei caldera, Italy. Bull Volcanol. doi: 10.1007/s00445-011-0528-2
  45. Thorarinsson S, Steinthorsson S, Einarsson T, Kristmannsdottir H, Oskarsson N (1973) The eruption on Heimaey, Iceland. Nature 241:372–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Valentine GA (1998) Damage to structures by pyroclastic flows and surges, inferred from nuclear weapons effects. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 87:117–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Waters AC, Fisher RV (1971) Base surges and their deposits; Capelinhos and Taal volcanoes. J Geophys Res 76:5596–5614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Williams RS, Moore JG (1983) Man against volcano: the eruption on Heimaey, Vestmannaeyjar, Iceland. US Geological Survey General Interest Publication 1–27Google Scholar
  49. Wohletz KH, Sheridan MF (1979) A model of pyroclastic surge. In: Chapin CE, Elston WE (eds) Ash-flow tuffs. Geol Soc Am Special Paper 180:177–194Google Scholar
  50. Woo G (2008) Probabilistic criteria for volcano evacuation decisions. Nat Hazards 87–97. doi: 10.1007/s11069-007-9171-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Sandri
    • 1
  • Gill Jolly
    • 2
  • Jan Lindsay
    • 3
    • 4
  • Tracy Howe
    • 3
  • Warner Marzocchi
    • 5
  1. 1.Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e VulcanologiaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.GNS Science, Wairakei Research CentreTaupoNew Zealand
  3. 3.Institute of Earth Science and EngineeringThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  4. 4.School of EnvironmentThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  5. 5.Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e VulcanologiaRomaItaly

Personalised recommendations