Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 78, Issue 2, pp 1329–1347 | Cite as

Three-dimensional versus conventional volcanic hazard maps

  • Charles A. Preppernau
  • Bernhard Jenny
Original Paper

Abstract

Volcanic hazard maps inform the public on the nature and extent of the hazards that threaten them, but these maps are often challenging for those who are not trained in map use or geology. This study focuses on hazard maps showing lahars—a dangerous, fast, and far-reaching volcanic hazard that can be avoided through preemptive evacuation or escaped with sufficient warning and awareness of affected areas. We evaluate the effectiveness of conventional contour lines versus 3D perspective maps for relief representation and the effectiveness of point markers versus isochrones (lines of equal time delay) for the visualization of lahar travel time. Four maps, each with a unique combination of these variables, were tested in a user study at Mount Hood, Oregon, USA. Each participant was given one of the maps and assigned tasks concerning: (1) terrain interpretation, (2) estimation of lahar travel times, and (3) selection of evacuation routes. Participants were then shown all four maps and asked to indicate which design they liked best and worst for each task. Thirty-four pilot surveys and 80 regular surveys were conducted. Participants clearly preferred the 3D isochrone map the most and the 2D point marker map the least for all tasks. Participants were better able to interpret terrain on the 3D maps and selected better evacuation routes on 3D maps. Participants showed similar performance with point markers and isochrones when reading lahar travel times. These findings suggest that 3D maps are better suited to communicate volcanic hazards than traditional contour maps.

Keywords

3D maps 3D cartography Volcanic hazards Lahars 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Thomas Pierson of the Cascades Volcano Observatory for his advice, as well as Dave Ramsey, Carolyn Driedger, Dr. John Ewert, Willie Scott, and Cynthia Gardner, also from the Cascades Volcano Observatory. We would also like to thank Jay Wilson of the Clackamas County Office of Emergency Management for his advice and the methodology for treating evacuation routes. We also thank Abby Metzger of the Oregon State University for editing this text, the visitors and residents of Mount Hood Village who took the time to participate in this survey, and the management and staff of the businesses and parks of Mount Hood Village who allowed us to conduct the surveys on their property.

References

  1. Auker MR, Sparks RSJ, Siebert L et al (2013) A statistical analysis of the global historical volcanic fatalities record. J Appl Volcanol 2:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baxter PJ (1990) Medical effects of volcanic eruptions. Bull Volc 52:532–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blong RJ (1984) Volcanic hazards. A sourcebook on the effects of eruptions. Academic Press, North RydeGoogle Scholar
  4. Chappell B (2014) Japan’s Mt. Ontake is still erupting as questions emerge about warnings. NPR.orgGoogle Scholar
  5. Collier P, Forrest D, Pearson A (2003) The representation of topographic information on maps: the depiction of relief. Cartogr J 40:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cronin SJ, Gaylord DR, Charley D et al (2004) Participatory methods of incorporating scientific with traditional knowledge for volcanic hazard management on Ambae Island, Vanuatu. Bull Volc 66:652–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. D’Ercole R, Rançon J-P (1994) La future éruption de la Montagne Pelée: risque et représentations. Mappemonde 4:31–36Google Scholar
  8. Dent AW, Davies G, Barrett P, de Saint Ours PJ (1994) The 1994 eruption of the Rabaul volcano, Papua New Guinea: injuries sustained and medical response. Med J Aust 163:635–639Google Scholar
  9. Dieckmann NF, Mauro R, Slovic P (2010) The effects of presenting imprecise probabilities in intelligence forecasts. Risk Anal 30:987–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Driedger CL, Scott WE (2008) Mount Rainier. Living safely with a volcano in your backyard. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Haynes K, Barclay J, Pidgeon N (2007) Volcanic hazard communication using maps: an evaluation of their effectiveness. Bull Volc 70:123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jenny H, Jenny B, Hurni L (2010) Interactive design of 3D maps with progressive projection. Cartogr J 47:211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leone F, Lesales T (2009) The interest of cartography for a better perception and management of volcanic risk: from scientific to social representations: the case of Mt. Pelée volcano, Martinique (Lesser Antilles). J Volcanol Geotherm Res 186:186–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marzocchi W, Newhall C, Woo G (2012) The scientific management of volcanic crises. J Volcanol Geoth Res 247:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Newhall CG (2000) Volcano warnings. Encyclopaedia of volcanoes. Academic Press, Orlando, pp 1185–1197Google Scholar
  16. Newhall CG, Punongbayan RS (1996) The narrow margin of successful volcanic-risk mitigation Monitoring and mitigation of volcano hazards. Springer, Berlin, pp 807–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Patra AK, Bauer AC, Nichita CC et al (2005) Parallel adaptive numerical simulation of dry avalanches over natural terrain. J Volcanol Geoth Res 139:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Petrovič D, Mašera P (2005) Analysis of user’s response on 3D cartographic presentations. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ICA international cartographic conference, A Coruña, SpainGoogle Scholar
  19. Phillips RJ, Lucia A, Skelton N (1975) Some objective tests of the legibility of relief maps. Cartogr J 12:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pierson TC (1998) An empirical method for estimating travel times for wet volcanic mass flows. Bull Volc 60:98–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pierson TC, Wood NJ, Driedger CL (2014) Reducing risk from lahar hazards: concepts, case studies, and roles for scientists. J Appl Volcanol 3:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Preppernau CA, Jenny B (in press) A three-dimensional volcanic hazard map of Mount Hood, Oregon. J MapsGoogle Scholar
  23. Rodolfo KS (2000) The hazard from lahars and jökulhlaups. Encyclopedia of volcanoes. Academic Press, Orlando, pp 973–995Google Scholar
  24. Savage DM, Wiebe EN, Devine HA (2004) Performance of 2d versus 3d topographic representations for different task types. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. Sage, pp 1793–1797Google Scholar
  25. Schilling SP (1998) LAHARZ: GIS programs for automated mapping of lahar-inundation hazard zones. US Department of the Interior, US Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  26. Schilling SP, Doelger S, Scott WE, et al (2008) Digital data for volcano hazards of the Mount Hood Region, OregonGoogle Scholar
  27. Schobesberger D, Patterson T (2008) Evaluating the effectiveness of 2D vs. 3D trailhead maps: a map user study conducted at Zion National Park, United States. In: Hurni L, Kriz K (eds) Proceedings of the 6th ICA mountain cartography workshop ‘mountain mapping and visualisation’, Lenk, Switzerland, pp 201–205. Retrieved from http://www.mountaincartography.org/publications/papers/papers_lenk_08/schobesberger.pdf
  28. Scott WE, Pierson TC, Schilling SP et al (1997) Volcano hazards in the Mount Hood region. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 97:89, OregonGoogle Scholar
  29. Seipel S (2013) Evaluating 2D and 3D geovisualisations for basic spatial assessment. Behav Inf Technol 32:845–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smets B, Tedesco D, Kervyn F et al (2010) Dry gas vents (“mazuku”) in Goma region (North-Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo): formation and risk assessment. J Afr Earth Sci 58:787–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thompson MA, Lindsay JM, Gaillard JC (2015) The influence of probabilistic volcanic hazard map properties on hazard communication. J Appl Volcanol 4:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wood NJ, Schmidtlein MC (2013) Community variations in population exposure to near-field tsunami hazards as a function of pedestrian travel time to safety. Nat Hazards 65:1603–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric SciencesOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations