A Review of Damage Intensity Scales

A wide range of scales and indices are used to describe natural hazards and theirimpacts. Some scales infer damage levels from hazard characteristics while othersuse damage levels to estimate a physical characteristic. Damage scales may relyon raw dollar values, percent loss estimates, damage states, normalized values ormacrodamage categories. Whatever the basis of the scale it should tell the truth.However, scales are compromises between the need for detailed information andbeing simple enough to use.Damage scales may be nominal (categorical), ordinal, interval or ratio scales. Frequencywords such as ``few', ``many' can be dealt with in a range of ways to produce contiguous,widely separated, broadly overlapping or narrow overlapping values. Most scales rely onmaximum values but some focus on minimum or threshold values. The number of levelson damage scales commonly ranges from five to 13. Some long-lived damage scales haveevolved through several editions, changing to reflect the new or additional uses to whichthey have been put and as buildings and the nature of damage to those structures has changed.Few scales state precisely the purpose of the scale, deal clearly with ambiguities or provideguidelines for the use of qualitative information.     

Professional conduct of scientists during volcanic crises

Stress during volcanic crises is high, and any friction between scientists can distract seriously from both humanitarian and scientific effort. Friction can arise, for example, if team members do not share all of their data, if differences in scientific interpretation erupt into public controversy, or if one scientist begins work on a prime research topic while a colleague with longer-standing investment is still busy with public safety work. Some problems arise within existing scientific teams; others are brought on by visiting scientists. Friction can also arise between volcanologists and public officials. Two general measures may avert or reduce friction: (a) National volcanologic surveys and other scientific groups that advise civil authorities in times of volcanic crisis should prepare, in advance of crises, a written plan that details crisis team policies, procedures, leadership and other roles of team members, and other matters pertinent to crisis conduct. A copy of this plan should be given to all current and prospective team members. (b) Each participant in a crisis team should examine his or her own actions and contribution to the crisis effort. A personal checklist is provided to aid this examination. Questions fall generally in two categories: Are my presence and actions for the public good? Are my words and actions collegial, i.e., courteous, respectful, and fair? Numerous specific solutions to common crisis problems are also offered. Among these suggestions are: (a) choose scientific team leaders primarily for their leadership skills; (b) speak publicly with a single scientific voice, especially when forecasts, warnings, or scientific disagreements are involved; (c) if you are a would-be visitor, inquire from the primary scientific team whether your help would be welcomed, and, in general, proceed only if the reply is genuinely positive; (d) in publications, personnel evaluations, and funding, reward rather than discourage teamwork. Models are available from the fields of particle physics and human genetics, among others.     

Regional ash fall hazard I: a probabilistic assessment methodology

Volcanic ash is one of the farthest-reaching volcanic hazards and ash produced by large magnitude explosive eruptions has the potential to affect communities over thousands of kilometres. Quantifying the hazard from ash fall is problematic, in part because of data limitations that make eruption characteristics uncertain but also because, given an eruption, the distribution of ash is then controlled by time and altitude-varying wind conditions. Any one location may potentially be affected by ash falls from one, or a number of, volcanoes so that volcano-specific studies may not fully capture the ash fall hazard for communities in volcanically active areas. In an attempt to deal with these uncertainties, this paper outlines a probabilistic framework for assessing ash fall hazard on a regional scale. The methodology employs stochastic simulation techniques and is based upon generic principles that could be applied to any area, but is here applied to the Asia-Pacific region. Average recurrence intervals for eruptions greater than or equal to Volcanic Explosivity Index 4 were established for 190 volcanoes in the region, based upon the eruption history of each volcano and, where data were lacking, the averaged eruptive behaviour of global analogous volcanoes. Eruption histories are drawn from the Smithsonian Institution’s Global Volcanism Program catalogue of Holocene events and unpublished data, with global analogues taken from volcanoes of the same type category: Caldera, Large Cone, Shield, Lava dome or Small Cone. Simulated are 190,000 plausible eruption scenarios, with ash dispersal for each determined using an advection–diffusion model and local wind conditions. Key uncertainties are described by probability distributions. Modelled results include the annual probability of exceeding given ash thicknesses, summed over all eruption scenarios and volcanoes. A companion paper describes the results obtained for the Asia-Pacific region