Standardisation of the USGS Volcano Alert Level System (VALS): analysis and ramifications

• Published in: Bulletin of volcanology 2012-11, Vol.74 (9), p.2023-2036
• Main Authors: Fearnley, C. J., McGuire, W. J., Davies, G., Twigg, J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Communications satellites; Crystalline rocks; Earth and Environmental Science; Earth Sciences; Earth, ocean, space; Economic factors; Emergency preparedness; Engineering and environment geology. Geothermics; Exact sciences and technology; Geological hazards; Geological surveys; Geology; Geophysics/Geodesy; Igneous and metamorphic rocks petrology, volcanic processes, magmas; Mineralogy; Natural hazards: prediction, damages, etc; Research Article; Sedimentology; Standardization; Volcanoes; Volcanology; Warning systems
• ISSN: 0258-8900; 1432-0819
• DOI: 10.1007/s00445-012-0645-6

The standardisation of volcano early warning systems (VEWS) and volcano alert level systems (VALS) is becoming increasingly common at both the national and international level, most notably following UN endorsement of the development of globally comprehensive early warning systems. Yet, the impact on its effectiveness, of standardising an early warning system (EWS), in particular for volcanic hazards, remains largely unknown and little studied. This paper examines this and related issues through evaluation of the emergence and implementation, in 2006, of a standardised United States Geological Survey (USGS) VALS. Under this upper-management directive, all locally developed alert level systems or practices at individual volcano observatories were replaced with a common standard. Research conducted at five USGS-managed volcano observatories in Alaska, Cascades, Hawaii, Long Valley and Yellowstone explores the benefits and limitations this standardisation has brought to each observatory. The study concludes (1) that the process of standardisation was predominantly triggered and shaped by social, political, and economic factors, rather than in response to scientific needs specific to each volcanic region; and (2) that standardisation is difficult to implement for three main reasons: first, the diversity and uncertain nature of volcanic hazards at different temporal and spatial scales require specific VEWS to be developed to address this and to accommodate associated stakeholder needs. Second, the plural social contexts within which each VALS is embedded present challenges in relation to its applicability and responsiveness to local knowledge and context. Third, the contingencies of local institutional dynamics may hamper the ability of a standardised VALS to effectively communicate a warning. Notwithstanding these caveats, the concept of VALS standardisation clearly has continuing support. As a consequence, rather than advocating further commonality of a standardised VALS, we recommend adoption of a less prescriptive VALS that is scalable and sufficiently flexible for use by local stakeholders via standardised communication products designed to accommodate local contingency, while also adhering to national policy.