Skip to main content

Table 1 Ranking analysis results for five potential VAL system foundations

From: Communicating the status of volcanic activity: revising New Zealand’s volcanic alert level system

  

Foundation of VAL System

  

Phenomena-based

Hazard-based

Process-based

Risk-based

Multi-foundation

End-users (n = 8)

Subtotal (sum of ranks)

24

22

24

29

21

Mean of subtotal

3.00

2.75

3.00

3.63

2.63

Number of counts in position 1

1

2

2

1

2

Number of counts in position 1 or 2

3

3

4

2

4

Number of counts in position 1 or 2 or 3

4

6

5

3

6

Scientists (n = 9)

Subtotal (sum of ranks)

17

25

25

40

28

Mean of subtotal

1.89

2.78

2.78

4.44

3.11

Number of counts in position 1

5

0

2

0

2

Number of counts in position 1 or 2

6

5

4

1

2

Number of counts in position 1 or 2 or 3

8

6

6

1

6

All participants (n = 17)

Total (sum of ranks)

41

47

49

69

49

Overall mean

2.41

2.76

2.88

4.06

2.88

Number of counts in position 1

6

2

4

1

4

Number of counts in position 1 or 2

9

8

8

3

6

Number of counts in position 1 or 2 or 3

12

12

11

4

12

  1. Foundations were ranked by participants from position 1 (highest preference) to position 5 (lowest preference). Foundations with lower subtotals, totals and means are preferred by participants. The number of times a foundation was ranked in the top three positions is also indicated, where the higher the number of counts, the more preferred the foundation is.