Table 1 Assessing uncertainty in the determination of location of fatal incidents
From: Volcanic fatalities database: analysis of volcanic threat with distance and victim classification
Data Quality Level (QL) | Conditions | Distance data | Percentage of database records |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | Location of the fatality is identified - Distance of fatality is given in literature - Position of fatality relative to eruptive crater (e.g. ‘crater rim’, ‘near crater’, ‘at summit’) - Town/village is identified and located - Precise location is known - Small distance range is accurately identified (mid-point used). This also applies to towns where the centre is used and outskirts represent uncertainty | Distance of fatality is precisely identified (e.g. 350 m, 7.2 km, 12 km, 400–600 m) | 34% |
2 | Distance within which the fatality occurred is constrained by: - Size of cone (e.g. fatality described as on cone: radius taken for upper cone from summit to clear change in slope using elevation profile tool in Google Earth) - Extent of the lethal flow as given in literature or identified on Google Earth (n.b. distance is measured from the distal flow end to the summit) - The maximum distance from the summit crater to the coast (normally applicable to island volcanoes) - The destructive radius/distance as described in literature (e.g. blast zones, PDC extents) - Town is named or described but not precisely located | A distance range within which the fatality occurred is identified (e.g. <5 km, 8–14 km). The maximum distance vis used for analysis. | 40% |
3 | No information is provided on fatality location and none can be inferred from the description or edifice/island size | Distance is unknown | 26% |