Skip to main content

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%