Hazard communication by volcanologists: part 2 - quality standards for volcanic hazard assessments

Table 4 Value statements relating to the analysis of volcanic hazards

Value statement	Ranking /42	% Max score	Median narrative
Evidence (analysis based upon monitoring data for the volcano being assessed)	6	88	Critical
Multidiscipline (analysis based upon a wide range of scientific disciplines e.g. geophysics, geochemistry, geodetics etc.)	9	85	Critical
Analytical, systematic and rational process	12	84	Critical
Deliberation (analysis based upon the collective interdisciplinary consideration of several expert views)	13	83	Very imp.
Defensible process	19	80	Very imp.
Documented process	24	78	Very imp.
Open and Transparent process	26	78	Very imp.
Experience (analysis based upon expertise derived from knowledge of many volcanoes including possible doppelgangers)	27	77	Very imp.
Planned and Auditable process	31	67	Very imp.
Reproducible process	32	66	Very imp.
Expert elicitation (analysis based upon pooled expert advice derived from some form of formal expert elicitation)	33	65	Very imp.
Quality assured/audited process	37	53	Important
Probabilistic tools (analysis using tools such as BET_EF, HASSET, QVAST etc.^a)	39	53	Important

Scoring and ranking regimes: A 6-point range was used, the points being Irrelevant (scored −1), Unsure (scored 0), Relevant – Slightly important (scored 1), Relevant – Important (scored 2), Relevant- Highly important (scored 3) and Critical (scored 4). The survey’s 42 values relating to analysis and communication have been ranked in the table from highest (most important) to lowest (least important) based on the percentage of the maximum score (i.e. number of participants for each question times a maximum score of 4). Rankings not shown in this table are in Table 5 because they relate to communication rather than analysis. For each value, a median narrative is also provided
^aSandri et al. 2009; Sobradelo et al. 2014; Bartolini et al. 2013

ISSN: 2191-5040