Table 4 Table summarising how respondents described the ways in which uncertainty is expressed on the map, with some bulleted examples
From: The diversity of volcanic hazard maps around the world: insights from map makers
How uncertainty is expressed |
|---|
As text on the map, in the legend, or header, or on the map face (~ 50% of instances) |
 • Text stating the limitations of boundaries  • Text stating that zone boundaries do not represent sharp changes  • Text stating that hazard zone boundaries are approximate  • Text stating that hazards may extend offshore  • Text stating that hazards may occur anywhere in the area  • Disclaimer text: hazard may change without notice  • Text stating that tephra zones will depend on vent location  • Conditional validity statement stating that the hazard map applies only when certain criteria are met  • Text indicating possible lahar overflow areas |
As zone design features (~ 30% of instances) |
 • Dashed zone boundaries  • Three lahar hazard zones  • Dashed line for pyroclastic flow zone, which is less certain than lava line which is solid  • Gradational zoning (e.g., from red to yellow, or dark to light orange)  • Fuzzy, fading transparency zone boundaries  • Buffer zones for PDC inundation |
As text in accompanying document (~ 20% of instances) |
For example, modelling limitations and hazard assessment assumptions presented in:  • Accompanying pamphlet  • Accompanying report  • Informative poster  • Accompanying scientific paper |