Table 9 Examples of specific considerations provided by respondents related to hazard assessment approach

• It is important to consider as many eruption events as possible including worst case scenario

• Consider all possible hazards (some were missing on the map, e.g., tephra fall)

• Hazard during summer and winter seasons is very different, so having different maps available is useful

• Consider incorporating lava flow arrival times

• Travel time of lahars included in map automatically indicates speed without extra explanation of the phenomenon

• We were unsure what scenario to include: most likely vs. worst case

• Volcanic Complexes: What volcano to choose for hazard map?

• Exceedance probability contours (and zones) are hard to interpret and explain to the users

• Our models had limitations—especially when modelling eruptions with recurrence on a 100 s to 1000 s-year time scale. These are not well represented in the geological record. Large and small eruptions are better constrained: Large infrequent eruptions are preserved in the geological record and small frequent ones have been witnessed historically

• We stress the importance of a conceptual model and probabilistic event tree in deciding what to portray in the map

• For monogenetic fields, consider using high seismicity area for the map

• Consider whether to depict on the map just the initial stages of the eruption, or the ‘cumulative’ hazard expected over the course of the eruption

• A pretty good hazard reconnaissance map can be made in a very short period of time [~ 1 week], using air photo interpretation and field spot checks

• Assessing hazards on the basis of petrology is probably an evolutionary dead end