Volcanic Hazard Map Design and Visual Communication

CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

Provided by Springer - Publisher Connector

More Than Meets the Eye: Volcanic Hazard Map Design and Visual Communication

Mary Anne Thompson , Jan M. Lindsay and Graham S. Leonard

Abstract Volcanic hazard maps depict areas that may be affected by dangerous volcanic processes, such as pyroclastic density currents, lava flows, lahars, and tephra fall. These visualisations of volcanic hazard information are used to communicate with a wide variety of audiences both during times of dormancy and volcanic crisis. Although most volcanic hazard maps show similar types of content, such as hazard footprints or zones, they vary greatly in communication style, appearance, and visual design. For example, maps for different volcanoes will use different combinations of graphics, symbols, colours, base maps, legends, and text. While this variety is a natural reflection of the diverse social, cultural, political, and volcanic settings in which the maps are created, crises and past work suggest that such visual design choices can potentially play an important role in volcanic crisis communication by influencing how people understand the hazard map and use it to make decisions. Map reading is a complex process, in which people construct meaning by interpreting the various visual representations within the context of their information needs, goals, knowledge, and experience. Visual design of the map and the characteristics of the hazard map audience can therefore influence how hazard maps are understood and applied. Here, we review case studies of volcanic crises and interdisciplinary research that addresses the relationship between hazard maps, visual design, and communication. Overall,

M.A. Thompson (&) Á J.M. Lindsay School of Environment, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] J.M. Lindsay e-mail: [email protected] G.S. Leonard GNS Science, P.O. Box 30-968, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected]

Advs in Volcanology 1 DOI: 10.1007/11157_2016_47 © The Author(s) 2017 2 M.A. Thompson et al.

this growing body of work suggests that volcanic hazard maps can be very useful visual tools for crisis communication if they are designed in a way that provides clear and useful information for the audience. Further, while it is important that each map is designed for its unique situation and setting, engaging with hazard map audiences to better understand their information needs and considering lessons learnt from interdisciplinary work on visual communication can help inform and guide knowledge exchange using maps.

1 Introduction on their initial impressions and intuitive feelings about hazard and risk than on exhaustive analyt- ical evaluation of hazard and risk information As a volcanic crisis begins to unfold, demand for (Finucane et al. 2000). Accordingly, the way that information about when and where dangerous a hazard map captures visual attention and con- volcanic hazards might impact increases. A key veys affective meaning could have a significant medium for communicating this information is a impact on decisions made during a volcanic cri- volcanic hazard map—a visual, spatial depiction sis. It is therefore important to understand how of where volcanic phenomena might occur people interact with hazard map images, and how within a certain time frame. While hazard maps visual communication processes influence the play a role in managing many elements of a messages that audiences take away. volcanic crisis, such as understanding relation- Volcanic hazard maps are created by scientists ships between hazards, identifying areas of across the world, using a number of different potential danger, informing risk assessments, and types of datasets, methodologies, and approaches planning evacuation routes, they serve as an (Calder et al. 2015). For example, a map could important tool in crisis communication. show only one volcanic hazard (e.g., ash fall), or We live in an increasingly visual society, multiple volcanic hazards (e.g., ash fall, lava where most of us see and process images more flow, and ballistic ejecta). These hazards may be than we read words (Lester 2014). In many cases, depicted as intensities (e.g., centimetres of ash images can attract visual attention (Carrasco that are likely to accumulate) or as a set of nested 2011), trigger information-processing (Domke or cumulative zones (e.g., high, medium, and low et al. 2002), stimulate emotional response (Mould hazard zones). The hazard map may be based on et al. 2012; Lester 2014), and influence observation of past volcanic hazard deposits, decision-making (Tufte 1997; Daron et al. 2015) probabilistic hazard modelling, simulation of a more than other types of media. Images can be particular hazard scenario, or information drawn concisely delivered in many different formats, from an analogue volcano. The high degrees of through many different channels, and can com- freedom mean that volcanic hazard maps can municate across lexical and linguistic boundaries. represent many different types of information. In Hazard maps are common images used by sci- reviewing 120 volcanic hazard maps from entists to communicate information about vol- around the world, Calder et al. (2015) identify canic hazards with a wide range of audiences. five different hazard map “types” which describe These maps, and the inferences and responses that these various combinations: geology-based they elicit, become particularly important during maps, integrated qualitative maps, administra- crisis situations when they may become read and tive maps, modelling-based maps, and proba- circulated widely. During such high-stakes, bilistic maps (Fig. 1). The classification provides high-pressure situations, people tend to rely more a way to categorise and consider the types of More Than Meets the Eye: Volcanic Hazard Map Design … 3 inputs used in developing volcanic hazard maps used around the world today. While this visual around the world. The way that these inputs are diversity reflects important and unique differ- visualised into a final map design output are ences in map purpose and social and volcanic similarly diverse. setting, past crises and research over the last few Volcanic hazard maps are traditionally created decades have highlighted that such visual design by the scientists who carry out volcanic hazard choices can also carry great importance for assessments. Visual design of a hazard map is communication, as they may influence how dif- therefore typically governed by factors such as ferent audiences interpret the map and use it to the specific methodology used, common scien- make decisions regarding hazard and risk. tific and cartographic practice at the time, status Maps communicate more than meets the eye. of volcanic activity, social and cultural setting, Each reader individually constructs meaning and local agency standards or policy require- from the map through visual cognition and ments in place. Variation in these factors over interpretation of the various symbols, colours, time and place has resulted in the vastly different shapes, and text within the context of his or her layouts, formats, colour schemes, data represen- prior knowledge and experience (MacEachren tations, symbology, and hazard map styles being 1995; Perkins et al. 2011). Map reading is thus a

Fig. 1 Hypothetical examples of the five types of hazard information; c modelling-based maps are based on volcanic hazard map identified by Calder et al. (2015). simulation of certain hazard scenarios; d probabilistic Each map type represents a different type of input maps are based on probabilistic assessment of hazards; information: a geology-based maps, the most common and e administrative maps are based on both hazard type of volcanic hazard map, are based on hazard information but also on emergency management and footprints of past events; b integrated qualitative maps administrative information. Modified from Calder et al. are based on amalgamation of many different types of (2015) 4 M.A. Thompson et al. complex information-processing exercise, and 2.1 Communicating Complex visual design and audience background can have Content a strong effect on the messages that people take away (Robinson and Petchenik 1976; Bertin On 13 November 1985, after a year of awaken- 1983; MacEachren 1995; Monmonier 1996; ing, but with little short-term warning, the Lloyd 2011; Perkins et al. 2011). During a crisis, ice-capped volcano Nevado del Ruiz erupted. hazard maps can become widely distributed and The eruption sent devastating lahars—turbulent used for communicating with many different mixes of snow, ice, meltwater and pyroclastic audiences. In these rapid mass communication debris—down valleys and channels to the contexts, audiences may not always consult Colombian town of Armero, causing one of the supporting resources beyond the map image worst volcanic disasters in history (Pierson et al. itself (e.g., Leonard et al. 2014). In such contexts, 1990). The Nevado del Ruiz tragedy was the it is important to consider how visual design and result of a complex interplay between a number communication factors influence hazard map of technological, political, and social circum- reading, knowledge exchange, and decision- stances (Voight 1990). However, retrospective making. Here, we draw upon case studies and accounts recall the “state of frustration and con- past work to review how volcanic hazard maps fusion” (Voight 1990, p. 180) that arose from a are used to visually communicate with difference “poorly understood” (Parra and Cepeda 1990, audiences, and how visual design plays a role in p. 117) hazard map (Fig. 2a). Although a revised this communication. hazard map was being prepared, the lahars struck two days before the planned release of the new map. Although the available map showed overall 2 Visual Communication accurate content, it was displayed using scientific and probabilistic concepts that were unfamiliar to Volcanic hazard maps synthesize a wealth of many map audiences, leading to miscommuni- information about individual processes and cation among authorities, the media, and the interdependent phenomena over a range of spa- public (Parra and Cepeda 1990; Voight 1990). tial and temporal scales. As with all cartographic In 1990, the post-event hazard map was sim- representations, a number of generalisations plified by replacing individual probabilistic haz- therefore have to be carried out in order to ard paths with generalized hazard zones (high, visually communicate this complex data in a moderate, and low) (Parra and Cepeda 1990). clear and concise way in two dimensions. This The revision aimed to develop a map that was often requires simplifying complicated physical “easily comprehensible to non-specialists and and numerical concepts, such as particle and flow therefore less susceptible to misinterpretation” dynamics and probabilistic uncertainty. Deciding (Parra and Cepeda 1990, p. 117). Today, the upon the most salient and useful content, and the most recent Nevado del Ruiz hazard map (SGC clearest and simplest way to display that content, 2015; Fig. 2b) continues this generalisation is a challenging, but important task. Highly approach. Efforts to design an “intuitive” (Parra complex maps are often difficult for most audi- and Cepeda 1990, p. 117) map for non-scientific ences to understand (MacEachren 1982). How- audiences acknowledged the important crisis ever, past crises and work have shown that communication role of volcanic hazard maps and engaging with audiences to understand the way brought attention to the importance of consider- that they perceive hazards can help guide gen- ing audience perspectives in designing maps. eralisation of complex content and inform com- The experience led to reflection about hazard munication approaches. map design in other volcanically active parts of More Than Meets the Eye: Volcanic Hazard Map Design … 5

Fig. 2 Evolution of the volcanic hazard map for Nevado Parra and Cepeda 1990), and b the current, revised hazard del Ruiz, showing a a simplified black-and-white version map produced by the Colombian Geological Survey in of the hazard map that was available during the time 2015 (SGC 2015) leading up to the November 1985 crisis (modified from 6 M.A. Thompson et al. the world. For example, Nakamura et al. (2008) of the island (Aspinall et al. 2002). The people of note that the crisis sparked an evaluation of Montserrat were badly affected by the disaster. Japanese volcanic hazard maps, resulting in a More than 90% of the population was displaced, design change “from being specialist-oriented to and communities suffered ongoing distress and being designed to be more easily understood” uncertainty (Kokelaar 2002; Sword-Daniels et al. (p. 297). 2014). Over the course of the eruption, hazard The value of having simple and clear hazard maps and risk management maps were widely maps for use in crisis communication has emerged used in communication with authorities and local in a number of other volcanic crises, including the communities (Aspinall et al. 2002). eruption crisis on the Caribbean island of In an effort to minimise disruption and keep as Montserrat. On 18 July 1995, a small phreatic much land open to utilisation as possible, early explosion on Soufrière Hills volcano marked the maps used a microzonation approach, where the start of an eruption that would go on to continue for island was divided into seven different zones nearly two decades. Episodes of andesitic reflecting gradual levels of risk, from A (more dome-building and collapse produced rapid, hot risk) to G (less risk) (Aspinall et al. 2002; pyroclastic flows that devastated nearly two-thirds Kokelaar 2002; Fig. 3a). Microzones were tied to

Fig. 3 Black-and-white versions of maps used to com- c examples of the aerial and perspective photographs of municate with the public during the Soufrière Hills Montserrat, which were easier for participants to read and eruption crisis on Montserrat in a November 1996 and use than plan view maps (modified from Haynes et al. b September 1997 (modified from Kokelaar 2002); and 2007) More Than Meets the Eye: Volcanic Hazard Map Design … 7 access restrictions, which varied based on chan- audiences respond to certain hazard visualisa- ges in an associated volcanic alert level system. tion approaches and how this may influence However, the complex maps, together with their crisis communication efforts. dynamic relationship to alert levels, were some- times found to be “difficult to communicate to the public” (Kokelaar 2002, p. 12). Alert levels 2.2 Considering Audience alone can be complex concepts to communicate Perspectives (Fearnley et al. 2012; Potter et al. 2014). Recognising a need to simplify the maps for In order to share valuable and useful knowledge visual communication purposes, later versions of about a hazard or risk with an audience, it is first the map (September 1997 onwards) generalised important to understand the audience’s existing the microzones into two to three larger zones knowledge and perspectives regarding the hazard representing different levels of access, including or risk, and what information is valued and an exclusion zone around the volcanic edifice needed (Bostrom and Löfstedt 2003; Perry et al. (Fig. 3b). The responsive change illustrated an 2016). The way that different audiences perceive audience-driven shift in map design, but also volcanic hazard and risk can have an important highlighted the challenges associated with com- influence on how they respond to hazard and risk municating complex and interdependent content communication efforts (Johnston et al. 1999; about hazard and risk. Paton et al. 2008; Gaillard and Dibben 2008; While the Montserrat experience highlighted Doyle et al. 2014). Engaging with hazard map the importance of considering how key volcanic audiences to better understand their existing hazard and risk information is generalised and knowledge and perceptions of volcanic hazard displayed on a map, Haynes et al. (2007) found and risk can therefore help guide and inform that other fundamental elements of hazard map approaches to hazard and risk communication, design can also play a role in crisis communi- including hazard map design. Integrative cation. Haynes et al. (2007) developed several engagement with audiences can also facilitate different versions of the Montserrat hazard and constructive dialogue about volcanic hazards and risk maps that utilised a variety of different help engender trust in the resulting maps and visual formats. They found that visual design communication products (Cronin et al. 2004; elements, such as the choice of base map, Haynes et al. 2008; Leone and Lesales 2009; influenced how local audiences used and Pierson et al. 2014). understood the information. For example, par- Audience perception of volcanic hazards ticipants were able to better identify spatial played a key role in the redesign of the volcanic features and orient themselves with the infor- hazard maps for Mt. Ambae, the largest active mation when it was portrayed on aerial or per- volcano of the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu. spective photographs (Fig. 3c). While plan view Cronin et al. (2004) found that the existing sci- or topographic contour maps may be an intu- entific volcanic hazard map (Fig. 4a) was poorly itive choice for an earth scientist, it may not be understood by most people living near the vol- the most suitable choice for communicating cano because of differences in the ways that the spatial hazard information with other audiences scientists and local communities perceived haz- (Haynes et al. 2007). Nave et al. (2010) found ardous volcanic phenomena. In order to create a similar results in a study of Stromboli volcano hazard map design which better aligned with hazard map styles, recommending plan view audience perspectives, the scientists engaged with contour hazard maps for government officials, the local communities to better understand how but perspective displays for non-specialist locals viewed and conceptualised volcanic haz- audiences. Collectively, these, and many other ard. The hazard map was then revised to assimi- past volcanic crises have contributed valuable late both local and scientific worldviews. For knowledge about the ways that different example, while scientists and locals believed the 8 M.A. Thompson et al.

Fig. 4 Volcanic hazard maps for Mt Ambae. a The communities, and represents an integration of both local, former scientific-style hazard map (modified from traditional perspectives and outside, scientific perspec- Monzier and Robin (1995)), and b The revised hazard tives (modified from Cronin et al. 2004) map, which was developed through engagement with summit area of the volcano was dangerous for groups (Cronin et al. 2004). The resulting map different reasons, both groups acknowledged that (Fig. 4b) represents a visual integration of both the summit crater was a highly dangerous place. traditional and outside scientific worldviews Similarly, although the scientists and locals about hazardous volcanic areas, and is an exam- believed in different causes of lahars, valleys were ple of the how engagement can help achieve seen as particularly dangerous areas by both common ground for visual communication. More Than Meets the Eye: Volcanic Hazard Map Design … 9

While technical scientific hazard maps are still 2014a), it generated a high level of stress and an essential tool for certain specialist tasks and uncertainty surrounding a potential increase in stakeholders, different types of hazard map con- volcanic risk. The eruption vents were located tent may be prioritised for communication with within 2 km of New Zealand’s most popular day other audiences who visit, work, and live in track, the Tongariro Alpine Crossing, which volcanic areas. For example, engagement with averages up to 1500 visitors a day during the audiences in outdoor recreation areas near vol- peak summer season. The TgVC is also a com- canoes in New Zealand and the United States has plex stratovolcano system capable of much larger, led to an emphasis on including life safety advice sub-Plinian eruptive activity (Moebis et al. 2011; on volcanic hazard maps to share knowledge Jolly et al. 2014b). While there was an existing about what to do in the event of volcanic activity. series of background hazard maps that were Ruapehu is an active volcano in New Zealand designed for communicating with non-specialist with ski fields located on its summit and flanks. audiences (Fig. 5a) (Leonard et al. 2008, 2014), Annual engagement with audiences on the ski the eruption meant that a new, event-focussed, slopes has been used to guide visual design and crisis hazard map needed to be developed rapidly content of the volcanic hazard map posters dis- in order to provide information and life-safety played in ski areas on Ruapehu (Leonard et al. advice directly related to the activity unfolding at 2008). The hazard maps are tailored specifically the Te Maari vents (Fig. 5b). for winter sport audiences, illustrating valley Developing an audience-focussed hazard map areas exposed to lahar hazard and providing under the stress and time pressures of a crisis advice about how to evacuate valleys in the event situation was complex and taxing. Leonard et al. of an eruption. Engagement with local audiences (2014) note that between the first and second also led to integration of preparedness and versions of the map “at least 147 emails were evacuation advice into large interpretive outdoor sent by 23 different people across 9 different signs about volcanic hazards for volcanoes of the agencies and groups over a 24 day period” Cascade Range in the United States, such as (p. 219). These numbers reflect the high level of Mount Baker, Glacier Peak (Eske et al. 2015), engagement and interaction between various and Mount Rainier (Schelling et al. 2014) (Cadig groups involved in management of the crisis, but et al. this volume, Driedger et al. in prep). also the complicated nature of rapidly compiling, Combining volcanic hazard maps with support- synthesizing, and deciding on the content, mes- ing information about hazard phenomena and saging, and design of a hazard map during a advice for increasing personal response capacity crisis. The rapid, high-stakes nature of volcanic may encourage engagement and elaboration with crises means that there are often limited resour- hazard map information among some audiences ces to dedicate towards revising hazard map (Paton 2003; Rakow et al. 2015). Although design during an actual event. During the Te engaging with audiences can be time and Maari crisis, the relationships formed through resource intensive, carrying out work to under- past engagement were valuable in facilitating stand audience perspectives in times of dor- map development and design (Jolly et al. 2014b; mancy may prove useful in times of crisis Leonard et al. 2014). For example, one of the communication. main populations affected by the event was a In 2012, consideration of audience communi- local indigenous group who provided valuable cation needs became a key consideration during feedback into the final map design style (Leonard response to the Te Maari eruption crisis at the et al. 2014). In addition, the team relied heavily Tongariro Volcanic Centre (TgVC) in New on resources that had been pre-prepared, Zealand. While the Te Maari eruption was alto- emphasising the value in planning and consid- gether small in scale, consisting of two phreatic ering approaches to map design during times of explosions several months apart (Jolly et al. dormancy. 10 M.A. Thompson et al.

Fig. 5 Tongariro Volcanic Centre volcanic hazard maps hazards during times of volcanic dormancy, while crisis for a typical background levels of activity (GNS Science hazard maps are temporary event-speciﬁc maps that are 2005) and b during the Te Maari eruption crisis in 2012 developed in response to imminent hazards (modiﬁed (GNS Science 2012). Background hazard maps are from Leonard et al. 2014) long-term maps that are used to communicate potential

A number of lessons regarding crisis hazard shape, size, colour, texture, and orientation, and maps emerged from the Te Maari experience, then cognitively process this information to cre- including the value of using version numbers, ate meaning (Bertin 1983; MacEachren 1995; disclaimers, and providing metadata, and these Perkins et al. 2011). Well-designed visualisations are put forth as a set of recommendations by can augment and enhance this cognitive pro- Leonard et al. (2014) (p. 225). In this list, they cessing by reducing cognitive load and facilitat- note the importance of considering the visual ing inductive reasoning (Hegarty 2011; Patterson design of the map image itself. While the map et al. 2014). Accordingly, visual map products images were presented with legends, descriptive have been found to improve comprehension of text, and explanatory information, a number of hazard information when compared to non-visual media outlets clipped away this accompanying communication formats such as text and tables documentation and context when circulating and (Severtson and Vatovec 2012; Cheong et al. disseminating the map. Accordingly, in some 2016; Cao et al. 2016). However, there are many cases, interpretation of the hazard map informa- variables to consider when visually designing a tion relied almost wholly on the map image alone map, and it can often be difficult to determine (Leonard et al. 2014). which combination of variables will support cognition and reasoning. Further, map designs which are aesthetically appealing or intuitively 3 Visual Design preferred by map makers and users are not nec- essarily the most effective for decision-making Communicating with map images relies on visual tasks (Hegarty et al. 2009; Mendonça and Dela- perception and cognition. The map reader’s eyes zari 2014). Engaging with map audiences and must sense and interpret visual variables such as carrying out empirical research into how people More Than Meets the Eye: Volcanic Hazard Map Design … 11 read and process map information can help quantitative and qualitative survey questions confront these challenges by giving insight into about the volcanic ash hazard using the different the ways that different variables in visual design maps. The results showed that changing visual influence communication and decision-making. design elements, such as the data classification In addition, experimenting with innovative map style or colour scheme, can have a significant visualisation formats can help also help create effect on the way people understand the hazard. new ways of capturing audience attention and For example, participants were more accurate in facilitating engagement with hazard information. quantitatively estimating the average probability of accumulating 1 mm of ash when they used a map that classified hazard data into discrete 3.1 Exploring and Testing Different zones of probability (e.g., 5–14, 15–24 … 65– Designs 75%) compared to a map that classified the data using gradational shading (Fig. 6a, b). Partici- Research surrounding information visualisation pants were most precise when these two is carried out in many different disciplines, approaches were combined, with discrete prob- including human computer interaction, human ability isarithms (e.g., 15, 25 … 65%) overlain factors, cognitive psychology, semiotics, visual onto a gradational shading classification (Fig. 6 analytics, graphic design, cartography, and geo- c). Participants also had strong feelings about the visualisation. Across these fields, a simple user-friendliness of the different maps styles. method used for evaluating the effectiveness of Map which were easier to read were associated visual designs is to test how audiences perform in with increased confidence in ability to use and task-based exercises using different visualisa- apply the hazard information. The findings sug- tions. However, in order test effectiveness, a gest that simple choices in data classification defined, measurable communication goal needs could have a significant influence on the way to be identified (MacEachren 1982), and in the people understand, interpret, and apply proba- case of volcanic hazard maps, this can often be bilistic hazard information (Thompson et al. multidimensional and nuanced. Accordingly, 2015). Haynes et al. (2007) propose a mixed methods Thompson et al. (2015) also conclude that it is approach for evaluating volcanic hazard map important to consider colour scheme choices design that combines quantitative performance when representing volcanic hazard information evaluations with qualitative investigations. Using on a map. Colour is an important visual design this approach, Haynes et al. (2007) were able to variable, which can guide attention, emotional capture the complexity of how local audiences response, and interpretation of map features engaged with volcanic hazard and risk maps on (Robinson 1967; Bertin 1983; Wolfe and Montserrat. Horowitz 2004). However, the strong connota- Thompson et al. (2015) adopted a similar tions and meaning that colours often carry for mixed methods approach to explore the influence map readers introduces potential for miscom- of visual design on volcanic hazard map communication (Monmonier 1996; Brewer 1994). munication in New Zealand. Thompson et al. For example, Thompson et al. (2015) found that (2015) took one dataset, which showed the using a red-to-blue diverging-hue colour scheme probability of accumulating volcanic ash in the (Fig. 7a) communicated a qualitatively different event of a hypothetical eruption, and displayed it type of message than a red-to-yellow using several different visual design variables. sequential-hue colour scheme (Fig. 7b). Partici- More than 100 scientists and organisational pants tended to make interpretations about haz- stakeholders (e.g., emergency managers, gov- ard state (presence/absence) when reading the ernment officials) in New Zealand responded to diverging colour scheme map, but tended to 12 M.A. Thompson et al.

b Fig. 6 Three types of probabilistic volcanic hazard map data visualisations tested by Thompson et al. (2015). Participants struggled to read accurate probability values for the area outlined in blue when using a a gradational shaded data classification. Participants performed better using b a binned (zoned) data classification, and they performed best, with the most accurate and precise estimates of hazard values using c gradational shading with isolines. The results suggest that visualisation of hazard data on a map can influence the information that people take away. Modified from Thompson et al. (2015)

make interpretations about hazard degree (less/more) when reading the sequential colour scheme map. In addition, more than two-thirds of survey participants self-reported that the colour scheme influenced the level of hazard they perceived from the map (Thompson et al. 2015). Similarly, while red-yellow-green “stoplight” colour schemes are applied in a number of volcanic hazard maps around the world, Olson and Brewer (1997) and Jenny and Kelso (2007) warn that red-and-green colour schemes may introduce problems for colour vision deficient map readers. Up to 8% of males have some form of colour-vision deficiency, with difficulty distin- guishing between red and green colours being the most common type (Delepero et al. 2005). To this population, the highest (red) and lowest (green) hazard areas may appear the same colour and cause confusion. To assist map makers in choosing appropriate colour schemes for maps, Harrower and Brewer (2003) developed Color- Brewer (www.ColorBrewer.org), a research- backed tool for selecting map colour schemes with appropriate hue, saturation, and contrast to enhance visualisation of map information and prevent potential issues for colour vision deficient users. Many of the challenges associated with visually designing volcanic hazard maps are faced in other fields of hazard and risk research, such as More Than Meets the Eye: Volcanic Hazard Map Design … 13

Fig. 7 Two hazard map colour schemes tested by and were more likely to discuss hazard degree when Thompson et al. (2015). Participants were more likely viewing b the red-to-yellow sequential hue colour scheme to discuss a hazard state (e.g., present or absent) when map. Modified from Thompson et al. (2015) viewing a the red-to-blue diverging hue colour scheme, wildfire (e.g., Cheong et al. 2016), hurricane et al. 2014). As work in volcanic hazard map (e.g., Broad et al. 2007; Sherman-Morris et al. design continues to evolve, it is important to 2015), flooding (e.g., Strathie et al. 2015), sea consider lessons learned from research and level rise (e.g., Retchless 2014), and health (e.g., experience in these diverse fields, and drawn Severtson and Myers 2013). For example, upon them to help inform and guide investiga- researchers have found that visual design of tions of volcanic hazard communication. wildfire hazard maps can influence people’s In addition, contributions from cognitive sci- interest and engagement with the hazard infor- ence research can add new dimensions to mation and also how they use it to make deci- understanding how visual design and visual sions about evacuation (Cao et al. 2016; Cheong perception of volcanic hazard maps can influence et al. 2016). Similarly, visual design has been hazard interpretation and decision-making. For found to influence emotional and behavioural example, Hegarty (2011) summarises sixteen responses to tornado warning maps (Ash et al. “principles of effective graphics” based on dec- 2014). Visualising and communicating uncer- ades of cognitive science research into tainty in geospatial data also remains an ongoing visual-spatial displays. Such principles, such as challenge across many different fields (Aerts the relevance principle (Kosslyn 2006), which et al. 2003; Spiegelhalter et al. 2011; Kinkeldey proposes that visual displays should present no 14 M.A. Thompson et al. more or no less information than is needed by the traditional plan view contour maps, and that audience, could help inform approaches to visual participants’ performed better in interpreting design of volcanic hazard maps. Investigations of terrain and evacuation routes with the 3D dis- weather map reading performance suggests that plays. Recent advancements in visual technol- considering such graphic principles in map ogy, such as eye-gaze trackers (devices that can design can affect visual processing of map be used to record a readers’ eye movement across information (Hegarty et al. 2010; Fabrikant et al. a visual or graphic), can also enable new forms 2010). Similarly, Patterson et al. (2014) propose of insight into map reading behaviour, visual six “leverage points” for augmenting human attention, and understanding (e.g., Çöltekin et al. cognition through information visualisations, 2009; Meyer et al. 2012; Hegarty et al. 2010). which also are likely to have relevancy for map Innovative visualisations can also be devel- design. For example, they suggest that certain oped with traditional, low-technology approa- visual design approaches can help capture visual ches. Hands-on, bottom-up, community-led attention and also guide and focus visual search participatory mapping exercises, in which tangi- for information. ble objects such as paper, pens, paint, and stones are used to visually represent and contextualise interrelationships between hazards and society, 3.2 Visualising Hazard in Different can help foster important dialogue about natural Formats hazards and risk (Chambers 2008; Cadag and Gaillard 2012). For example, Cadag and Gaillard Although the 2-dimensional plan view paper map (2012) outline how participatory 3D mapping remains a common and useful visualisation (P3DM) was used as an integrative tool for dis- method in hazard mapping, volcanic hazard aster risk reduction in Masantol, a small munic- concepts can be mapped and visualised in many ipality on the island of Luzon in the Philippines. other ways. For example, modern geovisualisa- They found that collaboratively building a tion and geographic information system physical, 3D geographic model of place (GIS) techniques, such as interactive interfaces empowered the community to engage in con- (Çöltekin et al. 2009; Roth 2013) will play a structive dialogue about hazard and risk. Such significant role in shaping the future of hazard approaches also offer a way to integrate scientific map communication. Interactive and 3D visual- and local knowledge in a way that is tangible and izations can add new dimensions to natural meaningful for many different people in the hazard and risk maps, through providing community, from government officials to school location-aware, user-centred data, although fur- students (Cadag and Gaillard 2012). ther research about these emerging technologies is needed to better understand the way they affect hazard and risk communication (Lonergan and 4 Volcanic Hazard Maps Hedley 2015). into the Future As improved workflows and accessibility of such methods continue to be developed, new Volcanic hazard maps have transformed over the opportunities will arise for communicating past several decades due to advances in hazard volcanic hazard in innovative and engaging analysis methods, lessons learnt through past ways. In a study at Mount Hood volcano in crises, and ongoing interdisciplinary research Oregon, USA, Preppernau and Jenny (2015) into how audiences engage and interact with tested new methods of visualising lahar hazard hazard maps. Modern volcanic hazard maps will using 3-dimensional (3D) oblique perspective continue to evolve into the future as digital base maps with isochrones that represented lahar technologies, GIS, social media, citizen science, travel time. They found that participants pre- and globalisation have a growing impact on ferred 3D isochrone lahar hazard maps to science communication and disaster management More Than Meets the Eye: Volcanic Hazard Map Design … 15

Fig. 8 Probabilistic volcanic hazard map showing global average recurrence interval (in years) between accumu- volcanic ash fall hazard. The map, which was produced lating ash thicknesses exceeding 1 mm. Modified from for the UNISDR 2015 Global Assessment Report, is Jenkins et al. (2015) based on large-scale quantitative modelling, and shows (e.g., Webley and Watson this volume, Kuhn communication styles within and among these et al. this volume). In 2015, one of the first global diverse audiences will be important for under- volcanic hazard maps was created as part of the standing how to adapt and grow approaches to UNISDR (United Nations Office for Disaster volcanic hazard knowledge exchange. Risk Reduction) Global Assessment Report Interdisciplinary research is becoming (Jenkins et al. 2015; Fig. 8). The map represents increasingly embraced within the field of vol- the growing global collaboration effort in volcanic hazard and risk (Barclay et al. 2008), and canic hazard analysis, as well as the expanding future volcanic hazard maps should continue to capabilities of hazard modelling and computa- work towards integrating new interdisciplinary tion. Collaborative international online vol- concepts from research fields such as sociology, canology networks, such as Vhub (www.Vhub. communications, human factors, geography, org; Palma et al. 2014), local online hubs, such as design, and psychology to develop intuitive wikis (Leonard et al. 2014), and interactive designs which maximise visual cues, minimise online tools for volcanic hazard assessment, such cognitive load, and increase the effectiveness of as G-EVER (Tsukuda et al. 2012), are helping to visual communication. Integrating tacit knowl- facilitate data-sharing and improve access to edge from relevant areas of practice (e.g., emer- hazard modelling, enabling new levels of gency management, national parks, conservation) engagement and access to tools and information in addition to theories and concepts from differ- for map-making and design. ent areas of research can help ensure that vol- While visual design of hazard maps will con- canic hazard maps of the future are optimally tinue to evolve with innovation of new tech- designed in a way that makes them useful, nologies and hazard mapping approaches, hazard usable, and used. map audiences will also evolve. As globalisation It is important to acknowledge that the case and population growth continues, hazard map studies and research covered in this chapter rely audiences will dynamically shift and become principally on work and experiences published in more diverse. For example, growth in volcano the academic literature, and are not comprehen- tourism could lead to higher numbers of tourists sive. There is a wealth of tacit knowledge on and non-native speakers in hazardous areas, and audience-map engagement and hazard commu- these populations are likely to have different nication gained from practice that is not captured perceptions of hazard and risk than local audi- in this summary. However, a key theme which ences (Bird et al. 2010). Future work exploring emerges from the case studies and work reviewed differences in the information needs and cultural in this chapter is that an audience-based, 16 M.A. Thompson et al. evidence-backed approach to visual design of they make. Future work into the ways in which hazard maps can help facilitate clear hazard people read, process, and share visual informa- communication. As with most communication tion will open new opportunities for optimising approaches, hazard map design is not volcanic hazard content for different audiences. “one-size-fits all”, and cannot be guided by a This will continue to be important as advances in single universal framework or design solution. hazard modelling and visualisation technology Nevertheless, hazard maps that: (A) consider the introduce new ways of visually communicating audience and their messaging needs, and (B) use hazard during a crisis. As the volcanology com- evidence from interdisciplinary research and munity works towards exploring new ways of experience to inform visual map design based on developing and designing volcanic hazard maps, these needs, can help communicate information in new levels of global collaboration through online a way that is accessible and useful to those who data-sharing hubs will provide ways to connect, need it. While available resources, target audi- share, and integrate these emerging approaches. ences, and volcanic setting will uniquely guide By considering audience needs and perspectives and shape this process for each map, adopting —how the information might be used, read, such an approach can help create end results that understood, and applied—hazard maps can be are grounded in meaningful communication designed in a way that makes them accessible, goals. relevant, and clear for the people who need them.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to 5 Summary acknowledge the many generations of volcanic hazard maps which have contributed valuable insight and knowledge regarding both the advantages and challenges Volcanic hazard maps that are designed based on of visually communicating volcanic hazard. The authors both the needs of the audience and evidence from would also like to thank M Monsalve, H Murcia, and C practice and research can help support clear and Driedger for reviewing parts of this manuscript, and two anonymous reviewers for constructive and valuable effective messaging of critical hazard informa- comments on an earlier version of this chapter. MAT and tion. Engaging with audiences to explore how JML gratefully acknowledge support from the New they understand and create meaning from hazard Zealand Earthquake Commission. maps can foster constructive multi-way dialogue about volcanic hazards, and also help ensure that important messages are visually communicated References in a way that is transparent and trusted by those potentially affected by a volcanic crisis. Aerts J, Clarke K, Keuper A (2003) Testing popular Although hazard maps represent just one com- visualization techniques for representing model uncertainty. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 30:249–261. doi:10. ponent of a hazard assessment, their ability to 1559/152304003100011180 comprise many types of information into a con- Ash KD, Schumann RL III, Bowser GC (2014) Tornado cise, visually salient graphic that can be shared warning trade-offs: evaluating choices for visually – across many types of media means that they are communicating risk. Weather Clim Soc 6:104 118. doi:10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00021.1 often used widely in crisis communication. Past Aspinall WP, Loughlin SC, Michael FV, Miller AD, volcanic crises across the world have under- Norton GE, Rowley KC, Sparks RSJ, Young SR scored the important communication role of (2002) The Montserrat Volcano observatory: its hazard maps, but have also highlighted the sig- evolution, organization, role and activities. In: Druitt TH, Kokelaar BP (eds) The eruption of nificant impact that visual design has on this Soufrière Hills Volcano, Montserrat, from 1995 to exchange. 1999. Geological Society of London Memoirs, vol 21, Visual representation of hazard information pp 71–91 on a map can influence the way that people Barclay J, Haynes K, Mitchell T, Solana C, Teeuw R, Darnell A, Crosweller S, Cole P, Pyle D, Lowe C, engage with the information, as well as the Fearnley C, Kelman I (2008) Framing volcanic risk messages that people take away, and decisions communication within disaster risk reduction: finding More Than Meets the Eye: Volcanic Hazard Map Design … 17

ways for the social and physical sciences to work Domke D, Perimutter D, Spratt M (2002) The primes of together. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ 305:163–177. our times? An examination of the “power” of visual doi:10.1144/SP305.14 images. Journalism 3:131–159. doi:10.1177/ Bertin J (1983) Semiology of graphics (trans: Berg WJ). 146488490200300211 University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI Doyle EE, McClure J, Johnston DM, Paton D (2014) Bird D, Gisladottir G, Dominey-Howes D (2010) Vol- Communicating likelihoods and probabilities in fore- canic risk and tourism in southern Iceland: implica- casts of volcanic eruptions. J Volcanol Geoth Res tions for hazard, risk and emergency response 272:1–15. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2013.12.006 education and training. J Volcanol Geoth Res Driedger C, Ramsey D, Faust L (in preparation) Follow- 189:33–48. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.09.020 ing the tug of the audience—from complex to Bostrom A, Löfstedt RE (2003) Communicating risk: simplified hazard maps at Cascade Range volcanoes. wireless and hardwired. Risk Anal 23:241–248. Front Volcanol Spec Issue Volc Hazard Assess doi:10.1111/1539-6924.00304 Ekse W, Burkhardt F, Kloes D, Driedger CL, Faust L, Brewer CA (1994) Color use guidelines for mapping and Nelson D (2015) Are you ready for an eruption? visualization. In: MacEachren AM, Taylor DRF Mount Baker and Glacier Peak. Accessed 24 Sept (eds) Visualization in modern cartography. Elsevier, 2016 at: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/ Tarrytown, New York, pp 123–147 geology/geologic-hazards/volcanoes-and-lahars#volcano- Broad K, Leiserowitz A, Weinkle J, Steketee M (2007) preparedness-posters Misinterpretations of the “Cone of Uncertainty” in Fabrikant SI, Hespanha SR, Hegarty M (2010) Cognitively Florida during the 2004 hurricane season. Bull Am inspired and perceptually salient graphic displays for Meteorol Soc 88(5):651–667 efficient spatial inference making. Ann Assoc Am Cadag J, Gaillard J (2012) Integrating knowledge and Geogr 100:13–29. doi:10.1080/00045600903362378 actions in disaster risk reduction: the contribution of Fearnley CJ, McGuire WJ, Davies G, Twigg J (2012) participatory mapping. Area 44:100–109. doi:10. Standardisation of the USGS volcano alert level 1111/j.1475-4762.2011.01065.x system (VALS): analysis and ramifications. Bull Volc Calder ES, Wagner K, Ogburn SE (2015) Volcanic hazard 74(9):2023–2036. doi:10.1007/s00445-012-0645-6 maps. In: Loughlin SC, Sparks S, Brown SK, Jenk- Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM (2000) ins SF, Vye-Brown C (eds) Global volcanic hazards The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. and risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK J Behav Decis Mak 13(1):1–17 Cao Y, Boruff B, McNeill I (2016) Is a picture worth a Gaillard J-C, Dibben C (2008) Volcanic risk perception thousand words? Evaluating the effectiveness of maps and beyond. J Volcanol Geoth Res 172:163–169. for delivering wildfire warning information. Int J doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.015 Disaster Risk Reduct 19:179–196. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr. GNS Science (2005) Volcanic hazards at Tongariro 2016.08.012 (map). Wellington, NZ Carrasco M (2011) Visual attention: the past 25 years. Vis GNS Science (2012) Te Maari Eruption Phenomena Res 51:1484–1525. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2011.04.012 (map). Wellington, NZ Chambers R (2008) Revolutions in development inquiry. Harrower M, Brewer CA (2003) ColorBrewer.org: an Earthscan, London online tool for selecting colour schemes for maps. Cheong L, Bleisch S, Kealy A, Tolhurst K, Wilkening T, Cartogr J 40:27–37. doi:10.1179/00087040323500 Duckham M (2016) Evaluating the impact of visual- 2042 ization of wildfire hazard upon decision-making under Haynes K, Barclay J, Pidgeon N (2007) Volcanic hazard uncertainty. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 1–28. doi:10.1080/ communication using maps: an evaluation of their 13658816.2015.1131829 effectiveness. Bull Volc 70:123–138. doi:10.1007/ Çöltekin A, Heil B, Garlandini S, Fabrikant S (2009) s00445-007-0124-7 Evaluating the effectiveness of interactive map inter- Haynes K, Barclay J, Pidgeon N (2008) The issue of trust face designs: a case study integrating usability metrics and its influence on risk communication during a with eye-movement analysis. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci volcanic crisis. Bull Volc 70:605–621. doi:10.1007/ 36:5–17. doi:10.1559/152304009787340197 s00445-007-0156-z Cronin S, Gaylord D, Charley D, Alloway BV, Wallez S, Hegarty M (2011) The cognitive science of visual-spatial Esau JB (2004) Participatory methods of incorporating displays: implications for design. Top Cogn Sci scientific with traditional knowledge for volcanic 3:446–474. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01150.x hazard management on Ambae Island, Vanuatu. Bull Hegarty M, Smallman H, Stull A, Canham M (2009) Volc 66:652–668. doi:10.1007/s00445-004-0347-9 Naïve cartography: how intuitions about display Daron J, Lorenz S, Wolski P, Blamey R, Jack C (2015) configuration can hurt performance. Cartographica Interpreting climate data visualisations to inform 44(3):171–186. doi:10.3138/carto.44.3.171 adaptation decisions. Climate Risk Manage 10:17– Hegarty M, Canham M, Fabrikant S (2010) Thinking 26. doi:10.1016/j.crm.2015.06.007 about the weather: how display salience and knowl- Delepero WT, O’Neill H, Casson E, Hovis J (2005) edge affect performance in a graphic inference task. Aviation-relevant epidemiology of color vision defi- J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 36:37–53. doi:10. ciency. Aviat Space Eviron Med 76:127–133 1037/a0017683 18 M.A. Thompson et al.

Jenkins SF, Wilson TM, Magill CR, Miller V, Stewart C, Lester PM (2014) Visual communication: images with Marzocchi W, Boulton M (2015) Volcanic ash fall messages, 6th edn. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, hazard and risk: technical background paper for the Boston, MA UNISDR 2015 global assessment report on disaster Lloyd R (2011) Understanding and learning maps. In: risk reduction. Global Volcano Model and IAVCEI Dodge M, Kitchin R, Perkins C (eds) The map reader: Jenny B, Kelso N (2007) Color design for the color vision theories of mapping practice and cartographic repre- impaired. Cartogr Perspect 61–67. doi:10.14714/ sentation. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ CP58.270 Lonergan C, Hedley N (2015) Navigating the future of Johnston DM, Lai MS, Houghton BF, Paton D (1999) tsunami risk communication: using dimensionality, Volcanic hazard perceptions: comparative shifts in interactivity and situatedness to interface with society. knowledge and risk. Disaster Prev Manag 8:118–126. Nat Hazards 78:179–201. doi:10.1007/s11069-015- doi:10.1108/09653569910266166 1709-7 Jolly AD, Jousset P, Lyons JJ, Carniel R (2014a) MacEachren A (1982) The role of complexity and Seismo-acoustic evidence for an avalanche driven symbolization method in thematic map effectiveness. phreatic eruption through a beheaded hydrothermal Ann Assoc Am Geogr 72:495–513. doi:10.1111/j. system: an example from the 2012 Tongariro eruption. 1467-8306.1982.tb01841.x J Volcanol Geoth Res 286:331–347. doi:10.1016/j. MacEachren A (1995) How maps work: representation, jvolgeores.2014.04.007 visualization, and design. Guilford Press, New York Jolly GE, Keys H, Procter JN, Deligne NI (2014b) Mendonça A, Delazari L (2014) Testing subjective Overview of the co-ordinated risk-based approach to preference and map use performance: use of web science and management response and recovery for maps for decision making in the public health sector. the 2012 eruptions of Tongariro volcano, New Cartographica 49:114–126. doi:10.3138/carto.49.2. Zealand. J Volcanol Geoth Res 286:184–207. doi:10. 1455 1016/j.jvolgeores.2014.08.028 Meyer V, Kuhlicke V, Luther J, Fuchs S, Priest S, Kinkeldey C, MacEachren AM, Schiewe J (2014) How to Dorner W, Serrhini K, Pardoe J, McCarthy S, Seidel J, assess visual communication of uncertainty? A sys- Palka G, Unnerstall H, Viavattene C, Scheuer S tematic review of geospatial uncertainty visualisation (2012) Recommendations for the user-specific user studies. Cartogr J 51:372–386. doi:10.1179/ enhancement of flood maps. Nat Hazards Earth Syst 1743277414Y.0000000099 Sci 12:1701–1716. doi:10.5194/nhess-12-1701-2012 Kokelaar BP (2002) Setting, chronology and conse- Moebis A, Cronin SJ, Neall VE, Smith IE (2011) quences of the eruption of Soufrière Hills Volcano, Unravelling a complex volcanic history from Montserrat (1995–1999). In: Druitt TH, Kokelaar BP fine-grained, intricate holocene ash sequences at the (eds) The eruption of Soufrière Hills Volcano, Tongariro Volcanic Centre, New Zealand. Quatern Int Montserrat, from 1995 to 1999. Geological Society 246:352–363. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2011.05.035 of London Memoirs, vol 21, pp 1–44 Monmonier M (1996) How to lie with maps. University Kosslyn SM (2006) Graph design for the eye and mind. of Chicago Press, Chicago Oxford University Press, New York Monzier M, Robin C (1995) Volcanic hazard map for Leonard G, Johnston D, Paton D et al (2008) Developing Aoba Island. ORSTOM (Institut de recherche pour le effective warning systems: ongoing research at Rua- developpement) pehu volcano, New Zealand. J Volcanol Geoth Res Mould D, Mandryk RL, Li H (2012) Emotional response 172:199–215. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.008 and visual attention to non-photorealistic images. Leonard GS, Stewart C, Wilson TM, Procter JN, Scott BJ, Comput Graph 36:658–672. doi:10.1016/j.cag.2012. Keys HJ, Jolly GE, Wardman JB, Cronin SJ, 03.039 McBride SK (2014) Integrating multidisciplinary Nakamura Y, Fukushima K, Jin X, Ukawa M, Sato T, science, modelling and impact data into evolving, Hotta Q (2008) Mitigation systems by hazard maps, syn-event volcanic hazard mapping and communica- mitigation plans, and risk analyses regarding volcanic tion: a case study from the 2012 Tongariro eruption disasters in Japan. J Disaster Res 3(4):297–304 crisis, New Zealand. J Volcanol Geoth Res 286:208– Nave R, Isaia R, Vilardo G, Barclay J (2010) Re-assessing 232. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2014.08.018 volcanic hazard maps for improving volcanic risk Leone F, Lesales T (2009) The interest of cartography for communication: application to Stromboli Island, Italy. a better perception and management of volcanic risk: J Maps 6:260–269. doi:10.4113/jom.2010.1061 from scientific to social representations: the case of Olson JM, Brewer CA (1997) An evaluation of color Mt. Pelée volcano, Martinique (Lesser Antilles). selections to accommodate map users with J Volcanol Geoth Res 186:186–194. doi:10.1016/j. color-vision impairments. Ann Assoc Am Geogr jvolgeores.2008.12.020 87:103–134 More Than Meets the Eye: Volcanic Hazard Map Design … 19

PalmaJ,CourtlandL,CharbonnierS,TortiniR,ValentineGA Retchless DP (2014) Sea level rise maps: how individual (2014) Vhub: a knowledge management system to facilitate differences complicate the cartographic communica- online collaborative volcano modeling and research. J Appl tion of an uncertain climate change hazard. Cartogr Volcanol 3:2. doi:10.1186/2191-5040-3-2 Perspect 77:17–32. doi:10.14714/CP77.1235 Parra E, Cepeda H (1990) Volcanic hazard maps of the Robinson AH (1967) Psychological aspects of color in Nevado del Ruiz volcano, Colombia. J Volcanol cartography. Int Yearb Cartogr 7:50–59 Geoth Res 42:117–127. doi:10.1016/0377-0273(90) Robinson AH, Petchenik (1976) The nature of maps: 90073-O essays toward understanding maps and mapping. Paton D (2003) Disaster preparedness: a social-cognitive University of Chicago Press, Chicago perspective. Disaster Prev Manag 12(3):210–216. Roth RE (2013) Interactive maps: what we know and doi:10.1108/09653560310480686 what we need to know. J Spat Inf Sci 6:59–115. Paton D, Smith L, Daly M, Johnston D (2008) Risk doi:10.5311/JOSIS.2013.6.105 perception and volcanic hazard mitigation: individual Schelling J, Prado L, Norman D, Walsh T, Driedger C, and social perspectives. J Volcanol Geoth Res Faust L, Westby L, Schroedel R, Lovellford P (2014) 172:179–188. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.026 Are you ready for an eruption? Washington Depart- Patterson RE, Blaha LM, Grinstein GG et al (2014) A ment of Natural Resources. Accessed 24 Sept 2016 at: human cognition framework for information visuali- http://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/geology/ sation. Comput Graph 42:42–58 geologic-hazards/volcanoes-and-lahars#volcano- Perkins C, Kitchin R, Dodge M (2011) Introductory preparedness-posters essay: cognition and cultures of mapping. In: Servicio Geológico Colombiano (2015) Mapa de amenaza Dodge M, Kitchin R, Perkins C (eds) The map reader: volcánica del Nevado del Ruiz. Escala 1:120,000 theories of mapping practice and cartographic repre- (http://www2.sgc.gov.co/Manizales/Imagenes/Mapas- sentation. Wiley, West Sussex, UK, pp 298–303 de-Amenaza/VNR/v3_img/Mapa_de_Amenaza_v3- Perry SC, Blanpied ML, Burkett ER, Campbell NM, 2015-50.aspx) Carlson A, Cox DA, Driedger CL, Eisenman DP, Severtson D, Myers J (2013) The influence of uncertain Fox-Glassman KT, Hoffman S, Hoffman SM, map features on risk beliefs and perceived ambiguity Jaiswal KS, Jones LM, Luco N, Marx SM, for maps of modeled cancer risk from air pollution. McGowan SM, Mileti DS, Moschetti MP, Ozman D, Risk Anal 33:818–837. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924. Pastor E, Petersen MD, Porter KA, Ramsey DW, 2012.01893.x Ritchie LA, Fitzpatrick JK, Rukstales KS, Sellnow TL, Severtson D, Vatovec C (2012) The theory-based Vaughon WL, Wald DJ, Wald LA, Wein A, Zar- influence of map features on risk beliefs: self-reports cadoolas C (2016) Get your science used—six guide- of what is seen and understood for maps depicting an lines to improve your products. USGS Circular environmental health hazard. J Health Commun 1419:37. doi:10.3133/cir1419 17:836–856. doi:10.1080/10810730.2011.650933 Pierson TC, Janda RJ, Thouret JC, Borrero CA (1990) Sherman-Morris K, Antonelli KB, Williams CC (2015) Perturbation and melting of snow and ice by the Measuring the effectiveness of the graphical commu- November 1985 eruption of Nevado del Ruiz, Colom- nication of hurricane storm surge threat. Weather Clim bia, and consequent mobilization, flow and deposition Soc 7:69–82. doi:10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00073.1 of lahars. J Volcanol Geoth Res 41:17–66. doi:10. Spiegelhalter D, Pearson M, Short I (2011) Visualizing 1016/0377-0273(90)90082-Q uncertainty about the future. Science 333:1393–1400. Pierson TC, Wood NJ, Driedger CL (2014) Reducing risk doi:10.1126/science.1191181 from lahar hazards: concepts, case studies, and roles Strathie, Netto, Walker GH, Pender (2015) How presen- for scientists. J Appl Volcanol 3:16. doi:10.1186/ tation format affects the interpretation of probabilistic s13617-014-0016-4 flood risk information. J Flood Risk Manage. doi:10. Potter SH, Jolly GE, Neall VE, Johnston DM, Scott BJ 1111/jfr3.12152 (2014) Communicating the status of volcanic activity: Sword-Daniels VL, Wilson TM, Sargeant S, Rossetto T, revising New Zealand’s volcanic alert level system. Twigg J, Johnston DM, Loughlin SC, Cole PD (2014) J Appl Volcanol 3:12. doi:10.1186/s13617-014-0013-7 Consequences of long-term volcanic activity for Preppernau C, Jenny B (2015) Three-dimensional versus essential services in Montserrat: challenges, adapta- conventional volcanic hazard maps. Nat Hazards tions and resilience. Geol Soc Spec Publ 39:471–488. 78:1329–1347. doi:10.1007/s11069-015-1773-z doi:10.1144/M39.26 Rakow T, Heard CL, Newell BR (2015) Meeting three Thompson MA, Lindsay JM, Gaillard J (2015) The challenges in risk communication: phenomena, num- influence of probabilistic volcanic hazard map prop- bers, and emotions. Policy Insights Behav Brain Sci erties on hazard communication. J Appl Volcanol. 2:147–156. doi:10.1177/2372732215601442 doi:10.1186/s13617-015-0023-0 20 M.A. Thompson et al.

Tsukuda E, Eichelberger J et al (2012) The G-EVER1 Voight B (1990) The 1985 Nevado del Ruiz volcano accord. G-EVER consortium. Retrieved from http://g- catastrophe: anatomy and retrospection. J Volcanol Geoth ever.org/en/accord/index.html Res 44:349–386. doi:10.1016/0377-0273(90)90027-D Tufte ER (1997) Visual explanations: images and quan- Wolfe JM, Horowitz TS (2004) What attributes guide the tities, evidence and narrative. Graphics Press, Chesire, deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? CT, p 156 Nat Rev Neurosci 5:495–501

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of The images or other third party material in this chapter the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you Commons license and your intended use is not permitted give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright and indicate if changes were made. holder.