OR/15/032 Appendix 2: Citizen science case studies

Mee K, Duncan M J. 2015. Increasing resilience to natural hazards through crowd-sourcing in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. British Geological Survey Internal Report, OR/15/32.

Detecting sulphur dioxide in Iceland

During the eruption of Bardabunga (August 2014 to February 2015) the Iceland Met Office (Veðurstofa Íslands) asked members of the public to fill out an online questionnaire asking them whether they could smell sulphur dioxide (SO₂) and had any ill effects from it. Respondents were also asked whether they could see the gas, what the weather conditions were and for their location. The Iceland Met office used the results from these observations in combination with their wind forecasts to make daily maps of SO₂ distribution predictions (see Figure 1), which they displayed on their website.

File:OR15032Append1.jpg

Figure 1 Predicted SO₂ maps for the 4th (left) and 5th November (right) 2014 (Source: IMO website). Link to the questionnaire (in Icelandic): http://www.vedur.is/skraning_brennisteinsmengun/

Ash fall detection in Alaska: 'Is ash falling?'

The primary volcano hazard in Alaska is airborne ash, which endangers aircraft flying the busy North Pacific air routes and consequently affects global commerce. Downwind ashfall is also a significant threat to commerce, transportation and day-to-day activities in nearby Alaska communities (Wallace et al. 2015). The Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO) have a web tool which people can be used to report any observations of ash fall. Importantly, the tool also allows users to submit records of no ash fall, which is equally as important to understanding the distribution of ashfall. Knowing the locations of ashfall reports provides ‘on-the-ground’ checks for ash dispersion and fallout computer models and satellite imagery interpretation, and consequently improves public ashfall warnings and forecasts (Wallace et al. 2015). Ashfall reports are shared with emergency management agencies and the wider public (Wallace et al. 2015). In order to overcome issues related to the time delay between validating the data provided by citizen scientists and displaying on the web, they included a disclaimer on the public map (Wallace et al. 2015). These reports also give scientists a more complete record of the amount, duration and other characteristics of ashfall (Wallace et al. 2015).

Link to the web tool: http://www.avo.alaska.edu/ashfall/ashreport.php

UK ash collection: the 2010 eruption of Grímsvötn

Source of the information below: BGS

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/volcanoes/icelandGrimsvotn.html; http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/hazards/volcanoes/grimsvotn2011.html

During the Grímsvötn eruption that began on the 21st May 2011, many schools and individuals (including the Met Office network of voluntary observers) across the UK collected samples of ash and sent these to BGS for analysis. Sample collection was relatively straightforward and samples included rainwater, pollen filters, sticky tape on paper, uncoated sticky tape and ash collected on tissue paper and sponges. Almost 200 samples had been submitted by the 10th June 2011 (Figure 2).

The BGS, the Met Office, Edinburgh University and other institutions in the UK coordinated sample collection during the Grímsvötn eruption in order, amongst many other reasons to further research on volcanic eruptions and volcanic ash clouds, as well as to help inform Met Office volcanic ash cloud advice.

File:OR15032Append2.jpg

Figure 2 Distribution of ash samples (Source: NERC).

The ash samples were collected for different types of analysis to show the extent of ashfall, the textures, chemical composition, sizes, shapes and other properties of the ash, in order to inform how ash forms, how it travels long distances and how it is removed from the atmosphere. Understanding the properties of different ash types helps us to choose instruments for research aircraft and satellites with the best ability to detect and monitor ash.

A much higher number of samples were collected and analysed than compared with the preceding Eyjafjallajokull eruption in 2010, resulting in some detailed scientific findings about the nature of the ash. However, data collection responses were still largely ad hoc meaning that the limited opportunity to collect volcanic ash samples through the entire duration of an eruption (and from both proximal and distal locations) was not fully taken advantage of. As a direct response to these eruptions, BGS, in collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution, developed myVolcano.

For more information see: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/volcanoes/icelandGrimsvotn.html

Did you feel it? Earthquake detection

Earthquake detection is a growing area of crowdsourcing and is of particular interest to this report since earthquakes are a common hazard in volcanic environments. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has a crowdsourcing web tool that allows those who have felt an earthquake to record their experience. The questionnaire requires respondents to say where they were, what they felt, whether anyone else felt it, as well as how they responded. It therefore goes beyond a simple detection too, but also includes an assessment of responses and impacts. Such information could theoretically be used to explore whether strategies for awareness raising, preparedness and risk reduction have been effective. Reporting of earthquakes is also utilised by other institutions tasked with monitoring earthquakes, including the Seismic Research Unit (SRC) of University of the West Indies.

For more information see:

• USGS: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/dyfi/
• SRC: http://www.uwiseismic.com/EarthquakeFeedback.aspx

Community-based monitoring at Tungurahua volcano, Ecuador

Source: Stone, J, Barclay, J, Simmons, P, Cole, P D, Loughlin, S C, Ramon, P, Mothes, P. 2014. Risk reduction through community-based monitoring: the vigías of Tungurahua, Ecuador. Journal of Applied Volcanology 3: 11.

Stone et al. (2014) provide a detailed description and analysis of a network of volunteers known as vigías that since 2000 has been engaged in community-based volcano monitoring around volcán Tungurahua, Ecuador. The following information is taken directly from their paper:

The network began as part of an initiative from several stakeholders. Civil Defence (at the time responsible for disaster management) needed to be able to communicate early warnings to communities in order to prompt timely evacuations. Concurrently, the scientists wanted to have more visual observations to complement their monitoring network. From the perspective of the vigías, they and their communities wanted information, and they wanted to have and be part of, some form of early warning system to enable them to live there with less risk. Initially the vigías maintained and managed sirens in communities on the volcano. The demand for such a network, from several stakeholders at once, which fulfilled multiple roles, contributed towards its success initially. The vigía network was a pragmatic solution to a real risk problem.

Vigías were recruited as Civil Defence volunteers; the first were recruited due to already being part of the Civil Defence and others were known to scientists as a result of monitoring equipment located on their farmland. Other vigías were recommended by each other, and the scientists along with Civil Defence commanders, visited locations to identify yet more vigías. The motivations for the vigías’ initial and continued involvement are an important component of the network’s success. All vigías in interviews stated that they felt a sense of duty or moral obligation and that they wanted to help reduce risk to their family and community. Vigías repeatedly stated that the voluntary nature of the role is very important to them.

The overall objective of the vigía network is to reduce risk to communities surrounding Tungurahua. It was initiated out of a compromise between citizens — who had forcibly returned to hazardous localities following an enforced evacuation — and the civil protection agencies attempting to ensure their safety. This pattern of evacuation and return, even against official advice, is a familiar one in volcanic areas, as well as in other settings (Bohra-Mishra et al. 2014). The network is therefore an adaptive compromise, requiring the cooperation of all stakeholders, which has enabled citizens to continue to live and work in hazardous areas by enhancing their capacity to respond quickly to escalating threats.

The vigías, many of whom were or have become community leaders, are able to make a transition between volunteer observer and community-level decision maker in times of crisis, and by communicating with each other using the network, communities can coordinate evacuations. The clear communication protocol of the network, requiring vigías to connect with each other, the scientists and authorities by radio at the same time every evening regardless of the level of activity, means that involvement is sustained during periods of quiescence at the volcano, continuing the development of relationships, thus preparing the network to respond to future crises.

In addition to the benefits of direct communication and monitoring, many of the vigías have a vital role in maintaining monitoring stations around the large volcano, without which the scientists’ capabilities would be severely reduced. The upkeep of these stations has a secondary effect, in that when volcanic activity is low and thus there isn’t much to report, the vigías still have an active and important role. During times of heightened activity at the volcano, their observations are deemed important by the scientists, as they confirm instrumental observations and are less affected by technical problems.