Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Progress in Disaster Science”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

8 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2026

Challenges and opportunities for Sendai framework disaster loss reporting in the United States

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction provides quantitative indicators for nations to measure progress in the reduction of disaster losses. The collection and analysis of disaster loss data under the Sendai Framework improves our understanding of the effectiveness of national disaster risk reduction strategies and interventions. The Sendai Framework has enhanced cooperation among Federal agencies to collect and track disaster loss data in the U.S., yet challenges remain for reporting disaster losses. Based on our experiences collecting and reporting U.S. data to the Sendai Monitor, we identify opportunities to improve disaster loss reporting in the U.S.

Progress in Disaster Science↗
USGS2010

Volcanic hazards and their mitigation: progress and problems

At the beginning of the twentieth century, volcanology began to emerge as a modern science as a result of increased interest in eruptive phenomena following some of the worst volcanic disasters in recorded history: Krakatau (Indonesia) in 1883 and Mont Pelée (Martinique), Soufrière (St. Vincent), and Santa María (Guatemala) in 1902. Volcanology is again experiencing a period of heightened public awareness and scientific growth in the 1980s, the worst period since 1902 in terms of volcanic disasters and crises. A review of hazards mitigation approaches and techniques indicates that significant advances have been made in hazards assessment, volcano monitoring, and eruption forecasting. For example, the remarkable accuracy of the predictions of dome-building events at Mount St. Helens since June 1980 is unprecedented. Yet a predictive capability for more voluminous and explosive eruptions still has not been achieved. Studies of magma-induced seismicity and ground deformation continue to provide the most systematic and reliable data for early detection of precursors to eruptions and shallow intrusions. In addition, some other geophysical monitoring techniques and geochemical methods have been refined and are being more widely applied and tested. Comparison of the four major volcanic disasters of the 1980s (Mount St. Helens, U.S.A. (1980), El Chichón, Mexico (1982); Galunggung, Indonesia (1982); and Nevado del Ruíz, Colombia (1985) illustrates the importance of predisaster geoscience studies, volcanic hazards assessments, volcano monitoring, contingency planning, and effective communications between scientists and authorities. The death toll (>22,000) from the Ruíz catastrophe probably could have been greatly reduced; the reasons for the tragically ineffective implementation of evacuation measures are still unclear and puzzling in view of the fact that sufficient warnings were given. The most pressing problem in the mitigation of volcanic and associated hazards on a global scale is that most of the world's dangerous volcanoes are in densely populated countries that lack the economic and scientific resources or the political will to adequately study and monitor them. This problem afflicts both developed and developing countries, but it is especially acute for the latter. The greatest advances in volcanic hazards mitigation in the near future are most likely to be achieved by wider application of existing technology to poorly understood and studied volcanoes, rather than by refinements or new discoveries in technology alone.

Reviews of Geophysics↗
USGS2020

U.S. Geological Survey 2018 Kīlauea Volcano eruption response in Hawai'i—After-action review

The 2018 Kīlauea Volcano eruption lasted 107 days, and now ranks as the most destructive event at Kilauea since 1790, and as one of the most costly volcanic disasters in U.S. history. Multiple simultaneous hazard events unfolded, including sustained seismic activity leading to collapse at the summit of Halema'uma'u crater and severe damage to the HVO facility, with additional eruption of lava in the Kīlauea Lower East Rift Zone that progressively grew to a total of 24 fissure openings. In response to the complex and uncertain nature of the eruption, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) team activities tended to coalesce around several interrelated core functional areas: science operations, emergency management and administration, and external communications. Upon cessation of the eruption, the USGS Hazard Response Executive Committee charged the Alaska Regional Office to lead an After-Action Review team, which focused on two basic questions: (1) what went well, and why?; and (2) what can be improved, and how? The purpose of the After-Action Review is to identify priorities for programmatic or policy improvements that the USGS can feasibly implement to advance strategic preparation for future disasters, and thereby reduce public vulnerabilities. Specifically, the review is intended to help USGS respond even better to the next eruption in Hawai'i or elsewhere by advancing any of the following goals: Design better planning scenarios; Enhance response team effectiveness; Assist local decision makers; Promote new areas of strategic research; and Streamline administrative, finance, and Incident Management Team support functions during a crisis to secure continuity of operations and essential records management.

Hawaii↗
USGS2009

Optical satellite data volcano monitoring: a multi-sensor rapid response system

In this chapter, the use of satellite remote sensing to monitor active geological processes is described. Specifically, threats posed by volcanic eruptions are briefly outlined, and essential monitoring requirements are discussed. As an application example, a collaborative, multi-agency operational volcano monitoring system in the north Pacific is highlighted with a focus on the 2007 eruption of Kliuchevskoi volcano, Russia. The data from this system have been used since 2004 to detect the onset of volcanic activity, support the emergency response to large eruptions, and assess the volcanic products produced following the eruption. The overall utility of such integrative assessments is also summarized. The work described in this chapter was originally funded through two National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Earth System Science research grants that focused on the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) instrument. A skilled team of volcanologists, geologists, satellite tasking experts, satellite ground system experts, system engineers and software developers collaborated to accomplish the objectives. The first project, Automation of the ASTER Emergency Data Acquisition Protocol for Scientific Analysis, Disaster Monitoring, and Preparedness , established the original collaborative research and monitoring program between the University of Pittsburgh (UP), the Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO), the NASA Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (LP DAAC) at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center, and affiliates on the ASTER Science Team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) as well as associates at the Earth Remote Sensing Data Analysis Center (ERSDAC) in Japan. This grant, completed in 2008, also allowed for detailed volcanic analyses and data validation during three separate summer field campaigns to Kamchatka Russia. The second project, Expansion and synergistic use of the ASTER Urgent Request Protocol (URP) for natural disaster monitoring and scientific analysis , has expanded the project to other volcanoes around the world and is in progress through 2011. The focus on ASTER data is due to the suitability of the sensor for natural disaster monitoring and the availability of data. The instrument has several unique facets that make it especially attractive for volcanic observations (Ramsey and Dehn, 2004). Specifically, ASTER routinely collects data at night, it has the ability to generate digital elevation models using stereo imaging, it can collect data in various gain states to minimize data saturation, it has a cross-track pointing capability for faster targeting, and it collects data up to ±85° latitude for better global coverage. As with any optical imaging-based remote sensing, the viewing conditions can negatively impact the data quality. This impact varies across the optical and thermal infrared wavelengths as well as being a function of the specific atmospheric window within a given wavelength region. Water vapor and cloud formation can obscure surface data in the visible and near infrared (VNIR)/shortwave infrared (SWIR) region due mainly to non-selective scattering of the incident photons. In the longer wavelengths of the thermal infrared (TIR), scattering is less of an issue, but heavy cloud cover can still obscure the ground due to atmospheric absorption. Thin clouds can be optically-transparent in the VNIR and TIR regions, but can cause errors in the extracted surface reflectance or derived surface temperatures. In regions prone to heavy cloud cover, optical remote sensing can be improved through increased temporal resolution. As more images are acquired in a given time period the chances of a clear image improve dramatically. The Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) routine monitoring, which commonly collects 4-6 images per day of any north Pacific volcano, takes advantage of this fact. The rapid response program described in this chapter also improves the temporal resolution of the ASTER instrument. ASTER has been acquiring images of volcanic eruptions since soon after its launch in December 1999. An early example included the observations of the large pyroclastic flow deposit emplaced at Bezymianny volcano in Kamchatka, Russia. The first images in March 2000, just weeks after the eruption, revealed the extent, composition, and cooling history of this large deposit and of the active lava dome (Ramsey and Dehn, 2004). The initial results from these early datasets spurred interest in using ASTER data for expanded volcano monitoring in the north Pacific. It also gave rise to the multi-year NASA-funded programs of rapid response scheduling and imaging throughout the Aleutian, Kamchatka and Kurile arcs. Since the formal establishment of the programs, the data have provided detailed descriptions of the eruptions of Augustine, Bezymianny, Kliuchevskoi and Sheveluch volcanoes over the past nine years (Wessels et al., in press; Carter et al., 2007, 2008; Ramsey et al., 2008; Rose and Ramsey, 2009). The initial research focus of this rapid response program was specifically on automating the ASTER sensor’s ability for targeted observational scheduling using the expedited data system. This urgent request protocol is one of the unique characteristics of ASTER. It provides a limited number of emergency observations, typically at a much-improved temporal resolution and quicker turnaround with data processing in the United States rather than in Japan. This can speed the reception of the processed data by several days to a week. The ongoing multi-agency research and operational collaboration has been highly successful. AVO serves as the primary source for status information on volcanic activity, working closely with the National Weather Service (NWS), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), military and other state and federal emergency services. Collaboration with the Russian Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (IVS)/Kamchatka Volcanic Eruption Response Team (KVERT) is also maintained. Once a volcano is identified as having increased thermal output, ASTER is automatically tasked and the volcano is targeted at the next available opportunity. After the data are acquired, scientists at all the agencies have access to the images, with the primary science analysis carried out at the University of Pittsburgh and AVO. Results are disseminated to the responsible monitoring agencies and the global community through e-mail mailing lists.

Book chapter↗
USGS2008

GIS technology and models for assessing landslide hazard and risk

Advances in Geographical Information Systems (GIS) technology and the mathematical/statistical tools for modelling and simulation have led to the growing application of quantitative techniques in many areas of the earth sciences. Few disciplines have embraced these developments more enthusiastically than the study of landslide hazards. Because the shape of the land surface plays a fundamental role in landslide processes, much of this new work has been driven by the increasing availability of digital elevation models (DEMs) and the software to manipulate them. As a result, investigators worldwide are devising spatial models to forecast slope instability in efforts to keep landslide hazards from becoming landslide disasters. The methods range from empirical and heuristic to statistical and physically-based. Despite nearly a quarter-century of progress, e.g. since Carrara (1983) , and a veritable “cottage industry” of current DEM-based hazard mapping, many of these spatial predictions either are based on unsuitable data or are not properly modelled.

Geomorphology↗
USGS2025

Mitigation of human cognitive bias in volcanic eruption forecasting

Modern operational eruption forecasting methods rely heavily on human judgment in the face of uncertainty and are thus susceptible to myriad cognitive biases and errors by the scientist-forecasters. Recent developments in the behavioral sciences have elucidated cognitive biases across a wide spectrum of human behaviors and found ways to mitigate them. These insights have led to significant gains in human forecast accuracy across a range of disciplines. However, such gains have yet to widely penetrate volcanic eruption forecasting efforts. In this study, we review recent progress in these fields as relevant to improving current eruption forecasting methods as practiced by volcano observatories worldwide. We group cognitive biases into 1) information and selection biases, 2) group effects and social-emotional biases, and 3) framing and decision biases and highlight the numerous places in which these biases may permeate eruption forecasts. We present a framework for improving group discussion and forecasting processes at volcano observatories, considering recent gains from behavioral sciences along with a mitigation checklist to effectively reduce bias in operational eruption forecasts. Finally, we present an updated forecasting methodology for use in our own group, the US Geological Survey (USGS) Volcano Disaster Assistance Program, based on previous “multiple datasets” methods, that includes clear and deliberate efforts to minimize cognitive biases and thus improve eruption forecasting accuracy.

Journal of Applied Volcanology↗
USGS2021

National seed strategy progress report, 2015-2020

Native plants are the true green infrastructure we rely on for healthy, resilient, and biodiverse ecosystems. They protect us against climate change and natural disasters; create habitat for wildlife, rare species, and pollinators; and are vital for carbon sequestration. Without native plants, especially their seeds, we do not have the ability to restore functional ecosystems after natural disasters and mitigate the effects of climate change. Investing now in coordinated, research-driven native seed production is an efficient and cost-effective nature-based solution for improving ecosystem resilience in the face of the climate and extinction crisis. Federal government agencies (see list on page 13 and their partners are collaborating to increase the supply of native seeds for restoration through the National Seed Strategy for Rehabilitation and Restoration (National Seed Strategy) to get the right seed in the right place at the right time. The National Seed Strategy is a public-private collaboration to increase the supply of native seeds for restoration projects to ensure ecosystem resilience and the health and prosperity of future generations. Developed by the Plant Conservation Alliance (PCA) in 2015, the National Seed Strategy harnesses cross sector botanical expertise, supports rural, agricultural, minority, and tribal livelihoods, and provides training opportunities to our next generation of natural resource professionals to maintain and preserve our iconic habitats. This science-driven national effort is integral to the Nation’s conservation priorities, including the commitment to conserve 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030 as outlined in Executive Order 14008 on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. Moreover, the National Seed Strategy is recognized in the objectives of the 2021 DOI Invasive Species Strategic Plan (DOI 2021) and addresses national priorities such as climate change, wildland fire, and tribal engagement. The National Seed Strategy charts a course for federal, tribal, state, local and private partners to increase private and public sector coordination on native seed development, thereby accelerating the pace and scale of restoration. Success is being achieved through the establishment of nationwide networks of seed collectors, researchers to develop seed, farmers to grow native seed, nurseries and seed storage facilities to supply adequate quantities of appropriate seed, and restoration ecologists.

Progress Report↗
USGS2016

Quantifying resilience

The biosphere is under unprecedented pressure, reflected in rapid changes in our global ecological, social, technological and economic systems. In many cases, ecological and social systems can adapt to these changes over time, but when a critical threshold is surpassed, a system under stress can undergo catastrophic change and reorganize into a different state. The concept of resilience, introduced more than 40 years ago in the ecological sciences, captures the behaviour of systems that can occur in alternative states. The original definition of resilience forwarded by Holling ( 1973 ) is still the most useful. It defines resilience as the amount of disturbance that a system can withstand before it shifts into an alternative stable state. The idea of alternative stable states has clear and profound implications for ecological management. Coral reefs, for example, are high-diversity systems that provide key ecosystem services such as fisheries and coastal protection. Human impacts are causing significant, ongoing reef degradation, and many reefs have shifted from coral- to algal-dominated states in response to anthropogenic pressures such as elevated water temperatures and overfishing. Understanding and differentiating between the factors that help maintain reefs in coral-dominated states vs. those that facilitate a shift to an undesired algal-dominated state is a critical step towards sound management and conservation of these, and other, important social–ecological systems. Resilience has gained popularity among both academicians and laypeople, as a term meant to describe a systems’ ability to withstand disturbance. Resilience has become a buzzword in the last decade, as shown by its increasing appearance in calls for research proposals and scientific citation data bases. The term resilience has in many cases lost the clarity of the original definition and in fact is frequently used in a manner in direct opposition to the original definition. Many current uses of the concept are loose and incorrect. The term is becoming increasingly used in a normative sense (Brand & Jax 2007 ), as if resilience were a desirable quality of systems. However, even systems in highly undesirable states, such as macro-algae dominated reefs, or city cores in poverty traps, may be highly resilient, which is to say they withstand attempts to transform them into different (desirable) states. Operationalizing the concept of resilience for application and management has been difficult. Misuse of the term can have significant negative impacts, because resilience is being used to help guide responses to natural disasters and to assess the sustainability of ecosystems and urban systems and has been driving international research priorities. Resilience has been argued to be a basic emergent property of systems, a process or a rate. We focus on the original concept as described by Holling, which is that of an emergent system property; when a system is in a desirable state and managers wish to enhance resilience, or when the system is in an undesirable state and managers wish to erode resilience and foster a transformation to an alternative state. Fostering or eroding resilience is a process. When a system is perturbed but resilience is not exceeded, then the recovery can be measured as a rate. Several frameworks to operationalize resilience have been proposed. A decade ago, a special feature focused on quantifying resilience was published in the journal Ecosystems (Carpenter, Westley & Turner 2005 ). The approach there was towards identifying surrogates of resilience, but few of the papers proposed quantifiable metrics. Consequently, many ecological resilience frameworks remain vague and difficult to quantify, a problem that this special feature aims to address. However, considerable progress has been made during the last decade (e.g. Pope, Allen & Angeler 2014 ). Although some argue that resilience is best kept as an unquantifiable, vague concept (Quinlan et al . 2016 ), to be useful for managers, there must be concrete guidance regarding how and what to manage and how to measure success (Garmestani, Allen & Benson 2013 ; Spears et al . 2015 ). Ideas such as ‘resilience thinking’ have utility in helping stakeholders conceptualize their systems, but provide little guidance on how to make resilience useful for ecosystem management, other than suggesting an ambiguous, Goldilocks approach of being just right (e.g. diverse, but not too diverse; connected, but not too connected). Here, we clarify some prominent resilience terms and concepts, introduce and synthesize the papers in this special feature on quantifying resilience and identify core unanswered questions related to resilience.

Journal of Applied Ecology↗