4.6 Article

The Volcanic Hazards of Jan Mayen Island (North-Atlantic)

期刊

FRONTIERS IN EARTH SCIENCE
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/feart.2022.730734

关键词

volcanic hazard; eruptive scenarios; geohazard; hazard models; hazard assesment; volcano

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents the first systematic volcanic hazard assessment of the remote Jan Mayen Island and discusses the challenges and characteristics of assessing volcanic hazards on remote volcanic islands. Using field data, remote images, topographic data, past data, and computer simulations, the study evaluates the probability of new vents, estimates eruption recurrence rates, simulates eruption scenarios, and produces hazard maps for different scenarios.
Hazard assessment of remote volcanic islands provides many challenges compared to other volcanoes and volcanic fields. Here we present the first systematic volcanic hazard assessment of Jan Mayen Island, a remote island located in the North-Atlantic Ocean and home to the northernmost active subaerial volcano in the world (Beerenberg Volcano), and we discuss some of the challenges and characteristics of performing a volcanic hazard assessment of a remote volcanic island. Jan Mayen has had at least five eruptions since its discovery at the start of the 17th century. Its Holocene volcanism is mainly characterized by eruptions with styles ranging from Hawaiian to Strombolian, but also by lava domes and Surtseyan eruptions. Based on field data, remote images, topographic data, past data, and computer simulations, our study evaluates the spatial probability of new vents opening, estimates eruption recurrence rates, simulates various eruption scenarios, and produces hazard maps for the different scenarios. This work shows where the hazards of ash fall, and lava flows are more likely to affect the built infrastructure on Jan Mayen Island. This hazard assessment will assist emergency planning and the determination of future land use on the island.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据