4.2 Article

HASSET: a probability event tree tool to evaluate future volcanic scenarios using Bayesian inference

期刊

BULLETIN OF VOLCANOLOGY
卷 76, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00445-013-0770-x

关键词

Volcanic hazard; Event tree; Probability estimation; Bayesian inference; QGIS

资金

  1. European Commission [282759]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Event tree structures constitute one of the most useful and necessary tools in modern volcanology for assessment of hazards from future volcanic scenarios (those that culminate in an eruptive event as well as those that do not). They are particularly relevant for evaluation of long-and short-term probabilities of occurrence of possible volcanic scenarios and their potential impacts on urbanized areas. In this paper, we introduce Hazard Assessment Event Tree (HASSET), a probability tool, built on an event tree structure that uses Bayesian inference to estimate the probability of occurrence of a future volcanic scenario and to evaluate the most relevant sources of uncertainty from the corresponding volcanic system. HASSET includes hazard assessment of noneruptive and nonmagmatic volcanic scenarios, that is, episodes of unrest that do not evolve into volcanic eruption but have an associated volcanic hazard ( e. g., sector collapse and phreatic explosion), as well as unrest episodes triggered by external triggers rather than the magmatic system alone. Additionally, HASSET introduces the Delta method to assess precision of the probability estimates, by reporting a 1 standard deviation variability interval around the expected value for each scenario. HASSET is presented as a free software package in the form of a plug-in for the open source geographic information system Quantum Gis (QGIS), providing a graphically supported computation of the event tree structure in an interactive and user-friendly way. We also include further in-depth explanations for each node together with an application of HASSET to Teide-Pico Viejo volcanic complex (Spain).

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

4.2
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