Abstract
Reliable methods for volcanic impact and risk assessments are essential. They provide constructive information to emergency and disaster managers, critical infrastructure providers, the insurance industry, and wider society. Post-eruption clean-up of tephra deposits is a prevalent and expensive (time and resource) activity which is often not planned for. Here, we present an overview of the clean-up efforts undertaken in four communities after the VEI 4 eruption of Calbuco volcano in 2015. We narratively reconstruct clean-up efforts in Ensenada (Chile), Junín de los Andes (Argentina), San Martín de los Andes (Argentina), and Villa La Angostura (Argentina) using semi-structured interviews, syn- and post-deposition photographs, pre- and post-event visual spectrum satellite imagery, and media reports. We compare these reconstructions with estimates based on a geospatial modelling approach adapted from Hayes et al. (Journal of Applied Volcanology 6:1; 2017). Specifically, we compare reported and geospatially derived estimates for volume of tephra removed, and clean-up operation duration. Our modelling approach performed well for Junín de los Andes but did not adequately capture volume and clean-up operation duration for the three remaining case study locations. We discuss several sources of uncertainty (including observational errors and natural variance of tephra deposit thickness), reported tephra removal volume estimates, clean-up methods, land use, and temporal evolution of clean-up operation demand. Our work demonstrates the utility of using simple geospatial data to develop assessments for tephra clean-up for use in response and recovery planning, and quantitative volcanic impact and risk assessments.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Wilson, Thomas M. 1 ; Stewart, Carol 2 ; Villarosa, Gustavo 3 ; Salgado, Pablo 4 ; Beigt, Débora 4 ; Outes, Valeria 4 ; Deligne, Natalia I. 5 ; Leonard, Graham S. 5 1 University of Canterbury, Department of Geological Sciences, Christchurch, New Zealand (GRID:grid.21006.35) (ISNI:0000 0001 2179 1970)
2 Massey University Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand (GRID:grid.148374.d) (ISNI:0000 0001 0696 9806)
3 IPATEC (Instituto Andino-Patagónico de Tecnologías Biológicas y Geoambientales), CONICET/UNCO, S. C. de Bariloche, Argentina (GRID:grid.148374.d); Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche, Universidad Nacional del Comahue, S.C. de Bariloche, Argentina (GRID:grid.412234.2) (ISNI:0000 0001 2112 473X)
4 IPATEC (Instituto Andino-Patagónico de Tecnologías Biológicas y Geoambientales), CONICET/UNCO, S. C. de Bariloche, Argentina (GRID:grid.412234.2)
5 GNS Science, Lower Hutt, New Zealand (GRID:grid.15638.39)




