Open access

Introductory Chapter: Updates in Volcanology - Transdisciplinary Nature of Volcano Science

Written By

Károly Németh

Submitted: March 9th, 2021 Published: June 9th, 2021

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.97801

Chapter metrics overview

326 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

1. Introduction

Transdisciplinary approach of science appeared in recent years, partially as a result of the urgent need to deal with global and planetary changes [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. Transdisciplinary science is to answer and solve environmental science questions and problems became the foundation of sustainable development, nature conservation and various environmental science education including geoeducation [13, 14, 15, 16, 17]. Transdisciplinary approach within volcanology was always a key element of volcano science as volcanology addresses key questions over volcanic hazards, risk and resilience naturally moving along the interface of social science, humanities, natural science and non-academic (e.g. indigenous) knowledge [18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25]. Especially in recent years more and more researches were conducted on subjects to help to understand the interface between western science and traditional knowledge [26, 27, 28, 29, 30]. Such works explored various aspects of volcanism that affected the human societies greatly both as processes that produce natural resources for development and in other hand continuous fear that need to be dealt with to prevent societies from their destructive powers [28, 31, 32, 33, 34]. The transdisciplinary aspects of volcanology is reflected well in the new volcano model and volcano geology approach to understand volcanic systems and placing them in a geosystem perspective [35] (Figure 1). In many volcano research aimed in recent years to develop some sort of volcano model that explain the volcanic processes, their resulting eruptive products, and the way such models can help to develop a better strategy for resilience against volcanic hazard within a general natural hazard framework [40, 41, 42, 43].

Figure 1.

Complex volcanic landscape in northern Chile is a fine example to demonstrate the volcano geology approach to interpret the present day geoforms. The landscape is ruled by the basaltic-andesite to dacite lava dome-dominated Ollagüe (5868 m asl) stratovolcano, which stands 1686 meters above the surrounding Salar de Carcote desert floor. The volcano has an active hydrothermal system in its top (note the white cloud in the right edge of the summit), while the volcano itself had its last eruption about 65 ka [36, 37]. In the side of the volcanic edifice satellite domes formed such as the El Ingenio lava dome in the NW (left in the image) side of the cone [38]. In the foreground a typical hummocky surface of volcanic debris avalanche that generated by a sector collapse can be seen that formed in the late-Pleistocene. The image was taken from a small scoria cone La Poruñita, that is part of a monogenetic volcanic field nearby and formed after the sector collapse of the stratovolcano [39]. This complex geological setting of this volcanic system highlights the importance to study volcanoes from volcano geology perspective.


2. From volcano geology to volcano model development

The various volcano models distinguish between type of volcanoes commonly categorized monogenetic versus polygenetic volcanoes (and volcanism) as a reflection of the total eruptive volume, the total duration of volcanic activity, the strength of the link to the magma generation source and the stability and longevity of a volcanic conduit [44, 45]. In these models obviously the end-member types of volcanoes define short, small, simple (versus long-lasting, large and complex. Recent decade of research in addition, provided ample evidences that the scale of observation (hence the detail of information could be mined from volcanic systems) is important, and provides evidences to support that in real world end member type of monogenetic volcanoes are rare, and most of them shows some sort of complexity in a near continuous spectrum [20, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52]. This is more apparent when the magma that form those volcanic geoforms are more evolved [53, 54]. In recent years attention also turned toward effusive style of volcanism that is not obviously can fit into any of these categories. The current eruption of Iceland’s Reykjanes Peninsula that started on the 19th March 2021 8.45 PM (Local Time) provided and exceptional occasion to observe how a volcano start its life (Figure 2A and B). Commonly, the first moments of a volcano growth is missed by direct observation and later on the initial eruptive products become covered by subsequent eruptive products, missing key elements of the early, very critical phase of the eruption [55]. The new eruption in Iceland, that gradually building the new volcano Geldingadalir operating along an approximately 800-meter long fissure and at least 6 distinct vent zones (Figure 2A and B). The opportunity to observe the vent localization process commonly based on a combination of direct observation and study older volcanic successions [56, 57] is valuable to understand fissure-fed eruptions. Such geological observations and records can provide a dynamic view on fissure-fed eruptions in basaltic systems and help to interpret the resulting eruptive products (Figure 2C and D). In this respect the interlink between observation-based volcanology can be linked to various geoeducation works that provide good, evidence-based information to understand the volcanic geoheritage [58]. In case of the growth of the Geldingadalir volcano, it provides insight on the formation of steep spatter cones documented from the geological records elsewhere, for instance during the 1256 Al Madinah eruption in Saudi Arabia [59].

Figure 2.

Lessons from the current volcanic eruption of the Geldingadalir volcano in Iceland can be used to better understand of the first moments and processes of a volcano growth in basaltic systems (A, B). Flow localization formed vents that emitted lava and spatter creating steep spatter cones (A) through mild explosive event (B). To see this process in real can help to interpret similar volcanic successions elsewhere such as those formed during the 1256 Al Madinah eruption in Saudi Arabia (C) or during the Pleistocene and Holocene in the Harrat Khaybar, also in Saudi Arabia (D). The solidified inner structure of a spatter cone shows well the steep pile of spatters accumulated around the vent (D) similar how such process take place right now in Iceland (B). Photos of A and B are from the photo collection of Viktória Komjáti.

Numerous research work has been completed with a prospect to provide volcanic hazard maps [60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65] as well as some sort of tools to communicate to communities volcanic hazards [66], co-design, co-product programs and products to help developing a more resilience community that can live with the volcanoes and their hazards [28, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78]. In recent years, there is also a strong movement visible to conduct research jointly with other experts in archaeology for instance to better understand the impact of volcanism on early civilizations [79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93].


3. Volcanic geoheritage

Moreover in the last decades a boom of research is visible where volcanic geoheritage used and utilized as a main opportunity to develop geoeducation programs accompanied with effective geoconservation programs (commonly formed as a result of citizen science, and co-design) to build a more resilience society against volcanic hazard [94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104]. Even new terms appeared such as social volcanology or paleo-social volcanology steamed from social geology to express the newly and rapidly evolving discipline formed recently [72, 105]. Most of this works based on a more precise and process-oriented understanding of volcanic systems such as monogenetic volcanoes. The dynamic progression on volcanic geoheritage, geodiversity and geotourism research made a new aspect of volcano science where interface between natural sciences, humanities and social sciences meet and put into practical sense making volcanology a more relevant science to human society and our natural environment [103, 106]. In addition, an increased recognition of traditional knowledge and cultural aspects of volcanoes explored and made mainstream research outputs [107, 108, 109, 110, 111].


4. New advances in volcanology as a transdisciplinary science

Looking into detail of the recent evolution of volcano science we analyzed the accessible, mainstream literature data stored in the Thomson Reuters, Web of Sciences Core Database. Volcanology has two premier publication avenue such as Bulletin of Volcanology (Springer) [BV] that is also the official journal of the International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth’s Interior. In addition, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research (Elsevier) (JVGR) also considered as a main medium for scientific communication within volcanology. We were curious to see what research trend can be deducted from the published researches in the last 2 years (2019 to 2021, 20 April 2021) within these two premier Journals. We used search operators to identify keywords (including Author keywords and Web of Science generated keyword set). We understand that these keywords commonly reflecting general “umbrella subjects” and not obviously the main subject of the specific published papers, but we still think they are representative and informative to identify trends. For this, we created word clouds by using the WordArt online tool [] to visualize main keywords (larger words in more central position reflects more common appearance of such keywords). For the Bulletin of Volcanology 184 paper was identified. From these 184 papers keywords were extracted, while common non-informative words deleted as well as too generic words such as volcanism, volcano, volcanic, eruption, magma, lava pyroclastic and based. In addition, manually all the location keywords were deducted and inserted to a separate file to see the common locations research focused in the past 2 years. Following this method, the Flow, Ash, Dome Size, Current words stand out reflecting the research output intensity around tephra and various geophysical flow research (Figure 3A). The rest of the keywords show a fairly even distribution across the entire spectrum of subjects. Applying the similar techniques to the JVGR, on the basis of 557 papers published in the same period of time showed keywords as most common to be System, Flow, Evolution, Model, Isotope, Hydrothermal, Fluid (Figure 3B). To look at the common locations current volcanology research associated with published within BV showed Bogoslof, Kilauea, Puna, Andes and Etna as top for BV (Figure 4A), while Andes, StHelens, Etna, and Iceland having the most common location keywords for JVGR (Figure 4B).

Figure 3.

Keywords identified on Web of Science Core Database papers published since 2019 in the two major volcanology scientific magazines, Bulletin of Volcanology (A) and Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research (B).

Figure 4.

Location keywords identified on Web of Science Core Database in the papers published since 2019 in the two major volcanology scientific magazines, Bulletin of Volcanology (A) and Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research (B).

The following method was applied for a narrower time frame (last 12 months) but looking at the title, keywords and abstract of the published papers in the two major volcanology magazines (Figure 5). From the 101 published papers the Erupt, Volcan, Volcano, Lava, Magma words were the most commonly used while in the “second” abundance more process-related words such as Flow, Deposit, Data, Model, Explosion, System, Observe etc. appeared.

Figure 5.

Word map derived from the title and abstracts of the last 12 months papers published in BV and JVGR based on Web of Science core database.

As volcanic geoheritage became an important aspect of volcano science recently we checked the main keywords associated with researches identified under volcanic geoheritage topic search term from the Web of Sciences Core Databases. A total of 79 paper has been identified in the time period between 2010 and 2021, suggesting the very recent formulation of this term (Figure 6A). To see this results in a perspective we made a keyword search for Geoheritage that resulted a total of 530 published papers between 2011 and 2021 (only 10 years!!). By removing the most non-generic terms such as Heritage, Geotour, Geoheritage, Geoconservation, Geosite and Geopark, focusing on those keywords that were identified between 10 and 100 occasions we can see that Volcanic is a common keyword within geoheritage studies (Figure 6B). This suggests that volcano science gradually build a strong corner within geoheritage, geoconservation and geoeducation. For curiosity we made a survey to check the published papers by searching Volcanic AND Transdisciplinary that resulted 8 published papers between 2015 and 2021 indicating the recent identification of this technical terms.

Figure 6.

Word map of keywords identified from the Web of Science Core Database. (A) Keywords from the 78 published papers returned from topic search for volcanic geoheritage. (B) Keywords identified from 530 papers returned from topic search for geoheritage. Please not that non-generic keywords were excluded from this map that were too general to see the details of research outputs hence keyword resulted 10 to 100 scores were plotted on the diagram.

In summary we can say that volcano science is a very colorful and fast evolving science. Its transdisciplinary nature is getting more and more recognized and applied for a very diverse array of research areas and practical approaches to community engagement. This book offers another snapshot to this process.


Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.


  1. 1. Acuna V, Roldan F, Tironi M, Juzam L. The Geo-Social Model: A Transdisciplinary Approach to Flow-Type Landslide Analysis and Prevention. Sustainability. 2021;13(5)
  2. 2. Bernardes FF. Landscape Ecology According to Geography: A Proposal of Tools for the Analysis and Management of the Environment. In: Luc M, Somorowska U, Szmanda JB, editors. Landscape Analysis and Planning: Geographical Perspectives. Springer Geography 2015. p. 175-185
  3. 3. Carmen E, Watt A, Carvalho L, Dick J, Fazey I, Garcia-Blanco G, et al. Knowledge needs for the operationalisation of the concept of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services. 2018;29:441-451
  4. 4. Costanza R, Kubiszewski I. The authorship structure of “ecosystem services” as a transdisciplinary field of scholarship. Ecosystem Services. 2012;1(1):16-25
  5. 5. de Long C, Cappy S, Finckh M, Funk D. A transdisciplinary analysis of water problems in the mountainous karst areas of Morocco. Engineering Geology. 2008;99(3-4):228-238
  6. 6. Dendoncker N, Turkelboom F, Boeraeve F, Boerema A, Broekx S, Fontaine C, et al. Integrating Ecosystem Services values for sustainability? Evidence from the Belgium Ecosystem Services community of practice. Ecosystem Services. 2018;31:68-76
  7. 7. Guimaraes MH, Balle-Beganton J, Bailly D, Newton A, Boski T, Dentinho T. Transdisciplinary conceptual modeling of a social-ecological system-A case study application in Terceira Island, Azores. Ecosystem Services. 2013;3:E22-E31
  8. 8. Jacobs S, Dendoncker N, Martin-Lopez B, Barton DN, Gomez-Baggethun E, Boeraeve F, et al. A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosystem Services. 2016;22:213-220
  9. 9. Jax K, Furman E, Saarikoski H, Barton DN, Delbaere B, Dick J, et al. Handling a messy world: Lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational. Ecosystem Services. 2018;29:415-427
  10. 10. Lamare S, Blanchard G. Structuring transdiciplinary research for environment and sustainable development at the University of La Rochelle. Actualite Chimique. 2008(325):26-29
  11. 11. Luederitz C, Brink E, Gralla F, Hermelingmeier V, Meyer M, Niven L, et al. A review of urban ecosystem services: six key challenges for future research. Ecosystem Services. 2015;14:98-112
  12. 12. Mauser W, Klepper G, Rice M, Schmalzbauer BS, Hackmann H, Leemans R, et al. Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2013;5(3):420-431
  13. 13. Pop IG, Vaduva S, Talpos MF. Energetic Sustainability and the Environment: A Transdisciplinary, Economic-Ecological Approach. Sustainability. 2017;9(6)
  14. 14. Ranger S, Kenter JO, Bryce R, Cumming G, Dapling T, Lawes E, et al. Forming shared values in conservation management: An interpretive-deliberative-democratic approach to including community voices. Ecosystem Services. 2016;21:344-357
  15. 15. Rincon-Ruiz A, Arias-Arevalo P, Hernandez JMN, Cotler H, Caso MA, Meli P, et al. Applying integrated valuation of ecosystem services in Latin America: Insights from 21 case studies. Ecosystem Services. 2019;36
  16. 16. Ryfield F, Cabana D, Brannigan J, Crowe T. Conceptualizing 'sense of place' in cultural ecosystem services: A framework for interdisciplinary research. Ecosystem Services. 2019;36
  17. 17. Spangenberg JH, Gorg C, Settele J. Stakeholder involvement in ESS research and governance: Between conceptual ambition and practical experiences - risks, challenges and tested tools. Ecosystem Services. 2015;16:201-211
  18. 18. Pardo N, Pulgarin B, Betancourt V, Lucchi F, Jeronimo Valencia L. Facing geological mapping at low-latitude volcanoes: The Dona Juana Volcanic Complex study-case, SW-Colombia. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2019;385:46-67
  19. 19. Martí J, Groppelli G, Brum da Silveira A. Volcanic stratigraphy: A review. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2018;357:68-91
  20. 20. Tchamabé BC, Kereszturi G, Németh K, Carrasco-Núñez G. How polygenetic are monogenetic volcanoes: Case studies of some complex maar-diatreme volcanoes. In: Nemeth K, editor. Updates in Volcanology – From Volcano Modelling to Volcano Geology Rijeka, Croatia: inTech Open; 2016
  21. 21. Burchardt S, Galland O. Studying volcanic plumbing systems; multi-disciplinary approaches to a multi-facetted problem. In: Nemeth K, editor. Updates in Volcanology – From Volcano Modelling to Volcano Geology Rijeka, Croatia: inTech Open; 2016
  22. 22. Di Traglia F, Pistolesi M, Rosi M, Bonadonna C, Fusillo R, Roverato M. Growth and erosion: The volcanic geology and morphological evolution of La Fossa (Island of Vulcano, Southern Italy) in the last 1000 years. Geomorphology. 2013;194:94-107
  23. 23. Németh K, Palmer J. Geological mapping of volcanic terrains: Discussion on concepts, facies models, scales, and resolutions from New Zealand perspective. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2019;385:27-45
  24. 24. Lucchi F. On the use of unconformities in volcanic stratigraphy and mapping: Insights from the Aeolian Islands (southern Italy). Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2019;385:3-26
  25. 25. Bischoff A, Nicol A, Barrier A, Wang H. Paleogeography and volcanic morphology reconstruction of a buried monogenetic volcanic field (part 2). Bulletin of Volcanology. 2019;81(9)
  26. 26. Pardo N, Espinosa ML, Gonzalez-Arango C, Cabrera MA, Salazar S, Archila S, et al. Worlding resilience in the Dona Juana Volcano-Paramo, Northern Andes (Colombia): A transdisciplinary view. Natural Hazards. 2021
  27. 27. Petterson MG. Interconnected geoscience for international development. Episodes. 2019;42(3):225-233
  28. 28. Cronin SJ, Gaylord DR, Charley D, Alloway BV, Wallez S, Esau JW. Participatory methods of incorporating scientific with traditional knowledge for volcanic hazard management on Ambae Island, Vanuatu. Bulletin of Volcanology. 2004;66(7):652-668
  29. 29. Nunn PD. Fished up or thrown down: The geography of Pacific Island origin myths. Annals Of The Association Of American Geographers. 2003;93(2):350-364
  30. 30. Nunn PD, Lancini L, Franks L, Compatangelo-Soussignan R, McCallum A. Maar Stories: How Oral Traditions Aid Understanding of Maar Volcanism and Associated Phenomena during Preliterate Times. Annals of the American Association of Geographers. 2019;109(5):1618-1631
  31. 31. Petterson MG, Cronin SJ, Taylor PW, Tolia D, Papabatu A, Toba T, et al. The eruptive history and volcanic hazards of Savo, Solomon Islands. Bulletin of Volcanology. 2003;65(2-3):165-181
  32. 32. Cronin SJ, Ferland MA, Terry JP. Nabukelevu volcano (Mt. Washington), Kadavu - a source of hitherto unknown volcanic hazard in Fiji. Journal Of Volcanology And Geothermal Research. 2004;131(3-4):371-396
  33. 33. Cronin SJ, Neall VE. Impacts of volcanism an pre-European inhabitants of Taveuni, Fiji. Bulletin of Volcanology. 2000;62(3):199-213
  34. 34. Németh K, Cronin SJ. Volcanic structures and oral traditions of volcanism of Western Samoa (SW Pacific) and their implications for hazard education. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2009;186(3-4):223-237
  35. 35. de Vries BvW, Byrne P, Delcamp A, Einarson P, Gogus O, Guilbaud M-N, et al. A global framework for the Earth: putting geological sciences in context. Global and Planetary Change. 2018;171:293-321
  36. 36. Tibaldi A, Bistacchi A, Pasquarè FA, Vezzoli L. Extensional tectonics and volcano lateral collapses: insights from Ollagüe volcano (Chile-Bolivia) and analogue modelling. Terra Nova. 2006;18(4):282-289
  37. 37. Feeley TC, Davidson JP, Armendia A. The volcanic and magmatic evolution of volcan Ollague, a high-K, late Quaternary stratovolcano in the Andean Central Volcanic Zone. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 1993;54(3-4):221-245
  38. 38. Escudero G, Németh K, Torres I, Ureta G, Józsa S, Sági T. Morfometría y petrología del domo de lava El Ingenio, Antofagasta, Chile. 1st ALVO Congress. Antofagasta, Chile 2020
  39. 39. Wörner G, Hammerschmidt K, Henjes-Kunst F, Lezaun J, Wilke H. Geochronology (Ar-40/Ar-39, K-Ar and He-exposure ages) of Cenozoic magmatic rocks from Northern Chile (18-22 degrees S): implications for magmatism and tectonic evolution of the central Andes. Revista Geologica De Chile. 2000;27(2):205-240
  40. 40. Bebbington MS, Stirling MW, Cronin S, Wang T, Jolly G. National-level long-term eruption forecasts by expert elicitation. Bulletin of Volcanology. 2018;80(6)
  41. 41. Stirling M, Bebbington M, Brenna M, Cronin S, Christophersen A, Deligne N, et al. Conceptual Development of a National Volcanic Hazard Model for New Zealand. Frontiers in Earth Science. 2017;5
  42. 42. Stirling M, McVerry G, Gerstenberger M, Litchfield N, Van Dissen R, Berryman K, et al. National Seismic Hazard Model for New Zealand: 2010 Update. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 2012;102(4):1514-1542
  43. 43. Bebbington MS. Spatio-volumetric hazard estimation in the Auckland volcanic field. Bulletin of Volcanology. 2015;77(5)
  44. 44. Smith IEM, Németh K. Source to surface model of monogenetic volcanism: a critical review In: Németh K, Carrasco-Nuñez G, Aranda-Gomez JJ, Smith IEM, editors. Monogenetic Volcanism. Geological Society of London Special Publications. Geological Society of London, Special Publications. Bath, UK: The Geological Society Publishing House; 2017. p. 1-28
  45. 45. Németh K, Kereszturi G. Monogenetic volcanism: personal views and discussion. International Journal of Earth Sciences. 2015;104(8):2131-2146
  46. 46. Jankovics MÉ, Harangi S, Németh K, Kiss B, Ntaflos T. A complex magmatic system beneath the Kissomlyó monogenetic volcano (western Pannonian Basin): Evidence from mineral textures, zoning and chemistry. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2015;301:38-55
  47. 47. Báez W, Carrasco-Nunez G, Giordano G, Viramonte J, Chiodi A. The polycyclic scoria cones of the Antofagasta de la Sierra basin, Southern Puna Plateau, Argentina. In: Németh K, Carrasco-Nuñez G, Aranda-Gomez JJ, Smith IEM, editors. Monogenetic Volcanism. Geological Society of London Special Publications. 446. Bath, UK: The Geological Society Publishing House; 2017
  48. 48. Fulop A, Kurszlaukis S. Monogenetic versus polygenetic kimberlite volcanism: In-depth examination of the Tango Extension Super Structure, Attawapiskat kimberlite field, Ontario. In: Németh K, Carrasco-Nuñez G, Aranda-Gomez JJ, Smith IEM, editors. Monogenetic Volcanism. Geological Society of London Special Publications. 446. Bath, UK: The Geological Society Publishing House; 2017
  49. 49. Hencz M, Karátson D, Németh K, Biró T. A Badacsony freatomagmás piroklasztitösszlete: következtetések a monogenetikus bazaltvulkáni működés folyamataira és formáira = The phreatomagmatic pyroclastic sequence of the Badacsony Hill: implications for the processes and landforms of monogenetic basaltic volcanism. Földtani közlöny. 2017;147(3):297-310
  50. 50. Murcia H, Borrero C, Németh K. Overview and plumbing system implications of monogenetic volcanism in the northernmost Andes’ volcanic province. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2019;383:77-87
  51. 51. Brenna M, Németh K, Cronin SJ, Sohn YK, Smith IEM, Wijbrans J. Co–located monogenetic eruptions ~200 kyr apart driven by tapping vertically separated mantle source regions, Chagwido, Jeju Island, Republic of Korea. Bulletin of Volcanology. 2015;77(5)
  52. 52. Sohn YK, Cronin SJ, Brenna M, Smith IEM, Németh K, White JDL, et al. Ilchulbong tuff cone, Jeju Island, Korea, revisited: A compound monogenetic volcano involving multiple magma pulses, shifting vents, and discrete eruptive phases. Geological Society of America Bulletin. 2012;124(3-4):259-274
  53. 53. Kósik S, Németh K, Lexa J, Procter JN. Understanding the evolution of a small-volume silicic fissure eruption: Puketerata Volcanic Complex, Taupo Volcanic Zone, New Zealand. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2018
  54. 54. de Silva S, Lindsay JM. Chapter 15 - Primary volcanic landforms. In: Sigurdsson H, editor. The Encyclopedia of Volcanoes (Second Edition). Amsterdam: Academic Press; 2015. p. 273-297
  55. 55. Murcia H, Németh K, El-Masry NN, Lindsay JM, Moufti MRH, Wameyo P, et al. The Al-Du'aythah volcanic cones, Al-Madinah City: implications for volcanic hazards in northern Harrat Rahat, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Bulletin of Volcanology. 2015;77(6)
  56. 56. Jones TJ, Llewellin EW, Houghton BF, Brown RJ, Vye-Brown C. Proximal lava drainage controls on basaltic fissure eruption dynamics. Bulletin of Volcanology. 2017;79(11)
  57. 57. Brown RJ, Kavanagh J, Sparks RSJ, Tait M, Field M. Mechanically disrupted and chemically weakened zones in segmented dike systems cause vent localization: Evidence from kimberlite volcanic systems. Geology. 2007;35(9):815-818
  58. 58. Moufti MR, Németh K. The intra-continental Al Madinah Volcanic Field, Western Saudi Arabia: a proposal to establish harrat Al Madinah as the first volcanic geopark in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Geoheritage. 2013;5(3):185-206
  59. 59. Moufti MR, Németh K, Murcia H, Lindsay JM, El-Masry N. Geosite of a steep lava spatter cone of the 1256 AD, Al Madinah eruption, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Central European Journal of Geosciences. 2013;5(2):189-195
  60. 60. Neri M, Le Cozannet G, Thierry P, Bignami C, Ruch J. A method for multi-hazard mapping in poorly known volcanic areas: an example from Kanlaon (Philippines). Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. 2013;13(8):1929-1943
  61. 61. Procter JN, Cronin SJ, Platz T, Patra A, Dalbey K, Sheridan M, et al. Mapping block-and-ash flow hazards based on Titan 2D simulations: a case study from Mt. Taranaki, NZ. Natural Hazards. 2010;53(3):483-501
  62. 62. Sieron K, Siebe C. Revised stratigraphy and eruption rates of Ceboruco stratovolcano and surrounding monogenetic vents (Nayarit, Mexico) from historical documents and new radiocarbon dates. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2008;176(2):241-264
  63. 63. Macias JL, Capra L, Arce JL, Espindola JM, Garcia-Palomo A, Sheridan MF. Hazard map of El Chichon volcano, Chiapas, Mexico: Constraints posed by eruptive history and computer simulations. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2008;175(4):444-458
  64. 64. Damiani ML, Groppelli G, Norini G, Bertino E, Gigliuto A, Nucita A. A lava flow simulation model for the development of volcanic hazard maps for Mount Etna (Italy). Computers & Geosciences. 2006;32(4):512-526
  65. 65. Jimenez D, Becerril L, Bartolini S, Escobar D, Marti J. Making a qualitative volcanic-hazards map by combining simulated scenarios: An example for San Miguel Volcano (El Salvador). Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2020;395
  66. 66. Pareschi MT, Cavarra L, Favalli M, Giannini F, Meriggi A. GIS and volcanic risk management. Natural Hazards. 2000;21(2-3):361-379
  67. 67. Leonard GS, Stewart C, Wilson TM, Procter JN, Scott BJ, Keys HJ, et al. Integrating multidisciplinary science, modelling and impact data into evolving, syn-event volcanic hazard mapping and communication: A case study from the 2012 Tongariro eruption crisis, New Zealand. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2014;286:208-232
  68. 68. Andreastuti S, Paripurno E, Gunawan H, Budianto A, Syahbana D, Pallister J. Character of community response to volcanic crises at Sinabung and Kelud volcanoes. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2019;382:298-310
  69. 69. Ricci T, Barberi F, Davis MS, Isaia R, Nave R. Volcanic risk perception in the Campi Flegrei area. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2013;254:118-130
  70. 70. Rolandi G. Volcanic hazard at Vesuvius: An analysis for the revision of the current emergency plan. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2010; 189(3-4):347-362
  71. 71. Johannesdottir G, Gisladottir G. People living under threat of volcanic hazard in southern Iceland: vulnerability and risk perception. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. 2010;10(2):407-420
  72. 72. Donovan K. Doing social volcanology: exploring volcanic culture in Indonesia. Area. 2010;42(1):117-126
  73. 73. Limon-Hernandez C, Macias JL. Volcanic hazards and risk perception at the “Zoque” community of Chapultenango: El Chichon volcano, Chiapas, Mexico. Geofisica Internacional. 2009;48(1):113-132
  74. 74. Todesco M, Neri A, Demaria C, Marmo C, Macedonio G. E VIVO: Virtual eruptions at Vesuvius; A multimedia tool to illustrate numerical modeling to a general public. Journal Of Volcanology And Geothermal Research. 2006;155(3-4):323-328
  75. 75. Gregg CE, Houghton BF, Paton D, Swanson DA, Johnston DM. Community preparedness for lava flows from Mauna Loa and Hualalai volcanoes, Kona, Hawai'i. Bulletin Of Volcanology. 2004;66(6):531-540
  76. 76. Dominey-Howes D, Minos-Minopoulos D. Perceptions of hazard and risk on Santorini. Journal Of Volcanology And Geothermal Research. 2004;137(4):285-310
  77. 77. Cronin SJ, Petterson MG, Taylor PW, Biliki R. Maximising multi-stakeholder participation in government and community volcanic hazard management programs; A case study from Savo, Solomon Islands. Natural Hazards. 2004;33(1):105-136
  78. 78. Paton D, Millar M, Johnston D. Community resilience to volcanic hazard consequences. Natural Hazards. 2001;24(2):157-169
  79. 79. Cole L. Volcanic hazards and disasters in human antiquity. American Journal Of Archaeology. 2003;107(4):668-670
  80. 80. Siebe C, Rodriguez-Lara V, Schaaf P, Abrams M. Radiocarbon ages of Holocene Pelado, Guespalapa, and Chichinautzin scoria cones, south of Mexico City: implications for archaeology and future hazards. Bulletin Of Volcanology. 2004;66(3):203-225
  81. 81. Siebe C, Macías JL. Volcanic hazards in the Mexico City metropolitan area from eruptions at Popocatépetl, Nevado de Toluca, and Jocotitlán stratovolcanoes and monogenetic scoria cones in the Sierra Chichinautzin Volcanic Field. In: Siebe C, Macías JL, Aguirre-Díaz GJ, editors. Neogene-Quaternary Continental Margin Volcanism: A perspective from México. Special Paper of the Geological Society of America: 402. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America; 2006. p. 253-329
  82. 82. De Benedetti AA, Funiciello R, Giordano G, Diano G, Caprilli E, Paterne M. Volcanology, history and myths of the Lake Albano maar (Colli Albani volcano, Italy). Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2008;176(3):387-406
  83. 83. Rossi MJ, Kesseli R, Liuha P, Meneses JS, Bustamante J. A preliminary archaeological and environmental study of pre- Columbian burial towers at Huachacalla, Bolivian Altiplano. Geoarchaeology-an International Journal. 2002;17(7):633-648
  84. 84. Riede F, Barnes GL, Elson MD, Oetelaar GA, Holmberg KG, Sheets P. Prospects and pitfalls in integrating volcanology and archaeology: A review. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2020;401
  85. 85. Karátson D, Telbisz T, Gertisser R, Strasser T, Nomikou P, Druitt T, et al. Constraining the landscape of Late Bronze Age Santorini prior to the Minoan eruption: Insights from volcanological, geomorphological and archaeological findings. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2020;401
  86. 86. Groucutt HS. Volcanism and human prehistory in Arabia. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2020;402
  87. 87. Athanassas CD, Modis K, Alcicek MC, Theodorakopoulou K. Contouring the Cataclysm: A Geographical Analysis of the Effects of the Minoan Eruption of the Santorini Volcano. Environmental Archaeology. 2018;23(2):160-176
  88. 88. Chevrel MO, Siebe C, Guilbaud M-N, Salinas S. The AD 1250 El Metate shield volcano (Michoacan): Mexico's most voluminous Holocene eruption and its significance for archaeology and hazards. Holocene. 2016;26(3):471-488
  89. 89. Riede F. Towards a science of past disasters. Natural Hazards. 2014;71(1):335-362
  90. 90. Williams M. The similar to 73 ka Toba super-eruption and its impact: History of a debate. Quaternary International. 2012;258:19-29
  91. 91. Alvarado GE, Soto GJ. Volcanoes in the pre-Columbian life, legend, and archaeology of Costa Rica (Central America). Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2008;176(3):356-362
  92. 92. Siebe C. Age and archaeological implications of Xitle volcano, southwestern Basin of Mexico-City. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2000;104(1-4):45-64
  93. 93. Lowe DJ, Newnham RM, McFadgen BG, Higham TFG. Tephras and New Zealand archaeology. Journal Of Archaeological Science. 2000;27(10):859-870
  94. 94. Quesada-Roman A, Zangmo GT, Perez-Umana D. Geomorphosite Comparative Analysis in Costa Rica and Cameroon Volcanoes. Geoheritage. 2020;12(4)
  95. 95. Dóniz-Páez J, Beltrán-Yanes E, Becerra-Ramírez R, Pérez NM, Hernández PA, Hernández W. Diversity of volcanic geoheritage in the Canary Islands, Spain. Geosciences. 2020;10:390
  96. 96. Kil Y, Ahn KS, Woo KS, Lee KC, Jwa Y-J, Jung W, et al. Geoheritage Values of the Quaternary Hantangang River Volcanic Field in the Central Korean Peninsula. Geoheritage. 2019;11(3):765-782
  97. 97. Fepuleai A, Németh K. Volcanic Geoheritage of Landslides and Rockfalls on a Tropical Ocean Island (Western Samoa, SW Pacific). Geoheritage. 2019;11(2):577-596
  98. 98. Zacek V, Hradecky P, Kycl P, Sevcik J, Novotny R, Baron I. The Somoto Grand Canyon (Nicaragua)-a Volcanic Geoheritage Site One Decade After Discovery: from Field Geological Mapping to the Promotion of a Geopark. Geoheritage. 2017;9(3):299-309
  99. 99. Szepesi J, Harangi S, Ésik Z, Novak TJ, Lukács R, Soos I. Volcanic Geoheritage and Geotourism Perspectives in Hungary: a Case of an UNESCO World Heritage Site, Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape, Hungary. Geoheritage. 2017;9(3):329-349
  100. 100. Sheth H, Samant H, Patel V, D'Souza J. The Volcanic Geoheritage of the Elephanta Caves, Deccan Traps, Western India. Geoheritage. 2017;9(3):359-372
  101. 101. Rapprich V, Lisec M, Fiferna P, Závada P. Application of Modern Technologies in Popularization of the Czech Volcanic Geoheritage. Geoheritage. 2017;this volume
  102. 102. Németh K, Wu J, Sun C, Liu J. Update on the Volcanic Geoheritage Values of the Pliocene to Quaternary Arxan–Chaihe Volcanic Field, Inner Mongolia, China. Geoheritage. 2017;9(3):279-297
  103. 103. Németh K, Casadevall T, Moufti MR, Marti J. Volcanic Geoheritage. Geoheritage. 2017;9(3):251-254
  104. 104. Migon P, Pijet-Migon E. Overlooked geomorphological component of volcanic geoheritage-diversity and perspectives for tourism industry, Pogrze Kaczawskie Region, SW Poland. Geoheritage. 2016;8(4):333-350
  105. 105. Riede F. Doing palaeo-social volcanology: Developing a framework for systematically investigating the impacts of past volcanic eruptions on human societies using archaeological datasets. Quaternary International. 2019;499:266-277
  106. 106. Casadevall TJ, Tormey D, Roberts J. World Heritage Volcanoes: Classification, gap analysis, and recommendations for future listings. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 2019. 68 p
  107. 107. Fepuleai A, Weber E, Németh K, Muliaina T, Iese V. Eruption Styles of Samoan Volcanoes Represented in Tattooing, Language and Cultural Activities of the Indigenous People. Geoheritage. 2017;9(3):395-411
  108. 108. Lewis ID. Linking geoheritage sites: Geotourism and a prospective Geotrail in the Flinders Ranges World Heritage Nomination area, South Australia. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences. 2020;67(8):1195-1210
  109. 109. Gravis I, Németh K, Twemlow C, Németh B. The Case for Community-Led Geoheritage and Geoconservation Ventures in Māngere, South Auckland, and Central Otago, New Zealand. Geoheritage. 2020;12(1)
  110. 110. Procter J, Németh K. Recognising indigenous peoples values and knowledge systems in Geoheritage: Case studies from New Zealand and the South Pacific. European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2017. Vienna, Austria: European Geosciences Union; 2017
  111. 111. Turner S. Geoheritage and Geoparks: One (Australian) Woman's Point of View. Geoheritage. 2013;5(4):249-264

Written By

Károly Németh

Submitted: March 9th, 2021 Published: June 9th, 2021