When Volcanoes Fall Quiet, Scientists Say It Is Time to Talk

Volcanoes can slumber for decades, sometimes for generations, before they erupt, and a new scoping review argues that these quiet stretches are precisely when hazard communication matters most. Researchers at the University of Oregon reviewed 76 peer-reviewed studies on how volcanic hazards are communicated and taught during periods of quiescence, when no eruption is underway and no crisis commands public attention. Their analysis, published in Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, finds that clear language, participatory strategies, and trust built through two-way exchange dominate the recommendations in this literature, yet only a minority of studies actually test whether any of these approaches work.

The review team, led by Rebeckah Hufstetler of the Department of Earth Sciences, searched five databases, including GeoRef, Web of Science, and ERIC, using terms that combined communication, engagement, outreach, education, and public awareness with volcano-related keywords while deliberately excluding crisis-focused work. After deduplication, the search returned 1222 results, which two authors screened independently against inclusion criteria before disagreements were resolved through discussion. The final dataset comprised 76 articles published between 1990 and 2024 across 41 venues, with publication rates rising sharply during the 2010s.

To organize this body of work, the authors drew a distinction between science education, which is oriented toward learning and understanding, and science communication, which emphasizes engagement and exchange. The reviewed studies fell into three categories: 21 articles on formal educational materials designed for classrooms, 27 on informal education and communication approaches, and 28 on informal communication tools such as hazard maps, games, and films. Some articles spanned multiple categories and were assigned to the one most closely aligned with their main emphasis.

The geographic picture that emerged was strikingly lopsided. Of the 76 articles, 42 focused on a specific volcano or volcanic area, and most of those concentrated on Vesuvius, Etna, Katla, and the Taupo Volcanic Zone, all near substantial population centers with long monitoring histories. Meanwhile, volcanoes that threaten comparably large or larger populations, including Mount Nyiragongo near Goma, the Hainan Volcanic Field in China, and Popocatépetl in Mexico, received little attention. The authors argue this skew matters because trusted messengers, cultural relationships to volcanoes, and preparedness priorities vary widely between regions, so lessons from well-studied volcanoes cannot simply be exported elsewhere.

Evaluation was the review’s most persistent concern. Across all 76 articles, only 26 empirically evaluated the effectiveness of the tool or approach they described, and many of those evaluations measured interest, usability, or short-term knowledge rather than preparedness, behavior, trust, or long-term retention. In the formal education category, nine of the 21 studies included some evaluation, most commonly pre- and post-tests of student learning or questionnaires about perceptions. Without structured evaluation, the authors conclude, it is difficult to determine which communication strategies actually work in practice.

The classroom studies nonetheless offer suggestive patterns. Hands-on experiments and activities are repeatedly presented as ways to increase student interest and attention, and several studies recommend cross-curricular learning that connects volcanic hazards to social, historical, and geographic themes. One analysis of children’s stories about eruptions found that elementary students rarely recognized precursory unrest and often underestimated the size and variability of eruptions, prompting a recommendation that educational materials pay more attention to how dormant volcanoes reactivate. The authors also caution, drawing on broader disaster education research, that learning does not automatically translate into preparedness, and that uptake of voluntary school resources depends on teacher training, curriculum support, and engagement with local emergency management staff.

Outside the classroom, the reviewed approaches were often audience-specific. Six articles addressed communication with tourists, who may arrive with limited local knowledge and little time to seek information; these studies recommend bold, visual, place-based materials, interpretive panels at past eruption sites, and involvement of the whole tourism sector, including trained guides and travel agents who disseminate risk information before visitors enter hazardous areas. Ten articles focused on Indigenous populations, where the reviewed studies suggest communication should build on shared goals such as recognizing warning signs rather than attempting to replace local knowledge systems, which can create distrust. Oral storytelling appears repeatedly as a means of preserving community memory of rare but catastrophic eruptions, and the authors stress that Indigenous communities are not a single uniform audience, so strategies from one setting cannot transfer without locally grounded engagement.

Community-level communication systems received attention as well. Reviewed studies recommend working with local actors who already hold relationships with their audiences, such as emergency managers, community leaders, and educators, and they highlight the role of volcanic observatories in maintaining outreach, visibility, and durable communication channels during quiet periods. Social media can provide regular contact and be adapted to the level of volcanic activity, but it requires sustained management and clear decisions about what to post at each activity stage. Citizen science, which can involve community members in knowledge generation, was noted as promising but poorly documented and evaluated in the reviewed literature.

Among the 28 tool-focused articles, hazard maps drew the most empirical scrutiny. Public audiences often prefer aerial photographs and 3D maps that make the landscape easier to interpret, while scientists and emergency managers may favor contour maps with greater technical detail, and participatory mapping processes can clarify what information communities value. Digital offerings, including online museums, virtual outcrops, virtual reality environments, and serious games, were frequently described in enough detail to be recreated elsewhere, and two studies showed that scientifically accurate games can support understanding of volcanic processes. Creative media such as photographs, paintings, and films can make hazards emotionally resonant, though the review notes that fear-based messaging can produce fatalism rather than preparedness, while communication showing how past communities recovered may encourage protective action.

The authors are explicit about the limits of their own study. The review was bounded to peer-reviewed literature from specific databases, excluded grey literature, excluded crisis and unrest communication by design, and its data were charted only by the first author, so it does not provide a comprehensive assessment of volcanic hazard communication. Probability and uncertainty communication, well developed in broader risk communication research, were not central themes in the quiescence-focused studies they captured, leaving little volcano-specific evidence about how audiences interpret qualitative likelihood terms or long recurrence intervals during quiet periods. Still, their conclusion is unambiguous: quiescence is not a gap between meaningful communication moments but a window in which awareness, relationships, and preparedness can be built, and the field now needs participatory, context-specific strategies that are rigorously evaluated before the pressures of unrest or eruption begin.

Subject of Research: Volcanic hazard communication and education during periods of volcanic quiescence

Article Title: Communication and education strategies to raise awareness and understanding of volcanic hazard during times of quiescence: a literature review

Article References: Hufstetler, R. S., Smith, H., Hooft, E. E. E., & Gattis, L. (2026). Communication and education strategies to raise awareness and understanding of volcanic hazard during times of quiescence: a literature review. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 26(10), 5361-5387. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-26-5361-2026

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.5194/nhess-26-5361-2026

Keywords: volcanic hazard, risk communication, science education, scoping review, quiescence, preparedness, hazard maps, Indigenous knowledge, tourism, community engagement, uncertainty communication, disaster risk reduction