JDR Vol.14 No.8 pp. 1072-1085
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2019.p1072


Recent Perceptions of Volcanic Hazard-Related Information in Japan: Expectation of Eruption Predictability and Acceptance of Uncertainty

Miwa Kuri

International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku University
6-6-11 Aza-Aoba, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8578, Japan

Corresponding author

March 28, 2019
September 24, 2019
November 1, 2019
volcanic information, eruption predictability, acceptance of uncertainty

In this study, recent perceptions of volcanic hazard-related information in Japan were investigated through an Internet questionnaire survey administered via the Internet following the 2018 volcanic eruption at Kusatsu-Shirane. The survey was focused on the change in perceptions over the course of two years, following after a 2016 survey. Additional perceptions were investigated, such as the respondents’ perceptions of eruption predictability and acceptance of uncertainty. The results of 2018 survey indicated that interest in volcanoes led to greater disaster and evacuation awareness compared with those of the 2016 survey, excessive expectations for eruption predictability decreased from 2016 to 2018. One-half of the respondents considered active information openness from experts to be of a high priority and accepted the uncertainty of hazard information.

Cite this article as:
M. Kuri, “Recent Perceptions of Volcanic Hazard-Related Information in Japan: Expectation of Eruption Predictability and Acceptance of Uncertainty,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.14, No.8, pp. 1072-1085, 2019.
Data files:
  1. [1] Japan Meteorological Agency, “Improvement of information for volcanic tourist,” (in Japanese) [accessed August 1, 2019]
  2. [2] M. Sakamoto, “Risk Communication Prior to the 2014 Ontake Volcano Eruption,” J. of Japan Society for Natural Disaster Science, No.34, Special Issue, pp. 23-34, 2015.
  3. [3] Japan Meteorological Agency, “Study Group for the Provision of the Coordinating Committee for Prediction of Volcanic Eruptions Volcano Information,” (in Japanese) [accessed August 1, 2019]
  4. [4] Japan Meteorological Agency, “Eruption Notices,” (in Japanese) [accessed November 1, 2018]
  5. [5] Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, “The Act on Special Measures for Active Volcanoes,” (in Japanese) [accessed August 1, 2019]
  6. [6] H. Okada and T. Ui, “Eruption Prediction and Disaster Prevention and Mitigation,” T. Ui (Ed.), “Volcanic Eruption and Disaster,” pp. 79-116, University of Tokyo Press, 1997.
  7. [7] H. Okada, “The Space between Monitoring and Warning Information – Asking the Meaning of Total Disaster Mitigation Power for Volcanic Eruptions,” J. of Disaster Information Studies, No.13, pp. 8-15, 2015 (in Japanese).
  8. [8] M. Kuri, “Science Communication of Hazards with Scientific Uncertainty: In the Cases of Volcanic Activity,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.11. No.4, pp. 707-719, 2016.
  9. [9] Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, “The Impact of Eruption Warning Level Uprising at Owakudani, Hakoneyama in 2015,” Reports of Disaster Operation, (in Japanese) [accessed August 1, 2019]
  10. [10] M. Sakamoto, K. Tadokoro, A. Takagi, Y. Usuda, and T. Ui, “The Study on Disaster Risk Communication based on Disaster Awareness Survey at Mount Ontake Area,” J. of Social Safety Science, Vol.28, pp. 139-145, 2016 (in Japanese).
  11. [11] M. Kuri, A. Donovan, A. Suppasri, and T. Torayashiki, “Response of the Tourism Industry to Volcanic Hazard Information: A Case Study of the Volcanic Warning at Zao Volcano in 2015,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.13. No.3, pp. 547-558, 2018.
  12. [12] A. Donovan, A. Suppasri, M. Kuri, and T. Torayashiki, “The complex consequences of volcanic warnings: Trust, risk perception and experiences of businesses near Mount Zao following the 2015 unrest period,” Int. J. of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.27, pp. 57-67, 2018.
  13. [13] M. Kuri and A. Suppasri, “Perceptions of Volcanic Hazard-Related Information Relevant to Volcano Tourism Areas in Japan,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.13, No.6, pp. 1082-1095, 2018.
  14. [14] Y. Hayakawa, “Hayakawa’s 2000-Year Eruption Database and One Million-Year Tephra Database,” [accessed August 1, 2019]
  15. [15] O. Hiroi, H. Nakamori, N. Kawabata, and Y. Goto, “Prediction and coverage of the volcano eruption: The case study of eruptions 1986 Izu-Oshima eruption in 1986 and the Unzen in 1991,” Institute of Socio-Information and Communication Studies, The University of Tokyo, 153pp., 1992 (in Japanese).
  16. [16] M. Koyama, “Public Communication and Education of Knowledge and Information about Volcanoes and Their Risk in Japan: Present Status,” Bulletin of the Volcanological Society of Japan, Vol.50, Special Issue, pp. S289-S317, 2005 (in Japanese).
  17. [17] C. J. Yi and M. Kuri, “The prospect of online communication in the event of a disaster,” J. of Risk Research, Vol.19, No.7, pp. 951-963, 2016.
  18. [18] M. Kuri, N. N. Suartini, I. M. Budiana, K. Sugiyasu, and M. Matsumoto, “Evacuation action on the 2017 warning of Agung volcano, Indonesia: preliminary report,” Tohoku J. of Natural Disaster Science, Vol.54, pp. 253-258, 2018 (in Japanese).
  19. [19] M. Matsumoto, M. Kuri, K. Sugiyasu, Y. Jibiki, N. N. Suartini, and I. M. Budiana, “Statistical Analysis of the Relationship Between Social Capital and Evacuation: The Case of the Mt. Agung Eruption,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.13, No.6, pp. 1096-1112, 2018.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, IE9,10,11, Opera.

Last updated on Dec. 05, 2019