the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 13 Mar 2025
Environmental and economic impact of the potential eruptions of Imbabura (VEI = 2) and Cuicocha (VEI = 6) volcanoes in north-central Ecuador
Abstract. The present study aims to determine the physical and economic impact on Otavalo canton in north-central Ecuador out of the potential eruptive phase of the Imbabura (VEI = 2) and Cuicocha (VEI = 6) volcanoes. The current situation of Otavalo was identified in relation to the potential volcanic hazards of these two volcanoes through previous studies and field work. With geographic information on the given infrastructure of the area and the use of geospatial tools, maps of the Otavalo canton were prepared related to a variety of volcanic hazards but predominantly ash falls and pyroclastic flows from the two evaluated volcanoes in order to determine the physical impact. Furthermore, we determined the economic impact by using geographic information, volcanic hazard maps and economic cost analysis, with which the total economic losses were estimated. Contradictorily to the grade of the VEI, a total economic loss of only 235,524,287.89 USD has been yield in the canton of Otavalo in the case of an eventual eruption of the Cuicocha volcano and some 300,917,625.51 USD in the case of an eventual eruption of the Imbabura volcano. Subsequently, we developed the basis for a novel proposal of preventive measures in order to reduce the physical and economic impact in the studied area.
- Preprint
(1060 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 27 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-298', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Apr 2025
reply
Dear editor,
In this contribution, Rodríguez-Espinoza et al. present an analysis of the economic impact associated with potential eruptions in two Ecuadorian volcanoes (Imbabura and Coicocha). I think this manuscript presents a lot of critical issues from a volcanological point of view, and also in terms of redaction and reproducibility. I would like to raise the following points:
- As a reviewer, I do not understand what is the volcanological reason and field observation that supports the reference scenarios. Where are the deposits of these references in the volcanological record? The analysis of the volcanological significance of the studied scenarios is completely absent in the manuscript, and is only based on considerations of the VEI associated with these two volcanoes. This is extremely simplistic, VEI is a measure for volcanic eruptions, not for characterizing the nature of a volcano, with the potential of generating a series of volcanic scenarios. They also address two extremely different scenarios (VEI 2 and VEI 6) for two volcanoes whose links are not discussed at all.
- Moreover, there are features of the proposed hazard maps that make me think there are numerical artefacts, or problems related to an insufficient number of simulations. Numerical modeling is really obscure. What are the inputs parameters of simulations? How many simulations did you performed? Are you considering depth and time variations of wind field? It seems the authors are not considering these issues.
- There are several recent advances in numerical modeling and probabilistic hazard assessment that are not incorporated in the adopted methodology. I could mention lots of papers leaded by Sandri, Tierz, de’ Michieli Vitturi, Tadini, Kelfoun, Pardini, etc., that stress the relevance of considering the aleatory and epistemic uncertainty of volcanic processes in the construction of hazard maps. This is not considered or discussed.
- The assessment of hazard and risk is not presented in terms of the terminology that this problem involves (risk, hazard, vulnerability, exposition and so on). This represents a significant inconvenience to follow the manuscript.
- I identified some issues in the reference list that should be solved. All of them are indicated in the commented PDF attached in this review.
- English should be improved in several parts, especially in the introduction.
All in all, I suggest to reject publication of this manuscript. There are several aspects that should be addressed or discussed in detail and it is not aligned with the standard of recent studies of fallout hazard assessments and the standard of this journal.
Please find attached a commented PDF file.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-298', Robert Buchwaldt, 21 Apr 2025
reply
Review of EGUsphere, by F. Rodriguez-Espinosa et al.
Robert Buchwaldt 04/21/2025
In his submitted paper, the author attempts to explore a volcanic hazard assessment of the Otavalo Canton, which is surrounded by two active volcanoes: Imbabura and Cuicocha. To achieve this goal, the author uses a georeferenced dataset of wind direction combined with economic census data.
Nevertheless, while this is a worthwhile regional endeavor, the paper in its current form is far from being understandable or publishable in any academic journal.
I understand that none of the authors are native English speakers, but the paper is filled with spelling and grammatical mistakes to the extent that several sections are unreadable and difficult to comprehend. A basic spell and grammar checker—readily available in most writing programs—would significantly improve the structural form of the paper as a first step. However, more importantly, the authors must put in substantial effort to improve the language throughout the manuscript.
Beyond the language issues, the paper is difficult to follow. The introduction is overly wordy and does not get to the point. This is a scientific paper, not a historical pamphlet about volcanoes. At no point do the authors clearly introduce the Otavalo region, the motivation for its volcanic hazard assessment, its relevance to a broader audience, or what novel contributions this paper offers to the field of hazard risk assessment. I still do not understand what Mount Vesuvius has to do with this study.
The authors also fail to explain and justify the methodology they used. What are the advantages of their approach? What are the new insights brought into the discussion of hazard and risk assessment?
It is unclear whether some of the references cited in the paper are appropriate or even relevant. The authors should thoroughly review all references and ensure that only essential and directly related sources are included —rather than a random collection of papers that might appear relevant but are not tied to the paper’s actual content.
In the "Methods and Materials" section, please number all equations and explain the meaning of their components. Justify the use of the published equations—why are these models applicable to the problem at hand, a problem that, by the way, is never clearly defined in the lengthy introduction? Additionally, it seems the author may not fully understand GIS—ArcGIS is the name of the software suite, and ArcMap is one component of that suite. How were the model equations applied to the specific area and issue under study?
Figure 2 is meaningless. There is no discussion on how this assessment applies to the study region, or why wind directional data can be applied as it is. The entire section is incoherent and confusing. Additionally, some numbers in brackets are unexplained, and I could not determine what they refer to.
The pyroclastic flow assessment is rudimentary. While the author digitized and georeferenced a map, where is the morphological data? Where are the flow models for different Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) scenarios? Where are the lahar assessments? Numerous studies show that ground flows are among the most destructive components of pyroclastic eruptions—yet here, they are treated as a side note, while ashfall is presented as the primary danger. This imbalance needs to be addressed and explained.
The discussion of the economic models in this section is marginally better—you do at least explain the parameters used—but again, number your equations. In the earlier section, you used GIS to create spatial separations, but here, you calculate the average impact across the entire area, both in terms of destruction and reconstruction. At no point did you georeferenced the economic impacts or address the issue at a spatial resolution. You mention land use cover, but in your model, you simply used the sum or integral over the area, which oversimplifies the issue.
What is completely missing is how you linked the three datasets to create a coherent volcanic hazard risk assessment and how you used this information to develop an economic impact study.
Explain your methods—this is what this section is for!!!!! As it stands, I could not follow your methodology well enough to evaluate the validity of your work.
Again, the "Results and Discussion" section falls below expectations. Yes, you include an ashfall map, a re-visualized existing pyroclastic flow map, and a table of average economic impact values (presumably based on the model discussed), but there is no substantive discussion of the data. There is no analysis of the relationships between datasets. Right now, there is no "meat on the bone."
In summary:
The paper requires substantial revision and is not currently suitable for publication in any reputable journal. As it stands, it’s unclear whether the work has relevance beyond the local region. It may be better suited as a section in a regional government report. There is still considerable research and revision needed before this could even be considered a first draft. The language and structure need to be cleaned up significantly, the research question clarified, and all filler content removed. Most importantly, the paper is missing substance—the reader cannot follow the author’s reasoning or evaluate the findings with confidence.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-298-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 69 | 15 | 4 | 88 | 7 | 6 |
- HTML: 69
- PDF: 15
- XML: 4
- Total: 88
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 35 | 31 |
| Ecuador | 2 | 18 | 16 |
| China | 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Switzerland | 4 | 8 | 7 |
| France | 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 35