Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS).
Communication and Education Strategies to Raise Awareness and Understanding of Volcanic Hazard During Times of Quiescence: A Literature Review
Rebeckah S. Hufstetler,Hollie Smith,Emilie E. E. Hooft,and Laura Gattis
Abstract. This study synthesizes peer-reviewed research on volcanic hazard communication during periods of quiescence, when immediate crisis pressures are absent but opportunities for long-term preparedness are substantial. While much existing work focuses on communication during eruptions or in specific regions, we examine how volcanic hazards are communicated when a volcano is quiet, a time suited for building awareness, understanding, and sustained public engagement. We conducted a systematic review of relevant studies and grouped findings into three categories: formal educational materials, informal education approaches, and informal communication tools. Common themes include clear and accessible language, participatory strategies, and trust built through two-way communication. Few studies evaluate communication effectiveness, highlighting an important gap in the literature. This synthesis clarifies how communication during quiescent periods can support disaster risk reduction and strengthen community preparedness over time.
Received: 27 Feb 2026 – Discussion started: 10 Mar 2026
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
This manuscript focus on an interesting and relevant topic within the scope of NHESS, such as volcanic hazard communication and education during periods of quiescence rather than during eruptive or unrest crises. The paper fills an important gap in the literature and offers a structured synthesis of peer-reviewed studies. The authors provide a robust search strategy and a clear methodology, including the screening procedure and inclusion criteria. The main findings are credible and relevant. In particular, the manuscript shows that effective communication during quiescence should be audience-specific, participatory, grounded in accurate scientific evidence, and conveyed in accessible language. It also identifies an important gap, namely the relatively small number of studies that evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed approaches or tools. Overall, the manuscript is clearly written in fluent English, well organised, and potentially valuable for both researchers and practitioners.
Nevertheless, the manuscript would benefit from some improvements:
The abstract is clear, although it could be improved by stating the number of studies reviewed.
Figures 1 and 2 should be enlarged, and a larger font size should be used for all text in order to improve readability.
I strongly suggest adding summary reference tables to the main text for all three results subsections — Formal Education, Approaches, and Tools. These tables should include the studies cited by number in the text, together with their corresponding references. At present, the reader must repeatedly consult the supplementary Excel file to identify the papers behind the numbered citations, which reduces readability and traceability. Including these tables in the manuscript would greatly improve clarity and make the synthesis more accessible.
The Conclusions could be strengthened by providing a clearer original contribution from the authors. In particular, the manuscript would benefit from indicating which of the strategies identified in the scoping review may be most effective for communication efforts directed or undertaken by different stakeholder groups, including scientists, educators, communicators, and decision-makers. The paper would also benefit from clarifying how these stakeholders may themselves function as key actors within the various communication approaches discussed. This would enhance both the interpretative depth and the practical relevance of the study.
Volcanoes often remain in quiescence for long periods before erupting. We reviewed research on how volcanic hazards are communicated during these quieter phases. Clear language, community participation, and trust-building are central to effective outreach and education. However, few studies evaluate whether these strategies improve understanding or preparedness. Strengthening and assessing communication during quiescence can support long-term risk reduction and community resilience.
Volcanoes often remain in quiescence for long periods before erupting. We reviewed research on...
This manuscript focus on an interesting and relevant topic within the scope of NHESS, such as volcanic hazard communication and education during periods of quiescence rather than during eruptive or unrest crises. The paper fills an important gap in the literature and offers a structured synthesis of peer-reviewed studies. The authors provide a robust search strategy and a clear methodology, including the screening procedure and inclusion criteria. The main findings are credible and relevant. In particular, the manuscript shows that effective communication during quiescence should be audience-specific, participatory, grounded in accurate scientific evidence, and conveyed in accessible language. It also identifies an important gap, namely the relatively small number of studies that evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed approaches or tools. Overall, the manuscript is clearly written in fluent English, well organised, and potentially valuable for both researchers and practitioners.
Nevertheless, the manuscript would benefit from some improvements: