Active Hydrothermal Featuresas Tourist Attractions

Patricia Erfurt-Cooper

AbstractTourists are looking increasingly for adventurous experiences by explor-ing unusual and interesting landscapes. Active volcanic and hydrothermallandscapes and their remarkable manifestations of geysers, fumaroles andboiling mud ponds are some of the surface features that fascinate visitorsof National Parks, Geoparks and World Heritage areas worldwide. Theuniqueness of hydrothermal activity based on volcanism has providedpopular tourist attractions in many countries for several thousand years.The Romans for example have used hydrothermal springs on the Italianisland Ischia and visited the Campi Flegrei for recreational purposes. InIceland the original Geysir already attracted international visitors over150 years ago, who came to observe this spectacular hydrothermalphenomenon. In Greece and Turkey volcanic hot springs have historicallyprovided attractive destinations, as well as in New Zealand, Japan and theAmericas. The fact that locations with hydrothermal activity based onactive volcanism have acquired various forms of protected site status, addsa further dimension to their attraction and demonstrates a significantcontribution to sustainable and nature based tourism. Countries such asIceland, New Zealand and Japan have a long tradition of usinghydrothermal activity in its various forms to offer tourists a uniquenatural experience. These environments however are also known for theirunpredictable and potentially hostile nature, as the use of hydrothermalfeatures as a natural resource for tourism does harbour certain risks withthe potential to affect human health and safety. Hydrothermal systemshave erupted in the past, thereby causing the destruction of theirimmediate environment. Depending on the level of magnitude explosionsof super heated water and steam mixed with fractured rocks and hot mudcan be violent enough to create craters varying in size from a few metres

P. Erfurt-Cooper (&)GEOTOURISM Australia, Canberra ACT, Australiae-mail: Patricia.Erfurt@my.jcu.edu.au

https://doi.org/10.1007/11157_2016_33© The Author(s) 2017Published Online: 29 March 2017

Advs in Volcanology (2018) 85–105

to several hundred metres in diameter. Apart from unexpected eruptions ofhydrothermal vents with the potential to cause thermal burns, further riskfactors include seismic activity such as earthquakes, lethal gas emissionsof hydrogen sulphide (H2S) as well as ground instability throughhydrothermal alteration. While it is essential to prevent injuries to touriststhe management of hydrothermal hazards remains problematic. Precursorysigns are not well understood by the general public and the communi-cation of imminent danger is frequently unachievable. As a consequenceserious thought needs to be given to the risk factors and the potentialdanger of areas in the proximity of active hydrothermal manifestationssuch as extreme hot springs and geysers. To improve the safety standardsin hydrothermal landscapes that are used as main features in tourism,strategic guidelines for best practice management must cover ALL activevolcanic and hydrothermal areas. This chapter looks at management issuesat hydrothermal destinations with special consideration of areas wherethese unique features are integrated as tourist attractions. Examples fromdestinations traditionally based on active volcanic and hydrothermalphenomena are presented as case studies to highlight the risk managementprocesses in individual countries. Potential hazards in volcanic andhydrothermal areas are assessed with a focus on the prevention ofaccidents and injuries to tourists.

KeywordsHydrothermal activity � Protected site status � Risk management �Sustainable tourism � Volcanic environments

1 Introduction

1.1 Visitor Safety in HydrothermalEnvironments

Tourists are looking increasingly for adventurousexperiences by exploring unusual and interestingdestinations. Active volcanic and hydrothermallandforms and their remarkable manifestations ofgeysers, fumaroles and boiling mud ponds aresome of the surface features that fascinate tour-ists worldwide. The uniqueness of hydrothermalactivity based on volcanism has provided populartourist attractions in many countries for severalthousand years. The Romans for example usedhydrothermal springs on the Italian island Ischiaand visited Campi Flegrei for recreational pur-poses. In Iceland the original Geysir attractedinternational visitors over 150 years ago who

came to observe this spectacular hydrothermalphenomenon. In many other countries worldwide(Greece, Turkey, New Zealand, Japan, China andthe Americas) hydrothermal activity in its vari-ous forms has historically provided attractivedestinations.

The fact that locations with hydrothermalactivity, commonly based on active volcanism,have acquired various forms of protected sitestatus (e.g. National Parks, Geoparks and WorldHeritage Areas) adds a further dimension to theirattraction and demonstrates a significant contri-bution to sustainable and nature based tourism.However, these environments are also knownfor their unpredictable and potentially hostilenature and the use of hydrothermal features as anatural resource for tourism does have certainrisks with the potential to affect human healthand safety.

86 P. Erfurt-Cooper

This chapter examines the communication ofhazards and the potential risks associated withsites where hydrothermal features are majortourist attractions. Examples from tourist desti-nations based on active hydrothermal phenomenaare presented as brief case studies to highlight theimportance of hazard and risk communication. Toprevent unnecessary exposure to hazards, whichcan escalate into a crisis situation, visitors ofhydrothermal attractions must be made awareof potential hazards that could carry the risk ofpersonal injury or death. As many hydrothermalareas are located in close proximity to activevolcanic systems, this chapter occasionally refersto both environments and their correlated hazards.

1.2 Definitions of Hazard, Riskand Vulnerability

First of all, the actual meaning of the commonlanguage terms hazard, risk and vulnerabilityneeds to be clarified in relation to the subjectmatter of this chapter. While the term hazard isoften used as a synonym for danger and/or risk, ahazard is scientifically defined as the probabilityof a natural event occurring as well as being apotential source of vulnerability (exposure todanger). The term vulnerability refers to thesusceptibility and inability of humans or physicalstructures to withstand the impacts of naturalhazards. Vulnerability in hydrothermal areasbased on volcanic activity takes into account thereal possibility of causing injury, damage andloss of life (Aspinall and Blong 2015; Barclay

et al. 2015; Jolly and De La Cruz 2015; McGuireet al. 2009; UNISIDR 2016). Vulnerability canbe a consequence of either being unsuspecting ofpotential risks or ignoring these while visitingsometimes remote or unsafe areas without suit-able defence structures or shelters. Taking a riskin these environments therefore can result invulnerability due to exposure of hazards andincludes the probability of being harmed in theprocess. This can be based on a lack of aware-ness about the potential risks and/or a lack ofappropriate hazard communication.

Potential hazards in areas of hydrothermalactivity (Table 7.1) are generally assessed withthe main focus on minimising the risk of acci-dents and injuries. The process of risk identifi-cation recognises potential hazards as well as anypotential vulnerability from the damaging effectsof a hazard (Aspinall and Blong 2015; UNISDR2014). Also, the risk to visitors is considered toincrease with extended time spent in an activehydrothermal area (Bratton et al. 2013). It istherefore highly recommended that all visitors ofactive hydrothermal environments are aware ofthe particular hazards and the potential risks inthese areas.

In this regard, a crisis can be defined as anunstable and hazardous situation of increaseddanger that has reached a critical phase (De LaCruz-Reyna et al. 2000). Communication ofscientific advice in a crisis situation must clearlyreflect the level of danger to raise awarenessabout the real hazard level and to avoid misun-derstanding as to the likely consequences (Jollyand De La Cruz 2015).

Table 7.1 Examples of the most common hydrothermal hazards

Potential hazards in active hydrothermal areas

Seismic activity—unexpectedearthquakesToxic fumes and gas emissionsUnstable groundUnexpected hydrothermal eruptionsHydrothermal steam dischargeSudden change of water temperature

Sudden change of location of hot water sourceSudden change of flow rates, direction and currents of hot water sourceThermal burns from extreme hot springsHealth hazards from thermophilic microbes and bacteria

Active Hydrothermal Features as Tourist Attractions 87

1.3 Hydrothermal or Geothermal?

Now and again there appears to be confusionbetween the terms hydrothermal and geothermal.The term hydrothermal refers to hot water and isderived from the Greek meaning of hydros forwater and thermos for heat. Likewise, the termgeothermal has its origin in the Greek languagewith the prefix geo referring to earth. To clarifythe difference between hydrothermal andgeothermal Heasler et al. (2009) describehydrothermal as a subset of geothermal, wherebygeothermal refers to any system that transfers heatfrom the interior of the earth to the surfaceinvolving water, both as a liquid and steam(Keary 1996). All hydrothermal systems relatedto volcanism are based on a geothermal heatsource in the form of an active magma chamber ora cooling magma body (Hochstein and Browne2000). Consequently, water emerging from ahydrothermal vent is correctly termed geothermalwater, but this term can also refer to water heatedby convective circulation deep undergroundwithout the proximity of a magma body (Heasleret al. 2009). The actual process of heat transferinvolves the circulation of groundwater from asubterranean reservoir to the surface. Here, indi-vidual hydrothermal features emerge in the formof hot springs and geysers, or in the case ofsubaqueous hydrothermal vents in close proxim-ity to an underlying magma body as the emissionof superheated mineral rich solutions, known asBlack or White Smokers.

The temperature range of such hydrothermalsystems is estimated to be typically between 50 °Cand up to over 400 °C in deeper reservoirs (Haaseet al. 2009). According to Heasler et al. (2009)hydrothermal systems present a continuum ofresource temperatures that is relatively open-ended. In comparison the temperature range of

natural hot springs utilised for health and recre-ational facilities lies generally between 37 °C andthe boiling point of water at sea level (100 °C).These natural hot springs, independent of whethertheir origin is volcanic or non-volcanic, are fre-quently referred to as either geothermal or just asthermal springs (Erfurt-Cooper 2012).

2 The Challenges of HydrothermalTourist Sites

2.1 Direct Use of Hot Springsas Tourist Attraction

Hydrothermal features play an important role intourism and are a favourite with people who arelooking for unusual natural experiences with atouch of adventure (Tables 7.2 and 7.3). Manyhydrothermal areas are marketed as familyfriendly must-see destinations, offering a once-in-a-lifetime occasion to encounter the raw power ofnature. Another reason for people to visit activeareas is that features may be ephemeral and maybecome inaccessible or disappear altogether due toearthquakes or volcanic activity (e.g. Valley of theGeysers in Kamchatka—mudflow in 2007).

Hot springs, geysers, boiling lakes, bubblingmud pools and hissing steam vents are commonin countries with active as well as dormant vol-canism (e.g. New Zealand, Japan, Iceland (CaseStudy 7.1), the Americas, Africa and China).Located in protected areas such as national parksor geoparks can be an advantage in controllingaccess to hazardous sites, although providingsafety is a definite challenge, which depends onmany variables including language barriers. Forexample, the family affected in Case Study 7.2did not speak English, which may have con-tributed to the horrific accident.

Table 7.2 Examples ofhydrothermal featuresbased on volcanism that areused as tourist attractionsworldwide

Hydrothermal Features used as Tourist Attractions

Fumaroles/steam ventsGeysersHot lakesHot rivers and streamsHot waterfallsMud volcanoes

Boiling mud potsExplosion cratersSinter terracesHot springs (for bathing)Hot springs (for cooking)Geothermal power stations

88 P. Erfurt-Cooper

Case Study 7.1: IcelandVolcanic and hydrothermal tourist attrac-tions are an important part of the visitorexperience in Iceland. The geysers atHaukadalur and the hot springs at Land-mannalaugar and Hveragerði are com-monly included in trip agendas. The BlueLagoon, not far from the capital Reykjavikand the Mývatn Nature Baths in Iceland’snorth-east are unique bathing pools fed byexcess geothermal water from the neigh-bouring power stations Svartsengi andKrafla. In fact, tourists can visit most of theIcelandic geothermal power plants andlearn about the generation of cleanrenewable energy. “With more than100,000 visitors a year, the geothermalpower plants and related installations inIceland are one of the top tourist destina-tions in Iceland” (Think Geoenergy 2015).

Case Study 7.2: Rotorua—NewZealandWhile tens of thousands of people safelyvisit New Zealand’s geothermal parks eachyear, tragic accidents can happen. In 2010a ten-year old boy died after falling intoone of Rotorua’s hot water pools (NZHerald 2013). According to eye witnessesthe boy had burns from his head to his feetand was flown to a hospital in Auckland tobe treated in intensive care, but later died(BBC News 2010). Following the accident,Rotorua District Council reviewed thepark’s safety and added 60 new warningsigns as well as additional fencing. How-ever, according to council officials, visitorsare frustrated when there are too many

fences, and climb over for a better view(TVNZ 2012). An inquest later found thatthe boy had climbed a wall and fell intoone of the hot pools, suffering burns toalmost 100% of his body.

Geothermal water is used worldwide as arenewable resource for generating energy, com-mercial, agricultural and industrial purposes,space heating, bathing and rehabilitation as wellas for drinking and cooking. At Yellowstone(USA) Native Americans have historically usedhydrothermal features for food preparation.Today geothermal cuisine is regularly used as atourist attraction at many active volcanic andhydrothermal destinations. In New Zealandtourists can visit natural cooking pools such asNgāraratuatara (Rotorua) and observe ancientMāori cooking techniques. In Iceland geothermalor “geyser cooking” is attractive to tourists, witha restaurant in Hveragerði specialised ingeothermal cuisine using steam from volcanicactivity. On the volcanic islands of the Azoresone of the most remarkable tourist attractions ofFurnas (San Miguel) is geothermal cooking,offering typical Azorean cuisine at many localrestaurants. Hot spring cooking is equally popu-lar in Japan with jigoku-mushi one of manysought after dishes prepared using geothermalsteam. Apart from these well-known examples,many countries worldwide, including Kenya, thePhilippines, Mexico and Indonesia, use geother-mal water for cooking.

On account of their proximity to active vol-canism, the management of tourist areas withunderlying hydrothermal systems is therefore notan easy task. Given the potential hazards of

Table 7.3 Hydrothermal features play an important role in the marketing of tourist destinations

The role of hydrothermal features in tourism

• Unique selling point for destination development• Value adding when combined with other recreational facilities• Significant resource for Geotourism with opportunities to learnabout hydrothermal features and their geological heritage

• Integration into Health & Wellness tourismby utilising geothermal spring water

• Sustainable development based on the use ofrenewable energy

• Economic benefits through the use ofgeothermal energy for local infrastructure

Active Hydrothermal Features as Tourist Attractions 89

active environments, both volcanic andhydrothermal, it is essential that sufficient warn-ings and safety guidelines are available andemergency procedures and crisis responseresources have been prepared along with appro-priate channels for effective communication.

2.2 Potential Hazards—Beautyor Beast?

Although hydrothermal areas are attractive to vis-itors, there are a number of inherent hazards andrisks. Depending on the magnitude, explosions ofsuper-heated water and steammixed with fracturedrocks and hot mud can be violent enough to createcraters varying in size from a few metres to severalhundred metres in diameter. Apart from theunexpected eruptions of hydrothermal vents withthe potential to cause thermal burns, further riskfactors include seismic activity such as earth-quakes and lethal gas emissions, as well as groundinstability through hydrothermal alteration.

Considering the number of hydrothermalhazards (Table 7.1) it becomes clear that there isindeed a possibility for accident and injury,despite the fact that fumaroles, geysers andbubbling mud pools present such a picturesquephoto opportunity. Adding to the list of potentialproblems is the frequent underestimation of thesafety risk from nearby active volcanoes, wherecircumstances can quickly change in case ofunexpected eruptions. Failing to seek informa-tion about current activity levels prior to visitingsuch areas, or not following warnings, can lead toserious injuries or death as many people are notaware of the various hazards they may encounterin these environments.

While life-threatening hydrothermal eruptionsare relatively rare, toxic fumes and gas emissionsare rather common in active areas. These natu-rally occurring gases are emitted from volcaniccraters and fumaroles or diffused through the soil(Hansell et al. 2006). Toxic gas emissions canalso occur in the absence of eruptive activity.Some of the most common gases include

Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S), Carbon Dioxide(CO2) and Sulphur Dioxide (SO2). All of theseare dangerous to human health with H2S causinginstant death at extreme levels (Case Study 7.3).

Case Study 7.3: Akita, JapanIn December 2005 a family of four tragi-cally died near a hot spring resort fromhydrogen sulphide poisoning. While play-ing two young boys tried to retrieve theirFrisbee from a snow covered hollow,unaware that the depression in the groundcontained a lethal concentration of H2S.When both children suddenly collapsedtheir mother tried to save them, but alsodied instantly after inhaling the toxic gas.When searching for his family the fatherdiscovered them lying on the ground andalso entered the hollow. He initially sur-vived, but passed away a day later inhospital (Japan Times 2005).

Being denser than air H2S can accumulate inlow lying areas such as hollows and depressionsin the landscape and remain trapped if not dis-persed by wind (USGS1 2014, Whittlesey 2014;Williams-Jones and Rymer 2000). Although H2Sat low levels has a distinctive odour oftendescribed as rotten egg smell, at higher concen-trations this gas cannot be detected through smellwhich means there is no warning.

In Hawai’i tourists regularly visit the Hawai’iVolcanoes National Park to observe the glowinglava flows. A special attraction is the area wherethe lava flows enter the ocean, instantly boilingthe seawater and turning it into vapour (Hansellet al. 2006; Heggie et al. 2010; Williams-Jonesand Rymer 2000). This chemical interactionbetween molten lava and sea water creates a whiteplume known as lava haze or LAZE and is fre-quently mistaken for a ‘harmless’ steam cloud.This plume however contains a mixture ofhydrochloric acid (HCl) and concentrated sea-water with up to 2.3 times average salinity and

90 P. Erfurt-Cooper

with pH levels as low as 1.5–2.0 (Heggie et al.2010; USGS1 2014). As a precaution the USGSinformation website (USGS2 2014) clearly advi-ses people not to stand beneath the volcanic lazeplume or downwind of it because hydrochloricacid is toxic and can cause irritation of the throat,lungs, eyes, and nose. In fact, volcanic laze isdangerous enough to kill (Case Study 7.4).

Case Study 7.4: Clouds that can kill—Acidic LAZE plumesDuring November 2000 in the Hawai’iVolcanoes National Park two people werecaught in a volcanic laze plume near thepoint where lava flows enter the ocean anddied as a result of pulmonary oedemacaused by inhalation of volcanic laze.Conditions near this point involved thethreat of exposure to dense hydrochloricacid mist, which subsequently engulfed thevictims in an extremely hot and acidiccloud. Nevertheless, the area can be acces-sed without restrictions, although warningsigns and safety instructions should neverbe ignored (Heggie et al. 2010).

Hydrothermal areas for example in Japan,New Zealand or at Yellowstone warn visitorsabout the risk of encountering unstable ground,as hydrothermal features may only be covered bya thin crust that easily breaks underfoot, and maycause thermal burns (Case Study 7.5; Fig. 7.1).

Unexpected hydrothermal eruptions canbecome a serious danger also, causing impactinjuries and burns from scalding steam emis-sions, hot mud and ejected rocks. Hydrothermalsteam discharge from fumarolic vents can sud-denly increase without warning, or steam plumescan change their direction with the wind, whichcan result in thermal burns as well as respiratoryproblems. Likewise, a sudden change in thewater temperature of hot streams, rivers andlakes, where geothermal spring water mixes withcooler water, can result in serious injuries ifpeople take a soak in what they initially perceiveas warm water.

Case Study 7.5: New Zealand—Geothermal WonderlandsNew Zealand’s hydrothermal sites providewalkways for tourists in potentially haz-ardous areas. Boiling lakes, geysers, mudpools, and especially areas of unstableground are fenced off to reduce the risk foraccidents and injury due to underlyinggeothermal activity. This practice protectsboth the tourists and the mineral depositswhich are part of the attraction of hotsprings (Roscoe 2010). However, there isstill a need for multilingual warning signsat hydrothermal destinations to increaseawareness about potential hazards andvisitor safety.

Fig. 7.1 Examples of warning signs at popular NorthAmerican hydrothermal tourist destinations. The use ofpictures or symbols is effective and recommended if there

is the lack of warnings in several languages (CompareFigs. 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4). Source Public Domain

Active Hydrothermal Features as Tourist Attractions 91

Other risks involve the unexpected change oflocation of the hot water source, especially ifthese are located below the surface of a stream oflake. The sudden change of flow rates, directionand currents of the hot water source is anotherhazard and a risk that people frequently under-estimate. The temperature of hydrothermal fea-tures such as erupting geysers can also beunderestimated from a distance, which can resultin thermal burns on approach.

Another important health hazard involvesdisease-causing organisms such as thermophilicmicrobes and bacteria. Legionella bacteria andNaegleria fowleri have been identified at thermalpools used for recreation (Fig. 7.3) with somehydrothermal locations reportedly having prob-lems with Primary Amoebic Meningoencephali-tis (PAM), a rare but life-threatening infectioncaused by the organism Naegleria fowleri(Erfurt-Cooper and Cooper 2009). While casualexposure via the skin does not result in infection,the inhalation of contaminated water can causeserious problems, as the pathogenic amoebaemigrate up the sinuses and surrounding tissue tothe brain (Barnett et al. 1996). A common hotpool safety warning in New Zealand advises that“When swimming in natural hot pools, where thewater comes out of the ground, keep your headabove water because there is a small risk ofcontracting an illness called amoebic meningitis.While very rare, this illness is serious”.

Public bathing facilities in the form of hotspring pools are often also accessible inhydrothermal areas. Bathing accidents are notunusual at natural hot springs, thermal healthspas and geothermally heated communal pools.Being generally careless or consuming alcoholprior to using hot spring pools shows a lack ofcommon sense and ignorance of safety advice,but is unfortunately all too common. In general,developed hot spring spas and pools advise vis-itors on the risk of excessive soaking in hot waterwhen suffering from certain health conditions.

3 Communicating, Forecastingand Managing Natural Hazards—A Mission Impossible?

3.1 The Main Challenges of HazardCommunication

Hazard education and risk communication are anessential foundation for effective risk manage-ment (Leonard et al. 2008; Paton et al. 2001)with the aim to prevent harm through injury ordeath, while crisis communication focuses oninforming the public during a crisis event (Leo-nard et al. 2008; Steelman and McCaffrey 2013;Williams and Olaniran 1998). To maximise theeffectiveness of warnings, signage plays a criticalrole in increasing hazard awareness of the public

Fig. 7.2 Examples of warning signs in Japan and Iceland. The effort to communicate hazards to international visitors isobvious and commendable, while at the same time adding urgency to the warnings. Source Patricia Erfurt-Cooper

92 P. Erfurt-Cooper

(Dengler 2005; Leonard et al. 2008). Visitors ofhydrothermal and volcanic environments may beaware of potential hazards, but once an emer-gency situation develops, reaching people inremote locations can be fraught with problems.Apart from the geophysical hazards, a number ofadditional challenges at hydrothermal touristsites also have to be considered (Table 7.4).

While effective communication starts withessential warning signage in hazardous areas,warnings, safety instructions and hazard maps, ifignored, can result in the loss of lives. The relianceon smart phones and a potential lack of receptionis a further challenge in achieving effective com-munication. Some of the biggest problems inhazard communication however are languagebarriers, with more signs displaying multilingualwarnings and effective symbols or pictogramsneeded at many hydrothermal tourist destinations.

Another main difficulty is to keep a recordabout the exact numbers of people present in anaffected area during a crisis situation. Uncertaintyover the whereabouts of tourists (hikers, climbersetc.) can cause preventable fatalities if there isinsufficient time to reach all affected peopleunder deteriorating conditions. This is compli-cated by the fact that predictions and/or forecastsof hazardous activity can often only be madebased on the frequency and the type of pasthazardous activities of a particular area. Torealistically forecast future activity and determinewhich area may be subject to potential threats isonly possible if the site is constantly monitoredand assessed. Scientists can advise on possibledanger zones and create hazard maps in cooper-ation with local authorities to show unsafe andsafe areas, escape routes and shelters, but this isat best only a probability assessment.

Fig. 7.3 Bilingual sign at a thermal pool warning visitors of the risk of contracting amoebic meningitis. Source PublicDomain

Active Hydrothermal Features as Tourist Attractions 93

Risk management is based on the monitoringof potentially hazardous areas, and restrictingaccess when for example toxic gas emissionsreach dangerous levels. Unfortunately, areas atrisk quite often lack the necessary funding toinstall permanent monitoring equipment(Williams-Jones and Rymer 2000). Table 7.4lists the major factors that can determine successor failure in crisis communication and emergencymanagement.

Case Study 7.6: Japanese Jigoku—Hellish ExperienceIn the centre of Beppu City on the Japaneseisland of Kyushu ten small geothermalparks are located. Thousands of touristsvisit these parks known as jigoku, whichmeans ‘hell’ in Japanese, on a daily basis,with many tour groups arriving by bus.There are a variety of geothermal features,

Table 7.4 Challenging factors related to hazards in active hydrothermal environments

Potential problems at hydrothermal tourist sites

Challenging factors Examples/Consequences

Remote areas Uncertain visitor numbersUncertain access and escape routesRescue response delayed or impossible

Valley of Geysers, Kamchatka, Russia

Large areas Monitoring visitors difficultEmergencies can go unnoticed

Yellowstone, USA (Case Study 7.8)

Large crowds Crowd control to avoid panicUnknown and/or blocked escape routes

Hydrothermal parks (New Zealand) (CaseStudy 7.5, 7.7 and 7.9)Yellowstone (USA)

Confined spaces Blocked escape routesPotential of panic causing injuries

Small hydrothermal parks or Jigoku (Japan)(Case Study 7.6)

Communication barriers Insufficient warning signsLack of emergency informationLack of mobile phone reception

Areas with limited or no communicationinfrastructure, remote areas

Language barriers Signage does not communicate warningseffectively

Tourist sites only using signs in the locallanguage

Lack of shelters or difficultaccess to shelters

Shelters not built strong enough to protect from eruption fallout or from toxic gas emissions

Transport logistics in crisissituations

Access for rescue and transport of injured people in remote locationsTreatment and medical care

Time factor Sudden onset of crisis

Political Access limited or prevented during times ofpolitical instabilityCross-border disagreements

Erta Ale and Dallol Hydrothermal Field(Ethiopia)

Financial Lack of funding to implement safety strategiesEconomic mismanagement

Affects emergency management, strategicplanning and rescue response

Topography Extreme terrain and physical surface features Area is difficult to negotiate due toenvironmental factors

Sudden weather changes Additional natural hazards such as strong wind,rain, snow, temperature drop

Can affect any regionDisadvantage for rescue missions

Human resources Lack of trained staff, unpreparednessLack of emergency response teams

Technical problems Equipment failure, power outage

94 P. Erfurt-Cooper

including a small turquoise crater lake fedby a permanent geyser (Umi Jigoku or SeaHell), a steaming red pond known as BloodHell (Chinoike Jigoku), the Priest Hellwith bubbling mud ponds (Onishi BozoJigoku), the White Hell ponds (ShiraikeJigoku), and others, all of which are pop-ular tourist sites. For the safety of visitors,the boiling lakes are fenced off and warn-ing signs are located at all hazardous fea-tures (Fig. 7.4). Public announcementsupdate visitors on important issues of theindividual sites and friendly staff membersare always around talking to visitors andguiding them from one geothermal featureto another (e.g. Kamado Jigoku). Safety israrely an issue as Japanese regulations arevery strict. Seismic activity and pressure inthe underlying hydrothermal system areconstantly monitored due to their locationin the volcanic dome complex of Mt Tsu-rumi, which is classed as an active volcano.Also, hazard communication in Japan hasover the past decade been extended toinclude several languages based onincreasing number of foreign tourists.Other ‘hellish’ locations in Japan includeJigokudani near Noboribetsu on the islandHokkaido and the Unzen Jigoku near Shi-mabara (Kyushu).

Reaching people in an emergency to rescuethem or guide them to a safe area depends onaccess to the affected site and transport options forevacuation. While a crisis is in progress, weatherchanges can hinder rescue efforts or make themimpossible. For example, during the hydrother-mal eruption of Mt Ontake (Japan 2014) rescueworkers and Self Defence Force helicopters werecarrying injured people to safety, but were bat-tling adverse weather conditions as well as com-munication problems when trying to locatemissing people. This disaster was made worse bynot recording visitor numbers as should be doneat all active volcanic and hydrothermal areas,although this is difficult logistically.

Further challenges to hazard communication,apart from the already mentioned lack of moni-toring facilities at remote or underfunded desti-nations, include visitors blatantly ignoringwarning signs and safety announcements. Theco-operation of key stakeholders (e.g. scientists,authorities, tourist organisations) also remainsdifficult and can result in the lack of sufficientand effective emergency management strategies.Paired with procrastination this can delay therequired decision making processes, and thetiming of when to warn the public of an immi-nent danger. This is especially if the crisis situ-ation is exacerbated by unfavourable factorsincluding remoteness, large crowds, an ensuingpanic or the threat of bad weather together withlow visibility and hostile temperatures.

Fig. 7.4 Warning sign in two languages at a boiling pond at one of Beppu’s Jigoku. Photo Patricia Erfurt-Cooper

Active Hydrothermal Features as Tourist Attractions 95

3.2 How Are Hazards and Risksin Hydrothermal AreasCommunicatedto the Public?

Advising the public of an imminent crisis isgenerally the responsibility of a local authority,based on the information supplied from scientistsmonitoring an active area (McGuire et al. 2009),or casual observation. The capacity to commu-nicate safety advice in case of a developing crisissituation depends on a range of factors. Above allthe time frame is critical; the sudden onset of ahazardous situation can translate intolife-threatening injuries.

Communication of hazards and risks can takeplace in several ways (Table 7.5). Prior to visit-ing, people interested in active hydrothermal orvolcanic areas certainly have the opportunity tosecure information about their chosen destina-tion. While literature about many active envi-ronments is available and can be researched atlibraries, the most effective way to accessup-to-date information is to use reliable onlinesources for individual destinations (Case Study7.7) and to check for current conditions and alertlevels.

Case Study 7.7: New ZealandThe Waimangu Volcanic Valley is pro-moted on the internet as “amazing thermalfeatures combined with lovely bush walks”with “hot springs, steaming lakes andcolourful mineral deposits” (WaimanguVolcanic Valley 2015). Not promoted isadvice on safety and instructions foremergencies. The “All you need to know”section offers “General information” aboutguided and self-guided tours and refers to“Guide sheets” in nearly a dozen lan-guages. A brochure covering the areadescribes Waimangu Valley as “theworld’s youngest geothermal ecosystem,home to many geothermal features ofworldwide importance” refers briefly tosustainable management practices includ-ing “safe access to the best viewingpoints”. Information related to potentialhazards is not always communicated onwebsites or brochures. However, aftercontacting the management at Waimangu itwas clarified that safety is a very seriousissue with strategies in place for all possi-ble events. Great emphasis is placed on

Table 7.5 Availability of information about hydrothermal (and volcanic) hazards before, during and after visiting

Communication channels and their application Before During After

Internet sites of destination (e.g. regular updates, alert levels, webcams) x x

Literature (earth science books and journals, guides books, research papers) x x

Brochures, fact sheets (park management, tourist offices) x x x

Maps, hazard maps with safety instructions x x

Visitor centres, interpretive centres, science museums x x

Videos (visitor information, safety advice) x

Documentaries (related to natural crises) x x

Rangers, tour guides x x

Social media (fb, twitter, trip advisor) real time updates x x x

General media (TV, radio) x x

Public address systems where installed x

Smart phone apps (if any have been developed) x x x

Subscription to text messages, real time updates x

96 P. Erfurt-Cooper

trained staff and all visitors are briefed onarrival at Waimangu to stay safe. Some ofthe guidelines include staying on the pathsat all times and following the directionalsigns. Written interpretations given to vis-itors contain further safety messages (pers.email communication with H. James CEOWaimangu). Based on further personalexperience from previous visits ofgeothermal destinations in New Zealandstaff at visitor centres and rangers/guidesare available to advise on safety andpotential dangers and are trained torespond to emergencies.

To communicate potential hazards, someNational Parks show visitors introductory videos,hand out brochures, explain safety proceduresand advise to strictly obey warning signs. TheHawaii Volcanoes National Park shows infor-mational videos about safe conduct near activefeatures prior to entering the Park to warn peoplein advance about the various hazards they canencounter. These measures cannot be enforcedhowever, with some visitors to hazardous areaschoosing to ignore them. Nevertheless, effectivehazard communication is possible; an example isto be found at Mt Aso (Kyushu, Japan), whereduring visits to the summit public announce-ments in four different languages constantlyupdate tourists about the level of toxic gasemissions from the crater and whether this posesa risk for visitors on the viewing platform and thesurrounding walkways. Evacuation of the area iscarried out immediately if the wind directionchanges and the situation becomes hazardous forvisiting tourists.

Another positive example is found in theYellowstone National Park, USA, where theemphasis is firmly on public safety to avoidaccidents and injuries from hydrothermal fea-tures, which have led to fatalities in the past(Case Study 7.8).

Case Study 7.8: Yellowstone—10,000geothermal Features and 3 Millionannual VisitorsYellowstone National Park’s chief safetyofficer says that they “try to educate peoplestarting when they come through the gate”and that it is important for parents to keep aclose eye on their children when visitingthermal areas. Prior to visiting the Yel-lowstone website informs people that “wildanimals are not the only dangerous threatin Yellowstone”, and that there have been asignificant number of “deaths and injuriesfrom geysers and geothermal water” overtime. While the geothermal features areknown to be hazardous, park managementis concerned that visitors and evenemployees are not aware or ignorant of thepotential risks when leaving designatedwalkways (Yellowstone 2014). Accordingto Whittlesey (2014) there have been 19confirmed human fatalities in Yellow-stone’s history as a national park fromfalling into thermal features includingchildren, adults and even people workingin the park. Safety managers at Yellow-stone also think that incidents of injuriesare higher than reported, because peoplecannot resist testing the water temperatureby putting in their fingers or toes and sufferthermal burns. Warnings related to thedangers of geothermal hazards are clearlycommunicated on Yellowstone’s websiteand are a good example of informing thepublic ahead of visiting. Throughout thegeothermal areas there are warning signsand rangers are trying their best to keepunwary tourists from endangering them-selves (Yellowstone 2014).

Case Study 7.9The Waikato Regional Council (NewZealand) monitors geothermal sites anddevelops specific hazard maps for theWaikato region. For visitors to geothermal

Active Hydrothermal Features as Tourist Attractions 97

areas the Waikato Council offers someguidelines on their website about potentialhazards and how to avoid them:

– Always check the temperature of thewater before putting any part of yourbody in it. Take care not to fall in thewater unless you are sure the tempera-ture is safe.

– Keep your head above the water whenbathing in geothermal pools. If youhave severe flu-like symptoms within aweek after visiting a hot pool, see adoctor immediately to rule out amoebicmeningitis.

– Don’t drink geothermal water in case itcontains the toxic minerals arsenic andmercury.

– Be wary of eating trout caught ingeothermal streams and lakes, as thesefish may contain high levels ofmercury.

– Keep a safe distance away from boilingmud pools, geysers and other areaswhich may suddenly erupt. Remember,a safe distance may be greater than youthink, due to the unpredictable size andfrequency of these geothermal features(Waikato Regional Council 2014).

Nevertheless, every country has their ownmethods and legislations how to deal with com-plex health and safety tasks emerging duringcrisis situations in relation to hydrothermal haz-ards. Based on the type of hazard, appropriatecrisis management should include strategies forany level of emergency, including preparationsfor the evacuation of tourists and host commu-nities if necessary. Hence, courtesy of theadvanced media coverage we have come to relyon, hazard and crisis communication has farmore opportunities to reach the public than evenonly one or two decades ago. And an abundanceof information is available for those who arewilling to do some research before embarking ona trip into a potentially hazardous area. However,

the above listed methods of hazard communica-tion are not always taken advantage of and theymay not all be available for a particular site ordestination.

4 Hazard and Crisis Communication

4.1 Alerting the Public—Communicating Warnings

As mentioned above, the communication ofhazards is legally at the discretion of the officialmanagement in charge of public safety.Depending on the hydrothermal activity level,appropriate signage and fencing are essential towarn and protect the public under normal con-ditions. During a crisis situation accurate andup-to-date information about an imminent dangeris one of the key elements of effective commu-nication. Difficulties in translating data frommonitoring scientists into relevant facts followedby an appropriate course of action can howeveraffect the successful management of an emergingcrisis situation (Jolly and De La Cruz 2015;Gregg et al. 2015; McGuire et al. 2009).

In the build-up to a crisis warnings are dis-seminated through local media outlets (TV,radio, newspaper, website updates). Prior to andduring a crisis emergency advice and directionscan be communicated through rangers and tourguides, assisted by hazard maps and fact sheets.To communicate alert levels in real time colourcoded warning lights and public announcementsystems are suitable methods to reach tourists inlarge or remote areas with volcanic andhydrothermal activity. Finally, depending on theactual area, rescue workers and emergency per-sonnel on site should be available to assist thepublic. Mobile phone message subscriptions anddigital Apps are increasingly playing a part inreaching people prior and during emergencies,which shows that text messages carrying infor-mation about geo-hazards can be communicatedto registered users in real time. To avoid misin-terpretations Ghosh et al. (2012) note that “ageneralized system that could be deployed forany geo-hazard across any region” should be

98 P. Erfurt-Cooper

developed. However, as many hydrothermaltourist destinations are located near active vol-canoes, alert level systems as described in detailby several scientists (Fearnley et al. 2012; Gregget al. 2015; Jolly and De La Cruz 2015; McNutt2015; Williams-Jones and Rymer 2015) couldpossibly be modified and implemented athydrothermal sites where required.

4.2 The Main Stakeholders and TheirResponsibilities

As with volcanic environments planning forhydrothermal areas includes consultation anddiscussion between all stakeholders (Gregg et al.2015). To communicate potential hazards tostakeholders (Connor et al. 2015), prior educa-tion through ranger talks, videos, brochures, andthe internet can prepare visitors for the need ofhazard and crisis communication in hydrothermalareas by raising their awareness. At the first signsof an emerging crisis situation, effective andreliable communication must be establishedbetween the stakeholders to develop a strongworking relationship to cope with the crisis as itunfolds. While the most important stakeholdergroup in terms of tourism are the visiting tour-ists, three main stakeholder groups are identifiedby McGuire et al. (2009): the monitoring scien-tists, the emergency managers, and the media.However, local authorities and resident commu-nities also constitute important stakeholdergroups at hydrothermal tourist destinations.Heath et al. (2009) acknowledge that stakeholderpartnerships, which include the public are the keyto effective hazard and crisis communication.

Monitoring scientists are responsible fordetecting early warning signs and assessingactivity levels to provide information and guid-ance in an emergency situation. The role ofemergency management committees is to deter-mine an appropriate response strategy based onsuch scientific data, to develop hazard maps andrisk management strategies and to take apro-active role in educating the public about thenature of the emergency situation (Gregg et al.2015; McGuire et al. 2009). To prevent

misunderstandings that may result in misinter-pretation and delay in the decision making pro-cess in a crisis situation, it is critical that thecommunication between scientists and all otherstakeholders is clear and unambiguous (Doyleet al. 2014). The media then should focus only oninformation, which is specific to the situation andpresent warning messages in a form that isclearly understood by everybody. To conveyinformation effectively all irrelevant data shouldbe avoided in media releases as it can confuse thepublic (Leonard et al. 2008; McGuire et al. 2009;Sorensen 2000). Warning messages should beconsistent and designed to include those withpoor literacy, language problems or disabilitieseffectively in the information stream. Pictures,drawings and video footage are useful ways tocommunicate with international visitors, and atthe same time avoid confusion with terminology(Erfurt-Cooper and Cooper 2010, Erfurt-Cooper2014; McGuire et al. 2009).

Scientists sometimes may be reluctant tocommunicate scientific information to otherstakeholders based on their experience of mis-interpretation or selective use of their data(Boykoff 2008). While there have been advancesin the field of communicating geo-hazards, muchneeds to be done to improve the engagementbetween all stakeholders (monitoring scientists,politicians, government agencies, emergencymanagers, representatives of the media, and thepublic) to ensure seamless co-operation andeffective communication (Liverman 2010;McGuire et al. 2009).

5 Hazard Management

5.1 Why Are People Reluctantto Respond to Warnings?

An emergency situation in areas of hydrothermalactivity can be caused by a natural event andaffect many people, but very little can be done toprevent it from happening. Disaster preparednesscan offset some of the hazards in this situation,but not all. However, another type of emergencyis caused by humans who are frequently injured

Active Hydrothermal Features as Tourist Attractions 99

as a result of being careless, and this situation canbe avoided. In the Yellowstone National Park forexample accidents and injuries are nearly alwaysdue to visitors being irresponsible in thermalareas with a number of reasons for injuriesidentified by Whittlesey (2014):

• Walking in off-limit areas• Walking in darkness• Losing balance• Being intoxicated• Being distracted• Over-confidence• Ignoring warnings• Careless running

Whittlesey (2014) rightly points out that “abalance is needed between adequate warningsand basic responsibility from the visitor”. Indi-viduals, who choose not to respond to hazardwarnings or worse, in a crisis situation may notdo so because (a) they are unfamiliar with thehazard, or (b) they think they can avoid thehazard altogether, while (c) others believe itcould be a false alarm, and (d) if not, somebodywill come to their rescue.

One of the key factors influencing the deci-sions of individual people in these situations istheir personal risk perception, which can rangefrom being overcautious to ignoring a potentialrisk, or to the complete denial of any danger. Inaddition, apart from a possible uncertainty aboutthe risk, a negative attitude towards authoritiescould be another reason for ignoring safetyadvice. Furthermore, tourists frequently overes-timate their personal ability to cope with dan-gerous situations while at the same timeunderestimating the actual risk and their ownvulnerability. Here it would be advisable toprovide all visitors of active hydrothermal envi-ronments with detailed safety guidelines, whichthey should refer to before and during their visit.

Virtual reality is in this day and age a valuabletool for travel planning and the internet offersmany sources to assist detailed research ofplanned destinations including webcams, videosand computer simulations. While cyber visits toextreme landscapes and hazardous areas may

lack the actual risk, they can help visitors andhost communities to understand the potentialdifficulties as well as the risks that can beencountered in the real world (Erfurt-Cooper andCooper 2009). However, despite the advent ofreal-time internet resources, the task of hazardand risk management in volcanic andhydrothermal environments remains extremelychallenging, as varying degrees of potentialdanger from hydrothermal activity as well ascorrelated volcanic and seismic events generatedifferent types of hazards (Erfurt-Cooper andCooper 2009).

5.2 Why Are Authorities Reluctantto Announce Evacuations?

Not being aware of the potential hazards in anactive area prior to visiting could mean the dif-ference between safety and injury. So, if this istrue, and if maintaining a high level of commu-nication means that public warnings are theresponsibility of the authorities (McGuire et al.2009), why are some authorities reluctant toannounce evacuations? As suggested by Francisand Oppenheimer (2004), all details of riskmanagement strategies need to be planned and inplace, including successful evacuation, transportand medical care. However, this may not becommon knowledge, as for the tourism industrydisasters are generally bad for business. Thus, ifwarnings are given too early, they might beignored by the public, or in the case of repeatedwarnings without anything happening they mayalso be ignored (the cry wolf syndrome). Nev-ertheless, to avoid endangering the public, goodmanagement strategies are required to assist withhazard communication, crisis planning and toprevent emergency situations getting out of hand.

When it comes to the drastic measure ofcalling an evacuation, authorities may be reluc-tant to do so for several reasons. Uncertaintyabout the actual risk combined with a lack ofscientific knowledge and experience on the partof some stakeholders can make the decisionmaking process difficult. In the case of insuffi-ciently trained staff and/or in the absence of

100 P. Erfurt-Cooper

monitoring facilities the reliable assessment ofimminent danger can be impossible. Emergencymanagers and response teams can also have theirtasks complicated by unfavourable logisticsbased on remote terrain, weather, lack of timeand/or inadequate strategies. When localauthorities are incapable of dealing with emer-gencies, external rescue response teams mayhave to be called in to assist, which again maydelay the decision to evacuate. Occasionallypolitical disagreements such as cross borderproblems can come into play, presenting anotherreason for making hazard communication andcrisis management including successful evacua-tion unworkable.

To generate effective and accurate communi-cation before, during and after a crisis thereforeremains a challenge, because it depends onnumerous variables. More to the point, hazardcommunication is mainly focussed on volcanicenvironments with hydrothermal areas in need ofhigher levels of targeted research to improvehazard communication and crisis management. Ifreliable information is not available or is onlypartial, it becomes obvious how delays in effec-tive crisis response can occur.

6 Conclusion

Health and safety issues play a major role in thetourism industry based on hydrothermal and vol-canic resources (Erfurt-Cooper 2008, 2010,2014). While it is essential to prevent injuries totourists the management of effectively communi-cating hydrothermal hazards remains problematic.Precursory signs indicating a dangerous naturalevent are still not completely understood and thecommunication of imminent danger is frequentlyunachievable. As a consequence, serious thoughtneeds to be given to improvements in the com-munication of risk factors and potential dangersfrom the proximity of active hydrothermal surfacefeatures, including extreme hot springs and gey-sers, as well as areas affected by hydrothermalalteration resulting in unstable ground properties.

To reduce the risk factor, it is essential toraise visitor awareness about any potential haz-ards in hydrothermal tourist areas and put man-agement strategies for emergencies in place.Advice for visitors of active hydrothermalenvironments should include guidance and rec-ommendations how to cope with extreme eventsin difficult situations (Erfurt-Cooper 2008, 2010,2014). To improve the safety standards in theseareas, strategic guidelines for safe conductshould cover all active hydrothermal areas andmust be designed to be understood by everyvisitor. In seeking to achieve this ideal state, oneof the questions arising is whether visitors tothese areas seek enough information fromavailable sources prior to their journey (Appen-dices 1 and 2). However, the overall hazard, riskand crisis communication process for activehydrothermal environments is a problem, whichfrequently is insufficiently addressed at touristdestinations. While some areas have staken stepsto educate visitors about potential dangers themoment they arrive (Yellowstone 2014), otherareas do not offer adequate safety information.Here virtual reality can be a valuable tool fortravel planning with the internet offeringnumerous comparable sources (e.g. webcams,videos and computer simulations) to researchplanned destinations.

This chapter has presented an overview of themost common hazards or risk factors inhydrothermal areas with brief case studies toexemplify different scenarios. To highlight thechallenges of risk management and the need foreffective communication a number of locationswere discussed for their site specific hazards andtheir potential risks. The literature reviewed forthis chapter indicates a scarcity of research forhazard communication in hydrothermal areasand hence information related to this topicremains limited. In conclusion, it is recom-mended that more studies are undertaken tocontribute to the safety of visitors in theseenvironments and that more destination websitesinclude safety advice relating to theirhydrothermal tourist attractions.

Active Hydrothermal Features as Tourist Attractions 101

Appendix 1

Example of safety advice—extract from USGSfactsheet (USGS3 2007).

U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. ForestService—Our Volcanic Public Lands.

Boiling Water at Hot Creek—The Dangerousand Dynamic Thermal Springs in California’sLong Valley Caldera.

This Fact Sheet and any updates to it areavailable online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2007/3045.

102 P. Erfurt-Cooper

Appendix 2

How Dangerous Is Yellowstone?

None of the events described above—cataclysmiccaldera-forming eruptions, lava flows, largeearthquakes, or major hydrothermal explosions—are common in Yellowstone. Although visitors toYellowstone National Park may never experiencethem, some hazardous events are certain to occurin the future. Fortunately, systematic monitoringof Yellowstone’s active volcanic and hydrother-mal systems, including monitoring of earthquakesand ground deformation, is now carried out rou-tinely by YVO scientists.

This monitoring will allow YVO to alert thepublic well in advance of any future volcanicchanges in the patterns of ongoing seismicity orother indicators of possible geologic unrest arequickly reported to officials responsible forpublic safety in the National Park Service andother agencies.

Through continuous monitoring and research,YVO is greatly improving understanding of

Yellowstone’s volcanic, earthquake, andhydrothermal hazards. The work of USGS sci-entists with YVO is only part of the USGSVolcano Hazards Program’s ongoing efforts toprotect people’s lives and property in all of thevolcanic regions of the United States, includingCalifornia, Hawaii, Alaska, and the PacificNorthwest (Lowenstern et al. 2005).

References

Aspinall W, Blong R (2015) Volcanic risk assessment.In: Sigurdsson H (ed) Encyclopedia of volcanoes,2nd edn. Elsevier-Academic Press, Amsterdam,pp 1215–1231

Barclay J,HaynesK,HoughtonB, JohnstonD (2015)Socialprocesses and volcanic risk reduction. In: Sigurdsson H(ed) Encyclopedia of volcanoes, 2nd edn. Elsevier-Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp 1203–1214

Barnett ND, Kaplan AM, Hopkin RJ, Saubolle MA,Rudinsky MF (1996) Primary amoebic meningoen-cephalitis with Naegleria fowleri: clinical review. PedNeuro 15:230–234

Active Hydrothermal Features as Tourist Attractions 103

BBC News (2010) Boy dies after New Zealand geother-mal pool fall. 30 December 2010. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12091845. Accessed 10 Aug2016

Boykoff M (2008) Media and scientific communication: acase of climate change. In: Liverman DGE,Pereira CP, Marker B (eds) Communicating environ-mental geoscience, vol 305. Geological Society ofLondon Special Publication, pp 11–18

Bratton A, Smith B, McKinley J, Lilley K (2013)Expanding the geoconservation toolbox: integratedhazard management at dynamic geoheritage sites.Geoheritage 5:173–183

Connor C, Bebbington M, Marzocchi W (2015) Proba-bilistic volcanic hazard assessment. In: Sigurdsson Het al (ed) Encyclopedia of volcanoes, 2nd edn.Elsevier-Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp 897–910

De La Cruz-Reyna S, Meli RP, Quaas RW (2000)Volcanic crises management. In: Sigurdsson H et al(eds) Encyclopedia of volcanoes. Elsevier-AcademicPress, Amsterdam

Dengler L (2005) The role of education in the NationalTsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. Nat Hazards35:141–153

Doyle EEH, McClure J, Johnston DM, Paton D (2014)Communicating likelihoods and probabilities in fore-casts of volcanic eruptions. J Volcanol Geoth Res272:1–15

Erfurt-Cooper P (2008) Geotourism: active geothermaland volcanic environments as tourist destinations,presented to The Inaugural Global Geotourism Con-ference. Perth, Australia, 17–20 August

Erfurt-Cooper P (2010) Introduction to volcano and geother-mal tourism. In: Erfurt-Cooper P, Cooper M (eds) Vol-cano and geothermal tourism: sustainable geo-resourcesfor leisure and recreation. Earthscan, London

Erfurt-Cooper P (2012) An assessment of the role of naturalhot and mineral springs in health, wellness and recre-ational tourism. Dissertation, James Cook University

Erfurt-Cooper P (ed) (2014) Volcanic tourist destinations.Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism Series.Springer, Berlin

Erfurt-Cooper P, Cooper M (2009) Health and wellnesstourism: spas and hot springs. Channel View Publi-cations, Bristol, UK

Erfurt-Cooper P, Cooper M (2010) Volcano and geother-mal tourism: sustainable geo-resources for leisure andrecreation. Earthscan, London

Fearnley CJ, McGuire WJ, Davies G, Twigg J (2012)Standardisation of the USGS volcano alert levelsystem (VALS): analysis and ramifications. BullVolcanol 74:2023–2036

Francis P, Oppenheimer C (2004) Volcanoes, 2nd edn.Oxford University Press, Oxford

GreggCE,HoughtonB, Ewert JW (2015)Volcanowarningsystems. In: Sigurdsson H (ed) Encyclopedia of volca-noes, 2nd edn. Elsevier-Academic Press, pp 1173–1185

Ghosh JK, Bhattacharya D, Samadhiya NK, Boccardo P(2012) A generalized geo-hazard warning system. NatHazards 64:1273–1289

Haase KM et al. (2009) Fluid compositions and miner-alogy of precipitates from Mid Atlantic Ridgehydrothermal vents at 4°48’S. Pangaea

Hansell AL, Horwell CJ, Oppenheimer C (2006) Thehealth hazards of volcanoes and geothermal areas.Occup Environ Med 63:149–156

Heasler HP, Jaworowski C, Foley D (2009) Geothermalsystems and monitoring hydrothermal features. In:Young R, Norby L (eds) Geological monitoring:Boulder, Colorado. Geological Society of America,pp 105–140

Heath RL, Jaesub L, Lan N (2009) Crisis and riskapproaches to emergency management planning andcommunication: the role of similarity and sensitivity.J Pub Relat Res 2(2):123–141

Heggie TW, Heggie TM, Heggie TJ (2010) Death byvolcanic laze. In: Erfurt-Cooper P, Cooper M(eds) Volcano and geothermal tourism: sustainablegeo-resources for leisure and recreation. Earthscan,London

Hochstein MP, Browne PRL (2000) Surface manifesta-tions of geothermal systems with volcanic heatsources. In Sigurdsson H et al (eds) Encyclopedia ofvolcanoes. Elsevier-Academic Press, Amsterdam

Jolly G, De La Cruz S (2015) Volcanic crisis manage-ment. In: Sigurdsson H et al (ed) Encyclopedia ofvolcanoes, 2nd edn. Elsevier-Academic Press, Ams-terdam, pp 1187–1202

Keary P (1996) The new Penguin dictionary of geology.Penguin Books, London

Leonard GS, Johnston DM, Paton D, Christianson A,Becker J, Keys H (2008) Developing effective warn-ing systems: ongoing research at Ruapehu volcano,New Zealand. J Volcanol Geoth Res 172:199–215

Liverman D (2010) Communicating geological hazards:educating, training and assisting geoscientists incommunication skills. In: Beer T (ed) Geophysicalhazards—minimizing risk, maximizing awareness.International Year of Planet Earth. Springer, TheNetherlands, pp 41–55

Lowenstern JB, Christiansen RL, Smith RB, Morgan LA,Heasler H (2005) Steam explosions, earthquakes, andvolcanic eruptions—what’s in Yellowstone’s future?U.S. Geological Survey. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3024/. Accessed 10 Aug 2016

McGuire WJ, Solana MC, Kilburn CRJ, Sanderson D(2009) Improving communication during volcaniccrises on small, vulnerable islands. J Volcanol GeothRes. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.02.019

McNutt S (2015) Eruption response and mitigation. In:Sigurdsson H et al (ed) Encyclopedia of volcanoes,2nd edn. Elsevier-Academic Press, Amsterdam,pp 1069–1070

NZ Herald (2013) Hot pool death: coroner satisfied withcouncil’s actions. www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10862848. Accessed 10Aug 2016

Paton D, Millar M, Johnston DM (2001) Communityresilience to volcanic hazard consequences. NatHazards 24:157–169

104 P. Erfurt-Cooper

Roscoe R (2010) Geothermal parks in New Zealand. In:Erfurt-Cooper P, Cooper M (eds) Volcano andgeothermal tourism: sustainable geo-resources forleisure and recreation. Earthscan, London

Sorensen JH (2000) Hazard warning systems: review of20 years of progress. Nat Hazards Rev 1(2):119–125

Steelman TA, McCaffrey S (2013) Best practices in riskand crisis communication: implications for naturalhazards management. Nat Hazards 65:683–705

Think Geoenergy (2015) Geothermal plants amongtop tourist attractions in Iceland. http://www.think-geoenergy.com/geothermal-plants-among-top-tourist-attractions-in-iceland/. Accessed 10 August 2016

TVNZ (2012) Inquest into boy’s death in Rotorua mudpool. 20 Dec 2012. http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/inquest-into-boy-s-death-in-rotorua-mud-pool-5299381.Accessed 20 Jan 2015

UNISDR (2014) Terminology on DRR. The UnitedNations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology. Accessed 10 Aug2016

UNISIDR (2016) Hyogo framework for action (HFA)—building the resilience of nations and communities todisasters. The United Nations Office for DisasterRisk Reduction. www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/hfa.Accessed 6 Aug 2016

USGS3 (2007) Boiling water at hot creek—the dangerousand dynamic thermal springs in California’s LongValley Caldera. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2007/3045/.Accessed 10 Aug 2016

USGS1 (2014) Volcanic gases and their effects. Volcanicgases can be harmful to health, vegetation andinfrastructure. Volcano Hazards Program. http://

volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/. Accessed 10 Aug2016

USGS2 (2014) Hydrothermal explosions. Yellowstonevolcano observatory. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/yellowstone/yellowstone_hazard_43.html.Accessed 10 Aug 2016

Waikato Regional Council (2014) Geothermal activity –

Regional hazards and emergency management. www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Services/Regional-services/Re-gional-hazards-and-emergency-management/Geothe-rmal-activity/. Accessed 10 August 2016

Waimangu Volcanic Valley (2015) Rotorua, New Zeal-and—amazing geothermal activity. www.waimangu.co.nz. Accessed 10 Aug 2016

Whittlesey LH (2014) Death in Yellowstone: accidentsand foolhardiness in the First National Park, 2nd edn.Amazon Digital Services, Inc., Roberts Rinehard

Williams D, Olaniran BA (1998) Expanding the crisisplanning function: introducing elements of risk com-munication to crisis communication practice. PublicRelat Rev 24(3):387–400

Williams-Jones G, Rymer H (2000) Hazards of volcanicgases. In: Sigurdsson H et al (ed) Encyclopedia ofvolcanoes. Elsevier-Academic Press, Amsterdam

Williams-Jones G, Rymer H (2015) Hazards of volcanicgases. In: Sigurdsson H (ed) Encyclopedia of volca-noes, 2nd edn. Elsevier-Academic Press, Amsterdam,pp 985–992

Yellowstone (2014) Geothermal attractions can be dan-gerous. Deaths and injuries at Yellowstone’s geysersand hot springs. www.yellowstonepark.com/2007/01/cautionary-tale/. Accessed 10 Aug 2016

Open Access This chapter is distributed under the termsof the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 InternationalLicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distributionand reproduction in any medium or format, as long as yougive appropriate credit to the original author(s) and thesource, provide a link to the Creative Commons licenseand indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapterare included in the work’s Creative Commons license,unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if suchmaterial is not included in the work’s Creative Commonslicense and the respective action is not permitted bystatutory regulation, users will need to obtain permissionfrom the license holder to duplicate, adapt or reproducethe material.

Active Hydrothermal Features as Tourist Attractions 105