PoC Title: An Integrated Multidimensional Risk Framework for highly populated areas: the test case of Mt. Vesuvius, Italy

RETURN&Project&–&Proof&of&Concept&(PoC)&Report&of&Spoke&VS3&on&Volcanic&Risk& PoC& Title:!An Integrated Multidimensional Risk Framework for highly populated areas: the test case of Mt. Vesuvius, Italy P.Dellino, R.Sulpizio, D. Mele, F. Dioguardi, I. Lapietra ! 1. Summary The!scope!of!the!PoC!is!the!obtainment!of!risk!maps!that!include!both!physical!hazard,!social! and!physical!vulnerability,!social!and!building!exposure.!! The!challenge!that!the!PoC!addresses!is!the!difficulty!of!standardizing!data!from!physical! hazard!with!those!of!vulnerability!and!exposure!!(which!are!expressed!in!diverse!metrics),! and!implement!a!synthetic!index!that!shows!the!risk!distribution!over!the!area!of!interest.! The!innovative!idea!is!the!use!of!multivariate!statistics!of!the!type!of!Principal!Component! Analysis!and!factor!Analysis!for!obtaining!an!ensemble!risk!index!coupled!with!cartographic! techniques!that!allow!merging!the!risk!components! 2. Objectives The!main!aim!of!the!PoC!is!to!develop!and!test!a!methodology!that!integrates!data!coming! from!the!diverse!components!of!!the!“risk!equation”!–!Hazard,!vulnerability!and!exposure!–! and!allows!standardization!of!the!metrics!of!the!multitude!of!variables!involved,!as!to!obtain! risk!maps,!which!show!the!spatial!distribution!of!risk!!in!densely!populated!areas!subject!to! a!significant!hazard.! The!test!carried!out!on!the!pyroclastic!flow!risk!at!Vesuvius!contributes!to!the!goals!of!the! VS3!spoke!(Earthquakes!and!Volcanoes)!and,!by!means!of!the!generalization!of!the! multivariate!statistical!method,!it!is!of!interest!of!the!general!RETURN!Project.! 3.&The&test&Case&of&Mount&Vesuvius& Mt. Vesuvius is widely known as one of the most dangerous volcanoes because of the likelihood of future explosive eruptions in a densely populated area (Gurioli et al., 2010; Lirer et al., 2010; Baxter, 2008), which could affect large territories. It is well known that disaster risk depends on the severity of hazard, the number of people or assets exposed and the vulnerability or susceptibility of these elements to suffer loss and damage (UNDRR, 2022). As a consequence, when large populations or significant assets are exposed to volcanic hazards and show high vulnerability, the likelihood of risk escalating into disaster increases. This progression is driven not by the frequency or magnitude of the hazard itself, but by the territorial context—namely demographic, social, economic, and building structural conditions. For this reason, volcanic hazards and disasters have unique characteristics when compared with other natural hazards that require special consideration in risk assessment (Lowe, 2010). The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, clearly recognizes that disaster risk management needs to be about managing the risk inherent in social and economic activity, rather than simply mainstreaming disaster risk management to protect against external threats like natural hazards (CRED & UNDRR, 2020). Consequently, combining volcanic hazard, demographic, social and building characteristics to understand the level of risk is crucial to manage disaster risk in highly populated areas such as the Mt. Vesuvius. Over the past two decades, several studies have attempted to integrate hazard, exposure, and vulnerability in volcanic settings worldwide (Córdoba et al., 2025; Sparks et al., 2025; Muryani et al., 2024; Nieto-Torres et al., 2023, 2021; Bonadonna et al., 2021; Guimarães et al., 2021; Reyes-Hardy et al., 2021; Jumadi et al., 2020). In the Vesuvius area, however, research mainly addressed individual components of risk—generally one or two at a time— such as exposure and hazard (Alberico et al., 2011); building exposure and physical vulnerability (Zuccaro & De Gregorio, 2019, 2013; Spence et al., 2004); overall vulnerability (Willis et al., 2014); population exposure and social vulnerability (Pesaresi et al., 2008); hazard assessment (Dellino et al., 2025; Sulpizio et al., 2018; Rolandi, 2010; Marzocchi et al., 2004); or focusing on risk perception (Avvisati et al., 2019; Ricci et al., 2013; Carlino et al., 2008). A further challenge lies in conducting risk analyses at the local level, where the lack of high-resolution spatial demographic and socio-economic census data (Lapietra et al., 2025) hampers comprehensive planning and necessitates spatial assessments that integrate place-specific hazard characteristics with demographic, social, and economic conditions at the enumeration area scale (Buck & Summers, 2020). These aspects underline the need to use an approach that covers all the aspects of risk in this area that have not previously been examined through multidisciplinary approaches at the local level and more in general for the development of volcanology (Doronzo et al., 2022). The test case application of the PoC focuses therefore on combining and mapping of (i) volcanic hazard, (ii) exposure, (iii) vulnerability and (iv) volcanic risk in the Mt. Vesuvius area at enumeration area (EA) level in order to retrieve information about (v) inhabitants and buildings, located on areas at different risk levels as to provide useful information for cost-benefit analysis, land-use planning and risk mitigation. The volcano is currently in a state of quiescence, marked solely by fumarolic activity and low seismicity, but it is continuously monitored by the surveillance network of the Vesuvius Observatory, the Naples branch of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology (INGV). In terms of risk management, the National Civil Protection Department (CPD), carries out activities of forecasting, prevention, and mitigation of volcanic risk in Italy and adopts measures aimed at reducing the loss of human lives and property in the event of an eruption. The authority, that is also responsible for overseeing the phases of emergency management and recovery, with the efforts of the Campania Region defined the National Emergency Plans for the Vesuvius area consisting of two zones (Figure 1b). The red zone, covering 25 municipalities, includes the area exposed to pyroclastic flows (Red Zone 1) and the territory at high risk of roof collapse due to the accumulation of pyroclastic deposits (Red Zone 2). The yellow zone, comprising of 63 municipalities and three districts of the City of Naples, represents the area exposed to significant fallout of volcanic ash and pyroclastic material. Although this is the most recent official document for emergency planning and evacuation for the Vesuvius area, the red zone map does not take into account the impact that PDCs could have on buildings and people that required the distribution of the impact parameters (flow temperature, flow duration, particle concentration and flow dynamic pressure) that better represent flow intensity in terms of damage potential over the volcano's surroundings (Dellino et al., 2025). These parameters, that have been addressed by Mele et al. (2024), are essential to build long-term volcanic hazard mapping for risk analysis in the Vesuvius area and represents the starting point of this research. ! Figure 1 Geographic setting of Mt Vesuvius within the national context (A), a zoom at the local level (B) and the municipalities included in the Civil Protection National Plan of volcanic risk (C). The regional and municipality boundaries were retrieved from the Italian National Statistical Institute (ISTAT) dataset, while Google Satellite was used as basemap. ! 3. Methods and Tools The PoC development consists of the application of an integrated multidimensional framework for risk analysis based upon the definition provided by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), which describes risk as the product of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability (UNDRR, 2022). Specifically, the research explores the relationship between long-term volcanic hazard (pyroclastic density currents, PDCs), human population features (population exposure and social vulnerability) and building characteristics (building exposure and physical vulnerability). In our case, volcanic hazard can be defined as the probability of long-term occurrence of PDCs to damage a territory in a specified period of time. According to Marzocchi et al. (2004), the consideration of longterm volcanic hazards is very useful for cost/benefit analysis of risk mitigation actions, and for appropriate land use planning and location of settlements. Population and building exposure represent the number of people and buildings exposed to long-term volcanic hazard; while social and physical vulnerability can be described as the combination of demographic, socioeconomic factors and building characteristics that can (potentially) increase the impacts of the element exposed. The methodology has been constructed with the aim of assessing volcanic risk in the Vesuvius area by analyzing, mapping and combining hazard, exposure and vulnerability (section 1) at EA level. As shown in table 1, in order to assess long-term volcanic hazard, four main variables linked to the impact parameters of pyroclastic flows were retrieved from Mele et al. (2024). These parameters are detailed discussed in Dellino et al., 2025 and represent the PDCs flow characteristics useful for evaluating the damaging capacity. In the case of exposure, linked to population and buildings located in the possibly affected areas, the number of inhabitants of each enumeration areas were collected from the Italian National Statistical Institute (ISTAT) dataset, while the building structural aggregates shapefile was retrieved from the Civil Protection Department (DPC) repository. Both databases refer to the year 2021. As regards the evaluation of social vulnerability, 8 main variables explaining the demographic and socioeconomic condition of each enumeration area were collected from the 2021 ISTAT dataset, while data about buildings structural characteristics and housing conditions were retrieved from 2011 Census ISTAT dataset (currently the most recent for buildings). It is essential to highlight that, taking into account that there is no guideline concerning which data to use and how to treat this data for the construction of the vulnerability indexes (Frigerio et al., 2016), the choice of these variables is strictly linked to the most recent literature that underline the significant factors influencing social and physical vulnerability, data availability at enumeration area level and the socio-economic characteristics of the Campania population. Particularly, social vulnerability was expressed in terms of: percentages of individuals under 15 and over 76 years old, households with more than four members, foreign residents, unemployed males and females, and the share of male and female with at most a lower secondary education (low human capital). Physical vulnerability was instead evaluated by considering the type of building (residential or commercial), the construction material (masonry or other), the year of construction (before 1980), the number of floors (more than 4) and the state of preservation (poor and very poor). All of these variables were expressed as percentages. Lastly, in order to consider the spatial dimension of each territorial units (i.e. enumeration area) in the vulnerability investigation, we also included the spatial variables linked to centroid coordinates (X, Y) of the enumeration areas computed by QGIS (3.32 version) (Lapietra et al., 2025). Table 1 Variables and data sources used for hazard assessment, exposure calculation and vulnerability evaluation with indication of the data source. EA = Enumeration Area RISK COMPONENT SUB-COMPONENT VARIABLE DATA SOURCE Hazard Volcanic 1. Flow temperature 2. Particle volumetric concentration 3. Flow duration 4. Flow dynamic pressure Mele et al., 2024 Exposure Population 1. N° of inhabitants ISTAT 2021 Building 1. N° of buildings DPC 2021 Vulnerability Social 1. Younger with age <15 years 2. Elderly with age > 64 years 3. Foreign residents 4. Households with members > 4 5. Low human capital (males) 6. Low human capital (females) 7. Unemployed males 8. Unemployed females 9. EA centroid X coordinate 10. EA centroid Y coordinate ISTAT 2021 Physical 1. Residential buildings 2. Commercial buildings 3. Buildings constructed with masonry material 4. Buildings constructed with other material 5. Buildings < 1919 6. 1919 < Building < 1945 7. 1946 < Building < 1960 8. 1961 < Building < 1979 9. 1971 < Building < 1979 10. Buildings with more than 4 floors 11. Buildings in poor condition 12. Buildings in very poor condition 13. EA centroid X coordinate 14. EA centroid Y coordinate ISTAT 2011 4. Activities – the steps toward the integrated multidimensional framework To assess volcanic risk at the EA level in the Vesuvius region, a combination of Geographic Information System (GIS) and statistical techniques was employed to develop an integrated multidimensional framework using QGIS and SPSS software. Figure 2 illustrates the hazard-dependent approach adopted for this analysis. Starting from the volcanic hazard assessment (light orange), information on exposure (light green) and vulnerability (light violet) within the potentially affected area was derived to map the overall volcanic risk. Specifically, the PDCs impact parameters (Table 1), mapped on a regular grid at 250m resolution (Dellino et al., 2025), were first standardized and subjected to factor analysis (FA) to extract the main factor explaining the entire dataset. As only four variables were considered, the extracted factor was defined as “volcanic hazard index” and mapped on the same grid. Because this index had to be integrated with the subsequent risk components (exposure and vulnerability) at the EA level, the grid map was converted to match the 2021 ISTAT EA boundaries. The resulting vector data were then transformed into raster format and rescaled from 1 (very low hazard) to 5 (very high hazard). Once the volcanic hazard was mapped, municipalities and corresponding EAs were intersected to retrieve exposure and vulnerability data from ISTAT and DPC datasets (Table 1). Following Figure 2, the exposure component was analyzed through two subcomponents: population exposure and building exposure. Population exposure was calculated by measuring population density in each EA, expressed as the ratio between the number of inhabitants and the total EA area. EAs with zero population were excluded. The resulting vector data were converted into raster format and rescaled from 1 (very low population exposure) to 5 (very high population exposure). For building exposure, building density was computed by extracting building centroids from the building shapefile to count the number of buildings within each EA, then dividing by the EA area. EAs with zero buildings were likewise excluded. The results were converted into raster format and rescaled from 1 (very low building exposure) to 5 (very high building exposure). Total exposure was then obtained using the QGIS Raster Calculator tool by summing population and building exposure layers, with the final raster rescaled from 1 (very low exposure) to 5 (very high exposure). Social vulnerability was derived through Principal Component Analysis (PCA) applied to standardized demographic and socio-economic variables (Table 1). For each EA, factor scores were weighted by multiplying them by the percentage of variance explained by each factor and dividing by the total variance (Siagian et al., 2014; Frigerio et al., 2016). The composite Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) was then calculated using Equation 1: 𝑆𝑉𝐼 = ( 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟1 ∗ 𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒1 ) + ( 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟2 ∗ 𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒2 ) + ( 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑁 ∗ 𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑁 ) 𝑇𝑜𝑡. 𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 The results were mapped, converted to raster, and rescaled from 1 (very low social vulnerability) to 5 (very high social vulnerability). Building vulnerability for each EA was computed following the same procedure and using Equation 1 to generate the Physical Vulnerability Index (PVI). Because the underlying variables referred to 2011 EAs (Table 1), a cartographic transposition from 2011 to 2021 ISTAT boundaries was performed in QGIS. The resulting vector was converted to raster and rescaled from 1 (very low physical vulnerability) to 5 (very high physical vulnerability). Overall vulnerability was then calculated with the QGIS Raster Calculator by summing the social and physical vulnerability layers, and the final raster was rescaled from 1 to 5. Finally, volcanic risk was estimated by multiplying the hazard, exposure, and vulnerability layers using the same tool. The resulting raster was reclassified through quantile classification into five categories: 1 (very low volcanic risk), 2 (low), 3 (medium), 4 (high), and 5 (very high). This classification also enabled the extraction of information on the number of inhabitants and buildings within each risk class. Figure 2 Operational workflow for volcanic risk analysis based on the definition described in section 1. For DATA INPUT please refer to Table 1. Symbol + represents a sum, while symbol x represents a multiplication. EA = enumeration area; SVI = social vulnerability index; PVI = Physical vulnerability index. 5.RESULTS The spatial distribution of the volcanic hazard index intercepts an area of 432 km2 which includes 43 municipalities and 6608 EAs (Figure 1) with a total population of 1 075 508 inhabitants and 100 804 buildings (Table 2). Figure 3 Study area intercepted by the volcanic hazard index map grid (left-bottom) with the identification of the municipalities and EAs possibly affect. The ISTAT boundaries refer to the year 2021 and were retrieved from https://www.istat.it/notizia/basi-territoriali-e-variabilicensuarie/. Table 2 Municipalities under investigation with number of EAs, inhabitants (POP21) and buildings (BUILD21) referring to the year 2021 intercepted by the hazard index grid map. MUNICIPALITY N.° of EA21 POP21 BUILD21 1 ACERRA 118 15 360 1 312 2 AFRAGOLA 487 61 593 3 252 3 ARZANO 28 2 689 608 4 BOSCOREALE 247 26 317 3 569 5 BOSCOTRECASE 74 9 897 1 556 6 BRUSCIANO 95 1 5851 1 448 7 CAIVANO 1 1 13 8 CARDITO 11 2 696 163 9 CASALNUOVO DI NAPOLI 198 47 428 2 716 10 CASAVATORE 67 18 282 610 11 CASORIA 321 74 394 4 108 12 CASTELLAMARE DI STABIA 9 3 296 181 13 CASTELLO DI CISTERNA 78 7 815 1 270 14 CERCOLA 76 17 124 1 401 15 FRATTAMAGGIORE 8 434 46 16 MARIGLIANELLA 9 1 628 117 17 MARIGLIANO 57 6 725 1 702 18 NAPOLI 1 288 160 648 12 224 19 NOLA 78 5677 1 175 20 OTTAVIANO 132 23 064 3 804 21 PALMA CAMPANIA 8 257 82 22 POGGIOMARINO 72 21 504 1 971 23 POLLENA TROCCHIA 73 12 976 1 915 24 POMIGLIANO D'ARCO 318 39 762 2 963 25 POMPEI 187 22 339 3 007 26 PORTICI 190 52 500 1 863 27 ERCOLANO 297 50 580 5 054 28 SAN GENNARO VESUVIANO 46 11 714 1 669 29 SAN GIORGIO A CREMANO 186 43 057 1 346 30 SAN GIUSEPPE VESUVIANO 105 30 045 3 893 31 SAN SEBASTIANO AL VESUVIO 54 8721 1 142 32 SANT'ANASTASIA 284 26 460 3 605 33 SAN VITALIANO 1 6 6 34 SAVIANO 25 5 960 1 643 35 SCISCIANO 28 3 095 975 36 SOMMA VESUVIANA 193 33 935 6 474 37 TERZIGNO 72 17 256 3 177 38 TORRE ANNUNZIATA 206 40 523 2 204 39 TORRE DEL GRECO 477 81 289 8 149 40 VOLLA 119 25 369 2 552 41 TRECASE 70 8 594 1 687 42 MASSA DI SOMMA 30 5 056 1 268 43 SCAFATI 185 33 591 2 884 TOTAL 6 608 1 075 508 100 804 Figure 4 shows the volcanic hazard level distribution across the EAs under investigations, where 1 corresponds to very low hazard, 2 to low hazard, 3 to medium hazard, 4 to high hazard and 5 to very high hazard. The map highlights that the highest hazard levels (4 and 5) occur in EAs located near the volcano, particularly within municipalities of Sant’Anastasia, Pollena Trocchia, Somma Vesuviana, Ottaviano, and Massa di Somma with level 5 extending in the northwestern direction. Hazard levels gradually decrease with increasing distance from the volcano, reaching the lowest levels (1 and 2) near the outer boundaries of the study area. Consequently, municipalities that extend from the slopes of Mt Vesuvius down to lower-altitude coastal zones — including Napoli, Ercolano, and Torre del Greco — may encompass the full range of volcanic hazard levels. Looking at Table 3, most of the municipalities (67%) shows EAs with very low volcanic hazard level (level 1), 48 % is characterized by medium level (level 3), 46 % by low (level 2) and high (level 4) levels while 37 % of municipalities present very high level of volcanic hazard (level 5). As shown in the same table, almost half of the municipalities under investigation are characterized by the highest volcanic hazard levels (4 and 5). ! Figure 4 Spatial distribution of volcanic hazard across the municipalities under investigation at enumeration area level. Table 3 Volcanic hazard levels of EAs included in each municipality under investigation. Municipalities underlined with yellow color show the highest level of volcanic hazard. MUNICIPALITY& LEVEL&1& LEVEL&2& LEVEL&3& LEVEL&4& LEVEL&5& ACERRA! X! X! X! ! ! AFRAGOLA! X! X! X! X! ! ARZANO! X! ! ! ! ! BOSCOREALE! X! X! X! X! ! BOSCOTRECASE! ! ! X! X! X! MARIGLIANELLA ! ! X! ! ! MARIGLIANO X! X! X! X! ! NAPOLI X! X! X! X! X! NOLA X! X! X! ! ! OTTAVIANO X! X! X! X! X! PALMA CAMPANIA X! ! ! ! ! POGGIOMARINO ! X! X! X! ! POLLENA TROCCHIA X! X! X! X! X! POMIGLIANO D'ARCO ! X! X! X! X! POMPEI X! X! X! X! ! PORTICI X! X! X! X! X! ERCOLANO X! X! X! X! X! SAN GENNARO VESUVIANO X! X! ! ! ! SAN GIORGIO A CREMANO ! X! X! X! X! SAN GIUSEPPE VESUVIANO X! X! X! X! ! SAN SEBASTIANO AL VESUVIO ! X! X! X! ! SANT'ANASTASIA ! X! X! X! X! SAN VITALIANO X! ! ! ! ! SAVIANO X! X! X! ! ! SCISCIANO X! X! X! X! ! SOMMA VESUVIANA X! X! X! X! X! TERZIGNO X! X! X! X! X! TORRE ANNUNZIATA X! X! X! X! X! TORRE DEL GRECO X! X! X! X! X! VOLLA ! ! ! X! X! TRECASE ! X! X! X! X! MASSA DI SOMMA ! ! ! X! X! SCAFATI X! X! ! ! ! ! ! 6.Conclusion& For the first time, an innovative method based on multivariate!statistics!coupled!with! cartographic!techniques!was!used!on!the!test!case!of!Vesuvius!for!mapping!the!areal! distribution!of!volcanic!risk!by!means!of!a!synthetic!index.!The further use of the PoC even for other natural risks, can help prioritize areas in need of targeted strategies to promote sustainable development, disaster preparedness, and resilience. The results are presented in form of maps, while tables are provided to show the hazard, exposure, vulnerability and risk characteristics in each municipality under investigation. The PoC provides a clear and simplified methodology for researcher and stakeholders who work in the field of disaster risk reduction, risk analysis, emergency planning and mitigation strategies. ! 7. Stakeholders The!further!application!of!the!PoC!can!be!of!interest!to!stakeholders!having!interest!in!the! field!of!insurance,!mitigation!activities!and!education! 8. Transferability While!the!PoC!was!tested!on!volcanic!risk!at!Vesuvius,!the!methodology!can!be!extended!to! all!the!risks!that!have!a!geographical!distribution!around!highly!populated!areas! 8. Progress Status ☐!In!progress! ! X!Completed! 9. Contact Person Pierfrancesco!!Dellino–!University!of!Bari!–!Full!Professor!of!Volcanology!and!Scientific! Responsible!of!spoke!VS3!(Earthquake!and!Volcanoes)!–!pierfrancesco.delli[email protected]!–! 3342741215! 10.References& Alberico, I., Petrosino, P., & Lirer, L. (2011). Volcanic hazard and risk assessment in a multi-source volcanic area: the example of Napoli city (Southern Italy). Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 11(4), 1057-1070. doi:10.5194/nhess-11-1057-2011. Avvisati, G., Sessa, E. B., Colucci, O., Marfè, B., Marotta, E., Nave, R., ... & Tomasone, M. (2019). Perception of risk for natural hazards in Campania Region (Southern Italy). International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 40, 101164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101164. Baxter, P. J., Aspinall, W. P., Neri, A., Zuccaro, G., Spence, R. J. S., Cioni, R., & Woo, G. (2008). Emergency planning and mitigation at Vesuvius: A new evidence-based approach. Journal of volcanology and geothermal research, 178(3), 454-473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2008.08.015. Bird, D.K., Gisladottir, G. and Dominey-Howes, D. 2010.Volcanic risk and tourism in southern Iceland: implications for hazard, risk and emergency response education and training. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 189, 33–48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.09.020. Bonadonna, C., Frischknecht, C., Menoni, S., Romerio, F., Gregg, C. E., Rosi, M., ... & Cristiani, C. (2021). Integrating hazard, exposure, vulnerability and resilience for risk and emergency management in a volcanic context: the ADVISE model. Journal of applied volcanology, 10(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13617-021-00108-5. Buck, K. D., & Summers, J. K. (2020). Application of a multi-hazard risk assessment for local planning. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 11(1), 2058–2078 https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2020.1828190. Carlino, S., Somma, R., & Mayberry, G. C. (2008). Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius: Comparisons with other volcanic areas and implications for emergency management. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 172(3-4), 229-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.010. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) and United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. The human cost of disasters:an overview of the last 20 years (2000–2019). Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction; 2020. Available at: https://www .preventionweb.net/files/74124_humancostofdisasters20002019reportu .pdf. Córdoba GA, Costa A, Rodriguez DM, Thouret J-C, Criollo RA and Guerrero DA (2025). Assessing probabilistic hazard and risk for building, road network, and ecosystems: the case study of La Florida municipality, Galeras Volcano, Colombia.Front. Earth Sci. 13:1632282. doi: 10.3389/feart.2025.163228. Cubellis, E., Marturano, A. & Pappalardo, L. The last Vesuvius eruption in March 1944: reconstruction of the eruptive dynamic and its impact on the environment and people through witness reports and volcanological evidence. Nat Hazards 82, 95–121 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2182-7. Dellino, P., Dioguardi, F., Sulpizio, R., & Mele, D. (2024). Long-term hazard of pyroclastic density currents at Vesuvius (Southern Italy) with maps of impact parameters. EGUsphere, 2024, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2971. Dellino, P., Dioguardi, F., Isaia, R., Sulpizio, R., and Mele, D. (2021). The impact of pyroclastic density currents duration on humans: the case of the AD 79 eruption of Vesuvius. Sci. Rep., 11, 4959, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84456-7. Doronzo, D. M., Di Vito, M. A., Arienzo, I., Bini, M., Calusi, B., Cerminara, M., ... & Zanchetta, G. (2022). The 79 CE eruption of Vesuvius: A lesson from the past and the need of a multidisciplinary approach for developments in volcanology. Earth-Science Reviews, 231, 104072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.104072. El Hadri H., Goujon M., Paris R. (2021) “A database of the economic impacts of historical volcanic eruptions”, Études et Documents, n°14, CERDI. Available online at: https://uca.hal.science/hal-03186803v1/document. Erfurt-Cooper, P., Sigurdsson, H., & Lopes, R. M. (2015). Volcanoes and tourism. In The encyclopedia of volcanoes (pp. 1295-1311). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385938-9.00075-4. Freire, S., Florczyk, A. J., Pesaresi, M., & Sliuzas, R. (2019). An improved global analysis of population distribution in proximity to active volcanoes, 1975–2015. ISPRS international journal of geo-information, 8(8), 341. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8080341. Frigerio, I., Ventura, S., Strigaro, D., Mattavelli, M., De Amicis, M., Mugnano, S., & Boffi, M. (2016). A GIS-based approach to identify the spatial variability of social vulnerability to seismic hazard in Italy. Applied geography, 74, 12-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.06.014. Guimarães, L. F., Nieto-Torres, A., Bonadonna, C., & Frischknecht, C. (2021). A new inclusive volcanic risk ranking, Part 2: Application to Latin America. Frontiers in Earth Science, 9, 757742. doi: 10.3389/feart.2021.757742. Gunatilake, T. (2023). Dynamics between earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and geothermal energy exploitation in Japan. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 4625. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31627-3. Gurioli, L., Sulpizio, R., Cioni, R., Sbrana, A., Santacroce, R., Luperini, W., and Andronico D.: Pyroclastic flow hazard assessment at Somma-Vesuvius based on the geological record, Bull. Volcanol., 72, 1021-1038, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-010-0379-2. Jumadi, J., Malleson, N., Carver, S., & Quincey, D. (2020). Estimating spatio-temporal risks from volcanic eruptions using an agent-based model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 23(2) 2). Doi: 10.18564/jasss.4241. Kelman, I., & Mather, T. A. (2008). Living with volcanoes: the sustainable livelihoods approach for volcano-related opportunities. Journal of volcanology and geothermal research, 172(3-4), 189-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.007. Lapietra, I., Benassi, F., Paterno, A., García-Pereiro, T., & Dellino, P. (2025). Mapping social risk areas to floods in Southern Italy: a spatial analysis for local emergency planning and place-based risk reduction policies. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 105666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105666. Lirer, L., Petrosino, P., & Alberico, I. (2010). Hazard and risk assessment in a complex multi-source volcanic area: the example of the Campania Region, Italy. Bulletin of Volcanology, 72(4), 411-429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-009-0334-2. Loughlin, S. C., Sparks, R. S. J., Brown, S. K., Jenkins, S. F., & Vye-Brown, C. (Eds.). (2015). Global volcanic hazards and risk. Cambridge University Press. Available online at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridgecore/content/view/7653B9CA75E2F32A81CE5B7110BEF8AB/9781107111752AR.pdf/Gl obal_Volcanic_Hazards_and_Risk.pdf?event-type=FTLA. Lowe, C. J. (2010). Analysing vulnerability to volcanic hazards: application to St. Vincent (Doctoral dissertation, UCL (University College London). Available at: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/20466/1/20466.pdf. Marini, L., Vespasiano, G., De Rosa, R., Viccaro, M., Principe, C., Bloise, A., ... & Apollaro, C. (2025). The geothermal resources of Vulcano Island (Aeolian Archipelago, Italy). Renewable Energy, 253, 123622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2025.123622. Marzocchi, W., Sandri, L., Gasparini, P., Newhall, C., & Boschi, E. (2004). Quantifying probabilities of volcanic events: the example of volcanic hazard at Mount Vesuvius. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 109(B11). doi:10.1029/2004JB003155. Meredith, E. S., Teng, R. X. N., Jenkins, S. F., Hayes, J. L., Biass, S., & Handley, H. (2025). Cities near volcanoes: which cities are most exposed to volcanic hazards?. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 2025, 1-36. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-2731-2025. Muryani, C., Noviani, R., & Azizah, R. N. (2024, March). Disaster risk analysis of Merapi Volcano eruption in the north slope based on the New Volcanic Risk Ranking (VRR) methods. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 1314, No. 1, p. 012015). IOP Publishing. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1314/1/012015. Nieto-Torres, A., Del Pozzo, A. L. M., Groppelli, G., & Viera, M. D. C. J. (2023). Risk scenarios for a future eruption in the Chichinautzin monogenetic volcanic field, South México City. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 433, 107733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2022.107733. Nieto-Torres, A., Guimarães, L. F., Bonadonna, C., & Frischknecht, C. (2021). A new inclusive volcanic risk ranking, Part 1: Methodology. Frontiers in Earth Science, 9, 697451. doi: 10.3389/feart.2021.697451. Pesaresi, C., Marta, M., Palagiano, C., & Scandone, R. (2008). The evaluation of “social risk” due to volcanic eruptions of Vesuvius. Natural Hazards, 47(2), 229-243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-008-9214-x Reyes-Hardy, M. P., Barraza, F. A., Birke, J. P. S., Cáceres, A. E., & Pizarro, M. I. (2021). GIS-based volcanic hazards, vulnerability and risks assessment of the Guallatiri Volcano, Arica y Parinacota Region, Chile. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 109, 103262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2021.103262. Ricci, T., Nave, R., & Barberi, F. (2013). Vesuvio civil protection exercise MESIMEX: survey on volcanic risk perception. Annals of Geophysics, 56(4), S0452-S0452. doi:10.4401/ag-6458. Ricciardi, A., Scalzo, A., Cristiani, C., Fiorito, D., Durantini, M., Colombi, A., ... & Spatola, P. (2024). Emergency management and risk reduction measures during the Vulcano (Aeolian Islands) unrest 2021–2023. Bulletin of Volcanology, 86(5), 42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-024-01731-x. Rolandi, G. (2010). Volcanic hazard at Vesuvius: An analysis for the revision of the current emergency plan. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 189(3-4), 347-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.08.007 Sparks, R. S. J., Vougioukalakis, G., Aspinall, W. P., Neri, A., Antonakos, A., Baxter, P. J., ... & Vaselli, O. (2025). Future eruptions of the Kolumbo volcanic field: prognosis with hazard and risk assessment. Bulletin of Volcanology, 87(9), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-025-01836-x. Spence, R. J., Baxter, P. J., & Zuccaro, G. (2004). Building vulnerability and human casualty estimation for a pyroclastic flow: a model and its application to Vesuvius. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 133(1-4), 321-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-0273(03)00405-0. Sulpizio, R., Folch, A., Costa, A., Scaini, C., & Dellino, P. (2012). Hazard assessment of far-range volcanic ash dispersal from a violent Strombolian eruption at Somma-Vesuvius volcano, Naples, Italy: implications on civil aviation. Bulletin of Volcanology, 74(9), 22052218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-012-0656-3. Totaro, F., Alberico, I., Di Martire, D., Nunziata, C., & Petrosino, P. (2020). The key role of hazard indices and hotspot in disaster risk management: the case study of Napoli and Pozzuoli municipalities (Southern Italy). Journal of Maps, 16(2), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2019.1698472. UNDRR, Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction 2022: our world at risk: transforming governance for a resilient future, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction: Geneva, Switzerland (2022). Available at: https://www.undrr.org/gar/gar2022our-world-risk-gar. Willis, I., Gibin, M., Barros, J., & Webber, R. (2014). Applying neighbourhood classification systems to natural hazards: a case study of Mt Vesuvius. Natural hazards, 70(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9648-9. Zuccaro, G., & De Gregorio, D. (2019). Impact assessments in volcanic areas-The Vesuvius and Campi Flegrei cases studies. Annals of Geophysics, 62(1), VO02-VO02. doi: 10.4401/ag-7827 Zuccaro, G., & De Gregorio, D. (2013). Time and space dependency in impact damage evaluation of a sub-Plinian eruption at Mount Vesuvius. Natural Hazards, 68(3), 13991423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0571-8. &