Tourists are a distinct audience for volcanic hazard communication because they may enter hazardous areas with limited local knowledge, limited time to seek information, and varied familiarity with volcanic processes. The studies focused on tourists emphasize that hazard information must be visible, engaging, and easy to interpret within the crowded information environment of tourism. Recommendations include creating bold, attention-seeking materials (Bird et al., 2010; Bird and Gísladóttir, 2020; Vegas et al., 2019) and using pictures, drawings, and video footage to reduce reliance on scientific terminology (Bird et al., 2010; Erfurt-Cooper, 2018). Several studies also emphasize the value of place-based communication. Presenting hazard information at past eruption sites can make the hazard more tangible by helping visitors visualize what occurred there (Megerle, 2020). Learning about an event where it happened can reinforce its significance, especially when paired with brief, informative titles and high-quality photographs on interpretive panels (Megerle, 2020; Migoń and Pijet-Migoń, 2019; Vegas et al., 2019).

These studies also suggest that tourist communication should not rely only on signs or isolated materials; instead, the tourism sector as a whole must be involved in risk reduction strategies (Bird and Gísladóttir, 2020; Megerle, 2020). Tourists are a distinct audience because they are temporary visitors to volcanic landscapes and may differ widely in background knowledge, language, risk perception, and familiarity with local hazards or warning systems. In potentially hazardous volcanic areas, tourists need clear, visible, and accessible safety information, including where to find official updates and what to do if conditions change (Bird and Gísladóttir, 2020). Bird and Gísladóttir (2020) examine risk communication initiatives in Iceland and argue that risk reduction requires whole-community involvement, including the dissemination of risk information by travel agents and tour guides before tourists enter potentially hazardous environments. Guides should be trained for disasters, clear protocols should be in place, and community officials should maintain a long-term commitment to risk communication initiatives. For warnings and preparedness information to be effective, tourist-focused risk communication should be visible, accessible, and integrated into everyday tourism practices through visual materials, interpretive panels, trained guides, travel agents, emergency protocols, and consistent messaging across websites, social media, brochures, signs, short films, and other common visitor channels (Bird et al., 2010; Bird and Gísladóttir, 2020; Erfurt-Cooper, 2018; Megerle, 2020; Migoń and Pijet-Migoń, 2019; Vegas et al., 2019). These findings align with broader risk communication research emphasizing that communication must be designed around audience needs and decision contexts rather than expert assumptions about what information is important (Frewer, 2004; Fischhoff, 1995; Doyle and Becker, 2022).

During quiescence, tourism also provides an opportunity for informal education. When immediate hazard risk is low, visitors may already be interested in the landscape, making place-based interpretation useful for raising awareness of volcanic processes, past eruptions, and long-term hazards (Megerle, 2020; Migoń and Pijet-Migoń, 2019; Vegas et al., 2019). These efforts can improve general volcanic literacy and reduce confusion if visitors later encounter warnings, closures, or future unrest. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of tourist-focused communication across different visitor groups, including whether materials are noticed, understood, trusted, and connected to appropriate safety actions during changing volcanic conditions.

In the reviewed studies focused on Indigenous populations, communication often emphasizes disaster risk reduction and preparedness actions rather than increasing scientific understanding of volcanic processes. Several articles argue that effective communication does not require reconciling all differences between local and scientific explanations of volcanism, because attempting to replace local knowledge systems can create disagreement or distrust (Cronin et al., 2004a, b; Gabrielsen et al., 2018; Marín et al., 2020). Instead, the reviewed studies suggest that communication should focus on shared goals, such as recognizing warning signs, understanding potential consequences, and developing locally meaningful plans for what to do if precursory signals occur. Oral storytelling is frequently identified as an important way to communicate past volcanic activity, preserve community memory, and convey the severity of rare but catastrophic eruptions (Cronin and Cashman, 2008; Gabrielsen et al., 2018; Holmberg, 2023; Marín et al., 2020; Petterson et al., 2008). As Cronin and Cashman (2008) note, “The dramatic, but highly sporadic, nature of volcanic activity may promote longevity of these oral traditions for the specific purpose of helping future descendants avoid a similar disaster” (p. 198). Effective communication with Indigenous communities requires time to understand local social context, cultural values, customs, taboos, political and governance structures, and relationships to volcanic landscapes (Cronin et al., 2004a, b; Gabrielsen et al., 2018; García and Mendez-Fajury, 2018; Hicks et al., 2014; Marín et al., 2020; Petterson et al., 2008; Saha et al., 2023). The Indigenous communities represented in these studies are not a single, uniform audience. Cultural values, knowledge systems, governance structures, relationships to volcanic landscapes, and experiences of past hazards vary substantially, meaning that strategies developed in one setting cannot be assumed to transfer directly to another without locally grounded engagement and adaptation. This requires Indigenous involvement throughout the communication process, so that scientific knowledge of the volcanic system can be integrated with local knowledge, priorities, and decision-making structures (Cronin et al., 2004a, b; Gabrielsen et al., 2018; García and Mendez-Fajury, 2018; Hicks et al., 2014; Marín et al., 2020; Petterson et al., 2008; Saha et al., 2023).

These findings are consistent with broader risk communication literature showing that effective disaster risk reduction communication should treat local and Indigenous knowledge as expertise and create structured opportunities for communities, scientists, and authorities to discuss values, goals, information needs, and actions together (Bidwell, 2009; Doyle and Becker, 2022). However, participation must be carefully designed. Glicken (2000) cautions that poorly planned processes can exclude key groups, treat public input as symbolic, or increase distrust if stakeholders do not see how their knowledge is used. This is especially important when working with Indigenous communities, where different knowledge holders, governance structures, social roles, and community members may shape how risk is understood and how preparedness actions are developed. Communication with Indigenous communities should therefore be approached as a long-term relationship-building and partnership process rather than a one-time translation of scientific information, and quiescence is the best time to establish this relationship. Hicks et al. (2019) note that participatory DRR can range from treating participation itself as a measure of success to using more co-creative approaches, “where both scientists and citizens use and generate different forms of knowledge to integrate new understandings and create a shared agenda” (para. 9). In this context, oral traditions and local histories are not only communication tools; they are knowledge sources that can preserve memory of rare volcanic events, identify locally meaningful warning signs, and connect preparedness actions to community experience. Future volcano-specific research should evaluate how co-developed and culturally grounded communication approaches affect trust, preparedness actions, warning interpretation, and long-term risk awareness within Indigenous communities, while also documenting how these approaches vary across different volcanic, cultural, and governance contexts.

Several reviewed articles address the design of broader communication systems at the community level before unrest occurs. One recurring recommendation is to work with local actors who already have relationships with the intended audience, such as emergency managers, community leaders, popular local figures, educators, or other trusted members of the community (Cadag et al., 2018). Involving these actors in message design can help communicators understand local concerns, identify appropriate language and channels, and increase trust in the information being shared. This reflects broader risk communication research showing that trust depends not only on message content, but also on the perceived credibility, motives, and relationships of the information source (Frewer, 2004; Paton, 2007; Kasperson, 2014).

Volcanic observatories and scientific institutions also play an important role in building communication capacity during quiescence. The reviewed observatory-focused articles emphasize outreach during quiet periods as a way to educate communities, establish relationships, and maintain visibility before unrest begins (Graham et al., 2022; Horii et al., 2024; Nakamichi, 2024; Todesco et al., 2022a). This is consistent with Community Engagement Theory, which suggests that preparedness is more likely when communication supports outcome expectancy, empowerment, collective efficacy, and trust, rather than simply delivering information to passive audiences (Paton et al., 2024). For observatories, this means that outreach during quiescence should not be limited to occasional public education products but should help establish durable channels for communication and informal learning. Feng et al. (2018) argue that informal disaster education can build community resilience by using everyday social networks, local activities, and trusted facilitators to support localized learning and preparedness. Observatories can contribute to these networks by providing consistent scientific information, supporting local communicators, and creating opportunities for ongoing dialogue. Social media, for example, can provide regular contact with audiences and can be adapted to the level of volcanic activity, but it requires sustained management and clear decisions about what information should be posted during periods of quiescence, unrest, and crisis (Todesco et al., 2022a). Citizen science can extend this role by involving community members in knowledge generation, ranging from data collection to deeper co-production and empowerment, especially when projects provide participant benefits and support long-term engagement (Hicks et al., 2019). However, citizen science efforts are not well documented or evaluated in the articles reviewed here.

Other reviewed articles focus on preparedness resources that can support communication before future activity. Hazard-specific articles synthesize communication needs for particular volcanic hazards, including ballistics and lahars (Fitzgerald et al., 2018; Pierson et al., 2014), while database-focused studies propose centralized volcanic information resources for stakeholders and communicators involved in disaster planning (Nasaruddin et al., 2011; Stix and Heiken, 2022). These approaches suggest that quiescence is a useful time to prepare communication materials, clarify terminology, organize hazard information, and build shared resources before time-sensitive decisions are required. Future work should evaluate how these communication systems, including local messengers, observatory outreach, social media strategies, hazard-specific guidance, and information databases, affect trust, preparedness, and the ability of different audiences to find and use volcanic hazard information when the level of volcanic activity changes.

Two articles in the reviewed dataset provide resources for communicating probabilities or translating volcanic terminology across languages. Harris et al. (2017) focus on terminology translation and emphasize that translations must follow alphabet and accent conventions, be lexicographically accurate, be grammatically correct, and preserve the intended meaning of the original term. This is important for volcanic hazard communication because direct translation may not be sufficient if the translated term changes the meaning, tone, or clarity of the hazard information.

Harris (2015) examines how probabilities and uncertainties are communicated, using case studies from newspaper reporting on severe weather systems and volcanoes. In the volcano-focused section, Harris argues that terminology is critical when reporting uncertainty and probability because evocative words or dramatic imagery may prompt unintended interpretations. Harris (2015) illustrates this issue in Table 2 of that article, which was collated from Sink (1995) and earlier work by Doyle et al. (2011) and shows that scientists and members of the public often assign different numerical values to the same qualitative probability phrases. Although these results are not volcano-specific, they illustrate a broader communication challenge that is relevant to volcanic hazards: commonly used terms such as “unlikely” or “possible” may not convey consistent numerical meanings across audiences. Because of these discrepancies, Harris agrees with Gill (2008) that uncertainty is often best conveyed through objective numerical measures, such as probabilities, paired with clearly defined plain language. The reviewed article therefore emphasizes that both numerical information and word choice require careful design when communicating volcanic uncertainty.

The reviewed studies show that terminology, probability, and uncertainty communication receive limited attention within quiescence-focused volcanic communication research, even though these topics are well developed in broader risk communication and volcanology literature. Risk communication research shows that uncertainty communication is more complicated than simply deciding whether uncertainty should be included or omitted. Effective uncertainty communication depends on the audience, decision context, type of uncertainty, and actions available despite uncertainty (Fischhoff and Davis, 2014; Frewer, 2004; Kasperson, 2014; Bostrom, 2014; Doyle and Becker, 2022). Fischhoff and Davis (2014) provided practical guidance on communicating uncertainty by focusing on what types of decisions need to be made with the information: “(i) Decisions about action thresholds: Is it time to act? (ii) Decisions with fixed options: Which is best? (iii) Decisions about potential options: What is possible?” (p. 13664). They further note that all three decision-making contexts involve “(i) characterizing uncertainty, by identifying the issues most relevant to the choice; (ii) assessing uncertainty, by summarizing that information in a useful form; and (iii) conveying uncertainty, by creating messages that afford decision makers the detail that their choices warrant” (p. 13664). Dhungana et al. (2025) use qualitative interviews in a disaster risk management (DRM) context and highlight how scientists and decision-makers face different pressures and have different perspectives on how uncertainty information can best be communicated, with scientists focusing more on the technical dimensions of uncertainty due to their scientific training, while decision-makers are more concerned with how uncertainty plays out in real-world scenarios. They recommend that uncertainty information be presented in visually engaging formats that have been tested for comprehension. Recent work by Peters et al. (2025) further shows that the most effective numerical framing may depend on the communication goal, with frequency formats potentially increasing emotional salience and preparedness motivation, and probability formats better supporting other forms of risk judgment.

Volcano-specific research has examined uncertainty communication in the context of unrest and crisis decision-making, explaining why these studies were not captured by the quiescence-focused search used here. This literature shows that providing scientifically accurate information is not sufficient if audiences do not interpret it as intended. The framing of probabilities and forecast time windows can influence perceived likelihood, and verbal probability terms may be understood as more ambiguous than equivalent numerical probabilities, leading to different evacuation decisions (Doyle et al., 2014a, b). Similar challenges arise when complex monitoring data and scientific uncertainty are condensed into volcano alert levels or probabilistic hazard maps. These tools can support decision-making, but their meaning is shaped by audience needs, local context, and design choices, and they are most useful when accompanied by dialogue and supplementary communication (Fearnley, 2013; Fearnley and Beaven, 2018; Thompson et al., 2015). Martí (2015) argues that communication should remain ongoing even when a volcano shows no signs of alarm, so that audiences already have some familiarity with volcanic hazards, forecasts, and uncertainty when information must be interpreted more quickly during a crisis.

Uncertainty communication is especially important for volcanic hazards because uncertainty is central to both the science and the communication challenge (Tadini et al., 2025; Mani et al., 2025). Mani and colleagues (2025) note that while significant progress has been made in volcanic risk communication, many challenges remain due to the dynamic nature of crisis events and the multiple potential breakdown points in communication. Volcanoes can remain quiet for long periods before unrest begins, unrest does not always lead to eruption, and the timing, location, size, and style of future activity may remain uncertain even when monitoring data are available. During quiescence, communities may be asked to understand hazards that are possible but not imminent and to prepare for events that may occur beyond everyday planning horizons. In this setting, uncertainty communication is not only about explaining probabilities; it is also about helping audiences understand what is known, what is not known, what changes in activity might mean, and why scientific uncertainty does not make hazard information unreliable. Yet within the quiescence-focused volcanic communication studies captured by this review, probability and uncertainty communication were not central themes. The reviewed studies provide little volcano-specific evidence about how different audiences interpret probabilistic volcanic information, qualitative likelihood terms, long recurrence intervals, changing alert levels, or uncertainty around unrest and eruption forecasts during quiet periods. This is a notable gap because quiescence may be the best time to build familiarity with this language before crisis conditions increase urgency and stress. Future volcano-specific research should therefore evaluate how uncertainty can be communicated during quiescence in ways that support understanding, preparedness, and trust.

Several reviewed articles focus on hazard maps as tools for communicating volcanic risk. These studies show that map design needs vary by audience. Public audiences often prefer aerial photographs and 3D maps because these formats make it easier to interpret the landscape, while scientists and emergency managers may prefer contour maps that provide greater technical detail (Haynes et al., 2007; Nave et al., 2010; Preppernau and Jenny, 2015). The reviewed studies also emphasize that hazard maps should be developed with attention to audience knowledge, perspectives, and information needs. Participatory approaches can help mapmakers understand what information communities value, how they interpret spatial risk, and what map formats are most useful for preparedness and decision-making (Nave et al., 2010; Parra and Cepeda, 1990; Preppernau and Jenny, 2015; Thompson et al., 2018).

Broader participatory mapping and stakeholder engagement literature reinforces that maps are not just technical products; they can also function as tools for dialogue, knowledge integration, and planning. Cadag and Gaillard (2012) show that participatory mapping can help connect scientific and local knowledge, make risk more tangible, and support disaster risk reduction actions when communities are actively involved in the mapping process. Glicken (2000) similarly emphasizes that stakeholder participation must be purposeful and carefully designed so that the right people are included, the right questions are asked, and the resulting information is useful for decision-making. Volcanic hazard maps should therefore be adapted to the intended audience, tested with intended users, and, where possible, developed through participatory processes that clarify what information different users need, how they interpret spatial hazard information, and which map formats best support preparedness, decision-making, trust, understanding, and use of hazard information.

Several reviewed articles present online media and digital tools for volcanic hazard communication (Antoniou et al., 2018, 2021; Asgary et al., 2020; Pasquaré Mariotto et al., 2020; Rapprich et al., 2017; Ravi and Malathy, 2010; Todesco et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2022). These studies describe the design of online communication resources, including online museums, virtual outcrops, geostories, and other interactive materials that guide users through volcanic landscapes, histories, and hazards. Articles focused on VR tools similarly describe their development process in detail, often providing step-by-step guidance so that similar tools can be recreated or adapted elsewhere (Bonali et al., 2022; Pasquaré Mariotto et al., 2021; McGowan and Scarlett, 2021; Pasquaré Mariotto and Bonali, 2021; Tibaldi et al., 2020). Many of these digital tools are presented as ways to expand access to volcanic landscapes for audiences who cannot travel to a field site, including students, people with disabilities, or large classroom groups unable to participate in field trips (Bonali et al., 2022; Pasquaré Mariotto et al., 2020, 2021; Pasquaré Mariotto and Bonali, 2021; Rapprich et al., 2017; Tibaldi et al., 2020). Two articles also examine serious games as tools for raising hazard awareness (Mani et al., 2016; Mossoux et al., 2016), showing that scientifically accurate games can support understanding of volcanic processes while engaging users through interactive learning.

These digital tools are valuable for expanding access to volcanic landscapes and hazard information. Ronoh et al. (2017) emphasize that disaster education must account for diverse access and support needs, including for children with disabilities, and that participatory, adapted tools can help make DRR education more inclusive. In this context, online media, VR, virtual outcrops, and serious games may help reach audiences who cannot physically visit volcanic sites, including students, people with disabilities, distant communities, or classrooms without the resources to conduct a field trip. However, the existence of a digital tool does not guarantee that it will be used, understood, or connected to preparedness. For volcanic hazard communication during quiescence, future research should therefore evaluate not only whether online tools are engaging, but whether different volcano-focused audiences can access them, interpret them accurately, trust the information provided, and connect what they learn to preparedness before unrest or eruption occurs.

Creative media like photos, paintings, and film (Hicks et al., 2017; Korinth, 2025; Piccione, 2012) are ways to help raise awareness of volcanic hazards in a passive setting. These studies emphasize the value of interdisciplinary collaboration between scientists, artists, filmmakers, educators, and communicators. Creative media can make volcanic hazards more emotionally resonant and accessible, helping audiences connect with risk information in ways that technical products alone may not (Korinth, 2025). While studies caution against fear-based messaging because it can produce fatalism rather than preparedness (Sanquini et al., 2016), communication that shows how previous communities recovered, adapted, or demonstrated resilience may instead encourage protective action (Hicks et al., 2017). Similarly, place-based tools in geoparks, including exhibits, trails, and interpretive materials, can make volcanic hazards more tangible and personally meaningful by connecting hazard information to visible landscapes, past eruptions, and visitor experience (Alessio and De Lucia, 2017; de Vita et al., 2021; Miklín and Lenart, 2016; Pasquaré Mariotto et al., 2022; Punturo et al., 2019).

Overall, the tools identified in this review provide a useful baseline for scientists, educators, and communicators developing volcanic hazard communication materials during quiescence. Many of the reviewed articles document the design process in enough detail that the tools could be recreated, adapted, or used as models for future efforts. The usefulness of these tools depends on audience needs, decision context, trust in the information source, and accessibility, and should be assessed through evaluation. Their adaptability is one of their strengths, provided they are intentionally tailored rather than applied unchanged across settings. Ideally, tool development should include participation from the intended audience to ensure that the format, language, content, and delivery method are appropriate for the specific volcanic context and communication goal.