Á Á Á Á Geoethics: The Missing Piece in the Separation of Responsibility Between Volcanologists and Decision-Makers Silvia Peppoloni, Gordon Woo, Joan Martí, and Giuseppe Di Capua Abstract In a volcanic crisis, authorized decision-makers must balance the social and economic costs of mitigating actions, such as evacuation, against the potential human losses if such actions are insuf ficient. In making their decisions, advice is needed from volcanologists on the eruption probability. Therefore, there should be a clear separation in the roles of volcanologists and decision- makers; the volcanologists should advise on the volcano hazard and alternative potential scenarios but refrain from involvement in making decisions. Currently, volcanolo- gists are responsible for setting volcano alert levels. Given the small handful of distinct alert levels, there is inherent ambiguity and substantial uncertainty in the interpretation of individual levels. Furthermore, changing an alert level may automatically trigger actions by decision-makers. This would violate the principle of separation of responsibility and may result in unwelcome pressure being applied to volcanologists. Just as physi- cians can invoke medical ethics in resisting pressure to alter their advice, so volcanologists can invoke geoethics. Freedom to abide by their scientific beliefs is a basic tenet of geoethics. Keywords Volcano Crisis Evacuation Geoethics Responsibility S. Peppoloni Á G. Di Capua (&) Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Rome, Italy e-mail: giuseppe.dicapua@ingv.it International Association for Promoting Geoethics, Rome, Italy G. Woo Risk Management Solutions, London, UK J. Martí Geosciences Barcelona, CSIC, Barcelona, Spain 19 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Malheiro et al. (eds.), Advances in Natural Hazards and Volcanic Risks: Shaping a Sustainable Future, Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25042-2_4 1 Introduction The role of volcanologists during a volcanic crisis varies quite widely around the world. Quite apart from variable standards of staff training and monitoring capability at a volcano observatory, there are substantial national and cul- tural differences in how crisis decisions are made. Even in the most deprived areas of the world, physicians should abide by the principles of medical ethics, as origi- nally formulated by Hippocrates. Similarly, volcanologists with only primitive technical support and monitoring equipment should abide by the principles of geoethics in being free to express their true scientific opinions without being pressured to change them. Under circumstances where of ficials resort to pressure, geoethics provides a solid uni- versal defence. 2 Geoethical Aspects in Decision-Making on Natural Hazards The fear of dangerous natural phenomena has always accompanied the life of human beings and shaped the human-nature relationship over the centuries. However, the progress of modern science has changed the perspective of this relationship. Human rationality has developed methods for investigating natural phenomena, created mathematical tools for their modelling, identified laws that control their evolution, and produced technological devices to support human beings in defending against natural hazards. Never- theless, this does not mean that society has reached full awareness of what can and must be done to reduce the impact on humans of the negative effects of natural phe- nomena. In fact, in most cases, human communities remain particularly vulnerable to natural hazards. The growth in the world population, the expansion of urbanized areas and the consequent anthropic occupation of hazardous zones (such as those around active volcanoes), as