Advanced searchCitation search
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Open access
Technical Papers
Sep 14, 2022

Assessing Human Resources Development in Volcano Observatories Using the Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Survey

Authors: Juan Pablo Sarmiento https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8192-902X [email protected], Catalina Sarmiento, David W. Ramsey https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1698-2523, and Darcy BevensAuthor Affiliations
Publication: Natural Hazards Review
Volume 23, Issue 4
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000592
PDF

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the role played by the International Training Course, given by the Center for the Study of Active Volcanoes (CSAV) at the University of Hawai’i at Hilo, in the development of human resources for volcano observatory staff around the world. The study design included a literature review, interviews with representatives from 10 national volcano observatories, and electronic surveys designed and conducted by Florida International University, targeting graduates of training courses sponsored by the Volcano Disaster Assistance Program (VDAP), a cooperative partnership between the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the US Geological Survey (USGS). The knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) method was used to develop a survey and a composite KAP index. Of the 92 individuals who answered the survey, 47 had completed the CSAV course. Two groups were formed from the survey respondents: (1) 47 people who were CSAV graduates; and (2) 45 people who did not take CSAV training. An independent samples t test and a one-way multivariate analysis were conducted to compare the KAP index and the three subindices. The heads of the volcano observatories identified the CSAV International Training as one of the most useful educational offerings relevant to volcano observatory operations available worldwide. The statistical analysis showed significant differences in the KAP index, knowledge subindex, and practice subindex between the two study groups. Results indicate that CSAV graduates are in a better position to attain self-sufficiency in studying and monitoring volcanoes, and by doing so, contribute more effectively to mitigation efforts for volcanic unrest and eruptions.

Practical Applications

The purpose of this study was to assess the role played by the International Training Course by the Center for the Study of Active Volcanoes (ITC-CSAV), held at the University of Hawai’i at Hilo, in the development of human resources for volcano observatory staff around the world. The study included: (1) interviews conducted with 10 heads of national volcano observatories from Latin American and South Asian countries, and (2) an electronic survey, based on the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) method, targeting graduates of different training courses sponsored worldwide by the US Volcano Disaster Assistance Program (VDAP). The heads of volcano observatories identified the ITC-CSAV as one of the most useful educational offerings relevant to volcano observatory operations available worldwide. The survey’s statistical analysis showed better KAP scores for the ITC-CSAV graduates than for the non-ITC-CSAV graduates. The study concludes that ITC-CSAV graduates are in a better position to attain self-sufficiency in studying and monitoring volcanoes, and by doing so, contribute more effectively to mitigation efforts for volcanic unrest and eruptions. The KAP method was useful to assess knowledge, attitude, and practice of a group of professionals trained in aspects of volcano study and monitoring, and who voluntarily underwent this evaluation.

Introduction

Volcano observatories are responsible for conducting research and monitoring volcanoes before, during, and after eruptions. This includes managing infrastructure, developing metrics, forecasting volcanic activity, guiding emergency responders, and conducting scientific investigations (e.g., history, eruptive style, hazards assessment). This work is often done in collaboration with universities, research and technology centers, emergency management organizations, local authorities, and communities (Lowenstern and Ewert 2020).
Volcano observatories around the world are organized in different ways. They differ in structure (e.g., independent, academic, or integrated with other services), as well as the number and background of staff (e.g., geologists, geophysicists, and engineers). Despite their importance, not all active volcanoes worldwide have an observatory to monitor them due to a lack of resources to assume this responsibility (Sarmiento et al. 2021a; Lowenstern and Ewert 2020).
During September 2020–May 2021, Florida International University’s Extreme Events Institute conducted a midterm performance evaluation of the Volcano Disaster Assistance Program (VDAP). VDAP is a joint effort of the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the US Agency for International Development’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (USAID-BHA) to mitigate the impacts of volcanic unrest and eruptions. The midterm evaluation focused on VDAP’s effectiveness, relevance, and sustainability.
From the different research questions that guided the VDAP evaluation, we selected the following question for the purpose of this study: How important is the International Training Course of the University of Hawai’i Center for the Study of Active Volcanoes (ITC-CSAV) in human resources development of volcano observatory staff around the world?
This article is organized in four sections. The first section introduces the VDAP, describes the CSAV International Training Program, and reviews the knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) approach. The second section presents the study´s methodology, beginning with the interviews, adaptation of the KAP method, design and implementation of the survey, development of a KAP index, and the statistical analysis carried out. The third section presents the results obtained, advances to a discussion, and exposes limitations of the study. Finally, the fourth section presents the study conclusions.

Capacity Building on Volcano Monitoring

We refer to capacity building here not only as the process of developing and strengthening skills and knowledge, but also as a way to enhance confidence, abilities, processes, and resources that individuals and volcano observatories need to perform their duties effectively and efficiently (Castillo 2019; Monson-Rosen 2021).

Volcano Disaster Assistance Program

VDAP is a collaboration between the USGS and USAID-BHA. It is designed to assist foreign governments in mitigating the effects of volcanic unrest and eruptions. VDAP’s primary goal is to reduce loss of life and economic damage in countries that experience volcanic eruptions.
VDAP was established in 1986 after the devastating volcano-induced mudflow that destroyed the city of Armero, Colombia, on November 13, 1985. Since 1986, VDAP has worked in multiple countries and regions to strengthen volcano monitoring capacities, and to integrate mitigation and response components through technology transfer, training, and rapid response to volcanic unrest and eruptions. VDAP has responded to over 70 major volcanic crises at more than 50 volcanoes, and strengthened response capacity in 12 countries (Lowenstern and Ramsey 2017). VDAP’s headquarters are located at the USGS Cascades Volcano Observatory in Vancouver, Washington.
To support worldwide volcano monitoring efforts, VDAP engineers assemble robust instruments that are simple to install, easy to maintain, and last for many years. VDAP’s assistance also helps countries build volcano-monitoring capabilities, form networks among observatory personnel worldwide, assess hazards, educate public officials, and prepare for future volcanic crises. VDAP sponsors different thematic workshops in the US and abroad on topics including seismology, volcanic gas emissions, lahar modeling, hazards mapping, volcano deformation, remote sensing, and geochemical monitoring of crater lakes. One of the most requested training programs by national volcano observatories across the world is the ITC offered by the University of Hawai’i CSAV.

CSAV International Training Program

Since 1990, the University of Hawai’i at Hilo (UH-Hilo) and the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) have been organizing the ITC-CSAV (known as the CSAV Course) annually with support from the USGS and USAID (University of Hawai’i 2021).
The CSAV program was founded by Robert W. Decker, who held an adjunct faculty appointment at the UH-Hilo Geology Department after his retirement from the position of Scientist-in-Charge of HVO from 1979 to 1984. The program is designed to contribute to the self-sufficiency of volcano observatories in volcano monitoring and assessing volcanic risks. The 8-week training course is taught by USGS staff and university partners. The training emphasizes fieldwork, including accepted protocols for the use and maintenance of volcano monitoring instruments, data gathering, and interpretation. At the same time, participants learn and experience the interrelationships among scientists and technicians, government officials, the media, and the grassroots community before and during volcanic crises.
The course emphasizes practical work that includes deformation, gas geochemistry, physical volcanology, and geophysics aspects of volcanic monitoring for crisis response. An array of technologies is presented to ensure that participants receive training on techniques that are accessible and economically and technologically supportable by their home observatories. The ultimate focus is on using the collected data for determining the eruptive history and state of unrest of their volcanoes and applying that information to forecasting and rapid response to save lives and property. The current program includes a 6-week section at the UH-Hilo, and a 2-week section in Vancouver, Washington, at the USGS Cascades Volcano Observatory. To facilitate attendance, VDAP provides travel grants to applicants for this course. As of January 29, 2021 cohorts, with 264 students from 30 countries (80 females and 184 males), have successfully completed the ITC-CSAV.

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Method

The KAP method has been used in the field of population and family planning research since the 1950s. KAP is a qualitative and quantitative method used to collect information on what is known, believed, and done in relation to a particular topic by a specific population (Ul Haq et al. 2012). KAP studies have proven to be more cost-effective than other social research methods, mainly because of their narrow scope (Ekman and Walker 2008). The KAP framework evolved with time, and was applied with a community perspective to the study of human behavior; KAP has been adopted by several international aid organizations (Sarmiento et al. 2021b).
The knowledge component in KAP refers to the acquisition, retention, and use of information or skills (Badran 1995); it represents a set of understandings (Gumucio 2011), what an individual “knows in relation to the practice of interest” (Ritchie et al. 2019, p. 153). In the disaster risk context, particularly in volcano risk studies, knowledge constitutes the relation between volcano monitoring, forecasting eruptions, and emergency management (Sarmiento et al. 2021a).
Attitude in KAP refers to “a way of being, a position…an intermediate variable between the situation and the response to this situation” (Gumucio 2011, p. 5). Attitude has three components: cognition, affect, and behavior. Attitude follows knowledge and is fundamental to understanding how the knowledge has a value attached that could be translated or applied. In volcano studies, attitude could comprise prioritization to eliminate or reduce the exposure to volcanic risk through a combination of alternative means to reduce risk and improve people’s well-being (Sarmiento et al. 2021a). The KAP approach allows us to identify if and how the acquired knowledge leads to a change in attitudes/values that could, in turn, lead to addressing disaster risk in a more effective way (Sarmiento et al. 2021b).
The practice component of KAP represents the specific, observable, and measurable actions of an individual in response to a stimulus (Sarmiento et al. 2021b). The practice component is where a close assessment of outputs and outcomes takes place. In volcano studies, for example, practice would involve the assessment of outcomes that follow successful evacuation alerts or local interventions determined by a land use management plan or community action (Sarmiento et al. 2021a).
The KAP approach assumes that the components of knowledge, action, and practice interact with each other. Therefore, the interaction among the components is essential to ensure a meaningful generation of knowledge and its appropriate implementation. The KAP framework has received both positive and negative reviews. Among the positives are easy design and interpretation of results, generalization of small samples to a larger population, intercultural comparability and, especially, speed of implementation. The main drawbacks of KAP surveys are the accuracy of information in the data for the three KAP components and the effective and successful application of KAP survey results to subsequent program planning (Launiala 2009).
The selection of the KAP method for the evaluation of volcano training courses is based on the idea that, to ensure mitigation of volcano risk, an adequate level of knowledge, commitment, and adequate behavior change is required. In addition, KAP assumes a need for concerted and effective implementation of risk mitigation by different groups of actors across disciplines. In interviews conducted with heads of volcano observatories worldwide, it has been found that, often, geologists, seismologists, geophysicists, geochemists, and engineers lack expertise in volcano monitoring techniques and interpretation of data beyond their own disciplines (Sarmiento et al. 2021a).

Methodology

This work began with an extensive literature review, followed by a mixed research method, including qualitative approaches such as interviews and document reviews, and quantitative approaches like surveys conducted in the selected countries to gather primary data. This section describes the interviews conducted by the Florida International University for VDAP’s midterm evaluation, and our adaptation of the KAP method for the present study, including the design and implementation of the survey, development of a KAP index, and the statistical analysis conducted.

Interviews

Interviews with 10 coordinators from national volcano monitoring systems were conducted in nine selected countries: Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, and Peru. Researchers from Florida International University designed and conducted the interviews. The semistructured interviews were jointly designed with VDAP to help understand how VDAP assistance has contributed to improving volcano monitoring, eruption forecasting, and emergency management capabilities. For the purpose of this study, we focused on the question about CSAV’s role in the human resources development of volcano observatory staff around the world. The online interviews were conducted in Spanish for Latin American countries and in English for Indonesia, using the Zoom platform. They lasted from 30–45 min.

KAP Survey Design

The KAP survey design for the present study was based on a theory that explains behavior—and behavior change—in professionals and students through the use of self-reported knowledge, attitude, and practices (Ritchie 2019). This self-reported or perceived knowledge is particularly useful when the actual knowledge test is not feasible or easy to perform, and has been widely used in educational program planning (Harris 1988).
The survey encompassed 15 questions assessing knowledge, attitude, and practice (see questionnaire, Table 6). We included several sociodemographic questions to allow for a complete analysis of the target population. Following the ethics protocol, under an Institutional Review Board (IRB) exempt approval #20-0546 of December 8, 2020, the survey was distributed using Qualtrics.
For selection and recruitment of subjects, the authors used the lists of attendees of all training events organized or sponsored by VDAP since 2013. No distinction was made by gender, age, country, or educational background. From a total of 209 records, it was possible to send a survey invitation to 176 people via email.

KAP Index

We developed a composite KAP index composed of three subindices: knowledge, attitude, and practice. Each subindex was built on five survey questions (Table 6). All the survey questions used a 4-point Likert scale for more discriminating and thoughtful responses and to eliminate possible misinterpretation of midpoint (Watrin et al. 2019; Lobsy and Wetmore 2012).
Each variable (question), subindex, and the composite KAP index, used the equal weight method (Gan et al. 2017), considering that all the indicators are equally important, and because there was no valid statistical or empirical evidence to support a different scheme. In addition, this method constitutes a simpler and more direct approach that can be easily replicated.
The 15 KAP questions addressed the linkages between volcano monitoring, eruption forecasting, and emergency management, extracted from VDAP’s existing Probabilistic Event Tree and Threat Assessment and Gap Analysis (TAGA) trainings. The surveyed respondents had attended at least one of the following trainings: Probabilistic Event Tree, TAGA instruction, ITC-CSAV course, and/or received on-the-job training and coaching provided by VDAP in those key topics. The survey sought self-reported or perceived knowledge through direct questions and used scenarios for assessing the attitude and practice components of KAP. The KAP index is
KAPI=K+A+P3
(1)
where KAPI = composite KAP index; K = knowledge sub-index; A = attitude subindex; and P = practice sub-index.
The questions used to explore each subindex can be found in Appendix. The following formulas represent each subindex:
K=∑i=112Q14i/12+∑i=15Q15i/5+Q16+Q17+Q1815
(2)
A=Q19+Q20+Q21+Q22+Q2320
(3)
P=∑i=15Q24i/15+(Q25+Q26+Q27+Q28)/162
(4)
where Q = question number in the survey. Each subindex is the sum of the scores obtained in each answer of the respective subindex series, divided by the maximum possible score, so that each subindex is expressed on a 0–1 scale
KAPI=(∑i=112Q14i/12+∑i=15Q15i/5+Q16+Q17+Q1815+Q19+Q20+Q21+Q22+Q2320+∑i=15Q24i/15+(Q25+Q26+Q27+Q28)/162)/3
(5)
The KAPI is the Σ of the score obtained in each of the three subindices, divided by 3, and is expressed as a percentage.

Statistical Analysis

Data analyses were conducted on Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 27 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Preliminary analyses and two main analyses were conducted. First, a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to compare the scores on knowledge, attitude, and practice indices for individuals who completed the CSAV training (CSAV graduates) versus individuals who had not taken the training. Preliminary data screening for univariate outliers (i.e., no values greater than 3.29 standard deviations above the mean (Tabachnick and Fidel 2001), normality (i.e., skewness and kurtosis less than |1|, and histograms), multicollinearity [i.e., correlations below 0.85 (Weston and Gore 2006)], and homogeneity of the covariance matrices [i.e., Box’s M test not significant (Warner 2013)] were performed.
Second, an independent samples t test was conducted to compare the scores on the KAP index for individuals who had completed the CSAV training versus individuals who had not taken the training. Preliminary data screening for univariate outliers [i.e., no values greater than 3.29 standard deviations above the mean (Tabachnick and Fidel 2001)], normality (i.e., skewness and kurtosis less than |1|, and histograms), and homogeneity of variance [i.e., Levene test (Warner 2013)] were performed. The KAP index was evaluated separately because it is a composite of the knowledge, attitude, and practice indices. As such, the KAP index is not independent of, and is correlated to, the subindices, which would violate the assumptions of a MANOVA.

Results

This section summarizes the outcomes of the interviews conducted in nine countries, the preliminary results of the survey, and the KAP index and subindices between groups.

Interviews

The heads of the 10 national volcano observatories interviewed identified the ITC-CSAV as one of the most useful programs in the field, particularly in terms of comprehensively addressing volcanic studies and in building relationships among volcanology experts and practitioners around the world. As stated by the Argentinian representative, “CSAV is the main training course for all volcano observatories, as it provides participants with a complete overview of all methodologies and techniques used in volcano observatories worldwide.” The heads of the volcano observatories who were interviewed all praised the CSAV training as an extremely important, current, pertinent, unique, and incomparable experience. Countries such as Argentina and Colombia mentioned that they experience difficulties in recruiting specialized personnel, and that their countries do not offer advanced education and specializations in volcanology. The CSAV course, which delivers a broader overview of the technical aspects of volcanology, provides a way for them to fill that knowledge gap. Ecuador’s representative valued the course as the longest and most comprehensive training available for volcanology professionals to improve knowledge of complex volcanoes. The CSAV course is also designed so that professionals can learn about new techniques that can be applied in their home countries. Guatemala’s representative noted that CSAV has offered concepts that previously were not believed feasible, but now seemed possible by applying techniques learned in the course. The Peru (Instituto Geofisico) representative, in turn, highlighted the value of CSAV training on the topic of risk communication with the press and public.
The CSAV course curriculum provides an updated overview of what is occurring in the field of volcanic monitoring and presents the opportunity to learn about techniques, models, and ideas that “take longer to arrive in the country,” as stated by Chile’s representative. Participants also value learning about the crisis management work of the HVO and how they can adapt this work to their national volcano observatories to improve techniques. The newly acquired information is then transferred back to the countries through valuable presentations, workshops, and hands-on equipment demonstrations, thus contributing to improved volcanic hazard forecasting and development of new methodologies.
Another valuable outcome of the CSAV course is how it allows participants to become more well-rounded scientists with an awareness of the benefits of an interdisciplinary approach to volcanic monitoring. A correspondent from Peru’s INGEMMET stated, “[CSAV] has allowed me to open up and understand globally what volcanology is all about. Before participating in this course, for example, I was only focused on geology and volcanoes. [Now I am] interested in other topics that before perhaps did not seem relevant to me, such as the gas chemistry and seismology.” Networking is a valuable outcome of this course because information about how different approaches work in the United States and other countries can be shared among the participants, “which helps improve the interrelation between the volcano observatories of different countries,” noted Argentina’s representative. Respondents from countries such as El Salvador and Costa Rica mentioned that a variety of specialists have attended the CSAV training, “not only volcanologists but also the technicians, and colleagues from electronics and others have taken this course.”

Survey Results

From a total of 209 VDAP trainee records between 2014 and 2020, 176 individuals were identified, as several people received more than one training. Of these 176, seven email addresses were no longer in use, which led to a final target population of 169 individuals who were invited to complete the online survey. A total of 92 valid surveys from 16 countries were received (Table 1), with a 54.4% response rate. This is a good response rate when compared with the 40% average response rate obtained in other continuing education and professional development programs (Lambert and Miller 2014).
Table 1. Surveyed by country
CountryTargetedN survey respondentsResponse rate (%)
Argentina8675
Cameroon11100
Chile15853
Colombia15640
Democratic Republic of Congo3133
Costa Rica9444
Ecuador13862
El Salvador15747
Guatemala14643
Indonesia17953
Mexico6583
Nicaragua14536
Papua New Guinea3133
Peru281761
Philippines77100
Singapore11100
Total1699254.4
Overall, 82.5% of those surveyed were between 20 and 50 years of age (Table 2), with a predominance of 62% men.
Table 2. Survey respondents: age group, participant sex, and undergraduate studies
RespondentsFrequency (%)
Age group
 51–65 years16 (17.6%)
 36–50 years33 (36.3%)
 20–35 years42 (46.2%)
Gender
 Male57 (62.0%)
 Female35 (38.0%)
Undergraduate studies
 Civil engineer7 (7.6%)
 Geologist19 (20.7%)
 Geophysics6 (6.5%)
 Geophysical engineer9 (9.8%)
 Chemistry9 (9.8%)
 Electronics engineer6 (6.5%)
 Geological engineer11 (12.0%)
 Physics6 (6.5%)
 Other (geodesy engineer, environmental science, IT, industrial engineer, engineer surveyor, petroleum engineer, surveyor, biologist, technician)19 (20.7%)
Table 2 presents the demographic characteristics of the surveyed individuals (N=92). Those below 50 years of age represent 82.5% and males represent 62% of the sample. The more frequent undergraduate fields of study were geology (20.7%), geological engineering (12%), and geophysical engineering (9.8%).
Table 3 presents a cross tabulation of country of residence, gender, and participation in the CSAV training. It is important to underscore the high participation of students from Peru (17), Indonesia (9), Chile (8), and Ecuador (8)—together representing 46% of the sample of the VDAP program’s beneficiaries. Fifty percent of women’s participation came from five South American countries (Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru).
Table 3. Cross tabulation: country of residence, CSAV training graduates, survey respondent gender
Participant genderCountry of residenceCSAV graduatesNon-CSAV graduatesSubtotal
MalePhilippines314
Peru8513
Papua New Guinea101
Nicaragua022
Mexico044
Indonesia246
Guatemala134
El Salvador224
Ecuador347
Costa Rica134
Congo—Kinshasa101
Colombia202
Chile123
Argentina112
Subtotal male263157
FemaleSingapore011
Philippines303
Peru314
Nicaragua213
México011
Indonesia213
Guatemala112
El Salvador123
Ecuador101
Colombia314
Chile325
Cameroon101
Argentina134
Subtotal female211435
Forty-seven of those surveyed (51%) had completed the CSAV training course, while 45 (49%) had not. The 47 respondents trained at CSAV represent about 17.8% of the total number of people trained (264 individuals) by CSAV since the creation of the ITC in 1990.
Table 4 presents the correlation between the subindices and composite index (N=92). The correlations between the subindices ranged from 0.107 to 0.226. As expected, the KAP index is significantly correlated with the three subindices because it is a composite of its subindices.
Table 4. Correlations between KAP subindices and the composite KAP index
KAP subindices and KAP indexKnowledge indexAttitude indexPractice indexKAP index
Knowledge index10.1380.107**0.796**
Attitude index0.13810.226*0.574**
Practice index0.1070.226*10.558**
KAP index0.796**0.574**0.558**1

Note: *p<0.05 (2-tailed); and **p<0.01 (2-tailed).

Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics for the KAP subindices and composite index (N=92).
Table 5. Descriptive knowledge, attitude, and practice subindices and KAP index for CSAV graduates versus non-CSAV graduates
KAP subindices and KAP indexMean (SD) CSAV graduatesMean (SD) non-CSAV graduatesMean (SD) total
Knowledge index (0-1)0.537 (0.141)0.467 (0.177)0.503 (0.163)
Attitude index (0-1)0.913 (0.090)0.917 (0.073)0.693 (0.090)
Practice index (0-1)0.545 (0.092)0.506 (0.088)0.526 (0.092)
KAP index (%)66.50 (6.402)63.00 (8.647)64.79 (7.744)

KAP Subindices and Composite KAP Index Difference between Groups

The overall F for the one-way MANOVA was statistically significant: F(3,88)=3.002, p=0.035, partial η2=0.093. This is considered a large effect size (Warner 2013). The tests of between-subject effects showed that those who completed the training had significantly higher scores in the knowledge index (M=0.537 versus M=0.468) and practice index (M=0.545 versus M=0.506).
The results show a positive impact of the CSAV training, a higher level of knowledge in areas such as volcano monitoring, eruption forecasting, and crisis management, and a retention of this knowledge that is maintained over time (1–5 years).
The independent samples t test showed that the mean KAP index differed significantly: t(90)=2.21, p=0.029, two-tailed. Those who had completed the training had higher KAP index scores on the order of 3.500 points.

Discussion

The positive impact of the CSAV training observed through the KAP subindices, particularly with a higher level of knowledge, is consistent with the DOLA (2020) recommendation about reaching an adequate level of knowledge and a balance between topics, which in this study included volcano hazards, exposure, vulnerability, volcano risks, risk communication, and volcano crisis management.
Considering the composite KAP index, we found an important difference between those who had and those who had not completed the CSAV training. The composite KAP index includes not only knowledge, but also attitude and practice. Attitudinal change and consistency between conceptualization, implementation, and practice are essential to ensure effective performance (King et al. 2016). It is in this balance of knowledge, attitude, and practice where the appropriateness of using the KAP method in this study is reaffirmed. The KAP method demonstrates the contribution of educational processes in knowledge acquisition, attitude change, and skills development necessary for observatory personnel to perform in complex and intertwined domains of volcano monitoring, eruption forecasting, and crisis management.
There are some limitations to this study. First, given the size of the sample, the analysis of the KAP subindices or the composite index controlling for other variables (e.g., age, undergraduate studies, or CSAV cohort (group of participants in a given year) as additional factors in MANOVA) were not conducted. Specifically, there were concerns around small cell sizes (<10) and violations of assumptions for the analyses. Second, knowledge is a highly complex and contextually situated construct. The approach used oversimplified this concept by restricting it to a few areas. Third, the current study relied on self-perceived and self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and practices; while this is valuable and important to consider, it is not sufficient as a complete evaluation. As such, other evaluation methods should be used to analyze the performance of the CSAV training graduates, to include interviews with employers, measuring productivity in terms of specific processes and deliverables, and assessing concrete performance during volcanic crises, including a final impact on the community.

Conclusions

This study allowed us to explore the role CSAV plays in the development of human resources of volcano observatory staff around the world using qualitative and quantitative approaches.
During interviews conducted for VDAP’s midterm evaluation by researchers from Florida International University, the heads of 10 national volcano observatories, in unison, identified the ITC-CSAV as one of the most useful training offerings available worldwide. The course is valued for its comprehensive approach to cutting-edge volcanic monitoring practices and facilitation of relationship-building among people dedicated to the field of volcanology around the world.
Consistent with the statements of the heads of 10 national volcano observatories, the knowledge and the practice subindices and the composite KAP index confirm a positive and lasting impact on CSAV graduates. This puts CSAV graduates in a better position to attain self-sufficiency in studying and monitoring volcanoes, and thereby more effectively contributing to mitigation efforts for volcanic unrest and eruptions.
In summary, we found the KAP survey to be a useful, nonintimidating method to assess the perceived level of knowledge, attitude, and practice of a group of professionals trained in aspects of volcano study and monitoring and who voluntarily underwent this evaluation.

Appendix. Survey KAP Questions

Table 6 contains the KAP survey questions.
Table 6. KAP survey questions
IDQuestionScale/interpretation
Knowledge category
Q14Point out the level of knowledge you have in the following areas:Advanced Level (3): the participant perceives a high level of knowledge in one or more essential areas of volcanic monitoring.
1. Seismology
2. Acoustic sensors
3. Geochemistry
4. Deformation
5. Geology
6. Monitoring of surface activity and morphological changes
7. Strainmeter
8. Magnetometers
9. Gravimetry/microgravimetry
10. Electrical potential
11. Borehole instrumentation
12. Telemetry data
 None (0): the participant perceives lack of knowledge in one or more essential areas of volcanic monitoring.
Q15Point out the level of knowledge and experience you have in handling the following software:Advanced Level (3): the participant perceives a high level of knowledge and experience in the software promoted by VDAP for volcanic monitoring.
1. dMODELS
2. gTOOLS
3. NOVAC software
4. Swarm
5. ValveNone (0): the participant perceives lack of knowledge and experience in the software promoted by VDAP for volcanic monitoring.
Q16You have the knowledge and experience to contribute decisively to a national-scale volcano threat assessment, including existing knowledge (eruptive histories, conceptual models, etc.) and monitoring capabilities.Advanced level (3): the participant perceives a high level of knowledge and experience to contribute to a national-scale volcano threat assessment.
None (0): the participant perceives lack of knowledge and experience to contribute to a national-scale volcano threat assessment.
Q17You have the knowledge and experience to contribute decisively to establish a relative threat ranking of volcanoes essential to guide development of long-term monitoring networks and geologic, hazard, and risk mapping projects in advance of an unrest crisis or eruption.Advanced level (3): the participant perceives a high level of knowledge and experience to contribute to a national-scale volcano threat assessment.
None (0): the participant perceives lack of knowledge and experience to contribute to a national-scale volcano threat assessment.
Q18You have the knowledge and experience to contribute decisively to establishing graphical representations of general, mutually exclusive, initial events (e.g., unrest, eruption, size of eruption) to increasingly specific, and non-mutually exclusive phenomena, as a single eruption can produce multiple hazardous products (e.g., lahars and ash fall). Events include conditional probabilities.Advanced level (3): the participant perceives a high level of knowledge and experience to contribute in an event tree workshop.
None (0): the participant perceives lack of knowledge and experience to contribute in an event tree workshop.
  Attitude category
Q19Express your level of agreement with the following sentence:Strongly agree (4): acknowledges the importance of volcano literacy, essential for effective risk communication.
To build up a common language and understanding and to establish trust and credibility, volcano observatories engage with stakeholders (from civil authorities to the general public) at all phases of the emergency cycle; ensure constant flow of information; continuously evaluate and improve effectiveness of communication strategies.Strongly disagree (1): underestimates the importance of volcano literacy, essential for effective risk communication.
Q20Express your level of agreement with the following sentence:Strongly agree (4): acknowledges the contribution of the volcano observatories to risk management and, through it, the safety and sustainability of the communities within the volcano’s area of influence.
The volcano observatories have a strong role in disaster risk reduction. They generate hazard forecast and scenarios that contribute to decisions regarding: evacuations, rerouting air traffic, relocation, and land use planning, among other topics.
 Strongly disagree (1): underestimates the contribution of the volcano observatories to risk management and, through it, the safety and sustainability of the communities within the volcano’s area of influence.
Q21Express your level of agreement with the following sentence:Strongly agree (4): acknowledges the contribution of the volcano observatories to risk management by communicating directly and regularly with mitigation authorities at all appropriate levels.
Volcano observatories should communicate directly and regularly with mitigation authorities such as emergency management and civil defense agencies, police, military, VAACs, aviation authorities, government authorities, at all appropriate levels (national to local).Strongly disagree (1): underestimates the contribution of the volcano observatories to risk management by communicating directly and regularly with mitigation authorities at all appropriate levels.
Q22Express your level of agreement with the following sentence:Strongly agree (4): acknowledges the importance of communicating directly with the communities exposed to volcanic hazards. Volcano literacy is essential for effective risk communication.
Volcano observatories should communicate directly with communities exposed to volcanic hazards.Strongly disagree (1): underestimates the importance of communicating directly with the communities exposed to volcanic hazards.
Q23Express your level of agreement with the following sentence:Strongly agree (4): acknowledges the importance of teamwork and the interdisciplinary work, where everyone is important.
Working on volcanic monitoring necessarily implies working as a team with professionals and technicians from different disciplines, where all contribute decisively to the achievement of the proposed objectives.Strongly disagree (1): underestimates the teamwork and the interdisciplinary work, where everyone is important.
  Practice category
Q24How often have you used the following software in the last 2 years?Frequently (3): the use of one or more software from the list in the last 2 years means a good use of the training and technical support provided by VDAP.
1. dMODELS
2. gTOOLS
3. NOVAC software
4. Swarm
5. ValveNever (0): the nonuse of software from the list in the last 2 years means a low use of the training and technical support provided by VDAP. There may also be other reasons such as availability of other software, resource limitations, etc.
Q25Express your level of agreement with the following sentence:Strongly agree (4): acknowledges the inputs required to advance in a successful event tree.
The event tree documentation includes: (1) a summary of monitoring data; (2) information from a database or with analog volcanoes; (3) a list of remaining questions; (4) an interpretation that integrates all observations (a conceptual model); and (5) a description of how the group arrived at stated probabilities (semiquantitative).Strongly disagree (1): does not know about the inputs required to advance in a successful event tree.
Q26Express your level of agreement with the following sentence:Strongly agree (4): acknowledges the different scopes of the event tree process and its practical implications.
Trees are valid for a stated time period. They are often constructed for specific time periods of operational significance: (i.e., ∼1  month for local government and evacuations; ∼6  months for estimating observatory staffing needs; >1  year for relocation/land use planning).Strongly disagree (1): does not know about the different scopes of the event tree process and its practical implications.
Q27Express your level of agreement with the following sentence:Strongly agree (4): acknowledges the requirements to prepare a volcano forecast over specified time frame.
When generating a volcano forecast over specified time frame, we should consider: (1) current status (based on monitoring data); (2) What to expect next (monitoring data + eruptive history + global data); (3) How big? (eruptive history + global + monitoring data); and (4) What kind of hazard? (eruptive history + global data).Strongly disagree (1): does not know the requirements to prepare a volcano forecast over specified time frame.
Q28Express your level of agreement with the following sentence:Strongly agree (4): acknowledges the need to assign uncertainties to a particular event or manifestation under very limited data.
When assigning uncertainties to a particular event or manifestation under very limited data, we assign probabilities in qualitative/semiquantitative fashion (i.e., “Roughly equal probability”: 50% probability; “More likely than not”: 70% probability; and “Almost certain”: 90% probability).Strongly disagree (1): does not know about how to assign uncertainties to a particular event or manifestation under very limited data.

Data Availability Statement

All data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

This material is based on work supported by the US Agency for International Development’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (USAID/BHA), under Cooperative Agreement #720FDA20CA00023 with Florida International University. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, express or implied, of USAID/BHA. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government. This product (article, paper, etc.) has been peer reviewed and approved for publication consistent with USGS Fundamental Science Practices (https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1367/).

References

Badran, I. G. 1995. “Knowledge, attitude and practice the three pillars of excellence and wisdom: A place in the medical profession.” East. Mediterr. Health J. 1 (1): 8–16. https://doi.org/10.26719/1995.1.1.8.
Google Scholar
Castillo, E. A. 2019. “Nonprofit capacity building: A multiple-capitals approach.” Accessed September 3, 2019. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/nonprofit-capacity-building-a-multiple-capitals-approach/.
Google Scholar
DOLA (Colorado Department of Local Affairs). 2020. “Planning for hazards—Land use solutions for Colorado.” Accessed February 21, 2022. Final_Planning.for_.Hazards_Jan2020.pdf.
Google Scholar
Ekman, K., and R. Walker. 2008. Knowledge, attitudes and practice (KAP) survey summary report for the Duluth lakeside stormwater reduction project (LSRP). Minneapolis, MN: Univ. of Minnesota.
Google Scholar
Gan, X., I. C. Fernandez, J. Guo, M. Wilson, Y. Zhao, B. Zhou, and J. Wu. 2017. “When to use what: Methods for weighting and aggregating sustainability indicators.” Ecol. Indic. 81 (May): 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.068.
Google Scholar
Gumucio, S. 2011. “The KAP survey model (Knowledge, Attitude & Practices).” Accessed April 23, 2021. https://www.medecinsdumonde.org/en/actualites/publications/2012/02/20/kap-survey-model-knowledge-attitude-and-practices.
Google Scholar
Harris, P. A. 1988. “Actual knowledge, perceived knowledge and interest in selected health areas of Southwestern Louisiana University Freshmen, 1985.” Accessed May 24, 2021. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/4504.
Google Scholar
King, D., Y. Gurtner, A. Firdaus, S. Harwood, and A. Cottrell. 2016. “Land use planning for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: Operationalizing policy and legislation at local levels.” Int. J. Disaster Resilience Built Environ. 7 (2): 158–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-03-2015-0009.
Google Scholar
Lambert, A. D., and A. L. Miller. 2014. “Lower response rates on alumni surveys might not mean lower response representativeness.” Educ. Res. Q. 37 (3): 40–53.
Google Scholar
Launiala, A. 2009. “How much can a KAP survey tell us about people’s knowledge, attitudes and practices? Some observations from medical anthropology research on malaria in pregnancy in Malawi.” Anthropol. Matters 11 (1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.22582/am.v11i1.31.
Google Scholar
Lobsy, J., and A. Wetmore. 2012. “Using Likert scales in evaluation survey work.” Accessed April 20, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/pubs/docs/cb_february_14_2012.pdf.
Google Scholar
Lowenstern, J., and D. Ramsey. 2017. The volcano disaster assistance program—Helping to save lives worldwide for more than 30 years. Washington, DC: US Geological Survey.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Lowenstern, J. B., and J. W. Ewert. 2020. “Volcano observatories reduce risk around the globe. Here’s how we can support them.” Temblor Earthquake News, April 13, 2020. https://doi.org/10.32858/temblor.085.
Google Scholar
Monson-Rosen, M. 2021. “Capacity building: What it is and why it matters.” Accessed September 2, 2021. https://www.missionbox.com/article/51/capacity-building-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters.
Google Scholar
Ritchie, K. C., E. Snelgrove-Clarke, and A. L. Murphy. 2019. “The 23-item evidence based practice-knowledge attitudes and practices (23-item EBP-KAP) survey: Initial validation among health professional students.” Health Professions Educ. 5 (2): 152–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2018.09.004.
Google Scholar
Sarmiento, J. P., D. Ramsey, C. Cardona, A. Amigo, A. Huisa, M. Chabba, and G. Hoberman. 2021a. Volcano disaster assistance program (VDAP) 2020 mid-term evaluation. Washington, DC: United States Agency for International Development.
Google Scholar
Sarmiento, J. P., C. Sarmiento, G. Hoberman, and M. Chabba. 2021b. “Graduate certificate in local development planning, land use management and disaster risk management: A knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) evaluation.” Disaster Prev. Manage. 30 (4–5): 510–524. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-02-2021-0034.
Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G., and L. S. Fidell. 2001. Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Google Scholar
Ul Haq, N., M. A. Hassali, A. A. Shafie, F. Saleem, M. Farooqui, and H. Aljadhey. 2012. “A cross sectional assessment of knowledge, attitude and practice towards Hepatitis B among healthy population of Quetta, Pakistan.” BMC Public Health 12 (1): 692. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-692.
Google Scholar
University of Hawai’i. 2021. “International training.” Accessed August 2, 2021. https://hilo.hawaii.edu/csav/international/.
Google Scholar
Warner, R. M. 2013. Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Google Scholar
Watrin, L., M. Geiger, M. Spengler, and O. Wilhelm. 2019. “Forced-choice versus likert responses on an occupational big five questionnaire.” J. Individ. Differ. 40 (3): 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000285.
Google Scholar
Weston, R., and P. A. Gore. 2006. “A brief guide to structural equation modeling.” Counseling Psychol. 34 (5): 719–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006286345.
Google Scholar

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Natural Hazards Review
Natural Hazards Review
Volume 23 • Issue 4 • November 2022

Copyright

This work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

History

Received: Sep 14, 2021
Accepted: Jun 30, 2022
Published online: Sep 14, 2022
Published in print: Nov 1, 2022
Discussion open until: Feb 14, 2023

ASCE Technical Topics:

  1. Business management
  2. Colleges and universities
  3. Disaster risk management
  4. Disasters and hazards
  5. Education
  6. Engineering education
  7. Engineering fundamentals
  8. Geological surveys
  9. Geology
  10. Geotechnical engineering
  11. Graduate study
  12. Natural disasters
  13. Personnel management
  14. Practice and Profession
  15. Surveys (non-geomatic)
  16. Training
  17. Volcanic eruption
  18. Volcanoes

Authors

Affiliations

Juan Pablo Sarmiento https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8192-902X [email protected]
Associate Director, Research Florida International Univ., Extreme Events Institute, 11200 SW 8th St., AHC5-250, Miami, FL 33199 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8192-902X. Email: [email protected]
View all articles by this author
Catalina Sarmiento
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Psychology, Western Univ., Westminster Hall, London, ON, Canada N6A 3K7.
View all articles by this author
David W. Ramsey https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1698-2523
Assistance Program, US Geological Survey, Volcano Disaster Assistance Program, Cascades Volcano Observatory, 1300 SE Cardinal Ct., Vancouver, WA 98683. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1698-2523
View all articles by this author
Darcy Bevens
Educational Specialist, Center for the Study of Active Volcanoes, Univ. of Hawai’i at Hilo, 200 W. Kāwili St., Hilo, HI 96720.
View all articles by this author

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

View Options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share