Benefit-Cost Analysis for Earthquake Early Warning in Washington State

Bouta, Andrew; Ahn, Alicia Y.E.; Bostrom, Ann; Vidale, John E.

doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000346

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the most consistently asked questions in surveys that seek to assess potential EEW user perceptions regarding alerts as well as evaluations following an actual alert is how useful EEW systems are to users (Bouta et al, 2020; Dunn et al, 2016). In questionnaires administered after alerts have been delivered, the question is typically framed as a Likert-type scale with four to five possible responses ranging from extremely useful to totally useless (Nakayachi et al, 2019; Santos-Reyes, 2019).…”

Section: Discussion: Topics For Question Inclusion and Rationalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a companion questionnaire for “Did You Feel It?”: Assessing response in earthquakes where an earthquake early warning may have been received

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Earthquake early warning (EEW) systems are relatively new technologies having first emerged as regional systems in the 1990s. Japan was the first nation to develop and implement a nationwide system in October 2007, and in the United States, ShakeAlert® became available on the entire length of the US West Coast in May 2021. Assessing how EEW is perceived and utilized by alert recipients is considered essential. Such assessments are necessary to evaluate whether alert recipients are taking advantage of alert messages to initiate protective actions upon receipt of an alert, how they regard the usefulness of alerts, desirable thresholds for issuing alerts, and other aspects of these systems. Having information from users will also facilitate assessments of the success of earthquake preparedness educational programs such as the ShakeOut and whether annual drills which include information on EEW systems are resulting in behavioral response consistent with the content of these programs. Finally, information on EEW utilization will provide data useful to social scientists who study hazards to advance our understanding of behavioral response to warnings. Survey research in the aftermath of a significant earthquake in which an EEW has been issued is one obvious method of achieving these objectives and there already exist a number of survey instruments for this purpose. A related strategy and the goal of the present research is to develop a brief questionnaire, consistent with those already developed, as a supplement to the United States Geological Survey’s “Did You Feel It?” questionnaire that has provided earthquake intensities and information on behavioral response in earthquakes, both domestic and international, since 2004. Having the intensity level at each respondent’s location is essential for relating their perspectives and actions to the shaking they experienced.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: Topics For Question Inclusion and Rationalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a companion questionnaire for “Did You Feel It?”: Assessing response in earthquakes where an earthquake early warning may have been received

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To estimate the proportion of the population that would be able to successfully take protective action after receiving a warning, we adopt the approach proposed by Bouta et al (2020), which relies on three key probability estimates: P s : the probability that an intended recipient receives and notices the warning message. P r : the probability that a recipient responds to the warning message, and P(CAjt w i ): the probability of casualty avoidance (CA) as a function of warning time t w i available for earthquake i at the area of interest Bouta et al (2020) refer to these three parameters as sender-driven forces, receiverdriven forces, and value-of-warning-time. The percentage of the exposed population that receives the warning, acts upon it, and succeeds in protecting itself, herein termed as casualty reduction ratio (CRR), can therefore be computed as:…”

Section: Earthquake Risk Modeling Under Operational Eewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bouta et al (2020) refer to these three parameters as sender-driven forces, receiver-driven forces, and value-of-warning-time. The percentage of the exposed population that receives the warning, acts upon it, and succeeds in protecting itself, herein termed as casualty reduction ratio ( CRR ), can therefore be computed as:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While both studies investigated particular applications, their analyses aimed at assessing and/or optimizing the long-term EEW impact. One attempt to assess more wide-ranging effects of EEWS is the work of Bouta et al (2020), who proposed a cost-benefit analysis for the implementation of an EEW system in Washington. Their approach involved several simplifications, for example, in the modeling of false/missed alerts, or by assessing a set of earthquake scenarios rather than incorporating a fully probabilistic modeling of earthquake occurrence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure6. Effect of P(CA|SDCHO) value in reducing injury (left) and fatality (right) estimates in Sion (top) and Zurich (bottom), and comparison with reduction estimates obtained using the approaches byBouta et al (2020) andFujinawa and Noda (2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A framework to quantify the effectiveness of earthquake early warning in mitigating seismic risk

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Earthquake early warning systems (EEWSs) aim to rapidly detect earthquakes and provide timely alerts, so that users can take protective actions prior to the onset of strong ground shaking. The promise and limitations of EEWSs have both been widely debated. On one hand, an operational EEWS could mitigate earthquake damage by triggering potentially cost- and life-saving actions. These range from automated system responses such as slowing down trains to the actions of individuals that receive the alerts and take protective measures. On the other hand, the effectiveness of an EEWS is conditional on the ability to issue warnings that are sufficiently accurate and timely to facilitate an appropriate action. The refinement of earthquake early warning (EEW) algorithms and the installation of denser and faster seismic networks have improved performance; however, the benefit in risk reduction that an EEWS could achieve remains unquantified. In this study, we leverage upon regional event-based probabilistic seismic risk assessment to devise a quantitative and fully customizable framework for evaluating the effectiveness of EEW in mitigating seismic risk. We demonstrate this framework using Switzerland as a testbed, for which we compute and contrast human loss exceedance curves with and without EEW.

show abstract