Earthquake early warning in Aotearoa New Zealand: a survey of public perspectives to guide warning system development

Abstract

Earthquake early warning (EEW) can be used to detect earthquakes and provide advanced notification of strong shaking, allowing pre-emptive actions to be taken that not only benefit infrastructure but reduce injuries and fatalities. Currently Aotearoa New Zealand does not have a nationwide EEW system, so a survey of the public was undertaken to understand whether EEW was considered useful and acceptable by the public, as well as perceptions of how and when such warnings should be communicated, before making an investment in such technology. We surveyed the public’s perspectives (N = 3084) on the usefulness of EEW, preferred system attributes, and what people anticipated doing on receipt of a warning. We found strong support for EEW, for the purposes of being able to undertake actions to protect oneself and others (e.g. family, friends, and pets), and to mentally prepare for shaking. In terms of system attributes, respondents expressed a desire for being warned at a threshold of shaking intensity MM5–6. They suggested a preference for receiving a warning via mobile phone, supported by other channels. In addition to being warned about impending shaking, respondents wanted to receive messages that alerted them to other attributes of the earthquake (including the possibility of additional hazards such as tsunami), and what actions to take. People’s anticipated actions on receipt of a warning varied depending on the time available from the warning to arrival of shaking. People were more likely to undertake quicker and easier actions for shorter timeframes of <10 s (e.g., stop, mentally prepare, take protective action), and more likely to move to a nearby safe area, help others, look for more information, or take safety actions as timeframes increased. Given the public endorsement for EEW, information from this survey can be used to guide future development in Aotearoa New Zealand and internationally with respect to system attributes, sources, channels and messages, in ways that promote effective action.

Earthquake Early Warning System in Israel—Towards an Operational Stage

“…The described approach is aimed to balance the need to alert as soon as possible for potentially damaging events and the need to avoid alerting for regions where no action is required (Cochran and Husker, 2019;Le Guenan et al, 2016;Minson et al, 2018). While public demand and expectations in some places are to receive alerts even when no physical damage is expected (MMI > III), such as following the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake in California (Cochran and Husker, 2019), in other places alerts are expected only for more damaging events, such as in New Zealand (Becker et al, 2020). Common public alert approaches are aimed at higher intensities such as the JMA L5 in Japan (Hoshiba et al, 2008) and the initial alert threshold of MMI IV in California (Given et al, 2018).…”

Brief communication: Effective earthquake early warning systems: appropriate messaging and public awareness roles

“…Useful strategies include (1) launching education programs on what actions should be taken before, during (at various timeframes), and after an earthquake (Santos-Reyes, 2019). Research indicates that alert messages with guidance on actions may be useful as a reminder to achieve optimal behavioral responses, but only when people are already familiar with these actions prior to receiving a warning (Becker et al, 2020b). ( 2) Carry out drills and exercises to improve personal practical skills and earthquake preparedness (Nakayachi et al, 2019), which is particularly important for regions new to EEWSs.…”

Between Necessity and Legal Responsibility: The Development of EEWS in Italy and its International Framework

“…About the first aspect, it must be mandatory organizing a widespread training and information campaign on seismic risk aimed at making citizens aware of what has to be done in the event of a quake (e.g., drop, cover and hold on) (Becker et al, 2020a;Arcieri, 2020;Catino, 2020). And fully aware citizens are allowed or even supposed to demand safe structures in which living and working.…”

“…Not only that, but the obstinate search for the culprit among those charged with Civil Protection duties deprives the population of the responsibility for observing self-protective behavior which, as the social sciences teach us, is a fundamental element in preventing the harmful consequences of risk (Becker et al, 2020a;Becker et al, 2020b).…”