[noise]
Welcome back everyone! [WooHooHoo] We have another exciting session to share with you now. Earthquake Early Warning around the world and back to northern California and to take us on this journey through time space and
warning we have the wonderful Sara McBride and Jessie Sanders take it away moderators.
Thank you so much, Sarah. Our first speaker today is Mitsuyuki Toshiba from the Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA) and he will be speaking on a review of nationwide Earthquake Early Warning in Japan,
15 years of operation by JMA.
Thank you very much for inviting me to this important meeting. So, in Japan, nationwide Earthquake Early Warning is being operated by Japan Meteorological Agency, JMA, since October, 2007.
So JMA is a national government organization in charge of national government organizations of the weather forecast, climate change, earthquake observation, tsunami
early warning, volcanic observation, and earthquake early warning. So, JMA
issues warnings nationwide and issues to general public using TV, video, radio, smartphone broadcasting.
I will show an example.
This is the April... I
this is, April 14, 2016, magnitude 6.2 event. This is the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake event. Origin time is at 9:26 p.m.
Because of 9 o'clock in NHK public broadcast TV channel broadcasted news program and here, I will show that the air-time ShakeMap using data estimation.
Okay, shall we go. [video in Japanese]
[video in Japanese]
Here I'd like to expand our JMA seismic intensity scale.
JMA assessment intensity ranging from 0 to 7. Unseismically tested 5
and 6 are divided by 2. That is [indiscernible].
So, total 10-degrees are used to represent strength of strong ground shaking. So this is the JMA scale, and MM scale, and MSK scale.
So there are two category of JMA EEW one is called "Forecast" the other is called "Warning." Forecast is the message for advance users.
Advanced user means railway company, lifelong companies, and the data company, something like that.
On the "Forecast." The forecast is in case seismic data is 3+ or larger predicted and the radio system, 4 or larger are specified in the forecast message. On the warning.
"Warning" is a service for general public. So, seismic tested low or larger is a predicted "Warning" message is issued.
So this warning message broadcast by TV, radio, smartphone, mail. So here I'd like to show the important sound. Okay.
[video audio] This means TV and radio receiving earthquake early warning message.
[video audio] One more important sound.
This means not all receiving earthquake early warning message. So to see it, a new number of forecasts and warning.
So regarding forecast, usually about to 10 or 20 warnings issued in a year and major [indiscernible] co-card such as Tohokaskik and the Kolmotoaski, the number of earthquakes increased.
So this is the history of the JMA EEW.
Seismic observation and the development of algorithm from 2010, ocean bottom seismometers and the
deep borehole reservation are incorporated and, algorithm IPF, so the [indiscernible] are introduced.
So next to right, I will show up the Tohoku earthquakes and the blueprint of IPF on the [indiscernible].
So this animation shows the performance of the JMA EEW, during monitoring M9 Tohoku earthquake.
So here I will show the last time from origin time, pass to Forecast, and pass to Warning.
So for this event, totally, 15 messages issued and here shows the largest estimate of moment. So, [indiscernible] forecast ratio, which means seismic data predicted, and the pink range a mere warning region, which means that seismic 5> or larger is predicted.
So I will show the waveform of without G4 stations. Okay, shall we go?
Earthquake go-card and the P-wave, Hesuvik, Vladimir Nuzza source.
On the past station, [indiscernible] disaster period and the past 4 gas tank warning issued.
[video audio] Telephone, TV, broadcasting earthquake early warning message.
Still weak shaking. Past strong shaking. Past the point. Appeared from now on so, JMA EEW worked well.
Message is about 50 seconds before strong shaking. So this is the procedure assurance, monitor estimation 7.7.
[indiscernible] non-assurance should estimated 7.9.
[indiscernible] magnitude, 8.0.
14 assurance magnitude 8.1.
For 15, this is a last message. So far, so good. But problem [indiscernible] from now on, forecasting around here, [indiscernible], back to ground 0, which means seismic tested.
Predicted but actually that the point appeared like this actually seismic 6 up 6 lower observe it.
So under prediction or counter region, this is due to the large extent of source rupture of the magnitude 9 event.
This is a past program, and the second [indiscernible] during aftershock period. This show the seismic activity of March 4th, so this is no more station.
And much nicer. Watch this.
[video played] Mainshock. Aftershock. Aftershock activity, quite, quite active. So sometimes, multiple aftershock occur simultaneously.
In this case, system is interpreted as the multiple simultaneous event to be a large single event, which due to over estimation, magnitude and [indiscernible]. Interestingly, the problem is our important project and IPA Method was incorporated into JMA EEW in 2016.
But before IPA Method, using the arrival time difference with P-wave, hypocenter, determined. Using Hypocenter and using amplitude
magnitude estimated, so two-step approach. IPF Methods
[indiscernible] also used or high standard examination, by doing so, we can avoid the mislocation of a hypocenter.
Here, I'm pretty sure it's very small. And the PLUM method is a simplified version of ground-motion-based method that is what incomplete in the JMA in 2018.
So it is very simple. So, actual detection of a storm shaking nearby station in this case, warning issued.
In this case, the station, storm shaking, and warning issued. So actually, 10 seconds duration, strong ground shaking, alive, but [indiscernible]
So no missed alarms and we don't need to wait 3 seconds or [indiscernible] which needs to happen to earthquake early warning.
I will show this right, and this is real-time data and processes for operations of JMA EEW.
In September, last year, four months ago arrived but [indiscernible].
So high note data is also integrated to IPF message and we course, GMPE-extended IPF method.
So IPF-extended IPF Method for source-based method and from method where we preview the best method of the ground-motion-based method, working partly at the present.
Okay, that's all. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Alan Husker from Caltech who will be talking about earthquake early warning in central Mexico, "The Seismic Alert System."
Hello, my name is Alan Husker. I'm going to talk today about the earthquake early warning system of Mexico, which is called the Sistema de Alerta Sismica Mexicano (SASMEX)
and a lot of the information comes from Armando Cuéllar Martinez thesis from 2018 when I was a professor at UNAM and I was on his thesis committee.
It should be noted that there's a lot more seismic activity in Mexico than in the U.S., in the contiguous U.S. at least
and so that allows for a lot of training sets, have bigger earthquakes a lot of them, and so Mexico on average has a magnitude 7 or above about every 1.6 years
and in the contiguous U.S. it's about every 15 years and so they just have a lot more earthquakes, 92, 5's and 6's are very common along the coast.
So the overall majority of the earthquakes are coming from the subduction zone. There's some
further inland including the September 19, 2017, which caused a lot of damage in Mexico City. Just to give you an idea over time, this is all earthquakes from 1900 to the present
and actually now past 2020 so there's been some more; magnitude 7's and above.
This comes from an article that I wrote for a journal that's similar to Scientific America in Mexico.
So part of the reason that this is so relevant is this is Mexico City. It was built on top of a lake bed and now there's about 20 million people living in the zone and so this is what the lake used to look like;
it's been drained for the most part. There's a little bit left down here in Xochimilco, but for the most part it's just the city on top of it.
And like I said, there's about 20 million people living in the zone. To give you an idea of the amplification site factors; down here, this station here comes from this gray zone which is kind of the rocky zone and then this comes from the middle of what used to be the lake bed, which is right here, which is close to downtown.
And you can see the difference in amplification; and there's a 5km difference. This is actually further away from the earthquake.
This is from the 1985 earthquake that was a magnitude 8.1
you can see the difference in amplification between the two, and also the extended CODA is quite a bit different, for this station that's in the middle of the basin compared to one that's in the hard rock site.
And, just a kind of further evidence of how important this is in 1936.
This is just one example that there was this well head that was put into place and this used to be the surface at that time and so the ground sank and this photo is actually a few years old.
This means there's about 8 years of subsidence that's occurred since 1936
to the present, and so it's just a large amount of sedimentation and huge side effects that are there.
And the side effects actually have changed for the years as well, which is interesting. But, to the side, just again, kind of reiterating the side effects and how big they are in Mexico City.
You can see the variations in PGA here across this image. They vary enormous amounts. This is PGA.
And over here we have spectral amplitudes and at 1 second you can see 1 second amplification here is getting it to be above 600 times what it would be and look at hard rock locations.
SASMEX has an interesting history, so it was installed in 1991 along the coast.
There was only 12 stations kind of in this area here, and at the time, well, it was based on technology that was available at the time.
So no cell phones, it was all point to point, radio hops, and so the black dots are the seismometers,
and the triangles are all those radio hops and so hopped up to Mexico City up here was the final hot point and then went to alert the city from there with radios.
These are the radio that's emit the alert and so they have these posted around the city, particularly in schools.
It wasn't very well funded when it was first installed. And also what was interesting it was basically a private company that runs it,
CIRES is the name of the company, which is called the Instrumentation and Seismic Record Center in English.
Which is a nonprofit NGO, but it was originally set up with the help of professors at UNAM and then a little bit kind of forgotten about for many years and had some funding problems
that was retaken up after about 10 years or so and then it got better funding; and then, built out
across southern Mexico. What that also did since it's a nonprofit NGO, they were kind of left to make the system on their own and
they kind of had little oversight, which means they can make decisions and build out things but then there has not been a lot of questioning of the system, but people seem happy with it overall.
One interesting thing is their pay structure they don't get money for directly from the federal government they get it from the different cities and so Oaxaca, actually the city stopped paying them for a while and they shut off the alarms in Mexico City for a little bit and there was actually an earthquake that occurred during the time so it was not alerted.
This was about 10 years ago.
There's kind of an interesting alert strategy and so they alert for anything that's above magnitude 5.
With 250 km of the city and then they have different thresholds if it's further away from the city.
Let me get into the algorithm real quick. Basically, there's two steps to the algorithm and this is there's different versions of the algorithm but this is for anything coming from the coast.
Start implemented other algorithms but they're based on the same idea for earthquakes coming more inland.
So the trigger basically comes from his VO or H parameter. They take basically the square of the verticals versus the square of the one vertical versus the square of the horizontals.
And then get this perimeter V over H and so that it's high enough than it triggers.
Then they take this summed square of the waveform, and that's "A," which is the sum square of the waveform, and then "M" is the final value at the end of the area underneath the line here and they take these two values
and they've come up with this "fit to magnitude" so "M" is the log of the value here and "A" is the log of the area under the curve here,
and you can go into more detail, and get this from Cuellar et al., 2017, but basically between each one of these lines is magnitude 4.6, 4.8, 5.0,
they fit to these two values and it's a simple least squares fit.
They've also done some more machine learning, but basically it's still a very similar fit, and so if it's to one or side of the other of this line of these two parameters, basically it's when the alarm will go off.
The way they evaluate the algorithm is a bit different than the way we evaluate the way the algorithm is evaluated by ShakeAlert.
And so, first of all, they have different algorithms I should mention, they have gone for faster ones.
So this one is how they look at two times the TS minus TP time. So if you look at this over here, this is 2 times the TS minus TP time.
Now they have other algorithms that are TS minus TP, which is a lot faster.
And then they have TP, which is the P wave, arrival time plus 3 seconds, and so it becomes very fast.
And so here's some different examples of when alerts could be issued using this faster algorithm. The evaluation here, so along the bottom in these two cases, this is the TP plus 3 and this is TS minus TP.
But this is the way they evaluate this and so they have their magnitude versus MW and you can see in this case of magnitude 8.1 here, this is considered a success for the ShakeAlert system.
It would not be considered a success, but they would consider it a success because it was alerted when it was above magnitude 5.
But it's very far from the actual magnitude 8.1 earthquake and again I just throw up this values here to see that.
Some final thoughts on SASMex. It's a very simple complete system with long-warning times, the location of earthquakes with special condition in Mexico City, being so far away, it emphasizes speed over accuracy.
There's no cell phones involved, it's only alerts over a loudspeaker system.
The alerts are not analyzed with the same categories of ShakeAlert or the rest of the Google community.
For example, there's no evaluation of overloading for timeliness and any time there's an alert issued it's considered a success.
Anyway, so that's something to think about. One other thing that's interesting is I would say that from my experience working there, one of the important things we consider, the aftershocks, what happens for learning aftershocks.
People respond to the aftershock alerts much more than they do any other alert because now they've had the main shock.
And that can lead to injury and possible death. And so it's something to consider what should happen in the aftershock sequence.
And I don't think there's been enough research on that other than my anecdotal evidence right now.
And I'll leave you with that. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Allen. Our next speaker is Francesco Finazzi from the University of Bergamo.
Francesco unfortunately could not join Zoom today due to time zone differences, but we're very thankful that he was able to provide
his talk recording. He will be speaking about "Crowd-source smartphone-based Earthquake Early Warning—
The Earthquake Network citizen-science initiative."
Hello everyone, my name is Francesco Finazzi. I'm a professor of statistics at the University of Bergamo in Italy and I am the founder of the Earthquake Network Citizen Science Initiative
That I'm about to discuss. First, I want to thank Sarah for giving me the opportunity to present my research in this workshop and as you can see from the title my research is about crowd-sources
smarthphone-based earthquake early warning systems. Earthquake Network (EQN) was the first citizen science initiative to use crowd-source smartphones for the real-time detection of earthquakes.
Probably I was not the first, with this idea, but EQN was the first operational system of this kind.
And in fact, since 2013 the system is sending real-time alerts to people who are part of the initiative.
Why smartphones? Smartphones have what it takes to detect earthquakes in real time and also to receive the alert.
In fact, they have an accelerometer, operational system, and the Internet connection. The single smartphone is possibly the worst instrument to detect and measure an earthquake, but many smartphones in a network make a reliable detection system
and this is why EQN works. Here we have an example of the alert. So when the server detects an earthquake and an alert is sent
to all the smartphones in the area. On this smartphones you will see a map with the preliminary
estimate of the epicenter, the location of the S wave, the countdown and the expected level of shaking at the location
of the smartphones. Here in this picture, you can see an example of an Q and smartphone network.
Each dot is a smartphone, which is monitoring for earthquakes and here we are in Santiago in Chile so where the initiative is popular, the number of smartphones in the network can be very large.
I like to assess the value of the network. So currently we have around 2 million active users. So if I had to implement myself.
The network, I would have to buy smartphones for €400 million euros. The Internet service would cost me €200 million euros per year and the energy to charge the smartphones would cost me €8 million euros per year.
In practice, the actual cost is less than €20,000 per year. And I believe this is the power of crowd-sourcing.
NQN is not the only active smartphone network.
We also have MyShake by the Berkeley Seismological Laboratory.
And then we have the Android earthquake alert system by Google.
The Google system is an opt-out system. So it means that Google doesn't require to install an app on the smartphones.
So they are able to exploit all the Android smartphones. The coverage potential is global but currently the service is not active everywhere and the alert is limited to the Android smartphones.
EQN also targets iOS and [indiscernible] smartphones.
To give an idea of the potential of the EQN system here we have the EQN detection of the Turkish-Syrian event
of the last February. So in this map, we can see the epicenter and then each dot here is a smartphone that detected
the event while squares are smartphones that didn't detect or didn't still detect the event at the time of the EQN detection.
Here the detection delay was 10 seconds, so after 10 seconds from origin time, EQN sent an alert to people living in the area and we did an EQN install.
Here you can also see the location of the P and S waves, and here in particular, the geometry of the network was not optimal because the epicenter was in-between two cities so the delay was 10 seconds but in general the delay is less than 5 seconds.
We also wanted to compute the warning time, not with respect to the arrival of a P or S wave, but we consider the threshold of peak-ground acceleration,
so in this case 12% g and then we computed at the location of our stations, the warning time with respect to the exceedance of that threshold.
So for instance in Antakya the 12% g threshold was exceeded after around 60 seconds from the EQN alert and this is the warning time.
Now also for cities closer to the epicenter like this city, which is only 21km from the epicenter
the exceedance was close to the [indisernible] detection, but still in this city the warning was a bit higher than 50 seconds before the very strong shaking.
Using this information, we computed the warning time distribution with respect to the EQN users.
So here we have the warning time distribution for users. That we're exposed to intensity 9, 10, and 11.
So here you can see that the warning time was up to 60 seconds. We did the same for intensity 8 and then we computed the warning time distribution for the entire population.
So assuming that the alert was issued to the entire population, not only to EQN users. And here we discover that if the alert was issued to the entire population, we could have alerted 1 million people with an alert with warning time higher than 40 seconds.
And nearly the same for intensity 8. EQN is also such a network and in particular, using the app, you can send the felt reports.
And you can discuss the felt event in chat rooms which are available on the app. Eventually users receive a survey to fill out in particular after a strong earthquake.
Using the survey, we can understand that what's the behavior of the app so we can understand for instance, what was the percentage of users who received an accurate early warning or a late warning or even a false warning for instance.
More importantly, we use the surveys to understand the reactions of the account users after an early warning.
And in particular, we discover that only 25% percent of the users who received an early warning reacted in the best way.
And this is a problem because, earthquake early warning can be useless without proper and regular training.
I must say that even myself, when I received the warning from my app, I don't react because I'm not trained to do it.
And this is, I believe, even more important for opt-out systems like the Google system, because if you don't know that your smartphone has a service like this, probably you will not react.
When you receive the first warning. So I believe that future research should also focus on the sociological and psychological aspects of early warning and not only to the technical problems.
So this was my last slide. Here you have a list of references and if you have questions or comments please send me an email.
Thanks for the attention and bye.
Thank you very much. And then once again, Francesco is not able to join us
in-person, so if you have any specific questions for him please use his email. Our next speaker is Elizabeth Cochran from the U.S. Geological Survey and she will be talking about ShakeAlert, an earthquake early warning system for the West Coast of the United States.
First, my thanks to the conveners for the invitation to give an overview of the Shake Alert earthquake early warning system that we have here in the west coast of the United States.
The goal of the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system is to mitigate the impact of earthquakes by providing advanced warning for moderate to strong ground shaking
and we use this by using a network based earthquake early warning system with a distribution of stations across an area that are used to quickly detect and characterize an ongoing earthquake.
ShakeAlert was built on top of the Advanced National Seismic System. There was already an existing seismic network and we've since built out that network to really support the early warning
system. ShakeAlert began in 2006 with algorithm development and by 2019 we had public rollout in California followed in 2021 by public rollouts in Oregon and Washington.
This slide gives a broad system architecture for ShakeAlert where we have data coming in from our seismic stations
that are sent through our servers, which are located in Seattle, Berkeley, Menlo Park, and Pasadena.
That's where we do the detection and characterization of the earthquake. These solutions are then combined and there's an alerting layer which determines whether or not an alert should be released based on various magnitude thresholds.
And alerts are picked up by our subscribers and distributed forward to users or to automated systems.
We're gonna walk through some of these steps by looking at the magnitude 7.1. Ridgecrest earthquake.
So on the left here I'm showing 2 plots on the top is the magnitude estimate for the Ridgecrest earthquake through time.
After earthquake origin and the bottom plot is the location error. The different symbols indicate the different algorithm solutions, Epic and Finder, and then the combined solution aggregator solution in the black squares.
So in this case, you can see that the earthquake is relatively rapidly detected as a magnitude 5.5 initially
that magnitude estimate goes up to 6.4 and then levels off this is in part due to some telemetry delays from some of the stations so that data were incomplete.
In addition to those magnitude and location estimates, Finder also provides a line source. So this is an estimated extent of the fault rupture, which is really important for getting accurate estimates of near-field ground motions close to where the rupture is happening.
So the Finder and Epic Solutions are then combined in the alert layer. This layer creates the alert messages which include both the earthquake location and magnitude but also polygons of expected shaking.
So if you're interested in shaking of MMI 5 you just look at whether or not you are inside of that MMI 5 predicted shaking polygon.
Once an event is detected and we create our polygons, we then have to decide. Who those alerts are sent to in general we use magnitude both a magnitude threshold and an intensity threshold to decide when and where to distribute alerts.
The magnitude threshold that's used for most cell phone apps is magnitude 4.5 and we use a slightly higher threshold for wireless emergency alerts of magnitude 5.
So let's look at some statistics, since public rollout, so from October of 2019 through September of 2023.
This is based on some work by Angie Lux and others that's currently in review. So during that time period there were 53 total magnitude 4.5 earthquakes in the NSS catalog.
Of these ShakeAlert detected about 77% of those correctly. An additional 10% were what I call a "missed alert."
This means that ShakeAlert did detect an event, but estimated the magnitude to be less than magnitude 4.5 and so these would not have been distributed using that alerting threshold of
magnitude 4.5 or greater. Additionally, there were about 13% missed events, these are events where ShakeAlert didn't have a detection within 100 km or 30 seconds origin time,
and these tend to be offshore events or edge of network events where station densities are lower,
and may not have the significant ground shaking within the area of interest. We can also look at the performance from the perspective of the ShakeAlert magnitude 4.5 and larger detections.
There were 95 of these total. Of these, 41 events were correctly estimated by Shake Alert to be magnitude 4.5 or larger,
as the catalog event was as well. About 50% of these are what I call a "necessary alerts."
So this is where ShakeAlert estimated the magnitude to be 4.5 or larger but they were associated with earthquakes smaller than that.
In the end, the ground motions are probably similar between what ShakeAlert predicted and what the true ground motion were,
so this probably isn't a huge deal in terms of alerting folks. And then there are about 7% "false alerts."
These are ShakeAlert magnitude 4.5 and larger detections with no matching in ANSS event within a 100 km or 30 seconds.
This can happen either from noise on stations or sometimes more often kind of a mischaracterized event where for example an offshore event is estimated to be farther offshore than it should be.
So this often happens in kind of areas where the station density is sparser. We're gonna quickly look at a couple of more earthquakes in more detail.
This is the 2021 magnitudes, 5.7 and 6.2 doublet.
So the magnitude 5.7 earthquake occurred just offshore of Petrolia followed 11 seconds later by a magnitude 6.2 event.
ShakeAlert successfully detected this event. On the left you can see as a base map the ShakeMap, which shows the observed distribution of shaking.
And then the octagon show the ShakeAlert alerting regions, which nicely cover the area affected.
Additionally, in pink is shown the plum earthquake early warning, a ground motion based method that was also being tested.
On the right is showing the observed ground motions in the triangles and the two curves, the lower curve the solid curve is based on the maximum alert magnitude from ShakeAlert which was M5.7, which closely matches the dash curve which is the ground motion expected based on the catalog magnitude.
The second event that we're going to look at caused ShakeAlert a bit more trouble.
So this was a magnitude 6 Antelope Valley earthquake in 2021.
This earthquake occurred right near the California-Nevada border in an area of sparse station spacing.
And was proceeded by a small foreshock because of these ShakeAlert estimated the M6 earthquake to instead be two magnitude 4.8 earthquakes, one centered near mammoth and one near Stockton.
The estimated shaking polygons not really covering the affected area. On the right again, I'm showing a plot from Lux et al., which shows the predicted shaking estimated from the ShakeAlert magnitude 4.8
in the solid curve and based on the catalog magnitude of 6 and the dashed curve you can see that with this underestimation at the magnitude ShakeAlert did not correctly estimate the ground motions for this event.
Looking forward, there's a lot of ongoing research being conducted to improve this system. So this includes looking at different data sources
such as DAS-based observations made on fiber optic cable, which could be useful for detecting offshore events.
Additionally, there are other methods being looked at for improving our earthquake detection and characterization.
So this includes GNSS based methods that can improve magnitude estimates for large events as well as ground motion based methods which don't estimate the source or location of an earthquake simply identifying where ground shaking might be strongest.
And also methods to improve the ground motion predictions in areas where there might be significant site response.
And there's also a really large amount of research going on related to social science, community engagement, and sort of ensuring that the earthquake early warning messages are used to their full extent.
Okay, I think we reached the. End of the presentation. Thank you so much, Elizabeth. Our next speaker is Frannie Edwards from the San Jose State University, Manetta Transportation Institute
and the talk is about earthquake early warning systems and emergency management.
Good afternoon. Thank you for letting us talk with you this afternoon about some topics related to earthquake early warning system challenges for emergency managers.
These challenges fall into several areas. The first and greatest concern is the issue of trust in government. Many times people do not believe messaging that comes from a government agency
and they will spend time that they need for responding to the message confirming it with friends, relatives, radio, television, Dennis Mileti called this "milling"
and it's important for us to establish our relationship with our communities, this allows them to respond quickly to emergency messaging such as an earthquake early warning system.
We also have communities in which many of our members are either non-English speaking or have English as a second language
and in either case receiving an emergency warning message may be confusing or difficult for them to understand. So we need to make a special effort to do outreach to those communities
and help them understand what the message means and how they should respond. Another group of great concern is the homeless.
Many of them live in creeks or river beds that are particularly vulnerable to natural hazards and yet they may not necessarily have a device on which they can receive an emergency warning message.
We also need cooperation from the private sector. As we know, 85% of critical infrastructure is owned by the private sector.
And we need their cooperation in using this earthquake early warning for the greatest benefit to save lives and protect the community.
For example, we could encourage them to attach the earthquake early warning system to hazardous material control rooms so that the operators would quickly get a siren or a notice that they need to stop hazardous activities.
Similarly in hospital surgical suites, an alarm or a light could warn the surgeon to take his hands out of the patient.
Nursing homes have a very vulnerable population. Most of whom have limited mobility and they may be sitting in wheelchairs
or at tables where things could fall on them. They're not capable of doing Drop and Cover, so we need to be concerned with preparing ahead of time
how they can protect themselves in the event of an earthquake early morning. Ambulances similarly need to have a notice that goes off in the vehicle so that the driver can pull to the side and the paramedics can adjust the treatments that they're giving so that they wouldn't be life-threatening in the event of shaking.
We also look for cooperation from our schools. For many years, schools have been doing Drop and Cover drills
and so students that are sitting at desks or at tables have a ready method for protecting themselves when the earthquake early warning siren or light goes on,
but they need to be taught that and practice it. It would be most helpful if the schools would also invest in retrofits so that tall thin furnishings and things like file cabinets can be secured ahead of time and the file cabinets can be kept in a locked position so that the drawers don't fly out during the shaking as happened throughout Los Angeles in the Northridge earthquake.
These are a matter of budgeting. Where can they find the funding to do these retrofits to make the students safer?
We also look for cooperation from public agencies. For example, fire departments can install an item that allows the fire doors to be automatically raised when the earthquake early warning system goes off.
The picture on my slide shows Palm Springs Airport where they have installed such a device on this big door in their fire station.
Sewer plants have controls that mix hazardous chemicals and they need the same kind of warning system so that the operator or an instant
intercept can cause the sewer plant operations to pause while the shaking is going on. Similarly, public transit systems can benefit from an alarm.
Sun transit in Palm Springs has installed alarms in their buses and their dispatch centers,
so that the bus drivers get a dual notice to pull over to the side as soon as it's safe and stop the bus so that the passengers and the driver will be safe during the shaking.
But again, the installation of these intercepts and interlocks are a matter of budget needs
and public agencies in California have very limited budgets due to proposition 13. So working with public officials to create policy that makes such funding a budgetary priority
is a really important part of our job. We also need funding for alarm installations at various locations throughout the community, including interfaces with these systems as we've described.
We need better information on cell phone apps provided to the whole public and in addition to information we need training on how people who own Android phones can access an already installed program.
For people with iPhones, they need instructions on how to go to the Apple Store and download the application that they would need to be able to get these notifications immediately.
Emergency management's focus is on the community. So we start with individual preparedness when possible and when families can afford it.
So on my slide at the top you see a go-kit put together by Lockheed Martin for their employees to have both at work, at their desks, in their cars on the way home and at home so that the employee, and if at home the family can have some basic supplies to begin to respond safely to an earthquake event
when they hear the earthquake early warning. We also need planned post event assistance for those who cannot afford to put together their own kits
and this includes planning with the American Red Cross for shelter opening in the community and where we would get the supplies.
How we would find the supplies to make those shelters livable. The most important part of emergency management planning is to remind people that they need to have their prescription drugs and a supply of water to take them with available in their emergency kit,
in their pocket or purse when they're at work and whenever they're out of their home.
The Red Cross can replace prescription drugs that have been lost, but it won't happen immediately because the pharmacies in the community will be victims as well, experiencing shaking that may result in spillage or confusing items that are on the shelf.
So the Red Cross will have to go to an unaffected community to get these prescription refills and that can take hours, even days.
Alternate power for medical home devices is another concern. Providers can provide the equipment, but the user has to be sure to keep the batteries charged or to have replacement batteries available.
How do we educate people on the importance of these actions?
The earthquake early warning system brings many benefits to the community, if they're properly educated and prepared.
We need as emergency managers to provide incentives for people to get their cell phone app installed. Training and information about downloading and accessing what's on the phone.
We need an incentive for people to prepare their homes, to secure furniture, to have family Drop and Cover drills so that everyone knows where is safe.
When you're at school and do a Drop and Cover drill you're usually sitting at a desk or at a table and by getting underneath that piece of furniture you can be safe.
But what about at home? Are there things overhead that could fall down and hit you? Is there large furniture that could fall over?
So these things need to be secured ahead of time. We need incentives for schools to prepare, securing furniture, and holding regular Drop and Cover drills.
The children's safety should be an adequate incentive, but with so many programmatic requirements coming from state and federal government, they may see Drop and Cover drills for earthquakes
as a less high priority because they see them as not so likely to happen, but the earthquake early warning system being present in the classroom might be that incentive, it might remind them that Drop and Cover drills are an important follow-on to hearing that alarm.
We need incentives for public agencies in the private sector to install automatic interfaces that allow them to have the alarm system immediately open the fire department
garage doors or to stop hazardous materials operations, or to alarm and warn the surgeon to quickly remove his hands from the patient.
While these things seem obvious, it's a financial obligation that may be difficult to be met in a rural hospital or for a small manufacturing operation.
Because as we always say in public administration, unfortunately, it all comes down to money, and this is where the earthquake early morning system can be an incentive for emergency managers to sell to their communities
knowing that when an earthquake comes, they will be warned and they can take action. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Our final speaker for this session before the discussion is Anne Bostrom from the University of Washington who will be talking about "The recent evolution of earthquake early warning expectations and needs on the U.S. West Coast."
I'm Anne Bostron. It's my pleasure today to share preliminary findings from the second earthquake early warning survey for the U.S. West Coast developed in collaboration with the indomitable Sara McBride, Julie Becker, Jim Goltz, Bob de Groot, Lori Peek, and Brian Terbush, Maximilian Dixon, and the rest of the wonderful social science working group and I analyzed with John Downes, a colleague of mine
at the University of Washington. In the first round of this survey, we fielded a compact seven-minute Survey of over a thousand adults in each state through North Samaras speak probability-based panel and loses non-probability panel calibrated using North-true-North to collect responses representing the adult populations of these states.
In the second round in April, May of 2023, we did something very similar delayed a bit due to funding administration contracting.
The survey took longer because we added a few questions and we increased the sample sizes. Today I will highlight just a few of our findings regarding pre-Pacific Northwest rollout experiences and perceptions of earthquake risks and earthquake early warning and how they have changed between 2021 and 2023.
The Survey objectives including assessing earthquake experience, perceived risk from earthquakes perceived usefulness of ShakeAlert for a number of actions, emergency preparedness and earthquake preparedness perceptions, preferences for alerting thresholds, content,
and alertly time and tolerance for false and missed alerts. We also asked about people's socio-economic characteristics.
I will only speak about a few of these today. I will also skip the methods details here just to note that the total sample was over 3,000 across the three states and we weighed all of the analyses that we are reporting here today.
The fast majority of respondents across both survey weighs reported having personally experienced an earthquake. As you may recall from the first earthquake survey, the earthquake early warning survey that we reported, these experiences are modally a mild earthquake shaking.
However, the share of respondents would personally experience an earthquake in Oregon and Washington shifted to a slightly lower percentage in 2023 and we're not exactly sure why this could be due to shifts in public population
demographics over that time period since it includes COVID, but it also could be a survey artifact since we did change the sampling slightly to achieve a larger sample.
However, the waiting approaches should have accomplished a matching of population representative numbers.
Since February, 2021 shown here in gold for old. Awareness has increased considerably.
Particularly in Oregon and Washington where rollout happened after the baseline survey. So awareness in Oregon and Washington went from 11% to over 30%
approaching awareness in California, which is at 39%. An estimated 39% in 2023.
Washington and Oregon are very similar in many of their profiles in the responses. So here we show California compared to Washington.
Here you can receive the responses again in gold from 2021 and in 2023 in blue for new.
A majority in all three states understand that ShakeAlert sends a warning that an earthquake is approaching that ShakeAlert sends a warning that an earthquake is approaching, which is correct.
However, there are slight declines for California across several of the questions we asked about ShakeAlert though they are small.
For example, the percentage reported in California that ShakeAlert is operated by the U.S. Geological Survey decreased from an estimated 32% to an estimated 28%.
This is not a large decrease and it rose in Washington and Oregon or remained constant between 26% and 33%.
These are still relatively small proportions and we see that almost an equal proportion believes the misconception that ShakeAlert predicts earthquakes with this remaining constant California at 31% and increasing from 37% to 40% in Washington.
When asked to what extent participants agree or disagree with the statements shown under their horizontal access here.
In all states, participants agreed that ShakeAlert is helpful. These include that it would enable them to get some useful information about the earthquake even if they didn't feel the shaking, that it would enable them to help other people nearby.
That it enable them to physically protect themselves from an earthquake and that it would enable them to mentally prepare themselves for shaking.
Note that responses hover around 4, which is equal to agree. And are relatively constant. However, we see slight but significant drops on every statement
in California from 3.9, 3.8 from 2.7 to 3.6 etc. On all four.
Over 60% in all three states reported in 2023 that they would tolerate false alerts.
This is similar to what we saw in 2021 as you can see but with an increase in Washington and Oregon and Oregon and the slight decline in California.
This is largely due as you can see here to the associated declines and the percentages reporting don't know's in Oregon and Washington.
There were also increases in all three states of the proportions reporting that they had seen or heard information about how to respond to an earthquake early warning.
Going from 37 or 40% up to over 40%. So 45% California, 42% in Oregon and 45% in Washington.
This is good news. On other items we see, again, drops in California. So from 70% to 63% reported that they had seen or heard information about how to respond to earthquake shaking in California compared to significant increases in Oregon and Washington.
Reporting that they had seen or heard this type of information. We also saw a drop in California on preparedness
such as practicing, responding to an earthquake drill or participating in training or exercises to better respond and increases
though insignificant increases in Oregon and Washington on these items.
Most respondents when asked about their preferences for alerting channels prefer cell phone or smartphone alerts.
We saw this in 2021 and it remains high in 2023 by state.
However, there are also again, oops, sorry, declines in California. Across all of these channels
from 92 to 87% for cell phone or smart alerts in California and similar drops in every single channel.
The two other channels not reported here including home, telephone, and family of friends and they were preferred by fewer than 20%.
Majorities were interested in all of these types of alert information when asked if you received an earthquake alert through your phone, what information would you want in that alert
and that included shaking intensity. Guidance on what action to take, information on additional hazards, a countdown timer and potential impacts from the shaking.
I'm showing here the percentages for 2023. And you can see that there are significant increases for Oregon and Washington in some places and significant decreases again for California on shaking intensity on information on guidance on what action to take, and on information in additional hazards and even account down timer.
We also see that interest in post-alert messaging remains fairly high. When asked if you received an earthquake alert through your phone, what information would you want to receive later immediately after the earthquake in 2023 we see similar profile of responses to what we saw in 2021 across all three state over 70% would like further information about the earthquake that has occurred, so it's location and magnitude and information on
additional hazards such as there could be a tsunami in coastal areas. Interest in these types of information is higher in Oregon and Washington than is in California and there seems to be lower interests in all types of information
in California than in the other two states, similar to what we saw on the other questions.
We again asked which level is the lowest level of shaking you think would be useful to be warned for, and in 2023 we say again something very similar to what we saw in 2021 that the normal response is that people would like to be alerted for mild shaking with over 40% preferring that 40% or higher in California, Oregon and Washington.
But we again see that about a quarter of respondents or higher would like lower levels of alerting and are interested in being alerted for weak shaking even, for example,
and there are a few respondents who would prefer higher levels thresholds for alert including MMI 5 and 6 and above.
So there are a strong interest in low alerting thresholds. I know the slight difference in California profile compared to the other two states.
So to summarize the takeaways. Awareness of ShakeAlert has risen from 2020 to one to 2023 ib all states.
Awareness of earthquake early warning has increased in Oregon and Washington dramatically. False alert tolerance remains high and has increased in Oregon in Washington.
Trends and alerting preferences remain relatively stable. An overwhelming majority of response prefer cell phone alerts compared to other channels.
There's interest in post-alert messaging and in lower alerting thresholds as there was in 2021.
However, there are in California slight drops in the perceived helpfulness of ShakeAlert and in desired alerting information that we wonder whether these might be signs of early alerting fatigue so to speak.
This remains to be investigated, thoroughly and further. Thank you for your attention. These are preliminary results and we gratefully acknowledge support for this.
Research to the National Science Foundation supported through USGS. Thank you.
Thank you very much to Anne and all of our speakers. So round of applause to everybody. So now we will be moving on to our discussion section.
We do have several questions that we have prepared ahead of time, but if you have your own questions, please feel free to put it in the chat or even better to raise your hand.
So Sara McBride will be leading our discussion. Go ahead, Sara.
Thank you, Jessie. I just want to thank all of our wonderful speakers today for doing such fantastic presentations around earthquake early warning systems.
And this one goes to really looking at what the goals are of each individual systems that were presented.
So if you're representing a system like Elizabeth or Mitsuyuki or Allen. Could you talk about what the goals are of your system?
Sure, I can start. So thanks for that question, Sara. In general, when I think about earthquake early warning, I think that the goals for an early warning system are to provide advanced warning for moderate to strong ground shaking.
So how that's actually spelled out for ShakeAlert is a little different so the priorities that were recently defined for ShakeAlert are to provide accurate ground motion estimates within plus or minus one MMI units for
moderate to large earthquakes with some emphasis on the larger earthquakes. And then additionally, kind of separate goal is to provide at least 10 seconds of warning
for areas of stronger shaking.
Thanks, Elizabeth. Allen?
Sure, so for Mexico the goal, the original goal is specifically they thought there was going to be an earthquake in the Guerrero Gap and they really wanted to alert for that specific earthquake.
It was the original goal and because it's on the coast and Mexico City is inland, it gives about a minute of warning time.
Since then there hasn't been any earthquake, there's been plenty of earthquakes other places and they've expanded the system to other areas as well with kind of the overall goal being the same.
They only kind of care about the big ones, however they understand that in order to get the big one you have to alert before it's grown to be fully like a magnitude 8 and the wave is already propagating towards the city so it needs to be alerted before then.
Before you know the rupture time gets to be close to a minute at that point anyways and so yes, they alert on a lower magnitude threshold, which is magnitude 5
with that in mind. They're also starting to alert now for earthquakes that are closer.
This is largely because of the earthquakes that are closer. This is largely because of the 2017 earthquake that was closer,
that was a deeper earthquake within the subduction zone so now they have faster alerts for those.
One of the things I didn't mention, which is kind of a side note, that the population is well aware that they have a minute.
And so there's a study done, recently; well, actually it's been a couple years now, but where they found that people were actually taking that into account because they knew that oh have a minute and so they took time to put their shoes on or grab their pets or things like this before taking actions.
Thanks, Allen. Mitsuyuki would you like to talk to us about the goals of your system?
Yeah, of course our final goal is giving people the time to secure their safety.
So from our ground motion view point to provide the people the warning as to strong ground shaking.
And, it's [indiscernible] plus minus one degree on JMA scale. So of course it's depending on the distance of the epicenter, but our final goal is to provide people before strong shaking with accuracy less than one plus minus one on JMS scale.
Thank you.
That's really clear and really helpful. Frannie, I know that you're part of the ShakeAlert System, but from a technical user perspective, what would you say is the goal for your system?
Well, as an emergency manager, of course, my goal is pretty much as our friend from Japan said that we want people to be notified in a timely manner so they can prevent injury to themselves and the members of their household.
But that's only going to happen when we have adequate training and I thought it was very interesting that the representative from Italy specifically said he got the warning on his phone and he didn't know what to do.
So I think it's an important nexus that we have to create between the very efficient scientific capability of notifying and people's response to the buzzing when they hear it.
Yes, absolutely. And Anna, you know, I know you're working on the social science, with me.
But do you think the goals of ShakeAlert are well reflected in the understanding of people in the surveys, the two surveys that you've now led.
Well, that's a good question. I would ask you the same thing. I think so.
People understand
we are there to help them? However, as in some data that I didn't report, they want longer warning times,
they think they need longer warning times that are available to any of them, and they think that they need those longer warning times in order to be able to do anything.
So there's some some misunderstanding of that and we also see that there's quite a large percentage who think that the system predicts earthquakes.
So there are some mismatches between what the system does and what they think it does, and that could potentially lead to some problems as we've seen in the past.
So, yeah, so on the other hand, there is this tension as Frannie just highlighted and also Allen did that people also have a desire for a lot of information and they may not be able to respond to earthquakes if they aren't practiced at it, if they don't have drilling.
So there's a tension between this, the need to understand and have a regular reminder of what an earthquake is and only be alerted for something that's really so large that you're large likely to get harmed.
So I don't know how to resolve that, but one potential path towards this is to do what they've done in Japan and have two different levels of alerting
for example. Another might be to make an educational app available that alerted it lower thresholds, for example, that would have a slightly different function.
Yes, and it speaks to some of our research around how important, you know, ShakeOut and Drop, Cover, and Hold On drills are so critical and important.
So the next question I have is a little bit of attention, right. You have mentioned, so thank you for setting up this question about which is more important in terms of meeting our goals
the accuracy or timeliness?
And I'll throw that to Elizabeth. You're welcome.
I am.
You throw me the hard questions. So, I would say you have to consider both, right?
So what we want to do is make sure that we're providing people with warning when they need it, right?
So our focus needs to be on considering, you know, the stronger ground shaking and then evaluating when we need to provide people with alerts to make sure we don't miss any alerts for those times of strong ground shaking.
And then also considering as part of that, you know, say you want to be warned or you need to be warned for MMI 6,
you're gonna get a longer warning if you decide to take action when we think the ground motion is lower than that.
So there's this, as you said, tension between kind of the accuracy, which times generally the accuracy of our system
is higher during an earthquake, right? We have more information coming in. We can better characterize that event
with this need to give people advanced warning. So it is that tension and it's not an easy question or idea to explain to the general public.
Thanks, Elizabeth.
Yeah, go ahead, Allen.
Can I add something from the Mexican perspective? The timeliness is definitely more important, but also the question of what is accuracy is different for a seismologist than it is for the public.
In general, the public there seems to think it's accurate as long as there was an earthquake or an alert that was issued and an earthquake occurred.
If an earthquake occurs but there is no alert they consider that inaccurate. That was kind of like the general public's perception of it.
And so I think the Mexican system tried to follow that as much as possible. I don't know that's the same as what ShakeAlert is doing, but I'm representing Mexico today.
I think that's really, really useful. I want to get Frannie's take on this in terms of from an emergency management perspective, what your preferences might be.
Well, I think we're much more concerned with timeliness. When ShakeAlert was being designed, this was a constant
debate between the scientists and the social scientists. It doesn't really matter to us exactly where the rupture occurred or exactly what the moment
magnitude is. What matters to us is that an earthquake happened. In a populated area and the result is that people might have been injured or that they could have taken protective measures.
So timeliness is really critical and I understand the scientific side of needing to know what really happened, but
for me as an emergency manager, that's something you guys can deal with later on. What I need to know at the moment of the shaking is that enough people were notified early enough in that they were able to get away from truly hazardous situations and at least Drop and Cover and underneath something protective.
Yes. Mitsuyuki can you give us some of your thoughts?
Okay, so denoting time, it's a very good point to bring up, in case of a strong shaking and moderate shaking, or while shaking.
So, for example, weak shaking. So, deducing a time from 20 seconds to 50 seconds is not so important.
But regarding strong shaking, for example, reducing Hmm. Yeah. In case of even 5 seconds,
even 3 seconds before strong shaking that's very important, so I think it depends on people in case they are in strong shaking area or weak shaking area.
So, anyway the purpose of earthquake early warning a lot of warning should be before strong shaking,
so that is one of the important point. So in case of a very distant earthquake, so yeah, 5 seconds area it's not so important but in the case in a strong shaking very near high central region that is an important thing and so in case of very precise prediction so seismic interesting, plus minus one it's probably, I think
that total of many people.
Thank you. Anne, I wanted to ask you, and this was sort of going through my mind when you were presenting earlier around timeliness and how much time people thought that they needed.
And do you think that's maybe an indicator of preferences within various public's that we're trying to serve with ShakeAlert.
People obviously
want more warning than they have. People do have a sense that they can't do much
with 10 seconds, though those people will experience them could probably do quite a bit with 10 seconds, and people also overestimate how much they can do with each of the time intervals that we offered, as you may recall.
And so, yeah, it probably does reflect preferences, but it also reflects a lack of experience with earthquakes where they really need to do something.
As we saw the same thing that has been seen in other surveys that people tend to freeze rather than Drop, Cover, and Hold On and they're doing this sort of sense making thing that Frannie referred to and that is not necessarily a protective action depending on where they are at the time of shaking.
So, it's a tricky notion and I think the important thing here is what everybody's been repeating that they have some warning before the strong shaking.
And ideally they would know what to do with that warning. The categorization of what happened, which several of you referred to and you asked questions about,
I would want to refer people to the paper that you are a lead author on post alert, messaging where we talked about the different ways you can think about what's happened with an alert and I think
reflect on the differentials between how seismologists for example think about those categories and how people in the public who are trying to use that information think about those categories.
There is quite a big discrepancy between them and thinking about that in terms of how we give people information after an alert to help to update their understanding of the system is really important.
Thanks, Anne. That actually leads really perfectly to my next question, Jesse is laughing because she knows what I'm gonna ask next, which is thinking about the development of your system,
so ShakeAlert or the Japanese system or the Mexico system. Thinking about these different systems, who was involved in developing those systems and was it, do you think looking back were the right people involved in developing it, and was anyone missing in the development of these systems and then thinking over time
you know, have the people changed who started developing the system to know who are actively running the system. So all of those questions.
I'm gonna head over to Allen first, you know, starting with around the early development and reflecting on that.
The early development of the Mexican system.
Yes.
So I wasn't really around at the time. It started in 1991 or 1992.
So it's a really old system. So it was all. Very much based on the technology in that time and it's stayed with that technology which is something to think about maybe that's going to happen with the ShakeAlert system as well.
And you get locked in perhaps to the time when your technology came on board. Oh, it might just be a reflection of the economy.
But yeah, they do point to radios and it's all, you know, alert systems, no cell phones because it's kind of baked into the system.
Does that answer your question.
Yeah, you know, kind of, I mean, it is hard because yeah, you weren't around when it first got developed and you know
little bit complicated I think for you to answer. Elizabeth you've been in the ShakeAlert realm for a really long time now
and what do you think about who was involved in the development of ShakeAlert and was the right people and, how is it going now?
Yeah, so I think, so initially when the system, when I was around, when the system was started in 2006.
It was really an effort led by universities to develop algorithms for looking at kind of the technology of how we can quickly detect and characterize earthquakes.
And then over time that sort of built into a pilot system. I would say early in the development probably what was missing was, the social science.
So Sara is aware that, the social science research really didn't get started until probably within the last 5 years.
And so I think that was a big piece is really understanding what users wanted on the system as well as matching what the technological capabilities of the system were.
So I think that was probably the biggest, yeah, early on and then generally, you know, I think from sort of the developer perspective, the system really started out with this idea that we were gonna provide a message
and then other people were gonna take that message and use it, and so we weren't necessarily the people issuing alerts
we were leaving that decision to others and I think there's enough complexity with sort of a well weaken, detecting and rapidly characterize earthquakes to provide these alerts that we maybe
needed to have more thought early on the kind of what our abilities to provide rapid alerts and what the uncertainties were.
Thanks, Elizabeth. Mitsuyuki, can you talk to us a little bit about the development of your system and whether you think the right group of people were involved in that initial development.
JMA started in 2007, so at the time, yeah, they wanted a group, so group didn't want to miss it.
So at too fast to 2007 so maybe [indiscernible] but it's, 15 years, JMA, group tried to integrate the message.
So, last year, 2023, yeah, the source hypocenter manage determination integrated into extended IP message.
And also, probably after the lesson from the Tohoku earthquake we developed strong ground motion message.
So at the present is two algorithms. One is source-based algorithms and ground motion based message working priority.
So of course, I'm a person of the JMA and also cooperation with the university group.
Yes some effort to develop the method is continuing
Right. Thanks. Frannie, I wanna throw this over to you as well. What you think about the development of your side of the system and how it's gone for you.
That's a good question. I think emergency managers in most communities have so many jobs that they have to do,
but I'm not sure they've kept up very well with the earthquake early warning system
or how it's developed. In 2015, my colleague Dan Goodrich and I did some research for the Mineta Transportation Institute on how the Japanese rail lines were using earthquake early warning on high speed rail because we were doing research on behalf of California high speed rail
to look at how they could integrate their system to make the trains operate safely and so that was the human group that we were looking at,
Were the train riders, and in doing that research, I just covered that we're not very many emergency managers that were keeping up
with the development of California's system. They knew Berkeley was doing something. That was pretty much the response I got when I asked my colleagues or USGS is doing something.
So I think it just speaks to the fact that we come at this from two very different perspectives.
All the emergency managers want to do is protect people and property. Scientists are looking at better understanding the phenomena.
And it's not that the two things are in conflict, but the emergency managers who are the ultimate consumers of this information to present to their communities
are just not keeping up to be honest, they're not as involved as they might be.
And I think the people in the Bay Area, because they're close to USGS and because of Anne Wein's tremendous work with the Hayward fault research and the amount of outreach that she and her team have done has made a big difference there.
But if you go statewide and you talk to people that are in Santa Barbara or San Diego and you talk about earthquake early warning they kind of roll their eyes and talk about something else.
Yeah, that's a really valuable insight, Frannie. You know, and in terms of understanding how emergency managers are talking about this.
Within their communities and how they're making use of it. So really appreciate your perspective. And is there anything?
What?
You need to go to other parts of the state.
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, I wish we had more Anne's period that would make me happy. Speaking of my favorite Anne Bostrom, just quickly curious if there's anything like from your perspective as having been a researcher because you did some really great earthquake early warning research in Washington state,
what in 2014 that paper came out, you know, like you've been doing this for a while before ShakeAlert was publicly available warning system.
What are your thoughts on this?
Yeah, that was a result of being involved in a BM9 project. Of course, that was, and John Vidali was a force
for that project and also in public outreach and education and was very interested in the whole warning aspect of it
so that promoted that research. In that process, as you know, state emergency managers in Washington state, but I think also in Oregon to some extent, but especially in Washington have been very good partners on this work and have also promoted it.
I don't know the extent to which they have communicated with local emergency managers about earthquake early warning, it'd be interesting to
follow up and talk with them about it.
The same kind of experience that Fran is talking about that we have tsunami with earthquake early warning.
No, sorry.
Oh, my Internet sounds terrible. Yeah, I just wanna say one thing.
Go ahead and.
Oh, I was just going to say there were the TRInet studies in the 1990 and then there was a kind of a gap.
And so it's interesting to me that the TRInet studies weren't sort of taken up as the technology was pushed forward, but kind of got dropped
and it would be interesting to hear Jim Goltz take on that and if anybody else was involved in that could comment on it.
Yeah, it is really interesting that we have had earthquake early warning social science research since 1999 that was published i think in 1999 and then 2003 was another paper that Jim published.
And so it's gone and sort of fits and starts in terms of the development of social science around earthquake early warning in the United States, but I don't want to distract us too much around that.
I want to talk about some external, and that we've done some internal reflecting on our system and the goals.
And you know how we perceive success amongst ourselves but what do you think are the key challenges with communicating our alert strategies.
And goals like either and we've kind of touched on this a little bit but either in general or more specific to your system.
And particularly around communicating alert performance. I'm gonna hand this to, let's see here
Ann do you wanna start out with this? I always keep leaving you to the end. So.
I got distracted I was answering something in the chat. Sorry. Overall performance.
That's alright. What do you think are the key challenges of communicating
alert performance and strategies?
I think the key challenges are actually sort of terminology and that categorization that I talked about. So how do you think about what's good and what's not so good?
And that goes back to that discrepancy in terms of what people see as useful or important between scientists and people in different positions like emergency managers or the people who are trying to figure out they should do something.
Thanks, Anne. Elizabeth, what do you think? What do you think are some of the key communication challenges?
I think we touch on a few of them already, but it's this idea what are people's expectations, how do we accurately or appropriately set those expectations for when and how people should receive alerts and then of course a big I know you're also a big proponent of this, but it's post-alert messaging I think goes a long way in terms
of making sure people understand perhaps why they did or didn't receive an alert. And use some of the language and, for example, your post alert paper
To describe how the system performed. You know, there's obviously a different set of, analyses that we do as scientists but I think that's key and it's really key
to have people understand when they might or might not receive an alert. So I think we haven't quite
managed that communication fully with the ShakeAlert system yet. I think there's still a lot of confusion.
Thanks, Elizabeth. Mitsuyuki, what do you think are some of the key challenges in Japan for communicating
around earthquake early warning and the goals?
So, fortunately we have an
we have a lot of earthquakes. So, we started 2007 people didn't know the meaning of earthquake early warning.
So, JMA conducted a big campaign, but even so, people didn't know the meaning.
But it's a frustration, they're automatically changed after Tohoku earthquake in eastern Japan and the Kumamoto earthquake in 2016.
So at present we don't have to explain what earthquake early warning, people already know the meaning of earthquake early warning.
So actually experience is a best teacher and the viewpoint of the technology.
So to send a message is the same as 2007
Needs a sound and text message. That's all. But to current, we have more, we are now investing it a more, direct.
message, a more informative message using the current technology. So now JMA is investigating now how to communicate to people more different ways using modern technology.
In addition to sound, that takes the message.
Thank you. Alan, what do, what do you think about this question around some of the challenges around communicating around about earthquake early warning.
So I agree with Mitsuyki that, it's all about experience and so if you feel that experience they're going to know what to do.
And so in Mexico, this is not a problem just like in Japan, there's plenty of earthquakes.
This can become more of a problem on the West Coast of the U.S. where there's just not as many earthquakes.
I will say the other thing though is the way the errors are reported, I kind of mentioned this in my talk
by Mexico it's viewed very differently than it is from ShakeAlert. I feel sometimes the public responds to things we say and so there's like an earthquake that say might give you 5.1 but we reported a ShakeAlert comes out of the 6 and I go oh sure you said it was a 6 because that's what we're saying that there's some problem with that because
it was reported too high or whatever. Whereas, you know, there was alert that went out for an earthquake and so that's a good thing and we should just be happy about that in some level.
And that's what the public really cares about. As opposed to you know some of these errors that we kind of focus on which is important I think for the scientists but just when that gets reported into the public, I think it twists a little bit, makes it sound like a system is not probably working as as it really is.
Yeah, thanks, Allen. Frannie, what do you think some of the challenges are you've already mentioned the numbers and it's been really, really useful getting your perspectives on this.
What do you think are some of the challenges around communicating earthquake early warning?
What do you think are some of the challenges.
I think the two biggest problems are first of all the public doesn't understand much about earthquakes.
So when you try to explain it to them from a technical perspective about the fact that you have a fault rupture that occurs one place and you call it a magnitude 6.
In San Jose during Loma Prieta we felt nothing. In Oakland, their infrastructure fell down.
Well, San Jose is a lot closer to the fault. Why didn't San Jose feel anything and everything fell down in Oakland.
And those conversations that I end up having with my public members are really, really difficult because people don't pay attention in school when they get their science lesson in seventh grade by the time they're adults they've forgotten most of what they were taught.
So I think one of the greatest losses we've had in the state of California was the loss of earthquake preparedness month.
April used to be earthquake preparedness month and all month long TV stations and radio stations would carry little vignettes, maybe a 2 minute
item on what you should do, and radio stations would come and talk to us, emergency managers in different communities in the Bay Area,
And we'd get a chance to give people some little reminders, but none of that's going on anymore.
And however the messaging is being, put out there it isn't reaching me or the people I know I'm not saying it's not happening, but it's not happening in a way that's
robust that's making members of the public pay attention and so now you introduce the idea of an earthquake early warning system and people think you're going to give them two minute notice so they can pick up their dog and you know close the TV off and all these things and when you tell them no, you're gonna get some 5, 10, 15 seconds warning, which is going to let you stop what you're doing
and get someplace safer. To Drop and Cover, protect your eyes, something simple they just shake their heads and walk away.
So I really think we need to go back to a regular earthquake warning program for the whole public.
To tell people what to do, how to prepare. As you probably know, the cities have something called CERT, Community Emergency Response Team.
That's FEMA sponsored. But getting money to put that program into place is now very difficult
because the EMPG money has all been mixed in with the UASI money and it all goes to police and fire.
So if we really want to be serious about making earthquake early warning as valuable as it can be
we need to think about how we're going to fund the public education that allows the listener
to respond properly to the message.
Thanks, Frannie. I really like what you're talking about. I do want to give a plug for ShakeAlert.org which has a number of toolkits and some for emergency managers as well.
So we do have resources out there for emergency managers. However, you know, we can always learn how to disseminate those a bit more effectively as you're suggesting.
So thanks so much for those insights. You mentioned something about, helping with your pet, your dog.
And I know I saw Ann laughing because that was actually within, I think, some of the comments that people thought they could do with the amount of time they had, right Ann.
And from recollection from the survey.
Yeah.
Yes, indeed. And there is, I mean, there are, there is a proportion of people who really do focus on protecting others.
Sorry. high portion, but there's a staple, people are interested in that there's a really interesting conversation going on in the chat about people turning off the alerts for phones.
Yes, I'm really enjoying this and we only have 5 min left unfortunately. So I can't really go into in depth in the chat, but maybe the last question, which is a question of optimism looking towards the future.
Maybe this can help help us a little bit with the conversations in the chat and it's really like what types of innovations would you like to see in earthquake early warning systems, either yours or globally within the future.
And there, you know, what would be like your number one improvement that we could make to the system if you are being aspirational about future technology.
And I'm gonna hand, I think this over to Allen first. Allen? Yeah, I know. It's like, no, shoot.
Yeah, you got this, Allen.
So I'm representing Mexico, right?
Oh yeah, yes. Well, yeah.
If I were representing Mexico, what I would say is they have it currently set to magnitude 5 and above, and they have a full minute of time as the wave is progressing,
so if there could be a way to update alerts as they're coming, I think that would be a great way to improve the system.
Yeah.
Oh, sure.
Elizabeth, for ShakeAlert. What would be a key innovation that you would love to see for the system looking forward?
For me, a key innovation would be a wider distribution of the alerts. So, alert through as we heard from Japan, there's a really nice system of providing really detailed alerts to TV, radio, and other methods.
And then additionally, coupled with that is sort of follow-up information, and so I think if you have that kind of flows loop of information, it is really helpful for people to understand.
How and why and when they're getting alerts.
Thanks, Elizabeth. Frannie, what would be a key innovation looking forward into the future?
I think I'm still focused on the public information side. I think the science is robust and developing and there's a lot of NSF grant funding that encourages more research.
There's no help for the public education side at the ground level. So as you point out, there's excellent materials
from USGS from state OES from FEMA. But who knows they're there? You know, I do.
I'm an emergency manager. I go to meetings. But what about the people in my community? How do I get them to know about these things?
And how could we get funding so that USGS might get that 2 min on the TV couple times in the month of April to let different USGS members explain to the public, here's what you're going to get and this is what you should do.
I'd like you all to be TV stars.
Yeah, I think we went into science to not become TV stars, Frannie. I think that was the intention and the goal.
But yes. Thank you. Mitsuyuki what do you think? What are you looking in the future and Japan's done so many phenomenal things with earthquake early warning,
it's hard to know what the dream would be for you next.
Yeah.
For me, yeah, anyway, for JMA, as I said before sending a message to the technology in 2007.
That means only sound on the text message, but now using current technology, we can send a message using a picture and also video.
So, oh, so now JMA is investigating how to send a message using the picture, automation or something.
And so, so now it's our goal in 2030.
JMA, improve how to send a message, it's, our goal in 2030.
Excellent. I'd love that. Putting a picture, putting the Drop, Cover, and Hold On iconography
it's been a dream of mine for quite a while. Oh, Ann just popped off. Oh no, because she was gonna be the last person I asked.
Hopefully she comes, oh, maybe she's coming back on as a guest. Yeah, we've been looking at that and Janet Sutton and Michelle Wood have done a really good study on including the iconography and we have messages in the future so you know when the technology is available we'll do that well, you know we'll look at that.
Did you wanna pop back on and give us like, you know, the last, what you would love to see in the future?
Oh, thank you. My Internet keeps cutting out. I would love to see if we have a future where the Internet doesn't cut out.
I would love to see more dynamic alerting. So all the things that people have mentioned and thinking about sort of the flow from pre-alert messages, reminding people that there's... [technical problems]
Oh no, I think we lost Ann again.
[indiscernible]
Oh.
Yeah. Ann do you wanna pop that into the chat? Yeah, it's a little in and out.
Can you hear me?
Do you wanna pop that into the chat, maybe? But I did hear post-alert messaging, which, I, did write a paper and I'm working on a follow-up paper actually on 5-years post-alert messaging for ShakeAlert because you know, post-alert messaging is so critical to successful alerting I feel.
It's, you know, with Shake Alert, I always joke, you know, we're either right or we say we're sorry in different ways and then explain how the system worked or didn't work to meet people's expectations.
And that's, the art and the science of post-alert messaging. Jessie, did you, I want to throw it over to you if you had any last comments?
Once again, thank you all so much to our wonderful speakers in this session. I agree with everything. I think communication is really the key thing especially for the early warning system here.
I think that's kind of the next, big source of improvement, we can focus on.
But yeah, it is almost 4:45pm. I believe it is time for us to officially wrap up this session.
So once again, thank you so much everybody. And then I will pass this on to, Sarah.
Thank you so much. Thank you to all of our speakers and our wonderful moderators. And without further ado, I'm gonna bring us on to our last presentation of the evening because we have the privilege of having Mitsuyuki Toshiba from Japan Meteorological Agency with us today and because it's a year ending in four, so we didn't even get one day into the year without a
major earthquake happening we now have a special presentation from Mitsuyuki Toshiba on the 2024 Noto peninsula earthquake.
So let's just take it away John.
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to explain overview of the 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake.
This earthquake occurred January 1st, New Year's Day in the year 2024.
Magnitude 7.6 event on JMA scale and moment magnitude 7.5. So, 14 time is up for 10 p.m.
Two-hundred thirty-two people were killed and even now 22 people are missing. Many kind of disasters are reported.
This picture from our newspaper company. For example, collapse of building, landslide, and this is probably due to tsunami and nuclear park shop as 300 km from procedure area.
So, not a plate boundary. It's not to create a boundary.
And no border plate nearby. No volcano nearby. So, 2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake.
This is the largest intra-plate earthquake in Japan in 100 years.
So, this shows aftershock activity including aftershock activity. Aftershock area is about 150 km.
So rupture occurred 150 km. So what was an important characteristic of this event?
Swarm activity started a couple of years before at HERF.
Okay.
Including magnitude 6.5 event in May, about 8 months ago. So some activity started a couple of months years ago and last May, magnitude 6.5 event and this magnitude, 7.6 event.
[noise]
After the magnitude's 7.6 event aftershock activity is something like that very active aftershock.
[noise]
So looking back to my old data, 2007 magnitude 6.9 event; Mw 6.6 event occurred around the shear.
We call this event 2007 Noto Peninsula earthquake and you been to it's something like that.
So rupture area may be overlapped and in 1993 magnitude 6.3 event occurred around the shear.
And active 4th event reported along northern coastal area of Noto Peninsula, probably this 4th activated it.
And this shows aftershock activity.
2024 Noto Peninsula earthquake as compared with other major earthquakes in Japan, for example, 1993 SW off Hokkaido earthquake,
and 1983 Akita earthquake magnitude 7.7 event and 2016 Kumamoto earthquake, and 1995 Kobe earthquake.
So, Kobe earthquake aftershock activity not so strong.
And G2, SW of Hokkaido earthquake and Akita earthquake they are
not intraplate event, plate boundary event. But Noto Peninsula earthquake is intraplate event.
So, Noto Peninsula earthquake event aftershock activity quite active. So what was the important feature of this earthquake is the large uplift.
This is from InSAR data analysis and GNS analysis. So, from InSAR data quite a lot uplift reported and actually all meta uplift observed at this spot.
And this spot was previously at the point, this point was previously a fishing port, but at the present no water
because of the large uplift.
And lab job process, some organization analyze the lab job process of this event. JMA and DPRI and NIED commonly estimated relatively small slip around the local area.
Large slip area are reported by those east-part and southwest part [indiscernible]. Next, I already showed earthquake early warning.
So [indiscernible] I like show this video. Okay, this video taken at [indiscernible] that means here.
[video] Okay, here we go.
[video] Sound and more strong shaking will come.
[video]
Okay. So, magnitude 7.6 event occurred at 10, and 4 minutes before magnitude 5.5 event occurred.
So because of the magnitude 5.5 event warning issued and 4 minutes later,
magnitude 5.9 event occurred and that came later magnitude 7.6 event occurred.
So this process was triggered by magnitude 5.9 event because of the magnitude 5.9 event, a warning issued.
Not opinion GRJ, and second warning issued to these area and third warning issued to these area. Okay, so because of it
the past warning is a [indiscernible]. Second one as strong as the shaking everywhere.
For this event 2, 3, 26 forecast and 3 warning issued, past warning, second warning, and third warning.
So, here shows a latitude, longitude, local depth, and magnitude. So from 90 assurance; under 20 assurance, 20 assurance means a second warning.
So no change of hypocenter, location, no change of magnitude, but it was updated this is due to the problem mentioned.
But other warning also, no change of the hypocenter data, but it was updated this is due to the problem mentioned.
Okay, tsunami early warning issued,
so, 3 minute later earthquake early warning updated and also tsunami warning
issued. Tsunami warning advisory issued to the western coast of Japan.
And all 22 tsunami early warning updated to major tsunami and this is a legend and expected high tsunami. So, [indiscernible]
Okay, so this is some observation at
Wajima. Kanazawa, Nanao, and Nigata.
It's a very steep increase of tidal gauge. So, because of something wrong on the tidal gauge and no data transmission after that.
So, very steep increase at Wajima Port.
So, 2024 Noto peninsula earthquake this is the largest intra-plate event in Japan in less than 100 years and earthquake activity started a couple of years before and the biodata rupture of 150 km,
and active aftershocks and large approved to our observed. And earthquake early warning, so more than several second before peak shaking
it was triggered by magnitude 5.9 event, which [indiscernible] saw 7.6.
And the tsunami are you on the post-warning issue, a whole, and it was updated to major tsunami at
0:22 p.m. Good. That's all. Thank you very much.
That was excellent. So. Last call, would anybody like to ask some questions about this really interesting earthquake that just record.
Jolly, you wanna come up and ask your question?
I think you're muted. They go. Yep.
Sorry, can you hear me? Can you hear me okay? So, thank you very much for the presentation.
You focused on the seismological aspects. Can you comment at all on any building damage or other kinds of infrastructure damage.
And my particular interest, were there any fires that occurred afterwards?
Miss Yuki, you wanna turn on your camera and unmute and I got it.
Perfect.
Alright, so, Hannah, hi, Rita. Yeah, so, I'm not sure, but about 100 met, or 100 meta or something, it's wired.
At the time, because of the know what I don't remember, one is one, approved of the land.
So water is not a bearable. Also it's water in Giba. It's not available because of larger uprift.
So because of reasons, they cannot stop fire. So 100, I'm not sure about that, but it's a 100 metre, 100, I'm not sure, of what's a major, but it's a 100 data or 100 metre, fire yet.
After the ask quick.
Buildings damaged or infrastructure damage, water systems, for example.
Yeah, quite a lot because of the not opinion, you know, it's a lot of pain in generation.
It's a very old, not a pen in generation, it's a one where it's a very old order prices.
So many all the building. So in Japan, building code is the departed in 98.
So, many all the building people are 98. A yeah more than 10,000 or something the cast.
100000, thank you very much. I got those.
Yeah, sorry. I don't think you know about where the number. But anyway, many of the building were cut off to that.
Thank you. Tom Heaton. You wanna take it away?
Good. I was curious about the interpretation that this was an introplate versus interpolate versus interpolate versus interplay versus interplay versus interplay.
Isn't this the boundary between, versus interplay? Isn't this the boundary between, North America and the Eurasian plate runs right through there.
It's kind of like the the earthquake of 1964. Why is this not a interplay earthquake?
How, how deep was it?
Oh, I believe you're muted.
A 4 car depth to the 16 kilometer and it's now a predator boundary, it's days think that from the with the coast of Hokkaido with the coast of Tohoku.
Non-Citeer off.
So, huh?
But. Just the phone. Just to follow up on Tom's question, isn't there a platelet?
Just offshore Noso Hunto, the Amor, A more plate. A platelet.
So I think Tom, that's a good point. To characterize this as interpolate or interpolate.
Is an interesting question.
Yeah, it's, Yeah, Yep, Predator Bandary.
Okay, so it's a, European threat. Yeah, more great.
But there's a small platelet in between. There's an 8. Yes
So at the present they don't know I don't know the report. There is a microwave around the earth.
Okay.
Oh, so anyway, I don't I don't remember the report of, microplate around there.
Alice, would you like to ask your question?
Sure, thank you. Thank you for this really fantastic summary. So I have a question about the effect of uncertainties in in rapid available source models for this event specifically and was very fascinating to see how the USGS model, for example, evolved.
The first model was available had 2 snip patches which were inferred using telescope data and using genetic data, one of the slip patches was removed and most of sleep was constrained actually.
And the part of the fault which is an unsure. So I'm wondering if this effect of source uncertainty has an effect on early warning or are you blending what's your what's your take on that because it's very puzzling to observe.
Yes.
Okay, do you mean the so structure process? Well, I'll ask you, do you want him?
One general for your rapid response.
Okay. So, so sorry, I'm not an expert of the source process, but anyway, so, several, segment, at least the 2 segment, activated.
Yeah, why is it going to north, north east wines going to the southwest? So, some report, it's, time, with, about, second.
Alright, there was a slow notation phase. Is this complicating? Your systems did you have it?
Operations that are in operation is the same something that is concerning this high degree of complexity.
That's a, S, and after 30 s, the second, the second, the second, the, UP, yeah, do you mean the ask a card warning or not?
Yeah.
Oscar, you want you? So, at the time, so, oh, yeah, as I talked to before, there's a, somebody, been, the, multiple point 9 event, okay, and then 30 seconds radar, which is 7.7 point 6 event o card.
So, but, it's almost same. And also the to work to where, so, using a problem.
And the warning, there's expanding using a product.
Okay, thank you.
So. I realize it's 5 PM.
Of course, on the East Coast and it's even later on the West Coast that's even later on the East Coast and in parts farther East
so people want to take off you absolutely go call it a night, feed your children, but if there are any last questions, I'm sure we could answer a couple of them.
Are there any other questions?
Okay, going once, going twice, going three times, then I'm gonna say thank you so much Hoshiba-san. This was a great summary.
It was really nice to be able to learn everything that happened. Thank you to all of our speakers today.
Thank you to all of our moderators and thank you to all of our attendees who asked great questions and had great chats.
Thank you so much everyone. Have a wonderful day, morning, afternoon, evening, and we'll see you again tomorrow.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Sarah. Thank you!