Geology topics

Sara K. McBride

Publications and source records attributed to Sara K. McBride.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Getting the story straight: Common misconceptions around volcanoes and eruptions with case studies of recent events

The ability to rapidly disseminate scientific knowledge across the world has never been greater. This is paralleled by the ability of rumors to spread equally far and fast. Popular misconceptions can take root and, without correction, take on the appearance of facts. Commonly misunderstood topics include those with attention-grabbing phrasing (e.g. “Pacific Ring of Fire”, “supervolcanoes”, or “mega-tsunamis”), the intersection of volcanic research with high-profile science topics (climate or human health), aspirational science goals (eruption forecasts), and basic terminology (volcanic ash versus smoke, or magma “chambers”). In this paper, we describe eighteen misconceptions grouped in six themes (seismology, volcanoes and climate, systems and structures, volcanic hazards, timescales, photographs and footage) commonly encountered by volcanologists who are actively engaging with the public and media both during and between eruptions. Each misconception description is accompanied by takeaway points and summaries of recent research to assist the reader with the information necessary to describe the issues. Finally, we present seven case studies where incorrect information was widely shared and counteracted at well-known volcanoes and recent eruptions at Mount Agung (Bali, Indonesia), Mount Etna (Sicily, Italy), Kīlauea (Hawaii, U.S.A.), Tajogaite (La Palma, Spain), La Soufrière (St. Vincent), Taal Volcano (Philippines), and Yellowstone caldera (U.S.A.). This work is intended to help both volcanologists and non-specialists get the story straight, and to effectively communicate processes and scales of volcanism and volcanic hazards, impacts, and risks.

Journal of Applied Volcanology↗

USGS2026

Deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing university student experiences with earthquake early warning in the United States: Evaluating language planning and technology access

The growing literature on deaf and hard of hearing (DHH+) populations and disasters demonstrates that emergency communication (including alerts) is not reaching global DHH + individuals with dangerous impacts for morbidity and mortality. This is the first research study in the U.S. to qualitatively explore the experiences of DHH + persons with earthquake early warning (EEW) through group-based dialogue sessions. The study investigates eight DHH + university students'past earthquake experiences, access to EEW alerts, and perceptions of ShakeAlert Ⓡ , an EEW system for detecting earthquakes and alerting residents of California, Oregon, and Washington. Findings highlight key gaps in disaster alert usability within four thematic areas: lack of messaging in participants' language(s), unclear alert messaging, deficient message delivery mechanisms for deafblind persons, and insufficient access to earthquake information and training that leads to dependence on informal information networks. Weaknesses identified in these four themes reduce DHH + trust in EEW systems and compromise the capacity of alert recipients to take swift protective action or to mentally prepare before shaking starts. The study also underscores structural factors such as insufficient linguistic representation in disaster language planning and technology design, which ignores the linguistic and sensory access needs of DHH + individuals. Building on disaster language planning frameworks, we recommend involving DHH + populations to co-develop EEW alerts. By centering DHH + perspectives, this research contributes to ongoing efforts to ensure that EEW systems reach everyone.

California↗

USGS2026

Rapid characterization of the 2025 Mw 8.8 Kamchatka, Russia earthquake

The 29 July 2025 M w 8.8 Kamchatka, Russia, earthquake was the sixth largest instrumentally recorded earthquake. This event was seismically well observed at regional and teleseismic distances, but publicly available near‐source data were sparse at the time of the event, presenting unique challenges for rapid source and impact characterization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Earthquake Information Center provides global real‐time monitoring for earthquakes, including rapid response information products that estimate source characteristics, shaking, and the resulting impacts. We describe the USGS rapid response earthquake information products following the Kamchatka event and discuss their implications for ongoing hazards in the region. We describe potential improvements to our response workflows motivated by this event, including more rapid constraints on source geometries and the automated selection of fault geometries for finite‐fault inversions. The rapid response products together support the interpretation of a unilateral southwestward rupture with significant slip on the southwestern end of the rupture extent. The M w 8.8–9.0 event in 1952, which ruptured a comparable extent of the Kuril–Kamchatka subduction interface, has many similarities to the 2025 rupture. This illustrates that slip deficits may remain following great earthquakes and highlights the usefulness of comparative studies between historic and modern events.

Kuril-Kamchatka subduction zone↗

USGS2025

ShakeAlert®—Communication, education, outreach and technical engagement strategic vision

Executive Summary In 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began directly supporting ShakeAlert ® research and in 2012 the ShakeAlert demonstration system began testing ( Given and others, 2018 ). The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the three West Coast States (Washington, Oregon, and California) served by the ShakeAlert System, which is part of the larger Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). With more than 143 million people exposed to potentially damaging shaking in the United States ( Jaiswal and others, 2015 ), earthquakes are a national hazard. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated in the highly populated areas on the active plate tectonic boundaries on the West Coast of the conterminous United States. ShakeAlert is the first public alert system in the United States to provide rapid mass notification of earthquake detection, potentially offering seconds of warning before strong shaking arrives. A few seconds may not seem like much time, but the information in ShakeAlert Messages can be used to trigger automated actions that can prevent injury or death, reduce immediate damage, and speed recovery from earthquakes. The information product issued by the ShakeAlert system is called a ShakeAlert Message and is one of the information products and tools of the ANSS. The ShakeAlert System includes the USGS component, plus the pathways by which ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services are delivered to end users. Alerts can be delivered to cell phones or be used to trigger automated systems to protect equipment, facilities, and infrastructure, such as slowing or stopping a train. ShakeAlert-powered automated actions can include fire house doors that can be opened to prevent jamming, heavy equipment (for example, trains, elevators, and cranes) that can be automatically stopped or parked in safe positions, and pipeline valves that can be closed to prevent surges and spills. A few seconds of warning also may be sufficient for people to take protective actions, such as drop, cover, and hold on or modified protective actions for a broad range of populations. Advance training may increase the benefit of a speedy response to an alert. Outreach and education about EEW may raise awareness of the overall earthquake threat and how people can best react when they receive an alert or feel shaking. ShakeAlert communication, education, outreach, and technical engagement (CEO&TE) efforts are highly collaborative and essential for the success of the ShakeAlert System. This strategic vision informs how the vast ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community operates and works together. The CEO&TE Community delineates a strategic framework that is intended to set the path for a long-term, sustainable approach to CEO&TE through three focus areas and five priorities. Focus Areas Technical engagement.— The objective of this focus area is to expand and broaden ShakeAlert technical engagement and implementation. External engagement.— This focus area targets engagement in long-term communication, education, and outreach planning, implementation, and evaluation. Internal engagement.— The purpose of this focus area is to build and sustain a robust infrastructure to optimize collaboration, information sharing, and project planning among the community of stakeholders charged with implementing ShakeAlert CEO&TE. Priorities The enumeration of the five priorities listed below does not suggest priority ranking. Public safety, preparedness, and resilience; Technical implementation and engagement; Consistent messaging and communication; Integration with other Federal and State earthquake hazards products; and Educational resources development and dissemination. This strategic vision is a tangible outcome of collaboration among many stakeholders beginning in July 2016. Since then, the work of the ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community has grown into an international effort. The USGS has developed, tested, and implemented a broad spectrum of communication, education, and outreach tools and resources—all of which recognize that seconds matter when it comes to safety and mitigating harm from earthquake hazards. The CEO&TE social science research effort has provided invaluable insights into the ShakeAlert System’s human interface. USGS-licensed technical partners develop, test, and implement real-world applications using ShakeAlert Messages. The success of ShakeAlert CEO&TE efforts is predicated on robust collaboration across numerous agencies, organizations, and groups. As such, this strategic vision outlines a “partnership model” that delineates roles and responsibilities to ensure alignment with focus areas and priorities. The partnership model includes the CEO&TE lead agency (USGS); its principal partners (State agencies and university partners); its implementation partners (for example, technical partners who build systems to deliver ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services [focus area one]), earthquake education partners who work to increase public preparedness for seismic events (focus area two); and other organizations that work together to enhance the adoption and effectiveness of the ShakeAlert System. These partners collaborate and convene through a variety of working groups and forums, which are also described in this strategic vision and align with focus area three (internal engagement). The CEO&TE Community collaboratively developed its operating principles and a consensus-based, decision-making strategic framework to guide its collective work. Performance metrics are used to continually measure success. Ultimately, the USGS and ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community are advancing the ShakeAlert System that as of the publication of this strategic vision to “provide earthquake early warning for all” serves more than 50 million people.

Circular↗

USGS2025

The impact of the May 1921 superstorm on American telecommunication systems

A compilation is presented of impacts (interference and damage) realized on long-line telegraph and telephone systems across North America during the 13-16 May 1921 magnetic storm. Impacts occurred primarily during local nighttime, after the third of four sudden commencements, and during the storm’s most-prominent main phase. Impacts are attributed to rapid and high-amplitude geomagnetic field variation generated by substorms. This induced potential di erences and between the grounding points of communication networks that were su cient to cause system interference and damage. In the United States, impacts were concentrated in the Midwest and in the East, regions characterized by high electromagnetic surface impedance. Given technological changes, modern telecommunication systems are less exposed to storms like that of May 1921, while power-grid systems are now more exposed to them.

Space Weather↗

USGS2025

Preliminary field report of landslide hazards following Hurricane Helene

Executive Summary This report reflects our knowledge regarding the widespread landslide activity associated with Hurricane Helene observed during the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) mission assignment to North Carolina in October 2024. The material in this report was originally prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency under mission assignment DR-4827-NC. The data and commentary in this report are reflective of a report provided to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on October 18, 2024, as well as information provided in briefings at the Buncombe County Emergency Operations Center. The report has been modified for public dissemination. This assessment was based on systematic visual examination and mapping of landslide locations from aerial and satellite imagery, visual and photographic observations from low-level helicopter overflights and conversations with local landslide experts from the North Carolina Geological Survey and Appalachian Landslide Consultants PLLC, and more than 50 years of combined landslide hazard professional experience of the mission-assigned field team. No systematic field investigations were done by the USGS. While responding to the event, the USGS did not identify any landslides that posed an immediate major threat to recovery personnel in parts of nine counties in North Carolina (Avery, Buncombe, Henderson, McDowell, Mitchell, Polk, Rutherford, Watauga, and Yancey); however, threats from renewed landslide activity may remain heightened in localized areas for months or even years. Known areas of the most abundant landslide occurrence include Bat Cave, Lake Lure, Chimney Rock, Swannanoa, Black Mountain, Fairview, steep areas in Asheville, and the Blue Ridge Parkway. The USGS shared detailed locations of known landslides with the Emergency Operations Centers. The thousands of landslide scars on hillsides and landslide deposits on flatter ground may present some threat to recovery activities. Soil and rocks will continue to erode from newly exposed landslide scars and may pose a threat to people and infrastructure who are immediately nearby. In general, the steeper and taller the landslide scar, the greater the potential threat. This threat is heightened during periods of rainfall and increases with the duration and intensity of rainstorms. Very heavy rainfall, or repeated rainfall events during short periods, could also initiate new landslides on steep slopes. Excavation of landslide deposits, particularly excavation of those deposits directly adjacent to steep slopes, may also pose a threat to nearby people and equipment. An interagency collaborative mapping effort led by the USGS that informed this assessment identified 1,155 landslide locations by the October 2024 briefings, but that number increased to 2,217 in a final reviewed version of the locations published in January 2025. Locations were mapped from satellite imagery, fixed-wing and helicopter surveys, media and social media, and field reports in the 3 weeks following the passage of the remnants of Hurricane Helene. USGS products outlined in this report are publicly available and include geotagged photographs from aerial reconnaissance, hazard models, an interactive view of mapped landslide locations, and landslide safety and education resources.

North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virgini↗

USGS2025

Meet the people where they are: Assessing user needs for aftershock forecast products in El Salvador, Mexico and the United States

Aftershock forecasts can help communities reduce their seismic risk by conveying how many aftershocks can be expected following a large earthquake, and how the expected number of aftershocks and their corresponding ground shaking evolves over time and space. Prior work finds that graphical forecast products may communicate such information better than only text or numbers. To identify which visual products can serve multiple user groups, we held workshops with members of several professions, including emergency managers, engineers, critical infrastructure operators, public health specialists, science communicators, and more. We conducted these workshops in El Salvador, Mexico and the United States to understand which forecast products may be effective across different countries. In these workshops, users performed small-group activities to elicit the types of aftershock forecast information that would support decisions in their respective roles and how this information would optimally be displayed. Maps of shaking hazards were frequently requested across all professions and countries, even for dissimilar forecast uses. The design of these maps, and other product needs, were differentiated by profession, country and other factors. Other forecast products, including those showing forecasts about the magnitudes and time periods of future aftershocks, also served a variety of users, but for different types of decisions. We found a greater variation in user needs by profession than by country, and that user needs also vary with time, communication channel and other contextual factors. We discuss practical implications for user-centered visual communication of operational aftershock forecasts.

International Journal for Disaster Risk Reduction↗

USGS2025

The communication of volcano information in New Zealand - A narrative review

Communication of volcano information is critical for effective volcanic risk management. A variety of information is communicated to inform decisions and guide actions for planning, preparedness, and response. Such information needs to be reliable, and fit-for-purpose across different stages of volcanic activity (quiescence, unrest, short or long-term eruptive stages, and the post-eruptive stage). However, an understanding of communication across these different stages of volcanic activity remains limited. We undertook a narrative review of New Zealand literature to explore what information is communicated about volcanoes, across which stages of activity and by whom. Results highlight that NZ literature only documents certain aspects of volcano information and communication, specifically regarding certain locations, stages of volcanic activity (i.e. quiescence or unrest), or hazards. Literature gaps exist regarding volcano communication during unrest and post-eruptive stages, as well as how volcano information evolves between these phases, and how decision-makers use such information. Additional work would be useful to document existing examples of volcano information for different stages of activity. Further research could help in understanding the information needs of decision-makers during each of these stages to improve information and communication.

New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics↗

USGS2025

ShakeAlert® version 3: Expected performance in large earthquakes

The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system partners along with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) licensed operators deliver EEW alerts to the public and trigger automated systems when a significant earthquake is expected to impact California, Oregon, or Washington. ShakeAlert’s primary goal is to provide usable warning times before the arrival of damaging shaking. EEW is most likely to achieve this goal in large‐magnitude earthquakes. In recent years, ShakeAlert has gone through a series of upgrades to its underlying scientific algorithms aimed at improved performance during large earthquakes. Version 3 of this software recently went live in the production system and includes improvements to all algorithms. The main seismic algorithms that detect an earthquake and characterize its location, magnitude, and fault rupture orientation are faster than older versions. Other key changes include: using real‐time geodetic data to characterize the magnitude growth in large earthquakes; the introduction of an alert pause procedure to compromise between speed near the epicenter and improved accuracy at larger distances; and the inclusion of a nonergodic site‐response model in the ground‐motion predictions. ShakeAlert has achieved its primary goal of usable warning times before strong shaking at some locations in real‐time operations in recent M 6 earthquakes. Using offline tests, we demonstrate usable warning times are possible for many sites with peak shaking values of modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) 7–8 in M 7+ earthquakes and also for many MMI 8–9 sites in M 8+ earthquakes. ShakeAlert partners use a variety of MMI and magnitude thresholds in deciding when to alert their users within bounds set by the USGS. Our study shows that there is room to raise the magnitude thresholds up to about M 5.5 without adversely affecting performance in large earthquakes. The ground‐motion criteria are more complex owing to a significant drop‐off in warning times between the MMI 4 and 5 levels of predicted shaking. However, widely used ShakeAlert products, such as the MMI 3 and 4 contour products, can provide sufficiently long warning times before strong shaking in moderate‐to‐great earthquakes to enable a range of protective actions.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2025

Simulating human behavior under earthquake early warning

Earthquakes are a rapid-onset hazard where advance planning and learning plays a key role in mitigating injuries and death to individuals. Recent advances in earthquake detection have resulted in the development of earthquake early warning (EEW) systems. These systems can provide advance warning to predetermined geographic regions that an earthquake is in progress, which may result in individuals receiving warning seconds before significant shaking is felt at their location. This additional time could allow individuals to take more effective protective actions during the immediate disaster. To demonstrate this, we created an agent-based simulation of a basic apartment that allowed us to randomly and repeatedly simulate an individual receiving and responding to an EEW message. The results of our preliminary simulation show that, in our study environment, earthquake early warning alerts have the potential to allow for sufficient time for individuals to take protective actions.

Washington↗

USGS2024

Preliminary observations of the April 5th, 2024, Mw4.8 New Jersey earthquake

On 5 April 2024, 10:23 a.m. local time, a moment magnitude 4.8 earthquake struck Tewksbury Township, New Jersey, about 65 km west of New York City. Millions of people from Virginia to Maine and beyond felt the ground shaking, resulting in the largest number (>180,000) of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) “Did You Feel It?” reports of any earthquake. A team deployed by the Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance Association and the National Institute of Standards and Technology documented structural and nonstructural damage, including substantial damage to a historic masonry building in Lebanon, New Jersey. The USGS National Earthquake Information Center reported a focal depth of about 5 km, consistent with a lack of signal in Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar data. The focal mechanism solution is strike slip with a substantial thrust component. Neither mechanism’s nodal plane is parallel to the primary northeast trend of geologic discontinuities and mapped faults in the region, including the Ramapo fault. However, many of the relocated aftershocks, for which locations were augmented by temporary seismic deployments, form a cluster that parallels the general northeast trend of the faults. The aftershocks lie near the Tewksbury fault, north of the Ramapo fault.

New Jersey↗

USGS2024

Status and performance of the ShakeAlert® earthquake early warning system: 2019-2023

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)‐operated ShakeAlert® system is the United States West Coast earthquake early warning system ( Given et al. , 2018 ). In this study we detail ShakeAlert’s performance during some of the largest events seen by the system thus far. Statewide public alerting using ShakeAlert messages was authorized in California in October 2019. Over the next few years, public alerts were expanded into Oregon and then into Washington ( U.S. Geological Survey, 2024 ). ShakeAlert source results are routinely compared to the USGS Comprehensive Catalog (ComCat; Guy et al. , 2015 ; U.S. Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, 2017 ), which contains the earthquake location and magnitude determined using complete waveform data. M 4.5 and larger is the threshold used for public alerting and was deliberately set below the level where damage is likely to compensate for cases where the system underestimates the magnitude. Between 17 October 2019 and 1 September 2023, the ShakeAlert system created 95 events with maximum magnitude estimates of M ≥4.5, the public alerting threshold. 94 of the 95 events were due to real earthquakes. Seven were categorized “false” per ShakeAlert’s internal definition that there was no matching catalog event within 100 km and 30 s of origin time; however, all but one of these were real earthquakes that were poorly located, primarily because they were at the edges of the seismic network. Three detected events were labeled “missed” because they were very poorly located (>100 km location error). In addition, the system did not produce solutions for four ComCat events M ≥4.5 ( U.S. Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, 2017 ), which were all at the edge of the alerting and network boundaries. The ShakeAlert system has accurately detected the majority of earthquakes that have occurred within the operational region since completing the public rollout, and alerts from the system have been delivered to millions of cell phone users throughout the West Coast.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2024

Modeling protective action decision-making in earthquakes by using explainable machine learning and video data

Earthquakes pose substantial threats to communities worldwide. Understanding how people respond to the fast-changing environment during earthquakes is crucial for reducing risks and saving lives. This study aims to study people’s protective action decision-making in earthquakes by leveraging explainable machine learning and video data. Specifically, this study first collected real-world CCTV footage and video postings from social media platforms, and then identified and annotated changes in the environment and people’s behavioral responses during the M7.1 2018 Anchorage earthquake. By using the fully annotated video data, we applied XGBoost, a widely-used machine learning method, to model and forecast people’s protective actions (e.g., drop and cover , hold on , and evacuate ) during the earthquake. Then, explainable machine learning techniques were used to reveal the complex, nonlinear relationships between different factors and people’s choices of protective actions. Modeling results confirm that social and environmental cues played critical roles in affecting the probability of different protective actions. Certain factors, such as the earthquake shaking intensity and number of people shown in the environment, displayed evident nonlinear relationships with the probability of choosing to evacuate . These findings can help emergency managers and policymakers design more effective protective action recommendations during earthquakes.

Scientific Reports↗

USGS2024

USGS and social media user dialogue and sentiment during the 2018 eruption of Kīlauea Volcano, Hawaii

Responsive and empathic communication by scientists is critical for building trust and engagement with communities, which, in turn, promotes receptiveness toward authoritative hazard information during times of crisis. The 2018 eruption of Hawai‘i's Kīlauea Volcano was the first volcanic crisis event in which communication via the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) social media group, “USGS Volcanoes,” played a major role in providing eruption information to publics. Providing a concrete assessment of the social media effort during the eruption is necessary for optimizing future social media hazard crisis communication. We present qualitative and quantitative analyses of USGS Volcanoes' Facebook posts and over 22,000 follow-on comments spanning the 2018 eruption. Our analyses reveal that, for the 16 posts with the highest user engagement, USGS Volcanoes and informed non-USGS users directly answered 73% of questions and directly corrected or called out inaccuracies in over 54% of comments containing misinformation. User sentiments were 66% positive on average per comment thread regarding eruption information, and user feedback toward USGS Volcanoes, USGS scientists, or the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory was 86% positive on average. Quantitative sentiment analysis reveals a 61% correlation between users' overall expressed sentiments and frequency of the word “thank,” providing further evidence that social media engagement by USGS Volcanoes and informed users positively impacted collective user sentiment. Themes emerging from our qualitative thematic analysis illustrate how communication strategies employed by USGS Volcanoes successfully engaged and benefitted users, providing insights for communicating with publics on social media during crisis situations.

Hawaii↗

USGS2024

K-12 trade books’ representation of earthquake safety and protective actions: A content analysis

Meaningful learning resources for earthquake safety and survival have become an increasingly important topic among geoscientists, especially educators and researchers. Various members of the public, especially K-12 (ages 5–18) learners, continue to depend on scientific trade books available at their local public and school libraries for information about earthquake concepts. To our knowledge, no research has empirically examined how trade books represent earthquake safety and survival actions. In this research, we combine an iterative qualitative inductive and deductive analysis to explore the representation of earthquake safety and protective actions in 50 trade books. We categorize these actions into time-based practices related to preparedness before an earthquake, protective actions during an earthquake, and recovery after an earthquake. These trade books emphasize preparedness by means of building earthquake-resistant structures and urban planning, and efforts toward community resilience and keeping home supplies. The recommended personal protective action during an earthquake in the United States (“Drop, Cover, and Hold On”) is emphasized in the majority of the trade books, as well as other protective actions related to emotional actions and current technological automated actions such as earthquake early warning systems. Finally, the books highlight actions such as damage evaluation and support as ways to recover after an earthquake. Our findings highlight the issues between accepted earthquake safety and survival actions and the limited and/or inaccurate knowledge represented in some trade books. We provide interpretations of how presentation of limited or inaccurate information may increase confusion about appropriate protective actions. The inclusion of accepted and recommended protective actions in future trade books and the use of earthquake drills in public libraries as a supplement for trade book users may improve understanding and implementation of appropriate actions. We further demonstrate the potential of trade book contents in fostering earthquake education through library-community partnerships.

Journal of Geoscience Education↗

USGS2024

ShakeAlert® and schools: Incorporating earthquake early warning in school districts in Alaska, California, Oregon, and Washington

The U.S. Geological Survey-managed ShakeAlert® earthquake early warning system is the first public alerting system in the United States to provide rapid mass notification when an earthquake is detected. Although public alert delivery via mobile phones began in California in 2019 followed by Oregon and Washington in 2021, little is known about what might drive widespread implementation in at-risk institutional settings such as schools. For example, there has been limited research on how to best integrate earthquake early warning into existing emergency plans, alert systems, and drills to keep school children and personnel safe in an earthquake. To address this gap, in the spring of 2022, every school district superintendent in Alaska, California, Oregon, and Washington was sent a 15-min online survey. The survey assessed superintendent knowledge of ShakeAlert, preferences for alert messaging, and perceived opportunities and barriers to incorporating the system in schools. The results showed that superintendents had low awareness of ShakeAlert but held positive perceptions of the system's potential to enable life-saving protective actions. A major barrier to adoption included the perceived financial cost of implementing and maintaining the system. There were some statistically significant differences in state responses, and future research could investigate the specific needs of each state based on school district size and composition, hazard exposure, and earthquake experience. Together these findings can help inform targeted strategies to increase ShakeAlert adoption in schools and ultimately improve the safety of school children and staff during earthquakes.

Alaska, California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2024

Long-term communication of aftershock forecasts: The Canterbury earthquake sequence in New Zealand

On 14 February 2016, a magnitude (M)5.7 earthquake struck in Christchurch New Zealand (Aotearoa in the Maori language). The shaking caused damage to historic facades, power outages, cliff collapses, rock falls, and liquefaction but no reported injuries or fatalities. This Valentine’s Day earthquake was an aftershock in the Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES), which began on 4 September 2010 with the M7.1 Darfield Earthquake and included the destructive and fatal M6.2 Christchurch aftershock on 22 February 2011. This study, eight months after the Valentine’s Day earthquake and six years after the initiation of the CES, is the first to explore long-term aftershock forecast information and communication needs. The exploratory study also aimed to gather feedback on aftershock scenarios, an alternative form for communicating the forecast. The qualitative study involved workshops with emergency managers, public health officials, and members of the public in Christchurch. Key findings for long-term communication throughout an earthquake sequence include: 1. divergent earthquake experiences affect aftershock communication response and information needs; 2. understanding aftershock sequence behavior is foundational to sense-making when large aftershocks occur; 3. strategic earthquake sequence updates from the trusted science agency and local agencies could serve as important reminders for earthquake preparedness; 4. communication of aftershock forecast uncertainty could aid with both the credibility of the information and living with uncertainty, and 5. inclusion of impact information and preparedness advice into aftershock forecast scenarios could provide links to actionable information. The paper derives implications for research and practice of long-term communications during an aftershock sequence.

Christchurch↗

USGS2024

A decade of shaking in the Garden City: The dynamics of preparedness, perceptions, and beliefs in Canterbury, New Zealand, and implications for earthquake information

This study explored earthquake preparedness over time - before, during, and 10 years after the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ). Surveys of Canterbury residents were conducted in 2009, 2013 and again in 2021, using variables derived from Community Engagement Theory (CET). The surveys measured earthquake perceptions and beliefs, participation and engagement, and preparedness actions. Results were compared across the three samples. Findings indicate that perceptions and beliefs (e.g. risk perception, outcome expectancy beliefs), and types of preparedness actions taken (e.g. collection of survival items, structural preparedness, community and agency relationships), differed over time, depending on people’s experiences before, during, and after the CES. For example, during and after the CES people were more likely to believe that preparing provided a benefit to daily life, but less likely to think it could reduce property damage, perhaps due to people’s experiences of disruption and damage during the earthquakes. An understanding of such dynamics can assist with the provision and timing of risk and preparedness information. This study highlights the importance of providing applicable and actionable preparedness information, that is relevant to people’s experiences, throughout an earthquake sequence. Such information might evolve and change in focus over time depending on risks and needs. Focus could also be given to information that builds peoples beliefs and capacities to undertake preparedness in evolving situations. Understanding preparedness in the context of different experiences and timeframes is useful in helping update models such as the CET, where the dynamics of time might be better incorporated.

Canterbury↗