Knowledge, perceptions, and behavioral responses to earthquake early warning in Aotearoa New Zealand

Abstract

IntroductionAotearoa New Zealand (NZ) experiences frequent earthquakes, with a history of damaging and fatal events, but currently does not have a national, official earthquake early warning (EEW) system. Since April of 2021, Google's Android Earthquake Alert System has operated independently in NZ. While recent work has identified general public support for such a system, it is important to assess public knowledge of EEW as well as typical responses to receiving an alert. The protective actions “Drop, cover, and hold” are recommended and taught in NZ and previous research found strong intentions to undertake these and other protective actions in response to an alert.MethodHowever, it is important to explore a range of responses to these novel EEWs, including how much people know about them, what actions they took in response to the warning, and their overall judgment of the system including its usefulness. We undertook surveys following two widely received alerts from the Android Earthquake Alert System to assess public knowledge, perceptions, and responses to these alerts with a total sample size of 3,150.ResultsWhile most participants who received the alert found it useful, knowledge of both EEW generally and the Android System specifically was low and few participants used the time to protect themselves from shaking.DiscussionThese findings reiterate the importance of education and communication around a warning system, so that the public know how to act when they receive an alert.

Differences in perceived sources of uncertainty in natural hazards science advice: lessons for cross-disciplinary communication

“…Individuals interpret such scientific information and advice in diverse ways due to influences such as how the information is framed (Teigen and Brun, 1999;Morton et al, 2011;Doyle et al, 2014), cognitive, cultural and social factors (Lindell and Perry, 2000;Olofsson and Rashid, 2011;Medin and Bang, 2014;Huang et al, 2016), expertise and experience (Becker et al, 2022;Vinnell et al, 2023), expectations of message content (Rabinovich and Morton, 2012;Maxim and Mansier, 2014), and the uncertain context within which perils are situated (Stirling, 2010;Fischhoff and Davis, 2014;Doyle et al, 2019). Scientific uncertainty is considered herein to exist in complex social-environmental contexts, and thus both directly arises from the science (such as due to the data availability, or model validity) and indirectly arises from judgments associated with the science (such as model choice and how governance decisions influence science direction), see .…”

Book review: ¡Alerta!: Engineering on Shaky Ground

“…This book adds a clear, wellreasoned voice to the argument that earthquake early warning cannot, and should not, be solely a technological endeavor (e.g. Vinnell et al, 2023). It is also a compelling narrative in the broader sense of the many pieces that go into developing and implementing risk mitigation.…”