Reducing risk where tectonic plates collide—U.S. Geological Survey subduction zone science plan

Gomberg, Joan; Ludwig, K. R.; Bekins, Barbara A.; Brocher, Thomas M.; Brock, John C.; Chaytor, Jason D.; Frankel, Arthur; Geist, Eric L.; Haney, Matthew M.; Hickman, Stephen H.; Leith, William; Roeloffs, Evelyn; Schulz, William H.; Sisson, T. W.; Wallace, Kristi L.; Watt, Janet T.; Wein, Anne

doi:10.3133/cir1428

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since Lindell and Prater’s study, government agencies (e.g. Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup (CREW), 2013), science agencies (Gomberg et al, 2017), and the news media alike have increased their coverage of CSZ earthquakes (Schulz, 2015); the Seattle metro region also experienced very strong shaking from the M6.8 Nisqually earthquake in 2001 that raised public awareness of regional earthquake hazards and motivated infrastructure upgrades (King 5 News, 2021; Moriarty, 2011). Despite these recent events, we found only a few local preparedness assessment surveys (DHM Research, 2017; Herbert Research, Inc., 2004; PRR, Inc., 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From information to public preparedness in the Cascadia Subduction Zone: Examining risk communication outcomes in Metropolitan Portland, OR

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake will cause widespread damage along the Pacific Northwest (PNW) coast of the United States. It is, therefore, crucial to understand how to reduce future impacts across this region and assess current levels of household preparedness. Here, we examine whether decades of risk and preparedness campaigns have established protective knowledge and promoted hazard adjustments for residents of the Portland, Oregon metropolitan (PDX) region, an area where risk and preparedness campaigns have been increasing over the last decade. We also explore how PDX preparedness levels compare to those in other PNW regions using analogous data from multiple surveys over a 20-year time interval and assess PDX respondent’s perceptions of risk information sources. We find that 63% of PDX residents do not intend to “Drop, Cover, and Hold On” (DCHO) when earthquake shaking starts and that, although residents are generally aware of earthquake hazards in the area, they are less aware of the specific risks for their homes. Furthermore, PDX residents’ preparedness levels seem to be comparable to those recently surveyed in Washington, but somewhat less than those surveyed two decades ago in California, though more comprehensive data are needed to verify these results. We also find that people rate risk information provided by emergency managers and their websites as more accurate, understandable, relevant, and new than other sources. Our results suggest that significant gaps remain in translating broad awareness of the CSZ earthquake into personal knowledge and preparedness. This work provides guidance to PDX emergency educators for more targeted messaging and provides methods to measure preparedness variables in other regions for future comparisons. By paying close attention to preparedness gaps, local officials can use their limited resources more effectively to develop strategies to inform their communities and improve preparedness before a major earthquake strikes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From information to public preparedness in the Cascadia Subduction Zone: Examining risk communication outcomes in Metropolitan Portland, OR

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…NCSS and SCSN are for northern and southern California, respectively. Mendocino refers to the northern end of the California coast, near the Cascadia Subduction Zone (Gomberg et al, 2017). Row 5 refers to three hydrothermal areas in eastern California: Long Valley, Coso, and the Salton Sea.…”

Section: Elevated Hazard Model (Module 1)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Elevated collapse risk based on decaying aftershock hazard and damaged building fragilities

Hulsey,

Galvis,

Baker

et al. 2024

Earthquake Spectra

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article proposes a framework to support postearthquake building safety and reoccupancy decisions by quantifying the change in building collapse risk following a mainshock earthquake event. This risk may be exacerbated by both an increase in seismic hazard due to aftershock activity and a reduction in building collapse resistance due to structural damage. To address these factors, the framework is based on a hazard that includes (1) both the steady-state and the aftershock occurrence rates, that is, the elevated hazard that accounts for the dependence on the mainshock magnitude and the aftershock rate that decays over time, and (2) revised collapse fragility functions that account for structural damage sustained during the mainshock. The framework is capable of addressing region-specific questions such as (1) What are the mainshock magnitudes for which aftershocks pose a life-safety concern? (2) How long does it take for the elevated risk due to aftershocks to dissipate? and (3) What gaps in current knowledge deserve further attention from the earthquake engineering and seismology communities? The framework addresses these questions for a 20-story building in San Francisco, assuming three different, hypothetical mainshock events of magnitudes 7,7.5, and 8 M W on the San Andreas fault. This is followed by a parametric study that considers a range of buildings and provides a graphical representation of the elevated risk to inform building evaluation (tagging) decisions, based on the intact building’s collapse capacity, the amount of structural damage, and the length of time after the mainshock.

show abstract

“…A number of important science objectives, and to some extent modeling approaches, have also been defined recently within the ERUPT Report (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017); within the USGS Plan to Advance Subduction Zone Science (Gomberg et al, 2017); the NASA decadal survey (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018); within the SZ4D white paper by Segall and Anderson (2016), which contributed to the recommendation for a modeling collaboratory within the SZ4D Vision Document (McGuire et al, 2017); and within the report of the SZ4D Working Group for Magmatic Drivers of Eruption (MDE).…”

Section: Relation To Other Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling Volcano-Magmatic Systems: Workshop Report for the Modeling Collaboratory for Subduction Research Coordination Network

Gonnermann¹,

Anderson²

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document summarizes the outcomes of the Modeling Collaboratory for Subduction Zone Science (MCS) Volcanic Systems Workshop and presents a vision for advancing collaborative modeling of volcano-magmatic systems. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has identified 161 potentially active volcanoes in the United States and its territories, of which 57 are considered to be high or very high threats (Ewert et al., 2018). All western states, including Alaska and Hawaii, have potentially active volcanoes. Eruptions range from the quiet effusion of sluggish lava flows over hours to decades to immense explosive ejections of tephra which produce massive calderas.Understanding these volcanoes and assessing their threat to society requires the development of quantitative models, rooted in physics and chemistry, which can be used to interpret diverse observations including real-time monitoring data. Existing models have tremendously advanced our understanding of volcanic systems and have improved our ability to assess hazards and forecast future activity, contributing directly to reductions in the number of lives lost to volcanic eruptions and helping mitigate their costs to society. Magmatic system models also provide a quantitative framework for understanding processes that occur at depth beneath volcanoes, linking volcanic systems with a broad range of deeper processes associated with the production, transport, and storage of magma and associated fluids above subducting slabs.Despite this exciting progress much remains to be accomplished and workshop participants identified several important opportunities. First and foremost is the recognition that enhanced support for the development and dissemination of volcano-magmatic system models and associated methodologies will enable advances in ways not currently possible. A key outcome of the workshops is a recognition of the transformative potential of diverse groups of scientists working together on common problems. Support for collaborative working groups will enable communication across disciplines and between modelers and non-modelers, leveraging expertise from scientists studying different aspects of volcano-magmatic systems, and between geoscientists and outside experts from fields such as mathematics, statistics, and material sciences. Better support will also enable modelers to more fully verify, validate, benchmark, and document their codes, and also provide new training opportunities. Enhanced model sharing and interoperability will reduce the need for different groups to independently duplicate (re-invent) code and increase confidence in published results. This report lays out a proposal for a collaborative modeling environment that is centered in large part around community working groups manifested as workshops, summer schools, and sustained long-term research collaborations involving diverse groups of scientists working on common problems. Programmatic support is envisioned in the form of enhanced student and postdoc funding for model development, incentives and support for cross-disciplinary collaborative research projects, and related support for these activities. This support will fundamentally improve our ability to integrate and interpret observations using volcanic and magmatic system models.

show abstract

Reducing risk where tectonic plates collide—U.S. Geological Survey subduction zone science plan

Cited by 7 publications

References 3 publications

From information to public preparedness in the Cascadia Subduction Zone: Examining risk communication outcomes in Metropolitan Portland, OR

From information to public preparedness in the Cascadia Subduction Zone: Examining risk communication outcomes in Metropolitan Portland, OR

Elevated collapse risk based on decaying aftershock hazard and damaged building fragilities

Modeling Volcano-Magmatic Systems: Workshop Report for the Modeling Collaboratory for Subduction Research Coordination Network

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About