The Effects of Earthquake Experience on Intentions to Respond to Earthquake Early Warnings

Abstract

Warning systems are essential for providing people with information so they can take protective action in response to perils. Systems need to be human-centered, which requires an understanding of the context within which humans operate. Therefore, our research sought to understand the human context for Earthquake Early Warning (EEW) in Aotearoa New Zealand, a location where no comprehensive EEW system existed in 2019 when we did this study. We undertook a survey of people's previous experiences of earthquakes, their perceptions of the usefulness of a hypothetical EEW system, and their intended responses to a potential warning (for example, Drop, Cover, Hold (DCH), staying still, performing safety actions). Results showed little difference in perceived usefulness of an EEW system between those with and without earthquake experience, except for a weak relationship between perceived usefulness and if a respondent's family or friends had previously experienced injury, damage or loss from an earthquake. Previous earthquake experience was, however, associated with various intended responses to a warning. The more direct, or personally relevant a person's experiences were, the more likely they were to intend to take a useful action on receipt of an EEW. Again, the type of experience which showed the largest difference was having had a family member or friend experience injury, damage or loss. Experience of participation in training, exercises or drills did not seem to prompt the correct intended actions for earthquake warnings; however, given the hypothetical nature of the study, it is possible people did not associate their participation in drills, for example, with a potential action that could be taken on receipt of an EEW. Our analysis of regional differences highlighted that intentions to mentally prepare on receipt of a warning were significantly higher for Canterbury region participants, most likely related to strong shaking and subsequent impacts experienced during the 2010–11 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence. Our research reinforces that previous experience can influence earthquake-related perceptions and behaviors, but in different ways depending on the context. Public communication and interventions for EEW could take into consideration different levels and types of experiences of the audience for greater success in response.

Understanding the social aspects of earthquake early warning: A literature review

“…Therefore, there may be papers or subject areas unexplored. Additionally, EEW is a rapidly evolving field of study, and there will inevitably be papers published since September 2021 that were not included in this review (e.g., Becker et al, 2022;Fallou et al, 2022;McBride et al, 2022;Vaiciulyte et al, 2022). Future research should consider expanding the literature coverage by including different databases and more recent publications.…”

Earthquake Early Warning in Central America: The Societal Perspective

“…New Zealand also selected a similar threshold (MMI V+) [22]. Both countries had experienced significant and damaging earthquakes with long aftershock sequences, this may suggest that over time and with exposure to several earthquakes, individuals may prefer to receive alerts only for damaging earthquakes [24,26]. Central America and Switzerland chose to receive alerts for MMI III+, however the decision might be for different reasons.…”

“…This requires identifying the needs and capacities of the target audience, determining drivers and restraints on how users can respond effectively to alerts and maximising public acceptance of the system [21]. In recent literature, social science surveys that document the behaviour, understanding and expectations of the public have been conducted in New Zealand [22][23][24], Switzerland [25], and the US [26]. In advance of the wide-scale roll-out of EEW in Central America, we aim to evaluate the level of desire for the system.…”

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 .…”