James D. Goltz, David J. Wald, Sara K. McBride, E.Harish Reddy, V. Quitoriano, J. Saunders
{"title":"The Ojai California Earthquake of 20 August 2023: Earthquake Early Warning Performance and Alert Recipient Response in the Mw 5.1 Event","authors":"James D. Goltz, David J. Wald, Sara K. McBride, E.Harish Reddy, V. Quitoriano, J. Saunders","doi":"10.1785/0220240023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n A magnitude 5.1 earthquake in California rarely generates more than momentary notice—a headline in local newspapers and a mention with footage on the evening news—then fades into obscurity for most people. But this earthquake, which occurred near the city of Ojai, is important for seismologists, social scientists, emergency managers, policymakers, and others who are engaged in implementing and improving earthquake early warning (EEW) technology and in assessing its value in public warnings. In this earthquake, ShakeAlert, the EEW system for the West Coast of the United States operated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), was publicly activated and, for the first time, a substantial number of those who received alerts provided feedback on various aspects of the alerts they received. To capture data related to public attitudes and assessments regarding this and future alerts, a supplemental questionnaire was developed and associated with the “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) earthquake reporting system, also operated by the USGS. The DYFI system received over 14,000 felt reports; 2490 of these were by people who received or expected to receive an alert before the onset of earthquake motion at their locations. This article analyzes the aggregate results of these EEW user reports, touching on the respondent’s situation upon receiving the alert, characteristics of the alert received, and, perhaps, most importantly, how the alert recipient responded if received before feeling earthquake motion. The new DYFI EEW supplemental questionnaire also inquired about respondent views of alert usefulness and preferences in future alerts. Our report provides a first glimpse of a range of behaviors, attitudes, and assessments by users of the recently implemented EEW system for the U.S. West Coast.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1785/0220240023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
A magnitude 5.1 earthquake in California rarely generates more than momentary notice—a headline in local newspapers and a mention with footage on the evening news—then fades into obscurity for most people. But this earthquake, which occurred near the city of Ojai, is important for seismologists, social scientists, emergency managers, policymakers, and others who are engaged in implementing and improving earthquake early warning (EEW) technology and in assessing its value in public warnings. In this earthquake, ShakeAlert, the EEW system for the West Coast of the United States operated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), was publicly activated and, for the first time, a substantial number of those who received alerts provided feedback on various aspects of the alerts they received. To capture data related to public attitudes and assessments regarding this and future alerts, a supplemental questionnaire was developed and associated with the “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) earthquake reporting system, also operated by the USGS. The DYFI system received over 14,000 felt reports; 2490 of these were by people who received or expected to receive an alert before the onset of earthquake motion at their locations. This article analyzes the aggregate results of these EEW user reports, touching on the respondent’s situation upon receiving the alert, characteristics of the alert received, and, perhaps, most importantly, how the alert recipient responded if received before feeling earthquake motion. The new DYFI EEW supplemental questionnaire also inquired about respondent views of alert usefulness and preferences in future alerts. Our report provides a first glimpse of a range of behaviors, attitudes, and assessments by users of the recently implemented EEW system for the U.S. West Coast.