Search

Earthquake early warning (EEW) systems are relatively new technologies having first emerged as regional systems in the 1990s. Japan was the first nation to develop and implement a nationwide system in October 2007, and in the United States, ShakeAlert® became available on the entire length of the US West Coast in May 2021. Assessing how EEW is perceived and utilized by alert recipients is considered essential. Such assessments are necessary to evaluate whether alert recipients are taking advantage of alert messages to initiate protective actions upon receipt of an alert, how they regard the usefulness of alerts, desirable thresholds for issuing alerts, and other aspects of these systems. Having information from users will also facilitate assessments of the success of earthquake preparedness educational programs such as the ShakeOut and whether annual drills which include information on EEW systems are resulting in behavioral response consistent with the content of these programs. Finally, information on EEW utilization will provide data useful to social scientists who study hazards to advance our understanding of behavioral response to warnings. Survey research in the aftermath of a significant earthquake in which an EEW has been issued is one obvious method of achieving these objectives and there already exist a number of survey instruments for this purpose. A related strategy and the goal of the present research is to develop a brief questionnaire, consistent with those already developed, as a supplement to the United States Geological Survey’s “Did You Feel It?” questionnaire that has provided earthquake intensities and information on behavioral response in earthquakes, both domestic and international, since 2004. Having the intensity level at each respondent’s location is essential for relating their perspectives and actions to the shaking they experienced.

In their analysis of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) data Hough and Martin (2021) claim, among other assertions, that the following: Socioeconomic and geopolitical factors can introduce biases in the USGS’ characterization of earthquakes and their effects, especially if online data collection systems are not designed to be broadly accessible;These biases can, in turn, potentially cascade in myriad ways, potentially shaping our understanding of an earthquake’s impact and the characterization of seismic hazard; andCaution should be urged when relying on data from the DYFI system to characterize the distribution of shaking from large earthquakes in India and other parts of the world (outside of the United States). Claims of inequity in access, systematic data biases, or urging caution in the usage of data from critical governmental earthquake information systems should not be made, nor taken, lightly. Several assertions made by Hough and Martin (hereafter, H&M) about the nature of DYFI contributors—and the data they provide—leave a false narrative concerning DYFI system accessibility and quality that H&M have not adequately substantiated. I describe several shortcomings of H&M’s demographic statistics and methodology, focusing on four main concerns. First, DYFI has revolutionized and greatly facilitated access to reporting intensities, in contrast to H&M claims to the contrary. Second, because DYFI does not directly collect demographic data other than the observer’s location, any demographic analyses require extraordinary inferences, well outside the normal bounds of sociodemographic analyses. Third, independent of accessibility and the geographic distribution of contributions from the public, the macroseismic data collected are nonetheless representative of the shaking and impact at each location, of quality, rapid, and thus extremely useful. Lastly, H&M fail to cite critical and pertinent prior, highly relevant scholarly studies, and as such, they misrepresent the novelty of their own work as well as miss key practical matters detailed in those prior studies. Prior to rebutting what H&M claim DYFI does not do, I will remind the reader the ways in which DYFI excels.

This study assesses existing intensity prediction equations (IPEs) for small unspecified magnitude (M ≤3.5) earthquakes at short hypocentral distances (Dh) and explores such earthquakes’ contribution to the felt shaking hazard. In particular, we consider IPEs by Atkinson and Wald (2007) and Atkinson et al. (2014), and evaluate their performance based on “Did You Feel It” (DYFI) reports and recorded peak ground velocities (PGVs) in the central United States. Both IPEs were developed based on DYFI reports in the central and eastern United States with moment magnitudes above Mw 3.0. DYFI reports are often used as the ground truth when evaluating and developing IPEs, but they could be less reliable when there are limited responses for small-magnitude earthquakes. We first compare the DYFI reports with intensities interpolated from recorded PGVs. Results suggest a minimal discrepancy between the two when the intensity is large enough to be felt (i.e., M >2 and Dh