Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 297–319 | Cite as

Accounting for end-user preferences in earthquake early warning systems

  • Thomas Le GuenanEmail author
  • Farid Smai
  • Annick Loschetter
  • Samuel Auclair
  • Daniel Monfort
  • Nicolas Taillefer
  • John Douglas
Original Research Paper


Earthquake early warning systems (EEWSs) that rapidly trigger risk-reduction actions after a potentially-damaging earthquake is detected are an attractive tool to reduce seismic losses. One brake on their implementation in practice is the difficulty in setting the threshold required to trigger pre-defined actions: set the level too high and the action is not triggered before potentially-damaging shaking occurs and set the level too low and the action is triggered too readily. Balancing these conflicting requirements of an EEWS requires a consideration of the preferences of its potential end users. In this article a framework to define these preferences, as part of a participatory decision making procedure, is presented. An aspect of this framework is illustrated for a hypothetical toll bridge in a seismically-active region, where the bridge owners wish to balance the risk to people crossing the bridge with the loss of toll revenue and additional travel costs in case of bridge closure. Multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) is used to constrain the trigger threshold for four owners with different preferences. We find that MAUT is an appealing and transparent way of aiding the potentially controversial decision of what level of risk to accept in EEW.


Earthquake early warning (EEW) Decision making End-user preferences Bridges Thresholds Multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) 



This study was supported by REAKT (Strategies and tools for Real Time EArthquake RisK ReducTion), a Framework 7 project funded by the European Commission (ENV.2011.1.3.1-1). We thank Gordon Woo for discussions on decision making. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their extensive and detailed comments on an earlier version of this article.


  1. Akkar S, Bommer JJ (2010) Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA, PGV and spectral accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean region and the Middle East. Seismol Res Lett 81(2):195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen RM (2011) Earthquakes, early and strong motion warning. In: Gupta H (ed) Encyclopedia of solid earth geophysics. Springer, Berlin, pp 226–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen RM, Kanamori H (2003) The potential for earthquake early warning in southern California. Science 300:786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Auclair S, Goula X, Jara JA, Colom Y (2015) Feasibility and interest in earthquake early warning systems for areas of moderate seismicity: case study for the Pyrenees. Pure appl Geophys. doi: 10.1007/s00024-014-0957-x Google Scholar
  5. Castelletti A, Soncini-Sessa R (2006) A procedural approach to strengthening integration and participation in water resource planning. Environ Model Softw 21(10):1455–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cua G, Heaton T (2007) The virtual seismologist (VS) method: a Bayesian approach to earthquake early warning. In: Gasparini P, Manfredi G, Zschau J (eds) Earthquake early warning systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 97–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Douglas J, Woo G, Auclair S, Le Guenan T (2012), Critical review of participatory decision making in fields other than earthquake risk reduction. Report BRGM/RP-61480-FR.
  8. FEMA (2003) Multi-hazard loss estimation earthquake model HAZUS-MH MR3 technical manualGoogle Scholar
  9. Giardini D, Woessner J, Danciu L, Crowley H, Cotton F, Grünthal G, Pinho R, Valensise G, Akkar S, Arvidsson R, Basili R, Cameelbeeck T, Campos-Costa A, Douglas J, Demircioglu MB, Erdik M, Fonseca J, Glavatovic B, Lindholm C, Makropoulos K, Meletti F, Musson R, Pitilakis K, Sesetyan K, Stromeyer D, Stucchi M, Rovida A (2013) Seismic hazard harmonization in Europe (SHARE): Online Data Resource. doi: 10.12686/SED-00000001-SHARE
  10. Iervolino I, Massimiliano G, Manfredi G (2007) Expected loss-based alarm threshold set for earthquake early warning systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(9):1151–1168. doi: 10.1002/eqe.675 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Iervolino I, Giorgio M, Galasso C, Manfredi G (2009) Uncertainty in early warning predictions of engineering ground motion parameters: what really matters? Geophys Res Lett. doi: 10.1029/2008GL036644 Google Scholar
  12. Kailiponi P (2010) Analysing evacuation decisions using multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT). Proc Eng 3:163–174. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2010.07.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Le Guenan T, Smai F, Loschetter A, Auclair S, Douglas J (2014) Proposed participatory decision-making framework of REAKT and application to test cases. Deliverable D6.7, REAKT (Strategies and tools for Real Time EArthquake RisK ReducTion).
  15. Nakamura Y, Saita J (2007) UrEDAS, the earthquake warning system: today and tomorrow. In: Gasparini P, Manfredi G, Zschau J (eds) Earthquake early warning systems. Springer, Berlin, pp. 249–281Google Scholar
  16. Neapolitan RE (2004) Learning bayesian networks, vol 38. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  17. Satriano C, Elia L, Martino C, Lancieri M, Zollo A, Iannaccone G (2011) PRESTo, the earthquake warning system for southern Italy: concepts, capabilities and future perspectives. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(2):137–153. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.06.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Taillefer N, Monfort-Climent D, Bastone V (2014) Loss estimation for co-seismic risk assessment through an EWS. Report BRGM/RP-63614-FR.
  19. Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1953) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  20. Wang JP, Wu YM, Lin TL, Brant L (2012) The uncertainties of a PD36PGV onsite earthquake early warning system. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 36:32–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wu S, Beck JL, Heaton TH (2013) ePAD: earthquake probability-based automated decision-making framework for earthquake early warning. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 28:737–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wurman G, Allen RM, Lombard P (2007) Toward earthquake early warning in northern California. J Geophys Res 112:B08311. doi: 10.1029/2006JB004830 Google Scholar
  23. Zollo A, Amoroso O, Lancieri M, Wu YM, Kanamori H (2010) A threshold-based earthquake early warning using dense accelerometer networks. Geophys J Int 183:963–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Le Guenan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Farid Smai
    • 1
  • Annick Loschetter
    • 1
  • Samuel Auclair
    • 1
  • Daniel Monfort
    • 1
  • Nicolas Taillefer
    • 1
  • John Douglas
    • 2
  1. 1.Risks and Prevention Division (DRP)BRGMOrleans Cedex 2France
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations