Accounting for end-user preferences in earthquake early warning systems

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Notes

  1. 1.

    The notation <X; Y> designates lotteries with outcomes X or Y each with a 50 % probability.

References

  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):195–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allen RM (2011) Earthquakes, early and strong motion warning. In: Gupta H (ed) Encyclopedia of solid earth geophysics. Springer, Berlin, pp 226–233

    Google Scholar 

  3. Allen RM, Kanamori H (2003) The potential for earthquake early warning in southern California. Science 300:786

    Article  Google 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):1455–1470

    Article  Google 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 97–132

    Google 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. http://www.brgm.eu/content/public-reports

  8. FEMA (2003) Multi-hazard loss estimation earthquake model HAZUS-MH MR3 technical manual

  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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York

    Google 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). http://www.reaktproject.eu/deliverables/REAKT-D6.7.pdf

  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. 249–281

  16. Neapolitan RE (2004) Learning bayesian networks, vol 38. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google 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

    Article  Google 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. http://www.brgm.eu/content/public-reports

  19. Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1953) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google 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 36:32–37

    Article  Google 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 28:737–752

    Article  Google 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 183:963–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Le Guenan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Le Guenan, T., Smai, F., Loschetter, A. et al. Accounting for end-user preferences in earthquake early warning systems. Bull Earthquake Eng 14, 297–319 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9802-6

Download citation

Keywords

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