Real-Time Mapping of Earthquake Perception Areas in the Italian Region from Twitter Streams Analysis

  • Luca D’AuriaEmail author
  • Vincenzo Convertito
Part of the Springer Natural Hazards book series (SPRINGERNAT)


The mapping of earthquake perception area is useful to determine how many people have felt it. This is an important issue because even moderate magnitude earthquakes can affect critical communication infrastructures. However theoretical estimates of instrumental intensity distribution, derived from ground motion parameters (e.g. ShakeMaps), maybe poorly correlated with the actual earthquake perception. Furthermore, the number of people who felt the earthquake depends strongly on the spatial distribution of the population density. In recent years there has been a growing interest in the data mining of citizen-provided information from social networks, Internet accesses and web-based macroseismic surveys aimed at detecting, locating and characterizing the macroseismic field of moderate and strong earthquakes. Here we propose a strategy to retrieve in real-time useful information about the area where an earthquake has been perceived and how many people felt it, using data mining of Twitter streams. We show that using a proper normalization of these data allows a quantitative definition of an Earthquake Perception Index based on Twitter posts (EPIT). This index shows a good correlation with ground motion parameters and macroseismic data and hence allows a rapid but realistic mapping of the perception area.


  1. Allen, R. M. (2012). Transforming earthquake detection? Science, 335(6066), 297–298.Google Scholar
  2. Bindi, D., Pacor, F., Luzi, L., Puglia, R., Massa, M., Ameri, G., & Paolucci, R. (2011). Ground motion prediction equations derived from the Italian strong motion database. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 9(6), 1899–1920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bossu, R., Mazet-Roux, G., Douet, V., Rives, S., Marin, S., & Aupetit, M. (2008). Internet users as seismic sensors for improved earthquake response. Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 89(25).
  4. Bossu, R., Gilles, S., Mazet-Roux, G., Roussel, F., Frobert, L., & Kamb, L. (2011). Flash sourcing, or rapid detection and characterization of earthquake effects through website traffic analysis. Annals of Geophysics, 54(6). doi: 10.4401/ag-5265.
  5. Bossu, R., Lefebvre, S., Cansi, Y., & Mazet-Roux, G. (2014). Characterization of the 2011 Mineral, Virginia, earthquake effects and epicenter from website traffic analysis. Seismological Research Letters, 85(1). doi: 10.1785/0220130106.
  6. Burks, L., Miller, M., & Zadeh, R. (2014). Rapid estimate of ground shaking intensity by combining simple earthquake characteristics with tweets. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK.Google Scholar
  7. D’Auria, L., & Giudicepietro, F. (2013). TwiFelt: Real-time mapping of earthquake perception areas through the analysis of Twitter streams. Rapporti Tecnici INGV n.254 ISSN 2039-7941 (PDF available at.
  8. Earle, P. S., Bowden, D. C., & Guy, M. (2011). Twitter earthquake detection: Earthquake monitoring in a social world. Annals of Geophysics, 54(6). doi: 10.4401/ag-5364.
  9. Earle, P., Guy, M., Buckmaster, R., Ostrum, C., Horvath, S., & Vaughan, A. (2010). OMG earthquake! Can Twitter improve earthquake response? Seismological Research Letters, 81(2), 246–251.Google Scholar
  10. Mercalli, G. (1902). Sulle modificazioni proposte alla scala sismica De Rossi-Forel. Società tipografica modenese.Google Scholar
  11. Moumni, B., Frias-Martinez, V., Frias-Martinez, E. (2013). Characterizing social response to urban earthquakes using cell-phone network data: The 2012 Oaxaca Earthquake. PURBA 2013: Workshop on Pervasive Urban Applications. UbiComp’13, September 8–12, 2013, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  12. Sakaki, T., Okazaki, M., & Matsuo, Y. (2010). Earthquake shakes Twitter users: Real-time event detection by social sensors. In WWW2010, April 26–30, Raleigh, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  13. Sakaki, T., Okazaki, M., & Matsuo, Y. (2013). Tweet analysis for real-time event detection and earthquake reporting system development. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and data engineering, 25(4). doi: 10.1109/TKDE.2012.29.
  14. Sbarra, P., Tosi, P., & De Rubeis, V. (2009). Web-based macroseismic survey in Italy: Method validation and results. Natural Hazards, 4, 563–581. doi: 10.1007/s11069-009-9488-7.Google Scholar
  15. Sysomos. (2014). Inside Twitter: An In-depth look inside the Twitter World.
  16. Thelwall, M., Buckley, K., & Paltoglou, G. (2011). Sentiment in Twitter events. Journal of the American Society for Information Science Technology, 62(2), 406–418. doi: 10.1002/asi.21462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Vervaeck, A. (2011). Mobile communications and earthquakes: A very “disturbing” marriage.
  18. Young, J. C., Wald, D. J, Earle, P. S., & Shanley, L. A. (2013). Transforming earthquake detection and science through citizen seismology. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. (
  19. Wald, D. J., Quitoriano, V., Dengler, L. A., & Dewey, J. W. (1999). Utilization of the Internet for rapid community intensity maps. Seismology Research Letters, 70, 680–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e VulcanologiaNapoliItaly

Personalised recommendations