USGS Near‐Real‐Time Products—and Their Use—for the 2018 Anchorage Earthquake

In the minutes to hours after a major earthquake, such as the recent 2018 Mw 7.1 Anchorage event, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) produces a suite of interconnected earthquake products that provides diverse information ranging from basic earthquake source parameters to loss estimates. The 2018 Anchorage earthquake is the first major domestic earthquake to occur since several new USGS products have been developed, thus providing an opportunity to discuss the newly expanded USGS earthquake product suite, its timeliness, performance, and reception. Overall, the products were relatively timely, accurate, well received, and widely used, including by the media, who used information and visualizations from many products to frame their early reporting. One downside of the codependence of multiple products is that reasonable updates to upstream products (e.g., magnitude and source characterization) can result in significant changes to downstream products; this was the case for the Anchorage earthquake. However, the coverage of strong‐motion stations and felt reports was so dense that the ShakeMap and downstream products were relatively insensitive to changes in magnitude or fault‐plane orientation once the ground‐motion data were available. Shaking and loss indicators initially fluctuated in the first hour or two after the earthquake, but they stabilized quickly. To understand how the products are being used and how effectively they are being communicated, we analyze the media coverage of USGS earthquake products. Most references to USGS products occurred within the first 48 hr after the event. The lack of coverage after 48 hr could indicate that longer‐term products addressing what actions the USGS is taking or what early reconnaissance has revealed might be useful for those people wanting additional information about the earthquake.

[1]  David A. Rhoades,et al.  Probabilistic Relationships between Ground‐Motion Parameters and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California , 2012 .

[2]  L. Baise,et al.  An Updated Geospatial Liquefaction Model for Global Application , 2017 .

[3]  J. Maxwell Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research , 1992 .

[4]  Chen Ji,et al.  Source Description of the 1999 Hector Mine, California, Earthquake, Part I: Wavelet Domain Inversion Theory and Resolution Analysis , 2002 .

[5]  R. Jibson,et al.  Maps Showing Seismic Landslide Hazards in Anchorage, Alaska , 2009 .

[6]  Hakan Tanyas,et al.  USGS approach to real-time estimation of earthquake-triggered ground failure - Results of 2015 workshop , 2016 .

[7]  T. Lay,et al.  Intraslab Deformation in the 30 November 2018 Anchorage, Alaska, MW 7.1 Earthquake , 2019, Geophysical Research Letters.

[8]  Fang Wu,et al.  Novelty and collective attention , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  K. Allstadt,et al.  Integrating landslide and liquefaction hazard and loss estimates with existing USGS real-time earthquake information products , 2017 .

[10]  K. Allstadt,et al.  A Global Empirical Model for Near‐Real‐Time Assessment of Seismically Induced Landslides , 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface.

[11]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  Spatial and Spectral Interpolation of Ground-Motion Intensity Measure Observations , 2018 .

[12]  T. Tezel Application of P-wave Mwp magnitude to earthquakes for tsunami early warning in and around South-Western Turkey , 2014, Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica.

[13]  G. Hayes The finite, kinematic rupture properties of great-sized earthquakes since 1990 , 2017 .

[14]  Robert V. Whitman,et al.  HAZUS Earthquake Loss Estimation Methods , 2006 .

[15]  P. Reasenberg,et al.  Earthquake aftershocks: update. , 1994, Science.

[16]  C. Worden,et al.  Estimating rupture distances without a rupture , 2017 .

[17]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2010 .

[18]  Kimberly B. Massey,et al.  Analyzing the uses and gratifications concept of audience activity with a qualitative approach: Media encounters during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake disaster , 1995 .

[19]  H. Benz Building a National Seismic Monitoring Center: NEIC from 2000 to the Present , 2017 .

[20]  N. Denzin,et al.  The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research , 2007 .

[21]  K. Allstadt,et al.  Improving Near-Real-Time Coseismic Landslide Models: Lessons Learned from the 2016 Kaikōura, New Zealand, Earthquake , 2018 .

[22]  David J. Wald,et al.  USGS "Did You Feel It?" internet-based macroseismic intensity maps , 2012 .

[23]  Petra Theunissen,et al.  "New Zealand's darkest day." The representation of national grief in the media: the case of the Christchurch earthquake. , 2011 .

[24]  H. Kanamori,et al.  Source Inversion of the W-Phase: Real-time Implementation and Extension to Low Magnitudes , 2009 .

[25]  Göran Ekström,et al.  The global CMT project 2004–2010: Centroid-moment tensors for 13,017 earthquakes , 2012 .

[26]  Amy Einsohn The copyeditor's handbook : a guide for book publishing and corporate communications, with exercises and answer keys , 2000 .

[27]  Emma E. H. Doyle,et al.  When the earth doesn’t stop shaking: How experiences over time influenced information needs, communication, and interpretation of aftershock information during the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, New Zealand , 2019, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction.

[28]  David J. Wald,et al.  PAGER--Rapid assessment of an earthquake?s impact , 2007 .

[29]  Kristi Jackson,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo , 2007 .

[30]  P. Earle,et al.  OMG Earthquake! Can Twitter Improve Earthquake Response? , 2009 .

[31]  P. Reasenberg,et al.  Earthquake Hazard After a Mainshock in California , 1989, Science.

[32]  M. Hearne,et al.  Slab2, a comprehensive subduction zone geometry model , 2018, Science.

[33]  David L. Altheide Qualitative Media Analysis , 1996 .

[34]  Stan Schwarz,et al.  National Earthquake Information Center systems overview and integration , 2015 .

[35]  David A. Rhoades,et al.  Retrospective tests of hybrid operational earthquake forecasting models for Canterbury , 2016 .

[36]  H. Seligson,et al.  A domestic earthquake impact alert protocol based on the combined USGS PAGER and FEMA Hazus loss estimation systems , 2020 .