Transforming Earthquake Early Warning SFDRR Strategy Into New Beneficiary Actions

Garry De La Pomerai

Garry De La Pomerai is a Consultant with Soluzion VVSC Inc CA Strategic Technology Coordinators and is a project implementation strategist with ERTHA Tech Inc US for AEEWS based in Kathmandu Nepal. He is a versatile DRR strategist with 22 years of experience in the Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Acknowledgment: AEEWS IP technical contribution Dimitar Ouzounov, ERTHA Tech Inc. US

Much is written about required strategy and wish lists both in the SFFA and SDGs. Discovering a solution concept is only the first step towards implementation. Next, is the technical science provision; and even when that is achieved, we are then challenged into converting those words of science into practical sustainable and robust actions in the field.

The greater challenge of implementation lays with DRR strategists’ capabilities in making it a functioning, sustainable and beneficial system for society; generating collaboration between sectors of civil society and governance, maximising the opportunities within the potential holy grail of short-term earthquake early warning.

Translating words into actions within the terms of DRR is a fluid multi-faceted process of identifying risks rather than a strategy to mitigate those risks through early warning, followed by identifying the conceptual science to solve the problem, to establishing the technology to satisfy the science. From this point, it is then all about implementation, which often initially baffles science and technology, thus the need for experienced project managers capable of working outside of the box in the frontline, determined to convert the science intent and technology into a workable system within a ‘to be’ trained society, capable of using and benefiting from the system.

Within the Sendai Framework priority G[1] states, “Substantially increase the availability of and access to multi-hazard early warning systems and disaster risk information and assessments to people by 2030”.

Even within The SDG11[2] within resilient infrastructure, early warning is again a required component. “By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to the global gross domestic product caused by disasters…..”

In fact, since the Hyogo Framework in 2005, it has been the quest to promote multi-hazard early warning systems as part of the committed UN proactive strategy. Whereas meteorological warnings have been constantly developing, as well as for floods and even indicators for droughts and volcanoes are better understood, however, earthquakes are still the greatest threat to untimely deaths causing the most casualties [56%] amongst all perceived natural disastersbetween 1998 and 2017.

We have already established within our strategy DRR discussions that disasters are purely mismanagement of natural events, either neglected, with ill-conceived contingency plans or indeed evolving as a cascade crisis where the amalgamation of multiple adverse events, taken individually are manageable, but when occurring simultaneously, even secondary events can soon run out of control. [Fukushima 2011]. Consequently, contingency planning for the worst-case scenario is always essential regardless of how remote or improbable it may seem. The challenge with earthquakes is that they do not follow a set pattern and can strike twice in a similar zone and within a singular reoccurrence statistical estimate. [Turkey 1999 – Nepal 2015]

Converting words into actions when implementing earthquake early warning systems is complex, primarily because it is a developing science that has not enjoyed reliability or at least not extended early warnings beyond the very short-term alarm systems of seconds generated by the P-wave Sensor Network EW Systems.

The next challenge lays beyond simply developing a sensor network, but equally implementing a front to back-end integrated system, confirming the event data and transforming it to realistic early warning messaging, distributed across all sections of society, presently limited within the time boundaries of P-wave Systems, which at maximum offers 60 seconds inside the S-wave Destructive Zone.

However, converting the early warning words into response actions within the blind zone of a 30km radius from an epicentre has remained elusive and impossible using the P-wave System, because the differential between the P-wave and S-wave does not evolve sufficiently to be a useable difference of time lag. Thus, the most vulnerable and most destructive zone of an earthquake remains the most unprotected, until recently.

Earthquake Early Warning System has been evolving during the past 15 years, with the Japanese pioneering the P-wave Systems in the 2000s and the Chinese recently establishing the largest network with over 5600 sensors covering 90% of their seismic vulnerable zones of 2.2m sq. km; producing the 5 to 40 seconds of early warning. But this short early warning capability requires not only ultra-efficient science and technology but also a trained society capable of responding correctly to such short-term messaging. Thus, converting words into effective action takes more than technology; it requires significant awareness training and practice drills across all communities, which potentially takes more time and effort than the systems’ physical implementation.

So, even with the best intent, words into actions is a complex process when implementing earthquake early warning systems. And typically, until the system is fully functional, it is a challenge to generate the enthusiasm within communities to prepare, not until they can hear actual sirens or broadcast messages. A typical P-wave System can take up to five years to implement its application before it becomes fully tested and established, even within the first phase of a partial national rollout. Integrating with national and remote communications systems is one of the greater challenges, considering the efficiency to reliably transmit initial data, collate and then communicate the warning messaging at high speed if the system is to generate the crucial 5 to 40 seconds usable warning.

Whilst the holy grail of identifying the genesis of earthquakes has been sought by science, other sectors have been honing their expertise to provide potential advantages within their silo. These include prediction, using a wide range of observations, often yet to be formally proven by science appraisals and published papers, nonetheless satisfactory as indicators of potential events for indigenous communities. Then we have forecasting, which does embrace a wider science base set of precursor observations. This approach has been supported by numerous individual science papers and publications; and when each precursor anomaly is collated, they have successfully forecast significant events during the past decade [3].

To date, precursor forecast ability remains limited, capable of only identifying the wider potential epicentral zone, a time window of days and an estimate of magnitude. However, during the last eight years, the process has been refined with excellent examples [4] offering useful leads into events as far back as 30 days, when anomaly indicators are first observed; and upon the signature of the quake strengthening, with overlapping precursors, this has confirmed a 65% probability of an event within the next 10 days.

Outside of Prediction and Forecasting, we have the statistical approach effectively reviewing the historical data, individual timelines, merged with recent ground events, which may provide indicators of tension build-up. But, yet again, this fails to give anything else except a general indication of potential events within an ‘at risk’ zone, without a defined time window, nor a precise location nor magnitude. Working in a siloed environment, all three disciplines are constrained by their lack of collaboration. So, what should we ‘expect’ from words into actions relating to early earthquake early warning? Keywords like preparedness, contingency management, risk analysis, disaster planning, drills, training and constant awareness whilst operating within a hazardous zone generate a set of actions.

Numerous strategy documents are advising on the need for early warnings, but the experienced frontline challenges of implementation are rare for earthquake early warning systems. This is often because most systems are designed piecemeal at the national or state level and fail to satisfy transborder integration. Of course, seismic early warning, similar to meteorological early warning, needs to transcend borders as neither event-types respect arbitrary lines on a map. Whereas weather can be predominantly tracked by satellite and radar, the seismic activity requires multiple fixed ground sensors. China has 5600 and Japan over 2000.

Even Nepal would require over 300 to establish an effective P-wave early warning system. Thus, the terminology ‘words into actions’ begins to look complicated. And if the systems are to benefit trans-border, they need to be ‘tech and comms’ compatible; with the significant challenge being collaboration and integration in communications. Whilst, in theory, it is possible, in practice, and within developing countries, it is a far greater challenge than realised. Before we discuss developing EW Systems, let us review the social science challenge of words into actions. If we assume we have an efficient early warning system, not just with 30 seconds of warning, but say hours and maybe days with 99% confirmed warning of a seismic event about to rupture.

This scenario raises a variety of challenges within a DR strategy. The words of the Sendai Framework simply encourage systems to be in place by 2030. There are no suggestions on how to do so. Putting science aside, early warning messaging or sirens are of little use if the society, which includes the government, security and response, do not know how to react. Individuals meander through many locations and social duty activities throughout their day. So, training via a blueprint set of actions to cope with all scenarios is complex. An action in one location may not be suitable or indeed maybe even unsafe in another location. Stories of people running back into their houses at the onset of an earthquake because they were told to take shelter, duck cover and hold under specific tables, demonstrates the complexity of the necessary onsite training. This becomes even more complicated when we introduce potentially longer periods of confirmed warning – giving a warning of an event, for example, tomorrow between 2pm and 5pm, at a magnitude 7 earthquake, within a specific 30km radius zone.

Now consider the numerous layers of necessary warning dissemination before making it public. Acceptably, the potential advantages are enormous. But within the seismic world, this ability has never been considered. We can take some methodology from other potential hazards such as storms, floods and tsunamis. However, because of the concentrated destructive power of an earthquake, even with potential knowledge of the epicentre, it simply cannot be broadcast simultaneously to everyone before some initial preparedness and modelling by the Disaster and Response Management authorities; otherwise, roads would be gridlocked and commerce needlessly collapsing 24hrs+ in advance. Simultaneously, if random evacuations are initiated by an untrained society, premises security becomes an enormous threat if the police and security forces are not warned and pre-located. This further suggests that turning words into actions is complex, requiring great planning, and even if we can provide the holy grail of earthquake early warning hours and days in advance, it will present us with enormous challenges initially beyond the relative simplicity of implementing the technology. It is, therefore, necessary that all warnings systems are well-planned and intelligently communicated, distributed and cascaded into a trained society from the government down to the individual if we are to expect to optimise confirmed advanced earthquake early warnings without causing mayhem and unnecessary additional risk to property and life.

Now let us review the positive aspects of the developing science of advanced earthquake early warning, converting the desires of the Sendai Framework into positive and practical frontline actions by 2030. Whichever transborder system we engage will require several years to be negotiated, set up and proven. Thus, the eight years remaining to 2030 is fast evaporating.

New science also requires time to be analysed by the scientific world and there will always be dissenters, those traditionalists brought up to believe that certain advancements are impossible, plus there will be those that have vested interest in alternative systems. However, the ethics behind the Sendai Framework is to save lives. If we can also enhance continuity of economies, the resilience of communities and hasten recovery strategies, then this becomes a bonus, whilst widening words into actions. Identifying the genesis of an earthquake is one of the most challenging problems scientifically. Some new science results are helping us to start understanding the genesis of earthquakes. [5]

We can now confirm that scientists can successfully observe the latter process of the genesis of an earthquake which starts with a gravitational-seismic resonance emerging from the hypocentre, propagating outwards. Fig1.[1] When the end of the resonance occurs Fig1[2], energy returns in the form of the KaY wave Fig1.[3] from the place where it diverges in the form of a surface wave, passing through the bespoke observation sensors, back to the resonance origin, triggering the earthquake upon it converging in the epicentral zone Fig1[4]. Even though presently we cannot distinguish the initiating outward resonance, we know it occurs because we can detect the returning KaY wave. There is no reason, eventually, not to detect the emerging resonance wave as sensor technology develops.

With the knowledge that the KaY wave tracks back to the point of the resonance origin and with the capability to identify the track of the KaY wave, it is now possible to calculate and confirm the epicentre, its magnitude by the KaY wave strength of the signal, and the time window of arrival, all hours and days in advance, depending upon the coverage of the regional or global network of bespoke sensors. Fig.2 However, this is not all. By observing the precursor anomalies both by satellite and the variety of ground sensors, a forewarning/awareness of potential seismic activity can be generated days in advance before detecting the KaYwave. It is, in fact, the presently undetectable outward resonance wave that activates the various precursor anomalies such as radon gas release and thermal atmospheric variations, amongst others. But presently, whilst the precursors are only indicators, as these anomalies can potentially be triggered by a variety of ground motion activities, the detection of the returning KaY wave confirms with 99% assurance that an earthquake event will happen. It is the pure waveform tracking that allows us to calculate and observe the eventual earthquake event.

Consequently, with this potential game-changing ability, we now have the challenge of further converting the ‘words of advanced warning’ into ‘practical actions, maximising the use of the additional hours and days being made available by the Advanced Earthquake Early Warning System (AEEWS) an opportunity never enjoyed before, although there are no templates within earthquake mitigation and response strategies for such an advanced warning.

Unlike the P-wave EEWS where the expected response to a few seconds of warning is basically uniform across all societies, to respond instantly with a recommended drop cover hold by AEEWS providing a potential four days of confirmed early warning along with its epicentre and time window for a specific day, the society – from the government to first responders, security services, commerce and industry, and the individual, will now have numerous options laid before them, with considerable time to calmly strategise, instruct and be calmly instructed to not only protect their lives but equally better protect physical assets and personal possessions. If we can work closely with DRR strategists and responders, we could potentially eliminate casualties and save billions of dollars in asset losses within critical infrastructure, healthcare facilities, education establishments, and vulnerable and protectable antiquities, art, museum and cultural displays.

References:

1.https://www.preventionweb.n e t / f i l e s / 4 3 2 9 1 _sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf

2.https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/envision2030-goal11.html

[3]Ouzounov D., S. Pulinets, K.Hattori, P.Taylor (Ed’s), Pre-earthquake Processes: AMulti-disciplinary Approach to Earthquake Prediction Studies, v.234, AGU/Wiley, 2018,385p

[4]Ouzounov D, S.Pulinets, Tiger Liu, K. Hattori, and P. Han Multiparameter Assessment of Pre-Earthquake Atmospheric Signals; In the Book: Pre Earthquake Processes: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Earthquake Prediction Studies, v.234, AGU/Wiley, 2018, 339-357

[5]Ouzounov D, A.Yagodin, G. de la Pomerai, Testing New Methodologies Towards Advancing the Short-term Earthquake EarlyWarnings, Frontiers in Earth Sciences, 2021 (submitted).

You can share this post!

Related Articles

There is No natural Disasters

Kevin Blanchard, a Fellow at the Royal Geographical Society (FRGS), is an M.Sc in Environment, Politics & Globalis ...

Dr. Mukesh Kapila

Dr. Mukesh Kapila is Professor of Global Health & Humanitarian Af ...

Paradox on Vulnerability and Risk Assessment for Climate Change and Natural Hazards

Dr Bapon (SHM) Fakhruddin is Technical Director - DRR and Climate Resilience. He is aninternational disaster ris ...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Magazine

Submit your Article

Know Disasters, a bi-monthly magazine, aims to promote knowledge transfer and dissemination of information on all aspects of disaster risk management by demystifying and simplifying the disaster risk reduction (DRR) measures to all stakeholders, including the common man.

© 2022 | All Right Reserved | Website Design by Innovative Web

Submit your Article

Subscribe Now