Effective uncertainty visualization for aftershock forecast maps

Earthquake models can produce aftershock forecasts, which have recently been released to lay audiences following large earthquakes. While visualization literature suggests that displaying forecast uncertainty can improve how forecast maps are used, research on uncertainty visualization is missing from earthquake science. We designed a pre-registered online experiment to test the effectiveness of three visualization techniques for displaying aftershock forecast maps and their uncertainty. These maps showed the forecasted number of aftershocks at each location for a week following a hypothetical mainshock, along with the uncertainty around each location’s forecast. Three different uncertainty visualizations were produced: (1) forecast and uncertainty maps adjacent to one another; (2) the forecast map depicted in a color scheme, with the uncertainty shown by the transparency of the color; and (3) two maps that showed the lower and upper bounds of the forecast distribution at each location. Unlike previous experiments, we compared the three uncertainty visualizations using tasks that are systematically designed to address broadly applicable and user-generated communication goals. We compared task responses between participants using uncertainty visualizations and using the forecast map shown without its uncertainty (the current practice). Participants completed two map-reading tasks that targeted several dimensions of the readability of uncertainty visualizations. Participants then performed a comparative judgment task, which demonstrated whether a visualization was successful in reaching two key communication goals: indicating where many aftershocks and no aftershocks are likely (sure bets) and where the forecast is low but the uncertainty is high enough to imply potential risk (surprises). All visualizations performed equally well in the goal of communicating sure bet situations. But the visualization with lower and upper bounds was substantially better than the other designs at communicating surprises. These results have implications for the communication of forecast uncertainty both within and beyond earthquake science.

Creating a Diamond Open Access community journal for Seismology and Earthquake Science

On 24 November 2020, the Springer Nature publishing group announced the introduction of Open Access (OA) articles in Nature and its sibling journals. The corresponding OA publication fee (charged directly to the authors) was set to €9,500/$11,390/£8,290, an amount that may be well out of reach for many researchers. This is especially a problem for researchers in developing countries, early-career researchers on small, personal fellowships, and researchers between positions. Employers and funding agencies are increasingly requiring that research be published under an OA license, forcing authors to accept the high publication fees, who are not always financially supported.The high cost of these and similar OA fees for other Earth Science journals prompted a discussion among the seismological community on Twitter, during which the idea was raised to start a free-to-publish, free-to-read journal for seismological research. The concept of Diamond Open Access was already adopted by Volcanica (www.jvolcanica.org) for volcanological research, providing a precedent and motivation for similar initiatives (like Seismica, but also Tektonika for the structural geology community). Following community discussions on Slack with over 100 participants, a small “task force” was formed to investigate in detail the possibility of starting a Diamond OA seismology journal, adopting Volcanica as a model. Here we detail the results of the exploration performed by the task force, with the aim of synthesizing a set of key requirements and corresponding actions to launch a Diamond OA journal in seismology and earthquake science, including scope definition, community engagement, and partnership with a library or other institutions. This document presents ideas and discussions while starting Seismica from November 2020 to July 2021, which may serve as a guideline but might not reflect the final stage of Seismica.

An Overview of Earthquake Science in Malaysia

This paper highlights the level of earthquake hazard in Malaysia, the challenges in mitigating earthquake hazard and the way forward on how to strengthen earthquake science in Malaysia. Earthquake hazard is regarded as low throughout Malaysia, with the exception of Sabah where it is considered moderate. This elevated level of a hazard was reinforced during the 2015 Ranau Earthquake, which killed 18 people. Despite this and other recent sizeable earthquakes, the earthquake hazard in Malaysia is poorly understood, yet the population has increased, and growth in buildings and infrastructure has risen. While much progress has been made since the 2015 Ranau earthquake in terms of the development of (i) national seismic hazard map; (ii) national seismic building code; and (iii) planning guideline in a high-risk earthquake area, there are still many challenges faced in mitigating earthquake hazard in Malaysia. There is still a lack of seismic, geological, geodetic and engineering data; insufficient seismic and geodetic monitoring network system; lack of trained human resources; and lack of public awareness. To ensure that earthquake hazard is properly quantified and mitigated some steps have to be taken, which includes (i) comprehensive geological, geotechnical and engineering studies; (ii) coordinated seismic and geodetic monitoring; (iii) human resource capacity building; (iv) coordinated public education; (v) allocation of special research and development grant; and (vi) setting up of a National Earthquake Research Centre.

Effective Uncertainty Visualization for Aftershock Forecast Maps

<p>Seismicity rate estimates and the earthquake forecasts they yield vary spatially and are usually represented as heat maps. While visualization literature suggests that displaying forecast uncertainty can improve how forecast maps are used, research on uncertainty visualization (UV) is missing from earthquake science. We present a pre-registered online experiment to test the effectiveness of three UV techniques for displaying aftershock forecasts. These maps show the expected number of aftershocks at each location for a week following a hypothetical mainshock, and we develop maps of the uncertainty around each location’s forecast. Human participants complete experimental tasks using the aftershock forecast displayed with its uncertainty. Three different UVs are producted: (1) forecast and uncertainty maps adjacent to one another; (2) the forecast map depicted in a color scheme, with the uncertainty shown by the transparency of the color; (3) two maps that show the lower and upper bound of the forecast distriubiton at each location. We compare task performance using UVs and using the forecast map shown without its uncertainty (the current practice). Subjects complete two map-reading tasks that target several dimensions of the readability of the three UVs. They then perform a comparative prediction task, which demonstrates whether a UV is successful in reaching two key communication goals: indicating where an aftershock and no aftershocks are likely (“sure bets’’) and where the forecast is low but the uncertainty is high enough to imply potential risk (“potential surprises’’). All UVs perform equally well in the goal of communicating “sure bet’’ situations. But the UV with lower and upper bounds is significantly better than the other UVs at communicating “potential surprises.” We discuss the implications of these results for communication of forecast uncertainty within and beyond earthquake science.</p>

Harry W. Green II (1940–2017)

By keenly probing mantle rheology, interactions of deformations and phase transitions, and microscopic features, he made major contributions to petrology, mineralogy, and earthquake science.