Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Use of Modern Communication Technologies during Earthquakes: How to Increase the Efficiency of Macroseismic Data Collection

  • Published:
Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Currently, macroseismic data are mostly obtained through online questionnaires posted on the websites of regional and international seismological agencies. Generally, strong earthquakes lead to a large number of users attempting to access the sites, which often leads to server overloads, the disruption of normal access to seismological sites, and, as a result, a sharp decrease in the efficiency of collecting macroseismic data through online questionnaires. In such cases, the only way to make up for the lack of macroseismic data is to directly ask residents to share their observations and fill out an online questionnaire. The use of instant messaging apps seems to be the best way, because they provide wide coverage and high speeds. The efficiency of this method has been confirmed during two relatively strong earthquakes in the Baikal region (September 21, 2020, Mw = 5.6, and June 8, 2022, Mw = 5.2), which were accompanied by the website crashing. Sending requests to earthquake eyewitnesses via the Viber instant messaging app made it possible to increase the number of responses by 5–8 times.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.

REFERENCES

  1. Ahadzadeh, S. and Malek, M.R., Earthquake damage assessment based on user generated data in social networks, Sustainability, 2021, vol. 13, no. 9, p. 4814. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Amiresmaili, M., Zolala, F., Nekoei-Moghadam, M., Salavatian, S., Chashmyazdan, M., and Soltani, A., Role of social media in earthquake: A systematic review, Iran. Red Crescent Med. J., 2021, vol. 23, no. 5, p. e447. https://doi.org/10.32592/ircmj.2021.23.5.447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bird, A. and Lamontagne, M., How scientists' communications helped mitigate the psychosocial effects of the October 2012 magnitude 7.8 earthquake near Haida Gwaii, Canada, Seismol. Res. Lett., 2015, vol. 86, no. 5, pp. 1301–1309. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bossu, R., Gilles, S., Mazet-Roux, G., and Roussel, F., Citizen seismology: How to involve the public in earthquake response, in Comparative Emergency Management: Examining Global and Regional Responses to Disasters, Miller, D.S. and Rivera, J.D., Eds., New York: CRC Press, 2011a, ch. 11, pp. 237–260.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bossu, R., Gilles, S., Mazet-Roux, G., Roussel, F., Frobert, L., and Kamb, L., Flash sourcing, or rapid detection and characterization of earthquake effects through website traffic analysis, Ann. Geophys., 2011b, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 716–727. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-5265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bossu, R., Landès, M., Roussel, F., Steed, R., Mazet-Roux, G., Martin, S.S., and Hough, S., Thumbnail-based questionnaires for the rapid and efficient collection of macroseismic data from global earthquakes, Seismol. Res. Lett., 2017, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220160120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bykov, I.A., Gradyushko, A.A., Ibraeva, G.Zh., and Turdubaeva, E.O., Messengers in the professional communication of journalists and PR specialists in the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union, Zh. Beloruss. Gos. Univ. Zh. Pedagog., 2018, no. 2, pp. 4–13.

  8. Chebrova, A.Yu., Abubakirov, I.R., Gusev, A.A., Matveenko, E.A., Mityushkina, S.V., Pavlov, V.M., Saltykov, V.A., and Chebrov, D.V., The February 28, 2013 earthquake with M wGCMT = 6.8, I 0 = 5–6 (southeastern coast of Kamchatka), in Zemletryaseniya Severnoi Evrazii (North Eurasian Earthquakes), vol. 22: 2013 g. (2013), 2019, pp. 329–342. https://doi.org/10.35540/1818-6254.2019.22.30.

  9. Dewey, J.W., Wald, D., Dengler, L., and Hopper, M., Macroseismic intensity in the Internet age, in Computational Seismology and Geodynamics, Chowdhury, D.K., Nyland, E., Odom, R., Sen, M., Keilis-Borok, V.I., Levshin, A.L., Molchan, G.M., and Naimark, B.M., Eds., Washington, DC: AGU, 2005, vol. 7, pp. 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1029/CS007p0060.

  10. Filippova, A.I., Bukchin, B.G., Fomochkina, A.S., Melnikova, V.I., Radziminovich, Y.B., and Gileva, N.A., Source process of the September 21, 2020, Mw 5.6 Bystraya earthquake at the South-Eastern segment of the Main Sayan fault (Eastern Siberia, Russia), Tectonophysics, 2022, vol. 822, p. 229162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2021.229162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Goded, T., Horspool, N., Canessa, S., and Gerstenberger, M., Modified Mercalli intensities for the M 7.8 Kaikōura (New Zealand) 14 November 2016 earthquake derived from “felt detailed” and “felt rapid” online questionnaires, Bull. New Zealand Soc. Earthquake Eng., 2017, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 352–362. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.50.2.352-362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gray, B., Weal, M.J., and Martin, D., Social media during multi-hazard disasters: Lessons from the Kaikōura earthquake 2016, Int. J. Safety Secur. Eng., 2017, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 313–323. https://doi.org/10.2495/SAFE-V7-N3-313-323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Karimzadeh, S. and Askan, A., Collection of microseismic intensity data: A model for Turkey, Arabian J. Geosci., 2021, vol. 14, no. 5, p. 396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-06812-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Konovalov, A.V., Stepnov, A.A., Bogdanov, E.C., Dmitrienko, R.Yu., Orlin, I.D., Sychev, A.S., Gavrilov, A.V., Manaichev, K.A., Tsoy, A.T., and Stepnova, Yu.A., New tools for rapid assessment of felt reports and a case study on Sakhalin Island, Seism. Instrum., 2022, vol. 58, pp. 676–693. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0747923922060081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kulyandina, A.S., Macroseismic analysis of the Chul’man earthquake of February 27, 2022, Vestn. Sev.-Vost. Fed. Univ. im. M.K. Ammosova, Ser. Nauki Zemle, 2022, no. 4, pp. 19–24. https://doi.org/10.25587/SVFU.2022.28.4.002

  16. Li, L., Bensi, M., Cui, Q., Baecher, G.B., and Huang, Y., Social media crowdsourcing for rapid damage assessment following a sudden-onset natural hazard event, Int. J. Inf. Manage., 2021, vol. 60, p. 102378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lu, X., Online communication behavior at the onset of a catastrophe: an exploratory study of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China, Nat. Hazards, 2018, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 785–802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-3155-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lukhneva, O.F., Kiseleva, I.N., Radziminovich, Ya.B., and Novopashina, A.V., Appearance of sensor aberrations among Eastern Siberia residents under repeated seismic impacts, Izv., Atmos. Ocean. Phys., 2022, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 1254–1265. https://doi.org/10.1134/S000143382210005X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mustać, M., Dasović, I., Latečki, H., and Cecić, I., The public response and educational outreach through social media after the Zagreb earthquake of 22 March 2020, Geofizika, 2021, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 215–234. https://doi.org/10.15233/gfz.2021.38.7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Park, S., Cho, K., and Lee, B.G., What makes smartphone users satisfied with the mobile instant messenger?: Social presence, flow, and self-disclosure, Int. J. Multimedia Ubiquitous Eng., 2014, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 315–324. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijmue.2014.9.11.31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Peary, B.D., Shaw, R., and Takeuchi, Y., Utilization of social media in the East Japan earthquake and tsunami and its effectiveness, J. Nat. Disaster Sci., 2012, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 3–18. https://doi.org/10.2328/jnds.34.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Radziminovich, Ya.B., Seredkina, A.I., Mel’nikova, V.I., and Gileva, N.A., The March 29, 2019 earthquake in the western part of the Tunka rift basin system: Source parameters and macroseismic effects, Seism. Instrum., 2020, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 648–661. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0747923920060067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Radziminovich, Ya.B., Novopashina, A.V., and Lukhneva, O.F., Seismic effects and anomalous animal behavior: Case study of the September 21, 2020, M w 5.5 Bystraya earthquake (Southern Baikal region), Izv., Atmos. Ocean. Phys., 2021, vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 1293–1307. https://doi.org/10.1134/S000143382110008X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Radziminovich, Ya.B., Novopashina, A.V., Lukhneva, O.F., Kadetova, A.V., and Gileva, N.A., Detailed macroseismic survey and rational approach to seismic intensity assessment within the territory of a large city: Case study of the consequences of the September 21, 2020 Bystraya earthquake in Irkutsk, Seism. Instrum., 2022a, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 409–423. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0747923922040089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Radziminovich, Ya.B., Filippova, A.I., Gileva, N.A., and Mel’nikova, V.I., Earthquake of February 3, 2016 in the Middle Baikal region: Source parameters and macroseismic effects, Izv., Atmos. Ocean. Phys., 2022b, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 936–953. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001433822080035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Radziminovich, Y.B., Gileva, N.A., Tubanov, T.A., Lukhneva, O.F., Novopashina, A.V., and Tcydypova, L.R., The December 9, 2020, M w 5.5 Kudara earthquake (Middle Baikal, Russia): Internet questionnaire hard test and macroseismic data analysis, Bull. Earthquake Eng., 2022c, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1297–1324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01305-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Radziminovich, Ya.B., Lukhneva, O.F., Novopashina, A.V., Tsydypova, L.R., Tubanov, Ts.A., and Gileva, N.A., The June 8, 2022 earthquake (M w = 5.2) in Southern Baikal region: Analysis of macroseismic data, Vopr. Inzh. Seismol., 2023, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 25–48. https://doi.org/10.21455/VIS2023.2-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ranjit, Y.S., Lachlan, K.A., Basaran, A.M.B., Snyder, L.B., and Houston, J.B., Needing to know about the crisis back home: Disaster information seeking and disaster media effects following the 2015 Nepal earthquake among Nepalis living outside of Nepal, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 2020, vol. 50, p. 101725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sbarra, P., Tosi, P., and De Rubeis, V., Web-based macroseismic survey in Italy: Method validation and results, Nat. Hazards, 2010, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 563–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9488-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sutikno, T., Handayani, L., Stiawan, D., Riyadi, M.A., and Subroto, I.M.I., WhatsApp, Viber and Telegram: Which is the best for instant messaging?, Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng., 2016, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 909–914. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijece.v6i3.10271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tatevossian, R.E., Makroseismicheskie issledovaniya (Macroseismic Research), Moscow: Nauka i obrazovanie, 2013.

  32. Tubanov, Ts.A., Sanzhieva, D.P.-D., Kobeleva, E.A., Predein, P.A., and Tsydypova, L.R., Kudara earthquake of September 12, 2020 (M W = 5.5) on Lake Baikal: Results of instrumental and macroseismic observations, Seism. Instrum., 2022, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 86–98. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0747923922010108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Verkholantsev, F.G., Gabsatarova, I.P., Guseva, N.S., and Dyagilev, R.A., The Mid-Ural earthquake of October 18, 2015 ML = 4.7, I0 = 6, in Zemletryaseniya Severnoi Evrazii (North Eurasian Earthquakes), vol. 24: 2015 g. (2015), 2021, pp. 314–323. https://doi.org/10.35540/1818-6254.2021.24.30.

  34. Wald, D.J., Quitoriano, V., Dengler, L.A., and Dewey, J.W., Utilization of the Internet for rapid community intensity maps, Seismol. Res. Lett., 1999, vol. 70, no. 6, pp. 680–697. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.70.6.680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wald, D.J., Quitoriano, V., Worden, C.B., Hopper, M., and Dewey, J.W., USGS “Did you feel it?” Internet-based macroseismic intensity maps, Ann. Geophys., 2011, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 688–707. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-5354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang, Y., Ruan, S., Wang, T., and Qiao, M., Rapid estimation of an earthquake impact area using a spatial logistic growth model based on social media data, Int. J. Dig. Earth, 2019, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 1265–1284. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2018.1497100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Xing, Z., Zhang, X., Zan, X., Xiao, C., Li, B., Han, K., Liu, Z., and Liu, J., Crowdsourced social media and mobile phone signaling data for disaster impact assessment: A case study of the 8.8 Jiuzhaigou earthquake, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 2021, vol. 58, p. 102200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Yao, K., Yang, S., and Tang, J., Rapid assessment of seismic intensity based on Sina Weibo: A case study of the Changning earthquake in Sichuan Province, China, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 2021, vol. 58, p. 102217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Zvereva, A.S., Klyanchin, A.I., and Gabsatarova, I.P., The earthquake of December 12, 2020 in the Anapa zone with M w = 3.8, I 0 = 4–5, Ross. Seismol. Zh., 2021, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 52–66. https://doi.org/10.35540/2686-7907.2021.2.03

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was carried out using data obtained with large-scale research facilities “Seismic infrasound array for monitoring Arctic cryolitozone and continuous seismic monitoring of the Russian Federation, neighbouring territories and the world”. (https://ckp-rf.ru/usu/507436/; http://www.gsras.ru/unu/), as well as with equipment from the Geodynamics and Geochronology center for collective use at the Institute of the Earth’s Crust, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences.

Funding

This work was supported by ongoing institutional funding. No additional grants to carry out or direct this particular research were obtained.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of the Earth’s Crust, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, 664033, Irkutsk, Russia

    O. F. Lukhneva, A. V. Novopashina & A. V. Kadetova

  2. Federal Research Center Geophysical Service, Russian Academy of Sciences, Baikal Branch, 664033, Irkutsk, Russia

    Ya. B. Radziminovich

  3. Irkutsk National Research Technical University, 664074, Irkutsk, Russia

    A. V. Novopashina

Authors
  1. O. F. Lukhneva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ya. B. Radziminovich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. V. Novopashina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. V. Kadetova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to O. F. Lukhneva.

Ethics declarations

The authors of this work declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note.

Pleiades Publishing remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lukhneva, O.F., Radziminovich, Y.B., Novopashina, A.V. et al. Use of Modern Communication Technologies during Earthquakes: How to Increase the Efficiency of Macroseismic Data Collection. Izv. Atmos. Ocean. Phys. 59, 1651–1662 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001433823100067

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001433823100067

Keywords:

Search

Navigation