Fighting misinformation in seismology: Expert opinion on earthquake facts vs. fiction

Misinformation carries the potential for immense damage to public understanding of science and for evidence-based decision making at an individual and policy level. Our research explores the following questions within seismology: which claims can be considered misinformation, which are supported by a consensus, and which are still under scientific debate? Consensus and debate are important to quantify, because where levels of scientific consensus on an issue are high, communication of this fact may itself serve as a useful tool in combating misinformation. This is a challenge for earthquake science, where certain theories and facts in seismology are still being established. The present study collates a list of common public statements about earthquakes and provides–to the best of our knowledge–the first elicitation of the opinions of 164 earth scientists on the degree of verity of these statements. The results provide important insights for the state of knowledge in the field, helping identify those areas where consensus messaging may aid in the fight against earthquake related misinformation and areas where there is currently lack of consensus opinion. We highlight the necessity of using clear, accessible, jargon-free statements with specified parameters and precise wording when communicating with the public about earthquakes, as well as of transparency about the uncertainties around some issues in seismology

Intensity-based sentiment analysis. The 2020 Aegean earthquake.

After an earthquake, it is necessary to understand its impact to provide relief and plan recovery. Social media (SM) and crowdsourcing platforms have recently become valuable tools for quickly collecting large amounts of first-hand data after a disaster. Earthquake-related studies propose using data mining and natural language processing (NLP) for damage detection and emergency response assessment. Using tex-data provided by the Euro-Mediterranean Seismological Centre (EMSC) collected through the LastQuake app for the Aegean Earthquake, we undertake a sentiment and topic analysis according to the intensities reported by their users in the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. There were collected 2,518 comments, reporting intensities from I to X being the most frequent intensity reported III. We use supervised classification according to a rule-set defined by authors and a two-tailed Pearson correlation to find statistical relationships between intensities reported in the MMI by LastQuake app users, polarities, and topics addressed in their comments. The most frequent word among comments was: “Felt.” The sentiment analysis (SA) indicates that the positive polarity prevails in the comments associated with the lowest intensities reported: (I-II), while the negative polarity in the comments is associated with higher intensities (III–VIII and X). The correlation analysis identifies a negative correlation between the increase in the reported MMI intensity and the comments with positive polarity. The most addressed topic in the comments from LastQuake app users was intensity, followed by seismic information, solidarity messages, emergency response, unrelated topics, building damages, tsunami effects, preparedness, and geotechnical effects. Intensities reported in the MMI are significantly and negatively correlated with the number of topics addressed in comments. Positive polarity decreases with the soar in the reported intensity in MMI demonstrated the validity of our first hypothesis, despite not finding a correlation with negative polarity. Instead, we could not prove that building damage, geotechnical effects, lifelines affected, and tsunami effects were topis addressed only in comments reporting the highest intensities in the MMI

Rapid collaborative knowledge building via Twitter after significant geohazard events

International audienc

Fighting misinformation in seismology: Expert opinion on earthquake facts vs. fiction

Misinformation carries the potential for immense damage to public understanding of science and for evidence-based decision making at an individual and policy level. Our research explores the following questions within seismology: which claims can be considered misinformation, which are supported by a consensus, and which are still under scientific debate? Consensus and debate are important to quantify, because where levels of scientific consensus on an issue are high, communication of this fact may itself serve as a useful tool in combating misinformation. This is a challenge for earthquake science, where certain theories and facts in seismology are still being established. The present study collates a list of common public statements about earthquakes and provides–to the best of our knowledge–the first elicitation of the opinions of 164 earth scientists on the degree of verity of these statements. The results provide important insights for the state of knowledge in the field, helping identify those areas where consensus messaging may aid in the fight against earthquake related misinformation and areas where there is currently lack of consensus opinion. We highlight the necessity of using clear, accessible, jargon-free statements with specified parameters and precise wording when communicating with the public about earthquakes, as well as of transparency about the uncertainties around some issues in seismology

Intensity-based sentiment and topic analysis. The case of the 2020 Aegean Earthquake

After an earthquake, it is necessary to understand its impact to provide relief and plan recovery. Social media (SM) and crowdsourcing platforms have recently become valuable tools for quickly collecting large amounts of first-hand data after a disaster. Earthquake related studies propose using data mining and natural language processing (NLP) for damage detection and emergency response assessment. Using tex-data provided by the Euro-Mediterranean Seismological Centre (EMSC) collected through the LastQuake app for the Aegean Earthquake, we undertake a sentiment and topic analysis according to the intensities reported by their users in the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. There were collected 2,518 comments, reporting intensities from I to X being the most frequent intensity reported III. We use supervised classification according to a rule-set defined by authors and a two-tailed Pearson correlation to find statistical relationships between intensities reported in the MMI by LastQuake app users, polarities, and topics addressed in their comments. The most frequent word among comments was: “Felt.” The sentiment analysis (SA) indicates that the positive polarity prevails in the comments associated with the lowest intensities reported: (I-II), while the negative polarity in the comments is associated with higher intensities (III–VIII and X). The correlation analysis identifies a negative correlation between the increase in the reported MMI intensity and the comments with positive polarity. The most addressed topic in the comments from LastQuake app users was intensity, followed by seismic information, solidarity messages, emergency response, unrelated topics, building damages, tsunami effects, preparedness, and geotechnical effects. Intensities reported in the MMI are significantly and negatively correlated with the number of topics addressed in comments. Positive polarity decreases with the soar in the reported intensity in MMI demonstrated the validity of our first hypothesis, despite not finding a correlation with negative polarity. Instead, we could not prove that building damage, geotechnical effects, lifelines affected, and tsunami effects were topis addressed only in comments reporting the highest intensities in the MMI

Expectations vs. practice in critical infrastructure operator crisis communication: lessons learned from Portugal, France, Norway, and Sweden

Previous research into social media in crisis communication has tended to focus on use by emergency managers rather than another key stakeholder, critical infrastructure (CI) operators. This chapter adds to this field by empirically investigating public expectations of information provided by CI operators during crisis situations. It does so by drawing on a review of the literature on public expectations of disaster-related information shared via social media. Then it presents the results of an online questionnaire and interview-based study of disaster-vulnerable communities in France, Norway, Portugal, and Sweden. Results indicate that members of the public expect CI operators to provide information via traditional and social media, but not necessarily respond to queries on social media. Operators appear to meet traditional media expectations but should expand their current practices to include digital media

Should CI Operators Use Social Media to Communicate With the Public During Crisis Situations?: Lessons Learned From a Pilot Study in Oslo Harbour

Research on social media use in crisis communication usually focuses on use by either the public or emergency managers. Relatively few empirical studies have focused on another key player, critical infrastructure (CI) operators. This paper sets out to address this gap by examining Norwegian expectations of crisis communication from CI operators through a pilot study. The study uses an online questionnaire and compares the results to the current practices of the Oslo Harbour, which were examined via an in person, group interview. The findings suggest that the public expect CI operators to communicate during crisis via traditional and social media and that Oslo Harbour operators should expand their current practices to include digital media