The concealed weaknesses of strong early warning systems. The case of Mexico

• Autorzy: Otegui Diego

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5604/01.3001.0014.3024

Warianty tytułu

PL

Ukryte słabe strony silnych systemow wczesnego ostrzegania. Przypadek Meksyku

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In September 2017, in only 17 days, two enormous earthquakes triggered Mexico’s earthquake early warning system (EEWS) in a unique sequence of events that tested its capabilities. Through a series of unforeseen circumstances, including a test and an accident, during those two and a half weeks the EEWS was also activated three additional times. The EEWS presents several remarkable strengths. Mexico’s entire emergency management system is relatively well resourced and has helped produce a more resilient culture that appreciates the alert system. Public agencies in all levels of government work in close coordination. However, the system has not been able to overcome continual political expediency and general public distrust of some of its components. The consequence is an alert system that is relatively strong in Mexico City but leaves much of the rest of the country unprotected. But even in Mexico City, the system suffers from extensive concealed vulnerabilities that put the population and the city’s infrastructure at risk. In this paper, two specific weaknesses are analysed. The first is a result of weak regulations and inappropriate business models, which impacts the country as a whole. The second is essentially a local complication resulting from the increased risk generated by the excessive trust of the population in the sirens that are so characteristic of the system. The data were collected during a reconnaissance trip organized by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) in October 2017.

PL

We wrześniu 2017 r., w ciągu jedynie 17 dni, dwa potężne trzęsienia ziemi uruchomiły system wczesnego ostrzegania przed trzęsieniami ziemi w Meksyku (EEWS) w unikalnej sekwencji wypadkow, które poddały probie jego możliwości. W wyniku szeregu nieprzewidzianych okoliczności, w tym przeprowadzonego testu oraz wypadku, w tym 2-tygodniowym okresie EEWS został dodatkowo aktywowany trzykrotnie. System EEWS oferuje szereg niezwykłych zalet. Cały system zarządzania kryzysowego Meksyku jest stosunkowo dobrze wyposażony, dzięki czemu sprzyjał stworzeniu bardziej odpornej kultury, ktora docenia system ostrzegania. Agencje publiczne na wszystkich poziomach funkcjonowania rządu ściśle wspołpracują. Niestety system nie był w stanie pokonać ciągłej zależności politycznej oraz ogolnego braku zaufania publicznego w stosunku do niektorych elementow składowych. Konsekwencją jest system ostrzegania, ktory jest stosunkowo niezawodny w Meksyku, lecz jednocześnie nie zapewnia odpowiedniej ochrony reszcie kraju. Jednak nawet w samym mieście Meksyk system cierpi z powodu pewnych szeroko rozumianych ukrytych słabości, które narażają na ryzyko ludność miasta i jego infrastrukturę. W niniejszym artykule autor analizuje dwie słabe strony. Pierwsza z nich wynika ze słabych regulacji i niewłaściwych modeli biznesowych, co wywiera wpływ na kraj. Druga natomiast stanowi lokalny problem wynikający ze zwiększonego ryzyka generowanego przez nadmierne zaufanie ludności do syren, które są charakterystyczną cechą systemu. Dane zostały pozyskane w czasie wyprawy badawczej zorganizowanej przez instytut Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) w październiku 2017 r.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

early warning system; earthquake; Mexico Seismic System

PL

system wczesnego ostrzegania; trzęsienie ziemi; system sejsmiczny Meksyku

• Wydawca: Szkoła Główna Służby Pożarniczej
• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe SGSP / Szkoła Główna Służby Pożarniczej
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: Nr 74 (tom 2)
• Strony: 93--111
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 36 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Otegui Diego

• University of Delaware, USA

Bibliografia

• [1] Aguirre, B. E. 2005. Cuba’s Disaster Management Model: Should It Be Emulated? International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters. 23 (3): 55–72.
• [2] Allen, R. M., E. S. Cochran, T. J. Huggins, S. Miles, and D. Otegui 2018. Lessons from Mexico’s earthquake early warning system, Eos, 99, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EO105095. Published on September 17 2018.
• [3] Allen R.M., Gasparini P., Kamigaichi O., and Bose M. 2009. The status of earthquake early warning around the World: An introductory overview. Seismological Research Letters. 80 (5): 682–693.
• [4] Banerjee, Ananya, Jayanta Basak, Siuli Roy, and Somprakash Bandyopadhyay. 2016. Towards a Collaborative Disaster Management Service Framework using Mobile and Web Applications A Survey and Future Scope. International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management. 8 (1): 65–84.
• [5] Bourque, L.B., Shoaf, K.I., & Nguyen, L.H. 1997. Survey research. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 15, 71–101.
• [6] Centro de Instrumentacion y Registro Sismico. 2018. Catalogo de boletines del SASMEX, Historico SASMEX, Mexico City, www.cires.org.mx/sasmex_historico_es.php.
• [7] Commission on Human Security. 2005. Human security now: Peace Research Abstracts Journal. 42 (4).
• [8] Dussaillant F., and Guzman E. 2014. Trust via disasters: The case of Chile’s 2010 earthquake. Disasters. 38 (4): 808–832.
• [9] EERI. 2017. M5.0 Cushing, Oklahoma, USA Earthquake on November 7, 2016
• [10] Espinosa-Aranda J.M., Cuellar A., Garcia A., Ibarrola G., Islas R., Maldonado S., and Rodriguez F.H. 2009. Evolution of the Mexican seismic alert system (SASMEX). Seismological Research Letters. 80 (5): 694–706.
• [11] Espinosa-Aranda, J.M., A. Cuéllar, F.H. Rodríguez, B. Frontana, G. Ibarrola, R. Islas, and A. García. 2011. The seismic alert system of Mexico (SASMEX): Progress and its current applications. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 31 (2): 154–162.
• [12] Esteva, L. 1988. The Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985: Consequences, lessons, and impact on research and practice. Earthquake Spectra 4 (3), 413–426.
• [13] Given, Douglas et.al. 2018. Technical implementation plan for the ShakeAlert production system: an earthquake early warning system for the west coast of the United States. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20181155.
• [14] Glasius, Marlies. 2006. The EU response to the tsunami and the need for a human security approach. European Foreign Affairs Review. 11 (3).
• [15] Gliner, Jeffrey A., George A. Morgan, and Nancy L. Leech. 2009. Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach to design and analysis. Second ed. New York: Routledge.
• [16] Goltz, J.D., and P.J. Flores. 1997. Real-Time Earthquake Early Warning and Public Policy: A Report on Mexico City’s Sistema de Alerta Sismica. Seismological Research Letters. 68 (5): 727–733.
• [17] Goltz, James. 2002. Introducing Earthquake Early Warning in California. A Summary of Social Science and Public Policy Issues. Technical Report, Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
• [18] Johnson Laurie et. al. 2016. California Earthquake Early Warning System Benefit Study. Governor’s Office of Emergency Services.
• [19] Green, Penny. 2005. Disaster by Design Corruption, Construction, and Catastrophe. The British Journal of Criminology. 45 (4): 528–546.
• [20] Hsieh, Hsiu-Fang, and S. Shannon. 2005. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 15 (9): 1277–1288.
• [21] International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR). 2006. Global survey of early warning systems: an assessment of capacities, gaps, and opportunities towards building a comprehensive global early warning system for all-natural hazards. Geneva: United Nations.
• [22] Johnson, Victoria A., and Kevin R. Ronan. 2014. Classroom responses of New Zealand school teachers following the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards. 72 (2): 1075–1092.
• [23] Kelman, Ilan, and Michael H. Glantz. 2014. Early Warning Systems Defined. 89–108. In Singh, Ashbindu, and Zinta Zommers. 2014. Reducing disaster: early warning systems for climate change.
• [24] Lindell MK, and RW Perry. 2012. The protective action decision model: theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Analysis: an Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis. 32 (4): 616–32.
• [25] Linthicum, Kate. 2018. Corruption caused the collapse of buildings in 2017 Mexico City earthquake, a new report finds. Los Angeles Times, September 12 2018
• [26] Malone S. 2008. A warning about early warning. Seismological Research Letters. 79 (5): 603–604.tech
• [27] Martinez Paris. 2017. Asi defraudan a la CDMX con la operacion y mantenimiento del Sistema de Alerta Sismica. Animal Político. 14 September 2017
• [28] Mileti, Dennis S., and John H. Sorensen. 1990. Communication of emergency public warnings. A social science perspective and state-of-the-art assessment. Oak Ridge, Tenn: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
• [29] Nakayachi, Kazuya, Julia S. Becker, Sally H. Potter, and Maximilian Dixon. 2019. Residents’ Reactions to Earthquake Early Warnings in Japan. Risk Analysis.
• [30] Naylor, David C., Cyril Chantler, and Sian Griffiths. 2004. Learning from SARS in Hong Kong and Toronto. JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association. 291 (20).
• [31] Nigg, Joanne M. 2000. Predicting earthquakes: science, pseudoscience, and public policy paradox in Sarewitz, Daniel R., Roger A. Pielke, and Radford Byerly. 2000. Prediction: Science, decision making, and the future of nature. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
• [32] Stallings, Robert. 2006. Methodological Issues. in Rodríguez, Havidán, E.L. Quarantelli, and Russell Rowe Dynes. 2006. Handbook of disaster research. New York: Springer.
• [33] Suarez G., Novelo D., and Mansilla E. 2009. Performance evaluation of the seismic alert system (SAS) in Mexico City: A seismological and a social perspective. Seismological Research Letters. 80 (5): 707–716.
• [34] Suárez, Gerardo, J. M. et.al. 2018. A Dedicated Seismic Early Warning Network: The Mexican Seismic Alert System (SASMEX). Seismological Research Letters. 89 (2A): 382–391.
• [35] Tierney, Kathleen J. 2000. Implementing a seismic computerized alert network (SCAN) for Southern California: lessons and guidance from the literature on warning response and warning systems. Newark, Del: Disaster Research Center.
• [36] USGS. 2006. Report of the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee of the Department of the Interior to the Director of the United States Geological Survey. The Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC) of the Department of Interior.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2020).