Throughout much of its history, the sociological study of human communities in disaster has been based on events that occur rapidly, are limited in geographic scope, and their management understood as phased stages of response, recovery, mitigation and preparedness. More recent literature has questioned these concepts, arguing that gradual-onset phenomena like droughts, famines and epidemics merit consideration as disasters and that their exclusion has negative consequences for the communities impacted, public policy in terms of urgency and visibility and for the discipline itself as the analytical tools of sociological research are not brought to bear on these events. We agree that gradual-onset disasters merit greater attention from social scientists and in this paper have addressed the two most significant ongoing disasters that are gradual in onset, global in scope and have caused profound impacts on lives, livelihoods, communities and the governments that must cope with their effects. These disasters are the coronavirus pandemic and global climate change both of which include dimensions that challenge the prevailing definition of disaster. We begin with an examination of the foundational work in the sociological study of a disaster that established a conceptual framework based solely on rapidly occurring disasters. Our focus is on several components of the existing framework for defining and studying disasters, which we term “borders.” These borders are temporal, spatial, phasing and positioning, which, in our view, must be reexamined, and to some degree expanded or redefined to accommodate the full range of disasters to which our globalized world is vulnerable. To do so will expand or redefine these borders to incorporate and promote an understanding of significant risks associated with disaster agents that are gradual and potentially catastrophic, global in scope and require international cooperation to manage.

A magnitude 5.1 earthquake in California rarely generates more than momentary notice—a headline in local newspapers and a mention with footage on the evening news—then fades into obscurity for most people. But this earthquake, which occurred near the city of Ojai, is important for seismologists, social scientists, emergency managers, policymakers, and others who are engaged in implementing and improving earthquake early warning (EEW) technology and in assessing its value in public warnings. In this earthquake, ShakeAlert, the EEW system for the West Coast of the United States operated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), was publicly activated and, for the first time, a substantial number of those who received alerts provided feedback on various aspects of the alerts they received. To capture data related to public attitudes and assessments regarding this and future alerts, a supplemental questionnaire was developed and associated with the “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) earthquake reporting system, also operated by the USGS. The DYFI system received over 14,000 felt reports; 2490 of these were by people who received or expected to receive an alert before the onset of earthquake motion at their locations. This article analyzes the aggregate results of these EEW user reports, touching on the respondent’s situation upon receiving the alert, characteristics of the alert received, and, perhaps, most importantly, how the alert recipient responded if received before feeling earthquake motion. The new DYFI EEW supplemental questionnaire also inquired about respondent views of alert usefulness and preferences in future alerts. Our report provides a first glimpse of a range of behaviors, attitudes, and assessments by users of the recently implemented EEW system for the U.S. West Coast.

Since 1985, the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) has issued advisory statements to local jurisdictions and the public following seismic activity that scientists on the California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council view as indicating elevated probability of a larger earthquake in the same area during the next several days. These advisory statements are motivated by statistical studies showing that about 5% of moderate earthquakes in California are followed by larger events within a 10‐km five‐day space–time window (Jones, 1985; Agnew and Jones, 1991; Reasenberg and Jones, 1994). Cal OES issued four earthquake advisories from 1985 to 1989. In October 1990, the California Earthquake Advisory Plan formalized this practice, and six Cal OES Advisories have been issued since then. This article describes that protocol’s scientific basis and evolution.