Earthquake early warning (EEW) systems are becoming increasingly available or are in development throughout the world. As these systems develop, it is important to provide evidence-based recommendations for protective action so people know how to protect themselves when they receive an alert. However, many factors need to be considered when developing contextually relevant and appropriate recommendations. We have reviewed earthquake injury reports, protective action and communication theories, and behavioral research to determine what factors can guide inquiry and decision making when developing protective action guidelines. Factors that emerge from relevant literature include: (1) social, cultural, and environmental context, such as which people are present, what their social roles are, and in what type of building they are located when an earthquake happens, (2) demographic and experiential variables, such as gender and age as well as previous history with earthquakes; and (3) magnitude and intensity that influence the duration and impacts of the earthquake itself. Although we examine data from around the world, we focus largely on evidence-based recommendations for the U.S. system, ShakeAlert, because it provides a timely case study for understanding how people receive and respond to EEW messages. In addition to synthesizing relevant literature, we recommend pathways forward for this interdisciplinary research community that explores EEW and its application around the world. Consistency in collecting and reporting injury data globally may assist in aligning this fragmented literature to develop a richer understanding of how demographic, cultural, seismic, engineering, and technological issues can be addressed to reduce human suffering due to earthquakes.

Sustainability science seeks to identify and implement workable solutions to complex problems. This transdisciplinary approach advances a commitment to work across boundaries that occur among individuals, disciplines, and institutions to build capacities for informed and innovative decision making in the face of uncertainty and change. The concept of boundary work and related discussions of boundary objects and organizations are important, expanding focal areas within sustainability science. While communication is described as central to boundary work, insights from the field of communication have largely yet to inform theorizing about boundaries within sustainability science. In this paper, we highlight three communication perspectives, namely media studies, collaboration and partnerships, and systems theories, which are particularly relevant for understanding how boundaries form, the social context in which boundary work occurs, and informed strategies for enhanced boundary spanning and management. We use three case studies to illustrate how communication theories and methods provide dynamic and strategic lenses within transdisciplinary processes to enable collaborators to build capacity for change, sustain critical and reflective inquiry, and approach difference as generative in collective efforts to produce sustainability.

This study examined how wildfire risk is framed by different entities and actors within a common region, during and after experiencing several large wildfire events. Using a social constructionist lens, we viewed wildfire risk as a fluid and variable concept that is socially constructed and framed through public discourse. Inconsistent social constructions of wildfire risk may pose challenges for effective wildfire risk governance and management, which requires the coordination of diverse entities including government, land managers, homeowners, and community groups. We sought to understand differing social constructions of wildfire risk within one region, the Northern Colorado Front Range, across four domains of social discourse: mainstream media coverage, governmental planning documents, a community collaborative group’s meeting notes, and Community Wildfire Protection Plans. Through multiple rounds of qualitative coding, we compared how values at risk, causes of risk, and solutions to mitigate risk are framed across discourse domains. We also identified which agencies, organizations, or other actors’ voices were most prominent within each domain. Our results show inconsistent framings of wildfire risk definition across the data, building upon past literature that has identified divides between fire suppression and mitigation work, as well as disconnects between media representations of fire and perspectives of resource managers and scientists. Lastly, we highlight two examples of cross-cutting discourses - public drinking water and smoke – as concepts that span boundaries and may have the power to generate broader coordination and support for wildfire policy solutions and action.