SMSara K. McBride

Sara K. McBride

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Sara K. McBride has a total of 155 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • From User Needs to Design Choices: A Method for User-Centered Design of Natural Hazards Visualizations

    by Max Schneider, Anne Wein, Sara K. McBride, Bianca Artigas, Raul Castro, Hector Gonzalez-Huizar, Morgan Page, Nicholas van der Elst

    Communicating natural hazards forecasts and models frequently relies on visual products such as charts, maps, and infographics. The framework of user-centered design can result in products that meet the needs of their users. While numerous methods exist for the elicitation of users’ needs, there are few published methods for how to translate user needs into concrete choices when designing visual products for natural hazards. We propose a two-step method for product designers to facilitate user-centered design for natural hazard products. First, we identify the key design elements (e.g., color scheme, labeling, data layers) and list the potential options for each one. Second, we make choices for each parameter based on elicited user needs, thus tracking explicitly which aspects of a product were designed to be user-centered. We demonstrate this method by prototyping several products showing forecasts for aftershocks after large earthquakes. We design user-centered graphics showing forecasted rates for aftershocks over time and by magnitude and several short-term hazard maps showing forecasted ground shaking. We posit that this method allows for systematic, structured, and delineated product design that makes (user-centered) product development more transparent, reproducible, and also transferable across hazards. We discuss practical implications in using such structured methods for designing user-centered hazard products.

  • Open Access

    Getting the story straight: common misconceptions around volcanoes and eruptions with case studies of recent events

    by Janine B. Krippner, Sam Poppe, Cristian Farías, Edward Venzke, Michael P. Poland, Boris Behncke, Sara K. McBride, Jessica Ball, Diana C. Roman, Heather K. Handley, et al.

    The ability to rapidly disseminate scientific knowledge across the world has never been greater. This is paralleled by the ability of rumors to spread equally far and fast. Popular misconceptions can take root and, without correction, take on the appearance of facts. Commonly misunderstood topics include those with attention-grabbing phrasing (e.g. “Pacific Ring of Fire”, “supervolcanoes”, or “mega-tsunamis”), the intersection of volcanic research with high-profile science topics (climate or human health), aspirational science goals (eruption forecasts), and basic terminology (volcanic ash versus smoke, or magma “chambers”). In this paper, we describe eighteen misconceptions grouped in six themes (seismology, volcanoes and climate, systems and structures, volcanic hazards, timescales, photographs and footage) commonly encountered by volcanologists who are actively engaging with the public and media both during and between eruptions. Each misconception description is accompanied by takeaway points and summaries of recent research to assist the reader with the information necessary to describe the issues. Finally, we present seven case studies where incorrect information was widely shared and counteracted at well-known volcanoes and recent eruptions at Mount Agung (Bali, Indonesia), Mount Etna (Sicily, Italy), Kīlauea (Hawaii, U.S.A.), Tajogaite (La Palma, Spain), La Soufrière (St. Vincent), Taal Volcano (Philippines), and Yellowstone caldera (U.S.A.). This work is intended to help both volcanologists and non-specialists get the story straight, and to effectively communicate processes and scales of volcanism and volcanic hazards, impacts, and risks.


  • Top Cited Papers

    ShakeAlert® Version 3: Expected Performance in Large Earthquakes

    by Jeffrey J. McGuire, Carl W. Ulberg, Angie I. Lux, Maren Böse, Jennifer R. Andrews, Deborah E. Smith, Brendan W. Crowell, Jessica R. Murray, Ivan Henson, Renate Hartog, et al.

    The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system partners along with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) licensed operators deliver EEW alerts to the public and trigger automated systems when a significant earthquake is expected to impact California, Oregon, or Washington. ShakeAlert’s primary goal is to provide usable warning times before the arrival of damaging shaking. EEW is most likely to achieve this goal in large-magnitude earthquakes. In recent years, ShakeAlert has gone through a series of upgrades to its underlying scientific algorithms aimed at improved performance during large earthquakes. Version 3 of this software recently went live in the production system and includes improvements to all algorithms. The main seismic algorithms that detect an earthquake and characterize its location, magnitude, and fault rupture orientation are faster than older versions. Other key changes include: using real-time geodetic data to characterize the magnitude growth in large earthquakes; the introduction of an alert pause procedure to compromise between speed near the epicenter and improved accuracy at larger distances; and the inclusion of a nonergodic site-response model in the ground-motion predictions. ShakeAlert has achieved its primary goal of usable warning times before strong shaking at some locations in real-time operations in recent M 6 earthquakes. Using offline tests, we demonstrate usable warning times are possible for many sites with peak shaking values of modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) 7–8 in M 7+ earthquakes and also for many MMI 8–9 sites in M 8+ earthquakes. ShakeAlert partners use a variety of MMI and magnitude thresholds in deciding when to alert their users within bounds set by the USGS. Our study shows that there is room to raise the magnitude thresholds up to about M 5.5 without adversely affecting performance in large earthquakes. The ground-motion criteria are more complex owing to a significant drop-off in warning times between the MMI 4 and 5 levels of predicted shaking. However, widely used ShakeAlert products, such as the MMI 3 and 4 contour products, can provide sufficiently long warning times before strong shaking in moderate-to-great earthquakes to enable a range of protective actions.


  • Open Access

    ShakeAlert®—Communication, education, outreach and technical engagement strategic vision

    by Robert Michael Degroot, Sara K. McBride, Margaret J. Vinci, Gabriel C. Lotto, Megan L. Anderson, Danielle F. Sumy, Brian Terbush

    In 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began directly supporting ShakeAlert® research and in 2012 the ShakeAlert demonstration system began testing (Given and others, 2018). The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the three West Coast States (Washington, Oregon, and California) served by the ShakeAlert System, which is part of the larger Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). With more than 143 million people exposed to potentially damaging shaking in the United States (Jaiswal and others, 2015), earthquakes are a national hazard. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated in the highly populated areas on the active plate tectonic boundaries on the West Coast of the conterminous United States. ShakeAlert is the first public alert system in the United States to provide rapid mass notification of earthquake detection, potentially offering seconds of warning before strong shaking arrives. A few seconds may not seem like much time, but the information in ShakeAlert Messages can be used to trigger automated actions that can prevent injury or death, reduce immediate damage, and speed recovery from earthquakes.The information product issued by the ShakeAlert system is called a ShakeAlert Message and is one of the information products and tools of the ANSS. The ShakeAlert System includes the USGS component, plus the pathways by which ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services are delivered to end users. Alerts can be delivered to cell phones or be used to trigger automated systems to protect equipment, facilities, and infrastructure, such as slowing or stopping a train. ShakeAlert-powered automated actions can include fire house doors that can be opened to prevent jamming, heavy equipment (for example, trains, elevators, and cranes) that can be automatically stopped or parked in safe positions, and pipeline valves that can be closed to prevent surges and spills. A few seconds of warning also may be sufficient for people to take protective actions, such as drop, cover, and hold on or modified protective actions for a broad range of populations. Advance training may increase the benefit of a speedy response to an alert.Outreach and education about EEW may raise awareness of the overall earthquake threat and how people can best react when they receive an alert or feel shaking. ShakeAlert communication, education, outreach, and technical engagement (CEO&TE) efforts are highly collaborative and essential for the success of the ShakeAlert System. This strategic vision informs how the vast ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community operates and works together. The CEO&TE Community delineates a strategic framework that is intended to set the path for a long-term, sustainable approach to CEO&TE through three focus areas and five priorities.Focus Areas Technical engagement.—The objective of this focus area is to expand and broaden ShakeAlert technical engagement and implementation.External engagement.—This focus area targets engagement in long-term communication, education, and outreach planning, implementation, and evaluation.Internal engagement.—The purpose of this focus area is to build and sustain a robust infrastructure to optimize collaboration, information sharing, and project planning among the community of stakeholders charged with implementing ShakeAlert CEO&TE.Priorities The enumeration of the five priorities listed below does not suggest priority ranking.Public safety, preparedness, and resilience;Technical implementation and engagement;Consistent messaging and communication;Integration with other Federal and State earthquake hazards products; andEducational resources development and dissemination.This strategic vision is a tangible outcome of collaboration among many stakeholders beginning in July 2016. Since then, the work of the ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community has grown into an international effort. The USGS has developed, tested, and implemented a broad spectrum of communication, education, and outreach tools and resources—all of which recognize that seconds matter when it comes to safety and mitigating harm from earthquake hazards. The CEO&TE social science research effort has provided invaluable insights into the ShakeAlert System’s human interface. USGS-licensed technical partners develop, test, and implement real-world applications using ShakeAlert Messages.The success of ShakeAlert CEO&TE efforts is predicated on robust collaboration across numerous agencies, organizations, and groups. As such, this strategic vision outlines a “partnership model” that delineates roles and responsibilities to ensure alignment with focus areas and priorities. The partnership model includes the CEO&TE lead agency (USGS); its principal partners (State agencies and university partners); its implementation partners (for example, technical partners who build systems to deliver ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services [focus area one]), earthquake education partners who work to increase public preparedness for seismic events (focus area two); and other organizations that work together to enhance the adoption and effectiveness of the ShakeAlert System. These partners collaborate and convene through a variety of working groups and forums, which are also described in this strategic vision and align with focus area three (internal engagement). The CEO&TE Community collaboratively developed its operating principles and a consensus-based, decision-making strategic framework to guide its collective work. Performance metrics are used to continually measure success. Ultimately, the USGS and ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community are advancing the ShakeAlert System that as of the publication of this strategic vision to “provide earthquake early warning for all” serves more than 50 million people.


  • Preliminary field report of landslide hazards following Hurricane Helene

    by Kate E. Allstadt, Sara K. McBride, Jonathan W. Godt, Stephen L. Slaughter, Kelli Wadsworth Baxstrom, Steven Sobieszczyk, Anna Stull

    This report reflects our knowledge regarding the widespread landslide activity associated with Hurricane Helene observed during the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) mission assignment to North Carolina in October 2024. The material in this report was originally prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency under mission assignment DR-4827-NC. The data and commentary in this report are reflective of a report provided to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on October 18, 2024, as well as information provided in briefings at the Buncombe County Emergency Operations Center. The report has been modified for public dissemination.This assessment was based on systematic visual examination and mapping of landslide locations from aerial and satellite imagery, visual and photographic observations from low-level helicopter overflights and conversations with local landslide experts from the North Carolina Geological Survey and Appalachian Landslide Consultants PLLC, and more than 50 years of combined landslide hazard professional experience of the mission-assigned field team. No systematic field investigations were done by the USGS.While responding to the event, the USGS did not identify any landslides that posed an immediate major threat to recovery personnel in parts of nine counties in North Carolina (Avery, Buncombe, Henderson, McDowell, Mitchell, Polk, Rutherford, Watauga, and Yancey); however, threats from renewed landslide activity may remain heightened in localized areas for months or even years. Known areas of the most abundant landslide occurrence include Bat Cave, Lake Lure, Chimney Rock, Swannanoa, Black Mountain, Fairview, steep areas in Asheville, and the Blue Ridge Parkway. The USGS shared detailed locations of known landslides with the Emergency Operations Centers. The thousands of landslide scars on hillsides and landslide deposits on flatter ground may present some threat to recovery activities. Soil and rocks will continue to erode from newly exposed landslide scars and may pose a threat to people and infrastructure who are immediately nearby. In general, the steeper and taller the landslide scar, the greater the potential threat. This threat is heightened during periods of rainfall and increases with the duration and intensity of rainstorms. Very heavy rainfall, or repeated rainfall events during short periods, could also initiate new landslides on steep slopes. Excavation of landslide deposits, particularly excavation of those deposits directly adjacent to steep slopes, may also pose a threat to nearby people and equipment.An interagency collaborative mapping effort led by the USGS that informed this assessment identified 1,155 landslide locations by the October 2024 briefings, but that number increased to 2,217 in a final reviewed version of the locations published in January 2025. Locations were mapped from satellite imagery, fixed-wing and helicopter surveys, media and social media, and field reports in the 3 weeks following the passage of the remnants of Hurricane Helene. USGS products outlined in this report are publicly available and include geotagged photographs from aerial reconnaissance, hazard models, an interactive view of mapped landslide locations, and landslide safety and education resources.


  • Open Access

    Long-term communication of aftershock forecasts: The Canterbury earthquake sequence in New Zealand

    by Anne M. Wein, Sara K. McBride, Julia S. Becker, Annemarie Christophersen, Emma E.H. Doyle, Matthew C. Gerstenberger, Sally H. Potter


  • Status and Performance of the ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System: 2019–2023

    by Angela I. Lux, Deborah Smith, Maren Böse, Jeffrey J. McGuire, Jessie K. Saunders, Minh Huynh, Igor Stubailo, Jennifer Andrews, Gabriel Lotto, Brendan Crowell, et al.

    The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)-operated ShakeAlert® system is the United States West Coast earthquake early warning system (Given et al., 2018). In this study we detail ShakeAlert’s performance during some of the largest events seen by the system thus far. Statewide public alerting using ShakeAlert messages was authorized in California in October 2019. Over the next few years, public alerts were expanded into Oregon and then into Washington (U.S. Geological Survey, 2024). ShakeAlert source results are routinely compared to the USGS Comprehensive Catalog (ComCat; Guy et al., 2015; U.S. Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, 2017), which contains the earthquake location and magnitude determined using complete waveform data. M 4.5 and larger is the threshold used for public alerting and was deliberately set below the level where damage is likely to compensate for cases where the system underestimates the magnitude. Between 17 October 2019 and 1 September 2023, the ShakeAlert system created 95 events with maximum magnitude estimates of M ≥4.5, the public alerting threshold. 94 of the 95 events were due to real earthquakes. Seven were categorized “false” per ShakeAlert’s internal definition that there was no matching catalog event within 100 km and 30 s of origin time; however, all but one of these were real earthquakes that were poorly located, primarily because they were at the edges of the seismic network. Three detected events were labeled “missed” because they were very poorly located (>100 km location error). In addition, the system did not produce solutions for four ComCat events M ≥4.5 (U.S. Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, 2017), which were all at the edge of the alerting and network boundaries. The ShakeAlert system has accurately detected the majority of earthquakes that have occurred within the operational region since completing the public rollout, and alerts from the system have been delivered to millions of cell phone users throughout the West Coast.


  • Open Access

    ShakeAlert® and schools: Incorporating earthquake early warning in school districts in Alaska, California, Oregon, and Washington

    by Rachel M. Adams, Holly Davies, Lori Peek, Meghan Mordy, Jennifer Tobin, Jolie Breeden, Sara K. McBride, Robert M. de Groot