the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 05 Jan 2026
Increasing Earthquake Awareness: Seismo-at-school Switzerland
Abstract. The Increasing Earthquake Awareness in Switzerland project set out to connect students, teachers, and the wider public with earthquake science by reviving and extending the nationwide seismo@school initiative. Supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) AGORA programme, the project developed a suite of multilingual teaching resources, deployed near real-time seismic sensors in schools, and created hands-on activities to foster engagement of 12 to 18-year-olds. Although Switzerland is exposed to only moderate seismic hazard, earthquakes remain the natural hazard with the highest potential impact. Because most residents have never experienced a damaging earthquake, educational programmes play a crucial role in raising awareness and strengthening preparedness. Moreover, seismo@school initiatives can inspire younger generations to pursue geosciences by helping them appreciate the relevance of the field. This article presents the rationale, implementation, and impact of the project, and may serve as a guide for other countries seeking to develop similar initiatives. It examines how experiential, data-driven educational approaches can improve earthquake awareness and preparedness in moderate-hazard regions, how school-based seismometers benefit both teaching and scientific monitoring while considering the practical challenges of installation and operation, and what institutional and policy conditions are required to sustain such efforts over the long term.
- Preprint
(4119 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(239 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5726', Jean Luc Berenguer, 19 Jan 2026
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5726', Jean Luc Berenguer, 22 Jan 2026
My overall impression of this publication is very good.
The paper provides a comprehensive overview of the wide range of initiatives carried out in Swiss schools to educate pupils about earthquake risks, in close collaboration with the research community.
The technical difficulties of setting up a network in schools and the limitations of the digital sensors chosen are neither ignored nor glossed over in the discussion.
However, access to recordings directly available to schools is not explained clearly enough.
There is some ambiguity between the SED data and the data provided by schools, which are easily accessible to students.
The network is also very well presented in the context of educational seismology at the international level.
I appreciate the care taken to cite the many existing networks, even if some do not have the same scope as the Swiss network.
I would like to point out a small imprecision regarding the network in France mentioned in lines 41-42. Today, the French network is managed by EDUMED-Obs, the Mediterranean Educational Observatory (Université Côte d'Azur) ... et not 'SISMOS à l'Ecole'.
Line 41-42 > Key examples include the SISMOS à l'École network in France, which has successfully run for over 25 years and is now formally integrated into the national high school curriculum (Berenguer et al., 2020; Courboulex et al., 2012);
Congratulations on this excellent document, which is certainly very informative for the research community wishing to promote risk culture in schools.
Jean-Luc BERENGUER
EGU Education Committee
Université Côte d'Azur, UMR Géoazur
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5726-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5726', John Taber, 17 Apr 2026
This is a well written manuscript that clearly describes the Swiss seismo@school initiative.
The project has created a comprehensive set of classroom materials, deployed a network of Raspberry Shake seismometers in schools, and created a new simple build-your-own seismometer. Teachers were introduced to these resources via online and in-person workshops.
The misinformation and media literacy module is a unique addition compared to other groups’ seismology education activities. Providing simple data access and visualization tools via Jupyter notebooks is a useful extension to the Raspberry Shake module.
Both the successes and limitations of the project are clearly stated, and the critical importance of follow-up and ongoing teacher support is acknowledged and planned for. This has included making a connection to media coverage of a mass movement event by providing expert interpretation of data for the schools.
I liked the simplicity of the Lambda Slinky Seismometer, particularly including the Arduino and a small display screen as part of the package, and I encourage the authors to consider discussions with a commercial vendor to sell the kits outside Switzerland.
Offering supervisory support for student projects and theses is another strength of the project, and one successful example is given. It would be interesting to the reader if the authors know of any other examples yet.
The use of 2 teacher surveys was described, and the results of the post-workshop usage survey were discussed. The initial results were very encouraging, and it was good to see there is an intent to follow up with another survey once more teachers have a chance to try the resources.
Suggestions
I’d suggest mentioning the target age range/grades for the modules and for the overall program near the beginning, as I didn’t see any mention of target grades until the survey was discussed in section 3. Are the 5 activity modules and Raspberry Shake data use designed for similar grades or is data analysis targeted more towards older students?
You could consider adding the following reference on line 45 as a second more recent reference for the IRIS seismographs in schools program, to be similar to the seismographs in schools references: Bravo T., J. Taber, H. Davis, 2020, A Case Study of Highly-Engaged Educators’ Integration of Real-Time Seismic Data in Secondary Classrooms. Front. Earth Sci. 8:180.
It would be helpful to mention the approximate size of the Lambda Slinky Seismometer in figure 4 (for example, say that it’s xx cm tall).
The Lambda Slinky Seismometer is mentioned as a “third key outcome” of the project on line 307. I didn’t notice the other 2 key outcomes called out in the same way, though I expect they are the classroom activities and the Raspberry Shake seismometer and associated data analysis. I’d suggest mentioning the Lambda Slinky Seismometer along with the other objectives in lines 59-63.
It’s not clear what “overarching research interest” is being referred to in line 371. Is that seismology research (e.g. seismic hazard and risk determination) or some educational research question?
I appreciated the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript and to learn about the very well developed and educationally valuable seismo@school initiative.
John Taber
Director Emeritus
IRIS Education and Outreach Program
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5726-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 321 | 124 | 23 | 468 | 50 | 25 | 28 |
- HTML: 321
- PDF: 124
- XML: 23
- Total: 468
- Supplement: 50
- BibTeX: 25
- EndNote: 28
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of RC1 and its content was therefore removed on 22 January 2026.