Natural Hazards

, Volume 72, Issue 2, pp 565–595

Undersampling power-law size distributions: effect on the assessment of extreme natural hazards

Original Paper


The effect of undersampling on estimating the size of extreme natural hazards from historical data is examined. Tests using synthetic catalogs indicate that the tail of an empirical size distribution sampled from a pure Pareto probability distribution can range from having one-to-several unusually large events to appearing depleted, relative to the parent distribution. Both of these effects are artifacts caused by limited catalog length. It is more difficult to diagnose the artificially depleted empirical distributions, since one expects that a pure Pareto distribution is physically limited in some way. Using maximum-likelihood methods and the method of moments, we estimate the power-law exponent and the corner size parameter of tapered Pareto distributions for several natural hazard examples: tsunamis, floods, and earthquakes. Each of these examples has varying catalog lengths and measurement thresholds, relative to the largest event sizes. In many cases where there are only several orders of magnitude between the measurement threshold and the largest events, joint two-parameter estimation techniques are necessary to account for estimation dependence between the power-law scaling exponent and the corner size parameter. Results indicate that whereas the corner size parameter of a tapered Pareto distribution can be estimated, its upper confidence bound cannot be determined and the estimate itself is often unstable with time. Correspondingly, one cannot statistically reject a pure Pareto null hypothesis using natural hazard catalog data. Although physical limits to the hazard source size and attenuation mechanisms from source to site constrain the maximum hazard size, historical data alone often cannot reliably determine the corner size parameter. Probabilistic assessments incorporating theoretical constraints on source size and propagation effects are preferred over deterministic assessments of extreme natural hazards based on historical data.


Extreme natural hazards Catalog Empirical Power law Undersampling Pareto Probability 


  1. Aki K (1965) Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula log N = a − bM and its confidence limit. Bull Earthq Res Inst 43:237–239Google Scholar
  2. Andrews DJ, Hanks TC, Whitney JW (2007) Physical limits on ground motion at Yucca Mountain. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:1771–1792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Annaka T, Satake K, Sakakiyama T, Yanagisawa K, Shuto N (2007) Logic-tree approach for probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis and it applications to the Japanese Coasts. Pure appl Geophys 164:577–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bird P (2003) An updated digital model of plate boundaries. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 4. doi:10.1029/2001GC000252
  5. Bird P, Kagan YY (2004) Plate-tectonic analysis of shallow seismicity: apparent boundary width, beta-value, corner magnitude, coupled lithosphere thickness, and coupling in 7 tectonic settings. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94:2380–2399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bird P, Kagan YY, Jackson DD (2002) Plate tectonics and earthquake potential of spreading ridges and oceanic transform faults. In: Stein S, Freymueller JT (eds) Plate boundary zones. American Geophysical Union, Geodynamic Series, Washington, DC, pp 203–218Google Scholar
  7. Birkeland KW, Landry CC (2002) Power-laws and snow avalanches. Geophys Res Lett 29:49-41–49-43Google Scholar
  8. Burroughs SM, Tebbens SF (2001) Upper-truncated power laws in natural systems. Pure appl Geophys 158:741–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burroughs SM, Tebbens SF (2005) Power law scaling and probabilistic forecasting of tsunami runup heights. Pure appl Geophys 162:331–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chakrabarty A, Samorodnitsky G (2012) Understanding heavy tails in a bounded world or, is a truncated heavy tail heavy or not? Stoch Models 28:109–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charnes A, Frome EL, Yu PL (1976) The equivalence of generalized least squares and maximum likelihood estimates in the exponential family. J Am Stat As 71:169–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clauset A, Shalizi CR, Newman MEJ (2009) Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Rev 51:661–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cumming SG (2001) A parametric model of the fire-size distribution. Can J For Res 31:1297–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deemer WL, Votaw DF (1955) Estimation of parameters of truncated or censored exponential distributions. Ann Math Stat 26:498–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dussauge C, Grasso JR, Helmstetter A (2003) Statistical analysis of rockfall volume distributions: implications for rockfall dynamics. J Geophys Res 108. doi:10.1029/2001JB000650
  16. Fan J, Hung H-N, Wong W-H (2000) Geometric understanding of likelihood ratio statistics. J Am Stat As 95:836–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Field EH, Dawson TE, Felzer KR, Frankel AD, Gupta V, Jordan TH, Parsons T, Petersen MD, Stein RS, Weldon RJ, Wills CJ (2009) Uniform California earthquake rupture forecast, version 2 (UCERF 2). Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:2053–2107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Flinn EA, Engdahl ER, Hill AR (1974) Seismic and geographical regionalization. Bull Seismol Soc Am 64:771–992Google Scholar
  19. Geist EL (2012) Phenomenology of tsunamis II: scaling, event statistics, and inter-event triggering. Adv Geophys 53:35–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geist EL, Parsons T (2006) Probabilistic analysis of tsunami hazards. Nat Hazards 37:277–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geist EL, Parsons T (2011) Assessing historical rate changes in global tsunami occurrence. Geophys J Int 187:497–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geist EL, Parsons T, ten Brink US, Lee HJ (2009) Tsunami Probability. In: Bernard EN, Robinson AR (eds) The sea, vol 15. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 93–135Google Scholar
  23. Grezio A, Marzocchi W, Sandri L, Gasparini P (2010) A Bayesian procedure for probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Assessment. Nat Hazards 53:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 34:185–188Google Scholar
  25. Hanks TC, Kanamori H (1979) A moment magnitude scale. J Geophys Res 84:2348–2350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hergarten S (2004) Aspects of risk assessment in power-law distributed natural hazards. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 4:309–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hergarten S, Neugebauer HJ (1998) Self-organized criticality in a landslide model. Geophys Res Lett 25:801–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holschneider M, Zöller G, Hainzl S (2011) Estimation of the maximum possible magnitude in the framework of a doubly truncated Gutenberg–Richter model. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101:1649–1659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Horikawa K, Shuto N (1983) Tsunami disasters and protection measures in Japan. In: Iida K, Iwasaki T (eds) Tsunamis-their science and engineering. Terra Scientific Publishing Company, Tokyo, pp 9–22Google Scholar
  30. Howell BF (1985) On the effect of too small a data base on earthquake frequency diagrams. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75:1205–1207Google Scholar
  31. IAEA (2011) Meteorological and Hydrological Hazards in Site Evaluation for Nuclear Installations. In: International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, p 172Google Scholar
  32. Ishimoto M, Iida K (1939) Observations of earthquakes registered with the microseismograph constructed recently. Bull Earthq Res Inst 17:443–478Google Scholar
  33. JSCE (2002) Tsunami assessment method for nuclear power plants in japan. in: the tsunami evaluation subcommittee, the nuclear civil engineering committee, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, p 73Google Scholar
  34. Kagan YY (1993) Statistics of characteristic earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 83:7–24Google Scholar
  35. Kagan YY (1996) Comment on “The Gutenberg–Richter of characteristic earthquake distribution, which is it?” by Steven G. Wesnousky. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86:274–285Google Scholar
  36. Kagan YY (1999) Universality of the seismic-moment-frequency relation. Pure appl Geophys 155:537–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kagan YY (2002) Seismic moment distribution revisited: I. Statistical results. Geophys J Int 148:520–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kagan YY (2007) Earthquake size distribution and earthquake insurance. Communications in statistics. Stoch Models 13:775–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kagan YY (2010) Earthquake size distribution: power-law with exponent β = 1/2? Tectonophys 490:103–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kagan YY, Jackson DD (2013) Tohoku earthquake: a surprise? Bull Seismol Soc Am 103:1181–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kagan YY, Schoenberg F (2001) Estimation of the upper cutoff parameter for the tapered Pareto distribution. J Appl Probab 38A:158–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kagan YY, Bird P, Jackson DD (2010) Earthquake patterns in diverse tectonic zones of the globe. Pure appl Geophys 167:721–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kidson R, Richards KS (2005) Flood frequency analysis: assumptions and alternatives. Prog Phys Geogr 29:392–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kijko A (2004) Estimation of the maximum earthquake magnitude, m max. Pure appl Geophys 161:1655–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kijko A, Graham G (1998) Parametric-historic procedure for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis Part I: estimation of maximum regional magnitude m max. Pure appl Geophys 152:413–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Knopoff L, Kagan YY (1977) Analysis of the theory of extremes as applied to earthquake problems. J Geophys Res 82:5647–5657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Korycansky DG, Lynett PJ (2005) Offshore breaking of impact tsunami: the Van Dorn effect revisited. Geophys Res Lett 32. doi:10.1029/2004GL021918
  48. Kulikov EA, Rabinovich AB, Thomson R (2005) Estimation of tsunami risk for the coasts of Peru and northern Chile. Nat Hazards 35:185–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lu ET, Hamilton RJ (1991) Avalanches and the distribution of solar flares. Astrophys J 380:L89–L92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lynett PJ, Wu T-R, Liu PL-F (2002) Modeling wave runup with depth-integrated equations. Coast Eng 46:89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Main I (1996) Statistical physics, seismogenesis, and seismic hazard. Rev Geophys 34:433–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Main I, Li L, McCloskey J, Naylor M (2008) Effect of the Sumatran mega-earthquake on the global magnitude cut-off and event rate. Nat Geosci 1:142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Main I, Naylor M, Greenhough J, Touati S, Bell AF, McCloskey J (2011) Model selection and uncertainty in earthquake hazard analysis. In: Faber M, Köhler J, Nishijima K (eds) Applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering. CRC Press, Leiden, pp 735–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Malamud BD, Turcotte DL (2006) The applicability of power-law frequency statistics to floods. J Hydrol 322:168–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Malamud BD, Turcotte DL, Barton CC (1996) The 1993 Mississippi River Flood: a one hundred or a one thousand year event? Environ Eng Geosci 2:479–486Google Scholar
  56. Malamud BD, Morein G, Turcotte DL (1998) Forest fires: an example of self-organized critical behaviour. Science 281:1840–1842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Malamud BD, Turcotte DL, Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P (2004) Landslide inventories and their statistical properties. Earth Surf Proc Land 29:687–7111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Marzocchi W, Newhall C, Woo G (2012) The scientific management of volcanic crises. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 247–248:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mason BG, Pyle DM, Oppenheimer C (2004) The size and frequency of the largest explosive eruptions on earth. Bull Volc 66:735–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McCaffrey R (2008) Global frequency of magnitude 9 earthquakes. Geology 36:263–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Meerschaert MM, Roy P, Shao Q (2012) Parameter estimation for exponentially tempered power law distributions. Commun Stat Theory Models 41:1839–1856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mikhailov VN, Morozov VN, Cheroy NI, Mikhailova MV, Zav’yalova YF (2008) Extreme flood on the Danube River in 2006. Russ Meteorol Hydrol 33:48–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nakamura S (1979) On statistics of tsunamis in Indonesia. South East Asian Studies 16:664–674Google Scholar
  64. Naylor M, Greenhough J, McCloskey J, Bell AF, Main IG (2009) Statistical evaluation of characteristic earthquakes in the frequency-magnitude distributions of Sumatra and other subduction zone regions. Geophys Res Lett 36. doi:10.1029/2009GL040460
  65. Nelder JA, Mead R (1965) A simplex method for function minimization. Comput J 7:308–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Newman MEJ (2005) Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemp Phys 46:323–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ozaki T (2011) Outline of the 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku earthquake (Mw 9.0)–Tsunami warnings/advisories and observations. Earth Planets Space 63:827–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pacheco JF, Sykes LR (1992) Seismic moment catalog of large shallow earthquakes, 1900 to 1989. Bull Seismol Soc Am 82:1306–1349Google Scholar
  69. Parsons T, Geist EL (2009a) Is there a basis for preferring characteristic earthquakes over a Gutenberg-Richter distribution in probabilistic earthquake forecasting? Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:2012–2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Parsons T, Geist EL (2009b) Tsunami probability in the Caribbean region. Pure appl Geophys 165:2089–2116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Parsons T, Console R, Falcone G, Murru M, Yamashina K (2012) Comparison of characteristic and Gutenberg-Richter models for time-dependent M ≥ 7.9 earthquake probability in the Nankai-Tokai subduction zone, Japan. Geophys J Int. doi:10.1111/j.1365-1246X.2012.05595.x
  72. Pisarenko VF, Sornette D (2003) Characterization of the frequency of extreme earthquake events by the Generalized Pareto Distribution. Pure appl Geophys 160:2343–2364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pisarenko VF, Sornette D (2004) Statistical detection and characterization of a deviation from the Gutenberg-Richter distribution above magnitude 8. Pure appl Geophys 161:839–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Porter K, Kennedy R, Bachman R (2007) Creating fragility functions for performance-based earthquake engineering. Earthquake Spectra 23:471–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Prasad R (2009) Tsunami hazard assessment at nuclear power plant sites in the United States of America. In: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC, p 117Google Scholar
  76. Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flannery BP (2007) Numerical recipes: the art of scientific computing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 1235Google Scholar
  77. Rabinovich AB, Stephenson FE (2004) Longwave measurements for the coast of British Columbia and improvements to the tsunami warning capability. Nat Hazards 32:313–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rice JA (2007) Mathematical statistics and data analysis. Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, Belmont, p 672Google Scholar
  79. Rikitake T, Aida I (1988) Tsunami hazard probability in Japan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 78:1268–1278Google Scholar
  80. Sato H, Murakami H, Kozuki Y, Yamamoto N (2003) Study on a simplified method of tsunami risk assessment. Nat Hazards 29:325–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schoenberg F, Peng R, Woods R (2003) On the distribution of wildfire sizes. Environmetrics 14:583–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Shuto N, Fujima K (2009) A short history of tsunami research and countermeasures in Japan. Proc Jpn Acad Ser B 85:267–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Soloviev SL (1970) Recurrence of tsunamis in the Pacific. In: Adams WM (ed) Tsunamis in the Pacific Ocean. East-West Center Press, Honolulu, pp 149–163Google Scholar
  84. Sornette D (2004) Critical phenomena in natural sciences. Springer, Berlin, p 528Google Scholar
  85. Sornette D, Sornette A (1999) General theory of the modified Gutenberg-Richter law for large seismic moments. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89:1121–1130Google Scholar
  86. Sornette D, Vanneste C, Sornette A (1991) Dispersion of b-values in Gutenberg-Richter Law as a consequence of a proposed fractal nature of continental faulting. Geophys Res Lett 18:897–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stedinger JR, Vogel RM, Foufoula-Georgiou E (1993) Frequency analysis of extreme events. In: Maidment DR (ed) Handbook of hydrology. McGraw Hill, Inc., New York, pp 18.11–18.66Google Scholar
  88. Stein S, Newman A (2004) Characteristic and uncharacteristic earthquakes as possible artifacts: applications to the New Madrid and Wabash seismic zones. Seismol Res Lett 75:173–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Stein S, Geller RJ, Liu M (2012) Why earthquake hazard maps fail and what to do about it. Tectonophys 562–563:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Stern RJ (2002) Subduction zones. Rev Geophys 40. doi:10.1029/2001RG000108
  91. Strauss D, Bednar L, Mees R (1989) Do one percent of the forest fires cause ninety-nine percent of the damage? Forest Sci 35:319–328Google Scholar
  92. ten Brink US, Geist EL, Andrews BD (2006) Size distribution of submarine landslides and its implication to tsunami hazard in Puerto Rico. Geophys Res Lett 33. doi:10.1029/2006GL026125
  93. Turcotte DL, Green L (1993) A scale-invariant approach to flood-frequency analysis. Stoch Hydrol Hydraul 7:33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Turcotte DL, Haselton K (1996) A dynamical systems approach to flood-frequency forecasting. In: Rundle JB, Turcotte DL, Klein W (eds) Reduction and predictability of natural disasters. Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp 51–70Google Scholar
  95. Utsu T (1999) Representation and analysis of the earthquake size distribution: a historical review and some new approaches. Pure appl Geophys 155:509–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Vere-Jones D, Robinson R, Yang W (2001) Remarks on the accelerated moment release model: problems of model formulation, simulation and estimation. Geophys J Int 144:517–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wesnousky SG (1994) The Gutenberg-Richter or characteristic earthquake distribution, which is it? Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:1940–1959Google Scholar
  98. Wyss M (1979) Estimating maximum expectable magnitude of earthquake from fault dimensions. Geology 6:336–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Yanagisawa K, Imamura F, Sakakiyama T, Annaka T, Takeda T, Shuto N (2007) Tsunami assessment of risk management at nuclear power facilities in Japan. Pure appl Geophys 164:565–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Yen BC (1988) Flood hazards for nuclear power plants. Nucl Eng Des 110:213–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Zaliapin IV, Kagan YY, Schoenberg FP (2005) Approximating the distributions of Pareto sums. Pure appl Geophys 162:1187–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Zöller G (2013) Convergence of the frequency-magnitude distribution of global earthquakes: maybe in 200 years. Geophys Res Lett 40:3873–3877CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Geological SurveyMenlo ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations