Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Operational earthquake forecasting in Europe: progress, despite challenges

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Is Europe-wide operational earthquake forecasting (OEF) possible? We discuss the myriad problems that prevent it today, many of which relate to heterogeneities in earthquake recording, processing, and reporting. We contemplate the difficulty of building models that cross political boundaries, and we consider the prospect of European OEF in light of recent efforts to harmonize long-term seismic hazard assessment among several nations. Emphasizing the Strategies and Tools for Real-time Earthquake Risk Reduction (REAKT) project, we report achievements related to short-term seismicity forecasting in Iceland and Italy that could apply elsewhere in Europe. In Iceland, collaboration fostered by REAKT resulted in a revised earthquake catalog and a prototype OEF system. We report results from an experiment conducted with this prototype; these results suggest ensemble models provide an information gain, updating models more frequently improves their forecast skill, and that OEF is computationally feasible. In Italy, REAKT supported the creation of an ensemble model that now issues weekly hazard forecasts. We present examples of these forecasts, highlighting the problem that OEF often yields low probabilities, which are difficult to interpret and convert into actionable decisions. Motivated by such low hazard probabilities, we highlight Europe’s pioneering efforts in operational earthquake loss forecasting and mention solutions to problems that currently prevent OEF at the European scale.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bondár I, Engdahl ER, Villaseñor A et al (2015) ISC-GEM: Global Instrumental Earthquake Catalogue (1900–2009), II. Location and seismicity patterns. Phys Earth Planet Inter 239:2–13. doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2014.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chioccarelli E, Iervolino I (2015) Operational earthquake loss forecasting: a retrospective analysis of some recent Italian seismic sequences. Bull Earthq Eng. doi:10.1007/s10518-015-9837-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Giacomo D, Bondár I, Storchak DA et al (2015a) ISC-GEM: Global Instrumental Earthquake Catalogue (1900–2009), III. Re-computed MS and mb, proxy MW, final magnitude composition and completeness assessment. Phys Earth Planet Inter 239:33–47. doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2014.06.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Giacomo D, Harris J, Villaseñor A et al (2015b) ISC-GEM: Global Instrumental Earthquake Catalogue (1900–2009), I. Data collection from early instrumental seismological bulletins. Phys Earth Planet Inter 239:14–24. doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2014.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eberhard DAJ (2014) Multiscale seismicity analysis and forecasting: examples from the western Pacific and Iceland. Eidgen{ö}ssische Technische Hochschule Z{ü}rich

  • Eberhard DAJ, Zechar JD, Wiemer S (2012) A prospective earthquake forecast experiment in the western Pacific. Geophys J Int 190:1579–1592. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05548.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falcone G, Console R, Murru M (2010) Short-term and long-term earthquake occurrence models for Italy: ETES, ERS and LTST. Ann Geophys 53:41–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerstenberger MC, Wiemer S, Jones LM, Reasenberg PA (2005) Real-time forecasts of tomorrow’s earthquakes in California. Nature 435:328–331. doi:10.1038/nature03622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann M, Zechar JD, Wiemer S (2016) Communicating time-varying seismic risk during an earthquake sequence. Seismol Res Lett. doi:10.1785/0220150168

    Google Scholar 

  • Iervolino I, Chioccarelli E, Giorgio M et al (2015) Operational (short-term) earthquake loss forecasting in Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105:2286–2298. doi:10.1785/0120140344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson DD, Kagan YY (1999) Testable earthquake forecasts for 1999. Seismol Res Lett 70:393–403. doi:10.1785/gssrl.70.4.393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan TH (2006) Earthquake predictability, brick by brick. Seismol Res Lett 77:3–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan TH, Jones LM (2010) Operational earthquake forecasting: some thoughts on why and how. Seismol Res Lett 81:571–574. doi:10.1785/gssrl.81.4.571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan TH, Chen Y-T, Gasparini P et al (2011) Operational earthquake forecasting: state of knowledge and guidelines for implementation. Ann Geophys 54:316–391. doi:10.4401/ag-5350

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan TH, Marzocchi W, Michael AJ, Gerstenberger M (2014) Operational earthquake forecasting can enhance earthquake preparedness. Seismol Res Lett 85:955–959. doi:10.1785/0220140143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan YY (2010) Statistical distributions of earthquake numbers: consequence of branching process. Geophys J Int 180:1313–1328. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04487.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kisslinger C, Mikumo T, Kanamori H (1988) U.S.–Japan quake prediction research. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 69:1672. doi:10.1029/88EO01270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee WHK, Engdahl ER (2015) Bibliographical search for reliable seismic moments of large earthquakes during 1900–1979 to compute MW in the ISC-GEM Global Instrumental Reference Earthquake Catalogue. Phys Earth Planet Inter 239:25–32. doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2014.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi AM, Marzocchi W (2010a) The assumption of poisson seismic-rate variability in CSEP/RELM experiments. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100:2293–2300. doi:10.1785/0120100012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi AM, Marzocchi W (2010b) The ETAS model for daily forecasting of Italian seismicity in the CSEP experiment. Ann Geophys 53:155–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzocchi W, Murru M, Lombardi AM et al (2012a) Daily earthquake forecasts during the May–June 2012 Emilia earthquake sequence (northern Italy). Ann Geophys 55:561–567. doi:10.4401/ag-6161

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzocchi W, Zechar JD, Jordan TH (2012b) Bayesian forecast evaluation and ensemble earthquake forecasting. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102:2574–2584. doi:10.1785/0120110327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marzocchi W, Lombardi AM, Casarotti E (2014) the establishment of an operational earthquake forecasting system in Italy. Seismol Res Lett 85:961–969. doi:10.1785/0220130219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marzocchi W, Iervolino I, Giorgio M, Falcone G (2015) When is the probability of a large earthquake too small? Seismol Res Lett 86:1674–1678. doi:10.1785/0220150129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazet-Roux G, Bossu R, Frobert L et al (2015) Report on 2014 real time activities. Available at http://www.emsc-csem.org/Doc/EMSC_DOCS/EMSC_RT_activities_2014.pdf. Accessed May 2016

  • McGuire JJ (2008) Seismic cycles and earthquake predictability on East Pacific Rise transform faults. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:1067–1084. doi:10.1785/0120070154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire JJ, Boettcher MS, Jordan TH (2005) Foreshock sequences and short-term earthquake predictability on East Pacific Rise transform faults. Nature 434:457–461. doi:10.1038/nature03621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mignan A, Woessner J (2012) Estimating the magnitude of completeness for earthquake catalogs. Community Online Resour Stat Seism Anal. doi:10.5078/corssa-00180805

    Google Scholar 

  • Nanjo KZ, Tsuruoka H, Yokoi S et al (2012) Predictability study on the aftershock sequence following the 2011 Tohoku-Oki, Japan, earthquake: first results. Geophys J Int 191:653–658. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05626.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogata Y (2011) Significant improvements of the space-time ETAS model for forecasting of accurate baseline seismicity. Earth Planets Space 63:217–229. doi:10.5047/eps.2010.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panzera F, Zechar JD, Vogfjörd KS, Eberhard DAJ (2015) A Revised Earthquake Catalogue for South Iceland. Pure appl Geophys. doi:10.1007/s00024-015-1115-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Peresan A, Kossobokov V, Panza G (2012) Operational earthquake forecast/prediction. Rend Lincei 23:131–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades DA, Schorlemmer D, Gerstenberger MC et al (2011) Efficient testing of earthquake forecasting models. Acta Geophys 59:728–747. doi:10.2478/s11600-011-0013-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schorlemmer D, Gerstenberger MC (2007) RELM testing center. Seismol Res Lett 78:30–36. doi:10.1785/gssrl.78.1.30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schorlemmer D, Wiemer S, Wyss M (2005) Variations in earthquake-size distribution across different stress regimes. Nature 437:539–542. doi:10.1038/nature04094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schorlemmer D, Gerstenberger MC, Wiemer S et al (2007) Earthquake likelihood model testing. Seismol Res Lett 78:17–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schorlemmer D, Christophersen A, Rovida A et al (2010a) Setting up an earthquake forecast experiment in Italy. Ann Geophys 53:1–9. doi:10.4401/ag-4844

    Google Scholar 

  • Schorlemmer D, Zechar JD, Werner MJ et al (2010b) First results of the regional earthquake likelihood models experiment. Pure appl Geophys 167:859–876. doi:10.1007/s00024-010-0081-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storchak DA, Di Giacomo D, Bondár I et al (2013) Public release of the ISC-GEM Global Instrumental Earthquake Catalogue (1900–2009). Seismol Res Lett 84:810–815. doi:10.1785/0220130034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storchak DA, Di Giacomo D, Engdahl ER et al (2015) The ISC-GEM Global Instrumental Earthquake Catalogue (1900–2009): introduction. Phys Earth Planet Inter 239:48–63. doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2014.06.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stucchi M, Rovida A, Gomez Capera AA et al (2012) The SHARE European Earthquake Catalogue (SHEEC) 1000–1899. J Seismol 17:523–544. doi:10.1007/s10950-012-9335-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taroni M, Zechar JD, Marzocchi W (2014) Assessing annual global M6+ seismicity forecasts. Geophys J Int 196:422–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang K, Rogers GC (2014) Earthquake preparedness should not fluctuate on a daily or weekly basis. Seismol Res Lett 85:569–571. doi:10.1785/0220130195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wein A, Potter S, Johal S et al (2016) Communicating with the public during an earthquake sequence: improving communication of geoscience by coordinating roles. Seismol Res Lett 87:112–118. doi:10.1785/0220150113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werner MJ, Sornette D (2008) Magnitude uncertainties impact seismic rate estimates, forecasts, and predictability experiments. J Geophys Res 113:B08302. doi:10.1029/2007JB005427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woessner J, Christophersen A, Zechar JD, Monelli D (2010) Building self-consistent, short-term earthquake probability (STEP) models: improved strategies and calibration procedures. Ann Geophys 53:141–154. doi:10.4401/ag-4812

    Google Scholar 

  • Woessner J, Laurentiu D, Giardini D et al (2015) The 2013 European seismic hazard model: key components and results. Bull Earthq Eng 13:3553–3596. doi:10.1007/s10518-015-9795-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woo G, Marzocchi W (2013) Operational earthquake forecasting and decision-making. In: Wenzel F, Zschau J (eds) Early warning for geological disasters—scientific methods and current practice. Springer, Berlin, pp 351–365

    Google Scholar 

  • Zechar JD, Jordan TH (2010) Simple smoothed seismicity earthquake forecasts for Italy. Ann Geophys 53:99–105. doi:10.4401/ag-4845

    Google Scholar 

  • Zechar JD, Schorlemmer D, Liukis M et al (2010) The collaboratory for the study of earthquake predictability perspective on computational earthquake science. Concurr Comput Pract Exp. doi:10.1002/cpe

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhuang J (2011) Next-day earthquake forecasts for the Japan region generated by the ETAS model. Earth Planets Space 63:207–216. doi:10.5047/eps.2010.12.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was partially carried out in the framework of the REAKT project funded by FP7 of the European Commission, contract number 282862. This research was partially carried out in the framework of the ENVRIplus project funded by Horizon 2020, contract number 654182. We thank Guest Editor Carlo Cauzzi, Andy Michael and an anonymous reviewer for their assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swiss Seismological Service, ETH Zurich, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland

    J. Douglas Zechar & Stefan Wiemer

  2. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Via di Vigna Murata, 605, 00143, Rome, Italy

    Warner Marzocchi

Authors
  1. J. Douglas Zechar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Warner Marzocchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefan Wiemer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Douglas Zechar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zechar, J.D., Marzocchi, W. & Wiemer, S. Operational earthquake forecasting in Europe: progress, despite challenges. Bull Earthquake Eng 14, 2459–2469 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9930-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9930-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation