Skip to main content

Seismic hazard and risk assessment: a review of state-of-the-art traditional and GIS models

Arabian Journal of Geosciences volume 13, Article number: 50 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

The historical records of earthquakes play a vital role in seismic hazard and risk assessment. During the last decade, geophysical, geotechnical, geochemical, topographical, geomorphological, geological data, and various satellite images have been collected, processed, and well-integrated into qualitative and quantitative spatial databases using geographical information systems (GIS). Various types of modeling approaches, such as traditional and GIS-based models, are used. Progressively, seismic studies can improve and modify systematic models and standardize the inventory map of earthquake-susceptible regions. Therefore, this paper reviews different approaches, which are organized and discussed on various models primarily used to create an earthquake scenario focusing on hazard and risk assessment. The reviews are divided into two major parts. The first part is the basic principles, data, and the methodology of various models used for seismic hazard and risk assessment. In the second part, a comparative analysis in terms of the limitations and strengths of the models, as well as application variability is presented. Furthermore, the paper includes the descriptions of software, data resources, and major conclusions. The main findings of this review explain that the capability of machine learning techniques regularly enhances the state of earthquake research, which will provide research opportunities in the future. The model suitability depends on the improvement of parameters, data, and methods that could help to prevent future risk. This paper will help researchers further understand the models based on their strengths, limitations, and applicability.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

References

  • Ahmad RA, Singh RP, Adris A (2017) Seismic hazard assessment of Syria using seismicity, DEM, slope, active faults and GIS. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 6:59–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Akhoondzadeh M, De Santis A, Marchetti D, Piscini A, Cianchini G (2018) Multi precursors analysis associated with the powerful Ecuador (MW= 7.8) earthquake of 16 April 2016 using Swarm satellites data in conjunction with other multi-platform satellite and ground data. Adv Space Res 61(1):248–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Arifi NS, Fat-Helbary RE, Khalil AR, Lashin AA (2013) A new evaluation of seismic hazard for the northwestern part of Saudi Arabia. Nat Hazards 69(3):1435–1457

    Google Scholar 

  • Alizadeh M, Ngah I, Hashim M, Pradhan B, Pour AB (2018) A hybrid analytic network process and artificial neural network (ANP-ANN) model for urban earthquake vulnerability assessment. Remote Sens 10(6):975. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10060975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambraseys NN, Melville CP (1995) Historical evidence of faulting in Eastern Anatolia and Northern Syria. Ann Geophys-Italy 38(3–4)

  • Asencio-Cortés G, Martínez-Álvarez F, Morales-Esteban A, Reyes J (2016) A sensitivity study of seismicity indicators in supervised learning to improve earthquake prediction. Knowl-Based Syst 101:15–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2016.02.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azeez OS, Pradhan B, Jena R, Jung HS, Ahmed AA (2019) Traffic emission modelling using LiDAR derived parameters and integrated geospatial model. Korean Journal of Remote Sensing 35(1):137–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahadori H, Hasheminezhad A, Karimi A (2017) Development of an integrated model for seismic vulnerability assessment of residential buildings: application to Mahabad City, Iran. Journal of Building Engineering 12:118–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.05.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bender B, Perkins D (1982) SEISRISK II. A computer program for seismic hazard estimation. USGS Open-File Report 82–293

  • Bender B, Perkins D (1987) SEISRISK III. A computer program for seismic hazard estimation. USGS Bulletin 6:1772

    Google Scholar 

  • Benedetti L, Finkel R, King G, Armijo R, Papanastassiou D, Ryerson FJ, Flerit F, Farber D, Stavrakakis G (2003) Motion on the Kaparelli fault (Greece) prior to the 1981 earthquake sequence determined from 36Cl cosmogonic dating. Terra Nova 15(2):118–124. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3121.2003.00474.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bommer JJ, Scherbaum F, Bungum H, Cotton F, Sabetta F, Abrahamson NA (2005) On the use of logic trees for ground-motion prediction equations in seismic-hazard analysis. B Seismol Soc Am 95(2):377–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (1994) Empirical analysis of strong ground motion from the 1992 Landers, California, earthquake. B Seismol Soc Am 84(3):573–588

  • Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2003) Updated near-source ground motion (attenuation) relations for the horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration and acceleration response spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(1):314–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang JC, King WR (2005) Measuring the performance of information systems: a functional scorecard. J Manag Inf Syst 22(1):85–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58(5):1583–1606

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornell CA and Vanmarcke EH (1969) January. The major influences on seismic risk. In Proceedings of the fourth world conference on earthquake engineering vol.1, pp. 69–83.

  • Corral A (2004) Long-term clustering, scaling, and universality in the temporal occurrence of earthquakes. Phys Rev Lett 92(10):108501

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox BR, Bachhuber J, Rathje E, Wood CM, Dulberg R, Kottke A, Green RA, Olson SM (2011) Shear wave velocity- and geology-based seismic microzonation of Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Earthquake Spectra 27(1):67–92. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3630226

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey N, Helmer O (1963) An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manag Sci 9(3):458–467. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danciu L, Kale Ö, Akkar S (2018) The 2014 Earthquake Model of the Middle East: ground motion model and uncertainties. B Earthq Eng 16:3497–3533

    Google Scholar 

  • Deif A, El-Hussain I, Al-Jabri K, Toksoz N, El-Hady S, Al-Hashmi S, Al-Toubi K, Al-Shijbi Y, Al-Saifi M (2012) Deterministic seismic hazard assessment for Sultanate of Oman. Arab J Geosci 6:4947–4960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-012-0790-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deligiannakis G, Papanikolaou ID, Roberts G (2016) Fault specific GIS-based seismic hazard maps for the Attica region, Greece. Geomorphology https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.12.005

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutta SC, Nayak S, Acharjee G, Panda SK, Das PK (2016) Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake of April 25, 2015: actual damage, retrofitting measures and prediction by RVS for a few typical structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 89:171–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.08.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estoque RC (2012) Analytic hierarchy process in geospatial analysis. Progress in Geospatial Analysis:157–181

  • Florido E, Martínez-Álvarez F, Morales-Esteban A, Reyes J, Aznarte-Mellado JL (2015) Detecting precursory patterns to enhance earthquake prediction in Chile. Comput Geosci 76:112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2014.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganas A, Pavlides S, Karastathis V (2005) DEM-based morphometry of range-front escarpments in Attica, Central Greece, and its relation to fault slip rates. Geomorphology 65(3–4):301–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giardini D, Danciu L, Erdik M, Şeşetyan K, Tümsa MBD, Akkar S, Gülen L, Zare M (2018) Seismic hazard map of the Middle East. B Earthq Eng 16:3567–3570

    Google Scholar 

  • Grützner C, Barba S, Papanikolaou I, Perez-Lopez R (2013) Earthquake geology: science, society and critical facilities. Ann Geophys 56. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-6503

  • Grützner C, Schneiderwind S, Papanikolaou I, Deligiannakis G, Pallikarakis A, Reicherter K (2016) New constraints on extensional tectonics and seismic hazard in northern Attica, Greece—the case of the Milesi Fault. Geophys J Int 204(1):180–199. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggv443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. B Seismol Soc Am 34(4):185–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Halchuk S, Adams J (2004) Deaggregation of seismic hazard for selected Canadian cities. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada. Paper 2470 on CD-ROM

  • Hanks TC, Abrahamson NA, Boore DM, Coppersmith KJ, Knepprath NE (2009) Implementation of the SSHAC guidelines for level 3 and 4 PSHAs—experience gained from actual applications. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report. 2009–1093. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20091093

  • Hannich D, Hotzl H, Cudmani R (2006) Einfluss des Grundwassers auf die Schadenswirkung von Erdbeben – ein U¨ berblick. Grundwasser 11(4):286–294 (in German)

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmsen S, Perkins D, Frankel A (1999) Deaggregation of probabilistic ground motions in the Central and Eastern United States. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89(1):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Idowu S, Saguna S, Åhlund C, Schelén O (2016) Applied machine learning: forecasting heat load in district heating system. Energy and Buildings 133:478–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.09.068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ikram A, Qamar U (2015) Developing an expert system based on association rules and predicate logic for earthquake prediction. Knowl-Based Syst 75:87–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2014.11.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilanlu M, Ardakani A, Paknezhad H, Ebrahimi M, Gelsefid YA (2013) Identifying the urban vulnerable areas against the earthquake with GIS case study radio darya st.chalous. Int J Adv Stud Humanit Soc Sci 1(4):264–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahan I, Ansary M, Ara S, Islam I (2011) Assessing social vulnerability to earthquake hazard in Old Dhaka, Bangladesh. Asian J. Environ. Disster Manag 3(3) 285–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Jena R, Pradhan B, Beydoun G, Sofyan H, Affan M (2019) Integrated model for earthquake risk assessment using neural network and analytic hierarchy process: Aceh Province, Indonesia. Geosci Front. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2019.07.006

  • Kanai K (1961) An empirical formula for the spectrum of strong earthquake motions. Bull Earthq Res Inst 39:85–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Karimzadeh S, Cakir Z, Osmanoğlu B, Schmalzle G, Miyajima M, Amiraslanzadeh R (2013) Interseismic strain accumulation across the North Tabriz Fault (NWIran) deduced from InSAR time series. J Geodyn 66:53–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Karimzadeh S, Miyajima M, Hassanzadeh R, Amiraslanzadeh R, Kamel B (2014) A GIS-based seismic hazard, building vulnerability and human loss assessment for the earthquake scenario in Tabriz. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 66:263–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, pp 309–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee WHK, and Brillinger DR (1979) On Chinese earthquake history—an attempt to model an incomplete data set by point process analysis. In Earthquake prediction and seismicity patterns (pp. 1229-1257). Birkhäuser, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Louie JN (2001) Faster, better: shear-wave velocity to 100 meters depth from refraction microtremor arrays. B Seismol Soc Am 91(2):347–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. John Wiley & Sons

  • McGuire RK (1976) FORTRAN computer program for seismic risk analysis (No. 76-67). US Geological Survey 68 p. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr7667

  • McGuire RK (1978) FRISK: computer program for seismic risk analysis using faults as earthquake sources. USGS Open File Report:78–1007

  • McGuire RK (1995) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: closing the loop. B Seismol Soc Am 85(5):1275–1284

    Google Scholar 

  • Mhaske SY, Choudhury D (2010) GIS-based soil liquefaction susceptibility map of Mumbai City for earthquake events. J Appl Geophys 70(3):216–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Michetti AM, Audemard FA, Marco S (2005) Future trends in paleoseismology: integrated study of the seismic landscape as a vital tool in seismic hazard analyses. Tectonophysics 408(1–4):3–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Mili RR, Hosseini KA, Izadkhah YO (2018) Developing a holistic model for earthquake risk assessment and disaster management interventions in urban fabrics. Int J Disast Risk Re 27:355–365

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohanty WK, Walling MY (2008) First order seismic microzonation of Haldia, Bengal Basin (India) using a GIS platform. Pure Appl Geophys 165(7):1325–1350

    Google Scholar 

  • Moustafa S (2015) Application of the analytic hierarchy process for evaluating geo-hazards in the Greater Cairo area, Egypt. EJGE 20(6):1921–1938

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulargia F, Stark PB, Geller RJ (2017) Why is probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) still used? Phys Earth Planet Inter 264:63–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz MA, Sun Y, Kirley M, Halgamuge SK (2015) Algorithm selection for black-box continuous optimization problems: a survey on methods and challenges. Inf Sci 317:224–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Murthy VNS (1992) A textbook of soil mechanics and foundation engineering. UBS Publishers, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Building Sciences (1999, 2004) Direct physical damage to lifelines-transportation systems-utility systems. Earthquake loss estimation methodology. HAZUS Technical manual, vol. 2. Chapters 7, 8. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

  • Ordaz M, Aguilar A, Arboleda J (2001) CRISIS 2001. Program for computing seismic hazard. Instituto de Ingeniería UNAM

  • Pachakis D, Kiremidjian AS (2004) Estimation of downtime-related revenue losses in seaports following scenario earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 20(2):427–449

    Google Scholar 

  • Papanikolaou ID (2003) Generation of high resolution seismic hazard maps through integration of earthquake geology, fault mechanics theory and GIS techniques in extensional tectonic settings. Ph.D. Thesis. University of London, London, United Kingdom. 437

  • Papanikolaou D, Royden LH (2007) Disruption of the Hellenic arc: Late Miocene extensional detachment faults and steep Pliocene-Quaternary normal faults or what happened at Corinth? Tectonics 26(TC5003):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Papanikolaou ID, van Balen R, Silva PG, Reicherter K (2015) Geomorphology of active faulting and seismic hazard assessment: new tools and future challenges. Geomorphology 237:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Papoulia J, Stavrakakis G, Papanikolaou D (2001) Bayesian estimation of strong earthquakes in the Inner Messiniakos fault zone, southern Greece, based on seismological and geological data. J Seismol 5:233–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Perol T, Gharbi M, Denolle M (2018) Convolutional neural network for earthquake detection and location. Sci Adv 4(2):1700578

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitilakis K, Alexoudi A, Argyroudis S, Monge O, Martin C (2005) Vulnerability assessment of lifelines. In: Goula X, Oliveira C S, Roca A. Assessing and managing earthquake risk. Springer Publications. ISBN. 9:1-4020-3524-1

  • Pitilakis K, Alexoudi M, Argyroudis S, Monge O, Martin C (2006) Earthquake risk assessment of lifelines. B Earthq Eng 4(4):365–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradhan B, Moneir AAA, Jena R (2018) Sand dune risk assessment in Sabha region, Libya using Landsat 8, MODIS, and Google Earth Engine images. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk 9(1):1280–1305

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahman N, Ansary MA, Islam I (2015) GIS based mapping of vulnerability to earthquake and fire hazard in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Int J Disast Risk Re 13:291–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts GP, Cowie P, Papanikolaou I, Michetti AM (2004) Fault scaling relationships, deformation rates and seismic hazards: an example from the Lazio-Abruzzo Apennines, Central Italy. J Struct Geol 26(2):377–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts GP, Houghton L, Underwood C, Papanikolaou CPA, Van Calsteren P, Wigley T, Cooper FJ, McArthur JM (2009) Localization of Quaternary slip rates in an active rift in 105 years: an example from Central Greece constrained by 234U-230Th coral dates from uplifted paleoshorelines. J Geophys Res 114:1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruano AE, Madureira G, Barros O, Khosravani HR, Ruano MG, Ferreira PM (2014) Seismic detection using support vector machines. Neuro-computing 135:273–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2013.12.020i

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rydelek PA, Sacks IS (1989) Testing the completeness of earthquake catalogues and the hypothesis of self-similarity. Nature 337(6204):251

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1988) What is the analytic hierarchy process? Springer

  • Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):9–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences 1(1):83–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakellariou D, Lykousis V, Alexandri S, Kaberi H, Rousakis G, Nomikou P, Georgiou P, Ballas D (2007) Faulting, seismic-stratigraphic architecture and Late Quaternary evolution of the Gulf of Alkyonides Basin-East Gulf of Corinth, Central Greece. Basin Res 19:273–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Scawthorn C, Chen WF (2002) Earthquake engineering handbook. CRC press, Boca Raton, Florida, 327. p

  • Sekac T, Jana SK, Pal I, Pal DK (2016) A GIS based approach into delineating liquefaction susceptible zones through assessment of site-soil-geology—a case study of Madang and Morobe Province in Papua New Guinea (PNG). International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology 5(5):6616–6629

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen TK (2006) Construction of uniform hazard response spectra using Monte Carlo simulation. Proc. First European Conf. Earthquake Eng. and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland. 3-8 (Sept. 2006)

  • Shah MA, Qaisar M, Iqbal J, Ahmed S (2012) Deterministic seismic hazard assessment of Quetta, Pakistan. 15 WCEE. LISBOA. http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/WCEE20125390.pdf

  • Sietsma J, Dow RJ (1991) Creating artificial neural networks that generalize. Neural Netw 4(1):67–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith K (2001) Environmental hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster. Taylor and Francis Group, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomos G, Pinto A, Dimova S (2008) A review of the seismic hazard zonation in national building codes in the context of EUROCODE 8. European Commission Joint Research Centre. Report EUR 23563 EN

  • Stein S, Liu M (2009) Long aftershock sequences within continents and implications for earthquake hazard assessment. Nature 462(7269):87

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein S, Geller RJ, Liu M (2012) Why earthquake hazard maps often fail and what to do about it? Tectonophysics 562:1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Subrahmanyan V (2001) Seismic signatures in the Kalu River Basin. Thane district and Mumbai. In research highlights in Earth system Science. Proc of Indian Geol. Cong.:201–204

  • Tang A, Wen A (2009) An intelligent simulation system for earthquake disaster assessment. Comput Geosci 35(5):871–879

    Google Scholar 

  • Tao XX, Zhen GF, Zuo HQ, Zhang MY (1996) Application of an AI and GIS based seismic hazard assessment procedure to seismic zonation of Taiyuan-Linfen region. Earthquake Research in China 12:18–24 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Theilen WB (2010) Detection of local site conditions influencing earthquake shaking and secondary effects in Southwest-Haiti using remote sensing and GIS-methods. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10:1183–1196

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinti S, Mulargia F (1985) Effects of magnitude uncertainties on estimating the parameters in the Gutenberg-Richter frequency-magnitude law. B Seismol Soc Am 75(6):1681–1697

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai CH, Chen CW (2010) An earthquake disaster management mechanism based on risk assessment information for the tourism industry-a case study from the island of Taiwan. Tourism Management 31(4):470–481

    Google Scholar 

  • Utsu T (1984) Estimation of parameters for recurrence models of earthquakes. Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo 59(1):53–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Uyeda S (2015) Current affairs in earthquake prediction in Japan. J Asian Earth Sci 114:431–434

    Google Scholar 

  • Weichert DH (1980) Estimation of the earthquake recurrence parameters for unequal observation periods for different magnitudes. B Seismol Soc Am 70(4):1337–1346

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner SD, Taylor CE, Moore JE, Walton JS, Cho S (2000) A risk-based methodology for assessing the seismic performance of highway systems. Technical report MCEER-00–0014, State University of New York, Buffalo

  • Wilson R, Keefer D (1985) Predicting aerial limit of earthquake-induced landsliding. Evaluating earthquake hazard in the Los Angeles Region. US Geol Surv Prof Pap 1600:72

    Google Scholar 

  • Woessner J, Laurentiu D, Giardini D, Crowley H, Cotton F, Grünthal G, Valensise G, Arvidsson R, Basili R, Demircioglu MB, Hiemer S (2015) The 2013 European seismic hazard model: key components and results. B Earthq Eng 13:3553–3596

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank & Columbia University (2005) Natural disaster hotspots—a global risk analysis. Hazard Management Unit, the World Bank, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeats RS, Prentice CS (1996) Introduction to special section: paleo-seismology. J Geophys Res 101:5847–5853

    Google Scholar 

  • Youd TL (1995) Liquefaction-induced lateral ground displacement. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Missouri, USA. II: 911–925

  • Youd TL, Idriss IM, Ronald DA, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT, Dobry R, Liam F, Harder WD, Leslie F, Hynes J, Mary E, Ishihara K, Koester JP, Liao Sam SC, Marcuson III, William F, Martin GR, Mitchell JK, Moriwaki Y, Power MS, Robertson PK, Seed RB, Stokoe II, Kenneth H (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils summary report from 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geo environmental Engineering ASCE 127(4):817–833

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments to improve the manuscript.

Funding

This research is supported by the Centre for Advanced Modelling and Geospatial Information Systems (CAMGIS), UTS grant numbers 321740.2232335, 323930, and 321740.2232357. This research is also supported by Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP-2019/14, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Centre for Advanced Modelling and Geospatial Information Systems (CAMGIS), Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia

    Ratiranjan Jena, Biswajeet Pradhan & Ghassan Beydoun

  2. Dept. of Geology & Geophysics, College of Science, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2455, Riyadh, 11451, Saudi Arabia

    Abdullah Al-Amri

  3. Department of Statistics, Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh, Indonesia

    Hizir Sofyan

Authors
  1. Ratiranjan Jena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Biswajeet Pradhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ghassan Beydoun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abdullah Al-Amri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hizir Sofyan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Biswajeet Pradhan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jena, R., Pradhan, B., Beydoun, G. et al. Seismic hazard and risk assessment: a review of state-of-the-art traditional and GIS models. Arab J Geosci 13, 50 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-019-5012-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-019-5012-x

Keywords

  • Earthquake
  • Hazard
  • Risk
  • GIS
  • Remote sensing