Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Mapping seismic risk: the current crisis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The seismic risks to which populations are exposed should be estimated reliably for mitigation and preparation of response to disastrous earthquakes. Three parameters need to be known: Population numbers, properties of the built environment, and the seismic hazard. If we focus on large cities, we can say that at least one of these is known satisfactorily, namely the population, but not the other two. In the developing world, the numbers of buildings in a city are known only approximately, their distribution into building types (resistance to shaking) has to be assumed, and the distribution of types throughout the city is unknown. Recent verification of the world seismic hazard map has shown that it is grossly misleading: Instrumental measurements of accelerations due to six earthquakes were about three times larger, on average, than the maximum likely accelerations shown on the map; the macroseismic intensities reported for the last 60 earthquakes with M ≥ 7.5 were all significantly larger than expected, based on the hazard map (by 2.3 intensity units for the 12 deadliest earthquakes); and calculations of losses of life based on the hazard map underestimate the losses sustained in the 12 recent earthquakes with more than 1,000 fatalities by two to three orders of magnitude. This means that the seismic risk in most of the approximately 1,000 large cities at risk in the developing world is unknown. To remedy this intolerable situation, models for the built environment in cities need to be constructed, using cost-effective analyses of satellite images, and worst case scenario estimates of the losses in case of the nearest maximum credible earthquake.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anooshehpoor A, Brune JN, Zeng Y (2004) Methodology for obtaining constraints on ground motion from precariously balanced rocks. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94:285–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brune JN (1996) Precariously balanced rocks and ground-motion maps for southern California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86:43–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Brune JN (2002) Precarious rock constraints on ground motion from historic and recent earthquakes in southern California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92:2602–2611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castanos H, Lomnitz C (2002) PSHA: is it science? Eng Geol 66:315–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geller RJ (2011) Shake-up time for Japanese seismology. Nature 472:407–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giardini D (1999) The global seismic hazard assessment program (GSHAP)—1992/1999. Ann Geofis 42:957–974

    Google Scholar 

  • Klügel JU (2007) Error inflation in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Eng Geol 90:186–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klügel JU (2011) Uncertainty analysis and expert judgment in seismic hazard analysis. Pure Appl Geophys 168(1–2):27–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kossobokov V, Nekrasova A (2012) Global seismic hazard assessment program maps are erroneous. Seism Instrum 48(2):162–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panza GF, Irikura K, Kouteva-Guentcheva M, Peresan A, Wang Z, Saragoni R (2011) Advanced seismic hazard assessment. Pure Appl Geophys 128(3–4):1–752

    Google Scholar 

  • Paskaleva I, Kouteva-Guencheva M, Vaccari F, Panza GF (2011) Some contributions of the neo-deterministic seismic hazard assessment approach to earthquake risk assessment for the city of Sofia. Pure Appl Geophys 168:521–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi B, Anooshehpoor A, Zeng Y, Brune JN (1996) Rocking and overturning of precariously balanced rocks by earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86:1364–1371

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein S, Geller R, Liu M (2012) Bad assumptions or bad luck: why earthquake hazard maps need objective testing. Seismol Res Lett 82(5):623–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trendafiloski G, Wyss M, Rosset P, Marmureanu G (2009) Constructing city models to estimate losses due to earthquakes worldwide: application to Bucharest, Romania. Earthq Spectra 25(3):665–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang ZM (2011) Seismic hazard assessment: issues and alternatives. Pure Appl Geophys 168(1–2):11–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyss M, Nekrasova A, Kossobokov VG (2012) Errors in expected human losses due to incorrect seismic hazards estimates. Nat Hazards 62(3):927–935

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuccolo E, Vaccari F, Peresan A, Panza GF (2011) Neo-deterministic and probabilistic seismic hazard assessments: a comparison over the Italian territory. Pure Appl Geophys 168(1–2):69–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the Inventory Data Capture Project of the Global Earthquake Model and the JTI Foundation, based in Switzerland for support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Max Wyss.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wyss, M., Rosset, P. Mapping seismic risk: the current crisis. Nat Hazards 68, 49–52 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0256-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0256-8

Keywords

Navigation