Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Operational earthquake forecast/prediction

  • Published:
Rendiconti Lincei Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The operational and decision-making problems related to earthquake forecast/prediction and seismic hazard assessment are nowadays a matter of significant debate, particularly on account of the very unsatisfactory global performance of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment at the occurence of most of the recent destructive earthquakes. While it is recognized that operational tools must demonstrate their capability in anticipating large earthquakes and the related ground shaking by rigorous verification and validation process, only few methods proved effective so far. In view of the inherent uncertainties in predicting predictable, the usefulness of any forecast/prediction method can then be judged taking into account the wide range of possible mitigation actions of different levels (from increased preparedness to evacuation). This paper aims to open a debate and complement the Summary and Recommendations by the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting, established after the earthquake in L’Aquila (M = 6.3, 6 April 2009). The issues related with the definition, validation, and possible use of forecasting/prediction methodologies, are addressed with special emphasis on existing operational practice in Italy.

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

References

  • Aki K (1981) A probabilistic synthesis of precursory phenomena. In: Simpson DV, Richards PG (eds) Earthquake prediction. An international review, Manrice EwingSer., vol 4. AGU, Washington, pp 566–574

  • Bormann P (2011) From earthquake prediction research to time-variable seismic hazard assessment applications. Pure Appl Geophys 168:329–366. doi:10.1007/s00024-010-0114-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camera dei Deputati (2011) “7-0049 Alessandri e 7-00414 Benamati: In materia di isolamento sismico delle costruzioni civili e industriali”, Bollettino della Camera dei Deputati, n. 491, pp 367–368

  • Crippa B, Sabadini R, Chersich M, Barzaghi R, Panza G (2008) Coupling geophysical modelling and geodesy to unravel the physics of active faults. Second Workshop on “Use of Remote Sensing Techniques for Monitoring Volcanoes and Seismogenic Areas”. USEReST

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Giardini D, Grunthal G, Shedlock KM, Zhang P (1999) The GSHAP global seismic hazard map. Annali di Geofisica 42(6):1225–1228

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandori G, Guagenti E (2009) Prevedere i terremoti: la lezione dell'Abruzzo. Ingegneria Sismica 3:56–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Guidelines for Earthquake Predictors (1983) Bull Seism Soc Am 73(6):955–956

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy JH, Kossobokov VG, Dewey JW (1992) A test to evaluate the earthquake prediction algorithm, M8, US Geol Surv Open-File Report 92–401, p 23 with 6 Appendices

  • Ismail-Zadeh AT, Kossobokov VG (2011) Earthquake forecast M8 algorithm, in Encyclopaedia of Solid Earth Geophysics, Gupta H (ed) Springer, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8702-7

  • Jordan T, Chen Y, Gasparini P, Madariaga R, Main I, Marzocchi W, Papadopoulos G, Sobolev G, Yamaoka K, Zschau J (2011) ICEF Report. Operational earthquake forecasting: state of knowledge and guidelines for utilization. Annals Geophys 54(4). doi:10.4401/ag-5350

  • Kanamori H (2003) Earthquake prediction: an overview. International handbook of earthquake and engineering seismology. 81B. In: International association of seismology and physics of the earth’s interior, pp 1205–1216

  • Kantorovich LV, Keilis-Borok VI (1991) “Earthquake prediction and decision-making: social, economic and civil protection aspects” (Proc. International Conference on Earthquake Prediction: State-of-the-Art, pp 586-593, Scientific-Technical Contributions, CSEM-EMSC, Strasbourg, France, 1991). Based on “Economics of earthquake prediction” (Proc. UNESCO Conference on Seismic Risk, Paris, 1977)

  • Keilis-Borok VI (1990) The lithosphere of the earth as a nonlinear system with implications for earthquake prediction. Rev Geophys 28:19–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keilis-Borok VI, Kossobokov VG (1990) Preliminary activation of seismic flow: algorithm M8. Phys Earth Planet Inter 61:73–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keilis-Borok VI, Primakov I (1997)“Earthquake prediction and earthquake preparedness: the possibilities to reduce the damage from earthquake”s. In: Fourth Workshop on non-linear dynamics and earthquake prediction, 6–24 October 1997, ICTP, H4.SMR/1011-11, Trieste, p 30

  • Keilis-Borok VI, Rotwain IM (1990) Diagnosis of time of increased probability of strong earthquakes in different regions of the world: algorithm CN. Phys Earth Planet Inter 61:57–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keilis-Borok VI, Soloviev AA (eds) (2003) Non-linear dynamics of the lithosphere and earthquake prediction. Springer, Heidelberg, p 337

    Google Scholar 

  • Kossobokov V (2005) Regional earthquake likelihood models: a realm on shaky grounds? Eos Trans AGU, 86(52), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract S41D-08

  • Kossobokov V (2008) Testing earthquake forecast/prediction methods: “Real-time forecasts of tomorrow’s earthquakes in California”. Geophysical Research Abstracts, vol 10. Abstracts of the Contributions of the EGU General Assembly 2008, Vienna, Austria, 13–18 April 2008 (CD-ROM), EGU2008-A-07826

  • Kossobokov V (2009) Testing earthquake forecast/prediction methods: “Real-time forecasts of tomorrow’s earthquakes in California”. In: Some problems of geodynamics, KRASAND (Comput. Seismol., 39), Moscow, pp 321–337 (in Russian)

  • Кossobokov VG, Nekrasova AK (2010) Global seismic hazard assessment program maps are misleading. Eos Trans. AGU, 91(52), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract U13A-0020

  • Kossobokov VG, Nekrasova AK (2011) Global seismic hazard assessment program (GSHAP) maps are misleading. Probl Eng Seismol 38(1):65–76 (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kossobokov V, Shebalin P (2003) Earthquake Prediction. In: Keilis-Borok VI, Soloviev AA (eds) Non-linear dynamics of the lithosphere and earthquake prediction. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 141–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Kossobokov VG, Maeda K, Uyeda S (1999) Precursory activation of seismicity in advance of the Kobe, 1995 earthquake. Pure Appl Geophys 155:409–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kossobokov VG, Romashkova LL, Panza GF, Peresan A (2002) Stabilizing intermediate-term medium-range earthquake predictions. J Seismol Earthq Eng 4(2, 3):11–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee Y, Turcotte DL, Holliday JR, Sachs MK, Rundle JB, Chen C, Tiampo KF (2011) Results of the Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM) test of earthquake forecasts in California. PNAS 108(40):16533–16538. doi:10.1073/pnas.1113481108

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marzocchi W (2008) Earthquake forecasting in Italy, before and after Umbria-Marche seismic sequence 1997. A review of the earthquake occurrence modeling at different spatio-temporal-magnitude scales. Annals Geophys 51:405–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzocchi W, Sandri L, Boschi E (2003) On the validation of earthquake-forecasting models: the case of pattern recognition algorithms. B Seismol Soc Am 93:1994–2004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Memoria del Pubblico Ministero (2010) Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di L’Aquila. 13 July 2010. Proc. Pen. 253/10 R.G. Noti (in Italian). http://www.procura.laquila.it/; http://www.inabruzzo.com/memoria_finale_13_luglio.pdf

  • Molchan G (2003) Earthquake prediction strategies: a theoretical analysis. In: Keilis-Borok VI, Soloviev AA (eds) Non-linear dynamics of the lithosphere and earthquake prediction, chap 5. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 209–237

  • Molchan G (2011) On the testing of seismicity models. Acta Geophysica 1–14. doi:10.2478/s11600-011-0042-0

  • Molchan G, Romashkova L (2011) Gambling score in earthquake prediction analysis. Geophys J Int 184:1445–1454. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.04930.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panza GF, Romanelli F, Vaccari F (2001) Seismic wave propagation in laterally heterogeneous anelastic media: theory and applications to the seismic zonation. Advances in Geophysics, Academic Press, vol 43, pp 1–95

  • Panza GF, Romanelli F, Vaccari F, Decanini L, Mollaioli F (2004) Seismic ground motion modelling and damage earthquake scenarios: a possible bridge between seismologists and seismic engineers. In: Chen YT, Panza GF, Wu ZL (eds) Earthquake: hazard, risk, and strong ground motion, Seismological Press, pp 323–349

  • Panza GF, Peresan A, Vaccari F (2009) La previsione dei terremoti: stato dell’arte. Geoitalia 28:18–23 (in Italian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Panza GF, Irikura K, Kouteva M, Peresan A, Wang Z, Saragoni R (eds) (2011a) Topical volume on “Advanced seismic hazard assessments”. Pure App Geophys 168:752. ISBN 978-3-0348-0039-6, ISBN: 978-3-0348-0091-4

  • Panza GF, Peresan A, Magrin A, Vaccari F, Sabadini R, Crippa B, Marotta AM, Splendore R, Barzaghi R, Borghi A, Cannizzaro L, Amodio A, Zoffoli S (2011b) “The SISMA prototype system: integrating Geophysical Modeling and Earth Observation for time-dependent seismic hazard assessment”. Natural Hazards 1–20. doi:10.1007/s11069-011-9981-7

  • Peresan A, Panza GF, Gorshkov A, Aoudia A (2002) Pattern recognition methodologies and deterministic evaluation of seismic hazard: a strategy to increase earthquake preparedness. Bollettino della Società Geologica Italiana (Atti del Convegno in memoria di G. Pialli). Volume Speciale n° 1 (parte 1), pp 37–46

  • Peresan A, Kossobokov V, Romashkova L, Panza GF (2005) Intermediate-term middle-range earthquake predictions in Italy: a review. Earth Sci Rev 69(1–2):97–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peresan A, Zuccolo E, Vaccari F, Gorshkove A, Panza GF (2011) “Pattern recognition techniques and neo-deterministic seismic hazard: time dependent scenarios for North-Eastern Italy”. Pure Appl Geophys Topical Volume on “Advanced Seismic Hazard Assessments”, vol 168 (3–4). doi:10.1007/s00024-010-0166-1

  • Reiter L (1990) Earthquake hazard analysis. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Romashkova L, Peresan A, Nekrasova A (2009) Analysis of Earthquake Catalogs for CSEP Testing Region Italy, ICTP Internal Report, IC/IR/2009/006

  • Rovida A and the CPTI Working Group (2008) Parametric Catalogue of Italian Earthquakes, version 2008 (CPTI08), 1900–2006. http://cseptesting.org/sites/default/files/expl_cpti08_1901-2006.pdf

  • Rundle JB, Holliday JR, Yoder M, Sachs MK, Donnellan A, Turcotte DL, Tiampo KF, Klein W, Kellogg LH (2011) Earthquake precursors: activation or quiescence? Geophys J Int 187:225–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein S (2010) Disaster deferred: how new science is changing our view of earthquake hazards in the Midwest. Columbia University Press, New York. ISBN: 978-0-231-15138-2

  • Stein S, Geller R, Liu M (2011) Bad assumptions or bad luck: why earthquake hazard maps need objective testing. Seism Res Lett 82:5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utsu T (1977) Probabilities in earthquake prediction. Zisin (J Seismol Soc Japan 30:179–185 (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuccolo E, Vaccari F, Peresan A, Panza GF (2011) Neo-deterministic (NDSHA) and probabilistic seismic hazard (PSHA) assessments: a comparison over the Italian territory. Pure Appl Geophys 168(1–2):69–83. doi:10.1007/s00024-010-0151-8

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge financial support from the ASI—Pilot Project “SISMA- Information System for Monitoring and Alert”, from Project LR 19/2000 Bando 2011 Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia, as well as from the Agreement between “Protezione Civile della Regione Autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia” and “The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics” (ICTP), Trieste (DGR 1459 dd. 24.6.2009).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Geosciences, University of Trieste, via Weiss 4, 34127, Trieste, Italy

    Antonella Peresan & Giuliano F. Panza

  2. SAND Group, The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy

    Antonella Peresan & Giuliano F. Panza

  3. Institute of Geophysics, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing, China

    Giuliano F. Panza

  4. International Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory (IIEPT) and Mathematical Geophysics, Russian Academy of Sciences, 84/32 Profsoyuznaya Street, 117997, Moscow, Russian Federation

    Vladimir G. Kossobokov

  5. Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, 1, rue Jussieu, 75238, Paris, Cedex 05, France

    Vladimir G. Kossobokov

Authors
  1. Antonella Peresan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vladimir G. Kossobokov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giuliano F. Panza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonella Peresan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peresan, A., Kossobokov, V.G. & Panza, G.F. Operational earthquake forecast/prediction. Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei 23, 131–138 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12210-012-0171-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12210-012-0171-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation