A summary of hazard datasets and guidelines supported by the Global Earthquake Model during the first implementation phase

Pagani, Marco; García, Julio Martínez; Monelli, Damiano; Weatherill, Graeme; Smolka, Anselm

doi:10.4401/ag-6677

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the lower end, the practice can indeed be very poor although there are reasons to be optimistic about the situation improving, especially with the comprehensive and clear guidance that is now becoming available in the textbook by Baker et al (2021) referred to previously. International ventures like GSHAP (Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Project;Giardini 1999;Danciu and Giardini 2015) and GEM (Global Earthquake Model; Crowley et al 2013;Pagani et al 2015;Pagani et al 2020) have done a fantastic job in promoting good practice PSHA practice around the world, especially in developing countries. Much of the poor practice that persists is related to studies conducted for engineering projects that are conducted on compressed schedules and with very small budgets, and which are of questionable value.…”

Section: 4 Good Practice In Pshamentioning

confidence: 99%

Earthquake hazard and risk analysis for natural and induced seismicity: towards objective assessments in the face of uncertainty

Bommer

2022

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fundamental objective of earthquake engineering is to protect lives and livelihoods through the reduction of seismic risk. Directly or indirectly, this generally requires quantification of the risk, for which quantification of the seismic hazard is required as a basic input. Over the last several decades, the practice of seismic hazard analysis has evolved enormously, firstly with the introduction of a rational framework for handling the apparent randomness in earthquake processes, which also enabled risk assessments to consider both the severity and likelihood of earthquake effects. The next major evolutionary step was the identification of epistemic uncertainties related to incomplete knowledge, and the formulation of frameworks for both their quantification and their incorporation into hazard assessments. Despite these advances in the practice of seismic hazard analysis, it is not uncommon for the acceptance of seismic hazard estimates to be hindered by invalid comparisons, resistance to new information that challenges prevailing views, and attachment to previous estimates of the hazard. The challenge of achieving impartial acceptance of seismic hazard and risk estimates becomes even more acute in the case of earthquakes attributed to human activities. A more rational evaluation of seismic hazard and risk due to induced earthquakes may be facilitated by adopting, with appropriate adaptations, the advances in risk quantification and risk mitigation developed for natural seismicity. While such practices may provide an impartial starting point for decision making regarding risk mitigation measures, the most promising avenue to achieve broad societal acceptance of the risks associated with induced earthquakes is through effective regulation, which needs to be transparent, independent, and informed by risk considerations based on both sound seismological science and reliable earthquake engineering.

show abstract