Options
ETH Zurich
13 results
Now showing 1 - 10 of 13
- PublicationRestrictedEarthquake forecasting and earthquake prediction: different approaches for obtaining the best model(2011)
; ; ;Marzocchi, W.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia ;Zechar, J. D.; University of Southern California; We consider the general problem of constructing or selecting the “best” earthquake forecast/prediction model. While many researchers have presented technical methods for solving this problem, the practical and philosophical dimensions are scarcely treated in the scientific literature, and we wish to emphasize these aspects here. Of particular interest are the marked differ- ences between approaches used to build long-term earthquake rupture forecasts and those used to conduct systematic earth- quake predictability experiments. Our aim is to clarify the dif- ferent approaches, and we suggest that these differences, while perhaps not intuitive, are understandable and appropriate for their specific goals. We note that what constitutes the “best” model is not uniquely defined, and the definition often depends on the needs and goals of the model’s consumer.129 29 - PublicationOpen AccessWhen are mitigation actions warranted: the case of the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake(2010)
; ; ; ;vanStiphout, T.; ETH Zurich ;Wiemer, S.; ETH Zurich ;Marzocchi, W.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia; ; The disastrous earthquake in L’Aquila Italy (Mw 6.3, 6 April 2009) again highlights the issue of potentially reducing seismic risk by releasing warnings or initiating mitigation actions. Earthquakes cluster strongly in space and time, leading to periods of increased seismic hazard. During such seismic crises, seismologists typically convey their knowledge of earthquake clustering based on past experience, basic statistics and “gut feeling.” However, this information is often not quantitative nor reproducible and difficult for decision‐makers to digest. We define a novel interdisciplinary approach that combines probabilistic seismic hazard and risk assessment with cost‐benefit analysis to allow objective risk‐based decision‐making. Our analysis demonstrates that evacuation as mitigation action is rarely cost‐effective. Future mitigation strategies should target the weakest buildings and those on the poorest soil.137 447 - PublicationRestrictedProspective CSEP Evaluation of 1‐Day, 3‐Month, and 5‐Yr Earthquake Forecasts for Italy(2018)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;In 2009,the global collaboratory for the Study of earthquake predictability(CSEP).....60 1 - PublicationOpen AccessCollaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability(2007-05-31)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;Jordan, T. H.; SCEC Center, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA ;Gerstenberger, M.; GNS Science Lower Hutt, New Zealand ;Liukis, M.; SCEC Center, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA ;Maechling, P. J.; SCEC Center, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA ;Schorlemmer, D.; SCEC Center, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA ;Wiemer, S.; ETH, Zurich, Switzerland ;Zechar, J. D.; SCEC Center, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA ;CSEP Collaboration; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;Cocco, M.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia ;Console, R.; INGV, Rome, Italy ;Wiemer, S.; ETH, Zurich, Switzerland; ; Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability595 356 - PublicationOpen AccessThe 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model: Milestones and Lessons Learned(Springer Nature, 2022-08-25)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;The 2020 update of the European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM20) is the most recent seismic hazard model of the Euro-Mediterranean region. It was built upon unified and homogenized datasets including earthquake catalogues, active faults, ground motion recordings and state-of-the-art modelling components, i.e. earthquake rates forecast and regionally variable ground motion characteristic models. ESHM20 replaces the 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM13), and it is the first regional model to provide two informative hazard maps for the next update of the European Seismic Design Code (CEN EC8). ESHM20 is also one of the key components of the first publicly available seismic risk model for Europe. This chapter provides a short summary of ESHM20 by highlighting its main features and describing some lessons learned during the model’s development.61 53 - PublicationRestrictedOperational earthquake forecasting in Europe: progress, despite challengesIs 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.
69 1 - PublicationOpen AccessD13.3 Ethical Guidelines for Research InfrastructuresThis deliverable refers to the “Ethical Guidelines” (EGs) for Research Infrastructures (RIs) developed and implemented by WP13. The EGs present a general framework of ethical values, to be used by each research infrastructure of the ENVRI community. They are a basis to design or to shape individual ethical guidelines taking into account RIs’ peculiarities with respect to their status, duties, activities, and goals. The EGs are structured in a main section, explaining general ethical values, and a subordinate section, where some delicate matters of interest for RIs are discussed from an ethical perspective. Ethical values included in the EGs refer to four ethical domains, affecting RI’s as a whole as well as individual scientists working at RIs. The domains mirror the ethical profile of each scientist/technician/administrator, his/her relationships with colleagues and their working environment, the interaction with society, and their obligations towards the Earth system. In addition to these four domains, the EGs discuss several issues which are considered to have a particular importance for the RIs: working environment, data life cycle, conflicts of interest, and relationship with decision-makers. Their balance is indispensable for a respectful and caring work environment and are needed to ensure a fair reflection of the institutional activities and results towards society. The EGs are the result of an extensive survey of relevant literature produced by scientific and professional organizations, institutions, and bodies focusing on applied ethics for research and other professional activities conducted at RIs.
115 61 - PublicationOpen AccessD13.2 Ethical Label TemplateThe results of the survey through the online questionnaire “what do you know about ethics in geosciences?” described in the Deliverable 13.1 (http://www.envriplus.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2015/08/D13.1.pdf) has clearly shown the general recognition by interviewees on the importance of ethical and social aspects involved in own research and technological activities, but at the same time identified a general lack of awareness on what this concretely means. In addition, even if problems related to internal dynamics of the research working environment seem to be known or at least perceived, what one's own work can mean for the benefit of society seems not so clear, and ethical and social implications related to activities are perceived as quite difficult to be analyzed. ENVRIplus is aimed at providing shared solutions for science and society. The questionnaire developed not only helped to learn more about ethical matters with respect to scientific work, but also raised with its distribution recipients’ (ENVRIplus project participants) awareness for ethical and societal aspects of their research activities. The Ethical Label aims to continue these efforts by supporting researchers to clarify the potential ethical, societal, and scientific impact of their activities. Moreover, filling the Ethical Label can constitute a useful internal project training on developing a critical thinking in ethics in science and in science-society interactions. The Ethical provides information about the ethical, social and environmental implications and impact of a deliverable or other project results, thereby adding value to the usual technical-scientific focused description of any project outcome. The Ethical Label represents a schematic and simplified information, in tabular form, as a support of the introductory part of every outcome of the project, which orients the end-user to better identify concepts and aspects that describe the function of that product, with particular reference to its impact on the scientific community, society and the environment.
81 69 - PublicationRestrictedBayesian Forecast Evaluation and Ensemble Earthquake Forecasting(2012)
; ; ; ;Marzocchi, W.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia ;Zechar, J.; ETH Zurich ;Jordan, T.; University of Southern California; ; The assessment of earthquake forecast models for practical purposes requires more than simply checking model consistency in a statistical framework. One also needs to understand how to construct the best model for specific forecasting applications. We describe a Bayesian approach to evaluating earthquake forecasting models, and we consider related procedures for constructing ensemble forecasts. We show how evaluations based on Bayes factors, which measure the relative skill among forecasts, can be complementary to common goodness-of-fit tests used to measure the absolute consistency of forecasts with data. To construct ensemble forecasts, we consider averages across a forecast set, weighted by either posterior probabilities or inverse log- likelihoods derived during prospective earthquake forecasting experiments. We account for model correlations by conditioning weights using the Garthwaite–Mubwandarikwa capped eigenvalue scheme. We apply these methods to the Regional Earthquake Like- lihood Models (RELM) five-year earthquake forecast experiment in California, and we discuss how this approach can be generalized to other ensemble forecasting applications. Specific applications of seismological importance include experiments being conducted within the Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability (CSEP) and ensemble methods for operational earthquake forecasting.175 20 - PublicationOpen AccessRetrospective tests of the long-term earthquake forecasts submitted to CSEP-Italy Predictability experiment.(2010)
; ; ; ; ;Werner, M.; ETH Zurich ;Zechar, J. D.; ETH Zurich ;Marzocchi, W.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia ;Wiemer, S.; ETH Zurich; ; ; On August 1, 2009, the global Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability (CSEP) launched a prospective and comparative earthquake predictability experiment in Italy. The goal of this CSEP-Italy experiment is to test earthquake occurrence hypotheses that have been formalized as probabilistic earthquake forecasts over temporal scales that range from days to years. In the first round of forecast submissions, members of the CSEP- Italy Working Group presented 18 five-year and ten-year earthquake forecasts to the European CSEP Testing Center at ETH Zurich. We have considered here the twelve time-independent earthquake forecasts among this set, and evaluated them with respect to past seismicity data from two Italian earthquake catalogs. We present the results of the tests that measure the consistencies of the forecasts according to past observations. As well as being an evaluation of the time-independent forecasts submitted, this exercise provides insight into a number of important issues in predictability experiments with regard to the specification of the forecasts, the performance of the tests, and the trade-off between robustness of results and experiment duration. We conclude with suggestions for the design of future earthquake predictability experiments.169 198