![Spatial distribution of mean PGA [g] across Europe from the ESHM20 with a exceedance probability of 10% in 50 years (475 years return period).](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388495718/figure/fig1/AS:11431281306247392@1738206520051/Spatial-distribution-of-mean-PGA-g-across-Europe-from-the-ESHM20-with-a-exceedance_Q320.jpg)
Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Natural Hazards
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Natural Hazards
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-07008-y
ORIGINAL PAPER
National seismic risk assessment: anoverview andpractical
guide
MariaLuísaSousa1 · GeorgiosTsionis2
Received: 31 October 2023 / Accepted: 29 October 2024
© European Union 2024
Abstract
In order to promote an effective approach to the prevention of and preparedness for disas-
ters, the countries participating in the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) shall
develop risk assessments, risk management capability assessments and disaster risk man-
agement planning at national or appropriate sub-national level. The European Commis-
sion is providing scientific support to the countries participating in the UCPM, publish-
ing updated guidelines to facilitate the development of their National Risk Assessments
(NRAs). Earthquake is among the most common hazards considered in NRAs prepared
by the countries participating in the UCPM. Indeed, in 2018 NRAs, more than 20 coun-
tries performed risk assessment for earthquakes, and some considered cross-border and
cascading effects, such as tsunami, landslides, disruption of infrastructure and industrial
accidents. This paper surveys and summarises the current state of research that can be uti-
lized for national seismic risk assessment. It aims to facilitate the development of consist-
ent NRAs with respect to earthquakes and ensure their utility in seismic risk management
planning. It also aims to support the use of the new reporting guidelines on disaster risk
management among countries participating in the UCPM. The seismic risk assessment
process is described as outlined in ISO 31000: 2018. A wealth of hazard, exposure, vul-
nerability and damage-to-loss models, methodologies and tools are presented to serve the
purpose of conducting national seismic risk assessment. References to relevant European
research projects, good practices, and software to support the assessment are also provided.
Keywords Guidelines· National seismic risk assessment· NRA
* Georgios Tsionis
Georgios.TSIONIS@ec.europa.eu
1 National Laboratory forCivil Engineering (LNEC), Lisbon, Portugal
2 European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
1 Introduction
Risk mitigation and disaster prevention in the European Union are advocated for by the
Union Civil Protection Mechanism1 (UCPM, Regulation (EU) 2021). Countries participat-
ing in the UCPM develop and regularly update risk assessments, risk management capa-
bility assessments and disaster risk management planning at national or appropriate sub-
national level. Earthquake is among the most common hazards considered in the national
risk assessments (NRA) of the countries participating in the Union Civil Protection
Mechanism (European Commission 2021). Indeed, 19 countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Croa-
tia, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Malta, Norway, Portugal,
Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden) included earthquake in their 2015
risk assessment and more four countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, North Macedonia and
the United Kingdom) in 2018.
Considering the impact of a single event, earthquakes are among the most devastat-
ing natural hazards in history, posing the greatest threat to human life (UNDRR 2020).
The effects of earthquakes can vary from localised impacts to dramatic consequences on
communities, the economy and the environment, across large regions. In some cases, they
can cause cross-border impacts and cascading events, namely tsunamis, landslides, lique-
faction phenomena, fire, industrial accidents, business interruption, etc. Earthquakes may
have long-lasting and in certain cases multi-generational effects, depending on the severity
of the event, vulnerability and accumulation of assets in seismic prone areas, individual
and societal resilience to disruptive events. Besides population exposed to seismic risk,
the assets that may be impacted by earthquakes include the built environment, for instance,
buildings, infrastructures (transportation, water, sewage, energy, communication, etc.),
daily life facilities (health facilities, emergency services, educational facilities, etc.), cul-
tural heritage, economic activities, and natural environment. A recent example of destruc-
tive events with significant transboundary impacts are the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes of
6 February 2023, of magnitude (Mw) 7.8 and 7.5, which affected southern Türkiye and
northern Syria. In Türkiye alone, 14 million people were affected, the death toll reached
48 000 individuals, approximately 233 000 buildings were severely damaged or collapsed,
and the economic impact was assessed as $103.6 billion, equivalent to nine percent of Tür-
kiye’s GDP in 2023 (Gunasekera et al. 2023; Hancilar et al. 2023; Türkiye government
2023).
This paper conducts an overview and synthesis of existing research applicable to
national seismic risk assessment aiming to offer scientific support for the development of
consistent national assessments focused on earthquake-related hazards, thus enhancing
their effectiveness in guiding seismic risk management strategies. We acknowledge the
dynamic nature of this evolving field of research, characterized by persistent challenges.
Our goal is to aid the development of up-to-date national seismic risk assessments, aligned
with the new reporting guidelines on disaster risk management for countries participating
in the UCPM.
The seismic risk assessment process is outlined as in ISO 31000 (ISO 2018). Earth-
quake risk analysis has perhaps reached the highest level of maturity among all-natural
hazards risk analyses, partly due to the early efforts made by the nuclear industry to
1 UCPM at DG ECHO website: https:// civil- prote ction- human itari an- aid. ec. europa. eu/ what/ civil- prote
ction/ eu- civil- prote ction- mecha nism_ en.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
incorporate seismic hazard in power plant design (Hills etal. 2013). A wealth of hazard,
exposure, vulnerability and damage-to-loss models, methodologies and tools are presented
to serve the purpose of conducting national seismic risk assessment. References to relevant
European research projects, good practices, and software to support the assessment are also
provided.
2 Regulatory framework fornational risk assessment
The Action Plan on the Sendai Framework (European Commission 2016) encourages
investment in disaster risk reduction and integrates ‘Build Back Better’ principles for
a more resilient built environment. Furthermore, the UCPM objectives are to achieve a
high level of protection against disasters by preventing or reducing their potential effects,
enhancing preparedness, facilitating rapid and efficient response, and enhancing public
awareness and preparedness. The UCPM seeks to encourage an effective and coherent
approach for preventing and preparing for disasters. Member States are required to develop
risk assessments, improve their assessment of risk management capability, and further
develop and fine-tune their disaster risk management planning at national or relevant sub-
national level. This includes considerations for cross-border cooperation, in line with the
European Union disaster resilience goals (European Commission 2023a), and addressing
the risks associated with disasters that can have transboundary implications across multiple
countries. Member States are obliged to provide a summary of the significant aspects of
the assessments, focusing on key risks, and to outline priority prevention and prepared-
ness measures for key risks capable of having cross-border impacts. The 2023 Strategic
Foresight Report (European Commission 2023b) has highlighted the importance of com-
plementing civil protection with civil prevention as one of the ten key areas for action.
Moreover, the recently launched European Union (EU) disaster resilience goals include
improving risk assessment, anticipating, and planning for disaster risk management,
increasing risk awareness and preparedness among the population, improving early warn-
ing systems, enhancing the Union Civil Protection Mechanism’s response capacity, and
ensuring a robust civil protection system. Earthquake is one of the 16 hazards upon which
disaster scenarios will be developed to improve preparedness.
The European Commission is providing scientific support to the countries participating
in the UCPM, publishing updated guidelines to facilitate the development of their National
Risk Assessments (NRAs) (Poljanšek etal. 2021). Within the UCPM, the EU peer review
programme2 of disaster risk management and civil protection systems emphasises the
importance of risk assessment as the foundation for guiding all phases of the risk manage-
ment cycle. The Peer Review Assessment Framework (Mysiak etal. 2021) follows approx-
imately the common general approach for risk assessment provided by the ISO Guidelines
for risk management (ISO 2018).
The ISO 31000 process (ISO 2018) is an iterative process comprising several stages
such as establishing the scope, context and criteria, risk assessment, risk treatment, moni-
toring and review, communication and consultation and recording and reporting. In this
section, we will provide a concise overview of the risk assessment stage discussing the
2 The Union Civil Protection Knowledge Network web page of the UCPM Peer Review Programme:
https:// civil- prote ction- knowl edge- netwo rk. europa. eu/ disas ter- preve ntion- and- risk- manag ement/ ucpm- peer-
review- progr amme.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
need of initially establishing risk criteria. Aspects of the remaining stages, such as risk
treatment and risk communication, will be discussed in subsequent sections of this paper,
providing a summarized or overview perspective.
The risk assessment stage comprises three main components: risk identification, risk
analysis, and risk evaluation. In brief, risk identification aims to identify the pertinent
risks. Risk analysis involves assessing the causes and sources of risk, their potential conse-
quences, and the likelihood that those consequences occur. Risk evaluation assists in mak-
ing informed decisions regarding risk treatment priorities by comparing risk levels against
context-based risk criteria, which can, for instance, be thresholds against which risk levels
are evaluated (as discussed in chapter5). According to Mysiak etal. (2021), risk criteria
serve as “the terms of reference against which the significance of a risk is evaluated”.
It is essential to set up the risk criteria in the process initial stage that identifies its
scope and establishes its context. This groundwork is necessary before proceeding with the
assessment, as the criteria will be pivotal in conducting risk evaluation. These criteria can
encompass factors like associated costs, benefits, legal requirements, socioeconomic and
environmental considerations, as well as concerns of stakeholders. ISO 31000: 2018 notes
that the criteria can be qualitative, semi-quantitative or quantitative and outlines various
relevant criteria to be reviewed, such as determining risk acceptability or evaluating the
relative significance of risks.
3 Risk identication
3.1 Potential impact ofearthquakes andits cause
Ground shaking is the most damaging effect of earthquakes. It results from the passage
of seismic waves through the ground, affecting built and natural environments. Ground
shaking triggers other hazards, for example, liquefaction and subsidence, which can dis-
rupt lifelines, harbours and originate bridge and building foundation failures. Examples
of earthquake-induced environmental effects are rockfalls and landslides. Those were
observed to cause significant soil erosion or block river streams creating quake lakes of
major concern to neighbouring urban regions. Severe shallow earthquakes causing vertical
displacements on the ocean floor may generate tsunami waves able to produce destruction
over large areas. Surface faulting and ground failure can cause the disruption of tunnels,
railroads, power lines, water supply networks and other lifelines. Fires following earth-
quakes, e.g. the 1906 San Francisco, 1995 Kobe, 1999 Türkiye, 2011 Tohoku and 2011
Christchurch earthquakes, linked for instance to the rupture of gas mains, are important
secondary effects of earthquakes, eventually aggravated by the disruption of water supply
systems (Khorasani and Garlock 2017). Potential disastrous secondary damage caused by
earthquakes can also result in Natech events, i.e., natural hazard triggering technological
disasters, such as the release of hazardous materials and the destruction of vital transport
and technical infrastructure, industrial buildings and facilities (e.g. BARPI 2013; Necci and
Krausmann 2022). Earthquakes are indeed among the most common hazards addressed in
Natech risk assessment with a variety of methodologies (Mesa-Gómez etal. 2020). Recent
developments in Natech seismic risk analysis aim to support decision-making and apply
performance-based principles, probabilistic methods that consider uncertainties, and mod-
els for the interdependencies between networked systems (Paolacci et al. 2024). Other
examples of earthquake secondary effects are air pollution due to the burning of chemicals,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
demolition of damaged buildings and traffic congestion after a major earthquake (Gotoh
etal. 2002; Lin etal. 2008). In the reconstruction phase, the increased demand for con-
struction materials in a very short time may lead to a shortage of natural building materials
and subsequently to environmental impacts like coastal erosion, saline intrusion, and ille-
gal mining (Khazai etal. 2006).
The occurrence of a major seismic event in an urban area can have a particularly severe
impact, resulting in the disruption of economic and social functions in the community.
Table1 lists important earthquakes that occurred in Europe during the last two decades
that affected whole regions and caused significant losses reaching billions of euros, and for
which the European Union Solidarity Fund intervened. Earthquakes account for 45% of the
total aid approved by the EU Solidarity Fund for natural disasters since 2002.
Seismic risk is often expressed in terms of a combination of the magnitude of the conse-
quences of an earthquake and the likelihood of these consequences to occur. It is normally
obtained considering the seismic hazard of the site or region, the exposed assets that may
be impacted by an earthquake and the vulnerability of those elements at risk, i.e. the vul-
nerability of different types of buildings or constructions.
The following sections discuss the main drivers of earthquake risk, namely hazard,
exposure and vulnerability. The objective is to offer a state-of-the-art review of the topic,
while bearing in mind that these aspects are continually evolving and subject to ongoing
development.
3.2 Seismic hazard
Many countries in Europe are exposed to earthquakes, particularly in the South-Eastern
part, which is consistent with the main fault lines in Europe located where the Eurasian
plate meets the African plate and runs through the Mediterranean Sea.
Table 1 Earthquakes in Europe since 2002, for which the EU Solidarity Fund intervened (https:// ec. europa.
eu/ regio nal_ policy/ fundi ng/ solid arity- fund_ en)
Occurrence Country Category Damage (million €)
October 2002, Molise Italy Regional 1558
April 2009, Abruzzo Italy Regional 10,212
May 2011, Lorca Spain Regional 843
May 2012, Emilia Romagna Italy Regional 13,274
January 2014, Kefalonia Greece Regional 147
November 2015, Lefkada Greece Regional 66
August 2016 – January 2017, Central
Italy
Italy Major 21,879
June 2017, Lesbos Greece Regional 54
July 2017, Kos Greece Regional 101
March 2020, Zagreb Croatia Major 11,573
October 2020, Samos Greece Regional 101
December 2020, Petrinja Croatia Major 5509
September 2021, Crete Greece Regional 143
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
Earthquake hazard may be assessed using scenario studies (e.g. Coburn and Spence
2002) or probabilistic methods for seismic hazard analysis (called PSHA). The latter have
evolved significantly in the last decades and are widely used nowadays. Depending on the
available data, they make use of historical and instrumental seismic records, seismogenic
models, geological and geodetic data, time-dependent trends in earthquake recurrence, and
ground motion prediction equations. Uncertainties in seismic hazard assessment originate
from the models for the seismogenic source and ground motion, from the parameters used
in those models, and from the random nature of seismic events (Silva etal. 2017).
The analysis is usually carried out for reference rock sites. More reliable site-specific
ground motion estimates require geotechnical data and microzonation studies for calcu-
lating possible site amplifications. Recently, the SERA project has investigated different
methods to address soil amplification within seismic risk assessments, from a local to a
regional scale (Crowley etal. 2019).
The output of seismic hazard analysis are intensity measures, such as peak ground
acceleration, peak ground displacement, spectral acceleration and spectral displacement for
the fundamental period of the structure, spectrum intensity, etc. In probabilistic seismic
hazard assessment methods, the reference values of intensity measures are calculated for
prescribed return periods (e.g. 475years) or for the probability of exceedance of intensity
levels in a period of time (e.g. 10% in 50years). A hazard curve provides a relationship
between intensity and probability of exceedance.
Fig. 1 Spatial distribution of mean PGA [g] across Europe from the ESHM20 with a exceedance probabil-
ity of 10% in 50years (475years return period). Source: Danciu etal. (2021)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
The 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM20), developed as part of the SERA3
project (Danciu etal. 2021), represents the latest update to earthquake hazard assessment
across the entire Euro-Mediterranean region. It employs a state-of-the-art probabilistic
framework ensuring a cross-border harmonization of inputs and models all over Europe.
The model was developed using recently compiled datasets, updated data and models,
encompassing tectonic and geologic information, active fault data, a unified earthquake
catalogue, ground shaking records, seismogenic sources and ground shaking models. The
ESHM20 mean peak ground acceleration (PGA) for rock conditions and 475years return
period is illustrated in Fig.1.
Earthquake hazard studies also serve for informing the provisions of seismic design
codes. For example, within the suite of EN Eurocodes, the European standards for struc-
tural design, Eurocode 8 (CEN 2004) applies to the design and construction of buildings
and civil engineering works in seismic regions. The National Annexes to the Eurocodes
contain country-specific data, such as maps used for the design of structures for earthquake
resistance, which are themselves based on seismic hazard studies. Figure2 shows the ref-
erence peak ground acceleration values on rock sites given in the National Annexes of
Eurocode 8. Note that the countries’ seismic zones were developed at different times, with
different hazard models and data. Moreover, all countries adopted a 475-year reference
3 The Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Research Infrastructure Alliance for Europe (SERA) pro-
ject webpage: http:// www. sera- eu. org/ en/ home/.
Fig. 2 Reference peak ground acceleration from the National Annexes to Eurocode 8 (CEN 2004). Source:
Adapted from Palermo etal. (2018)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
return period of seismic action for the no-collapse requirement, except Romania and the
United Kingdom, which adopted 100 and 2500years, respectively.
European standards governing earthquake-resistant design and the assessment and
strengthening of existing structures typically rely on seismic hazard maps for a given return
period, referred to as a “uniform hazard maps” such as the ones shown previously. How-
ever, when structures are designed based on a prescribed hazard-exceedance probability,
the seismic risk depends on both uncertainties in structural capacities and the specific loca-
tion of the structure with respect to the level of the national hazard map. Consequently,
adhering to a uniform hazard does not necessarily guarantee a uniform risk of collapse in a
country. Seismic hazard assessment and structural design are constantly evolving, an exam-
ple is the ongoing research into risk-targeted hazard maps that aims at ensuring a consistent
risk of collapse across different regions of a country (Kharazian etal. 2021; Monti etal.
2023).
3.3 Exposure
Exposure databases for seismic risk assessment include data for buildings, infrastructure
and population, often incomplete and geographically disaggregated in a non-homogene-
ously way. Exposure data for buildings have been collected specifically for seismic risk
studies, and with a high level of spatial resolution, in a few cities around Europe.
Alternative sources of information regarding the building stock encompass cadastres
and national housing censuses. The latter, typically conducted every decade, are not origi-
nally designed for seismic risk research. However, they are noteworthy for their accessibil-
ity to the public and for counting a country’s entire population and housing stock along
with the collection of key characteristic data. Since 2011, European statistical legislation
established a set of harmonised data to be collected across the EU countries. In certain
countries, the census provides supplementary data relevant to seismic risk studies, such as
information on the main materials used in building construction. Eurostat offers a web tool,
the Census Hub4, through which census data sourced from national statistical institutes is
disseminated with varying levels of geographic disaggregation.
The seismic exposure model (Crowley etal. 2020) of the European Seismic Risk Model
2020 (ESRM20) (Crowley et al. 2021a) is available through the EFEHR EU Earthquake
Risk service5. The exposure model includes the spatial distribution of the number of res-
idential and commercial buildings, dwellings, occupants, floor area, settlement type and
replacement cost within the EU-27 for defined seismic performance classes of buildings
and it is provided on request. This exposure model was the basis to create a database inven-
torying the European building stock for a European pilot project on integrated seismic and
energy renovation of buildings6 (Gkatzogias etal. 2022b).
Previous studies have examined the effect of detail of exposure data on the seismic risk
assessments conducted for extensive European regions. For instance, Sousa et al. (2017)
have determined that data sourced at regional level from the Eurostat Census Hub, which
is easily accessible, can be employed to evaluate seismic risk at a national level with a
4 Census Hub Eurostat website: https:// ec. europa. eu/ Censu sHub2/.
5 http:// risk. efehr. org is a web platform hosted at the EUCENTRE (Italy) that provides the risk services of
the European Facilities for Earthquake Hazard and Risk (EFEHR).
6 Website of the project:”Integrated techniques for the seismic strengthening and energy efficiency of exist-
ing buildings”: https:// build ings- renov ation- maker space. jrc. ec. europa. eu/.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
satisfactory degree of accuracy, in comparison to the losses calculated using detailed data-
sets specific to smaller regions (municipality level).
Exposure data for population is available through the new open and free tool Global
Human Settlement Layer7 that produces global spatial information for assessing human
presence on the planet, in the form of built-up maps, population density maps, and set-
tlement maps. Based on a population exposure catalogue, the U.S. Geological Survey’s
PAGER (Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response) system automatically
estimates the population exposed to severe ground shaking for given intensity levels of an
earthquake (Earle etal. 2009).
3.4 Vulnerability
The updated United Nations Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR 2016)
defines vulnerability as “the conditions determined by physical, social, economic and envi-
ronmental factors or processes which increase the susceptibility of an individual, a commu-
nity, assets or systems to the impacts of hazards” in the current case, earthquakes.
Most of the dwellings throughout European countries are situated in aging structures
that are approaching or have already surpassed their conventional service lifespan. Moreo-
ver, most buildings within the European stock are vulnerable to earthquakes, as they have
been designed without provisions for earthquake resistance or with moderate-level seismic
codes. This situation is of particular concern for nations in Southern and Eastern Europe
with moderate to high seismicity as illustrated in Fig.1. This may have substantial implica-
tions for a large portion of the population, so interventions are needed to reduce vulnerabil-
ity and potential socioeconomic losses (Gkatzogias etal. 2022a).
Socioeconomic vulnerability of exposed people may complement physical vulnerability
of exposed assets and enrich risk assessment studies. Gkatzogias etal. (2022a) combined
three composite indicators, i.e. the regional EU Human Development Index (Bubbico and
Dijkstra 2011), the EU2020 index (Becker etal. 2020) and the regional EU Social Progress
Index (Annoni etal. 2016), to define a single measure of socioeconomic vulnerability. As
shown in Fig. 3, the 100 regions with the highest socioeconomic vulnerability include
23 regions in Bulgaria (excluding Sofia), 33 in southern Italy, 30 in Romania (excluding
Bucharest), 11 in south-western Spain and three in northern Hungary.
3.5 Scenario‑building process
An earthquake scenario-building-process is composed of two major steps: the first involves
the characterization of earthquake occurrence and ground motion, and the second the
assessment of the potential impact and consequences. The first step provides the necessary
data and models to understand the seismic hazard, while the second informs risk reduc-
tion and mitigation strategies, being particularly useful to prepare emergency plans for
civil protection, provide to government and insurance companies a first order estimate of
the impact, and analysing funding requests in the aftermath of a seismic event (De Mar-
tino etal. 2017). Risk scenarios may encompass future and emerging risks, risks that have
7 European Commission website of the Global Human Settlement Layer: https:// ghsl. jrc. ec. europa. eu/ dataT
oolsO vervi ew. php.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
cross-border implications, and those with a low probability but high impact. In national risk
assessments, efforts may be made to not only examine individual risk models or scenar-
ios but also to explore multi-risk scenarios or models. According to Mysiak etal. (2021),
Fig. 3 Socioeconomic vulnerability in the European Union (Gkatzogias etal. 2022a)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
multi-risk analysis considers both multiple hazards, occurring simultaneously or consecu-
tively, and multi-vulnerabilities of various exposed elements. It considers the potential for
amplification and cascading consequences resulting from interactions with various risks. In
simpler terms, one risk can be intensified by another risk, or due to a significant change in
the system’s vulnerability or exposure caused by a different type of event.
An example of an earthquake hazard scenario is the maximum probable or credible
earthquake, which refers to the largest earthquake that can reasonably be expected to
occur in a particular region. This is often based on the estimate of the magnitude of the
most severe historical event reported in the region, and its best-guess location derived
from known geologic faults, or seismic source zones. In addition, probabilistic seismic
hazard disaggregation analysis can determine the most likely earthquake scenario that
governs the hazard at a particular site. The scenario may be characterized by a pair of
magnitude-distance, conditional on a given level of ground motion, or a given return
period.
Various approaches are used to model ground motion, ranging from empirical
ground-motion prediction equations (Danciu etal. 2021) to more sophisticated models
that involve simulation of non-stationary stochastic ground motions (Sabetta etal. 2021;
Vlachos etal. 2018). The former approach assesses ground-motion attenuation at a cer-
tain distance from the earthquake source using magnitude, distance, and site conditions
as predictor variables. In contrast, the latter method calculates the time histories and
duration of ground motion for a user-specified seismic scenario, which are increasingly
important for applications such as nonlinear dynamic analysis, seismic design, and ret-
rofitting (Baker and Lee 2018; Sousa and Campos Costa 2009).
The aleatory variability of the ground motion, the fragility of the elements at risk
(see Sect. 4.1 for more details) and exposure models are taken into consideration to
assess the impact of a historical event or a simulated earthquake hazard scenario in a
region.
Probabilistic seismic risk assessment considers all possible earthquakes that can
affect a site, along with their respective probabilities of occurrence, and results in a
probabilistic estimate of damage and losses, including relevant uncertainties.
In practice, a seismic risk scenario includes the assessment of several Sendai Frame-
work indicators, such as the number of fatalities, injured people, people whose dwell-
ings were damaged or destroyed, direct economic loss relative to the global gross
domestic product, direct economic loss in the housing sector, damage to critical infra-
structure, and disruption of basic services.
Certain regions in Europe are prone to infrequent but extremely severe seismic
events, where earthquakes can be identified as a key risk with low probability and high
impact in a regional and national context, with possible adverse transboundary impacts.
For example, the Great Lisbon 1755 earthquake caused unusual devastation with sig-
nificant impacts in Portugal, Spain and Morocco. The event was felt in other regions
of Western Europe, such as Southern France and Northern Italy (Solares and Arroyo
2004).
Machine learning and deep learning techniques for seismic risk identification (hazard
and vulnerability), analysis (fragility and damage assessment) and treatment (mitigation
through structural control) have been extensively explored, resulting in significant progress
over the past 20years (Xie et al. 2020). However, these methods are not yet mature for
implementation in seismic risk assessment at the national level.
To conclude this section, it is important to highlight the flagship initiative known as
“Europe-wide scenarios,” which is part of the “Anticipate” key area within the European
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
Union Disaster Resilience Goals (European Commission 2023a). It will develop compre-
hensive transboundary, cross-sectoral scenarios encompassing 16 main hazards and poten-
tial cascading effects that Europe may face, earthquakes included. This initiative is aimed
at enhancing Europe’s collective capacity to prepare to forthcoming crises, prioritize pre-
ventive actions, and adjust risk management planning accordingly.
4 Risk analysis
4.1 Damage assessment
Damage of physical assets at risk is evaluated by means of fragility functions describing
the probability that, for a given value of the earthquake intensity, structures of a certain
typology will exceed different damage levels. Surveys of observed damage from past
earthquake and laboratory tests are the basis for constructing empirical fragility functions.
Alternatively, analytical fragility curves can be produced from the results of numerical
simulations of varying degrees of sophistication (Maio etal. 2017; Martins etal. 2021).
Uncertainties in probabilities of damage originate from the variability of the seismic
action, geometric and material parameters of the studied structures, type of structural
model and analysis, resistance models, the definition of damage states, etc. A collection
of fragility curves for buildings, bridges, highway and railway infrastructure, harbour ele-
ments, health care facilities, electric power stations, gas and oil distribution networks,
water and waste-water systems, may be found in Crowley etal. 2021b; Pitilakis etal. 2014;
Romão etal. 2019, 2021; Rosseto etal. 2014, Yepes-Estrada etal. 2016 and the GEM Vul-
nerability Databases8.
Traditional masonry structures are particularly vulnerable to seismic events and specific
fragility curves representative of building typologies made of rubble stone masonry walls
and flexible timber floor are being developed (Bernardo etal. 2023). Different collections
of vulnerability and fragility curves are used to estimate damage to cultural heritage, taking
into consideration the particularities of these structures such as aging and state of conser-
vation and relevant degradation factors (e.g. Bernardini and Lagomarsino 2018; Despotaki
etal. 2018).
Various models have been developed to provide decision-makers with more useful risk
metrics describing the impact of earthquakes. The models, presented below, transform
earthquake damage (e.g. the number of buildings collapsed) to consequences, such as
direct-economic losses, debris estimates, business interruption, casualties or shelter needs.
4.2 Damage‑to‑loss models
Generally, damage-to-loss models assess the total repair cost for a class of buildings, or
building typology, correlating a given damage threshold to the repair cost, knowing the
building replacement cost in the region (ATC 1985; D’Ayala etal. 2015; De Martino etal.
2017; FEMA 2018; Martins et al. 2016; Wehner and Edwards 2013). Empirical models,
e.g. by Lehman etal. (2004) and Mackie and Stojadinović (2006) for bridges, relate the
8 GEM Vulnerability Databases can be found at: https:// www. ucl. ac. uk/ epice ntre/ resou rces/ gem- vulne rabil
ity- datab ases.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
functionality of basic services and infrastructures to structural damage. The latter can be
obtained, for a given earthquake intensity, by fragility functions. Empirical models are also
available for estimating business interruption (ATC 1985; FEMA 2018) as a function of
structural damage. The European Seismic Risk Model (Crowley etal. 2021a) defines the
ratio of repair cost to the replacement cost for four common damage states (slight, mod-
erate, extensive, and complete) of buildings, based on recent expert-based and empirical
European damage-to-loss models.
4.3 Estimation ofcasualties
Injuries and casualties during earthquakes are caused by structural and non-structural dam-
age, accidents, heart attacks, etc. Coburn and Spence (2002) report that more than 75% of
deaths in past events were due to building collapse and propose a ‘lethality ratio’, i.e. the
ratio of people killed to the number of people present in a building, to estimate casualties
for each building class. This ratio depends on the characteristics of the ground motion,
the building type and function, collapse mechanism, other levels of damage different from
collapse, occupancy, behaviour of occupants, and search and rescue effectiveness. A large
number of casualty models with different degrees of sophistication have been developed
(e.g. ATC 1985; Balbi etal. 2006; Cavalieri etal. 2012; Crowley etal. 2021a; Erdik etal.
2011; FEMA 2022; Hingorani etal. 2020; Jaiswal etal. 2009; Jaiswal and Wald 2012; Jia
etal. 2019; Khazai et al. 2014; Porter et al. 2008; Reinoso etal. 2017; So and Pomonis
2012; So and Spence 2013; Spence et al. 2007, 2011; Zuccaro and Cacace 2011). The
models are grounded in empiricism, drawing upon observations from prior earthquakes
and expert input. They provide a wide range of information including the percentage of
individuals who have been lightly, moderately, seriously injured, or killed following an
earthquake. The models range from relatively simple ones providing loss rates correspond-
ing to various ground motion levels, to more sophisticated models that estimate casualty
ratios for different building types under diverse damage conditions, including structural
collapse and other damage levels.
Numerous challenges persist in this field. One of the primary concerns is the need for
a dynamic estimation of population exposure. The estimate should take into account daily
commuting to and from work, as well as weekly or seasonal population movements, and
whether people are inside or near buildings at the time of the earthquake (Guérin-Marthe
et al. 2021). The Global Human Settlement Layer (GHSL)7 helps alleviate the problem
to some extent; nevertheless, the relatively low level of geographic disaggregation of the
GHSL for seismic risk studies and the difficulty of linking the location of exposed indi-
viduals during an earthquake to specific building types persists. Other challenges are asso-
ciated with the shortage of well-validated high-quality data for calibrating models to esti-
mate human losses. For all these reasons, most of these models emphasize the significant
uncertainty associated to casualty estimations. Further research is needed to quantify this
uncertainty. One of the few examples of research on the uncertainty associated to casualty
estimations is the work by Gobbato etal. (2014) cited by Guérin-Marthe etal. (2021).
4.4 Estimation ofshelter needs
Data from past earthquakes show that the number of displaced people is almost an order
of magnitude higher than the number of collapsed and severely destroyed buildings.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
Multi-criteria models for estimating the number of displaced households, population need-
ing temporary shelter and shelter supplies (e.g. food and water) consider the physical habit-
ability of buildings, the occupants’ desirability to evacuate and to seek public shelter, and
the change of demand and supply of temporary shelter facilities after the event (Bakhshi
Lomer etal. 2023; Khazai etal. 2014; FEMA 2018; Vecere etal. 2017; Wang etal. 2022;
Zhao etal. 2019). The habitability of buildings is based on the physical damage, the loss
of utilities (e.g. water and energy supply), the access to the transport network and services
(health, education, sports, culture, firefighting, police, etc.), and the weather conditions.
The desirability to evacuate and seek public shelter facilities depends on several social fac-
tors, such as household tenure and size, household type, age, ethnicity, income, employ-
ment and education level of occupants, perception of security in the area, distance and ease
of access to shelters. Data for these indicators are available through the national statistical
institutes and Eurostat. These methods are applied at the dwelling or normally the city or
regional level. They require high expertise and calibration on the local characteristics of
physical and social vulnerability.
4.5 Estimation ofdemolition waste
Large earthquakes may produce demolition waste in amounts that would normally take
decades to be produced and require several years to be properly disposed or reused and
recycled, even in economically advanced countries with good preparedness levels (Sakai
etal. 2019). The amount of waste generated by the demolition of damaged structures can
be estimated from exposure (number of exposed assets, average volume, or surface area of
classes of assets) and damage data (number of assets in different damage states) and empir-
ical models that relate damage to the volume of demolition waste (FEMA 2018; Santarelli
etal. 2018; Xiao etal. 2023).
The Hazus methodology (FEMA 2022) to estimate earthquake-related demolition waste
considers two distinct categories of debris. The first category includes large debris items,
called “heavy debris”, like steel components or reinforced concrete elements of structures,
which requires specialized procedures for demolition and removal. The second category
consists of “light debris”, such as bricks, wood, glass, building contents, and other materi-
als that are more easily removable. Buildings that have not collapsed but sustained severe
damage, rendering them uneconomical to repair, should be accounted for in the estimates
of the earthquake-generated debris.
As an illustration, in May 2023, the debris resulting from the collapsed and damaged
buildings following the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes in Türkiye, amounted to about
100 million tons, as reported by Hancilar etal. (2023).
4.6 Risk metrics
Loss exceedance curves are examples of risk metrics that result from the probabilistic anal-
ysis of seismic risk. The curves describe the probability of various levels of losses being
exceeded. Typically, probabilistic seismic risk analysis looks at the following losses or con-
sequences: fatalities, injuries and economic losses derived from damages. Once the prob-
ability distribution of losses is known, other risk metrics can be obtained, for example,
average annualized earthquake losses (AEL) or average annualized earthquake loss ratio,
AELR (FEMA 2017). AELR is a useful metric to compare the relative risk across different
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
regions since it is normalized by the replacement value of exposed elements. Wellbeing
loss is complementary to economic loss and provides insight on the impact of earthquakes
on households with different levels of income (Markhvida etal. 2020).
4.7 Tools forseismic risk analysis
Several open-source tools with high degree of sophistication and capabilities have been devel-
oped for evaluating the impact of earthquake on the building stock, exposed population, and criti-
cal infrastructures. Near-real time earthquake scenarios systems provide prompt evaluations of
damage and losses, typically shortly after a seismic event. The assessments rely on data regard-
ing the earthquake’s magnitude, timing, and location, or on the availability of ground motion
maps and shaking intensity maps (shake-maps). Most of these software packages come equipped
with libraries containing pre-defined hazard and vulnerability models, while also providing users
with the flexibility to input new ones as well as exposure data (Andredakis etal. 2017, Guérin-
Marthe etal. 2021; Makhoul and Argyroudis 2018; Spence 2007).
Andredakis et al. (2017) provide several details on these tools. Example applications
with pre-loaded exposure data showed that these tools can produce an early impact assess-
ment within 5–15min. Comparison of predicted losses with data recorded after real earth-
quakes demonstrated that, in general, the order of magnitude of economic losses is accu-
rately predicted, but casualties are overestimated.
Recently, Guérin-Marthe etal. (2021) published a state-of-the-art review paper examin-
ing an up-to-date collection of currently operational systems for rapid response to earth-
quakes. The paper places a specific emphasis on tools and methodologies developed for
computing shake maps and on various systems providing near-real-time ground motion
and loss estimates. The study concentrates on rapid earthquake response systems, primarily
originating from Europe. It offers valuable insights into the input and output data, scale,
operational capabilities, and status of these systems.
A selection of loss assessment systems identified in the publications by Andredakis
etal. (2017), Guérin-Marthe etal. (2021) and others along with their respective website are
exemplified below.
• ARCH DSS9 is a WebGIS decision support system specifically targeted to assess earth-
quake-induced physical damage on the built environment of historic areas and monitor
resilience (Giovinazzi etal. 2021).
• GDACS10, the Global Disaster Alert and Coordination System results from a coopera-
tive framework between the United Nations, the European Commission (the JRC) and
disaster managers worldwide. GDACS offers a map featuring three levels of qualitative
disaster alerts for various events, including earthquakes, tropical cyclones, floods, vol-
canoes, droughts, and forest fires. The casualty estimates for earthquakes are derived
from the PAGER tool.
• Hazus-MH Earthquake Module11 is a standardised methodology for estimating poten-
tial disaster losses from earthquakes, tsunami events, floods, and hurricanes. HAZUS
9 Website of ARCH DSS: https:// savin gcult uralh erita ge. eu/ solut ions/ tools.
10 Website of GDACS: https:// www. gdacs. org/.
11 Website of FEMA-Hazus Program: https:// www. fema. gov/ flood- maps/ produ cts- tools/ hazus.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
uses GIS technology to estimate physical, economic, and social impacts of disasters. It
is used for planning mitigation and recovery, as well as preparedness and response.
• IRMA (Borzi etal. 2021; Masi etal. 2021), Italian Risk Maps, was designed for the
scientific community and utilizes OpenQuake as the calculation mechanism allowing
users to upload various exposure/vulnerability databases and sets of fragility curves.
Damage scenarios can also be generated by inputting shake maps from seismic events.
In 2018, the Italian Civil Protection Department utilized IRMA to produce the National
Risk Assessment required by theUCPM.
• OpenQuake12 is a freely accessible, open-source software developed by the Global
Earthquake Model Foundation. It considers the geographical distribution of residential,
commercial, and industrial structures, socioeconomic vulnerability, and the potential
of communities and nations to recover and rebuild. The project builds on the Global
Earthquake Hazard and Risk Models and aims to assess earthquake risk worldwide.
• PAGER13, developed as part of the U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Pro-
gram, is a widely recognized near-real-time loss assessment system. It supplies shake
maps and first-order estimates of the potential impact in terms of fatalities and eco-
nomic losses following significant earthquakes. PAGER provides near-real-time post-
earthquake loss estimates based on a worldwide building exposure module, making the
system suitable for use on a global scale.
• QLARM14 is a loss estimate system produced by the International Centre for Earth
Simulation (ICES Foundation). In collaboration with the Swiss Seismological Service,
it furnishes loss estimates within 24h of a potentially damaging earthquake occurring
globally. The system offers alert levels indicating the number of fatalities and an aver-
age of buildings damaged.
• Rapid-N15 has been developed by the European Commission for the assessment of Nat-
ech risks at local and regional levels and has currently been implemented for earth-
quakes.
• The RASOR16 project developed a platform to perform a multi-hazard risk analysis
to support the full cycle of disaster management, including targeted support to critical
infrastructure monitoring, and climate change impact assessment.
• The SELENA17 open risk software is a tool to provide earthquake damage and loss esti-
mates. It uses a logic tree approach, allows for deterministic and probabilistic analysis,
and includes a risk illustrator software tool.
Examples of other relevant loss assessment systems primarily operating outside Europe
include:
• The CAPRA18 probabilistic risk assessment platform, which is an initiative that aims to
strengthen the institutional capacity for assessing, understanding, and communicating
disaster risk, with the ultimate goal of integrating disaster risk information into devel-
13 PAGER Data, Products and References website: https:// earth quake. usgs. gov/ data/ pager/ refer ences. php.
14 QLARM, webpage of the ICES Foundation: http:// www. icesf ounda tion. org/ Pages/ Qlarm Event List. aspx.
15 Website of RAPID-N: https:// rapidn. jrc. ec. europa. eu/.
16 Website of RASOR: http:// www. rasor- proje ct. eu/.
17 Website of SELENA: https:// selena. sourc eforge. net/.
18 Website of the CAPRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment Platform https:// ecapra. org/.
12 Website of GEM: https:// www. globa lquak emodel. org/.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
opment policies and programs. The CAPRA platform has been used for different types
of natural hazards and risks in central and south America. It includes free software for
assessing geologic (earthquake, soil effects and volcanic) and hydrogeologic hazards
(flood, hurricane, landslide, and precipitation).
• READY and SUPREME are two loss assessment systems operating in Japan. READY
(Midorikawa and Abe 2000) is connected to a dense network of strong motion acceler-
ometers, which are employed for monitoring liquefaction and conduct rapid evaluations
of damage on road structures and wooden houses. SURPREME (Shimizu etal. 2004)
is a real-time safety control system that assesses damage to gas pipelines aiding in deci-
sions regarding the need to shut down gas supply.
4.8 Review ofrecent European research onseismic hazard, risk andmitigation
The European Union has provided significant funding for collaborative research projects
dealing with the impact of earthquakes, within the Framework Programmes for research
and innovation. The projects listed in Table2 involved experts from across Europe and pro-
duced state-of-the-art methodologies and models for hazard, vulnerability and risk assess-
ment, developed tools that can be deployed in practice for preparedness, mitigation, plan-
ning, and risk management activities. The methodologies, models and tools were used for a
large number of illustrative case studies at local (city) or regional level.
4.9 Examples ofseismic risk assessment studies
Italy
The Italian Civil Protection Department has published a comprehensive report (DPC 2018)
addressing the national risk assessment of the potential major disasters in Italy such as
earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunami, hydro-geological/hydraulic events, extreme
weather, droughts, and forest fires. The report assessed earthquake risk for the country’s
housing stock using the latest seismic hazard probabilistic evaluation and detailed damage
data from eight recent Italian earthquakes. These initial studies were followed by subse-
quent projects (Dolce etal. 2021) actively supporting a different facet of the new Civil Pro-
tection Code, emphasizing non-structural prevention and community awareness to mitigate
existing risks. For instance, the dedicated web tool called SICURO +19 enables citizens
to access the newly developed seismic risk maps. In 2019, new risk maps were produced
considering enhanced vulnerability models and the framework was extended to encompass
distinctive building typologies such as schools and churches (Masi etal. 2021).
Spain
A scenario-based approach was followed for the seismic risk assessment in Spain (DGPCE
2015). This study used the national seismic hazard maps, census, and cadastral data,
respectively for population and buildings, vulnerability classes according to the period of
construction of buildings, and empirical models for impact on people. The analysis yielded
the number of buildings at different damage states, the number of casualties and injuries,
19 Website SICURO + : https:// www. sicur opiu. it.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
Table 2 European research projects related to seismic risk assessment
Project Title Duration Website
LESSLOSS Risk mitigation for earthquakes and landslides 2004–2007 https:// cordis. europa. eu/ proje ct/ rcn/ 74272_ en. html
NERIES Network of research infrastructures for European seismology 2006–2010 https:// cordis. europa. eu/ proje ct/ rcn/ 79877_ en. html
SERIES Seismic engineering research infrastructures for European synergies 2009–2013 https:// cordis. europa. eu/ proje ct/ id/ 227887
SHARE Seismic hazard harmonization in Europe 2009–2012 www. share- eu. org
SYNER-G Systemic seismic vulnerability and risk analysis for buildings, lifeline networks and infra-
structures safety gain
2009–2013 www. vce. at/ SYNER-G
NERA Network of European research infrastructures for earthquake risk assessment and mitiga-
tion
2010–2014 https:// cordis. europa. eu/ proje ct/ id/ 262330
REAKT Strategies and tools for real time earthquake risk reduction 2011–2014 https:// cordis. europa. eu/ proje ct/ id/ 282862
STREST Harmonized approach to stress tests for critical infrastructures against natural hazards 2013–2016 www. strest- eu. org
SERA Seismology and earthquake engineering research infrastructure alliance for Europe 2017–2020 www. sera- eu. org
RISE Real-time earthquake risk reduction for a resilient Europe 2019–2023 http:// rise- eu. org
ERIES Engineering research infrastructures for European synergies 2022–2026 https:// eries. eu
Geo-INQUIRE Geosphere infrastructures for questions into integrated research 2022–2026 https:// www. geo- inqui re. eu
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
and the number of homeless people in the event of earthquakes with a return period equal
to 500 and 1000years.
France
A probabilistic method was adopted for the assessment of seismic risk in 40 cities in met-
ropolitan France (AFPS 2014). The study employed hazard curves for cities in different
seismic zones, fragility functions for buildings belonging to four vulnerability classes, and
models that relate structural damage to the number of victims, and to economic losses. The
results are given in terms of probability of collapse of buildings, expected annual losses,
and probability of casualties.
Portugal
The Portuguese National Authority for Civil Protection with the collaboration of several
research institutions coordinated two major projects for assessing seismic risk in the metro-
politan region of Lisbon and seismic and tsunami risks in Algarve (ANPC 2010; Campos
Costa etal. 2010; Costa etal. 2012; Sousa etal. 2010b). The projects aimed at providing
scientific foundations to support decision-making concerning regional seismic disaster pre-
vention and preparedness. In addition, over the last years in Portugal, seismic risk assess-
ment studies at both the national and municipal levels have consistently advanced in terms
of model’s sophistication and the amount of data collected (e.g. Correia Lopes etal. 2024;
Marques etal. 2018; Ribeiro etal. 2023; Silva etal. 2014; Sousa and Campos Costa 2015).
Of note is the ongoing ReSist20 program currently underway in Lisbon, which is an exam-
ple of good practices to improve the municipality’s seismic resilience, including the devel-
opment of a new map for classifying the seismic behaviour of soils, standards for assessing
the vulnerability of building and several public awareness campaigns.
5 Risk evaluation
Following the completion of risk analysis, the focus shifts to risk evaluation which con-
stitutes the central theme of this section. Risk evaluation is the process of comparing the
level of risk achieved during the analysis stage with the established risk criteria previously
defined. i.e., the terms of reference against which the significance of a risk is evaluated
(Mysiak etal. 2021). Risk evaluation aims to determine whether a risk level is unaccepta-
ble, tolerable or broadly acceptable and assist informed decisions about risk treatment (ISO
2018). A risk-informed decision, rather than a risk-based decision, allows for adjustments
considering other relevant factors like political and legal requirements, socioeconomic,
technical, and environmental conditions. Indeed, risk evaluation is a multifaceted activity
that goes beyond the technical domain and needs the incorporation of assessments from
regulatory authorities, in line with political and socioeconomic directives (Baptista 2009),
while considering the specific situation of each country. The evaluation process should be a
result of extensive discussion, consideration of stakeholder preferences and criteria and the
achievability of potential solutions for risk reduction (HSE 2001). Note that society’s aver-
sion to events capable of causing a large number of fatalities, such as seismic phenomena,
20 Website program ReSist: https:// infor macoe seser vicos. lisboa. pt/ preve ncao/ resil iencia- urbana/ proje tos/
resist.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
can influence the decision framework. For this reason, the risk of facing death or injuries
may be addressed in terms of (i) individual risk, or the risk of a person present in a given
location, being exposed to one or more adverse hazardous events, and (ii) societal risk, or
the risk of a group of people being simultaneously exposed to an adverse hazardous event.
Societal risk is often represented using the so-called F-N curves that provide the probabil-
ity of exceeding a number of fatalities per year on a log–log graph (Stojadinovic 2016) and
incorporate society’s aversion to events posing death threats to large populations.
The geographic distribution of risk indicators, for instance, maps of earthquake
losses for a given return period, or average annualized earthquake losses are useful
tools for communicating the results of the risk analysis and identifying the most at-risk
areas across a country. Note that the comparison of risk maps with the spatial distribu-
tion of seismic hazard, vulnerability, and exposure can only provide a qualitative indi-
cation on the main drivers of risk, owing to the complexity of the process for evaluat-
ing earthquake risk. Countries may find helpful to compare their risk analysis with
the maps carried out at a world level by the GEM Foundation (Silva etal. 2018), par-
ticularly the profiles for available countries (https:// downl oads. openq uake. org/), which
include maps of seismic hazard, exposure, average annualized earthquake losses, aver-
age annualized earthquake loss ratio, among other information.
As regards seismic risk, the literature is scarce to guide decisions on acceptable
or tolerable levels of life or economic losses. Risks bellow the broadly acceptability
threshold would not require the implementation of reduction measures, whereas risk
above the tolerability threshold would require mitigation measures to reduce it to toler-
able levels. On this subject, it is worth mentioning the FP7 project STREST (Harmo-
nized approach to stress tests for critical infrastructures against natural hazards) that
summarised the European practice regarding the acceptance criteria for fatality risk
(STREST Deliverable D4.5; Stojadinovic 2016). The author suggests that the individ-
ual risk should not exceed 10–6 per year, which in simple terms means that the annual
probability of an individual dying due to earthquakes in a given region should be less
than one in 1 000 000 people. In terms of societal risk, it should be less than 103 per
year for major accidents with up to one fatality, and less than 10–5 for accidents ten
times larger. Considering that the criteria to evaluate societal earthquake risk was still
a controversial issue, Sousa etal. (2010a) used the acceptability threshold for indi-
vidual risk proposed by ANCOLD (2003) to evaluate the earthquake risk in Lisbon.
Accordingly, the acceptability threshold adopted for individual risk was between 10−6
and 10−8 per year. When risk reduction is impracticable, or the costs to reduce it are
grossly disproportionate to the benefits obtainable (ALARP principle – As Low As
Reasonably Practicable), the threshold (tolerability threshold in this case) may drop,
e.g., to 10−5 for new structures, and to 10−4 for existing ones (Sousa etal. 2010a).
According to HSE (2001), ensuring that a risk has been reduced to As Low As Reason-
ably Practicable involves balancing the risk against the costs required to further reduce
it. To avoid incurring in those costs, authorities must demonstrate that they would be
grossly disproportionate to the benefits that would be gained through risk reduction.
Therefore, the process doesn’t entail balancing the costs and benefits of measures but
rather focuses on adopting measures unless they are considered impractical due to
grossly disproportionate costs.
The risk-informed guidelines for safety decisions in dam projects (FERC 2016)
may provide an indicative reference to identify whether earthquake risk in a region
should be addressed as a low-probability and high-impact risk. In fact, a sudden-unex-
pected dam failure can simultaneously affect many people, as is the case of earthquake
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
disasters. The guidelines define the attributes of a low probability – high conse-
quence region in a F-N chart as follows: incremental life loss estimated to be equal or
exceed 1 000 lives with an annual probability of potential life loss less than 1 in 1 000
000 (10−6) (see Fig.4). Baptista (2009) states that the vast majority of risk tolerability
criteria utilize, as an anchor point, the value of 10−4 or the value of 10−5 for 10 fatali-
ties, with the acceptability limit set 100–1000 times below the tolerability threshold.
However, risk criteria can vary significantly depending on the context and nature of
hazards, so the proposed values should be seen as merely indicative.
6 Risk treatment
6.1 Overview ofrisk treatment strategies
It is recognised that it is not possible to avoid the occurrence of earthquakes, except in
special cases, such as human-induced seismicity. However, when a risk assessment process
results in a decision to address the risk, the next step is to implement risk reduction meas-
ures or adopt alternative strategies such as transferring some or all of the financial con-
sequences of earthquakes to another party, often through insurance mechanisms. In fact,
the effects of earthquakes can be significantly mitigated either by reducing the exposure
of the elements at risk or by improving the resilience of the built environment through
the implementation of structural and non-structural prevention and preparedness measures.
Additional strategies, not covered in this paper but discussed in the financial risk manage-
ment literature (EERI 2000), include: (i) distribution and diversification, as exemplified
by insurance companies avoiding the concentration of numerous earthquake risk policies
in high-hazard prone regions, (ii) redundancy and duplication, which involves main-
taining duplicate copies of critical information or resources in different locations, and (iii)
Fig. 4 Low-probability and high-impact risk region in a F-N chart. Source: adapted from FERC (2016)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
retention where individuals or entities bear some or all of the adverse consequences of an
earthquake, as observed when owners of at-risk buildings choose not to purchase insurance
risk coverage due to their perception of low earthquake risk.
6.2 Reduction ofseismic vulnerability
The structural elements of a building are the ones responsible for withstanding various
loads, including gravity, earthquakes, and wind. They typically include components such
as columns, beams, load bearing walls, floors and roof components, foundations systems
and more. In contrast, non-structural elements within a building encompass every part of
the building and its contents excluding the structural elements. FEMA (2012) classified
non-structural components into three main groups: architectural components (e.g. parti-
tions, ceilings), mechanical, electrical, and plumbing components (e.g. pumps, distribu-
tion systems including piping, ductwork and conduit) and furniture, fixtures and equipment
(e.g. book cases, computers and desktop equipment, chemicals or hazardous materials,
museum artefacts).
Structural prevention measures comprise seismic retrofitting of buildings and infrastruc-
ture, following the assessment of seismic risk, possibly considering socioeconomic vulner-
ability, and the prioritisation of building classes and regions. Retrofitting plans may target
assets that were designed according to specific levels of seismic codes, specific percentage
of the stock, assets that can be renovated in a cost-beneficial way, etc. The impact of a reno-
vation scenario is assessed through the reduction of economic loss and casualties, the num-
ber of affected assets and population, and its cost. Table3 summarises the results of the
impact assessment for two scenarios for the renovation of buildings in 100 regions in the
European Union, selected according to criteria that combine seismic risk, energy efficiency
and socioeconomic vulnerability (Gkatzogias etal. 2022b). Seismic risk in these regions is
estimated to 197 fatalities and a repair cost of 3.1 billion euro a year in residential build-
ings. Renovating building classes that exhibit individually a net economic benefit (scenario
A) reduces annual fatalities by 28% and net economic loss by 78 million euro annually. If
the net economic benefit is used to renovate more buildings (scenario B), annual fatalities
are reduced by 36%. Gkatzogias etal. (2022b) provide more details on the impact assess-
ment for a number of renovation scenarios.
The application of building codes can considerably reduce the severity of human, struc-
tural and economic impacts of earthquakes. The provisions of Eurocode 8 (CEN 2004)
contribute to reduce the vulnerability of buildings and ensure that, in the event of earth-
quakes, lives are protected, damage is limited, and civil protection structures remain opera-
tional. This has been demonstrated in all major earthquakes that occurred worldwide, e.g.
Table 3 Cumulative impact
assessment for 100 priority
regions (Gkatzogias etal. 2022b)
Scenario A Scenario B
Reduction of net economic loss
(million €)
78 12
Reduction of fatalities 55 71
Affected regions 47 47
Renovated buildings (%) 4 13
Affected population (%) 6 13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
the 1995 Kobe, Japan, earthquake (Ranghieri and Ishiwatari 2014), and the 2009 earth-
quake in L’Aquila, Italy (Dolce and Manfredi 2015), where the large majority of damaged
buildings were built without or with low-level provisions for earthquake resistance. The
lesson learnt is that building codes have proven to be a valuable mechanism to implement
effective mitigation measures, and significantly reduce high costs of post-disaster recon-
struction in many developed countries. Moreover, post-disaster reconstruction offers an
opportunity for introducing or reforming regulatory processes, aiming to “Build Back Bet-
ter”, i.e., to implement land use planning, to improve the quality and safety of the built
environment, to strengthen the resilience of communities to earthquakes, and to capitalise
long-term earthquake risk reduction efforts.
Legislation, strategies and financing instruments are useful policy measures to upgrade
the building stock. Integrated strategies linking disaster risk reduction and climate change
adaptation efforts are becoming increasingly important. In this regard, a joint study con-
ducted by the European Commission and the World Bank provides compelling evidence
to assist policymakers and practitioners in making informed investments with the goal of
strengthening disaster and climate resilience. Over the period from 1980 to 2020, natu-
ral disasters affected approximately 50 million people within the European Union, result-
ing in an average annual economic cost of €12 billion. However, the study’s positive find-
ings reveal that strategic investments in resilience can yield significant social, economic,
and environmental benefits, particularly when these investments incorporate sustainable
approaches that leverage synergies to mitigate risk from hazards such as floods, earth-
quakes, heatwaves, and wildfires (World Bank Group and European Commission 2021). A
review across the EU Member States that included seismic risk in their 2015 national risk
assessment found several measures for combined seismic and energy renovation of build-
ings (Butenweg etal. 2022). These measures include (i) the 2015 national programme for
the energy efficiency of multi-family residential buildings in Bulgaria, (ii) the Ecosisma
bonus and Superbonus in Italy offering tax deductions, (iii) a law in Portugal addressing
energy efficiency, seismic and fire safety, acoustics and accessibility, (iv) the national pro-
gramme for increasing the energy performance of apartment buildings in Romania that was
extended to include requirements for a detailed seismic evaluation, and (v) the Building
Cards instrument in Slovenia to promote renovations for energy efficiency, fire and seis-
mic safety. The energy renovation of buildings is indeed an opportunity to address seismic
safety, as recognised in 2020 long-term renovation strategies of Croatia, Cyprus, Hungary,
Italy, Romania, Slovenia and Spain and the national recovery and resilience plans of Croa-
tia, Italy, France, Romania and Slovenia.
As for non-structural elements, building codes also include design provisions aimed to
make them resistant to seismic loads. The literature provides various guidelines and recom-
mendations for implementing practical measures to reduce or prevent damage to non-struc-
tural elements and to enhance both occupants’ safety and ensure functionality and business
continuity (CEN 2004; CURRE 2009; FEMA 2004a; FEMA 2005; FEMA 2012; Know-
RISK project21; Murty etal. 2012; Petal 2003).
21 Webpage of the KnowRISK project: https:// knowr iskpr oject. com/ the- proje ct/.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
6.3 Earthquake early warning systems
Earthquake early warning (EEW) systems are other type of non-structural prevention
measures. As a means to reduce disaster risk in real-time, EEW systems are being uti-
lized in urban areas worldwide, e.g. in California, Japan, Mexico and Romania (Cuéllar
2014; Fujinawa and Noda 2013). Early warning systems rely on the difference in arrival
time between warning messages and destructive shaking waves. The former are transmitted
almost instantaneously when triggered by an earthquake, while the latter may take seconds
to minutes to arrive, mainly depending on the distance of the earthquake rupture to the
site. This short time lag can trigger automated systems that assess whether an alert should
be sent to implement measures to protect lives and assets before strong shaking arrives.
The alert enables the implementation of protective measures, including the practice of the
‘drop, cover, and hold’, shutting off pipeline gas operations to avoid fires, and stopping
or reducing train speeds to prevent disasters (Freddi etal. 2021). Recent developments in
EEW applications have primarily focussed on enhancing the upstream seismic components
of the systems. The improvements aim to offer more accurate estimates of earthquake mag-
nitude and intensity. In addition, new approaches for multi-criteria decision-making in the
context of EEW alerts are emerging, for instance taking into account the preferences of the
end-users (Cremen and Galasso 2021).
6.4 Seismic risk transfer
Other risk treatment strategies, such as risk transfer, lead us to the policy recommen-
dations of the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors responsible for preparing a scientific
opinion on “Strategic Crisis Management in the EU” (Group of Chief Scientific Advisors
2022). They suggest exploring insurance gaps at the national level, particularly in Member
States facing high risks of natural disasters and climate change, to improve the respon-
siveness of existing EU financial instruments and resources in meeting the requirements
of Member States and regions, and to facilitate a fast response to crises. The Group also
recommends exploring new forms of collaboration with the insurance sector to develop
innovative insurance products that prevent major disruptions in key sectors of the economy.
Especially, they advocate a dialogue with the insurance industry to address issues related
to the insurance of assets traditionally considered “uninsurable”, such as cultural heritage.
In addition, an OECD study on the “Financial Management of Earthquake risk” indi-
cates that earthquakes, along with floods, are among the hazards with the least insurance
coverage (OECD 2018). Despite recent advances in favourable insurance coverage, approx-
imately 85% of earthquake-related losses worldwide since 2000 remain without insurance
protection. Indeed, the EIOPA Dashboard shows a high insurance coverage gap in many
earthquake-prone countries in southern Europe. Earthquakes are particularly challenging
in Greece and Italy, where the protection gap score is the highest, due to the high risk and
very low insurance penetration (EIOPA 2022).
7 Risk communication
Another way to save lives is by implementing non-structural prevention measures like risk
communication to raise public awareness for earthquake disasters. The communication of
risk aims to engage and educate different target groups: citizens, infrastructure operators,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
emergency authorities, regulators, government, etc. The goal is to promote a risk culture
about the seismic phenomena and to guide the implementation of prevention and prepar-
edness measures. Examples targeting the public are the implementation of self-protection
measures to take before, during, and after an earthquake, such as creating a family plan,
preparing an emergency kit, and regularly practicing earthquake drills (e.g. shakeout earth-
quake drill22) (FEMA 2004b; Jones and Benthien 2011). Research efforts have been made
to tailor the results of scenario-based rapid impact assessment tools to meet the needs of
professionals involved in emergency planning and response, as well as for use in public
education and improving societal resilience (Marti etal. 2023). Other aspects of communi-
cation include developing infrastructure resilience plans, creating procedures for assessing
damage and ensuring the safety of buildings for post-earthquake use while ensuring the
dissemination of these procedures inside the organizations (Baggio etal. 2007), or dissemi-
nating regulations, standards and policies, and plans for post-event funding.
At this stage, it is worth emphasizing the coherence of European policies in the context
of disaster risk reduction and the efforts made to increase public awareness about risks.
The second objective within the European Union Disaster Resilience Goals (European
Commission 2023a), known as ‘Prepare,’ seeks to enhance public awareness and prepared-
ness for risks. This objective is closely linked to the flagship initiative prepareEU, which
is a Europe-wide program designed to raise disaster awareness and resilience targeting
European citizens. Simultaneously, the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors (2022) supports
the idea of incorporating local knowledge into crisis management. They also emphasize
the importance of treating educational facilities as critical infrastructure, recognizing the
uninterrupted flow of educational programs across all levels as a vital element of soci-
etal resilience, and aim to streamline volunteer initiatives by integrating them with formal
organizations.
Several other initiatives prioritise citizens engagement and seek to empower local com-
munities in effectively responding to risks. Some of these initiatives, like the establishment
of Citizen Observatories, depart from traditional top-down disaster risk management sys-
tems and instead focus on disaster risk governance centred around people. Furthermore,
the growing popularity of citizen science in recent years is closely tied to the widespread
accessibility of technological tools such as sensors, apps and online activities. These tools
enable citizens to collect and share data regarding risks drivers and their consequences
with researchers and professionals in the field of disaster risk management, as noted by
Sousa etal. (2024).
8 Cultural heritage risk management
The recent Guidelines for Disaster Risk Management at European World Heritage Sites
(RHA 2023) provide different approaches for assessing risks to cultural heritage sites,
which certainly have distinctive characteristics from the methods used with contempo-
rary buildings portfolios. The guide aims to develop a common knowledge base that will
22 Website of Shakeout drill: https:// www. shake out. org/.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
help cultural heritage practitioners bring their perspective to risk management, while also
enabling risk managers to effectively consider the specificities of cultural heritage assets.
These heritage sites are likely to have stood the test of time and suffered the effects of mul-
tiple hazards over long periods of time. They may also have undergone various adaptation
processes that contribute to their resilience. Probabilistic risk analysis is included in the
realm of the quantitative methodologies discussed. However, they present additional chal-
lenges when it comes to incorporating intangible elements inherent in heritage into risk
analysis.
RHA (2023) advocates for an integrated approach to risk management that involves the
identification, analysis, and management of threats to people, cultural heritage sites, and
critical assets. Key features include (i) an all-hazards approach, (ii) consideration of preven-
tion, preparedness, response, and recovery, (iii) recognition of the links between nature and
culture, objects and sites, tangible and intangible assets and (iv) consideration of the local
context and engagement of local actors. Integrated risk management requires a debate on the
value of protecting assets, establishing criteria for prioritization and trade-offs, while at the
same time setting clear objectives to guide the risk assessment and selection of management
actions, identifying the assets to be protected and the desired level of protection. The assess-
ment of cultural heritage vulnerability should be site and asset specific. Risk management
treatments should balance the safety of both assets and visitors, while minimizing disruption
to the cultural heritage site. In general, when it comes to cultural heritage interventions, the
proposed solutions should adhere to three fundamental principles: they should be revers-
ible, durable in time, feasible (Maio etal. 2018). Additionally, interventions should strive to
be minimally disruptive and non-intrusive, align with pre-existing materials and structural
systems, favour repair-oriented approaches over demolition and replacement, and employ
traditional materials and techniques to the greatest feasible extent.
Other recent publication (Rouhani and Romão 2023) features case studies from
across the globe demonstrating that cultural heritage protection and disaster management
informed by risk assessments can prevent hazards from escalating into disasters.
9 Conclusions
The research community continually refines models for seismic hazard, vulnerability, and
damage-to-loss, which will be integrated into upgraded versions of seismic risk analysis
software. While most software tools are user-friendly, their high degree of sophistication
requires a certain level of expertise to be operated effectively. In addition, for specific risk
assessment studies, these tools may require user-supplied input, which can be costly and
time-consuming to obtain.
Regarding risk analysis, sufficiently reliable damage and damage-to-loss models are
widely available. It is worth pointing out the considerable uncertainty in estimating casual-
ties, resulting from the wide variability in the number of earthquake victims experiencing
similar ground motion, and from the lack of reliability and large gaps in post-earthquake
casualties’ statistics.
A major gap in seismic risk analysis is the absence of georeferenced exposure data, spe-
cifically tailored for evaluating the vulnerability of the built environment at a local scale.
Current exposure data predominantly covers residential buildings and are aggregated
at a regional level. Ideally, inventories should include a wide range of assets including
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
industrial, commercial, and other structures, such as networks and critical infrastructures,
to provide a more accurate and comprehensive risk assessment.
Currently, while earthquake risk is usually assessed in a fully probabilistic manner, most
seismic risk studies do not progress beyond the risk analysis phase of the risk management
process. In other words, they do not go further than determining the level of risk for a
region. In practice, the results of seismic risk analysis are occasionally compared with risk
criteria to determine whether seismic risks levels are deemed acceptable or tolerable. As
regards seismic risk, the literature is scarce to guide decisions on acceptable or tolerable
levels of life or economic losses.
Additional challenges include the development of multi-hazard risk assessment proce-
dures, and the need of coordinated approaches that bridge disaster risk reduction, climate
change adaptation and sustainable development.
Author contributions Both authors contributed to the study conception and design. Both authors wrote and
commented on previous versions of the manuscript, read, and approved the final manuscript.
Funding The work by Maria Luísa Sousa (LNEC) in this article was financed by the Innovation Pact
“R2UTechnologies—modular systems” (C644876810-00000019), by “R2UTechnologies” Consortium,
co-financed by NextGeneration EU, through the Incentive System “Agendas para a Inovação Empresarial”
(“Agendas for Business Innovation”), within the Recovery and Resilience Plan (PRR). The authors have no
relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Declarations The authors have not disclosed any competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriva-
tives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduc-
tion in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do
not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The
images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence,
unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative
Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence,
visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
References
AFPS (2014) Quantification effective du risque sismique, Cahier technique N°32. Association Française du
Génie Parasismique
ANCOLD (2003) Guidelines on risk assessment. Australian National Committee on Large Dams, ANCOLD
Incorporated
Andredakis I, Proietti C, Fonio C, Annunziato A (2017) Seismic risk assessment tools workshop. Publica-
tions Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2760/ 249272
Annoni P, Dijkstra L, Hellman T (2016) The EU regional SPI: A measure of social progress in the EU
regions. Directorate General for Regional Policy, Brussels
ANPC (2010) Estudo do risco sísmico e de tsunamis do Algarve. Autoridade Nacional de Proteção Civil (in
Portuguese)
ATC (1985) Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City
Baggio C, Bernardini A, Colozza R, Corazza L, Bella M D, Di Pasquale G, Dolce M., Goretti, A, Martinelli
A, Orsini G, Papa F, Zuccaro, G (2007) Field Manual for post-earthquake damage and safety assess-
ment and short term countermeasures (AeDES). Editors: Pinto AV, Taucer F. EUR 22868 1018–5593,
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
Baker JW, Lee C (2018) An improved algorithm for selecting ground motions to match a conditional spec-
trum. J Earthquake Eng 22(4):708–723
Bakhshi Lomer AR, Rezaeian M, Rezaei H, Lorestani A, Mijani N, Mahdad M, Raeisi A, Arsanjani JJ
(2023) Optimizing emergency shelter selection in earthquakes using a risk-driven large group deci-
sion-making support system. Sustainability. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su150 54019
Balbi A, Galasco A, Giovinazzi S, Lagomarsino S, Parodi S (2006) Scenario sismico: a tool for real time
damage scenarios. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering
Baptista L (2009) Abordagens de riscos em barragens de aterro. Colecção: Teses e Programas de Investi-
gação LNEC, Lisbon, Portugal TPI 59, ISBN 978–972–49–2179–2, http:// repos itorio. lnec. pt: 8080/
jspui/ handle/ 12345 6789/ 17187 (in Portuguese)
BARPI (2013) Overview of the industrial accidents caused by the great Tohoku Earthquake and tsunami.
Bureau for analysis of industrial risks and pollution (BARPI). Ministry of ecology, sustainable devel-
opment and energy, France. https:// www. aria. devel oppem ent- durab le. gouv. fr/ wp- conte nt/ files_ mf/
Overv iew_ japan_ mars_ 2013_ GB. pdf
Becker W, Norlén H, Dijkstra L, Athanasoglou S (2020) Wrapping up the Europe 2020 strategy: a multidi-
mensional indicator analysis. Environ Sustain Indicators. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. indic. 2020. 100075
Bernardini A, Lagomarsino S (2018) The seismic vulnerability of architectural heritage. Proceed t Inst Civil
Eng-Struct Build 161(4):171–181. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1680/ stbu. 2008. 161.4. 171
Bernardo V, Karimzadeh S, Caicedo D, Lourenço PB (2023) Preliminary seismic fragility analysis of a
URM building typology in Faial Island – Azores. In: Proceedings of the VII ECCOMAS young inves-
tigators conference
Borzi B, Onida M, Faravelli M etal (2021) IRMA platform for the calculation of damages and risks of Italian
residential buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 19:3033–3055. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10518- 020- 00924-x
Bubbico RL, Dijkstra L (2011) The European regional human development and human poverty indices.
European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy, Brussels Regional Focus No 02
Butenweg C, Gervasio H, Gkatzogias K, Manfredi V, Masi A, Pohoryles D, Tsionis G, Zaharieva R (2022)
Policy measures for seismic and energy upgrading of buildings in EU Member States. Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2760/ 518982
Campos Costa A, Sousa ML, Carvalho A, Coelho E (2010) Evaluation of seismic risk and mitigation strate-
gies for the existing building stock: application of LNECloss to the metropolitan area of Lisbon. Bull
Earthq Eng 8:119–134. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10518- 009- 9160-3
Cavalieri F, Franchin P, Gehl P, Khazai B (2012) Quantitative assessment of social losses based on phys-
ical damage and interaction with infrastructural systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 41(11):1569–
1589. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ eqe. 2220
CEN (2004) EN 1998–1:2014 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1:
general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization
(CEN), Brussels
Coburn A, Spence R (2002) Earthquake protection (second edition). Wiley
Correia Lopes G, Silva C, Costa V, Sousa Oliveira C (2024) Advancing the understanding of earthquake
risk in Portugal. Bull Earthq Eng 22(11):5379–5401. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10518- 024- 01975-0
Costa P, Pires P, Vicêncio H. (2012) Study of seismic risk and tsunamis in Algarve. Estimative of debris
and number of damage assessment inspectors. In: proceedings of the 15th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering
Cremen G, Galasso C (2021) A decision-making methodology for risk-informed earthquake early warn-
ing. Comput-Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ mice. 12670
Crowley H, Despotaki V, Rodrigues D, Silva V, Toma-Danila D, Riga E, Karatzetzou A, Fotopoulou S,
Zugic Z, Sousa L, Ozcebe S, Gamba P (2020) Exposure model for European seismic risk assess-
ment. Earthq Spectra 36(S1):252–273. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 87552 93020 919429
Crowley H, Weatherill G, Riga E, Pitilakis K, Roullé A, Tourlière B, Lemoine A, Hidalgo CG (2019)
D26.4 Methods for Estimating Site Effects in Risk Assessments’. WP26 (JRA4: Risk Modelling
Framework for Europa) SERA project
Crowley H, Dabbeek J, Despotaki V, Rodrigues D, Martins L, Silva V, Romão X, Pereira N, Weath-
erill G, Danciu L (2021a) European seismic risk model (ESRM20). European Facilities for
Earthquake Hazard and Risk (EFEHR), Technical Report 002, v.1.0.0. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7414/
EUC- EFEHR- TR002- ESRM20
Crowley H, Silva V, Martins L, Romão X, Pereira N (2021b) Open models and software for assessing
the vulnerability of the European building stock. In: proceedings of the 8th ECCOMAS thematic
conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering.
Cuéllar A, Espinosa-Aranda JM, Suárez R, Ibarrola G, Uribe A, Rodríguez FH, Islas R, Rodríguez GM,
García A (2014) The Mexican seismic alert system (SASMEX): its alert signals, broadcast results
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
and performance during the M 7.4 Punta Maldonado earthquake of March 20th, 2012. In: Wenzel
F, Zschau J (eds) Early warning for geological disasters. Advanced technologies in earth sciences.
Springer
CUREE (2009) Nonstructural earthquake damage. Richmond: consortium of universities for research in
earthquake engineering (CUREE)
D’Ayala D, Meslem A, Vamvatsikos D, Porter K, Rossetto T, Silva V (2015) Guidelines for analytical
vulnerability assessment of low/mid-rise buildings. Vulnerabil Global Compon Project. https://
doi. org/ 10. 13117/ GEM. VULN- MOD. TR320 14. 12
Danciu L, Nandan S, Reyes C, Basili R, Weatherill G, Beauval C, Rovida A, Vilanova S, Sesetyan K,
Bard P-Y, Cotton F, Wiemer S, Giardini D. (2021) The 2020 update of the European Seismic Haz-
ard Model: Model Overview. EFEHR Technical Report 001, v1.0.0, https:// doi. org/ 10. 12686/ a15
European Commission (2023b) Strategic Foresight Report 2023 ‘Sustainability and people’s wellbeing
at the heart of Europe’s Open Strategic Autonomy’.Publications Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2792/ 32296
European Commission (2021) Overview of natural and man-made disaster risks the European Union
may face. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2795/ 1521
De Martino G, Di Ludovico M, Prota A, Moroni C, Manfredi G, Dolce M (2017) Estimation of repair
costs for RC and masonry residential buildings based on damage data collected by post-earthquake
visual inspection. Bull Earthq Eng 15(4):1681–1706. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10518- 016- 0039-9
Despotaki V, Silva V, Lagomarsino S, Pavlova I (2018) Torres J (2018) Evaluation of seismic risk on
UNESCO cultural heritage sites in Europe. Int J Architect Heritage. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15583
058. 2018. 15033 74
DGPCE (2015) Análisis de riesgos de desastres en España. Dirección General de Protección Civil y
Emergencias
Dolce M, Prota A, Borzi B etal (2021) Seismic risk assessment of residential buildings in Italy. Bull
Earthq Eng 19:2999–3032. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10518- 020- 01009-5
Dolce M, Manfredi G (2015) Libro bianco sulla ricostruzione privata fuori dai centri storici nei comuni
colpiti dal sisma dell’Abruzzo del 6 Aprile 2009. Doppiavoce Edizioni
DPC (2018) National risk assessment. Overview of the potential major disasters in Italy: seismic, vol-
canic, tsunami, hydro-geological/hydraulic and extreme weather, droughts and forest fire risks.
Presidency of the Council of Ministers, Italian Civil Protection Department
Earle PS, Wald DJ, Jaiswal KS, Allen TI, Hearne MG, Marano KD, Hotovec AJ, Fee JM (2009) Prompt
Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER): a system for rapidly determining the
impact of earthquakes worldwide: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1131
EERI (2000) Financial management of earthquake risk. EERI endowment subcommittee on financial risk
management
EIOPA (2022) The dashboard on insurance protection gap for natural catastrophes in a nutshell. EIOPA-
22/507, European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority
Erdik M, Şeşetyan K, Demircioğlu MB, Hancılar U, Zülfikar C (2011) Rapid earthquake loss assessment
after damaging earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(2):247–266. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. soild yn.
2010. 03. 009
European Commission (2023a) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Euro-
pean Union disaster resilience goals: Acting together to deal with future emergencies, COM(2023) 61
final
European Commission (2016) Commission Staff Working Document (SWD): action plan on the Sendai
framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030 – A disaster risk-informed approach for all EU poli-
cies, 205 final
FEMA (2004b) Are you ready? An in-depth guide to citizen preparedness. Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington DC
FEMA (2004a) Nonstructural Earthquake Mitigation Guidness Manual. Final Report. Washington DC: Fed-
eral Emergency Management Agency
FEMA (2005) Earthquake hazard mitigation for nonstructural elements. FEMA 74-FM. Washington DC:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA (2012) Reducing the risks of nonstructural earthquake damage – a practical guide. FEMA E-74.
Washington DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA (2017) P-366, Hazus®. Estimated annualized earthquake losses for the United States. Washington
DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA (2018) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology earthquake model Hazus®–MH 2.1 user manual.
Washington DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
FEMA (2022) Hazus Earthquake Model User Guidance. Hazus 5.1. Washington DC: Federal Emergency
Management Agency
FERC (2016) Risk-informed decision-making (RIDM). Risk guidelines for dam safety, Version 4.1. Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects ‐ Division of Dam Safety and Inspections,
USA
Freddi F, Galasso C, Cremen G, Dall’ Asta A, Di Sarno L, Giaralis A, Gutiérrez-Urzúa F, Málaga-Chuqui-
taype C, Mitoulis SA, Petrone C, Sextos A, Sousa L, Tarbali K, Tubaldi E, Wardman J, Woo G (2021)
Innovations in earthquake risk reduction for resilience: Recent advances and challenges. Int J Disaster
Risk Reduc. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijdrr. 2021. 102267
Fujinawa Y, Noda Y (2013) Japan’s earthquake early warning system on 11 March 2011: performance,
shortcomings, and changes. Earthq Spectra 29(1_suppl):341–368. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1193/1. 40001 27
Giovinazzi S, Marchili C, Di Pietro A, Giordano L, Costanzo A, La Porta L, Pollino M, Rosato V, Lückerath
D, Milde K, Ullrich O (2021) Assessing earthquake impacts and monitoring resilience of historic
areas: methods for GIS tools. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inform. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ijgi1 00704 61
Gkatzogias K, Crowley H, Veljkovic A, Pohoryles D, Norlén H, Tsionis G, Bournas D (2022a) Prioritising
EU regions for building renovation: seismic risk, energy efficiency, socioeconomic vulnerability. Pub-
lications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2760/ 263803
Gkatzogias K, Crowley H, Veljkovic A, Pohoryles D, Tsionis G, Bournas D (2022b) Building renovation in
the EU: scenarios and impact assessment. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 2760/ 04574
Gobbato M, Yeo WM, Shome N (2014) Uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis of earthquake
casualties. In: NCEE 2014 - 10th U.S. National conference on Earthquake Engineering: Frontiers of
Earthquake Engineering. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4231/ D3639 K592
Gotoh T, Nishimura T, Nakata M, Nakaguchi Y, Hiraki K (2002) Air pollution by concrete dust from the
great Hanshin earthquake. J Environ Qual 31(3):718–723. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2134/ jeq20 02. 7180
Group of Chief Scientific Advisors (2022) Strategic crisis management in the EU. European Commission.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2777/ 517560
Guérin-Marthe S, Gehl P, Negulescu C, Auclair S, Fayjaloun R (2021) Rapid earthquake response: The
state-of-the art and recommendations with a focus on European systems. Int J Disaster Risk Reduc
52:101958. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijdrr. 2020. 101958
Gunasekera R, Ishizawa Escudero OA, Daniell JE, Pomonis A, Macabuag JLDC, Brand J, Schaefer
A, Romero Hernandez RA, Esper S, Otálora SG, Khazai B, Cox KD (2023) Global Rapid Post-
Disaster Damage Estimation (GRADE) report: February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes -
Türkiye Report (English). World Bank Group, Washington, D.C. http:// docum ents. world bank. org/
curat ed/ en/ 09902 27230 21250 141/ P1788 430ae b62f0 8009b 2302b d4074 030fb
Hancilar U, Sesetyan K, Cakti E, Safak E, Acikgoz N, Yenihayat N, Malcioglu FS, Donmez K, Tetik T,
Suleyman H, Dede S, Acar S (2023) Rapid Estimation of Strong Ground Motion, Building Dam-
age Distributions and the Recovery Efforts in the Aftermath of the Kahramanmaraş-Türkiye M7.7
Earthquake, 6 February 2023. Personnal communication to the 2023 EPOS Seismology Workshop
Next-Generation Open Seismological Data Sharing for Science and Society 9 – 11 October 2023
Podgorica, Montenegro
Hill LJ, Sparks S, Rougier J (2013) Risk and uncertainty assessment in natural hazards. In: Sparks S,
Hill LJ (eds) Rougier J. Cambridge University Press, Risk and uncertainty for natural hazards
Hingorani R, Tanner P, Prieto M, Lara C (2020) Consequence classes and associated models for pre-
dicting loss of life in collapse of building structures. Struct Saf. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. strus afe.
2019. 101910
HSE (2001) Reducing risks protecting people. HSE’s decision-making process. ISBN 0 7176 2151 0,
Crown
ISO (2018) 31000:2018 – ISO 31000 Risk management - Guidelines. International Organization for
Standardization
Jaiswal K, Wald D (2012) Improving PAGER’s real-time earthquake casualty and loss estimation toolkit:
challenges. In: proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering
Jaiswal K, Wald D, Hearne M (2009) Estimating casualties for large earthquakes worldwide using an
empirical approach. Open-File Report 2009–1136, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey
Jia H, Lin J, Liu J (2019) An earthquake fatalities assessment method based on feature importance with
deep learning and random forest models. Sustainability. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su111 02727
Jones LM and Benthien M (2011) Putting down roots in earthquake country. Southern California Earth-
quake Center at the University of Southern California (SCSEC), Department of the Interior United
States Geological Survey (USGS), National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Homeland
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
Security Federal, Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the California Earthquake
Authority (CEA)
Kharazian A, Molina S, Galiana-Merino JJ etal (2021) Risk-targeted hazard maps for Spain. Bull Earthq
Eng 19:5369–5389. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10518- 021- 01189-8
Khazai B, Franco G, Ingram JC, Rumbaitis del Rio C, Dias P, Dissanayake R, Chandratilake R, Kannaf
SJ (2006) Post-December 2004 tsunami reconstruction in Sri Lanka and its potential impacts on
future vulnerability. Earthq Spectra 22(S3):S829–S844. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1193/1. 22049 25
Khazai B, Daniell JE, Düzgün S, Kunz-Plapp T, Wenzer F (2014) Framework for systemic socio-eco-
nomic vulnerability and loss assessment. In: Pitilakis K, Franchin P, Khazai B, Wenzel H (eds)
SYNER-G: Systemic seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of complex urban, utility, lifeline
systems and critical facilities. Springer, Dordrecht
Khorasani NE, Garlock ME (2017) Overview of fire following earthquake: historical events and commu-
nity responses. Int J Disaster Resilience Built Environ 8:158–174
Lehman D, Moehle J, Mahin S, Calderone A, Henry L (2004) Experimental evaluation of the seismic
performance of reinforced concrete bridge columns. ASCE J Struct Engneering 130(6):869–879.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1061/ (ASCE) 0733- 9445(2004) 130: 6(869)
Lin WT, Lin CY, Tsai JS, Huang PH (2008) Eco-environmental changes assessment at the Chiufener-
shan landslide area caused by catastrophic earthquake in Central Taiwan. Ecol Eng 33(3–4):220–
232. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecole ng. 2008. 04. 002
Mackie KR, Stojadinović B (2006) Post-earthquake functionality of highway overpass bridges. Earthq
Eng Struct Dynam 35(1):77–93. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ eqe. 534
Maio R, Ferreira TM, Vicente R (2018) A critical discussion on the earthquake risk mitigation of urban
cultural heritage assets. Int J Disaster Risk Reduc 27(2018):239–247
Maio R, Tsionis G, Sousa ML, Dimova S (2017) Review of fragility curves for seismic risk assessment
of buildings in Europe. In: proceedings of the 16th world conference on earthquake engineering
Makhoul N, Argyroudis S (2018) Loss estimation software: developments, limitations and future needs. In:
Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Markhvida M, Walsh B, Hallegatte S, Baker J (2020) Quantification of disaster impacts through house-
hold well-being losses. Nat Sustain 3:538–547. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41893- 020- 0508-7
Marques M, Monteiro R, Delgado R (2018) An improved model for seismic risk assessment in Portugal. Int
J Disaster Resilience Built Environ 9(1):70–83. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IJDRBE- 10- 2016- 0040
Marti M, Dallo I, Roth P, Papadopoulos AN, Zaugg S (2023) Illustrating the impact of earthquakes:
Evidence-based and user-centered recommendations on how to design earthquake scenarios and
rapid impact assessments. Int J Disaster Risk Reduc 90:103674. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijdrr.
2023. 103674
Martins L, Silva V, Marques M, Crowley H, Delgado R (2016) Development and assessment of dam-
age-to-loss models for moment-frame reinforced concrete buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam
45(5):797–817. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ eqe. 2687
Martins L, Silva V, Crowley H, Cavalieri F (2021) Vulnerability modellers toolkit, an open-source
platform for vulnerability analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 19:5691–5709. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10518- 021- 01187-w
Masi A, Lagomarsino S, Dolce M, Mnfredi V, Otonelli D (2021) Towards the updated Italian seismic
risk assessment: exposure and vulnerability modelling. Bull Earthquake Eng 19:3253–3286.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10518- 021- 01065-5
Mesa-Gómez A, Casal J, Muñoz F (2020) Risk analysis in Natech events: State of the art. J Loss Prev
Process Industries. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jlp. 2020. 104071
Midorikawa, S., Abe, S. (2000) Real-time assessment of earthquake disaster in Yokohama based on dense
strong-motion network. In: proceedings of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering
Monti G, Demartino C, Gardoni P (2023) Towards risk-targeted seismic hazard models for Europe. Sci
Rep 13:10717. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41598- 023- 36947-y
Murty CVR, Rupen Goswami, Vijayanarayanan AR, Pradeep Kumar R, Vipul VM (2012) Introduction
to Earthquake Protection of Non-Structural Elements in Buildings. Gujarat State Disaster Manage-
ment Authority. Government of Gujarat
Mysiak J, Casartelli V, Torresan S (2021) Union Civil Protection Mechanism - Peer Review Programme
for disaster risk management: Assessment Framework
Necci A, Krausmann E (2022) Natech risk management – Guidance for operators of hazardous industrial
sites and for national authorities. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://
doi. org/ 10. 2760/ 666413
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
Decision No 1313/2013/EU (2013) Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 17 December 2013 on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism. Official Journal of the
European Union, L 347/924
OECD (2018) Financial Management of Earthquake Risk, www. oecd. org/ finan ce/ Finan cial- Manag
ement- of- Earth quake- Risk. htm
Palermo V, Tsionis G, Sousa ML (2018) Building stock inventory to assess seismic vulnerability across
Europe. In: proceedings of the 16th European conference on earthquake engineering
Paolacci F, Butenweg C, Vamvatsikos D (2024) SI: Natech risk assessment of hazardous facilities. Bull
Earthquake Eng 22:1–4. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10518- 023- 01799-4
Petal M (2003) NSM Non-structural risk mitigation – Handbook. Istanbul: Disaster Preparedness Educa-
tion Project
Pitilakis K, Crowley H, Kaynia A (2014) SYNER-G: Typology definition and fragility functions for
physical elements at seismic risk. Springer
Poljanšek K, Casajus Valles A, Marin Ferrer M, Artes Vivancos T, Boc, R, Bonadonna C, Branco A,
Campanharo W, De Jage, A, De Rigo D, Dottori F, Durrant Houston T, Estreguil C, Ferrari D,
Frischknecht C, Galbusera L, Garcia Puerta B, Giannopoulos G, Girgin S, Gowland R, Grecchi
R, Hernandez Ceballos MA, Iurlaro G, Kambourakis G, Karlos V, Krausmann E, Larcher M,
Lequarre AS, Liberta` G, Loughlin SC, Maianti P, Mangione D, Marques A, Menoni S, Montero
Prieto M, Naumann G, Jacome Felix Oom D, Pfieffer H, Robuchon M, Necci A, Salamon P, San-
Miguel-Ayanz J, Sangiorgi M, Sousa ML, Theocharidou M, Trueba Alonso C, Theodoridis G,
Tsionis G, Vogt J, Wood M (2021) Recommendations for national risk assessment for disaster risk
management in EU: where science and policy meet (version 1). Publications Office of the Euro-
pean Union, Luxembourg. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2760/ 80545
Porter KA, Jaiswal KS, Wald DJ, Earle PS, Hearne M (2008) Fatality models for the U.S. Geological
survey’s prompt assessment of global earthquakes for response (PAGER) system. In: proceedings
of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering
Ranghieri F, Ishiwatari M (eds) (2014) Learning from megadisasters: lessons from the great East Japan
earthquake. The World Bank, Washington, DC
Regulation (EU) 2021/836 (2021) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021
amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism. Official Journal of
the European Union, L 185/1
Reinoso E, Jaimes MA, Esteva L (2017) Estimation of life vulnerability inside buildings during earth-
quakes. Struct Infrastruct Eng 14:1140–1152. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15732 479. 2017. 14010 97
RHA (2023) Resilience and cultural heritage in urban development. Guidance Paper on Integrated Risk
Management. RHA - Reicher Haase Assoziierte GmbH, Aachen/Dortmund, Editor. Federal Institute
for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (BBSR) within the Federal Office
for Building and Regional Planning, Bonn. ISBN 978–3–98655–024–0
Ribeiro F, Sousa ML, Silva D, Vicente M, Correia AA, Carvalho A (2023) Increasing earthquake resilience
in Almada, Portugal, through public partnerships. Submitted to the 18th world conference on earth-
quake engineering
Romão X, Castro JM, Pereira N etal (2019) European physical vulnerability models. SERA Deliver 26:5
Romão X, Pereira N, Castro J etal (2021) European building vulnerability data repository (version 2.1),
Zenodo, https:// doi. org/ 10. 5281/ zenodo. 408781
Rossetto T, D’Ayala D, Ioannou I, Meslem A (2014) Evaluation of existing fragility curves. In: Pitilakis K,
Crowley H, Kaynia AM (eds) SYNER-G: Typology definition and fragility functions for physical ele-
ments at seismic risk. Springer, Dordrecht
Rouhani B, Romão X Editors (2023) Managing Disaster Risks to Cultural Heritage ISBN 9781032204536,
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
Sabetta F, Pugliese A, Fiorentino G, Lanzano G, Luzi L (2021) Simulation of non-stationary stochastic
ground motions based on recent Italian earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng 19:3287–3315. https:// doi. org/
10. 1007/ s10518- 021- 01077-1
Sakai S, Poudel R, Asari M, Kirikawa T (2019) Disaster waste management after the 2016 Kumamoto
earthquake: a mini-review of earthquake waste management and the Kumamoto experience. Waste
Manage Res 37(3):247–260. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07342 42X18 8159
Santarelli S, Bernardini G, Quagliarini E (2018) Earthquake building debris estimation in historic city
centres: from real world data to experimental-based criteria. Int J Disaster Risk Reduc 31:281–291.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijdrr. 2018. 05. 017
Shimizu, Y, Yamazaki, F, Isoyama, R, Ishida, E, Koganemaru, K., Nakayama, W. (2004) Development of
real time disaster mitigation system for urban gas supply network. In: proceedings of the 13th world
conference on earthquake engineering
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
Silva V, Crowley H, Varum H, Pinho R (2014) Seismic risk assessment for mainland Portugal. Bull Earthq
Eng 13(2):1–29. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10518- 014- 9630-0
Silva V, Dolce M, Danciu L, Rossetto T, Weatherill G (2017) Geophysical risk: earthquakes. In: Poljanšek
K, Marin Ferrer M, De Groeve T, Clark I (eds) Science for disaster risk management 2017: knowing
better and losing less. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2017. https:// doi. org/
10. 2788/ 842809
Silva V, Amo-Oduro D, Calderon A, Dabbeek J, Despotaki V, Martins L, Rao A, Simionato M, Viganò
D, Yepes C, Acevedo A, Horspool N, Crowley H, Jaiswal K, Journeay M, Pittore M (2018) Global
Earthquake Model (GEM) Seismic Risk Map (version 2018.1). https:// doi. org/ 10. 13117/ GEM-
GLOBAL- SEISM IC- RISK- MAP- 2018.1
So E, Pomonis A (2012) Derivation of globally applicable casualty rates for use in earthquake loss estima-
tion models. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering
So E, Spence R (2013) Estimating shaking-induced casualties and building damage for global earthquake
events: a proposed modelling approach. Bull Earthq Eng 11(1):347–363. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10518- 012- 9373-8
Solares JM, Arroyo A (2004) The great historical 1755 earthquake. Effects and damage in Spain. J Seis-
molog 8:275–294. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/B: JOSE. 00000 21365. 94606. 03
Sousa ML, Campos Costa A (2009) Ground motion scenarios consistent with probabilistic seismic hazard
disaggregation analysis. Application to mainland Portugal. Bull Earthq Eng 7(1):127–147. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1007/ s10518- 008- 9088-z
Sousa ML, Campos Costa A (2015) Evolution of earthquake losses in Portuguese residential building stock.
Bull Earthq Eng 14(7):2009–2029. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10518- 015- 9809-z
Sousa ML, Campos Costa A, Caldeira L (2010a) Apreciação do risco sísmico em Lisboa’. Revista Portu-
guesa de Engenharia de Estruturas (RPEE). Thematic number on risks. Lisbon. Portugal
Sousa ML, Carvalho A, Bilé Serra JP, Martins A (2010b) Simulation of seismic scenarios in Algarve region.
In: Proceedings of the 14th European conference on earthquake engineering
Sousa, ML, Tsionis, G, Dimova, S (2017) Effect of the detail of exposure data in large-scale seismic
risk assessment”. Paper n° 4096, In: proceedings of the 16th European conference on earthquake
engineering
Sousa ML, Carreto J, Sousa Silva D, Roque AJ, Bilé Serra J, Caldeira L, Jeremias FT, Ramos R (2024)
Citizens Observatories: a tool to improve geohazards risk management and community resilience. In:
proceedings of the 18th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Spence R, So E, Scawthorn C (2011) Human casualties in earthquakes: progress in modelling and mitiga-
tion. Springer
Spence R (2007) LESSLOSS Report 2007/07: Earthquake disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling
for urban areas
Stojadinovic B (2016) Development of a coherent definition of societal resilience and its attributes. Deliv-
erable D4.5, WP4 Vulnerability models for the performance and consequences assessment in stress
tests of critical infrastructures, FP7 project STREST
Türkiye government (2023) 2023 Kahramanmaraş and Hatay earthquakes report. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti
Chumhurbaşkanliği. Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanliği
UNDRR (2016) Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and ter-
minology relating to disaster risk reduction. United Nations General Assembly Seventy-first session,
A/71/644. https:// www. undrr. org/ we/ inform/ publi catio ns/ 51748
UNDRR (2020) The human cost of disasters: an overview of the last 20 years (2000–2019)
Vecere A, Monteiro R, Ammann WJ, Giovinazzi S, Melo Santos RH (2017) Predictive models for post
disaster shelter needs assessment. Int J Disaster Risk Reduc 21:44–62. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijdrr.
2016. 11. 010
Vlachos C, Papakonstantinou KG, Deodatis G (2018) Predictive model for site specific simulation of ground
motions based on earthquake scenarios. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 47:195–218
Wang C, Costa R, Baker JW (2022) Simulating post-disaster temporary housing needs for displaced house-
holds and out-of-town contractors. Earthq Spectra 38(4):2922–2940. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 87552
93022 11126 90
Wehner M, Edwards M (2013) Building replacement cost methodology, version 2.0. Report produced in the
context of the Global Exposure Database for the Global Earthquake Model (GED4GEM), Geoscience
Australia
World Bank Group and European Commission (2021) Economics for disaster prevention and preparedness.
Summary report. Investment in disaster risk management in Europe makes economic sense. Interna-
tional Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. https:// www. world bank. org/ en/
news/ featu re/ 2021/ 06/ 04/ econo mics- for- disas ter- preve ntion- and- prepa redne ss- in- europe
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Natural Hazards
Xiao J, Deng Q, Hou M, Shen J, Gencel O (2023) Where are demolition wastes going: reflection and analy-
sis of the February 6, 2023 earthquake disaster in Turkey. Low-Carbon Materials and Green Con-
struction. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s44242- 023- 00017-3
Xie Y, Ebad Sichani M, Padgett JE, DesRoches R (2020) The promise of implementing machine learning in
earthquake engineering: a state-of-the-art review. Earthq Spectra 36(4):1769–1801. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1177/ 87552 93020 919419
Yepes-Estrada C, Silva V, Rossetto T, D’Ayala D, Ioannou I, Meslem A, Crowley H (2016) The Global
Earthquake Model physical vulnerability database. Earthq Spectra 32(4):2567–2585
Zhao X, Coates G, Xu W (2019) A hierarchical mathematical model of the earthquake shelter location-
allocation problem solved using an interleaved MPSO–GA. Geomat Nat Haz Risk 10(1):1712–1737.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 19475 705. 2019. 16096 05
Zuccaro G, Cacace F (2011) Seismic casualty evaluation: the Italian model, an application to the L’Aquila
2009 event. In: Spence R, So E, Scawthorn C (eds) Human casualties in earthquakes, advances in
natural and technological hazards research. Springer
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
