Special Issue: New Challenges in Seismic Hazard Assessment

Abstract

With the continuous development of society, the rapid urbanization of cities, and the increasing construction of large-scale infrastructure projects, seismic hazard studies are becoming increasingly necessary [...]

Full text

Received: 18 March 2025
Accepted: 2 April 2025
Published: 8 April 2025
Citation: Nappi, R.; Paoletti, V.
Special Issue: New Challenges in
Seismic Hazard Assessment. Appl. Sci.
2025,15, 4094. https://doi.org/
10.3390/app15084094
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/).
Editorial
Special Issue: New Challenges in Seismic Hazard Assessment
Rosa Nappi 1, * and Valeria Paoletti 1,2
1
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione di Napoli Osservatorio Vesuviano, Via Diocleziano 328,
80124 Naples, Italy; paoletti@unina.it
2
Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, dell’Ambiente e delle Risorse (DISTAR), University of Naples Federico II,
Via Vicinale Cupa Cintia 21, 80126 Naples, Italy
*Correspondence: rosa.nappi@ingv.it
1. Introduction
With the continuous development of society, the rapid urbanization of cities, and the
increasing construction of large-scale infrastructure projects, seismic hazard studies are
becoming increasingly necessary. Seismic hazard assessment faces challenges requiring
advanced and comprehensive approaches to understand and mitigate potential risks. There
are many studies on seismic hazard using different methodological approaches in Italy and
worldwide. These include geological records, such as paleoearthquakes, paleotsunamis,
and coseismic rupture models [
1
–
8
], macroseismic investigations for analyzing the damage
evolution during seismic sequences [
9
–
13
], and geophysical studies, including seismic and
electrical tomography, as well as gravity and magnetic imaging techniques [14–17].
This Special Issue focuses on recent advances in the study of seismic hazards from
multiple perspectives. A key aspect of this issue is the contribution of new geological
coseismic data and macroseismic analyses evaluated by the ESI scale [
18
]. These studies are
particularly valuable for improving our understanding of the mechanisms of shallow fault-
ing caused by small-to-medium earthquakes, even in volcano–tectonic settings. Currently,
earthquake data in the magnitude range 3.0 < M < 5.0 are significantly lacking, making
this research crucial to fill the current knowledge gap and improve the completeness of
available seismic databases.
2. An Overview of Published Articles
This Special Issue contains eleven peer-reviewed articles, with different scientific
approaches to evaluating seismic hazard. Below is a brief description of their contents.
Pischiutta M. et al. [Contribution 1] summarized the results of their studies regarding
fault zones with different kinematics, where ground motion is polarized and amplified
perpendicularly to the predominant fracture field due to stiffness anisotropy. The authors
noted that, even at rock sites, seismic waves can undergo a “directional site resonance
or amplification”, with greater motion along one site-specific azimuth on the horizontal
plane. These effects are related to large-scale open cracks or microcracks in different
geological environments and are characterized by maximum amplification transverse to
the predominant fracture strike.
Silva P. et al. [Contribution 2] studied the application of lichenometric analyses to
unravel the chronology of bedrock fault scarps, where other paleoseismological techniques
commonly used in alluvial and colluvial materials are harsh. The work completed the
preliminary lichenometry analysis of rocky fault scarps on Mallorca Island. The analysis
identified recurrent displacements of the Sencelles fault scarp based on different lichen
Appl. Sci. 2025,15, 4094 https://doi.org/10.3390/app15084094

Appl. Sci. 2025,15, 4094 2 of 5
colonization ribbons. Part of the youngest basal ribbon was tentatively related to the 1851
CE Palma Earthquake (≤VIII EMS Intensity).
Observed displacements cannot be truly cataloged as surface faulting events, but as
secondary or sympathetic coseismic ground ruptures.
Based on some fundamental assumptions and physical formulas, Li W. et al. [Contri-
bution 3] simulated the process by which many positive and negative ions are generated
by radioactive gases before an earthquake. The results suggest that, under ideal conditions,
positive and negative ions can be separated due to the combined influence of gravity,
atmospheric electrostatic force, thermal driving force, and air resistance. This separation
could lead to a negative anomaly forming in the near-surface atmospheric electric field.
The proposed model is one possibility for explaining the negative atmospheric electric field
anomalies observed before earthquakes (EQs). Nevertheless, the physical processes before
EQs, as well as the coupling relationships, require further in-depth study.
Huang Y. et al. [Contribution 4] observed magnetic anomalies and proposed an in-
novative algorithm to capture data for geomagnetic anomalies before earthquakes. The
algorithm accumulates geomagnetic anomaly energy to eliminate external environmen-
tal interference and takes its gradient as a measure for predicting the occurrence time of
an earthquake. The authors concluded that the geomagnetic anomalies caused by earth-
quakes can be observed before earthquakes with high probability and can be used for
earthquake prediction.
Kim et al. [Contribution 5] studied shear-wave velocity structures in the volcanic
region of Jeju Island by horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios (HVSRs) of environmental noise
using advanced algorithms and HVSR curve analysis. The authors identified significant
low-velocity layers (LVLs) composed of quaternary marine sediments, crucial for site
amplification and attenuation in the area for hazard assessment.
Sayed S. R. Moustafa et al. [Contribution 6] conducted a geostatistical analysis of
24,321 seismic events in the Red Sea region from 1997 to 2020, integrating both spatial and
temporal dimensions of seismic data, to provide a comprehensive understanding of seismic
patterns. They applied a suite of spatial analytic methods, including ANN, QCA, Global
Moran’s I, Local Moran’s I, and the Getis–Ord Gi* statistic, to highlight spatial clusters of
seismic activity. Their findings outline distinct seismic patterns along the Central Red Sea
axis, which are indicative of the rifting dynamics between the African and Arabian plates.
Rodriguez-Pascua M. A. et al. [Contribution 7] studied the kinematics of active faults
and the depth distribution of earthquakes during the Tajogaite eruption and identified
two master faults that have been active since before the 2021 eruption: the Tazacorte Fault
(TZF) and the Mazo Fault (MZF). These faults are noted for a creep movement producing
deformations and structural damage in anthropogenic constructions. The authors showed
that both faults are still moving aseismically following the 2021 eruption and could be
future sources of earthquakes of low magnitude but high macroseismic intensity.
Manic and Bulajic [Contribution 8] critically reviewed and analyzed the historical
data of the 8 April 1893 Svilajnac (Serbia) Earthquake. Their analysis accounted for a
variety of sources, including books, scientific publications, reports, newspapers, and coeval
chronicles. This allowed the authors to reassess the location, magnitude, and macroseismic
intensity map of the earthquake.
Paoletti et al. [Contribution 9] conducted large-depth Ground-Penetrating Radar
investigations of the seismogenic Casamicciola fault system on the volcanic island of Ischia,
aiming to constrain the source characteristics of this active and capable fault system and
contributing to the knowledge on the seismic hazard of the island. The data highlighted
variations in the electromagnetic signal due to the presence of contacts, i.e., faults down to
a depth larger than 100 m below the surface. These signal variations match the position

Appl. Sci. 2025,15, 4094 3 of 5
of the synthetic and antithetic active fault system bordering the Casamicciola Holocene
graben. This study highlights the importance of large-depth Ground-Penetrating Radar
geophysical techniques for investigating active fault systems not only in their shallower
parts, but also down to a few hundred meters’ depth.
Katona T.J. [Contribution 10] assessed the safety relevance of fault displacement
hazard due to the fault beneath the plant that was presumably reactivated during the
Late Pleistocene period. The improved engineering fault–displacement hazard evaluation
method is related to the Paks nuclear power plant in Hungary. Engineering methods
estimate the probability of rupture at the site crossing and consider the displacement
distribution over the rupture length relative to the site’s on-fault location. The simplified
methods proposed by the author can be managed in a short time with significant cost
savings in the long term.
Lacour and Abrahamson [Contribution 11] utilized non-ergodic ground-motion mod-
els (GMMs) in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for areal sources, applying their ap-
proach to Southern France. In order to reduce the computation time, the authors employ, for
hazard calculations, a Polynomial Chaos (PC) expansion with a Taylor series approximation
to capture the spatial correlation effects of the non-ergodic terms.
The articles collected in our Special Issue highlight progress in the study of seismic risk,
with significant results in geological, geophysical, and engineering
methodological approaches.
Acknowledgments: The Guest Editors thank all the authors, Applied Sciences’ editors, and reviewers
for their great contributions and commitment to this Special Issue. A special thanks to Applied
Sciences’ Assistant Editor, for his dedication to this project and his valuable collaboration in the
design and setup of the Special Issue.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
List of Contributions
1.
Pischiutta, M.; Rovelli, A.; Salvini, F.; Fletcher, J.B.; Savage, M.K. Directional Amplification at
Rock Sites in Fault Damage Zones. Appl. Sci. 2023,13, 6060. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13106
060.
2.
Silva, P.G.; Roquero, E.; Pérez-López, R.; Bardají, T.; Santos Delgado, G.; Elez, J. Lichenometric
Analysis Applied to Bedrock Fault Scarps: The Sencelles Fault and the 1851 CE Mallorca
Earthquake (Balearic Islands, Spain). Appl. Sci. 2023,13, 6739. https://doi.org/10.3390/app131
16739.
3.
Li, W.; Sun, Z.; Chen, T.; Yan, Z.; Ma, Z.; Cai, C.; He, Z.; Luo, J.; Wang, S. Atmospheric Charge
Separation Mechanism Due to Gas Release from the Crust before an Earthquake. Appl. Sci.
2024,14, 245. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14010245.
4.
Huang, Y.; Zhu, P.; Li, S. Feasibility Study on Earthquake Prediction Based on Impending
Geomagnetic Anomalies. Appl. Sci. 2024,14, 263. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14010263.
5.
Kim, J.; Park, D.; Nam, G.; Jung, H. Shear-Wave Velocity Model from Site Amplification Using
Microtremors on Jeju Island. Appl. Sci. 2024,14, 795. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14020795.
6.
Moustafa, S.S.R.; Yassien, M.H.; Metwaly, M.; Faried, A.M.; Elsaka, B. Applying Geostatistics to
Understand Seismic Activity Patterns in the Northern Red Sea Boundary Zone. Appl. Sci. 2024,
14, 1455. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14041455.
7.
Rodríguez-Pascua, M.Á.; Perez-Lopez, R.; Perucha, M.Á.; Sánchez, N.; López-Gutierrez, J.;
Mediato, J.F.; Sanz-Mangas, D.; Lozano, G.; Galindo, I.; García-Davalillo, J.C.; et al. Active
Faults, Kinematics, and Seismotectonic Evolution during Tajogaite Eruption 2021 (La Palma,
Canary Islands, Spain). Appl. Sci. 2024,14, 2745. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14072745.
8.
Manic, M.I.; Bulajic, B.D. Reassessing the Location, Magnitude, and Macroseismic Intensity
Map of the 8 April 1893 Svilajnac (Serbia) Earthquake. Appl. Sci. 2024,14, 3893. https:
//doi.org/10.3390/app14093893.

Appl. Sci. 2025,15, 4094 4 of 5
9.
Paoletti, V.; D’Antonio, D.; De Natale, G.; Troise, C.; Nappi, R. Large-Depth Ground-Penetrating
Radar for Investigating Active Faults: The Case of the 2017 Casamicciola Fault System, Ischia
Island (Italy). Appl. Sci. 2024,14, 6460. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14156460.
10.
Katona, T.J. Improved Simplified Engineering Fault Displacement Hazard Evaluation Method
for On-Fault Sites. Appl. Sci. 2024,14, 8399. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14188399.
11.
Lacour, M.; Abrahamson, N. Reducing Calculation Times for Seismic Hazard Using Non-
Ergodic Ground-Motion Models for Areal Source Zones. Appl. Sci. 2025,15, 2454. https:
//doi.org/10.3390/app15052454.
References
1.
Reicherter, K.; Michetti, A.M.; Silva, P.G. (Eds.) Paleoseismology: Historical and Prehistorical Records of Earthquake Ground Effects for
Seismic Hazard Assessment; Special Publication; Geological Society of London: London, UK, 2009; Volume 316, pp. 1–10.
2.
Field, E.H.; Biasi, G.P.; Bird, P.; Dawson, T.E.; Felzer, K.R.; Jackson, D.D.; Johnson, K.M.; Jordan, T.H.; Madden, C.; Michael, A.J.;
et al. Uniform California earthquake rupture forecast, version 3 (UCERF3): The time-independent model. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
2014,3, 1122–1180. [CrossRef]
3. Nurminen, F.; Baize, S.; Boncio, P.; Blumetti, A.M.; Cinti, F.R.; Civico, R.; Guerrieri, L. SURE 2.0—New release of the worldwide
database of surface ruptures for fault displacement hazard analyses. Sci. Data 2022,9, 729. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.
Civico, R.; Smedile, A.; Pantosti, D.; Cinti, F.R.; De Martini, P.M.; Pucci, S.; Çakır, Z.; ¸Sentür, S. New trenching results along the
˙
Iznik segment of the central strand of the North Anatolian Fault (Turkey): An integration with preexisting data. Med. Geosc. Rev.
2021,3, 115–128. [CrossRef]
5.
Ferrarini, F.; Boncio, P.; De Nardis, R.; Pappone, G.; Cesarano, M.; Aucelli, P.P.C.; Lavecchia, G. Segmentation pattern and
structural complexities in seismogenic extensional setting: The north Matese Fault System (central Italy). J. Struct. Geol. 2017,95,
93–112. [CrossRef]
6.
Cinti, F.R.; Pantosti, D.; Lombardi, A.M.; Civico, R. Modeling of earthquake chronology from paleoseismic data: Insights for
regional earthquake recurrence and earthquake storms in the Central Apennines. Tectonophysics 2021,816, 229016. [CrossRef]
7.
Lombardi, A.M.; Cinti, F.R.; Pantosti, D. Paleoearthquakes modeling and effects of uncertainties on probability assessment of next
fault ruptures: The case of Central Italy surface faulting earthquakes. Geophys. J. Int. 2025,241, 1327–1347. [CrossRef]
8.
Silva, P.G.; Guerrieri, L.; Michetti, A.M. Intensity scale ESI 2007 for assessing earthquake intensities. Encycl. Earthq. Eng. 2015,
1219–1237.
9. Pizza, M.; Ferrario, F.; Michetti, A.M.; Velázquez-Bucio, M.M.; Lacan, P.; Porfido, S. Intensity Prediction Equations Based on the
Environmental Seismic Intensity (ESI-07) Scale: Application to Normal Fault Earthquakes. Appl. Sci. 2024,14, 8048. [CrossRef]
10.
Porfido, S.; Alessio, G.; Gaudiosi, G.; Nappi, R. New Perspectives in the Definition/Evaluation of Seismic Hazard Through
Analysis of the Environmental Effects Induced by Earthquakes. Geosciences 2020,10, 58. [CrossRef]
11.
Naik, S.P.; Rimando, J.M.; Mittal, H.; Rimando, R.E.; Porfido, S.; Kim, Y.S. Reappraisal of the 2012 magnitude (M
W
) 6.7 Negros
Oriental (Philippines) earthquake intensity and ShakeMap generation by using ESI-2007 environmental effects. Geomat. Nat.
Hazards Risk 2024,15, 2311890. [CrossRef]
12.
Naik, S.P.; Gwon, O.; Porfido, S.; Park, K.; Jin, K.; Kim, Y.S.; Kyung, J.B. Intensity Reassessment of the 2017 Pohang Earthquake
Mw = 5.4 (South Korea) Using ESI-07 Scale. Geosciences 2020,10, 471. [CrossRef]
13.
Velázquez-Bucio, M.M.; Ferrario, M.F.; Lacan, P.; Muccignato, E.; Pizza, M.; Sridharan, A.; Porfido, S.; Gopalan, S.; Nunez-
Meneses, A.; Michetti, A.M. Environmental effects and ESI-07 intensity of the Mw 7.7, September 19th, 2022, Michoacán, Mexico,
earthquake. Eng. Geol. 2024,343, 107776. [CrossRef]
14.
Luiso, P.; Paoletti, V.; Nappi, R.; Gaudiosi, G.; Cella, F.; Fedi, M. Testing the value of a multi/scale gravimetric analysis in
characterizing active fault geometry at hypocentral depths: The 2016/2017 central Italy seismic sequence. Ann. Geophys. 2018,61,
DA558. [CrossRef]
15.
Nappi, R.; Paoletti, V.; D’Antonio, D.; Soldovieri, F.; Capozzoli, L.; Ludeno, G.; Porfido, S.; Michetti, A.M. Joint Interpretation of
Geophysical Results and Geological Observations for Detecting Buried Active Faults: The Case of the “Il Lago” Plain (Pettoranello
del Molise, Italy). Remote Sens. 2021,13, 1555. [CrossRef]
16.
Paoletti, V.; Hintersberger, E.; Schattauer, I.; Milano, M.; Deidda, G.P.; Supper, R. Geophysical Study of the Diendorf-Boskovice
Fault System (Austria). Remote Sens. 2022,14, 1807. [CrossRef]

Appl. Sci. 2025,15, 4094 5 of 5
17.
Villani, F.; Maraio, S.; Improta, L.; Sapia, V.; Di Giulio, G.; Baccheschi, P.; Pischiutta, M.; Vassallo, M.; Materni, V.; Bruno, P.P.; et al.
High-resolution geophysical investigations in the central Apennines seismic belt (Italy): Results from the Campo Felice tectonic
basin. Tectonophysics 2024,871, 230170. [CrossRef]
18.
Michetti, A.M.; Esposito, E.; Guerrieri, L.; Porfido, S.; Serva, L.; Tatevossian, R.; Vittori, E.; Audemard, F.; Azuma, T.; Clague, J.;
et al. Environmental Seismic Intensity Scale 2007—ESI 2007. In Memorie Descrittive Della Carta Geologica d’Italia, Servizio Geologico
d’Italia—Dipartimento Difesa del Suolo; APAT: Roma, Italy, 2007; Volume 74, pp. 7–54.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.