News From Faults to Future Scenarios: Key messages from the GEM Conference 2026 By: Jul 15, 2026 Jul 15, 2026 Share Facebook LinkedIn GEM released its new global earthquake hazard and risk products at the opening of the GEM Conference 2026, held in Zagreb from June 23 to 25. The discussions, participated in by more than 200 individuals from more than 40 countries, moved from faults, catalogues and assumptions behind the models to future exposure, practical applications and emergency response. Three main messages emerged. The new work extends global earthquake risk assessment beyond ground shaking to include changing exposure, liquefaction, infrastructure disruption, embodied carbon and future risk. Global models need national data, local evidence and institutional engagement to support specific decisions. Scenario and rapid-impact products must represent uncertainty and support decisions both before and immediately after an earthquake. Running in parallel during the second and third days, a one-and-a-half-day National Seismic Hazard Modelling Workshop focused on the development and use of national seismic hazard models. Discussions from this workshop are covered in a separate recap . Expanding the global view of hazard and risk Marco Pagani presented the Global Seismic Hazard Model, which combines 36 models and includes the oceans and polar regions for the first time. Looking at recorded seismicity over the completed map, he said it appeared that GEM was finally “connecting all the dots” that had been missing when the model covered only land. The hazard session also covered the new global homongenised earthquake catalogue, fault mapping, harmonised ground-motion datasets and the new global stochastic event set (SEESAWS). Kirsty Bayliss introduced a global catalogue containing around 495,000 earthquakes. Richard Styron described fault maps as “paintings, not photographs”, since incomplete geological information still requires interpretation. Christopher Brooks explained the practical reason for bringing 22 ground-motion datasets into a common format. Manuela Villani then presented SEESAWS, a global stochastic event set spanning 100,000 years for use in hazard and risk calculations. Vitor Silva presented the Global Seismic Risk Model. Compared with 2023, the exposure model now represents around 200 million more people, 48 million more buildings and an additional USD 8.5 trillion in residential, commercial and industrial built value. He described keeping exposure information current as almost a losing battle. Cities continue to grow, buildings are replaced and populations move rapidly. Al Mouayed Bellah Nafeh noted that GEM’s 2023 Global Seismic Vulnerability Model had been used by researchers, insurers, government agencies and humanitarian organisations. His presentation focused on the vulnerability models used to translate shaking into damage and loss, and its limitations. Catarina Costa used a global dataset containing around 17.5 million kilometres of major roads to examine their exposure to liquefaction, with particular attention to post-earthquake access, emergency operations and recovery. Martina Caruso estimated the environmental cost of repair and reconstruction at around 17 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in average annual loss. In the example presented by Alejandro Calderon, only the pathway combining code-compliant construction and targeted retrofitting met both safety and sustainability goals. Keeping models connected to a changing world Exposure and vulnerability do not remain fixed after a model is published. Cities expand, buildings age, people move and construction practices vary between places. Carmine Galasso described the purpose of future modelling in practical terms: “We can explore many plausible futures and design decisions that hold up across all of them.” This included urban growth, migration, informal construction, climate-related displacement and whether building standards are enforced. Studies from Indonesia and Zagreb examined locally calibrated fragility and retrofit choices, while Gerard O’Reilly showed how spatial and damage correlation can change the probability of many buildings being damaged in the same event. Nicole Paul examined how destroyed housing relates to immediate shelter needs and longer displacement, while Karim Aljawhari showed that using repair cost as a proxy could overestimate carbon emissions by 30–40% at some shaking levels. Turning models into decisions In Aizawl, the earthquake risk assessment and related engagement with local authorities contributed to regulations on site development and slope modification, the hiring of three municipal geologists and the empanelment of 203 geologists. As one presentation concluded, “Sustained, deep engagement with local professionals, agencies and leaders is key.” Making Nepal’s vulnerable schools safer through rebuilding and retrofitting remains the preferred solution, but at the current rate, the work could take around 200 years. Earthquake desks were presented as an interim measure, not as a replacement for safer school buildings. Local production could also reduce transport costs and build skills in rural communities. In Vancouver, Canada’s national seismic risk model was adapted from census-area to individual-building scale for a city-level assessment. The work informed the Buildings Seismic Risk Reduction Action Plan, which was unanimously adopted by the City Council. The work also required stakeholder engagement and more detailed studies of vulnerable building types, retrofit options, costs and possible effects on occupants. GEM data and the OpenQuake Engine are also being used in catastrophe models, underwriting scores, parametric insurance and post-event assessment. Insurers and brokers combine them with portfolio information, claims experience, sensors and financial assumptions. Gallagher Re described using OpenQuake as an independent benchmark for internal models and as a source of hazard information where no internal model was available. In El Salvador, Luis Mixco described an integrated workflow linking hazard, exposure and practical applications. He said global tools become most valuable when they are adapted to local needs and connected to actual decision-making processes. From future scenarios to real-time response The final sessions examined tsunami risk, physics-based ground-motion simulations, aftershock losses and uncertainty in earthquake scenarios. Naveen Ramalingam carried the discussion from tsunami hazard to risk. His opening line, “Rare does not mean small,” summarised the problem well. Tsunamis may not dominate annual losses, but they can produce long recovery periods and severe fiscal shocks. Ömer Faruk Kalaycı focused on another part of earthquake risk that can disappear from a single-event scenario: what happens after the mainshock. His Istanbul study found that aftershocks increased losses in every scenario, but the amount depended on the location of the aftershock, its proximity to heavily exposed areas and the damage already caused by the mainshock. The median results told only part of the story. Across the simulations, the additional loss ranged from 3.4% to 89%, leading to one of the session’s clearest messages: tail values are critical. The closing session focused on forecasting and the rapid information needed after an earthquake. A study from the Philippines compared a 2023 event-based risk assessment with the Mw 6.9 Northern Cebu earthquake of September 2025. Across the 100 stochastic event sets, the largest simulated event in the area was Mw 6.85. The Bogo Bay Fault was not included in the model and was represented only through the background seismicity zone. The earthquake had not been predicted, but the comparison showed that the model had captured the broader tectonic potential of the area. David Wald proposed adding static ground displacement and dynamic ground strain to ShakeMap and ShakeCast products used for pipelines. Kishor Jaiswal presented the development of PAGER 2.0 for rapid global earthquake-impact and response information, while Finn Løvholt described a 24/7 tsunami-exposure service that can produce maps and estimates in minutes to one hour. During the same session, news of the twin Venezuela earthquakes reached Zagreb. During Marzia Santini’s closing presentation, ShakeMaps, liquefaction information and GEM OpenQuake results were already being used to identify areas of interest around Morón and Puerto Cabello for emergency satellite mapping. ## No images found. GALLERY 5H2A1730.jpg 5H2A1715.jpg 1I9A2009.jpg 5H2A1730.jpg 1/150 VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

News Science in the spotlight By: Jul 2, 2018 Share Facebook LinkedIn The Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction took place in March this year and what the 187 member states have agreed, after a long marathon of negotiations, is a 15-year plan made of seven guiding principles and four priorities for action. Precedence in the post-2015 framework was given to implementing activities that will prevent the creation of new disaster risks and that will better tackle all those risk multipliers such as poverty, poor land management, scarce access to trustable data and technology, lack of building regulations etc. that exponentially worsen the consequences for communities. Special attention was given to understanding risk (Priority 1), with recommendations to promote dissemination of science and to facilitate the adoption of new tools and resources. The importance of science and technology for DRR policy and practice was also extensively expressed in the Science and Technology Advisory Group Report 2015, which provided key commitments on behalf of the scientific community to assist with the implementation of the Post-2015 Framework.Unfortunately in the past 10 years (during execution of the Hyogo Framework for Action) the involvement of relevant stakeholders in sharing knowledge and information was insufficient and actions undertaken to reduce losses often inadequate, so the “exposure of persons and assets in all countries has increased faster than vulnerability has decreased” (SFDRR – Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030). This is the reason why the new agreement is also calling for stronger mutual reinforcement: stakeholders from government, private sector and civil society are encouraged to mobilize commitments and take coordinated action to reduce risk.The GEM Foundation actively participated in the main working sessions and side events, reporting a great deal of interest in its possible role as an enabling mechanism for implementation of the commitments to understanding risk and supporting the DRR monitoring framework. Specifically, in the monitoring and evaluation process (yet to be defined) risk models will likely play an increasingly important role and GEM is well-placed to contribute. What is more, the very nature of the Foundation based on a private-public partnership seems to perfectly match with the latest recommendations from Sendai to boost collaborative efforts and cross-cutting initiatives.What also clearly emerged from the conference was the increased interest in open data and open source tools and software to assess risk, either as a participatory science or as a technology transfer. Open access to key resources for development and implementation of risk assessments has found a new wave of interest at the 3WCDRR and various organisations from around the world pointed the audience to a number of compelling case studies. “New generations now are more familiar with the concept of open data and hopefully they will soon recognize its potential” Kuo- Fuong Ma, Taiwan Earthquake Model and member of the GEM Governing Board. What was also evident was the demand for risk assessment tools and guidelines to support evidence-based DRR decisions, the more open and accessible they are, the better they will be.The GEM Foundation will certainly draw on Japan’s conclusions to reiterate its pledge for an earthquake resilient world, renewing its call to develop private-public collaborations in many areas of the world and making data and cutting-edge resources available to everyone. No images found. GALLERY 1/0 VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

You have chosen to request a demo on: Caribbean & Central America Hazard First Name Last Name Email Company or Institution Name Country Sector Provide Details I accept the license terms and the conditions of products use. Email us at product@globalquakemodel.org if you're experiencing problems submitting this form or if you have any inquiries. Thank you. Request Thanks for submitting! You will be contacted as soon as possible Add answer here

OpenQuake engine input model to perform hazard calculations for Southeast Asia Products Southeast Asia Hazard OpenQuake engine input model to perform hazard calculations for Southeast Asia Share Facebook LinkedIn Description The most updated open version of the hazard model for Continental Southeast Asia (v2018.0.2) covers Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Singapore, and West Malaysia. The model was developed by a group of scientists from Singapore, Thailand, Myanmar and Vietnam. It was originally developed in the OpenQuake engine. Two seismic source models were independently developed by the Earth Observatory of Singapore (Chan et al., in prep) and Mahidol University (Ornthammarath et al., in prep). The two source models are weighted equally in a source model logic tree. The Ground Motion Characterisation for the two models is the same. Since the original version, several significant updates have been made to the model by the GEM hazard team, leading to the latest release (v2018.2.0). How to cite this work Chan C.-H-, Wang Y., Shi X., Ornthammarath T., Warnitchai P., Kosuwan S., Thant M., Nguyen P.H., Nguyen L. M., Solidum Jr. R., Irsyam M., Hidayati S., Sieh K. (2017). Toward uniform probabilistic seismic hazard assessments for Southeast Asia. 2017 AGU Fall Meeting Abstract #238207 Ornthammarath T, Warnitchai P, Chan C-H, Wang Y, Shi X, Nguyen PH, Nguyen JM, Kosuwan Sand Thant M (2020). Probabilistic Seismic hazard assessments for Northern Southeast Asia (Indochina): Smooth seismicity approach. Earthquake Spectra 36(S1): 69–90 Available Versions The latest version (v2018.2.0) is available for direct download under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license. Users interested in this version can click the "Open Version Download" button in the right panel to access the information. If your use case does not comply with the license terms, a license can be requested by clicking on the "License Request", where a specific agreement will be provided, depending on the use case. License information The open version is available under a Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 license, which requires: Attribution (you must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made) ShareAlike (derivatives created must be made available under the same license as the original) Any deviation from these terms incur in license infringement and requires a license agreement that must be made tailored to your use case, in such instance please click on "License Request". Facebook LinkedIn Share Latest Version v2018.2.0 License CC BY-SA 4.0 Available resources Open Version Download Documentation License Request text Map View Search Popup title Close Country/Region Available Resources Afghanistan Exposure Africa Exposure Alaska Exposure Country/Region Available Resources Afghanistan Vulnerability Africa Vulnerability Alaska Vulnerability Country/Region Resource Url Afghanistan Risk Profile Africa Risk Profile Alaska Risk Profile Search Found Country/Region Resource Url Afghanistan Exposure Africa Exposure Alaska Exposure Preview Preview is not available. Search Found Country/Region Resource Url Afghanistan Vulnerability Africa Vulnerability Alaska Vulnerability Preview Preview is not available. Search Found Country/Region Resource Url Afghanistan Risk Profile Africa Risk Profile Alaska Risk Profile Preview Preview is not available. Related products Global Liquefaction Hazard Global Exposure Model Global Vulnerability Model Global Seismic Embodied Carbon Risk Global Seismic Risk Map Country-Territory Seismic Risk Profiles Model Builder's Toolkit (oq-mbtk) Global Seismic Hazard Map Related publications For downloading or accessing detailed product information like PNG/PDF maps, datasets, license request, shapefiles and more, please switch to a desktop or laptop computer. Thank you for your understanding.

News Understanding Earthquake Risk: A must in urban disaster risk management By: Jul 2, 2018 Share Facebook LinkedIn GEM successfully raised awareness and interest on the need for a global collaborative effort to assess urban risk due to earthquakes and other natural hazards. GEM facilitated the session during the 8th Global Forum on Urban Resilience and Adaptation held in Bonn, Germany from May 4-6. "The main goal is to continue establishing collaboration networks with the cities and institutions starting with those involved in the session to ensure cities are ready when an earthquake strike,” John Schneider, GEM Secretary General. Panelists from Latin America, Asia and Europe, and participants (including mayors and local authorities from cities around the world, and representatives of international organizations working on urban development such as ICLEI, Rockefeller Foundation and UN-Habitat) agreed to further discuss needs, interest and expectations of potential beneficiary cities; implementation modalities and required partnerships; and interaction and complementarity with other relevant initiatives in order to attain the goals of building resilient cities. Mr. David Jácome Polit, the Director of Resilience at the Metropolitan Institute of Urban Planning (IMPU) and the Chief Resilience Officer from 100 Resilient Cities in Quito, Ecuador presented the scheme, objectives, and tools to increase the resilience in the city.Mr. Takashi Otsuka, Director at ICLEI Japan Office – Asia presented the use of Electric Vehicles (EV) and Plug-in Hybrid (PHV) for electricity back up after earthquakes as a solution for supplying power for medical devices warming up meals, lighting, heating or air condition. Mr. Georg Schwarz, Consultant Corporate Responsibility, from Munich RE, one of GEM’s main sponsors, presented the case of Aizawl, Mizoram (India), in which Munich RE supported the risk reduction actions for landslides triggered by earthquakes, while the actions for Disaster Risk Reduction in Dhankuta (Nepal), with the respective lessons learnt and recommendations were presented by Nush Raj Shrestha, Senior City Manager of the City. The 8th Global Forum on Urban Resilience and Adaptation featured more than 440 participants from over 55 countries, 40 sessions and a number of side events, making the Congress an outstanding platform for learning, sharing ideas, and creating solutions. The conference was hosted by ICLEI and held in Bonn, Germany from May 4-6. No images found. GALLERY 1/0 VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

You have chosen to request a demo on: Arctic Hazard First Name Last Name Email Company or Institution Name Country Sector Provide Details I accept the license terms and the conditions of products use. Email us at product@globalquakemodel.org if you're experiencing problems submitting this form or if you have any inquiries. Thank you. Request Thanks for submitting! You will be contacted as soon as possible Add answer here

You have chosen to request a demo on: GEM Building Taxonomy First Name Last Name Email Company or Institution Name Country Sector Provide Details I accept the license terms and the conditions of products use. Email us at product@globalquakemodel.org if you're experiencing problems submitting this form or if you have any inquiries. Thank you. Request Thanks for submitting! You will be contacted as soon as possible Add answer here

News Turkey Earthquake Webinar Explores Seismic Risk Management Opportunities By: Jun 28, 2023 Share Facebook LinkedIn In a webinar held on May 17 sponsored by EigenRisk, a core of seismic risk experts and industry leaders gathered to discuss the pressing global issue of earthquake risk and explore opportunities for managing this devastating natural hazard. The webinar shed light on the lack of knowledge, inadequate building regulations, and significant gaps in risk protection that contribute to the high casualties caused by earthquakes worldwide. Andres Abarca, representing the GEM Foundation, was a guest speaker. Andres shared valuable insights gained from the recent earthquake in Turkey, offering a comprehensive evaluation of different risk components and emphasizing potential improvements in industry standards and future possibilities. The webinar focused on the potential offered by current earthquake risk models in disaster management. This includes strategies for prevention, risk transfer, and early response to earthquakes. Participants mentioned the importance of utilizing accurate maps for risk assessment and stressed the need for improved simplified metrics that consider building vulnerability factors. During the webinar, Andres emphasized the significance of hazard curves and vulnerability components in evaluating potential damage across different return periods. The availability of a worldwide vulnerability model by the GEM Foundation was mentioned; however, the lack of accurate information from individuals regarding their buildings was identified as a challenge. The event also explored potential future developments, including the partnership between Eigenrisk and GEM. Eigenrisk is keen to explore the interest of its clients in more in-depth use of GEM’s models and datasets. In this way, Eigenrisk can help to advance seismic risk management and promote innovative solutions in the field. No images found. GALLERY 1/0 VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

News Training course in Palestine strengthens national capacity in seismic risk assessment By: Apr 24, 2026 Jan 28, 2026 Share Facebook LinkedIn A national training course held on 27–28 January 2026 in Al-Bireh brought together 18 professionals from key Palestinian institutions to strengthen technical capacity in earthquake scenario hazard and risk assessment using the OpenQuake Engine. Organised by the GEM Foundation in collaboration with An Najah National University, the Risk and Crisis Management Unit of the Ministry of Interior, and the Engineers Association, the course supported work to strengthen disaster risk management and advance Palestine’s multi-hazard risk platform under the Integrated Resilience initiative. Led by Jamal Dabbeek, Arab States Regional Coordinator at GEM, and Karim Aljawhari, Physical Vulnerability Modeller at GEM, who joined virtually, the programme combined scientific foundations with hands-on applications. The aim was to help participants connect seismic risk modelling with practical tools for analysis and decision support, while building a shared technical understanding across institutions involved in disaster risk management. The training included both theoretical and practical components covering earthquake modelling, seismic fault analysis, estimation of ground-motion intensity, simulation of historical earthquake scenarios using the OpenQuake Engine, and the preparation of hazard maps based on geographic information systems. It also addressed the assessment of potential economic losses from earthquakes and the analysis of scenarios linked to the recurrence of historical events. Alongside the technical sessions, participants were introduced to the Disaster Risk Maps platform developed through the Integrated Resilience project, which is intended to support decision-making by improving access to hazard information and strengthening data exchange among relevant institutions. The course also reviewed internationally used databases and models for seismic risk assessment. Speakers from the partner institutions framed the training as part of a broader national effort to strengthen preparedness and coordination. Dr. Jamal Dabbeek highlighted the importance of cooperation among institutions working on disaster risk reduction, while Prof. Jalal Al-Dabbeek described risk assessment as a necessary first step in reducing disaster impacts and protecting lives and property through planning and advance preparation. Representatives from the Palestinian Ministry of Interior and the Engineers Syndicate also stressed the value of continued capacity building and institutional cooperation. The programme also featured remarks from Helen Crowley, GEM’s Secretary General, who outlined the foundation’s vision for strengthening community resilience through open scientific tools that can support decision-makers and inform mitigation and response planning. At the close of the course, participants affirmed the importance of continuing cooperation between An Najah National University and partner institutions, including further training for national teams to manage the platform and apply its outputs in support of preparedness and disaster risk reduction. No images found. GALLERY 1/0 VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

Ciencia para el Cambio Social GEM Impact Story Series en | esp Primer encu entro con los terremotos Creo que ten ía cu atro años cuando sentí por primera vez un terremoto. Vivíamos en esa época en un edificio, así que lo sentí muy fuerte, fue un movimiento de balanceo. Todavía recuerdo las grietas que generó en nuestra pared. Mi vida antes de GEM, mi mundo en equilibrio Antes de unirme a GEM yo era una profesora muy joven, solo llevaba cinco años enseñando. Había realizado algunas actividades de investigación relacionadas con el comportamiento de las estructuras. En ese momento me preocupaba mucho la parte académica, era mi principal actividad, pero no sabía cómo aplicar mi conocimiento y el resultado de mi investigación para mejorar el bienestar de la sociedad. No estaba satisfecha con hacer solo investigación. Encuentros que cambiaron mi situación En el 2013 fui contactada por GEM para ser parte del proyecto SARA. Acepté la invitación porque vi una oportunidad para aprender sobre la evaluación del riesgo sísmico y para participar en un proyecto que tuviera aplicaciones reales en el cual los resultados podían ser usados por tomadores de decisión para mejorar códigos de diseño y generar estrategias para la mitigación del riesgo. Tratando de mejorar para enfrentar retos futuros Los talleres de entrenamiento en Medellín (Colombia) en el 2014 y en Lima (Perú) en el 2015 también marcaron el inicio de un cambio en mi conocimiento y en mi apreciación del riesgo. Durante el entrenamiento de 2014 aprendimos sobre la taxonomía para edificios de GEM y conceptos generales sobre la evaluación del riesgo sísmico. En el entrenamiento en Perú recibimos una introducción a OpenQuake. Barreras para la resiliencia a sismos Creo que la principal barrera es vivir en una sociedad que no cree que los sismos pueden ocurrir en cualquier momento, sin previo aviso. En Colombia tuvimos un sismo devastador hace 20 años y parece que la mayoría de las personas lo olvidaron. También creo que la resiliencia no es una prioridad para los tomadores de decisión, por lo cual es importante informar sobre el riesgo sísmico de modo que se pueda mejorar la seguridad pública y enfrentar el reto de proteger la infraestructura crítica. El cambio puede empezar por uno mismo Creo que el cambio puede empezar en cualquier momento, pero debe empezar por uno mismo. Cuando se terminó el proyecto SARA en 2015 mi colaboración con GEM no finalizó. Desde el 2016 hemos estado mejorando los modelos de exposición de Medellín, Bogotá y Cali. También colaboramos con GEM en el desarrollo del modelo de exposición de Colombia que se usó para el Mapa Mundial de Riesgo Sísmico de 2018. Orientando los futuros dirigentes en resiliencia sísmica He estado enseñando evaluación del riesgo sísmico en el curso de Ingeniería Sísmica de la Universidad EAFIT desde el año 2017. También he supervisado estudiantes en el uso de OpenQuake para hacer investigación a nivel de pregrado y posgrado en la evaluación del riesgo sísmico de subestaciones eléctricas, el sistema de acueductos de Medellín y deslizamientos producidos por sismos en Ecuador. Todo esto ha sido posible gracias a las experiencias que adquirí en el proyecto SARA. Sin meta fija, pero debemos seguir avanzando A pesar de que alcancé la meta de mejorar mi conocimiento en el tema de evaluación del riesgo sísmico y de transmitir dicho conocimiento a mis estudiantes, la comunidad ingenieril y, de cierta forma, al público en general, me he dado cuenta que esto no es una carrera con una meta fija. Cada vez que me muevo adelante también lo hace la meta, lo importante es continuar avanzando. El poder del compromiso y la colaboración In the academia, I think many would only get involved in projects if there’s funding, but there’s a lot that can be done without the need of funding. The people at GEM are always open to answer your questions, to give you advice… and for me, that has more value than funding. Inspirando a otros Espero que mis experiencias de aprendizaje con GEM puedan inspirar a estudiantes, investigadores, ingenieros y otros, para promover una mayor sensibilización y educación en el tema del riesgo sísmico y contribuir para que Colombia y el mundo sean más resilientes a sismos. Sobre las Historias de Impacto de GEM El riesgo sísmico continúa siendo un tema abstracto y altamente técnico, y existen riesgos importantes debidos a un conocimiento pobre o limitado de dicho riesgo. Los tomadores de decisión y el público en general pueden no tener la capacidad para aprovechar al máximo la información actual y futura que puede ayudar a optimizar o crear mejores estrategias de manejo para la reducción del riesgo, especialmente a nivel local y nacional. De manera específica el proyecto de Historias de Impacto de GEM busca: Recolectar y documentar historias donde GEM o sus colaboradores han contribuido a cambios positivos; Alentar tomadores y formuladores de decisión a usar información basada en ciencia y en evidencias para generar estrategias de reducción del riesgo de desastres a nivel nacional mediante historias positivas de cambio; y Aumentar la sensibilidad del público en general en el tema del riesgo sísmico y la preparación ante dicho riesgo. Entrevista con la Profesora Ana Beatriz Acevedo Ana Beatriz Acevedo es ingeniera civil con maestría y doctorado en ingeniería sísmica. Actualmente es profesora de ingeniería civil en la Universidad EAFIT en Medellín, Colombia, en donde dicta cursos de ingeniería sísmica y evaluación del riesgo sísmico. Agradecimientos Esta historia es una colaboración entre la Fundación GEM de Pavia, Italia y la Universidad EAFIT de Medellín, Colombia. Damos un sentido agradecimiento a: la Profesora Ana Acevedo por contribuir con su historia y su valioso tiempo; el equipo de EAFIT por las fotografías; GEM y el EUCENTRE por el apoyo dado durante la preparación de este caso piloto de las Historias de Impacto de GEM. Related Contents Science for Social Change Prof. Ana Acevedo's full interview transcript in PDF brochure format. Title: Science for Social Change Video: Prof. Ana Acevedo's interview Duration: 3mins 25secs