News GEM’s updated Africa Exposure model is now available! By: Dec 13, 2021 Share Facebook LinkedIn The Africa Exposure Model covering northern, western, sub-Saharan and South Africa was first released in May 2019 as part of the Africa Earthquake Model, a mosaic of regional models which underpins the African portion of GEM’s global maps released in December 2018 . The update features major revision of residential, commercial, and industrial exposure across the continent; detailed review of national and regional statistics on construction materials and costs; spatial disaggregation of exposure to an evenly spaced grid of 144 arcseconds; and projection of exposure for future years (5-year increments from 2020 until 2050). The exposure model was developed for the African continent using a consistent approach across all countries. The model uses national statistics at the subnational level, and further disaggregates the exposure based on population distribution to a resolution of 144 arcseconds. Urban and rural buildings are disaggregated in different areas based on regional urban cluster data. The exposure was also projected for multiple years until 2050 considering both population growth and urban growth in anticipation of the significant population growth and rate of urbanization throughout much of Africa, making the projection of exposure to future decades critical. Currently, the vulnerability of Africa’s built environment remains relatively high, mainly because a large proportion of buildings are constructed using unreinforced masonry and adobe bricks, which are highly vulnerable to damage from ground shaking. The results of this updated exposure model can be used by risk managers, urban planners, emergency responders and humanitarian agencies for input to a wide range of disaster risk mitigation or reduction activities including monitoring of the Sendai Framework indicators. Results summary (refer to the image gallery) - Distribution of the main construction materials across Africa - Expected population increase in major regions in the world - Top 5 Countries by Building Count Access the paper for free @sciencedirect until March 25: https://bit.ly/3B1VpEL Download the following models at: Eastern Africa Exposure Northern Africa Exposure Western Africa Exposure Southern Africa Exposure Central Africa Exposure No images found. GALLERY 1/7 Gallery VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

News GEM releases the South Africa Model to complete the Africa Earthquake Mosaic of models By: Dec 18, 2019 Share Facebook LinkedIn South Africa hazard map The South Africa Model developed by the Council for Geoscience, Pretoria South Africa and GEM is now available on the GEM website. The release includes the OpenQuake engine input files, documentation and a link to the paper describing the national model published by the Journal of African Earth Sciences. The model, developed by the Council for Geoscience, South Africa and the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) with support from GEM, used 22 area sources in the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment calculation using the OpenQuake software. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) map shows high hazard in the gold mining regions of South Africa. Hazard maps show results slightly different in spatial distribution from previous results obtained for South Africa. The model is part of the Africa Earthquake Hazard and Risk model, which underpins the African portion of GEM’s global maps released in December 2018. The Africa Earthquake Model was developed as a mosaic of regional models for Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, West Africa and South Africa, involving and building the capacity of local experts where possible. The SubSaharan model was developed as part of the Sub-Sahara Hazard and Risk Assessment (SSAHARA) project funded by USAID, covering Eastern SubSaharan Africa. This is the first seismic hazard map released after many years since the previous national seismic hazard for South Africa. The availability of more reliable seismicity and geological data has made it possible to update the old maps using probabilistic seismic hazard analysis methodologies that take into consideration all available data. The results can be used by risk managers, urban planners, emergency responders and humanitarian agencies for input to a wide range of disaster risk reduction activities including monitoring of the Sendai Framework indicators. The model and paper can be downloaded . No images found. GALLERY 1/0 Gallery VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

You have chosen to request a demo on: Colombia Financial Loss Model 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 News Briefs: January - March 2024 By: Mar 27, 2024 Apr 2, 2024 Share Facebook LinkedIn A round-up of GEM's other notable activities over the past three months. International Forum Towards Equitable Seismic Engineering The Global Earthquake Model (GEM) participated in the 3rd International Forum Towards Equitable Seismic Engineering on March 21st, 2024, hosted by the Sociedad Mexicana de Ingeniería Sísmica, A.C. (SMIS). The free online event offered valuable insights into advancements in equitable seismic engineering and the importance of women in the field. GEM's Martina Caruso and Catalina Yepes played key roles: Martina delivered a keynote lecture titled "The Role of Life Cycle Structural Engineering (LCSE) towards the Sustainable Renovation of the Built Environment," while Catalina participated as a panelist in the round table discussion "Eliminating Unconscious Stigmas and Biases: The Path to Women's Resilience in Earthquake Engineering." The event was held in Spanish, with simultaneous translation for Martina’s presentation. --- END --- A new study reveals a significant underestimation of earthquake reconstruction costs A recent study by Maria Camila Hoyos Ramírez and Vitor Silva, sheds light on a critical factor often neglected in earthquake risk assessments: Post-Loss Amplification (PLA). PLA refers to the significant increase in reconstruction costs after a major earthquake, exceeding the pre-disaster repair or replacement value of buildings. The study highlights that factors like material and labor shortages, limited access to affected areas, and the need for improved building standards can significantly inflate reconstruction costs following a large earthquake. The research proposes new models to account for PLA, demonstrating potential cost increases for both minor and major earthquakes. This vital information can lead to more accurate risk assessments, improved disaster preparedness planning, and more effective resource allocation in the aftermath of earthquakes. Link to the research paper: https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930231207822 --- END --- Modelling Faults in the Italian Apennines to Understand Seismic Risks in Central Italy The GEM team, led by Marco Pagani and Anna Rood, with Italian Department of Civil Protection collaborator Daniela Di Bucci participated in the 42nd National Conference of the Gruppo Nazionale Geofisica della Terra Solida (GNGTS) held February 13-16, 2024, at the Università degli Studi di Ferrara Polo Scientifico Tecnologico. The conference theme was "Geophysics for the Future of the Planet." During a session focused on new approaches to earthquake and tsunami hazard estimation, GEM Seismic Hazard Scientist Anna Rood presented the team's research on "Fault System Finite-Element Geodynamical Modelling for Seismic Hazard Analysis of the Central Italian Apennines." The event provided a valuable opportunity to share GEM's work with the GNGTS community. A thank you goes to the GNGTS for organizing the conference and to the Università degli Studi di Ferrara Polo Scientifico Tecnologico for hosting. For more details about the event, visit: https://gngts.ogs.it/2024-conference/ --- END --- OpenQuake online training (Spanish) - FORCE project Over 80 participants engaged in Spanish-language online training sessions (February 6, 13, 20 and 27, 2024) to refine their skills in OpenQuake, GEM’s open source seismic hazard and risk assessment tool. The training covered Modules II, III, and IV, focusing on tasks such as preparing input files for earthquake scenarios, conducting probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), and event-based seismic risk analysis. Attendees gained expertise in visualising results, equipping them to better understand and manage earthquake risks. These sessions aimed to enable participants with practical skills for assessing seismic hazards and enhancing their proficiency in utilising OpenQuake for risk mitigation purposes. --- END --- Recent Research from Imperial College London Challenges Earthquake Hazard Estimates Near Los Angeles Recent research by Imperial College London challenges previous assumptions about the seismic threat posed by the San Andreas fault near Los Angeles. Led by GEM's Seismic Hazard Scientist, Anna Rood, the study analyzed the resilience of ancient precariously balanced rocks (PBRs) close to the fault. This analysis suggests that past large, infrequent earthquakes were likely less powerful than previously estimated, with ground shaking potentially 65% less severe. These latest findings hold significant implications for seismic hazard assessments and disaster preparedness efforts in the Los Angeles region, as well as in other seismically active areas globally. Read the press release here: https://www.globalquakemodel.org/GEMNews/%E2%80%98rock-recorders%E2%80%99-reveal-drastic-drop-in-earthquake-hazard-forecasts-for-los-angeles Link to the research paper: https://doi.org/10.1785/0220220287 --- END --- No images found. GALLERY 1/0 VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

News OQ rolls out new Building Classification Tool By: Jul 2, 2018 Share Facebook LinkedIn The OpenQuake development team rolls out the latest version of the Building Classification Tool. The tool is part of GEM's Building Typology survey initiative which hopes to classify and map the built environment all over the world with your help. The bottom up information can then be further used to analyze vulnerability and exposure of cities and communties to seismic events. To use the tool, please proceed to the OpenQuake platform to register. To get a glimpse of the tool, watch this tutorial. No images found. GALLERY 1/0 VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

News New guidelines for contributing to the GEM Global Active Faults Database By: Mar 20, 2019 Share Facebook LinkedIn New guidelines for contribution to the GEM Global Active Faults Database have been published on GitHub. They are reproduced below. The GEM GAF-DB is a public, open-data project and contribution is quite welcome. The GEM GAF-DB is a compilation of a set of regional and global fault datasets; most of these are not produced by GEM, but instead have been collected from external sources. The final database is built with a Python script that handles the compilation. Therefore, there is no single, permanent dataset that one can modify to contribute. Instead, contribution can take several forms: Addition to the 'miscellaneous' dataset. This dataset is intended to capture individual faults that are not present in the regional dataset for an area, though the dataset has worldwide scope. If you have studied a fault that isn't present, or you have new data on a fault that is already present, this is likely the best option. Modification of a regional dataset. This option is best if you have data for faults in an area that is covered by one of the fault catalogs maintained by GEM or that is otherwise open for modification (e.g., HimaTibetMap or the Active Tectonics of the Andes catalogs). Addition of a new regional dataset. If you have a dataset that covers some region with higher fidelity or more data than the existing coverage of that region, it's easy to incorporate this data into the GAF-DB compilation. For the full information, click here . No images found. GALLERY 1/2 VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

News Board Approves New and Renewed GEM Sponsorships By: Jul 7, 2025 Jun 27, 2025 Share Facebook LinkedIn During its 27 June meeting, the GEM Governing Board approved a substantial slate of new and renewed sponsorships across both public and private sectors, alongside updates to sponsor representation. The continued and growing support underscores GEM’s role as a global platform for collaborative, science-based risk reduction. Under the Public Governor Scheme, Taiwan Earthquake Model signed a new three-year sponsorship agreement, represented by Chung-Han Chan. GNS Science, soon to be part of the newly formed New Zealand Institute for Earth Science (alongside NIWA and MetService), also renewed its three-year commitment, with Matthew Gerstenberger as representative. GEM additionally welcomed Morocco’s Fonds de Solidarité contre les Événements Catastrophiques (FSEC), GEM's first public sponsor from Africa. From Europe, Switzerland’s State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI) extended its support for four years, with Martin Kern continuing as representative. In the Private Governor category, Allianz renewed its sponsorship for a further three years, with Matthias Hackl as representative. Two new private sector sponsors also joined: Renaissance Re, with a two-year agreement represented by Andrew Dhesi, and Atlantic Re, which signed a three-year agreement. Abderrahim Oulidi will represent Atlantic Re, which has also expressed interest in supporting GEM’s work in Morocco alongside FSEC (see Top Story ). Additionally, a change in representation was noted under the Advisor Sponsor Scheme, with Alexandra Tsioulou appointed as the new non-voting representative for Gallagher Re. These new and renewed partnerships reflect a shared commitment to advancing earthquake hazard and risk understanding. With the support of its public and private sponsors, GEM is better positioned to collaborate on national and regional efforts, share open data and tools, and strengthen global resilience through inclusive science. To learn more about how to become a GEM sponsor: https://www.globalquakemodel.org/get-involved To view the full list of past and present GEM partners: https://www.globalquakemodel.org/partners No images found. GALLERY 1/0 VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

News SERA workshop: OpenQuake gaining ground in the Balkans By: Jul 31, 2019 Share Facebook LinkedIn SERA workshop participants in Belgrade, June 2019 The EUCENTRE - SERA Programme successfully held a workshop in June for the Balkan earthquake risk community. The workshop, held in Belgrade, was co-organized by SUZI-SAEE Seismic Risk Task Force (Srpsko udruženje za zemljotresno inženjerstvo-SUZI - Serbian Association for Earthquake Engineering-SAEE), and the Faculty of Engineering-Belgrade. GEM's Vitor Silva and Venetia Despotaki observed first hand how OpenQuake was being used in Bulgaria, Bosnia Herzegovina and North Macedonia. Vitor presented GEM’s seismic risk framework and Venetia presented residential and non-residential exposure models for Europe with a focus on the Balkan region. The next SERA workshop is scheduled this September in Istanbul, Turkey where the European Risk Model would be released. Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Research Infrastructure Alliance for Europe (SERA) is a Horizon 2020-supported programme responding to the priorities identified in the topic INFRAIA-01-2016-2017 ‘Integrating Activities for Advanced Communities’. SERA involves 31 partners and 8 linked third parties in Europe. GEM's contributions focus on taxonomy and exposure of residential, commercial and industrial buildings in Europe; physical vulnerability assessment for buildings; integrated earthquake risk analysis using the risk assessment framework and OpenQuake software established by the Global Earthquake Model. No images found. GALLERY 1/6 VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

News Earthquake Risk - a Global Challenge By: Mar 26, 2021 Share Facebook LinkedIn Featured speakers at the Instech-Nasdaq Earthquake Risk - a Global Challenge webinar More than 400 online participants joined InsTech’s Earthquake Risk - a Global Challenge webinar on March 4. Facilitated by Matthew Grant, the speakers explored how insurance losses from earthquakes are measured and managed through the use of catastrophe models; how to access models through platforms provided by companies such as Nasdaq and Oasis; and key points on understanding the choices available when using catastrophe models. The event, organized with the support of Nasdaq, featured speakers James Sawle, Nasdaq Risk Modelling for Catastrophes; Matthias Schmid PhD, Guy Carpenter; Goran Trendafiloski, Impact Forecasting; Mohammad Zolfaghari, CatRisk Solutions; David Gregory, Corelogic; Mario Ordaz, ERN and RED; and GEM Secretary General - John Schneider. John shared GEM’s organizational setup and described its suite of global hazard and risk models. John touched on the collaborative approach of GEM in validating models from actual losses emphasizing that working with local experts had always been a key GEM approach. John explained that GEM collaborates with Nasdaq for its platform of insurance risk models and its connection to the financial risk market. However, he reiterated that the revenue that GEM would eventually receive from the commercial models would be reinvested in public-good activities, with particular focus on the developing countries - to help develop a better understanding of risk and help with risk reduction activities. John also underscored that what sets GEM’s models apart from the others is transparency, openness – characteristics that give modellers an inside view of how risk is calculated. Responding to a plenary question on how GEM views the future of risk modelling, John said that “… there is definitely an appetite to have more openness, more transparency, more access to information. There is definitely an appetite for more variety and ability to compare models, and not just to compare different black boxes but to actually understand what’s inside.” The speakers and panelists also agreed this emerging topic is not only true for the insurance industry but also across governments. As John noted in his presentation, “governments are putting people in place to understand the science and the engineering, and are trying to communicate with policy makers”. He concluded that the trend is moving towards a more holistic approach to risk management, and that it’s what GEM foresees to be happening more and more in the future. The premise of the webinar is concentration of existing catastrophe models in areas with the largest insured losses such as the United States and Japan. The organizers posit that the impact of earthquakes in other areas of the world, where mainstream models are less developed, can also trigger major losses. With the support of Nasdaq, InsTech London brought together specialist model developers from around the world to review what they are offering and get their views on key developments to look forward to in this field. No images found. GALLERY 1/0 Gallery VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

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