Publications The 2018 version of the Global Earthquake Model: Hazard component Share Facebook LinkedIn Download 2020 | Peer-reviewed In December 2018, at the conclusion of its second implementation phase, the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Foundation released its first version of a map outlining the spatial distribution of seismic hazard at a global scale. The map is the result of an extensive, joint effort combining the results obtained from a collection of probabilistic seismic hazard models, called the GEM Mosaic. Together, the map and the underlying database of models provide an up-to-date view of the earthquake threat globally. In addition, using the Mosaic, a synopsis of the current state-of-practice in modeling probabilistic seismic hazard at national and regional scales is possible. The process adopted for the compilation of the Mosaic adhered to the maximum extent possible to GEM’s principles of collaboration, inclusiveness, transparency, and reproducibility. For each region, priority was given to seismic hazard models either developed by well-recognized national agencies or by large collaborative projects involving local scientists. The version of the GEM Mosaic presented herein contains 30 probabilistic seismic hazard models, 14 of which represent national or sub-national models; the remainder are regional-scale models. We discuss the general qualities of these models, the underlying framework of the database, and the outlook for the Mosaic’s utility and its future versions.

News Fault2SHA 3rd Workshop: Role of scaling laws & fault interaction By: Jul 2, 2018 Share Facebook LinkedIn The event gathered scientists working on earthquake hazards from a variety of perspectives: fault mappers, seismologists, hazard modelers, theoretical geophysicists, and engineers.The presentations by keynote speakers illustrated many challenges in understanding the distribution of earthquakes in time and space. However they also noted that through careful data collection and analysis, progress is being made on important topics such as fault segmentation and earthquake clustering. In addition, the work by the hazard modelers shows that the constantly improving hazard engines such as OpenQuake and skills of the modelers are capable of dealing with the complexities of earthquake occurrence. The group believes that the main challenges in estimating earthquake hazards lie in the scientific rather than technical aspects. Underscoring the value of openness and transparency, Richard Styron, GEM Active Fault Specialist says, “The level of communication and mutual interest was high among participants throughout the workshop, and there is widespread support for the creation of natural laboratories where observational scientists and modelers can share data and ideas, and test hypotheses, in an open and mutually supportive environment.” The FAULT2SHA is a Working Group formally approved by the European Seismological Commission during its 35th General Assembly in September 2016. It is open to all researchers interested in contributing to discussions on topics that could improve the assessment of seismic hazard. For more information, please visit https://fault2shablog.wordpress.com/ . No images found. GALLERY 1/0 VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

A collection of seismic risk profiles, summarizing key metrics of risk for most countries/territories in the world at a glance Project Name Products Country-Territory Seismic Risk Profiles A collection of seismic risk profiles, summarizing key metrics of risk for most countries/territories in the world at a glance Share Facebook LinkedIn Description The GEM Foundation has produced a collection of Country/Territory Seismic Risk Profiles that summarize key metrics of seismic risk, to provide stakeholders in risk management an overview of the risk in a region at a glance. Each profile presents the following relevant information: Social indicators, which provide context to the region in question - Risk indicators, detailing an occupancy breakdown of exposed value and losses - A list of the major earthquakes that have impacted the region - Loss per region, providing a breakdown of average annual losses per Administrative level 1 - Building classes, depicting the major construction materials used in the region - Loss curves, which provide expected losses per different return periods - Maps depicting the geographical distribution of hazard, exposure and losses. The risk results are the results of an event-based risk analysis, where 100,000 years of earthquakes are simulated. Three lines of business are considered: residential, commercial, and industrial. Therefore, value or earthquake losses to other building occupancies (e.g., schools, healthcare) and infrastructure are not included. How to cite this work V. Silva, A. Calderon, M. Caruso, C. Costa, J. Dabbeek, M.C. Hoyos, Z. Karimzadeh, L. Martins, N. Paul, A. Rao, M. Simionato, C. Yepes-Estrada, H. Crowley, K. Jaiswal (2023), Country/Territory Seismic Risk Profiles of the GEM Foundation, GitHub. https://github.com/gem/risk-profiles/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8431824 Available Versions The entire database of risk profiles is available for each country/territory as a PNG file, for direct download under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license. Users interested in this product can click the "Open Version Download" button in the right panel to access the information. If your use case does not meet the open license requirement (i.e. commercial use is intended), or if you are interested in obtaining the underlying information shown in the profiles, please submit a request in our system by clicking on the "License Request", where a specific license will be provided, depending on the use case. License information The open version is available under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license, which requires: *Attribution (you must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made) *Non-commercial (you may not use the material for commercial purposes) *ShareAlike (derivatives created must be made available under the same license as the original) Any deviation from these terms incur in license infringement. For commercial use of the dataset, a specific license agreement must be made tailored to your use case, in such instance please click on "License Request". Share License CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Available resources Access Dataset Documentation License Request Facebook LinkedIn By selecting a region in the global map below, a table will appear with the region, country, or territory for which GEM currently has seismic risk profiles. You can also use the Search box to find a specific country or territory's seismic risk profile. Map View Search Popup title Close Country/Region Available Resources Afghanistan Exposure Africa Exposure Alaska Exposure Albania Exposure Algeria Exposure American Samoa Exposure Andorra Exposure Angola Exposure Anguilla Exposure Antigua and Barbuda Exposure Arabia Exposure Argentina Exposure Armenia Exposure Aruba Exposure Australia Exposure Austria Exposure Azerbaijan Exposure Bahamas Exposure Bahrain Exposure Bangladesh Exposure Barbados Exposure Belarus Exposure Belgium Exposure Belize Exposure Benin Exposure Bhutan Exposure Bolivia Exposure Bosnia and Herzegovina Exposure Botswana Exposure Brazil Exposure British Virgin Islands Exposure Brunei Exposure Bulgaria Exposure Burkina Faso Exposure Burundi Exposure Cambodia Exposure Cameroon Exposure Canada Exposure Cape Verde Exposure Caribbean Central America Exposure Cayman Islands Exposure Central African Republic Exposure Central Asia Exposure Chad Exposure Chile Exposure China Exposure Colombia Exposure Comoros Exposure Congo Exposure Conterminous US Exposure Cook Islands Exposure Costa Rica Exposure Croatia Exposure Cuba Exposure Cyprus Exposure Czechia Exposure Democratic Republic of the Congo Exposure Denmark Exposure Djibouti Exposure Dominica Exposure Dominican Republic Exposure East Asia Exposure Ecuador Exposure Egypt Exposure El Salvador Exposure Equatorial Guinea Exposure Eritrea Exposure Estonia Exposure Eswatini Exposure Ethiopia Exposure Europe Exposure Fiji Exposure Finland Exposure France Exposure French Guiana Exposure Gabon Exposure Gambia Exposure Georgia Exposure Germany Exposure Ghana Exposure Gibraltar Exposure Greece Exposure Grenada Exposure Guadeloupe Exposure Guam Exposure Guatemala Exposure Guinea Exposure Guinea Bissau Exposure Guyana Exposure Haiti Exposure Hawaii Exposure Honduras Exposure Hong Kong Exposure Hungary Exposure Iceland Exposure India Exposure Indonesia Exposure Iran Exposure Iraq Exposure Ireland Exposure Isle of Man Exposure Israel Exposure Italy Exposure Ivory Coast Exposure Jamaica Exposure Japan Exposure Jordan Exposure Kazakhstan Exposure Kenya Exposure Kiribati Exposure Kosovo Exposure Kuwait Exposure Kyrgyzstan Exposure Laos Exposure Latvia Exposure Lebanon Exposure Lesotho Exposure Liberia Exposure Libya Exposure Liechtenstein Exposure Lithuania Exposure Luxembourg Exposure Macao Exposure Madagascar Exposure Malawi Exposure Malaysia Exposure Mali Exposure Malta Exposure Marshall Islands Exposure Martinique Exposure Mauritania Exposure Mauritius Exposure Mexico Exposure Micronesia Exposure Middle East Exposure Moldova Exposure Monaco Exposure Mongolia Exposure Montenegro Exposure Montserrat Exposure Morocco Exposure Mozambique Exposure Myanmar Exposure Namibia Exposure Nauru Exposure Nepal Exposure Netherlands Exposure New Caledonia Exposure New Zealand Exposure Nicaragua Exposure Niger Exposure Nigeria Exposure Niue Exposure North Africa Exposure North America Exposure North Asia Exposure North Korea Exposure North Macedonia Exposure North and South Korea Exposure Northeast Asia Exposure Northern Mariana Islands Exposure Northwest Asia Exposure Norway Exposure Oceania Exposure Oman Exposure Pacific Islands Exposure Pakistan Exposure Palau Exposure Palestine Exposure Panama Exposure Papua New Guinea Exposure Paraguay Exposure Peru Exposure Philippines Exposure Poland Exposure Portugal Exposure Puerto Rico Exposure Qatar Exposure Romania Exposure Russia Exposure Rwanda Exposure Saint Kitts and Nevis Exposure Saint Lucia Exposure Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Exposure Samoa Exposure Sao Tome and Principe Exposure Saudi Arabia Exposure Senegal Exposure Serbia Exposure Seychelles Exposure Sierra Leone Exposure Singapore Exposure Slovakia Exposure Slovenia Exposure Solomon Islands Exposure Somalia Exposure South Africa Exposure South America Exposure South Asia Exposure South Korea Exposure Country/Region Available Resources Afghanistan Vulnerability Africa Vulnerability Alaska Vulnerability Albania Vulnerability Algeria Vulnerability American Samoa Vulnerability Andorra Vulnerability Angola Vulnerability Anguilla Vulnerability Antigua and Barbuda Vulnerability Arabia Vulnerability Argentina Vulnerability Armenia Vulnerability Aruba Vulnerability Australia Vulnerability Austria Vulnerability Azerbaijan Vulnerability Bahamas Vulnerability Bahrain Vulnerability Bangladesh Vulnerability Barbados Vulnerability Belarus Vulnerability Belgium Vulnerability Belize Vulnerability Benin Vulnerability Bhutan Vulnerability Bolivia Vulnerability Bosnia and Herzegovina Vulnerability Botswana Vulnerability Brazil Vulnerability British Virgin Islands Vulnerability Brunei Vulnerability Bulgaria Vulnerability Burkina Faso Vulnerability Burundi Vulnerability Cambodia Vulnerability Cameroon Vulnerability Canada Vulnerability Cape Verde Vulnerability Caribbean Central America Vulnerability Cayman Islands Vulnerability Central African Republic Vulnerability Central Asia Vulnerability Chad Vulnerability Chile Vulnerability China Vulnerability Colombia Vulnerability Comoros Vulnerability Congo Vulnerability Conterminous US Vulnerability Cook Islands Vulnerability Costa Rica Vulnerability Croatia Vulnerability Cuba Vulnerability Cyprus Vulnerability Czechia Vulnerability Democratic Republic of the Congo Vulnerability Denmark Vulnerability Djibouti Vulnerability Dominica Vulnerability Dominican Republic Vulnerability East Asia Vulnerability Ecuador Vulnerability Egypt Vulnerability El Salvador Vulnerability Equatorial Guinea Vulnerability Eritrea Vulnerability Estonia Vulnerability Eswatini Vulnerability Ethiopia Vulnerability Europe Vulnerability Fiji Vulnerability Finland Vulnerability France Vulnerability French Guiana Vulnerability Gabon Vulnerability Gambia Vulnerability Georgia Vulnerability Germany Vulnerability Ghana Vulnerability Gibraltar Vulnerability Greece Vulnerability Grenada Vulnerability Guadeloupe Vulnerability Guam Vulnerability Guatemala Vulnerability Guinea Vulnerability Guinea Bissau Vulnerability Guyana Vulnerability Haiti Vulnerability Hawaii Vulnerability Honduras Vulnerability Hong Kong Vulnerability Hungary Vulnerability Iceland Vulnerability India Vulnerability Indonesia Vulnerability Iran Vulnerability Iraq Vulnerability Ireland Vulnerability Isle of Man Vulnerability Israel Vulnerability Italy Vulnerability Ivory Coast Vulnerability Jamaica Vulnerability Japan Vulnerability Jordan Vulnerability Kazakhstan Vulnerability Kenya Vulnerability Kiribati Vulnerability Kosovo Vulnerability Kuwait Vulnerability Kyrgyzstan Vulnerability Laos Vulnerability Latvia Vulnerability Lebanon Vulnerability Lesotho Vulnerability Liberia Vulnerability Libya Vulnerability Liechtenstein Vulnerability Lithuania Vulnerability Luxembourg Vulnerability Macao Vulnerability Madagascar Vulnerability Malawi Vulnerability Malaysia Vulnerability Mali Vulnerability Malta Vulnerability Marshall Islands Vulnerability Martinique Vulnerability Mauritania Vulnerability Mauritius Vulnerability Mexico Vulnerability Micronesia Vulnerability Middle East Vulnerability Moldova Vulnerability Monaco Vulnerability Mongolia Vulnerability Montenegro Vulnerability Montserrat Vulnerability Morocco Vulnerability Mozambique Vulnerability Myanmar Vulnerability Namibia Vulnerability Nauru Vulnerability Nepal Vulnerability Netherlands Vulnerability New Caledonia Vulnerability New Zealand Vulnerability Nicaragua Vulnerability Niger Vulnerability Nigeria Vulnerability Niue Vulnerability North Africa Vulnerability North America Vulnerability North Asia Vulnerability North Korea Vulnerability North Macedonia Vulnerability North and South Korea Vulnerability Northeast Asia Vulnerability Northern Mariana Islands Vulnerability Northwest Asia Vulnerability Norway Vulnerability Oceania Vulnerability Oman Vulnerability Pacific Islands Vulnerability Pakistan Vulnerability Palau Vulnerability Palestine Vulnerability Panama Vulnerability Papua New Guinea Vulnerability Paraguay Vulnerability Peru Vulnerability Philippines Vulnerability Poland Vulnerability Portugal Vulnerability Puerto Rico Vulnerability Qatar Vulnerability Romania Vulnerability Russia Vulnerability Rwanda Vulnerability Saint Kitts and Nevis Vulnerability Saint Lucia Vulnerability Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Vulnerability Samoa Vulnerability Sao Tome and Principe Vulnerability Saudi Arabia Vulnerability Senegal Vulnerability Serbia Vulnerability Seychelles Vulnerability Sierra Leone Vulnerability Singapore Vulnerability Slovakia Vulnerability Slovenia Vulnerability Solomon Islands Vulnerability Somalia Vulnerability South Africa Vulnerability South America Vulnerability South Asia Vulnerability South Korea Vulnerability Country/Region Resource Url Afghanistan Risk Profile Africa Risk Profile Alaska Risk Profile Albania Risk Profile Algeria Risk Profile American Samoa Risk Profile Andorra Risk Profile Angola Risk Profile Anguilla Risk Profile Antigua and Barbuda Risk Profile Arabia Risk Profile Argentina Risk Profile Armenia Risk Profile Aruba Risk Profile Australia Risk Profile Austria Risk Profile Azerbaijan Risk Profile Bahamas Risk Profile Bahrain Risk Profile Bangladesh Risk Profile Barbados Risk Profile Belarus Risk Profile Belgium Risk Profile Belize Risk Profile Benin Risk Profile Bhutan Risk Profile Bolivia Risk Profile Bosnia and Herzegovina Risk Profile Botswana Risk Profile Brazil Risk Profile British Virgin Islands Risk Profile Brunei Risk Profile Bulgaria Risk Profile Burkina Faso Risk Profile Burundi Risk Profile Cambodia Risk Profile Cameroon Risk Profile Canada Risk Profile Cape Verde Risk Profile Caribbean Central America Risk Profile Cayman Islands Risk Profile Central African Republic Risk Profile Central Asia Risk Profile Chad Risk Profile Chile Risk Profile China Risk Profile Colombia Risk Profile Comoros Risk Profile Congo Risk Profile Conterminous US Risk Profile Cook Islands Risk Profile Costa Rica Risk Profile Croatia Risk Profile Cuba Risk Profile Cyprus Risk Profile Czechia Risk Profile Democratic Republic of the Congo Risk Profile Denmark Risk Profile Djibouti Risk Profile Dominica Risk Profile Dominican Republic Risk Profile East Asia Risk Profile Ecuador Risk Profile Egypt Risk Profile El Salvador Risk Profile Equatorial Guinea Risk Profile Eritrea Risk Profile Estonia Risk Profile Eswatini Risk Profile Ethiopia Risk Profile Europe Risk Profile Fiji Risk Profile Finland Risk Profile France Risk Profile French Guiana Risk Profile Gabon Risk Profile Gambia Risk Profile Georgia Risk Profile Germany Risk Profile Ghana Risk Profile Gibraltar Risk Profile Greece Risk Profile Grenada Risk Profile Guadeloupe Risk Profile Guam Risk Profile Guatemala Risk Profile Guinea Risk Profile Guinea Bissau Risk Profile Guyana Risk Profile Haiti Risk Profile Hawaii Risk Profile Honduras Risk Profile Hong Kong Risk Profile Hungary Risk Profile Iceland Risk Profile India Risk Profile Indonesia Risk Profile Iran Risk Profile Iraq Risk Profile Ireland Risk Profile Isle of Man Risk Profile Israel Risk Profile Italy Risk Profile Ivory Coast Risk Profile Jamaica Risk Profile Japan Risk Profile Jordan Risk Profile Kazakhstan Risk Profile Kenya Risk Profile Kiribati Risk Profile Kosovo Risk Profile Kuwait Risk Profile Kyrgyzstan Risk Profile Laos Risk Profile Latvia Risk Profile Lebanon Risk Profile Lesotho Risk Profile Liberia Risk Profile Libya Risk Profile Liechtenstein Risk Profile Lithuania Risk Profile Luxembourg Risk Profile Macao Risk Profile Madagascar Risk Profile Malawi Risk Profile Malaysia Risk Profile Mali Risk Profile Malta Risk Profile Marshall Islands Risk Profile Martinique Risk Profile Mauritania Risk Profile Mauritius Risk Profile Mexico Risk Profile Micronesia Risk Profile Middle East Risk Profile Moldova Risk Profile Monaco Risk Profile Mongolia Risk Profile Montenegro Risk Profile Montserrat Risk Profile Morocco Risk Profile Mozambique Risk Profile Myanmar Risk Profile Namibia Risk Profile Nauru Risk Profile Nepal Risk Profile Netherlands Risk Profile New Caledonia Risk Profile New Zealand Risk Profile Nicaragua Risk Profile Niger Risk Profile Nigeria Risk Profile Niue Risk Profile North Africa Risk Profile North America Risk Profile North Asia Risk Profile North Korea Risk Profile North Macedonia Risk Profile North and South Korea Risk Profile Northeast Asia Risk Profile Northern Mariana Islands Risk Profile Northwest Asia Risk Profile Norway Risk Profile Oceania Risk Profile Oman Risk Profile Pacific Islands Risk Profile Pakistan Risk Profile Palau Risk Profile Palestine Risk Profile Panama Risk Profile Papua New Guinea Risk Profile Paraguay Risk Profile Peru Risk Profile Philippines Risk Profile Poland Risk Profile Portugal Risk Profile Puerto Rico Risk Profile Qatar Risk Profile Romania Risk Profile Russia Risk Profile Rwanda Risk Profile Saint Kitts and Nevis Risk Profile Saint Lucia Risk Profile Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Risk Profile Samoa Risk Profile Sao Tome and Principe Risk Profile Saudi Arabia Risk Profile Senegal Risk Profile Serbia Risk Profile Seychelles Risk Profile Sierra Leone Risk Profile Singapore Risk Profile Slovakia Risk Profile Slovenia Risk Profile Solomon Islands Risk Profile Somalia Risk Profile South Africa Risk Profile South America Risk Profile South Asia Risk Profile South Korea Risk Profile Search Found Country/Region Resource Url Afghanistan Exposure Africa Exposure Alaska Exposure Albania Exposure Algeria Exposure American Samoa Exposure Andorra Exposure Angola Exposure Anguilla Exposure Antigua and Barbuda Exposure Arabia Exposure Argentina Exposure Armenia Exposure Aruba Exposure Australia Exposure Austria Exposure Azerbaijan Exposure Bahamas Exposure Bahrain Exposure Bangladesh Exposure Barbados Exposure Belarus Exposure Belgium Exposure Belize Exposure Benin Exposure Bhutan Exposure Bolivia Exposure Bosnia and Herzegovina Exposure Botswana Exposure Brazil Exposure British Virgin Islands Exposure Brunei Exposure Bulgaria Exposure Burkina Faso Exposure Burundi Exposure Cambodia Exposure Cameroon Exposure Canada Exposure Cape Verde Exposure Caribbean Central America Exposure Cayman Islands Exposure Central African Republic Exposure Central Asia Exposure Chad Exposure Chile Exposure China Exposure Colombia Exposure Comoros Exposure Congo Exposure Conterminous US Exposure Cook Islands Exposure Costa Rica Exposure Croatia Exposure Cuba Exposure Cyprus Exposure Czechia Exposure Democratic Republic of the Congo Exposure Denmark Exposure Djibouti Exposure Dominica Exposure Dominican Republic Exposure East Asia Exposure Ecuador Exposure Egypt Exposure El Salvador Exposure Equatorial Guinea Exposure Eritrea Exposure Estonia Exposure Eswatini Exposure Ethiopia Exposure Europe Exposure Fiji Exposure Finland Exposure France Exposure French Guiana Exposure Gabon Exposure Gambia Exposure Georgia Exposure Germany Exposure Ghana Exposure Gibraltar Exposure Greece Exposure Grenada Exposure Guadeloupe Exposure Guam Exposure Guatemala Exposure Guinea Exposure Guinea Bissau Exposure Guyana Exposure Haiti Exposure Hawaii Exposure Honduras Exposure Hong Kong Exposure Hungary Exposure Iceland Exposure India Exposure Indonesia Exposure Iran Exposure Iraq Exposure Ireland Exposure Isle of Man Exposure Israel Exposure Italy Exposure Ivory Coast Exposure Jamaica Exposure Japan Exposure Jordan Exposure Kazakhstan Exposure Kenya Exposure Kiribati Exposure Kosovo Exposure Kuwait Exposure Kyrgyzstan Exposure Laos Exposure Latvia Exposure Lebanon Exposure Lesotho Exposure Liberia Exposure Libya Exposure Liechtenstein Exposure Lithuania Exposure Luxembourg Exposure Macao Exposure Madagascar Exposure Malawi Exposure Malaysia Exposure Mali Exposure Malta Exposure Marshall Islands Exposure Martinique Exposure Mauritania Exposure Mauritius Exposure Mexico Exposure Micronesia Exposure Middle East Exposure Moldova Exposure Monaco Exposure Mongolia Exposure Montenegro Exposure Montserrat Exposure Morocco Exposure Mozambique Exposure Myanmar Exposure Namibia Exposure Nauru Exposure Nepal Exposure Netherlands Exposure New Caledonia Exposure New Zealand Exposure Nicaragua Exposure Niger Exposure Nigeria Exposure Niue Exposure North Africa Exposure North America Exposure North Asia Exposure North Korea Exposure North Macedonia Exposure North and South Korea Exposure Northeast Asia Exposure Northern Mariana Islands Exposure Northwest Asia Exposure Norway Exposure Oceania Exposure Oman Exposure Pacific Islands Exposure Pakistan Exposure Palau Exposure Palestine Exposure Panama Exposure Papua New Guinea Exposure Paraguay Exposure Peru Exposure Philippines Exposure Poland Exposure Portugal Exposure Puerto Rico Exposure Qatar Exposure Romania Exposure Russia Exposure Rwanda Exposure Saint Kitts and Nevis Exposure Saint Lucia Exposure Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Exposure Samoa Exposure Sao Tome and Principe Exposure Saudi Arabia Exposure Senegal Exposure Serbia Exposure Seychelles Exposure Sierra Leone Exposure Singapore Exposure Slovakia Exposure Slovenia Exposure Solomon Islands Exposure Somalia Exposure South Africa Exposure South America Exposure South Asia Exposure South Korea Exposure Preview Preview is not available. Search Found Country/Region Resource Url Afghanistan Vulnerability Africa Vulnerability Alaska Vulnerability Albania Vulnerability Algeria Vulnerability American Samoa Vulnerability Andorra Vulnerability Angola Vulnerability Anguilla Vulnerability Antigua and Barbuda Vulnerability Arabia Vulnerability Argentina Vulnerability Armenia Vulnerability Aruba Vulnerability Australia Vulnerability Austria Vulnerability Azerbaijan Vulnerability Bahamas Vulnerability Bahrain Vulnerability Bangladesh Vulnerability Barbados Vulnerability Belarus Vulnerability Belgium Vulnerability Belize Vulnerability Benin Vulnerability Bhutan Vulnerability Bolivia Vulnerability Bosnia and Herzegovina Vulnerability Botswana Vulnerability Brazil Vulnerability British Virgin Islands Vulnerability Brunei Vulnerability Bulgaria Vulnerability Burkina Faso Vulnerability Burundi Vulnerability Cambodia Vulnerability Cameroon Vulnerability Canada Vulnerability Cape Verde Vulnerability Caribbean Central America Vulnerability Cayman Islands Vulnerability Central African Republic Vulnerability Central Asia Vulnerability Chad Vulnerability Chile Vulnerability China Vulnerability Colombia Vulnerability Comoros Vulnerability Congo Vulnerability Conterminous US Vulnerability Cook Islands Vulnerability Costa Rica Vulnerability Croatia Vulnerability Cuba Vulnerability Cyprus Vulnerability Czechia Vulnerability Democratic Republic of the Congo Vulnerability Denmark Vulnerability Djibouti Vulnerability Dominica Vulnerability Dominican Republic Vulnerability East Asia Vulnerability Ecuador Vulnerability Egypt Vulnerability El Salvador Vulnerability Equatorial Guinea Vulnerability Eritrea Vulnerability Estonia Vulnerability Eswatini Vulnerability Ethiopia Vulnerability Europe Vulnerability Fiji Vulnerability Finland Vulnerability France Vulnerability French Guiana Vulnerability Gabon Vulnerability Gambia Vulnerability Georgia Vulnerability Germany Vulnerability Ghana Vulnerability Gibraltar Vulnerability Greece Vulnerability Grenada Vulnerability Guadeloupe Vulnerability Guam Vulnerability Guatemala Vulnerability Guinea Vulnerability Guinea Bissau Vulnerability Guyana Vulnerability Haiti Vulnerability Hawaii Vulnerability Honduras Vulnerability Hong Kong Vulnerability Hungary Vulnerability Iceland Vulnerability India Vulnerability Indonesia Vulnerability Iran Vulnerability Iraq Vulnerability Ireland Vulnerability Isle of Man Vulnerability Israel Vulnerability Italy Vulnerability Ivory Coast Vulnerability Jamaica Vulnerability Japan Vulnerability Jordan Vulnerability Kazakhstan Vulnerability Kenya Vulnerability Kiribati Vulnerability Kosovo Vulnerability Kuwait Vulnerability Kyrgyzstan Vulnerability Laos Vulnerability Latvia Vulnerability Lebanon Vulnerability Lesotho Vulnerability Liberia Vulnerability Libya Vulnerability Liechtenstein Vulnerability Lithuania Vulnerability Luxembourg Vulnerability Macao Vulnerability Madagascar Vulnerability Malawi Vulnerability Malaysia Vulnerability Mali Vulnerability Malta Vulnerability Marshall Islands Vulnerability Martinique Vulnerability Mauritania Vulnerability Mauritius Vulnerability Mexico Vulnerability Micronesia Vulnerability Middle East Vulnerability Moldova Vulnerability Monaco Vulnerability Mongolia Vulnerability Montenegro Vulnerability Montserrat Vulnerability Morocco Vulnerability Mozambique Vulnerability Myanmar Vulnerability Namibia Vulnerability Nauru Vulnerability Nepal Vulnerability Netherlands Vulnerability New Caledonia Vulnerability New Zealand Vulnerability Nicaragua Vulnerability Niger Vulnerability Nigeria Vulnerability Niue Vulnerability North Africa Vulnerability North America Vulnerability North Asia Vulnerability North Korea Vulnerability North Macedonia Vulnerability North and South Korea Vulnerability Northeast Asia Vulnerability Northern Mariana Islands Vulnerability Northwest Asia Vulnerability Norway Vulnerability Oceania Vulnerability Oman Vulnerability Pacific Islands Vulnerability Pakistan Vulnerability Palau Vulnerability Palestine Vulnerability Panama Vulnerability Papua New Guinea Vulnerability Paraguay Vulnerability Peru Vulnerability Philippines Vulnerability Poland Vulnerability Portugal Vulnerability Puerto Rico Vulnerability Qatar Vulnerability Romania Vulnerability Russia Vulnerability Rwanda Vulnerability Saint Kitts and Nevis Vulnerability Saint Lucia Vulnerability Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Vulnerability Samoa Vulnerability Sao Tome and Principe Vulnerability Saudi Arabia Vulnerability Senegal Vulnerability Serbia Vulnerability Seychelles Vulnerability Sierra Leone Vulnerability Singapore Vulnerability Slovakia Vulnerability Slovenia Vulnerability Solomon Islands Vulnerability Somalia Vulnerability South Africa Vulnerability South America Vulnerability South Asia Vulnerability South Korea Vulnerability Preview Preview is not available. Search Found Country/Region Resource Url Afghanistan Risk Profile Africa Risk Profile Alaska Risk Profile Albania Risk Profile Algeria Risk Profile American Samoa Risk Profile Andorra Risk Profile Angola Risk Profile Anguilla Risk Profile Antigua and Barbuda Risk Profile Arabia Risk Profile Argentina Risk Profile Armenia Risk Profile Aruba Risk Profile Australia Risk Profile Austria Risk Profile Azerbaijan Risk Profile Bahamas Risk Profile Bahrain Risk Profile Bangladesh Risk Profile Barbados Risk Profile Belarus Risk Profile Belgium Risk Profile Belize Risk Profile Benin Risk Profile Bhutan Risk Profile Bolivia Risk Profile Bosnia and Herzegovina Risk Profile Botswana Risk Profile Brazil Risk Profile British Virgin Islands Risk Profile Brunei Risk Profile Bulgaria Risk Profile Burkina Faso Risk Profile Burundi Risk Profile Cambodia Risk Profile Cameroon Risk Profile Canada Risk Profile Cape Verde Risk Profile Caribbean Central America Risk Profile Cayman Islands Risk Profile Central African Republic Risk Profile Central Asia Risk Profile Chad Risk Profile Chile Risk Profile China Risk Profile Colombia Risk Profile Comoros Risk Profile Congo Risk Profile Conterminous US Risk Profile Cook Islands Risk Profile Costa Rica Risk Profile Croatia Risk Profile Cuba Risk Profile Cyprus Risk Profile Czechia Risk Profile Democratic Republic of the Congo Risk Profile Denmark Risk Profile Djibouti Risk Profile Dominica Risk Profile Dominican Republic Risk Profile East Asia Risk Profile Ecuador Risk Profile Egypt Risk Profile El Salvador Risk Profile Equatorial Guinea Risk Profile Eritrea Risk Profile Estonia Risk Profile Eswatini Risk Profile Ethiopia Risk Profile Europe Risk Profile Fiji Risk Profile Finland Risk Profile France Risk Profile French Guiana Risk Profile Gabon Risk Profile Gambia Risk Profile Georgia Risk Profile Germany Risk Profile Ghana Risk Profile Gibraltar Risk Profile Greece Risk Profile Grenada Risk Profile Guadeloupe Risk Profile Guam Risk Profile Guatemala Risk Profile Guinea Risk Profile Guinea Bissau Risk Profile Guyana Risk Profile Haiti Risk Profile Hawaii Risk Profile Honduras Risk Profile Hong Kong Risk Profile Hungary Risk Profile Iceland Risk Profile India Risk Profile Indonesia Risk Profile Iran Risk Profile Iraq Risk Profile Ireland Risk Profile Isle of Man Risk Profile Israel Risk Profile Italy Risk Profile Ivory Coast Risk Profile Jamaica Risk Profile Japan Risk Profile Jordan Risk Profile Kazakhstan Risk Profile Kenya Risk Profile Kiribati Risk Profile Kosovo Risk Profile Kuwait Risk Profile Kyrgyzstan Risk Profile Laos Risk Profile Latvia Risk Profile Lebanon Risk Profile Lesotho Risk Profile Liberia Risk Profile Libya Risk Profile Liechtenstein Risk Profile Lithuania Risk Profile Luxembourg Risk Profile Macao Risk Profile Madagascar Risk Profile Malawi Risk Profile Malaysia Risk Profile Mali Risk Profile Malta Risk Profile Marshall Islands Risk Profile Martinique Risk Profile Mauritania Risk Profile Mauritius Risk Profile Mexico Risk Profile Micronesia Risk Profile Middle East Risk Profile Moldova Risk Profile Monaco Risk Profile Mongolia Risk Profile Montenegro Risk Profile Montserrat Risk Profile Morocco Risk Profile Mozambique Risk Profile Myanmar Risk Profile Namibia Risk Profile Nauru Risk Profile Nepal Risk Profile Netherlands Risk Profile New Caledonia Risk Profile New Zealand Risk Profile Nicaragua Risk Profile Niger Risk Profile Nigeria Risk Profile Niue Risk Profile North Africa Risk Profile North America Risk Profile North Asia Risk Profile North Korea Risk Profile North Macedonia Risk Profile North and South Korea Risk Profile Northeast Asia Risk Profile Northern Mariana Islands Risk Profile Northwest Asia Risk Profile Norway Risk Profile Oceania Risk Profile Oman Risk Profile Pacific Islands Risk Profile Pakistan Risk Profile Palau Risk Profile Palestine Risk Profile Panama Risk Profile Papua New Guinea Risk Profile Paraguay Risk Profile Peru Risk Profile Philippines Risk Profile Poland Risk Profile Portugal Risk Profile Puerto Rico Risk Profile Qatar Risk Profile Romania Risk Profile Russia Risk Profile Rwanda Risk Profile Saint Kitts and Nevis Risk Profile Saint Lucia Risk Profile Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Risk Profile Samoa Risk Profile Sao Tome and Principe Risk Profile Saudi Arabia Risk Profile Senegal Risk Profile Serbia Risk Profile Seychelles Risk Profile Sierra Leone Risk Profile Singapore Risk Profile Slovakia Risk Profile Slovenia Risk Profile Solomon Islands Risk Profile Somalia Risk Profile South Africa Risk Profile South America Risk Profile South Asia Risk Profile South Korea Risk Profile Preview Preview is not available. Related products 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 A Resilient Future: Embracing Innovation and Leveraging Local Expertise and Collaboration to Enhance Seismic Risk Reduction in El Salvador By: Feb 20, 2024 Feb 22, 2024 Share Facebook LinkedIn Spanish version The Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Foundation's USAID-supported project, Forecasting and Communicating Earthquake Hazard and Risk (FORCE), has been working to help strengthen local capacities and improve earthquake risk reduction in El Salvador. The project has conducted two visits to the country, bringing together government agencies, scientists, engineers, and other stakeholders to discuss seismic hazard assessment, risk analysis, and communication strategies ( report with detailed information ). “The FORCE project workshops have been instrumental in strengthening our knowledge in earthquake risk management. This allows us to improve logistics by developing and updating our planning instruments based on realistic scenarios. These scenarios define the necessary resources (human, material, and financial) in advance, ensuring a more effective and timely response when an earthquake strikes.” - Katherine Elizabeth Peña Nunfio, Technical Specialist - Research and Risk Analysis, General Directorate of Civil Protection. Click here for more details of Katherine’s insights. Training Sessions and OpenQuake Technical Workshop The first visit, from November 6 to 10, 2023, focused on training sessions for the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARN) staff on the construction of base models for seismic risk assessment, such as the seismic hazard model and the exposure model. In the case of seismic hazard, the workflow was evaluated using the different tools that GEM offers for the construction of a probabilistic seismic hazard model (PSHA) and the underlying datasets (seismic catalogue and logic tree of ground motion models). The OpenQuake Technical Workshop, held on November 9, 2023, provided step-by-step practical exercises on seismic hazard and risk analysis. Participants had the opportunity to interact with GEM scientists and engineers in modelling seismic hazard and risk using OpenQuake, the software developed and maintained by the GEM Foundation, and used by MARN for the characterisation of seismic hazard at the national level. “MARN recognises the importance of regularly updating its hazard and exposure models to reflect the latest seismic activity and urbanisation patterns. The institution will continue to utilise the GEM methodology and OpenQuake engine to ensure that its models remain up-to-date and reliable.” – Luis Ernesto Mixco Durán, MARN on the key takeaways from the workshops and their implementation. Click here for more details of Luis’ insights. Meetings with Government Actors and Seismic Risk Communication Workshop The second visit, from January 8 to 12, 2024, focused on meetings with government actors and a workshop on seismic risk communication with decision-makers. The meeting with government actors was an opportunity to present the project and its progress, as well as the expected results (risk analysis for specific seismic events, probabilistic analysis at the national level, and forecast risk assessment for 2030, 2040 and 2050). The Seismic Risk Communication Workshop with Decision Makers ("Earthquakes in El Salvador: What do we know and how could they affect us in the coming years?"), held on Thursday, January 11, 2024, brought together representatives from the GEM Foundation, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID/BHA), the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARN), the General Directorate of Civil Protection, the Ministry of Public Works (MOP), the Ministry of Health (MINSAL), the Ministry of Education (MINED), the Ministry of Housing, the Road Conservation Fund of El Salvador (FOVIAL), the Salvadoran Institute of Social Security (ISSS), the Salvadoran Association of Engineers and Architects (ASIA), the Central American University "José Simeón Cañas" and the University of El Salvador. “The techniques and input provided during the workshops will empower me to introduce seismic risk assessment concepts more effectively to my Master's students, allowing them to visualise earthquake impacts in real-world scenarios." – Manuel Alfredo Lopez Menjivar, University of El Salvador (UES) on the application of the workshop's learnings to his work in earthquake risk reduction. Click here for more details of Manuel’s insights. Key Recommendations from the Workshops The workshops identified several key recommendations for enhancing earthquake risk management in El Salvador: Capacity Building: Enhance technical expertise on seismic hazard assessment and OpenQuake engine utilisation. For instance, during the online training workshop held for the month of February, 40 participants were from El Salvador- (link to training: https://www.training.openquake.org/ ). Model Development: Continuously refine hazard, exposure, and vulnerability models for El Salvador. Seismic Risk Communication: Develop tailored risk profiles for government agencies and the public. Utilise a dashboard for effective visualisation and dissemination. Additional Considerations: Include in future versions the infrastructure damage estimation, fluctuating population, and tourist presence in risk assessments. Prioritise earthquake risk communication and community preparedness. Promoting Shared Understanding and Collaborative Action The FORCE workshops have made a significant contribution to earthquake risk reduction efforts in El Salvador by bringing together key stakeholders in the field of disaster preparedness and emergency response. These workshops have fostered a collaborative environment where participants can share their knowledge and expertise, leading to a better understanding of seismic hazards, risk assessment methods, and appropriate communication strategies. Additionally, the project is working with MARN and scientific collaborators to improve models, such as the seismic hazard, exposure, and vulnerability models, thereby generating risk metrics that will better reflect the seismic risk reality of the country . Visit the FORCE project website for more information at: https://www.globalquakemodel.org/proj/force Disclaimer This web article about the FORCE project activities in El Salvador is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Foundation and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. No images found. GALLERY 1000015738.jpg 7El Salvador FORCE workshop.jpg IMG_7404.heic 1000015738.jpg 1/32 VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

News Afghanistan Earthquake By: Jul 2, 2018 Share Facebook LinkedIn We express our deepest condolence to the Afghan and Pakistani people over the loss of lives and the destruction caused by the magnitude 7.5 earthquake which struck the Badakshan Province in the Hindukush region, Afghanistan, on 26 October 2015. We hope for a prompt recovery for those injured and appreciate the efforts of humanitarian staff who continue to provide life-saving assistance. The entire collision zone between the Indian and Eurasian tectonic plates is highly prone to earthquakes and is at high risk due to dense population and prevalence of vulnerable building construction. Allied to the immediate recovery response, this event reminds us of the need to emphasise disaster risk reduction and resilience, as key development issues. The GEM Foundation affirms its commitment to build global understanding of earthquake risk and its associated socio-economic impacts, by helping governments – and all who struggle for a more resilient world – with tools and information to assist in reducing that risk and in making sound decisions about building standards and construction quality, consistent with world’s best-practice. No images found. GALLERY 1/0 VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

Publications User Needs Assessment for the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Share Facebook LinkedIn Download 2010 | Report Successful development of software such as the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) requires a structured process involving defining the product requirements, based on which the software requirements are specified, actual software is constructed and a number of subsequent steps up to and including deployment and maintenance are implemented. A key part of developing the product requirements document is a User Needs Assessment – that is, defining Who the users of GEM will be, and What their needs are. In order to address these questions, a User Survey was conducted, consisting of 17 questions each in English, Spanish, Chinese, Hindi and Japanese. The survey was accessed over 800 times from over 74 countries, with over 400 completed responses, which are summarized in Section 2 of this report.

Publications Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis model for the Philippines Share Facebook LinkedIn Download 2020 | Peer-reviewed The Philippine archipelago is tectonically complex and seismically hazardous, yet few seismic hazard assessments have provided national coverage. This article presents an updated probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for the nation. Active shallow crustal seismicity is modeled by faults and gridded point sources accounting for spatially variable occurrence rates. Subduction interfaces are modeled with faults of complex geometry. Intraslab seismicity is modeled by ruptures confined to the slab volume. Source geometries and earthquake rates are derived from seismicity catalogs, geophysical data sets, and historic-to-paleoseismic constraints on fault slip rates. The ground motion characterization includes models designed for global use, with partial constraint by residual analysis. Shallow crustal faulting near metropolitan Manila, Davao, and Cebu dominates shaking hazard. In a few places, peak ground acceleration with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years on rock reaches 1.0g. The results of this study may have utility for defining the design base shear in the National Structural Code of the Philippines.

Publications Integrated Risk Modelling Toolkit Manual Share Facebook LinkedIn Download 2018 | User manual At the core of the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) is the development of state-of-the-art modeling capabilities and a suite of software tools that can be utilized worldwide for the assessment and communication of earthquake risk. For a more holistic assessment of the scale and consequences of earthquake impacts, a set of methods, metrics, and tools are incorporated into the GEM modelling framework to assess earthquake impact potential beyond direct physical impacts and loss of life. This is because with increased exposure of people, livelihoods, and property to earthquakes, the potential for social and economic impacts of earthquakes cannot be ignored. Not only is it vital to evaluate and benchmark the conditions within social systems that lead to adverse earthquake impacts and loss, it is equally important to measure the capacity of populations to respond to damaging events and to provide a set of metrics for priority setting and decision-making.

Publications Evaluación de Riesgo Sísmico para Santiago de los Caballeros Share Facebook LinkedIn Download 2022 | Report El presente documento es el resultado del esfuerzo colaborativo entre la Fundación GEM, el Servicio Geológico de los Estados Unidos, la oficina del Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial del Ayuntamiento de Santiago de los Caballeros y el Servicio Geológico Nacional. El objetivo de este reporte es presentar los resultados de la evaluación de riesgo urbano para el municipio de Santiago de los Caballeros, obtenidos dentro del contexto del Proyecto para la Comunicación y Formación en la Evaluación de Riesgos por Terremotos (TREQ), financiado por la Oficina de Ayuda Humanitaria de los Estados Unidos (BHA, por sus siglas en inglés).

Publications Guidelines for Analytical Vulnerability Assessment-Low/Mid-Rise Share Facebook LinkedIn Download 2014 | Report Guidelines (GEM-ASV) for developing analytical seismic vulnerability functions are offered for use within the framework of the Global Earthquake Model (GEM). Emphasis is on low/mid-rise buildings and cases where the analyst has the skills and time to perform non-linear analyses. The target is for a structural engineer with a Master’s level training and the ability to create simplified non-linear structural models to be able to determine the vulnerability functions pertaining to structural response, damage, or loss for any single structure, or for a class of buildings defined by the GEM Taxonomy level 1 attributes. At the same time, sufficient flexibility is incorporated to allow full exploitation of cutting-edge methods by knowledgeable users. The basis for this effort consists of the key components of the state-of-art PEER/ATC-58 methodology for loss assessment, incorporating simplifications for reduced effort and extensions to accommodate a class of buildings rather than a single structure, and multiple damage states rather than collapse only considerations.