Publications Earthquake scenarios for building portfolios using artificial neural networks: Part II – Damage and loss assessment Share Facebook LinkedIn Download 2022 | Peer-reviewed Seismic risk assessment of building portfolios has been traditionally performed using empirical ground motion models, and scalar fragility and vulnerability functions. The advent of machine learning algorithms in earthquake engineering and ground motion modelling has demonstrated promising advantages. The aim of the present study is to explore the benefits of employing artificial neural networks (ANNs) in earthquake scenarios for spatially-distributed building portfolios. To this end, several recent major seismic events in the Balkan region were selected to assess damage and economic losses, considering different modelling approaches. For the assessment of the seismic demand, the ANN developed in the companion study and common ground motion models for Europe were adopted. For the vulnerability component, recent ANN models and existing scalar fragility and vulnerability functions for the Balkans were used. The estimates of all modelling cases were compared against the aggregated damage and economic loss data observed in the aftermath of these events. The findings of this study suggest that overall, the ANNs led to damage and economic loss estimates closer to the observations.

You have chosen to request a demo on: Active Faults Database 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

License Request Form You have chosen to get more information about: Northern Africa Hazard Hazard Please check the link below to see if this product already meets your your requirements before submitting your request for a license. Thank you. DOWNLOAD THE OPEN VERSION Summary of steps to obtain a license for the requested product. Fill in the application form below. Click Submit. Please check your email Inbox or Spam folder for the summary of your request. You will then be contacted by the GEM Product Manager with either a request for more information, or a request to sign the license. If you do not hear from us within 2 weeks, please send an email to product@globalquakemodel.org . REQUEST DETAILS A. Requesting party information First Name Last Name Role/Job Email Business type Business type Other business Sector Sector Other sector B. License agreement signatory information The signatory must be someone who is authorised to sign license agreements on your behalf such as your immediate supervisor, manager or legal officer. If you’re a PhD student, the signatory must be your adviser or a university officer in charge of license agreements or similar legal documents. Full Name of Signatory Position Company Email of Signatory Organisation name Complete Address C. Purpose of request GEM is able to offer products for free because of the support of our project partners, national collaborators and institutional sponsors. All of GEM’s products are freely available for public good, non-commercial use, but with different license restrictions. In most cases we release products under an open license (e.g., CC BY-SA or CC BY-NC-SA), which permits (re)distribution. In this case, we are granting access under a more restricted license that forbids distribution or disclosure and requires signing by GEM and the licensee in order to better assure accountability for the confidentiality of the information. In order for GEM to properly assess your request, please answer the following questions below. 1. Explain briefly how will the GEM product be used e.g. project, research including the expected results and the foreseen public benefit. 2. Will you be able to share the results of your work with GEM? YES NO 3. Will you be able to provide feedback to GEM on the quality and usefulness of this product via a survey? YES NO C. Privacy Policy By submitting this form, you consent to the processing of your personal data in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). We are committed to safeguarding your information and ensuring it is only used for the purpose outlined in this form. You have the right to access, rectify, or delete your data at any time. For more information, please refer to our Privacy Policy. I agree Words: 0 Email us at product@globalquakemodel.org if you're experiencing problems submitting your application. Thank you. Submit Thanks for submitting! You will be contacted as soon as possible Incomplete data. Please fill in all required fields. Thank you.

Papers, articles and reports are released as part of GEM's advancing science & knowledge-sharing initiatives. Selected reports and other materials produced by the international consortia on global projects, working groups and regional collaborations can also be found below. PUBLICATIONS Papers, articles and reports are released as part of GEM's advancing science & knowledge-sharing initiatives. Selected reports and other materials produced by the international consortia on global projects, working groups and regional collaborations can also be found below. Share Facebook LinkedIn Featured Publications Development of a global seismic risk model GEM Strategic Plan and Roadmap to 2030 Improving Post-Disaster Damage Data Collection to Inform Decision-Making Final Report Anchor 1 Publications List Filters: 149 results found Sort by Title: A-Z Z-A List Gallery Download Evolution of the OpenQuake Engine: Enhanced capabilities, collaborative development, and global adoption Type: Peer-reviewed Year: 2025 The OpenQuake Engine started being developed in 2010 and was publicly introduced in 2014 as an open-source software for seismic hazard and risk modeling, aiming to provide a transparent, flexible, and globally accessible platform to the earthquake engineering and hazard science communities. Over the subsequent decade, extensive advancements have significantly expanded its capabilities and enhanced its adoption worldwide. This article comprehensively reviews these developments, detailing the new computational workflows and features implemented in the OpenQuake Engine with an emphasis on the risk component, improvements in its computational efficiency and scalability, and its growing global application across diverse geographical and thematic contexts. Major improvements to the OpenQuake Engine include the earthquake-triggered landslide and liquefaction modules, the infrastructure risk and network connectivity analysis module, the post-event loss amplification module, the financial loss module for insured and reinsured loss calculations, the classical and event-based probabilistic damage calculators, and the site-amplification module. Additional features include the option to condition ground motion fields on station data in scenario calculations, ability to connect ShakeMap outputs to the OpenQuake Engine’s damage and loss calculators, the conditional spectra calculator, vector-valued PSHA, and extension of the risk calculators to volcanic hazards. Performance improvements and enhancements in documentation have been pivotal in strengthening the software’s usability across a variety of computational platforms and user groups. A core contribution of this article lies in compiling and synthesizing over a hundred studies conducted using the OpenQuake Engine, thereby illustrating its versatile application at national, regional, urban, and site-specific scales. Moreover, examples of its use in earthquake insurance pricing and parametric catastrophe bond design are highlighted, demonstrating its practical relevance to risk management and financial resilience. Reflections on lessons learned regarding the importance of open-source practices, robust documentation, sustained user engagement, and interdisciplinary collaboration are discussed to inform future development and maintenance of scientific software with global applications. Details Download Model of seismic design regulations and lateral force coefficients for buildings in South America Type: Peer-reviewed Year: 2025 This study investigates the evolution and current status of seismic design regulations in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela, using a pre-established methodology previously applied for Europe. It introduces a simplified methodology to estimate the proportion of buildings designed under four seismic code levels: no code, low code, moderate code, and high code. By analysing the progression of seismic design standards across South America, the study determines lateral force coefficients for a typical mid-rise reinforced concrete structure corresponding to each seismic code level. The findings reveal that approximately 20% of the total building stock, and 55% of reinforced concrete buildings, were constructed while regulations with some seismic provisions were followed. This research offers essential tools to enhance seismic risk assessment models and provides a dynamic framework for integrating new data, technological advancements, and local expertise into exposure modelling. Furthermore, it contributes to a global initiative led by the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Foundation aimed at improving accessibility to information on seismic regulations and seismic hazard design demand maps. Details Download Automating building typology identification for seismic risk assessment using deep learning Type: Peer-reviewed Year: 2025 Driven by rapid urbanization and heightened seismic risk concerns, efficient methods for developing regional seismic exposure assessments are advantageous. By leveraging deep learning and computer vision techniques, this study presents a novel approach for automating the identification of building typologies. The detailed building stock required for seismic exposure assessment has been traditionally achieved through time-consuming and costly in-person inspections. Recently, virtual inspections have emerged as a more efficient alternative, but they still require significant manual effort. This study proposes a methodology for automating the characterization of buildings, including details such as the number of stories, structural system, and construction period (pre-code or code), by implementing a convolutional neural network model that processes labeled images from Google Street View. A key innovation of this study is the integration of pre-processing techniques, including an object detector to isolate building façades and perspective correction using a keypoint model and homography transformation, enabling robust performance even with a small data set. This research advances prior methods by classifying individual stories rather than grouping them into broad taxonomic ranges, providing greater precision and applicability for seismic exposure modeling. The results show an 88% accuracy for structural system identification, a 78% accuracy for the number of stories, and a 69% accuracy for construction period determination. These characteristics are integrated into a probabilistic distribution model of building taxonomy that informs about their potential seismic vulnerability. The proposed procedures streamline the development of building stock and seismic exposure models, thus facilitating their use for seismic risk modeling at a regional scale. Details Download Global EarthquakE ScEnarios (GEESE): An OpenQuake Engine-Based Rupture Matching Algorithm and Scenarios Database for Seismic Source Model Testing and Rapid Post-Event Response Analysis Type: Peer-reviewed Year: 2025 The Global EarthquakE ScEnarios (GEESE) algorithm retrieves from a seismic hazard input model the ruptures matching a set of criteria (e.g., magnitude, location, focal mechanism). We applied the GEESE algorithm to create a publicly available database (version 1.0) of finite rupture models for past earthquakes which can be used for scenario seismic hazard and risk analysis applications. To this end, we selected earthquakes with a moment magnitude larger than 7.0 and hypocentral depth less than 200 km in the ISC-GEM catalogue (version 10.0) and retrieved the best matching ruptures from the seismic hazard models in the GEM Mosaic. The GEESE algorithm also automatically computes a set of ground-motion fields using each matched rupture, which are also provided in the database. The ability of the GEESE algorithm to test whether a Mosaic model can generate a rupture sufficiently representative of a queried event is a useful means of evaluating the Mosaic model's seismic source characterisation (SSC). Sufficiently matching ruptures are retrieved from the Global Mosaic for 90 percent of the tested ISC-GEM events. The GEESE algorithm can also be used in post-event response analysis to rapidly obtain an initial finite rupture when only minimal event information is initially available. A demonstration of these capabilities of the GEESE algorithm is provided using the 2023 Morocco earthquake, the 1994 Northridge earthquake, and the 2023 Kahramanmaras earthquake. Details Download Probabilistic seismic risk assessment of Africa Type: Peer-reviewed Year: 2025 Several destructive earthquakes have occurred throughout the African continent over the past century. However, few comprehensive seismic risk models exist for the region. This study presents a probabilistic earthquake loss model for Africa, which is comprised of open model components and data sets that enable the calculation of a range of risk metrics useful for disaster risk management. Across the continent, Algeria faces the most significant predicted building damage, economic loss, population displacement, and fatality risks due to earthquakes. After Algeria, the order of highest risk countries depends on the considered risk metric, with countries such as Egypt, Morocco, and Uganda joining Algeria in the top three. When measured in relative terms, smaller countries that face disproportionate risks are highlighted, such as Djibouti, Burundi, Rwanda, and Malawi. These countries are exposed to moderate seismic hazard, but have limited evidence of earthquake-resistant design and construction practices that imply significant risk of damages in future earthquakes. Details Download Seismic risk assessment of reinforced concrete buildings in India using cumulative damage index-based vulnerability functions Type: Peer-reviewed Year: 2025 This study proposes a framework to evaluate probabilistic seismic risk of buildings in regions exposed to both crustal and subduction earthquakes. Ground motions from subduction earthquakes are typically longer in duration, causing higher damage to structure due to increased inelastic demand as compared to ground motions from crustal earthquakes having the same peak intensity. The increased vulnerability to structural damage from subduction earthquake ground motions needs to be accounted for in seismic loss assessment studies. This study investigates the same for India. The north and northeast of India are exposed to both crustal and continental subduction seismic sources, and Peninsular India is exposed to crustal seismic sources. Nonlinear analytical models are developed for a set of modern Indian code-compliant reinforced concrete special moment frame buildings located at 20 different sites in India. Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) of building models using spectrally equivalent ground motions from crustal and subduction earthquakes is used for developing tectonic-region-type-specific (crustal and subduction) building vulnerability functions. The cumulative damage index is used as the engineering demand parameter to capture the increased inelastic demand from subduction earthquakes on buildings. For seismic risk assessment, the total seismic hazard at a site is separated into its contribution from crustal and subduction sources and combined with respective building vulnerability functions. The seismic risk of buildings is quantified by average annual loss ratio (AALR) through event-based probabilistic seismic risk analysis. For buildings located in high seismic zones of India, this study finds that AALR can be up to 40% higher on average as compared to studies not accounting for increased building vulnerability from subduction earthquakes. Details Download Understanding seismic risk in Santiago de Cali (Colombia) for its application in risk management Type: Peer-reviewed Year: 2025 This study presents the results of the seismic risk assessment for the city of Santiago de Cali (Colombia), a collaborative effort between the Mayor's Office of Santiago de Cali (including the Municipal Planning Office and the Disaster Risk Management Secretariat), the Colombian Geological Survey (SGC), the United States Geological Survey (USGS), EAFIT University and the GEM Foundation. The primary objective was to provide actionable insights for Disaster Risk Management (DRM) across its stages: awareness, risk reduction, and disaster response, and to enable the creation of a risk assessment specifically tailored to the city's needs, ensuring that its results can be effectively integrated into local risk management processes. Early engagement with stakeholders ensured that the models aligned with local needs, facilitating their integration into DRM policies. The seismic risk analysis utilizes the latest hazard model developed for Colombia, advanced non-linear site effects characterization, and a detailed building inventory with local expertise. For the first time, data-driven deterministic and probabilistic seismic risk estimates are presented for the city. The results indicate that destructive events could heavily impact the city, particularly events coming from the Dagua-Calima Fault or Nazca Plate subduction zone. Moreover, probabilistic outcomes show that human casualties and building damage disproportionally affect low-income areas, while almost 50 % of economic losses occur to middle-to high-income areas due to higher asset values. These findings highlight the importance of risk reduction strategies that address simultaneously the physical vulnerability and socio-economic disparities. Details Download Forecasting seismic risk within the context of the Sendai framework: An application to the Dominican Republic Type: Peer-reviewed Year: 2022 The Sendai Framework proposes recording disaster losses from hazard events between 2015 and 2030 to monitor the progress towards reduction targets to curtail risk worldwide. In the case of earthquakes, relying on losses over 15 years is unlikely to yield sufficient evidence to support risk mitigation strategies. In this study we propose a general methodology to monitor and forecast Sendai indicators. We apply our approach to explore trajectories of probabilistic indicators of mortality (A1) and economic loss (C1) in the form of custom Sendai Indicators for the Dominican Republic. Risk reduction targets, at national and subnational level, are established and tested along with two mitigation strategies: nationwide retrofitting campaign and stronger code-enforcement. The baseline projection indicates that earthquake risk is expected to increase at a national level, with indicators A1 and C1 increasing over 17% and 27%, respectively, in a period of 35 years. At that scale, code enforcement is more effective in meeting the targets of reduced mortality by 2030 and 2050. At the sub-national level, results depend on the risk drivers in each municipality. We provide two cases: in Santiago de los Caballeros, the baseline risk projection suggests that indicators A1 and C1 will increase by more than 18% and 26% by 2050, respectively, while in Distrito Nacional they decrease by almost 5% and 3%, respectively. In the former region, code-enforcement is the most effective measure to meet the risk reduction targets, while for the latter it was found to be the retrofit campaign. Details Download Public Partnership FAQ Type: Brochure Year: 2025 This document contains frequently asked questions about public partnership opportunities with the GEM Foundation. It covers eligibility requirements for applicant organizations, guidelines for the application form, and the multi-stage selection process. Details Download Impact of population spatiotemporal patterns on earthquake human losses Type: Peer-reviewed Year: 2025 Occupancy patterns are known to strongly affect the number of people killed by earthquakes. Existing exposure models for Europe based on housing census do not account for the daily movement of the population between the place of residence (residential occupancy) and places of economic activity (non-residential occupancy), or the seasonal patterns due to tourism. This study presents a framework to upgrade exposure models from static to 'dynamic', i.e., allowing the input population to change in time and space based on daily and monthly population movement patterns. Open-source population data is used to disaggregate and rescale occupants inside residential, commercial and industrial buildings of 28 European countries, resulting in 24 occupancy categories: two times (i.e., day and night) x 12 months at 30 arc-seconds resolution. The static vs dynamic exposure models are compared using the number and distribution of fatalities resulting from loss calculations for a stochastic set of earthquakes generated from the European Seismic Hazard model (ESHM20). The results demonstrate that the spatiotemporal patterns of population can significantly impact earthquake mortality rates and should not be neglected in scenario loss assessment. The results also demonstrate that the worst occurrence time depends on both the distribution of indoor population between building occupancies and the earthquake rupture characteristics. The ability to capture population distribution during the day and night or seasonal changes (e.g., winter vs summer) is a feature that can advance the ongoing rapid damage/loss assessment services in Europe and consequently support emergency response planning. Details Title Year Type Topic Journal Loading... 1 2 3 4 5 1 ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 15 Filter by publication type: Book chapter Brochure Peer-reviewed Report User manual Reset

News GEM-USAID CCARA Hazard Assessment in San José de Costa Rica By: Jul 2, 2018 Share Facebook LinkedIn Some 16 scientists from Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama and Spain attended a hazard workshop in San José, Costa Rica from September 18th to 22nd as part of the risk assessment activities of the CCARA project (Assessing and Mitigating Earthquake Risk in the Caribbean and Central America). GEM, in collaboration with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) conducted the workshop while the Laboratorio Nacional de Materiales y Modelos Estructurales (LANAMME - http://www.lanamme.ucr.ac.cr/ ) - University of Costa Rica hosted the week-long event. GEM representatives - Julio García, Senior Hazard Scientist, and Marco Pagani, Hazard Coordinator - delivered the workshop in two parts: the first focused on the tools developed by GEM for the construction of seismic hazard models and for the calculation of hazard; while the second focused on the participants’ discussion on the current status of the datasets and hazard models developed in the context of the CCARA project. During the workshop, there was general agreement and appreciation among the participants for the intermediate results presented. However, despite significant progress, they also recognized that the work to be completed was still considerable. Dr. Rolando Castillo, (Coordinator - Programme of Structural Engineering, Lanamme, Universidad de Costa Rica) considered the workshop “a complete success”. He expressed satisfaction with the presentations by GEM scientists because they “provided [the participants] with useful information on seismic source definition and modelling; hazard catalogue and modeler’s toolkit; ground motion prediction equations; and ground motion toolkit and demos”. Dr. Douglas Hernández (Dirección General del Observatorio Ambiental. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (MARN), El Salvador) shared the same observation saying after the workshop, “users learned how to evaluate each step of the hazard assessment process”. In general, participants demonstrated a strong interest to continue collaborating with GEM to reduce seismic risk and to improve the knowledge on this topic. Dr. Vladimir Jiménez (Structural and Geotechnical Engineer, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Dominican Republic) agreed and expressed the same enthusiasm to collaborate more with institutions with the aim of reducing earthquake risk in South America. On the last day of the workshop, a broad discussion on synergies between CCARA and national initiatives opened potential collaborations that could help in expanding the impact of the CCARA project beyond its completion date in March 2018. No images found. GALLERY 1/0 VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

License Request Form You have chosen to get more information about: Oceania Exposure Exposure Please check the link below to see if this product already meets your your requirements before submitting your request for a license. Thank you. DOWNLOAD THE OPEN VERSION Summary of steps to obtain a license for the requested product. Fill in the application form below. Click Submit. Please check your email Inbox or Spam folder for the summary of your request. You will then be contacted by the GEM Product Manager with either a request for more information, or a request to sign the license. If you do not hear from us within 2 weeks, please send an email to product@globalquakemodel.org . REQUEST DETAILS A. Requesting party information First Name Last Name Role/Job Email Business type Business type Other business Sector Sector Other sector B. License agreement signatory information The signatory must be someone who is authorised to sign license agreements on your behalf such as your immediate supervisor, manager or legal officer. If you’re a PhD student, the signatory must be your adviser or a university officer in charge of license agreements or similar legal documents. Full Name of Signatory Position Company Email of Signatory Organisation name Complete Address C. Purpose of request GEM is able to offer products for free because of the support of our project partners, national collaborators and institutional sponsors. All of GEM’s products are freely available for public good, non-commercial use, but with different license restrictions. In most cases we release products under an open license (e.g., CC BY-SA or CC BY-NC-SA), which permits (re)distribution. In this case, we are granting access under a more restricted license that forbids distribution or disclosure and requires signing by GEM and the licensee in order to better assure accountability for the confidentiality of the information. In order for GEM to properly assess your request, please answer the following questions below. 1. Explain briefly how will the GEM product be used e.g. project, research including the expected results and the foreseen public benefit. 2. Will you be able to share the results of your work with GEM? YES NO 3. Will you be able to provide feedback to GEM on the quality and usefulness of this product via a survey? YES NO C. Privacy Policy By submitting this form, you consent to the processing of your personal data in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). We are committed to safeguarding your information and ensuring it is only used for the purpose outlined in this form. You have the right to access, rectify, or delete your data at any time. For more information, please refer to our Privacy Policy. I agree Words: 0 Email us at product@globalquakemodel.org if you're experiencing problems submitting your application. Thank you. Submit Thanks for submitting! You will be contacted as soon as possible Incomplete data. Please fill in all required fields. Thank you.

News GEM Launches Enhanced Building Taxonomy Tools By: Jul 7, 2025 Jun 26, 2025 Share Facebook LinkedIn On 26 June, GEM unveiled its revamped Building Taxonomy tools, providing open-access scripts to support the classification of global building stocks as part of seismic risk analysis. The launch was presented during the Board meeting by Catalina Yepes, GEM’s Exposure Development Lead, and Matteo Nastasi, Senior Software Developer. The GEM Building Taxonomy establishes a consistent framework for describing buildings worldwide using 13 key attributes – such as structural system, construction material, building height, roof type and foundation. Originally published in 2013, Version 2.0 introduced these core attributes to ensure relevance, simplicity and extensibility. The latest Version 3.3, now available on the GitHub-hosted site, retains this foundational structure while incorporating improved data table and links to tools such as the taxonomy validator and explanator, available both via a User Interface and a Python package. The Building Taxonomy supports GEM’s mission to make risk modelling open, interoperable, and globally adoptable. It serves a wide audience – from engineers and planners to insurers and researchers – by providing a reliable framework to catalogue buildings consistently for exposure and vulnerability assessment. GEM encourages users to explore the tools, contribute images or examples to the glossary (which will soon be updated to Version 3.3), and join efforts to expand the taxonomy, ensuring the tool remains adaptable to emerging building types, hazards, and research needs. Visit the new features at: https://tools.openquake.org/taxonomy/ No images found. GALLERY building taxonomy 3.3.png CY MN taxonomy presentation.jpg IMG_0259.HEIC building taxonomy 3.3.png 1/5 VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

You have chosen to request a demo on: Atlas - Global Seismic Hazard Curves 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 the Arabian Peninsula Project Name Products Arabia Hazard OpenQuake engine input model to perform hazard calculations for the Arabian Peninsula Share Facebook LinkedIn Description The 2018.2.0 seismic hazard model of the Arabian Peninsula (ARB) was developed by the Saudi Geological Survey (SGS). The model covers Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, and Qatar, but does not include sources that originate in the Zagros region of western Iran. The model has been translated into the OpenQuake (OQ) engine format by GEM. Since the original version (2018.0.0), several significant updates have been made to the model by the GEM hazard team, leading to the latest release (v2018.2.0), which was used in the computation of the 2023 Global Earthquake Hazard and Risk Maps. Differences in the versions can be consulted in the model documentation. How to cite this work V. Sokolov et al., “Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Saudi Arabia using spatially smoothed seismicity and analysis of hazard uncertainty,” Bull Earthquake Eng, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 2695–2735, Jul. 2017. H. M. Zahran et al., “Preliminary probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia based on combined areal source model: Monte Carlo approach and sensitivity analyses,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 77, pp. 453–468, Oct. 2015. H. M. Zahran et al., “On the development of a seismic source zonation model for seismic hazard assessment in western Saudi Arabia,” J Seismol, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 747–769, Jul. 2016. 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. In such instance please click on "License Request". Share License CC BY-SA 4.0 Available resources Open Version Download Documentation License Request Facebook LinkedIn text 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 Global Exposure Model Country-Territory Seismic Risk Profiles Global Seismic Risk Map 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.

You have chosen to request a demo on: Country-Territory Seismic Risk Profiles 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