News EERI Releases Earthquake Spectra Special Issue on GEM’s 2018 Global Hazard and Risk Models By: Oct 21, 2020 Share Facebook LinkedIn Today, the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), released a of titled documents the supporting research critical to the development of the Global Seismic Hazard and Risk models by the GEM (Global Earthquake Model) Foundation, representing a major step in understanding earthquake risk globally. Seismic hazard and risk models are needed for accurate assessment of risks in order to promote risk reduction and mitigating actions, such as the improvement of building codes and construction practices, sustainable land use, emergency response, and protection of critical infrastructures, as well as risk transfer through insurance. “The assessment and subsequent mitigation of earthquake risks are among the ultimate goals of both seismology and earthquake engineering,” said John Schneider, GEM Secretary General. “During the last two decades, these goals have never been more important and relevant due to rapid urban development and the rise of megacities in earthquake-prone areas which have considerably increased the seismic risk worldwide.” This collection of papers is intended for scientists and researchers in the hazard and risk modeling sector, and risk professionals for application to disaster risk reduction around the globe. The issue contains studies covering probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, exposure modelling, vulnerability assessment, and earthquake loss estimation. The results can be used to understand earthquake risk at the national and regional level and as the basis for developing custom models and risk profiles at higher resolution, e.g., at the city level. Engineers and scientists through risk managers, urban planners, emergency responders and humanitarian agencies can use the models for input to a wide range of disaster risk reduction activities. In December 2018, the GEM Foundation announced the completion of the first version of its Global Earthquake Model and released the following a comprehensive international effort combining datasets, models, tools, and knowledge from hundreds of scientists. The open release of the 2018 GEM Global Hazard and Risk maps signifies a major advancement over efforts prior to GEM’s, which were based on less comprehensive datasets and strategies, and were typically proprietary. GEM’s Global Seismic Hazard Model comprises a mosaic of 30 probabilistic seismic hazard models. The global seismic hazard map expresses the spatial distribution of peak ground acceleration on rock for a 475-years return period. Using this collection of hazard models as input, GEM computed a Global Seismic Risk Model depicting the average Annual Economic Losses (AEL) caused by ground shaking on the residential, commercial, and industrial building stock. The underlying models and datasets were developed following an open and transparent approach, thus allowing scientists to reproduce the results and customize the various components based on their needs. “GEM’s open, transparent and collaborative approach is critical in gaining the trust of stakeholders and promoting local ownership of the results, thus making the information more likely to be used for risk reduction efforts,” said Schneider. International earthquake modelling experts — Marco Pagani, Vitor Silva, Kishor S. Jaiswal, and Trevor Allen — served as guest editors for this issue. Pagani is the Seismic Hazard Coordinator at GEM and Adjunct Professor at the Institute of Catastrophe Risk Management of the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. Silva is the Risk Coordinator at GEM and an Associate Professor at the University Fernando Pessoa at Porto, Portugal. Jaiswal is a research civil engineer at U. S. Geological Survey in Golden, Colorado, where he leads the development of the Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response system’s earthquake casualty and economic loss estimation models. Allen is the Earthquake Hazard Activity Lead at Geoscience Australia. This special issue of is made possible with partial support by the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Foundation. Founded in Pavia, Italy in 2009, GEM is a non-profit public-private partnership that drives global collaborative efforts to develop scientific and high-quality resources for transparent assessment of earthquake risk and to facilitate their application for risk management around the globe. Learn more at www.globalquakemodel.org. Earthquake Spectra is the premier journal on earthquake engineering and resilience, serving as the publication of record for the development of earthquake engineering practice, earthquake codes and regulations, earthquake public policy, and earthquake investigation reports. | Authors: Vitor Silva, Desmond Amo-Oduro, Alejandro Calderon, Catarina Costa, Jamal Dabbeek, Venetia Despotaki, Luis Martins, Marco Pagani, Anirudh Rao, Michele Simionato, Daniele Viganò, Catalina Yepes-Estrada, Ana Acevedo, Helen Crowley, Nick Horspool, Kishor Jaiswal, Murray Journeay, Massimiliano Pittore | Authors: Trevor Allen, Jonathan Griffin, Mark Leonard, Dan Clark, and Hadi Ghasemi | Authors: Henremagne C. Peñarubia, Kendra L. Johnson, Richard H. Styron, Teresito C. Bacolcol, Winchelle Ian G. Sevilla, Jeffrey S. Perez, Jun D.Bonita, Ishmael C. Narag, Renato U. Solidum Jr, Marco M. Pagani and Trevor I. Allen | Authors: Teraphan Ornthammarath M.EERI, Pennung Warnitchai, Chung-Han Chan, Yu Wang, Xuhua Shi, Phuong Hong Nguyen, Le Minh Nguyen, Suwith Kosuwan, Myo Thant, and Kerry Sieh | Authors: Trevor I. Allen, Stephen Halchuk, John Adams, and Graeme A. Weatherill | Authors: Masyhur Irsyama, Phil Cumminsc, M. Asrurifak, Lutfi Faisal, Danny Hilman Natawidjaja, Sri Widiyantorob, Irwan Meilano, Wahyu Triyoso, Ariska Rudiyanto, Sri Hidayati, M. Ridwan, Rahma Hanifa, Arifan Jaya Syahbanaa : Authors: Chung-Han Chan, Kuo-Fong Ma, J. Bruce H. Shyu, Ya-Ting Lee, Yu-Ju Wang, Jia-Cian Gao, Yin-Tung Yen, and Ruey-Juin Rau | Authors: Richard Styron, Marco Pagani | Authors: Yufang Rong M.EERI, Xiwei Xu, Jia Cheng, Guihua Chen, Harold Magistrale, and Zheng-Kang Shen | Authors: Elizabeth Abbott, Nick Horspool, Matt Gerstenberger, Rand Huso, Chris Van Houtte, Graeme McVerry, Silvia Canessa t | Authors: Marco Pagani, Julio Garcia-Pelaez, Robin Gee, Kendra Johnson, Valerio Poggi, Vitor Silva, Michele Simionato, Richard Styron, Daniele Viganò, Laurentiu Danciu, Damiano Monelli, Graeme Weatherill | Authors: Helen Crowley, Venetia Despotaki, Daniela Rodrigues, Vitor Silva, Dragos Toma-Danila, Evi Riga, Anna Karatzetzou, Stavroula Fotopoulou, Željko Žugic, Luis Sousa, Sevgi Ozcebe, Paolo Gamba | Authors: Graeme Weatherill, Sreeram Reddy Kotha, and Fabrice Cotton | Authors: Ana Beatriz Acevedo, Catalina Yepes-Estrada, Daniela Gonzalez, Vitor Silva, Miguel Mora, Mónica Arcila, and Gustavo Posada | Authors: Massimiliano Pittore, Michael Haas, Vitor Silva | Authors: Anirudh Rao, Debashish Dutta, Pratim Kalita, Nick Ackerley, Vitor Silva, Meera Raghunandan, Jayadipta Ghosh, Siddhartha Ghosh, Svetlana Brzev, Kaustubh Dasgupta ----- No images found. GALLERY 1/0 Gallery VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

Publications Can we test for the maximum possible earthquake magnitude? Share Facebook LinkedIn Download 2014 | Peer-reviewed We explore the concept of maximum possible earthquake magnitude, M, in a region represented by an earthquake catalog from the viewpoint of statistical testing. For this aim, we assume that earthquake magnitudes are independent events that follow a doubly truncated Gutenberg‐Richter distribution and focus on the upper truncation M. In earlier work, it has been shown that the value of M cannot be well constrained from earthquake catalogs alone. However, for two hypothesized values M and M′, alternative statistical tests may address the question: Which value is more consistent with the data? In other words, is it possible to reject a magnitude within reasonable errors, i.e., the error of the first and the error of the second kind? The results for realistic settings indicate that either the error of the first kind or the error of the second kind is intolerably large. We conclude that it is essentially impossible to infer M in terms of alternative testing with sufficient confidence from an earthquake catalog alone, even in regions like Japan with excellent data availability. These findings are also valid for frequency‐magnitude distributions with different tail behavior, e.g., exponential tapering. Finally, we emphasize that different data may only be useful to provide additional constraints for M, if they do not correlate with the earthquake catalog, i.e., if they have not been recorded in the same observational period. In particular, long‐term geological assessments might be suitable to reduce the errors, while GPS measurements provide overall the same information as the catalogs.

News GEM Contributes to SIGMA‑3 General Assembly on Nuclear Seismic Safety By: Jul 7, 2025 Jun 3, 2025 Share Facebook LinkedIn GEM participated in the first General Assembly of the SIGMA‑3 project, held in Espoo, Finland, as part of an international effort to advance seismic hazard assessment in support of nuclear safety. SIGMA‑3 is a multi-year research initiative focused on improving the science and methods used to assess seismic hazard and ground motion, particularly for critical infrastructure such as nuclear power plants. The project is supported by a consortium of European and international industry and regulatory bodies. Representing GEM were Marco Pagani, Head of Seismic Hazard, along with Zainab Asaad and Fahrettin Kuran, PhD students from IUSS Pavia. GEM’s participation contributes to SIGMA‑3’s goal of strengthening site-specific hazard estimates, with a focus on improving approaches to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), particularly in the Nordic region. GEM representatives contributed to technical discussions on methodologies and modelling, reinforcing the Foundation’s role in connecting academic research with real-world applications. Their input supports the ongoing refinement of hazard estimates for nuclear sites and promotes open, consistent frameworks for hazard modelling. Through its involvement, GEM is sharing open-source tools, data and expertise to help ensure that seismic risk modelling remains transparent, science-based and accessible. The collaboration highlights how GEM’s core values – openness, credibility and public good – align with the safety priorities of the nuclear energy sector. The next SIGMA‑3 General Assembly is scheduled for December 2025. GEM will continue to support the initiative’s progress toward more reliable seismic safety assessments for critical facilities. For more information, please visit: Sigma 3 Technical Program - sigma No images found. GALLERY 1/0 VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

Publications A township-level exposure model of residential buildings for mainland China Share Facebook LinkedIn Download 2021 | Peer-reviewed The exposure model is a key component of a seismic risk model, which captures the spatial distribution of population and built assets along with their structural characteristics and valuation that are required for seismic risk assessment. Current and available exposure models for China have various limitations that make them less suitable for use in risk assessment, including low spatial resolution of building inventory and the limited identification of key structural characteristics. This study describes the development of a residential buildings’ township-level exposure model for mainland China, containing information about the geographical distribution, structural characteristics, age, ductility, number of stories, number of dwellings, average built-up area, and replacement cost at the township level. This exposure model is intended to be used for risk assessment and to support emergency planning, risk management, and decisions. The geographical distribution’s detailed analysis of the building typologies, heights, and construction vintage at the national, regional, and provincial levels is provided to better aid in understanding country exposure. The results indicate that based on the method, flow, and data from the 6th National Population Census of the People's Republic of China, we can generate key information used for seismic risk analysis, representing a significant step toward a better understanding of risk due to seismic hazards in mainland China.

News GEM and Descartes Underwriting announce partnership aiming to revolutionize parametric approach to earthquake risk By: Nov 18, 2021 Share Facebook LinkedIn Photo credit: @rhidabels Unsplash.com By strengthening both organizations’ understanding of earthquake risk, the collaboration seeks to benefit the global earthquake risk management community while supporting fair and transparent parametric insurance structures Descartes’ experience from different specialized markets and expertise from its scientific team will aid model improvement and advance earthquake risk assessment at global, regional, and local levels 18 November, 2021 - Descartes Underwriting , the largest independent parametric insurance provider, has established a partnership with the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Foundation , an international public-private partnership committed to the development of open-source hazard and risk assessment software, tools and data. The GEM Foundation also centers on the application of science to understanding and managing earthquake risk on a global scale. The collaboration aims to accelerate the ‘data to resilience’ continuum by leveraging the state-of-the-art technology behind Descartes’ parametric insurance solutions and GEM’s open, transparent and collaborative approach to earthquake risk analysis at the global, regional, national and local levels. Earthquakes, which made up only 8% of all disasters in the last 20 years, are the deadliest of all sudden disaster events. The peril constitutes one of the top causes of economic disruption and of disaster deaths due to building collapse. Exposure impacts and global ripple effects have been further aggravated in the past decade, where less than one-fifth of all earthquake losses globally were covered by insurance. The collaboration between GEM and Descartes Underwriting seeks to increase the uptake of earthquake insurance and reduce the protection gap in underserved sectors and regions of the world. The joint partnership also supports continued development of fair and transparent parametric insurance structures that ultimately reduce basis risk and bolster resilience for policyholders. “This partnership will provide a framework for both organizations to work together in developing high resolution and scientifically robust earthquake hazard and risk data to meet the needs of public and private sectors for customized and more affordable earthquake insurance products. Our combined efforts can also contribute to better earthquake risk understanding worldwide and better earthquake insurance coverage.” – John Schneider, GEM Secretary General. GEM’s array of earthquake hazard, exposure and vulnerability models as well as OpenQuake software tools can be used to simulate the seismic behavior of buildings, lifelines and critical facilities. In particular, it allows for the assessment of the probability of earthquakes occurring, and the consequent physical damage and economic loss, essential information for implementing a wide range of risk reduction and transfer mechanisms, including parametric insurance. “Partnering with GEM marks a milestone for both organizations and plays a critical role in providing the next generation of earthquake parametric insurance to clients worldwide. Through frictionless and transparent payouts following seismic events, our joint efforts will be instrumental in reducing the earthquake protection gap around the globe” - says Kevin Dedieu, Co-founder and Head of R&D, Descartes Underwriting. About Descartes Underwriting Offering a new generation of technology-driven parametric insurance, Descartes collaborates with brokers to protect their corporate and public sector clients against the full spectrum of natural catastrophe and extreme weather exposures, including earthquake. Descartes’ covers are uniquely designed to supplement gaps left by traditional insurance, providing cost-effective and fully transparent products that guarantee liquidity via swift and direct payout. Born out of the conviction that climate change calls for a revolutionary approach to insurance, Descartes is structured as an MGA backed by a panel of tier-one risk carriers and can provide $200M USD in capacity per policy. Headquartered in Paris, Descartes Underwriting provides parametric solutions to clients globally from its offices based in Singapore, Sydney, New York, Houston, and London. For more information, please visit www.descartesunderwriting.com . Media Contact: Meg Chaperon -Senior Product Marketing & PR Officer, Descartes Underwriting meg.chaperon@descartesunderwriting.com About GEM Foundation GEM was formed in 2009 as a non-profit foundation in Pavia, Italy, funded through a public-private sponsorship with the vision to create a world that is resilient to earthquakes. GEM is funded by public and private institutions globally, and is advised by many international organizations ( https://www.globalquakemodel.org/partners ). GEM is also recognized by the UN as an NGO, operating under UN guidelines for a humanitarian organization. GEM’s mission is to become one of the world’s most complete sources of risk resources and a globally accepted standard for earthquake risk assessment. Further, GEM aims to ensure that its products are applied broadly in disaster risk management/reduction and its services are available and accessible to public, private and academic institutions worldwide. Media Contact: Jephraim Oro - Communications and Web Manager, GEM Foundation jephraim.oro@globalquakemodel.org No images found. GALLERY 1/0 VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

News Integrating Science and Society: EPOS ON Project Kick-Off By: Oct 9, 2024 Sep 1, 2024 Share Facebook LinkedIn The European Plate Observing System-Optimisation and EvolutioN (EPOS ON) project , a collaborative initiative involving a consortium of 34 partners across 18 countries, kicked off on September 1, 2024, and is set to run for 36 months, concluding on August 31, 2027. Coordinated by EPOS ERIC , the project aims to support the optimisation and evolution of the EPOS Research Infrastructure (EPOS RI) by enhancing the interoperability, accessibility, and integration of various datasets for effective risk management and resilience against natural hazards. With funding support from the European Union (EU) under the Horizon Europe program, this collaborative project will be implemented across various geographic locations within Europe and may extend its partnerships to other regions globally, bringing together diverse expertise and resources to strengthen EPOS RI. Key outputs expected from EPOS ON project work packages (WP) include: WP2 Enhancing Services for Science - Integration of new services from various communities into the EPOS Data Portal , along with a framework to guide engagement with new research communities and enhanced FAIR (i.e. Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles for research. WP3 Contribution to Tackle Societal Challenges - Enhancement of existing EPOS services for improved risk management for natural hazards, supported by dialogue with the EU Union Civil Protection Knowledge Network (UCPKN). WP4 Strengthening Impact Through User Engagement - Implementation of the EPOS User Strategy to enhance engagement and training, complemented by targeted training materials for early-career researchers. WP5 Enlarging European and International Collaborations - Establishment of collaborative partnerships with relevant research infrastructures to promote synergies and expand global access to EPOS services and data. To achieve these outputs, a robust management framework will be developed to ensure effective coordination, communication, and monitoring of project activities across all work packages (WP1), along with the establishment of an evaluation and dissemination strategy to assess project impacts and share results with stakeholders and the wider scientific community (WP6). GEM's specific contributions to the project through WP3 include scientific products that support risk management: Data products and services for rapid post-event assessment: this includes the improvement of existing tools (e.g., European ShakeMap service) for rapid post-event assessment of earthquake impacts and associated secondary hazards (e.g. liquefaction), tools to predict population dynamics in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, and databases of damage-dependent seismic vulnerability models for European buildings. Support for the expansion of the existing European seismic risk services to include maps representing the environmental impact associated with earthquakes in terms of equivalent carbon dioxide (eCO2) emissions arising from damage and subsequent repair activities. In Work Package 5 (WP5), GEM will collaborate with EPOS in its mission to strengthen international partnerships, expanding the global reach and effectiveness of its data and services for a wide range of public and private stakeholders. “GEM is looking forward to working more closely with EPOS through this project, both to provide services and data that support earthquake risk assessment and mitigation, and to provide a strong connection between EPOS and GEM’s global public-private partnership” – Helen Crowley, GEM Secretary General. ## No images found. GALLERY 1/0 VIDEO RELATED CONTENTS

Publications The GEM Faulted Earth Project Share Facebook LinkedIn Download 2015 | Report This is the final report of the GEM Faulted Earth Project (GFE), which was active between 2010 and 2013. GFE set out to build a global active fault database with a common set of strategies, standards and formats, to be placed in the public domain. Nearly 100 individuals from 43 institutions in 21 countries contributed to GFE by providing feedback on the database design and the compilation tool, as well as the documents describing them, contributing data and participating in several workshops.

Publications Evolution of the OpenQuake Engine: Enhanced capabilities, collaborative development, and global adoption Share Facebook LinkedIn Download 2025 | Peer-reviewed 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.

License Request Form You have chosen to get more information about: Papua New Guinea 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.

Publications Methods for assessing the significance and importance of differences between probabilistic seismic hazard Share Facebook LinkedIn Download 2024 | Peer-reviewed When new seismic hazard estimates are published it is natural to compare them to existing results for the same location. This type of comparison routinely indicates differences amongst hazard estimates obtained with the various models. The question that then arises is whether these differences are scientifically significant, given the large epistemic uncertainties inherent in all seismic hazard estimates, or practically important, given the use of hazard models as inputs to risk and engineering calculations. A difference that exceeds a given threshold could mean that building codes may need updating, risk models for insurance purposes may need to be revised, or emergency management procedures revisited. In the current literature there is little guidance on what constitutes a significant or important difference, which can lead to lengthy discussions amongst hazard modellers, end users and stakeholders. This study reviews proposals in the literature on this topic and examines how applicable these proposals are, using, for illustration purposes, several sites and various seismic hazard models for each site, including the two European Seismic Hazard Models of 2013 and 2020. The implications of differences in hazard for risk and engineering purposes are also examined to understand how important such differences are for potential end users of seismic hazard models. Based on this, we discuss the relevance of such methods to determine the scientific significance and practical importance of differences between seismic hazard estimates and identify some open questions. We conclude that there is no universal criterion for assessing differences between seismic hazard results and that the recommended approach depends on the context. Finally, we highlight where additional work is required on this topic and that we encourage further discussion of this topic.