Extreme Geohazards

Notes

Hans-Peter

• Black Swan intro

ESF

• Goals of ESF – advance science, develop new• Various domains covered; this meeting is one

under Life, Earth & Environmental Sciences• Various instruments; Exploratory Workshops,

Conferences, EUROCORES, Research Networking Programmes, to increase networking, identify and develop synergy and avoid duplication on specific topics or issues like peer review process

• This Research Conference is a starting point...

COST

• Oldest European intergovernmental research network• 9 domains covered; this is in Earth System Science and

Environmental Management (ESSEM) domain• Meetings, Workshops, Conferences, Training visits etc

are funded through COST Actions• Typically these give up to E300K funding over 4 years• ESF and COST are entering a period of change as the

new instrument Science Europe is created• A COST Action in natural hazards can be envisaged for

2012, so this could indeed be a starting point...

UNESCO

• UN specialised agency for science and the only one covering the Earth Sciences through IGCP

• Strong cooperation with ICSU, GEO/GEOSS etc• Other important links; IHP, World Heritage,

OneGeology, International Drilling Programme• Some UNESCO Networks could be used to enlarge

Geohazards Community of Practice (GHCP); building this remains a UNESCO goal

• IGCP 40th Celebration at UNESCO in Feb 2012 and again at the IGC in Brisbane in August 2012

GEO

• As GEO Secretariat Expert in Disasters SBA, Francesco keen to learn from participants

• Goal of GEO is to build and develop a GEOSS to provide comprehensive, coordinated and sustained observations e.g. aimed at disasters

• Disasters Task has 4 components: Support to operational systems; systems and tools for risk and vulnerability; regional end-to-end pilots; and gap analysis.

• Supersites, EPOS, GEM etc are all involved...

ICSU• 120 National academies and 30 science unions• Promote networking, participation in science,

independent scientific advice to governments• 5 Programmes WCPR, IGBP, IHDP, Diversitas, and a new

one on Disaster Reduction, IRDR• IRDR integrates interdisciplinary research of members

into this topic; no wheel reinvention• New Earth System Sustainability Initiative (ESSI) defines

five grand challenges to achieve global sustainability that include, e.g. Observations

• Committed to integrating observing and science programmes in GEO; reviewing ICSU role in this.

IGCP 585

• ICSU funded, looks at submarine landslides• Extremity of geohazard events attracted him

into subject area in the first place• His network is ready to contribute....

Seth Stein

• Mitigation is insurance against future events; key challenge is how much to buy given that future events are unknown and uncertain...

• Another challenge is to learn lessons from the actual events rather than brush failure under the carpet; governments usually do the latter

• Many forecasts are wildly wrong, not just for geohazards (e.g. Y2K); why does this happen?

• Bad physics, assumptions, data, and luck can contribute; in Japan tsunami, all four happened...

Seth Stein• Where, when, how big/how much shaking?• Errors in any of these result in forecast errors• Where? tends to bias toward previous events, and

thus misses future events; v. long records are needed to avoid this happening... We’re playing whack-a-mole or chase the rabbit

• When? is again based on too short history and assumes that recurrence is predictable; is it? Another problem is chosing area to measure

• What? Changes by 2-300% with assumptions• What to do: research; deal with uncertainties

better than we have; test maps against reality

Brian McAdoo

• Characterising hazard; esp. frequency, magnitudeFor submarine landslides, the when? is very hard!• Identifying vulnerability; who or what’s damaged? Infrastructure, people, economies, ecosystems...• Considering resilience; how fast can it recover?• What to do with the info? Who cares about it?Depends on the hazard; for some the answer may

be that we can’t do much e.g. for the near field in low-shaking tsunami, there’s no warning possible

Daniela Pantosli• Large events are few; yet the past is key to the future• We learn about past events from instrumental data, historic

records, archaeology, and geological record; depending on the frequency, increasing time range makes chance of capturing event greater in each case

• Palaeoseismology is a young, multidisciplinary science trying to find where, when and what for earthquakes, that has a high potential to contribute to the problem

• Where? High Res DEM help with the geomorphology• How big? DEM analysis used to give cumulative offset• When? Again, careful geomorphology can give ages• Trenching, coastal sections used to discern stratigraphy• Dating has really improved but still gives a wide range because

you date sediments before and after event Palaeoseismic data feeds into models; we need more!

Robert Muir-Wood• M9 EQ theory was disproved by 2004 tsunami• Why didn’t EQ hazard community apologise and move

on? Recent Japanese EQ was known to have happened before in historical record!

• A region experiencing M9 won’t have for 200y• So, historical record is essential to understand• Examples: Crete looks like M9.3, Lisbon ~M9• So, where else has the potential for an M9?• Couple of possibilities: Caribbean Subduction Zone and

North African coast in Western Med• Neither region is prepared; no warning systems• Both regions: large infrastructure, population in the

near-field and significant far-field exposure

Ron Harris• AGU view of our responsibility? Fundamental

research and monitoring, dissemination, and multidisciplinary efforts to improve mitigation

• SE Asia; 400 year record from Dutch colonies which could be used to predict the 2004 Sumatra event, but this information was not acted on...

• So, the research and monitoring is happening but we’re clearly failing to disseminate and mitigate

• M9 can be expected e.g. Timor Trough: Java coast, 300M population exposed to a near-field tsunami

• Now using submarine geomorphology to map faults

Ivan Wong• Talk assessed hazard v risk, uncertainty and asked what is

extreme? Could be extreme hazard, impact or both• Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis is state-of-art; designed to

answer how big, how bad, and how often• What’s probability of a specified hazard level being exceeded in a

given period? Informs building codes, design and decision making processes

• Use all viable models that are supported by data; account for uncertainty; weight them in risk tree

• Consensus is unlikely; no one model is “correct”• Experts are often “anchored” in a model; some avoid making an

analysis ‘cos there’s “no data”; this is fallacy because you can work by analogy with other EQ zones

• Even if we get it right, competing social and financial interests may mean that mitigation does not happen

Carl Bonnevie Harbitz

• Why are submarine landslides extreme? Because the have extreme volume, velocity, travel distance

• Landslides are worse in shallow water; EQ worse in deep water

• PTHA is problematic to apply cf PSHA due to greater uncertainties associated with tsunami

• Problems are also found in converting PTHA to landslide tsunami due to local nature, worse data

• Better to use a scenario approach for landslides?• Exploration in deeper water increases relevance of

addressing submarine landslides in coming years

Gero Michel• Willis Re creating profit from risk management• Principles of insurance; pooling, accidental and finite loss,

affordable premium, capital required• Extreme events: ones that need lots of capital!• Market hardens after major event, with human, property

and capital losses, limited new capital• Risk management by deterministic, probabilistic and hybrid

models; e.g. maximum foreseeable loss• Willis Re Research Network is designed to bring science into

the insurance process and increase resilience, capital influx, insurance penetration...

• Global models like GEM and hazard and risk maps• And perception is also part of the risk equation!Understand, allow, share and insure risk affordably

Maria Bostenaru Dan

• Architecture and civil engineering aspects/costs: building typology, especially reinforced concrete

• Methodology was developed based on existing project management procedures and software

• Comparison between many different countries• Comparison of retrofit costs versus repair costs,

rebuild costs, for different earthquakes• Future developments: timber; simulation effort

using Sim City gaming software approach, etc.

Shelley-Ann Jules Plag• Haiti: dense urban development, very poor building codes,

poorly enforced, and so huge numbers dead• Chilli: not dense population, better building codes, better

enforced, so orders of magnitude less deaths• Building codes are based on Structural Loads, which can be

dead (fixed) or dynamic (cars on a bridge) or dynamic and environmental (winds, seismic...)

• Loads can be underestimated; can be domino effect• We have little control of hazards; but we can chose where

(vulnerability) & how (exposed asset) we build Make sure that good science informs building codes• Perception is important to how we deal with risk; we weigh

it up against benefits, the risk any hazard event won’t happen or whether we chose a risk or it’s imposed

Youcef Bouhadad

• Extreme means out of the ordinary range• He presented some characteristic earthquakes

from Algeria, which met this criteria and which left clear record in the geology, inc of tsunami

• New building projects are located in the area at most risk from extreme earthquakes and or tsunami, including high-rise, tourist complexes

Alik Ismail-Zadeh

• Earthquakes don’t kill people, buildings do• Great first slide of “closing comments”....!• We have experienced a loss of faith after the

enlightenment and a loss of safety, recently• Reviewed development of risk management

and in so doing the tools available to scientists inc. Drilling, GPS, modelling, geomorphology, palaeoseismology...

• Talked about prediction; triggered discussion!

Alvaro Gonzalez

• Attempting to make empirical, spatial forecast• Use the fact that earthquakes cluster strongly

along known fault zones; next will be close to previous; model identifies “plate boundaries”

• Test against the next earthquake and update• He presented examples where the earthquake

occurred in high probability zones e.g. Japan• Problem is that the whole subduction zone is

high probability; how useful is this forecast?

Suleyman Sami Nalbant

• Strain accumulation (ratio of interseismic slip rate to plate convergence rate) identifies parts of fault that are strongly coupled or locked

• Can use geodesy or palaeogeodesy for rates• Models do not seem right; influence of past

events seems to be as strong as recent events• Use corals to look at uplift history, refine slips• Looking for more coral data to improve further

Roger Urgelles

• Mediterranean is densely populated/visited• High density sea-floor resources, infrastructure• History of tsunamis from EQ, volcano, landslide• Fluid escape from seabed sediments, basement

structures control submarine landslides• Reviewed characteristics of submarine landslides• Active margins show many but smaller submarine

landslides and their associated landslide tsunamis; passive, fewer but larger; little is known re ages

• Modelled tsunami likely to be generated from various submarine landslides

Dario Tedesco

• Project: increase Goma Volcano Observatory and relevant government ministry’s capacity

• Multiple geohazards: volcano, EQ, soil gasses, inc killer lake, acid rain, mudflows, landslides

• Real time seismic and EO (EVOSS end user); not real-time GPS, but hope to have it soon

• Scale of impact from negligible to catastrophic and for probability, from possible to probable, used to communicate a range of scenarios based on past events in schools, radio, sms, via a conference with authorities in DRC and Rwanda, books and leaflets

• Identify and understand: map, monitor, make aware and prepare, scenario plans, respond; share information; plan

Paraskevi Nomikou

• Santorini is “inflating”, has hot water at subsea cone and has newly increased seismic activity

• Use remotely operated vehicles to study cones, circular domes, cracks, hydrothermal deposits

• Kolumbo subsea volcano to NE has active CO2 vents and activity, bacterial mats and no fish

• Gold, silver and zinc enrichment in the vents• InSAR data are consistent with these observations

as island is a fault-controlled “flower” structure• Activity requires integrated monitoring program

Efthymios K Tripsanas

• Large Santorini sediment volumes require a collapse at some point in the recent history

• Dating of 3 turbidites at 3.6, 20 and 30-40 ka• Erect history of eruptions & caldera collapse• How to get such a lot of mud in homogenites? Gravity flows from caldera collapse? Underwater pyroclastic flows c.f. Montserrat• Studying the sediments produced suggests that

the Minoan eruption that destroyed a civilisation may not have been the largest eruption...

Thomas Oommen

• Liquefaction: increased pore pressure turns a saturated cohesion-less soil from solid to liquid

• This creates mud flows, collapses, boils, etc.• Assessed in geotechnical tests, empirical models• Sampling is biased 3:1 in favour of liquefaction• Also problem of class imbalance for small classes

and hazards are often an exception, not the rule• How do we identify all liquefied areas, spatially?

Results improve if buffer mapped zone by 100m.

Jorn Lauterjung• Tsunami warning system: up-stream and down-stream• Upstream is monitoring; downstream is creating societal

awareness, preparedness, standard operational procedures• Integrated sensors... simulation system... decision support• Compare measured to many previously modelled scenarios• For far-field, only fault orientation is needed, but near-field needs

earthquake location, rupture propagation direction• Rule-based decision process is based on the earthquake

magnitude and depth and the tsunami wave-height• Warning chain: TV, radio, web, email, sms, sirens... But, who gets

warned depends on local government’s views• Hazard and risk knowledge and forecasting are only half of the

equation; other half is the preparedness and response• There are also issues in terms of mandated authorities

Marino Protti• Early warning in C. America and is M9 possible?• Subduction below both sides of Panama Block, from

Cocos Plate in SW and Caribbean in NE• SW coast of Costa Rica subsiding, pushed north,

seen in the GPS, seismicity and also in the field• Modelling this gives M7.8 with small tsunami,

minimal risk as the coastline will be uplifted, with subsidence only in the gulf behind the peninsula

• Liquefaction is a big problem as shaking will be strong and long-lasting and Gulf behind is filled with sediments from mainland rivers

• His calculation suggest max M8.8 earthquake here

Rongjiang Wang

• In near-field, using strong motion sensors and GPS and rapid inversion for early warning system

• Integrating strong motion sensor and GPS for early warning; Japan case study as great data!

• Strong motion: need to correct baseline errors at soft sediment sites (hard rock, borehole are OK)

• Removal of outliers improves inversion results• GPS data: high-frequency noise-related errors• Complementary information from using both• Tested using fewer data to simulate other sites

Discussion: Rapid Disaster Assessment• Understand what responders need to know fast; it’s often different to

what we want to know fast; varies by regions• Aftershocks: when and where to direct evacuation; this is difficult;

maybe zones where there’ll be lots but only 3% of deaths are from them, as people have got out already after main shock, so maybe this isn’t so useful?

• Damage assessment: where it’s worst, to focus rescue effort• Where are initial survivors: to treat life-threatening injuries• We can make an acceleration map in 30 minutes; need to combine this

with vulnerability map (this is often lacking)• Global vulnerability mapping is a big gap (but being filled)• We can also pre-assess and then quickly re-assess the likely total

deaths; this number needs far better dissemination• Improve pre-event relationships: make better preparation, education,

communication, so people know what to do• Buildings: weapons of mass destruction; how to change?

Some Headlines...

Extreme Events are...– Ones outside the usual range (magnitude, impact)– Ones that require a lot of capital to cover losses!

“Earthquakes don’t kill people, buildings do” or...“Buildings are weapons of mass destruction” and

“We have little control of hazards; but we can chose where and how we build buildings...”

What are we (not) doing?

• Improving knowledge: ICSU, EC, ESF, NSF...• Improving data/observations: GEO, GMES...• Building networks: GHCP, COST, UNESCO...• Learn lessons from history, geology? Test models

against real events? This has been questioned...• Turn science/observations into forecasts and info

needed by authorities, in form they can use? e.g. “negligible – catastrophic”, “possible – probable”

• Handle well, and openly, our large uncertainties...• Get our information to those who need it on time?

Weak links are often dissemination and mitigation, influencing (global) building codes with science

What we (don’t) know• Our understanding of geohazards is increasing but...• We don’t know so well less frequent extreme events• We don’t have a good model of “domino effects”• By their nature, it’s hard to address black swans• Some hazards are well monitored, others are not• Some important datasets are “patchy” e.g. Real-time

GPS, observations in marine environment cf on land• Where/when/what known generally not precisely• Important biases exist: sampling, “anchoring”...• Perception is also important; often not understood

Mona Khaleghy Rad

• Deterministic v probabilistic risk (uncertainty)• Different disciplines have different definitions• Resistance (inverse of vulnerability) is useful• Reliability: risk’s brother! Ability to perform a

function under stated conditions for specified time period

• She did a global calculation of what would be acceptable casualties for global earthquakes; the Japan events alone exceeded this figure!

Anna Vigorito

• 1972 UNESCO Convention of World Heritage• States can request help with their sites on List

in Danger from both human or natural hazards• 2007 Strategy for Risk Reduction at these sites• Cultural heritage can be intangible such as the

traditions and behaviours in a society and the damage to a site can adversley affect this, too

• Proposes integrated approach to protection

Discussion• We often do learn lessons; don’t apply them• Much discussion as to why this is still problem• Is it a lack of a mandated international body?• Blight was cited as a reason; governments are

afraid of being seen as devaluing land if they label it as being at risk

• States are also reluctant to cede control and authority to an external, international body

• Can we scientists take our own initiative...?• We have to remember that for an authority

these issues are just one of many problems

Antonella Peresan• To test/verify hazard maps, we need to define what is

success and what is failure• GSHAP was an attempt to do this; all 57 EQ in last decade

above M7.5 were not predicted• Problem with PSHA for largest EQ is analysing too small an

area to account for them• Alternative: Neo-deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis

(NDSHA) using synthetic seismograms and other sources of information on seismicity

• This approach fills in the data gaps cf PSHA• Comparison: NDSHA > PSHA in high seismicity zone

whereas PSHA > NDSHA in low seismicity zones

Jane Rovins• IRDR Programme: from research to practiceWhy do losses increase despite our advances?• Scope: geophysical and mydrometeorological disasters

(not technological); socio-economics• Cross-cutting: capacity building, case studies, demo

projects, assessment/data/monitoring• Partners: science and development agencies, research

organisations, ICSU and ISSC Unions, Regional offices, UN bodies, National IRDRs...

• Working Groups: Disaster Loss Data, Forensic Disaster Investigations, Risk Interpretation and Action, Assessment of Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (latter is first systematic, critical, global assessment, akin to ICCP Assessments)

Massimo Coco• There is no reason to assume that improved

understanding of hazards and risks will flow through to better planning and mitigation

• 1990-2008: seismic hazard map, M5+ high probability, vulnerability known, historical, and contemporary, regional seismicity, strain

• Info was provided to CP, government, local authorities, and continued to be on 24h basis

• The chain was broken, however; outreach activity was poor, preparedness and resilience were low

• Jan-March 2009: seismic swarm; INGV info on web in real-time; made several statements to CP

• Radon-based prediction; that EQ did not happen• The lack of preparedness reduced impact of info

• March 30th-March 5th: seismicity increased and an M4.1 foreshock struck L’Aquila area; another radon prediction, this time it was acted on, but wrong again

• CP convened expert advisory group meeting in L’Aquila; complex seismicity, switching between several faults; analysis of similar sequences made by INGV; less than 1 in 100 led to destructive event. Could not be used to predict main EQ. Report made to CP to this effect

• April 6th: Main event; information provided to CP to manage disaster and INGV made several statements

• “Major earthquake is unlikely but cannot be ruled out” ....it was never said one would not occur; but some officials made very unhelpful, inaccurate statements

• Scientists and officials prosecuted for failing to make prediction; but society should concentrate on better preparedness and mitigation rather than prosecution for something we cannot yet do – predict earthquake

• If there is one lesson agreed: be careful what we say

Rui Pinho• Many research projects; GEM motivated by

opportunity to integrate, provide common platform for open discussion, participation by local experts, multidisciplinary approach and private sector involvement to increase funding and ensure relevance and serve many users

• GEM launched by OECD Global Science Forum as public-private partnership; open OpenQuake software development platform, OpenGEM web access, RfPs -> projects, regional workshops...

Hans-Peter Plag• Gave brief introduction to GEO and GEOSS• Talked people through Roadmap and DI-01,

emphasising Disaster SBA’s strategic target, and the GHCP activity leading to Roadmap

• Highlight: Supersites from IGOS Geohazard Theme and Frascati Declaration up to now

• Highlight: paired centres of excellence idea• Highlight: AIP Use Case exists on Disasters• Highlight: GEO User Requirements Registry

Sunitha Kuppuswamy• Coastal disaster management research, Tamil Nadu, India• Dynamic, unstable coastal system, with growing population• 2004 Tsunami impact was increased by the absence of good

communication (the last mile), preparedness, community participation, awareness, education, empowerment, good governance...

• Two field-based studies: communication; tsunami education• Community-based radio station; GTS Digital Board (this also useful

daily, for fishermen), Village Info Centres with public address system, VIC linked to one central Village Knowledge Centre, and Government VHF-based public address system

• Men preferred to use Government VHF system, which only provides disaster info; women used VIC system, which was broadcasting lots of other information, as well

• She modelled what lay behind these decisions and it was the perceived information reliability that was a critical factor

• Education study: visual media was more effective than audio

Roger Bilham• Average earthquake energy release ~= 80MT/year, ~=

only 2 sticks of dynamite per person per month• Numbers killed and costs increasing, but if you

normalise to growing population, steady state Demonstrates that we are not learning lessons• Costs surprisingly affordable: $5/year/person! Maybe that’s why we’ve not solved problem• Chance of dying in EQ = 1 in a million, but dice are

loaded; higher/lower in some countries; 20% in first two hours, but 80% in next 1-3 days from injuries

• Too many people in badly constructed buildings, concentrated in exponentially expanding cities

• 84% of deaths in 12% of land surface; most in poor, corrupt countries; answer is education; more new houses are being built than ever before; do it better