Developing, Testing, and Communicating Earthquake Forecasts: Current Practices and Future Directions
While deterministically predicting the time and location of earthquakes remains impossible, earthquake forecasting models can provide estimates of the probabilities of earthquakes occurring within some region over time. To enable informed decision‐making of civil protection, governmental agencies, o...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Reviews of geophysics (1985) 2024-09, Vol.62 (3), p.n/a |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | n/a |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | |
container_title | Reviews of geophysics (1985) |
container_volume | 62 |
creator | Mizrahi, Leila Dallo, Irina Elst, Nicholas J. Christophersen, Annemarie Spassiani, Ilaria Werner, Maximilian J. Iturrieta, Pablo Bayona, José A. Iervolino, Iunio Schneider, Max Page, Morgan T. Zhuang, Jiancang Herrmann, Marcus Michael, Andrew J. Falcone, Giuseppe Marzocchi, Warner Rhoades, David Gerstenberger, Matt Gulia, Laura Schorlemmer, Danijel Becker, Julia Han, Marta Kuratle, Lorena Marti, Michèle Wiemer, Stefan |
description | While deterministically predicting the time and location of earthquakes remains impossible, earthquake forecasting models can provide estimates of the probabilities of earthquakes occurring within some region over time. To enable informed decision‐making of civil protection, governmental agencies, or the public, Operational Earthquake Forecasting (OEF) systems aim to provide authoritative earthquake forecasts based on current earthquake activity in near‐real time. Establishing OEF systems involves several nontrivial choices. This review captures the current state of OEF worldwide and analyzes expert recommendations on the development, testing, and communication of earthquake forecasts. An introductory summary of OEF‐related research is followed by a description of OEF systems in Italy, New Zealand, and the United States. Combined, these two parts provide an informative and transparent snapshot of today's OEF landscape. In Section 4, we analyze the results of an expert elicitation that was conducted to seek guidance for the establishment of OEF systems. The elicitation identifies consensus and dissent on OEF issues among a non‐representative group of 20 international earthquake forecasting experts. While the experts agree that communication products should be developed in collaboration with the forecast user groups, they disagree on whether forecasting models and testing methods should be user‐dependent. No recommendations of strict model requirements could be elicited, but benchmark comparisons, prospective testing, reproducibility, and transparency are encouraged. Section 5 gives an outlook on the future of OEF. Besides covering recent research on earthquake forecasting model development and testing, upcoming OEF initiatives are described in the context of the expert elicitation findings.
Plain Language Summary
The exact location, time, and magnitude of future earthquakes cannot be predicted. However, based on past earthquake sequences, it is possible to assess probabilities for future earthquakes. This is called earthquake forecasting. Operational Earthquake Forecasting (OEF) systems are designed to provide near‐real‐time authoritative earthquake forecasts, based on current earthquake activity, to aid the decision‐making of various societal stakeholders. Setting up these systems is complex, involving decisions about which model to use, how to best test the model, and how to turn earthquake probability estimates into practical information. This review cap |
doi_str_mv | 10.1029/2023RG000823 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3109052951</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3109052951</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2310-b57b1fa9d420ae8a96ef06e09f9dae2dd84082736125ce02e8d570fe258502d53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1OwzAQhC0EEqVw4wEicW1gvY6TmBtKf0CqVFSVc-TGG0hp49ZOQH170pYDJ067Wn0zqxnGbjncc0D1gIBiPgGAFMUZ63EVRaFCSM9ZL02kDDmCumRX3q8AeCRj2WNmSF-0ttuqfh8EC_LNcdG1CTK72bR1VejDKRhp13zsWv1Jwdg6KrRv_GOQtc5R3QSvThdNVZA_Ksdt0zoKhlXHNZWt_TW7KPXa083v7LO38WiRPYfT2eQle5qGBQoO4VImS15qZSIETalWMZUQE6hSGU1oTBp1yRIRc5QFAVJqZAIloUwloJGiz-5Ovltnd20XJl_Z1tXdy7zzVyBRSd5RgxNVOOu9ozLfumqj3T7nkB96zP_22OF4wr-rNe3_ZfP5bIIgJIgfQjVztQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3109052951</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Developing, Testing, and Communicating Earthquake Forecasts: Current Practices and Future Directions</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library</source><creator>Mizrahi, Leila ; Dallo, Irina ; Elst, Nicholas J. ; Christophersen, Annemarie ; Spassiani, Ilaria ; Werner, Maximilian J. ; Iturrieta, Pablo ; Bayona, José A. ; Iervolino, Iunio ; Schneider, Max ; Page, Morgan T. ; Zhuang, Jiancang ; Herrmann, Marcus ; Michael, Andrew J. ; Falcone, Giuseppe ; Marzocchi, Warner ; Rhoades, David ; Gerstenberger, Matt ; Gulia, Laura ; Schorlemmer, Danijel ; Becker, Julia ; Han, Marta ; Kuratle, Lorena ; Marti, Michèle ; Wiemer, Stefan</creator><creatorcontrib>Mizrahi, Leila ; Dallo, Irina ; Elst, Nicholas J. ; Christophersen, Annemarie ; Spassiani, Ilaria ; Werner, Maximilian J. ; Iturrieta, Pablo ; Bayona, José A. ; Iervolino, Iunio ; Schneider, Max ; Page, Morgan T. ; Zhuang, Jiancang ; Herrmann, Marcus ; Michael, Andrew J. ; Falcone, Giuseppe ; Marzocchi, Warner ; Rhoades, David ; Gerstenberger, Matt ; Gulia, Laura ; Schorlemmer, Danijel ; Becker, Julia ; Han, Marta ; Kuratle, Lorena ; Marti, Michèle ; Wiemer, Stefan</creatorcontrib><description>While deterministically predicting the time and location of earthquakes remains impossible, earthquake forecasting models can provide estimates of the probabilities of earthquakes occurring within some region over time. To enable informed decision‐making of civil protection, governmental agencies, or the public, Operational Earthquake Forecasting (OEF) systems aim to provide authoritative earthquake forecasts based on current earthquake activity in near‐real time. Establishing OEF systems involves several nontrivial choices. This review captures the current state of OEF worldwide and analyzes expert recommendations on the development, testing, and communication of earthquake forecasts. An introductory summary of OEF‐related research is followed by a description of OEF systems in Italy, New Zealand, and the United States. Combined, these two parts provide an informative and transparent snapshot of today's OEF landscape. In Section 4, we analyze the results of an expert elicitation that was conducted to seek guidance for the establishment of OEF systems. The elicitation identifies consensus and dissent on OEF issues among a non‐representative group of 20 international earthquake forecasting experts. While the experts agree that communication products should be developed in collaboration with the forecast user groups, they disagree on whether forecasting models and testing methods should be user‐dependent. No recommendations of strict model requirements could be elicited, but benchmark comparisons, prospective testing, reproducibility, and transparency are encouraged. Section 5 gives an outlook on the future of OEF. Besides covering recent research on earthquake forecasting model development and testing, upcoming OEF initiatives are described in the context of the expert elicitation findings.
Plain Language Summary
The exact location, time, and magnitude of future earthquakes cannot be predicted. However, based on past earthquake sequences, it is possible to assess probabilities for future earthquakes. This is called earthquake forecasting. Operational Earthquake Forecasting (OEF) systems are designed to provide near‐real‐time authoritative earthquake forecasts, based on current earthquake activity, to aid the decision‐making of various societal stakeholders. Setting up these systems is complex, involving decisions about which model to use, how to best test the model, and how to turn earthquake probability estimates into practical information. This review captures the current state of OEF worldwide and analyzes expert recommendations on the development, testing, and communication of earthquake forecasts. Section 2 provides an overview of OEF‐related research and the background knowledge required to understand the other parts. Section 3 describes existing OEF systems of Italy, New Zealand, and the United States in detail. Section 4 discusses an elicitation of expert views on modeling, testing, and communicating earthquake forecasts (Mizrahi, Dallo, & Kuratle, 2023, https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz‐b‐000637239). Data from the elicitation allow to identify consensus and dissent on OEF issues and provide guidance for future earthquake forecasting efforts. Finally, Section 5 gives an outlook on future OEF‐related research and planned OEF efforts at various institutions.
Key Points
We capture the state of earthquake forecasting systems in Italy, New Zealand, and the United States, and future plans in these and other countries
Experts encourage benchmark comparison, prospective testing, reproducibility and transparency, but avoid endorsing specific models or tests
Experts stress the need to co‐design forecast communication products with end‐users to ensure their societal relevance and usefulness</description><identifier>ISSN: 8755-1209</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1944-9208</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1029/2023RG000823</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Communication ; Decision making ; Earthquake forecasting ; Earthquake prediction ; Earthquakes ; Estimates ; Forecasting ; Forecasting models ; modeling ; R&D ; Research & development ; Seismic activity ; Systems analysis ; testing ; User groups</subject><ispartof>Reviews of geophysics (1985), 2024-09, Vol.62 (3), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>2024 The Author(s). This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.</rights><rights>2024. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2310-b57b1fa9d420ae8a96ef06e09f9dae2dd84082736125ce02e8d570fe258502d53</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4787-1343 ; 0000-0002-2403-5019 ; 0000-0002-3812-1153 ; 0009-0006-8774-9170 ; 0000-0002-0392-7114 ; 0000-0002-2554-4421 ; 0000-0002-2342-1970 ; 0000-0002-9114-1516 ; 0000-0002-5262-3168 ; 0000-0002-9708-3871 ; 0000-0001-9321-2990 ; 0000-0002-3026-0327 ; 0000-0003-2252-0202 ; 0000-0002-2430-2631 ; 0000-0002-4997-1153 ; 0000-0002-4919-3283 ; 0000-0003-1467-1414</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029%2F2023RG000823$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029%2F2023RG000823$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,1419,11523,27933,27934,45583,45584,46477,46901</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mizrahi, Leila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dallo, Irina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elst, Nicholas J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Christophersen, Annemarie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spassiani, Ilaria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Werner, Maximilian J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iturrieta, Pablo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bayona, José A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iervolino, Iunio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schneider, Max</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Page, Morgan T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhuang, Jiancang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herrmann, Marcus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michael, Andrew J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Falcone, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marzocchi, Warner</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rhoades, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gerstenberger, Matt</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gulia, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schorlemmer, Danijel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Becker, Julia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Han, Marta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuratle, Lorena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marti, Michèle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wiemer, Stefan</creatorcontrib><title>Developing, Testing, and Communicating Earthquake Forecasts: Current Practices and Future Directions</title><title>Reviews of geophysics (1985)</title><description>While deterministically predicting the time and location of earthquakes remains impossible, earthquake forecasting models can provide estimates of the probabilities of earthquakes occurring within some region over time. To enable informed decision‐making of civil protection, governmental agencies, or the public, Operational Earthquake Forecasting (OEF) systems aim to provide authoritative earthquake forecasts based on current earthquake activity in near‐real time. Establishing OEF systems involves several nontrivial choices. This review captures the current state of OEF worldwide and analyzes expert recommendations on the development, testing, and communication of earthquake forecasts. An introductory summary of OEF‐related research is followed by a description of OEF systems in Italy, New Zealand, and the United States. Combined, these two parts provide an informative and transparent snapshot of today's OEF landscape. In Section 4, we analyze the results of an expert elicitation that was conducted to seek guidance for the establishment of OEF systems. The elicitation identifies consensus and dissent on OEF issues among a non‐representative group of 20 international earthquake forecasting experts. While the experts agree that communication products should be developed in collaboration with the forecast user groups, they disagree on whether forecasting models and testing methods should be user‐dependent. No recommendations of strict model requirements could be elicited, but benchmark comparisons, prospective testing, reproducibility, and transparency are encouraged. Section 5 gives an outlook on the future of OEF. Besides covering recent research on earthquake forecasting model development and testing, upcoming OEF initiatives are described in the context of the expert elicitation findings.
Plain Language Summary
The exact location, time, and magnitude of future earthquakes cannot be predicted. However, based on past earthquake sequences, it is possible to assess probabilities for future earthquakes. This is called earthquake forecasting. Operational Earthquake Forecasting (OEF) systems are designed to provide near‐real‐time authoritative earthquake forecasts, based on current earthquake activity, to aid the decision‐making of various societal stakeholders. Setting up these systems is complex, involving decisions about which model to use, how to best test the model, and how to turn earthquake probability estimates into practical information. This review captures the current state of OEF worldwide and analyzes expert recommendations on the development, testing, and communication of earthquake forecasts. Section 2 provides an overview of OEF‐related research and the background knowledge required to understand the other parts. Section 3 describes existing OEF systems of Italy, New Zealand, and the United States in detail. Section 4 discusses an elicitation of expert views on modeling, testing, and communicating earthquake forecasts (Mizrahi, Dallo, & Kuratle, 2023, https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz‐b‐000637239). Data from the elicitation allow to identify consensus and dissent on OEF issues and provide guidance for future earthquake forecasting efforts. Finally, Section 5 gives an outlook on future OEF‐related research and planned OEF efforts at various institutions.
Key Points
We capture the state of earthquake forecasting systems in Italy, New Zealand, and the United States, and future plans in these and other countries
Experts encourage benchmark comparison, prospective testing, reproducibility and transparency, but avoid endorsing specific models or tests
Experts stress the need to co‐design forecast communication products with end‐users to ensure their societal relevance and usefulness</description><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Earthquake forecasting</subject><subject>Earthquake prediction</subject><subject>Earthquakes</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Forecasting</subject><subject>Forecasting models</subject><subject>modeling</subject><subject>R&D</subject><subject>Research & development</subject><subject>Seismic activity</subject><subject>Systems analysis</subject><subject>testing</subject><subject>User groups</subject><issn>8755-1209</issn><issn>1944-9208</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM1OwzAQhC0EEqVw4wEicW1gvY6TmBtKf0CqVFSVc-TGG0hp49ZOQH170pYDJ067Wn0zqxnGbjncc0D1gIBiPgGAFMUZ63EVRaFCSM9ZL02kDDmCumRX3q8AeCRj2WNmSF-0ttuqfh8EC_LNcdG1CTK72bR1VejDKRhp13zsWv1Jwdg6KrRv_GOQtc5R3QSvThdNVZA_Ksdt0zoKhlXHNZWt_TW7KPXa083v7LO38WiRPYfT2eQle5qGBQoO4VImS15qZSIETalWMZUQE6hSGU1oTBp1yRIRc5QFAVJqZAIloUwloJGiz-5Ovltnd20XJl_Z1tXdy7zzVyBRSd5RgxNVOOu9ozLfumqj3T7nkB96zP_22OF4wr-rNe3_ZfP5bIIgJIgfQjVztQ</recordid><startdate>202409</startdate><enddate>202409</enddate><creator>Mizrahi, Leila</creator><creator>Dallo, Irina</creator><creator>Elst, Nicholas J.</creator><creator>Christophersen, Annemarie</creator><creator>Spassiani, Ilaria</creator><creator>Werner, Maximilian J.</creator><creator>Iturrieta, Pablo</creator><creator>Bayona, José A.</creator><creator>Iervolino, Iunio</creator><creator>Schneider, Max</creator><creator>Page, Morgan T.</creator><creator>Zhuang, Jiancang</creator><creator>Herrmann, Marcus</creator><creator>Michael, Andrew J.</creator><creator>Falcone, Giuseppe</creator><creator>Marzocchi, Warner</creator><creator>Rhoades, David</creator><creator>Gerstenberger, Matt</creator><creator>Gulia, Laura</creator><creator>Schorlemmer, Danijel</creator><creator>Becker, Julia</creator><creator>Han, Marta</creator><creator>Kuratle, Lorena</creator><creator>Marti, Michèle</creator><creator>Wiemer, Stefan</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4787-1343</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2403-5019</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3812-1153</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8774-9170</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0392-7114</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2554-4421</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2342-1970</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9114-1516</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5262-3168</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9708-3871</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9321-2990</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3026-0327</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2252-0202</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2430-2631</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4997-1153</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4919-3283</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1467-1414</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202409</creationdate><title>Developing, Testing, and Communicating Earthquake Forecasts: Current Practices and Future Directions</title><author>Mizrahi, Leila ; Dallo, Irina ; Elst, Nicholas J. ; Christophersen, Annemarie ; Spassiani, Ilaria ; Werner, Maximilian J. ; Iturrieta, Pablo ; Bayona, José A. ; Iervolino, Iunio ; Schneider, Max ; Page, Morgan T. ; Zhuang, Jiancang ; Herrmann, Marcus ; Michael, Andrew J. ; Falcone, Giuseppe ; Marzocchi, Warner ; Rhoades, David ; Gerstenberger, Matt ; Gulia, Laura ; Schorlemmer, Danijel ; Becker, Julia ; Han, Marta ; Kuratle, Lorena ; Marti, Michèle ; Wiemer, Stefan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2310-b57b1fa9d420ae8a96ef06e09f9dae2dd84082736125ce02e8d570fe258502d53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Earthquake forecasting</topic><topic>Earthquake prediction</topic><topic>Earthquakes</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Forecasting</topic><topic>Forecasting models</topic><topic>modeling</topic><topic>R&D</topic><topic>Research & development</topic><topic>Seismic activity</topic><topic>Systems analysis</topic><topic>testing</topic><topic>User groups</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mizrahi, Leila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dallo, Irina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elst, Nicholas J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Christophersen, Annemarie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spassiani, Ilaria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Werner, Maximilian J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iturrieta, Pablo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bayona, José A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iervolino, Iunio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schneider, Max</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Page, Morgan T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhuang, Jiancang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herrmann, Marcus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michael, Andrew J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Falcone, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marzocchi, Warner</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rhoades, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gerstenberger, Matt</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gulia, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schorlemmer, Danijel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Becker, Julia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Han, Marta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuratle, Lorena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marti, Michèle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wiemer, Stefan</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Reviews of geophysics (1985)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mizrahi, Leila</au><au>Dallo, Irina</au><au>Elst, Nicholas J.</au><au>Christophersen, Annemarie</au><au>Spassiani, Ilaria</au><au>Werner, Maximilian J.</au><au>Iturrieta, Pablo</au><au>Bayona, José A.</au><au>Iervolino, Iunio</au><au>Schneider, Max</au><au>Page, Morgan T.</au><au>Zhuang, Jiancang</au><au>Herrmann, Marcus</au><au>Michael, Andrew J.</au><au>Falcone, Giuseppe</au><au>Marzocchi, Warner</au><au>Rhoades, David</au><au>Gerstenberger, Matt</au><au>Gulia, Laura</au><au>Schorlemmer, Danijel</au><au>Becker, Julia</au><au>Han, Marta</au><au>Kuratle, Lorena</au><au>Marti, Michèle</au><au>Wiemer, Stefan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Developing, Testing, and Communicating Earthquake Forecasts: Current Practices and Future Directions</atitle><jtitle>Reviews of geophysics (1985)</jtitle><date>2024-09</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>62</volume><issue>3</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>8755-1209</issn><eissn>1944-9208</eissn><abstract>While deterministically predicting the time and location of earthquakes remains impossible, earthquake forecasting models can provide estimates of the probabilities of earthquakes occurring within some region over time. To enable informed decision‐making of civil protection, governmental agencies, or the public, Operational Earthquake Forecasting (OEF) systems aim to provide authoritative earthquake forecasts based on current earthquake activity in near‐real time. Establishing OEF systems involves several nontrivial choices. This review captures the current state of OEF worldwide and analyzes expert recommendations on the development, testing, and communication of earthquake forecasts. An introductory summary of OEF‐related research is followed by a description of OEF systems in Italy, New Zealand, and the United States. Combined, these two parts provide an informative and transparent snapshot of today's OEF landscape. In Section 4, we analyze the results of an expert elicitation that was conducted to seek guidance for the establishment of OEF systems. The elicitation identifies consensus and dissent on OEF issues among a non‐representative group of 20 international earthquake forecasting experts. While the experts agree that communication products should be developed in collaboration with the forecast user groups, they disagree on whether forecasting models and testing methods should be user‐dependent. No recommendations of strict model requirements could be elicited, but benchmark comparisons, prospective testing, reproducibility, and transparency are encouraged. Section 5 gives an outlook on the future of OEF. Besides covering recent research on earthquake forecasting model development and testing, upcoming OEF initiatives are described in the context of the expert elicitation findings.
Plain Language Summary
The exact location, time, and magnitude of future earthquakes cannot be predicted. However, based on past earthquake sequences, it is possible to assess probabilities for future earthquakes. This is called earthquake forecasting. Operational Earthquake Forecasting (OEF) systems are designed to provide near‐real‐time authoritative earthquake forecasts, based on current earthquake activity, to aid the decision‐making of various societal stakeholders. Setting up these systems is complex, involving decisions about which model to use, how to best test the model, and how to turn earthquake probability estimates into practical information. This review captures the current state of OEF worldwide and analyzes expert recommendations on the development, testing, and communication of earthquake forecasts. Section 2 provides an overview of OEF‐related research and the background knowledge required to understand the other parts. Section 3 describes existing OEF systems of Italy, New Zealand, and the United States in detail. Section 4 discusses an elicitation of expert views on modeling, testing, and communicating earthquake forecasts (Mizrahi, Dallo, & Kuratle, 2023, https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz‐b‐000637239). Data from the elicitation allow to identify consensus and dissent on OEF issues and provide guidance for future earthquake forecasting efforts. Finally, Section 5 gives an outlook on future OEF‐related research and planned OEF efforts at various institutions.
Key Points
We capture the state of earthquake forecasting systems in Italy, New Zealand, and the United States, and future plans in these and other countries
Experts encourage benchmark comparison, prospective testing, reproducibility and transparency, but avoid endorsing specific models or tests
Experts stress the need to co‐design forecast communication products with end‐users to ensure their societal relevance and usefulness</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1029/2023RG000823</doi><tpages>70</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4787-1343</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2403-5019</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3812-1153</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8774-9170</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0392-7114</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2554-4421</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2342-1970</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9114-1516</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5262-3168</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9708-3871</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9321-2990</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3026-0327</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2252-0202</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2430-2631</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4997-1153</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4919-3283</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1467-1414</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 8755-1209 |
ispartof | Reviews of geophysics (1985), 2024-09, Vol.62 (3), p.n/a |
issn | 8755-1209 1944-9208 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_3109052951 |
source | Access via Wiley Online Library; Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library |
subjects | Communication Decision making Earthquake forecasting Earthquake prediction Earthquakes Estimates Forecasting Forecasting models modeling R&D Research & development Seismic activity Systems analysis testing User groups |
title | Developing, Testing, and Communicating Earthquake Forecasts: Current Practices and Future Directions |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-11-30T22%3A27%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Developing,%20Testing,%20and%20Communicating%20Earthquake%20Forecasts:%20Current%20Practices%20and%20Future%20Directions&rft.jtitle=Reviews%20of%20geophysics%20(1985)&rft.au=Mizrahi,%20Leila&rft.date=2024-09&rft.volume=62&rft.issue=3&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=8755-1209&rft.eissn=1944-9208&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029/2023RG000823&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3109052951%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3109052951&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |