Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Page, M. T. Articles by Carlson, J. M. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Methodologies for Earthquake Hazard Assessment: Model Uncertainty and the WGCEP-2002 Forecast

¹ Department of Physics
University of California at Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, California 93106-9530
pagem{at}physics.ucsb.edu
carlson{at}physics.ucsb.edu

Model uncertainty is prevalent in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) because the underlying statistical signatures for hazard are unknown. Although methods for incorporating parameter uncertainty of a particular model in PSHA are well understood, methods for incorporating model uncertainty are more difficult to implement because of the high degree of dependence between different earthquake-recurrence models. We show that the method used by the 2002 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP-2002) to combine the probability distributions given by multiple earthquake-recurrence models has several adverse effects on their results. In particular, WGCEP-2002 uses a linear combination of the models that ignores model dependence and leads to large uncertainty in the final hazard estimate. Furthermore, model weights were chosen based on data, which has the potential to systematically bias the final probability distribution. The weighting scheme used in the Working Group report also produces results that depend on an arbitrary ordering of models. In addition to analyzing current statistical problems, we present alternative methods for rigorously incorporating model uncertainty into PSHA.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. H. Field, T. E. Dawson, K. R. Felzer, A. D. Frankel, V. Gupta, T. H. Jordan, T. Parsons, M. D. Petersen, R. S. Stein, R. J. Weldon II, et al. Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2) Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 2009; 99(4): 2053 - 2107. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Parsons and E. L. Geist Is There a Basis for Preferring Characteristic Earthquakes over a Gutenberg-Richter Distribution in Probabilistic Earthquake Forecasting? Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, June 1, 2009; 99(3): 2012 - 2019. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Akinci, F. Galadini, D. Pantosti, M. Petersen, L. Malagnini, and D. Perkins Effect of Time Dependence on Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Maps and Deaggregation for the Central Apennines, Italy Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 2009; 99(2A): 585 - 610. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. H. Field A Summary of Previous Working Groups on California Earthquake Probabilities Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 2007; 97(4): 1033 - 1053. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]