Scientific and non-scientific challenges for Operational Earthquake Forecasting

Abstract:

Tracking the time evolution of seismic hazard in time windows shorter than the usual 50-years of long-term hazard models may offer additional opportunities to reduce the seismic risk. This is the target of operational earthquake forecasting (OEF). During the OEF development in Italy we identify several challenges that range from pure science to the more practical interface of science with society. From a scientific point of view, although earthquake clustering is the clearest empirical evidence about earthquake occurrence, and OEF clustering models are the most (successfully) tested hazard models in seismology, we note that some seismologists are still reluctant to accept their scientific reliability. After exploring the motivations of these scientific doubts, we also look into an issue that is often overlooked in this discussion, i.e., in any kind of hazard analysis, we do not use a model because it is the true one, but because it is the better than anything else we can think of.

The non-scientific aspects are mostly related to the fact that OEF usually provides weekly probabilities of large eartquakes smaller than 1%. These probabilities are considered by some seismologists too small to be of interest or useful. However, in a recent collaboration with engineers we show that such earthquake probabilities may lead to intolerable individual risk of death. Interestingly, this debate calls for a better definition of the still fuzzy boundaries among the different expertise required for the whole risk mitigation process.

The last and probably more pressing challenge is related to the communication to the public. In fact, a wrong message could be useless or even counterproductive. Here we show some progresses that we have made in this field working with communication experts in Italy.