Comparing the Performance of Japan’s Earthquake Hazard Maps to Uniform and Randomized Maps

Abstract:

The devastating 2011 magnitude 9.1 Tohoku earthquake and the resulting shaking and tsunami were much larger than anticipated in earthquake hazard maps. Because this and all other earthquakes that caused ten or more fatalities in Japan since 1979 occurred in places assigned a relatively low hazard, Geller (2011) argued that “all of Japan is at risk from earthquakes, and the present state of seismological science does not allow us to reliably differentiate the risk level in particular geographic areas,” so a map showing uniform hazard would be preferable to the existing map. Defenders of the maps countered by arguing that these earthquakes are low-probability events allowed by the maps, which predict the levels of shaking that should expected with a certain probability over a given time. Although such maps are used worldwide in making costly policy decisions for earthquake-resistant construction, how well these maps actually perform is unknown. We explore this hotly-contested issue by comparing how well a 510-year-long record of earthquake shaking in Japan is described by the Japanese national hazard (JNH) maps, uniform maps, and randomized maps. Surprisingly, as measured by the metric implicit in the JNH maps, i.e. that during the chosen time interval the predicted ground motion should be exceeded only at a specific fraction of the sites, both uniform and randomized maps do better than the actual maps. However, using as a metric the squared misfit between maximum observed shaking and that predicted, the JNH maps do better than uniform or randomized maps. These results indicate that the JNH maps are not performing as well as expected, that what factors control map performance is complicated, and that learning more about how maps perform and why would be valuable in making more effective policy.