Report from Increasing Community Resilience through Integrated Earthquake Science.
We will address the nine questions suggested by NERC / ESRC in order.
1.
What is resilience and what does increasing resilience involve?
In ICRIES we carefully concentrated on definitions which have a clear relevance to the resilience of a community to
survive and recover from earthquakes. We recognise negative impacts of earthquakes in social and economic terms,
and in terms of loss of life and physical/psychological injuries. Reduced mortality is certainly of prime importance to
the communities affected, and is also relatively easily quantified for comparative studies. We considered a four‐
stranded definition of effective resilience1,2,3: preparedness, protection, response and recovery, all of which require
different balances of physical and social science input.
Earthquake science contributes most obviously to
preparedness, which we take to include the preparation for both rapid response and effective recovery, addressing
strands 1,3 and 4a. Preparedness is also demonstrably the most cost‐effective measure4. Our resulting concept of
resilience to earthquake hazard is:
Resilience is that capacity of a society exposed to earthquake hazard of being able to resist the negative effects of
a future earthquake and its secondary hazards. Resistance is measured primarily in terms of reduced mortality
and injury but includes mitigation of economic damage, the design of effective rapid response and enabling rapid
recovery. Therefore, increasing resilience involves effective planning and preparation before the event to reduce
mortality, injury and damage and to aid in rapid response and recovery and must involve forecasting.
This definition has fundamental implications for the type of physical and social science which should be funded
under the IRNH programme. Effective preparation on a global scale is prohibitively expensive and those regions, such
as Japan, California and New Zealand with the economic resources and strong governance required to prepare for
earthquakes based on time‐independent, probabilistic hazard maps, continue to do so. Comparison of the impacts of
recent events in Haiti and New Zealand5,6 or Sumatra and Japan7,8 clearly demonstrate the efficacy of the non‐
resource limited approach to preparedness. In the developing world, where action is fundamentally resource‐
limited, where governance is weak and where the majority of earthquake deaths will likely occur in the next 50
years, this approach is impossible and a much more targeted strategy is required to encourage prioritisation of
preparedness leading to increased resilience.
We are strongly of the view that under these conditions, a) the key earthquake science role is to work toward the
development of a time‐dependent earthquake hazard assessment aimed at identifying the hot‐spots9 of highest
risk of near‐future, large, destructive earthquakes so that finite resources can be optimally focused to develop
targeted, first‐world preparedness in the developing world and b) the key social science role is to identify factors
which identify key elements of earthquake science appropriate to the preparedness roleb and to dissect the
elements of successful dissemination protocols including critical analysis of the science – society interaction.
2.
What new science, or developments of existing science, are likely to have the biggest impact in increasing
resilience?
2.1
Context
The IRNH Announcement of Opportunity for the scoping studies and the total IRNH budget place important
constraints on the nature of the earthquake science which can be undertaken:
a) The budget for each funded project will be on the order of £3‐3.5m over a 5 year period. This limited budget
circumscribes the nature of the research which can be undertaken.
b) The Announcement of Opportunity explicitly defines the ‘identification of areas of greatest earthquake
hazard’ as the most effective route to impact given the budget and timescale.
2.2
In what tectonic setting might we achieve greatest impact?
Earthquakes, particularly the great (M>8) and giant (M>9) events, occur mostly on plate boundaries where the strain
rates are high and the faults zones their orientations and modes of rupture are generally known. However, it is not
a
We appreciate the fundamentally important combination of earthquake science and earthquake engineering in the
development and enforcement of sound building codes is a vital part of a multi‐disciplinary approach to building resilience
particularly in the context of the protection aspect of resilience. We recognise the lack of funding for engineering research in
IRNH and therefore concentrate throughout on earthquake science and social science aspects of resilience enhancement.
b
Note that this does not imply that social scientists will govern the scientific process; rather it acknowledges that often scientists
are poorly placed to understand what parts of their message are most suited to increasing resilience in a particular socio‐cultural
context.
clear that plate boundary earthquakes are responsible for the greatest number of earthquake deaths. The USGS
document all events since 1900 killing more than 1000 peoplec. A detailed examination of the data in this resource is
beyond the scope of this report but some general comments can be made:
a) The majority of people since 1900 were killed in intermediate magnitude earthquakes many of which were
not at plate boundaries. Many of these occurred on known, mapped fault zones.
b) The picture changes almost completely when we consider only earthquakes occurring in the last 10 or 20
years when some 70% of fatalities occur on mapped fault zones at plate boundaries.
c) It is unclear whether this is a systematic change due to the demographics of a rapidly increasing population
or to the occurrence of the Sumatra and Haiti earthquakes which between them killed some 450000 and
which were both on or near plate boundaries.
Unsurprisingly, it is not possible on the basis of these data confidently to conclude which fault populations will
produce the greatest numbers of fatalities in the next 10 years. It is certain that mapped and unmapped faults
experiencing very slow loading and with >1000 year recurrence times in intraplate areas will kill many people over
the next 10 years and scientific investigation of how the unmapped structures might be identified remains a priority
for basic earthquake science but it is very unlikely that this basic science will lead to increased resilience in the short
to medium term. The physics of seismogenesis (on which scientific earthquake forecasting must be based) only
becomes tractable ‐ even in principle ‐ where the causative known and mapped faults can be studied explicitly. The
high strain rates, shorter return times and opportunities for faster learning generally only occur at plate boundaries
and here lies the greatest hope of producing tangible impact within the budget and timescales of the IRNH
programme.
It is our strong conclusion that the earthquake science which has the greatest potential for impact in the medium
term will involve the investigation of the processes of the accumulation of stress on mapped faults to identify hot‐
spots of very high seismic hazard. We believe that progress will be faster for high strain‐rate structures which are
generally located at plate boundaries, however, we do not recommend the rejection of well justified, focused
project elements addressing particular aspects of mapped, intraplate faults where due to the availability long
historic catalogues or potential access to long paleoseismic records, for example, the processes of long‐term stress
accumulation on well defined structures might be studied over many earthquake cycles.
2.3
How might the analysis of stress and strain best be used to improve earthquake forecasting?
Seismological, geodetic and geological observations of mapped active structures give us unprecedented
understandings of the rates and patterns of stress loading of earthquake faults allowing the mapping of areas of
stress accumulation10,11. Several large, destructive earthquakes have been recorded on the same structures,
revealing both the complexity of earthquake rupture in unprecedented detail, and allowing the examination of stress
accumulation between earthquakes and the subsequent seismic slip12,13,14. Detailed reconstructions of historical and
paleo‐earthquakes15 as well as studies of variable slip‐rates within complex fault systems16,17 integrated with the
instrumental measurement of loading are providing physically based constraints on the nature of future events on
known structures and measurements of elapsed time since the last earthquake normalised to the slip‐rate of a
particular active fault also helps identify structures which are ready to fail18. Calculation of earthquake interaction
stresses allows more precise identification of zones of particularly high hazard19,20,21 and statistical examination of
the rates of micro‐seismicity22, possibly including tidal triggering23,24, may help in identifying regions of high absolute
stress. In summary, it is now widely believed that we can identify component parts of the fault system that are more
likely to be close to failure and thereby identify earthquake hazard hot‐spots.
These techniques can be combined to produce falsifiable forecasts of fault system components representing
particularly high earthquake hazard employing multi‐disciplinary assessment of the state of stress relative to the
failure stress on mapped active faults. Rigorous statistical assessment of such forecasts is possible potentially
arriving at science‐based estimates of the (high) probability of the occurrence of destructive earthquakes for
geographically compact regions – hazard hot‐spots. It is extremely important that proper weighting is given to
uncertainty in all aspects of this science. This must be dealt with in many ways from the simple formal treatments
with which physical scientists are familiar to the related problems of communicating uncertainties in forecasts. Such
research has the potential, not only to result in internationally leading earthquake science but also to open vital
dialogues between earthquake science and at risk communities. The design and assessment of dialogues of this type
focusing on the analysis of effectiveness across the science‐society spectrum, is ripe ground for world‐leading social
science research.
We recommend that projects exploring the possibilities of the reconstruction of the state of stress on mapped
active faults using multi‐disciplinary techniques including paleo‐, historical and instrumental seismology, geodesy
and geomorphology should be prioritised for funding. The successful proposal must be explicit in how
uncertainties will be assessed and communicated. In particular we recommend that such studies should be
partnered by social science studies in regions of known high seismic hazard leading to understanding the key
elements in successful (and unsuccessful) translationald earthquake science.
3.
What are the practical steps that can be taken to increase resilience?
Practical steps to increase resilience follow from the identification of seismic hazard hot‐spots described in 2.3 above
and, having identified the most at‐risk populations must be built on an in‐depth analysis of the vulnerability and
hazard response capacity of these communities. Vulnerability relates to exposure to hazard and susceptibility to
being harmed or damaged by their effects2,25,26. A community’s capacity to respond to risk reflects governance
arrangements27 and issues of hazard perception and communication28. All of these features are influenced by the
wider political, economic and social contexts within which these communities sit29. An in‐depth analysis of these
features and their inter‐relationship is needed to identify constraints and practical opportunities for enhanced
resilience. Such a study, for example, could inform the development of policy interventions to remove particular
social inequalities which intensifying the vulnerability of certain disadvantaged social groups30. A retrospective
analysis of government response to a previous hazard event could identify tensions and barriers between
institutional actors and develop strategies to address these for future scenarios2. An analysis of current and potential
forms of risk communication could develop ways of working with communities that effectively integrate complex
science, (often dealing with uncertainties) with local lay understandings26.
We are of the view that an in‐depth case study approach of this sort is the most appropriate for the social science
elements of the call. It permits the intensive, multi‐layered, inter‐disciplinary investigation required to understand
the unique circumstances and risks faced by high‐risk communities and deliver practical steps to increase their
resilience.
4.
What existing international projects and international information sources can be utilised?
Given the limited budget of the IRNH programme it is essential that successful consortia leverage as much
international support as possible. Several key international organisations are obvious, GEM, USGS, NOAA and CSEP,
for example. In addition, the support of organisations specific to any country in which successful consortia will work
should be enlisted. Examples might include local or national geological surveys or civil defence organisations, for
example. We are also of the view that the NGO sector is an extremely important part of a successful resilience
building project, local, national and international NGO’s have all proven to be willing and highly effective partners in
science based resilience building.
We recommend that successful consortia should be able to show clearly how they will maximise their impact by
building networks of external collaborators from a wide variety of key International groupings. We do not
recommend that the NHAG prescribe any specific organisations a priori.
5.
How should IRNH projects address the balance between high‐quality academic science and science with
‘impact’ in increasing resilience?
We don’t believe there is any conflict between the two, rather that application of top quality physical science is
absolutely essential to identify areas most at risk, internationally important social science then ensures that this
produces the proper planning and preparation which, in turn, leads to increased resilience in those communities.
We recommend that only projects that have both internationally leading earthquake science and social science
and which describe a direct and explicit route to impact on resilience should be funded in this programme.
6.
What focus should there be in terms of developing new models, undertaking new fieldwork, data
collection, experiments, etc.?
Large scale data collection in physical earthquake science is expensive and would quickly consume the majority of
the resources available to any IRNH consortium. In general we consider that the most efficient use of IRNH
resources is to add value to existing data or data streams by more rigorous analysis or modelling supplemented by
targeted data collection specifically aimed at advancing the understanding of stress accumulation. In social science
we believe the roles of primary data collection and development of theory or models is largely reversed and
effective, multi‐disciplinary, resilience‐building research must include extensive social science fieldwork in the
chosen regions to engage with local communities and organisations and understand their social and cultural
environments.
d
Here we use ‘translational’ in the medical sense of moving science from the laboratory to the clinic.
We conclude that some precisely targeted and well justified physical science data collection could be included as
part of a wider project, but preference should be given to consortia that do this in the context of aiming to
maximise the impact of existing data. On the contrary, we believe that the collection of primary data in the social
science will be essential.
7.
Should there be a geographical/geo‐political focus to research? If so, where should that be and why? If
your scoping study has a geographical/geopolitical focus, could your methodologies be transferred to
other regions, and how?
One can imagine many high‐quality multi‐disciplinary projects which both have a regional/geographical focus and
which have not. However, maximisation of impact in the long‐term will likely come from lessons, whether learned
locally or globally, which are transferable to a broad, if not global, scale. It might be possible to quality assure a
particular forecasting scheme for subduction zone earthquakes with a given probability. This science might be able
to be applied to other subduction zones though possibly not to intraplate earthquakes, for example. Additionally, the
social and cultural context into which the science is being deployed will be complex and spatially varying which
further compounds the problem of universality. However, short‐term impact saving many thousands of lives might
be promoted by identifying city(s) on or near an identified hot‐spot for intensive study.
We suggest that the IRNH programme does not prescribe any particular regional or geographic focus or lack of it.
We recommend however that successful consortia are able to show clearly how their project might be applied to
a particular region and how it might be rolled out over wider area. Other things being equal, preference should be
given to projects which have wide applicability and which show a clear understanding of the scientific, social and
cultural challenges that this will entail.
8.
How should collaboration be developed effectively with regional partners in order to ensure proper
knowledge exchange? How should this program be used to enhance capacity in this area (both in the
study region, and in the UK research community)? What existing national resources (NERC, RCUK,
government etc.) can be drawn on? What links can be made to other programmes in the Natural Hazards
theme, particularly in regard to uncertainty and risk?
Uncertainty and Risk is perhaps the main area where knowledge from earthquake science can inform analysis of
other hazards. Most hazards have power‐law statistics with few recorded extreme events. Decision‐making with
such uncertainties is a difficult and relatively new branch of social science, particularly from low‐probability, high
impact, events that must be compared to other more common natural/environmental or anthropogenic hazards in
terms of cost‐effectiveness for resilience preparation.
Links between the IRNH programme and other programmes will also be essential, in order to ensure comprehensive,
multi‐faceted projects, and to maximize the resources available. For example, since the assessment and
communication of uncertainties should be a key component to the IRNH programme, links to the “Probability,
Uncertainty and Risk” programme in the Natural Hazards theme will be extremely important. Moreover, the IRNH
programme will benefit greatly from lessons learned and work developed in other contexts, notably in resilience and
uncertainties in climate change, through for example leverage with the Tyndall Centre (funded by NERC, ESRC and
EPSRC). A two‐way knowledge exchange should be foreseen and enabled between the volcano and earthquake
elements of the IRNH programme.
9.
How could the study feed into multi‐hazard risk assessment and how should the research program
translate into effective hazard mitigation?
Recent events in Japan have highlighted the importance of a multi‐hazard approach to building resilience to
earthquakes. We applaud the multi‐hazard approach of the IRNH Programme and recognise the importance of
landslides as a major secondary contribution to earthquake death, and the most easily transferable to a UK setting.
Earthquakes are almost always associated with topographic relief and as such always have the potential to induce
landslides. However, we are of the view that following the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, there may be significant
risks to the public perception of this programme if tsunamis are not included explicitly in the documentation. We
note that under the existing rules tsunamis can be mentioned as associated hazards as long as consortia do not
require funding for original tsunami research.
We find it difficult to address the second part of this question since it will strongly depend on the precise nature of
the intended research. However, we do commend Ref 4 to all which, while not being specific to earthquakes,
contains the internationally agreed key elements required for the integration of science with disaster risk reduction.
We recommend that the successful project should include a component of multi‐hazard research. It is not
necessary that original scientific research be conducted on the secondary hazard but that consortia should be
encouraged to consider the multi‐hazard element to building resilience, specifically including landslides and
tsunamis.
References
1
Smith K and D. N. Petley (2009) Environmental Hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster. Fifth edition.
Routledge, London. pp. 90‐91.
2
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. & Wisner, B. (2003) At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters,
London, Routledge
3
Berkes, F (2007) ‘Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking’ Natural
Hazards. 41. pp 283‐295.
4
eg. Hyogo Framework for Action, Report of the World Conference on Disaster Reduction, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan 2005.
5
See Special issue of Nature Geoscience, November 2010, 3 11
6
See Royal Society of New Zealand special publication at http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/media/darfield‐
earthquake.pdf
7
eg. Subarya et al. 2006 Nature Vol 440 doi:10.1038/nature04522
8
Toda, Shinji, Jian Lin, and Ross S. Stein, 2011 Using the 2011 M=9.0 Tohoku earthquake to test the Coulomb stress
triggering hypothesis and to calculate faults brought closer to failure Earth Planets Space
9
Dilley, M., Deichmann, U. & Chen, R.S. (2005) Natural Disaster Hotspots: A Global Risk Analysis, Washington DC,
World Bank Publications
10
Ruegg, J. C. et al. Interseismic strain accumulation in south central Chile from GPS measurements, 1996_1999.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 1517_1520 (2002).
11
Chlieh M., et al., 2008, J. Geophys. Res., 113, B05305
12
Konca, O. et al. Partial rupture of a locked patch of the Sumatra megathrust during the 2007 earthquake sequence.
Nature 456, 631‐635 (2008).
13
Lorito et al. 2011 Nature Geoscience DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1073
14
Moreno, M., Rosenau, M. & Oncken, O. 2010 Maule earthquake slip correlates with pre‐seismic locking of Andean
subduction zone. Nature 467, 198_204 (2010).
15
Natawidjaja, D.H., et al., 2006. J. Geophys. Res. 111
16
Roberts, G. P., Michetti, A. M., 2004. Spatial and temporal variations in growth rates along active normal fault
Systems: an example from Lazio‐Abruzzo, central Italy. Journal of Structural Geology, 26, 339‐376.
17
Pace, B., et al BSSA, 96, 1, 107‐132, 2006. Roberts, G. P., Michetti, A. M., 2004. Spatial and temporal variations in
growth rates along active normal fault Systems: an example from Lazio‐Abruzzo, central Italy. Journal of
Structural Geology, 26, 339‐376.
18
Faure Walker, J. P., Roberts, G. P., Sammonds, P., Cowie, P. A., Comparison of earthquakes strains over 102 and 104
year timescales: insights into variability in the seismic cycle in the central Apennines, Italy. Journal of Geophysical
Research VOL.115,B10418,doi:10.1029/2009JB006462,2010
19
McCloskey, J., Nalbant, S.S., Steacy, S., 2005. Earthquake risk from co‐seismic stress. Nature 434, 291
20
Nalbant, S.S., Steacy, S., Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D. & McCloskey, J. Earthquake risk on the Sunda trench, Nature, 435,
756‐757 (2005)
21
T. Parsons, Ji, C. & Kirby, E. 2008 Stress changes from the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake and increased hazard in the
Sichuan basin, Nature, doi: 10.1038/nature07177
22
van Stiphout, T., Wiemer, S., and Marzocchi, W. 2010 Are short‐term evacuations warranted? Case of the 2009
L'Aquila earthquake GRL, VOL. 37, L06306, 5 PP., 2010 doi:10.1029/2009GL042352
23
S. Tanaka et al., Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 10/1029/2002GL015386 (2002)
24
Stein Ross S. 2004 Tidal Triggering Caught in the Act Science 305:1248
25
Bankoff, G. (2004). ‘Time is of the essence: disasters, vulnerability and history.’ International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters, 22(3). pp. 23‐42.
26
Gaillard, J. C. (2010). ‘Vulnerability, capacity, and resilience: perspectives for climate and development policy.’
Journal of International Development, 22(4). pp. 218‐232.
27
28
Ambraseys, N., and Bilham, R., 2011 Corruption Kills. Nature 469 153
Shaw, R., Sharma, A. & Takeuchi (Eds) (2009) Indigenous Knowledge and Disaster Risk Reduction: From Practice to
Policy, Halifax, Nova Scotia Publishers
29
Dowrick, D.J. (2003) Earthquake Risk Reduction, West Sussex, Wiley
30
Bryant, E. (2004) Natural Hazards, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press