Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), as a tool to assess the probability that ground motion of a given intensity or larger is experienced at a given site and time span, has historically comprised the basis of both building design codes in earthquake-prone regions and seismic risk models. The PSHA traditionally refers solely to mainshock events and typically employs a homogeneous Poisson process to model their occurrence. Nevertheless, recent disasters, such as the 2010–2011 Christchurch sequence or the 2016 Central Italy earthquakes, to name a few, have highlighted the potential pitfalls of neglecting the occurrence of foreshocks, aftershocks, and other triggered events, and pinpointed the need to revisit the current practice. Herein, we employ the epidemic-type aftershock sequence (ETAS) model to describe seismicity in Central Italy, investigate the model’s capability to reproduce salient features of observed seismicity, and compare ETAS-derived one-year hazard estimates with ones obtained with a standard mainshock-only Poisson-based hazard model. A companion paper uses the hazard models derived herein to compare and contrast loss estimates for the residential exposure of Umbria in Central Italy.
AbrahamsonNASilvaWJKamaiR (2014) Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1025–1055.
2.
AkiK (1965) Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula logN=a-bM and its confidence limits. Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute Tokyo University43: 237–239.
3.
AkinciA (2010) Hazgridx: Earthquake forecasting model for mL ≥ 5.0 earthquakes in Italy based on spatially smoothed seismicity. Annals of Geophysics53(3): 51–61.
4.
AkinciAMoschettiMPTaroniM (2018) Ensemble smoothed seismicity models for the new Italian probabilistic seismic hazard map. Seismological Research Letters89(4): 1277–1287.
5.
BachCHainzlS (2012) Improving empirical aftershock modeling based on additional source information. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth117(4): 1–12.
6.
BazzurroPCornellCAMenunCMotahariM (2004) Guidelines for seismic assessment of damaged buildings. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, 1–6 August, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
7.
BoydOS (2012) Including foreshocks and aftershocks in time-independent probabilistic seismic-hazard analyses. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America102(3): 909–917.
8.
ConsoleRMurruM (2001) A simple and testable model for earthquake clustering. Journal of Geophysical Research106(B5): 8699.
FaenzaLMarzocchiWBoschiE (2003) A non-parametric hazard model to characterize the spatio-temporal occurrence of large earthquakes; An application to the Italian catalogue. Geophysical Journal International155(2): 521–531.
11.
FalconeGConsoleRMurruM (2010) Short-term and long-term earthquake occurrence models for Italy: ETES, ERS and LTST. Annals of Geophysics53(3): 41–50.
12.
FelzerKRBeckerTWAbercrombieREEkströmGRiceJR (2002) Triggering of the 1999 M W 7.1 hector mine earthquake by aftershocks of the 1992 M W 7.3 Landers earthquake. Journal of Geophysical Research107(B9): 2190.
13.
FieldEHMilnerKRHardebeckJLPageMT (2017) A spatiotemporal clustering model for the third uniform California earthquake rupture forecast (UCERF3-ETAS): Toward an operational earthquake forecast. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107(3): 1049.
14.
FrankelA (1995) Mapping seismic hazard in the central and eastern United States. Seismological Research Letters66(4): 8–21.
15.
GardnerJKnopoffL (1974) Is the sequence of earthquakes in southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America64(5): 1363–1367.
16.
GasperiniPLolliBVannucciG (2013) Empirical calibration of local magnitude data sets versus moment magnitude in Italy. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103(4): 2227–2246.
17.
GerstenbergerMMcVerryGRhoadesDStirlingM (2014) Seismic hazard modeling for the recovery of Christchurch. Earthquake Spectra30(1): 17–29.
18.
GuoYZhuangJZhouS (2015) An improved space-time ETAS model for inverting the rupture geometry from seismicity triggering. Journal of Geophysical Research B: Solid Earth120(5): 3309–3323.
19.
GutenbergBRichterCF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America34: 185–188.
20.
HainzlSBrietzkeGBZöllerG (2010) Quantitative earthquake forecasts resulting from static stress triggering. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth115(11): 1–9.
21.
HainzlSChristophersenAEnescuB (2008) Impact of earthquake rupture extensions on parameter estimations of point-process models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America98(4): 2066–2072.
22.
HainzlSChristophersenARhoadesDHarteD (2016) Statistical estimation of the duration of aftershock sequences. Geophysical Journal International205(2): 1180–1189.
23.
HainzlSZakharovaOMarsanD (2013) Impact of aseismic transients on the estimation of aftershock productivity parameters. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103(3): 1723–1732.
24.
HarteDS (2012) Bias in fitting the ETAS model: A case study based on New Zealand seismicity. Geophysical Journal International192(1): 390–412.
25.
HarteDS (2014) An ETAS model with varying productivity rates. Geophysical Journal International198(1): 270–284.
26.
HarteDS (2016.) Model parameter estimation bias induced by earthquake magnitude cut-off. Geophysical Journal International204(2): 1266–1287.
27.
HarteDS (2018) Effect of sample size on parameter estimates and earthquake forecasts. Geophysical Journal International214(2): 759–772.
28.
HawkesAG (1971) Point spectra of some mutually exciting point processes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society33(3): 438–443.
29.
HelmstetterAKaganYYJacksonDD (2005) Importance of small earthquakes for stress transfers and earthquake triggering. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth110(5): 1–13.
30.
HelmstetterAKaganYYJacksonDD (2006) Comparison of short-term and time-independent earthquake forecast models for southern California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America96(1): 90–106.
31.
HurvichCMTsaiCL (1989) Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika76(2): 297–307.
32.
IervolinoIGiorgioMPolidoroB (2014) Sequence-based probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104(2): 1006–1012.
33.
LippielloEGiaccoFde ArcangelisLMarzocchiWGodanoC (2014) Parameter estimation in the ETAS model: Approximations and novel methods. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104(2): 985–994.
34.
LlenosALMichaelAJ (2017) Forecasting the (un)productivity of the 2014 M 6.0 South Napa aftershock sequence. Seismological Research Letters88(5): 1241–1251.
35.
LombardiAMMarzocchiW (2010) The ETAS model for daily forecasting of Italian seismicity in the CSEP experiment. Annals of Geophysics53(3): 155–164.
MarzocchiWLombardiAM (2009) Real-time forecasting following a damaging earthquake. Geophysical Research Letters36(21): 1–5.
38.
MarzocchiWTaroniM (2014) Some thoughts on declustering in probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104(4): 1838–1845.
39.
MarzocchiWMurruMLombardiAMFalconeGRodolfoC (2012) Daily earthquake forecasts during the May-June 2012 Emilia earthquake sequence (northern Italy). Annals of Geophysics55(4): 561–567.
40.
MarzocchiWTaroniMFalconeG (2017) Earthquake forecasting during the complex Amatrice-Norcia seismic sequence. Science Advances3(9): e1701239.
41.
MoradpourJHainzlSDavidsenJ (2014) Nontrivial decay of aftershock density with distance in Southern California. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth119(7): 5518–5535.
42.
NandanSOuillonGWiemerSSornetteD (2017) Objective estimation of spatially variable parameters of epidemic type aftershock sequence model: Application to California. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth122: 5118–5143.
43.
NicholsKSchoenbergFP (2014) Assessing the dependency between the magnitudes of earthquakes and the magnitudes of their aftershocks. Environmetrics25(3): 143–151.
44.
OgataY (1988) Statistical models for earthquake occurrences and residual analysis for point processes. Journal of the American Statistical Association83(401): 9–27.
45.
OgataY (1998) Space-Time Point-Process Models for Earthquake Occurrences. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics50(2): 379–402.
46.
OgataY (2011) Significant improvements of the space-time ETAS model for forecasting of accurate baseline seismicity. Earth, Planets and Space63(1): 217–229.
47.
OmoriF (1894) On the aftershocks of earthquake. Journal of the College of Science7: 111–200.
48.
PaganiMMonelliDWeatherillGDanciuL (2014) OpenQuake engine: An open hazard (and risk) software for the global earthquake model. Seismological Research Letters85(3): 692–702.
49.
PageMTvan der ElstNJ (2018) Turing-style tests for UCERF3 synthetic catalogs. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108(2): 729–741.
50.
PageMTvan Der ElstNHardebeckJFelzerKMichaelAJ (2016) Three ingredients for improved global aftershock forecasts: Tectonic region, time-dependent catalog incompleteness, and intersequence variability. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America106(5): 2290–2301.
51.
PapadopoulosANBazzurroP (in press) Exploring probabilistic seismic risk assessment accounting for seismicity clustering and damage accumulation: Part II: Risk analysis. Earthquake Spectra.
52.
RovidaALocatiMCamassiRLolliBGasperiniP (2016) CPTI15, the 2015 version of the parametric catalogue of Italian earthquakes. Available at: https://emidius.mi.ingv.it/CPTI15-DBMI15/ (accessed 07 September 2020).
53.
SchoenbergFP (2003) Multidimensional residual analysis of point process models for earthquake occurrences. Journal of the American Statistical Association98(464): 789–795.
54.
SchoenbergFPChuAVeenA (2010) On the relationship between lower magnitude thresholds and bias in epidemic-type aftershock sequence parameter estimates. Journal of Geophysical Research115(B4): 1–15.
55.
SchorlemmerDWernerMJMarzocchiWJordanTOgataYJacksonDDMakSRhoadesDAGerstenbergerMCHirataNLiukisMMaechilingPJStraderATaroniMWiemerSZecherJDZhangJ (2018) The collaboratory for the study of earthquake predictability: Achievements and priorities. Seismological Research Letters89(4): 1305–1313.
56.
SeifSMignanAZecharJDWernerMJWiemerS (2017) Estimating ETAS: The effects of truncation, missing data, and model assumptions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth122(1): 449–469.
57.
UtsuT (1961) A statistical study on the occurrence of aftershocks. Geophys. Mag30(4): 521–605.
58.
UtsuT (1966) A statistical significance test of the difference in b-value between two earthquake groups. Journal of Physics of the Earth14(2): 37–40.
59.
van der ElstNJ (2017) Accounting for orphaned aftershocks in the earthquake background rate. Geophysical Journal International211(2): 1108–1118.
60.
van StiphoutTSchorlemmerDWiemerS (2011) The effect of uncertainties on estimates of background seismicity rate. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America101(2): 482–494.
61.
WangQJacksonDDZhuangJ (2010) Missing links in earthquake clustering models. Geophysical Research Letters37(21): 1–5.
62.
WeichertDH (1980) Estimation of the earthquake recurrence parameters for unequal observation periods for different magnitudes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America70(4): 1337–1346.
63.
WernerMJHelmstetterAJacksonDDKaganYY (2011) High-resolution long-term and short-term earthquake forecasts for California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America101(4): 1630–1648.
64.
WoessnerJLaurentiuDGiardiniDCrowleyHCottonFGrünthalGValensiseGArvidssonRBasiliRDemirciogluMBHiemerSMelettiCMussonRWRovidaANSesetyanKStucchiMand The SHARE Consortium (2015) The 2013 European seismic hazard model: Key components and results. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering13(12): 3553–3596.
65.
ZhangLWernerMJGodaK (2018) Spatiotemporal seismic hazard and risk assessment of aftershocks of M 9 megathrust earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108(6): 3313–3335.
66.
ZhuangJOgataYVere-JonesD (2004) Analyzing earthquake clustering features by using stochastic reconstruction. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth109(5): 1–17.
67.
ZhuangJOgataYWangT (2017) Data completeness of the Kumamoto earthquake sequence in the JMA catalog and its influence on the estimation of the ETAS parameters. Earth, Planets and Space69(1): 36.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
