the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 22 Aug 2023
Towards a Dynamic Earthquake Risk Framework for Switzerland
Abstract. Scientists at ETH Zurich from different disciplines are developing a dynamic, harmonised and user-centred earthquake risk framework for Switzerland, relying on a continuously evolving earthquake catalogue generated by the SED using the national seismic networks. This framework uses all available information to assess seismic risk at various stages and facilitates widespread dissemination and communication of the resulting information. Earthquake risk products and services include Operational Earthquake (Loss) Forecasting (OE[L]F), Earthquake Early Warning (EEW), ShakeMaps, Rapid Impact Assessment (RIA), Structural Health Monitoring (SHM), as well as Recovery and Rebuilding Efforts (RRE). Standardisation of products and workflows across various applications is essential for achieving broad adoption, universal recognition, and maximum synergies. In the Swiss dynamic earthquake risk framework, the harmonisation of products into seamless solutions that access the same databases, workflows, and software is a crucial component to ensure standardisation. A user-centred approach utilising quantitative and qualitative social science tools like online surveys and focus groups is a significant innovation featured in all products and services. Here we report on the key considerations and developments of the framework and its components.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2010 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2010 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1863', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Sep 2023
The manuscript describes how a large group of scientists at ETH is working to develop an earthquake risk framework for Switzerland that collects and harmonizes all the state-of-the-art models and knowledge to provide seismic risk information at various time scales and to different stakeholders. First a detailed description of the Swiss seismic network together with the way in which seismic data are recorded and processed is provided. Then, the manuscript describes all the products that are already available or will be soon available to the public and stakeholders. The communication strategies are also briefly described.
However, each of the cited methodologies, tools, or products are described in more details in dedicated papers (already published or submitted for publication), none of the products are explored in depth here, and there are no results described in the manuscript that were not available before. Thus, despite acknowledging the importance of each of the developed product, this reviewer believes that, in accordance with review criteria of NHESS, the innovative contribution of the manuscript is not sufficient, and the publication of the manuscript should be rejected.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1863-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Maren Boese, 29 Sep 2023
Reply to Reviewer #1:
We appreciate your feedback on our manuscript. We acknowledge that most of the information about individual elements of the risk framework has already been published. The aim of this manuscript is to develop a holistic framework that integrates multiple dimensions of earthquake related services and data products, ranging from earthquake location and magnitude estimation down to its consequence matrices (loss estimates) to support various stakeholders.
As emphasized by Reviewers #2 and #3, the scientific significance and uniqueness of our paper lie in our innovative presentation of these components within a dynamic risk framework. This framework showcases the complex connections between the various elements and their seamless integration that enables real-time updates by incorporating the latest data. Consequently, the framework we present could serve as a benchmark for similar work in other countries (as is also emphasized by Reviewers #2 and #3).
Finally, we engaged in a discussion with the Editor regarding the potential reclassification of our manuscript type from "Research" to "Review" article, which would be an option if you agree. See: https://www.hydrology-and-earth-system-sciences.net/about/manuscript_types.html
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1863-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Maren Boese, 29 Sep 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1863', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Sep 2023
The paper presents an interdisciplinary dynamic seismic risk framework developed for Switzerland with the collaboration of various scientists from ETH, Zurich. The paper is interesting, well-written and well-structured and within the scope of NHESS.
To the referee’s opinion, the scientific significance and originality of the paper lie in the fact that all the different individual services and components, which are not described in great detail here, are presented in the form of a dynamic framework, where the different components collaborate with each other and results are dynamically updated with the integration of additional data. The presented framework could therefore act as a reference for similar efforts in other countries. This is why this specific aspect should be highlighted more throughout the paper, e.g. through a detailed description of the flowchart given in Figure 1, with additional examples for the interactions among the different components as the ones given in lines 63-71, or with appropriate presentation of representative results. For example, to my understanding, Figure 8 presents the RIA output for ShakeMap of Figure 7, but this is not mentioned in the text, just implied from the figure captions.
Finally, the paper would greatly benefit from a more detailed (yet not too exhaustive) description of the national risk model in Section 1.1, e.g. the exposure model, the vulnerability functions or the composite index used for the representation of losses (Figure 3b).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1863-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Maren Boese, 29 Sep 2023
Reply to Reviewer #2:
We greatly appreciate your comments on our paper. We recognize the potential importance of our work as a reference point for similar efforts in other countries and agree with your suggestion to provide a more comprehensive description of the flowchart in Figure 1. This will also include providing additional examples to illustrate the interactions between the various components. Furthermore, we acknowledge that our description of the national risk model in Section 1.1 should be extended. This will include providing additional information on the exposure model, vulnerability functions, and the composite index used to represent losses.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1863-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Maren Boese, 29 Sep 2023
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1863', Anonymous Referee #3, 22 Sep 2023
This manuscript presents the ongoing development of earthquake risk services and products for Switzerland performed at ETH, Zurich. It overviews the broad spectrum of earthquake related research activities conducted at ETH during last 20yrs. The presented earthquake risk framework takes great advantage of available databased information for Switzerland, long-term generous funding, and capacity of ETH to host such interdisciplinary cutting-edge research. Manuscript is well written, comprehensible, and interesting, and suitable for NHESS. Although the individual components of the framework have been published in specific papers, the original contribution of this manuscript lies in the presentation of multiple couplings between the different components and their harmonic integration into a single framework which is expected to evolve in time. The manuscript would be a good reference for the development of similar products in countries without such a solid framework. It seems that the presented framework was established in a quite organic way, which is fine, but difficult to follow. Therefore, a short discussion on the development of the framework including a lessons learned analysis would be very helpful. The key services and products should be explicitly labelled. Assigning priorities to the different components would be also very useful.
Specific comments:
- A number of tools and software modules developed and used within the framework have been mentioned in the text of the manuscript. A table which lists these tools and including their availability would be helpful.
- The hyperlinks to the available products should be included in Table 1.
- The section “2.2 Seismic Data Processing” includes subsection: “Other advanced methods which are currently being explored and evaluated at the SED”, where the noise interferometry and fiber-optic deformation sensing are briefly described. I find these paragraphs not directly related to the topic of the manuscript and should be removed. Or the direct and particular link to the Earthquake Risk Framework should be described.
- There are no mentions of GNSS measurements, historical and paleoseismological studies in the manuscript. Of course, these are included in the hazard model, but these aspects should be briefly mentioned in this study (considering the number of other references).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1863-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Maren Boese, 29 Sep 2023
Reply to Reviewer #3:
Thank you very much for your feedback on our paper. We greatly appreciate your detailed and constructive review.
We agree that our manuscript would benefit from incorporating a discussion on the framework's development, including a "lessons-learned" section. Each module in our holistic dynamic risk framework can be considered independently in routine earthquake-related operations. We agree that this addition would mean our paper can be used as a readily accessible reference for other countries seeking to establish a similar framework.
As suggested, in addition to the "products" listed in Table 1, we will create a second table that lists the tools and software modules developed and employed within our framework.
We will insert hyperlinks in both tables wherever possible, although it's worth noting that most of the products in Table 1 are not yet available online.
Furthermore, we will provide a more comprehensive description of the role of noise interferometry and fiber-optic deformation sensing in our risk framework. GNSS datasets are currently neither collected, nor processed, nor integrated by our group, but by other Swissagencies (Swisstopo and to some extent D-BAUG). Acknowledging, however, that this data should play a more important role in a risk framework, we agree that the paper would benefit from a brief discussion on GNSS measurements.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1863-AC3
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1863', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Sep 2023
The manuscript describes how a large group of scientists at ETH is working to develop an earthquake risk framework for Switzerland that collects and harmonizes all the state-of-the-art models and knowledge to provide seismic risk information at various time scales and to different stakeholders. First a detailed description of the Swiss seismic network together with the way in which seismic data are recorded and processed is provided. Then, the manuscript describes all the products that are already available or will be soon available to the public and stakeholders. The communication strategies are also briefly described.
However, each of the cited methodologies, tools, or products are described in more details in dedicated papers (already published or submitted for publication), none of the products are explored in depth here, and there are no results described in the manuscript that were not available before. Thus, despite acknowledging the importance of each of the developed product, this reviewer believes that, in accordance with review criteria of NHESS, the innovative contribution of the manuscript is not sufficient, and the publication of the manuscript should be rejected.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1863-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Maren Boese, 29 Sep 2023
Reply to Reviewer #1:
We appreciate your feedback on our manuscript. We acknowledge that most of the information about individual elements of the risk framework has already been published. The aim of this manuscript is to develop a holistic framework that integrates multiple dimensions of earthquake related services and data products, ranging from earthquake location and magnitude estimation down to its consequence matrices (loss estimates) to support various stakeholders.
As emphasized by Reviewers #2 and #3, the scientific significance and uniqueness of our paper lie in our innovative presentation of these components within a dynamic risk framework. This framework showcases the complex connections between the various elements and their seamless integration that enables real-time updates by incorporating the latest data. Consequently, the framework we present could serve as a benchmark for similar work in other countries (as is also emphasized by Reviewers #2 and #3).
Finally, we engaged in a discussion with the Editor regarding the potential reclassification of our manuscript type from "Research" to "Review" article, which would be an option if you agree. See: https://www.hydrology-and-earth-system-sciences.net/about/manuscript_types.html
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1863-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Maren Boese, 29 Sep 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1863', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Sep 2023
The paper presents an interdisciplinary dynamic seismic risk framework developed for Switzerland with the collaboration of various scientists from ETH, Zurich. The paper is interesting, well-written and well-structured and within the scope of NHESS.
To the referee’s opinion, the scientific significance and originality of the paper lie in the fact that all the different individual services and components, which are not described in great detail here, are presented in the form of a dynamic framework, where the different components collaborate with each other and results are dynamically updated with the integration of additional data. The presented framework could therefore act as a reference for similar efforts in other countries. This is why this specific aspect should be highlighted more throughout the paper, e.g. through a detailed description of the flowchart given in Figure 1, with additional examples for the interactions among the different components as the ones given in lines 63-71, or with appropriate presentation of representative results. For example, to my understanding, Figure 8 presents the RIA output for ShakeMap of Figure 7, but this is not mentioned in the text, just implied from the figure captions.
Finally, the paper would greatly benefit from a more detailed (yet not too exhaustive) description of the national risk model in Section 1.1, e.g. the exposure model, the vulnerability functions or the composite index used for the representation of losses (Figure 3b).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1863-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Maren Boese, 29 Sep 2023
Reply to Reviewer #2:
We greatly appreciate your comments on our paper. We recognize the potential importance of our work as a reference point for similar efforts in other countries and agree with your suggestion to provide a more comprehensive description of the flowchart in Figure 1. This will also include providing additional examples to illustrate the interactions between the various components. Furthermore, we acknowledge that our description of the national risk model in Section 1.1 should be extended. This will include providing additional information on the exposure model, vulnerability functions, and the composite index used to represent losses.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1863-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Maren Boese, 29 Sep 2023
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1863', Anonymous Referee #3, 22 Sep 2023
This manuscript presents the ongoing development of earthquake risk services and products for Switzerland performed at ETH, Zurich. It overviews the broad spectrum of earthquake related research activities conducted at ETH during last 20yrs. The presented earthquake risk framework takes great advantage of available databased information for Switzerland, long-term generous funding, and capacity of ETH to host such interdisciplinary cutting-edge research. Manuscript is well written, comprehensible, and interesting, and suitable for NHESS. Although the individual components of the framework have been published in specific papers, the original contribution of this manuscript lies in the presentation of multiple couplings between the different components and their harmonic integration into a single framework which is expected to evolve in time. The manuscript would be a good reference for the development of similar products in countries without such a solid framework. It seems that the presented framework was established in a quite organic way, which is fine, but difficult to follow. Therefore, a short discussion on the development of the framework including a lessons learned analysis would be very helpful. The key services and products should be explicitly labelled. Assigning priorities to the different components would be also very useful.
Specific comments:
- A number of tools and software modules developed and used within the framework have been mentioned in the text of the manuscript. A table which lists these tools and including their availability would be helpful.
- The hyperlinks to the available products should be included in Table 1.
- The section “2.2 Seismic Data Processing” includes subsection: “Other advanced methods which are currently being explored and evaluated at the SED”, where the noise interferometry and fiber-optic deformation sensing are briefly described. I find these paragraphs not directly related to the topic of the manuscript and should be removed. Or the direct and particular link to the Earthquake Risk Framework should be described.
- There are no mentions of GNSS measurements, historical and paleoseismological studies in the manuscript. Of course, these are included in the hazard model, but these aspects should be briefly mentioned in this study (considering the number of other references).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1863-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Maren Boese, 29 Sep 2023
Reply to Reviewer #3:
Thank you very much for your feedback on our paper. We greatly appreciate your detailed and constructive review.
We agree that our manuscript would benefit from incorporating a discussion on the framework's development, including a "lessons-learned" section. Each module in our holistic dynamic risk framework can be considered independently in routine earthquake-related operations. We agree that this addition would mean our paper can be used as a readily accessible reference for other countries seeking to establish a similar framework.
As suggested, in addition to the "products" listed in Table 1, we will create a second table that lists the tools and software modules developed and employed within our framework.
We will insert hyperlinks in both tables wherever possible, although it's worth noting that most of the products in Table 1 are not yet available online.
Furthermore, we will provide a more comprehensive description of the role of noise interferometry and fiber-optic deformation sensing in our risk framework. GNSS datasets are currently neither collected, nor processed, nor integrated by our group, but by other Swissagencies (Swisstopo and to some extent D-BAUG). Acknowledging, however, that this data should play a more important role in a risk framework, we agree that the paper would benefit from a brief discussion on GNSS measurements.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1863-AC3
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 425 | 155 | 30 | 610 | 17 | 17 |
- HTML: 425
- PDF: 155
- XML: 30
- Total: 610
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 137 | 23 |
| United States of America | 2 | 132 | 22 |
| Germany | 3 | 50 | 8 |
| Italy | 4 | 32 | 5 |
| France | 5 | 24 | 4 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 137
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Maren Böse
Laurentiu Danciu
Athanasios Papadopoulos
John Clinton
Carlo Cauzzi
Irina Dallo
Leila Mizrahi
Tobias Diehl
Paolo Bergamo
Yves Reuland
Andreas Fichtner
Philippe Roth
Florian Haslinger
Frederick Massin
Nadja Valenzuela
Nikola Blagojević
Lukas Bodenmann
Eleni Chatzi
Donat Fäh
Franziska Glueer
Marta Han
Lukas Heiniger
Paulina Janusz
Dario Jozinovic
Philipp Kästli
Federica Lanza
Timothy Lee
Panagiotis Martakis
Michèle Marti
Men-Andrin Meier
Banu Mena Cabrera
Maria Mesimeri
Anne Obermann
Pilar Sanchez-Pastor
Luca Scarabello
Nicolas Schmid
Anastasiia Shynkarenko
Bozidar Stojadinovic
Domenico Giardini
Stefan Wiemer
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2010 KB) - Metadata XML