Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stochastic assessment of seismic risk using faults to address the incomplete information in historical catalogues

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
European Actuarial Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

All disclosed earthquake models used for risk assessment in the insurance industry are commonly based on historical catalogues. These catalogues typically cover several decades or even a few hundred years; thus, they reveal only a small amount of information compared to the thousands of years that make up the typical period of occurrence for earthquakes in a specific geographic area. The current research approach progresses using fault sources, the recent trend of geophysical research proposals to address the missing information. Then, a reliable methodology is presented for the evaluation of seismic risk and consequently for the respective pricing process and the calculation of the solvency capital requirement (SCR) within the framework of Solvency II. Finally, a high-quality evaluation algorithm is provided for pricing and SCR calculation, while a case study for a model portfolio of buildings in Greece is also presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig.2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Available upon request.

Code availability

Available upon request.

Notes

  1. This calculation was processed by Prudential, an actuarial consulting company in Greece.

References

  1. Artzner P, Delbaen F, Eber J-M, Heath D (1999) Coherent measures of risk. Math Financ 9(3):203–228

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Asprone D, Jalayer F, Simonelli S, Acconcia A, Prota A, Manfredi G (2013) Seismic insurance model for the Italian residential building stock. Struct Saf 44:70–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baddeley A, Rubak E, Turner R (2015) Spatial point patterns: methodology and applications with R. CRC Press

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Box GE, Pierce DA (1970) Distribution of residual autocorrelations in autoregressive-integrated moving average time series models. J Am Stat Assoc 65(332):1509–1526

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Calvi GM, Pinho R, Magenes G, Bommer JJ, Restrepo-Vélez LF, Crowley H (2006) Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years. ISET J Earthq Technol 43(3):75–104

    Google Scholar 

  6. Console R, Murru M, Falcone G (2017) Earthquake occurrence: short- and long-term models and their validation. John Wiley & Sons

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Cua G, Wald D, Allen T, Garcia D, Worden C, Gerstenberger M, Lin K, Marano K (2010) Best practices for using macroseismic intensity and ground motion-intensity conversion equations for hazard and loss models in gem1. Technical report, GEM Technical Report 2010–4, GEM Foundation, Pavia, Italy

  8. Deligiannakis G, Papanikolaou I, Roberts G (2018) Fault specific gis based seismic hazard maps for the Attica region, Greece. Geomorphology 306:264–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Deligiannakis G, Zimbidis A, Papanikolaou I (2021) Earthquake loss and solvency capital requirement calculation using a fault-specific catastrophe model. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice 1–26

  10. Dong W, Shah H, Wong F (1996) A rational approach to pricing of catastrophe insurance. J Risk Uncertain 12(2):201–218

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Douglas J (2014) Ground motion prediction equations 1964–2014. PEER Report 2011:102

    Google Scholar 

  12. Escobar DD, Pflug GC (2018) The distortion principle for insurance pricing: properties, identification and robustness. Annals of Operations Research 1–24

  13. Föllmer H, Schied A (2011) Stochastic finance: an introduction in discrete time. Walter de Gruyter

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Franco G, Guidotti R, Bayliss C, Estrada-Moreno A, Juan A, Pomonis A (2019) Earthquake financial protection for Greece: a parametric insurance cover prototype. In: Proceedings of the ICONHIC2019 2nd International Conference on Natural Hazards and Infrastructure, pp 1–8

  15. Frankel A (1995) Simulating strong motions of large earthquakes using recordings of small earthquakes: the Loma Prieta mainshock as a test case. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85(4):1144–1160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. García-Mayordomo J, Martín-Banda R, Insua-Arévalo JM, Álvarez-Gómez JA, Martínez-Díaz JJ, Cabral J (2017) Active fault databases: building a bridge between earthquake geologists and seismic hazard practitioners, the case of the qafi v. 3 database. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 17(8):1447–1459

  17. Gardner J, Knopoff L (1974) Is the sequence of earthquakes in southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian? Bull Seismol Soc Am 64(5):1363–1367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 34(4):185–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hanks TC, Kanamori H (1979) A moment magnitude scale. J Geophys Res 84(B5):2348–2350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jalilian A (2019) Etas: an r package for fitting the spacetime etas model to earthquake data. J Stat Softw 88(1):1–39

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kagan YY (2013) Earthquakes: models, statistics, testable forecasts. John Wiley & Sons

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Kappos AJ (2013) Seismic vulnerability and loss assessment for buildings in Greece. In Seismic Vulnerability of Structures, P. Gueguen (Ed.). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118603925.ch3

  23. Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G (2006) A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of r/c and urm buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4(4):391–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Knopoff L, Gardner J (1972) Higher seismic activity during local night on the raw worldwide earthquake catalogue. Geophys J Int 28(3):311–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kunreuther H (1996) Mitigating disaster losses through insurance. J Risk Uncertain 12(2):171–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lin JH (2018) Earthquake insurance pricing: a risk-based approach. Disasters 42(2):392–404

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. McGuire R (2004) Seismic hazard and risk analysis: earthquake engineering research institute. Monograph 10:221

    Google Scholar 

  28. McNeil AJ, Frey R, Embrechts P (2015) Quantitative risk management: concepts, techniques and tools-revised edition. Princeton University Press

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Meslem A, Lang DH (2017) Physical vulnerability in earthquake risk assessment. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science.

  30. Mikosch T (2009) Non-life insurance mathematics: an introduction with the Poisson process. Springer Science & Business Media

  31. Ogata Y (1998) Space-time point-process models for earthquake occurrences. Ann Inst Stat Math 50(2):379–402

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Pace B, Visini F, Peruzza L (2016) Fish: Matlab tools to turn fault data into seismic-hazard models. Seismol Res Lett 87(2A):374–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Papanikolaou ID, Roberts GP, Deligiannakis G, Sakellariou A, Vassilakis E (2013) The Sparta fault, southern Greece: from segmentation and tectonic geomorphology to seismic hazard mapping and time dependent probabilities. Tectonophysics 597:85–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Papazachos B, Comninakis P, Karakaisis G, Karakostas B, Papaioannou CA, Papazachos C, Scordilis E (2000) A catalogue of earthquakes in Greece and surrounding area for the period 550bc–1999. Publ Geoph Lab, Univ of Thessaloniki 1:333

    Google Scholar 

  35. Pavlides S, Caputo R, Sboras S, Chatzipetros A, Papathanasiou G, Valkaniotis S (2010) The Greek catalogue of active faults and database of seismogenic sources. Bull Geol Soc Greece 43(1):486–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Peng Y (2011) Insurance pricing under uncertainty by means of distortion function. In: 2011 International Conference on E-Business and E-Government (ICEE), IEEE, pp 1–4

  37. Peruzza L, Pace B, Cavallini F (2010) Error propagation in time-dependent probability of occurrence for characteristic earthquakes in Italy. J Seismolog 14(1):119–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rinaldis D, Berardi R, Theodulidis N, Margaris B (1998) Empirical predictive models based on a joint Italian & Greek strong-motion database. In: Proceedings of Eleventh European Conference on Earthquake Engineering

  39. Talbi A, Nanjo K, Satake K, Zhuang J, Hamdache M (2013) Comparison of seismicity declustering methods using a probabilistic measure of clustering. J Seismolog 17(3):1041–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tao Z, Wu DD, Zheng Z, Tao X (2010) Earthquake insurance and earthquake risk management. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 16(3):524–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Valentini A, Visini F, Pace B (2017) Integrating faults and past earthquakes into a probabilistic seismic hazard model for peninsular Italy. Natural Hazards Earth System Sciences.

  42. Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84(4):974–1002

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wiemer S (2001) A software package to analyze seismicity: ZMAP. Seismol Res Lett 72(3):373–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Youngs RR, Coppersmith KJ (1985) Implications of fault slip rates and earthquake recurrence models to probabilistic seismic hazard estimates. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75(4):939–964

    Google Scholar 

  45. Yucemen M (2005) Probabilistic assessment of earthquake insurance rates for Turkey. Nat Hazards 35(2):291–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Not Applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stochastic Modelling and Applications Laboratory, Department of Statistics, Athens University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece

    Emmanouil Louloudis, Alexandros Zimbidis & Athanasios Yannacopoulos

Authors
  1. Emmanouil Louloudis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexandros Zimbidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Athanasios Yannacopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmanouil Louloudis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Not Applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 15 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Louloudis, E., Zimbidis, A. & Yannacopoulos, A. Stochastic assessment of seismic risk using faults to address the incomplete information in historical catalogues. Eur. Actuar. J. 13, 375–397 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13385-022-00324-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13385-022-00324-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation