How big, how bad, how often: are extreme events accounted for in modern seismic hazard analyses?

The occurrence of several recent “extreme” earthquakes with their significant loss of life and the apparent failure to have been prepared for such disasters has raised the question of whether such events are accounted for in modern seismic hazard analyses. In light of the great 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake, were the questions of “how big, how bad, and how often” addressed in probabilistic seismic hazard analyses (PSHA) in Japan, one of the most earthquake-prone but most earthquake-prepared countries in the world? The guidance on how to properly perform PSHAs exists but may not be followed for a whole range of reasons, not all technical. One of the major emphases of these guidelines is that it must be recognized that there are significant uncertainties in our knowledge of earthquake processes and these uncertainties need to be fully incorporated into PSHAs. If such uncertainties are properly accounted for in PSHA, extreme events can be accounted for more often than not. This is not to say that no surprises will occur. That is the nature of trying to characterize a natural process such as earthquake generation whose properties also have random (aleatory) uncertainties. It must be stressed that no PSHA is ever final because new information and data need to be continuously monitored and addressed, often requiring an updated PSHA. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014