Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · 70208800

An exploration of parametric earthquake risk transfer solutions that dynamically adapt to seismicity changes

Abstract

(Re)insurance companies rely on earthquake risk models to estimate the frequency and severity of their potential financial losses. To protect themselves, they sometimes use parametric risk transfer solutions, which are derivative-form agreements that provide compensation as a function of routine measurable earthquake characteristics. These mechanisms typically remain in force for one to three years and assume seismic conditions—and our estimates of them—remain unchanged during this period. However, seismic risk estimates evolve continuously due to changes in nearby seismicity, sudden ruptures, slower redistributions of stress, or improvements in our own understanding of these phenomena. As a consequence, the likelihood of some loss-causing events might decrease and make the protection superfluous (wasted money), or, more problematically, it might increase and render the protection insufficient (increased risk). This paper explores the construction of parametric earthquake risk transfer mechanisms that adapt efficiently (i.e., near real-time) to changes in seismicity throughout the lifetime of the transaction. The mechanism proposes the periodic adjustment of the payment conditions of the parametric agreement in harmony with the evolving probabilities of event occurrence. This, we hypothesize, may result in a more efficient allocation of premiums that reflects the changing nature of seismic risk. To build the proposed dynamic risk transfer mechanism, we first employ one of the earthquake models commonly used in the (re)insurance industry to assess the risk of a portfolio of assets. The modeling exercise yields the expected frequency distribution of loss, which a standard (re)insurance transaction would typically consider constant for the entire coverage period. Here, we use these results simply as a baseline for the initial time step of reference. Next, we construct a retrospective update loop, which consists of two parts: (1) we obtain the earthquake occurrence rate conditions at a previous time step taking into account the changes in seismicity observed in the interim period; and (2) we use the modeled losses and adjusted frequencies at the new time step to build a parametric risk transfer solution. This parametric solution remains in force until it is updated at the next iteration. We also track the effects on the efficiency of the risk transfer solution and its premium if these continuous updates were not implemented. We apply the proposed mechanism to California and find that changes in seismicity can cause swings in the frequency of parametric payments (which is related to the premium paid for the cover) in average of 16% and up to 36% in any three-year period from 1986 to 2020. We also find that avoiding an update of the parametric solution on a yearly basis to match the new risk profile can decrease the efficiency of the cover (measured as the relative contribution to the average annual loss of the events covered) in the same time period by 13% on average and up to 35%.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Guillermo Franco, R Guidotti, Edward H. Field, K.R. Milner, Y.J. Lee, R. S. Stein. 2020. An exploration of parametric earthquake risk transfer solutions that dynamically adapt to seismicity changes. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70208800

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Time-to-depth conversion of seismic-reflection data from eastern Lake Superior and implications for the eastern arm of the Midcontinent Rift

Seismic-reflection data were acquired in the mid 1980s along several lines across eastern Lake Superior by industry and the Great Lakes International Multidisciplinary Program on Crustal Evolution (GLIMPCE) (Fig. 1). The lines form part of a larger network of crossing lines over the entire lake, which can be used to develop three-dimensional geologic models of the Mesoproterozoic Midcontinent Rift that lies below. To better interpret these lines, we developed velocity models to convert seismic reflections versus two-way travel time (TWTT) to reflections versus depth. In addition, the velocity models themselves provide insights into the structure of the Midcontinent Rift by recognizing common velocity ranges for certain rock types (Grauch, 2023).

eastern Lake Superior

Revisiting the utility of regional-scale, high-quality geophysical data in mineral exploration - A case study featuring the Mammoth Magnetic Anomaly, Pinal County, Arizona

Regional aeromagnetic surveys passively measure the total magnetic intensity (TMI) and are a foundational tool used in mineral exploration (Airo, 2015). With the increased global demand and the number of critical mineral resources required for manufacturing high-tech devices, developing high-quality, regional-scale geophysical surveys could aid critical mineral exploration efforts and geologic mapping. In 2019, the U. S. Geological Survey launched the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (Earth MRI) to modernize the geologic and geophysical mapping of regions that have the potential to contain critical mineral resources within the United States. In support of planning Earth MRI geophysical surveys, Drenth and Grauch (2019) defined five aeromagnetic data quality rankings (rank 1 through rank 5) applying them to the airborne geophysical survey inventory of the United States (Johnson et al., 2021). Rank 1 aeromagnetic surveys are of the highest quality, meeting modern standards and allowing best practices for qualitative and quantitative interpretation; whereas rank 5 aeromagnetic surveys are of the lowest quality, being useful only for qualitative interpretation of broad features. Through the Earth MRI effort, 48 high-quality, regional-scale rank 1 and 2 airborne magnetic and radiometric geophysical surveys have been planned, collected, or publicly release through May 2025 (U. S. Geological Survey, 2025). Here, a portion of a rank 1 Earth MRI aeromagnetic survey in southeast Arizona is presented and compared to a legacy rank 5 aeromagnetic survey over the Mammoth Magnetic Anomaly (MMA), demonstrating how modern, high-quality aeromagnetic data improves our view of crustal geology, aiding mineral exploration.

Arizona

Early Miocene volcanic rocks and associated tectonics, Lava Hills and southern Bristol Mountains, California

Volcanic rocks of latest Oligocene to early Miocene age form an east-west belt across part of the central eastern Mojave Desert from the Whipple Mountains on the east to the Rosamond Hills on the west. We term this the central belt because it is separated from northern and southern belts by swaths with no volcanic rocks. Limited geochronologic data indicate that much of the belt is latest Oligocene and early Miocene in age, about 24 to 19 Ma, a finding that is consistent with these rocks being overlain by the 18.8 Ma Peach Spring Tuff in many places. We describe Miocene geology in a central area of the belt, in the Lava Hills, southern Bristol Mountains, and southern Old Dad Mountains. Sedimentary basins formed coeval with early andesite to rhyolite volcanism, progressing from fluvial and lacustrine tuffaceous sandstone to volcanic lavas, tuffs, and breccias, indicating that early basins formed proximal to volcanic edifices. Higher strata are fluvial and lacustrine with lavas punctuating the sequence. Although basins may partly have been formed within topographic lows bounded by volcanic domes, plateaus, and stratovolcanoes, consistent stratigraphic sections over wide areas indicate that tectonic basin evolution affected broad areas. The volcanic section is capped by local basalt flows and the regional Peach Spring Tuff. Limited data on normal faults support interpretations of early extensional basin development caused by northeast-southwest oriented stretching. Later extension caused stratal rotations, tilting early deposits down to the southwest. This tilted and subsequently beveled basin architecture was overlain by the youngest volcanic deposits, primarily rhyolite and basalt. The Peach Spring Tuff, 18.8 Ma, lies within this upper unit. Similar stratigraphic and structural relations are exposed in the nearby Marble Mountains and Van Winkle Mountain sections, reinforcing that a broad area underwent similar volcanism and tectonism. In our study area the upper unit is only very gently tilted except near dextral strike-slip faults of the eastern California shear zone. These late Miocene to Recent faults are represented as four main fault zones spaced about 5 km apart, representing distributed shear north of the Bristol Lake basin.

California