This study presents a calibration of CAT-in-a-Box and intensity-based index trigger mechanisms for parametric tsunami catastrophe bonds. Trigger conditions for the former are based on fundamental event characteristics, such as earthquake location and magnitude, whereas those for the latter utilize tsunami wave height measurements at a series of observation stations. These solutions are illustrated for a building portfolio in Iwanuma City in Miyagi Prefecture, Japan, by considering a new seafloor observation network S-net off the Tohoku-Hokkaido coast of Japan. Performances of the two types of parametric solutions are quantitatively evaluated and compared with each other to discuss their advantages and disadvantages.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgrestiA.2007. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
2.
CornellC. A. and KrawinklerH.2000. Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment, PEER Center News3, 1–4.
3.
CumminsD. J.2008. CAT bonds and other risk-linked securities: State of the market and recent developments, Risk Management and Insurance Review11, 23–47.
4.
De RisiR.GodaK.YasudaT. and MoriN.2017. Is flow velocity important in tsunami empirical fragility modeling?Earth-Science Reviews166, 64–82.
5.
FrancoG.2010. Minimization of trigger error in CAT-in-a-box parametric earthquake catastrophe bonds with an application to Costa Rica, Earthquake Spectra26, 983–998.
6.
FraserS.PomonisA.RabyA.GodaK.ChianS. C.MacabuagJ.OffordM.SaitoK. and SammondsP.2013. Tsunami damage to coastal defences and buildings in the March 11th 2011 Mw9.0 Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering11, 205–239.
7.
GodaK.2013. Basis risk of earthquake catastrophe bond trigger using scenario-based versus station-intensity-based approaches: A case study for south-western British Columbia, Earthquake Spectra29, 757–775.
8.
GodaK.2015. Seismic risk management of insurance portfolio using catastrophe bonds, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering30, 570–582.
9.
GodaK. and AtkinsonG. M.2014. Variation of site-to-source distance for mega-thrust subduction earthquakes: Effects on ground motion prediction equations, Earthquake Spectra30, 845–866.
10.
GodaK. and De RisiR.2017. Probabilistic tsunami loss estimation: Stochastic earthquake scenario approach, Earthquake Spectra33, 1301–1323.
11.
GodaK. and De RisiR.2018. Multi-hazard loss estimation for shaking and tsunami using stochastic rupture sources, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction28, 539–554.
12.
GodaK.MaiP. M.YasudaT. and MoriN.2014. Sensitivity of tsunami wave profiles and inundation simulations to earthquake slip and fault geometry for the 2011 Tohoku earthquake, Earth Planet Space66, 105.
13.
GodaK.YasudaT.MoriN. and MaruyamaT.2016. New scaling relationships of earthquake source parameters for stochastic tsunami simulation, Coastal Engineering Journal58, 1650010.
14.
GotoC.OgawaY.ShutoN. and ImamuraF.1997. Numerical method of tsunami simulation with the leap-frog scheme, IOC Manual, No. 35, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, France.
15.
GouletC. A.HaseltonC. B.Mitrani-ReiserJ.BeckJ. L.DeierleinG. G.PorterK. A. and StewartJ. P.2007. Evaluation of the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced-concrete frame building - From seismic hazard to collapse safety and economic losses, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics36, 1973–1997.
16.
Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion, 2013. Investigations of future seismic hazard assessment, Tokyo, Japan, 217 p.
17.
KanazawaT.2013. Japan Trench earthquake and tsunami monitoring network of cable-linked 150 ocean bottom observatories and its impact to earth disaster science, 2013 IEEE Intl. Underwater Technology Symposium, doi:10.1109/UT.2013.6519911.
18.
KawaiH.SatohM.KawaguchiK. and SekiK.2013. Characteristics of the 2011 Tohoku tsunami waveform acquired around Japan by NOWPHAS equipment, Coastal Engineering Journal55, 1350008.
19.
KimJ. H.2009. Estimating classification error rate: Repeated cross-validation, repeated hold-out and bootstrap, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis53, 3735–3745.
20.
KingA.MiddletonD.BrownC.JohnstonD. and JohalS.2014. Insurance: Its role in recovery from the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence, Earthquake Spectra30, 475–491.
21.
LøvholtF.GlimsdalS.HarbitzC. B.HorspoolN.SmebyeH.de BonoA. and NadimaF.2014. Global tsunami hazard and exposure due to large co-seismic slip, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction10, 406–418.
22.
Mitchell-WallaceK.JonesM.HillierJ. and FooteM.2017. Natural Catastrophe Risk Management and Modelling: A Practitioner's Guide, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ,536 p.
23.
MossinJ.1968. Aspects of rational insurance purchasing, Journal of Political Economy91, 304–311.
24.
OkadaY.1985. Surface deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America75, 1135–1154.
25.
Pardo-IguzquizaE. and Chica-OlmoM.1993. The Fourier integral method: An efficient spectral method for simulation of random fields, Mathematical Geology25, 177–217.
26.
PuccianoS.FrancoG. and BazzurroP.2017. Loss predictive power of strong motion networks for usage in parametric risk transfer: Istanbul as a case study, Earthquake Spectra33, 1513–1531.
27.
SatakeK.FujiiY.HaradaT. and NamegayaY.2013. Time and space distribution of coseismic slip of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake as inferred from tsunami waveform data, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103, 1473–1492.
28.
SchlesingerH.2000. The theory of insurance demand, in Handbook of Insurance (DionneG. ed.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 131–151.
29.
TaniokaY. and SatakeK.1996. Tsunami generation by horizontal displacement of ocean bottom, Geophysical Research Letters23, 861–864.
30.
WaldD. J. and FrancoG.2016. Money matters: Rapid post-earthquake financial decision-making, Natural Hazards ObserverXL(7), 24–27.
Supplementary Material
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.
