4.6 Article

Global earthquake casualties due to secondary effects: a quantitative analysis for improving rapid loss analyses

Journal

NATURAL HAZARDS
Volume 52, Issue 2, Pages 319-328

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11069-009-9372-5

Keywords

PAGER; Earthquake casualty; Earthquake fatalities; Earthquake hazard

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study presents a quantitative and geospatial description of global losses due to earthquake-induced secondary effects, including landslide, liquefaction, tsunami, and fire for events during the past 40 years. These processes are of great importance to the US Geological Survey's (USGS) Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) system, which is currently being developed to deliver rapid earthquake impact and loss assessments following large/significant global earthquakes. An important question is how dominant are losses due to secondary effects (and under what conditions, and in which regions)? Thus, which of these effects should receive higher priority research efforts in order to enhance PAGER's overall assessment of earthquakes losses and alerting for the likelihood of secondary impacts? We find that while 21.5% of fatal earthquakes have deaths due to secondary (non-shaking) causes, only rarely are secondary effects the main cause of fatalities. The recent 2004 Great Sumatra-Andaman Islands earthquake is a notable exception, with extraordinary losses due to tsunami. The potential for secondary hazards varies greatly, and systematically, due to regional geologic and geomorphic conditions. Based on our findings, we have built country-specific disclaimers for PAGER that address potential for each hazard (Earle et al., Proceedings of the 14th World Conference of the Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 2008). We will now focus on ways to model casualties from secondary effects based on their relative importance as well as their general predictability.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available