Quantification of earthquake diagnostic effects to assess low macroseismic intensities

Paola Sbarra (), Patrizia Tosi, Valerio Rubeis and Diego Sorrentino
Additional contact information
Paola Sbarra: Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia
Patrizia Tosi: Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia
Valerio Rubeis: Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia
Diego Sorrentino: Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia

Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, 2020, vol. 104, issue 3, No 1, 1957-1973

Abstract: Abstract A large amount of data about earthquake effects, supplied by citizens through a web-based questionnaire, enabled the analysis of the occurrence of many of the effects on humans and objects listed in macroseismic scales descriptions. Regarding the other diagnostic effects (rattling, moving, shifting, falling or overturning depending of the object type of doors, windows, china, glasses, small objects, pictures, vases, books, as well as frightened people and animal behaviour), data from more than 300,000 questionnaires about earthquakes felt in Italy from June 2007 to August 2017, were analysed by stacking them together as a function of hypocentral distance and magnitude. The comparison of the resulting percentages with the intensity prediction equation showed that almost all the chosen effects are good diagnostics for macroseismic intensity evaluation, as their percentages are well differentiated. We did not analyse the oscillations of hanging objects and liquids because the differences in effect attenuations, highlighted by the maps of the occurrence percentage, suggested to not consider them as diagnostic effect. This result allowed us to quantify the occurrence of each diagnostic effect for the intensity degrees from II to VI of the European macroseismic scale for the people who felt the earthquake. The application of the intensity assessment method to internet macroseismic data, based on the specifications herein proposed, should mitigate the problem of “not felt” undersampling in crowdsourced web data.

Keywords: Diagnostic effects; EMS scale; Macroseismic questionnaire; Intensity estimation; Earthquake (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-020-04256-6 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:104:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11069-020-04256-6

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11069

DOI: 10.1007/s11069-020-04256-6

Access Statistics for this article

Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards is currently edited by Thomas Glade, Tad S. Murty and Vladimír Schenk

More articles in Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards from Springer, International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().