Spatial Variability of "Did You Feel It?" Intensity Data: Insights into Sampling Biases in Historical Earthquake Intensity Distributions

Hough, Susan E.

doi:10.1785/0120120285

Cited by 57 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3 of Worden et al, 2012). Hough (2013) found a related phenomenon in historical macroseismic intensity data: the intensity for a whole city could be disproportionally influenced by a few dramatic effects emphasized by archival accounts. The present study provides an objective way to measure the completeness of quality DYFI data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

What Makes People Respond to “Did You Feel It?”?

Mak

Schorlemmer

2016

Seismological Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The data compilation of "Did You Feel It?" (DYFI) and other similar Internet-based macroseismic intensity databases relies on the voluntary responses from Internet users. A region of no responses could mean no perceivable ground shakings or no volunteers submitting responses. We examined the earthquake and socioeconomic conditions that affected the number of DYFI responses received for a region. A resulting statistical model described the expected number of DYFI responses received for an earthquake. We also showed that residents in California and the central and eastern United States followed similar behavior in responding to DYFI, despite the vast difference in seismicity for the two regions. This study allows for a quantitative definition of completeness for DYFI data. The presented modeling technique is applicable to other Internetbased macroseismic intensity databases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

What Makes People Respond to “Did You Feel It?”?

Mak

Schorlemmer

2016

Seismological Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The historical catalog is thought to be incomplete (Stucchi et al, 2004) and may underestimate the largest actual shaking in areas due to a space-time sampling bias and/or difficulties with the historically inferred intensities. Figure 10 schematically shows how sampling bias could understate actual shaking, and Hough (2013) shows that sampling bias can also overestimate actual shaking. This example also illustrates other complexities.…”

Section: Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

Metrics for Assessing Earthquake‐Hazard Map Performance

Stein¹,

Spencer²,

Brooks³

2015

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent large earthquakes that caused great damage in areas predicted to be relatively safe, illustrate the importance of criteria that assess how well earthquake hazard maps used to develop codes for earthquake-resistant construction are actually performing. At present, there is no agreed-upon way of assessing how well a map performed and thus determining whether one map performed better than another. The fractional site exceedance metric implicit in current maps, that during the chosen time interval the predicted ground motion will be exceeded only at a specific fraction of the sites, is useful but permits maps to be nominally successful even if they significantly underpredict or overpredict shaking, or permits them to be nominally unsuccessful but do well in terms of predicting shaking. We explore some possible metrics that better measure the effects of overprediction and underprediction and can be weighted to reflect the two differently and to reflect differences in populations and property at risk. Although no single metric alone fully characterizes map behavior, using several metrics can provide useful insight for comparing and improving hazard maps. For example, both probabilistic and deterministic hazard maps for Italy dramatically overpredict the recorded shaking in a 2200-yr-long historical intensity catalog, illustrating problems in the data (most likely), models, or both.

show abstract

“…The CEUS-SSC catalog (19) includes two such events, the 1843 Marked Tree, Arkansas, and 1895 Charleston, Missouri, earthquakes, both with preferred magnitudes of 6.0. Although a recent reinterpretation of macroseismic effects of the 1843 earthquake (20) estimates a lower preferred magnitude of 5.4, we assume, for conservatism, that the sequence produced no more than two M ≥ 6 late events (see materials and methods).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The New Madrid Seismic Zone: Not Dead Yet

Page

Hough

2014

Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The extent to which ongoing seismicity in intraplate regions represents long-lived aftershock activity is unclear. We examined historical and instrumental seismicity in the New Madrid central U.S. region to determine whether present-day seismicity is composed predominantly of aftershocks of the 1811-1812 earthquake sequence. High aftershock productivity is required both to match the observation of multiple mainshocks and to explain the modern level of activity as aftershocks; synthetic sequences consistent with these observations substantially overpredict the number of events of magnitude ≥ 6 that were observed in the past 200 years. Our results imply that ongoing background seismicity in the New Madrid region is driven by ongoing strain accrual processes and that, despite low deformation rates, seismic activity in the zone is not decaying with time.

show abstract

Spatial Variability of "Did You Feel It?" Intensity Data: Insights into Sampling Biases in Historical Earthquake Intensity Distributions

Cited by 57 publications

References 41 publications

What Makes People Respond to “Did You Feel It?”?

What Makes People Respond to “Did You Feel It?”?

Metrics for Assessing Earthquake‐Hazard Map Performance

The New Madrid Seismic Zone: Not Dead Yet

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About