Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America; April 2007; v. 97; no. 2; p. 638-645; DOI: 10.1785/0120060072
© 2007 Seismological Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hough, S. E.
Right arrow Articles by Pande, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Short Notes

Quantifying the Media Bias in Intensity Surveys: Lessons from the 2001 Bhuj, India, Earthquake

Susan E. Hough1 and Prabhas Pande2

1 U.S. Geological Survey
Pasadena, California 91106
 (S.E.H.)

2 Geological Survey of India
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
India
 (P.P.)

Many seismologists have looked at the 26 January 2001 Bhuj earthquake as a key modern calibration event that could be used to improve estimates of magnitudes of large historic mainshocks in stable continental regions. Since no instrumental data are available for important historic events such as the 1819 Allah Bund, India, and the 1811–1812 New Madrid, central U.S. mainshocks, calibration hinges on comparisons of the macroseismic effects of these earthquakes with those of comparable modern earthquakes for which a reliable, instrumentally determined moment magnitude is available. However, although such a comparison is conceptually straightforward, in practice it is complicated by potentially significant inconsistencies in methods used to quantify macroseismic effects in different regions and/ or times. For the Bhuj earthquake, extensive intensity data sets have been compiled and published from both media accounts and detailed direct surveys. Comparing the two provides a quantification of the previously suspected media bias, whereby earthquake effects can be exaggerated in media accounts. This bias is a strong function of intensity level, with substantial bias at the highest shaking levels and significantly less bias at low intensities. Because only sparse documentary data are in general available for older historic earthquakes, the results of this study suggest that their inferred intensity distributions might be similarly biased. We further use the survey- based intensity values to develop a new relationship between intensities and ground motions.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
S. E. Hough and K. Hutton
Revisiting the 1872 Owens Valley, California, Earthquake
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 2008; 98(2): 931 - 949.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the Seismological Society of America.