Damaging Earthquakes Database 2011 – The Year in Review docx

 DamagingEarthquakesDatabase 2011–TheYearinReview    JamesDaniell&ArmandVervaeck     Author’sNote ii Author’sNotes WehopethatyouenjoytheCATDATYearlyReviewofDamagingEarthquakesin2011.TheCATDAT Databasehasbeenbuilt upbycollectingearthquake, floodandothernaturaldisasterloss datafor quiteafewyearssince2003attheUniversityofAdelaide,withamoreconcertedeffortinthe past3 to4yearstobuildupthedatabasesfurther.Thisreportin2011onlyshowsasmallpercentageofthe datacollectedbutanewandexcitingfutureinearthquakereporting.Inthelast12months,wehave reported constantly on www.earthquake‐report.com , founded by Armand Vervaeck, and worked tirelessly to provide the best quality scientific reporting of felt earthquake and volcanic events worldwideandCATDATtoprovidedetailedaccountsoneverydamagingearthquakeworldwide. Thepurposeofthisreportistopresent thedamagingearthquakesintheyear2011aroundtheworld  thatwereenteredintotheCATDATDamagingEarthquakeDatabaseintermsoftheirsocio‐economic effects. This 2011 report showcases the work that CATDAT, in collaboration with earthquake‐ report.com/SOSEarthquakes,isdoing. Abigthan kstoMarenforsupportingmethroughthesporadiclatenights(whenearthquakeshave occurred), as well as with SMS updates, translations, constant earthquake discussions and intellectualconversations.Iwouldalsoliketothankmyparents,AnneandTrevor,andalsomysister, Katherine,andbrother‐in‐law,Quentin,forthenumerousreportsandpapersIhavesentthemand theyhavecheckedandforthenumerous updatesastonaturaldisasterdata. A big thank you goes to the General Sir John Monash Foundation (supported by the Australian Government)thathasbeenfundingmyPhDresearchatKarlsruheatKIT/CEDIMandallowedmeto choose this location from all worldwide institutions (and in particular I would like to thank Peter Binks). I would like to also thank the University of Adelaide, Université Joseph Fourier Grenoble, UniversityofPaviaandKarlsruheInstituteofTechnologyformyeducationandfortheirpromotionof learninganddevelopmentoutsidethecourseenvironment. Thankyou alsotothe Centerof DisasterManagement and Risk Reduction Technology (CEDIM)for supporting me in my research in the natural disaster field. In addition, I would like to thank FriedemannWenzel,BijanKhazaiandTinaKunz‐Plappfortheirinterest,supportandmotivatingme topublishmywork.Ihavealsobeenaidedbyanumber ofinterestedindividualsforcomponentsof theda tabasebutwith theamountofdataaroundonhistoricaldamagingearthquakes,Iamalways interestedinnewreports,studies,questions,comments,improvementsandcollaboration. Iwould alsolike to urge people’s involvementwithsome greatworldwide earthquake and natural disaster risk related initiatives  out there – just to mention a few; Willis Research Network (WRN), EERI, USGS‐PAGER,  GEM, EMSC‐CSEM,GEO‐CANandWAPMERR. Manythanks, JamesDaniell Thedatacontainedinthisreportisuptodateasof7January2012.Theauthortakesnoresponsibility forerrorsthatmaybeinthedataan dalsomisuseofthedataprovided.TheEQLIPSEBuildingInventoryDatabase,CATDATNaturalDisaster andSocioeconomicDatabases,OPAL Project,associateddataand publicationsremain theintellectualproperty ofJames Daniellandare nottobereproducedinanyformwithoutpermission. Author’sNote iii SOS Earthquakes and Earthquake‐report.com were developed to report about earthquakes and volcanoes in the best possible way and to create value‐added information with a scientific and earthquakelossestimationperspective. Earthquake Report bridges the gap in‐between science and basic understanding. News in thesite not only appears very  quickly, but we will always  try to bring “Added Value” and “Scientific/SocialInsight” newsthatyouwillnotfindanywhereelse,aswellasdatafromCATDAT. Earthquake Report focusses on the Impact of Earthquakes and Volcanoes on  society. We will search, analyse and create in‐depth socio‐economic reports  for unique news, even in the most remoteplacesonEarth.VictimsofanearthquakeinthejungleofPapua NewGuineameritthesame attentionasthosepeoplelivinginSanFrancisco,Tokyo,Port‐au‐PrinceorConcepción. Earthquake‐Report.com is the information part ofSOS Earthquakes, anon ‐profit organizationspecializi ng inearthquakes,with5importantgoals: ‐bringingthebestpossible,highestqualityearthquakeinformationincludingCATDATdata ‐providingfreeorcheaptechnologytoolsformassmedia(QuakeSOSiPhoneapplication) ‐providingQuickandStructuralaidtoearthquakevictimsallovertheworld(stilltobeorganized) ‐ givingrationalunbiasedgeophysical,seismological,engineeringandscientificearthquakedetails. ‐workingonearthquakepreparednessandprevention. EarthquakeReportalsosupportsQuakeSOS,theearthquakeemergencyiPhoneApplication. SOS Earthquakes was founded  in August 2010. SOS Earthquakes andEarthquake‐Report.comare privateinitiativesto makethe worldjusta littlebit better. Everysingledonated dollarasalifeline that strengthens our initiative and is needed for server space, programming and increased data gatheringcapability. WewelcomealsothesupportofSTRATEGICPARTNERSwhowillenableustoreachasmanypeople as possible. Strategic partners can be individuals or companieswho want to make the world less traumatic, just like we do, or people or companies who require the latest damage, casualty, aid, economicandsocialdatafromearthquakes. Inthisrespectearthquake‐report.comandCATDATtogetherprovidethelatestandbestup‐to‐date informationpost‐earthquakewitharapidly growingnumberofsubscribersanddatainputsources. PleasecontactmeorJamestomakeadonationortobecomeastrategicpartner.Withoutmonetary support,thisserviceunfortunatelycannotcontinue. Postaladdress:Cederstraat21,2800Mechelen,Belgium,Phone:+32478299395Fax:+3215414670 In addition,I would like to thankmy wife, Gerda, for her loving support through my 24‐hour a day reporting and work with earthquake‐ report.com, and also to my family and friends as well as the millionsof earthquake‐report.com readers and subscribers. Thankyou and I hope thatwecancontinuetheservicein2012. Manythanks, ArmandVervaeck TableofContents iv  TABLEOFCONTENTS  Page Author’sNotes ii  TABLEOFCONTENTS iv LISTOFFIGURES iv LISTOFTABLES v 1 Introduction 1 2 WhatisCATDAT? 2 2.1 Whatiscontainedinthedatabase? 2 2.2 Entrycriteria 4 3 DamagingEarthquakesfrom2011intheCATDATDamagingEQDatabase 5 3.1 WherehavetheCATDATdamagingearthquakesoccurred? 5 3.2 Casualty‐bearing2011earthquakes 7 3.3 2011earthquakeswithover100peoplehomelessorrequiringshelter 11 3.4 EconomicLossesfromearthquakesin2011over$5millionUS 15 3.5 InsuredLossesfromearthquakesin2011sofar. 19 3.6 AquickcomparisonoftheNewZealandandTohokuEarthquakesinNumbers 21 4 Aquickcomparisonofthe2011LossestotheCATDATDamagingEarthquakesDatabase since1900 22  5 Conclusion 25 6 MainReferences 27 AppendixA:Summarypagesofeach2011damagingearthquake 31   ListofFigures iv  LISTOFFIGURES Page Figure1‐TheprocessusedtocreatetheCATDATDamaging EarthquakesDatabase(Daniell,2011) 2  Figure2–TheCATDATDamagingEarthquakesDatabaseparameters(Daniell,2003‐2011a) 4 Figure3–Thelocationofthe133+CATDATdamagingearthquakesinvariouscountriesduring 2011 5  Figure4–Thenumberofearthquakespercountryinthe133+CATDATdamagingearthquakesin variouscountriesduring2011 6  Figure5–Thefatalearthquakesin2011intheCATDATDamagingEarthquakesDatabase. 7 Figure6–Thecasualtybearingearthquakesin2011intheCATDATDamagingEarthquakes Database. 8  Figure7–Thenumberofbuildingsdamagedordestroyedineach2011CATDATdamaging earthquake 11  Figure8–Therelativebuildingdamageindexineach2011CATDATdamagingearthquake 12 Figure9–Thenumberofhomelesspeopleineach2011CATDATdamagingearthquake 12 Figure10–Thedirecteconomiclossesineach2011CATDATdamagingearthquake 16 Figure11–Theinsuredeconomiclossesineach2011CATDATdamagingearthquake 19 Figure12–YearlyDirectEconomicLossesfromCATDATDa maging Earthquakesshowing2011as thehighestlossyearofthepast111years 22  Figure13–YearlyTotalEconomicLossesfromCATDATDamagingEarthquakesshowing2011as thehighestlossyearofthepast111years 23  Figure14–YearlyEarthquakeandSecondaryEffectdeathsinCATDATfordevelopingand developednationsthroughtime–2011showsthelargestdeathtollfromadevelopednation (HDI(2011)>0.8) 23  Figure15–MajoreventlossesintheCATDATdamagingearthquakesdatabasefrom1900‐2011 (Daniell,2003‐2011a) 24  Figure16–Cumulativedeathsandeconomiclossesrelatedtoglobal2011‐dollarGDP(PPP)and population. 24   ListofTables v  LISTOFTABLES  Page Table1–Listofcasualty‐bearingearthquakesin2011 8  Table2–Listofhomeless‐bearingearthquakesin2011 13 Table3–Finallossestimatesforthe2011TohokuEQdisaggregatedfortsunami,powerplantand earthquakeusingJapaneseandCATDATdataasof18 th October 15 Table4–Listofeconomiclossesinearthquakesin2011withover$5millionUSDorothernotable losses(excludingnucleardisasters) 17  Table5–Listofinsuredlossesinearthquakesin2011sofarover$1m 19 Table6–Listofhighestinsuredlosses(1900‐2011)in2011CountryCPIadjusted$international.20 Table7–AcomparisonoftheChristchurchandTohokuearthquakesintermsofnumbers 21 CATDATDamagingEarthquakesDatabase–2011–TheYearinReview 1 1 Introduction 2011has played host tothe largest twoearthquakes, economically speaking, in the history of the countriesofJapanandNewZealand.TheM9.0Tohokuearthquakeandtsunamiof11 th March,2011 provedto be themostexpensive earthquakeofalltime, causingbetween $400‐700billionUSDin totallossesandapproximately19000deaths,whiletheChristchurchearthquake(aM6.3quakeclose tothecityofChristchurch)causedahugebuildingstocklossandapproximately$15‐20billionUSD damage with around 80% insured losses. Their respective aftershocks caused further damage. SignificantlosseswerealsoseeninTurkeyfromtheVanearthquakeinOctober,intheIndia‐Nepal‐ Tibet region in September, in China from numerous earthquakes in the Yunnan and Xinjiang ProvincesandintheUSAfromtheVirginia earthquake. Inaddition,inthefirsthalfof2011,thenewscameoutthatthedeathtollinHaitiwasoverestimated significantly.AreportfromaUS‐basedconsultancygroup,LTLStrategies,aspartofaUSAIDreport, showedthatthedeathtollwasbetween46190and84961.Daniellet al.(2010f,2011j)usingvarious approaches concluded that a death toll of 136933 , with a range of 121843 to 167082 dead, was reasonable. Both of these totals are a massive reduction on the 316000 deaths quoted by the Presidenton12 th January,2011. 2011DamagingEarthquakesinNumbers NumberofCATDATDamagingEarthquakes:  133+. NumberofCasualty‐bearingEarthquakes:  61+withatleast25fatal. CountrywiththemostCATDATDamagingEarthquakes: Japan,27;China,20;Turkey,18. TotalFatalities:Between20086and20475. TotalShakingFatalities:±1336. TotalInjuries:±14629. TotalHomeless:±1.108million. TotalEconomicLosses:$503.39billion‐$749.51billionUS (Median=$623.50billionUS) TotalEconomicLosses(excludingFukushimaNuclear): $394.39billion‐$587.51billionUS (Median=$488.00billionUS) TotalEconomicLosses(excludingTohoku):  $24.39billion‐$39.51billionUS (Median=$29.00billionUS) TotalInsuredLosses:$43.26billion‐$67.48billionUS (Median=$52.80billionUS)  Pleasenotethatforthepurposesofthisreportduetodifferentmeaningsofbillionandmillionworldwide: 1billion=1,000,000,000or10 9  1million=1,000,000or10 6 Finallossestimatesforthe2011TohokuEQdisaggregatedfortsunami,powerplantandearthquake‐JapaneseandCATDATdata InBillionUSD Earthquake Tsunami Powerplant DirectLossInland 77 0 DirectLossCoastal 48‐81 112‐145 58‐71 TotalDirectLoss 125‐158(42%) 112‐145(39%) 58‐71(19%) IndirectLoss 69‐132 64‐113 51‐91 TotalEconomicLoss 194‐290(41%) 176‐258(36%) 109‐162(23%) CATDATDamagingEarthquakesDatabase–2011–TheYearinReview 2 2 WhatisCATDAT? CATDAToriginatedasaseries ofdatabasesthathasbeencollectedbytheauthorfrommanysources over the years(2003 onwards). Itincludes global data onfloods, volcanoes and earthquakes (and associatedeffects).Thisreportwillfocusonthedamagingearthquakes in2011,anda comparisonas providedbythe DamagingEarthquakesDatabasepartofCATDAT.Thisdatabasehas beenpresented attheAustralianEarthquake EngineeringSocietyConferencein2010inPerth,Australia, intheform of3papers,andthedatawasalsousedtoformanAsia‐Pacificcomparisonoffloodandearthquak e socio‐economic loss in the CECAR5 conference in Sydney, Australia, 2010. The details of the database can be found by typing “CATDAT Damaging Earthquakes Database” into Google and searchingfortheDanielletal.(2011)paperinthejournal,NHESS. As of January 2012 in CATDAT v5.0328, over 19000 sources of information have been  utilised to  presentdatafromover 12300historical damaging earthquakes,with over7000 earthquakes since 1900examinedandvalidatedbeforeinsertionintotheCATDATdamagingearthquakesdatabase. Figure1‐TheprocessusedtocreatetheCATDATDamagingEarthquakesDatabase(Daniell,2011) 2.1 Whatiscontainedinthedatabase? Eachvalidatedearthquakeincludesthefollowingparametersfilledintothebestavailabledetail:‐ • Date(Day,Month,Year,Time(LocalandUTC)). • SeismologicalInformation(EQHypocentreLatitude;Longitude;Depth(km);Intensity(MMI); Magnitude;Magnitudetype) • ISO3166‐2Countrycode,includingKosovoandSouthSudan;ISOCountryName. • Human Development Index of country; HDI Classification; Economic Classification; Social Classification;UrbanityIndex;Populationattimeofevent;NominalGDPattimeofevent– splitintodevelopedordevelopingcountries. CATDATDamagingEarthquakesDatabase–2011–TheYearinReview 3 • CATDATPreferred(BestEstimate)Deaths;Secondar y EffectDeaths;GroundShakingDeaths; CATDAT Upper and Lower Bound Death Estimates; Global Literature Source Upper and Lower Bound Death Estimates; Severe Injuries; Slight Injuries; CATDAT Upper and Lower Bound Injury Estimates; Glo bal Source Upper and Lower (U/L) Bound Injury Estimates; Homeless(andU/L Bound);Affected(andU/LBound);Missing. • Buildings destroyed; Buildings damaged;Buildings damaged – L4, L3, L2, L1;Infrastructure Damaged;CriticalandLargeLossFacilities;Lifelinesdamaged. • Secondary effects that occurred (Tsunami,Seiche, Landslide (mud, snow, rock, soil, quake lake),Fire,Liquefaction,Flooding,FaultRupture);%ofthesocial lossesthatwerecausedby each secondary effect; % of economic losses that were caused by each secondary effect; TsunamiDeaths;LandslideDeaths;FireDeaths;LiquefactionDeaths. • Diseaseandadditionallong‐termproblems. • Full word description of various sources contributing to the data, including associated references. • Sectoraland indirectanalysisofeconomiclosses. • Country‐based CPI at time of disaster; Country‐based Wage Index at time of disaster; Country‐based GDP Index; USA CPI for comparison; Hybrid Natural Disaster Economic ConversionIndex. • CATDAT Preferred (Best Estimate) Total  Economic Loss; CATDAT U/L Bound of Economic Loss;Global SourceU/LBoundofEconomicLoss;AdditionalEconomicLossestimatesfrom varying sources; CATDAT Economic Loss 2011 HNDECI‐Adjusted; CATDAT Economic Loss 2011‐countrybasedCPIadjusted. • Insured Loss; Insured Loss In 2011 dollars; Insured estimate source; Estimated Insurance Takeout(orapprox.takeout)attimeofevent. • Indirectand Intangibleeconomiclosses. • Estimatedlif ecostgivensocialvalues,workingwagesetc.atthetime. • TotalEconomicLossasapercentageofcountry’sGDP;Sociallossestrendedbypopulation. • CATDATEarthquakesrankedviatheMunichNatCatServicemethodology. • CATDATEarthquakesrankedfortheCATDATEconomicDisaster RankingandCATDATSocial DisasterRankingbasedonrelativevaluesandnotabsolutevalues. • LinktoReliefWebarchivewhereavailable. • Aidcontribution;Aiddelivered;AidSource. • Split country impacts (social and economic) where earthquake has affected more than 1 country. • Variousratiosbetweencomponentsfortrendsanalysis.  • Normalisationstrategiesforcurrentconditions.(Danielletal.,2010g) • Linkstotheauthor’sglobalrapidlossestimationmodel(partofhisPhD).  CATDATDamagingEarthquakesDatabase–2011–TheYearinReview 4  Figure2–TheCATDATDamagingEarthquakesDatabaseparameters(Daniell,2003‐2011a) ThisiscontainedinaMicrosoftExcelframeworkwithexternallinkstootherresources.Itisalsoin SQLformat. 2.2 Entrycriteria Adamagingearthquakeis enteredintotheCATDATdatabasebythefollowingcriteriainv.5.03:‐ • Anyearthquakecausingcollapseofstructuralcomponents. • Anyearthquakecausingdeath,injuryorhomelessness. • Anyearthquake causingdamageorflow‐oneffectsexceeding100,000internationaldollars, HybridNaturalDisasterEconomicConversionIndex adjustedto2011. • Any earthquake causing disruption to a reasonable economic or social impact as deemed appropriate. • A requirement of validation of the earthquake existence via 2 or more macroseismic recordings and/or seismological information recorded by stations and at least 1 of the 4 definitionsabove. • Validation viaexternalsourcesifCorruptionIndex<2.7,subjecttoPolityranking. [...]... Christchurch  and  as  aftershocks  of  the  21st  February  earthquake).  5  CATDAT Damaging Earthquakes Database  2011 – The Year in Review    Figure  4  –  The  number  of  earthquakes  per  country  in  the  133+  CATDAT  damaging  earthquakes  in  various  countries during 2011  6  CATDAT Damaging Earthquakes Database  2011 – The Year in Review  3.2 Casualty‐bearing 2011 earthquakes  There have been at least 25 fatal earthquakes in 2011. These are shown on the following diagram. ... 19.08.2011 Oklahoma  US  06.11.2011 9  CATDAT Damaging Earthquakes Database  2011 – The Year in Review  Gifu Prefecture  Yangjiang 1  Yangjiang 3  Akita  Ibaraki  JP  CN  CN  JP  JP  14.12.2011 01.01.2011 01.02.2011 01.04.2011 20.11.2011 0  0  0  0  0  (0‐0)  (0‐0)  (0‐0)  (0‐0)  (0‐0)  1  0  0  0  0  0  1  1  1  1    10  CATDAT Damaging Earthquakes Database  2011 – The Year in Review  3.3 2011 earthquakes with over 100 people homeless or requiring shelter ... causes such as fire, landslides etc. About 94% of deaths were tsunami related.   In addition, at least 36 other injury‐bearing earthquakes have occurred in the world, making a total  of 61 known casualty‐bearing earthquakes for 2011.  7  CATDAT Damaging Earthquakes Database  2011 – The Year in Review    Figure 6 – The casualty bearing earthquakes in 2011 in the CATDAT Damaging Earthquakes Database.  The  Van  earthquakes  in  Turkey  in  October  and  November ... Aftershock  Simav Kutahya  TR  19.05.2011 3 (2‐HA)  SW Pakistan  PK  18.01.2011 3 (2‐HA)  Singkil  ID  05.09.2011 3 (2‐HA)  Guerrero  MX  11.12.2011 2  Tohoku, Sendai,  Great Eastern  8  CATDAT Damaging Earthquakes Database  2011 – The Year in Review  Kahnuj  IR  15.06.2011 2  (2‐2)  0  Sendai Aftershock  JP  11.03.2011 1  (1‐1)  0  Miyagi Aftershock  JP  11.03.2011 1  (1‐1)  0  1 (1‐L)  1  (1‐1)  (1‐1)  16 ...CATDAT Damaging Earthquakes Database  2011 – The Year in Review  3 Damaging Earthquakes from 2011 in the CATDAT Damaging EQ Database  3.1 Where have the CATDAT damaging earthquakes occurred?  There have been at least 133 damaging earthquakes in 2011. These have occurred in the following ... Also shown is the relative extent of building damage including destroyed buildings, as a ratio of 0.85  and damaged buildings with 0.15. This shows the Van, Sikkim, Christchurch and Japan earthquakes  as having the greatest extent of damage this year.  11  CATDAT Damaging Earthquakes Database  2011 – The Year in Review    Figure 8 – The relative building damage index in each 2011 CATDAT damaging earthquake  The  Japan  earthquake  caused  the  most  homeless  in  2011  with ... tolls were seen in some Chinese earthquakes.The number of homeless in each damaging earthquake  are summarised in the following diagram.    Figure 9 – The number of homeless people in each 2011 CATDAT damaging earthquake  12  CATDAT Damaging Earthquakes Database  2011 – The Year in Review  Although the overall damage was much reduced by good earthquake building practice in NZ, due to  the red tag level as the result of liquefaction and higher post‐earthquake standards in New Zealand ... Complex: Refer to CATDAT  CN  CN  PH  CN  JP  20.06.2011  08.06.2011  07.11.2011  10.09.2011  11.04.2011  200  168+  150  120  many  22000  16174  1014  5800  Complex: Refer to CATDAT  13  CATDAT Damaging Earthquakes Database  2011 – The Year in Review  Eastern Honshu Aftershock Sendai Aftershock  Elazig  Oklahoma  Yangjiang 2  Guatemala  Costa Rica  Huehuetenango  JP  JP  TR  US  CN  GT  CR  GT  12.04.2011 ... some  some  100  inc 01/01  70  50  15  Complex: Refer to CATDAT  700000  Complex: Refer to CATDAT  Complex: Refer to CATDAT  inc 01/01  2500  Complex: Refer to CATDAT  125    14  CATDAT Damaging Earthquakes Database  2011 – The Year in Review  3.4 Economic Losses from earthquakes in 2011 over $5 million US  Economic  losses  from  earthquakes  in  2011  have  been  dominated  by  the  Tohoku  earthquake, ... However, a more reliable estimate is approximately $1.7 billion US damage for total damage in India.  In addition about $200 million US damage was caused in Tibet (China), and slightly higher in eastern  15  CATDAT Damaging Earthquakes Database  2011 – The Year in Review  Nepal.  As  well,  losses  in  Bhutan  occurred  with  around  6000  buildings  damaged.  In  total,  an  estimated $2.25 billion US damage occurred.  Although not causing a high absolute value of damage, the Van earthquake in Turkey caused a large