Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 92, No. 6, pp.

2310–2322, August 2002

Estimation of the Expected Number of Casualties Caused

by Strong Earthquakes
by Elena Samardjieva and José Badal

Abstract The human losses after strong earthquakes that occurred in the world
during the twentieth century have been analyzed, and a quantitative model for a
preliminary assessment of casualties is proposed. It consists of a correlation between
the number of casualties and the earthquake magnitude as a function of population
density. We tackle the distribution of the total number of casualties within areas of
different macroseismic intensity. Prognostic estimations of the expected number of
killed or injured people caused by a supposed strong earthquake in Andalucia (Spain),
using the model based on worldwide data, are suggested. Prognostic estimations
based on specific data about the Kanto–Tokai (Japan) region are likewise given and
compared with the number of casualties due to the 1995 Kobe (Japan) earthquake.
In relation to the expected number of victims in areas affected by strong seismic
impacts, we compute the casualty rate as the number of people killed divided into
the inhabitants of a region and show its variation for different population density
groups in the case of two extreme earthquake magnitudes.

Introduction
The most important aspect after a destructive, strong
earthquake is to pay attention to the number of human losses,
in particular, the numbers of people killed and of individuals
injured who require special medical help. In this sense, a
preliminary evaluation of the possible consequences of
strong earthquakes in every seismoactive region is very im-
portant for prevention and risk reduction purposes. This
topic is undoubtedly important but has not received much
attention in the past, although different authors have tackled
this problem. Kawasumi (1951) proposed measures of the
earthquake danger and the expectancy of maximum intensity
from data of historical earthquakes that occurred in Japan.
Lomnitz (1970) proved a correlation between the time of
day and the number of casualties due to big earthquakes in
Chile. Ohta et al. (1983) established a model of the number
of victims caused by an earthquake as a function of the num-
ber of completely destroyed houses. Christoskov and Samard-
jieva (1984) investigated the possible number of casualties in
the course of destructive earthquakes in the world for the pe-
riod 1950–1980. More recently, Samardjieva and Oike (1992)
completed this study with worldwide and Japanese disastrous
earthquakes that occurred during the period 1980–1990.
Shebalin (1985) proposed a classification of earthquake dan-
ger by assuming that the expected number of deaths in-
creases with the growth of the population in different nations
in the world. Oike (1991) studied the relation between the
number of killed or injured individuals and the earthquake
magnitude, as well as the temporal variation of earthquake
disasters in various countries (Oike and Hori, 1998).
In this study, we analyzed the observed casualties after
destructive earthquakes that occurred in the world during the
twentieth century. We discuss the problem of devising a
quantitative scale of earthquake disaster to estimate the num-
ber of killed or injured people after strong earthquakes. Our
purpose is to put forward prognostic estimations of the size
of the human losses in selected urban areas in the case of
strong earthquakes. In general, the size of the macroseismic
effect is proportional to the earthquake magnitude but varies
according to many other factors, such as focal depth, source
mechanism, seismic wave attenuation, geological structure
and peculiarities of the affected zone, site effects, type and
quality of construction, population density, way of life, and
seismological knowledge of the people. We adopt an em-
pirical approach to relate earthquake magnitude with the ex-
pected number of victims and, through the use of previous
work, also with the expected number of injured persons. We
present new expressions derived from an ample database of
disastrous earthquakes in the twentieth century. To obtain a
reliable evaluation, our equations combine the following pa-
rameters: earthquake magnitude, population density in dif-
ferent parts of the affected territory, and dimensions of the
areas with different macroseismic intensity.
Methods
According to the available worldwide data during the
twentieth century until 1999, almost half a thousand earth-

2310
Estimation of the Expected Number of Casualties Caused by Strong Earthquakes
quakes resulted in more than 1,615,000 human victims. An
Appendix at the end of this article collects all of the seismic
events taken into account in our study. This large database
(date, earthquake magnitude, affected region, and people
killed) contains 478 rows (one per event). Events with either
a focal depth
60 km or one or two victims were discarded.
Sometimes a precise number of victims cannot be given be-
cause it was unknown for some earthquakes. For the 1908
Italian earthquake, for example, the catalog of the National
Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) gives a number of
deaths from earthquake and tsunami between 70,000 and
100,000; we used 70,000. For the big 1927 China earth-
quake, the NEIC number of victims is 200,000, but it is
80,000 according to the Japanese catalog (Utsu, 1990); we
used 80,000. The NEIC number of deaths caused by the 1935
Pakistan earthquake is between 30,000 and 60,000; we as-
sumed 30,000. The NEIC number of human victims caused
by the 1948 Ashkhabad earthquake is 19,800, although a
much greater number (119,000) is also suggested; we used
the first number. For the 1976 New Guinea earthquakes, the
catalog NEIC gives 242 casualties but points out that there
were between 5,000 and 9,000 missing people and presumed
deaths; we noted 6,000. These examples illustrate the diffi-
culty of setting precise numbers for our database.
The annual number of victims is given in Fig. 1 (NEIC
catalog of earthquakes 1980–1999; Ganse and Nerlson,
1981; Utsu, 1990). The greatest numbers of casualties (Nk)
were recorded after the 1920 and 1976 China earthquakes,
with magnitudes M 8.5 and Nk ⳱ 220,000, and M 7.8 and
Nk ⳱ 242,800, respectively. The 1923 Japan earthquake, M
7.9, caused a high number of casualties, too, Nk ⳱ 142,807.
Considering the obvious differences in the social conditions
of life during the first half of the century and after that, we
can divide the whole period into two parts: before 1950 and
after. For the period 1900–1950, the total number of victims
is 949,047, and the mean annual number of victims is about
18,609 per year, whereas for the period 1951–1999, these
numbers are 666,621 and 13,605, respectively. The short-
dashed line in Fig. 1 shows a decreasing tendency of the
annual number of victims in the world after strong earth-
quakes. This estimation does not confirm the general im-
pression of an increase in the number of casualties due to
contemporary earthquakes. For instance, Shebalin (1985), in
his investigation of the consequences of earthquake disasters
in the world, assumed that the number of casualties is pro-
portional to the growth of the population, and he suggested
coefficients for reducing the observed number of victims to
the population density in 1950.
In the approach proposed by Christoskov and Samard-
jieva (1984) to estimate the possible number of casualties,
it was assumed that the total number of human losses, Nk ,
is mainly a function of the earthquake magnitude, M, and
the actual population density, D, in the affected area. Taking
into account only earthquakes at normal focal depth (h  60
km), the estimation of the number of victims is based on an
equation of the type
2311
log Nk (D) ⳱ a(D) Ⳮ b(D)M (1)
where the coefficients a and b are regression parameters de-
pending on the average population density D of the affected
area.
An analogous relationship for the assessment of the
number of injured people, Ninj, was also suggested (Chris-
toskov and Samardjieva, 1984). For convenience, the ratio
Ninj /Nk was introduced and the following relation was ob-
tained:
log (Ninj /Nk) ⳱ ⳮ0.99 Ⳮ 0.21M (2)
The correlation coefficient was r ⳱ 0.70. This relation will
be used to estimate the expected number of injured people
due to strong earthquakes.
Another model to estimate the number of victims was
suggested by Christoskov et al. (1990). It was asumed that
the number of casualties decreases proportionally with the
square of the epicentral distance, R, similar to the attenuation
of the seismic energy, N  1/R2. A factor WI, depending on
the radii RI of the areas of intensity I, was introduced. For
instance, in the case of observed intensities I ⳱ VII, VIII,
IX (MSK), the weighting coefficients WI are
WI ⳱ 1/[RI2 j (1/Rj2)], j ⳱ VII, VIII, IX (3)
Then the number of people killed within the area of intensity
I can be determined by the equation
Nk(I) ⳱ WI • Nk (DI) (4)
where the value of Nk(DI) is estimated from equation (1) for
the actual average population density DI in the area of in-
tensity I. Finally, the total number of human losses is a sum
of the values Nk(I).
Results
The human losses for both the first half and the second
half of the twentieth century have been studied separately.
The particular conditions of each zone affected by a strong
earthquake have been analyzed, including the seismogeolog-
ical aspects and the social conditions. The use of a uniform
approach in the selection and elaboration of the data makes
it possible to study the tendency of disaster mitigation in this
century and to compare the two halves of the century.
To obtain a mean value and an estimate of the expected
number of casualties, a number of extreme events were ex-
cluded from the regression. Some earthquakes in eastern
China were excluded because of the extremely high popu-
lation density, those in Turkey and Iran because of the old
type of buildings, and other events because of the epicenter’s
location under a big city or offshore, and so forth. For the
cases that we have called “extreme events,” a few remarks
have been written explaining why they were excluded (see
2312
Figure 1. Annual number of human victims in the world caused by M ⱖ 5 earth-
quakes during the twentieth century.
Appendix). The exclusion of some extreme cases or big
events was done for practical reasons and must be consid-
ered with caution: our purpose is to obtain as nonbiased an
estimate as possible. As is well known, the size of the ma-
croseismic effect depends not only on the earthquake mag-
nitude but also on many variables, such as those mentioned
previously. The combination of data of extreme cases does
not seem to be the most adequate way to obtain a reliable
mean value. In the case of the 1976 China earthquake, M
7.8, focal depth h ⳱ 22 km, and 242,800 people dead, the
high population density contributed to an increase in the
number of casualties. This same reason contributed to a simi-
lar effect in the case of the 1985 Michoacan (Mexico) earth-
quake, M 8.1, focal depth h ⳱ 28 km. This seismic event
had its epicenter
350 km away from Mexico City, on the
Pacific coast, but it caused an out-of-the-ordinary large in-
tensity at Mexico City and was felt by 20,000,000 persons
E. Samardjieva and J. Badal
in an area of 825,000 km2, with 9,500 people dead. Here
there were clear site effects, which played a huge role in the
damage. There is no distinction in principle between cases
in which site effects play a huge role in the damage, but not
so with data from earthquakes at short and intermediate dis-
tances. In contrast to the two previous examples that, in our
opinion, could bias the final estimations, other cases were
accepted in our database when they were not far from the
statistically mean values in the world (normal focal depth h
 60 km, mean population density D ⳱ 160 people/km2).
In the case of the 1988 Armenia earthquake, for instance, M
6.8 and 25,000 people dead, site effects also played a huge
role in the damage, and the number of victims corresponds
to a higher-magnitude event. However, this seismic event
has not been discarded in our work because it has a normal
focal depth (h ⳱ 10 km) and it occurred in a zone with a
population density that falls into one of the density groups
Estimation of the Expected Number of Casualties Caused by Strong Earthquakes 2313

that we established in a subsequent section. (Utsu, 1990). Table 1

As much again can be said with respect to another relatively Regression Coefficients a and b in Equation (1) for the Periods
small magnitude event that caused much more casualties 1900–1950 and 1951–1999 and Different Population
than expected from the expressions presented here: the 1999 Density Groups
Colombia earthquake, M 6.1 and 1,185 people dead. This Population Density 1900–1950 1951–1999
earthquake, like the prior event, has been included in the (people/km2)
a b r r a b r r
database because of its normal focal depth (h ⳱ 17 km) and
D  25 ⳮ3.41 0.66 0.88 0.341 ⳮ3.11 0.67 0.84 0.343
the population density of the affected zone. D ⳱ 25–50 ⳮ3.00 0.71 0.90 0.295 ⳮ3.32 0.75 0.85 0.342
With this background, anyone can understand the de- D ⳱ 50–100 ⳮ2.60 0.75 0.92 0.295 ⳮ3.13 0.84 0.82 0.345
gree of difficulty that a correct worldwide data selection in- D ⳱ 100–200 ⳮ2.17 0.77 0.92 0.292 ⳮ3.22 0.92 0.70 0.397
volves. Regarding the case of Japanese data, for instance, D
200 ⳮ2.09 0.86 0.83 0.344 ⳮ3.15 0.97 0.75 0.348
we can say that considerations, such as aseismic building, r, correlation coefficient for the linkage of the variables; r ⳱ standard
have been taken into account. The standards law for aseismic deviation.
construction in Japan was enacted in 1950, but the new as-
eismic design methods for construction were not enforced
in some zones until 1981. This example illustrates well the
difficulties of selecting earthquakes included in the database
from those that were excluded. The detailed discussion of
every extreme case would occupy many pages and is not a
part of our goal.
Earthquakes with epicenters on the coast or near it have
been taken into account. In these cases, only a part of the
macroseismic field inland provokes human losses. By con-
sidering the proportionality of inland and offshore areas with
respect to the whole area of strong seismic impact, the theo-
retical number of casualties for these events has been recal-
culated, assuming that the number of victims would increase
proportionally if the area of seismic impact had been located
totally inland.
For the correlation of earthquake magnitude with the
number of victims, only events at normal focal depth (h 
60 km) have been selected. Using the approach proposed by
Christoskov and Samardjieva (1984) and taking into account
the new data for the twentieth century, we have obtained
regression equations of type (1) for various population
density groups. We have applied a standard least-squares
method and grouped the data according to the most fre-
quently met density groups in the world: D  25, D ⳱ 25–
50, D ⳱ 50–100, D ⳱ 100–200, and D
200 people/km2.
The values of the coefficients a and b in equation (1) for the
period 1951–1999 and various population density groups are
given in Table 1. Analogously, the results for the first half
of the twentieth century (1900–1950) obtained by the same Figure 2. Log–linear regressions based on world-
method (Samardjieva and Oike, 1992) are also given in Ta- wide data for the number of human victims caused by
earthquakes in the 5.0–8.0 magnitude interval for dif-
ble 1, which contains the respective correlation coefficients ferent population densities.
and error bounds to casualties. These 1⳱r errors allow us
to assess the level of uncertainty implied in the predictive
equation (1) and are not small, as expected, because of the nomogram shown in Fig. 3. The solid lines represent the
large variety and dispersion of the data. correlation for earthquakes of the second half of the twen-
The observed numbers of victims as a function of the tieth century (1951–1999), whereas the dashed lines corre-
magnitude of the earthquakes that occurred during the sec- spond to earlier earthquakes (1900–1950) (Samardjieva and
ond half of the century (1951–1999) are plotted in Fig. 2. Oike, 1992). The regression lines linking magnitude with
This figure shows as many regression lines as fixed density expected number of casualties for various population den-
groups we selected. The line corresponding to D
200 peo- sities are not parallel in the semilog representation, neither
ple/km2 was obtained using only data of epicenters under a for the period 1900–1950 nor for the period 1951–1999 (Ta-
big city. On the basis of these results, we have built the ble 1, Fig. 3). Thus, the number of human losses for both
2314
Figure 3. Same log–linear regressions as in Fig.
2, but with the periods 1900–1950 (dashed lines) and
1951–1999 (solid lines) plotted separately.
the first half and the second half of the twentieth century
seems to depend on population density beyond strict pro-
portionality. In the 5.0–8.0 magnitude interval, the correla-
tion between the number of victims and the earthquake mag-
nitude for certain categories of population density is based
on mean observational values and provides an approximate
estimation of the expected number of human losses.
For the lowest population density (D  25 people/km2),
the observed number of victims before 1950 is clearly less
than for the period after 1950. This result is perhaps due to
a lack of data or deficient information concerning early in-
strumentally recorded earthquakes that occurred in regions
with low population density. In general, just the opposite
occurs: earthquakes of equal magnitude occurring in regions
with the same level of population density cause fewer ca-
sualties at present than in earlier years. This is always valid
for D
200 people/km2 and also in areas with less popu-
lation density for magnitudes 7.0. However, in the case of
earthquakes of greater magnitude, the reverse situation is
observed. This means that modern construction based on
contemporary earthquake engineering, in which the quality
of the materials used has improved, and with the greater
knowledge people have about seismic phenomena contribute
to moderate the earthquake disaster. Nevertheless, all of
E. Samardjieva and J. Badal
these aspects are not sufficient to preserve human life in the
case of destructive earthquakes with magnitudes
7.0. In
such cases, an important contribution to an increase in the
number of casualties seems to be the modern way of life,
which provokes undesirable secondary effects like fires, gas
poisoning, and so forth.
Prognostic Estimations
Andalucia Region, Spain
The Iberian Peninsula is a region with moderate seismic
activity. Badal et al. (2000), in their magnitude and spectral
analysis, could gather data of only 18 felt earthquakes with
an epicentral intensity
VI (MSK) in the peninsula during
the period 1923–1961. WWSSN stations were introduced in
1962. Despite this, large historical earthquakes, with a max-
imum intensity Io ⱖ VII (MSK), have occurred in the Iberian
area. Figure 4 shows a map of the peninsula and adjacent
areas with the epicenters of these earthquakes. The last de-
structive earthquake in Spain, the big earthquake of Andal-
ucia (southern Spain), dated 25 December 1884, maximum
intensity Io ⳱ X (MSK), completely destroyed several small
villages and caused 749 deaths. The epicentral area of this
shock has not suffered a similar earthquake since then.
Nevertheless, 100 years later, on 24 June 1984, an earth-
quake of maximum intensity Io ⳱ VIII (MSK) occurred in
the same area. The study of this seismoactive zone indicates
that there is significant risk of occurrence of a large earth-
quake in the future (Vidal et al., 1989). High macroseismic
intensities of degree VIII and IX (MSK) for a return period
of 100 and 500 years, respectively, are expected (Payo et
al., 1994).
An objective assessment of earthquake hazard for a seis-
moactive region can be obtained from statistically significant
observations. In the case of the Andalucian region, the data
about the number of human losses after strong earthquakes
are limited. On the other hand, the seismological and social
conditions of this zone correspond to the statistically mean
values in the world: normal focal depth h  60 km, expected
maximum intensity Io ⳱ IX, and mean population density
D ⳱ 160 people/km2. That is why we use the model based
on worldwide data for prognostic estimation of the earth-
quake consequences in this region.
Let us suppose the occurrence of a seismic event of
magnitude M 7 with the epicenter near to that of the big
earthquake of Andalucia (estimated coordinates 37.0 N,
04.0 W; focal depth, h ⳱ 15 km). The expected maximum
intensity is Io ⳱ IX (Willmore, 1979). To estimate the di-
mensions of the expected macroseismic field, we use the
intensity attenuation curves of Payo et al. (1994). The ellip-
tic form of the isoseismals according to the dominant hori-
zontal fault displacement has the orientation of the observed
macroseismic field (Vidal et al., 1989). Figure 5 shows the
isoseismals (approximately between the cities of Málaga and
Granada) plotted for degrees I ⳱ VIII (semiaxes 55 and 85
Estimation of the Expected Number of Casualties Caused by Strong Earthquakes 2315

Figure 4. Map showing the epicenters (cir-

cles) of earthquakes that occurred during the
period 1396–1999 felt in the Iberian region
with a maximum intensity Io ⱖ VII.

Figure 5. Expected isoseismals plotted for intensity degrees I ⳱ VIII and I ⳱ IX

(MSK) caused by a hypothesized strong seismic impact of magnitude M 7 in Andalucia
(southern Spain), at the same location (37.0 N, 04.0 W) of the 25 December 1884
earthquake. The population density is illustrated by quadrangles of 5 ⳯ 5 km (Atlas
Nacional de España, 1991), and its observed maximum values correspond to the prin-
cipal urban nuclei in the region.

km) and I ⳱ IX (semiaxes 25 and 45 km) on a schematic Assuming that the number of casualties decreases pro-
map of Andalucia (southern Spain), which correspond to the portionally with the square of the distance (Christoskov et
hypothetical strong seismic impact. The population density al., 1990), the following ratio was used:
is also illustrated in this figure by quadrangles of 5 by 5 km
(Atlas Nacional de España, 1991). Nk(VIII)/Nk(IX) ⳱ RIX
2 2
/RVIII (5)
2316 E. Samardjieva and J. Badal

where Nk(VIII) and Nk(IX) are the casualties occurring in the Table 2
areas of radius RVIII and RIX affected by intensities VIII and Numbers of Killed (Nk) or Injured (Ninj) People, Depending on
IX, respectively. The expected total number of human losses Population Density, Estimated for the Hypothesized Seismic
Nk is taken from the nomogram of Fig. 3, and it is Event (M 7) in Andalucia (Southern Spain)

D
(people/km2) I (MSK) Nk Ninj
Nk ⳱ Nk(VIII) Ⳮ Nk(IX) (6)
160 IX 1,300 4,100
VIII 500 1,600
From equations (5) and (6) it follows that Total 1,800 5,700

80 IX 350 1,100
Nk(IX) ⳱ [RVIII
2 2
/(RVIII Ⳮ RIX
2
)] Nk (7) 200 VIII 650 2,000
Total 1,000 3,100

and Model earthquake M 7 (depth h ⳱ 15 km) Andalucia region, Spain (37.0

N, 04.0 W)

Nk(VIII) ⳱ [RIX
2 2
/(RVIII Ⳮ RIX
2
)] Nk (8)
The results of these calculations are given in Table 2. First,
the expected number of killed or injured people for each
intensity (I ⳱ IX and I ⳱ VIII) have been obtained using
the average population density D ⳱ 160 people/km2 for the
whole area of strong seismic impact. More detailed calcu-
lations using a specific population density D ⳱ 80 people/
km2 in the area contoured by I ⳱ IX and a density D ⳱
200 people/km2 in the area covered by I ⳱ VIII have also
been obtained, and the results are likewise given in Table 2.
For an average density of 160 people/km2, we comparatively
obtain higher values for the total number of dead and injured
people: Nk ⳱ 1,800 and Ninj ⳱ 5,700. Obviously, our prog-
nostic estimations apply only for epicentral areas affected by
a relatively strong seismic impact on the basis of their popu-
lation density. This introduces some uncertainties, which are
inherent to the problem and can be expressed in numerical
terms. Considering standard deviations of 0.292 and 0.397
(Table 1), the respective uncertainty intervals are 800–4,000
and 2,500–12,000. In contrast to those numbers, for densities
of 80 and 200 people/km2, we clearly deduce lower values
for the total number of dead and injured people: Nk ⳱ 1,000
and Ninj ⳱ 3,100. Now, considering standard deviations of
0.30 and 0.34 (Table 1), the respective uncertainty intervals
are 450–2,200 and 1,400–6,900. As shown, the results are
strongly dependent on the population density in the areas of
different seismic impact (contoured by different isoseis-
mals). Other factors also contribute to the uncertainty, such
as the lack of precision in the delineation of the macroseis-
mic field. In the example analyzed, both prognostic estimates
are an obvious consequence of the use of two different popu-
lation densities, average and smaller than the average. We
would like to stress that the way of distributing casualties in
the various isoseismal regions is, of course, debatable. It is
not the purpose of this article to discuss this procedure. In
this sense, the approach for a prognostic estimate of the pos-
sible number of casualties in a region should be considered
as an example. The use of precise values for population den-
sity would lead to more accurate prognostic estimates.
Kanto–Tokai Region, Japan
The history of worldwide earthquakes shows that the
greatest seismic disasters have occurred in eastern Asia. The
geographical distribution of the number of deaths by seismic
disaster during the twentieth century is shown in Fig. 6 (Oike
and Hori, 1998). Considering the large difference in social
conditions of life in this region (extremely high population
density, type and quality of buildings, antiseismic activities,
etc.), a specific study based on equation (1) should be made.
As another example, we have investigated the Kanto–Tokai
(Japan) seismoactive zone. Only in this zone, 18 earthquakes
have resulted in a large number of victims during the last
100 years. In 1923, this region was affected by the great
M 7.9 Kanto earthquake, which produced
142,000 human
victims. The data for the Kanto–Tokai region have been ad-
justed to expressions (1) and (2), and the following regres-
sion equations have been obtained:
log Nk ⳱ ⳮ12.1 Ⳮ 2.0 M (9)
(correlation coefficient) ⳱ 0.74
log Ninj ⳱ ⳮ8.8 Ⳮ 1.6 M (10)
(correlation coefficient) ⳱ 0.72
Because almost all of this region is urbanized with a high
population density, we do not make any division into dif-
ferent density groups for the following estimates.
Let us assume the occurrence of an earthquake of mag-
nitude M 8 in the Kanto–Tokai district (supposed coordi-
nates 36.0 N, 139.0 E; focal depth h ⳱ 20 km). In agree-
ment with the intensity expected throughout Japan
(Kawasumi, 1951), the radius of the area affected by inten-
sity I ⳱ V (JMA), the lowest intensity at which casualties
are expected, would be R ⳱ 142 km. The radius of the area
affected by intensity I ⳱ VI would be R ⳱ 73 km. Consid-
ering a population density D ⳱ 100–200 people/km2 and
using the nomogram based on worldwide data (Fig. 3), we
obtain, by the same procedure as before, the results given in
Estimation of the Expected Number of Casualties Caused by Strong Earthquakes 2317

Figure 6. Geographical distribution in eastern Asia of the number of deaths caused

by seismic disasters during the twentieth century (after Oike and Hori, 1998). The three
largest circles correspond to the destructive 1920 and 1976 China earthquakes and to
the disastrous 1923 Japan earthquake in the Kanto–Tokai region.

Table 3: Nk ⳱ 14,000 (5,600–35,000) and Ninj ⳱ 68,700 Table 3

(27,000–172,000). However, if we repeat the process by Numbers of Killed (Nk) or Injured (Ninj) People Estimated for
considering the specific data for Kanto–Tokai, the results, the Hypothesized Seismic Event (M 8) in Kanto–Tokai (Japan)
also shown in Table 3, are significantly lower: Nk ⳱ 5,500 Relation Used I (JMA) Nk Ninj
(2,200–13,800) and Ninj ⳱ 14,000 (5,600–35,000). The last
destructive earthquake in Japan of magnitude Mw 6.8 (NEIC) According to worldwide VI 11,300 54,000
data D ⳱ 100–200 V 3,000 14,700
and M 7.2 (JMA), the 1995 Kobe earthquake, caused 5,502 (people/km2) Total 14,000 68,700
human victims and 36,896 injured people (catalogue of
earthquakes NEIC, 1995). The expected number of casualties According to VI 4,300 11,000
computed from different data sets in this second example Kanto–Tokai data V 1,200 3,000
emphasizes the bias that the approach based exclusively on Total 5,500 14,000
worldwide data can introduce, in our case, an overestimated Model earthquake M 8 (depth h ⳱ 20 km) Kanto–Tokai region, Japan
result. The solution of each problem depends on the avail- (36.0N, 139.0E)
able data, but the calculations based on specific information
about the study zone must logically result in more precise
estimates. 1,600 km2 in Mexico, with a large urban concentration and
different population densities, affected by large seismic ac-
tivity entailing earthquakes with magnitudes up to 8. We do
Casualty Rate not compute new regression coefficients for this particular
example. Our aim is rather to contrast the predictions ob-
Finally, in relation to the expected number of victims tained from our coefficients with a specific case.
in areas affected by strong seismic impacts, we refer to the Starting from the values for a and b given in Table 1
concept casualty rate, that is, the number of killed people for the period 1951–1999 and taking into account events
divided into the number of inhabitants of a region, for dif- with magnitude 5 and 8, we estimate the casualty rate de-
ferent population density groups. This is a parameter that pending on different population density groups in that area
can be easily determined for a seismically active zone when of Mexico. Results are given in Table 4 and graphically in
data about casualties caused by earthquakes with magnitudes Fig. 7. They show a rather surprising consequence. For mag-
ranging in a wide interval are available. In such a case, the nitude 5, the mortality rate is almost constant for all values
variation of the casualty rate for distinct earthquake magni- of population density, but for magnitude 8, it is clear that
tude values can also be determined. We present in the next the rate increases (almost one order of magnitude) with
section a very simple example concerning a wide area of population density. For this last magnitude value, the rate in
2318 E. Samardjieva and J. Badal

Table 4
Casualty Rate, Depending on Different Population Density Groups in an Area of Mexico
with a Large Urban Concentration, for Earthquake Magnitudes 5 and 8

Killed People/Casualty Rate

Population Density Actual Density
(People/km2) (People/km2) a b Inhabitants Magnitude 8 Magnitude 5

D  25 12.5 ⳮ3.11 0.67 20,000 178 8.89E-03 2 9.99E-05

D ⳱ 25–50 37.5 ⳮ3.32 0.75 60,000 479 7.98E-03 3 4.99E-05
D ⳱ 50–100 75 ⳮ3.13 0.84 120,000 3,890 3.24E-02 12 9.79E-05
D ⳱ 100–200 150 ⳮ3.22 0.92 240,000 13,804 5.75E-02 24 1.00E-04
D
200 300 ⳮ3.15 0.97 480,000 40,738 8.49E-02 50 1.04E-04

The regression coefficients a and b of Table 1 have been used.

technological equipment, high population density combined

with a very strong seismic impact might lead to disastrous
consequences for people who live in sites frequently afected
by earthquakes.
A correct interpretation of this point requires additional
work to distinguish between undesirable evidence of a gen-
eral character and mere appreciation valid for a particular
case only. The conclusion emerging from this example is as
disturbing as it is attractive and is worthy of being investi-
gated.

Figure 7. Variation of the casualty rate for differ-
ent population density groups and two distinct values
of earthquake magnitude (5 and 8). These values have
been estimated with the coefficients a and b given in
Table 1 for the second half of the twentieth century.
a densely populous area (D  300 people/km2) is 0.085 or
even more, which means that roughly 9% of the population
could be killed as a consequence of such a seismic event.
Even though the interpretation of a merely numerical prob-
lem that has to do with the lack of reliability for small earth-
quake magnitudes and small numbers of killed people is
quite solid, an alternative hypothesis cannot be discarded. It
seems that an increase in the casualty rate could be due to
lifestyle or undesirable hazard induced by fires, floods, gas
poisoning, toxic emissions, harmful radiation, and so forth.
This second conjecture is more appealing to us, still more
when regarding the results obtained before and shown in
Figure 3. In effect, the log–linear regressions for the period
1951–1999 (solid lines) seem to support this conjecture, sug-
gesting that it is more dangerous to live in a populous and
modern city when large seismic events occur. The achieve-
ments in the matter of prevention and risk reduction sup-
ported by modern building technology and the high degree
of earthquake engineering applied would be somehow or
other balanced with a higher level of risk derived from
greater human concentrations above all in urban areas. With-
out discarding pernicious and unavoidable effects of modern
Concluding Remarks
The present study provides a method for the evaluation
of possible consequences of strong earthquakes in terms of
human losses. The work has been developed (1) by least-
squares regression linking earthquake magnitude with the
expected number of casualties; (2) from an ample database
of disastrous earthquakes in the twentieth century; (3) for
both the first half and the second half of the century sepa-
rately; and (4) for the most frequently encountered density
groups in the world. This correlation, analyzed in the 5.0–
8.0 magnitude interval, is based on statistically mean values
and gives an estimate of the expected number of casualties.
In regions with a high level of population density (D
200
people/km2) earthquakes of equal magnitude cause fewer ca-
sualties at present than in the past. In the same way that the
mortality rate from infectious diseases (smallpox, polio, etc.)
has been reduced everywhere during the last century, the
number of casualties due to earthquakes has been reduced
in the same period. In this sense, the casualty rate has
changed significantly in a century. Science, updated building
codes, and modern technology have undoubtedly contrib-
uted to lessen the impact of earthquakes in densely peopled
zones. The same can be said for areas with a lower popu-
lation density and for earthquakes with magnitudes 7.0.
Unfortunately, for important human concentrations in big
cities, where building codes are not always strictly applied
and construction materials of quality are not generally used,
it seems that large earthquakes with magnitudes
7.0 still
provoke a number of casualties similar to that in earlier
years.
Estimation of the Expected Number of Casualties Caused by Strong Earthquakes
Prognostic estimates based on semilog regressions ap-
ply only to epicentral areas affected by a relatively strong
seismic impact on the basis of their population density. In
such cases, a correct choice of the population density is es-
sential for correct prognostication. Likewise, calculations
based on specific data of the investigated areas must logi-
cally lead to more accurate estimations. The prognostic es-
timates we have presented for the Andalucia region in Spain
and the Kanto–Tokai region in Japan should be considered
as average values and interpreted as the most probable
values, unless housing standards are significantly upgraded.
Unpredictable consequences or undesirable hazards induced
by fires, floods, gas poisoning, toxic emissions, harmful ra-
diation, and so forth, can appear. In any case, it should be
noted that the specific peculiarities of each zone (seismo-
geological factors, type and quality of buildings, antiseismic
activities, energy lines, lifestyle, etc.) can influence the size
of the consequences of earthquakes. A more realistic eval-
uation of the prognostic elements could be obtained by tak-
ing into account all of these factors.
The variation in the casualty rate for a very strong earth-
quake suggests an increase with population density, proba-
bly due to secondary effects of modern technological de-
velopment and lifestyle, particularly in urban areas. Far from
a fatalistic view of earthquake hazards, assuming the view-
point nowadays adopted by the scientific community, in the
sense that people are, in a greater proportion, killed by struc-
tures and not by earthquakes, we think that any advance in
civil engineering should contribute to moderate earthquake
disasters.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the staff of the Geophysical Observatory of
Toledo, Instituto Geográfico Nacional (Spain), for the help and facilities
given in the course of this work. We are indebted to all of those who
supplied us original information for this study. We also thank Associate
Editor Francisco Chávez-Garcı́a and the reviewers Cinna Lomnitz and
Mario Ordaz for their constructive comments and guidance during the prep-
aration of the draft that led to significant improvement of the manuscript.
The section titled “Casualty Rate” was inspired by the data supplied by Dr.
M. Ordaz. The Dirección General de Investigación, Ministerio de Ciencia
y Tecnologı́a, Madrid, partially supported this research through the project
REN2000-1740-C05-04.
References
Atlas Nacional de España (1991). Sección IV, Grupo 14b, Potenciales De-
mográficos, Instituto Geográfico Nacional, MOPT, Madrid, 8–9.
2319
Badal, J., E. Samardjieva, and G. Payo (2000). Moment magnitudes for
early (1923–1961) instrumental Iberian earthquakes, Bull. Seism. Soc.
Am. 90, 1161–1173.
Christoskov, L., and E. Samardjieva (1984). An approach for estimation of
the possible number of casualties during strong earthquakes, Bulg.
Geophys. J. 4, 94–106.
Christoskov, L., E. Samardjieva, and D. Solakov (1990). Improvement of
the approach in determining the possible human losses during strong
earthquakes. Bulg. Geophys. J. 4, 85–92.
Ganse, R. A., and J. B. Nerlson (1981). Catalog of significant earthquakes
2000 B.C.–1979, World Data Group A for Solid Earth Geophysics,
report SE-27, Boulder, Colorado.
Kawasumi, H. (1951). Measures of earthquake danger and the expectancy
of maximum intensity throughout Japan, as inferred from the seismic
activity in historical times. Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst. 29, 469–482.
Lomnitz, C. (1970). Casualties and behavior of populations during earth-
quakes. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 60, 1309–1313.
NEIC (1980–1999) Catalog of earthquakes, National Earthquake Informa-
tion Center, U.S. Geological Survey, http://neic.cr.usgs.gov, Depart-
ment of the Interior, (last accessed 5 April 2001).
Ohta, Y., N. Goto, and H. Ohashi (1983). An empirical construction of
equations for estimating number of victims by earthquakes. Zisin II
36, 463–466.
Oike, K. (1991). A discussion on the relation between magnitude and num-
ber of deaths by earthquakes, Proc. of the Int. Seminar on Earthquake
and Hazard Mitigation Technology. Tsukuba, Japan, 333–341.
Oike, K., and T. Hori (1998). History of earthquakes and seismic disasters
in east Asia. Science 68, 409–415.
Payo, G., J. A. Canas, and J. Badal (1994). Seismic hazard and anelastic
attenuation in the Iberian Peninsula, Proc. of the U.S.-Spain Workshop
on Natural Hazards. Barcelona, Spain, 312–342.
Samardjieva, E., and K. Oike (1992). Modelling the number of casualties
from earthquakes. J. Nat. Disaster Sci. 1, 17–28.
Shebalin, N. V. (1985). Regularities of the natural disasters (in Russian).
Nauki o zemle, v. 11, Znanie, Moscow, 48 pp.
Utsu, T. (1990). Table of worldwide disastrous earthquakes, Tokyo, 243 p.
Vidal, F., G. Payo, G. Alguacil, F. de Miguel, and M. D. Romacho (1989).
The earthquake of June 24 1984, at the centennial of the destructive
Andalucian earthquake of 1884, Proc. of the ESC Symposium on Cal-
ibration of Historical Earthquakes in Europe and Recent Develop-
ments in Intensity Interpretation. Instituto Geográfico Nacional, Ma-
drid, pp. 73–82.
Willmore, P.L. (editor) (1979). Manual of Seismological Observatory Prac-
tice. Boulder, Colorado.
Geophysical Institute of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Acad. G. Bonchev str., bl.3
1113 Sofia, Bulgaria
(E.S.)
Physics of the Earth, Sciences B, University of Zaragoza
Pedro Cerbuna 12
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
(J.B.)
Manuscript received 10 February 2001.
2320 E. Samardjieva and J. Badal

Appendix
List of Earthquakes that Caused Human Losses during the Last Century
Estimation of the Expected Number of Casualties Caused by Strong Earthquakes 2321
2322 E. Samardjieva and J. Badal