Next Article in Journal
Edge Detectors as Structural Imaging Tools Using Aeromagnetic Data: A Case Study of Sohag Area, Egypt
Next Article in Special Issue
Site Effect Assessment in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia through Inversion Analysis of Microtremor H/V Spectral Ratios
Previous Article in Journal
Machine Learning for Projecting Extreme Precipitation Intensity for Short Durations in a Changing Climate
Previous Article in Special Issue
Geological and Structural Control on Localized Ground Effects within the Heunghae Basin during the Pohang Earthquake (MW 5.4, 15th November 2017), South Korea
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

History of the Environmental Seismic Intensity Scale ESI-07

Independent Consultant, Via della Resistenza 171, 00185 Cantalice (Rieti), Italy
Former General Director of the Geological Survey of Italy-Institute for Environmental Protection and Research Agency (ISPRA-Italy); Member of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts-Class V-Environmental and Technological Sciences.
Geosciences 2019, 9(5), 210; https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9050210
Submission received: 11 March 2019 / Revised: 3 May 2019 / Accepted: 6 May 2019 / Published: 10 May 2019

Abstract

:
This brief note aims to describe the history, from its early original idea, of the new macroseismic scale: The Environmental Seismic Intensity Scale 2007 (ESI 2007). It can be used together with other existing scales or alone when needed for measuring the intensity of an earthquake on the basis of the primary and secondary effects of a seismic event on the natural environment. These effects could be the major sources of earthquake hazards, as recently proved. This note also aims to contribute to the understanding of processes that induced the researcher to develop an idea, to pursue it, and bring it to its end, first through the help of valuable Italian researchers and then through the constructive exchange of ideas with researchers of different cultural backgrounds operating almost everywhere in the world. This note is sponsored and approved by the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA), and the Environmental Seismic Intensity scale (ESI-07) was published in 2007 after a revision process of about eight years.

1. Introduction

Following the kind invitation of the Editors, herein I introduce some personal considerations on the state of the Environmental Seismic Intensity scale (ESI 2007 scale) [1] starting from its creation to the present and its perspective for the future. This brief note aims to contribute to an understanding of the processes that induced the researcher to develop an idea, pursue it, and bring it to an end, first through the help of valuable Italian researchers and then through the constructive exchange of ideas with researchers of different cultural backgrounds operating almost everywhere in the world.
The Environmental Seismic Intensity scale (ESI 2007 scale was published in 2007 after a revision process of about eight years as a new intensity scale based only on the Earthquake Environmental Effects (EEEs). This scale integrates the traditional macroseismic scales, of which it represents an evolution, allowing the intensity parameter to also be assessed where buildings are absent and when diagnostic damage-based elements have saturated, exclusively on the basis of environmental effects. Actually, the ground effects have recently proved to be major sources of hazard in addition to vibratory ground motion. In fact, although a serious source of direct damage, the ground motion is not the only parameter to be considered since most damage is due to coseismic geological effects that are directly connected to the earthquake’s source or caused by ground shaking. Primary effects such as surface faulting, regional uplift, and subsidence, and secondary effects such as tsunamis, liquefaction, ground failure, and landslides (sensu ESI 2007 scale) must now be taken into account for a more correct and complete evaluation of seismic hazards at both regional and local scales.
The ESI 2007 scale is a 12-degree scale: each degree reflects the corresponding strength of an earthquake and provides a measure of its intensity on the basis of its characteristics. The main advantage of the ESI 2007 scale is the classification, quantification, and measurement of several known geological, hydrological, and geomorphological features that are associated with each intensity degree, and therefore it allows for the definition of seismic intensity based on the entire scenario of geological ground effects.
The ESI 2007 scale was promoted by several geologists, seismologists, and engineers coordinated by the Servizio Geologico d’Italia of the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA). This scale has been tested worldwide on several modern earthquakes, historical earthquakes, and paleoearthquakes [2,3,4,5,6,7].

2. History and Considerations on the Scale and Associated EEEs Database

In the early 1990s, I was working at the Italian Nuclear Regulatory Commission (ENEA-DISP), responsible for the safety of nuclear power plants (NPPs) regarding the effects of natural phenomena, with special attention devoted to those caused by earthquakes. During those years, I realized that the earthquake intensity parameter—a significant parameter for evaluating the whole set of potential earthquake effects—lacked its initial and fundamental characteristics, mainly because the people in charge of evaluating intensity were not making proper use of the traditional intensity scales (Mercalli–Cancani–Sieberg, MCS; Medvedev–Sponhouer–Karnik, MSK; and Modified Mercalli, MM). In fact, they were steadily neglecting the effects of earthquakes on the ground (and more generally on the natural environment) which, as is now clearly accepted by all (differently from the 1990s), are responsible for quite a large percentage of earthquake damage.
A clear example of this case is the Japanese Fukushima NPP during the 2011 earthquake, where the effects of ground shaking on the built environment were negligible as opposed to the catastrophic tsunami generated by the surface faulting of the ocean bottom [8].
As a consequence of this bad approach, the publication of the European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98) [9]) appeared, where the ground effects were relegated to an appendix of no real value. As stated above, the non-utilization of ground effects resulted in a complete alteration of the meaning and value of the intensity parameter. For example, assessing intensity without considering ground effects would have made it impossible to compare the intensity associated with past earthquakes to the intensity assigned to recent ones, and this could have led to erroneous conclusions about the seismic hazard in a given territory and therefore for the facilities located therein, with a special emphasis on NPPs. At that time, these intensity evaluators claimed that the use of the ground effects was not possible due to their extreme variability in both time and space, and the absence of a proper ground-effects database from which to derive a reliable description of the effects for each intensity degree. This was partly true considering the incompleteness of the database, but in my opinion was completely wrong with regard to the great variability of the effects, because this was fully comparable to that of man-made structures. Furthermore, the great variability of the ground effects enables the proper estimation of the strongest earthquakes (mainly intensities between X and XII degrees where in most cases the effects on built structures saturate).
It is important to remark that between 1980 and 1990, paleoseismology was developing considerably all over the world, and I was lucky to meet Professor D. Burt Slemmons, one of the few great fathers of earthquake geology, in 1982 when I was engaged in a training course at the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington, DC (USNRC). He was a teacher at the Mackay School of Mines in Reno (Nevada, USA). We became good friends and accomplished many missions together in several countries for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Through contact with him and his assistants, in particular with Robert E. Whitney, I started, as a pioneer in Europe, to study and publish papers on paleoseismology [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. These papers, some of which are in Italian [10,11,12,16,17], show how throughout the years the study of paleoseismicity and its application to Italian earthquakes have grown with the aim of carrying out seismic hazard assessments from paleoseismic evidence. The pathway goes from the first studies concerning the Rieti basin [18,19] or the Fucino Plain [20] to the evidence of strong seismic paleoevents in the “aseismic” zone of Pollino [21], proving the state-of-the-art of paleoseismology in those years.
I also need to say that my interest in paleoseismology was facilitated by the lessons of Giorgio Magri, my Italian supervisor at the Comitato Nazionale Energia Nucleare/Direzione Sicurezza e Protezione (CNEN-DISP). He always repeated to me that it is better to say that mountains grow because of earthquakes as opposed to tectonics.
With the support of paleoseismology, I decided to adopt the approach of producing something useful for the proper reuse of ground effects in intensity evaluation and restoring the intensity parameter to its proper meaning.
The first step was the production of two articles [22,23]. The first was published in Terra Nova. In that article, I made an extraction of the ground effects according to the various degrees as reported in the MCS, MSK, MM, and Japanese scales. The main goal was to remind the intensity evaluators that ground effects are massively included in the historically most-applied intensity scales (MCS, MSK, and MM) from the beginning of their conception. The second one was written to present the idea to a very broad international audience during the special session of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) Congress held in Beijing in 1996. The simple database, presented in [22], was the “seed” of the huge plant that later gave rise to the ESI scale. I must remind current users that it should be used in conjunction with one of the other traditional scales in order to avoid the same mistake made in the 1990s by the intensity evaluators concerning built structures, that is, the lack of consideration for the entire set of earthquake effects when assessing intensity. It can be used alone only for higher degrees and in the case of sparsely populated areas. It can also be used to verify the intensity of past earthquakes in cases where the intensity was evaluated not using the ground effects properly. As said above, the seeds started to sprout, and the two roadmaps were the initial drafts of the ESI scale and the construction of the associated database.
Regarding the ESI scale, the steps have been as follows:
  • The collection and careful reading of published and unpublished papers and documents dealing with the same objective, first among them: [24]. I think we have to be very grateful to these authors because they opened the road for using ground effects in earthquake intensity evaluation.
  • The presentation of the drafted ESI content at conferences at national and international levels (i.e., [25,26,27,28]) and the continuous discussion of the content at national and international levels with the involvements of numerous well-known international experts, to whom I am truly grateful. Among them, special mentions (also due to our friendship) are to be given to:
    • Bagher Mohammadioun and his wife Jody. Bagher is a well-known seismologist [27] who for many years headed the Bureau d’Évaluation du Risque Sismique pour la Sûreté des Installations Nucléaires at the Institut Radioprotetion Surete Nucléaire (IPSN) of France;
    • Ruben Tatevossian (seismologist) and Eugene Roghozin (geologist)—two well-known Russian scientists with great experience concerning macroseismic data and paleoseismology [24];
    • Aybars Gurpinar, a civil engineer who for many years has been the Director of the Nuclear Installation Safety Division at the IAEA, with great worldwide experience on seismic hazards in relation to NPP sites [29];
    • Frank Audemard, a Venezuelan paleoseismologist with great experience, mainly in seismically-active South American countries [30];
    • Shmulik Marco, a well-known Israeli paleoseismologist and author of significant papers on the subject [31];
    • James McCalpin, author of the international benchmark book titled Paleoseismology [32];
    • Nils-Axel Mörner, a Swedish geologist with a broad field of experience, including in paleoseismology [33];
    • John Clague, a Canadian authority in quaternary and environmental earth sciences [34];
    • Yoko Ota, also a geologist with great knowledge of the earthquake geology of Japan [35];
    • Takashi Azuma, a geologist with significant knowledge of paleoseismology in Japan [35].
The first version of the new macroseismic scale was published in 2004 [36], and the second in 2007 [1]. The scale was very well accepted worldwide, and a huge number of papers dealing with the use of this scale have been produced since then across the five continents [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48].
Thanks to the kind insistence of my collaborators, the version integrated with three historical cases and with my name as the first author was published in 2015 [49]. Therefore, based on several years of worldwide application in the field, in this paper: (a) we introduced the ESI scale to the community of earth scientists (geologists, geophysicists, and seismologists) and civil engineers as a survey instrument to better characterize a seismic event, also in terms of local effects and attenuation with distance, and (b) we provided insurers, civil protection agencies, and administrators with an integrated tool to assess the potential damage deriving from geological effects during a future earthquake in an area, to be added to the damage directly associated to seismic shaking. Presently, this scale is also going to be used officially by some institutions (e.g., in Georgia) dealing with seismic hazard evaluation, and I hope this practice will also be adopted by other institutions. In fact, a seismic hazard is often underestimated because it is based on lower intensities than the ground environmental effects (e.g., earthquakes of Mw > 7 have been associated to I = X), which are instead considered in the ESI scale.
I also think it is important to remark that seismic hazard assessment (SHA) would benefit from a comprehensive consideration of all earthquake-related effects, including environmental ones. The key role of the ESI scale use to SHA is the improved intensity assessment. It is also necessary in order to preserve the consistency between the source parameters assessed for historical earthquakes and for recent ones. The basic message is that despite the advent of magnitude, earthquake intensity persists as a fundamental seismic parameter for reliable SHA, especially when EEEs are properly taken into account.
The EEE Catalogue is a database containing information on earthquake effects on the environment [50]. Such information includes the effects of recent earthquakes but also data derived from historical and paleo-earthquakes. The objective of this database is to procure data to be used for the present and future updating of the ESI scale. This worldwide database was initially created in the framework of the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) activities. The web infrastructures were developed by ISPRA—the Geological Survey of Italy. In 2007, the first access-type database including around 20 events was created. This first online structure was presented in the Bern (Switzerland) INQUA Congress in 2011 [50]. Thanks to its online structure, recent, historical, and paleo-earthquakes’ environmental effects data were subsequently uploaded to this database, provided by worldwide authors. It currently includes data on around 200 events (http://193.206.192.211/wfd/eee_catalog/viewer.php). Since 2012, the EEE catalogue has been accessible online on the websites of the IAEA and the International Seismic Safety Center (ISSC). It is important to note that the IAEA, in the wake of the disastrous Tohoku 2011 tsunami, has recommended that member states should carefully consider earthquake ground effects—and, more generally, paleoseismological data—in order to achieve a better definition of the seismic hazards in areas where nuclear installations are already installed.
Finally, it is important to recall the numerous papers published worldwide recognizing the importance of this catalogue. Among them is the ISPRA volume published in 2015 [51], a significant monograph that reports the description of the ESI scale in ten languages (English, Italian, Spanish, French, German, Japanese, Russian, Greek, Dutch, and Korean).
Currently, the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology (INGV) has also finally recognized the importance of the environmental effects induced by earthquakes by including them in their new seismic catalogs [52].
Together with the EEE database, the ITaly HAzards from CApable faults (ITHACA) database born from an idea of Eutizio Vittori. It includes the current knowledge on capable faulting in Italy, to which paleoseismological studies widely contribute. At present, this continuously updated catalogue is used for the revision or planning of new infrastructure and microzonation purposes in the whole territory of Italy [53,54].
It is important to underline that, globally, there are very well-organized similar catalogues of active faults, such as the one proposed for the USA by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf) and another for Central Asia organized by the University of Tubingen (https://esdynamics.geo.uni-tuebingen.de/faults/).
In conclusion, I strongly hope that the institution where I worked (currently named ISPRA) will continue our efforts to maintain the databases quoted above and soon release an update of the ESI scale based on the wealth of information gathered in recent seismic events worldwide.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

I take the opportunity here to express my sincere gratitude to my collaborators, since without their help the scale would not have been published. First, to Alessandro Maria Michetti, who led the group responsible for the first publication in 2007. Then, Eutizio Vittori, who was of considerable help concerning the draft of the scale and its final publication in 2015. Next, Luca Guerrieri, especially for the work accomplished for the EEE database. Fourth, Sabina Porfido and Eliana Esposito, for the enthusiasm they always expressed for this initiative and for the considerable effort they have made for its use at a global scale, and finally for Valerio Comerci, who arrived later but in that short period was still able to make a significant contribution.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Michetti, A.M.; Esposito, E.; Guerrieri, L.; Porfido, S.; Serva, L.; Tatevossian, R.; Vittori, E.; Audemard, F.; Azuma, T.; Clague, J.; et al. Intensity Scale ESI 2007. Mem. Descr. Carta Geol. D’Italia 2007, 74, 11–20. [Google Scholar]
  2. Silva, P.G.; Rodríguez-Pascua, M.A.; Pérez-López, R.; Bardaji, T.; Lario, J.; Alfaro, P.; Martínez-Díaz, J.J.; Reicherter, K.; Giménez García, J.; Giner, J.; et al. Catalogacion de los efectos geologicos y ambientales de los terremotos en Espana en la Escala ESI 2007 y su aplicacion a los estudios paleosismologicos. Geotemas 2008, 6, 1063–1066. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
  3. Lekkas, E. The 12 May 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan, China, Earthquake: Macroseismic Intensity Assessment using the EMS-98 and ESI 2007 Scales and their correlation with the geological structure. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 2010, 100, 2791–2804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Reicherter, K.; Michetti, A.M.; Silva, P.G. (Eds.) Paleoseismology: Historical and Prehistorical Records of Earthquake Ground Effects for Seismic Hazard Assessment; The Geological Society of London: London, UK, 2009; pp. 544–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Papanikolau, I.D. Uncertainty in intensity assignment and attenuation relationships: How seismic hazard maps can benefit from the implementation of the Environmental Seismic Intensity scale (ESI 2007). Quat. Int. 2011, 242, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Giles, D. Intensity scales. In Encyclopedia of Natural Hazards; Bobrowsky, P.T., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  7. Porfido, S.; Nappi, R.; De Lucia, M.; Gaudiosi, G.; Alessio, G.; Guerrieri, L. The ESI scale, an ethical approach to the evaluation of seismic hazards. In Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly 2015, Vienna, Austria, 12–17 April 2015. Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 17, EGU2015-11732-2. [Google Scholar]
  8. IAEA. Report on the Fukushima Daiichi Accident; IAEA: Vienna, Austria, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  9. Grunthal, G. (Ed.) European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98); Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie: Luxembourg, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  10. Magri, G.; Serva, L. Approccio metodologico per la valutazione del terremoto di riferimento per la progettazione di impianti nucleari. Mem. Soc. Geol. Ital. 1986, 35, 507–513. [Google Scholar]
  11. Serva, L.; Blumetti, A.M.; Michetti, A.M. Gli effetti sul terreno del terremoto del Fucino (13.11.1915). Tentativo di interpretazione della evoluzione tettonica recente di alcune strutture. Mem. Soc. Geol. Ital. 1986, 35, 893–907. [Google Scholar]
  12. Serva, L. Un metodo per una migliore comprensione della sismicítà di un’area (Conca del Fucino). In Notiziario ENEA-DISP: Sicurezza e Protezione; ENEA: Roma, Italy, 1987; pp. 55–63. [Google Scholar]
  13. Calderoni, G.; Lorenzoni, P.; Ortolani, F.; Pagliuca, S.; Serva, L. Paleoseismological evidences at Rivisondoli. Central Apennines, Italy. Rend. Soc. Geol. Ital. 1990, 13, 27–32. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gurpinar, A.; Serva, L. Paleoseismological evidences in a railroad cut near Baiji (Iraq). Rend. Soc. Geol. Ital. 1990, 13, 33–36. [Google Scholar]
  15. Vittori, E.; SylosLabini, S.; Serva, L. Paleoseismicity: Critical review of the state of the art. Tectonophysics 1991, 193, 9–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Blumetti, A.M.; Brunamonte, F.; Michetti, A.M.; Serva, L.; Vittori, E. Dislocazioni cosismiche e magnitudo: Una proposta di classificazione basata sull’analisi paleosismologica di strutture tettoniche dell’Appennino Centrale. Il Quaternario 1993, 6, 338–339. [Google Scholar]
  17. Brunamonte, B.; Michetti, A.M.; Serva, L.; Vittori, E. Evidenze paleosismologic nell’Appennino Centrale ed implicazioni neotettoniche. Studi Geol. Camerti 1992, 2, 265–270. [Google Scholar]
  18. Brunamonte, F.; Michetti, A.M.; Serva, L.; Whitney, R.E. Seismic hazard assessment from paleoseismological evidence in the Rieti Region (Central Italy). In Perspectives in Paleoseismology; Serva, L., Slemmons, D.B., Eds.; AEG Special Publications: Seattle, WA, USA, 1995; pp. 63–82. [Google Scholar]
  19. Michetti, A.M.; Serva, L. New data on seismotectonic potential of the Leonessa fault area (Rieti, Central Italy). Rend. Soc. Geol. Ital. 1990, 13, 37–46. [Google Scholar]
  20. Michetti, A.M.; Brunamonte, F.; Serva, L.; Vittori, E. Trench investigations alongthe 1915 Fucino earthquake fault scarps (Abruzzo, Central Italy): Geological evidence of large historical events. J. Geophys. Res. 1996, 101, 5921–5936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Michetti, A.M.; Ferreli, L.; Serva, L.; Vittori, E. Geological evidence for strong historical earthquakes in an “aseismic” region: The Pollino case (Southern Italy). J. Geodyn. 1997, 24, 67–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Serva, L. Ground effects in intensity scales. Terra Nova 1994, 6, 414–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Esposito, E.; Porfido, S.; Mastrolorenzo, G.; Nikonov, A.A.; Serva, L. Brief review and preliminary proposal for the use of ground effects in the macroseismic intensity assessment. In Proceedings of the 30th IUGS Congress, Beijing, China, 4–14 August 1996; Contemporary Lithospheric Motion Seismic Geology International Science Publishers: Zeist, The Netherlands, 1997; pp. 233–243. [Google Scholar]
  24. Tatevossian, R.; Roghozin, E.; Guerrieri, L.; Michetti, A.M.; Serva, L.; Vittori, E. Effektyzemletryaseniya v Prirodnoysrede (EEE) Iotsenkaintensivnosti: Proyektshkaly INQUA; Earthquake Effects in Natural Environment (EEE) for Earthquake Intensity Calibration: The INQUA Scale Project. Issledovaniya po Seismotektonike i Sovremennoy Geodinamike (Studies on Seismotectonics and Modern Geodynamics); IFZ RAN Publ, 2006. Special Issue (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  25. Dengler, L.A.; McPherson, R. The 17 August 1991 Honeydew earthquake: A case for revising the Modified Mercalli scale in sparsely populated areas. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 1993, 83, 1081–1094. [Google Scholar]
  26. Abdel Aziz, M.A.H.; Serva, L.; Michetti, A.M.; Giardina, F.; Swedan, A.H.; Gad Elhaq, G.; Soliman, H. Assessing intensity values for earthquakes affecting low populated areas: The case of 22 November 1995 Nuweiba earthquake. Ann. Geol. Surv. Egypt 2007, 29, 321–334. [Google Scholar]
  27. Mohammadioun, B.; Serva, L. Stress Drop, Slip Type, Earthquake Magnitude, and Seismic Hazard. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 2001, 91, 694–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cisternas, A.; Philip, H.; Bousquet, J.C.; Cara, M.; Deschamps, A.; Dorbath, L.; Dorbath, C.; Haessler, H.; Jimenez, E.; Nercessian, A.; Rivera, L.; Romanowicz, B.; et al. The Spitak (Armenia) earthquake of 7 December 1988: Field observations, seismology and tectonics. Nature 1989, 339, 675–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gürpinar, A. The importance of paleoseismology in seismic hazard studies for critical facilities. Tectonophysics 2005, 408, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Audemard, F.A.M. Contribucions of paleoseimology to historical seismicity: The 1610 and 1894 earthquakes in the southern Venezuelan Andes. Rev. Geogr. Venez. 1998, 39, 87–105. [Google Scholar]
  31. Marco, S.; Stein, M.; Agnon, A.; Ron, H. Long-term earthquake clustering: A 50,000-year paleoseismic record in the Dead Sea Graben. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 1996, 101, 6179–6191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. McCalpin, J.P. Paleoseismology, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  33. Mörner, N.A. Paleoseismicity of Sweden: A Novel Paradigm. 2003. ISBN9163140721, 9789163140723- 320. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286457401_Paleoseismicity_of_Sweden_-_a_novel_paradigm (accessed on 9 May 2019).
  34. Clague, J.J. Evidence for large earthquakes at the Cascadia subduction zone. Rev. Geophys. 1997, 35, 439–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ota, Y.; Azuma, T.; Nina Lin, Y. Application of INQUA Environmental Seismic Intensity Scale to recent earthquakes in Japan and Taiwan. Geol. Soc. Lond. 2009, 316, 55–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Michetti, A.M.; Esposito, E.; Gurpinar, A.; Mohammadioun, B.; Mohammadioun, G.; Porfido, S.; Roghozin, E.; Serva, L.; Tatevossian, R.; Vittori, E.; et al. The INQUA Scale. An innovative approach for assessing earthquake intensities based on seismically-induced ground effects in natural environment. Mem. Descr. Carta Geol. D’Italia 2004, 67, 1–118. [Google Scholar]
  37. Mosquera-Machado, S.; Lalinde-Pulido, C.; Salcedo-Hurtado, E.; Michetti, A.M. Ground effects of the 18 October 1992, Murindo earthquake (NW Colombia), using the Environmental Seismic Intensity Scale (ESI 2007) for the assessment of intensity. Geol. Soc. Lond. 2009, 316, 123–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Berzhinskii, Y.A.; Ordynskaya, A.P.; Gladkov, A.S.; Lunina, O.V.; Berzhinskaya, L.P.; Radziminovich, N.A.; Radziminovich, Y.B.; Imayev, V.S.; Chipizubov, A.V.; Smekalin, O.P. Application of the ESI-2007 Scale for Estimating the Intensity of the Kultuk Earthquake, August 27, 2008 (South Baikal). Seism. Instr. 2010, 46, 307–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gosar, A. Application of Environmental Seismic Intensity scale (ESI 2007) to Krn Mountains 1998 Mw = 5.6 earthquake (NW Slovenia) with emphasis on rockfalls. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 12, 1659–1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Fountoulis, I.G.; Mavroulis, S.D. Application of the Environmental Seismic Intensity scale (ESI 2007) and the European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98) to the Kalamata (SW Peloponnese, Greece) earthquake (Ms = 6.2, 13 September 1986) and correlation with neotectonic structures and active faults. Ann. Geophys. 2013, 56, S0675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ahmad, B.; Sana, H.; Alam, A. Macroseismic intensity assessment of 1885 Baramulla Earthquake of northwestern Kashmir Himalaya, using the Environmental Seismic Intensity scale ESI 2007. Quat. Intern. 2014, 321, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Garduño-Monroy, V.H. Una propuesta de escala de intensidad sísmica obtenida del códice náhuatl Telleriano Remensis. Arqueol. Iberoam. 2016, 31, 9–19. [Google Scholar]
  43. Heddar, A.; Beldjoudi, H.; Aurhemayou, C.; SiBachir, R.; Yelles-Chaouche, A.A.; Boudiaf, A. Use of the ESI-2007 scale to evaluate the 2003 Boumerdès earthquake (North Algeria). Ann. Geophys. 2016, 59, 0211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sanchez, J.J.; Maldonado, R.F. Application of the ESI 2007 Scale to Two Large Earthquakes: South Island, New Zealand (2010 Mw 7.1), and Tohoku, Japan (2011 Mw 9.0). Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 2016, 106, 1151–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Papanikolaou, I.; Melaki, M. The Environmental Seismic Intensity Scale (ESI 2007) in Greece, addition of new events and its relationship with magnitude in Greece and the Mediterranean; preliminary attenuation relationships. Quat. Int. 2017, 451, 37–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Nappi, R.; Gaudiosi, G.; Alessio, G.; De Lucia, M.; Porfido, S. The environmental effects of the 1743 Salento earthquake (Apulia, southern Italy): A contribution to seismic hazard assessment of the Salento Peninsula. Nat. Hazards 2017, 86, 295–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. King, T.R.; Mark, C.Q.; Clark, D. Earthquake environmental effects produced by the Mw 6.1, 20th May 2016 Petermann earthquake, Australia. Tectonophysis 2018, 747, 357–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chunga, K.; Livio, F.; Mulas, M.; Ochoa-Cornejo, F.; Besenzon, D.; Ferrario, M.F.; Michetti, A.M. Earthquake Ground Effects and Intensity of the 16 April 2016 Mw 7.8 Pedernales, Ecuador, Earthquake: Implications for the Source Characterization of Large Subduction Earthquakes. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 2018, 108, 3384–3397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Serva, L.; Vittori, E.; Comerci, V.; Esposito, E.; Guerrieri, L.; Michetti, A.M.; Mohammadioun, B.; Mohammadioun, G.C.; Porfido, S.; Tatevossian, R.E. Earthquake Hazard and the Environmental Seismic Intensity (ESI) Scale. Pure Appl. Geophys. 2015, 173, 1479–1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Guerrieri, L. The EEE Catalogue: A global catalogue of Earthquake Environmental Effects. Quat. Int. 2012, 279, 179–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Audemard, F.; Azuma, T.; Baiocco, F.; Baize, S.; Blumetti, A.M.; Brustia, E.; Clague, J.; Comerci, V.; Esposito, E.; Guerrieri, L.; et al. Earthquake Environmental Effect for seismic hazard assessment: The ESI intensity scale and the EEE Catalogue. Mem. Desc. Carta Geol. D’Italia 2015, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Guidoboni, E.; Ferrari, G.; Mariotti, D.; Comastri, A.; Tarabusi, G.; Sgattoni, G.; Valensise, G. CFTI5Med, Catalogodei Forti Terremoti in Italia (461 a.C.-1997) e Nell’area Mediterranea (760 a.C.-1500); Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV): Roma, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  53. Comerci, V.; Blumetti, A.M.; Di Manna, P.; Fiorenza, D.; Guerrieri, L.; Lucarini, M.; Serva, L.; Vittori, E. ITHACA Project and Capable Faults in the Po Plain (Northern Italy). Ingegneria Sismica Special Issue “Seismic Risk in the Po Plain”. 2013, 36–50. Available online: http://ingegneriasismica.org/2013/01/ (accessed on 9 May 2019).
  54. Guerrieri, L.; Blumetti, A.M.; Comerci, V.; Di Manna, P.; Michetti, A.M.; Vittori, E.; Serva, L. Surface Faulting Hazard in Italy: Towards a First Assessment Based on the ITHACA Database. In Engineering Geology for Society and Territory; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Serva, L. History of the Environmental Seismic Intensity Scale ESI-07. Geosciences 2019, 9, 210. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9050210

AMA Style

Serva L. History of the Environmental Seismic Intensity Scale ESI-07. Geosciences. 2019; 9(5):210. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9050210

Chicago/Turabian Style

Serva, Leonello. 2019. "History of the Environmental Seismic Intensity Scale ESI-07" Geosciences 9, no. 5: 210. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9050210

APA Style

Serva, L. (2019). History of the Environmental Seismic Intensity Scale ESI-07. Geosciences, 9(5), 210. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9050210

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop