Interactive Approach for Earthquake Scenario Development and Hazards Resource Estimation

  • B. S. Chaudhary
  • Ram Kumar Singh
  • Nupur Bhatia
  • Ravi Mishra
  • Md Ataullah Raza Khan
  • Juhi Yadav
  • Shashikanta Patairiya


Indian subcontinent attained present physical form due to vast tectonic movements that resulted into large number of earthquakes. In studies it has been found that more than 50% area in the country is prone to damaging earthquakes. The northeastern part of India as well as the entire Himalayan belt is susceptible to earthquake of magnitude more than 8.0. The present study is principally aimed at understanding the intricate seismological processes in the study area, Sikkim which is on hilly terrain of Eastern Himalayas. Sikkim is situated in a region where major cause of earthquake is displacement of the Indian plate toward the Eurasian plate having complex geology. Remote sensing and GIS model builder and syntax were proven for hazard and vulnerable map creation used in earthquake scenarios development, planning, management, and resource estimation. In this study the preliminary factors including geology, topography, slope, relief, land use/cover, major roads, and historical epicenter were used with mechanical weightage, and overlay categorization was used for hazard index map and zone identification.


Earthquake scenarios management Hazard index map Overlay analysis 


  1. Allen RM, Kanamori H (2003) The potential for earthquake early warning in southern California. Science 300:786–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansal A, Biro Y, Erken A, Gulerce U (2004) Seismic microzonation: a case study. In: Ansal A (ed) Recent advances in earth quake geotechnical engineering and microzonation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp 253–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armas I (2012) Multi-criteria vulnerability analysis to earthquake hazard of Bucharest. Romania Nat Hazards 63(2):1129–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armas I, Gavris A (2013) Social vulnerability assessment using spatial multi-criteria analysis (SEVI model) and the social vulnerability index (SoVI model)-a case study for Bucharest. Romania Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13:1481–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cencus of India (2011) Cencus of India, Government of India, 2011.Google Scholar
  6. Champatiray PK, Perumal RJ, Thakur VC, Bhat MI, Malik MA, Singh VK et al (2005) A quick appraisal of ground deformation in Indian region due to the October 8, 2005 earthquake, Muzaffarabad, Pakistan. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 33(4):465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang KT (2006), Spatial interpolation, introduction to geographic information systems, 3rd ed., chapter 16, Beijing: Science Press and McGraw-hill Education (Asia) Co., ChinaGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen LC, Liu YC, han KC (2006) Integrated community-based disaster management program in Taiwan: a case study of Shang-An village. Nat Hazards 37:209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen M, Wood MD, Linstead C, Maltby E (2011) Uncertainty analysis in a GIS-based multicriteria analysis tool for river catchment management. Environ Model Softw 26(4):395–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chemenda AI, Mattauer M, Malavieille J, Bokun AN (1995) A mechanism for syn-collisional rock exhumation and associated normal faulting: results from physical modelling. Earth Planet Sci Lett 132:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fekete A (2009) Validation of a social vulnerability index in context to river-floods in Germany. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9(2):393–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P, Derby SL, Keeney RL (1981) Acceptable risk. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Glennie KW, Boef MGA, Hughes-Clarke MW, Moody-Stuart MN, Pilaar WFH, Reinhart BM (1990) Inter-relationship of Makran–Oman Mountainsbelts of convergence. In: Robertson AHF, Searle MP, Ries AC (eds) The geology and tectonics of the Oman region, vol 49. Geological Society Special Publication, London, pp 773–786Google Scholar
  14. Jianya G (2004) Review of the progress in contemporary GIS. Geomatics Spat Inf Technol 27(1):5–11Google Scholar
  15. Kaila KL, Narayan H (1976) Evolution of the Himalaya based on seismotectonics and deep seismic soundings. Him Geol Em, Sec II B, New delhi, Geol Surv Ind Misc Pub No 41, Part-IV, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  16. Keeney RL (1995) Understanding life threatening risks. Risk Anal 15:627–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lang D, Molina-Palacios S, Lindholm C, Balan SF (2012) Deterministic earthquake damage and loss assessment for the city of Bucharest, Romania. J Seismol 16(1):67–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lillesand TM, Kiefer RW, Jonthan WC (2008) Remote sensing and image interpretation, 6th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Lin CW, Liu SH, Lee SY, Liu CC (2006) Impacts of the chi–chi earthquake on subsequent rainfall-induced landslides in Central Taiwan. Eng Geol 86:87–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Metternicht G, Hurni l, GOGU R (2005) Remote sensing of landslides: an analysis of the potential contribution to geo-spatial systems for hazard assessment in mountainous environments. Remote Sens Environ 98:284–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morrow Betty H (1999) Identifying and mapping community vulnerability. Disasters 23(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Okrent D (1980) Comment on societal risk. Science 208:372–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Onagh M, Kumra VK, Rai PK (2012) Landslide susceptibility mapping in a part of Uttarkashi district (India) by multiple linear regression method. Int J Geol 2(2):102–120Google Scholar
  24. Ouma Y, Kipkorir EC, Tateishi R (2011) MCDA-GIS integrated approach for optimized landfill site selection for growing urban regions: an application of neighborhood-proximity analysis. Ann GIS 17(1):43–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pavel F, Vacareanu R (2016) Scenario-based earthquake risk assessment for Bucharest, Romania. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 20:138–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pavel F, Vacareanu R, Douglas J, Radulian M, Cioflan CO, Barbat AH (2016) An updated probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Romania and comparison with the approach and outcomes of the SHARE project. Pure Appl Geophys 173(6):1881–1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roustaei M, Nazi H, Amirmotallebi N (2005) The Seismotectonic and Zonation Map of Salmas Vastness by GIS modeling according to Landsat Satellite Images (ETM+) and Aeromagnetic data. Paper presented at the Map Middle East, 23–25 April, 2005, Dubai, UAEGoogle Scholar
  28. Rufat S (2009) From mural map to GIS: mapping urban vulnerability in Bucharest. In: Krek A, Rumor M, Zlatanova S, Fendel E (eds) Urban and regional data management: UDMS. Taylor and Francis Group, London, pp 301–313Google Scholar
  29. Sarkar, E and D.R. Nandy (1974) Structure and tectonics of Tripura-Mizoram area, India, sem. Vol. on tectonics and metallogeny of S. and E. Asia, Mis., geol Surv Ind, Part I, pp. 141–148Google Scholar
  30. Sengar SS, Kumar A, Ghosh SK, Wason HR, Raju PLN, Murthy YVNK. 2013. Earthquake-induced built-up damage identification using fuzzy approach. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk v4: 320-338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sikkim ISFR (2017) Indian state forest report by forest survey of India, Government of India, 2017Google Scholar
  32. Skarlatoudis AA, Theodulidis N, Papaioannou C, Roumelioti Z (2004) The dependence of peak horizontal acceleration on magnitude and distance for small magnitude earthquakes in Greece. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Canada, August, 2004Google Scholar
  33. Strasser FO, Bommer JJ, Sesetyan K, Erdik M, Cagnan Z, Irizarry J, Goula X, Lucantoni A, Sabetta F, Bal IE, Crowley H, Lindholm C (2008) A comparative study of European earthquake loss estimation tools for a scenario in Istanbul. J Earthq Eng 12(2):246–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sun CG, Chun SH, Ha TG, Chung CK, Kim DS (2008) Development and application of a GIS-based tool for earthquake-induced hazard prediction. Comput Geotech 35:436–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Toma-Danila D, Cioflan CO, Balan SF, Manea EF (2015) Characteristics and results of the near real-time system for estimating the seismic damage in Romania. Math Modelling Civil Eng 11(1):33–41Google Scholar
  36. Trifunac MD, Todorovska MI (1997) Northridge, California, earthquake of 1994: density of pipe breaks and surface strains. J Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 16:193–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Walker BB, Taylor-Noonan C, Tabbernor A, McKinnon T, Dal H, Bradley D, Schuurman N, Clague JJ (2014) A multicriteria evaluation model of earthquake vulnerability in Victoria, British Columbia. Nat Hazards 74(2):1209–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weiwei W, Jiansi Y, Yirui L, Lingchun F (2009) Applications and development tendencies of WebGIS in earthquake disaster management. Recent Dev World Seismol 2009(3):20–27Google Scholar
  39. White GF, Kates RW, Burton I (2001) Knowing better and losing even more: the use of knowledge in hazards management. Environ Hazards 3:81–92Google Scholar
  40. Wilson TJ (1965) A new class of faults and their bearing on continental drift. Nature 207:343–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yungang B, Liqiang C, Chengliang W et al (2004) Application of geographical information system to comprehensive disaster reduction. J Coll Disaster Prev Tech 6(3):16–20Google Scholar
  42. Zhou YX, Liu GJ, Fu EJ, Zhang KF (2009) An object-relational prototype of GIS-based disaster database. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Mining Science & Technology, Procedia Earth and Planetary Science 1:1060–1066Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. S. Chaudhary
    • 1
  • Ram Kumar Singh
    • 2
  • Nupur Bhatia
    • 3
  • Ravi Mishra
    • 3
  • Md Ataullah Raza Khan
    • 3
  • Juhi Yadav
    • 3
  • Shashikanta Patairiya
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of GeophysicsKurukshetra UniversityKurukshetraIndia
  2. 2.Department of Natural ResourcesTERI School of Advanced StudiesNew DelhiIndia
  3. 3.Remote Sensing and GISKumaun UniversityAlmoraIndia
  4. 4.Gurugram Metropolitan Development AuthorityGurugramIndia

Personalised recommendations