During big earthquakes, one of the challenges for the decision maker is the estimation of the resources for the attention of the disaster which is computed based on the casualties and injured people, which is generated by damaging earthquake. In this investigation, two criteria for the estimation of casualties during damaging earthquake were presented for Mw>6.5 in one target area, namely, Chorrillos district in the Lima metropolitan. First criterion considers the compilation of existing data that reports the casualties on damaged cities with a population density involved, considering the lifestyle, the time of occurrence, the season of the year, that could influence in the number of victims, which is normalized to avoid temporary effects in the estimation. The second criterion considers the output generated prior computed process such earthquake hazard, microzoning and risk analysis of the target area. Here a series of identification of parameters has been computed such as location of the source of earthquake, depth and epicentral distance, distribution of population, social levels, and others, to estimate the risk. For the computing of the number of casualties in the affected area, a relation between the magnitude and risk is developed. Both criteria provided results which with an uncertain measure, but not so far from each other. That gives us confidence in this approach. Also, we evaluate the estimation with the major earthquake’s scenarios for the region especially in Peru, with reasonable results.

1. [1] J. Robinson and W. Phillips, “Assessment of Strategies for Linking the Damage and Loss Assessment Methodology to Post Disaster Needs Assessment,” UN ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean – CCRIF, The Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility, United Nations – Port of Spain, Trinidad Tobago, Aug. 2014.
2. [2] “DALA – Damage And Loss Assessment Methodology,” UN ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, FOCUS: Newsletter of the Caribbean Development and the Cooperation Committee, Issue 4, Oct.–Dec. 2008.
3. [3] Observation Center for Seismic Engineering (CEOIS) – Japan Peru Center for Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation (CISMID), Faculty of Civil Engineering (FIC) National University of Engineering (UNI). http://www.cismid.uni.edu.pe/ceois/red/ [Accessed September 19, 2022]
4. [4] C. Zavala, M. Diaz, and R. Reyna, “Dependence of Time Occurrence and the Influence on Seismic Risk Analysis In Lima City,” Proc. of 17th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE – Sendai, Japan – September 13th to 18th 2020.
5. [5] USGS, “Earthquake Hazard Program.” https://earthquake.usgs.gov/ [Accessed September 28, 2022]
6. [6] NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC). https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/earthquake-deaths [Accessed September 28, 2022]
7. [7] C. Benavente, “Paleoseismic Evidence of an Mw 7 Pre-Hispanic Earthquake in the Peruvian Forearc,” INGEMMET, AGU: Tectonics, Research article, 2020.
8. [8] Peruvian Geophysical Institute (IGP), “Earthquake Catalog.” https://repositorio.igp.gob.pe/handle/20.500.12816/789 [Accessed October 20, 2022]
9. [9] C. Zavala, Z. Aguilar, and M. Estrada, “Evaluation of SRSND simulator against fragility curves for Pisco Quake,” 8CUEE Conf. Proc., Tokyo, Japan, March 2011.
10. [10] National Institute of Statistics and Informatics (INEI), “National Census of Housing Population and Indigenous Populations 2017.” https://censo2017.inei.gob.pe/ [Accessed October 5, 2022]
11. [11] Ministerio de Salud, ESSALUD, “Plan de Contingencia del Sector Salud ante un Sismo de Gran Magnitud en Lima Metropolitana y en las Regiones de Callao y Lima,” 2016 (in Spanish). https://repositorio.igp.gob.pe/handle/20.500.12816/789 [Accessed October 20, 2022]