Beyond Visible Earthquake Damage: Integrating Ground Failure Assessment into Disaster Response Following the 2026 M7.7 Flores Earthquake
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58812/wsis.v4i09.3085Keywords:
Ground Failure, Liquefaction, Earthquake-Triggered Landslides, Rapid Assessment, Disaster Response, Flores EarthquakeAbstract
Post-earthquake disaster response commonly prioritizes casualties, structural damage, accessibility, and other visible impacts, while earthquake-triggered ground failure may receive less operational attention despite its implications for settlement safety, infrastructure, and recovery. Following the M7.7 Flores earthquake of 15 August 2026, this study examines the potential integration of near-real-time ground failure information into disaster response, focusing on the two principal mechanisms represented in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Ground Failure product: liquefaction and earthquake-triggered landslides. Spatial outputs generated following the earthquake are examined to identify areas where ground-failure susceptibility may warrant prioritized attention and field verification. Rather than treating probabilistic model outputs as confirmation of ground failure at specific locations, the study proposes their use as an initial screening layer within a tiered post-earthquake framework. This framework links near-real-time geospatial hazard information with spatial prioritization, targeted field verification, settlement and infrastructure screening, and decisions concerning further geotechnical investigation. The analysis emphasizes that visible structural damage alone may not adequately represent post-earthquake ground conditions; apparently limited surface damage may coexist with underlying instability requiring assessment before repair, reconstruction, or continued occupation. The Flores earthquake illustrates how rapidly available ground failure information can bridge the critical interval between earthquake occurrence and comprehensive field investigation. Integrating such information into disaster response could strengthen risk-informed decision-making and reduce the likelihood that potentially unstable ground conditions are overlooked during recovery.
References
[1] Allstadt, K. E., Thompson, E. M., Hearne, M., Nowicki Jessee, M. A., Zhu, J., Wald, D. J., & Tanyas, H. (2017, January). Integrating landslide and liquefaction hazard and loss estimates with existing USGS real-time earthquake information products. Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70190140
[2] Allstadt, K. E., Thompson, E. M., Jibson, R. W., Wald, D. J., Hearne, M., Hunter, E. J., Fee, J., Schovanec, H., Slosky, D., & Haynie, K. L. (2022). The US Geological Survey ground failure product: Near-real-time estimates of earthquake-triggered landslides and liquefaction. Earthquake Spectra, 38(1), 5–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211032685
[3] Bird, J. F., & Bommer, J. J. (2004). Earthquake losses due to ground failure. Engineering Geology, 75(2), 147–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2004.05.006
[4] BMKG. (2026a, August 15). Ulasan Guncangan Tanah Akibat Gempabumi Flores 15 Agustus 2026. BMKG — Ulasan Guncangan Tanah Akibat Gempabumi Flores 15 Agustus 2026. https://www.bmkg.go.id/gempabumi/ulasan-guncangan-tanah/ulasan-guncangan-tanah-akibat-gempabumi-mbay-nagekeo-15-agustus-2026
[5] BMKG. (2026b, August 21). Model Kinematika Sumber Gempa Bumi Flores 2026 Mw 7,7 dan Kompleksitas Rangkaian Gempa Bumi di Sesar Naik Flores. BMKG — Model Kinematika Sumber Gempa Bumi Flores 2026 Mw 7,7 Dan Kompleksitas Rangkaian Gempa Bumi Di Sesar Naik Flores. https://www.bmkg.go.id/artikel/model-kinematika-sumber-gempa-bumi-flores-2026-mw-77-dan-kompleksitas-rangkaian-gempa-bumi-di-sesar-naik-flores
[6] Grimaz, S., Malisan, P., & Pividori, A. (2022). Sharing the post-earthquake situation for emergency response management in transborder areas: The e-Atlas tool. Journal of Safety Science and Resilience, 3(1), 72–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnlssr.2021.12.001
[7] Jibson, R. W. (2007). Regression models for estimating coseismic landslide displacement. Engineering Geology, 91(2–4), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2007.01.013
[8] Jibson, R. W. (2011). Methods for assessing the stability of slopes during earthquakes—A retrospective. Engineering Geology, 122(1–2), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.09.017
[9] Jibson, R. W., Grant, A. R., Witter, R. C., Allstadt, K. E., Thompson, E. M., & Bender, A. M. (2019). Ground failure from the Anchorage, Alaska, earthquake of 30 November 2018. Seismological Research Letters, 91(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220190187
[10] Keefer, D. K. (1984). Landslides caused by earthquakes. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 95(4), 406–421. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1984)95<406:LCBE>2.0.CO;2
[11] Marano, K. D., Wald, D. J., & Allen, T. I. (2010). Global earthquake casualties due to secondary effects: A quantitative analysis for improving rapid loss analyses. Natural Hazards, 52(2), 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9372-5
[12] Miyajima, M., Setiawan, H., Yoshida, M., Ono, Y., Kosa, K., Oktaviana, I. S., Martini, & Irdhiani. (2019). Geotechnical damage in the 2018 Sulawesi earthquake, Indonesia. Geoenvironmental Disasters, 6(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40677-019-0121-0
[13] Nowicki Jessee, M. A., Hamburger, M. W., Allstadt, K., Wald, D. J., Reichenbach, P., & Tanyas, H. (2018). A Global Empirical Model for Near-Real-Time Assessment of Seismically Induced Landslides. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 123(8), 1835–1859. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JF004494
[14] Nowicki, M. A., Wald, D. J., Hamburger, M. W., Hearne, M., & Thompson, E. M. (2014). Development of a globally applicable model for near real-time prediction of seismically induced landslides. Engineering Geology, 173, 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.02.002
[15] Schmitt, R. G., Tanyas, H., Nowicki Jessee, M. A., Zhu, J., Biegel, K. M., Allstadt, K. E., Jibson, R. W., Thompson, E. M., van Westen, C. J., Sato, H. P., Wald, D. J., Godt, J. W., Gorum, T., Xu, C., Rathje, E. M., & Knudsen, K. L. (2017). An open repository of earthquake-triggered ground-failure inventories. In U.S. Geological Survey Data Series (Number 1064). https://doi.org/10.3133/ds1064
[16] Tanyas, H., van Westen, C. J., Allstadt, K. E., Nowicki Jessee, M. A., Görüm, T., Jibson, R. W., Godt, J. W., Sato, H. P., Schmitt, R. G., Marc, O., & Hovius, N. (2017). Presentation and analysis of a worldwide database of earthquake-induced landslide inventories. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 122(10), 1991–2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JF004236
[17] Unal, E. O., Kocaman, S., & Gokceoglu, C. (2024). Impact assessment of geohazards triggered by 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaras Earthquakes (Mw 7.7 and Mw 7.6) on the natural gas pipelines. Engineering Geology, 334, 107508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2024.107508
[18] U.S. Geological Survey. (2026). Ground Failure Scientific Background. 2026. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/ground-failure/background.php
[19] Wald, D. J., Earle, P. S., Allen, T. I., Jaiswal, K., Porter, K., & Hearne, M. (2008). Development of the U.S. Geological Survey’s PAGER system (Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response). The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1–8.
[20] Wald, D. J., Quitoriano, V., Heaton, T. H., Kanamori, H., Scrivner, C. W., & Worden, C. B. (1999). TriNet “ShakeMaps”: Rapid Generation of Peak Ground Motion and Intensity Maps for Earthquakes in Southern California. Earthquake Spectra, 15(3), 537–555. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586057
[21] Wald, D. J., Worden, C. B., Thompson, E. M., & Hearne, M. (2022). ShakeMap operations, policies, and procedures. Earthquake Spectra, 38(1), 756–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211030298
[22] Watkinson, I. M., & Hall, R. (2019). Impact of communal irrigation on the 2018 Palu earthquake-triggered landslides. Nature Geoscience, 12, 940–945. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0448-x
[23] Worden, C. B., Wald, D. J., Allen, T. I., Lin, K., Garcia, D., & Cua, G. (2010). A revised ground-motion and intensity interpolation scheme for ShakeMap. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 100(6), 3083–3096. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100101
[24] Youd, T. L., Idriss, I. M., Andrus, R. D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J. T., Dobry, R., Finn, W. D. L., Harder, L. F., Hynes, M. E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J. P., Liao, S. S. C., Marcuson, W. F., Martin, G. R., Mitchell, J. K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M. S., Robertson, P. K., … Stokoe, K. H. (2001). Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(10), 817–833. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:10(817)
[25] Zhu, J., Baise, L. G., & Thompson, E. M. (2017). An updated geospatial liquefaction model for global application. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107(5), 2165–2182. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160198
[26] Zhu, J., Daley, D., Baise, L. G., Thompson, E. M., Wald, D. J., & Knudsen, K. L. (2015). A geospatial liquefaction model for rapid response and loss estimation. Earthquake Spectra, 31(3), 1813–1837. https://doi.org/10.1193/121912EQS353M
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Hamzah Maulana
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Facebook 
Instagram 
Twitter 
Youtube 
westscience.journals@gmail.com