Would earthquakes of similar magnitude in different areas cause approximately the same levels of damage?

Question

consider both geologic and human induced factors.

Answer 1

The first two answers ignore the most important factor -- geology. The third answer hit it right on the head. Areas that have unstable ground materials will experience much greater damage than areas that are built on solid ground. The example of San Francisco is a very good one. Another example would be in Mexico City where areas built on what used to be a lake were devistated by an earthquake (who's epicenter was actually hundreds of miles away) while the rest of the city experienced far less damage.

Obviously an earthquake in the middle of nowhere will cause much less damage than one that is near a large population center.

Answer 2

Not usually. I'm a little confused as to what damages you're asking about. I'm guessing you mean damages to property and life, and in that case, it completely depends on where the earthquake is. For example, a 7.0 quake in Los Angeles is going to do much more damage than a 7.0 quake centered in the middle of the pacific ocean (with the exception that it causes a tidal wave).

Answer 3

I'm not a geologist but I am pretty sure the answer is no. It depends on the kind of soil... i.e., landfill, gravel, etc. I live in the SF Bay Area and the hardest hit areas were those with more recent landfill and weakest foundations, no retrofit.... in less developed areas or countries I imagine damage would be very bad with the same magnitude quake.

Answer 4

Only in similarly built up areas.
If one is in Manhattan and the other in the desert, then no.