Special Section: Caribbean Tectonics, Seismicity and Earthquake Hazards

The 2022 Seismic Hazard Model for Costa Rica

Diego A. Hidalgo-Leiva*1 , Lepolt Linkimer2 , Ivonne G. Arroyo2 , Mario Arroyo-Solórzano2,3 , Rosey Piedra4 ,
Alvaro Climent4 , Víctor Schmidt Díaz1 , Luis Carlos Esquivel1 , Guillermo E. Alvarado5 , Rolando Castillo6 ,
Marco E. Carranza-Morales7 , Laura Cerdas-Guntanis8 , Jimena Escalante-Meza7 , Sergio Lobo6 ,
María José Rodríguez6 , and Wilfredo Rojas†2

ABSTRACT
Costa Rica is located at the boundary of four tectonic plates where the regularity of destruc-
tive earthquakes highlights the necessity of seismic hazard estimations. This study contains
the most recent Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) for Costa Rica, calculated
with the largest and the most updated earthquake database from both—the Earthquake
Engineering Laboratory and the National Seismological Network of the University of
Costa Rica. For the PSHA, we updated the seismicity parameters for the upper plate, sub-
duction interplate, and intraslab tectonic domains, characterized the upper-plate zones by
percentages of fault types, and used weighted ground-motion models for each of the tec-
tonic domains. The resulted maps of peak ground acceleration (PGA) at return periods of
475 yr (PGA-475) and 2475 yr, as well as the spectral accelerations, show geographic trends
that allow for the division of the country in four seismic hazard levels: (1) extremely high for
the Nicoya, Osa, and Burica peninsulas, situated directly above the subduction interplate,
where the PGA-475 could be 0.55–1.20g; (2) very high for most of the Guanacaste
Province, where the PGA-475 may be 0.55–0.70g; (3) high for most of the country ( ∼41%)
with PGA-475 values of 0.40–0.55g, including Central Costa Rica and the capital city of San
Jose; and (4) moderate for the Talamanca Cordillera and Northern Costa Rica, with PGA-475
up to 0.40g. These ground-motion values are 0.1–0.6g higher than the previous PSHA for the
Pacific peninsulas, Guanacaste, and the southeastern Caribbean. Further, hazard curves, uni-
form hazard spectra, and a hazard disaggregation indicate that the seismic hazard is lower
but more complex in San Jose than in Liberia—the largest city in Guanacaste.

seismic sources are the boundaries of the Panama microplate

KEY POINTS
• We conduct a comprehensive Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment for Costa Rica.
• Four distinct ground-motion levels can be correlated with
tectonic boundaries.
• Ground-motion levels higher than previously estimated
are obtained for the Pacific peninsulas and Guanacaste.
Supplemental Material
INTRODUCTION
Costa Rica is a seismically active country in Central America,
with a history of at least 68 damaging earthquakes since 1821,
including the recent large earthquakes in 1991 (moment mag-
nitude) M w 7.7 (Fig. 1), 1992 M w 7.7, and 2012 M w 7.6 and the
1910 M w 6.4 Cartago earthquake, considered the worst disaster
in the Costa Rican history (e.g., Alonso-Henar et al., 2013;
Linkimer and Alvarado, 2014). This high seismicity is mainly
originated by the subduction of the Cocos plate underneath the
Caribbean plate and the Panama microplate, and by the inter-
action between both the overriding plates in Central Costa Rica
(Fig. 1; Marshall et al., 2000; Montero, 2001). Other relevant
with the Caribbean and Nazca plates (Adamek et al., 1988;
1. Earthquake Engineering Laboratory, University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica,
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3662-4969 (DAH-L); https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
2911-7232 (VSD); https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4208-6482 (LCE); 2. Central
American School of Geology and National Seismological Network (RSN-UCR),
University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1008-
846X (LL); https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3232-9719 (IGA); https://orcid.org/
0000-0002-1653-2680 (MA-S); 3. Department of Topography, Geodesy and
Cartography, Polytechnical University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain; 4. National
Seismological Network (RSN-ICE), Costa Rican Institute of Electricity, San José, Costa
Rica, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4184-4037 (RP); https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
4478-0382 (AC); 5. Department of Seismology and Vulcanology, Costa Rican Institute
of Electricity, San José, Costa Rica, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7082-4994 (GEA);
6. School of Civil Engineering and the National Laboratory of Materials and Structural
Models (LANAMME), https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1456-9770 (RC); https://
orcid.org/0000-0001-7763-9767 (SL); https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2270-0107
RodríguezMaría José; 7. School of Psychology, University of Costa Rica, San José,
Costa Rica, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6437-0586 (MEC-M); https://orcid.org/
0000-0002-3693-4249 (JE-M); 8. School of Social Work, University of Costa Rica, San
José, Costa Rica, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4894-9111 (LC-G)
*Correspondence author: diego.hidalgo@ucr.ac.cr
†Deceased
Cite this article as Hidalgo-Leiva, D. A., L. Linkimer, I. G. Arroyo, M. Arroyo-
Solórzano, R. Piedra, A. Climent, V. Schmidt Díaz, L. C. Esquivel, G. E. Alvarado,
R. Castillo, et al. (2022). The 2022 Seismic Hazard Model for Costa Rica, Bull. Seismol.
Soc. Am. XX, 1–18, doi: 10.1785/0120220119
© Seismological Society of America

Volume XX Number XX – 2023 www.bssaonline.org Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America • 1

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120220119/5743748/bssa-2022119.1.pdf

by Universidad de Costa Rica user
 including the Resis II Project in
2008 (Climent et al., 2008;
Benito et al., 2012), which
described the latest seismo-
genic zonation and ground-
motion models (GMM)
applied. There are no recent
PSHA for Costa Rica available,
because in the latest estima-
tions made by the Costa
Rican Seismic Code (CFIA,
2016), the details conducting
to their results (i.e., input
parameters, the GMM, the ini-
tial seismic zonation) were not
published.
The Earthquake Engineering
Laboratory (LIS) and the
National Seismological Network
(RSN) are two centers at the
University of Costa Rica
(UCR) dedicated to monitor
strong motion and seismicity
since 1983 and 1973, respec-
tively. In 2009, a national law
endorsed both centers with
financial support for instrumen-
tation, enabling them to mod-
ernize their networks and
expand countrywide (e.g.,
Linkimer et al. 2018; Moya-
Fernández et al., 2020). The vast
Figure 1. Tectonic framework of Costa Rica. The region contained within the dotted lines represents the Central Costa
Rica Deformed Belt (CCRDB). The dashed line represents the simplified northeast boundary of the Central America forearc amount of new earthquake data
block (CAFAB) along the volcanic arc faults (VAFs). F, Fisher Seamount; NPDB, North Panama deformed belt; PFZ, recorded by both, the LIS and
Panama fracture zone; QP, Quepos plateau; SRB, smooth–rough boundary; and SPDB, south Panama deformed belt. The the RSN during the last decade,
numbered stars represent the largest most recent earthquakes mentioned in the text: (1) 1910 Mw 6.4 Cartago, (2) 1934 and the necessity for an up-to-
Mw 7.6 Armuelles, (3) 1950 Mw 7.7 Nicoya, (4) 1973 Mw 6.5 Tilaran, (5) 1983 Mw 7.4 Golfito, (6) 1990 Mw 7.1 date public PSHA for Costa
Cobano, (7) 1991 Mw 7.7 Limon, (8) 1992 Mw 7.7 Nicaragua, (9) 1999 Mw 6.9 Quepos, and (10) 2012 Mw 7.6 Nicoya.
The gray region represents the Talamanca Cordillera, the orange triangles the active volcanoes, and the black squares the
Rica, motivated a joint project
cities of San Jose and Liberia. The Osa, Nicoya, and Burica (Bur.) peninsulas are labeled. Inset map in the top right corner involving researchers from the
shows the location of Costa Rica. The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition. UCR, including the LIS, the
RSN, the National Laboratory
of Materials and Structural
Models (LANAMME), and the
Silver et al., 1990; Kolarsky and Mann, 1995; Westbrook et al., departments of Psychology and Social Work, as well as research-
1995) and the Panama fracture zone (PFZ) (Fig. 1). ers from the Costa Rican Institute of Electricity (ICE). The goal of
Given this very active and complex tectonic setting, seismic this project was to calculate a new seismic hazard model for the
hazard studies are of great importance for the development of country and to contextualize earthquake experiences of rural
the region. The first Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment communities to encourage policies for risk mitigation.
(PSHA) for Costa Rica was estimated in 1977 by the John A. In this article, we present the results for the seismic hazard
Blume Earthquake Engineering Center (Mortgat et al., 1977). model component of the aforementioned joint project. We fol-
Later, different PSHAs were conducted for a larger region of lowed a classical approach in which we selected the seismic
Central America (e.g., Rojas et al., 1993; Climent et al., 2008; sources, built a logic tree with the input parameters and their
Benito et al., 2012; Global Earthquake Model [GEM], 2018a), probabilities, and calculated the hazard for the entire logic tree.

2 • Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America www.bssaonline.org Volume XX Number XX – 2023

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120220119/5743748/bssa-2022119.1.pdf

by Universidad de Costa Rica user
 We used the state-of-the-art open source application
OpenQuake 3.9 (GEM, 2020) and integrated the longest RSN
catalog ever compiled (Arroyo-Solórzano and Linkimer, 2021),
an updated LIS strong-motion database (Moya-Fernández et al.,
2020), and a reviewed soil classification for the LIS stations
(Pinzón et al., 2021). Specific GMMs were used for the three
main tectonic domains: upper plate, subduction interplate,
and subduction intraslab. In the logic tree, 13 spectral points
(i.e., intensity measures) were considered, and specific weights
for each GMM and intensity measures were assigned. We
present the results as seismic hazard curves, spectra, and ground
motion maps, and grant special attention to two of the largest
cities of the country (San Jose and Liberia) in which the disag-
gregation of the seismic hazard was performed.
DATA AND METHODS
Earthquake catalog
The earthquake catalog and the magnitude–frequency rela-
tionship used in this study were taken from Arroyo-
Solórzano and Linkimer (2021). Those authors obtained a joint
earthquake catalog by merging the RSN catalog from October
1975 to August 2020 with the Resis II project (Climent et al.,
2008), which was based on Rojas et al. (1993) and covered his-
torical earthquakes from 1522 to 1900. Data from seismologi-
cal agencies from Nicaragua and Panama were added to
improve the completeness of the surrounding regions of
Costa Rica. The geographic area chosen to build the joint
earthquake catalog covers the coordinates 6.0°–12.5° N and
81.0°–87.5° W and encompasses the country of Costa Rica
and portions of Nicaragua and Panama, which were consid-
ered relevant for the seismic hazard assessment of Costa
Rica. The resulting joint catalog contains 138,424 earthquakes
from 1522 to 2020 with M w from 0.3 to 7.7, and corresponds to
the largest and more complete catalog ever used for calculating
magnitude–frequency relationships in Costa Rica. The details
on the earthquake selection, merging of the catalogs, and mag-
nitude homogenization can be found in Arroyo-Solórzano and
Linkimer (2021).
Using the classical Stepp (1972) method and the maximum
curvature method (e.g., Wiemer and Wyss, 2000), Arroyo-
Solórzano and Linkimer (2021) determined that the joint
earthquake catalog has a magnitude of completeness (M c )
of 7.0 since 1793 (i.e., all earthquakes with a magnitude 7
of greater are included in the catalog since that year). This
is possible for a small country like Costa Rica in which mag-
nitude 7 earthquakes are felt countrywide, allowing the wit-
nesses to record their effects in historical documents before
the installation of the first seismograph in San Jose in 1888
(Morales, 1986). The M c decreases through time, as the num-
ber of earthquake detections increases in the region with more
instrumentation. The most complete portion of the catalog
has an M c of 3.0 during 1995–2020 (Arroyo-Solórzano and
Linkimer, 2021).
Volume XX Number XX – 2023 www.bssaonline.org
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120220119/5743748/bssa-2022119.1.pdf
by Universidad de Costa Rica user
Seismic zones
Costa Rica is located on the western margins of the Caribbean
plate and the Panama microplate (Fig. 1). Beneath both of
them, the Cocos plate subducts at an average velocity of
∼83 mm/yr (DeMets et al., 2010) along the Middle America
trench (MAT), including several bathymetric features such
as the Fisher Seamount, the Quepos plateau, and the Cocos
ridge (von Huene et al., 2000; Fig. 1). The Cocos plate subduc-
tion has originated a volcanic arc presently located ∼150 km to
the northeast of the MAT (Fig. 1).
To the southeast, at the Panama triple junction, the MAT
ends against the PFZ—a right-lateral strike-slip fault that marks
the boundary between the Cocos and the Nazca plates (Fig. 1).
Farther east, the limit between the Panama and the Nazca plates
is the southern Panama deformed belt (SPDB), which has been
identified as an oblique subduction zone in western Panama
(e.g., Kolarsky and Mann, 1995; Westbrook et al., 1995).
The northern and western boundaries between the
Caribbean plate and the Panama microplate have been described
as broad zones (∼100 km) of crustal deformation. The Central
Costa Rica Deformed Belt (CCRDB; Fig. 1; Marshall et al., 2000;
Montero, 2001) comprises mainly strike-slip faults and the
North Panama deformed belt (NPDB)—a sequence of subma-
rine thrusts and folds (Adamek et al., 1988; Silver et al., 1990;
Fan et al., 1993). In addition, a succession of strike-slip faults has
been recognized along the volcanic arc in Nicaragua and
Northern Costa Rica (volcanic arc fault [VAF], Fig. 1), which
allows for the northwestward movement of the Central
America forearc block (CAFAB, e.g., LaFemina et al., 2009;
Kobayashi et al., 2014).
This complicated tectonic setting has been divided into seis-
mic zones for the purposes of seismic hazard calculations. This
work uses the divisions defined by Alvarado et al. (2017), spe-
cifically the 28 zones encompassing the territory of Costa Rica
and its vicinity (Fig. 2), which were grouped into three tectonic
domains: upper plate (18 zones), interplate (5 zones), and
intraslab (5 zones). The original nomenclature has been pre-
served, in which each abbreviation starts with the letter C, N, or
P, referring to the country Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Panama,
respectively. This first letter is followed by a number for the
upper-plate zones, by “si” and a number for the interplate
zones, and by “sp” and a number for the intraslab zones.
The upper-plate zones in the hazard zonation of Alvarado
et al. (2017) contains the regions where shallow seismicity
(<20 km) is originated by the internal deformation of the over-
riding Caribbean and Panama plates and their interaction with
other tectonic blocks (Fig. 1). These zones (Fig. 2a) are distrib-
uted along the Pacific forearc (N4, C1-N2, C2, C3, and C4), the
magmatic arc (N6-7, N8, C5, C6, C7, and P5), and the
Nicaragua Lake and the Caribbean backarc (N9-10, N12,
N13-14, C9, and C10). Additional upper-plate zones in reality
encompass plate boundaries (Fig. 1), such as the PFZ (P1), the
NPDB (C8-P10), and the SPDB (P2).
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America • 3
 The subduction interplate zones are divided into five seg- Figure 2. Seismic zonation for the study area (a) PFZ and the upper-plate
ments that were delineated considering the historical seismicity domain, including arc, backarc, forearc, and the NPDB. (b) Interplate
(depth <40 km) and the bathymetric features in the oceanic domain. (c) Intraslab domain. The color version of this figure is available
only in the electronic edition.
floor of the incoming Cocos plate (Figs. 1 and 2b). These
include the Pacific margin of Nicaragua (zone Nsi16) and
the Nicoya peninsula (Csi11), where a smooth bathymetry atop

4 • Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America www.bssaonline.org Volume XX Number XX – 2023

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120220119/5743748/bssa-2022119.1.pdf

by Universidad de Costa Rica user
 a ∼5–7 km thick oceanic crust (Sallarès et al., 2001) is presently
subducting. The zone off the coast of Central Costa Rica
(Csi12) shows an incoming seafloor 40% covered with sea-
mounts (von Huene et al., 2000; Barckhausen et al., 2001)
and an oceanic crust thickness of ∼10 km (Walther, 2003).
The interplate zone beneath the Osa peninsula (Csi13) corre-
sponds to the subduction of the Cocos Ridge (Fig. 1) with a
crust thickness exceeding ∼20 km (Sallarès et al., 2003;
Walther, 2003); and the interplate zone in western Panama
(Psi9) matches the oblique subduction of the Nazca plate under
the Panama microplate (Kolarsky and Mann, 1995).
The subduction intraslab zones describe the seismicity
originated within the Cocos slab at intermediate depths from
40 to ∼250 km (Fig. 2c). These include eastern Nicaragua
(Nsp17), where intermediate seismicity dips 65° to the north-
east down to ∼250 km (Kyriakopoulos et al., 2015),
northwestern Costa Rica (Csp14) where the intraslab seismic-
ity reaches depths of ∼200 km near the Costa Rica–Nicaragua
border, Central Costa Rica (Csp15), where the maximum
depths of seismicity shallow to ∼130 km (Lücke and
Arroyo, 2015), and southern Costa Rica (Csp16) and western
Panama (Psp11) where the deepest seismicity occurs at
∼70 km (Lücke and Arroyo, 2015).
Seismicity parameters
In this study, the upper-plate zones have been modeled as area
sources, and the interplate and intraslab zones as complex
faults. To describe them, for each seismic zone, the following
parameters were required in the OpenQuake software: the
upper and lower seismogenic depths, the most likely hypocen-
ter, the most likely rupture planes, the magnitude–scaling rela-
tionship, the rupture aspect ratio, the magnitude–frequency
distribution, the maximum inferred magnitude, and the mini-
mum magnitude for hazard calculation (Table S1, available in
the supplemental material to this article).
The upper and lower seismogenic depths, and the most
likely hypocenter for each seismic zone were explored using
the earthquakes extracted from the RSN catalog, which were
recorded between the years of 2011 and 2020, and located with
the minimum of 12 stations with a root mean square ≥0.5 s.
The 2011–2020 time period was selected because it has the low-
est location uncertainties and also the best station coverage in
the RSN history. The minimum depth of 1 km was assumed as
the upper seismogenic depth for all the upper-plate zones. On
the other hand, the lower limit was defined by analyzing seis-
micity cross sections for each zone individually. For the inter-
plate and intraslab zones, in addition to seismicity profiles, the
parameters were determined by using the Cocos slab geometry
proposed by Lücke and Arroyo (2015).
The strike, dip, and rake for the most likely rupture plane
within each of the upper-plate zones were defined primarily on
the compilation of Denyer et al. (2009), and complemented
with recent fault maps and earthquake focal mechanisms.
Volume XX Number XX – 2023 www.bssaonline.org
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120220119/5743748/bssa-2022119.1.pdf
by Universidad de Costa Rica user
Based on that information, it was considered that 90% of
the crustal earthquakes were originated by strike-slip faults
and 10% by reverse faults. All the strike-slip faults were con-
sidered vertical, and 60% were classified as right-lateral with a
strike of N50°W and the other 40% as left lateral with a strike
of N40°E. Within the reverse faults, 60% were oriented N50°W
with a dip of 45° to the northeast, and the other 40% were ori-
ented S50°E and inclined 45° to the southwest. This basic con-
figuration scheme was modified for upper-plate zones in which
active faults with different geometries were also documented;
for example, in the case of the vertical, right-lateral strike-slip
faults oriented N10°E near the political border between Costa
Rica and Panama (zones C4 and C7). The use of these faulting
type percentages is a novel approach for a PSHA in Costa Rica.
The most likely rupture plane parameters for the interplate
zones were defined based on the shallower part (<40 km) of
the subduction zone revealed by local tomographic studies
(e.g., DeShon et al., 2006; Arroyo et al., 2009; Arroyo and
Linkimer, 2021), the slab geometry from Lücke and Arroyo
(2015), and the moment tensor solution for the large earthquakes
(M w > 5:5) available in international catalogs and pub-
lished works.
The most likely rupture plane parameters for the intraslab
zones were entirely based on moment tensors and focal mech-
anisms available from the RSN, and international catalogs and
published works. The quantity of solutions available vary from
dozens in Nicaragua to none for western Panama, in which the
same values as for southern Costa Rica were assumed.
The magnitude–scaling relationship was determined using
Wells and Coppersmith (1994). Further, assuming only rectan-
gular ruptures, an aspect ratio of 1.5 was defined for all zones.
The minimum magnitude for hazard assessment was fixed at a
standard value of M w 4.5.
The a- and b-values of the magnitude–frequency distribu-
tion for each seismic zone were taken from Arroyo-Solórzano
and Linkimer (2021). In that study, a- and b-values were esti-
mated using the classical maximum-likelihood technique of
Aki (1965) modified by Weichert (1980), after applying the
declustering method of Gardner and Knopoff (1974) to remove
dependent (non-Poissonian) earthquakes (i.e., swarms, after-
shocks, and foreshocks). The b-value for individual upper-
plate zones vary from 0.67 (C2 and N4) to 1.12 (C6), with
an average of 0.90. For intraslab zones, the b-value varies
between 0.91 (Nsp17) and 1.42 (Csp16), with an average of
1.14, and for interplate zones, it varies within the smallest
range compared with the upper-plate and intraslab zones: from
0.69 in zone Csi11 to 1.10 in Csi12, with an average of 0.85.
The maximum magnitude (M max or seismic potential) for
each seismic zone was also taken from Arroyo-Solórzano and
Linkimer (2021), who calculated it using the cumulative seismic
moment technique of Makropoulos and Burton (1983). The
M max results vary from 5.5 to 8.0, and the highest magnitudes
estimated within the seismic zones were 8.0 for the NPDB
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America • 5
 TABLE 1
Selected Ground-Motion Models (GMM) for the 2022 Seismic Hazard Model for Costa Rica

Seismic Region GMM Region Dependent Variable Component Distance (km) Mw

Upper plate CZ15 (Cauzzi et al., 2015) Worldwide Average horizontal 0–150 4.5–8.0
KA06S (Kanno et al., 2006) Japan Peak square root of the sum of 20–400 5.5–8.0
squares of horizontals
BO14 (Boore et al., 2014) Worldwide Average horizontal 0–400 3.0–7.9
Interplate KA06S (Kanno et al., 2006) Japan Peak square root of sum of squares 20–400 5.5–8.0
of horizontals
ZH06SI (Zhao et al., 2006) Japan Geometric mean 10–300 5.0–8.2
MO17SI (Montalva et al., 2017) Chile Average horizontal 10–300 5.0–9.0
Intraslab AB16SS (Abrahamson et al., 2016) Worldwide Average horizontal 10–300 5.0–8.4
MO17SS (Montalva et al., 2017) Chile Average horizontal 10–300 5.0–8.0
KA06D (Kanno et al., 2006) Japan Peak square root of sum of squares 20–400 5.5–8.0
of horizontals
GA05SS (García et al., 2005) Mexico Quadratic mean 4–400 5.2–7.4
LL08SS (Lin and Lee, 2008) Worldwide Average horizontal 15–630 5.3–8.1

(zones C8-P10, Fig. 2a), 8.0 for the Nicoya peninsula (Csi11,
Fig. 2b), and 7.9 for the southern Nicaragua (Nsi16, Fig. 2b).
Strong-motion data
The Costa Rican strong-motion database (Moya-Fernández
et al., 2020) consists of 2471 triaxial digital records from
155 earthquakes recorded from 1998 until 2019 (see the
Data and Resources section). From this database, 2353 records
from 139 earthquakes were selected for the current study.
These data correspond exclusively to digital accelerometers,
as the older analog records were excluded from the analysis.
Strong motions from earthquakes lacking source solutions
were also rejected. The magnitudes, locations, and fault-plane
solutions were provided mainly by the RSN, but source solu-
tions from the National Earthquake Information Center cata-
log of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the recent
publications were also included (see Table S2).
The strong-motion database contains records for hypocen-
tral distances from 7 to 288 km for the upper-plate zones
(Fig. 3a), from 10 to 351 km for the interplate earthquakes
(Fig. 3b), and from 10 to 379 km for the intraslab zones
(Fig. 3c). The maximum horizontal peak ground acceleration
(PGAh ) varies from 2.3 to 231:0 cm=s2 for the upper-plate
zones (Fig. 3d), from 2.0 to 1580 cm=s2 for the interplate zones
(Fig. 3e), and from 2.0 to 386 cm=s2 for the intraslab zones
(Fig. 3f). The database shows a typical distribution, with a scar-
city of low-magnitude events at large distances due to seismic
attenuation. The largest PGAh of 1580 cm=s2 (Schmidt-Díaz
et al., 2014) corresponds to the 2012 M w 7.6 earthquake
recorded in the Nicoya peninsula (Fig. 1).
The strong-motion database was complemented with a
recent review of the soil classification of the LIS strong-motion
stations (Pinzón et al., 2021), which included the average
shear-wave velocity up to 30 m depth (V S30 ) and the horizon-
tal-to-vertical spectral ratio.
GMM
The choice of the GMM and their weights in the logic tree was
divided into three stages: the review of the GMM available, the
GMM contrast against the strong-motion dataset, and the
GMM classification and selection. For the first stage, we
reviewed the available GMM by applying the exclusion criteria
of Cotton et al. (2006) to the list published by Douglas (2021).
The 19 GMM initially preselected are included in the
OpenQuake Engine 3.9 (GEM, 2020).
For the second stage, the GMM contrast against the strong-
motion dataset was performed using a strong-motion toolkit
(GEM, 2018b). In the process, we computed the mean total
residual (mean Res ), the standard deviation of the total residual
(σ Res ) obtained from fitting a normal probability function to
the residual distribution, and the mean likelihood model (LH,
Scherbaum et al., 2004; Fig. 4), as well as the log-likelihood
values (LLH, Scherbaum et al., 2009). In most of the GMM
cases, the mean total residuals are negative for periods larger
than 0.5 s (Fig. 4), which indicates an overestimation of the
predicted ground-motion levels. This implies that our results
are conservative, that is, the real ground-motion levels might
be lower than our estimations.
Finally, in the GMM classification and selection, we used cri-
teria based on Scherbaum et al. (2004) from A for the best qual-
ity to D for the worst. For the GMM equally classified, the LLH
was used as a tiebreaker. From the 19 GMM initially considered,
11 were selected, and some of them were used in more than one
tectonic domain (Table 1). None of these 11 models (Table 1)
were specifically developed for Costa Rica or Central America,
and, even with the use of new earthquake data, the evaluated
GMM present high dispersion, particularly for higher structural
periods (Fig. 4). This implies the need to create or modify the
available models (e.g., Campbell, 2003; Cotton et al., 2006; Kotha
et al., 2017). A similar dispersion in the selected GMM was
noticed in the previous studies for Costa Rica (Laporte et al.,

6 • Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America www.bssaonline.org Volume XX Number XX – 2023

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120220119/5743748/bssa-2022119.1.pdf

by Universidad de Costa Rica user
 1994; Benito et al., 2012) that used the GMM from Climent et al.
(1994) and Schmidt-Díaz et al. (1997). These GMM were also
tested in this study with results of low quality (D).
Hazard calculation
As part of the logic tree, we introduced for the first time in a
PSHA of Costa Rica the use of variable weights assigned to the
GMM depending on the 13 intensity measures that were
defined for the hazard calculation. These levels consist of
the PGA and the spectral acceleration (SA) with a damping
of 5% for a different period of oscillation (Tn) from 0.1 to
3 s (Table 2). The assigned weights were used in each permu-
tation in the logic tree from the maximum of 45 possible paths
to the minimum of 18 for the spectral points in which the con-
sidered weight was null. Hazard curves were also calculated for
the 13 intensity measures, including PGA and SA from 0.1 to
3.0 s for a 5% damping ratio.
Volume XX Number XX – 2023 www.bssaonline.org
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120220119/5743748/bssa-2022119.1.pdf
by Universidad de Costa Rica user
Figure 3. The Costa Rican strong ground motion database (Moya-Fernández
et al., 2020). Magnitude (Mw ) versus hypocentral distance for (a) upper-
plate, (b) interplate, and (c) intraslab domains. Magnitude (Mw ) versus the
maximum horizontal component of the peak ground acceleration (PGAh ) for
(d) upper-plate, (e) interplate, and (f) intraslab domains.
The hazard model was calculated for the continental
territory of Costa Rica. A grid with a spacing of 0.02° in both
latitude and longitude for a total of 10,541 points was used to
calculate the seismic hazard. The ruptures had a mesh spacing
of 5 km. A constant V S30 of 760 m/s was used, assuming a rock
or rigid soil condition following the most recent seismic code
(CFIA, 2016).
The truncation level in this work was defined at six standard
deviations. We studied return periods (Trs) of 475 and 2475 yr,
which corresponds to the minimum annual frequency of
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America • 7
 exceedance of 4:04 × 10−4 . Because the truncation level impacts
hazard estimations with an annual frequency of exceedance
smaller than 10−6 (Bommer, 2004), no major differences in
our results are expected if a lower truncation level was selected.
RESULTS
Ground-motion maps
We present the classical ground-motion maps for engineering
purposes (Fig. 5), including the PGA for Tr of 475 yr (PGA-
475) and 2475 yr (PGA-2475), as well as the SA for Tn of 0.2
and 1 s and for Tr of 475 and 2475 yr, abbreviated in this study
as: SA(0.2)-475, SA(1.0)-475, SA(0.2)-2475, and SA(1.0)-2475.
All these maps display similar trends: The highest ground-
motion levels occur in the Nicoya peninsula, followed by both
8 • Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120220119/5743748/bssa-2022119.1.pdf
by Universidad de Costa Rica user
Figure 4. Mean total residual (mean Res ), standard deviation of the total residual
(σRes ), and median likelihood (LH) versus the natural period of oscillation (Tn) for
the selected Ground-Motion Model (see Table 1 for abbreviations) shown as
colored lines in the tectonic domains: (a) upper-plate, (b) interplate, and
(c) intraslab. The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.
the Osa and Burica peninsulas and the inner part of
Guanacaste, where the city of Liberia is located. The intermedi-
ate levels correspond to most of the countries, including
Central Costa Rica, where the capital city of San Jose is situ-
ated, and regions in the Southeast Pacific and the Caribbean.
The lowest ground-motion levels are present in the Talamanca
Cordillera and Northern Costa Rica (Fig. 5).
www.bssaonline.org Volume XX Number XX – 2023
 TABLE 2
Weights Assigned to Each Ground-Motion Model (GMM, See Table 1 for Abbreviations) and the Intensity Measures in the Logic
Tree Assessment

Intensity Measures

Seismic SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA
Domains GMM PGA (0.1) (0.2) (0.3) (0.4) (0.5) (0.6) (0.7) (0.8) (0.9) (1.0) (2.0) (3.0)

Upper-plate CZ15 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6
KA06S 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2
BO14 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Interplate KA06S 0.5 0.5 0.35 0.35 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
ZH06SI 0.5 0.5 0.55 0.55 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.3 0.3
MO17SI 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.1 0.1
Intraslab AB15SS 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
MO17SS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
KA06D 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
GA05SS 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
LL08SS 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

PGA, peak ground acceleration; and SA, spectral acceleration.

Our PGA-475 results for a 10% of probability of exceedance
in 50 yr (Fig. 5a) correspond to values of 0.70–1.20g for the
Nicoya and Burica peninsulas and the southeastern part of
the Osa peninsula. PGA-475 levels of 0.55–0.70g are expected
in inner Guanacaste, which includes the city of Liberia, and
parts of the Osa peninsula. For most (48%) of the country
we observe PGA-475 values of 0.40–0.55g, including the capital
San Jose in central Costa Rica. Finally, PGA-475 values of less
than 0.40g are calculated for Talamanca and Northern
Costa Rica.
The PGA-2475 maps for a 2% of probability of exceedance
in 50 yr (Fig. 5b) display a similar pattern. The highest PGA-
2475 values of 1.20–1.80g are predicted for the Pacific penin-
sulas. The PGA-2475 levels correspond to 1.00–1.20g for inner
Guanacaste and some areas of southeastern Costa Rica. Middle
values of 0.75–1.00g are found in central and southeastern
Costa Rica, both in the Pacific and the Caribbean sides.
Acceleration values lower than 0.75g occur in Talamanca
and Northern Costa Rica.
The results for the SA(0.2)-475 (Fig. 5c) distribute in a pat-
tern comparable to PGA. In this case, accelerations of 2.10–3.00g
are expected in the Nicoya peninsula, whereas in the Southern
Peninsulas and Guanacaste the values are 1.30–2.10g, including
1.70g for Liberia. Levels between 0.90 and 1.30g are anticipated
for most of the country, including the capital city, with the
exception of Talamanca and Northern Costa Rica, where the
estimated accelerations are smaller than 0.90g.
The calculated SA(0.2)-2475 yr (Fig. 5d) are the highest val-
ues obtained in this work. The uppermost values from 3.00 to
5.50g are observed in the Nicoya peninsula, the Southern
Peninsulas, and the western part of inner Guanacaste, encom-
passing Liberia. Zones of inner Guanacaste and the southeastern
Pacific display accelerations of 2.00–3.00g, whereas the lowest
values are calculated once more for Talamanca and Northern
Costa Rica, from 0.60 to 1.60g. The rest of the country has values
of 1.60–2.00g.
The trends of the estimated SA(1.0) are analogous to those
calculated for a period of 0.2 s (Fig. 5e,f). Within a Tr of 475 yr
(Fig. 5e), the Nicoya peninsula displays ground-motion values
of 0.70–1.20g, and the inner Guanacaste and the Southern
Peninsulas displays ground-motion values of 0.40–0.70g.
Acceleration values of 0.25–0.40g are estimated for most of
the country, and the lowest values for Northern Costa Rica
and Talamanca are inferior to 0.25g.
For a Tr of 2475 yr, the highest SA(1.0) reach values of
1.60–3.00g in the Nicoya peninsula (Fig. 5f). The Southern
Peninsulas and inner Guanacaste display accelerations of
0.80–1.60g, Talamanca and Northern Costa Rica of less than
0.20g, and the rest of the country, between 0.50 and 0.80g.
Estimations of the dynamic amplification factor (i.e., the
ratio between SA and PGA) display significant variations over
the country. For an SA(0.2 s)-475, it varies from 1.98 to 2.75,
with the greatest values in the Pacific peninsulas and the lower
ones in Northern Costa Rica. The same pattern is obtained for
Tr of 2475 yr, with numbers ranging from 1.98 to 3.03. Our
results contrast with the current practice in the country, in
which a unique dynamic amplification factor of 2.5 has been
used in the seismic code (CFIA, 2016).
Likewise, for SA(1.0s)-475 the dynamic amplification factor
varies from the lowest values of 0.56–0.60 for the Southern
Caribbean up to the highest of 0.98–1.09 in the Nicoya pen-
insula. Considering a Tr of 2475 yr, the amplification factor
ranges from 0.63 to 0.73 in Talamanca and up to 1.12–1.23
in the Nicoya peninsula. Again, the seismic code uses a con-
stant amplification factor of 1.0, expecting the same accelera-
tion as the PGA. Therefore, the use of constant amplification
factors fails to reflect the expected variation of acceleration lev-
els between different sites and Trs in Costa Rica.

Volume XX Number XX – 2023 www.bssaonline.org Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America • 9

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120220119/5743748/bssa-2022119.1.pdf

by Universidad de Costa Rica user
 Figure 5. Results of the 2022 Costa Rican Seismic Hazard Model for selected
intensity measures of the peak ground acceleration (PGA) and the spectral
acceleration (SA) in fraction of g for a specified return period (Tr). In each
map, the intensity levels are specified by colors, and specific contours are
labelled. Main tectonic boundaries as in Figure 1. The black squares
represent the cities of San Jose (S) and Liberia (L). (a) PGA for a Tr of 475 yr,
(b) PGA for a Tr of 2475 yr, (c) SA(0.2 s) for a Tr of 475 yr, (d) SA(0.2 s) for a
Tr of 2475 yr, (e) SA(1.0 s) for a Tr of 475 yr, and (f) SA(1.0 s) for a Tr of
2475 yr. The Tr of 475 and 2475 yr correspond to a 10% and 2%
exceedance probability in 50 yr, respectively.

10 • Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America www.bssaonline.org Volume XX Number XX – 2023

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120220119/5743748/bssa-2022119.1.pdf

by Universidad de Costa Rica user
 Seismic hazard for the cities of San Jose and Liberia
In this article, we select two key centers in terms of population
and economic significance to present hazard curves for three
intensity measures (Fig. 6a): the capital San Jose, in central
Costa Rica, and Liberia—the biggest city in northwestern
Costa Rica. The hazard curves show that the maximum ampli-
tudes occur at the spectral points of 0.2 s, whereas the mini-
mum values are achieved at 1.0 s. The uniform hazard spectra
computed from the hazard curves illustrate the variations of
the intensity measures for different Tr (Fig. 6b). It can be
clearly noticed from these curves and the strong-motion maps
(Fig. 5) that San Jose has lower levels of seismic hazard (e.g.,
PGA-475 of 0.44g and PGA-2475 of 0.77g) when compared
with Liberia (0.70 and 1.19g).
In order to study the contribution of different seismic
sources to the seismic hazard of these cities, we present the
disaggregation of the seismic hazard as a function of distance
and magnitude for PGA and SA(1.0 s) at Tr of 475 and 2475 yr
(Fig. 7). For San Jose, three main sources are clearly identified:
the first one is the upper plate (zone C6) with historical inter-
mediate-magnitude earthquakes (5:0 < M w < 6:4) that are
relevant for PGA (Figs. 1 and 7a), for example, the 1910
M w 6.4 Cartago earthquake located ∼20 km southeast of
San Jose (Fig. 1). The second source is the interplate zone
(Csi12), with historical events like the 1990 M w 7.1 Cobano
and the 1999 M w 6.9 Quepos earthquakes, located at around
90–95 km from the city (Fig. 1). Finally, the third source com-
bines the interplate seismic zones Csi11 and Csi13, more than
100 km away from San Jose that could potentially affect long
period structures (Figs. 1 and 7b). The most recent largest his-
torical earthquakes in these interplate zones have been the
1983 M w 7.4 Golfito earthquake and the 2012 M w 7.6
Nicoya earthquake (Fig. 1).
The seismic hazard of the city of Liberia is mainly controlled
by two seismic sources. The interplate zone Csi11 has a
predominant effect for both the PGA (Fig. 7c) and a natural
period of 1.0 s (Fig. 7d). The largest historical earthquakes
in this seismic zone are the 1950 M w 7.7 and 2012 M w 7.6
Nicoya earthquakes, located 60–100 km southwest of Liberia
(Fig. 1). The second contributing source is the upper-plate
zone C5 with historical intermediate-magnitude earthquakes
(5:0 < M w < 6:5) like the 1973 M w 6.5 Tilaran earthquake
located ∼62 km to the southeast of the city (Fig. 1).
The seismic hazard disaggregation shows that even though
the seismic hazard is lower in San Jose than in Liberia, there is a
larger complexity in the contributing seismic sources for San
Jose. The capital city is affected by earthquakes occurring in a
larger range of distances (up to 150 km) than Liberia, and from
more sources, consequently, the hazard assessment is more
complex for San Jose. The hazard disaggregation also shows
that the contribution of the interplate sources is distinctly
higher for Liberia, with a contribution of 58% (Fig. 7d),
whereas the maximum contribution from the interplate source
Volume XX Number XX – 2023 www.bssaonline.org
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120220119/5743748/bssa-2022119.1.pdf
by Universidad de Costa Rica user
is 28% for San Jose (Fig. 7b). Because the trends in the disag-
gregation for SA(0.2) are similar to PGA, we do not display
those results.
DISCUSSION
The ground motions from the 2022 seismic hazard model for
Costa Rica display, as expected, a strong connection with the
tectonic boundaries. The previous studies have shown particu-
larly the influence of the interplate zone of the subduction of
the Cocos plate, resulting in a higher seismic hazard along the
Pacific coast of the country (e.g., Mortgat et al., 1977; Benito
et al., 2012; CFIA, 2016). In general, in these studies the seismic
hazard also decreases as the distance increases from the Pacific
interplate zone.
A comparison between the PGA-475 calculated in this study
and that from the project Resis II (Benito et al., 2012) shows
marked differences (Fig. 8a). In that study, the highest PGA
values of 0.50–0.60g occur in areas along the Pacific coast
and the lowest values of 0.20–0.25g occur in areas along
Northern Costa Rica. In our study, there is a slight decrease
of 0.10–0.20g in the accelerations estimated for central Costa
Rica. On the other hand, there is an increase of 0.10–0.20g in
most of Guanacaste, the Osa peninsula, and the southern
Caribbean, and a significant increase of 0.20–0.60g in the
Nicoya peninsula (Fig. 8a).
We also compare our results with the seismic code (CFIA,
2016). That study shows three seismic zones for PGA-475
(Fig. 7b) of 0.25, 0.38, and 0.50g, which, in general, corresponds
to northwest–southeast-oriented zones named II, III, and IV
corresponding to northern, central, and the Pacific of Costa
Rica, respectively. Similarly, CFIA (2016) shows the three seis-
mic zones for the PGA-2475 but with higher values.
The PGA-475 values estimated in our study (Fig. 5a) are
generally higher than those of the CFIA (2016; Fig. 8b).
Remarkable differences are observed for the Nicoya penin-
sula and the rest of Guanacaste, in which our results are
0.20–0.60g higher, as well as in the Osa peninsula, in which
there is an increase of 0.10–0.30g. For the PGA-2475, our
results are 0.19–0.44g higher for Central Costa Rica and
the Southern Caribbean, and 0.45–1.05g for the North
Pacific. As it can be appreciated in our results, because there
is a variability among the regions, there is no single factor for
converting the PGA-475 values to PGA-2475 values. These
results cast doubt on the suitability of applying a single factor
to convert intensity values from one Tr to another across a
territory.
The higher seismic hazard values obtained from our results
in certain areas, when compared with the previous works, can
be explained by the use of new earthquake data, updated seis-
micity parameters, and an improved depth geometry for the
interplate regions. The ∼35,000 new well-located earthquakes
that the RSN acquired during the last decade allowed for a bet-
ter determination of the magnitude–frequency distribution
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America • 11
 shown by Arroyo-Solórzano and Linkimer (2021). This new
combination of the a- and b-values used in our study implies
a higher probability of occurrence of large earthquakes in the
Nicoya peninsula and Guanacaste compared with the values
used by Benito et al. (2012), leading to a higher hazard esti-
mation. In addition, in the Resis II project (Benito et al.,
2012), the interplate zone Csi11 was defined from 26 to
63 km depth. But based on the latest model of the top of
the Cocos slab (Lücke and Arroyo, 2015), earthquake locations
and tomographic models obtained from ocean-bottom
12 • Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120220119/5743748/bssa-2022119.1.pdf
by Universidad de Costa Rica user
Figure 6. (a) Seismic hazard curves and (b) uniform hazard spectrum (UHS)
calculated for the cities San Jose and Liberia. Intensity measures and Trs are
color coded as indicated. The color version of this figure is available only in
the electronic edition.
seismometers (e.g., DeShon et al., 2006; Arroyo et al., 2009;
Arroyo and Linkimer, 2021), and rupture and slip models
of the 2012 M w 7.6 Nicoya earthquake (e.g., Yue et al.,
2013; Protti et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2015), in our study we
www.bssaonline.org Volume XX Number XX – 2023
 latest largest (M w > 7:4) earth-
quakes occurred in the Nicoya
peninsula in 1950 and 2012
(Güendel, 1986; Protti et al.,
2014) and in the Osa peninsula
in 1983 (Fig. 1). The extremely
high seismic hazard zone has
PGA-475 values of 0.55–1.20g
and PGA-2475 of 1.00–1.80g.
The highest PGA instrumen-
tally recorded by the LIS net-
work has been of 1.60g at
25 km from the epicenter of
the 2012 M w 7.6 Nicoya earth-
quake (Schmidt-Díaz et al.,
2014), demonstrating the
extremely high intensities
reached during large earth-
quakes in this peninsula.
The region with a very high
seismic hazard corresponds to
most of the inner part of
Guanacaste (Fig. 8c), which
represents the ∼21% of the
country. This region is
bounded by the VAF to the
Figure 7. Seismic hazard disaggregation for the cities of San Jose and Liberia. (a) PGA for a Tr of 475 yr in San Jose, northeast and by the CCRDB
(b) SA (1.0 s) for a Tr of 2475 in San Jose, (c) PGA for a Tr of 475 yr in Liberia, and (d) SA (1.0 s) for a Tr of 475 yr.
to the southeast. Together
Annotations with arrows show the seismic zones contributing to the seismic hazard for each city (Fig. 1).
with the Nicoya peninsula, this
region is moving northwest as
part of the CAFAB (LaFemina
defined interplate seismogenic depths from 12 to 35 km. This et al., 2009; Kobayashi et al., 2014; Fig. 1). Destructive shallow
locates the interplate zone directly beneath the Nicoya penin- earthquakes are common in Guanacaste, including the 1973
sula, leading again to much higher hazard values than the pre- M w 6.5 Tilaran earthquake (Fig. 1), which is the largest
vious works, especially along the coastline. upper-plate earthquake on record along the Costa Rican vol-
Considering the observed trends in the ground-motion lev- canic arc (e.g., Güendel, 1986). In this region, the calculated
els and the active tectonic features, four zones with distinct values for PGA-475 are 0.55–0.70g and for PGA-2475 are
seismic-hazard levels can be identified (Fig. 8c), and we 1.00–1.20g. The SA (0.2) and SA (1.0) results also characterize
described them in the categories of moderate, high, very high, this region very distinctly (Fig. 5).
and extremely high seismic hazard. The geometry of these A high level of seismic hazard encompasses the majority
zones was drawn using both the PGA and SA contours, and (∼41%) of Costa Rica and its population, including Central
the general location of tectonic boundaries. Costa Rica, the Southern Caribbean, and parts of the Southeast
The region with an extremely high seismic hazard contains Pacific (Fig. 8c). This zone is affected mostly by the CCRDB and
the three main peninsulas in the Pacific: Nicoya, Osa, and the inland continuation of the NPDB. The deadliest (∼600 fatal-
Burica (Fig. 8c), and corresponds to ∼16% of the Costa Rican ities) disaster in Costa Rica history—the 1910 M w 6.4 Cartago
territory. Even though the ground-motion values expected for earthquake (Fig. 1) is just one of many destructive earthquakes
the Nicoya peninsula are higher than Osa and Burica, the val- located within the high seismic hazard zone (e.g., Alonso-Henar
ues in the latter are generally higher than the rest of the coun- et al., 2013). The calculated PGA-475 ranges mostly from 0.40 to
try, and the tectonic context and seismicity favor its description 0.55g and the PGA-2475 from 0.75 to 1.00g.
as a unit. The three peninsulas override part of the megathrust Finally, a moderate seismic hazard level is the lowest
seismogenic zone between the subducting Cocos and the upper category for Costa Rica, spanning ∼22% of the continental
Caribbean and Panama plates, and are the regions where territory, and including the Talamanca Cordillera and
M w > 6:5 earthquakes are more frequent in Costa Rica. The Northern Costa Rica. Although the latter belongs to a backarc

Volume XX Number XX – 2023 www.bssaonline.org Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America • 13

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120220119/5743748/bssa-2022119.1.pdf

by Universidad de Costa Rica user
 subduction environment, the Talamanca Cordillera is a rapidly
uplifting range, where extrusive volcanic activity ended
∼3.5 Ma (MacMillan et al., 2004). There are no historical dam-
aging earthquakes with epicenters in the interior of this region;
however, earthquakes in the proximities may still induce
strong shaking as shown by our results: PGA-475 could be
as high as 0.40g and PGA-2475 as high as 0.75g.
Our results show that ∼78% of the continental territory of
Costa Rica could be described with a high, very high, and
extremely high seismic hazard. In other subduction zones of
the world, several PSHA have shown ground-motion levels
comparable to those obtained here for the Pacific peninsulas.
In Ecuador, the highest PGA values predicted are also found
along the coastline, especially in three peninsulas, which are
the areas closest to the interplate seismogenic zone. There,
PGA values of 0.76g are expected for a Tr of 475 yr and of
14 • Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120220119/5743748/bssa-2022119.1.pdf
by Universidad de Costa Rica user
Figure 8. Difference between our results and the previous studies for PGA as
a fraction of g for a Tr of 475 yr. The black squares represent the cities of San
Jose (S) and Liberia (L). Tectonic boundaries as in Figure 1. (a) The Resis II
project (Benito et al., 2012). (b) The Costa Rican Seismic Code (CFIA, 2016).
Peculiar shapes for the geographic regions are preserved from the political
division of districts used by CFIA (2016) to display the PGA values.
(c) Seismic hazard zonation based on both our results and the location of
tectonic boundaries. These zones were qualitatively described in the text as
regions with moderate, high, very high, and extremely high seismic hazard.
The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.
1.37g for a Tr of 2475 yr (Parra et al., 2016). Further high inten-
sity levels of 0.40g for a Tr of 475 yr and of 0.65g for a Tr of
2475 yr are expected close to north Andean block limit. Along
the Pacific coast of Colombia, the calculated PGA reach levels
www.bssaonline.org Volume XX Number XX – 2023
 of 0.60–0.90g for a Tr of 475 yr in the south, surpassing 0.90g
for a Tr of 2475 yr, mainly associated with the subduction
interplate sources (Arcila et al., 2020). PGA values of
0.75–1.00g have been modeled in north and central Chile
for Tr of 475 yr, increasing to 1.50g for a Tr of 2475 yr
(Medina et al., 2017). A PSHA for Taiwan, located also in a
very complicated tectonic setting involving two subduction
zones, have estimated accelerations up to 1.40–1.60g for a
Tr of 475 yr (Chan et al., 2020).
In addition, our SA(0.2) values are, in general, comparable
or higher than those calculated in other subduction zones. For
a Trof 475 yr, for example, the highest values in parts of Chile
are 1.00–2.00g (Medina et al., 2017), whereas in Costa Rica the
highest values are 2.10–3.00g in the Nicoya peninsula, which is
sitting above the locked portion of the interplate seismogenic
zone. For a Tr of 2475 yr in the western coasts of Canada
(Adams et al., 2019) and the U.S. (USGS, 2022), western
Sumatra (Sengara et al., 2020), and Taiwan (Wang et al.,
2016), the estimated values are 2.40–4.00g. Similarly, values
of 2.40–4.00g have been calculated in the Honshu Island of
Japan (Fujiwara et al., 2012) and in New Zealand (Stirling et al.,
2012), even reaching 7.00g in the Shizuoka Prefecture and the
Canterbury and West Coast regions, respectively. In Costa
Rica, the peak values are 3.00–5.50g. We believe that these high
values along the western coastlines in the Pacific peninsulas of
Costa Rica express the extreme hazard of these regions located
at only 10–15 km on top of the interplate seismogenic zone
(e.g., DeShon et al., 2006; Arroyo et al., 2009; Arroyo and
Linkimer, 2021).
CONCLUSIONS
The 2022 Seismic Hazard Model for Costa Rica displays four
regions with distinct ground-motion levels, which correlate
with tectonic boundaries. These levels are: (1) extremely high
for ∼16% of the territory involving the Nicoya, Osa, and Burica
peninsulas, situated directly above the subduction interplate, in
which the PGA-475 could be 0.55–1.20g; (2) very high for most
of the Guanacaste Province (∼21% of the country), in which
the PGA-475 may be 0.55–0.70g; (3) high for ∼41% of Costa
Rica, including the central region and the capital city of San
Jose, with PGA-475 values from 0.40 to 0.55g; and (4) moderate
for the Talamanca Cordillera and Northern Costa Rica, with
PGA-475 up to 0.40g and corresponding to ∼22% of the
continental territory.
The expected ground motions are, in general, higher than
obtained in the previous studies, except for the central part of
the country, in which values are 0.10–0.20g smaller for PGA-
475. The Nicoya, Osa, and Burica peninsulas present the larg-
est increment (0.1–0.6g) in PGA-475 when compared with the
past works. In addition, we estimated a relative wide range of
dynamic amplification factors from 1.98 to 3.03, which chal-
lenge the use of a single value—a practice routinely performed
in Costa Rica.
Volume XX Number XX – 2023 www.bssaonline.org
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120220119/5743748/bssa-2022119.1.pdf
by Universidad de Costa Rica user
The seismic hazard estimated for the cities of San Jose—the
capital located in central Costa Rica, and Liberia—the biggest
city in Northern Costa Rica, show definite differences. In
Liberia, the seismic hazard is larger than for San Jose and is
mainly controlled by the interplate zone. The hazard for
San Jose is more complex and multisource from distances
up to 150 km, although lower than in Liberia.
Regular updates of the seismic hazard for Costa Rica are a
necessary task to incorporate the latest understanding of the
seismic sources, identify further research needs, contribute
to the seismic code, and provide a more robust and realistic
framework for seismic risk mitigation.
DATA AND RESOURCES
The National Seismological Network (RSN) catalog was obtained
from the National Seismological Network (RSN; http://www.rsn.ucr
.ac.cr, doi: 10.15517/TC). The Earthquake Engineering Laboratory
(LIS) catalog is available at https://www.crsmd.lis.ucr.ac.cr/. The
intensity measures and statistical summary can be found on the
website http://crsmd.lis.ucr.ac.cr/crsmdb.zip. Some plots were made
using Quantum Geographic Information System (QGIS) Geographic
Information System version 3.16.3 (Open Source Geospatial
Foundation project: http://www.qgis.org). The supplemental material
is composed of two tables. Table S1 has the seismicity parameters
established in the OpenQuake software. Table S2 has the magnitudes,
locations, and fault-plane solutions of the selected earthquakes. All
websites were last accessed in June 2022.
DECLARATION OF COMPETING INTERESTS
The authors acknowledge that there are no conflicts of interest
recorded.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was partially funded by the National Emergency and
Risk Prevention Law N°8488 of the Republic of Costa Rica and the
UCREA funds from the University of Costa Rica through the project
referenced as B9-780 as well as the research projects B5-704 and B9-
911. The authors thank Marco Pagani and Luis Mixco for a number of
helpful comments and discussions regarding OpenQuake, and two
anonymous reviewers whose comments greatly improve the article.
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, N., N. Gregor, and K. Addo (2016). BC hydro ground
motion prediction equations for subduction earthquakes, Earthq.
Spectra 32, no. 1, 23–44, doi: 10.1193/051712EQS188MR.
Adamek, S., C. Frohlich, and W. Pennington (1988). Seismicity of the
Caribbean-Nazca boundary: Constraints on microplate tectonics
of the Panama Region, J. Geophys. Res. 93, 2053–2075, doi:
10.1029/JB093iB03p02053.
Adams, J., T. Allen, S. Halchuk, and M. Kolaj (2019). Canada’s 6th
Generation Seismic Hazard Model, as Prepared for the 2020
National Building Code of Canada, 12th Canadian Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering, Quebec City.
Aki, K. (1965). Maximum likelihood estimated of b in the formula log
N = A – b*M and its confidence limits, Rev. Earthquakes Res. Inst.
Tokyo Univ. 43, 237–239.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America • 15
 Alonso-Henar, J., W. Montero, J. Martínez-Díaz, J. Álvarez-Gómez, J.
Insua-Arévalo, and W. Rojas (2013). The Aguacaliente fault,
source of the Cartago 1910 destructive earthquake (Costa Rica),
Terra Nova 25, no. 5, 368–373, doi: 10.1111/ter.12045.
Alvarado, G. E., B. Benito, A. Staller, Á. Climent, E. Camacho, W.
Rojas, G. Marroquín, E. Molina, J. E. Talavera, S. Martínez-
Cuevas, et al. (2017). The new central American seismic hazard
zonation: Mutual consensus based on up to day seismotectonic
framework, Tectonophysics 721, 462–476, doi: 10.1016/
j.tecto.2017.10.013.
Arcila, M., J. García, J. S. Montejo Espitia, J. F. Eraso, J. Valcárcel, M.
G. Mora Cuevas, D. Vigano, M. Pagani, and F. J. Díaz Parra (2020).
Modelo nacional de amenaza sísmica para Colombia, doi:
10.32685/9789585279469 (in Spanish).
Arroyo, I. G., and L. Linkimer (2021). Modelo unidimensional de
velocidades sísmicas y características tomográficas tridimensio-
nales del Caribe Sur de Costa Rica, Revista Geológica de
América Central 65, 1–15, doi: 10.15517/Rgac.V0i65.46696 (in
Spanish).
Arroyo-Solórzano, M., and L. Linkimer (2021). Spatial variability of
the b-value and seismic potential in Costa Rica, Tectonophysics doi:
10.1016/j.tecto.2021.228951.
Arroyo, I. G., S. Husen, E. R. Flueh, J. Gossler, E. Kissling, and G. E.
Alvarado (2009). Three-dimensional P-wave velocity structure on
the shallow part of the central Costa Rican Pacific margin from
local earthquake tomography using off- and onshore networks,
Geophys. J. Int. 179, no. 2, 827–849, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
246X.2009.04342.x.
Barckhausen, U., C. R. Ranero, R. von Huene, S. C. Cande, and H. A.
Roeser (2001). Revised tectonic boundaries in the Cocos plate off
Costa Rica: Implications for the segmentation of the convergent
margin and for plate tectonic models, J. Geophys. Res. 106,
no. B9, 207–220, doi: 10.1029/2001JB000238.
Benito, M. B., C. Lindholm, E. Camacho, Á. Climent, G. Marroquin, E.
Molina, W. Rojas, J. J. Escobar, E. Talavera, G. E. Alvarado, et al.
(2012). A new evaluation of seismic hazard for the central America
region, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 102, no. 2, 504–523, doi: 10.1785/
0120110015.
Bommer, J. J. (2004). The challenge of defining upper bounds on
earthquake ground motions, Seismol. Res. Lett. 75, no. 1, 82–95,
doi: 10.1785/gssrl.75.1.82.
Boore, D. M., J. P. Stewart, E. Seyhan, and G. M. Atkinson (2014).
NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped
PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes, Earthq. Spectra 30, no. 3,
1057–1085, doi: 10.1193/070113EQS184M.
Campbell, K. W. (2003). Prediction of strong ground motion using the
hybrid empirical method and its use in the development of
ground-motion (attenuation) relations in eastern North
America, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93, no. 3, 1012–1033, doi:
10.1785/0120020002.
Cauzzi, C., E. Faccioli, M. Vanini, and A. Bianchini (2015). Updated
predictive equations for broadband (0.01–10 s) horizontal
response spectra and peak ground motions, based on a global data-
set of digital acceleration records, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 13, no. 6,
1587–1612, doi: 10.1007/s10518-014-9685-y.
CFIA (2016). Código Sísmico de Costa Rica 2010 (Revisión 2014), Fifth
Ed., Editorial Tecnológica de Costa Rica, Cartago (in Spanish).
16 • Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120220119/5743748/bssa-2022119.1.pdf
by Universidad de Costa Rica user
Chan, C. H., K. F. Ma, J. B. H. Shyu, Y. T. Lee, Y. J. Wang, J. C. Gao, Y.
T. Yen, and R. J. Rau (2020). Probabilistic seismic hazard assess-
ment for Taiwan: TEM PSHA2020, Earthq. Spectra 36, 137–159,
doi: 10.1177/8755293020951587.
Climent, Á., W. Rojas, G. E. Alvarado, and M. B. Benito (2008).
Proyecto Resis II Evaluación de la amenaza sísmica (in Spanish).
Climent, Á., W. Taylor, M. Ciudad-Real, W. Strauch, M. Villagran, A.
Dahle, and H. Bungum (1994). NORSAR technical report: Spectral
strong motion attenuation in central America, NORSAR Technical
Report No. 2-17, , 63 pp.
Cotton, F., F. Scherbaum, J. J. Bommer, and H. Bungum (2006).
Criteria for selecting and adjusting ground-motion models for spe-
cific target regions: Application to central Europe and rock sites, J.
Seismol. 10, no. 2, 137–156, doi: 10.1007/s10950-005-9006-7.
DeMets, C., R. G. Gordon, and D. F. Argus (2010). Geologically cur-
rent plate motions, Geophys. J. Int. 181, 1–80, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
246X.2009.04491.x.
Denyer, P., W. Montero, and G. E. Alvarado (2009). Atlas tectónico de
Costa Rica, Editorial Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, Costa
Rica, 64 pp. (in Spanish).
DeShon, H., S. Schwartz, A. V. Newman, V. González, M. Protti, L. M.
Dorman, T. H. Dixon, D. E. Sampson, and E. R. Flueh (2006).
Seismogenic zone structure beneath the Nicoya peninsula,
Costa Rica, from three-dimensional local earthquake P and S-wave
tomography, Geophys. J. Int. 164, no. 1, 109–124, doi: 10.1111/
j.1365-246X.2005.02809.x.
Douglas, J. (2021). Ground motion prediction equations 1964-2021,
available at http://www.gmpe.org.uk/ (last accessed May 2021).
Fan, G., S. Beck, and T. Wallace (1993). The seismic source param-
eters of the 1991 Costa Rica aftershock sequence: Evidence for a
transcurrent plate boundary, J. Geophys. Res. 98, 15,759–15,778.
Fujiwara, H., N. Morikawa, T. Okumura, Y. Ishikawa, and N. Nojima
(2012). Revision of probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for
Japan after the 2011 Tohoku-Oki mega-thrust earthquake
(M9.0), 15th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon,
Portugal, 24–28 September 2012.
García, D., S. K. Singh, M. Herraíz, M. Ordaz, and J. F. Pacheco
(2005). Inslab earthquakes of central Mexico: Peak ground-motion
parameters and response spectra, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 95, no. 6,
2272–2282, doi: 10.1785/0120050072.
Gardner, J., and L. Knopoff (1974). Is the sequence of earthquakes in
southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian? Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 64, no. 5, 1363–1367.
Global Earthquake Model (GEM) (2018a). CCARA project:
Caribbean and central America earthquake risk assessment, avail-
able at https://www.globalquakemodel.org/project/ccara (last
accessed April 2022).
Global Earthquake Model (GEM) (2018b). gmpe-smtk, available at
https://github.com/GEMScienceTools/gmpe-smtk (last accessed
October 2020).
Global Earthquake Model (GEM) (2020). The OpenQuake-
engine user manual, Global Earthquake Model (GEM)
OpenQuake Manual for Engine version 3.9.0 doi: 10.13117/
GEM.OPENQUAKE.MAN.ENGINE.3.9.0.
Güendel, F. (1986). Seismotectonics of Costa Rica: An analytical view
of the southern terminus of the middle America trench, University
of California at Santa Cruz, Ph.D. Thesis, 157 pp.
www.bssaonline.org Volume XX Number XX – 2023
 Kanno, T., A. Narita, N. Morikawa, H. Fujiwara, and Y. Fukushima
(2006). A new attenuation relation for strong ground motion in
Japan based on recorded data, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96, no. 3,
879–897, doi: 10.1785/0120050138.
Kobayashi, D., P. LaFemina, H. Geirsson, E. Chichaco, A. A. Abrego,
H. Mora, and E. Camacho (2014). Kinematics of the western
Caribbean: Collision of the Cocos Ridge and upper plate deforma-
tion, Geochem. Geophys. Geosys. 15, doi: 10.1002/ 2014GC005234.
Kolarsky, R. A., and P. Mann (1995). Structure and neotectonics of an
oblique subduction margin, southwestern Panama, in Geologic and
Tectonic Development of the Caribbean Plate Boundary in Southern
Central America, P. Mann (Editor), Geological Society of America,
Special Paper, Colorado, U.S.A., 295–349 pp.
Kotha, S. R., D. Bindi, and F. Cotton (2017). From ergodic to region-
and site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard assessment: Method
development and application at European and middle eastern sites,
Earthq. Spectra 33, no. 4, 1433–1453, doi: 10.1193/081016EQS130M.
Kyriakopoulos, C., A. V. Newman, A. M. Thomas, M. Moore-Driskell,
and G. T. Farmer (2015). A new seismically constrained subduc-
tion interface model for central America, J. Geophys. Res. 120,
5535–5548, doi: 10.1002/2014JB011859.
LaFemina, P., T. H. Dixon, R. Govers, E. Norabuena, H. Turner, A.
Saballos, G. Mattioli, M. Protti, and W. Strauch (2009). Forearc
motion and Cocos Ridge collision in central America, Geochem.
Geophys. Geosys. 10, doi: 10.1029/2008GC002181.
Laporte, M., C. Lindholm, H. Bungunr, and A. Dahle (1994). NORSAR
technical report: Seismic hazard for Costa Rica, NORSAR Technical
Report No. 2-14, 73 pp.
Lin, P. S., and C. T. Lee (2008). Ground-motion attenuation relation-
ships for subduction-zone earthquakes in northeastern Taiwan,
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 98, no. 1, 220–240, doi: 10.1785/0120060002.
Linkimer, L., and G. E. Alvarado (2014). Distribución espacio-temporal de
la sismicidad sentida en Costa Rica (1976-2013) en el marco histórico
del 30 aniversario (1982-2012) de la Red Sismológica Nacional
(RSN: UCR-ICE), Rev. Geol. Amér. Central, Spec. 30, aniversario
(1984-2014), 45–71, doi: 10.15517/rgac.v0i0.16569 (in Spanish).
Linkimer, L., I. G. Arroyo, G. Alvarado, M. Arroyo, and H. Bakkar
(2018). The National Seismological network of Costa Rica (RSN):
An overview and recent developments, Seismol. Res. Lett. 89,
no. 2A, 392–398.
Liu, C., X. Xiong, Y. Zheng, A. López, R. Wang, and J. Li (2015).
Rupture processes of the 2012 September 5 Mw 7.6 Nicoya,
Costa Rica earthquake constrained by improved geodetic and seis-
mological observations, Geophys. J. Int. 203, no. 1, 175–183, doi:
10.1093/gji/ggv295.
Lücke, O. H., and I. G. Arroyo (2015). Density structure and geometry of
the Costa Rican subduction zone from 3-D gravity modeling and local
earthquake data, Solid Earth 6, 1169–1183, doi: 10.5194/se-6-1169-2015.
Makropoulos, K., and P. Burton (1983). Seismic risk of circum-pacific
earthquakes I. Strain energy release, Pure Appl. Geophys. 121,
no. 2, 247–266.
MacMillan, I., P. B. Gans, and G. E. Alvarado (2004). Middle Miocene
to present plate tectonic history of the southern central American
volcanic arc, Tectonophysics 392, 325–348.
Marshall, J., D. Fisher, and T. Gardner (2000). Central Costa Rica
deformed belt: Kinematics of diffuse faulting across the western
Panamá block, Tectonics 19, 468–492.
Volume XX Number XX – 2023 www.bssaonline.org
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120220119/5743748/bssa-2022119.1.pdf
by Universidad de Costa Rica user
Medina, F., S. C. Harmsen, and S. E. Barrientos (2017). Probabilistic
seismic hazard analysis for Chile, 16th World Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering, Santiago, Chile, 9–13 January 2017.
Montalva, G. A., N. Bastías, and A. Rodriguez-Marek (2017). Ground-
motion prediction equation for the Chilean subduction zone, Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 107, no. 2, 901–911, doi: 10.1785/0120160221.
Montero, W. (2001). Neotectónica de la región central de Costa Rica:
frontera oeste de la microplaca de Panamá, Revista Geológica de
América Central 24, 29–56 (in Spanish).
Morales, L. D. (1986). Historia de la sismología en Costa Rica, Revista
de Filosofía Universidad de Costa Rica 24, no. 59, 93–104.
Mortgat, C. P., T. C. Zsutty, H. C. Shah, and L. Lubetkin (1977). A
Study of Seismic Risk for Costa Rica, John A. Blume Earthquake
Engineering Center, Stanford.
Moya-Fernández, A., L. A. Pinzón, V. Schmidt-Díaz, D. A. Hidalgo-
Leiva, and L. G. Pujades (2020). A strong-motion database of Costa
Rica: 20 yr of digital records, Seismol. Res. Lett. 91, no. 6, 3407–
3416, doi: 10.1785/0220200036.
Parra, H., M. B. Benito, and J. M. Gaspar-Escribano (2016). Seismic
hazard assessment in continental Ecuador, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 14,
2129–2159, doi: 10.1007/s10518-016-9906-7.
Pinzón, L. A., D. A. Hidalgo-Leiva, A. Moya-Fernández, V. Schmidt-
Díaz, and L. G. Pujades (2021). Seismic site classification of the
Costa Rican strong-motion network based on Vs30 measurements
and site fundamental period, Earth Sci. Res. J. 25, no. 4, 383–389,
doi: 10.15446/esrj.v25n4.93927.
Protti, M., V. González, and A. Newman (2014). Nicoya earthquake
rupture anticipated by geodetic measurement of the locked plate
interface, Nature Geosci. 7, 117–121, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2038.
Rojas, W., H. Cowan, C. Lindholm, A. Dahle, and H. Bungum (1993).
NORSAR technical report: Regional seismic zonation for central
América a preliminary modelNORSAR report under the RESIS I
regional seismology project, 40 pp.
Sallarès, V., P. Charvis, E. R. Flueh, and J. Bialas (2003). Seismic struc-
ture of Cocos and Malpelo volcanic ridges and implications for hot
spot-ridge interaction, J. Geophys. Res. 108, no. B12, 2564, doi:
10.1029/2003JB002431.
Sallarès, V., J. J. Dañobeitia, and E. R. Flueh (2001), Lithospheric
structure of the Costa Rican Isthmus: Effects of subduction zone
magmatism on an oceanic plateau, J. Geophys. Res. 106, no. B1,
621–643, doi: 10.1029/2000JB900245.
Sengara, I. W., M. Irsyam, I. D. Sidi, A. Mulia, M. Asrurifak, D.
Hutabarat, and W. Partono (2020), New 2019 risk-targeted ground
motions for spectral design criteria in Indonesian seismic building
code, E3S Web Conf. 156, 03010, doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/
202015603010.
Scherbaum, F., F. Cotton, and P. Smit (2004). On the use of response
spectral-reference data for the selection and ranking of ground-
motion models for seismic-hazard analysis in regions of moderate
seismicity: The case of rock motion, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 94,
no. 6, 2164–2185, doi: 10.1785/0120030147.
Scherbaum, F., E. Delavaud, and C. Riggelsen (2009). Model selection
in seismic hazard analysis: An information-theoretic perspective,
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 99, no. 6, 3234–3247, doi: 10.1785/
0120080347.
Schmidt-Díaz, V., A. Dahle, and H. Bungum (1997). NORSAR tech-
nical report: Costa Rican spectral strong motion attenuation,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America • 17
 NORSAR report under the RESIS I regional seismology project,
45 pp.
Schmidt-Díaz, V., D. A. Hidalgo-Leiva, A. L. Acuña, A. Moya-
Fernández, E. Cordero, C. Segura, and E. López (2014).
Aceleraciones del terremoto de Sámara del 05 de setiembre del
2012, Revista En Torno a La Prevención 12, no. 1, 38–47 (in Spanish).
Silver, E. A., D. L. Reed, J. E. Tagudin, and D. J. Heil (1990).
Implications of the north and south Panama thrust belts for
the origin of the Panama Orocline, Tectonics 9, no. 2, 261–281,
doi: 10.1029/TC009i002p00261.
Stepp, J. (1972). Analysis of completeness of the earthquake sample in
the Puget Sound area and its effect on statistical estimates of
earthquake hazard, Proc. of the Microzonation Conference,
Vol. 2, 897–909.
Stirling, M., G. McVerry, M. Gerstenberger, N. Litchfield, R. Van
Dissen, K. Berryman, P. Barnes, L. Wallace, P. Villamor, R.
Langridge, et al. (2012). National seismic hazard model for
New Zealand: 2010 update, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 102, no. 4,
1514–1542, doi: 10.1785/0120110170.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2022). Available at https://www.usgs
.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/science/national-seismic-
hazard-maps (last accessed June 2022).
Von Huene, R., C. R. Ranero, W. Weinrebe, and K. Hinz (2000).
Quaternary convergent margin tectonics of Costa Rica, segmenta-
tion of the Cocos plate, and central American volcanism, Tectonics
19, no. 2, 314–334, doi: 10.1029/1999tc001143.
Walther, C. H. E. (2003). The crustal structure of Cocos Ridge off Costa
Rica, J. Geophys. Res. 108, no. B3, 2136, doi: 10.1029/2001JB000888.
Wang, Y.-J., Y.-T. Lee, C.-H. Chan, and K.-F. Ma (2016). An investi-
gation of the reliability of the Taiwan earthquake model PSHA2015,
Seismol. Res. Lett. 87, no. 6, 1287–1298, doi: 10.1785/0220160085.
18 • Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120220119/5743748/bssa-2022119.1.pdf
by Universidad de Costa Rica user
Weichert, D. (1980). Estimation of the earthquake recurrence param-
eters for unequal observation periods for different magnitudes,
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 70, no. 4, 1337–1346.
Wells, D. L., and K. J. Coppersmith (1994). New empirical relation-
ship between magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture
area, and surface displacement, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84,
no. 4, 974–1002.
Westbrook, G. K., N. C. Hardt, and R. Heath (1995). Structure and
tectonics of the Panama–Nazca boundary, in Geologic and
Tectonic Development of the Caribbean Plate Boundary in
Southern Central America, P. Mann, (Editor), Geological
Society of America, Special Paper, Colorado, U.S.A., 295, 349 pp.
Wiemer, S., and M. Wyss (2000). Minimum magnitude of completeness
in earthquake catalogs: Examples from Alaska, the western United
States, and Japan, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 90, no. 4, 859–869.
Yue, H., T. Lay, S. Y. Schwartz, L. Rivera, M. Protti, T. H. Dixon, S.
Owen, and A. V. Newman (2013). The 5 September 2012 Nicoya,
Costa Rica Mw 7.6 earthquake rupture process from joint inver-
sion of high-rate GPS, strong-motion, and teleseismic P wave
data and its relationship to adjacent plate boundary interface
properties, J. Geophys. Res. 118, 5453–5466, doi: 10.1002/
jgrb.50379.
Zhao, J. X., J. Zhang, A. Asano, Y. Ohno, T. Oouchi, T. Takahashi, H.
Ogawa, K. Irikura, H. K. Thio, P. G. Somerville, et al. (2006).
Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site
classification based on predominant period, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
96, no. 3, 898–913, doi: 10.1785/0120050122.
Manuscript received 22 June 2022
Published online 2 December 2022
www.bssaonline.org Volume XX Number XX – 2023