1. Disaster risk management
a) prevent, reduce and manage disaster risks thus strengthening resilience
b) apply plans and actions which are developed into various strategies by communities
2. Disaster risk and loss
a) brings serious economic, social and environment consequences
b) is costly for individuals and countries, and may hinder their development
3. Reducing disaster risks
a) important for disaster-prone developing countries
b) a cost-effective investment in preventing future losses, thus contributing to sustainable development
Preventing disaster
Look at how earthquake affects the 101 tower while it was being built in March 2002 and how the mass damper help to stabalise it in another earthquake in 2022.
How do disaster risks and losses hinder development?
One example is the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, which pushed the proportion of people living below the poverty line in Aceh, Indonesia, from 30 to 50 percent. Many lost their homes, jobs and sources of income, hindering Aceh’s development.
Why is it important to reduce disaster risk for disaster-prone developing countries?
Developing countries often lack the capacity (e.g. technological know-how and resources) to adequately prevent, reduce, and manage disaster risks and recover from disasters other than the lack of fund. Watch the video to see how Haiti is still struggling from the 2010 earthquake.
"Less developed countries often suffer more from the effects of tectonic hazards than more developed countries."
How far do you agree with the statement? Support your answer with named examples.
1. DCs are likely to have buildings designed to withstand earthquakes. They have the money and systems to make sure that buildings are carefully designed to withstand shaking, and can afford to add safety features to older buildings that may be at risk. They may have huge rubber pads built into the foundations (seismic isolators) or very deep foundations to hold them firmly in place. In 1995 the Kobe earthquake hit in Japan. Measuring 7.2 on the Richter scale it had the potential to cause massive damage to vulnerable buildings, but because many buildings were designed to withstand earthquakes, only 5000 people were killed. LDC's often can't afford to build new structures to the same standards as DC's, they have a greater chance of poor quality construction, and they lack the money to upgrade older buildings. In contrast to the Kobe earthquake that killed 5000, an earthquake of a slightly smaller intensity hit Turkey in 1999. It killed 17,000 people.
2. DCs have disaster plans, government departments responsible for managing and coordinating emergency responses, and for educating the public about natural hazards. In Japan, all school children practice earthquake drill in the same way that we practice fire drill. Emergency services actually practice through simulations, so they know exactly what they should do if disaster strikes. Most LDCs don't have enough money to develop emergency plans, buy the response equipment and training needed, and conduct very expensive training exercises involving thousands of people.
3. DCs are self reliant. They can afford to allocate funds to 'just in case' measures. They keep emergency stocks of medicines, tents, blankets, food, water, and communications equipment. It's kept ready for use and constantly updated. Many LDCs struggle to provide these facilities for normal use let alone keep a spare set of everything in case of disasters. The speed with which these resources reach an area is critical to reducing deaths. DCs have the resources close at hand and can be sending them out within hours. By contrast, LDCs often have to ask for help, and mobilising international aid can take days. A homeless person in San Francisco who gets shelter, food and medical aid within 12 hours has a much better chance of survival than a Turkish farmer who will be waiting for days or even weeks before aid reaches him.
http://www.geography-site.co.uk/pages/physical/earth/earthquake_impact.html
Possible conclusion
In conclusion, I largely agree that less developed countries often suffer more from the effects of tectonic hazards, primarily due to their vulnerable socioeconomic status. These countries are more likely to lack the necessary infrastructure, healthcare systems, and disaster preparedness, which exacerbates the impact of tectonic events. Furthermore, poverty, inadequate housing, and limited access to resources make it harder for these nations to recover quickly. While more developed countries may have better mechanisms in place to mitigate the effects of such hazards, it is important to recognize that less developed countries face heightened challenges in coping with and recovering from such disasters due to their economic and social vulnerabilities. Therefore, improving these nations' resilience through investments in infrastructure and disaster management is crucial in reducing the gap in the impacts of tectonic hazards.