How tectonic hazards are managed using the hazard management cycle, the Park model, prediction and monitoring, mitigation and preparedness at local, national and international scales.

What this dot point is asking

Edexcel wants you to explain how the impacts of tectonic hazards can be reduced through management. You need the hazard management cycle, the Park model (disaster response curve), the role of prediction, forecasting and monitoring, the differences between mitigation and preparedness, and how responses operate at local, national and international scales.

The hazard management cycle and the Park model

The Park model, or disaster response curve, plots quality of life against time. After the hazard strikes, the curve plunges, then climbs back through three phases. Relief covers the first hours and days of search, rescue and emergency aid. Rehabilitation spans weeks to months, restoring water, power and temporary shelter. Reconstruction lasts months to years, rebuilding to a normal or improved standard. The shape is diagnostic: a wealthy, well-prepared place dips less and recovers above its original level, while a poorly governed place stays low for years.

This is why management reduces impacts even though it cannot remove the hazard. In Japan after Tohoku 2011, rapid relief and reconstruction to a higher standard, including raised sea walls, produced a shallow dip and strong recovery. In Haiti 2010, a weak state left relief dependent on NGOs and reconstruction stalled, so the curve stayed depressed.

Prediction, forecasting and monitoring

Prediction differs sharply between hazard types, and that difference drives management strategy.

Eyjafjallajokull, Iceland (2010) shows volcanic monitoring in action: seismicity and deformation flagged the eruption, and though the ash cloud grounded European aviation, monitoring guided the response. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, which had no warning system, directly prompted the Indian Ocean tsunami warning system built on DART technology, showing how disasters feed back into the management cycle.

Mitigation, preparedness and scales of response

Mitigation reduces the long-term risk before any event. Land-use zoning keeps housing off the most dangerous ground. Aseismic building techniques include base isolation (bearings that decouple a building from ground motion), cross-bracing and deep foundations anchored into bedrock. Tsunami walls defend low coasts, and lava diversion has been attempted by building barriers and spraying water, as at Mount Etna.

Preparedness turns warnings into safe action through drills, education and evacuation planning. Responses operate across scales: local councils zone land and run drills; national governments fund warning systems and building codes; international actors such as the UN and NGOs like the Red Cross and Oxfam provide relief and reconstruction aid, which dominated the response in Haiti.

Examples in context

Example 1: Japan, integrated management. Japan layers prediction, mitigation and preparedness. After the $M_w\,9.0$ Tohoku quake of 11 March 2011, an earthquake early-warning system gave seconds of notice, base-isolated buildings limited shaking deaths, and reconstruction raised sea walls above 14 m in places. The roughly $18{,}000$ deaths were mostly from the tsunami that overtopped older defences, showing both the success and the limits of engineering.

Example 2: Haiti 2010, NGO-led recovery. The $M_w\,7.0$ quake on 12 January 2010 killed around $230{,}000$ people. With a weak state, relief and rehabilitation were led by NGOs and the UN, and reconstruction was slow and uneven, with hundreds of thousands still in camps years later. The Park curve stayed low, illustrating how low capacity to cope lengthens recovery.

Try this

Q1. Explain why volcanic eruptions are easier to manage through evacuation than earthquakes. [4 marks]

• Cue. Volcanoes give monitorable precursors (gas, deformation, seismicity, thermal) enabling timed evacuation; earthquakes give no reliable short-term warning, so management relies on building design and preparedness.

Q2. Outline how the Park model can be used to compare recovery in two countries. [4 marks]

• Cue. Compare the depth of the dip and the final level reached through relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction; link a shallow, high-recovering curve to high capacity to cope, as in Japan versus Haiti.