‘the Extent to Which the Earthquake Hazard Can Be Managed Depends on a Country’s Level of Development.’
A ‘hazard’ can be defined as a geophysical process operating within the lithosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere or biosphere which could potentially lead to the loss of human life or property. However, an earthquake only becomes hazardous and therefore needs management if it occurs within close proximity to a vulnerable population. To some extent, any human settlement around the world situated close to or on top of an area of seismic activity is vulnerable. However, not all nations suffer equal devastation.
90% of hazard related deaths occur in LEDCs but 75% of hazard related economic losses occur in MEDCs. These figures highlight the vast differences in scale but also the type of impacts nations’ experience. This is largely due to the level of management in place before and after an earthquake has struck. But the level of sophistication, scale and therefore effectiveness of this management depends largely on a country’s level of development. However, it could be argued that there are many aspects of an earthquake hazard that a country, regardless of its development, has no way of controlling or preparing for. For example, the actual location and tectonic setting of the earthquake, its magnitude and depth and the topography and underlying geology of the area affected.
Most earthquakes coincide with major plate margins, some of which have a greater density of quakes, for example along the west coast of South America and in the Japan/Philippine region, than others like the Pacific Rise or the Mid Atlantic Ridge. Also, earthquakes at destructive margins have a greater spread and therefore more locations are at risk than at constructive plate boundaries. Looking at the top twenty most devastating earthquakes from 1990, they all occurred at either destructive or transform margins. Therefore, irrespective of their level of development, some countries are automatically more vulnerable to an earthquake hazard, just by their geographical location.
Similarly, the depth
90% of hazard related deaths occur in LEDCs but 75% of hazard related economic losses occur in MEDCs. These figures highlight the vast differences in scale but also the type of impacts nations’ experience. This is largely due to the level of management in place before and after an earthquake has struck. But the level of sophistication, scale and therefore effectiveness of this management depends largely on a country’s level of development. However, it could be argued that there are many aspects of an earthquake hazard that a country, regardless of its development, has no way of controlling or preparing for. For example, the actual location and tectonic setting of the earthquake, its magnitude and depth and the topography and underlying geology of the area affected.
Most earthquakes coincide with major plate margins, some of which have a greater density of quakes, for example along the west coast of South America and in the Japan/Philippine region, than others like the Pacific Rise or the Mid Atlantic Ridge. Also, earthquakes at destructive margins have a greater spread and therefore more locations are at risk than at constructive plate boundaries. Looking at the top twenty most devastating earthquakes from 1990, they all occurred at either destructive or transform margins. Therefore, irrespective of their level of development, some countries are automatically more vulnerable to an earthquake hazard, just by their geographical location.
Similarly, the depth