Option D • Section 3
Hazard Risk and Vulnerability
Controlled comparisons showing why similar hazards produce profoundly different impacts and recovery pathways.
The varying impacts of geophysical hazards on human wellbeing
Haiti and Christchurch
Similar-magnitude events, contrasting tectonic, geographic and socioeconomic contexts.
Compare hazard profile before development level: magnitude, depth, distance, duration and secondary hazards. Then analyse building quality, governance, preparedness, infrastructure, inequality and response capacity.
Controlled comparison
Use the same headings for both cases: event profile, primary hazards, secondary hazards, wellbeing impacts, vulnerability, preparedness, response and recovery. Finish with the most significant explanatory factor.
Fuego and Eyjafjallajökull
Warning, evacuation, hazard reach, governance and global connectivity shape contrasting outcomes.
Fuego’s pyroclastic flows devastated nearby communities; Eyjafjallajökull caused limited direct loss of life but widespread aviation disruption. Compare whose wellbeing was affected, where and for how long.
Compare eruption pathways
Trace tectonic setting → eruption characteristics → hazards → exposed groups → warning and response → local and global impacts. Evaluate whether preparedness or hazard characteristics best explain the contrast.
Blatten and Freetown
Two devastating mass movements reveal the life-saving value of monitoring, zoning, evacuation and institutional capacity.
Blatten, Switzerland (28 May 2025) was largely destroyed after rock-slope failure and the Birch Glacier collapse produced a huge debris avalanche. Monitoring and evacuation meant very low loss of life despite catastrophic physical destruction. Regent–Freetown, Sierra Leone (14 August 2017) followed intense rainfall on a steep, modified slope amid rapid urban growth and limited warning capacity, causing major mortality and displacement.
Explain two disaster chains
For each case, build a chain from preparatory conditions and trigger through movement and exposure to impacts and response. Compare monitoring, land-use planning, evacuation and recovery capacity. Conclude why destruction did not translate into similar mortality.
Vulnerability models
Use the Pressure and Release model and disaster-recovery curves to move from description to explanation.
Case-study synthesis
For one comparison, identify root causes, dynamic pressures and unsafe conditions. Then sketch contrasting recovery curves and explain how preparedness, insurance, governance, aid and inequality affect the speed and quality of recovery.