Describe two ways in which land-use planning (zoning) can reduce hazard risk for a named hazard type.

Explain three reasons why people continue to reside in areas that are known to be affected by hazards.

“Hazard events are predictable, disasters are not.” Discuss this statement.

The hazard type should be clearly stated otherwise award no more than [2 marks] for a generalized answer not directly related to a hazard.

In each case, award [1 mark] for identifying a land-use planning strategy, and [1 mark] for describing the nature of the risk.

For example:

• housing can be prohibited on low-lying areas [1 mark] which suffer inundation when hurricanes strike [1 mark]
• emergency services can be located in areas of low earthquake risk [1 mark] for instance away from major fault zones [1 mark].

Award [1 mark] for each valid reason why people continue to occupy a site and [1 mark] for some explanation of why they tolerate the hazard risk.

Possible site reasons could include: fertile soils, mineral deposits, tourist potential, attachment to home, inertia, lack of funds to move/poverty.

Possible explanation of why risk is ignored/tolerated may include: some people know the risk (experts) but not others; perception of severity of hazard; belief that recurrence will not happen anytime soon; confidence in defences/personal resilience.

For instance:

• “Attractive landscapes are found in coastal areas [1 mark]. People think the day-to-day benefit of living there outweighs the occasional risk of a storm surge [1 mark].”
• A volcano may only explode every 500 years or so [1 mark]. So people won’t abandon their homes for such a very small chance [1 mark].”
• “Many tourist jobs are found in coastal areas with a hurricane risk [1 mark] and people trust the warning systems work [1 mark].”
• “People have a fatalistic attitude [1 mark], and remain in an area because of tradition/religious beliefs [1 mark].”

There may be other approaches and these should be credited.

Credit all content in line with the markbands. Credit unexpected approaches wherever relevant.

Hazard events are the occurrence of a hazard, the effects of which change demographic, economic and/or environmental conditions. By contrast, disasters are the realization of major hazard events that cause widespread disruption to a community or regions that the affected community is unable to deal with adequately without outside help.

Some environmental hazard events are more predictable than others eg hurricanes and volcanoes. Others are less so eg earthquakes, tsunami and human-induced technological hazards. Earthquake prediction might suggest where, but not when,
and not the size of the event – so there are aspects of “predictable” to address that may be a feature of good answers.

Disasters are less predictable because the final intensity/magnitude of the hazard event, the resilience of defences and structures, and the extent of the area affected are unknown until after the event. The density of the population and wealth of the area affected are also contributory factors that mean the scale of disaster is not known until after the event when financial reckoning occurs.

For band D, candidates must comment on the predictability of hazards and disasters.

Band E should either provide greater detail about some range of hazard and disaster events, and the extent to which either are predictable, or offer some discussion of the concept of predictability, which has different dimensions (scale, cost, recovery).

At band F, expect both elements.

Many misunderstood the concept of land-use planning and there were some elaborate answers about building design. Floodplains were frequently used and although not part of the hazards option in the syllabus these were credited.

No problems found although a few found it hard to explain with sufficient depth why the people tolerated the risk.

This seemingly straightforward question proved a challenge. Most were able to discuss the predictability (or otherwise) of hazard events, but were often unable to consider that of disasters. There were many descriptive accounts of hazard events in LEDCs and MEDCs, which often did not relate to the question. A worrying number of candidates believe that earthquakes are predictable as to timing and strength.