(i) Define the term disaster.

(ii) Outline two long-term actions a community can take to reduce the economic impact of hurricanes.

Explain the causes of one named human-induced hazard event.

Examine the reasons why people continue to live in areas that have been affected by severe drought hazard events.

(i) A major hazard event that needs outside help.

(ii) In each case award [1] for a basic way to reduce economic losses and [1] for some development (using knowledge of hurricanes, economics, planning, governance etc) or the applied use of an example, such as measures introduced after a named hurricane.

• Strengthen buildings [1] and may have details of structures or where this was done [1].
• Purchase insurance [1] and may explain how policies operate to reduce costs for individuals [1].
• Land-use planning [1] and may give details of areas to be avoided eg low lying land with flood risk [1].
• Improved warning systems [1], may suggest details, or describes a place where this was done [1].

Award [1] for correctly identifying a named human-induced (human error) hazard event such as the 2010 major industrial waste spill in Hungary, the Chernobyl nuclear power incident, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill (does not need to state year).

Award up to [4] for the explanation, for example:

• human error in design/operation identified [1] and may provide further explanation of this [1]
• provides specific details of the hazardous material provided eg names gas, radioactive isotopes [1]
• provides detail of how physical processes eg ocean currents, wind, led to a larger area or particular areas being affected [1] and may give examples of areas [1]
• shows why the event constituted a hazard risk to humans eg oil affected populated areas of Florida [1]
• credit other valid explanatory material (on the cause of the event/why it constitutes a hazard).

“High tech” problems triggered by a natural hazard eg Fukushima 2011 can be awarded up to [3] only.

Drought should ideally be understood as below average/expected/normal precipitation (and not simply arid environments). The answer should ideally be related to the global distribution of actual drought, including named areas (may consider irregularities of mid-latitude air mass movements; cyclic shifts; El Niño and La Niña).

Answers that deal with naturally arid regions (that are not necessarily subject to drought, such as normal summers in the Mediterranean) can reach band E (but not band F) if the discussion of human behaviour or adaptation is good.

Reasons might include:

• lack of knowledge including serious secondary risks (wildfires)
• lack of economic options/poverty/inertia/fatalism
• political issues eg refugees forced into drought-stricken areas
• too trusting of insurance/governance
• resilient/adaptive behaviour eg water storage, deep wells, crop diversification, temporary migration etc.

Good answers may examine in a structured way how reasons may vary according to the type of geographical area (level of development, scale, physical location eg continentality, geopolitics eg conflict zones). Another approach might be to examine the timescale over which drought events have occurred or knowledge of their recurrence intervals.

For band D, expect some description of a drought and/or some reasons why people do not relocate from hazardous areas in general.

At band E, expect either more detailed explanation of reasons why people remain in drought-prone areas or a structured examination of different kinds of area/context for drought.

At band F expect both of these elements.

Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.

(i) Definitions had to refer to the need for outside help to gain the mark.

(ii) When referring to the long-term actions, each point needed to be further developed to gain the additional mark. For example, candidates mentioned land-use planning but answers were generalized without development.

The question refers to a human-induced hazard event, such as Chernobyl or a major oil spill. Note that Fukushima is a problem triggered by a natural hazard and is not really relevant. Many described the event and discussed the impacts rather than examining the causes.

This was generally well answered. The best candidates used comparative case studies from, for example, Australia and a Sahel country.