Examine how social and economic strategies may reduce people’s vulnerability to earthquake hazard events.

Evaluate pre-event strategies and post-event strategies for the management of mass movement hazards.

Marks should be allocated according to the Paper 1 markbands (available under the "Your tests" tab > supplemental materials).

The vulnerability of people to an earthquake hazard varies spatially. Mitigating measures to reduce vulnerability to injury, disease and death include a variety of social and economic strategies. Levels of wealth, and planning by local and national authorities, will influence their effectiveness.

Possible applied themes (AO2) demonstrating knowledge and understanding (AO1):

• Levels of vulnerability vary spatially, between and within communities.
• Reduction in vulnerability concerns both individuals and communities.
• Social strategies include increasing perception of the hazard risk, knowledge and degree of preparedness.
• Reduction in vulnerability might involve risk reduction through measures such as education, drills, increasing awareness.
• Increasing individual, family and community preparedness includes storing food and water for emergencies, emergency kits.
• Special preparation strategies may be needed for disabled, elderly and young children.
• Economic strategies / wealth – making buildings and infrastructure more resilient; improved communications (warnings); media.
• There is a relationship between social and economic strategies, at different scales.

Good answers may be well structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) that examines how vulnerability may be reduced at different spatial scales (individual, family, community), and the role and power of different stakeholders. Another approach might be to critically examine the interaction between social and economic factors at different scales.

For 5–6 marks, expect some weakly evidenced outlining of some social and/or economic strategies to reduce human vulnerability.

For 7–8 marks, expect a structured account that includes:

• either an evidenced explanation of a variety of social and economic strategies (do not expect balance) to reduce human vulnerability
• or a discursive conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives.

For 9–10 marks, expect both of these traits.

Marks should be allocated according to the Paper 1 markbands (available under the "Your tests" tab > supplemental materials).

Mass movements pose a considerable risk to people and infrastructure, especially in upland areas with steep slopes and high rainfall. The potential risk may increase due to human activity modifying the slopes through the building of settlements and roads and changing the vegetation cover on vulnerable slopes. Hazard risk and vulnerability may be the result of different types of mass movement, from slow (soil creep, solifluction) to rapid (landslides, rockfalls).

Possible applied themes (AO2) demonstrating knowledge and understanding (AO1):

• Pre-event strategies include:
  • identifying areas at risk (geological surveys and mapping)
  • GIS
  • slope stabilization, drainage
  • vegetating slopes/afforestation/grass
  • terracing, re-shaping
  • use of gabions and netting.
• Also, mitigating factors such as:
  • planning and land-use zoning
  • increasing levels of awareness; education.
• Post-event strategies (varying with type of mass movement and different time scales) include:
  • reducing injury/loss of life (search and rescue; medical aid; securing water supplies)
  • reconstruction
  • re-location of vulnerable settlements
  • modifications to infrastructure.

Good answers may be well structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3), comparing the relative importance/success of strategies, or different scale examples. They may compare successes and failures for different places (of different stages of development). Another approach might be to systematically evaluate strategies for different mass movement processes, eg rapid to slow mass movement.

For 5–6 marks, expect some weakly evidenced outlining of pre- and/or post-event strategies.

For 7–8 marks, expect a structured account that includes:

• either an evidenced explanation of pre- and post-event strategies (do not expect balance) for managing mass movement hazard(s)
• or a discursive conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives.

For 9–10 marks, expect both of these traits.

Award up to a maximum of [4] if a tectonic process is used instead of mass movement but has some valid pre-/post-event strategies.

There was a good use of case studies (Haiti, Japan, Christchurch) in these responses with a wide range of social and economic strategies examined.

Some weaker answers missed 'social and economic strategies' and gave generic advantages and disadvantages or just regurgitated their case study and did not effectively link the strategies to reducing vulnerability.

Mass movement is still a commonly misunderstood term with most candidates discussing earthquakes and volcanoes. The very few who correctly wrote about the different types of mass movement hazards were able to provide a well-balanced explanation of both pre- and post-event strategies, evidenced by strong case studies.