The following chart shows the countries hit by most earthquakes between 1990 to 2024

Answers may include but are not limited to:

Tectonic Plate Boundaries and Plate Interaction

• Countries located along active tectonic plate boundaries, especially convergent and transform boundaries, experience more seismic activity due to the build-up and release of pressure between plates.
• Example: Japan lies at the intersection of the Pacific, Philippine, and Eurasian plates, making it highly prone to major earthquakes.
• Impact: Frequent plate movement leads to regular, high-magnitude seismic events.

Geological Structure and Crustal Weakness

• Some regions have fault lines and weaker crustal zones, even within tectonic plates, that are more susceptible to earthquakes.
• Example: The Himalayan region, including Nepal, experiences major quakes due to the ongoing collision of the Indian and Eurasian plates, which deforms and fractures the crust.
• Impact: Long-term tectonic compression leads to accumulated strain and sudden, powerful quakes.

Marking Guidance

• 1–2 marks per explanation: Identifies a valid reason with basic description.
• 3 marks per explanation: Provides a clear explanation, includes a specific example, and explains how the factor leads to greater earthquake frequency or intensity.

Awards may include but are not limited to:

• Hazard prediction involves three aspects: location, timing, and magnitude.

• Location prediction:

  • Generally more predictable
  • Based on historical patterns and physical factors
  • Examples:
    • Earthquakes and volcanic activity mapped in relation to plate margins
    • Droughts and hurricanes linked to atmospheric conditions

• Timing and magnitude prediction:

  • More challenging than location prediction
  • Varies by hazard type:
    • Volcanic hazard: Easier to predict using instrumentation (ground movements, gas emissions)
    • Earthquakes: Difficult to predict timing and strength with current technology
    • Atmospheric hazard (e.g., hurricanes): Predictable with some certainty as they develop

• Recurrence intervals:

  • Calculated using past records of timing and magnitude
  • Reliability depends on length and accuracy of historical data
  • Challenging for high magnitude/low frequency events

• Factors affecting predictability:

  • Data collection accuracy
  • Understanding of geophysical and atmospheric processes
  • Inherent uncertainty and risk in all predictions

• Comparison of hazard types:

  • Tectonic vs. atmospheric hazard predictability
  • Varies based on available data and understanding of processes

Marks	Overall Description
0	The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1-2	• Response is too brief, lists unconnected information, not focused on question and lacks structure • Very brief or descriptive, listing unconnected comments or irrelevant information • Very general knowledge with large gaps or errors • Examples/case studies absent or only listed • No evidence of analysis • Terminology missing, undefined, irrelevant or incorrect • No evaluation or conclusion expected • Information not grouped logically • Maps/graphs/diagrams absent, irrelevant or unclear
3-4	• Response is too general, lacks detail, not focused on question and largely unstructured • Very general response • Outlines relevant and irrelevant examples, statistics, facts • Links to question merely listed • Analysis not relevant • Basic terminology used with errors or inconsistently • Irrelevant conclusion • No critical evaluation of evidence • Information not logically grouped • Maps/graphs lack detail or incorrectly interpreted
5-6	• Response partially addresses question, with narrow argument, unsubstantiated conclusion, and limited evaluation • Describes relevant supporting evidence • Outlines appropriate links to question • Partially addresses question or repeats one point • Relevant terminology used with minor errors • General conclusions, misaligned with evidence • Other perspectives/strengths/weaknesses listed • Some logical grouping but inconsistent • Maps/graphs don't follow conventions
7-8	• Response addresses whole question, evaluated analysis and relevant but unbalanced conclusion • Describes correct relevant evidence covering all main points • Describes appropriate links • Clear but one-sided analysis • Complex terminology correct but inconsistent • Relevant but unbalanced conclusion • Other perspectives described • Consistent logical grouping • Maps/graphs support analysis
9-10	• Response is in-depth and question-specific; justified analysis and conclusion through well-developed evaluation • Explains integrated examples, statistics, details • Explains appropriate links • Balanced analysis discussing complexity • Complex terminology used correctly throughout • Balanced conclusion aligned with evidence • Systematic evaluation of perspectives • Discusses strengths/weaknesses • Logically structured • Maps/graphs properly annotated and support argument