The following chart shows the global distribution of recent volcanoes and earthquakes:
Identify one region where both earthquakes and active volcanoes are common.
The Pacific Ring of Fire (e.g., Japan, Indonesia, west coast of South America)
State the tectonic feature where most earthquakes and volcanoes occur.
Tectonic plate boundaries
Outline one reason why volcanic eruptions are often found in the same regions as earthquakes.
Both are caused by movement at plate boundaries.
Subduction zones create pressure and magma buildup, leading to both earthquakes and volcanic activity.
Explain two reasons why the Pacific region experiences high levels of both earthquakes and volcanic activity.
Possible answers include:
Subduction zones around the Pacific Plate
- The Pacific Plate is surrounded by several subduction zones.
- As oceanic crust is forced beneath continental crust, friction and pressure cause earthquakes and magma rises to form volcanoes.
- This is why countries like Chile, Japan, and the Philippines have frequent tectonic hazards.
Complex plate interactions
- The Pacific region involves multiple convergent, divergent, and transform boundaries.
- These boundaries cause a variety of tectonic movements, including subduction and lateral sliding.
- The San Andreas Fault (USA) and the Mariana Trench are examples of the region’s tectonic complexity.
Mark as
Evaluate the statement: “Hazard prediction is ineffective in reducing the effect of hazardous incidents on people’s lives."
Answers may include but are not limited to:
Hazard prediction refers to the use of scientific methods and technologies to forecast the occurrence of natural hazards such as earthquakes, volcanoes, tropical storms, and floods. While it has clear potential to reduce loss of life and damage, the effectiveness of prediction depends on the type of hazard, the quality of response systems, and socio-economic factors in the affected area.
Arguments Supporting the Statement
-
Some Hazards Are Unpredictable or Poorly Understood
2 marks - Earthquakes remain extremely difficult to predict accurately, making it hard to issue timely warnings.
- Example: The 2010 Haiti earthquake struck without warning, causing over 200,000 deaths, despite being in a known seismic zone.
- Impact: Prediction limitations mean many people remain unprepared, especially in LICs.
-
Lack of Resources or Infrastructure Weakens Response
2 marks - Even when predictions are made, low-income countries may lack the infrastructure to act on them effectively.
- Example: Cyclone Idai (2019) was forecasted days in advance, yet communities in Mozambique were not evacuated in time due to limited capacity.
- Impact: Prediction alone is insufficient without emergency planning and public awareness.
Arguments Challenging the Statement
-
Prediction Reduces Loss When Combined with Preparedness
2 marks - In areas with robust warning systems and evacuation plans, prediction saves lives.
- Example: In Japan, tsunami early warning systems and public drills helped reduce casualties during the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, even though property damage was high.
- Impact: Shows that prediction can be highly effective when integrated with education and response infrastructure.
-
Technological Advances Have Improved Forecasting
2 marks - Satellite imagery, weather modelling, and remote sensing now allow for accurate cyclone and flood forecasts, enabling timely evacuation.
- Example: The Philippines’ PAGASA warning system has improved typhoon preparedness, reducing fatalities in recent storms compared to Typhoon Haiyan (2013).
- Impact: Advances in science are improving outcomes where governments invest in preparedness.
Evaluation and Conclusion
Hazard prediction is not inherently ineffective, but its success depends on the context. In well-prepared, well-funded regions, it can greatly reduce the impact of disasters on human life. However, prediction alone is not enough—public education, early warning dissemination, and emergency planning are essential complements. The statement is only true in contexts where prediction is not supported by action.
Marking Guidance
1–2 marks : Basic identification of hazard prediction with minimal explanation.3–4 marks : Clear description of prediction effectiveness with some relevant examples. Limited evaluation.5–6 marks : Detailed explanation of both effective and ineffective scenarios, supported by examples. Some analysis of how prediction depends on context.7–8 marks : Strong case study application using specific data and contrasting regions. Well-structured discussion of prediction, preparedness, and capacity.9–10 marks : Comprehensive analysis of hazard types, technological capacity, and socio-economic conditions. Detailed examples and critical evaluation of the statement. Uses sophisticated geographical terminology and presents a coherent, well-balanced argument throughout.
