Evaluate the strategies used to manage hazards associated with earthquakes

An earthquake is a sudden violent shaking of the ground, typically causing great destruction, as a result of movements within the earth's crust or volcanic action. The hazards produced by earthquakes can include liquefaction, tsunamis, avalanches and ground shaking. Earthquakes kill approximately 8000 people every year and have caused an estimated 13 million deaths in the past 4,000 years, which is why it is pivotal to try and manage the hazards associated with earthquakes. You cannot modify against the event however a number of strategies have been put in place to modify people’s loss such as disaster response teams, emergency aid and insurance; and to modify the vulnerability through building design, community preparedness and the use of technology for predicting and land-use zoning. Although you can never completely manage the hazards as they are dependent on the magnitude of the earthquake, the time it strikes and the location of the epicentre, these strategies put in place have proved to help minimise the damage caused and the life lost by the hazards associated with an earthquake.
One way to manage hazards associated with earthquakes is to modify people’s vulnerability and one of the most effective strategies used to do this is community preparedness and education. Education allows people to recognise signs of possible earthquakes and what to do if one was to strike. For example people are taught to get to open space away from buildings or shelter under a table or in a doorway in an event of an earthquake. It is this knowledge that helps save lives and reduce the vulnerability of the risks posed by earthquakes. Community preparedness can involve building of tsunamis shelters and walls, strengthening of public buildings e.g. hospitals, schools and fire stations. This strategies’ effectiveness is exemplified in Bangladesh. The impacts of past events in Bangladesh have revealed the important context of education for disaster-risk reduction: children who know how to react during a quake, community leaders who have learned how to warn neighbours in a time efficient manner, and societies familiar with preparing themselves for natural hazards all demonstrate how important education is in modifying people’s vulnerability. Education combined with community preparedness should help prevent another major tsunami disaster. Although cyclone Sidr in November 2007 was not caused by an earthquake education proved very successful in reducing the number of deaths from, where 3000 people died, compared to cyclones in the 1960s which killed 250,000 lives. This shows how effective education is in managing the risks associated with natural disasters. However there are some limitations with this strategy as education is a timely process that requires a constant and consistent approach, beginning at an early age and continuing through generations. Cultural norms and values may also have to change, which is a process that cannot change overnight. Also education and disaster preparedness is a long-term investment that not all countries can afford or want to invest in, if a country is going through a period of political instability. This can create spatial inequality as ACs are much more likely to have the funds to invest in education compared to a LIDCs. In addition, ownership of the problem and its solution is not shared by all the stakeholders. As a consequence, reaching out and connecting between countries and players is not generally done. Ultimately though education and community preparedness is a very important and an effective management strategy, as they modify the people’s vulnerability dramatically as seen in the reduced death toll in Bangladesh due to education and community preparedness.
Another strategy used to modify people’s vulnerability and help to manage the hazards associated with earthquakes is to use hazard-resistant building designs. It is said ‘Earthquakes don’t kill people, buildings do,’ therefore by eliminating the risk posed by buildings; the risk from earthquakes is dramatically reduced. Falling buildings are by far the greatest cause of casualties during earthquakes, so it is essential that new buildings are constructed to withstand their effects. This is seen in the Kashmir earthquake of 2005 where the 80,000 death toll was so high because schools and hospitals were shoddily built. Existing buildings can also be retrofitted to withstand earthquakes, but this is much more expensive than doing so at the time of construction. In Japan many precautions have been put in place so buildings can withstand seismic waves caused by earthquakes. Infrastructure is built with very deep foundations into solid rock, braces are fixed on that are capable of moving without collapsing and rubber shock absorbers are built into the foundations. Another method allows the base of a building to move semi-independently to its superstructure, reducing the shaking caused by a quake. Suspension bridges are also put in place that are capable of moving compared to a rigid cantilever design. All these techniques make it less likely for infrastructures to collapse on people due to ground shaking therefore decreasing people’s vulnerability. However it is only ACs (Japan) that have the funds to put these measures in place systematically, whereas other countries such as Nepal simply do not have the money to safety proof all their buildings. Therefore although this strategy is important in reducing people’s vulnerability to hazards associated with earthquakes it is only successful in ACs.
One strategy used to manage hazards associated with earthquakes is monitoring seismic activity and identifying areas of high risk of earthquakes as it means people can be given an advanced warning before an earthquake strikes therefore increasing their chance of survival. Seismic monitoring and research provide the basis for forecast modelling and hazard assessment and mapping. Geoscientists can provide information about these matters, and can engage with local authorities and communities to ensure that this information is used effectively to minimise risk to people and property. However areas that are at greatest risk, such as the SAN Andreas Fault, still have major cities and communities living in these danger zones, so it is debatable whether zone mapping is very useful in managing the risks posed by earthquakes. Also ultimately earthquakes are unpredictable therefore no matter how much money and time is pumped into monitoring seismic activity and seismic trends, people can still be caught off guard or still unprepared. An example of this was on the 8th October in 2005 an earthquake measuring 7.6. on the Richter scale devastated northern part of Pakistan and around 55,000 people died and 3.5 million people lost their homes. Despite the knowledge that the area was ‘primed’ for a big one as it is a region that is very geologically active, but had only suffered few large quakes in the last century the country was still unprepared and suffered huge losses. This shows that monitoring the patterns of earthquakes isn’t that effective if nothing useful is done with the knowledge. On the other hand improvement in technology has opened up another strategy to manage hazards associated with earthquakes. The increasing importance and use of social media means that people are never far from being online. This means that warnings of a possible earthquake can reach people in a matter of seconds and therefore reducing people’s vulnerability. An example of when social media has helped people was in Nepal 2015 when two days after the earthquake struck Facebook and Twitter exploded. Requests for help started inundating social media feeds. Some examples of people’s cries for help are, “300 people are stranded on the hill opposite last resort,” and  “4000 people in Kavre need tents and blankets.” this shows how improvement in technology can help people reach out for help in a more efficient manner. Although this management strategy is useful to an extent it is not the most effective strategy to manage the response to earthquake activity.
Increased use of technology has also overlooked the importance of knowledge and management techniques used from indigenous people that can be of vital importance when managing hazards associated with earthquakes. A good example of this is on the island of Simeulue, situated off the coast of Sumatra and within 100km of the epicentre. Only 7 people of a total population of 83,000 were killed by the tsunami. This was because the islanders had maintained folklore knowledge about earthquakes experienced in the past, with each generation reminding the next that, if the sea goes out following an earthquake you must move to higher ground as a tsunami is coming. Meanwhile on the mainland of Sumatra, just 100km away, this knowledge was not known and as a result over 150,000 people were killed as they failed to appreciate the danger and evacuate low-lying coastal areas in time. This shows the importance of indigenous knowledge and practices about the hazards due to earthquakes as it proved a great success on the island of Simeulue. Therefore the best way to manage earthquakes is to use a combination of practises from the present, from new technology such as social media, but also the traditional practises from the past that has been past down from generations.
Hazards associated with earthquakes can also be managed by modifying people’s loss via improving emergency aid and disaster response teams’ efficiency. Emergency aid is sent almost immediately after a hazardous event. It includes vital life saving equipment such as bottled water, medical supplies, tents and food packs. Therefore emergency aid is vital in managing life loss straight after a disaster. A good example of this is some 330 humanitarian agencies were involved in the aftermath of the 2015 earthquake in Nepal. They included international organisations such as the United Nations and the EU, individual countries such as Indonesia, Japan and the UK, and NGOs such as Shelter, Christian Aid and Red Cross. Nearly 8,000 Red Cross staff and volunteers mobilised to provide humanitarian aid such as medical care, emergency shelter, food, water, hygiene kits, blankets, kitchen items, and cash to help families survive in the critical days and weeks after the disaster. They continue to help in restoring families’ sources of income, constructing water systems in remote villages, ensuring children get vaccinated against diseases like measles, and teaching people the skills they need to make their homes safer during future disasters. Therefore emergency aid from charities can also benefit the families affected not only in the short term but also in the long term, it is known as bottom-up aid. This can have negative impacts on the country as Nepal may become to reliant on other countries financial aid which is not sustainable. Japan on the other hand is less reliant on other countries and charities for relief after a disaster. In Japan a national Disaster Preparedness Day is held every year on the anniversary of the great Tokyo/Kanto earthquake of 1923. The main purpose of the day is to involve the emergency services and general public in preparing for natural disasters. Part of the emphasis is on rehearsing what to do in an event of a major hazard impact, the emergency disaster response, but there is also a small focus on the proactive steps that can be taken by individuals, families and community groups to mitigate the collective impact of a disaster. In Japan detailed disaster planning involves a wide range of organisations including: governments, medical services, fire, military, transport, power and telecommunications companies. The country, industries, businesses and families tend to have the resources that give them a high degree of resilience. The other main strategy to modify the impact of loss is insurance, especially in more economically advanced countries where the damage to infrastructure can be more severe and costly. Insurance is the key strategy in ACs and is when people join with a financial organisation to spread risks and associated costs. People pay an annual premium and the companies identify the risks and hazards in order to secure their business. This can help to rebuild a city or a community faster after a disaster and improves the resilience of the people. By contrast LIDCs have fewer resources and less developed emergency response systems, so their resilience is much less. As a result the impacts of earthquake disasters in the short term are more serious and often have longer lasting effects. Overall emergency aid and insurance are vital for saving lives immediately after an earthquake has occurred but they are much more effective in ACs such as Japan where they have the resources and funds to support these strategies successfully.
However no matter how prepared a country may be the risk of a disaster ultimately depends on the magnitude and location of the epicentre of an earthquake which is out of our hands and cannot be fully managed by strategies. This is seen in the Kashmir earthquake in 2005 where 80,000 people died. The magnitude of this disaster was so vast that the government alone (especially in Pakistan and India) could not be expected to provide adequate relief and the numerous aftershocks hampered rescue efforts. The area was also isolated and inhospitable and no electricity in some areas meant telecommunications were slow. This highlights the reality of not being able to mitigate fully the actual event and how even though the relief and disaster response teams may be present, the location of the earthquake meant they were unable to rescue people successfully. Therefore the strategies used to manage hazards associated with earthquakes are not always very successful.
To conclude there have been a number of management strategies put in place to modify people’s vulnerability and loss, some more successful than others. Community preparedness and education is possibly the most successful for LIDCs it is the most effective low-cost way to prevent disaster. Where as hazard-resistant building design may work well in ACs such as Japan, a country that is constantly updating their strategies to mitigate the exposure, but in LIDCs like Kashmir they did not have the funds to make buildings seismic resistant and therefore are more prone to suffer heavy losses. Also no matter how much planning the risk posed by an earthquake is ultimately down to the magnitude of the quake therefore although strategies can be put in place to help minimise the damage caused the threat of earthquakes will never be entirely minimised.