Tectonics
Assess the usefulness of theoretical frameworks in understanding the prediction,
impact, and management of tectonic hazards. (12 marks)
Theoretical frameworks such as the Hazard Management Cycle and Park’s Model can be
very useful in understanding the prediction, impact, and management of tectonic hazards,
although they are both limited in some ways.
The Hazard Management Cycle is useful in understanding the management of tectonic
hazards as it splits management into four clear categories: preparation, response, recovery,
and mitigation. This helps us to understand that hazard management is a multi-step process.
The sections are then divided into 5 subsections such as: risk assessment and planning, and
reconstruction. These subsections overlap with multiple larger sections, such as risk
assessment and planning being in both mitigation and preparation. This is useful as it shows
how each section is linked in the overall management of the hazard. The preparation stage is
particularly useful in understanding the prediction of hazards. For example, during the
preparation stage, the Philippines applied state of the art volcano monitoring techniques /
instruments to develop an early warning system that saved 200,000 people from the Mount
Pinatubo eruption. This helps us to understand how prediction can reduce the impact of
tectonic hazards. The cyclical nature of the cycle also helps us to understand the repetitive
nature of hazard management and how each hazard links to the next. For example, during the
recovery phase of the Tohoku earthquake, Japan repaired and raised tsunami walls which
makes them better prepared for the next hazard which should reduce its impact as a result.
However, the cycle is limited. It doesn’t clearly show the impacts of the hazard, making it
difficult to understand how badly the country was impacted by the event. Plus, each section is
not proportional for the time it takes, as the response phase would be much quicker (hours to
days) than the recovery phase (months to years). This somewhat limits the usefulness of the
cycle in understanding the management of hazards.
Assess the usefulness of theoretical frameworks in understanding the prediction,
impact, and management of tectonic hazards. (12 marks)
Theoretical frameworks such as the Hazard Management Cycle and Park’s Model can be
very useful in understanding the prediction, impact, and management of tectonic hazards,
although they are both limited in some ways.
The Hazard Management Cycle is useful in understanding the management of tectonic
hazards as it splits management into four clear categories: preparation, response, recovery,
and mitigation. This helps us to understand that hazard management is a multi-step process.
The sections are then divided into 5 subsections such as: risk assessment and planning, and
reconstruction. These subsections overlap with multiple larger sections, such as risk
assessment and planning being in both mitigation and preparation. This is useful as it shows
how each section is linked in the overall management of the hazard. The preparation stage is
particularly useful in understanding the prediction of hazards. For example, during the
preparation stage, the Philippines applied state of the art volcano monitoring techniques /
instruments to develop an early warning system that saved 200,000 people from the Mount
Pinatubo eruption. This helps us to understand how prediction can reduce the impact of
tectonic hazards. The cyclical nature of the cycle also helps us to understand the repetitive
nature of hazard management and how each hazard links to the next. For example, during the
recovery phase of the Tohoku earthquake, Japan repaired and raised tsunami walls which
makes them better prepared for the next hazard which should reduce its impact as a result.
However, the cycle is limited. It doesn’t clearly show the impacts of the hazard, making it
difficult to understand how badly the country was impacted by the event. Plus, each section is
not proportional for the time it takes, as the response phase would be much quicker (hours to
days) than the recovery phase (months to years). This somewhat limits the usefulness of the
cycle in understanding the management of hazards.
