★ FREE SAMPLE ★ This is 1 topic from 1 subject. Sign up for all subjects, AI marking & more. SIGN UP FREE
← BACK TO HUB
Topic 1 · Paper 1 Section A
A Level Geography · Edexcel 9GE0 · Topic 1 · Paper 1 Section A

TECTONIC
PROCESSES & HAZARDS

Plate boundaries, earthquake and volcanic hazards, disaster risk and management strategies.

6Note Cards
10Quiz Questions
12Flashcards
4Essays

Revision Notes

🌍 Global Distribution of Tectonic Hazards

  • Earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis cluster strongly at plate boundaries — not random
  • 90% of earthquakes occur along the Pacific Ring of Fire (circum-Pacific belt)
  • Most volcanoes also at plate boundaries — exceptions at hot spots (Hawaii, Iceland) over mantle plumes
  • Intra-plate earthquakes: ancient fault lines reactivated far from boundaries (New Madrid Seismic Zone, USA)
  • Hot spot volcanism: mantle plumes burn through the plate above, creating island chains as the plate moves
Ring of Fire = 90% of earthquakes, 75% of volcanoes. Both figures are exam favourites.

🔬 Plate Tectonics Theory

  • Earth's lithosphere is divided into major and minor tectonic plates floating on the semi-molten asthenosphere
  • Convection currents in the mantle drive plate movement — hot rock rises, spreads, cools, sinks
  • Evidence: palaeomagnetism (symmetrical magnetic stripes on ocean floor), sea floor spreading, continental fit
  • Ridge push: hot magma at constructive boundaries pushes plates apart
  • Slab pull: denser oceanic crust sinks at subduction zones, pulling the plate — the dominant force
  • Plates move at 2–15 cm/year
Slab pull is the dominant mechanism — greater force than ridge push. Remember this.

⚡ Plate Boundaries & Hazard Types

  • Constructive: plates diverge, magma rises → new crust, shield volcanoes, moderate earthquakes (Mid-Atlantic Ridge)
  • Destructive: oceanic plate subducts beneath continental → Benioff zone, composite volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, tsunamis
  • Conservative: plates slide past each other → earthquakes ONLY, no volcanism (San Andreas Fault)
  • Collision: two continental plates → fold mountains (Himalayas), no volcanism
  • Volcanic hazards: lava flows, pyroclastic flows (fastest/hottest), ash fall, lahars (mudflows), jökulhlaups
  • Earthquake waves: P waves (fastest, compressional), S waves (shear, cannot pass through liquid outer core), L waves (surface, most destructive)
Conservative = earthquakes ONLY. No subduction = no magma = no volcanoes.

💀 Hazard, Vulnerability & Disaster

  • A natural hazard only becomes a disaster when it intersects with a vulnerable population
  • Hazard risk equation: Risk = Hazard × Vulnerability ÷ Capacity (resilience)
  • Pressure and Release model (PAR): root causes → dynamic pressures → unsafe conditions + hazard = disaster
  • Vulnerability: physical, social, economic factors making people susceptible to harm
  • Resilience: community's ability to anticipate, absorb and recover from hazard impacts
  • Development level is the key factor: HICs have lower death tolls from equivalent events
PAR model sequence: root causes → dynamic pressures → unsafe conditions → disaster event.

📊 Measuring Tectonic Hazards

  • Richter / MMS scale: measures energy released — logarithmic (each unit = 10× more ground shaking, ~31× more energy)
  • Mercalli scale: I–XII, measures intensity and effects at specific locations — subjective
  • Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI): 0–8 logarithmic scale of eruption size
  • Hazard profiles compare: magnitude, frequency, speed of onset, spatial extent, duration, predictability
  • Shallow focus earthquakes (< 70km) cause most damage — seismic waves lose less energy reaching surface
Richter 7.0 = 10× more shaking than 6.0. Always remember this is logarithmic.

🔮 Tectonic Hazard Management

  • Monitoring: seismometers, tiltmeters, gas spectrometers, GPS, thermal imaging — more reliable for volcanoes
  • Volcanic prediction more reliable than earthquake prediction — precursor signals are detectable
  • Protection: earthquake-resistant buildings (base isolators, cross-bracing), tsunami walls
  • Planning: evacuation routes, land-use zoning, community drills, hazard maps
  • Management effectiveness strongly linked to development level — LICs cannot afford the same measures as HICs
  • Low-tech solutions effective in LICs: community preparedness, simple warning systems, enforced building codes
Prediction works for volcanoes; not reliably for earthquakes. This asymmetry shapes all management strategies.

Topic Quiz

1/10
Q1
Score: 0

Flashcards

1/12
TERM / QUESTION
Click to reveal answer
ANSWER

Essay Practice

← Select an essay question to begin

Case Studies

Haiti 2010 Earthquake
Magnitude 7.0 · 12 January 2010 · LIC Earthquake
Mw 7.0 Focal depth 13 km ~316,000 killed 1.5 million displaced $8 billion damage GDP loss ~120%

Background & Causes

  • Located on the Enriquillo-Plantain Garden fault — a conservative (transform) plate boundary between the Caribbean and North American plates.
  • Shallow focal depth of just 13 km amplified surface shaking significantly.
  • Epicentre only 25 km west of Port-au-Prince, the capital city with a population of ~2.8 million.
  • No significant earthquake had struck the fault since 1770 — 240 years of accumulated tectonic stress released in a single rupture.
  • Haiti was the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere — GDP per capita just $670 (2009), with no seismic building codes enforced.

Social Impacts

  • Estimated 316,000 deaths (government figure) — the vast majority caused by building collapse due to poor construction standards.
  • 300,000+ injured; hospitals destroyed, leaving the medical system non-functional.
  • 1.5 million people left homeless, many living in tent camps for years afterwards.
  • A cholera outbreak (introduced via UN peacekeepers) killed a further 10,000+ people by 2019.
  • 250,000 homes and 30,000 commercial buildings collapsed or were severely damaged.

Economic Impacts

  • Total damage estimated at $8 billion — approximately 120% of Haiti's annual GDP.
  • Port-au-Prince's port, the main trade gateway, was destroyed — severely hindering aid delivery.
  • Government ministries collapsed, killing civil servants and paralysing governance.
  • The garment industry (Haiti's largest export sector) lost factories and workers.

Responses & Management

  • International aid of $13.5 billion was pledged, but delivery was chaotic due to destroyed infrastructure.
  • The UN deployed 12,000+ peacekeepers; the US military sent the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson to coordinate air operations.
  • NGOs (Oxfam, Red Cross, MSF) provided emergency shelter, water purification and medical care.
  • Long-term recovery was severely hampered by corruption, land tenure disputes and political instability.
  • By 2015, an estimated 60,000 people still lived in displacement camps — illustrating the slow pace of LIC recovery.

Exam Tip

Haiti 2010 is the definitive LIC earthquake case study. Always contrast it with Japan 2011 to demonstrate how development level mediates disaster impact. Use the PAR model: root causes (poverty, corruption) → dynamic pressures (rapid urbanisation, no building codes) → unsafe conditions (poorly built concrete buildings) + hazard = catastrophic disaster.

Japan 2011 Earthquake & Tsunami
Tōhoku · Magnitude 9.0 · 11 March 2011 · HIC Comparison
Mw 9.0 Focal depth 32 km 15,897 killed ~90% drowned $235 billion damage Tsunami up to 40.5 m

Background & Causes

  • Occurred at the Japan Trench — a destructive plate boundary where the Pacific Plate subducts beneath the North American Plate at ~8 cm/year.
  • A 500 km segment of the megathrust fault ruptured, producing the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan.
  • The seafloor was displaced upward by up to 8 metres, generating a massive tsunami that reached the coast within 30 minutes.
  • Japan is the world's most earthquake-prepared nation: strict building codes since 1981, monthly drills, advanced early warning systems (J-Alert).

Social Impacts

  • 15,897 confirmed dead, 2,534 missing — approximately 90% of deaths caused by drowning in the tsunami, not building collapse.
  • Tsunami waves reached up to 40.5 metres, overtopping coastal seawalls designed for 5–10 metre waves.
  • 470,000 people evacuated immediately; 340,000 still displaced one year later.
  • Sendai Airport was inundated; entire coastal towns (Rikuzentakata, Minamisanriku) were destroyed.

Economic & Environmental Impacts

  • $235 billion total damage — the costliest natural disaster in recorded history.
  • Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant lost cooling power, causing three reactor meltdowns — Level 7 nuclear event (same as Chernobyl).
  • 160,000 people evacuated from a 20 km exclusion zone around Fukushima; some areas remain uninhabitable.
  • Global automotive and electronics supply chains disrupted for months due to factory closures.
  • 23 million tonnes of debris generated; contaminated water release into the Pacific Ocean.

Responses & Management

  • Japan's earthquake early warning system (J-Alert) provided up to 80 seconds of warning before shaking reached Tokyo — automatic train braking, factory shutdowns.
  • Strict building codes meant almost all modern buildings survived the magnitude 9.0 ground shaking — deaths were caused by the tsunami, not structural collapse.
  • Japan Self-Defence Forces deployed 107,000 personnel within 24 hours for search and rescue.
  • New tsunami seawalls (up to 15 m high) constructed along the Tōhoku coast post-2011; estimated cost ¥1 trillion.
  • Japan shut down all 54 nuclear reactors for safety review; energy policy shifted toward renewables and LNG imports.

Exam Tip

Japan 2011 demonstrates that even HICs with world-class preparedness cannot prevent all deaths from extreme tectonic events. The key comparison: Haiti Mw 7.0 = ~316,000 deaths vs Japan Mw 9.0 = ~16,000 deaths. This proves development level is more important than magnitude in determining disaster impact. Note that Japan's deaths were from the tsunami (a secondary hazard), not building collapse — showing that engineering had successfully mitigated the primary hazard.

Mount Pinatubo 1991
VEI 6 Eruption · Philippines · 15 June 1991
VEI 6 20 million tonnes SO₂ ~847 killed 200,000 evacuated 5,000+ lives saved Global cooling 0.5°C

Background & Causes

  • Located on Luzon, Philippines — a destructive plate boundary where the Philippine Sea Plate subducts beneath the Eurasian Plate.
  • Mount Pinatubo had been dormant for 600 years before reactivating in April 1991 with steam explosions and small earthquakes.
  • The eruption on 15 June 1991 was VEI 6 — the second-largest eruption of the 20th century (after Novarupta 1912).
  • Ejected ~10 km³ of material, producing an ash column reaching 34 km into the stratosphere.
  • Coincided with Typhoon Yunya, which mixed heavy rain with ash — dramatically increasing lahar and roof-collapse risk.

Social & Economic Impacts

  • 847 people killed — relatively low for a VEI 6 event, largely thanks to successful prediction and evacuation.
  • Most deaths caused by lahars (volcanic mudflows) in the weeks and months following the eruption, not the eruption itself.
  • 200,000 people evacuated before the climactic eruption; 1.2 million people affected overall.
  • Ash fall destroyed ~8,000 houses through roof collapse (wet ash can weigh 300–500 kg/m²).
  • Clark Air Base (US military) and Subic Bay Naval Station were both permanently closed — significant economic loss for the region.
  • Agricultural land buried under ash — rice paddies and sugarcane plantations destroyed across Central Luzon.

Environmental & Global Impacts

  • 20 million tonnes of SO₂ injected into the stratosphere — formed a global aerosol layer reflecting sunlight.
  • Global temperatures dropped by ~0.5°C for 1–2 years following the eruption.
  • Ozone depletion accelerated temporarily over mid-latitudes.
  • Spectacular sunsets observed worldwide for 18+ months due to atmospheric aerosols.
  • Lahar deposits permanently altered river drainage patterns on Luzon; sediment flows continued for over a decade.

Prediction & Evacuation Success

  • USGS and PHIVOLCS (Philippine Institute of Volcanology) monitored seismic activity, gas emissions and ground deformation from April 1991.
  • Hazard maps were produced identifying pyroclastic flow and lahar danger zones.
  • A staged alert system was implemented: increasing exclusion zone radius from 10 km to 20 km to 40 km as eruption escalated.
  • An estimated 5,000–20,000 lives were saved by the evacuation — making Pinatubo one of the most successful volcanic predictions in history.
  • Key success factors: international scientific collaboration, clear communication to local authorities, and decisive government action.

Exam Tip

Pinatubo 1991 is the gold-standard case study for volcanic prediction and evacuation success. Use it to argue that volcanic eruptions are more predictable than earthquakes (precursory seismic activity, gas emissions, ground deformation). Contrast the relatively low death toll (847) with the VEI 6 magnitude to demonstrate that effective monitoring, international collaboration and decisive governance can dramatically reduce disaster impact — even in a lower-middle-income country.

Dual Coding

Plate Boundary Types CROSS-SECTION
CONSTRUCTIVE SEA LEVEL MAGMA RISES Mid-Ocean Ridge ASTHENOSPHERE Plate A Plate B e.g. Mid-Atlantic Ridge DESTRUCTIVE Continental Oceanic BENIOFF ZONE Composite Volcano TRENCH e.g. Pacific Ring of Fire EQ foci CONSERVATIVE TRANSFORM FAULT Plate A Plate B NO VOLCANISM Earthquakes only e.g. San Andreas Fault
OCEANIC CRUST
CONTINENTAL / EQ FOCI
MAGMA / FAULT LINE
PLATE MOVEMENT
Three types of plate boundary produce distinct hazard profiles. Constructive boundaries create new crust and moderate earthquakes. Destructive boundaries produce the most powerful earthquakes, composite volcanoes and tsunamis via subduction. Conservative boundaries generate earthquakes only -- no magma is produced because there is no subduction.
Earthquake Wave Types WAVE MOTION
P-WAVES Primary / Compressional Fastest: 6-8 km/s compressed expanded DIRECTION Passes through SOLIDS + LIQUIDS Push-pull motion S-WAVES Secondary / Shear Slower: 3-5 km/s DIRECTION shear CANNOT pass through LIQUIDS (outer core) Side-to-side motion L-WAVES Love & Rayleigh / Surface Slowest: 2-4 km/s DIRECTION rolling SURFACE only MOST DESTRUCTIVE Rolling/elliptical motion ARRIVAL ORDER: P-WAVE (1st) S-WAVE (2nd) L-WAVE (3rd)
P-WAVES (FASTEST)
S-WAVES (CANNOT PASS LIQUID)
L-WAVES (MOST DAMAGE)
P-waves arrive first and compress/expand rock in the direction of travel. S-waves arrive second and shear rock side-to-side -- crucially they cannot pass through the liquid outer core, proving its existence. L-waves (surface waves) arrive last but cause the most destruction with their rolling, elliptical motion at the surface.
PAR Model (Pressure and Release) FLOWCHART
ROOT CAUSES Poverty Poor governance Inequality Colonial legacy Limited access to resources DYNAMIC PRESSURES Rapid urbanisation Deforestation Population growth Declining soil No building codes Corruption UNSAFE CONDITIONS Fragile buildings Hazardous locations Unprotected infrastructure No warning systems + HAZARD EVENT Earthquake Eruption etc. DISASTER PROGRESSION OF VULNERABILITY ───────────────────►
The PAR model shows that disasters are not natural -- they result from a progression of human vulnerability intersecting with a hazard event. Root causes (poverty, inequality) create dynamic pressures (rapid urbanisation, corruption) which produce unsafe conditions (fragile buildings, no warnings). Only when these intersect with a hazard event does a disaster occur. This is why the same earthquake kills thousands in an LIC but far fewer in an HIC.
Volcanic Hazard Zones CONCENTRIC ZONES
ASH FALL 100+ km LAVA FLOWS 10-30 km Slow, predictable LAHARS 5-15 km 80 km/h mudflows PYROCLASTIC FLOWS 0-10 km VOLCANO DEADLIEST LEAST DEADLY 700 km/h 200-700°C 80 km/h Ash + water 1-10 km/h Predictable path Distance from volcanic vent increases outward -- deadliness decreases
PYROCLASTIC FLOWS (DEADLIEST)
LAHARS
LAVA FLOWS
ASH FALL (WIDEST)
Volcanic hazards vary in deadliness and range. Pyroclastic flows are the most lethal -- superheated gas and rock at 200-700 degrees travelling up to 700 km/h. Lahars (volcanic mudflows) can travel 80 km/h along river valleys. Lava flows are slow and predictable but destroy everything in their path. Ash fall has the widest impact area, disrupting agriculture and aviation hundreds of kilometres away.
Haiti 2010 vs Japan 2011 DEVELOPMENT COMPARISON
HAITI 2010 12 January 2010 -- LIC MAGNITUDE 7.0 Mw DEATHS ~316,000 GDP/CAPITA $670 DAMAGE $8bn (120% GDP) CAUSE OF DEATH Building collapse WHY SO MANY DIED: - No seismic building codes - No early warning system - Overwhelmed emergency services - Extreme poverty and corruption - Dense informal settlements JAPAN 2011 11 March 2011 -- HIC MAGNITUDE 9.0 Mw DEATHS ~16,000 GDP/CAPITA $46,000 DAMAGE $235bn (3.5% GDP) CAUSE OF DEATH Tsunami (90%) WHY SO FEW DIED: - Strict seismic building codes - J-Alert early warning (80s notice) - 107,000 SDF deployed in 24hrs - Monthly earthquake drills - Buildings survived Mw 9.0
The single most powerful comparison in tectonic hazards. Japan's earthquake released ~1,000 times more energy than Haiti's, yet killed 20 times fewer people. Haiti's deaths were caused by building collapse (primary hazard); Japan's by tsunami (secondary hazard) -- because engineering had already solved the primary hazard. Development level matters more than magnitude. This is the exam argument.