AO1 v. AO2 Essays (1)

Tectonic hazards

This week I delivered a talk to students at a university in the north of England under the auspices of a local Geographical Association (GA) branch. Part of that talk examined the two tectonic hazard essays set by the exam boards AQA and Edexcel in June 2022. [The titles were strikingly similar for two separate examination boards.] Here are sample answers to each question, each of which makes use of recent case studies. As on previous Substacks, I also provide guidance on what is AO1 and what constitutes AO2.

[Subsequent Substacks will examine how to progress from Descriptive Writing (largely AO1) to Evaluative Writing (AO2) when constructing an essay, as well as providing further exemplars.]

A reminder: for A level Geography, there are two key Assessment Objectives (AOs):

AO1: demonstrate knowledge and understanding of places, environments, concepts, processes, interactions and change, at a variety of scales.

AO2: apply knowledge and understanding in different contexts to interpret, analyse, and evaluate geographical information and issues.

So, as before, the answers are in two formats:

(a)    Normal font – no AO indicated.

(b)   AOs indicated: AO1 in italics; AO2 in bold.

AQA: ‘Seismic hazards will always be harder to manage than volcanic hazards due to their unpredictability and scale.’ To what extent do you agree with this view? (20 marks)

Stating that seismic hazards present a greater challenge than volcanic hazards to manage appears to be a somewhat simplified statement, whether that depends on factors such as predictability, scale, or any other. Predictability refers to the degree to which an event can be anticipated, which it could be argued is difficult for both types of hazardous event. Scale refers to the area affected, and the statement seems to suggest that seismic events have a larger area of impact. I shall discuss this question in the context of two events in 2022 – the earthquake that struck the Paktika region of Afghanistan in June, and the Tonga volcanic eruption in January, of that year.

The Paktika seismic event was caused by a magnitude 6.1MMS quake. It occurred at a shallow depth of only 10km. It was caused by deformation of the Eurasian plate, where both the Arabian plate, from the west, and the Indian plate, from the east, are subducting. The area is well known for its tectonic activity, but the precise location and time of any earthquake here is almost impossible to predict. The earthquake caused over 1100 deaths, with many more people injured, and thousands made homeless. The area is extremely poor, remote and mountainous. Several villages had over 80% of their houses demolished, being constructed from little more than wood and clay bricks. In addition, there were secondary events such as landslides, and the devastation added to the existing problems of food insecurity, lack of water, and disease.

Was the difficulty in the management of this event caused by the lack of prediction and its size? I would suggest these are not as important as other factors related to place, development and governance. Medical facilities in the area are extremely poor and limited. The national government, formed from the recently established Taliban, was inadequate in terms of its organisation and resources. They did send in the few serviceable helicopters they had captured from the Americans, but they were insufficient. The Taliban were, and are, disowned by the great majority of the world’s governments, and so there was little international aid. The initial UN response was limited, sending 1,200 emergency shelter kits, 8,000 hygiene kits, 3,000 jerry cans and 5 tonnes of medical supplies. Predictability and scale were of minimal importance here.

The Tonga Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha’apai (Tonga) volcanic eruption began late in the preceding year 2021. A submarine volcano began to erupt, and so there was some sense that things were going to get worse – a form of predictability. That volcano lies on the subduction zone stretching from New Zealand to Fiji, and so to some extent it could, and should, have been predicted. Plumes of gas and debris from the eruption reached 20km into the sky, and much ash fell on to surrounding islands, over a large area. A 15m tsunami was created, spreading across the Pacific Ocean; 4 people were killed by it. In total, 85,000 people were affected, mainly on the most populated islands e.g. Tonga’tapu. The single undersea cable connecting Tonga to the outside world was severed. Phone and internet communications were extremely limited, meaning the situation in some areas remained unknown for several days.

In terms of management, as above, factors relating to place, and governance were most significant. The main airport was largely undamaged, but the runway was covered by thick ash. Local people swept the runway as quickly as they could. Local volunteer Red Cross teams supported evacuations, providing first aid, and distributing relief supplies which were already on the islands. International help responded immediately. New Zealand sent two ships, including HMNZS Wellington, to the area with water supplies, survey teams and a helicopter. Australia flew military planes over the islands to investigate damage. However, aid workers from overseas were discouraged. The islands were Covid free until the explosion and the Tonga government wanted to keep it that way.

It is clear from these two examples that although prediction and scale are factors that should be considered, it is the human factors of level of development, capability of governance and aspects of place that are more significant when dealing with the management of tectonic hazard events. The relative ease of management is much more complex than saying one is harder than the other.

Edexcel: Assess the importance of prediction and forecasting in reducing the vulnerability of communities to earthquake hazards. (12 marks)

Prediction and forecasting earthquake hazards are key elements of hazard management. Prediction refers to knowing when and where a hazard will strike on a spatial and temporal scale so that it can be acted upon effectively. Forecasting provides a percentage probability of a hazard occurring, such as a 25% chance of a magnitude 7 quake. Whether either or both will reduce vulnerability (the risk of exposure to hazards combined with an ability to cope with them) may depend on the nature and location of the event that takes place. So, I shall discuss this question in the context of two events in 2022 – the earthquakes that struck each of the Paktika region of Afghanistan in June, and the south-eastern region of Taiwan in September, of that year.

The Paktika seismic event was caused by a magnitude 6.1MMS quake. It occurred at a shallow depth of only 10km. It was caused by deformation of the Eurasian plate, where both the Arabian plate, from the west, and the Indian plate, from the east are subducting. The area is well known for its tectonic activity, but the precise location and time of any earthquake here is almost impossible to predict. Little forecasting of future quakes had taken place, largely due to the lack of such governance in this region. The Afghan earthquake caused over 1100 deaths, with many more people injured, and thousands made homeless. The area is extremely poor, remote and mountainous. Several villages had over 80% of their houses demolished, being constructed from little more than wood and clay bricks. In addition, there were secondary events such as landslides, and the devastation added to the existing problems of food insecurity, lack of water, and disease.

Was the high vulnerability of communities to this event caused by the lack of prediction and forecasting? It could be argued that these are not as important as other factors related to place, development and governance. Medical facilities in the area are extremely poor and limited. The national government, formed from the recently established Taliban, was inadequate in terms of its organisation and resources. They did send in the few serviceable helicopters they had captured from the Americans, but they were insufficient. The Taliban were, and are, disowned by the great majority of the world’s governments, and so there was little international aid. Predictability and the ability to forecast were of minimal importance here.

The Taiwan quake was larger in terms of magnitude (6.9MMS) and slightly shallower at 7km. It was caused by the convergence of the Eurasian plate and the Philippine plate, with slip faulting along its boundary. This is a more active seismic zone than the Afghanistan area. All of these should have made the earthquake more predictable, easier to forecast, and more damaging to the community in the area. But, this was not the case. There was only one death attributed directly to the earthquake, with only 170 people injured. A tsunami warning was issued for nearby China and Japan but was later lifted. In terms of damage, several buildings collapsed, but the major impact was at one railway station where a train was derailed. Some temporary electricity blackouts were reported in this relatively remote area. A group of 600 tourists were trapped on a scenic mountain trail, though later rescued. It is also worthy of note that the major economic concern was the production of semiconductors in factories in the region, but production was unaffected. Although the quake was more predictable, the reduced vulnerability was probably due to higher levels of economic development, together with better governance including prior management.

It is clear from these two examples that although prediction and forecasting are factors that should be considered when examining the vulnerability of communities, it is the human factors of level of development, capability of governance and aspects of place that are more significant when dealing with the management of seismic hazard events in seeking to reduce vulnerability.

AQA: ‘Seismic hazards will always be harder to manage than volcanic hazards due to their unpredictability and scale.’ To what extent do you agree with this view? (20 marks)

Stating that seismic hazards present a greater challenge than volcanic hazards to manage appears to be a somewhat simplified statement, whether that depends on factors such as predictability, scale, or any other. Predictability refers to the degree to which an event can be anticipated, which it could be argued is difficult for both types of hazardous event. Scale refers to the area affected, and the statement seems to suggest that seismic events have a larger area of impact. I shall discuss this question in the context of two events in 2022 – the earthquake that struck the Paktika region of Afghanistan in June, and the Tonga volcanic eruption in January, of that year.

The Paktika seismic event was caused by a magnitude 6.1MMS quake. It occurred at a shallow depth of only 10km. It was caused by deformation of the Eurasian plate, where both the Arabian plate, from the west, and the Indian plate, from the east, are subducting. The area is well known for its tectonic activity, but the precise location and time of any earthquake here is almost impossible to predict. The earthquake caused over 1100 deaths, with many more people injured, and thousands made homeless. The area is extremely poor, remote and mountainous. Several villages had over 80% of their houses demolished, being constructed from little more than wood and clay bricks. In addition, there were secondary events such as landslides, and the devastation added to the existing problems of food insecurity, lack of water, and disease.

Was the difficulty in the management of this event caused by the lack of prediction and its size? I would suggest these are not as important as other factors related to place, development and governance. Medical facilities in the area are extremely poor and limited. The national government, formed from the recently established Taliban, was inadequate in terms of its organisation and resources. They did send in the few serviceable helicopters they had captured from the Americans, but they were insufficient. The Taliban were, and are, disowned by the great majority of the world’s governments, and so there was little international aid. The initial UN response was limited, sending 1,200 emergency shelter kits, 8,000 hygiene kits, 3,000 jerry cans and 5 tonnes of medical supplies. Predictability and scale were of minimal importance here.

The Tonga Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha’apai (Tonga) volcanic eruption began late in the preceding year 2021. A submarine volcano began to erupt, and so there was some sense that things were going to get worse – a form of predictability. That volcano lies on the subduction zone stretching from New Zealand to Fiji, and so to some extent it could, and should, have been predicted. Plumes of gas and debris from the eruption reached 20km into the sky, and much ash fell on to surrounding islands, over a large area. A 15m tsunami was created, spreading across the Pacific Ocean; 4 people were killed by it. In total, 85,000 people were affected, mainly on the most populated islands e.g. Tonga’tapu. The single undersea cable connecting Tonga to the outside world was severed. Phone and internet communications were extremely limited, meaning the situation in some areas remained unknown for several days.

In terms of management, as above, factors relating to place, and governance were most significant. The main airport was largely undamaged, but the runway was covered by thick ash. Local people swept the runway as quickly as they could. Local volunteer Red Cross teams supported evacuations, providing first aid, and distributing relief supplies which were already on the islands. International help responded immediately. New Zealand sent two ships, including HMNZS Wellington, to the area with water supplies, survey teams and a helicopter. Australia flew military planes over the islands to investigate damage. However, aid workers from overseas were discouraged. The islands were Covid free until the explosion and the Tonga government wanted to keep it that way.

It is clear from these two examples that although prediction and scale are factors that should be considered, it is the human factors of level of development, capability of governance and aspects of place that are more significant when dealing with the management of tectonic hazard events. The relative ease of management is much more complex than saying one is harder than the other.

Edexcel: Assess the importance of prediction and forecasting in reducing the vulnerability of communities to earthquake hazards. (12 marks)

Prediction and forecasting earthquake hazards are key elements of hazard management. Prediction refers to knowing when and where a hazard will strike on a spatial and temporal scale so that it can be acted upon effectively. Forecasting provides a percentage probability of a hazard occurring, such as a 25% chance of a magnitude 7 quake. Whether either or both will reduce vulnerability (the risk of exposure to hazards combined with an ability to cope with them) may depend on the nature and location of the event that takes place. So, I shall discuss this question in the context of two events in 2022 – the earthquakes that struck each of the Paktika region of Afghanistan in June, and the south-eastern region of Taiwan in September, of that year.

The Paktika seismic event was caused by a magnitude 6.1MMS quake. It occurred at a shallow depth of only 10km. It was caused by deformation of the Eurasian plate, where both the Arabian plate, from the west, and the Indian plate, from the east are subducting. The area is well known for its tectonic activity, but the precise location and time of any earthquake here is almost impossible to predict. Little forecasting of future quakes had taken place, largely due to the lack of such governance in this region. The Afghan earthquake caused over 1100 deaths, with many more people injured, and thousands made homeless. The area is extremely poor, remote and mountainous. Several villages had over 80% of their houses demolished, being constructed from little more than wood and clay bricks. In addition, there were secondary events such as landslides, and the devastation added to the existing problems of food insecurity, lack of water, and disease.

Was the high vulnerability of communities to this event caused by the lack of prediction and forecasting? It could be argued that these are not as important as other factors related to place, development and governance. Medical facilities in the area are extremely poor and limited. The national government, formed from the recently established Taliban, was inadequate in terms of its organisation and resources. They did send in the few serviceable helicopters they had captured from the Americans, but they were insufficient. The Taliban were, and are, disowned by the great majority of the world’s governments, and so there was little international aid. Predictability and the ability to forecast were of minimal importance here.

The Taiwan quake was larger in terms of magnitude (6.9MMS) and slightly shallower at 7km. It was caused by the convergence of the Eurasian plate and the Philippine plate, with slip faulting along its boundary. This is a more active seismic zone than the Afghanistan area. All of these should have made the earthquake more predictable, easier to forecast, and more damaging to the community in the area. But, this was not the case. There was only one death attributed directly to the earthquake, with only 170 people injured. A tsunami warning was issued for nearby China and Japan but was later lifted. In terms of damage, several buildings collapsed, but the major impact was at one railway station where a train was derailed. Some temporary electricity blackouts were reported in this relatively remote area. A group of 600 tourists were trapped on a scenic mountain trail, though later rescued. It is also worthy of note that the major economic concern was the production of semiconductors in factories in the region, but production was unaffected. Although the quake was more predictable, the reduced vulnerability was probably due to higher levels of economic development, together with better governance including prior management.

It is clear from these two examples that although prediction and forecasting are factors that should be considered when examining the vulnerability of communities, it is the human factors of level of development, capability of governance and aspects of place that are more significant when dealing with the management of seismic hazard events in seeking to reduce vulnerability.