You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Spec mapping (AQA 7037): Paper 1, §3.1.5 Hazards — this synoptic capstone draws together the option's cross-cutting requirements: "hazard perception and its economic and cultural determinants; characteristic human responses and their relationship to hazard incidence, intensity, magnitude, distribution and level of development; the use of the Park model and the Hazard Management Cycle; the importance of risk and risk management in living with hazards; multi-hazard environments." It is explicitly designed to support the 20-mark "assess/evaluate" essays that dominate the high tariff, and it draws synoptic links across the whole specification — §3.1.1 (systems and climate change as a hazard multiplier), §3.2.1 (global systems and globalised vulnerability), §3.2.2 (changing places — why populations remain in risky places) and §3.2.x (urban environments and informal settlement). Assessment objectives: AO1 (perception theory, resilience, governance frameworks), AO2 (applying these to multi-hazard, real-world contexts and reaching judgement), and AO3 (interpreting risk-assessment, exposure and multi-hazard data).
This final lesson in the Hazards module draws together the themes of risk, perception, adaptation and governance. It addresses the fundamental question: why do people continue to live in hazardous environments? And it examines how societies can build resilience, adapt to hazards and govern risk through local, national and international frameworks. These themes are essential for high-level evaluation in AQA 20-mark essays. The single most important synoptic idea — the conclusion the whole option has been building toward — is that risk is a relationship, not a property of the hazard: it emerges from the interaction of a physical process with human exposure, vulnerability and capacity, all of which are shaped by economic, political and historical structures and, increasingly, by climate change.
Despite the risks, approximately 1 billion people live in flood-prone areas, 800 million within 100 km of an active volcano, and 2.7 billion in earthquake-prone regions. The reasons are complex and multifaceted:
| Reason | Example |
|---|---|
| Fertile volcanic soils | Volcanic ash weathers to produce nutrient-rich andosols. The slopes of Mount Merapi (Indonesia) are among the most densely farmed landscapes in the world — rice yields are 3–4 times higher than on non-volcanic soils. The benefits of staying outweigh the perceived risk of eruption |
| Employment and livelihoods | Coastal communities depend on fishing and tourism; farmers depend on floodplain agriculture; workers depend on urban employment in cities built on fault lines (e.g., Tokyo, San Francisco, Istanbul) |
| Tourism | Volcanic landscapes attract tourists (Iceland, Hawaii, Yellowstone); this creates jobs and revenue that bind communities to hazardous locations |
| Mineral resources | Geothermal energy (Iceland, Kenya), mineral deposits near volcanoes, fertile flood plains |
| Property and investment | People have invested their life savings in property; leaving means financial ruin. Insurance can make the risk feel manageable |
| Reason | Detail |
|---|---|
| Community ties | People are bound to places by family, social networks, cultural identity and community membership. Leaving means losing these connections |
| Ancestral land | Indigenous and traditional communities may have profound spiritual and cultural ties to land in hazardous areas |
| Religious belief | Some communities interpret hazards as divine will and believe that faith provides protection |
| Lack of awareness | Some populations, particularly recent migrants to hazardous areas, may not be aware of the risks |
| Normalisation | People who have lived through minor hazard events without serious harm may underestimate the risk of future events — the normalcy bias |
Many people do not choose to live in hazardous areas — they have no alternative:
This distinction between choice and constraint is the analytical heart of the "why do people live in hazardous areas?" question and maps directly onto the PAR model. For the relatively wealthy, living in a hazardous area can be a genuine cost–benefit choice — the fertile soils of Mount Merapi, the geothermal energy and tourism of Iceland, or the employment of Tokyo and San Francisco offer benefits that, weighed against a low-probability event, make staying rational. For the poor, by contrast, the "choice" is frequently illusory: the root causes and dynamic pressures of the PAR model (poverty, unequal land tenure, rapid unplanned urbanisation, political exclusion) funnel the most vulnerable onto the most dangerous ground — the flood-prone slum, the unstable hillside, the unprotected coast — precisely because it is the only land they can occupy. A top-band answer therefore reframes the question around power and inequality: the people most exposed to hazards are disproportionately those with the least power to choose otherwise, which is why reducing vulnerability is ultimately a question of development, governance and equity rather than individual decision-making.
Exam Tip: The question "Why do people live in hazardous areas?" is deceptively simple. The best answers will go beyond listing reasons and explore the inequality that constrains choice. Many people living in the most dangerous locations are not making a free choice — they are trapped by poverty, land tenure systems and political marginalisation.
There is often a significant gap between actual risk (as calculated by scientists) and perceived risk (as understood by individuals and communities):
graph TD
A["Actual Risk<br/>(scientific assessment)"] --> B["Perception Gap"]
C["Perceived Risk<br/>(individual/community assessment)"] --> B
B --> D["Influences behaviour:<br/>evacuation decisions,<br/>preparedness, land-use choices"]
| Factor | Effect on Perceived Risk |
|---|---|
| Recency | Recent events increase perceived risk; long gaps between events decrease it. After the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, coastal communities were highly aware of tsunami risk; 20 years later, awareness may have declined |
| Dread factor | Hazards perceived as catastrophic, uncontrollable and involuntary (e.g., nuclear accidents, supervolcanic eruptions) are feared more than hazards that are familiar and controllable |
| Optimism bias | "It won't happen to me" — people systematically underestimate their personal risk, especially for familiar hazards |
| Availability heuristic | People judge risk based on how easily examples come to mind — dramatic, media-covered events are perceived as more likely than statistically more common hazards |
| Trust in authorities | If people trust government warnings and scientific advice, they are more likely to prepare and evacuate; distrust (often well-founded) reduces compliance |
Key Definition: Resilience is the ability of a system, community or society to resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions through risk management (UNDRR, 2017).
| Scale | Actions |
|---|---|
| Individual/Household | Emergency kits; insurance; knowledge of evacuation routes; strengthened housing; savings as a financial buffer; community mutual aid networks |
| Community | Community-based early warning systems; volunteer emergency response teams; local hazard mapping; social cohesion and mutual support; cultural practices that embed hazard awareness |
| City/Regional | Land-use zoning; enforced building codes; critical infrastructure resilience (hospitals, power, water, transport); urban drainage systems; green infrastructure (parks, wetlands) to manage flood risk |
| National | National disaster management agencies (e.g., FEMA, Japan's Cabinet Office for Disaster Management); building code legislation; national early warning systems; disaster risk financing; social protection programmes |
| International | Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction; IPCC climate assessments; international aid mechanisms; technology transfer; capacity building in LICs |
Bangladesh is one of the world's most flood-prone countries:
Despite these challenges, Bangladesh has dramatically reduced flood deaths through adaptation:
| Strategy | Details |
|---|---|
| Cyclone shelters | Over 4,000 multi-purpose cyclone shelters built on raised platforms across the coastal zone, capable of protecting 8–10 million people. Deaths from Cyclone Bhola (1970): ~300,000–500,000; Cyclone Sidr (2007, similar intensity): ~3,500 — a 99% reduction |
| Early warning systems | The Bangladesh Meteorological Department issues cyclone warnings via radio, television, mobile phone SMS and community volunteers (the Cyclone Preparedness Programme has 76,000 volunteers). Warning lead time has increased from hours to days |
| Embankments and polders | Coastal embankments (polders) protect low-lying farmland from tidal flooding — though they can trap floodwater inside if breached |
| Flood-resistant agriculture | Development of flood-tolerant rice varieties (e.g., BRRI dhan51, which survives up to 25 days of submergence) by the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute and IRRI |
| Floating agriculture | Traditional practice of growing vegetables on floating beds (baira) in waterlogged areas — a centuries-old adaptation now being promoted as a climate adaptation strategy |
| Community-based adaptation | Women's self-help groups, community savings schemes, livelihood diversification |
Key Point: Bangladesh demonstrates that low-income countries can dramatically reduce hazard deaths through sustained investment in community-based adaptation, early warning systems and appropriate technology — even without the engineering budgets available to wealthy countries.
Bangladesh is the single most important positive case study in the whole option because it empirically refutes the fatalistic assumption that poverty makes high hazard mortality inevitable. The headline statistic — a fall in cyclone deaths from ~300,000–500,000 (Bhola 1970) to ~3,500 (Sidr 2007) for comparable-intensity storms, a reduction of around 99% — was achieved not by becoming rich (Bangladesh remained low-income throughout) but by systematically reducing vulnerability and increasing capacity: thousands of raised shelters, a 76,000-strong volunteer warning network, flood-tolerant rice, embankments and community-based adaptation. In risk-equation terms, the Hazard term was unchanged but the Capacity denominator was transformed. The deeper lesson for evaluation is that development and disaster-risk reduction are not the same thing: a society can dramatically lower its hazard mortality ahead of and independently from its overall economic development, by deliberately investing in resilience. This is the empirical foundation for arguing, in a 20-mark essay, that governance and adaptation — not GDP alone — determine outcomes.
The Sendai Framework, adopted at the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai, Japan (March 2015), is the successor to the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005–2015). It provides the global blueprint for reducing disaster risk and losses.
Four Priority Areas:
Seven Global Targets (by 2030):
| Target | Measure |
|---|---|
| A | Substantially reduce global disaster mortality |
| B | Substantially reduce the number of affected people globally |
| C | Reduce direct disaster economic loss relative to global GDP |
| D | Substantially reduce disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services |
| E | Substantially increase the number of countries with national and local DRR strategies |
| F | Substantially enhance international cooperation to developing countries |
| G | Substantially increase the availability of and access to multi-hazard early warning systems |
Effective governance requires:
Governance is arguably the master variable that the whole option keeps returning to, because it determines whether every other strategy is actually delivered. The Haiti–Chile contrast is fundamentally a governance contrast: both had building codes, but only Chile enforced them. The Armero tragedy was a governance failure: the science existed but was not acted upon. Even within a wealthy country, Katrina exposed governance failures (levee maintenance, the FEMA response). The reason governance is so decisive is that it is the mechanism that converts knowledge, money and technology into actual reductions in vulnerability — a country can have all three and still suffer disaster if institutions are weak, corrupt or paralysed. This is why the Sendai Framework places "strengthening disaster risk governance" as a standalone priority, and why the most powerful evaluative move in a 20-mark essay is often to argue that governance mediates the relationship between development and disaster outcomes — wealth enables, but governance delivers.
Modern hazard management recognises that most places face multiple hazards (multi-hazard environments):
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.