You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
This final lesson consolidates everything you have learned across the Natural Hazards topic. It provides a summary of all the case studies you need, key comparisons, and worked examples of exam questions with model answers. Use this lesson as your revision guide and exam preparation toolkit.
You must know the following case studies for the AQA GCSE exam:
| Topic | Case Study | Type | Key Facts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Earthquake (LIC/NEE) | Nepal, 2015 | LIC | 7.8 Mw; 8,800+ deaths; 600,000+ homes destroyed; slow recovery |
| Earthquake (HIC) | L'Aquila, Italy, 2009 | HIC | 6.3 Mw; 309 deaths; 67,000 homeless; faster but ongoing recovery |
| Volcanic eruption | Eyjafjallajokull, Iceland, 2010 | HIC | VEI 4; 0 deaths; 100,000+ flights cancelled; global disruption |
| Tropical storm (LIC/NEE) | Typhoon Haiyan, Philippines, 2013 | LIC/NEE | Cat 5; 6,300+ deaths; $12 bn damage; 14 million affected |
| UK extreme weather | Storm Desmond, 2015 | UK | Record rainfall; 5,200+ homes flooded; $500m+ damage |
Exam Tip: You do not need to memorise every fact from every case study. Focus on learning 3–4 key statistics for each, and practise explaining the causes, effects (primary and secondary), and responses (immediate and long-term) for each one.
| Factor | Nepal 2015 (LIC) | L'Aquila 2009 (HIC) |
|---|---|---|
| Magnitude | 7.8 | 6.3 |
| Deaths | 8,800+ | 309 |
| Buildings destroyed | 600,000+ homes | ~10,000 buildings damaged |
| Emergency response speed | Slow, especially in remote mountain areas | Within one hour |
| Building quality | Many poorly constructed, non-earthquake-resistant | Mix of modern and historic buildings |
| Recovery speed | Very slow; many still in temporary shelter after 2+ years | Faster but historic centre still being restored 10+ years later |
| International aid received | Significant (UN $415 million appeal) | Minimal (Italy managed domestically) |
Key conclusion: The LIC (Nepal) suffered far more deaths and damage despite being a stronger earthquake. This is primarily due to poverty, poor infrastructure, limited emergency services, and remoteness of affected areas. The HIC (Italy) had better buildings, faster emergency response, and greater financial resources — but still struggled with long-term recovery.
Example: Define the term "natural hazard."
Model answer: A natural event that has the potential to cause loss of life, injury, or damage to property and the environment.
Example: Explain one reason why tropical storms weaken when they move over land.
Model answer: When a tropical storm moves over land, it is cut off from its energy source — warm ocean water above 27 °C. Without the evaporation of warm water to provide moisture and latent heat, the storm loses energy and its wind speeds decrease. Additionally, friction with the land surface slows the winds further.
Example: Describe two effects of Typhoon Haiyan (2013) and explain why they were so severe.
Model answer:
Effect 1: Storm surge — A wall of water up to 5 metres high swept through the city of Tacloban, destroying buildings and drowning thousands of people. This was so severe because Tacloban is a low-lying coastal city, and many residents had not evacuated despite warnings, partly because they did not understand the term "storm surge" used in the official warning.
Effect 2: Destruction of agriculture — Over 600,000 hectares of farmland were destroyed, including coconut plantations. This was severe because coconut farming was the main livelihood for many communities, and coconut trees take 6–8 years to regrow, meaning the economic impact lasted for years after the storm.
These require a well-structured answer with a clear argument. Use the PEE (Point, Evidence, Explain) structure for each paragraph.
Example: "The effects of tectonic hazards are more severe in LICs than in HICs." To what extent do you agree with this statement? Use named examples in your answer. [6 marks]
Model answer:
I largely agree with this statement, although there are important nuances.
The Nepal earthquake of 2015 (magnitude 7.8) killed over 8,800 people, destroyed 600,000 homes, and caused economic damage equivalent to half of Nepal's GDP. Emergency services were slow to reach remote mountain villages, and many buildings collapsed because they were not built to earthquake-resistant standards. This demonstrates that LICs suffer more severely because of poverty, poor infrastructure, and limited emergency response capacity.
In contrast, the L'Aquila earthquake in Italy in 2009 (magnitude 6.3) killed 309 people. Although this was still a significant disaster, the much lower death toll — despite the earthquake being in a densely populated area — reflects Italy's better building standards, faster emergency services (response within one hour), and greater financial resources for recovery. The Italian government was able to provide temporary housing, financial support, and long-term reconstruction without relying on international aid.
However, it is important to note that the Nepal earthquake was much stronger (7.8 vs 6.3), so the comparison is not entirely straightforward. Additionally, even in HICs, recovery can be slow — parts of L'Aquila's historic centre remain unrepaired more than a decade later, showing that wealth alone does not guarantee rapid recovery.
In conclusion, the evidence strongly supports the statement. LICs are more vulnerable to tectonic hazards due to poverty, poor infrastructure, weaker governance, and limited emergency services. However, the severity of effects also depends on the magnitude of the event, population density, and the specific characteristics of the affected area.
Exam Tip: In 6-mark questions, the examiner is looking for: (1) specific case study evidence with named examples, (2) clear explanation of why effects differ, (3) balance — consider both sides, and (4) a justified conclusion. Use connectives like "however," "in contrast," "additionally," and "in conclusion" to structure your answer.
| Mistake | Why It Loses Marks | What to Do Instead |
|---|---|---|
| Not naming specific case studies | Generic answers cannot reach the top mark band | Always include place names, dates, and statistics |
| Confusing primary and secondary effects | Shows misunderstanding of key concepts | Primary = direct (shaking, wind); Secondary = indirect (disease, fire) |
| Confusing mitigation and adaptation | Common error that costs marks | Mitigation = reducing causes; Adaptation = adjusting to effects |
| Writing about only one side in an evaluation question | Cannot access the highest marks without balance | Always consider both sides before reaching a conclusion |
| Giving vague statistics ("lots of people died") | Lacks precision and credibility | Use specific numbers (8,800 deaths, $12 billion damage) |
| Not linking to development level (HIC/LIC) | Misses the key geographical concept | Explain why wealth and development affect hazard impacts |
| Forgetting to conclude | Leaves the answer incomplete | Always end with "In conclusion..." and a clear judgement |
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.