The big idea: A hazard is a natural event that could harm people. The risk it poses is not just about the event's size - it depends on who and what is exposed, and how well they can cope.
Geographers use a simple idea: Risk = Hazard x Vulnerability / Capacity to cope. The same earthquake hits a rich, prepared city far more gently than a poor, unprepared one.
Vulnerability is the key term: how susceptible people are to harm. It is driven by economic, social, demographic and political factors - not by the geology alone.
Key terms for hazard risk
- Hazard - a natural event (earthquake, eruption, landslide) that threatens people.
- Risk - the probability of harmful consequences from a hazard.
- Vulnerability - how susceptible a community is to harm from a hazard.
- Capacity to cope - the ability to prepare for, withstand and recover (wealth, governance, planning).
- Exposure - the people and property in the place where the hazard strikes.
- Risk perception - how seriously people judge the threat - which shapes whether they prepare.
Risk is not just the hazard: Two earthquakes of the same magnitude can cause wildly different damage. The difference is vulnerability and capacity to cope - wealth, building codes, governance, density and preparedness - not the size of the shake.
How this is tested: Paper 1 Option D opens with a data-response (read vulnerability or impact figures off a table/map) and short Explain [3] parts on how one economic, social, demographic or political factor changes risk. Always name the factor and develop how it raises or lowers vulnerability.
| Factor | Haiti 2010 (Mw 7.0) | Christchurch 2011 (Mw 6.3) |
|---|---|---|
| Deaths | ~220,000 | 185 |
| Wealth (development) | Low-income, very poor | High-income, wealthy |
| Buildings | Unreinforced, no enforced codes | Strict, enforced building codes |
| Governance / preparedness | Weak government, little planning | Strong response, drills, insurance |
| Population & density | Dense, fast-growing capital | Lower density, planned city |
| Outcome | Catastrophic - high vulnerability | Serious but survivable - low vulnerability |
Read the contrast, not just one column: When a table compares two events, the marks come from the comparison: a similar magnitude but a huge gap in deaths points straight to vulnerability (wealth, building codes, governance) rather than the hazard itself.
What drives vulnerability
- Economic - wealth funds strong buildings, insurance and recovery; poverty forces people into flimsy homes on risky land.
- Social - education, risk perception, healthcare and community ties shape who survives and recovers.
- Demographic - the elderly and very young struggle to flee or recover; high density raises exposure.
- Political - good governance brings codes, warnings and planning; weak governance leaves people unprotected.
Feeling unprepared for exams?
Get a clear study plan, practice with real questions, and know exactly where you stand before exam day. No more guessing.
Get Exam Ready Free7-day free trial • No card required
Top marks need named events. Vulnerability is shaped by economic, social, demographic and political factors - and the same hazard can devastate one community while barely touching another.
| Factor | Raises vulnerability | Lowers vulnerability |
|---|---|---|
| Wealth / economy | Poverty - flimsy homes, no insurance | Wealth - strong buildings, insurance, recovery funds |
| Governance / politics | Weak state - no codes or warnings | Strong state - enforced codes, warning systems |
| Age structure | Many elderly / very young - hard to flee | Working-age, mobile population |
| Education / awareness | Low awareness - hazard seen as fate | Drills, education, high risk perception |
| Density | Crowded settlement - high exposure | Lower density, planned land use |
Haiti 2010 - poverty and weak governance: The 2010 Haiti earthquake (Mw 7.0) killed around 220,000 people. A poor economy meant unreinforced housing, weak government meant no enforced building codes, and a dense capital meant huge exposure. Recovery was crippled - many displaced people lived in camps for years because the scale of devastation, weak institutions and lack of funding blocked rebuilding.
Eyjafjallajokull 2010 & Nevado del Ruiz 1985 - capacity matters: The 2010 Eyjafjallajokull eruption in Iceland caused no local deaths - a wealthy, prepared state with monitoring and good planning. By contrast the 1985 Nevado del Ruiz eruption in Colombia killed about 23,000 in the town of Armero: warnings were poor and ignored, so a lahar buried a community that could have been evacuated. Low capacity to cope, not eruption size, drove the disaster.
Always give the mechanism: Do not just name a factor - explain how it changes vulnerability. Poverty -> flimsy housing + no insurance -> buildings collapse + slow recovery -> higher death toll.
How this is tested - the [10] Examine essay: Paper 1 Option D ends with a 10-mark Examine essay, marked on markbands. The recurring version asks why two events of similar magnitude cause very different human impacts - or how economic vs social factors determine vulnerability.
Top band needs: accurate terms, a range of developed factors (economic, social, demographic, political), named case studies with data, a weighing of relative importance, and a clear judgement.