Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ILoveRevision)
    I have the same number of casestudies but i was wondering where you got your info on the avalanche from as the only articles i have are the day after with no impacts mentioned! Also what do floods come under?-climatic?

    cheers :confused:
    I got the avalanche information for Galtur from Wikipedia - I basically got the following in terms of effects:

    The avalanche was estimated to contain around 300,000 metric tonnes of snow and took only 50 seconds to reach the village. The avalanche went into the green zone destroying seven modern buildings and causing extensive primary and secondary damage as well as burying 57 people.

    Soon after the avalanche rescuers began to look for survivors; in 24 hours the rescuers saved 26 people. The day after the avalanche 31 people were all confirmed dead. Hazard zoning failed as it is based nearly entirely on the historical record, and there was no evidence of avalanches travelling so far on this track in the past.

    Yeah I've put flooding under climatic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Geogger)
    This actually looks fine in terms of types of case studies. I would now focus on the generalisation and look at ways that you use them. I would also have perhaps a few others that you could use as supporting ones - but for those you don't need huge amounts of info.
    Remember that it's the essay title you must write about as an essay and not just try to make it a series of case studies linked together.
    Cheers!
    Yeah I think I'm gonna make up a spider-map of the way I can link ideas together with case studies etc...fun fun fun.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I have no idea what to expert in this paper, anyone got any past questions?

    I think global challenge went pretty well so i really want to nail this as well.


    it is on spatial variation isn't it?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    my teacher said the only other impact questions have been:

    'The frequency and magnitude of natural hazards are the main factors that explain and spatial variatons in their impacts' disucss

    and

    How true is it to say that natural hazard events cause damage in MEDCs and deaths in LEDCS?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nikki_louise)
    my teacher said the only other impact questions have been:

    'The frequency and magnitude of natural hazards are the main factors that explain and spatial variatons in their impacts' disucss

    and

    How true is it to say that natural hazard events cause damage in MEDCs and deaths in LEDCS?
    I could answer the second question pretty well but I have no idea how I'd approach the first. Are they saying that the frequency and magnitude of hazards are the key factors in their impacts?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    ^ Yes that is one part of what it is saying, for example an interplate earthquake at a subduction zone such as the 2004 9.1 mg earthquake or one such as the 1994 Northridge earthquake 6.9 mg which occured at a conservative plate boundary. You could argue that earthquakes which are of greatest seismicity, which is proportional to impact can be predicted at major plate boundaries, wheras the least energetic earthquakes such as the 2002 Dudley quake or the more recent 2008 Lincoln quake, were intraplate earthquakes and as a result their magnitudes were in the high 4 and low 5 RS range, which resulted in minimal economic losses and no fatalities.

    In saying that though, the magnitude and frequency of the natural hazard's affect on its impacts, in this case an earthquake should be on par with the vulnerability of the human systems at the location. Two similar earthquakes like the 2001 Indian and 1994 Northridge, CA earthquakes of almost equal magnitude and focus had hugely differing social and economic impacts, due to hazard response, government regulations, hazard resistant design...

    Thats just an idea, I think what it wants you to say is that yes the Magnitude and Frequency of the hazard are important but also the Vulnerability of the population is proportional to the impact. Another good contrast would be the droughts of 1998-2001 which affected the Horn of Africa and the Australian drought of 2006.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 122025278)
    ^ Yes that is one part of what it is saying, for example an interplate earthquake at a subduction zone such as the 2004 9.1 mg earthquake or one such as the 1994 Northridge earthquake 6.9 mg which occured at a conservative plate boundary. You could argue that earthquakes which are of greatest seismicity, which is proportional to impact can be predicted at major plate boundaries, wheras the least energetic earthquakes such as the 2002 Dudley quake or the more recent 2008 Lincoln quake, were intraplate earthquakes and as a result their magnitudes were in the high 4 and low 5 RS range, which resulted in minimal economic losses and no fatalities.

    In saying that though, the magnitude and frequency of the natural hazard's affect on its impacts, in this case an earthquake should be on par with the vulnerability of the human systems at the location. Two similar earthquakes like the 2001 Indian and 1994 Northridge, CA earthquakes of almost equal magnitude and focus had hugely differing social and economic impacts, due to hazard response, government regulations, hazard resistant design...

    Thats just an idea, I think what it wants you to say is that yes the Magnitude and Frequency of the hazard are important but also the Vulnerability of the population is proportional to the impact. Another good contrast would be the droughts of 1998-2001 which affected the Horn of Africa and the Australian drought of 2006.
    Ah cheers! That makes sense now.
    Btw if anyone wants a good pairing for earthquakes the Iran (Bam) vs Californian one is a good un - they were both 6.6 on the richter scale + occured a day apart BUT the socio-economic impacts were in significant contrast.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Is everyone going to revise the plate boundary and between which plate their earthquake case study refers too? I think it might be key to identifying the impact of the hazard from the natural process aspect?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wazza07)
    I got the avalanche information for Galtur from Wikipedia - I basically got the following in terms of effects:

    The avalanche was estimated to contain around 300,000 metric tonnes of snow and took only 50 seconds to reach the village. The avalanche went into the green zone destroying seven modern buildings and causing extensive primary and secondary damage as well as burying 57 people.

    Soon after the avalanche rescuers began to look for survivors; in 24 hours the rescuers saved 26 people. The day after the avalanche 31 people were all confirmed dead. Hazard zoning failed as it is based nearly entirely on the historical record, and there was no evidence of avalanches travelling so far on this track in the past.

    Yeah I've put flooding under climatic.
    cheers i'll look it up on wiki and thanks for those bits you're a ledge.

    climatic seems logical!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 122025278)
    Is everyone going to revise the plate boundary and between which plate their earthquake case study refers too? I think it might be key to identifying the impact of the hazard from the natural process aspect?
    See that's what I'm not sure about - the level of detail we need to go to when it comes to the physical influences.

    On a basic level I'm guessing you can say that the active boundries etc.. = greater frequency of hazards = greater prevention (questionable) whereas something like the Bam earthquake was rather out of the blue. :confused: Ah I dunno. :p:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Every plate boundary is active, its just the crust in some parts is weaker than in others.Typically continental plates are the strongest and oceanic the weakest
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I do know what they are obviously, but I want a good definition for the exam.. So does anyone have a proper definition for Atmospheric, geomorphic and tectonic hazards?
    xx
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hmmm...i don't remember learning anything about avalanches! is it in the weather chapter? because my school chose to do water and farming instead.

    all i remember from hazards was that we covered floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions.

    the case studies my school looked at:
    mozambique flood 2000
    uk flood 2004 (not sure)
    floods in bangladesh (happens all the time)
    Bay Area earthquake 1989
    kobe earthquake 1995
    LA earthquake 1994
    South Asia Tsunami 2004
    Turkey Earthquake 1999
    Monserrat Volcanic eruption 1998
    Mt. St.Helens 1980
    Krakatoa late 1800s
    Pinatubo 1991

    can we write about case studies that isn't covered in the book or at school, but we happen to know enough about. because the stuff in the book is quite dated, and recent disasters such as sichuan earthquake and cyclone nargis may be more familiar?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    its a research unit so your get more marks with up to date case studies because they can't be from a book you would have obviously researched them

    hazards are split into climatic, tectonic and geomorphic. avalances comes under geomorphic as to mudflows land slides etc
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    If anyone is desperate for a specific example, pm me with exactly what you need eg a MEDC avalanche and I'll see what I can do. No guarantees I'll have what you need, but I'll see what I have.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nikki_louise)
    its a research unit so your get more marks with up to date case studies because they can't be from a book you would have obviously researched them

    hazards are split into climatic, tectonic and geomorphic. avalances comes under geomorphic as to mudflows land slides etc
    Thats a load of rubbish to put it likely. There is a book you can buy written by Sue Warn, the chief Geog B examiner at Edexcel full of case studies for this unit lol.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    You certainly need some good standard ones but a selection of up-to-date ones would enhance the individuality of your essay!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    i have that book by sue warn acutally and do use some of the case studies but like geogger said some individulality wuldnt go a miss!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Is the Sue Warn one the little green one? If so Ive been using that and theres isnt enough case studies to get by on.
    Im really stuck about which case studies to pick though. What are other people doing?
    xx
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I have a book called hazard and responses by Victoria Bishop but its a bit pricey lol! and yeh the green one is by sue warn
    As for case studies i researched like loads and then ive kinda just decided which ones i like the look of most and have the most about impatcs etc
    Chinese earthquake
    Kashmire earthquake
    Okushiri tsunami
    Boxing day tsunami
    Java mudflow
    Italy landslide
    Oklahoma tornado
    Daultipur-saltuna tornado
    although i do have a lot more case studies on different hazards if u need any more help
 
 
 

University open days

  • University of Bradford
    All faculties Undergraduate
    Wed, 21 Nov '18
  • Buckinghamshire New University
    All Faculties Postgraduate
    Wed, 21 Nov '18
  • Heriot-Watt University
    All Schools Postgraduate
    Wed, 21 Nov '18
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.