12 mark geography help

Hey, please could you read my answer to a 12 marker (I have included my plan also) and give me a realistic mark out of 12 and reasons why or what I could have done better?

I have mocks in a week and need critical feedback on what I can be doing better, thanks :smile:

Assess the reasons why some communities are more vulnerable than others to tectonic hazards (12)

Plan:

P1 = low-income/developing country

•

Low income means a low level of preparedness

•

low resilience due to a lack of education

•

Low resilience due to lack of prepared funds/buildings

•

Example = Nepal 2015 (9000 deaths and 22,000 injured)

P2 = high-income country

•

High income more prepared with education plans and training

•

More supplies rely less on international aid

•

More building preparedness

•

Evacuation routes planned

•

Example = Chile 2010 (525 dead and only 600 injured)

P3 = assessment of facts seen

•

Even though 525 is a lot it is less than 9000

•

What countries that are underdeveloped can do

•

How abroad can help with low-income education?

•

Isolated mountain communities

•

Densely populated urban areas

Vulnerability is the state in which a community or individual is unable to care for themselves or others based on an event occurring, leaving them stranded. In this short essay, the following will be outlined: high-income countries’ development status compared with low income and how physical location can affect the vulnerability of an area.

Low-income countries tend to have lower levels of education than the higher-income countries surrounding them, a low level of preparedness means that the building safety standards are not met as efficiently and there is a lack of education and training for the younger population as well as the community as a precursor to the event taking place. A lower-income country will also have a lack of buildings that are ‘earthquake proof’ with solid foundations and an abundance of favelas or unplanned squatter settlements meaning that the death toll will be much higher due to their homes being destroyed very easily. An example of a low-income country that was unprepared is Nepal, in 2015 a 7.9 magnitude earthquake hit Nepal, causing over 9000 deaths and 22,000 injuries due to a lack of preparation and planning, this could have been mitigated, however.

Higher-income countries, as the name suggests have higher levels of development due to their elevated incomes. Due to said higher incomes, there is easy access to education and employee training not only for the community but for the younger population on what to do in the case of a hazard occurring. The buildings will have stronger foundations and there will be more evacuation routes planned ahead of time. Not to mention, a higher income country will rely less on international aid as they have made sure they have enough supplies and the means to take care of their population primarily after an event takes place. An example of this was Chile in 2010, there were only around 520 deaths and 600 injured compared to the strictly elevated numbers obtained by Nepal in 2015.

Even though numbers such as 520 deaths still mean that some percentage of the population died and was therefore affected, this number is significantly lower than that of a low-income country. However, income is not the only factor by which a country can become affected by a hazard. The physical environment plays a part also, an isolated mountain community like the alps may be a prime target for venerability due to the inability to be helped quickly. As well as this, densely populated urban areas are also at risk due to the simple high volume of people in one area.

In conclusion, income is not the only aspect that can cause an area to suffer after a natural hazard but is one of many that cause the effects that we see in the news and economy.

Reply 1

Melek009

Your answer to the question "Assess the reasons why some communities are more vulnerable than others to tectonic hazards" is well-organized and presents a clear argument. You provide examples of low-income and high-income countries to illustrate the differences in vulnerability, and also consider other factors such as physical environment and population density.

To improve your answer, you could expand on some of the points you made. For example, you could provide more detail on how low levels of education and preparedness contribute to low resilience in low-income countries, or explain more about the ways in which high-income countries are able to better prepare for and respond to tectonic hazards. Additionally, you could address the question of how communities can become more resilient to tectonic hazards, whether through improving infrastructure and building safety standards, increasing access to education and training, or other measures.

Overall, I would give your answer a mark of 9 out of 12. You effectively addressed the prompt and provided relevant examples, but there is room for further development and elaboration on your points.

Reply 2

Tedtaylorrre

Original post by amy1109

Hey, please could you read my answer to a 12 marker (I have included my plan also) and give me a realistic mark out of 12 and reasons why or what I could have done better?
I have mocks in a week and need critical feedback on what I can be doing better, thanks :smile:

Assess the reasons why some communities are more vulnerable than others to tectonic hazards (12)
Plan:
P1 = low-income/developing country

•

Low income means a low level of preparedness

•

low resilience due to a lack of education

•

Low resilience due to lack of prepared funds/buildings

•

Example = Nepal 2015 (9000 deaths and 22,000 injured)

P2 = high-income country

•

High income more prepared with education plans and training

•

More supplies rely less on international aid

•

More building preparedness

•

Evacuation routes planned

•

Example = Chile 2010 (525 dead and only 600 injured)

P3 = assessment of facts seen

•

Even though 525 is a lot it is less than 9000

•

What countries that are underdeveloped can do

•

How abroad can help with low-income education?

•

Isolated mountain communities

•

Densely populated urban areas

Vulnerability is the state in which a community or individual is unable to care for themselves or others based on an event occurring, leaving them stranded. In this short essay, the following will be outlined: high-income countries’ development status compared with low income and how physical location can affect the vulnerability of an area.
Low-income countries tend to have lower levels of education than the higher-income countries surrounding them, a low level of preparedness means that the building safety standards are not met as efficiently and there is a lack of education and training for the younger population as well as the community as a precursor to the event taking place. A lower-income country will also have a lack of buildings that are ‘earthquake proof’ with solid foundations and an abundance of favelas or unplanned squatter settlements meaning that the death toll will be much higher due to their homes being destroyed very easily. An example of a low-income country that was unprepared is Nepal, in 2015 a 7.9 magnitude earthquake hit Nepal, causing over 9000 deaths and 22,000 injuries due to a lack of preparation and planning, this could have been mitigated, however.
Higher-income countries, as the name suggests have higher levels of development due to their elevated incomes. Due to said higher incomes, there is easy access to education and employee training not only for the community but for the younger population on what to do in the case of a hazard occurring. The buildings will have stronger foundations and there will be more evacuation routes planned ahead of time. Not to mention, a higher income country will rely less on international aid as they have made sure they have enough supplies and the means to take care of their population primarily after an event takes place. An example of this was Chile in 2010, there were only around 520 deaths and 600 injured compared to the strictly elevated numbers obtained by Nepal in 2015.
Even though numbers such as 520 deaths still mean that some percentage of the population died and was therefore affected, this number is significantly lower than that of a low-income country. However, income is not the only factor by which a country can become affected by a hazard. The physical environment plays a part also, an isolated mountain community like the alps may be a prime target for venerability due to the inability to be helped quickly. As well as this, densely populated urban areas are also at risk due to the simple high volume of people in one area.
In conclusion, income is not the only aspect that can cause an area to suffer after a natural hazard but is one of many that cause the effects that we see in the news and economy.