1. Response To Tectonic Hazards

2. Ledc earthquake prevention
Little prevention is done because of lack of government funding into prevention strategies.
In ledc urban areas such as Hati more damage will be caused because of cramped living conditions.
Rural less damage will be done because there are less people to harm.
In LEDCs the buildings are often of poor design because of cost. This is one reason why earthquake damage in LEDCs is usually greater. For example in 1999 an earthquake measuring between on the Richter Scale killed people in Turkey.
LEDCs often have to rely on aid from MEDCs to assist in responding to earthquakes. Aid can come in many forms e.g. medical facilities, tents, rescue teams etc. Aid can take anywhere up to 3 days to arrive. This reduces the chance of survival for many people injured or trapped beneath buildings.

3. Medc Earthquake prevention
Potential damage = Vulnerability
Population
More money in a county means that governments can invest in strategies to lover the vulnerability from earthquakes.
For example earthquake proof buildings in California and Japan.
MEDCs are more likely to have response plans available. In Japan school students practice an earthquake drill on the 1st September every year. Emergency services are well trained in responding to a tectonic hazard. In contrast LEDCs tend to lack disaster response plans.
Buildings in More Economically Developed Countries (MEDCs) are more likely to withstand an earthquake, because they may be designed to withstand tremors. They may have seismic isolators (e.g. Japan) or deep foundations (e.g. USA). In 1995 an earthquake measuring 7.2 on the Richter scale hit the Japanese city of Kobe. Only 5000 people were killed.

4. Future issues
As the population grows and more people live on dangerous land the potential risk increases and earthquakes will not only become more frequent but also appear more devastating.

5. Tsunami Specific: Modifying the event (Hazard Mitigation); - Coastal Defence - Coastal Engineering and Training.
Modifying Human Vulnerability - Prediction Systems
- Coastal Zone Management
Coastal Zone management and land planning.
Prevision of emergency kits.
Education and Training.

6. Indian Tsunami 2004: BEFORE/DURING: Mangroves absorb a lot of the tsunamis force, reducing the overall impact in some areas. Greatly reducing the risk of the tsunami. Could this be used as a bottom up natural defence? Compared to the hard engineering in Japan. DURING: East Pilbara, Western Australia allows for tracking of earthquakes to allow for accurate predictions of tsunamis in real time. FUTURE: The rebuilding time of the 2004 tsunami could take years, and is effectively re-housing the entire population of Philadelphia.

7. Earthquake Specific:
Modifying the Event:
Not possible, the plates of the world cannot be physically changed.
Modifying the Human Vulnerability:
Ground shaking and liquefaction risk mapping.
Aseismic buildings.
Earthquake education and drills.
Not possible to predict.

10. Volcano Specific:
Modifying the Event:
Lava Diversion.
Modifying the human Vulnerability:
Monitoring prediction, warning and evacuation systems.
Education.
Shelters.

13. Changing strategies over time
In the past, the main focus point of hazard management has been on low tech, rescue efforts after the event as taken place, and on educating people in case another event occurs.
However, as new technology becomes available, governments are now more likely to be looking at using high tech, forecasting systems to attempt to predict when a hazard such as an earthquake or a volcano will occur.
New research is being completed all over the would, experimenting on the accumulation of strain along fault lines, and the temperature of gases escaping from a volcano eruption, amongst other things
Image 2
Image 3

15. Cost benefit analysis
Possibly the best way of comparing methods of coping with hazards is through a cost-benefit analysis.
Figure 1 shows that as effort or expenditure increases, the benefits to the people involved in the hazard increases.
The optimum point on the cost benefit analysis is when the optimum benefit is equal to the optimum cost
Image 1