Unit 9 - Essays - Mass Movements SIMPLE ENGLISH UPDATED Flashcards
Assess the effectiveness of strategies for managing mass movement hazards (SIMPLE ENGLISH)
- Predicting When Disasters Might Happen
Main idea: Scientists try to predict mass movements by studying past disasters and weather patterns. This helps warn people before the disaster happens.
Example 1 – Puerto Rico Landslides (2017, Hurricane Maria)
Puerto Rico has many landslides after heavy rain.
Scientists use satellites and weather models to predict when they might happen.
Before Hurricane Maria in 2017, warnings were given, but 40,000 landslides still occurred.
Problem: Warnings only work if people listen and have a plan to evacuate.
Example 2 – 1999 Venezuelan Mudslides
911mm of rain fell in 10 days, making the ground unstable.
Scientists knew the danger, but not enough people were warned.
30,000 people died because they did not evacuate in time.
Shows a problem: Prediction alone is not enough. People must act on warnings.
Evaluation:
Prediction is useful in places with good emergency plans.
Less useful in places where people don’t listen, or governments don’t act.
- Mapping Dangerous Areas and Controlling Where People Build
Main idea: Governments use hazard maps to show dangerous areas and try to stop people from living there.
Example 3 – 1998 Italian Mudslides (Sarno Disaster)
Scientists made maps showing landslide risk in the Amalfi region.
Problem: Government did not stop people from building houses in risky areas.
Result: 159 people died when mudslides hit homes.
Example 4 – 1999 Venezuelan Mudslides
Many homes were built on unstable slopes.
Rapid urbanization (cities growing too fast) made the problem worse.
After the disaster, the government tried to relocate people, but many still live in risky areas.
Example 5 – 1999 European Avalanches
Switzerland, France, Austria have strict rules about where people can build.
Problem: Some ski resorts ignored hazard maps, leading to over 60 deaths.
Evaluation:
Hazard maps only work if governments enforce the rules.
They work better in rich countries where governments can control building.
In poor countries, people may have no choice but to live in dangerous areas.
- Building Structures to Stop or Reduce Damage
Main idea: Governments build walls, drainage systems, or plant trees to prevent landslides and avalanches.
Hard Engineering (Man-made structures)
Example – Italy (After 1998 Disaster): Government built check dams and drainage systems to stop future mudslides.
Example – Venezuela (After 1999 Disaster): The government tried to replant trees, but deforestation continued.
Soft Engineering (Using nature to help)
Example – Alps (After 1999 Avalanches):
Controlled explosions stop too much snow from building up.
Forest protection helps prevent snow from moving too fast.
Limitations (Problems with engineering solutions)
Very expensive (e.g., Switzerland spent millions on avalanche barriers).
Need maintenance (if not looked after, they stop working).
Poorer countries cannot afford large engineering projects.
Evaluation:
Most effective in rich countries (Switzerland, Italy).
Less effective in poorer countries (Venezuela, Puerto Rico) because of lack of money.
- Watching for Danger and Teaching People How to React
Main idea: Scientists monitor slopes and weather, and people are trained to react to warnings.
Example 6 – Puerto Rico Landslides
Scientists use drones and GPS to watch unstable slopes.
Problem: People still do not always evacuate when warned.
Example 7 – European Avalanches
After 1999, ski resorts trained people on how to escape avalanches.
Public education helped reduce deaths in later avalanches.
Limitations
In Italy and Venezuela (1998, 1999), people were not well-informed, which led to high deaths.
Teaching people works best when combined with warnings and evacuation plans.
Evaluation:
Works best in organized, well-educated countries.
Less useful in places where people are not taught about disasters.
- Comparing Strategies in Different Places and Over Time
Main idea: Some strategies work better in different locations, over different time periods, and at different scales.
Location (Different Places)
Rich vs Poor: Wealthy countries enforce rules and have better structures.
Mountains (Alps) vs Coastal Areas (Italy/Venezuela): Avalanches are easier to control than landslides.
Time (Short-Term vs Long-Term Solutions)
Short-term: Predictions and warnings help save lives but do not stop disasters.
Long-term: Hazard maps and land-use rules prevent disasters but only work if enforced.
Scale (Small vs Large Areas)
Local (Ski resorts in Alps): Monitoring and rules work well.
National (Italy, Venezuela): Rules exist but are not always followed.
Global (Puerto Rico, Venezuela): Poorer countries struggle with expensive solutions.
Evaluation:
A combination of strategies is needed.
The best results come when governments invest in prevention, enforce rules, and educate the public.
Conclusion
Some strategies work better than others, but no single solution is perfect.
Prediction and monitoring help in the short term but only work if people take action.
Building defenses and land-use planning are the best long-term strategies, but they require money and strong government enforcement.
Public education is very important—people need to understand the risks and know how to react.
The best approach is to use multiple strategies together. Governments must plan for the future, invest in disaster prevention, and enforce rules to keep people safe.
Assess the extent to which prediction, hazard mapping and preparedness can reduce the impacts of mass movements on lives and property. (SIMPLE ENGLISH)
Paragraph 1: How Prediction Helps, But Also Its Limits
Main Idea: Scientists try to predict mass movements, but predictions are not always accurate.
Explanation
Prediction means trying to warn people before a disaster happens.
Scientists use weather data, soil studies, and past disasters to guess where and when landslides or avalanches might happen.
However, prediction is not always precise. Sometimes, scientists know a disaster will happen but not exactly when or where.
Examples
Puerto Rico (Hurricane Maria, 2017)
Scientists knew landslides would happen because of the steep mountains and heavy rain.
Over 10,000 landslides happened after the hurricane.
Even though scientists predicted landslides, they could not stop the destruction because prediction alone is not enough.
Venezuela (1999 Mudslides)
Scientists predicted heavy rain (914 mm in just a few days).
But they could not predict exactly when and where the mudslides would happen.
30,000 people died because there was no warning system or evacuation plan.
Analysis
Prediction is useful because it can warn people.
But if people do not act quickly, or if the prediction is not very clear, disasters still happen.
Prediction must be used with other methods like hazard mapping and preparedness.
Paragraph 2: How Hazard Mapping Identifies Danger Zones
Main Idea: Hazard maps show where disasters are likely, but they only work if people follow the warnings.
Explanation
Scientists create hazard maps that show which areas are most at risk for landslides, mudslides, or avalanches.
These maps help governments decide where people should (or should not) build homes and roads.
But in some places, people ignore the maps and build in dangerous areas anyway.
Examples
Italy (Sarno Mudslides, 1998)
Scientists had already made hazard maps showing that Sarno’s slopes were dangerous.
But people built homes in these areas anyway.
When the mudslides happened, 160 people died.
This shows that hazard mapping is only useful if governments enforce building rules.
European Avalanches (1999)
Avalanches in Switzerland, France, and Austria killed 75 people.
Afterward, scientists improved hazard maps, using climate data and real-time monitoring.
Now, ski resorts and towns use these maps to prepare for avalanches.
This shows that hazard maps help when they are used properly.
Analysis
Hazard mapping is a great tool, but it only works if people listen to the warnings.
Some countries (like Switzerland) follow the maps, while others (like Italy) ignored them, leading to disaster.
Paragraph 3: Preparedness Saves Lives
Main Idea: Being prepared (having warning systems, drills, and emergency plans) reduces deaths in disasters.
Explanation
Preparedness means educating people, having evacuation plans, and being ready for disasters.
When people know what to do, fewer lives are lost.
Examples
Puerto Rico (Landslide Education Programs)
After past disasters, FEMA (U.S. emergency agency) taught people about landslide risks.
Now, communities have emergency plans, which helps reduce injuries and deaths.
Venezuela (1999 Mudslides – No Preparedness)
No evacuation plans or warning systems were in place.
People did not know how to react, leading to 30,000 deaths.
This disaster showed that preparedness is key to saving lives.
Analysis
Countries that invest in preparedness save more lives.
Venezuela’s disaster was so deadly because there were no warning systems or emergency plans.
Preparedness is one of the most effective ways to reduce disaster impact.
Paragraph 4: Why These Strategies Work Better in Some Places Than Others
Main Idea: These strategies work better in wealthy countries than in poorer countries, because of money and strong governments.
Explanation
Richer countries spend more money on disaster prevention.
Poorer countries often do not have strong laws to stop people from building in dangerous areas.
Over time, some countries have improved their disaster management, while others have not.
Examples
Switzerland, Austria, France → Strong laws, good preparedness, fewer deaths from avalanches.
Venezuela (1999) → Weak government, no preparedness, many deaths.
Analysis
Richer countries have better systems to manage disasters.
Poorer countries need more help to improve disaster preparedness.
Paragraph 5: How These Strategies Have Improved Over Time
Main Idea: Prediction, hazard mapping, and preparedness have improved over the years because of better technology and learning from past disasters.
Examples
Italy → After 1998, building codes became stricter.
Puerto Rico → After Hurricane Maria, more education programs were introduced.
Europe → Avalanche warnings improved after the 1999 disasters.
Analysis
Disasters teach countries lessons. Many places have improved their systems after past failures.
Prediction, hazard mapping, and preparedness are getting better over time.
Conclusion
Prediction, hazard mapping, and preparedness are all important to reduce mass movement disasters.
Prediction is helpful, but not perfect—it must be combined with other strategies.
Hazard mapping helps, but only if governments enforce the rules.
Preparedness (education, evacuation plans) is the most effective strategy for saving lives.
Some countries (Switzerland, Puerto Rico) have improved over time, but others (Venezuela) still struggle.
Final judgment: These strategies can reduce disaster impacts, but they must be used together and supported by strong government action.
‘Mass movement hazards vary in the extent to which they can be predicted and prepared for.’ How far do you agree with this view? (SIMPLE ENGLISH)
Paragraph 1: Can We Predict Mass Movements?
Main Idea: Some mass movements follow patterns, while others happen suddenly.
Easier to predict:
Venezuelan mudslides (1999) → Scientists saw that heavy rain was coming (911 mm in 52 hours). It was caused by La Niña, which they knew about. But they could not predict exactly where and when the landslides would happen.
Italian mudslides (1998) → Landslides happened after many days of heavy rain. Scientists knew the land was unstable but couldn’t say the exact time or location of the disaster.
Harder to predict:
Puerto Rico (2017 landslides) → Over 70,000 landslides after Hurricane Maria. Scientists knew the hurricane was coming but could not predict the exact landslide locations.
Puerto Rico (2020 earthquake landslides) → Landslides happened suddenly with no warning. Earthquakes cannot be predicted in advance.
Conclusion: Some disasters (like rain-caused mudslides) can be predicted a little bit, but we can’t always know exactly when and where they will happen. Sudden disasters (like earthquake landslides) are much harder to predict.
Paragraph 2: How Location Affects Prediction
Main Idea: Some places are easier to monitor because scientists have hazard maps and technology, while others are harder to study.
Easier to predict in some areas:
European avalanches (1999) → Avalanches happen in known areas. Scientists have hazard maps to show where risk is high.
Montroc avalanche (France, 1999) → Even though the area was known as a danger zone, the avalanche was much bigger than expected.
Harder to predict in some areas:
Puerto Rico (2017 landslides) → Landslides happened in steep, deforested areas where it’s hard to monitor changes in the land.
Venezuela (1999 mudslides) → Many people lived in risky areas (near mountains with loose soil), but the government did not prepare enough.
Conclusion: Some places have better monitoring systems, but even in these areas, disasters can still be bigger than expected. Some regions, especially poorer ones, do not have enough money to track dangers properly.
Paragraph 3: How Timing Affects Prediction
Main Idea: Some disasters happen slowly, giving time to warn people, while others happen very quickly with no warning.
Slow disasters (can sometimes be predicted):
Venezuelan mudslides (1999) → The rain lasted two days, so scientists knew landslides were likely, but the country was not well-prepared.
Italy (1998 mudslides) → Scientists used rainfall measurements to warn people.
Fast disasters (hard to predict):
Puerto Rico earthquake landslides (2020) → Landslides happened instantly when the earthquake hit.
European avalanches (1999) → Heavy snow caused sudden avalanches. Even though people knew avalanches could happen, they didn’t expect them to be so big.
Conclusion: Some disasters happen over time, so scientists can give some warnings. Others happen too fast, making prediction almost impossible.
Paragraph 4: How Well Can We Prepare for Mass Movements?
Main Idea: Even if a disaster cannot be fully predicted, preparation can help reduce damage. Some places prepare well, but others struggle.
Good preparation examples:
Europe (avalanches) → Governments build snow fences, use controlled explosions, and create hazard maps to warn people.
Italy (after 1998 landslides) → Stricter building laws were introduced to stop people from building in risky areas.
Poor preparation examples:
Venezuela (1999 mudslides) → No strong drainage systems, and many people lived in dangerous areas with no protection.
Puerto Rico (2017 landslides) → Many homes were built on unstable hills, making landslides more dangerous.
Conclusion: Wealthy countries can build better protections. Poorer countries often lack the money and planning needed to reduce damage.
Paragraph 5: How the Size of a Disaster Affects Preparedness
Main Idea: Small disasters can sometimes be handled by local communities, but big disasters need help from the government or other countries.
Small-scale disasters (local solutions possible):
Puerto Rico (small landslides) → Some communities stabilize slopes by planting trees or building small walls.
Large-scale disasters (need big help):
Venezuelan mudslides (1999) → Over 30,000 people lost their homes. The government struggled to help everyone.
European avalanches (1999) → Even though there was good preparation, the disasters were much worse than expected.
Conclusion: Small disasters can sometimes be managed, but big ones require national or even international aid.
Conclusion
Some mass movements can be predicted, especially those caused by rain. Others, like earthquake-triggered landslides, happen suddenly and cannot be predicted.
Where the disaster happens matters: Some places (Europe) have good hazard maps, while others (Venezuela, Puerto Rico) struggle to monitor risk.
Timing matters: Some disasters build up over time, allowing warnings, while others happen instantly.
Preparation is key: Richer countries like Italy and Europe invest in safety measures, while poorer countries often do not have the resources.
Final judgement: While prediction has improved, some disasters will always remain unpredictable, meaning preparation is the best way to reduce risks.
To what extent is it difficult to prepare for mass movement hazards? (SIMPLE ENGLISH)
Paragraph 1: Mass Movements Are Hard to Predict
Point: It is difficult to know exactly when and where they will happen.
Scientists can study maps and weather patterns, but some mass movements happen suddenly and with no warning.
Example: Venezuelan Mudslides (1998)
What happened?
In Vargas, Venezuela, over 30,000 people died because of huge mudslides.
The mudslides were caused by 914 mm of rain in just a few days.
Why was preparation difficult?
No one knew the rainfall would be so extreme.
The government did not have an early warning system.
Many homes were built on weak land, making them easy to destroy.
Why does this prove preparation is difficult?
Even though scientists knew the area was at risk, the exact time and size of the disaster were impossible to predict.
If a disaster cannot be predicted, it is hard to prepare.
Paragraph 2: Some Places Are More At Risk Than Others
Point: Some places experience mass movements more often, making preparation harder.
If a place gets a lot of rain, hurricanes, or earthquakes, it is more likely to have landslides.
Example: Puerto Rico Landslides (2017)
What happened?
After Hurricane María, over 40,000 landslides occurred.
Roads were destroyed, and people were trapped.
Why was preparation difficult?
Scientists had maps showing landslide risks, but the hurricane was stronger than expected.
The island’s drainage systems were not good enough, making the situation worse.
Why does this prove preparation is difficult?
Puerto Rico knew landslides were a risk, but the extreme weather was bigger than anything seen before.
Some disasters are worse than expected, so preparation is not always enough.
Paragraph 3: Human Activity Makes the Problem Worse
Point: People make mass movements worse by building in dangerous places and cutting down trees.
When people remove trees or build houses on weak land, they make landslides and mudslides more likely.
Example: Italian Mudslides (1998, Sarno)
What happened?
In Sarno, Italy, over 150 people died in mudslides after heavy rain.
Why was preparation difficult?
People had built homes on unstable hills even though the land was at risk.
Deforestation (cutting down trees) made the soil weak.
The government did not stop people from building in risky areas.
Why does this prove preparation is difficult?
Even when the danger is known, poor planning makes things worse.
If governments do not stop people from living in risky areas, preparation will fail.
Paragraph 4: Some Mass Movements Are Too Fast to Prepare For
Point: Avalanches and some landslides happen in seconds, making escape impossible.
Unlike storms or earthquakes, some disasters happen too fast for warning systems to work.
Example: 1999 European Avalanches (Galtür, Austria)
What happened?
An avalanche buried a village in Austria and killed 31 people.
The avalanche moved at 300 km/h, faster than a car on a highway.
Why was preparation difficult?
The village had avalanche protection walls, but the snow was too strong.
Warnings did not reach people in time to evacuate.
Why does this prove preparation is difficult?
Even with safety measures, some disasters are too powerful to stop.
If an avalanche moves too fast, people cannot escape in time.
Paragraph 5: Some Places Have Found Ways to Prepare
Point: Although preparation is difficult, some countries have made good plans to reduce damage.
Strong laws, warning systems, and protective barriers can help.
Examples of Good Preparation:
Japan and the U.S.:
Use hazard maps to stop people from building in risky areas.
Have early warning systems to warn people about landslides.
Switzerland:
Builds avalanche barriers and does controlled explosions to reduce risk.
People practice avalanche drills so they know what to do.
Italy and Austria:
Some regions have planted trees and improved drainage systems to prevent mudslides.
Why does this prove preparation is possible?
These countries show that with enough money and good planning, mass movement risks can be reduced.
The problem is that not every country has the money or strong government rules to do this.
Conclusion
Restate argument:
Preparing for mass movements is very difficult because they are hard to predict, some happen too fast, and human actions make them worse.
Summarize key points:
Some disasters (Venezuela, Puerto Rico) are impossible to fully predict.
Some places (Italy) make the risk worse with bad planning.
Some hazards (avalanches) happen too fast to prepare for.
However, some places (Switzerland, Japan) show that preparation can work with good planning.
Final judgement:
Preparation is difficult, but not impossible.
Some places are better at preparing because they have more money and better rules.
If governments take action, they can reduce the damage from mass movements.
