Unit 9 - Essays - Preparing for Mass Movements

Question 1

Assess the effectiveness of strategies for managing mass movement hazards.

Answer 1

Paragraph 1: Puerto Rico Landslides
Causes: steep terrain, deforestation, and heavy rainfall.
Strategies: USGS hazard mapping, early warning systems, community education.
Successes: Identification of high-risk areas, improved awareness.
Limitations: Poor enforcement, unregulated construction, lack of funding.
Judgement: Effective in raising awareness but limited in addressing root causes.

Paragraph 2: Italian Mudslides (1998)
Causes: heavy rainfall, unstable slopes, illegal housing.
Strategies: Retaining walls, drainage systems, reforestation, early warning systems.
Successes: Reduced risk in specific areas.
Limitations: Continued illegal construction, frequent landslides (over 20 events in 10 years).
Judgement: Effective locally but undermined by poor regulation.

Paragraph 3: Venezuelan Mudslides (1999)
Causes: intense rainfall, steep terrain, informal settlements.
Strategies: Evacuations, relocation of communities, international aid, slope drainage systems.
Successes: Immediate safety for some communities.
Limitations: Lack of hazard mapping and preparation, informal settlements remained vulnerable.
Judgement: Short-term effectiveness but poor long-term planning.

Paragraph 4: European Avalanches (1999)
Causes: record snowfall, unstable snowpacks.
Strategies: Snow fences, controlled explosions, European Avalanche Warning Service (EAWS).
Successes: Reduced risks in ski resorts, evacuation protocols worked well.
Limitations: Challenges with extreme weather, lack of resources for remote villages.
Judgement: Generally effective but needs better resource distribution for fairness.

Paragraph 5: Comparative Analysis
Common strengths: Hazard mapping, early warning systems, structural mitigation.
Common weaknesses: Poor enforcement (Italy, Venezuela), unequal resources (Europe), limited funding (Puerto Rico).
Impact of climate change on increasing hazard frequency and unpredictability.
Judgement: Strategies are moderately effective but must integrate enforcement, equitable funding, and long-term planning.

Conclusion
Restate the strengths (mapping, infrastructure, education).
Highlight weaknesses (funding, enforcement, resource inequity).
Final judgement: Strategies work in reducing risks but need stronger integration and sustained investment to address challenges related to spatial, scale, and temporal variations.

Question 1

Assess the extent to which prediction, hazard mapping and preparedness can reduce the impacts of mass movements on lives and property.

Answer 1

Main Body
1. Prediction: Enhancing Early Warnings

Define prediction and its importance in identifying triggers like rainfall, seismic activity, and snow instability.
Case Study: Puerto Rico (Hurricane Maria landslides).
Over 3,000 deaths, lack of robust prediction systems.
Case Study: European avalanches (1999).
Predictions saved lives but didn’t prevent 70 deaths.
Point: Prediction works better for slow-developing hazards than sudden events.

2. Hazard Mapping: Identifying Risk Zones

Define hazard mapping as a tool for identifying vulnerable areas.
Case Study: Italy (1998 Sarno mudslides).
Maps identified risks, but poor enforcement led to 159 deaths.
Case Study: Venezuela (1999 Vargas mudslides).
Absence of maps led to 30,000 deaths and severe property loss.
Point: Maps are useful only when combined with regulations and enforcement.

3. Preparedness: Educating and Protecting Communities

Define preparedness through education, drills, and infrastructure.
Case Study: Puerto Rico.
Limited public awareness worsened disaster impacts.
Case Study: European Alps (1999 avalanches).
Barriers and evacuation plans reduced damages but couldn’t prevent all losses.
Point: Preparedness depends on resources and public cooperation.

4. Spatial and Temporal Challenges

Spatial: Socioeconomic differences (e.g., Venezuela’s informal settlements vs. Italy’s infrastructure challenges).
Temporal: Sudden disasters (e.g., Hurricane Maria) vs. long-term issues (e.g., Italy’s environmental degradation).
Point: Strategies must be adaptable to different locations and timing of events.

5. Scale of Impacts and Responses

Define how disaster size affects mitigation strategies.
Small-scale disasters: Easier to manage locally (Puerto Rico’s landslides).
Large-scale disasters: Overwhelm local resources (Venezuela).
Case Study: European avalanches (1999).
Regional cooperation mitigated impacts but highlighted resource disparities.

Conclusion
Summarize the effectiveness of prediction, hazard mapping, and preparedness.
Acknowledge limitations due to spatial, temporal, and scale-specific challenges.
Judgment: These strategies work best when integrated with enforcement, long-term funding, and community involvement. A combined approach is key to reducing impacts of mass movements.

Question 2

‘Mass movement hazards vary in the extent to which they can be predicted and prepared for.’ How far do you agree with this view?

Answer 2

1. Predictability of Hazards

Discuss how rainfall, geology, and historical patterns influence predictability.
Example: Puerto Rico landslides during Hurricane María (2017) and Italian mudslides (1998).
Highlight challenges like localized variability in Puerto Rico versus clear historical trends in Italy.

2. Preparedness and Vulnerability

Explore how socio-economic factors influence preparedness.
Example: Venezuelan mudslides (1999) with high fatalities due to informal housing and weak warning systems.
Compare with European avalanches (1999), where advanced systems still faced limits due to extreme snowfall.

3. Timing and Emergency Responses

Explain how the speed of hazard onset affects response.
Example: European avalanches (1999) occurring within minutes versus slower-developing mudslides in Puerto Rico and Venezuela.
Highlight how rapid events challenge response, while large-scale disasters overwhelm resources.

4. Scale of Hazards

Discuss how size affects prediction and preparation.
Example: Large-scale disasters like Puerto Rican landslides (Hurricane María) and Venezuelan mudslides versus smaller, localized events like the Montroc avalanche.
Highlight differences in resource deployment and management.

5. Location and Resources

Explore spatial variations in resources and hazard management.
Example: Advanced monitoring and infrastructure in European avalanche zones versus resource limitations in Puerto Rico and Venezuela.
Discuss how wealthier regions are better equipped to manage hazards.

Conclusion

Restate that predictability and preparedness depend on timing, scale, location, and resources.
Highlight contrasts between advanced systems in Europe and challenges in less-resourced areas like Venezuela.
Conclude that prediction and preparation vary widely, with socio-economic and environmental factors playing a critical role in outcomes.

Question 3

To what extent is it difficult to prepare for mass movement hazards?

Answer 3

1. Challenges in Prediction and Monitoring

Difficulty predicting timing and location due to environmental variability.
Example: 1999 European avalanches—snowfall prediction was possible, but avalanche triggers were not.
Example: Hurricane María in Puerto Rico—widespread landslides triggered by rainfall, with localized impacts hard to foresee.
Limited monitoring systems and expensive technology complicate preparedness.

2. Geographic Challenges

Areas prone to mass movements face uneven preparation due to geographical diversity.
Example: Sarno, Italy (1998)—mountainous areas with unstable slopes and poor drainage systems led to devastating mudslides.
Example: Puerto Rico—mountainous regions are more vulnerable than coastal cities, with fewer resources allocated to rural areas.

3. Human Activity and Increased Risk

Urbanization, deforestation, and poor land use exacerbate vulnerability.
Example: Venezuela (1999)—urban sprawl on risky floodplains worsened impacts of mudslides.
Example: Italy (1998)—deforestation and farming destabilized slopes.
Importance of enforcing land-use policies to mitigate risks.

4. Variability in Scale and Timing

Challenges in preparing for both frequent small events and rare large disasters.
Example: European avalanches (1999)—frequent small avalanches disrupted areas, while large events like Galtür caused fatalities.
Example: Puerto Rico—thousands of landslides during Hurricane María varied from small to regionally significant, making preparation inconsistent.

5. Socioeconomic and Institutional Constraints

Wealthier regions like Austria and Italy have better resources but still face gaps in planning.
Poorer regions like Venezuela and Puerto Rico struggle with funding, governance, and enforcement of safety measures.
Example: Venezuela (1999)—lack of relocation plans and slow post-disaster recovery.
Example: Puerto Rico—delayed aid after Hurricane María highlighted resource inequality.

Conclusion
Summarize key challenges: prediction, geographic variability, human activity, scale, and socioeconomic factors.
Reinforce judgment: While preparation is difficult, it is not impossible with targeted investments and strategies.
Emphasize the need for technology, planning, and equitable resource allocation to address these hazards effectively.