Tectonic Hazards » Primary and Secondary Responses

What you'll learn this session

Study time: 30 minutes

The difference between primary and secondary responses to tectonic hazards
Short-term and long-term response strategies
How responses differ between HICs and LICs
Case studies of response efforts after major earthquakes and volcanic eruptions
How technology and planning improve disaster response

Responding to Tectonic Disasters

When earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis strike, how communities respond can make the difference between life and death. The actions taken immediately after a disaster and in the months that follow are crucial for saving lives and rebuilding communities.

Key Definitions:

Primary responses: Immediate actions taken during or shortly after a tectonic event to save lives and meet basic needs.
Secondary responses: Longer-term actions focused on rebuilding, recovery and reducing future vulnerability.
Emergency services: Organisations that respond first to disasters (fire, police, ambulance, etc.).
Aid: Assistance provided to affected areas, which can be in the form of money, food, medicine, or expertise.

🚨 Primary Responses

These happen within hours or days of the disaster:

Search and rescue operations
Emergency medical treatment
Provision of temporary shelter
Distribution of food and clean water
Restoring essential services (electricity, water)
Evacuation of dangerous areas

🏢 Secondary Responses

These happen weeks, months or years after the disaster:

Rebuilding homes and infrastructure
Economic recovery programs
Psychological support for survivors
Disease prevention measures
Improving building codes
Planning to reduce future risks

Response Timeline After a Tectonic Disaster

⌛ Immediate (0-24 hours)

Emergency services deployed
Search for survivors begins
Casualties assessed
Evacuation of dangerous areas
Emergency shelters established

📅 Short-term (Days-Weeks)

International aid arrives
Temporary housing set up
Water and food distribution
Medical care for injured
Damage assessment begins

🏥 Long-term (Months-Years)

Reconstruction of buildings
Infrastructure repair
Economic recovery plans
Implementation of better building codes
Community resilience training

How Responses Differ Between HICs and LICs

The level of development in a country significantly affects how it can respond to tectonic hazards. High-income countries (HICs) typically have more resources and better infrastructure to deal with disasters compared to low-income countries (LICs).

📈 HIC Responses

Well-funded emergency services
Advanced technology for search and rescue
Strict building codes already in place
Insurance coverage for many affected people
Greater self-sufficiency in disaster response
Better healthcare systems for treating casualties

🌎 LIC Responses

Limited emergency response capabilities
Greater reliance on international aid
Fewer resources for reconstruction
Less developed healthcare systems
Informal settlements more vulnerable to damage
Recovery often takes much longer

Case Study: 2010 Haiti Earthquake (LIC)

When a magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck Haiti on January 12, 2010:

Primary responses:

International search and rescue teams arrived, but many were delayed
Overwhelmed local hospitals couldn't treat all victims
Limited access to clean water led to a cholera outbreak
UN and Red Cross provided emergency shelter for 1.5 million homeless people

Secondary responses:

$13 billion in international aid pledged
Reconstruction efforts hampered by weak governance
10 years later, many still lived in temporary housing
"Build Back Better" initiative struggled to implement improved building standards

The death toll reached 230,000 with 300,000 injured, highlighting how LICs often face more severe impacts from similar-sized disasters.

Case Study: 2011 Tōhoku Earthquake and Tsunami (HIC)

When a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami struck Japan on March 11, 2011:

Primary responses:

Japanese Self-Defense Forces deployed 100,000 personnel within days
Evacuation centres quickly established for 470,000 displaced people
Advanced search and rescue technology deployed
Emergency response hampered by damage to nuclear plant at Fukushima

Secondary responses:

$235 billion reconstruction budget approved
Seawalls rebuilt to heights of up to 15 metres
Tsunami warning systems improved
Some towns relocated to higher ground
Nuclear safety regulations strengthened worldwide

Despite being the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan, the death toll of 19,759 was much lower than Haiti's, demonstrating how preparation and resources in HICs can reduce disaster impacts.

The Role of Technology in Disaster Response

Modern technology has revolutionised how we respond to tectonic hazards, making responses faster and more effective.

📱 Communication

Mobile emergency alerts
Social media for locating missing people
Satellite phones when networks fail
Crowdsourced damage mapping

🔍 Search & Rescue

Thermal imaging cameras
Drones to survey damage
Listening devices to detect survivors
Rescue robots for dangerous areas

📊 Planning

GIS mapping of vulnerable areas
Computer modelling of potential impacts
Digital coordination of aid distribution
Remote sensing for damage assessment

Improving Future Responses

Learning from past disasters helps communities prepare better for future events. These strategies bridge the gap between secondary responses and future preparedness:

Building back better: Reconstructing with improved building codes and stronger materials
Community education: Teaching people how to respond during disasters
International cooperation: Sharing expertise and resources between countries
Integrated planning: Considering disaster risk in all development decisions
Insurance schemes: Providing financial protection to help communities recover

Volcanic Eruption Response: Mount Pinatubo, Philippines (1991)

The eruption of Mount Pinatubo demonstrated how effective monitoring and response can save lives:

Primary responses:

Scientists detected warning signs months before the eruption
200,000 people evacuated from danger zones
U.S. military bases nearby provided shelter and resources
Ash fall monitoring guided evacuation decisions

Secondary responses:

Lahar (mudflow) warning systems installed
Dams and channels built to control mudflows
Relocation of communities from high-risk areas
Agricultural rehabilitation programs for affected farmers

Despite being the second-largest volcanic eruption of the 20th century, the death toll was limited to around 350 people, showing how effective early warning and evacuation can be.

Evaluating Response Effectiveness

When studying tectonic hazard responses, geographers evaluate their effectiveness using several criteria:

Speed: How quickly were emergency services deployed?
Coordination: How well did different agencies work together?
Resources: Were sufficient supplies and personnel available?
Appropriateness: Did the response meet the actual needs of affected people?
Long-term impact: Did reconstruction reduce vulnerability to future events?
Cost-effectiveness: Were resources used efficiently?

Remember that successful responses save lives in the short term and build resilience for the future. The best responses consider local conditions, involve affected communities in decision-making and integrate risk reduction into recovery planning.

🧠 Test Your Knowledge!