Case Study: Nepal Earthquake 2015
A devastating 7.8 magnitude earthquake in a Low Income Country (LIC). Understand why development level matters more than magnitude for predicting deaths.
Magnitude
7.8
Deaths
~8,900
Homes Destroyed
600,000+
Damage
$7 billion
Location & Tectonic Setting
Hindu Kush-Himalayan mountain range
India-Eurasian destructive boundary
Shallow focus (15km) = high intensity
Mountainous terrain = landslide risk
GDP per capita: ~$700 (2015)
No earthquake building codes enforced
Mud brick construction common
Limited emergency services
Impact Timeline
Earthquake Strikes
11:56 NST
7.8 magnitude earthquake hits with epicentre near Gorkha, 80km NW of Kathmandu. Shallow 15km depth causes intense shaking.
- Ground shaking for 50+ seconds
- Immediate building collapses
- Avalanches triggered on Everest
- Landslides across mountain regions
Effects: Primary & Secondary
- 8,900 deaths - mostly building collapse
- 22,000 injured - crush injuries, trauma
- 600,000+ buildings destroyed or damaged
- Ground shaking for 50+ seconds
- Mountain slopes destabilised
- Landslides - blocked roads, killed villagers
- Avalanches - 19 died on Everest
- Aftershocks - 7.3 mag (12 May) caused more deaths
- 3.5 million homeless
- Disease risk - cholera in overcrowded camps
- $7 billion damage (35% of GDP)
Why So Many Building Deaths?
Vulnerable: Traditional Construction
Mud brick, poor mortar, heavy stone roofs
Resistant: Reinforced Construction
Steel frame, concrete, flexible joints
Key Point: Most deaths occurred in traditional mud brick buildings with heavy stone roofs. These collapse inward during shaking. Buildings with steel reinforcement and lighter roofs largely survived - but these were rare in Nepal's rural areas where 70% of the population lived.
Response Phases
- Search and rescue - limited by blocked roads
- Survivors pulled from rubble by neighbours
- Hospitals overwhelmed (many damaged)
- International rescue teams began arriving
- Airport reopened after initial closure
- Tent camps for 2.8+ million displaced
- International aid distribution
- Temporary schools and health centres
- 12 May aftershock (7.3) delayed recovery
- Monsoon season complicated shelter efforts
- New building codes introduced and enforced
- Training programmes for earthquake-resistant construction
- Heritage sites (UNESCO) slowly restored
- Some villages still in temporary housing (2026)
- Poorest households couldn't afford insurance
Put these response phases in the correct order of priority
Click to add in order:
Your sequence:
Click options above to build your sequence
Development & Vulnerability
Low Income (LIC)
Like Nepal 2015
8,000+ deaths (7.8 mag)
Estimated impact
Nepal - mud brick buildings, no early warning, remote mountain access
*Note: Japan 2011 deaths mostly from tsunami, not building collapse. Earthquake-proof buildings saved thousands.
Compare: Nepal (LIC) vs Japan (HIC)
Grade 8/9 Insight: Japan's earthquake was stronger (9.0 vs 7.8) but most deaths were from the tsunami, not building collapse. Nepal's weaker earthquake killed thousands through building collapse due to poor construction and no warning system. Development level determines vulnerability more than magnitude.
Exam Practice
'The impacts of earthquakes are more severe in LICs than HICs.' Using evidence from a named example, discuss how far you agree with this statement.
Test Your Knowledge
Why did Nepal's earthquake cause more building deaths than Japan's despite lower magnitude?
Key Terms
Bottom Line: Nepal 2015 demonstrates why development level determines vulnerability more than magnitude. Poor construction, no warning systems, difficult terrain, and limited emergency services turned a major earthquake into a catastrophe. The same magnitude in Japan or New Zealand would kill far fewer people.