Earthquake Case Studies: Japan 2011 & Nepal 2015

Two contrasting case studies comparing a High Income Country (HIC) and Low Income Country (LIC) - essential for understanding how wealth affects earthquake impacts and responses.

AQA Specification Requirement

"A case study of a tectonic hazard to explore the causes and effects of, and responses to, an earthquake in a country at a contrasting level of wealth."

You need TWO contrasting examples: one HIC (Japan) and one LIC (Nepal)

Japan 2011
HIC
Tohoku Earthquake & Tsunami
Magnitude: 9.0
Deaths: 19,759
Cause: Tsunami
Cost: $235bn
Nepal 2015
LIC
Gorkha Earthquake
Magnitude: 7.8
Deaths: 8,964
Cause: Building collapse
Cost: $7bn

Japan 2011 Tohoku Earthquake - Key Facts

Magnitude

9.0

Deaths

19,759

Buildings Destroyed

400,000+

Damage

$235 billion

Location & Tectonic Cause

Location

  • Epicentre: 130km east of Sendai, offshore
  • Focus depth: 32km (shallow)
  • Affected: Tohoku region, northeast Honshu
  • Date: 11th March 2011, 2:46pm local time

Tectonic Cause

  • Destructive plate boundary
  • Pacific Plate subducting beneath North American Plate
  • Japan Trench subduction zone
  • Megathrust earthquake - plates slipped 30-40 metres
  • Seabed rose 7 metres, displacing ocean water
Effects
Ground Shaking
  • Lasted 6 minutes
  • Buildings swayed but most survived (earthquake-resistant design)
  • 400,000+ buildings damaged
  • Transport disrupted - bullet trains stopped safely
Ground Deformation
  • Parts of coastline dropped 1 metre
  • Japan moved 2.4 metres east
  • Earth's axis shifted by 10-25cm
  • Day shortened by 1.8 microseconds
Responses

Early Warning System

30-second warning before shaking reached Tokyo. Bullet trains stopped automatically. Many evacuated to high ground.

Search & Rescue

100,000 soldiers deployed within 24 hours. International help from 130 countries.

Emergency Shelters

470,000 people housed in evacuation centres. Supplies distributed efficiently.

9-Mark Question Structure
"The impacts of earthquakes are more severe in LICs than HICs." Discuss. [9 marks]

Conclusion:

Overall, I largely agree that LICs suffer more severe impacts. While HICs can have high death tolls from secondary hazards, LICs experience worse building collapse deaths, proportionally greater economic damage, and much slower recovery. Development level is often more important than earthquake magnitude in determining overall severity.

Test Your Knowledge
6 questions on Japan and Nepal earthquake case studies

1. What magnitude was the Japan 2011 earthquake?

2. What caused most deaths in the Japan earthquake?

3. Why did Nepal have more building collapse deaths despite a lower magnitude?

4. What percentage of Nepal's GDP was the damage cost?

5. What secondary effect occurred at Fukushima?

6. Which country recovered faster from their earthquake?

Key Terms

HIC

High Income Country - GDP per capita over $13,205 (e.g., Japan)

LIC

Low Income Country - GDP per capita under $1,135 (e.g., Nepal in 2015)

Primary Effects

Direct impacts of the earthquake (deaths, building collapse, ground shaking)

Secondary Effects

Resulting impacts (tsunami, landslides, fires, disease, economic loss)

Immediate Response

Actions in first hours/days (search & rescue, emergency shelter)

Long-term Response

Actions over months/years (reconstruction, new building codes)

Bottom Line: You need BOTH case studies for the exam. Japan shows that even wealthy, prepared countries can suffer massive casualties from secondary hazards (tsunami). Nepal shows that poor construction and limited resources make LICs more vulnerable to direct earthquake impacts and slower to recover. Always compare wealth levels when discussing earthquake impacts.