Haiti earthquake 2010: causes, effects and responses
On 12 January 2010, a magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck southern Haiti. Strong shaking affected Port-au-Prince, Léogâne and nearby communities.
The scale of loss depended on where people lived, building strength and the ability to respond. Compare hazard, exposure and vulnerability when explaining the damage.
Saved on this browser. An example’s listed role does not certify that it covers every specification dimension.
12 January 2010 Southern Haiti
Magnitude 7.0 USGS moment magnitude
Why was the damage so severe?
Strong shaking reached densely built areas around Port-au-Prince and Léogâne. Many buildings were not designed to resist earthquakes. When they failed, people inside were exposed to falling walls and floors.
The earthquake occurred near the boundary between the Caribbean and North American plates. Rocks moved sideways and were pushed together. USGS research found a more complex rupture than a simple slide along one fault.
USGS: fault movement · USGS/EERI: building damage
Primary and secondary effects
Primary effects happen directly because of the shaking. Buildings collapsed, people were killed or injured, and infrastructure was damaged.
Secondary effects follow from the damage. Displaced families needed shelter and safe water. Lost buildings and disrupted services made recovery harder. Some children could not return to their usual schools.
The 2010 post-disaster assessment estimated total damage and losses at US$7.804 billion, about the size of Haiti’s 2009 GDP. GDP is the value of goods and services a country produces in a year. The assessment’s total is an estimate of economic damage and lost activity, not the amount of aid received. Read the 2010 assessment
Responses: meeting needs and rebuilding
Emergency support included medical care, clean drinking water and shelter materials. These addressed immediate needs, but temporary shelter was only a first step.
During the following year, the Red Cross and Red Crescent operation reported continued water supply and help for families moving out of camps. Recovery also involved rebuilding schools and restoring services. It took much longer than the first relief phase.
IFRC: first-year operation report · UNICEF: school recovery
Build an explanation
Shaking → weak buildings fail → injuries and displacement → greater need for shelter and health care
Link each effect to a cause. “It was a large earthquake” does not explain why two places with similar shaking can suffer different losses.
Check you’ve got it
Is a shelter programme evidence that everyone had a permanent home a year later?
Check your answer
No. A programme shows that support was provided. To judge its success, you need evidence about how many people obtained suitable housing, where they lived and how long the help lasted.
Use death estimates carefully
Published death estimates differ greatly. The USGS catalogue explicitly notes this disagreement. If you use a number, state its source and date. A precise-looking figure is not automatically a more reliable estimate.
Evidence and its scope
| Claim | Period and scope | Source |
|---|---|---|
| The earthquake had moment magnitude 7.0. | 12 January 2010 | Open source |
| The reconnaissance investigated structural and geotechnical factors behind losses in Port-au-Prince and communities farther west. | 26 January–3 February 2010 | Open source |
| USGS research describes complex rupture with sideways movement and compression near the Caribbean–North American plate boundary. | 12 January 2010 rupture | Open source |
| USGS/EERI found that a lack of earthquake-resistant design contributed greatly to widespread building damage. | January–February 2010 reconnaissance | Open source |
| The 2010 assessment estimated damage and losses at US$7.804 billion, about 100% of 2009 GDP. This is not an aid total. | 2010 post-disaster assessment; 2009 GDP comparison | Open source |
| The IFRC first-year report describes emergency shelter and relief support, clean water provision and work helping families move out of camps. | First year after January 2010 | Open source |
| UNICEF’s ten-year account includes rebuilding a school that collapsed during the earthquake. | Retrospective published January 2020 | Open source |
| The USGS catalogue notes large differences between published casualty estimates. A death estimate needs its source and scope. | 2010 earthquake; retrospective catalogue | Open source |
Possible requirement roles
- A tectonic hazard eventName and date the event.; Separate the tectonic process from exposure and vulnerability.; Use contrasting examples where your specification requires them.
Recall the evidence
Case-recall questions load here. The sourced evidence remains available below.
Practise using the evidence
Apply a related skill
Source evaluation · Population pyramids
Related lessons
Tectonic hazards: explain the different impacts · Hazard systems: cascades, probability and resilience
Use this case in a different answer
Worked question: Why can a lower-magnitude earthquake have severe impacts?
Large numbers of people may be exposed to strong shaking in vulnerable buildings. Infrastructure failure can also obstruct rescue. Magnitude alone does not measure vulnerability.
Keep the evidence precise: The earthquake had moment magnitude 7.0. This refers to Southern Haiti earthquake, 12 January 2010. Check the source
Try it yourself
Explain why magnitude alone cannot predict the damage from a future earthquake in another place. Use what this case teaches about vulnerability.
One possible answer
Magnitude describes the earthquake’s energy scale, but damage also depends on local shaking, exposure and building strength. Haiti’s evidence about vulnerable buildings helps explain severe impacts; it does not mean another magnitude 7.0 event would produce the same losses.
Check your answer: did you address the question, use accurate evidence and explain the link?
Build a better answer
Use a fresh resource to practise selecting evidence and explaining its significance.