Hazard systems: cascades, probability and resilience

Analyse interacting hazards and vulnerabilities, interpret return periods and evaluate resilience across time.

A-level study: check your qualification and chosen options below.

Homes, cultivated terraces and vegetation sit among cooled volcanic rock.

Trace a cascading hazard

A primary process can trigger secondary processes: shaking may destabilise a slope or disrupt utilities, and damaged transport can delay response. Cascades connect physical and social systems.

Multi-hazard settings involve overlapping hazards and sometimes interacting responses. A protective measure for one hazard can create exposure to another.

Worked example

In a fictional region, shaking damages a substation, interrupting pumps and hospital supply. The chain identifies a mechanism; it does not quantify every resulting loss.

Common mistake: A cascade is not established by listing several hazards.

Source evaluation · Choropleth maps

Interpret risk and return periods

A return period is a long-run recurrence estimate under specified assumptions. A 1-in-100 annual exceedance event has an estimated 1% probability in any one year under the model.

The event can occur in consecutive years. Changing climate, land use and records can alter estimates; uncertainty is especially large for rare events.

Worked example

With an independent, constant 1% annual probability, fictional 30-year probability of at least one exceedance is 1 − 0.99³⁰ ≈ 26%. These assumptions must be stated.

Common mistake: A 100-year event is not scheduled once each century.

Percentage change · Source evaluation

Evaluate resilience and recovery

Resilience involves capacities to prepare, absorb disruption and recover or adapt. Compare service continuity, livelihoods and unequal recovery, not only visible rebuilding.

Governance, trust, wealth and access influence capacity. International response can help while also creating coordination or dependency challenges.

Worked example

Fictional electricity service returns for 90% of customers in ten days, while 40% of displaced households remain without permanent housing six months later. The indicators concern different systems and timescales.

Common mistake: One rapidly restored service cannot establish complete recovery.

Source evaluation · Sampling methods

Try a different resource

Hazard and exposure overlays

The occupied-home count represents exposure. Hazard and vulnerability categories are ordinal labels; multiplying them does not produce a probability of loss. A screening rule is supplied for this fictional exercise.

Scroll the diagram sideways to see the full resource.

Fictional hazard and exposure layersA: High hazard, 180 occupied homes, vulnerability index 1; B: Medium hazard, 70 occupied homes, vulnerability index 1; C: High hazard, 90 occupied homes, vulnerability index 2; D: Low hazard, 180 occupied homes, vulnerability index 3. The vulnerability index is ordinal, not a probability.District AHazard: High180 occupied homesDistrict BHazard: Medium70 occupied homesDistrict CHazard: High90 occupied homesDistrict DHazard: Low180 occupied homesHazard category describes the layer, not a probability.Exercise screening: high hazard and at least 100 occupied homes.
DistrictHazard categoryOccupied homesVulnerability index (ordinal 1–3)
AHigh1801
BMedium701
CHigh902
DLow1803
Fictional hazard and exposure layers. Original fictional resource; not an official map or real dataset.
Resource description

A: High hazard, 180 occupied homes, vulnerability index 1; B: Medium hazard, 70 occupied homes, vulnerability index 1; C: High hazard, 90 occupied homes, vulnerability index 2; D: Low hazard, 180 occupied homes, vulnerability index 3. The vulnerability index is ordinal, not a probability.

1. How many occupied homes are in high-hazard districts altogether?

2. How many districts meet the stated high-hazard and 100-home screening rule?

3. Can these ordinal labels establish a numerical probability of loss?

Choose an answer

The maps and data are fictional. These exercises do not count as required fieldwork.

Write an explanation

Check your answer
  • Connect hazard processes to exposed systems.
  • Compare vulnerability and response capacity.
  • Use comparable outcomes and timescales.
  • Evaluate governance alongside physical conditions and infrastructure.

Practise and review a written answer

Case studies

Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, 2011 · Nepal earthquake, 2015 · Haiti earthquake, 2010

These pages provide selected evidence. Check the whole case requirement with your teacher.

Read further

Hazard, exposure and vulnerability · Plate motion and tectonic hazards · Association and geographical explanations

Course links

AQA A-level Geography · Pearson Edexcel A-level Geography · OCR A-level Geography · Eduqas A-level Geography

Next topics

Tectonic hazards: explain the different impacts · Global governance and the Antarctic commons

Selected teaching sequence with fictional worked data. The linked case records supply bounded evidence; they do not satisfy every course case requirement.

Worked numerical examples are fictional unless explicitly attributed. These lessons cover selected parts of the topic; check your course requirements for the rest.