How can earthquake hazards be managed?

Edexcel B GCSE Geography > Hazardous Earth > How can earthquake hazards be managed?

Earthquakes cannot be stopped, but their impacts can be reduced. Countries manage hazards in different ways depending on their level of wealth, technology and resources. This page compares how a developed country (Japan) and a developing country (Nepal) prepare for, respond to and recover from earthquakes.

Japan – Developed Country

Prediction and monitoring

Japan has one of the world’s most advanced earthquake monitoring systems.
Thousands of seismic sensors detect ground movement, sending alerts to phones, television and transport networks.
Bullet trains automatically stop, and gas lines shut off to prevent fires.

Preparation and building design

Strict building laws mean homes, schools, and offices must be earthquake-resistant.
Buildings use reinforced steel frames, shock absorbers and deep foundations so they can sway without collapsing.
Regular earthquake drills take place in schools and workplaces.
Coastal areas have tsunami warning sirens and evacuation routes.

Short-term relief

Emergency services responded quickly with rescue teams, medical support and temporary shelters.
The government provided food, water and blankets for displaced families.
Transport networks were repaired rapidly to reach affected areas.

Long-term planning

Japan invests heavily in emergency training and public education.
Communities practise evacuation on Disaster Prevention Day every year.
Rebuilding includes stronger sea defences and improved building standards to reduce future risks.

Nepal – Developing/Emerging Country

Prediction and monitoring

Nepal has limited earthquake monitoring technology.
There is no nationwide early warning system, so people had little notice before the 2015 earthquake struck.

Preparation and building design

Many homes are built from brick, stone and mud without earthquake-resistant features.
In recent years, charities and NGOs have trained local builders in safer construction methods.
Some schools and hospitals have been strengthened, but funding remains limited.

Short-term relief

Nepal relied heavily on international help, as emergency services lacked equipment and transport.
The Red Cross, UN and international governments supplied tents, food, clean water and medical care.
Helicopters were needed to reach remote mountain villages cut off by landslides.

Long-term planning

Rebuilding schools, roads and homes has taken years due to limited money and difficult mountain terrain.
Aid agencies have helped introduce safer building designs and community training.
Some settlements have developed local emergency plans, but resources remain scarce.

Management strategy	Japan (Developed)	Nepal (Developing/Emerging)	Implications
Prediction & monitoring	Extensive seismic network, phone alerts, transport shuts down automatically	Very limited monitoring, no national early warning system	Japan can warn people within seconds, reducing deaths and injuries. Nepal receives little or no warning, so people are caught by surprise.
Preparation & building design	Strict building laws, earthquake-resistant structures, regular drills	Many weak buildings, limited regulation, some training by NGOs	Buildings in Japan are less likely to collapse, saving lives. In Nepal, poorly built homes increase deaths, injuries and homelessness.
Short-term relief	Well-equipped rescue teams, government shelters, rapid emergency response	Relies heavily on international aid, slower response in rural areas	Japan can rescue survivors quickly. Nepal’s delays mean more people remain trapped and suffer from lack of food, water and medical care.
Long-term planning	Funded emergency services, public education, improved sea defences and infrastructure	Long rebuilding period, dependent on foreign support, gradual improvement in building safety	Japan recovers faster and returns to normal life more quickly. Nepal’s recovery is slower and the country remains vulnerable to future disasters.

Comparing Japan and Nepal reveals how wealth, technology, and planning influence the impact of earthquakes on people. In Japan, advanced monitoring, strong building design and well-funded emergency services help reduce deaths and speed up recovery. In Nepal, weaker buildings, limited resources and slower response times mean the same type of hazard causes far greater loss of life and long-term disruption. Although earthquakes themselves cannot be prevented, better preparation, warning systems and investment in safer buildings can significantly reduce the impacts, especially in developing countries where communities remain most at risk.