Two Earthquakes Compared – Nepal and L’Aquila
Comparing earthquakes in an LIC and a HIC
Two Earthquakes Compared – Nepal and L’Aquila
Comparing the effects of earthquakes
The effects of earthquakes and responses to them vary between areas of different levels of wealth. In this example, we will examine the differences between the 2015 earthquake in Nepal, a low-income country (LIC) and the 2009 earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy, a high-income country (HIC).
The magnitude 7.8 earthquake in Nepal occurred on 25th April 2015. Its epicentre was 80km northwest of the capital city, Kathmandu. The 2009 earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy, was 6.3 on the Richter Scale and occurred 7km north-west of the settlement.
Primary effects of an earthquake
This is what happens directly as the result of an earthquake, such as death, injury and damage to infrastructure.
Nepal
- 8692 people died and approximately 20000 were injured
- Almost three million people were made homeless
- Seven thousand schools were destroyed
- The cost of the damage was estimated to be around US$5 billion
L’Aquila
Secondary effects of an earthquake
These are the effects that happen due to the primary effects of a volcano or earthquake. They can happen hours, days or weeks after, such as fires, landslides and the spread of disease.
Nepal
- An avalanche was triggered on Mout Everest killing 19 people
- Landslides occurred along steep valleys. 250 people were killed when the village of Ghodatabela was covered in material.
- People were evacuated due to the risk of flooding when a landslide blocked the Kali Gandaki River
L’Aquila
Immediate Responses
Immediate responses are how people reacted in the days and weeks immediately after the disaster happened.
Nepal
- Rescue teams, medical support and water was provided by The UK, China and India
- US$126 million was raised in international aid by The Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC)
- 500000 temporary shelters were set up
- The United Nations and World Health Organisation distributed medical supplies
L’Aquila
Long-term Responses
Long-term responses go on for months and years after a disaster.
Nepal
- Buildings were constructed from to stricter codes
- Homeless people were re-housed and 7000 schools were re-built
- Base camp at Mount Everest was repaired so climbers could return (this is a valuable source of income for Nepal)
- Areas affected by landslides were cleared and roads were repaired
L’Aquila
Differences in Wealth and Their Impact on Nepal (2015) and L’Aquila (2009) Earthquakes:
Nepal Earthquake (2015) – Low-Income Country (LIC):
- Building Standards: Limited enforcement of building regulations meant many homes and infrastructure were poorly constructed and collapsed easily during the earthquake.
- Emergency Response: Lack of resources and equipment delayed rescue efforts and hindered the ability to provide medical care and shelter.
- Healthcare: Underfunded healthcare systems struggled to cope with the large number of injured people.
- Preparedness: Limited investment in disaster preparedness and education meant many people were unaware of how to respond during the earthquake.
- Economic Vulnerability: A high reliance on agriculture meant livelihoods were severely disrupted, compounding the economic impact.
- International Aid Dependence: Recovery heavily relied on foreign aid and international NGOs, which delayed some aspects of rebuilding due to logistical challenges.
- Infrastructure Damage: Poor infrastructure, such as roads and communication systems, was significantly affected, slowing relief efforts.
L’Aquila Earthquake (2009) – High-Income Country (HIC):
- Building Standards: Stricter building codes meant fewer buildings collapsed; however, corruption led to some substandard construction, resulting in unexpected damage.
- Emergency Response: Well-equipped emergency services and efficient government coordination meant quicker and more effective rescue operations.
- Healthcare: Advanced healthcare facilities and access to medical professionals ensured better treatment for the injured.
- Preparedness: Investment in disaster preparedness and drills meant the population better understood how to respond to the earthquake.
- Economic Resilience: A diversified and robust economy allowed for quicker recovery and less disruption to livelihoods.
- Insurance: The availability of insurance schemes for property and businesses meant financial recovery was faster for affected individuals.
- Reconstruction: Sufficient government resources enabled organised and timely rebuilding of infrastructure and homes.
Related Topics
Use the images below to explore related GeoTopics.
