Introduction
The 2005 Pakistan disaster resulted in significant losses in terms of life and property. Japan experienced an earthquake in 2011 that resulted in an unprecedented loss of lives (Gero et al., 2020). The global distribution of earthquakes is illustrated in Figure 1 below. Each event will be examined using the pressure and release (PAR) model, which explains how natural disasters are shaped by various processes and structures in time and space. An exhaustive assessment of the outcomes in each case is necessary to contextualize the impact of the disasters.
Outcome Assessment Using the Pressure and Release Model
Pakistan
The first element to consider in the PAR model for Pakistan is root causes, which assess a country’s access to power, resources, and structures. In 2005, Pakistan had limited access to resources, power, or the structures necessary to respond to a disaster of the magnitude it experienced. It is also worth noting that the country’s political and economic systems were fairly weak, thus leaving its citizens vulnerable.
The second element to consider in the PAR model is dynamic pressures. Until 2005, Pakistan lacked significant disaster management institutions (Shah et al., 2022). Macro forces, such as rapid urbanization, contributed to the increased population seen in urban areas as people sought better opportunities. The third element in the PAR model is unsafe conditions, which include physical elements, socio-economic factors such as the high number of poor people in Pakistan, and institutional factors such as the lack of disaster preparedness in the country.
Japan
An analysis of the event using the PAR model highlights that, about root causes, Japan had significant power, structures, and access to resources. In addition, its political system largely served the people’s interests, and its economy supported its population.
In assessing dynamic pressures, Japan had institutions dedicated to monitoring natural disasters. For instance, the Miyagi-oki area was noted to experience earthquakes every 30 years and was, therefore, being monitored for a potential event before 2030 (Uchida & Bürgmann, 2021). Macro forces, such as rapid urbanization, played only a limited role in the earthquake’s aftermath.
In evaluating unsafe conditions, Japan featured dangerous locations, such as coastal residences affected by the tsunami. Socioeconomic and institutional challenges did not significantly impact Japan, given its robust economy and well-equipped institutions.
Vulnerable Communities
Natural disasters often have a profoundly debilitating effect on the lives of those affected. Survivors often struggle with traumatic stress in addition to the disruption of their lives (Shiba et al., 2022). In Japan, people sought higher ground after the tsunami hit. In Pakistan, the people sought shelter in houses, which collapsed, leading to the loss of lives (Bahram et al., 2020). The safety and security of vulnerable communities can be guaranteed by erecting sea walls to protect the population from future floods. Other measures that can be implemented include constructing earthquake-resistant houses and implementing integrated disaster-prevention systems.
Risk
Risk is the product of hazard and vulnerability in a specific environment. In Pakistan, the risk of earthquakes is high, given the population’s extreme vulnerability and high exposure to hazards. Before 2005, Pakistan lacked a comprehensive disaster management plan, and the absence of a national framework for disaster preparedness significantly heightened the population’s vulnerability (Shah et al., 2022). In Japan, the risk of earthquakes is relatively low, given the low population vulnerability and low exposure to various hazards. Japan has numerous measures in place to protect its people, such as the Japan Meteorological Agency’s monitoring of seismic and geodetic coupling to facilitate earthquake prediction.
Conclusion
Japan and Pakistan are examples of varying degrees of population vulnerability. The former has limited vulnerability owing to strong political and economic systems, while the latter is highly vulnerable given its weak systems, political instability, and poor economy. The respective nations must implement and strengthen disaster preparedness measures to safeguard people from losing their lives and property.
References
Bahram, I., Paradise, T. R., Bahram, I., & Paradise, T. R. (2020). Seismic risk perception assessment of earthquake survivors: A case study from the 2005 Kashmir Earthquake. Open Journal of Earthquake Research, 9(5), 403–416.
Gero, K., Aida, J., Kondo, K., & Kawachi, I. (2020). Evaluation of trust within a community after survivor relocation following the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. JAMA Network Open, 3(11), 1–11.
Shah, I., Mahmood, T., Khan, S. A., Elahi, N., Shahnawaz, M., Dogar, A. A., Subhan, F., & Begum, K. (2022). Inter-agency collaboration and disaster management: A case study of the 2005 earthquake disaster in Pakistan. Jamba: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 14(1), 1–12.
Shiba, K., Hikichi, H., Okuzono, S. S., Vanderweele, T. J., Arcaya, M., Daoud, A., Cowden, R. G., Yazawa, A., Zhu, D. T., Aida, J., Kondo, K., & Kawachi, I. (2022). Long-term associations between disaster-related home loss and health and well-being of older survivors: Nine years after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Environmental Health Perspectives, 130(7), 1–10.
Uchida, N., & Bürgmann, R. (2021). A decade of lessons learned from the 2011 Tohoku-Oki Earthquake. Reviews of Geophysics, 59(2), 1–44.