EARTHQUAKES - LDCs VS MDCs
(My Multimedia 'Presentation')
JAPAN VS NEPAL - AN OVERALL COMPARISON IN IMPACT
SOCIAL IMPACTS - COMPARISON
HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE IMPACTED - AND HOW?
Death Toll: Japan - 15893; Nepal - 8964
Injured: Japan - 6152; Nepal - 23447
Reported Missing: Japan - 2572; Nepal - (estimated) ~1000-2000
Homeless/Relocated: Japan - 228863; Nepal - ~450000
RESIDENTIAL IMPACTS - COMPARISON
HOW MANY BUILDINGS WERE DAMAGED - AND HOW MUCH?
Total: Japan - 1148067; Nepal - (estimated) ~400000 - 500000
ECONOMIC IMPACTS - COMPARISON
WHAT WERE THE COSTS?
Estimated Rebuilding Costs: Japan - $122 billion; Nepal - $5 billion+
COMPARISONS AT A GLANCE:
Death Toll: More people died in the Japanese earthquake - 6929 more.
Injured: In the Nepal quake, it seems that many, many more people were injured rather than killed - an incredible 17295 more.
Reported Missing: It's difficult to put an official number on how many were reported missing in Nepal, but Japan is estimated to have lost more people.
Homeless/Relocated: Due to the poor foundations and infrastructure in Nepal, an LDC, compared to Japan, an MDC, far more people were left homeless/had to be temporarily relocated after the incident - approximately 221137 more in total.
Total Buildings Damaged or Destroyed: Interestingly, despite Nepal's poorer infrastructure in contrast to Japan's, more buildings collapsed in the Japanese earthquake - even over an estimated 750000 more.
Estimated Rebuilding Costs: Japan's buildings overall have much greater value in terms of how they are built, where they are built, and how much they cost to first build - due to the country being an MDC with more access to better technology and resources. Therefore, it isn't a surprise that when compared to Nepal's estimated rebuilding costs, the difference comes to somewhere around a devastating $117 billion more.
SO WHAT CAUSES THESE DIFFERENCES - AND WHICH COUNTRY WAS IMPACTED THE MOST OVERALL?
To begin with, let's address the differences in death toll. During earthquakes, deaths are often not caused by the ground itself shaking, but rather the collapsing of buildings with people below or in them. Japan is notorious for its high-rise buildings, which despite their strength - and due to the sheer height of them - have the capability to crush anyone within a relatively large radius. This number could also have been increased due to the fact that the majority of Japan's workers work indoors, as opposed to the rural areas of Nepal (which thus did not have a very high death count, due to most of the village's inhabitants being outside when the earthquake hit). Additionally, this is also likely why more people were injured in Nepal rather than killed.
But what about the homeless/relocated count, as well as the total number of buildings damaged or destroyed? Well, as mentioned above, Nepal's less-developed buildings and their frailer structure meant that more of them were easily destroyed during the quake. Japan's houses are definitely better built, and thus less of them were destroyed to the point that they became completely uninhabitable afterwards.
Finally, the estimated rebuilding costs. As also mentioned above, Japan's buildings are much, much more costly to build and maintain - where they are build and how they are built are both factors that contribute towards the initial costs, while what goes inside the buildings is also a factor; like expensive technology, for example.
Despite the conclusion that most might jump to when investigating which type of country would suffer the most damage after a natural disaster, the statistics indicate that rather than the LDC being the most devastated by its earthquake, the MDC was in fact impacted a great deal more - socially and economically, especially.