Explain the difference between hazard mapping and risk mapping in the context of tectonic hazards.

• A. Hazard mapping shows the probability and intensity of hazard; risk mapping combines hazard with exposure and vulnerability to estimate potential losses
• B. Hazard mapping shows historical disasters only
• C. Hazard mapping estimates economic losses
• D. Hazard mapping equals risk mapping

Answer: (A)

Hazard mapping concentrates on the physical threat itself—the likelihood and potential strength of a tectonic hazard across different places. It shows where shaking might be strongest, where lava flows could reach, or where a tsunami could strike, often expressed as probabilities and intensity measures for a given time frame or scenario. This helps identify the areas most at risk from the event itself, regardless of how many people or assets are there.

Risk mapping adds the human and built environment into the picture. It combines the hazard with exposure (how many people, buildings, and infrastructure are in the area) and vulnerability (how susceptible those assets are to damage). The result is an estimate of potential losses, such as casualties, injuries, and economic costs. A place with high hazard but low exposure or high resilience can have lower risk, while a moderately hazardous area with dense population and valuable infrastructure can show high risk.

So the best choice says hazard mapping shows probability and intensity, while risk mapping merges hazard with exposure and vulnerability to estimate potential losses. Hazard maps can draw on historical data or models, but they do not in themselves measure economic losses, and they are not simply a stand-in for risk mapping.