Describe and demonstrate how plate movements create predictable landforms. Define types of tectonic plates giving specific examples of these plates on a global basis. Explain one type of divergence, convergence, and transform movement, using maps to locate specific plates, landforms, and hazards associated with each type of movement. Which type of movement you described causes the most hazard and threatens the largest population (see population density, p ). What solutions would you propose for populations attempting to adapt or modify to life in these regions?
Describe and demonstrate three natural hazards and propose solutions to reduce loss of life or loss of property for people living in these regions. Explain one hazard caused by the following processes; weather, tectonics, and degradation. Be sure to describe the hazardous event, identify the hazardous process behind the event, describe how the hazard occurs, and use maps to locate where each hazard is found on a global basis. What solutions would you propose for each of these hazards? Where would you live if you want to avoid these hazards?
Mass movement is one of the deadliest hazard found on a global basis. In order to describe this hazard, please complete the following;
a. For each continent, identify the dominant mountain systems and their elevation.
b. Describe and locate the following rock types found on a global basis; extrusive igneous and sedimentary rock.
c. Describe orographic precipitation and use maps to show the number of inches of runoff found on the mountains identified in a.
d. Describe chemical and physical weathering, using maps of climate to identify regions dominated by chemical weathering (Af) and physical weathering (ET).
e. Describe rockfalls and landslides, using maps from a through d above to identify which regions are the most susceptible to each type of mass movement.
What solutions would you propose to reduce loss of life or loss of property in these regions?
Sample Solution
tates men hold more power than ladies in the public arena, and this absence of correspondence is protected, to some degree, through savagery. Additionally presented by these analysts is Emerson’s “social trade hypothesis” that assesses control as “the degree to which one’s opposition can be possibly overwhelmed by another person.” As perceived in earlier writing, Filson et al. present the hypothesis that viciousness in IPV may cause a feeling of frailty, and thusly, bring about gloom. Along these lines, Filson et al. pick these factors to think about and utilized an altered rendition of the CTS to conceptualize exploitation, Sexual Relationship Power Scale (SRPS) to conceptualize control, and the Center for Epidemiological Study Depression Scale (CES-D) to conceptualize sorrow (p. 406). While Hamby would, once more, contend against the conceptualization of IPV dependent on the CTS, it ought to likewise be of worry that maybe Filson et al. are centered a lot around the connection among power and gloom, instead of IPV and melancholy or IPV and power. The most unpredictable investigation of the five can be granted to Lohman, Neppl, Senia, and Schofield’s (2013). Lohman et al. decided to assess individual and family chance elements, supported up by earlier research that underscores the probability of these factors as indicators instead of established in principle. Furthermore, past writing perceives the plausibility of familial impacts like early introduction of IPV and mentally harsh child rearing on the nearness of IPV in adulthood. Therefore, coming from the intergenerational transmission hypothesis, Lohman et al. assess mental maltreatment, family stress, and the worry between guardians as indicators of IPV, Each of these components was conceptualized by an assortment of self-report and perception techniques. Also, these analysts assessed substance use issues, sexual action, solitary practices, low confidence, relationship with freak peers, negative emotionality, and the sex of the members to foresee IPV practices in adulthood. While Edwards, Derefinko, and Filson endeavor to assess indicators of IPV, Crane, Hawes, Mandel, and Easton (2014) endeavor to assess the real relationship examples of IPV after some time. Like Lohman et al’s. study, however without explicit indicator parts, Crane et al. concentrate on male against female accomplice brutality (MFPV) and female against male accomplice viciousness (FMPV). These connections were conceptualized to incorporate any explicitly or impractically included accomplice. IPV was disting>
tates men hold more power than ladies in the public arena, and this absence of correspondence is protected, to some degree, through savagery. Additionally presented by these analysts is Emerson’s “social trade hypothesis” that assesses control as “the degree to which one’s opposition can be possibly overwhelmed by another person.” As perceived in earlier writing, Filson et al. present the hypothesis that viciousness in IPV may cause a feeling of frailty, and thusly, bring about gloom. Along these lines, Filson et al. pick these factors to think about and utilized an altered rendition of the CTS to conceptualize exploitation, Sexual Relationship Power Scale (SRPS) to conceptualize control, and the Center for Epidemiological Study Depression Scale (CES-D) to conceptualize sorrow (p. 406). While Hamby would, once more, contend against the conceptualization of IPV dependent on the CTS, it ought to likewise be of worry that maybe Filson et al. are centered a lot around the connection among power and gloom, instead of IPV and melancholy or IPV and power. The most unpredictable investigation of the five can be granted to Lohman, Neppl, Senia, and Schofield’s (2013). Lohman et al. decided to assess individual and family chance elements, supported up by earlier research that underscores the probability of these factors as indicators instead of established in principle. Furthermore, past writing perceives the plausibility of familial impacts like early introduction of IPV and mentally harsh child rearing on the nearness of IPV in adulthood. Therefore, coming from the intergenerational transmission hypothesis, Lohman et al. assess mental maltreatment, family stress, and the worry between guardians as indicators of IPV, Each of these components was conceptualized by an assortment of self-report and perception techniques. Also, these analysts assessed substance use issues, sexual action, solitary practices, low confidence, relationship with freak peers, negative emotionality, and the sex of the members to foresee IPV practices in adulthood. While Edwards, Derefinko, and Filson endeavor to assess indicators of IPV, Crane, Hawes, Mandel, and Easton (2014) endeavor to assess the real relationship examples of IPV after some time. Like Lohman et al’s. study, however without explicit indicator parts, Crane et al. concentrate on male against female accomplice brutality (MFPV) and female against male accomplice viciousness (FMPV). These connections were conceptualized to incorporate any explicitly or impractically included accomplice. IPV was disting>
