Nepal's 2015 Gorkha earthquake: impacts, response and resilience
A sourced StudyForA example of the 25 April 2015 earthquake and reconstruction in Nepal. Confirm that your centre selected this event before using it as your required example.
Section CASE-4.4.3 · 2015 Gorkha earthquake in Nepal · optional earthquake example
Exam scope and assessment notes
Cambridge IGCSE Geography 0460, 2027–2029 syllabus, Topic 4.4.3. The syllabus does not prescribe one universal set of named detailed specific examples: centres select places suited to their learners. Sixteen optional StudyForA evidence packs now cover all sixteen example objectives, but the centre's choices are unconfirmed. Match each pack to your centre's chosen place and replace any mismatch before treating the course as complete. Original StudyForA explanations and self-check practice are not Cambridge papers, official grades or teacher-marked coursework. Map, graph and written answers are not automatically assessed. Paper 4 practice uses supplied or invented data and cannot certify safe fieldwork, equipment use or real data collection. Centre-set coursework and specialist teacher review remain pending.
Before you begin
- No previous Geography course is assumed. Use the supplied map, data or scenario; distinguish observation from explanation and support conclusions with evidence.
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
Why can a shallow earthquake close to Kathmandu cause serious damage?
What you will learn
- Explain the tectonic cause and location of the Gorkha earthquake
- Connect primary and secondary impacts to exposure and vulnerability
- Describe immediate responses and longer-term housing reconstruction
- Evaluate how building resilience and access can reduce future risk
A shallow thrust earthquake struck central Nepal
On 25 April 2015, a magnitude 7.8 earthquake began about 82 km north-west of Kathmandu. USGS places its shallow focus at roughly 12–15 km. The India Plate is moving beneath Eurasia along the Main Himalayan Thrust; accumulated strain was released as thrust faulting. A magnitude 7.3 aftershock followed on 12 May, 17 days later. Nepal's location in the active Himalayan collision zone explains the hazard, but not by itself the scale of losses.
Shaking damaged buildings in Kathmandu and remote mountain districts. It also triggered landslides and avalanches that buried settlements, blocked roads and isolated communities. Liquefaction occurred in some fields. USGS's summary reports about 9,000 fatalities, 23,000 injuries, more than 500,000 houses destroyed and about 270,000 damaged. These are event-wide estimates; the effects varied with shaking, building strength, terrain, population and access to emergency help.
Exposure and vulnerability shaped the impacts
Many rural homes used weak materials and lacked earthquake-resistant construction. Steep slopes increased landslide risk, while damaged roads slowed rescue and supply deliveries. A major aftershock renewed risk for people returning to damaged buildings. Historic structures, schools, health posts, water systems and hydropower were also affected. This shows how secondary hazards and infrastructure disruption can extend the effects beyond the initial shaking.
Magnitude describes the size of an earthquake, not the number of deaths it must cause. A useful comparison also considers distance and depth, building quality, population exposure, preparedness, terrain and the ability to reach remote settlements. Avoid claiming that all of Nepal experienced the same level of shaking or damage.
Rescue was followed by safer reconstruction
Immediate response included search and rescue, medical care, temporary shelter and relief supplies. Landslides and damaged roads made it difficult to reach some mountain communities, and aftershocks complicated rescue and rebuilding.
Longer-term recovery focused on housing because it represented the largest reconstruction need. Nepal's owner-driven Earthquake Housing Reconstruction Project provided grants and technical help so families could rebuild to safer specifications. The World Bank reported that by September 2020, 211,985 resilient houses had been rebuilt with grant support against a target of 335,700, alongside 3,766 houses supported by a separate multi-donor grant. Engineers and masons inspected work and trained homeowners. These are dated project results, not a claim that every damaged home was rebuilt.
Judge preparedness and recovery together
Building standards, trained masons, inspection, public education and land-use planning can reduce future vulnerability. They need funding and enforcement, and remote communities require reliable routes and services during a crisis. Reconstruction can reduce future risk when households can afford and access safer designs; rebuilding alone does not remove tectonic hazards or landslide exposure.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
What does the September 2020 figure of 211,985 resilient houses describe?
Worked example
USGS reports about 500,000 houses destroyed and about 270,000 damaged. Calculate the approximate total affected, then explain why this total does not measure every impact.
Show the worked solution
- Add the destroyed and damaged house counts.
- Keep the result approximate because the source uses rounded figures.
- House damage counts do not describe casualties, service disruption, landslides or uneven geographic impacts.
Answer About 770,000 houses were destroyed or damaged using the rounded USGS figures. This measures housing impact only; it does not count injuries, disrupted services or landslides and should not be treated as a precise final total.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
Describe the cause and location of the 2015 Gorkha earthquake and one primary and one secondary impact.
Give me a hint
Connect the India–Eurasia boundary to the earthquake, then distinguish direct shaking from later slope failure.
Compare my reasoning
- The India Plate moves beneath Eurasia along the Main Himalayan Thrust; the shallow thrust earthquake began about 82 km north-west of Kathmandu.
- Shaking damaged houses and public buildings.
- Landslides and avalanches blocked roads and buried settlements after the shaking.
The magnitude 7.8 earthquake resulted from thrust faulting where India moves beneath Eurasia. Its shallow focus was about 82 km north-west of Kathmandu. Shaking damaged buildings, while landslides and avalanches were secondary hazards that buried settlements and disrupted road access.
Look for these in your work
- Location and plate process stated
- Primary shaking impact distinguished
- Secondary hazard explained
Explain why Nepal's 2015 earthquake had severe human impacts and how one recovery measure aimed to lower future risk.
Give me a hint
Use a dated impact figure, then explain how a safer-reconstruction measure changes vulnerability.
Compare my reasoning
- USGS reports about 9,000 fatalities and about 770,000 houses destroyed or damaged using its rounded counts.
- Weak building materials and limited earthquake-resistant construction increased vulnerability; steep terrain and road damage complicated response.
- The owner-driven housing project used grants, safer construction specifications and technical guidance; 211,985 resilient houses had been rebuilt by September 2020 against a 335,700 target.
The shallow M7.8 earthquake caused severe impacts, including about 9,000 fatalities and around 770,000 destroyed or damaged houses in the USGS summary. Weak buildings increased exposure to collapse, while landslides and damaged roads hindered response. Nepal's reconstruction project combined grants and technical guidance; 211,985 resilient houses had been rebuilt by September 2020, so the programme was substantial but still below its target at that date.
Look for these in your work
- Evidence is dated and attributed
- Vulnerability linked to impacts
- Recovery result distinguished from target
Evaluate whether safer housing reconstruction is enough to reduce earthquake risk in Nepal.
Give me a hint
Assess what stronger buildings change, then include secondary hazards, access and who can use the programme.
Compare my reasoning
- Safer design can reduce the chance that buildings collapse during shaking.
- Landslides, avalanches and damaged roads can isolate communities even where homes are stronger.
- Grants, trained builders, inspections, risk-aware siting, public preparedness and reliable access support more complete resilience.
- Judge coverage: 211,985 resilient houses were rebuilt by September 2020 against a target of 335,700.
Safer reconstruction directly reduces building vulnerability, but it cannot prevent an earthquake or remove landslide hazards. Remote access, trained builders, inspection, preparedness and inclusive funding also matter. The dated project result—211,985 resilient houses against a 335,700 target by September 2020—shows progress and a remaining gap, so housing reconstruction was necessary but not sufficient on its own.
Look for these in your work
- Strength and limits assessed
- At least two complementary measures included
- Dated coverage used to qualify judgement
Common mistakes
- Saying magnitude alone explains the death toll
- Confusing magnitude with shaking intensity
- Ignoring landslides, avalanches and isolation as secondary impacts
- Treating the aftershock as the mainshock
- Calling the housing-reconstruction target a completed result
- Assuming all regions or households experienced equal risk
- Using this optional pack without checking your centre's selected earthquake
What can you explain now?
What plate process caused the 2015 Gorkha earthquake?
Compare with the explanation
Thrust faulting as India moved beneath Eurasia along the Main Himalayan Thrust
The collision zone stores strain; fault slip released it as the earthquake.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
State the earthquake's date and magnitude, one secondary hazard, one dated housing result and one limit of reconstruction.
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.