On January 12, 2010, a magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck the Republic of Haiti, with its epicentre
located approximately 25km southwest of the capital city, Port-au-Prince, in a town called
Léogâne. (1) Between 80-90% of the buildings in Léogâne were critically damaged or destroyed,
and much of the metropolitan Port-au-Prince region was also affected. (1) According to
government reports, over 316,000 people were either dead or missing, 300,000 were injured, and
more than 1.3 million people were left homeless. The earthquake is considered one of the most
destructive events any country has experienced in modern times when measured in terms of the
percentage of people killed relative to the total population. (2) More than 300,000 homes
collapsed or suffered critical damage, and approximately 60% of the nation’s administrative and
economic infrastructure was lost. (3) Overall losses and damages from the earthquake are
estimated to be between US$ 7 billion and US$ 14 billion. (2) Among experts, various factors
contributed to Haiti's lack of preparation. The combination of being the poorest country in the
Western Hemisphere and a lack of significant earthquakes in recent memory left Haiti illprepared for such a disaster. (4) Haiti had few seismologists, lacked seismic networks, and
possessed only one outdated seismic hazard map with insufficient data. (5) Building codes were
outdated, seldom used, and not enforced. Furthermore, there was no earthquake preparedness
program or contingency plan. A report from 2023 stated only nine percent of households had
access to an emergency plan, and less than 25 percent had committees or community-trained
members to respond to a disaster. (6) The most common, yet still scarce, community coping
mechanisms were evacuation routes (61 percent) and emergency shelters (47 percent). These
numbers were expected to be even lower in 2010, exacerbating the damage caused by the
earthquake.
1. Desroches, R. et al. Overview of the 2010 Haiti Earthquake. United States Geological
Survey. 2010. Available from: https://escweb.wr.usgs.gov/share/mooney/142.pdf
2. Cavallo E, et al. Estimating the Direct Economic Damage of the Earthquake in Haiti. IDB
WorkingPaper Series; BD-WP-163, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington,
D.C. 2010. Available from: https://publications.iadb.org/en/publication/estimating-directeconomic-damage-earthquake-haiti
3. Government of the Republic of Haiti (GOH). Action Plan for National for National
Recovery and Development of Haiti, Port-au-Prince. 2010.
4. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2010. The Real Wealth of Nations:
Pathways to Human Development, Human Development Report 2010. Available
from: https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/human-development-report-2010complete-english.human-development-report-2010-complete-english
5. Rathje EM, Bachhuber J, Dulberg R, et al. Damage Patterns in Port-au-Prince during the
2010 Haiti Earthquake. Earthquake Spectra. 2011;27:117-136. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3637056
6. Ganavire Bacarezza G. A Look into Poverty and Disaster Preparedness in Haiti. World
Bank. 2023. Available from: https://blogs.worldbank.org/latinamerica/poverty-anddisaster-preparedness-haiti?cid=SHR_BlogSiteTweetable_EN_EXT
Hi Sarah! I agree with the stance that the area was not adequately prepared, particularly your
point regarding the lack of structural integrity that led to such destruction. Peru's rural
architecture has historically relied on adobe, due to its availability and affordability, even though
adobe structures have proven to be less resilient in the face of seismic activity. (1) Firstly, adobe
lacks the flexibility needed to absorb and dissipate seismic forces. Its rigidity makes it more
prone to cracking and collapsing under the stress of seismic waves (2). Additionally, adobe is
highly susceptible to moisture; when shaking during earthquakes causes water tables to rise, it
can compromise the integrity of adobe structures and make them more susceptible to damage (3,
4). Lastly, traditional construction techniques using adobe generally do not incorporate modern
seismic-resistant design principles, including reinforcement and insufficient foundation support, ,
leaving structures more vulnerable to earthquakes. (5) Addressing these issues is crucial for
enhancing structural integrity, implementing seismic-resistant measures, and ultimately building
more resilient communities in earthquake-prone regions.
1. Vicente EF, Torrealva DE. Mechanical properties of adobe masonry of historical
buildings in Peru. En 9th International Conference on Structural Analysis of Historical
Constructions. 2014:1-12
2. Ginell WS, Tolles EL. Seismic Stabilization of Historic Adobe Structures. Journal of the
American Institute for Conservation, 2000;39(1):147–163.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3179971
3. Heredia Zavoni EA, Bariola Bernales JJ, Neumann JV, et al. Improving the moisture
resistance of adobe structures. Materials and Structures 1988;21:213–221
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02473058Meneses
4. Meneses JF, Alva J, Cox B, Moreno V, Olcese M, Sancio R, Wartman J. Case Histories
of Widespread Liquefaction and Lateral Spread Induced by the 2007 Pisco, Peru
Earthquake. International Conferences on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics. 2010:8.
https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icrageesd/05icrageesd/session04/8?utm_source=scholarsmi
ne.mst.edu%2Ficrageesd%2F05icrageesd%2Fsession04%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm
_campaign=PDFCoverPages
5. Wang J, Edward Ng YY, Post-earthquake housing recovery with traditional construction:
A preliminary review. 2023;18:100283 Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2023.100283