A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India - Geological & Mining ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

21.What misconceptions do villagers have regarding proper construction of their homes?EQ safe housing is expensive None No idea Lack of info No response Tradtional houses not safe, RCC better Column superior to single rodRudraprayag PSI 9 0 0 0 9 6 2Other 1 0 0 0 10 1Total 10 0 0 0 19 6 3Percentage 27.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.78 16.67 8.33Almora EQ safe housing is expensive None No idea Lack of info No responseTotal 12 8 15 1Percentage 33.33 22.22 41.67 2.7822. What percentage of houses do you feel are earthquake safe in the region?Rudraprayag50-75% >75%Total 18 12 2 4Percentage 50.00 33.33 5.56 11.11Almora 50-75% >75%Total 7 3 3 23Percentage 19.44 8.33 8.33 63.8923. What features do you most commonly use to construct a home?RudraprayagAlmoraPSI Other Total % %column 24 12 36 100 4 11.11beam 12 1 13 36.11 4 11.11band 12 8 20 55.56 3 8.33plinth 8 1 9 25.00 0 0.00lintel 7 1 8 22.22 0 0.00sill 3 0 3 8.33 0 0.003 inch roof 3 0 3 8.33 0 0.00through stone 3 0 3 8.33 2 5.56light roof 1 0 1 2.78 0 0.00RCC 1 3 4 11.11 10 27.78no idea 0 0 0 0 12 33.33single steel rod 0 0 0 0 4 11.11stones 0 0 0 0 8 22.2224. What features are most important for an earthquake safe home?RudraprayagAlmoraPSI Other Total % %column 12 10 32 88.89 4 11.11beam 9 2 11 30.56 4 11.11band 13 6 19 52.78 1 2.78plinth 8 1 9 25.00 0 0.00lintel 7 1 8 22.22 0 0.00sill 3 0 3 8.33 0 0.003 inch roof 3 0 3 8.33 0 0.00through stone 3 0 3 8.33 2 5.56The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 97
light roof 1 0 1 2.78 0 0.00RCC 1 3 4 11.11 9 25.00no idea 0 0 0 0.00 13 78.00single steel rod 1 0 1 2.78 3 8.33stones 0 0 0 0.00 4 11.11strong foundation 0 1 1 2.78 3 8.3325. In which conditions do homeowners request earthquake safe houses?Good economic condition Post disaster motivation Increased knowledge No responseRudraprayag PSI 17 3 3 1Other 10 0 0 2Total 27 3 3 3Percentage 75 8.33 8.33 8.33Almora Good economic condition Post disaster motivation Increased knowledge No response They do use them No idea13 4 0 2 17Percentage 36.11 11.11 0 5.56 47.2226. Any additional comments or suggestions?Rudraprayag PSI Almora provide trainingprovide more training to the homeowners and communitymasons want more informationprovide training in inexpensive technologies, more demand that way, cost reductionmonitor constructionprovide training to the villagers as well to increase awareness of featuresprovide training for what to do in the event of making repairs to housestotal response: 8 Percent 33.33Otherprovide informatiojn to the homeowners as well as the masonswant to have new technologies , modern technologies as part of workshopTotal responses: 2 Percent 16.67The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 98
Page 1 and 2:
The Role of Non GovernmentalOrganis
Page 3 and 4:
Table of contentsChapter 1 - Introd
Page 5 and 6:
List of figuresFigure 1.1: Study re
Page 7 and 8:
preparedness, and has potential to
Page 9 and 10:
This case study investigates the im
Page 11 and 12:
• What are homeowner perceptions
Page 13 and 14:
Seismic activity in this area is du
Page 15 and 16:
The study comprises two regions: St
Page 17 and 18:
1.4.1 - b Study Area B- Almora dist
Page 19 and 20:
etc. operational). The study involv
Page 21 and 22:
Chapter 2 - Theoretical Orientation
Page 23 and 24:
2.1.2 VulnerabilityVulnerability is
Page 25 and 26:
of a disaster everyone knows how to
Page 27 and 28:
disaster management in the country,
Page 29 and 30:
Despite the apparent increased cons
Page 31 and 32:
2.3.1 Disaster Mitigation and Prepa
Page 33 and 34:
save lives. This event marked a pri
Page 35 and 36:
Systems technologies and education
Page 37 and 38:
As suggested previously, there is a
Page 39 and 40:
on the main agenda (Benson et al, 2
Page 41 and 42:
Frame structureFramed structures ha
Page 43 and 44:
The curriculum of the PSI workshops
Page 45 and 46:
Figure 2.2a: Community based disast
Page 47 and 48:
district irrespective of the fact t
Page 49 and 50:
etrofitting, monitoring and homeown
Page 51 and 52:
structures as an alarming forty-fiv
Page 53 and 54: Reponses for what features masons t
Page 55 and 56: trained masons in the Study Area A
Page 57 and 58: ecommended that a similar study be
Page 59 and 60: 3.1.2b Awareness and Dissemination
Page 61 and 62: It is interesting to note that when
Page 63 and 64: Community based disaster preparedne
Page 65 and 66: 3.1.3 - Section 3 Housing Impact As
Page 67 and 68: Load-bearing1.single steel rod in e
Page 69 and 70: The overall proportion of newly bui
Page 71 and 72: etween stirrups of 6-12 inches. Alt
Page 73 and 74: Table 3.7: Percentage of safe house
Page 75 and 76: 3.2 DiscussionThe discussion segmen
Page 77 and 78: In Study Area A the number of earth
Page 79 and 80: 2) mitigation measures were taken i
Page 81 and 82: 3.3 ConclusionsIn conclusion, the s
Page 83 and 84: ReferencesAlexander, D., 1997. The
Page 85 and 86: Guptasarma, D. 1996. Is the Seismic
Page 87 and 88: Telford, J. and Cosgrave, J., 2007.
Page 89 and 90: Annex I - Earthquake safe featuresT
Page 91 and 92: The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitiga
Page 97 and 98: Annex 2 - Mason Interview ResultsSt
Page 99 and 100: 11. How to make such a course more
Page 101 and 102: sloped roof 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 2.78s
Page 103: 17. Do homeowners request earthquak
Page 107 and 108: 6. How long have you lived in the v
Page 109 and 110: 16. Do you have an emergency commun
Page 111 and 112: 26. What activities related to the
Page 113 and 114: 36. Would you prefer traditional ma
Page 115 and 116: Appendix IV - Breakdown of earthqua
Page 117: Appendix IV - Breakdown of earthqua
show all

A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India - Geological & Mining ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?