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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 1.3: Faults in the state of Uttarakhand, Main Boundry Thrust (MBT) andMain Central Thrust (MCT)Table 1.1: Large magnitude earthquakes in IndiaYear Location Tectonic setting Magnitude1819 Kachchh Ancient rift 7.51897 Assam Himalaya 8.71905 Kangra Himalaya 8.61934 Bihar-Nepal Himalaya 8.31935 Quetta Himalaya 7.61950 Upper Assam Himalaya 8.71967 Koyna Peninsular Shield 6.31991 Uttarkashi Himalaya 6.51993 Killari Peninsular Shield 6.31999 Chamoli Himalaya 6.82001 Bhuj Ancient rift 7.62005 Kashmir Himalaya 7.6The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 7
The study comprises two regions: Study Area A – Rudraprayag district (indicatedby red star in Figure 1.2) and Study Area B – Almora district (indicated by blue starin Figure 1.2). These areas were selected based on the following criteria: 1) bothare located in mountainous terrain in close proximity to the MCT and MBT, 2) bothare highly vulnerable to disasters, earthquakes and landslides in particular, 3) bothhost rural communities. A recent edition of Suchetna, a quarterly newsletter issuedby PSI, provides figures on natural hazard-related damages sustained by alldistricts in the state of Uttarakhand between January and June 2007, such as lossof lives, damage to buildings, land etc. (Table 1.2).Table 1.2: Damages sustained from natural hazards, January-June 2007, Uttarakhand StateDistrict Human Livestock Buildings Barns AgriculturallivesPartial TotalLandAlmora 1 67 66 10 4 102.7Bageshwar 3 4 86 19 - 2.66Champawat 7 4 6 3 - -Pithoragath 6 14 - 26 - -Nainital 1 1 23 5 32 -Udhamsingh 2 12 - 50 - 223.50Haridwar 7 - 1 1 33 -Pauri - - - - - -Dehradun - - 1 - 150 -Rudraprayag 8 1 - - 1 -Uttarkashi 2 60 44 36 6 5.042Chamoli 10 194 114 18 24 -Tehri 4 11 44 6 1 5.3Total 51 368 385 174 251 339.202The main difference between the regions, for comparative purposes, is that StudyArea A has been exposed to extensive awareness programs through PSI andCentre for Disaster Initiatives (CDI), as well as technical training of masons onearthquake safe features and construction practices. Study Area B has had little tono exposure to disaster awareness campaigns, and no mason trainingprogrammes have been offered through PSI or other agencies. Years of workexperience in combination with a developed partnership with CDI have enabledPSI to develop a good rapport with the people in this region. Mahila Haat, a localThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 8
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: Seismic activity in this area is du
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 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
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 and 104:
17. Do homeowners request earthquak
Page 105 and 106:
light roof 1 0 1 2.78 0 0.00RCC 1 3
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?