NGO based <strong>in</strong> the town of Almora, facilitated site selection and programmeplann<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Study</strong> Area B.1.4.1 – a <strong>Study</strong> Area A – Rudraprayag district, Garwhal region<strong>Study</strong> area A comprises 24 villages <strong>in</strong> the Manadak<strong>in</strong>i Valley, Rudraprayag District.An equal number of remote villages and villages with direct road access wereselected:Villages with direct road access <strong>in</strong>clude: Bhatwari, Kyunja, Kansili, Jabri,Machkandi, Bhanaj, Dungri, Kandara, K<strong>in</strong>jani, Kontha <strong>in</strong> the Kyunja-gad; Bhiri <strong>in</strong>the Kusum-gad; and Sari and Makku <strong>in</strong> the Akashkamni-gad.Villages more than 0.5 km from the nearest road <strong>in</strong>clude: Senna, Akhorhi, Tweri,Kalai, Kera-Talla, Rawa, Kandra <strong>in</strong> the Kyunja-gad; Dharsal and Sursal <strong>in</strong> theKusum-gad; and Dilmi, Daira, and Barangali <strong>in</strong> the Akashkamni-gad.The region is def<strong>in</strong>ed geographically by steephills and narrow roadways, communication issomewhat limited, <strong>in</strong>ternet access is notcommon <strong>in</strong> mounta<strong>in</strong> communities and mobiletelephone communication is not alwaysoperational. The local language is Garwhali.This region has had a number of disastermitigation and preparedness <strong>in</strong>itiatives carriedout <strong>in</strong> response to the effects of two recentlarge earthquakes, Uttarkashi (1991) andChamoli (1999), both <strong>in</strong> Garwhal.The Role of NGOs <strong>in</strong> Disaster Mitigation and Response – A <strong>Case</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Uttarakhand</strong>, <strong>Northern</strong> <strong>India</strong> 9
1.4.1 – b <strong>Study</strong> Area B- Almora district, Kumaon region<strong>Study</strong> area B comprises 22 villages <strong>in</strong> the Almora District. An equal number ofremote villages and villages with direct road access were selected:Villages with direct road access <strong>in</strong>clude: Chatai Tiwari, Chatai Pant, Gagashwar,Jyoli, Kanali, Maatgao, Maniaghar, Mat<strong>in</strong>a, Mantola, Narayan Datt Tiwari, andPapar Sali.Villages more than 0.5km from the nearest road <strong>in</strong>clude: Bisra, Chhani,Gardoli, Gaiyaithal, Gatura, Kachula, Nani, Pakhadhar, Sela, Shishrad, and SupyiThe area also has a predom<strong>in</strong>antly hilly topography but is more developed overall,with wider roadways and better communication services. This area has not recentlyexperienced a disaster on the same scale as Uttarkashi or Chamoli. Nevertheless,it lies <strong>in</strong> Zone V and IV of the seismic hazard map but no disaster awareness orbuild<strong>in</strong>g programmes have been carried out there to this date. The local languageis Kumao.1.4.2 MethodsThe study is divided <strong>in</strong>to three key sections: Section 1) <strong>in</strong>terviews with tra<strong>in</strong>ed anduntra<strong>in</strong>ed masons, Section 2) a disaster preparedness questionnaire directed atcommunity members, and Section 3) hous<strong>in</strong>g impact assessment. Methodologiesfor each section are described below.1.4.2 - Section 1 Interviews with tra<strong>in</strong>ed and untra<strong>in</strong>ed masonsThe assessment was conducted by means of elite <strong>in</strong>terviews with 36 tra<strong>in</strong>edmasons from <strong>Study</strong> Area A and 36 untra<strong>in</strong>ed masons from <strong>Study</strong> Area B. Masonsselected for the assessment <strong>in</strong> <strong>Study</strong> Area A all had previous tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>The Role of NGOs <strong>in</strong> Disaster Mitigation and Response – A <strong>Case</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Uttarakhand</strong>, <strong>Northern</strong> <strong>India</strong> 10
- 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: The study comprises two regions: St
- 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:
The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitiga
- Page 95 and 96:
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 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