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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.1.1b Hazard AwarenessA portion of the interview was aimed at gauging the level of awareness masonshold with respect to earthquakes risk in the region. Nearly all respondents in StudyArea A are aware of the region being highly sensitive to natural disasters andprone to earthquakes; in fact seventeen percent are able to identify the region asbeing within Zone V of the Indian seismic hazard map. In contrast, twenty-eightpercent of respondents from the Almora region indicate that there is no risk toearthquakes whatsoever with a further twenty-eight percent declaring the risk asvery low. Only twenty percent correctly identified the region as being a high-riskzone with respect to earthquakes. It should be noted that a component of thetraining workshops by PSI and other agencies include a brief description of thegeological context and potential for risk within the state. This information appearsto be retained by trained masons.A segment of the interview questioned masons about their estimates on thepercentage of earthquake-safe houses in the region. Sixty-four percent ofuntrained masons in Study Area B consider 75-100% of the houses to beearthquake-safe. This starkly contrasts the findings of Study Area A in which onlyeleven percent of trained masons consider 75-100% of constructions to be safe.Conversely, fifty-one percent of masons in this region regard the percentage ofearthquake-safe houses in the region to be less than 25%. This by no meansundermines the overall skills of masons in the Almora region but rather highlights alack of knowledge as to what specifications and criteria are necessary forearthquake-safe construction.3.1.1c FeaturesMasons were asked to describe the various features necessary for earthquakesafeconstructions for both load-bearing and frame structures. As predicted, resultsfrom the interviews indicate that trained masons have a greater knowledge ofearthquake-safe features and are subsequently able to describe them in greaterdetail and accuracy than untrained masons. This is particularly relevant for frameThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 43
structures as an alarming forty-five percent of untrained masons are unable tocomment on essential earthquake-safe features for frame structures preferring toomit the section of the interview entirely.Load-bearingThe following features were discussed among trained and untrained masons andare presented here in descending order according to response frequency.• Fifty-five percent of trained masons prioritized the installation of a bandevery 3 feet (plinth, sill and lintel) as an earthquake-safe feature (note:interestingly when only PSI trained mason responses are considered thisfigure increases to seventy-nine percent). Remarkably, not a singlerespondent in the untrained masons sample listed this essential feature.• Forty-four percent of trained masons and thirty-nine percent of untrainedmasons listed through stones as an important earthquake-safe feature forstonewall construction. This is not surprising as the interview results revealthat more masons in the Almora region are trained in solely in stonemasonry techniques.• There is a marked difference between trained and untrained masons inresponse to what constitutes an earthquake-safe opening. Forty percent ofuntrained masons in comparison to a mere three percent of trained masonsspecify large openings as being optimal for earthquake safety. Moreinformed on the subject, seventy-two percent of trained masons indicate thatsmall openings are an important earthquake-safe feature; fifty-one percentof untrained masons regard the same.• Overall, the percentage of trained and untrained masons able to describethe optimal thickness for an earthquake-safe roof is low. However, forty-onepercent of trained masons recognise roof thickness to be 3 inches, a further8% indicate that the thickness should be 3 inches for single storyconstructions and 4 inches for two stories. Only seventeen percent ofuntrained masons described the roof thickness to be 3 inches, whereasThe Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 44
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: etrofitting, monitoring and homeown
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 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?