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

Table 3.3: Percentage of safe houses in different villagesLoad-bearing StructuresNOV NHS NHTMNHSE NHSTM NUS NUSTM PS PSTM PSOMAkhori 3 3 3 3 0 0 100 100 0Bhanaj 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Bhatwari 3 1 2 1 1 0 66 50 50Bhiri 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0Chander Nager market 1 0 1 0 0 0 100 0 100Dungri 1 1 1 1 0 0 100 100 0Jabri 1 1 1 1 0 0 100 100 0Kandara 2 1 2 1 0 0 100 50 50Keda Talla 3 1 2 1 1 0 66 50 50Mukundi 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Sari 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0Tebris 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 021 9 12 8 9 1 57 67 33Main Findings• The proportion of earthquake-safe load-bearing structures in the region hasincreased to 57% from 40% in PSI’s 2006 housing survey.• The 2006 survey reported that 46 % of load-bearing earthquake-safehouses were built by trained masons. This number has risen to 67 %.• The percentage of earthquake-safe load-bearing houses built by PSI trainedmasons has increased from 46 % to 67 %, while the percentage of safehouses built by other masons has not changed significantly from 30 % to 33%.• As a follow up to the 2006 survey, an increased use of plinth bands hasbeen noted. PSI trained masons used a plinth band in 100% ofconstructions. This is an increase from 52 % noted in the 2006 survey.Other masons used the plinth band in 45 % of constructions; this numberhas also increased from 32 % observed in the 2006 survey.Frame structures• There is a decrease in the percentage of earthquake-safe frame structuresin the region from 85 % observed in the 2006 survey to 74 % (Table 3.4).The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 61