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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5. How many building have you worked on?Rudraprayag 100 >2002 2 4 1 2 10 1 2 4 1 3 2 2Percentage 5.56 5.56 11.11 2.78 5.56 27.78 2.78 5.56 11.11 2.78 0.00 8.33 5.56 5.56Almora 100 >2002 0 5 4 1 2 0 1 3 1 0 0 10 7Percentage 5.56 0.00 13.89 11.11 2.78 5.56 0.00 2.78 8.33 2.78 0.00 0.00 27.78 19.446. Where does your field of expertise lie?Brick Stone BothPSI 0 5 20Rudraprayag Other 0 1 10Total 0 6 30Percentage 0 16.67 83.33Almora Brick Stone BothTotal 2 13 21Percentage 5.56 36.11 58.337. Have you been trained in the construction of earthquake safe construction?Rudraprayag Yes No36 0Percentage 100 0Almora Yes No0 36Percentage 0 1008. From where and how long?Rudraprayag PSI DPO24 12Percentage 66.67 33.33AlmoraPercentage n/a9. How would you improve the training program?10. What would motivate you/motivated you to take such a course?The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 91
11. How to make such a course more popular?Poor Good Very good Excellent No responsePSI 3 13 3 5Rudraprayag Other 1 1 4 1 5Total 1 4 17 4 10Percentage 2.78 11.11 47.22 11.11 27.78RecommendationsPSI Otherno recommendations 13 8less technical jargon 2patient behaviour of trainers 3more information on frame structures 1information on new technologies 1higher per diem 1longer training period 2 4shift localities for trainings 1AlmoraQuestions 9. 10. and 11. not applicable12. Is your region threatened by earthquakes and to what extent?Don't know Low risk Sensitive Very sensitive Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5PSI 10 6 8Rudraprayag Other 11 1Total 21 6 1 8Percentage 0.00 0 58.33 16.67 2.78 0.00 22.22Almora Don't know Low risk Sensitive Very sensitive Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 No Yes, but unsure of how sensitiveTotal 3 8 1 6 0 0 0 10 8Percentage 8.33 22.22 2.78 16.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.78 22.2213. Please describe as many earthquake safe features for constructing load bearing structures as possible for the following:Foundation Rudraprayag PSI AlmoraPSI Other Total % % %dig until hard ground 14 3 17 47.22 58.33 30 83.332ft deep 2 4 6 16.67 8.33 0 0.004- 8ft deep 6 5 11 30.56 25.00 10 27.782ft- 2.5ft wide 9 1 10 27.78 37.50 14 38.893ft wide 1 0 1 2.78 4.17 0 0.00use flat stones 12 3 15 41.67 50.00 0 0.00if brick wall, 2.5ft wide 0 1 1 2.78 0.00 0 0.00if stone wall, 3.5 ft wide 0 1 1 2.78 0.00 0 0.00bricks 1.5 The ft wide Role of NGOs in Disaster 1 Mitigation 0 and Response 1 2.78 – A Case Study 4.17 in Uttarakhand, Northern India 0 0.00stone 2ft 1 0 1 2.78 4.17 0 0.0092cement in foundation 2 3 5 13.89 8.33 1 2.78RCC net hook 3 0 3 8.33 12.50 0 0.00
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: Annex 2 - Mason Interview ResultsSt
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?