Risk and Vulnerability Assessment: Experience of Nepal

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Disaster Risk Reduction book series (DRR)

Abstract

Located at the boundary of Indian and Tibetan plates, Nepal faces high level of seismic hazard. Seismic risk of the country is also extremely high because of rapid urbanization, prevalence of non-engineered constructions, poor implementation of building code, low level of earthquake awareness among the creators of vulnerabilities and, a gradual decay of indigenous knowledge and wisdom on earthquake resistant constructions. Kathmandu Valley is estimated to be one of the most at-risk cities in the world in terms of potential human casualty. Unfortunately, the risk is growing. Main source of earthquake risk is poor performance of buildings that are largely non-engineered. Although Nepal had a rich tradition of earthquake resistant constructions evidenced by numerous historic monuments and heritage buildings in the valley, the risk is continuously increasing which fact has become a global concern.

To address the problem, Nepalese professionals and agencies have developed methodologies of earthquake risk assessment and have successfully implemented, in collaboration with international development partners, several initiatives on earthquake risk reduction. School Earthquake Safety Program including seismic retrofitting of school buildings, efforts towards pubic private partnership for earthquake preparedness including promotion of business continuity planning, development of earthquake damage scenarios and corresponding action plan for risk management, and development of risk sensitive land use planning are some of the innovative initiatives being implemented in the country. The results of these initiatives are encouraging, Nepal has witnessed a significant improvement in community awareness and perception of earthquake risk, and the perspective of earthquake risk reduction appears very promising in terms of cost efficiency, and socio-economic and technical feasibilities.

Serious challenges identified are the problem in scaling up of successes and institutionalization of the achievements made so far. Further, ensuring sustainability of the efforts, especially at the local levels, and ensuring comprehensiveness of earthquake risk management actions in order to support the efforts being made towards meeting the development aspirations of the people and betterment of their livelihoods also are the challenges.

Keywords

Earthquake hazard Earthquake risk Risk assessment Seismic retrofitting Strategy Vulnerability 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. ATC-13 (1995) Earthquake damage evaluation data for probable maximum loss studies of California buildings. Applied Technology Council, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  2. ATC-25 (1991) Seismic vulnerability and impact of disruption of lifelines in the conterminous United States. Applied Technology Council, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  3. BCPR-UNDP (2004) Reducing disaster risk: a challenge for development, Bureau for crisis prevention and recoveryGoogle Scholar
  4. BCDP (1994) The development of alternative building materials and technologies for Nepal. UNDP/UNCHS (Habitat) Subproject NEP/88/054/21.03, Appendix A—Prototype Building Inventory, A report prepared by consultants for the Building Code Development Project (BCDP), His Majestys Government of Nepal, Ministry of Housing and Physical PlanningGoogle Scholar
  5. Bordet P, Colchen M, Le Fort P (1972) Some features of the geology of the Annapurna range Nepal Himalaya. Himalayan Geol 2:537–563Google Scholar
  6. CAPRA GIS Ver. 2 (2013) A probabilistic risk assessment program. www.ecapra.org. Accessed 20 Sept 2013
  7. Dhungel R, Guragain R, Joshi N, Pradhan D, Acharya SP (2012) Seismic vulnerability assessment of public school buildings in Nawalparasi and Lamjung District of Nepal. In: 15 WCEE, Lisbon, 24–28 September 2012Google Scholar
  8. Dixit AM, Parajuli YK, Guragain R (2004) Indigenous skills and practices of earthquake resistant. Construction in Nepal. In: 13th WCEE, Vancouver, 1–6 August 2004Google Scholar
  9. Dun JA, Auden JB, Ghosh AMN, Wadia DN (1939) The Bihar–Nepal earthquake of 1934. Geol Surv India Mem 73Google Scholar
  10. EMS (1998) European Macro Seismic Scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Macroseismic_Scale
  11. Fuchs G, Widder RW, Tuladhar R (1988) Contributions to the geology of the Annapurna range (Manang area Nepal). Jahrbuch der Geologischen Bundesanstalt 131:593–607Google Scholar
  12. Gansser A (1964) Geology of the Himalayas. Wiley Interscience, London/New York/Sydney, p 289Google Scholar
  13. Gansser A (1981) The geodynamic history of the Himalaya, in Zagros, Hindu Kush. In: Gupta HK, Delany FM (eds) Himalaya-geodynamic evolution. Geodynamic series 3. American Geophysical Union, pp 111–121Google Scholar
  14. GESI (2001) Global Earthquake Safety Initiative Pilot Project (GESI), October 2001. GeoHazards International and United National Centre for Regional DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  15. Guragain J (2004) GIS for seismic building loss estimation: a case study from Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City Area, Kathmandu, Nepal. MSc thesis, Enschede, p 84Google Scholar
  16. Guragain R, Jimee G, Dixit AM (2008) Earthquake awareness and effective planning through participatory risk assessment: an experience from Nepal. In: 14th WCEE, Beijing, 12–17 October 2008Google Scholar
  17. Hagen T (1969) Vol. 1: Preliminary reconnaissance. Report on the Geological Survey of Nepal 86. Denkschriften der Schweizerischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, p 185Google Scholar
  18. Hagen T (1980) Nepal: the kingdom in the Himalayas, 1st edn. KuÌmmerly + FreyGoogle Scholar
  19. HAZUS-MH (2003) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology: earthquake model. Department of Homeland Security, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate FEMA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Heim A, Gansser A (1939) Central Himalaya geological observations of Swiss expedition, 1936. p 246Google Scholar
  21. Islam M (2004) Population vulnerability assessment for earthquakes in Lalitpur, Nepal. MSc thesis, International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation, Enschede, p 84Google Scholar
  22. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) (2002) The study on Earthquake Disaster Mitigation in the Kathmandu Valley Kingdom of Nepal, vols I–IV. Final reportGoogle Scholar
  23. Jimee G (2006) GIS for seismic building loss estimation: a case study from Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City Area, Kathmandu, Nepal. MSc thesis, Enschede, p 144Google Scholar
  24. Le Fort P (1975) Himalayas, the collided range: present knowledge of the continental arc. Am J Sci 275A:1–44Google Scholar
  25. Le Fort P (1996) Evolution of the Himalaya. In: Harrison TM, Yin A (eds) Tectonic evolution of Asia. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu G, Einsele G (1994) Sedimentary history of the Tethyan basin in the Tibetan Himalaya. Geologischen Rundschau 83:32–61. Bibcode:1994GeoRu..83…32L. doi: 10.1007/BF00211893 Google Scholar
  27. MOHA (1996) National Action Plan on Disaster Management in Nepal. His Majestys Government, Ministry of Home, NepalGoogle Scholar
  28. MPPH/HMGN (1994) Seismic Hazard Mapping and Risk Assessment for Nepal, Project document, National Building Code Development Project. Ministry of Physical Planning and Housing, HMG/N, KathmanduGoogle Scholar
  29. Nakata T (1989) Active faults of the Himalayas of India and Nepal. Geol Soc Am (Special Paper) 32:243–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. NBC (1994) Nepal National Building Code (NBC). Ministry of Physical Planning and Works, NepalGoogle Scholar
  31. NRRC (2013) Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium. http://un.org.np/coordinationmechanism/nrrc
  32. NSET (1999a) Kathmandu Valleys Earthquake Scenario. National Society for Earthquake Technology (NSET), KathmanduGoogle Scholar
  33. NSET (1999b) The Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management Plan. National Society for Earthquake Technology (NSET), KathmanduGoogle Scholar
  34. NSET (2013) www.nset.org.np/nset2012. Accessed 20 Sept 2013
  35. Pêcher A (1977) Geology of the Nepal Himalaya: deformation and petrography in the Main Central Thrust Zone. Ecol Geol lHimalaya Sci Terre 268:301–318Google Scholar
  36. Pêcher A, Le Fort P (1986) The Metamorphism in Central Himalaya, its relations with the thrust tectonic. In: Le Fort P, Colchen M, Montenat C (eds) Évolution des Domains Orogénique dAsie Méridionale (de la Turquie à la Indoneasie). Sci Terre 47:285–309Google Scholar
  37. RADIUS (2000) A CD ROM on Risk Assessment Tools for Diagnosis of Urban Areas against Seismic Disasters – an initiative of the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR). Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  38. Rana BSJB (1935) Nepalko Mahabhukampa (The Great Earthquake of Nepal), Jorganesh Press, KathmanduGoogle Scholar
  39. SAARC (2009) Regional Cooperation on Earthquake Risk Management in South Asia: road map. In: SAARC workshop on Earthquake Risk Management in South Asia, Islamabad, 8–9 October 2009Google Scholar
  40. Schelling D, Arita K (1991) Thrust tectonics, crustal shortening, and the structure of the far-eastern Nepal Himalaya. Tectonics 10(5):851–862. Bibcode:1991Tecto..10..851S. doi: 10.1029/91TC01011 Google Scholar
  41. SDMC (2009) Indigenous knowledge for disaster risk reduction in South Asia. SAARC Disaster Management Centre, DelhiGoogle Scholar
  42. Srivastava P, Mitra G (1994) Thrust geometries and deep structure of the outer and Lesser Himalaya, Kumaon and Garhwal (India): implications for evolution of the Himalayan fold-and-thrust belt. Tectonics 13:89–109. Bibcode:1994Tecto..13…89S.doi: 10.1029/93TC01130 Google Scholar
  43. Stöcklin J (1980) Geology of Nepal and its regional frame. J Geol Soc Lond 137:1–34. doi: 10.1144/gsjgs.137.1.0001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Society for Earthquake Technology [NSET]KathmanduNepal

Personalised recommendations