Building Rural Resilience in Seismically Active Areas

Building Rural Resilience in Seismically Active Areas

UK Team:                           Alex Densmore, Dave Petley, Lena Dominelli, Jonathan Rigg, Nick Rosser, Katie Oven (IHRR, Durham University) and Samantha Jones (DDC, Northumbria University)

Nepal partners:               Amod Mani Dixit, Surya Narayan Shrestha and Ranjan Dhungel (NSET-Nepal)

                                                Bala Raju Nikku and Ruja Pokhrel (Nepal School of Social Work)

Regional partners:         Ouyang Hua, Hari Krishna, Vijay Kadgi (ICIMOD)

                                                N.M.S.I. Arambepola and Peeranan Towashiraporn (ADPC)

Academic advisors:       Ben Wisner and Greg Bankoff

Contact:                              Katie Oven (email: k.j.oven@durham.ac.uk)

                                               

Introduction

A multi-disciplinary team comprising academics and practitioners from the UK and Nepal has undertaken a four month scoping study funded by the UK government’s Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) to identify the key research needs across the natural and social sciences with the aim of increasing the resilience of rural communities to seismic hazards. The research, led by the Institute of Hazard, Risk and Resilience (IHRR), Durham University, was undertaken in collaboration with three local partners: the National Society for Earthquake Technology (NSET), the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) and the Nepal School of Social Work. 

The study comprised three components:

·         bottom-up engagement with two communities in central Nepal to develop an understanding of the interface between natural hazard science, the concerns of the community relative to seismic risk, and their perceptions and understandings of earthquake-related hazards;

·         a one month consultation with the project partners to identify the relevant initiatives that are already underway and the key research needs from the perspective of the practitioner community; and

·         an invited expert workshop involving our local and regional partners and academic experts from the US and UK, with the aim of contextualising the findings from the study.

Key Findings

Our findings fall under four major themes.

1.    Local understandings and perception of earthquake-related hazards

It must be recognised that earthquake-related hazards are always placed in the context of wider societal concerns. In a risk ranking exercise undertaken with eight community groups, landslides were prominent, but earthquakes were not. Rare but damaging hazardous events were viewed differently from the everyday pressures and hardships associated with economic and social insecurities. While some individuals and households have little choice but to dwell in ‘risky’, landslide prone locations, others were willing to substitute a safer existence for what was, in their terms, a better quality of life (with access to health care, education, and business opportunities). People may be unwilling to strengthen their resilience to rare events if doing so compromises their resilience to everyday risks. In developing practical steps to increase resilience, we need to recognise people’s agency and decision-making. 

2.    Uneven local knowledge

We found that there was a highly uneven local knowledge of different earthquake-related hazards. Rather than being viewed as part of a continuum of possible hazards, recurrent events, such as yearly monsoon-triggered landslides, and infrequent high-magnitude events, such as the effects of catastrophic earthquakes, were considered to be separate and unconnected. Knowledge of large earthquakes and their effects in this area was limited by little or no social memory or seismic culture.  In general respondents did not make the link between the small, regular tremors that are experienced and the possibility of large, high magnitude earthquakes. Additionally, associations between related hazards, such as landslides triggered by earthquakes, were rarely made. Conversely, and potentially advantageously, respondents had a good understanding of the causal factors and triggers of seasonal landslide activity and the characteristics of different landslide types, and were able to identify areas that have or could be affected by landslides in the future. Landslides in this area affect people every year and have wide-reaching impacts upon livelihoods. Landslides therefore offer a possible entry point into discussions around comparatively rare, high magnitude events.

3.    Forecasting primary and secondary seismic hazards

Improving scientific understanding of earthquake hazards with the ultimate aim of forecasting earthquakes will provide practitioners with much needed information regarding the possible location, magnitude and frequency of future events. In addition, forecasting the distribution and magnitude of secondary effects, including earthquake-triggered landslides, deforestation and land-use change, changes in ground water and surface water availability and downstream sedimentation, is vital for preparedness, planning and response.                 

4.    Science communication and the governance of earthquake risk reduction activities

A wide range of earthquake risk reduction activities are already underway at the local, national, and regional level in earthquake-prone countries, e.g. NSET’s schools-based earthquake safety programme in Nepal and the regional training programmes on community-based disaster risk reduction and earthquake vulnerability reduction organised by the ADPC.  However, it is important to note that not all earthquake-prone countries have government departments or NGOs that are actively engaged in earthquake risk reduction. Governments and NGOs may prioritise other concerns over comparatively infrequent earthquake hazards (as was the case in Haiti); alternatively, they may not know where to obtain information about seismic hazards or how to interpret the information that is available.  This raises important questions around the communication of information between scientists and the practitioner community and highlights the importance of engagement with end-users.       

Comments and recommendations

1.       It is essential that we increase our understanding of, and preparation for, high magnitude earthquakes in Nepal and elsewhere along the Himalayan Arc. 

2.       It is vital that we improve the scientific understanding of both primary and secondary hazards associated with earthquake activity.  Building resilience to the shaking alone is not enough.

3.       We must ensure that the scientific and social scientific questions being asked reflect the needs of the practitioners on the ground. 

4.       We must recognise the vulnerability of rural areas, in addition to urban areas and mega-cities, to seismic hazards. As recent earthquakes in Kashmir and Sichuan have shown, a significant proportion of the affected population in earthquake-prone countries are in rural areas. 

5.       We should look to address the knowledge gaps that currently exist around rare, high magnitude event across communities, governments and NGOs. 

6.       There is a pressing need for tracking the use of outside ‘expert’ knowledge by stakeholders and for assessing its impact on the ground. All too often, research is handed over to governments and NGOs to implement without advice, support or appraisal.      

7.       As past development activities have shown, a one-size-fits-all approach to earthquake risk reduction should be avoided. In some countries, working through national and local level government may be the most effective way of engaging communities and rolling out wider initiatives; but for countries without a stable or able government platform, NGOs or community groups may be the most effective conduits for resilience building activities. 

8.       It is essential that we identify suitable entry points through which to engage vulnerable populations. Focusing on rare, high-magnitude events of which there is little community awareness or experience, and for which there are limited strategies available, is unlikely to be effective. These entry points may be defined, for example, in terms of specific earthquake-related hazards (e.g. landslides) that can introduce the populace to earthquake effects as well as to specific activities that they can undertake to increase resilience. 

We welcome comments from the wider practitioner community on the above with a view to shaping future natural and social science research in this area.