1 / 17

Landslides and flooding are the most frequent , costly and deadly disasters in Nepal ( Tianchi and Behrens, 2002).

Landscape, livelihoods and risk: A study of community vulnerability to landslide events in a dynamic mountain environment Katie Oven , D. Petley, J. Rigg, C. Dunn and N. Rosser. Landslide Activity in Nepal. Chaku, Sindhupulchok District, Nepal. Physiographical characteristics:

malia
Download Presentation

Landslides and flooding are the most frequent , costly and deadly disasters in Nepal ( Tianchi and Behrens, 2002).

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Landscape, livelihoods and risk: A study of community vulnerability to landslide events in a dynamic mountain environmentKatie Oven, D. Petley, J. Rigg, C. Dunn and N. Rosser

  2. Landslide Activity in Nepal Chaku, Sindhupulchok District, Nepal • Physiographical characteristics: • Tectonically active • High relative relief • Monsoonal rainfall • Earthquakes, floods, GLOFS, landslides • Human perspective: • Developing country • ~80% population classified as rural • Rapid population growth • Social inequality Landslides and flooding are the most frequent, costly and deadly disasters in Nepal (Tianchi and Behrens, 2002).

  3. Trends in landslide activity • Increase in the number of landslides and associated fatalities since the early 1990’s. • Why? • Development of transport infrastructure: • Undercutting • Spoil disposal • Population relocation • (Gerrard and Gardner, 2000; Petley et al, 2007) The number of landslide related fatalities 1980-2003 (Petley et al, 2007) Community risk and vulnerability to landslide events?

  4. Aims and Objectives Aim: To investigate the vulnerability of rural communities to landslides in Central Nepal. • Key questions: • Who are the vulnerable groups? • Why do people live in landslide prone areas? • How are physical risks perceived and • understood? • How do people respond to landslide risk? Tatopani, Central Nepal. Vulnerability at the local level

  5. Research Strategies and Methodologies • Methodologies: • Birkmann et al.(2006) • Wisner (2006) • ICIMOD (2002) A bottom-up, community based approach (Wisner, 2006)

  6. Field Sites Research location: Upper Bhotekoshi Valley, Sindhupulchok district, Central Nepal. Roadside settlements: Chaku, Larcha and Kodari Hill villages: Narayanthan, Marmin, Duguna and Nadung Upper Bhote Koshi Valley

  7. Preliminary Findings (1) Who occupies the landslide prone areas? • Landslide prone areas occupied by: • high caste; • occupational caste; • hill tribe groups. • relatively rich and • relatively poor households. • No strong correlation between poverty level and caste grouping. • . Chaku (2006). Creating taxonomies of “vulnerable” groups is problematic (Wisner, 2006).

  8. Preliminary Findings (2) Why do people live in landslide prone areas? • No choice • Aware of the risks but unable to move. • Roadside location (aware) • Advantages of a roadside location outweigh the risks. • Roadside location (unaware) • Unaware of the threat of landslide activity. Kodari (2006).

  9. Results and Analysis (2) Why do people live in landslide prone areas? • 1) No choice • Case Study: A Tamang family, Chaku. • House located above the failed slope • Head of the household born in Chaku • Own house but no land • Income: sharecropping/day wage labour. • Evidence of slope movement: • Visible cracks in house • Farmland destroyed. No choice - aware of the risk but cannot afford to move.

  10. Results and Analysis (2) Why do people live in landslide prone areas? • 2) Roadside location • Case Study: A Sherpa family, Chaku. • House located at the bottom of a landslide prone slope. • Migrated to Chaku ~18 yrs ago from a remote hillside village – better opportunities. • Purchased the land they could afford. Advantages outweightherisks

  11. Results and Analysis (2) Why do people live in landslide prone areas? • 3) Roadside location • Case Study: A high-caste family, Kodari • Rent a house on the landslide prone slope in Kodari. • Migrated from Pangthan ~ 2 years ago – better employment opportunities. • Income – lorry driving/carry goods across the border. • Believes Kodari is safer than other areas. Unaware of the risks – “stable soil and mud”.

  12. Preliminary Findings (3) How are physical risks perceived and understood? • 1. The natural/scientific explanation • Landslides triggers: • Heavy rain • Soil properties • River undercutting • Deforestation • Quarrying of slate • Road construction

  13. Preliminary Findings (3) How are physical risks perceived and understood? • 2. The “supra-natural” explanation • Landslides are the work of the Gods angered by: • the disrespect of the natural environment; • the Sherpa community killing the sacred cow! • The Land God controls giant snakes that live under the ground. • Snakes move - a landslide is triggered.

  14. Preliminary Findings (4) How do people respondto landslide hazard and risk? • Long term responses: individual/household level: • Do nothing • Unaware of the risks or Risk denial/rejection • Case study: Larcha • Landslide dam-break floods/debris flow hazards. • Passive acceptance of the risks • Case study: Chaku • “Landslides are uncontrollable” / “Acts of God” • More urgent needs. Participatory mapping, Chaku.

  15. Preliminary Findings (4) How do people respond to landslide hazard and risk? • 2. Take action to reduce loss • Case study: Chaku • Temporary migration during the monsoon months/ construction of walls. • Other responses • Community level – emergency fund, worshipping gods, scattering sacred soil. • Government/NGO - limited involvement • Road maintenance.

  16. Ongoing Research • What is the impact of road construction on landslide activity? • Satellite imagery analysis • Field mapping (ground truth). • Are roadside settlements more vulnerable to landslide hazards than the remote hill villages? • Field visit to 4 remote hill villages • Investigate the risks faced by hill communities. TopSat image Upper Bhotekoshi Valley, Central Nepal (QinetiQ, 2007)

  17. Conclusion • Rapid rise in the incidence/impact of landslides • since 1990s landscape modification? • Initial findings suggest: • No strong correlation between locational vulnerability • and socio-economic status/caste grouping. • Landslide prone areas occupied due to lack of choice, • advantages of roadside location and/or unaware of risks. • Natural/“supra-natural” understanding of environment. • Risk response reflects risk perception and adaptive • capacity.

More Related