Landscape, livelihoods and risk: A study of community vulnerability to landslide events in a dynamic...
-
Upload
leslie-hutchinson -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
1
Transcript of Landscape, livelihoods and risk: A study of community vulnerability to landslide events in a dynamic...
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
Landslides and flooding are the most frequent, costly and deadly disasters in Nepal
(Tianchi and Behrens, 2002).
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
Landslide Activity in Nepal
Chaku, Sindhupulchok District, Nepal
Community risk and vulnerability to landslide events?
The number of landslide related fatalities 1980-2003(Petley et al, 2007)
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)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Num
ber
of la
ndsl
ide
fata
litie
s
Terai Plain districts
Hill districts
Mountain districts
Aims and Objectives
Vulnerability at the local level
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?
Aim: To investigate the vulnerability of rural communities to landslides in Central Nepal.
Tatopani, Central Nepal.
Research Strategies and Methodologies
A bottom-up, community based approach(Wisner, 2006)
Mixed methods
L/Ssusceptibilityassessment
Who is at risk?
Perceptions/ responses
Triggering factorsTerrain analysis
Geomorphologicalmapping
Aerial photograph/Satellite imagery
analysis
Household surveys
Scale/Frequency
Changes in Settlement
patterns
Semi-structuredinterviews
Participatorymapping
1 2 3
Required data:• landslide occurrence• susceptibility• exposure• response
Methodologies:• Birkmann et al. (2006)• Wisner (2006)• ICIMOD (2002)
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
Preliminary Findings (1)
Creating taxonomies of “vulnerable” groups is problematic(Wisner, 2006).
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).
Preliminary Findings (2)
Why do people live in landslide prone areas?
1. No choiceAware of the risks but unable to move.
2. Roadside location (aware)Advantages of a roadside location outweigh the risks.
3. Roadside location (unaware)Unaware of the threat of landslide activity.
Kodari (2006).
Results and Analysis (2)
No choice - aware of the risk but cannot afford to move.
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.
Results and Analysis (2)
Advantages outweigh the risks
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.
Results and Analysis (2)
Unaware of the risks – “stable soil and mud”.
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.
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
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.
Preliminary Findings (4)
How do people respond to landslide hazard and risk?
Long term responses: individual/household level:
1. Do nothing
Unaware of the risks or Risk denial/rejection
Case study: LarchaLandslide 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.
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.
3. Other responses
Community level – emergency fund, worshipping gods, scattering sacred soil.
Government/NGO - limited involvement Road maintenance.
Ongoing Research
1. What is the impact of road construction on landslide activity?
• Satellite imagery analysis • Field mapping (ground truth).
2. 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)
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.