disaster vulnerability in nepal

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

Author's personal copy

Disaster vulnerability in Nepal

Komal Raj Aryal n

National Disaster Management Agency, Office of the President, The Republic of The Gambia, West Africa

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 24 January 2013Received in revised form6 May 2014Accepted 8 May 2014Available online 20 May 2014

Keywords:NepalDisaster vulnerabilityRiskCase study

a b s t r a c t

This article explores Nepal's vulnerability from a local perspective. Nepal currently has adisaster management policy and legislative framework yet it is perceived as not tricklingdown effectively to make significant progress in reducing the impact of disasters at thelocal level. The article uses the case study method to explore local disaster vulnerability inthe Mountain, Hill and Terai regions of Nepal. It concludes that a lack of micro-disastervulnerability analysis is a problem that remains for effective disaster risk management in Nepal.On the one hand, disaster management practitioners create and enforce disaster manage-ment programmes without location-specific knowledge. On the other hand, traditional, lessscientific and less disaster risk reduction-centred administrative approaches dominate andpush local people into situations where they are vulnerable to disasters.

& 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

Nepal is one of the most vulnerable countries in theworld to disaster. There are a wide variety and significantnumber of natural hazards every year and studies haverevealed a high level of vulnerability [1–4]. The Govern-ment of Nepal has attempted to manage the prevalence ofthese hazards and their associated disasters through bothinformal civic involvement and formal government instru-ments. A legal and policy environment to deal withdisasters has existed in one form or another in Nepal since1982, and has regularly been reviewed [5]. Further anational disaster risk management strategy was approvedin 2009 [1]. Why then do Nepalese people continue to beexposed to local disaster vulnerability? A widely acceptedview is that there is a crisis of governance in Nepal [6]. Thiscrisis takes the form of political instability, a cumbersomeand politicised bureaucracy, a poorly motivated workforce,poor revenue collection, unequal service delivery and

corruption. These are all drivers that make people vulner-able to disasters in Nepal. However, this article attempts toinvestigate local disaster vulnerability through society,culture, knowledge and behaviours. Social, cultural andbehavioural knowledge factors in relation to disastervulnerability analysis are a very sensitive issue; however,disaster risk management cannot be implemented effec-tively without understanding the way people interact,think and live with local hazards and risks [7].

2. Research locations

There is a variation in the impact of disasters in theMountain, Hill and Terai regions of Nepal [8]. This studygathered thirty-nine disaster histories from these threeregions (Plate 2.1) and these case studies were collectedthrough participatory face-to-face interviews over a periodof two years, spending at least two weeks with eachparticipant. Nine out of the thirty-nine case studies wereselected for detailed analysis. The nine were chosenbecause they were rich in historical details and describedthe impact of disaster in depth. Also, these locations wereselected to enable the author to explore disaster vulner-ability in rural (Chitwan) and urban (Byas in Tanahu, a

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.05.0092212-4209/& 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

n Correspondence to. Dr. Komal Raj Aryal, Vulnerability Assessment andHumanitarian Specialist, National Disaster Management Agency (NDMA),Office of The President, The Republic of The Gambia, West Africa.

E-mail address: [email protected]

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 9 (2014) 137–146


newly emerged city) scenarios as well as in Kathmandu(old urban city) (Plates 3.1, 5.1, and 5.2)

3. Methodology

Over the years, disaster vulnerability research hasalmost always been completed after the disaster. Informa-tion about survivors prior to their disaster exposure can

therefore be hard to obtain and is sometimes inaccurate.Disaster epistemology is weak. As Stallings points out,“There has been very little written on the topic of methods ofdisaster research” [9–24]. Research, by implication, needsaccess to all stakeholders and different levels of informa-tion, for instance, from the offices of high-level decision-makers to the temporary living quarters of displaceddisaster victims [10,11].

Plate 2.1. Research locations..

Plate 3.1. Gathering information for case studies from senior citizens in Kathmandu..

Plate 5.1. A senior citizen shares his past disaster experiences in Byas..

Plate 5.2. One of my key informants in her home.

K.R. Aryal / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 9 (2014) 137–146138


Research is a systematic and organised effort to inves-tigate a specific problem that needs a solution [12]. InNepal, disaster vulnerability, people's behaviour and cul-ture are integrally linked and mutually reinforce issuesdemanding research.

The certainty–uncertainty continuum scale was devel-oped by Kates [13] to measure people's perceptions offlood events. Kates argues that previous disaster experi-ences greatly affect individual perceptions and futureadaptations. Others developed the avoidance responsemethod based on questionnaires to establish the survivor'spersonality, past experience with disasters and socio-economic conditions [14]. Their method also measuredthe fear of specific hazards against social risk. The resultwas a classification of the most feared hazards.

From a sociological perspective, Drabek [15] developedan approach to assess communities' perceptions andresponses to disasters. By asking about a community'spast experiences with a disaster, he describes disasterimpacts with the following characteristics: sudden, unfa-miliar, unexpected, scope and warnings [15] and percep-tion depends on gender, age, profession and geographicallocation.

Robson [16] suggests that research can be classified interms of its purpose as well as by its methods. Bearing thisin mind, an exploratory study was deemed the best way ofascertaining what was happening: to seek new insight, askquestions and assess phenomena in a new light [16,17]. Interms of engaging the subject, Kroll-Smith et al. [18]suggest viewing the disaster from the perspective of thevictims through semi-attached interactive research methods.

3.1. Case study method

The case study method is used to analyse root causes ofdisaster vulnerability. It also helps to investigate theperception, process and exposure to vulnerability and riskwithin the community. For this research, it was decidedthat a case study approach was the most appropriatemethodology. The main reason for this was the need togain a rich understanding of the context of the researchundertaken in Nepal and to generate answers to thequestions of why, what and how [19] disaster vulnerabilitymanifests in Nepal.

A case study is said to be when the research explores aprogramme, event, activity, process, or one or more ofthese individual components in depth. As in many otherfields, in disaster research the case studies are bound bytime and activity. In this research, a case study methodol-ogy was employed to analyse different dimensions ofdisaster vulnerability in Nepal. Some authors have pro-vided specific guidelines for the development, design andexecution of the case study methodology [20,21,22]. Thisarticle uses the proposed methodology for theory testing,historical document analysis, theory generation andresearch validity [23]. Theory building from case studiesis especially appropriate in this article as little is knownabout the historical disaster events, especially at the grass-root village level. One of the methodological strengths ofcase studies is the multiple sources of data [24–28]. In thisarticle, case studies serve as a strategy for generating and

organising data, but also allow integration of differentsources in different forms around a focused location.Robson (16–52) states that a “Case study is a strategy fordoing research which involves an empirical investigation of aparticular contemporary phenomenon within its real lifecontext using multiple sources of evidence.”

A case study based on primary and secondary datacollection remains a significant component of disasterresearch [29]. Such research will help to bring disasterand development together in the national developmentplanning agenda.

A case study as a method has some limitations, such aspotentially being “primitive and limited” [22–25] in compar-ison to that of experimental or quasi-experimental research.The core social science studies are often used as confirma-tory evidence for an argument rather than casual explana-tions. Despite its limitations, the case study remains apowerful method that future researchers should use whenstudying aspects of human responses to disaster [15]. Thisarticle demonstrates that the collection of individual casestudies is a valuable method for disaster research, withdistinctive characteristics that make it ideal for many typesof investigations. It can also be used to combine variousmethods. Its use and reliability should make it a morewidely used method once researchers better understandmulti-dimensional influences on disasters [22]. Singh et al.[30] have used similar types of case study approaches tostudy farmers' aspiration levels in India.

3.2. Sample size and techniques

A series of case studies (n¼39) were conducted with awide range of participants on various aspects of disastervulnerability, risk and hazards in Nepal. The participantswere selected based on information received from DistrictAdministrative Offices and social networking. Meetingswere also conducted with key members of the communityand households. The case studies sought to identify thedimension of local disaster risk and vulnerability in Nepal.They also explored how local hazards and risk informationand tools could potentially be used to a greater advantageto strengthen disaster risk management and contributetowards the development of a more strategic and inte-grated approach to the issue. The case studies weresupplemented with a review of available literature andhistorical news reporting. Nine out of thirty-nine casestudies are analysed in detail for this research. The ninecase studies were selected because they provided the mostdetailed personal perceptions of disaster experiences.

4. Limitations

There is need for caution when making conclusionsbased on the case study findings. First, a sample of nineout of thirty-nine is a small sample size and may not befully representative of Nepal. However, it was assumedthat the participants in this study were not objectsproviding numerical data but were viewed as rich in local(area) knowledge and experience of their environment.The level of detail from the nine case studies was thereforeconsidered to be useful in gaining an understanding of

K.R. Aryal / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 9 (2014) 137–146 139


disaster vulnerability at the local level in Nepal. Under-standing vulnerability generation processes was funda-mental, rather than the need to generalise findings. Thestudy was consistent with the disaster vulnerabilityresearch literature that a small sample size with in-depthdata is likely to provide rich information from which someconclusions could be drawn [31,32].

5. Results

Nine case studies provide micro-level analysis onpeople's knowledge, their past experiences and interac-tions with local hazards in Nepal.

5.1. Case study one: changing occupations and vulnerabilityto disasters

According to key respondents, the regular use of landfor agricultural production helps the land stabilisationprocess in mountainous areas. The local people argue thatregular agricultural production helps to maintain thebalance of water and soil. For example, a key informant,Mr. A1, who is 74 years of age, said he was born in Tanahudistrict in central Nepal (a very remote area used in thisresearch). Three generations of his family (father, grand-father and great-grandfather) lived and worked togetherthere. From an early age, his parents taught him about thegeo-physical and livelihood system of the village and bythe age of twelve he was proficient at various agriculturaltasks and had gained a degree of local knowledge from hisfather and grandfather, including:

� Slope land agricultural practices.� Which plants thrive in the locality and why?� Prioritisation of small slope protection against

degradation.� The availability of resources in the village.

He recalled that since 1950, the Nepalese governmenthad reformed the education system. Free primary schoolswere opened in every village; people wanted to send theirchildren to schools for education even though thesechildren had to walk for miles. These changes had con-sequences. Firstly, children received an externally intro-duced education and local information was not included inthe education material. The younger generation had lesstime to learn about traditional farming practices andlocations. Secondly, the children had to leave home earlyin the morning and returned home late in the evening.This scenario has not greatly changed these days. In thefield, parents and members of the older generationbecame dependent on external labourers and hired helpbecause the children were at school all day. As a result,they were unable to plant crops in time. Before, they usedto grow three to four rotations of cash crops per year butnow they are reduced to two or three crops per year.

Mr A related how, once the planting cycle was inter-rupted, the soil could not hold water and landslides anddebris movement began. These were small at first but gotbigger and bigger over two- to three-year intervals. Gra-dually he lost his livestock and more of his productive landwith every disaster. In 1985, he faced a huge landslide andlost everything, including his two daughters. He moveddown to the Byas area. He added, “Now my village iscovered with piles of small rocks.”

Key informant Mr A received some minor support fromthe Red Cross in the aftermath of the event and has livedon the riverbank as a Hindu monk (Jo-gii) since 1986.

5.2. Case study two: migrant workers and vulnerability todisaster in the village

In days gone by, many young men would leave their“home” village to join either the British or Indian Army.These soldiers would return and invest their pay, pensionsand profits in the village. Villagers saved up money toprotect themselves in the event of small disasters, but oncesuch a disaster occurred, villagers needed to build mitiga-tion measures for future disasters. During that process, thevillagers used both their traditional wisdom and knowl-edge gained from their army service. From the middle ofthe 1960s, as army recruitment dried up and Nepalbecame one of the more popular and well-known inter-national tourist destinations, towns such as Kathmanduand Pokhara grew and the pattern changed [33,34]. Wavesof young men started to leave their families and migrate towherever there was work available. They went first toNepalese tourist centres, then India and later to East andSouth East Asia and the Middle East. A few even went asfar as Europe and America. Retired army servicemen nolonger returned to their home villages but settled else-where. Thus, in addition to the traditional core villages inthe hills, there are now diffused villages (linear settle-ments) of equal size, particularly concentrated on theroads that lead to the nearest town centres.

Currently, the young people from the villages migrateto the nearest towns or go further away to Kathmandu,India and elsewhere. If they are fortunate enough to findgainful employment, they invest their earnings in buyingcheap land and building houses in towns and cities, not inthe village. Only the elderly, the very young and thedisabled, who cannot contribute to agricultural produc-tion, are left in the village. These groups are the front-linevictims of small-scale disasters in this context. Also,leadership and experience of the wider world is scarce inthe village environment and few political contacts areavailable to those who live there.

The results can be seen in the material culture. Povertyreigns in the villages; clothes are often ragged and theincidence of brass pots and cauldrons, once so common, ismuch reduced. The gold ornaments of the women thatwere so apparent in the seventies and eighties have almostall been sold off to support their families and feed theirchildren.

There is a strong impression that people are actuallypoorer now than they were then, despite the massivegrowth of overall wealth indicated in the Nepalese

1 Responders do not want to be identified by real names in thisarticle.



development report [35]. Thus villagers, although notnecessarily facing imminent famine or disease, may wellbe facing malnutrition. One of the major changes in thelast forty years has been in diet. Although new foodstuffsare more easily available for those with cash, for exampleiodine salt, oil and sugar, the basic foodstuff, namely rice,is becoming too expensive for many villagers.

Prior to 1960, most of the middle-class families hadsufficient meat and milk to enable consumption of one orboth at least twice a week. Villagers used to offer milkproducts to every visitor in their village. Now even thewealthier families only eat meat once or twice a monthand milk products are a luxury item.

The shortage of meat and milk is one aspect of the mostdramatic change in the village: the decline in domesticanimals caused by disasters. The number of livestock in thestudy area of Tanahu district decreased by more than 50per cent in the period between 1970 and 2002 (interviewwith an Officer of the District Agriculture Office, January2008). The traction power available for the fields throughthe use of oxen has also declined. According to keyinformant Mrs. C2, who is 68 years of age, cows, buffaloesand chickens make up the majority of victims of evenminor disasters. She said, “We know they [animals] are notwell but we can not help. The JTA [junior technical assistant]visits once a year in the village. My cow was injured in thelandslide last year. We could not provide medical treatmentin time now she is not with us any more… my grandchildrenhave not drunk milk for months.” Mrs. C added, “We arewaiting for our son, who is working in India. When he comesthis year we will go to Byas [nearby town] and start to livethere.” In the end, such marginalised villagers face masshardship and little development of any kind. The situationis more complex as they become increasingly vulnerableand exposed to multi-hazard risks.

5.3. Case study three: new migrants are more vulnerable

The development problems in rural Nepal are mostlythe result of the former feudal farming system, lack ofconservation of agricultural lands, monopoly of landhold-ings, chronic losses by environmental disasters, lack ofavailability of human resources, loss of livelihood afterdisasters, internal and ethnic conflict, and the prospect of abetter standard of living in the urban centres.

Urban migrants from the rural areas make up the mostvulnerable group in an urban disaster scenario. Living incramped, sometimes unplanned areas, without the basicamenities required for health (clean water and latrines),these migrants are especially prone to health hazards anddisaster risks.

Key informant, Mrs. B3, described how her son joinedthe Indian Army in 1973. He then came home on holidayafter fifteen years' service and purchased land in Byas.After his retirement, he built a house on previouslypurchased land. With high expectations, the whole family

moved to the new house in Byas, leaving their ancestralproperties in the Upper Hill. For two years they enjoyedrelative prosperity, but they subsequently faced a degree offlooding. One of Mrs. B's great-grandchildren drowned inthe nearest river two years ago. Mrs. B also spoke abouthow her neighbour's house had been swept away in the2003 floods.

“Land had been sliding near to his house, we were at risk… if he had known these problems before he would nothave spent his money building a house here” said Mrs. B.

People who migrate to urban centres bring with themtheir inherent rural skills, indigenous knowledge of theircrafts and survival experiences. These capabilities couldmake them resilient to urban disaster risks in a hostileenvironment, but local knowledge and skills are not beingutilised as people are exposed to new and different hazards.

5.4. Case study four: family detachment (separation) andchange in land practices exacerbates people's vulnerability todisaster

Nepalese society has always maintained a familial core[34,36]. Families used to be the quintessential social unitand the centre of all cultural/economic activities, relationsand celebrations [37]. Nepalese villagers inherited knowl-edge of their local area and land (geographical condition)from a large extended family. This extended family was theprimary agent for the transformation and transmission oflocal knowledge within society.

There is an increasing trend towards the disintegrationand fractionation of large and extended families intosmaller nuclear units. In the modern Nepalese village,the traditional family unit will break down after the deathof parents and the ancestral land and property will bedivided equally between the sons. Such a situation hasoccurred in the case of Mr. Laxman Bahadur (namechanged), who has three brothers, so he got a quarter ofthe family property after his parents' death and thesubsequent family breakdown. The elder brother stayedin the family home, and the middle one migrated to thenearest town centre to search for non-agriculture workwith his family. The youngest brother built a house andcontinued his agricultural practices on a small plot of land.

Once the family had divided their land, they had nocontrol over water and forest resources. Large parts of theland owned by one of his migrated brothers were leftwithout any agricultural cultivation for nearly five years.He continued, “Rain water could not circulate for a longtime. As a result we suffered a large landslide in July 1953and lost everything.” He added that one of his aunts was inChitwan (Terai plain). He asked her for help and migratedto a new area in 1957/58. The new land was located near toa river and dense forest. He cleared some of the nearestforest so that he could build a house. At that time, peopleused to construct houses using available local resources,mainly wood. His aunt gave him a loan of seed to plantrice. His rice yield was sufficient to be profitable despitefacing minor floods every monsoon.

2 Responders do not want to be identified by real names in thisarticle.

3 Tharu is one of the indigenous and marginalised communities ofthe Terai region of Nepal [33].



“It was the 1970 monsoon. I was fast asleep with mypregnant wife. A big noise woke me up. It was rainingheavily outside. My cows and buffaloes were bellowing. Ihave never heard them make that kind of noise in thenight before. I went to the balcony and, using a torchlight,looked towards my rice field. Flood water surrounded myhouse, north, south, east and west, everywhere. I thoughtmy life was over ….that's all. My wife was sitting, cryingat the corner of the balcony with my eight-year-olddaughter. I moved some of our chickens, cows andbuffaloes into my room upstairs. There was water every-where. We were waiting for the morning. Born in the Hillarea, I did not know how to swim. In the morning ataround 05:30, I saw one of my friends from the nextvillage was coming in a boat to help us.”

My informant transferred all his food and animals to hisaunt's house, which was on relatively higher land than hishouse. After the monsoon, he built a new style of house withthe help of local people with 200 years' local knowledgefrom that area. These communities, known as Tharu4, helpedhim to alter his home. Subsequently, he would regularly facesmall and medium-sized floods but these did not affect hislivelihood, as the great disaster of 1970 did.

Seeing his success and that of his family, other newmigrants followed his example and moved into the area.Most of them were from the same district as him butfloods in 1989 were devastating, taking sixteen lives,including his young daughter. This flood affected 219families. The government decided to distribute one“Katha” of land (1 katha¼338 m2) and sufficient tin toconstruct new houses for every family in the nearby forestland (now known as Bhandara) VDC (Village DevelopmentCommittee). They again faced floods a year later, whichthis time damaged the newly constructed houses and theybecame disaster “refugees” again.

The Nepalese political system changed in 1990 (from amonarchy to democracy). The new democratic regimebegan the rehabilitation of these disaster “refugees” inforested land (in Jutepani VDC), but according to myinformants, they have still not received the deeds to anyland and have no formal entitlement.

My informant fathered three children: two sons andone daughter (the latter was killed in the 1989 floods). Hiseldest son went to Delhi in search of employment. Theyounger son went to Kathmandu to work as a houseservant. He said, “We have not celebrated any festival sincethe 1989 disaster. Now I am old, I do not have any regularsource of income. I occasionally work for the big landownersin the nearest village. My wife works as a household cleaner.My health is not good; I feel pain in the night. But whereshould I complain and who should I complain to?”

5.5. Case study five: people are exposed to disaster withoutknowledge and communication of local hazard information

Lava (name changed) enjoyed his agricultural life withhis extended family in the hilly Western Tanahu district of

Nepal. He used to work in the fields with his father andbrothers every day. They had enough food for everybodyto eat well, and they used to sell their remaining produce.They used this revenue to buy livestock such as cows,goats and chickens. “My life was fantastic in those days” hesaid, proudly recalling his previous existence. “We had aseparate house for food storage and straw (animal food)storage. One evening, the wind was very strong outside. Mygrandmother was cooking food for all of us with my mother.We, five brothers, grandfather and father, were talkingupstairs. We were planning to build new houses the followingmonth. All of a sudden, our room's wooden wall caught fire. Icould not help anybody, I just jumped to the ground outside.My grandparents and parents could not make it. We do notknow why it happened or how it happened…”

After this incident, all the brothers decided to sell theirancestral land. They moved to the nearest town, Byas, in 1968.At that time, the national highway was under construction tojoin Kathmandu with Pokhara. First, they decided to open asmall village tea shop. Later, three of them found work as roadconstruction labourers. Lava and his brother ran the tea shopand they expanded their business into a highway restaurantwith a plastic roof and walls. The business was profitable.Land registration was just introduced at that time in Nepaland they managed to register a small area of land where theyhad a field in his name in 1969. They constructed a brickhouse within a year. “We were all wary of the danger of fire, sowe decided to build brick houses…” Lava said.

After a few years, both brothers got married. Theirwives could not work together in the same business sothey decided to divide their house into two and bothstarted their own business. Lava began to feel content withhis life and business. He and his family extended behindtheir house, near to the river. They grew seasonal vege-tables in their own back yard for use in their restaurant.But in the 1976 monsoon season, the nearest river, whichwas the source of water for the houses, the business andthe small farms, flooded and swept away all the houses andthree kilometres of the national highway. His two daughterswere also swept away. He could not recover their bodies. “Inever thought that river would damage my life. Nobody warnedus. There were many road engineers and educated people whoused to work for the project who ate in my restaurant…nobodyinformed me…nobody warned me…if they had warned me Icould at least have done something…I lost my parents fromfire…I lost my daughters from flood.” He shared his badexperiences with tears in his eyes. These days, the elderlyLava now lives with his wife in a riverside temple.

5.6. Case study six: implementation of local knowledge isvital to prevent disaster loss.

Baburam Chaudari (name changed) was born andbrought up in a farming community in Chitwan, Nepal.His childhood days were very comfortable.

“When I was a child, only our tribe was here. Pahadiya[people who live in the Hill area] could not settle here.Malaria used to kill them…my father said so….”5 When

4 It is believed that members of this tribe have since developedresilience to malaria. 5 One of the key informants from the Terai region of Nepal.



malaria was eradicated in 1956, the national highwaylinked his district with other parts of Nepal. According toBaburam, “after that Pahadiya started to come here. Theydestroyed our forest.”

According to Baburam, “over a ten-year period (1956–1969), thousands of hectares of forest were converted toagricultural land in Eastern parts of Chitwan. Outsidersstarted making houses in their own styles. They did notbother about the risk of flooding. As a result, a massiveflood happened in 1970. Many Pahadiya died. They diedbecause they did not make their houses like we did. Wealso flooded but we survived.”

5.7. Case study seven: people living in disaster zones for along time could receive disaster mitigation training

“I should have trained in disaster mitigation training 20years ago,” said KC (name changed).

KC was born and brought up in Bhandara VDC ward 2.Once malaria was eradicated in Chitwan around 1957, peoplefrom other districts started to settle there. Deforestationoccurred rapidly every year. As a result, a great flood hap-pened in 1970. This flood ruined all his land, property andhouse. He had no option but to become a labourer for the biglandowner at the nearby VDC. All KC's family members wentto stay with his uncle. After some time, KC got married. Thecouple started working together as casual labourers butunfortunately his wife ran off with another man. She saidshe ran off because she was tired of manual labour. He left hislabouring work and returned to his ancestral lands affected bydisaster. He said: “From previous disaster I learned not to live inthe stream side area…I might face disaster in future. I decided tomake my house in a relatively safe area.”

He got married for a second time and re-started hisfamily life, supporting himself and his new family throughagriculture. He also started to work on other people's landto support his second wife.

Time passed, but the disaster risk did not. In 1993, theRapti river flooded and destroyed all his belongings. Afterthat flood, every landowner in Bhandara village elected todonate some land to disaster victims. He went to live in theforest areas but found it difficult to support himself due to alack of work so he returned to his village (Surjatole).

He rents land to support his family and has resolved tostay in Surjatole despite the risk of local disasters. Before1993, the main stream was about 200 m from his house.After the flood of 1993, the course of the streamwas closerto the house than in the past. In the monsoon season, allthe villagers spend their nights in safe places, such as thenearby school. KC has done his best to remove debris fromhis sand-covered land (the land he purchased after thefirst disaster). In 2002, the great flood happened again.This time, all the villagers had been staying at the localschool for a few days. After the flood they returned to theirhomes and cleared the debris. The stream was directedtowards their village and they wanted the VDC to initiate aproject that might help to stop further land degradation.They have started activities to protect the village. They usesand bags to protect their village from the flow of the riverand the rise of flood waters and have formed a support

group to carry out preventative measures each year beforethe monsoon.

According to KC, “If I had been given training on how toprotect the land 20 years ago, I would not be poor like this.Repeated disaster events made my economic conditionweak every time I faced another disaster. I hope ourcurrent mitigation exercise will help to protect our futuregeneration. We have to live in hope, do not we?”

5.8. Case study eight: adaptation to new technology withoutproper safety knowledge increases disaster vulnerability

“It was the late monsoon of 1983, and our family wascelebrating religious worship in our newly constructedhouse. All of us were happy, vibrant and upbeat. We allhad devoted so much of our time over the years tofarming and agriculture in order to be able to build anew house. Everyone in my family was eagerly antici-pating an opportunity to live in a brick and woodenwalled house for the rest of our lives. Everyone washappy but our happiness could not last forever. God didnot wish happiness on us” (Krishana Maya, (namechanged) 47, from Byas).

Krishana Maya's (in short KM) family lived in atraditional earth house until 1982. In 1984, they changedtheir lives and economic conditions as a result ofsuccessful agricultural work. Her father and brothersdecided to construct a new brick house so they con-structed a one in the middle of their agricultural land.Their daily lifestyles were transformed. They used tocook their food on earthen stoves with wood but itchanged to a pressurised iron stove run on kerosene.Instead of cleaning an earthen floor, they started toclean a cement floor every morning. KM and her motherwere happy that they did not have to go to the forest tocollect fire wood every day.

One day in the monsoon, the major roads that con-nected the village to the local market were blocked bylandslides and flood water. Everybody in the villagestarted to store extra food and fuel (energy for cookingand lighting). “My mother asked me to buy more kerosene tostore enough for a week,” KM recalled. “One evening we allwere in the kitchen eating food…after that I found myself in ahospital bed with strange people…” said KM.

According to her, they were having dinner and one ofher brothers asked her to make a particular item of hotfood. Her mother wanted to restart the pressure stove;all of a sudden there was an explosion and fire. The firecaught the extra kerosene that was kept in the corner ofthe kitchen. “All my family died. My face is permanentlyscarred. Nobody has asked me to marry them and I do notbelieve I will ever get married. I cannot pay to fix my face.”She expressed her emotion and frustration with theresearcher. “After that incident I sold my ancestral landand paid for it all (religious death activities). I brought asmall piece of land close to the river. I thought I could dofarming to survive.” She made a small house in her newlypurchased land. Within three years an unexpected flooddestroyed everything. “I just survived with the help of anIndian lahuraei (retired Indian Army personnel)”.



5.9. Case study nine: lack of government regulationincreases individuals' vulnerability to disasters

Gopi (name changed) is from the Central Hill district ofNepal. He came to Kathmandu four years ago but he doesnot know how he arrived in the big city. He proudly said:“Now I am a home and landowner in Kathmandu Valley.”

One evening, after a long tiring day on the farm withhis family, Gopi had gone to bed early. The next day hefound himself in the district hospital bed. He did not knowwhy he was in the hospital. His wife was lying in the nextbed with her face covered with bandages. All of a suddenboth of them were transferred by ambulance to the cityhospital in Kathmandu. Gopi was aware that he was goingto Kathmandu but his wife was not conscious enough torealise this.

Days passed in Kathmandu hospital. Gopi recovered fromhis fractured legs and his wife recovered from her fracturedneck and arm. They had nowhere to go and they did not knowanybody in the big city, Kathmandu. They requested help fromthe Nepalese Red Cross. The Red Cross persuaded them that itwas not feasible to live in areas where landslides and floodswere everyday risks. Instead of helping Gopi and his wife toreturn to their home, the Red Cross showed them horrificpictures of their home. Gopi and his wife decided to search forwork in the outer circle of Kathmandu city.

One day they met a group of people who werecollecting sand from the river and Gopi joined them.After two days in this job he made 200 Nepalese rupees,equivalent to d1.40 (GBP). With the help of his newfriend, he built a temporary plastic house on the riv-erbed. Gopi said, “We were there for three months.Nobody came to complain to or about us….I decided toinvest in my house.” They decided to replace the plasticwith dry bamboo. Dry bamboo was locally available,cheap and frequently used in construction. In winter, theriver was dry so he decided to cultivate vegetablesaround his house. “I know my house is near to the river.The river can damage my life at any time during themonsoon so I decided to plant banana trees, sarbado,karkalo and small bamboo around my land. All theseplants absorb water, you know,” Gopi said with a smile.“The next monsoon, the river did not damage my side ofthe land but it damaged the opposite side of the land.”

The opposite side of the land was used by a business-man who used to collect sand from seasonal sand collec-tors like Gopi. According to Gopi, the businessman rentedthe land from somebody else, so the landowner was notaware what was going on within his property's boundary.Gopi managed to register his bit of land in his name as aprivate property. “I had to pay some money and gave a fewtruckloads of sand to the officer who registered this land inmy name.” He has further extended his land and leases it toan old iron collector who makes a living from the reclama-tion of ferrous minerals in waste products.

Offering a cup of tea to the researcher, Gopi said, “Neverin my life did I think that I could be a resident ofKathmandu. Although I lost my family members someyears ago, now I am a homeowner in Kathmandu city.”

Here what Gopi does not know is he is constantlyexposed to multiple hazards like flood and fire (he is using

naked electric wires), diseases (due to debris in his field)and pollution.

6. Discussion and conclusion

Individual case studies conclude that the following keyfactors play a vital role in creating disaster vulnerability inNepal:

i. Disaster risk for displaced and relocated persons variesaccording to the relocation area. The formation andstrengthening of bonds between the original commu-nities and the newcomers will help in communitydisaster risk reduction.

ii. Displaced communities in Nepal face exponentiallyincreasing risks. Displaced by disaster, they are relo-cated, thus along with their homes, people lose theirlivelihoods and are compelled by necessity to under-take whatever employment presents itself. Lack ofcommunication between locals and newcomers maybe costing lives in disaster-prone locations in Nepal aslocal people attribute the “distance” of newcomers tofactors other than their newcomers' status. It wouldtherefore be sensible to ensure that all relevant andsalient information regarding the disaster types pre-valent in the new location is available to all newcomersand displaced persons as well as information regardingthe locally respected practices that are effective againstdisaster damage. In order for this to happen, in linewith Lavell and Lavell [38], it would be necessary forthe authority to ensure that local disaster avoidanceand survival strategies are collected and collated on alocation basis in order that these practices can be madeavailable to newcomers. This could be done via meet-ings and classes, printed pamphlets or via an official“visitor” who could ensure that information is passedto relevant members of every newcomer household.However the transmission of information is to beaccomplished, it is clear from the research presentedhere that there is an extant lack of information thatputs the newcomers/displaced population at a rela-tively greater risk and renders them very vulnerable tothe impact of disaster in Nepal.

iii. Local people are generally uninformed, untrained, inex-perienced and under-resourced to deal with local small-scale disaster in Nepal. Consequently there is a hugeneed to invest in and build capacity at a local level toimprove local disaster risk management systems.

iv. In Nepal, in spite of local risks and hazards, people arehappy to live and work in the area where resources areeasily available [39].

The disaster risk is extremely complex and needs to befurther explored and detailed. With this complexity,understanding vulnerability in Nepal is extremely difficult.In Nepal, people do not have control over the occurrenceof hazards and their capacity to cope and recover from thecatastrophic events depends on individuals' levels ofexposure to disaster vulnerability. That is why failure tounderstand the root causes of vulnerability only leads to a



re-creation of additional disaster risk [40]. It is people'srelationship to and interactions with hazards at the locallevel that have been producing vulnerability. However,specialisation in Nepalese disaster risk management hasnot frequently been accompanied by a thorough under-standing of Nepalese ecology.

In the context of strengthening existing disaster riskmanagement strategies, policy and regulation in Nepal, afar more thorough local socio-political risk analysis isrequired to substantiate conclusions. It appears that locallevel interventions are still primarily of the project and notthe process type, promoted by external agencies with localsupport but not deeply ingrained among local actors. Theyfit, therefore, the notion of risk management initiatives atthe local level rather than local-based risk management assuch. Ownership and sustainability of the process and itsresults are therefore in question and, consequently, so isthe real role that local risk reduction can play in sustain-able development. This does not of course mean thatadvances are not made in local risk management aspectand developing mechanisms and instruments that canserve to highlight it. Use of local vulnerability analysis inits distinct forms and shapes undoubtedly promotes amore comprehensive local view of risk and its causalfactors. However, it is interesting to note that participatorylocal risk analysis is still organised from the perspective ofdisaster risk as such and not very often as part of an overalldiagnosis of local development needs and the factors thatpromote disaster resilience locally. That is to say, often it isdisaster risk that is at the centre of concern and notdevelopment in a more general sense. The significance ofthis for local disaster vulnerability and (sustainable) devel-opment may be very important in Nepal.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Professor Phil O'Keefe andDr. Andrew Collins for initial comments as well as anon-ymous referees for their comments and suggestions. Thispaper is part of Ph.D. research partially funded by North-umbria University.

References

[1] Aryal KR. Getting down to local level: exploring vulnerability toimprove disaster management systems in Nepal. Newcastle: North-umbria University; 2012.

[2] UNDP. Disaster profiles of least developed countries. Third UnitedNations Conference on Least Developed Countries, Brussels; 14–20May 2001. Available from: ⟨http://www.undp.org/cpr/disred/documents/publications/dpldc.pdf⟩.

[3] BCPR A Global report: reducing disaster risk – a challenge fordevelopment, New York; 2004. Available from: ⟨http://www.undp.org/cpr/whats_new/rdr_english.pdf⟩.

[4] GHI. Global earthquake safety initiative – pilot project final report.GeoHazards International and United Nations Centre for RegionalDevelopment, Palo Alto; 2001. Available from: ⟨http://geohaz.org/news/images/publications/gesi-report%20prologue.pdf⟩.

[5] MoHA. Disaster reduction and management in Nepal: issues andprospects. World Conference on Disaster Reduction, Kobe, Japan, HisMajesty's Government of Nepal, Ministry of Home Affairs, Kath-mandu. Available from: ⟨http://www.un.org.no/docs/disaster/⟩Nepal-Final Report-WCDR 200509.02.05doc; 2005 [accessed:10.10.09].

[6] Lowe ME. Foreword. In: Keeling SJ, editor. Pro-poor governanceassessment. Kathmandu: Enabling State Programme (ESP), DfIDNepal; 2001.

[7] Wright PT. Policy in practice: a pilot study of disaster manage-ment governance in Nepal. Newcastle: Northumbria University;2010.

[8] Aryal KR. The history of disaster incidents and impacts in Nepal1900–2005. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 2012;3(3):147–54.

[9] Stallings R. Methods of disaster research: unique or not? In: StallingsRA, editor. Methods of disaster research. TX, Bryan: InternationalResearch Committee on Disasters; 2002. p. 24.

[10] Davidson O. Future disaster research: a practitioner's viewpoint onpublic–private partnership. In: Stallings RA, editor. Methods ofdisaster research. TX, Bryan: International Research Committee onDisasters; 2002. p. 377–88.

[11] Tierney, K. Literature notes: disaster and social vulnerability: insightfrom theory and research. Available from: ⟨http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Urban-Studies-and-Planning/11-941Spring-2005/570C0D2F-414F-47B9–8DCA-F2C6D7289B3/0/tierney_lect7.s.pdf⟩;2005 [accessed 1602.07].

[12] Sekaran U. Research methods for business: a skill building approach.2nd ed.New York: Wiley and Sons; 1992.

[13] Kates RW. Perceptual regions and regional perception in flood plainmanagement. Reg Sci 1962;11(11):215–27.

[14] Golant S, Burton I. The meaning of a hazards-application of thesemantic differential. Colorado: Natural Hazards Centre; 1969(Working Paper 07).

[15] Drabek T. Recognizing opportunities, posing interesting questions,and implementing alternative methods. In: Stallings RA, editor.Methods of disaster research. USA: International Research Commit-tee on Disasters; 2002. p. 146–7.

[16] Robson C. Real world research.Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.; 52.[17] Sunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A. Research methods for development

and business student. London: Financial Times, Pitman Publishers;1997.

[18] Kroll-Smith S, Gunter V. Legislators, interpreters, and disasters: theimportance of how as well as what is disaster. In: Quarantelli E,editor. What is disaster? Perspective in the question London:Routledge; 1998.

[19] Morris T, Wood S. Testing the survey methods: continuity andchange in British industrial relations. Available from: ⟨http://wes.sagepub.com/content/5/2/259.abstract⟩; 1991[accessed 2007.06].

[20] Hamel J, Dufour S, Fortin D. Case study methods. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications; 1993.

[21] Stake R. The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-tions; 1995.

[22] Yin R. In: Case study research: design and methods. 2nd ed.BeverlyHills, CA: Sage Publishing; 25.

[23] Eisenhardt KM. Building theories from case study research. AcadManag Rev 1989;14:532–50.

[24] Coolican H. Research methods and statistics in psychology. London:Hodder and Stoughton Ltd.; 1994.

[25] Clark-Carter D. In: Doing quantitative psychological research fromdesign to report. East Sussex: Psychology Press; 1997.

[26] Pole C, Lampard R. Practical social investigation qualitative andquantitative methods in social research.Harlow: Pearson EducationLimited; 2002.

[27] Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosingamong five approaches.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication;; 2007.

[28] Denscombe M. The good research guide for small-scale socialresearch project. 2nd ed.Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2003.

[29] Killian L. An introduction to methodological problems of fieldstudies in disasters. In: Stallings RA, editor. Methods of disasterresearch. USA: International Research Committee on Disasters;2002. p. 47–93.

[30] Singh S, Roy JJ. Modernization and development among indianfarmers: a modern proof of some old theories. Econ Dev CultChange 1980;28(2):509–22.

[31] Birkmann J. Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards – towardsdisaster resilient societies. Tokyo: UNU Press; 2006.

[32] Stellings RA. Methodological issues. In: Rodriguez H, Quarantelli EL,Dynes RR, editors. Handbook of disaster research. London: SpringerScience Plus Business Media, LLC; 2007. p. 55–82.

[33] Macfarlane A. Resources and population: a study of the Gurungs ofNepal.Kathmandu: Ratna Pustak Bhandar; 2003.

[34] Acharya MR. Nepal culture shift! Reinventing culture in the Hima-layan Kingdom. Delhi: Adroit Publishers; 2002.

[35] National Planning Commission Tenth Plan: 2003–2007. Kathmandu:National Planning Commission Secretariat; 2003.



[36] Sharma PR. The state and society in Nepal historical foundations andcontemporary trends.Lalitpur, Nepal: Himal Books; 2004.

[37] Sharma PR. Social science in Nepal. A seminar report.Kathmandu:Institute of Nepal and the Asian Studies; 1973.

[38] Lavell A, Lavell C. Local disaster risk reduction: lessons from theAndes.Lima: Comunidad Andina; 2009.

[39] Oliver-Smith A. A matter of choice. International journal of disasterrisk reduction; ⟨http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221242091200043X⟩ [accessed 29.10.12].

[40] Lewis J, Kelman I. The good, the bad and the ugly: disaster riskreduction (DRR) versus disaster risk creation (DRC). PLOS CurrDisasters 2012;4:1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/4f8d4eaec6af8.


disaster vulnerability in nepal

Documents