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

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.