Towards a safer Bajhang

The pages that follow present an earthquake scenario for the district of Bajhang, Nepal. It tells the story of three people, and what happens to them and their families during a plausible but hypothetical earthquake. This is not a prediction. This story, and the study upon which it is based, are intended as an example of what may happen if a major earthquake strikes Bajhang in the near future. Bajhang will always face a risk of earthquakes. The Main Himalayan Thrust fault, which underlies much of Nepal, is the source for potentially very damaging earthquakes. The last very large earthquake in this region occurred in BS 1562 / 1505 AD. 1 Another earthquake could occur any time, because strain has been increasing on the fault ever since. This scenario shows the consequences of such an event, and the knowledge can be used to plan for safer outcomes. The story incorporates insights from professionals around the world who study earthquake effects, research on historic earthquakes, and documented experiences from the 2015 Gorkha earthquake. The consequences are based on standard methods that engineers and scientists use to estimate the shaking, damage and human impact a given earthquake may cause. The scenario earthquake strikes on a weekday in May at 1:35 PM. Across the district, adults are working, and children are on recess at school. Measuring magnitude 7.8, the earthquake originates approximately 100 kilometers northwest of Jayaprithivi on the Main Himalayan Thrust fault. It is not the worst earthquake that could happen, but it causes serious losses and suffering. Shaking throughout Bajhang and most of Sudurpashchim Pradesh is very strong, causing the consequences explained in this narrative: casualties, damaged buildings, landslides, fire, isolation, loss of power and water, and economic hardship.

Developing messages for protective actions to take during earthquake shaking

This document provides guidance on developing messages about what people should do during earthquake shaking to protect themselves from injury or death. The document refers to this behavior as protective action. The guidance is not designed to advocate one protective action over another. Rather, it describes a process to use and key considerations for creating effective protective actions messages that serve different contexts. This document focuses on actions to take during an earthquake, because information on what to do before and after is available elsewhere and generally better agreed upon. In contrast, messaging agencies around the world advocate a variety of different protective actions. Messages for what to do during earthquake shaking form one part of a broader earthquake safety messaging campaign, as Figure 1 shows. Protective actions messages must complement mitigation and preparedness efforts that will make people much safer from earthquakes in the long term. This document is the result of the project "Guidance on Developing Messages for Protective Actions to Take during Earthquake Shaking" funded by USAID/OFDA. There is no single perfect protective action message, for any nation, or for any jurisdiction. Jurisdictions have different customs, beliefs, buildings, geology, and capacities, and therefore different messaging needs. It is absolutely essential that people understand their specific circumstances and situations and make decisions based on that understanding.

Implementation workbook: developing messages for protective actions to take during earthquake shaking

GeoHazards International (GHI) prepared the tools in this workbook as part of a USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA)­funded project to implement protective actions guidance developed in an earlier USAID/OFDA project. The implementation project took place in Anse­a­Veau, Nippes Department, Haiti. The Government of Haiti selected this location because the south peninsula region had not had prior earthquake safety programs, and an ongoing earthquake swarm was causing great concern among local residents. Earlier versions of the worksheets in this document were used in the Anse­a­Veau implementation, and subsequently revised based on that experience. The examples in this workbook were prepared based on the Anse­a­Veau implementation.

Background papers and supplementary technical information

Population growth and the built environment are the primary root causes of morbidity and mortality associated with earthquakes. Earthquakes generally do not cause death and injury, but rather it is the buildings in which people are located and the contents therein that are directly responsible for human mortality and morbidity. Protective action messaging is intended to provide members of the public with information that can be recalled and acted on during earthquake shaking to reduce the chance of death and injury. In order to design appropriate guidance for developing protective action messages for earthquakes, it is important to understand their human impact­that is, how people are injured and killed during earthquake shaking. The purpose of this background paper is to describe the epidemiology of deaths and injuries during earthquakes. The paper will address the major causes of death and injury from earthquakes, including what the research indicates about injuries to building occupants who walk or run, the likelihood of death or injury from earthquakes, the likelihood of death or injury from earthquake-related building collapse, the likelihood of death or injury from substandard building evacuation routes during earthquakes, and other sudden onset threats, such as tsunami or fire. The health effects of earthquakes can be categorized in a variety of ways. Combs, Quenemoen, Parrish, and Davis (1999) developed a typology, which has been adopted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for categorizing the health effects attributable to earthquakes and other disasters based on two parameters: (1) the time the death or injury occurs relative to the event, and (2) whether the event is directly or indirectly related to the disaster. Deaths and injuries that are directly related are those that are caused by the physical forces of the event, whereas indirectly related deaths and injuries are, "those caused by unsafe or unhealthy conditions that occur because of the anticipation, or actual occurrence, of the disaster" (Combs et al., 1999, p. 1125). This paper will focus primarily on human deaths and injuries occurring during earthquakes that are directly related to the event.

Conceptual seismic design guidance for new reinforced concrete framed infill buildings

Throughout the world, reinforced concrete frame buildings with masonry infill walls house families, shelter school children, and provide offices for workers. These buildings are functional, durable, and economical. All too often, though, these buildings perform poorly in earthquakes. Some collapse and kill the people inside, and many are badly damaged, requiring demolition or expensive repairs. Sometimes, poor construction quality or a lack of engineering design is at fault. In many cases, though, the engineering design itself is to blame. Despite the stiffness and strength infill walls possess, building codes around the world lack guidance on modeling and designing infill walls as structural elements, and many engineers have been taught not to consider them as such. Engineers therefore often ignore infill walls during structural design or presume that they will have only beneficial effects. This simple yet fundamental oversight often dooms buildings to poor earthquake performance. For example, many multi-story reinforced concrete buildings with masonry infill walls collapsed at the ground level from the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake. These buildings typically had commercial space or parking at the ground floor and infill walls in the stories above.

Non-structural risk reduction handbook for schools: steps towards school safety

Reducing hazards from "non-structural" items such as contents & furnishings in schools the purpose of this booklet is to introduce you to the importance of securing the contents of school building, so that in an earthquake the furnishings and other objects do not fall or slide. These "non-structural risk reduction" measures will do four important things.

Identifying earthquake-unsafe schools and setting priorities to make them safe: a case study In Gujarat, India

After the January 26, 2001 Gujarat Earthquake, GeoHazards International (GHI) was concerned about the risk of school buildings in the largest Gujarat cities and asked the Volunteers for India Development and Empowerment (VIDE) and NGOs Kobe to help fund a study that would identify earthquake-unsafe school buildings in Ahmedabad, Baroda and Surat. VIDE and NGOs Kobe agreed to help. GHI worked with its Indian partner organization, SEEDS, to evaluate 153 schools: 42 in Ahmedabad, 58 in Baroda, and 53 in Surat. The schools included different structural types, served students from a variety of educational and economic levels, and were widely dispersed within each city. GHI found that the earthquake risk of the schools in all three cities is significant, and recommends that the authorities responsible for these schools take steps to reduce the risk. GHI further recommends that these authorities initiate comprehensive school earthquake risk mitigation programs. GHI and SEEDS will meet with officials in these three cities to discuss these findings and follow-up actions. After this meeting, this report will be revised.

Seismic safety for adobe homes: what everyone should know

Central Asia is known for periodic large earthquakes. Strong earthquakes can cause damage or destruction to adobe buildings, causing death, disability, serious injuries, and economic losses

Global Earthquake Safety Initiative (GESI): pilot project

As the Global Earthquake Safety Initiative (GESI) Pilot Project was drawing to a close, the world witnessed two earthquake disasters, striking countries on opposite sides of the earth: India and El Salvador. At this writing, the final human and economic toll is not known, but it can be assumed that tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars were lost. For El Salvador, emerging from decades of civil war and with half its population below the poverty line, the losses were devastating­0.02% of its population and 10% of its GDP, equivalent to losses for the more populous, richer U.S. of 55,000 lives and $900 billion. And the toll cannot be measured in lives and dollars alone. The entire world shuddered at images of Indian children crushed while sitting at their school desks or while marching in a holiday parade. Learning of such disasters is especially distressing for people like the authors of this report, who are familiar with earthquake risk. As it is for everyone, it is painful for us to see the suffering of already impoverished people and innocent children. It is even worse because for us these disasters are no surprise and they teach us nothing new. Studies of earthquake disasters always reach the same conclusions: communities should enact and enforce modern building and land-use codes, strengthen and prepare medical care facilities, and train and equip emergency response agencies. These earthquake disasters are also depressing because for a fraction of the reconstruction costs, the losses could have been reduced or even avoided through mitigation and preparedness beforehand. Finally, these disasters disturb us because they absorb the world's attention, allowing little attention to be given to the hundreds of communities that are as vulnerable as those just struck. Thus, while we mourn the Indian and Salvadoran victims and sympathize with the survivors, our energies are directed to avoiding such disasters elsewhere in the future. We wish to alert threatened cities of their danger and help them reduce their future death and suffering. This is the mission of GeoHazards International (GHI) and the focus of the GESI Pilot Project.