Mapping vulnerability and
resilience in Eastern Nepal:
an interdisciplinary approach
K. Sudmeier-Rieux, J. Dubois, M. Jaboyedoff, J. Nessi, S.
Paychère
UCL Workshop on DRR, 2009
University of Lausanne,
Institute of Geomatics and Risk Analysis
1.Purpose of study
• Operational framework for
assessing resilience in the
context of DRR
• Usefulness and limitations
resilience > indicator for DRR
• Resilience >case studies of
mountain communities in
Eastern Nepal
• Climate change impacts on
livelihoods and coping
strategies
1. Purpose 2. Conceptual framework 3. Hypotheses 4. Methods 5. Case study 6. Conclusions
2. Conceptual framework
• What risks?
– Risk as everyday life (Hewitt, Gaillard)
– Risk an obstacle to sustainable development (Wisner et. al;
Pelling)
• Whose risks?
– Risks perceived by population vs. « the Expert » (Hewitt)
– Women’s vs. men’s risks (Fordham)
• What type of disasters?
– Small cumulative disasters>>livelihoods (Lavell)
– Historical and cultural context (Bankoff)
• What is the relation between risks due to disasters and
resilience to risk?
– Characteristics of disaster resilient communities (VCA, Twigg,
Moench et al., Buckle)
– Resilience >a function of risk and capacities over time
1. Purpose 2. Conceptual framework 3. Hypotheses 4. Methods 5. Case study 6. Conclusions
3. Working hypotheses
• Resilience > useful index
• DRR > function of both resilience
and resistance
• Resilience > temporal function of
risk
• High resilience > related to:
– diversified external
resources
– exposure to risk
• Possible to quantify resilience >
function of:
– Physical resources
– Environmental resources
– Economic resources
– Social/attitudinal resources
– Institutional resources
1. Purpose 2. Conceptual framework 3. Hypotheses 4. Methods 5. Case study 6. Conclusions
4. Methods
• Geological/hydrological
assessment of landslides and
flooding
• Risk assessments based on
remote sensing/GIS, field
observations >combined land
use and risk maps
• History of land use and
migration patterns
• Social science research,
community risk map, semistructured interviews, focus
group discussions,
participatory observations
1. Purpose 2. Conceptual framework 3. Hypotheses 4. Methods 5. Case study 6. Conclusions
4. Methods: Resilience?
“resiliere”,
to bounce back
after a shock
1. Purpose 2. Conceptual framework 3. Hypotheses 4. Methods 5. Case study 6. Conclusions
4. Methods: Resilience?
Aqsa,
10 years old
Saidpur
village
Kashmir,
Pakistan
1 year after
2005
earthquake
1. Purpose 2. Conceptual framework 3. Hypotheses 4. Methods 5. Case study 6. Conclusions
4. Methods: resilience?
disaster
event
resources/
cost
resistance
resilience
Predisaster
level
time
Relation risk to resilience
1. Purpose 2. Conceptual framework 3. Hypotheses 4. Methods 5. Case study 6. Conclusions
4. Methods: factors of resistance and resilience
Resistance factors=
preventive measures
1. House structure (+)
2. Preventive DRR measures (+)
Resilience = returning to
« normal » or better state
1. Diverse income sources
3. Sustainable resources mgmt (+) 2. Education and training
3. Infrastructure quality
4. Warning system (+)
4. Quality and access to natural
resources
5.
6.
7.
8.
Social network
Extra-kinship ties (influence)
Attitudes and awareness
Value of house and goods
9. Disadvantaged households
10.Exposure
(+)
(-)
1. Purpose 2. Conceptual framework 3. Hypotheses 4. Methods 5. Case study 6. Conclusions
5. Case study: Eastern Nepal
• Three study sites representing different types of risk situations
1. Purpose 2. Conceptual framework 3. Hypotheses 4. Methods 5. Case study 6. Conclusions
Katahare village
• Siwalik, middle hills
• 70 households (n=30)
• Farming, stone collection
• CFUG est. in 1980
• Social conflict between
upland and lowland pop
• Major landslide in
1966
• 13 houses destroyed
• Landslide converted to
fields
• 5 houses
reconstructed in
landslide area
5. Case study: Katahare village
• Risk map > « classical »
formula
R = V * H * Exp
• Based on local risk map
• Unstable geology, highly
impacted by human activity
• In-migrated landless pop.
• Several households high risk
• Spend considerable
resources on shifting house
location
1. Purpose 2. Conceptual framework 3. Hypotheses 4. Methods 5. Case study 6. Conclusions
5. Case study: Katahare village
« Resistance »
measures taken by
majority of « high
risk » population
5. Case study: Katahare village
High resilience
households:
– at risk
– diversified income
sources
1. Purpose 2. Conceptual framework 3. Hypotheses 4. Methods 5. Case study 6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions
• Subsistence risks vs. physical risk
• Short vs long term livelihoods strategies
• Role of community forests >>> user
groups >>sustainable resources
management >> DRR
• More rainfall over shorter period,
cultivation practices are changing
Jonas Nessi, UNIL-IGAR, 2007
• Small landslides >>impact on livelihoods
• DRR ultimate goal = resilience?
• Impact assessment of resilience ?
1. Purpose 2. Conceptual framework 3. Hypotheses 4. Methods 5. Case study 6. Conclusions
THANK YOU
Thank you:
University of Lausanne,
Institute of Geomatics
and Risk Analysis
In partnership with:
•International Union for
the Conservation of
Nature (IUCN), Nepal
•ITC, Netherlands
Funding from:
Swiss National Science
Foundation
karen.sudmeier-rieux@unil.ch