By Jagatpal Choudhary
The Indian Himalayan Region (IHR) is tectonically active, making it susceptible to natural and man-made disasters. The Himalayan state of Uttarakhand has a history of yearly disasters that cause massive loss of life and property. The development projects such as road construction, blasting, muck disposal, mining, deforestation, etc., may even increase the frequency of disasters. Thus, developing sustainable tourism solutions with resilient planning is essential in improving the disaster resilience of hill communities. Drawing from a synthesis of scientific studies, government reports, and firsthand accounts, this paper examines the interconnected factors that led to the catastrophe, including climate change-induced glacier retreat, hydrological changes in the Himalayas, and rampant construction activities in ecologically sensitive areas. The cascading effects of these factors resulted in massive loss of life, destruction of infrastructure, and long-term environmental repercussions.
The research also scrutinizes the responses and recovery efforts of local, national, and international agencies during the disaster. It highlights the role of early warning systems, community preparedness, and the resilience of local communities in mitigating the immediate impact and aiding in relief operations. Furthermore, it explores the challenges faced in providing humanitarian aid, rehabilitating affected populations, and restoring ecological balance. In addition to analyzing the specific case of the Uttarakhand Disaster, this paper offers a broader perspective on the vulnerabilities of mountainous regions to climate-induced disasters. It underscores the need for proactive measures in disaster risk reduction and sustainable development. It calls for interdisciplinary research, policy interventions, and global cooperation to address the intricate interplay of natural processes and human activities in disaster-prone regions.
It further examines the short-term and long-term impacts of the disaster on Uttarakhand's environment, communities, and economy, emphasizing the importance of disaster preparedness, early warning systems, and sustainable development practices. It also discusses the challenges faced by rescue and relief operations, the rehabilitation of affected populations, and the efforts to mitigate future risks.
Keywords: Tourism, Disaster Recovery, Disaster Impact, Indian Himalayas, Multi- hazards, socioeconomic vulnerability
“Located in the Himalayan region, Uttarakhand province of India is vulnerable to several natural hazards that include earthquakes, landslides, floods, and flash floods, and these are owed to geological history, physiography, geo-tectonic setup up, and meteorological conditions of the terrain. Except for earthquakes, other hazards generally occur during the monsoon period - the rainy season in the Indian subcontinent and apart from the loss of human lives, these result in the loss of productive assets, adversely affecting the quality of life of the affected population”[1]. “In the summer of 2013, Uttarakhand received abnormally high rainfall due to the clash of southwest monsoonal winds with the westerlies that resulted in massive floods, particularly in the 05 northern districts Rudraprayag, Uttarkashi, Chamoli, Bageshwar and Pithoragarh[2]. Of these, Rudraprayag was the worst affected district, and the floodwaters caused massive loss of human lives besides damage and destruction of infrastructure and property, particularly in the Manadakini valley that houses the Kedarnath shrine, which is highly revered by Hindus[3].
“The floods disrupted all tourism and pilgrimage-related activities as the National Highway connecting Rudraprayag and Chamoli districts remained closed for an extended period. Moreover, fear psychosis created by the death of more than 4,000 persons desisted people from venturing to the region for a long time, evident from a sharp decline in the number of people visiting Kedarnath after one year of the disaster. This resulted in a substantial reduction in the income of the area's people engaged in various pilgrim and tourism-related activities and businesses. What has so often excited wonder is the extraordinary rapidity with which countries recover from a state of devastation, earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes disappearance in a short time, of all traces of the mischief and the ravage of war”[4].
The word “Disaster” means a catastrophe, mishap, calamity, or grave occurrence in any area arising from natural or artificial causes or by accident or negligence that results in substantial loss of life or human suffering, destruction of property, or damage/degradation of the environment[5].
§ Types of Disaster:
a) Natural Disaster-
A natural disaster is a consequence when a natural hazard affects humans, Infrastructure and the environment: human vulnerability and lack of appropriate emergency management lead to financial, environmental, or human impact. The resulting loss depends on the capacity of the population to support or resist the disaster and their resilience.
Various phenomena like landslides, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, floods, and cyclones are all natural hazards that kill thousands of people and destroy billions of dollars of habitat and property yearly.
b) Man Made Disaster-
Artificial disasters are the consequences of technical or human hazards. Examples of artificial disasters include stampedes, fires, transport accidents, industrial accidents, oil spills, nuclear explosions/ radiation, and War and deliberate attacks.[6]
§ What is Disaster Management?
“Disaster management” means a continuous and integrated process of planning, organizing, coordinating and implementing measures that are necessary or expedient for:
§ Prevention of danger or threat of any disaster
§ Mitigation or reduction of risk of any disaster or its severity or consequences
§ Capacity-building
§ Preparedness to deal with any disaster
§ Response to any threatening disaster situation or disaster
§ Assessing the severity or magnitude of the effects of any disaster
§ Evacuation, rescue and relief
§ Rehabilitation and reconstruction”[7].
“According to NIDM, Disaster Management can be defined as the organization and management of resources and responsibilities for dealing with all humanitarian aspects of emergencies, particularly preparedness, response, and recovery to lessen the impact of disasters”[8].
DISASTER IMPACT IN CONTEMPORARY LITERATURE
Given that disasters are very context-specific, the ex-post studies on their impact are far from generalizations. However, there is a sufficient amount of literature on estimating economic losses. Some of these studies highlight the effect of natural calamity as a deviation from the usual economic affairs and describe the economic losses in natural disasters as only a periodic and additional cost to the economy (Elliot et al., 2011; Kousky, 2012; Strobl, 2011; Yezer, 2000). In most cases, these studies present a biased view of the losses by ignoring the typical resilience of the communities in facing life dynamics during the disasters and in the aftermath.
The domain of existing literature on disaster impacts typically links disasters with risk management, international development, econo-geography, environment, public policy, institutions, collective action, corruption and macroeconomic outcomes (Anbarci et al., 2005; Anbarci et al., 2007; Costa, 2012; Mochizuki et al., 2014); albeit, some of them also deal with theoretical discourses such as whether a disaster hampers development or is a product of development itself. Such studies highlight issues ranging from climate change to global politics and justice.
IPCC 2012 especially highlights the dichotomy through empirical evidence. On the one hand, the dynamics of development lead to the risk of disasters. On the other hand, natural calamities and associated uncertainties pose difficulties in planning and development. It is evident that not only is there an overall increasing trend in the incidence of natural calamities in recent decades, but it is also found that the countries of the low-income category are likely to suffer more compared to high-income countries (Ferreira, Hamilton, & Vincent, 2013; IMF, 2012; IPCC, 2012; Mochizuki, Mechler, Hochrainer-Stigler, Keating, & Williges, 2014;).
UN 2010 estimated that lower-income countries faced only 11 per cent of all-natural calamities, including cyclones, floods, earthquakes, and droughts. However, they shouldered more than 53 per cent of total losses due to disasters.
In a disaster, the losses due to damages to living setups, loss of livestock, damage to infrastructure, inventories, environmental destructions, casualties, disaster response action and clean-up are the direct economic losses (Kousky, 2012; Wong et al., 2005). Indirect economic losses of disaster are extrinsic and comprehensive. They could affect the economy through the multiplier impact of immediate business sluggishness and increasing demand for inventories. Hence, these indirect economic losses may extend from costly adaptation of business entities due to the non-availability of raw materials to losing utility, morbidity and mortalities (Kousky, 2012).
In a macro sense, any disaster potentially disturbs the employment structure and livelihood pattern (Arlikatti et al., 2006). It also brings in changes to both the household income and consumption pattern permanently.
There are studies on different dimensions of economic losses due to a disaster. Some of them focus on the spatial impact of the disaster by detailing the local and non-local impacts. On the other hand, some studies look into the temporal aspect of economic loss on account of the short-run and long-run costs of a calamity (Greenberg et al., 2007; Hallegatte & Dumas, 2009; Hallegatte & Przyluski, 2010; Nader et al., 2012; Zhujun & Jiuping, 2013).
Some existing studies also found it effective in describing the policy aspects like climate adaptation policy cost as a direct economic loss of disaster (Kousky, 2012). In estimating economic losses out of a disaster, existing studies have used economic models of different kinds, like
§ Household based microeconomic models (Dercon, 2004),
§ Network-Production System (Haimes & Jiang, 2001; Henriet & Hallegatte, 2008),
§ Hybrid Model (Booker, 1995; Hallegatte, 2008; Hallegatte & Przyluski, 2010; Holden & Shiferaw, 2004; Horridge et al., 2005),
§ Input-Output (IO) model (Gordon et al., 1998; Hallegatte, 2008; Okuyama & Chang, 2004)
§ Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model (Hallegatte & Przyluski, 2010; Okuyama, 2008; Rose, 2002; Rose et al., 1997; Rose & Liao, 2002; Tsuchiya et al., 2007),
§ Public Finance Coping-Capacity framework (Hallegatte & Przyluski, 2010),
§ Idealized model (Hallegatte & Dumas, 2008; Hallegatte & Ghil, 2008),
§ Disaster locality oriented econometric models (Albala-Bertrand, 1993; Bertinelli & Strobl, 2010; Guimaraes et al., 1993; Skidmore & Toya, 2002).
Depending on the socio-cultural and economic positions of the victims of disasters, the burdens are different for different social communities across various social platforms. Through determinants like social isolation and social capital (Forgette et al., 2009), the diversified perception of social loss and its post-disaster recovery is established in terms of both social and physical accounts (Albala-Bertrand, 2009). Hence, disasters have different impacts on different social groups, and their management and program implementation also have diversified effects across social groups based on gender, economic status, and caste.
Additionally, several disaster studies also deal with pre- and post-disaster impacts. Some studies give importance to gender issues because of direct and indirect damages due to disasters on women (UN-ECLAC, 2003). Whereas some other literature discusses how natural calamities reduce the female life expectancy against that of men when usually the life expectancy of the female is higher than that of her male counterpart (Neumayer & Plumper, 2007). However, there is a need for an interdisciplinary approach among biological science and social science in studying the gender mortality features in the context of natural disasters (Neumayer & Plumper, 2007).
Although the discussed literature on disaster may have different Eastern Geographer, Vol, XXVIII, No. 1, January 2022, has a unique research scope. However, the key objective of our study is to analyse how the Uttarakhand disaster in 2013 had economic impacts of different magnitude across social groups. Moreover, there needs to be more research on this context of disaster to differential economic effects apart from some quick and observation-based responses made by various organisations.
DISASTER MANAGEMENT IN INDIA
“Natural disasters in India cause massive loss of life and property. Flash Floods, cyclones, avalanches, droughts, landslides brought on by torrential rains, and snowstorms pose the most significant threats. Others include frequent summer dust storms, which usually track from south to north to south; they cause extensive property damage in North India and deposit large amounts of dust from arid regions. Hail is also common in parts of India, causing severe damage to standing crops such as rice and wheat. However, floods are the most common natural disaster in India. The heavy Southwest monsoon rains cause the Brahmaputra and other rivers to distend their banks, often flooding surrounding areas.
The apex Body or authoritative body for Disaster Management in India, mandated by the Disaster Management Act 2005, is the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA). The Prime Minister of India is the chairman of NDMA, and the Vice Chairman is S Reddy. Under the vice chairman are eight members, all superannuated officials, who have the status and entitlements of ministers of state. Also, there is a National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) of 12 Battalions under the NDMA. It is organized on paramilitary lines and is manned by persons on deputation from the Central Armed Police Forces of India”[9].
“The responsibility for Disaster Management in India’s federal system is that of the state Government with the supporting role of the National Government. The ‘Nodal Ministry’ in the central government for managing natural disasters is the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The Disaster Management Division (DMD) discharges this function in the MHA. When Calamities of a severe nature, such as the natural disaster in Uttarakhand, occur, the central government is responsible for providing aid and assistance to the affected state, as may be needed, including the deploying, at the state’s request, of Armed Forces, Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF), National Disaster Response Force (NDRF), and such communication air and other assets, as are available and needed[10]”.
§ A Systematic Approach - Improves Destination Restoration Success:
“To assist planners in conducting cost-effective monitoring for destination restoration, techniques can be developed consisting of four components and a brief explanation regarding the four components: planning, construction and implementation, assessment of performance and management of the system”[11].
a) Planning:
The critical element in planning the restoration project would require conceptual modeling, site assessments, and cost estimation. A conceptual model details the structural aspects of the system that must be developed to meet the goals. Whereas site assessment is essential where the site needs more characteristics to reach performance goals, the restoration project will likely fail. Thus, in the case of Kedarnath, an assessment of the destination must be made before any constructions are made. Also, cost estimation is to be made at the end of the planning stage. Restoration managers must account for land acquisition, engineering design, and construction, among other factors[12].
b) Construction and Implementation:
Projects that require less physical restructuring of the site are more likely to thrive without human intervention. Projects requiring more engineering to rework the site often need more certainty massively. These factors are to be addressed while restoring the disaster-hit regions of Uttarakhand.
c) Assessment of Performance:
Post-implementation monitoring should focus on a parameter indicative of the original goal. There are numerous low-cost ways to monitor a restoration project effectively. Within three years, there is a need for continuous assessment to see to it that the destination is being restored as per the action plan and no deviations occur.
d) Management of the System:
Restoration management plans should be modified according to adaptive management principles, which is nothing but decision-making in times of uncertainty, where policies and practices are altered according to learning from outcomes. “Thereby, restoration policy can be understood well, depending on the application of alterations to accommodate necessary changes. This is further explained through the following diagram”[13].
DISASTER RELIEF IN INDIA
“Insurance is often considered an effective tool for post-disaster economic recovery.” “However, it does not have significant penetration amongst the masses in India, particularly in the rural areas where most of the population resides”[14]. “In the aftermath of a disaster, the affected people, having lost their productive assets and left with little resources to face the situation, look to the state for assistance. Keeping with the spirit of a welfare state, an institutional arrangement exists to relieve the disaster-affected population”[15]. “Financial receipts in the central government exchequer in India are earmarked for expenditure under various heads and shared with the provincial governments by the Finance Commission's recommendations set up every 05 years by Article 280 of the Constitution of India”[16]. “By the recommendations of the previous Finance Commissions and Sections 46 and 48 of the Disaster Management Act - 2005[17], resources for disaster-related contingencies are allocated under National and State Disaster Response Funds (NDRF/SDRF) for central and provincial governments. In the event of a notified natural calamity, the affected local government utilizes the funds available under SDRF to provide disaster victims relief. Though generally offered in cash, attempts are underway to transfer it directly to the beneficiaries' bank account”[18].
“The quantum of solace for the identified losses is in keeping with the notifications by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. As indicated clearly, the relief is not intended to compensate for the loss suffered by the individuals and is only for the immediate sustenance of the affected population. The relief amount, therefore, has no direct relationship with the economic value of the assets lost in the disaster”[19]. Moreover, relief out of SDRF is not provided for the loss of commercial assets as the ones managing commercial enterprises are expected to resort to suitable risk transfer mechanisms on their own[20].
However, the relief is much less than the market price or cost of replenishing the assets lost due to disaster. Owing mainly to related post-disaster contingencies and familial requirements, the disaster-affected families often utilize the relief amount on nonproductive expenses, hurting the disaster-affected population's quality of life.[21]
§ “Through all these disasters, there has been a loss of crores and Indian money. These incidents and disasters are sufficient to tell what the union and states are doing regarding disaster management; our union territory and states fail to ensure the safety or prevention of catastrophe.
§ Because of the failure to properly implement the Disaster Management Act, we are facing a heavy loss of capital and human life over the years”[22].
§ “If we see the Uttarakhand Floods, we will get the lesson that due to a lack of proper management and preventive methods, we lost around 10,000 lives and a massive chunk of money invested in capital form or infrastructure, which tells that we are a complete failure on the economic front and system failure on taking proper steps in controlling natural disaster.
§ There needs to be more seriousness and the right approach towards each disaster management event, resulting in hefty economic losses. We cannot stop natural disasters, but we can prevent them and take appropriate measures to reduce losses and minimize human casualties”[23].
§ “We must educate people from schools to universities and the ordinary laypersons about the disasters in their areas. Give them practical training, regularly conduct mock drills, keep poster competitions, and continuously put safety tips and lifesaving techniques from various disasters in the future on TV channels and local cable operators. It has to give specific information like shelter places, medicine stores, and pure water storage tanks during each type of disaster occurring in particular areas[24].
§ “Disaster topics to be added to the curriculum from first standard to higher studies. In colleges and Universities, compulsory 30-hour training sessions on disaster Management must be conducted regularly. That syllabus includes the definition, types of disaster, causes, disaster mapping of each event, first aid training, precautions, preparedness, and how they can survive and help others during future tragedies. This type of course funding will be sponsored by the Municipal corporation and universities with the help of central and state governments”[25].
VULNERABILITY FRAMEWORKS
“There have been several international frameworks created for disaster risk reduction (DRR), the most recent being the 2015 Sendai Framework, which built upon the 2005 Hyogo Framework (Zimmermann & Keiler, 2015). Vulnerability is defined in these frameworks as ‘‘the conditions determined by physical, social, economic, and environmental factors or processes, which increase the susceptibility of a community to the impact of hazards’’ (UN, 2005). In this study, we look at the social factors that influence people’s vulnerability to disasters related to natural hazards or their social vulnerability. Social vulnerability comprises social inequalities that affect people’s ability to withstand and recover from disaster impacts and community and built-environment factors, such as urbanization and economic well-being (Cutter et al., 2003). We use a framework for social vulnerability that includes measures of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (O’Brien et al., 2004).
Exposure measures the magnitude and frequency of disaster events, sensitivity is the degree to which a system will change in the face of a disaster, and adaptive capacity is a plan's ability to adapt and respond to a catastrophe (O’Brien et al., 2004). These three components of vulnerability combine aspects of social networks, economic measures, and built-environment quality and examine them about stressors. We use the interdisciplinary concept of social vulnerability to explore the social factors that contribute to the vulnerability of people living in the Indian Himalayan region to disasters related to natural hazards.
The findings inform the DRR community and increase our understanding of disaster risk, which is priority 1 of the Sendai Framework (UNDRR 2015). This paper examines the socioeconomic characteristics of households vulnerable to disasters related to natural hazards in 3 cities and their surrounding subdistricts in Uttarakhand. We identify indicators that can serve as a starting point for further research. We apply an existing framework established by Cutter et al. (2003) and Borden et al. (2007)”[26].
ISSUES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION
Some of the measures to reduce adverse impacts of climate change include:
Improving observation, forecasting, and early warning, e.g., developing an early warning system on flood whereby upstream areas share information on rainfall, river discharge, etc., with the downstream regions regularly. They are establishing multi-hazard and vulnerability mapping as a multidisciplinary collaborative endeavor. You are sharing good practices adopted by the countries and the communities, ensuring community involvement and awareness, improving the operation and maintenance of existing water Infrastructure and irrigation efficiency, developing varieties of crops and livestock with greater resilience to extreme Conditions, and creating community-based forest management and—afforestation projects.
§ Planned development with due consideration to natural processes, landforms, and related geological aspects.
§ “Developing a database on the drainage system, topography, settlement pattern, etc., based on which flood modeling can be carried out for better understanding and planning for reducing the flood risks. Study climate change's short-, medium-, and long-term impacts on the flood situation and develop a long-term strategy and plan for adapting to such effects”[27].
§ Promote the greater exchange of ideas through field visits, training programs, and collaborative efforts[28].
QUEST FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
“Uttarakhand was demarcated in 2000 as a separate state to address the issues specific and unique to the hill state, including environment and development. Thirteen years after its formation, many residents, especially those in the hill area, complain that the government has neglected their concerns
about life and livelihood in the hills. Local inhabitants noted that environmental disasters have occurred more frequently over the last few decades, even though they have regularly occurred. The mountain slopes at Badrinath, near the source of the river Alaknanda, have witnessed numerous avalanches that damaged houses in Badrinath in 1948, 1952, and 1975. Rock falls are also common. In September 1968, a huge rock fell on a bus full of pilgrims a few km before Joshimath. The passengers were killed instantaneously. In September 1969, a vast landslide occurred some three km upstream of the small marketplace of Kaliasor, located around the 147 km post of the Hardwar-Badrinath Road. It blocked nearly three-fourths of the river Alaknanda. The hillside was reported to have kept slipping for four days. In 1991, a significant earthquake hit Uttarkashi. In 1998, a landslide in the village of Malpa, the Pithoragarh district, claimed over 250 lives, including pilgrims on their way to Kailash Mansarovar. The area suffered an earthquake on 29 March 1999 (M-6.8), which caused the loosening of rock masses, ground cracks, landslides, etc., besides killing more than a hundred people due to the collapse of buildings”[29]. In 2008 and 2009, the state experienced severe drought conditions. 2010, people grappled with floods, flash floods, landslides, and cloud bursts. The estimated loss of lives due to natural calamity during 2010-11 stands at 46 for the district of Almora, including over 4000 affected households. Almora and its surrounding areas were hit by a cloudburst in 2010, leading to swelling of the waters of the Kosi and landslides, causing an estimated 60 casualties in total, 28 in Almora alone also incurred heavy damage to the Khairna-Almora Road. Some villages in the Ukhimath and Jakholi block suffered from a cloudburst in 2012, leading to the loss of an estimated 58 lives; more than 300 families were affected, and the villagers are yet to be rehabilitated.
The leading economy of this area has been faith and temple-based. For hundreds of people who live on earnings from small and big hotels and even smaller shops all along the routes, this season is gone, and one cannot predict a flourishing next year. In many regions, at least the next two years will be tough. Ordinarily, during this peak season, people earn money and store grains and provisions for the harsh winter. So, relief workers wonder why survivors put away relief materials instead of using them. They know the outsiders’ short-term memory will not keep them warm in the winter. Livelihoods have been badly impacted in affected villages, requiring the development of strategies for short-, medium, and long-term support for the recovery of livelihoods, services, and rehabilitation of infrastructure. Hotel owners and shopkeepers say their only revenue these days is from aid workers, government officials, journalists, and service personnel deployed after the disaster[30].
CONCLUSION
In Uttarakhand, a traditional state with strong cultural ties, the proportion of women in the workforce is lower than that of men. This study discovered a higher mean employment loss in terms of workdays for females than that for males across the study areas, notwithstanding the lower female work involvement. Regarding employment, the ST community was generally the most negatively impacted social group; the Chamoli and Rudraprayag districts also showed this trend. On the other hand, sample homes from the general community in the neighborhoods of Uttarkashi and Pithoragad lose the most workdays. The upper castes are typically the dominating community in Uttarakhand and are responsible for most of the state's trade and business activity. However, upper-caste individuals were classified as belonging to the scheduled category in some particular state regions due to acute regional or local backwardness. In an identical vein, some high-caste individuals are classified as Scheduled Caste (SC) due to the significant backwardness of the area.
They either perform manual labour or are menial gatherers. As a result of the calamity, they typically experience an abrupt shock to the economy when their potential employer communities do not react to a brief decline in the demand for the goods they harvest from the forest. Women in the ST community typically gather firewood as a source of income. Therefore, these ladies may have missed many workdays when the need for firewood temporarily decreased. Similarly, male labour force wage earners may have missed workdays due to the sudden economic shock to consumers and investors in the devastated economy. Nonetheless, this study has amply highlighted the disparities in job losses brought on by the disaster among the social categories in the sample districts. Once more, the ST community was the most severely affected regarding land loss, closely followed by the SC community. Except Pithoragad district, all other districts’ ST and SC groups suffered more than general and OBC communities regarding the proportion of land lost to total landholdings. Communities in ST and SC sustained the most significant losses in livestock due to the tragedy. In summary, the entire population in the study region was significantly and negatively impacted by the calamity. On the other hand, compared to mainstream groups, the intensity of the crisis was higher for those socially disadvantaged groups with resources. Furthermore, this research discovered notable variations in the extent of the influence of Uttarakhand's 2013 disaster, which affected different demographic groups differently according to their caste, sex, and occupation.
This investigation aimed to investigate patterns of vulnerability types and crucial vulnerability indicators in the Uttarakhand region. The findings include details on the markers and elements influencing vulnerability in the area. Nevertheless, resolving these problems does not ensure that a property is no longer vulnerable because they are sometimes the only causes of susceptibility. “Vulnerability is influenced by several circumstances; particularly in this research, vulnerability is relative. We examine this dataset's conditions to understand better the variables that affect vulnerability. However, more thorough fieldwork and comprehensive data are required to establish causation. To define and guide future research, this study can be used in conjunction with other studies that have been done to investigate social vulnerability in the state of Uttarakhand. Research like that by Kumar and Bhattacharjya (2020) offers a statewide perspective on social vulnerability. It supports the city-based methodology used in this research to look at regional patterns of household vulnerability. Our investigation adds details regarding the vulnerability”.
In the area and offers a baseline understanding of who is at risk and where they reside. We conducted household surveys and extended an existing paradigm for gauging vulnerability to the Uttarakhand region. Through this work, we have determined that the presence or absence of a bathroom in a home and the quality of the home's structure are two prominent indicators of vulnerability related to the built environment and that the size and asset index of a household are the most critical socioeconomic indicators of vulnerability. We also examined the vulnerability's regional variation and trends. These spatial patterns, we discovered, agreed with our understanding of the area and the results of the household surveys. This analysis is the first step towards understanding the multiple facets of disaster risk, which is the Sendai Framework for DRR's top priority. The perspective of susceptibility in a very dynamic mountainous area. Given that mountainous areas are intricate, multi-hazard settings, we need to know as much as possible about the numerous factors affecting susceptibility. At the village level in this region, this study contributes to closing the knowledge gap about who is vulnerable and where they reside”[31].
The author is Jagatpal Choudhary, a second year BSW LLB student at GNLU, Gandhinagar.
[1] Academic Platform Journal of Natural Hazards and Disaster Management 2(2), 74-84, 2021 DOI: 10.52114/apjhad.981729 [2] V. K. Pandey and A. Mishra, “Causes and Disaster Risk Reduction Measures for Hydrometeorological Disaster in Uttarakhand, India: An Overview,” International Journal of Current Research in Science and Technology, 1 (3), pp. 61-80, 2015. [3] S. Khanduri, “Flash Flood Struck Dhauliganga valley on February 7, 2021: A Case study of Chamoli district of Uttarakhand Himalaya in India”, Academic Platform Journal of Natural Hazards and Disaster Management, 2 (1), pp. 1-15, 2021. [4] www.jetir.org, JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 (ISSN-2349-5162). [5] https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/uttarakhand-50-skeletons-found-belonging-to-2013-flood-victims-says-police-3085548/ [6] https://www.samhsa.gov/find-help/disaster-distress-helpline/disaster-types [7] https://ndma.gov.in/ [8] www.jetir.org, JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 (ISSN-2349-5162). [9] www.jetir.org, JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 (ISSN-2349-5162). [10] www.jetir.org, JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 (ISSN-2349-5162). [11] https://www.slideshare.net/aarkichavan0811/cosmopolitan-45833423 [12] https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/disaster-management-india/ [13] Varghese, Bindi & Jose Paul, Neha Itty. (2013). Disaster Management: A Case Study of Uttarakhand. 10.13140/2.1.4617.1521. [14] Census of India, “Population profiles: India, States and Union Territories”, Office of the Registrar General, India, New Delhi, 2011. [15] Academic Platform Journal of Natural Hazards and Disaster Management 2(2), 74-84, 2021 DOI: 10.52114/apjhad.981729 [16] Constitution of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, 1950. [17] Disaster Management Act, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, 2005. [18] www.jetir.org, JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 (ISSN-2349-5162). [19] Academic Platform Journal of Natural Hazards and Disaster Management 2(2), 74-84, 2021 DOI: 10.52114/apjhad.981729 [20] https://nidm.gov.in/PDF/pubs/ukd-p1.pdf [21] Academic Platform Journal of Natural Hazards and Disaster Management 2(2), 74-84, 2021 DOI: 10.52114/apjhad.981729 [22] www.jetir.org, JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 (ISSN-2349-5162). [23] https://nidm.gov.in/PDF/pubs/uttarkashi.pdf [24] www.jetir.org, JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 (ISSN-2349-5162). [25] https://nidm.gov.in/PDF/pubs/ARDSESL_NIDM2022.pdf [26] Who Is Vulnerable and Where Do They Live? Case Study of Three Districts in the Uttarakhand Region of India Himalaya, Mountain Research and Development, R1-R9 (2021), 10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-19-00041.1 [27] https://saarc-sdmc.nic.in/pdf/newsletter/news5.pdf [28] Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 39, No. 2 (May 2019), pp. R35-R54 [29] https://cdn.downtoearth.org.in/dte/userfiles/images/soe3_20130618.pdf [30] Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1979-), Vol. 65, Supplement 1: IEA World Congress of Epidemiology, 7-11 August 2011, Edinburgh International Conference Centre, Edinburgh, Scotland, Programme and Abstracts (August 2011), pp. A374-A473 [31] Grainger, C., Tiwari, P. C., Joshi, B., Reba, M., & Seto, K. C. (2021). Who is vulnerable and where do they live? Case of study of three districts in the Uttarakhand Region of India Himalaya. Mountain Research and Development, 41(2), R1–R9
This article contains the view of the author and the publisher in no way associates with the views or ideologies of the author. All the moral rights vests with the Author(s).
Comments