Page 42 - IJPS-6-1

Managing natural disaster risk with earthquake damage scenarios

Expert Group pointed out Scenario Manual developed, did not have an instructor manual containing key discussion
points, a checklist for action required for ideal disaster management and Trainer of the Trainer Module for effective
current and future capacity building program.
“…………Scenario building and conduct of shakeout exercises were two important parts of the project. There was
no synergy between them….………….while formulating the hypothetical scenario, the scenario building team of
scientists from IITs Bombay and Madras, did not consult the mock exercise experts at the NDMA and the State/
UT, who was going to implement it. The scenario was also made with half-baked and incomplete data/information
from the concerned Ministries/Departments/Organizations. This resulted in the credibility of the scenario becoming
suspect, as several inputs, including the large fatalities and injuries to humans and animals could not be substantiated
with scientific proof. It turned out to be a scientific/academic exercise with little practical inputs from States/
experts……………….” (Master Trainer, NDMA, Round Table Discussion).

4.4. Technical Issues Relating to Mw = 8.0 Mandi Earthquake Scenario
The Expert Group pointed many weaknesses in Mw=8.0 EDS. Major weaknesses include: (i) The scenario has considered
only immediately nearby epicenter severely affected areas. It did not consider other potentially affected areas near the
fault line densely populated areas of Delhi and Western Uttar Pradesh and hilly regions of Uttarakhand and Jammu
and Kashmir by the Mega Earthquake. (ii) The EDS also ignored the effects of earthquake-triggered landslides, sub-
soil characteristics, depth of soil, soil stratification, and the cascading effect of buildings/infrastructures in hilly areas.
(iii) The EDS has not considered the infrastructure, and economic losses due to mega-earthquake, which have major
implications for post-earthquake relief planning operations. (iv) The factors like demographic distribution such as gender,
age, occupancy classification, and socioeconomic status of the population in the affected area play a key role at the time
of disasters. However, EDS did not consider these important factors in their calculations. (v) Similarly, the timing of
earthquakes such as working hours or nighttime is a significant factor to determine the total number of injured and deaths.
This factor is also missed in EDS development. (vi) The EDS has also not factored in the micro-zonation information
and the community preparedness, i.e. level of awareness among the community about disaster management due to the
unavailability of data.
5. Discussions

Based on the results mentioned above, we have developed a framework for effective planning and implementation of
multi-stakeholder EDS and shakeout exercises (Figure 2). The main features of the framework are discussed in the
following subsections.

Prerequisites Planning of EDS Implementation
• Federal Leadership • Stakeholder Mapping • Trainer’s manual for TOTs
• Collaboration • Bottom up approach • TOTs at State Level
• Emergency Operating • KAP of Community • Small scale shakeout
Centres • Coordination between EDS exercises prior to Mega
• Single toll free numbers for Technical and Trainers Excercises
emergencies Teams • Effective Mass and Social
• Availability and • Realistic and Technically Media
Accessibility of Data sound Simulation • Close Monitoring and
• Need based Financing • Economic and Social Reviewing
Losses
• Community Participation
Figure 2. Framework for effective multi-stakeholder earthquake damage scenarios planning and implementation.

36 International Journal of Population Studies | 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1