Design and Testing of A Multi Hazard Ris

https://doi.org/10.
5194/nhess-2022-91
Preprint. Discussion started: 26 April 2022
c Author(s) 2022. CC BY 4.0 License.
1 Design and Testing of a Multi-

2 Hazard Risk Rapid Assessment Questionnaire for Hill Communities in
3 the Indian Himalayan Region
4 Shivani Chouhan1*, Mahua Mukherjee2
1
5 Research Scholar, Centre of Excellence in Disaster Mitigation and Management, Indian Institute of Technology
6 Roorkee, Roorkee, India
2
7 Professor, Centre of Excellence in Disaster Mitigation and Management, Indian Institute of Technology
8 Roorkee, Roorkee, India
9 *Corresponding Author: Shivani Chouhan (s_chouhan@dm.iitr.ac.in)
10 *Corresponding Author:
11 Name: Ms. Shivani Chouhan,
12 Email: s_chouhan@dm.iitr.ac.in,
13 Telephone: +91-9675457229
14 Postal Address: 1/21 Dhatpatti, west Rajpur Road, near GRD College, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
15
16 ABSTRACT
17 The Indian Himalayan Region (IHR) is prone to multiple-hazards and suffers great loss of life and damage to
18 infrastructure and property every year. Poor engineering construction, unplanned and unregulated development,
19 and relatively low awareness and capacity in communities for supporting disaster risk mitigation is directly and
20 indirectly contributing to the risk and severity of disasters.
21 A comprehensive review of various existing survey forms for Risk assessment has found that the survey
22 questionnaires themselves have not been designed or optimised, specifically, for hill communities. Hill
23 communities are distinctly different from low-land communities, with distinct characteristics and susceptibility to
24 specific hazard and risk scenarios. Previous studies have, on the whole, underrepresented the specific
25 characteristics of hill communities, and the increasing threat of natural disasters in the IHR creates an imperative
26 to design hill-specific questionnaires for multi-hazards risk assessment.
27 The main objective of this study is to design and test a hill-specific risk assessment survey form that contains
28 more accurate information for hill communities and hill-based infrastructure and allows for the surveys to be
29 completed efficiently and in less time. The enhanced survey form is described herein and is validated through a
30 pilot survey at several locations in the hills of Uttarakhand, India. The survey form covers data related to
31 vulnerability from Earthquake (Rapid Visual Screening), Flood, Landslide, High Wind, Industrial etc. The
32 proposed form is self-explanatory, pictorial with easy terminologies, and is divided into various sections for better
33 understanding of the surveyor etc.
34 The testing and validation process confirmed that the survey questionnaire performed well and met expectations
35 in its application. The form is readily transferrable to other locations in the IHR and could be internationalised
36 and used throughout the Himalaya.
37 Keywords: Survey, Questionnaire Design, Multi-Hazard, Rapid Visual Screening, Himalaya
1
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-91
38 1 Introduction
39 The Himalayan region is prone to disasters, due to its susceptibility to earthquakes, landslides, floods, wildfires
40 etc. Numerous hazards interact at most locations, resulting in cascading or synergetic effects (Aksha et al., 2020).
41 The Indian Himalayan Region (IHR) being prone to multiple hazards suffers great loss of life and damage to
42 infrastructure and properties every year. Poor engineering and construction, reckless development, human
43 intervention, unrecognized practices, irresponsible development initiatives, and a lack of knowledge are directly
44 and indirectly contributing to the risk and severity of disasters (Chouhan, Narang and Mukherjee, 2022). Multi-
45 hazard frequency has risen in recent decades, resulting in massive socio-economic losses. There has been a
46 constant rise in the number of deaths, property losses, and damage to infrastructure and facilities (Chandel and
47 Brar, 2010). As environmental conditions continue to change, multihazard assessments are becoming increasingly
48 crucial to communities.
49 One of the most challenging aspects of multi-hazard risk assessment (MHRA) is determining how to estimate the
50 risk of several hazards in the same region and how they interact. Various research work, disaster risk assessment
51 studies and, implementation projects are being executed by national and international organizations for disaster
52 risk reduction in the Himalayas. The data collection for any risk assessment in this difficult terrain is a crucial
53 task, as correct information documentation has played major significant role that directly or indirectly lead to an
54 influence in correct assessment of the risk factor.
55 Surveys using a well-crafted questionnaire is a proven method in the research fraternity. Questionnaires are the
56 backbone of every survey when it comes to data collection. Using data, one can gain a detailed understanding of
57 a community’s hazard profile, vulnerability interactions and their contribution to risk reduction (Buck and
58 Summers, 2020). The survey information is required to be coherent for data analysis since they lead to critical
59 decisions at many levels, represent the site's vital characters and society’s expectations and requirements too. All
60 of these outcomes hinge, of course, on the creation of a robust site-specific survey form. A well designed and
61 executed MHRA can lead to more robust strategies for disaster risk reduction (Kala, 2014; Sekhri et al., 2020a)
62 and can facilitate by prioritizing development planning decisions.
63 The foremost focus of the research described here is to critically review existing MHRA survey forms and their
64 suitability for assessing risk for the IHR. A close evaluation of the existing survey questionnaires reveals that
65 there is a need for the IHR-specific survey questionnaire form to facilitate a MHRA. In numerous accounts, this
66 can help to optimize time and efforts required to document underlying components of risk in difficult hilly terrains,
67 while improving the data quality.
68 2 Background
69 2.1 Defining the Indian Himalayan Region
70 The Indian Himalayan Region (IHR) straddles the northern latitudes of 26 20′ and 35 40′, and the eastern latitudes
71 of 74 50′ and 95 40′. In India, it comprises 16.2% of all the geographical land and is home to 76 million people.
72 Natural resources, biodiversity, and ethnic variety are abundant in IHR. (Goodrich, Prakash and Udas, 2019;
73 Sekhri et al., 2020b). It stretches from the Indus River to the Brahmaputra River in the east. (Srivastava et al.,
74 2015). There are a total of 12 Indian Himalayan states and 1 Union territory as shown in Figure 1, which has 109
75 administrative districts (Kala, 2014). The region is socially and economically underprivileged, with 171 schedule
76 tribes accounting for almost 30% of India's total tribal population and a high literacy rate of 79 percent. The
2
77 population is growing exponentially, putting a strain on the region's resources (COI, 2011). Tourism is a lucrative
78 business in IHR (NITI Aayog, 2018) and it contributes to support a lot of construction projects like dams across
79 the region (Dharmadhikary, 2008). Agriculture is a profitable venture for Himalayan people, and it is mainly rain-
80 nourished. Furthermore, climate change is hazardous to the region's progress and hinders socio-economic
81 development (Sekhri et al., 2020b).
82
83 Figure 1: Indian Himalayan Region, Source: (NMHS, n.d.)(Mohammad Imran Siddique, Jayesh Desai, Himanshu Kulkarni,
84 2019)
85 The IHR represents a significant role in the world's mountain ecosystems (Singh, 2005). IHR attracts tourists
86 worldwide because of its natural richness, unique biodiversity, and cultural diversity (NITI Aayog, 2018). The
87 number of pilgrims has risen dramatically in prominent pilgrim centers across the Himalayas over the ages (Kala,
88 2014), putting undue strain on these resources and posing a danger of socioeconomic loss.
89 2.2 Multi Hazards in IHR

90 Being geologically young and expanding (Wester et al., 2019), the IHR is vulnerable to natural disasters (Mahesh
91 R. Gautam, Govinda R. Timilsina, 2013). The Himalaya, the world's highest mountain range is geologically active,
92 fragile, and susceptible to natural and man-made processes (Kala, 2014). Indian geography, climate, topography,
93 and population growth all contribute to its high risk and vulnerability (Sv et al., 2017). Mountain hazards are
94 widespread, and hills characteristics are fragility, restricted accessibility, marginality, and heterogeneity (Gerlitz
95 et al., 2016) may turn a hazard into a catastrophe, transforming mountains into high-risk zones. Furthermore,
96 mountains need a long time to recover from disruptions (Sekhri et al., 2020b).
97 Multi-Hazard Frequency has risen in recent decades, resulting in massive socio-economic losses (Rehman et al.,
98 2022). Unrecognized practices, irresponsible development initiatives, and a lack of knowledge contribute to
99 disasters having a more significant effect. One of the most challenging aspects of natural hazards risk assessment
3
100 is determining how to estimate the risk of several hazards in the same region and how they interact (Hackl, Adey
101 and Heitzler, 2015).
102 In the recent decade, severe earthquakes, floods, and landslides have devastated IHR, including the M 7.6 Kashmir
103 earthquake in 2005, the Malpa Landslide in 2009, the M 6.8 Sikkim earthquake in 2011, the 2013 Uttarakhand
104 flash flood, and others, affecting approximately thousands of deaths and property losses (Ministry of Home
105 Affairs, 2011)(BMTPC, 2019). Table 1 illustrate and describe the major hazard events that have occurred
106 historically in the Indian Himalayan region.
107 Table 1: Major Disaster Events in IHR, Source: adapted from (BMTPC, 2019) and IMD
108
109
4
110 The Himalayan region is among the most seismically active in the world due to the collision of the Indian and
111 Eurasian plates. A series of four major earthquakes has occurred within a short span of 53 years (Srivastava et al.,
112 2015); namely Shillong (1897), Kangra (1905), Bihar-Nepal (1934) and Assam-Tibet (1950). Tectonic activities
113 on the mountains constantly threaten the stability of the mountains, being an active region. One of the most
114 frequent natural disasters in the Himalayas occurs when large landslides occur, destroying infrastructures,
115 destroying trees, and killing people. Landslides cause huge social and economic losses to mountain-dwelling
116 populations.(Sarkar et al., 2015). An area of near the River valley has witnessed a large number of mass
117 movements during recent years (Srivastava et al., 2010). A recent flash flood, along with a debris flow at
118 Kedarnath on 16-17 June 2013, which claimed over a thousand lives, was caused by cloudbursts and landslides
119 breaching temporary dams along river valleys (Simon Allen, 2015). More than 82 percent of the world's
120 population lived on land affected by floods between 1985 and 2003 (Mouri et al., 2013). There is an increase in
121 forest fire frequency globally, especially in Asia. There are major environmental and ecological impacts caused
122 by wildfires, which can result in the fatalities of tens of thousands of people and massive property losses (Parajuli
123 et al., 2020).
124 2.3 Need of Study

125 Without a comprehensive evaluation of multi-hazards, it is impossible to develop any concrete policy measures
126 to combat the potential risk posed by multiple hazards.(Sekhri et al., 2020a) IHR being prone to Multi Hazards
127 (Kala, 2014), Risk Resilient Development planning is the only way to prepare Himalayan community from
128 upcoming disasters.
129 It is well known that the Himalayas are a high-risk area for multi-hazards (Pathak et al., 2019), although fewer
130 risk assessments have been conducted in the IHR region. An assessment of hazards generally focuses on a single
131 threat, such as landslides, earthquakes, or flooding. As a result, physical processes are considered in isolation. In
132 most areas of the Himalayas, hazards are interrelated and generate cascading effects or synergies which make the
133 entire region vulnerable (Sekhri et al., 2020b). Probabilistic risk frameworks have been proposed, but as a result
134 of a lack of quality and quantity of data, these approaches are seldom feasible in developing countries (Aksha et
135 al., 2020). Furthermore, the existing risk assessment models/tools for a specific hazard in the region has limited
136 application and effectiveness from a policy standpoint (Sekhri et al., 2020b).
137 Researchers are involved in a number of research projects in IHR in the field of assessing the risk of disasters in
138 India, though there have been very few assessments of hazards associated with the IHR region, none of which
139 incorporate multi-hazards (Vaidya et al., 2019) In addition, risk resulting from a single hazard is not applicable
140 and cannot be considered effectively in policy analysis in the region (Sekhri et al., 2020b).
141 The comparative study of some of the most used survey form to assess risk in India in shown in the table 2. The
142 detail of all the mentioned survey form will be explain later in this paper. It has been observed from the table 2
143 that none of the forms (SN 1 to 6) are focusing on Multi Hazard Risk calculation/identification as per IHR
144 Scenarios, which is not only prone to earthquakes, but also prone to floods, landslides, high winds, industrial
145 hazards and at building level falling hazard (Non-Structural Hazard), fire and electrical hazards etc.
5
146 Table 2: Comparison between survey forms used in India to assess Risk
Comparative Study between some survey forms used in India

SN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
MH-RVS
Developed by/for ARYA FEMA NDMA IIT-B HPSDMA BMTPC
(Enhanced)
Arya, FEMA, NDMA, Sinha, Pradesh, BMTPC,
Source: adapted from Author
2006 2015 2020 2004 2016 2019
Understanding Pictorial ✓ ✓
Earthquake ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Flood ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
High Wind ✓ ✓
Landslide ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
IHR is prone to
Multi Hazard Fire and Electrical ✓ ✓
Industrial ✓
Climate Change ✓
Non-Structural
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
/Falling Hazard
147
148 There is no such survey form for comprehensive database for the IHR Region for informed decision-making,
149 related to multi hazard and other aspects of sustainable hill development. Considering the IHR scenarios, there is
150 immense need for a Hill specific survey form, that can help to gather important information from the field and
151 help in Risk assessment for further decision making, to prepare the hill community from future disasters.
152 3 Multi Hazard Survey Framework

153 3.1 Survey Form design methodology
154 The survey methodologies start with few recommendations for designing a good survey form (Roopa and Rani,
155 2012) (QuestionPro, n.d.).
156 • It should satisfy the objectives of the research.
157 • The number of essential parts to be covered in the questionnaires with dictate length.
158 • Easily understood, Simple language and pictorial explanation for better understanding
159 • The survey response rate can be increased by using multiple-choice questions.
160 • A single thought should be conveyed at a time
161 • As much as possible, be concrete and conform to the respondent's perspective
162 • The use of unclear words should be avoided
163 • Survey Logic: In designing a survey, logic is among the most important factors. There is no further
164 progress or possibility of further correspondence from the respondent, if the logic is flawed. It takes
165 practice and verification to ensure that when considering an option only the next logical question comes
166 to mind.
167 Its methodology involves selecting and analyzing a sample of individuals from a population and using various
168 techniques for collecting data. It is used to collect data from a predetermined sample of respondents, process the
169 data, and increase survey response rates (QuestionPro, n.d.).
6
170
171 3.2 Methodology Adopted

172 To gather beneficial and appropriate information related to multi-hazards in the Himalayan region, careful
173 attention must be given to the design of the questionnaire that covers all the important contributing factors from
174 various identified hazards and fulfils all the gaps identified from the existing survey form. Designing an effective
175 questionnaire, it takes time, effort, and a variety of stages. The methodology to prepare the Multi-Hazard Survey
176 form for Indian Himalayan Region is shown in figure 2.
177
178 Figure 2: Methodology adopted
179 3.3 Existing Multi Hazard Risk Assessment (MHRA) Survey Forms
180 The spread of non-engineering construction, unrecognized construction and planning practices, reckless
181 developmental activities, and a lack of awareness increase the impact of disasters. IHR being seismically active,
182 as shown in the seismic zonation map of India, creates the importance of Risk assessment of existing buildings.
183 Earthquakes are feared because they are so unpredictable. Yet, as we often hear, "Earthquakes don't kill, Buildings
7
184 do" (attributed to Francesca Valli, Change Management Thought-Leader), and as the detailed assessment is
185 limited to the number of homes and the cost, one of the considering approaches is Rapid Visual Screening (RVS)
186 that is used for seismic vulnerability assessment. Using this methodology, a risk assessment has been conducted
187 for areas subjected to earthquakes (Pradesh, Pradeep and Anoop, 2016).
188 3.3.1 Seismic Zonation Map of India

189 The first seismic zoning map of India was published in 1935 by the Geological Survey of India (G. S. I.) (Figure
190 3). Based on the damage earthquakes caused in various parts of India, this map has undergone numerous
191 modifications since its original creation. India is divided into four distinct earthquake risk zones shown here by
192 colour (Bilham and Laituri, 2003) in figure 3 below:
193
194 Figure 3: Seismic Zonation Map of India, Source: (India, n.d., p. Map of India)
195 3.3.2 About RVS

196 Applied Technology Council (ATC) developed the RVS method in the late 1980s and published it in the FEMA:
197 154 in 1988. In later versions, it was revised in FEMA: 178-1989, 1992 (revised), FEMA: 310-1998, and FEMA:
198 154-1988, 2002 (revised), for rapid visual screening of buildings. (Pradesh, Pradeep and Anoop, 2016)
199 Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) avoids the need for structural calculations by using a visual method. An evaluator
200 determines damageability grade by identifying (a) the primary structural lateral load resisting system as well as
201 (b) the structural features of the building that can impact seismic performance in combination with that system.
202 The process of inspecting, gathering data, and deciding on the next course of action occurs on site and may last
203 several hours, depending on the size of the building (Arya, 2006b).
204 3.3.2.1 Uses of RVS Results:

205 The foremost uses of this technique concerning seismic advancement of existing buildings are:
8
206 Assess a building's seismic vulnerability to categorize it further.
207 • To determine the structural vulnerability (damageability) of buildings and determine the seismic
208 rehabilitation requirements.
209 • In cases where further assessments are not considered necessary or are not feasible, retrofitting
210 requirements are simplified (to a collapse prevention level) (Arya, 2006b).
211 3.3.3 Uses of the Four Levels of Earthquake Safety Assessments

212 3.3.3.1 Level 1: Rapid Visual Screening (RVS)
213 The method does not require any structural calculations to be performed. For the purpose of identifying the main
214 structural members that resist lateral loads and the characteristics of buildings that modify their performance
215 during earthquakes, the evaluator applies a scoring system. On average, each building inspection, data collection,
216 and decision-making takes about 30 minutes.
217 3.3.3.2 Level 2: Detailed Visual Study (DVS)

218 It can be used to assess a house as a first-level exercise before performing a detailed retrofit, and to assess the
219 performance and safety of a house of a certain type.
220 3.3.3.3 Level 3: Simplified Vulnerability Assessment (SVA)

221 In comparison to RVS, the simplified vulnerability assessment (SVA) is more complex and therefore more
222 precise. The technique uses engineering information for example the size and strength of lateral load resisting
223 members, along with more explicit data on ground motion. By analyzing this information, the building drift is
224 estimated using an extremely simplified breakdown. Based on a good correlation between drift and damage, the
225 analysis can be used to quantify the potential seismic hazard of a building.
226 3.3.3.4 Level 4: Detailed Vulnerability Assessment (DVA)

227 To perform a DVA of a building, an engineering analysis must be conducted taking into account the non-linear
228 behaviour of structural components and the potential impact of ground motions. The detailed vulnerability
229 assessment procedure requires a very high level of engineering knowledge, skills, and experience.
230 3.3.4 Multi Hazard Risk Assessment used in India

231 3.3.4.1 RVS Methodology Proposed by Prof. Anand S Arya for Masonry Buildings
232 RVS procedure that was designed for the Indian context, follows a grading system where the screener identifies
233 the primary load-resisting system of the building and determines parameters that may be modified to improve
234 seismic performance of the structure (NDMA, 2020)
235 Rapid Visual Screening form of Masonry Buildings developed by Prof. Anand S Arya consist of zoning, according
236 to Indian conditions, and buildings with importance are given consideration. Also, special hazards (liquefiable
237 area, landslide prone area, plan irregularities, and vertical irregularities) and falling hazards are taken into account.
238 Finally, a grading system was performed in the buildings. Refer (Arya, 2006b) for detail RVS survey forms for
239 masonry buildings prepared by Prof. A.S. Arya.
240 3.3.4.2 RVS Methodology Proposed by Prof. Anand S Arya for RC frame or Steel Frame
241 The Rapid Visual Screening form of Reinforced Concrete frame and Steel Frame for Seismic Hazards developed
242 by Prof. Anand S Arya has 6 components (i) general information (ii) Building typology based on foundation type,
9
243 roof, floor, etc. (iii) Structural frame type (iv) Special Hazard (v) Non-Structural building components (vi)
244 Damageable Grades (Arya, 2006a).
245 Seismic safety features of RC Frame Buildings consist of parameters like Frame Action, Presence of Soft Storey,
246 Short Column Effect, Concept of Weak Beam Strong Column, Pounding of Buildings, Building Distress and
247 Other important features, Water Seepage, Corrosion of Reinforcement, Quality of Construction, Quality of
248 Concrete and non-structural falling hazards. Refer (Arya, 2006a) for detailed RVS Survey form for RC and steel
249 buildings prepared by Prof. A.S. Arya.
250 3.3.4.3 RVS Procedure developed by Dr. Sudhir K Jain

251 In this method, a checklist for pre-screened buildings is prepared based on Indian conditions. It is one of the first
252 methodologies in India featuring a points system. Performance scores are calculated based on factors such as zone,
253 architectural considerations, structural parameters, and geotechnical characteristics. In India, this method is used
254 in many locations, with the first applications being in Gujarat after the Bhuj earthquake (Sudhir K Jain, Keya
255 Mitra, Manish Kumar, 2010).
256 3.3.4.4 RVS form developed by NDMA 2020

257 In the Disaster Management Act of 2005, a paradigm shift from Relief-centric approach to Mitigation- and
258 Preparedness-centric approach is sought, with continued emphasis on proactive, holistic and integrated Response.
259 With this Act in mind, NDMA initiated a series of discrete, comprehensive, and integrated initiatives. Among the
260 recommended actions was assessing earthquake risk within the existing built environment.
261 NDMA developed this report to make end users aware of RVS's outcomes by presenting RVS in clear and tangible
262 terms. On the basis of discussions with the relevant domain experts, NDMA have developed recommended forms
263 for Pre-Earthquake and Post-Earthquake Level 1 Assessments of 7 building typologies (i. Reinforced Concrete
264 Building, ii. Burnt Clay Bricks Building, iii. Confined Masonry Building, iv. Random Rubble Masonry Building,
265 v. Mud House, vi. Dhajji Dewari, vii. Ekra House). A form is developed to categorize the different building
266 attributes into three categories: Red (High Risk), Yellow (Moderate Risk), and Green (Low Risk). Refer (NDMA,
267 2020) for detailed survey form.
268 3.3.4.5 Seismic Vulnerability Assessment by Prof. Ravi Sinha and Prof. Alok Goyal
269 Prof. Ravi Sinha and Prof. Alok Goyal from Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT-B) prepared a "National
270 Policy for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Buildings and Procedure for Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings
271 for Potential Seismic Vulnerability". A key feature of this procedure is that it allows a trained evaluator to conduct
272 a walkthrough of the building to determine vulnerability. It is compatible with GIS-based city databases, and can
273 also be used for a variety of other planning and mitigation tasks.
274 RVS analysed 10 different types of building, based on the materials and construction types most commonly found
275 in urban areas. There were both engineered and non-engineered constructions (built according to specifications)
276 in this category. Refer (Ravi Sinha, 2001) for detailed survey form.
277
10
278 3.3.4.6 Building Vulnerability form developed by HPSDMA & TARU

279 A form originally prepared by TARU consultancy and the Himachal Pradesh State Disaster Management
280 Authority (HPSDMA) is shown in the paper titled Rapid visual screening of different housing types in Himachal
281 Pradesh, India. A building is visually examined by an experienced screener as part of RVS to identify features
282 that contribute to seismic performance. This method is known as a 'sidewalk survey.' In this side walk survey,
283 checklists are provided for each of the five types of buildings (RC frames, brick masonry, stone masonry, Rammed
284 Earth, and hybrid). (Pradesh, Pradeep and Anoop, 2016). Refer (Pradesh.et.at. 2019) for Building Vulnerability
285 form developed by HPSDMA & TARU.
286 3.3.4.7 Vulnerability Atlas of India developed by BMTPC

287 Building Materials and Technology Promotion Council (BMTPC) published the Vulnerability Atlas of India as
288 its first edition in 1997. It was hailed as an "useful tool for policy planning on natural disaster prevention and
289 preparedness, especially for housing and related infrastructures". First of its kind, it provided a means for assessing
290 not only district-level hazards, but also the vulnerability and risks of housing stock. It was greatly utilized by State
291 Governments and their agencies in order to develop micro-level action plans on how to reduce the impact of
292 natural disasters since buildings and housing are commonly damaged or destroyed due to natural disasters,
293 resulting in life losses and disruptions to socio-economic activities.
294 The revised Atlas 2019 reflects advances in scientific & technical knowledge, addition of new datasets, results of
295 disasters caused by earthquakes and cyclones, possible damage from landslides, floods, thunderstorms, failures
296 of roads and trains during disasters, changes in the political map of the country, and new statistics on walling and
297 roofing data of houses. (BMTPC, 2019). Table 3 and Figure 4 shows different Housing categories based on wall
298 and roof type and material identified in India and also their Damage risk under various hazard intensities.
299 Table 3: Damage Risk to various Housing Category identified by BMTPC (BMTPC, 2019)
300
11
301
302 Figure 4: Damage Risk and Housing category identified by BMTPC (BMTPC, 2019)
303 3.3.5 Multi Hazard Risk Assessment used Globally

304 3.3.5.1 FEMA 154
305 The FEMA handbook demonstrates how to rapidly identify, inventories, and rank buildings that are at high risk
306 of death, injury, or severe damage in the event of an earthquake. Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) can be carried
307 out with a short exterior inspection, lasting 15 to 30 minutes, by trained personnel using the data collection form
308 in the handbook. The guide is targeted at building officials, engineers, architects, building owners, emergency
309 managers, and citizens who are interested in the topics.
310 Its purpose was to provide an evaluation of the seismic safety of a large inventory of buildings quickly and
311 inexpensively, with minimal access to the buildings, and to identify those that require more detailed examination.
312 FEMA 154 was developed by ATC under contract to FEMA (ATC-21 Project) in 1988. As with its predecessors,
313 the Third Edition aims to identify, inventory, and screen buildings that present a potential risk. This latest version
314 includes major improvements, such as: updating the Data Collection Form and including an optional more detailed
315 page, preparing additional reference guides, and including additional building types that are common,
316 considerations such as existing retrofits, additions to existing buildings, and adjacency, and many others. (FEMA,
317 2015). Refer (FEMA, 2015) for detail survey form .
318 3.3.5.2 Flood Vulnerability Assessment survey

319 The Flood Vulnerability Assessment survey form prepared by the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) Bangkok
320 and Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) (Peiris, 2015) has 5 Sections: (i) General Information (ii)
321 Type of Building (iii) Flood damage and cost (iv) Flood emergency response (v) Effect on livelihood and income,
322 designed for Residential, Institutional, Commercial/Industrial damages and Infrastructure damages. Refer (Singh,
323 Kanungo and Pal, 2019) for Flood Vulnerability Assessment Survey form developed by CTCN and AIT
324 3.3.5.3 Landslide Vulnerability Assessment survey

325 Scientists and researchers focus more on researching landslide susceptibility and the hazard component rather
326 than assessing the vulnerability of buildings to landslides. Even when the same construction material is used,
327 construction practices vary across the country. Currently, there is no standard method for determining building
328 vulnerability by using indicators.
329 The parts cover by Landslide risk assessment survey forms (Singh, Kanungo and Pal, 2019) are (i) General
330 information (ii) Building Function (iii) Vulnerability Indicators like Architectural Features, Material
12
331 Characteristics, Structural Features, Geographical features, and quality of Workmanship, Construction &
332 maintenance, etc. which are also covered during RVS and has been covered in the proposed survey form CitSci,
333 GIS based data collection app for landslide
334 As a result of a collaboration between Departments of Geomatics Engineering and Geological Engineering,
335 Hacettepe University has created the CitiSci platform for geoscience research. A WebGIS platform supported by
336 CitSci and artificial intelligence (AI) was used in this study to assist landslide researchers. Data visualization and
337 display software is incorporated in the WebGIS application, mobile data collection software (LaMA), and an AI
338 system controls the quality control process for data (R. Can, 2020).
339 3.4 Features required for a Multi Hazard Survey Form for IHR
340 3.4.1 Gaps Identified
341 Existing Survey forms have their strengths & weaknesses. After studying various survey forms for Risk
342 assessment prepared by various national and international authorities, it is observed that hill-specific survey forms
343 that can take care of multiple aspects of risk and sustainability assessment together do not exist. Available forms
344 are complicated, not-so user friendly, consisting of terminologies difficult to communicate and comprehend, no
345 pictorial clues for understanding, involve several rounds of calculations for coherent multi-hazard risk evaluation
346 using the data, and most importantly, they not hill site-specific or designed for the Indian Himalayan region.
347 Hills have their own situation, condition, geography, climate, development trends, construction practices, culture,
348 etc., and they are distinctly different from other regions. RVS is mostly used in India to assess the visual structural
349 vulnerability of the building, as it involves no structural calculations. On the other hand, SVA and DVA are for
350 the detailed structural survey of a building, and therefore more precise and use engineering information along
351 with more explicit data on ground motion. Data filling is not easy enough for the surveyor and requires a very
352 high level of engineering knowledge, skills, and experience. Pictorial explanation from surveyor point of view
353 can ease the communication. Most of the survey forms are focused on single hazard, (mostly for seismic evaluation
354 of a building) irrelevant of multi hazard from Himalayan point of view, and how prone is buildings for its location
355 is from other hazards. Integration between risk understanding and sustainable development is too limited or non-
356 existent. Thus, it has been observed that there is an immense need to design hill-specific questionnaires for multi-
357 hazards risk assessment for Indian Himalayan Region.
358 3.4.2 Comparative Study of some risk assessment survey forms mostly used in India
359 Here is the comparative analysis of Risk assessment survey forms developed by various organizations and mostly
360 used in India with the enhanced Multi-Hazard RVS. It has been compared on various sections like typology,
361 General Information, History of Disasters, Site Conditions, Building geometry, structural and non-structural
362 component of a building etc.
363 Table 4: Comparative Study of some risk assessment survey forms mostly used in India
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Developed MH-RVS
ARYA FEMA NDMA IIT-B HPSDMA BMTPC
by/for (Enhanced)
Arya, FEMA, NDMA Sinha, Pradesh, BMTPC,
Source Author
2006 2015 , 2020 2004 2016 2019
Typology A1: Mud & Unburnt Brick ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
13
A2: Stone Wall ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

B: Burnt Brick ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
C1: Concrete Wall ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
C2: Wood Wall ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
X: Other Materials ✓ ✓ ✓
Steel ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
About Building and owner ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Sketch/Photo and
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
drawings
General
Occupancy (Day & Night) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Information
Cost of Construction ✓
Construction quality and
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Maintenance
Seismic Zone ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Disaster History and
✓ ✓
Disaster History Damage status
Disaster cause ✓
Retrofitting history ✓
Location of building ✓ ✓
Site Condition
Site Condition ✓ ✓ ✓
Dimension of Building ✓
Building
Shape of Building, floors ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Geometry
Re-entrant corners ✓ ✓
Type of Sub-Soil ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Foundation Foundation detail ✓ ✓ ✓
Depth of ground water
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
table
Walls details ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Separation of walls at
Walls ✓ ✓
joint
Wall failure observed ✓ ✓ ✓
Earthquake Earthquake band details
✓ ✓ ✓
Bands and status
Cracks details ✓ ✓ ✓
Cracks
grade of cracks ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Opening(s) details ✓ ✓ ✓
Openings Frames details near
✓
opening
Type and material ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Roof’s attachment with
Roof and Floor ✓ ✓ ✓
walls
Failures observed ✓ ✓
Height of building ✓ ✓ ✓
distance from closest
Pounding effect ✓
building
Quality of adjacent
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
building
Type and positioning of
✓ ✓
Heavy weight Heavy weights
on top Intact status with
✓
structure
Parapet material ✓ ✓ ✓
Parapet Parapet intact with
✓ ✓
structure
14
Type of overhangs ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Overhang
length and intact status ✓ ✓
Staircase details ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Staircase
Lift status ✓
Column Beam details ✓ ✓ ✓
Column and Beam with infill wall ✓ ✓
Beam Connection and
✓ ✓ ✓
continuity
No. of basement ✓ ✓
Basement Column and retaining
✓
Wall
Soft Storey Soft Storey’s details ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Potential threat from
High Wind ✓
wind
Position of potential
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
landslide
Landslide Stabilized slope status ✓ ✓ ✓
Barriers to rockfall ✓ ✓
Potential threat from
Industrial ✓
Industrial Hazard
Fire Safety Status ✓ ✓
Fire Location of potential fire
✓
threats
Climate Change Understanding & Concern ✓
Cantilever availability
(Chimneys, Balconies,
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Parapet, Sunshades,
Non-Structural claddings)
Elements Other Non-Structural
✓ ✓
elements
No. of unattached Non-
✓
structural elements
364
365 4 IHR Specific MHRA Survey Form Preparation

366 4.1 Survey Form Preparation
367 The enhanced survey form is a modification of the Uttarakhand Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) survey
368 questionnaire, i.e. a form used for structural and non-structural components of a building that performs during an
369 Earthquake. No other hazards are considered in the original RVS questionnaire. A building's location on a
370 vulnerable site, its structural condition, and performance can lead to disastrous situations. The other hill-specific
371 hazards are also incorporated into the enhanced form to identify the risk components from multi-hazards. Whilst
372 the Himalayan region is prone to earthquakes as per India's Seismic Zonation Map (Figure 3) prepared by the
373 Geographical Survey of India (GSI), the enhanced survey form also covers other hazards like landslide, flood,
374 industrial explosion/emissions, fire, hydro-climatic factors, etc., which will be addressed one by one in this paper.
375 4.2 Pilot Survey

376 Before conducting the final survey, a preliminary survey has been conducted to test the proposed form, research
377 methodology, and identifying gaps in the existing survey form (S Roopa1, 2019).
15
378 This small assessment also evaluated the RVS form with minor enhancements evaluate its performance and
379 confirm gaps, and to see if it can meet the requirement for risk assessment at other areas with similar geographical
380 characteristics and conditions as experienced in the Indian Himalayan Region.
381 The Pilot survey had been conducted at 5 Gram Panchayats of Chinyalisaur sub-district in Uttarkashi,
382 Uttarakhand, namely Chinyalisaur, Dhanpur, Dharasu, Hidhara, and Bagi, in October and November 2019. Some
383 of the pictures of the visit are provided in Figure 5.
384
385 Figure 5: View of Site selected for Pilot Survey
386 The pilot survey was conducted to determine:
387 • Whether the questions are clearly framed?
388 • Does it cover all the requirements as per hill communities?
389 • Is the wording of the questions correct enough to lead to the desired outcomes?
390 • Is the question as well options for answer suggested is hill specific or not?
391 • Is the question positioned is in the most satisfactory order?
392 • Surveyors and respondents of all classes understand the questions?
393 • The questions and their options are self-explanatory or not?
394 • The sections in the survey form cover risk assessment related questions for all identified hazards or not
395 • The questions are as per construction practices and construction materials available on hills or not?
16
396 • Are there any need to add some Questions or specified, or some need to be eliminated so as to mention
397 the flow of the survey session.
398 • Does surveyor and Respondent understand the importance of this survey or the objective behind this
399 survey and response in that way?
400 4.2.1 Observations during Pilot survey

401 Feedback from the pilot study proved very helpful in determining the key gaps and shortcomings of the form
402 design and in informing improvements to the enhanced form design. Specifically:
403 • The pilot study showed that a surveyor’s observations of a project site, his or her understanding of each
404 question, and his/her strategy for convincing the residents to provide accurate data played a significant
405 role in risk assessment.
406 • In some questions, the use of technical terms or difficult words, or questions designed to gather too much
407 data at once, discourage respondent interest in responding further and make the Surveyor uncomfortable
408 to proceed.
409 • The questionnaire may not be self-explanatory and requires someone with civil engineering training to
410 fill it out.
411 • Building geometric, Construction practices, Construction materials, development trend plays an essential
412 role during any hazard, thus existing building related questions and options must be incorporated
413 • Survey questions are developed primarily from observations made by surveys and engineers as opposed
414 to responses from residents.
415 • If the Surveyor is not familiar with the terminologies and aims behind filling that questionnaire, it leads
416 to no response or respondent sometimes loose interest to answer further.
417 • An unclear survey vision, study purpose, and inadequate training of the Surveyor will make it difficult
418 to explain the importance of data collection to the respondent, leading to unclear questions and less
419 accurate responses.
420 • Surveyors should be trained enough to pick out the correct option from respondents' lengthy responses.
421 • Need of pictorial representation of answers/options for better understanding of the Surveyor.
422 • Different answers are obtained when questions are arranged inappropriately or answers are arranged
423 incorrectly.
424 • Observing the interaction between multiple hazard types in the same area is a challenging aspect of
425 natural hazards risk assessment.
426 4.3 Enhanced MHRA Form

427 After the Pilot survey conducted at the Chinyalisaur sub-district, significant points were identified/observed that
428 has been incorporated in the Enhanced survey form of Multi-Hazard at hill locations for better risk assessment
17
429 results. Hence, the modifications from a Multi-hazard risk point of view and surveyors’ point of view can be seen
430 in the proposed form (Table 5 and 6).
431 These amendments and the full survey form are presented below.
432 Table 5a: Enhanced MHRA Survey form (Part A)
Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) form

SURVEYOR
1 Name of the Surveyor
2 Mobile no. of Surveyor
3 Inspection Data
433 4 Inspection Time
GENERAL INFORMATION
5 Name of Building/Owner
6 Address
7 Town/City, District and State

8 Coordinatnates
Total No. of Building Blocks
9
present inpremises
10 Name of Block to be survey
11 Draw Sketch of Site Plan
434
18
Residential
Residential (Individual House) Residential (Appartments)
(Other)
Educational Educational
Educational (Institute/ University)
(School) (College)
Lifeline Lifeline
Lifeline Lifeline (Police Lifeline (Fire
(Power (Water/
(Hospital) Station) Station)
Station) Sewage Plant)
12 Function of Block
Commercial Commencial Commercial Commercial
(Hotel) (Shopping) (Recreational) (Other)
Office (Govt.) Office (Private)
Mixed Use (Residential and Mixed Use (Residential Mixed Use
Commercial) and Induustrial) (Other)
Industrial
Industrial (Agriculture) Industrial (Live Stick)
(Other)
more than
13 Occupancy in day time 0 to 10 11 to 50 51 to 100 101 to 1000
1000
more than
14 Occupancy in night time 0 to 10 10 to 20 51 to 100 101 to 1000
1000
15 Name of Owner
16 Name of Contact Person
17 Contact No. of Contact Person
18 Year of Construction:
Structural or Construction
19 Yes No
435 drawings available?
20 Total built up area (sq.m)
436 Table 5b: Enhanced MHRA Survey form (Part A) 1
drawings available?
n
20 Total built up area (sq.m)
Low Rise (1
21 No. of Floors Mid Rise (4 to 7) High Rise (7 and above)
to 3)
What is the overall Construction
22 Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor
quality
What is the overall
23 Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor
437 Maintainance Status
DISASTER HISTORY
24 Seismic Zone Zone V Zone IV Zone III Zone II Don’t know
Did this area faced any Major
25 Yes No
disaster?:
Earthquake Flood Landslide Wind Industrial
26 If Yes in Q.25, Which Disaster?:
Fire Other If Other,
Specify
If Yes in Q.25, in which
27
date/year
Minimum Medium
If Yes in Q.25,What is the major No effect Maximum Effect
28 Effect Effect
damage status
Is the building Retrofitted/

29 Yes No
Renovated ever?
If Yes in Q.29, Year of last
30
438 renovated?
19
SITE CONDITION
Isolated Internal Corner End
31 Location of Building:
Flat Terrain Gentle Slope Steep Slope Terraced land
32 Slope of Ground:
RCC Hybrid Other

33 Cut & Fill Material:
Is there Visible cracks on the

34 Yes, Many Yes, few No
ground
Is there any open space in the
35 Yes, more than 1500 sq.ft Yes, less than 1500 sq.ft No
property?
What is the total area of Open
36
439 spaces in the campus (in sq.ft) :
440
441
442
443
444 Table 5c: Enhanced MHRA Survey form (Part A)
BUILDING GEOMETRY
Narrow Rectangle
Rectangle
Square Rectangle with L-Shaped
(L<=3B)
(L>3B) courtyard
37 Shape of Building Block in Plan: E-Shaped

T-Shaped U-Shaped with Central H-Shaped Other
courtyard
445
20
Stepped near Stepped near

Not stepped Heavy upper floor
centre the end
Shape of building Block in
38 Elevation: No. of Reentrants
corner in Plan
39 No. of Reentrants corner in Plan
Is extra strength available in

40 Yes No
reentrants corner?
only G G+1 G+2 G+3 > G+4
41 No. of Floors
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454 Table 5d: Enhanced MHRA Survey form (Part A)
21
FOUNDATION
Soft or
Rock Gravel or Sand Other
Medium
42 Type of Sub Soil:
Strip Raft Isolated
43 Type of Foundation:
Pile Combined Other
455
Adope Stone Brick RCC Other
Basic Construction material of

44
Foundation:
Dry Masonry Mud Lime Cement Other

45 Mortar Material in Foundation:
Yes No
46 Plinth beam available?
Yes Partial No
47 Sinking in Foundation?
Cause of nearest water Without any water Other

If Yes or Partial in Q.47, What is
48 resources resources (specify)
the Reason for Sinking?
456 49 Depth of ground water table Don't know
457
458
459
460 Table 5e: Enhanced MHRA Survey form (Part A)
22
WALL
Brick Stone Confined RCC Other
Only Column Column &
50 Type of Wall: available & Beam, both
No Beams available
Is through-stone used in Stone Yes Partial No

51
Wall?
Adobe or River Boulder Quarry Stone Dressed fired brick

Mud Wall wall wall wall wall
52 What is the Wall material?

hollow concrete block wall Other
461
Dry masonry Mud Lime Cement Other

53 Type of mortar
230 to 450
Thickness of interior Wall (in < 115 mm 115 mm (4.5") 230 mm (9") > 450 mm
mm
mm):
54 Length of longest interior wall
(in meter)
Max. Height of the wall (in
meters)
230 to 450
Thickness of exterior Wall (in < 115 mm 115 mm 230 mm > 450 mm
mm
mm):
55
Length of longest exterior wall
(in meter)
56 Thickness of Mortar (in mm):
How many Separation of walls
57
at T and L junction?
Bulging of delaminating tilting of dampness
Wall Failure type observed: No failure
58 wall of wall walls in wall
462 No. of walls with these failures
463
464
465
466
23
467 Table 5f: Enhanced MHRA Survey form (Part A)
468
CRACKS
Type of Cracks: Structural cracks Superficial cracks N/A
Note: Superfial cracks are seen

63 in one side of wall, on the other
hand structural cracks can be
seen on both side of the wall
Diagonal Horizontal
Remark
cracks Vertical cracks Cracks
Type of Structural cracks:
64 Specify, No. of Cracks in each

case
Specify, Length of cracks in each
case (in cm)
Grade 5 Grade 4 Grade 3 Grade 2 Grade 1
Grade of Cracks
Near
65 Are there any cracks on Column Beam Near corner No cracks
469 Openings
470
471
472
473
474
24
475 Table 5g: Enhanced MHRA Survey form (Part A)
OPENING
Is there any opening(s) larger Yes, all Yes, few No
66 than 50% of the length of the
wall
Are there any opening close to Yes, all Yes, few No
67 wall junction or corner or to
floor/roof
Is frames available around the Yes Partial No
68
door?:
If Yes/Partial in Q.68, What is Wooden MS/SS other (Specify)
69
the material of Frame used:
Is frames available around the Yes Partial No
70
window
If Yes/Partial in Q.70, What is Wooden MS/SS other (Specify)
71
the material of Frame used:
Is Grills available around the Yes Partial No
72
476 window?:
ROOF AND FLOOR

two side four side Other
Flat Roof
One side slope slope slope (specify)
73 Type of Roof:
Reinforced
RCC Tile or slate CGI Sheets
brick slab
74 Material of Roof:
Jack arch roof Wooden Other (Specify)
Are the roof anchored into the Yes Partial No

75
wall
76 Type of Roof failures observed Sagging Cracks Dampness Other No failure
Wood.bam Mosaic floor
77 Type of Flooring Mud Stone Concrete
477 boo tile
POUNDING EFFECT DETAILS

Height of Structure /Block (in
78
meters)
Distance from nearest buildings
79
(in meters)
Is there any adjacent building,
80 which is very close (no gaps) to Yes very little gap No
thiS BUILDING
478 81 Quality of adjacent building Good Moderate Poor
25
479 Table 5h: Enhanced MHRA Survey form (Part A)
HEAVY WEIGHT ON TOP

water tank Water tank Car Parking on the top of
Big hoarding
(Concrete) (Plastic) the building
Type of Heavy weight present

82
on the top of the building? Heavy
Communicatio Roof top
generator/ Other None
n tower Garden
machine
Centric Eccentric Distributed Corners Remark
If Yes in Q.82, What is the

83
Position of Heavy weight?
Are the heavy weight intact Yes Partial No

84
480 properly with structure?
PARAPET WALL
Yes Partial No
85 Is Parapet wall present at roof
Lightweight (Wooden, MS/SS) Heavy weight (RCC, Brick) Remark
If Yes or Partial in Q.85, What is

86
the Material of Parapet Wall?
Yes Partial No
87 Intact with structure
481
OVERHANGS
Yes No
88 Overhangs present
89 Length of overhangs (meters)

Yes No
90 Overhangs with structural
Yes No
91 Overhangs with Brackets /beam
482
STAIRCASE
Yes No
92 Staircase present
Staircase placed at symmetrical Symmetrical Un-symmetrical

93
location in plan of the bulding
If Yes in Q.92, What is the RCC Brick Wooden MS/SS Other
94
Material of Staircase?
If Yes in Q.68, Is Staircase intact Yes No
95
with building structure?
Intact Not Intact Not Available
96 Lift Status?
483
484
26
485 Table 5i: Enhanced MHRA Survey form (Part A)
COLUMN
Yes No
97 Column available?
Short Column Long Column
If yes in Q.97, What is the type

98
of Column?
Masonry
99 Material of Column Concrete Wood Steel Other
486 (Brick/ Stone)
BEAM
Yes No
100 Beam available?
Yes Partial No
If Yes in Q.100., Beam with infill

101
walls available?
Centric Eccentric Other
If Yes in Q.100., Beam – Column

102
connections?
Centric Eccentric Other

103 Beam -Beam Connection?
Masonry
If Yes in Q.100., Material of Concrete Wood Steel Other
104 (Brick/ Stone)
Beam
487
488
489
490
27
491 Table 5j: Enhanced MHRA Survey form (Part A)
BASEMENT
Yes No
105 Is Basement Available?
106 If Yes in Q.105, No. of Basement
Effective height of column in

107
basement?
Yes No
108 Retaining wall available ?
If Yes in Q.108, What is the RCC Brick Stone Other

109
492 Material of the retaining wall ?
SOFT STOREY
A soft story building is a multi-
story building in which one or
more floors have windows, wide
doors, large unobstructed
commercial spaces, or other
openings in places where a shear
wall would normally be required
for stability as a matter of
earthquake engineering design.
Yes No
110 Soft Storey available ?
Effective height of column in

111
basement?
493
494
28
495 Table 5k: Enhanced MHRA Survey form (Part A)
Is shearwall available in Soft Yes Partialy No

112
Storey?
Yes No
113 Retaining wall available ?
If Yes in Q.113, What is the RCC Brick Stone Other

114
Material of the retaining wall ?
496 MULTI HAZARD SURVEY FORM
497 Table 6a: Enhanced MHRA Survey form (Part B)
MULTI HAZARD SURVEY FORM

FLOOD
Is the site low lying or prone to Yes No
1
water logging?
Is there any water body near the Yes No
2
site?
What is the type of water body Lake, flood Lake, not River, flood River, not
N/A
3 and whether it is prone to prone flood prone prone flood prone
flooding?
2 KM and
What is the distance from the 0 - 250 M 250 - 500 M 500 - 1000 M 1 KM - 2 KM
4 above
nearest water body?
What is the potential damage Very High High Medium Low Very Low
5 level due to the expected
duration of flooding?
Is the plinth made up of non- Yes No
6
erodible material?
What is the height of the plinth?
7
498 (in meters)
HIGH WIND
What is the average wind speed
8 in this location
Are there trees and/or towers threat can damage
can stop building from
too close to the building that building but not hamper No threat
9 functioning
may fall on it during high functioning
wind/cyclone?
If both doors
if neither doors or windows If some of the doors and and windows
Do the door and windows have have accessible and good windows have accessible have
10
a good and accessible latch? latches. and good latches accessible and
good latches
strong
Is there a covered walkway for no covered walkway weak covered walkway covered
11
building to building connection? walkway
499
500
501
29
502 Table 6a: Enhanced MHRA Survey form (Part B)
LANDSLIDE
Is there any hills near to the Yes No
12 building, which can cause
damage due to landslide
If Yes in Q.12, what is the Less Than 30 More than
30 M - 100 M 100 - 250 M 250 - 500 M
13 distance of the base off the Hill M 500 M
from building?
Is the slope near the building Yes No
14
stabilized?
Are there any large rocks or Yes No
15 potential falling hazards near
the building?
Yes No
16 Are there barriers to rockfall ?
503
INDUSTRY
Is there any industry near to the Yes No
building, which can cause
17
damage due to industrial hazard,
fire etc.
If Yes in Q.17, how many active Yes No
18
industries are there?
500 - 1000 More than 1
What is the distance of nearest 0 - 100 M 100 - 250 M 250 - 500 M
19 M km
Industry from building?
500 - 1000 More than 1

What is the distance of nearest 0 - 100 M 100 - 250 M 250 - 500 M
20 M km
Petrol Pump from building?
504
FIRE
two or more such access No access
one such access road
roads road
Are the access roads from main
street wide enough to allow one
21
fire engine to reach, reverse and
return to the main road?
Yes No
Are there potential fire threats
within 30 meters of the building
22 such as petrol pump, electrical
substation, combustible
materials store, etc.?
Is there adequate open inadequate open space (1-4

enough space negligible
23 assembly area for people during square feet per student)
any emergency?
Is main meter box and switch Yes No
box located in the staircase/
24
entrance lobby/ passage/
505 corridor?
506
30
507 Table 6b: Enhanced MHRA Survey form (Part B)
Are the main meter box and Yes No

25 switch box enclosed in a
metallic box?
Is there more than 1 staircase Yes No
which can be used as a fire
26 escape staircase ideally at
maximum distance from the
other staircase?
Yes No
In case of Public building or Life
line building, Are there proper
27 signages in the campus for
Emergency Exit, Fire equipment
etc.?
Is the kitchen located at a safe Yes, beyond Yes, within 20- Yes, within Kitchen Not
adjacent
28 distance from classrooms, 50 m 50 m 10-20 m Available
staircase, passage corridor?
Is the ceiling material safe from Yes No
29
fire?
100% - Fire 75% - Fire 50% - Fire 25% - Fire
extinguisher extinguisher in extinguisher extinguisher 0% - No
What is the status of fire safety th
30 in each floor 3/4 of all in half of all in 1/4th of Equipment
equipment in the building?
of each block floors floors all floors
508
Is the transformer too close to Yes No

31 the compound wall or inside the
building?
Are there overhead cables Yes No
32 running through or near
premises/building?
If there is a forest area near the Yes No
33
building?
What is the distance of the tree
34
line from the building?
Is there any combustible Yes No
35 construction material present in
509 the building?
510
511
512
513
514
515
31
516 Table 6c: Enhanced MHRA Survey form (Part B)
CLIMATE CHANGE
How much do you think climate Very Likely Likely Neutral Unlikely Very Unlikely
36
change threatens your personal
Climate
Over- Un-
change/Global Poverty Crime
population employment
Warming
Which issues are of more

concern in your opinion? (On the Infectious Economic Unplanned Deforestatio
37 Air pollution
scale of 10, more marks to most Diseases Situation Infrastructure n
concerned)
Water Tourism Poor Waste Extinction of
Traffic
pollution growth Management species
In your opinion, What is the Human

Natural Causes No Change Don't know Other
Activities
reason that the temperature on
38
earth has been rising over the
past decade?
Tourist Landuse Greenhouse

How much do you think the Deforestation Overpopulation
growth Landcover gases
following has contributed to
39 global climate change? (on scale
of 10, more marks to most
contributer) Industrilizatio Warming of
Melting of Ice Other Don’t know
n water surface
517
Non Structural Risk/ Falling Hazard

Need Need
Element Number Element Number
Attention Attention
Wooden Frame at
Fan
Roof
Tubelight Door
Electrical Wires Window Frames
Heavy
List of Nonstructural AC
Machinaries
elements which are
1 Cylinder in Open
vulnerable to falling or Open Shelve (Glass)
space
not attached properly
Open Shelve (Iron) Board
Wardrobe (Wooden) Ventilator
Wardrobe (Iron) Fire Extinguisher
Cantilever
HeavyTable
Chimneys
Cantilever
Heavy Frames
Balconies
Cantilever
Heavy Furnitures
Sunshades
Heavy weight on top of
Other
almirah
2 No. of Exits in the Room:
What is the status of GOOD OK POOR
3 Electrical Safety in the
518 Room
32
519
520 4.4 Risk Score Computation
521 After all the parametric studies from various Indian Standard codes and Report (NDMA, 2020), (URDPFI, 2015)
522 (IS-code13828, 1993; IS-code4326, 1993; IS-code1893-1, 2002; IS-code13935, 2009) on ideal building
523 parameters and weak components of a building from designing, construction, site condition, surrounding
524 condition, location and hazard etc. point of views, risk scores were decided on an average basis for better judgment
525 and understanding. Risk scores were derived from the enhanced survey form by appropriately weighing the data
526 points against a risk number chart with higher weightage given to higher risk (Chouhan, Narang and Mukherjee,
527 2022). The data was then aggregated on a scale of ten (table 8). For example, if a building answers all weighted
528 MCQs with the highest risk option, it will be scored 10/10. All questions in the questionnaire were not weighted;
529 those with ambiguous risk consequences were left un-weighted to be studied objectively. The risk scores intend
530 to give a relative idea of where the risk lies within a building and among building to enable prioritization during
531 risk mitigation planning.
532 Table 7: Risk Score Computation, Source adapted from (Chouhan, Narang and Mukherjee, 2022)
533
534 5 Discussion:
535 5.1 Pilot Survey Results
536 The IHR requires effective and standardised Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment, and for that purpose a customized
537 designed Survey Form has been designed to capture the unique characteristics of hill communities and assets. The
538 enhanced form performed reasonably well. Effectiveness & data collection is comfortable from both ends i.e.
539 Respondents & Surveyor. The questions are properly framed in various sections, the language is simple and it is
540 easy to interpret. The pictorial explanation makes it easy for surveyors to correct input data, as its explanation is
541 self-explanatory. The objective behind the data collection is well clear to the Respondents and Surveyor.
542 5.2 Key features of the enhanced MHRA survey form

543 The key features of the proposed form are it is specially designed for data collection in the Indian Himalayan
544 region with risk of Earthquake, Flood, Wind, Industrial, Non-Structural Risk., fire etc. It is very useful for any
545 type of study related to Hazard Risk assessment in hills. Time taken to complete the questionnaire, i.e. the length
546 of the questionnaire is good enough i.e. 10 minutes for the trained civil engineer and 17 minutes for the trained
547 non-engineering background surveyor. With practice, the surveyor can reduce time. The language of the form is
548 simple and specific, i.e. One answer on one dimension is required, it considers all possible contingencies when
549 determining a response, It is designed in a way that it collects more & more accurate information in less time.
550 Questionnaires permit the collection and analysis of quantitative data in a standardized manner, ensuring their
551 internal consistency and coherence. The question sequence is clear and smooth moving. By sequencing questions
33
552 properly, the chances of misinterpreting individual questions are greatly reduced. The pictorial options make it
553 comfortable for the surveyor to fill the answer by looking at the building.
554 The survey form is divided into sections so that only one thought can be conveyed at a time. It is the advanced
555 version of RVS that covers risk status for foundation, wall, roof, openings, beam, column, site conditions, etc. of
556 a building. It is covering all the points required for building analysis in RVS. It covers questions related to all
557 identified hazards that are directly indirectly contributing to risk factors. It covers all the required Questions as
558 per hill condition, situation, climate, geography, construction practices, construction materials, etc. The format,
559 including the font and layout, is good enough to read by the surveyor. Before going into the field, the surveyor
560 must require a reading of the full survey form carefully with all terminologies clear. It covers the non-structural
561 risk survey form. The safety of occupants in a building following an incident can be at risk due to reduced capacity
562 of structural components or damage to non-structural components.
563 6 Conclusion
564 The Indian Himalayan region is facing disaster every year with significant loss of life and property, as it is very
565 prone to multi-hazards. Thousands of studies, research, and projects are funded nationally and internationally to
566 minimize the loss and prepare the community to face the upcoming disaster. Indian Himalayan Region is also the
567 point of attraction for tourists and pilgrims globally, and tourism plays an imperative role in enhancing the
568 economy of the state. Thus, safety is the immense need of the government at various levels.
569 The enhanced survey form designed and tested under this study will help all the stakeholders to collect better
570 information from the field. This form will also identify the weak components of a building, construction practices,
571 their development trend, and vulnerable location, so that future construction can be planned, considering the risk
572 factors and vulnerable zones. Most of the assessment criteria for multi-hazard risks are met by the proposed
573 survey. The more accurate the data, the better will be its results.
574 A questionnaire is the backbone for any survey, which is the base for all types of research work for better accuracy.
575 This article describes why there is a need for a hill-specific survey form that focuses on the multi-hazards in hills
576 and hill’s existing scenarios. It then described the steps of how a Hill-specific Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment
577 Survey form was developed, validated, and tailored specifically for hill communities.
578 The pilot survey conducted at Chinyalisaur validates the questionnaire and survey form, and provided invaluable
579 feedback now incorporated in to the final survey form design.
580 The proposed form is a self-explanatory, pictorial, and enhanced version of the standard RVS format, and it
581 addresses several hazards such as earthquakes, floods, landslides, industrial fires, and forest fires.
582 The suggested form is an enhanced version of Rapid Visual Screening (RVS), which can assess the risk of any
583 structure and includes all structural and non-structural components that respond during a seismic event. It also
584 includes information about the building's sensitivity to possible danger zones such as landslides, floods, wind, and
585 industrial hazards. Research is being undertaken to develop more accurate hill-specific risk assessment survey
586 form that requires less time, marginal effort. identify deficiencies and, most important suggest a site-specific
587 Multi-Hazard Survey form for hills.
34
588 The data collected using this form can be used in any study related to Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment. It can be
589 used by civil engineers as well as non-civil engineering background people. People can self-assess their building.
590 To do this effectively, it is crucial to reinforce the networks of science, technology, and decision-makers and
591 create a sustainable technological outcome for disaster risk reduction.
592 Acknowledgment
593 This research was supported by National Mission for Himalayan Studies (NMHS), Project Grant No.
594 NMH_1334_DMC and CoPREPARE, Project Grant no. IGP2020-24/COPREPARE – funded by UGC. We are
595 indebted to the local residents who actively participated in the household survey. The authors are grateful to Mr.
596 Tom Burkitt, from DHI, for supporting editorial and proofreading.
597 Data availability Statement
598 This article is part of doctoral research and the data collection has been done by the first author physically on-site.
599 The data is available from the authors on the request basis.
600 Disclosure statement
601 No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
602 References
603 Aksha, S. K. et al. (2020) ‘A geospatial analysis of multi-hazard risk in’, Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk.
604 Taylor & Francis, 11(1), pp. 88–111. doi: 10.1080/19475705.2019.1710580.
605 Arya, A. S. (2006a) Rapid Visual Screening of RCC Buildings. Available at:
606 https://nidm.gov.in/PDF/safety/earthquake/link11.pdf.
607 Arya, A. S. (2006b) ‘Rapid Visual Svreening of Masonry Buildings’, GOI – UNDP Disaster Risk Management
608 Programme, 13935(June), pp. 17–41. Available at: https://nidm.gov.in/PDF/safety/earthquake/link11.pdf.
609 Bilham, R. and Laituri, M. (2003) ‘Earthquake Loss Estimation for India Based on Macroeconomic Indicators’,
610 (April 2016). doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-0167-0.
611 BMTPC (2019) Vulnerability Atlas of India Vulnerability Atlas of India. 3rd edn. Available at:
612 https://bmtpc.org/DataFiles/CMS/file/Publication/VAI_3rd2019.pdf.
613 Buck, K. D. and Summers, J. K. (2020) ‘Application of a multi-hazard risk assessment for local planning local
614 planning’, Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk. Taylor & Francis, 11(1), pp. 2058–2078. doi:
615 10.1080/19475705.2020.1828190.
616 Chandel, V. B. S. and Brar, K. K. (2010) ‘Seismicity and vulnerability in Himalayas : the case of Himachal
617 Pradesh , India’, Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 5705. doi: 10.1080/19475701003643441.
618 Chouhan, S., Narang, A. and Mukherjee, M. (2022) ‘Multihazard risk assessment of educational institutes of’,
35
619 International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment. doi: 10.1108/IJDRBE-08-2021-0091.
620 Dharmadhikary (2008) Mountains of Concrete : Dam Building in the Himalayas. Available at:
621 https://archive.internationalrivers.org/sites/default/files/attached-files/ir_himalayas_rev.pdf.
622 FEMA (2015) Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook. Available at:
623 https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_earthquakes_rapid-visual-screening-of-buildings-for-
624 potential-seismic-hazards-a-handbook-third-edition-fema-p-154.pdf.
625 Gerlitz, J. et al. (2016) ‘The Multidimensional Livelihood Vulnerability Index – an instrument to measure
626 livelihood vulnerability to change in the Hindu Kush Himalayas’, Climate and Development, 9 (2)(March), pp.
627 124–140. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2016.1145099.
628 Goodrich, C. G., Prakash, A. and Udas, P. B. (2019) ‘Gendered vulnerability and adaptation in Hindu-Kush
629 Himalayas: Research insights’, Environmental Development. Elsevier Ltd, 31(January), pp. 1–8. doi:
630 10.1016/j.envdev.2019.01.001.
631 Hackl, J., Adey, B. T. and Heitzler, M. (2015) ‘An Overarching Risk Assessment Process to Evaluate the Risks
632 Associated with Infrastructure Networks due to Natural Hazards’, International Journal for Performability
633 Engineering, 11(2), pp. 153–168. doi: 10.23940/ijpe.15.2.p153.mag.
634 IS-code13828 (1993) Indian Standard IMPROVING EARTHQUAKE RESISTANCE OF LOW STRENGTH
635 MASONRY BUILDINGS — GUIDELINES. Available at:
636 https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.13828.1993.pdf.
637 IS-code13935 (2009) Indian Standard SEISMIC EVALUATION, REPAIR AND STRENGTHENING OF
638 MASONRY BUILDINGS — GUIDELINES ( First Revision ). Available at:
639 https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.13935.2009.pdf.
640 IS-code1893-1 (2002) Indian Standard CRITERIA FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF
641 STRUCTURES PART 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS AND BUILDINGS ( Ffth Revision ). Available at:
642 https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.1893.1.2002.pdf.
643 IS-code4326 (1993) Indian Standard EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
644 BUILDINGS - CODE OF PRACTICE ( Second Revision). Available at: https://civil.sairam.edu.in/wp-
645 content/uploads/sites/4/2019/06/IS.4326.1993.pdf.
646 Kala, C. P. (2014) ‘International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction Deluge , disaster and development in
647 Uttarakhand Himalayan region of India : Challenges and lessons for disaster management’, International Journal
648 of Disaster Risk Reduction. Elsevier, 8, pp. 143–152. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.03.002.
649 Mahesh R. Gautam, Govinda R. Timilsina, K. A. (2013) Climate Change in the Himalayas Current State of
650 Knowledge. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2286555.
651 Ministry of Home Affairs, G. (2011) DISASTER MANAGEMENT Ministry of Home Affairs. Available at:
36
652 https://www.undp.org/content/dam/india/docs/disaster_management_in_india.pdf.
653 Mohammad Imran Siddique, Jayesh Desai, Himanshu Kulkarni, K. M. (2019) Comprehensive report on Springs
654 in the Indian Himalayan Region. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12104.06408.
655 Mouri, G. et al. (2013) ‘International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction Probability assessment of flood and
656 sediment disasters in Japan using the Total Runoff-Integrating Pathways model’, International Journal of Disaster
657 Risk Reduction. Elsevier, 3, pp. 31–43. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2012.11.003.
658 NDMA (2020) A Primer on Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) Consolidating Earthquake Safety Assessment Efforts
659 in India. Available at: https://ndma.gov.in/sites/default/files/PDF/Technical Documents/RVS-Doc-11-2020.pdf.
660 NITI Aayog (2018) Report of Working Group II Sustainable Tourism in the Indian Himalayan Region. Available
661 at: https://www.niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/Doc2.pdf.
662 Parajuli, A. et al. (2020) ‘Forest fire risk mapping using GIS and remote sensing in two major landscapes of
663 Nepal’, Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk. Taylor & Francis, 11(1), pp. 2569–2586. doi:
664 10.1080/19475705.2020.1853251.
665 Pathak, R. et al. (2019) ‘Alien plant invasion in the Indian Himalayan Region : state of knowledge and research
666 priorities’, Biodiversity and Conservation. Springer Netherlands, (0123456789). doi: 10.1007/s10531-019-01829-
667 1.
668 Peiris, T. A. (2015) Data collection for “ Flood Risk Assessment for Dungsum Chu Basin in Samdrup Jonkhar ”,
669 CTCN and AIT. Available at: https://www.ctc-
670 n.org/system/files/dossier/3b/ctcn_bhutan_data_collection_report.pdf.
671 Pradesh, H., Pradeep, R. and Anoop, K. (2016) ‘Rapid visual screening of different housing typologies’, Natural
672 Hazards. Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/s11069-016-2668-3.
673 Ravi Sinha, A. G. (2001) A National Policy for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Buildings and Procedure for
674 Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Vulnerability. Available at:
675 https://www.civil.iitb.ac.in/~rsinha/Vulnerability_Assessment.pdf.
676 Rehman, A. et al. (2022) ‘Multi-Hazard Susceptibility Assessment Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process and
677 Frequency Ratio Techniques in the Northwest Himalayas , Pakistan’, Remote Sens, 14(3), pp. 1–31. doi:
678 https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14030554.
679 Roopa, S. and Rani, M. (2012) ‘Questionnaire Designing for a Survey’, Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society,
680 46(4_suppl1), pp. 273–277. doi: 10.1177/0974909820120509s.
681 Sarkar, S., Kanungo, D. P. and Sharma, S. (2015) ‘Landslide hazard assessment in the upper Alaknanda valley of
682 Indian Himalayas’, Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk. Taylor & Francis, 6(4), pp. 308–325. doi:
683 10.1080/19475705.2013.847501.
684 Sekhri, S. et al. (2020a) ‘Mountain speci fi c multi-hazard risk management framework ( MSMRMF ): Assessment
37
685 and mitigation of multi-hazard and climate change risk in the Indian Himalayan Region’, Ecological Indicators.
686 Elsevier, 118(July), p. 106700. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106700.
687 Sekhri, S. et al. (2020b) ‘Mountain specific multi-hazard risk management framework (MSMRMF): Assessment
688 and mitigation of multi-hazard and climate change risk in the Indian Himalayan Region’, Ecological Indicators.
689 Elsevier, 118(April), p. 106700. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106700.
690 Simon Allen, M. A. (2015) ‘Lake outburst and debris flow disaster at Kedarnath , June 2013 : hydrometeorological
691 triggering and topographic predisposition Lake outburst and debris flow disaster at Kedarnath , June 2013 :
692 hydrometeorological triggering and topographic predisposition’, Landslides, 13(6). doi: 10.1007/s10346-015-
693 0584-3.
694 Singh, A., Kanungo, D. P. and Pal, S. (2019) ‘Physical vulnerability assessment of buildings exposed to landslides
695 in India’, Natural Hazards. Springer Netherlands, 96(2), pp. 753–790. doi: 10.1007/s11069-018-03568-y.
696 Singh, J. S. (2005) ‘Sustainable development of the Indian Himalayan region: Linking ecological and economic
697 concerns’, Current Science, 90(6), pp. 784–788.
698 Srivastava, H. N. et al. (2015) ‘Discriminatory characteristics of seismic gaps in Himalaya’, Geomatics, Natural
699 Hazards and Risk. Taylor & Francis, 6(3), pp. 224–242. doi: 10.1080/19475705.2013.839483.
700 Srivastava, V., Srivastava, H. B. and Lakhera, R. C. (2010) ‘Fuzzy gamma based geomatic modelling for landslide
701 hazard susceptibility in a part of Tons river valley , northwest Himalaya , India’, Geomatics, Natural Hazards and
702 Risk, 5705. doi: 10.1080/19475705.2010.490103.
703 Sudhir K Jain, Keya Mitra, Manish Kumar, M. S. (2010) ‘A rapid visual seismic assessment procedure for RC
704 frame buildings in India’, in 9th U.S. National and 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering. doi:
705 10.13140/2.1.2285.0884.
706 Sv, S. S. et al. (2017) ‘Extraction of detailed level flood hazard zones using multi-temporal historical satellite
707 data-sets – a case study of Kopili River Basin , Assam , India’, Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk. Taylor &
708 Francis, 5705. doi: 10.1080/19475705.2016.1265014.
709 URDPFI (2015) Urban and Regional Development Plans formulation and implementation (URDPFI) Guidelines.
710 Available at: https://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/URDPFI Guidelines Vol I.pdf.
711 Vaidya, R. A. et al. (2019) Disaster Risk Reduction and Building Resilience in the Hindu Kush Himalaya. Springer
712 International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-92288-1.
713
38

Design and Testing of A Multi Hazard Ris

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design and Testing of A Multi Hazard Ris

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design and Testing of A Multi Hazard Ris

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

https://doi.org/10.

1 Design and Testing of a Multi-

37 Keywords: Survey, Questionnaire Design, Multi-Hazard, Rapid Visual Screening, Himalaya

89 2.2 Multi Hazards in IHR

124 2.3 Need of Study

Comparative Study between some survey forms used in India

152 3 Multi Hazard Survey Framework

156 • It should satisfy the objectives of the research.

160 • A single thought should be conveyed at a time

161 • As much as possible, be concrete and conform to the respondent's perspective

162 • The use of unclear words should be avoided

171 3.2 Methodology Adopted

178 Figure 2: Methodology adopted

188 3.3.1 Seismic Zonation Map of India

195 3.3.2 About RVS

204 3.3.2.1 Uses of RVS Results:

206 Assess a building's seismic vulnerability to categorize it further.

211 3.3.3 Uses of the Four Levels of Earthquake Safety Assessments

217 3.3.3.2 Level 2: Detailed Visual Study (DVS)

220 3.3.3.3 Level 3: Simplified Vulnerability Assessment (SVA)

226 3.3.3.4 Level 4: Detailed Vulnerability Assessment (DVA)

230 3.3.4 Multi Hazard Risk Assessment used in India

250 3.3.4.3 RVS Procedure developed by Dr. Sudhir K Jain

256 3.3.4.4 RVS form developed by NDMA 2020

278 3.3.4.6 Building Vulnerability form developed by HPSDMA & TARU

286 3.3.4.7 Vulnerability Atlas of India developed by BMTPC

303 3.3.5 Multi Hazard Risk Assessment used Globally

318 3.3.5.2 Flood Vulnerability Assessment survey

324 3.3.5.3 Landslide Vulnerability Assessment survey

A2: Stone Wall ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

365 4 IHR Specific MHRA Survey Form Preparation

375 4.2 Pilot Survey

385 Figure 5: View of Site selected for Pilot Survey

386 The pilot survey was conducted to determine:

387 • Whether the questions are clearly framed?

388 • Does it cover all the requirements as per hill communities?

391 • Is the question positioned is in the most satisfactory order?

392 • Surveyors and respondents of all classes understand the questions?

393 • The questions and their options are self-explanatory or not?

400 4.2.1 Observations during Pilot survey

426 4.3 Enhanced MHRA Form

432 Table 5a: Enhanced MHRA Survey form (Part A)

Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) form

7 Town/City, District and State

11 Draw Sketch of Site Plan

Is the building Retrofitted/

Flat Terrain Gentle Slope Steep Slope Terraced land

RCC Hybrid Other

Is there Visible cracks on the

444 Table 5c: Enhanced MHRA Survey form (Part A)

37 Shape of Building Block in Plan: E-Shaped

Stepped near Stepped near

39 No. of Reentrants corner in Plan

Is extra strength available in

454 Table 5d: Enhanced MHRA Survey form (Part A)

42 Type of Sub Soil:

Strip Raft Isolated

Adope Stone Brick RCC Other

Basic Construction material of