Risk Perception & Type of House Construction in Two Areas of Pakistan

Transcription

1 Risk Perception & Type of House Construction in Two Areas of Pakistan Ahmad, N. DRI, Preston University, Pakistan ( Abbas, G. DRI, Preston University, Pakistan Okazaki, K. GRIPS, Japan ABSTRACT Planning for the future event and enhancing the perception of people requires evaluation of Disaster Risk perception, in the people living in earthquake prone area. Once the awareness level is determined in the people of the areas, then a strategy can be evolved which can lead to improvement in Non-engineered houses by retrofitting or other precautionary and house strengthening measures, to mitigate the future unpredicted level of disaster. This paper presents the Disaster Risk perception in the people of two regions/areas of Pakistan, based on actual survey carried out in these regions, one Area (Village Panyali) hit by 8th October 2005, Great Northern Pakistan Earthquake and other (Village Kamman) lies about 650 km away from the Earthquake hit area. Along with comparison of Risk Perception in these two areas, a look into types of houses, these two areas have to evaluate any relationship between risk awareness and type of house, is discussed in the study. This research was done under the umbrella of the Collaborative Research and Development projects for Disaster Mitigation Network of Research Institute in Earthquake prone areas in Asia, carried out by Building Research Institute (BRI), Japan ( ). This was funded by MEXT (Ministry of Education, culture, sports, science and Technology) Japan, under their Asia S&T Strategic Co-operation Promotion Programme. Key Words: risk perception, house construction, non-engineered houses, disaster mitigation. 1

2 1. Introduction After the great Northern Pakistan earthquake of October 2005 national and international, public and private sector institutions joined hands to formulate the future policies and provide recommendations to their respective governments and influence non state actors for the study of preventive measures against such disaster, so that in future events of this kind on such a scale, can be reduced or mitigated to a minimum level. One of such an effort was made in the collaborative research project of three years ( ) supported by MEXT, Japan involving Preston University from Pakistan, and other institutions from Indonesia, Nepal, Turkey and some other countries under the umbrella of BRI and GRIPS Japan. First phase of this collaborative research was to survey two communities in Pakistan for their perception with regard to safer housing. This phase was carried out by interviewing people of two areas, one (Pinyali) that was effected by the earthquake of October, 2005, while the other (Kamman) area which had no earthquake effect, was away about 650km from the highly effected area. (Figure- 1). The second phase was to interview all the stakeholder of construction sector including policy-makers of Central Government, contractors, builders, head-masons etc. The third and final phase was the pilot project consisting of two parts, one was shaking table demonstration and other was mason training workshop. Mason training was conducted at Abbottabad at the end of August 2008 while the second experience consisting of shaking table demonstration, was conducted at the Kharkan located about 65 km. from Islamabad at the end of the year In the end a comparison of type of houses in these two areas with the risk perception was made to locate and find any relationship between type of houses and risk perception. 2. The two regions As described earlier, the study was conducted in two regions of Pakistan, which are detailed below: i) One hit by the 8 th October, 2005 Great Northern Earthquake. (Region 1) ii) Other which lies about 650 km away from the earthquake hit area. (Region 2) 2

3 Region-1 Region-2 Figure-1 Map of Pakistan showing the two region of survey (Village Panyali and Village Kamman) For sake of the survey, the village in each region was taken-up, which had almost the same size of population and dwellings. Region-1, which lie in North is in high earthquake zone, and Region-2, is quite far away from this zone. The two regions are also located in the seismic zoning map of Pakistan, in which Region-1, the seismic zone, has been placed in High Seismic Risk Area (Zone-4) Regions, the other in low Seismic Risk Area (Zone-1) by the Building Code of Pakistan. (Figure-2) 3

4 Figure-2 (Seismic Zoning Map of Pakistan showing location of Two Regions) The different Characteristics of the two villages are described below; i) PANYALI Village, in Bagh District of Kashmir, Pakistan (Region-1) The candidature of this village was approved because it has the typical village size of Pakistan and has a total of about 518 households and lies within 100 km of the epicenter but is quite close (about 15 km) to the rupture region which runs through Muzzaffarabad and Balakot Figure-3. It is a typical mountain village, where houses are scattered, but still form a cluster. The damage to the village was total. Total Households = 518 Distance from Epicenter = 150 km to East - South This village is located on Bagh-Muzaffarabad Road, 10 km south west of Bagh city. 4

5 Almost all households were converted to debris within seconds on 8th October 2005 that is major earthquake in Pakistan history. Out of total 3642 population, 415 deaths occurred including 70 school children. ii) KAMMAN village, Distt, Okara, Punjab, Pakistan (Region-2) This village has almost the same size but as stated earlier lies in low/no earthquake zone the salient feature of the village are; Total Households = 417 This village is located in central Punjab (Pakistan) about 650 km South - West of the Epicenter of 8th October 2005, earthquake. Only slight jolts of earthquake were felt on 8th October 2005 earthquake. All houses and other infrastructure remained intact in this village located in Central Punjab Fertile plains. Most of the houses are attached houses in the village. 5

6 Figure-3 (The Map showing location of 8 th October, 2005 Earthquake and the Fault Line) 3. Type of houses 3.1 Seismic zone (Village Panyali Region-1) To study and find any relationship between types of houses and risk perception of people, information was collected on the types of houses built in each of these two regions. The traditional stone masonry houses are non-engineered construction, which collapsed en-mass during the earthquake. Similarly other building and schools were also made of these stone masonry walls. The stone masonry wall is built up of random masonry and central space filled with rubble or river gravel. (Figure-4) 6

7 Figure-4 Schematic of the wall section of a traditional stone masonry thick wall without stones that go across, that split in to 2 vertical layers During the 2005 earthquake, the thick masonry walls without stones that go across, were vertically split (as shown in diagram) and collapsed. This brought down the roof and beams. In Government Schools, RCC slabs were provided instead of trusses, supported by these stone masonry walls which proved fatal and lot of children died. As has been indicated in other studies and also witnessed in field survey of the effected areas, this type of construction played a major role in destruction and disaster in this area. See photograph 1 of a typical house in seismic zone. Photograph-1 (A typical house in Seismic Zone) 7

8 Block masonry and brick masonry is also found in construction of some houses. These houses were not earthquake resistance in any way, and many were built on slopes, which was also instrumental in their collapse. People in these areas have no boundary walls as every house is detached and there is no need of fence or boundary walls, and these are scattered in a cluster. Roof in these non-engineered houses is generally made of wood trusses (few houses had steel trusses) covered with corrugated sheets. Some rooms and houses can also have wooden beams with mud plaster. 3.2 Construction in non-seismic zone Most houses are made in clay bricks using mud mortar as binding material. (Photograph-2) Mud bricks are also used in some of the houses along with burnt clay bricks. Wood and steel (I or T shaped girder) is used in roof in most of the houses. They commonly use a layer of mud mixed with wheat straws on roof, making it fiber reinforced plaster, a good deterrent against monsoon heavy rains, forming a rain water proof roof system, which does not weather away in rain. In this area of plains these roofs are flat having rain water exit from one side and house have mud (adobe) boundary walls. As the land available is in abundance, generally the houses/rooms are larger in size with average size of room 15 x 30 and every house has its own water supply system by using the water pump or hand pump. Photograph-2 (A Typical house in Non-Seismic Zone, Made in Bricks) 8

9 3.3 Interesting fact It is interesting to note that in seismic zone, where the non-engineered houses are made of stone masonry walls, which had practically split into two and collapsed, people had no awareness about the weak resistance these provided in the event of an earthquake. Even the schools built by government, through its public works department, which has engineering staff, were not aware of the poor performance these walls will have during an earthquake. The school rooms had RCC slab, when these walls collapsed during the earthquake, which was responsible for the great number of deaths of school children, they were trapped under the RCC slab and no equipment was available to take them out. Similarly, in the non-seismic area/zone, where earthquakes are quite rare, the non-engineered houses are made of un-baked/un-burnt clay bricks and in cases where burnt bricks are used, the mortar and plaster is clay (with fiber in case of plaster), still which can be washed away in a flood, as this area has heavy monsoon rains and frequency of floods is high. 4. Survey data and analysis A total of 800 house holds were surveyed, 400 from each community as described above. 4.1Housing characteristics Although females constitutes almost half of the total population, there is significantly scarce female respondents in both communities i.e. 3% in Panyali (District Bagh) and 5% in Kamman village (District Okara) because of socio-culture restrictions imposed on women social participation especially when it comes to interact with men, other than family members. Majority of survey team members were men, therefore, only a small member of female respondents could contribute in the survey. During crises, such culture boundaries prevent women from voicing their concerns and not taking effective role in rebuilding or mitigation. October 08, 2005 earthquake showed, women often are side lined, but probably not with a intention to degrade them, simply considering they are looking after children, where their presence is protecting the children and providing safe haven in times of disaster and chaos. In Pashtun-dominated areas, the male-female interaction is restricted only to mehram (immediate family relations), and relief administration was largely dominated by male workers (World Disaster Report 2007). Figure-5 Income compared for Panyali & Kamman in US$. 9

10 Mostly respondent in both communities (36%) belong to age group between 30 to 60 years and considered to be part of economically active population (Table-1). Panyali Village has a relatively higher academic qualification level than Kamman, following better monthly/annual income and profession level in Panyali, because of overall high literacy ratio in AJK (62%) as compared to Province Punjab (44%). As seen in Table-2, most of the total population (85%) has either school education or cannot read/write at all, although in Panyali academic qualification level is higher than Kamman and comparatively better occupations as shown in Table-2 and Table-3. GNI per capita of Pakistan is US$ 770 and 45% of overall respondents lie in the income group US$ 600-1, 200 although this percentage is higher in Panyali as shown in Figure-5 above. Table-1: Family size and members Panyali Kamman Average Family size 6.4 Persons 7.8 Persons Family members < 15 years age 2.4 Persons 2.9 Persons Family members > 60 years age 0.3 Persons 0.5 Persons Table-2: Academic qualification of respondents Academic Qualification Panyali Kamman Total Cannot Read/Write 18.0% 46.0% 32.0 Basic Reading And Writing 9.0% 8.0% 8.5% School Education 62.0% 43.0% 52.5% College/University 11.0% 3.0% 7.0% Total: 100% 100% 100% Unemployment percentage is higher in Panyali (16%) than Kamman (6%), can be attributed to 40% livelihood sources and 25% livestock loss in District Bagh due to Kashmir earthquake. Average house hold size in Panyali and Kamman are 6.4 and 7.8 respectively where as Pakistan average is 6.8. Percentage of house floor area (i.e. >200 sq. m) is larger (98%) in Panyali than Kamman (80%), because of living styles and type of houses. However in both communities almost all houses are self/family owned following the general trend in Pakistan (owned houses in Pak. 86%). Respondents in Panyali are staying longer period in the same house i.e. more than 50% are living between 25 and 50 years in the same house. In Kamman almost 70% people are living less than 25 years period. Table-3: Occupation of respondents Occupation Panyali kamman Total Legislator, senior o 2.0% 3.5% 2.8% Professionals 24.1% 3.5% 13.8% Technician and associate professionals 4.8% 0.3% 2.6% 10

11 Clerk 1.8% 1.0% 1.4% Service worker and sales workers 10.0% 9.3% 9.7% Skilled agriculture/ fishery workers 4.0% 29.7% 16.9% Craft and related trade workers 12.4% 7.3% 10.1% Plant and machinery operators 0.5% 3.5% 2.0% Elementary occupation 22.6% 34.3% 28.6% Armed force 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% No job 15.8% 5.6% 10.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% In terms of house type, both communities have independent houses because of socio-cultural trends and environmental requirement in Pakistan. However, in Panyali almost all houses are single/detached type whereas in Kamman mostly town houses are attached to another. There is a general trend in Pakistan of building the house by hiring mason or a local house builder (labour contractors), therefore both surveyed communities mostly have self built houses built by the local mason/house builders. In Panyali 85% and Kamman 96% of the surveyed houses were built by local masons or carpenters. Cost comparison of self built houses shows Panyali has a larger percentage of house built with cost up to US$ 800 is 43% in Panyali and 24% in Kamman. One reason for this trend could be use of locally available stones with mud mortar as a major construction material in district Bagh and other mountainous areas, resulting low cost of construction as compared to in plain areas like District Okara, where mostly houses are built with burnt brick. Answering the question regarding plan to live in the same place, more than half of respondents in both communities want to live more than 10 years or as long as possible, because mostly they own houses and don t want to move. Almost same percentage (35%) responded as they don t know about it. In response of the question about any disaster experienced in life before, most respondents in Panyali have experienced recent Kashmir earthquake 2005 whereas 18% in Kamman have experienced any earthquake in their life but 73% have experienced flood because of being flood prone region. Only a small percentage of respondents in Kamman 5% have no experience of any disaster (Table-4). Table-4: Have you ever experienced a Disaster? Disaster Experience Panyali Kamman Total Flood 0.0% 72.9% 36.5% Earthquake 97.8% 17.8% 57.8% Other natural disaster 0.7% 0.4% 0.6% Accident 00.2% 1.2% 0.7% Violent Encounter 01.3% 02.5% 1.9% 11

12 Any other 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% Have not experienced 0.0% 5.0% 2.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% After 2005 earthquake there has been a large scale rescue and relief efforts in the affected areas followed by reconstruction and rehabilitation activities by national and international organizations. Therefore more than 60% Panyali respondents are aware of the organization or associations working for disaster risk reduction in their area yet 30% replied No, where as in Kamman almost all respondents think there are no such organization/associations indicating difference in perception level in two communities. (Figure-6) Figure-6: Knowledge about community based disaster risk reduction organizations working in the area 4.2 Risk perception and behaviour of respondents Majority of respondents in Panyali (76%) consider disaster as most affecting event because all of them have experienced Kashmir earthquake 2005 and its aftermaths where as in Kamman 33% considers unemployment, 27% disaster and 25% disease (Table-5). In fact unemployment rate in province Punjab has risen from 3.2% in 1981 to 19.1% in 1998, therefore 1/3rd of Kamman people think this as most affecting event where as respondent in Panyali also take this as the 2nd most potential event affecting lives. Indicating the perception of people after a disaster is changed. Relatively high percentage of people in Kamman (25%) consider disease as a threat affecting their lives but this category has a lower percentage for Panyali residents because relatively less health facility and poor sewerage, sanitation and environmental conditions in Kamman (plains) as compared to Panyali is mountains, where slopes and run off helps in drainage of area. Table 5: Most Affecting Event Panyali Kamman Total Disaster 76.0% 26.5% 51.3% Unemployment 19.5% 33.0% 26.3% Disease 3.0% 24.5% 13.8% 12

13 Accident 0.5% 2.0% 1.3% Violent Encounter 0.5% 2.0% 1.3% Any other 0.5% 12.0% 6.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Overall (average of both) very high percentage of population in both communities i.e. 51% considering the potential disaster as the most affecting event, can be attributed to the catastrophic consequences of Kashmir earthquake, which were broadcasted very widely and extensively by national and international media channels. This apparent consciousness about disaster provides a good chance for implementation of measures towards preparedness and mitigation without wasting much of time. After four years have passed, affected areas of Kashmir earthquake are still under recovery and reconstruction phase and there is a general recognition that recovery provides unique opportunities for preparedness and mitigation to built safer resilient communities. Table 6: Relation between most affecting disaster and monthly income (US $) Q9:Most affecting disaster Q35: how much approximately is your monthly income (US $) < >1667 Flood/ land slide 5(29.4%) 98(50.3%) 124(31.6%) 63(33.3%) 31(34.4%) 321(36.3%) Earthquake 8(47.1%) 89(45.6%) 250(63.6%) 119(61.1%) 55(61.1%) 521(58.9%) Strom 1 (5.9%) 6 (3.1%) 15(3.8%) 5 (2.6%) 3(3.3%) 30(3.4%) Total Famine 2 (11.8%) 0(0.0%) 2(0.5%) 1(0.5%) 0(0.0%) 5(0.6%) Any other 1 (5.9%) 2(1.0%) 2(0.5%) 1(0.5%) 1(1.1%) 7(0.8%) Total 17(100%) 195(100%) 393(100%) 189(100%) 90(100%) 884(100%) Awareness of all respondents for most potential disaster is summarized. As seen in Table-6, a great majority of people (58.9%) consider earthquake as the most affecting disaster followed by flood (36.3%) and this awareness about earthquake increases with the high income groups. Similarly there is an obvious relationship between perception about earthquake as the most affecting disaster and the academic qualifications; i.e. awareness is higher within groups with higher academic level (Table-7). Although, for flood as the most affecting event, trends are higher within low income groups as these people are affected severally by this kind of natural calamity. Table 7: Relation between most affecting disaster and academic qualification Q9:Most affecting disaster Q33: What is your academic qualification Cannot read/write Basic reading/ writing School education Collage/ university Flood/ land slide 159(52.9%) 26(34.2%) 132(28.9%) 9(16.1%) 323(36.5%) Earthquake 119(40.3%) 49(64.5%) 307(67.2%) 45(80.4%) 520(58.8%) Strom 17(5.8%) 0(0.0%) 12(2.6%) 0(0.0%) 29(3.3%) Total 13

14 Famine 1(0.3%) 0(0.0%) 3(0.7%) 1(1.8%) 5(0.6%) Any other 2(0.7%) 1(1.3%) 3(0.7%) 1(1.8%) 7(0.8%) Total 295(100%) 76(100%) 457(100%) 56(100%) 884(100%) Table 8: do you think a big earthquake will occur in your living area in near future Panyali Kamman Total With in few years 33.7% 13.4% 23.6% Within 10 years 2.0% 4.8% 3.4% Within 50 years 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% After 50 years or never 8.3% 7.8% 8.1% Don t know 54.5% 72.5% 63.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Knowing the disastrous consequences of the future earthquake almost half of Panyali respondents have built/purchased an earthquake resistant house or retrofitted their existing house, but this percentage is significantly low in Kamman (28%). 20% in Panyali and 10% in Kamman also raising earthquake safety awareness among family members and neighbours. In Panyali 20% people always keep survival kit at home whereas Kamman respondents has very low percentage for this category i.e. 1% only. Percentage of respondent who have not taken any action against future earthquake risk is quite high in Kamman (77%) and in Panyali it is lower (15%) (Table 7 & Table 8). This difference in attitude among two communities can be attributed to the fact there are ongoing reconstruction activities in affected areas of Kashmir earthquake 2005, including Panyali where various incentives and training programs are being conducted by national and international organizations to the residents for building or strengthening (retrofitting) their houses. Trend of strengthening the house is higher within high income group where as trends of measures taken involving less financial resources (like always keeping emergency goods at home and awareness raising with family/neighbours) are higher in lower income and low academic qualification groups. Trends of respondents who have not yet adopted any safety measures are higher in low income groups and surprisingly within highest academic qualification level. (Table-10) Table 10: Relation between monthly income and action taken to reduce the impact of further earthquake Q12: Action taken to reduce EQ impact Built/purchased EQ resistant house Q35: how much approximately is your monthly income (US $) < >1667 Total 2(18.2%) 16(9.6%) 47(13.4%) 22(12.8%) 10(12.3%) 97(9.7%) Retrofitted the house 1(9.1%) 39(23.4%) 135(38.4%) 68(39.5%) 30(37.1%) 273(27.2%) House insurance 0(0.0%) 2(1.2%) 16(38.4%) 11(6.4%) 2(2.5%) 31(3.1%) 14

15 Safety of nonstructural element 0(0.0%) 3(1.8%) 7(2.0%) 7(4.1%) 1(1.2%) 18(1.8%) Emergency goods 3(27.3%) 27(16.2%) 42(11.9%) 11(6.4%) 8(9.9%) 91(9.1%) Awareness raising 2(18.2%) 16(9.6%) 31(8.8%) 16(9.3%) 5(6.2%) 70(63.2%) none 7(63.6%) 112(67.1%) 178(50.6%) 81(47.1%) 46(56.8%) 424(42.2%) Total 15(100%) 215(100%) 456(100%) 216(100%) 102(100%) 1004(100%) Table 11: Relation between academic qualification and action taken to reduce the impact of further earthquake Q12: Action taken to reduce EQ impact Built/purchased EQ resistant house Q33: What is your academic qualification Total Cannot read/write Basic reading/ writing School education Collage/ university 7(10.9%) 62(14.9%) 11(20.0%) 18(7.2%) 98(9.7%) Retrofitted the house 20(31.1%) 183(44.0%) 23(41.8%) 48(19.2%) 274(27.2%) House insurance 2(3.1%) 169(3.8%) 7(12.7%) 8(3.2%) 33(3.2%) Safety of non-structural element 1(1.6%) 12(2.9%) 0(0.0%) 5(2.0%) 18(1.8%) Emergency goods 13(20.3%) 48(11.5%) 15(27.3%) 15(6.0%) 91(9.0%) Awareness raising 15(23.4%) 20(4.8%) 13(23.6%) 22(8.8%) 70(6.9%) none 31(48.4%) 197(47.4%) 24(43.6%) 173(69.2%) 425(42.2%) Total 89(100%) 538(100%) 93(100%) 289(100%) 1009(100%) More than half of the Panyali respondent relies on masons/carpenters whereas almost same percentage in Kamman depends on government. Almost same percentage of people (20%) in both communities considers engineers reliable for safer construction. Panyali respondents seems to be aware of the fact that masons can built safer homes and thus relies more on masons than they government s whereas in Kamman, flood is more frequent disaster than earthquake, so people depend on government s relief activities and support to deal with the aftermaths of the flood or think there is less to do themselves therefore rely more on government. (Table-12) Table 12: Whom do you rely on for safer house? Panyali Kamman Total Masons/Carpenters 53.5% 25.0% 39.3% Government 24.3% 52.5% 38.4% Engineers 19.1% 20.7% 19.9% Family/Friends/Neighbors 03.1% 10.8% 20.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 15

16 Table 13: What would be the cause of weak house for severe damage in case of future earthquakes? Panyali kamman Total Poor construction material/ works 52.2% 48.0% 50.3% Built with out proper design/ supervision of engineers 24.0% 0.6% 12.3% Others 0.5% 42.6% 21.6% Lack of knowledge/ information 13.4% 3.1% 8.25% Cost cut 9.6% 5.7% 7.65% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 13, above indicates that almost half of the total population considers use of poor construction materials/works as the major cause of the house collapse in case of a big earthquake. In Panyali 24% respondent consider that their house was built without proper design and supervision of engineers but this percentage is significantly low in Kamman i.e. 0.6% only. Similarly 13% Panyali residents believe that lack of knowledge and information is the cause of weak house whereas again this percentage is only 3% in Kamman. 43% respondent consider other reasons (undefined) responsible for weak construction of their houses but only 0.5% Panyali residents think this way. It seems that mostly Panyali residents are aware of the technical flaws about weak construction of their houses which had caused swerve damage to life and property by 2005 Kashmir earthquake. Almost all respondents are concerned about vulnerability of neighbouring houses and think such information should be shared among the people. Table 14: Relation between cost of house and estimate cost of strengthening the house Retrofitting cost Q6f2: cost of self built house in US $ < >3280 Total <833 0(0.0%) 2(1.2%) 0(0.0%) 0(0.0%) 0(0.0%) 2(0.3%) (4.4%) 2(1.2%) 5(2.2%) 0(0.0%) 1(1.0%) 12(1.6%) (14.4%) 22(13.3%) 24(10.4%) 17(9.4%) 2(2.1%) 78(10.2%) (61.1%) 112(67.9%) 146(63.2%) 110(60.8%) 47(48.5%) 470(61.5%) > (20.0%) 27(16.4%) 56(24.2%) 54(29.8%) 47(48.5%) 202(26.4%) Total 90(100%) 165(100%) 231(100%) 181(100%) 97(100%) 764(100%) The awareness about estimation for cost of strengthening house against earthquake either equal or even many times the cost of self built house within groups of low cost houses. It is interesting to know that 96% overall respondents don t know about retrofitting and 86% believe strengthening cost ranging from US$ or more. Current cost of constructing a new house is about US $ per square meter and retrofitting cost approximately US$ per square meter. (Table 14 & Table 15) 16

17 Table 15: How costly do you think is to protect your house from Earthquake (US $)? Panyali Kamman Total < % 00.3% 00.3% % 01.5% 01.6% % 13.8% 10.6% % 54.9% 61.8% > % 29.6% 25.7% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% On the average almost 80% respondents are ready to spend more than five years of their income to protect their house/property from big earthquake. This trend is relatively on higher sides as majority of the houses are self/family owned. In Pakistani society, house is considered to be as the major family asset and mode of saving to be handed over as inheritance to the next generation. In most cases people like to modify/renovate their house whenever they have enough resources to do so, either to increase the value of their house or to adjust accommodation for the new requirement. Table 16 shows tendency of keeping emergency goods at home and awareness raising with family and neighbours is higher within lower income group as involves less financial resources whereas tendency to purchase or build an earthquake resistant house is more within high income groups. Similarly ratio of respondents having no future plans for safer house is on relatively higher side within low income group. Table 16: Relation between monthly income and plan for safer house Q12: Action taken to reduce EQ impact Built/purchased EQ resistant house Q35: how much approximately is your monthly income (US $) < >1667 Total 4(20.0%) 56(26.5%) 202(40.0%) 107(41.2%) 41(36.9%) 410(37.0%) Retrofitted the house 4(20.0%) 38(18.0%) 101(20.0%) 50(19.2%) 29(26.1%) 222(20.1%) House insurance 0(0.0%) 2(0.9%) 23(4.6%) 20(7.7%) 7(6.3%) 52(4.7%) Safety of nonstructural element Keeping Emergency goods 0(0.0%) 2(0.9%) 8(1.6%) 9(3.5%) 2(1.8%) 21(1.9%) 4(20.0%) 27(12.8%) 47(9.3%) 25(9.6%) 8(7.2%) 111(10.0%) Awareness raising 4(20.0%) 27(12.8%) 48(9.5%) 24(9.2%) 6(5.4%) 109(9.8%) other 0(0.0%) 0(0.0%) 1(02.%) 0(0.0%) 0(0.0%) 1(0.1%) none 4(20.0%) 59(28.0%) 75(14.9%) 25(9.6%) 18(16.2%) 181(16.4%) Total 20(100%) 211(100%) 505(100%) 260(100%) 111(100%) 1107(100%) Tendency of raising awareness with family/neighbours and keeping emergency goods at home is high within groups with high academic qualifications, showing the people with high academic 17

18 qualifications are aware of importance of mitigation measures. Whereas tendency of no plan for safe house is less within high academic groups as seen in Table-17 again showing more awareness within high academic qualification groups. Table 17: Relation between academic qualification and plan for safer house Q12: Action taken plan for safer house Built/purchased EQ resistant house Q33: What is your academic qualification Total Cannot read/write Basic reading/ writing School education Collage/ university 105(33.5%) 35(38.5%) 242(41.6%) 27(22.3%) 409(37.0%) Retrofitted the house 56(17.9%) 14(15.4%) 126(21.6%) 26(21.5%) 222(20.1%) House insurance 9(2.9%) 0(0.0%) 31(5.3%) 12(9.9%) 52(4.7%) Safety of nonstructural element 6(1.9%) 0(0.0%) 11(1.9%) 4(3.3%) 21(1.9%) Emergency goods 28(8.9%) 16(17.6%) 44(7.6%) 23(19.0%) 111(10.0%) Awareness raising 27(8.6%) 17(18.7%) 44(7.6%) 21(17.4%) 109(9.8%) Other 0(0.0%) 0(0.0%) 0(0.0%) 1(0.8%) 1(0.1%) None 82(26.2%) 99(9.9%) 84(14.4%) 7(5.8%) 182(16.4%) Total 313(100%) 91(100%) 582(100%) 121(100%) 1107(100%) 4.3 House builders / head masons Total of 37 house builders and 13 head masons were interviewed from Islamabad, Lahore, Faisalabad, Multan, Sahiwal and some interior villages of Punjab and Northwestern Frontier province working in various companies and groups and number of workers in a company or group varies from 9 to 800, with skilled workers and unskilled workers. Only two builders have basic reading and writing skills, only few received eight years or less school education. Figure-7: Mode of Service Answering the question about biggest concern while constructing a house 44% replied they are concerned about structural safety and 36% are concerned the house should be earthquake resistant as 18

19 seen in Table-18 below. This shows a vast majority 80% of the masons/builders are concerned building a safe house. However 4% take aesthetic value of house into consideration and functionality of the house built by them. Table 18: What is your biggest concern while constructing a house? Should be good looking from in side and out side aesthetic 2 4% Should be fully functional and trouble-proof 8 16% Should be structurally sound 22 44% Should be strong enough to withstand any earthquake force 18 36% N Percent Total % Almost half of the respondents are satisfied about the quality of construction materials they get from to make earthquake resistant buildings. On the other hand rest half consider available materials not so good yet fairly good. Only one person is not satisfied with the available materials. It is interesting to note that half of the respondents consider use of bad quality of material as the most causative factor to make building vulnerability to earthquake. Table 19: Main causative factor making building vulnerable N Percent Bad quality of material (brick, sand, cement, steel red) % Lack of know-how (techniques) to make building earthquake % Home owners not being able to afford the extra cost % Lack of awareness to homeowners 2 4.0% Poor maintenance of the house 2 4.0% Total % Builders and masons who are in favour of retrofitting constitute 38% of overall respondents; on the other hand 42% are those who either consider retrofitting impossible or not viable. Rest 20% doesn t know about retrofitting at all. These responses give a clear picture of the lack of awareness of builders/masons about retrofitting who are responsible for construction of 90% houses. Only a small percentage 12% considers retrofitting as simple and cost effective method for strengthening houses (Table-20). Overall 62% house builders/masons either don t know or don t believe in retrofitting similarly in case of resident s survey 96% don t know about retrofitting. This makes situation more vulnerable because most of the housing construction in Pakistan is owner driven hiring local masons, further there has never been an effective building control system. 19

20 Table 20: How do you think, seismic retrofitting of existing house is viable? N Percent I didn t know about the retrofitting % It is too complicated and costly and hence not viable % We can not improve the strength(earthquake resistance) significantly once it is built Through a little costlier, effective retrofitting can be done as it significantly enhance building performance against earthquake % % We can do retrofitting with simple techniques and it is not costlier either % Total % 4.4 Central govt. offices Total of eight officers were interviewed from ERRA, NDMA and CDA, who were aware of the aftermaths of 2005 earthquake and most of them are directly or indirectly involved in reconstruction. A majority of Central Govt. Officers, who were interviewed, considers poor construction of buildings as the most contributing underlying factor to earthquake disasters in Pakistan and the main causes for vulnerable building stock are ranked as follows: 1. Lack of building enforcement system. 2. Economic condition of people leading not to able to afford good material and technology. 3. Lack of awareness among public and 4. Lack of appropriate technical know-how. Considering the available resources/capacity and prevailing risk situation four of the officers prioritize need for building code enforcement as the pre-disaster measures for the earthquake safety whereas the rest give priority to other risk management policies. Almost all officers believe that government recognizes the need to attach earthquake safety condition in its shelter (housing) policy and has already started working on this agenda starting from development of seismic provision-2007 as a mandatory part of Pakistan Building Code and efforts to ensure safer reconstruction activities in affected areas of 2005 earthquake. 4.5 Local govt. officers Twenty five Local Govt. Officers working in different cities and districts of province Punjab, AJ&K and NWFP were interviewed. A vast majority of the officers (80%) consider lack of infrastructure (such as water, electricity, road and telecommunication network) and basic civic services (e.g. health & education) are the biggest 20

21 problem in terms of urgency and importance as shown in Figure-8 below. May be because of the fact that fast growing population and rapid urbanization have created a dire need for cities infrastructures and facilities to be developed rapidly but unfortunately such developments issues could not take the required pace during past few decades. Therefore, most of the central and local government officers have opted for this option. There is significantly low percentage (4%) of respondent who consider natural disasters as the biggest threat whereas 8% consider security issues in this regard, because of the current security issues in Pakistan since past few years. Figure-8: What is the biggest problem in your city in terms of urgency & importance? 4.6 Dissemination of technologies (Shaking table demonstration & masons workshop) As we already have mentioned that in the area of this village earthquake jolts are felt whenever there is seismic activity in the region. So people had realization and sensitization to some extent familiarity about safety against earthquake, but after this demonstration 98% of the people were of the view that their houses will not be able to resist a big earthquake. So majority from these respondents wanted to construct their houses safer against future earthquake and avoid disaster. They are aware that there might be danger to their lives as well as property, when researchers inquire in detail vast majority of the respondents wanted more safety for their lives and belongings. When the respondents were asked about the measures they have taken for earthquake resistance house and they were asked to provide their ideas about it, the community came up with interesting answers, but before shaking table demonstration. Some people were even of the view that masons should be better trained for seismic resistant houses, but after demonstration respondents realized that public at large must be aware of the consequences of non-engineered and non-structured houses that are more vulnerable in earthquake and can cause disaster. So it means that people supported and understood such type of demonstrations. It is only through practical demonstration of such type of shaking table that community might be convinced that, only systematic and engineered houses can be a solution to mitigate risk due to earthquake. 21

22 It was felt from the survey (Table 21) that integrated efforts, electronic, print media association groups and above all the practical demonstration might be launched on large scale to convince the community for safer houses. Table 21: What kind of media tools consider best for conveying message to the community with regard to safe houses? Options Before Demonstration After Demonstration 1) Through Electronic media 34% 10% -24% 2) Through Print media 10% 02% -08% 3) Through (Private institutions NGOs) 24% 04% -20% Conceptual Variation 4) Through group discussion 25% 08% +17% 5) Through Government Instructions 04% 02% -02% 5. Conclusion The study reveals there is a clear difference about the vision of residents with regard to the perception of earthquake risks and mitigation in affected and non affected areas. All stake holders have developed consensus on the point that public need awareness on large scale and multi-pronged strategy involving all the stakeholders should be adopted for the safety of future generation from the earthquake Kashmir earthquake has created a consciousness among all stake holders in Pakistan involved in housing construction, although people living in earthquake hit areas are more aware of the seismic risk and have more tendencies for adoption of measures for safety against future earthquake. This potential needs to be utilized in an optimum way as people can forget such experiences very quickly. Future disaster mitigation programs should be designed and implemented focusing on income, qualification and socio-culture traditions which can successfully motivate people to invest for earthquake mitigation. 6. Findings As more than 95% of housing stock is produced by owner themselves employing local masons and the absence of effective building control and monitoring system leads us to draft some strategy and planning focusing on owners and masons as a key player in housing construction in Pakistan as mentioned by local government officers. 22

23 Most of the residents and masons either don t know about retrofitting or don t think viable, it seems vital to reach out to communities without earthquake resistant technology. Almost all stake holders have no consensus about earthquake expectation all stake holders have no consensus about earthquake expectation, showing such information needs to be disseminated to the community. Raising earthquake awareness is the first step to convince the community of both, the impending seismic risk and a way to mitigate it. Finding of the survey shows there are different level of understandings of people belonging different income groups, academic qualification and disaster experience, therefore, objectives of awareness raising should differentiate between target groups focusing their understanding level role and importance in housing construction, affordability, accessibility and acceptability. For the general public, it is the enabling of them to understand the risk and to identify possible sustainable measures that could reduce the vulnerability on an incremental basis. However, it would be preferable to use local artisans as messengers to carry earthquake resistant technology to communities because of their accessibility and the communities, trust in them as emphasized by local government officers. Strict enforcement of building code along with the masons and building control staff training would help in ensuring safer buildings production in future, as suggested by central and local government officers. There are building technologies that have survived the earthquake. It will be much easier to convince the local community if they were shown examples of their own buildings that have survived, rather than just emphasizing to use modern materials and technologies that are alien to them. This also helps to build the confidence of local artisans, and encourages more innovation of the local level. The type of house construction doesn t seem to have any relationship with the Risk Perception. Acknowledgement It is acknowledged with thanks the analysis carried out by Ms. Ghazala Naeem, Master s thesis, GRIPS, BRI, Tsukuba, Japan (September 2008) on the survey data, which has been extensively quoted in the paper. References ABE Koichi, Director Office for D.R.R. (MEXT) Efforts toward Science & Technology for Disaster Reduction in Japan. 23

24 Baig, Mirza Shahid, 2006, Active Faulting and Earthquake Deformation in Hazara-Kashmir syntaxes, Azad Jammu & Kashmir Muzaffarabad, AJ & K, Pakistan, Extended Abstracts, International Conference on Earthquake in Pakistan, January. Collaborative R & D project on network of Research Institutes in Earthquake Prone Areas in Asia (Report on Risk Perception DRI, Preston University, Mr. Najib AHMAD ). DESIGNMEN, Report of Technical Evaluation for Margala Tower, Islamabad, November 17, Mahmood, H. Director, Directorate of Structural Design, Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, NARAFU Tatsuo, General Coordinator of R & D Project, Senior Coordinator for International Cooperation, Building Research Institute Japan (BRI). NARAFU Tatsuo Collaborative R & D project on Network of Research Institute in Earthquake Prone Areas in Asia supported by Ministry of Education, Culture, sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Asia Disaster Reduction Science and Technology forum, December 4, 2006, Jakarta Indonesia. National Highway Authority, Damage Assessment of Roads in Earthquake Zone Ministry of Communications, Govt. of Pakistan, Islamabad, Pakistan Oct, Newmark, N. M., and W.J. Hall, Earthquake Spectra and Design, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California, 103 pp, OKAZAK Kenji Incentives to Encourage Investment in Earthquake in Earthquake Safer Housing (Keynote paper), proceeding of International conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation (ICEEDMO8) April 2008, P Report of Damage Investigation on Buildings and Houses due to October 8, 2005 Pakistan Earthquake, Building Survey Team, Japan, Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE) and Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) November 26, The Kashmir Earthquake of October 8, 2005 Mid-America Earthquake Centre. A Quick Look report University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Report No Third Party Inspection Services, Independent Structural Investigation and Condition Survey of 10 buildings in Pakistan. Bureau Verities, Ref. ADH /Mri November YOSHIKAWA Akira, Deputy Director General Science & Technology Policy Bureau, MEXT. 24