Temporary shelter and reconstruction status of Taulachhen Tole, Bhaktapur.

2nd INTERNATIONALCONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

AND POST DISASTER RECONSTRUCTION PLANNING(ICEE-PDRP2019)

25-27APRIL2019, BHAKTAPUR, NEPAL

Temporary shelter and reconstruction status of Taulachhen Tole, Bhaktapur.

Srijana Prajapati

1,

Mohan Moorti Panta

2

Abstract

This project presents the condition of shelter environment following the event of earthquake April 2015 (2072 Baisakh 12) and the present reconstruction status of Taulachhen Tole, Bhaktapur. Many people are still staying at damaged house or temporary shelter. It is found from the present survey that most of the affected households didn't have good shelter at the first emergency stage. Most of the households moved to permanent type houses which is their own second home or of their relative‘s. The data shows 33% of damaged houses are yet to start reconstruction. The major reason for not reconstructing the house is lack of financial resource. The households who have done reconstruction either sold their land or mortgaged their fixed property. This study shows that reconstruction pace is much slower than it was expected.

Keywords: Nepal earthquake 2015; Reconstruction status; temporary shelter; Bhaktapur; Taulachhen

1.Introduction

The present study area-Taulachhen, which is located at the eastern part of Bhaktapur and is one of the quarters that suffered serious damage. The area of study with 230 houses had 52% full damage and 24 % partial damage. After two years of Nepal earthquake 2015, many people are still living in temporary shelter. To know how they lived during two years This survey was conducted to know the state of living environment in temporary shelters. An earthquake of magnitude 7.6 with epicenter at Barpak, Gorkha district, struck Kathmandu Valley on April 25 at 11:56 local time. It made serious impact to rural and urban areas of central east region of the country including Kathmandu valley causing 8,970 deaths and 22,302 injuries. In addition, 773,095 buildings were fully damaged and 298,998 buildings partially damaged. In Bhaktapur Municipality, 333 people died and 2,101 were injured. 28,508 buildings were fully damaged and 9,054 buildings partially damaged1. Government of Nepal accepted relief materials like food, cloths, medicines, and tents and tarpaulin sheets from foreign countries. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Local Development and Ministry of Urban Development also arranged relief materials. Tents and tarpaulin sheets were distributed to all affected districts of the country. Inside Bhaktapur, 350 tents and 40,174 tarpaulins were distributed2. These were the arrangement for the immediate shelter after earthquake. Not long after, two types of cash grant namely, for the construction of temporary shelter (Nrs. 30,000 for those who lost a member, NR. 15,000 for ‗red card‘ holder and Nrs. 3,000 for ‗yellow card‘ holder) and winter cash grant (NR 10,000) was provided for the affected households. For reconstruction of the fully damaged houses, the owner was eligible to receive a grant assistance of 200,0003 rupees which in course of time increased to 300,000. This grant was to be in three-installments. First installment was disbursed at the initial agreement, the second after completion of the plinth beam of the building, and finally the third installment was to be given after completion of the building.

1 Postgraduate student, Department of Urban Design and Conservation, Khwopa Engineering College, Bhaktapur, Nepal, e-mail address: jane3sp@gmail.com.

2 Professor, Postgraduate Department of Urban Design and Conservation, Khwopa Engineering College, Bhaktapur, Nepal, PhD, Urban History, e-mail address: sribahal@gmail.com

2.Existing Studies on Evacuation and Shelter

Records on the houses that suffered different degree of damage are available from local governments such as rural and urban municipal administration. The data were primarily required to administer the financial assistance to the affected households. However, studies on the shelter situations following the earthquake are not extensive. One of such initial studies is of Bajracharya and Shakya (2016)4 on evacuation sites in Bhaktapur. The study showed the gap between the reality of shelter sites used after the 2015 earthquake and the classified evacuations sites by the government in the city area. In addition, the study also gives a picture of different degree of facilities available in the respective site that varied considerably affecting the comfort and livelihood in the temporary shelter environment.

The government both the central and the local, have not so far developed any standard with respect to the size and quality of the temporary shelter and the environment facility. Soon after the earthquake various types of shelter could be seen sprouting in the open fields and in the courtyards and squares of the city quarters. Government offered 15,000 Rs specially to build the temporary shelter, and it specially focused on the one room CGI box shed. This was meant to be the shelter until the rebuilding of the damaged house, or until the affected household chose to shift to another accommodation. How such temporary shelters were used and how long the households utilize this temporary facility remains to be studied.

A study of Byasi, Bhaktapur was done by Sukupayo (2017) 5. At the time of her survey (after one and half year), she found thirty sheds at Indrayani evacuation space. But This evacuation area accommodated more than 2000 people at the time of earthquake. Initially there were used two types (Fig 1a and 1b) of tents donated by Red cross and Nepal Army. Later they added CGI sheets over the tent roof. Layout of the space was done linearly and toilet services were provided at the periphery of the land.

Fig 1a: Type A shelter at Indrayani, Bhaktapur (Sukupayo,2017)

Fig 1b: Type B/C shelter at Indrayani, Bhaktapur (Sukupayo,2017)

3. The survey study

The purpose of survey work was to know about the state of reconstruction and temporary shelter of the earthquake affected households. For the sample survey, a neighborhood quarter in ‗Taulachhen tole‘ was selected. The quarter is located at the eastern end of the core city of Bhaktapur. This site has been mapped in detail and studied in the recent past providing information on physical and social environment of the locality 6. A study conducted immediately after the earthquake on the proposed reconstruction models in the area was published in 2016 7. This data served as the base map for the present survey.

For the present study, a questionnaire survey on the affected households was conducted accompanied by interview with people inquiring the situations of shelter following the event of earthquake. Since this survey was conducted in 2017 August, two years later following the event of earthquake, the perception of the residents at present might differ with what could have been at the time when the affected residents were living in shelters. Nonetheless, it is assumed that the survey reflects the situation of the time without much distortion. The physical aspects such as shelter location, shelter type and the shelter facilities should be a reliable data that can be compared and checked with the evaluation by the residents on the shelter situation of that time.

4. Shelter environment

4.1. Damage Situation of Taulachhen

The study of KheC, 2013 records that in the study area, 26.3% of the houses were of traditional construction in brick and mud, 56.7% that underwent certain modification in opening, partitions and floor addition, 14.7% of modern construction material that used cement mortar, and 2.3% ruins4 . The study further shows that many of the buildings were in need of maintenance. Most of the old traditional buildings were damaged by earthquake.

In present survey of the study area 52% of the houses were fully damaged, 24% suffered partial damage and 13% were repairable. 11% of the building stock that included RCC framed structure and some with traditional construction remained intact. It is to be noted that the old traditional houses of more than a century old but which were maintained well and did not break old configuration for property division survived the present earthquake.

4.2. The temporary Shelter Phases and their Environment

The day of earthquake was Saturday; Most of the residents were busy in their own home. Our survey shows 38% staying at home or surroundings. 10% were celebrating dewali feast (Fig: 2). Following the earthquake people were afraid to stay at their own house. But gradually, after some month they returned to their own house though damaged. There are households who already had a new house at other places moved there. But those who didn‘t have houses to go back are still staying at temporary shelter.

N= 223

Fig 2: Resident's activity location prior to the event of 2015 April 15 earthquake.

For a few days immediately after the earthquake, 70% households had their shelter arrangement made in individual manner. The rest of the 30% households lived in collective shelters. Most of such shelters at open space had only tarpaulin roof over the head.

Following the emergency period, the affected households of Taulachhen shifted their shelter either near to their house or to their own house if intact. Nepal Government initially offered tent but which was very much limited. It later gave Rs. 15,000 for red card holders, that is those whose house was rendered as inhabitable. This money was supposed to cover the expense to buy CGI cover sheets for a box of size 12‘X13‘8 .

Fig 4: Types of material used for shelter during 1st, 2nd (during 1st, 2nd and 3rd shelter) and 3rd shelter

Because of poor performance of CGI sheet in summer most of the people shifted to more permanent type of shelter, which was either at their own permanent house (25.6%) out side of the core town or at the ground floor of their own damaged house (36%), demolishing upper floors. Those whose house were fully collapsed and couldn't rebuild the house either shifted to the rented place or are still staying at temporary shelters of CGI sheets (fig: 3c and 3e). A classification on shelter type and time period spent by the affected households is given by Pant & Prajapati, 20199

Fig 3e: shelter location of earthquake victim of Taulachhen

Fig 3a: Surveyed households of Taulachhen living in the 1st shelter type.

Fig 3b : Surveyed households of Taulachhen living in the 2nd shelter type.

Fig 3c: Surveyed households of Taulachhen living in the 3rd shelter type.

Fig 3d: Collective Emergency shelter locations used by residents of Taulachhen

4-

3. Temporary shelter and basic facilities

Since there was no preparation for emergency shelter, people stayed out in places open to sky. Most of the people spent more than a week. Soon sheds of tarpaulin and tent were arranged as a measure for temporary shelter. But because of the poor living environment, the affected households moved from such shelters to the second type and then to the third type. Some of the stories of earthquake victims were published by local newspaper 'Majdoor Daily' 10. Jayaram Koju told his experience of an earthquake. His house was inside a small alley of Taulachhen tole. But he was staying at Chyamhasing (nearby market place), felt shaking & saw a row of houses collapsed by the earthquake. A road of core city of Bhaktapur was blocked by debris of collapsed buildings. He ran over the debris where he could hear people from debris, ―please save me‖. He found his family were safe at the ground floor. Feeling unsafe inside the house, they went to nearby chowk. Again feeling the aftershock, they went to the larger nearby Dattatraya Square and then went to the premises of Khwopa Engineering College, Libali . They spent their night within the college compound Jayaram then returned back to help other earthquake victims inside of the core city.

The present survey makes inquiry to the residents on the availability of the basic facilities such as electricity (fig: 5a, 5b), water supply (fig: 6a, 6b) and sanitation (fig: 7) on the shelters they lived at the time after the earthquake, or continue their life in these shelters.

Following the earthquake, the power was cut off for three days in earthquake affected areas. Nepal, even in normal times was under load shedding due to which in the dry season such as April-May the country remained dark for even up to 18 hours. The power shortage affected not only the lighting condition to the shelter but also to the supply of water. Since the main line supply was meager, drinking water was served by private sector that drew water from deep boring and transported to the individual households and localities. In the areas surveyed, before earthquake  household had private tap 6. For those who don‘t have piped line to their home, there was traditional place the stone water spout (lohahiti) and well. But after earthquake the residents suffered from getting drinking water. Residents continued to get water from nearby community taps, nearby houses or went to their own well besides the collapsed house to draw water.

Toilet facilities were also not available to about one third of such affected households during the immediate emergency shelter phase. The situation however improves in the second stage of the shelter. Some people made temporary type toilet and some used own damaged building‘s toilet at second and third phase of shelter.

Fig 5a: electricity facility at 1st, 2nd & 3rd shelter

Fig 5b: lack of electricity at tent

Fig 6a: water facility at 1st, 2nd & 3rd shelter

Fig 6b: lack of water at tent

Fig 7: Toilet facility at 1st, 2nd & 3rd shelter

4.4. General perception of the shelter and seasonal environment

The Gorkha Earthquake happened in April - a warm and dry season in Kathmandu Valley. In the first type of emergency shelter, people (43%) had bad condition due to the fact that they had no safe place to take shelter. The place lacked electricity, water, and toilet. Later, they overcome the bad situations by protecting themselves from weather by shifting the shelter to their damaged houses. Following chart shows the condition of people in summer, rainy and winter season.

In August 27, after four months of the earthquake, Hanumante river flooded the southern plains of Bhaktapur. The shelter at Maheshwori football ground which has been a home for over 850 quake survivors living in over 46 tents11 was a pool of water one meter deep (fig: 9b). The inmates fled at early morning hours when aware of the situation. Such situation could have been be forestalled if due consideration was taken of earlier flood history of the area. The flood only exasperated the miserable situation of the affected families.

Comparing to summer and rainy season most earthquake victim suffered more in winter season. While the shelter gets substantial improvement from the first transitional one, the environment is perceived as worse than the first shelter in the cold winter. The reason is the indiscriminating use of CGI sheet enveloping the shelter from its side and the top.

Provision of food is an important aspect of consideration for a good shelter environment. At initial stage of earthquake food supply was managed in communal manner. Later the households began to manage in individual way.

Fig 8: - Condition of people in summer at 1st, 2nd & 3rd shelter

Fig 9a: Condition of people in rainy at 1st, 2nd & 3rd shelter Fig 9b: photo at maheshwori ground, during flood (THT,2015)

Fig 10a: Condition of people in winter at 1st, 2nd & 3rd shelter Fig 10b: CGI sheet shelter shows bad condition of victims

Fig 11: Management of food during 1st, 2nd and 3rd shelter

The chart (Fig: 12) shows overall perception of the shelter environment of earthquake affected families of Taulachhen quarter. The opinion of the residents ‗adjust‘ expresses that the residents accepted the situation as a compulsion. Half of the households express the need of much improvement in their shelter environment. Yet, it is interesting to note that despite apparently the poor shelter situation, one third of the households in the first emergency shelters, and a half in the second and third stage do make a positive evaluation of the shelter situation.

5. Present status of temporary shelter

There are fifty-six households (25.11%) still staying at temporary house or ground floor of damaged three years after the earthquake. Inquiry was made to the neighbor on the present mode of accommodation of the households if not available at the time of survey.

Since the households were also using their damaged house in other ways, the inquiry focused on the place used for sleeping. The people who answered that they stay in their existing house were staying at fully damaged houses. These houses were not totally collapsed but suffered considerable damage requiring reconstruction, whereas 8 households dismantled upper floors and lived in the ground floor. And there were 41 partially damaged houses of which twelve were used for sleeping purpose, while seven of them have rented house to others for the same purpose.

In a total of fully damaged 115 dwelling units, partially damaged 53 and repairable 29 houses, only 44 houses are under reconstruction, 11 are on the process of repair and 6 are planning for reconstruction and 8 are planning for repair (Fig: 13 and 14 ).

The survey of approximate cost of reconstruction of the dwelling unit is costly compared to the economic status of people at Taulachhen. The survey shows that the people who had done reconstruction either borrowed loan or mortgaged their property, or sold land for the reconstruction of their houses.

Fig 12 : Shelter Residents‘ opinion on facilities in 1st, 2nd and 3rd shelter

N = 63

N = 85

Fig 13 : Reconstruction status of Damaged houses

Fig 14 : Present status of Damaged houses

Fig 15a, 15b : Photos of reconstruction status of houses.

The grant from government is nominal and one cannot start the reconstruction if they do not have any extra financial resource such as bank loan or the selling of their landed property. The approximate cost , according to the survey, is one to 2 million Rs spent by five house owners (19%), two to three million by nine house owners (33%), three to four million by four house owners (15%), and four million spent by nine house owner (33%). As the total grant given by government is 300,000 Rs, seemed to be very less in the proportion of the dwelling reconstruction cost. Another data on income source shows only nine (27%) owner spent their reconstruction expenses by their own resource, otherwise remaining twenty-three (72%) took loan for reconstruction. 17 owners (63%) mortgage their land or other property. Those who didn't mortgage \did sell their property. Among thirty such owners eighteen (60%) sold the land. Among the owners who started the reconstruction, 50 (65%) had taken first installment from government. Second installment is taken by 14 households and nobody has so far received the third installment in this area. Thirteen owner who already started the reconstruction did not took any grant from government.

In our inquiry on the reason for not reconstructing the damaged houses, 62% replied the lack of financial resource and other issues such as unsettled boundary, property division and plot size and shape. Fig 16a and 16b shows certain issues that require solution if the reconstruction is to take place.

N = 45

Most of the households (43 unit- 25.6% of the full and partial damaged houses) who are not staying at existing house have had their own house prior to the event of earthquake. This is one reason that this group of household is not interested in reconstruction. Only nine owners had reconstructed the house after earthquake at new place. Still twenty households in this group (Fig: 17a, 17b) are in temporary structure.

Merging all of the data we can get the total state of reconstruction. Fig 17a shows how many people have reconstructed their houses at new place or at existing place. Fig 17b shows the locations of them.

N = 230

Fig 16a: Percentile distribution of damaged houses facing problems on reconstruction

Fig 16b: Spatial distribution of damaged houses facing problems on reconstruction

Fig 17a: Percentile distribution of present state of reconstruction

Fig 17b: Spatial distribution of present state of reconstruction

6. Conclusion

 Most of the affected households moved to permanent type houses either in their own second home or found accommodation at their relative‘s home before they could move to their own rebuilt house.

 The situation and shelter facilities were improved gradually. Those who are still in temporary structure managed facilities like electricity, water and sanitation at temporary structure.

 In the study area of Taulachhen altogether 76 houses has to be rebuilt, 146 household have permanent houses by the time of this survey study.

 Most of the people either sold their land or mortgaged their landed property to reconstruct their damaged house.

 A major reason on not constructing the house is lack of financial resource, the next is legal issues on ownership.

7. References:

1. Gorkha Bhukampa - 2072, Anubhab ra Sikai. Nepal Sarkar, Griha mantralaya, Bipad byabasthapan mahashakha, 2073VS Baisakha <http://drrportal.gov.np/document>

2. Nepal. Ministry of home affairs, Nepal earthquake 2072: Situation update as of 11th May. <http:// drrportal.gov.np/document/category/reports>

3. Reliefweb.int. report from Government of Nepal. 01 Jun 2015 <https://reliefweb.int/report/nepal/postearthquake-relief-rehabilitation-and-reconstruction-measures-undertaken-government>

4. Bajracharya, Alina and Nirajan Shakya, 2016. Evacuation Space– A Field Study in Bhaktapur. Proceedings of International Conference on Earthquake and Post Disaster Reconstruction Planning, 24 -26 April, 2016, pp 76-86, Khwopa Engineering College, Bhaktapur.

5. Sukupayo, Manju. ― Study Of Condition Of People Living In Ward -10 Byasi After Earthquake ‖ MSc field study, Khwopa Engineering College, Bhaktapur. 2017

6. KhEC, 2012. Conservation study of Taulachhen Neighborhood. Conservation Studio Report, Department of Architecture, Khwopa Engineering College.

7. Pant, Mohan and Sujan Shrestha, 2016. Perception of Residents on Housing Alternatives in the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake in Proceedings of International Conference on Earthquake and Post Disaster Reconstruction Planning, 24-26 April, 2016, pp 116-126, Khwopa Engineering College, Bhaktapur.

8. Abstengineering.com. Abst. 10 May 2015 <http://abstengineering.com/corrugated-sheet-vaulttransitional-shelter-for-earthquake-victim-in-nepal/>

9. Pant, Mohan and Srijana Prajapati, 2019. Transient Shelter Stages and Post-disaster Shelter Provision A Case Study of Bhaktapur in Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Earthquake and Post Disaster Reconstruction Planning, 25-27 April, 2019, Khwopa Engineering College, Bhaktapur.

10. Koju, Jayaram. ―Sabai Drisya Bhayanak Sapana Jastai, Bhukampa Samsaran.‖ Majdoor Daily 16 Baisakha 2071VS.

11. Thehimalayantimes.com. THT online. 27 August 2015 2:03 pm On: Kathmandu <http:// thehimalayantimes.com/kathmandu/early-morning-rain-inundates-at-least-60-houses-in-bhaktapur/>