Brief communication: Loss and damage from a catastrophic landslide in Nepal

van der Geest, Kees; Schindler, Markus

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-2347-2016

Articles | Volume 16, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-2347-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-2347-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 16, issue 11

Brief communication

|

08 Nov 2016

Brief communication |

| 08 Nov 2016

Brief communication: Loss and damage from a catastrophic landslide in Nepal

Kees van der Geest and Markus Schindler

Download

Final revised paper (published on 08 Nov 2016)
Preprint (discussion started on 20 Jun 2016)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Referee comment', Karen Sudmeier-Rieux, 18 Jul 2016
- AC1: 'Reply to Dr. Sudmeier-Rieux', Markus Schindler, 13 Sep 2016
RC2: 'Reviewer comments on Brief communication "Loss and damage from catastrophic landslide in Nepal"', Erin Roberts, 29 Aug 2016
- AC2: 'Reply to Ms Erin Roberts', Markus Schindler, 13 Sep 2016
RC3: 'Brief communication “Loss and Damage from a catastrophic landslide in Nepal”', Raju Pandit Chhetri, 04 Sep 2016
- AC3: 'Reply to Mr Raju Pandit Chhetri', Markus Schindler, 13 Sep 2016

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Publish as is (13 Oct 2016) by Thomas Glade

AR by Markus Schindler on behalf of the Authors (21 Oct 2016) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

August 2014 saw a major landslide strike in a densely populated district 80 km northeast of Kathmandu, in Sindhupalchok district. This study combines evidence from surveys and interviews to assess impacts and preventive and coping measures taken. The impacts relative to annual income show that lower-income households lost up to 14 times their annual income, as opposed to 3 times for the wealthier. The implications of these findings for discussions surrounding loss and damage are discussed.