Design and application of a multi-hazard risk rapid assessment questionnaire for hill communities in the Indian Himalayan region

Chouhan, Shivani; Mukherjee, Mahua

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-1267-2023

Articles | Volume 23, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-1267-2023

© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Estimating and predicting natural hazards and vulnerabilities...

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-1267-2023

© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 23, issue 4

Research article

|

04 Apr 2023

Research article |

| 04 Apr 2023

Design and application of a multi-hazard risk rapid assessment questionnaire for hill communities in the Indian Himalayan region

Shivani Chouhan and Mahua Mukherjee

Download

Final revised paper (published on 04 Apr 2023)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 26 Apr 2022)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on nhess-2022-91', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Jun 2022
Topic selected for study is appropriate, however, the treatment is not up to the mark.

References cited are not correct and some references are missing.

Paper claims about multi hazard risk assessment, however, there is not explanation given on how various hazards and risks are integrated.

Table 2 show the comparison of survey forms. Some of the hazards mentioned are not relevant to the methods listed, e.g., NDMA forms is only meant to earthquake risk, it has no mention of floods, 2) There is no mention of high winds in BMTPC form. It is suggested to mention only the objectives for which the individual forms have been generated.

Also, manuscript is largely in the report format I.e., with bullets and objective mentioned in the form of flow chart. It is suggested to follow research paper.

Refereces:

Some of the links provided as references are not either not available or there no paper by that references.

E.g. 1)Pradesh, H., Pradeep, R. and Anoop, K. (2016) ‘Rapid visual screening of different housing typologies’, 672 . Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/s11069-016-2668-3.

Full author list is needed in the paper “Aksha, S. K. (2020) ‘A geospatial analysis of multi-hazard risk in’, . 604 Taylor & Francis, 11(1), pp. 88–111. doi: 10.1080/19475705.2019.1710580.”

IS-1893 has been revised in 2016. Subsequently there were two amendments. However, authors still use 2002 version.

Authors have prepared a comprehensive multi-hazard form however, they have not indicated how the multi-hazard is computed.

Title of the paper says “Design and Testing of Multi-hazard Rapid assessment questionnaire”. However, neither Design part is not discussed in detail nor the testing part is not discussed. It is suggested to include the same for better understanding by the readers.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-91-RC1
- RC2:
  'Reply on RC1', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Jun 2022
  
  Please, see the comments in the attached PDF file
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-91-RC2
  - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Shivani Chouhan, 29 Jul 2022
    
    Dear Referee/ Editor,
    We would like to thank the reviewer for their positive and insightful comments on the manuscript. Our responses to the comments has been attached for your reference.
    We would like to thank the referees once again for taking the time to examine our manuscript. Our manuscript quality has been enhanced by your comments and suggestions.
    Thanking you
    Best Regards
    Shivani Chouhan (author 1)
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-91-AC2
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Shivani Chouhan, 29 Jul 2022
  
  We would like to thank the reviewers for their positive and insightful comments on the manuscript. Our responses to the comments are given below:
  Comment (R1)-1: Topic selected for study is appropriate, however, the treatment is not up to the mark.
  Response: We appreciate the reviewer for pointing this out. Taking this comment into consideration, we have revised the title as follow: “Design and Application of a Multi Hazard Risk Assessment Survey Questionnaire for the Indian Himalayan Region”. Replaced ‘testing’ with ‘application’.
  Comment (R1)-2: References cited are not correct and some references are missing.
  Response: Taking this important comment into consideration, we have corrected and included the missing references.
  Comment (R1)-3: Paper claims about multi hazard risk assessment, however, there is no explanation given on how various hazards and risks are integrated.
  Response: Taking this comment into consideration, we have added Results of Pilot Survey in section 4.5. for better clarity and improved the discussion on multi-hazard risk assessment in Section 5.3.
  Comment (R1)-4: Table 2 show the comparison of survey forms. Some of the hazards mentioned are not relevant to the methods listed, e.g.,
  1)NDMA forms is only meant to earthquake risk, it has no mention of floods,
  Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful observation and we agree that NDMA forms have major concern towards earthquake risk, but NDMA forms also shows concern towards flood. In (NDMA, 2020) form under Soil & foundation conditions, it shows concern towards building built on river terrace, ground with high water table, liquefiable soil etc. i.e. multi-hazards.
  2) There is no mention of high winds in BMTPC form. It is suggested to mention only the objectives for which the individual forms have been generated.
  Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion. I would like to highlight that BMTPC (Refer Table 5- Damage Risk to Housing under Various Hazard Intensities of BMTPC, 2019) shows vulnerability of houses towards earthquakes, wind/cyclones, floods etc. Thus, this form includes concern for other hazards.
  Comment (R1)-5: Also, manuscript is largely in the report format i.e., with bullets and objective mentioned in the form of flow chart. It is suggested to follow research paper.
  Response: We have revised it in section 3.1, 3.3.2.1, 4.2 and 4.2.1 of the manuscript.
  Comment (R1)-6: References: Some of the links provided as references are not either not available or there no paper by that reference
  E.g. 1)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.
  Eg.2) Full author list is needed in the paper “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.”
  Response: We have updated this section as per referencing format of the Journal. Some of the modifications are as follow:
  Eg.1: Kumar, S. A., Rajaram, C., Mishra, S., Kumar, R. P., and Karnath, A.: Rapid visual screening of different housing typologies in Himachal Pradesh, India, Nat Hazards, 85(3), 1851-1875, doi: 10.1007/s11069-016-2668-3, (2016).
  Eg.2: Sanam, K. A., Lynn, M. R., Luke, j., and Laurence, W. C. Jr.: A geospatial analysis of multi-hazard risk in Dharan, Nepal, Geomatics, Nat. Hazards Risk., 11(1), 88-111, https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2019.1710580, 2020.
  IS-1893 has been revised in 2016. Subsequently there were two amendments. However, authors still use 2002 version.
  Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for this positive evaluation. Taking this comment into consideration, we have added the IS Code 2016 provisions in section 4.4 of the manuscript as suggested.
  Comment (R1)-7: Authors have prepared a comprehensive multi-hazard form however; they have not indicated how the multi-hazard is computed.
  Response: We appreciate the reviewer for highlighting this point and we agree that step wise detail of multi-hazard risk computation is not part of the manuscript, as scope of Risk Calculation study by itself is huge and we have plan to detail it in separate article. Taking this comment into consideration, we have updated basic Multi-Hazard Risk Computation in section 4.4 and added Results of Pilot Survey in section 4.5. This will improve clarity about risk computation using this proposed Survey form. The aim behind this manuscript is to design a Hill specific MHRA Survey form that simplifies data collection process with higher level of respondents’ involvement.
  Comment (R1)-8: Title of the paper says “Design and Testing of Multi-hazard Rapid assessment questionnaire”. However, neither Design part is not discussed in detail nor the testing part is not discussed. It is suggested to include the same for better understanding by the readers.
  As mentioned earlier, we have revised the title as follow: “Design and Application of a Multi Hazard Risk Assessment Survey Questionnaire for the Indian Himalayan Region”. The design methodology has been updated in section 3.1, Overall research methodology is updated in section 3.2 and figure 2. Application and discussion of the proposed survey form has been added in section 4.5 and section 5.0 of the manuscript.
  We would like to thank the referees once again for taking the time to examine our manuscript. Our manuscript quality has been enhanced by your comments and suggestions.
  Thank you
  Best Regards
  Shivani Chouhan (author 1)
  Prof. Mahua Mukherjee (author 2)
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-91-AC1

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (17 Aug 2022) by Kristen Cook

AR by Shivani Chouhan on behalf of the Authors (19 Sep 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (05 Oct 2022) by Kristen Cook

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (06 Dec 2022)

RR by Anonymous Referee #4 (08 Jan 2023)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Design and Application of Multi-Hazard Risk Rapid Assessment Questionnaire for Hill Communities in the Indian Himalayan Region
The manuscript presents a comprehensive review of various survey forms for multi-hazard risk assessment, which can be very useful for the Civil Engineers, infrastructure development and disaster management authorities. Furthermore, the study proposes a well-designed questionnaire with sufficient information on communities and infrastructure in hilly regions and validated through a pilot survey in Uttarakhand, India.
Review Comments:
1. The manuscript contents useful information regarding the multi-hazard risk assessment survey in the Indian context. However, due to rather scanty write-up of the manuscript, the idea, work conducted, and outcomes of the presented research are not conveyed well.
2. The National Building Code of India (2016) published by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), New Delhi, describes the 'Multi-Hazard Risk Concept' and 'Multi-Hazard Prone Area,' which can be helpful for the readers if included in the review presented by the authors in the manuscript.
3. The need and relevance of variety of multi-hazard scenarios and risk assessment thereof for infrastructure in case of India should be highlighted in the introduction. This aspect in the context of, multi-hazard analysis and design guidelines: recommendations for structure and infrastructure systems in the Indian context, which has been discussed earlier-on provides basis for further investigation, as being dealt with in the present study. Moreover, the existing strategies of risk assessment of the infrastructures in areas of India subjected to multi-hazard should be mentioned to provide a broad perspective in this research area.
4. Also, the authors mainly talked about multi-hazard risk assessment in the Indian context; however, the study of how the assessment is being otherwise done globally, and associated future challenges can certainly improve the questionnaire, i.e., learning lessons from other parts. Hence, multi-hazard analysis and design of structures: status and research trends, which should provide that kind of global perspective to the readership should be included in the present manuscript.
5. The manuscript has mainly focused on the natural hazards in the manuscript. However, multi-hazards can include manmade (/accidental) hazards, such as blast, explosion, fire outbreak, etc. which can cause extensive risk to communities and infrastructures, even in the area of question in the present manuscript. Therefore, a section needs to be added to the questionnaire regarding such manmade hazards.
6. The "mixed use", terminology in the survey form can be replaced with "combined use" for better understanding. There are many sections in the survey form, where the asked information may not be clear, especially for low-skilled engineers or surveyors; therefore, this reviewer recommends providing symbolic figures for better understanding. For instance, Sections 57 and 64 (grade of cracks) can be presented with an illustrative figure. Furthermore, another column can be added in many sections in case of not finding any existing option true; for instance, in Sections 58 and 65, other failures and cracks can be added.
7. In the section "Pounding Effects Details "in the survey form, instead of the subsection "Quality of adjacent building" can be replaced with material and number of floors of adjacent building for checking the capacity of the adjacent building. Subsection 79 can appear after the point mentioned in Subsection 80. The definition of short and long columns provided in the survey form needs to be improved for clear understanding. In Table 6a, providing the options of the range of wind speeds can be more helpful than the option of average wind speed. The authors have conducted a pilot survey; however, all necessary details of the site conditions and pictures need to be included.
8. In addition, there are several editorial mistakes throughout the manuscript, which can and must be corrected. Some of them are mentioned in Points 7 and 8 merely for indicative reference purposes. There is a repetition of the same content and sentences, which can be avoided for better readability. The complete form of abbreviation used, such as MS/SS, should be mentioned.
9. The whole manuscript has inconsistencies in formatting, font size, and unnecessary capitalization of the first letter of the words. While citing the tables and figures in the text, the first letter should be capitalized; for example, in line 170, it can be "Table 2". Also, the quality of the figures and sub-figures require enhancement. The references should be arranged with a consistent formatting style.
With the suggestions provided, quality of the manuscript can be improved significantly, and the manuscript can be beneficial for engineers and surveyors in assessing the multi-hazard risk for communities and infrastructures.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (09 Jan 2023) by Kristen Cook

AR by Shivani Chouhan on behalf of the Authors (02 Feb 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (21 Feb 2023) by Kristen Cook

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (27 Feb 2023) by Sven Fuchs (Executive editor)

AR by Shivani Chouhan on behalf of the Authors (05 Mar 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (13 Mar 2023) by Kristen Cook

ED: Publish as is (14 Mar 2023) by Sven Fuchs (Executive editor)

AR by Shivani Chouhan on behalf of the Authors (18 Mar 2023) Author's response Manuscript

Download

Article (2484 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

The Himalayas are prone to multi-hazards. To minimise loss, proper planning and execution are necessary. Data collection is the basis of any risk assessment process. This enhanced survey form is easy to understand and pictorial and identifies high-risk components of any building (structural and non-structural) surrounded by multi-hazards. Its results can help to utilise the budget in a prioritised way. A SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities) analysis has been performed.