Cultural capital for earthquake vulnerability reduction: The case of Kathmandu Valley, Nepal

This study "Cultural Capital for Earthquake Vulnerability Reduction: The case of Kathmandu Valley" aimed to understand the earthquake vulnerability in Nepalese context from a social perspective. The attempt was therefore to have an in-depth and better understanding of low income group people and their knowledge of earthquake vulnerability reduction. Similarly it has tried to analyse the techno-centric and community-based approaches of earthquake vulnerability reduction. One of the major objectives of this study is to explore culture as an asset useful to reduce earthquake vulnerability. To fulfil the objectives, study took case study method and attempted to test the hypotheses. Eventually, it is the result of 10 household interviews, 16 expert interviews and 2 focus group discussions. Collected data revealed that there is a significant role of capitals for sustainable livelihood. Since, the low income people are more exposed to disasters, earthquake disasters are not exception to them. They are vulnerable in all respect but they have their own knowledge to reduce it. The knowledge they have is practiced as culture but are ignored by the stakeholders like households, communities, government, NGOs and academic institutions. Often, the local knowledge is being practiced as culture by the households in communities and they themselves are not very aware of the potential of their knowledge. Over the top, the modern approach of engineering and technology has overcastted the local knowledge/ technology; often by considering them to be rudimentary or superstitious. This study found out that all the knowledge and technology at the local level are not superstitious neither they all are contextual too. This proves that the local knowledge embedded in culture in tacit form is to be revealed and researches are needed to identify them and to explore the scientific aspects of local knowledge for their contextual use. This study has shown that earthquake vulnerability reduction is possible by working all stakeholders together. Earthquake vulnerability is rampant so the strategy to reduce it should have a holistic approach. Technological means are the best instruments to reduce earthquake vulnerability but such technologies have to respond the culture of the particular context which eventually humanises the technology. This has identified that the policies, technologies and approaches developed to reduce the earthquake vulnerability are seldom responding the culture of the community because there is a significant gap between lab and the field. In developing countries like Nepal, modern engineering approach has dominated local knowledge in terms of building technology which has forced the local people to imitate the modern technology without understanding the discipline of the particular material. This eventually has added vulnerability to them. Therefore, to reduce earthquake vulnerability, the local practices and understanding of local technologies are to be incorporated in policies, in academic exercises and curricula and reincorporated in livelihood. These steps make the livelihood sustainable. This study has revealed that the approaches adopted for earthquake vulnerability reduction are always techno-centric but there are two technologies being based on modern knowledge and local knowledge. All techno-centric approaches have to be Cultural Capital for Earthquake Vulnerability Reduction: The case of Kathmandu Valley ii developed by the cultural responses and being based on community. This study also revealed that the term `non-engineered building' is not appropriate. The `so- called' non-engineered building is more of locally engineered building. It has been proved that in several historical disasters, such locally engineered buildings have withstood the impact of earthquake and eventually proved to be less vulnerable. Finally, the significance of local knowledge has been identified by this research to be very much useful to reduce earthquake vulnerability. This stressed to promote local knowledge which is practiced by communities as a part of culture. Hence, it has articulated that culture is capital which is useful for the sustainable livelihood; earthquake vulnerability reduction is not again an exception