Potentials of Emancipatory Citizen Science for Disaster Risk Reduction in Nepal

Cooperating countries: Nepal and Austria

Coordinating institution: Karl Michael Höferl, Universität Innsbruck

Project duration: 1 November 2020 - 30 April 2022

Mountain regions in in the Global South are inherently subject to multi-hazards and highly vulnerable to extreme events due to their active bio- and geophysical environment (Gardner und Dekens 2007; Klein et al. 2019b). Additionally, research has shown that especially in mountain regions the frequency of extreme events will increase under global climate change (Pepin et al. 2015; Keiler et al. 2010; IPCC 2018). Mountain specific characteristic such as unplanned settlements in hazard-prone regions, lack of basic infrastructure, ineffective policy implementations, weak local governance, dependence on external resources and outside funding, demographic shifts, difficult access, and poor hazard prevention and management may exacerbate disaster vulnerability (Lee 2016; Murton et al. 2016; Klein et al. 2019b; Sudmeier-Rieux 2014; Klein et al. 2019a). Due to its considerable complex topography, its steep vertical gradients, geologically unstable and rugged terrain, seismic activities as well as weather extremes (e.g. high intensity of rainfall), Nepal can be seen as a “natural disasters hotspot” (Worldbank 2005), being exposed to a multitude of hazards such as landslides, mudflows, torrents, floods, and earthquakes.

Nevertheless, mountain regions in the Global South are among the most popular tourist destinations worldwide with nature-based tourism being one of the fastest growing sectors of the global tourism industry (Nepal 2002; Nyaupane und Chhetri 2009). In Nepal, nature-based tourism is one of the major sources of income in mountain areas with numerous communities being directly or indirectly dependent on tourism activities and its flow of people, money, and resources. While tourists and non-place based touristic entrepreneurs often lack real-time information, day-to-day updates, and local knowledge on hazardous processes and events, local communities involved in tourism (e.g. place-based touristic entrepreneurs such as accommodations, shops and restaurant owners) are often not included in decision-making processes concerning the management of natural hazards. This dualism of touristic development in mountain regions requires a proactive management of natural hazards to ensure sustainable local livelihoods of touristic entrepreneurs as well as the wellbeing of tourists.

However, the necessary risk assessments as well as the development of potential risk management strategies remain demanding tasks. Traditionally, the multitude of dynamic natural processes demands for a quantitative risk assessment, including the identification of the type of hazard, analysis of probability and likelihood of occurrence, and vulnerability analysis (Bell und Glade 2011; Kappes et al. 2012; Kreibich et al. 2014). The topographic and climatic complexity of mountain regions makes the analysis and predictive assessment of hazard processes extremely difficult and results often in large epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties (Glade et al. 2007). Additional, traditional hazard assessment and monitoring approaches require high-resolution time series data. This kind of data-sets are usually collected with expensive measuring devices (e.g. aerial photography, airborne radar, and thermal infrared scanners) involving technologically complex maintenance and supervision (Rougier et al. 2013). Yet, the availability of such data sets, measuring devices and trained personnel is limited, especially in the mountain regions of the Global South due to inaccessibility, budget constraints as well as a general neglect of data collection infrastructure and personnel (Paul et al. 2018; Klein et al. 2019b). In the case of Nepal’s’ mountain regions, the availability of data and personnel needed to analyse and predict natural hazards is under no circumstances given (United Nations Development Programme, 2011).

Besides technical aspects including insufficient time series data, inconsistent metrics, weaknesses in models, and a lack of real-time monitoring applications (Paul et al. 2018), classical risk assessments and data analysis often assume a top-down, foreign, expert-led approach fostering power asymmetries (Baudoin et al., 2016). Especially in the Global South, such asymmetries are rather disconcerting, when seen from a postcolonial perspective. Such expert-led approaches often do not include local communities and their ‘folk’-knowledge (MacKinnon & Derickson 2013, Davidson-Hunt & Berkes 2002), resulting in ineffective institutional frameworks, policies and plans for disaster risk reduction. Parallel to this non-inclusion of local communities, a growing mistrust of citizens in science and scientific knowledge is emerging (Dahal und Hagelman 2011; Sherry und Curtis 2017; Eiser et al. 2012). This is particularly the case when data collection and analysis is pursued by outside stakeholders such as governments, international or local development organizations, and research institutions without local community involvement (Paul et al. 2018).

As a reaction to these developments, the involvement of local communities in data acquisition, analysis and interpretation is often positioned as win-win strategy: An approach to address data scarcity and information gaps, which simultaneously helps to build trust, ownership and an obligation to act (Paul et al. 2018).