Introduction
The Nepal 2015 earthquake affected several areas, but significant devastating effects were felt at Kathmandu, which is the largest municipality that serves as Nepal’s capital. Kathmandu is Nepal’s largest city with all major communities that account for metropolitan population of over 1 million as per the 2011 census reports posited by the Nepalese Central Bureau of Statistics (2013). Kathmandu harbors approximately one twelfth of the Nepal’s population, and its geographical location is in a bowl-shaped valley surrounded by hills. Together with the vast infrastructure, they may have contributed to the severity of the aftermath of the earthquake. Kathmandu has an average area of 19 square miles and an elevation estimated at 4,600 feet (see figure 1 below). The effects were also evident in the city of Pokhara.
According to the CNN report by Watson, Mullen, and Smith-Park (2015), Nepal 2015 earthquake occurred on the 25 th of April 2015 at around 11.56 a.m. local time, and led to a culmination of a series of aftershock that lasted up to the 14 th of May 2015, which magnified the effects of the quake. The timing of the event is argued to have played a crucial role in reducing fatalities and loss of property because most people were outdoors.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Figure 1: A map of Nepal showing regions most affected by the April 25 th 2015 earthquake (BBC, 2015)
Fatalities, Injuries and Displacement
There are conflicting reports on the aftermath effects of Nepal 2015 earthquake, but the Nepal Disaster Risk Reduction Portal through its incident report of May 2015 posited that the quake left 8,857 people dead in Nepal alone, and the total number, including those who succumbed in India, China, and Bangladesh, following aftershocks that occurred outside of Nepal, was 8,964. In total, 21,952 people suffered injuries, while 3.5 million were displaced or rendered homeless. The earthquake, being of devastating magnitude, necessitated immense investment not only to cater for the effects, but also to facilitate the process of recovery, which remains unfulfilled one year later. It was estimated that following the destruction, the cost of rebuilding would exceed $10 billion. According to the Bloomberg’s chief, the cost represents over 50% of Nepal’s GDP, which shifts focus towards the need for involvement of the international community in the recovery process.
Physical Aspects of the Event
A geological survey report of Khudi, Nepal, released by the US (2015) in the aftermath of the Nepal earthquake reveals that the April 25 th quakes was of 7.8 Mw. The epicenter at Gorka (28.147°N 84.708°E), was at a depth of 8.2 Km (5.1 miles). According to the survey, the effects of the earthquake were exacerbated by the sustained aftershocks of 15-20 minutes intervals that followed the main event. The aftershocks led to other outcomes such as the landslide near Mount Everest, which added to the death toll. One such shock on the 26 th April reached a magnitude of 6.7, with a major one on 12 th having a moment magnitude of 73 as illustrated in figure 2 below. However, countries including India and China recorded differences in the magnitudes of the earthquake and subsequent aftershocks.
Figure 2: The scale of recorded earthquakes in Nepal each day following the major event of 25 th April (USGS, 2015).
The USGS (2015) classifies the Nepal earthquake as a thrust, which is caused by the release of accumulated energy in the main frontal thrust. The outcome was earlier predicted by a seismologist, Kumar Gaur, who in an interview with Hindu , observed that the accumulated energy had a potential to cause an earthquake with a magnitude of over 8. Earthquakes are outcomes of progressive collisions between Indo-Australian and Asian tectonic plates a process that resulted to formation of the Himalayas over the last 50 years. According to Amos (2015), Nepal happens to be prone to quakes because of its geographical location in the earthquakes’ belts (see figure 3 below). The USGS (2015) reported that the catastrophic earthquake was caused by the convergence between the Indian plate and the Eurasian plate. According to the survey, the epicenter of the Nepal quake, approximately 50 miles northeast of Kathmandu is a geological convergence point where the two plates approach one another at an estimated rate of 2 inches annually, a process that led to the uplift and the subsequent formation of the Himalayas range and frequent quakes. A study by Bollinger, Sapkota, Tapponnier et al. (2014) establishes that because of its location on the Main Frontal Thrust, the Nepalese region experiences quakes at a frequency of 740 -140 and 870-350 years. A similar study by Men and Zhao (2015) posits that other vulnerable regions such as West China are likely to experience similar catastrophic quakes in the 2020s, implying Nepal is not yet safe.
Figure 3: Belts of earthquakes on which Nepal is located (Sandiford, Rajendran, & Morell, 2015).
The effects of the Nepal earthquake were magnified by the intensity of the quake, felt in other countries mentioned earlier that are along the plate boundary. The epicenter of the Nepal quake was recorded to be 7 miles, which is shallow by geological account. Geologists and seismologists posit that earthquakes that are shallow carry substantial destructive power, which explains why tremors from the quake were felt in areas as far as Lahore in Pakistan, Dhaka, Bangladesh, and Lhasa in Tibet that are 700, 400, and 380 miles from the epicenter. It is apparent that shallow quakes generate strong seismic waves that can travel long distances replicating the destructive effects as they go. It is important to note that a quake can have varying effects in the same area as demonstrated by intensity of VI in most of Kathmandu where water towers in storied building were undamaged, while other parts of the city experience intensity of XI, which is considered violent. According to USGS (2015), the aftershocks that further compounded the catastrophic nature of the quake are an outcome of the magnitude of the quake. The Nepal Seismology Center reported that by May 24, epicenters of over 4Mw had generated over 459 aftershocks. These effects accumulate with repeated occurrences of earthquakes, and may explain the classification of Nepal earthquake as the most catastrophic in history.
Analysis of the Event
Prevention of catastrophes from earthquakes can be accomplished through institutionalization of effective and efficient predictive and warning systems. This is the first line of defense against natural disasters, and has been proven to be effective if implemented timely. Despite the common occurrence of major earthquakes in the Nepalese region, Sandiford, Rajendran, and Morell (2015) argue that the seismological community is equipped with limited knowledge of how to predict specific details that can reduce the magnitude of the effects of the quake. The situation is compounded by the difficulty in predicting individual events in spite of data on statistical trends of earthquakes. The accumulating data that allows monitoring of seismic activity by institutions such as USGS and Geoscience Australia prove to be of little use if they cannot effectively predict major events such as the Nepal earthquake.
It is evident that the affected population was unprepared for the disaster because Watson, Mullen, and Smith-Park (2015) and BBC (2015) reported that the event occurred while people were outdoors going on with their daily routines. One can argue that the responsible institutions were caught sleeping and failed to predict the event and give warning to evacuate the most dangerous areas. Unlike other disasters such as volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, tornadoes, or hurricanes, which can be seen developing, earthquakes pose a challenge even to the most prepared countries. The inability to predict the disaster, especially in a region such as Nepal where seismic vibrations are common phenomena remains a challenge to all geologists and seismologists. The inadequacy of relevant stakeholders resulted to one of the most disastrous earthquakes in history. The USGS posits that out of over 1.3 million tremors recorded in history, on 17 attained a magnitude of over 7, which ranks the Nepal quake as one of the major events in history in the region and worldwide. One can argue that the event ranks second in the region behind the Nepal Bihar 1934 quake that recorded a magnitude of 8.0. The 2011 earthquake that caused a tsunami in Japan had a magnitude of 9.0. However, the death toll and the destruction of property are among the highest recorded in the region and worldwide.
Reports on the aftermath of the Nepal earthquake espouse the inefficiency of the response, rescue, and recovery efforts, which may be attributed to failure of the detection and warning system to predict the disaster, hence delaying response time by the international agencies; and the existence of poor and inefficient economic and political structures to handle the event. According to Watson, Mullen, and Smith-Park (2015), the rise in the death toll was due to diminished rescue and relief efforts due to difficult in accessing the country and reaching communities in remote areas of the country. The mountainous terrain in the country played a significant part in hampering these efforts.
Conclusion
The Nepal earthquake of 2015 is among the most devastating disaster recorded in the history of Nepal and the world. The 7.8 magnitude quake resulted to a total death toll of 8,964 with mass casualties and destruction of property worth billions of dollars. The recovery process is estimated to cost $10 billion. The occurrence of the Nepal earthquake and the aftermath is course for concern for the locals and global community because of the failure to predict and warn people, which may have saved lives and property, in spite knowledge of the regions vulnerability because of its location. The implication for stakeholders is that efforts to develop effective and efficient predictive and warning systems must be scaled up to avoid such catastrophes in the future.
References
Amos, J. (25 April 2015). Why Nepal is so vulnerable to quakes". BBC . Retrieved on 23 November from:
BBC. (May 2015). Nepal earthquakes: Devastation in maps and images. BBC News. Retrieved on 23 November from:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32479909.
Bollinger, L., Tapponnier, P., Sapkota, S. N., Klinger, Y., Rizza, M., & van der Woerd, J. (2013, December). Return period of great Himalayan earthquakes in Eastern Nepal: evidence from the Patu and Bardibas strands of the Main Frontal Thrust. In AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts (Vol. 1, p. 2607). Journal of Geophysical Research . doi:10.1002/2014JB010970.
Central Bureau of Statistics. (2013). Statistical year book of Nepal - 2013. Government of Nepal National Planning commission Secretariat. Retrieved on 23 November from: http://cbs.gov.np/image/data/Publication/Statistical%20Year%20book%202013_SS/Statistical-Year-book-2013_SS.pdf.
Men, K. P., & Zhao, K. (2016). The 2015 Nepal M8. 1 earthquake and the prediction for M≥ 8 earthquakes in West China. Natural Hazards . 82 (3), 1767–1777. doi:10.1007/s11069-016-2268-2.
Nepal Disaster Risk Reduction Portal. (May 2015). Incident report of earthquake 2015. Retrieved on 23 November from: drrportal.gov.np.
Sandiford, M., Rajendran, C. P., & Morell, K. (May 2015). The science behind Nepal earthquakes. EarthSky. Retrieved on 23 November from: http://earthsky.org/earth/the-science-behind-the-nepal-earthquake.
The United States Geological Survey - USGS. (April 2015). M7.8 – 36 km E of Khudi, Nepal.25 April 2015.
Watson, I., Mullen, J., & Smith-Spark, L. (April 2015). Nepal earthquake: Death toll passes 4,800 as rescuers face challenges. CNN. Retrieved on 23 November from:http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/28/asia/nepal-earthquake/.
