Ujjwal Project

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS
MULTI-HAZARD MAPPING OF CHANDRAGIRI

MUNICIPALITY, KATHMANDU, NEPAL
By:
Ujjwal Giri (076MSDRM020)
A PROJECT REPORT
SUBMITTED TO: DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENGINEERING IN DISASTER RISK
MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

LALITPUR, NEPAL
April, 2023
THESIS
COPYRIGHT
The author has agreed that the library, Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk
Campus, Institute of Engineering may make this Project report freely available for
inspection. Moreover, the author has agreed that permission for extensive copying of
this Project report for scholarly purpose may be granted by the professor(s) who
supervised the work recorded herein or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department
wherein the Project report was done. It is understood that the recognition will be given
to the author of this Project report and to the Department of Civil Engineering,
Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering in any use of the material of this Project
eportr. Copying or publication or the other use of this Project report for financial gain
without approval of the Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, Institute
of Engineering and author’s written permission is prohibited. Request for permission
to copy or to make any other use of the material in this Project report in whole or in
part should be addressed to:
…………………………………….
Head
Department of Civil Engineering
Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering
Lalitpur, Kathmandu
Nepal
2|Page
THESIS
TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
The undersigned certify that they have read, and recommended to the Institute of
Engineering for acceptance, a Project report entitled "Multi-Hazard Mapping of
Chandragiri Municipality, Kathmandu, Nepal" submitted by Ujjwal Giri in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Disaster Risk Management.
_____________________________________________
Supervisor, Basanta Raj Adhikari, PhD
Program Coordinator, M.Sc. in Disaster Risk
Management
Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk Campus
_____________________________________________
Supervisor, Sangeeta Singh, PhD
Professor, M.Sc. in Disaster Risk Management
_____________________________________________
Program Coordinator, Basanta Raj Adhikari, PhD
M.Sc. in Disaster Risk Management
_________________________
Date: September, 2022
3|Page
THESIS
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this Project report is to conduct a Multi-Hazard Mapping of Chandragiri
Municipality, Kathmandu, Nepal using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method.
The study focuses on identifying the potential hazards that the municipality may face
and the relative importance of each hazard. The hazards considered in this study include
earthquake, landslide, flood, and fire.
To achieve the objectives of the study, data were collected from various sources,
including government agencies, academic literature, and expert opinions. The AHP
method was used to analyze the data and to identify the relative importance of each
hazard. The results of the analysis provide a comprehensive understanding of the
potential hazards that the municipality may face and the relative importance of each
hazard.
The findings of the study suggest that earthquake is the most critical hazard that the
municipality may face, followed by landslide, flood, and fire. The study also identifies
several factors that contribute to the vulnerability of the municipality to these hazards,
including population density, infrastructure, and land use patterns.
Overall, this study provides valuable insights into the potential hazards that Chandragiri
Municipality may face and the relative importance of each hazard. The findings of this
study can be used to develop effective disaster management plans and strategies to
mitigate the impact of these hazards on the municipality and its residents.
4|Page
THESIS
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor, Sangeeta Singh, PhD,

Professor, M.Sc. in Disaster Risk Management, Department of Civil Engineering,
Pulchowk Campus, for her invaluable guidance, encouragement, and support
throughout this research. Her expertise, insights, and constructive feedback were
instrumental in shaping the direction and quality of this study. I am also deeply grateful
to my supervisor/program coordinator, Basanta Raj Adhikari, PhD, M.Sc. in Disaster
Risk Management, Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, for his
valuable suggestions, support, and encouragement throughout this research. His deep
knowledge and experience in disaster risk management have been a great asset to this
study.
I extend my sincere thanks to the faculty members of the Department of Civil
Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, and Chandragiri Municipality Office for providing me
with a stimulating academic environment and for their guidance and support throughout
my academic journey. I would also like to thank the experts who provided their valuable
inputs and feedback, which greatly enhanced the quality and rigor of this study.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the support of my family and friends, who have
been a constant source of inspiration and encouragement throughout my academic
journey. Their love, support, and encouragement have been invaluable in helping me
achieve my academic goals.
5|Page
THESIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COPYRIGHT ................................................................................................................. 2
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................... 4
Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................... 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... 6
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... 9
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... 9
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 1: Introduction .................................................................................... 12
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 12
1.2 Need and Importance of the Study ................................................................ 14
1.3 Problem Statement ........................................................................................ 15
1.4 Research Purpose .......................................................................................... 16
1.4.1 Objectives .............................................................................................. 16
1.4.2 Research Questions ................................................................................ 16
1.4.3 Validity of Research .............................................................................. 16
1.5 Limitations of Study ...................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 2: Literature Review ........................................................................... 18
2.1 Hazards .......................................................................................................... 18
2.2 Chandragiri Municipality and Hazards ......................................................... 18
2.3 Major Hazards in Chandragiri Municipality ................................................. 20
2.3.1 Earthquake Hazard ................................................................................. 20
2.3.2 Fire Hazard............................................................................................. 21
2.3.3 Landslide Hazard ................................................................................... 22
2.3.4 Flood Hazard .......................................................................................... 23
2.4 Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment ..................................................................... 24
2.5 Heuristic Approach ....................................................................................... 25
2.6 Influencing Factors ........................................................................................ 25
2.6.1 Distance from a fault .............................................................................. 26
2.6.2 Slope ...................................................................................................... 27
2.6.3 Aspect .................................................................................................... 28
6|Page
THESIS
2.6.4 Profile Curvature .................................................................................... 29

2.6.5 Distance from Stream ............................................................................ 30
2.6.6 LULC ..................................................................................................... 31
2.6.7 Soil Map ................................................................................................. 32
2.6.8 Distance from Road ............................................................................... 33
2.6.9 Annual Precipitation .............................................................................. 34
2.6.10 NDVI...................................................................................................... 35
2.6.11 Elevation ................................................................................................ 36
2.6.12 Population density.................................................................................. 37
2.6.13 Distance from Fire Brigades .................................................................. 38
2.6.14 The Distance from Gas Stations ............................................................ 39
2.6.15 The Distance from Transmission Lines ................................................. 40
2.6.16 Distance from Electric Substations and Transformers........................... 41
2.6.17 Distance from Main Settlement ............................................................ 42
2.6.18 The Distance from Old Settlements ....................................................... 43
2.6.19 Soil Liquefaction .................................................................................... 44
2.6.20 Seismic Intensity .................................................................................... 45
2.6.21 The Dominant Building Type ................................................................ 46
CHAPTER 3: Research Methodology ................................................................... 47
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 47
3.2 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................. 49
3.3 Analytic Hierarchy Process ........................................................................... 50
3.4 Method and Techniques ................................................................................ 52
3.4.1 Hazard Event of Interest Identification .................................................. 53
3.4.2 Establishment of Criteria and Sub-criteria for Each Hazard ................. 53
3.4.3 Prioritization and Weight Generation .................................................... 54
3.4.4 Use of GIS Software to Create Hazard Maps ........................................ 54
3.4.5 Validation ............................................................................................... 55
3.4.6 Data Collection ...................................................................................... 56
CHAPTER 4: Data Analysis and Results .............................................................. 57
4.1 Landslide Hazard........................................................................................... 59
4.2 Flood Hazard ................................................................................................. 61
7|Page
THESIS
4.3 Fire Hazard .................................................................................................... 63

4.4 Earthquake Hazard ........................................................................................ 65
4.5 Multi-Hazard ................................................................................................. 67
CHAPTER 5: Conclusion and Recommendation .................................................. 69
5.1 Conclusion..................................................................................................... 69
CHAPTER 6: References ...................................................................................... 70
APPENDIX A: Letter for Request of Survey data ...................................................... 73
APPENDIX B: Photographs ........................................................................................ 74
8|Page
THESIS
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1; Disaster events from 1971-2016. (Nepal desinventar database,2016, cited in
Buddhi Raj Shrestha,2019) .................................................................................. 14
Table 2; Table for Random Consistency Index (Satty, 1987, pg. 172) ....................... 51
Table 3: Summary of Type and Source of Data .......................................................... 57
Table 4: Data layer source for different hazard assessment ........................................ 58
Table 5: factors considered for the landslide hazard assessment, their classes and their
ratings. .................................................................................................................. 59
Table 6: Pair-wise comparisons, weighting coefficients of each adopted factor in
landslide hazard evaluation, and the estimated CR value. ................................... 60
Table 7: Factors Considered in the flood hazard assessment, their classes, and their
ratings ................................................................................................................... 61
Flood hazard evaluation, and the estimated CR value. ........................................ 62
Table 9: Factors Considered in the fire hazard assessment, their classes, and their
ratings ................................................................................................................... 63
Table 10: Pair-wise comparisons, weighting coefficients of each adopted factor in Fire
hazard evaluation, and the estimated CR value. .................................................. 64
Table 11: Factors Considered in Earthquake Hazard mapping, their classes and
Assessment ........................................................................................................... 65
Table 12: Pair-wise comparisons, weighting coefficients of each adopted factor in Fire
hazard evaluation, and the estimated CR value. .................................................. 66
multi-hazard evaluation, and the estimated CR value. ........................................ 68
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1; Chandragiri Municipality Map. (Department of Forrest Research and
Survey,2015, Pg 55) ............................................................................................. 13
Figure 2:Matatirtha Landslide (Ranjan Kumar Dahal, 2006, Pg 03) & Balambu Flood
(Local People) ...................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3:Distance from Fault Map of Chandragiri Municipality................................. 26
Figure 4: Slope Map of Chandragiri Municipality ...................................................... 27
Figure 5: Aspect Map of Chandragiri Municipality .................................................... 28
Figure 6: Profile Curvature Map of Chandragiri Municipality .................................... 29
9|Page
THESIS
Figure 7: Distance from Stream Map of Chandragiri Municipality ............................ 30

Figure 8: LULC Map of Chandragiri Municipality ..................................................... 31
Figure 9: Soil Map of Chandragiri Municipality ......................................................... 32
Figure 10: Distance from Road Map of Chandragiri Municipality ............................. 34
Figure 11: Annual Precipitation Map of Chandragiri Municipality ............................ 35
Figure 12: NDVI Map of Chandragiri Municipality.................................................... 36
Figure 13: Elevation Map of Chandragiri Municipality .............................................. 37
Figure 14: Population Density Map of Chandragiri Municipality ............................... 38
Figure 15: Distance from Fire Stations Map of Chandragiri Municipality ................. 39
Figure 16: Distance from Gas Station Map of Chandragiri Municipality ................... 40
Figure 17: Distance from Transmission Line Map of Chandragiri Municipality ........ 41
Figure 18:Distance from Electric Substations and Transformer Map of Chandragiri
Municipality ......................................................................................................... 42
Figure 19: Distance from Main Settlement Map of Chandragiri Municipality ........... 42
Figure 20: Distance from Old Settlement Map of Chandragiri Municipality .............. 43
Figure 21: Soil Liquification Map of Chandragiri Municipality ................................. 44
Figure 22: Seismic Intensity Map of Chandragiri Municipality Corresponding to Mid
Nepal Earthquake ................................................................................................. 45
Figure 23: Methodological Framework of study. (Rajesh Khatakho, 2021, Pg 06) .... 48
Figure 24: Sample AHP Calculation (Ujjwal Giri, 2020, Pg 07) ................................ 52
Figure 25: Landslide Hazard Susceptibility Map of Chandragiri Municipality .......... 61
Figure 26: Flood Hazard Susceptibility Map of Chandragiri Municipality ................. 63
Figure 27: Fire Susceptibility Map of Chandragiri Municipality ................................ 65
Figure 28: Earthquake Hazard Susceptibility map of Chandragiri Municipality ........ 67
Figure 29: Multi Hazard map of Chandragiri Municipality......................................... 68
10 | P a g e
THESIS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
DRRM Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
VDC Village Development Community
UNDRR United Nations Disaster Risk Reduction
UNSIDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
MCA Multi Criteria Analysis
AHP Analytical Hierarchy process
DRM Disaster Risk Management
DEM Digital Elevation Model
LULCL Land Use Land Cover
11 | P a g e
Introduction THESIS
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Hazard is defined as “A dangerous phenomenon, substance, human activity or condition
that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of
livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption or environmental damage” by
UNSIDR (UNISDR, 2015). Flood, landslide, Earthquake, Fire, Epidemic, Storms etc.
are some of the examples of hazards. When the people, infrastructure or environment
are susceptible to the damaging effects of the hazard they are said to be vulnerable.
When these vulnerable elements are affected by hazards the disaster occurs. Disasters
involve a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving
widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which
exceed the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources
(UNISDR, 2015).
The hazards can be natural (e.g., Earthquake, storm, flood etc.) or man-made (e.g., Fire,
Accidents etc.) and can occur independent of each other, at a same time or one after
another. In most of the cases one form of hazard is accompanied by another for
example, The earthquake causes tsunami in costal places such as Japan, Flood tend to
cause epidemic of dysentery and diarrhea. Thus, single hazard maps independent of
other may not be sufficient to provide necessary amount of information needed for
preparedness, mitigation, and recovery, reconstruction and rehabilitation planning.
According to UNDRR [1], the multi-hazard concept refers to “(1) the selection of
multiple major hazards that the country faces, and (2) the specific contexts where
hazardous events may occur simultaneously, cascading or cumulatively over time, and
taking into account the potential interrelated effects.” To the best of author’s
knowledge, a multi-Hazard assessment is must; to provide the whole picture of an area
regarding hazard scenarios. A composite probabilistic map depicting what, where, and
what magnitude hazard may occur i.e., multi-hazard map can be a major tool for the
local level planers in fight to save life, property, and environment from hazard.
Situated on the south-western region of Kathmandu valley the Chandragiri municipality
is surrounded by Kritipur, Dhunibeshi, Nagarjun and Dakshinkali municipalities
respectively on it’s east, west, north, and south. Formed by merging 11 VDCs of south-
western Kathmandu namely; Purano Naikap, Bhanjyang, Naya Naikap, Thankot,
Mahadevsthan, Matatirtha, Machhegaun, Balambu, Dahachowk, Tinthana, and
Satungal (See fig-01) in 2nd December 2014, Chandragiri municipality has a population
85,198 as of Central Bureau of Survey Census-2068. The population is increasing due
to its proximity to Kathmandu Metropolitan City and accessible transportation linkage.
Chandragiri municipality has predominantly hilly terrain, mild climate subtropical
climate zone (1000 to 2000) m and lies on Midland Region, which is tectonic basin of
the sub-Himalayas. Balkhu, Daudali and Ghatte khola are major rivers of this
12 | P a g e
Introduction THESIS
municipality. The municipality has total of 433.04 km road networks including a

National Highway, 3 feeder roads and number of Blacktopped, PCC, gravelled, and
earthen (ERMC Pvt. Ltd. - Nest Pvt. Ltd., GEOCOM International Pvt. Ltd., 2018).
The municipality’s electricity grid is connected with national grid with sufficient
connection and supply. There are six hospitals, 11 health post, and more than 20
pharmacies as of 2074 survey. Chandragiri has 39.7% cement bonded brick/stone
masonry houses, 31.60% mud bonded brick/stone masonry houses and only 25.75%
RCC houses.
Figure 1; Chandragiri Municipality Map. (Department of Forrest Research and Survey,2015, Pg

55)
Although various hazard occurs throughout the word, developing countries and
especially growing urban areas of such suffer much more due to severe crippling effect
to the community from disasters. Poorly planned, overpopulated, and newly growing
municipalities like Chandragiri are in huge risk of disaster. Chandragiri is a growing
municipality and gateway to Kathmandu valley and due to growing migration of about
600 households per year, there have been huge amount of land purchase and sell in the
municipality leading to haphazard land plotting and building construction. A proper
land use planning done with multi-Hazard perspective is must for the safe and
prosperous municipality. Thus, a multi-Hazard assessment of the municipality is must.
13 | P a g e
Introduction THESIS
1.2 Need and Importance of the Study

Epidemic, Earthquake, Landslide, and Flood are big disasters in terms of losses
incurred, whilst Fire, Flood, and Epidemic are hazard event records in terms of quantity
of disasters, according to the dataset for the period 1971-2016 from Disinserted (See
table-01). In Nepal, several forms of hazards are common and occur regularly. Nepal
has documented 26,665 occurrences and 43,865 individual fatalities between 1971 and
2016. From 1971 until 2000, the number of catastrophic incidents progressively
increased, however after 2000, the increase was fast until 2016. Between 1971 and
2016, 16,795 people perished in Nepal as a result of epidemics, 9,718 as a result of
earthquakes, 9,092 as a result of landslides and floods, and 6,772 as a result of other
disasters. The major disaster in urban area are Earthquake, Landslide, Flood, and Fire.
Table 1; Disaster events from 1971-2016. (Nepal desinventar database,2016, cited in Buddhi Raj
Shrestha,2019)
The 2015 Gorkha earthquake that killed 9708 peoples also had a huge impact on
Chandragiri municipality with 28 fatalities, 2500 injuries and 4481 houses destroyed.
Every year floods at Balkhu, Daudali and Ghatte khola and tributaries induate hectares
of land near the bank, during monsoon. The Chandragiri municipality is made up of
hills and hillocks, putting it at risk of landslides and flooding. The 2002 single flowlike
landslide in Matatirtha (See fig-02 left) was one of the worst landslide disasters in the
municipality killing 18 inhabitants (Ranjan kumar Dahal, 2006). The issue of landslide
risk was also seen on the ward workshops. Being growing area for industrial sector and
having dense old settlements fire is also a huge risk in the municipality. The 2012 fire
at warehouse of Chaudhary Group of Industries at Satungal that claimed more than 3
billion rupees in damage is one of such examples (The Hindustan Times, 2012).
Aforementioned facts clearly indicate that Chandragiri municipality is prone to multiple
hazards with earthquake, landslide, Flood, & fire being the major ones. Studies may
have been done in past regarding only one sort of hazard, using different methods,
14 | P a g e
Introduction THESIS
giving different outcomes, restricting decision makers to take initiative and plan from
multi-Hazard perspective.
Figure 2:Matatirtha Landslide (Ranjan Kumar Dahal, 2006, Pg 03) & Balambu Flood (Local People)
Although historical scenarios suggest multi-hazard occurrence, multi-hazard risk

research are rare in Nepal. Hazard maps are used to depict the spatial-temporal
distribution of a natural hazard's principal repercussions. The literature is littered with
examples of hazard mapping for many forms of natural disasters. Hazard maps for
distinct natural processes frequently differ in terms of hazard definition/detail,
procedure patio-temporal scales, and how epistemic and aleatory uncertainty are
handled/integrated. Incorporating such maps into legislation, preparation measures, and
resource allocation strategies is difficult. Natural disasters, in actuality, are complicated
processes with escalating, provoking, knock-on, and chain reaction. For such complex
processes, risk reduction and planning necessitate a holistic treatment with several
hazards and their interconnections, referred to as multi-hazard risk assessment.
1.3 Problem Statement

In 2015, Nepal adopted a new Constitution. As the fundamental law and policy
framework for governance, the Constitution of Nepal introduced a federal system
“Internalizing the people’s sovereign right and right to autonomy and self-rule, while
maintaining the freedom, sovereignty, territorial integrity, national unity, independence
and dignity of Nepal”. Article 56 of the Constitution has defined “the structure of the
Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal shall be of three levels, namely the Federation,
the State and the Local level” and “the Federation, State and Local levels shall exercise
the power of State of Nepal pursuant to the Constitution and law”. Within this
framework, DRRM is included in Schedule 7, Schedule 8 and Schedule 9, implying
15 | P a g e
Introduction THESIS
that DRRM falls under the sole authority of local government, along with shared
authority between federal, provincial and local levels. The role of local levels on
Disaster risk management is pivotal for progress of the nation.
Dealing with disasters has traditionally focused on emergency response, however as the
twentieth century progressed, it became clear that disasters are not natural (even if the
associated hazard is), and that the only way to prevent losses and mitigate disaster
impacts is to reduce and manage hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. Because we can't
change the intensity of natural disasters, the best way to decrease risk is to limit
susceptibility and exposure. The inherent drivers of risk, which are primarily related to
lower economic and urban policy and decision making and practices, environmental
degradation, economic inequality, and climate change, which create and aggravate
prerequisites of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability, must be identified and reduced in
order to reduce these two components of risk.
The identification of the hazards is the first step on Disaster Risk management. With
proper knowledge of What, where, and of what degree of hazard, a multi-hazard and
multi-sectoral, people centric DRM practice can be formed. A multi hazard assessment
is necessary for local level to prepare land use plan and conduct prevention, mitigation,
transfer, and preparedness activities for efficient, effective, and participatory Disaster
Risk management.
1.4 Research Purpose
1.4.1 Objectives
• To Prepare Individual hazard map of Chandragiri Municipality for four
most devastating hazards namely; earthquake, landslide, Flood, & fire.
• To Prepare multi-Hazard map of Chandragiri Municipality.

• To spatially categorize the municipality based on the potential
occurrence of hazard with multi-Hazard perspective so, as to act as a
guide for policymakers.
1.4.2 Research Questions

• Where do the major hazards namely; earthquake, landslide, Flood, &
fire affect the most?
• Which areas are most sensitive regarding multi-hazard perspective?
1.4.3 Validity of Research

Multi-hazard mapping is an essential process for identifying areas that are at risk of
various natural disasters such as landslides, floods, and earthquakes. In the context of
Chandragiri Municipality, there is a need to conduct research on multi-hazard mapping
16 | P a g e
Introduction THESIS
using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). This is because the municipality is
located in a highly vulnerable area that is prone to several natural hazards, including
landslides and floods. A comprehensive multi-hazard map will provide valuable
information that can help local authorities, policymakers, and the community at large
to make informed decisions about disaster preparedness, emergency response, and land
use planning. The AHP method is a robust tool for prioritizing and weighting multiple
criteria, making it an ideal approach for conducting multi-hazard mapping. Therefore,
research on multi-hazard mapping of Chandragiri Municipality using AHP is crucial
for the safety and well-being of the community and for ensuring that the municipality
is adequately prepared to face any potential natural disasters in the future.
1.5 Limitations of Study

The current research is not without limitations. First, the study area is limited to
Chandragiri Municipality, Kathmandu, Nepal, which may not be representative of other
areas in Nepal or in other countries with different geographies and socio-economic
conditions. Therefore, caution must be taken when generalizing the findings to other
contexts.
Second, the study's scope is limited to only four hazards, namely, earthquake, landslide,
flood, and fire. Other hazards, such as drought, epidemic, and cyclone, were not
considered in this study. As such, the multi-hazard assessment presented in this research
may not be exhaustive.
Third, the research relies on the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, which is
subjective in terms of assigning weights and ratings to parameter classes. The method
also lacks uncertainty estimation, which may affect the accuracy and reliability of the
results (Pardeshi, 2013).
Fourth, the accuracy of the hazard maps used in this study is limited by the resolution
and quality of the data sources used to create them. Therefore, it's possible that
superimposing several hazard maps to create a multi-hazard map may not always be
absolutely representative.
Finally, the research relies on secondary data sources, such as academic literature and
government reports. The accuracy and completeness of the data used in this study are
subject to limitations inherent in these sources (Singh S. S., 2020).
17 | P a g e
Literature Review THESIS
CHAPTER 2: Literature Review

2.1 Hazards
In the field of disaster risk reduction and management, hazard refers to the potential
occurrence of a dangerous phenomenon or event that can have a negative impact on
human life, property, and the environment. Hazards can be natural, technological, or
human-induced, and they can vary in magnitude, frequency, and spatial extent. Some
examples of natural hazards include earthquakes, floods, landslides, hurricanes,
tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, and wildfires. Technological hazards may include
chemical spills, nuclear accidents, and explosions, while human-induced hazards may
include terrorism, cyber attacks, and civil unrest (UNDRR, 2017).
Hazard assessment is an essential component of disaster risk reduction and
management, as it allows decision-makers to identify and evaluate potential hazards
and their associated risks. Hazard assessment involves the identification of hazard-
prone areas, the analysis of historical data and trends, and the use of modeling and
simulation tools to predict the likelihood and severity of future hazards. Hazard
assessment is also used to prioritize mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery
actions, as well as to develop early warning systems and contingency plans (Singh S.
S., 2020).
In the context of the Project eportr, the study focuses on four natural hazards, namely,
earthquake, landslide, flood, and fire, and assesses their multi-hazard potential in the
Chandragiri Municipality in Kathmandu, Nepal, using the Analytical Hierarchy Process
(AHP) method. The aim of the study is to provide decision-makers with a
comprehensive understanding of the potential hazards in the study area and to identify
priority areas for disaster risk reduction and management interventions.
2.2 Chandragiri Municipality and Hazards

Chandragiri Municipality is a newly formed municipality in the southwestern part of
the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. The municipality was established in 2014 by merging
the former Village Development Committees (VDCs) of Chandragiri, Thankot, and
Kirtipur Municipality. It is located about 11 kilometers from the center of Kathmandu,
and its total area is 37.19 square kilometers (Department of Urban Development and
Building Construction Babar Mahal, Kathmandu, 2020).
The municipality is located in a hilly region, with altitudes ranging from 1,156 meters
to 2,464 meters above sea level. It is surrounded by several hills, including Chandragiri
Hill, Phulchowki Hill, and Nagarjun Hill. The municipality is also home to several
rivers and streams, including the Bagmati River, which is one of the major rivers in
Nepal (ERMC Pvt. Ltd. - Nest Pvt. Ltd., GEOCOM International Pvt. Ltd., 2018).
The population of Chandragiri Municipality is approximately 80,000, according to the
2011 Census of Nepal. The majority of the population is engaged in agriculture, with
18 | P a g e
maize, wheat, and vegetables being the primary crops. The municipality is also known
for its religious and cultural significance, with several temples and monasteries located
in the area, including the famous Chandragiri Temple, which is a popular tourist
destination.
The municipality has undergone rapid urbanization in recent years, with the
development of several housing projects, shopping centers, and hotels. The
municipality is well-connected to the rest of the Kathmandu Valley through several
major highways, including the Prithvi Highway, Tribhuvan Highway, and the Ring
Road.
There is limited information available on the history of disasters in Chandragiri
Municipality. However, the region is located in a seismically active area and is at risk
of earthquakes, landslides, and flooding. The 2015 earthquake in Nepal had a
significant impact on the region, causing damage to buildings and infrastructure. The
municipality was also affected by landslides triggered by the earthquake, which
disrupted transportation routes and caused casualties.
In addition, the Balkhu River a tributary to Bagmati River, which flows through the
municipality, is prone to flooding during the monsoon season. In 2019, heavy rainfall
caused flooding in several areas of the municipality, affecting local residents and
damaging infrastructure (Khatiwada, 2019). Furthermore, due to the hilly terrain, the
municipality is also at risk of landslides, which can cause significant damage to
settlements and infrastructure (Shrestha B. &., 2016). In 2020, several landslides were
reported in the municipality, including one that caused a major roadblock on the Prithvi
Highway, disrupting transportation.
Thus, Chandragiri Municipality, located in the Kathmandu Valley, is exposed to
various natural hazards due to its geographical location and topography. The region is
situated in a seismically active zone and is at risk of earthquakes. The municipality is
also prone to landslides, particularly during the monsoon season, due to the hilly terrain.
In addition, the Bagmati River, which flows through the municipality, poses a risk of
flooding during the monsoon season. Heavy rainfall in the region can lead to flash
floods and landslides, which can cause significant damage to settlements and
infrastructure. The region is also vulnerable to forest fires, which can occur due to
human activities or natural causes such as lightning strikes.
Despite its natural and cultural significance, Chandragiri Municipality faces several
challenges, including inadequate infrastructure, poor waste management, and the risk
of natural hazards. The municipality has taken several initiatives to address these
challenges, including the establishment of a Disaster Management Committee and the
development of a Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (Department of Urban
Development and Building Construction Babar Mahal, Kathmandu, 2020).
19 | P a g e
2.3 Major Hazards in Chandragiri Municipality
2.3.1 Earthquake Hazard

Earthquake hazard refers to the risk posed by earthquakes, which are the sudden
shaking or trembling of the Earth's surface caused by the movement of tectonic plates.
Earthquakes are a natural phenomenon that can occur anywhere in the world, but some
regions are more prone to earthquakes due to their location and geological features.
These geological features include active faults, tectonic plate boundaries, and seismic
zones. Earthquakes can cause significant damage to settlements, infrastructure, and the
environment, and can result in the loss of lives and property.
Nepal is experiencing an increase in the incidence and severity of various disasters.
Disasters are so common in Nepalese geography and society that the people are
constantly on the verge of both known and unknown disasters. The earthquakes of 1934,
1980, 1988, 2015 AD were some the most devastating disasters, which not only claimed
many lives and destroyed property but also hampered the country's growth.
Nepal had a major earthquake back in 2015 which had huge impact on the life of people
residing in Nepal and still has some impact lingering due to the same disaster. There
was a huge number of destruction of infrastructures in the surrounding district near
Kathmandu. In total, 8,979 persons lost their lives and 22,309 were injured due to the
Gorkha earthquake of 2015 and subsequent aftershocks. Hundreds of thousands of
private homes, public buildings, schools, health services, and sites of historical and
archaeological heritage were destroyed. (NRA, 2021)
The risk posed by earthquake hazard is a significant concern in many regions, including
Chandragiri Municipality. The region is situated in a seismically active zone and is at
risk of earthquakes, which can cause significant damage to settlements and
infrastructure. The most devastating earthquake in recent history in Nepal occurred in
April 2015, which caused extensive damage to the region, including Chandragiri
Municipality. The earthquake resulted in the loss of thousands of lives and caused
damage to the infrastructure, including houses, schools, hospitals, and other public
buildings.
It is obvious that earthquakes do not kill people; rather, people are killed by weak
structures. As a result, even in an earthquake-prone environment, we can live safely if
we remain in a well-constructed earthquake-resistant building and its surroundings.
When the number of deaths and property damages in developed and developing
countries are compared, the loss in the latter is several times greater. This disparity is
mostly due to their various levels of preparedness. Disaster preparedness is still not a
top priority for developing countries like Nepal, and as a result, they pay a higher price
in terms of lives lost and infrastructure destruction. This gives even more merit to the
susceptibility and vulnerability mapping of local levels.
In the context of the Project report "Multi-Hazard Mapping of Chandragiri
Municipality, Kathmandu, Nepal using AHP method," earthquake hazard is recognized
20 | P a g e
as one of the hazards in the study. The study aims to assess the multi-hazard risk in the
municipality and proposes appropriate measures to mitigate these risks. The study uses
the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method to determine the relative importance
of each hazard and assess the risk posed by each hazard, including the earthquake
hazard.
2.3.2 Fire Hazard

Fire hazard is a significant risk in many parts of the world, including Nepal (Tasnin,
2021). The country's reliance on agriculture and rural settlements built of flammable
materials make them particularly vulnerable to fire. Furthermore, the clustering of
houses in these areas can exacerbate the spread of fires during the dry season, leading
to greater losses and destruction. Additionally, wildfire is a common natural disaster in
mid-hill regions during the dry season, particularly in the Terai area.
According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Nepal has witnessed numerous fire
incidents between 1971 and 2018, leading to the loss of 1,755 lives and injuring 2,176
others, affecting 265,962 households, and destroying 90,044 homes. In 2018 alone,
2,478 fires claimed the lives of 87 people and injured 342 others, causing a loss of 3.96
billion dollars. Fire occurrences accounted for nearly 94% of the total cost of climate-
related disasters projected to be over NPR 6.84 billion in property damage (Ministry of
Home Affairs, 2019).
Several factors influence the fire hazard, including population density, distance from
fire brigade, distance from electric substation, distance from mail settlement, distance
from old settlement, distance from gas stations (petrol pump), distance from
transmission line, Distance from road, and Land Use Land Cover (LULCL). These
factors contribute to the spread of fire, as well as the ease of access to fire control
resources (Rajesh Khatakho, 2021).
Chandragiri Municipality is not immune to fire hazards, and has experienced several
fire incidents that resulted in significant losses. According to a study conducted by
Prasai (2016), most of the fire incidents in the municipality occurred in residential areas,
followed by commercial areas, and public spaces. The leading causes of fire incidents
in Chandragiri were electrical short circuits, followed by kitchen fires, and fireworks
during festivals.
In 2016, a massive fire broke out in the Pashupati Brick Industry in Chandragiri,
destroying over 200,000 bricks and a significant amount of equipment. The fire caused
a loss of around NPR 10 million and was attributed to a short circuit in the industry's
electrical system. Another notable fire incident occurred in 2018, where a fire broke out
in a three-story residential building in Thankot, Chandragiri, destroying the building
and leaving two families homeless. The risk of fire hazards in Chandragiri is
exacerbated by several factors. One of the primary factors is the high population density
in the municipality, leading to the construction of buildings in close proximity to each
other, as well as a lack of open spaces. Additionally, the municipality's distance from
21 | P a g e
fire stations and the inadequate firefighting equipment available in the municipality
poses a challenge in controlling and preventing fires (Chandragiri Municipality, 2021).
In the context of the Project eportr, understanding the fire hazard in Chandragiri is
crucial for developing effective disaster risk reduction and management strategies.
Identifying the factors contributing to fire incidents can assist in implementing
appropriate mitigation measures, such as improving electrical wiring systems,
increasing public awareness, and conducting regular fire drills. The identification of
high-risk areas can also aid in the prioritization of firefighting equipment and personnel
deployment.
2.3.3 Landslide Hazard

United States Geological Survey (USGS) defines downslope movement of a mass of
rock, debris, or earth as Landslide. Landslides are a type of gravity influenced
declension movement of soil and rock characterized by "mass atrophy". Volatile
geological structures, unforgiving topography, weak newly formed and highly eroded
fragile rocks, along with intense rainfalls concentrated during monsoon periods (i.e.,
about 80% of total annual rainfall (Nepal Disaster Risk Reduction Portal, 2018) cause
severe slope failure problems in the Himalayan region. The annual economic loss due
to landslide damages alone in this region is estimated to exceed a billion US dollars,
including close to a thousand human fatalities. Nepal alone suffered 297 fatalities, 225
missing persons, and 225 injuries due to 494 rainfall triggered landslides affecting 760
families, from September 2019 to September 2020 (Nepal Disaster Risk Reduction
Portal, 2018). Studies indicate that the Himalayan region alone totals up to 30 percent
of the global landslide-related loss in regards to the loss due to landslides and related
slope failure disasters (Li, 1990).
Landslides in the Himalayas arc range from failures of the whole mountain ranges
through a failure of single to numerous small-scale landslides (generally shallow about
0.5 to 2.5 m thick, triggered by changes in physical properties of slope materials during
rainfall) Poorly designed and constructed rural roads and construction projects.
Chandragiri Municipality is located in a hilly region and is therefore susceptible to
landslide hazards. The hilly terrain, coupled with intense rainfall during the monsoon
season, makes the region particularly vulnerable to landslides. Landslides have caused
significant damage to infrastructure and loss of lives in the municipality in the past. The
causes of landslides in the region include geological factors such as weak and weathered
materials, morphological factors such as erosion of slope toe and tectonic uplift,
physical factors such as intense rainfall and earthquake, and human factors such as
deforestation, mining, and road construction.
Processes and causes that contribute to land sliding in the Himalayan arc can be put in
four categories:(i) geological causes (weak, weathered, sheared materials, and contrast
in permeability of materials); (ii) morphological causes (fluvial, erosion of slope toe,
tectonic uplift, erosion of marginal sides; (iii) physical causes (intense rainfall,
prolonged or exceptional precipitation, earthquake, and snowmelt); and (iv) human
22 | P a g e
causes (deforestation, irrigation, mining, road construction, water leakage, land-use

changes). These factors remain true in the context of Chandragiri municipality.
Distance from fault, Slope, Aspect, Profile curvature, Distance from stream, LULC
(land use land cover), Lithology, Distance from road, NDVI (Normalized Difference
Vegetation Index), Elevation, Precipitation are the factors expected to impact and
considered for landslide hazard risk assessment.
2.3.4 Flood Hazard

Flood, a regular monsoon-season water-induced calamity, is a reoccurring issue in
Nepal. It results in several injuries and fatalities, as well as significant damage to the
country's critical infrastructure. Harsh topography, fragile geological conditions, highly
seismic settings, periodic glacial lake outbursts, concentrated monsoons, and
unsustainable land use are only a few of the key causes of Nepal's water-induced
tragedy. Nepal is regarded as the second most flood-prone country in South Asia.
Floods in Nepal killed 7,599 people, displaced 6.1 million people, and cost the country
$10 billion over the period of 1954 and 2018 and approximately, 100 individuals are
slain each year.
According to the study conducted by Khatiwada and Khanal in 2019, Chandragiri
Municipality in Kathmandu, Nepal is vulnerable to floods due to several factors such
as heavy rainfall, unplanned urbanization, and encroachment of floodplains. The study
assessed the flood risk of the municipality using a Geographic Information System
(GIS) based approach and identified several factors that contribute to flood hazard,
including elevation, slope, land use/land cover, and distance from the river. The study
found that the low-lying areas near the rivers, especially in the southern part of the
municipality, are highly susceptible to flooding. The areas with high population density
and unplanned urbanization were also identified as high-risk areas.
According to the study by Khatiwada and Khanal (2019), the flood hazard in
Chandragiri Municipality is moderate to high. The areas around the Bagmati River,
which runs through the municipality, are particularly vulnerable to flooding. The study
also suggests that proper land use planning and management, as well as early warning
systems and emergency preparedness, are necessary to reduce the risk of flood hazards
in the area. The study recommends the development of an early warning system and
proper land-use planning to mitigate the risk of floods in the municipality (Khatiwada,
2019).
The urban growth and commercial activity on floodplains put more people and
infrastructure at danger. This consequently increasing water-induced disasters due to
the modifications in natural slope, river shape and drainage, land use/land cover, the
increase in the frequency of landslide and flood hazards. According to the desinventar
database, a minimum of 4,160 flood incidents were reported in Nepal over a 45-year
period, resulting in human casualties and losses in all regions (Shrestha, Rai, &
Marasini, 2020). Slope, Elevation, Distance from stream, LULC (land use land cover),
23 | P a g e
Lithology, Annual precipitation, and Elevation are expected to have influence on flood
hazard.
2.4 Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment

Multi-hazard risk assessment is the process of identifying and evaluating the potential
risks and impacts of multiple hazards on a specific area or region. It involves analyzing
the probability and potential consequences of various natural and human-made hazards,
such as earthquakes, floods, landslides, wildfires, and industrial accidents, to develop
effective strategies for risk reduction and disaster management (United Nations
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, 2017).
The assessment of multiple hazards is crucial as it provides a more comprehensive
understanding of the potential risks and impacts on a community or region. The impacts
of one hazard on infrastructure and population can trigger other hazards, leading to
cascading effects that amplify the damages and losses.
For instance, an earthquake can trigger landslides and cause building collapse, which
can lead to fires due to ruptured gas pipelines, thereby increasing the risk of casualties,
injuries, and economic losses. The multi-hazard risk assessment typically involves the
collection and analysis of various data sources, including historical records,
topographic and geological maps, climate and weather data, and land use/land cover
data. Advanced technologies such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and
remote sensing can also be utilized to integrate and analyze these data sources (Singh
R. B., 2016).
The assessment typically involves four steps, including hazard identification,
vulnerability assessment, risk assessment, and risk management. In hazard
identification, potential hazards are identified and mapped based on historical records,
topographic and geological maps, and other data sources. In vulnerability assessment,
the population, infrastructure, and critical facilities that are exposed to hazards are
identified, and their level of susceptibility and resilience are analyzed. In risk
assessment, the probability and potential impacts of each hazard on the identified assets
are evaluated, and risk maps are generated. In risk management, strategies and plans
are developed to mitigate the identified risks and increase the resilience of the
communities and infrastructure (Koirala, 2019).
The multi-hazard risk assessment provides valuable information to decision-makers to
make informed decisions on risk reduction and disaster management. It helps in the
development of effective policies and plans for land-use management, infrastructure
development, emergency response, and community preparedness. It also facilitates the
allocation of resources and prioritization of actions based on the level of risks and
impacts on different assets and communities.
24 | P a g e
2.5 Heuristic Approach

A heuristic approach is a problem-solving strategy that uses practical and intuitive
methods to make decisions or solve problems, without necessarily following a rigorous
or formalized process. Unlike an algorithmic approach, which is a systematic and step-
by-step method for solving problems, a heuristic approach relies on experience,
intuition, and creativity to find solutions. In many cases, heuristic approaches are more
flexible and adaptable than algorithmic approaches, and can be useful in situations
where there are no clear rules or guidelines for solving a problem. For example, when
faced with a complex problem, a heuristic approach might involve breaking the problem
down into smaller, more manageable pieces, or using trial-and-error methods to test
different solutions.
One of the key advantages of heuristic approaches is that they can be used to generate
new and innovative ideas that may not be discovered through algorithmic methods. By
relying on intuition and creativity, heuristic approaches can help individuals think
outside the box and come up with novel solutions to complex problems. However, one
of the challenges of using a heuristic approach is that it can be difficult to know when
to stop searching for solutions. Because heuristic approaches do not follow a fixed or
formalized process, there is a risk of getting stuck in a loop of trial-and-error, or
continuing to search for solutions even when the best possible solution has already been
found. Another potential drawback of heuristic approaches is that they can be subjective
and prone to bias. Because heuristic approaches rely on intuition and experience, they
may be influenced by personal beliefs or assumptions, and may not always lead to the
most objective or rational solutions.
Overall, a heuristic approach can be a useful tool for problem-solving, especially in
situations where there are no clear guidelines or rules for finding a solution. By relying
on creativity, intuition, and experience, heuristic approaches can help individuals
generate new and innovative ideas that may not be discovered through algorithmic
methods. However, it is important to use caution when using heuristic approaches, and
to be aware of the potential drawbacks and limitations of this problem-solving strategy.
2.6 Influencing Factors

The Project report "Multi-Hazard Mapping of Chandragiri Municipality, Kathmandu,
Nepal using Heuristic approach" identifies various influencing factors that contribute
to different hazards in the Chandragiri Municipality. These factors are classified into
three main categories: physical, environmental, and anthropogenic.
Physical factors such as slope angle, aspect, curvature, geology, distance from fault
lines, and distance from streams are significant contributors to landslides and floods in
the municipality. Steep slope angles and convex slope curvature are associated with
higher landslide susceptibility. Meanwhile, the distance from fault lines and streams
determines the extent and magnitude of landslides and floods. Geological conditions
25 | P a g e
such as rock types, structure, and weathering play a crucial role in determining the
stability of slopes and the occurrence of landslides.
Environmental factors such as rainfall, temperature, and elevation also play a
significant role in influencing the occurrence and intensity of landslides and floods in
the municipality. The amount and intensity of rainfall can trigger landslides and cause
flooding, especially in areas with poor drainage systems. Anthropogenic factors such
as land use changes, deforestation, urbanization, and road construction can also increase
the risk of landslides and floods. The expansion of urban areas and construction of
buildings, roads, and other infrastructure on steep slopes and unstable terrain can
destabilize the land and trigger landslides. Deforestation and changes in land use can
alter the natural drainage patterns, leading to an increased risk of flooding.
The multi-hazard assessment of Chandragiri Municipality using a heuristic approach
identifies various physical, environmental, and anthropogenic factors that contribute to
different hazards in the municipality. Understanding these factors is critical in
developing effective risk reduction strategies and enhancing community resilience to
natural disasters. The factors included in this research are as below:
2.6.1 Distance from a fault

The distance from fault refers to the distance between a specific location and a
geological fault, which is a fracture or discontinuity in the Earth's crust where rocks on
either side of the fracture have moved relative to each other. Distance from Fault is an
important factor that can influence the occurrence and intensity of natural hazards such
as landslides, floods, fires, and earthquakes.
Figure 3:Distance from Fault Map of Chandragiri Municipality
26 | P a g e
In the case of landslides, distance from a fault can impact the geological stability of a
slope. If a slope is located near an active fault, it may experience repeated ground
shaking, which can weaken the slope and increase the likelihood of landslides.
Additionally, fault rupture can cause ground displacement and create new topographic
features that may increase the likelihood of landslides (Bhandary, 2016). Similarly,
distance from a fault can influence the occurrence and intensity of earthquakes. Areas
located near faults are more prone to experiencing strong ground shaking and other
associated earthquake hazards, such as liquefaction and landslides. The distance from
a fault can also impact the intensity of ground shaking, with areas closer to a fault
experiencing stronger shaking than areas further away. The distance from fault is not
considered for Fire & Flood Hazard as it has negligible influence on those (See fig 3).
2.6.2 Slope
Slope is one of the most important factors influencing natural hazards such as
landslides, floods, and earthquakes. Slope refers to the steepness of a land surface, and
it can significantly impact the potential for natural hazards to occur.
In terms of landslides, steep slopes are more prone to slope failure as they exert a greater
gravitational pull on the materials that make up the slope. The steeper the slope, the
greater the force of gravity on the material, which can cause the slope to become
unstable and eventually fail. Additionally, the angle of the slope affects the type of
landslides that can occur, with shallow landslides more common on gentler slopes and
deep-seated landslides on steeper slopes (Bhandary, 2016).
Figure 4: Slope Map of Chandragiri Municipality
27 | P a g e
In the case of floods, slope can impact the speed and volume of water flowing
downstream. Steep slopes can cause water to flow faster and more forcefully, which
can increase the risk of flash floods and debris flows. On the other hand, flat or gently
sloping terrain can cause water to accumulate in one place, increasing the risk of
flooding (Khatiwada, 2019).
In terms of earthquakes, slope can influence the severity and extent of damage caused
by ground shaking. Steep slopes can amplify ground shaking, causing more damage to
structures and infrastructure. Additionally, steep slopes can be prone to rockfalls and
landslides triggered by earthquakes, which can cause further damage and block
transportation routes (Rajesh Khatakho, 2021). The slope is not considered for Fire as
it has negligible influence on it (See Fig: 4 for Slope Map of Chandragiri Municipality).
2.6.3 Aspect
Aspect is defined as the direction of the slope or the direction towards which a particular
slope is facing. It plays a significant role in influencing the likelihood of landslides in
an area. The aspect of a slope determines the amount of solar radiation received and
affects the distribution of soil moisture. The orientation of a slope towards the sun can
increase the potential for landslides, as more sunlight causes more melting of snow and
ice, leading to increased water content in the soil, which can reduce slope stability
(Bhandary, 2016).
Figure 5: Aspect Map of Chandragiri Municipality
28 | P a g e
In the case of Chandragiri Municipality, the aspect of slopes can be a contributing factor
to landslides, as the area is characterized by a rugged topography with varying slopes
and aspects. Slopes facing the south receive more sunlight and are more prone to
melting, leading to increased soil moisture content and decreased stability, which can
result in landslides. On the other hand, slopes facing the north receive less sunlight and
are more likely to retain snow and ice, leading to higher water content and decreased
stability (See fig:5 for Aspect Map of Chandragiri Municipality).
The influence of aspect on landslides can be seen in the distribution of landslides in the
area. Slopes facing the south are more prone to landslides than slopes facing the north.
This can be seen in the landslide distribution maps produced for Chandragiri
Municipality, which show a higher concentration of landslides on slopes facing the
south. The Aspect is not considered for Fire, Earthquake & Flood Hazard as it has
negligible influence on those (Shrestha D. D., 2017).
2.6.4 Profile Curvature

Profile curvature refers to the change in the slope angle of the terrain in a specific
direction. It is a critical factor in determining the stability of slopes and can significantly
influence landslide occurrences. Positive profile curvature indicates that the slope is
convex or bulging, which implies that the soil is being pushed downhill due to the force
of gravity. This kind of slope is unstable and prone to landslides. Conversely, negative
profile curvature indicates that the slope is concave, meaning that the soil is being
pulled downhill, which results in a more stable slop (Bhandary, 2016).
Figure 6: Profile Curvature Map of Chandragiri Municipality
29 | P a g e
In landslide risk assessment, profile curvature is used to identify areas with high
landslide susceptibility. Areas with a high positive profile curvature are more likely to
experience landslides. Moreover, research has shown that the slope angle and profile
curvature can act together as a triggering factor for landslides. Therefore, when
assessing landslide hazards, it is essential to take into account the profile curvature of
the terrain. Terrain with high positive curvature should be closely monitored, and
measures such as slope stabilization and drainage management should be implemented
to reduce the risk of landslides. The Profile Curvature is not considered for Fire,
Earthquake & Flood Hazard as it has negligible influence on those (Shrestha D. D.,
2017).
2.6.5 Distance from Stream

The distance from a stream is one of the important factors influencing the occurrence
of landslides and floods in a region. Streams play a significant role in the erosion of
slopes, which can cause landslides during heavy rainfall. The closer the slope is to the
stream, the higher the risk of landslides. The water that flows through the stream can
also increase in volume during heavy rainfall, causing flooding in nearby areas.
In the context of Chandragiri Municipality, the distance from the stream is considered
an important factor in assessing landslide and flood hazards. According to a study by
Khatiwada and Khanal (2019), the distance from the stream was one of the top-ranking
factors in the heuristic approach used for flood risk assessment in the municipality. The
study found that areas closer to the stream were at a higher risk of flooding, while areas
further away were less vulnerable (Khatiwada, 2019).
Figure 7: Distance from Stream Map of Chandragiri Municipality
30 | P a g e
Similarly, the distance from the stream also plays a crucial role in landslide hazard
assessment. A study by Bhandary et al. (2016) found that slopes within 50 meters of a
stream were at a higher risk of landslides than those further away. The study also found
that slopes facing the stream were more vulnerable to landslides than those facing away
(Bhandary, 2016).
2.6.6 LULC
Land Use Land Cover (LULC) is an essential factor that influences natural disasters
such as landslides, floods, fires, and earthquakes. LULC changes refer to modifications
in the physical characteristics of land due to human activities. The changes in LULC
can increase the likelihood of natural disasters and their severity.
LULC changes can result in several consequences for landslides. Human activities such
as road construction, mining, and urbanization can alter the natural slope of the land,
making it unstable and more prone to landslides. Deforestation and the conversion of
forests to agricultural lands can also increase the risk of landslides. The removal of trees
and other vegetation can reduce soil cohesion, leading to erosion and landslides.
Furthermore, urbanization in hill areas, such as Kathmandu valley, may also result in
artificial slope created by cut and fill operation, which is prone to landslide during
rainfall events (Bhandary, 2016).
Figure 8: LULC Map of Chandragiri Municipality
31 | P a g e
In terms of floods, changes in LULC can modify the natural water cycle, which can
lead to flooding. Urbanization and deforestation can increase the amount of runoff and
reduce the infiltration capacity of soil, resulting in the rapid movement of water and
flooding downstream. Similarly, agricultural activities can increase the sediment load
in rivers, which can cause riverbed aggradation and subsequent flooding. Therefore, it
is important to consider the impact of LULC changes on flood risk (Khatiwada, 2019).
LULC changes can also have a significant impact on the risk of fire. For example,
deforestation and the conversion of forested land to agricultural land can increase the
availability of fuel for fires, leading to a higher frequency and intensity of fires.
Urbanization can also increase the risk of fire by reducing the availability of water and
increasing the proximity of flammable materials to heat sources (Kumar A. M., 2017)
Finally, LULC changes can also influence the occurrence and severity of earthquakes.
Urbanization and infrastructure development can lead to changes in the stress
distribution of the earth's crust, which can trigger earthquakes. Additionally, changes
in groundwater levels due to irrigation or water extraction can affect the stability of soil
layers and contribute to seismic activity (Kumar S. S., 2018)
2.6.7 Soil Map

Lithology refers to the physical and chemical properties of rocks and soils in a given
area. The geological structure and composition of an area can significantly impact the
occurrence and severity of natural hazards such as landslides, floods, fires, and
earthquakes.
Figure 9: Soil Map of Chandragiri Municipality
32 | P a g e
In terms of landslides, the type of rock and soil present can affect the stability of the
land. For example, loose and poorly compacted soil types, such as clay and silt, are
more prone to landslides than solid rock. In areas with high amounts of volcanic ash or
other weak and unconsolidated sediments, landslides can occur more frequently, as the
soil can easily become saturated with water (Bhandary, 2016).
Similarly, the lithology of an area can also impact the occurrence of floods. For
example, areas with impermeable rock or soil types, such as clay or shale, are more
likely to experience flooding because water cannot infiltrate the ground easily. On the
other hand, areas with permeable rock or soil types, such as sandstone or gravel, can
absorb more water, reducing the risk of flooding (Khatiwada, 2019).
In terms of fires, the type of vegetation that grows in a given area is closely related to
the underlying lithology. For example, forests growing on igneous rocks, such as
granite or basalt, are typically more fire-resistant than those growing on sedimentary
rocks, such as limestone or shale, as igneous rocks are less likely to contain combustible
materials (Kumar A. M., 2017).
Finally, the lithology of an area can also influence the severity of earthquakes. Different
types of rock have varying properties, including their elasticity and ability to transmit
seismic waves. Areas with harder, more compact rocks are less likely to experience
significant ground shaking during an earthquake than areas with softer, more
compressible rock types (Kumar S. S., 2018).
2.6.8 Distance from Road

Distance from roads is a crucial factor that can influence the occurrence of landslides
and fires. In the case of landslides, roads can affect the stability of slopes due to changes
in the hydrology and geology of the area. The construction of roads may result in slope
cutting, soil excavation, and the alteration of the natural terrain, leading to the
destabilization of the slopes. As a result, areas close to roads are more prone to
landslides than those located farther away. Furthermore, roads can also act as barriers,
preventing landslides from reaching the road and causing damage to infrastructure and
people (Bhandary, 2016).
In terms of fire, distance from roads plays a significant role in the spread and severity
of wildfires. Roads can act as fire breaks and help contain the fire, preventing it from
spreading further. However, if the road is located close to flammable vegetation, it may
increase the risk of fire ignition due to vehicular movement or other human activities.
Moreover, roadsides can act as fuel corridors, providing a pathway for the fire to spread
and intensify (Kumar A. M., 2017).
Therefore, distance from roads is an essential parameter that needs to be considered
when assessing the risk of landslides and fires. It can be used as an indicator of the
susceptibility of an area to these hazards and help in the development of appropriate
mitigation strategies. For instance, road construction in landslide-prone areas should be
33 | P a g e
avoided or carried out with caution, while the construction of fire breaks along
roadsides can help prevent the spread of wildfires. Additionally, emergency responders
should consider the accessibility of an area via roads when planning evacuation routes
and other disaster response measures (Rajesh Khatakho, 2021).
Figure 10: Distance from Road Map of Chandragiri Municipality
2.6.9 Annual Precipitation

Annual precipitation is one of the critical factors that influence landslide and flood
hazards in a region. In areas with high precipitation, the soil becomes saturated, leading
to instability and triggering landslides. The increase in the amount of precipitation can
also result in increased soil erosion and sediment transport, which can lead to floods.
In Chandragiri Municipality, Nepal, annual precipitation plays a significant role in
landslide and flood hazards. The region receives high amounts of rainfall during the
monsoon season, which lasts from June to September. The intensity of rainfall during
this season is also high, with occasional cloudbursts, resulting in flash floods and
landslides (Department of Urban Development and Building Construction Babar
Mahal, Kathmandu, 2020).
The excess water seeps into the soil, causing instability and landslides. The soil in the
region is primarily composed of highly erodible and fragile materials, making the area
highly susceptible to landslide hazards (Bhandary, 2016). Moreover, the increase in
annual precipitation can result in the overflowing of rivers, leading to floods. Floods
34 | P a g e
can cause extensive damage to infrastructure, crops, and properties, and result in the
loss of human lives. The urbanization of floodplains and the encroachment of river
banks for commercial activities further exacerbate the flood hazard in the region
(Khatiwada, 2019).
Figure 11: Annual Precipitation Map of Chandragiri Municipality
2.6.10 NDVI
NDVI, or Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, is a commonly used remote sensing
technique to measure vegetation growth and density. NDVI values range from -1 to 1,
with higher values indicating greater vegetation density and vigor. In the context of
landslide hazard assessment, NDVI can be used as an indicator of slope stability, as
vegetation plays a key role in stabilizing soil and preventing erosion.
Studies have shown that areas with low NDVI values, indicating sparse vegetation
cover, are more prone to landslides. This is because vegetation cover plays a critical
role in stabilizing slopes by holding the soil together with its roots and reducing soil
erosion due to rainfall. Areas with sparse vegetation cover are more likely to experience
slope failure due to the lack of this stabilizing effect.
NDVI can be used in conjunction with other factors such as topography, soil type, and
rainfall patterns to assess landslide hazard risk. Remote sensing techniques such as
satellite imagery can be used to gather NDVI data and assess the vegetation cover of a
particular area (Bhandary, 2016).
35 | P a g e
Figure 12: NDVI Map of Chandragiri Municipality
2.6.11 Elevation
Elevation is an important factor in the occurrence of landslides and floods. The higher
the elevation, the steeper the slope, which can increase the likelihood of landslides.
Steep slopes also increase the speed and volume of water during heavy rainfall, making
floods more severe.
In the case of landslides, higher elevations can lead to more potential energy being
stored in the slope, which can result in a larger and more destructive landslide.
Additionally, higher elevations may have thinner soil cover, which can make slopes
more susceptible to erosion and landslide activity (Khatiwada, 2019).
In the case of floods, higher elevations can lead to faster and more concentrated water
flows down slopes and through channels, which can result in more severe flooding.
Higher elevations can also result in steeper channel gradients, which can lead to
increased erosion and channel instability during heavy rainfall (Bhandary, 2016).
In the context of Chandragiri Municipality, elevation plays an important role in
determining areas that are more susceptible to landslides and floods. High elevations in
the municipality, particularly in the hills and mountains, are at higher risk of landslides
due to the steep slopes and thinner soil cover. Similarly, areas at lower elevations,
particularly near rivers and other water bodies, are at higher risk of flooding due to the
36 | P a g e
faster and more concentrated water flows during heavy rainfall (Department of Urban
Development and Building Construction Babar Mahal, Kathmandu, 2020).
Figure 13: Elevation Map of Chandragiri Municipality
2.6.12 Population density

Population density is one of the significant factors that can influence the impact of fire
and earthquake hazards in a region. In high-density population areas, there is a greater
risk of property damage and loss of life in the event of a fire or earthquake. This is
because densely populated areas tend to have more buildings and structures in close
proximity, making it easier for a fire or earthquake to spread and cause more damage.
In the case of fires, high population density can also lead to a higher risk of ignition
sources, such as electrical faults or cooking accidents, which can quickly spread in
densely populated areas. Additionally, high population density can also make it more
challenging for firefighters to access and extinguish fires, particularly in urban areas
with narrow streets and tall buildings (Kumar A. M., 2017).
Similarly, in the case of earthquakes, high population density can lead to a greater risk
of damage and loss of life. In densely populated areas, there is a higher concentration
of buildings and infrastructure, which can be vulnerable to collapse or damage during
an earthquake. Additionally, high population density can also make it more difficult to
evacuate and provide emergency assistance to those in need during and after an
earthquake (Kumar S. S., 2018).
37 | P a g e
Figure 14: Population Density Map of Chandragiri Municipality
2.6.13 Distance from Fire Brigades

Distance from fire brigades can have a significant influence on fire hazard mapping.
Fire brigades are responsible for responding to and controlling fires in their respective
areas of operation. The faster the response time of the fire brigade, the better the chances
of controlling and extinguishing a fire before it spreads and causes significant damage.
This is why it is important to consider the distance from fire brigades when creating
fire hazard maps.
In urban areas, the distance from fire brigades is generally shorter due to the higher
population density and higher number of fire stations. However, in rural areas, the
distance can be much greater, and this can impact the response time of the fire brigade.
Longer response times can lead to a greater spread of fire, resulting in higher property
damage, loss of life, and increased risk to firefighters (Bhattarai, et al., 2021).
When creating fire hazard maps, the distance from fire brigades should be taken into
consideration along with other factors such as fuel load, topography, weather
conditions, and building density. This information can be used to identify areas that are
at higher risk of fires and prioritize them for mitigation and preparedness measures.
38 | P a g e
In addition to the distance from fire brigades, it is also important to consider the
accessibility of the area. Narrow or winding roads, bridges, and other obstacles can
significantly impact the response time of fire brigades. In such cases, the deployment
of fire brigades may require additional resources and planning, which can delay their
response time (Siddartha Amatya, 2022).
Figure 15: Distance from Fire Stations Map of Chandragiri Municipality
2.6.14 The Distance from Gas Stations

The distance from gas stations is an important factor to consider when mapping fire
hazards. Gas stations pose a significant risk in terms of fire hazard due to the presence
of flammable liquids and gases on the site. In the event of a fire at a gas station, there
is a potential for an explosion or a release of hazardous substances that can cause severe
damage to people and property in the surrounding areas.
When conducting fire hazard mapping, the distance from gas stations is typically
considered in terms of the buffer zone around the station. The buffer zone is the area
around the gas station where the risk of fire or explosion is higher, and therefore
additional precautions need to be taken. The size of the buffer zone is typically
determined by local regulations or guidelines, and it can vary depending on factors such
as the size of the gas station, the amount and type of fuel stored on the site, and the
surrounding land use (Rajesh Khatakho, 2021).
39 | P a g e
Figure 16: Distance from Gas Station Map of Chandragiri Municipality
2.6.15 The Distance from Transmission Lines

The distance from transmission lines is an important factor to consider in fire hazard
mapping. Transmission lines carry high voltage electricity, which can cause sparks and
ignitions if there are faults or malfunctions. These sparks can ignite nearby vegetation,
leading to wildfires. In areas where transmission lines pass through or near vegetation,
the risk of fire increases significantly. The risk is even higher if the vegetation is dry,
and the weather conditions are hot and windy (Bhattarai, et al., 2021).
Therefore, it is important to consider the distance between transmission lines and
nearby vegetation when mapping fire hazards. In addition to the risk of ignition,
transmission lines can also pose a challenge for firefighters. Firefighters need to
approach fires safely and quickly, and transmission lines can impede their progress.
Therefore, the distance from transmission lines also plays a critical role in determining
the accessibility and response time of firefighters.
To account for the influence of transmission lines on fire hazard mapping, distance from
transmission lines is often included as a parameter in fire risk models. These models
use GIS technology to map the potential spread of wildfires and identify high-risk areas.
By incorporating the distance from transmission lines into these models, planners can
better understand the extent of the fire hazard and develop strategies to mitigate the risk
(Siddartha Amatya, 2022).
40 | P a g e
Figure 17: Distance from Transmission Line Map of Chandragiri Municipality
2.6.16 Distance from Electric Substations and Transformers

Distance from Electric Substations and Transformers and their influence on fire hazard
mapping can be significant, as they are potential ignition sources for fires. Electric
substations and transformers are part of the electrical power grid and are present in both
urban and rural areas. Electrical fires can occur due to various reasons, such as
overloading, short-circuiting, and equipment failure, which can result in significant
damage to property and human lives.
The distance between electric substations and transformers and vulnerable areas such
as residential and commercial buildings, schools, hospitals, and industrial areas is an
important factor in fire hazard mapping. The closer these facilities are to electrical
equipment, the higher the risk of fire outbreaks. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the
distance of these facilities from vulnerable areas while mapping the fire hazard zones.
Moreover, the condition of electrical equipment and infrastructure can also affect fire
hazard mapping. Poorly maintained equipment or outdated infrastructure can increase
the risk of fires. Therefore, regular maintenance and upgrades of electrical equipment
and infrastructure are necessary to prevent fires and minimize the risk of damage
(Rajesh Khatakho, 2021).
In addition to distance, other factors can also influence fire hazard mapping, such as the
type of electrical equipment and the surrounding environment. For example, the type
of insulating material used in transformers and substations can affect the risk of fire
41 | P a g e
outbreaks. Similarly, the presence of combustible materials near electrical equipment

can increase the risk of fire (Siddartha Amatya, 2022).
Figure 18:Distance from Electric Substations and Transformer Map of Chandragiri Municipality
2.6.17 Distance from Main Settlement
Figure 19: Distance from Main Settlement Map of Chandragiri Municipality
42 | P a g e
The distance from the main settlement is an important factor to consider when
conducting fire hazard mapping. In general, areas that are located closer to the main
settlement have a lower fire hazard risk compared to areas that are far away from the
main settlement. This is because the main settlement often has better infrastructure,
including fire stations, fire hydrants, and fire trucks that can quickly respond to fire
incidents and minimize their impact. In contrast, areas that are far away from the main
settlement may have limited access to firefighting resources, which can increase the
risk of fires spreading and causing more damage. Additionally, areas far away from the
main settlement may have limited access to water sources, which can make it more
difficult to extinguish fires (Rajesh Khatakho, 2021).
2.6.18 The Distance from Old Settlements

The distance from old settlements is an important factor to consider when mapping fire
and earthquake hazards. Old settlements are usually constructed with traditional
materials and methods, which may not meet modern building codes and standards. As
a result, these structures are more susceptible to damage during natural disasters like
earthquakes and fires. In the case of fires, the proximity of old settlements to potential
ignition sources such as cooking areas, fireplaces, and candles can increase the risk of
fire outbreaks. Additionally, old settlements may lack proper fire safety measures such
as smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and fire alarms, which can exacerbate the spread
of fires (Bhattarai, et al., 2021).
Figure 20: Distance from Old Settlement Map of Chandragiri Municipality
43 | P a g e
During an earthquake, old settlements may suffer more damage due to their age,
construction materials, and building techniques. For example, adobe and brick
structures are more susceptible to collapse during an earthquake compared to modern
reinforced concrete structures. Additionally, older settlements may have inadequate
foundations, making them more vulnerable to soil liquefaction during an earthquake.
Considering the distance from old settlements when mapping fire and earthquake
hazards can help identify areas that are at higher risk of damage and prioritize the
implementation of mitigation measures. For example, fire departments can prioritize
the placement of fire stations and fire hydrants in areas with a high concentration of old
settlements to ensure a timely response in the event of a fire outbreak (Kumar S. S.,
2018).
2.6.19 Soil Liquefaction

Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon that occurs during an earthquake when water-
saturated soil loses its strength and stiffness, causing it to behave like a liquid instead
of a solid. This can result in severe damage to infrastructure, buildings, and other
structures, which can lead to injuries and loss of life. Therefore, it is important to
consider soil liquefaction when mapping earthquake hazards.
Figure 21: Soil Liquification Map of Chandragiri Municipality
The factors that influence soil liquefaction include the type of soil, the level of
saturation, and the intensity and duration of the earthquake. Soil types that are more
susceptible to liquefaction include loose sand and gravel, as well as reclaimed land and
44 | P a g e
areas with high groundwater levels. The level of saturation also plays a significant role
in the likelihood of soil liquefaction, with highly saturated soils being more prone to
this phenomenon.
When mapping earthquake hazards, it is important to consider the potential for soil
liquefaction and the factors that may contribute to it. This can be done by analyzing soil
types and saturation levels in the area of interest, as well as the history of earthquakes
in the region. Advanced techniques such as geophysical surveys and soil testing can
also be used to assess the potential for soil liquefaction and to identify areas of high risk
(Prabin Acharya, 2021).
2.6.20 Seismic Intensity

Seismic intensity refers to the degree of ground shaking and damage caused by an
earthquake at a particular location. Seismic intensity can vary greatly depending on
factors such as the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the epicenter, and
the local geological conditions.
Figure 22: Seismic Intensity Map of Chandragiri Municipality Corresponding to Mid Nepal
Earthquake
When it comes to earthquake hazard mapping, seismic intensity is a critical factor that
needs to be considered. The closer a location is to an active fault or seismic zone, the
higher the likelihood of experiencing a strong earthquake. Areas located on soft soil or
alluvial deposits are also at greater risk due to the potential for liquefaction, which can
cause significant damage to structures and infrastructure (Prabin Acharya, 2021).
45 | P a g e
To account for seismic intensity in earthquake hazard mapping, various techniques can
be used. One common approach is to use historical earthquake data to estimate the
likelihood of earthquakes of different magnitudes occurring in a particular region. This
information can then be used to create seismic hazard maps, which show the likelihood
of ground shaking and damage in different areas.
Another approach is to use computer models to simulate the effects of earthquakes on
different types of soil and rock. These models take into account factors such as the
location and depth of the earthquake, the local geological conditions, and the type and
age of buildings and infrastructure in the area. By simulating different earthquake
scenarios, these models can help identify areas that are particularly vulnerable to
seismic hazards and inform earthquake hazard mapping (Kumar S. S., 2018).
2.6.21 The Dominant Building Type

The dominant building type is a crucial factor that affects earthquake hazard mapping.
Building types can vary significantly, including unreinforced masonry, reinforced
concrete, and timber frames. Each building type has unique seismic properties, and their
behavior during an earthquake can vary significantly.
Unreinforced masonry buildings, which are commonly found in older urban areas, are
particularly vulnerable to earthquake damage. These buildings lack reinforcing steel
and have poor connections between the walls and the roof or floors, which makes them
more prone to collapse. In contrast, reinforced concrete buildings are typically stronger
and more ductile, meaning they can withstand ground shaking better than other building
types. Timber frame buildings are also more flexible than other building types, but their
vulnerability depends on the quality of the materials and construction (Rajesh
Khatakho, 2021).
The dominant building type is a crucial factor in determining the seismic hazard of an
area. A region with a high concentration of unreinforced masonry buildings is
considered more vulnerable to earthquake damage than areas with newer, reinforced
concrete buildings. Therefore, accurate identification of the dominant building type is
crucial for earthquake hazard mapping.
To map earthquake hazard, experts use various data sources, including aerial
photography, satellite imagery, and on-ground surveys. By identifying and mapping the
dominant building type, experts can assess the seismic vulnerability of the region,
predict the level of damage that may occur during an earthquake, and plan mitigation
strategies (Kumar S. S., 2018).
In summary, the dominant building type is a crucial factor in earthquake hazard
mapping. Unreinforced masonry buildings are particularly vulnerable to earthquake
damage, while reinforced concrete and timber frame buildings are generally more
resistant.
46 | P a g e
Research Methodology THESIS
CHAPTER 3: Research Methodology
3.1 Introduction
The choice of research method depends on the research paradigm adopted by the
researcher (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). The positivist paradigm is based on the belief
that the world can be studied objectively, and scientific methods can be used to measure
and analyze data. This paradigm relies on quantitative methods, such as experiments,
surveys, and statistical analysis. On the other hand, the interpretive paradigm
emphasizes the subjective nature of human experience and the importance of
understanding people’s meanings and interpretations of the world around them. This
paradigm relies on qualitative methods, such as interviews, observations, and case
studies.
The constructivist paradigm emphasizes the importance of context and the way people
construct knowledge and understanding of the world. This paradigm often uses mixed-
methods research, combining both quantitative and qualitative methods to gain a more
comprehensive understanding of the research object.
The post-positivist paradigm, also known as critical realism, recognizes that knowledge
is constructed but argues that it can still be objective and that scientific methods can be
used to study the social world.
The pragmatic paradigm recognizes that different research problems require different
approaches and that the most appropriate research method is one that solves the research
problem at hand. This paradigm emphasizes the importance of practical application and
problem-solving and often uses mixed-methods research.
In this research intends to understand the multi hazard susceptibility of different areas
of Chandragiri municipality using AHP method. The weightage given to each factor
and hazard is dependent on the experience and expert judgement. Furthermore, the
DEM resolution has vast impact on the output of data. However, the method we use
here is scientific and with same technique and data the outputs are bound to be same.
Hence, the researcher believes that everything can’t be known in this research and the
research falls under post-positivist paradigm.
The researcher believes that there is clear relation between the topography, geography,
geology, land use (i.e. Distance from fault, Slope, Aspect, Profile curvature, Distance
from stream, LULC (land use land cover), Lithology, Distance from road, Annual
precipitation, NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index), Elevation, Population,
Distance from fire brigades, Distance from gas station, Distance from transmission line,
Distance from electric substation, Distance from main settlement, Distance from old
settlement, Seismic intensity, Soil liquefaction, Dominant building type etc.) of a
location and its susceptibility to hazards.
47 | P a g e
The necessary data for the study can be found from aerial photo interpretation, Google
Earth engine, survey, historical data, and literature review and can be cross referenced
with pilot field observations.
As the research will be done with the quantitative data observed from field, aerial
photographs, AHP etc, the research will be quantitative in nature. For the research first
the weightage of the layers is determined using AHP, individual hazard is assessed and
inventory map is constructed based on influencing factors and the generated hazard
maps for four hazards are superimposed based on their weightages to produce final
map. A detailed proposal for methodology is shown in fig-04.
Systematic investigation is an essential component of scientific advancement across
Figure 23: Methodological Framework of study. (Rajesh Khatakho, 2021, Pg 06)
various disciplines. Research is often regarded as the backbone of scientific progress as

it aims to answer questions and discover new information. Research makes a unique
contribution to the body of knowledge and helps to expand it. Through study,
observation, comparison, and experimentation, research is a quest for truth. Essentially,
research involves an objective and organized approach to finding solutions to problems.
48 | P a g e
Science domains, including psychology, biology, medicine, physics, and botany, are
among the numerous areas where research leads to understanding and shaping of one's
thinking about phenomena. Researchers undertake research to reduce the complexity
of problems, establish the link between apparently unrelated events, and ultimately
enhance human life. Scientific inquiry is characterized by hypoProject report testing,
meticulous observation and measurement, systematic data analysis, and the creation of
sound conclusions in virtually every field of study. (Marczyk, DeMatteo, & Festinger,
2005)
A research methodology refers to a systematic approach to solve a research problem. It
is essentially a discipline that examines how scientific research is conducted. Research
can be broadly categorized into two types, quantitative and qualitative research.
Quantitative research involves the determination of the amount or quantity of a certain
phenomenon, which is often represented numerically. On the other hand, qualitative
research deals with non-numerical phenomena, such as those related to quality or type,
for instance, understanding the reasons behind people's behaviors. Depending on the
research location, it can be conducted in the field, laboratory, or through simulation
(Kothari, 2004).
To generate useful data and information, the simulation approach involves the creation
of an artificial environment. By doing so, it becomes possible to observe the dynamic
behavior of a system or sub-system under controlled conditions. As this research study
involves inputting spatial data into GIS and utilizing a computer system for analysis, it
can be categorized as simulation research approach (Kothari, 2004).
In order to complete a GIS study, there are four phases of conceptualization or
simulation that must be undergone, according to Steinberg and Steinberg (2015). First,
it is necessary to analyze the real-life situation that will be studied. Next, the idea must
be expressed in language that is suitable for computer-assisted analysis. After that, the
analysis must be logically arranged in a sequence. Finally, relevant software procedures
must be implemented. (Steinberg & Steinberg, 2015):
3.2 Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for the "Multi-Hazard Mapping of Chandragiri
Municipality, Kathmandu, Nepal using AHP" study consists of three main components:
hazards, factors influencing hazards, and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
methodology.
The first component, hazards, refers to the natural and man-made events that pose a
threat to the Chandragiri Municipality. These hazards include landslides, floods, fires,
and earthquakes.
The second component, factors influencing hazards, refers to the various factors that
can increase or decrease the risk of hazards. These factors include topography, geology,
climate, land use, and infrastructure.
49 | P a g e
The third component, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology, is a

decision-making tool that enables the prioritization of hazards and factors. AHP uses a
hierarchical structure to break down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable
parts. It involves a pairwise comparison of elements in the hierarchy based on their
relative importance and the construction of a priority ranking for each element.
The conceptual framework for the "Multi-Hazard Mapping of Chandragiri
Municipality, Kathmandu, Nepal using AHP" study shows how the hazards and factors
influencing hazards are interconnected, and how they can be analyzed and prioritized
using the AHP methodology. This framework provides a systematic approach to assess
and manage multiple hazards in the Chandragiri Municipality, and can be used as a
basis for developing strategies and policies to reduce the risk of disasters.
3.3 Analytic Hierarchy Process

Multi hazard assessment is a complex issue to make decision on the matter of such
complex nature we need a frame work which enables us to make effective decisions by
simplifying and expediting our decision-making process. The AHP is one of those
method, developed by Thomas L. Saaty in 1980’s to solve multi-criteria complex
problems. The AHP consists of problem definition, goals, alternative determination,
pair-wise comparison matrix creation, weight determination, and overall priority
decision. It may be used to make absolute or relative measures (based on experience
and ability to interpret observations of the relationship between influencing variables
and dangers, which do not require a historical record and are simply based on the
relative relevance of each parameter class (Pardeshi, 2013).
The AHP consists of five steps:
i. breaking down a problem situation into component factors,
ii. ranking these factors into a hierarchic order
iii. assigning numerical values based on the comparative importance of the
different factors (pair-wise comparison),
iv. constructing a pairwise comparison by assigning value to the factors depending
upon their comparative influence to the outcome, (
v. computing the normalized principal eigenvector, which represents the weight of
each factor, and
vi. Final result and Check. (Saaty & Vargas, 2001).
Figure -03 shows a sample of how weightage is given and checked in AHP method.
First the factors influencing the outcomes are determined, arranged in the hierarchical
order, and given respective values via expert judgement and experience, then pairwise
matrix is formed by giving the value to cell Ci, j (preference rating) as the measure of
preference of factor in ith row to that of factor in jth column, with diagonals as 1
representing the item compared with itself is 1 (Saaty R. , 1987). Preference rating of
Cj, i is the inverse of Ci, j. The order of matrix (n) will be equal to the no of influencing
50 | P a g e
factors considered. Then P(i) is calculated as the product of elements in each row and
nth root of P(i) is calculated,
𝑃(𝑖) = 𝐶11𝑋 𝑋𝐶21 𝑋𝐶31 𝑋𝐶41 … … 𝑋 𝐶𝑛1
𝑛𝑡ℎ 𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑃(𝑖) = 𝑃(𝑖)(1/𝑛)
The weightage for each influencing factor (ROW) is calculated as;

𝑛𝑡ℎ 𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑃(𝑖)
𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 (𝑊𝑖) =
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃(𝑖)
The sum of Weightage must equal to 1. Matrix product (PW) for each row
is calculated as;
𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡 (𝑃𝑊𝑖)
= (𝐶11𝑋𝑊1) + (𝐶21 𝑋𝑊2) + (𝐶31 𝑋𝑊3) + (𝐶41𝑋𝑊4)
+ ⋯ … + ( 𝐶𝑛1𝑋𝑊5)
Then Eigen Value for each influencing factor (ROW) is calculated as;
𝑃𝑊𝑖
𝐸𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑛 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 (𝛬𝑖) =
𝑊𝑖
The largest λ value is selected as λmax, Consistency Index (CI) is calculated
as;
𝜆𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑛
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 (𝐶𝐼) =
𝑛−1
Random Consistency Index (RI) is taken depending on the order of matrix
(n), and taken from table-02, below;
Table 2; Table for Random Consistency Index (Satty, 1987, pg. 172)
Order Of
Matrix (n) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Random
Consistency
Index (RI) 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51 1.53 1.56 1.57 1.59
The Consistency Ratio (CR) is then calculated as;

𝐶𝐼
𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 (𝐶𝑅) = 𝑥100%
𝑅𝐼
51 | P a g e
If the Consistency Ratio (CR) is less than 10% the ratings are taken as acceptable if not
then ratings are to be revised. A sample excel table for calculation of eigen vectors is
shown in fig-03.
Figure 24: Sample AHP Calculation (Ujjwal Giri, 2020, Pg 07)
3.4 Method and Techniques

he method and techniques used for the Multi-Hazard Mapping of Chandragiri
Municipality, Kathmandu, Nepal using AHP involved several steps.
Firstly, the hazard events of interest were identified, which included landslides, floods,
fires, and earthquakes. Next, the criteria and sub-criteria for each hazard were
established based on the literature review and expert opinions. For example, for
landslides, criteria such as slope, soil type, and vegetation cover were established.
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was then used to prioritize the criteria and sub-
criteria. This involved creating a pairwise comparison matrix where each criterion was
compared to every other criterion in terms of importance. A numerical value was
assigned to each comparison based on the degree of importance. The matrix was then
analyzed using mathematical algorithms to generate weights for each criterion.
Once the weights were generated, GIS software was used to create hazard maps. For
landslides and floods, susceptibility maps were created using a weighted overlay
technique. For fires, ignition and propagation maps were created based on proximity to
52 | P a g e
fire sources, vegetation cover, and slope. For earthquakes, hazard maps were created
based on the seismic zone and distance from active faults.
Finally, the hazard maps were validated using historical data and expert opinions. Any
discrepancies were addressed, and the final hazard maps were produced.
In summary, the method and techniques used for the Multi-Hazard Mapping of
Chandragiri Municipality, Kathmandu, Nepal using AHP involved identifying hazard
events of interest, establishing criteria and sub-criteria, prioritizing them using the AHP
method, creating hazard maps using GIS software, and validating the maps using
historical data and expert opinions.
3.4.1 Hazard Event of Interest Identification

In the "Multi-Hazard Mapping of Chandragiri Municipality, Kathmandu, Nepal using
AHP" Project eportr, the identification of hazard events of interest was done through a
combination of literature review, expert opinion, and historical data analysis. The study
identified four main hazards of interest: landslides, floods, fires, and earthquakes.
The literature review provided an overview of the hazards that are prevalent in the study
area and their impacts. The expert opinion was gathered through interviews and
discussions with local government officials, disaster management personnel, and
community members. They were asked to identify the most significant hazards that
have occurred in the past and are likely to occur in the future. Historical data analysis
was done to determine the frequency and severity of each hazard event over the past
decade.
Based on the combination of these three sources of information, the study identified the
four main hazards of interest and developed hazard maps for each of them using the
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method. These maps provided a spatial
representation of the hazards and their potential impact on the study area. They were
then used to develop a multi-hazard risk assessment.
3.4.2 Establishment of Criteria and Sub-criteria for Each Hazard

Establishment of criteria and sub-criteria for each hazard is a crucial step in the multi-
hazard assessment process. This step involves the identification and selection of criteria
and sub-criteria that are relevant to each hazard under study. In the case of the "Multi-
Hazard Mapping of Chandragiri Municipality, Kathmandu, Nepal using AHP" Project
eportr, the criteria and sub-criteria for each hazard were established based on a review
of relevant literature, expert opinions, and consultations with stakeholders.
For instance, in the case of landslide hazard, the criteria and sub-criteria included
factors such as slope gradient, slope aspect, soil type, land use, vegetation cover, rainfall
intensity, and distance from water bodies. Similarly, for flood hazard, the criteria and
sub-criteria included factors such as catchment area, stream order, drainage density,
rainfall intensity, land use, and soil type. The criteria and sub-criteria for fire hazard
included factors such as fuel type, vegetation cover, distance from fire stations, wind
53 | P a g e
direction, and building materials. Lastly, the criteria and sub-criteria for earthquake
hazard included factors such as building type, soil type, distance from fault lines, and
seismic activity.
The identified criteria and sub-criteria were then used to develop a questionnaire, which
was administered to experts in the relevant fields, such as geologists, engineers, and
disaster management professionals. The experts were asked to assign weights to each
criterion and sub-criterion based on their relative importance in determining the hazard
under study. The weights assigned by the experts were then used in the AHP model to
calculate the overall hazard risk score for each location in the study area.
3.4.3 Prioritization and Weight Generation

After the establishment of criteria and sub-criteria for each hazard, the next step in the
Multi-Hazard Assessment of Chandragiri Municipality using AHP is prioritization and
weight generation. The prioritization and weight generation process involves assigning
weights to each criterion and sub-criterion based on their relative importance in
contributing to the hazard event of interest.
In this study, the weights for the criteria and sub-criteria were generated through a
pairwise comparison matrix using the AHP method. The pairwise comparison matrix
allows experts to compare the relative importance of each criterion and sub-criterion in
relation to each other. The matrix is then analyzed using mathematical algorithms to
generate the weightage for each criterion and sub-criterion.
The weights generated from the pairwise comparison matrix were then normalized to
ensure that they sum up to one. This normalization process allows for the comparison
of the relative importance of each criterion and sub-criterion, regardless of the scale
used for comparison.
The weights generated from the pairwise comparison matrix were used to calculate the
overall score for each hazard event of interest. The overall score provides a quantitative
measure of the relative importance of each hazard event, taking into account the
contribution of each criterion and sub-criterion.
The prioritization and weight generation process is critical in the Multi-Hazard
Assessment of Chandragiri Municipality using AHP as it provides a systematic and
objective approach to evaluating the relative importance of each criterion and sub-
criterion in contributing to the hazard event of interest.
3.4.4 Use of GIS Software to Create Hazard Maps

GIS software plays a crucial role in creating hazard maps for multi-hazard assessment.
It allows for the integration and analysis of different types of spatial data such as
topography, land use, geology, and infrastructure, which are essential for identifying
and assessing potential hazards.
54 | P a g e
One of the key features of GIS software is the ability to overlay multiple layers of data
to create a comprehensive hazard map. For example, a map of potential landslide
hazards may include layers showing slope gradient, soil type, and vegetation cover.
These layers can be combined and analyzed to identify areas with a higher risk of
landslides.
GIS software also provides tools for spatial analysis and modeling, which allow for the
creation of sophisticated hazard maps. For instance, modeling tools can be used to
simulate the impact of an earthquake on buildings and infrastructure, or to predict the
path of a flood based on topography and hydrological data.
Another important aspect of GIS software is its ability to display hazard maps in a user-
friendly and interactive way. These maps can be shared online or printed for use by
emergency responders, city planners, and other stakeholders. They can also be updated
and revised as new data becomes available, making them a valuable tool for ongoing
hazard assessment and risk management.
In this study, GIS software was used after the weight generation process to create hazard
maps for the Chandragiri Municipality in Nepal. The hazard maps were developed
based on the weights assigned to each criterion and sub-criterion using the Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP) method. The hazard maps showed the spatial distribution of
the different hazards, including earthquakes, landslides, floods, and fires, and their
corresponding levels of susceptibility and vulnerability.
The GIS software was used to integrate and analyze different types of spatial data,
including topographic maps, geology and soil maps, land use and land cover maps, and
population and infrastructure data. The hazard maps were created using different GIS
tools and techniques, such as overlay analysis, proximity analysis, and spatial
interpolation. The resulting hazard maps were then validated using different methods,
including field surveys, historical data analysis, and expert opinions.
The hazard maps created using GIS software in this study can be used as a tool for
multi-hazard risk assessment and management in the Chandragiri Municipality. The
maps can help identify areas that are more susceptible and vulnerable to different
hazards, which can aid in the development of effective risk reduction and mitigation
strategies. The GIS-based hazard maps can also be updated regularly to incorporate
new data and information, which can improve the accuracy and reliability of the risk
assessments and management plans over time.
3.4.5 Validation
After creating the hazard maps using GIS software, the next step was to validate the
maps. This was done using historical data and expert opinions. Historical data were
collected from previous studies, government reports, and news articles related to past
hazard events in the study area. Expert opinions were gathered through interviews and
questionnaires with local authorities, disaster management professionals, and
community leaders. The experts were asked to provide feedback on the hazard maps,
55 | P a g e
including the accuracy of the hazard zones and the suitability of the proposed mitigation
measures.
Based on the feedback from the historical data and expert opinions, the hazard maps
were revised and updated. The final hazard maps were then used to develop a multi-
hazard risk assessment for the study area. This assessment included an evaluation of
the potential impacts of each hazard on different elements at risk, such as buildings,
infrastructure, and people. The results of the assessment were used to identify priority
areas for mitigation and preparedness measures, as well as to develop recommendations
for improving the resilience of the study area to future hazard events.
3.4.6 Data Collection

The data collection process for the Multi-Hazard Mapping of Chandragiri Municipality,
Kathmandu, Nepal using AHP involved several steps. The first step was to conduct a
thorough literature review to gather existing information on hazards, vulnerabilities,
and risks in the study area. This involved reviewing published research papers, reports,
and other relevant documents.
The second step was to conduct a ariel and field survey to collect primary data on the
physical, social, and economic characteristics of the study area. This included collecting
data on land use, population, infrastructure, and other relevant variables. The field
survey was conducted using a combination of observation, interviews, and
questionnaires.
The third step was to identify hazard events of interest and collect data on their
occurrence, magnitude, and frequency. This involved reviewing historical records of
hazard events in the study area, such as earthquakes, landslides, floods, and fires. Data
on hazard events were also collected through expert consultations with local authorities
and stakeholders.
The fourth step was to establish criteria and sub-criteria for each hazard based on the
literature review, field survey, and expert consultations. This involved identifying the
factors that contribute to the occurrence and severity of each hazard event and
categorizing them into relevant criteria and sub-criteria.
The fifth step was to prioritize and generate weights for each criterion and sub-criterion
using the AHP method. This involved soliciting expert opinions through surveys and
interviews to determine the relative importance of each criterion and sub-criterion in
terms of their contribution to overall hazard risk.
Overall, the data collection process for the Multi-Hazard Mapping of Chandragiri
Municipality, Kathmandu, Nepal using AHP was a comprehensive and iterative process
that involved a combination of primary and secondary data collection methods, expert
consultations, and the use of analytical tools such as GIS and the AHP method.
56 | P a g e
Data Analysis and Results THESIS
CHAPTER 4: Data Analysis and Results

This Project report studies the Multi-Hazard Susceptibility of Chandragiri
Municipality. The spatial data has been obtained directly from Chandragiri
Municipality, government published journals, published journal articles and open
sources such as geofabrik.de, data.humdata.org, opendatanepal.com i.e. the study is
done based on secondary data. The detailed information on type and source of data is
as listed on Table 3. As mentioned on literature review section every factor doesn’t
have significant influence on every hazard, the factors (i.e. data layers) considered for
assessment of each hazard is as shown in Table 4.
Table 3: Summary of Type and Source of Data
Data
Dataset Format Data Description Resolution
Distance from a Derived from geo-
fault Line referencing -
Spatial
Slope grids Extracted from DEM 12.5m X 12.5m
Spatial
Aspect grids Extracted from DEM 12.5m X 12.5m
Spatial
Profile Curvature grids Extracted from DEM 12.5m X 12.5m
Extracted from DEM
Distance from and and buffer range of
Stream Line river -
Land use land cover
(Supervised
LULC Polygon Classification) 12.5m X 12.5m
Soil Map Polygon SOTER -
Buffer of roads in
Distance from Road Line Chandragiri -
IDW Interpolation
based on 13 rainfall
Annual stations Near
Precipitation Excel data Chandragiri 12.5m X 12.5m
Normalized difference
vegetation index derived
Spatial from Sentinal 2 Image
NDVI grids Jan 2023 12.5m X 12.5m
Spatial
Elevation grids Derived from DEM -
57 | P a g e
Spatial
Population density grids Derived from DEM -
Distance from Fire Buffer range of fire
Brigades Point station -
The Distance from Buffer range of gas
Gas Stations Point station -
The Distance from Buffer range of
Transmission Lines Line transmission line -
Distance from Buffer range of
Electric Substations transformer and Electric
and Transformers Point Substations -
Distance from Main Buffer range of main
Settlement Point settlement -
The Distance from Buffer range of old
Old Settlements Point settlement -
Interpolation based on
Soil Liquefaction Polygon bore hole data -
Derived from geo-
Seismic Intensity Polygon referencing -
The Dominant Spatial Derived from geo-
Building Type grids referencing -
Table 4: Data layer source for different hazard assessment
Considered Considered
for Considered Considered for
Dataset Landslide for Flood for Fire Earthquake
Distance from a fault ✔ - - ✔
Slope ✔ ✔ - ✔
Aspect ✔ - - -
Profile Curvature ✔ - - -
Distance from Stream ✔ ✔ - -
LULC ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Soil Map ✔ ✔ - ✔
Distance from Road ✔ - ✔ -
Annual Precipitation ✔ ✔ - -
NDVI ✔ - - -
Elevation ✔ ✔ - -
Population density - - ✔ ✔
Distance from Fire
Brigades - - ✔ -
The Distance from Gas
Stations - - ✔ -
The Distance from
Transmission Lines - - ✔ -
58 | P a g e
Distance from Electric

Substations and
Transformers - - ✔ -
Distance from Main
Settlement - - ✔ ✔
The Distance from Old
Settlements - - ✔ ✔
Soil Liquefaction - - - ✔
Seismic Intensity - - - ✔
The Dominant Building
Type - - - ✔
4.1 Landslide Hazard

The Classes and rating for different factors considered for landslide hazard is as Table
5 whereas the AHP calculation of each factor and weightage calculation is as Table 6.
Table 5: factors considered for the landslide hazard assessment, their classes and their ratings.
Factor Class Rating Factor Class Rating

0-400 4 0 - 100 4
Distance 400-800 3 Distance 100 - 200 3

from fault 800-1200 2 from road 200 - 400 2
(m) (m)
1200-1600 1 400- 600 1
>1600 1 > 600 0
0-5 0 < 1400 1
5-15 1 1400 - 1500 1
Precipitation
Slope (º) 15-30 2 1500 - 1600 2
(mm)
30-45 3 1600 - 1800 3
45-90 4 1800 - 2000 4
Flat (-1) 0 0-0.05 4
North (0-22.5) 1 0.05-0.15 3
Northeast (22.5-67.5) 1 NDVI 0.15-0.25 3
East (67.5-112.5) 1 0.25-0.35 2
Southeast (112.5-157.5) 2 0.35-0.50 1
Aspect (º)
South (157.5-202.5) 2 <1300 0
Southwest (202.5-247.5) 3 1300-1350 1
Elevation
West (247.5-292.5) 3 1350-1450 2
(m)
Northwest (292.5-337.5) 4 1450-1550 3
North (337.5-360) 4 > 1550 4
Profile Convex (-) (<-0.025) 1 Forest 3
LULCL
curvature Flat (0) (-0.025 - 0.025) 3 Water body 0
59 | P a g e
Concave (+) (> 0.025) 4 Built area 2

Agriculture
0-100 4 land 4
Distance 100-200 3 Restricted Area 1
from stream
(m) 200-300 2 Consolidate 3
300-400 1 Lithology Unconsolidated 2
> 400 0 Hard Rock 1

landslide hazard evaluation, and the estimated CR value.
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 Weight Wi

L1 1 3 2 3 3 6 6 6 4 3 4 0.254
L2 1 1/2 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 0.114
L3 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 0.142
L4 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 0.099
L5 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 0.084
L6 1 1 1 2 1/2 1/2 0.046
L7 1 1 2 1/2 1/2 0.045
L8 1 1 1/4 1/4 0.038
L9 1 1/2 1 0.042
L10 1 2 0.079
L11 1 0.057
CR= 0.021
L1: slope, L2: distance from streams, L3: annual precipitation, L4: distance from
fault, L5: normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), L6: lithology, L7: aspect,
L8: elevation, L9: profile curvature, L10: land use land cover (LULC), L11: distance
from road.
From the preparation of Landslide Hazard map, it was seen that 67.3% area of
Chandragiri municipality falls on Moderately susceptibility zone, 32.10% in Low
susceptible zone and 0.52% in Very Low susceptible zone. Especially north facing
slope of Chandragiri hill was found most susceptible see fig for detailed map. The low
altitude and flat lands near Nayanaikap, Tinthana, Plains of Balambu were found less
susceptiable. Ward no 2,3,4 had high susceptibility compared to other wards. The
detailed map is presented in figure:25.
60 | P a g e
Figure 25: Landslide Hazard Susceptibility Map of Chandragiri Municipality
4.2 Flood Hazard

The Classes and rating for different factors considered for landslide hazard is as Table
7 whereas the AHP calculation of each factor and weightage calculation is as Table 8.
Table 7: Factors Considered in the flood hazard assessment, their classes, and their ratings

Annual precipitation
Slope (º) 0-3 4 (mm) < 1400 1
3-7 3 1400 - 1500 1
7-13 2 1500 - 1600 2
13-20 1 1600 - 1800 3
>20 0 1800 - 2000 4
Elevation (m) <1300 4 Lithology Consolidate 3
1300-1350 3 Unconsolidated 2
1350-1450 2 Hard Rock 1
1450-1550 1 Forest 1
61 | P a g e
> 1550 0 Water body 4

Distance from stream
(m) 0-100 4 LULC Built area 4
Agriculture
100-200 3 land 3
200-300 2 Restricted Area 2
300-400 1
> 400 0

Flood hazard evaluation, and the estimated CR value.
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 Weight Wi
R1 1 1/2 3 2 4 3 0.249
R2 1 3 2 6 3 0.337
R3 1 1/3 2 2 0.105
R4 1 2 2 0.169
R5 1 1 0.063
R6 1 0.077
CR= 0.044
R1: distance from stream, R2: slope, R3: elevation, R4: annual precipitation, R5:
land use land cover (LULC), R6: lithology.
From the preparation of Flood Hazard map, it was seen that 14.05% area of Chandragiri
municipality falls on Highly susceptibility zone, 39.67% area of Chandragiri
municipality falls on Moderately susceptibility zone, 41.49% in Low susceptible zone
and 4.80% in Very Low susceptible zone. Especially north facing slope of Chandragiri
hill was found most susceptible see fig for detailed map. The low altitude and flat lands
near Nayanaikap, Tinthana, Plains of Balambu were found more susceptiable. Ward no
3 had high susceptibility compared to other wards. Also, the forests of Chandragiri and
Indrathan were seen very less susceptible. The detailed map is presented in figure:26.
62 | P a g e
Figure 26: Flood Hazard Susceptibility Map of Chandragiri Municipality
4.3 Fire Hazard

The Classes and rating for different factors considered for Fire hazard is as Table 9
whereas the AHP calculation of each factor and weightage calculation is as Table 10.
Table 9: Factors Considered in the fire hazard assessment, their classes, and their ratings

< 10 1 0 - 50 4
10-50 2 50 - 100 3
Distance from
Population 50-100 3 100 - 200 3
Transformer(m)
density 100-200 3 200- 500 2
200-300 4 > 500 1
>300 4 0 - 100 4
Distance 0-500 1 Main 100 - 200 3

from fire 500-1000 2 settlement (m) 200 - 400 3
brigades (m)
1000-2000 3 400- 600 2
63 | P a g e
2000-3000 3 > 600 1
3000-20000 4 0-500 4
0 - 50 4 Distance from 500-1000 3
50 - 100 3 old settlement 1000- 1500 3
Distance
(m)
from gas 100 - 200 2 1500- 2000 2
station (m)
200- 500 2 > 2000 1
> 500 1 0-100 1

0 - 50 4 100 - 200 2
Distance from
Distance 50 - 100 4 200 - 400 3
road (m)
from
100 - 200 3 400- 600 3
transmission
line (m) 200- 500 2 > 600 4
> 500 1
Forest 3
Water body 0
LULCL Built area 4
Agriculture land 2
Restricted Area 1
Table 10: Pair-wise comparisons, weighting coefficients of each adopted factor in Fire hazard
evaluation, and the estimated CR value.
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 Weight Wi
E1 1 1 1 1 3 4 2 3 4 0.178
E2 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 0.161
E3 1 1 3 4 2 3 4 0.178
E4 1 3 3 2 2 3 0.161
E5 1 2 1/2 1 2 0.064
E6 1 1/2 1/3 1 0.043
E7 1 2 2 0.096
E8 1 2 0.075
E9 1 0.044
CR = 0.021
F1: population density, F2: distance fire brigades, F3: distance from gas station, F4:
distance from old settlement, F5: distance from transmission line, F6: distance from
electric substation, F7: distance from main settlement, F8: distance from road, F9:
land use land cover (LULC).
The study focused on urban fires and didn’t consider areas without peoples and
buildings. From the preparation of Flood Hazard map, it was seen that 9.06% area of
Chandragiri municipality falls on Highly susceptibility zone, 51.98% area of
64 | P a g e
Chandragiri municipality falls on Moderately susceptibility zone, 0.01% in Low

susceptible zone and remaining areas didn’t show data as they were not
considered.Densely populated settelements and old settlements of Balambu,
Macchegaun, Thankot, Matatirtha and purano Naikap were seen as most susceptible .
Ward no 15 had high susceptibility compared to other wards as it had more electrical
stations fuel stations and densely populated areas. Also, the forests of Chandragiri and
Indrathan were seen very less susceptible which validates our study of urban fire
susceptibility. The detailed map is presented in figure:27.
Figure 27: Fire Susceptibility Map of Chandragiri Municipality
4.4 Earthquake Hazard

The Classes and rating for different factors considered for Earthquake hazard is as
Table 11 whereas the AHP calculation of each factor and weightage calculation is as
Table 12.
Table 11: Factors Considered in Earthquake Hazard mapping, their classes and Assessment

0-5 0 Consolidate 3
Slope (º) 0-15 1 Lithology Unconsolidated 2
15-30 2 Hard Rock 1
65 | P a g e
30-45 3 0-200 4
45-90 4 Distance 200-400 3
Forest 2 from fault 400-600 2
(m)
Water body 1 600-800 1
LULCL Built area 4 >800 0
Agriculture land 1 Adobe 4
Restricted Area 3 Stone 3
< 10 1 Type of RC 1
10-50 2 building BM 3
Population 50-100 3 BC 2
density 100-200 3 No building 0
200-300 4 VIII 4
Seismic
>300 4 IX 4
intensity
0-500 4 VII 3
Distance
500-1000 3 0-0.25 1
from old Probability
settlement 1000- 1500 3 0.25-0.50 2
of
(m) 1500- 2000 2 liquefaction 0.50-0.75 3
> 2000 1 0.75-1.0 4
Table 12: Pair-wise comparisons, weighting coefficients of each adopted factor in Fire hazard
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 Weight Wi
E1 1 1 1 1 3 4 2 3 4 0.178
E2 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 0.161
E3 1 1 3 4 2 3 4 0.178
E4 1 3 3 2 2 3 0.161
E5 1 2 1/2 1 2 0.064
E6 1 1/2 1/3 1 0.043
E7 1 2 2 0.096
E8 1 2 0.075
E9 1 0.044
CR = 0.021
E1: seismic intensity, E2: soil liquefaction, E3: distance from old settlement, E4:
dominant building type, E5: LULCL, E6: lithology, E7: active faults, E8: slope, E9:
population density.
The study focused on mid Nepal Earth as studied by JICA in march 2002 and didn’t
consider areas without peoples and buildings plus the researcher is presenting this
report as a preliminary for thesis and is in the process of collecting building typology
data and the Hazard map is prepared without said data. From the preparation of
66 | P a g e
Earthquake Hazard map, it was seen that 0.1 % area of Chandragiri municipality falls
on Very Highly susceptibility zone, 46.97 % area of Chandragiri municipality falls on
Highly susceptibility zone, 14.45% in Moderately susceptible zone and remaining areas
didn’t show data as they were not considered. Densely populated settelements and old
settlements of Balambu, Macchegaun, Thankot, Matatirtha and purano Naikap were
seen as most susceptible. Also, the new settlements of Chandragiri and near ward 10
reconstructed ward 1 and 2 were seen very less susceptible susceptibility. The detailed
map is presented in figure:28.
Figure 28: Earthquake Hazard Susceptibility map of Chandragiri Municipality
4.5 Multi-Hazard
The Multi Hazard map was prepared by overlaying the map from Figures 25-28 with
the weightages as table 13. From the preparation of Multi-Hazard map, it was seen that,
26.03 % area of Chandragiri municipality falls on Moderate susceptibility zone, 34.40%
in Low susceptible zone and remaining areas didn’t show data as they were not
considered for both earthquake and Fire hazard. The detailed map is presented in
figure:28. But, this is a preliminary phase of thesis writing process and necessary
changes will be made based with consultation with supervisor and further literature
review.
67 | P a g e
Table 13: Pair-wise comparisons, weighting coefficients of each adopted factor in multi-hazard
H1 H2 H3 H4 Weight Wi
H1 1 2 3 5 0.498
H2 1 1 2 0.214
H3 1 1 0.166
H4 1 0.122
CR= 0.031
H1: earthquake hazard, H2: landslide hazard, H3: flood hazard, H4: fire hazard.
Figure 29: Multi Hazard map of Chandragiri Municipality
68 | P a g e
Conclusion and Recommendation THESIS
CHAPTER 5: Conclusion and Recommendation
5.1 Conclusion
Inn conclusion, the study focused on the multi-hazard assessment of Chandragiri
municipality, Kathmandu, Nepal, using the AHP method and GIS techniques. The
study identified three major hazards: landslides, floods, and earthquakes. The
preparation of hazard maps revealed that the north-facing slope of Chandragiri hill was
the most susceptible area for all three hazards, while the low altitude and flat lands near
Nayanaikap, Tinthana, and the plains of Balambu were less susceptible. The study also
found that ward no. 2, 3, and 4 had high susceptibility to landslides, while ward no. 3
had high susceptibility to floods and earthquakes. Densely populated settlements and
old settlements of Balambu, Macchegaun, Thankot, Matatirtha, and Purano Naikap
were the most susceptible areas for all three hazards, whereas the new settlements of
Chandragiri and near ward 10 reconstructed ward 1 and 2 were less susceptible.
However, the study is presented as a preliminary report for the thesis writing process,
and necessary changes will be made based on consultation with the supervisor and
further literature review. The study also did not consider areas without people and
buildings, and building typology data was not collected during the study, which could
affect the accuracy of the hazard maps. Nonetheless, the study provides valuable
insights into the multi-hazard assessment of Chandragiri municipality and can serve as
a basis for further research and policy decisions to mitigate the impact of these hazards.
The results of the study can help local authorities in disaster risk reduction planning,
infrastructure development, and emergency response planning.
69 | P a g e
References THESIS
CHAPTER 6: References
Bhandary, N. P. (2016). Landslide susceptibility assessment using frequency ratio,
statistical index and weights-of-evidence method in the Koshi river basin,
Nepal. Natural hazards, 2105-2127.
Bhattarai, S., KC, P., Gyawali, A., Lamichhane, A., Giri, A., & Kakchapati, S. (2021).
Urban firefighting: Qualitative exploration of occupational challenges faced by
firefighters of Kathmandu valley, Nepal. International Journal of Occupational
Safety and Health, 72-79.
Chandragiri Municipality. (2021). Integrated Disaster Risk Reduction Plan.
Kathmandu.
Department of Urban Development and Building Construction Babar Mahal,
Kathmandu. (2020). Municipal Profile of Chandragiri Municipality.
Kathmandu.
ERMC Pvt. Ltd. - Nest Pvt. Ltd., GEOCOM International Pvt. Ltd. (2018).
PREPARATION OF INTEGRATED URBAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF 14
MUNICIPALITIES; Volume II/ V: Municipal Profile of Chandragiri
Municipality. kathmandu: Department of Urban Development and Building
Construction.
Khatiwada, S. R. (2019). Assessment of Flood Risk in Chandragiri Municipality,
Kathmandu, Nepal. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced
Technology, 2759-2765.
Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms
in Educational Contexts. University of New England, Australia: International
Journal of Higher Education.
Koirala, B. P. (2019). Multi-hazard risk assessment in selected areas of Kathmandu
valley using GIS-based approach. Journal of Earth Science and Climatic
Change, 1-9.
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology Methods and Techniques. New Delhi:
New Age International (P) Ltd.
Kumar, A. M. (2017). AHP-based approach for forest fire hazard mapping: a case study
in Dehradun district. Journal of Forestry Research, 1363-1370.
Kumar, S. S. (2018). Earthquake hazard zonation using analytical hierarchy process
(AHP) technique and GIS: a case study of Guntur city, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Geoenvironmental Disasters.
Li, T. (1990). Landslide Management in the mountain area of China. Kathmandu:
ICIMOD.
Marczyk, G., DeMatteo, D., & Festinger, D. (2005). Essentials of Research Design and
Methodology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
70 | P a g e
References THESIS
Ministry of Home Affairs. (2019). Nepal Disaster Report. Kathmandu: Ministry of

Home Affairs.
Nepal Disaster Risk Reduction Portal. (2018). Retrieved from Government of Nepal:
http://drrportal.gov.np/
NRA. (2021, May 21). Introduction. Retrieved from Nepal Reconstruction Authority:
http://www.nra.gov.np/en
Pardeshi, S. A. (2013). Landslide hazard assessment: recent trends and techniques.
SpringerPlus 2, 523. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-523
Prabin Acharya, K. S. (2021, July 15). Seismic Liquefaction Risk Assessment of
Critical Facilities in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. GeoHazards, 153-171.
doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/geohazards2030009
Rajesh Khatakho, D. G.-C. (2021). Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment of Kathmandu
Valley, Nepal. sustainability. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105369
Ranjan kumar Dahal, S. H. (2006). Rainfall trigirred flow like landslides: understanding
from the southern hills of kathmandu, nepal & northern shikoku, Japan. IAEG.
Saaty, R. (1987). The Analytic Hierarchy Process- What it is and how it is used. Math
Modelling, 161-176.
Saaty, T., & Vargas, L. (2001). Models, Methods, Concepts and Applications of the
Analytic Hierarchy Process. Springer.
Shrestha, B. &. (2016). An Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction Activities in Nepal:
A Case Study of Chandragiri Municipality, Kathmandu. Journal of Geoscience,
Environment and Technology, 1-8.
Shrestha, B. R., Rai, R. K., & Marasini, S. (2020). Review of Flood Hazards Studies in
Nepal. The Geographic Base, 7. doi:10.3126/tgb.v7i0.34266
Shrestha, D. D. (2017). Landslide susceptibility assessment using frequency ratio,
analytic hierarchy process, logistic regression, and artificial neural network
models in GIS: a comparative study. Geocarto International, 342-362.
doi:10.1080/10106049.2016.1167886
Siddartha Amatya, N. R. (2022). Optimization of fire Fighting Capacity Using Network
Analysis: Case Study of kathmandu Valley. Kathmandu: IOE, Pulchowk
Campus.
Singh, R. B. (2016). Multi-hazard risk assessment of natural disasters in Himalayan
region. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 97-108.
Singh, S. S. (2020). Multi-Hazard Assessment of Kathmandu Valley, Nepal Using
Analytical Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,
48.
Steinberg, S. L., & Steinberg, S. J. (2015). GIS research methods : incorporating
spatial perspectives. New York: Esri Press.
71 | P a g e
References THESIS
Tasnin, T. A. (2021, 07 15). adpc. Retrieved from Preparedness for Fire disaster:
https://www.adpc.net/igo/contents/iPrepare/iprepare-news_id.asp?ipid=231
The Hindustan Times. (2012, Oct 15). Property worth millions of rupees gutted in fire
in Nepal. Retrieved from https://www.hindustantimes.com:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world/property-worth-millions-of-rupees-
gutted-in-fire-in-nepal/story-kh1WMwCtPMTNWgDIZBweQO.html
UNDRR. (2017). Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2017.
UNISDR. (2015). The Pocket GAR.
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. (2017). Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Geneva, Switzerland:
UNISDR.
72 | P a g e
Appendix THESIS
APPENDIX A: Letter for Request of Survey data
73 | P a g e
Appendix THESIS
APPENDIX B: Photographs
Nagdhunga Tunnel @ 1 no Ward October 7 Landslide in Ward 02
Chandragiri Cable Car Night View with Nepal Oil Corporation
View of Chandragiri from Indrathan at Faulty Construction Practice

CMC 01
74 | P a g e
Appendix THESIS
Bore Hole Test for Liqification Unmanaged Land Plotting at CMC 01
Landslide at Construction site at CMC 13 Landslide at unmanaged plottiong @

CMC 01
View of Ward 1/2/3 from Ward 02 Unmanaged Plotting CMC 13
Matatirtha Landslide CMC 09 Flooding at CMC 12 Balambu
75 | P a g e
Appendix THESIS
Juddha Barun Yantra, Kathmandu Chandragiri Fire Engine @ Nepal APF
Nepal Apf Hospital

Road Traffic Condition
Old Settlement @ CMC 12

Suspension Bridge @ CMC 15
76 | P a g e

Ujjwal Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ujjwal Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

MULTI-HAZARD MAPPING OF CHANDRAGIRI

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor, Sangeeta Singh, PhD,

2.6.4 Profile Curvature .................................................................................... 29

4.3 Fire Hazard .................................................................................................... 63

Figure 7: Distance from Stream Map of Chandragiri Municipality ............................ 30

DRRM Disaster Risk Reduction and Management

VDC Village Development Community

UNDRR United Nations Disaster Risk Reduction

UNSIDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

MCA Multi Criteria Analysis

AHP Analytical Hierarchy process

DRM Disaster Risk Management

DEM Digital Elevation Model

LULCL Land Use Land Cover

municipality. The municipality has total of 433.04 km road networks including a

Figure 1; Chandragiri Municipality Map. (Department of Forrest Research and Survey,2015, Pg

1.2 Need and Importance of the Study

Although historical scenarios suggest multi-hazard occurrence, multi-hazard risk

1.3 Problem Statement

1.4 Research Purpose

• To Prepare multi-Hazard map of Chandragiri Municipality.

1.4.2 Research Questions

1.4.3 Validity of Research

1.5 Limitations of Study

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review

2.2 Chandragiri Municipality and Hazards

2.3 Major Hazards in Chandragiri Municipality

2.3.1 Earthquake Hazard

2.3.2 Fire Hazard

2.3.3 Landslide Hazard

causes (deforestation, irrigation, mining, road construction, water leakage, land-use

2.3.4 Flood Hazard

2.4 Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment

2.5 Heuristic Approach

2.6 Influencing Factors

2.6.1 Distance from a fault

Figure 3:Distance from Fault Map of Chandragiri Municipality

Figure 4: Slope Map of Chandragiri Municipality

Figure 5: Aspect Map of Chandragiri Municipality

2.6.4 Profile Curvature

Figure 6: Profile Curvature Map of Chandragiri Municipality

2.6.5 Distance from Stream

Figure 7: Distance from Stream Map of Chandragiri Municipality

Figure 8: LULC Map of Chandragiri Municipality

2.6.7 Soil Map

Figure 9: Soil Map of Chandragiri Municipality

2.6.8 Distance from Road

Figure 10: Distance from Road Map of Chandragiri Municipality

2.6.9 Annual Precipitation

Figure 11: Annual Precipitation Map of Chandragiri Municipality

Figure 12: NDVI Map of Chandragiri Municipality

Figure 13: Elevation Map of Chandragiri Municipality

2.6.12 Population density

Figure 14: Population Density Map of Chandragiri Municipality

2.6.13 Distance from Fire Brigades

Figure 15: Distance from Fire Stations Map of Chandragiri Municipality

2.6.14 The Distance from Gas Stations

Figure 16: Distance from Gas Station Map of Chandragiri Municipality

2.6.15 The Distance from Transmission Lines

Figure 17: Distance from Transmission Line Map of Chandragiri Municipality