Westernmost Nepal, is threatened by a major earthquake that most of its buildings, including most schools, have not been designed or built to withstand. This places schoolchildren at great risk, and common school construction practices need to be made safer.

By taking action in advance of earthquakes, landslides and volcanic eruptions, it is possible to reduce impacts on people and societies. But where to start? Scenarios provide an excellent mechanism for thinking through complex problems.

Scenarios can show specific consequences–to people, buildings, infrastructure, and land. This approach makes complex technical information understandable for people who may be overwhelmed by risks and uncertainties. They can envision what could happen. They can make informed decisions to limit potential harm and damage.

But there is room for improvement in the way scenarios are developed, particularly in low-resource international contexts. We researched the question: How could scenarios be improved to motivate mitigation actions and policy change? Too often, past geologic hazard scenarios stopped at characterizing the risk or failed to motivate change.

Two Kathmandu hospitals had been assessed for disaster preparedness just before the 2015 M7.8 Gorkha earthquake. Pre- and post-earthquake findings are compared.

Scenarios of a plausible earthquake quantify impacts, including more than 50% of schools damaged, and guide communities to reduce extreme risk before a disaster.

Technical review and field testing of a World Health Organization (WHO) tool to screen hospitals’ vulnerabilities to multiple hazards as well as their level of emergency and disaster preparedness.

Mansons trained hands-on to build bearing walls and reinforced concrete frames, applying Nepal’s building code that addresses reinforcement in simpler buildings.

Prioritized short and long-term changes to improve post-disaster function of hospitals that provide critical medical services for a large number of people.

Technical information about likely lethality of earthquakes in 21 cities-- including vulnerable aspects of the built environment, schools and hospitals--to help the cities prioritize risk mitigation efforts.

One objective was to quantify and plan how to mitigate the high vulnerability of public schools. This led to hands-on training and seismic retrofit of many schools.