An Empirical Study on Disaster Vulnerability and Resilience in Char Hizla, Bangladesh

1.1 Climate issues of Bangladesh

Human-influenced change of climate is currently unquestionable. An increasing number of climatological research works from around the world have verified indicators and effects on environmental changes [1]. Environmental changes and its related effects are experienced through changes in precipitation, temperature, air pressure, humidity, wind speeds and sea-levels; and changes in the brutality and the rate of recurrence of environmental extremes [2-6]. Developing countries are greatly vulnerable to environmental change due to their sensitivity and exposure to environmental extremes coupled with their inadequate capability to deal with the significances of environmental changes [7].

Due to its geographical position, socioeconomic status and livelihood situation, developing country like Bangladesh has considered as the top most natural calamity faced countries in the earth [8-9]. Bangladesh is positioned at a South Asia bounded by India, Myanmar and the Bay of Bengal. It has recognized as one of the largest delta in the world, experienced by the densely network river systems like Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna catchment area, which is around 1.6 million km². The country has already been faced with several natural disastrous events like storm surge, sea-level rise, floods, river erosion, salinity, extreme rainfall and so on. Moreover, several researches evidenced a rising rate of the frequency of these calamities in coastal-estuary Bangladesh. Rawlani and Sovacool [10] was also observed that the coastal and estuary parts are higher susceptible to these calamities than any other areas of the country. As a developing country, Bangladesh relies mostly on farming and fishing but this financial part is harmful to environmental changes and erraticism. The capability of families to adjust to the unfair of environmental changes, which can distress families’ assets and flexibility, is unreliable because of unfortunate socioeconomic situations [8]. For example, Super cyclone Bhola experienced in 1970 which damaged more than 86 million USD of economic loss [10], 0.3 million people death [8]. Similarly, another super cyclone caused 0.138 million death toll in 1991. In addition, recent cyclone like Sidr damaged around 1.7 billion USD and more than 2.3 million households were severely affected in 2007 [11]. At the same time, monsoon flood had earlier damaged huge agricultural losses and demolition of physical resources, estimating around 1.1 billion USD [11]. The aftershock of these extreme disastrous events, hence, the assessment of vulnerability, capability and adaptation policies are made key to aid the indigenous peoples to survive with the risky climatic situations and related environmental issues [12-16]. Besides, structural approaches like establishment of flood and cyclone shelters, embankments, so on and non-structural such as various training & awareness program for hazard controlling, improvement of forecasting technologies, construction of management acts & plans etc. have already been executed by both government and nongovernmental organizations [17-19]. As, Bangladesh has presently been recognized by the international institutions like United Nation for hazards risk assessment and supervision, UNICEF for water & health related strategies as well IPCC for climate change and sustainable development issues, it is worthy of evaluating the current situation of the vulnerability and capability methodologies of disaster in the coastal regions of Bangladesh.

1.2 Aspects of vulnerability and capability

Assessment of vulnerability & capability is not a recent conception in the science of disaster risk reduction and management; Salman [15], Burton et al. [20-22], Bohle et al. [23], Sorensen and White [24] had worked on these issues; this conception has also newly concentrated on by Warrick and Ahmad [25]; Nicholls et al. [26]; IPCC [3]; Carter et al. [27]; Younus and Kabir [28]; Harvey et al. [29]. Vulnerability is a multidimensional idea connected with various conceptualizations [30]. This conception has been uninterruptedly spreading containing exposure, coping capability, susceptibility and adaptation into its characterization [31]. A definition was formulated by the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction [32], which states Vulnerability as ‘the status defined by social, physical (shelter, WASH related), financial and environmental (health & ecosystem) indicators manners which upsurge the weakness of people to the effects of disasters’. Identifying the role of capability in risk reducing also specifies a greeting that families are not helpless sufferers [33-34]. Vulnerability is the strongest speech of the community structure of risk indicators in term of disaster management and risk reduction [35]. The social interactions with changing-physical earth form risk of disaster by altering physical measures into threats over community practices that upsurge the vulnerability and exposure of communities, their livings, infrastructures, production, services and supports [36-38]. Refining capability is often recognized as the aim of project plans and policies, based on concept that solidification capability will ultimately lead to lessen risk and to lessen the impact of environmental change [39]. Capability is usually used in humanitarian discourse to specify the degree to which a scheme can endure the impact of a life-threatening event. It suggests that communities can deal with some level of weakening, and recognizes that at a definite point the capability may be surpassed. Several researches have assessed the vulnerability, capability and adaptation strategies of the coastal areas of Bangladesh [10, 15, 24, 40-42]. These analyses and ranking of the numerous coastal regions in Bangladesh mostly vulnerable to river erosion, cyclone, floods, salinity and sea-level rise have been undertaken by making the vulnerability and capability indexes [10, 15, 24, 40-42]. These assessments of vulnerability and capability over various time frames and the changes in vulnerability of communities have been done for the coastal areas of Bangladesh by concentrating on factors of demography, infrastructure, occupational, agricultural growth, industrial production, geographical, extreme events and climate variability related factors.

1.3 Objectives

The literatures recommend that Bangladesh experiences worse vulnerability and poor capability due to climate change and its related variability [15, 22-21, 43-49]. The rolling point of this vulnerability and poor capabilities can turn disastrous, as already the country experiences several events and frequent natural hazards like various type of floods, river bank erosion, cyclones and storm surges, droughts due to withdrawing water from up streams, landslides, rising water on the edge of coastal land due to sea-level rise, salinity intrusion into agricultural lands and so on. The coastal communities of Bangladesh are highly vulnerable due to environmental changes; henceforth, the wide-ranging renovated building capacity steps such as creating community based adaptation groups need to be employed instantly in order to develop people’s adaptive flexibility to climate change through making productive policies and strategies at the ground level by the Government as well NGOs. Recently, IPCC [50] reported that the warning of global warming of a possible rise 1.5℃. To sum up for Policy makers [49] concentrated on the renovated adaptation along with the probable mood of vulnerabilities to climate change, mainly at the range of 1.5℃ from pre-industrial level viewpoint, which the World would face in upcoming periods. Hence, regionally, a vulnerability and capability evaluation of Bangladesh is an important issue of recent improvement of contemporary scientific understanding [46-48].

The study mainly emphases on the assessment of vulnerability and capability along with socioeconomic status, shelter and settlement, water, sanitation & hygienic related indicators, food security & livelihood, health and eco-system related indicators through multiple regression analysis. These correlations and with the level of significance would specify the vulnerable & risky regions and some solutions in order to improve capability & adaptation resilience at the ground levels in Bangladesh. The significance of this study is that the identified vulnerability & capability indicators would obviously aid to reduce risk and to produce effective and community resource based plans & policies.

3.1 Vulnerability assessment

In this study outcomes identify that in compare to all of the markers, the area was health, effect of disaster on local eco-systemically and the shelter & settlement markers more vulnerable with a mean (±standard error) vulnerability index of 1, 0.81±0.01 & 0.69±0.01 respectively (Table 6 and Figure 2) while the mean (±standard error) of vulnerability index for socio-economical, food security & livelihood and WASH (Water, Sanitation and Hygiene) related markers were 0.67±0.023, 0.65±0.033 & 0.51±0.012 respectively (Table 6 and Figure 2). This huge Health vulnerability can be attributed to almost full respondents of the distance of community clinics are more than 3km (see Table 4). It is incredibly harsh that the nearest clinic is about 25km away from our study area. Similarly, almost 96% of households were faced strong to moderate effect on local eco-system (Table 4). Though the people of this area are significantly knowledgeable about the importance of wildlife, around 56% of them argued that their local wildlife is somehow endangered. Talking about shelter, nearly 50% of the people live in houses having a plinth height of fewer than 2 meters and about 58% of the people’s home are far away from shelters were made the area more vulnerable (Table 4). Lacking of ‘embankment facilities’ and lacking of ‘facilities of training for Shelter & Settlement issues in term of disaster’ were also made the area towards more vulnerably side (see Table 4). Respondents argued that neither the local government nor the NGOs provide any training programs to modernize their rescue skills. In contrast, ‘main power supply’ and ‘support during restricted fishing season’ markers were dropped the value of vulnerability.

Besides, the socio-economic indicators like ‘cultivable land grabbed by river erosion’ and ‘effect of disasters to the education system’ observed in higher vulnerability index. Differently, loan taking frequency marker observed in moderate the index value in compare to others markers (Table 4 and Figure 3 (a)). Likewise, in terms of food security & livelihood indicators, the area markers such as ‘fetching food scarcity’ (48% for high), ‘extents of crop seed damage due to past disaster’ (54% for high), ‘dilation in food supply due to disaster’ (98% for yes) and ‘cropland remain water-logged during rainy season’ (52% for most of the land) facilitated in higher vulnerability rate (Table 4 and Figure 3 (b)).

Lastly, in terms of Water, Sanitation, & Hygiene related markers (WASH); almost 94% peoples were used platform height of tubewell (1-2 ft) (Table 4) which was made the area more harmful. In contrast, the area markers like ‘source of drinking water’, ‘distance of drinking water source from homes’, ‘types of sanitation facilities’ and ‘type of cleansing material used to wash hand’ facilitated in lower vulnerability index (Figure 3 (c), Figure 3 (d)). For example: around 90% of the respondents can manage their drinking water from a deep tube well and they also rely on contaminated sources for other daily activities like bathing, cleaning utensils. In the case of sanitation, we got only 28% of participants who can afford well toilets and almost 22% who can afford well toilets (not sealed) (Table 4 and Figure 3 (c)).

Sum up, most of the households were in bad condition in terms of ‘dilation in food supply due to disaster’, ‘embankment facilities’, ‘facilities of training for Shelter & Settlement issues in term of disaster’ and ‘distance of the closest community hospital or clinic’. However, the study response data exposes that the area was more vulnerable to various disastrous events in terms of health, eco-system and shelter related indicators. Nevertheless, the overall vulnerability index of the area is 0.72±0.015 which indicates that the overall area is highly vulnerable to various disastrous events (Table 6 and Figure 2).

Table 6. Index of Vulnerability (IV) and Capability (IC) (mean±standard error) values for Char Hizla upazila, Barishal. Table displays that the study region was more vulnerable than capability to the disasters

2.png

Figure 2. Indicator-wise and overall composite vulnerability & capacity index of the study region. The overall results signify that the overall vulnerability overweight the overall capacity to the disastrous events

3.png

Figure 3. (a-d) Demographic Vulnerability markers reaction across (a) Loan taking frequency (b) Amount of water-logged cropland during rainy season (c) Type of Sanitation (d) Used cleansing materials (p<0.05 vary significantly)

3.2 Capacity assessment

In this disaster-influenced study area was discovered to be less equipped dealing with calamites (Table 6 and Figure 2). Table 6 displays the response rates of information of the critical capacity indicators. As far as the Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) Related Indicators, the area was more capable with capacity index esteem 0.60±0.02 (±standard error) (Table 6 and Figure 2). Markers of WASH related indicators, for example, almost 90% households using deep tube well as source water and nearly 66% families using canal, river or shallow tube well as alternative source water (Table 5). Additionally, the markers like ‘availability of sufficient quantity of water for domestic doings (42% for Yes) and about 76% families knowing primitive knowledge of water purification (see Table 5). These evidences have made the area more equipped for taking care of calamities.

With regards to shelter & settlement related indicators, the area was moderate capable with capability index estimation of 0.51±0.011 (Table 6 and Figure 2). Shockingly, almost 94% of household’s condition was katcha & jhupri (made of tree leaves, jute sacks and sticks), whereas around 90% household roads were katcha which are connected to the Bazar/Hospital/Cyclone shelter (Table 5). Insufficient water supply facility as well as lacking of extra care for women in the shelter made the area less capable. Additionally, poor management in the shelter and having no any disaster preparation made the area towards less capably side.

Socioeconomically the area did not seem to be reasonably capable with a value of 0.38±0.026 (Table 6 and Figure 2) as nearly 68% of the populations did not have any kind of formal education (Table 5 and Figure 4 (a)). Similarly, more than 75% of people occupy vulnerable occupations like farming & fishing and besides among all 66% of the population have no secondary occupation (Table 5 and Figure 4 (b), Figure 4 (c)). Additionally, only 32% of the households had a family income of more than 60,000 BDT (Table 5). The participants had not such academic knowledge and almost 94% of them said that they cannot track the year-to-year change of their surrounding climate. It was horrible that only 2% of participants contained better knowledge about disaster management (Table 5).

4.png

Figure 4. (a-d) Demographic Capacity markers reaction across (a) Educational background (b) Occupation (c) Secondary occupation (d) Food stock before disaster (p<0.05 vary significantly)

With regards to food security & livelihood related indicators (with a minimum value of capability index is 0.20±0.031), about 82% of participants could not stock any kind of foods (Table 5 and Figure 4 (d)). In addition, no well-constructed irrigation system had been planted in the region. So, about 42% of people were taken by soybean (Glycine max) as their secondary agricultural product (vegetable) though half of the population had no involvement in farming secondary agricultural product. Float gardening is yet unexplored by the respondents.

Health related indicators have negligible amount of capability index score. Almost all the respondent assured that the medical facility is insufficient. For instance, 98% of participants said that the health assistance programs were conducted in very lower frequencies (Table 5).

Summarize the overall capability index of 0.37±0.018 signifies that the studied area was more vulnerable than capable in taking care of various natural disasters (see Table 6 and Figure 2).

This study makes an attempt to assess the vulnerability & capability of the Bangladesh’s most underrated disastrous area, Char Hizla upazila under Barishal division, to severely many disastrous events happened from time to time. There is a lack of the vulnerability & capacity assessment of the areas to these surprising hazards in the literature, which this study desire to complete. Such studies may undertake an intense work in making the development of the areas for the Policy Makers of the Government & NGOs. The vulnerability & capability of Char Hizla was assessed regarding socioeconomic status, water, sanitation & hygienic (WASH), food security & livelihood condition, shelter & settlement, health and effect on eco-system indicators. A sum of twenty-five vulnerability and capability markers were set up reliant on various literature and local condition to make a household questionnaire review evaluation. A total of 200 households review evaluation were collected in the three unions of Char Hizla, where various risk reduction policies (to develop infrastructures, emergency responses, warning and awareness facilities etc.), adaptation strategies (cultivation policies, livelihood status, to increase NGOs facilities etc.) and further studies (to conduct research in universities funded by Governments and NGOs) will be motivated in upcoming days in order to reduce in on these extreme shocking effect on the region’s vulnerability and to increase the capability to the extreme hazards. The results signify that Char Hizla upazila was by and large more vulnerable than the capability to the extreme hazards. In the context of health and the effect of disaster on local ecosystem, the region was not well equipped for any kind of disaster impact and therefore threatened more harm and the local communities felt dangerous during these extreme events than that of the previous events.