Md. Rabiul Islam, Masters Student

Disaster Preparedness, Mitigation and Management

Asian Institute of Technology

Bangkok, Thailand

December 2009

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In expressing the acknowledgement, first of all, I would like to express my deep sense of gratitude to Action Aid Bangladesh and Speed Trust for their extended hand funding to conduct this research work.

I would like to express my appreciation to Mr. AHM Shamsul Islam Dipu, Team Manager, Speed Trust, Barisal for his sincere cooperation throughout the period of this study.

I am highly pleased to express my gratefulness to Mr. Sajid Raihan, Manager, CCA DRR Project & Risk Reduction Theme, Livelihood Security and Risk Reduction Sector, Project Manager, CCA-DRR Project, Action Aid Bangladesh for his cordial cooperation during the study period.

I would like to show my thankfulness to Mr. Sanjay Biswash, Project Coordinator, CCA-DRR project, Speed Trust for his kind assistance and cooperation during field data collection.

I must note my gratefulness to Mr. Tanjir Hossain, Program Officer, Action Aid Bangladesh and Mr. Md. Shafikuzzaman Joarder, former Program Officer of Action Aid Bangladesh (Currently has been working as a Lecturer, Department of Sociology, University of Rajshahi) for their valuable suggestions and cooperation that helped me to arrange this study cost and complete it properly.

My special thanks are due to Mr. Arifur Rahman Rana, Capacity Building and Advocacy Officer, CCA-DRR Project, Speed Trust, Mr. Md. Shariful Islam, Mr. Md. Abu Selim Rana Gonogobeshona team, Mr. Pradip, Miss. Mahfuza, Mrs. Babita who helped me a lot during the field data collection.

Finally, I am gratitude and grateful to all beneficiaries, key informants, FGD team, Gonogobeshona team members for their patience, cooperation, cordial assistance and generosity to complete this study successfully.

December, 2009 Md. Rabiul Islam

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

BCPR Bureau of Crisis Prevention and Recovery

BMD Bangladesh Meteorological Department

CBO Community-Based Organization

CDMP Comprehensive Disaster Management Program

CPP Cyclone Preparedness Program

DMB Disaster Management Bureau

DMP Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness

DRM Disaster Risk Management

DRR Directorate for Relief and Rehabilitation

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

DRU Disaster Reduction Unit

FFWC Flood Forecasting and Warning Center

FGD Focus Group Discussion

HFA Hyogo Framework for Action

ICZM Integrated Coastal Zone Management

IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development

MFDM Minister in charge of the Ministry of Food and Disaster Management

NAPA The National Adaptation Plan of Action

NDMAC National Disaster Management Advisory Committee

NDMC National Disaster Management Council

NEMAP National Environment Management Action Plan

NGO Non Government Organization

NWMP National Water Management Plan

PA Preparatory Assistance

PAPD Participatory Action Plan Development

SPARRSO Space Research and Remote Sensing Organization

UNDP United Nations Development Program

WCDR World Conference on Disaster Reduction

WDB Water Development Board

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Title Page

Title page

Acknowledgement

List of abbreviation

1 Introduction

1.1 General background

1.2 Problem statement

1.3 Study objectives

1.4 Rationale of the study

1.5 Definition of the key concepts

2 Research design and methods

2.1 Type of research

2.2 Study area selection

2.3 Data sources

2.4 Study population

2.5 Sample size and sampling techniques

2.6 Data collection methods

2.7 Data analysis

2.8 Research design

3 Study findings

3.1 Socioeconomic and Demographic Information

3.2 Hazard Impact and Vulnerability Related Information

3.3 Preparedness of Individual and Community

3.4 Existing Practices

3.5 Felt Needs

3.6 Gonogobeshona Members versus other Community People

4 Recommendations and conclusion

4.1 Conclusion

4.2 Recommendations

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

1.1 General background

The numerous attacks of natural disasters in the recent past are globally a major concern. Especially, after the Tsunami, hurricane Katrina, cyclone Nargis as well as Sichuan and Kashmir earthquake the issue of community vulnerability and disaster risk reduction (DRR) have been discussed more in the disaster discourse. Simultaneously, DRR has got the top priority in the agenda of mainstreaming global development and incorporated with the Integrated Disaster Risk Management process. Due to the recurrent attacks and massive damages of major disasters there are many initiatives have been taken at the global, regional, national and local level. The main focuses of these initiatives are to increase the preparedness and building capacity of the community people to be resilient so that they can face future disaster induced challenges and overcome the adverse situation properly. In this regard, over the several decades of research, training programs, regional, international and national cooperation has led to an improved understanding of the complex and interacting factors that contribute to the construction of social vulnerability to natural hazards. Despite the growing awareness trends of natural hazards amongst the people, the efforts of DRR such as enhancing capacity and reducing vulnerability, building resiliency both in the affected and humanitarian communities has been going on. The United Nations International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) in the1990s; Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World in1994, the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015) have been introduced in this regard as the major global efforts. The main objectives of these initiatives are to reduce hazard vulnerability and disaster impacts as well as building resilient community for ensuring sustainable socioeconomic development in many disaster prone countries around the world (Thomalla et al., 2008).

Bangladesh is a country that is affected almost every year by various forms of natural disasters. The more common disasters in Bangladesh are flood, cyclone and storm surge, drought, tornado, riverbank erosion, earthquake, and arsenic contamination of groundwater. In fact, Bangladesh is a multi-hazard prone country. Therefore, many studies mentioned that natural hazard and Bangladesh is closely linked to each other. Among the hazards, floods and cyclonic storm surges demand special attention because of their frequency of occurrence and damaging power. As one of the biggest deltas of the world the country’s has some melancholy experiences regarding the floods of 1987, 1988, 1998, 2004 and 2007, and the cyclones of 1970, 1985, 1991 and 1997 where massive damages and casualties had been occurred (GOB, 2008; Khan, 2008). This multi-hazardous situation does not create an immense human disruption only; obstruct the sustainable socioeconomic and environmental development also.

Considering the existing disaster scenario, this is the big challenges for preparing the affected community and makes them capable to face the adverse circumstances. So, resiliency is essential for the disaster affected coastal community of Bangladesh. It is obvious that, until a community will not be empowered and learn to help itself, cannot face any difficulties properly. Actually, the external supports like relief, monetary and health services, food and rehabilitation can temporarily reduce the disaster sufferings but it does not sustain for a long time. At the same time, this type of activity does not bring any fruitful output for the affected people to make safer community. In this regard, community empowerment and the spontaneous people’s participation in DRR programs are needed. Since, Bangladesh is repeatedly affected by the heavy flooding and cyclone and these adverse conditions make the people vulnerable, community resiliency approach can assist to create a more proactive stance and vision among the people. In fact, building community resiliency is a type of capacity development where its members can cope with disaster and bounce back their earlier situation after the shock.

1.2 Problem statement

It is obvious that every disaster impacts simultaneously on socioeconomic development and various sectors of development like agriculture, health, education, infrastructure, communication, housing as well as human security of any country. This situation creates a serious social and economic set-back to the development of disaster prone developing countries as well as a big threat for achieving Millennium Development Goals (ADPC, 2008). Over the last century, the Asia-Pacific region accounted for about 91 percent of the world’s total deaths and about 49 percent of the total economic damages due to the impact of natural hazards. The loss from such disasters is the most severe and tragic in the least developed and developing countries of the region. In this context, regional cooperation in DRR, especially to building disaster resilient community is essential not only to cope with the increasing trend of losses and risks, but also ensuring sustainable economic growth (ESCAP, 2008).

For this reason, it is important to assist developing countries to develop policies and strategies for more effective integration of DRR into the socioeconomic development process so that they can build disaster resilient community. The international community and concerned authority understood this reality and has been taken various cooperative efforts in this regard. Though, after the Tsunami of Indian Ocean (2004) and Hurricane Katrina (2005, USA) community resiliency have been focused by the national, regional and international organizations, Kashmir (2005, Pakistan) and Sichuan earthquake (2008, China), cyclone nargis (2008, Myanmar), super cyclone sidr (2007), cyclone Aila (2009, Bangladesh-India) promoted more the disaster resilient activities.

Bangladesh is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world. Natural disasters adversely affect the country’s economy and deter its development (Khan, 2008). The geographical shapes and characteristics of the coastal areas of Bangladesh make this situation multifaceted. The Bangladesh’s coastal zone has been outlined based on three criteria, namely the limits of tidal fluctuation, salinity intrusion and cyclone risk and it comprises 19 administrative districts encompassing a land area of 47201 square km that is 32 percent of total area of the country. Based on geomorphologic characteristics, the coastal zone is divided into three distinct coastal regions, such as the western, central and eastern regions (Islam, 2004). In addition, the coastal region of Bangladesh is particularly vulnerable to cyclonic storm surge floods due to its location in the path of tropical cyclones. All the ingredients for a major cyclone disaster are present and such disasters have occurred several times in the past and claimed thousands of lives (Karim and Mimura, 2008). On the other hand, Parvin et al. (2008) discussed about the coastal hazard vulnerability and coping. In their study they mentioned that the coastal region of Bangladesh is vulnerable in many ways. In this regard, four key vulnerabilities have been identified such as saline water intrusion, drainage congestion, extreme events and changes in coastal morphology. It is forecasted that these vulnerabilities would be acute due to the combined effects of climate changes, sea level rise, subsidence, and change of upstream river drainage, cyclones and coastal embankments.

At the same time, Ericksen et al. (1997) also thought that due to the climate change and sea-level rise hydro-meteorological disasters like widespread floods and the storm surge induced cyclones have been gradually increasing which makes the people more vulnerable and increasing human insecurity in the Bangladesh coast.

In fact, the historical trends of natural hazard in Bangladesh coast are very alarming. During the year 1797 to 1991, Bangladesh faced 60 severe cyclones. Besides, out of 508 cyclones that have originated in the Bay of Bengal in the last 100 years, 17 percent have hit Bangladesh, amounting to a severe cyclone almost once every three years. Of these, nearly 53 percent have claimed more than five thousand lives (GOB, 2008). The major disasters have been caused many deaths in Bangladesh. For example, the cyclone 1970 and 1991 was the devastating event that struck in Bangladesh where respectively 500,000 and 138,868 people lost their lives. Besides these, 2373, 1050 and 747 people were died in the flood of 1988, 1998 and 2004. On the other hand, 5704, 550 and 3406 died in 1988, 1997 and 2007 cyclone. In addition, people 800 and 545 died in 1989 drought and 1996 tornado respectively (GOB, 2007). Undoubtedly, this trend is the severe threat on human security as well as the future development of the country.

Not only the cyclones and floods pose the immense risk to Bangladesh but also the northern and eastern regions of the country are susceptible to earthquakes while the southeast is particularly vulnerable to droughts and earthquake. It is also vulnerable to tsunami, the high arsenic contents of ground water, water logging, water and soil salinity etc. At the same time, the country is also at risk from global climate change impacts due to its low elevation and exposure to various climate related hazards. Although, the magnitude of these changes may appear to be small, they could substantially increase the frequency and intensity of existing climatic events like floods, droughts, cyclones etc. Furthermore, most recent shock cyclone Aila that hit on 25 May, 2009 caused 264 deaths both in Bangladesh and West Bengal, India. Among them most casualties are happened in Bangladesh. Thousands of people were displaced, homeless and at risk of contracting waterborne diseases by this event. The cyclone destroyed thousands of homes and stranded millions of people in flooded villages as well as the tidal surge washed away villages, roads and livestock (BBC, 2009). Due to these numerous attack of natural disasters especially cyclone and flood the vulnerability of the affected communities has been increasing alarmingly. Moreover, physical location, poverty, poor coping capacity, insufficient government and community support, lack of social security program, low people’s participation, traditional beliefs and perception, narrow vision as well as lack of diversified livelihoods make the people more vulnerable.

Considering the vulnerability this coastal community is needed to be prepared, empowered and resilient to face the potential disaster impacts. Recognizing these acute impacts, both governmental and NGOs with the financial and technical support of donors and international bodies have undertaken diversified programs and projects. At the same time, people’s initiatives at the community level are also involved in this regard. Though the main focuses of these programs are to building disaster resilient coastal communities, low capacity of the coastal people, insufficient government, NGO, and community initiatives fail to bring the expected and fruitful output in this regard. Therefore, building resilient community is required in order to protect the coastal communities and its resources. Based on these facts and findings it is assumed that the present study will be able to focus the key issues related to community resiliency in the multi-hazard prone coastal area of Bangladesh.

1.3 Study objectives

The overall objective of this study is to understand and assess the present status of resiliency in a multi-hazard prone coastal area at individual and community level in Bangladesh. The specific objectives of this study are to:

a) assess the preparedness of individuals and community;

b) study the recovery process, existing practices and felt needs of individuals and the community;

c) measure the level of resiliency at individual and community level; and finally

d) identify the process and means of building community resilience (where Gonogobeshona Process has been examined)

1.4 Rationale of the study

Bangladesh is located in the delta of some of the world’s largest rivers like the Brahamaputra, Jamuna, Padma and Meghna. This river system shapes the daily life of the country and also brings the perennial threat of flood and river bank erosion (Mamun, 1996). Moreover, due to the location of Bangladesh on the northern and eastern shores of the Bay of Bengal it is prone to Cyclone disaster. At the same time, its unstable socioeconomic condition has made the country extremely exposed to catastrophic natural hazards. Therefore, Chowdhury et al. (1993) rightly expressed that ‘living with natural disasters has become a way life in Bangladesh’.

Nonetheless, various socio-economic and cultural problems over population, limited area, low per capita income and economic growth rate, landlessness, illiteracy, mass poverty have made the situation more complicated and vulnerable. As a result, the ability of individuals, communities and sociopolitical institutions is very limited to cope with the extreme environmental events which ultimately resulting in unexpected human and economic losses (Haque and Blair, 1992). After the big shock of cyclone 1970 and 1991 as well as flood 1988, 1998 and 2000 the situation has been complicated. As building disaster-resilient community is one of the strategies of reducing the disaster impacts, credible warning system, institutional and human response, preparedness and empowerment at the community level as well as adequate support from both formal and informal socio-cultural groups are needed to mitigate the hazard impacts.

In fact, resilience is the ability of a social system to respond and recover from disasters and cope with during and post-event as well as adaptive processes that facilitate the ability of the social system to re-organize, change, and learn in response to a threat (Cutter et al., 2008). On the other hand, community resiliency indicates the movement or bounce back of people after disaster, ability to recover the shock and adaptive capacity with the adverse situation of hazard. In general sense, resilience denotes the capability that helps the community to cope with the economic, social and environmental changes. It provides the magnitude of shocks among the community people, building their capacity for self-organization as well as helping them to learn from disaster events. That means community resiliency makes the people more capable to face the impact of natural hazards.

But the actual feature of resiliency in any hazard prone community of Bangladesh is not sustainable rather fragile and poor in nature. In case of disaster preparedness, response and mitigation most of the people are reluctant (Mamun, 1996). As a result, the vulnerability of hazard prone community has been gradually increasing. In this context, awareness at household, individual and community level should be increased to face the major disaster shock. Through resilient community human response, preparedness, awareness and capacity can be improved. In view of these emerging problems of the vulnerability of the people and poor conditions of community resiliency, the present study is rationalized on the following grounds: First, there is a need to understand the present status of community resiliency, coping capacity of individual and community of a multi-hazard prone coastal community. Second, there is a need to examine the recovery process, existing practices and felt needs of individual and community. Third, it is utmost important to measure the level of resiliency as well as develop a strategy for building resilient community so that appropriate policy and programs could be designed and implemented.

Furthermore, the study is envisaged to able to contribute the knowledge and consciousness among various concerned groups of people and different agencies so that they can concentrate on the importance of initiating appropriate policy, program and action about it. Moreover, this study will fill up the gap of information regarding the issue of community resiliency that will provide an effective understanding to concentrate on the problem properly. Therefore, the present study will be very fruitful in the context of disaster risk reduction.

1.5 Definition of the key concepts

Community

Communities can be defined in many dimensions like societal, geographical, community organization and development, natural resources and disaster management. Moreover, it can be defined by shared experience such as particular interest groups, ethnic groups, and professional groups by sector, such as the farmers, fisher folk and business sector. Besides these, community may be used to refer to groupings that are both affected by and can assist in the mitigation of hazards and reduction of vulnerabilities. A common concept of community is that a community is harmonious, having a harmony of interest and aspirations, and bound by common values and objectives (ADPC, 2008a). The conceptual definitions of expert from the various fields are presented here in relation to community development and disaster management.

Communities, as defined by Gusfield (1975) “include both a territorial and a relational component. The territorial component refers to the specific geographical locale and the institutions specific to that locale, e.g., government and laws, schools, churches, families. The relational component refers to relationships between people who live in the locale, including shared beliefs and interests, and a sense of belonging.”

Chaskin et al. (2001) use a similar typology, referring to the geographical area and social attributes they defined a community as “the geographical area is characterized by natural boundaries, a particular history, specific demographic patterns and the presence of particular industries and organizations. The social attributes include language, customs, class and or ethnicity.”

In the context of disaster risk management, a community can be defined “as people living in one geographical area, who are exposed to common hazards due to their location. They may have common experience in responding to hazards and disasters. However, they may have different perceptions of and exposure to risk” (ADPC, 2008a).

Resiliency

In general sense, resiliency means a movement back from an impact. It is an ability to recover from or adjust easily to change. In broad sense, resiliency is the capacity of a system by which community or society potentially exposed to hazards to adapt, by resisting to reaching and maintaining an acceptable level of functioning and structure. This is determined by the degree to which the social system is capable of organizing itself to increase its capacity for learning from past disasters for better future protection and to improve risk reduction measures (UNISDR, 2004).

Wildavsky (1991) opined “resilience is the capacity to cope with unanticipated dangers after they have become manifest, learning to bounce back”. On the other hand, according to Horne and Orr (1998) “resilience is a fundamental quality of individuals, groups and organizations, and systems as a whole to respond productively to significant change that disrupts the expected pattern of events without engaging in an extended period of regressive behavior”.

Cardona (2003) mentioned that resilience is “the capacity of the damaged ecosystem or community to absorb negative impacts and recover from these”. But Pelling (2003) has seen the resilience as “the ability of an actor to cope with or adapt to hazard stress”.

In other word, “resilience is the ability of an individual or organization to expeditiously design and implement positive adaptive behaviors matched to the immediate situation, while enduring minimal stress” (Kendra and Wachtendorf, 2003).

In fact, it is the capability of community that helps the community to cope with the economical, social and environmental changes. There are three key characteristics of community resiliency which are: magnitude of shocks; capability of self-organization and bounce back and finally building capacity for learning and adaptation (USAID, 2007).

Resilient community

Magis (2007) defined community resilience “as the existence, development and engagement of community resources to thrive in a dynamic environment characterized by change, uncertainty, unpredictability and surprise. Resilient communities intentionally develop personal and collective capacity to respond to and influence change, to sustain and renew the community and to develop new trajectories for the community’s future”.

According to the Community Economic Development (2000), “a resilient community is one that takes intentional action to enhance the personal and collective capacity of its citizens and institutions to respond to, and influence the course of social and economic change”.

Geis (2000) mentioned that “a Disaster Resistant Community (DRC) represents the safest possible community that we have the knowledge to design and build in a natural hazard context. It is a means to assist communities minimize their vulnerability to natural hazards by maximizing the application of the principles and techniques of mitigation to their development and or redevelopment decision-making process”.

Hazard

Hazard is a potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity that may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation. Hazards can include latent conditions that may represent future threats and can have different origins: natural (geological, hydro-meteorological and biological) or induced by human processes (environmental degradation and technological hazards). Hazards can be single, sequential or combined in their origin and effects. Each hazard is characterized by its location, intensity, frequency and probability (UNISDR, 2004).

CHAPTER TWO

Research Design and Methods

Research methodology is a way to systematically solve the research problem. It is a system of rules, principles and procedures that helps to conduct scientific investigation. Methodology differs from one research to another depending on the nature of research. So, the selection of relevant and exact research methodology is of utmost necessity to carry out any quality research work.

2.1 Type of research

The present research is descriptive and exploratory in nature has been used both qualitative and quantitative data to enquire the actual level of community resiliency in a multi-hazard prone area in Bangladesh. Descriptive research includes surveys and fact-findings enquiries of different kinds. The nature of exploratory research is the development of hypotheses rather than their testing.

2.2 Study area selection

The present study has been conducted in Kalapara Upazilla (sub-district) of Patuakhali district that is one of the biggest coastal zones, situated in the southern region of Bangladesh. Kalapara Upazila with an area of 483.27 sq km is bounded by Amtali upazila on the north, the Bay of Bengal on the south, Rabnabad channel and Galachipa upazila on the east and Amtali upazila on the west. Main rivers are Andharmanik, Nilganj and Dhankhali. The population of Kalapara is 174,921 where male 50.89 percent and female 49.11 percent. Religious institutions like mosque, temple, pagoda, Buddhist Vihara and church are available here. Moreover, educational institutions, cultural organizations, fisherman co-operative society, women’s association, public library, theatre stage, cinema hall, community centre, playground are also available at Kalapara. Main occupations are agriculture (45.63 percent), fishing (5.67 percent), commerce (10.01 percent), service (3.56 percent), agricultural laborer (18.89 percent) and wage laborer (4.57 percent). On the other hand, main crops of this area are paddy, pulse, sugarcane, watermelon and vegetables as we as main fruits are banana, papaya, coconut, guava and plum. NGO activities, health centers, upazila health complex satellite clinic, family planning centre and private clinic services are available in this area (Banglapedia, 2006)

In fact, Kalapara has a historical profile related to hydro-meteorological hazards like floods, cyclones salinity and coastal flooding. The area is surrounded by the three main rivers and the Bay of Bengal. This is one of the multi-hazard prone areas of Bangladesh. This multi-hazard proneness as well as the limited capacity of communities and local authorities to respond to the existing hazards, weak preparedness and insufficient mitigation strategies, lack of community based organizations; lack of coordination among the local organizations makes the people more vulnerable.

Considering the above facts and findings of the area the present study has been conducted in two villages of Lalua Union such as Charipara and Pashurbunia. Due to the cyclone, salinity and sea-surge proneness and frequent attack of these events, the area has been chosen for investigation.

In fact, Charipara and Pashurbunia have been selected as the study area on the basis of following grounds.

· Both areas are highly prone to cyclone, coastal and flash flood due to the location on the banks of the Bay of Bengal. Almost every year these areas are affected by these events.

· The occupations and livelihoods of the study areas people’s are diversified. Almost all economic classes people like higher, middle and lower are available in the area that have provided different perceptions and views regarding disaster risk reduction.

· The study area may give a comparative feature between flood and cyclone preparedness at individual, community and local government levels.

2.3 Data sources

Both primary and secondary data have been used for this study. Secondary sources of information have been collected from published and unpublished research works relevant to the theme of the study. These include books, journals articles, research reports, documents of ministry, local government and departments and NGO’s, conference proceedings, government laws and regulations, community based publications etc.

On the other hand, primary sources have been the main foundation of the present study that will be collected from the household survey of the study area.

2.4 Study population

The present study has considered as the study population to all inhabitants of Charipara (318 household) and Pashurbunia (104 household). The unit of analysis of this research has been the household and community. Households are the immediate units to receive external interventions and react to it as well as harness available resources and community services. In fact, to know the individual, household and community capacity and their preparedness, awareness, perception to cope with flood and cyclone the present study will focus the community people. Moreover, data has also been collected from key informants (different community stakeholders like community leaders, community representatives, local government officials, NGO workers, politicians, community group leaders etc.).

2.5 Sample size and sampling techniques

By using purposive sampling method two (2) multi-hazards affected villages (Charipara and Pashurbunia) have been selected from Lalua Union of Kalapara Upazilla. Based on the number of total households of the two villages sample size has been determined by applying the purposive sampling. Total number of sample size of this study is 90 that is taken 70 from Charipara and 20 from Pashurbunia.

2.6 Data collection methods

The present study has been basically based on the primary data. This data has been collected by following the tools of survey methods through standardized structured questionnaire (interview schedule) with the assistance of face to face interview and observation techniques. Apart from these, informal discussion with the respondents was another important source of collecting data. Questionnaire has been pre-tested before collecting the final data from the field.

2.7 Data analysis

Both qualitative and quantitative methods and techniques have been used to analyze the data. The various techniques and methods of statistics such as percentage, average, standard deviation and frequency distribution will be used for data analysis. Computer tools as MS Word, Excel and SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) have also been used for data compilation, analysis and graphical presentation.

2.8 Research design

The research design of the present study comprises three segments. The section one is identification of research problem and formulation of research objectives, development of conceptual framework through literature review. The second section is identification of research methods, both primary and secondary data collection by using survey method and interview schedule. Finally, the third part is data processing, analysis, interpretation, presentation and policy prescription and conclusion.

CHAPTER THREE

STUDY FINDINGS

The present chapter describes about the socioeconomic and demographic information of the respondents of study area, Hazard impact and vulnerability of the local people, their preparedness activities at the individual and community level. Besides, this chapter focuses about the existing practices in the different sectors as well as the felt needs of the people before, during and after disaster.

3.1 Socioeconomic and demographic information

This sub-section focuses the age, income, expenditure, savings and loan, housing quality, working population, health status and asset of the family which are directly linked to the community resiliency.

Age of the respondent

Age is considered as an important factor for the resilient community. The age distribution of respondents is shown in the table 1.

Table 3.1 Age of the respondents

Age Group		Frequency	Percentage
	1-15 16-30	00 20	00 22.2
	31-45	38	42.2
	46-60	20	22.2
	61-75	10	11.1
	76-90	2	2.2
	Total	90	100.0

Source: Field survey, 2009

It appears from the above-mentioned table that most of the respondents (42.20%) belonged to the age group of 31-45 years, and only 2.20 percent respondents belonged to the age group of 76-90 years. There were no respondent found in the age group of above 1-15 years. The second majority group of respondents was from the age group 16-30 (22.20%) and 46-60 (22.20%) and the next group 61-75 (11.10%). The average age of the respondents is 44.18 years. It is clear from this data that people of medium aged are mostly occupied as household chief in the rural coastal communities in Bangladesh. On the other hand, the average age of respondent’s family member is 23.96, which mean most of the young people.

Income

The income of respondent is directly linked to economic resiliency. That’s why, it is important to know the income of the key earning members of the family. Table 2 explores the monthly income of the respondents. It shows that the monthly income of the maximum number of respondents, i.e. 52 (57.8%) were in the income range of Tk. 0-3000 and next to this 31(34.4%) respondents were found to be in the income ranges of 3001-7000. Besides these, only 6(6.7 percent) respondents income were between Tk.7001-10000 and 1(1.1%) respondent’s income were of Tk. 16000 and above. The average monthly income of the respondents was 4472.22 taka. Importantly most of the respondents 82(91.11%) family income depends on non-farm sectors in the study area.

Table 3.2 Monthly income of the respondents

Income (Tk.)		Frequency	Percentage
	<3000	52	57.8
	3001-7000	31	34.4
	7001-10000	6	6.7
	16000>	1	1.1
	Total	90	100.0

Source: Field survey, 2009

Expenditure

Table 3 shows that the average monthly expenditure of the respondents 4755.55 taka. The main expenditure sectors of respondents are food, education, health and cloth. The table explores that most of the expenditure is in food sector, second sector is health and lowest expenditure sector is education. It reveals that most of the disaster prone coastal people are not capable to aware about their education.

Table 3.3 Sector-wise average monthly expenditure (in Taka)

Sector	Food	Education	Health	Cloth	Others	Total
Average expenditure	3398.33	234.44	509.44	440.55	292.33	4755.55

Source: Field survey, 2009

Savings and loan

Saving is one of the important components to assess the economic resiliency of any community. The people of study area (Charipara and Pashurbunia) are basically poor and there are big gap between income and expenditure. Most of the cases their monthly expenditure is higher than income. Therefore, 94.40 percent doesn’t have any savings and only 5.60 percent have. In this process, majority of the disaster affected coastal people falls in debt trap. Among the respondents 56.70 percent received loan from different NGO’s, cooperative associations, banks and money lenders and rest 43.30 doesn’t have. In fact, those respondents do not have any loan from the formal financial institutions; have the due in the shop from where they purchase their essential goods. So, the respondents are vulnerable regarding the income and savings.

Housing quality

Housing is considered as an important factor for the resilient community. The housing pattern and quality of respondents is shown in the table 3.4.

Table 3.4 Type/quality of housing

Types of Housing		Frequency	Percentage
	Pucca	1	1.1
	Semi-pucca	3	3.3
	Kucha	48	53.3
	RCC building	11	12.2
	Traditional local building	20	22.2
	Saudi House	7	7.8
	Total	90	100.0

Source: Field survey, 2009

Most of the respondents 48(53.30%) live in the kucha house that is made by bamboo, fence and mud. Second category house is traditional local building 20(22.2%). Besides, 12.20 percent RCC building, 3.30 percent semi-pucca and only 1.1 percent pucca building. Moreover, 7.8 percent Saudi building that is given by Saudi government through union parisad after cyclone Sidr and Aila. This building is build by concrete tin, bamboo and mud. This table shows that most of the buildings of the study area are very poor quality and fragile. It is understood from FGD, key informants interview and observation that most of the buildings of Charipara and Pashurbunia are vulnerable to cyclone hazard.

Working population

Number of working population at the family level is an important component to be resilient. Total number of family members of the respondents are 379 among the working population is 120 i.e. the average number the respondent’s family of the study area is 1.33. The number of working population in the respondent’s family is shown in the table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Number of working population in the family

Working people		Frequency	Percentage
	0	1	1.1
	1	64	71.1
	2	21	23.3
	3	3	3.3
	5	1	1.1
	Total	90	100.0

Source: Field survey, 2009

Most of the family of the study area 64(71.10%) has only 1 working people. On the other hand, two different characteristics families are found where 1.1 percent (1 family) family has no working people and another 1 family (1.1 percent) has 5 working people. It is obvious that second family is more resilient than first. Besides, 23.3 percent (21 families) family has 2 working people and 3.3 percent (3 families) has 3. Therefore, it is assumed that the family of more working people is more disaster resilient than the family of less working people. That means high dependency of the family member indicates the low resiliency and low dependency of family member shows high resiliency. In this context, the respondent’s family of the study area has high dependent family member. Therefore, the area is low resilient and high vulnerable to disaster.

Health status

Healthy people are the power to any disaster affected community for recovery. Those families have healthy people; it is easier to them to recover soon than unhealthy bodied family. The health status related information of respondents is shown in the table 3.6.

Table 3.6 Health status of family members

Health status	Healthy adult	Incapable/Unhealthy	Disable	Children	Old
Mean	1.96	.06	.03	1.22	.52
Sum	176	5	3	110	47
Percent	46.44	1.32	0.79	29.02	12.40

Source: Field survey, 2009

Out of 379 family members of 90 respondents 46.44 percent healthy adult, 1.32 percent unhealthy, 0.79 percent disable, 29.02 children and 12.40 percent oldage. That means less than half of the population on the study area are healthy adults who are the capable to play role in the process of disaster recovery. On the contrary, majority members of the respondent’s family (53.56 percent) are not able to put full efforts in the disaster recovery process. Therefore, in the context of health status of respondents family members the study area (Charipara and Pashurbunia) are vulnerable.

Asset

Asset is always one of the crucial factors for disaster resilient community and disaster recovery. The primary data that is collected from field shows that the respondents are owner of 14.92 decimal homestead and 14.90 decimal cultivated land in average. Moreover, in average they have animal and livestock of taka 1321. At the same time, the respondents are the owner of household goods of taka only 245.71 in average. This data shows that, the asset of the respondents is so poor to help them to recover from disastrous situation. That’s why, it is assumed that their resiliency is low though the area is highly prone to disaster like cyclone, sea-surge, salinity and coastal erosion which make the community people vulnerable.

3.2 Hazard impact and vulnerability related information

In this sub-section hazard types, disaster impact and damage and loss, its nature and extent have been discussed. This sub-section gives an idea about the hazard, its impact on the local people and economy as well as the people’s vulnerability.

Type of hazard

The study area is highly affected by different types of hazard. From the field survey it is understood that both the study village such as Charipara and Pashurbunia is highly affected by the recent past devastating cyclone like super cyclone SIDR, BIJLI and AILA. The type of hazards that are faced by the respondents is shown in the table 3.7.

Table 3.7 Type of hazard

Hazard types	*Frequency	Percentage
Flood	50	55.6
Cyclone	90	100
Kal Baishakhi	2	2.2
Sea-surge	61	67.8
Salinity	59	65.6
River Bank Erosion	8	8.9
Total	90	100

Source: Field survey, 2009 *Multiple responses were possible

The table depicts that 100 percent of the respondents are affected by cyclone and 67.80 percent is affected by cyclone induced sea-surge. Moreover, 55.60 percent respondents flood, 65.60 percent salinity, 8.90 percent river bank erosion and only 2.20 percent are affected by kal baishakhi. Therefore, from this table it is understood that the study area is extremely affected by various types of disaster that makes the local people vulnerable.

Disaster impact

Since the coastal community of Bangladesh is highly affected by different types of disaster, these disasters have various impacts on the different social issues. The disaster impacts/damage and loss is shown in the table 3.8.

The table shows that human death of the study area was very low i.e. only 2 persons (2.2 percent) were died in the last three cyclones like SIDR, BIJLI and AILA. On the contrary, the injured people of the respondent’s family were 16(16.70 percent) and disease affected family members were 34 (21.1 percent). As a result, health care cost of the respondents was 1083.33 taka on average. Besides, most of the respondent’s residential home (90.51 percent) was highly affected by the cyclone. That’s why on average house reconstruction cost of the respondents was 4602.22 taka.

Table 3.8 Impact of disaster/damage and loss

Type of damage and loss	Average Amount (Tk.)	Number	Percentage
Human Death		2	2.2
Injured		16	16.7
Disease of Family Member		34	21.1
Health Care Cost	1083.33
Residential home		89	90.51
House reconstruction cost	4602.22
Loss of income	2522.22
Loss of asset	27894.44
Loss of paddy field	2177.77
Loss of vegetable field	133.33
Loss of fish pond	2300
Loss of livestock	7196.67
Loss of poultry	503.33
Loss of trees	16423.33
Other	222.22

Source: Field survey, 2009

Moreover, on average loss of income was Tk. 2522.22, loss of asset 27894.44, loss of paddy field 2177.77 and loss of vegetable field was Tk. 133.33. At the same time, loss of fish pond was on average Tk. 2300.00, loss of livestock 7196.67, loss of poultry 503.33, loss of trees 16423.33 and other damage and loss was Tk. 222.22 on average. In fact, it is understood that damage and loss of essential household and income earning sectors of the respondents has been made them more vulnerable.

Nature of damage and loss

In order to know the nature of damage and loss the researcher explores some core sectors to the respondents such as income, asset, crop, health and housing. The respondents have given their opinion on the issues that is reflected in the table 9. The table shows that majority of the respondents (55.6%) opined their income loss was very high. On the other hand, in case of asset loss 46.7 percent opined the loss was high and 32.2 percent told very high. At the same time, in case of crops loss the respondents opined low 38.9 percent, moderate 21.1 percent and high 14.1 percent. In addition, majority of the respondents (41.1%) opined that health cost was moderate and 37.8 percent told high. Finally, most of the respondents (75.6 percent) told that the housing damage was very high. It is realized from the table that in case of income, asset and crops loss as well as health cost and housing damage the people of study area were highly exposed to high affected because on the basis of previous disaster impact most of the respondents (54.4% high and 42.2% very high) told the level of their vulnerability was high.

Table 3.9 Nature of damage and loss

Sectors	Nature of damage and loss
	VL (%)	L (%)	M (%)	H (%)	VH (%)
Income loss	-	3.3	24.4	16.7	55.6
Asset loss	-	6.7	14.4	46.7	32.2
Crops loss	14.4	38.9	21.1	14.4	11.1
Health cost	1.1	11.1	41.1	37.8	7.8
Housing damage	1.1	1.1	3.3	18.9	75.6

Source: Field survey, 2009

Note: VL= Very Low, L=Low, M=Moderate, H=High, VH= Very High

3.3 Preparedness activities of individual and community

This sub-section explores the preparedness activities like food reserve, safe drinking water, warning signal, mitigation activities and awareness program, response and recovery programs that are directly related to building disaster resilient community.

Preparedness

Preparedness is one the major indicators to measure the community resiliency to cyclone. From the field data we got different types of information about the preparedness activities of the study area. During the cyclone 85.6 percent respondents go to shelter center and 13.3 percent take shelter in any elevated place. But their housing capacity is very poor because most of the respondents (85.6%) told their house was totally damaged by the last cyclone and 82.2 percent told their vulnerability was very high on the basis of their housing quality and intensity of cyclone. Though most of the respondents took shelter in the cyclone shelter center, the overall service of the cyclone center is not satisfactory. No basic services like food, drinking water, electricity, health care facility and baby food are available at the shelter center. Only sanitation system is available but limited and most of the cases it is situated under the cyclone center (on ground floor), though it is two storied building. In this regard, 24.4 percent opined that their satisfaction was very low, 48.9 percent low and 23.3 percent told about moderate satisfaction about the services of cyclone shelter. Moreover, there are limited shelter center available in the study area than necessary.

Food reserve

In addition, food stock is one of the important components of preparedness. But only 13.3 percent respondents have the food reserve to face the disastrous situation and rest of 86.7 percent does not have. On the other hand, those who have reserved food most of them (91.67%) have two days food that is insufficient to face and overcome the adverse situation. That’s why; majority of the respondents (55.6%) has the low satisfaction about the food availability during and after disaster. At the same time, those who does not have stocked food most of them are highly depends on relief goods of different sources like neighbor and relatives help (46.7%), NGO relief (56.7%) and local government relief (45.7%). But on the basis of field data, FGD and key informants interview the researcher got a plenty of irregularities regarding relief distribution. In that cases, local leader’s unethical intervention is observed and most of the cases of house reconstruction they demand money from the affected people.

Safe drinking water

Safe drinking and cooking water is another important issue of preparedness. But safe drinking and cooking water supply is not sufficient in the study area. In this regard, majority of the respondents 58(64.4%) opined they do not have sufficient safe water to drink and cook on the contrary only 32(35.6%) have this water. Those who have this facility most of them (87.5%) sources of water are community tube-well that is available at rainy season and unavailable at dry season. In this regard, most of the respondents (56.25%) told the amount of water is insufficient and 46.87 percent opined this water is hard and salty. On the other hand, those who does not have sufficient amount of water most of them (79.31%) uses purified water by tablets and 10.35 percent depends on relief water. The overall satisfaction of the respondents about the availability of safe drinking and cooking water is not satisfactory. Among the respondents 21.1 percent opined very low, 51.1 percent low, 25.6 percent moderate and only 2.2 percent high satisfaction. That means, most of the respondents of the study area are not satisfied about the availability of safe and drinking water.

Warning signal

Warning signal is also the important factor of preparedness. The data showed that 100 percent respondents told that they understand the warning signal and know what to do after hearing the warning signal. The table 10 shows that more than 94 percent respondents have given their opinion that after hearing the signal they have to go in the shelter center or any safer places. Besides, 24.4 percent told about food storage, 20 percent livestock safety and another 17.8 percent opined about storage of valuable belongings.

Table 3.10 Respondent’s actions after hearing warning signal

Actions	*Frequency	Percentage
To stay in house	2	2.2
To store valuable belongings	16	17.8
To go to shelter center/safer places	85	94.4
To bring livestock in safer places	18	20
To store necessary food	22	24.4
Total	90

Source: Field survey, 2009 *Multiple responses were available

Though all respondents of the study area understand the warning signal but most of them (82.2%) do not have any radio in the family to hearing the signal before cyclone and only 17.8 percent has the radio. Those who have radio, 50 percent of them listen to warning news always and rest of 50 percent very often and sometimes.

Mitigation

Mitigation is the structural and non-structural measures undertaken to limit the adverse impact of natural hazards. It is observed that there are both structural and non-structural disaster mitigation program available in the study area. Most of the respondents 82(91.1%) opined that community based organization (CBO) has been working to disaster risk reduction (DRR) in their areas. Among the CBO’s 98.78 percent NGO, 30.49 percent local government organization (LGO) like Union Parishad and 4.88 percent INGO like Red Crescent. The respondents specified the programs of CBO’s as the mitigation activities which are shown in the table 3.11.

Table 3.11 DRR activities of CBO’s

Type of activities	*Frequency	Percentage
Training/Disaster drill	30	33.33
Education/Awareness program	46	51.11
Micro-credit	10	11.11
Group meeting/Discussion	48	53.33
Other	5	5.55
Total	90

Source: Field survey, 2009 *Multiple responses were available

Most of the respondents (53.33%) told about the group meeting/discussion, 51.11 percent education and awareness program, 33.33 percent training/disaster drill and 11.11 percent opined through micro credit program CBO’s have been playing vital role in DRR.

Awareness program

Awareness is one of the important components of non-structural disaster mitigation program. Most of the respondents 50(55.6%) know about the CBO’s disaster awareness program and rest 40(44.4%) do not know about it. Those who know about this program among them 76.00 percent mentioned the community meeting/ group discussion, 22.00 percent education and training and only 2.00 percent mentioned about other ways of awareness campaign (table11). On the other hand, out of 50 respondents those who know among them only 14 (28.00 percent) attended in their awareness campaign and 36 (72.00 percent) did not attend. In fact those who have attended the program they learned about warning signal, services of shelter center, food storing, water purification, cleanliness, tree plantation and responsibilities before, during and after disaster which are vital indicators to form resilient community. But very poor number of the respondents attended the awareness program which is the drawback to building disaster resilient community.

Table 3.12 Ways/means of the awareness programs

Types of Awareness Programs	Frequency	Percentage
Through community meeting/group discussion	38	76
Through education/training	11	22
Other	1	2
Total	50	100

Source: Field survey, 2009

The respondent’s satisfaction about the awareness campaign of CBO’s and public participation is not satisfactory. Among the respondents 10.00 percent were very low satisfied, 23.30 percent low, 58.9 percent moderate and only 6.7 percent showed their high satisfaction about the CBO’s awareness program.

Response

Response is the intervention during or immediately after a disaster to meet the life preservation and basic subsistence needs of those people affected. It can be of an immediate, short-term, or protracted duration.

Emergency evacuation

Evacuation is an important factor of disaster response. But most of the respondents (92.2%) of the study area opined that there is no emergency evacuation supports available. On the other hand, only 7.8 percent respond positively about the emergency evacuation support. Those who (only 7) respond positively, they told NGO, Union Parishad and INGO’s are involved in this evacuation process though the evacuation activities are very poor than necessity as the opinion of respondents. According to the respondents the available emergency evacuation supports are volunteers, information dissemination and help the affected people to go safer places. The overall satisfaction of respondents about the evacuation program and its effectiveness is low.

Table 3.13 Emergency response programs

Emergency response programs	*Frequency	Percentage
Search and rescue	19	36.53
First aid	11	21.15
Relief delivery	36	69.23
Others	8	15.38
Total	52	100.00

Source: Field survey, 2009 *Multiple responses were available

The above table 3.13 depicts that most of the respondents i.e. 69.23 percent meant the relief delivery as the emergency response program. Besides, 36.53 percent opined about the search and rescue activities, 21.15 percent mentioned about first aid and finally 25.38 percent responded other activities. The FGD team and key informants informed that these activities are not sufficient as the needs of the local people. That’s why, most of the respondents were not satisfied on the programs that is reflected in the table 3.14.

The data of the bellow table 3.14 proves that the overall satisfaction level regarding emergency evacuation support was poor in two study villages. The data also shows that regarding the satisfaction level very low and high there no significant differences between Charipara and Pashurbunia. On the contrary, in the level of low and moderate there were significant differences were shown between two study villages.

Table 3.14 Degree of satisfaction of emergency evacuation

Degree of satisfaction	Frequency	Total	WAI
Very high	0	0.0	0.36 i.e. level of satisfaction is low
High	1	1.1
Moderate	10	11.1
Low	49	54.4
Very low	30	33.3
Total	90	100.00

Source: Field survey, 2009

Note: WAI (Weighted Average Index) is calculated by following the formula of [{fVH(1.0) + fH (0.8) + fM (0.6) + (fL (0.4) + fVL(0.2)/N}] where, fVH = Frequency of very high, fH= Frequency of high, fM= Frequency of moderate, fL= Frequency of low, fVL = Frequency of very low,N = Total number of item

Recovery

Recovery is the actions taken after a disaster in order to restoring/improving the pre-disaster living conditions of the stricken community. Recovery is the re-establishment and step-up of facilities, livelihoods and living conditions of disaster affected communities (UNISDR, 2009). This is an effort that includes disaster risk reduction factors where rehabilitation and reconstructions are prioritized. In this regard the present study tried to search the repairing status of respondent’s damaged house. In this connection, the bellow table 3.15 depicts that most of the respondents 74 (82.2%) reconstructed their damaged house by self. This self involvement to repair the smashed house was higher in Pashurbunia (90.0%) than Charipara (80.0%). On the other hand, only 16 (17.8%) respondents received external help to reconstruct their broken house by disaster and this rate was higher (20.0%) in Charipara than Pashurbunia (10.0%).

Table 3.15 Repair the damaged house

Repairing process	Study village		Total
	Charipara	Pashurbunia
By self	56 (80.0%)	18 (90.0%)	74 (82.2%)
By other help	14 (20.0%)	2 (10.0%)	16 (17.8%)
Total	70 (100%)	20 (100%)	90 (100%)

Source: Field survey, 2009

Basically disaster affected community becomes more vulnerable after disaster than before. In this situation, they need external supports to re-establish their shelter and living condition, livelihoods and other facilities. But the above table, reveals that type of external supports were in limited scale in the study area. As a result, the poor coastal people tried their best to regain their earlier position by the limited capacity. In fact, it is observed from the field survey that the local people still have been suffering that focused by their poor living conditions, broken houses and affected other facilities like sanitation, roads and embankments.

Nonetheless, the respondents those who have repaired their houses by other help 16(17.8%), in major cases (56.2%), they took the services from local government organization like Union Parishad, 50 percent from NGO’s and 6.2 percent did their job by cooperative basis that is demonstrated in the table 3.16.

Table 3.16 Helping organizations

Other organizations	Study village		*Total N=16
	Charipara	Pashurbunia
Local government organization	8 (57.1%)	1 (50.0%)	9 (56.2%)
Non-government organizations	6 (42.9%)	2 (100.0%)	8 (50.0%)
By cooperative basis	1(7.1%)	0(.0%)	1(6.2%)
Total	14 (100%)	2 (100%)	16 (100%)

Source: Field survey, 2009 *Multiple responses were available

The above table shows that in case of local government support, Charipara village received more facilities (57.1%) than Pashurbunia (50.0%). On the contrary, regarding NGO’s help Pashurbunia’s rate was significantly higher (100%) than Charipara (42.9%). Nevertheless, in case of cooperative initiatives Charipara rate was higher (7.1%) than Pashurbunia (.0%) as in this regard there were no respondents found.

The organizations which helped the respondent’s to repair their damaged houses provided various types of services. The bellow table 6.5 portrays that most of the cases (62.5 percent) they built new houses for the disaster victims, 37.5 percent repaired the damaged houses as well as 25 percent provided partial material of houses like concrete tin as the relief goods. Apart from these, 18.75 percent given other services like money and temporary loan for repairing the affected house.

Table 3.17 Services of these organizations

Type of services	Study village		*Total N=16
	Charipara	Pashurbunia
Repair the damaged house	4 (28.57%)	2 (100.0%)	6 (37.50%)
Building new house	9 (64.28%)	1 (50.0%)	10 (62.50%)
Provide partial building materials	3 (21.43%)	1 (50.0%)	4 (25.0%)
Others	2 (14.29%)	1(50.0%)	3 (18.75%)
Total	14 (100%)	2 (100%)	16 (100%)

Source: Field survey, 2009 *Multiple responses were available

The above table states that regarding the services of repairing damaged house studied village Pashurbunia’s rate significantly higher (100%) than Charipara (28.57). On the other hand, I case of providing new houses the rate was higher (64.28%) in Charipara than Pashurbunia (50.0%). At the same time, providing partial building materials was higher (50.0%) in Pashurbunia than Charipara.

From the field data it is proved that 90 percent of houses totally damaged in Charipara and 70 percent partially in Pashurbunia. That’s why the rate of repairing damaged house was higher in pashurbunia (100%) and the rate of building new house rate was high in Charipara (64.28%). Besides, from the field observation and FGD it is understood that in case of getting new house victims had to give money to the local governments authority. In this regard, good number of respondents of Pashurbunia could not able to pay this money. As a result, new building rate was high in Charipara than Pashurbunia.

From the field observation, key informants interview and FGD it is understood that the recovery activities in the study area was insufficient than necessary. That’s why; respondents’ satisfaction on recovery process was not satisfactory which is shown in the table 6.6. The table illustrates that majority of the respondent’s (56.7%) satisfaction was low level while 60.0 percent in Pashurbunia and 55.7 percent in Charipara.

Table 3.18 Respondents’ satisfaction about the recovery process

Level of satisfaction	Study village		Total	WAI
	Charipara	Pashurbunia
Very high	1(1.4%)	0 (.0%)	1 (1.1%)	0.41 i.e. level of satisfaction is low
High	5 (7.1%)	0 (.0%)	5 (5.6%)
Moderate	9 (12.9%)	4 (20.0%)	13 (14.4%)
Low	39 (55.7%)	12 (60.0%)	51 (56.7%)
Very low	16 (22.9%)	4 (20.0%)	20 (22.2%)
Total	70 (100%)	20 (100%)	90 (100%)

Source: Field survey, 2009

Note: WAI (Weighted Average Index) is calculated by following the formula of [{fVH(1.0) + fH (0.8) + fM (0.6) + (fL (0.4) + fVL(0.2)/N}] where, fVH = Frequency of very high, fH= Frequency of high, fM= Frequency of moderate, fL= Frequency of low, fVL = Frequency of very low, N = Total number of item

On the contrary, 22.2 percent respondent’s satisfaction was in low level. In this regard, Charipara was in higher (22.9%) position than Pashurbunia (20.0%). Apart from these, 14.4 percent respondents were moderate satisfied and only 5.6 and 1.1 percent high and very high satisfied respectively. Importantly, in the high and very level of satisfaction there were no respondents found in Pashurbunia village.

3.4 Existing practices

It is important to know the people’s existing practices to protect their lives and necessary items during and after disaster. This section describes existing practices of saving people lives, protection of shelter, practices in case of early warning and alternative income. At the same time, it focuses the existing practices to saving properties, protecting fisheries, practices to saving poultry and livestock, crops as well as food and fuel.

3.4.1 Early warning

Early warning is an important indicator to save lives, protect damage and loss from upcoming the disaster shock. It refers to disseminate timely and meaningful warning about the potential disaster to individuals, communities and organizations so that they can prepare themselves, act appropriately as well as get sufficient time to reduce the possible harm or loss (UNISDR, 2009). The existing early warning practices of the study area are different. In this regard, they depend on indigenous knowledge, radio/TV and information of community based organizations like NGO and cooperative association.

The bellow table 3.19 reveals that most of the respondents 56 (62.22%) of the study area were depended on radio and television’s warning news. Moreover, 30.0 and 10.0 percent respondents were depended on the information of CBO’s and other sources (like local market, mosque, school, Union Parishad etc.) respectively. At the same time, 15.56 percent respondents were depended on indigenous practices and traditional beliefs like animal behavior[1] (ant, rates, snake and fish) and sea water.

Table 3.19 Practices in early warning

Existing practices	Study village		*Total N=90
	Charipara	Pashurbunia
Depends on indigenous practices	9 (12.86%)	5 (20.0%)	14 (15.56%)
Depends on radio and television	41 (58.57%)	15 (75.0%)	56 (62.22%)
Depends on CBO’s	20 (28.57%)	7 (35.0%)	27 (30.0%)
Depends on other sources	6 (8.57%)	3 (15.0%)	9 (10.0%)
Total	70 (100%)	20 (100%)	90 (100%)

Source: Field survey, 2009 *Multiple responses were available

The above table indicates that in case of indigenous practices, CBO’s and other sources information there were no major differences shown between two study villages. On the contrary, in case of depending on radio/television information there were significant differences shown between two villages as the rate was 75.0 percent in Pashurbunia and 58.57 percent in Charipara. In fact, two study village characters are almost same in this regard.

Though the local people have been practicing the above measures regarding early warning but sometimes they ignore the warning. From FGD, informal discussion and key informants interview, it is informed that this type of ignorance tendency is higher in the fishing community. It is also known from key informants that earlier fish was available within the 2-3 bam[2] deep in the water. But now fishermen has to go at least 10 bam deep for fishing. In this process, most of the fishermen fall in the danger during rough weather. Moreover, during the warning signal fish comes out on the water from deep as fishermen claimed. They explained this situation that, fish comes with dancing group by group due to the warm sea water as well as the eastern wind during warning signal. These circumstances insisted the fishermen to stay in the sea for more fishing, thus they ignore the warning signal and fall in the danger.

3.4.2 Saving lives

The respondents of the study area responded in various ways regarding saving people lives during and before disaster. The bellow table 3.20 shows that majority of the respondents 36(40.0%) moved in the shelter center during disaster to save their lives whereas this rate was slightly higher in Charipara (42.86%) than Pashurbunia (30.0%). Moreover, 36.67, 32.23 and 13.33 percent used to raise homestead, housing platform and built macha[3] respectively.

Table 3.20 Practices to saving lives

Existing practices	Study village		*Total N=90
	Charipara	Pashurbunia
Raising homestead	25 (35.71%)	8 (40.0%)	33 (36.67%)
Raising platform of the house	22 (31.43%)	7 (35.0%)	29 (32.23%)
Building macha	7 (10.0%)	5 (25.0%)	12 (13.33%)
Move to shelter center	30 (42.86%)	6 (30.0%)	36 (40.0%)
Total	70 (100%)	20 (100%)	90 (100%)

Source: Field survey, 2009 *Multiple responses were available

The above table reveals that in case of raising platform of the houses the rate was little bit higher in Pashurbunia (35.0%) village than Charipara (31.43%). On the other hand, there were significant differences observed between two villages in case of building macha and moving to shelter center. In this regard, it is assumed that due to the availability of shelter center in Charipara the rate of preparing macha is lower than Pashurbunia. Alternatively, moving to shelter center rate was lower in Pashurbunia than Charipara. Importantly, majority of the respondents move to shelter center during disaster which proves that their housing conditions are not as strong as withstand the cyclone and sea-surge.

The key informants and FGD team reported owing to the presence of shelter center in Charipara village preparing of macha rate is low as the respondents feel secure than the villagers of Pashurbunia. Simultaneously, moving in shelter center rate is higher in Charipara than Pashurbunia as this option is available at Charipara. On the other hand, Paul (2005) showed in his study that majority of the flood affected people of rural Bangladesh are used to raising homestead and platform, building macha and migrating to safer places which supports to the present study data.

3.4.3 Protect shelter

Practices of protecting shelter depend on the intensity and frequency of disaster as well as the ability of respondents. It is observed that in the study area general practices of protecting shelters are raising homestead, floor and platform, necessary repair activities before disaster and giving tana[4] on the basis of previous disaster experiences. The below table 6.14 depicts that majority of the respondents (54.44%) of the study area were used to raise their housing floor and platform before cyclone and sea-surge. Beside this, 26.67 percent respondents were familiar with raising the homestead before disaster so that water cannot easily enter into the house. On the other hand, 28.89 percent respondents repaired their house before disaster by changing or restructuring the pillar, fence, floor and roof. At the same time, 6.67 percent respondents used tana as the protection measure of the houses from disaster. It is worth mentioning that 8.89 percent respondents did not use any protection measure as they thought they cannot protect their houses from adverse impact of disaster.

Table 3.21 Practices to protect shelter

Existing practices	Study village		*Total N=90
	Charipara	Pashurbunia
Raising homestead	18 (25.71%)	6 (30.0%)	24 (26.67%)
Raising floor and platform	37 (52.86%)	12(60.0%)	49 (54.44%)
Repair house before disaster	19 (27.14%)	7 (35.0%)	26 (28.89%)
Using tana by rope	4 (5.71%)	2 (10.0%)	6 (6.67%)
Cannot protect	5 (7.14%)	3 (15.0%)	8(8.89%)
Total	70 (100%)	20 (100%)	90 (100%)

Source: Field survey, 2009 *Multiple responses were available

The above table shows that in every cases like raising homestead, floor and platform, repair houses before disaster and using tana rate were to some extent higher in Pashurbunia village than Charipara which proves there were no significant differences between two study villages regarding practices of housing protection. In this regard, Paul (2005) also showed in his study that people normally used to practice to raising homestead, floor and repair house before disaster which supports the current study findings.

In fact, from the observation, FGD and key informants interview it is understood that the above mentioned protection measures of shelter are not as much as stronger as the intensity and frequency of disaster like cyclone and sea-surge.

3.4.4 Saving properties

Property is very important for human life especially for the poor coastal people of Bangladesh. That’s why the respondents of the study area take different strategies to protect their properties. In this regard, most common practices are raising the platform of house, building macha, moving tangible goods to safer places and keep the valuable resources into the bankar[5]. The bellow table 6.15 shows that majority of the respondents (31.11%) raised the platform of their houses in order to protect the properties whereas this rate was 30.0 percent in Charipara and 35.0 percent in Pashurbunia. In fact, there were no significant differences between two study villages. Beside, 21.11 percent were built macha to save properties where the rate was slightly higher in Pashurbunia (25.0%) than Charipara (20.0%) which demonstrates that there were no significant variations within the study villages. At the same time, 30.0 percent respondents moved their tangible goods[6] (like gold ornaments, cloths, necessary utensils and so on) to safer places. This rate was considerably higher in Pashurbunia (45.0%) village than Charipara (25.71%). Moreover, 23.33 percent respondents opined that they could not protect their properties whereas this rate was higher in Charipara (25.71%) than Pashurbunia (15.0%).

Table 3.22 Practices to saving properties

Existing practices	Study village		*Total N=90
	Charipara	Pashurbunia
Raising platform of the house	21 (30.0%)	7(35.0%)	28 (31.11%)
Building macha	14 (20.0%)	5 (25.0%)	19 (21.11%)
Moving tangible goods	18 (25.71%)	9 (45.0%)	27 (30.0%)
Keep it into the bankar	0 (.0%)	18 (90.0%)	18 (20.0%)
Cannot protect	18 (25.71%)	3 (15.0%)	21 (23.33%)
Total	70 (100%)	20 (100%)	90 (100%)

Source: Field survey, 2009 *Multiple responses were available

Most importantly, there was an innovative and sustainable strategy seen in the study area that the respondents use a bankar to put their valuable and necessary items before disaster. In this regard, 20.0 percent of total respondents used to use the bankar of the study area. In fact, this practice was seen only in Pashurbunia village, there were no respondents found in Charipara. It is observed from the field survey that there was a banker available at Pashurbunia village that is made by an NGO (Speed Trust) with the financial support of Action Aid Bangladesh. That’s why, using bankar as the safety place for property savings rate was high in Pashurbunia.

In fact, people put their valuable and necessary goods into the polythen bags, dram and tin box. Then write the owners name on the bag and finally put it to the bankar. From the group discussion it is understood that necessary papers, paddy seeds, vegetable seeds, dry food (puffed rice), rice, drinking water and so on necessary items are stored in this bankar. The local people reported that it can reserved 7-10 days food and they also added that it is need more this type of safety house which is not possible due to the financial crisis as well as lack of GO and NGO initiatives.

3.4.5 Saving crops

Traditionally the respondents of the study area developed different kinds coping strategies relating to protect crop damage. These protecting modalities include cropping pattern, crop variety and early harvesting. The bellow table 6.16 shows that majority of the respondents 47 (52.22%) were followed the cropping variety whereas this rate was 52.86 and 50.0 percent in Charipara and Pashurbunia respectively which proves that there were no significant differences between two villages.

From the key informants interview and FGD, it is understood that due to the pressure saline water farmers already have changed the cropping variety. They are practicing now the BRRI-47, 45 and 29 in place of local variety. The production rate of BRRI-47 is 1500-1550 kg BRRI-29 is 510-530 kg and BRRI-45 is 518-550 kg per acre. Since the variety of BRRI-47 is more profitable than other two varieties like 45 and 29, people are used to cultivate this. The basic characteristic of the variety is it can grow up in the saline water.