Agricultural Research Management Information System

Home
Research Summary
Search
About Us
- ARMIS
- Brochure
Contact Us
Report
User Request
Data Input
Help
- Operation Manual
  - PDF
  - Video
- Program Area & Commodity
We have reached 37600 number of research entries at this moment.

- Logout

Research Detail

Home
Research
Detail

Vulnerability Due to Lack of Infrastructure of Coastal Livelihood During Cyclone Aila 2009 in Bangladesh

Bishawjit Mallick*
Coastal Research Foundation, Khulna, Bangladesh

Utpal Kumar Das
Coastal Research Foundation, Khulna, Bangladesh

Sk. Shahidul Islam
Coastal Research Foundation, Khulna, Bangladesh

Sudeb Kumar Das
Coastal Research Foundation, Khulna, Bangladesh

Md. Nazrul Islam
Coastal Research Foundation, Khulna, Bangladesh

Abstract/ Executive Summary:

This study considers cyclone shelter, primary school/high school, hospital/clinic, and religious buildings as the Central Infrastructure (CI) of a rural settlement in Bangladesh. People usually take shelter in those places during any disastrous situation. Selected variables were chosen on the basis of understanding the concept of CI in the context of coastal rural area, based on literature and contemporary experiences and are treated with statistics and GIS to achieve guidelines for further analysis of the indicators. The choice and evaluation of the central functions and the measurement of associations provide a basis for ranking the CI for providing planning provisions for Gabura union of Shyamnagor Upazila in Satkhira, Bangladesh.

Keywords: Infrastructural Vulnerability, Coastal Livelihood, Central Infrastructure, Cyclone Aila, Centrality of Infrastructure

Location: Gabura union of Shyamnagor Upazila in Satkhira, Bangladesh.

Start Date:

End Date:

Program Area: Socio-economic and Policy

Commodity: Livelihood, Vulnerable

Objectives:

This study seeks to address those problems, which were actually occurred due to lack of public infrastructure, of Gabura union in Satkhira district. This union was reported as one of the severely affected union by cyclone Aila. Combining the most recent empirical data, this study estimated risk on the basis of available infrastructural facilities i.e. cyclone centre, health care facilities and road network. The equality of the distribution of such facilities in the study area was interpreted by the nearest neighborhood analysis.

Methodology:

Study Area: Gabura union of Shayamnagor Upazila in Satkhira district, is an island, surrounded by two big rivers (Kholpetua in western side and Kapotaskha in eastern side). The annual population growth rate is 1.70%. In the study area population below 10 years of age is 27.80%. Among the population of age 10 years and above those recorded idle are 28.03%, looking for work 1.42%, doing household work 34.79% and employed the remaining 35.76%. The literacy rate of Gabura union is 31.40%. Around 37666 populations live in an area of 41 sq. km. and all of them were affected by cyclone Aila and in aftermath by water-logging. Death toll counted as 24, crops and fisheries damages counted as US$ 32857 and total 35.25 km roads were damaged (Gabura Union Parishad 2009).

Nearest neighbourhood scale (R) by Clarks and Evans (1954) was followed in assessing the equality of distribution of the cyclone centres and health care facilities and Bhat (2003) was followed in assessing the weight for each facilities.

Here 500 m distance for primary school/cyclone shelter is considered because of the standard of cyclone shelter design. It is explained in the design manual that people who resides within 500 m distance from a cyclone shelter can be able to take shelter safely during any cyclone in a cyclone shelter, though there should have good road communication. For primary health care facilities, a 1 km radial distance was considered. Presently the local government and health ministry of Bangladesh had implemented only one primary health care facility for each union. The distance for other institution and infrastructure (i.e. high school, market place, mosque, paved road etc.) group discussion outcomes were considered which was found to be within hundred meters from the houses. The discussant also voiced their requirement of a market within a km from their houses so that they could buy the necessary goods to prepare for the disaster. Uniformity of distribution was calculated as follows: Ri = SHi / SH

where, Ri= Uniformity of Distribution Value of the ith infrastructure, SH = Total Number of Sample, SHi = No. of sampled HH are possessing the chance of ith infrastructure. The Ri varies between ‘0 to 1’ (0 ≥ Ri ≤ 1). So, if the value of Ri = 1, then the ith infrastructure is equally distributed and support 100% of the total population; similarly if Ri = 0, then there is no support of the ith infrastructure. Demand index for each infrastructure to analyze the “centrality of functions (infrastructure/Institutions)”, was calculated as follows: Di = Ei * SH / SHi

Where Di = Total Demand of the ith infrastructure according to the existing support services in the study area without considering the population growth; Ei = Total Number ith infrastructure is presently exist in the study area. By using the Di and Ei value, a ‘degree of demand (DD)’ of the i-th infrastructure (DDi) is calculated as: DDi = Di - Ei / Di

The DDi varies between ‘0 to 1’ ( 0 < DDi > 1 ).So, if the value of DDi = 0, then the ith infrastructure supports 100% of the total population; similarly if DDi = 1, then there is no support of the ith infrastructure. It also explains that the Ri value is contra-productive with DDi value.

Source of Information: Khulna University Studies Special Issue (SESB 2010): 119-126: June, 2010

Article Link (Online Journal):

Funding Source:

Budget:

Total Budget (Tk.) :

Achievement/Findings:

Many disaster managers and city planners now work toward the goal of sustainable, resilient communities. A sustainable community meets the need of the present without compromising the ability of others to meet their own needs. A sustainable community is one that balances: social equality and equity, economic vitality, environmental responsibility and infrastructural effectiveness. Such infrastructural effectiveness, as well as community resilience, is absent in the study area. Obtaining funds to provide sufficient shelters in the future may be a forlorn hope. It may be necessary to consider alternative community-based solutions in the intermediate-term. Access to shelters is dominated by the elites and inactive shelter management committees. Minority groups and others may not be granted entry and at the same time, religious centres of minority groups are often not open to outsiders. Unless these issues can be addressed in a community-managed plan, it may be futile to construct further refuges. This might require some resistance of important community infrastructure in more valuable coastal areas but could be planned with local people to determine the optimum placement of these refugees. It sounds good in theory, but it does not come easily. There are many barriers to a community coming to a consensus around the common good, but there are also conditions that can be fostered that make such consensus more likely. New academic framework may never fully change the way in which governments and international institutions operate vulnerability intervention, as it has been shown here that they can be considerably influenced by how the local power structure works.

Knowledge Management: Journal