Global Perspectives on Geography (GPG) Volume 2, 2014 www.as‐se.org/gpg
Coping with Urban Coastal Disasters in Inadequate Urban Facilities A Case Study at Chittagong City Coastal Belt, Bangladesh Shahidul Islam*1, Dr. M. Maksudur Rahman2, Dr. Alak Paul3 *1&3
Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Chittagong, Chittagong‐4331, Bangladesh
2
Geography and Environment, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh
*1
shahid_ges@yahoo.com; 2mmrahman2000bd@yahoo.com; 3alak1973@yahoo.com
Received 10 December 2013; Accepted 10 February 2014; Published February 2014 © 2014 American Society of Science and Engineering Abstract The urban coastal belts of Bangladesh are highly prone to natural and manmade disasters than other areas because of population density and resources. Chittagong, the second largest city and commercial center of Bangladesh, is more at risk from disasters than any other urban centers due to its geographical location. Its coastal and hilly nature makes it vulnerable to many disasters. Based on primary field survey this study has made an attempt to figure out the copping strategies of the living people with disasters. The primary information was collected by a questionnaire survey on the household level along the coastal belt areas of Chittagong city and an in depth interview was conducted on experienced person who have faced some destructive disasters. From the analysis, it has been found that the coastal dwellers are the major victims of both natural and man induced disasters. Most of the people are migrated from outside the city because of their livelihoods living here in the khas land and embankment. Almost all of the public facilities are absent here, though this coastal area is under the jurisdiction of Chittagong City Corporation (CCC). This study shows that people at the coastal belt areas of Chittagong city are mostly living below the poverty line. Shortage of urban facilities, their living conditions and housing structure make them the most vulnerable community within the city system. The survey reveals that cyclone, storm surge, flood and salinity intrusion along the with water logging, various types of pollution, drainage congestion and lack of social security are the most common figure of disasters. However, like other coastal areas of Bangladesh people can cope with all kinds of disaster but they need a better support from the authority particularly to save their lives and livelihoods and the coastal environment as a whole. Keywords Adaptation; Amenities; Copping; Capability; Coastal belt; Disaster; GIS; Resilence; Risk; Shelter; Urban; Vulnerable
Introduction Coping and adaptation of various kinds of livelihood strategies to survive in the disaster prone environment is part of the tradition of the Bangladeshi people (Khatun, 2003). Chittagong, the second largest city of Bangladesh, has a unique geographical location. One site of the city attach with the funnel shaped bay and other with hilly nature. The environment of Chittagong city coastal belt comes under threat due to abuse or over migration of the extreme poor people who enter the city in attraction of working facilities but living on/beside the coast line due to cheap house rent. They also have no ability to survive the disaster inflicted situation. Disasters at the coastal belt areas are not only damage lives and properties of the people but also take toll of the domestic resources, trigger poverty, put the environment in fragile condition and ultimately disrupt all sustainable economic development. It is observed at the city coastal belt areas that the marginal and landless households are the most vulnerable to any disaster and pushed to below the poverty line. In such causes, they want to cope with their entire crisis and adapt with this situation. The overall situation ultimately leads to an increase to environmental degradation at city coastal belt areas. Taking appropriate measures for reducing the risk of damage from disasters can be possible to mitigate this situation. Disaster risk can also be reduced by adopting appropriate sustainable livelihood strategies aided with institutional support from government and other agencies before, during and after the disaster. Aim and Objectives The study was mainly based on copping procedure of the vulnerable community at coastal belt areas. Living in disaster risk areas, how the marginal community of the city adapts with themselves with disasters, was the main aim and objective of the study. The specific objectives as follows‐ 1.
To access the vulnerable sectors of disaster risk living near the coastal belt areas of Chittagong city
9
www.as‐se.org/gpg Global Perspectives on Geography (GPG) Volume 2, 2014
2.
To examine the copping strategies of the people with urban crisis and disasters living near the coastal belt in Chittagong city.
3.
To find out the capacity of resilience of the urban coastal community to face the risk of disasters.
Methodology A both qualitative and quantitative method of data collection and analysis was envisaged for the baseline assessment. Methodologies include review of secondary data, service records or registers, semi‐structured interviews, observation, site visits, focus group discussions, key informant interviews and other data collection and analysis approaches deemed necessary and appropriate. Interviews or FGDs were carried out with eligible household members, community members, administration officials, service providers and other relevant stakeholders. The followings are the sequences of activities and the process, by which the aims and objectives of the research were accomplished: Primary Data Collection Processes The primary field survey included a questionnaire survey on head of the households and in‐depth interview from experienced persons who have faced some destructive disasters. The primary field survey was mainly completed by as follows‐ Questionnaire Survey Questionnaire survey has done at the household level as a door to door survey. A simple random sampling technique was adapted. The head of household was taken as respondent. There are three types of questionnaire in household, local authorities and volunteers where most are open ended questions. Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Some FGDs were done in selected areas at inner and outer areas of the embankment at the belt areas. Interviews were carried out with eligible household members, community members, administration officials, service providers and any other relevant stakeholders. In depth Interview An in depth interview was taken from the expert persons, responsible authorities and local governmental bodies related with disaster preparedness and management. Building Database, Processing and Analysis All of the coastal belt areas of Chittagong city (8 city wards) shown on map formed a database for further analysis. It will be analyzed through SPSS, MS access, MS Excel, and Arc GIS 9.3 for specific data to suitable software. First of all, a city wise comprehensive analysis of the data; and secondly, ward wise explanation to have a closer look on the scenario at ward level. Vulnerable Sectors of Disaster Risk Disasters involve two key elements, namely the event and the vulnerable people. Disaster takes place, with the onset of an event affecting the vulnerable people in such a manner that their lives are threatened (Medhury, 2009). The destruction of livelihoods at the coastal belt areas of Chittagong city is caused by disasters in such way that the economy and social structures of the people are disrupted. The conditions undermine the community’s ability to survive the impact of disaster. People at the coastal belt consider himself as a risky household for various causes. About 62.2% of households think that his family member is at most risk. The second priority for risk of the household is considered to be own resources (18.5%) and 11.1% of the farmers feel risk because of their agricultural crops. Only 8.1% of the household heads find themselves more risky compared to fishermen. For the second priority of risk, most of the people feel risk of his own life (40%) and 25.9% anxious about his family member. Risks for own resources (22.2%) and agricultural crops (11.9%) have received the second priority respectively. Urban Facilities at the Coastal Belt Areas People at the coastal belt always live in the center of disaster risk. Urban facilities are not only the component of
10
Global Perspectives on Geography (GPG) Volume 2, 2014 www.as‐se.org/gpg
social amenities but also the capacity to reduce disaster vulnerability. The infrastructure facilities of Chittagong city for the coastal belt are not so well. Though the corporation (CCC) is directly engaged with various activities (along with the other regular Municipal activities) such as mass education, garbage management and healthcare delivery services, water, gas and electricity supply etc but their services are not yet to reach coastal belt areas. As a result, a lot of urban problems have been created at these areas, mostly related to disaster vulnerability.
Sources: Chittagong Development Authority (CDA), CUS, and Satellite image FIGURE 1 VULNERABLE SECTORS FOR CONSIDERING AS A RISK
Source: Field survey 2009
Source: Field survey 2009 (Note: Multiple answers considered) FIGURE‐2 PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES IN THE COASTAL BELT AREAS OF CHITTAGONG CITY
Communication is the principle way of disaster mitigation pre, during and post disaster period. Road network at the costal belt areas is not so bad, but most of them are brick build (52.6%) and few of these are kutcha road (10.4%).
11
www.as‐se.org/gpg Global Perspectives on Geography (GPG) Volume 2, 2014
Only 37% of the main communicated roads are pucca but too much narrow to vehicle movement. Lack of safe drinking water has been identified as the prominant issue in the daily life of the coastal belt people. The water supply sector has achieved commendable success over the last few decades, primarily through extensive exploitation of available ground water resources. But groundwater based water supply in coastal belt areas suffers from a number of major problems, e.g. salinity, non‐availability of suitable aquifers, arsenic contamination, and lowering of water table etc. The Chittagong Water and Sewerage Authority (CWASA) is primarily responsible for the provision of water and sewerage services in metropolitan Chittagong, but their service is not available in coastal belt areas. About 86.7% of the households have no water supply of water from the CWASA. On one hand, 64.4% household have no electricity supply yet and surprisingly true that 100% of the respondents have no gas supply or even not taken the connection since they are poor. About 79.3% streets (kutcha and pucca road) have no street lighting and the Corporation doesn’t collect solid waste from these places. On the other hand, 31.1% households are more than 1 km far away from the disaster shelter centers. Coping Strategies with Disasters to Save the Family Member Disasters are the suddenly happening events that adversely affect human settlements and environment (Srivastav, 2007). In any disaster, children, women, and elderly people of any family are prone to disaster risk. The status of coastal communities in the coastal belt areas of Chittagong city can be described as fragile. Most of the families at these areas use their own coping strategies. Human life is very important during any cyclonic period. Head of the household always plays a crucial role in protecting his/her family member. He always sends his children, women and elder person to any suitable and safe place e.g. shelter center, school building, nearer high rise building or his relative’s house. This survey found that less than one‐third of the households (30.4%) goes to disaster shelter center to protect them. The buildings of school and newly built high rise buildings play a crucial role as a shelter during any cyclonic disaster. About 23% of the households take shelter in school building and 20.7% are in newly constructed buildings. Traditionally, it is found that 16.3% of households take shelter at their relative houses. It is the matter of concern that 9.6% households do not leave their own home during cyclone. TABLE 1 COPPING STRATEGIES OF COASTAL PEOPLE TO SAVE THEIR LIVELIHOODS FROM DISASTER Place of taking shelter Shelter center High rise building Relative's house Own home On embankment Never Faced Total
Cyclone (%) 53.4 20.7 16.3 9.6 00 00 100
Flood (%) 9.0 12.0 7.0 4.0 50 18 100
Water logging (%) 6.7 5.9 11.1 7.4 40 28.9 100
Source: Field survey 2009
Floods are excessive accumulation or flows of water which result from heavy rainfall, including flash floods caused by rapidly rising and falling rivers and overland flows resulting from the rapid run‐off of extreme rainfall from upland areas (Srivastav, 2007). At the coastal belt of Chittagong city, it is mostly found flash and tidal flooding which cover 82.2% of the areas. But flood in these areas is not so frequent phenomena. When flood occuring, about 49.6% households take shelter on embankment and 11.9% take shelter in nearer high rise buildings. Few of the households go to the formal disaster shelter center (8.9%) and some of them take shelter to their relative’s houses (7.4%). There is about 4.4% of household staying their own house not going to anywhere facing the flood disaster. Like other areas of Chittagong city, most of the areas of coastal belt are very much prone to water logging. The suffering of the people at the belt areas due to water logging knows no bound. About 40% of the households take shelter on embankment due to prolonged water logging. Besides, many households take shelter to their relative houses (11.1%), own home (7.4%), shelter center (6.7%) and also nearer high rise buildings (5.9%). Coping Strategies with the Disaster to Save the Domestic Animals During disaster, domestic animals are in great risk at the coastal belt areas because there are no or limited options to save them from disasters. During severe disaster, people are helpless to leave them free to go anywhere. Although some disaster shelter centers have minor special facilities for protecting domestic animals, most of the centers do not have such system. In such a case, people protect the domestic animals as their own children from disaster.
12
Global Perspectives on Geography (GPG) Volume 2, 2014 www.as‐se.org/gpg
During cyclonic storm about 22.2% of the households send their domestic animals at their relative’s houses and 21.5% keep them into their own houses. There are some disaster shelter center where have the opportunity to keep the domestic animals at the belt areas. About 20% of the households remain their domestic animals in the shelter center and 10.4% households keep them in nearer buildings. About 25.9% of households have no domestic animal, as the household survey finds. TABLE 2 COPPING STRATEGIES WITH DISASTERS TO SAVE DOMESTIC ANIMALS
Place of giving shelter Relative's house Shelter center High rise building Own home On embankment Not have such situation No domestic animal Total
During Cyclone 22.2 20.0 10.4 9.6 00 00 37.8 100
During Flood 14.8 00 8.9 3.0 25.9 9.6 37.8 100
During Water logging 4.1 8.4 00 4.2 21.3 24.2 37.8 100
Source: Field survey 2009
During flooding at the coastal belt of Chittagong city, most of the households (25.9%) remain their domestic animals on embankment because most of them live on or near the embankment. About 14.8% of households send their domestic animals to relative’s house for safety and 8.9% keep their animals nearer buildings. Only 9.6% of the respondents said that they never affected by flood. Water logging is the major problem at the coastal belt areas of Chittagong city. The suffering of water logging knows no bound for the domestic animals because their supply of food remains stopped. During water logging, 20.6% of households keep their domestic animals on embankment and 8.1% of them are sent to disaster shelter center. On the other hand, about 4.2% sent domestic animals to relative’s house and about 4.1% households keep animals in their own home. A quarter (25%) of the respondents reported that they did not face water logging. Coping Strategies with the Disasters to Save Household Resources The daily using resources into the house are termed as household resources. The people at the coastal belt areas are mostly poor. So they do not have highly expansive resources. Most of them have the resources which are needed daily and these resources are very important for them. Household resources are important elements which make a family stable to the society. But these resources are most vulnerable to disasters. Most of the people bring their household resources to their relative’s houses (28.1%) and nearer shelter center (26.7%). About 20% of households keep these resources in nearer high rise buildings and 14.8% in their own houses. It is important to note that there are 10.4% of households who have no resources. Household resources at the coastal belt areas are very much risky from floods because most of the floods in these areas occurred suddenly particularly during the monsoon. Most of the people (29.6%) at the city coastal belt areas keep their household resources during flood in their own house and protect those by making a ceiling space into the house. About 20% of households bring their resources to their relative’s houses and 13.1% of them carry to nearer shelter center. About 10.4% of households keep the resources to their neighborhood buildings which are out of risk from floods. At the coastal belt of Chittagong city, water logging is severer than flood, because floods are not as frequent as water logging. During water logging, most of the families (25.9%) save their household resources keeping on high place into their households. About 17.8% of the household send their resources to their relative houses and 12.6% in shelter center. Some households (9.6%) also keep the resources to neighborhood buildings. There are 34.1% of households who either haven’t any resources or they are living such areas which are out of water logging. The life and livelihood of the households are seriously affected by intrusion of salinity in water and agricultural land at the coastal belt of Chittagong city. Most of the households (25.2%) adapt with these damage due to salinity intrusion by share of losses with their relatives. About 14.8% of the households take loan from any suitable organization to repair the cultivable land and 8.1% shear their loss with their neighborhoods. Also few households (about 7.4) are totally helpless who have no other options to adapt. About 44.4% of the households are out of this situation because either they have never faced this situation or they don’t have any agricultural land.
13
www.as‐se.org/gpg Global Perspectives on Geography (GPG) Volume 2, 2014
Capacity of Resilience to Face the Risk The process of building up the capacity of disaster prone communities is long‐term and multi‐dimensional in nature and requires innovative approaches and motivated individuals (Zubair, 2003). The quality of risk and capacity of resilience at the coastal belt area’s people are not the same. About 62.2% of the people think that their main risky sector is his family member but 34.8% of them think that it is capablity, 10.4% of them moderately capable and 10.4% of them are not capable. On the other hand, resources and agricultural crops are mostly not capable. In their different risky sector, about 46.7% have the resilience capacity, 20% are moderately capable and rest 33.3% is fully not capable. TABLE 3 CROSS TABULATION BETWEEN SECTOR OF RISK AND CAPACITY OF RESILIENCE
Sector of Risk Family member Own resources Agricultural crop Own life Total (%)
Capacity of resilience (%) Moderately Not capable capable 34.8 10.4 17.0 4.4 6.7 7.4 3.7 0.7 6.7 3.7 2.2 2.2 46.7 20.0 33.3
Capable
Total (%) 62.2 18.5 11.1 8.1 100.0
Source: Field survey 2009
In disaster management and also in development activities, decisions have to be taken for determining the work plan. The households of the coastal community are feeling risk of disasters and they also know how the capacity can build up. About 32.6% of the household’s head think that poverty is the main cause for their lowering capacity to face disasters. On the other hand, 20% of them think that public awareness and training can reduce their vulnerability risk and 19.3% are the supporter of better signal systems. The people, who are mostly related with agriculture, have recommended about proper land management to protect the agriculture. Conclusion People’s strength to face any disaster at the coastal areas is not so strong mainly depending on infrastructure of their house, ability of income, household resources etc.. They are living in the center of risk, due to not only the natural hazards but also man‐made disasters. Most of the houses at the coastal belt areas of Chittagong city are kutcha which mean muddy built plinth, straw, bamboo or tin supported wall and the roof structure is polythin or tin. Such house structure is not strong to face any disaster effectively. The household incomes of the people are mostly between Tk. 5000 to 6000 per month which makes them be urban poor category of the city. Most of the families have few resources of their own and some of them have yet nothing without their house. Coping mechanisms at the coastal belt areas of households are often undervalued and at times ignored too. People always follow their own coping and adaptation strategies, meaning that they are self‐dependent and remain helpless during the disaster. Main problem is their capacity, turning them to vulnerability. At the coastal belt of Chittagong city, some common disasters are always playing desolating conditions on lives and livelihoods of the people. They cause excessive losses to humanity and infrastructure. Due to frequent disasters, the normal life at the coastal belt areas is often thrown out of mechanism and existing patterns of regulatory and development for the region suffer heavily. The economic, social and psychological dimensions of the areas wrath of disasters adversely affect the environment around. Poor resources and economic conditions of the people of the coastal belt areas in Chittagong city make them more vulnerable to the natural and man‐made disasters. REFERENCES
[1]
Abdullah, M. and Hoque, M. M. (1995), Prediction of Risk and Formulation of Counter Measures against Storm Surges for Chittagong Metropolitan Area, IFCDR, BUET, Dhaka.
[2]
ADPC (2005), Disaster Risk Management in Asia: An overview report, Clung Wichna Press co. Ltd.
[3]
Ali, D. A. (1999), Gurnijor (2nd edition), Bangla Academy, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
[4]
Aysan, K. (1993), Vulnerability Measurement at The Coastal Areas, In ADAB/IVS (1993), Disaster Preparedness and Management Training Manual, CDL in collaboration with PACT Bangladesh.
[5]
14
Benson, C. and Clay E. (2003), Economic and Financial Impacts of Natural Disasters: An assessment of their effects and
Global Perspectives on Geography (GPG) Volume 2, 2014 www.as‐se.org/gpg
options for mitigation, Synthesis Report, Overseas Development Institute, 111 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7HR, UK e‐mail: cbenson321@aol.com, and e.clay@btinternet.com. [6]
Dheri, S. K. (2003), Managing Natural Disasters in Urban Areas, www.google.com/education, visited: 22 Oct 2008.
[7]
Khatun, S. (2003), Flood Risks of Bangaldesh, In Sanhi, P. and Ariyabandu, M. M. (Ed. 2003), Disaster Risk Reduction in South Asia, Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi‐110001.
[8]
Master Plan Organization (1995), National Water Plan Project, Draft Final Report, Vol. 1 & 2. Ministry of Irrigation, Water Development and Flood Control, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
[9]
Medhury, U. (2003), Management of disaster in Urban Areas, In Sanhi, P. and Ariyabandu, M. M. (Ed. 2003), Disaster Risk Reduction in South Asia, Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi‐110001.
[10] Multipurpose Cyclone Shelter Programme (MCSP‐1992) Final Report, annex‐D3, storm surge analysis, UNDP/World Bank/GOB Project BGD/91/025, Planning Commission, Dhaka. [11] Nizamuddin, K. ed. (2001), Disaster in Bangladesh, Disaster Research Training and Management Centre, Department of Geography and Environment, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. [12] Olover, J. (1980), Socio‐economic Conditions of Coastal Community, In UNISDR (2002), Natural disasters and sustainable development: understanding the links between development, environment and natural disasters, Background Paper 5, Geneva: United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN‐ISDR). [13] PDO‐ICZMP (2003), Coastal Livelihoods: situation and context, Working Paper of WPO. [14] Pomeroy, R. S. (2007), Coping with Disaster: Rehabilitating Coastal livelihoods and Communication, www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol, Visited: 8th January 2008. [15] Sanhi, P. and Ariyabandu, M. M. (Ed. 2003), Disaster Risk Reduction in South Asia, Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi‐110001.IRRI‐BRRI Workshop on Flood‐Prone Environments, Los Banos: International Rice Research Institute. [16] Shamsuddoha, M. and Chowdhury, R. K. (2007), Climate Change Impact and Disaster Vulnerabilities in the Coastal Areas of Bangladesh, www.coastbd.org/ www.equitybd.org. Visited: 22 Oct 2008. [17] Shamsuddoha, M. and Shahidullah, M. (2004), Participatory Identification of Income Generating Opportunities, Preference Ranking of Opportunities and Preparation of a Participatory Action Plan for Implementation, Report prepared for FAO, Bangladesh. [18] Srivastav, S. K. (2008), Managing Natural Disasters in Coastal Areas: An Overview, Indian Meteorological Department, www.coastbd.org, visited: 20 Nov 2008. [19] UNISDR (2002), Natural disasters and sustainable development: understanding the links between development, environment and natural disasters, Background Paper 5, Geneva: United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN‐ISDR).
15