International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 76–87

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Disaster risk index: How far should it take account

of local attributes?
Mohammed Shariful Islam n, Mohammad Shahidul Hasan Swapan,
Shamim Mahabubul Haque
Urban and Rural Planning Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna 9208, Bangladesh

a r t i c l e in f o abstract

Article history: The coastal areas of Bangladesh are disaster prone. Along with natural hazards there are
Received 14 June 2012 persisting local hazards (e.g., salinity, river bank erosion) in the coastal parts. An
Received in revised form approach to disaster reduction strategy, therefore, varies here highly with other areas
18 October 2012
and also with other disasters. Disaster risk that comes from hazard, vulnerability and
Accepted 18 October 2012
Available online 12 November 2012
local capacity can only be applied here if the assessment addresses socio-political aspects
as well. In this study we identified prevailing hazards including the ones which are
Keywords: particularly important for the study area. All hazards are then assessed based on local
Disaster risk index vulnerability and coping capacity. Participatory appraisal has been taken into account to
Hazard identification
understand the level of devastation of the disasters. All these qualitative aspects are then
Participatory risk assessment
categorized to fit in mathematical model of disaster risk estimation. A GIS based
Coastal area
Bangladesh approach of multi-criteria analysis has been applied to incorporate the spatial factors
GIS in the index. Therefore, the final output is enumerated for each land parcel (locally called
mouza) where spatial variability is represented and shown on maps. There are
11 identified hazards in the study area which have association with 11 social factors
of vulnerability. The disaster risk index (DRI) also takes account of three geographic factors
of vulnerability that are aggregated with the social factors to calculate a reliable DRI.
The aggregated outcome is finally validated with historical data of disaster occurrences in
the study area and found significant correspondence.
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction consequences, or expected loss (of lives, people injured,

Disaster reduction strategies include an assessment of
vulnerability and risk, as well as assessment of institu-
tional capacities describing an operational framework [1].
The assessment of vulnerability essentially includes the
characteristics of critical facilities, social and economic
infrastructure, the use of effective early warning systems,
and the application of scientific, technical, and other
skilled abilities [2]. Risk is the probability of harmful
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sharifurp02@gmail.com (M.S. Islam),
eswapan@yahoo.com (M.S.H. Swapan),
shamimhaque67@yahoo.com (S.M. Haque).
property, livelihoods, economic activity disrupted or envir-
onment damaged) resulting from interactions between
natural or human induced hazards and vulnerable/capable
conditions [1]. Beyond expressing a probability of physical
harm, it is crucial to appreciate that risks are always
created or exist within social systems. It is important to
consider the social contexts in which risks occur because
people do not necessarily share the same perceptions of
risk and their underlying causes [2].
A fundamental principle of risk assessment is that it can
be assessed within an acceptable range of uncertainty if
reliable historical and location specific data is available. Risk
assessment of disasters has two components: hazard and
vulnerability. Hazard is a potentially damaging physical

2212-4209/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2012.10.001
 M.S. Islam et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 76–87
event, phenomenon or human activity that may cause the
loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic
disruption or environmental degradation [1]. Vulnerability
has two elements: exposure and susceptibility [3]. Exposure
is determined by people’s dwelling and work places in
relation to the hazard. Susceptibility takes into account
those social, economic, political, psychological and environ-
mental variables that work together in producing suscep-
tible impacts amongst people within the same exposure [4].
Risk assessment is aimed at providing a model of the
disaster risk and generally based on mathematical model-
ing. The mathematical models which rely only upon the
quantitative interpretation, lack in qualitative interpretation
of factors which are steamed from the social and political
background.
In this study, attempts have been made to develop a
methodology that considered both quantitative and qualita-
tive aspects of hazards and vulnerability factors. Participa-
tory appraisal that takes account of people’s perception has
been employed to identify locally intervening hazards and
factors of vulnerability. A participatory GIS based approach
has been involved to integrate social dimensions with the
geographic variables of risk assessment. The final product
is a disaster risk index which incorporates socio-political
dimension of vulnerability for a specific type of hazard
prevailing in Assasuni sub-district of Satkhira district of
Bangladesh. However, this experience of indexing disaster
risk is replicable elsewhere in terms of the con-
ceptual framework exercised and the methods of variable
selection used.
2. Context
The study has been taken in a coastal area of Bangladesh
called Assasuni Upazila (sub-district) of Satkhira district
(Fig. 1). Total land area of Assasuni is 220.96 km2.
Tidal Surge and Cyclone are the leading natural disasters
in this region. Specially thousands of fishermen’s, wood
collectors’ and marginal people’s lives of the study area
are under extreme risk due to lack of adequate warning
system and essential lifesaving equipment. The study area
is relatively free from seasonal flooding which is different
from the upstream regions of Bangladesh that experience
seasonal flooding almost every year. However, this area is
highly vulnerable to the flash flood due to its geo-physical
settings characterized by low-lying tidal plain and criss-
crossed by a number of rivers and tributaries [5,6]. Several
reasons are attributed as major factors for flooding in this
area. During 1960s Water Development Board (called as
EWAPDA) divided the total district into some polders by
creating embankment beside the river to get protection
from salinity. This contributed to reduce the natural flow
of water and creates water logging during monsoon.
There are two international rivers flowing around the
study area namely Ichamoti and Sonai. Flood water comes
from the neighboring Indian portion by these two rivers
and tributaries. Moreover, to drain out the additional
stored water, India opens the sluice gate frequently and
it creates flash flood [7]. In 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2011 the
study area was significantly affected by the flood. In the
year 2000 a massive flood occurred in the study area and
77
water remained stagnant for almost 60 days caused a
great havoc for life, crops and properties.
Basic facts and figures of the study area.
Source: [8,9].
Area 220.96 km2
No of union 11
No. of Mouzas (an administrative unit of land parcel) 144
No. of villages 242
Total male population 121,000
Total female population 123,000
Density of population 606/km2
According to a joint study conducted by British Geological
Survey (BGS) and Department of Public Health Engineering
(DPHE) of Bangladesh, the average arsenic concentration
in ground water for shallow tube wells of Assasuni is
100–200 mg/l [10] which is far above of acceptable level.
i.e., 50 mg/l prescribed by World Health Organization (WHO)
[11]. Therefore, the arsenic contamination in the study area
can be regarded as the biggest calamity in last decade. River
bank erosion is another major hazard for the study area.
Every year hundreds of hectares of agricultural and settle-
ment land adjacent to the river is grabbed by the river;
especially the area adjacent to the river Kholpetua is highly
vulnerable for river bank erosion. Cyclone is another hazard
prevailing in the study area. Cyclone Aila affected Assasuni
Upazila in 2009 causing damage to around 10,000 house-
holds [12]. The study area is highly vulnerable to climate
change as well. Assasuni Upazila has been identified as one of
the eight hotspots that are vulnerable to climate related
hazards by a study titled economics of climate change
conducted by the World Bank [13].
3. Concept
Disaster risk index (DRI) monitors the evolution of risk
[14] which aims at outlining the relationship in which an
area is indexed for each hazard type according to their
degree of physical exposure, their degree of relative
vulnerability and their degree of risk [2]. Within a DRI
framework, vulnerability is seen as a factor that describes
why people in a same exposure can be more or less at
risk [15]. Therefore, indicators of risk and vulnerability
can provide a tool to examine the root causes of risk and
vulnerability [16]. The Community-Based Risk Index aims
at identifying and quantifying the main risk characteris-
tics within a community [3,17]. This research has under-
taken two elements that are essential in the formulation
of risk: the probability of occurrence for a given threat—
hazard; and the degree of susceptibility of the element
exposed to that source—vulnerability [18]. They also
argue that risk of a disaster is the compounded function
of a hazard and the number of people, characterized by
their hazard specific vulnerability. Risk and vulnerability
are distinguished by Alexander [19] by stating risk to be
the probable loss caused by a hazard and vulnerability to
be the potential for loss or disruption. Wisner et al. [18]
explained the relationship between risk, vulnerability and
hazards by saying that a disaster is the intersection of two
78 M.S. Islam et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 76–87

Fig. 1. Map of study area [9 and googlemaps].

opposing forces; vulnerability on the one side and hazards
on the other.
The disaster risk index accounts for hazard identifica-
tion and vulnerability assessment. In this study hazards
have been identified using a set of historic data analysis
and social survey in the study area. Since, risk has been
considered as an output of multiple hazard issues [3,20].
Therefore, risk of a community is the risk that is an output
of a set of vulnerability, exposure and hazard function.
The model for multiple risk is
X assessment: low, medium and high. Hazard identification
Risk total ¼ ðRiskflood þ RiskEarthquake þ    þ Riskn Þ
X involves frequency and level of devastation which are
þ VulnerabilityðFactor1 þ Factor2
X
þ    þFactorn Þ Capacity
We considered vulnerability as a manifestation of
social, economic and political structures. It is mainly
dealing with two elements such as exposure to hazard
and coping capacity of the people. People having more
capability to cope the extreme events are naturally
less vulnerable to hazard [21]. In other words, a set of
conditions and processes resulting from physical, social,
economical and environmental factors, which increase the
susceptibility of a community to the impact of hazards.
Positive factors, that increase the ability of people and the
society they live in, to cope effectively with hazards, that
increase their resilience, or that otherwise reduce their
susceptibility, are considered as capacities [1].
Methods that come from mathematically induced
hazard identification does not take into account all the
aspects related to the social, economic and political
spheres [22]. In order to give a holistic nature, peoples’
perception and evaluation results were included in hazard
identification and vulnerability assessment in this study.
Socio-economic survey and participatory rural appraisal
(PRA) (qualitative judgment) were used within a frame-
work of Delphi [23] method to identify the frequency and
devastation of a hazard and its associated vulnerability.
Scoring system for a hazard and associated factors of
vulnerability has followed an analytical hierarchy process
(AHP) [24] categorizing information into three levels of
multiplied and then reclassified to make them fit for use
in the hazard index. Vulnerability index includes social
and geographic factors of vulnerability. The factors of
vulnerability used in this calculation were selected exam-
ining their applicability for the study area and consulting
primary and secondary sources of data and literature.
The disaster risk index is the sum of hazard index and
vulnerability index.
The risk analysis procedure is divided into two stages
(Fig. 2) adopting the concepts of participatory disaster risk
analysis and GIS based risk analysis. A global scale was
used to measure to assess the level of risk, where score
ranges from zero to one referring zero to be less critical
condition and one to be extreme condition. Hazard and
vulnerability index have been measured in a scale of zero
to 0.5 each which summed up to be one to give value of
risk index. GIS based disaster risk reduction strategy has
been employed by many past studies. The strength of
GIS is to store and analyze data in different layers with
 M.S. Islam et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 76–87 79

Participatory
Hazard identification and impact
assessment and
evaluation
historic data

Weighing in a rank sum method

Vulnerability assessment

Social factors

Geographic factors

Weighing in a rank sum method

GIS based approach

Hazard index

Vulnerability index

Disaster risk index (DRI)

Fig. 2. Overall approach for the assessment method.

a facility to identify influence of interacting variables [25]. 0.167= low

DRI 0.333= medium
Therefore, GIS is effective in risk analysis for planning Hazard Index (0.5000) 0.500= high
disaster mitigation strategies as well as managing emer-
0.167= low
gency situation [26]. For risk mapping, the hazard index Vulnerability Index (0.5000) 0.333= medium
and the social factors of vulnerability have been stored in 0.500= high

mouza (an administrative unit of land parcel) level vector

Fig. 3. Risk analysis method.
GIS. The geographic factors of vulnerability have been
analyzed through buffering technique of GIS. The vector
data has been transferred to raster GIS to represent the area, hazard and vulnerability scores are derived from the
buffered region into the mouzas. The final DRI maps have factors that are locally applicable and manageable in
been produced in raster based GIS. terms of data collection and time. The value of hazard
threat and vulnerability factors is categorized under low
4. Method: risk analysis framework (0.167), medium (0.333) and high (0.500) and assigns
their respective score. The hierarchical scheme adapted to
4.1. Scoring for assessing disaster risk assess the risk is as follows (Fig. 3).
The indicators and their order of importance used in
The assessment process involves breaking down the hazard and vulnerability calculation followed multi-
principal goals (risk analysis) into lower level sub-goals criteria analysis (MCA). The data were collected from
(analysis of vulnerability and hazard scores). The concept the social survey, participatory rural appraisal (PRA) study
of exposure which is traditionally referred to is included and different published materials. To assign weight the
in that of vulnerability and exposed sites. The procedure ‘rank sum method’ was applied. Several studies were
relies on a multi-criteria method of support for the found where such methods had been successfully used
decision-making the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) in the different part of the world [22,27].
method that breaks down a macro-problem into more
easily solved micro-problems and can manage a certain 4.2. General equation for the disaster risk index (DRI)
degree of incoherency in the manager within limits
judged to be acceptable, so that it does not require The following Eq. (1) is used to calculate the overall
perfect rationality [24]. Each element of hierarchy is risk index of Assasuni Upazila. At the first stage in DRI
assigned to a local weight or indicator score. The global calculation, lowest calculation unit was mouza. For this
score of each subordinate is a product of the mean score reason, the DRI produced from the social vulnerabi-
of all elements. lity factors is mapped at mouza level. The DRI which
The disaster risk of Assasuni Upazila is measured on a is produced in the raster based GIS is mapped from
0–1 scale. To calculate the disaster risk index in the study transferring mouza data to pixel level. The equations are
80 M.S. Islam et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 76–87
as follows:
hX i.
DRIðIRÞ ¼ fDRIðH1Þþ DRIðH2Þþ    þ DRIðHnÞg N ð1Þ
DRIðHÞ ¼ IH þ IV ð2Þ
(Adapted from [12].)
nX  o.
IH ¼ WH1=n þ WH2=n þ    þ WHn=n N ð3Þ
nX 
o.
IV ¼ WV1=n þ WV2=n þ    þ WVn=n N ð4Þ
The notations describe: DRI (IR), Disaster Risk Index at
Global Risk Index (measured on 0–1 scale); DRI (H1),
Disaster Risk Index for Hazard 1; DRI (H), Disaster Risk
Index for a Hazard; IH, hazard index (measured on
0–0.500 scale); IV, vulnerability index (based on social and
geographic factors) (measured on 0–0.500 scale); WH1,
local weight of hazard factor for Hazard 1 (measured
on 0–0.500 scale); WV1, local weight of vulnerability
factors for vulnerability 1 (measured on 0–0.500 scale);
N, number of hazard occurred or number of factors
of vulnerability; n, frequency of data (mouza/pixel).
4.3. Hazard index
For identifying hazard, the score of hazard is determined
by multiplying the frequency of hazard occurrence and
intensity of devastation as rated by the local people.
A participatory rural appraisal (PRA) has been conducted in
the study area coordinated by a team consisting faculty
members of Urban and Rural Planning Discipline of Khulna
University. The Delphi method has been employed for data
collection [23]. The local people includes public representa-
tives, i.e., chairman of every union council (11 union coun-
cils), every member of ward (nine wards in each union
council), local experts like experienced school teachers and
social leaders, government officials from Upazila Headquar-
ters, Department of Public Health Engineering, Hospitals
and also other enthusiastic social activists. The PRA has
been conducted in every union council differently to identify
hazards. Hazard score is enumerated taking account of
frequency of hazard and their level of devastation counted
in a scale of 1–4 for past 10 years. The spatial unit of
enumeration was mouza. The highest score possible for
a hazard was 4  4¼16 and hazards that fail to reflect a
community phenomenon was omitted. The method of omis-
sion was determined based on the hazards’ spatial extent. For
example, water logging in a smaller area causing a devasta-
tion level of one describing loss of one to couple of house-
holds has been omitted. Then, the hazard score is reclassified
for general weighting system of hazard index ranging from
0 to 0.5. Score of 1–3 is given a reclassified score of 0.167
(low); 4–7, 0.333 (medium); and 8–16, 0.500 (high).
According to the PRA conducted in January 2008, the
representative hazards of the study area are: Flood,
Cyclone, Rainfall, Water logging, Hailstorm, Tornado,
Drought, Thunderstorm, Storm flood, Epidemic, Salinity,
Erosion and Arsenic. The above 11 hazards were deter-
mined from the social and PRA surveys conducted under
this project, where people reported and identified the
extent of devastation in their livelihoods. The data were
collected at mouza level, so the lowest indexing unit is
mouza under a union.
Seasonal flood occurs due to the rainfall; excessive
rainfall causes river water to spill over every year Assasuni.
During the flood period the agricultural lands get affected
for the intrusion of saline water. As the flood water rises
agricultural lands go under water. The fish cultivation also
gets affected during this period of year as the boundary of
the water reservoirs collapses following inundation of sea
water in the reservoirs. A tiger borne virus also spreads
rapidly. However, the indigenous knowledge of the local
people helps them to combat the devastation. They usually
avoid paddy cultivation during this period of time. On the
other hand, people construct a net dam in the reservoirs
which allows water to enter but keeps the boundary in
place. Consequently fish cannot jump from one reservoir to
another. Hence, the devastation of the seasonal flood is not
too severe because experiencing every year, people get
adapted to the phenomenon.
Water logging is also an event that is very frequent in
this area which is caused by the natural as well as manmade
factors. During the rainy season water level rises in the
river looking for flowing through the canals. Under a leasing
system of Government owned canals to the private entre-
preneurs, the person who leases the canal regulates the flow
of canal for his own interest and disrupt the flow of water.
As a result many of the areas get water logged in Assasuni.
While conducting the PRA in Baradal, a group of young
people identified water logging be the most important
disaster management issue. Similar concerns were also
received from most of the other unions of Assasuni.
Hailstorm is found to be not very frequent in Assasuni
but when it occurs it damages the harvest in fruit plants. In
fact hailstorm occurs during the summer which is the
harvesting season for most of the fruits that grow in the
area. According to the local people, the hailstorm reduces up
to 40% of fruit harvests. Still the damage is insignificant,
because cultivating fruit is not their main source of income.
Similarly, thunderstorm is also a non-frequent event which
causes less damage. However, isolated cases of human death
and casualties have been found. Although the frequency of
damage is limited, the intensity of damage is considerable as
it takes human lives. According to the people in Assasuni
Upazila, at least 20 people have been died over the last 10
years by the strike of thunders.
Cyclone has found to be relatively less frequent but
this hazard has been the most violent for the people.
The people have described the Cyclone of 1988 as the
most significant devastation in Assasuni. Cyclone is the
single event that affected every union of Assasuni impact-
ing the livelihood severely. Many people are of an opinion
that it took 10–12 years to recover the financial damage
that was caused by the cyclone.
Salinity intrusion has become a severe problem in the
most of the areas of Assasuni. People now bring drinkable
water from adjacent areas. Only a few deep tube-wells are
the sources of drinking water. Unfortunately some of the
deep tube-wells have recently become unusable because
of the salinity in water. The level of salinity has increased
over the last 10 years. People of the area have claimed
that over cultivation of fish and use of saline water in fish
 M.S. Islam et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 76–87 81

reservoirs is one of the major causes for such high
intrusion of salinity. On the other hand arsenic contam-
ination was identified in the tube wells. In some areas
people have been attacked by arsenic borne skin diseases.
Fortunately severe attacks of arsenic contamination have
not been found out in the study area.
River bank erosion and dam collapse have been found to
be an acute problem in the areas that are near to the rivers.
Due to poor maintenance of dams and inadequate protec-
tion of river bank, erosion has been common to all areas of
Assasuni. The worst case has been identified in Pratapnagar
where people lost everything over night. The erosion takes
away people’s homesteads, land and assets.
4.4. Vulnerability index
Disaster risk depends on the socio-economic condition of
the local communities as well as their geographic location.
We have considered two types of factors to construct
vulnerability index—social and geographical factors. A series
of 11 social and three geographic factors (total 14) were
selected from the PRA and social survey carried out under a
project conducted by funded by Comprehensive Disaster
Management Programme (CDMP). Number of standard
literature and expert’s opinion have been used to structure
the issues under discussion for the PRA and later substan-
tiated following the Delphi method of data synthesis to get
the final scores for factors of vulnerability. Unlike hazard
score the factors of vulnerability have been scored following
a three level data classification system. For instance, literacy
rate of 0–30% has given the highest score, i.e., 0.5 as a factor
of vulnerability; likewise, 30–50% has given a medium score,
i.e., 0.33 and for the rate above 50% has been given the
lowest score (0.167) as a factor of vulnerability. The follow-
ing table describes the factors of vulnerability used in this
study with their reclassification procedure (Table 1). Again,
uniform values of vulnerability factors are summed up at
union level for better understanding and mapping.
The hazards that are influenced by geographical factors
such as flood risk is attributed by the proximity of river.
So the vulnerability of flood and other hazards having
similar characteristics have been recalculated based on their

Table 1
Vulnerability factors (social) and corresponding scoring method.

Sl Factors (data are presented at mouza level) Data classification Weight or Source of assessment
system reclassification
score

1 Unemployment level (% at mouza level) 0–15 0.167 CDMP Social Survey and PRA
15–25 0.333
25 þ 0.500

2 No. of Kutcha households 0–20 0.167 Local assessment (Social Survey)

20–60 0.333
60 þ 0.500

3 Literacy rate (% at mouza level) 0–30 0.500 National Average (BBS, 2001)
30–50 0.333
50 þ 0.167

4 Density of population per sq. km. Less than 500 0.167 National Rural average (BBS, 2001)
500–700 0.333
Greater than 700 0.500

5 % of people use sanitary latrine Less than 25 0.500 National average (BBS, 2001)
25–40 0.333
Greater than 40 0.167

6 % of population having disaster and 50 0.500 Local assessment (Social Survey)

warning knowledge 50–80 0.333
80 þ 0.167

7 % of agricultural labor 0–5 0.167 Local assessment (Social Survey)

5–10 0.333
10 þ 0.500

8 Average income per household 4 586 0.500 National average (BBS, 2001)
(under upper and lower poverty line) 586–690 0.333
(BDT) 690 þ 0.167

9 Average income per household (BDT) 4 586 0.500 National Rural Average (BBS, 2001)
586–690 0.333
690 þ 0.167

10 Ratio of Loan-income per household o 0.5 0.167 Local assessment (Social Survey)
0.5–1 0.333
41 0.500

11 % of dependent population 0–10 0.167 National average (17%) (BBS, 2001)

10–17 0.333
4 17 0.500
82 M.S. Islam et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 76–87

geographic influences in a GIS platform. Along with the 11 the Upazila/union headquarter. The latter two factors have
identified social factors three geographic factors together been considered as indicators of access to emergency facility
have been used to calculate overall vulnerability. The geo- and post disaster recovery considering that the areas having
graphic factors that affect the devastation of hazards are: inferior access has high vulnerability. However, all the
proximity to rivers, access to the paved road and proximity to identified hazards do not relate to all the three spatial factors;
e.g., flood is related to proximity of rivers because of the
likeliness of impact of overflowing and inundation. Access to
paved road and proximity to union center indicates as well
Table 2
the easy and quick transportation for relief or evacuation.
Hazards and required spatial factors for vulnerability calculation.
Thus calculation DRI of flood includes all three geographic
Sl no. Hazard Spatial factor combination applied factors of vulnerability along with previously identified 11
social factors. Again tornado is related with only better
1 Flood a, b and c accessibility and proximity to the union office for relief and
2 Cyclone a, b and c
3 Rain a, b and c
evacuation but there is no relation to the proximity to rivers.
4 Water logging a, b and c On the other hand, drought has no relation with the
5 Hailstorm – geographic factors and this is why, it does not require
6 Tornado b and c recalculating vulnerability score and directly applied to the
7 Drought –
DRI calculation keeping its score of vulnerability unchanged.
8 Thunder –
9 Storm flood a, b and c So, a combination of three, two or just one geographic factor
10 Epidemic – has been applied to selected hazards. The remaining hazards
11 Salinity a which do not have any relation to spatial factors have been
12 Soil erosion a taken directly to calculate DRI score based on their score in
13 Arsenic –
social factors of vulnerability. Table 2 lists out the hazards
Here a¼ proximity to river; b¼ access to paved road and c¼ proximity to and their required combination of spatial factors for vulner-
union center. ability calculation:

Table 3
Buffer details and reclassification score of spatial zones.

Factors Buffer distance (m) Weight or reclassification Source of assessment

score

Distance from river (river-risk zone) 0–500 0.5 Local assessment (Social Survey)
500–2000 0.333
2000–6000 0.167
Distance from paved road 0–500 0.167 Local assessment (Social Survey)
(accessibility and transportation) 500–1500 0.333
1500–6000 0.5
Distance from Union Parishad office 0–1000 0.167 Local assessment (Social Survey)
(access to services) 1000–2000 0.333
2000–7000 0.5

SPSS database Access database Assasuni Map

Conversion (IH and IVS) (shape file)
Join item

Assasuni Map
Reclassification & raster conversion

(IH and IVS)

Proximity of river River buffer
Multi-ring buffer

Raster conversion

Proximity of road Road buffer

Assasuni Map
(IH, IVS and IVG)

Distance from HQ HQ buffer

Raster calculator

Here, Assasuni Map

IH = Hazard Index; DRI =IH + (IVS + IVG)/2
IVS= Vulnerability Index calculated from 11 social factors Value at pixel level
IVG= Vulnerability Index calculated from the combination
of 3 geographic factors
DRI = Disaster Risk Index
HQ denotes Headquarter

Fig. 4. Steps in GIS analysis.

 M.S. Islam et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 76–87 83

The social data have been stored in SPSS system and the The geographical extent delineated from buffer function
calculated hazard index and vulnerability score have been does not necessarily get limited to the mouza boundary.
converted into Microsoft Access database to make them Therefore, the problem with the selection of lowest spatial
useable for analysis in GIS software (ESRI product ArcGIS unit for analysis was raised. The problem was solved by
has been used). The database was joined with the Assasuni converting the mouza map (including DRI database) and
union map in vector based GIS and it produced the hazard, spatial zones into raster layers with a pixel dimension of
vulnerability and risk map of the study area. In the next 30 m  30 m. At the end raster calculator function of ArcGIS
stage, the maps were reproduced for outlining the spatial was used to calculate the scores in a raster environment and
factors using buffer function to identify the river risk zone, DRI was produced at this 30 m  30 m pixel. Fig. 4 shows
accessibility map and administrative center buffer zone. the steps followed in GIS analysis.
River risk zone defines three types of areas at fixed distance Drought, thunderstorm, epidemic and arsenic do not
from the river. Obviously closer areas have higher risk than require any recalculation of vulnerability score. So the DRI
that of farther areas. Accessibility map shows the areas with of these hazards directly participate in the overall DRI
three levels of accessibility from the paved road. Union calculation (Eq. (1)). The remaining hazards’ vulnerability
center buffer zone illustrates the proximity of different areas score has gone under the recalculation process following
from Upazila/union headquarters. The areas close to the the above combination (Tables 2 and 3). The following
Assasuni town have the opportunity to get support more equation has been used to calculate vulnerability index
quickly than the community living in remote areas. Con- that integrates both social and geographic factors:
sidering the zone characteristics, the buffers were assigned The combined vulnerability index (IV)¼[{(IVS  number
weight score and reclassified accordingly. Table 3 describes of involved social factors)/14þ(IVG  number of involved
the details of buffer and reclassification of scoring. geographic factors)/14}/2]. Here IVS is the vulnerability index
calculated from 11 factors (measured on 0–0.500 scale)
Table 4 (from Eq. (4)), IVG is the vulnerability score of calculated
Hazard score at union level (from Eq. (3)). from three geographic factors (measured in a scale of
0–0.500). IVG is calculated using the following equation:
Union name Hazard Index
nX  o
Sobhnali 0.37 IVG ¼ WV1=n þ WV2=n þ WV3=n =N ð5Þ
Budhhata 0.38
Kulla 0.37 Here IVG is the vulnerability index for geographic factors
Durgapur 0.38
Baradal 0.36
(measured on 0–0.500 scale), WV1 is the local weight of
Assasuni 0.35 vulnerability factor 1 (for reclassification), N the number
Sreeula 0.41 of vulnerability factors considered (here N ¼3), and n is
Khajra 0.36 the no. of pixels (raster map).
Anulia 0.38
New DRI is developed considering 14 (11þ3) vulner-
Pratapnagar 0.41
Kadakati 0.40 ability factors. In this way, DRI of all hazards are calculated
considering the combination of social and geographic factors

0.50

0.45

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
Epidemic
Extensive Rain

Water logging

Erosion
Salinity

Arsenic
Drought
Flood

Cyclone

Tornado

Storm Flood
Hailstorm

Thunder Storm

Fig. 5. Hazard Index of Assasuni.

84 M.S. Islam et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 76–87

of vulnerability using ‘raster calculator’ function of ArcGIS 5. Results and discussion

software.
Table 4 and Fig. 5 present the multi-hazard index in a
scale of 0.5 of Assasuni at union level. It has been
4.5. Calculation of DRI
identified that Pratapnagar and Sreeula unions are the
From the above analysis hazard index and considering
the score of vulnerability index 14 factors are identified.
So DRI for each hazard ¼IHþIV where IV comprises both
geographic (IVG) and social factors (IVS). Kulla

Finally, the DRI of multi-hazard (measured on 0–1

scale) in Assasuni is (from Eq. (1)):
nX Kadakati Dargapur

ðDRIflood* þ DRICyclone* þ DRIRain* þDRIWaterlog* Budhhata

Shobnali

þDRIHailstorm þ DRITornado* þ DRIDrought

þDRIThunder þ DRIStormflood* þDRIEpidemic
þDRISalinity* þ DRISoilerosion* þ DRIArsenicÞg=14
Assasunni
Baradal
Here n denotes disaster risk index that involves both
geographic and social factors of vulnerability.
Legend Khajra

Table 5 Union boundary

Vulnerability score at union level (from Eq. (4)).
Value Sreeula
Anulia
Union name Vulnerability Index High : 0.450000
of Assasuni Upazila

Low : 0.270000
Sobhnali 0.36
Budhhata 0.38 Protapnagar
Kulla 0.36
Durgapur 0.32
Baradal 0.39
Assasuni 0.35
Sreeula 0.38
Khajra 0.38
Anulia 0.37 0 2 4 8 12
Pratapnagar 0.38 Kilometers
Kadakati 0.31
Fig. 7. Disaster vulnerability of Assasuni Upazila based on social factors.

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
Literacy rate

% of people use

% of population

% of agricultural

Average income

Loan-income ratio

% dependent
Unemployment

Density per sq.km.

No. of Kutcha HH

Average income
sanitary latrine

population
(poverty line)
awareness

labor

Fig. 6. Vulnerability (social factors) Index of Assasuni.

 M.S. Islam et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 76–87 85

places where the score is higher compared to other areas. of dependent population and lower rate of using sanitary
On the other hand, flood, water logging and salinity are latrine
identified as the most critical hazards in the study area Maps 7 and 8 show the spatial distribution of vulner-
having score of 0.5000 (Fig. 5). able communities in Assasuni. The higher value represents
Vulnerability score calculated from social factors are increased vulnerability indicating higher risk of disaster
presented in Table 5. phenomena (Figs. 7–9).
Fig. 6 illustrates that people in Assasuni are mostly Table 6 provides the risk of disasters in different
vulnerable because poor housing structure, large number unions of Assasuni Upazila. It has been identified that
Pratapnagar (0.79 on a scale 0–1) and Sreeula are the
most vulnerable places in terms of disaster occurrence,
socio-economic and locational condition of the people.
It is also concluded that people are at higher risk with
respect to flood, salinity, river erosion and arsenic.
Kulla Face validity has been employed to test how reason-
able the result is [28]. The result of risk index was found
significantly reasonable. The Cyclone Aila affected the
Kadakati Dargapur
study area in 2009 after conducting this study. The cyclone
Budhhata
Aila damaged 100% households of Pratapnagar and 80%
Shobnali
of Sreeula [12]. In our risk index we have also found
Pratapnagar and Sreeula having the highest DRI.
Fig. 10 represents the spatial distribution of disaster
risk in Assasuni considering social factors of vulnerability.
Assasunni
Baradal The overall disaster risk considering both geographic and
social factors is presented in Fig. 11.
Legend
Khajra
Union boundary
Table 6
DRI of Assasuni Upazila (based on non-spatial factors)
Value Sreeula (from Eq. (2)).
Anulia
High : 0.3375
Union name Final DRI for Assasuni Upazila
(aggregate from 13 hazards)
Low : 0.189321
Sobhnali 0.73
Protapnagar Budhhata 0.76
Kulla 0.74
Durgapur 0.71
Baradal 0.75
Assasuni 0.70
Sreeula 0.79
0 2 4 8 12 Khajra 0.73
Kilometers Anulia 0.76
Pratapnagar 0.79
Fig. 8. Disaster vulnerability of Assasuni based on geographic factors Kadakati 0.71
(Eq. (5)).

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Flood

Cyclone

Rain

logging

Hailstorm

Tornado

Drought

Storm flood

Epidemic

Salinity

Erosion

Arsenic
Thunder
Water

Fig. 9. DRI of Assasuni.

86 M.S. Islam et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 76–87

6. Conclusion

Kulla The task of disaster risk assessment is not only to find

out where risk related problems are located, but also to
quantitatively and qualitatively determine the signifi-
Kadakati Dargapur
cance of risks [29]. In consequence, a spatially oriented
Budhhata risk assessment has to take into account all risks that are
Shobnali
related to a specific area. This is an indispensable basis for
a spatially organized management of risks. However, the
general concept and calculations of risk assessment may
not be capable enough to demonstrate the situation at
Assasunni
Baradal local context. Especially for countries like Bangladesh,
there are various complex phenomena which are unique.
For that reason, there should be a risk assessment
Legend Khajra approach that suits the local conditions of Bangladesh.
Union boundary That is why the risk assessment procedure is designed
Value corresponding to the standard methods applied by UN
Sreeula
High : 0.860000
Anulia organizations where calculations is done on the hazards
and vulnerability factors that really matter for the local
people. An integrated assessment method, GIS technique
Low : 0.630000
is applied to measure vulnerability with respect to spatial
Protapnagar factors which is important for several disasters such as
flood, water logging, and river erosion. Apart from spatial
analysis, GIS is also used to produce various thematic
maps (e.g., hazard map, vulnerability map and risk map)
derived from the calculation. Along with secondary data
0 2 4 8 12
retrieved from the National survey (e.g., BBS), social
Kilometers survey and PRA study were conducted to determine the
devastation intensity of hazards as well as the factors of
Fig. 10. Disaster risk index of Assasuni based on hazard index and social
factors of vulnerability. vulnerability. The measured DRI further validated with
the historical data of disaster occurrences.

References
Kulla

[1] ISDR (International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). Living with

risk: a global review of disaster reduction initiatives, vol. 2. Geneva;
Kadakati Dargapur 2004.
[2] UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). Reducing disaster
Budhhata
risk: a challenge for development, a global report. New York; 2004.
Shobnali
[3] ADPC (Asian Disaster Preparedness Center). Critical guidelines:
community-based disaster risk management. Bankok; 2006.
[4] DFID (Department for International Development). Disaster risk
reduction: a development concern. Norwich: Overseas Develop-
ment Group, School of Development Studies, University of East
Assasunni
Baradal Anglia; 2004.
[5] Alam Tutu Ashraful. River management in Bangladesh: a people’s
Legend initiative to solve water-logging. Participatory Learning and Action
Khajra 2005;51:117–23.
Union boundary [6] Uttaran. Flood 2009: situation assessment—climate change wor-
sens disaster risks for communities in Southwest Coastal Region of
Bangladesh, Dhaka. 2009.
Value
Sreeula [7] Uttaran. Flood and water logging in south west Bangladesh.
Anulia
High : 0.756429 Assessment report, Dhaka; 2011.
[8] BBS (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics). Community series 2001.
Satkhira District, Dhaka; 2001.
Low : 0.564907
[9] Banglapedia. Banglapedia: national encyclopedia of Bangladesh,
vol. 1. Dhaka: Asiatiac Society of Bangladesh; 2003.
Protapnagar [10] BGS and DPHE (British Geological Survey and Department of Public
Health Engineering, Bangladesh). Arsenic contamination of ground-
water in Bangladesh. In: Kinniburgh DG, Smedley PL, editors.
British geological survey technical report WC/00/19. Keyworth;
2001.
[11] WHO (World Health Organization). Arsenic, drinking-water and
health risk substitution in arsenic mitigation. A discussion paper,
0 2 4 8 12
Kilometers retrieved on 10 October 2012 from /http://www.who.int/water_
sanitation_health/dwq/wsh0306/en/index3.htmlS.
Fig. 11. Combined DRI based on social and geographic factors (from [12] UNDP. Field visit report on selected Aila affected areas in Bangladesh,
Eq. (1)). Dhaka; 2009.
 M.S. Islam et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 3 (2013) 76–87
[13] World Bank, Economics of adaptation to climate change. Bangladesh
study report. Washington, 2010.
[14] Peduzzi1 P, Dao H, Herold C, Mouton F. Assessing global exposure
and vulnerability towards natural hazards: the Disaster Risk Index.
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 2009;9:1149–59.
[15] Peduzzi P. The disaster risk index: overview of a quantitative
approach. In: Birkmann J, editor. Measuring vulnerability to natural
hazards—towards disaster resilient societies. Tokyo, New York,
Paris: UNU-Press; 2006.
[16] Birkmann Joern. Risk and vulnerability indicators at different
scales: applicability, usefulness and policy implications. Environ-
mental Hazards 2007;7:20–31.
[17] Bollin C, Hidajat R. Community-based disaster risk index: pilot
implementation in Indonesia. In: Birkmann J, editor. Measuring
vulnerability to natural hazards towards disaster resilient societies.
Tokyo, New York, Paris: UNU-Press; 2006.
[18] Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I. At risk. 2nd ed.London:
Routledge; 2006.
[19] Alexander D. Confronting catastrophe: new perspectives on natural
disasters.New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.
[20] Cutter S.Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in
Human Geography 20(4);529–39.
87
[21] Hossain SMN. Assessing human vulnerability due to environmental
change: concepts and assessment methodologies.Stockholm: Royal
Institute of Technology; 2001.
[22] Orlando G, Selicato F, Torre CM. The use of GIS as a tool to support
risk assessment. In: van Oosterom Peter, Zlatanova Siyka, Fendel
Elfriede M, editors. Geo-information for disaster management. New
Jersey: Springer; 2005. p. 1381–400.
[23] Okoli Chitu, Pawlowski Suzanne D. The Delphi method as a
research tool: an example, design considerations and applications.
Information & Management 2004;42:15–29.
[24] Saaty Thomas L. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy
process. European Journal of Operational Research 1990;48:9–26.
[25] Kemp Randall B. Public participatory GIS in community-based
disaster risk reduction. Triplec 2008;6(2):88–104.
[26] Russ Johnson GIS. Technology for disasters and emergency man-
agement, an ESRI White Paper, New York; 2000.
[27] Nahiduzzaman KM, Saroar MM, Ahmed SJ. Assessing the urban
environmental quality of khulna city: a multi-level quantitative
approach. Plan Plus 2004;1(2):79–95.
[28] Robert G. Sargent, verification and validation of simulation models. In:
Proceedings of the 2007 Winter simulation conference, IEEE; 2007.
[29] Smith K. Environmental hazards: assessing risk and reducing
disaster. 3rd ed.London: Routledge; 2001.