Author’s Accepted Manuscript

GIS based Mapping of Vulnerability to earthquake

and fire hazard in Dhaka city, Bangladesh

Naima Rahman, Mehedi A. Ansary, Ishrat Islam

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdr

PII: S2212-4209(15)30031-5
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.07.003
Reference: IJDRR241
To appear in: International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
Received date: 12 August 2014
Revised date: 5 July 2015
Accepted date: 5 July 2015
Cite this article as: Naima Rahman, Mehedi A. Ansary and Ishrat Islam, GIS
based Mapping of Vulnerability to earthquake and fire hazard in Dhaka city,
Bangladesh, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.07.003
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 GIS based Mapping of Vulnerability to Earthquake and Fire Hazard in
Dhaka City, Bangladesh
Naima Rahmana, Mehedi A. Ansary* and Ishrat Islam**
a
PhD Student, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas Arlington, 701 S. Nedderman Drive, Arlington,
TX 76019.
e-mail: naima_rahman05@yahoo.com

Abstract

As Dhaka City is at risk of earthquake and fire hazard, ward 29, an old part of Dhaka city has been selected for
vulnerability assessment of both hazards in this study and social vulnerability has been included in the assessment as
it has become an important issue in the recent years. The methodology of three different vulnerability assessments
and the way of combining the results of the assessments to develop composite vulnerability score of the study area
has been described. A sample of 350 buildings has been analyzed by a visual screening method FEMA-RVS for
earthquake, a methodology developed by ADPC (2004) for fire hazard and a methodology developed by World
Bank (2014) for social vulnerability. The composite vulnerability score has been developed by incorporating
earthquake and fire hazard as well as social vulnerability condition of the study area and represented in form of map
produced using ArcGIS 10 showing buildings of different vulnerable categories. The study area is relatively more
vulnerable to fire hazard than earthquake. As it is one of the most densely populated wards in Dhaka City, social
factors have compounded the overall vulnerability to higher scale. Most of the buildings are vulnerable to both
earthquake and fire hazard considering social impacts. Thus ideal mitigation planning to reduce risk is almost
impossible here without involvement of community people. By warning them of their own risk and making them
resilient through awareness programs and training, disaster risk in the study area can be reduced effectively.

Key words: Earthquake, Fire hazard, Social vulnerability, Vulnerable structure, GIS mapping, Hotspot

*Professor, Dept of CE, BUET, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Tel: +88029665650; fax: +880 2 8620586; e-mail: ansary@ce.buet.ac.bd.
**Professor, Dept of URP, BUET, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Tel: +88029665650; fax: +880286130462; e-mail: ishratislam@urp.buet.ac.bd

1. Introduction

Bangladesh is the fifth most natural disaster prone country in the world (Martin, 2011) that is affected
almost every year by some form of natural disaster. The historical trend of seismicity and some recent
tremors occurred in Bangladesh and adjoining areas indicate that the country is at high risk of earthquake
(CDMP, 2010) and major earthquakes might take place in Bangladesh (Bilham, 2004). Dhaka City is at
the highest relative earthquake disaster risk (Rahman, 2004) under Madhupur Fault as expressed by
local experts, as the phenomenal urbanization, high density of population and fast growing high-rise
structures (SAARC, 2010). Although no moderate to large earthquake has struck Dhaka city in historical
past, it experiences minor tremors almost all the year round which indicates the region to be seismically
active (Khan, 2004). The physical characteristic of the region made the community more vulnerable to
earthquake. Some buildings in older part of Dhaka city collapsed even without any earthquake (Jahan,
2011), so it is beyond imagination what will happen during an earthquake. In June 2004 a five storied
building collapsed in Sakhari bazaar which killed 19 people and injured several others among its 30
inhabitants. Due to poor construction quality of buildings, in April 2005 a nine-storied factory building
collapsed in Savar that killed 70 people and injuring around 200 others among its 300 workers and in
February 2006 a five storied under construction building collapsed in Tejgaon that killed 18 and injured
40 workers. On 24 April 2013, a nine-storey building ‘Rana Plaza’ collapsed in Savar is considered one
of the worst man made hazard killing 1127 people and more than 100 are still missing (Ansary and
Rahman, 2013). If a 6-magnitude earthquake shakes Dhaka originating from it’s beneath some 78,323
buildings will be destroyed completely with an economic loss of US $ 1,075 million (CDMP, 2010). The
risk in urban center is complex due to unplanned urbanization and development in high risk zones. Dhaka,
the capital of Bangladesh is the center of economy, commerce, politics, etc. and accommodates vast

1
population of 17,151,925 in the wider metropolitan area while the population of Dhaka City Corporation
has approximately 9,254,473 in 2011 (BBS, 2011). Particularly the older part of the city is relatively more
vulnerable due to high density of population. According to Bangladesh Population Census 2011 the
population density of Chawkbazar Thana at Old Dhaka is 8,229 per square kilometer (BBS, 2011).
Besides, the densely constructed old and unreinforced masonry buildings along with narrow local streets
make the locality more earthquake disaster prone. Along with earthquake, fire hazard has become a major
issue of concern as Dhaka City has experienced a number of notable fires like Nimtoli Fire, Bashundhara
City Complex Fire, Bangladesh Steel and Engineering Corporation (BSEC) Bhaban Fire and Tazreen
Garments Fire etc. in the recent years (Ansary et al., 2010). A report of Bangladesh Fire Service and Civil
Defense (BFSCD, 2010) shows a rising trend in the number of fire incidents in the Dhaka City. Dhaka the
capital of Bangladesh often faces fire hazards due to its dense building concentrations, narrow roads,
flammable building materials, aging water supply and electrical wire, chemical factory in residential areas
as well as the lack of preparedness and response skills among local people and the fire authority. The
annual monetary loss due to fire accidents is very high in Dhaka City compared with the other urban
centers in Bangladesh as the city is involved in the highest concentration of economic activities (Islam
and Ardi, 2008). Fire is considered as the most common secondary hazard of earthquake (Horwich,
2000). The Great Hansin Earthquake at Kobe, Japan was followed by the ignition of over 300 fires within
minutes of the earthquake (Somerville, 1995).

It is important to assess the integrated vulnerability of earthquake and fire because of their close
association. A number of researches have been carried out on earthquake and fire in Old Dhaka City
Corporation (DCC). About 53% buildings of Ward 68 (Old DCC) are vulnerable to earthquake (Jahan et
al., 2011). In a study, Old DCC is categorized into different fire hazard zones according to the frequency
of fire incidence (Alam and Baroi, 2004). A study showed that most of the buildings in Ward 72 in Old
Dhaka are moderately vulnerable to fire (Raja et al., 2008). But none of the studies focused the integrated
vulnerability of earthquake and fire hazard. In this research, an integrated vulnerability assessment will be
conducted incorporating both of earthquake and fire hazard. The analysis of vulnerability situation of
Dhaka City due to earthquake and fire hazard is the prime concern of this research. Social vulnerability
contributes a lot to the overall vulnerable condition. So the objectives of this paper are: (i) To assess
earthquake and fire hazard vulnerability of a selected ward of Dhaka City, and (ii) To incorporate social
vulnerability with physical vulnerability for measuring overall vulnerability.

In this paper, the methodology of three different vulnerability assessments and the way of combining the
results of the assessments to develop composite vulnerability score of the study area has been described.
Then the results have been analyzed and represented in form of maps. Three different map layers using
ArcGIS 10 using the results of earthquake vulnerability assessment, fire hazard vulnerability assessment
and social vulnerability assessment have been produced. Then the first two layers have been combined to
create physical vulnerability map which has been combined later with the social vulnerability layer to
develop composite vulnerability map. The final map layer shows different categories of vulnerable
buildings in the study area and its hotspots.

2. Methodology

2.1 Selection of the Study Area

Ward No. 29 of DSCC is selected for the vulnerability assessment of fire and earthquake in this research.
This ward is one of the oldest areas in the city with 58,233 populations (BBS, 2011) in 0.457 square
kilometer area (RAJUK, 2006). According to the Map 3.1, the study area is located in zone 2 with
earthquake intensity of IX (Rahman, 2004). About 27% to 30% building will be destroyed completely if a
7.5-magnitude earthquake hits in the study area (World Bank, 2014). So a small scale earthquake may
cause disaster in this ward. This ward is mainly comprised of manufacturing and processing industries of
plastic, warehouses of chemical and unprocessed leather. As a result, fire incident is very common
phenomenon in this area (Rahman and Ansary, 2012).

2
 2.2 Sampling and Data Collection

The total number of buildings of Ward 65 is 3,057. To conduct both physical and socio-economic survey,
a sample of 350 buildings have been selected by stratified sampling procedure keeping the confidence
level at 95% and confidence interval is 4.93 for primary data collection. Stratification of sample has been
chosen according to the percentage of construction type, number of storey and structure use of buildings.
Physical survey of buildings has been conducted through checklist to find out the existing condition of
buildings for earthquake and fire hazard vulnerability assessment. Socioeconomic survey of the same
buildings has been conducted to assess social vulnerability. The time frame of the primary data collection
survey was September 2013 to December 2013. The secondary data have been collected in form of hard
copies and shapefiles from different sources like Dhaka South City Corporation (DSCC), Rajdhani
Unnayan Kartripakkha (RAJUK) and World Bank etc.

2.3 Data Analysis

Physical and socio-economic data of sample buildings in quantitative forms have been inputted in SPSS
21, joined with existing GIS shapefile and analyzed by statistical tools such as frequency distributions,
descriptive statistics, cross tabulation and custom table etc. to be classified, tabulated and presented in the
form of maps, tables and graphs by using MS-Excel 2007, SPSS 21 and ArcGIS 10. The earthquake
vulnerability assessment of buildings has been conducted by Rapid Visual Screening method (FEMA-
RVS). Fire hazard vulnerability assessment has been done by a methodology developed by Asian Disaster
Preparedness Center (ADPC) in making fire hazard maps in Vientiane (ADPC, 2004). Weight of factors
of vulnerability to fire hazard has been determined by Analytical Hierarchal Process (AHP) through
expert opinion by the researcher. Panels of 10 experts have been consulted to determine the combined
vulnerability score (physical score) of fire and earthquake through workshop. Social vulnerability score
was combined with the physical vulnerability score by using the formula developed by Cardona (2005) to
calculate the composite vulnerability score.

2.3.1 Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment by FEMA- Rapid Visual Screening (RVS)

Method

Earthquake vulnerability score has been calculated by FEMA-Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) method for
moderate seismicity developed by Federal emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of United State of
America which is applicable for Bangladesh. Another widely used method RVS (Turkish) is not valid for
this research as it is applicable only for reinforced concrete building (RCC) up to 7-storey. So about
38.1% structures which are katcha, unreinforced masonry building (URM) and above 7-storey cannot be
analyzed using Turkish method. The parameters of scoring of FEMA-RVS include space for documenting
building identification information such as its use and size, floor area, etc., a photograph of the building,
sketches- building plan and elevation and documentation of pertinent data related to seismic performance,
including the development of a numerical seismic hazard and vulnerability score. The scores are based on
the expected ground shaking levels in the region as well as the seismic design and construction practices
for the city or region. Basic Structural Hazard Scores based on Lateral Force Resisting System for various
building types are provided on the form, and the screener circles the appropriate one. The screener
modifies the Basic Structural Hazard Score by identifying and circling Score Modifiers related to
observed performance attributes, by adding (or subtracting) them a final Structural Score, ‘S’ is obtained.
The likely damage of building can be categorized in different grades depending on their impact on the
seismic strength of the building according to European Macro Seismic Scale (EMS-98) which define
building damage to be from Grade 1 to Grade 5 presented in Table 1 (FEMA, 2002).

3
 Table 1: Expected damage level based on RVS score
RVS score Damage Potential
S<0.3 High probability of Grade 5 damage; very high probability of Grade 4 damage.
0.3<S<0.7 High probability of Grade 4 damage; very high probability of Grade 3 damage.
0.7<S<2.0 High probability of Grade 3 damage; very high probability of Grade 2 damage.
2.0<S<3.0 High probability of Grade 2 damage; very high probability of Grade 1 damage.
S>3.0 Probability of Grade 1 damage.
Source: FEMA-154, 2002

2.3.2 Fire Hazard Vulnerability Assessment

Fire hazard vulnerability analysis has been carried out in few stages. First, the factors of fire hazard
vulnerability have been fixed based on literature reviews and opinion of local fire experts in the context of
Dhaka City. The factors are construction type, number of storey, floor area, fire source in building, fire
source around building and accessibility which have been collected from field survey in 2013. Based on
opinion of expert, six attributes of fire hazard were given numeric values for vulnerability calculation
with weighted impact from 0 to 1 derived from AHP (Saaty, 1980). Fire hazard vulnerability score (FS)
of each sample building is the weighted some of these indicators (Table 2).

Table 2: Fire hazard vulnerability indicators and weights

Factors Value Weight
Construction Type Pucca - 1 Semipucca - 2 Kutcha - 3 0.140
Number of storey Up to 1-storey 2-5 storey 6 and above storey 0.113
Low - 1 Moderate - 2 High – 3
Floor Area Up to 1000 sqft 1001 sqft – 2000 sqft 2001 sqft and above 0.070
Low - 1 Moderate - 2 High – 3
Fire source in building No – 0 Residential sources* - 1 Hazardous sources** - 2 0.327
Fire source around building No - 0 Yes - 1 0.091
Accessibility Code - 0 Code - 1 0.259
Road >=10 ft Road < 10ft
*Residential Source: Gas Stove Source: World Bank (2014)
**Hazardous Source: Chemical, plastic, paper, electric generator

2.3.3 Social Vulnerability Assessment

Social vulnerability assessment was conducted by the methodology derived from a study conducted by
World Bank (2014) and Cardona et al (2005). The methodology was modified for this research for
building level calculation. The demographic data of building of Ward 29 was collected by field survey
(2013). The weighted value of each factor was derived through an expert survey according to the
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) by World Bank (2014). The social vulnerability score (SVS) of each
building is the weighted sum of these indicators (Table 3).

Table 3: Social vulnerability indicators and weights

Indicator Formula Weight
Population density = Total population in building/Total floor area of building in square feet 0.30
Gender = Number of female/number of male 0.05
Age below 5 = Number of children/Total population in building 0.17
Age 65 and over = Number of elderly/Total population in building 0.11
Disability = Number of disable/Total population in building 0.34
Illiterate = Number of illiterate/Total population in building 0.03
Total 1.00
Source: World Bank (2014)

4
 2.3.4 Development of Composite Vulnerability Score

The composite score of vulnerability is the combination of earthquake vulnerability score, fire
vulnerability score and socio-economic vulnerability score. Though these three scores are in different
scale, these have been converted into a common scale (Table 4) for calculation of composite score. RVS
(FEMA) scores vary from 0.7 to 4.4 where higher value means low vulnerability and lower value means
high vulnerability. According to the classification of FEMA (2002), sample buildings were classified into
four vulnerability categories of earthquake and given new scale from 0.25 to 1; where 0.25 means the low
vulnerability and 1 indicate high vulnerability. Fire scores vary from 0.393 to 1.72 where lower value
means low vulnerability and higher value means high vulnerability. According to fire scores, sample
buildings were classified into four vulnerability categories of fire score and given new scale from 0.25 to
1 where 0.25 means the low vulnerability and 1 indicates high vulnerability. Physical vulnerability score
(PVS) of each building was calculated using an equation based on expert opinion: PVS = 0.6*Earthquake
score + 0.4* Fire score. Social vulnerability scores (SVS) vary from 0.065 to 0.2638 where lower value
means low vulnerability and higher value means high vulnerability. The composite vulnerability score
(CVS) of a building is the combination of physical vulnerability score (PVS) and social vulnerability
score (SVS). Hazards only become disasters when people are affected and livelihoods are swept away.
The theoretical and analytical methodological framework for the CVS is based on the work of Cardona et
al. (2005). According to this procedure, the CVS is obtained by multiplying the physical vulnerability
score (PVS) by the social vulnerability score (SVC), based on variables associated with the socio-
economic conditions of each building, according to the relationship: CVS = PVS (1+ SVS).

Table 4: Common vulnerability category

Vulnerability category New Scale RVS score Fire score Social vulnerability score
Low 0.25 3.01 - 4.4 0.393 - 0.7 0.0000 – 0.0650
Moderately Low 0.5 2.01 - 3 0.71 – 1.00 0.0651 – 0.1000
Moderate 0.75 0.71 - 2.0 1.01 – 1.30 0.1001 – 0.1500
High 1 0.3 - 0.7 1.31 – 1.72 0.1501 – 0.2638

3. Analysis and Findings

Data analysis contains three vulnerability assessments: earthquake, fire and social. Details of each part are
presented below:

3.1 Earthquake Vulnerability Analysis

Among 350 surveyed buildings, 338 buildings have been analyzed using RVS (FEMA) method and rest
structures which are katcha cannot be analyzed for earthquake hazard. From the field survey, information
about four factors of earthquake hazard i.e. type of building, number of storey, vertical irregularity and
plan irregularity have been collected and then analyzed to develop score of each building. The factors of
earthquake vulnerability are described as follow:

3.1.1 Building Type

Among 350 surveyed buildings 256 buildings are pucca (73.1%), 82 are semipucca (23.4%) and 12 are
katcha (3.4%). Among pucca only 1 building (0.29%) are C2 (concrete shear wall) type building. C3
(moment resisting frame with unreinforced masonry infill or URM inf) type building dominates with
64.3% occupancy in total buildings. URM (unreinforced masonry) buildings which are mostly semipucca
buildings are 32% in the study area. About 60.57% buildings are C3 type and pucca; and 3.71% are C3
type semipucca buildings. 12.29% area URM and pucca; and 19.71% are URM and semipucca.

5
 3.1.2 Number of Storey

The area mainly comprises of one to six storey buildings where one storey buildings are the highest with
22.3% occupancy. Buildings above six storeys are very limited (3.5%). The tallest building in the study
area is a 9-storey building. Among the others, 2-storey buildings are 20.9%; 3-storey, 4-storey, 5-storey
and 6-storey buildings are 12.6%, 12.6%, 14.6% and 13.7% respectively.

3.1.3 Vertical Irregularity and Plan Irregularity

Buildings with irregular pattern both in their elevation and plan are more vulnerable to earthquake than
buildings with regular form. From the field survey it has been found that 16.3% buildings in the study
area are vertically irregular and 83.7% buildings are vertically regular in their elevation shape. About
60% buildings of the study area have regular shape and 40% buildings have irregularity in their plan.
Regular shape means rectangular or square plan and irregular shape may be an L-shaped or T-shaped
building.

3.1.4 Rapid Visual Screening (FEMA)

Based on scoring the earthquake vulnerability map (Fig. 1) is prepared which shows the building
according to the different earthquake vulnerability category based on Table 4. About 50.9% buildings
scored 3.01 to 3.4 values which mean most of the buildings are structurally low vulnerable according to
RVS (FEMA).

Fig. 1: Earthquake Vulnerability Map of Ward 29

Prepared by Author, Source: Field Survey, 2013

Among 50.9% of safe buildings, the highest 33.4% are pucca C3 type, 5.1% are pucca URM, 2.6% area
semipucca C3 type and 9.4% are semipucca URM. Only one building in the study area is C2 type

6
building which also falls in low vulnerable category. 3.4% structure fall in highly vulnerable category.
Among these buildings, 3.1% are C3 type pucca and 0.3% is URM. No semipucca building falls in this
category (Table 5).

Table 5: Type of buildings according to RVS (FEMA)

Construction Type
Katcha Pucca Semipucca
RVS Score 0 C2 C3 URM C3 URM Total
0 3.4 0 0 0 0 0 3.4
0.31-0.7 0 0 3.1 0.3 0 0 3.4
0.71-2 0 0 8.6 1.4 0.9 2 12.9
2.01-3 0 0 15.4 5.4 0.3 8.3 29.4
3.01-4.4 0 0.3 33.4 5.1 2.6 9.4 50.9
Total 3.4 0.3 60.6 12.3 3.7 19.7 100
Source: Field survey, 2013
Among high vulnerable category, 0.9% buildings are 2-storey, 1.1% are 3-storey and 1.4% are 4-storey in
total sample buildings. In this category, only residential, commercial and mixed use activity has been seen
with 0.9%, 0.3% and 2.3% share. Among moderate vulnerable category, height of buildings varies from
1-storey to 9-storey. This category is seen in almost all type of use of building except recreational
activity. Mixed use and residential dominate in this category with 5.4% and 4.9% share. Moderately low
vulnerable buildings vary from 1-storey to 6-storey where 2-storey are the highest (7.1%). In this
category, mixed use again dominates with 14.9% share (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2: Earthquake score according to number of storey and use of structure.

Source: Field survey, 2013

3.2 Fire Hazard Vulnerability Analysis

Fire hazard vulnerability in context of Dhaka City depends on six factors including construction material
type of building, number of storey, floor area, fire source in building, fire source around building and
accessibility of road which are described below:

3.2.1 Construction Material Type

Fire hazard depends on construction material of buildings such as earthen floors, wooden floor, mud
walls, straw roofs and tin-shed roof etc. Katcha structures tend to be more vulnerable to fire than pucca
buildings. So katcha building is given a score of 3 where semipucca and pucca are given score of 2 and 1
respectively. In the study area 73.1% buildings are pucca, 23.4% are semipucca and 3.4% are katcha.

7
 3.2.2 Number of Storey

Number of storey of buildings is an important factor of fire hazard. According to the view of local expert,
vulnerability of building increases with the increase of number of floor, i.e. first floor of a building is
safer than any of the upper floors. In the study area, most of the buildings are one storey to six storeys.
High rise buildings are very limited in the study area. From the opinion of expert, buildings with up to
one storey scores 1, 2-5 storey scores 2 and high rise building (above 6 storey) score 3.

3.2.3 Floor Area

Larger area tends to be more vulnerable than smaller area. In the study area, floor space of building varies
from 169 square feet to 11100 square feet. To calculate fire score, area of building is categorized in three
classes where up to 1000 square feet scores 1, 1001 to 2000 square feet scores 2 and above 2000 square
feet scores 3.

3.2.4 Existence of Fire Source in Building

As a traditional old part of Dhaka City, Ward 29 contains different types of economic activities such as
plastic manufacturing industries, warehouse of flammable material like chemicals and plastic etc that can
trigger a fire hazard. Fire sources in buildings are categorized into five classes where first four are
hazardous sources (chemical, plastic, leather, and generator) and the last one is residential. In case of
scoring of fire, first four types of sources are given more preference than gas stove. Buildings where fire
sources and flammable materials are available in the study area were located during the field survey.
Around 20% buildings are found with no fire sources. 21% buildings have plastic, 4% have chemicals,
2% have leather and 1% have generator. Rest 52% buildings which are mainly residential have gas stove
as a source of fire. Building with no fire source is given 0, where building with residential fire source (gas
stove) and hazardous fire source (class 1 to 4) is given 1 and 2 respectively.

3.2.5 Existence of Fire Source outside Building

Safe distance of building from outside fire source like electric pole and transformer should be minimum 3
m or 20 feet according to international standard (electrical-engineering-portal.com). In the study area,
about 27% buildings have been found to have electric pole and 2% have transformer at their close
proximity. These buildings are highly vulnerable to fire hazard. Besides, most of the buildings have
electric wire so closely with their outer wall. If there is a spark in transformer, these electric cables can
easily spread fire to the buildings. About 71% buildings have no electric pole or transformer to their close
proximity. Building with no transformer or electric pole is given 0, where building having transformer or
electric pole at its close proximity is given 1.

3.2.6 Accessibility

Accessibility is one of the important factors of fire vulnerability. Fire affected building needs to be served
by fire truck coming from fire stations which carry water, ladder and various firefighting equipment to
extinguish fire. If the adjacent road of affected building is not accessible for fire vehicle, the buildings
become vulnerable as it cannot be served effectively by fire fighters. In this study, a minimum width of 10
feet of adjacent road is considered as accessible according to firefighting expert. From the field survey, it
was found that the percentage of the buildings that get access of fire vehicle is 46%. Rest of the buildings
(around 54%) is not accessible to fire engines. According to opinion of expert, building with road
accessibility scores 0 where building with no road accessibility scores 1.

3.2.7 Fire Vulnerability Score

The vulnerability score of buildings of the study area range from 0.393 to 1.72 which is presented in Fig.
3. Lower value indicates less vulnerability whereas higher value indicates high vulnerability. Most of the
buildings (58.6%) have fire score more than 1 which indicates most of the buildings in the study area are

8
vulnerable to fire. Buildings having fire score less than 0.7 are only 14.9% and having score 0.71- 1.0 are
26.6%. Buildings fall in most vulnerable category of fire are 14.9%.

Fig. 3: Fire Hazard Vulnerability Map of Ward 29

Prepared by Author, Source: Field Survey, 2013

3.3 Physical Vulnerability Score

Fig. 4 shows the physical vulnerability scenario of the study area by combining earthquake and fire score
using the equation mentioned in Section 2.4.4. About half of the total buildings in the study area fall in
moderately low vulnerability category of both earthquake and fire with 50.9% share. Moderate vulnerable
buildings are 36.6% and high vulnerable buildings are 4.3%. Buildings with low vulnerability are 8.3% of
sample building.

9
 Fig. 4: Physical Vulnerability Map of Ward 29
Prepared by Author, Source: Field Survey, 2013

3.4 Social Vulnerability Analysis

A building is socially vulnerable to any hazard when people live there. So it is important to analyze the
social features of building such as total population, gender distribution and age category etc. which are
also known as impact factors of hazard. Social vulnerability of area or building depends on some factors
including demographic features, age group, income and education level etc. World Bank identified six
factors for Dhaka City that lead to social vulnerability. These factors are population density per square
kilometer, female to male ratio, children below 5 years, elderly with 65 years and above, people with
disability and illiterate people. In this research social vulnerability of each building level has to be
analyzed, so density is converted to person per square feet.

3.4.1 Density of Population

Density of population in the study area is one of the highest in Dhaka City (BBS, 2011) which is about
127,425 people per square kilometer. From the field survey it is also found that the density of population
living in a building is very high. Most of the buildings (26.6%) have about 31 to 50 people living in a
building. Analyzing person per 1000 square feet in a building, it has found that most of the buildings
(44.3%) have up to 10 people per 1000 square feet. About 37.7% buildings have 11 to 20 people.
Buildings having more than 50 people per 1000 square feet are 6% of total sample buildings.

10
 3.4.2 Female to Male Ratio

Woman is more vulnerable than man in case of any hazard. In the study area, most of the buildings
(80.57%) have male population greater than female population. The rest (19.43%) are socially vulnerable
as they have more female population than male.

3.4.3 Age below 5 Years and 65 plus

Age group is another criterion for analyzing social vulnerability. Both young and old people may be
unable to respond to disasters on their own. Number of children in a building in the study area varies from
0 to 23. About 39.1% buildings have no children hence these buildings are safer than other. About 48.3%
buildings have no elderly people with 65 years and above which are safer than other. 51.7% have at least
one elderly that lead to social vulnerability.

3.4.4 People with Disability

Only 18.6% buildings have at least one disable people which are more vulnerable than other buildings in
the study area as disable people cannot move effectively in case of any hazard.

3.4.5 People with Illiteracy

Illiterate people are less aware of any hazard so they are more vulnerable than literate people. In the study
area, a large number of people are illiterate who are mainly the workers of the plastic manufacturing and
processing industries. Buildings having no illiterate people are 31.7% in the study area. Buildings having
1-10 illiterate people are more than half of the total sample buildings (51.4%).

3.4.6 Social Vulnerability Score

Social vulnerability score of each building is the weighted sum of the above mentioned factors mentioned
in Table 3. In the study area, about half of the sample buildings (49.4%) fall in low vulnerability group.
35.4% fall in moderately low vulnerability group; 11.4% are moderately vulnerability and 3.7% are
highly vulnerable. The scores of social vulnerability are represented on Fig. 5 to show overall scenario of
the study area.

11
 Fig. 5: Social Vulnerability Map of Ward 29
Prepared by Author, Source: Field Survey, 2013

3.5 Composite Vulnerability Analysis

The composite vulnerability scores of the buildings which is the combination of physical vulnerability
score (PVS) and social vulnerability score (SVS) are presented in Fig. 6. From the analysis, it has found
been that most of the buildings fall in moderate vulnerability category with 42% share. 26.3% buildings
are highly vulnerable and 11.7% are very highly vulnerable.

12
 Fig. 6: Composite Vulnerability Map of Ward 29
Prepared by Author, Source: Field Survey, 2013

3.5.1 Detailed Inventory of Vulnerable Buildings

After developing the composite vulnerability map of Ward 29 for earthquake and fire, it is necessary to
give attention to the most vulnerable building in the study area. About 38% buildings (133 sample
buildings out of 350) fall in these categories. Among them, 101 are pucca structures and 32 are
semipucca. Mixed uses of building dominate (84 out of 133) in these categories followed by residential
use (34 out of 133). Among the existing land use of the study area, educational institutions and
community services like mosque, community center, social gathering club does not fall in high vulnerable
categories except one mosque. So these buildings can be used as evacuation center is case of any hazard.
Among the vulnerable category, about 24.1% structures are semipucca and 75.9% are pucca. There is no
remarkable variation in case of building height. 1-storey to 9-stoery- all buildings is more or less
vulnerable. Percentage of 2-storey buildings is slightly greater than other storey (Fig. 7). From the
vulnerability analysis of earthquake and fire hazard incorporating social vulnerability, it has been
observed that pucca buildings are more vulnerable than semipucca. Mixed uses of buildings followed by
residential uses tend to be more vulnerable than any other uses. Educational institutions and community
services are comparatively low vulnerable so these can be used as evacuation center.

13
 Fig. 7: Vulnerable buildings according to type, number of storey and use of structure
Prepared by Author, Source: Field Survey, 2013

4. Major Findings and Recommendation

4.1 Major Findings

This part concludes the research by proposing some recommendations on the basis of the major findings
of the vulnerability assessment of earthquake and fire hazard incorporating social vulnerability. Major
findings of the research are described as follow:

4.1.1 Exiting Scenario

The surveyed buildings cover 11.45% of existing structures in the study area. In spite of being one of the
oldest parts of Dhaka City, the study area comprises both old and new building constructed up to 10 years
before which is about 49%. Pucca buildings dominate with about 73.1% occupancy among which about
60.57% are C3 (moment resisting frame) type building. Unreinforced masonry buildings which are
mostly semipucca are 32% in the study area. One storey buildings are the highest with 22.3% occupancy
whereas buildings above 6 storeys are very limited (3.5%). The tallest building in the study area is a 9
storey building. Most of the buildings (38%) have 1001-2000 square feet floor area. About 50.9%
buildings are used as mixed use activity such as shops and industry at ground floor and residence at upper
floor.

4.1.2 Vulnerability Assessment

According to RVS (FEMA) most of the buildings (50.9%) are structurally safe and 3.4% buildings are
highly vulnerable to earthquake. This scenario is quite surprising as about 16.3% buildings are vertically
irregular and 40% buildings have irregularity in their plan. One of the main reason behind low earthquake
vulnerability is about 49% buildings are newly constructed. In contrast, most of the buildings (58.6%) in
the study area are vulnerable to fire among which 14.9% are highly vulnerable. Around 80% buildings are
found with fire sources stored in building whereas 29% have fire source around. Adjacent roads of most
of the buildings (54%) are not accessible for fire truck. As many buildings are used for mixed activities,
these are highly vulnerable to fire hazard. The study area may withstand a single hazard. But considering
multi-hazard of earthquake and fire, there is greater chance of disaster. About 50.86% buildings in the
study area are moderately low vulnerable to both earthquake and fire hazard where 4.29% buildings are
highly vulnerable. More population living in hazardous area leads to greater risk of disaster. About half of
the buildings (49.4%) are low vulnerable according to social score where 3.7% are highly vulnerable.
According to the composite vulnerability score incorporating earthquake, fire hazard and social
vulnerability, most of the buildings (38%) are highly to very highly vulnerable because of high population
density and high risk of fire hazard. Pucca and mixed use buildings tend to be more vulnerable than any
other buildings.

14
 4.2 Recommendation

The study area was found to be more vulnerable to fire and less vulnerable to earthquake. But due to the
social impact, narrow road, lack of critical facilities and lack of preparedness among local people, a great
disaster may happen even if a small scale earthquake or fire occurs. Fire may be happened both as
primary hazard or secondary hazard of earthquake. So taking measures to reduce fire hazard vulnerability
and to enhance social resilience may improve the condition as a whole. Some recommendations which
have been derived by analyzing findings of vulnerability assessment are described as follow:

 One of the major reasons of vulnerability of the study area is poor road network which is
practically impossible to improve at present. Design of new road network is strongly
recommended as a long term measure.
 Storage of flammable material in buildings is another main cause of fire hazard vulnerability
which must be regulated.
 Buildings with mixed land use such as residential building with industrial or storage use tend to
be more vulnerable than any other buildings. Segregation of industrial use from residential use is
highly recommended.
 As social vulnerability factors affect the overall vulnerability, it should be more focused in case
for disaster risk reduction. Women, children, olds and disables are the most vulnerable group in
case of any disaster. Evacuation route of disaster should be planned in such way that it addresses
both physical and social vulnerability.
 Developing social resilience through raising awareness among local people about their
vulnerability to earthquake and fire hazard may be a suitable solution to mitigate vulnerability to
earthquake and fire hazard in the community.
 Composite vulnerability map can be a great tool to find out potential hotspot of hazard which will
help the disaster management authority for taking risk mitigation measures. In the study area,
some structures are found to be vulnerable only to earthquake; some are only to fire. But about
38% structures are highly vulnerable to both hazards which are identified as hotspot from the
composite vulnerability map. Special measures should be taken for those buildings.

5. Conclusion

Vulnerability assessment is a tool of decision-making of specific stakeholders about options for

responding and adapting to the effects of hazard. In this research, vulnerability assessment of earthquake
and fire hazard in a selected area in Dhaka City has been carried out incorporating social issues.
Analyzing different map layers produced from the findings of the vulnerability assessment, one can
understand the earthquake vulnerability scenario, fire hazard vulnerability scenario and the integrated
scenario when both hazards strike. The main reason behind the compilation of earthquake, fire hazard and
social vulnerability is to observe the complete picture of exiting vulnerability of an area. The integrated
map can be a tool for disaster management authorities to determine the mitigation measures and to find
vulnerable buildings needed further investigation and also to relocate the people living in those vulnerable
buildings. Though the study has been carried out to a small portion of Dhaka City, the methodology is
applicable to the whole ward as well as other wards of the city and it will help the policy makers to
prioritize special consideration area or hotspot for disaster management. The integrated vulnerability
assessment of earthquake and fire hazard can be described as well balanced in regard to the social
components of vulnerability. Assessing both earthquake and fire hazard is able to create a common
understanding about the relevance of existing risks in a region or municipality. This common
understanding is an essential basis for reaching a consensus on necessary measures for mitigating
vulnerability which is an integral part of spatial planning.

15
Acknowledgement

This paper is a part of research work of Masters Thesis conducted by the first author under co-supervision
of second and third authors. Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) funded the
research as a part of author's Masters Degree.

Reference

 ADPC (2004) “Asian Urban Disaster Mitigation News Quarterly Activity Highlights”.
 Alam, M.J.B and Baroi, G.N., (2004) Fire hazard categorization and risk assessment for Dhaka city in GIS
framework, Journal of Civil Engineering (IEB), Volume 32 (1), Page 35-45.
 Ansary, M.A. and Rahman N. (2013) Savar building tragedy in Bangladesh: Way forward, presented in 12th
International Symposium on New Technologies for Urban Safety of Mega Cities in Asia, Hanoi, Vietnam.
 Ansary, M.A., Ara, S. and Afrin, T. (2010) Evaluation Of Fire Fighting System at High-Rise Buildings in
Dhaka City, presented in 9th International Symposium on New Technologies for Urban Safety of Mega Cities
in Asia, Kobe, Japan, 2010.
 BBS (2011) Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Bangladesh Population Census: Dhaka Community Series,
Planning Commission, Ministry of Planning, Dhaka.
 BFSCD (2010) Bangladesh Fire Service Civil Defence Annual Report.
 Bilham, R. (2004) Earthquakes in India and the Himalaya: tectonics, geodesy and history, Annals of
Geophysics, VOL. 47, N. 2/3.
 Cardona, O. D. (2005), Indicators of Disaster Risk and Risk Management, summery report, Program for Latin
America and the Caribbean, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington D.C.
 CDMP (2010), Report on Earthquake Risk Assessment of Dhaka, Chittagong and Sylhet City Corporation Area,
Govt. of Bangladesh, Dhaka.
 FEMA (2002) Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards, A Handbook, FEMA 154,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Edition 2.
 Horwich, G., (2000) “Economic Lessons of the Kobe Earthquake.”Economic Development and Cultural
Change, volume 48, page 521–42.
 Islam, M.M. and Adri, N., (2008) Fire Hazard Management of Dhaka City: Addressing Issues Relating to
Institutional Capacity and Public Perception. Jahangirnagar Planning Review, Vol. 6, pp. 57-67.
 Jahan, I (2011) “Earthquake Vulnerability and Evacuation Plan for Old Dhaka” MURP Thesis, Department of
Urban and Regional Planning, BUET, Dhaka.
 Jahan, I, Ansary M, Ara S, Islam I., (2011) Assessing social vulnerability to Earthquake Hazard in Old Dhaka,
Bangladesh; Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management (AJEDM), 3(3):285–300.
 Khan, A.A. (2004) “Earthquake hazard: Dhaka city perspective”, The Daily Star, Vol. 5 No. 40.
 Martin, X. S. (2011), The Global Competitiveness Report, 2011–2012, edited by Klaus Schwab, World
Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland.
 Rahman N. and Ansary, M.A. (2012) Community under Fire Threat: An Assessment of Fire Hazard
Vulnerability of Ward 65 in Dhaka City, presented in 11th International Symposium on New Technologies for
Urban Safety of Mega Cities in Asia, Mongolia.
 Rahman, M. G. F. (2004) “Seismic Damage Scenario for Dhaka City”, M.Sc. Engg. Project thesis, Department
of Civil Engineering, BUET, Dhaka.
 Raja, D.R., Islam, M.S. and Islam, M.S. (2008) Analyzing Vulnerability of a Community to Fire Hazard: A
Case Study of Ward 72, BURP thesis, BUET, Dhaka.
 RAJUK (2006) Detailed Area Plan of Dhaka under Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan (1995-2015).

16
 SAARC (2010) South Asia Disaster News, Issue No. 120, SAARC Disaster Management Centre, New Delhi.
 Saaty, T.L., (1980). “The Analytic Hierarchy Process.” McGraw-Hill, New York.
 Somerville, Paul (1995). "Kobe Earthquake: An Urban Disaster". Eos 76 (6). Archived from the original on 1
May 1997. Retrieved 2009-05-06.
 World Bank (2014) Dhaka Earthquake Risk Guidebook, Bangladesh Urban Earthquake Resilience
Project, Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative.

17