International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 62 (2021) 102398

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

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

Viewing disaster resilience through gender sensitive lens: A composite

indicator based assessment
Swarna Bintay Kadir
Khulna University of Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Women face discrimination in many aspects of social and economic life, especially in a patriarchal society.
Household resilience Disproportionate behaviour of society towards women exacerbates the challenges of disaster for them. Hence, in
Gender sensitivity different hazard studies, women are inevitably considered to be the most vulnerable. Though women’s
Socio-economic indicators
vulnerability to hazard is realized and often highlighted, their capability to absorb, recover and adapt to a
Resilience capacity
Analytic hierarchy process
disaster situation remains unclear, unrecognized, and less appreciated in the existing socio-economic condition of
Community engagement behaviour Bangladesh. This research intends to identify the potential socio-economic indicators of household disaster
resilience that are sensitive to gender differences. These indicators represent the possible sectors of gender
discrimination that are unavoidable while building household resilience. The study was conducted in four vil­
lages located in the southwestern coastal region of Bangladesh, which continues to be impacted by hazards like
floods, cyclones, thunderstorms, and salinity intrusion. Disaster resilience was assessed separately for men and
women of the study areas considering the selected gender sensitive indicators. It is seen that women in these
areas are still lagging behind men in terms of disaster resilience, but they are making notable progress in health,
community engagement, education, and economy.

1. Introduction through recovery after a disaster by employing its resources without

Devastating cyclones hit coastal regions of Bangladesh almost every
year. The region is likely to suffer from an increased frequency and in­
tensity of these events due to climate change. Despite the challenges of
regular disastrous events in coastal areas, Bangladesh has managed to
reduce deaths and injuries from cyclones [1,2]. Cyclone Aila, Bulbul,
and Amphan occurred consecutively in 2009, 2019, and 2020 caused
very few fatalities because the necessity of taking disaster risk reduction
measures has long been realized in Bangladesh. It has offset the
importance of traditional measures like recovery and rehabilitation.
Moreover, the progress the country made in disaster risk reduction was
not entirely infrastructural and mitigation oriented. Disaster risk
reduction has also been conceptualized and introduced in the context of
socio-economic development. Achieving disaster resilience through ca­
pacity building at the household and community level is now considered
an essential step towards disaster risk reduction.
Resilience is a complex and comprehensive term relating to the well-
being of human beings [3,4]. In hazards research, resilience is, but by no
means limited to, the capacity to withstand through resistance, the
power to absorb through adaptation, and the ability to bounce back
suffering massive damage or deformation. In recent decades, economic
and social resiliences are considered an evolutionary approach focusing
on regions’ adaptability to changing conditions and capability to redi­
rect towards new development paths [5].
However, the notion of disaster resilience is still not gender-neutral.
Factors contribute to disaster resilience are often sensitive to gender
difference. Exposure to a hazard can be the same for all, but levels of
vulnerability, access to resources, and coping skills may vary based on
gender [7,8]. In countries like Bangladesh, the mortality rate of women
during disasters is comparatively higher than men. For example, the
cyclone of 1991 caused massive deaths of women that were fourteen
times higher than that of men [9,10,12]. Women in Bangladesh are
significantly more vulnerable to disasters reasoned by their lower
socio-economic status, lack of access to resources, and lack of
decision-making power [13–17]. Oppositely, women here also have
unique experiences, valuable knowledge, and crucial skills to address or
manage risks. Connecting the capacities of both women and men in
addressing disaster resilience is a significant step in risk reduction [18].
Equal rights, opportunities, and entitlements for men and women are the
essential phases of increased resilience to disasters [19]. Gender analysis

E-mail addresses: swarna.urp@gmail.com, swarna@kuet.idm.ac.bd, swarna@idm.kuet.ac.bd.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102398
Received 17 June 2020; Received in revised form 4 June 2021; Accepted 10 June 2021
Available online 18 June 2021
2212-4209/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.B. Kadir
helps develop a better understanding of gender norms, gender roles,
gender needs, inequalities in accessibilities, and the existing power
differences that shape the vulnerability and resilience of both genders
[19].
Many efforts have been made until now for measuring and evalu­
ating disaster resilience. Some of these studies considered multiple di­
mensions like physical, institutional, social, economic, and natural
aspects of resilience [6,20], such as the widely used Resilience Index
Measurement and Analysis (RIMA) model. Under the socio-economic
dimensions of this model, variables like income, access to food, access
to basic services, assets, adaptive capacity, social safety nets, and
sensitivity to shock were considered [22]. Ali [6] assessed the disaster
resilience of several coastal communities of Bangladesh by applying a
multi-dimensional approach. The research included several social and
economic indicators like education, social engagement, employment,
and saving. It considered women’s participation in the labor force as an
advantageous state but did not equally assess the gender based scenario
of resilience. Shaw and Team [20] measured the household resilience
capabilities considering some physical, institutional, social, economic,
and natural variables as indicators of resilience. The research considers
the socio-economic issues like health, education, awareness, social
capital, income, employment, assets, access to financial service, savings
and insurance, budget, and subsidy, though the gender issues were not
put under consideration [20]. Some researchers prioritized only the
socio-economic dimensions while measuring resilience. Several studies
about socio-economic resilience were carried out in the coastal areas of
Bangladesh. Most of them evaluated resilience by developing
socio-economic indicators [23–28]. However, resilience assessment
considering gender sensitive issues has not been attempted so far.
For quantitative assessment of disaster resilience, one research
developed a composite index based on indicators like population den­
sity, doctor-population ratio, public health, forest density, income per
capita, literacy rate, primary school, mobile phone use, access to safe
drinking, cyclone shelters and road communication. However, the study
did not attempt to assess resilience considering gender gaps [23]. Akter
and Mallick [29] exhibited the connection between poverty, vulnera­
bility, and resilience in their study. Indicators used in the study were
social safety nets, social capital household structures, training, access to
cyclone shelter, relief, and medical help. The study showed how the
differences in the economic status of households may impact the resil­
ience capacities and vulnerabilities. The study represented the influence
of economic inequality in capacity building before and after a disaster
though the analysis based on gender differences was still missing [29].
Another research under the Vulnerability to Resilience (V2R) program
measured the community resilience based on six characteristics of a
resilient community, namely knowledge and health, access to infra­
structure and services, social capital, economic capital, social cohe­
siveness, and the capability to manage natural assets [25]. The study
ensured gender balance while household questionnaire surveys, but the
distinct analysis for each gender was rarely conducted like other
research mentioned above. The discussion was rather generalized
instead of reflecting the separate perceptions of males and females
regarding resilience.
Islam and Walkerden [26] involved a qualitative method to assess
the contribution of social networking in disaster resilience. They showed
that bonding with family members and bridging with close neighbors by
providing physical, monetary, and emotional support are important
components of recovery and resilience. Similarly, the linking between
households and non-government organizations can also influence
disaster recovery and resilience, as shown in their other research [27].
These studies showed the detailed perceptions of households where the
primary spokespersons were usually male. Therefore, the insights from
female members were merely included [26,27]. Practical Action-
Bangladesh qualitatively described community resilience based on
coping style, self-efficacy, and sense of community. Unlike other studies,
it involved the women’s opinion, but the differences in conditions
2
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 62 (2021) 102398
between men and women were not concretely represented [28].
This research has provided a new framework intended to improve
relative assessments of disaster resilience incorporating gender analysis
at the household level. Addressing the gender sensitive indicators and
standards for measuring resilience is one of the challenges the local and
national government faces, especially in Bangladesh. A comprehensive
set of socio-economic variables for implementing the framework was
developed as a first step towards its implementation. The objective of the
research was to identify the social and economic indicators of household
disaster resilience that are sensitive to gender differences. The research
also assessed the prevailing condition of disaster resilience by measuring
the selected indicators for each gender.
2. Study area
Bangladesh is a low-lying country and the largest delta in the world.
The southern part of the country has a 600 km long coastline. This study
focuses on the Khulna district, which is one of the 19 coastal districts of
Bangladesh. The majority of past cyclone tracks crossed this district over
the last decade. The district is often severely affected by other common
disasters including coastal floods, thunderstorms, salinity intrusion,
river erosion, and arsenic contamination of groundwater sources. The
region’s exposure to hazard is significantly aggravated by the multiple
pressures of climate change. Additionally, the high density of popula­
tion, poorly built houses, and economic inequality have led to increased
vulnerability and risk in this region. Therefore, coastal communities of
this region are fragile and sensitive to this adverse condition [23].
Khulna district consists of 13 upazillas and 73 unions [36]. Accord­
ing to Saroar [30]; Dacope upazilla is the most affected area of Khulna.
This research has focused on Dacope upazillas which faced a high level
of socio-economic destruction during cyclonic events of Sidr, Aila, Fani,
Bulbul, and Amphan during 2007, 2009, 2019, and 2020. Sutarkhali
union of Dacope upazilla is the most exposed, most sensitive, most
vulnerable area with the least adaptive capacity [31]. Fig. 1 shows the
location of the study area. This union has an area of 112059 acres and a
total population of 30043 distributed in 7463 households. The major­
ities of these coastal residents are poor and thereby significantly
vulnerable to hazards. The union has four villages: Gunari, Shutarkhai,
Kalabagi Sutarkhali, Nailan [36]. Table 2 shows the population and
household distribution of these villages.
3. Methodology
3.1. Variable or parameter selection
In this study, the social and economic dimension of disaster resil­
ience consists of a number of indicators, namely education and knowl­
edge, information access, health status, social status, community
engagement behaviour, economic status, and resilient capacity, as
shown in Table 1. Each indicator consists of several complex variables or
simple variables. A vital step in forming composite indicators is the
identification of relevant and representative variables, as the excellence
of composite indicators depends on the quality of the variables chosen.
In the context of Bangladesh, all of these variables are gender sensitive.
It means that the data collected for such parameters may give varied
results based on gender. These variables were cross-checked by exten­
sive literature reviews and the experts’ opinions. Finally, 26 variables
were selected for further analyses as shown in Table 1. The variable
selection had three considerations: 1) relevance to resilience, 2) pres­
ence of gender sensitivity, and 3) availability of consistent quality data.
In this process, the impact of these indicators on household disaster
resilience has been established. The process has also indicated the
gender based discrimination that might the community have in terms of
each indicator.
S.B. Kadir
Fig. 1. Study area.
3.2. Data collection
Households are the elementary units of analysis in this study because
they tend to act together in a disaster context. Our target was to cover
192 households sufficient to give a precision of plus or minus7%, with
95% confidence. The targeted households were stratified among four
villages. Households were randomly selected from each village. We
interviewed 192 households and obtained useable responses from all of
them. Field surveys were conducted during February 2020 and re­
sponses were gathered by interviewing local households using a struc­
tured questionnaire.
Household heads (male) and dominant females of the same house­
hold were interviewed separately to reduce the biases of their answers.
In total, 384 useable responses were recorded. Other household mem­
bers also contributed additional insights as the interviews were held in
their homes. While interviewing, observation of everyday lives of male
and female villagers has contributed a lot to understand and identify the
sectors of their differences. Some variables, such as indigenous knowl­
edge about disasters, sanitation hygiene awareness, linking with GO/
NGO, and asset ownership, are complex in nature and require asking
3
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 62 (2021) 102398
multiple questions to detect appropriate answers and for easier cate­
gorization. The interviews also included a variety of qualitative inquiries
to get additional perspectives on resilience. The perspectives of disaster
experts were incorporated for selecting the parameters; for scaling some
parameters like bonding, bridging, and linking; and for weighting the
indicators. Their thoughts and experiences were canvassed through
meetings, interviews, and internet-based interviews incorporating the
pairwise ranking method. These also support triangulation on key fea­
tures of household surveys. The data were analysed with SPSS (Statis­
tical Package for Social Sciences), Microsoft Excel, and ArcGIS (a
software for Geographic Information System).
3.3. Imputation of missing data
According to some researchers, 5% missing values is the maximum
threshold for a variable above which result cannot be produced without
biases [32,33]. In this study, data of 3 cases were missing, which is only
0.8% of the total cases. These cases have been kept in order to provide a
complete dataset. Some variables, such as Savings and Capacity to adapt
have some more missing data but still are less than 5%. These cases with
S.B. Kadir International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 62 (2021) 102398

Table 1 scale of variables bonding, bridging, and linking.

Indicators and variables of gender sensitive socio-economic disaster resilience.
Indicators Variables Justification by literature for 3.5. Multivariate analysis
being relevant to resilient

Education and Level of education [6,11,,20,22,23,31, 37]] At the very beginning of the study, twenty four variables were
Knowledge Indigenous knowledge [11,20] employed in the resilience analysis. The variables were analysed for
about disasters significantly high correlations (Pearson’s R > 0.70) between individual
Have emergency variables. Three such high correlations were found, and therefore, those
training
Information Access Use mobile phone [23, 37]
variables were eliminated from further consideration. Moreover, the
Watch television [18,23,31] internal consistency of the composite indicators was evaluated using
Health Status Healthy days per year [20,23] Chronbach’s Alpha Reliability analysis. A high value of Chronbach’s
Sanitation hygiene [20, 37] Alpha, or equivalently high reliability, indicates that the individual in­
awareness
dicators measure the latent phenomenon well. For this study, one vari­
Water quality [20,23]
awareness able was deleted to maintain the level of internal consistency. The
Social Status Make household – generally accepted level of reliability is 0.600–0.700 [34]. The level of
decision internal consistency achieved (Chronbach’s Alpha = 0.696) from the
Participate in [6, 37] remaining twenty variables is found to be more than the generally
community meeting
Position in community [20]
accepted value.
Community Linking with GO*/ [27, 37]
engagement NGO* 3.6. Weighting
behaviour Bonding with [26]
Household members
An equally weighted index at the variable level was applied as it was
Bridging with [26]
neighbour difficult to rank twenty variables and no theoretical or practical justi­
Economic Status Average Income [6,11,20,23,26] fication was found for doing this. An Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Assets ownership [6,11,20,26] is applied to determine the weight of seven indicators or elements. AHP
Savings [6,20,26] is a widely used technique for deriving weights and making decisions. In
Resilient capacity Capacity to prepare [22]
this process, opinions are systematically extracted by means of pairwise
Capacity to recover [22]
Capacity to adapt [22] comparisons of indicators. Elements of each pair are compared in rela­
tion to the objective, and the intensity of their importance is determined
*GO: Government Organization. *NGO: Non-Government Organization.
by introducing a scale from 1 to 9. An excel template formulated by
Goepel [35] was used for this analysis. For this research, the opinions of
Table 2
20 disaster experts, urban and rural planners, environmentalists, and
Sample size calculation. sociologists were collected. The experts were asked through electronic
mail to make pairwise comparisons of selected indicators using a
Villages Households Population Target Households
structured format. The resulted priorities (pi) from each participant were
Gunari 1526 6072 40 calculated from the pairwise comparisons based on the row geometric
Kalabagi Sutarkhali 2486 10219 64
mean method (RGMM).
Nailan 1641 6653 42
Sutarkhali 1810 7099 46 [ ]
7463 30043 192
1 ∑
N
( )
ri = exp ln aij (1)
N j=1

missing values are not deleted to avoid the significant standard error in a /
∑
N
reduced sample. These missing data have been predicted and replaced pi = r i ri (2)
by employing the observed data through an explicit modelling. There, i=1

blanks cells have been filled with the sample mean of the recorded
values for the given individual indicator. However, this type of single
imputation frequently reflects the imputation uncertainty as well as
underestimates the variance.
3.4. Scaling
where, aij = pairwise NxN comparison matrix; i = 1,2, …,n; j = 1,2 …. n;
n = number of indicators.
The opinions were reviewed to check the consistency of the data.
Consistency ratios are calculated for each participant with the calculated
principal eigenvalue (λmax) based on the priority eigenvector derived
from RGMM.

For the purpose of this research, all raw data values were converted CR =
λmax − 1
(3)
into comparable scales. A likert scale of 1–4 was used to rate each var­ 2.7699N − 4.3513 − N
iable where 1 refers to low resilience and 4 refers to high resilience (see
where, λmax = matrix eigenvalue; N = dimension of the matrix.
Table 3). For scaling Indigenous knowledge, the most complex variable
Few modifications to the three opinions were made in consultation
in this research, a separate ranking system was developed. Main coastal
with the corresponding experts to keep the consistency ratio within the
disasters that already affected the study area or have the potential to
threshold of 0.3 to make the result reliable. The final calculations were
affect the study area were considered here. These disasters were clas­
done by using the Eigen vector method (EVM). The consolidated deci­
sified under five categories: flood, cyclone, thunderstorm, salinity, and
sion matrix C combines the input of all 20 participants to get the
others. For each of this category, a scale of 1–4 was fixed where No -
aggregated result. The weighted geometric means of each decision
have no knowledge; Little -know the reasons for the disaster; Moderate
matrices element aij(k) were calculated using the individual decision
-know the reasons for the disaster and know the effects of the disaster;
maker’s weight wk. For this study, equal weights were given to all
High -know the reasons for the disaster, know the effects of disaster, and
experts.
know the preparedness and mitigation measure. Values extracted from
all categories for each case were summed and rescaled again from lower
values to higher values. A pairwise ranking method was used to fix the

4
S.B. Kadir International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 62 (2021) 102398

Table 3
Scaling of variables.
Variables Scale

1 2 3 4

Level of education Illiterate Read and Write Primary Secondary and above
Indigenous knowledge about No Little Moderate High
disasters
Emergency training No Basic (About evacuation Standard (About emergency storage & Advanced (About first aid, emergency storage
plan) evacuation plan) & evacuation plan)
Use mobile phone No use Basic use (only call and Standard use (can read text message) Smart use (use the internet)
receive)
Watch television Never Daily Weekly Occasionally
Healthy days per year ≤240 241–270 271–320 >320
Sanitation hygiene awareness Do not wash hand at Wash hand without soap Wash hand with soap either before Wash hand with soap before eating and after
all eating or after toilet toilet
Water quality awareness Use river water Use pond water Use tubewell water Use rainwater
Make household decision Never Sometime Often Always
Participate in community Never Sometime Often Always
meeting
Position in community No Little Moderate High
Bonding with household Emotional support Reduce food intake Labour for repairing and recovering Selling assets
members
Bridging with neighbour Loan with interest Loan without interest Search and rescue Food and shelter
Linking with GO and NGO Not Involved and got Not involved but got Not involved but got food Involved and got something during the past
nothing other things disaster(s)
Average income in BDT/month 0–2500 2501–10000 10001–17500 Above 17500
Asset (house, land, gold, Have no asset at all Have one asset Have two assets Have at least three assets
vehicle) ownership
Savings No Saving Very Little Basic Satisfactory
Capacity to prepare Not at all likely Not very likely Very likely Extremely likely
Capacity to recover Not at all likely Not very likely Very likely Extremely likely
Capacity to adapt Not at all likely Not very likely Very likely Extremely likely

∑N
3.7. Aggregation
k=0 wk ln aij(k)
ci = exp ∑N (4)
k=0 wk
After weighting the indicators, for cross gender comparisons, a
where, wk = individual decision maker’s weight; k = number of experts. method of aggregation was employed in which scores of indicators
From the decision matrix, normalized principle eigenvectors were represent the summation of the equally weighted average variable
calculated, which ultimately were the weights of indicators (see scores. Once the scores of all the indicators were derived, the composite
Table 4). Mean relative error (MRE) was resulted to be 16.3%, calcu­ socio-economic resilience was calculated by assigning derived weight
lated using the following formula: over the indicators. The weighted mean score was calculated as follow:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ∑
m
n ( )2 Vm
1 ∑ n Ii = (7)
Δwi = aik wk − wi (5) h
n − 1 k=1 λmax 1

∑i
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ Wi Ii
√ n (
√1 ∑ Δwi 2
) R = ∑1 (8)
MRE = √ (6) Wi
n j=1 wi
R = resilience score; Where Ii = resilience score for indicator; Vj =
mean variable; h = number of variable an under indicator; i = 1.,n; m =
where, n = the number of indicators; wi = weight of the indicators. 1, … h.
However, AHP allows the incorporation of both qualitative and The scores range between one and four (1 being the least and 4 being
quantitative aspects of a problem into the evaluation process. It permits the most resilient).
the inclusion of experience and insight in a systematic way during the
application of data. But one of the limitations is such weighting methods 4. Results
do not always reflect the actual concerns of decision makers.
The disaster resilience scores provide a gender wise comparative
assessment of household resilience for the Sutarkhali union. The ana­
lyses were also done separately for each of the four villages of the
Sutarkhali union. Fig. 2 shows the total resilience score for the Sutar­
Table 4 khali union and its four villages consecutively. The total resilience of
Weights of indicators. women in the Sutarkhali union is 2.164 on a scale from 1 to 4. It is lower
than the total resilience of men, which is 2.401. The overall total resil­
Criterion Weights (Wi) ΔWi (±)
ience of this union is 2.282. The overall resilience of Gunari and
1 Education and Knowledge 12.1% 1.5% Sutarkhali villages exceeds the overall resilience of the Sutarkhali union.
2 Information Access 12.3% 2.0% On the other hand, the overall resiliences of Kalabagi and Nailan are
3 Health 11.7% 1.3%
lesser than the other two villages and fall behind the overall resilience of
4 Social Status 3.6% 0.8%
5 Community Engagement 15.6% 2.4% the whole Suterkhali union. It is found that men are more resilient than
6 Economic Status 12.5% 1.7% women in each of the four villages.
7 Resilience Capacity 32.3% 6.7% Fig. 3 shows the gender-based comparison and overall condition

5
S.B. Kadir International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 62 (2021) 102398

Fig. 2. Gender wise and overall disaster resilience of the Sutarkhali union and its four villages.

Fig. 3. Indicator based resilience in the Sutarkhali Union.

with regard to different indicators of disaster resilience. In the study
area, women tend to be as resilient as men in terms of health status as
they are more aware of water, sanitation, and hygiene than men. Women
are correspondingly becoming better in community engagement
behaviour like men. Women also have made great strides towards the
direction of resilience capacity competing with men. However, women
are still lagging behind men in terms of social status, economic status,
and accessing information. Women have come a long way and still have
to go more to achieve the same resilient level as men. The overall con­
ditions of these two indicators are relatively lower than the other
indicators.
Indicator wise gender analysis of four villages shows varied results.
Fig. 4 shows resilience in different villages of Sutarkhali union con­
cerning different indicators of disaster resilience. In Gunari and
Sutarkhali, overall resilience scores of education and knowledge are
more than 2, whereas, in Kalabagi and Nailan, the value is lower than 2.
The main reason for this was lower rates of receiving emergency training
compared to the other two villages. Women’s resilience score in this
sector is lower compared to men in all four villages though the difference
is prominent in Nailan because it is found that women of Nailan have
less indigenous knowledge about disasters.
The overall resilient scores of information access are less than 2 for
all villages but significantly low for Kalabagi, which is less than 1.5 as
more people in these villages have less access to mobile phones. In all
four villages, women are less resilient regarding access to information,
but the difference is significant for Gunari and Nailan. In these two
villages, women have limited access to mobile phones, televisions, and
other information sources.

6
S.B. Kadir
Fig. 4. Indicator based resilience in a) Gunari b) Kalabagi c) Nailan d) Sutarkhali villages.
In Gunari and Shutarkhali, the overall resilient scores of the health
sector are more than 3, which are significantly high compared to other
sectors. This score is more than 2.5 in the other two villages. Though
people in these villages have significant knowledge about water and
sanitation hygiene, people in Nailan tend to become sick more than the
other three villages. The difference in men’s and women’s resilient
scores in this sector is meager in all four villages. Both men and women
have knowledge about water and sanitation hygiene.
The overall resilient scores of social status are more than 2.5 in all
villages except in Kalabagi, where it is less than 2, because of their lower
participation rate in community meetings and lower position in the
social hierarchy. Women’s social status is significantly lower in com­
parison with men in all villages except in Gunari, where women enjoy
the same social status as men. However, both men and women in this
village participate less in the community meetings but contribute
significantly in every household decision making regardless of gender.
The difference in social status between men and women is excessively
high for Kalabagi, where women’s resilience score of social status has
gone below 1.5. Less contribution in household decision making by the
7
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 62 (2021) 102398
female members is the primary reason for this difference between men
and women compared to other villages.
In the sector of community engagement, the overall resilient scores
are more than 2.5 in all villages except in Nailan. Village peoples are
willing to provide only emotional support to their other family members
rather than sell assets in emergencies. In all villages, women have
become as resilient as men with regard to community engagement. The
difference in men’s and women’s resilient scores under this sector is
negligible. It is found that, in all villages, female members tend to bridge
more with their neighbors and relatives in comparison with the male
members.
The overall economic statuses of all villages fall below the resilient
score of 2, which indicates the poor economic condition of the study
area. The women resilience scores of all villages are less than 1.5 in the
sector of economic status. The lower average income of women is the
main reason for this difference between men and women.
Gunari and Sutarkhali achieve overall resilience scores slightly less
than 2.5 in the sector of resilience capacity. On the other hand, Kalabagi
and Nailan have scored slightly more than 2.5 in the same sector. Village
S.B. Kadir
people consider themselves to have more capacity to prepare than to
recover and adapt. Like men, women are correspondingly progressing in
this sector and therefore, the difference in the women and men resilience
scores is not prominent.
5. Conclusion
This research provides an attempt to develop gender sensitive socio-
economic indicators for measuring and monitoring the disaster resil­
ience of households in the coastal area of Bangladesh. This research
provides the metrics for representing gender discrimination in the socio-
economic context of Bangladesh. Indicators used in this research are
easily understood and applicable to the decision making process for
mainstreaming gender in disaster risk reduction and for nationwide
capacity building for resilience. There are further scopes to improve the
methodology, starting from the data collection process to data
aggregation.
The chosen variable in the study can be influenced not only by
gender but also by some other factors. Therefore, more study and data
are required to show an exact relationship. In this research, prepared­
ness, recovery, and adaptation have been seen as some processes that
take place consecutively before, during, and after the disaster event.
These three are measured based on the people’s confidence about their
condition. It was indeed very challenging to differentiate between these
variables. More studies are required to get the perspectives of the people
of these capacities. Scaling of different variables was particularly diffi­
cult in this study as most of the data were qualitative. Variables were not
ranked because it would take a long time for the experts to make pair­
wise comparisons of twenty variables. Using AHP for ranking may not
always reflect the actual concerns of decision makers. Additionally,
there is further scope for sensitivity analysis which might help clarify the
differences between results. Further study is required to measure place-
specific disaster resilience considering social, economic, institutional,
and infrastructural dimensions to develop the local strategic
intervention.
The visualization of the results provides an instant comparative
overview of indicators which helps to identify the weak sectors where
improvements are most needed. The research provides a practical way of
examining the composite score for each gender when compared to other
places or within the place. The central government, as well as the local
government, can use sector specific scores to monitor resilience at the
village and union levels. This study will also help them to design
intervention strategies, ensuring equity, transparency, and coordina­
tion. Equal treatment of men and women will be ensured while drawing
up lists of beneficiaries, providing training, generating and distributing
relief. The study will help to strengthen the contributions of socio-
economic factors to disaster resilience by gender sensitive analysis.
Measuring disaster resilience without considering gender differences
leads to inaccurate risk assessment, inappropriate policy response, and
biased interventions that exacerbate existing gender inequalities. Active
intervention is needed to ensure that marginalized groups are not just
present but visible and empowered. This research will mainly contribute
to building gender responsive policies and plans to address practical and
strategic gender needs and analyse disaster risk. There is a lack of
explicit guidelines about women’s involvement in the Disaster Man­
agement Act 2012. Besides, Disaster Management Policy 2015 stated to
increase the expertise, resourcefulness, and productivity of women
though the main importance was placed on the financial resource for
disaster management activities. This policy instrument failed to see
vulnerability and capacity through gender sensitive lens. Though one of
the key aims of a National Plan for Disaster Management 2010–2015
was addressing the issues of vulnerable groups, the plan did not inte­
grate the gendered nature of vulnerability and risk. National Plan for
Disaster Management 2016–2020 emphasizes gender responsive risk
reduction though it failed to specify the policy measure regarding
different gender sensitive sectors. Besides, the Climate Change and
8
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 62 (2021) 102398
Gender Action Plan of Bangladesh 2013 and the Seventh Five Year Plan
highlighted the incorporation of gender in risk assessment, decision
making, and resource distribution. The findings of this research will help
to detail the policies for more specific sector wise need assessment as
well as action plans.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
I am immensely grateful to Khulna University of Engineering and
Technology (KUET) for providing the opportunity to conduct the
research and for necessary technical supports. I am highly indebted to
the University Grants Commission of Bangladesh for funding this
research. Assistance for questionnaire survey, provided by the students
of Urban and Regional Planning Department, KUET was greatly appre­
ciated. Special thanks to Rakibul Azam Chowdhury, Md. Faysal Hossain,
Syed Kamrul Islam, Md. Rafid Shariar, Sakibur Rahaman Sakib,
Mashoukur Rahman for their assistance. I thank twenty experts from
different organizations and institutions for their insight and expertise
that greatly assisted in deciding the indicators and their weights. I am
expressing my apologies that I could not mention their name one by one.
Advice given by Dr. Sujit Kumar Bala, Md. Shahinoor Rahman and Dr.
Adil Mohammed Khan were a great help while scaling variables. My
special thanks are extended to the employees of KUET and people who
willingly helped me out with their abilities. Finally, I would like to ex­
press my gratitude towards my family members for their kind co-
operation and encouragement, which has helped me in the completion
of this project.
References
[1] Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief, National Plan for Disaster Management
(2016-2020): Building Resilience for Sustainable Human Development, Bangladesh:
Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief, 2017. Available from: https://modmr.
portal.gov.bd.
[2] U. Haque, M. Hashizume, K.N. Kolivras, H.J. Overgaard, B. Das, T. Yamamoto,
Reduced death rates from cyclones in Bangladesh: what more needs to be done?
Bull. World Health Organ. 90 (2012) 150–156.
[3] T. Tanner, A. Bahadur, M. Moench, Challenges for Resilience Policy and Practice,
Overseas Development Institute, London, 2017. Available from: https://eprints.
soas.ac.uk/31366.
[4] M.H. Hasan, S.B. Kadir, Social assessment of community resilience to earthquake in
old Dhaka, Nat. Hazards Rev. 21 (3) (2020), 05020004.
[5] A. Giacometti, J. Teräs, L. Perjo, M. Wøien, H. Sigurjonsdottir, T. Rinne,
A. Giacometti, J. Teräs, L. Perjo, M. Wøien, H. Sigurjonsdottir, Regional Economic
and Social Resilience: Conceptual Debate and Implications for Nordic Regions,
Discussion paper prepared for Nordic thematic group for innovative and resilient
regions, 2018.
[6] M.S. Ali, Assessing Disaster Resilience of Coastal Communities to Climate Change:
A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Case study of Shyamnagar Upazila, Satkhira
District), 2018.
[7] U. UNISDR, Making Disaster Risk Reduction Gender Sensitive: Policy and Practical
Guidelines, 2009.
[8] K. Alam, M.H. Rahman, The role of women in disaster resilience, in: C.N. Madu,
C. Kuei (Eds.), Handbook of Disaster Risk Reduction & Management, World
Scientific Press, 2017, pp. 697–719.
[9] M. Fordham, Challenging boundaries: a gender perspective on early warning in
disaster and environmental management, UNDAW, in: Environmental
Management and the Mitigation of Natural Disasters: a Gender Perspective, Report
Of the Expert Group Meeting (Ankara, Turkey), 2001. Available from: https://www.
undrr.org/publication/challenging-boundaries-gender-perspective-early-warning-
disaster-and-environmental.
[10] S. Ahmed, A Gender Sensitive Policy Framework for Disaster Management in
Bangladesh, Ph.D. thesis, Victoria University, 2019. Available from: https://vuir.vu
.edu.au/39483.
[11] S.L. Cutter, C.G. Burton, C.T. Emrich, Disaster resilience indicators for
benchmarking baseline conditions, J. Homel. Secur. Emerg. Manag. 7 (1) (2010)
1–22.
S.B. Kadir
[12] M.R. Hasan, M. Nasreen, M.A. Chowdhury, Gender-inclusive disaster management
policy in Bangladesh: a content analysis of national and international regulatory
frameworks, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 41 (2019) 101324.
[13] M.R. Islam, Vulnerability and Coping Strategies of Women in Disaster: a Study on
Coastal Areas of Bangladesh, Arts Faculty Journal, 2010, pp. 147–169.
[14] M.S. Rahman, Climate change, disaster and gender vulnerability: a study on two
divisions of Bangladesh, Am. J. Hum. Ecol. 2 (2) (2013) 72–82.
[15] A.K. Azad, K.M. Hossain, M. Nasreen, Flood-induced vulnerabilities and problems
encountered by women in northern Bangladesh, International journal of disaster
risk science 4 (4) (2013) 190–199.
[16] K. Alam, M.H. Rahman, Women in natural disasters: a case study from southern
coastal region of Bangladesh, International journal of disaster risk reduction 8
(2014) 68–82.
[17] L. Juran, J. Trivedi, Women, gender norms, and natural disasters in Bangladesh,
Geogr. Rev. 105 (4) (2015) 601–611.
[18] M. Fordham, The intersection of gender and social class in disaster: balancing
resilience and vulnerability, Int. J. Mass Emergencies Disasters 17 (1) (1999)
15–37.
[19] S. Nelson, U. Mustalampi, I. Sisto, Gender-responsive Disaster Risk Reduction in
the Agriculture Sector: Guidance for Policy-Makers and Practitioners, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2016. Available from: http
s://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=XF2017002083.
[20] R. Shaw, I.E.D.M. Team, Climate disaster resilience: focus on coastal urban cities in
Asia, Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management 1 (1) (2009)
101–116.
[22] L. Jones, E. Samman, P. Vinck, Subjective measures of household resilience to
climate variability and change, Ecol. Soc. 23 (1) (2018).
[23] M.A. Islam, S.K. Hassan, M.A. Naime, M.S. Hossain, M.M. Rahman, M.H. Peas,
Assessment of socio-economic resilience against coastal disasters in Sandwip island
of Bangladesh, Bangladesh J. Sci. Res. 28 (2) (2015) 161–170.
[24] B. Mallick, Cyclone-induced migration in southwest coastal Bangladesh, ASIEN 130
(2014) 60–81.
[25] B. Ahmed, I. Kelman, H.K. Fehr, M. Saha, Community resilience to cyclone
disasters in coastal Bangladesh, Sustainability 8 (8) (2016) 805.
[26] R. Islam, G. Walkerden, How bonding and bridging networks contribute to disaster
resilience and recovery on the Bangladeshi coast, International Journal of Disaster
Risk Reduction 10 (4) (2014) 281–291.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 62 (2021) 102398
[27] R. Islam, G. Walkerden, How do links between households and NGOs promote
disaster resilience and recovery?: a case study of linking social networks on the
Bangladeshi coast, Nat. Hazards 78 (3) (2015) 1707–1727.
[28] M. Twelkemeijer, Community Resilience to Climate Change in Bangladesh. M.Sc.
Thesis, Wageningen University, 2014. Available from: https://edepot.wur.
nl/317863.
[29] S. Akter, B. Mallick, The poverty–vulnerability–resilience nexus: evidence from
Bangladesh, Ecol. Econ. 96 (2013) 114–124.
[30] M. Saroar, Introduction to the disaster risk profile of Khulna [PowerPoint
presentation]. iPrepare Campaign Report: adpc, Available from: https://www.
adpc.net/igo/?, 2014.
[31] M.A. Razzaque, M. Alamgir, M.M. Rahman, Climate change vulnerability in
Dacope upazila, Bangladesh, Journal of Scientific Research and Reports 21 (4)
(2018) 1–12.
[32] Y. Dong, C.Y.J. Peng, Principled missing data methods for researchers,
SpringerPlus 2 (1) (2013) 1–17.
[33] R.J. Little, D.B. Rubin, Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, vol. 793, John Wiley
& Sons, 2019.
[34] G. Ursachi, I.A. Horodnic, A. Zait, How reliable are measurement scales? External
factors with indirect influence on reliability estimators, Procedia Economics and
Finance 20 (2015) 679–686, 2015.
[35] K.D. Goepel, Implementing the analytic hierarchy process as a standard method for
multi-criteria decision making in corporate enterprises–a new AHP excel template
with multiple inputs, in: Proceedings of the International Symposium on the
Analytic Hierarchy Process, June 2013, Creative Decisions Foundation, Kuala
Lumpur, 2013, pp. 1–10.
[36] Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Population & Housing Census 2011 Community
Report Khulna, Bangladesh: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, 2015. Available from:
http://www.bbs.gov.bd/site/page/47856ad0-7e1c-4aab-bd78-892733bc06eb/
Population-and-Housing-Census.
[37] Irteja Hasan, Md. Sagirul Islam Majumder, Mohammad Kabirul Islam, Md.
Mustafizur Rahman, Nazmul Huq Hawlader, Israt Sultana, Assessment of
community capacities against Cyclone hazard to ensure resilience in south central
coastal belt of Bangladesh, International Journal of Ecological Science and
Environmental Engineering 4 (1) (2017) 1–14.