Vulnerability Assessment of Earthquake and Fire Hazard and

Formulating Risk Reduction Strategies at Community Level

Submitted by
Naima Rahman (0411152013 P)

Department of Urban and Regional Planning

BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

June, 2014
Vulnerability Assessment of Earthquake and Fire Hazard and
Formulating Risk Reduction Strategies at Community Level

Graduate thesis report submitted to the Department of Urban and Regional Planning,
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF URBAN AND REGIONAL
PLANNING

Submitted by
Naima Rahman (0411152013 P)

Department of Urban and Regional Planning

BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

June, 2014
 THESIS ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE

The thesis titled “Vulnerability Assessment of Earthquake and Fire Hazard and
Formulating Risk Reduction Strategies at Community Level”, submitted by
Naima Rahman, Roll No: 0411152013 P and Session: April, 2011 has been accepted
as satisfactory in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of
Urban and Regional Planning (MURP) on June 8, 2014.

Board of Examiners

1. ----------------------------------------- Chairman
Dr. Ishrat Islam
Professor
Department of URP, BUET, Dhaka.
(Supervisor)

2. ----------------------------------------- Member
Dr. Mehedi Ahmed Ansary
Professor
Department of CE, BUET, Dhaka.
(Co-Supervisor)

3. ----------------------------------------- Member (Ex-Officio)

Head
Department of URP, BUET, Dhaka.

4. ----------------------------------------- Member
Dr. Sarwar Jahan
Professor
Department of URP, BUET, Dhaka.

5. ----------------------------------------- Member (External)

Dr. Shamim Mahabubul Haque
Professor
Urban and Rural Planning Discipline,
Khulna University,
Khulna.

i
 CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION

It is hereby declared that this thesis or any part of it has not been submitted elsewhere
for the award of any degree or diploma.

-------------------------------------
Naima Rahman
Student Number: 0411152013 P

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my deepest sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Ishrat Islam,
Professor, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, BUET, Dhaka for giving me
unique opportunity to work on such an important topic and also for her patient and
circumspective guidance and affectionate encouragement. I consider myself fortunate
to work under her supervision.

I would like to express my special appreciation to my co-supervisor, Dr. Mehedi

Ahmed Ansary, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, BUET, Dhaka, for his
continuous guidance, invaluable suggestions, generous help and important acumen are
greatly acknowledged. His keen interest on the topic and enthusiastic support on my
effort was a source of inspiration to carry out the study.

I am grateful to Dr. Mohammad Shakil Akther, Professor and Head, Department of

Urban and Regional Planning, Bangladesh University of Engineering and
Technology, for his comments and guidance in the proposal preparation stage.

I gratefully like to thank all stuffs of Bangladesh Network Office for Urban Safety
(BNUS), BUET for their help during the period of survey, analysis and technical
supports. Their enormous support played a significant role to complete the study.

I highly appreciate the support from Muhammad Mamun, Inspector, Bangladesh Fire
Service and Civil Defence for organizing a workshop to get opinion of fire expert.

I would like to thank and pay my heartiest gratitude to all the respondent and focus
group who responded sincerely to carry out this research authentically. I specially
thank Md. Sabiul Amin Manju, Head of the Panchayet for his valuable support to
assemble influential people in the study area in the workshop.

Finally, I would like to express my special indebtedness to my family and friends

whose continuous encouragement and support was unremitting source of inspiration
for this work.

iii
 ABSTRACT

Threat of hazard has been increasing with the rapid growth of urbanization. Risk of
hazard in urban area is more complex than rural area because of high population
concentration and economic activities. Vulnerability assessment of hazard has become
a prime research topic in the field of Engineering and Urban and Regional Planning.
Because of the complex characteristics of hazard, it does not only need engineering
but also planning measures for effective mitigation of hazard.

Dhaka City is at risk of earthquake and has been experiencing many fire accidents. In
most cases lack of proper precautionary measures along with the institutional
inefficiency, insufficient equipment support and lack of public awareness are making
the situation worse. In this study, ward 29, an old part of Dhaka city has been selected
for vulnerability assessment of both earthquake and fire. A sample of 350 buildings
has been analyzed by a visual screening method FEMA-RVS for earthquake
vulnerability assessment, a methodology developed by ADPC (2004) for fire hazard
vulnerability assessment and a methodology developed by World Bank (2014) for
social vulnerability assessment. The composite vulnerability score has been developed
by incorporating earthquake and fire hazard as well as social vulnerability condition
of the study area. The final output of the vulnerability assessment is a map showing
buildings with different categories of vulnerability. The study area is relatively more
vulnerable to fire hazard than earthquake. Out of 350 sample buildings, 58.6%
buildings are found to be vulnerable to fire hazard and 16.3% buildings need further
detailed investigation for earthquake. As the study area 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 (38%) are highly vulnerable to
both earthquake and fire hazard considering social impacts.

In spite of living under serious threat of earthquake and fire hazard, local people are
not conscious about this. Being one of the most densely populated built-up areas with
high concentration of economic activities, the ideal mitigation planning to reduce risk
is almost impossible without involvement of community people. So it is inevitable to
include community people in mitigation planning by warning them of their own risk
and making them resilient through awareness programs and training.

iv
 ABBREVIATION

AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process

BBS Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics
BFSCD Bangladesh Fire Service and Civil Defence
BNBC Bangladesh National Building Code
BNUS Bangladesh Network Office for Urban Safety
CBDRM Community-Based Disaster Risk Management
CBO Community-Based Organization
CDMP Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme
DCC Dhaka City Corporation
DNCC Dhaka North City Corporation
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
DSCC Dhaka South City Corporation
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GIS Geographic Information System
IFI Impact Factor Index
PAR Pressure and Release
PAR Participatory Action Research
PGV Peak Ground Velocity
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
PRI Physical Risk Index
RAJUK Rajdhani Unnayan Kartipakya
RVS Rapid Visual Screening
SL Sustainable Livelihoods
SoVI Social Vulnerability Index
UDRI Urban Disaster Risk Index
URM Unreinforced Masonry Building

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Content Page No.

Declaration ii
Acknowledgement iii
Abstract iv
Abbreviation v
Table of Contents vi- x
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
List of Maps x
References xi
Appendices xv

Chapter One: Introduction 1-7

1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objectives and Possible Outcome 5
1.3 Scope of the Study 5
1.4 Limitations of the Study 6
1.5 Organization of the Study 6

Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework 8-30

2.1 Vulnerability Assessment 8
2.2 Vulnerability Assessment of Earthquake 10
2.2.1 Impact of Earthquake 11
2.2.2 Tools of Vulnerability Assessment of Earthquake 13
2.2.3 Factors of Earthquake Vulnerability 15
2.2.4 Related Research in Bangladesh 19
2.3 Vulnerability Assessment of Fire 19
2.3.1 Tools of Fire Hazard Vulnerability Assessment 20
2.3.2 Factors of Vulnerability of Fire 21
2.4 Social Vulnerability Assessment 23
2.4.1 Tools of Social Vulnerability Assessment 23
2.4.2 Factors Influencing Social Vulnerability 24
2.5 Urban Disaster Risk Index 25
2.6 Risk Reduction Strategies 27
2.6.1 Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction 27
2.6.2 Participatory Tools for Community Involvement 28
2.6.3 Practice in Different Countries 29

Chapter Three: Methodology 31-46

3.1 Selection of the Study Area 31
3.2 Sampling 32
3.3 Data Collection 33
3.3.1 Primary Data Collection 33
3.3.2 Secondary Data Collection 35
3.4 Data Analysis 35
3.4.1 Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment by FEMA- Rapid Visual 35
Screening (RVS) Method
3.4.2 Fire Hazard Vulnerability Assessment 37

vi
 3.4.3 Social Vulnerability Assessment 41
3.4.4 Development of Composite Vulnerability Score 42
3.5 Development of Risk Reduction Strategies at Community Level 44
3.5.1 Formation of Focus Group 44
3.5.2 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) 44
3.5.3 Formulation of Risk Reduction Strategies 45
3.6 Preparation of Final Report 46

Chapter Four: Study Area Profile 47-59

4.1 Introduction 47
4.2 Physical Characteristics of the study area 47
4.2.1 Location 48
4.2.2 Topographic Characteristics 48
4.2.3 Age of Building 49
4.2.4 Type of Building 50
4.2.5 Use of Building 51
4.2.6 Height of Building 53
4.2.7 Floor Area of Buildings 54
4.3 Socio-economic Characteristics 55
4.4 Critical Facilities, Utility Facilities and Road Network 56
4.4.1 Critical Facilities 56
4.4.2 Utility Services 57
4.4.3 Transportation Network 58
4.5 Summary 60

Chapter Five: Vulnerability Assessment 61-82

5.1 Introduction 61
5.2 Earthquake Vulnerability Analysis 61
5.2.1 Building Type 62
5.2.2 Number of Storey 63
5.2.3 Vertical Irregularity and Plan Irregularity 63
5.2.4 Rapid Visual Screening (FEMA) 64
5.3 Fire Hazard Vulnerability Analysis 67
5.3.1 Construction Material Type 68
5.3.2 Number of Storey 68
5.3.3 Floor Area 68
5.3.4 Existence of Fire Source in Building 68
5.3.5 Existence of Fire Source outside Building 69
5.3.6 Accessibility 70
5.3.7 Fire Vulnerability Score 71
5.4 Physical Vulnerability Score 73
5.5 Social Vulnerability Analysis 74
5.5.1 Density of Population 74
5.5.2 Female to Male Ratio 75
5.5.3 Age below 5 years and 65 plus 76
5.5.4 People with Disability 77
5.5.5 People with Illiteracy 77
5.5.6 Social Vulnerability Score 78
5.6 Composite Vulnerability Analysis 79
5.7 Detailed Inventory of Vulnerable Buildings 81

vii
5.8 Summary 82

Chapter Six: Risk Reduction Strategies 83-98

6.1 Introduction 83
6.2 Present Practice of Disaster Risk Reduction 83
6.3 Views of Local People Regarding Risk Reduction Strategies 84
6.3.1 Institutional Linkage 85
6.3.2 Capacity and Drawback of the Study Area 88
6.3.3 Major Causes of Vulnerability 89
6.4 Risk Reduction Strategies that local people want to Adapt 92
6.4.1 Structural Measures 93
6.4.2 Non-structural Measures 94
6.5 Implementation of Risk Reduction Strategies 95
6.6 Summary 98

Chapter Seven: Major Findings, Recommendation and Conclusion 99-102

7.1 Major Findings 99
7.2 Recommendation 100
7.3 Conclusion 101

References xi-xiv

Appendices xv-xxii
Appendix-A xv
Appendix-B xvi
Appendix-C xvii
Appendix-D xix
Appendix-E xx

List of Tables Page No.

1.1 : Year-wise number of fire incidents and economic loss in Dhaka City 3
2.1 : Earthquake Physical Risk Indicators (PRI) and weights 26
2.2 : Earthquake Impact Factor Indicators (IFI) and weights 27
3.1 : Distribution of all structures according to construction type, number of 32
storey and structure use
3.2 : Distribution of sample according to construction type, number of 33
storey and structure use
3.3 : Expected damage level based on RVS score 36
3.4 : Illustration of damage to buildings 37
3.5 : Comparison matrix of factors of fire hazard vulnerability 38
3.6 : Fundamental Scale of Absolute Numbers 38
3.7 : Normalization of factors of fire hazard vulnerability 39
3.8 : Fire hazard vulnerability indicators and weights 40
3.9 : Social vulnerability indicators and weights 42
3.10: Classification of building according to RVS (FEMA) score 42
3.11: Classification of building according to fire score 43
3.12: Classification of building according to social vulnerability score 43
(SVS)
4.1 : Study Area at a Glance 47

viii
4.2 : Distribution of different number of storey 54
4.3 : Number of population and household 55
4.4 : Population distribution according to gender, age, disability and 56
illiteracy
4.5 : List of Critical Facilities 56
4.6 : Utility facilities 57
5.1 : Distribution of building according to RVS (FEMA) score 65
5.2 : Type of buildings according to RVS (FEMA) 66
5.3 : Distribution of building according to fire score 72
5.4 : Distribution of building according physical vulnerability score (PVS) 73
5.5 : Distribution of building according to social vulnerability score (SVS) 78
5.6 : Distribution of building according to composite vulnerability score 79
(CVS)
5.7 : High and very high vulnerable buildings according to type, use and 82
number of storey
6.1 : Pair-wise ranking of existing problems 89
6.2 : Pair-wise ranking of risk reduction measures 92
6.3 : Members of Community Disaster Management Committee CDMC) 96
6.4 : Members of Ward Disaster Management Committee (WDMC) 96

List of Figures Page No.

2.1 : Plan Irregularity 16
2.2 : Vertical irregularity 16
2.3 : Short Column 17
2.4 : Seismic Pounding between Adjacent Buildings 17
2.5 : Soft Story 18
2.6 : Flood Area Ratio 22
3.1 : Flow chart of methodology 46
4.1 : Distribution of age of building 49
4.2 : Old buildings 49
4.3 : Type of structures of Ward 29 49
4.4 : Distribution of use of building in the study area 51
4.5 : Different uses of building 51
4.6 : High-rise building 53
4.7 : Distribution of floor area in the study area 54
4.8 : Distribution of road width according to type 58
5.1 : Type of buildings in the study area 62
5.2 : URM building 62
5.3 : C3 building 62
5.4 : C2 building 62
5.5 : Number of storey of buildings in the study area 63
5.6 : Comparison between vertical irregularity and plan irregularity 64
5.7 : Vertical irregularity 64
5.8 : Plan irregularity 64
5.9 : RVS (FEMA) according to number of storey 67
5.10: RVS (FEMA) according to use of structures 67
5.11: Fire source in building 69
5.12: Plastic storage in building 69
5.13: Fire source in front of building 70

ix
5.14: Electric transformer 70
5.15: Narrow road inaccessible for fire truck 70
5.16: Distribution of road accessibility 71
5.17: Distribution of width of staircase 71
5.18: Total number of population living in a building 74
5.19: Person per 1000 square feet of a building 75
5.20: Buildings with different female to male ratio 75
5.21: Buildings with different number of child 76
5.22: Building with elderly 76
5.23: Buildings with disable people 77
5.24: Buildings with illiterate people 77
5.25: Type of high and very high vulnerable buildings according to structure 81
use
5.26: Number of storey of vulnerable buildings according to structure use 82
6.1 : Fire extinguisher in industry 83
6.2 : Meeting with Panchayet 85
6.3 : Meeting with Shoe-makers Association 85
6.4 : Meeting with Secretary of Ward 29 86
6.5 : Ward Office 86
6.6 : Venn diagram showing linkage between organizations 87
6.7 : SWOT analysis of the study area 88
6.8 : Living place of workers 90
6.9 : Poor condition of water supply 91
6.10: Exiting open space used as rickshaw garage 91
6.11: Exiting open space storing construction material 91
6.12: Road-side storage and industry 91
6.13: Proposed organizational set up of disaster management 97

List of Maps Page No.

3.1 : Seismic Microzonation Map of Dhaka City 31
4.1 : Location of the study area Ward 29 48
4.2 : Digital elevation model of Ward 29 49
4.3 : Type of structures of Ward 29 51
4.4 : Use of structures of Ward 29 53
4.5 : Height of structures of Ward 29 54
4.6 : Critical and utility facilities of Ward 29 57
4.7 : Utility lines of Ward 29 58
4.8 : Road network map of Ward 29 60
5.1 : Earthquake Vulnerability Map of Ward 29 65
5.2 : Fire Hazard Vulnerability Map of Ward 29 72
5.3 : Physical Vulnerability Map of Ward 29 73
5.4 : Social Vulnerability Map of Ward 29 78
5.5 : Composite Vulnerability Map of Ward 29 80

x
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

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 such as floods,
river erosion, landslides and cyclones etc. The historical trend of seismicity and some
recent tremors occurred in Bangladesh and adjoining areas indicate that the country is
also at high risk of earthquake. A powerful earthquake needs at least 100-150 years to
be originated for a particular region (CDMP, 2010) and in that sense it is overdue for
Bangladesh as it experienced a large earthquake last in 1897. According to Bilham
(2004), major earthquakes might take place in the sub-Himalayan region, including
Bangladesh. Bangladesh has been classified in to three seismic zones in the zoning
map according to earthquake hazard i.e. Zone-I, Zone-II and Zone-III where Dhaka
falls in Zone-II (BNBC, 1993). Dhaka is highly vulnerable to tremor under
Madhupur Fault as expressed by local experts, as the phenomenal urbanization,
density of population and high-rise structures are growing fast here (SAARC, 2010).
According to a report published by United Nations IDNDR-RADIUS Initiatives,
Dhaka and Tehran are the cities with the highest relative earthquake disaster risk
(Rahman, 2004). 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 1897 Great Indian Earthquake which originated at an epicentral distance of only
230 km from Dhaka caused extensive damage of brick masonry structures in Dhaka
(Oldham, 1899). Dhaka metropolis together with its surroundings is situated in the
seismic zone 2 which is moderate risk prone area (BNBC, 1993). The metropolis
Dhaka is an integral part in the southern tip of Madhupur Tract encircled by some
very active tectonic units viz. the Sylhet Trough on the North, the Jamalpur Graben on
the west, The Dhaka Depression on the south and northeast-southwest trending
Meghna Fault Zone in the east (Ansary et al, 2004).

The tectonic evaluation of Dhaka city can be explained as the north moving Indian
plate with the Eurasian plate. Dhaka is moving 30.6 mm/year in the direction
northeast. Moreover, in and around Dhaka the rate of strain accumulation is relatively

1
high (Ali and Choudhury, 2001). The shallow subsurface of Dhaka is characterized by
number of faults of variable dimensions. Three major faults of Dhaka city as observed
in satellite images and aerial photographs by the Geological Survey of Bangladesh
and its field surveys are along Bagunbari Khal, trending east-west in the southern part
of the city, along an abandoned channel, in the Uttara area, across Zia International
Airport, trending north-south in the northern part of the city and along the Turag
River, in Mirpur near Dhaka Zoo, trending north-south in the western part of the city
(Ali and Choudhury, 2001)

The physical characteristic of the region made the community more vulnerable to
earthquake. Most of the buildings in Old Dhaka is masonry structures and very old in
age. Some buildings in older part of Dhaka city collapsed even without any
earthquake, so it is beyond imagination what will happen during an earthquake
(Jahan, 2011). 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).

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 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 to earthquake 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.

2
According to a study conducted by Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme
(CDMP) under Ministry of Food and Disaster Management, some 78,323 buildings
will be destroyed completely with an economic loss of US $ 1,075 million if a 6-
magnitude earthquake shakes Dhaka originating from its beneath. In case of a 7.5-
magnitude earthquake originating from Madhupur Fault, some 72,316 buildings in the
city will be damaged totally while 53,166 partially with an economic loss of about US
$ 1,112 million for only structural damage killing some 131,029 people instantly and
injuring 32,948 others (CDMP, 2010).

Along with earthquake, fire hazard has become a major issue of concern as Dhaka
City has experienced a number of notable fires in the recent years. 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 (vide Table 1.1). 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).

Table 1.1: Year-wise number of fire incidents and economic loss in Dhaka City
Year Number of Incident Economic Loss (in Million Dollar)
2003 1,861 13.8
2004 2,053 26.7
2005 2,279 34.1
2006 1,220 29.8
2007 1,100 21.6
2008 1,110 7.1
2009 1,775 11.6
2010 2,068 13.4
Source: BFSCD (2010)

In 3rd June 2010, a devastating fire broke out in the densely-populated part of Old
Dhaka city at Nimtoli. Fire killed at least 117 people and caused injury to many. It
raised a lot of question in the area of building codes and demarcations between
industrial and residential areas. Close proximities and an overlapping of industrial and

3
residential zones put residents at high risk from mishandling of dangerous chemical
substances. A devastating fire broke out at the Bangladesh Steel and Engineering
Corporation (BSEC) Bhaban in the capital on 26 February 2007. Three persons were
killed and more than 100 injured in this incidence. On 13 March 2009, Friday at about
1:45pm, a hell fire engulfed the upper levels of 20 storey office cum shopping centre
known as Bashundhara City Complex at Panthopath, Dhaka killing 7 and injured 20
people (Ansary et al., 2010).

At the night of November 24, 2012 a catastrophic fire attacks a nine-storey garment
building named Tazrin Fashion of Tuba Group Ltd killing 112 workers of the RMG
industry. The factory is situated at Nischintapur which is a part of Ashulia industrial
belt near Dhaka City (BNUS, 2012).

Old Dhaka frequently faces fire accident because of its mixed land use. Two back to
back fires occurred in 15th and 16th January 2012 in Islambag and Lalbag areas in
Ward 29 in Old Dhaka (BNUS, 2012). At the night of April 11, 2014 a fire attacks in
the three-storey plastic factory building situated at Rahmatganj in Islambag (BNUS,
2013).

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. Response to the fires was hindered
by the failure of the water supply system and the disruption of the traffic system. At
least 12 major conflagrations developed and burned for 24 to 48 hours. Within 24
hours, fire companies had arrived from as far away as Tokyo. The number of
homeless people requiring shelter was estimated to be approximately 300,000, which
is 20% of the population of Kobe (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

4
research, an integrated vulnerability assessment will be conducted incorporating both
of earthquake and fire hazard.

1.2 Objectives and Possible Outcome

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. The results of this dissertation are based on all three
aspects and it has contributed to develop the risk reduction plan at local level which is
the second aspect of this research. So the study has been carried out with the
following objectives:

1. To assess earthquake and fire hazard vulnerability of a selected ward of Dhaka

City.
2. To formulate risk reduction strategies by incorporating views of local people.

The final outcome of this study is an integrated vulnerability map of earthquake and
fire hazard incorporating social vulnerability. Based on the assessment, local people
contributed to determine risk reduction strategies both at household level and
community level. Views of local people regarding various strategies of risk reduction
may help the policy maker to develop risk reduction plan at micro level.

1.3 Scope of the Study

The study offers a wide scope of knowledge on earthquake and fire hazard
vulnerability in Dhaka city. It has also combined the socio-economic issues that lead a
locality to the potential hazards. It has compiled methods of assessing vulnerability of
earthquake and fire and then incorporated social vulnerability with physical
vulnerability. Though the study focuses on a small portion of Dhaka City, the
methodology can be used for whole Dhaka City to analyze the overall vulnerability
condition. Thus the research provides a great scope for disaster management in Dhaka
City by identifying hotspot or the highest impact areas in order to focus respective
disaster planning and decision making.

5
1.4 Limitations of the Study

This study considers both the earthquake and fire hazard vulnerability of the existing
buildings along with social vulnerability of local people but cannot incorporate loss
estimation of these hazards. As the inhabitants of the study area frequently face fire,
but has never experienced earthquake, it was difficult for them to perceive earthquake
vulnerability. Some buildings were not accessible for the surveyors. During the
survey period, the study suffered much from lack of assistance from the residing
people. It was very hard to conduct physical survey as the study area is a busy region
dominated by mixed land use.

1.5 Organization of the Study

The research is divided into seven chapters including the introduction. The brief of
each chapter is given below:

Chapter I: This chapter introduces with the main objectives of the study and the
background information behind selecting the task along with its justification. Besides
declaring the objectives this chapter contains the scope of the study for further
research and also some limitations in conducting the research.

Chapter II: This chapter deals with various literatures on earthquake, fire, and risk
reduction strategies etc both at home and abroad. It describes different methods of
vulnerability assessment for fire and earthquake. It also reveals the factors behind
physical and social vulnerability. It discusses various risk reduction strategies
according to the view of local people in other countries.

Chapter III: This chapter deals with the methodological and procedural approach
that is followed to carry out this research according to fulfill its objectives.

Chapter IV: It contains the characteristics of the study area covering physical,
socio-economic and demographic features from field survey (2013), base map of
RAJUK (2006) and BBS (2011).

Chapter V: This chapter focuses on the first objective of the research. It reveals the
major findings of vulnerability assessment of the study area. The vulnerability
assessment contains three parts including earthquake vulnerability assessment, fire

6
vulnerability assessment and socio-economic vulnerability assessment. The
vulnerability map of the area is produced by analyzing and combining the output of
all three vulnerability assessments.

Chapter VI: The second objective of the research is described in chapter VI. This
chapter proposes some risk reduction strategies according to the view of community
people for earthquake and fire hazard. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) method
has been used to find out exiting risk reduction practices and institutional linkage of
the study area. The local people have also prioritized the proposed strategies which
they can adapt in future.

Chapter VII: This chapter concludes the research by discussing the major findings of
this research and their implications for disaster management in Bangladesh.

7
CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Vulnerability Assessment

According to Varnes & IAEG Commission on Landslides and other Mass-Movements

(1984), “vulnerability is the degree of loss to a given element or set of elements at risk
resulting from the occurrence of a hazard of an elements at risk resulting from the
occurrence of a hazard of a given magnitude in a given area”. According to United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 1994), “vulnerability depends upon the
degree of loss to a given vulnerability depends upon the degree of loss to a given
element at risk at a certain severity level. Generally, it is an element at risk at a certain
severity level. Generally, it is expressed as the percentage of loss (between 0: no
damage to 1: total damage) the percentage of loss (between 0: no damage to 1: total
damage) for the given hazards” (cited in Sterlacchini, 2011). Vulnerability can be
categorized in three forms such as:

High Vulnerability: If an event occurred it would have severe impacts over large
geographic areas or more densely populated areas and have a serious financial impact
on county residents and businesses.

Moderate Vulnerability: If an event occurred it would have confined impacts on the

safety of residents and would have a financial impact on county residents and
businesses.

Low Vulnerability: If an event occurred it would have a very minimal impact on the
safety of residents and a minimal financial impact on county residents and businesses
(NOAA, 1999).

Vulnerability assessment is a crucial step in risk assessment, translating hazard levels

into risk levels. It requires the analysis of hazard consequences on the different
components or dimensions of a system, community, etc. It is a function of the type,
magnitude and frequency of hazard and it depends on system‟s exposure, sensitivity
and its adaptive capacity. In short term, when a disaster strikes, the primary concern
are the potential losses due to casualties (deaths, missing persons and potential losses
due to casualties (deaths, missing persons and injured people) physical consequences

8
on services, buildings and infrastructure and direct economic losses. In the long term,
indirect economic losses, and social disruption and, in the long term, indirect
economic losses, social disruption and environmental degradation may become of
greater importance (Sterlacchini, 2011).

Vulnerability assessment is a comprehensive process involving hazard identification

and analysis and determining the resultant vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure,
society, economic resources and environment (NOAA, 1999). Vulnerability
assessment means the evaluation of the impact of natural hazards on the human-built
environment, business, social structure and services, and the natural environment,
considering the preparedness of a community and its ability to respond to and recover
from a disaster event. Typically, natural hazard initiatives emphasize the identification
of physical attributes of potential events, such as frequency or spatial extent. They
consider variations in the physical events but they must also consider differences in
infrastructures and building stock, land-use policy, economic conditions, political
climates, stakeholders‟ perceptions and pre-existing preparedness strategy
(Schellnhuber, 2001)

Various vulnerability assessment methods have been proposed, differing by resources,

scale and technique. Vulnerability assessment may focus on resources or issues like
critical facilities, on social characteristics (Morrow, 1999), or on the integration of
bio-physical and social systems (Cutter et al., 2000). Spatial scales of proposed
vulnerability assessments vary from cities (FDCA, 1997) to nations. Vulnerability
assessment may be technical expert-based (Urban Regional Research, 1988),
community based (Cutter et al., 2000).

Regardless of methodology, vulnerability assessments are conducted so that

communities can develop targeted strategies to reduce their exposure and potential for
loss. The vulnerability assessment looks at such points as population concentrations,
age-specific populations, and development pressures, types of housing, presence of
agriculture, sprawl, and other issues that may make a place more vulnerable to
specific hazards. The vulnerability assessment relies heavily on the community profile
of this Hazard Mitigation Plan, as it compares areas where hazards overlap with
people and key public facilities. In order to make efficient use of mitigation resources,
it is not only enough to know if, when, or even where a hazard event will strike but

9
also where the vulnerabilities are so one can make the most of the pre-disaster
planning efforts (NOAA, 1999).

2.2 Vulnerability Assessment of Earthquake

An Earthquake is a sudden and violent motion of the earth caused by volcanic

eruption, plate tectonics or manmade explosions which lasts for a short time and
within a very limited region. Most earthquake last for less than a minute. The larger
earthquakes are followed by a series of aftershocks which also may be dangerous. But
large majority of earthquakes especially big earthquakes are invariably caused by
plate tectonics. Earthquakes can be caused by volcanic eruption or by plate tectonics;
blasting, quarrying and mining; and underground nuclear explosions. Tectonics
earthquakes are believed to occur according to the elastic rebound theory, which was
developed by Reid (1910) subsequent to the Francisco earthquake of 1906. In this
theory- “An earthquake represents a sudden release of strain energy, which was built
up over a period of time. In response to tectonic forces one block of rock mass moves
past.” Another, the rock is elastic and can, up to a point, accumulate strain where
adjacent areas of rocks are subjected to forces pushing or pulling them. When the
stress exceeds the strength of the rock, the rock breaks along a pre-existing or new
fracture plane called a FAULT. As a whole, Earthquake can be defined -- An
earthquake is a shaking or vibration of the ground. An earthquake occurs when rocks
being deformed suddenly break along a fault. The two blocks of rocks on both sides
of the fault, slip suddenly, setting off ground vibrations. This slippage occurs most
commonly at plate boundaries, regions of the Earthquake crust or upper mantle where
most of the ongoing deformations take place. Earthquake hazard can be defined as
any physical phenomena associated with an earth produce adverse effects on human
activities. Depending upon the size and location an earthquake can cause the physical
phenomena of ground shaking, surface fault rupture and ground failure from
liquefaction and in some coastal areas, tsunamis. Earthquake may cause a number of
secondary hazards such as ground failure, surface fault rupture, regional tectonic
deformations, tsunami run-up; earthquake induced flooding, fire and explosions.

The hazard cannot be modified but mitigated to reduce loss. To mitigate risk the
potential losses (direct & indirect) should be minimized and the community should be

10
prepared. Urban earthquake risk today derives from the combination of local
seismicity the likelihood of a large-magnitude earthquake combined with high dense
built environment, informal settlement in urban areas, large numbers of poorly built or
highly vulnerable dwellings, poor infrastructure, contiguous building character an
lack of preparedness, etc. Urban vulnerability and risk to natural hazards such as
earthquakes is a function of human behavior. It describes the degree to which
socioeconomic pattern and physical infrastructures in urban areas are either
susceptible or resilient to the impact of natural hazards. Over the past two decades,
vulnerability has come to represent an essential concept in hazards research and in the
development of mitigation strategies at the local, national, and international levels
(White and Haas, 1975).

2.2.1 Impact of Earthquake

Within minutes of shaking, the earthquake reveals the vulnerabilities of buildings,

households, communities and of a country. The consequences expose flaws in
governance, planning and setting of physical structure, design, construction and use of
the built environment in country with seismic hazard. It reveals the capacity of the
community to be prepared for an earthquake hazard based on the influence of
prevailing culture and way of life. The scale of physical damage and social disruption
inflicted upon a community or a nation by an earthquake event is the measure of how
vulnerable the community or the nation is. There are different categorizes of
earthquake impact - physical impact, social impact, economic impact and cultural
impact.

Physical Impact

The most significant physical impact of any earthquake is the tremendous loss of built
environment, lots of deaths and injuries, loss of physical assets, failure to function of
lifeline facilities or destroy of the part of infrastructure, etc. Every physical loss can
be mitigated by reducing physical or material vulnerability in any urban areas. The
developing country renders disaster risk reduction as a higher priority action. Then,
addressing the policies on earthquake resistance, metropolitan Earthquake prevention
Plan should be built. Finally the plan should be implemented, with high priority.
Physical impact depends on physical vulnerability which can be measured by

11
weakness of built environment designing and existence of unsafe building, lack of
policies to reduce earthquake vulnerability, violation of rules in designing building,
poor infrastructure layout and lack of awareness.

Social impact

The most significant societal impact of the Kobe earthquake, Japan, 1995 was the
tremendous loss of human life, the earthquake with duration of approximately 10-12
seconds caused over 5,000 deaths. There were in excess of 26,000 injuries. Although
the total number of rescues is unknown, news reports which appeared during the first
three days after the earthquake indicated that over 1,000 people were missing, most of
whom were presumed to be buried under collapsed structures. For over 300,000
survivors in the heavily impacted cities of Kobe, Ashiya and Nishinomiya who were
displaced from their homes, there were the hardships of finding shelter, securing food
and water, locating friends and family members and acquiring warm clothing for the
cold, damp winter weather. Indeed, two weeks after the earthquake, reports of
influenza and pneumonia are becoming common. Food, water for drinking and
sanitation, blankets and warm clothing were in short supply (Goltz, nd).

Economic impact

The economic cost of disasters can be classified into direct costs relate to the capital
costs of assets destroyed or damaged by the disasters and indirect costs refer to the
damage to the flow of goods and services. Lower outputs from damaged factories,
loss of sales or rise in the prices of raw materials due to damaged infrastructure, loss
of income, loss due to reduce tax collection, and expenses for relief, recovery, and
rehabilitation are the indirect costs of disasters. Secondary effects pertain to short and
long-term impacts of a disaster on overall economic performance of a country. Lost
development efforts, the necessity to restructure the development expenditure to cater
to reconstruction and the resulting imbalances in government budget and the
perspective plans are the indirect effects. Increased indebtedness is one of the serious
consequences of an earthquake disaster. Official estimates released one week after the
Kobe earthquake place the economic toll at up to 10 trillion yen (roughly $100
billion) in repair costs alone (Chang, 2000).

12
Cultural impact

Cultural monuments, temples, churches are social properties of immense importance.

They represent social achievements in social values and norms. The possible damage
or destruction by earthquakes brings physical loss but more importantly a loss of
cultural assets, which serve as a source of income through tourism. Loss of religious
centers and schools inhibit psychological recovery following an earthquake and hence
need to be rebuilt on a priority basis. A mosque, temple or a church provides solace
and support within families and communities. They are the centers for bringing back
community's cohesiveness and for engendering a promise for a more positive future.

2.2.2 Tools of Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment

Vulnerability Analysis of building stocks in a region is a very difficult and time-

consuming process. Step by step identification of buildings at most seismic risk can
make the whole procedure comparatively simpler. First step in this process can be
quickly screening of buildings to determine if evaluation is required. Then detail
analysis is performed to confirm status of the building. Assessment of the buildings is
usually performed in three levels including preliminary inspection, simplified
vulnerability assessment and detail analysis. In preliminary inspection, the buildings
are visually inspected to get a gross impression about the structure. Simplified
vulnerability assessment procedure requiring limited engineering analysis based on
information from visual observations and structural drawings or on site
measurements. The method is widely known as Rapid Visual Screening (RVS)
method. Two widely used RVS methods are FEMA Rapid Visual Screening and
Turkish Simple Survey Procedure (Level I and II). Detail vulnerability assessment
procedure requires detailed structural analysis of the building. This procedure is
recommended for all important and lifeline structures.

FEMA Rapid Visual Screening

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the United States of

America has developed pre-earthquake screening method of potential seismic hazard
assessment of buildings based on rapid visual screening method, widely known as
RVS method, originated in 1988, with the publication of the FEMA 154 Report, a

13
Handbook. It is generally used for rapid evaluation of seismic vulnerability profiles of
existing building stocks. RVS provides a procedure to identify record and rank
buildings that are potentially seismically hazardous (FEMA, 2002). It is a "sidewalk
survey" approach that enabled users to classify surveyed buildings into two
categories: those acceptable as to risk to life safety or those that may be seismically
hazardous and should be evaluated in more detail by a design professional
experienced in seismic design. The Data Collection Form of RVS includes space for
documenting building identification information, including its use and size, a
photograph of the building, sketches, and documentation of pertinent data related to
seismic performance, including the development of a numeric seismic hazard score.
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 score below which a structure is
assumed to require further investigation is termed as “cut-off” score. The value of
“cut off” score and choice of RVS form depends on the seismic zonation of the area.
It is suggested that buildings having an S score less than the “cut-off” score should be
investigated by an experienced seismic design professional experienced in seismic
design. If the obtained “final score” is greater than the “cut-off” score the building
should perform well in a seismic event.

Turkish Simple Survey Procedure

The Turkish Simple Survey procedure is a two level risk assessment procedure which
has been proposed on the basis of statistical correlations obtained by employing a
database of 477 damaged buildings surveyed after the 1999 Düzee earthquake
(Sucuoglu and Yazgan, 2003). The first level incorporates recording of building
parameters from the street side and in the second level, these are extended by
structural parameters measured by entering into the ground storey. The basic scoring
for both the levels are based on the height of the building (number of stories) and
local Soil Conditions where three intensity zones are specified in terms of associated
PGV (Peak Ground Velocity) ranges. Once the vulnerability parameters of a building
are obtained from two-level surveys and its location is determined, the seismic
performance and vulnerability scores are calculated. The final seismic Performance

14
Score is obtained by using following equation. A “cut-off” performance score of 50
has been suggested for both survey levels.

PS = (Initial Score) - ∑(Vulnerability Parameter) X (Vulnerability Score)

The first level is a street survey procedure and involves the observation of the
parameters, the number of stories above ground, presence of a soft story, presence of
heavy overhang, apparent building quality, and presence of a short column. In the
second level the parameters of first level are confirmed or modified through closer
observations. Then a sketch of the framing plan at the ground story is made and the
dimensions of columns, concrete and masonry walls are measured. The added
parameters in this stage are pounding between adjacent buildings, topography effect,
plan irregularity, redundancy, and strength index. The consistency in distribution of
lateral loads to frame members is judged by redundancy and the strength index figures
out the influence of size of the vertical members of the building, material strength,
frame geometry etc. on the lateral strength of the building. The results of the Level - II
procedure can be used to determine the potential status of the selected buildings, and
to further short-list the buildings requiring detailed vulnerability assessment.

2.2.3 Factors of Earthquake Vulnerability

Earthquake vulnerability of building depends on some factors such as shape of

buildings, redundancy, strength index, short column and pounding effect etc. The
factors are described as follow:

Plan Irregularity and Vertical Irregularity

Irregularity in building plan is a deviation from a rectangular plan, having orthogonal

axis systems in two directions. Such deviation from plan irregularity leads to
irregularities in stiffness and strength distributions which in turn increase the risk of
damage localization under strong ground excitations. In earthquake resistant design,
regularity in plan is encouraged.

15
 Figure 2.1: Plan Irregularity Figure 2.2: Vertical irregularity

Redundancy

When the number of continuous frames or number of bays in a building system is

insufficient, lateral loads may not be distributed evenly to frame members. Especially
those frames exhibiting inelastic response during earthquakes suffer from lack of
sufficient redundancy, which leads to localized heavy damages. A normalized
redundancy ration (NRS) is calculated. The equation for NRS is a function of
tributary area for a typical column, the area of ground floor and the number of
continuous frames in x and y directions, respectively.

Strength index

The lateral strength of a building is strongly related to the size of its vertical members
among other factors including material strengths, detailing and frame geometry. Since
measuring the sizes of vertical members at the ground story of an existing building is
possible, a strength ratio (SR) is determined using the collected data related to shape
(square or rectangular) of the column and the cross section area of each column, shear
wall and masonry in-filled wall, respectively (Ozcebe et al., 2003).

Short Column and Pounding Effect

A short column is that in which both compression and bending is significant,

generally having a slenderness ratio between 30 and 120-150. During an earthquake
short column suffered more damage as compared to tall columns in the same storey
because short column is stiffer as compared to the tall column, and it attracts larger

16
earthquake force. In existing buildings with short columns, different retrofit solutions
can be employed to avoid damage in future earthquakes.

Figure 2.3: Short Column

Pounding of adjacent buildings could have worse damage as adjacent buildings with
different dynamic characteristics which vibrate out of phase and there is insufficient
separation distance or energy dissipation system to accommodate the relative motions
of adjacent buildings. The non-structural damage involves pounding or movement
across separation joints between adjacent structures.

Figure 2.4: Seismic Pounding between Adjacent Buildings

Soft Storey

Recently many buildings are constructed with a special feature that the ground storey
is left open for the purpose of parking i.e., columns in the ground storey do not have
any partition walls (of either masonry or RC) between them. Such buildings are often
called open ground storey buildings or soft storey building. An open ground storey
building, having only columns in the ground storey and both partition walls and

17
columns in the upper storey. Open ground storey buildings have shown poor
performance during earthquakes across the world; a significant number of buildings
have collapsed. The presence of walls in upper storey makes them much stiffer than
the open ground storey. Thus, the upper storey move almost together as a single block
and most of the horizontal displacement of the building occurs in the soft ground
storey itself.

Figure 2.5: Soft Story

Heavy Overhang

Once the vulnerability parameter of the building are obtained from two-level building
surveys in Turkish method and its location are determined, the seismic performance
scores for survey levels 1 and 2 are calculated using tables. In these tables, an initial
score is given first with

Building Performance Score

Once the vulnerability parameter of the building are obtained from two-level building
surveys in Turkish method and its location are determined, the seismic performance
scores for survey levels 1 and 2 are calculated using tables. In these tables, an initial
score is given first with respect to the number of stories and the intensity zone. Then,
the initial score is reduced for every vulnerability parameter that is observed or
calculated. A general equation for calculating the seismic performance score (PS) can
be formulated as follows:

P S = (Initial Score) - ∑(Vulnerability Parameter) x (Vulnerability Score)

18
2.2.4 Related Research in Bangladesh

In a study conducted by Imtiaz et al (2007), a total number of 250 Cyclone Shelters

and 1100 General Buildings were analyzed using Rapid Visual Screening (RVS)
method. Considering Cox‟s bazar as a high Seismic Risk zone, the cut off value was
determined as 2. The results show that no score for cyclone shelter and other
buildings was found to touch the cut off value according to FEMA method and all of
them require further detailed analysis for vulnerability to determine the level of actual
risk.

A study was carried out to identify most vulnerable structures in Dhanmondi

residential area, Lalmatia and the greater Mohammadpur by using RVS-FEMA and
Turkish method (Sadat et al, 2010).

In another research, about 1383 buildings (77%) in Ward 68 in Dhaka City were
analyzed using Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) to assess vulnerability of the existing
buildings. In this study, 1.5 has been considered as a “cut-off” score according to the
experts‟ opinion, considering the existing site condition. About 53% buildings have
been found as vulnerable to earthquake and needed detailed analysis (Jahan, 2011).

2.3 Vulnerability Assessment of Fire

A fire hazard is any situation in which there is a greater than normal risk of harm to
people or property due to fire. Fire hazards can take the form of ways that fires can
easily start, such as a blocked cooling vent, or overloaded electrical system, ways fires
can spread rapidly, such as an insufficiently protected fuel store or areas with high
oxygen concentrations, or things which, in a fire, pose a hazard to people, such as
materials that produce toxic fumes when heated or blocked fire exits. Although a fire
disaster need not necessarily reach catastrophic proportions, it will present some of
the characteristic aspects of a disaster because of the highly destructive action of fire
and of the considerable number of victims. A fire of vast proportions can moreover
cause damage to the surrounding environment by the massive production of heat and
the emanation of burn gases and fumes. When a violent fire breaks out, there is an
initial moment of psychological paralysis, generally followed by total incapacity for
logical thought, and this leads to instinctive behavioral reactions whose one aim is to

19
save oneself and all that is most dear, and reach safety. This sequence of actions not
infrequently serves only to worsen the extent of damage caused and to create an even
more dramatic and tragic situation. This can be achieved only in one way: through
information about the risks involved, through understanding of the dangers, and
through instruction about how to behave in case of fire. A fire disaster has very
special characteristics if one considers the particularities of the causative agent and
the type of damage it produces in living beings. When fire comes into contact with
objects and materials it burns or destroys them in a relatively short time. The action of
fire on a living organism can be lethal within a few seconds (Masellis, et al, 1999).

2.3.1 Tools of Fire Hazard Vulnerability Assessment

ADPC developed a tool for assessing fire hazard vulnerability in Vientaine City, LAO
PDR in 2004. In case of Lao PDR the urbanization trends seems to be slower than in
the other countries, therefore provide great opportunities for introducing new tools for
reducing the ill effects of urbanization. Reduction of the disaster impacts in urban
areas is seen as one of the priorities faced by city governments. For instance the fires
and traffic accidents in the urban area of Vientiane have caused more damage than
any natural hazards in the recent past. It became a priority issue for the city
government which needs immediate attention. A joint USAID-ADPC assessment of
potential hazards in the capital city identified a critical shortage of fire fighting
capacity as well as the general field of emergency services. In addition, the expansion
of the city‟s built environment and infrastructure provides new opportunities for
promoting culture of safety through safer building construction initiatives. This
project takes initiatives to establish scientific practices for risk assessment, action
planning aimed at introduction of appropriate measurers and capacity building. The
fire risk zonation mapping has been carried out in few stages. The first is to define the
map units that can delineate the component of attributes to potential fire hazard. The
research studies taken place in similar environment elsewhere and local knowledge
helped the project to examine the factors attributing to fire hazard in the context of
Vientiane. In considering the suitability of a particular area for residential or other
forms of development in the urban surroundings of the Vientiane city, the potential
fire hazard ratings have been assessed in relation to the following criteria or factors;
The mapping has been done using a 1:10,000 base map (land use and infrastructure

20
map) of Vientiane obtained from the National Geographic Department (Sounnalath et
al, nd).

2.3.2 Factors of Vulnerability of Fire

The factors of vulnerability of fire hazards are identified by ADPC for assessing fire
hazard vulnerability in Vientaine City, LAO PDR in 2004. The factors are described
as follow:

Construction Type

The hazard depends on the quantity of inflammable material, which is a major

contributor to the intensity of fire. The contributory factor can be easily evaluated
through examination of building typologies, construction material and closeness of
location to each other in terms of its effect on initiation of a potential fire. Inadequate
building materials accompany risk by physical exposure in squatter settlements as
structures are often built with non-permanent materials, such as earthen floors, mud-
and-wattle walls or straw roofs (UN-Habitat, 2003).

Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

It is the ratio of the total floor area of buildings on a certain location to the size of the
land of that location, or the limit imposed on such a ratio. The Floor Area Ratio is the
total building square footage (building area) divided by the site size square footage
(site area). FAR is the ratio of the floor area of a building to the area of the lot on
which the building is located. This diagram illustrates three different ways that a 1:1
FAR might be reached: one story covering the entire lot (top), two stories covering
half of the lot (middle), or four stories covering a quarter of the lot. While the FAR is
the same in each example, the characters of the buildings and site plans are very
different (Pollack, 2006).

Floor Area Ratio = (Total covered area on all floors of all buildings on a certain plot)/
(Area of the plot)

21
 Figure 2.6: Flood Area Ratio

Fire Source in Building

Fire hazard sometimes depend on storage of hazardous good in building. These goods
are classified as follow (NRTC, 2007):

 Class 1: Explosives
 Class 2: Gases
 Class 3: Flammable liquids
 Class 4: Flammable solids
 Class 5: Oxidizing Agents & Organic Peroxides
 Class 6: Toxic and Infectious Substances
 Class 7: Radioactive Substances
 Class 8: Corrosive Substances
 Class 9: Miscellaneous Dangerous Substances

Fire Source around Building

In Vientiane city, it has been observed that many connections are of temporary nature
or due to maintenance of poor standards of wiring. This kind of irregularities can be
observed mainly in market areas, open air shopping areas, in areas where underserved
communities are located. Sometimes these are isolated pockets or series of pockets
located in close proximity (Sounnalath et al, nd).

Accessibility

Accessibility of the area relates to the capability or the effectiveness of fire fighting
services. It depends on the effective width of road accessible for fire truck
(Sounnalath et al, nd).

22
2.4 Social Vulnerability Assessment

Social vulnerability is the term used to define the susceptibility of social groups to
potential losses from hazard events or society‟s resistance and resilience to hazard
(Hewitt, 1997). It is the characteristics of a person or group and their situation that
influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recovery from the impact
of a natural hazard. It involves a combination of factors that determine the degree to
which someone‟s life, livelihood, property and other assets are put at risk by a discrete
and identifiable event in nature and in society (Wisner et al., 2004). Social
vulnerability derives from the activities and circumstances of everyday life or its
transformations (Hewitt, 1997). It is the condition of a given area with respect to
hazard, exposure, preparedness, prevention, and response characteristics to cope with
specific natural hazards. It is a measure of the capability of this set of elements to
withstand events of a certain physical character (Weichselgartner, 2001).

2.4.1 Tools of Social Vulnerability Assessment

In a study of Cutter et al. (2003) county-level socioeconomic and demographic data

were used to construct an index of social vulnerability to environmental hazards,
called the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI) for the United States based on 1990 data.
The Pressure and Release (PAR) model developed by Wisner et al. (2004) is an
approach for analyzing social vulnerability. The Access model is an expanded
analysis of the principle factors in the PAR model that relate to human vulnerability
and exposure to hazards; it focuses on the process by which the natural event impacts
upon people and their responses. Only parts of the model will be relevant in each
situation. Wisner et al., (2004) review both negative and positive examples of efforts
to reduce vulnerability in various less developed countries in relation to floods and
coastal storms, earthquakes and volcanoes through the application of the PAR model.
Many other participatory assessment techniques such as Participatory Rural Appraisal
(PRA), Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Sustainable Livelihoods (SL)
approaches have been developed within the context of research in less developed
countries (Cannon et al., 2003). These were often similar in approach to the Access
model. Community or citizen-based risk assessments are another way of approaching
social vulnerability assessment (Wisner, 2006). Such participatory models of research

23
are where communities are actively engaged in the research process through
partnerships e.g. with academic institutions or Non Governmental Organizations,
often in relation to public health. Wisner (2006) discusses various qualitative and
participatory approaches to assess vulnerability and coping capacity using such self-
assessment tools.

2.4.2 Factors Influencing Social Vulnerability

There is a general consensus within the social science community about some of the
major factors that influence social vulnerability. These include: lack of access to
resources (including information, knowledge, and technology); limited access to
political power and representation; social capital, including social networks and
connections; beliefs and customs; building stock and age; frail and physically limited
individuals; and type and density of infrastructure and lifelines (Cutter et al., 2003).

Socioeconomic Status (comprising income, poverty, employment, and education

variables)

Economically disadvantaged populations are disproportionately affected by disasters.

The poor are less likely to have the income or assets needed to prepare for a possible
disaster or to recover after a disaster (Cutter et al., 2003). Although the monetary
value of their property may be less than that of other households, it likely represents a
larger proportion of total household assets. For these households, lost property is
proportionately more expensive to replace, especially without homeowner‟s or
renter‟s insurance (Tierney, 2006). Moreover, unemployed persons do not have
employee benefits plans that provide income and health cost assistance in the event of
personal injury or death (Brodie et al., 2006). High-income populations, on the other
hand, may suffer higher household losses in absolute terms, yet find their overall
position mitigated by insurance policies, financial investments, and stable
employment (Bolin and Stanford, 1998). The relationship between education and
vulnerability to disaster is not well understood, although education is associated with
both income and poverty. People with higher levels of education are more likely to
have access to and act upon varied hazard information from preparation to recovery
(Tierney, 2006). For people with less education, the practical and bureaucratic hurdles

24
to cope with and recover from disaster prove increasingly difficult to surmount
(Morrow, 1999).

Household Composition and Disability (comprising age, single parenting, and

disability variables)

Children and elders are the most vulnerable groups in disaster events (Ngo, 2001).
Children, especially in the youngest age groups, cannot protect themselves during a
disaster because they lack the necessary resources, knowledge, or life experiences to
effectively cope with the situation. Perhaps because parental responsibility for
children is assumed, children are rarely incorporated into disaster-scenario exercises
(Martin et al., 2006). Thus, local authorities are not adequately prepared to provide
specific goods or services for children (Madrid et al., 2006). Elders living alone and
people of any age having physical, sensory, or cognitive challenges are also likely to
be more vulnerable to disasters (Rosenkoetter et al., 2007). Older people also tend to
be more reluctant to evacuate. In addition to the physical difficulties imposed by
evacuation, older people tend to be distressed by the prospect of leaving their own
homes and living in group quarters (Gladwin and Peacock, 1997).

Many older or disabled people have special needs that require the assistance of others.
Family members or neighbors who would ordinarily look in on an elder, or a
caretaker responsible for the welfare of a disabled person, might be less able to do so
during a crisis or may find the magnitude of the task beyond their capability. The
number of traditional households of two parents and children has decreased in the
United States. In addition to the usually lower socioeconomic status of single-parent
households, such households are especially vulnerable in a disaster because all daily
caretaker responsibility falls to the one parent (Cutter et al., 2003).

2.5 Urban Disaster Risk Index

World Bank conducted a risk assessment in Dhaka City in 2013. They identified
various hotspots in Dhaka City. Hotspots are defined by a combination of a number of
critical indicators. These indicators are categorized into two: the expected direct
physical damage and losses, and the potential for aggravating impact of the direct

25
damages by the social fragility and coping capacity of the different Wards in Dhaka.
These two categories form, respectively, Physical Risk Index (PRI) and the Impact
Factor Index (IFI). The theoretical and analytical methodological framework for the
Urban Disaster Risk Index (UDRI) is based on the work of Cardona et al. (2005).
According to this procedure, the Urban Disaster Risk Index is obtained by multiplying
the Physical Risk Index (PRI) (from existing loss scenarios) by an Impact Factor
Index (IFI), based on variables associated with the socio-economic conditions of each
Ward, according to the following relationship:

UDRI = PRI (1+IFI)

The selection of impact factors is based on the well accepted definition of social
vulnerability as the characteristics of a person or group and their situation that
influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of
a natural hazard. At the same time, the Impact Factor will increase if the capacity to
overcome vulnerability in face of hazards is not present. Thus, the impact factor also
includes Coping capacity Indicators, such as available means of disaster preparedness
and risk mitigation, emergency response capacities, and other buffers and resources
for reconstruction and recovery. The Physical Risk Index is a function of the
following indicators: building damage, fatalities, and economic loss. The Impact
Factor Index is a function of the following indicators: population density, vulnerable
population (elderly, very young, disabled, illiterate, gender ratio and dilapidated
housing), lack of access to services (electricity, water, and sanitation) and lack of
coping capacities (hospitals, schools and police stations). The Urban Disaster Risk
Index is simply a combination of the PRI and the IFI. The weight of each factor is
estimated by Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) by experts in Dhaka city which is
showed in table 2.1 and table 2.2 (World Bank, 2014).

Table 2.1 Earthquake Physical Risk Indicators (PRI) and weights

Physical Risk Index Indicator Weight
Building damage ratio = damaged building/total building 0.26
PRI Fatality ratio = number of fatalities/1000 people 0.46
Economic loss ratio = lost building value/total building value 0.28
1
Source: World Bank (2014)

26
 Table 2.2 Earthquake Impact Factor Indicators (IFI) and weights
Social Vulnerability Indicator Weight
Population density = Population/Area in sqkm 0.25
Age < 5 = number of children/1000 people 0.14
Age > = 65 = number of elderly/1000 people 0.09
Disability = number of disable/1000 people 0.28 0.77
Illiterate = number of illiterate/1000 people 0.03
Gender = number of female/number of male 0.04
Dilapidated housing =Jhupri structure/total building 0.17 0.77
1
= number of people having no
IFI Electricity electricity connection/1000 people 0.08
= number of people having no water
0.23
Water connection/1000 people 0.68
= number of people having no
Sanitation sanitation facilities/1000 people 0.24
1 1
Coping Capacities Indicator Weight
Hospital = number of hospital 0.56
School = number of school 0.28 0.23
Police = police station 0.16
1
1
Source: World Bank (2014)

2.6 Risk Reduction Strategies

Risk reduction measure is a collective expression that encompasses structural and

non-structural protection measures. These are often described as mitigation and
preparedness but there is no precise division between these terms. These are various
activities, projects and programs that the communities may identify after assessing
and analyzing the risks that they face. These measures are specifically intended to
reduce the current risks and prevent future risks to the community (Abarquez and
Murshed, 2004)

2.6.1 Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction

Community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) consists of steps of actions

encompassing prevention of risks, emergency preparedness, emergency procedures,
and recovery after a disaster. The term “community-based” means that disaster

27
management is jointly dealt with by the community. Although the role of the
community varies, it is agreed that under this approach, communities are the main
actors that develop and implement important policies in relation to disaster
management (ADPC, 2008).

2.6.2 Participatory Tools for Community Involvement

Vulnerability Mapping

Effective planners and managers look beyond geographical vulnerability to

understand how unique social and political patterns in their communities result in
accentuated risk for some categories of people. Local people can identify the areas of
greater vulnerability considering different factors and problems in a map which is
named as community vulnerability map. The map is very easy to depict the
vulnerability of the community to any hazard and helps the community to understand
their risk. The use of this tool can seem complex to some people, and it is often time
consuming to address all of the issues emerging (Morrow, 1999).

Pair-wise Ranking

Pair-wise ranking is a PRA method that helps the community people to set priorities
(i.e. problems, needs, actions, etc.). Ranking can be undertaken with key informants
or group of community people that represents a good mixture of interests. For simple
issues (i.e. problems), community people can rank them during the semi-structured
interview. For complicated issues, ranking can be done by using pair-wise ranking in
order to determine the community people‟ preferences (Cavestro, 2003).

Venn Diagram

The Venn Diagram on institutions shows institutions, organizations, groups and

important individuals found in the community, as well as the local peoples‟ view of
their importance in the community. Additionally the diagram explains who
participates in these groups in terms of gender and wealth. The institutional
relationship diagram also indicates how close the contact and cooperation between
those organizations and groups is (Cavestro, 2003).

28
SWOT Analysis

A SWOT analysis (alternatively SWOT Matrix) is a structured planning method used

to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats involved in a project.
The internal factors may be viewed as strengths or weaknesses internal to the
organization depending upon their impact on the organization‟s objectives. Strengths
are internal attributes that are helpful to the organization to achieving its objective.
Weaknesses are internal attributes those are harmful to the organization to achieving
its objective. The external factors may be viewed as opportunities or threats external
to the organization depending upon their impact on the organization‟s objectives.
Opportunities are external factors that help the organization achieve its objective.
Threats are external factors those are harmful to the organization to achieving its
objective. SWOT analysis helps to identify and strengthen the institutions to involve
them for the welfare of the community. The use of this tool may seem complex to
some people, to understand the strengths and weaknesses of internal factors and;
opportunities and threats of external factors for the community (Wikipedia, 2014).

2.6.3 Practice in Different Countries

To increase the success of disaster risk reduction programs and promote CBDRM
practices in Vietnam, a consortium of 14 international NGOs and national
organizations have participated in the Joint Advocacy Network Initiative (JANI). This
project has been supported by European Commission's Humanitarian Aid Office
(ECHO) since 2007. One of the major recommendations of the previous phase of
JANI was that CBDRM practitioners in Vietnam should come up with a consolidated
CBDRM framework that systemizes diverse CBDRM guidelines and methodologies
in Vietnam (CECI, nd). A fire risk zonation map of Vientiane was compiled under the
People‟s Democratic Republic of Laos (Lao PDR) Urban Disaster Mitigation Project
(LUDMP) for fire prevention, mitigation and preparedness at national and city levels.
During this attempt, Ban Hatsady village was selected to undertake a community-
based fire risk assessment process. This study presents the practical experience of the
Ban Hatsady villagers as they worked together to identify their own vulnerabilities
and developed their own strategies for reducing impact of future fire hazards. It shows
how a community-based fire risk management approach becomes a key to

29
overcoming recurring problems of fire (ADPC, 2004). In 2007, Indonesia passed its
Disaster Management Law (Law No. 24), also known as the DM Law. The DM Law
is a legal umbrella of the country‟s disaster management implementation that includes
Community-Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM). Its passage also paved the
way for the launching of the National Action Plan for Disaster Reduction (NAP-DRR)
2006-2009, which explicitly addresses the issue of disaster risk management (ADPC,
2008).

30
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 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).

Study Area

Map 3.1: Seismic Microzonation Map of Dhaka City (Rahman, 2004)

31
3.2 Sampling

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. 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 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 survey was September 2013 to December 2013. The Table 3.1 shows the
distribution of all structure according to construction type, number of storey and
structure use.

Table 3.1: Distribution of all structures according to construction type, number of storey and
structure use
Type Katcha Semi-pucca Pucca
floor floor floor Tota
Use 1 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 l
Agriculture 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Commercial
41 0 281 31 11 3 1 0 0 0 0
Activity 368
Community
0 0 1 1 7 3 1 1 0 0 0
Service 14
Education &
0 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0
Research 7
Manufacturing
and Processing 48 1 167 6 8 7 3 7 1 0 0
Activity 248
Mixed Use 17 0 106 11 106 81 62 57 37 5 1 483
Recreational
0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities 2
Residential 31
10 948 123 171 111 65 46 30 7 0
2 1823
Service Activity 9 0 75 11 7 5 1 0 1 0 0 109
Transport &
Communication 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
Total 42 11
8 11 1581 184 312 211 135 2 70 12 1 3057
439 1581 1037
Source: RAJUK, 2006

From the Table 3.1, the percentages of construction type, number of storey and
structure use of total buildings in the study area has been calculated and distribution

32
of 350 sample buildings has been estimated. The Table 3.2 shows the distribution of
sample buildings according to construction type, number of storey and structure use.

Table 3.2: Distribution of sample according to construction type, number of storey and
structure use
Type Katcha Semi-pucca Pucca
floor floor floor
Use 1 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 Total
Agriculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Commercial
Activity 5 0 32 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 42
Community
Service 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Education &
Research 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Manufacturing
and Processing
Activity 5 0 19 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 28
Mixed Use 2 0 12 1 12 9 7 7 4 1 0 55
Recreational
Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 36 1 109 14 20 13 7 5 3 1 0 209
Service Activity 1 0 9 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 12
Transport &
Communication 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 49 1 181 21 36 24 15 13 8 1 0 350
50 181 119
Source: RAJUK, 2006

3.3 Data Collection

Data collection is a vital part of the research which has been carried out from both
primary and secondary sources. Primary data have been collected from field survey
through checklist where the secondary data have been collected in form of hard copies
and shapefiles from different sources.

3.3.1 Primary Data Collection

The research is mainly based on primary data collected from filed survey 2013 by the
researcher. Time frame of the field survey is September 2013 to December 2013.
From literature review, a co-ordination schema (vide Appendix A) has been prepared
to fulfill the first objective. The study focuses on three different vulnerability

33
assessments. So the parameters needed for the assessments should have been collected
from field survey.

FEMA-RVS

For earthquake vulnerability assessment, FEMA-154 data collection form of moderate

seismicity (vide Appendix B) has been used for data collection. For these
assessments, some attributes of buildings such as type of buildings, number of storey
and pattern of building shape etc. have been collected from field survey.

Fire Hazard Vulnerability Assessment

For fire hazard vulnerability assessment, a checklist (vide Appendix D) has been
prepared based on expert opinion by which field survey of the buildings has been
conducted. From the field survey, factors of fire hazard vulnerability of a building
such as construction material type, number of floor, area of floor, fire source in and
outside building etc. have been collected.

Social Vulnerability Assessment

Social vulnerability assessment depends on socio-economic characteristic such as

total population living in the building, gender distribution, age below 5 years and age
65 and plus, illiteracy, and number of disabled people etc. These data also have been
collected from filed survey by a checklist (vide Appendix D).

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)

Participatory rural appraisal method has been applied to know the view of local
people to adapt various risk reduction strategies of earthquake and fire hazard in their
locality. The method of data collection was focus group discussion (FGD). The focus
groups were community based organization (CBO), local government representatives,
NGOs, cooperative societies, and governing bodies of mosque, madrasa and schools
etc.

34
3.3.2 Secondary Data Collection

Base map of the study area has been collected from Dhaka City Corporation. GIS
shapefiles of buildings, road, administrative boundary, utility services of the study
area etc. have been collected from Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (RAJUK).

3.4 Data Analysis

Through data collection process, physical and socio-economic data of sample

buildings in quantitative forms have been collected. Then the data have been inputted
in SPSS 21 and joined with GIS shapefile. Data are processed and analyzed by
statistical tools such as frequency distributions, descriptive statistics, cross tabulation
and custom table etc. Analyzed data have been 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. The results of earthquake and fire
hazard vulnerability assessments have been integrated using opinion of experts.
Panels of 10 fire experts have been consulted to determine the combined vulnerability
score (physical score) of fire and earthquake. Social vulnerability score was combined
with the physical vulnerability score by using the formula developed by Cardona
(2005) to calculate the composite vulnerability score. Data collected from focus group
discussion have been compiled to develop risk reduction strategy which is acceptable
to the local people and community.

3.4.1 Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment by FEMA- Rapid Visual Screening

(RVS) Method

Earthquake vulnerability score is calculated by FEMA- Rapid Visual Screening

(RVS) method in this research. The method is developed by Federal emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA-154 Data Collection form of moderate
seismicity (vide Appendix B) has been used which is applicable for Bangladesh. The

35
Data Collection form includes space for documenting building identification
information, including 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 score below which a structure is
assumed to require further investigation is termed as “cut-off” score. The value of
“cut off” score and choice of RVS form depends on the seismic zonation of the area.
It is suggested that buildings having an S score less than the “cut-off” score should be
investigated by an experienced seismic design professional experienced in seismic
design. If the obtained “final score” is greater than the “cut-off” score the building
should perform well in a seismic event. According to FEMA 154 a “cut-off” score of
2 is used in this study. 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. This information can be used to decide necessity of further
evaluation of the building using higher level procedures. Generally the score S<0.7
indicates high vulnerability requiring further evaluation and retrofitting of the
building. Buildings of the study area were classified according to RVS score using the
following category (vide Table 3.3 and Table 3.4):

Table 3.3: 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

36
Table 3.4: Illustration of damage to buildings
Classification of damage to masonry Classification of damage to reinforced concrete
buildings buildings
Grade1: Negligible to slight damage Grade1: Negligible to slight damage (No
(No structural damage, slight non- structural damage, slight non-structural damage)
structural damage) Fine cracks in plaster over frame members or in
Hair-line cracks in very few walls. walls at the base.
Fall of small pieces of plaster only. Fine cracks in partitions and infills.
Fall of loose stones from upper parts of
buildings in very few cases.
Grade 2: Moderate damage (Slight Grade 2: Moderate damage (Slight structural
structural damage, moderate non- damage, moderate non-structural damage)
structural damage) Cracks in columns and beams of frames and in
Cracks in many walls. structural walls.
Fall of fairly large pieces of plaster. Cracks in partition and infill walls; fall of brittle
Partial collapse of chimneys and cladding and plaster. Falling mortar from the
mumptys. joints of wall panel.
Grade 3: Substantial to heavy damage Grade 3: Substantial to heavy damage (Moderate
(Moderate structural damage, heavy structural damage, heavy non-structural damage)
non-structural damage) Cracks in columns and beam-column joints of
Large and extensive cracks in most frames at the base and at joints of coupled walls.
walls. Roof tiles detach. Chimneys Spalling of concrete cover, buckling of reinforced
failure at roof line; failure of individual bars.
non-structural elements. (partitions, Large cracks in partition and infill walls, failure of
gable walls etc) individual infill panels.
Grade 4: Substantial to heavy damage Grade 4: Substantial to heavy damage (Moderate
(Moderate structural damage, heavy structural damage, heavy non-structural damage)
non-structural damage) Large cracks in structural elements with
Serious failure of walls. Partial structural compression failure of concrete and fractures of
failure of roofs and walls. rebars. Bond failure of bars, tilting of columns.
Collapse of a few columns or of a single upper
floor.
Grade 5: Destruction (Very heavy Grade 5: Destruction (Very heavy structural
structural damage) damage)
Total or near total collapse of a building. Collapse of ground floor parts.(e.g. wings of the
building)
Source: FEMA-154, 2002

3.4.2 Fire Hazard Vulnerability Assessment

Derivation of weights of factors using Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP)

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a multi-attribute modeling methodology for

comparing a list of objectives or alternatives or attributes (Saaty, 1980). There are six
factors that determine vulnerability of building to fire hazard (vide section 2.3.2).
These factors are construction type (A1), number of storey (A2), floor area (A3), fire
source in building (A4), fire source around building (A5) and accessibility (A6). The
weighted value of each factor was derived through an expert opinion survey using

37
AHP method in 2013 by the researcher. The list of experts is given in Appendix C. A
pair wise comparison matrix M was formed where the number in the ith row and jthe
column gives the relative importance of Ai as compared with Aj. 1-9 Scale (vide
Table 3.5 and Table 3.6) was selected from the expert‟s opinion. aij = 1 if the two
objectives are equal in importance and aij = 2 if Ai is more important than Aj. Matrix
M which was made by expert opinion is given in the following:

Table 3.5: Comparison matrix of factors of fire hazard vulnerability

Construction Number Floor Fire source in Fire source Accessibility
Type (A1) of storey Area building (A4) around (A6)
(A2) (A3) building (A5)
Construction 1 1
Type (A1) 1 2 2 2
3 3
Number of 1 1 1
storey (A2) 1 2 2
2 3 3
Floor Area 1 1 1 1 1
(A3) 1
2 2 3 2 3
Fire source in
building (A4) 3 3 3 1 3 2
Fire source
around 1 1 1 1
2 1
building (A5) 2 2 3 3
Accessibility 1
(A6) 3 3 3 3 1
2
Source: Expert opinion survey, 2013

Table 3.6: Fundamental Scale of Absolute Numbers

Intensity of Definition Explanation
Importance
1 Equal importance Two activities contribute equally to the
objective
2 Weak or slight
3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one
activity over another
4 Moderate plus
5 Strong importance Experience and judgment strongly favor one
activity over another
6 Strong plus
7 Very strong or demonstrated An activity is favored very strongly over
importance another; its dominance demonstrated in
practice
8 Very very strong
9 Extreme importance The evidence favoring one activity over
another is of the highest possible order of
affirmation
Source: Saaty, 1980

38
  1 1
1 2 2
3
2
3
1 1 1
 1 2 2 
2 3 3
M=  1 1
1
1 1 1
2 2 3 2 3
3 3 3 1 3 2
1 1 1 1
 2 1 
2 2 3 3
3 1
3 3 3 1
 2 

To normalize the weights, the sums of each column were computed and then each
column was divided by the corresponding sum. Thus N was used to denote
normalization. Finally the average value of each row was calculated which is the
weight of factors of fire hazard.

Table 3.7: Normalization of factors of fire hazard vulnerability

Construction Number Floor Fire source Fire source Accessibility
Type (A1) of storey Area in building around (A6)
(A2) (A3) (A4) building (A5)
Weight
Construction 0.118 0.200 0.154 0.117 0.174 0.076 0.140
Type (A1)
Number of 0.059 0.100 0.154 0.117 0.174 0.076 0.113
storey (A2)
Floor Area 0.059 0.050 0.077 0.117 0.043 0.076 0.070
(A3)
Fire source in 0.353 0.300 0.231 0.355 0.261 0.463 0.327
building (A4)
Fire source 0.059 0.050 0.154 0.117 0.087 0.076 0.091
around building
(A5)
Accessibility 0.353 0.300 0.231 0.177 0.261 0.231 0.259
(A6)
Source: Expert opinion survey, 2013

0.118 0.2 0.154 0.117 0.174 0.076

0.059 0.1 0.154 0.117 0.174 0.076

0.059 0.05 0.077 0.117 0.043 0.076
N=  
0.353 0.3 0.231 0.355 0.261 0.463
0.059 0.05 0.154 0.117 0.087 0.076
 
0.353 0.3 0.231 0.177 0.261 0.231

The average value of each row was computed and used as the weights of factors of
fire hazard vulnerability.

39
 0.140
0.113
0.070
W=
0.327
0.091
0.259

Fire Hazard Vulnerability Score

Based on opinion of expert, six attributes of fire hazard were given numeric values for
vulnerability calculation. Each value was multiplied by corresponding weight derived
from above mentioned AHP.

Table 3.8: Fire hazard vulnerability indicators and weights

Factors Value Weight
Construction Pucca - 1 Semipucca - 2 Kutcha - 3 0.140
Type
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 1001 sqft – 2000 sqft 2001 sqft and 0.070
sqft Moderate - 2 above
Low - 1 High – 3
Fire source in No – 0 Residential sources* - Hazardous 0.327
building 1 sources** - 2
Fire source No - 0 Yes - 1 0.091
around building
Accessibility Code - 0 Code - 1 0.259
Road >=10 ft Road < 10ft
*Residential Source: Gas Stove
**Hazardous Source: Chemical, plastic, paper, electric generator

Fire hazard vulnerability score (FS) of each sample building was calculated using the
following formula:
FS = Construction Type × 0.140 + Number of storey × 0.113 + Floor Area × 0.070 +
Fire source in building × 0.327 + Fire source around building × 0.091+ Accessibility
× 0.259

Consistency of the Comparison Matrix

It is unusual for the entire comparison matrix to be consistent. Indeed, given that
human judgment is the basis for the construction of this matrix, some degree of

40
inconsistency is expected and should be tolerated provided that it is not unreasonable.
To determine whether or not a level of consistency is reasonable a quantifiable
measure for comparison matrix M was developed. To determine the consistency of
the comparative matrix Consistency Ratio (CR) was computed by the following
equation.

CI Where, CI= Consistency Index of M

CR 
RI RI= Random Consistency of M
nmax  n Where, n = Number of Attributes
CI 
n 1 nmax = M*W (Weighted Matrix)
1.98(n  2)
RI 
n
In this case,
n=6
nmax =M*W=6.257 (AKiTi.ca, 2013)
Consistency Index of M,
nmax  n
CI 
n 1
6.257  6

6 1
= 0.0514
Random Index,
1.98(n  2)
RI 
n
= 1.32
Consistency Ratio,
CI
CR 
RI
= 0.03 < 0.1
CR is acceptable if it is less or equal to 0.1. As the calculated CR comes below 0.1,
consistency of comparison matrix is acceptable.

3.4.3 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

41
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 3.9: Social vulnerability indicators and weights

Indicator Formula Weight
= Total population in building/Total floor area of
Population density 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)

SVS = Population density×0.3 + Gender×0.05 + Age below 5×0.17 + Age 65 and

over×0.11 + Disability×0.34 + Illiterate×0.03

3.4.4 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, it is necessary to convert them into a common scale
for calculation of composite score. The process of development of composite score is
given as follow:

Step 1. Sample buildings were classified into four vulnerability categories of

earthquake according to the classification of RVS (FEMA) mentioned in Table 3.3.
Each category is given a score between 0.25 to 1, where 0.25 means the low
vulnerability and 1 indicates high vulnerability.

Table 3.10: Classification of building according to RVS (FEMA) score

RVS score Vulnerability category New Scale
3.01 - 4.4 Low Vulnerability 0.25
2.01 - 3 Moderately Low Vulnerability 0.5
0.71 - 2.0 Moderate Vulnerability 0.75
0.3 - 0.7 High Vulnerability 1

42
Step 2. Sample buildings were classified into four vulnerability categories of fire
score (vide Table 3.11). Each category is given a score between 0.25 to 1, where 0.25
means the low vulnerability and 1 indicates high vulnerability.

Table 3.11: Classification of building according to fire score

Fire score Vulnerability category New Scale
0.393 - 0.7 Low Vulnerability 0.25
0.71 – 1.00 Moderately Low Vulnerability 0.5
1.01 – 1.30 Moderate Vulnerability 0.75
1.31 – 1.72 High Vulnerability 1

Step 3. Physical vulnerability score (PVS) of each building was calculated using the
following equation based on expert opinion:

PVS = 0.6*Earthquake score + 0.4* Fire score

Step 4. Sample buildings were classified into four vulnerability categories of

according to social vulnerability score (SVS) score (vide Table 3.12). Each category
is given a score between 0.25 to 1, where 0.25 means the low vulnerability and 1
indicates high vulnerability.

3.12: Classification of building according to social vulnerability score (SVS)

Social vulnerability score Vulnerability category New Scale
0.0000 – 0.0650 Low Vulnerability 0.25
0.0651 – 0.1000 Moderately Low Vulnerability 0.5
0.1001 – 0.1500 Moderate Vulnerability 0.75
0.1501 – 0.2638 High Vulnerability 1

Step 5. 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 following relationship:

43
 CVS = PVS (1+ SVS)

Case Study

Holding No: 48 Islambag

Structure Use: Mixed Use (Residential and Industry)

Construction Material Type: Pucca

Number of Storey: 6

RVS (FEMA) Score: 3.4 (Category 0.25: low Hazard)

Fire Score: 1.623 (Category 1: High Hazard)

Physical Vulnerability Score = Earthquake*0.6 + Fire*0.4

= 0.25*0.6 + 1*0.4

= 0.55

Socio-economic Vulnerability Score = Population density*0.3 + Female to male ratio*0.05 +

Age below 5*0.17 + Age 65 and over*0.11 + Disability*0.34 + Illiteracy*0.03

= 0.0069*0.3 + 0.33*0.05 + 0.067*0.17 + 0.167*0.11 + 0*0.34 + 0.3*0.03

= 0.0409 (Category 0.25: Low Hazard)

Composite Vulnerability Score = PVS (1+SVS) = 0.55*(1 + 0.25) = 0.6875

3.5 Development of Risk Reduction Strategies at Community Level

3.5.1 Formation of Focus Group

A common risk reduction strategy for earthquake and fire has been developed from
various literature reviews. Then a focus group has been formed in the study area to
know their views about the risk reduction measure. The focus group consisted of
community based organization (CBO), ward commissioner, NGOs, cooperative
societies, and governing bodies of mosque, madrasa and schools etc.

3.5.2 Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

Members of focus group have been asked about the major issues in their area that
should be major concern. They were also asked about various initiatives that may

44
reduce risk of earthquake and fire in their locality. The main objective of focus group
discussion is to find out which strategies they want to adapt.

3.5.3 Formulation of Risk Reduction Strategies

A workshop has been arranged at ward panchayet‟s office to develop the final risk
reduction strategies for Ward 29. Members of focus group with some influential
people of the locality were presented in the meeting. The existing scenario of the
study area has been presented in form of map showing composite vulnerability of
earthquake and fire. The reasons of vulnerability identified by the researcher also
have been discussed with them. Then the final risk reduction strategies have been
developed by incorporating their views. Some Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
techniques which have been applied to know the view of local people are described
below:

Pair-wise Ranking

Pair-wise ranking has been used to identify the problems of the community by the
local people. They have been asked to identify the problems of their own community
and prioritize these. The method also has been used to rank the risk reduction
measures by the community.

Venn Diagram

Venn diagram of the study area has been developed to identify the linkage between
different organizations/ institutions/ groups/ individuals existing in the community. It
shows the different organizations/ institutions/ groups/ individuals, their status, their
mutual relationships and role in the community.

SWOT Analysis

A SWOT Matrix has been developed by the researcher to evaluate the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the study area. Strengths and weaknesses are
the internal factors of the area where opportunities and threats are the external factors.

45
3.6 Preparation of Final Report

All information and finding are gathered and presented by tables, graphs and maps to
prepare the final report of the research. The following flowchart (Figure 3.1) shows
the methodological procedure to carry out the research.

Study Design

Study Area Selection

Sampling

Data Collection

Physical Vulnerability Analysis Social Vulnerability Analysis

Earthquake Vulnerability Analysis
Building Type
Number of Storey
Vertical Irregularity
Plan Irregularity
Population Density
Female to Male Ratio
Child below 5 years
Fire Hazard Vulnerability Analysis Elderly 65 Plus
Construction Material Type Disability
Number of Storey Illiteracy
Floor Area
Fire Source in Building
Fire Source outside Building
Accessibility

Composite Vulnerability Analysis

Risk Reduction Strategies

Preparation of Final Report

Figure 3.1: Flow chart of methodology

46
CHAPTER 4 STUDY AREA PROFILE

4.1 Introduction

Dhaka City Corporation has been divided into two parts naming Dhaka North City
Corporation (DNCC) and Dhaka South City Corporation (DSCC) in 2011. Ward 29 of
DSCC which was known as Ward 65 of former DCC is selected for the vulnerability
assessment of earthquake and fire in this research. The ward is the third most densely
populated ward (BBS, 2011) in Dhaka City with 127,425 people per square kilometer.
This chapter reveals the characteristics of the study area such as the physical
characteristics, topography, socio-economic characteristics, road network and such
other related issues.

Table 4.1: Study Area at a Glance

Area 0.478 square kilometer (RAJUK, 2006)
Population 58, 233 populations (BBS, 2011)
Population Density 127,425 persons/sq km (BBS, 2011)
Dhaka Metropolitan Thana Chawkbazar
Educational Institution
Government Primary School 1
High School 1
Madrasha 1
College 1
Religious Institution 13 mosques
Police Station 1
Healthcare Center
Hospital 2
Clinic 2
Play Ground 2
Eidgah 1
Community Center 1 (Jamal Sordar Community Center)
Club 1
Source: RAJUK (2006); Field Survey (2013)

4.2 Physical Characteristics of the Study Area

The location, topographic characteristics, existing land use pattern, building pattern
are discussed under the physical characteristics of the study area.

47
4.2.1 Location

Ward No. 29 is located on the northern bank of river Buriganga at Old Dhaka. The
ward is under the jurisdiction of Chawkbazar Thana of Dhaka South City Corporation
(DSCC). Ward 61 is situated at north-west, Ward 64 is situated at north-east, Ward 60
is situated at west, and Ward 66 is situated at east of the study area. Lalbag Fort is
situated just at north boundary of the Ward (vide Map 4.1). The nearest bench mark
points of the area are located at north east corner of the boundary wall of Lalbag Fort
and beside a drain and High Voltage Electric Tower at Islambag (vide Map 4.2).

Map 4.1: Location of the study area Ward 29

Source: RAJUK (2006) and DCC (2011)

4.2.2 Topographic Characteristics

The elevation of the study area lies between 2.55 to 10.1 meters above the mean sea
level. Most of the areas lie at the elevation of 5.58 to 7.08 meters above the mean sea
level. The elevation data of the study area is collected from Rajdhani Unnayan

48
Kartripakkha (RAJUK). The study area is located just beside Buriganga River. Beside
this, there is only a water body at the west. Map 4.2 shows digital elevation model of
Ward 29.

Map 4.2: Digital elevation model of Ward 29

Prepared by Author, Source: RAJUK (2006)

4.2.3 Age of Building

As the study area is one of the oldest parts of Dhaka city, there are some buildings
aged above 50 years. In contrast, newly constructed buildings which were constructed
up to 10 years before dominate with about 49% share of all surveyed buildings. It has
revealed that most of the old structures have been demolished and reconstructed
recently as the population is growing very fast. 29% buildings are constructed 11 to
20 years before and 15% buildings are constructed 21 to 30 years before. Figure 4.1
shows distribution of age of buildings in the study area.

49
 Age of building
1%
5% 1% Lowest - 10
11-20
15% 49%
21-30
29% 31-40
41-50
51-60

Figure 4.1: Distribution of age of building Figure 4.2: Old buildings

Source: Field Survey, 2013 Source: Field Survey, 2013

4.2.4 Type of Building

According to field survey (2013), the study area mainly comprises of pucca structures
which is about 73.1% of all surveyed buildings. But according to RAJUK (2006),
most of the structures (52%) are semipucca which are masonry buildings.

Type of structure

4%

23%
Pucca
Semipucca
73%
Katcha

Figure 4.3: Type of structures of Ward 29

Source: Field Survey, 2013

It reveals that the patterns of structures have been changed in the last few years. A
number of pucca buildings have been constructed demolishing old semipucca and
katcha structures after 2006. Again according to RAJUK (2006), about 14% are
katcha but the field survey (2013) shows only 3.4% are found to be katcha structures

50
which are mainly made of tin. Most of the buildings are constructed unplanned way
following no building construction rules. Some buildings also share common wall
thus it is very difficult to find open spaces in between buildings. Most of the
semipucca buildings are located in one zone which is mainly slum area. Pucca
buildings are located beside main road. The Figure 4.3 and Map 4.3 show the
distribution of different types of building in the study area.

Map 4.3: Type of structures of Ward 29

Prepared by Author, Source: Field Survey, 2013

4.2.5 Use of Building

From the field survey (2013), it has been found that different kind of land uses are
exists in the study area as residential, commercial, manufacturing and processing,
educational, community services, service activity, recreational uses and mixed uses. A
common scenario in the study area is that the ground floors of most of the buildings
are used for non residential purpose where the upper floors are purely residential.
From the field survey, about 50.9% buildings are found to be used as mixed use
activity such as shops and industry at ground floor and residence at upper floor. But

51
according to RAJUK (2006), about 59.63% buildings are residential where mixed use
is 16%. So it has been seen that economic activity of the study area has been
increased very rapidly in the recent few years.

Use of Building
Commercial Activity

2.3% Community Service

4.3%
8.3% 2%
Education & Research
25.4%
6.6%
Manufacturing and
0.3% Processing Activity
Mixed Use
50.9%
Recreational Facilities

Residential

Service Activity

Figure 4.4: Distribution of use of building in the study area

Source: Field Survey, 2013

From the field survey (vide Figure 4.4), 25.4% buildings are of pure residential use.
Commercial and industrial uses are 8.3% and 6.6% respectively. Community services
which are mostly mosque, community center and club are 4.3%; and education and
research are 2% respectively. Service activity (2.3%) includes water pump house,
hospital or clinic, financial institution like bank and police station etc. Only one
recreational used is found in the study area which is a mini stadium.

Figure 4.5: Different uses of building

Source: Field Survey, 2013

52
 Map 4.4: Use of structures of Ward 29
Prepared by Author, Source: Field Survey, 2013

4.2.6 Height of Building

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. 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. The Table 4.2 shows the frequency and percentage of
buildings with different number of floor.

Comparing the data of RAJUK (2006) with the data of field survey (2013), it has been
found that proportion of one storey buildings has been decreased from 71.74% to
22.3% where the 4-storey, 5-storey and 6-storey buildings have been increased in a
significant number. As the vacant land is very limited and population as well as
economic activity has been increasing, the study area has been expanding vertically.

53
Table 4.2: Distribution of different number of storey
Number of Storey Frequency Percent
1 78 22.3
2 73 20.9
3 44 12.6
4 44 12.6
5 51 14.6
6 48 13.7
7 8 2.3
8 2 0.6
9 2 0.6
Total 350 100.0 Figure 4.6: High-rise building
Source: Field Survey, 2013

Map 4.5: Height of structures of Ward 29

Prepared by Author, Source: Field Survey, 2013

4.2.7 Floor Area of Building

Owners of the buildings of the study area do not follow the building construction
regulation of RAJUK. So Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of buildings is almost equal to the
number of floor for this ward. Building floor area covers the total land area of the
plot. Floor area varies from 169 square feet to 11100 square feet. Most of the

54
buildings (28.3%) have 501-1000 square feet floor area. Buildings with 120-500
square feet which are mostly commercial shops and shanty are 19.2% (vide Figure
4.7).

Floor Area of building

38.0
40.0 26.0
Percentage

30.0 16.0
20.0 10.6 6.9 2.6
10.0
0.0

Floor area in square feet

Figure 4.7: Distribution of floor area of different sizes

Source: Field Survey, 2013

4.3 Socio-economic Characteristics

According to population census 2011 (BBS, 2011), total population of the study ward
is 58,233 where total number of household is 13123. The most congested localities
are Paschim Islambagh and Purba Islambagh with 22059 and 19212 population
respectively. The Table 4.3 shows the number of population and household according
to each locality in the study area (BBS, 2011).

Table 4.3: Number of population and household

Administrative Unit Total Total Population
Residence Households
Community Total In Households Floating
Haji Rahim Box Lane 468 2197 2197 0
Haji Ballu Road 723 3273 3273 0
Paschim Islambagh 4983 22059 22059 0
Purba Islambagh 4475 19218 19212 6
Rahmatganj Lane 1311 5649 5649 0
Sayestakhan Road 117 618 618 0
Water Works Road 1046 5219 5219 0
Total 13123 58233 58227 6
Source: BBS, 2011

55
According to BBS (2011), total male and female population is 35,427and 22,806
respectively; child below 5 years old is 4600 which is 7.9% of total population in the
study area. Elderly people with 65 years and above are 2% (1164) and people with
disability are only 0.5% (291). In this area, most of the peoples are illiterate (32.89%)
who are mainly workers of the plastic manufacturing and processing industries (vide
Table 4.4).
Table 4.4: Population distribution according to gender, age, disability and illiteracy
Locality Total Male Female Child <5 Old =>65 Disable Illiterate
years (%) years (%)
Haji Rahim Box 2197 1145 1052 529
Lane 4426 1398
Haji Ballu Road 3273 1973 1300 4251 990 937
Paschim 22059 12936 9123 7853
Islambagh 5183 1165
Purba 19218 12142 7076 6479
Islambagh 4426 1106
Rahmatganj 5649 3560 2089 1981
Lane 4076 1281
Sayestakhan 618 367 251 156
Road 3028 1339
Water Works 5219 3304 1915 1218
Road 3843 1398
Total 4600 1164 291 19153
58233 35427 22806
(7.9%) (2%) (0.5%) (32.89%)
Source: BBS, 2011

4.4 Critical Facilities, Utility Facilities and Road Network

4.4.1 Critical Facilities

From RAJUK (2006) and field survey (2013), it has been found that the study area
consists of 2 schools, 1 college, 1 madrasha, 2 hospital, 13 mosque, one community
center, one police station and a office of Rapid Action Battalion. Table 4.5 shows the
list of critical facilities.

Table 4.5: List of Critical Facilities

Use of Structure Number
Hospital/Clinic 2
Police Station 1
RAB Office 1
Mosque 13
Madrasa 2
School 2
College 1
Source: Field Survey, 2013

56
Fire service facility is not available in the study area. The nearest two fire stations are
situated at Lalbag and Polashi which are 210 meter and 630 meter away from the
study area. There is a police station and a Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) Office in the
study area for protective services. There is one recreational facility which is a mini
stadium. Map 4.6 shows the critical facilities and utility facilities in the study area.

Map 4.6: Critical and utility facilities of Ward 29

Prepared by Author, Source: RAJUK (2006)

4.4.2 Utility Services

The study area consists of 338 electric poles, 82 electric transformers, 8 light poles,
65 telephone poles and one water pump house (vide Table 4.6).

Table 4.6: Utility facilities

Utility Facilities Number
Electric pole 338
Electric transformer 82
Light pole 8
Telephone pole 65
Water pump house 1
Total 494
Source: RAJUK (2006)
Most of the buildings are deprived of electricity, gas, water and sewerage connection

57
from the city authority. Inhabitants of the area have arranges these facilities of their
own way. There are tube wells and community stand pipes that serve the low income
tenants and other residents who do not have water line connection to their houses.
City authority cannot do anything due to the high building concentration and very
irregular pattern of roads. Due to lack of vacant space in between building and road
space, the coverage of underground utility network cannot be extended to all the
buildings and it is very difficult to design and lay down utility lines properly. The
Map 4.7 shows the distribution of utility lines in the study area.

Map 4.7: Utility lines of Ward 29

Prepared by Author, Source: RAJUK (2006)

4.4.3 Transportation Network

The major roads through the area are Haji Rahim Box Lane, Haji Ballu Road,
Paschim Islambagh Road, Purba Islambagh Road, Rahmatganj Lane, Sayestakhan
Road and Water Works Road. The streets and lanes are winding, narrow and connect
each other in such a way that give the road network of the area an unrefined and
complicated form. It has been found that there are a number of dark lanes and streets

58
with varying width at different places throughout their length. As such, although a
considerable amount of ground space was used for the road network, still the whole
road system was developed without proper plan and design. From the GIS shapefile, it
has found that most of the roads are 2-9 feet wide among which most of them are
pucca. Figure 4.8 shows the distribution of road width according to type and Map 4.8
shows road network of Ward 29.

75

80
70
60
50 24
40
30 3
3 2
20 1
10 1 0 Pucca Road
2 0
0 0 Semipucca Road
0
Katcha Road
2-9 feet 10-19
20-29
feet 30-33
feet
feet

Figure 4.8: Distribution of road width according to type

Source: Field Survey, 2013

59
 Map 4.8: Road network map of Ward 29.
Prepared by Author, Source: RAJUK (2006)

4.5 Summary

This chapter depicts the over scenario of existing condition of the study area. Before
analyzing the data from field survey, it is very important to have a general idea of the
study area so that findings of the research can be linked with present condition. The
main purpose of this chapter is to provide the physical and socio-economic condition
of the study area before going through detail analysis of the findings from surveys and
concluding recommendations.

60
CHAPTER 5 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

5.1 Introduction

Vulnerability assessment of buildings to earthquake and fire hazard is the first

objective of this research. To carry out the assessment, total 350 building which cover
11.5% of existing buildings in the study area were surveyed including mosques,
schools, college, community centers and clubs etc. Both physical and social surveys
have been carried out of these 350 buildings. Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) method
has been used to assess the earthquake vulnerability of the existing buildings in the
study area. Fire hazard vulnerability assessment has been conducted by a
methodology developed by ADPC (2004). Social vulnerability has been assessed by
the methodology developed by World Bank (2014). Maps of all these three have been
produced and finally combined to create the composite vulnerability map of Ward 29
in Dhaka City.

5.2 Earthquake Vulnerability Analysis

Vulnerability of the buildings to earthquake is assessed using the Rapid Visual

Screening (RVS) method developed by Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) of United State of America which is known as RVS (FEMA) method.
Another widely used method RVS (Turkish) is not used in this research as it is
applicable only for reinforced concrete building (RCC) up to 7-storey. So about
38.1% structures which are katcha, URM and above 7-storey cannot be analyzed
using Turkish method. 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. Then analyzing these factors, score of each
building has been calculated. The factors of earthquake vulnerability are described as
follow:

61
5.2.1 Building Type

Among 350 surveyed buildings 256 buildings are pucca (73.1%), 82 are semipucca
(23.4%) and 12 are katcha (3.4%). The Figure 5.1 shows distribution of type of
buildings in the study area.

70
60
50
40 60.57 Pucca
30 12.29 Semipucca
20 3.43 Katcha
10 0.29 19.71
3.71
0
Katcha C2 (Shear C3 (URM URM
wall) inf)

Figure 5.1: Type of buildings in the study area

Source: Field survey, 2013

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. The Figure 5.2,
5.3 and 5.4 show URM, C3 type and C2 type buildings in the study area respectively.

Figure 5.2: URM building Figure 5.3: C3 building Figure 5.4: C2 building
Source: Field survey, 2013 Source: Field survey, 2013 Source: Field survey, 2013

62
5.2.2 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 storey 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. The Figure 5.5 shows the frequency
and percentage of buildings with different number of floor.

25 22.3
20.9
20
Percentage

14.6 13.7
15 12.6 12.6

10

5 2.3
0.6 0.6
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Number of Storey

Figure 5.5: Number of storey of buildings in the study area

Source: Field survey, 2013

5.2.3 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 (vide Figure 2.2)
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 (vide Figure 2.1). The Figure 5.6 shows the
percentage of buildings having and not having vertical irregularity and plan
irregularity. The Figure 5.7 and 5.8 show the examples of buildings having vertical
irregularity and plan irregularity respectively.

63
 100 83.7

80 60.0

Percentage 60 40.0 No
40 16.3 Yes

20
0
Vertical irregularity Plan irregularity

Figure 5.6: Vertical irregularity and plan irregularity of buildings

Source: Field survey, 2013

Figure 5.7: Vertical irregularity Figure 5.8: Plan irregularity

Source: Field survey, 2013 Source: Field survey, 2013

5.2.4 Rapid Visual Screening (FEMA)

Among 350 surveyed buildings, 12 katcha structures (3.4%) are out of scoring
because of their material type. Among pucca and semipucca, 12 buildings (3.4%)
scored less than 0.7 according to RVS (FEMA). About 50.9% buildings scored 3.01
to 3.4 values which mean most of the buildings are structurally safe according to RVS
(FEMA). The Map 5.1 shows earthquake vulnerability scenario in the study area.

64
 Map 5.1: Earthquake Vulnerability Map of Ward 29
Prepared by Author, Source: Field Survey, 2013

The earthquake vulnerability map is prepared on the basis of scores from RVS
(FEMA) using the category described in table 3.3 in chapter 3. The earthquake
vulnerability map shows the building according to the different earthquake
vulnerability category where buildings with 0.31 – 0.7 RVS (FEMA) scores are
highly vulnerable, 0.71 – 2 RVS (FEMA) scores are moderately vulnerable, 2.01 – 3
RVS (FEMA) scores are moderately low vulnerable and 3.01 – 4.4 RVS (FEMA)
scores are low vulnerable. Vulnerability categories are assigned new scale from 0.25
to 1 where 0.25 represents low vulnerability and 1 represents high vulnerability. The
Table 5.1 shows classification of building according to RVS (FEMA) score.

Table 5.1: Distribution of building according to RVS (FEMA) score

RVS Score Frequency Percent Vulnerability category New Scale
0 12 3.4 -
3.01-4.4 178 50.9 Low Vulnerability 0.25
2.01-3.0 103 29.4 Moderately Low Vulnerability 0.5
0.71-2.0 45 12.9 Moderate Vulnerability 0.75

65
 0.3-0.7 12 3.4 High Vulnerability 1
Total 350 100
Source: Field survey, 2013

The study area mostly consists of safer buildings according to RVS (FEMA) scores
(50.9%). Among them, 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 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. The Table 5.2
shows distribution of building according to RVS (FEMA) score and type in the study
area.
Table 5.2: 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 (vide Figure 5.9). In this category, only
residential, commercial and mixed use activity have been seen with 0.9%, 0.3% and
2.3% share (vide Figure 5.10). 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.

66
 100% 3.01-4.4
80%
2.01-3
60%
0.71-2
40%
20% 0.31-0.7

0% 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Figure 5.9: RVS (FEMA) according to number of storey

Source: Field survey, 2013

100%
90%
80%
70% 3.01-4.4
60%
50% 2.01-3
40%
30% 0.71-2
20% 0.31-0.7
10%
0% 0

Figure 5.10: RVS (FEMA) according to use of structures

Source: Field survey, 2013

5.3 Fire Hazard Vulnerability Analysis

Fire hazard vulnerability analysis has been carried out in few stages. The first is to
define the factors of fire hazard vulnerability. To do so, many literatures have been
reviewed and local fire experts have been interviewed to examine the factors
attributing to fire hazard in the context of Dhaka City. Then the survey of 350 samples
has been carried out to collect information about these attributes. Finally, a map has
been produced showing different categories of fire hazard zone in the study area. Fire
hazard vulnerability in context of Dhaka City depends on six factors including

67
construction material type of building, number of storey, floor area, fire source in
building, fire source around building and accessibility of road. Each factor is assigned
a weight from 0 to 1 which has been derived through expert opinion survey and is
categorized according to the Table 3.8. The fire score of a building is the weighted
sum of these six factors. Higher the value of fire score, higher the vulnerability of fire
hazard.

5.3.1 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 (vide
Figure 5.1).

5.3.2 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 (Figure 5.5). 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.

5.3.3 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 (vide
Table 3.8).

5.3.4 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

68
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 and the last
one is residential. In case of scoring of fire, first four types of sources are given more
preference than gas stove. These classes are given below:
1. Chemical
2. Plastic
3. Leather
4. Generator
5. 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 (vide Figure 5.11). 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.

4% Chemical
20%
21% Plastic
Leather
2% Generator
1%
Gas Stove
No
52%

Figure 5.11: Fire source in building Figure 5.12: Plastic storage in building
Source: Field survey, 2013 Source: Field survey, 2013

5.3.5 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

69
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 (vide Figure 5.13). Building with no transformer
or electric pole is given 0, where building having transformer or electric pole at its
close proximity is given 1.

27%
Electric Pole

Transformer
2%
71% No

Figure 5.13: Fire source in front of building Figure 5.14: Electric transformer
Source: Field survey, 2013 Source: Field survey, 2013

5.3.6 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 fire fighting equipments 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 fire fighting expert.

Figure 5.15: Narrow road inaccessible for fire truck

Source: Field survey, 2013

70
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 (Figure 5.16). According to opinion of expert, building with road accessibility
scores 0 where building with no road accessibility scores 1.

46%
54% Bellow 10 ft
10ft and above

Figure 5.16: Distribution of road accessibility

Source: Field survey, 2013

From the field survey it was found that widths of the staircase of building in the study
area vary from 1 foot to 8 feet. Most of the buildings (17.43%) have 3 feet wide
staircase, 14.57% have 4 feet staircase and 9.43% have 6 feet staircase. About 41.14%
building have no staircase among them 22.3% are one story. The rest mainly uses
wooden ladder to go upper floors (vide Figure 5.17)
Percentage of building

60
41.14
40
17.43 14.57
20
6.57 6.86 9.43
0.29 0.57 3.14
0

Straircase width in feet

Figure 5.17: Distribution of width of staircase

Source: Field survey, 2013

5.3.3 Fire Vulnerability Score

Percentages of buildings having different categories of fire score are shown in Table
5.3. The vulnerability score of buildings of the study area range from 0.393 to 1.72.

71
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 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%.

Table 5.3: Distribution of building according to fire score

Fire Score Frequency Percent Vulnerability category New Scale
0.393-0.7 52 14.9 Low Vulnerability 0.25
0.71-1.00 93 26.6 Moderately Low Vulnerability 0.5
1.01-1.30 153 43.7 Moderate Vulnerability 0.75
1.31-1.72 52 14.9 High Vulnerability 1
Total 350 100
Source: Field survey, 2013

The Fire Hazard Vulnerability Map 5.2 is prepared by assigning new scale from 0.25
to 1 where 0.25 represents low vulnerability, 0.5 represents moderately low
vulnerability, 0.75 represents moderate vulnerability and 1 represents high
vulnerability.

Map 5.2: Fire Hazard Vulnerability Map of Ward 29

Prepared by Author, Source: Field Survey, 2013

72
5.4 Physical Vulnerability Score

Physical vulnerability score (PVS) is calculated by combining earthquake and fire

score using the equation mentioned in Section 3.4.4. Physical vulnerability score
varies from 0.125 to 1. The Map 5.3 shows the physical vulnerability scenario of the
study area. From Table 5.4, half of the total buildings in the study area fall in
moderately low vulnerability category of both earthquake and fire with 50.86% share.
Moderate vulnerable buildings are 36.57% and high vulnerable buildings are 4.29%.
Buildings with low vulnerability are 8.29% of sample building.

Map 5.3: Physical Vulnerability Map of Ward 29

Prepared by Author, Source: Field Survey, 2013

Table 5.4: Distribution of building according physical vulnerability score (PVS)

Physical score Vulnerability category Frequency Percentage
0.10-0.25 Low Vulnerability 29 8.29
0.26-0.5 Moderately Low Vulnerability 178 50.86
0.51-0.75 Moderate Vulnerability 128 36.57
0.76-1 High Vulnerability 15 4.29
Total 350 100
Source: Field survey, 2013

73
5.5 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.

5.5.1 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.

26.6
30 23.7
Percentage of building

16.3 16.9
20 12.3
10 3.7
.3 .3
0

Number of population

Figure 5.18: Total number of population living in a building

Source: Field survey, 2013

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

74
have 11 to 20 people. Buildings having more than 50 people per 1000 square feet are
6% of total sample buildings.

50 44.3
Percentage of building 37.7
40
30
20 12.0
10 2.6 2.0 1.4
0
Up to 10 11-30 31-50 51-70 71-90 Above 90
persons
Persons per 1000 sqft

Figure 5.19: Person per 1000 square feet of a building

Source: Field survey, 2013

5.5.2 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.

60 45.71
Percentage of building

34.86
40
13.71
20
2.00 2.86 0.86
0

Female to male Ratio

Figure 5.20: Buildings with different female to male ratio

Source: Field survey, 2013

75
5.5.3 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.
Percentage of building

60
39.1 42.6
40

20 11.4
4.9 2.0
0
0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-23

Number of child below 5 years

Figure 5.21: Buildings with different number of child

Source: Field survey, 2013

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.

48.3 46.9
50
Percentage of building

40
30
20
10 3.7 1.1
0
0 1-5 6-10 11-15
Number of elderly 65 plus

Figure 5.22: Building with elderly

Source: Field survey, 2013

76
5.5.4 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.
Percentage of building

100 81.4
80
60
40
16.0
20 2.3 .3
0
0 1 2 3
Number of disable

Figure 5.23: Buildings with disabled people

Source: Field survey, 2013

5.5.5 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%).
Percentage of building

60 51.4

40 31.7

20 12.3
3.7 0.3 0.6
0
0 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50

Number of illiterate
Figure 5.24: Buildings with illiterate people
Source: Field survey, 2013

77
5.5.6 Social Vulnerability Score

Social vulnerability score of each building is the weighted sum of the above
mentioned factors mentioned in chapter 3. The scores vary from 0 to 0.2638 which are
assigned new scale from 0.25 to 1 where 0.25 represents low vulnerability, 0.5
represents moderately low vulnerability, 0.75 represents moderate vulnerability and 1
represents high vulnerability. 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 (vide
Table 5.5). The scores are represented on Map 5.4 to show overall scenario of the
study area.

Table 5.5: Distribution of building according to social vulnerability score (SVS)

SVS Frequency Percent Vulnerability category New Scale
Up to 0.065 173 49.4 Low Vulnerability 0.25
0.651- 0.1 124 35.4 Moderately Low Vulnerability 0.5
0.1001-0.15 40 11.4 Moderate Vulnerability 0.75
0.1501-0.2638 13 3.7 High Vulnerability 1
Total 350 100.0
Source: Field survey, 2013

Map 5.4: Social Vulnerability Map of Ward 29

Prepared by Author, Source: Field Survey, 2013

78
5.6 Composite Vulnerability Analysis

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, it is necessary to convert them into a common scale
for calculation of composite score. The process of development of composite score is
mentioned in chapter 3. The composite vulnerability score (CVS) of a building is the
combination of physical vulnerability score (PVS) and social vulnerability score
(SVS). From the analysis (vide Table 5.6), 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. The Map 5.5 shows the composite
vulnerability score and category of buildings of the study area.

Table 5.6: Distribution of building according to composite vulnerability score (CVS)

CVS Vulnerability category Frequency Percentage
0.125-0.25 Low Vulnerability 5 1.4
0.26-0.5 Moderately Low Vulnerability 65 18.6
0.51-0.75 Moderate Vulnerability 147 42
0.76-1.00 High Vulnerability 92 26.3
1.01-1.575 Very High Vulnerability 41 11.7
Total 350 100
Source: Field survey, 2013

79
Map 5.5: Composite Vulnerability Map of Ward 29
Prepared by Author, Source: Field Survey, 2013

80
5.7 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. So now
the matter of concern is the high and very high categories. 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 (vide Figure 5.25, 5.26 and Table 5.7).

Service Activity

80%
Residential
19.5%
60%
Mixed Use
40%
48.9% Manufacturing and
6.0%
Processing Activity
20%
14.3% Community Service
0%
Commercial Activity
Pucca Semipucca

Construction type according to structure use

Figure 5.25: Type of high and very high vulnerable buildings according to structure use
Source: Field survey, 2013

81
 Service Activity
25%
4.5%
20% Residential

15% 3.0% 5.3%

5.3% 2.3% Mixed Use
4.5%
10% 7.5% 16.5%
8.3%
5% 9.0% 8.3% 10.5% 1.5% Manufacturing and
0.8% 0.8%
1.5% Processing Activity
0%
Commercial Activity
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Figure 5.26: Number of storey of vulnerable buildings according to structure use

Source: Field survey, 2013

Table 5.7: High and very high vulnerable buildings according to type, use and number of storey
Pucca Semipucca
Storey Manufacturing Manufacturing
Commercial Community Mixed Service Mixed Total
and Processing Residential and Processing Residential
Activity Service Use Activity Use
Activity Activity

1 0 0 2 1 1 0 5 9 3 21
2 1 1 1 15 0 0 0 7 5 30
3 0 0 0 11 7 0 0 1 0 19
4 2 0 1 9 3 0 0 2 0 17
5 0 0 1 11 6 1 0 0 0 19
6 0 0 0 14 7 0 0 0 0 21
7 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 4
8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
3 1 5 65 26 1 5 19 8 133
Source: Field survey, 2013

5.8 Summary

The purpose of this chapter is to fulfill the first objective of the research. 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.

82
CHAPTER 6 RISK REDUCTION STRATEGIES

6.1 Introduction

Development of risk reduction strategies of existing vulnerability to earthquake and

fire hazard of Ward 29 is one of the significant parts of this study. The risk reduction
strategies have been developed according to the view of local people. It may help to
enhance the community’s capacity building toward earthquake and fire hazard
resilience in future. A focus group discussion (FGD) in the study area has been
arranged to know the existing practice of risk reduction, institutional linkage between
existing organizations, existing problems that lead to vulnerability in the study area.
Various Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques have been applied to collect
and analyze these information. A checklist of common risk reduction initiatives which
have been practiced in many countries (vide Appendix E) has been developed by the
researcher from various literature reviews. The local people have been asked which of
these strategies they can adapt to reduce risk in the locality. Almost all of them have
been found to be unrealistic to adapt by the local people except some measures that
may increase their resilience. By incorporating their valuable contribution the final
risk reduction strategies for the study area has been developed arranging a workshop
at Panchayet of Ward 29. This chapter summarizes the outcome of focus group
discussion and the workshop through some Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
techniques.

6.2 Present Practice of Disaster Risk Reduction

The local people have some knowledge regarding earthquake. But as they have not
experienced earthquake yet, they do not practice precautionary measure regarding
earthquake. In contrast, they have been experiencing fire hazard frequently, so they
have been practicing some measures to reduce fire hazard risk as follow:

Roof Top Linkage

As the study area lacks sufficient road network, some inhabitants have developed roof
top linkage between buildings so that in case of any earthquake or fire they can escape

83
from buildings using these paths. But this method is very limited within some high
rise buildings which roofs are attached with each other.

School Awareness Program

In the study area, some NGOs like BRAC, Proshika and Oporajeo-Bangladesh etc. are
currently conducting some awareness raising programs at some selected schools. But
they do not maintain any contact with the local authorities like Ward Commissioner’s
Office and Panchayet. As a result these programs do not work effectively in the
locality.

Instrumental and Training Support of Fire Equipment

Sikder Fire Equipment Company supplies necessary equipments of fire fighting to the
local industries and provides training to the worker of industries to operate those
equipments. They also conduct routine check on these equipments for repair and
maintenances. But their support is limited within some selective industries.

Figure 6.1: Fire extinguisher in industry

Source: Field Survey, 2013

6.3 Views of Local People Regarding Risk Reduction Strategies

Before developing a risk reduction strategy for a community, it is crucial to know

their views about the strategy. Many of the ideal measures may not be applicable for
the study area. So their opinion have been collected through different Participatory
Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques regarding their exiting institutional linkage,
capacity and drawback regarding vulnerable situation, and major causes of

84
vulnerability etc. Finally, they have been asked about risk reduction measures that
they want to adapt.

6.3.1 Institutional Linkage

There are a number of institutions active inside and outside of the study area which
have strong influence directly and indirectly on the community. To find out the
relationships, interactions and linkages between these institutions, a PRA tool Venn
diagram (vide Figure 6.6) has been produced with the help of local people through
focus group discussion.

Internal Institutions

There are various institutions inside locality that concern about any issue in the study
area. There is an effective Panchayer system namely Posta Panchayet Committee
consists of some powerful businessmen in the locality with some women members.
This committee plays the most significant role in the study area. The members meet
after the Asar prayer in almost every day in a club named the Muslim Institute
situated beside the Police Station of Posta. The committee concerns about any
activities such as arranging funeral for poor, collection of relief for the victim of fire
hazard and resolution of dispute etc.

Figure 6.2: Meeting with Panchayet Figure 6.3: Meeting with Shoe-makers
Association

There is an association of owners of shoe industries named Shoe-makers Association

plays an important role in any decision making issue in the study area. They have
arranged some fire protection measures in some industries in the locality. They can
play an important role in relocation of industries. There are some social organizations

85
in the study area naming Rahamatganj Muslim Welfare Society, Nobo Uddipto Social
Welfare Organization, Rahamatganj Muktangon Youth Society and Friendship Akota
Youth Society etc. But the area deprives any support from local government such as
Ward Commissioner’s Office. Due to political reason, there is no elected ward
commissioner in the study area at present. So the local people fail to submit their
demand to the local city authority regarding disaster management related issue.
Currently there are some officials in Ward Commissioner’s Office who are mainly the
employee of Dhaka South City Corporation.

Figure 6.4: Meeting with Secretary of Ward 29 Figure 6.5: Ward Office

External Institutions

The nearest fire station of Bangladesh Fire Service and Civil Defence (BFSCD) from
the study area is situated at Polashi. They come forward in case of any fire incident in
the study area. BFSCD has been training local volunteer at community level about
earthquake and fire safety and already trained up 13,053 community people at various
places in Dhaka, Chittagong and Sylhet. But the study area Ward 29 has not got
training of local volunteer so far. Dhaka South City Corporation (DSCC) does not
provide adequate support to the locality. They have very weak linkage with local
people as there is no elected person among the local people in DSCC at present.

Department of Disaster Management (DDM) of Bangladesh who is the main

concerning authority of disaster management has no linkage with the study area. The
following venn diagram shows linkage between various organizations in and outside
the study area.

86
Fire Service and Legend
Civil Defence Most vital role playing org

Positive role playing Org

Non effective org (Inside ward)

Panchayet
Powerful and effective org (Outside ward)

Powerful but non-effective org (Outside ward)

NGOs Shoe-makers Interaction (Both direction)
association
Interaction (One direction)

No interaction
Extent of Ward 29
Community *Higher Width of line indicates higher
Rahamatganj
Muktangon Youth interactions
Nobo Uddipto
Society
Social Welfare
Organization

Ward Commissioner

DSCC DDM

Figure 6.6: Venn diagram showing linkage between organizations

Source: Focus Group Discussion, 2014
87
6.3.2 Capacity and Drawback of the Study Area

From the focus group discussion with the local people strength, weakness,
opportunity and threat of the study area have been identified to develop an effective
risk reduction strategy by SWOT analysis (vide Figure 6.7). The main strength of the
study area is the bonding between local people. The study area has not faced any
earthquake but experienced a number of fire incidents. Most of these fires had been
extinguished by the local people before the fire service reached there. Even after some
fires, the local elites came forward to give financial support to the victims of hazard.
There are some female members of Panchayet committee who are engaged in women
and children related issues in the study area.

Weakness
Strength
High population density
Bonding between local people
Lack of resources
Effective panchayet system
Poor access to road
Woman participation
Poor access to utilities
Extensive support from local elites
Haphazard development
Lack of awareness
Absence of Ward Commissioner

SWOT
Threat
Opportunity
Political influence
River accessibility
No fire station
NGOs working in the area
No training from BFSCD

Figure 6.7: SWOT analysis of the study area

Source: Focus Group Discussion, 2014

There are some weaknesses of the study area that lead to vulnerable situation. The
study area is the third highest densely populated wards in Dhaka City with about
127,425 persons per square kilometer (BBS, 2011). So it will be very hard to manage
such a huge population in case of hazard. Beside this, the local people deprive of most
of the urban facilities like water, electricity and gas supply from the city authority.

88
Another weakness of the study area is the absence of ward commissioner. As a result
the ward has no connection with the higher level disaster management authorities.

Analyzing the external factors of the community, it has been found that river
accessibility of the study area is an opportunity for fire hazard mitigation. Some
NGOs working in the area can play a vital role in disaster risk reduction.

Beside opportunity, there are some external negative factors that may hamper risk
reduction activities in the study area. Political influence of some powerful people has
negative effect in any development activity. The study area deprives of effective
support from Bangladesh Fire Service and Civil Defence as no fire station is located
in the ward.

6.3.3 Major Causes of Vulnerability

According to the view of local people, the study area faces some problems that lead to
vulnerability to earthquake and fire hazard in the locality. These are lack of awareness
about earthquake and fire hazard, poor access to road, poor access to utilities, high
population density, political influence of powerful people and low income level of
most of the inhabitants. From the pair-wise ranking method, it has been found that
lack of awareness is the main problem of the study area, followed by high population
density (vide Table 6.1).

Table 6.1: Pair-wise ranking of existing problems

Lack of Poor Poor High Political Low Score Rank
awareness access to access to population influence income
road utilities density
Lack of Lack of Lack of Lack of Lack of Lack of 5 1
awareness awareness awareness awareness awareness awareness
Poor Poor High Political Poor 2 4
access to access to population influence access to
road road density road
Poor High Political Low 0 6
access to population influence income
utilities density
High High High 4 2
population population population
density density density
Political Political 3 3
influence influence
Low 1 5
income

Source: Focus Group Discussion, 2014

89
Lack of Awareness

A common scenario of the study area is owners of many houses live outside the ward.
They are not concern about the structural safety of their own buildings as these
buildings are rented by other people. They only perform a monthly visit to their places
to collect money. Most of the buildings in the study area used as mixed activities
where ground floors are used as industries and the upper floors are used as resident of
workers working in those industries. They are not concern about their own safety as
most of them are illiterate and poor. They have no idea that they are living under the
threat of hazard at any time.

Figure 6.8: Living place of workers

Source: Field Survey, 2013

High Population Density

The study area is one of the most densely populated wards in Dhaka City. As the land
price is high, the study area has been expanded vertically in the recent few years
leading to very high population density. To support this huge population, buildings
have been constructed in haphazard manner following no building construction rules.
The local people are aware of it but found no solution to control population growth as
the area is an industrial zone and many people have come from outside area for their
livelihood.

Poor Access to Road and Utilities

From peoples’ opinion, lack of access to road and utilities is one of the major causes
of vulnerability which has also found from the physical survey. Water (vide Figure
6.9), gas and electricity have not provided to each household from the city authority.

90
The study area is deprived of enough open spaces. One open space that was a small
park has already been encroached and used as rickshaw garage (vide Figure 6.10).
The conditions of other two are not satisfactory as these are used as storage of
construction material (vide Figure 6.11).

Figure 6.9: Poor condition of Figure 6.10: Exiting open Figure 6.11: Exiting open space
water supply space used as rickshaw garage storing construction material
Source: Field Survey, 2013 Source: Field Survey, 2013 Source: Field Survey, 2013

Political Influence of Industry Owner

The study area is an industrial zone of plastic manufacturing and processing. Political
influence of some powerful industry owners is one of the main hindrances of any kind
of development activity in the study area. Loading and unloading of goods at road
side godown and industry reduces effective width of road and hampers traffic flow.
The industry owners do not care about the environmental pollution due to burnt
plastic material. Some powerful industry owners have captured the main utility lines
of gas and water as a result a major portion of local people deprived of these facilities.

Figure 6.12: Road-side storage and industry

Source: Field Survey, 2013

91
6.4 Risk Reduction Strategies that local people want to Adapt

By analyzing the present situation of vulnerability, a risk reduction strategy has been
formulated according to the view of local people. There some ideal risk reduction
strategies those are being practiced in many countries in the world. By reviewing
those measures, a checklist (vide Appendix E) has been prepared for the study area to
reduce risk of earthquake and fire hazard containing a set of sixty risk reduction
strategies. It has been found from focus group discussion that the local people do not
practice any of those measures at present. They have been also asked which of these
measures they can adapt in future. It has been found that most of these are inadaptable
for them because of financial inability, less perception of risk and less practice of
power. They have chosen thirteen strategies suitable for them to reduce risk in their
locality if they get support which have been ranked by the Pair-wise Ranking method
(vide Table 6.2).

According to their opinion, awareness raising program may reduce risk at the highest
level. Train up volunteer at community level is another major requirement of the local
people. They have proposed that each school or madrasha should enforce mandatory
training of student at secondary and higher secondary level. Better access to road
came in third followed by better access to resources which can enhance local
resilience of the study area.

Table 6.2: Pair-wise ranking of risk reduction measures

Train up Better access Better access Awareness Score Rank

volunteer to road to resources program
Train up Train up Train up Awareness 2 2
volunteer volunteer volunteer program
Better access Better access Awareness 1 3
to road to road program
Better access Awareness 0 4
to resources program
Awareness 3 1
program

Source: Focus Group Discussion, 2014

Besides above mentioned four measures, there are some other practices of risk
reduction. All of these are not applicable for the study area because it lacks adequate
capacity to establish risk reduction strategies at each household. Only some broad

92
measures both structural and non-structural can be taken which increase the resilience
of the community as a whole. The measures may be of short term; intermediate term
and long term which are described as follow:

6.4.1 Structural Measures

Road

 As a short term measure, access roads should be widened by covering open

drainage. Road-side storage of construction material and industrial goods
should be removed in short term.
 The main road network which is about 30 feet wide should be free from road-
side tea stall (tong) and other obstacles in short term.
 As intermediate term measure, tin-made houses at side of road should be
demolished to widen road.
 As a long term measure, new road network should be constructed which is
practically impossible for the study area at present. The inhabitants have
proposed that in future if a big earthquake or fire occurs, most of the buildings
will be destroyed, then it may be possible to reconstruct the area with new
planned road network.

Structure

 The study area is more vulnerable to fire hazard than earthquake. As a short
term measure, industrial refuses should be removed regularly and combustible
material should be kept away from heat sources which are important factors of
fire hazard.
 In long term, buildings with residential uses should be segregated from
industrial use. The south-west part of the study area consists of a number of
tin-made houses which is the living place of workers of local industries. This
place may be demolished and reconstructed as new industrial zone. A major
road of Dhaka City is going just beside this area. So godown and industry can
be relocated here so that the inner side of the area cannot be affected by
loading and unloading goods.

93
6.4.2 Non-structural Measures

Evacuation Plan

 Evacuation plan at local level should be developed and spread to the local
people so that they get clear idea about the location of evacuation shelters and
the safest route to reach those shelters during disaster.
 Evacuation centers should be chosen on the basis of structural safety of
building and road accessibility. Three existing open spaces in the study area
must be kept free from encroachment.
 Road network around possible evacuation centers and open spaces should be
kept free from any kind of obstructions.

Awareness Raising and Training

 The inhabitants of the study area should have adequate knowledge on what to
do before, during and after an earthquake or a fire attack. To raise awareness
among local people, there should be training program on earthquake and fire
hazard safety in the study area and participation of at least one member from
each household should be ensured. After training, he or she will disseminate
knowledge to the other members of the family.
 There should be regular community group discussion and meeting on
earthquake and fire hazard awareness at school, social clubs and panchayet’s
office with the local people. Social clubs may organize team of volunteer
using the local youth.
 Bangladesh Fire Service and Civil Defence, and some NGOs have already
started earthquake and fire hazard awareness training programs all over the
country but have not been started yet in the study area. Some International
NGOs like Islamic Relief Worldwide, Plan International and Action Aid
Bangladesh has initiated school safety programs which have not reached yet at
the study area. These organizations should be requested to start the programs
as soon as possible in Ward 29 by showing them the present vulnerability
condition. It should be ensured that these programs are working effectively
and raising awareness among local people about vulnerability to hazard and
their life safety.

94
  Educational institutions such as school and madrasha are respected by
community and considered to be in a position to provide leadership in
promoting disaster risk management in the study area. These institutions may
help the local people in raising awareness by organizing and providing
community trainings and planning, bridging hazard phenomenon knowledge
gaps etc.
 Religious organizations play an important role in community disaster risk
reduction as these have major impact on different groups of people. In old
Dhaka, governing body of mosque is widely respected by local people. Imam
of the mosque can give valuable suggestion after Jumma khutba (speech)
about hazard mitigation.

6.5 Implementation of Risk Reduction Strategies

To reduce vulnerability to disaster of a community, an effective community based

organizational set up is essential which will implement the risk reduction strategies
for the community. In this research, an organizational set up has been proposed based
on the findings from focus group discussion and workshop. A Community Disaster
Management Committee has been proposed who will work at the lowest tier of the
national disaster management organizational set up. The new organizational set up
will work on two steps by setting up Community Disaster Management Committee
and maintaining liaison with the existing National Disaster Management Organization
of Bangladesh.

Setting up Community Disaster Management Committee (CDMC)

The Community Disaster Management Committee can play a very important role as
they maintain link with both local people regarding various issues. The panchayet of
Ward 29 is the most effective organization in the locality; they should establish a local
disaster management committee consisting of some influential people in the area such
as governing bodies of schools, madrasha and mosque, and member of shoe-makers
associations. The committee will maintain linkage with the Ward Disaster
Management Committee. Their main responsibilities will be to co-ordinate the
awareness and training programs, selection of local volunteer, fund raising for disaster

95
management, shelter management; search rescue and relief distribution etc. The main
set up of Community Disaster Management Committee is presented as follow:

Table 6.3: Members of Community Disaster Management Committee CDMC)

Members Designation
Panchayet Head
Governing bodies of Mosque Member
Governing bodies of School Member
Members of Shoe-makers Association Member

Source: Focus Group Discussion, 2014

Linkage with National Disaster Management Organization

The existing disaster management organizational set up of Bangladesh has been

stopped at City Corporation Disaster Management Committee and there is no
organization at the local level which has created a huge gap between the exiting
organizations and community people. To reduce this gap and maintain linkage, a new
organizational set up of disaster management has been proposed where the Ward
Disaster Management Committee (WDMC) will maintain the liaison between the City
Corporation Disaster Management Committee and Community Disaster Management
Committee. The main set up of Ward Disaster Management Committee is presented
as follow:

Table 6.4: Members of Ward Disaster Management Committee (WDMC)

Members Designation
Ward commissioner/In charge of ward office Head
Ward disaster management officer General secretary
City corporation disaster management officer Member
Elected political personnel of the ward Member
Station officer of nearby fire station Member
Head of CDMC Member
Representatives of active NGOs and donors working Member
in the ward (if available)

Source: Focus Group Discussion, 2014

This committee will guide and coordinate the activities of CDMC. Besides, the
committee will be the hub to connect CDMC with different authorities and service
providers. The diagram 6.13 shows the proposed organizational set up of disaster
management in the study area.

96
 Ward
Disaster
Management
Committee

Community
Disaster
Management
Committee

Local
Volunteer

Governing Governing Members of

Members of bodies of bodies of Shoe-makers
Panchayet mosque school Association

Figure 6.13: Proposed organizational set up of disaster management

97
6.6 Summary

Community based disaster risk reduction is an effective tool to ensure safety for all.
To mitigate any hazards, it is necessary to conduct a vulnerability analysis as well as
to involve community in disaster risk reduction. Often ideal measures may fail
because the community itself does not know how to adapt these. Local community
solutions and indigenous knowledge applied over the years often can help handle
disastrous situations. This chapter came up with some solutions for reducing
vulnerability to earthquake and fire hazard of Ward 29 which are the outcomes of
participatory group discussion with the community people.

98
CHAPTER 7 MAJOR FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATION
AND CONCLUSION

7.1 Major Findings

This chapter concludes the research by proposing some recommendations on the basis
of the major findings of the vulnerability assessment of earthquake and fire hazard
and participatory rural appraisal techniques to develop risk reduction strategies at
community level. Major findings of the research are described as follow:

Exiting Scenario

The surveyed buildings cover 11.45% of existing structures in the study area. The
study area comprises both old buildings and newly constructed buildings where
buildings constructed up to 10 years before dominate with about 49% share. 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 where as 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.

Vulnerability Assessment

According to RVS (FEMA) most of the buildings (50.9%) are structurally safe and
3.4% buildings are highly vulnerable to earthquake. About 16.3% buildings are
vertically irregular and 40% buildings have irregularity in their plan.

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.

99
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. 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. Pucca and mixed use buildings tend to be more
vulnerable than any other buildings.

Risk Reduction Strategies

Lack of awareness about earthquake and fire hazard is the most common problem in
the study area according to the view of local people. They have become accustomed
of living in haphazard buildings so it is not a big issue according to their opinion. One
of the main strength of the study area is the strong bonding among the inhabitants.
They believe that they can manage post disaster activities by themselves therefore
they want support from outside to train up community volunteers. According to their
opinion two different disaster management committees have been proposed which
will work at local level and maintain linkage with national level.

7.2 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. 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 and participatory rural appraisal 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. But 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.

100
  From the assessment, it has been observed that mixed use buildings tend to be
more vulnerable than any other buildings. Segregation of industrial use from
residential use is a major proposal of this research.
 From the focus group discussion, it has been found that most of the ideal
measures of risk reduction applied in many countries cannot be imposed here
because of being built-up area with high concentration of population as well as
economic activities. Mitigation planning in the area is almost impossible
without involvement of local people. So the research focuses on developing
risk reduction measures according to their views.
 The community people are not aware of their vulnerable conditions. Raise
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.

7.3 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. Different map layers have been
produced from the findings of the vulnerability assessment. Analyzing these maps,
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.

The study has been carried out to a small portion of Dhaka City. If the methodology is
applied in the whole ward as well as other wards, 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

101
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. The research not only
focuses assessment but also provides great scope to work with local people and
involve them in mitigation of their vulnerability by themselves. As in many countries
involvement of local people in mitigation planning have been proved as effective
measure of disaster risk reduction (DRR), this research develops a framework how
local people may contribute in DRR in context of Dhaka City.

102
 APPENDIX A

Coordination Schema

Objective 1: To assess earthquake and fire hazard vulnerability of a selected

ward of Dhaka City.

Variables Data Type Source Method of

Data Collection
Earthquake Vulnerability Building type Qualitative Primary Checklist
Assessment by Rapid Number of floor Quantitative Primary Checklist
Visual Screening (RVS) Vertical irregularity Qualitative Primary Checklist
Method Plan irregularity Qualitative Primary Checklist
Fire Hazard Building material type Qualitative Primary Checklist
Vulnerability Number of storey Quantitative Primary Checklist
Assessment Total floor area Quantitative Primary Checklist
Existence of fire Qualitative Primary Checklist
source in building
Existence of fire Qualitative Primary Checklist
source outside
building
Accessibility Qualitative Primary Checklist
Social Vulnerability Number of population Quantitative Primary Checklist
Assessment Gender Quantitative Primary Checklist
Age group Quantitative Primary Checklist
Disability Quantitative Primary Checklist
Education level Quantitative Primary Checklist

xv
 APPENDIX B

Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards

FEMA-154 Data Collection Form MODERATE Seismicity

* = Estimated, subjective, or unreliable data BR = Braced frame MRF = Moment-resisting frame SW = Shear wall
DNK = Do Not Know FD = Flexible diaphragm RC = Reinforced concrete TU = Tilt up
LM = Light metal RD = Rigid diaphragm URM INF = Unreinforced masonry infill

xvi
 APPENDIX C
Expert opinion survey on ‘Vulnerability Assessment of Earthquake and Fire
Hazard and Formulating Risk Reduction Strategies at Community Level’

Values of attributes of fire

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

Pair wise Matrix for weighted values of attributes of fire

Construction Number Floor Fire source in Fire source Accessibility
Type (A1) of storey Area building (A4) around (A6)
(A2) (A3) building (A5)
Construction 1
Type (A1)
Number of 1
storey (A2)
Floor Area (A3) 1
Fire source in 1
building (A4)
Fire source 1
around building
(A5)
Accessibility
(A6) 1

Fundamental Scale of Absolute Numbers

Intensity of Definition
Importance
1 Equal importance
2 Weak or slight
3 Moderate importance
4 Moderate plus
5 Strong importance
6 Strong plus
7 Very strong or demonstrated An activity is favored very strongly over
importance
Explanation
Two activities contribute equally to the
objective
Experience and judgment slightly favor one
activity over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one
activity over another
another; its dominance demonstrated in
practice

xvii
8 Very very strong
9 Extreme importance The evidence favoring one activity over
another is of the highest possible order of
affirmation

List of Experts
SL No. Name Designation Address Mobile Number

1 Muhammad Mamun Inspector, FSCD 38-46 Kazi 01741008866

Alauddinn Road,
Dhaka-1000
2 Muhammad Abul Kalam Inspector, FSCD 38-46 Kazi 01811114858
Azad Alauddinn Road,
Dhaka-1000
3 Md. Nurul Islam Inspector, FSCD 38-46 Kazi 01728328386
Alauddinn Road,
Dhaka-1000
4 Muhammad Anamul Inspector, FSCD 38-46 Kazi 01814958106
Hoque Alauddinn Road,
Dhaka-1000
5 Faisalur Rahman Inspector, FSCD 38-46 Kazi 01920937535
Alauddinn Road,
Dhaka-1000
6 Mohammad Abdur Inspector, FSCD 38-46 Kazi 01746080435
Rahman Alauddinn Road,
Dhaka-1000
7 Md. Badsha Masud Inspector, FSCD 38-46 Kazi 01718212403
Alam Alauddinn Road,
Dhaka-1000
8 Md. Khurshid Anwar Inspector, FSCD Old DC Office, 01911971649
Kalir Bazar,
Narayanganj
9 Md. Ali Azam Inspector, FSCD Old DC Office, 01717116787
Kalir Bazar,
Narayanganj
10 Abdul Mannan Inspector, FSCD Office of Sub- 01716451544
Assistant Director,
Norshingdi Sadar,
Norsingdi

xviii
 APPENDIX D

Department of Urban and Regional Planning

Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Dhaka.

Field Survey on ‘Vulnerability Assessment of Earthquake and Fire Hazard and

Formulating Risk Reduction Strategies at Community Level’

(Collected Information will be used for academic purpose only)

Questionnaire No.: ____

Name of the interviewer: ___________________________
Date: _____________

General information about the Respondent:

(a) Name of the Respondent: …………………………………
(b) Holding No. : ……………………..
(c) Mohallah Name: …………………………………..

Checklist for Fire Hazard Vulnerability

Parameter Value
1 Adjacent road width
2 Building type
3 Number of storey
4 Building floor area
5 Plot land area
6 Present land use
7 Adjacent land use
8 Staircase width
9 Existence of fire source in building
10 Existence of fire source in front of building

Checklist for Household Information

Parameter Number
1 Total population living in the building
2 Number of male
3 Number of female
4 Number of children bellow 5 years
5 Number of elderly with age 65 and above
6 Number of people with disability
7 Number of people with illiteracy

xix
 APPENDIX E
COMMON RISK REDUCTION STRATEGIES FOR EARTHQUAKE AND FIRE
Present condition Want to adapt
Safety Management Yes No N/A Yes No
1. Do you carry out daily checks on all safety
measures?
2. Are family member/staff trained in emergency
procedures?
3. Have you got an Emergency Plan for earthquake
and fire?
4. Have you completed Risk Assessments of your
house/industry recently?
5. Do all the dwellers know how to communicate
during emergency with the service
providers/rescuers?
Roads
6. Does the adjacent road sufficiently width to enter
fire truck or ambulance?
7. Does the adjacent road allow heavy weight fire
vehicles?
8. Is there any nearby well equipped hospital to
support during an emergency?
Housekeeping
9. Does the building used for only one purpose?
(e.g. dwelling, industry, commercial, store room)
10. Is it bearing heavy machines or generators that
create shaking during functioning?
11. Is refuse removed regularly?
12. Is combustible material kept away from heat
sources?
13. Are aerosol cans stored safely?
14. Are boiler rooms and electrical cupboards kept
free from combustible materials?
15. Is there a proper procedure for checking the
premises regularly?
Electrical
16. Are sockets overloaded?
17. Is “one plug one socket” rule followed?
18. Have checks been carried out on electrical plugs,
leads and appliances?
19. Is equipment earthed?
20. Is there any probability of fire immediately after
earthquake shaking due to construction works?
21. Is there any provision for automatic shutting off
electricity if any shake records?
22. Has the Power Distribution Board (PDB) taken
any initiative to charge for weak connections?
Evacuation Plan
23. Is there any evacuation plan for your
family/Industry?
24. Are all escape routes clear of obstructions?
25. Do you have fixed place to meet immediately

xx
 after a disaster?
26. Does the emergency stair locked or filled with
any combustible materials?
27. Do you have any provision for
sheltering/relocating in a relative’s house?
28. Is there any provision for escaping plan from
govt. side for that location?
29. Do the dwellers know where to take shelters
during an emergency?
Others
30. Are contractor’s works controlled during
construction?
31. Are contractor’s works checked after
construction?
32. Does the number of people living in this
building is more than assumed?
33. Are all employees/dwellers fully trained in
earthquake and fire safety?
34. Is there any activity in the vicinity which could
cause an increased risk to the premises?

EARTHQUAKE SAFETY MEASURES

Present Want to adapt
condition
Accordance of Bangladesh National Building code Yes No N/A Yes No
35. Does the soil strength tested before construction?
36. Does the soil supports construction of such high
building?
37. Was the building material of good quality?
38. Did the contractor’s think about earthquake
vulnerability of this area?
39. Does the design of this building prove earthquake
resilient?
40. Does it contain emergency stairs for evacuation?
41. Does the width of adjacent road sufficient for
emergency vehicle movement?
42. Does it have provision for emergency power
supply?
43. Did it follow the Bangladesh National Building
Code?
44. Is there any heavy machinery to create shake
while functioning?
45. Does the authority check out whether there is any
crack on the building?

FIRE SAFETY MEASURES

Present Want to adapt
condition
Fire Alarm Yes No N/A Yes No
46. Is the fire alarm tested weekly and records kept?
47. If a manual alarm is used, is it tested and easily
available?

xxi
Emergency Lighting
48. Is it tested regularly?
49. Are records kept of tests?
Other Detection Equipment
50. Is there any/sufficient Smoke detector?
51. Is there any/sufficient heat detector?
52. Is there any/ sufficient sprinkler?
53. Is there any/ sufficient extinguisher?
Fire Instructions
54. Does every staff know what to do in the event of
a fire?
55. Are Fire Action Notices displayed?
56. Is an Assembly Point designated?
Heating
57. If LPG heaters are used are they serviced
regularly?
58. Are LPG heaters switched on by trained people?
59. Is combustible material kept away from heaters?
60. If open fires are used are they monitored, with
fire guards?

List of Focus Group

1. Md. Sabiul Amin Monju

2. A. Qaiyum
3. Md. Rafiqul Islam
4. Md. Mokbul Hossain
5. Md. Jakir Hossain
6. Sokhina Begum
7. Rebeka Begum
8. Sabiha Begum
9. Haji Abdul Alim
10. Haji Abdul Gani
11. Sumon
12. Monir
13. Shakhawat
14. Rahamat
15. Abdul Jalil

xxii
 REFERENCE

 Abarquez, I. and Murshed, Z., (2004) Community-based Disaster Risk Management,

Field Practitioners‟ Handbook, Bangkok, ADPC.
 ADPC (2004) “Asian Urban Disaster Mitigation News Quarterly Activity Highlights”.
 ADPC (2008), Monitoring and Reporting Progress on Community-Based Disaster Risk
Management in Indonesia, Partnerships for Disaster Reduction-South East Asia, Phase
4.
 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.
 Ali, M.H. and Choudhury, J.R. (2001) „Assessment of seismic hazard in Bangladesh‟.
In K. Nizamuddin (ed.) Disaster in Bangladesh: Selected Readings. Disaster Research
Training and Management Center, University of Dhaka, Dhaka. pp. 109–26.
 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.
 Ansary, M.A., Noor, M.A. and Rashid, M.A. (2004) Site amplification characteristics
of Dhaka city, Journal of Civil Engineering (IEB), 32 (1) (2004) 1-16.
 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.
 BNBC (1993) Bangladesh National Building Code.
 BNUS (2011) Bangladesh Network Office for Urban Safety, Annual Report.
 Bolin, R., Stanford, L. (1998) The Northridge Earthquake: Vulnerability and Disaster,
London: Routledge.
 Brodie, M.; E. Weltzian; D. Altman; R.J. Blendon; J.M. Benson. (2006) Experiences of
Hurricane Katrina Evacuees in Houston Shelters: Implications for Future Planning.
American Journal of Public Health, 96(8):1402–1408.
 Cannon, T., Twigg, J. and Rowell, J. (2003): Social vulnerability, sustainability
livelihoods and disasters. Department for International Development (DFID). Available
from hhtp://www.livelihoods.org/ in-fo/doc/vulnerability.doc.
 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.

xi
 Cavestro, L. (2003) P.R.A. - Participatory Rural Appraisal Concepts Methodologies
and Techniques.
 CDMP (2010), Report on Earthquake Risk Assessment of Dhaka, Chittagong and
Sylhet City Corporation Area, Govt. of Bangladesh, Dhaka.
 CECI (nd) Joint Advocacy Networking Initiative in Vietnam (JANI) Framework on
Community Based Disaster Risk Management in Vietnam, Centre for International
Studies and Cooperation.
 Chang, Stephanie E., (2000) „Disasters and transport systems: loss, recovery and comp
etition at the Port of Kobe after the 1995 Earthquake‟, Journal of Transport
 Cutter, S., Mitchell, J. and Scott, M. (2000) “Revealing the Vulnerability of People and
Places: A Case Study of George Town County, South Carolina”, American Association
of Geographers, Ann., 90(4), 713-737.
 Cutter, S.L.; B.J. Boruff; W.L. Shirley (2003) Social Vulnerability to Environmental
Hazards. Social Science Quarterly 84(2):242–261.
 FDCA (1997) “The local mitigation strategy: A Guidebook for Florida cities and
counties, Vulnerability assessment, supplement, part 1” BRM publications,
Geography, 8(1), 53‐65.
 FEMA (2002) Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards, A
Handbook, FEMA 154, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Edition 2.
 Gladwin, H. and Peacock, W.G. (1997) „Warning and evacuation: A night for hard
houses‟, in W.G. Peacock, B.H. Morrow and H. Gladwin (eds.),Hurricane Andrew:
Ethnicity, Gender, and the Sociology of Disasters, International Hurricane Center,
Laboratory for Social and Behavioral Research, Miami, FL, 52–74.
 Goltz, J.D. (nd), Preliminary Reports from the Hyogo-ken Nambu Earthquake of
January 17, 1995, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
 Hewitt, K. (1997) Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters. Essex,
U.K.: Longman.
 Horwich, G., (2000) “Economic Lessons of the Kobe Earthquake.”Economic
Development and Cultural Change, volume 48, page 521–42.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis, retrieved on 12 January 2014.
 http://www.akiti.ca/Eig6Solv.html retrieved on 7 December 2013.
 Imtiaz, A. B. A., Sutradhar, A., Ansary, M. A., Ahmed, M. Z. and Jobair, M. (2007)
“Visual Screening Methods for Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment” paper presented
at the 6th International Conference on New Technologies for Urban Safety of Mega
Cities in Asia, Dhaka.
 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.

xii
 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.
 Madrid, P.A.; R. Grant; M.J. Reilly; N.B. Redlener. (2006) Challenges in Meeting
Immediate Emotional Needs: Short-TermImpact of a Major Disaster on Children‟s
Mental Health: Building Resiliency in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Pediatrics
117(5):S448–S453.
 Martin, S.D.; A.C. Bush; D.A. Lynch. (2006) A National Survey of Terrorism
 Martin, X. S. (2011), The Global Competitiveness Report, 2011–2012, edited by Klaus
Schwab, World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland.
 Masellis, M., Ferrara, M.M. and Gunn, S.W.A. (1999) “Fire Disaster and Burn
Disaster: Planning and Management”, Annals of Burns and Fire Disasters - vol. XII -
no 2.
 Morrow, B. H. (1999). “Identifying and Mapping Community Vulnerability” Disasters,
23(1), 1-18.
 Ngo, E. B. (2001) „„When Disasters and Age Collide: Reviewing Vulnerability of the
Elderly.‟‟ Natural Hazards Review 2(2):80–89.
 NOAA (1999) “Community Vulnerability Assessment Tool”, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Centre, New Hanover County, North
Carolina.
 NTRC (2007) Australian Dangerous Goods Code, Volume 1 - Requirements and
Recommendations, 7th Edition, National Road Transport Commission.
 Oldham, R.D. (1899) Report on the great earthquake of 12th June 1897, Memoir of
Geological Survey of India, 29:1379 (Calcutta).
 Özcebe, G., Yücemen, M.S. and Aydogan, V. (2003). "Assessment of seismic
vulnerability of existing reinforced concrete buildings", submitted for publication.
 Pollack, Williams (2003) “What is Floor Area Ratio (FAR)?” Urbsworks, Inc.
Preparedness Training Among Pediatric, Family Practice, and Emergency Medicine
Programs. Pediatrics 118(3):e620–626.
 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).
 Reid, H.F., (1910), The mechanics of the earthquake, v. II of Lawson, A.C., chairman,
The California earthquake of April 18, 1906: Report of the State Earthquake

xiii
 Investigation Commission: Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 87, 192 p.
(reprinted in 1969).
 Rosenkoetter, M.M.; E.K. Covan; B.K. Cobb; S. Bunting; M. Weinrich. (2007)
Perceptions of Older Adults Regarding Evacuation in the Event of a Natural Disaster.
Public Health Nursing 24(2):160–168.
 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.
 Sadat, M. R., Huq, M.S. and Ansary, M.A. (2010) Seismic vulnerability assessment of
buildings of Dhaka city, Journal of Civil Engineering (IEB), 38 (2), page 159-172.
 Schellnhuber, H. (2001) “Brainstorming: What is vulnerability and how do we measure
it?” Methods and Models of Vulnerability Research, Analysis and Assessment
Workshop, Potsdam, Germany.
 Somerville, Paul (1995). "Kobe Earthquake: An Urban Disaster". Eos 76 (6). Archived
from the original on 1 May 1997. Retrieved 2009-05-06.
 Sounnalath, P., Keophilavanh, A., Prangkio, A. and Arambepola, N.M.S.I. (nd) Fire
Risk Assessment in Vientiane Lao PDR, Hazard Mapping and Risk Assessment, The
Regional Workshop on Best Practices in Disaster Mitigation.
 Sterlacchini, S. (2011), Vulnerability Assessment: concepts, definitions and methods,
CHANGES - Workshop Meeting: Krakow, 22 September 2011, National Research
Council of Italy, Institute for the Dynamic of Environmental Processes, Milan (Italy).
 Sucuoglu, H. And Yazgan, U. (2003) Simple Survey Procedures for Seismic Risk
Assessment in Urban Building Stocks. Seismic Assessment and Rehabilitation of
Existing Buildings, 97-118, NATO Science Series, IV/29, Editors: S.T. Wasti and G.
Ozcebe, Kluwer.
 Tierney, K. (2006) Social Inequality: Humans and Disasters. In R.J. Daniels, D.F.
Keitl, and H. Kunreuther (eds), On Risk and Disaster: Lessons From Hurricane
Katrina. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
 United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) (2003) The challenge of
slums: global report on human settlements 2003. Earthscan, London.
 Urban Regional Research (1988) “Planning for Risk: Comprehensive Planning for
Tsunami Hazard Areas, National Science Foundation” D.C.
 Weichselgartner, J. (2001) Disaster mitigation: the concept of vulnerability revisited,
Disaster Prevention and Management, 10, 85–94.
 White, G. F., and Haas, J. E., (1975), Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 Wisner, B. (2006) Risk reduction indicators: Social vulnerability. Annex B-6. TRIAMS
Working Paper –Risk reduction indicators.
 Wisner, B., Blaikie, P.M., Cannon, T., Davis, I. (2004): At Risk. Natural Hazards,
People‟s Vulnerability and Disasters, Routledge.
 World Bank (2014) Dhaka Earthquake Risk Guidebook, Bangladesh Urban Earthquake
Resilience Project, Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative.

xiv