Households’ vulnerability assessment: empirical evidence from cyclone-prone area of Bangladesh

Rahman, Md Mostafizur; Arif, Md. Saidul Islam; Hossain, Md. Tanvir; Almohamad, Hussein; Al Dughairi, Ahmed Abdullah; Al-Mutiry, Motrih; Abdo, Hazem Ghassan

doi:10.1186/s40562-023-00280-z

Geoscience Letters

Official Journal of the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS)

Table 2 Explanation of the vulnerability indicators

From: Households’ vulnerability assessment: empirical evidence from cyclone-prone area of Bangladesh

Social vulnerability
Indicators	Feature	Score	Explanation	Sources
Family size	Less than 4 4 to 6 More than 6	0 0.50 1	Larger families are assumed to be at greater risk	(Cutter et al. 2003; Birkmann et al. 2013; Rana and Routray 2018; Ullah et al. 2021)
Family type	Single Nuclear Extended	1 0.50 0	Human and social capital will make the extended family less vulnerable	(Rana and Routray 2018; Ullah et al. 2021)
Households with children	Yes No	1 0	Children and older people are vulnerable as they have limitations to movement and are weaker than younger people	(Hoque et al. 2021)
Households with older people (> 60 years)	Yes No	1 0		(Hoque et al. 2021)
Household head's educational attainment	No Primary Secondary School Higher Secondary and above	1 0.67 0.33 0	Higher-educated households have a greater comprehension of disaster preparedness, mitigation, and capacity building	(Rana and Routray 2018; Ullah et al. 2021)
Family members with higher education level (Higher Secondary and above)	Yes No	0 1		(Rana and Routray 2018; Ullah et al. 2021)
Households residing periods in the community (in years)	Less than 10 10–20 20–30 30–40 More than 40	1 0.75 0.50 0.25 0	Long-term households are more knowledgeable about evacuation routes and local emergency procedures	(Rana and Routray 2018; Ullah et al. 2021)
Households with disabled members	Yes No	1 0	Disabled people have limitations in their daily activities, which makes them more vulnerable than ordinary people	(Hoque et al. 2021)
Households with chronically ill members	Yes No	1 0	People with chronic illnesses have limitations in their movement	(Hahn et al. 2009; Rana and Routray 2018)

Economic Vulnerability
Indicators	Feature	Score	Explanation	Sources
Occupation of household head	Government/Private Job Trade and ommerce Agriculture Daily agers Unemployed	0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1	Insecure sources of income limit households pre, during, and post activities towards cyclones	(Phung et al. 2016; Mazumdar and Paul 2016; Rana and Routray 2018; Ullah et al. 2021)
A secondary source of income	Yes No	0 1	A household head with a secondary income source is considered less vulnerable	(Ullah et al. 2021)
Earning members of the households other than the household head	Yes No	0 1	Households with multiple earning members are less vulnerable	(Hahn et al. 2009; Rana and Routray 2018)
Dependency ratio (dependents to total household size)	Less than 0.41 0.41 to 1.34 1.35 to 2.29 More than 2.29	0 0.33 0.67 1	Due to their limited mobility and dependence, infants, children, and the elderly will be more at risk than young persons	(Phung et al. 2016; Rana and Routray 2018; Ullah et al. 2021)
Average annual household's income	Less than 50,000 50,000–100,000 100,000–150,000 More than 150,000	1 0.67 0.33 0	Low-income households would be more vulnerable, as they will have less capacity to recover from cyclones	(Cutter et al. 2003; Phung et al. 2016; Rana and Routray 2018; Ullah et al. 2021)
Outside-the-community-working family members	Yes No	0 1	During the cyclone, family members who work outside the neighborhood could assist the family physically, psychologically, and financially	(Hahn et al. 2009; Rana and Routray 2018)
Easily convertible (to cash) assets	Yes No	0 1	Households with productive assets are more financially strong as productive assets can turn into cash in need	(Flanagan et al. 2011; Rana and Routray 2018)
If a cyclone occurred today, would you be able to cover the costs?	Yes No	0 1	Households that believe they can manage costs if a hurricane strikes today appear to be psychologically and financially sound	(Flanagan et al. 2011; Rana and Routray 2018)

Physical vulnerability
Indicators	Feature	Score	Explanation	Sources
Age of house (in years)	Less than 5 5–10 10–15 More than 15	0 0.33 0.67 1	Old houses are more vulnerable as they are structurally weaker	(Birkmann et al. 2013; Ullah et al. 2021)
Construction materials of household	Katcha (Tin-shed, Mud) Semi Pacca (Mixed with tin and brick) Pacca (Brick, Cement)	1 0.50 0	Household materials have a relation with vulnerability. For example, the vulnerability will be less if materials are strong (brick, cement). And tin-shed and mud make the household structurally vulnerable	(Mazumdar and Paul 2016; Rana and Routray 2018; Marín-Monroy et al. 2020; Ullah et al. 2021)
House elevation from flat land	Yes No	0 1	Elevated houses from flat land are considered safe from storm surges after cyclones	(Birkmann et al. 2013; Thouret et al. 2014)
Distance between households and nearest cyclone shelter (in km)	Less than 1 1–5 5–10	0 0.50 1	The greater the distance between the nearest cyclone shelter and households, the greater the vulnerability	(Sattar et al. 2020)
Distance between nearest medical facility and households (in km)	Less than 1 1–5 5–10	0 0.50 1	Households far from health care institutions require more time to get assistance, making them vulnerable	(Panthi et al. 2016; Ullah et al. 2021)
Condition of the closest cyclone shelter's WASH	Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied	0 0.50 1	Despite cyclone shelters, the community is considered vulnerable if they are not well WASH facilitated	(Faruk et al. 2018)
Conditions of the nearest medical facility	Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied	0 0.50 1	The better the condition of the nearest medical facility, the better the treatment	(Kawyitri and Shekhar 2021)
Household's access to proper sanitation	Yes No	0 1	Households that have access to proper sanitation will be less vulnerable	(Phung et al. 2016; Mazumdar and Paul 2016)
Electricity to the household	Yes No	0 1	Households with no electricity will suffer more in pre, post, and during phases of the cyclone	(Islam et al. 2013; Ullah et al. 2021)
Source of communication (Radio, TV, Mobile)	Yes No	0 1	Households with no source of communication are more vulnerable as they do not get information or cannot communicate with others	(Rana and Routray 2018; Ullah et al. 2021)

Institutional vulnerability
Indicators	Feature	Score	Explanation	Sources
Understand early warning	Yes No	0 1	Institutions should ensure that the community understands the early warning	(Ahsan and Warner 2014)
Knowledge about cyclone	Yes No	0 1	Households with improper knowledge are considered vulnerable	(Ho et al. 2008; Ullah et al. 2021)
Knowledge about evacuation routes	Yes No	0 1	Households unaware of evacuation routes are considered vulnerable	(Rana and Routray 2018)
Frequency of public-awareness campaigns, exercises, and training	Often Rarely Never	0 0.50 1	Arranging frequent public awareness programs, drills, and training regarding cyclones demonstrate strong institutional behavior	(Rana and Routray 2018)
Received government relief after cyclone	Yes No	0 1	Cyclone vulnerability can be reduced by providing government assistance and humanitarian help	(Hossain 2020; Muñoz et al. 2021)
Received humanitarian aid from NGO/INGO after cyclone	Yes No	0 1		(Hossain 2020; Muñoz et al. 2021)
Unequal relief distribution	Yes No	1 0	Inequitable relief and humanitarian aid distribution may exacerbate the vulnerability of households	(Maghfiroh and Hanaoka 2020)
Unequal humanitarian aid distribution	Yes No	1 0		(Maghfiroh and Hanaoka 2020)

Attitudinal vulnerability
Indicators	Feature	Score	Explanation	Sources
Community cooperation during cyclones	Poor Moderate Good	1 0.50 0	Community cooperation decreases vulnerability as community members can help each other during a disaster	(Panthi et al. 2016; Ullah et al. 2021)
Communication with local government over the year	Yes No	0 1	Households that have no connection with local government are considered vulnerable	(Hahn et al. 2009; Rana and Routray 2018)
Household feeling afraid of cyclones	Not worried at all Worried Very much worried	1 0.50 0	Households that do not feel afraid of cyclones will not get prepared for the future and might get vulnerable	(Ho et al. 2008; Pagneux et al. 2011)
Trust in government	Low Moderate High	1 0.50 0	Distrust in government may lead the community not to follow government initiatives	(Soane et al. 2010; Ullah et al. 2021)
Evacuation behavior during cyclone	Positive Negative	0 1	Negative evacuation behavior indicates more vulnerable	(Ahsan et al. 2016)

Environmental vulnerability
Indicators	Feature	Score	Explanation	Sources
Source of drinking water	Ground water Surface water	0 1	Households with surface water to drink will be considered more vulnerable	(Rana and Routray 2018)
The salinity of the drinking water	Yes No	1 0	Households with access to drinkable water will be less vulnerable	(Hahn et al. 2009; Mazumdar and Paul 2016)
Trees can act as a natural barrier	Yes No	0 1	Cyclone speeds can be reduced by forestation, which in turn protects low-lying coastal areas	(Ataur Rahman and Rahman 2015; Younus 2017; Alam and Mallick 2022)

Back to article page