KANIZ FATEMA'S ASSIGNMENT ON LIVES,LIVELIHOOD AND NATURAL DISASTER

An Assignment
On
Lives, Livelihood And Natural Disaster

Assignment Given By ;
Dr. Mahmudul Islam
Centre for Disaster and Vulnerability Studies

University of Dhaka.

Course No- 504
Course Title –Institutional & Regulatory Framework in Disaster Management

Acknowledgement

This paper is outcome of cordial help of various persons and institutions.At first, I would like to present my gratitude to Centre for Disaster and Vulnerability Studies (CDVS), Department of Sociology, Dhaka University for offering this subject, providing us with a sound environment and facilities to gain knowledge. Then I would like to thank my respected Teacher Professor Dr. Mahmudul Islam.He cordially selected my subject and supervised it with his affable mind . Without his consent the purpose might not be finished. Then my acknowledgement goes to my dear teacher Professor Dr. Mokaddem Hossain. I am also indebted to our Azad via for his cordial response. I am also thankful to all of my classmates, who accompanied me during processing this paper. All these made me to complete the paper.

Abstract

Disasters are widely acknowledged to affect disproportionately the poorest in a community, as they have relatively higher sensitivity to disaster events compared with communities of higher development status. Recurrent events increase the vulnerability of the poor to disasters, increasing poverty levels such that many households often are unable to break out of the poverty cycle. The exact relationship between disasters and livelihood is context specific and often poorly understood. There is little empirical evidence of the long term impact of disasters on the lives and livelihoods of people and on national development prospects.Increased vulnerability is reflected in current disaster trends. In addition the activities of Human beings in the Globe also become a cause because of which nature at times changes its routine course. All these Geological Disasters, biological and other man made disasters affect the livelihood of people of various regions or nations. There is a danger that these disasters may one or other day destroy the Globe or all the life in the Globe. In such circumstances, every Government has the responsibility to plan on issues, strategy, etc., for ensuring the well beings of its citizens.

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CEO - Chief Executive Officer
DFID - Department of Foreign International Development
DOSFEA - Department of State for Finance and Economic Affairs
DOSH - Department of State for Health
DPWM - Department of Parks and Wildlife Management
ECOWAS - Economic Community of West African States
GAMTEL - Gambia Telecommunication Company
GEAP - Gambia Environmental Action Plan
MDFT - Multi- Disciplinary Facilitation Team.
MDGs - Millennium Development Goals
NAWEC - National Water and Electricity Company
NEA - National Environment Agency
NEPAD - Non Economic Partnership for African Development
NGOs - Non Governmental Organizations
PURA - Public Utility Regularity Authority
R/MDMC - Regional/Municipal Disaster Management Committee
UN - United Nations
UNDP - United Nations Development Program
Introdution
Disaster is an event, natural or man-made, sudden or progressive, that seriously disrupts the functioning of a society, causing human, material, or environmental losses of such severity that the affected community has to respond by taking exceptional measures. The disruption (including essential services and means of livelihood) is on a scale that exceeds the ability of the affected society to cope with using only its own resources.

FIG; Atmospheric depression

Defining Disaster

‘Disaster’ is defined differently by different people: to some ‘disaster’ is a summative concept’ (Kreps, 1984) or a ‘sponge world’ (Qurantelli and Dynes, 1970). Some researchers mentioned disaster as a ‘collective stress situation’ (Barton, 1969) while others identified it with ‘social crisis period’ (Qurantelli and Dynes, 1977). Britton (1986) argued that “disasters can be more easily recognized than they can be defined”.
Disaster is a severe, relatively sudden and unexpected disruption of normal structural arrangements within a social system over which the system has no firm control (Barton, 1974). A disaster may also be viewed as “a significant departure from normal experience for a particular time and place” (Turner, 1978). Disaster is also viewed as a mental construct imposed upon experience. This is because to understand disaster knowing the number of deaths, the value of property destroyed or the decrease in per capita income is not sufficient. The symbolic component requires knowledge of the sense of vulnerability, the adequacy of available explanation and the society’s imagery of death and destruction (Barkun, 1977).
Bangladesh is a disaster prone country in the world. Cyclones, storm surges, floods etc extract a heavy toll on lives and animals and damage valuable property almost every year, disrupting the total development activities of the country. About 120 million people live within 144,000 sq.km of land. Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated countries in the world and suffers heavy casualties in a disaster. It is estimated that a total 775,303 people died in the coastal areas and offshore islands of Bangladesh within the last 222 years (1775–1997) time, only due to cyclone and storm surges. The main causes of these huge casualties were:(1) a weak cyclone warning and weather forecasting system, (2) often no cyclone/ storm came, despite of high warning signals and (3) no disaster awareness programmes were taken in before. About 15.0 million people live in the vulnerable areas, covering 21,000 sq.km in the coastal and offshore islands of Bangladesh which cover 14.8 % of the land area of the county. A total of 1350 cyclone shelters are located now in this zone. They can accommodate 1.3 million people. About 2.3 million more people can take refuge in the school and office buildings, altogether 4.0 ssmillion people could thus be accommodated, but the remaining 11.0 million people (about 73.3 %) are still unsafe. The Government of Bangladesh has given emphasis and priority to develop the weather forecasting system using satellite imageries and computer methods. So, now cyclone warning signals can be given and disseminated to the community/vulnerable people at the earliest time, by radio, television and information media at frequent intervals in the event that a cyclone strikes. Bangladesh has already established a set up of Disaster Management Bureau to co-ordinate disaster management through national to local level to persue the objectives of the IDNDR to develop disaster awareness. A success has been achieved during the last May 19, 1997 cyclone time, which was of similar intensity as the May 25, 1985 cyclone which had killed 11,069 persons. But this time - due to early warning system and taking proper precautionary measures - only 127 people died. The paper discusses the disaster management and the development of a cyclone warning system in Bangladesh.



What is a livelihood?

A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base. Source: Chambers and Conway, 1992.
The definition of ‘livelihood’ has been extensively discussed among academics and development practitioners (see for instance Ellis, 1998, Batterbury, 2001; Chambers and Conway, 1992; Carney, 1998; Bernstein, 1992; Francis, 2000, 2002; Radoki, 2002). There is a consensus that livelihood is about the ways and means of ‘making a living’. The most widely accepted definition of livelihood stems from the work of Robert Chambers and Gordon Conway: ‘a livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living’ (Carney, 1998:4). Ellis (2000) suggests a definition of livelihood as ‘the activities, the assets, and the access that jointly determine the living gained by an individual or household’. Wallman (1984) who did research on livelihoods in London in the early 1980s approached livelihoods as always more than just a matter of finding or making shelter, transacting money, and preparing food to put on the table or exchange in the market place. It is equally a matter of the ownership and circulation of information, the management of social relationships, the affirmation of personal significance and group identity, and the inter relation of each of these tasks to the other. All these productive tasks together constitute a livelihood. For an anthropologist such as Wallman livelihood is an umbrella concept, which suggests that social life is layered and that these layers overlap (both in the way people talk about them and the way they should be analysed). This is an important analytical feature of the notion of livelihoods.One feature that these definitions and interpretations share in common is that they eloquently underline the generally accepted idea that ‘livelihood’ deals with people, their resources and what they do with these. Livelihoods essentially revolve around resources (such as land, crops, seed, labour, knowledge, cattle, money, social relationships, and so on), but these resources cannot be disconnected from the issues and problems of access and changing political, economic and socio-cultural circumstances.Livelihoods are also about creating and embracing new opportunities. While gaining a livelihood, or attempting to do so, people may, at the same time, have to cope with risks and uncertainties, such as erratic rainfall, diminishing resources, pressure on the land, changing life cycles and kinship networks, epidemics such as HIV/AIDS, chaotic markets, increasing food prices, inflation, and national and international competition. These uncertainties, together with new emerging opportunities, influence how material and social resources are managed and used, and on the choices people make.
Livelihood analysis and crisis

The impact of a crisis on any given population group results from the shock itself and the vulnerability of the affected people. In many situations, needs assessment is “supply driven” i.e. needs are defined in relation to particular agency mandates. Thus the same crisis can be variously described as a “food crisis” an “agricultural crisis” or a ‘health crisis’ depending on the perspective of the agency conducting or sponsoring the assessment, with needs and responses defined accordingly. Properly undertaken, a livelihoods analysis can circumvent such difficulties by helping to understand better the actual assets of affected people, which eventually shape people’s livelihood strategies (thus explaining their behaviour). People’s ability to withstand shocks, will ultimately depend on their asset base.
Assets are classified into:
 human capital, e.g. education, formal and informal skills, health;
 natural capital e.g. natural resources such as farming and grazing land, forests and non timber products, wildlife, and water;
 physical capital e.g. shelter, infrastructure such as roads and transport, buildings, irrigation systems, and productive assets such as seed, tools, livestock, fishing gear and other farm and processing equipment;
 financial capital e.g. cash income and remittances, credit, savings in kind and cash;
 social capital e.g. formal and informal institutions (including markets), associations (e.g. water users and savings and credit associations), extended families, and local mutual support mechanisms.

Livelihood strategies are the range and combination of activities and choices that people make in order to achieve their livelihoods goals. On the basis of their personal goals, their resource base and their understanding of the options available, different categories of households – poor and less poor – develop and pursue different livelihood strategies. These strategies include short term considerations such as ways of earning a living, coping with shocks and managing risk, as well as longer-term aspirations for children’s future and old age. Livelihood strategies can be positive, helping households become more resilient and less vulnerable, or negative when they result in the further erosion and decrease of the asset base.

THE FUNDAMENTALS OF A LIVELIHOODS STRATEGY

PRINCIPLE ONE: COMPLEX EMERGENCIES REQUIRE STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT, ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTIONS

Effective emergency responses to complex emergencies require sophisticated analysis of highly dynamic military, economic, social and political systems. Today’s relief worker must be part political scientist, part economist, part anthropologist, part military analyst, part historian, part peace negotiator, part logistician. Given the brutal realities of civil conflict, failed economies, illegitimate and undemocratic political systems, today’s relief worker must also be part – but only part -- humanitarian. Well-intended, but poorly designed relief operations only serve to exacerbate the plight of the vulnerable by creating dependency, enriching those with monopolistic market power or protracting conflict. Effectively providing basic humanitarian assistance can be ultimately political and frequently controversial. Relief workers must understand and then design interventions grounded in these difficult realities.
STRATEGY: ASSESS THE POLITICAL, MILITARY, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF EACH
CRISIS IN COMPLEX EMERGENCIES AND RESPOND ACCORDINGLY
ACTION A: PREPARE RELIEF WORKERS TO THINK AND ACT STRATEGICALLY
Disaster relief has not enjoyed the same career rewards and status as international development.It is difficult to attract qualified individuals to the profession. A common expression from the field claims that disasters attract three kinds of people: missionaries, mercenaries and misfits. Disaster relief work is extremely demanding. Days are long and stressful. Relief workers are expected to be highly mobile. Decisions involving massive resources are made with insufficient information. Field work is dangerous and often emotionally disturbing. Finally, few relief organizations invest adequately in their staff. Staff turnover and “burnout” are relatively high. As a consequence, institutional memories are shallow, leaving the most experienced with the Saving Lives and Livelihoods least time to train and educate other staff. In order to respond strategically to complex emergencies, a stronger cadre of qualified relief professionals needs to be developed by:
• requiring longer-term contracts for field- and headquarters-based staff;
• training staff in the theories, practices and assessment methodologies;
• recruiting exiled, talented individuals from disaster-prone countries;
• (as donors) requiring basic educational and experiential qualifications of funded
NGO and UN staff, not only in vocational areas (agriculture, health, water), but also
in areas of economics, anthropology, political science, development, language or
international relations;
• appealing to universities to provide training in complex emergencies, including the
establishment of a certificate course in disaster relief management;
• hiring individuals with broad backgrounds and relevant overseas experience.

ACTION B: IDENTIFY HOW TO MOVE BEYOND THE DISTRIBUTION OF FREE RELIEF
The basic tool used to inform the relief response is the emergency assessment. Despite the overarching importance of the assessment tool, it is underutilized in the disaster situation. In too many instances, the emergency assessment comprises only the roughest of estimates of population size and nutritional status of the most vulnerable groups. Based on this, relief food requirements are calculated, plans for feeding centers and health units are drawn and submitted for funding, transportation is arranged, etc. Assessments of complex emergencies must delve beyond the observable, beyond physical appearances. This requires drawing information from a variety of sources in the disaster areas, as well as those on the outside, such as national and international anthropologists, historians, sociologists and economists. Importantly, former development workers who were previously assigned to the country can provide a contextual understanding of the social, political and economic relations among affected populations. Assessors must seek to comprehend the economic system that is providing essential supplies to disaster-affected populations in the absence, lateness or inadequacies of free relief distributions.All too often these life-saving mechanisms are ignored. Restrictions on access to non-market goods (firewood, water and wild foods) must also be examined. Assessments of intra- and inter-communal tensions, such as cattle raiding, should highlight both potential problem areas as well as opportunities for local peace initiatives. Analysis should include consideration of economic, military and political systems to identify “winners” and “winner strategies”. Potential targets of economic appropriation should be assessed, and alternatives to counter the threat of appropriation should be designed, e.g. interventions to create markets for surplus production, negotiated access to communal natural resources, etc. Such investigations will reveal the extent of a community’s vulnerabilities as they Saving Lives and Livelihoods relate to priorities for assistance. They will also identify functioning coping strategies and available capacity that can be strengthened.
ACTION C: FORMULATE COUNTRY STRATEGIES EARLY IN THE EMERGENCY
Pressure from the media, often referred to as the “CNN Factor”, forces relief organizations to react at break-neck speed. In the rush to “do something” relief workers understandably leave detailed analysis necessary for the formulation of country strategies until “later”. In the heat of crisis, such as the first weeks or even months of a crisis, this modus operandi is unavoidable. In the case of the displaced persons emergency, however, this “later” has been nearly a decade in coming. Those currently working on the Bangladesh crisis look back and recognize that a transition to improve productivity and reduce dependency could have commenced as early as possible. A more rapid transition to strategic planning, once response mechanisms are in place,will greatly increase the effectiveness of relief interventions. There comes a time when “don’t just do something, stand there”7 is the appropriate action for all staff. The keys are
• to identify the earliest opportunity for initiating a country strategy process by
charging one member of the response team to plan such a transition from the initial
phase of the emergency response;
• to equip staff to incorporate rigorous political, economic and military analysis in their
assessments and funding decisions by providing training, requiring comprehensive
analytical situation reports, and authorizing more frequent field travel for relief
personnel in the field and at headquarters;
• to include development specialists in the planning of relief operations in extended
complex emergencies;
• to form a policy spelling out the practical means of dealing with media pressure at the onset of emergencies; and,
• to strive for a high level of effective coordination with host authorities, donors, nongovernment organizations, and UN agencies.

ACTION D: IMPROVE COORDINATION IN THE DISASTER RELIEF COMMUNITY
Donors must support creative interventions to foster self-sufficiency in complex emergencies and each must work in concert with other major donors, host authorities, the United Nations and NGO implementing partners. An individual donor’s efforts to improve the effectiveness of emergency interventions can be easily compromised by others who readily fund less strategically designed relief interventions. Indeed, relief organizations have an important motive for seeking funds elsewhere. In times of budget crises, donors will be asking project implementors to do a lot more with a lot less. The UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs (DHA) was created to address problems of coordination in disaster situations. To date, it has but a few successes. This is a time of Saving Lives and Livelihoods apparently low donor confidence. However, effective coordination of strategic interventions, especially those that are required in protracted complex emergencies, is the only way donors, as a group, can systematically and effectively support interventions to foster self-sufficiency and productivity on a wide scale.



DEFINITION OF SELF-SUFFICIENCY

With respect to complex emergencies, self-sufficiency is the capacity of a community to
either produce, exchange or lay claim to resources necessary to ensure both survival
through and resilience against life-threatening stresses. This definition has three parts.
1. Self-sufficiency is community-wide. Not everyone is expected to be self-sufficient, but it is the primary responsibility of communities to take care of their own.
2. Resources to achieve self-sufficiency are produced, exchanged or claimed. This precludes autarky (freedom from imports) or “we eat what we grow” mentalities while highlighting the crucial role of local markets. “Lay claim” recognizes that public goods (roads, schools, clinics, etc.) diminish or disappear in complex emergencies.
3. Self-sufficiency entails equipping communities to ensure both survival through and resilience against life-threatening stresses. Expectations about laying foundations for economic growth or facilitating a “return to development” may be unrealistic, but interventions to strengthen a community’s capacity to prevent or mitigate disasters are essential to ensure survival over the course of repeated crises.



Some concepts regarding self-sufficiency
Complex emergencies are characterized, in part, by the deliberate exploitation of civilians.Undermining self-sufficiency and productivity are not merely by-products of conflict, but also are the intended consequences of war. In complex emergencies, systems of production are particularly vulnerable, rendering these types of disasters fundamentally different from natural disasters. Consequently, innovative approaches to providing relief and recovery assistance are essential. Tools for analyzing the critical trade-offs between implementing more immediate survival interventions and fostering self-sufficiency to ensure longer-term survival, i.e., saving lives and livelihoods, are much-needed by the international humanitarian relief community. In any complex emergency, there are at least three options: a) not intervening because conditions of operations are untenable, there is a significant risk of causing more harm than good
or relief resources not reaching intended beneficiaries, etc.; b) rapidly distributing free relief goods; or, c) strategically intervening to save lives through more “livelihood-oriented” relief interventions. Relief operations are currently a combination of these options. During every complex emergency, these routes should be frequently revisited and programs modified according to changing conditions. The aim is to minimize the number of disaster-affected people who must do without, while maximizing the effectiveness of limited humanitarian relief resources. Eight basic principles of self-sufficiency and productivity in complex emergencies form the foundation of the fundamentals of a livelihoods strategy presented in this paper. These principles emphasize the importance of 1) rigorous assessment, 2) aggressive capacity building, 3)
appropriate market support, 4) protecting essential assets, 5) easing vulnerables’ burdens, 6) timely interventions, 7) limiting harmful population displacement, and, 8) establishing sustainable systems. They, in turn, inform eight components of a strategy to wisely intervene in complex emergencies, as outlined in the table on the following page. The bulk of this paper analyzes these principles and their corresponding strategies and actions. Aside from the first principle, “Complex emergencies require strategic assessment, analysis and intervention”, the principles are not listed in order of importance. Rather, what is presented here is a toolbox, of sorts. The context of each emergency will determine which of these tools will be most useful.
Analytical Review of Disaster issues in the Bangladesh

The World Watch Institute in Washington estimates that the earth’s continents lose 24 billion tons of fertile topsoil every year and forest destruction put at 15 million hectares of forest worldwide with depletion worst in developing countries such as the Gambia. The expansion of the agricultural frontiers into fragile ecosystems, eliminating stabilized forest cover has increased the frequency of flash floods and lower agricultural productivity.
In 2003, about most of the Bangladesh population lived in village area. Uncontrolled urban sprawl and speculative land markets have pushed many marginal settlements into high-risk areas that are flood-prone areas. The country’s natural resources and the environment are seriously endangered as human lives are increasingly harmed by pollution, desertification, climate change, floods and unplanned urbanization.
Climate change will have repercussions as it can lead to desertification, rising sea levels, rapid shifts in vegetable zones, lower agricultural production and a greater shortage of fresh water. This affects the country in general particularly the poorest who will be worst hit.
In recent years, the Bangladesh experienced a significant number of disastrous events of both natural and human origins. The Hazards Profile of the Bangladesh and its Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment Report indicates that these disasters are related to cyclone,floods,drought, river bank erosion ,environmental degradation and epidemics.
All these incidents, a combination of man-made and natural disasters are causes for concern and thus call for concerted and coordinated efforts to plan to prevent, manage and mitigate the effects of disasters. This should not be done in isolation but integrated into the national development planning framework.







Major Disasters in Bangladesh
Major disasters that occur in Bangladesh are : Tropical cyclone, Tidal bore, Flood, Tornado, River bank erosion, Earthquake etc.
Outline of Most Severe Disasters
I. Cyclone:
o Cyclones are the worst killer;
o The severe cyclone of 12 November 1970 took a tool of 0.3 million human lives in Bangladesh and put property damages to more than one billion US dollars;
o Yet another worst cyclone which hit Bangladesh coast on April 1991 killed 0.14 million people and property damages were more than two billion US dollars;
o The cyclone of 1876, 1919, 1961, 1963, 1965, 1985 and 1988 were also of severe nature.
II. Floods:
o Floods are another devastating recurring phenomena in Bangladesh;
o The flood of 1988 during August-September inundated 89,000 sq. Km. Areas of 52 districts of the country and caused loss of 1517 human lives;
o The 1998 flood in Bangladesh with unprecedented duration of 65 days inundated 53 districts covering about 100,000 sp. Km. Areas and it took lives of 918 people;
o The severe floods of 1922, 1954, 1955, 1974, 1984 and 1987 are worth mentioning.

III. Droughts:
o Drought is another severe natural phenomenon which at some intervals visits Bangladesh and causes disastrous crop failures.
o In 1979 the country was hit by a severe drought, which was termed by many as the worst in the recent past.
o Droughts of 1957 and 1972 were of severe nature.
o
IV. Tornado:
o Tornadoes during pre-monsoon period hit Bangladesh and cause localized devastation, both in terms of lives and properties.
o Tornadoes of 14 April, 1969; 11 April, 1974; 01 April, 1977 and 26 April, 1989 are noteworthy.
Disasters over last 15 years in Bangladesh
Year Disaster Death
1987 Flood 1657
1988 Flood 1517
1988 Cyclone 5704
1989 Drought 800
1991 Cyclone 138,868
1994 Cyclone -
1996 Tornade 545
1997 Cyclone 550
1998 Flood 918
1999 Flood 15
2000 Flood 36
2002 Flood -
2003 Flood 104

Earthquake: Potential Threat
The historical seismic data of Bangladesh and adjoining areas indicate that Bangladesh is vulnerable to earthquake hazard. Bangladesh, as a whole, lies in the earthquake zone of which two-third comes under major and moderate fault. In fact, highly seismic belts and fault zones border Bangladesh to its east, northeast and north. These fault zones were instrumental to cause some of the world's severest earthquake in the past. The record of approximately 150 years shows that Bangladesh and the surrounding region experienced seven major earthquakes (with M ( 7). In the recent past, a number of tremors of moderate to severe intensity had already taken place in and around Bangladesh. As examples, the Chittagong earthquake of 21 November, 1997 (M= 6.1), the Bhuj earthquake of 26 January, 2001 ( M= 7.9) and the Chittagong -Rangamati earthquakes of 27 July, 2003 (M=5.9, M = 3.69 and M=4.79) may be cited. All these indicate, as also apprehended by the geophysicist Roger Bilham, that 'major earthquakes in the Himalayan region may place at risk the capital cities of Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan as well as numerous other small cities. In Bangladesh a good number of cities and towns with construction boom of high rise building and infrastructural facilities are at high vulnerability due to earthquake hazard. This vulnerability has become all the more alarming because of the existing dense population in urban as well as rural areas. These factors call for critical evaluation of seismic hazard involving major cities in Bangladesh so that proper mitigation measures (both structural and non-structural) may be undertaken before it is too late.
Disaster impacts

Disasters cause both direct and flow-on (indirect) effects on people and their livelihood, including effects on economic and social wellbeing, infrastructure and the environment. Government finances and services are also affected by disasters. The following discussion is based on information from post-disaster impact assessments undertaken by government and nongovernment agencies. These assessments were largely made from the perspective of the disaster response and humanitarian assistance, so often focused on only some of the disaster effects, such as fatalities, the number of people affected and some of the direct economic costs (discussed later). Also note that impact assessments were not always conducted in times of disasters and, where they were undertaken, they did not systematically report or quantify all impacts. The data are thus only partial.Globally, natural disasters have killed more than 1.5 million people in the past two decades and affected 255 million annually. Ninety-seven per cent of disaster related deaths reported globally occurred in developing countries (World Bank 2000). Economic losses associated with natural disasters are now estimated to be 15 times higher than they were in the 1950s (adjusting for inflation), and disasters caused approximately US$67 billion in losses in each year from 1994 to 2003 (Peek 2008; World Bank 2006). Whatever the origin of disasters, their impacts include loss of life, injury to persons, damage to property,destruction of assets, loss of services, social and economic disruption and or environmental degradation.Disasters often affect water supply and sanitation, adding pressure to already poor health conditions in many communities. Cyclones and floods particularly result in an increased incidence of water and vector borne diseases (Campbell-Lendrum and Woodruff 2007). Such effects also lower economic capacity (Freeman 1999), causing further medium term economic losses that usually are not captured by impact assessments conducted in the immediate aftermath of disasters. At the national level, the impacts of natural disasters are not merely a social and humanitarian issue. They are economically significant, affecting national macroeconomic and the national fiscal environment (Benson and Clay 2004). Disasters usually mean higher government expenditure and/or part reallocation of already committed financial resources (usually from the capital budget), to meet the costs of disaster relief and the costs of repair and rehabilitation of public property, and to provide support to victims. Disasters also mean a fall in government revenue because they cause a reduced level of economic activity, including possible net falls in imports and exports. Reduced economic activity implies reduced direct and indirect tax revenue, and thus increased budgetary pressures, which may result in governments borrowing more, placing inflationary pressures on the economy. International modeling results also suggest disasters can dampen investment and reduce long term economic growth, through their negative effect on a country’s credit rating and an increase in interest rates for external borrowing (Benson and Clay
2004; Cochran 1994). Ultimately, such effects manifest themselves at the highest level.



Disaster management

Disaster management constitutes having emergency plans, equipment and trained and knowledgeable people to help monitor hazards, operate end-to-end early warning systems and manage emergency responses. The nature and frequency of awareness programs, the strength of the media in reaching every part of the country, past experiences of the public and cultural beliefs also determine the extent of a community’s vulnerability.A weak end-to-end early warning system increases the vulnerability of the poor, along with their ability to make decisions and respond appropriately during an emergency. Although Bangladesh has sophisticated equipment at the Meteorological Centre in Agargaon, other parts of the country lag in having updated early warning systems. In recent years, this discrepancy has severely affected efforts to distribute warnings in time to different parts of the country.Also constraining the early warning system are poor hazard monitoring capabilities due to limited institutional capacity, difficulty in retaining qualified staff and limited monitoring stations in key locations in the hazard prone areas. In addition, poor communication equipment, a lack of proper rescue equipment and insufficient
personnel training in disaster management have resulted in the inefficient operation of the Disaster Management Team in some parts of the country.

Natural Disaster and Vulnerable Lives

Disaster is defined as a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society, involving widespread human, material, economic and/or environmental losses and impacts that exceed the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources (adapted from UNISDR 2009). Disaster events may be sudden and unexpected, or slow moving in their onset. They share a common characteristic, however, in their potential to cause widespread community disruption, displacement, economic loss, property damage, death potential impact of disasters is described by the term ‘disaster risk’.


Sensitivity of lives and disaster risk

Disaster impacts are determined not only by the nature of the hazard, but also by the society’s vulnerability.Vulnerability is defined as the characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard (UNISDR 2009). These circumstances can be linked to the structure and the status of the national economy, the condition of physical infrastructure (including access to water and sanitation) and the ocioeconomic characteristics of households (including income, health and education).Vulnerability is thus the concept that explains why, with a given level of physical exposure, people are more or less at risk (UNDP 2009).Vulnerability has three component elements: the sensitivity of households and communities to hazards; the ability to respond to disasters; and the ability to cope with the immediate effects of disasters. (The term ‘sensitivity’ is used in this report to emphasise individuals’ and communities’ conditions that particularly have the potential to magnify the effect of disaster.) Vulnerability is high in many areas as a result of poor infrastructure, which is often perceived as a key component of a country’s economic status. Freeman (1999),demonstrated a direct link between vulnerability to natural disasters and poor infrastructure. Poor infrastructure affects people’s ability to engage in income generating activities, as well as their ability to respond to disasters.Poor infrastructure standards, weak government regulations (such as the absence of building codes) and weak regulatory enforcement also increase disaster risks.Countries that heavily rely on the primary sector are also generally found to be more sensitive to the effects of natural disasters (Benson 1997; Benson and Clay 2004), particularly disasters of hydro-meteorological origin. At the same time, the process of development adopted and the development choices made in many countries affect those countries’ vulnerability to disasters—for example, environmentally unsustainable development practices, such logging in areas prone to landslides, increase disaster risks.Human vulnerability is exacerbated by weak end-to-end disaster warning systems and the ability of people to manage disaster. Disaster management constitutes having emergency plans, equipment, and trained and knowledgeable people to help monitor hazards, operate end-to-end early warning systems and manage emergency responses. The nature and frequency of awareness programs, the strength of the media in reaching every part of the country, past experiences of the public and cultural beliefs also determine the community’svulnerability. At the household level, sensitivity to external shocks can be viewed in terms of livelihoods and food and nutritional status. The former also depends on human development conditions, such as household income,access to water and sanitation, maternal and child mortality, and education. The poorer the economic and
social wellbeing at the household level, the more sensitive the household is to the impact of hazards (primarily because it has a low threshold for withstanding external shocks) and the less able it is to respond to, cope with and adapt to disasters (because it does not have much, if any, capital reserve on which to draw).The vulnerability of communities, economies and countries is thus a result of the interaction of hazards exposure, the economic status of households, the sensitivity of the environment and economy to hazards, the state of infrastructure, and the ability to respond to and cope with disaster events.



Poverty

Poverty is usually considered an important factor for determining household sensitivity and vulnerability to hazards because household income level determines people’s coping and adaptation capacities. Poverty exacerbates the negative effects of disasters on households, increasing the severity of existing poverty and/or increasing the number of people suffering from it. Before examining this relationship, it is important to explain what is meant by ‘poverty’. The most common definition is based on household and per person incomes. A person is conventionally considered poor if his or her income level falls below some minimum level necessary to meet needs such as housing, food, clothing,education, health and so on. This minimum level is usually called the ‘poverty line’. The World Bank defined the global poverty line to be in the range of US$1.25 and US$2 per day (in terms of 2005 purchasing power parity). The 10 to 20 poorest countries of the world have an average poverty line of $1.25 a day, and about 1.4 billion people in the developing world lived in poverty (or on less than US$1.25 a day) in 2005.
An alternative measure used to describe poverty is the ability to meet basic needs. The basic needs poverty line (BNPL) is the minimum income that an individual requires to meet his or her basic needs and is based on the food poverty line and the non-food poverty line. The latter, at its basic level, ‘is the monetary cost of the non-food essentials’ deemed necessary for a ‘standard’ household to achieve the minimum socially acceptable standard of living in non-food items (Narsey 2008). It comprises housing and household expenses, utilities, transport, education, medical expenses, clothing and entertainment.What is necessary to satisfy basic needs varies across time and societies, however, so the definitions of poverty and poverty lines also vary across time and place. Each country uses a poverty line appropriate to its level of development, and societal norms and values. For the Pacific, poverty is thus defined in terms of not
only income level but also other social indicators, including education level and access to water and sanitation.




The link between disaster risk and poverty

There is considerable anecdotal evidence of a link between disaster risk and poverty. Findings from worldwide consultations with the poor (World Bank 2000), the UNDP’s (2004) report on mutual links between disaster and development, and the UK Department for International Development’s (Department for International Development 2004) explanation of the links between development and disasters in view of the long term impacts on poverty trends have all pointed to a relationship between disasters and poverty. It is widely acknowledged that the poor often live on marginal lands and in poorly constructed houses, and often have poor access to water and sanitation—for example, 80 per cent of the poor in Latin America, 60 percent of the poor in Asia, and 50 per cent of the poor in Africa live on marginal lands characterised by poor
productivity (World Bank 1997). According to White et al. 2004, people living in such conditions generatea range of immediate ‘unsafe conditions’. Such conditions make the poor more sensitive to disasters and exacerbate their poor economic status. While those better-off may choose to live in higher risk areas, the poor often have no other choice. Poor thus live in poorly constructed houses, have poor access to water and sanitation, and often do not have food and nutritional security. Living in poverty thus increases their sensitivity to disaster. Given limited income and limited financial savings (if any), the ability of the poor to respond to and recover from disaster is limited at best. Further, the poor cannot easily adapt to disaster by investing in options such as disaster-proof technology, relocating to less hazardous areas, replacing lost items or even taking out insurance (World Bank 1997).It has been noted that disasters can even induce poverty, especially among those living near the poverty line.The World Bank (2000) also noted disasters and the destruction of assets of the poor can trap families in chronic poverty because they will not have the necessary income to rebuild their homes, replace assets and meet basic needs. In other words, disasters can be a source of poverty (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007).At the national level, the ability of a community to cope with and recover from external shocks also depends on the health of natural resources and supporting ecosystems (natural capital asset), human health (human capital asset), physical infrastructure (physical asset) and financial resources (financial asset) available to people (Carney 1998). It is often stated that recurring disasters can hold back development and progress towards national development goals, including the millennium development goals (MDGs) (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007, UNDP 2004). Many countries report this problem in their national MDG progress reports.The impacts of natural disasters at the national level are, however, not merely a matter of social and humanitarian importance; they are of economic importance too. They manifest in households’ socioeconomic status, and the cumulative effects will be experienced across sectors and through government finances. The impact of disaster at household, communities and national levels limits their ability to respond to and recover and rehabilitate from external shocks, influencing economic productivity, economic growth and the status of economic development. There is, however, little quantitative empirical evidence of the long term impact of disasters on the lives and livelihoods of people, and on national development prospects .




Link between disasters and poverty –

To examine the relationship between disasters and poverty, partial analytical and quantitative relational analysis could be adopted, depending on the scale of analysis of interest as well as the availability of quantitative data (table 2). Partial analysis can describe:
• hazard characteristics and disaster profiles (qualitative and quantitative)
• the structure of the economy and economic development trends based on official government statistics
and statistics reported by international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian
Development Bank (quantitative)
• the nature of household wellbeing (including poverty status), using official statistics released by the governments, reports from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, official international statistics released by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (the human development index [HDI] and the human poverty index [HPI]), and academic reports released on the subject (trend analysis as well as qualitative).
On the other hand, to determine empirically the link between poverty and disaster, the following questions must be asked:
(1) do natural hazards contribute to or exacerbate poverty? And
(2) does poverty have an impact on susceptibility to loss of life, buildings and agricultural assets? From these questions, two generic hypotheses are derived:
Hypothesis 1: Natural disasters are likely to (a) contribute to poverty by affecting key conditions reflected in human development indicators and assets directly, as well as indirectly by affecting their value and productivity; and (b) exacerbate households’ ability to avoid and recover from poverty, and restrict their coping mechanisms.
Hypothesis 2: Poverty is likely to correlate with (a) the exposure of households to natural hazards, and (b)households’ susceptibility to suffering loss from hazard events.An econometric assessment of the two-way relationship between poverty and disaster, at the aggregate national level or cross sectional household level could be adopted to empirically test these hypotheses.


Household characteristics and sensitivity to disasters

The socioeconomic characteristics of households-including their economic wellbeing, access to water and sanitation, and education-are important determinants of households’
sensitivity to disaster, as well as their ability to respond and cope. In other words, those characteristics determine household vulnerability to disasters. Bangladesh is a multicultural society, with a population of near about 16 core .Migration trends is very common from rural to urban area .With the demand for land and housing outstripping the capacity of the towns and cities to accommodate it,many of the new migrants (particularly the non-professional class) find themselves in squatter and other informal settlements. These settlements are usually on marginal lands located, for example, on flood plains,on steep land or in mangrove areas along the coast, which are often susceptible to flooding and/or ther natural hazards. Conditions in squatter settlements around Bangladessh are very poor, with families usually having no access to clean piped water or power, and shelters are often rudimentary. Reflecting the lack of employment opportunities for the families living in squatter settlements, households generally lack access to health services, and malnutrition is also often high. Compounding the lack of income, unemployment for many dwellers makes it difficult for children to complete their education, aggravating already limited employment opportunities. Such social conditions also decrease these households’ ability to respond to and cope with disasters, increasing human vulnerability to natural disaster. Disaster impact assessments in Bangladesh usually also do not include the costs of flow-on effects, yet such effects can be devastating in the short and long terms. Indirect costs not often captured by impact assessment include:
• the household’s reduced ability to pay for schooling less, forcing children to drop out of schools
• the cost to families of the increased incidence of water and vector borne diseases
• decreased government services following a reduction in tax revenues
• the forced relocation sale of productive assets by affected households, which push many into poverty
• a reduced ability to afford clean water, food, clothing and medicine
• migration to urban areas to live in other hazardous areas without access to basic health services
• flow-on economy-wide impacts on other sectors and employment.




Assets and livelihoods

We ran a multinomial logit regression to asset the relation between capital endowments and livelihood strategy in 1998. We distinguished human capital, natural capital, i.e. land, and location capital. These assets are relatively stable over time and are therefore likely to be predetermined. While we may expect that profitable livelihood strategies result in a higher demand for education and higher schooling achievements, thiswillmainly affect the education level of the younger generation and not of the household head,whichwe include as a proxy for human capital. Still, we must interpret the relationship between human capital and livelihood strategies with care, because livelihood strategies could be ‘inherited’ if access is facilitated through inheritance or networks. We did not account for physical capital, which was measured with great error, or for livestock, as this is a relatively liquid asset which is more likely to be the result than the cause of livelihood strategy choice.Preliminary regressions, however, indicate that these variables mostly had insignificantly coefficients (only the coefficient for physical assetst for the farm worker strategy was significantly negative) and hardly affected the results for the other variables.As expected, location capital was important for nonfarm activities . Households in the Pacific were more likely to be involved, and also paved road access and nearness to a health centre increased the probability of household engaging in nonfarm activities. This indicates that market access and closeness to urban centers to a large extend determined access to the rural nonfarm economy. Yet not all households in the same location had a similar probability of being engaged in the nonfarm economy. Human capital seems to play an important role. Compared to annual farming households, households engaged in the nonfarm economy were more likely to have a head who finished high school, or–in case of nonfarm wages or a diversified strategy including both farm and nonfarm activities–could at least read and write. Perhaps surprisingly, also female headed households were more likely to engage in nonfarm activities. Generally higher engagement of women in the nonfarm economy seems not to be the only reason: the share of female adults significantly increased the probability to specialize in nonfarm wage employment or to combine nonfarm activities with annual farming,but not the probability of specialization into nonfarm self-employment. Possibly, women engaged in remunerative nonfarm activities found it easier to maintain an independent household. The main differences between households engaging in the two specialized nonfarm strategies seems to be that employees were somewhat younger and more likely to be literate than the self-employed. Farm households specializing in livestock or perennials had large landholdings and better educated household heads than annual farmers had.Yet, contrary to nonfarm households, they did not have more nonfarm wage employment, these households, however, were more location capital. Households combining annual cropping with farm wages, on the other hand, had smaller landholdings, lower education,
and better road access than farmers specializing in annual cropping. Due to the active land rental markets, the size of owned land did not affect the probability of specializing in agricultural wage employment as compared to annual crop production. Like households specialized in likely to be female headed and have direct access to a paved road, and
they generally had younger household heads.

Changing livelihoods and natural hazards

The above results seem to suggest that livelihood strategies are relatively stable. The only difference between 1998 and 2005 is that in the latter year more farmers grew perennial crops or were engaged in livestock production. Yet, even though the overall distribution of households over the strategies did not change much, individual households may have shifted between categories. Livelihood strategies may change as a result of asset accumulation or shocks such as market liberalization or natural disasters (Block and Webb, 2001; Orr and Mwale, 2001). Possibly, the observed stability of livelihood distribution was the result of a combination of households affected by hurricane Mitch or other shocks moving down and non shock affected households moving up across livelihood strategies. Before we move onto transition matrices describing the livelihood dynamics of individual households, we first discuss the possible transitions households can make.Which potential pathways out of poverty could we deduct? The three poorest groups were agricultural workers, farmers producing annual crops, and those combining these two activities. The transition from agricultural worker to producer was therefore insufficient to escape poverty. Finding a full-time job in the nonfarm sector seems a
successful strategy to escape poverty. Alternatively, farming households could get engaged in the nonfarmsector alongside annual cropping and possibly drop farming altogether later on. Yet these strategies seem open mainly to educated people in locations with a thriving nonagricultural ector. For others, adopting perennial crops or purchasing
livestock could increase income. No formal education is required for these activities, although literacy and education do seem to facilitate them. Themost obvious cause of a possible downward transition seems to be the death or illness of an educated family member, resulting in the loss of a nonfarmjob or business, butwe are especially interested in the consequences of a common natural shock such as hurricane Mitch. Just losing land seems not likely to have much effect on household poverty status. Agricultural self-imployment was not sufficient to lift people out of poverty and land ownership had only a very limited impact on the choice of livelihood strategy. Losing livestock and plantations, however,could throw back people from the intermediate or h igh income strategies of non-annuals farming to production of annuals and/or agricultural wage employment. Other relatively remunerative livelihood strategies involved specialization in nonfarm activities. Formal employment was probably not much affected and most self-employment activities were service-related and therefore not highly capital intensive. Commercial activities would have suffered more than only in the short run had overall income gone down. However, the country experienced moderate growth after Mitch, and poverty did not increase. Overall, our results up to now therefore do not strongly suggest that Mitch has thrown many people back into low-welfare livelihood strategies and thus trapped them into poverty. The panel nature of the data allows us to test this conjecture, and this is what we will do below. The transition matrices reveal that many households moved out of the panel between the different survey runs: in 2005 only 40% of the
original households were left, and attrition rates were especially high between 1998 and 2001 . These high dropout rates could mean that many people moved and changed their livelihood strategy but we cannot be sure. Also considering the remaining households, we find little evidence that livelihood strategies are choices that remain stable over a period of 3 to 7years. Not surprisingly, the most stable livelihood strategies are nonfarm wage employment and non-annuals farming, but even for those strategies between 37 and 64% of household switched strategies. This limited stability is not merely the result of our clustering procedure. Many households actually moved in and out of profitable activities such as nonfarm wage employment, and all correlation coefficients between the resource allocation variables used for clustering are less than 0.5 between years. Hence, households do not stick to the livelihood strategies as defined by the cluster analysis. The three low-welfare strategies–annual farming, farm wages, and farm wages with annual farming–could be part of a single strategy of poor households, who depend on agriculture for their livelihood. Some years they rent in (additional) land and focus (more) on production, other years they participate (more) in the labor market.More than 60% of households belonged to this group or specialized in one of the substrategies. Also, people may switch between the farm and the nonfarm labor market, depending on availability of (casual) jobs. This group was, however, small, which–like the large income differences between the two activities–points to a dual labor market with on the one hand low-skilled agricultural jobs and on the other hand relatively skilled nonfarm jobs. Also the other clusters seem to represent separate livelihood strategies, and moving between strategies often means a transition to more or less remunerative activities.


Relation between Lives , livelihood and natural disaster in Global context

Pakistan. On 8 October 2005, an earthquake measuring 7.6 on the Richter scale, with its epicentre located 19 km northeast of Muzaffarabad struck the northern areas of Pakistan and India. Azad Jammu Kashmir and North West Frontier Province were severely affected, including 3 – 4 million people and an estimated death toll of 80,000. A rapid participatory assessment was conducted by an FAO Livelihoods Adviser in collaboration with ILO and the Department of Agricultural Extension, Government of AJK, during the period 27 to 31 October 2005. Its objective was to provide some qualitative information on how the earthquake has affected people’s lives and how they make a living. The survey looked at what resources people had lost, the coping strategies which they adopted to deal with the situation, and the outcomes that they sought to achieve when the immediate effects of the emergency were over. The rapid assessment also set out relevant responses based on the livelihood analysis, and gave a one year timeline for phasing in these responses. Use of a livelihood framework, as in this example, was instrumental in allowing the analysis to be organised in a way that clearly showed the impact of the crisis on people’s lives and relevant intervention priorities. This would not have been possible with a more sectoral analysis based on pre-conceived ideas of need.

Somalia. The Food Security Analysis Unit – Somalia (FSAU) has been developing a tool with which to classify the severity of impact of different situations on people’s lives and livelihoods. The Integrated Phase Classification (IPC) makes use of a number of different information sources to derive a “phase classification” of a particular geographic area. The phases range from phase 1 – generally food secure to phase 5 – famine / humanitarian catastrophe. In arriving at the classification, fairly detailed analysis is done of the state of and prospects for the five capital assets noted above. The following table presents indicates how the results of such analysis is translated into a “phase” indication


Source: Integrated Food Security and Humanitarian Phase Classification: Technical Manual Version I, FSAU, May 11 2006.



Conclusion

Lastly, we can say that Bangladesh is a country of Disaster due its geographical location.Large parts of the developing world lie in areas with substantial risk of being hit by natural hazards such as earthquakes, droughts, floods and hurricanes. People living in these areas have limited capacity to cope with shocks and consequently natural disasters can have persistent effects on welfare. Through destruction or distress sales of productive assets, a natural hazard could thus induce people with relatively remunerative livelihoods to choose more defensive strategies which allow them to survive, but at a permanently lower welfare level than before. The lowest welfare is generated by households engaging in annual farming, farm employment, or a combination of these two activities. The households engaged in livelihood strategies resulting in medium or high welfare levels during at least one of the years. Relatively high incomes were generated by specialization in nonfarm wage employment or ranching. Nonfarm self-employment, perennial farming and annual cropping with nonfarm employment resulted in medium-income levels. The distribution of households over the strategies is very similar between years, the only difference being a slightly larger share of farmers engaged in other activities that annual cropping in the later years. The clear welfare ordering of livelihood strategies indicates that there were entry barriers to the high-returns activities. Multinomial logit analysis supports this suggestion: Households with more human, location, and to a smaller extent natural capital have a larger probability of being engaged in (medium or) high-return activities. Hence, although previous studies have shown a strong correlation between land ownership and welfare, this study thus suggests that land alone is not enough to improve welfare and that location and possibly education are at least as important. The potentially causal role of education requires some qualification. As proxy for human capital, we considered the education of the household head, which is unlikely to be affected by the current livelihood strategy. Yet,if livelihood strategies affect child education and strategies are somehow inherited, e.g. because land ownership is required for ranching or formal sector jobs are only accessible with the right contacts, the causality may have run from livelihood strategy to education and not vice versa. The existence of livelihood strategies with different welfare levels and a more or less constant overall distribution of households over the strategies seem to suggest that there was a group of households
trapped in poverty. This suggests that there was no absolute poverty threshold, but also that being able to initiate a relatively profitable livelihood strategy was no guarantee that this strategy could be maintained. Anti-poverty policies should therefore not only focus on helping people to overcome entry barriers to profitable activities, but also to build and maintain a viable business over time. Disaster creates disturbance in season and out of season in several times of the year. Livelihood pattern is totally changed during the moment of disaster but the inhabitants of Bangladesh are optimist that they will overcome all sorts of problem.





References

Chen, L.C., A.K.M. Chowdhury, S.L. Huffman 1980. 'Anthropometric assessment of energy-protein malnutrition and
subsequent risk of mortality among pre-school age children' American Journal of Clinical and Nutrition 33:1836-
1845.
Cuny, Frederick C. 1983. Disasters and Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Currey, Bruce. 1978. 'The Famine Syndrome: Its Definition for Relief and Rehabilitation in Bangladesh' Ecology of Food
and Nutrition 7(78):87-98.
Custers, Peter. 1993. 'Bangladesh Flood Action Plan: A Critique' Economic and Political Weekly July 17-24, 1993: 1501-
1503.
Davis, I. 1978. Shelter after disaster. Headington, Oxford: Oxford Polytechnic Press.
Drabek, Thomas, E. 1986. Human System Response to Disaster: An Inventory of Sociological Findings. London:
Springer-verlag.
Drabek, Thomas, E and Keith Boggs. 1968. 'Families In Disaster: Reactions and Relatives' Journal of Marriage and
The Family 30:443-451.
Dynes, Russel R. et al (eds). 1978. Sociology of Disasters: Contribution to Disaster Research Italy: franco Angeli.
Dynes, Russel R. 1970. Organised behaviour in disaster. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.
El-Sabh, M. I. and T. S. Murty (eds). 1988. Natural and man-made hazards. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Fritz, C.E. 1961. ‘Disaster’ in R.R. Merton and R.A. Nisbet (eds.) Contemporary Social Problems, New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World.
Hanchett, Suzanne and Mahbuba Nasreen. 1992. 'Gender Issues in the Flood Action Plan'. A paper presented at the
workshop of Flood Response Study (FAP 14) organised by Bangladesh Flood Action Plan, Dhaka, November 9,
1992.
Hanchett, Suzanne, 2003. ‘Gender and Water in Bangladesh’, paper presented at the Annual Conference of American
Anthropological Association, USA: Chicago, Illinois, November, 2003.
Hansen, A. and Oliver-Smith (eds.) 1982. Involuntary Migration and Resettlement. Boulder: West View Press.
Haque, C.E. and M.Q. Zaman. 1989. 'Coping With Riverbank Erosion Hazard and Displacement in Bangladesh: Survival
Strategies and Adjustments' Disasters: The Journal of Disaster Studies and Management 13(4):301-314.
Hossain, H., C.P. Dodge and F.H. Abed. 1992. From crisis to Development: Coping with Disasters in Bangladesh. Dhaka:
University Press.
Hossain, M. et al. 1987. Flood in Bangladesh: Recurrent Disasters and Peoples Survival. Dhaka: University Research
Centre.
Hussain, A.M. 2001. ‘Anthropological Approach to the Study of Natural Disaster’ in Proshanta Tripura (ed.) Nribiggan
Potrika 6, Jahangornagar University, Dhaka
Islam, Aminul, M. 1974. 'Tropical Cyclones: Coastal Bangladesh' in G.F. White (ed) Natural Hazards: Local, National,
Global. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kates, R.W. 1971. 'Natural Hazard in Human Ecological perspective: Hypotheses and Models' Economic Geography
47:438-451.
8
Kates, R.W. 1962. Hazard and Choice Perception in Flood Plain Management. Research Paper No. 78. Chicago:
Department of Geography, University of Chicago.
Khalequzzaman, MD. 1994. 'Recent Floods in Bangladesh: possible causes and solutions' Natural Hazards 9:65-80.
Knott, R. 1987. ‘The Logistics of Bulk Relief Supplies’ Disasters 11:113-116.