.

~'''---'-~"-"

DEVELOPMENT OF A SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD SECURI1Y MODEL

FOR STORM SURGE HAZARD IN COASTAL AREA

MAHMUDA MUTAHARA

,- AUGUST, 2809

I
,_.'. Illmlll~ll!!!!!11I11U1 ,,
~--'~~'- -"~.
I
" ~ .. --.- ~----"
INSTI11JTE OF WATERAND FLOOD MANAGEMENT
BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
(BUET), DHAKA.
The thesis titled "Development of a Sustainable Livelihood Security Model for Storm
Surge Ila1-a.rd in Coastal Area~ submitted by Mahmuda Motahara, Roll ]\;0.
MI0062808F, Session: October 20G6, has been accepted a, satisfactory in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Water Resources

Development on 1stAugust, 2009.

BOARD OF EXAMINERS

.-.
Dr. Anisul Haque Chainnan
Profes,or and Director (Supervisor)
Institute of Water and Flood Management
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET)
Dlrnka

Dr. Rezaur Rahman Member

Professor
Institute of Water and Flood Management
Bangladesh University of Engineering and l'edmology (DUET)
Dhaka .

........ ~ .
Dr. M. Shah Alam Khan
Member
Professor
Institute of Water and Flood Managemem
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Teclmology (BUET)
Dhaka.

~ ..
Director Member
Institute ofTnstilllte of Water and Flood Management (Ex-Oft1cio)
Bangladesh University of Engineering and fechnology (BUET)
Dhaka.

Md. Wajl Member

Heud, Water Resource Division (External)
Center for Environmental and Geographic Information System
(CEGIS). Dhaka, 13angladesh.
 -- --..•

CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION

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

~
.............................
Mahmuda Mut.ham
Roll No. MlOO62808F
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS i.iIl

LIST OF TABLES i,
LIST OF FIGURES v.vi
ABBREVIATIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
""
viii
ABSTRACI' iI-I

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1-8

1.1. General Concept 1

1.2. Background of the Study 2
1.3. Coastal Zone 4
104. Objectives of the Study 5
1.5. Justification of the Study 6
1.6. Scope of the Study 6
1.7. Limitations of the Study 6
1.8. Organization of the Thesis 7

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 9-25

2.1. Introduction 9
2.2. Coastal Zone of Bangladesh 9
2.3. Coastal Livelihoods and Resources 12
2.4. Natural Vulnerability Issues for Coastal Livelihoods 15
2.5. Storm Surges: Most Destructive Water Based Hazard in Bangladesh Coast 18
2.6. Livelihood Security 23
2.7. Indicator Development and Multi-Criteria Decision Making 23

CHAYfER TIlREE: METHODOLOGY 26-40

3.1. Selection ofCoastaI Livelihood Groups 26

3.2. Selection of Sampling Area 27
3.3. Methodology ofModei Formulation 29
3.3.1. Methodology of data collection 29
3.3.1.1. Literature review and secondary data collection 30
3.3.1.2.Primary data collection 30
3.3.2. Methodology of indicator development and selection 34
3.3.2.1. Development of indicator framework, 34
3.3.2.2. Selection of indicators to different security options 36
3.3.3. Data analysis 38
3.3.4. Methodology of security index 39
CHAPTER FOUR: LIVELIHOOD GROUPS IN STUDY AREA 41 -54

4.1. Introduction 41
4.2. Selected Livelihood Groups 42
4.3. Study Area 45
4.3.1. Cox's bazaar district 48
4.3.2. Satkhiradistrict 51
4.4. Sample Size for Field Study 53

CHAPTER FIVE: LIVELIHOOD SECURITY MODEL 55-77

5.1. Introductiou 55
5.2. The Model Concept 56
5.2.1. Storm surge: the background issue 57
5.2.2. OJastallivelihood system 58
5.2.3. Livelihood se<:Urityindicators: model input data 60
5.2.4. Livelihood security standard for coastal people 65
5.3. Livelihood Security Options 68
5.4. Selection of Indicator for Individual Security 71
5.5. Livelihood Security Model 74
5.6. Model Use for Livelihood Security Assessment 76
5.7. Summary 77

CHAPTER SIX: COASTAL LIVELIHOOD SYSTEM ANALYSIS 78-110

6.1. Introduction 78
6.2. Coastal Livelihood System with Storm Surge Risk 78
6.2.1. Storm surge risks for security of coastal livelihood 79
6.2.2. Natura1sub-system for security of coastal livelihoods 83
6.2.3. Financial sub-system for coasta1livelihood security 88
6.2.4. Human resources sub-system for coasta1livelihood security 97
6.2.5. Infrastructura1 resources for coastal livelihood security 101
6.2.6. Social resources for coastal livelihood security 108

11\-122
CHAPTER SEVEN: MODEL APPLICATION AND DISCUSSION

7.1. Introduction 111

7.2. Livelihood Security against Storm Suq,>e 111
7.2.1.Input dlrtll calculation 111
7.2.2.Set:urity scoring for individual indicator 114
7.2.3.Calculation of security level for individual security options 115
7.2.4.Calcu1ation of overall security level of livelihood groups 117
7.3. Discussion 118
7.3.1. Discussion on livelihood security level in individual study site 118
7.3.2. Discussion on livelihood security among to study sites 120

"
CHAPTER EIGlIT: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 123-125

8.1 .Conclusion 123

8.2.Recommendations 124
8.3. Recommendations for Further Study 125

REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HOUSE HOLD SURVEY 132
APPENDIX B: CHECKLIST FOR FOCUS STAKEHOLDER 'MEETING 139

APPENDIX C: ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS 147

APPENDIX D: MODEL APPLICATION AND CALCULATION 167
APPENDIX E: PHOTOGRAPHS 189

'"
 LIST OF TABU'S

Table no. Page

2.1: Livelihood assets for coastal people 15

2.2: Major cyclonic storms in Bangladesh coast 18

3.1: Selected study area. 28
3.2: Pair wise comparison scale for AHP preferences 37
3.3: Average random consistency 38

3.4: Direction for security scores 39

3.5: Scale of security 39
4.1: Households of different livelihood groups for questionnaire survey in site I.
53
4.2: Households of different livelihood groups for questionnaire survey in site 2.
54
5.1: An indicator framework for coastal livelihoods against storm surge 62
5.2: Standard value ofindicators 66

5.3: Selected indicators for individual household security options 71

5.4: Parameters used in constructed model 74
5.5: Security scoring system 76
6.1: The statistics of storm surges in the coast of Bangladesh 81
6.2: List of natural resources for living of different livelihood groups in coastal area 83
6.3: Alternative scopes of livelihood groups in the economic field of coastal living 89
6.4: Housing condition in coastal area with their security performance 101
6.5: Type of structure in where people take shelter during surge time 104
6.6: Road and transportation facilities in coastal area 105

6.7: Types of safe water sources and their use in coastal area 106
6.8: The Performance of different organiwtions in risk management for the area 109

7.1a. Input data for livelihood groups in Cox's hazaar 112

7.1h. Input data for livelihood groups in Satkhira 113
7.2: Sample calculation for Security scoring for individual indicator 115

7.3a. Individual Security level for livelihood groups in Cox's bazaar 116

7.3b. Individual Security level for livelihood groups in Satkhira 116

7.4: Security level for livelihood groups in both sites of the study area "'-121

'"
 LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Fig. DO.
2.1. Coastal Zone of Bangladesh 10
4.1. Location map of the both study sites in Coastal Zone of Bangladesh 47

4.2. Sampling percentage of house hold according to livelihood groups in Cox's bazaar 53
4.3. Sampling percentage of house hold according to livelihood groups in Satkhira 54
56
5.1. Concept of "Livelihood Security Model" for storm surge hazard
6.1. Courses of recent major cyclones 80
6.2. Stonn surge vulnerability/risk prediction in study area 82
6.3. The performance of natural drainage channels in the study site of the coast 84
6.4. The land use pattern of the study area 85
6.5. The general resource exploiting time ftame of coastal livelihood groups 87

6.6. The probable rate of regeneration or reformation of resource base after storm surge 88

6.7. The household saving capacity of the livelihood groups in study sites 90
6.8. The response of participant on the reliability of their saving system 92

6.9. Rate of household income from home ground for individual livelihood groups 93

6.10. Ownership on their overall income source for different livelihood groups in coast 94

6.11. Scope offmanciaJ loan in different livelihood groups in the study sides 95
6.12. The income access from rest of the country for study area %
6.13. The rate of woman activeness in different livelihood groups in coastal area %

6.14. Literacy rate in different livelihood groups in coastal Bangladesh 98

6.15. The Performance of medical services in study sites of different districts 99
100
6.16. The rate of first aid trained parson in household oflivelihood groups
6.17. Performance of housing infrastructure among the different livelihood groups in 102

coastal area
103
6.18. The structural protection in the coast of study area
6.19. Performance of shelter structure in coastal area 104
6.20. Availability and access oflivelihood groups to safe water sources 107
6.21. Sanitation facilities of different livelihood groups in coastal area 108

7.1a Level of overall livelihood security for selected livelihood groups in Cox's bazaar. 117

7.1b. Level of overall livelihood security for selected livelihood groups in Satkhira 118

•
7.2. Level of overall livelihood security for selected livelihood groups oomparingwith a 119
standardhouseholdsecurityframe in Cox's bazaar
7.3. Levelof overalllivelihoodsecurityfor selectedlivelihoodgroupsoomparingwith a 120
standardhouseholdsecurityframe in Satkhira
7.4. Comparativeanalysisoflivelihood securityin different study sites 121

7.5. Correlationamong incomesecurityand livelihoodsecurityof ooasta1livelihood 122

,i
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process

BBS Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics
BIDS Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies
BlmT Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
awns Bangilldesh Water Development Board
CARDMA Coastal Area Resource Development & Management Association
COP Coastal Development Plan
CDS Coastal Development Strategy
CEGIS Centre for Environment and Geographic Information System
CERP Coastal Embankment Rehabilitation project
CLA Coastal Livelihoods Analysis
CI Consistency Index
CR Consistency Ratio
CPP Cyclone Preparedness Program
DFIO Department for International Development
DOE Depllrtment of Environment
ESCAP Economic and Social Conunission for Asia and the Pacific
FHOM Fuzzy Hierarchical Decision Making
GDF Gross Domestic Product
leZM Integrated Coastal Zone Management
IWM Institute ofWaler Modeling
JSCE Japan Society of Civil Engineering
LOED Local Government Engineering Department
MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision Making
NWMP National Water Management Plan
PDO-ICZMP Program Development Office for Integrated Coastal Zone
Management Plan
PDSCL Perception of Direct Stakeholder on Coastal Livelihoods
PSF Pond Sand Fieller
SLF Sustainable Livelihoods Framework
UN United NlIIions
UP Union Parishad
WARPO Water Resources Planning Organization
WB World Bank

vii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the outset, the author acknowledges the blessing of Almighty Allah, the Beneficent,
the Merciful for enabling her to complete the study successfully. The author wishes to
express her sincere and profound gratitude and appreciation to her reverend supervisor
Dr. Anisul Haque, Professor, Institute of Water and Flood Management OWFM),
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Tet:hnology (BUEn, Bangladesh, for his
cordial guidance, suggestions. comments and continuous encouragement thronghout the
study.

The author thanks the members of the board of examiners Dr. Rezaur Rahman, Dr. M.
Shah Alam Khan and Mr. Md. Waji Ullah, Divisional Head, Water Resource Division,
CEGIS Bangladesh for their constructive suggestions for improvement of the thesis. The
author's heartfelt thanks and gratitude are also extended to all teachers of IWFM, BUET
for their insights, useful comments, and suggestions during the research.

The author also spet:ially thanks Dr. Hamidul Haque, Research Coordinator, Crossing
Boundaries (CB) Project, IWFM, and Dr. Kamal Uddin, Professor, IAT, BUET, for their
valuable supports during the conceptual formulation and field work of this research.

The author expresses her sincere appreciation and deep gratitude to Mr. Mostafa
Nuruzzaman, Director, Sushilon (a local NOD in Satkhira), Mr. Abidur Rahman, Project
Officer, SARPV Bangladesh, Cox's bazaar for providing net:essary information and
making arrangement for field data collection. The author also pays her sincere respect to
the Local Government Authority, UP members, participants and general people for
providing valuable information. Without their help and participation the study would be
very difficnlt to complete.

viii
 ABSTRACT

The resourceful coastal zone is ever dynamic and the set:urity of a coastal dweller's life
and livelihood depend on the availability of terrestrial and marine resources in terms of
ownership and access. In Bangladesh coastal resources and their dependent livelihoods
are at great risk due to recent aggravating of storm surges. Cyclone induced storm surge
hazards threat the coastal livelihoods by damaging the inland, marine and forest resource
system. In this study, a total of seven marginal livelihood groups have been identified in
the coastal areas which not only enjoy the resource oriented opportunities but also face
the extreme vulnerability due to storm surges. Farmer, fisher Gele), fry (shrimp) collector,
salt farmer, dry fisher, forest resource extractor (bawalis, mouals, golpata collectors etc.)
and daily wage laborer are the identified livelihood groups in the study sites. Their
livelihood system has been defined as adequate and sustainable access to income and
resources to meet their basic needs with function of five capitals (natural, physical,
financial, social and hUlIlan)to rewver from the vulnerabilities due to any natural shock
to the coastal environment. The aim of the study was to develop a livelihood security
model based on an indicator framework. The indicator framework, containing 48
qualitative and quantitative indicators representing coastal livelihood se>:urityagainst
storm surge risk, has been formed based on literature review and field obsetVation. In the
model, livelihood security has been defined as an arrangement of five household set:urity
options such as security offood, income, life and health, house and properties and water.
The indicator response to individual se>:urity option bas been evaluated by AHP
(Analytical Hierarchy Process), a multi-criteria decision making system. Measurements
of indicator have been conducted through coastal livelihood system analysis by Focus
Stakeholder Meetings and household questionnaire survey with reasonable sampling size.
The Livelihood Security Model has been used to predict the security level of the
livelihood groups against the vulnerability from storm surges in study area. Diffe.tenl
levels of livelihood security have been found for various livelihood groups. For example,
highest livelihood security level has been found for salt fanner as 45.13% in Cox's
bazaar where the lowest security level has been measured for wage laborer as 11.43% in
Satkhira. Variation bas been shown in security level of a livelihood group in alternate

i,

•
study site such as fanner group keeps 41.89"10 livelihood security in Cox's bazaar and
33.99% in Satkhira. The model result has ultimately shown that the levels of security for
livelihood groups are higher in Cox's bazaar than that of in Satkhira except for fry
collector. A strong correlation betweeu income security and overall livelihood security
has been found from the model application in both study sites. The model has been
recommended to be used for improving development activitles and sustainable
management plan for coastal community in Bangladesh.
 ,
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

1.1. ~Del'lillConcept

The world is wanning. Burning of fossil fuels, largely by the industrialized nations, has
begun to trigger more extreme weather that in tum gives birth to more severe disasters-
cyclone, storm surge and flood damages in coastal area. The impact of such damages is
exacerbated by environmental degradation. The global natural system analyzers are
strongly concerned about the Integrated Management of Coastal Zone in the earth.
Economically and politically powerful countries in the world are able to keep proper
approaches to protect their coastal wne, resources and related livelihood groups. But
scientists predict that more destructive coastal hazards impact mostly poor developing
nations least able to afford to manage them (COP, 2003). As a result of these trends. a
large number of populations in that zone of developing and under developed countries
like Bangladesh, are suffering much and facing more insecurity over their living system.

Livelihood security is an integrating concept where a livelihood comprises of the

capabilities, assets (irn:luding both all material and social resources) and activities
required for a means of living (Scoones, 1998). A livelihood system IS sustainable if it
can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities
and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next genemtion
(Chambers and Conway, 1992). Livelihoods are secured when households have secure
ownership of, or access to resources and income earning activities, including reserves and
assets, to offset risks, ease shocks and meet contingencies (Chambers, 1989). Generally a
Sustainable Livelihood Security Model may enhanced by one or a combination of the
three intervention strategies at household level such as Livelihood promotion
(development oriented programming), Livelihood protection (rehabilitation/mitigation
oriented programming) and Livelihood provisioning (relief-oriented programming)
(Frankenberger and McCaston, 1998).
 2

Livelihood in the coastal area differs from rest of the country. In Bangladesh, coastal
livelihood pattern largely depends on what resources (both in land and the sea) are
available at the household level in terms of ownership and access (Soussan, 2001).
Sustainability of resources and securities of livelihoods in coastal area may hamper due
to regular frequency of natural disasters and thus make vulnerabilities to people's well-
being. Livelihood security against those vulnerabilities is defined in relation to the
essential well-being associated securities of coastal.community with perfect combination
of food security; water security; income security; health and personal security and
security of household properties, Livelihood Security Model can be developed to improve
measurement of impacts of certain vulnerability at household level and also 10 improve
development programme in coastal area.

1.2. Background of the Study

How do women and men who live and work in the coastal zone make their living and
keep it secured? How do they consider their main resources, options, vulnerabilities and
constraints to ensure their livelihood security? - those questions have developed the idea
of livelihood security model formation for coastal livelihood groups with the specific
natural issue.

Coastal people enjoy higher opportunities and access to natural resources but face more
vulnerabilities or risks in their field of employment and properly. In Bangladesh coastal
people hold something special at the way of living because they are filly dependent on
both terrestrial and marine ecosystem with some extent of vast mangroves, large
estuaries, coral reefs etc. Natural hazards and induced vulnerabilities affect that coastal
community much more than the rest of the nation.

The natural hazard cyclone, a tropical storm or atmospheric turbulence involving circular
motion of winds, occurs in Bangladesb almost every year. About one tenth of the global
tropical cyclones with storm surge occur in the Bay of Bengal (World Bank, 1993).
About one sixth of tropical cyclones developed in the the Bay of Bengal had landfall on
the Bangladesh coasl The Bay cyclones also move towards the eastern ooast of India,

,
•
 3

towards Myanmar and occasionally into Sri Lanka. But stonn surge causes the maximum
damage when they come into Bangladesh, West Bengal and Orissa of India (BUET,
2008). The situation is created by the physical placement of the country. More damages
caused mainly by natural and some anthropogenic issues such as low flat terrain, high
density of population and poorly built houses. Cyclones and associated storm surges are
unique threat to the coastal resources and living activities of Bangladesh. Cyclone
generally having high wind speeds up to 225 kmihr, but above all the consequent rise of
sea water levels (surges) tlurt can reach heights of 9 ill, can create enormous damage to
life, properties and ecosystems. The combined wind and surge effects make the coastal
population extremely vulnerable, limiting tlrem in their activities and development.

The coastal region of Bangladesh consists of southern deltaic zones and is mainly formed
by the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna estuaries. It dissolves huge natural (both land
and sea environment) resources and covers the parts of 19 sea and estuary facing
administrative districts (pDO-reZM, 2001). The socio-economic and eoological setting
of the coastal area is complex, and its developmental challenges are tough bnt instead of
drawing more attention to the coastal region and its people, they have suffered from utter
neglect and a high level of vulnerability to natural calamities and their associated risks
(pDO-rCZM, 2(03). Coastal communities oomprises of a large part of the national
population with livelihoods directly related depending on resources in coastal and marine
ecosystem in Bangladesh. But due to improper management and poor understanding of
natural systems and hazards the coastal resources are being depleted and biodiversity is
degraded that will result in increased risks and vulnerabilities as well as shrinking options
to support livelihoods and improve the quality of living (Islam, 2004). The Coastal
communities directly attached with local product are mostly poor, land less, unorganized
and disadvantaged groups of people in the society. They depend on the advantaged
groups of people like the boat/gear O'Wl1er,money lender and are e:<posed to manmade
and natural hazards including depletion of coastal resources on which they depend for
their livelihoods. They do not have social, institutional and financial capacity to address
those issues for sustainability and security in their livelihoods.
 4

People in Coastal zone want security to their livelihood; it is the most important
statement for the welfare of coastal community of the most developing countries in the
present situation when the intensity of cyclonic storm surge is increasing in the world due
to rapid change of climatic condition of the earth. After SIDR (the cyclone and storm
surge in November 2007) coastal people on the Bay of Bengal especially in Bangladesh
coast feel their livelihood vulnerabilities more. In this situation coastal zone management
system should include different environmental and socio-economic techniques which
bear close resemblance 10 the coastal planning and management tools. Coastal livelihood
security model for storm surge would be an essential tool to identify the level of safety of
life and properties of coastal people with better conditions oftheir resource base activities
and sustainable opportunities for livelihood system of households as well as the wider

community in certain area.

1.3. COlllltal Zone

Coast, a geographical term that refers to the transition where land and ocean meet to fonn
a unique environment including the features of inshore waters, inter-tidal areas and
extensive tracts of land (Davies 1978). Since ancient times, river deltas and coastal areas
have been the site of economic and commercial activities and were of fundamental
importance to civilization. Coastal formations are continually changing because of the
dynamic interaction between the oceans and the land. The coastal zone is described as a
site of complex natural system where intense interactions occur among land, sea and
atmosphere with all the biological and physical processes of both the terrestrial and the
marine environments and defined broadly for the purpose of natural resources
management legally or administratively (Kay and Alder, 1999). The term Coastal zone,
usually applied to the area of real concern is that region where human activities are
interlinked with the natural systems of bays, estuaries, deltas, marshes, dunes and
beaches. Scientifically a coastal zone can be defined as the band of dry land and adjacent
ocean space (water and submerged land) in which terrestrial process and land uses
directly affect oceanic processes and vice versa (Kay and Alder, 1999).
 5

The coastal zone is one of the nation's greatest environmental, social, and economic
assets. It is a nexus for tourism and industry activities that include shipping and boating,
fishing, oil and other resource exploration, and the recreational use of beaches. The
coastal zone also enoompasses forests, rivers and streams, wetlands. beaches, barrier
islands, and ocean habitat. Proper maintenance of this complex area ensuring public
safety, managing resources, building roads, maintaining beaches or parks, ensuring safe
navigation and acting to understand how natural and manmade forces are interacting and
affecting processes in the system. Coastal livelihood security analysis may form some
better decisions in navigation, homeland security, coastal hazards, resource management
and other areas--decisions that could save lives, preserve livelihoods, and save the
nation.

1.4. Objectiv~ or the Smdy

The general objective of the study was to undertake a detailed understanding about the
accessible form of coastal livelihood security in Bangladesh concerning storm surge
hazard. The specific objectives of the study were:

);> To prepare a list of existing livelihood groups in the coastal area of Bangladesh
);> To identify the livelihood security indicators for the coastal community against
storm surge
>- To develop a sustainable livelihood security model for storm surge in coastal
community of Bangladesh

Outcome of tbe study: The study findings express a clear idea about the coastal
livelihood groups focusing their household access or opportunities and show a guide line
for livelihood security level analysis in coastal area against storm surge hazard. The
established model shows the level of security for existing livelihood groups in coastal
=,.
 6

1.5. Justification of the Study

Idea of this study has been developed under the concept of Integrated Water Resource
Management focusing the impact management of a severe water related natural hazard.
In present years, it has been found that storm surge hazard occurs in increasing frequency
and causes great damage to coastal resources and life in Bangladesh. Storm surge is a
natural process and human are not able to stop it but they can manage the effects of that
environmental issue. It has also been realized that integrated approaches 'Nill effect
positively to the nation when the coastal management options have to be designed on the
basis of social, economic and environmental indicator assessment. Through this research,
it has been tried to show a way to assess the security level of coastal livelihood groups
and risks of their socio-economic infrastructures in Bangladesh.

1.6. Scope oCthe Study

• Livelihood Security Model would be helpful for assessing the household security
of coastal livelihood groups against the risk of storm surge hazard.
• The model results provide the security of livelihood resources and would be used
as an effective tool of coastal management and development strategy.
• The model can support the policy development and protection initiatives in the
vulnerable area.

1.7. Limitations of the Study

The limitations of the study are as follows:

.;. In some cases the study has suffered from la<:kof adequate information from the
people, due to their unawareness in remote coastal area

• This study has been conducted in only three unions in two coastal districts which
is inadequate to portray the overall scenario of coastal livelihood
 7

•• The calculation of security standard has been hampered from the lack of
emergency reference data about the coastal livelihood system
•• It was difficult to consider all large and small coastal livelihood groups for the
study and for that only resource based groups have been considered.

1.8. Organization of the Thesis

This thesis is divided into eight chapters.

Chapter one provides a general concept of the idea, detailed background with general
information on coastal zone, objective, justification, scope and limitations of the study.

Chapter two documented a review of the literature on the current study. It includes
literature on coastal zone of Bangladesh, coastal livelihoods and its resources, storm
surge: a water base natural hazard, storm surges in Bangladesh coast, indicator
development and multi-criteria decision making process.

Chapter thne describes the details methodology for the present study. The methodology
is divided into three phase: methodology of identification of marginal livelihood groups
in the coast and their residence as the area of present study, methods and materials fOf
formulating a livelihood security model and finally the model application.

Chapter four contains detailed information on the identified coastal livelihood groups
with specific study are. The description of study area includes geology, soils and
topography, climate, hydrology and land use, biological habitats, local community and
stakeholders of two different study sites.

Chapter five describes the Livelihood Security Model established fOf ooasta\ people
against the storm surge hazard. It includes the details of model components such as
indicatof development concernIng the surge hazard and coastal livelihood system,
 8

standard valuation of indicator and fmally selection of them to different security options
and their possible responses due to stonn surges.

Chapter Sll contains the result of field survey under the heading of coasta1livelihood
system analysis. 1001 finds the value of mode! input data.

Chapter seven provides the model application and discussion for two different study
sites in the coastal area of Bangladesh.

Chapter eight includes the conclusions and recommendations oflhe study.

Appendix A contains the sample questionnaire for household survey and information
collection sheet in primary data collection method of the study.

Appendix B includes the check list for stakeholder meeting and participatory approaches.

Appendi:l: C shows the selection of indicators with response to different livelihood

security options by AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) with details calculation.

AppendiJ: D shows the calculation table with detail calculation of model application for
livelihood security assessment.

Appendix E shows some important photographs of the field study.

 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Introductiou

The literature is initially directed to an OVerview of the coastal Environment of

Bangladesh with special concern to the population, their activities and natural resources
in that zone. It also includes the highlighted texts relate with coastal livelihoods and
resources, natural vulnerabilities in coast, storm surges in coastal area of Bangladesh and
concept of livelihood security. It describes the primary information about analytical tools
use in the study.

2.2. Coulal Zone of Bangladesb

Coastal zone is a geographically delineated area which is distinctly characterized by the

aggregation of interacting coastal environments and corresponding natural and man-made
structural systems in which management is fundamentally 1I 'production function' that
combines inputs to produce desired outputs «Kay and Alder, 1999).

Bangladesh is located in the north-east of the South Asian Sub-continent with 1I total area
of I, 47,570 sq. km with an estimated population of 140 million where the coastal zone
lies within the tropical zone between 21-23 N and 89-93 E (BangJapedia, 2008). The
Q Q

coastal area of Bangladesh is an active delta of Ganges- Brahmaputra- Meghna river

systems, rich in water and land resources. The area is characterized by a constantly
changing geographic and geomorphologic situation. In this region landownership is more
skewed than in other parts of the country. Most parts of the area are, therefore, low lying
which can be subjected to inundation even under ordinary circumstances of tides. The
three basic natural system processes and events that govern opportunities and
vulnerabilities of the coastal zone of Bangladesh are: Tidal fluctuation; salinities (both
surface and gronnd water) and cyclone and stonn surge risks (Islam, 2004). A tidal surge
accompanied hy a cyclonic stonn makes the situation alarming which is further
 10

exacero,.,ledby the triangular shape of the SAY OF BENGAL. 11Jt, wide shallow
continenllli shelf is condlK:ive to mnpliliCldion of 5Urges ClIusing wide spread flood
(CEGIS, 2007).

•
.-t. •

-
..N-_
-
. I'''•••• '
..--
IiiI_C_
l.:J ••••••••

• •
-"" ..•.._- ... •• ••••
._-\

••

Fig. 2.1. 0:w\lI1 Zone of Bmtgllldcsh.

Soun:c: POO-ICZM.2002.
 11

Based on available information of the geomorphologic conditions and hydrological

features, the nineteen coastal districts of Bangladesh can be broadly divided into that
three defined regions (pDO-ICZM, 2002b):
II. The eastern region
b. The central region
c. The western region
These regions have definite characteristics influencing the overall coastal morphology of
Bangladesh. Although Bangladesh coast have been divided into three broader regions, the
coast is highly heterogeneous in character lacking homogeneity

THE EASTERN REGION

Morphologically the eastern coastline of Bangladesh from the big Ferri River to Hadar
Mokam (Southernmost tip of the majnland) along Chittagong as II Pacific type coast
running parallel to young mountain ranges including the SI. Martin Island. The east coast
is regular and unbroken and is protected along the sea coast by mud flats and sub-merged
sands. A continuous strip of sand runs from Cox's Bazar to Badar Mokam and [oons the
longest sea beach of about 145 Km (Islam, 2004). The main Rivers of the eastern coast
(Karnaphuli, Sangu, Mlitamuhuri and Nat) playa vital role to the action of the nature.

THE CENTRAL REGION

Central coastal region runs east from Tetuiia River to the Big Feni River estuary and
includes the mouth of the Meglma River. It also locates in the coastal region of Feni,
Noakhali, Patuakhali, Bargona, Bansal, Pirojpur, Chadpur and Comilla districts including
some charlands, islands. Estuarine river delta of Bangladesh characterized by heavy
sediment input and river bank erosion. This region is the most dynamic area and having
the funnel shaped apex of Bay of Bengal in which the rivers and channels amplifying into
the Bay change their courses rapidly. It is the area of more vulnerability and variability of
natural enviromnent (CDS, 2006).
 12

THE WESTERN REGION

The western part covers the coastline from the Tetulia River to the international boarder
located at the Hariabhango River. This coastal region can be termed as Atlantic type in
which the ooastline in general is transverse to the structure of the continental margin.
This is a stable region and is mostly covered by mangrove forests which lessen bank
erosion so that scouring action is confined to the river channels which are in generally
deeper than other region (GOB, 1999a). Accretion does not occur much in this region
because sediments carried by rivers flow almost directly to the Swatch of No Ground
which exert a great influence on tidal characteristics, sediment movement and deposition
with other hydrodynamic and morphological phenomena. The coast of the districts
Khulna, Bagerhat and Satkhira and the sundarbans (cover altogether about 6017 square
km of Bangladesh) denote the southwest coastal zone in Bangladesh (CDP, 2002).

2.3. Coastal Livelihoods and Resoun:es

The concept oflivelihood is dynamic, recognizing that the conditions and composition of
people's livelihoods changes, sometimes rapidly, over time. Livelihoods are complex,
with households in the developing world underl1lking a wide range of activities (EUis,
J 998). Livelihood is synonymous to occupation that means to sustain a person or a
household. This includes a range of occnpations/activities, such as, fanning, fishing,
industry, etc., that generate proceeds, income and wealth. Livelihood assets create the
base for livelihood options and activities for a honsehold (PDO-lCZMP, 2002).

According to the Sustainable Livelihood Framework, all household assets/resources are

broadly grouped into five categories. which include: human, natural, financial, technical
and social/institutional resources (Carney, 1999). Ownership/control of or access to these
assets/resources is vital for decision making for livelihood activities. A livelihood
comprises of the capabilities, assets (stores. resources, claims and access) and activities
required for a means of living; a livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and
recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets and
provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation: and which
 13

contributes net benefits to other IiveUhoods at the local and global levels and in the short
and long term (Chambers and Conway, 1992). The stability of people's livelihoods
depends largely on their vulnerabilities and the reSOUf(:e5that they depend on and
Livelihoods must differ in different social, l:(:ological and institutional settings. The
coastal livelihood analysis provides a better understanding of coastal livelihood
conditions at present and in future. This understanding has been instrumental in preparing
a meaningful coastal zone policy, and would guide the formulation of a pragmatic coastal
development strategy and a feasible investment program for enhancement of livelihoods
of the coastal people, particularly the disadvantaged groups (pDO-ICZMP, 2004).

In the concrete situation of the Bangladesh coastal zone, it was endeavored to know what
are considered as resources in the perception of the people and which resources are
available at the household level. Using the selected assets! resources, people then
undertake a series of activities which generate income (goods, services and cash). which
can be spent on: (i) investments in livelihood assets (land, training) and activities (hiring
labor, buying pesticides); (ii) social payments (membership fees, taxes); and consumption
(food, clothes) (pDO-ICZM, 2002).

A household with a diversified asset base has obviously more options and is in a better
position to maximize household well-being by attaining a higher level of income,
conswnption, comfort and security, and diversifYing risk as welL Activities are of
different nature. Snme are directly cash earning (cow selling, agriculture labor) and some
are cost saving (boat maintenance, net repairing); some are related to self-employment
(fanning on own land, crab collection, horticulture) and some correspond to wage
employment (agriculture labor, indnstriallabor, paddy husking); some contribute directly
to household income (farming, fishing) while some relate to housekeeping for comfort of
all household members (house cleaning, cooking). All these together define human
existence in a particular setting.

Livelihood activities in the coastal zone may be clustered into some broad categories
(pDO-ICZMP,2004).
 14

•. Natural resource based activities, such as: agriculture, salt making, fishing,
aquaculture, shrimp fry collection, fuel collection, extraction of forest products,

etc; and
•. Human resource based activities, such as: livestock and poultry keeping, boat
building (carpentry), net making, kantha making, fish processing, trading, etc.

Coastal zone-specific activities are those, which stem from special goo-physical specialty
of the area conditioned by its natural systems and the opportunities unique to the area.
Some occupations can be exclusively attributed to the coastal zone and some are
prevalent in the coastal districts to a greater extent than other areas.

Livelihood conditions of the people largely depend on what resources are available at the
household level in terms of ownership and access. 1be coastal zone of Bangladesh is rich
in natural resources offering many tangible and intangible benefits to the nation. The
coastal zone has several ecosystems that have important conservation value: mangrove,
marine, estuary, islands., coral, sandy beaches which provides habitat for an abundance of
plant species as well as an array of fish and wildlife. The world's largest uninterrupted
stretch of mangrove ecosystem, the Sundarbans., has been declared in 1997 as Ramsar
Site, a World Heritage needs to be conserved (CEGIS, 2007). The mangroves (with
spectacular wildlife and wide biodiversity), fisheries (> 80% of total marine catch with 28
species of shrimps and 187 spel::ies offish), shrimp culture activities (around 11,500 ha of
the coastal area), tourism (Cox's Bazaar with 145 km long beach offers attractive place
for sea, sand and sun), shipping and inland navigations, ship breaking, oil and gas
exploration, etc are some examples of these benefits (Banglapedia, 2008). There are
strong interactions between components of the natural systems., between users and
ecosystems; and between various users. Nevertheless, its natural resources face multiple
and critical problems including nOD-sustainable resource uses and natural calamities., set
within a human context of wide-spread poverty.
Household asset base provides the necessary condition for selection of livelihood option,
going for gainful activities and coping with all odds. Table 2.1. presents an indicative list
of such assets (pDO-ICZM, 200211.).
 15

Table 2.1: Livelihood assets for coastal people

Cluster A"",
H=m Household members, health, education, training,
skills
Social Organizations, cooperative groups,
network/connections etc.
N,,"rn1 Land, water, common property resources (CPR)

Physical House, tube well, latrine, electricity, cattle,

poultry, tools and utilities etc.

Financial Savings, credit, food/cash assistance (safety nets)

etc.
Source: PDD-ICZM, 2oo2a.

In Bangladesh Livelihood in the coastal area differs from the rest of the country and more
than a quaner of the population of the country lives in a coastal environment with
multiple vulnerabilities and opportunities (COP, 2003). Population density in the coastal
districts is slightly higher than the national average, and the rate of increase is also similar
to the national trend (BBS, 2001).ln addition to the permanent coastal population, there
are a significant number of new and seasonal migrants to the coastal areas, especially to
the newly emerging chars. Those people depend on natural resources in both land and sea
for their living. Continued access to fishery and forestry resources represents insurance
against agricultural risks, providing livelihood security for coastal households having
little or no land. For example, about 90% of the population meets its fuel needs from
forest and flooded forest products; local fisheries resources contribute towards much of
the daily economic requirements and provide food security for coastal people (Ahmed,

2003).

2.4. Natural Vulne •.•bility Issues for Coastal Liveliboods

Coastal Livelihoods are often affected and threatened by a host of incidents and
processes. These together define the vulnerability context of the households followed by
cyclone, stonn surge, flood, water logging, coastal erosion, salinity intrusion etc. Those
issues are responsible to rapid declining of natural resources as well as the livelihood
 16

system in coast. The context as perceived by the people may vary from household to
household and also among members within a household, as different people are affected
in different ways. Short descriptions of main coastal natural issues are defined ru:re.

Cydone aDd storm 5IIrge: Cyclonic storms are an important feature of the climate and
have caused great suffering to prople and damage to structures in the cyclone path. The
storms usually form in the south-east portion of the Bay ofBenga1, move in a northerly or
north-westerly direction and often tum north-easterly or easterly towards the east coast of
Bangladesh. Two different types of cyclones form in the bay - one is the tropical cyclone,
which fonus during the pre- and post-monsoon seasons, and the other is the monsoonal
depression, which develops during the south-east monsoon season (Islam, 2004).
Dynamically they arc different. Tropical cyclones are the most destructive. Stonn winds
move at speeds of up 10 240 kID per hour and cause widespread damage. The most
destructive clement, however, is the water surge caused by a large mass of water at and
around the storm center accumulating in a mound higher than the nonna! sea level and
progressing with the storm as a wind driven storm surge(GOB, 1999a).

Flood: There are various types of floods; monsoon or fluvial floods, flash flood and tidal
floods. Monsoon floods usually do not cause much problem in coastal zone. Tidal tlood
is typical for the coastal zone. Coastal area consists of large estuarine channels, extensive
tidal flat and low lying islands. High tide regularly inundate large tract of these area.
During eKtreme monsoon storms fresh water run off from big rivers, combined with
wind and wave set up caused by strong southern winds, raise the sea surface in the Bay of
Bengal (pDO.ICZMP, 2004b).

Wllter logging: Water logging is especially experienced in the southwest and south
central areas. They are aggravating due to number of reasons such as siltation of water
ways, reduction of storage capacity of downstream water bodies; shrinking water bodies
due to settlements, construction of polders and so one. Localized drainage congestions
are reponed throughout the coastal belt. Inundation regimes, duration and temporal
 17

variation vary but all congestion affect coastal livelihood because of crop damage. water
born diseases and other health related issues (PDO-ICZMP, 2004b).

Coastal erosion: In a deltaic region, the premature decline and death of old rivers or
sudden rise and violence of new ones are natural features of the Landscape. Erosion and
accretion were found prominerrt in the coastal area of Bangladesh when major changes of
river courses took place either by natural phenomena such as geological activities of
subsidence or upliftment or by human interference, such as cross-dam, embankment,
sluices elc (Islam, 2004). Major stable accretions were found in the coastal belt of
Patuakhali and southern part ofBhola district. Both erosion and accretion in the Meghna
estuary region (i. e. northern part of Bhola district, Lakshmipur, Noakhali and Feni
coastal belt, Hatiya and Sandwip area) were found to be prominent. Major threat of
erosion in the next 25 years may be in the region of northern part ofBhola, Lakshmipur
coastline, north and northeastern parts of Hatiya, north and 'western parts of Sandwip.
Slow a£cretion may take place in the southern pars of Hatiya and Noakhali mainland.
Erosion and =:retion in the Fern coastal belt is expected to be insignificant (GOB,
1999a)_

Salinity intrusion: Water and soil salinity is a common problem in many parts of the
coastal zone affecting agricultural and Industrial activities. Saline water intrusion is
highly seasonal. It is at its minimum during the monsoon (Jnne-October) when the main
rivers discharge about 80 pereent of the annual fresh water flow. In dry season months,
the saline front begins to penetrate inland, and the affected areas rise sharply from 10
percent in the monsoon to over 40 percent. 70% of the 2.35 million hectares within the
Khulna and Barisal Divisions is affected by different degree of soil salinity (pDO~ICZM,
2004). In the South western coastline shrimp farming is familiar industry which has
increased the soil salinity in the Bagherhat, Satkhira, Khulna and Cox's Bazar coastal belt
in Bangladesh. Several studies have shown that soil salinity has been increased due to the
extensive shrimp fanning in this region and has destroyed the soil fertility in these
regions significantly.
 18

2.5. Storm Surges: Most Destructive Water Based Hazard in Bangladesh Coast

Bangladesh is part of the humid tropics, with the Himalayas on the north and the fwmel-
shaped coast touching the Bay of Bengal on the south. TItis peculiar geography of
Bangladesh brings not only the life-giving monsoons but row catastrophic cyclones,
Northwestern storms, tornadoes and floods. It is denoted that the Bay of Bengal is a
favorable breeding ground of tropical cyclones and Bangladesh is the worst suffer of all
cyclonic storms casualties in the world. About 5.5% cyclonic storms (wind speed greater
than 01'equal to 62 kmIhr) form in the Bay of Bengal and about 1% cyclonic storm of the
global total hit Bangladesh (Ali, 1996, 1999a, t999b). On the other hand, if the tropical
cyclone disasters due to each of which the minimlUll death tolls were 5,000 are
oonsidered, then it is found that a death toll of about 53% of the global total occurred in
Bangladesh (Ali, 1999a).

Coastal cyclonic surges are the most dangerous hazards in the coastal areas of
Bangladesh. When the annual cyclones roar in, hundreds and sometimes thousands of
people are swept away, Counter-clockwise cyclonic surges are created offshore due to
low atmospheric pressure, which pushes a wall of water with a height of up to 10 m and a
wind velocity of about 150-200 km/hour to the land causing both death and property
damage (Khalequzzaman,1988). From 1797 to 1998, 67 major cyclone storms and tidal
surges have been reported (CERP, 1999). These indicate that Bangladesh is prone to
frequent destructive tropica.l cyclones associated with tidal surge, particularly in pre-
monsoon months of April-May and post-monsoon months of October-November (CDL,
1992). Because of frequent cyclonic storm surges every year, the low-lying coastal areas
are particularly vulnerable, thus placing these population, infrastructure, agriculture,
livestock and economic development in a high-risk situation.

TlIbk 2.2: Major cyclonic storms in Bangladesh ooast.

S~t~o,~m'N,~.~q:;;;;';:;;'=,=;=;;';~""~'~IT~i_~::;;:;;;;;;;='=
J2009 (25 Ripped through the south-western coast of Bangladesh on 25 May.
May), Aila According to government figures, 352 unions and 62 upazilas in 14
 19

distriCIS--Barisal, BhoIa, Pirojpur, PatuakhaJi, B"""", JhaJakathi,

Khulna, Bagerhat, Satkhira, Chittagong, Cox's Bazar, Laxmipur, Felli and
Noakhali have been affected (Times online, 2009).
In eight worst affected districts over 3,300,000 people were affected.
Around 100,000 were taken to safe shelters under an evacuation campaign
by volunteers and law enforcement agencies. At least 32 people have been
reported killed in Satkhira, 25 in Noakhali, 20 in Khulna, 13 in Bhola,
nine in Barisal, seven in Patuakhali, six in Laxmipur, two each in
Bagerhat and Cox's Bazar, and one in Magura, according to reports from
the affected areas. The cyclone triggered a 3 meter tidal surge in the
region caused damage to thousands of households.,washed away scores of
river embankments, uprooted huge numbers of trees and caused extensive
damage to standing crops. At least 90 percent of thatched houses and
mud huts have been demolished by the Aila-fed tidal surge (around
25,000 according to government estimates), forcing thousands of people
to take shelter in nearby buildings and cyclone centers
2007 (14-15 The most devastating Cyclonic storm slammed into the southwestern
November) coast in Bangladesh, destroying thousands of houses, 650,000 villagers
SIDR
fled to shelters with wind speed 240km/h. Officials said that another 3
million people were affected much with their living resources. In the
coastal districts of Barguna, Bagerhat, Barisal and Bhola thousands of
flimsy straw and mud huts were flattened as the cyclone flooded low lying
areas and uprooted trees and electricity and telephone poles. Road, rail
and river transport was also affected

1998 (19-22 Offshore islands and chars of Khulna, Barisal and Patuakhali; cyclonic
November) storm with maximum wind speed of 90 km/hr, storm surge of 1:22 to
2.44m
1998 (16-20 Offshore islands and chars of Chittagong, Cox's Bazar and Noakhali;
May) severe cyclonic storm (hurricane) with a wind speed of 150 km/hr, storm
surge of 1.83 to 2.44m
 20

1997 (25-27 Offshore islands and chars of Chittagong, Cox's Bazar, Noakhali and
September)
Bhola; severe cyclonic storm (hurricane) with a wind speed of 150 km/hr,
storm surge of 1.83 to 3.05m

1997 (16-19 The most devastating Cyclonic storm slammed into the southwestern
May)
coast in Bangladesh, destroying thousands of hOllSes, 650,000 villagers
fled to shelters with wind speed 240kmlh. Officials said that another 3
million people were affected much with their living resources. In the
coastal districts of Barguna, Bagerhat, Barisal and Bhola thousands of
flimsy straw and mud huts were flattened as the cyclone flooded low lying
areas and uprooted trees and electricity and telephone poles. Road, rail
and river transport was also affected

1995 (21-25 Offshore islat1d and chars of Cox's Bazaar; severe cyclonic storm with
November)
maximum wind speed of 210 kmIhr; about 650 people killed, 17,000
cattle head perished

1991 (29 The Great Cyclone of 1991, crossed the Bangladesh coast during the
April)
night. It originated in the Pacific about 6,000 km away and took 20 days
to reach 1he coast of Bangladesh. It had a dimension of more than the size
of Bangladesh. The central overcast cloud had a diameter exceeding 600
Ian. The maximum wind speed observed at Sandwip was 225 kmIhr. The
wind speeds recorded at different places were as follows: Chittagong 160
kmlhr, Khepupara (Kalapara) 180 kmIhr, Kutubdia 180 kmIhr, Cox's
Bazar 185 kmlhr, and Bhola 178 kmIhr. The maximum wind speed
estimated from NOAA-II satellite picture obtained at 13:38 hours on 29
April was about 240 kmIhr. It turned into a cyclonic storm on 25 April.
The cyclone in its initial stage moved slightly northwest and then north.
From 28 April it started moving in a north-easterly direction and crossed
the Bangladesh coast north of Chittagong port during the night of the 29th
April. The cyclone started affecting the coastal islands like Nijhum Dwip,
 21

Manpura, Bhoia and Sandwip from the evemng of that day. The
maximum storm surge height during this cyclone was estimated to be

about 5 to 8m.
1988 (24-30 Jessore, Kushtia, Faridpur, offshore islands and chars of Bansal, Satkhira,
November)
Bagherhat and Khulna; severe cyclonic storm with core wind speed 162
km/hr, storm surge of 4.5m a1 Mongla point; killed 5,708 persons and lot
of wild animals _ deer 15,000, Royal Bengal Tiger 9, cattle 65,000 and
crops damaged worth about Tk 9.41 billion
1986 (8-9 Offshore island and chars of Chittagong, Barisal, PatuakhaJi md
November)
Noakhali; cyclonic storm hit 110 kmIhr at Chittagong and 901hr at
Khulna; 14 persons killed, damaged 97,200 ha of paddy fields, damage to
schools, mosques, warehouses, hospitals, houses and buildings at Amtali
upazila in Barguna
1985 (24-25 Chittagong, Cox's Bazar, Noakhali and their offshore islands (Sandwip,
May) Hatiya, and Urirchar); severe cyclonic stonn, wind speed Chittagong 154
kmIhr, Sandwip 140 kmIhr, Cox's Bazar 100 kmIhr and storm surge of
3.0-4.6m; about 11,069 persons killed, 94,379 houses damaged, livestock
lost 135,033 and road damaged. 74 km, embankments damaged
1983 (5.9 Chittagong, Cox's Bazar coast near Kutubdia and the low lying areas of 5t
November)
Martin's Island, Teknaf, Ukhia, Moipong, Sonadia, Barisal, Patuakha1i
and Noakha1i~ severe cyclonic storm (hurricane) with a wind speed of 136
kmlltr and a storm surge of 1.52m height; 300 fishermen with 50 boals
missing and 2,000 houses destroyed

1977 (9-12 Khulna, Noakha1i, Patuakhali, Barisal, Cbittagong and offshore islands;
1fuy)
cyclonic storm with a wind speed of 112.63 krnJhr; exact figures of the
loss of lives and cattle are not available
1975 (9-12 Bhola, Cox's Bazar and Khulna; severe cyclonic storm with a wind speed
May)
of 96.5 to 112.6 kmIhr, 5 persons killed and a number of fishermen
rmssmg
 22

1974 (24-28 Coastal belt from Cox's Bazar to Chittagong and offshore islands; severe
November) cyclonic storm with a wind ~d of 161 kmIhr and storm surge of2.8"5.2
m; 200 people killed, 1000 cattle lost and 2,300 houses perished

1971 (28-30 Sundarban coast; cyclonic storm with a wind speed of 97-113 kmlhr and
November) storm surge of less than 1m; Khulna district experienced stormy weather
and low lying areas of Khulna town inundated

1!J70(12-13 The most deadly and devastating cyclonic storm that caused the highest
November) casualty in the history of Bangladesh. Chittagong was battered by
hurricane winds. It also hit Barguna, Khcpupara, Patuakhali, and north of
Char Burhanuddin, Char TlIZumuddinand south of Maijdi, Haringhata
and caused heavy loss of lives and damage to crops and property.
Officially the death figure was put at 500,000 but it could be more. A total
of 38,000 marine and 77,000 inland fishermen were affected by the
cyclone. It was estimated that some 46,000 inland fishermen operating in
the cyclone affected region lost their lives. More than 20,000 fishing boats
were destroyed; the damage to property and crops was colossal. Over one
million cattle head were reported lost. More than 400,000 houses and
3,500 educational institutions were damaged. The maximum recorded
wind speed of the 1970 cyclone was about 222 kmIhr and the maximum
storm surge height was about 10.6m and the cyclone occurred during
high-tide

Source: Banglapedia, (2008) web site; SEHD, 2002; Times online, 2007 and news
papers, 2007 & 2008.

,
 23

2.6. Livellbood SfCIlrity

Household Livelihood Security (HLS) is defined as adequate and sustainable access to

income and resources to meet basic needs (including adequate ac<:essto food, potable
water, health facilities, educational opportunities, housing and time for community
participation and social integration) with concerning all opportunities and vulnerabilities.
The Household Livelihood Security assessment is a holistic and multi-disciplinary
analysis which recognizes that poor families commonly suffer more than one problem at
a time and often have to make significant sacrifices to meet their basic needs' (CARE,
2002).

Livelihood security concept for coastal area of Bangladesh addresses the coastal
vulnerabilities and livelihoods characteristics. It shows the importance of livelihood
safety dimension covered within the broad umbrella of livelihood resource security. It
also aims to enhance understanding about coastal livelihood systems, ~onomic, socio-
cultural and political systems and the constraints, vulnerabilities, marginalization, and
risks of poor families living within this context; it treats differences intra and inter-
household as well (Scoones, 1998). A household with a diversified asset base keeps
better position to maximize household well-being by attaining a higher level of income,
oonsurnption, comfort and security, and diversifying risk:as well. People in the coast are
always active to save their living and make oontrol over their resources or assets which is
the base of their livelihood (Chambers, 1989). Livelihood insecurity in coastal area of
Bangladesh is highly related to storm surge vulnerability in recent period.

2.7. Indicator Development lind Mniti-Criterill Decision Making

An indicator is a parameter or a value derived from parameters, which points to; provides
information about and describes the state of an environment with significance extending
beyond that directly associated with the parameter value (OECD, 1998). Indicators are
used to systematize the definition and description of information needs and collection of
information from different national, international, institutional management levels. An
 24

indicator can be defined as II variable or an aggregate set of variables giving information

of a system, process or state and which has significance beyond its face value. Indicators
simplify, quantify and communicate information for II variety of purpose including policy
assessment and developmenl

Indicator must help to clarify objectives and set priorities; they are explanatory tools
(Hardi & Barg, 1997; World Bank, 1997) which contribute to the translation of the
sustainability concept into practical terms. Indicators are becoming increasingly
important in summarizing progress of development-related activities and researches.
However, there continues to be a lack of consensus on both definition and application of
indicators. Whilst there is basic agreement that indicators "serve to indicate or give II

suggestion of something; an indication", there is still disagreement as to what form that

indication takes. Another area of disagreement is over the respective merits of qualitative
or quantitative indicators (Chadwick al aI, 2003).

Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCOM) has been one of the fastest growing problem
areas in many disciplines. The cenlI'a1 problem is how to evaluate a set of alternatives in
terms of a number of criteria. Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods provide
a framework for rational choice of different alternatives by identifying relevant criteria,
evaluating a weighted score for each alternative that reflects its strength of preference
(Goodwin and Wright, 1998). The most useful MCDM methods for social management
sector are-

a) AHP and
b) FHOM

AHP- Analytic Hierarchy Process (Saaty, 1982) is a popular and pragmatic quantitative
decision method. It provides a practical method to transform comparative descriptions of
the problem elements into weights fur the selection criteria and scores for the alternatives.
The AHP technique is based on the premise that given a set of alternatives, a decision-
maker chooses the alternative that provides the largest aggregate value for the benefits. It
 25

ignores the case where AHP is used to compute costs of the alternatives (Malhotra,

2001).

FlIDM. Fuzzy Hierarchical Decision Making is a method of suitability judgment or

optimal solution determination in decision problems and mathematical programs
(Zimmermann, 1990). This method is more applicable for Technology choice.

In assessment of livelihood security, indicators development emanates from the necessity

to operationally the term of sustainable livelihood =:urity and evaluates the development
followed on the basis of environmental and socio-cultural criteria besides the economic
ones. So it is needed to describe an approach for the identification of suitable indicators,
by linking with the research objectives to develop a livelihood security model for a

spedfic field.
 CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY

3.1. Selection of Coastal Livelihood Groups

Livelihoods in rural Bangladesh are rapidly diversifying (Toufique and Turton, 2(02) and
the pre-study field observation confirms that it is more applied for the coastal zone.
Livelihoods differ strongly in different environmental,social and institutional settings along
the coast. Individuals of the coastal community engage in a variety of activities that
means one day a man may spend working as a day laborer for a medium farmer, another
day moving earth in a GOB project, then he may go off to the city to sell cattle. return to
catch fish or save cash by repairing their house. The senior women in that household is
likely to be involved in a number of cash-saving activities such as collecting cow dung,
:firewood,or if these are not available leaves for fuel.

Member of Coastal households perform a host of activities to eam their living. Choices
are conditioned by, the extent of respective asset base: a more diversified asset base
provides more options and is in a better position of maximize household well being by
attaining a beigher level of income, consumption, comfort and security.

Considering that situation the first step of the study entailed an analysis of existing
information sources which provide preliminary understanding of the livelihood pattern in
the coastal area of Bangladesh. This part of the study tried to identifY the major
livelihoods around the main occupation of the poorer section (marginal prople) of coastal
society and the major livelihood groups of coastal people have been listed for this study:

I. Fisher
n. Farmer
Ill. Dry Fisher
IV. Fryeonector
V. Salt farmer
VI. Forest extrlletor
VII. Wage labortr
 27

Mentioned coastal livelihood groups have been selected based on the following points:

• Activities of these groups are of seasonal nature (main product extracted specific
time of the year) and cyclonic storm surge generally occur in the pre monsoon and
post monsoon which are the peak time of production
• All these groups depend on natural coastal resources for their basic income and
cyclone accompanied by tidal surges are the most damaging natural disaster
which takes a heavy toll on life and property of these groups in following ways

o Agro-products and sail are washed away from the field

o Fishers cannot go to the sea
o Houses are damaged
o The daily life of the people is severely disturbed they cannot collect
fodder, fuel and water and cannot perform other chores like cooking
and washing
o Sanitation systems are also damaged

Actually it was quite difficult to consider all livelihoods of Bangladesh coast for such
short term study. So, when the issue is specified as stoon surge, considering all secondary
information and field observation (Initial survey), that list of major coastal livelihoods
has been selected to make progress in next part of the study.

3.2. Selection of Sampling Area

The level of livelihood insecurity (caused by storm surge hazard) can be determined
through establishing a true concept about the location on the coast where the define
livelihood groups live (CEGlS, 2004). In present study, the vast coast of Bangladesh has
been divided based on its physical and geographic settings. The western part of tile coast
has been defined as area protected by tile Sundarbans and rest part as open zone along the
Bay of Bengal inclnding estuaries and beaches.
 28

The area has been selected considering the following representative criteria:

• The area should be within high or moderate storm surge risk zone
• The area should have remarkable vulnerabilities on livelihood resources due to
cyclonic stonn surge
• The area should have represented the residence of selected livelihood groups

totally or partially

So within the 19 districts, the partial coastal area of two main coastal districts of
Bangladesh have been selected primarily for the study in which people of the defined
coastal occupational categories are found (Ahmed, 2003); one is Satkhira district
(mangrove protected) and another is Cox's bazaar district (open shore). Cox's bazaar
Sadar thana of Cox's bazaar district (nearer to the Bay of Bengal) and ShyaJDnagar thana
of Satkhira district (nearest to the Sundarbans) have been selected depending on literature
survey. Those are fully different with their physical and biological characteristics but the
defmed livelihood groups are in danger due to certain water based issue.

Table 3.1: Selected study areas.

.~
~
~
!i
~ ~
.
gp

~
"d" ]

Satkhira Shamnagar
I
Munshiganj 18
<:)
z ~ Jl
2
l' ~
Harinagar
Shinghortoli

Cox's hazar 7 Cox's 10 2 Khurushkul 7 1 Gazir dai!

Nazirartek
""""" S""'" ]hilon;a 6 1

Source: Survey 2008.

 29

The selected field has been fixed as two villages in two uniorn; from Cox's bazaar Sadar
of Cox's b3ZllaI"district and two villages in one union from Shyamnagar of Satkhira
district where diversified coastal livelihood groups have been located. It has been
finalized through certain thana level reconnaissance survey.

3.3. Methodology of Model Formulation

Livelihood ~urity model has been introduced as a tool of facilitating asset creation,
capacity building and access to various opportunities. It has been developed with viewing
aim of reducing vulnerabilities and promotes Livelihood Security for coastal community
of Bangladesh against the devastating hazard defined by Storm surge,

In this study, the methodology has been formed to develop a model to assess the level of
livelihood =:urity with better understand of storm surge adaptation or more precisely to
address the living system of coastal community in vulnerable environmental condition.

3.3.1. Methodology of dot. collection

Data collection of this study has been conducted through the following methods:

Data (ollection

1
! I
Secondary data Primary data

1
! 1 I
Re(onnlliSllan(e Stakebolder Qnestioonaire
Survey Meeting survey
 30

3.3.1.1. Littratllre review and seeondary datu collection

Secondary data regarding location and geography of the study area, demography, land
use and livelihood practices in coastal zone of Bangladesh were collected form relevant
books, News paper reports and publications. Other required specific information were
also collected from different published and Wlpllblished reports/research reports/journals
of Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics; Local Government Engineering Department (Dhaka);
PDQ-Integrated Coastal Zone Management office; Asian Development Bank; CEGlS-
Bangladesh; Bangladesh Academy for Rural Development (BARD), Comilla;
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, relevant websites and other
government and non-government organizations.

3.3.1.2. Primary datil eoUertion

A combination of methods has been used for primary data and information collection.
The principal methods used were direct observation, questionnaire survey and key
informants interview, Focus Stakeholder Meeting (FSM), etc. The pair wise ranking of
indicators for AHP has also been conducted through FSM.

Reconnaissance Survey

The reconnaissance survey has been conducted in exposed coastal part of both south-
west (Satkhira) and south- east (Cox's bazar) coastal districts to invent the livelihood
options of the coast. It was done to get the initial impression of the study area in order to
facilitate the research tochnique. In this study coastal settings and environmental concerns
were considered specifically.
The major concern areas for the survey were:

o The resource system in and around the coastal area

o The livelihood pattern inventory in the coastal community
o The condition and extend of storm surge in study area
o The major vulnerabilities and opportunities in coastal living

">""""
 31

Preparation ofqueslionngire and checklist

The questionnaire has been prepared based on the reconnaissance survey findings in
order to collect necessary data. The major concerned areas for collecting data through
questionnaire were:

o The population size and structure of the area

o Livelihood activities per household unit
o Availability of household lI5sets (Natural, Economic, Social and Hwnan) of
coastal people
o Access 10 common coastal resources (Social, institutional etc.) of the livelihood
groups
o Impacts of storm surge (Two at recent time) on the community and the
environment
o Experience during SIDR (Devastating cyclonic stonn surge at 2007)
o Preparedness program to face the Storm surge hazard

In addition, there were a checklist for Stakeholder Meetings (Appendix-B) and an

Information Collection Sheet (Appendix-A) for fmding some special information from
officials and people work with relevant issue in that area.

Selection ofsamrling unit

How;eholds have been selected lIS sampling unit bocause in a livelihood system
household is the unit of economic and social activities, vulnerabilities and opportunities.
People of each household have been defmed as the principal respondent and main source
of data and infonnation. During the survey, an attempt has been taken to interview the
head of the household and marked it as group ofms or her occupation. It has been framed
because most of the household having some subsidiary activities of different member of
the family but not play major roU in their living. In absence of the head of the household;
the next senior most member of the family has been selected.

•
 32

Sample size determination

For questionnaire survey in order to assess the vulnerability due to storm surge hazard on
coastal livelihood systems and options in the selected study area, simple stratified random
sampling method has been followed. Sample has been proportionalely random based on
the si~e of the population of the study area.

The sample size for the study was obtained from the following equation (Kothari, 2001).

D = cpqNI tel (N-l) + zlpq} •.•....•...........••. (a)

Wh=,
n is the sample size considering the finite Household
z is the level of confidence desired
p is the true proportion of the population with attribute to be determined
q = I-p
e = the sampling error permitted.
N = Total household oftbe study area

This study has been conducted considering about 20% households of Munshiganj union
were found in the selected two villages with the risk ofstonn surge and in both two union
ofeox's bazaar.

Where;
z = J .96 (For 95% confidence level the value oiz)
e = 0.1 [Since the error margin estimate should be within 10% of the true value]
P = 25% of the household (i.e. 0.25)
q=0.75and
N"" 20054 (For Cox's bazaar)
N = 6566 (For Satkhira)
 l3

According to the above equation the sample size for this study were 70 households in
Munshiganj, Satkhira and 70 households in KurusJruI and Jilangja, Cox's bazaar with
random survey.

Focus Stakefwlder Meeting fFSM)

Member of different organization such as Local Government, NGO of related field and
others have been selected for collecting relevant data and justifying the information
received from principal stakeholders. FSMs were conducted to receive qualitative
infonnation as to understand the concern factors in livelihood system for development of
a livelihood security indicator frame work for coastal area. The focus group comprises of
livelihood group members (Min. 3 from each group including 1 woman), local UP
member or chairman, and two members from each local development organization or
NGOs. [n each subproject area two fSMs were conducted in each area with the above
mentioned participants. First FSMs have been conducted to understand the situation of
local livelihood system and indicator frame work has been developed from that The
second FSMs 8 have been conducted to find out the standard value of indicators as well
as to keep the support for indicator selection strategy AHP by pair wise ranking of
indicators to different security options. The checklist for Focus Stakeholder Meeting
(FSM) is attached in Appendix-B and pair wise ranking sheets also attached in Appendix-
C.

Ouestionnaire survey

Questionnaire survey has been conducted to identify information related to the study
area, conceptual frameworks and to major concepts treated in the study (storm surge,
adaptation, environment conditions, livelihood resources and opportunities, disaster risks,
social access etc.).The effects of recent storm surge on the define livelihood systems were
estimated at household level for each different livelihood groups. Information has also
been collected and justified from Union Parisad Chairmen, Word Commissioners, NODs'
and people of relevant management activities.
 34

3.3.2 Methodology of indicator development and seledion

The livelihood activities of coastal population are multidimensional and the livelihood
security is a concept to define the real scenario of costal community with all the risks and
vulnerabilities in multiple resources and that idea is closely related to the sustainable
development of the coastal community. Based on household assets (ownership and! or
access), members engage in a host of activities to earn their living. Choices are
conditioned by the extent of the respective asset base.

In this study the livelihood security model has been constructed through the identifica1ion
of different livelihood groups of the coastal zone and their area of insecurity caused by
storm surge hazard. The measurement of livelihood security has been based on the
indicators under different dimensions of livelihood assets and their options in defined
coastal areas of Bangladesh.

3.3.2.1. Development ofindicaror framework

Based on preliminary field observation, SMa and author's perception with secondary data,
documentation and journal review, a set of indicators has been developed. The indicator
dcvelopment process has been continued along the primary field survey because it was
dependent on the lIVl1ilability of releVllllt data and data sources from principal
stakeholders. It was important to look at the status of each of the capitals available to
households to determine till:ir status due to storm surge issue. Indicators can be grouped
under different security approaches considering the resource options such as natural
capital, human capital, social capital, institutional capital, physical capital, and economic
capital oflivelihood groups.
 35

Schematic representation ofindicalor development pr(Xe.~s

Monitoring the livelihood system and functions of the community

(Resources, Access, Production, Process. Consumption etc.)

1
Indication of coastal livelihood unit (Individual/Honsehold)

1
Criteria of Available
Review 8e>:ondary
information livelihood security
l/ primary data

Justification of the criteria relate with specific issue or context (storm surge)

Formulation ofa set of potential indicators of five livelihood sub systems

1
Natural sub- Financial sub- Social sub- Human resource Physical
system/Capital system/Capital system/Capital Sub-system Sub-system

The fmal method was-

-:. Identification of components of livelihood system that represent the
endogenous characteristics of households regarding coastal livelihood

assets.
.;. Indication of exogenous vulnerability context -storm surge hazard
(through literature survey) .
.;. Identification of storm surge risk on coastal livelihood assets (through

literature & field survey).

-:. Identification of indicators which represents the security options.
 36

3.3.2.2. Selection of indicatoI1l to different security optioDs

Indicator choice is a complex decision problem involving many criteria. Livelihood

security indicators against storm surge hazard have been selected by applying an
established decision- aiding method AHP (5aaty, 1982); a Multi Criteria Dedsion
Making method for each of the define approaches. This method provides a framework for
rational choice of different alternatives (initially developed indicators) by identifYing
relevant criteria, evalllllting a weighted score for each alternative that reflects its strength
of preference (Goodwin and Wright, 1998). It also provides a systematic, explicit and
robust mechanism for eliciting and quantifying the subjectjudgmenL

The steps of AHP (AnaJytic Hierarchy Process) are as follows:

.;. Define the decision criteria in the fonn of a hierarchy of objectives. This
hierarchical structure consists of different levels. The top level is the objective to
be achieved. This top level consists of intermediate levels of criteria which
dcpend on subsequent levels. The lowest level consists of list of the alternatives
(Indicators).
•:. Indicators have been selected from define livelihood security indicator framework
by applying an established decision- aiding method AHP (Saaty, 1982); a Multi
Cri1eriaDecision Making method with different livelihood security dimensions
such as:
I. Food security,
2. Income security,
3. Health and Personal security,
4. House and Properties and
5. Water security

.:. For making pair wise comparisons, structure a matrix of size (n x n). the number
of judgments required to develop the set of matrix is given by n(n-1)/2.
 37

<- Obtain the importance of the criteria from experts' judgment by making pair wise
comparison. lbis comparison is made for all levels. Verbal judgment of
preferences is shown in Table 3.2.
<- The weight of each criterion has been deternrined based on field response. By
hierarchical synthesis, the priority vectors are calculated. These values are
normalized vectors of the matrix .
.;. The consistency is determined by using the value, I.m",. For finding the
consistency index (el), the used formula is CI = (Am.. on) I (n-I), where n is the

size of the matrix.

Table 3.2. Pair wise comparison scale for AHP preferences

Numerical Rating Verbal Judgments of Preference

9 Extremely ~erred ! irnporJant

•, Very strongly to extremely

Very strongly preferred I important
6 Strongly to Very strongly
5 Strongly preferred I Important
4 Moderately to Strongly
3 Moderately preferred! important
2 Equally to Moderately
1 Equally preferred I important

+ The judgment consistency ratio (CR) is checked from the appropriate value in

Table 3.3.
(> The judgment consistency ratio (CR) is simply the ratio ofCI to average Random
Consistency (RI). The CR is acceptable, if it does not exceed 0.10. if it more, the
judgment matrix is inconsistent; then matrix has to be reviewed. These are
calculated for the entire matrix structlll"ed from the hierarchy.
 38

Table 3.3: Average Random Consistency

Size of matrix 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Random 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49

Consistency

Finally top ranked indicators have been selected in each individual security approaches
and also have been introduced as the input or initial data of the model.

3.3.3. Datil analysis

After completing the field survey, all the interview schedules have been grouped and
interpreted according to the goal of the research. The collected data have been checked
and verified. The quantitative data have been selected out and tabulated into different
data sheet. After that these data have been entered in statistical sof1:ware (such as
Mi,,-rosoft Excel etc.) for calculating the value of developed indicators with standard
measurement unit in household level in two steps.

Indicator value calculation

J
J
Standard value (Is) for each Present value of indicators Op)
indicator by using secondary by questionnaire survey
data and FSMs

o Calculation the standard value of developed indicators in household level for

Coastal area of Bangladesh (Using data from FSMs and Census of Local and
National Authority).
o Calculation of the present value of developed indicators in household level of
individuailivelihood groups which represents the vulnerable situations and their
area of insecurity for storm surge risk (using data from questionnaire survey and

public opinion).
 39

3.3.4. Methodology o(Slll:urity indu calculation

Household security of lIlivelihood group has been measured based on livelihood security
Index. In this study, the livelihood security has been considered lIS a collective form of
security approaches such as food and water security, financial security, life and health
security and social security that were calculated from the values of related indicators.
Initially each security approach have been expressed by qualitative (High, moderate and
low) and quantitative form of indicators. All indicators used in the study were not in same
units. So there values have been standardized.

Table 3.4: Direction for security scores.

Mod. Option
Positive (+) Security
Negative (-) Insecurity

The standardization process has transformed the indicator data into one scale having
alternative direction (following positive and negative sign) (Table 3.4).

Table 3.5: Scale of security

The standard scale has been assigned with the level of difference between Standard value
and measured value (Survey data of study area) of selective indicators for unit household
(either a percentage scale of difference level were highest to lowest or a 3 point scale)

(Table 3.5).
 40

Firstly Livelihood Security Index of a household for individual security aspect has been
developed; secondly a composite security index for that household consisting of different
aspects is designed.

The household level livelihood security model has been formed conceptually and
physically using the index that discussed details in Model Development chapter. It has
been tried to use the model by defIning the different degree of livelihood security of
diversified group in coastal Bangladesh.
 CHAPTER FOUR
LIVELIHOOD GROUPS IN THE STUDY AREA

4.1. Introduction

Livelihood is synonymous to occupation and means to sustain a person or a household.

Based on assets and access to resources and opportunities, households decide what
activities it will pursue for living. The composition of resources at the disposal of a
household generally determines the choice of activities. In present study, the unique
livelihood system of coastal community of Bangladesh has been defmed based on
different reviewed literature. It also has been fournl that People's access to different
levels and combinations of assets had a major influence on the choice of livelihood.
Different livelihood activities have different requirements.

According to Population Ceusus 200], there are 6.85 million households in the coastal
zone of Bangladesh with a population of 35.1 million (BBS 2001).The pattern of
household livelihood distribution of that coast is different from the rest of the country.
Coastal livelihood groups are those who earn their living from activities defined by
coastal conditions. The livelihood activities of coastal population are multidimensional.

The livelihoods of coastal people develop dependiug on marine resources, beach

resources., estuary, rivers and forest resources with combination of relevant activities.
They often vary from each other in terms of production relations and marketing. Some
work independently (fry collector), some work as lessee or sharecropper (salt fanner,
shrimp fanner) and some are contractual laborer. Some live on exploitation of natural
resources (salt fanner, fry collector, fisher, honey collector) and some live on skill-based
human resources (boat-building carpentry, net making). For this study, livelihood groups
have been identified base on vulnerability of storm surge. The storm surge risk is
dominant for the people who live in marginal level in coast and fully depend on natural
resources of coast. The profiles of selected livelihood groups in the coastal zone of
Bangladesh are briefly presented below.
 42

4.2. Selected Livelihood Groups

The selected livelihood groups are defined as follows:

• Farmer Group

Farmers are defined by their major Income from agriculture sector. A specific
characteristic of this category is that they are often least able/willing to diversify their
livelihood activities in coastal area. Because they have to regularly maintain their crops
and livestock they do not easily accept daily wage employment. Even if such work were
flexible and available nearby, social rellSOnssometimes make it difficult for these
households to work for others. In the marginal level farmers keep higher household
resources. On the other hand, natural disaster like storm surges cause great damage to
them in coast because of their income Of production pattern. So that their numbers and
precarious position around the poverty line deserve a closer look. There are 1.72 million
small farmer households in the coastal zone, constituting 32.1 percent of the coastal nrra!
households; the percentage of fanner is higher mostly in Pirojpur, Barisal, Shariatpur,
Narail, Jessore, Satkhira, Patuakhali and Barguna, which is about 30"10 and above. On the
other hand, lower proportion of tanners is found in Chittagong and Chandpur districts.

• Fisher Group

Eight percent of rural households in Bangladesh live on fishing (ICZMP, 2004). But in
the coastal zone, fishing is the predominant source of livelihood for 14 percent farm
households (BBS, 2001). They operate in the estuary, on coastal waters and sometimes in
the deep sea. The e~iimatednumber offisher households as of2001 is over half a million
with a population of about 2.65 million Monsoon months are the main fishing season
characterized by inclement weather (Islam, 2004). In Bangladesh the marginal fisher
group is generally live near the coast line without any protection structure and they are
more vulnerable by both natural and social aspect. A small stratum of Mahnzon (boat-
owners), who also own nets, and liquid cash, control fishers' lives. With increasing
poverty at one end (landlessness) and growing entrepreneurship at the other end
(investments in boat and gear), more and more people are encroaching into the domain of
traditional fishers, and fish resources along the coast are dwindling fast. The percentage

,
 43

of fishermen is almost equal throughout the ooastal region with slight higher in Cox's
Bazaar, Bhola, Barisal Patuakha]i and south-western coastal districts.

• Salt Farmer Group

Coastal people of Bangladesh had a tradition of producing salt by boiling sea water. The
first commercially salt production was started in 1947 in the area of Cox's bazaar and
Chittagong district (CDS, 2006). Since then the salt production rate is gradually
increasing to meet the ever-growing demand. Now salt farming is overwhelmingly
concentrated in Sadar upazila; Ramu, Maheshkhali, Kutubdia, Chakaria, T eknaf upazila
in COI.'S bwar district and Bashkhali upazila of Chittagong district. About 15 percent of
total rural households of Cox's bazat district are salt fanners. They meet bulk of the
demand for raw salt in the country. Salt farmers are mostly poor and operate on a small
scale. Their average size of farm is 0.62 ha (pDO-ICZMP, 2004). They work under
adverse conditions. This is a hardworking job that interests only the poor and the
1andIess. Many of them lease in land from others. They are in close proximity to the open
sea and often face all the hazards coming from the sea. Sometimes the whole output is
washed away by heavy rain and stonn surge because of lack of proper warning system
and storage facility.

• Fry CoUector Group

Estimated number of fry collectors in the coastal zone was about half a million
(Frankenberger, 2002). The number has now come down almost to fifty percent. A large
number of them are children and women. The cycle of fry collection is from mid-
February to mid-Angust. In Satkhira-Khulna region, the main period of fry collection is
mid-November to mid-July. However, golda fry is collected round the year, though the
peak season is April.May. Collectors substantially depend on the shrimp sector deriving
41 percent of their household income (PDO-1CZMP, 2004). The number offry collectors
is high in some districts, which indicate the dependence of poor people on this particular
activity. Although shrimp farms are more concentrated in the greater Cox's bazaar
district, there are fewer fry collectors from other region. Opportunity (or lack of
 44

opportunity) for gainful employment in other activities is plausible explanation for this
employment pattern.

• Dry Fisher Group

People of coastal Bangladesh keep another traditional activity defmed as drying fish. In
the previous period the fisher groups involved in that opportunity only. But now it can be
defined as an individual livelihood group bei:ause a large percentage of coastal people
live depending on that only. The dry fisher lives generally in the area of open shore and
in Char area. They largely work in dry season when there is higher sun shine without
huge rainfall. Cox's bazaar sadar, St. martin, Moheshkhali, Chokoria etc. are the main
field of dry fish. Chittagang and Char districts are also under the opportunity. This group
of people earns their living through collecting fishes trom fisher groups, processing them
and sale to locaJ and national market. Some dry fishers involves in direct fishing. In
Chittagang and Cox's bazaar districts a lot of Shutki mahals (Fish drying yard) are found
in the dry season oflhe year.

• Forest ResoUNt EJ:tl'llctor Group

In Bangladesh coast many households depend on forest resources for their livelihood
because of its mangrove rich coast line, In the impact zone of Sundarban (in surrounding
upazilas), 18 percent households are dependent on Sundarban resources. The proportion
of Sundarban dependent households varies in South-west coast from Pirojpur district to
Satkhira district. Among them the main sub-groups are bawa/ies (Wouldcutter), golpata
collectors, sheIVcrab collectors mawalies (honey collector), and medicinal plant
collectors and some jele (fisher), (SBCP, 2001). Many poor households depend on
recently planted forests in cJwrs and islands in Patuakhali, Bhola and Noakhali for fuel
wood and materials for house constmction. They are to work amidst various insecurities
corresponding to threats from natura1 hazard, wild animals, and intimidation from public
institutions.
 45

• Wage Labor Group

People working in agriculture and non-agriculture sectors, either in urban or rural areas,
are considered as wage labors, who earn their livings on daily basis. As per population
census 2001, 0.15 million household constitute "labor" group, which is about 24% of
total household in coastal zone. They are one of the largest occupational groups in coastal
rural households. Generally the proportion of agricultural and shrimp field labor is higher
in rural areas and non-agriculture labor is higher in urban areas. For the present study, the
rural wage group has been selected mainly. They are engaged in diverse activities.
Majority of them (55%) are small farmers (with operated area less than 1 hal and 43
percent are landless (owning less than 0.02 ha) (PDO-ICZMP, 20(3). Distinct livelihood
conditions of this group are characterized by: Seasonal employment! unemployment;
Low demand for labor in most periods of the year in most parts of the coast, as vast areas
are single->:ropped; Low wage in the lean season (period between plantation and
harvesting); Discriminatory wage for women; and Chronic indebtedness. Spatially, the
proportion of tabor is almost similar on allover the region, except higher percentage in
Cox's Bazaar, Patuakhali, Chandpur and Jessore and Satkhira districts.

In this research, the stndy area has been selected depending on diversified geographic
location and level of stnon surge vulnerability of the coastal districts. It has also
considered that the presence of selected livelihood groups in that area The details of
study area have given here.

4.3. Study Area

The remote coastal parts of Cox's bazaar and Satkhira district have been selected as the
study area as both of the sites are located within the path of cyclonic storm which
occurred recent years (\ 988-2008). The geographical setting is also an important term of
concern such as the district Cox's bazaar along on open sea shore (the longest beach of
the world) on the other side the coast line of district Satkhira is fully covered by the
largest mangroves Sundarban. Those geographical variations also influence the
development of varieties of coastal1ivelihood groups in those areas.
 46

Site 1:
a. Cox's Bazar Upazilla - Jhilonja Union: 79205 people from 14018 households
b. Cox's Bazar Upazilla- Khurushkul Union: 38615 people from 6036 households

The study area of Cox's bazaar Sadar Upanla of Cox's bazaar district, located in the far
0
south-eastem oorner of Bangladesh with a latitude between 20 _ 21~ and a longitude of
920a the site generally lies along the western coastal zone of the Teknaf Peninsula near
the open beach along the Bay of Bengal (CWB},fp, 2006). AB at open shore, the area is
being denoted as higher risk area for cy>:lone and stonn surge (WARPO,2004).

The sites of western and oouthem boundaries are delineated by waterways - the western
boundary by the Moheshkhali ChW1Ilel from the Bay of Bengal up the channel as far as
Ghorokghata; the southern boundary by the beach along the Bay of Bengal. The river
Backkhali is blowing over the area and meets to MoheshkhaH Channel (Survey, 2008).
The study are covers part of two unions of Cox's bazzar Upazila named by Khurushkul
and Jhilonja (Fig 4.1) having diversified livelihood groups of marginal coastal
community in Bangladesh,

Site 2:
Shyamnagar Upazilla - Munshiganj Union: 33,700 people from 6566 households.

The study area of Shyamnagar upazila of Satkhira district, located in the south-west
°
boarder of Bangladesh with a latitllde between 21 50''_22050''N and a longitude of890E,
along the Sundarbans (Banglapedia, 2008). The site's and south-eastem corner boundary
is delineated by Malancha River and the total eastern part is lined by mangrove
Sundarban. The area is naturally protected by the mangroves and thc area is located as
moderate risk zone in disaster map of Bangladesh (WARPO, 2004). The specific study
area is defined as the Munshiganj union ofShyamnagar Upazila as shown in Fig 4.1.
 47

N ,
=.
~--+
::?i' N

~
H
+
- .
'W'
, _
.oo..u.o-
B~
"""
-
..•-~,
CoJ;'.1Iuor _

C~
1:lI0I:I0m l••

Fig 4.1: Location mllp of the both study sites in COlISlIlIZone of BlIJ18llldcsh.
 48

4.3.1. COX'! bazaar district

Administration of Cox's Bazar Sadar was established under Cox's bazaar district in 1854
and was turned inlo an Upazila in 1983 (CWBMP 2006). It consists of 10 Union
Parishads, I municipality, 37 mouzas and 140 villages from which two unions have been
selected partially focthe study.

The other details are in below-

Climate: The climate of Cox's bazaar is as moist tropical maritime with high rainfall
concentrated during monsoon (usually Jnne-September) and a dry period of 4-5 months.
Average annual rainfall for Cox's Bazaar fOf 1987.1996 varied from 2,867 mm to 4,684
nun. The temperature rcmairul high year-round with small seasonal differences - the
mean annual maximum and minimwn temperatures recorded at Cox's Bazaar for 1987-
1996 were 30.3"C - 33.0"C and 19.3"C-22.4"C respectively. Humidity remains relatively
high throughout the yew:; it averaged 79.7% at 0Jx's Bazaar for 1987-19%. From
November-February the prevailing winds are from the north-west, from March-May from
the south-west and from June-September from the south-east. The site is particularly
susceptible to cyclones and tidal surgcs (CWBMP 2006). Cyclonic stonns develop in the
Bay, generaUy in April-May and October-November, occasionally coming to shore and
causing severe damage to human settlements and vegetation. As a result of climate
change, sea level rises of up to 43 cm are expected by 2050 and more frequent and
extensive cyclones and tidal effects are expected. Historical tidal data for the 22 years to
2005 at thc Cox's Bazaar coastal station has shown a sea level rise of 7.8 mm1annum,
which is many times more than the mean rate of global sea level rises over the past 100
years (MoEF, 2005a).

Hydrology .nd La.nd use: The Moheshkhali Channel and Bak-khali and NaafRivern are
the main waterways. The Moheshkhali Channel flows into the Bay of Bengal near Cox's
Bazaar and forms the north western boundary of the site. The Bak-khali River originates
in the Chittagong Hill Tracts and also flows into bay near Cox's Bazaar. The site's
eastern boundary includes approximately 10 km of the 30 Ian Naaf River estuary, which
 49

forms the boundary between Bangladesh and Myarunar. On the coastal side of the site,
five main canals nm from the Peninsula's hilly hinterland to the bay Including the Ikju,
Inani, Mankhali, Rajarchora and Mathabhanga Canals. In Cox's bazaar the total
cultivable land is estimated as 8881.02 hectares, land for salt production 1011.74
hectares, land for shrimp cultivation 1214.08 hectares, forest area 7703.36 hectares,
fallow land 270.74 hectares; single crop 32.63'%, double crop 65.6%, triple crop 1.77%.
Rubber dam has been installed on the Bakkhali and Idgah rivers for irrigation purposes
(rOUSH, 2005).

Biological Habitats/Communities: The area acts as a corridor between terrestrial and

marine biodiversity, with the site's habitats including sand dWlesand beaches, mudflats,
mangrove and e~iuaries. The sandy beach extends the length of the site from
Moheshkhali Channel in the north to the tip of the Teknaf Peninsula in the south. Sand
dnnes occur along the beach, with dnne vegetation distinguishable between several zones
(Rahman, et.a!., 2001). Vegetation is relatively SplU"Se
with few plants in the open pioneer
zone immediately preceding the drift line.

The vegetation is denser in the herbaceous zone with some mat forming herbs, and a
mixture of herhaceous plants and shrubs including climbing sptx:ies occurs in the middle
mixed or bushy zone. Tree sptx:ies interspersed with patches of low marshy areas
dominate the inner inland zone, which merges into the hinterland of wastelands and
cuitivated fields. Inter-tidal mudflats along the Naaf River are suitable wader feeding
ground. Sparse patches of naturally occurring mangrove occur along the estuarine muddy
banks of khals running down the hills, adjacent to the sand dunes along the coast line.
Small patches of natural mangrove thickets occur sporadically along the Naaf River
riverbanks. The major estuaries of the site include the Moheshkhali Channel and Bak-
khali River in the north which provide significant habitat for flora and fauna including
mudflats and mangrove.
 50

Local community and stakeholders: The results of a stake holder analysis for the study
conducted by Primary stakeholders - the local community. The site has a total population
of 330,313 people in 49,736 households (pOUSH, 2006b).The population is a mix of
religions, ethnic and social groups, including refugees from Myanmar (Rohingya) (DOE,
1999). The main livelihoods among the local oommuoity include:

. Fanning Laboring
. Fishing Shrimp fry collecting
. Fish drying Salt production

Without that resource base livelihoods there are some skill base acts such as Fish
business, Hunting and poaching, Timber business, Boat operation, net repairing and
others. However, nfthe resource depending livelihoods, fishing, fanning and Wage labor
are the main occupations comprising 42%, 24% and 17% of occupations respectively.
However in terms of household income fishing provided by far the highest income
(almost double that of the next highest income source), then remittances, followed by
farming then fish business. then labour (CWBMP 2006).

Socio-economic indicators for that part of Teknaf Peninsula (DOE, 1999) showed a
literacy rate of he tween 28 - 48% depending on the area within the site (19.9- 30% for
females) and 67 % had some type of sanitation facility. The general observation survey
found 20% of the population was poor (can work in rural site, slightly smaller family,
own very smail amount of land), 60% were middle class (have land and fishing boats of
their own, involved in shrimp projectsltrade) and 20% were rich (no defrnitiou provided)
(DOE, 1998). For the present study the people of rural settings has been consider as the
storm surge vulnerable groups.
 51

4.3.2. Satkbira district

Administration of Satkhira subdivision was established in 1861 under Jessore district. It

was included into Khulna district in 1882. The subdivision was turned into a district in
1984 as a result of the administrative decentralisation. The district consists of 2
municipalities, 18 wards, 4\ mahallas, 7 upazilas, 79 union parishads, 953 mouzas and
1436 villages. The upazilas are SATKHlRASADAR, ASSASUNJ,DEBHATA, KALAROA,
KALTGANJ, SHYAMNAGAR
and TALA (Banglapedia, 2008).

The other details is in beiow-

Climate: The climate of Satkhira district falls on south-western climatic sub-zone of

Bangladesh. It is as moist tropical region with high rainfall concentrated during monsoon
(usually June-September) and a dry period of 4-5 months. Average annual rainfall for
Satkhira varied from 197.7 em per year (COP, 2003). But in recent time rainfall rate
tremendously decreasing within last four years. The temperature remains maximum 31°C
and minimum 16°C with great seasonal differences in that area (Bang!apedia, 2008).
Humidity remains relatively high throughout the year; it averaged 79.7% at Satkhira at
1988-1999, From November-February the prevailing winds are from the north-west, from
March-May from the south-west and from June-September from the south-east. The site
is in moderate risk to cyclones and tidal surges (Karim and Tutu, 2005). But Cyclonic
storms develop in the Bay, genemlly in April-May and October-November, occasionally
coming to land area and causing severe damage to hwnan settlements and vegetation.

Hydrology and Land use: The Shingortoli Channel and Ma1ancha River are the maio
waterways in the specific union in study area. The other main rivers are of Kalindi,
Kobadak, Mother Kholpetua, Arpangachia, Mahmcha, Hariabbanga and Chuna. South
Talpatti Island at the estuary of the Hariabhanga is notable. The river and channels have
decreased their own capacity more in that area because of improper management system
and lack of environmental law and regulation (DOE, 1999). The disturbed hydrological
system is more influencing to the risk of storm surge. There are a Jot of ponds and extend
shrimp farms are found here in the following area, The land use patterns keep mainly
agriculturailand and shrimp fields (Field survey, 2008).
 52

Biological HabitatsfCODlDluDities: The area acts as a corridor between terrestrial and

marine biodiversity, with the site's habitats including mudflats, mangrove and estuaries.
The vegetation is largely of mangrove type and encompasses a variety of plants including
trees, shrubs, grasses, epiphytes, and lianas. Being mostly evergreen, they possess more
or less similar physiological and structural adaptations. Most trees have pneurnatophores
for aerial respiration. The ecological diversity of the Sundarbans supports a Large variety
of birds. Among the total number of species recorded, most are resident. Over 50 species
are known to be migratory and are mostly represented by the waterfowls (Sarkar, 2(04).
The egrets, storks, herons, bitterDJl, sandpipers, curlew, and numerous other waders are
seen along the muddy banks.

Local community and stakeholders: The IXlpuiation is a mix of religions, etlmic and
social groups. The main livelihoods among the local community include:

. Fanning Laboring
Fishing Shrimp fry collecting
Forest Extractor

Without that resource base livelihoods there are some skill base acts such as Fish
business, Hunting and poaching, Timber business, Boat operation, net repairing and
others. However, of the resource depending livelihoods, fishing, farming, forest
extracting and Wage labor are the main occupations and in terms of household income
Fanner and forest extractor provided by far the highest income. Socio-economic
indicators for that part showed a iiteracy rate of between 14 - 38% depending on the area
within the site (9.0- 20% for females) and 56 % had some type of sanitation facility
(CDP, 2003). The stockholders of that coast traditionally depend on agriculture and the
forest (Field survey, 2008).
 53

4.4. Sample Size for Field Study

-:- Questionnaire survey has been occurred randomly considering the calculated
sample size in study site L of Cox's bazaar through 90 households of different

livelihood groups (Table 4.1.).

Table 4.1. HOllileholds of different livelihood groups for questionnaire survey in site I.

Livelihood ron
Farmer
Fisher
F collector
Salt fanner
fisher
Forest extractor
W e labor
Total Sam Ie

Aller that survey the following scenario (Fig 4.2) has been found.

Sampling of ",ta 1. In Co'x bazaar

" "".ma'
" FlaM.
e Fry "", •• cto,
,,""It "'"".r
• cry ••••her
C I'Q••••• ><tractor
"'_U•••••or

Fig 4.2: Sampling percentage of house hold according to livelihood groups in Cox's
b_.
 54

• Household survey has also been occurred in site 2. of Satkhira with the certain
sampling 60 households (Table 4.2.).

T.ble 4.2. Households of different livelihood groups fur questionnaire survey in site 2.

HOWlehold No.
13
13
9
o
o
J4
JJ
60

It shows the sampling as follows as Fig, 4.3.

Sampling of l!Ilte2. In Satkhlra

IJ ••••rm.r

a_her
<:I Fry collooetor
c_farmer
• Dry""h ••
" For•• t "xtractor
II_iii" labor

Fig 4.3: Sampling percentage of house hold according to livelihood groups in Satkhira.

Base on the survey report the study has been continued and the livelihood system has
been analyzed.
 CHAPTER FIVE
LIVELmOOD SECURITY MODEL

5.1. Introduction

The livelihood security model is generally enhanced by one or a combination of the three
intervention strategies in household level such as Livelihood promotion (development
oriented programming), Livelihood protection (rehabilitation/mitigation oriented
programming) and Livelihood proVlSIOrung (relief-oriented progranuning)
(Frankenberger and McCaston, 1998). The current work tends to define the pre-
requisites and the idea of the conceptual model in order to assess the required livelihood
protection and provision for coastal community due to storm surge hazard.

Livelihood in the coastal area differs from the rest of the country and in Bangladesh
coastal livelihood pattern and its security largely depends on vulnerability as well as
opportunity. The storm surge is certainly a major vulnerability factor to make insecurity
in coastal environment and livelihood system. It is also defined that resources (both in
land and the sea) are available opportunities at the household level in tenns of ownership
and access. Household security of specific livelihood group is defined as adequate and
sustainable access to income and resources to meet basic needs including adequate access
to food, potable water, health facilities, educational opportunities, housing, time for
conununity participation and social integration. Livelihood Sl%:urityModel has been
developed to improve storm surge risk measurement at household level in coastal
conununity.

This chapter will demonstrate a conceptual model for livelihood security against storm
surge with identification of livelihood security options, standard value of livelihood
security indicators or security standard and other tools of $Ccuritylevel assessment for
individual livelihood groups in the coastal part of Bangladesh.
 56

5.2. The Model Coneept

As shown in the figure 5.1, there are three major elements in coastal livelihood security
model: context, livelihood system and strategy and livelihood security outcomes.
Contextual factors place the household and community into a situated perspective. The
present model has been constructed to identify the insecurity and risk of coastal people
due to storm surge hazard. At that sense storm surge and its destructive actions has been
defined as the key contextual factor affecting livelihoods.

Lh"tlibood Security
Stonns~ badicators

Cll"k • .oo A,o.:Des

"••
• mllil)

-~
\Vol«
l1ne;hold

••.
umiI;"
Al>M}tnd Am""" l"a1ne
"""
' _~iX"""'~ P,,*hrs of -->
Ir'o•••••,
~
:'eclIlity ""'"
<opiol mdiCiitOI; H<alIb. $<

-"
">"
HOUSEllOlD

--
Pr~
._,
pa""ool
;eelu)'

••.
:Pl~>ic~tnd Co""""Ptio" prop,ltl'
-""
' rm .••lrnelll
..ullil;"

~iIfl' V

linlihood
Coastal
Coastal Li'l"tlihood ~)"Stem SKlIritr Securi~'
Resources .~al~"Sis

Fig 5.1: 0mcept of"Ljvelihood Security Model" for storm surge hazard for coastal area.
 57

The coastal livelihood system and stockholders has been presented as one of the basic
element of the model. It has been defined as the subject of vulnerability in that certain
study field. In that portion of the model, the affected party i.e. the coastal livelihood
groups have been introduced including their household activities, resources and
strategies. At the level of livelihood strategy, the aim of the analysis was to undexstand
the typical levels of human, social, economic and natural capital that are possessed by
different types of households, and the nature of production, income and exchange
activities on which storm surge affects more. That part has been designed to develop the
household base livelihood security indicators which are the analytical input of the model.
A<x:ording to the conceptual model, the numerical valuation of the coastal livelihood
system, sub-system and the status of livelihood groups have been occurred by calculating
selective indicators with specific unit. The livelihood security index for household has
been measured by comparing the value of indicators against their standard limits. Finally
consumption activities for each household have been summarized in terms of the
livelihood security outcomes status for different options of household security.

5.2.1, Storm surge: the bllekgrouud i,"ue

For the model description, as the exogenous factor the storm surge study has been gotten
logical attention and from that continuity, it has been found that 40% of storm surges that
occur throughout the globe affect Bangladesh. It also has been reviewed thai almost 10%
area of the Bangladesh is vulnerable to cyclonic and surge hazard (BUET -BIDS, 1993).
Storms surges cause great sufferings to coastal people and their livelihood system in
Bangladesh.

In Bangladesh, cyclones generally take place either aI April-May or Septernber-

December. Most of the damage has occurred in the coastal regions of Khulna, Bagerhat,
Shatkhira, Patuakhali, Barisal, Noakhali Cox's bazaar and Chittagong and the offshore
islands ofBhola, Hariya, Sandwip, Manpura, Kutubdia, Mabeshkhali, Nijhum Dwip, Urir
Char and other newly formed islands. Astronomical tides in combination with cyclonic
surges lead to higher water levels and hence severe flooding. Surge-heights increase with
the increase of wind speed. Storm winds move at speed of up to 240Kmlh and caused
 58

widespread damage (Klibir, at ai, 2007). The most destructive element, however, is the
surge caused by II large mass of water at and around the storm center accwnulating in II

mound higher than normal sea level and progressing with the storm as II wind driven
storm surge. In the most casc, the main risk factors have been defined as the frequency of
surge in particular area, the tidal condition during surge, surge height and finally the
duration of surge occurs. All those factors control the range of damages as well as
sufferings of the people and that indicate the security level of certain livelihood system of
the area. From this study, it has also been found that the frequently increasing rate of
storm surge during recent years change that vulnerability rate tremendously and caused
insecurity to coastal people and their living.

5.2.2. COalitalllvelibood system

Coastal Livelihood System has been defined around II household's livelihood strategy; the
household members, the assets and resources to which they have access, as well as their
access to information or to influence others and their ability to claim from relatives, the
state or others actors. Production and income activities have been means to improving
livelihoods and not an end in them. In this study, coastal livelihood system has been
analyzed to evaluate what changes would be taking place in the marginal livelihood
systems during storm surge risk. It also has been monitored (focusing on the production
and consumption processes and assets of households including the status of its members)
for the better and sustainable measure of that shocks.

• Livelihood re80urees

According to DFID livelihood asset model, each livelihood group has five types of assets
- (i) Natural assets, (ii) Financial assets, (iii) Hwnan assets, (iv) Physical and institutional
assets, and (v) Social assets Oslam,2004 ). The dependency of livelihood on these assets
defmes the vulnerability of livelihood. Tn this point of view, the selected livelihood
groups in this study have characterized by their dependency on the local resources with
relation to their main source of production, income and saving system. Fanners, Marine
 59

Fishers, Fry collector and Salt farmer are directly dependent to natural land and water
resources, whereas the daily wage group is indirectly dependent on natural resources.
Culture fisher and dry fisher groups are dependent on natural resources with some
anthropogenic initiatives. It was observed that all livelihood groups put importance on
their natural assets according to their economic and social needs. Among the natural
assets, farmers and wage labors put the higher priority on agriculture land whereas
fishennen emphasized on fish and water bodies. Some livelihood assets vary with
geographical variation and cultural settings. For instance, shrimp farming and forest
resource extraction are prominent in Satkhira region whereas salt farming and dry fish is
prominent in some places of Cox's hazar region. Furthermore, agriculture Land and
fisheries are the main assets that govern the economy of the region. Therefore, impact of
storm surge on agriculture and fisheries would define the impact on each livelihood
group directly or indirectly in Bangladesh coast.

-:. Concerned seeton for coastallivelibood security

As the indicator framework is to assess the security level against impacts on the resources
due to storm surge in certain coastal area, the key affected sectors of livelihood system
are the main concem-
a. Nattlral System: Natural disaster

b. River. vegetalion etc.

c. Household Population size

d Access and ownership

e. Rale ofIncome and savings

f Lilera'Y rate and personal skill

g. Health care and Medical facilities

h. Women activities

i. Institutional act and Public Awareness

j. Water Supply and Safety

•
 60

k. Sani/alion (acilities

l. Housinglnf[ostructure

m. Protection, Shelter and mitigation measure

n. Insli/uliotuJ1 and Organizational sUllpOrt

Different criteria and actions related to coastal livelihood system and its sub-systems
have been considered to form the =:urity indication tools for the certain community due
to that spe<:ificissue. In the model formation procedW'e,those types of tools have been
used as the input data of the model.

5.2.3. Livelihood security indic.ton: model input data

A conceptual livelihood security model for coastal people has been developed depending
on some indicators, as tools to assess the impacts of natural hazard on livelihood of
coastal community and its management policies. So it was needed to describe an
approach for the identification of suitable indicators, by linking with the research
objectives and revised livelihood structure in the relevant area.

• Development of an indicator f•.••mework

Development of livelihood security indicators has been performed through the specific
understanding of the coastal livelihood varieties and livelihood system which always
walk with risk of storm surge. The information of previous destructive actions of storm
surge issue of the specific area has been considered for vulnerability assessment of the
defincd livelihood groups in coastal area of Bangladesh in which household members
cDg!lh'Cin a host of m:tivities to earn their living based on its assets (ownership andl or
access). Livelihood security indicators have been formed as the functional unit of the
coastal livelihood system includes the physical and socia-economic and environmental
part of the system. For this study the concern livelihood system has been expressed as the
affected area due to storm surgc hazard in coastal districts. So the set of indicators has
 61

been dermed to represent the function of storm surge issues and different types of cnastal
vulnerabilities and opportunities for different livelihood groups in certain area of coast.
Livelihood security indicators for livelihood groups have been developed based on areas
in which they live, observed living status, their individual access to local resources and
their capacity 10prevent, prepare for or respond to the shock of storm surge. The safety of
unique resources such as the Sundarbans, the shrimp fields, the marine ecosystem and
huge numbers of river and channels in the study area has been major concern in indicator
development. Secondary information has been used 10 form the link between livelihood
indicator and livelihood security indicator for storm surge hazard of the commrmity:

Actually indicators have been developed by the secondary and primary information
related to the storm surge issue. The storm surges act destructively on the household
practices, household properties and other process to live. The hazards also hit all social
and institutional facilities of special livelihood groups of Bangladesh coast. Indicators for
the security of coastal livelihoods against stonn surge in BD wast have been identified
from different dimensions of livelihood capitals and livelihood system of that
community. Under different livelihood capital and relevant action such as natural capital,
social capital, economic capital and physical or institutional capital, indicators have been
defined with specific unit of measurement. Each indicator has been defmed depending on
specific reason. It has been tried to show relative, reliable, representative and logical
cause behind each one.

A set of indicators (Shown in Table 5.1.) has been fonned based on secondary
infonnation and information from general field observation of the selected coastal area.
Some data have been collected from coastal management report from national level
research work (WARPO and others). Initially the indicators have been arranged on the
basis oflivelihood asset or capital of household living.
 62

Table 5.1. An indicator framework for coastal1ivelihoods against slonn surge,

Natural Capital

~
~
1.
•• round Criteria
Possibility of occurring stonn surge within Frequency ofS~~
Indicator
surge
Unit
B_
each vear lrre Ire ••nlar
2. Coincidence of the storms' passes with high Storm surge Period (Low tidel high
Of low tides would tend to increase or tide) B_
moderate the d o.
3. Tidal action turns to surge when it crosses Surge height from mean sea level B_
the DonnaI scenario or becomes up to Mean (LowlHigh)
Sealevel
4. The mle of damages depends on how much Duration of storm surge (Short B_
,. time storm surge ~ or act over the area
Vegetation would be a great and natural
_'0 """
Rate of vegetation around the area %
rotection against storm s 0
6. Production would be seasonal or over the Time frame for resource collection! Month
year. The production period is important for production ,
security
7. Condition and management capacity of Performance of natural drainage %
Rivers, canals (khal) can control the surge system
action and level
8. Natural or anthropogenic activities may act Possible improvement of resource in %
against loss and improve the resource =h_
capacity
9. Coastal people having multiple-opportunity AlX:ess to alternative resource base No.
depending on nUlllber of resources in the
localitv.
10. Supply of energy is not available in rural AlX:ess to energyffuel supply %
Dart of coast.
Finaneial Capital

No.
.1.
B" round Criteria Indicator Unit
%of
People have scope to earn from livestock, Household production Tl
I oouitrv, vel!etabl~inl! or others.
12. Access or ownership of production that Ownership on production %
means how much Ishare of product they have
ownod.
13. If a household having food product more Scope offood storage Binary
than their normal demand, they can store it
for future.
14. If household can save any from their regular Rate of saving %of
income, it must be effective to face the risk. Tl
 63

"
15. Type of saving system or easy access to
saving system make oonfidence ofAH.
Reliability of saving system (YesINo)
B_
16. It is an effective economic opportunity for Access of women to economic %
HH and skilled women do better for their activities

B_
family.

17. Economic activities except the fIxed living Scope of alternative economic
option give confidence to face the shock. activities

18. ""y 10m

-'" from govt. m other
organizations keep up their capacity to face
Access to financial loan (Yes! No) Binary

certain risk:
19. If people have any access to eam from Portion of HH income earned from %
outside of the surge prone area, it shows an rest of the country
option ofHH safety.
Human Capital

No.
20.
B.
Literate people
",' Criteria
= able 00 prolool
Indicator
Rate of educationJIiteracy
Unit
%
themselves from risk
21. Idea of primary treatment must be needed Knowledge on first aid %
durin<>disaster
22. Information availability 00 stonn surge Knowledge on storm surge risk %
action and protection initiatives help to keep
safet\'
23. If it is possible to CQmmunicate with nearest Access to nearest district town Binary
town. (Time and Distance basis), it gives (YesINo)
some living facilities.
24. Physical treatment facilities is essential to Access to doctor serv\~~ (No. of No.
face the certain risk doctor 1100 Household
25. Physically and mentally fit peuple can safe HH Popullition having training on %
their familv and Drooerties Surl!:eDrotection
26. Active people can move to shelter and it Active population ofHH
may easy to adopt in the situation.
%
27. Active and skilled people are aware and take Response to ellIly warning system %
initiatives to fl"ht with hazard.
28. People should be wining to adjust with the Response to adaptation technology %
protection techniques.

29. People of other side of the country are safe Rate of out migration of HH member %
from the risk. It is an alternative option of
HH development.
 64

Physical I InfrJIIstructural Capital

N,. Bo, nnd Criteria Indicator Unit

30. The safety of house infrastmcture depends Safe housing infrastructure! condition %
on buildinl.! materials and olacement.
31. Availability of medicine, treatment
"""
Performance of hospitallHealth S"",
service from the authority.-
Number of cyclone shelter, distance from
=",
Performance of/Ilc(;css to cyclone
32.
house and condition of cyclone center and shelter %
othel'll.
33. Available 00=' of water ~dpossible =~bility of drinking water (Safe %
I oualitv.
34. Sanitation structure and awareness. Sanitation facilities %
35. Communiclllion system with the rest of the Access of media connection I Radio %
countrv. I TVI Cell nhone
36. Constrocted and well conditioned road. Availabilit of avedroad %
,f_
37.
38.
ualit ~duanti rt.
No. or length of polder or other protection
T= rtation facilities
tection structure
"
%
39. ""-"condition
Present of polder
Part ofarea under
,th~ Fitness of protection structure %
protection structures "
Sodal Capit1l;1

N,. B., round Criteria Indicator Unit

40. Weather news collection and serve to the Performance of weather forecasting S"",
1 oeoDle activelv
41 Local community cooperation may the most Community participation practice
important helD to face the shock. %
42 Hoi from Govt. and Gov!. 0 anizations Activeness of local GO Scale
1
43 Hoi from NOO's Interrclationshi with NGO Scale
144 Social safety and awareness Performance social law and Scale
regulation
45 Political activities and help from political Political ~IJ!1uen~\on social group.! B_
1="0 commi Yes/No
46 Activity and responsibility of local Gov!. Perfonnance oflocal disaster S"",
and powerful stakeholders mana"ement committee
47 Social community oflbe dwellers Activeness of social organization of %
livelihood
48 Activities or workshop from different org, Awareness progrnmonprotection No.
specially Gov!. measure o.

Source: Field study 2008-2009.

 65

In indicator development process for the livelihood assets or resources in coastal zone
have been classified based on reviewed literatures and field survey data. The components
of those assets base have been focused approaching the importance of particular products
for individual household. Through this continuity the ooncem sectors for storm surge
vulnerability were marine ecosystem and land use, peoples live and living. production
system and extractive activities, water availability and quality, economic, social and
institutions performances etc. The observation showed that the household security must
have dependence on the ownership and accessibility to the assets, entitlements and
resources provides a household with the basic infrastructure to make choices, which were
translated into livelihood activities ofoommunity people.

The approach of livelihood security indicators development has expressed as most

relevant idea from the perspective of the security llSsessmentfor livelihood groups at the
study area. The indicator framework has ~n formed with 46 individual indicators which
should represent the state of the resources and opportunities in certain environment and
the fonn of different sub-system and system on which their livelihoods depend.

5.2.4. Livelihood security standard for coastal people

Livelihood security should be measured by proper judgment of the define situation. So

the livelihood security approach due to storm surge has been constructed through the
idea of a comparative study between the vulnerable coastal livelihood systems and the
expected safety ofliving in the coastal zone of Bangladesh.

The livelihood security standard has been defined from the standard value of all
livelihood security indicators. The standard values have been shown by collected data.
through a local FGD (Focus Group Discussion) prognmnne in each defined thana. The
developed indicator framework has been discussed to the participants. Some example
values such as rate of income savings, IlIteof literacy, health facilities etc. have also been
explained for their idea development. Those example values have been collected from the
national census (population census 2001) and published data from local government
authority. The standard value for individual indicators (Table 52.) has been developed by
 66

using the participants' opinions., expectations and demands in different sector of coastal
livelihood system due to risk of storm surge. Finally those values have been calculated
from combined data of FGDs and researchers' perceptions about the certain situation
with help of local area concern.

Table 5.2. Standard value of indicators.

ell ita) Indicator Unit Stlindard
F uenc of Stonn sur e Ine larlre 1M Bi 1
Storm surge Period (Low tide! high tide)
Bin","" 1
Surg~;"h) height from mom =
level
B.
lowlhi 1
D~~tion of storm surge (Short term/long Binary
"rm I
Rate of vel!etation around the area % 25
Time fmm, fm resource collection!
Natural I production Months 12
Performance of natural~. system % 80
Rate of possible resource quality
imnrovement % 50
Access to alternative resource base No. 3
Available ene Iruel su 1 % 90
Homestead oroduction %ofTI 40
Ownershi on main roduction or income % 75
S offood stora 'e IYes!Nol BinA"" 1
Rate ofsaviulI: % ofTI 25
Reliabili of savin 5 stem B~ 1
FiDlIBCial Access of women to economic activities % 50
Scope of alternative economic B_ 1
llctivities(Y esINo)
Access to fmancialloan YesfNo B~ 1
Portion ofHH income earned from rest of the
OO~m % 20
Rate of education/literacv % 80
Knowled e on first aid % 70
Knowled"e on stow SUf"e risk % 80
Human B.
Access to nearest district town YesINo I
Access to doctor service (No. of doctor 150
Household' No. 2
HH Population having training on Surge
I nmlection % 50
 67

Active POJ)u1ationofHH % 50
Res orne to earl warnin... system % 65
Resoonse ~tion technoloLN % 75
Rate of out migration of HH member % 10

Safehousi infrastructurel condition % 6Q

Performance of hosoitallHealth center Scale 3
Performance of/access to c clone shelter % 90
Availabili of d . water Safe water) % 90
Physical!
Sanita1ion facilities % 90

Institutional Access of Radionv I Cell hone % 75

Availabili of vedroad % 60
T~ rtation facilities % 60
Part of area nnder tection structure % 80
Fitness of rotection structure % 80
Performance of weather forecastin Scale 3
Community oarticination practice % 80
Activeness of local GO Scale 2
lnterrelationshin with NGO Scale 2
Performance social law and fell:Uialion Scale 2
Political influence on social group!
Social committee eslNo \ Bin~"" 1
Performance of local disaster management
committee Soli, 2
Activeness of social organization of
livelihood !>muns % 80
Awar~~ess program on protection measure
oJY No. 2

Source: Literature review and Field study 2008-2009.

The table shows the standard value of individual security indicators for coastal
livelihoods to face the risk of storm surge in Bangladesh. The value units are as same as
the define indicator framework. The standard values have been calculated considering the
situation of total study area. This measurement has been used as a main parameter of the
Model.

t,
 68

5.3. Livelihood Seeurity Optious

Coastal people are generally well known to the vulnerability of their livelihood system
due to storm surge. The present field study noticed that most of them take it as a usual
phenomenon in their area of living. Coastal community treats it as their part of life and
tries to swvive from their individual position of living opportunity. However with the
trend of climate change and present increasing intensity of tropical cyclone, the reality of
the storm surge vulnerabilities is likely to grow rapidly in Bangladesh coast. These
changes affect the assets and securities of life and thus affect people's well-being. This
study analyzed the vulnerabilities in relati.on to the essential well-being in livelihood
system and related securities, which are identified to be: food; water; income; health and
personal safety; and safety of properties. So the OXIuceptof livelihood security of coastal
people has been defined by the highlighted security options from their individual
livelihood per.;pectives.

Food security
Food security depends on such interrelated issues as: crop production; crop loss as well as
any type of product generation and its use, food availability; flow of income and family
size. The food security of different livelihood groups has been denoted through their
livelihood pattern and types of resources in certain coastal area. Within the coastal
livelihood system the household productivity, demand, storage, income and purchasing
ahility in food a11OCll1ion
and distribution was evident. The study denoted thaI stonn surge
caused great damage in quality food supply to the coastal root level people for last few
years in certain area. In that time storm surge took place in post or pre monsoon time of
the year and caused damage to most of the Amon and Boro field of the affected area. It
washed the shrimp field and destroyed forest resources. People of the study area stated
that in surge period they had minimum scope to store or collect fuod. So, they ate tess
and meals were of lower quality in surge time. Because of the losses of resources and
lack of preventive actions, the coastal community suffered much and substantially
became more vulnerable for the unavailability offood product.
 69

Income security
Income is the most important functional element in the basic livelihood system. The
household income of coastal livelihood groups depends on their access to natural
resources, related lWtivities, production, collection and supply of different types of
product This study discussed the income sources and opportunities of different
livelihood groups. Each livelihood groups were defined by some spocific options and
income dimension. But it also stated that storm surge of recent years caused great loss to
coastal resources. The loss of household assets, e.g., the loss of crop, cattle and poultry as
well as damage in common resource base impacted the income security of both men and
women. The storm surge in coastal environment reduced agricultural production.
According to public statement coastal surge changed land use pattern that makes
uncertainty in income sector of people. Storm surge destroyed forest flora and fauna. It
ruled restriction to marine resources. Both of the coastal asset were the main income
source of several livelihood groups in the define area.

Health and penonal security

In the coastal areas both men and women are living in a poor health status. Poverty,
frequency of uatural disasters. water pollution, lack of health and sanitation facilities,
lack of awareness and superstitions are major factors behind health insecurity. This study
found that there was a significant problem associated with the storm surge hazard in
certain coast of Bangladesh during last storm surge. Wheu storm surge took place most of
the people needed shelter but they didn't so. Lot of people was injured. Numbers of
people were in life risk. Old men, women and children were in great danger. Women
suffered more. Primary medical treatment and hospital facilities were not sufficient in the
selective area. People died for lack of proper treatment and communication facilities.
This survey found that due to storm surge coastal rivers and other water bodies were
washed out by sea water and high dose of salinity caused large damage in fiSheries. The
development of aquaculture in certain coastal areas became in risk and salinity caused
loss to adjacent agricu!turalland. All of these changes have tended to reduce the carrying
capacity of the coastal environment, thus reducing the benefits of wild harvesting and
making the livelihoods of the ever increasing poor more difficult to sustain.
 70

Security of bouse .nd property

The important components of this security approach are house materials, product storage
capacity, communication and quick response. The prevailing lack of awareness,
communication and warning system causes a decline in resources and loss of assets. As a
result, there occur ffillCh threat over resources and men face the risk of destroying
household properties and also decrease access to common resource base. This study
notified that people of different livelihood groups lost their all properties during the
disaster period because they were not alert to the warning. According to people concept,
the last storm surge period the major losses were in certain livelihood activities such as
fishing at sea. From the community resean:h it was found that tire loss of assets lIS a
consequence of storm surge (e.g. house, poultry, and cattle) and their limited resilience to
such disasters, affect marine resource base livelihood group and daily wage group
profoundly. However, at the time of a storm surge and afterwards, people face severe
hygiene and sanitation difficulties along with a lack of food, income and secure shelter.
In case of a stonn surge threats people try to get infonnation from their neighborhood, go
far to see the flag or listen to the radio for stonn surge warning. During the storm surge
they go to a cyclone shelter (if available) and aftetwards they do what they can to regain
the loss of assets. The impacts of stonn surge on livelihood groups vary according to their
resources, activities and options.

Water ~eeurity
In coastal areas, the availability of safe drinking water has been mentioned as one of the
major problems. This holds true for both the dry and the wet season and especially for
storm surge period. The study described that most of the people used community tube
well and some of them took pond water for domestic use. When stonn surge took place, it
was difficult to find fresh water in the both sources. So lack of potable water affects the
men and women differently. According to the public statement, women faced more
difficulties in water fetching, fulfilling domestic tasks, bathing and maintaining
reproductiVe hygiene and sanitation. For lack of sufficient non saline water the normal
activities were stopped and livelihood system of various groups was in great risk.
 71

5.4. Selection of IndiClltor for Individual Seeurity

The indicator framework has been distributed into different security aspects lI<x:ordingto
their response and logical application to that sector of livelihood security. Indicators have
been selected finally by using Multi Criteria Decision Making method spedfically
defined as Analytical Hierarchy Process (ARP). In the following method primarily
developed indicators of each capital groups have been analyzed individually to select the
appropriate indicator for relevant sector oflivelihood security.

In this study, the AMP has been used for alternative indicators under individuaJ capital.
For example, when AHP has been used for natural capital base indicators, it fonned a
nine by nine (9 x 9) priority matrix for pair wise comparison of alternatives (Individual
Indicator). The priorities of alternative indicator have been fixed base on FGD
participants' opinions and present coastal livelihood research study in that specific area.

The indicators of other capital base have also been selected by following same method of
decision making according to their weight of relative response. The defined five
livelihood security aspects have been used as basic criteria of indicators which are
measurable, achievable, utile, flexible and acceptable from the specific point of security
aspect. Those have been clarified to justify the sensitivity or reliability of developed
indicators to the specific aspect. The same method has been used to select security aspect
of indicator s under each livelihood capital.
Table 5.3. Selected indicators for individual household security options.
Indicator Security
Capital
Food Health HOllse ...,
.. ,
Income
.,d •• d

Frequency orStorm surge (!rregularlregular) , , ,

Penollal
, ro ,.;

Slorm surge P.riod (Low tide! hisb tid.) , , , , ,

Natnral
Capital Surge heighl from mean soa level (LowlHigh) , , , , ,
,~,.,
Duralion slorm surge (Short tennl long , , , , ,
 72

Rat. of vegl':lation around the area , , , ,

Time frame for resource collection! production , ,
petfortnonoe of natur8I drainage s~em , , j

Rate of possible """"""" quality improvemetll j ,

Access to a!temalive resOllJ'Cebase , , , 1'
Access to energy/fuel supply , I'
Homestead production
I'
j , ,
I'
, j

OwneJship on main production or income , , , j j

&ope "r food """'E" (YeslNo) j j

Rate of saving j j j j j

Financial
Cllpitlli
Reliability of saving system j j j , j

Access of women to """nomic activities j j j

Scope of alternati". economic activities(Yes/No) j j j

A= to fioancialloon(Ye./No) j j j j j

Portion ofHH income eamed from Test "fthe j j j

'"
Rst. of edueationllitemcy j j j j j

Knowledge on tim aid , I'

,
Knowledge 00 stoml surge risk j j j j ,
Human
Capita! A=, to nearest di,trict IOWII(YeslNn) j j j j ,
Access to ~or servi"" (No. of dootorI j j
50Ho"".hnld
HH Population having tnUrnng on Surge , j , j ,
rotectinn
Active popolatiOIl of HH , , , j ,
Response to ClIflywarning system j j , j ,
RespOIlS. to adaptation technology , , , j ,
, ,
Physical!
Rate of nUl mi >I'lI1ionof HH member
Safe housing iofrastructurd c<JI1dition j , , , ,
Infrastructu
ral Capillll
Perfonnon<:e ofhospitallHcalth center , j
 73

Availability of drinking water (Safe water) , , ,

Sanitation facilities , , ,
AcceSil ofRadioffVl Cell phone , , , ,
Availability of paved road , , I'
Transportation filciliti •• , , , , ,
Average area with protection structure , ,
Fitness of protection strueOIre
1 '

, , ,
Pcrfonnance <'If weather foreCllSling , 1 '
,
Community participmOll practice
I'
Activeness of local GO , , 1 '

,
1 '

, ,
Intern:lationsbip with NGO , , , , ,
Soci.1
C.pihll
Performance social law and regulation , , ,
, ,
, , ,
POlitin~~:en~lon social group!
COlDDlI cslNo
Perfurmance of local disaster management
commill«
, ,
Activeness

"'''P'
of social organization of livelihood
, , , , ,
AwlU'el1ess program on pr<>tection measure
(No_N) , , , , ,
Source: Field survey 2008-09.
""1/" sign shows the selection of indicator for individual security option.

An estimated priority weight of individual indicator has been found from AHP
application for each security aspects. Now, Indicators having higher weight under that
specific security aspect have been selected. This method has been used for every division
of livelihood security indicator. Table 5.3. shows the weighted indicators or response of
indicators to different security options. 11te livelihood security Model has been developed
by following the selected frame of coastal livelihood indicators.
 74

5.5. Livelihood Security Model

The livelihood security model has been developed bllSe on an indicator framework which
is the representative of coastal household security criteria against the stonn surge hazard.
The analytical model has been shown lIS the funn of livelihood security index where the
required input parameters would be shown as follows--

,--
Table S.••. Parameters used in constructed model.

Measured /Present Value ofIndividuallndicator

Unit
Specific unit
Denoted by

Ie
Standard Value of Individual Indicator Specific unit I,

"
Difference between present value of indicator and %
standard value of individual indicator.

• Livelihood Security Index

Step 1: Two types of value for each selected indicators have been calculated through
analyzing some secondary data, FGD and household interview data in the selected coastal
area. Then the comparative security value foe selected indicator have been invented
individually under different security aspects by using the equation-

lId! "" {(lp.I.)/(I,+I.)}*lOO---------I.

Here,
Ip ""Present value of individual indicator
I, = Standard value of individual indicator
Id = Percentage of unit difference between present value of indicator and standard value
of individual indicator.

Step 2: The security score of individual indicator has been found by a defined scaling
because Id represents two alternative directions i.e. either positive (+) or negative (-).
Here, the positive direction shows security and negative direction shows insecurity.
 75

Table 50S. Security scoring system.

Positive Id Security Negative Id Insecurity

Sealrity soo", (X) {+)Vlllue rJIIoge(%) Insecurity ~ore (Y) (-)Value

rl102e(%)
+ 0 - 30 - 0 - 30

-----
++ 31 - 60 31 - 60
+++ 61 Above 61 - Above

Here, X= Security score fur individual indicator.

Y = Insecurity s<:orefor individual indicator.

Step 3: Each individual indicator has been shown sensitive to different security aspects.
The security index of a household for single aspect can be calculated by the following
[onnnla:

•
SIj = fLX;j I Mj} '" 100 ---------------- II.
1=1

SIj= Security index under jth individual aspect;

Xij = Positive score ofith indicators under jIb aspect;
The value of X for different indicator (j=l to n) has been calculated by counting the
numbers of positive (+) signs.
n" Number ofindividuai indicators sensitive fur individual aspect.
Mj = Maximum possible score of total indicators under jIb aspect.
j = Different security aspects.

Security ofbousehold (in percentage) for individual livelihood security aspect at risk of
storm surge in define coast of Bangladesh has been measured by solving the formula.
 76

Now, The over all livelihood =:urity in household level of coastal community for the
issue (storm surge) has been defmed through combining the security of every denoted
security aspects. The composite security index consisting of different aspeds has been

expressed lIS follows:

,
SI = L SI/N III.

Where;

SJ = Composite livelihood security index oCa hOlL'lehold in percentage;

N'" Number ofsecUrlty aspects considered in the composite index;

• Model Output

Finally the livelihood security model for household in the coast has been formed
COt1ceptuaily and physically using the above index. The model will provide a result by
defining the livelihood security level of individual coastal livelihood groups to face the
storm surge risk in coastal Bangladesh.

5.6. Model Use for Livelihood Security ASIlessment

For measuring the livelihood Security of coastal people due to stonn surge effect through
the model, the steps to be followed are:

.;. To enter the standard limit of security indicators lIS the threshold value for model
application;
.> To enter the present value of indicators calculated from survey to households of

different livelihood groups;

+> To calculate the security score (Step I) for each indicators llC':ording to their
respouse to different security options;
+> To calculate the security level under each security aspect through Step 2;
 77

.» To calculate the overall security level of different livelihood groups for storm
surge hazard in coastal area;

The Model must be applied for individual affairs of different coastal livelihood groups.

5.7. Summ.ry

The model would be applicable depending on the sensitivity of developed indicators and
their appropriate priority analysis. The Model would become more logical if the standard
value ofindiclitors have been collected from national statistics. From the modeling study,
it can be concluded that the model can play II vital role in coastal resource management
and livelihood development program due to stonn surge hazard.
 CRAPTERSIX
COASTAL LIVELIHOOD SYSTEM ANALYSIS

6.1. Introduction

Bangladesh is a densely populated but smal1 country having a unique coastal topography.
The largest mangroves (Sundarban), the longest sandy beach, a resourceful coral island
etc. make that coast as the area of multiple opportunities. But at the same time, the
coastal area of Bangladesh is in great risk of storm surge hazard (Flood and some others
also roughly active here) during pre monsoonal and post monsoonal period in every year.
Storm surges generally caused by tropical cyclonic action in a typical geological settings.
The regular frequencies of storm surge occurrences have been seen in current years. The
coastal people as well as their resource base livelihood system are in a dangerous
situation due to continuous surge effects. This chapter will generate a scene of group wise
coastal livelihood systems which have been identified as in great risk of storm surge.

6.2. Coastal Livelihood System with Storm Surge Risk

Stonn surges cause serious problems in the livelihood system of the community living in
coastal part of Bangladesh. Conducting survey in the study area, several livelihood
situations and different degrees of their sufferings have been discovered. The stonn mrge
risks have become visible consequences for Bangladesh coast. Storm surge would be a
serious threat to the total livelihood system which has been found as a combination of
different resource base sub-systeIIl5 -
<- Natural sub-systeIU
./ Component of marine ecosystem
" Component of terrestrial ecrn;ystem

" Forest area

./ River system
./ Land use pattern
./ Production season

•
 79

<- Financial sub-system

./ Productivity I income generation
./ Access and ownership
./ Savings and saving system
,( Women empowerment
" Multiple financial opportunity- Poultry, Livestock etc.
" Financial loan access
.:- Human sub-system
.( Literacy rate
" Personal skill I Knowledge
./ Health care
./ Supportive services and technology
,/ Awareness to risk protection or mitigation
<- Physical I Infrastructural sub-system
./ Population size and quality
./ Housing Infrastructure
./ Shelter I Protection structure
./ Institutional act
./ Water Supply ISanitation facilities
* Social sub-system
./ Community Act
,/ Performance of social or other organizations etc.

6.2.1. Storm surge risks for security of cOlllltalliveJihood

The study found that about 90"10of cyclone casualties are ClIUSedby storm surge. More
than one severe cyclonic storm hit Bangladesh coast every year and the accompanying
surge can reach as far as 200 krn inland (BUET,2008). Those storms usually form in the
south east portion ufthe Bay of Bengal, move in a northerly or north-westerly direction
and often turn north-easterly or easterly towards the east coast of the country. It has found
that about 9 strong and moderate range storm surges took place in our coast within last
twenty years in which most devastating actions have been estimated during 1988, 1991,
 80

2007(SIDR) and finally 2009 (AILA). C)'Clone SIOR WIISborn in 8lIy of 8cngllI on lilli,
November, 2007 and disuppeared on 11'1, It landed on Ill'OUJId 18:)0 orNln'ernber 1511r.81
almost the snme place Il$the c}'clone in 1970 had landfallll!l seen in Fig.6.1.

o •
rI, •
199 ~.
. ~~
1991'~

•
d
FIa-6.1. Courses of recent major cyclones. (SOUJtt: IWM, 2008).

Thi~ Fig. $bows the path WDYof major cyclones to Bangladesh const el(oept BULl (2008)
and AILA (2009), bc:eause those are the most recent one. The secondnry data shows thlIt
rnllXirnum wind speed of STDR was 69rnfs (2S0 kmIh, Ilventge for one minute). Mel the
lov.'Iffi atmospheric pre!!sure ••••
'D.'I944hPa where the maximum inundation height of Ihe
SlJTgc ""ns 9.6m (the inundation depth 6.Sm) in the coasllI1 = (JseE, 2(08). In past
data, the cyclone in 1991, which is knov.'I1as the strongest cyclone to CllUSCIlbout 140
thomand flltlllilies. m:orded the maximum wind speed nmJs (260 kmIh); the overage
surge height was 6.50 m lllld the lowest Iltmospheric pressure 89ShPII on 29th April. The
cyi:lom: at 1988 tool: place at SW C045l hDving atmospheric pressure 966hPII and the
rerordcd maximum wind speed \OllISnbout 71mls (20S kmIh) ••••
ith l1"~ surge height
5,50 on 12th November (BBS, 2002). The cyclonic stonn surge SIDR mainly hit the
entire cities of Plltuakhali. 8aTguna nnd Jh.alokati District'! ova 5 md:er.l (16 ft) heigh
tide. About a quarter of tile \\t1rtd heriUlge Sunderbans (Bllgerhat site) were dama~.
 81

The present study has been conducted partially (Shatkhira) on the direct path of the recent
cyclone AILA. The storm surge of 1988 also directly hit that district of south west coast.
On the other hand storm surges of 1991, 1997 were more destructive for the study area in
Cox's bazaar. The study has shown that the risk of stonn surge and its rate of damage
b>enerallydepend on some factors (Table 6.1) or characteristics.

.~
Table 6.1: The statistics ofstonn surges in the coast of Bangladesh within last few years.

Y'M Month Ave.Wind A•• Duration Main Affected

Sp"" Surge (hn)
(Km/h.)
Hei~r~
eter
2009
2008 ~,
November
100
70
240
4.5
1.6
6.05
10
6
IS
South -west
Cffitrn1
Central and South-west
2007
1998 November 90 1.83 6 Central and south-west
1998 M. 150 2.14 6.' South-east
1997 Se tember 150 2.44 6 South-east
1997 M. 225 3.05 8 South-east
1995 November 210 2.55 12 South-east
1991 A eil 240 6.50 16 South -west
1988 November 182 5.50 12 South-west

(Source: Banglapedia, (2008) web site; SEHD, 2002; Times online, 2007 and news
papers, 2007 & 2008).

Table 6.1. Shows characteristics of Storm surge hazards occurred during last 20 years in
Bangladesh coast including their average criteria. The most destructive storm suq,>es for
South east coast were at 1991, 1997 etc. where as storm surges of 1988, 2007 and finally
2009 caused a great damage in the Central and South west coast. In the span of little over
one and a half year two major cyclones have struck Bangladesh. In November 2007 it
was cyclone SIDR- the meanest hurricane of all time, seen by the people of Bangladesh,
which took the lives of more than thousand people. And now it is the infamous cyclone
AILA. AILA swept away many areas, which were still recovering from the cyclone
SIDR.
 82

The strength of storm surges depends on the speed of wind in the ••••
"IIyof cyclone. Surge
height elso depcndll on it. The ultimlIte losses due 10 those storm surges depended on
s:urge height and surge dumtion. But il is also true that storm surges pre pm of natunlI.
system. so the security of coostal environment and people depends lxm:ly on the positive
perf= of stakeholdersnnd the authority. As the constnl communityand their
livelihood pattern is the main party ofsuffmngs due to Slonn surge in that constal aretI of
BlIIl31adesh. so primlll)' data WlIS the IJUlin basis of storm surge risk prediction and
livelihood security IlMeS5lI1ent in this study.

I •
c
~~
,-
.
1 ~
.5

H
.~
~~

i'
1,
'-
••• ---
•
• ~ ~ ~
Pltroontago of rvspondanl("4)
~ '00

Fig 6.2. Storm $UTgC vulnembility/risk prediction in study IIfCL

(SoUItt: Field survey 2008)

Fig. 6.2. Reveals th8l. the people of the study 1II'ClI••••

~ concern .lIOOut!he situations and
their opinion defined the storm surges 11511destructive issue for their life, ~ and
living system in the ooll5t. The level of storm surge risk is different in !he defined study
sites. As for reason it is knov;n tluI1 the aretI of CO);" baznar is in higher ml:. zone
because of open X:lI shorr but the aren of Sotkhira is in modemte risk zone for the
protection of Sundarbans (DMS, 2(04). The people of study site in Sathkiro Sllid !hal
Sundarbans save them and their livelihood ~UJttS from 8M (Lo<:nI lerm of Storm
Surge) nnd oIso act I1S0 great opportunity for their living.
 83

6.2.2. Natural sub-:SY'tem(or security of coastalliveliboods

The natural sub-system of coastal livelihoods is mainly defined by the direct access to
both marine and terrestrial resources and their combined m:ts in the total environment and
population. Sustainable management of livelihood resources in marginal level people
refers to sensible use of renewable natural wealth and maintenance of local e<:osystemsto
face the risk action of storm surge. So that the security of resource base livelihood system
against storm surges are described by the performances of natural components of the
00"".
• R~ouree basl'll
The study area encompassed a highly diverse and robust like coast and shoreline;
ecosystem of estuaries, islands and coral reef; char lands, deltaic plain, mangroves,
marine system, etc. The aquatic systems include saline water, brackish water and fresh
water while the land area of the zone includes mud flat, sandy beach, sand dunes, flat
lands and undulating terrain. A large number of flora and mllllll including their genetic
varieties supports this coastal ecosystem, which in tum contributes to the marginal people
according to their livelihood variation.

Table 6.2: Natural resources for living of different livelihood groups in coastal area.
I Livelihood Resource alternatives

Fanner" Agricultural crop land, Poultry and Livestock, Homestead garden,

Shrimn field local forest, River etc.
Fisher Sea or marine ~:~stem, River, Wet lands, Mangrove forest,
ShrimDfield, Poul and livestock
Wage Labor Poultry and Livestock, local forest etc.

Fry collector Sea or marine ecosystem, RiVeI, Wet lands, Mangrove forest,
Poultrv and Livestock
Dry fisher Sea or marine ecosystems, River, Wet lands, Agricultural crop land,
Poultrv and Livestock
Salt fanner Salt field, Shrimp field, Agricultural crop land, Poultry and
Livestock
Forest extractor Mangrove forest, River, Poultry and Livestock, Sea or marine
ecosvstem
Source: Field survey, 2008-2009.
 84

Tobie 6.2. Shows that !he ll<X:essesto different COllStIllresource base ""'ere nol same for ell
community membcl'5 in the COIlSl Those vwied according to their living sites end
livelihood cutegories. Oeneml1y COlISUlllivelihood groups use some fiKed resources t/llIt
nre related to their main oecupatiOll. With that oontinuity, it also has been found WIUle
livelihoods of bom study sites contain almost same options ",ith few exccptiornl. As an
elUlJIIple. Sundmbans is one of the rich re50UfCe ~ in Sntkhinl ""~ SuIt fields are
only in Cox's b3za:u"distrid still now.

• Perform.ott of m'en .nd chlnnels

Bnngllldesh is the country of tho~ rivers and channels. The rivers CCtM from
upstmun nfthe country end run llWllYto the Bay through the consW area. With the main
rivet systems, lot of tributaries, distributnrio wxI channels lll'C:active here. The study sites
~ u.Iso plU'ti!1l1ybounded by numben of rivers lllld ehDnncls. The ltCtivc r\\'eI" system
would be the controller to the long term imJllll:t:'lof storm surge to the land use pattern. If
lhe river und channels are f1o••••
ing without any barrier, the surge wllter enn not log over
the area. But the entire natur1ll channels of the study Bml (TribuUlrie:l and distributaries)
hlIvc lost their nonnni flow bcc:nuse of sedimentlll.ion and man IlUIdcbmrier Ollthem.

811kh1ra

__ - 1 I_
, 10 20 » .0 ~
AdIvo "" •••••••• """ of •••••• "1'*'" l'lIl

FIg-6.3. The pafOI'TlUlllOC: of natural droinnge chnnneb in the study site of the 00fISl..

Source: Field sun'ey. 2008-2009.

 "
Fig 6.3 revtlIls that in both study sites. there PTenumbers of river systans and channels.
In Cox's b:wIar area the quantity of ri~ and clwtnels PTenol huge but their flow mle
and supportive performencc make satisfnctlon to stockholders. The river Bokkhllli and
Mobe5khnli clmnnel IlCl 11villll role in !heir communications llI1d business sectors nnd
druin out the tidtll or surge \\o'l1tcTto the BIlY. But in the IImI of Satkhira district the
qU3Jltillltivcly rich channel system Cll1lnol perfonn so because of anthropogenic ftctiom
and lack ofmlUUlgement initiatives.

• Land use pnttC11l

Land ~ ~ml of an area is very much importmll for not only productivity but also for
protection nnd prevention from nnturnl hlIznrd.

aAgr1lakl
a Shrimp fteId
c Vegall!rt\onI Socllll forest
c san field
.Wet land
C Shootkl mohlll
51 Bmtl •• le<MIfI
cO<'-

""
Satkhlm

OAgrtftcld
ID Shr1mp llftld
eVegel:nllonl Socllll forest
C 5111t leld
• Wet Innd
o Shootkl mohal
lEI
Battle
I~
CO<'-

Fig-fi..•. The land usc pattern nfthe study area. (Source: Survey 2008.20(9)
 86

Fig 6.4. Shows the land use pattern of two different study sites in certain wstal districts.
In Cox's bazaar site the land use options are quantitatively higher than that of Satkhim
because of livelihood groups' diversified types and size. Most of the land is used as
shrimp field at Munshiganj in Satkhira but the marginal people have no direct access to
that field. Another large portion of that site is covered by Paddy field and a very few is
under the social forestry. At the present situation, excess salinity in soil and water reduces
the rate of vegetation in certain area.

In Cox's bazaar, the shrimp field is also used as salt field in winter season. There is some
special vegetation (Pine, Coconut etc.) fotmd near open sea which has a great role to
storm surge protection. Agricultural fields are used for rice, wheat, vegetable and
especially for Betel leaf production. To address the security measure the most concern
land use pattern is vegetation. Fig 6.4. Shows the rate of vegetation at Satkhira is 18% of
the total land area which is slightly higher than that ofOlx's bazaar. The statistics do not
include Sundarbans becallSeit is out of the survey area.

• Production

The category of products is dynamic in both sites according to the livelihood groups of
coastal area. Different livelihood groups produce or extract suitable products from their
access to natural resources. The quality and quantity of production and withdrawal
depend on the condition of their alternative resource bases, the risk factors, the seasonal
variation and harvesting time (Fig-6.S) of their main products. Most of the coastal
production patterns are seasonal and few are over the year. The annual rate of production
also depends on the lISeof improved or proper system, skilled application and damage
protection approaches against stonn surge. The natural protection, improvement practice
(capacity to recover the damage of resources) and Regeneration capacity are very
important here.
 87

Fornt..-utro_

sal".",,' ••
." .•.•.
t• F,, __
W_l,.obor

j •••••
- 0 , • •
Prod''dkm partod (MonthI)
• " "
Fig-6.!!i. The BeDl:1lllr=lurtt exploiting time rmme of coastal livelihood grollJlS.
(Source: Survey 2008-20(9).

Fig 6.5. shows that o.lllivelihood gr'Oll;" in coastal arclI are not fully active in production
011over the )'CII".Most of them maintain their time frume based on types ofprodllC3, hmd
use capllcity, climntie conditions and others. Only wngc llIbors work all over the year. But
other lll:ts on their main occupation lhrough spe<:ific time. As for exmnple, the pelI1:time
of forest resourcc extraction in Sundnrban is February to May. The people work there
nbout two to four months depending on \\=ther and other social risk. Most of the
ngricultuJ1ll products gmcBlly grow two time:'! in ra:mt year Mel the dumtion ill nbout
fOUTmonths in each session. The Sllh fanning. fish drying, ~hrimp fry collection dc. IlJe
seasonal work.

The production lime htts ~ importDnt because the seasonal activities are in great
risk. If any stonn surge comes in on IIrell and does grent damnges 10 properties lIIld
aceesst5, it needs initiatives to get immediate response nnd try 10 improve the short foils
earlier. The dfects of stonn sutgeS need considcnlblc: time and technical helps to
mitigate the losses on MtUmI resources and housdlold capitab. The c:npm:ity of
livelihood groups to improve their production 5}'stcm and rnte of product collection hAs
been sho".n in Fig 6.6.
 88

_lertrllCtor I' . -g-_:-:---~I

I
3IItla •••••• lr-:- _.-::::-__ ;:;-
I
I Dry""",. IL-
Ftycoltctot
=------------,]
k--
-t
;
! I
3 WI~u.bor

All ••
1'-
I
t.
• ~I
-g ..
I
AI •••••• I'
,I • j

eo 100
" " "
••••••• ~l'"'G'W- '" Ihe~lpeclllcInoun:, bn" ('JQ

Fig- 6.6. The probable rate of regmendion or reformation of I'eSOUJ"Ol:

base after stann
surge. (Sourtt: SUI'\'CY
2008.2009)

Fig 6.6. expresses the abiH!)'of dilfen:ntlh'dihood groups to recover from the lo~ due
to Jlorm &Urgesin their field of resource o.ltanDth-es.The fishery sector is fully depends
on !he quickly rtnewnble marine biological systan. The group of dry fisher and fry
oolleetors also depends on that source and reawer.J immediately. The fllITIlCT's
cap:l(:ity
to rmewed their field and product i! modmttely high all it almost depends on \'lIriOIl5
I1BtumIor mlln made factors. The = of forest extractors need eompamtivc:ly long
time because there is some legal or policy restriction to fo~ r=)urte extraction just
after the damages. The all nature! resource options also act directly or indirectly in the
field of fillllllcilllsub-system ofHvelihoocb.

6.2.3. Finandal Stlb-Jyst~ for l:OlDtIIlHnlibood Btt'lIrlt)"

The flJlllllCial livelihood sub-systcm of COllStaIcommunity includes possession

IdispoSSC:JSion
of cnsh Illlditans IhDtore readily ttIIIlsformedinto cash. Few activities thlIl
bring:!!cash and n:lative purpose have also been pc:rcc:ivallISf1IlllIlCiolcapital such ns
 89

income generation activities, savings lsaving system, credit, insurance, production tools
and others.

• Income VI cJ:penditure
The coastal zone is relatively income poor in comparison to the rest of the COllIltry.With
some other reasons the frequent occurrence of natural disasters is one of the most
important factors here. The costal livelihood groups are in diversified status of income
because of their dynamic sources and opportunities.

Table 6.3: The alternative scopes of livelihood groups in the economic field of coastal
living system.
Livelihood Economic Activities Livelihood Group Economic Activities

G"""
,~. Agriculture Sail farm.r Salt produetion

Fiolll Shrimp !Fishing in river AgriculmreJSlrrimp

Poultry & Livestock Small business

Small business Fishing

Fisher Fishing in river and s.aI Shrimp Fore,t extractor Honey I W"" collection

Small business! Boatman Wood/Gboolpata collection

Agriculture Fishing
Drying ftshl Salt Forming (Small Fry collection

",""
Net servicing! prePQralion Boa! making/repairing

Boat preparation! servicing Crab collection! supply

Drying fish / Boming and fishing! W~, Agriculture worl<sl

Vegetable funning
Fish marl<etingl Small business 1.1>0<
""fisher Labor in shrimp form!
Small industryl Salt fonn!

Fry colloc!or
Shrimp ., collectionl
'""
coJlectiool Labor in shrimp field and
Fishing boat! ConstructiOll
works! Wood wmksI
Mechanic

Labor in fish drying

agricultural field
Small business! Dry fish
Business! Crab business
(Source: Survey 2008-2009)
 90

Table 6.3. shows lhc possible altemntl\'Ceconomic IIClivitiesincluding main occupation

of e;:tChvuI=ble livelihood groups in the constal zone. The finnnchJ1JlfOCCS.'l
off~
usually C(lhct:ulll1tedto IMd nod water ~= b:Isc:dflCtivitiessuc::hllS agriculture,
fisherie$, 5lI1t fllllIling, etc. Similnrly fishermen arc engaged mainly in fisheries,
ngricultun:, fish relnted business. SlI1tfzuming. etc. The economic activities of "'DgC

labors an: more diversified than other groups, although most of them an: engaged in
agriculture \\-'Oro. Woman are usunlly engaged in household based "'Orb like homeste:ed
gnrdening, poultry and livestock fnnning, cottage industry. small bu5incss, fish fry
collection, de. The stonn surge eM make gmrt loss 8t lillYlime in Bangladesh COIlS1
nnd
it is not possible to avoid that shock. So the community people try to adapt with diffaent
fiTUlllcilll
process ofinrome nnd co=ption in household level.

If !here !Itt multiple income sourees, then the boU5ebold is able to rescue themselves
immediately and progressively from the vulncBbility of stonn surges. In that ClI5C,caID
savings of household is an important security option. The income lllld el'penditun:
difference be used to calculate the mte of annual savings ••••
'hich is ex~ (or different
livelihood groups ofcotlSt in Fig. 6.7.

.
0".''''''
,..""

F_ FIsher W"Ilt' F..,. Drytsher S8II F'"'5'I

L8bor cdledClf lal'!ntIt •••n••••
b

lI'Iellhood groups

Fig 6.7. The household saving capacity of the livelihood groups in study sitcs.
(Source: Survey 2008-2(09)
 91

Fig 6.7. shows ~ Ilvemge annuD.1Sllvings of livelihood group!! 'which ~ colculatcd from
the ratio of per capitn household in<:otm Illld living expense of different livelihood
groups. Fig 6.7. shows the diversitiC8tion of livelihood groUp!! in different study sites
BJ\d CXPresse5 their comparative flllllDCinI capacily Md stOPe of $Ovings. In Satkhim nretI
the forest resource e:<tmelOrs are in II better position bec3use the products' Il1llI'Kelprices
are higher. They enrn ~na1Iy and try 10 !Illve some illC(lme(about 25% ofthei.r )'early
income) for vulnenlble ,ituation. It is the real rnet Ibn! it i, nol ClSy for the vulnerable
groups to save from their limited income. But fishers of Cox's bD7a3r savc 30% of total
irn:ome wbc:rt llS fanner saves 20% in Satkhim lllld the fi~ group Sllve!i 25Y. in Cox's

"'""'.
Here nnolher security concern is the reliltbillty of saving system in local community. The
most of the marginal linlihood groups do not take the service or help from ,lvailllble
banking S)'$Ietn. They 5lIVCthere illCQme with tnlditioll/ll way in house or to Mohazon
(Local power). In ~I time few orgMilations or Somiti act in that silts. Fig 6.8 shows
the trend of reliability of saving syslem within the rnlll'gillll1limit of coaslll1 Ii••..
elihood
groups based on ~eholde"'s opinion in the $lUdy ItrCl.

Conbau.
M

•i " M

•1, "~

"
f• "
I '",
'- ~~ WIll" LIbor
Uwllftood
F"I' .
1I<O<lf$
!: .,- 'M_
 92

w.o- l.obor FI)'_

L1YeDhood groups

Fig: 6.8. The response of participant on the reliability of their $living rys!ml.
(So~: Survey2008-2(09)

Fig 6.8. m"Clls thaI in both sites the wnge labor group does not have My saving
cnpllCity. In Cox's bs7Jw site fanner, fisher. snit fmmeT lind dry fISher bousdKllds' have
responded positive in the question of system reliability whcrt os positive response have
found in only for fanner nnd forest extmctors in Slllkhil1l.. Most o[them depend on NGOs
l1Smember of loco.! Somlli. G,ftiheen Bnn\;,:and Krishi (Agricultun:) Bnnk have been
found nt service.

• A«e:u .nd ownenhip

Each coasllI.1livelihood groups keeps differan options in their household level. Except
their mnin 50= of illl;OlDethey have either little or more IlCCeSSin home ground and
thnl is very important for ccrtllin losses due to risk issues.
 93

,-- -

•.-
• I
w_ -

•• ,.-
•
-
, •
•
; w.~ • --
••• •••• • ~
J
•
'- , ,~
• • Inc_
~ ~
from hOml("4of T_IIne ••••••
'
~

Fig- 6.9. Rate of household income from home ground for individual livelihood groups.
(50=: Sun'ey 2008-2009)

Fig 6.9. Show1i the ~ base income rme ofindividUllllivelihood groups in co!l5tll1sites.
The pmcticc:l of homestead iooome activities hllve been defined by highlighted the
contribution of \\1)men in income genenlion. The salt fllrfllCTS hllve found as the higher
economic group and keep the highest rale ofhornc:steDd inoome lU <45%~ the fllJllln

end forest extractor get 40% of the totlI1 income.

The income of coastal livelihood groups rna.inlydepends on the local rcso~ which Ill'e
in thcir access. The OCCes501 opportunities would be different llCCOl'lIing to area or
livelihood categories. The ownership on production has not found the WIle for household
lIS an exnrnple, people who owned lI1IYhmd for cultivation but IU10therparson (1mKIle:!ls
farmer) usc that; in this sitlllltion the hmd owner gets B fIXed share ofproduetion per year.
On the olheT hand the people, who cultivate their own land. keep 100% ownership on
production.
 l!.
•E
~

,
""
••••
<

•
~
•
,.~
Fig: 6.10. Ownership on their ovcmll income souroe for different livelihood groups in
coastlI1 nrelL (50=: Survey 2008-2009)

A llIl'ge p:ut or coastal ruroI poor keep ncces5 there Il$ wage labor. But they have lowest
ownership on their source of income. The ftumcr keeps 60% t075% on their total ilWOme
wbeTc sWl runner keeps 70%. The forest extnttol"ll have 60% oymel' ship on their toW
income options. In coast.ul Btmgllldesh, most of the people keep flU' llCCeSSto IUltuml
resources but it has found Bn especial view in fUlllllCiol system. The root level people are
bound to some power llfld!hose pownfuJ part take share from !hem.

• Fln.nd.1 support
The level offiTUln<:iol security due 10 f\lItuI'Ill h:wJrd strongly depends on the support from
out side oflhe vulncmble R:gion. There "'"Quidbe financinlloDC from Government or Non
Go\-cmmmi OrgnnizntiOllS lIS well as ineome support from rest of the country for
household development. The micro-aedit !l}'Slem is !lOWa famoUll and effective system
for ruml people: in Bangladesh. But in emergency people need sorrn: thing special to
repair their living 5)'StemSin their own arra.
 "
l
.i
~
ro
~
--""""'"
..• ~

I ••"
~
B
"
I
•
",
"If
"
~. /
~,~
./ / ••..f ./
<1'.,'
...•.~
lJvellhood Brvu~

Fig: 6.11. Scope of flllMCiaI loan in different livelihood groups in the study sides.
(Source: Survey 2008-2(09)

Fig 6.11. Shows thtIt people having some fixed U'Iets. get 11= to fumncial loan. The
present ~y found that about 65% farmer have llC«SS 10 fintlnCinilonc from GO, NGOs
or o~ in Satkhilll and thtIt rote is 55% in CO)('sbazaar bec:uuscin both sites farmers
me stronger omang the marginal groups. In ((lx's bazaar that ~ is highest 67% for salt
r~.

~ me some people of coost.aI households wbo III"C involved ",ith economic lIctivities
in other part of tile country. If Hamebold members have =ss 10om migrntion. it may
llCIlO fillihe losses. The rote of out mignuion eM i=se the income llcce!:'l lIIKIlII.lIke
safrty during risk period. In the study = almost every groups hove ftCCCSS to oul side
financial $ltpporl but the mIt differ more: among diffc:rmt them in different siles of the

"""-

•
 96

_ ,.'"-, ~r Wege FrJ OryIW>o. s.oll

eEtnl..... LAo....coI_ II••••••
u..lIhoodgroupe

rig 6.12. The income fICCeSSfrom rest of the country for study prea. (Source: Sun'cy
2008-2009)

Fig 6.12 shows Ibnt in COl("' bluM!" site the salt fllrmCT group have cnpnbility to earn llJ\
ofllvc~ 32% oftotnl income from rest oflhe country "'here lI5 the dry fisher CllJll:'l19
%. The highest vnIue is 18.65% for farmer group in Satkhirn. The lowest access is for
wugc labor in both sites.

• Womtn llctk'ltks
In coDSllll community active women ClID pllly II vitll1 role in their field of illCOJrn:
grnmltion and household security. The active and skilled women keep thcir family wilh
speciPI CIll'ein every crisis. Ornc:l1Illy major plll't of women nets at home in Banglndesh
but in recent time they Iulve found pnlgTeS!live in every field of income generation.

In c:oMtaIlll'Cl1they un: lI1!O1I11Clldingposition in different fields ofliving. Women have

(ound lIS erlCigetic and Iull'd ..,,'Orting. Women take part in agricultural activities rTlllinly
during Iwvc:sting. boiling and storing. A large part of fisher women un: llcth-e v.ilh fish
drying and p,occssing. The ncth-eness or ••••
'OIIlCO of ooastDl community is shown in Fig-

6.13.
 97

i•
.,
ro
•<• .,
••• .,
,"
!
!!
!
••
I "
• "
_.
~
~ • ,-
'-
••• bDCla
~1IIIf WIifIe
"""
FlY SII!I"""""" DIyhho!o'

Uvillhood llroUPS

FiJI;: 6.13. The nte of ~'om.n IIctk"eness In different livelihood grnup'!I in rontal
1m. (Souree: Survey 2008-2(09)

In Bnngllldesh c:oa.st,most active women partieiptltion hns been found in the sector o(fry
col1ection. Children are also part of thnt In fry oollector households, average wnmen
'here pS in farmer household it is SO-A to 60%
activeness VIlIie!l from 66% to 75% ••••
respeaivcly in both study sitell in Bnng.llldesh coast. The less woman pnrticipstion is
found in Faint extroetion (20%) and in sail fllntling (30%). The ltClivc pafOlTIlllIK:es of
llvelihood f1llllDCial sub-system and it's components plrly significtlJll role in collSlal
livelihood security.

6.1.4. Human reoun:e sll~'Stem (or «Il\.StlIllivdihood lIKUrity

Humnn sub--system is mainly comprised of selected household member.! along with some
indicntor.l reflecting quality of life, such lIS, health, edOClltionand training, which
tnmsform 0 hurnzm being inln II humllll resource y,ilhin the livelihood system. Percepti(lllll
with regard to hUlJ\lll1 capitll1lm similar among 0.11stmta of households.
 98

• RIlle of Ilttnl()'
Education is petttived QJ\ important hunum ns9:I. II has been onnlyzed in terms litcmey
mle. The define literacy mte bas been lllellSUl'edby the level of cdllClltion from primary 10
high school in ooastnl livelihood groups. Fig 6.14. show!! that the rate of literacy in
household level differs according to varieties of livelihood groups nnd also changes with
SJQ covern~. A household with cduattcd memben am CIlSt= their security in different
sector oflife nnd properties.

,•..•.
so. ~ eo... bIlz••.

~ ••• ~

••
I
~
30

••
II
•
-
10 ..
,.
./ ,.•. /
•••
~
.i' / <{.><! ./

" ~.<f ," <I' 01'

.<I'~ Unlihood groups

Flg 6.14. Litctacy rote in different livelihood groups in coostaI Bnngladesh.

(So=: Sun'ey 2008-2009)

Hm:, fig 6.14 sho ••••

" the DVemge lilem~ rule of fllnl1el' household is 52% in Cox's
~ but it is 48% in Stltkhim. At the same time fisher group keeps Iiterocy mIt of 46%
in Cox's bll7Jw IlIld 39% in Sll.tkhim. Ultimolely the highest I'1Iteof literacy is denoted by
52',.. in snit fnrmer household in Cox's b:msar.The overall qualily of 0 household is
mllinly defined by its educDtiontl1 quality for every livelihood groups. Thlll quality
CXPICSSCS
the skill und active performnnoe of household both in regulnr nnd risk period.
NOI only llCtIdemic education, but 111mindigenoll!l bwwlcdge and common sense is
important for risk llllllmgement and impro\'mlml ofhousdtold.
 09

• Hallth l;:lIr'e

Human hcllIth is ODI: of the importllJlt indicatoTll for the livelihood system. Henlth is very
much dependent on the Availability of medical flll:ilities und public awareness. In
Bnng1.pdesh. the medical fllCiJities llI'e commonly defined by number of doclor or henth
wotter nnd strueturnl viev.' of hospitlll. For COMIll1people thflt known type of medical
fllcilities Illl: not lIvW1.lIbleso. II WlIS found thflt, some medical center5 exist without
sufficient dnctl)l"!l' presence. Some times especin1ly in risk period the medicines have not
been found.

I~ "I:
I "I
FI
i "I

I::
o • !
Fig: 6.15. The Performance ofmediClli services in study sites of differmt districts.
(Souroe: Survey 2008-2009)

Fig. 6.15. shows WI the performance of mediClli services in Cox's bazaar und SlItlhinro
defined by the doctor's duty and quality of treatment in those locality. In Cox's bnznar,
the calculated rate is 60% where as in Satkhinl it is 45'Y•• To calculate that mte, the study
found that both of the lI1tll skilled and responsible medicnl t= for emeigency does not
exist properly.

In the question of health = the persolllll or household lI••••

'llrentSS would be more
signifiCllilt espt(:illJly in crisis period. During surge period, il has 8=1t risk of physical
 100

injwy and epidemic diseases and it llUIy also become difficult 10 contltct doctor or
hospitll1 beNUKe of poor oommumClltion system. So proctices of indigenous 1cno••••.
iedge
and rust nid training have been found as a vay necessnry security indicator in coastal

.
disaster mnnogement program".

i "
"
"
t~:
.- .
)
~
"
• "
fry Dry_, 1111
a em. 10••••••

Fig : 6.16. The rate of first aid trained Jlllf1lOII in household of livelihood groups.
(Sourtt: Survey 2008.2(09)

Fig 6.16 show!! the level of knowledge on flJS1 o.id is not satisfaaory in the defined field
but !hey have pructiccs of geneml healtl1 (indigenous knowledge) Cl1TC in the household of
different livelihood groups. The lim aid knowledge has been found higher in farmers'
household (46%) in stud}' silO! of Cox's btLmar and in Sntkhiru the forest l'C:SOUJtt

extractors' households shows higher pl'IlCt.iee of health can: because of their most
clmllc:uging profession. The fry colloctor group hns also been with good pnsctiee of
indigenoUll blowIedgc.

To (lICe Wly aisis. people must need 10 be a",nre and active. In coastnI nrea people needs
tnIining. 1l••••
'DI'me$S progrnm •••••'Ofkshop on adnptation technology and other prognuns to
make them lICtive in crisis moment. Under the project of integrated c:o:mal zone
ITIlllltIgement,there are few programs wtn: held in lust dc:eade but the f'Ilte is very poor
 101

compare to the huge population size of Bangladesh coast. That information of community
awareness and knowledge of livelihood groups have been measured according to their
result of direct questionnaire survey in the study sites of the coast

6.2.5. Infrastructural resoun:es for coastallivclibood security

Among physical capitals a wide range of infmstructures, fixtures, tools, services and
utilities are included that contribute to household livelihood and comfort. However,
households of all strata consider house, cattle and poultry as assets. Cyclones and stonn
surges are mentioned again and again by people as the main reason for a decline in their

physical assets.

• Housing infrastructure
The housing status and strength is very much important for =:urity from storm surges in
coastal area. The statistics must be dependent on the construction materials of house
infrastructure. The table 6.4. Shows the scenario of house infrastructure base on district

boundary.

Table 6.4: Housing condition in coastal area with their security performance.

Mliteriliis used Safety PerlOrDIlIDCe(%)

Walls Roofs COI'S bazar Satkhira
Straw/ bamboo Straw! bernboof Ghool pata
22
Straw/bamboo Metal sheets {Tin)/tiles "
M..dIUnbumed brick Straw! bamboo! Gboel pata
13
"
35
M..dIUoburned brick Metal ,heets (Tin)/tiles
"5
, 7.7
Metal sbeet. (Tin) Metal sheets (Tin)/til.s
7 2.5
Wood Strawl bamboo! Gbool pala
13 12
Brick and cement Straw! bernboo! Ghool pata

Brick and cement Metal sheets {rm)ftilesICemeot "2.6 "

(Source: Survey 2008-2009) "

•
 102

With the llITll 00se S1DtUSthe quality perfomlllllCC of housing infrnstructure play II \it.P1
role in livelihood sc:curity of different Jh'clibood groups in study IlJU on coost. The
security of life nnd household properties depends on the stmlgth of house during stonn
surge in collSlal nrt'll.
Most of the margilml livelihood groups Ih"l: in tmditionaJ house ITIlldc by mud, bamboo
and •••.
ood. Few people live in ~ build house in !he COllSt.

t."

i
,""
"
•

i!• "

I "
"
~ '
'- ""'" W"""
L*lf
fry
"","'10
Dry"her s.t tmnIf
~
Fora!

UvIlUhood groupll

Fig 6.17. Perforrn:lllCC of housing infl'll51IUctUrenmong the diff=t Ih.clihood groups.

(Soun:c; Survey 2008-20(9)

Fig 6.17 describes the household safety through the strength of house infntStruCturr
m:cording 10 the socio-economie condition of livelihood groups. The houses of salt
fmrners are best (62%) in Cox's bllzanr site. In Satkhira the forest cxtmctor groups hold
the highest po$ilion of 46% SlIfehouse against surge Cffeo;:L

• ProkctioD .ad Sbrlter

Cyclone nnd associated tidnl surges W'l:impon.nnt vulnerability encountered by the people
of coastal region. The need to provide safety for the inhabitants of the nrt'll hils long been
recognized. In Bangilldesh coost. the strueturul protection system is not $lI1isfllctory. The
 103

Polders (BWDB) and embankments (Beribadh) arc not sufficient ""ilh their copacity. The
present perfOfYDlllK:Cofth<m ~ is not good because of operntion nnd lT1lIinteru1nCe
fault. Fig-6.18 sho ••••
'S the protected = in study sites llCCOI'ding to public opinion end
information from loctll Govt. llUthority.

I;;;0I;lAmIl d Structn ptUleet/Qn

Ol
__ Perfcrmance d Structl,l'll
. --- "
IOl Ol'

E
" "I•
•
~

"Ie
,
-"
!!
• '"
"E
,,1
•
I• ",
eon ""M
._._._-
so,•••
__ . ,
.. ".
Aro.ln till<

Fig-6.1 fl. The structuntI protection in the COllStof study area. (Survey 2008-09).

Fig 6.18. shows the scenario ofstructum1 protection nnd its performance in study sites.
The SOY. =under Co,,'! blww site is WucturDlly protected wheR: tISWI value is 35%
in Sotkhira. The llCtive perfl)TTlWli% ofplOteelion structure has been found 60% in Cox's
bazlw site and 40% in S8tkhinl with their best capncity nnd height.

The constnlClion of cyclone shelters is considered lIS 0ftC' of the six cyclone mitigation
melL!Ul'eSlI10ng ••••
ith mlbankmcntll, alTo~on, early Y"lIlningsystems, AWnrenes:'l
raising and communieutions. The eonstn! people take shelter in difTermt construction
during surge period. The troditionnl and improve sheller options in Bnng1ndtsh coast arc
given in the table 6.5. The table also shows the CllJJ)'ing capacity of those shelter options
lIlXOfding 10the size of population in defined arens.
 104

Tablt- 6.5: Type ofstrueture in ","here people take shelter during surge time.
Shelta options Cap.dty of .Itemotive Sbdtrr for .rr«ted people
•••
COX'! hazar S.lI£hil'll
53 37
21 29
9 12
7.2 2
9.8 20

The performllllCe of overull shelter progmm in locnIlevel is measured by the number of

C)'<:\one shelter, the Ivnilllbility to households or populntion, the qUtllity and Cllpacity to
run in II risk period. Fig 6.19 shows that the perfOrtlUUlCCofaren base cyclone centers BIKI
other usnble structures lml compllllltivcly better in Cox's bazlw = than thBt of in
Sotldti~

••
-I! 10 I: I
,
I
iso I:
E

•
!iso!
Ii
- I
I
••• - ,
I
,"
;
•
E" --
I _.
i" . ~ -
• eon bBZ:l'
An. aI StIlrm .urv- rtak •••••
Fig- 6.19. PerformllIK:Cof sheller stl'llCtUfein COllSUIIIIJeIl. (Source: Survey 2003-20(9)
 105

In thai perspective another concern factor is the easy communication system between
affected area and the district town. In this study, it has been found that people of the
study area in Cox's bazaar have that facility (70%). This has been found from the
analysis of cyclone centers and other infrastructures, their condition and distance against
household number and population size.

• TraDsportlitioD lind Communication

Generally Roads and Transportation system of rural Bangladesh is not well constructed
and II large portion depends on water base options of transportation system such as
Engine boats, trawlers and different types of country boats in most part of the coastal
area. But a good road network ha~ been developed in the coastal region during the last
decade (BBS, 2003). Ai; the road network is not bad but the number and fitness of
transports are not sufficient for the large size of population. The qualitative and
quantitative situation of road and transportation system of the study area has been given

in table 6.6.

Table 6.6: Road and transportation facilities in coastal area

Study Area Paved road (Km) Performance (%) Muddy road (KID) Performanoe (%)

Cox's bazaar 35 60 40.5 4()

Satkhira 24 65 36 30

(Source: Survey 2008-2009)

Some manually used transports such as van~ bye-cycle etc. and a few three wheelers
([empo) are used to move from one place to another in the study area. During storm
surge people can not avail proper transportation facility. So, lack of modem transport
facilities and poor road structure affect the surge prone area.

Under cyclone preparedness program, different Govenunent and Non-government

organizations work in different sector in coastal area. The cyclone preparedness program
(CPP, 2000) operates an extensive network of radio communications facilities in coastal
area. The radio stations and telecommunication system always active to deliver the news
 106

and warning to cyclone or surge risk. But the problem is that an important part of
marginal livelihood groups are not aware about the warning and some are always out
from the network. As for example, the forest extractor and fisher in Sundarban do not lL'le
radio/mobile because of forest burglar. The poorer groups have limited communication
access in both study sites.

• Water and Sanitation

In the study area, about 88% of the house hold use tube-wells, deep tube wells Of Pond
Sand Filter (PSF) for their domestic purpose. That may change between districts hut the
system act with different capacity or performance to safe water supply during the surge
vulnerability. The rates of utilization differ according to the hOllSeholdstatus such as
livelihood pattern of coastal people.

TllbIe-6.7: Types ofsafe water sources and their use in coastal area.
Un of water sources for drink! u
Tub- D~Jl PSF RainWater Other (Not .af.)
Area of study •••n TW Han'e:stinglwalerbole

Cox'sbazaar 36 H , 26 12
5alkhira
(Source: SUl'Vey2008-2009)
31
" 36
" 11

Table-6.7: shows that higher portion of people in Cox's bazaar use tube -well as their
safe water source. Some people use indigenous way such as water hole to meet their
domestic demand. The area does not show 100 present water safeties at normal time. In
Satkhira area nse of PSF becomes higher at present time. But the situation is not so
during surge time. The safe water access during sorge period is different between location
and livelihood status as shown in Fig- 6.20.
 107

"

, - .- _.
W8gI

Uvellhood groupll
Fry Dryhhar san tarmer

rrg-6.20. Amiability and IICCC:SS

of livelihood groups to safe water SOun::ell. (Source:
Survey 2008.2(09)

Fig-6.20. shows thlIt ",liter safety is not good in !he ~ prone area of !he coast. In
SlItkhiru the farmer group is the safC5l (about 48%) and in Cox's bazlw the snit frumer is
the safest (56%). So, it is clair that within resource ~ marginallivdihood groups few
people are able to lI'C safe WlIter during surge time.

The field survey shows thm the SllIlitl\tion system of the coostll1 site is not weJl as otheB
bcatuse of kno••••
i~gc lacking and socio-economic $lll.tusor livelihood patteni'. II also
hll!l found that the ovtT011sanillltion fllcilitia are highcT in Cox's bamnr region than that
of S~ The sanitation fllCililiesbetween different livelihood groups are shown in
Fig-6.21.
 108

",
-
Fig-6.21. Sllllitation fncilities of different livelihood groups in coastal =-
(Sournc:: Survey 2008-2(09)

Fig:6.21. shows that in Cox's bazaar region Snit fllntlel'tmd fisher groups enjoy better of
snn.itation focilities, f~ nrc in mOOefIlte condition and dry fisher tmd othen nre in
condition. On the otht::rhand, in Satkhim fanner nnd forest resoura: cxtmelor groups
enjoy better SIlllitation fccilities. In genenU the situlltion is not in a good condition in both
sites for coo.stlII nmtIlllld lIlllrginnIlivclihood groups.

6.2.6.Soclall"Wlu~ (or routJIllI"c:llhood 'KUrity

Among socia1linstilutiolllll osscts there life Vllrious formal and infOmlll1 nssocimions and
eonlitions from which lin individual or a household tends to derive certain benefit,
privilege or po .•••
'ef in eoastnl communi!)', In crisis period the social sub-systcm mostly act
some eollettive mle for the security oflivdihood groups in specific IlmL
 109

• LocalllDd National OrganizationJI

Development activities and all other management act in the coastal zone are carried out
by different Govt. organization traditionally. But in present time NOOs' of Local and
National level act a vital role with presence of some international development
organizations. In Bangladesh coast the active organizations are BWDB. LOED, DOF,
DOE, DMB and others in Govt. level.

Table 0.8: The Performance of different organizations in risk management for the area.

Area Organization Ilnd Performance

co NW, """00
Coo_ Performance
~"- Performance C._ Perfo""anc
,
en'.bua. Sheller,
Protection

_.
moa.<m<, "~.
~%
,~
opinion,
Public
w"~ "W"
sanitation, -,~ oo, ~%

1J'Clllmrn~ food relief.

'rom
opinion
~uhli<
oo,
Community
dc,oIopmenl.
Social
~%
P=eption
m
.."iMion mioro-cnodi, • ol=r¥otion. aw1lf<ncss Stok.h~lder

aworen."" finonciallonc. dcvelopmen~

warning
~
operation
,"'=
~=
minimize
",nfiiet,
and legullllion
~.
wei.1

satIIbln Shelle<, ." w"~ "~ 00' 47% Corrununity ~%

,~
Protection Public sanitation, medical 'rom Publio dev.lopmen4
.,
p=cpti<m

-.
~. "~.
,onill\liOfl
owl\l'eoess,
warning
oo,
,,-
~
opinion, trealment, food rdid;
mlcro-cred\t
financial lone
•
opinion
ob:str'llll!nn
~ Social

,"",'oro"""
dcvclopmen~
minimize
<onmol,
-"
Co•
SllIkebnlder

_00 and regulation

(Source: StuVey 2008-2009)

Table 6.8. show:; the ultimate activities and perfOTllUlllce of different Government
institutions, Non-government organizations and other development organi:r.ation in the
defined study sites in Coastal Bangladesh based on field survey and secondary data. The
defined organizations act effectively at pre-disaster period to reduce the damages
 no

probability. To face the vulnerable situations and keep mitigation measure during storm
surge as well as the post disaster period those are essential. Help from those organizations
would be the proper way to reform the system of coastal livelihoods.

• Community participation
During the crisis period local comml.lllitystructure should be the tools to face the risk. It
also be defined as the collective protection strategy against the damage of livelihoods in
coastal area. Community base organizations (eBOs) stick mostly stronger to their social
principles, so their acts to livelihood system protection become more effective than other.
In study sites, community participation practice or action of eBOs do not act
significantly.

The chapter briefly presents an ovetView of a part of the conceptual model (Livelihood
Security Model) for lUlderstanding the livelihood system and also for measuring the
statistics of livelihood security indicators for storm surge prone coastal areas of
Bangladesh.
 CHAPTER SEVEN
MODEL APPLICATION AND DISCUSSION

7.1. Introduction

As the stonn surge risk in coastal area has been define as extremely destructive; il needs
to assess the security level to face the challenge properly as well as effectively. The
established livelihood =:urity model can act as a scientific way 10 the security level
assessment program. The model application has been initiated through identifying the
relativity among indicators of different livelihood groups. In this chapter, the livelihood
security level for storm surge hazard in the study area are measured in comparison with a
standard security level for each livelihood groups considering all the livelihood security
indicators and their response.

7.2. Livelibood Security Against Storm Surge

A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from the stress and shocks,
maintain its capability and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the
next generation (Chambers and Conway 1992). It also true for coastal livelihoods in the
question of their sustainability and security from storm surge hazard in Bangladesh coast.
The livelihood security of different coastal livelihood groups against stonn surge is
calculated as per the model application methodology mentioned in the previous chapter 5.

7.2.1. Input data ealeulation

Methodologically the established indicators have been used as the inpul data in the
constructing the model for both qualitative and quantitative requirements. The indicator
values have been analyzed under specific units or scales such as percentage, nwnber,
degree and binary options. Some indicator values have been calculated from relevant data
base and some have been defined from direct household interview in the study area.
Table 7.1a. shows the measured value ofindicalors (Ip) for different livelihood groups in
the study site of Cox's bazaar district.

•
 112

"' .- .-
-
Table7.lll. Input data for livelihood groups in 0lx's bazaar.

Indicators Fi<h ••
•
~.~ •
""
o
SsI'

o
w~
o
~ ,""" ofS'",mw
StrInn,
I 'Wm1re
Paiod,(lw ,;deIhi M.
'"
•o o
• • •
S •••• I from..-.
DIlr>I1onof sronn
"" io¥<l
. "",,term/I t<ml
o
o o
o
"
•o •" "•
Rat. of on lltOntl<I
I'i"", llame fo< resonr« oolloolionl
tIt<••••
"''''''
"• "w ", "• "• ""
_"" of •••••••• dtalnog< SJ'!I<m
'*'" y ••• .", "., " " ", "
", '",
00
l'o5I;iblo;mp"''''"''"'
Access to IIt<mati",
of """'""'" in
="* ""'" • • ".,•
A«<SIl to """1<),11"'1 supply ;0 ;0
" " ••
" "
Household prodnorion
'"
"", "'"
;0
crnnm OIl .,.;on
", o ", "', "
S offood sro
Rat. 01,lIVin
",
;0
, '"• ", ,
16,61 "•
R.liabi1 of ",vi om Y<>INo
",,"v_ .,, •
A= of ••",nell to «OIl"'"'.
",, ", '", ", ",
of oltanatlv< ,,,,,,,,,,,,ie lClivities
, , ,
Ac«5> to r••••• iaIlo<n o
• ,•
"
"" ••" ""
_ ofHH in<>. •••• wned lhIm"", of the """"
Rate ofoducotionil
" " " "
Know! on fin;tai~ <0"
•• "", "•• ", "",
,
,, ",,
61.91
Knowl on""""' ri~
A•••• ' to
neiJ<Sl di5lnct to~~_
Aeooo,to"",to",,,,,,« (No.o~! 100 , , , ,,
11IlPo lationhav;n".; ~ ;0
" " "•• "
AcIi.. ",onofInI
"., "" "
" .", "••" "
'"
~ so: ~~ t<dmo -
" " "• '",
" •
"", ",
RaI<ofoul' '""of HHmem\>e>-
"
", ", ", ,
8efe hoooin mli>slructorel eondttton 14.89

l'e>-fmm ••••• of "'" ital/ll<aIth ""' •• '

;0 ;0 ;0
'"
.,
p!:mmnane<o~ac<esIlto one"',I~
w"'" '" ••
AvaJ!ob~' ofdrinl;in Sot.water
" " " " "
s..itatioo
,,=
filcLlities
of mod1a conne<tionlRadiolTVI
Cdl "
.,.,
00 "
"
"
<0 " '"
.", "•• ""
A,ailebir of svedroad
"•• '" "'••
T...., OO~Lties
" " "'
Port of "",a under "'" _<:lllr< ;0
" " "•• ", ".,
Fitnes'of
1'<Ifonn,"""
ction""""""'
of __ l'ore<asti "', "', "', , "' ,
",, "'"
W
C,-""m,,"i .ru.i
Acti ••••••• of loeaI GO
""""'" 00

" "
00 "" "
1llterr<lalion<h' with NGO
, ",, ", ",, '"; '",
PerfoIlllllllO< socio11aw and
f'<~"",," influen« Ollsoci,1
"""ion
"","mi""" eslNo
,
, , o
, , ,
, •
;
P<tfunn""", ofl""" "",.t'" em com:mi"""
Acti"""",' of socisl
Awareness
il:lli"" ofliv<l~
"" roIeCI1<ln,""","",~
,"' ,
00
", ", '", ",
(Source; Survey 2008-09)
 113

• •...
-

Table 7.tb.lnput daUIfor livelihood groups in Sntkhim.

'-•
•
"', ••• M
•
•
,,-
••
,-
'- •
•
• •• -
•• •• •• •• ••
"• " "• "
~ ~" ~ ~
••"
•• •• "• • "•
• •
"
~
•• •• ••~ ••
••" •" •, "
"• • • "•
", "• '"• ••, ••
", , •, ", ",
, , , , •
".
••
•
•
us
••
••
•• •
., ••"
-- "•, ••"
•,
••
••
•,
••
••
•,
•
•,
- ••
••
"
"
"
••~
"
""
"
"••
•
••"
•• •• • ••u
•••, • ••• •
•• •,
- •••
••,
"•
•
••
"
'"
"•
•••
"
"••
••••
"
"••
"
"
••"
•• •• ••
"" ••" ••"
"
••~ "
" ••, ,
, ~
, ~
, ~

••, •
•• " ••• ~

, ••, "", •• "

••,
, ,
, , •, •,
, , ,
.- -
Ptilbi=lOCof_'_
--.. ofoociol •• • "• "• ••
(Source: Survey 2008-(9)
• • •

• •
 114

Table 7.1b. shows the measured value of indicators (Ip) for different livelihood groups in
the study site of Satkhira.

The indicator framework contains two major criteria indicators, firstly indicators having
common values for every livelihood groups (area base) and finally indicators with
different value for individual group in each area. The second type actually indicllles the
household components, their approaches and actions against storm surge hazard for
specific livelihood groups and the first type shows the collective security status for
overall oommunity people.

7.2.2. Seeurity !W:oringfor individnal indicaton

The indicators show the ~enario of coastal livelihoods and describe the vulnerability of
coastal people during the season of cyclone and storm surges. Considering the risk factors
and all natural, fmandal, physical and social options the model calculated the livelihood
security level for different occupational groups in marginal level in the coastal
Bangladesh.

A complex analysis, through AHP methods, can help to identify which the most relevant
indicators are, and these can then be taken up in quantitative surveys. The selective
relevant indicators have been used for measuring security under individual security
options such as food security, income security and so one for each livelihood groups.

The =:urity score under individual indicators has been estimated from the comparative
analysis between present field survey data (Ip) (Table 7.\.) and referred standard values
(I,) (Table 5.2.) by using the first step (Equation no. I) of the model. From the difference
of individual indicator's values the security scores (Sample calculation in table 7.2) have
been found (Appendix-D) under different security options. Table 7.2. shows the input
data calculation in the livelihood security measurement of coastal households.
 115

(Step land 2 oftbe model)

Table 7.2. Sample calculation for security scoring for individual indicator (For farmer in
Cox's bazaar)
Food Income
Indicators Unit h I, Direction ~~,rity I ~urity
~%\ ."
B_
.I
Duration of storm surge (Short
term! long tenn) I 0 100.0 Negative ... ...

Rate of vegetation around the area % 25 15 25.00 Negative .

Time frame for resource collection! Moo'" 12 , 20.00 Negative . .

production

Rate of possible resource quality % SO 60 9.09 Positive + +

improvement

Access to alternative resource base No. 3 6 33.33 Positive ++ ++

LX
M
3
7 ,
3

Source: Model result, 2008-09

Here, the first one (i1) is an individual indiclllor selected (Table 5.3) for food security
aspectjl. For farmer livelihood group in Cox's bazaar, the present value of i1 is 0 where
the security standard (Table 5.2) is 1. Now the value difference (Iq) is about 100% with
negative direction that means il show.:; food insecurity with score 3 (Table 5.5). In the
same process 41h and 5'" indicators i4 and is show food security with score 1 and 2. So the
total scores in certain aspect is 3 (M1 =7, where j=J) and the security score LX, =3.

7.2.3. Calculation o( security level (or individual security options

The level of different security options have been measured by using equation (2)
(Appendix-D) under Step 3:
511= a;XIlMl). 100 = (317).100 j = I, define food security
= 42.86%
So, for only those indicators the food security offarmer household is 42.86%.
 116

Table 7.3a. and 7.3b. show the measured value of security in percentage uruler individual
sa:urity aspect (Slj) forthe selected livelihood groups in study area.
Table 7.38. Individual se>:urity level for livelihood groups in Cox's bazaar.

W"" Fry Dry Salt

Security options F=~ Fisher ",,00< collector fisher funn~
m
Food security SI, 41.67 41.18 19.35 16.13 40.82 45.83
Income securi SI, 44.68 42.86 23.08 17.86 3958 47.92
Health and personal
security SIJ 38.30 31.25 13.79 11.48 35.42 42.55
Security of house and
Illrooerties SI. 45.65 42.86 18.87 15.79 40.43 48.94
Water securi SI, 39.13 35.29 14.29 13.56 34.69 40.43
(Source: Model result, 2008-09)

Table 7.38. shows the values of house bold security in different livelihood security aspects
individually for the selected livelihood groups in Cox's bazaar area. According to the
above table the individual food security is highest for salt fanner household defined by
45.83 % where as lowest is in fry collector's household 16.13%. The another statistics
also show the household security of different coastal livelihood groups in aspet:t of
Income security Sh Health and personal security Sll, Security of house and properties
S4 and Water security SI,.
In a similar way of calculation, the individual security statistics have been calculated for
livelihood groups in Satkhira that is shown in table -7.3b.

Table 7.3b. Individual security level for livelihood groups in Satkhira.

Fry Forest
W"" extractDr
Security options 0) Farmer Fisher Labor collector

Food securi SI, 34 27.27 13.43 17.54 26.92

Income securi SI, 37.25 28.30 16.39 18.18 25.93
Health and personal
security 51) 30.77 18.18 6.15 12.73 22.41
Security of house and
I nronerties 54 36.54 26.92 l3.ll 18.52 29.09
Water securit SI, 31.37 20 S.06 13.73 21.43
(Source: Model result 2008-09)
 117

Table 7.3b. shows the values of household security in different livelihood security aspects
individually for the selected livelihood groups in Satkhira area. According to the above
table the individual food security is highest for Farmer household defmed by 34 % where
as that is lowest in wage labor's household (13.43 %).

7.2A. Calculation of Ovcl'lIn Security Level of Livelihood Groups

Now, the overall security level of defined coastal livelihood group has been measured by
using equation (III) WIder third:nep of the model, Livelihood Security Model (5.5). The
household livelihood security level analysis has been shown in Appendix-D with total
data calculation and scaling.

The livelihood groups are not same in Satkhira to Cox's bazaar because of variation of
geographical setllemenL The household securities of selected livelihood groups have
been calculated by entering the necessary data from the study into the developed model.
The Fig 7.1a. and Fig 7.th show the household security level of different livelihood
groups for the sustainable storm surge management approach in the define coastal part of
Bangladesh,

LlYellllood $Kurity in Cox's bu•• r

-n •• ~45.13

_138.19

r -:;StE;.-- 4141.89
Levelof Livelihood Security (%)

Fig 7.la. Level of overall livelihood security for selected livelihood groups in Cox's
bazaar. (Source: Model result 2008-09)
 118

Fig 7.Ia shows the level oflivelihood security in Cox's bazaar area. It expresses that in
the coast of Cox's bazaar the most vulnerable livelihood group is :fry collector due to
storm surge risk. On the other hand the less vulnerable groups are salt farmer group and

the farmer.

Livelihood Security in Satkhira

Fo••• ntracllO. I•.. ~=

-=v ~~
•••
325.16
•~ Fry collector t=~ -~_...;
j16.14
~
"8 W.u. Labour t "'"
.;;;;;;11.43
~ FI•••••r 11:::;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;===::::::::1
_ ......!124.14

, • mo •

T
. A133.99
Lev~lof Security (%1

Fig 7.lb. Level of overall livelihood security for selected livelihood groups in Satkhira
(Source: Model result, 2008-09)

Fig 7.lb. reveals the security level of selected livelihood groups in Satkhira coast. In that
site the more vulnerability is found in wage labor's house and comparatively Jess risk is
found for the farmer groups. Less risk also shown in forest extractor's house. The overall
scenario represents the area base livelihood security levels due to storm surge in the
coastal part of Bangladesh.

7.3.1. Dilleussion on livelihood seeurity level in individual study site

Adaptation of a livelihoods security model, in rural contexts of coastal area, led to two
main outcomes. First, it introduced a holistic analytical model for livelihood security. And
second, it resulted in the evolution of the livelihood security level by using that model as an
improvement tools in the field of livelihood system development and protection due to any
 119

defined risk. In this study, it has been tried to check the actual security (degree of safely)
status of household in coasta11ivelihood groups a(X:ording to the area boundary.

livelihood S.curlty checking InCox's bazaar

Foreel extractor

& Fry collector

!
a Wage labolJr
• Se<:lJredI_I
C Milasu",d le",1
] .
<
',
= Fisher

Farmer

'Securt~
" '" '"
Level (%j
00

Fig.7.2. Level of overall livelihood security for selected livelihood groups comparing
with II standard household security frame in Cox's bazaar. (Source: Model result 2008-

09)
Fig 7.2. Shows a standard line graph that expresses the security line of an individual
household due to slorm surge hazard in Bangladesh coast sptX:ified for Cox's bazaar
coast where the security value is 66.01%.

'This statistic has been collected from a household in study area of district Cox's bazaar
which faced numbers of storm surge threat last few years safely and the local people
response positive to their security leveL

Fol1owing the same methodology, Fig 7.3. Shows a standard line graph that expresses the
actual security line due to storm surge hazard in Bangladesh coast specified for Slltkhira
coast where the security value is 68.23% (measured by study on an individual household
having higher confidence on se>:urity).
 120

Uvellhood security In s.tkhlra

Fensl extractor

a '."""""
~

l -""'"',.""
~

'-
0
" " " " "
Level of Security 1%1
"
FIg 7.3. Level of ovenl.lI lh-elihood 5CCurlty for selected li,-e1ihood groups eompluing
with (I stllndllrd household security frnme in SlUkhira. (SourtC: Model result, 2008.()9)

Fig 7.3. sho .•••

., that the COlIStaIlivelihood groups in SIItkhinl. on: not secured IIgIIinst 5Ionn
surge risk. AlXOTdingthe graphical mW)'llis, the model shows fanner group keeps highest
security IIbolrt 33.99"~ or 40% in that aretI but with respect of SlllJIdnrd $CDles thIIt do not

show the 5CCurllystllndlltd.

The totIII graphical ~ntntion expresses thIIt. 11$ in storm surge risk !he totnllive1ihood
system is not secured IIlld that insecurity scale is higher with oomparing the sumdard
ooncept of security in Cl)Ilo;talzone of Banghtdesh.

7.3.2. DbC'ludon of linIihood stc'urlty .monft two study sites

11Ie levels of livelihood security due to stann S'IItgChnzlIrd for diffel'C'lltlivelihood groups
on: not some in both sites oftbe 5tlJdy aml. The tI'lClI.SlIJailevels of security of common
livelihood group!! in both Ill'ClI(flll'TJ\er.fisher. fry oollcetor Illld wage laborer) show
variation in different area boundllry!. Table 7.4. shows the ectunl scenario of thaI.
 12l

Table-7.4. Security level for livelihood groups in both sites of the study area.

,,~ ,~. ,~. 0.,

Forest
"'''
,.-. - Fisher Fry collector Wage labor fisher

-
Livelihood
,,",',
Se<:urily
"'"'"' Cox's Cox's S!Ilkhira Cox',

"'-
"'- Cox',
"'-
Satkhira

"'-
Cox's
b_

'""" 17.54 19.35 13.43 45.83 40.82

securilV
Income
26.92
--
41.67
" 41.18 27.27 16.13

k<.:urjI"J 25.93 ~4.6S 37.25 :\i:86 28.30 .J7.86 ,18.18 23.08 16.39 ~92 39.58
Health and
Life 22.41 38.30 30.77 37.25 18.l8 II.4S 12.73 13.79 6.15 42.55 35.42
House and
ro
. 45.65 36.54 42.116 26.92 15.79 18.52 18.S7 13.11 48.94 40.43
W.~
""";w
" ""
21.43 39.13 31.37 35.29 20 13.56 13.73 14.29 '.0<> 40.43 34.69
Ove •.••11
i'J.99 )4.96 i6:i4 17.88 41.43 :.s.13 38.19
lecnrtn' 25.16 '11.89 39.89
"''' (Source: Model result 2008-09)

Table-7.4. defines that average level of~ty for farmer group is 41.89% where that of
in Satkhira is 33.99%. So farmers are more secured in Cox's bazaar than that of in

Satkhira.

Fry colee!O' ~

Fig-7.4. Comparative analysis oflivelihood security in different study sites,

(Source: Model result 2008-09)
Fig 7.4. shows that the same conditions are also found for Fisher and wage laborer
groups. But the fry collector's level of security is 14.96 % in Cox's bazaar where in
Satkhira, it shows the value 16.14%. So fry collector group keeps better position in
 122

Stltkhim. The over nil livelihood security for stOrm SUJl!:Cissue of different livelihood
groups must defi~ by the rombiMtion ofthcir level of security of five options such as
food security, income security, beath security. house security and water security.

li.o,W3:l

I 1~'

••
"

•
d
• '0
InCOo'<te~
1~
'" ~
~
•• n1 u..",,,,,,,,
~
_~
~

Fig-70S. Com:lation among inromc security and livelihood security of constaIlivelihood

groups. (Sourte: Model n:sult 2008-09)

BUI the livelihood system llUly define M IIprocess ofineome for living. So there is II elO$e
contal:1between income and livelihood. Fig.7.4. and Fig-7.S. show !hat livelihood
security has II direct ~llltion to inoome security signifienntly. In both study "side wang
=llltioll bas been found among Irald of income sec:urity level and livelihood security
level of C:ODStllI groups.
 CHAPTER EIGHT
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1. Condusion

Bangladesh is one of the critically vulnerable countries to natural huzards. Bangladesh

lies in a very active cyclone corridor that transects the Bay of Bengal. Cyclone and storm
surge hazard frequently visits different coastal part of the country most of the recent years
and causes great disturbance to the nature and the hwnan community. The coastal
livelihood security concept bas become more prominent in the study due to not only the
sensitive nature of the physiographic and socio-economic condition of the coastal area
but also its importance to tbe nation. To start with initiatives to establish a sustainable
livelihood security model against storm surge hazard the study has been conclnded with
the followings:

• The storm surge vulnerability in Bangladesh has been defined by the study
depending on the feature of recent storm surges from the year 1988 to 2009.
• Totally 7 marginal livelihood groups in coastal part of Cox's bazaar (6) and
Satkhira (5) have been identified including their specific livelihood opportunities
and resources in coastal environment under a great risk of storm surges.
• The over all exposure to such risk bas been enhanced by the higher population
and population density in that vulnerable coastal areas of Bangladesb.
• The livelihood security has been defined in this study, as an adequate and
sustainable access to income and resources to meet basic needs (including
adequate access to food, potable water, bealth facilities. educational opportunities,
housing, community participation and social integration) during the storm surge
period in risk area.
• In this study, a model has been developed with an indicator framework (having 48
indicators) to make the numerical valuation of livelihood security of coastal
 124

people due to storm surge hazard by the comparative analysis of different security
options for livelihood groups in Bangladesh coast.
• The vulnerable coastal livelihood system has been analyzed by indicator
measurement approaches showing the possible protection and adaptation capacity
of its stakeholders.
• Within 6 livelihood groups at site 1. in Cox's bazaar, the model application
showed the maximum livelihood security as 45% for salt fanner where as the
lowest security level exist 14.%% for fry collector group.
• At site 2. in Slrtkhira, the highest level of average livelihood security has been
found as 33.99% for farmer group where the lowest is calculated as 11.43% for
wage laborer.
• The measured security value of coastal livelihoods for storm surge hazard does
not show significant level of security. Few households have been identified as
probably secured individually but in an average, each and every marginal
livelihood groups live below the satisfll£torylevel in those areas against the recent
forms ofstonn surges.
• The level of security differs depending on geographical position and
environmental settings of the sites.
• The security levels of livelihood groups against stonn surges also vary with
people's access to coastal resource and income opportunities. A strong correlation
has been found in between the individual income security and overall livelihood
security of individual groups in both study sites.

8. 2. Recommendations

• The modeling for coastal livelihood security for storm surge hazard can act as
a tool for sustainable coastal resource management and may also provide the
adaptation concepts for coastal livelihood system with priority in integrated
coastal zone management policy of Bangladesh.
 125

• The framework of livelihood security indicators can be disseminated among

the users with explanations and possible use to assess and monitor the
perfonnances of livelihood capitals in both household and I;Ornmunitylevel
fur another coastal issue.
• The model concept can be instrwnental in formulating strategies by various
agencies and/or the strategy making bodies in the field of coastal community
development and livelihood system management.
• 1he established model assesses the security level of different livelihood
groups and can be used as a management tool in coastal development
strntegies and policy making.

8.3. R~ommendation5
for Furtber Study

The recommendations for farther studies are as follows:

• More technical study is needed to make another simplified application of the

existing model for its first and significant use in practical sites.
• It is recommended to assess the security and resiliency.of coastal livelihood
groups by using such type of mathematical model against other water related
ISSueS.

• Research is also needed to analyze the rislr.::and adaptation capacity of coastal

community in Bangladesh due to climate change effecL
 REFERENCES

Alam, M. (2003), Bangladesh Country Case Study for National Adaptation Programme
of Action Workshop, 9-11 September 2003, Bhutan.

Ali, A. (1996), Vulnerability of Bangladesh to Climate Change and Sea Level Rise
through Tropical Cyclones and Storm Surges, Water, Air and Soil Pollution,
vol. 94d, pp.I71-179.

Ali, A. (1999), Cyclone, Bangia Academy, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 147p On Bengali).

Ashley, C. and Carney, D. (1999), Sustainable Livelihoods: Lessons from Early

Experience DFID, London.

Banglapedia (2008), Na1ional Encyclopedia of Bangladesh, Asiatic Society of

Bang1adesh. http://banglapedia.search.eorn.bdlHT/C 0397.hlm

BUET (2008), Field Investigation on the Impact of Cyclone SIDR in the Coastal Region
of Bangladesh, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka-
J 000, Bangladesh

BBS (2001), Population census 2001, Preliminary Report., Dhaka, Govemmen1 of

Bangladesh.

Cameron, J. (1999), Trivial Pursuits: Reconciling Sustainable Rural Development and the
Global Economic 1nstiMions, liED, London.

Carney, D. (1999), Approaches to Sustainahle Livelihoods for the Rural Poor. om

Poverty Briefing, January 1999, Overseas Development Institute, London.

CARDMA (1988), Bangladesh Coastal Area Resource Development & Management;

Report Part 1&11. Coastal Area Resource Development & Management
Association (CARDMA). Dhaka, October 1988.

CARE (2002), Livelihood Monitoring Project (draft report). Dhaka, CARE Bangladesh.

CARE (2003), Baseline Study Report of Livelihood Monitoring Project: Southeast

Bangladesh. TANGO International. Dhaka, May 2003.

CDP (2002), "Water Logging in South West Region of Bangladesh", Edt. Asraful Alam
Tum.

CDP (2003), "Upakul Barta-Unusual Tidal Flood" Edt. Asraful Alam Tutu, Volume 40,
December,2003.

•
 127

CDS (2006), Coastal Development Strategy (Approved at the 2nd meeting of the Inter-
Ministerial Steering Committee on ICZMP held on February ]3, 2006) Water
Resources Planning Organization, Bangladesh.

CEGIS (2004), Vulnerability Analysis of Major Livelihood Groups in the Coastal Zone
of Bangladesh, Final Report of Food and Agricultural Organization, Center for
Environment and Geographic Information Services.

CEGIS (2007), Investigating the Impact of Relative Sea-Level Rise on Coastal

Communities and their Livelihoods in Bangladesh, UK Department for
Environment Food and Rural Affairs.

Chadwick, M. (2003), Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Bangladesh, Improving

Policy-Livelihood Relationships in South Asia, Policy Review Paper 6.

Chambers, R. (1989), Editorial Introduction: Vulnerability, Coping and Policy, IDS BulL,
2 (2): \-7.

Chambers, R. and Conway, G. (1992), Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts

for the 21st Century, IDS Discussion Paper No. 2%. Brighton, UK. Institute of
Development Studies.

Chowdhury, A. (2002), Disasters: Issues and Responses, Bangladesh Environment,

facing the 21" Century, Society for Environment and Human Development
(SEHD), Bangladesh.

Coastal Zone Policy (2005), Ministry of Water Resources, GQvernment of the People's
Republic of Bangladesh.

CWBMP (2006), Teknaf Peninsula ECA Conservation Management Plan, Lee-Anne

Molony, UNV Conservation Management Planner & National Project
Professional Personnel, Cox's Bazaar.

Datta, A., Frans, D and Soussan, J. (2003), Coastal Zone Policies and Livelihoods in
Bangladesh.

Davis, l (1978), Shelter after disaster. Headington, Oxford: Oxford Polytechnic Press.

Davies, S. (1996), Adaptable Livelihoods: Coping with Food Insecurity in the Malian
Sahel. Macmillan Press, london.

DOE (1996), Plant Biodiversity, Pre-Investment Facility Study: Coastal and Wetland
Biodiversity Management Project (project BOD/94/041), Dhaka, Bangladesh.

DOE (1998), The Socio-EconotIDc Survey - Final Report, Pre-Investment Facility Study:
Coastal and Wetland Biodiversity M!Ulagement Project (Project BOD/94/041),
Dhaka, Bangladesh.
 128

DOE (1999), GIS and Cartographic Services - Final Report, Pre-Investment Facility
Study: Coastal and Wetland Biodivernity Management Project (Project
800/94/041), Dhaka,BlIllgiadesh.

Ellis, F. (1998), Livelihood Diversification and Sustainable Rural Livelihoods in Carney,

D. (Ed. 1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods DFID, London.

Ellis, F. (2000), Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries, Oxford

University Press, Oxford.

ESCAP (1987), Coastal Enviromnental Management Plan for Bangladesh. United

Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
(ESCAPIUN). Dhaka, Bangladesh, June 1987.

Frankenberger, T. R. and McCaston, M. K. (1998), The Household Livelihood

Security Concept, CARE, USA.

GOB (1999a), Integrated Coastal Zone Management: Concepts and Issues, Ministry of
Water Resources, GoB, Dhaka.

GOB (1999b), Standing Orders on Disal.ier, Disaster maDagement Bureau, Ministry of

Disaster MllIllIgementand Relief, Government of Bangladesh, Dhaka.

GOB/GEFIUNDP (1999), Project Document, Coastal and Wetland Biodiversity

Management at Cox's Bazar and HakaJuki Haor Project (BGD/99fG31), Dhaka,
Bangladesh.

Goodin, P. and Wright, G. (1998), Decision Analysis for Management Judgment, 2nd
Edition. Chichester, John Wiley and Sons.

Hasegawa, K. (2008), Features of super cyclone SIDR to hit Bangladesh in Nov., 07 and
measures for disaster - from results of JSCE investigation, Foundation of River
& Watershed Environment Management, Hokkaido Office, Sapporo, Japan

Huq, H. (2001), People's Participation, Exploring Contestation, Counter-Development

and Rural livelihoods, Community Development Library, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Hardi, P. and Barg, S. (1997), Measuring Sustainable Development: Review of Current

Practice, Occasional Paper N. 17, Industry Canada, Ontario.

Hussein, K. and Nelson, J. (1998), Sustainable Livelihoods and Livelihood

Diversification IDS Working Paper 69, Institute of Development Studies,
University of Sussex.

Islam, M. R (2004), Where Land Meets the Sea, A ProfIle of the Coastal Zone
Bangladesh, UPL Population Census (2001), Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics,
Planning Division, :Ministryof Planning, Bang1adesh(July 2003).
 129

JSCE (2008), Investigation Report on the Storm Surge Disaster by Cyclone SIDR in
2007, Bangladesh, Japan Society of Civil Engineering.

Kay, R and Alder, J. (1999), Coastal Planning and Management, E & fn Spon, 11 New
Fetter Lane, London. P 55-56.

Khalequzzaman, M. (1988), Environmental Hazards in the Coastal Areas of Bangladesh:

Geologic Approach, 3ed International Conference on Natural and Man-trulde
Coastal Hazards August 15-20, 1988, Ensenada, Baja Califomia,USA.

Kothari, C.R (2001), Research methodology: Research and Tchniques, Wishwa

Prakashan, India.

Malhotra, V. (2001), A Trust Model for the Analytic Hierarchy Process, School Of
Computing GPO Box 252-100, University ofTasmania, Hobart, Tasmania 7001
AUSTRALIA,

MoEF (2001a), Survey of Flora, National Conservation Strategy Implementation Project-

1, Dhaka

MoEF (2001b), Survey of Fauna, National ConsetV3tion Strategy Implementation

Project.1, Dhaka

OECD (1993), Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews, Paris,
OECD.

OECD (1998), Towards Sustainable Development: Environmental Indicators, Paris,

OECD.

Paramanik, M. A. H. (1986), the dynamic of coastal processes land use changes,

Bangladesh Spoce research and remote sensing organization (SPARSO), Dhaka,
Bangladesh.

PDO-ICZMP (2001), Inception Report-the preparatory Phase for Sustainable

Development of the Coastal Zone of Bangladesh, Program Development Office
for Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan (PDO-1CZMP).Water Resources
Planning Organization, Ministry of Water Resources. Dhaka,

PDO-ICZM (2002), Perceptions of Direct Stakeholders on Coastal livelihoods; Working

Paper wpOO4 of the project "Program Development Office for Integrated
Coastal Zone Management (PDO-ICZM).Water Resources Planning
Organization, Ministry of Water R<:sources.Dhaka, September, 2002.

PDO-ICZMP, (2003a), Coastal Livelihoods; an introductory analysis. Program

Development Office for Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan Project;
Working paper wpOll. Water Resources Planning Organization; Ministry of
Water Resources, Bang1adesh.Dhaka, January 2003.
 130

PDO-ICZMP (2003b) C<lastal Livelihoods ~ Situation and Context. Working Paper

wpOlS, June 2003,

PDO-ICZMP (2003c), Proposal for a Framework of Indicators for ICZM. Program

Development Office for Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan Project;
Working Paper wp016. Water Resources Planning Organization; Ministry or
Water Resources, Bangladesh. September 2003.

PDO-ICZMP (2003d), Delineation of the Coastal Zone. Working Paper WPODS.

December 2003.

PDO-ICZMP (2004a.), "Living in the Coast: People and Livelihoods", Program

Development Office for Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan Project;
Living in the Coast Series 1. Water Resources Planning Organization; Ministry
ofWatet Resources, Bangladesh. Dhaka, March 2004.

PDO-ICZMP (2004b), Living in the Coast: Problems, Opportunities and Challenges.

Program Development Office for Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan
Project; Living in the Coast Series 2. Water Resources Planning Organization;
Ministry of Water Resources, Bangladesh. Dhaka, June 2004.

POUSH (2005), Various quarterly reports submitted to CWMP Cox's Bazar Field Office
prepared under the "Community Mobilisation for Biodiversity Conservation for
CWBMP" subcontract.

POUSH (2006), Reconnaissance Social Survey, Community Mobilisation for

Biodiversity Conservation at Cox's Bazar, Coastal and Wetland Biodiversity
Management Project.

Rahman, M.M., Rashid, M.H. and Rashid, S.H. (2001), Assessment of plan! biodiversity
of sand dune ecosystem along the Cox's Bazaar to Teknaf coast, Bangladesh
Journal of Plant Taxonomy, 8(1): 27-45.

Saaty, T. L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource
Allocation, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Soussan, J. (2000), Understanding Livelihoods: a Model of Livelihood Processes &

Influences, PRP Working Paper no. I, School of Geography, University of
Leeds.

Soussan, J. (2001), Coastal Development & Livelihoods ill Bangladesh, DFID

Bangladesh.

Toufique, K. A. and Turton, C. (2002), Hands not land: how livelihoods are changing in
rural Bangladesh, Bangladesh Institute of Social StudIes, Dhaka.

U.K. Deparbnent of Environment (1996), Indicators of Sustainable Development for the

United Kingdom, London, HMSO.
 131

UN-OPCSD (l9%), Indicators of Sustainable Development: Framework and

Methodologies. United Nations Department for Policy Co-ordination and
Sustainable Development) New York:

U.N. (1999), From 1beory to Practice: Indictors of Sustainable Development,

http://v.'WW.un,org/csalsustdev/indi6.htm[accessed, 3IntO 1]

World Bank (1997), Expanding the Measure of Wealth, Indicators of Environmentally

Sustainable Development, Washington D.C., World Bank.

World Bank (2005), Attaining the Millennium Development Goals in Bangladesh -

Human Development Unit - South Asia Region, February 2005.

WBiNEDAlWFP (1999), A Concept Note & Development Process: Integrated Coastal

Zone Management in Bangladesh; Reoommendations of a joint Donor
Identification Mission. Dhaka: World Bank! Netherlands Development
Assistancel World Food Programme. .March, 1999.

Zimrnennann H. J. (1990), Decision Making in Fuzzy Environment, Fuzzy Set Theory and
Its Application. PP 241.272.
 APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HOUSE HOLD SURVEY

Research for M.Sc Thesis
IWFM, BUET.

A. Basic Information

Sample no/lO: .-------.-- Date •.................

Villi Mohollah: ----------- Holding No: -------

UnionfWord: ----------- Thaana: ------- District: ---------.--

B. Family Information

A e:
,_L Name:
Education: Occupation:

3. Fathers Name:
4.
5.
Marital stalUS:
Your silion in famil ,
6. No. of Famil members: Male: Female: Chilled:
7. No.ofEamin Members of the house Male: female:

.- Education offamil members:

c. Livelihood Information

9. How long do you stay in this area?

10. How long Experience do you have in this Hving activities?

11. a) Have you any oltemative source of income? Yes/No

b) Jfyes, which sources are those?

c) How many people of your family are stays in rest oftlle country?

d) What is their contribution to the household income? (Tic pryear / percentage ofTl)
 133

12. Household Income:

a) Rate ofincome- (fK. percapita)

DailL::) Monthln:::J Yearly c:::::J Seasonal c::::J

b) Rate of daily expense (TK.fperson)

oj Whllt is the saving system-

House c::::J Samily (NGO) l::::J

tJ. Land ownenhip:
a) Have you any owned land? Yes/No

b) Tfyes, how much land area is in your family oWTImhip?

14. Product I ProdUctiOD-

a) Which is the main source of production in your household?

b) Does the main product satisfy the dweller's basic alUlUalneeds? YesINo

c) Ifno, which are the alternative sources of production?

ej Production technique-
Traditiollalc=:J Improve c:::::J
f) Type of product ownership-
o Self LlLeased [l Product sharing

g) Homestead production-
o Cattle: 0 Poultry: 0 Garden: 0 Others:
h) Within which period the household products are being harvested?

15. Water and sanitation.

o What is the main source of drinking and potable wllter?

o Is that sufficient fur your locality? Show the level of satisfaction.

 134

o Which type of toilet (latrine) is used in your house holds?

o What is the height oftoiletfbathroom from surface level?

16. Which type of materials is used for house construction?

17.~edicalrQciUties-

o No. of doctor I paramedic! health adviser per 100 household c=J

iJ No. ofhospital/health center in the locality o
iJ Do you get free medicine or other services?

o What is the condition of health service in those center?

o What is the distance between your house and the hospital?

18. Transportation facilitie!l -

o length. of road-
Paved c:::::J Mud c::::J
o What is the condition of road network?

o Which types oftmnspons are U5ednonnally?

o Which type oftranspon you usc to go to the health centre?

D.lnformatioD ohlonn surge hazard

19••• No. ofstonn surge occurred during your lifetime:

No. Month&Year StormHei , Duration Major dama es

 135

b) Warning System:

c) Comments (Open):

20. Disaster prepanltion:

a. Have you any training I experience on preparation for disaster?

b. What types of preparatioll do you have to face the disaster?

Pre-
During-

Post-

c. Do you have any first aid training?

d. Do you take part in any disaster awareness programe in your locality?

21. Shelter

a. Where do you get shelter, when there is any disasterl cyclolle warning?

b. How many cyclone centers are in your locality?

c. Is that sufficient for your locality?

d. What is the infiastlUctural condition oflhat cyclone center?

22. Protection for Coast

a) Types of protection system-

b) Area under proteclion-

c) Rate of Vegetation in the locality-

Natural forest c:::::J Social forest c:::::J

d) Condition of protection system-

e) Is it sustainable?
 136

1) Is the protection beneficial fur root level (XlOple?

23. Disaster management optiom:

a. Is there any disaster management committee in your locality?

b. Have you any access to easy financial loan at crisis period?

c. Do you get help from any organization?

GO =
NGOs c:::::J
Otlre, =
d. Which NGOs are active in your locality?

e. How do they help you?

 137

Information Collection Sheet

I. Study area

• General Area Description:

• Population:

• Road:

1 Materials I Length

• Communication system

• Product processing and preservation

• Product market

a) Normal time b) Post disaster

2. Natural and anthropogenic resonrees

3. Infrastructure

a) Social

b) Economic

c) Educational

J. DevelopmclIt activities

a) Warning system:

b) Awareness programme:

c) Shelter:
 138

d) Post disaster activities:

4. Protection (or Coast

a) Types of protection system

b) Area under protection

c) Condition ofproteetion system:

d) Is it sustainable?

e) Is the protection beneficial for root level people?

5. Damage Caused by storm surge during recent storm snrge! period:

u) Natural resources

b) lnfrastruetural

c) Hwnan life and Health

 APPENDlX-B

Study on the secnrity modeling through the participation of marginal livelihood

groups in the coastal area
Checklist for Focus Stakeholder Meeting (FSM)

District: Satkbira
Date: 09.09.2008 Venue: Harinagar Sushilan Office

ViII: Harinagar Union: Munshiganj Upazilla: Shamnagar

Starting time: 9.00 AM Ending time: 10.30 AM

Facilitating NGO: Sushil.n, Kaliganj, Satkhira.

Role of Team Member

Organizer: Mahmuda Mutahara and Md. Mahbubar Rahman (Sushilan, Shyamnagar.)

Moderator: Mahmucla Mutahara, IWFM, SUET.
Reporting: Mahmuda Mutahara, IWFM, BUET.

List of Participants:

SL Participant A", Occupation Education

No.
1 Mahmuda Mutabara 26 Student M.Sc.
2 Mahbubar IWunan 28 Service GO B. Sc.
3 Abu Zaber Morol 38 U member H. Sc
4 Md.Manik 38 Service (NGO B. Sc.
5 M. Motiar fulhman 52 Farmer Class-Two
6 Farid Gazi 40 Farmer Illiterate
7 AhsanMorol 30 Farmer Class-Two
8 Subol Sarkar 46 W e labor Illiterate
9 Rabiul 38 Forest Extract Illiterate
10 Samsul Morol 28 Fisher Class-Two
11 Mala Rani 38 Fisher Class-Two
13 Noni Bala 38 W e laborer Class-Two
14 Rina Mondol 52 W e laborer Class-Three
15 Rabia 34 Fisher Class-Two
16 Ch<mdm 48 Forest Extract
17 Maksud 55 Forest Extract Class-Two
18 Abul Gazi 44 F collector Illiterate
19 Rahim Uddin 38 ~ol1ector Class-Two
20 '0= 37 F collector Class-Three
 140

Focus Stakeholder Meeting Agenda:

" Introduction
" Identification of major assets of livelihood groups.
" Identification of assets in five categories; natural, financial, hwnan, physical and
social as the component of coastal livelihood system.
" Identification of economic activities oflivelihood groups and seasonality.
" Identification of major storm surge hazards in the study area and their ranking.
" Vulnerability factors on assets of livelihood groups due to stonn surge hazards.

Major Findings from FOCWi Stakeholder Meeting:

1. Stakeholders are aware of storm surge and increasing occurrence of that natural

IDmrn1.
2. The storm surge hazards damage household capital and livelihood resources more
destructively.
3. The storm surge hazards are affecting agriculture, shrimp fanns and mangrove

forest.
4. Livelihood system is under developed and people are helpless.
5. Farmer are taking several initiatives to reduce their loss from hazards such, land
raising, embankment 10 protect high tidal flooding. forestation for protection,
irrigation by Tube-well, :fresh water reserve in ponds etc.
6. There is a lack of institutional activities and mitigation measure.
7. Poor protection system.
 141

Study OD the security modeling through the participation of mllrginllilivelibood

groups in the coastal area
Cbeddist foc Focus Stakeholder Meeting (FSM)

District: Satkhira
Date: 25.12.2008 Venue: Munshiganj Sushilan Office

VlU: Munshiganj Union: Munshiganj Upazillll: Shamnagar

Starting time: 10.30. AM Ending time: 12.00 AM

Facilitating NGO: Sushilan, Kaliganj, SlItkhira.

Role orTum Member

Organizer: Mahmuda Mutahara and Md. Mahbubar Rahman (Sushilan, Shyamnagar.)
Moderator: Mahmuda Mutahara., IWFM, BUET.
Reporting: Mahrnuda Mutaham, IWFM, SUET.

List of Participants:

SL
No.
Participant
••• Occupation Education

I Mahmuda Mutahara 26 Student M.Sc.

2 Mahbubar Rahman 28 Service M.Sc.
3 Jotindronath Mondal 45 Vili. Doctor B.5c
4 Lalita Rani Mondal 23 Service B. 5c
5 Suvash Mondal 19 F=~ Class~Nine
6 Kashem Gazi 46 Fanner Illiterate
7 Nasimabe 29 Farmer Class-Seven
8 Haran Mondal 42 W e labor Class-Five
9 Rezaul Karim 50 Forest Extract Class-Two
10 KrisnaRani 30 Fisher Illiterate
11 Ismail Hossain 46 Fisher Class-Two
13 Babur Ali l8 W e labor Illiterate
14 Selina 28 Wa e labor Illiterate
15 Puti Rani 38 Fisher Class-Two
16 Azmal Sardar 38 Forest Extract Class-Two
17 SofedGazi 52 Forest Extract Class-Three
18 Komol Sarker 34 F collector Class-Two
19 Rumi Das 36 F collector 5i t=
20 Md. Rafik 20 F collector Class-Five
 142

Focus Stakeholder Meeting Agenda:

,f Introduction .
./' Coastal livelihood system .
./ Affected activities and insecurity of livelihood groups .
./ Livelihood security indicators and their rational .
./ Expected living s1B.ndardoopping strategies of livelihood groups.
,f Selection of indicator (Pair-wise priority function).
,f Present and future adaptation options for storm surge hazards.

Major Findings (rom Focus Stakeholder Meeting:

1. Livelihood system is not developed much and most of the marginal groups are in

great danger.
2. Developed indicator framework is logical and significant.
3. Standard value of indicators.
4. Pair-wise weight I priority weight of indicators.
5. Socio-economic development and future plan 10 survive.
 143

Study on the security modeling through the participation ofmarginallivelibood

groups In the cOllstal area
Checklist for FocWI Stakeholder Meeting (FSM)

Distrid: Cox's bazaar

Date: 08.01.2009 Venue: Khurushkul Union Parisad

Union: Khurushkul Upazillll: Cox's bazaar Sadar

Starting time: 10.30. AM Ending time: 12.00 AM

Facilitating NGO: SARPV Bangladesh.

Role of Team Member

Organizer: Mahmuda Mutahara and Md. Abidur Rahman (SARPY Bangladesh).

Moderator: Mahmuda Mutahara, IWFM, DUET.
Reporting: Mabmuda Mutahara, IWFM, BUET.

SL Participant Ag. OeeuplltioD EduelitioD

N•.
1 Mahmuda Mutahara, 26 Student M.Sc.
2 Abidur Rahman 34 Service M. Se.
B.Sc.
3
4
Abdul Mabud
Abdul Khalek "
55
Choinrum
Farmer Class-Two
5 Sabir Ali 44 Salt fanner Class-Four
Class-Nine
6

,
7
Rawson Ali
Modhu Data "
37
Salt farmer
Fisher Illiterate
Abdul Latif 40 D fisher Class-Seven
9 Faez Uddin 28 D fisher Class-Five
10 La! Mohan 45 F collector Class-Two
11 Nasima 35 F collector lIliterate
13 Monirul Islam 48 Farmer llliterate
Mamola" Khlllun 37 Farmer Class-Two
I'
15 Abu Taleb 38 Fisher Class-Four
16 Md. Atik 56 Fisher s. s. C.
17 Sahcda Khatun 38 W hilio= Class-Two
BoH Mohan 45 Wa e laborer Class-Three
I'
19 Moen Gazi 40 Fisher Class-Two
20 Go Do. 38 Salt Fanner Class-Five
 144

Focus Stakeholder Meeting Agenda:

./ Introduction
" Identification of major assets of livelihood groups .
./ ldentification of a~sets in five categories; natural, financial, human, physical and
social as the component of ooastallivelihood system .
./ Identification of economic activities oflivelihood groups and seasonality .
./ Identification of major storm surge hazards in the study area and their ranking .
./' Vulnerability factors on assets ofliveHhood groups due to storm surge hazrrds.

Major Findings from Focus Stakeholder Meeting:

I. Stakeholders are aware of storm surge and increasing occurrence of that natural

b=nI.
2. The stonn surge hazards damage household capital and livelihood resources more
destructively.
3. The storm surge hazards are affecting agriculture, salt field, shutki mohal and

others.
4. Livelihood system is under developed and people are helpless.
5. Fanner are taking several initiatives to reduce their loss from hazards such, land
raising, embankment to protect high tidal flooding, forestation for protection,
irrigation by Tube-well, fresh water reserve in ponds etc.
6. There is a lack ofinstihrtional activities and rnitiga1ion measure.
 145

Study on the security Modeling through the participation of mllrginallivelihood

groups in thc COll8talllrea
Cheddist for Focus Stakeholder M~ting (FSM)

District: Cox's bazaar

Date: 05.02.2009 Venue: Jilonja Union Parisad

Union: Jilonja Upullla: Cox's bazaar Sadar

Starting time: 10.30. AM Ending time: 12.00 AM

Facilitating NGO: SARPV Bangladesh.

Role ofTelllll Member

Organizer: Mahmuda Mutahara and Md. Abidur Rahman (SARPY Bangladesh).

Moderator: Mahmuda Mutahara, IWFM, SUET.
Reporting: Mahmuda Mutahara, IWFM, aUET.

List of Participants:

Occupation Education
SL Participlnt A"
No.
1 Mahmuda Mutahara, 26 Student M.Sc.
2 Abidur Rahman 34 Service M. Se.
l Md. Rashid Aluned 42 U member B. Sc.
4 Abdul Khalek 55 Fan11er Class-Two
5 So1aiman Ali 35 Farmer S. S. C.
6 Momena Khatun 35 F collector l11iterate
7 Nurul Ha ue 45 Fry collector Class-Three
8 Abdul Lotif 40 Fisher Class-Seven
9 wta Rani 38 Fisher Class-Two
10 Prosanto Kumar 56 Fisher Sl ,
48 Wa e laborer Class-Two
11
13
14
N
'"
Md. Eunlls
Kabir Ahmed
40
36
D Fisher
Fisher
Class-Four
Class-Three
15 Sahara Khatun 32 Fisher Class-Two
16 Md. Aslam 36 W laborer Sl "ore
17 Shunil 32 Salt farmer Class-Seven
18 Hossain Ali 40 Salt farmer Class-Four
19 ~dHossain 16 F collector Class Five
20 D Bala 28 Wa elaborer Sl
""'''
 146

Focus Stakeholder Meeting Agenda:

./ Introduction.
if Coastal livelihood system .
., Affected activities and insecurity of livelihood groups .
./ Livelihood security indicators IltId their rational.
of' Expected living standard copping strategies of livelihood groups.
>/' Selection of indicator (pair-wise priority function) .
./ Present and future adaptation options for storm surge hazards.

Major Findings from Focus Stakeholder Meeting:

1. Livelihood system is not developed much and most of the marginal groups are in
great danger.
2. Developed indicator framework is logical and significant
3. Standard value ofindiclIIors.
4. Pair-wise weight I priority weight of indicators.
5. Socio-economic development and future plan to SlU'Vive.

I
 APPENDlX-C

Selection of indieaton with respon,e to different livelihood ni:urity option! by AHP

(AnalyticalHierari:hy Proeeu)
Step-I: Pairwise l:tlmparisonmatrix for I"level criteria for Sei:urity Indicator Selection.
'000 Income W,,",
-my
security security life, ~ealth
~ro =~,
I ~.rrtyand
Food seam
Income securi
• ,
8 8

,
8
8
6
1/8

'"
life &rnlallh secun
'rn
Water secu
>oS
-'
,
9
'",
,
Pairwbe comparison matrix for 2001 leveleriteria iu Indicator Selectionfor Food ~urity.
Pair wise.comparisonmatrix for 2nd level criteria (Natural C"f'ital indicators under food security)

Step-I: Tran!form the comparison into weight

~,
'", '", , , , "'",.
. "'''''"
6HML DO" RVAA AEFS

'"
'"
SHMl
, •, •
•, •
• ,"'
a
a
'"
a
~~

11.
••
",
,.,
'"
,n
DO"
'VAA ,
a
,."', ,, ,.,
a ,/8

••, '",
TI'R8'
, ••,
PNDS
", '",, "'
6
APRB
AEFS
6
,
Computational process of priority vector (I Sl level criteria)

'-' Property

.~"
'000
security security Ufe&hea"~ : >oS w~~
Food secur; ~
, ,
8
~ro,
, ~" 8 1/5
Income secur; 1/8
,
8 6
, '"
Ufe &heallh secur;

em securi ":ilii:'
1/8
1/8
1/5
••, ,m
5
9
'"•,
Water
Column s_um
8
6.5 11.4 16,1 _ '"
24.3 . 5.9
 148

Computational process [)f priority vector for 2nd level criteria (Natural Capital indic.<ltorsunder food

security)
,
'" ,, "'" ,,
SHML
, DO"
, RVAA• IT'"'N mo",• " M'RB AEFS
V.
•• •• '",. • '"'"••
'N
'"
sSP
•, v. 'n
SHML ,n v. , •, ,n •, v, '", ••,
""'"
,n ,n •• v.
RVAA
••• V8 '"8 '", • '", '", , V.
,
, •,, ,n,,
IT'"' 9
, 'N 7

""" '"• 'N• 'N

•
'N , V. V8
••
RR ,
AeRB , • ,
8 ,n
,n , • '",n
9 7
, ,
AEFS
COLUMN
• 8 8 8
'" 17.754
3.093
'UM 31.522 37.504 47.361 36.889
" '"
4.744 12.764

Step-3: Formation of a matrix through dividing each cell by column sum

Matrix for 1st level criteria
Income security Life &heallh Wat.r
Food security
, t ~,,:and
•
0.330 0.034
'''''- 0.155 0,704 0.310

_.,
Income securi 0.019 0,088 0.310 0247 0,085
0,062
~ ~,
Life &health seen . 0,031
0,019
0.775
0,018
0.015
0.176-
0.007
0.310
0.371
0.041
{lAW
0.034
0.678
0.169
Water securil

Matrix for 2'" level criteria (Natural Capital indicators under food security)

'" '" "HM'

0.148
DO"
0.190
RYAA
0.123
TFPP
0.023
'ND'
0,129
", 0,036
M'RB AEFS
0.007
'" 0.027 0.027
0,169 0.217 0.123 "OM 0.119 0.040 ""'"
0,010 0.008
'" O.Otl4
SHML
0.027 0.027
0.003 0.021 0.217 0.123 0.023 0.129
"."" 0.009
""'"
~" .""'
AVAA 0.003
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.027
0.003
0.138
0.015
0,030
0.023
0.129
0.014
0.065
0.036
0.235
0.010
0,169
0.014
0.078 fl.fl56
''''"'
mo,
0240 0.24fl fl.l69 0.190 fl.138 fl.211
0.03fl
0.100
fl.OI4
fl.323
0.036 fl.OIO 0.Ofl7

", "'''' """'

fl.OO3
"2M> 0.240 0.169
0.003
0.136
0.fl15
0.138 fl.21 I 0,129
0,114
0.323
0.flS4
0.548
0.078
0.338
0.338
AeRB "2M> 0.24fl 0.169 0.flfl9 0.062 fl.2II
AEfS 0.213 0.213 0.148 0.009 0.123 fl.211 0.114 0.fl46 0.013 0.056
 149

Step-4: Calculate row sum for ell",h factor lind normalize these values by dividing each factor
value by ,",olomo sum
Matrix of normalized value for 1sl level criteria
Row sum
Food secu' 1.532991116
Income aecun 0.740069655
Life &haalth secu - 0.515704351
Pro llnd anal 0.760142368
Water S9(;U - 1.441292509
Som 5

Matrix of normalized value for 2nd level criteria (Natural Capital indicators under food security)

Indfcators from Natural Capital R~~

Normalized welilht
F of stonn au , I ularlre u~r FSS 0.716 0,072
"'"
Storm su Period Low tide.' hi h tide SS' D.nS 0.078
So e hei hi from mean sea level SHML 0,576 0.056
Duration of storm 5U ,
Short term/lo DOSS 0.603 0.080
Rate of elation around the area
Time frame lor resource colledionl uction
-= RVAA
TFRP
0.125
1.746
0.013
0.175
Performance of natural drain e s stem PNOS 0.124 0.012
Rate of Ible resource ueli 1m rovemenl RRQI 2.472 0.247
Access to alternative resource base APRB 1.515 0.151
Mailable ene /fuelsu I AEF$ 1.147 0.115
Som 10 1

Step-5: Priority vector of Natural Capital indicator under food security. (Multiplying
Dorm.liud nine of lliternative~ with normalized ~ocurity vector)
Food Normalized priority vector Overall priority vector (Response)
securitv
0.072 0.02
0.078 0.02
0.307 0.058 0.02
0.08 0.02
0.013 0.00
0.175 0.05
0.012 0.00
0.247 0.08
0.151 0.05
0.115 0.D4
 150

Same Procns !las been foUowed to select Indicator According to Their Pri.,rity or Level of
RelIpon!c.
Pair wise comparison matrix for 2nd level criteria (Financial indicators under food security)

HP
HP

•
OP
9
SFS
, RS

,
7
R55
, AWEA
5
,
SAEC
4
AFL
3
HlRC
2
OP
SFS
119
]ffl
I
,/9
9
I 9
7
8
,
7 ,
5

,,
4 3
4
RS
RSS
'17
V,
V,
In
./9
V,
I
1/9 ,
9
9 ,
7
-- ,
7 ,
5

AWEA
SAEC
1/5
V4
1/6
1/5
In
V,
V,
'17
1/9
V,
I
'/9
9
I 9
,
7

1/3 1/4 115 II' V7 11. ,/9 9

AFL •
,/9 1
HlRC .17 .17 V4 V, V, .17 'I'
Column
45.000
"m 2.829 11.329 18.996 25.746 31.546 36.379 40.236 43.111

Matrix of normalized value for 2ndlevel criteria

Indicators Row sum
Homestead roduction HP 2.382
Owne",hi on mllin uction Of income OP 1.583
Sc of foodstora SFS 1.256
Rate of savin RS 1.036
Reliabili of savin s stem R55 0.856
A= ofwomen.1o ","onomie activities AWEA 0.694
Sea of alternative economic activities SAEC 0.539
Access to fin3IlCialloan ML 0.391
Portion of HH income earned from rest of the C<Jun HIRe 0.264
S"m 9

Pair wise comparison matrix for 2nd level criteria (Human Capital indicators under food security)

RS
RS
I
NFA
, KSR
.17
NST
9
ADS
, TSP
1
APH

,, , ,
II'
REWS
.17
RAT
1/7
ROM
7
NFA
"R
•
7 V,
1 5

•
9
9
5

•• ,• , 5
7
,
5

NST 1/9
'"
,/9
• V7 7 3 5
ADS '1' V, 1/5 II,
• V7 .17
,, ,
V, W 2

'"'
Ae"
, •
• • V5
1 7
117
7
7
•
'17
7
• ,,
3
1
,
3
REWS
eAT
7
7
7
7
V,
V7
V5
V3
5
'17
1/,
I
V,
1/3 V5
• 3
ROM
COJUlDD
117 V, '1' V, 3 V, 1/3 II' W
•
32.378 25.636 8.0884 36.001 52.5 10.795 27.1345 27.709 34.809 40
"m
 151

Matrix of normalized value for 2nd level criteria

Indicator N~iud
Row ,urn wei t
Rate of education/litera<: 1<E 0.77142579 0.077
Knnw! • on lint aid Nl'A \.852810721 0.185
Knowled eon <{onn sur e risk <SR 2.137183011 0.214

..
Access to nearest district town N" 0.864494469 0.086
Access to doctor s.rvi~ <>. of doctor /50 Household AD' 0.14127446 0.014
NN otion havill traimn 00 'ill ' m 1.24971288 0.125
Aellve ulation ofHli APH 1.l\2875172 0.111
REWS 0.969993593 0,097
R elO earl
w"""' ~m ,
RAO 0.741550007 0,074
R s. to ~taliOn {echnolo
Rate nf out rol lion of HH member
,=
ROM 0,158679896
,
0.016

'"
Pair wise comparison matrix for 2nd level criteria (physicall infrastructural Capital indicators under

food security)

'"'
'He
,.
'"',
,.
,, "", •
,, '", ,
me ADW

,.;
"•
,.;
"IT
,
v;
,,
AeR

"•
,
,,
",
'";
AUl"
,,
•
'" ,
'"4
""
ADW

"
ARTC
,.
V.

"
,
,
v;
,;;

''"
,M
'I' ;
"
•, ,, ,. ,
;
1

",
1

,•
,,
;

,•
AeR

"
AUPS
,.
"
v;
v.
• V. v;
,. '", v. v;
,n
115
W
'I'
W
V.
v. '"
,n
•
• 'I;,
w
;

V.
v; w
,
,;

,
1

'"
Column
,." 2.117 62.500 11.419 15.348 19.139 53.200 30,756 24.589 36.333 38.50

Matrix of normalized -value for 2nd level criteria

Indicators Row sum N0!1tl31;
"'(1 I

Safe housin~ infrastructurel condition

Performanoe aflt I !Health center '"'
'AC
3.490
0.17t
0.349
0.017
1.706 0.171
Perfonnanoe off.oress
Av.il.bU' nf drink;n
to c clone shelter
w.ter Sore wator
""
ADW 1.307 0,131
1.041 0.104
Sanitation facilities
Access of RadiolTVl Cell "
ARTC 0.294 0.029
Availabili of vedrood AP' 0.740 0.074

T= ortation facilities T' 0.798 0.080

Part of area under iun S1ruet•••.• AUl" 0.260 0.026

Fill'less of
Sum
tecuon sInlctuJe
'" 0.192

"
,
0.019
 152

Pair wise comparison matrix for 2nd level criteria (Social Capital indicators under food security)

ewF CPP
, "'-G
, NGO
,, , ,, ,,
SCR PI OMC ASO
,, APP
,
ewF
GPP ,.
1
.1
• , ,, , 9
,, ,
7
ALG
NGO ,.
1/6

,.
1m
1/6
1
1fi 1
,.
I.
6
1/6 1~
SCR "9 1/6 1/6 1 1~
,,
1fi 116
,
PI
OMC
1fi
1/6
1/6
1/6
1~
1/6
6
, ,, , 9 1 1fi
1
116

""
APP
1fi
1fi
116
1~
1fi
,_ 1f7 ,
1/6
9
1/6
9
1~
1/6
1
119
9
1

Matrix of normalized value for 2nd level criteria

In<lkarors Row sum N~~aHred
wei hi
Parfonnance of weather forecasUn ewF 2.930 0326
Commun'
Activeness
rtici ation
of local GO
•• CPP
ALG
1,635
1,253
0182
0.139
Interrelationshi with NGO NGO 0.453 0.050
Performance social law and re ulation SCR 0.106 0.012
Polijjcal influence on sodal ro, commillee PI 0.542 0.060
Performance of Tocal disaster mana emenl committee OMC 0.929 0.'03
Activeness of social or anizalion allivelihood ron ASO 0459 0,051
Awareness program on protection measure (No.fY)
S,m
APP
,
0.694 0,077
1

Pair wise comparison matrix for 200 level criteria (Natural Capital indicators under inCQme =:urity)

'" '"1 ,
SHML
,
DO"
,
RVAA TI'"
,
PNOS
"'Q' ,. ,APRB AEFS

'" 1
, ,. ,,
119 119
,. '" ,,
'"><HM' 1
1~
1
,. 1 ,
6 6

,
6 1m
, 1fi 1m
,
DO" 1fi 1~
'"1/6 1
'" ,
1/6 1/6
,
RVAA
TI~ , ,
1~ 1~
, 6'" ,1 '"
1 , ,'" 6
119
,
?ND'
, ,
1~ 1~
,'" , 119
,'" ,
1fi 1 119 1/6 1fi

,
I. ,. , ,
1/6 1 1 1fi
"'0' .. .
,
APRS
AH' ,.
9 9
116 119
9
9
1m
,. , 1
1
1~ 1
Column
29.683 29,665 42..561 44.333 60236 2,204 71.000 14.712 8.851 62.266
"m
 153

Matrix ofnonnali7oo value for 2nd level criteria

Indicators Row sum N~~anzed
we' ht
0.820 0.082-
Fre DODCofSlorm sur e (1m: ulSTlre
Sronu su~eriOd w ride! hi h tide '" '"
SSP 0.853 0.085
S e hei t from mean sea level >illML 0.60"- 0,060
0.064
Duration of Slonn sur e (Short termllo
Rateof ve t;on around the area
"= DOSS
RVAA
0.535
0.359 0,036
Time frame for resource collectionl
PerfOrIJlllDl:Sof natural
Rate of ible resource ""Ii ;
,,~ ~m_
uction m"
"""
RR , ,..,
2,862
0120
0.286
0,012-
0.155

,
Ac<:ess to alternative resource base ""RB 1.850
0.450
0.185
0.045
Available ene
,"m
{fuel su
""" \
"
Pair wise companson matrix for 2nd level criteria (Financial Capital indicators under income
security)

,'" , "" ,
, 0" ,. '" ,, ,, , ,,
,.
ill' AWU SAEC AeL HIRe

,.,,
H" 9
0" 9
,. , ,. \ 9 9 •
S"
,.
'" \18 9 \ 9 ,.
'" , \fl
\18 ,., 2 \.

" , ,
'"'" '" •, '", ,.
RSO 9 \ 9
AWU \18 9 9
"eo \18
'"". \n 9
'18 \"
\18
\
,
9
,,
9

"'IDRC
"
\18
9 9
'fl
\18 '"
'18 \"
Column
um
'" '"
10922 2.440 55.500 52,222 26.671
'"
24,740 31.504 39.222 39.236

Matrix of not1llalized valiie for 2nd level criteria

Indicators Row sum N=alized
wei ht
mduction 1.700 0.189
Homestead
Qwnarshi on main clion or income "'
0' 2.391 0.266
0.017
'00 of food stora e '" 0150
0595 0006
Rate of savin
Reliabili of savin 'm , "
'" 1.202 0,134
Acce~~ of women to eronomic activn~ AWBA 1.037 0.115
S~o e of allemalive economic activnies SAEC 0.847 0.094
Access to financial loan Aec 0.584 0.063
Portion of HH income eamed from rest althe coun HIRe 0.515 0.057
80m 9 \
 154

Pair wise comparison matrix for 2nd level criteria (Hmnan indicators under income security)

RE
, ,,
N>A
, KSR
, , ,. ,.
NSO ADS TS' APH REWS RAT ROM
RE
NFA
KSR
NST
ADS
'.
,.
,~ ,~
,. ,~
,.
, ,n,
,n
m
5
m ,., '", , ,n
"5
9

, , ,n
, , ,. m ,n m
"5
,.
7
9
5
9
7 6
"8
5

5
7
5 5

TS' "5
, , ,, ,n ,n , , ,
7 8
8
7 5
5
8 7
7
APH
,~ , ,,
" '" , ,~
1/, 6 5
REWS
RAT ,~
',~ '" ,n ,n
,. '" ,. '"
7
7
"5
1/,
ROM 1/, 9 7 7
Column
,om 3.333 20.111 53.468
"'''''
20.995 68.000 17 920 11.779 22.621 33,454

Matrix ofno11l1a1ized value for 2"d level criteria

Row$um _."
RE 2.155 0.215
NFA 0.'91 0.019
KSR 1.449 0.'44
NSO 1.326 0.132
ADS 0,093 0,009
TS' 1.405 0,140
APH 1,300 0.130
REWS 0.760 0.076
RAT 0.56 0.056
ROM 0.741

"
0.074
,
Palr wise comparison matrill: for 2nd ieveicriteria (physicaII infrastructurill Capitill indicators under
income security)

SHI
SHI

,., PHC ,, PCS

,., 9
AOW
9 " 9
ARTC

,.
8
APR
,
,. ,.
7
TF

,.,
AUPS
6
FPS

'"
,.
5 5 '/5 '/9

,.
PHC
PCS
,. '"
'/9 9
,
7 6 6
m
6 5
,n
6
•
AeN< m 8
, '/5
, 'I'
1/.

,. , ,
1/5 1/. '/8 3 '/4
" '/6

,. • ,
,.
6

,.
ARTC 6 6 5 7
,n
APR m 6 7 8
,
5
,
3
TF
AUPS
1/5
,
'/6
6
8 ,.
'/5 9
7 '"5•
1/,
, ,
1/, 8 5
,
3

COlumn
FPS 9
'I' 4
'"22.926
'/5
24.603
'"
30.851 18.061
,om 4.037 60,400 19.121 54,167 50.333 17.085
 155

Matrix of normalized value for 200 level criteria

Indicators Rnwsum NormarlZed
we" hI
Safe hellsin iotrilstructurel condition SHI 2.476 0.248
Pefformance of hos "tal/Health cenler PHC 0.270 0.027
Performance of/access to done shelter PCS 1.814 0.181
Availabili of drinkin water Safe water AOW 0.217 0.022
Sanitation facilijies SF 0.222 0.022
Access of RadiolTVl Cell hone ARTC 1,571 0157
Availabil" of ved road APR 0,918 0.092
Trans n facilijies TF 0.898 0.090
Part of area under taction structure AUPS 0.637 0.064
Fitness of
Som
rotection structure FPS 0.978
10 ,
0.098

PW>'
PWF
,, '",,
CPP AlG
,.,
Pair wise comparison matrix for 2nd level criteria (Social Capital indicators under income security)

NGO
11.
•,
seR PI
•8 '"5
OMC

'"8,
ASO

'",, ,
APP
118

,.
CPP 8
'"
,. ,, '0, ,.,
AlG 9 9 8 5
NGO • 115
,. 9 8 6 119

"',, '" '",

,.
SlR 118

•, ,. ,, ,.
PI 115 115 118 9 8
, ,., 118
'" '" ,
118
'", '", 9
~
APP 8 '"'" 9
'"
7
Column
"m 51.2
"
,., 24,1 57.0 19.7 48.3 23.5 32.5

Matrix ofnonnalized value for 2nd level criteria

Indicators Row sum NOfITlalrzed
ht
Pel10rmance of weather forecas~n ewF 0.202 0.022
Communi rticl ticn ractice CPP 1.363 0.151
Activeness of local GO ALG 2.776 0.306
Interretationsni with NGO NGO 1.165 0.132
~rmance social law and re ulation SlR 0.119 0013
PoIiIicaI influence OIl &OCI8l committe<'! PI 1.179 0.131
Performance of local disaster mana emenl committee DMC 0,348 0.039
Activeness of social nization of livelihood roo ASO Cl,911 0.101
Awareness program on proteetton measure (No.N)
Som
APP
,
0.917
, 0.102
 156

Pair wille comparison matrix for 2ndlevel criteria (Natural Capital indicaton under Health security)

>SS
sse
FSS
,
,
sse
,,
SHMl

,,,
ODSS
, RVAA
, '",
6 '"
,, PNDS
, ,
TFPP

'"
,n
RRQI
,
,,,
APRB

'"
'"
,.'",
AEFS

SHML 1n
'",
,n , , '"
1n
'" ,
DOSS ,n
, '", ,ro ,, ,
, ,, ,ro
6
'"
,. ,.
RVAA
,n ,ro ,n
TFRP
'", 'ro
, '", ,, '", ,, ,
'"
PNDS
,
,ro
'" , 'ro
'", '",.
'",, ,
'",, ,, ,
RRQI 1n
APR'
, , ,n, , 1n ,
AEFS
Column
34.522 44 375
6
'"
31.587 20.013 66.000 23.772 61.000 2.994 39.577
"m
"""
Matrix of normalized value for 2"J level criteria
Indicator Row N~~ltZed
"m0.757 ~IM
0.076
ularl ular >SS
Fre uen of Storm su
"
Storm sur e Period Low tide! hi h tide SSP
SHML
0.740
0.834
0.074
0.083
SO e !'tel ht from mean sea level
Duration of storm su
Rate of v
• Short term/Ion
etatW)tll!.round the area
term DOSS
RVAA
1.389
1.341
0.139
0.134
nme frame for resource collectionl tJCIion TFRP 0,107 0,011
0,116
Performance of nalural drai
ible resource
••
~I, 1m
rem
men!
PNDS
RRQI
1,164
0.394 0.039
Rate of
Access to altemaltve resource base APRB 1.748 0.175
Available ana
S,m
/fuel $U I AEFS 1.526

"
,
0.153

Pair wise comparison matrix for 2nd level criteria (Financial indicators under Health security)

HP
, OP ,, S>S,ro, RS ,., RSS , AWEA, SAEC,, AFL ,. HIRC
6
HP
OP
'", , ,. , '"
, , ,
9
• 3
SFS
,. , , ,
9
, '", •
, '" , ,, , ,
,.
RS 5
RSS
'" ,. ' " '" ,. ,. ,,,
6

'" ,. '" '", •,,

,. '",.
.111\ ~
.AWEA
SAEC
~
''"", ~ '.!!l
,n
.~

,
,ro
Al'L
'" • ,n ,
HIRC
Column '" '" '" '" '"
18,69 49.00
"m 34.59
Matrix of normalized
~
7.21 14,87
value for 2" level cntena
18.87 25.69 51.39 54.13
 157

Indicators Row sum N=alized

wei hi

Homestead reduction HP 1.2116 0.135

Ownershi 011 main roduction or income OP 2.0250 0.225
1.5102 0,168
Soo of food stars e
Rate of savin ""RS 1.3674 0,152
0,122
Reliablll of sav; s stem RSS 1.0952
ACCeSSof women to economic activities AWEA 0,:2633 0.031
e of alternative economic acltlilties SAEC 0,2339 0.026
Access to financial loan AFL 1.1569 0.129
Portion 01 HH income earned from rest of the COull
S,m
HIRe
,
0.1164
,
0013

Pair wise CClrnpatison matrix for 2nd level criteria (Human Capital indicators under Health security)

R'
,, NFA'IS, KSR ,, NST , ADS TSP,, APH ,, R"'S , RAT T, ROM ,,
, ,, '",m ,, ,, ,,
R'
'FA
, 3 S S
,
KSR
NOT
, ' " , 'IS
, , '" "8
,,
T
ADS '", 'IS, ,"3 'IS
8
,, TT, , T, 8
T'P
APH
R"'S ''"" ,.,.
'" '"
'IS
'
'
"
"
, '"
, '"
'IS
' " T
,. ,
'IT

'IS
,,
T

,. ,.
,,
,,
RAT
'"'IS 'IT T
'" '" 'IT '"
Column
"m
ROM
2191 3.<3
'" 'IT '"
23.71 32." 804 22.49 38,25 33.38 41.38 19.00

Matrix of normalized value for 2nd level criteria

IndiClltors Row.urn Nonnalized
wei h\
Rate of educalionllrt RE 0,847381014 0.0847381
Knowled e on first aid NFA 2,389884089 0.238988-41
Knowled e on stOllll sur e risk KSR 0.757629429 0.07576294
Access to nearest district town NOT 0.649119821 0,06491198

..
Access to doctor service No. of doctor I 50 Household ADS 2.19923491 0.21992349
HH
Active
ulation havln treinin on Su
o ulation of HH
•
roteetion TSP
APH
1.02«21626
0660186118
0.10244216
0.06601661
se to eal1 wamin ~ R"'S 0.622112979 0.0822113
R" 0,07555149
R" nse to ada talien techno RAT 0.755514862
Rete of out mi ration of HH member 'OM 0.094534951
, 0.0094535
S,m
"
 158

Pair wi3e comparison matrix for 2M level criteria (Physical! infrastroctural Capital indicators WIder
Health socurity)

'H'
'H'
1
PHC

, ,, ,, , ,,, "
9
PC'
9
Arm 58 ARTC APR
, AUPS
,, 'PS ,,
PHC
',." '" 1 3 6 1
,,
6
, ,,
PC' 119
, , , 1 6
,,
AITW
58 ,. ,. '"'" ,.
10

' " ,
1
1
6
6 115
,
3
6

'" '",. I. '" '",., '" ,

ARTC 1 1 1 119
1 In 1 I.
AeR
'"'" ,. 115 115 1 6
'"
'" '"lIB '" 'I. I.,
T'
AUPS lIB
" , 115 6
1
'"
1 3
1
Column
'PS
'" '" 115

"m 2.190 12.410 17085 20,2n 2&.783 36,510 48.000 31.867

"'''' 33.528

Matrix of normalized value for 2nd level criteria

Indicators Rowsurn
Pna .
Safe housin infrasweturel condition SH' 3,322 0,332
Performance of hOS l!al/Health center PHC 1407 0,141
Penonmmoo of/access 10 lone sheKer PC' 1.385 O,t39
AvailabilK of drinkin waler Sale water AOW ,.'" 0.096
0,067
Sanitation facilities
Access of RadiofTVl Cell ""oo "
ARTC
0.670
0.680 0.068
AveHtlbilily of Jl~ roed AeR 0.172 0,017 ..
0,521 0,052
"" rtalion facilKies
Palt of area under rolecUon structure
ectton structure
"
AUf'S
'PS "'"
0.635
0,024
0.063
Fitness of
',m 10 1

Pair wise comparison matrix for 2nd level criteria (Social Capital indicators under Health security)

PW' CPP
, AIG
, NGO

,,
"R
,, " ,, ,, ,"0 OMC

,,
APP

,, ,,
PWl' 1 1
CPP lIB
I.
1 9
, , , 9 6
I.1 , '"
AIG lIB 9
NGO
'" '"'" I.
1 9
1 , 9 6
'IR
'"'" '""9 I. '", lIB,
,,, '"'"
1
" '"'" I. '"'" lIB 1
OMC
'" I. ,.
'",
1 9
'"0 lIB
'" '"
I. 1
APP
Column
1 115
to,154 25.714
115
25.746 33.546 65.000
'"
34.411 35.268
"m
'''' 38 ""
 159

Matrix ofnormali7.ed value for 2nd level criteria

Performance 01 weather forecastin PW' 0.278

Communi artici ation mctice ePe 0.169
Activeness 01 local GO ALG 0125
Interrelationshi willl NOO 'GO 0.111
Performance social law and r ulation 'Le 0091
Political inftuence on social rou commtttee PI 0.011
Performance olloc:al disaster mana emenl committee OMe 0.070
ActiVeness of social 0 amzation of livelihood rou ASO 0.055
Awareness program on protection measure (No.rY) APe 0,OB9
',m 1

'SS
, ,se,, SHML
,, DOSS, ,.,.,. ,,, ,.
Pair wise comparison matrix for 2nd level criteria (Natural Capital indicators under House socurity)

RVAA TF?? PNDS

,, APRB
RRQI

,, ""'
AEFS
,
,,
, ,.
'"
SSP
,n
1
,. ,6
'" ,,
,.,. ,.,. '",.,., "'
1

, "'",
SHML
'n, ,n,, ,1
,
DOSS
RVAA "'
,., , ,., 1 1

, ,
1
",
1
, ,n,, 8
,,
,.'I'
TFRP
PNDS

, , ,., ,.
'I', ,
RRQI Ire 1 1
APRB
,. "' '" ,.7 II', '",n ,
7
AE"
Column
28.65 2863 40,52 44.33 2.95 60.13 3.04 54.13
'"
17.79 73.00
"m

Matrix ofnormaiized value for 2nd level criteria

Indicators Rowswn N=~lized
Wei hI
0.893 0.089
F uenc 01Storm su
Storm au
1 ularlr~ar
Period Low tide/If t> tide '"
SSP 0.871
0.723
0.087
0.072
e !lei hi from mean sea ~e1 SHML
"
Duration of stonn $OJ
Rate 01
•
Short tennllon "m
elation around the area
DOSS
RVAA
0,512
2.547
0,057
0,255
Time frame fof resource collectlonl reduction TFRP 0.245 0.024
PerlOl111ance of natural dra!
ssible resource uali 1m
••
rem
rovemenl
PNDS
RRQI
2.369
0.294
0.237
0.029
Rate of
Acoess to altemative resource base APR' 1.225 0.123
Available ener Ifuelsu I AEFS 0,261 Om6
"m 10 1
 160

Pair wise comparison matrix for 2nd level criteria (Financial C'-3pitalindicators under

HP
OP
House security)
HP
,
119
OP
,
9

,.
SFS
9

,
9
RS
,.,.
8
RSS
1m
7
AWEA
''5
6
SAEC
, AFL 1m,-
,.
5
,. ,.'"
HIRe
5
5

,. , '", '"8
,."',. ,.
SFS 1m
RS 8 9 9 7 6
RSS 9 ,n
,. 7

•,
9
, ,, 8 7

,, ,
6

,. ,
8 7

'" ,.
AWEA 5

"',n ,.
8
SAEC
AFL
'", 115
'I< 8
118
,n 118
HIRe
Column
115 115 9 • 118
34.347 35.347 41,361
"m 33,672 11,196 65.000 13.766 17.800 24.629

Matrix of normalized value for 200 level criteria

Homestead ion HP 0,137

OWnershi 011main rodudoo or income OP 0.203
Sec of foodslora e SFS 0.007
Rate of savin RS 0,189
R61iabili of savin Ii litem RSS 0.154
Access of WQI11ento economic activities AWEA 0.104
SeD of alternative economic activities SAEC 0,074
Access to financial loan AFL 0.076
Portion of HH income earned from rest oflhe COUll
Som
HIRe
,
0,055

Pair wise comparison matrix for 2ndlevel criteria (Human Capital indicators under House security)

RE
NFA
KSR
RE
, NFA , KSR , NST ADS
,
,n
7

5, In, ''5 ,.
7 9
5
7
, APH
TSP
,., '"
REWS
5

5
,.
5

5
RAT
,. ,.
,.
5

,
5
ROM
5

,.1 '"8 '"1 '"115 , ,n ,n ,.

NST 7 6 7 5 5 5
ADS '" '", 115
TSP 7 1 7 5 6 6
,
'",
,
,.
APH 115 5 5 7
REWS '"
1'5 '"
115
7

'"8 5
'"
7
,
8 ••
RAT
ROM
115
115
8
9 '" 1
7
9 ,.
I.
,
,n 118
'I< 'I< ,
Column
4.197 60.200 10.110 18,052 62.000 13.801 31.486 21.843 32.643 28.222
"m
 161

Matrix ofnorma1ized value for 2nd level criteria

Indicators Row sum N~r:,:llzed

1.776898512 -"0.17768985
Rate of education/ii
K""wl, e on tirs! aid "'
NFA 0,186076015 0.0186076
0.13683228
Knowled on storm su e risk KSR 1,368322834
Access 10 nearest district town NST 1,70137569 0.17013757
Access ~I.i~oetor service (No, of doctor' 50
Household ADS 0.102143603 0,01021436
lalian havtn trainin onSu rolection rse 1.514158644 0.15141586
""
"""'
R~"
, lalion of HH
nse to earl warnin , rem
APH
REWS
0,926904625
096145777
0.092S9048
0.09614578
R~ nse to ada tation technol RAT 0.951089835 0.09510898
Rate of out m ra~on of HH member ROM 0.512572271
,
0,05125723
Som
"
Pair wise comparison matrix for 2"" level "llteria (Physical! infr3structuraJ Capital indicators under

SH'
House security)

,
SH'
,
PHC
9
PCS
9

,
-,
9
SF
9 ,
ARTC
T
,
, ,
APR

,
TF AUPS FPS
115
I.

,.
Tl5 5 6 TO 115 '15 '15
PHC
PCS '" 5
TO 9 6 5 5
,n
,. ,, , ,'" I. '"
6 '15 TI'

,.
1
Arm 115 TI'
'"
,.
SF TO I. ,/5 6 TI' '15
ARTC TI'
,n ,,
9 9 5
, , , ,, 1
5
5
6 1
3
APR
TF 1/5
, Tl5
,,
9
,'" '"
,. , Tl6 6 6
AUPS
FP5
I.
5 9
TI'
115 5 , 1 '0
'15
115 Tl3
3

Column
,.m 6.962 57.367 20,128 55,167 56.167 16,946 28.801 24,728 30.851 18.761

Matrix of normalized value for 2nd level criteria

Indicators Rowswn Normalized
wei ht

Safe housin infrastructureJ condition 'H' 2.380 0.238

0,027

-
Performance 01hos .tal/Health center PHC 0.267
Penormanoe oI/access 10 c lone shelter PCS 1.748 0,175
Availabll' 01 drinkin water safe water 0190 0.019
sanilation facilities Sf 0285 0.028
Acl:;ess of RadiofTVl Cell hone ARTC 1.607 0.161
vedroad APR 0.736 0.07-4
Availabili of
TF 0.993 0,099
TmM rtation lacililies
Part of area under rotection structure AUPS 0.605 0.081
Fitness 01 rotection structure
,"m
CPS
"'"
TO
0.119
,
 162

Pair wise comparison matrix for 2nd level criteria (Social Capital indicators W1derHouse security)

, , ,, SCR
,, PI
,, ASO , APP'",
OMe

,.'"
ewF epe ALG NGO

,.,. ,.
ewF 1 9
epp 1n 1 7
,, 6
, ,, 11S
ALG
,.
m 1 9
, ,
7
, 6

, , ,,
NGO 1
m

,.,
m 1ffi 1 9 7
SCR
PI 1ffi'" m 1ffl
,
1ffi 1
,,
'", , m,.
1/8 1ffi 1 ,/8
OMe 1/8
'" ,
ASO
APP
115
m "m ,.
m m
m 119
9

Column
7,065 13,920 16,613 25,688 39,421 40.391 38,254 42.311 45.400
"m

Matrix of normalized value for 2nd level criteria

Indicators Row "urn
Priori'"
PermITllance Of weather forecastln ewF 2.048 0.227
COmmun rtici a~on raetice epp 1.436 0,100
Activeness of local GO ALG 1.313 0.146
Interrelationshi wijh NGO
Perfam'lance sodallaw and ulation
NGO
SLR
0''''
0.592
0.109
0.066
Polttical influence on social rn, committee PI 0.624 0.069
Performance of local disaster man emen! committee DMe 0.482 0,054
Activeness 01 social 0 aniza!lon of livelihood ro" ASO 0.634 0,070
Awareness program on protection measure (No.N) APP 0,894 0.099
S,m 9 1

Pair wise comparison matrix for 2ndlevel criteria (Natural Capital indicators under Water security)

,'SS , sse SHML

,DCSS ,,,
RVAA
,
TFPP
,,
PNDS RRQI
,,
APRB ASFS
FSS 1

, ,",
1.

,, '"""
,. '"
5
sse 1
" 1
, ,. ,,.
'"
9
SHML
'" 1. 1

,, '" ,
DOSS
,. '" '"'"
'" 1

,.
m
9

,.,'" ,,. ,,. ,,'"'" ,

1
RVAA
TFRP
, , ,'"
1ffi 1ffi
,'" '" , 1 1ffi

,. ,. 1n,n ,. , ,,.
PNDS 1 9
RRQI 1 1

"' ,'" ,
1
APRB
AEFS ,'" 9
7
'15

'"
1 115 1
Column
17.847 17.829 31,833 38.541 46.000 63,000 2.240 58.000 27.&43 14.158
"m
 163

Matrix ofnonnali7ed value for 200 level criteria

Indicators Rnwsum Norma~~
we' hi
F uane of Storm su "IT ular/ ular FSS 12153 0.1215
Storm su Period Lowtidel h' h tide SSP 1,1391 0.1139
So e hal hi from mean sea level SHML 0.9571 0.0957
Duralion of storm su ,
Short term! Ion
"~ DOSS 0.7636 0.0764
Rate of ve eta~on arournllhe ares RVAA 0.4166 0.0417
0,0128

-
TIme frame for resource collection! roduction TFRP 0.1282
Performance 01 natural drain ,,- PNDS 2.7982 0.2798
uar im RRQI 0,1646 0,0155
"'cl ossible resource
0,0808
Access to alternative resource base APRB 0.8078
Available soar
S,m
/fuel su AEFS 1.6196
10
0.1620
,
Pair wise comparison matrix for 2nd Jevel criteria (Financial Capital indicators under Water security)

HP
HP
, OP ,~ SFS
, ,
RS
9 ,~ RSS
,~ AWEA MEC
1m
AFL
• • 119
HIRe
B
OP 9 9 B
,~
7
, ,. B 9
,,
9

,.
,.
, ,
1m

,.
SFS 119 119 119
RS 9 9

,
9 8 7 B
,
RSS
AWEA
8
9 '"1m 9
9
1/9
,.
,~,.
9 9
9
7
8
,
7
MEC
AH
1/'

,. 'I' '0
9
In
9 ,.
'" '",. ,. '0 ,
1
9
119
9
,
HIRe
Column
"m 46,466 2.129
119

MOOO
"'
9.968
'"
17.754 24,601 50.500
1/9

26.444 49.000

Matrix ofnonnalized value for 2nd level criteria

Indicators Row.um N~~aliZed
wei hi
Homestead uction HP 0.503 0,056
Ownershi
Sro
on main
of food slom
roducbon or income OP
SFS
2.778
0.179
0""
0,020
Rare of savin .S 1813 0,201
Reliablr of savin s stem .SS 1420 0.158
Access of women 10 economic activities AWEA 1 116 0.124
Sro of alternative economic activities SAEC 0.156 0.017
Aceesa to financial loan AFL 0.901 0,100
Portion of HH income earned from rest of the count
S,m
HIRe 0.134
9 ,
0015
 164

Pair wise comparison matrix for 2nd level criteria (Human indicators under Water security)

RE
,
NFA
,,
NSR
,
REWS
,
RAT
,
ROM
ANDT ADS TSP APH
RE
NFA ,,
1
,, , ,.
1m
1 "' 1

, ,, '",. 3 6
1
1 6 7 9
KSR
, ,. ,,
'/5
, 1 9
7

,'",. ,,
NST ,/5 115
ADS 9
,. ,, , , , , 9 1 7 6 7 9

,.
TSP 1 ,/5 7
,/5
,.
'" ,/5
'" , 1 7 9

,.
APH 115

"' ,. ,.
1 9
REWS
"' '" ,
'15 1/5
,
'15 7
RAO
"' ,. ,.
7
'" "'
119 1
,m
9

ROM
Column '" '"
3.432
,m

23.711 8.036 22.492 38.254 33.379 41.379 79.000

"m :21.911
"'"
Matrix of normalized value for 2ndlevel criteria
Rowsurn
RE 0.847381014 00847381
Rate of educationllttera
NFA 2,389884089 O.238S8841
Knowled e on first aid
risk KSR 0.757629429 0.07576294
KnolMe e on storm au
NST 0.649119821 0,06491198
Access to nearest district !own
Access toki~octor service (No of doctor /50
ADS 2 19923491 0.21992349
Household
HH o ulatlon havin trainin on Su rotection, TSP 1,024421826 0.10244218
0.660166118 0.06601661
""~ lation of HH
R" nse to earl wamin • tern
APH
REWS 0.622112979 0,0022113
se to ada lallan technol RAT 0,755514882 0.07555149
R"
Rate of oul m
S,m
J'iltionof HH memher ROM 0,094534951
10 ,
0.0094535

Pairwise comparison matrix fOf 2"d level criteria (Physical indicators under Water security)

SHI PHC
,,
PCS ADW SF ARTC APR TF
,
,, FPS
AUPS
SHI._ ~. 1
,
9 8 ~. 8
,
8
,, 7 8.
,,
6
.~

,
7
PHC
',." , 1
3
7
8
, '" ,
8 8
PCS
AOW
1/9
''"" 117
, ,,
8 9 9

SF
ARTC
,/8
1/8 , ,'" '",.
'15 1
1/8 1
, ,'" 9
9
,,
8

APR
'"
,m 119 ,m
,1m 1/9
,,m 61, ,
TF ,/8 '18
'"'/8 '" ,. ,. , 1/8 9

,
3
',."
'/8
AUPS
FPS
Column
119
1n
'" '"
1/9 1/6 1
'"
1/8 113

".m 2.101190 20.231 25,078 19.95 27.588 21533 63.5 30.727 61,333
"
 165

Matrix of normalized value for 2"d level criteria

Safe hou$in infrastlUGiurel condition

Performance of has ~allHeanh center
s"'
,"e
0.295
o 131
Perform<lnce ollaCOOS'> to clone ~helter pes 0,134

Mallabili of drlnkin water Safe water Arm 0.114

0.074
Sanitation facilities
Access of RadiolTVl Gell hone "
ARTC
APR
0.139
0,017
Availabir of ved road
Trans rtatlon facilities TF 0.062-
Part of area under roteehon structure AUPS 0.018
'PS 0.017
Fitness of rotection structure
1,000
S,m

PWl'
Pair wise comparison matrix for 2nd level criteria (Social Capital indicators under Water security)

PW'
,, ,~
cpp

, 5, 5,
ALG NGO SCR
," ,, DMG 7
ASO
5
APP
,.
epp
, ,, ,,
7
,, 5 5
'"5
ALG
NGO
"R
'15

'" '"
'15 '" '"
'" '" ,.,.,. ,. , ,, ,
,
6
7
6
5
, ,.
'",
'",
" '"'" "5'" '" '" 7
,, '" 5 3
DMe
ASO '15
, '15 '", '"
'15
'"'IS '15
'15 , 5
APP
Column sum 19,104
7
9.015
'15
15.681 31.579 29.569 66,000 '"
34,676 33.325 20.560

Matrix ofnormalizcd value for 2ndlevel criteria

Performance of weather forecastin PW' 0.130

Communi rtici ticn raetice epp 0.229
Activeness of local GO ALG 0.153
NGO 0,0S4
Interrelationshi with NGO
Performance social law and ulation $LR 0.101
Polttical influence on social roll committee PI 0.007
Performance of Ioc<IIdisaster milna amenl committee OMC 0.053
Activeness of social 0 ilnization of livelihood rou ASO 0.052
Awareness
S,m
pl'Ogram on protection measure (No.N) APP
,
0.180
 • • •

166

Priorit)' l;IIk:ulatl(ln nlldfT different KC1Irityoption, (Selened Indltlltors by A"P).

Pr1orlt)'~pon!e different S«urlt)'
C.pltal
Indicator
(I Iwn, "
Food IMOme
..,
Hmth Hoaw W.tu

... •••• ..•••• ....••••,

.~ •••• .Ie
ro
Peno".l
, ,

.~
~ 0.01

,~ ~
••
.~
~ 0.01

•• ••
.~ .~
,~
'.00
Natural •••
.~
.00 .00
Capillli

..~
• 00

..~
.00

••
.~
.00 '.00

.~ .~
~ .00

.~ .~
• ••• 00

.~
~

.~
.00

..••, •••• •• .~
.~
.00
.00 .00
0,01 '.00
Fln.utl '00
,I .00
• ••
.~
C.pln.1 .00

•• ••• •
•••
.~
,~ •• .~
•• ••
.~
.00
.00
••
,. .~
.00
•• '.00
.00

•. .~ .•••• ••,••••. ,••••.

.00
.00 .00
••
••
.00
.00
lIomaD ~
C.pltnl • 00
• 00
~
••
••
.00

.00
'00
, 0.01

.~.~••,.•• •• .~
.00
'.00
•• ..
'00

, .~
,~
0.01

.00
.00

.~ ,~
.00 .00 .00
Ph,'sial

. •••• •• .~
.00 '.00 .00
I .00

,~ ••
.~
Infm!tJ' .00 .00

.~
urtora! ~
••
.~
0,01

..,," ...~
.00 0.01 .00
Capll.'
•• ••
..~••.~ ,.
.00
, .00

.
.00 '00 .00

~
•• ••
,~ .m

.~
C.p!tIl
•• ••
.~
~ .00

••
. ••.~•••• .~.~
.00 .00 .m .00

•• ••
.00
••••
.00
'00
~
•• •• ••
""••••
m .m
 Appendix-D

Model Application and Coastal Livelihood Security Calculation

1.1. B. Livelihood seeurity ilssessment in wastalsite of Cox's bazaar district. (Farmer group)*

_.
B

, ,
,•
•
bl4k:IlO, Uiill
" " - .com,
Sumil}'
n,.11
•
\'i.to,

, , •• ~~
~ ~
~~ ~
~~ ~
~~ ~~
~
Fre'fll"llCYol;toIm mIll' (1~)
Storm surge Period (Low hdtl h;!l' tide) , , ~'OO
~,oo ~~
~ ~
~~ ~
~~ ~
~~ ~~
~
Surge hcishl frmn Ib'on ••• 1,1'<1 , • ~'oo ~~ ~
~~ ~
~~ ~
~~ ~~
Dumw.. of """",ur(\' (Sho!ttmnllo"ll'rnn) ", , • ~'oo ~~ ~
~~ ~
~~ ~
~~ ~~
~

, ~
Tun, _
of ,~w.. around ""!I£C'
fur""our<:< coll,ction! proiluOlion "~, "" " "'-
.__1'--
,W ""
~
~
,
~
•• '.00 '.00

,
I P"f""" ••••• 01""".-.l 0""110&''l""'" %
•• " -18.lZ ,. '.00
,
00.
,
~ ~
RI.e of """';01. """""'"
A=,
q•• Hty ;mpn>v"""'"
to oit",,,,',; •• ",,,,,,,,,,, b•••
%
'"; •
00
;;;;
••• '.00 '.00
~.
" " " " "
A=.to ,,,,,,,,,,If",1 '''Pl'!Y % •• " _!l,W
, ,
~ ~
, ,
'.00
,
Hom,,1<O<lJ'I1O'lllc1w.. %ofTl
•• •• 0.00
, , , , ,
", ",
aw..'''"''P on nwn 1""""""'" OJin""", 000
Srope of food stOOlg<(Y<SINo) ,
%
0.00 , .00 , 0.• ."
, , , , ,
", ", ,.
Rmof,.l'ing %ofTl 000
RoI;obil;,yof ,"v;ng '1""'"
•, , • , •,
, ,
I _ Of",,""'" to """""lbLC"""vn;", %
'", , .00
00
, ,
00.
,
." ","
S""" of .Item";" ,conom;e ",1v"ics(Y <SIN.) 0,00 '.00
I A"""", t. f""""iolloan(Y<SIN.) "'
00 , , , , , , ,
_ ofHI-I i"""'"' •••.•.••••frum _of tho <OUII1Jy .14.29 ~ 00. ~ .00
-
Rat< of ,o.,,,,"onIlil<to<y
%
%
"
•• "" _:W,46
.21.21 ~ ~ ~ ~
""owl,"!" "" n", Old %
'"••%n ." ~ .00 ~

, , ."
Kuowl,dgo on SW!m'''''''' n" %.' ~ ~ ~
A,,,,,,, to "" ••••• ~lstrla lOlVI1
(YosINo) ,.
%

, , '.00 , , ,
,
, ,
,
Acc<" to doctor servic, (No. of_! 5Otlou",hold) ~ 0.• 00. ,00 '.00
HH Popul<lioo hov;n; ....mgon 8Iqo __ .25 00 ~ ~
•,
• ,,«w. """"Ialio" ofHH
% 00 W
, , , , ,
'" "
% 1.%
• Ro'poo,", to eorty w'o-"'"S '>""""
• " ••" ••
.156 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
%
, , ,

,
R"I""''< '" odopU/''''' te<~
R"""foo,""_of
Silk hous"'g I~
HH
"",,",~on
l'o1fonn""", of hoop,laI{j r"'lh ""'"""
PerfuImanooofI"""", l<>,yclone ••••1ter
%
%
%
" ••
,,~ ••; ••,
00 0,00
_20.00
.20.00
•
'.00
~
'.00
~
0.•
•
~
,.
~
•
•
•••~
."~
~
~
.12.50

,,
~ A""lob;"'y of dtuoollll ,.",or (Safe wal<r)
%
% "' "" _JJ.3J
o. ~
~ ." ~
~ ~
~

• "••
.•,.
~ ~
~
s.o"""00 ",,"nics
Ac=5 ofll.ll<UorrvlC,lIphono
%
%
" ,.
_2414
W ,.
,
0"
,
, ,
,
'.00
, ,
i AvailabilIty ofl""'0<1maol %
,.
00 00
, , • •••
• r,""_"," ThaI,,,,,, • 00 00 • • •
Avorog' area with proto<tioo""""'""' %
•• -'- -.23.(1\1 0.• ~ ~ ~
F;•••• ' ofprotootioo >tru<:IuJ<
I'o,,,,,,,,, •••o< ••f ,,,., ••••.f","""';ng •"~ , -"-,
00 .1429
•• 0,00
'.00
~
•••
~ ~
~
~ .00
~
 J68
Community p«rt1"'p,,"m l"""~ce .J2J . - - . .
11<1i.- ~fh><lIGO
%
~, ",, ",, •. 00 • • • • •
~, • • • •
, ,
Intom:l",,,,,,,nlp WIthNOO

.-
0.00 0

- , ,
Ptrl"",".nre socilllaw md I<gIII"i"" SCale 000 000 0.00 0 0

PulttlCll mfiu,""" OIlsoc;•• groo.opI

"""",ill«(Y «INo) 00
, , 0.00 - - ••
P",fO!llWlCCof 1"",,1dj5C!or _118"""'" rorrdllitt« 000 • 0 0 0
•
Activeness oisoci, orpI;";'" "flil'<11hoodgroopll .IH9 - - - -
Awareoes, P"'gnnJ on r"""".un ••••• tIre
%
'", ,00
000 0 0 0 0
•
"
IHR. Household, NH-Nonnal tidal height, TI. Total household income, LT- Low tide, HI' High
Ilide, TP-Total household size, Scali: -} (low), 2 (moderate), 3(high).

* By using 1st and 200Steps of the Livelihood Security Model, (equation 1 and Scoring)

11cJ1= {(lp.I.)/(lp+I,)}"IOO----I.

1.1. b. Livelihood security of F.rmer in Cox's bazaar during storm surge hazard"

Parameter F~ Security IncomeSecurity HOu~:... LSI, SI

Hea~~",i-=3
= Wa~~••..
-1 -=:2 seam Secu' "=4 Secu( '=5
X 20 21
" 21
"
Y
M
" 26 29
47
"
46 "
46
SI, 41.66666667 " 47
44.68085106 38.297(17234 45,55217391 39.13043478 209.428 41.8856

By using 3,d step of the Livelihood Security Model, (equation 2 and 3)

•
Slj = lLX;j I Mjl" 100 ------------,.
Fl

,
SJ=r SlfN 'c.
,- ,
Following the same caleulation another re!lults have been given below:
,

,
 170

HH- Household, NH-Nonnal tidal height, TI- Total householdincome, LT- Low tide, HT High
tide, TP-Total household size, Scale - 1 (low), 2 (moderate), 3 (high).

I.2.b. Livelibood security of Fisber in Cox's bazallr during storm surge hazard

SI
'oo<l Income Heanh
security j=3
House
Security j=4
W"",
SOW,", L SIj (%)
Parameter S~;~rity Secunly
"=2 '=5
21 18
X 21 21
"
n 21 n
Y
" "•• "
M
SI, " " 42.85714
"
35.2941176 199.439776 39.89
41.1764706 42.85714 37.254902

•
 171

1.3. a. Livelibood seeu .

.,~ ,
assessment iD a cOMtal site or CO);" bazaar district. (F

"
•
U
Indicator Unit
""' Foo' "00•

•
.ter

,, .100,0

,, " -100.0
" .100.0

•• " .100.0
", 0
,.
" "
.25.0
~ 0 0

••",
_ --=21),3
Z
" _18.5
, ,
0 0

'" ", 20.0

25.0 H H
0
H
0
H H
0

00 W -20,0 0
-4,.5

", "
00
W .] Ll

, 0
, , ,
0
,
0

", ••"
.100.0

] .57.9
, , , , ,
.,i "
-100.0
, , , ,
'",, ", ,
0
20.0
, , 0 0
~
0 ""
-100.0

'" "•
% .53.8 0 0
% W -40.4
0
%
% '", ~",
W
.38,6
.9,6
, ,
0

, , ,
••, "
No. , , ""
0" 0 , , , ,
=•
4H
%
% '"., " .19.0
'" "
%
%
% "'" • '"
~
.IHl
_16.3
_25,0 0 0 0
%
Scale '", ",
_31.9
.W' 0 0 ,
'",.
% 00 -12,5
%
%
00
00,. -5S.2
.552
0
0
0
0
%
" "
.22.0
, ,
0
,
~
.~
%
% '" '"'" 0"
, , ,
0
, ,
0

~
~ % '"80 % '"
.23.1 0 0
~
"", "",
% _14.3 0 0
Seale _20.0 0

"",, "',,
% _10.3 •
Scale
"" • • •
] ""', , , -33J
, ,
¥
00
lation
"'-' , ,,
Bin
-33.3
0'
,
, "
,
, ,
0
, ,
0

"',. 0
""
%
No. , '",
80 .23.1
O. , , , , ,
 172

HR- Household, NH-Nonnal tidal height, TI- Total household income. LT-Lowtide, HTHigh
tide, TP-Total household size, Scale - 1 (low), 2 (moderate), 3 (high),

t.J.b. Livelihood seeurity of Fry collector In COlt'S bazaar during storm surge hazard

OflImeter Food Security Income Secufity L SIJ SJ,

. 1=1 '=2
HelIl~tv i=
Securi '=3
HOO~,

, """ ••• , W!l~~~,

Securi '=5
)(
•
.-"
W W

" " " ""

"
16.1290323
"
17.85714286
"
11.47541 15.78947368 13.55932203 74.8W381 14.962
 173

1.4. I. Livelihood secu

Inditfltor
~
• '" "",, ""," W.ter

•
• ,
0
ofStoml Bioor
, -.""
Poriod Low ridel hi b rid.
''''' ,
• , -'00

, _.00
'" • bei from mean sea level
Duration of storm s , Short termlloD
Binar
Binar
• -'00
,
i!
•
Rate of V(: emtion around the area
,llfl\; lTMle fur resource collection!
%
MOO' "" ," -25.0
-33.3
, , , ,
,,~
••• ,••
~ PcJformance of natural dra-
Rare of sible resource uaH
%
% "
," ,""
-18.5
20.0
0
• ••• "••
,
A""." to alternative resource base No.
••
14.3 H

Accc •• lOener Ifll"l so

Home,lead lion
%
%
"' '"" '""
.20,0
s.• "
Chrnershi onm.in roduction or income %
• '", -11.1
• • , ,
•"
Seo e offood sloTll .slNo) Binar 0.'
Rare olsav
,,~
%
" " '",
_11.1 • •• • •
:i Reliabili ofsavi
•"Acce" of women to economic activities
Bihar
%
•
" 30
,
0.'
-25.0
• • ,, •, •,
• •• •
"' •",
Binar
~
5 of alternative economic
•
Access 10 financial \0
,"" Blnat
• • '.0 • • •
Portion of HH income earned from rest of %
'"" " 23.1
"
.
-19.0
Rat. of ednClllioniliterac %
"" -23.9
•
,,.• ,•• ••"
Knowled e on first aid % 30
Knowled e On storm
Acces, to nearest district town
• risk
,""
%
Binar
,"'• "',• •• •
•
•
•
•,
,•• • • • •

- ,-
Access to doctor service (No. of doctor I N,.
HHPo [ation bav' ~. 005
" " <A -3.1

• '-
%
Aclive arion ofHH
n,.to ear
. %
% ., .," 0.0
SO
• • •• • •
•0 •• , • •0
'",•• ," ,LO..
Res nose to ada lion technol
Rat. of out m; ion of HH member
%
% " " '2 •
Safe hODS iofrastnJoUIre! ooodition
Perlbrmanee ofho, itallHealth center
%
Scale " .20.0 , , •
Perfurmonee Ofla=lS 10 e clone melter %
•••• " _12.5
,,
Availabir of drinkin water (Safe water)
sanitation f.dlities
%
% ., "" 00 -23.3
.14.6
••
Acce" of Radiorrv I Cell 'OM
•• ,~, %
" " 0
, ,
'"'" ••'" 0.0 •• • •
_Availabilit 0' ved road % _O.ll

•• = ~ • •0 • •
on facilities
• A" earcawlth oteeIion %
" '" -23.1 0

'", '", " , "

Fitae" ofproteetion.rrucrurc % -14.3
PerfOrmance of weather furec •• tin Soale .20.0
Communit artid tion ractice %
,'" ,,"' " • • • •, ••
Activenes' of local GO Scale 0.0 •• • •
Inlerrelalionshi withNGO Scale l
, 0.'
, • • • •
:i perfunnance ",ciallaw and '" alation
, • • •
•"
Scale l 20.0
~ Political intlueoee 00 social
" '''''' , •
l
0.0 •
• •• "•• •
•
0
••
Perfonnance of1ocal disa,ter m
Activeness of ooclal
.
00"
ment
"''' ,"
%
"
0.0
'.0 • •
Awareness ruon measure No. l 0.0 • • • • •
 174

1.4. b. Livelihood security of Salt Farmer in Cox's bazaar during storm surge hazard

L SIj
IParameter Food Secwity
.,
Income Security
"'- Water

, iw1
..• 22 23
Hea,I~I"
Securi "=3
20
seruM'" ;=4
n
se~;,h';=5
19
28
.
~l

Y 26
" 27 24

" 47
M
51; "
45.833333
"
47.91666667 42.55319149
47

48.93617021 40.42553191 225.664894 45.132

 17S

••
~
•
U
,,
,.... -- Hoo.
""
• .1000

,, •• .1000
.1(OD

i! • .100 D

-••
Z
"" "• ." "
.JJJ
" • •
'"'", "•, "' •" •" • •
.
.IIJ

". H H H
• H H

•••• •• .In
~
•
-.2
••
",
", ~. •
••", •• •
_ILl

, •• ••
1'-67 •
•
•
•• ••
•
••"
•••
",, ••, '" • •
••
~ •• ••
, •• • •
• •
'"'" " ."•• • •
••
"'",
,
"
"
67!Jf .,
~U

, •• ••
, •• •
••
•
,
••
•

••
•
•
•
E • • •
=• "" •• ••
" ••" " " •• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
" "• ."" • • , • • •
••'", ••, ,
.111

••• •
••••••
"
••" ."
,~.
.'u ,
, ,,
••••"
.10
~
•• •• •• •• •• •• ••
~ ••
•• ~,
•
~. ,
~
•• '" " "
'", ••, • •
.IU

'",, •• •• • • • • •
,, •• • • • • •
,, ,, ••
••
•
• ••
• •
•
•• ••
, ••
~
•• • •
, •• • • • •"
•, •• • • • • •
'"2 •• • • • • •
 176

1.5. b. Livelihood security of dry fisher in Cox's bazaar during storm surge hazard

!Parameter Food Security Income security Health House Water L SIj SJ\
y
, i~1
~<;L_
29
"=2

I'
29
Securit" ''''3
17
31
Sac'~;;", i=4
----- J9
28
sec~ri", i=5
I}
32
~. -----

,M
SI, "
40.816327
48

39.58333333 35.41666667
48

40.42553191
47
"
34.69387755 190.935736 38.\87
 177

1.6. II.Livelihood ,«uri .• 5lcnmenl in I coast.l rill' ofCo:l'. blWllr dlstrid

Inditator Unit I, I,
;; w,~
••
0
"
"", ''''''' "~
m.
H_

U
,, .100.0

,,
.1000

-• _1000
_1000 ...
•• "" ••
_21.0
•
0
• 0 0 0

~.
Z 0 0
" _l'J

", , •• • • 0 0 0

0
"" ~ .20.0
.n'
", ""• ."
..
, • ,
.,
.1000 0

", •• ." • • • •
~ .10110 • • • •
0
• •0
•
",, ",, •••• • • •
~
, • • • ,
•
"•• " m, ,
.1H

,
"•• "", ~,•• • • • •
,•
0 I
, , •••• , •, •• •, ••
0
• " " ."
" •" .llJ
•
~, ••, •• •• •
""" •
•13ft

, •• ,•
", ""
, ~.
~, •
•••
~.
, ,
~. ,,
•
%
%
%
"" ~"
" ""
""
~.
,
-l,J
,
,,
~
• •• • • • 0

~
: %

•
% "•• •• •• -1).1
•,
, ,
• •, • •
,
~ %
•••• ", •, . • _]43
..
%
•••• ••, ~, ••" • • • • •
-'g• "'. ,, ,, •• ,• •0 • •• •
•••• ." •, •,
,.,, ,, ••••
~

A •••• CiK~1
O'

"'.
%
Ho. , ", •• ~.
•
• •
• •
•
•
•
•
•
,
•
•

•
 178

1.6. b. Livelihood !ceurity of Wage laborer in Cox's bllZllBrduring storm surge hazard

'arameler Food Sl!Curity

"=1
lnooml! 8ecl.Irity
"=2
Health
securttv i:3
Hou,;~~
Secuti ""
Water
Sec~~N;=5
~ SIj
I ~i,
,,
YX 12

"
12
411
52 "
8

58
10
43
53 "
8

56
62
,Ii
19.354839 23.07692308 13,19310345 18.86792453 14.28571429 89.378504 17.875
 179

~
JDdkaior ..
2.1." Lk'cllhood U'CUri Ilnessmmt In II('ODrtal.tte of S.tkblra dhtrict.
" I, I, I,
••••• •~m Hn'
• •• "-
W.I •.•.

<.>•
,, •• .1004

,, •
.1000
.1000

i!
••
z ""
"'",
• .'u
"
••• .u
~.
.1000
,
, , ,
• • , ,
, ,
,
••, "
•••• •• •••
U H •• ,
•• H H

• • • •
•

• ., •• •
,
", •,
•••• • , • ,
., ", H
, •• •• • •• •• ••
•
"•
• '",, •, •••• •• •• , •• ,
•
, •• • • •,
.,
~
• • •,
'"" lUI

•• " .H,D
, , •

", '"
,•
•• ", "•,
.11.1
.1000
, , ,
.,
-)13

% '" H
•• .,
., • • , •
"
"
" ••" " , • , • ,
••
'", "'" .In
" • ~••• • ,
•• •• ~ ,
..
•,
%
%
•••• ••••
" ••
,
• •, •
~. , , ,
•
~
%
"
•• " "•• •••• •• •• • ••
]
•~ •• " ~,, , •
~
~
%
%

"""
" "••
" ,
•• ", ",
,
, ,
~.
.jJ.l

_10.1
,
"""
"'. ,
, , •• •, •, • •m
•
,. ,, ,, •• • • ,
~

l """
.J)J
,
AW8Iu,,"
"'.
•• ", ••,
No.
• ~.
m

.JlJ
• • • •

•
 180

2.1. b. Livelihood security of Wage labor in Satkhira during storm surge hazard

Water
Food
'-' Health House

Paraml;l\l,lr
Security
j"1
Security
j=2
Security
j"3
Security
j"'4
Security
j"5
b Slj
,.,
81

X 17 19 16 19 16
Y 33 32 36 33 35
M -~Q 51 52 ~~ 52 51
~
Slj
34 37.25490 30.76923077 36.53846154 3LJ72S4902 169.94 33.981
 •
•" ."
 182
2.2. b. Livelihood security of Fisber in Slltkhira during storm surge bazard

L SII
Parameter
,~,
Food Secvrity Income Seculity
-=2
Health
Securl I i=3
House
SOW, "=4
wa~~
secur"
•• "=5
u I ~I
%,

f" " " '" " '"

'" " "" "" '"
1M
SIJ " " " 24.136
2727273 28.3018&679 18.18181818 26.92307692
" 120.68
 •
183
,
2.3. II.Lk"cllbood Sl'CU

.[
•
Indltalor
ISSl.'Slmmt fD IIcOlIJtalsitr ofSatkhira district.
U•• I. I, I.
.., ..
,
•
•
. ttlllcc:tor
Stt,ri
"",lib
,

H_ ,,~
V

"
,, .100,0

", ,, .1000
.IMO

"i!, "• .1000

"- ~, 0
""
_161
•
• 0 0 0

••
Z
" ~" 0 0

N. ,
SO wo
~,•
•
25,0
•
•
0
•
0
• •
0

• " ."
0

"",
~.
%ofTl
• .11.1
.1000 0 0 0
",
0

"£,•
%ofn
", _1000
•
~
•
B ",, U,'
••
•
••
•
•
0
0
•
•• 0
B' •• • •0 •0
•• 20 .71Jl
~, ..
•• "" ," 0 0

•, B'
••,
I
.10J
.100,0
• No, .)l.) 0 0 0

=• ••• " ~,
-41.1

"" ,,, •
••
•"".
"
10

",
..
~o
~,
'

~o
•
0

0
•
•
•
0
•
•0
•
•
•
0
••
0

••
••
"
""
"
~.
~o
.IM

~l.9 0
0
0
0
0

•
• •• " '.0 •
•
•
•
0
•0 •
0
•
~
~
,
• "" "
.39.1 0
~
• ••, .))J
0
0
0
0

•"".
""" ••,, ~,
,,,
:;; """
,
"". ,, .)JJ
.J).] 0 0
...
~
, _1000

~"
No,
•"". ", .I'j
•• •
•
•
 184

2.3. b. Livelihood !ocurity of Fry collector in Satkhin during Storm surge hazard

Parameter F~ Security Income Security Health HOll~". wa~~ I SIJ S~l

-"2 Se';;~tv j=3 5ecuri secu. i,
":5
""
X 10 10 7 10 7
y 47 45 48 44 44
57 55 55 54 51
M
51;
17.54386 18.1818 12.7272 18.5185 13.7254 80.697 16.139
 ISS
2A.•. Lk"cllbood H'Clllitv ust'Sllmmt IIIII roastll site orS.tkhlra di!trict. Forestntnctor
I Jodle.lor u•• I,
,..•
•••••
" " n('(l •••• lI•• nb

<.>
0 , .1030 ---
o- ---
,,
J .1000

, 0
0-
_1000
_1000
-- -
-- -
••
Z
%
M_ "
" ~,
_16J

0
0

0
0 0 0
%
%
No_
'"", '"-"' • • 0 0 0

~"'" 0
%
%of "" " ~ •• • • • • •
", •,
% .11.1
0-
•• •• •0 • 0 0

:;; %0'
", ", •• • •
•
•
•• 0 •• • • • •
a ",, ~ 0
, •• • •
..
% •• 1.9

~
0-
, •• • •
0 • 0
0- • • •
%
% .,
20 •• -
" .)'J,l
-0
0

0
0
-
%
", " -"
_19.1
%
'", "•
••
_11100
0
, . • 0 •
•=• No_
%
""
,-,
0
)).]

• _11.6 • •
0
• • •
%
" u • • • • •
%
% "" "
•• .U
0 0 0
%
", .11.1

•, .11.1 , 0 ,
%
•••• " ~o
%
%
%
%
""
""
• ~o~,
"
"
~.
0
0
0
-11.9
,
0

•
~
]
%
~ ".," •• •• •• •
0
• •
0

• " 0
-., ,
~
•~ %
% .,, m 0
0

• • •
""" •• • 0
'",,
.
% .IU
sal. .)}J

:;;
j
•••• , m
, 0 0 •0 •
""" •• • • •
o-
"'. , , J

'"., • • •
%
No_'" •• • • •
 186

2.4. b. Livelihood security of Forest utractor in Satkhira during ~torm surge hazard

L SIJ
Parameter Food Security
"=1
Income Security
"=2
Health
s,;;~ritv;"3 HOU~~I\
Secuti '"
Waler
seC~~N1=5 ~,
I' 13 16 12
X I'
Y 38 40 45 39 44
M 52 54 58 55 56
51;
26.923 25.9259 22.4137 29.0909 21.428 125.78 25.956
 • 187

.sU'SSmrnt In. nl"I.I.itt of SlItkhlm dllllrirt.

2.5. II. Lk"dlhood ttt'lIri•••. II I.bor
Inditllwr Unit I, lp I.
,..• MOmr H",l1b
S«,ri
cnrw W81'"

,,
B I 0 .\0(1.0
BJ 0 -100.0
B 0 .100.0
B. I 0 _100.0
i!
•• %
M_ "" I' _16.3
0.0 • •
'"",
Z .33.3
%
%
No
"", " 0.0
-21l.O
• •
-26.!
%
%af "'" "" -29.0
%
B. , "
7S
0
-51.9
.100,0
.\00,0
~
%0'
B "I 0
0 .100.0
•• ••
•
~ ""0
,.
%
",, " ••• ••
I 0.0
B.
, .,~0 .100.0
<0.0
.. ..
%
"
%
% "'" " I'
-55.6

•,
%
•• ",, " 0
.27.0
-100,0 ...
•
• ...., No.
%
I

"" "" •••,., ••

.JJ.)
-]8.9
•• • • •
= %
• • •
%
% " '"
7S 7S • 0.0
0.0
•• • •
•
•
"'",
% 10
%
SnI< ", .53.1
_20.0
%
% "" '"
""
..•
.12.5

~.o
~

"
.~
%

! % 7S
'"" .JO .•
• •
""
% '.0
•
• •
~
" .39.1
%
" "
%
SnI< ", '", .]].3
.SO.O

•"". ",, '" I

-33.3
-]),)

, , I -33.3

I """
SnI<
•• , , I 0
.JJ.3
-100.0
-33.3
"""
• ", ", .2.1.1 •
• •
•
No. 0.0 •
 188

2.5. b. Livelihood seaarity of Wage Labor in Satkhira during Storm SU~ hRZard

Food Security Income Security Health Security House Water

Parameter ]"1 j=2 j=3 Security j=4 I ~~Urity L SIj
I ~,
.x 9 10 4 8 5
y 58 51 61 53 57
M 67 61 65 61 62
51,
13.4328 16.3932 6.1538 13.1147 8.0645 57.159 11.431
 Appendb-E
PIIOTOGRAPHS

,
\

Photo-I. Sketch ofKhurushkul Union in Cax's Photo-2. Sketch of Jilongja Union in C~'s
bu •.". b_.

Photo-3. Sketch ofMuru;higanj Union in Satkhira. Ph0t0-4. The Sundarban in Salkhira.

Source: Field 5llt'VC)', 2008-09.

 190

Ph0t0-6. Discussion with Women at household,

PhotG-5. FSM at Harinag8T SuYtilon Office, Cox's bazaar.
Satkhira.

Pholo-7. Interview of Fisher group in Cox's Photo-S.lnterview of fanner group in Co,,', tmzu.r.
buu<.

Source: Field survey. 2008-09.

 191

Photo-9. Interview of Salt fanner in Cox's bazaar. Photo-l o. Interview of wage laborer in fish
drying field in Cox's bazaar

Photo-lL Interviewof Fisherin Satkhira Photo-12. Discussionwith IIIlIl"ginai groups

in Satkhim

Source: Field survey, 2008-09.

 192

Photo-l3. Fry collector in Co,,'s bv.aar.

Photo- 14. Fry colloctor in s.n.tkbira.

Photo- I S. Salt fll1mef is working in his field Photo-16. FOf'C:StresotIJ'QC cxtnIetOB in

(CoX'$ bazIlIlf), Sundarban in Satkhirll.

Source: Field $\llVCy. 200S.09.

 193

Photo-l7. Farmer's house in Satkhira. Photo-IS. Farmer's house in Cox's bazaar.

Photo-20. Fisher's house in Cox's hazaar.

Photo-19. Fisher's house in Satkhira.

Source: Held survey, 2008-09.

 194

Photo-21. Salt production in field in Cox's bazaar. Photo- 22. Fish drying in Cox's bazaar.

Photo-24. Cyclone center in Satkhira.

Photo-23, Cyclone center in Cox's bazaar.

Source: Field survey, 2008-09.

 '"

-,.,--.,..'.

Photo-26. SlruclUflll protection in Sile2.

Photo-2S. Household protection in Sitel.

Pholo-28. Waler U$e for Household activities

Pboto-27. Boats for forest resource collection in in SlItkhira.
Satkhira.

SOUTCe: Field RlTVC)', 2008-09.