The Factors Regulate to Community Participation in
Sustainable Disaster Recovery Program: An Experience ofCyclone Aila Disaster Affected Coastal People BangladeshWorld Bosai Forum, IDRC, 2019, Sendai, Japan 09-12 November 2019

Presented by
EMADUL ISLAM (AHA 160053)
Ph,D student & YK scholar
Department of Social Administration and Justice, University of Malaya
Supervisor
Associate Professor Dr. Haris ABD. Wahab

Date: 12th November, 2019

Background of the study
13431
extremeweather
events(1970-2018)

5327 (40%)
disasteroccurredin Asia

economiclosses ofUS$ 3.47
trillion

Background of the study Bangladesh ranked 7th top disaster-affected country in the world and 2nd top in
Asia in recent Climate Risk Index (2019) Coastal areas of Bangladesh comprise 32% of geographical land which ishighly vulnerable to climate-induced disaster Disaster recovery process of Bangladesh is weak and not sustainable(Chowdhury, 2015; World Bank, 2017)
 Create social vulnerability, poverty, low level of resilience, humandisplacement, human rights violation and food insecurity (MoEF, 2008; Islam &Shamsuddoha, 2017; Islam, 2017)

 Community participation is crucial for sustainable disaster recovery
 Sustainable disaster recovery is essential for disaster risk reduction andadaptation
 The Sendai Framework for Action 2015-2030 (SFA), Paris agreement and SDGs;
following Built Back Better principle

Research Objective
Principal research objective
The aim of this study is to explore the status of community participation in the SDRP and factors
determine community participation in the SDRP and give policy recommendation for adopting
sustainable recovery framework for achieving the goal of Sendai Framework of Action 2015 to2030, and vision 2030s Sustainable Development Goals.
Specific objectives are:•to investigates the status of community participation in the GO and NGO, s disaster recovery
programs following devasting cyclone Aila in the coastal areas in Bangladesh in 2009;•

to identified the factors determine community participation in the studied program; and•to propose a model strengthen local and national strategies to ensure community
participation in sustainable disaster recovery Program.

Concept & theories
Community participation
 community participation is covered three broad dimension including community
participation approach (Chess & Purcell, 1999; Rowe & Frewer, 2000; Fraser, 2005)
 community participation forms or level (Arnstein, 1969; Cohen & Upholf, 1977; Pretty,1995; Choguill, 1996; Davidson, 2007)
 Cohen and Uphoff (1977) four types of community participation, namely participationin decision making, implementation, benefits sharing and evaluation

Sustainable disaster recovery
 Recovery, in disaster management, refers to the activities that are taken after the
initial impact to develop socio-economic and environmental conditions that aredestroyed by disaster aimed at achieving return to normality (Kapucu, 2008)
 recovery as the return of all systems to as normal a state as possible (FEMA, 2000)
Sustainable disaster recovery as the differential process of restoring, rebuilding, andreshaping the physical, social, economic, and natural environment through pre-event
planning and post-event actions (Smith & Wenger (2007).

Theories Capabilities approach Amartya Sen (1990,1999, 2014) and Nussbaum (2000,2011).
 adopted in disaster recovery field –•capacity based sustainable disaster recovery and community participation (Pyles,Svistova, Ahn, & Birkland, 2018)•sustainable recovery and disaster impact index (Gardoni & Murphy, 2008) and•measuring the societal impact of natural disasters (Gardoni & Murphy, 2010)•capabilities approach employed as a tool in the creation Emergency Events Database(EM- DAT) by the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) in thedisaster management field Sustainable disaster recovery by Smith & Wenger (2007)•According to Smith & Wenger (2007) sustainable disaster recovery as a holistic, nonlinear series of actions
taken by community-level social units and systems that result in alterations to the built, social, economic,
and natural environments. Both pre-event and post-event actions are part of the process, including therole state and federal organizations, non-profits, emergent groups, corporations, and others play in local
recoveryLiterature trend on contextualizing CPDM in Scopus and Web of Science
databases (2001-2018)
90

82

81

80
70
60
50

48

40

47

3730
22

20
100

19

20

16

10
1

2
1

32
1

3
1

62
1

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

42
1

53

6142

63
1

412006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

20

612012148632013

18
11

10
8

10

2

3322014

2015

2016

2017

21
147CP in disaster management (Scopus)

CP in disaster recovery (Scopus)

CP in disaster management (Web of science)

CP in disaster recovery (Web of science)2018Research methodology
Philosophical worldviews

Selected strategies ofinquiry

Pragmatic• Concurrent (Quan+Qual)

Research designMixed method(Convergent parallel)

Research area:
Shemnagar
Upajila, BD• 2 recovery
programs:
ECCADR & CVRP• Sample size: 230
population 520••Research methodsBoth open & close ended questions
HHs survey, in-depth interview
FGDS & KII
Descriptive statistic; thematic
Merge and interpretation•

Secondary data:
PRISMA• Research
instrumentsQuestionnaire &Checklist
Participants- Aila
affected DC, &Experts

Findings
 HHs economic & social vulnerability status
Variable

Housing withstand against
climate- induced disaster
Sufficient to meet therequirement of drinking water
Satisfaction about present formof livelihood
Livelihood dependency onnature
Income level change
Displacement

Number of displacements

Plan for permanent migration

Source: Authors field work

Response
Yes
No
Yes, with minor damage
Significant damage likelyYesNoFrequency (%)
17 (7.4)
125 (54.3)
53 (23.0)
35 (15.3)
117 (50.9)
113 (49.1)

YesNo

96 (41.7)
134 (58.3)

YesNo

180 (78.3)
50 (21.7)

Yes
No
Yes
No
12345
Yes
No

170 (73.9)
60 (26.1)
120 (52.2)
110 (47.8)
15 (12.5)
39 (32.5)
47 (39.2)
16 (13.3)
3 (2.5)60 (26.1)
170 (73.9)

Continued
Composite score on status of community participation in the study program
Types of participation

Participation in decision
makingParticipation in project
implementation

Participation in benefits
sharing

Participation in evaluation

Source: Authors field work

Participation level

Frequency

Percent

High (>21)

52

22.6

Medium (14-20)

123

53.5

Low (<13)

55

23.9

Total

230

100

High (>28)

38

16.5

Medium (21-27)

148

64.3

Low (<20)

44

19.1

Total

230

100

High (>18)

25

10.9

Medium (13-17)

157

68.3

Low (<12)

48

20.9

Total

230

100

High (>15)

18

7.8

Medium (10-14)

159

69.1

Low (<9)

53

23.0

Total

230

100

Form of community participation
Participation inprogram phases

Nominalparticipation

Passiveparticipation

Consultative
participation

Partnershipparticipation

Empowering
participation

Form/level of participation
Total

Participation indecision making

23.9

29.2

29.2

13.31

4.35

100

Participation inimplementation

11.07

17.55

35.65

23.04

12.68

100

Participation in benefit
sharing

20.55

29.45

32.07

14.47

3.47

100

Participation inevaluation

18.7

21.3

28.86

21.3

9.86

100

18.55

24.37

31.44

18.03

7.59

100

Overall participation

The percentage is total average response that variable observed under four participation domains. The
overall participation score is average percentage categorize under five forms of participation

Source- Authors field work

Factors determine community participation in sustainable disasterrecovery program

Continued
 “Due to rapid ecosystem change in the coast, the most of inhabitant of its areunable to adapt with this. After SIDR and AILA the scope of livelihood haschanged agriculture to shrimp business. The rich people can transform theirmode of business agriculture to shrimp and they are fully recovering from SIDR
and AILA catastrophe, in contrary the poor villagers didn't able to change theirmode of business and they still are fighting with salinity, so far they didn't recoverand still vulnerable.” (Key informant)
 “I have visited the Gabtola, village under South Khali, union in the Shornkhola
subdistrict after the massive devasted cyclone SIDR had stricken in 2007. It is
probably 3rd days after cyclone stricken. Me and my fellow visitors arrived at
Gabtola village and found the destruction of cyclone. I have found an almost
14 years old boys who has lost 13 members of his family 3 days ago in thedevasted cyclone. I have seen that he had tried to repair his boat for going tocatch fish from the sea. I asked him what are you doing? He replied I tried torepair my boat, I have no need the relief, because you may be giving me riceor food, but I have received already, I also received the sympathy from manypeople. But the reality is my grandfather had died this sea, my father also diedhere and may be I am the next one. So why I should fear this sea? I have noneed the relief you are given, if you want to give something, please help torepair my boats.” (Key informant)

Continued
 “The respected program authority has received all power regarding the project decision making.
They have designed their program components based on their experiences. We only know when
they have shared with us. In the particular ECCADR project, the authority had conducted thecommunity risk assessment (CRA), and we are lucky for our active participation in the risk
assessment of our community. The true is that we have taken our own decision in some aspect ofCRA decision making, action plan, and IGA selection. But the final decision has come from theproject authority. In addition, all the self-help group members are not well educated and notable to give their concern equally. So far, the leader of the groups has taken the lead role toactive participation in the decision making.” (FGD-1)
 “The devasted cyclone Roaunu,s had destroyed the housing of the inhabitant of Cox bazar
district. I was the team leader of BRAC Roannu recovery program in the affected area. We
have recruited the architect for designing the house and come up with the best housing design.
We have faced reality in the application of our design in constructing housing. We haveidentified that the construction cost of the house is crossed the budget and the community
people has no interest in this housing. My project team have arranged several community
meetings with the community and identified the reasons behind less interest on the provided
housing. The community people are not familiar with the given design house, where they afraid of
their security and longevity. We have offered the community to design their house as per theirrequirement. Finally, they have designed their house from their own experience and interest,
which was 2 times less costly than our previous design house. BRAC has provided almost 2000
house to the affected community, and community people have participated in the designing,planning and constructing their house, the project has received the full appreciations from theaffected community. Finally, I would like to say that the community people are the supremearchitect of their community to design, operate and solve their problem sustainably.” (KII-10)

Proposed model for successful community participation in SDRP

Source- Authors

Possible social work intervention in SDR

Strength perspective• reducing disastervulnerability• fostering greatercommunity resiliency

Social workintervention

Source- Authors• Community capacity
building• CBO,s formation• Community based disastermanagement• Psycho-social support• adopt national and local
recovery plan
• strengthen community
participation in therecovery program &planning• restoration, rebuild,reshape• the physical, social,economic, and naturalenvironment

Sustainable disasterrecovery (SDR)

Thanks for patience