3.1. Threat Appraisal
3.1.1. Intensity and Severity of Future Flooding
The study findings revealed that the majority of respondents living in the Type 2 and Type 3 settlements and half of respondents from the Type 1 settlement foresaw severe flooding happening in the coming years. Half of respondents from the Type 1 settlement (living by the flood protection embankment) could not provide a response and were not sure about the future. Further, the respondents were asked to mark the intensity of future floods, along with the severity of the damage caused by the event using a five-point Likert scale denoting very high to very low (as in
Table 2).
In the Type 1 settlement, among those who responded, 53% assessed future flood intensity to be ‘low to very low’. The participants in the FGDs also shared that they did not experience any flood event compared with what happened away from the flood protection embankment, and they considered a flood less likely to happen, even though a few of them mentioned experiencing small-scale embankment breaches and waterlogging situations in the past. Additionally, around 47% of respondents replied with a medium to high possibility of flooding and damage caused by the event, where they highlighted several breaches of the embankment that had happened in previous years due to the inadequate maintenance of the flood protection embankment by the designated authorities, including the Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB) and the local Water Management Committee.
In contrast, the majority of respondents (77% on average) living in both the Type 2 and Type 3 settlement areas marked the intensity of the flood disaster and severity of the damage as high to very high. The FGDs in these areas suggested that the flood risk perception was linked to recent and previous flood events that community people had experienced in 2017 and earlier. They reported that the flood water level during the 2017 floods was higher, along with the damage to households structures, as compared with the previous years.
3.1.2. Fear of Future Floods
As observed in
Table 2, the level of fear of future flood disasters among the respondents with soft measures in the Type 3 settlement was greater than that in the other areas. Around 70% of respondents living in the Type 3 settlement mentioned a ‘very high’ level of fear of future floods and that they were scared of losing their valuable assets and lives. The FGDs in all three settlement types found that the water height and velocity during the flood of 2017 were greater than those in previous years.
The majority of respondents (47%) living with hard measures in the Type 1 and Type 2 (37%) settlements saw their fear as high. Further, the people who lived by the embankment (Type 1) had witnessed several breaches in various points of the flood protection embankment, and this was a likely reason why people were scared about bigger breaches of the embankment and were expecting heavy losses of lives and assets in the area. Another potential reason could be the severe waterlogging situation that happened in 2017 and damaged agricultural crops and assets.
The FGDs conducted in the Type 2 settlement revealed that the area is detached from the mainland by the tributary of the Jamuna river and that if something were to happen, they would not be able to quickly move to other locations, unless they had a plan and associated arrangements, including a boat to move out during the flooding. However, 24% of survey respondents also mentioned low levels of fear, as the flood is a regular event, and they had been facing this since childhood.
3.1.3. Evaluation of Damage Caused by Hypothetical Flooding in the Future
The study findings implied that the damage perception of respondents due to future flooding was associated with factors such as agricultural-crop loss, the loss of domestic animals, family health, and fishery business in all three settlements. The majority of respondents in all three areas highlighted partial to total damage to the households due to future flood events. In the FGDs, the respondents living in the Type 2 and Type 3 settlements shared that the severity of floods had gradually increased over time. People from the Type 1 settlement also feared the possibility of experiencing severe waterlogging due to breaches of the flood protection embankment in the future, which might cause partial damage to the plinths/basement of houses and toilets, as these are made of mud and tin.
For agricultural crops, on average, more than 70% of respondents in the three areas estimated severe damage to agricultural crops due to future flooding. They mentioned the inundation of agricultural seed beds and losing harvested Jute crops in the flood event in 2017. On average, 30% of respondents from the Type 2 and Type 3 areas perceived that a few chickens and ducks might die during a flood. Regarding health, the majority of respondents living in the Type 2 (95%) and Type 3 (75%) areas reported a possibility of family members suffering from waterborne diseases during and after a flood event. As for fishery business, only 10% of respondents from the Type 1 settlement mentioned the damage to fishery due to the inundation of cultivated ponds with high water levels during flooding/waterlogging, as fish would escape as the ponds would become open-water resources. Fish cultivation in ponds was not common in the other two areas, i.e., Type 2 and Type 3 areas; thus, the respondents could not predict future fishery losses. The majority of respondents living in the Type 3 (85%) and Type 2 settlements (80%) and more than one-third of respondents from the Type 1 settlement reported that their daily life would be severely affected if a flood were to happen in the future (also shown in
Figure 2).
3.4. Explanatory Factors for Flood Protection Motivation
3.4.1. Reliance on Protection Measures
According to PMT, the reliance of people on flood protective infrastructures or DRR interventions could have an impact on individual- or family-level preparedness for flood disaster. Through this study, it was found that on average, more than two-thirds of respondents living in the Type 1 and Type 2 settlements relied on soft DRR measures, which are implemented by NGOs and governments. Additionally, half of respondents living in the Type 3 settlement, which included DRR/resilience building interventions implemented by NGOs, shared that these projects could help to make them prepared and thus could save lives and assets from flood disasters. In the Type 3 settlement, the FGDs also found that soft DRR measures provided information and knowledge on flood disasters and livelihood assistance, so that affected people can have resources to cope with the crisis.
3.4.2. Threat Experience/Appraisal
The majority of respondents living in the Type 1 settlement reported that due to embankment breaches, flood water had been entering their house yard, inundating fishponds, agricultural-crop fields, and vegetable gardens. In both Type 1 and 2 settlements, participants in the FGDs also mentioned losing domestic animals and damage to mud-made cooking stoves, sanitary latrines, and managing fodders. It was stated that the tube wells were in good order, as flood water did not enter them. A few respondents mentioned health challenges such as cold, fever in children, and adults suffering from itching in the legs and hands, as well as fever. In the Type 1 area, FGD participants reported that a total of 15–20 households were inundated, affecting 200–250 families.
In the Type 3 settlement, farmers who preserved their jute crop were washed away by the sudden high-speed water flood in 2017. A total of 8–10 ponds of varying sizes were inundated during the flood in the Kulkandi village. Flood water caused partial damage to the households due to the washing away of the mud of basement of houses and toilets.
3.5. Correlation Analysis
The analysis showed that ‘Threat Appraisal’ was correlated with ‘Coping Appraisal’. The perceived probability of threat, which consists of variables associated with future flooding and the intensity and severity of flood damage, was positively correlated with structural flood preparedness measures, including raising the plinths of houses, tube wells, and toilets, and a few non-structural actions, including storing dry food at home (r = 0.237, p < 0.05) and developing an evacuation plan (r = 0.334, p < 0.01). The above-mentioned correlation results may imply that respondents who foresaw the possibility of flooding with increased intensity and severity in the future were more willing to take structural flood risk reduction measures and also prioritized family safety by developing a flood evacuation plan.
The perceived severity of future flooding, which included the variable related to damage to households, agricultural crops, the degradation of family health status, and the impact on the overall livelihood of people, was positively correlated with raising the plinths of houses, tube wells, and toilets and a few non-structural actions, such as storing cash money and having emergency equipment and an evacuation plan. The analysis also found negative correlations between the perceived severity of future flooding and each of the following: early warning (r = −0.269, p < 0.05), developing a community disaster management plan (r = −0.281, p < 0.01), and damage insurance (r = −0.233, p < 0.01). These results may mean that respondents who foresaw negative consequences of future floods were more likely to adopt structural interventions and few family-level flood preparedness measures.
The fear of future flooding was positively correlated with raising the plinths of houses, tube wells, and toilets and negatively correlated with having emergency equipment at home (
r = −0.218,
p < 0.05) and connections with NGOs (
r = −0.258,
p < 0.05). These results may explain why respondents who showed low to high levels of fear of flooding were more motivated to enact structural improvements and making connections with external organizations where they could seek assistance during crises (
Appendix B).
Moreover, previous flood experience had negative correlations with raising the plinths of houses (r = −0.549, p < 0.01), tube wells (r = −0.591, p < 0.01), and toilets (r = −0.631, p < 0.01) and positive correlations with storing crop seeds (r = 0.248, p < 0.01), raising family flood awareness (r = 0.350, p < 0.01), and developing a disaster management plan (r = 0.273, p < 0.05). These results may mean that respondents with previous flood experience were more willing to take non-structural measures than to enact structural improvement as they may not have seen the value of it due to the changing nature of floods over time. Similarly, the reliance of respondents on any flood risk reduction measure was negatively correlated with structural actions, which was different from the dependency on NGO risk reduction interventions, where the correlation analysis found positive results, as people may have received some monetary support for structural improvement from NGOs.
The distance of the household was positively correlated with structural actions and negatively correlated with storing seeds, having emergency equipment, raising family awareness, and making connections with NGOs. These results could likely mean that the respondents who lived closer to the river were more motivated towards strengthening household-level structures rather than taking non-structural action. On the contrary, the distance of households from the embankment was negatively correlated with raising the plinths of houses (r = −0.548,
p < 0.01), tube wells (r = −0.425,
p < 0.01), and toilets (r = −0.443,
p < 0.01) and with family-level flood awareness (r = 0.334,
p < 0.01), which may mean that the greater the distance of households from the embankment was, the less willing respondents were to adopt structural measures (
Appendix C).
Further, gender was also seen to have positive correlations with raising the plinth of the house (r = 0.210,
p < 0.05), having an evacuation plan (r = 0.290,
p < 0.01), and defining a place for family relocation (r = 0.278,
p < 0.01) and a negative correlation with the connection with local government. These results may denote that the joint decisions taken by male and female members of a family can influence key structural improvements for family safety. The education and monthly income variables were negatively correlated with the structural improvement of houses, toilets, and tube wells and a few non-structural measures, including storing dry food, crop seeds, and money at home; saving valuable assets; and developing an evacuation plan. These relationships may mean that higher education and monthly income did not necessarily translate into higher motivation towards taking structural flood preparedness measures of households living in flood-prone areas (
Appendix C).
Lastly, the non-responsive attitude showed both positive and negative correlations with the distance of the household from the embankment (
r = 0.305,
p < 0.05) and the experience of flooding (
r = −0.286,
p < 0.05), respectively (
Appendix D). These results may mean that households did not want to take floor preparedness measures where the flood protection embankment was far away and they were less experienced in flooding.