governance in disaster vulnerability reduction in khyber ...

GOVERNANCE IN DISASTER VULNERABILITY

REDUCTION IN KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA,

PAKISTAN

By

MUSHTAQ AHMAD JAN

Ph.D. Scholar

Supervised By PROF. DR. NIAZ MUHAMMAD

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR

Session: 2011-2012

GOVERNANCE IN DISASTER VULNERABILITY

REDUCTION IN KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA,

PAKISTAN

Submitted By

Mushtaq Ahmad Jan

A dissertation submitted to the University of Peshawar in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology

Supervised by

PROF. DR. NIAZ MUHAMMAD

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR

Session: 2011-2012

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

All the praises for almighty Allah, who showered upon me this unending favor in the

accomplishment of this noble venture.

I owe a deep sense of gratitude to my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Niaz Muhammad,

Chairman, Department of Sociology, University of Peshawar, for his guidance and

support till the accomplishment of this study. He was a source of inspiration

throughout. I thank him for his technical inputs and constructive criticism during the

accomplishment of this study.

The researcher acknowledge the support of Dr. Asad Ullah, Assistant Professor,

Department of Rural Sociology, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agriculture University

Peshawar for orienting me on various data analysis software‘s used in this study. My

sincere thanks go to Dr. Aleesha Khan for data collection from female respondents in

the study area. I wish to thank Mr. Muhammad Saeed, Assistant Professor,

Government Degree College Bara, District Khyber for his support in technical and

grammatical review of this thesis. I am greatly indebted to Mr. Safi Ullah Ph.D

scholar, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Nanjing University, China for his regular

encouragement and guidance. I am gratified to Dr Ihsan Ullah Khan, Assistant

Professor FATA University, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for his support and guidance on

mixed method research approach methodologies. My sincere thanks go to Mr. Hamid

Ullah, Project Manager, Pakistan Village Development Programme (PVDP) District

Swat and Mr. Muhammad Shahab, Research Assistant at the CDPM for their support

during the data collection process. Both of them accompanied the researcher in field

and also extended logistic support. I am also indebted to Mr. Muhib Ullah, Mr. Kamal

Bahadar and Mr. Danish Mujahid for supporting the researcher.

I am deeply indebted to officials of the Provincial Disaster Management Authority for

their constant cooperation in regard to providing written material and other required

information. At the last, I am also indebted to thank all the respondents from the

target stakeholders who furnished valuable information‘s regarding the study. I am

also grateful to my family members who in spite of all financial limitations supported

me to continue my education and their unceasing beliefs on my academic work.

The Researcher

ii

ABSTRACT

This study entitled “Governance in Disaster Vulnerability Reduction in Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan” was carried out in three districts of the province of Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa-Charsadda, Nowshera, and Swat which were purposively selected in

view of their Relative Severity Index Score prepared by the National Disaster

Management Authority-Pakistan. The major objectives of the study were to examine

the existing condition of disaster vulnerability; to identify multidimensional impacts

of the disaster; to explore the effectiveness of disaster management policies; and to

investigate the systemic and executionery flaws in vulnerability reduction governance

in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. This study was conducted under the mixed

methods research (MMR) approach with exploratory sequential strategy of analysis.

As per protocols of exploratory sequential design, qualitative data was collected first

from 30 government officials through an In-depth Interview instrument, to understand

the governance mechanism for vulnerability reduction. For further validating the

qualitative data, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were also conducted with the local

communities in the sampled districts. On the basis of qualitative data analysis, themes

were developed. Based on the qualitative themes, quantitative instrument, structured

interview schedule, was constructed to collect quantitative data from 384 respondents

through multistage sampling technique in sampled districts. Univariate and bivariate

analyses were carried out for inferring the quantitative results. A Chi-Square test was

applied to measure the association between independent and dependent variables.

Both data reveal that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province is highly vulnerable to different

natural hazards i.e. flood, earthquake, GLOFs, and landsliding etc. as well as complex

emergencies like terrorism and insurgency. Due to high vulnerability of the study

area, these hazards caused massive damages to housing, markets, livelihood,

infrastructure, public sector building, and environment etc. Moreover, they displaced

hundreds of thousands of people with severe consequences on their health and well

being. Major identified causes for the high level of prevalence of multidimensional

vulnerability in the study area are social inequality through the complicated system of

social stratification, gender-based discrimination, poverty, non-diversified economy,

fatalistic attitude, passivity, inadequate knowledge about disaster risk reduction, short-

sighted disaster risk reduction planning, complex physiography, construction on

riverbanks/unstable slopes, encroachments in rivers and drainage system and

iii

deforestation. Though the government has enacted various legal documents and

constituted disaster management authorities but the governance mechanism for

disaster risk reduction is still weak and feeble. It was further found that vulnerability

at the local level was significantly associated with strict implementation of disaster

management policies, the operational procedure of disaster management authorities,

land use planning, building code implementation, planning, budget allocation, early

warning system, decentralized decision making and strong social capital etc. The

study recommends changes and synchronization between different legal documents,

decentralized decision making at the planning level, effective coordination, strong

collaboration, and adopting an inclusive approach to vulnerability reduction.

iv

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... i

Abstract ................................................................................................................ ii

List of tables ............................................................................................................... ix

List of figures ............................................................................................................... xi

Acronyms .............................................................................................................. xii

CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................ 1

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background: ....................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Problem Statement ............................................................................................. 3

1.3 Significance of the Study ................................................................................... 4

1.4 Objectives of the Study ...................................................................................... 5

1.5 Research Questions ............................................................................................ 5

1.6 Limitations of the Study..................................................................................... 6

1.7 Organization of the Study .................................................................................. 7

CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................ 9

LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 9

2.1 Rationale of Chapter .......................................................................................... 9

2.2 Disasters: A Global Overview ........................................................................... 9

2.3 Disaster Vulnerability Paradigm and Sociological Relevance ........................ 12

2.4 A Glance on Vulnerability and Risk Reduction Governance at the Global

Level ................................................................................................................ 14

2.5 A Generic Overview of Disasters in Pakistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Province ........................................................................................................... 17

2.6 Sociological Analysis of Vulnerability and Risk Reduction Governance in

Pakistan ............................................................................................................ 23

2.6.1. Legislative and Policy Framework ...................................................... 23

2.6.1(a) The West Pakistan National Calamities (Prevention and Relief and

Response) Act, 1958 ............................................................................ 23

2.6.1(b) The Civil Defence Act 1952 (Amended) 1994 .................................. 25

v

2.6.1(c) Pakistan Environmental Protection Act-1997 and the Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa Environmental Protection Act, 2014 ............................. 26

2.6.1(d) Building Code of Pakistan (Seismic Provisions-2007) ...................... 27

2.6.1(e) National Disaster Management Act-2010 .......................................... 28

2.6.1(f) The KP Local Government Act 2013 ................................................. 30

2.6.1(g) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Emergency Rescue Service (Amendment) Act-

2014...................................................................................................... 31

2.6.1(h) Pakistan Climate Change Act-2017 ................................................... 32

2.6.2 Policy Framework ................................................................................ 33

2.6.2 (a) National Disaster Management Policy-2013 ..................................... 33

2.7 National and Provincial Planning Framework ................................................. 34

2.7.2 Provincial and District Disaster Management Plans ............................ 35

2.8 Institutional/Organizational Framework .......................................................... 36

2.8.1. National Disaster Management Commission (NDMC) ......................... 36

2.8.2. National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) ............................. 38

2.8.3. Provincial Disaster Management Commission (PDMC) ....................... 39

2.8.4. Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA) ........................... 39

2.8.5. District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA)/District Disaster

Management Units (DDMUs).......................................................................... 41

2.9 Causes of Disaster Vulnerability in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.............................. 42

2.9.1 Physical Features ................................................................................. 43

2.9.2 Fragile Natural Environment ............................................................... 43

2.9.3. Climate Change and Variability............................................................. 44

2.9.4. Poor Quality of Construction and Building regulation .......................... 45

2.9.5. Population Growth ................................................................................. 45

2.9.6. Rapid Urbanization ................................................................................ 45

2.9.7. Poverty ................................................................................................... 46

2.9.9. Lack of Institutionalized Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment ........... 46

2.9.10. Pitfalls in the Implementation of National and Provincial DRR Policies

and Plans .......................................................................................................... 46

2.9.10. Weak Political Commitment ................................................................ 47

2.9.11. Social Stratification .............................................................................. 47

2.9.12. Lack of Awareness and Education ....................................................... 47

vi

2.10 Theoretical Framework of Research ................................................................ 48

2.10.1. Max Weber Perspectives on Disaster and Emergency Management ............... 48

2.10.2. Pressure and Release (PAR) Model: The Progression of Vulnerability

.......................................................................................................................... 49

2.11 Synthesis of Chapter ........................................................................................ 52

CHAPTER 3 .............................................................................................................. 53

METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 53

3.1 Introduction: ..................................................................................................... 53

3.2 Step Wise Procedure of the Study ………………………………………………………………54

3.3 Universe of the study ....................................................................................... 57

3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Procedure ............................................................. 57

3.5 Techniques and Tools of Data Collection ........................................................ 60

3.5.1 In-Depth Interviews (IDI) .................................................................... 60

3.5.2 Focus Group Discussions (FGDS) ....................................................... 61

3.5.3. Structured Interview Schedule ............................................................... 61

3.6 Data Analysis ................................................................................................... 62

3.6.1 Qualitative Data Analysis .................................................................... 62

3.6.2. Quantitative Data Analysis .................................................................... 62

3.6.3. Measurement of Disaster Vulnerability ................................................. 63

3.6.4. Indexation .............................................................................................. 64

3.6.5. Using Cronbach‘s Alpha test for Reliability Analysis ........................... 64

3.7 Ethical Consideration ....................................................................................... 65

CHAPTER 4 .............................................................................................................. 66

ANALYSIS OF QUALITATIVE DATA ................................................................. 66

4.1: Rationale of the Chapter ........................................................................... 66

4.2 Major Disasters Occurring in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and its Impacts .............. 66

4.3 Multi-Sectoral Impacts of Disasters on the Study Area................................... 68

4.3.1. Impacts on Social Sector ........................................................................ 70

4.3.2. Impacts on Economic Sector ................................................................. 76

4.3.3. Impact on Physical Infrastructure .......................................................... 79

4.3.4. Impacts on Governance and Environment ............................................. 80

4.4. Identified Vulnerable Groups to Disaster ........................................................ 82

vii

4.5. Multidimensional Vulnerability and its Causes in the Study Area .................. 85

4.5.1. Causes of Social Vulnerability in the Study Area ................................. 87

4.5.2. Causes of Physical Vulnerability ........................................................... 89

4.5.3. Causes of Economic Vulnerability ........................................................ 93

4.5.4. Causes of Attitudinal and Motivational Vulnerability ........................... 97

4.6. Legal and Institutional Framework and Its Role in Vulnerability Reduction in

the Study Area.................................................................................................. 99

4.7. Planning, Implementation and Monitoring of Vulnerability Reduction Projects

and Progarmme .............................................................................................. 106

4.8 Emergency Response Management and Post Disaster Recovery .................. 117

4.9 Systemic and Executive Flaws in Vulnerability Reduction Governance ...... 119

4.10 Community Participation in Vulnerability Reduction ................................... 124

4.11 Conclusion/Synthesis of Chapter ................................................................... 126

CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................ 128

ANALYSIS OF QUANTITATIVE DATA ............................................................ 128

5.1 Rationale .................................................................................................................. 128

5.2 Socio-Demographic information of the Respondents ....................................... 128

5.3 Disasters and Relevant Knowledge ..................................................................... 131

5.4 Univariate Analysis ................................................................................................ 134

5.5 Bivariate Analysis .................................................................................................. 158

5.6 Conclusion/Synthesis of Chapter………………………………………… 200

CHAPTER 06 ........................................................................................................... 201

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 201

6.1. Summary of Major Findings: ......................................................................... 201

6.2. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 204

6.3 Suggestions and Recommendations ............................................................... 204

6.3.1. Policy Level Suggestion ...................................................................... 204

6.3.2. Institutional Level Suggestions ............................................................ 205

6.3.4. Suggestions for Planning and Implementation .................................... 206

6.3.5. Suggestions for Budget Allocation ...................................................... 207

6.3.6. Suggestions for Emergency Management ........................................... 207

viii

6.3.7. Suggestions for Inclusive DRR ............................................................ 208

6.3.8 Suggestions for Systemic and Executionery Problems ......................... 209

References ............................................................................................................ 210

ANNEXURE 01: IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW CHECKLIST ...................................... 246

ANNEXURE 02: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION (FGD) GUIDE ......................... 248

ANNEXURE 03: STRUCTURE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE .................................. 250

ix

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 2.1 TOP TEN DISASTERS IN PAKISTAN (FROM 1900 TO 2011) SORTED

BY NUMBERS OF PEOPLE KILLED ......................................................... 20

TABLE 2.2 TOP TEN DISASTERS IN PAKISTAN (FROM 1900 TO 2011) SORTED

BY NUMBERS OF PEOPLE AFFECTED ................................................... 21

TABLE 2.3: IMPACT OF TERRORISM ON PAKISTAN ECONOMY FROM 2001 TO

2017 ............................................................................................................... 23

TABLE 3.1. SAMPLE SIZE .............................................................................................. 58

TABLE 3.2: BREAKUP OF QUALITATIVE STUDY PARTICIPANTS FROM

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS .............................................................. 59

TABLE 3.3: RELIABILITY STATISTICS ........................................................................ 65

TABLE 5.1: SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION OF THE RESPONDENTS ... 128

TABLE 5.2: EXPERIENCES OF DISASTER ................................................................. 131

TABLE 5.3: LOSSES FROM PAST DISASTERS .......................................................... 133

TABLE 5.4.1: EFFECTIVENESS OF LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK IN

VULNERABILITY REDUCTION ............................................................. 135

TABLE 5.4.2: RISK KNOWLEDGE, EDUCATION AND UNDERSTANDING RISK

FACTORS ................................................................................................... 137

TABLE 5.4.3: PROCESS OF PLANNING AND DECISION MAKING ........................... 139

TABLE 5.4.4: AVAILABILITY OF DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND MITIGATION

PLANS ......................................................................................................... 142

TABLE 5.4.5: BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR DISASTER VULNERABILITY

REDUCTION .............................................................................................. 144

TABLE 5.4.6: PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND EVALUATION

..................................................................................................................... 147

TABLE 5.4.7: EFFECTIVENESS OF PEOPLE CANTED APPROACH IN


TABLE 5.4.8: EFFECTIVENESS OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND POST

DISASTER RECOVERY MECHANISMS ................................................. 150

TABLE 5.4.9: FACTORS OF SOCIAL VULNERABILITY ............................................. 153

TABLE 5.4.10: FACTORS OF ECONOMIC VULNERABILITY ...................................... 154

x

TABLE 5.4.11: FACTORS OF PHYSICAL VULNERABILITY ........................................ 155

TABLE 5.4.12: FACTORS AFFECTING SOCIAL VULNERABILITY............................. 157

TABLE 5.5.1: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL

FRAMEWORK AND VULNERABILITY REDUCTION ......................... 159

TABLE 5.5.2: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN RISK KNOWLEDGE AND EDUCATION

AND VULNERABILITY REDUCTION .................................................... 165

TABLE 5.5.3 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PROCESS OF PLANNING AND DECISION

MAKING AND VULNERABILITY REDUCTION ………………………………171

TABLE 5.5.4: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN AVAILABILITY OF DISASTER

PREPAREDNESS AND MITIGATION PLANS AND VULNERABILITY

REDUCTION .............................................................................................. 176

TABLE 5.5.5: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR DRR AND


TABLE 5.5.6 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTATION,

MONITORING AND EVALUATION AND VULNERABILITY

REDUCTION .............................................................................................. 186

TABLE 5.5.7: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PEOPLE CANTED APPROACH AND


TABLE 5.5.8: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

MECHANISM, DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVES AND


xi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 2.1. PHYSICAL MAP OF PAKISTAN ............................................................... 18

FIGURE 2.2: SEISMIC ZONATION MAP OF PAKISTAN.............................................. 19

FIGURE 2.3: FLOOD HAZARD DISTRIBUTION IN PAKISTAN .................................. 21

FIGURE 2.4. DISASTER MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AS PER NDM ACT ............. 36

FIGURE 2.5. LAND USE MAP OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA .................................. 44

FIGURE 2.6 SEISMIC ZONATION MAP OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, AJK AND

NORTHERN AREAS.................................................................................... 44

FIGURE 2.7. PRESSURE AND RELEASE MODEL OF VULNERABILITY ................. 50

FIGURE 3.1. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK ....................................................... 55

FIGURE 3.2. EXPLORATORY SEQUENTIAL DESIGN ADOPTED FOR THE

CURRENT STUDY .................................................................................... 556

FIGURE 4.1. GLANCE ON MULTI-SECTORAL IMPACTS OF DISASTERS ON THE

STUDY AREA .............................................................................................. 70

FIGURE 4.2. MULTIDIMENSIONAL VULNERABILITY AND ITS CAUSES IN THE

STUDY AREA .............................................................................................. 86

xii

ACRONYMS

ACTED Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development

ADB & WB Asian Development Bank & World Bank

ADB Annual Development Budget

ADB Asian Development Bank

ADP Annual Development Programme

ADPC Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre

AJK Azad Jammu & Kashmir

APP Associated Press of Pakistan

C&W Communication & Works

CAR Commissioner Afghan Refugees

CBDRM Community Based Disaster risk Management

CBO Community Based Organization

CDPM Centre for Disaster Preparedness and Management

COP21 Conference of Parties 21

DDMA District Disaster Management Authority

DDMO District Disaster Management Officer

DDMU District Disaster Management Unit

DEWS Disease Early Warning System

DHQ District Headquarter Hospital

DNA Damage Need Assessment

DRM Disaster Risk Management

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

EM-DAT Emergency Events Database

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERRA Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority

FATA Federally Administered Tribal Areas

FDMA FATA Disaster Management Authority

FFC Federal Flood Commission

FFD Federal Flood Davison

FGD Focus Group Discussion

FIs Food Items

GDP Gross Domestic Products

GDPC Global Disaster Preparedness Centre

GI Galvanized Iron

GLOFs Glacial Lake Outburst Floods

GSP Geological Survey of Pakistan

xiii

HFA Hyogo Framework of Action

HPN Humanitarian Practice Network

HR Human Resource

IBC International Building Code

ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development

IDI In-depth Interview

IDPs Internally Displaced Persons

IFRC International Federation of Red Cross

INDNDR International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction

INGOs International Non Governmental Organizations

I-SAP Institute of Social and Policy Sciences

ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Natural Resources

JCSC Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

KP Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

LGD Local Government Department

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MHVRA Multi Hazard Vulnerability and Risk Assessment

MMR Mixed Method Research

NDMA National Disaster Management Authority

NDMAct National Disaster Management Act

NDMC National Disaster Management Commission

NDMP National Disaster Management Plan

NDRMF National Disaster Risk Management Fund

NFIs Non Food Items

NGOs Non Governmental Organizations

NIDM National Institute of Disaster Management

NIH National Institute of Health

NIMS National Institute of Management Services

P&D Planning and Development

PAHO Pan American Health Organization

PAR Pressure and Release

PBC Pakistan Building Codes

PC-1 Planning Commission Form One

PDMA Provincial Disaster Management Authority

PDMC Provincial Disaster Management Commission

PEOC Provincial Emergency Operation Centre

PEPA Pakistan Environmental Protection Act

xiv

PKR Pakistani Rupees

PMD Pakistan Metereological Department

PTSD Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

PWDs Persons or People with Disability

Rescue 1122 Emergency Rescue 1122, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation

SDGs Sustainable Development Goals

SDPI Sustainable Development Policy Institute

SFDRR Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction

SFP Supplementary Feeding Program

SOPs Standard Operation Procedure

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences

SUPARCO Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission

TDPs Temporarily Dislocated Persons

UAE United Arab Emirates

UBC Uniform Building Code

UC Union Council

UN United Nation

UNCRD United Nations Centre for Regional Development

UNCRPD United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNDRR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction

UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the

Pacific

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UNGA United Nations General Assembly

UNICEF United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund

UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

UNOCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

USA United States of America

USD United States Dollar

VDMCs Village Disaster Management Committees

WB World Bank

WHO World Health Organization

WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background:

Pakistan is continuously suffering from a series of natural and human induced

hazards and disasters. Natural hazards like earthquake, floods, glacial lake outburst

floods, droughts, avalanches, landslides, cyclones, river erosion and pest attacks have

been posing risks to Pakistani society (Government of Pakistan, 2007b). Human

induced hazards include terrorism, insurgency, industrial and urban fire, oil spills and

transport accident (UNISDR, 2005a). According to IFRC (2016), these natural

disasters have claimed lives of more than 89000 people while 86.67 million people

have been affected during 1993-2015. Similarly, the direct and indirect cost of

terrorism in Pakistan during the years 2001 to 2015 was estimated at 106.98 billion

US dollars (Government of Pakistan, 2015). The devastating earthquake of 2005,

floods-2010 and earthquake 2015 are the worst in Pakistan‘s history. In term of

human losses, the earthquake-2005 was one of the terrible disasters in the history of

Pakistan. In term of effect on people, the damage estimates reveal that flood-2010 has

surpassed three major disasters of 21st century which are Indian Ocean Tsunami of

2004, Pakistan‘s Earthquake of 2005 and Haiti‘s Earthquake of 2010 which affected

20 million population directly (World Bank & ADB, 2010). Similarly, the 2011

flood, September 2014‘s heavy monsoon rain and floods, three Glacial Lake Outburst

Floods (GLOFs) events between 2008-13, the 2008 and 2013 Baluchistan earthquake

and October 26, 2015 earthquake are the other episodes in the history of Pakistan

which have negatively affected the lives and livelihood of people in the country

(Government of Pakistan, 2014; Haq et al., 2012; Shahzad, 2014). Beside spending of

its own resources, the country has received potential disaster funding i.e. 5.9 billion

US dollar which is 5.5 per cent of the total global funding. But only 161.5 million US

dollars have been spent on vulnerability and risk reduction of the population segments

and a massive amount of it was spent on response management and rehabilitation

(Kellett, Caravani, & Pichon, 2014).

2

The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province covers 101,741 km² and stands the

smallest Province of the country (Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2016a). The

province is burdened with a disquieting and sundry portfolio of both natural and

anthropogenic disasters including an ongoing complex emergency (Provincial

Disaster Management Authority [PDMA], 2014). The province lacks a state of the art

disaster risk management mechanism to mitigate and prepare for disasters. The people

and the government both are well aware of the increased frequency and severity of

disasters and cognizant of the prevailing physical, social, economic and attitudinal

vulnerabilities. The year 2015 was momentous in term of frequent occurrence of

disasters in the province and large numbers of people were affected with extensive

damages to infrastructure. The mini-cyclone, flash floods, Glacial Lake Outburst

Floods (GLOFs) and October 2015 earthquake caused 232 deaths and inflicted serious

injuries to thousands of people. These disasters affected 98,000 housing units. The

total estimated cost of reconstruction of damaged public infrastructure was 40.7

billion rupees. During the same year, 10.5 billion was spent on compensating the

people and an amount of 24.6 billion rupees was spent on restoration of damaged

public infrastructure (PDMA, 2016). The intensity and frequency of these incidents

exposed the vulnerability of the inhabitants of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and have

identified the weakness and seriousness of the provincial government toward risk and

vulnerability reduction. The prevailing situation reveals that the province will face the

worst kind of effects in term of human and financial losses in the future disaster event.

Since late 1970s, there has been a gradual realization that natural,

technological and anthropogenic hazards are simply the trigger of a set of intricate

reaction governed by the physical, economic, social and attitudinal vulnerabilities of

society (Hewitt, 1983). Vulnerability has been attributed by various social sciences

researchers as the potential for loss or damages inherent in a person, family,

community or society (Weichselgartner, 2001). From sociological perspective,

vulnerability is a key to understanding the impacts of disasters and determining the

possible measures and solutions to prevent and mitigate the damages. Vulnerability

exists before the occurrence of a disaster, it contributes to the damages of disaster,

restricts appropriate responses to the disaster and continues after disasters have

subsided (Anderson & Woodrow, 1989). Despite conceptual variations regarding

vulnerability, sociology considers vulnerability reduction as a starting point for

disaster management. Researchers suggest that vulnerability approaches should focus

3

on analyzing ―vulnerability in daily lives‖ (Wisner et al., 2003) along with approaches

of participation and involvement of the whole community in disaster planning and

management (Pandy & Okazaki, 2005). Moreover, vulnerability approach to disaster

is immediately concerned with political and economic power (Cannon, 1994).

Government in its national, provincial, district and sub-district resolution remains the

most important actors in vulnerability and risk reduction. In the context of the present

study governance can be defined as a process of decision making and the process by

which decisions are implemented. It also focuses on both formal and informal actors,

organization and institution involved in decision-making process and implementing

the decisions (UNESCAP, 2015). Proper governance devises and implements

strategies to monitor and evaluate the ongoing projects; it takes necessary steps to

ensure compliance with agreed policies; and provides for curative action in cases

where policies, plans, strategies, rules and regulations have been overlooked or

misunderstood (Kefela, 2011). In light of the above cited definition, it is pertinent to

mention that supportive governance ensures coping capacity of the society. It

influences the way in which parliamentarians, public servants, civil society, media

and private sector to coordinate their actions to reduce longer term disaster

vulnerabilities. An effective legal and institutional framework, standard risk

mitigation/ reduction plans, adequate budgeting, presence of multi-hazards early

warning system, mass awareness system, focused research and emergency

management mechanism can save the lives of many people.

1.2 Problem Statement

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a province of Pakistan, has witnessed numerous

disasters in the recent past with divergent negative impacts on its inhabitants. Many

people suffered from long-lasting damages to their lives, health, properties,

environmental assets, severe impairment to infrastructure functions such as

communication, water and sanitation, power supply, transportation and security etc.

Factors which increased the physical, social, economic and attitudinal vulnerabilities

of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province were imprudent disaster risk reduction and

response approaches of dealing with disasters at the national and provincial level.

Besides, fragile natural environment (ADB, 2008), climate change and variability

(Eckstein, Künzel, & Schäfer, 2017), poor quality of construction and building

regulation (Rafiq & Blaschke, 2012;Ullah, 2010), rapid population growth (NDMA,

4

2013), unplanned urbanization (Ali et al., 2015), unemployment and widespread

poverty (Aftab, Hamid, & Prevez, 2002; Rehman, 2016), lack of institutionalized

hazard and vulnerability assessment (Rahman, Parvin, & Shaw, 2016), pitfalls in the

implementation of national and provincial DRR policies (Ahmed, 2013; Mian,

2014),weak political commitment (Khan & Jan, 2015), social stratification (Rehman,

2016; Akbar & Aldrich, 2018) and lack of awareness and education (Shaikh, 2019;

Idrees & Khan, 2018) further exacerbate vulnerabilities of the local people to both

natural and anthropogenic hazards.

After the devastating earthquake of 2005 and ratification of Hyogo Framework for

Disaster Risk Reduction 2005-2015 (Hyogo Framework was a ten year global

Framework of the United Nation focusing on disaster risk reduction) (UNISDR,

2005b), a comprehensive approach was adopted for the establishment of legal and

institutional framework for disaster risk and vulnerability reduction in Pakistan. The

provincial and national government claiming that they have moved from a reactive to

proactive approach for dealing with disasters. But the recent incidences of floods,

earthquake and landsliding have exposed the failure of the governance in reducing the

vulnerabilities of people. Keeping in view the rising number of death toll and

damages to properties in the presence of institutional framework at the provincial and

district level, the present study is the first attempt to describe the effectiveness of

governance in disaster vulnerability reduction in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. The

study identifies the problems, issues, deficiencies, and weaknesses in the terms of

governance towards vulnerability reduction to disaster.

1.3 Significance of the Study

The present study is first of its nature to analyze governance mechanism for disaster

vulnerability reduction in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, Pakistan. Keeping in view

the complexity of disasters and multi-dimensions of vulnerability, the question under

consideration is of significant importance while unearthing this study in the context of

related laws, policies, planning and operational mechanisms. It is expected that the

study will fill the gaps identified in various discourses regarding natural hazards,

disasters, vulnerability, governance and measures for vulnerability reduction. It will

add to the existing knowledge on vulnerability reduction governance from

sociological perspective. Besides, the study highlights hazard profile of the province,

causes of multifaceted vulnerability, laws governing disaster risk reduction as well as

5

systemic and executory problems in vulnerability reduction. The disaster managers,

planners and policy makers would get an opportunity to use results of this study for

devising and updating vulnerability reduction policies, plans and strategies both at the

local and national level. In addition, it will provide valuable information to academia

and researchers particularly from the field of disaster management, sociology,

geography, public policy, emergency management and other related disciplines. The

study will provide new insight to disaster management authorities and related

stakeholders for adopting a collaborative and holistic approach to disaster

vulnerability reduction.

1.4 Aim and Objectives of the Study

The basic aim of this study is to explore the efficacy of governance in reducing

vulnerabilities to disaster in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. The study unearths the

causes of vulnerability to disasters, multidimensional disaster impacts and prevailing

mechanism of dealing with disaster vulnerability reduction. Following are the specific

objectives of the study:

1. To compile the socio-economic and demographic profile of the study area;

2. To examine the existing condition of disaster vulnerability and

multidimensional impacts of disaster on the social and economic fabrics of

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province;

3. To ascertain the effectiveness of national and provincial disaster management

policies and plans in vulnerability reduction in the study area;

4. To investigate the systemic and execution flaws in vulnerability reduction

governance in the province; and

5. To explore the efficacy of people centered approach to vulnerability reduction.

1.5 Research Questions

1. What are the major flaws in the legal and institutional structure of disaster

management increasing vulnerabilities?

2. How the disaster management authorities and other stakeholders deal with

long term vulnerability reduction issues in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa?

3. Are the voices of local people given weightage at the time of policy making

related to inclusive and people centered disaster risk reduction?

6

4. What capacity building mechanisms the disaster management authorities at the

provincial and gross root level practice regarding disaster vulnerability

reduction?

1.6 Limitations of the Study

The study was designed to capture governance and disaster vulnerability in a

comprehensive manner. The researcher tried their level best to overcome various

limitations of this study. Following were some of the major limited confronted during

the conduction of this study:

The very first major limitation of this study was the peculiar taxonomy of

hazards, disasters, vulnerability and associated concepts. Though the

researcher came to know all these terms over time but it took long time to

understand. However, the study furnished opportunity to the researcher to

grasp these peculiar taxonomy while undertaking this research. Moreover,

after comprehending disaster related concept it took much time to search

substitute words in the local language (Pashto) during data collection

specifically from local communities. The researcher surmounted it through

frequent visits to the Pashto Academy of the University of Peshawar and also

consulted Pashto language experts.

The second major limitation of the study was non-availability or limed

availability of published literature on disaster management from sociological

perspective in Pakistan. The researcher overcomes this limitation through

reviewing more literature from multiple disciplines and then deriving

vulnerability related information from it.

Third major limitation of the study was time allocation and appointment for

interviews with the government officials. The researcher waited for hours in

each office just to meet the concerned officials to take appointment for

interviews. Even government officials didn‘t followed the schedule set for

interview with their consent. On average the researcher visited three to five

time each government official to conduct one interview. This was exhaustive

and consumed more time but the researcher overcomes this limitation with

patience as data from government officials‘ was crucial necessity of this study.

7

Fourth major limitation of the study was restrictions on women due to

prevailing cultural norms to interact with a male member of society or

participate in the focus group discussion jointly with male members. This

limitation was overcome through hiring of a female data investigator to collect

both qualitative and quantitative data from female respondents in the study

area.

The fifth limitation of the study was non-availability of accurate and updated

statistical data which could be relied upon. The statistical data available with

Disaster Management Authorities was scattered in various form. Moreover,

data available from various stakeholders was not identical to each other. The

researcher overcomes this limitation by visiting the revenue offices at

provincial and district level. Revenue Department and Local Government

Department document disaster damages data through Patwaris (Patwari is an

Accountant at the Union Council level in Pakistan maintaining land and other

record). The researcher cross checked all information particularly of various

disaster to validate and verify it.

1.7 Organization of the Study

This study consists of six chapters. The first chapter, as usual, is the introduction of

study. Chapter one illustrates information about background of the study, problem

statement, significance, objectives, research questions, limitations of the study and

organization of the study.

The succeeding chapter is on the comprehensive literature review, portraying

rationale of the chapter, overview of major disasters at global level, sociological

relevance of disaster vulnerability, global disaster risk reduction governance and

information about major disaster in Pakistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

Chapter two also describes review of legislative, policy, planning and institutional

frameworks along with causes of vulnerability in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. At

the end of the chapter theoretical framework has been presented along with synthesis

of the chapter.

Chapter three is about methodology which includes nature and procedure of the study,

universe, sampling method, data collection and analysis strategy. Chapter four

8

consists of qualitative data analysis conducted from relevant government officials and

local communities through in-depth interview checklist and focus group discussions

respectively. Chapter five presents quantitative data, containing univariate and

bivariate analysis for explanation of data.

Chapter six is portraying summary of the major findings, conclusion and

recommendations. References and specimen of the instruments of data collection have

been annexed at the end of this research study.

9

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Rationale of the Chapter

Literature review is the summarized assessment of the current state of art or

current state of knowledge on a particular topic or in a particular filed (Jan, 2011). A

literature review includes scholarly published articles, books, reports, policy

documents and any other source related to a particular topic, area of research, problem

or theory. It provides summary, description and critical evaluation of already

published work in relation to the problem under investigation (Fink, 2019). The main

purpose of literature review is to explore what other authors have done in order to

understand one‘s own research problem and assignment. The literature review

presents major debates on a particular issue and traces intellectual progression. A

well-structured literature review is characterized by current and relevant references

with appropriate and consistent referencing style; proper use of terminology; a logical

flow of ideas; and an unbiased and comprehensive view of the previous research on

the topic (Neuman, 2013). In a nutshell, this chapter is contributory to the researcher

in furnishing guidelines related to a study.

2.2 Disasters: A Global Overview

Man and environment have a very close nexuses and both affect each other in

negative and positive ways. Man is dependent on environment for fulfilling its day to

day needs and at the same time human interaction with environment creates so many

environmental problems. On the other hand environment is also affecting human

beings through multiple environmental processes like natural hazards (Kelman &

Gaillard, 2008). These natural hazards are nothing new to humanity and hazards like

floods, droughts, earthquake etc. are accompanying human being since generation.

However, these natural hazards in itself don‘t cause a disasters, but disasters are the

outcomes of interaction of hazards with vulnerable, less prepared and exposed

communities. Such types of interaction have caused unprecedented impacts on the

human population worldwide (Inter-Cooperation, 2010). These disasters are extreme

events within the earth system (atmosphere, lithosphere, biosphere and hydrosphere),

resulting in injuries to human health, deaths and damages/losses of physical and built

10

environment (Alexander, 1993). The impact of these extreme events may be rapid in

case of rapid onset disasters like earthquake or slow in case of slow onset disasters

like drought (Westen, 2000). Both slow and rapid onset disasters caused catastrophic

losses to life and properties and made adjustment difficult (Azad, Hossain, &

Nasreen, 2013; Joshi, 2008).

Every year disasters affect millions of people across the world. Over the past

fifty years a total of 12325 disasters were reported at the global level with impact on

millions of population (EM-DAT, 2016). According to IFRC (2018) a total of 3751

natural hazards were recorded by EM-DAT during 2008-2017. These natural hazards

affected 2 billion populations with an estimated damage of 1,658 billion USD in 141

countries. The most deadly disasters reported during 21st century are earthquakes,

tsunami, cyclones, hurricanes, droughts and floods. The 2010 Haitian earthquake

killed 230,000 people and rendered over one million people homeless (Bilham, 2014;

Holzer & Savage, 2013). In December 2004 an earthquake of 9 magnitudes caused

tsunami and affected twelve countries but the level of impact was higher on

Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand. The tsunami killed 230,000-250,000 people and

displaced million of population. The Tsunami waves traveled across Indian Ocean

with a range of 4500 km for about seven hours (Lay et al., 2005; Shaw et al., 2006).

The Tohoku Japan‘s 9 magnitude earthquake triggered tsunami with maximum

inundation of 19.5 meter in Northeast Japan. The tsunami killed 20000 people while

caused injuries to more than 6000 people (Mor et al., 2011; Nakahara & Ichikawa,

2013). In October 2005, a magnitude of 7.6 earthquake hit Pakistan and caused

mortality of more than 73000 people with an estimated 3.2 to 3.5 million affected

(Durrani et al., 2005; Vanholder et al., 2007). Similarly, in January 2001 Indian state

of Gujrat was struck by a magnitude 7.9 earthquake and killed more than 20000

people. The earthquake also destroyed 370,000 housing units (Jain, Noponen, &

Smith, 2003; Roy et al., 2002). Cyclone Nargis was the worst disaster in the history

of Myanmar. More than 140,000 people were killed, mainly by the storm surge (Fritz

et al., 2009; Guha-Sapir & Vogt, 2009; Seekins, 2009). The 2005 Hurricane Katrina is

considered as the worst disaster in the history of United States. The hurricane killed

an estimated 1200 people and the cost of damages was estimated at 108 billion USD

to property (Blake, Landsea, & Gibney, 2011). In December 2003, city of Bam in Iran

and surrounding towns in Southeast Iran was hit by an earthquake of magnitude 6.6

(Chiroiu, 2005; Tierney, 2012). The earthquake killed around 26000 people and

11

damaged many residential buildings (Mirhashemi et al., 2007). From July 2011 to

June 2012, a series of drought affected the Eastern Africa. This was reported as the

most severe drought in the past 60 years and created food crises in Ethiopia, Kenya,

Djibouti and Somalia. It was the recent most extreme climatic event and led to famine

in many countries with an impact on over 9 million people (ACTED, 2011; Funk,

2011). In May 2008 a magnitude 8 earthquakes struck the Sichuan province of China

and caused fatalities of approximately 70,000 people and millions were injured or left

homeless (Chan & Kim, 2011; Cui et al., 2011; Miyamoto, Gilani, & Wada, 2008). In

April 2015 an earthquake of magnitude 7.8 hit Nepal and the earthquake is considered

as the largest earthquake in Nepal‘s history since 1934. The earthquake killed 8800

people and damaged thousand of building while destroyed entire villages (Collins &

Jibson, 2015; Okamura et al., 2015). Apart from these deadliest disasters some

historical weather events also affected million of population. In 2009 West Africa was

severely affected by torrential rain and flooding. The flood affected 600,000 people in

16 West African nations (UNESCO, 2009). In 2010 flood an estimated 20 million

population was directly affected by floods in Pakistan (Khan & Jan, 2015). In June

2011 floods in China affected 67.9 million people (Guha-sapir, Vos, & Below, 2012).

Climate change related disaster also affected million of people. For example heatwave

killed 72000 people in Europe in 2003 (Hillstrom, 2015) and 56000 were killed in

Russia in 2010. Similarly, around 20,000 Somalis died due to drought in 2010

(Wallemacq, 2018).

From sociological point of view, none of these mentioned disasters can be

purely considered as ―natural‖ in origin. Areas which are politically, socially and

economically marginalized sustained more losses and these extreme events took place

in the context of vulnerability. These disasters severely affected low and medium

income countries due to lack of disaster mitigation and preparedness practices, weak

early warning system and risk and vulnerability reduction governance (CDPM, 2013).

In addition, the long standing pattern of urbanization, land ownership, land use, rural-

urban relation and governance determine what is done to prevent losses from disasters

(Blakia et al., 1994).

12

2.3 Disaster Vulnerability Paradigm and Sociological Relevance

By definition, disaster is the outcome of interaction of triggering agents

(hazards) with vulnerability (Kelman et al., 2016). For understating disaster

vulnerability, it is necessary to identify the meaning of disaster from vulnerability

standpoint. In the context of vulnerability, disasters are the combination of hazard and

people vulnerability resulting from development related problems (weak enforcement

of building codes, lack of land use policies etc.) (McEntire, 2001; O‘Keefe, Westgate,

& Wisner, 1976; M. E. Steckley, 2006; Yodmani, 2001). In a more simplistic way

disaster is ―the interface between vulnerable human population and extreme physical

event‖ (Susman, O‘Keefe, & Wisner, 1983). People perceive disasters in different

ways and attribute different meanings as per their understanding(Cornia, Dressel, &

Pfeil, 2016). But this understanding of disaster has changed over time. For example,

in early and mid 1990‘s disasters were seen as an act of ―God‖ or the outcome of

divine interventions. This ―dominant perspective‖ of viewing disasters as purely

natural phenomenon was opposed by sociologist, anthropologist and social

geographers (Steckley, 2006). Scholars like Burton, Kates & White (1993) and Hewitt

(1983) was the first one to contest this dominant paradigm of viewing disasters as

purely natural phenomenon and stressed on human behaviors as contributors to

disasters. The dominant perspective was reactionary in nature and undermined the

role of disaster risk reduction specifically preparedness and mitigation. The

―alternative paradigm‖ first presented by Burton et al., (1993) and Hewitt (1983)

focuses on viewing disasters as the outcome of interaction of human behaviors and

pattern of development along with triggering agents like hazards. The main difference

between the dominant and alternative perspective is, the later link disaster with the

societal development (Steckley, 2006). Later on the work of American sociologists

more thoroughly contributed towards viewing disaster as an unresolved problem of

societal actions (Quarantelli, 1998; Quarantelli, 1998). These initial work of various

social scientist provided new perspectives to disaster researchers and practitioners that

disasters are not only physical events causing human, social, physical, economic and

political impacts on communities but are socially constructed products (Webb, 2007).

This changing paradigm gives birth to a new approach i.e. ―holistic approach‖ and is

more valuable than the previous paradigms. The holistic approach is ―emphasizing on

multiple sources, catalytic processes and the complex interrelationship of social,

13

physical, built and technological systems‖ (McEntire, 2001). To understand this

complexity, the social science and disaster theorists now focuses on understanding the

socio-political and economic system and its influence on disaster vulnerabilities

(Pelling & Uitto, 2001) and generated a new approach called comprehensive

vulnerability management. It is a holistic, inclusive and integrated approach of

activities directed toward disaster risk reduction, diminishing disasters (if possible)

and building resilience and resistance in societies against disasters (McEntire et al.,

2002). From this discussion it is evident that disaster vulnerability is a combination of

factors determining and creating weakness in societal systems to anticipate, prepare,

absorb, cope with and restore from disasters (Eshghi & Larson, 2008; McEntire,

2001; Palliyaguru, Amaratunga, & Baldry, 2014; Wisner et al., 2003). To further

elaborate the concept of vulnerability under the holistic paradigm, Wisner et al.

(2003) discussion on disaster vulnerability provides good explanation to social

sciences researchers. It states that vulnerability is ―the characteristics of a group or

person and their situation that influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist

and recover from the impacts of natural hazards‖. Wisner et al. (2003) approach was

further elaborated by (Alexander, 2013) and pointed out that vulnerability to disaster

is socially constructed and outcome of the results of social, cultural, political and

economic factors in decision making processes.

Keeping in view this approach, none of the major disaster events discussed at

the start of this chapter was purely natural in origin. But these events like earthquake,

floods, droughts etc. affected the people differently in various part of the world due to

their level of exposure and vulnerability. For example Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004

as reported by Lay et al., (2005) and Shaw et al., (2006) was more catastrophic

compared to hurricane Katrina (Blake et al., 2011) in term of disaster mortality.

Although the economic impact of hurricane Katrina was very high but the

proactiveness of civil protection institutions in USA helped a lot in provision of

timely information to public and advisories on precautionary measures. Similarly, the

impacts of disasters in term of disaster mortality are higher in low and medium

income countries while it is less in developed countries. In low and medium income

countries the low level of preparedness, limited emphasis on mitigation, lack of public

awareness, limited coverage of early warning system and slow disaster response

mechanism are the major factors which increase the vulnerability of the population to

different disasters (CDPM, 2013). In contrast, in developed countries people are better

14

protected from hazards, have greater capacity to resist the impact of hazards, have

preparedness system in place, livelihoods are secure and income level is higher. These

factors increase their resilience and enable the system and communities to recover

quickly from disasters (IFRC, 2019). In low and medium income countries factors

creating disaster vulnerability are lack of proper land use planning and

implementation of building regulations (Caragliano & Manca, 2007; K. Tierney,

2012); poverty and economic inequalities (Carter et al., 2007; Fothergill & Peek,

2004; Weir & Virani, 2011); weak governance systems with poorly defined roles and

responsibilities (Guarnacci, 2012); limited access to services (Wamsler, 2007); gender

inequality (Dhungel & Ojha, 2012; Wisner, Gaillard, & Kelman, 2012) and lack of

meaningful public participation in decision making, rule of law, corruption and weak

environmental regulations (Tierney, 2012). All of the above factors mentioned are

related to societal systems and lead to high level of impacts of disaster on

communities and causes wide spread disruption to services and destruction to physical

and built environment. Hence, it is concluded that natural hazards in itself are not

disasters but disasters are the outcome of human actions damaging environment and

inaction limiting capacity of a system to prepare, mitigate, respond and quickly

recover from disasters.

2.4 A Glance on Vulnerability and Risk Reduction Governance at

the Global Level

Disasters have become a global problem due to two development in the 20th

century

i.e. frequent and greater disaster impacts on quadrupled world population and

development of modern technology along with research innovation in understanding

hazards and vulnerability (Housner, 1989). In view of these prevailing circumstances;

the United Nations designated 1990‘s (1990-1999) as International Decade for

Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) (Lechat, 1990). The decision was made on

December 11, 1987 at the 42nd

session of the United Nations General Assembly

(UNCRD, 1989). The basic aim of the declaration of the decade was to keep check on

the rising and unacceptable level of disaster losses and to utilize the engineering know

how and scientific knowledge to effectively reduce the losses from disasters

(Khondker, 2009). The IDNDR was focusing on five strategic goals. These goals

were (1) to enhance the abilities of all countries to mitigate the impacts of disasters;

15

02) to devise strategies and guidelines for disaster mitigation; 03) to promote

engineering and scientific endeavors for reduction of loss of life and property; 04) to

communicate the existing and new information regarding assessment, prediction,

mitigation and prevent and 05) to promote programmes of education, training,

technology transfer and technical assistance (Humanitarian Practice Network, 1994).

To review mid decade development in disaster risk reduction at the global level, the

first United Nations World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction was held in

Yokohama, Japan from 23 to 27 May 1994 (El-Sabh, 1994). On 27th

May the

Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World: Guidelines for Natural Disaster Prevention,

Preparedness and Mitigation and Plan Action was issued (Briceño, 2004) and was

subsequently adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. The Yokohama

strategy paper recognized that sustainable development and sustainable economic

growth can‘t be achieved without proper measure to minimize disaster losses. It

invited all countries to protect their population from injuries, death, traumas, property

losses and considered protection of people as main responsibility of all member states

(United Nations, 1994). Moreover, the Plan of Action emphasized on participation of

the local communities through community based disaster risk reduction (Khan & Jan,

2015). The IDNDR activities officially ended in 1999. However, under the Decade

activities, the UN made important successes in term of building vital links between

scientific, technological and political communities that the United Nations created a

successor body called International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR)

now called United Nation Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) (Konoorayar,

2006). These activities paved path for shifting focus towards disaster risk reduction,

moving from relief intervention and coping capacities to greater attention on risk

prevention, preparedness and mitigation (Baudoin & Wolde-Georgis, 2015). In 2000

the member states of the United Nations established the UNISDR secretariat in

Geneva, Switzerland for interdisciplinary involvement of all global stakeholders and

member states to coordinate, implement and guide disaster risk reduction activities

(Goodyear, 2009). The ISDR system consists of member‘s states, intergovernmental

and non-governmental organizations, financial institutions, civil society and technical

bodies working together and share information to reduce disaster risk (Joerin & Shaw,

2011). The ISDR strategic framework ensures the implementation of international

strategies for disaster risk reduction through coordination and effective collaboration

in order to reduce disaster vulnerability (Olowu, 2010). The most significant outcome

16

of the UNISDR system was the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 (HFA).

The Hyogo Framework of Action was a ten year plan adopted by 168 member states

of the United Nations in 2005 to protect people from the impacts of disasters and

safeguard livelihoods (de la Poterie & Baudoin, 2015). The UNISDR system served

as a focal point for coordination and implementation of the HFA (Innocenti & Albrito,

2011). HFA was the outcome of 2nd

World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction

held in Kobe, Hyogo, Japan in January 2005. HFA was the first comprehensive plan

at the global level articulated processes necessary to reduce the risk of disaster at

different level and various sectors(de la Poterie & Baudoin, 2015). The aim of HFA

was to ―substantially reduce disaster losses by 2015 through building resilience of

nations and communities to disasters‖ (Stanganelli, 2008). The HFA was having three

strategic goals and five priorities of actions. The HFA placed a strong focus on

establishing governance structure for disaster risk reduction and directed the member

states to ensure DRR as a local and national priority with strong organizational basis

and framework for implementation at all level (UNISDR, 2005c; Walker, Tweed, &

Whittle, 2014). The framework represented the collective commitment of the United

Nation, regional organizations, governments, local authorities, civil societies, NGO‘s

and academia. Primarily, states in collaboration with local government and civil

society were responsible for the implementation of HFA (Jeggle, 2013; Jones et al.,

2014). Besides, in 2002 Johannesburg Plan of Action was adopted in World Summit

on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002. The WSSD noted that an integrated,

inclusive and multi-hazard approach to address risk and vulnerability is inevitable for

a safer world in 21st century. The Johannesburg Plan provided concrete set of

objectives to UNISDR system for mainstreaming and integration of risk and

vulnerability reduction into development plans, policies and processes (Robert, Parris,

& Leiserowitz, 2005; UN, 2003). The Hyogo Framework for Action was effective

from 2005 to 2015. Despite many successes in term of establishing governance

mechanisms, risk assessment, strengthening preparedness and mitigation and setting

up early warning system, disaster around the world continued to cause impacts to

people and economies (Hellmuth et al., 2007; Nicholson, 2014).

In 2015, the global community under the leadership of United Nations adopted and

devised three landmark agreements. First in March 2015 a fifteen years action plan

i.e. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR 2015-30) was adopted

(Kelman, 2015). In September 2015, United Nations ratified and adopted the

17

Sustainable Development Goals. In December 2015, United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) largely binding agreements on climate

change known as Conference of Parties 21 or COP21 was adopted (Aitsi-Selmi et al.,

2015). All these three policy documents are interconnected and focus on disaster risk

reduction, climate change mitigation/adaptation and sustainable development. These

frameworks opened new chapters in sustainable development and risk reduction and it

is expected it will lead to substantial reduction in disaster vulnerabilities and risks

(Rowling, 2015). The Sendai Framework has been developed and built on the

experiences and lessons learnt from the implementation of IDNDR and HFA. The

Framework composed of various sets of targets and priorities to boost resilience to the

existing and future hazards and reduces setback to development due to disasters (de la

Poterie & Baudoin, 2015). It has reflected new challenges in 21st century i.e. climate

change, globalization, rapid urbanization, innovation in technologies and its impacts

on global disaster trends (Zia & Wagner, 2015). The framework recognizes that the

member states have the primary role of disaster risk reduction but this responsibility

shall be shared by other stakeholders including the local government, civil society and

private sector. The four priorities of action of the framework focuses on understating

disaster risk; strengthening governance for management of disaster risk; investment in

DRR for resilience and enhancing disaster preparedness for response and build back

better in recovery (UNISDR, 2015). Pakistan is signatory to all UN frameworks

adopted in 2015.

2.5 A Generic Overview of Disasters in Pakistan and Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa Province

Pakistan is located in South Asia and listed in the low income countries (Sayed &

González, 2014). It extends over an area of 796096 km2 (Chaudhry, 2017). The area is

a blend of different landscapes composed of plains, hills, deserts, forested land, coasts

and plateaus ranging from Karakoram range in the north to Arabian Sea in the south

(Figure No. 2.1. and 2.2.). Geographically, the area overlaps both the Eurasian and

Indian tectonic plates. Punjab and Sind provinces are lying on the north western

corner of the Indian plate. Most of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan

provinces are located on Eurasian plate. The state of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and

Northern areas are mainly lying on the edge of the Indian plate and prone to violent

18

earthquakes (Kazemi & Jan, 1997). Pakistan also has a long coastline and stretching

over an area of 990 km(Khan & Rabbani, 2000). Some of the world tallest and most

spectacular highest mountain peaks such as K2 (8,611 meters) are located in the north

of the country (Barry, 1987). The northern mountains are hosting largest glaciers as

well including the Siachen glacier (75 kilometer longs) and Biafo glacier (68 km

long) and feed water into the Indus river system (Hewitt, 1998). The country climate

is varied in nature and ranging from arid to semiarid, where some area (around three

fourth) of the country receive less rainfall (250 millimeter (mm) annually), except in

northern part of the country where the annual rainfall ranges from 760 mm to 2000

mm (Chaudhry, 2017). The country receives most of the rainfall during summer

monsoon in the plain areas. In northern part of the country, the winter temperature

drop to as low as -50 °C and stay around 15°C in summer (Frenken, 2011). A

noticeable temperature trends can be observed in the lower and upper plain of the

country. In lower plains that include most part of Sind and Punjab provinces, mean

monthly temperature in summer (March to June) varies from 42°C to 44°C

(Chaudhry, 2017).

FIGURE NO: 2.1. PHYSICAL MAP OF PAKISTAN

Source: (Jan, 2018)

19

FIGURE NO 2.2: SEISMIC ZONATION MAP OF PAKISTAN

Source: (Government of Pakistan, 2007a)

This diversified topography presented above is a blessings on one side but on the

other side it presents a diverse portfolio of natural hazards. For example very active

fault lines are located in the region and it has caused severe type of earthquake

disasters in the past. Historical episodes of earthquakes include May 1935‘s

magnitude 7.7 earthquake in Quetta Baluchistan (Murty & Rafiq, 1991); December

1974 Pattan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa earthquake of magnitude 6 (Ambraseys et al.,

1981); October 2005 Kashmir earthquake of magnitude 7.6 (Sato et al., 2007);

October 2008 magnitude 7.7 Baluchistan earthquake (Jolivet et al., 2014) and October

2015 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa earthquake of magnitude 7.5 (Ismail & Khattak, 2015).

Table No‘s. 2.1 and 2.2 provide further data on various disasters with their impacts on

human population. Like earthquake, floods are another serious problem of the

country. In Pakistan, flood is mainly caused by monsoon rains in Indus basin

comprising of Indus river and its tributaries (Kabul, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and

Sutlej rivers). Since creation of Pakistan, floods along the Indus Basin have wrecked

economic damage worth billion US $ and thousands of precious lives have been lost

(Ali & De Boer, 2007; Khattak, Babel, & Sharif, 2011). Figure No 2.3 depicts the

flood hazard distribution in Pakistan. The country faced serious problems when in

2010 heavy to super heavy riverine flooding, significant flash flooding and cloud

20

burst activities combined together with heavy precipitation in mountainous and semi-

mountainous regions and caused unprecedented flood in July and August 2010. The

flood affected 16,000 villages in 78 districts of Pakistan (Khan & Jan, 2015). In

September 2014, heavy monsoon rains caused flooding in Rivers Chenab, Ravi,

Sutlej, and Jhelum(Ismail & Khattak, 2015). Flood affected 2.53 million people and

damaged 107,000 houses (Khan & Jan, 2015).

TABLE 2.1 TOP TEN DISASTERS IN PAKISTAN (FROM 1900 TO 2011)

SORTED BY NUMBERS OF PEOPLE KILLED

Disaster Date No. Killed

Earthquake (seismic activity) 8-Oct-2005 73,338

Earthquake (seismic activity) 31-May-1935 60,000

Storm 15-Dec-1965 10,000

Earthquake (seismic activity) 28-Dec-1974 4,700

Earthquake (seismic activity) 27-Nov-1945 4,000

Flood 1950 2,900

Flood 28-Jul-2010 1,961

Flood 8-Sep-1992 1,334

Flood 2-Mar-1998 1,000

Earthquake (seismic activity) October 29, 2008 825

(Source: SARRC, 2014)

21

TABLE 2.2 TOP TEN DISASTERS IN PAKISTAN (FROM 1900 TO 2011)

SORTED BY NUMBERS OF PEOPLE AFFECTED

Disaster Date No Total Affected

Flood 28-Jul-2010 20,202,327

Flood 9-Feb-2005 7,000,450

Flood 8-Sep-1992 6,655,450

Flood 6,184,418 15-Jul-1992 6,184,418

Flood 2-Aug-1976 5,566,000

Earthquake (seismic activity) 8-Oct-2005 5,128,000

Flood Aug-1973 4,800,000

Flood Jul-1978 2,246,000

Drought Nov-1999 2,200,000

Storm 26-Jun-2007 1,650,000

(Source: SARRC, 2014)

FIGURE NO 2.3: FLOOD HAZARD DISTRIBUTION IN PAKISTAN

Source: (SUPARCO, 2015)

Similarly, drought also affected the country. The most severe drought started in 1999

and ended in 2002 (Pakistan Meteorological Department, 2002). Compared with

22

normal water supply the 1999-2002 droughts resulted in water shortage of up to 51%

and reduced the economic growth rate to 2.6% as compared to an average growth rate

of over 6% (Shahid et al., 2004). Moreover, landsliding in mountainous area of

Pakistan also affect the lives and livelihood of people (Khan, Collins, & Qazi, 2011).

In January 2010, in Gilgit Baltistan, a gigantic mass of rocks came down and caused

large scale landsliding in Attabad area of Hunza. The landslide blocked the flow of

Hunza river for five months (Iqbal et al., 2014). The landslide killed 18 people and

25000 were stranded from road transportation. Around 6000 people were displaced by

the lake formation due to landsliding. In June 2010, the Attabad lake reached to 13

mile length with a depth of 100 meters. More than 170 houses and 120 shops were

submerged in upstream area due to formation and extension of lake (Mir, 2010). The

mountainous areas of Pakistan located in Gilgit Baltistan, Kashmir and Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa are highly vulnerable to landsliding. Besides, heatwave, cyclones in

coastal areas, Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs) and avalanches are also posing

serious threats to the people of Pakistan. In anthropogenic disasters, settlement fire,

industrial accidents, oil spills, sectarian violence insurgency and terrorism are also of

significant importance while elucidating the country disaster profile (Fazeel & Jehan,

2016).

In anthropogenic disasters, terrorism has significantly affected Pakistan in general and

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in particular. More than 63000 people have lost their

lives due to terrorism between 2003 to 2017 (Sabri, 2017). Data presented in table 2.3

reveals that from 2001 to 2017, terrorism has caused an impact of 123.13 Billion USD

to Pakistan economy (Government of Pakistan, 2017a). The impact was very high in

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province because of the direct exposure of the province to

militancy and subsequent military operations in the province.

23

TABLE NO. 2.3: Impact of Terrorism on Pakistan Economy from 2001 To 2017


2.6 Sociological Analysis of Vulnerability and Risk Reduction

Governance in Pakistan

2.6.1. Legislative and Policy Framework

Disaster Management remained a neglected sector in the government policy

documents on legal framework side. The country disaster management programmes

and approaches only focused on flood disaster and that too on relief and rescue

(Ahmed, 2013). Considerable amount was spent on relief, rescue and rehabilitation

since independence of Pakistan (UNISDR, 2005a). The past disaster management

policies carried biased approach and only protected locations of strategic, political and

economic interests at the cost of more vulnerable areas. This approach led to weak

governance mechanism for proactive disaster management and vulnerability to

disaster increased day by day. The following section provides a complete picture of

legal disaster management framework of Pakistan.

2.6.1(a): The West Pakistan National Calamities (Prevention and Relief and

Response) Act, 1958

The West Pakistan National Calamities Act of 1958 was passed by the West Pakistan

National Assembly on April 03, 1958 (Gazette of Pakistan, 1958). On 19th

April 1958

24

the act was assented by the then governor of West Pakistan and on April 24th

, 1958

the act was published in the official gazette (ICIMOD, 2007). The Calamities Act

provides for the restoration and maintenance of order in areas impacted by different

calamities and for the control and prevention of and provision of relief against such

calamities. This act was adopted by all four provinces in West Pakistan as mirror

legislation (ActionAid and I-SAP, 2010). Under the Calamities Act, Provincial Relief

Commissionerates (abolished after the promulgation of National Disaster

Management Ordinance 2006 now called National Disaster Management Act-2010)

were established in each province. Under section 4 of the said act, Provincial Relief

Commissioners were given the responsibility of relief provision in case calamitous

situation. The Provincial Relief Commissioner was also senior member of the Board

of Revenue (Javaid, Arshad, & Khalid, 2011). At the district level, District

Coordination Officer was the field officer of the Relief Commissionerates (ActionAid

and I-SAP, 2010). Under section 4, the act empowered the Provincial Relief

Commissioner to segregate and evacuate population, requisite any machinery required

for field operation, requisite buildings or land for evacuation centre, demolish any

unsafe structures and buildings, recruit labor, requisition of stock of supply for

emergencies and to direct any person to take certain orders or refrain from certain

actions (Javaid, Arshad & Khalid, 2011). Under section 11 the government is asked to

provide procedure for issuing alarms against an impending calamity, method of

information, precautions and measures for averting calamities, methods for

assessment, payment of compensation and procedures for survey of damages. The Act

repealed the West Pakistan National Calamities (Prevention and Relief) Ordinance

1956, Khairpur National Calamities (Prevention and Relief) Act, 1954 and the Punjab

National Calamities (Prevention and Relief) Act, 1951 (ICIMOD, 2007). Under the

1973 Cabinet Division Rules of Business an Emergency Relief Cell (ERC) was

established in 1973 (Zaheer, 2012). The ERC was supposed to be defused in NDMA

but it is still functioning as parallel body and it has not yet merged (SDPI, 2011). The

act was response oriented in nature and mainly focused on provision of relief to

victims specifically flood victims with no provisions for preparedness and prevention.

Even counter measures suggested for flood was only focusing on riverine floods and

measures for flash floods were not included (Cheema, Mehmood, & Imran, 2016).

Moreover, the act provided a vertical configuration to management of calamities with

no or very poor coordination mechanism. The act only focused on relief and multi-

25

hazard approach to disaster management was missing (ActionAid and I-SAP, 2010).

As a result crises management approach dominated the country perspective and no

amendments were mad in the said act for proactive disaster management (Cheema,

Mehmood & Imran, 2016). These macro level systematic weaknesses increased the

vulnerability of population and the poor/powerless population was disproportionally

affected by disasters (Wescoat Jr, Halvorson, & Mustafa, 2000). Between 1947 and

2006, the only significant development that took place was the establishment of

Federal Flood Commission in 1977 to carry out work on flood protection and control

(Mustafa & Wrathall, 2011). The commission is responsible for preparation of

national flood protection plans and its implementation through federal line agencies

and provincial governments (Federal Flood Commission, 2018). The main focus of

the commission is on flood mitigation and water conservation but lack of dedicated

funds is affecting the performance of the said commission.

2.6.1(b): The Civil Defence Act 1952 (Amended) 1994

The National Civil Defence Act was enacted in 1952. The Civil Defence act adopted a

very skewed, misleading and unfair approach to civil protection by limiting its scope

in article 1(A) to protection of people during hostile attack by enemy (Gazette of

Pakistan, 1952). This mean the scope of the act was limited to war time only. To

ensure peace through capacity building of general public in case of any foreign

aggression, Civil Defence Department was established under the Ministry of Interior

(Cheema, Mehmood & Imran, 2016). In the context of other disaster, the act only

referred to control and prevention of fire hazard (Gazette of Pakistan, 1952). In 1994

amendments were made to the Article 1(A) of the act and its scope was expanded

through inclusion of words ―remedial measures during calamities or disaster in peace

time‖ (Gazette of Pakistan, 1994). At the provincial level Civil Defence Department

was governing under the Home Department. After the enactment of the National

Disaster Management Act-2010, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province the responsibility

to coordinate the activities of the Civil Defense Department at provincial and district

level was handed over to Relief, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Department. The

Civil Defence is having offices in each district but the department has become an

outdated institution due to financial constraints and lack of technical capacity to deal

with challenges in 21st century (ActionAid and I-SAP, 2010; Cheema et al., 2016).

26

2.6.1(c): Pakistan Environmental Protection Act-1997 and the Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa Environmental Protection Act, 2014

The United Nations scientific conference also known as First Earth Summit was held

in Stockholm, Sweden in June 1972. During the conference the global community

adopted a declaration regarding preservation of environment and recommendations

were made for environmental actions (Jackson, 2007). Before the Stockholm

conference there was no mechanism for environmental protection in Pakistan. Since

independence till 1980s this period is called as period of environmental neglect and

environmental issues were dealt with adhocism (Government of Pakistan, 2014b). In

1983, Pakistan‘s first Environmental Protection Ordinance was enacted. Under the

Ordinance Pakistan environmental Protection Council and Pakistan Environment

Agency was created in 1983 (Naureen, 2009). The ordinance was repealed by

Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997 (Gazette of Pakistan, 1997). The act was

meant for the conservation, protection, rehabilitation of environment. The act is

particularly focusing on control and prevention of pollution and promotion of

sustainable development (Naureen, 2009). On April 08, 2010 the National Assembly

of Pakistan passed the historical Eighteen Amendment to the constitution of Pakistan

(National Assembly Secretariat, 2010). The amendments abolished the legislative list

and devolved fifteen ministries to provinces. The provincial legislature was enabled

under the constitution to legislate on ecological and environmental matters (Khan,

2015). As a result the provincial Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa enacted the

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Environmental Protection Act, 2014. This act repealed the

Pakistan Environmental protection Act of 1997. Under section 32 the act empowers

the provincial government make rules and laws in conformity to the International

Environmental Agreements detailed in Schedule of the Act. Section (3) of the Act

provided for establishment of a Provincial Environmental Protection Council, an apex

body chaired by the provincial chief minister or his nominee. Section (04) empower

the council to implement and initiate projects for rehabilitation and protection of

environment, establish botanical gardens, conduct land zonation to save forest and

agriculture and promote eco-tourism. Environmental Protection Agency established

under the federal act of 1997 was deemed to be established by this Act under section

(5) (Gazette of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2014b; Khan, 2015).

27

Both of these acts are not directly targeting disaster management but rather it focuses

on the control mechanism of pollution, hazardous material and damaging environment

as a cause of environmental and hydro-metereological disasters. Section (12) of the

federal act and section (13) of the provincial have made environmental impact

assessment mandatory for all major projects. Disaster Risk Assessment has been made

an integral part of the environmental impact assessment guidelines for major project.

Moreover, the act also focuses on risk reduction through conservation and

rehabilitation efforts i.e. combating desertification, reforestation etc. (Gazette of

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2014b; Gazette of Pakistan, 1997). One of the major criticisms

on the act is it has been formulated in complete isolation from the local government

act. The local government act, time and again has referred to environmental protection

at the district level (Gazette of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2013) and role of local

government would have been vital in the protection of environment under this act

(Khan, 2015).

2.6.1(d).Building Code of Pakistan (Seismic Provisions-2007)

To properly regulate the construction work, engineering profession and develop laws

and bylaws for construction work, the government of Pakistan promulgated Pakistan

Engineering Council Act, 1975 (amended on 2011) (Gazette of Pakistan, 2011).

Under section (3) of the said act, an engineering council i.e. Pakistan Engineering

Council was established on January 10, 1976 (PEC, 2008). In 1986, Ministry of

Housing and Works prepared the Pakistan Building Codes 1986 (Governmnt of

Pakistan, 1987; Ullah, 2010). But these building codes was not really enforced,

adopted and updated. These codes were adopted from the Uniform Building Code

(UBC) of USA (replaced by the International Building Code (IBC) in 2000). The

UBC were having seismic provision but in Pakistan it was not replicated properly

(Business Recorder, 2015). After the fatal earthquake in 2005, amendments were

made to the Construction and Operation of Engineering Works bye-laws-1987 and

―Building Code of Pakistan (Seismic Provisions-2007)‖ were added (PEC, 2008;

Shah et al., 2013). This is considered the first nationwide policy regarding

construction of earthquake resistant buildings (Business Recorder, 2015). These codes

propose various procedures to use static and dynamic methods for conduction of

analysis of earthquake forces. The Pakistan Building Codes (PBC) ensures safety up

28

to ―life safety level‖ and proposes methodologies and operational procedures for

construction of buildings in various seismic zones of Pakistan. These codes are

applicable only to the engineering design of buildings, like structures and related

components (Shah et al., 2013). Despite enactment of these codes, vulnerabilities are

perpetuating day by day due to non enforcement of these codes. DRR experts are of

the view that these codes are only limited to one hazard i.e. earthquake and silent

about Tsunami and hydro-metereological hazards like floods and cyclones. Another

major limitation of the PBC is, the scope is only limited to buildings and doesn‘t

provide any mitigation measures for construction of dams, tunnels and bridges etc.

Moreover, these codes have been adopted from UBC but it has not been updated since

2007 to make it more endemic to Pakistani context.

2.6.1(e). National Disaster Management Act-2010

As discussed above, Provincial Relief Commissionerates was the only mandated

institutions at the provincial level dealing with disasters in the form of relief

provision, rehabilitation and compensation. After the 2005 earthquake the need for

establishing dedicated intuitions for DRR were recognized at the government level.

On December 23, 2006 the then president of Pakistan promulgated the National

Disaster Management Ordinance-2006 (PDMA, 2018a). The said ordinance was

passed by the National Assembly as ―National Disaster Management Act-2010‖

(hereinafter referred to as NDMAct) in December 2010 [Section 1(2)]. The NDMAct

was enacted from August 17, 2007 [Section 1(2)] (Gazette of Pakistan, 2010). Since,

the NDMA and PDMA‘s were established under the ordinance, that‘s why the act was

enforced from retrospective date.

The act encompasses 48 sections and 11 chapters. The National Disaster Management

Act 2010 is considered a landmark development on the legal side to achieve

sustainable soc-economic development through reducing risk and vulnerabilities in

the country (Maleeha, 2012). Under section 46, the NDMAct is having a superseding

authority over other relevant legal documents (Ahmed, 2013). This mean, that

institutions like Provincial Relief Commissionerates were abolished after the

establishment of the NDMA and PDMA‘s. The entire act can be broadly divided into

three major portions from section 03-36. Section 03-28 focuses on establishment of

institutions like National Disaster Management Commission (NDMC), National

29

Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), Provincial Disaster Management

Commission (PDMC), Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA) and

District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) etc. Section 29 to 32 provides

mechanism for finance, accounts and audit. Section 33 to 36 focuses on offences and

penalties such as false compensation claim and false warning etc. Section 37 to 48 is

about miscellaneous aspects like prohibition against discrimination, payment of

compensation, media directions, indemnity and annual reports etc. At the federal level

the NDMAct call for establishment of a National Disaster Management Council and

National Disaster Management Authority under section 3 and 8 respectively. The

NDMAct appoint the Prime Minister of Pakistan as ex-officio chairperson of the

NDMC [Section 3 (2a)]. The NDMA has been given the prime responsibility to

coordinate the spectrum of disaster management and implement national policy and

plans related to disaster management [Section 9-12]. At provincial level, each

province requires to establish a Provencal Disaster Management Commission

(PDMC) and Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMC) (Section 13 and

15). The PDMC empowers the chief minister of the province to work as Chairperson

of the PDMC. The PDMC has the power to lay down policy for disaster management

at the provincial level, approve provincial disaster management plans and monitor the

implementation of these plans [Section 14 (1), (2) & (3)]. Under section 15 each

province requires to establish a PDMA. The responsibilities, powers and function of

the PDMA is more elaborative and in detail. PDMA has to formulate a provincial

disaster management policy with the approval of the PDMC [Section 16 (2a)].

Coordinate the implementation and monitoring of the national policy, national plan

and provincial plans as well as conduct vulnerability assessment and evaluate

preparedness at all level [Section 16 (2b-2m)]. Under section 18 the NDMAct call for

establishment of the DDMA‘s in each district of all provinces. Establishment of the

DDMA‘s is also the responsibility of the provincial government. The act appoints

head of the local council at the district level as chairman of the DDMA. The act

appoint the deputy commissioner of the district, district police officer and executive

district officer health as members of the DDMA with other such members appointed

by the district government [Section18 (2a-2e)]. The DDMA is the implementing unit

of the entire spectrum of disaster management at the district level [Section 20 (2a-2t)].

For capacity building, education, training and research the act provide to establish a

National Institute of Disaster Management (Section 26). For specialist response to a

30

threatening disaster event, the act provide for establishment of a National Disaster

Response Force (NDRF) (Section 27). Under section 29 and 30, the Act establishes a

National Fund for Disaster Management and Provincial Fund Disaster Management

respectively (Gazette of Pakistan, 2010).

The National Disaster Management Act 2010 was amended by the provincial

legislative assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in 2012. Two major amendments were

mad to the act along with some minor amendments. First, the National Act was silent

about complex emergencies like terrorism and militancy while the Provincial Disaster

Management Authority was directed by the provincial government in 2009 to deal

with the Temporarily Displaced People (TDPs) in the province. As a result in the

definition of disasters in Section 2(b), the provincial government included terrorist

activities, bomb blast, militancy and annoyed mob. Second major amendment was

made to Section 18 of the National Act changing the nomenclature of the District

Disaster Management Authority to District Disaster Management Unit (Gazette of

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2012b).

Despite it comprehensiveness, the act still have some loophole. For example the very

definition of disaster management in Section 2(c) is incomplete from the perspective

of disaster risk reduction. The act has narrowed the complete spectrum of disaster

management only to preparedness, response, recovery, rehabilitation and

reconstruction. This means that the act is silent about disaster mitigation to reduce

vulnerabilities and risks. Like mitigation, there is very little room for prevention.

Although prevention of all hazards are not possible but for some hazards prevention

measures exists i.e. flood prevention thorough construction of dams, prevention of

epidemic or strict implementation of policies related to terrorism. Furthermore, the act

very much focuses on managing incidents of disaster rather than disaster risk

reduction. The act need amended to make it align with the International Frameworks

i.e. Sendai Framework for DRR.

2.6.1(f). The KP Local Government Act 2013

The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act 2013 was passed on October 31,

2013. Under the act local government elections were conducted and local government

system was placed in all districts excluding the newly merged tribal districts. The act

refers to disasters including flood, earthquake, fire drought, cyclones, landslide and

31

damages caused by force majeure (First Schedule of the said Act). The act devolves

disaster and civil defence planning to district level. The act further provides for

context specific disaster management. The district government has been empowered

by the act to prepare and organize relief activities, manage civil defense department,

search and rescue and fire services to provide protection to the population in the

jurisdiction of the district (first schedule with details provided in section 12 of the

Act). Most particularly Article 2(h) focus on ensuring the security of a building

threatening human life. As per Article 2 (r) municipal services at the district and sub

district level includes fire fighting, land zoning and control, enforcement of law

(building codes and zoning regulations etc.), conservation of environment along with

other welfare services. Article 14 (d) directs the District Council to formulate and

execute annual development programmes. As per section 66 of the act (Schedule

fourth and fifth), offences and penalties have been defined for violating government

rules related to building codes, deforestation, encroachment and damaging

environment (Gazette of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2013). Although the act provide for

context specific disaster management but it further strengthen the implementation of

the National Disaster Management Act-2010. The system is still in infancy stage and

full impact on communities has to take place. The act empowers the district

governments to develop programmes of public safety through preparedness and

mitigation, allocate budget and exercise control mechanisms to reduce vulnerabilities.

2.6.1(g). Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Emergency Rescue Service (Amendment) Act-

2014

The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa enacted the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Emergency Rescue Service Act in 2012 (Gazette of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2012a).

The act was amended in 2014 and now called the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Emergency

Rescue Service (Amendment) Act, 2014 (Gazette of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2014a). In

addition to National Disaster Management Act 2010, the Emergency Rescue Services

Act is the first comprehensive act to establish standard emergency services at the

provincial level with sub offices at district level for dealing with emergency situation.

As the name of the act indicates, it is particularly focusing on an emergency situation.

Under Section 2 (g) the act define emergency as ―a serious and potentially dangerous

situation requiring immediate action such as accident, hazardous material incident,

32

fire, explosion, natural or manmade disaster and medical emergencies‖. Section (3)

of the act call for establishment of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Emergency Rescue Service

in the province. Section (4) of the act define the roles of the Rescue 1122 and direct

the Rescue 1122 to conduct operations for timely emergency management with a state

of preparedness at all level. Section (5) of the act call for establishment of a Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa Emergency Council and appoint the Secretary to Government, Relief,

Rehabilitation and Settlement Department as Chairman of the Council (Gazette of

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2014a). At the moment Rescue 1122 is functional in ten

districts of the province and it has responded to 2,41,997 emergencies i.e. Fire,

Medical, Bomb blast, Road Traffic accident, Building collapse, Flood relief

operations, Drowning, Land Sliding etc. (Ahmad, 2019). In the context of

preparedness it is encouraging that the province has dedicated Rescue Services for

emergency response management but its impact is only limited to ten districts and 25

districts are still lacking this facility (Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2019b).

To sustainably reduce disaster risk, the act has very narrow focus towards disaster

prevention and mitigation. Moreover, the act has been formulated in isolation with

reference to National Disaster Management Act-2010. For example, under section 4(j)

the act only directs the Rescue 112 to collect and analyze emergency response data

and statistics for further use in emergency prevention. In the context of disaster

mitigation, section 4(i) only direct rescue 1122 to suggest measure for mitigation or

prevention of hazards endangering public safety on public spaces like roads, parks

and trade shows etc. (Gazette of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2014a).

2.6.1(h). Pakistan Climate Change Act-2017

Government of Pakistan ratified the Paris Agreement in November 2016. Academic

research on climate change governance revealed that Pakistan‘s legislation previously

didn‘t cover the phenomenon of climate change (Jamal, 2018). To fill the gap and

comply with Paris Agreement, Government of Pakistan passed the Pakistan Climate

Change Act in 2017 (Ebrahim, 2017). The Climate Change Act-2017 establishes a

policy making Climate Change Council (Section 3) and appoint the Prime Minister as

its chairman with membership from various ministries and all provinces (Section 3a-

3g). For preparation, supervision and implementation of projects related to climate

change, the Act call for establishment of a Climate Change Authority (Section 5).

33

Under section (12) the act establishes a Pakistan Climate Change Fund (Gazette of

Pakistan, 2017). The act was welcomed by many experts but also criticized as well.

The Act needs a strong government support in implementation and funding especially

in implementation of mitigation and adaptation project on ground rather than using it

as attraction for donor funds (Ebrahim, 2017). Previously the Pakistan Climate

Change Policy was developed and adopted in 2013 but it was languished by the

successor government and converted the Climate Change Ministry to a division

(Climate Change Ministry status was elevated back ahead of Paris Agreement in

2017). Moreover, section (14) of the Act provides immunity from prosecution. This

hamper the accountability mechanism as there is no definition of ―good faith‖ in the

act and gross negligence of activities can be observed on part of the bureaucrats

(Jamal, 2018).

2.6.2 Policy Framework

2.6.2 (a): National Disaster Management Policy-2013

Pakistan first national Disaster Risk Reduction Policy (hereinafter referred to as DRR

Policy) was approved by the National Disaster Management Commission on 21st

February 2013. The policy was considered as a landmark development in DRR

regime of the country (Business Recorder, 2013). The policy introduces an

anticipatory and proactive approach with the aim to create resilience through risk and

vulnerability assessment, mitigation, prevention and preparedness. The basic principal

of the DRR policy is focusing on adapting multi-hazard approach to risk reduction

strategies. Policy articulates that vulnerability and risk analysis as the basis of DRR

interventions. It is focusing on strengthening community participation and resilience.

The policy directs the relevant line departments to promoting inter-organizational

partnerships and ensures transparency and accountability in all DRR interventions.

DRR policy introduces three key policy interventions for building resilience in the

country. These interventions are risk knowledge (national and local risk assessment;

risk and vulnerability atlases; climate change focused research; damage and loss

database), prevention and mitigation (Creating more resilient communities through

maximizing participation in mitigation projects; Integration of DRR into macro and

micro level development planning; building resilience of life line and key-

infrastructure facilities) and preparedness (establishment of multi-hazard early

34

warning system; development of disaster preparedness and response plans;

establishing emergency response institutions etc.) (NDMA, 2013). The policy

highlighted various challenges to its implementation. But these challenges have

undermined institutional resilience of the government and silent about the capacities

of the disaster management institutions. The fundamental overlaps in roles and

responsibilities have been missed in the policy. DRR policy talk about inter-

organizational partnership but failed to establish clear and harmonized institutional

collaboration. The policy is just an extension of the National Disaster Risk

Management Framework (2007-2012) and failed to represent the devolution created

by the 18th

constitutional amendment. Moreover, integration of latest scientific

knowledge with the traditional local knowledge has been missed (Zeshan & Khan,

2015). In the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, the PDMA has not yet developed any

disaster management policy. Despite its approval in 2013, significant changes in DRR

regime in the country can‘t be observed to non serious attitude of the official dealing

with disaster and lack of implementation of legislative and policy frameworks.

2.7 National and Provincial Planning Framework

2.7.1. National Disaster Management Plan (NDMP) 2012-22

The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) in collaboration with Japan

International Collaboration Agency (JAICA) developed a National Disaster

Management Plan 2012-2022 (NDMP) in 2012 (JAICA, 2013). The Plan was

approved on February 21st, 2013 by the National Disaster Management Commission

(Bacha, 2016). The NDMP replaced the National Disaster Risk Management

Framework (2007-2012) (ADB, 2015). The total cost of the plan implementation was

determine as 1040.9 million US dollar (PKR. 92.02 Billion on conversion rate of 1

USD = 88.4 PKR.). The main objective of the plan is to adopt a comprehensive

approach to disaster risk reduction at the national level and achieve socio-economic

development through reduction of risk and vulnerabilities. The NDMP consist of three

volumes. The main volume of the plan is focusing on disaster profile of Pakistan and

disaster management system. The plan has identified measures for management of

hydrological, metrological, glacial, geological and industrial hazards. The main plan

is an easy reference material for provincial government to select and implement

projects. The plan has illustrated the mitigation and prevention measures. Volume one

is Human Resource Development Plan on Disaster Management. Volume one

35

provides capacity building and training activities for government officials through

National Institute of Disaster Management and local communities through PDMA‘s,

DDMUs and NGOs. Volume two focuses on strengthening and development of multi-

hazard early warning system in the country. Volume three is consist of comprehensive

guidelines for Instructors‘ on Community Based Disaster Risk Management

(Government of Pakistan, 2012). DRR experts believe that the plan has been prepared

by consultants without capturing plan requirements. For example a very erroneous

type of risk severity index has been presented in the plan for categorization of

districts. The indexation has been done through consultation with stakeholders in

Islamabad by international consultants without knowing the hazard profile of the area.

Moreover, the plan doesn‘t capture the devolution of disaster management to

provinces. Except strengthening the institutional response capacity, government has

failed to properly implement the plan (Fazeel & Jehan, 2016).

2.7.2 Provincial and District Disaster Management Plans

One can easily understand the seriousness of provincial government toward disaster

risk reduction in the province. As discussed the province has not yet develop any

provincial policy for disaster risk reduction despite the enactment of NDMAct in

2010. Similarly, they have failed to develop a provincial disaster management plan

(Nawaz & Khalid, 2017). In 2014, a provincial roadmap was developed for five years

to continue DRR activities in the province. As a document the Road Map is full of

various DRR measures both structural and non-structural but its implementation is a

major challenge for the PDMA. The total cost of implementation of the Roadmap was

determined as 42.75 Billion USD in 2014 over a period of five years (PDMA, 2014).

The very first component of the Road Map is focusing on developing a provincial

disaster management policy and formulation of provincial disaster management plan.

The Road Map also provides details on comprehensive vulnerability assessment of the

province. At the districts level the PDMA in consultation with INGO‘s has developed

a few plans for selected districts. These plans are generic in nature and only provide

hazard profile of the districts and establishment of institutional framework from

district to union council level (Nawaz & Khalid, 2017) .

36

2.8 Institutional/Organizational Framework

After the promulgation of National Disaster Management Ordinance 2006 (now

Pakistan‘s National Disaster Management Act-2010), the government established the

National Disaster Management Commission and National Disaster Management

Authority (NDMA) at the federal level in August 2007. Subsequently Provincial

Disaster Management Authorities (PDMA‘s) was established at the provincial level.

In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Provincial Disaster Management Commission (PDMC) and

Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA) were established in October

2008 (PDMA, 2016). Figure No 2.4 provides complete disaster management structure

of Pakistan. Detail description of the roles and responsibilities of each tier of disaster

management has been given below.

FIGURE NO 2.4. DISASTER MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AS PER NDM

ACT

Source: (Adopted from Gazette of Pakistan, 2010)

2.8.1. National Disaster Management Commission (NDMC)

Under Section 3 (1) of the National Disaster Management Act, Government of

Pakistan has established a National Disaster Management Commission (NDMC) at

the federal level. NDMC is the affix policy and decision making body for disaster risk

reduction in the country. The National Disaster Management Commission is

37

responsible to ensure coordination at all level, oversee the mainstreaming of DRR into

sectoral development plans and ensure the implementation of disaster management

policies through NDMA. The NDMC is headed by the Prime Minister of Pakistan as

ex-officio chairperson. The Chairman NDMA is working as ex-officio secretary of the

NDMC (Government of Pakistan, 2007b). Following are the details of the

membership of NDMC:

a) Prime Minister of Pakistan (Chairperson, ex-officio);

b) Leader of Opposition in the National Assembly;

c) Leader of Opposition in the Senate;

d) Minister for Social Welfare and Special Education;

e) Minister for Foreign Affairs;

f) Minister for Defense;

g) Minister for Finance;

h) Minister for Interior;

i) Minister for Health;

j) Minister for Communications;

k) Chief Ministers of all the Provinces;

l) Chairman, JCSC or his nominee;

m) Governor Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for Federally Administered Tribal Areas

(Federally administered Tribal areas have been merged with Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa);

n) Prime Minister of Azad Jammu and Kashmir;

o) Representatives of civil society

p) Any other person appointed or co-opted by the Prime Minister;

q) Chief Minister, Gilgit-Baltistan; and

r) Chairman NDMA as ex-officio Secretary (Gazette of Pakistan, 2010).

Main responsibilities and powers of the NDMC are to approve the national disaster

management plans, develop policies for disaster management, approve plans

developed by relevant line ministries and departments in accordance with the National

Plan, arrange funds for mitigation/preparedness/response and extend support to other

38

countries affected by disasters (NDMA, 2018c). As per national disaster risk

management framework, the NDMC has to meet twice a year in routine. The

Chairperson can call an emergency after issuance of an early warning or occurrence

of disaster (Government of Pakistan, 2007b).

2.8.2. National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA)

The National Disaster Management Authority is the main coordinating body of

disaster risk management in Pakistan. As discussed in the legislative framework,

Pakistan institutional response to disasters was mainly focusing on floods before 2005

earthquake. NDMA was established in 2007 after the tragic incident of October 2005

earthquake (NDMA, 2008). As per NDMAct-2010, NDMA is the main coordinating

body of management of complete spectrum of disaster management in Pakistan

(Gazette of Pakistan, 2010). NDMA has been established to serve as a coordinating

body and focal point for the implementation of disaster risk reduction strategies at the

national level. This necessitate NDMA to directly communicate and interact with

various ministries, divisions, PDMA‘s, civil society and other relevant stakeholders to

ensure a state of preparedness against disasters in the country. During an emergency

situation NDMA lead the response operations and coordinate the activities of all

stakeholders (Government of Pakistan, 2007b). Following are the specific powers and

functions of the NDMA:

a) Act as coordinating, implementing and monitoring body for disaster risk

management at the national level;

b) Prepare National Disaster Management Plans for further approval from the

NDMC;

c) Coordinate and monitor the implementation of DRR Policy;

d) Develop guidelines for preparation of plans by relevant line departments and

ministries including PDMA‘s;

e) Extend technical assistance to PDMA‘s for preparation of provincial DRR

plans in accidence with the guidelines of National Commission;

f) Coordinate response activities in any disaster or threatening situation;

g) Provide directions to provincial governments, PDMA‘s and relevant line

ministries regarding protection measures in an event of disaster or any

threatening situation;

39

h) Conduct activities for public awareness and promote general education related

to disaster risk reduction and

i) Perform other such functions as directed by the NDMC (NDMA, 2018b).

2.8.3. Provincial Disaster Management Commission (PDMC)

Disaster management is a provincial subject after the 18th

Constitutional Amendment

to the constitution of Pakistan (National Assembly Secretariat, 2010). The provincial

government has a central role in disaster risk reduction through implementation of

strategies, plans, policies and programmes. Each province has established a Provincial

Disaster Management Commission (PDMC) chaired by the Chief Minister of the

concerned province. PDMC is a governing body for disaster risk reduction at the

provincial level. PDMC is composed of the Chief Minister as chairperson of the

PDMC, leader of the opposition in provincial assembly and one of his nominee to act

as member of the Commission. The Director General of the PDMA act as an ex-

officio secretary of the Commission. The Chairperson can nominate members from

relevant government ministries and departments in the province (Government of

Pakistan, 2007b). Under section 13(c) of the National Disaster Management Act, the

Chairperson of the PDMC can also nominate members from civil defense, fire

services, Red Crescent, university faculty, civil society organizations, representative

from commerce and technical experts in the region (Gazette of Pakistan, 2010). The

PDMC is working as focal point to facilitate links between the national DRR

objectives and provincial priorities (Government of Pakistan, 2007b). Specific

functions of the PDMC are to lay down the disaster management policy at the

provincial level; approve provincial DRR plans in accordance to National

Commission guidelines; arrange funds for preparedness/mitigation; review

development plans of various government departments in the context of DRR and

examine disaster preparedness, mitigation and capacity building measures taken by

provincial government departments (Gazette of Pakistan, 2010).

2.8.4. Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA)

As per NDMAct-2010 section 15 (1) each provincial government has established a

Provincial Disaster Management Authority (NDMA, 2013). PDMA is responsible for

coordination and implementation of disaster management plans and policies at the

40

provincial level. PDMA is serving as a secretariat to the Provincial Disaster

Management Commission. The main role of PDMA is to undertake disaster risk

reduction activities in vulnerable areas and sectors of the province (Government of

Pakistan, 2007b). In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province PDMA was established in

October 2008. For erstwhile Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) a separate

unit as FATA Disaster Management Authority (FDMA) was established. But after

merger of FATA with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, FDMA has been merged in

PDMA, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and has been notified as Complex Emergency Wing of

the PDMA (PDMA, 2019). Following are the powers and functions of the PDMA:

a) Formulate a provincial disaster management policy and approve it from the

Provincial Disaster Management Commission;

b) Monitor and coordinate the implementation of National Disaster Management

Policy, National Disaster Management Plan and Provincial Plan;

c) Conduct vulnerability assessment of the province and specify mitigation or

prevention measures;

d) Develop guidelines for preparation of sectoral disaster management plans and

district disaster management plans;

e) Enhance preparedness and evaluate preparedness at both governmental and

non-governmental level;

f) Coordinate disaster response in an event of disaster to ensure civil protection;

g) Direct any provincial authority or department to take actions in response to

disasters;

h) Conduct training and awareness for community and promote DRR education;

i) Extend technical assistance to district authorities for conducting specific

functions to reduce vulnerabilities;

j) Inspect and examine construction in the provincial jurisdiction as per the

guidelines for hazard resistant construction;

k) Ensure the conduction of disaster management drills on regular basis and

establish communication system;

l) Communicate and coordinate with all stakeholders before, during and after a

disaster for effective preparedness and response;

m) Handle displacement and establish camps;

n) Act as donor‘s coordination and facilitation desk during an emergency

situation; and

41

o) Perform any other functions assigned by the National Authority or PDMC

(NDMA, 2018a; PDMA, 2018b).

2.8.5. District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA)/District Disaster

Management Units (DDMUs)

Section 18 (1) of the National Disaster Management Act direct the provincial

governments to established District Disaster Management Authority in each district of

the province (Gazette of Pakistan, 2010). In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province the

nomenclature of the District Disaster Management Authority has been changed to

District Disaster Management Units (DDMUs). DDMUs are the gross root

implementation body of disaster risk reduction strategies and policies (PDMA,

2017a). Membership of DDMUs consists of Head of District Council as Chairperson,

the Deputy Commissioner, the District Police Officer, the Executive District Officer

Health, and such other officers appointed by district government (Gazette of Pakistan,

2010). Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has established DDMUs in all districts of

the province. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, PDMA has assigned the duty of

District Disaster Management Officer (DDMO) to the Assistant Commissioner

Headquarter as additional charge (PDMA, 2017a). The District Disaster Management

Units are working as district level coordinating, planning and implementation body of

all measure related to disaster management in accordance with the guidelines of

NDMA and PDMA (Government of Pakistan, 2007b).

Specific powers and functions of the DDMU are following:

a) Prepare and develop district level disaster management plan including

response plan;

b) Monitor and coordinate the implementation of National/Provincial Disaster

Management Policy and National/Provincial/District level disaster

management plans;

c) Ensure vulnerability assessment and develop prevention/mitigation measures;

d) Ensure that all authorities at the district level are implementing prevention,

mitigation, preparedness and response measure in accordance to guidelines

developed by NDMA and PDMA;

e) Monitor implementation of sectoral disaster management plans developed by

district government departments;

42

f) Coordinate and organize specialized training for government officers,

employees and volunteer at the district level;

g) Develop district level contingency plan and play lead role in disaster

operations;

h) Conduct rescue activities, provide relief and cash compensation to public in

time of disaster;

i) Facilitate community level training and public awareness programmes in

collaboration with district government departments and non-governmental

organizations;

j) Maintain, set up, upgrade and review mechanisms for early warning and

disseminate credible information to public;

k) Update and review district disaster response plan and guidelines;

l) Review district level development plans for making necessary provisions

disaster prevention and mitigation;

m) Identify safe evacuation site and make necessary provision for water supply

and sanitation;

n) Ensure preparedness through stockpiling of rescue and relief materials;

o) Communicate and provide information to PDMA relating to various aspect of

disaster risk reduction;

p) Encourage the involvement of volunteers and civil society organizations in

disaster management at the district level; and

q) Perform any other functions assign by PDMA or provincial government

related to disaster management (Gazette of Pakistan, 2010; Government of

Pakistan, 2007b; PDMA, 2017a).

2.9 Causes of Disaster Vulnerability in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province is home of 35.525 million people living in 35

districts (Government of Pakistan, 2017b; PDMA, 2019). The province also hosts 1.8

million Afghan refugees since decades (PDMA, 2014). The province of Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa is known for its beautiful landscape and diverse terrain comprising of

placid plain, mountain ranges in the north and arid zones in the south (PDMA, 2019).

Due to its unique geography, the province is highly vulnerable to earthquakes, floods,

GLOFs, landsliding and drought hazards (Figure No 2.5). The province is also

43

vulnerable to complex emergencies like militancy, civil strife, armed conflicts and

terrorism due to proximity with Afghanistan (PDMA, 2014).

2.9.1 Physical Features

Geographically the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is divided into two major zones

i.e. the northern and the southern ranges. The northern range starts from Hindu Kush

and extend to Peshawar basin. The southern zone extends from Peshawar basin to

Derajat basin. River Kabul, River Swat, River Matuj, River Kunhar, River Bara, River

Kuram, River Gomal and Zob river are the major rivers flowing inside and or crossing

the province (Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2016a). The Hindu Raj and

Northern Hundu Kush region in the north of the province has been divided by river

Kunar (also known as river Mastuj). Some of the tallest mountain peaks (Tirich Mir

25,230 feet high as an example) are also located in the province (PDMA, 2019). Most

part of the province is located on the Eurasian land plate and Iranian Plateau. In the

context of seismic hazards especially earthquake, most part of the province is lying in

zone II as per hazard zonation of Pakistan. As per figure No 2.6 seismically, majority

of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province is lying in Zone 2B and Zone 3. Only Chitral is

lying in Zone 4 (Government of Pakistan, 2007a; Sheikh, 2013). Due to its location

the province has been affected by turbulent earthquakes in the past. This complex

geography of the province is one of the major reasons of vulnerability for multiple

types of hazards in the province.

2.9.2 Fragile Natural Environment

Natural environment is fragile in nature and negatively affecting the ecosystems and

biodiversity (Government of Pakistan, 2007b). Due to population growth and

environmentally unsustainable practices the natural resources like forest, land etc. are

increasingly under stress in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Rangelands in arid and semi-arid

areas are extensively degraded due to high number of livestock rearing and grazing.

Salinization due to inefficient canal system has affected the crop productivity. Natural

forests have declined and have negative implications for biodiversity, land

stabilization, watershed management and ecological services (ADB, 2008).

44

FIGURE NO 2.5. LAND USE MAP OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA

Source: (SUPARCO, 2015)

FIGURE NO 2.6 SEISMIC ZONATION MAP OF KHYBER

PAKHTUNKHWA, AJK AND NORTHERN AREAS


2.9.3. Climate Change and Variability

Climate change and variability further exacerbate the existing vulnerabilities in the

province. The Global Climate Risk Index 2018 has ranked Pakistan as on 7th

position

45

in the most affected countries due to climate change. The risk index report reveals that

a total of 141 climate events occurred in the country between 1997 and 2016

(Eckstein, Künzel, & Schäfer, 2017). Increasing trend in temperature enhances snow

melt and causing lake in glaciers ultimately leading to Glacial Floods and riverine

floods. Variable monsoon pattern create water shortages in already drought stressed

areas. Moreover, climate change has also affected the agriculture productivity

(Government of Pakistan, 2007b).

2.9.4. Poor Quality of Construction and Building regulation

Another major reason of vulnerability is the poor quality of construction of buildings,

infrastructure and housing (Adobe Houses). Most of the buildings and houses have

been constructed without any mitigation measures (Rafiq & Blaschke, 2012). Due to

high construction cost and nature of terrain, development of infrastructure for health,

education, water supply, communication and sanitation etc. has been overlooked and

lack hazard mitigation. Majority of the population lack access to hazard resistant

technologies, mechanisms, designs and construction material (Ullah, 2010).

2.9.5. Population Growth

Pakistan‘s 6th

population and housing census data reveals that the population of

Pakistan has seen a 57% increased at an annual increase rate of 2.4% (Government of

Pakistan, 2017b). This increasing trend of population has created so many stresses on

the natural environment, economy and services of the country. The increasing trend of

population in Pakistan in general and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in particular has pushed

the people to live and move toward hazards prone locations like steep slopes and

flood plains etc. (NDMA, 2013). Moreover, population growth has increased the

demand for fodder, fuel wood and timber wood leading to uncontrolled deforestation,

causing high peak flows in rivers and intensified erosion. If the current trend of

population growth continued, more people will have to reside in hazard prone

locations and impacts of future disasters will be very high (Fazeel & Jehan, 2016).

2.9.6. Rapid Urbanization

With the growing population, rapid urbanization has also created so many

vulnerabilities. Urban life demand better services and natural resources are

excessively used to meet the need of large number of population. This phenomenon

led to the accelerated exploitation of natural resources in the province and degraded

46

the natural environment (PDMA, 2016b). Moreover, slum development is in progress

in urban centers and many people live in unhygienic condition and unsafe physical

location. To accommodate growing population high rise buildings were constructed

with not emergency exit and mitigation measures (Ali et al., 2015).

2.9.7. Poverty

Poverty and vulnerability have a direct and absolute correlation. Unemployment,

social powerlessness, weak governance, non-diversified economy, ill-functioning

institutions, underperformance, political disenfranchisement, exclusion and denial of

basic rights are some of the major causes of poverty in Pakistan (Aftab, Hamid, &

Prevez, 2002). Widespread poverty reduced the capacity of the local inhabitants of the

province to cope with the impacts of hazards and subsequently enhanced vulnerability

to disasters (Kurosaki, 2006; Rafiq & Blaschke, 2012; Rehman, 2016).

2.9.9. Lack of Institutionalized Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment

Relevant literature (e.g. Birkmann, 2007; Birkmann & Wisner, 2006; Cutter, Boruff,

& Shirley, 2003) on disaster risk reduction reveals that a multi-hazard and holistic

approach on disaster risk assessment is still missing in many countries including

Pakistan. The National DRR Policy has identified this as a major problem to the

designing and implementation of DRR related projects and programmes. The policy

statements reveal that there is no institutionalized capacity or standard methodologies

to carryout and conduct multi-hazard vulnerability or risk assessment at all level

(NDMA, 2013). Atta-ur-Rahman, Parvin, & Shaw (2016) have also pointed out lack

of capacity as a major hurdle in risk assessment in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

2.9.10. Pitfalls in the Implementation of National and Provincial DRR Policies

and Plans

Government of Pakistan has developed and enacted laws and policies to confirm to

international protocols like HFA, Sendai framework and Paris Agreement. But due to

weak governance, economic constraints, overambitious plans, lack of political

commitment and rampant corruption, these laws, policies and plans have not been

implemented properly. Du to above mentioned factors, government at national,

provincial and district level have noticeably failed to reduce vulnerabilities (Ahmed,

2013). Majority of the DRR related work is scattered, on-off and patchy. Governance

related to DRR is suffering from fragmentation. Without systematic planning,

47

government authorities are dealing disasters from event to event and sector to sector

(Combaz, 2013). Despite the multiplicity of stakeholders, the country weak horizontal

and vertical collaboration is hampering adaptive governance for devising effective

vulnerability reduction strategies (Mian, 2014).

2.9.10. Weak Political Commitment

Weak political commitment also increases the vulnerability of population. Disaster

risk reduction has remained a totally neglected sector in Pakistan. Majority of the

political leaders lack knowledge about disaster risk reduction and associating DRR

with the emergency response when disaster strikes. Government has failed to allocate

2 % budget at the Annual Development Programmes (Khan & Jan, 2015). This

phenomenon seriously undermines mitigation and preparedness for disaster to reduce

vulnerabilities.

2.9.11. Social Stratification

Social Stratification has caused social disparity and many social problems are the

outcomes of social stratification in Pakistan. This system is negatively affecting

thousand of population in the country and affects them on daily basis. The resultant

variation has severe consequences on the income, expenditure, health, education and

psychological well-being (Hashmi, 2011). These disparities have increased the

exposure level of the people marginalized on the basis of their class and other

associated factors (Rehman, 2016). Moreover, gender based discrimination and

inequality has enhanced the vulnerability of women to disasters. Lack of gender

sensitive assessments and programming intensified the existing political, social and

economic inequality (Akbar & Aldrich, 2018).

2.9.12. Lack of Awareness and Education

General literacy level in Pakistan and the recent statistics says that a total of 57% of

the population is literate (Shaikh, 2019). Due to low level of literacy the public

awareness in communities is very low about dealing with disasters (Idrees & Khan,

2018; Sayed & González, 2014). Public awareness and education convert human

knowledge into specific local action to work together for vulnerability and risk

reduction. It provides an opportunity to mobilise local people to work collectively for

reducing their risks (GDPC, 2017).

48

2.10 Theoretical Framework of Research

Disaster management is a multidisciplinary subject. The multidisciplinary approach

provide opportunities to view and study disasters from diverse perspective. As

discussed in the beginning of chapter two that the concept of disaster vulnerability has

evolved from time to time and new approaches have been developed and adopted to

study disasters, its causes and impacts. General approaches adopted to study disasters

are not capable of grasping all features of disasters, involving so many social,

political, economic, technological, physical and organizational factors

(Weichselgartner, 2001). Keeping in view this interdisciplinary approach a significant

transformation has been observed in theoretical approaches towards disaster and

emergency management (McEntire, 2004). There are various theories focusing on

disaster vulnerability reduction and emergency management. For this research

Weberian Perspective on Emergency Management and Pressure and Release Theory

have been adopted as theoretical framework of the study.

2.10.1. Max Weber Perspectives on Disaster and Emergency Management

Max Weber (1864–1920) was a German sociologist and his work has profoundly

influenced social research and social theory (Ringer, 2004). Although Max Weber has

not directly provided any theory on disasters but his political sociology provides an

understanding of disaster and emergency management. Weber‘s political sociology

has been used by many researchers to study disasters and emergencies. In the context

of thus research study Weberian perspective on emergency and disaster management

has been adopted from Stallings (2002), McEntire (2004) and Shamim (2016).

Researchers from Weberian perspective normally emphasized that culture is one of

the foremost cause of increasing disaster vulnerability. Each decade our attitudes,

practices and behaviors are leading to more losses from disasters. This can be

attributed to weak disaster institutions and lack of professionalism among disaster

managers. The inability of the institutions to enforce land use regulation and building

codes or respond effectively to disasters or planning based on false assumption make

us more vulnerable to disasters (McEntire, 2004). Along with culture and practices,

prevailing social inequalities also increase vulnerability to disasters. Weber conflict

model is focusing on structured inequalities of class, status and power which provides

a framework to investigate how class, status and power based inequalities affect the

49

vulnerability of individuals and communities and place them in a victimize position.

Weber rejection of only class based inequality further provides explanation to various

dimensions of inequalities i.e. wealth based disparities, political power, gender

discrimination, ethnicity, religion and age etc. These dimensions in a system reduce

the capability of individuals and communities to effectively cope with, respond to

disaster and recover in a short period of time (Stallings, 2002). Weber organizational

theory also provided a base for vulnerability analysis in the context of organizational

behaviors and interests. Weber organizational theory stresses to reduce ambiguity and

diversity in organizations. His theory emphasizes on clear line of authority and

control. Organizational behaviors (organizational interests) are also a major factor

creating vulnerability in society. Many organizations are working separately and the

prevailing cultural barriers within the system are discouraging collaboration, joint

planning and exercising. Organization actions and inactions affect the performance of

other agencies and increases vulnerability to disasters (Shamim, 2016).

2.10.2. Pressure and Release (PAR) Model: The Progression of

Vulnerability

Pressure and Release (PAR) model provide a comprehensive understanding of the

progression of vulnerability in a community or society. PAR model was originally

developed by Blakia et al. (1994) and modified by Wisner et al. (2003). The

progression of vulnerability in PAR model consists of root causes, dynamic pressures

and unsafe conditions (Blakia et al., 1994; Wisner et al., 2003). The model present

how the root causes, dynamic pressure and unsafe conditions creates vulnerability and

ultimately leads to disaster when interact with a hazard (Faas, 2016). The model states

that risk (disaster) is the product of vulnerability and hazard (Füssel, 2007). The

model indicates how disaster risk can be reduced through preventive and mitigation

measures. It elaborate that disaster is the intersection of two opposing forces i.e. the

natural hazards on one side and the processes that generate vulnerability on the other

(Blakia et al., 1994). Model has been presented in Figure No. 2.6.

Root causes are the limited access to power, structure, resources and problems in the

social, political and economic system. They are interrelated set of pervasive and

general processes within society and economy. Economic, social and political

50

processes are the most important root causes increases vulnerability. These processes affect decision making and allocation of resources as well

as its distribution among different group of people. They are connected with the function or dysfunction of the state.

FIGURE NO. 2.7. PRESSURE AND RELEASE MODEL OF VULNERABILITY

Source: (Blakia et al., 1994; Wisner et al., 2003)

51

These processes elaborate the governance mechanism, capabilities of the

administration and the rule of law (Blakia et al., 1994; Wisner et al., 2003). It reflects

the distribution of power, its exercise in society and functioning of the state (Twigg,

2001). For example socially and economically marginalized people or those who live

in risky location such as riverbanks, steep slopes or arid areas will remain marginal as

compared to people who hold political and economic powers.

Root causes create dynamic pressures. Dynamic pressures are activities and processes

translating root causes spatially and temporally into unsafe conditions. Dynamic

pressures are of two types. Micro pressures include lack of local supportive

institution, appropriate skills to deal with disasters, press freedom, local economy,

investment pattern and ethical standard in public life to continue work under certain

laws and regulations. Macro forces are population expansion, arm expenditure, rapid

and unplanned urbanization, debt repayment and deforestation. These pressures are

dynamic, immediate or contemporary and manifestation of the social, economic and

political patterns of a society. These pressures channelize the root causes into unsafe

conditions. Spatially and temporally, dynamic pressure allow micro mapping of

unsafe conditions that affect groups (e.g. women, children, old age and disable) and

households (e.g. poor household vs. wealth household or households lacking access to

decision making, human and material resources) differentially (Blakia et al., 1994;

Wisner et al., 2003).

Unsafe conditions are being unable to afford construction of safe buildings, site of

house or building is located in hazardous environment, people are engage in fragile

livelihood (for instance agricultural practices in drought affected region), lack

effective civil protection from the state (enforcement of building codes) etc. Unsafe

conditions are dependent on wellbeing of population and how it varies between

individuals, household and regions. For investigating unsafe condition it is also

necessary to consider access to tangible resources (e.g. life safety equipment, shelter,

cash, agriculture equipment and food stock etc.) and intangible resources (e.g. social

capital, supportive networks, awareness regarding survival, ability to function in

crises and sources of assistance) (Blakia et al., 1994; Wisner et al., 2003).

52

2.11 Synthesis of Chapter

This chapter reviewed the relevant literature on disaster management at the global as

well as Pakistani context. The chapter provides review of various policy documents in

the context of the study area and illustrates the institutional mechanism for

vulnerability reduction. Furthermore, this chapter also presents theoretical framework

of the study i.e. Weberian perspective and pressure and release model. Synthesis of

both the theoretical frameworks provided an opportunity to the researcher to study the

complex phenomenon of the vulnerability reduction governance. The framework was

used to study governance mechanisms for vulnerability reduction i.e. legal and

institutional framework and system; process of planning, implementation, monitoring

and evaluation; risk knowledge and education; people centered approach; budget

allocation and understanding risk factors. Moreover, disaster vulnerability was

examined in the context of social, physical, economic and attitudinal/motivational

dimensions. In qualitative data these themes were further elaborated, assessed and

narrated. In follow up quantitative data domains of governance was taken as

independent and disaster vulnerability as dependent variable.

53

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction:

Methodology involves the selection of particular techniques and methods used

for the collection of data. According to (Pelto & Pelto, 1978); methodology designates

―the logic in use‖ involved in selecting particular data collection techniques, assessing

the data and relating data to theoretical propositions. Research design is formulated in

the light of objectives of the study (Marvasti, 2004). Therefore, true to the tradition of

social science research, this study follows the methodological rules and technicality

required for ensuring reliability and validity. For this research, Mixed Methods

Research (MMR) approach was used to investigate the problem. A mixed method

research can be defined as ―the class of research where the researcher mixes or

combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches,

concept or language in to a single study‖ (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). MMR

combines qualitative and quantitative research techniques, concepts and approaches

into a single study (Neuman, 2013). Within the mixed method, an exploratory

sequential design was adopted for this research study. In exploratory sequential

research approach, the researcher uses a three phase‘s process. Exploratory sequential

research method first starts with a qualitative phase to explore the views of

participants. The qualitative phase is then used to build a suitable instrument to

investigate quantitative data or to determine variables for follow up quantitative study

and lastly the instruments are administered to a sample population (Creswell &

Creswell, 2017). Since, this research focuses on the effectiveness of governance in

disaster vulnerability reduction in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. The exploratory

sequential approach suits to this study related to the governance mechanism and

vulnerability reduction from practitioners, policy formulators, planners, executioner

and community point of view. The researchers first developed qualitative tools and

data was collected from concerned government officials. After qualitative data

collection from government officials, a tool was developed to collect qualitative data

from local communities in the target districts. Qualitative data was analyzed and a

quantitative data collection tool was developed and data was collected from local

54

communities in three sampled districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. Details of

districts have been presented in table No. 3.1 while summary of the methodological

framework has been depicted in figure No. 3.1 and 3.2.

3.2. Step Wise Procedure of the Study

For completion of this study a step wise approach was adopted by the researcher. In

first phase, background data (literature) on different aspects of disaster, disaster risk

reduction, vulnerability frameworks, theoretical approaches to vulnerability reduction

governance, disaster impacts etc. was collected at local, national and global level.

After identification of relevant literature an intensive literature review was carried out

to explore the concept of disaster vulnerability, vulnerability reduction governance,

risk reduction approaches and theoretical frameworks on vulnerability. On the basis of

literature review, major themes were identified for the in-depth interview and focus

group discussion. This was followed by preparation of comprehensive interview guide

and focus group discussion (FGD) guide for data collection from government

employees and local communities, respectively. Qualitative data was collected first

from government officials through IDI and then from community through FGDs.

After field work, qualitative data was transcribed, coding, edited and thematic

analysis of qualitative data was conducted to search, define and narrate various

themes. Analysis of qualitative data was carried and supported by relevant literature.

On the basis of qualitative data analysis, variables were determined for development

of suitable quantitative instrument/tool (i.e. Structured Interview Schedule or close

ended interview schedule). With the help of local language (Pashto) experts, the

researcher grasped the quantitative tool in Pashto and female investigator was also

trained on the tool to collect data from female respondents. Statistical analysis

(Univariate and Bivariate) was done through the Statistical Package for Social

Sciences (SPSS) software. The researcher interpreted the quantitative data and

support of relevant literature was provided.

55

FIGURE NO 3.1. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Source: (Cochran, 2007; Government of Pakistan, 2012;Neuman, 2013; UNOCHA, 2013)

56

FIGURE NO. 3.2 EXPLORATORY SEQUENTIAL DESIGN ADOPTED FOR THE CURRENT STUDY

Source: (Creswell & Creswell, 2017)

57

3.3 Universe of the study

There are no specific rules for the selection of a study universe, but it depends on the

nature and scope of the investigation, either it has similar or different characteristics

(Creswell, 2014). The universe of the study focuses on locale of the study and nature

of study respondents. For this study Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province was selected to be

researched from the lens of effectiveness of governance in vulnerability reduction.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province has 35 districts (before merger of erstwhile Federally

Administered Tribal areas in 2019 into the province the numbers of districts was 26).

Out of these 35 districts, the National Disaster Management Authority, Pakistan, has

declared twelve districts as the most vulnerable through their Relative Severity Index

Score. Districts Nowshera, Swat and Charsadda were placed as highly vulnerable

districts with 23 out of 25 severity index score in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province

(Government of Pakistan, 2012). The same districts were also declared by the

Provincial Disaster Management Authority of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as the most

vulnerable on the basis of their disaster history (Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,

2016b). Keeping in view the highest severity index score, the above three districts of

the province were selected as units of study. Another reason behind the selection of

sampled districts was the launching vulnerability reduction projects after the past

disasters. In each district, three Union Councils were selected purposively on the basis

of their vulnerable status as described in the target District Disaster Management

Plans and on the basis of number of people affected by the past disasters. The total

sampled union councils are nine as explained in Table No. 3.1. The under study

population consists of local people affected by disasters and still vulnerable to

disasters as well as employees of civil protection institutions i.e. Provincial Disaster

Management Authority, Irrigation Department, Regional Meteorological Center,

Works and Services Department, Planning and Development Department, Emergency

Rescue Services 1122, Local Government Department, Forest Department and

District Disaster Management Units.

3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Procedure

According to Ghaffar (2005) the primary purpose of research is to discover principles

that have universal applications. But to study the whole of population in order to

58

arrive at generalization is impracticable, if not impossible. Fortunately, the process of

sampling makes it possible to draw valid inferences or generalizations on the basis of

careful observation within a relatively small proportion of population. Keeping in

view the protocols of exploratory sequential research method, multistage sampling

method was used. Cluster sampling method was used for interviewing the affected

people in sampled union councils within three districts. As per analogy of (Krejcie &

Morgan, 1970), a sample size of 384 was taken for this study. For further distribution

in sampled districts, proportional allocation strategy was used as explicated in Table

No.3.1.

TABLE NO. 3.1. SAMPLE SIZE

S.No District Sampled Union

Councils (UC)

Total Population

of the Union

Council (UC)

Selected Sample

Size from each

Union Councils

*n=(N1/Ni) ni

01 Swat

Kalam 30505 44

Bahrain 27312 40

Khwazakhela 35779 53

02 Nowshera

Muhib Banda 27223 40

Aman Kot 17566 26

Kabul River 24448 35

03 Charsadda

Agra 29930 43

Umerzai 34621 50

Nisatta 36311 53

Total 263695 384

Source: (UNOCHA, 2013)

As per above contingent table, a sample size of 384 respondents was suffices for a

large population.

59

Equation 01: Formula Used For Proportional Allocation Method

(

)

n=Sample size of each strata

N1=Total Population of Each Strata

Ni=Total Population

ni= Total sample size

Source: (Cochran, 2007)

To investigate the existing vulnerability reduction governance, execution of plans and

policies, vulnerability reduction budgeting and implementations of risk reduction

strategies, a total of 30 research participants were selected for In-depth Interview from

nine relevant line agencies/government departments (Table No. 3.2). A criterion of

inclusion was utilized to select Grade 17 and above officers directly engaged in

planning and execution of various projects through purposive sampling technique.

The number of selection of research participants from each government department

was determined on the basis of their direct stake in disaster management activities.

According to Creswell (2014), researchers with qualitative study, should purposefully

select the research participant or sites to help the researcher understand the research

question and the problem.

TABLE NO. 3.2: BREAKUP OF QUALITATIVE STUDY PARTICIPANTS

FROM GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Name of Departments Number

Provincial Disaster Management Authority-Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 5

District Disaster Management Units 4

Irrigation Department 4

Regional Meteorological Center 1

Communication and Work Department 4

Planning and Development Department 3

60

Emergency Rescue Services 1122 4

Local Government Department 3

Forest Department 2

Total 30

3.5 Techniques and Tools of Data Collection

Data collection is an important step of research. It is the procedure to search, collect,

analyze and gather information from various sources to get responses, give answer to

research questions, test hypothesis and evaluate the results. During data collection the

researcher need to identify the types of information needed, the sources from which

information can be acquired and the means (tools) through which information can be

gathered (Khan, 2018). The researcher needs to address and respond to questions that

from whom, when and where the information needs to be collected (Sapsford, 1978).

Inaccurate data can 5ad to invalid and ambiguous results. This research study is based

on primary data and secondary data. Within primary data structured interview

schedule was used for quantitative data collection while in-depth interview (IDI) and

focus group discussion (FGD) was used for qualitative data collection.

3.5.1 In-Depth Interviews (IDI)

Data on various aspects of governance in vulnerability reduction was collected from

employees of government agencies through IDI method. The reason for using IDI is

that it ensures and explores perspectives of a set of a sample population on a

particular idea, programme, or situation. The insights, feelings, and cooperation are

essential parts of an IDI. The presence of interviewers and their involvement in

listening, encouraging discussion, initiating topics, recording, judging and terminating

the responses are some of the integral components of IDI (Neuman, 2013). Famous

ethnographic researcher, Malinowski, stressed upon the importance of talking to

people to grasp their point of view (Burgess, 1982). A total of 30 interviews were

conducted with employees of nine government departments. Interview checklist is

enclosed at Annexure 01.

61

3.5.2 Focus Group Discussions (FGDS)

Focus group discussion on a particular topic is an important technique used by the

social scientists in their research studies. This technique furnishes an opportunity to

the participants to share their views on collective platform. The researchers have the

opportunities to find out the real and genuine information through cross views during

the process of discussion on the topic. The ideal number of participants was kept

between 6-12 as suggested by (Neuman, 2011). For the purpose of objectivity, one

FGD was conducted in each targeted Union Council of sampled districts. The total

numbers of FGDs were nine. In disaster and vulnerability research, FGD is a widely

used tool for qualitative data collection. According to Krueger & Casey (2000), FGD

provides useful insight in the area of disaster vulnerability, mitigation, governance

and planning etc. FGDs was not conducted with female participants nor invited to

general FGDs in view of cultural restrictions. However, to cover the perspective, three

key informant‘s interviews were conducted with female research participants with the

help of a female investigator. FGD guide is enclosed as Annexure 02.

3.5.3. Structured Interview Schedule

As per exploratory sequential method, analysis of qualitative data was completed in

first phase and on the basis of qualitative data results, variables and themes were

identified for development of a quantitative tool. Keeping in view the literacy ratio of

the sample population (local community) a structured interview schedule (close

ended) was developed. Structured interview schedule is basically a set of

structured/close ended questions which are asked by the interviewer in a face to face

interaction and fill on the spot (Goode & Hatt, 1952; Young, 1966). Data collected

through this tool are objective in nature and can easily be tabulated and analyzed. The

tool was designed on three options Likert Scale i.e. Agree, Disagree and Don‟t Know.

Kothari (2004) suggests that Likert Scale is one of the standard scales to collect data

or opinion from the sampled respondents. Since disaster and vulnerability

investigation is a technical subject and the respondents need to understand the

statement first before deciding about his/her opinion. For this purpose each statement

was read in local language (Pashto) to the participants. The researcher ticked the

respondent‘s opinion/answer on the spot in presence of the respondents for each

interview. Due to cultural sensitivity, the services of a female data investigator were

62

used to take opinion of female respondents through structure interview scheduled.

Structure interview schedule is enclosed as Annexure 03.

3.6 Data Analysis

3.6.1 Qualitative Data Analysis

In this research study first qualitative was acquired from the research participants

through IDI and FGDs. In exploratory sequential mixed method approach, the

researcher uses results of the initial qualitative data (exploratory database) to build

instrument for quantitative database (Creswell, 2014). Qualitative was arranged

through transcribing the interviews and FGD‘s. After transcription, qualitative data

was organized as per IDI and FGDs questions. Codes were allotted to the data and

major themes were identified. After identification of major themes, data was

interpreted in paragraph form and has been presented in a systematic manner in this

research study. Previous published literature and personal observation was also

integrated in the qualitative data analysis through comparison of findings with

previous studies.

3.6.2. Quantitative Data Analysis

Quantitative data was analyzed through statistical package for social sciences (SPSS).

Statistical analysis of the data collected from the respondents was carried out through

univariate and bivariate methods. The analysis was carried out through percentage and

frequency through tabulated data. Cronbatch‘s Alpha test was used to test the internal

consistency and reliability of scales used for measurement of variables, whereas, Chi-

square test was used for testing the association among variables at Bivariate level.

3.6.2a. Univariate Analysis

Univariate analysis was carried out through simple frequency and percentage and then

presented tabular form followed by discussion at the end of each table.

3.6.2b. Bivariate Analysis

To test the association between independent and dependent variables, bivariate

analysis was carried out. For this purpose, the dependent variable was indexed and

cross tabulated with independent variable using SPSS 20 software. Chi-square test

63

was applied to estimate the significance of association between variables. Formula for

Chi-Square is given below:

EQUATION NO 02: FORMULA OF CHI-SQUARE

∑∑( )

Where

= Categorical variables of chi-square

= Frequencies which are observed in the cross-classified category at jth columned

it rows

= the expected frequency, considering no association between dependent and

independent variables under study.

The chi-square formula is obtained by taking the square of summation of these

frequencies and then divides by the expected frequency. After obtaining the resultant

frequency, then distributed it on chi-square test with the relevant degree of freedom.

The degree of freedom can be calculated as follows:

Dof= (r-1) (c-1) Where

dof = Degree of freedom

r= Rows number

C = Column number

Source: (McCall & Kagan, 1975)

3.6.3. Measurement of Disaster Vulnerability

Keeping in view the nature of disaster vulnerability, a group of indicators on disaster

vulnerability (social, physical, economic and attitudinal aspects) was prepared based

on initial qualitative data analysis and literature review. These indicators were vetted

by a panel of expert at the university level (i.e. departmental Graduate Studies

Committee). On the recommendation of the panel of experts, measurement of disaster

vulnerability was based on nineteen attributes (as given in Annexure 03). The

responses were obtained on three level scale such that ―agree‖ on a positive statement

(low vulnerability on a particular attribute) was given value of 1 and ―disagree‖ on

positive statement (high vulnerability on a particular attribute) was given value of 3,

64

whereas, ―neutral‖ statement (medium vulnerability on a particular statement) was

given value of 2. Conversely, this process was adopted to rank negative attributes

measured on the scale. The process of indexation was used to summarize the data and

identify highly vulnerable, medium vulnerable and low vulnerable groups. A person

was ranked as highly vulnerable if s/he was found highly vulnerable on thirteen or

more items. Similarly, a person was ranked as low vulnerable if he/she was found low

vulnerable on thirteen or more items. The rest of respondents were ranked as medium

vulnerable.

There are two reasons for selection of 13 indicators out of total 19 indicators. Since

the study was conducted under the mixed method approach. First qualitative data was

collected through IDI and FGDs. After analysis of qualitative data indicators were

identified for follow-up quantitative data collection from local community.

Qualitative data analysis provided opportunity to understand that the selected 13

indicators were cross covering the remaining six indicators. Moreover, many people

were not aware about the remaining 6 indicators. They were not locally consistent and

were dropped from analysis. Besides, when data was collected on the 19 items and

incorporated into the scale. While applying the Cronbach‘s Alpha test with the 19

indicators, the value of Cronbach‘s Alpha was coming below 0.6 which was not

internally consistent. One by one indicator was deleted and internal consistency of the

scale was ensured on 13 items on statistical analysis ground. Both the processes

followed were placed to the panel of experts (consisting of the departmental level

supervisory committee) and on their recommendation and technical guidance, the six

item were dropped and only recommended 13 indicators were selected to measure

vulnerability of the population component.

3.6.4. Indexation

Indexation is considered a standard for summarizing attitudinal statement in social

sciences. In this process, at least two items or more are involved/combined to

construct index (Nachmias & Nachmias, 1992). In order to determine the association

between variables, the dependent variable was indexed at bivariate level for cross

tabulation with the independent variable.

3.6.5. Using Cronbach’s Alpha test for Reliability Analysis

To measure consistancy in scale, Cronbach‘s Alpha test was used in current the study.

The Alpha coefficient value measures the extent to which each item is assessed in the

scale hang together. The Alpha value ranges from zero to one. The Cronbach‘s Alpha

65

value for the scale of disaster vulnerability was estimated at 0.775 (Table No.3.3),

showing that the items constituting the scale are internally consistent and suitable for

indexation as per the criteria devised by Nachmias & Nachmias (1992).

TABLE NO.3.3: RELIABILITY STATISTICS

Cronbach's Alpha

Value N of Items

0.775 19

3.7. Ethical Consideration

The researcher carefully followed the principles of ethical consideration while

conducting this research study. Ethical consideration such as informed consent of the

research participants and respondents, anonymity and protection of the respondents is

crucial while conducting research activity (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). During this

research study all respondents were briefed about the aims and objectives of the study

and utilization of data for academic purposes. The researcher provided open

opportunity of voluntary participation to respondents. Respondents were given the

chance to withdraw from this study at any stage as they wished. Informed consent was

taken from all respondents. During formulation of data collection tools and primary

data collection process discriminatory, offence and other unacceptable use of

language was carefully avoided. Respondents were informed that their personal

information will be kept confidential and will not be narrated in the study or shared

with any other person or organization. During interview, majority of the research

participants from government stressed on the confidentiality of their personal and

designatory information. Anonymity and privacy were maintained for each research

participant. Due to cultural sensitivity, female respondents were approached for data

collection through a female data investigator. The researcher has acknowledged the

work of other authors and books, reports, policy documents, articles, thesis and

websites etc. have been properly cited and referenced in this research. The researcher

has maintained high level of objectivity both in analysis and discussion throughout

this research. The researcher conducted this study in adherence to the data protection

regulations of the government.

66

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS OF QUALITATIVE DATA

4.1: Rationale of the Chapter

This chapter presents complete analysis and description of the qualitative data

collected from the field. It provides description of qualitative data collected from

study participants both at government and community level. Since women were not

allowed to set with male members in FGDs, therefore key informants interview of

three female community members were conducted to cover the perspective of women.

On the request of the government officials their names and designations were not

mentioned in the analysis section.

4.2 Major Disasters Occurring in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and its

Impacts

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province is vulnerable to a variety of disasters due to its geo-

physical environment. These disasters include riverine floods, flash floods, urban

floods, earthquakes, landsliding, droughts, Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs),

avalanches, desertification and wind storms. Along with these disasters the study area

has been significantly affected by human induced disasters as well. A study

participant from the Provincial Emergency Operation Centre (PEOC) PDMA said:

“The most reported disasters which caused wide spread impacts on the people

of the province are floods of all types in scattered areas, earthquakes,

landsliding, avalanches and extreme weather events like wind storms and

droughts. In recent past, earthquake 2005, earthquake 2015 and floods 2010

severely affected the province. Frequently occurring disasters include flash

floods, riverine floods, earthquake and landsliding”

Ongoing terrorism, insurgency and urban fires have also impacted the socio-economic

fabric of the province. Besides, epidemics like dengue and water born diseases also

affect the people of the study area. Amongst these mentioned disasters, majority of

the research participants reported that riverine floods, flash floods, earthquake,

67

landsliding and terrorism have caused wide spread impacts on the people of the study

area. An interviewee from District Disaster Management Units (DDMUs) Said:

“Floods are the recurrent disasters that have caused widespread damages in

the whole province. Floods occur in the form of riverine floods in plain areas

and flash floods in mountainous areas. The most vulnerable districts to

riverine floods are district Nowshera, Charsadda and Peshawar. Flash flood

mostly occurs in Swat, Chitral, Dir and Hazara region. Droughts have also hit

many districts of province like Lakki Marwat and Karak”.

Majority of the research participants were of the view that in plain areas where the

water table is very high, flood cascade into desertification in the form of water

logging and salinity. A interviewee from Irrigation Department said:

“We are losing more than 50 % of the irrigation water in the province due to

dilapidated irrigation canals and it causes water logging and salinity in

District Peshawar, Nowshera, Charsadda, Mardan, Swabi and Dera Ismail

Khan. Although the government has run a multibillion Salinity Control and

Reclamation Project but still the impact is very high”.

During FGDs with the local community at Districts Nowshera, Swat and Charsadda, it

was identified that floods, earthquake, landsliding, avalanches, terrorism and

desertification are the most frequently occurring disasters in the area. A research

participant from local community said:

“Each year in monsoon season, we are living with fear of floods. Floods have

become a serious problem of our community and that have affected our village

so many times in the past”

It can be easily deduced that fear is a negative feeling and in the context of disasters it

can be associated with incapacity, hopelessness and powerlessness. But at the same

time fear compels the people to take precautionary measures to learn more about such

types of negative phenomenons. An interviewee from local community said:

―In 2010 floods my house was nearly submerged in water and the only safe

haven for us was the rooftop. I was sleeping when flood hit our village and

was thinking water level will go down till morning. But water level was rising

and we were not having any boat to evacuate. I along with my wife and

68

children went to the roof top to save our lives. It was the most difficult time of

my life because the speedy level of rising water was quite scary”

The above findings are in line with the results of previous studies conducted at

different times, as mentioned in the succeeding lines. The most significant disasters

that have affected the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province are earthquake, floods (both

riverine and flash floods), landsliding, glacial lack outburst floods, desertification and

droughts (PDMA, 2019). Some of the devastating floods that affected the province of

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are floods of 1982, 1988, 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2010.

Moreover, historical earthquake events include earthquake of 1974, 2004, 2005 and

2015 (PDMA, 2016; PDMA, 2014). According to DDMU Swat (2015), District Swat

is located in the Hindu Kush mountain series. Swat has been affected by earthquake,

riverine floods, flash floods, landsliding, soil erosion, heavy snowfall, hail stone and

epidemic diseases like dengue etc. Besides, district Swat was severally affected by

insurgency and terrorism as well during 2007-09 (Elahi, 2015). District Nowshera is

located on the bank of river Kabul and has been frequently affected by riverine floods.

Moreover, periodic earthquake, flash floods, desertification in the form of water

logging and salinity, settlement fire and wind storm also affected the district (PDMA,

2014). District Charsadda has been affected by riverine floods, soil erosion,

earthquakes, settlement fires, water logging and salinity and wind storms (Moazzam,

Vansarochana, & Rahman, 2018; Ullah et al., 2018; Qasim et al., 2017).

4.3 Multi-Sectoral Impacts of Disasters on the Study Area

Disasters are causing life threatening impacts to individuals, families and

communities in the study area. These impacts can be found at the community, tehsil

(tehsil is an administrative unit at the sub divisional level), city, district, division, or

provincial level or in some cases it has affected the entire country. It was observed

during this study that the people of the study area have experienced injuries, deaths,

house, property, business and livelihood losses. A female participant from local

community said:

“I was in great grief during flood 2010, not because our house was damaged

by flood but my only daughter aged two year couldn‟t survive in the flood. I

was surviving very hard as I was not having any other child at that time

69

In the study area these impacts range from individual level to provincial level. The

loss of thousands of people in 2005 and 2015 earthquake and wide spread damages to

housing sector, agriculture, livestock and businesses by flood 2010 are some of the

examples. An interviewee from Communication and Works Department Said:

“The impacts of disasters can be categorized into impacts on social sector,

physical infrastructure, economic sector, environment and governance. Every

disaster that has been reported and documented in the province has

devastating impact on these sectors”

Before 2005 earthquake, there was no formal mechanism to document the disaster

damage and loss data and the Revenue Department at the district level was collecting

the data to provide cash and kind compensation to the victims. This is the basic reason

that the government agencies are not having complete data of past disasters. After the

establishment of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) and

Provincial Disaster Management Authorities (PDMA‘s), the government has

documented all disasters in the past one decade but still data is scattered in various

offices. Multi-sectoral impacts of disasters in the study area have been presented

below.

70

FIGURE NO 4.1. GLANCE ON MULTI-SECTORAL IMPACTS OF DISASTERS ON THE STUDY AREA

71

4.3.1. Impacts on Social Sector

Social sector includes community networks, social fabric, housing units, schools,

hospitals, community centers, non-formal education and skills centers and religious

institutions like Mosques. Housing units were severely affected by the past disasters

in the province. Death toll and injuries increased due to damages to housing sector.

An interviewee from the Provincial Disaster Management Authority was of the view:

“House is considered as a basic unit of society. If house building is safe and

it can cope with disaster, it significantly reduces the chances of death toll and

injuries to the people. But unfortunately in our society due to certain socio-

economic reasons and failure of the relevant authorities, people are unable to

construct disaster resilient houses”

Damages to housing units are having so many secondary consequences. For example,

precious household assets were lost, families were displaced, children were exposed

to violence due to post-traumatic stress disorder, people suffered from homelessness

and people are exposed to harsh weather conditions. A community level participant

during focus group discussion further elaborated the impacts of housing and told:

“Due to 2010 floods, our house was washed away by the floods. Evacuation

was very difficult for us as we were cut off from the safe locations due to

damages to road networks. We were sitting in open sky in rain due to damage

to our house. When we were evacuated, I along with my family was placed in

a relief camp. We were so stressed and were unable to accommodate in the

tents due to loss of precious belongings. Almost six months before we

returned from TDP camps from Peshawar and in limited financial resources,

I managed to refurbish my house. This was the second time we left our

village. During 2009 military operation, my house was not damaged, but now

this time I lost everything. Coping this second shock was worrisome. I was

scared and was getting angry on petty issues on my children and wife”

Damages to housing units in the study area and loss of household belongings

displaced the local residents to other cities. In a another study by Kirsch et al., (2012)

on Pakistan flood damages to housing, the researchers found that damages housing

units caused displacement of more than 86% population to different areas in Pakistan.

According to ADPC (2011) disaster disrupt day to day life and halt access to basic

services like shelter, health, water and sanitation. The resultant homelessness due to

72

damages to housing units interrupted production and services of inhabitant of

households and created deficit in public finance and balance of payment in the study

area. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province the flood 2010 killed 1070 people, affected

544 and damaged 312477 housing units (PDMA, 2012; PDMA, 2014). Shaw (2015)

concluded that flood 2010 affected 3.8 million people in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

province. Out of total affected districts, Swat, Charsadda and Nowshera were severely

affected by floods in 2010 (PDMA, 2012). In Swat, Nowshera and Charsadda flood

2010 damaged 101427, 67892 and 34000 housing units respectively. Similarly, in

October 26, 2015 earthquake damaged 12159, 1331 and 110 houses in Swat,

Nowshera and Charsadda, respectively (Talal, 2017). Bangash (2012) in a study on

post conflict socio-economic situation of Swat found that housing sector in District

Swat was severely affected during military operation in 2009. According to World

Bank & ADB (2009) post conflict need assessment report a total of 8125 housing

units was damaged in 2009 militancy crises in District Swat. All these findings

disclose that anthropogenic disasters and natural hazards affected the housing sector

and rendered thousand of population homeless in the study area.

These traumatic events not only resulted in damages to physical infrastructure and

economy but the victims experienced physical and mental health consequences.

Along with injuries and disabilities, the victims experienced severe type of post

traumatic disorder (PSTD). Hospitals are the second major component of social sector

and play a key role in post disaster emergency situation. But most of the hospitals at

the districts or sub district level were affected by disasters and lacked facilities to

cater the need of people affected by disasters in the study area. A research participant

from Planning and Development Department said:

“In most of the cases Basic Health Units have been constructed on

unstable slopes or river/torrent banks. When a disaster strikes, it affects

these hospitals and the people are left with no access to health facilities.

Similarly, the DHQs hospital don‟t have mass emergency department to

accommodate 100 or more than 100 patients at a time and that is the main

reason for high level of death toll in various disasters in the province.”

From all research participants of this study, it was found that health facilities were

severely affected by disasters in the province. In some areas hospitals and basic health

facilities were closed due to inundation by flood water. In some areas hospital were

not directly damaged by disasters but damages to road and transportation network

73

made it inaccessible. An interviewee from Provincial Emergency Operation Centre,

PDMA said:

“During 2016 winter, an avalanche blocked the main road to Kalam

valley in Swat. Due to heavy snowfall the temperature level constantly

went down and people were contracting cold diseases. The area is

remotely located and can only be accessed through one road. These

people had go to the district headquarter hospital in Mingora for

treatment. It was a challenging task to meet the health needs of the

people”

It is evident that hospitals and accessibility to hospitals was severely affected by past

disasters in the study area. Disasters caused chain reaction on health of the survivors.

Disruption in health services and late receipt of medical treatment in post disaster

situation led to increased hospitalization which created over crowdedness in the

hospital in the study area. Another major factor is when disaster hit major treatment

centers; evacuation of the patient after receipt of warning is becoming a major

challenging task for the emergency management officials. Availability and access to

health facilities is crucial for human security and it ensures reduction in mortality and

morbidity. According to NDMA (2010) a total of 515 health facilities were directly

damaged by flood 2010 in Pakistan. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province the flood 2010

caused direct damages of 1562 million rupees and damaged 190 health facilities

(World Bank & ADB, 2010). Beside these natural hazards, militancy and terrorism

also affected the health sector in the study area. The Post Conflict Need Assessment

report reveals that the total cost of damages to health infrastructure during the 2009

military operation was 828.84 million rupees in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (World Bank &

ADB, 2009). Moreover, in addition to direct damages to health infrastructure the

militants systematically targeted the polio eradication programme and family

planning. Health workers were killed, tortured and harassed and were forced to leave

District Swat and other districts of Malakand region (Bangash, 2012).

These factors increased the chances of outbreak of various diseases and flood 2010

enhanced its severity. For example after of July 2010 super floods, more than 37.39

million medical consultations were reported by Diseases Early Warning System

(DEWS) in 78 flood affected districts of Pakistan. The DEWS system reported 480

outbreaks of different diseases like acute diarrhea, respiratory infection, skin diseases

and malaria across the country in 73 districts out of 78 affected districts (WHO &

74

NIH, 2010). These findings support results of another study conducted by Shabir

(2013) on health impacts and found that women and children experienced severe

malnutrition and were admitted to Supplementary Feeding Program (SFP) by different

agencies. Moreover, Khan & Qazi (2014) in a study in Sindh province of Pakistan

found that flood 2010 negatively affected vaccination campaign in the area and

resulted deaths of 321 lives in the year 2013 due to outbreak of measles. In addition,

health facilities play a key role in Treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

(PTSD). Through access to medication and psychological support, PTSD can be

prevented at the early stages of depression after a traumatic event. Ali et al., (2012) in

a study on PTSD amongst 2005 earthquake victims in Pakistan found that 41.3%

population were having severe PTSD after 30 months of earthquake. The author has

attributed that due to negligence of mental health sector and lack of support in post

disaster recovery, disaster victims suffer from consistence Post Traumatic Stress

Disorder in Pakistan.

Like hospitals, schools play a key role in providing education to the community.

Schools and other academic institutes were severely affected by earthquake, floods

and insurgency in the study area. Majority of the research participants reported that

schools experienced full or partial damages to building and libraries, labs and vital

schools record in the study area. A research participant from District Disaster

Management Units said:

“There are two types of impacts on the schools. One, schools were directly

damaged by floods/earthquake or blown by the terrorists in Swat and other

areas. Second, after an emergency when a large scale of population get

affected we don‟t have established emergency evacuation centers and these

academic institutions were used as relief camps”

Using schools as evacuation centers disrupts the continuation of academic session and

delays the students result with potential impact on the learning process of school

going children. After repatriation of the displaced population, the government again

spent millions of rupees on refurbishment of schools. In the study area academic

institutes like schools were repeatedly hit and damaged by various disasters with an

interval of one to five years. A research participant from local community in a FGD

said:

“In 2009 insurgency crises and 2010 floods schools in our area were

completely damaged. In 2009 insurgency, schools were blown by the

75

terrorists and some were closed forcefully. The terrorists specifically

targeted the female schools. Teachers were afraid of continuation of

education to children due to threats by insurgents. When the area was

cleared by the security forces and we returned to our village, children

continued their schooling in tents. When the government started

rehabilitation and recovery of schools, floods damaged the schools. Minor

cracks have also been observed in schools in 2015 earthquake”

The education sector was severely affected by 2009 militancy crises and 356 schools

were damaged in District Swat (World Bank & ADB, 2009). Besides, the militants

specifically targeted female schools in the region and threatened teachers for

continuation of teaching to school children. As per damage need assessment report of

2010 floods, 870 schools and 16 colleges were damaged by flood 2010 (World Bank

& ADB, 2010). Damages to learning materials and facilities cause closure of schools,

enhance barrier to education, reduce access to schooling, disrupt education and also

negatively affect quality of education (UNICEF, 2015). The findings of this study

regarding impacts on education and school support another study conducted by

Kousky (2016) stating that disaster interrupt schooling and education of children by

displacing families, damaging schools and push children to child labor as well. In a

study on hazard impact on children and women in South Asia, Ariyabandu (2000)

reported that disaster increase the dropout ratio of children from schools and also

increased child labor. Besides, disaster also cause wide spread damages to school

buildings and resulted in death toll of children. In October 2005, earthquake killed

more than 73000 people including 19000 children. Most of them died due to collapse

of school buildings (Javaid et al., 2011). Along with mortality of children the

earthquake also caused injuries to more than 50,000 children‘s. Disruption of social

networks also increases children vulnerability to trafficking (Montgomery, 2011).

Children also experience violence or abuse and children in Pakistan after 2005

earthquake remained at risk even after a year of disaster (Sadruddin, 2011). Ferris

(2010) in a comparative study on Pakistan and Haiti found that schools were used as

temporary shelter and affected the delivery of education to children.

It was observed that as compared to schools, mosques in most of the cases withstood

the impact of disasters and the damage level remained very low. It is a common

perception amongst the Muslim community that Allah the Almighty is protecting this

76

noble place and that‘s why mosques were not affected by disasters. An interviewee

from Communication and Works Department Said:

“As a Muslim it is our firm belief that Allah Almighty definitely protects

these holy places but at the same time I have observed that when we are

constructing mosque, we don‟t compromise on the quality of material and

construction work. This volunteer effort with dedication and devotion is also

a reason that religious places are less affected by disasters. But this can‟t be

proved in the case of all such places. In Balakot, a three storey Madrassa

was fully demolished by earthquake in 2005”

It was observed that mosques experienced limited damages in the study area. Apart

from belief system, the layout, design, material characteristics and proper

workmanship are also major factors of limited damages to mosques. Jatmiko (2014)

followed this question of why mosque survived during the Indian Ocean Tsunami in

2004 and found that most mosques in Indonesia Banda Aceh survived because of

strong foundation and sturdily built design and layout.

4.3.2. Impacts on Economic Sector

Disaster negatively impacted the economy of Pakistan. Not only natural hazards but

also war on terror between 2004 and 2009 significantly affected the economy of

Pakistan. According to World Bank & ADB (2009) the direct and indirect losses to

Pakistan‘s economy due to war on terror was amounting 2.1 trillion rupees. These

losses were further intensified by floods in 2010. Over 2 million hectares of crops and

1.2 million head of livestock were lost whereas more than 70 percent farmers

experienced losses of major crops like vegetable, rice, sugar cane and cotton (NDMA,

2010). It was observed that these trends of impacts on the economy uprooted the

economic institutions of the province and one can still find the scars on the ground in

the study area. Both formal and informal sectors of the economy equally contribute to

the stability of society and provide sustenance to the general population. Disasters

have negatively impacted agriculture, business sector, livestock, horticulture, cottage

industries, fisheries, tourism and commercial markets in the study area. Majority of

the research participants were of the view that crops were washed away and

deposition of silt was experienced in the crop fields and orchards. Small and medium

cottage industries and shops were damaged by floods, earthquake and landsliding.

77

Many people have lost their livestock during floods and earthquake. Housing stock of

food was lost and people were unable to afford the cost of food. Contamination of

water by flood caused extinction of aquatic habitat like fish, which is one of the

primary livelihoods of people residing alongside rivers. An interviewee from PDMA

said:

“With each disaster in the province we have documented potential

negative impact on the local economy. People have experienced damages

to standing crops, livestock, orchards and business centers. These

economic losses not only affect the family and local economy but

government is also losing its revenue in the form of tax collection because

the government has to provide tax rebates to the affected people. Similarly,

budget allocated for social sector development projects was diverted to

relief and compensation.”

Damages to agriculture sector has reduced the supply of raw material to

manufacturing units and subsequently decreased the production of industries and

export of goods. This phenomenon has condensed the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

growth ratio in the past, specifically after 2010 floods. Due to flood 2010, rice

production declined to 4.8 million tons and was recorded as the lowest production

after 1994. Besides, destruction to agriculture sector caused negative growth of 4% in

major crops production (Looney, 2012). Large scale manufacturing declined to 1 % in

2010-11 as compared to 4.9% in 2009-10. Similarly a fall-off was also observed in the

small scale manufacturing sector which expanded to 7.5% during 2009-10

(Government of Pakistan, 2011).On the local level, people of the study area are

mostly dependent on agriculture activities on small landholding, livestock rearing,

small level commercial centers, foreign remittances and cottage industries. A study

participant from the local community in an FGD said:

“I normally sow one crop on my field. In 2010 I sowed sugar cane and

tobacco on my field. I spent my entire saving on the purchase of seeds,

fertilizer and preparation of fields for the crops. I was thinking I will get

good crop this year and will be able to earn more money to spend it on

finalization of the construction of my house. But God will was something

else for me and both crops were totally destroyed by flood water. Even my

under construction house was also affected”

78

It was observed that many people were unable to purchase food in post disaster

situation and were entirely dependent on government help. Sugar cane, wheat,

tobacco, rice, pulses and animal fodder are the major crops of the study area and

affected by past disasters. In some areas tourism sector was partially affected and in

some areas it was fully affected. These impacts on economic sector identified in this

study support results of a similar study conducted by Kirsch et al., (2012) in Pakistan

and IASC (2008) multiagency flood impact assessment in Nepal. The study also

supports the result of another study by Iqbal et al., (2018) in district Charsadda on

impact of flood on agriculture system. In Charsadda and Nowshera, local tourist, visit

river Kabul side while District Swat is a hub for both local and foreign tourists.

Floods, earthquake, landsliding and insurgency have severely affected tourism. A

research participant from local community in an FGD said:

“Most of the people in upper part of Swat valley are dependent on

tourism. They are running small road side shops and hotels and also sell

locally manufactured items. During 2009 insurgency crises, tourism sector

was severely affected. When the area was cleared, the government tried

their level best to attract the tourists to Swat. In July 2010, the only

transportation rout was completely damaged by flood and many parts of

the valley remained inaccessible for several weeks. Besides, hotels located

on the river banks were washed away by floods. Still in many places

landsliding occur on roads and the area remains inaccessible”

Tourism in many parts of the study area provides opportunity to local people to earn

money. This sector significantly contributes to local economy and it also provides

opportunity to merchants to sell their products. Impact on tourism sector can be

directly translated to impact on earning of individuals and families dependent on it in

the study area. Finding of this study regarding impacts on tourism are consistent with

a study conducted by Sayira & Andrews (2016) in Chilas, Pakistan and Cook & Butz,

(2013) in Atta Abad, Pakistan. Disasters damaged the local ecology, facilities, roads

and reduced the flow of visitors of tourist attraction spots and negatively affected the

community livelihoods to sustain (Asgary, Anjum, & Azimi, 2012). Besides, 60

hotels were damaged during militancy in Malakand region and most of these hostels

were located in Swat. The official statics reveals that an estimated Rs. 180 million

damaged was caused to tourism sector by militancy in 2009 (World Bank & ADB,

2009).

79

4.3.3. Impact on Physical Infrastructure

Roads, bridges, communication, irrigation, flood management and water supply &

sanitation are a few aspects of the physical infrastructure. It has been observed that in

recent floods, roads were damaged and it was very difficult to reach to the affected

population on time. Roads, bridges and communication infrastructure play a key role

in emergencies. When communication system gets affected people get deprived of

sharing information with public sector officials for rescue and relief efforts. Bridges

were damaged by floods and earthquake and it abandoned the people to evacuate from

the affected areas. Energy and power generation facilities were also affected in the

province by disasters. The electric pools were damaged which stopped the provision

of electric facilities to various area. Water supply and sanitation was also severely

affected. The availability of clean drinking water supply was a crucial necessity in

post disaster situation in the study area. An interviewee from Communication and

Works Department said:

“In 2010, accessibility to Malaknd region specifically Kalam valley in

Swat was a serious problem for the government. Bridges on main motorway

which is linking Peshawar with other parts of the country were damaged

and it hampered the rescue and relief activities on ground. Similarly,

Kalam was not accessible from the District headquarter Mingora.

Government and NGOs used a long route and succeeded in access to

Kalam via district Dir Upper. But transportation of food items coasted

government ten times higher than normal charges as they were supposed to

use jeeps and mule for transportation in mountainous area”

Resilience of critical infrastructure like roads and bridges ensure timely response and

facilitate the supply of relief items as well as evacuation from the affected side. Like

roads and bridges it was observed that communication lines and power supply were

directly hit by flood water and earthquake in the study area in recent past and

connectivity with local community was disrupted. The numerical assessment of 2010

floods and 2009 militancy crises revels that a total of 6511 meter roads were affected

by floods in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. These roads include motorway, highway, districts,

municipality and union council roads (World Bank & ADB, 2009, 2010). These

results also support Bangash (2012) study findings in District Swat and Cook & Butz

(2013) study in District Gojal, Pakistan.

80

Moreover, Power supply remained totally cutoff in many areas for several months.

During flood 2010, major headworks were affected and more silt was coming into

canals which reduced the flow of water in canals and increased water level in major

rivers. This resulted delay in sharing of information with the affected population. A

female research participant from local community said:

“My husband was out of town on the same day when flood occurred. I

was crying and was not aware what to do. Mobile phones were not

working and landline communication system was washed away by flood

water. I along with my kids took refuge on the top of the floor. It was

raining and with each passing movement I was getting scared for myself

and my children. After a while a helicopter came and we were rescued and

placed in a school in Mingora. Almost a week later my husband managed

to locate us. If mobile phone was working my husband and I would have

not faced that much psychological stress”

In such type of situation the public safety departments like rescue and hospitals are at

great pressure to provide facilities to the people due to lack of supplies,

communication and load shedding. Majority of the research participants were of the

view that damages to critical infrastructure like roads, bridges, communication, water

supply and power and energy were having cascading affects on the affected people

and it hampered the rescue and relief operation. These findings are consistent with

studies conducted by Berariu et al., (2015); Carvalho et al., (2016); Norio et al.,

(2011) & Shinozuka & Chang (2004).

4.3.4. Impacts on Governance and Environment

Facilities like public sector offices, buildings, food provision and vital records as well

as public sector employees were affected by disasters and hindered the provision of

services to public. Responsible government officials were affected by disasters in the

study area and the government sent employees from other areas to fill the gap. These

new employees were not having experience of the area and temporarily obstruction

occurred in provision of services to the people. This reduced the capacity of

governance and the impacts on communities further intensified. In the study area

majority of the research participants said that government offices were damaged by

earthquake, flood and terrorism. This obstructed the flow of services on one hand and

81

vital public record was also lost. In many disasters, public sector officials were killed

and injured by disasters. An interviewee from Provincial Disaster Management

Authority said:

“Functional government offices during emergency situation are also a

sort of grief therapy. Affected people can access these offices and can

avail the services of the respective department. In 2005 earthquake, almost

all the public sector buildings were collapsed and many government

officials‟ homes were damaged. Similarly, police stations, local

government, agriculture department offices, forest department and local

level field offices of the C&W and public health engineering were directly

damaged by flood in 2010”

In disaster risk management and emergency management these public sector buildings

and offices are considered as critical facilities. During emergencies people can access

the services of these offices and it reduces the exacerbation of impact on the

population. Service delivery and critical infrastructure play a key role in responding to

disaster to reduce their impacts and support both communities and economy (Ahmad,

2015a). Governance system not only faces problems in undeveloped countries but

affluent societies also failed to perform well during disaster situation. For example

Tierney (2012) is of the view that disaster challenged the well prepared and

resourceful countries like USA in 2005 Hurricane Katina and Japan in March 2011

earthquake and Tsunami. But these failures further exacerbate vulnerabilities (Ahrens

& Rudolph, 2006). Shared vision and holistic approach is required to mitigate impacts

of disaster on governance, environment and communities to improve the quality of

life and continue service delivery to people (Durrani, 2016).

Disasters also negatively impacted the environment and disrupted the natural

ecological system. Flash floods and riverine floods in forested area damaged standing

trees of deodar and pine species in the study area. Although the phenomenon of forest

fire is not that much common and very limited episodes of forest wild fire can be

identified in the study area but the changing climatic pattern and rise in temperature

can cause wild fires in future. An interviewee from Forest Department said:

―Forestry sector experienced severe damages in the past one decade in

the province. In 2009 insurgency, the insurgents harvested forest and

used it as source of revenue. When security forces started operation in

the area, militants lighted fire in forest to stop the security forces from

82

tracing the militants. Subsequently the mountainous areas experienced

severe rainfall in July 2010 and caused both riverine and flash floods.

In the recovery phase after both disasters, people started harvesting

forest for reconstruction of houses”

Due to harsh climatic condition in winter and extreme snowfall, Forest Department

and Forest Development Corporation jointly conduct permitted harvesting from May

to September each year. The harvested trees are converted into logs and scant and

dumped in depot within the forest for further transportation (Jan, 2011). During flood

2010 these harvested logs and scant were carried away by water and transported to

other districts. In this context precious timber wood was lost, government lost revenue

and local communities lost their royalty share in timber sale. In such type of

circumstances demand for timber wood increased for reconstruction purposes in the

recovery phase in the study area. The local communities harvested forest for

construction and it further intensified pressure on the already under stressed limited

forested area of the province. Carter et al., (2006) in a study in Ethiopia and Honduras

found that these types of impact on environment and forest push communities in to

poverty traps. The study also supports the results of another study regarding

environmental implications of disaster conducted by Srinivas & Nakagawa (2008) in

Maldives, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Thailand.

4.4. Identified Vulnerable Groups to Disaster

Vulnerability is a complex phenomenon and requires diverse perspective to

understand it. Everyone in the society is not equally vulnerable. Vulnerability differs

from person to person and region to region. Majority of the research participants

agreed that children, old age people, people with disabilities (PWDs), pregnant

women, transgender and ethnic minority population are the most vulnerable segments

of the society. Vulnerability can be viewed from diverse perspective and dependent

on the socio-economic, political and geographical condition of the area. For example,

poverty is considered as one of the major factors of vulnerability. But if a poor person

is residing in a physically safe location as compared to a person who is financially

sound but living in dangerous physical environment. In this context the poor person is

less vulnerable as compared to financially sound person to the impacts of hazards. In

KP people living in Southern districts like Karak and Lakki Marwat are more

vulnerable to drought as compared to people living in upstream areas. Similarly an

83

illiterate person if knows the sign and symptoms of various hazards activation and has

been trained on emergency response and personal safety will be having low level of

vulnerability. At the same time vulnerability is a major component exposing people to

a variety of disasters in the study area. An interviewee working in the Provincial

Disaster Management Authority Said:

“Thousands of children died in 2005 earthquake and most of them

died in schools. We can‟t say that children are physically week that‟s

why the impact was higher on them. In this context their vulnerability

can be attributed towards the poor construction and design of the

buildings which led to the death of innocent children. Schools and

other public sector buildings are designed by qualified engineers and it

is their responsibility to properly detail and design buildings”

Due to their partial or total dependence on adults, young children and infants are

vulnerable to both slow and rapid onset disasters. Similarly, adolescents and older

children‘s can experience injuries and death and may develop emotional,

psychological or behavior issues (Peek, 2008). Research studies revels that adult

population often undermines needs and problems of children in disaster and don‘t

consider the abnormality in behavior of children in emergencies (McFarlane, 1987).

Beside physical and emotional impacts, disaster also affects personal growth and

development of children. They experience disruption in daily routine life and also

experience delayed academic performance, disturbed social networks and increased

exposure to diseases, violence and trafficking (Silverman & La Greca, 2002).

Children can acquire Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or they can also be affected by

PTSD of parents on post disaster situation (Kiliç, Özgüven, & Sayil, 2003).

Likewise, the women, old age and PWDs are also vulnerable to disasters.

Inclusiveness is a major component of the vulnerability and disaster risk reduction

projects and ensures safety and protection of the most vulnerable people. A research

participant (visually impaired) from local community in an FGD said:

“As compared to normal people, PWDs are more vulnerable to the

impacts of disasters. In our society there is very limited social

protection programmes for the PWDs. We are normally discouraged to

study in normal schools and we don‟t have trained teachers on brails.

This deprives us to learn and understand different phenomenon”

84

Majority of the research participants said that physically, visually and mentally

impaired people are also very vulnerable and faced many problems in past disasters.

Their evacuation during emergencies was a major challenge for the families and in

most of the cases they were directly exposed to disasters. Mentally impaired people

don‘t understand the warning signs and symptoms and they are less aware of the

evacuation routes and sites. Hemingway & Priestley (2006) have reported similar

results in a study while mentioned the impact of Hurricane Katrina 2005 and Asian

Tsunami 2004. In both disasters people with disability faced serious problems to

personal safety and access to evacuation, shelter, first aid, mobility devices and relief.

Women at the same time in the study area are having limited access to public

awareness activities for disaster risk reduction. This increases their vulnerability to the

impacts of disasters. A female research participant (key informant) from local

community said:

“I was in kitchen when earthquake occurred. I tried to evacuate but a

stone came down from the kitchen wall and it hit my back while I

wanted to stand. I am still using medicine and in winter I don‟t have

control the backache pain”

Women are physically exposed to the impacts of disasters in the study area. Majority

of the women are uneducated and as per cultural practices women have to stay inside

homes and men have to carry out outside jobs. This increases their vulnerability to the

impact of disasters and women mortality rate increased as compared to men. During

evacuation, women faced serious problems as they were less aware about the safe

routes. Similarly, they were also exposed to physical and sexual harassment in relief

camps. Steckley & Doberstein (2011) study in Thailand also indicated similar results

of women vulnerability to disasters. Moreover, the results of this study about women

vulnerability support the findings of another study conducted (Alam & Collins, 2010)

in Bangladesh, stating that disaster preparedness and mitigation required active

participation in decision making and leadership role. Social determinants increased

the vulnerability of women in Bangladesh to cyclone disaster.

Old age people and senior citizens are also very vulnerable to the impacts of disaster

in the study area. Majority of the research participants said that due to weak physique

illness and impairments in one or more organs, old age people experienced more

impacts in disasters in the study area. Multiple loss effects like loss of family

85

members, house, and income source etc. further intensify their vulnerability. A

research participant from local community in an FGD said:

“In July 2010 cloud bursting affected my house and I lost thirteen

family members in one day. The only people that survived in family

along with me were my seven year grandson and eleven year

granddaughter. My house was washed away by flood water and I was

left homeless with these two minor children. Each day I visit and set

alongside the graves of my thirteen family members”

The senior citizens faced severe type of post traumatic stress disorder and they were

unable to accommodate themselves in society. Old age people also faced problems in

evacuation during emergencies, specifically when they were evacuating on long

routes by walk. They were in need of special diet due to various diseases like

hypertension and diabetes etc. These findings are consistent with other studies

conducted on disaster and gerontology. For example Ngo (2001) in a study on

vulnerability of elderly population concluded that elderly are more vulnerable and

required specific attention to understand their vulnerability. The study also supports

argument of Schröder-Butterfill & Marianti (2006) and WHO & PAHO (2012)

regarding old age vulnerability. Moreover, policy and disaster researchers have

identified women, persons with disabilities, children, minorities, old age people and

immigrants as the most vulnerable groups to harmful effects of disasters (Cutter et al.,

2003). Hence, a diverse perspective is required to understand vulnerability of the

population.

4.5. Multidimensional Vulnerability and its Causes in the Study Area

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is having a diverse physical geography. In the northern side

people are living in high mountain peak and their vulnerability is different from

people who are living in the central and southern districts. In each of these locations,

when one wants to investigate disaster vulnerability, the nature of the hazards changes

with the topography of the area. On the basis of field observation and data collected

from the research participants at the government and community level, vulnerability is

broadly categorized into four major components (i.e. social, physical, economic and

attitudinal) for this research study. Causes of these vulnerabilities have been discussed

below.

86

FIGURE NO 4.2. MULTIDIMENSIONAL VULNERABILITY AND ITS CAUSES IN THE STUDY AREA

87

4.5.1. Causes of Social Vulnerability in the Study Area

Social vulnerability is the inability of societies, people, communities, families and

institutions to cope with the impact of numerous types of disasters due to inequality,

abuse, powerlessness, weak governance and social exclusion etc. (Adger, 2006; Bara,

2010; Ciurean, Schro ter, & Glade, 2013; Schmidtlein et al., 2008; Wisner et al.,

2003). Majority of the research participants said that unequal participation in

community affairs, social stratification, limited access to power structures and

resources, illiteracy, high level of dependency, negligible relationship with

government agencies, inadequate knowledge about disaster risk reduction and short

sighted disaster risk reduction planning and project are the major causes of social

vulnerability to disasters in the study area. An interviewee from the District Disaster

Management Unit said:

“Although the strong social capital in the local communities plays a

key role in emergency response and provides security to the people of

the study area. But socio-political marginalization and limited access

to power and resources enhanced the vulnerability of the people and

communities to disasters. In most of the cases the government agencies

can‟t reach to the general masses due to limited resources and

relaying on information retrieved from political leaders”

Social capital and social networks are very deep rooted and the local people extend all

possible support to each other during disaster and emergency situation. Before arrival

of outside help, local social network like family bond, neighborhoods, brotherhoods

and volunteerism helped the local community‘s survival in the study area. These

networks are the only resources that the community mobilized to respond and conduct

recovery operations. Positive utilization of these networks can have beneficial impacts

on vulnerability reduction in the study area. The study findings regarding local

involvement and social capital are consistent with Vachette, King, & Cottrell (2017)

study on Cyclone Pam, Allen (2006) study in Philippines and Zurita et al., (2018) in

Australia. On one side the social connectivity of the community provides safety and

security to the people but on the other side, exclusion of the communities from

decision making process worsens social vulnerability to disasters. A study participant

from the local community in FGD said:

88

“Many people are powerless and marginalized at the gross root level.

Their voices are not heard. All the stakeholders both in government

and civil society organization try to please the political leaders and

other influential people of the area. This undermines the involvement

of general people and leads to a very limited participation in

vulnerability reduction initiatives”

Limited participation in DRR projects increased social vulnerability of the population

to disaster in the study area. Aslam (2018) in a study on flood management in

Pakistan reported similar results and stated that efficient and effective participation of

the local communities is lacking at the community level in risk reduction approaches.

According to Park (2015) many people are underrepresented and effective

participation is missing. Moreover, political elite influenced the process of inclusion

in DRR projects in the study area. This led to limited participation in decision making

at the gross root level and increased the exposure of the marginalized and at risk

population. Gopalakrishnan & Okada (2007) suggests that broad participation in

decision making leads to resilience and this process shall be started from the local

level.

In addition, prevailing social stratification and inequality further intensify

vulnerability. Social exclusion of certain groups to take part in vulnerability

assessment, planning and implementation of projects question the inclusiveness of

such programme and plans. A community level research participant said:

“We were always told in our community that some government

officials are coming to ask the local people about their problems. But

the local leaders of the community usually inform very limited number

of people and community at large doesn‟t participate in the

consultation projects”

According to Kathleen Tierney (2006) gender, age, race, poverty, wealth and ethnicity

influence vulnerability to natural hazard, enhance the chances of victimization and

negatively affect disaster recovery outcomes. Social and economic inequalities are the

core conditions that shape vulnerability to different hazards (Bolin & Kurtz, 2018).

Gender based discrimination is also a major reason of unequal participation of women

in decision making regarding vulnerability reduction. Workload of women, women

specific needs, inequality in food, new form of discrimination during emergencies like

survival, child marriages and exclusion from like access to education increased

89

women vulnerability to disasters in the province. A female research participant from

local community said:

―After flood 2010, various agencies started community level training

for public awareness. Most of these trainings were conducted for male

members of the community. Community based organizations were

formed but women of our village were not involved in those trainings.

If we learn about the causes of various disasters and safety measures

for it, we can easily communicate it to our children”

Although the intensity of socio-economic, cultural and political context vary from

society to society but such type of practices enhanced the exposure level of women

and the level of impact can be very high in the form of increased mortality and

morbidity of women during disasters. From the above discussion it is concluded that

the very feudalistic structure and alignment of the society, male dominancy, lack of

coordination, cooperation, corruption, lack of accountability, lack of communication,

complex and complicated social stratification and social hierarchy are some of the

major reasons of social vulnerability in the study area. Besides, lack of awareness,

patriarchic nature of the society, top down bureaucratic governance and

administration and lack of community based disaster specific organization also

enhanced the social vulnerability of people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Establishment

of a culture of inclusive disaster risk reduction is a prerequisite for social vulnerability

reduction in the study area.

4.5.2. Causes of Physical Vulnerability

Along with social vulnerability, physical vulnerability is another component which

has increased the exposure level of the local communities in the study area to various

disasters. Physical vulnerability is directly correlated with the geographic proximity

of the communities and people with the source of hazards. Majority of the research

participants were of the view that fragile and week physical environment; lack of

implementation of building codes‘ poor construction material and design;

encroachment; inability of the government to implement land use planning policies;

construction of residential, commercial and public sector building without hazard

resistant technology; over exploitation of natural resources; lack of availability of

basic services like emergency rescue, health, education , sanitation, roads, electricity

90

and means of communication are some of the causes of physical vulnerability. An

interviewee from Local Government Department said:

“Due to the unique geology and geomorphology of Malakand division, it is

highly exposed to major natural and manmade hazards and climate change. A

large number of populations of the area have occupied and living in these

hazard prone locations. Most of the housing inventory lies on earthquake

prone location even on micro and macro fault lines and that too either on

unstable rocky and hilly mountains prone to landslides or on active flood

plains”

These findings are consistent with another study conducted by Saleem (2013) in

Northern Pakistan. Moreover, various government reports and strategies i.e.

Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2010, 2014, 2019) have also highlighted the

fragile physical environment and infrastructure as major cause of vulnerability to

disasters. The complex physiography of the study area and lack of implantation of

proper land use plan compel the people to live in these unsafe locations. The study

also supports the results of another similar study conducted by Mustafa (1998) in

Rawalpindi, Pakistan on structural vulnerability to flood hazard. The natural physical

and built environment in these areas is very fragile and was affected by droughts,

floods, landslides and earthquake in the past. People are living in these locations since

centuries. In the past, the natural environment of the area was highly resilient to

various natural shocks and stresses. But due to deforestation and replacement of the

houses constructed by old traditional local technology (where structure was entirely

built of woods) by concrete buildings enhanced the vulnerability of the people in the

area. An interviewee from Communication and Works Department said:

“Local masonry is the only construction practice in the region which is very

ill-informed about risk and vulnerability. For the local people the available

masons are the architectures, designers and implanters of the construction

activities. The government has promulgated building code policy but its

implementation is only limited to construction of public sector buildings. At

the community level there are no structural and non-structural engineering

measures incorporated in the construction of the buildings and houses. That‟s

why most of the built environment and housing inventory can‟t withstand

hazards of even moderate intensity”

91

In the study area construction practices are very faulty and people are not aware of the

disaster mitigation practices or in some cases they can‘t afford the hazard resistant

technology for construction. Such types of practices led to high damageability of the

housing units in the area in past disasters. The results regarding structural

vulnerability of houses and buildings are consistent with studies conducted by

Mustafa et al., (2019) in Sind, Pakistan; Doberstein & Stager (2013) in Dominican

Republic and Venezuela; Reale and Handmer (2011) study on land tenure and disaster

vulnerability and Asef (2008) study on modeling vulnerability to earthquake.

Similarly, implementation of building codes and land use planning is also a serious

problem for the local government department in the study area. A research participant

of the study area in FGD said:

“Although we are aware that future flood or earthquake can damage

our houses but we don‟t have alternate land to construct our houses on

it neither we can afford it. Government is also aware of the high level

of vulnerability of the area but they have not taken any initiative to

relocate us into safe places”

Relocation of the entire community is a very complex issue and it requires proper

planning not only in the context of selection of suitable safe sites but also in the

context of its situation i.e. provision of economic and livelihoods activities. Site

selection for house construction plays a key role in protection of the people. The study

results support the findings of a study conducted by Wasim & Khalidi (2018) study on

construction practices in Pakistan. Mehmood, Khan, & Khursheed (2012) in a study

on major earthquake in Pakistan suggests strict implementation of buildings codes,

public awareness on these codes and identification of areas vulnerable to earthquakes

on the basis of return period of earthquake. Along with faulty construction practices

due to a variety of reasons, encroachment on rivers is another major cause of physical

vulnerability. A research participant from local community said:

“The government is not restricting people from construction in rivers.

We have been told in training that the government has laws and by

laws for ban on construction in riverbeds, riverbanks, unstable slopes

and road side. But at the time of construction government officials are

not stopping people from encroachment”

During field visits it was observed that people have constructed high rise commercial

buildings (hotels) on the riverbanks and unstable slopes to attract the tourist. Majority

92

of the research participants said that these buildings were washed away by past floods

but the owners reconstructed again on the same places. This reflects the apathy of the

government towards the non implementation of by laws for construction of

commercial buildings. NDMA (2012 & 2015) have identified encroachments in

rivers, irrigation and drainage system as a well as lack of safer land use planning as

major causes of structural vulnerability. Khan (2011) has also reported encroachment

along river Kabul and River Swat as a major factor adding to vulnerability of the

household in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to flood. Likewise, in some parts of the study area

basic facilities like emergency services, health, education and sanitation are very

limited or not functional. An interviewee from Rescue 1122 said:

“Rescue 1122 doesn‟t exist in the entire province. It is fully functional

in ten districts but we don‟t have rescue stations in each and every

place in these districts to reach in seven minutes standard time set for

my organization by government. Emergency management is a complex

mechanism and requires a lot of technically qualified human

resources, material, equipments and machinery. I think we require

establishing more stations and equipping each station with the

required facilities for public safety”

Non-availability of technically qualified rescuers endangers the survival of the people

during small and large scale emergencies. Another major cause of the physical

vulnerability of the area is widespread deforestation. An interviewee from Forest

Department said:

“We have very limited forest covered area. At the local level

deforestation is very high despite the presence of strict rules and

regulations for forest management in the province and involvement of

the local communities in the form of local joint forest management

committees. Deforestation increases soil erosion and causes floods in

downstream communities”

Green circle and thick forest is a basic necessity to control soil erosion, air pollution

and siltation in rivers and dams. Root system in thickly forested area provides

opportunity of ground water percolation and reduces surface flow of water. This

reduces the chances of flash floods and riverine floods and control soil erosion and

siltation in river. Soil erosion causes siltation in rivers and reservoirs and it reduces

the storage of water and the water inundate the surrounding areas due to limited flow

93

capacity ultimately leading to damages to housing units and livelihoods in the study

area. These results are consistent with two other studies conducted in Indonesia and

Korea. For example, Myeong (2014) in a study on deforestation and flood

vulnerability reported a linear relationship between vulnerability and deforestation in

Korea. Rijal, Barkey, & Nursaputra (2019) in a study in Sulawesi, Indonesia

concluded that deforestation is threatening the biodiversity, enhance impact of climate

change, decrease habitat quality and also increase incidences of disasters.

Besides, limited accesses to communication and transportation facilities restrict the

local people access to information and the government agencies are facing problems

in conducting rescue and relief operation. An interviewee from the District Disaster

Management Units said:

“District Charsadda and Nowshera can be easily accessed through

various roads from provincial headquarter but we face serious

problems in District Swat. Road in upper Swat is very narrow and

zigzag. In winter, heavy snowfall and in summer erratic showers cause

landsliding or sometimes roads are damaged by flash floods.”

It has been observed that a few of the government officials lost their lives in

2018 winter in the study area while trying to reach the local communities in

winter during heavy snowfall. Government needs to extend extensive network

of roads to these areas to make it accessible for the officials as well as for the

communities. Failure of transpiration and communication infrastructure is a

matter of life and death for the people in the study area. Emergency responder

faced serious problems in location and rescuing people and it further

complicated rescue efforts (Richards, 2015). Moreover, it provide access to

humanitarian aid on time (Pelling & Mustafa, 2010).

4.5.3. Causes of Economic Vulnerability

Social and physical vulnerabilities have been intensified by the economic

vulnerability of the local communities in the study area. Paradigm shift from viewing

disaster as physical phenomenon (hazard centered approach) to emphasis on resilience

and vulnerability made disaster as a consequence of prevailing social and economic

conditions. Interaction of hazard with economic vulnerability is considered as a major

determinant of multiple types of impacts on the local communities (Noy &

94

Yonson,2018; Cannon (2000). In the study area people are earning their livelihoods

from different sources. People are dependent on agriculture, livestock rearing,

horticulture, small and medium cottage industries, commercial markets, foreign

remittances and public services for their sustenance. Majority of the research

participants reported that poverty, non-diversified and subsistence economy, class

based inequalities, fragile livelihoods, high level of dependency, irregular seasonal

employment and unskilled labor force are the major causes of economic vulnerability.

Poverty is a major social problem of the study area affecting the lives of local

communities on daily basis. A female research participant from local community said:

“I am a mother of five children. I have three daughters and two sons.

We are living in a two bedroom adobe house. I am so much afraid

about my kids when it is raining because our house is very week and

can collapse any time in heavy rain. I can‟t afford to refurbish it as my

husband is dead. He was killed by flood water in 2010 trying to catch

timber wood in the flowing flood water. He was the only source of

earning for the family”

Poverty has compelled the local people to live in dangerous physical locations and

reduced family capacity to construct resilient houses. Poverty has also reduced the

purchasing power of the local people and spending on education and health of the

family. Both in pre and post disaster situation poverty lead to debt bondage and under

nutritious population: A study participant from local community in an FGD said:

“Every night I sleep with this terrible reality whether I would find

work tomorrow or not. When I don‟t work consecutively for three days

my family is going to starvation or sometimes we ask the neighbors to

give us food. I have already taken loan from some family members and

now nobody gives us loan as I can‟t return it due to my limited

income”

The head count ration of poverty in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was assessed as 27 %

(Associated Press of Pakistan [APP], 2018). A World Bank and United Nations

(2010) report states that poor people in developing regions like Pakistan are

particularly vulnerable to disasters due to limited income and high expenditure. Not

only poverty creates vulnerability but at the same time vulnerability is also a major

obstacle to poverty reduction and economic growth (Sawada & Takasaki, 2017).

Unemployment and unskilled labor are facing serious problems in pre and post

95

disaster situation in the study area. There are no formal mechanisms which can

channelize the unskilled labor force toward daily wage earning. This reduces the

capacity of an individual to earn and spend money on the security of the family. An

interviewee from PDMA said:

“Due to poverty people can‟t afford to construct disaster resilient

houses in safe physical locations. People are not aware of the

technology they can use for properly engineered construction of

houses. Besides, due to poverty people are unable to afford the

construction cost of safe house/buildings”

Here the question arises if we educate the people about the hazard resistant

technologies in construction, still the level of physical and economic vulnerability will

be high because this technology is very expensive and the common people can‘t

afford it in the study area. The civil protection agencies need to develop some low

cost resilient design which are affordable as well as protect the people from impacts

of disaster. Agriculture, horticulture, livestock and fisheries are the main livelihood

engaging majority of the people in the study area. Wheat, maize, sugar cane and

tobacco are the main crops produced in Charsadda and Nowshera along with

vegetables and some fruits. In swat the people are mostly relying on horticulture, rice

production, remittances and tourism etc. for their subsistence. These livelihood

activities in the study area are very fragile to both climatic and non-climatic stresses.

Given the geographic location of the area a number of hydro-meteorological events

like floods, heavy rainfall, storms and hailstorms affect these livelihoods.

Furthermore, the impacts of climate change on the local agriculture are also enormous

and there is a greater increase in crops diseases and failures and insect-infestation etc.

in the study area. A study participant from local community said:

“I sowed wheat and sugar cane in 2017. When the wheat was almost

ready for harvesting immense rainfall started. Water was standing in

the fields for more than a week and my crop was damaged by the

standing water. I didn‟t get yield that I was expecting”

It has been observed that prolong dry spell, erratic heavy rainfall, rising level of

temperature and heavy snowfall have significantly affected the livelihoods of the local

communities in the area. An interviewee from Forest Department said:

96

“Due to climate change weather patterns are changing. Summers

and winters are extending and give little time to fall and spring

season. Such types of patterns also change the crop cycle in the area.

The type of weather required for sowing, crop ripening and fruits

harvesting is seriously affecting the productivity of formers in the

area. In mountainous areas of the province insects, pest and locust

were very rare phenomenon but due to rise in temperature it also

affects the fruit grower in the area. This creates food insecurity

amongst the vulnerable groups and also affects the family economy”

Majority of the farmers in the study area wait for the whole season to earn money

from their crop yield and fruit harvesting. These finding about the vulnerability of

agriculture sector are consistent with another study conducted by Israr et al., (2016) in

Swabi Pakistan. Ali & Erenstein (2017) in a study in Pakistan found that climate

change and variability in Pakistan is threatening the agriculture sector and is one of

the major barriers to poverty alleviation and food security. Around 43% of the

workforce is associated with agriculture in Pakistan and it contributes 20 % of Gross

Domestic Products. Besides, these farmers are also affected by non-climatic factors

such as non-availability of on and off farm storage facilities, low prices by

middlemen, limited engagement of agriculture department with local farmers, high

prices of seeds and fertilizers etc. Most of the farmers have to send their raw

agriculture products to other cities with a high transportation cost or selling it to

middle men at low prices (Siddiqui, 2017). Moreover, in study area the number of

large scale industries is almost negligible. A very limited number of people are

running small cottage industries in the form of carpentering, handloom (Shawls,

Chitrali Caps, waistcoat, and woolen coats) and Jaggary (Jaggary ―Gurr‖ is a locally

manufactured unrefined brown sugar made from sugar cane) and embroidery. Most of

these products are sold at local level and only handloom from Swat is supplied to the

national market. In one of the sample district a sugar mill was functional and it was a

source of job for more than two thousand people but the mill was closed almost three

decade ago despite the fact that the district is producing huge quantity of sugar cane

crop. These types of prevailing economic vulnerability in the study area feed into

exposure of the local communities and subsequently increase other types of

vulnerabilities. This study supports the result of another study conducted by Sardar,

97

Javed, & Amir-ud-Din (2016) while exploring the nexus between disasters and

economic growth of Pakistan.

4.5.4. Causes of Attitudinal and Motivational Vulnerability

Attitudinal and motivational vulnerabilities are entirely dependent on social and

economic vulnerability of the people and communities. Attitudinal vulnerability is

related to the people perception about the causes and impacts of different disasters

and these perceptions shape their actions. These vulnerabilities are the outcomes of

level of awareness, religion and crises history (UNDP, 2017a). Majority of the

research participants said that fatalistic attitudes, negative perception about change,

passivity, hopelessness and lack of fighting spirit are some of the causes of

motivational and attitudinal vulnerabilities in the area. In the study area, majority of

the people are having fatalistic attitude toward disasters. Most of the people think

disasters are caused by super natural power and they could do nothing to avert its

adverse impacts. A research participant from irrigation department said:

“During river surveys and feasibility studies for flood protection

projects so many times I interacted with the local communities and

asked them about the possible consequences of floods due to location

of their houses. They replied that floods are from God side and when

flood comes will see what happens”

Indeed it is a reality that heavy rainfall is a metereological phenomenon and beyond

the control of human being but the resultant high level of flow and inundation of the

communities is not. Here the cause of flood can be attributed to lack of mitigation

measures like large reservoirs and protection walls. Dams reduce the flow capacity of

water in rivers and protection walls didn‘t allow water to enter communities. Due to

lack of public awareness people think differently about different disasters. A research


“I really don‟t know what can cause an earthquake. When I was child

my mother used to tell me that the earth is laying on two horns of a

bull, when one horn gets tired it shifts the earth to other horn and

causes earthquake. I think my mother will be right in this regard”

Since the people in the study area are not aware about the plate tectonic theory and

activation of fault lines, that‘s why they attribute such reasons for earthquake. The

98

study support the results of another study conducted by Yari, Zarezadeh, &

Ostadtaghizadeh (2019) in Iran and found similar results regarding people fatalistic

attitude towards earthquake. Myths limit the thinking capacity of the individuals and

mostly it blinds the people to think logically about a phenomenon like natural hazards.

A research participant from local community said:

“Almost ten years ago an avalanche was caused by Jinnat in our

village. My wife died in the avalanche and my house was damaged.

Actually the forest belongs to Jinnat. In winter when extreme snowfall

occurs and they get angry due to severe weather condition, they cause

massive movement of snow by plucking tress and cause snow

avalanches. I was listening to the extreme roaring and saw them in the

fogy cloud created by the avalanche”

Many people in the upper Swat living closely with the glaciers and specifically

nomads are having very popular belief on this myth. Here the main reason that caused

the avalanche was the accumulation of snow and sheer stress of gravity that cause the

avalanche. Another research participant from community said:

“I have been told by my elders to tweak pajamas in an earthquake

because this relinquishes our sins. I am still practicing it”

Such types of concepts don‘t exist in Islam and there is no religious explanation in the

published literature. Clear perception and attitude help people explore various aspects

of disasters and provide opportunities of practical behavioral actions to protect

themselves and their communities from the impacts of disasters. Positive attitude

motivate the people towards practical actions. An interviewee from PDMA said:

“Disaster risk reduction was totally ignored by government and formal

institutions were established after six decades since independence. In the

context of disasters people remained totally ignorant which enhanced their

beliefs in myths. We are facing problems in correcting these false perceptions

during our consultation processes”

Till 2005 earthquake, a fraudulent reactive disaster management regime was in

practice in the country and failed to mold the societal attitudes and behavior toward

vulnerability and risk reduction. In such type of situation the implementation of civil

protection programmes is becoming a major challenge for local government officials

and civil society organizations. McClure (2017) concluded that fatalistic approach to

99

disaster reflects the misconception in the citizen‘s mental model of disasters and they

attribute damages to uncontrollable natural power rather than controllable human

actions

4.6. Legal and Institutional Framework and Its Role in Vulnerability

Reduction in the Study Area

Legal frameworks for risk and vulnerability reduction direct the relevant government

departments to conduct projects for disaster mitigation, preparedness and strengthen

emergency response system. Through establishment of dedicated institutions,

government develop good mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery strategies

to minimize vulnerabilities and enhance resilience to shocks and stresses. The

promulgation of National Disaster Management Act-2010 directs the government to

establish the National and Provincial Disaster Management Commissions. The

mandates of both of these commissions are to lay down guidelines, policies and plans

for risk and vulnerability reduction at the national and provincial level. The act directs

the national and provincial governments to establish the National, Provincial and

District Disaster Management institutions in the country (Gazette of Pakistan, 2010).

At the national level, National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) is fully

functional and working since August 2007 (NDMA, 2017a). In the study area

Provincial Disaster Management Authority, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is functional since

October 2008 along with functional and dedicated District Disaster Management

Units (DDMUs) at the district level (PDMA, 2017a). Majority of the research

participants at the government level were aware about these acts and policies at the

national and provincial level for disaster risk and vulnerability reduction. An


“The national disaster management act is the first comprehensive

document focusing on establishing a comprehensive system for disaster

risk reduction from national to provincial and district level. The act

provides for establishment of the disaster management authorities and

directs the authorities to coordinate with relevant line department for

vulnerability and risk reduction. In 2013 Pakistan‟s first national

disaster management policy was approved by the government and

significant progress has been made in its implementation”

100

After the 2005 earthquake and ratification of the United Nations Hyogo Framework

for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to

Disasters by government of Pakistan, the new legislative and institutional

arrangement were made to tackle disasters (Ullah, 2019). Previously the West

Pakistan National Calamities (Prevention and Relief) Act was the only legal

document with the government for dealing with emergencies. This act was repealed

by the National Disaster Management Act in 2010. Majority of the research

participants said that formerly this act (Calamities Act) was only directing the

government officials to conduct emergency response and provide relief to the people.

The National Disaster Management Act not only focusing on the establishment of the

institutions for disaster risk reduction but also stresses on preparedness, mitigation

and post disaster recovery.

As discussed, vulnerability reduction is a complex phenomenon and requires

comprehensive approach for collaboration and coordination. Majority of the research

participants said that the national policy for DRR is focusing on adopting a

decentralized multi-hazard approach to vulnerability reduction in the study area. The

National Disaster Management Act directs the relevant authorities to carry out

vulnerability reduction projects through a coordinated approach (Gazette of Pakistan,

2010). Previously each organization was conducting its activities in isolation and

coordination mechanism was very weak. An interviewee from District Disaster

Management Units (DDMU) said:

“As per the disaster management system of Pakistan, the main role of

the PDMA and DDMUs is to coordinate the activities of relevant line

departments. The system provides for inter-organizational partnership

for vulnerability reduction and standard operation procedures have

been developed and communicated to each line department like.

Besides, with the support of the PDMA now in some districts

government is conducting multi-hazard vulnerability and risk

assessment”

Vulnerability and risk reduction is a decentralized activity and the district

administration under the DDMUs has to develop and implement the plan. Majority of

the research participants agreed that disaster management structure at the DDMUs

level still need improvement and full decentralization is yet to take place. The results

101

of this study support findings of another study in Turkey by Hermansson (2017)

regarding decentralization of disaster risk reduction. Moreover, Iqbal & Ahmed

(2015) in a research study on forty six development countries found significant results

of decentralized governance with vulnerability reduction. The study also supports a

review study of White (2011) on Decentralization in 21st Century. Picard (2014) is of

the view that most important challenge in decontrolled disaster governance is

devolution of authority. Political, fiscal and administrative powers in decentralized

disaster risk governance make the local government responsive and have positive

impacts on reduction of losses from disasters.

Furthermore, in past, the government was only focusing on managing emergencies

and providing relief items to the victims but now the system is focusing on mitigation

and preparedness as well. Such types of practices in the past led to enhancing

vulnerabilities and victims were left at the mercy of nature. In this regard public

awareness of the local communities from the study area on government policies

regarding disaster risk reduction is mandatory to reduce disaster risks. Strict

implementation of the government rules and regulations regarding vulnerability

reduction has been a serious challenge for the government departments in the context

of demolishing building constructed at risky physical location and implementation of

building codes for construction in such places. In this context empowerment of the

local government can play a key role in vulnerability reduction to future disasters. The

National Disaster Management Act and the local government act empower the district

council to coordinate the entire spectrum of disaster risk reduction (Gazette of

Pakistan (2010). An interviewee from Local Government Department said:

―At the district level the Local Government Department has been

mandated to head the district disaster management units. The Nazim

District Council (an elected representative of the District Council) is

working as convener of the DDMUs as per National Disaster

Management Act. Besides, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local

Government Act further directs the district council to conduct and

approve the land use and zoning, environment control, urban design,

ecological balance and allocate budget for small scale community

based vulnerability reduction activities”

102

But at the district level paucity of funds and lack of understating of factors leading

towards vulnerability is very low. Besides, some of the districts are generating very

low level of income from taxes. Land use planning and urban design is at very initial

stage and Urban Planning Unit has recently started the process of formulation and

preparation of land use plans for the province. Despite the presence of all such

hurdles, some progress has been observed in the study area regarding policy and

programming for risk and vulnerability reduction. Although progress in vulnerability

reduction is slow and gradual in the study area but implantation of the government

policies for DRR will enhance the capacities of the system and will subsequently

reduce vulnerabilities. At the moment the important aspect of vulnerability reduction

in the study area is a little enhanced level of preparedness. PDMA at the provincial

and Divisions level has established dedicated Emergency Operation Centers (PDMA,

2018c). PDMA has also established a dedicated humanitarian response facility and it

is fully equipped with supplies and equipment (PDMA, 2017b). The facility caters the

need of the affected population in the form of relief items. The authority has invested

in developing a communication system through digital technology (PDMA, 2019). An


“We are in process of revamping the provincial and divisional

emergency operation centers. Through revamping project we are

going to install water flow measurement sensors on three major rivers

of the province with an upgraded digital system for information

dissemination and strengthening emergency response”

Functional emergency operation centers help people in reporting about the occurrence

of disasters. It also provided opportunities of managing evacuation and relief

coordination in the study area. Along with PDMA, Emergency Services Recue 1122

is also having functional offices in the study area with dedicated and trained staff.

Majority of the research participants said that since Rescue 1122 has been stationed in

various parts of the province with fully functional wireless communication system,

that‘s why majority of the cases about the occurrence of emergencies are reported to

them. An interviewee from Rescue 1122 said:

“Our offices and rescuers have been equipped with all type of

machinery and equipments. Our control rooms remain twenty four

103

seven active and we are closely monitoring the response during

emergencies”

With the establishment of Rescue 1122 in remaining district, the preparedness

component of the government will be further strengthened and subsequently it will

have positive impact on vulnerability reduction in the province. Previously,

government was mostly relying on armed forces for search and rescue operations.

Besides, the civil defense department is also carrying out emergency response

activities. An interviewee from PDMA said:

“Civil defense in the province has become an outdated subject and in

most of the cases they have been replaced by the Rescue 1122. In areas

where we don‟t have functional Rescue 1122 offices; we have

strengthened the capacity of civil defense department to carryout

emergency response and rescue activities”

It has been observed that civil defense department lacks proper facilities, machinery

and technical human resources. The machinery they are using is outdated and faces

problems in mega disaster events. Government has squeezed budgetary allocation for

the civil defense and it is only relying on its volunteer task force with limited

machinery and equipments during emergency situation (PDMA, 2018d).

For prevention and mitigation, the disaster management authorities are dependent on

Irrigation, Communication and Works, Federal Flood Commission, Forest and Soil

and Water conservation departments. PDMA is coordinating the activities of these

departments in the context of disaster mitigation and preparedness. Majority of the

research participants said that the government has developed mechanism for

earthquake and fire mitigation after the 2005 earthquake by promulgation of building

code policy. An interviewee from Communication and Works Department said:

“We are carefully following the implementation of the building codes

of Pakistan in construction of all public sector buildings in the

province. As per building codes my department is bound to design and

construct earthquake resistant buildings up to 9 Rector Scale

magnitudes. But unfortunately the codes are not focusing on floods and

other disasters and only fire codes have been integrated with it

recently”

104

As discussed earlier in multi-dimensional vulnerability, the study area is prone to

floods, earthquake, landsliding, avalanches and settlement fire. A multi-hazard

approach in designing and construction of public and private sector buildings will

reduce future vulnerabilities. The government is following the integration of

earthquake and fire resisting technologies in public sector buildings but codes for

construction in flood prone area are still undermined by government at the local,

provincial and national level. The study results regarding the non- availability of

building codes for hydro metereological hazards are consistent with PDMA (2016)

study on Multi-Hazard Vulnerability and Risk Assessment in southern districts of

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The study explored that seismic provision in building codes of

Pakistan is very comprehensive but provision for hydro metereological hazards like

flood etc. is missing. A research participant from local community said:

“In our community schools have been constructed through new design

and I have observed columns and beams in the building. But these

schools are located in active flood plains. School building will resist

earthquake but flood can damage it anytime”

The government needs to implement the vulnerability reduction policies not only in

public sector buildings but also in the private and commercial sector to protect the

people from the impacts of hazards and disasters. Majority of the research participants

said that along with earthquake mitigation, government also needs to focus on flood

mitigation in the study area. Flood mitigation can be carried out through flood

resistant buildings and construction of flood protection infrastructure like bypass

channels, check dams and flood protection walls etc. These results are consistent with

the study conducted by Ikeda & Yoshitani (2006) on mitigation of hydro-

metereological disasters. Irrigation department in this context is working on flood

protection infrastructure but layout and design of buildings in flood vulnerable area is

still pending on part of government. An interviewee from Irrigation Department said:

“We have been closely working with our offices at district level in the

formulation of flood protection plans and its implementation. At the

moment we are contributing to the implementation of Food Protection

Plan IV under the guidance and supervision of the Federal Flood

Commission. In this context we have successfully implemented a major

105

project for public safety in the form of flood protection wall in District

Nowshera”

Like Nowshera, Swat and Charsdda districts are also vulnerable to floods. During

field visits it was observed that government has conducted some small scale

mitigation projects in these two districts but they have to conduct more similar

projects to protect the people from the impacts of floods in other areas. These results

regarding mitigation measures support result of another study conducted in

Badakhshan, Afghanistan by Augustine, Kokkammadathil, & Manikoth (2019).

Similarly, mainstreaming disaster risk reduction to preparation and implementation of

sectoral development plans is at very initial stage. Majority of the research

participants said that the government to a maximum extent has tried to mainstream

vulnerability reduction to sectoral development plans in the form of site selection for

public sector buildings, soil testing, design and layout of the buildings etc. but more

efforts are required to reduce disaster risk through social sector development

programmes. An interviewee from Planning and Development department said:

“The planning guidelines at the provincial level provide for

conduction of environmental impact assessment and careful design of

the development plans for major projects as per the Environmental

Protection Act. But due to high cost and political interference these

projects and plans are implemented without keeping in mind the

environmental and social safety mechanism”

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) results provide guidance to the potential

impact of major projects on natural environment and analyze the consequences of

disaster related risk. Environmental conservation is beneficial for sustainable

development and it reduces potential negative impacts on the local communities

(Gazette of Pakistan, 1997). Results of EIA can be used as vulnerability assessment of

the area, as it focuses on identification of major hazards and its impact on the

proposed project and local communities (Sudmeier-Rieux, Ash, & Murti, 2013).

Besides, environmental protection act, forest management acts and policies are also

focusing on disaster mitigation and environmental conservation. An interviewee from

Forest Department said:

106

“Forest management policies in the province are focusing on

prevention as well as mitigation of disasters by stabilizing soil and

minimizing flood chances through prevention of deforestation, soil

conservation, afforestation, sustainable watershed & range

management and treating land degradation and desertification”

Mountainous area of the province has been covered by thick pine and deodar forest.

Government is trying to use nature based solution like eco-system management and

afforestation as the most viable solution for disaster risk reduction and climate change

adaptation. Conservation of forest can reduce the chances of floods and landsliding in

the upper catchment areas and flood plains. It has been observed that conservation of

natural forest in the study area has been a priority of the government and strict

implantation of forest management policies exist on ground. Not only government but

at the same time the local communities have also been involved in the implementation

of these policies. The study support results of other studies for example study

conducted by Takasaki, Barham, & Coomes (2004) in Peru on forest management as

a coping strategy for floods and McSweeney (2005) study in Honduras on forest as

natural insurance and its role on post disaster recovery. The study also supports results

of another study conducted by Jan (2011) and reveals that forest management has

improved with the involvement of the local communities in the form of Joint Forest

Management Committees. It is concluded that the government has promulgated the

disaster management policies/acts and institutions for dealing with disaster risk and

vulnerability reduction has been established in the study area. Significant progress has

been observed in the preparedness component and many emergencies have been well

tackled. Prevention, mitigation and recovery component is still weak and require

proper attention of the elected representative and government officials to reduce all

types of vulnerabilities. Progress in implementation is slow and steady but a paradigm

shift can been seen from reactive to proactive disaster risk reduction in the province.

4.7. Planning, Implementation and Monitoring of Vulnerability

Reduction Projects and Progarmme

Proper planning and decision making is one of the crucial elements for vulnerability

reduction. Good plans for vulnerability and risk reduction shall focus on multi hazard

vulnerability assessment and involvement of all stakeholders including the local

107

communities. In study area, the government has developed several guidelines for

planning. In the context of vulnerability reduction, PDMA and DDMUs are having

the primary responsibility to develop disaster risk reduction plans in consultation with

relevant line departments. Majority of the research participants said that planning and

decision making at the provincial, divisional and district level shall be based on risk

and vulnerability assessment of the concerned geographical area. This component has

been totally neglected by the government. An interviewee from PDMA said:

“At the national level, NDMA has initiated a mega project for Multi-

Hazard Vulnerability and Risk Assessment (MHVRA). At the provincial

level we have conducted vulnerability assessment in scattered places

with active support of donors and NGOs but institutionalized

mechanism for vulnerability assessment is not in place”

The type of vulnerability assessment conducted by the PDMA in consultation with

donors and NGOs is based on a community based qualitative approach and it lacks

technical scientific knowledge of different hazards and its causes. Although the

community involvement has been ensured in these assessment but technical

knowledge about fault lines in the context of earthquake or slope stability in the

context of landsliding is missing. A research participant from local community in

FGD said:

“With the help of Care International we have conducted assessment of our

community in Nowshera. Now I know where the flood water can breach and

inundate the community. They have trained members of local community

based organization on flood mitigation and emergency management”

Such type of assessment lacks proper reports and its availability with the government

agencies and communities. Mostly, these assessments are made through transect

walks and proper mapping is not conducted during assessment. Community

engagement along with technical experts (i.e. structural engineers, geologists,

seismologist, sociologists, irrigation engineers, environmental scientist and remote

sensing/GIS experts) in vulnerability assessment provides opportunity of learning and

ensures inclusion of voices of the voiceless and at risk population. Government of

Pakistan through National Disaster Risk Management Fund will invest an amount of

PKR 189.9 million in conduction of multi-hazard vulnerability and risk assessment of

108

eight districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Governmnt of Pakistan, 2019). These

assessments will be landmark achievement of the government and will help disaster

management authorities in risk informed decision making in future to reduce

vulnerability of the study area. These technical assessments will be used for future

planning and development of the area and vulnerabilities are mainstreamed to the

planning process. Besides, it provides opportunity to demand elected representative to

approve schemes for mitigation in the annual development programmes for their

communities. An interviewee from PDMA said:

“PDMA is having limited staff with technical capacity to conduct

vulnerability assessment. We are dependent on Irrigation Department

for flood risk assessment and geological survey of Pakistan and

communication and work department for landsliding and earthquake

risk assessment along with Pakistan Metereological department for

climate change induced hazards”

Flood risk assessment is the mandate of the irrigation department and they are

conducting technical feasibilities for flood protection projects. But these feasibilities

are only conducted before preparation of projects for inclusion in annual development

programmes and a complete roster of flood vulnerable areas is not available with

irrigation department. Communication and works department conducts assessment of

landsliding on road networks. Majority of the research participants said that the

involvement of Geological Survey of Pakistan (GSP) in vulnerability assessment for

earthquake and landsliding is negligible as they are mostly involved in mineral sector

exploration by government. Technical institutions like GSP and Pakistan

Metereological Department (PMD) have the capacity of vulnerability assessment of

geological hazards and hydro metereological hazards. Majority of the research

participants said that academic institutes can play a key role in this regard but there is

no formal mechanism to support these institutions and involve them in vulnerability

assessment. PDMA needs to coordinate the activities of these departments to conduct

vulnerability assessment for major hazards impacting the province along with relevant

stakeholders. In the context of earthquake, Pakistan Metereological Department

(PMD) and Pakistan Engineering Council has conducted macro zonation of the study

area but micro level zonation and identification of fault lines is necessary in the

prevailing circumstances. An interviewee form PMD said:

109

“The Pakistan Metereological Department (PMD) has established a

National Seismic Monitoring Centre at Islamabad and we are

documenting all major and minor earthquakes occurring in the

country. After each earthquake, the Centre provides information about

the intensity of earthquake and its epicenter”

Institutions like National Seismic Monitoring Centre are of critical importance for the

vulnerability assessment as they have technical expertise and equipments to conduct

such activities at the national, provincial and district level. But such Centers are only

documenting data regarding the magnitude of a disaster and they were not involved in

technical risk assessment.

Regarding availability of vulnerability reduction plans, majority of the research

participants said that at the national level, the NDMA has prepared a national disaster

risk reduction plan and PDMA at the provincial level and DDMUs at the district level

is contributing to the implementation of the these plans. The national plan has been

prepared as per the National Disaster Management Act requirements (Government of

Pakistan, 2012). An interviewee from PDMA said:

“The national plan defines measures for disaster risk reduction at the

national level. The plan is very comprehensive in nature and identifies

measures for protection of people lives, property and environment”

To continue the implantation of the national plan, national policy and national act, the

PDMA developed a disaster risk reduction road map for the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

province (PDMA, 2014). Besides, the PDMA in collaboration with NGOs has also

developed district disaster management plans for various districts of Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa province including district Nowshera, Charsadda and Swat District. An

interviewee from DDMUs said:

“We have some good plans in place and it need to be updated further

with changing climatic scenarios and circumstances. As a dedicated

unit for vulnerability and risk reduction we are facing problems in

selection of vulnerability reduction projects out of these plans due to

political interference”

These plans have been prepared in consultation with local elected representatives and

other relevant stakeholders. Majority of the research participants said that all these

110

plans provide guidelines about the disaster risk and vulnerability reduction and it has

identified both structural and non-structural risk reduction projects. In addition, these

plans are focusing on strengthening community participation in vulnerability

reduction and also focusing on public awareness for disaster risk reduction. A

research participant (elected reprehensive of local government) from the local

community said:

“We have prepared a plan for Tehsil Bahrain, Swat in consultation

with the Assistant Commissioner office and other government

departments. The plan is focusing on involvement of the local

community in context specific disaster risk reduction and identified

area for intervention to reduce the impacts of disasters at Tehsil level”

These plans ensure community participation in text but in reality the planning process

as well as resource allocation for major projects is highly political and influenced by

power elite of the area. Risk sensitive and people centered plans preparation and

implementation ensure vulnerability of the local communities. These plans shall be

prepared on the basis of vulnerability assessment reports and land use planning. Land

used planning provide opportunity to government and local people to know about the

existing and future land utilization as well as identify the potential hazards in various

geographical locations. Majority of the research participants said that Urban Policy

Unit at the Planning and Development Department has initiated preparation of land

use plan of the province and it has developed land use plans of five districts of the

province. An interviewee from Planning and Development department said:

“Urban policy unit is implementing a project to conduct land use

plans of all districts of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. But these plans are

not risk sensitive and only focus on existing utilization of land”

Land use planning is considered as one of the best strategies for disaster prevention

and it guide policy level decision and positively influence development programme in

areas vulnerable to disasters. Majority of the research participants said that land use

planning ensures security of people and improves resilience of communities and

nation. Risk sensitive land use planning in the study area will provide opportunities to

district government to decide about the selection of sites for future construction,

develop good layout and design of buildings and improve resilience of communities

111

and people. These results regarding land use planning are supporting the analysis of

Bosher & Chmutina (2017) which states that investment in land use planning is the

most cost effective strategy for disaster vulnerability reduction.

Regarding planning process for structural vulnerability reduction projects, majority of

the research participants said that planning process is decentralized in the provincial

government rules of business for planning and development but it is highly influenced

by political interference. For structural projects, planning process starts with the

technical feasibility of the projects in consultation with local communities. On the

basis of feasibility, each department has to formulate schemes for inclusion in the

annual development programmes. Technical feasibilities and schemes preparation are

finalized by the concerned government departments and district government submit it

to the provincial planning and development department through District Development

Advisory Committee (a committee comprised of elected representative of the

provincial assembly in each districts). Planning and Development Department

conducts consultation with relevant ministries regarding each development or

vulnerability reduction project. After financial consultation with finance department

these projects are submitted to the provincial cabinet for approval. As soon as the

provincial cabinet approves the projects, it is placed in front of provincial assembly

for approval and allocation of budget. As per defined procedure, this process provides

opportunities to the district government to submit sound projects for risk reduction at

the gross root level but in reality the system is having so many issues and problems

that need correction. An interviewee from Planning and Development Department

Said:

“From top to bottom our decisions are influenced by political leaders.

They use the annual development programmes for political

maneuvering. Politicians are mostly interested in immediate

quantitative targets to use it for the next election”

Political interference in planning and decision making process is wide spread and it

has influenced the design and implementation of vulnerability reduction projects and

programmes. A research participant from local community said:

112

“In my village flood protection walls were constructed along orchards of

some influential people of the area. They have good relationship with the

elected representative and they can influence their decision‖

Political interference, biased and subjugated decisions making process at the district

and provincial level has increased vulnerability of the local communities to disaster in

the study area. These findings regarding political interference in vulnerability

reduction and development projects support the results of studies conducted by

Hyndman (2007), Mulligan & Buddhadasa (2006) and Hettige (2007).

Government officials working in technical institutions like local communication and

works, irrigation, local government department and DDMUs have the capacity to

develop good project for vulnerability reduction in the study area. These officials

need to involve the elected local government officials along with the key informants,

community leaders and general public in the planning process. Despite all these

hurdles some progress has been made by relevant government agencies in approving

and allocation of budget for disaster risk reduction in the province. Majority of the

research participants said that in the context of capacity building of relevant

government officials, National Institute of Disaster Management is regularly

conducted trainings for the government officials in close collaboration with PDMAs.

An interviewee from PDMA said:

“Disaster risk reduction education has been integrated with the early

carrier and mid-carrier trainings at Pakistan Academy for Rural

Development and National Institute of Management Services. Besides,

training manuals both in Urdu and English have been developed for

the local communities”

It is pertinent to mention here that all public sector officials receive regular trainings

at the beginning of their carrier and also in the mid of carrier. Training and education

of these officials is of paramount importance in the context of risk and vulnerability

reduction at the gross root level. These trainings are having positive implications on

preparation of plans and sectoral development projects in the study area. It has been

observed, that the local communities were trained in emergency response

management by various NGOs in collaboration with District Government. A research

participant from the local community said:

113

“In our area we constituted twenty six Village Disaster Management

Committees (VDMCs) under the Care International and PDMA joint

project. We have been trained on flood early warning system,

emergency response and search and rescue. In the beginning, these

VDMCs were very functional but when the project period ended,

VDMCs functionality became redundant”

NGOs projects are for specific time period and when the project ends these NGOs

abandon their work in the concerned geographical area. In such type of situation it is

the prime responsibility of the District Disaster Management Units and PDMA to

develop a follow-up mechanism to keep the VDMCs functional. Beside PDMA, the

Rescue 1122 has started a comprehensive strategy for public awareness and training

regarding emergency response management in the study area. Majority of the research

participants were of the view that they have observed Rescue 1122 during public

awareness campaigns in the study area in collaboration with District Administration

and DDMUs. An interviewee from Rescue 1122 said:

“In the first phase we targeted the academic institutes like schools,

colleges and universities. Youth engagement in disaster risk

management is a key pillar of community driven initiatives of the

Rescue 1122. These youth are the agents of change in our society and

we have involved them as volunteers force during emergencies”

It has been observed that these community level trainings have influenced the

perception and behavioral actions about disaster risk reduction. The local

communities are responding to warning messages and take precautionary measures

before receipt of government assistance. An interviewee from Pakistan

Metereological Department (PMD) said:

“I have observed a change in the community after the 2010 floods.

During monsoon season we are receiving calls from local communities

in the province about the occurrence of floods during heavy rainfall.

We are implementing a project and establishing metereological radar

in Mardan which will be used for early warning in the province”

This initiative will strengthen the capacity of government to monitor and forecast

about the natural hazards and issues early warning to communities. It has been

114

observed that Pakistan Metereological Department lacks proper system for early

warning in the study area. Federal Flood Davison (a subsidiary organ of the PMD

mandated for flood monitoring and early warning) covers Indus river basin and major

rivers in the study area (i.e. river Kabul and river Swat) is beyond the reach of the

metereological radar system of the FFD. In 2010, large number of casualties and

property losses were experienced by the local communities in the study area due to

poor early warning system (Aziz, 2014). Projects like installation of radar system in

district Mardan for the western tributaries like river Kabul will provide opportunities

to government to disseminate information to the local communities in future. An

interviewee from PMD said:

“We have established nineteen weather observatories in the Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa province. Most of these observatories are recording

weather data through analogue system and then communicate it to the

regional headquarter in Peshawar. We share the data with the PDMA

for further communication to communities”

Majority of the government officials said that, Provincial Disaster Management

Authority is also communicating early warning to the district and divisional control

room to remain vigilant about the occurrence of any unforeseen disaster event. PDMA

communicates early warning through print, electronic and social media to the general

public and relevant government departments. This system needs further up gradation

and requires funding from provincial and national government.

Along with strengthening preparedness in the province, mitigation activities in most

of the cases have been ignored due to other priorities and paucity of funds. But some

of the departments have initiated few projects at the district and provincial level to

minimize the impacts of disaster on communities in the study area. In this regard,

agriculture department, forest department and local government department have

conducted mitigation projects at the community level. Forest department is

implementing the Billion Tsunami Tree Project in the province to conserve soil and

maintain the ecological balance through tree plantation and watershed management.

The project has employed the local community volunteers in afforestation campaign

and also keeps check on overgrazing in the area. An interviewee from forest

department said:

115

“Billion Tsunami Tree Project is the only project recognized by the

global community as one of the most practical approach to combat

climate change in post 2015 Sustainable Development Agenda. Under

the project, forest department is not only conducting afforestation but

also conducting small scale projects for land stabilization in landslide

prone area‖

Majority of the research participants said that forest department has conducted small

scale community level projects for landslide mitigation through soil bioengineering

mechanism. Soil bio-engineering is a low cost mechanism for land stabilization

through check dams and planting certain kind of species of plants. Synthetic bags are

used to temporarily stabilize the land. When the roots system mature, the area gets

stabilize with the passage of time. These findings support the results of other studies

conducted by Dolidon et al., (2009) on landslide risk reduction, Marden (2012) study

on reforestation and mitigation of soil erosion, Osti et al., (2009) on role of forest in

tsunami risk mitigation and Lu, Cheng, & Brooks (2001) study in Taiwan in

watershed protection.

Agriculture department through its soil and water conservation unit also conduct

mitigation projects for flood protection and water storage. A research participant from

local community said:

“Our village was repeatedly hit by flash floods in the past. Agriculture

department constructed a bypass channel from the fields and housing

units. Now the water is augmenting in the channel and flows directly

into the main river‟

Bypass channels and canals play a key role in protection of soil, crop fields and

housing units from flash floods. Majority of the research participants said that

agriculture department is also constructing water ponds and concrete check dams in

arid areas of the province. This allows water to percolate into ground and stabilize the

water table. These check dams control the speed of water flow and prevent soil

erosion. It was observed that local government department at the village and

neighborhood council level allocate budgets for small scale community based disaster

risk reduction activities in the study area. These findings are consistent with the

116

studies conducted by Colombo et al., (2002) and Musyoki, Thifhulufhelwi, &

Murungweni, 2016) on flood prevention and mitigation.

Local government department through involvement of the local community based

organizations has initiated community based projects for primary health care, farm

management, access roads, social forestry, public infrastructure, public health

engineering, social welfare and basic education. A research participant from local

community said:

“Access road to our community was not paved and it was very

difficult for us to access the main road during heavy rainfall. We

established our own CBO and the Community Driven Local

Development project provided us material for pavement of road. Local

community donated labor and now we have accessibility to main road”

Roads, health facilities and public sector infrastructure provide opportunity to local

people to evacuate during disaster situation and access the health facilities on time.

Moreover, it helps the people to protect their lives and moveable assets when an

evacuation is ordered by the government during an emergency situation. These

findings support the result of study conducted by Bajracharya, Childs, & Hastings

(2011) in Queensland, Australia regarding local of local government in disaster risk

reduction.

Functional evacuation centers and safe evacuation routes protect the affected

communities during disaster. In this regard, majority of the research participants said

that the PDMA has identified sites for evacuation centers in consultation with district

government. An interviewee from PDMA said:

“In consultation with the local and district government, PDMA has

identified seventeen evacuation sites in seventeen districts. These sites

are hazard free and have clearly defined evacuation routes”

When investigated, the identified evacuation centers are academic institutes like

schools and colleges. In light of the above discussion it is evident that preparedness

component has improved in the study area. Progress in vulnerability assessment and

subsequent planning and implementation of major mitigation projects is very slow

and it has been influenced by top down decision making and political interference.

Small scale mitigation projects have been conducted in the study area by various

117

government departments. Large scale mitigation projects require political will and

allocation of budgets to reduce multi-dimensional vulnerabilities in the study area.

4.8: Emergency Response Management and Post Disaster Recovery

Emergency management and civil protection institutions play an important role in

responding to various kinds of emergencies and protection of people. Emergency

response is totally dependent on preparedness of these civil protection institutions. In

the study area it has been observed that emergency response system has a little bit

improved because of the establishment of dedicated institutions like PDMA and

Rescue 1122. Majority of the research participants said that previously it was very

difficult for government to deal with small, medium and large scale emergencies and

for every type of disaster; the government was entirely dependent on armed forces.

With the establishment of complete disaster management system at the government

level, district and provincial governments can manage emergencies in coordination

with other line departments including armed forces. Majority of the research

participants said that timely warning messages are communicated to the local

community through print, social and electronic media and the community has also

been sensitized to take precautions in rainy seasons. But community level participants

were of the view that in most of the time we listen to weather updates but we don‘t

understand it due to technical language of these messages. It has been observed that

improvement has been seen in emergency response management but the system is not

fully ready for managing catastrophes. Besides, the government agencies established

relief camps for the victims of past disasters. A research participant from local

community in FGD said:

“I have experienced three major disasters in the past ten years. In the

first two disasters (i.e. 2009 insurgency and 2010 floods) when we

evacuated from our villages, we went to relief camps in Mardan. We

were allotted a tent and provided food and non food items”

The level of damages caused by the above two mentioned disasters were huge and

people stayed in relief camps for more than six months. The 2015 earthquake did

damaged housing units but the level of impact was not very high and those who lost

their houses were temporarily placed in schools and other public sector buildings.

Majority of the research participants said that the government and NGOs provided

118

food and non-food items along with cash compensation. An interviewee from PDMA

said:

“For immediate cash assistance to the victims of 2009 insurgency and

2010 flood victims, the government issued WATAN Card (Watan card

was an ATM card with an upper limit of 25000 rupees). It was the

initial cash assistance while people were displaced or were in relief

camps. After Damage Need Assessment (DNA) government provided

cash compensation for both partially damaged houses and fully

damaged houses”

Along with provision of cash assistance for housing unit‘s reconstruction, the

government also compensated the people who experienced loss of a family member or

disability. Majority of the research participants said that government provided cash

grants to the people but people were not assisted how to construct hazard resistant

houses. An interviewee from Communication and Works department said:

“We didn‟t replicate the experiences that we gained after 2005

earthquake regarding construction of hazard resistant houses.

Although government stressed on strict implementation of building

codes but it was only limited to public sector buildings”

In post 2005 earthquake, government provided cash grant with the condition that the

affected people have to reconstruct their houses in accordance with the design

developed and approved by government. Along with housing units‘ reconstruction,

majority of the research participants were of the view that government conducted

rehabilitation activities before repatriation of the victims to their homes. Road and

bridges were temporarily repaired and schools were started in tents. Government also

provided moveable shelter to local community through support of NGOs. A research


“Since my house was fully damaged by floods, I was provided a tent at the

initial level when we returned to our villages. Then local government

representative through support of NGOs constructed a moveable house from

Galvanized Iron (GI) Sheets”

Government through support of NGOs also runs livelihood restoration projects in the

study area after past disasters. Agriculture department was involved to coordinate

119

with civil society organization for restoration of agriculture, livestock and horticulture

activities. Majority of the research participants said that government through support

of NGOs provided both cash and kind support for strengthening local livelihoods. A

research participant from local community said:

“After floods, NGOs provided cattle‟s (goats), agriculture tools, seed

and fertilizer to people in our community. They also provided us plants

during afforestation campaign”

But the local community was not satisfied from the assistance extended to them

except agriculture tools. Majority of the research participants said that the species of

cattle and seeds were not environment friendly and were not able to cope with the

weather system of the study area. Most of the people lost the livestock that was

provided to them and the agriculture productivity was very low in some areas. In such

type of situation, it is necessary that the concerned government department i.e.

Agriculture Department shall conduct soil tests to check the compatibility of the seeds

with the environment. Local species of seed and livestock is more beneficial to

support local livelihoods.

4.9: Systemic and Executive Flaws in Vulnerability Reduction

Governance

A comprehensive disaster management system is a continuity of organized action

initiated by local, provincial and national emergency management authorities before,

during and after disaster events. These interrelated actions strengthen the capacities of

individuals, families, communities and societies to protect their lives, property,

businesses and infrastructure through prevention, mitigation and timely forecast about

the occurrence of a disaster event. Majority of the research participants said that a

major systemic flaw in the system is the presence of top down bureaucratic approach.

Although these bureaucrats are highly qualified and have been selected through a

tough process along with rigorous trainings after selection. But most of these officials

lack technical knowledge about various phenomenon‘s like natural hazard affecting

the people. An interviewee from irrigation department said:

“The bureaucrats control everything in the system and there is a

limited space for the technical people to make decisions. This

120

approach abandoned the technocrats to conduct studies and develop

good strategies for risk reduction”

Technical people like hydrologists, seismologist, civil engineers, geologist, climate

experts, disaster managers, sociologists, and economist can contribute to proper

assessment, planning and execution of vulnerability reduction projects. They know

about the science of natural hazards, mechanism for assessment and the level of

impact that hazards can cause to the communities and people. Along with top down

approach bureaucratic approach lack of political will to allocate funds for

vulnerability reduction projects and mitigate the impacts of disaster on the lives and

livelihood of the people further enhanced the exposure level of the local communities

in the study area. Majority of the research participants said that lack of political will to

allocate resources for risk reduction, prepare for and manage emergencies has

negatively influenced decisions related to vulnerability reduction in the study area.

Political commitment and political will is an important factor for building community

resilience. Political leaders in the study area are showing great interest in relief and

cash compensation to the victims of disaster but their interest level in risk reduction is

very low. An interviewee from Provincial Disaster Management Authority said:

“As per act, the provincial government has to establish a Provincial

Disaster Management Commission headed by the Chief Minister of the

province to take policy level decisions and approve plans for risk

reduction in the province. I am serving this office for the last five years

and I have not observed a single meeting of the commission during my

tenure of employment”

The provincial commission is the apex disaster management institution comprised of

the elected representatives, opposition members in the parliament and technical

people nominated from relevant department. This reflects the apathy of government at

the top level to make robust decision for disaster risk and vulnerability reduction.

Majority of the participants said that political will ensure budget allocation for

mitigation, public awareness and early warning system. Besides, it incentivizes

stakeholders at all level to participate in vulnerability reduction activities. These

findings support the results of a study conducted by Prater & Lindell (2000) on

politics of hazard mitigation. Another major problem with the system is multistage

approval of the vulnerability reduction projects. Majority of the research participants

121

said that multistage approval of risk and vulnerability reduction projects have delayed

the implementation of the mitigation projects in the study area. An interviewee from

Communication and Works Department said:

After approval of mitigation projects and allocation of budget, we have

to grant approval from the competent authorities at each stage of

implantation. In some cases the approvals are granted at the district

level but mostly the files are sent to provincial headquarters.

Sometimes it delays the project implementation timeline and increase

the cost of implementation of the project due to inflations.

Red Tapism seriously prevents action and timely decision making in the study area. It

was observed that due to multi stage approvals in most of the cases the project

timeline expired and the concerned government officials had to resubmit projects for

approval and additional funding. This process is not only wastage of resources and

energy but it also affects the population whose survival is at stake. These findings

support the results of other studies by Nath & Behera (2011), Shabir (2013), Kemal

(2002) and Azam (1979). Majority of the officials said that despite the presence of

local government system, full devolution is still very weak and it will take time to

empower the local government representatives to make decisions at the gross root

level. Full devolution of the vulnerability reduction and social welfare programmes

and projects reduce the wastage of time and fund delay for such projects. Besides, the

District Disaster Management Units (DDMUs) lack proper structure like other district

departments. Although, the provincial government claim that they have established

fully functional DDMUs in each district but their involvement can only be seen in

emergencies on ground. A study participant from local community said:

“Government has appointed Assistant Commissioners as District

Disaster Management Officers heading the DDMUs. For common

people it is out of reach to access their offices and inform them about

our problems and situation we face during disasters”

As per government rules and regulations, district government is responsible for full

implementation of vulnerability reduction projects. But it is a bitter fact that they have

bureaucratized disaster risk reduction at the gross root level in the study area.

122

Although Assistant Commissioners under the District Administration have control of

all resources in their administrative jurisdiction but they don‘t have time for designing

and detailing risk assessment and vulnerability reduction projects. They have the

power to coordinate the activities of the line departments but this is only practiced

when a disaster occurs in a community. Nawaz & Khalid (2017) in a study in Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa on strengthening and designing District Disaster Management Units has

found similar results and recommended a proper structure for district disaster

management units along with dedicated staff and recourses to reach the most

vulnerable people. Majority of the research participants said that their concerned

departments are coordinating at the provincial and district level regarding disaster

management. An interviewee from District Disaster Management Unit said:

“I have observed strong coordination among the officials from top to

bottom in my district and in the province for emergency management.

But this coordination is not leading towards collaboration for disaster

risk reduction and everyone is working in isolation”

In the context of vulnerability reduction in the study area, the government officials are

working individually or in distinct groups to achieve a common goal and this is

mostly adhoc in nature. Strong collaboration is missing in the system to work together

and fence activities together for the resilience of the study area. Professionalism of

disaster management system ensure command, control and coordination of

vulnerability reduction projects and provide opportunities of collaboration as their

might be limitations on part in single authority to handle a situation or the concerned

authority is no longer able to the situation. Collaboration among government

departments is not only essential among different office bearers but also between

government and communities as this will lead to collaborative disaster management

on the ground. Waugh & Waugh Jr & Streib (2006) suggested that strong

collaboration is necessary to deal with hazards and disasters in an effective manner.

Kapucu, Arslan, & Demiroz (2010) are of the view that collaborative network can use

available resources effectively to meet the expectations of general public during

emergencies. Collaboration guarantees information sharing and data availability on a

single platform to decision makers. Majority of the research participants said that data

availability and data sharing is another major problem in the system and this process

123

has obstructed their activities related to risk reduction. An interviewee from PDMA

said:

“Data sharing and data availability is a major challenge for our

institutions. We are relying on district government and relevant line

departments for data sharing. Even socio-economic impacts data of

past disasters are not available with our department in a coherent

mechanism. You have to room around in various departments to

acquire the data”

Major reason of none or limited availability of data is the analogue system of data

compilation and the system has not yet digitized. PDMA through its revamping

project is establishing a Disaster Management Information System and it will ensure

the spatial and temporal data availability about various hazards and disasters. This

new system will lead to inform decision making on the basis of real time data and will

guide future projects and plan preparation on the basis of technical parameters of

various hazards (PDMA, 2018c). An interviewee from Rescue 1122 said:

“The disaster management information system at the provincial,

divisional and district level will ensure the performance audit of the

concerned officials. In analogue system you can delay the delivery of

services and data sharing but through digital platforms you have to

pay proper attention to each and everything”

Majority of the research participants said that performance audit is not conducted and

now the government has devised a mechanism for performance audit of various

government departments. Through performance audit government can conduct a

complete examination of employee‘s progress in their respective offices and can also

be used for assessment of functions and operations of an office efficiency and

effectiveness in risk reduction. This will significantly influence the delivery of

services to the vulnerable population of the study area. Similar results regarding

performance audit has been reported by Arslan et al., (2014); Yasser, Entebang, &

Mansor (2011); Yasser et al. (2011); Gendron, Cooper, & Townley (2007); Gendron

et al., (2007) and Leeuw (1996).

Along with performance audit strict financial audit is also a prerequisite of the

vulnerability reduction. Auditing disaster preparedness, mitigation, response and

124

recovery projects provide opportunities to assess whether the funds allocated for the

specific activities have been utilized effectively and efficiently and whether it has

achieved the intended results or not. Majority of the research participants said that one

can identify major fraud and corruption in the past relief provision to the local

community. During disaster situation aid arrived from various sources for relief

provision, rehabilitation and post disaster recovery, but record is only available of the

expenditure incurred from the government kitty. Along with government, significant

mal-practices can be found in the relief provision by NGOs as well. Similar results

regarding mal practices in humanitarian aid have been reported by Hancock (1992)

and Baitenmann (1990). A research participant from local community said:

“Many unaffected people in my community were compensated by

government after 2015 earthquake. Their homes were not damaged by

earthquake; neither their business nor they experienced any death or

injuries”

In presence of such type of situation the government needs to develop audit guidelines

and financial standard operation procedures to avoid wrong relief assistance and

direct the compensation or benefits of programmes to the affected and most

vulnerable people. A proper procedure is required for damage need assessment and

verification of damages reported (Asgary et al., 2012). Another major problem that

has been identified in the system is it doesn‘t guide the employee to execute their jobs

properly. Proper detailing of the term of reference of the employees of disaster

management organization is required to direct and guide the employees to work for

vulnerability reduction in the study area.

4.10: Community Participation in Vulnerability Reduction

People centered approach to risk and vulnerability reduction plays a key role in

enhancing capacities and coping skills of the local communities. Majority of the

research participants said that in text the disaster management policies are people

centered but in operational level the implementation is still having major loopholes.

As a document these policies and plans direct the government employees to involve

the local community in consultation for vulnerability assessment, planning and

implementation. An interviewee from PDMA said:

125

“The basic principle of the national DRR policy supports community

participation and direct employees to adopt a bottom up community

based approach towards vulnerability reduction. The standard

operation procedures are also supporting community participation but

practical actions at the operational level are hampering participation

of community”

These policy and planning guidelines need meticulous integration with the practical

actions of the government officials working in the field. Participation in the study area

is only consultation and not leading to self mobilization of communities in the study

area to prepare and mitigate disasters. Such types of problems in community

participation in DRR has also been reported by other studies, for example Deen

(2015); Dekens (2008) and Rana & Routray (2016). In community based disaster risk

reduction, self mobilization is considered the highest level of participation and lead to

confidence building among communities to play proactive role in disaster risk

reduction. A research participant from community said:

“Very limited government officials have consulted the local people

about disaster risk reduction projects and that too after the 2010

floods and 2015 earthquake. But the NGOs in most of the cases have

not only consulted the people but structural mitigation projects were

implemented by people. In 2018 dengue outbreak, the local tehsil

municipal administration and health department involved the local

people in mitigation of dengue fever”

The local community in the study area is having a high spirit of volunteerism and

people help each other during emergencies. Majority of the research participants said

that the general public, civil defense volunteers, youth organizations and Pakistan Red

Crescent volunteers have been involved in the emergency response, evacuation, relief

provision and camp management. Government needs to tap these volunteer human

resources and establish a formal mechanism for involvement of volunteers in disaster

preparedness, mitigation, early warning dissemination and emergency management.

These results regarding the spirit of volunteerism in Pakistan are consistent with

studies conducted by Soomro et al. (2016) and Baqir (2014). The volunteer force

shall not be comprised of only male members of the society. Equal opportunity shall

be given to women as well. Cultural norms and values restrict male members of

126

society to rescue and provide first aid to women during an emergency. In this context

gender and culturally sensitive interventions are required to the reduce vulnerability

of women. An interviewee from Rescue 1122 said:

“We have employed female rescuers in the Rescue 1122 Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa but their number is very limited. They have been placed

in the Community Safety & Training Wing for training of female

community members. Due to job nature, female are reluctant to apply

when jobs are advertized. Keeping in view the cultural sensitivity, the

organization needs to run an awareness drive to attract female to join

these jobs”

Not only employment of female in Rescue 1122 is necessary but involvement of

women in disaster mitigation and preparedness is also of paramount significance.

Although PDMA has established a gender and child cell but their proactive role was

not observed in the field in the study area. In this context, social welfare department

can play a key role and they should be involved to reach the most vulnerable people.

These results regarding gender and cultural issues support results of another study

conducted by Bara (2010) in Pakistan. The study further support results of a study

conducted by (Enarson, Fothergill, & Peek, 2007). Majority of the research

participants said that Rescue 1122 is conducting rehearsal and drills in the community

before commencing of monsoon season. These rehearsal and drills have sensitized the

local community to take precautionary measures before flood season in the study area.

Green et al., (2003) is of the view that simulation exercises, drills and rehearsal is one

of the fundamental tool to evaluate the disaster response system. Drills and rehearsal

provide opportunity to check the operational readiness of emergency response

agencies and can also be used for public awareness (Burling & Hyle, 1997).

4.11. Conclusion/Synthesis of Chapter

On the basis of qualitative data findings it is concluded that the study area has been

significantly affected by both natural and anthropogenic hazards. Due to high

vulnerability of the study area, these hazards caused massive disasters when interacted

with the vulnerable conditions in the area with potential negative impacts on housing,

markets, livelihood, infrastructure, public sector building and environment. Moreover,

127

they displaced hundreds of thousands of people with severe consequences on their

health and well being. Disaster severely affected the social, economic, physical,

governance and environment sector. Major identified causes for the high level of

prevalence of multidimensional vulnerability are social inequality, complicated

system of social stratification, gender based discrimination, poverty, none-diversified

economy, fatalistic attitudes, passivity, inadequate knowledge about disaster risk

reduction and short sighted disaster risk reduction planning, complex physiography,

construction on riverbanks and unstable slopes, encroachments in rivers, irrigation

and drainage system and deforestation etc. The government enacted the National

Disaster Management Act in 2010 to establish National, Provincial and District level

disaster management system in the country. The 2010 act repealed the National

Calamities Act and provided opportunity to develop a robust system to ensure DRR

and reduce prevailing vulnerability. Despite prevalence of these institutions since

2007 (initially the NDMA was established under the Ordinance which was later

converted to the act), vulnerability of the population components are still very high.

Serious types of system and executionery problems exist in these institutions. There is

no clear policy vision on dealing with disaster at the government level. Still disasters

are dealt at adhoc basis. Risk assessment being a primary component for planning is

missing at all level of the disaster management institutions. Planning is only limited to

monsoon contingency plans preparation. There is no public private partnership to

ensure supply of equipments and other materials during a disaster on continuous

basis. The system still suffers from a top down approach. In text the essence disaster

management system ensure inclusive and community based disaster risk reduction but

at operational level major decisions are taken at the top level and implemented on

ground. Sometimes such decision worsens disaster risk rather than reducing disaster

risk. The only component that has improved is the emergency response system.

Dedicated humanitarian response facilities have been created and selected public

sector building have been declared as evacuation centers in all districts of the

province along with establishment of emergency rescue 1122. In a nutshell, the

disaster management system need reformulation to make it compatible with the

modern realities in wake of the new normal and also to strengthen gross root

institutions to ensure public safety.

128

CHAPTER 5

ANALYSIS OF QUANTITATIVE DATA

5.1 Rationale

This chapter provides tabulated analysis and detail description of the quantitative data

collected from respondent at the local community level in the three sampled districts

i.e. District Nowshera, District Swat and District Charsadda. Data was collected

through structured interview schedule for both the independent variable and

dependent variable. Following sections illustrates the socio-demographic profile of

the respondents, respondent‘s experiences of different disasters, univariate analysis

and bivariate analysis.

5.2 Socio-Demographic information of the Respondents

Socio-demographic information was collected from each respondent during the data

collection. Indicators for socio-demographic information are age, sex, marital status,

family type, family size, level of education, occupation and monthly family income.

Statistical data about the demographic information of the samples respondent has

been given below.

TABLE NO. 5.1: SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION OF THE

RESPONDENTS

Age of Respondents in

Years Frequency Percent

20 years and below 18 4.7

21-30 years 87 22.7

31-40 years 46 12.0

41-50 years 76 19.8

51-60 years 99 25.8

Above 60 years 58 15.1

Total 384 100.0

Sex Wise Distribution

Male 337 87.8

Female 47 12.2

Total 384 100.0

Marital Status

Single 110 28.6

Married 261 68.0

Divorced 6 1.6

129

Widowed 7 1.8

Total 384 100

Family Type

Nuclear family 96 25.0

Joint Family 268 69.8

Extended family 20 5.2

Total 384 100.0

Family Size

5 and below 32 8.3

6 to 10 99 25.8

11 to 15 143 37.2

above 15 110 28.6

Total 384 100.0

Level of Education

Illiterate 243 63.3

Up to Matric 31 8.1

Intermediate 44 11.5

Bachelor 39 10.2

Master 23 6.0

MPhil/PhD 4 1.0

Total 384 100.0

Occupation of the Respondents

Unemployed 41 10.67

Student 20 5.2

Farmer 120 31.25

Horticulturist 8 2.08

Laborer 16 4.16

Public/Private Servant 54 14.1

Businessman 44 11.45

Industrialist 1 0.26

Dependent on foreign

remittances 78

20.31

Others 2 0.52

Total 384 100

Monthly Family Income in PKR

Less than 10000 8 2.1

10001-20000 42 10.9

20001-30000 72 18.8

30001-40000 120 31.3

40001-50000 76 19.8

Above 50000 66 17.2

Total 384 100.0

Table No. 5.1 depicts data about the age and sex of the respondents. Out of total study

respondents, 25.8 % were at the age group 51-60 years followed by 22.7 % at the age

group of 21-30 years. The reason for high number of senior age group was due to

130

their experiences and knowledge of past disasters. The remaining 19.8%, 15.1%, 12%

and 4.7% respondents were placed at the age groups of 41-50 years, 60 years, 31-40

year and below 20 years, respectively. The lower limit of the age for below 20 year

respondents was 18 years. As per government of Pakistan policy at 18 years a person

is getting entitled to get a National Identity Card as well as cast vote in the general

and local government electoral process. Regarding the sex of the sampled respondent,

87.8 % were male respondents and 12.2 % were female respondents. Due to cultural

sensitive and strict purdah system (veil) male members of the society is not allowed to

directly contact women for data collection. In this regard, services of female data

investigator were used to collect data from the female respondents.

The table also provides information about the marital status, family size and family

type of the respondents. Regarding marital status out of the total sampled respondents,

68 % were married and 28.6 % were unmarried, whereas, 1.8 % of the respondents

were widowed while 1.6 % was divorced. In the study area, it is a common trend that

people get married at a very early age. Similarly, 69.8 % respondents were living in

joint families, 25 % were living in nuclear family system and only 5.2 % were living

in extended families. Joint family system is very common as per tradition and culture

of the area. Regarding family size majority of the sampled respondent‘s i.e. 37.2 %

family size was between 11 to 15 family members. The remaining 28.6%, 25.8% and

8.35% respondents family size was above 15 members, 6 to 10 members and 5 and

below, respectively. Since, majority of the people are living in joint family system as

well as people have negative attitudes towards population control, the number of

family members are high. Although joint family system provide protection to the

family members but the high number of population growth per family increase burden

on few earning members and increases dependency.

In addition, table No. 5.1 also portrays information about the level of education and

occupation of the respondents. Out of total sampled respondents, majority i.e.63.3 %

was illiterate and the remaining was having education from Matric to M.Phil/Ph.D. In

educated respondents 11.5%, 10.2%, 8.1%, 6.0% and 1.0% respondents were having

education up to Intermediate, Bachelor, Matric level, Mater and M.Phil/Ph.D. level

respectively. Regarding occupation of sampled respondents, majority 31.25 % were

farmers, 20.31 % were dependent on foreign remittances, 14.1 % were working as

public/private services, 11.45 % were businessman, 10.67 % were unemployed and

131

5.2 % were enrolled students in various colleges and universities. Only 2% of

respondents were associated with other professions like fishing, domestic labor,

boating and working as tourist guide etc.

Lastly, the above table illustrates information about the monthly family income of the

respondents. Majority of the respondents i.e. 31.3 % family income was ranging

between 30001-40000 rupees followed by 19.8 % income range between 40001-

50000 rupees. In remaining, 18.8 %, 17.2 %, 10.9 % and 8 % respondent‘s income

was ranging between 20001-30000 rupees, above 50000 rupees, 10001-20000 rupees

and below 10,000 rupees respectively. It is pertinent to mention here that very limited

numbers are earning enough money to invest on their families. Rising inflation and

limited income increases the economic vulnerability of the study area. Stable

household economies play a key role in investment in vulnerability reduction at the

household level.

5.3. Disasters and Relevant Knowledge

This section provides information about the knowledge level of community level

respondents regarding disasters and their experiences of various disasters like floods,

earthquake, landsliding and fire etc. The table also present data about the losses

incurred by respondents during past disasters in the study area.

TABLE NO. 5.2: EXPERIENCES OF DISASTER

Experiences of Disasters Yes No Total

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Knowledge about disasters 384 100 00 00 384 (100)

Experiences of Flash Floods 165 43.0 219 57.0 384 (100)

Experiences of Riverine Floods 379 98.7 5 1.3 384 (100)

Occurrence of Earthquake 282 73.4 102 26.6 384 (100)

Occurrence of Landsliding 90 23.4 294 76.6 384 (100)

Occurrence of Fire 255 66.4 129 33.6 384 (100)

Any Other (desertification and

droughts) 305 79.4 79 20.6 384 (100)

(Note: Figure in parenthesis denotes percentage while figures in the table denote

frequency)

132

Table No. 5.2 shows information about sampled respondent‘s experiences of disaster.

All of the respondents (100 %) were aware about disasters and its occurrence in the

study area. As discussed in the qualitative data analysis and literature review chapter

that the study area is having diverse topographic features and comprised of both plain

and mountainous terrain, therefore the disaster profile is also very diverse. Since this

study is focusing on governance and vulnerability to disasters, that‘s why the

researcher has included multiple disaster data. Regarding losses incurred by

respondents, 43% respondents said that flash floods occurred in their area in past

while 57 % were of the view they have not experienced flash floods. District Swat is

highly vulnerable to flash floods while in district Nowshera due to encroachment and

poor sanitation system heavy showers cause localized flash flood in urban areas. In

plain and mountainous areas major tributaries of Indus River Basin (i.e. River Kabul

and River Swat) exist and it has repeatedly affected the inhabitants of the area and 98.

7 % of the respondents said that riverine flood is occurring in their area and it has

caused severe damages to lives and livelihoods of the local people while 1.3 % said

that they have not experienced riverine floods. Majority i.e. 73.4 % of the respondents

said that earthquake has affected the local community in the past while 26.4 % said

that the impact of earthquake was very low. Earthquake does occur in the study area

but due to geographical proximity to fault lines and physical characteristics of the

area, the impact was very high in district Swat and in other two sample district the

impact of past earthquakes is very low. Similarly, landsliding only occurs in District

Swat and the remaining two districts are out of the range of landsliding. Majority i.e.

76.6% respondents said that they have not experienced landsliding in their area while

23.4 % have experienced landsliding. Previously, the study area was having farmstead

settlements and the chances of settlement fire were very low. Due to population

growth and introduction of commercial activities, respondents in the study area have

experienced settlement fires also. Majority of the respondents i.e. 66.4 % said that

periodic events of settlement fire has been observed in the area while 33.6 % were of

the view that they have not observed fire in their communities. Leak gas connections,

electric short circuits and LPG cylinder causes fire in the housing units in the study

area. Regarding other disasters, majority i.e.79.4 % respondents said that droughts and

desertification has also occurred in the area. Drought remained a serious problem in

the study area during 1998-2002. After the 2010, rainfall patterns in the study area has

133

increased and potential occurrence of drought has not been reported. Regarding

desertification in the form of soil erosion, in the upper catchment areas of study

(District Swat) people have experienced frequent soil erosion due to heavy flash

floods and riverine floods. In plain area of the study (i.e. District Charsadda and

Nowshera) water table is very high and intense rainfall and rising river level causes

desertification in the form of water logging and salinity.

TABLE NO. 5.3 LOSSES FROM PAST DISASTERS

Statement Yes No

Total Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Losses Experience 356 92.7 28 7.3

384

(100)

TYPES OF LOSS EXPERIENCED

Loss Life of

family members 110 28.6 274 71.4

384

(100)

Injuries to self or

family members 213 55.4 171 44.5

384

(100)

House and

property loss 289 75.3 95 24.7

384

(100)

Loss of

Livelihood 193 50.3 191 49.7

384

(100)

Business damages 44 11.5 340 88.5 384

(100)


frequency)

Table No. 5.3 portrays information about the losses experienced by sampled

respondents. These losses include loss of lives, injuries to self or family members,

loss of livelihoods, business damages, houses and property losses etc. These losses

were not limited only to one type of loss but many people experienced multiple losses

in the form of death of family members, house damages, business loss and property

etc. at the same time. Majority of the study respondents i.e. 92.7 % said that they have

experienced losses from past disasters while 7.3 % didn‘t experience any loss.

Regarding death of family members, majority i.e. 71.4 % respondents didn‘t

experienced any loss of family members while 28.6. % respondents experienced loss

of family members. As already discussed, majority of the people experienced riverine

floods and due to elapsed time people got precautionary measures of evacuation

which reduced the chances of death toll of the affected people. Moreover, the recent

strong earthquake in October 2015 occurred in the afternoon and most of the people

were outside homes or working in the field. The housing units experienced damages

134

but the death toll was low as compared to 2005 earthquake. Majority of the

respondents i.e. 55.4 % experienced injuries to self or family members, whereas, 44.5

% didn‘t experience any injury. Regarding damages and losses to houses and

property, majority i.e. 75.3% respondents said that they have experienced damages to

houses during past disasters while 24.7% didn‘t experienced any losses to housing

units and property. Livelihoods were significantly affected and majority of the

respondents i.e. 50.3 % said that they have experienced loss of livelihoods due to

disasters. In the context of this study livelihood was not restricted to agriculture but

horticulture and labor market has also been integrated into livelihood. Out of total,

49.7 % respondents didn‘t experienced livelihood losses. Moreover, 11.5 %

respondents experienced losses to businesses while 88.5 % said they didn‘t received

any losses to businesses. It is concluded that the impact of disaster on the study area

was very soaring due to high level of vulnerability of the physical infrastructure, lack

of mitigation and preparedness measures.

5.4. Univariate Analysis

This section provides univariate analysis of major study variables and associated

attributes with each variable. These variables include effectiveness of legal and

institutional frameworks in vulnerability reduction, risk knowledge, education, and

understanding risk factors; process of planning and decision making; availability of

disaster preparedness and mitigation plans; budget allocation; process of

implementation, monitoring and evaluation; people centered approach; emergency

management mechanism and factors affecting disaster vulnerability.

135

TABLE NO. 5.4.1: EFFECTIVENESS OF LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL

FRAMEWORK IN VULNERABILITY REDUCTION

Attributes Option Total

Agree Disagree Neutral

You have knowledge of government policies about

disaster management. 118 (30.7) 174 (45.3) 92 (24.0)

384

(100%)

You know about the National, Provincial and District

Disaster Management Authorities.

363

(94.5%)

05

(1.3 %) 16 (4.2%)

384

(100%)

The disaster management policies focus on reducing

future disaster vulnerabilities.

10

(2.6 %%)

245

(63.8%)

129

(33.6%)

384

(100%)

Disaster Management Policies have been formulated

through a multi hazard approach. 13 (3.4%)

233

(60.07) 138 (35.9)

384

(100%)

Disaster management policies ensure strengthening

community participation and resilience. 27 (7.0%)

273

(71.1%)

84

(21.9%)

384

(100%)

National, Provincial and District Disaster Management

Authorities have played a key role in disaster prevention,

preparedness and mitigation in my community.

44 (11.5) 255 (66.4) 85 (22.1) 384

(100%)

District government has ensured

preparation/implantation of land use Policies.

08

(2.1%)

294

(76.6%)

82

(21.4%)

384

(100%)

Building codes policies have been strictly implemented

in my area. 21 (5.5%)

336

(87.5%) 27 (7.0%)

384

(100%)

Government ensures water security, food security and

energy security of our community for climate change

induced disasters.

46 (12.0) 292 (76.0) 46 (12.0) 384

(100%)

Under current environmental/forest management

policies, forests are more protected than the past.

198

(51.6%)

94

(24.4%)

92

(24.0%)

384

(100%)

Government has established Standard Early Warning

system in my area.

05

(1.3%)

341

(88.8%)

38

(9.9%)

384

(100%)

Government officials are regularly monitoring and

predicting about disaster.

44

(11.5%)

255

(66.4%)

85

(22.1%)

384

(100%)


frequency)

Table No. 5.4.1 describes data regarding the effectiveness and level of understanding

of sampled respondents regarding legal and institutional (organizational)

framework/mechanism for vulnerability reduction. Majority of the respondents i.e.

45.3% were not aware about the government policies regarding disaster management

while 30.7 % were having knowledge about the government polices whereas 24 %

remained neutral. Asking about the knowledge and understanding of disaster

management authorities at the Federal, Provincial and District level majority of the

respondent‘s i.e. 94.5% said that they know these authorities while 1.3% was not

aware about these authorities. It is pertinent to mention here that the knowledge level

regarding disaster management authorities was high due to the factor that they have

been compensated by these institutions in recent past. Regarding reduction of future

vulnerabilities and effectiveness of the government polices, majority i.e. 63. 8%

respondents said that disaster management policies are not focusing on reducing

future vulnerabilities while 2.6 % said that these policies are focusing on reducing

136

future vulnerabilities whereas 33.6 % respondents said that they don‘t know about it.

Asking about the multi-hazard approach of disaster management policies, majority of

the respondents i.e. 60.07% said that government policies are not developed on the

basis of multi-hazard approach, 3.4 % said that these policies are multi-hazard in

nature while 35.9 % didn‘t knew about. Furthermore, about the inclusiveness of the

disaster management policies and policies level focus on community participation,

majority i.e. 71.1 % of the community respondents said that government policies are

not people friendly in the context of ensuring participation, whereas, 7% agreed that

these policies are people friendly and ensure participation while 21.9 % were not

aware about it. Moreover, regarding the role of disaster management authorities in

disaster prevention, mitigation and preparedness, majority i.e. 66.4 % community

level respondents said that disaster management authorities has not played potential

role in disaster prevention, mitigation and preparedness while 11.5 % said that they

have played a key role in disaster prevention and mitigation and 22.1 % respondents

were not aware about the role of disaster management authorities in prevention,

mitigation and preparedness of disaster.

Moreover, asking about the land use policies preparation and implementation,

majority i.e. 76.6% respondents said that district government has not prepared and

implemented any land use policy in their communities where 7 % said that land use

policy has been prepared by government whereas 21.9 % didn‘t knew anything about

land use policy preparation and implementation.

Regarding strict implementation of building codes policy majority i.e. 87.5%

respondents said that government has not implemented building code policy in their

area and 5.5% said that government has implemented building code policy while

7.0% were not aware about it. Asking about the role of government and disaster

management institutions in water, food and energy security for community in the

wake of climate change and associated climate change induced disasters, majority of

the respondents i.e. 76.0 % were of the view that government has not ensured water,

food and energy security. Another 12 % respondents said that they have observed

government role in extending security related to water, energy and food in their area

while 12 % didn‘t knew about government role in providing food and energy security

to local communities. Conservation and protection of forest is considered as best

strategy for flood prevention, control of soil erosion and control of environmental

137

pollution. With reference to protection of forest under the existing government

policies, majority i.e. 51.6% respondents said that forests are more protected than the

past, 24.4% said that forest is not protected and 24 % were not aware about forest

protection policies.

Furthermore, asking about establishment of early warning system majority of the

community respondents i.e. 88.8 % said that standard early warning system doesn‘t

exist in their area, 1.3 % said that warning system has been established while 9.9 %

respondents were not aware about the establishment of early warning system. Asking

about the government official regular monitoring and prediction about disasters,

majority i.e. 66.4 % respondents said that government is not regularly monitoring and

predicting about disasters while 11.5% were of the view that government officials are

monitoring and predicting about disasters whereas 22.1 % were not aware about

monitoring and prediction of disasters.

TABLE NO. 5.4.2: RISK KNOWLEDGE, EDUCATION AND UNDERSTANDING

RISK FACTORS



Houses and building in our area can cope with

future disaster.

05

(1.3%)

341

(88.8%)

38

(9.9%)

384

(100%)

In case of disaster our area has alternate routes

for evacuation and food supply.

44

(11.5%)

318

(82.8%)

22

(5.7%)

384

(100%)

Construction in vulnerable areas (riverbanks,

riverbeds, and landslide areas) is strictly

banned by government.

21

(5.5%)

336

(87.5%)

27

(7.0%)

384

(100%)

Proper land use planning has been carried. 00

(00%)

359

(93.5%)

25

(6.5%)

384

(100%)

Due to poverty, people are forced to live in

vulnerable locations.

344

(89.6%)

9

(2.3%)

31

(8.1%)

384

(100%)

Social and physical sector development plans

are focusing on reducing disaster risks.

16

(4.2%)

345

(89.8%)

23

(6.0%)

384

(100%)

Sanitation system and water supply are intact

to avoid disease outbreak.

159

(41.4)

213

(55.5) 12 (3.1)

384

(100%)

The community members are provided

trainings on the warning signs and symptoms

of disasters.

179

(46.6)

129

(33.6)

76

(19.8)

384

(100%)

Government officials have knowledge, skills

and technical capacity for disaster risk

reduction.

106

(27.6%)

119

(31.0%)

159

(41.4%)

384

(100%)

Government officials have the capacity to

developed good recovery plans.

108

(28.1%)

91

(23.7%)

185

(48.2%)

384

(100%)


frequency)

138

Table No. 5.4.2 explores the local community attitude towards risk knowledge,

education and understanding of risk factors. Majority i.e. 88.8 % of the respondents

said that houses and buildings in their area are very vulnerable and can‘t cope with

any type of future disaster event, whereas, 1.3% were of the view that buildings can

cope with future disasters while 9.9 % remained neutral. Those who agreed that

building can cope with future disasters particularly referred to public sector buildings

like schools and other offices constructed after 2010 floods and 2015 earthquake.

Regarding evacuation routes, a significant majority i.e. 82.8 % of the community

respondents said that alternate routes for evacuation and food supply is not identified

by government while 11.5 % said that evacuation and alternate routes for food supply

has been identified and communicated to local people. About ban on construction in

vulnerable sites and locations, majority i.e. 87.5% respondents said that government

has not implemented strict ban on construction in these sites as per legal provisions.

Only 11.5% respondents agreed and were of the view that government is now

restricting the people not to construct buildings in vulnerable areas while 5.7% were

not aware about it. Furthermore, asking respondents about proper land use planning

and its role in vulnerability reduction to disasters in the study area, majority i.e. 93.5

% of the respondents said that land use planning doesn‘t exist and it has enhanced

vulnerability of the area to future disasters while 6.5% were not aware about land use

planning. Regarding poverty and its role in forcing people to reside and occupy

vulnerable locations for housing, majority i.e. 89.6% of the respondents said that wide

spread poverty has compelled people in the study area to reside in the vulnerable

locations whereas 2.3% disagreed and said that people should think over residing in

vulnerable areas apart from poverty as it increases their physical exposure to disasters

while 8.1% remained neutral. Mainstreaming vulnerability and risk reduction to

development plans provide opportunities to take prevention, preparedness and

mitigation measure in anticipation of disasters. Majority i.e. 89.8 % of the respondents

said that social and physical sector development plans are not reducing future

vulnerabilities due to lack of mainstreaming of risk reduction measures into these

plans, 4.2% agreed that development plans are focusing on reduction of future

vulnerabilities while 6.0% were not aware about it. Proper sanitation system and clean

drinking water supply is necessary for disease prevention and ensure quality of life of

the local people. Regarding sanitation system and water supply, majority i.e. 55.5 %

of the respondents said that proper sanitation and supply of clean filtered water is not

139

available in their area and it is one of the cause of outbreak of diseases like dengue,

malaria and cholera in their area, whereas, 41.4 % respondents said that sanitation

system is intact and water supply is available in their communities. Moreover, asking

the participants about the provision of training on warning signs and symptoms of

various disasters, majority of the respondents i.e. 46.6 % said that they have been

trained on warning signs and symptoms while 33.6 % said that they have not received

any training on warning signs and symptoms whereas 19.8 % didn‘t know about such

trainings. Exploring community level respondents perception about the government

officials knowledge, skills and technical capacity for disaster risk reduction, majority

i.e. 41.4 % of the respondents remained neutral and were not aware about government

officials capacity for disaster risk reduction while 31.0% said that government

officials are not technically qualified to deal with disaster risk reduction in a

sustainable way whereas 27.6 % said that government officials have the capacity to

work on disaster risk reduction. Asking about the experiences of the local community

regarding government official‘s technical capacity in development and

implementation of recovery and response plans in past disasters, majority of the

respondents i.e. 48.5 % remained neutral. Only 28.1% respondents said that

government officials have developed and implemented good disaster recovery and

response plans during past disasters while 23.7 % disagreed. The reason for this high

neutrality is the limited interaction of government officials with local communities in

the study area during planning process.

Table No. 5.4.3: PROCESS OF PLANNING AND DECISION MAKING



Government is regularly conducting

vulnerability assessment in my area

before formulation of vulnerability

reduction plans.

00

(00%)

376

(97.9%)

08

(2.1%)

384

(100%)

I have observed that government has

conducted feasibility studies for

vulnerability reduction projects in my

area.

34 (8.9) 274

(71.4)

76

(19.8)

384

(100%)

Local communities are consulted

during vulnerability reduction plan

preparation.

05

(1.3%)

335

(87.2%)

44

(11.5%)

384

(100%)

The problems of communities are

identified and prioritized by the local

communities.

09

(2.3%)

292

(76%)

83

(21.6%)

384

(100%)

140

Planning Commission Form (PC-1) has

been prepared in consultation with all

stakeholders including communities.

05

(1.3%)

337

(87.8%)

42

(10.9%)

384

(100%)

Communities at risk have strong say in

the Planning Commission form

approval.

3

(0.8%)

339

(88.3%)

42

(10.9%)

384

(100%)

Vulnerability reduction plan has been

communicated to us by the relevant

government departments.

04

(1.0%)

327

(85.2%)

53

(13.8%)

384

(100%)

Political interference in planning and

construction of bridges, embankments,

roads, buildings, relief distribution and

compensation to affected people exists.

307

(79.9%)

60

(15.6%)

17

(4.4%)

384

(100%)


frequency)

Table No. 5.4.3 shows respondent‘s views about process of planning and decision

making. Planning process for vulnerability reduction start from conduction of detail

vulnerability assessment of the area prone to disasters. A significant majority i.e. 97.9

% said that government has not conducted any sort of vulnerability assessment in the

study area before formulation of vulnerability reduction plans while 2.1 % didn‘t

know about vulnerability assessment. Regarding feasibility studies for micro and

macro level vulnerability reduction projects, majority i.e. 71.4 % of the respondent

were not consulted in conduction of feasibility studies for vulnerability reduction

projects whereas 8.9 % respondents said that they have been consulted by government

officials during feasibility studies in the study area. 19.8 % respondents were not

aware about the feasibility studies by government officials. Difference between

vulnerability assessment and feasibility studies is vulnerability assessment identify

both micro and macro level factors which reduces the capacity of the local

communities and institutions to prevent disaster, minimize disaster impacts and take

necessary measures for coping with disaster events. Feasibility study is conducted for

projects designing and implementation on the basis of geographical exposure,

environmental impacts, social impacts of the project on community, financial

implication and developing technical guidelines for implementation. Regarding

consultation with local communities for vulnerability reduction plan preparation,

majority of the respondents i.e. 87.2 % said that government is not consulting local

community for preparation of any vulnerability reduction plan whereas only 2.3%

said that they have been consulted in vulnerability reduction plan preparation. As

mentioned in the qualitative data analysis, local communities at large are not

141

consulted during planning and implementation. Under the participatory disaster risk

reduction approach, local consultation and participation enhances the viability of the

plans and yield long lasting results on the local communities. Similarly, at the

problem identification phase it is necessary to involve the local communities.

Majority i.e. 76% of the respondents were of the view that local problems are not

identified and prioritized by the local community. This seriously undermines the

needs and priority of the local communities in decision making process about the

annual development programmes. Furthermore, regarding preparation of Planning

Commission (PC-1) form in consultation with local communities including other

stakeholders, majority i.e. 87.8% respondents said that government has not consulted

local people in PC-1 preparation for major projects both in pre and post disaster

situation while 1.3 % said that they have been consulted during this process whereas

10.9 % didn‘t know about it. Regarding role of community in approval of PC-1,

majority i.e. 88.3 % of the respondents said that local communities don‘t have any say

in PC-1 approval for vulnerability reduction projects under the existing practices

whereas 0.8% said that local community have a say in the PC-1 approval and it can

influence the decision making process while 10.9% didn‘t know anything about it.

Asking about the vulnerability reduction plan communication to local communities,

majority i.e. 85.2 % of the respondents said that these plans have not communicated

to local people by government, 1.0% said that they know about these plans and it has

been communicated to local people whereas 13.8% didn‘t know about it.

Vulnerability reduction plan communications to local communities sensitize people

about government actions in disaster risk reduction and ensure support for such

policies and plans implementation. Moreover, regarding political interference in

planning and construction of bridges, embankments, roads, buildings, relief

distribution and compensation to affected people etc. majority i.e. 79.9 % said that

high level of political interference exists in these processes and actions in the study

area while 15.6 % said that they have not observed any political interference in the

process of planning and decision making whereas 4.4 % remained neutral. Large scale

political interference in the study area negatively affects the priorities of local

communities about disaster risk reduction and undermines vulnerability reduction

projects.

142

TABLE NO. 5.4.4: AVAILABILITY OF DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND

MITIGATION PLANS

Attributes Options

Agree Disagree Neutral Total

Government has formulated a

preparedness plans at the district level

188

(49.0%)

120

(31.3%)

76

(19.8%)

384

(100%)

Preparedness plans aim to enhance the

capacities of government and

communities for vulnerability

reduction.

139

(36.2%)

118

(30.7%)

127

(33.1%)

384

(100%)

Government is preparing annual

contingency plans for summer

monsoon and winter season.

255

(66.4%)

55

(14.3%)

74

(19.3%)

384

(100%)

Evacuation plan has been prepared

and shared by government with the

communities.

15

(3.9%)

325

(84.6%)

44

(11.5%)

384

(100%)

Local Government Department has

prepared a CBDRM plan in

consultation with local community.

17

(4.4%)

266

(69.3%)

101

(26.3%)

384

(100%)

Government has plans for public

awareness and capacity building in my

area.

13

(3.4%)

265

(69.0%)

106

(27.6%)

384

(100%)

Government has prepared a plan for

mitigation of critical infrastructure in

our community.

09

(2.3%)

324

(84.4%)

51

(13.3%)

384

(100%)

Government has prepared a plan for

retrofitting of major public sector

buildings.

00

(00%)

333

(86.7%)

51

(13.3%)

384

(100%)


frequency)

Table No. 5.4.4 shows information about availability of disaster preparedness and

mitigation plans. Development of mitigation plans identify key sectors where

structural interventions are required to minimize damage potentiality of housing units,

schools, commercial sector, roads and bridges etc. Preparedness plan articulate future

requirements and develop anticipatory capacities of institutions and communities for

disaster risk reduction and emergency response. Both preparedness and mitigation

activities are interconnected and development of these plans is based on proper risk

assessment. Regarding formulation of preparedness plans majority i.e. 49.0% of the

respondents said that government has developed preparedness plans at the district

level, while 31.3 % said that government has not developed any preparedness plans at

the district level whereas 19.8 % were not aware about it. Asking the local community

143

about the aim and objective of the preparedness plan, 36.2% respondents said that

preparedness plans aim to reduce vulnerabilities and enhance the capacities of local

communities and institutions whereas 30.7% disagreed with it. 33.1% respondents

remained neutral as they were not aware about the aims and objectives of the

preparedness plans. Furthermore, due to geographical location of the study area,

monsoon system (Monsoon is a seasonal wind system causing rain in South East Asia

and South Asia) is causing severe weather events and it has affected many villages in

the past. Monsoon contingency planning is a regular exercise of the disaster

management authorities on annual basis. Majority i.e. 66.4% community respondents

said that government is preparing annual contingency plan for summer and winter

season, 14.3 % disagreed and said that government has not prepared annual

contingency plans while 19.3% didn‘t know anything about it. It is pertinent to

mention here that for summer monsoon season government has prepared monsoon

contingency plans but for winter season, authorities issue advisories to the local

people about weather and issue directives to district government to remain vigilant

during harsh climatic condition. Asking respondents about evacuation plans

preparation, availability of plan and communication to local community, majority i.e.

84.6% said that evacuation plans doesn‘t exist, 3.9% said that evacuation plans has

been prepared and shared with the local communities whereas 11.5 % were not aware

about it. Furthermore, regarding the preparation of Community Based Disaster Risk

Management (CBDRM) plan by local government department etc. majority i.e. 69.3%

respondents said that local government department has not prepared any CBDRM

plans for the study area, 4.4% respondents said that CBDRM plans have been

prepared by government while 26.3% were not aware about it. CBDRM is a

community based and community driven risk management and vulnerability reduction

approach focusing on the active participation of the local communities. This approach

ensures to adopt an inclusive approach and involve the local people in vulnerability

reduction. Regarding government plans for public awareness and capacity building

majority i.e. 69.0% respondents said that government don‘t have any public

awareness and capacity building plan in the study area, 3.4% said that government is

having plans for capacity building and public awareness whereas 27.6% were not

aware about it. Similarly, availability and preparation of mitigation plan for critical

infrastructure is also a major factor in reducing vulnerability to disaster. Majority i.e.

84.4% of the respondents said that government has not prepared any plan for

144

mitigation of critical infrastructure in the study area while 2.3% said that government

has prepared plan for mitigation of critical infrastructure, whereas, 13.3% didn‘t know

about mitigation planning. Moreover, regarding retrofitting (retrofitting is structural

alteration and modification in the already constructed buildings) majority i.e. 86.7%

respondents said that no plan is available for retrofitting of public sector buildings

whereas 13.3% were not aware about it. Retrofitting is used as a strategy for

mitigation by government and general public to strengthen the already constructed

buildings. Full demolition and reconstruction is very expensive task and require more

financial resources. Through retrofitting buildings can be strengthen to make it

resistance to natural hazards which ultimately leads to less number of death toll,

casualties and damages to buildings or contents of buildings.

TABLE NO. 5.4.5: BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR DISASTER VULNERABILITY

REDUCTION

Attributes Option

Total Agree Disagree Neutral

Government has allocated fund for

public awareness regarding disaster

management.

11

(2.9%)

273

(71.1%)

100

(26.0%)

384

(100%)

Local Government Department has

allocated budget for small community

based schemes focusing on

preparedness and mitigation.

146

(38.0%)

136

(35.4%)

102

(26.6%)

384

(100%)

Government has spent budget for the

establishment of standard emergency

rescue services in my area

152

(39.6%)

147

(38.3%)

85

(22.1%)

384

(100%)

Government has allocated budget for

establishment of standard early

warning system in my area.

05

(1.3%)

341

(88.8%)

38

(9.9%)

384

(100%)

Government is investing budget for

flood mitigation in our area.

140

(36.5%)

186

(48.4%)

58

(15.1%)

384

(100%)


earthquake mitigation.

11

(2.9%)

332

(86.5%)

41

(10.7%)

384

(100%)

Government is investing sufficient

amount in landslide mitigation.

32

(8.3%)

80

(20.8%)

272

(70.8%)

384

(100%)

Communities provide financial (cash

& kind) support to the disaster

management plan implementation in

our area.

151

(39.3%)

169

(44.0%)

64

(16.7%)

384

(100%)


frequency)

145

Table No. 5.4.5 depicts respondent‘s views regarding allocation of budget for

vulnerability reduction in the study area. Disaster risk financing leads to adaptation of

a comprehensive and coherent approach towards vulnerability reduction. Majority i.e.

71.1% of the respondents said that government has not allocated funds for public

awareness regarding disaster management, whilst 2.9% said that government has

allocated financial resources for public awareness whereas 26.0% didn‘t know about

the fund allocation for public awareness. Spending money on public awareness along

with small community based schemes focusing on preparedness enhances the capacity

of individuals, families, communities and societies to take measure in anticipation of

any threatening event. In this context 38.0% respondents said that Local Government

Department has allocated budget for small scale community based schemes i.e.

construction of culverts on torrents, small level protection walls, bypass channels,

pavement of streets and investment in water and sanitation etc. while 35.4%

community respondents disagreed whereas 26.6% were not aware about it. Local

elected representative like members of the district councils and chairman of the

village counsel can play a key role in allocation of budgets for small scale community

based preparedness and mitigation schemes in the study area. They can advocate for

allocation of more budgets and can convince elected members of the provincial and

national assembly to allocate budget in the annual development programmes. Besides,

establishment of standard emergency rescue services provide opportunity to local

people to contact them during small and large scale emergencies. Regarding,

allocation of budget for establishment of standard emergency rescue services in the

study area majority i.e. 39.6% said that government has allocated budget for

establishment of standard emergency services in their area whereas 38.3% said that

sufficient budget has not allocated for establishment of public safety and emergency

response mechanism while 22.1% didn‘t know about it. Emergency services can be

further strengthened with the establishment of standard early warning system. It

provides opportunity to remain vigilant, pass on public safety messages and if there is

any threatening situation conduct protective evacuation. Regarding spending on

standard early warning system, majority i.e. 88.8% of the community respondents

said that government has not spent sufficient budget on the establishment of end to

end and user friendly early warning system in their area, 1.3% said that government

has allocated budget for early warning system whereas 9.9% said that they don‘t

know about it. Flood, earthquake and landslide are major natural hazards affecting the

146

lives and livelihood of the local communities from time to time. Very limited

investment in prevention and mitigation of these hazards has been observed in the

study area. Regarding investment of budgets in flood mitigation majority i.e. 48.4%

community respondents said that government has not invested and utilized budget in

flood mitigation while 36.5% said that government has invested budget in flood

mitigation in their area whereas 15.1 % remained neutral. Furthermore, asking

respondents regarding government allocation of budget for earthquake mitigation,

majority i.e. 86.5% respondents disagreed and said that government has not allocated

budget for earthquake mitigation. Only 2.9% respondent said that government has

allocated budget for earthquake mitigation while 10.7% didn‘t know about it.

Regarding investment and allocation of budget for landslide mitigation majority i.e.

70.8 % remained neutral as they were not aware about it, 20.8% respondents said that

government has not invested enough budget in landslide mitigation whereas 8.3%

respondents said that government is investing sufficient amount in landslide

mitigation. Allocation of budget and spending on risk reduction is not only the

responsibility of government but at the same time it is also the responsibility of civil

society organization and local communities. Regarding provision of cash and kind

contribution by communities for the implementation of disaster management plans,

majority i.e. 44.0% respondents said that communities are not contributing in cash

and kind, 39.3% respondents said that communities are contributing into the

implementation of disaster management plans in cash and kind whereas 16.7%

remained neutral. Community members in the study area are poor or they can‘t afford

to divert money from their family budget to social welfare works. But it has been

observed that communities have taken active part in the implementation of local

government schemes and this is one of the potential contributions they can make to

disaster management plans implementation in the form of donated labor. Besides,

they are not only working as a free labor force but also donating food for the laborers.

147

TABLE NO. 5.4.6: PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND

EVALUATION

Attributes Option

Agree Disagree Neutral Total

Vulnerability reduction plans and

projects are implemented by the local

communities.

13

(3.4%)

270

(70.3%)

101

(26.3%)

384

(100%)

Well reputed contractors were hired by

government for physical infrastructure

projects in our area.

20

(5.2%)

247

(64.3%)

117

(30.5%)

384

(100%)

Govt officials are regularly monitoring

the progress on both structural and non-

structural projects related to


115

(29.9%)

190

(49.5%)

79

(20.6%)

384

(100%)

Local Communities have been involved

in monitoring and implementation

process of major projects

11

(2.9%)

332

(86.5%)

41

(10.7%)

384

(100%)

Local Community has access to take

part in evaluation of vulnerability

reduction projects.

09

(2.3%)

331

(86.2%)

44

(11.5%)

384

(100%)


frequency)

Table No. 5.4.6 gives information about the process of implementation, monitoring

and evaluation. As discussed in the qualitative data analysis, the government is having

its own procedure of implementation, monitoring and evaluation. This mechanism is

very technical and beyond the understanding of a common community member. This

table actually provide information about what the community think about the process

of implementation and monitoring and weather communities have been involved in

these process or not. Asking community level respondents about implementation of

the vulnerability reduction plans and projects and involvement of the local community

in implementation, majority of the respondents i.e. 70.3% said that local people are

not implementing vulnerability reduction because of very limited opportunity of

participation from the government side while 3.4% said communities have been

involved in these projects whereas 26.3% didn‘t know anything about the

participation of communities in the implantation process. Furthermore, regarding

hiring of well reputed contractors for implementation of physical infrastructure

projects in the study area majority i.e. 64.3% respondents said that government has

not hired well reputed contractors for structural project implementation while 5.2%

agreed with it and 11.5% remained neutral. Moreover, asking community respondents

148

regarding regular monitoring of both structural and non structural project by

government officials, majority i.e. 49.5% respondents said that they have not

observed government officials regularly monitoring the implementation of both

structural and non structural projects in the area, 29.9% respondents said that they

have observed government officials regularly monitoring these projects in the study

area while 2.6% were not aware about it. Involvement of local community in

monitoring of the vulnerability reduction projects ensures transparency and

accountability. Regarding local communities involvement in monitoring process,

majority i.e. 86.5% respondents said that local community members were not

involved in the monitoring process whilst 20.9% respondents said that local

communities have been involved in monitoring of implementation of both structural

and non-structural projects whereas 10.7% remained neutral. Along with monitoring,

involvement of local communities in evaluation process is also of paramount

significance and the established procedures in text insist on beneficiary involvement

in implementation, monitoring and evaluation as an integral part but at the execution

level these practices are missing. A significant majority i.e. 86.2% of the respondents

said that local communities don‘t have access to take part in evaluation of the

vulnerability reduction projects and only 2.3% said that local communities are taking

part in the evaluation of such projects.

TABLE NO. 5.4.7: EFFECTIVENESS OF PEOPLE CENTERED APPROACH

IN VULNERABILITY REDUCTION

Attributes Option


Government is considering community

participation as a pre-requisite in vulnerability

reduction Projects.

06

(1.6%)

338

(88.0%)

40

(10.4%)

384

(100%)

Volunteers have been involved in disaster

mitigation, preparedness and emergency

response activities.

208

(54.2%)

83

(21.6%)

93

(24.2%)

384

(100%)

Regular rehearsal and drills regarding

emergency response management are

conducted in our area.

140

(36.5%)

130

(33.9%)

114

(29.7%)

384

(100%)

Gender sensitive interventions have been made

in all phases of vulnerability reduction.

14

(3.6%)

345

(89.8%)

25

(6.5%)

384

(100%)

Government is supporting the local

communities in utilization of traditional local

knowledge about disasters.

70

(18.2%)

230

(59.9%)

84

(21.9%)

384

(100%)


frequency)

149

Table No. 5.4.7 portrays information about the effectiveness of people centered

approach towards vulnerability reduction. Asking about community participation as a

pre-requisite in vulnerability reduction projects, majority i.e. 88.0% of the community

respondents said that participation is not considered as a pre-requisite in vulnerability

reduction projects in the study area whereas 1.6% respondents said that government

has considered participation of local communities while 10.4% didn‘t know about it.

Communities at the local level are the first line responders and can work together to

prepare themselves and their communities for vulnerability reduction. Organizing

local community based disaster management committees and provision of training

boosts government efforts regarding vulnerability reduction. Besides, involvement of

volunteers in risk reduction and emergency management is also crucial specifically in

areas where government mechanism for disaster management is weak. Majority i.e.

54.2% of the respondents said that volunteers have been involved at the local level in

disaster preparedness and emergency response activities whereas 21.6% disagreed and

said that they have not seen involvement of volunteers in their area. During filed

visits, it was observed that the district government have organized their own volunteer

task force and they have been involved in various activities at the gross root level. In

addition, volunteers of Pakistan Red Crescent and Civil Defence have also played a

very active role specifically during emergency response, evacuation and search and

rescue operation. Likewise, these volunteers can be very actively engaged in regular

rehearsal and drills at the community level along with rescue 1122 rescuers and fire

fighter. Regarding rehearsal and drills majority i.e. 36.5% respondents said that they

have observed rehearsal and drills being conducted by government agencies in their

area whereas 33.9% said that they have not observed any rehearsal and drills about

emergency management in their area while 29.7% were not aware about rehearsal and

drills. Rescue 1122 are regularly conducting rehearsal and drills before monsoon

season and also conduct drills for fire fighting and first aid provision in the study area.

Asking community members about the gender sensitive interventions etc. majority i.e.

89.8% respondent said that government has not conducted gender sensitive

interventions in all phases of vulnerability reduction while 3.6% respondents said that

government interventions are gender sensitive whereas 6.5% didn‘t know about it.

Gender sensitive vulnerability reduction efforts guarantee equal benefits to all

segment of society especially the most vulnerable and destitute people. Along with

gender sensitive interventions, utilization of traditional local knowledge regarding

150

hazards signs and symptoms, adapting traditional mitigation practices and other can

be low cost mechanism which can be further strengthen through the integration of

scientific knowledge. Majority i.e. 59.9% respondent said that government has not

used the existing local knowledge about disaster management while 18.2% said that

government has used the traditional local knowledge about disaster and its

management whereas 21.9% of the respondents didn‘t know about traditional local

knowledge.

TABLE NO. 5.4.8: EFFECTIVENESS OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

AND POST DISASTER RECOVERY MECHANISMS

Attributes Option


Protective evacuation has been conducted by

government in past disasters.

120

(31.3%)

209

(54.4%)

55

(14.3%)

384

(100%)

Relief camps have been established by

government during the past disasters.

286

(74.5%)

81

(21.1%)

17

(4.4%)

384

(100%)

Relief items have been provided by

government to the victims of disasters.

174

(45.3%)

183

(47.7%)

27

(7.0%)

384

(100%)

Affected population has been compensated

through cash grant.

337

(87.8%)

25

(6.5%)

22

(5.7%)

384

(100%)

Social protection of women, children, old age,

disable etc. has been ensured during

emergencies.

83

(21.6%)

262

(68.2%)

39

(10.2%)

384

(100%)

People have been supported in repatriation to

their areas after emergencies.

320

(83.3%)

22

(5.7%)

42

(10.9%)

384

(100%)

Moveable shelters were provided by

government to the affected people during the

rehabilitation stage.

273

(71.1%)

69

(18.0%)

42

(10.9%)

384

(100%)

Basic facilities like roads, shops, hospitals and

schools were temporarily repaired by

government to ensure facilitation of

communities during rehabilitation phase.

335

(87.2%)

30

(7.8%)

19

(4.9%)

384

(100%)

Government assisted communities in recovery

phase in hazard resistant reconstruction.

3

(0.8%)

346

(90.1%)

35

(9.1%)

384

(100%)

Government facilitated and supported local

people in employment, livelihoods &

agriculture in post disaster recovery initiatives.

93 (24.2) 247 (64.3) 44 (11.5) 384 (100)

Government launched skill trainings

programme to ensure social protection of

affected people.

21

(5.5%)

311

(81.0%)

52

(13.5%)

384

(100%)


frequency)

151

Table No. 5.4.8 provides information about the effectiveness emergency management

mechanism and post disaster recovery operations. Both of these two components are

entirely dependent on the institutional resilience and community preparedness.

Provision of accurate and timely information and protective evacuation before the

onset of disaster protect people. Asking the local community about protective

evacuation by government in past disasters, majority i.e. 54.4% respondents said that

government has not conducted protective evacuation before the occurrence of past

disasters specifically during floods while 31.3 % respondents said that protective

evacuation has been conducted whereas 14.3% percent community level respondents

remained neutral. Furthermore, regarding establishment of relief camps by

government after past disasters, majority of the respondent 74.5% said that

government established relief camps to provide shelter to the victims of disasters

whereas 21.1% respondents said that government didn‘t established the relief camps.

Only 4.4% respondents remained neutral and they were not aware as who established

these relief camps. Along with relief camps, provision of relief items like Food Items

(FIs) and Non-Food Items (NFIs) are also mandatory during emergency situation for

the victims of disasters. Asking the respondents regarding provision of relief items by

government in camps etc. majority i.e. 47.7% respondents said that government didn‘t

provided relief items while 45.3% said that government provided relief items to the

victims. 5.7% respondents remained neutral about the source of provision of relief

items. It is pertinent to mention here that during 2009 TDPs crises and 2010 floods,

many relief camps were established and run by INGOs and local charity based

organization in coordination with the provincial government. All relief camps were

monitored by the Commissionerate Afghan Refugees (CAR) (CAR is a Pakistan

based government institution dealing with Afghan refugees). This means that all

camps were under the control of government and various agencies were involved to

manage these camps. Regarding cash compensation to the affected population by

government, majority i.e. 87.8% community respondents said that government has

provided cash compensation to the affected people whereas 6.5% respondents said

that government didn‘t provided any cash compensation while 5.7% respondents

remained neutral as they didn‘t claimed any cash compensation from government.

Furthermore, asking about social protection of women, children, old age and disable

etc. during emergencies, majority i.e. 68.2% respondents said that government didn‘t

ensured protection of these vulnerable groups in emergencies whereas 21.6%

152

respondents said that government ensured social protection of women, children, old

age and people with disabilities in emergencies. Only 10.2% respondents didn‘t know

about social protection of vulnerable groups in emergencies. Supporting victims of

disaster in repatriation to their homes in post disaster situation, majority i.e. 83.3%

respondents benefited from it. After return to meet the immediate demands of the

affected people, rehabilitation activities were conducted to temporarily restore

community life. In this context those people whom houses were damaged was at great

risk and were having physical exposure to weather effects and diseases. Out of total

respondents, 71.1% respondents said that government provided temporary moveable

shelters to affected people in the study area during rehabilitation phase in

collaboration with NGOs whereas 18% said that government didn‘t provided

moveable shelter to affected people. Besides, majority i.e. 87.2% respondents said

that government temporarily repaired basic facilities like hospital, schools, roads etc.

before final reconstruction and recovery while 7.8% respondents said that government

didn‘t repaired basic facilities in the rehabilitation phase. In medium and final term

recovery, reconstruction activities were initiated to fully restore community life. In

recovery, one of the components is reconstruction of affected people houses. Since no

mechanism of insurance is in place in the study area, therefore people were entirely

dependent on government support. Government did compensated people for fully and

partially damaged houses but they didn‘t assisted the local communities in hazard

resistant reconstruction like earthquake proof houses or flood elevated homes etc.

Majority of the respondents i.e. 90.1% said that government didn‘t assisted the local

communities in hazard resistant reconstruction of houses whereas only 0.8% benefited

from government assistance in the context of disaster proof houses reconstruction

while 9.1% respondents didn‘t know about the hazard resistant reconstruction.

Furthermore, regarding extension of support by government to local people in

provision of employment, livelihood and agriculture etc. majority i.e. 64.3 %

respondents were of the view that government didn‘t assisted them in this regard

while 24.2% said that they have been supported by government in employment,

livelihood and agriculture. Out of total respondents, 11.5% remained neutral and they

were not aware about such support. Furthermore, regarding launching of skill training

programme during recovery phase after past disasters, majority 81.0% respondent said

that they have not observed any programme for skill training conducted by

government in recovery phase in recent past and only 5.5% agreed that government

153

launched skill training in their communities in post disaster recovery whereas 13.5%

respondent didn‘t know anything about skill training programmes.

TABLE NO. 5.4.9: FACTORS OF SOCIAL VULNERABILITY



Unequal Participation in decision

making and community affairs increases

vulnerability.

351

(91.4%)

25

(6.5%)

8

(2.1%)

384

(100%)

Prevailing social stratification and

inequality increases vulnerability of the

people at risk.

323

(84.1%)

12

(03.1%)

49

(12.8%)

384

(100%)

Cultural values and norms restrict

women to evacuate during an

emergency without male member of

their family.

303

(78.9%)

62

(16.1%)

19

(4.9%)

384

(100%)


frequency)

Table No. 5.4.9 describes factors affecting social vulnerability of the local

communities to disasters. In social vulnerability focus was on the level of

participation, inequality/social stratification and gender power imbalances etc. Asking

the respondents regarding unequal participation in community affairs during decision

making and its role in social vulnerability etc. majority i.e. 91.4% respondents said

that unequal participation in decision making increased their vulnerability to disasters

while 6.5% respondents disagreed whereas 2.1% respondents remained neutral in this

regard. Furthermore, majority 84.1% respondents were of the view that prevailing

social stratification and inequality increased their vulnerability where 3.1%

respondents said that inequality and social stratification are not a cause of social

vulnerability while 12.8% were not aware about it. Regarding cultural norms/values

and its role in increasing women vulnerability to disaster and subsequent impacts,

majority i.e. 78.9% respondent said that cultural norms and values restricted women

not to evacuate during an emergency situation without the company of a male

member of the family while 16.1 % respondents were of the view that cultural norms

and values are not restricting women from evacuation whereas 4.9% remained neutral

about it. In light of the above numerical data regarding factors of social vulnerability,

it is concluded that these factors have intensified the level of exposure at the local

level and possible impacts of future disasters can be very high.

154

TABLE NO. 5.4.10: FACTORS OF ECONOMIC VULNERABILITY



Due to poverty people are unable to

construct hazard resistant houses.

347

(90.4%)

25

(6.5%)

12

(3.1%)

384

(100%)

Unemployment increases vulnerability

of individuals to future disasters.

300

(78.1%)

60

(15.6%)

24

(6.3%)

384

(100%)

Unskilled labor force reduces financial

capacities to invest in disaster risk

reduction at family level.

210

(54.7%)

46

(12.0%)

128

(33.3%)

384

(100%)

Non-diversified economy reduces the

chances of offsetting family income in

case of disasters.

170

(44.3%)

46

(12.0%)

168

(43.8%)

384

(100%)

High level of dependency ratio reduces

the chances to spend more money on

protection of all family members.

341

(88.8%)

13

(3.4%)

30

(7.8%)

384

(100%)

Lack of Insurance increases financial

burden on families in post disaster

situation.

242

(63.0%)

74

(19.3%)

68

(17.7%)

384

(100%)


frequency)

Table No. 5.4.10 presents data about causes and factors of economic vulnerability.

Asking respondents about the role of poverty and construction of hazard resistant

houses, majority i.e. 90.4% said that poverty is a major cause of economic

vulnerability and due to poverty people are unable to construct hazard resistant houses

while 6.5% disagreed with it and 3.1% remained neutral. Many causes can be

attributed to the prevailing poverty of the people in the study area. One of the causes

is unemployment. Regarding unemployment and future vulnerabilities, majority i.e.

78.1% respondent said that unemployment is a major cause of economic vulnerability.

Due to unemployment people are unable to earn enough money to spend it on

construction of houses to mitigate disaster impact, manage evacuation and cope with

the impacts of various disasters. Out of total respondents only 15.6% said that

unemployment can‘t be attributed with the increasing level of vulnerability while

6.3% didn‘t know about it. Similarly, unskilled people are at great risk and have high

level of economic vulnerability to disaster. These unskilled labor forces are facing

problems in pre-disaster situation to fulfill family demand and they lose their

livelihood i.e. daily wages during disaster. Majority i.e. 54.7% respondents said that

unskilled labor force reduces the financial capacities of individuals and families to

invest in disaster risk reduction at the family level while 12.0% said that it is not a

155

major cause of economic vulnerability whereas 43.8% remained neutral. Poverty,

unemployment and unskilled forces are the outcome of non-diversified local

economies in the study area. Diversified economies provide access to various jobs and

people can be involved in different livelihood activities. Majority i.e. 44.3%

respondents said that non-diversified economy is a major factor negatively

influencing family income and reduced the chances to spend on disaster preparedness,

mitigation and emergency response while 3.4% respondents disagreed whereas 43.8%

respondent didn‘t know about non-diversified economy. Asking respondent about the

high level of dependency ratio and expenditure on family protection etc. majority i.e.

88.8% respondents said that high level of dependency ratio reduces the chances to

spend more money on protection of family members whereas 3.4% said that high

level of dependency doesn‘t reduce the chances to spend money on family protection

while 7.78% were not aware about it. Moreover, disaster risk financing especially

insurance of houses and properties is one of the best strategies to share the losses from

disaster. Instead of government, the insurance agencies have to pay to people affected

by disasters. Majority i.e. 63.0% respondents said that lack of insurance increased

financial burden on families in post disaster situation while 19.3% disagreed with it.

The reason for disagreement is some people are of the view that insurance is not

allowed as per Islam beliefs whereas 17.7% respondents were not aware about the

insurance mechanism. It is concluded that poverty, unemployment, unskilled labor

force, non-diversified economy, high level of dependency and lack of insurance are

the major factors creating economic vulnerability in the study area.

TABLE NO. 5.4.11: FACTORS OF PHYSICAL VULNERABILITY



Fragile Physical Environment of the

area increases physical vulnerability of

the community.

326

(84.9%)

20

(5.2%)

38

(9.9%)

384

(100%)

Weak Infrastructure and adobe houses

are the major reason of deaths and

casualties during disaster.

378

(98.4%)

00

(00%)

6

(1.6%)

384

(100%)

High rise buildings without safety

measure increases vulnerability to

disasters.

342

(89.1%)

20

(5.2%)

22

(5.7%)

384

(100%)

Lack of implementation of building

codes is major cause of structural

vulnerability of both private and public

sector buildings.

366

(95.3%)

00

(00%)

18

(4.7%)

384

(100%)

156

Lack of Implantation of land use

planning policy incited people to reside

in vulnerable locations.

227

(59.1%)

50

(13.0%)

107

(27.9%)

384

(100%)

Encroachment in rivers increases

vulnerability of the people.

351

(91.4%)

2

(0.5%)

31

(8.1%)

384

(100%)


frequency)

Table No. 5.4.11 illustrates data about the factors of physical vulnerability in the

study area. Regarding factors affecting physical vulnerability, majority i.e. 84.9%

respondent from local community said that fragile physical environment of the study

area increased physical vulnerability and it is one of the most important factor for

physical exposure to disaster while 5.2% respondents disagreed whereas 9.9%

remained neutral. Alongside, weak infrastructure and adobe houses are another cause

of physical vulnerability. Majority i.e. 98.4% respondents said that weak

infrastructure and adobe houses are the major reasons for deaths and casualties during

disasters in the study area whereas 1.6% remained neutral as they were not aware

about the role of weak infrastructure and adobe houses in high level of disaster

mortality. Similarly high rise buildings without safety measures are also a cause of

physical vulnerability in the study area. Asking respondents about the high rise

buildings without safety measures as one of the major cause of physical vulnerability,

majority i.e. 89.1% respondents agreed that multi-story buildings without safety

measures and standard protocols of construction increased physical vulnerability in

the study area while 5.2% respondents disagreed with it. High rise buildings in the

form of hotels and other commercial buildings in the study area are very vulnerable

due to location of building, workmanship, weak design and layout of the buildings.

These buildings have been constructed without inclusion of approved buildings codes

of Pakistan. Regarding lack of implementation of building codes as a major cause of

structural vulnerability of both private and public sector buildings etc. majority i.e.

95.3% of the study respondents were of the view that it is one of the major cause

leading to physical vulnerability of the inhabitants of the study area while 4.7%

respondents remained neutral as they were not aware about the building codes. In

addition to building codes, lack of land use planning policy and its strict

implementation further exacerbate physical vulnerability to disasters. In this context

majority i.e. 59.1% respondents said that lack of implementation of land use planning

157

policy incited people to reside in vulnerable locations in the study area whereas 13.0%

disagreed with it while 27.9% remained neutral about it. Lack of land use planning

and its strict implementation leads to encroachment in major rivers because of the

loose control of the state administration. Asking the community level respondents

regarding encroachment in rivers and its role in creating physical vulnerability,

majority i.e. 91.4% respondents said that encroachment in rivers is a major cause of

physical vulnerability as it block the water flow in rivers and subsequently cause

inundation in the communities. Only 0.5% respondents disagreed and 8.15

respondents remained neutral about encroachment. All these factors and causes of

physical vulnerability in the study area are interconnected and removal of one cause

consequently reduces other factors of physical vulnerability.

TABLE NO. 5.4.12: FACTORS AFFECTING ATTITUDINAL VULNERABILITY



Disasters are from Allah side and

people can‘t avert its impact.

283

(73.7%)

77

(20.1%)

24

(6.3%)

384

(100%)

Due to fatalistic attitudes people stay at

homes during disasters.

160

(41.7%)

202

(52.6%)

22

(5.7%)

384

(100%)

Due to non-scientific knowledge, people

don‘t believe on modern mechanism for

dealing with disasters.

190

(49.5%)

77

(20.1%)

117

(30.5%)

384

(100%)

Lack of confidence reduces the chances

to take initiatives for vulnerability

reduction.

201

(52.3%)

47

(12.2%)

136

(35.4%)

384

(100%)


frequency)

Table No. 5.4.12 describe data about the factors of attitudinal vulnerability in the

study area. In conjunction with other types of vulnerability, attitudinal vulnerability

also exists in the study area. Due to lack of awareness, the level of attitudinal

vulnerability has negatively impacted vulnerability reduction projects. People are

having fatalistic attitudes in the study area due to certain factors. Majority i.e. 73.7%

of the study respondents reported that disasters are from Allah side and people can‘t

avert its impact while 20.1% said that disasters are from Allah side but human being

must have the knowledge to know about the causes of these disaster and apply the

exiting invention in the field of disaster risk reduction to prevent, mitigate and prepare

for disasters. Asking respondents about the fatalistic attitude and evacuation during

disasters etc. 41.7% respondents said that people are not evacuating and stay at homes

158

during disasters due to their fatalistic attitude whereas 52.6% respondents disagreed

with it while 5.7% were not aware about it. Moreover, regarding lack of scientific

knowledge and modern mechanism for dealing with disasters etc. majority i.e. 49.5%

respondents said that due to non-scientific knowledge, people of the study area don‘t

believe on modern mechanism for dealing with disasters while 20.1% disagreed

whereas 30.5% didn‘t know anything about the latest mechanism for dealing with

disasters. Furthermore, about the lack of confidence and vulnerability reduction etc.

majority i.e. 52.3% respondents said that due to lack of confidence people are not

taking initiatives to work together for vulnerability reduction while 12.2%

respondents said that confidence is not the only factor preventing people from taking

independent initiatives for vulnerability reduction whereas 35.4% respondents were

not aware about the lack of confidence and its role in initiating vulnerability reduction

projects.

5.5 BIVARIATE ANALYSIS

This section provides association of disaster vulnerability with different aspects of

governance. These variables are legal and institutional framework for disaster

management; risk knowledge, education and understating risk factors; process of

planning and decision making; availability of disaster preparedness and mitigation

plans; budget allocation; process of implementation, monitoring and evaluation;

people centered approach and effectiveness of the system in emergency management

and post disaster recovery. Association between above variables and description of

each table has been presented below.

159

TABLE NO. 5.5.1: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL

FRAMEWORK AND VULNERABILITY REDUCTION

Attributes Attitude Level of Vulnerability

Total Statistics Low Medium High

You have knowledge

of government policies

about disaster

management

Agree 15 (12.7%) 16 (13.6%) 87 (73.7%) 118

(p= .000)

χ2=34.139

Disagree 25 (14.4%) 66 (37.9%) 83 (47.7%) 174

Neutral 05 (5.4%) 17 (18.5%) 70 (76.1%) 92

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

You know about the

National, Provincial

and District Disaster

Management

Authorities

Agree 42 (11.6%) 88 (24.2%) 233 (64.2%) 363

(p =.000)

(χ2=22.039)

Disagree 00 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (100.0%) 5

Neutral 3 (18.8%) 11 (68.8%) 2 (12.5%) 16

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

The disaster

management policies

focus on reducing

future disaster

vulnerabilities.

Agree 0 (0.0%) 2 (20.0%) 8 (80.0%) 10

(p =.000)

(χ2=30.825)

Disagree 14 (5.7%) 73 (29.8%) 158 (64.5%) 245

Neutral 31 (24.0%) 24 (18.6% 74 (57.4%) 129

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

Disaster Management

Policies have been

formulated through a

multi hazard approach

Agree 0 (0.0%) 2 (15.4%) 11 (84.6%) 13 (p =.000)

χ2=26.847)

Disagree 14 (6.0%) 69 (29.6%) 150 (64.4%) 233

Neutral 31 (22.5%) 28 (20.3%) 79 (57.2%) 138

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

Disaster management

policies ensure

strengthening

community

participation and

resilience.

Agree 1 (3.7%) 5 (18.5%) 21 (77.8%) 27

(p= .001)

(χ2= 19.490)

Disagree 41 (15.0%) 60 (22.0%) 172 (63.0%) 273

Neutral 3 (3.6%) 34 (40.5%) 47 (56.0%) 84

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

National, Provincial

and District Disaster

Management

Authorities have

played a key role in

disaster preparedness

and mitigation in my

community

Agree 1 (2.3%) 15 (34.1%) 28 (63.6% 44

(p=.000)

(χ2=70.985)

Disagree 29 (11.4%) 37 (14.5%) 189 (74.1%) 255

Neutral 15 (17.6%) 47 (55.3%) 23 (27.1%) 85

Total

45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%)

384

District government

has ensured

preparation/implantati

on of land use policies

Agree 3 (37.5%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (62.5%) 8

(p=.005)

(χ2= 15.087)

Disagree 37 (12.6%) 68 (23.1%) 189 (64.3%) 294

Neutral 5 (6.1%) 31 (37.8%) 46 (56.1%) 82

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

Building codes

policies have been

strictly implemented

in my area

Agree 1 (4.8%) 6 (28.6%) 14 (66.7%) 21

(p=.000)

(χ2=36.855)

Disagree 43 (12.8%) 73 (21.7%) 220 (65.5%) 336

Neutral 1 (3.7%) 20 (74.1%) 6 (22.2%) 27

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

Government ensures

water security, food

security and energy

security of our

community for climate

Agree 11 (23.9%) 11 (23.9%) 24 (52.2%) 46

(p=.004)

(χ2= 15.652)

Disagree 28 (9.6%) 69 (23.6%) 195 (66.8%) 292

Neutral 6 (13.0%) 19 (41.3%) 21 (45.7%) 46

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

160

change induced

disasters

Under current

environmental/forest

management policies,

forests are more

protected than the

past.

Agree 19 (9.6%) 38 (19.2%) 141 (71.2%) 198

(p=.000)

(χ2=26.528)

Disagree 19 (20.2%) 22 (23.4%) 53 (56.4%) 94

Neutral 7 (7.6%) 39 (42.4%) 46 (50.0%) 92

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

Government has

established Standard

Early Warning system

in my area.

Agree 2 (40.0%) 3 (60.0%) 0 (0.0%) 5

(p=.004)

(χ2=15.138) Disagree 42 (12.3%) 81 (23.8%) 218 (63.9%) 341

Neutral 1 (2.6%) 15 (39.5%) 22 (57.9%) 38

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

Government officials

are regularly

monitoring and

predicting about

disaster.

Agree 1 (2.3%) 15 (34.1%) 28 (63.6%) 44

(p=.000)

(χ2=70.985)

Disagree 29 (11.4%) 37 (14.5%) 189 (74.1%) 255

Neutral 15 (17.6%) 47 (55.3%) 23 (27.1%) 85

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

(Figure in parenthesis denotes percentage while figures in the table denote frequency.

Symbol χ2 represents the value of chi square and symbol (P) represents the significance level)

Table No. 5.5.1 shows the association between legal and institutional framework and

vulnerability reduction. Knowledge and understanding of the public sector disaster

management policies, acts and institutional mechanism direct the behavioral actions

of general public and government officials. A highly significant (p0.000) association

was found between knowledge about disaster risk reduction policies and vulnerability

reduction. According to Weichselgartner & Pigeon (2015) social learning, knowledge

management and domains of DRR are interconnected. Appropriate understanding of

these connections can improve disaster risk and vulnerability reduction at both the

government and community level. Furthermore, a highly significant (p.000)

association was found between vulnerability reduction and familiarity of sampled

respondents with the national, provincial and district disaster management authorities.

These authorities are functioning under the National Disaster Management Act and

implementing the policies laid down for risk reduction in the country. These policies

and institutions can play a key role in vulnerability reduction in the study area. These

findings are consistent with another study conducted by Zeshan & Khan ( 2015)

regarding public awareness of local communities about DRR policies and institutional

framework. The study divulges that understanding of DRR policies and governance

system leads to vulnerability reduction at the gross root level. DRR should be a

national and local priority with a strong institutional framework from top to bottom

161

level for implementation of vulnerability reduction initiatives (UNISDR, 2005b). A

study conducted by Rehman et al. (2019) indicates similar results and provide a detail

picture of system interdependences for flood risk management in Pakistan. The study

further reveals that government of Pakistan through its district, provincial and national

management system has taken some initiatives for disaster risk management, but a

collaborative framework is still missing. The study suggests enhancing cooperation

and building synergies between disaster management institutions for sustainable

vulnerability reduction. Galperin & Wilkinson (2015) further suggest that a strong

disaster risk governance mechanism should provide conceptual clarity, alignment of

disaster risk reduction approaches with the current state of knowledge on disaster risk

governance and advancing disaster risk governance into the local level.

Moreover, a highly significant (p.000) association was found between future

orientation of disaster management policies and vulnerability reduction. Above table

further describe a highly significant (p.000) association between formulation of

policies through multi-hazard approach and vulnerability reduction. It is concluded

from the finding of the statement that disaster management policies at the moment are

not futuristic in nature and it should identify and address the future vulnerabilities in

the study area. Government should develop sound policies focusing not only on one

or two hazards but should be multi-hazard in nature. It is pertinent to mention that the

study area is vulnerable to different types of disasters and policies needs to be

developed in light of the diversified physiography of the study area. The guiding

principal of United Nations Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-

2030 stresses on adopting a multi-hazard approach for disaster risk reduction

(UNISDR, 2015). Continuous changes in societies specifically in social, economic,

environmental and technological systems are influenced by risk driving factors such

as demographic changes, interdependencies, resource scarcity, conflicting interest of

stakeholder and climate change etc. requires a forwarded looking approach to

vulnerability reduction. Future oriented approach on the basis of past events and

future disaster trends set the context of comprehensive policy development in a

strategic planning framework (Aubrecht et al., 2013). Results of above statements also

support findings of another study conducted by Bronfman (2019) in the Atacama

Region of the North Chile and concluded that the complex social structure and diverse

topographies exposes communities to all type of hazards. Governance structures

should recognize these complexities and prepare policies through multi-hazard

162

approach. Policies designed through multi-hazard approach are not only reliable for

sectoral development planning but also direct stakeholders that mitigation measure for

a single hazard may enhance vulnerability to other hazards.

Additionally, a significant (p.001) association was found between participatory

orientation of the disaster management policies and vulnerability reduction.

Government policies should encourage local communities in the study area to

participate in the vulnerability reduction projects. The result of this study shows that

presently disaster management policies are not strengthening community

participation. The study results are consistent with another similar study conducted by

Ainuddin et al. (2013) in Baluchistan, Pakistan. Ainuddin et al. (2013) recommends

that delivering power to communities through inclusion will enhance the capability

and capacity of the nation to respond to future emergencies and reduce existing

vulnerabilities. This study further focuses on decentralization of disaster risk

reduction into local level stakeholders with clear responsibilities for all.

Besides, the results of this study further described that the national, provincial and

district level disaster management institutions has not played a key role in disaster

prevention, preparedness and mitigation. In this regard, a highly significant (p0.000)

association has been found between the proactive role of the NDMA, PDMA and

DDMU and vulnerability reduction. These institutions have been mandated for

disaster risk reduction as per the NDMAct and they have to deliver their services in

the right direction. For example Fazeel & Jehan (2016) reported that at the gross root

level role of disaster management authorities is negligible in the context of

vulnerability reduction through prevention, mitigation and preparedness in District

Nowshera, Pakistan. A study conducted by Khan & Khan (2008) exploring the

management of hazards and disasters in Pakistan concludes that the disaster

management and vulnerability reduction in Pakistan is primarily focusing on flood

disaster management. These vulnerability reduction initiatives basically revolve

around contingency planning and sharing the losses of the communities and have been

restricted to rescue and relief only.

Furthermore, a significant (p.005) association was found between the preparation/

implementation of land use policies by district government and vulnerability

reduction. Data shows that proper polices for land use planning is still lacking in the

study area and as per the local government act, it empowers the district council to

develop and approve land use policies at the district level. The National DRR Policy

163

has identifies land use zoning as a major challenge for implementation of DRR policy

in the country (NDMA, 2013). Roy & Ferland (2015) suggest that land use policies

improve the safety and security of the people and reduces vulnerability of the poor

people settled in risky locations. According to Glavovic (2010) among all the

available hazard mitigation and disaster prevention approaches, sustainable and risk

informed land management shows more promising solution to vulnerability reduction.

In addition, building code policies also exists and proper implementation can reduce

future vulnerabilities to disasters in the study area. In this context a highly significant

(p.000) association was found between the implementation of building code policies

and vulnerability reduction. Inclusion of building codes in public and private

structures guarantee mitigation and reduce damages to buildings and other

installation. These findings support another study conducted by Banerjee (2015)

demonstrating the importance of building codes for vulnerability reduction. The study

reported that implementation of building codes reduces vulnerability by mitigating the

impact of disaster on a structure and subsequent safety and security to the inhabitants

of a building or home. The implementation of the building code policy of Pakistan is a

major challenge for authorities at the local, provincial and national level. Beside other

reasons, the apathy of the local administration at the district level to enforce building

codes is a major reason for enhanced vulnerabilities to disasters (NDMA, 2015b).

Along with safety and security of buildings; water, food and energy security is also

necessary to protect the people from adverse impacts of climate change. It has been

observed that government is not focusing on security of water, energy and food in the

study area despite its highly significant (p0.000) association with vulnerability

reduction. Data presented in above table shows that a lot needs to be done in the

context of water, food and energy security in the study area due to changing climatic

patterns. Iqbal, Ahmad, & Mustafa (2015) concluded that due to climate change

water, energy and food insecurity increases the vulnerability of the population to the

impacts of future disasters in Pakistan. In another study by Nhamo et al. (2018)

reported that the water, energy and food conservation nexus is an access strip for

vulnerability reduction and sustainable development. Adapting a multidisciplinary

approach to water, energy and food security also make sure the attainment of

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) specifically poverty alleviation, access to

water, zero hunger and provision of clean energy.

164

Moreover, government needs to focus on the conservation of natural forest in the

study area. A highly significant (p0.000) association was found between protection of

forest and vulnerability reduction. Government has implemented forest management

policies to maximum extent in the study area but its effectiveness is only restricted to

protection of natural forest in mountainous terrain and government focus on

environmental conservation is still very trifling. Conservation of forest is one of the

nature-based solutions for coping with both climatic and non-climatic disasters. Forest

and related vegetation also reduces vulnerability to non-climatic disasters such as

landsliding and soil creeping (IUCN, 2017). Forest management and conservation in

Malakand, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa reduces vulnerability through prevention of soil

erosion, mitigation of floods through water percolation in ground, control

environmental pollution and also mitigate landsliding (Jan, 2011).

In addition, government has not yet established standard early warning system in the

study area. A significant (p.004) association was found between establishment of

standard early warning system and vulnerability reduction. Standard early warning

system will provide information about the occurrence of disaster and people can be

informed well in time to evacuate or take precautionary measures. Likewise, a highly

significant (p.000) association was found between regular monitoring and prediction

of disasters and vulnerability reduction. Regular monitoring and prediction is totally

based on the presence of early warning system. These findings support similar result

by another study conducted in district Charsadda, Pakistan on early warning system. It

reveals that lack of standard early warning system increased the vulnerability of

communities exposed to floods in district Charsadda (Khan, Khan & Jehan, 2013).

Moreover, Mukhtar (2018) reported that the communication system of early warning

is one dimensional in nature and involvement of the local community is almost

negligible in the entire design of early warning system in Pakistan. The prevailing

linear paradigm is only focusing on the hazard rather than focusing on vulnerability

and risk. National Research Council (1991) suggests that timely monitoring and good

prediction save lives, protect people from injuries, reduce damage and economic

losses. Mohanty et al. (2019) suggests that for effective early warning system, both

vertical and horizontal coordination between all relevant stakeholders is indispensable

and coordination and collaboration mechanism with other stakeholders should also be

established.

165

TABLE NO. 5.5.2: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN RISK KNOWLEDGE AND EDUCATION AND VULNERABILITY REDUCTION

Attributes Attitude Level of Vulnerability Total Statistics

Low Medium High

Houses and building in our

area can cope with future

disaster

Agree 2 (40.0%) 3 (60.0%) 0 (0.0%) 05

(P=.004)

(χ2=15.138)

Disagree 42 (12.3%) 81 (23.8%) 218 (63.9%) 341

Neutral 1 (2.6%) 15 (39.5%) 22 (57.9%) 38

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

In case of disaster, our area

has alternate routes for

evacuation and food supply

Agree 5 (11.4%) 17 (38.6%) 22 (50.0%) 44

(p= .000)

(χ2=37.678)

Disagree 29 (9.1%) 79 (24.8%) 210 (66.0%) 318

Neutral 11 (50.0%) 3 (13.6%) 8 (36.4%) 22

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

Construction in vulnerable

areas (riverbeds, riverbanks,

landslide areas) is strictly


Agree 1 (4.8%) 6 (28.6%) 14 (66.7%) 21

(p =.000)

(χ2=36.855)

Disagree 43 (12.8%) 73 (21.7%) 220 (65.5%) 336

Neutral 1 (3.7%) 20 (74.1%) 6 (22.2%) 27

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

Proper land use planning is

carried out in my area.

Agree 00 00 00 00

(p=.000)

(χ2=35.246)

Disagree 44 (12.3%) 80 (22.3%) 235 (65.5%) 359

Neutral 1 (4.0%) 19 (76.0%) 5 (20.0%) 25

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

Due to poverty, people are

forced to live in vulnerable

locations

Agree 36 (10.5%) 83 (24.1%) 225 (65.4%) 344

(p=.000 )

(χ2=25.081)

Disagree 5 (55.6%) 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%) 9

Neutral 4 (12.9%) 14 (45.2%) 13 (41.9%) 31

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

Social and physical sector

development plans are

focusing on reducing

disaster risks

Agree 2 (12.5%) 1 (6.3%) 13 (81.3%) 16

(p=.000)

(χ2=37.613)

Disagree 42 (12.2%) 80 (23.2%) 223 (64.6%) 345

Neutral 1 9 (4.3%) 18 (78.3%) 4 (17.4%) 23

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

Sanitation system and water Agree 24 (15.1%) 27 (17.0%) 108 (67.9%) 159 (p= .008)

166

supply are intact to avoid

disease outbreak Disagree 20 (9.4%) 70 (32.9%) 123 (57.7%) 213 (χ2=13.775)

Neutral 1 (8.3%) 2 (16.7%) 9 (75.0%) 12

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

The community members

are provided trainings on

the warning signs and

symptoms of disasters.

Agree 10 (5.6%) 49 (27.4%) 120 (67.0%) 179

(p=.000)

(χ2=30.398)

Disagree 13 (10.1%) 38 (29.5%) 78 (60.5%) 129

Neutral 22 (28.9%) 12 (15.8%) 42 (55.3%) 76

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

Government officials have

knowledge, skills and

technical capacity for

disaster risk reduction.

Agree 22 (20.8%) 18 (17.0%) 66 (62.3%) 106

(p= .000)

(χ2=36.893)

Disagree 15 (12.6%) 18 (15.1%) 86 (72.3%) 119

Neutral 8 (5.0%) 63 (39.6%) 88 (55.3%) 159

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

Government officials have

the capacity to develop

good recovery plans.

Agree 15 (13.9%) 15 (13.9%) 78 (72.2%) 108

(p=.000)

(χ2=35.908)

Disagree 22 (24.2%) 20 (22.0%) 49 (53.8%) 91

Neutral 8 (4.3%) 64 (34.6%) 113 (61.1%) 185

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

(Figure in parenthesis denotes percentage while figures in table denote frequency. Symbol χ2 represents the value of chi square and symbol (p) represents the

significance level)

167

Table No. 5.5.2 depicts the association between risk knowledge, education and

vulnerability reduction. Understanding various factors leading to vulnerability is of

vital importance for disaster risk reduction. These factors are understanding the

strength of your house building, location of building, land use planning and sanitation

system etc. Above table depict that majority of the houses and buildings in the study

area are very weak and cannot cope with future disaster. A significant (p.004)

association was found between the strength of house and buildings and vulnerability

reduction. It is pertinent to mention here, that most of the housing units and public

sector buildings have been constructed without inclusion of building regulation i.e.

building codes. This increased local community vulnerability to the impacts of

disaster. The study findings support the results of a similar study conducted by

Ainuddin, Mukhtar, & Ainuddin (2014) in Baluchistan, Pakistan. Majority of the

people are not aware about the seismic and hydro-metereological risks. Inclusion of

hazard resistant technologies in buildings and house construction is necessary for

areas vulnerable to frequent earthquake, fire and floods etc. Noncompliance to

building regulations increases the damage potentiality of buildings in future disaster

events. Godfrey et al. (2015) suggested that conducting a detailed assessment of

vulnerability of built environment to reduce the probability of loss due to collapse of

weak buildings is one of the main components of disaster risk reduction. Besides, a

highly significant (p0.000) association was found between the alternate routes for

evacuation, food supply and vulnerability reduction. Alternate and safe routes ensure

public safety and government can reach the local communities during an emergency

situation. Results of this statement support the result of a study conducted in Cascais,

Portugal and state that enforcement of evacuation route and knowledge about

evacuation sites reduces the vulnerability of population and make communities more

disaster resilient (Trindade et al., 2018).

Moreover, construction practices in the study area are faulty and many people have

constructed their homes and other buildings on the river banks or on unstable slopes.

A highly significant (p0.000) association was found between ban on construction at

vulnerable location and vulnerability reduction. Government need to strictly

implement policies and regulations to restrict people from construction in these

vulnerable locations. A study conducted by Rahman, Khan & Collins (2014) in

Kashmir, Pakistan reported similar results and reveals that majority of the people are

living in fragile mountain slopes and highly vulnerable to the impact of landsliding

168

and earthquake. Such type of practices has affected housing units, sources of

livelihoods and escalating casualties day by day. Similarly, government has imposed

ban on construction on the river banks and river beds. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

River Protection Ordinance 2002 explicitly impose ban on the construction of any

type of commercial or non-commercial building within a limit of two hundred feet

along the slope of river (lay off land) (Gazette of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2002). Strict

implementation of rules and regulations related to ban on construction in vulnerable

location shall be implemented to reduce vulnerability of the people in the area. In this

context, formulation of a proper land use plan of the study area is a crucial necessity.

Above table indicate a highly significant (p.000) association between proper land use

planning and vulnerability reduction. Land use planning elaborate the mechanism of

what sort of land can be used for house construction, public sector buildings and

where other activities can be conducted. Risk sensitive land use planning and its

implementation will certainly reduce existing and future vulnerabilities to disasters.

Arif (2017) states that DRR procedures should be systematically integrated into land

use planning. Land use plan further extend government support to poor people in

construction of houses. Poverty is a major factor of inhabitation in risky areas, as

people can‘t afford to migrate to safe areas due to high prices of land and construction

cost. In this study a highly significant (p.000) association was found between poverty

and disaster vulnerability. Poverty forced people to reside in vulnerable locations in

weak adobe houses, highly prone to the impacts of disasters. A study conducted by

Kurosaki (2017) in Peshawar, Pakistan support the arguments that poverty has

increased the exposure level of local people to disasters.

The social and physical development plans in the study area are adhoc in nature and

doesn‘t focus on mainstreaming disaster risk reduction with the development projects

and progarmmes. Although a highly significant (p.000) association was found

between mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into social and physical sector

development plans and vulnerability reduction. Development plans and programmes

should be risk sensitive and people friendly to reduce the miseries of vulnerable

population. Mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction into development planning

means, to critically analyze each programmes, projects, activities and interventions

from a risk reduction paradigm and minimize the contribution of development process

in creating future disaster risks. Three landmark events of 2015 i.e. Sustainable

Development Agenda (Sustainable Development Goals 2015-30), Paris Agreement

169

under the auspices of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) and Sendai Framework for DRR (2015-30) have opened new windows

for mainstreaming DRR within the development planning (UNESCAP, 2017). The

Sendai Framework emphasize on the critical gapes in development processes and

identify poverty and inequality, unplanned and rapid urbanization, climate change and

poor land management practices as major causes of vulnerability (UNISDR, 2015). In

addition, the scope and building blocks of the national disaster risk reduction policy of

Pakistan promote priority measure to reduce existing vulnerabilities to various kind of

disaster and further guide government departments to ensure resilience in future

development programmes and processes (NDMA, 2013).

Similarly, sanitation and water supply system are not up to the mark and it has

enhanced the exposure of local people in the study area to various diseases. As per

data presented in above table, majority of the respondents reported that sanitation and

water supply system is weak despite of its significant (p.008) association with

vulnerability reduction. District and provincial governments shall ensure the

availability of proper sanitation and water supply system to the local communities in

the study area. A study conducted by Daud et al. (2017) on drinking water quality in

Pakistan states that about 20 % of Pakistan population is having access to clean

drinking water while the remaining 80 % of the population don‘t have access to clean

drinking water supply and suffers from various diseases due to it. Besides, poor

sanitation system also increases the risk of diseases in the general public.

Furthermore, a highly significant (p0.000) association was found between provision

of trainings to local communities on warning signs and symptoms and vulnerability

reduction. Standard early warning system doesn‘t exist in the study area and in

absence of such system; local communities should be oriented on the warning signs

and symptoms, so they can take decisions about precautionary measures during an

emergency situation. According to UNDP (2017) weak early warning system and

poor response capacities leads to increased mortality and economic losses. Human

and economic losses resulting from tsunami, cyclones, storms, floods and droughts

indicating the failure of preparedness, early warning and response systems. Thus,

weak early warning systems increase the vulnerability of the population to the impacts

of disasters.

For provision of trainings to local communities, first capacity building of government

officials is necessary. The National Institution of Management Services (NIMS) and

170

National Institute of Disaster Management (NIDM) are conducting trainings of

government officials but more efforts are required to further enhance the knowledge

level of government officials. A highly significant (p0.000) association was found

between government officials‘ knowledge, skills and technical capacity and

vulnerability reduction. Community level respondents view these government

officials are highly qualified and technical but in reality officials working in

Irrigation, C&W, PMD and Rescue 1122 are having technical competencies while

officials working in PDMA and DDMU are not technically sound people.

Government need to revisit the recruitment criteria in these civil protection

institutions to develop a proper cadre of disaster management professionals.

According to Amaratunga (2005) government officials skills and capacities perform

critical role in coordination at the local, national and international level. At the local

level skilled and qualified human resources collaborate for preparedness, mitigation

and can develop good response plans. At the national and international level, they try

to replicate good practices in DRR from other regions. They can develop and enforce

laws/regulations related to construction and can ensure integration of necessary

disaster prevention and mitigation measures to reduce risk through enforcement of

legislation, policies and government regulations.

Similarly, a highly significant (p.000) association was found between government

officials‘ capacity for formulation of recovery plans and vulnerability reduction. Past

review of reconstruction and recovery experiences shows that sometimes

inefficiencies and deficiencies in post disaster recovery can be worst than disaster

itself. Well-organized and effective post-disaster recovery mechanisms can hold the

wreckages of disaster inflicted on the people and prevent the fall of people into

poverty traps. The longer term recovery strategy shall follow the build back better and

smarter slogan and encourage public sector officials and communities to rebuild

beyond the pre-disaster state for safer, resilient and more sustainable communities

(GFDRR, 2015).

171

TABLE NO. 5.5.3: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PROCESS OF PLANNING AND DECISION MAKING AND VULNERABILITY

REDUCTION


Total Statistics

Low Medium High

Government is regularly

conducting vulnerability

assessment in my area before

formulation of vulnerability

reduction plans.

Agree 00 00 00 00

(p=.000)

(χ2=16.297)

Disagree 45 (12.0%) 92 (24.5%) 239 (63.6%) 376

Neutral 0 (0.0%) 7 (87.5%) 1 (12.5%) 8

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

I have observed that government

has conducted feasibility studies

for vulnerability reduction

projects in my area.

Agree 7 (20.6%) 6 (17.6%) 21 (61.8%) 34

(p=.009)

(χ2=13.613)

Disagree 22 (8.0%) 73 (26.6%) 179 (65.3%) 274

Neutral 16 (21.1%) 20 (26.3%) 40 (52.6%) 76

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

Local communities are consulted

during vulnerability reduction

plan preparation

Agree 2 (40.0%) 3 (60.0%) 0 (0.0%) 5

p=.002

χ2=17.445

Disagree 42 (12.5%) 78 (23.3%) 215 (64.2%) 335

Neutral 1 (2.3%) 18 (40.9%) 25 (56.8%) 44

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

The problems of communities

are identified and prioritized by

the local communities.

Agree 3 (33.3%) 4 (44.4%) 2 (22.2%) 9

p=.003

χ2=15.819

Disagree 36 (12.3%) 64 (21.9%) 192 (65.8%) 292

Neutral 6 (7.2%) 31 (37.3%) 46 (55.4%) 83

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

Planning Commission

Form (PC-1) has been prepared

Agree 2 (40.0%) 3 (60.0%) 0 (0.0%) 5 p=.007

χ2=13.946 Disagree 41 (12.2%) 80 (23.7%) 216 (64.1%) 337

172

in consultation with all

stakeholders including

communities.

Neutral 2 (4.8%) 16 (38.1%) 24 (57.1%) 42

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

Communities at risk have strong

say in the Planning Commission

form approval.

Agree 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 (0.0%) 3

p=.035

χ2=10.375

Disagree 43 (12.7%) 82 (24.2%) 214 (63.1%) 339

Neutral 1 (2.4%) 15 (35.7%) 26 (61.9%) 42

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

Vulnerability reduction plan has

been communicated to us by the

relevant government

departments

Agree 1 (25.0%) 3 (75.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4

p=.020

χ2=11.666

Disagree 41 (12.5%) 77 (23.5%) 209 (63.9%) 327

Neutral 3 (5.7%) 19 (35.8%) 31 (58.5%) 53

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

Political interference in planning

and construction of bridges,

embankments, roads, buildings,

relief distribution and

compensation to affected people

exists

Agree 33 (10.7%) 78 (25.4%) 196 (63.8%) 307

p=.000

χ2=21.974

Disagree 8 (13.3%) 10 (16.7%) 42 (70.0%) 60

Neutral 4 (23.5%) 11 (64.7%) 2 (11.8%) 17

Total 45 (11.7%) 99 (25.8%) 240 (62.5%) 384

(Figure in parenthesis denotes percentage while figures in the table denote frequency. Symbol χ2 represents the value of chi square and symbol (P) represents

the significance level)

173

Table No. 5.5.3 shows the association between process of planning and decision

making and vulnerability reduction. After legal and institutional frameworks,

planning and decision making are the most important components of vulnerability

reduction governance. As per procedure and rule of business, planning process starts

with the assessment and technical feasibilities for vulnerability reduction projects.

Comprehensive vulnerability assessment illustrates complete picture of causes

creating weaknesses in communities along with hazard and disaster profile of the

concerned area. In the context of disaster risk reduction, vulnerability assessment is

considered as baseline for formulation of risk and vulnerability reduction plans. In

study area none of the government department has conducted comprehensive

vulnerability assessment. Above table indicate a highly significant (p.000) association

between regular conduction of vulnerability assessment and vulnerability reduction.

NDMA and PDMA needs to build the capacity of District Disaster Management Units

by appointing technical people to conduct proper risk assessment and formulate plans

on the basis of assessments. Moreover, a significant (p0.009) association was found

between technical feasibility studies for major projects and vulnerability reduction.

Numerical data presented in above table signify that government should conduct

technical feasibility study before launching mega projects. Besides, local communities

should be consulted in each phase of planning process. The findings of these

statements support the results of another study stating that the analysis of vulnerability

toward multiple hazards can contribute to risk reduction efforts (Kappes et al., 2012).

Indicators based assessment is very flexible and shall be adapted for different

disasters as per the needs of the users. Li et al. (2011) further concluded that

vulnerability is an intrinsic influencing factor and reduction of vulnerability

eliminates the effects of disaster. But first this intrinsic factors need to be assessed in

the context of existing development paradigm and future requirements. The National

Disaster Risk Management Framework of Pakistan emphasized on comprehensive

risk assessment and further guided relevant government departments to develop

technical capacities and institutional arrangements of all stakeholders to undertake

hazard, vulnerability and capacity assessment in different areas of the country

(Government of Pakistan, 2007b).

Regarding consultation and participation of local communities in planning process, a

significant (p.002) association was found between consultation of local communities

for plan preparation and vulnerability reduction. Government both at the national,

174

provincial, district and sub-district level shall involve the local communities in plan

preparation to ensure inclusiveness of vulnerability reduction plans. Local

communities are in best position to identify their problems and prioritized these

problems in the context of prevention, mitigation, and preparedness projects. In this

perspective, a significant (p.003) association was found between identification and

prioritization of problems by local people and vulnerability reduction. Limited

community involvements in prioritization of problems and planning negatively

affected the implementation of such projects. Planning Commission (PC-1) Form

were prepared by government for both structural and non-structural projects in the

study area but concerned agencies didn‘t involved the local communities in

preparation of PC-1. A significant (p0.007) association was found between PC-1

preparation in consultation with all stakeholders and vulnerability reduction. Such

type of PC-1 will be having long lasting impacts on communities, when designed in

consultation with the relevant stakeholders including communities. During this

research study, problems were not only identified in the preparation of PC-1 but also

in the approval of PC-1 in the annual development programmes. A significant (p.035)

association exists between stake of community in PC-1 approval and vulnerability

reduction. Communities in the study areas don‘t have access to the approval process

and this increased their vulnerability to disasters due to their exclusion from decision

making. A study conducted by Cronin et al., (2004) concluded that participatory

approach to planning permits planners, scientist and disaster managers to know about

the local perspective, problems, issues, gender hierarchy and threats and

opportunities. Thus, understanding local perspective has positive implications on

vulnerability reduction. Integrating local and scientific knowledge within

vulnerability and risk reduction ensure proper assessment and lead to informed

decision making (Cadag & Gaillard, 2012). Fordham (1999) reported that

participatory planning leads to consensus building and priorities are set for future

mitigation of disasters. Community participation in risk assessment, planning and

decision making needs further promotion for achieving sustainable vulnerability

reduction (Gaillard, 2010). The present study support the results of another study

conducted by Crawford, Langston, & Bajracharya (2013), indicating that disaster

management projects were planned and implemented with traditional project

management approaches and role of multiple stakeholders including communities

were not mainstreamed into it. Such type of top down inflexible planning, decision

175

making and implementation approaches enhanced uncertainties in communities

vulnerable to disaster. Using methods that encourage exchange of knowledge and two

way dialogues is difficult but important for risk reduction.

Vulnerability reduction plan preparation and subsequent communication to local

communities envision local people about the progress on vulnerability reduction

initiatives. In this regard, a significant (p0.020) association was found between plan

communication and vulnerability reduction. All of the above planning and decision

making steps were highly influenced by political interference and these interferences

increased the vulnerability of the study area to disaster. A highly significant (p0.000)

association was found between political interference in planning and implementation

of major structural and non structural projects and vulnerability reduction. It was

observed that due to political pressure many vulnerable sites have been left on the

mercy of nature and no preparedness and mitigation measures was observed in these

sites in the study area. This study support results of a study conducted by Khan et al.

(2019) in Gilgit, Pakistan and reveals that political interference is a major problem for

the execution and implementation of infrastructure development projects. The study

further elaborates that at the execution stage contracts are not awarded on

performance based system but on the basis of political affiliation. Consequently, local

residents get few returns from the resource utilization and their cost of living

increased along with high level of exposure to multiple shocks and stresses. Another

study conducted by Yasir (2010) reported that poor people are economically and

politically marginalized. They have less socio-political power over their resources and

environment as compared to rich people. Vulnerability should not only be viewed in

the context of physiography or inhabitation in weak houses etc. but requires broader

approach to understand vulnerability in the context of social, economic, political and

environmental realities.

176

TABLE NO. 5.5.4: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN AVAILABILITY OF DISASTER

PREPAREDNESS AND MITIGATION PLANS AND VULNERABILITY

REDUCTION



Government has

formulated a

preparedness plans

at the district level

Agree 24

(12.8%)

30

(16.0%)

134

(71.3%)

188

(p=.000)

(χ2=39.094)

Disagree 17

(14.2%)

53

(44.2%)

50

(41.7%)

120

Neutral 4 (5.3%) 16

(21.1%)

56

(73.7%)

76

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Preparedness

plans aim to

enhance the

capacities of

government and

communities for

vulnerability

reduction.

Agree 18

(12.9%)

23

(16.5%)

98

(70.5%)

139

p=.000

χ2=39.872

Disagree 17

(14.4%)

53

(44.9%)

48

(40.7%)

118

Neutral 10

(7.9%)

23

(18.1%)

94

(74.0%)

127

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Government is

preparing annual

contingency plans

for summer

monsoon and

winter season

Agree 22

(8.6%)

70

(27.5%)

163

(63.9%) 255

p=.000

χ2=29.418

Disagree 18

(32.7%)

13

(23.6%)

24

(43.6%) 55

Neutral 5 (6.8%) 16

(21.6%)

53

(71.6%) 74

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%) 384

Evacuation plan

has been prepared

and shared by

government with

the communities.

Agree 8

(53.3%)

4

(26.7%)

3 (20.0%) 15

p= .000

χ2=35.042

Disagree 36

(11.1%)

77

(23.7%)

212

(65.2%)

325

Neutral 1 (2.3%) 18

(40.9%)

25

(56.8%)

44

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Local Government

Department has

prepared a

CBDRM plan in

consultation with

local community

Agree 6

(35.3%)

6

(35.3%)

5 (29.4%) 17

p=.002

χ2=16.914

Disagree 27

(10.2%)

60

(22.6%)

179

(67.3%)

266

Neutral 12

(11.9%)

33

(32.7%)

56

(55.4%)

101

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Government has

plans for public

awareness and

Agree 1 (7.7%) 8

(61.5%)

4 (30.8%) 13 p=.030

χ2=10.721 Disagree 35 63 167 265

177

capacity building

in my area

(13.2%) (23.8%) (63.0%)

Neutral 9 (8.5%) 28

(26.4%)

69

(65.1%)

106

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Government has

prepared a plan for

mitigation of

critical

infrastructure in

our community.

Agree 5

(55.6%)

0 (0.0%) 4 (44.4%) 9

p=.000

χ2=43.821

Disagree 35

(10.8%)

71

(21.9%)

218

(67.3%)

324

Neutral 5 (9.8%) 28

(54.9%)

18(35.3%) 51

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Government has

prepared a plan for

retrofitting of

major public

sector buildings.

Agree 00 00 00 00

p=.000

χ2=26.493

Disagree 40

(12.0%)

71

(21.3%)

222

(66.7%)

333

Neutral 5 (9.8%) 28

(54.9%)

18

(35.3%)

51

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

(Figure in parenthesis denotes percentage while figures in the table denote frequency. Symbol

χ2 represents the value of chi square and symbol (P) represents the significance level)

Table No. 5.5.4 illustrates association between availability of disaster preparedness

and mitigation plans and vulnerability reduction. Government institutions in the study

area have formulated preparedness plans aiming to enhance anticipatory capacities of

the district government to cope with and respond to emergency situation. At the

national level a national disaster management plan has been prepared by NDMA

while at the PDMA level DRR road map is considered as one of the disaster

management plan at the provincial level (Government of Pakistan, 2012; PDMA,

2014). For district Swat, Nowshera and Charsadda, PDMA has prepared disaster

management plans through support of the NGOs. In this research study a highly

significant (p.000) association was found between the formulation of preparedness

plans at the district level and vulnerability reduction. But these plans are very generic

in nature and it has been designed on the basis of consultation workshops with

government stakeholders. Disaster preparedness plans should develop anticipatory,

absorptive and restorative capacities of government departments and local

communities to deal with disasters in the best possible way. In this context, a highly

significant (p.000) association was found between the enhancement of capacities

178

through preparedness plans and vulnerability reduction. Moreover, a highly

significant (p.000) association was found between preparation of monsoon

contingency plans and vulnerability reduction. It has been observed that disaster

management authorities are preparing monsoon contingency plans each year but they

don‘t give proper attention to compressive disaster preparedness and management

plans. The National Disaster Management Act clearly emphasis on the preparedness

planning and direct the NDMA, PDMA and DDMUs to develop strategies for disaster

preparedness at all level (Gazette of Pakistan, 2010). The study support the arguments

presented by Tsakiris (2016) in his study on proactive planning against drought. It

suggests that disaster planning should change the approach from crises management

to risk management. The crises management approach failed to reduce vulnerabilities

of the majority population while the risk management approach is proactive in nature

and take into account the prevailing risk per hazard type. Palliyaguru et al. (2014)

reported that preparedness strategies are effective in decreasing vulnerability and

largely overcome factors creating vulnerability. Concern Worldwide (2016) suggests

that preparedness should be knowledge based and it should include early warning,

emergency management mechanisms and contingency plans for an effective response.

Besides, Srinivas & Nakagawa (2008) are of the view that disaster preparedness plans

at the local, provincial and national level shall also take into account the

environmental dimensions. Environmental issues such as deforestation, land

degradation, pollution and contamination create multiple disaster risks and disaster

preparedness plans shall ensure protection measures in their strategies. The study also

supports the results of another study regarding contingency planning in UAE by

(AlShamsi & Pathirage, 2015). Contingency planning reduces vulnerabilities to any

unexpected disaster event. Contingency planning is used as a toll for invigorating

response to extreme events which can be having catastrophic impacts on the local

people. Contingency plans are often confused with emergency preparedness. The

difference between the two is emergency preparedness usually revolves around the

identified risks and known emergency situation while contingency planning is based

on assumptions about potential events and based on prediction of previous events

which can cause significant consequences (AlShamsi & Pathirage, 2015; Choularton,

2007; Good, 2011).

Similarly, a highly significant (p0.000) association was found between the preparation

and availability of evacuation plan and vulnerability reduction. Findings of this study

179

support the results of a study conducted by Tamima & Chouinard (2012) on

framework for earthquake evacuation. The study suggests that evacuation planning

should consider the facilities, technology and resources. Evacuation uses a cyclical

mechanism. First evacuation warnings and directives needs to be transmitted to

communities before evacuation, then people should be guided on evacuation routes

and lastly they should be directed on where the evacuation centers are located (Xu,

2007). Kolen & Helsloot (2014) argued that evacuation planning needs a probabilistic

approach considering the uncertainties in decision making process as well as

forecasts, citizen‘s response and capacity of infrastructure. Dynes (2002) further

recommends that evacuation planners at the government level must recognize the

social networks and webbing. Social networks can be very effectively used for

managing evacuation, if properly identified and integrated with the evacuation plans.

Lee, Hong, & Lee (2019) are of the view that flood management and associated

directives has broadened the focus of flood management to consider the nonstructural

measures such as evacuation planning, communication and emergency response. The

nonstructural measures mentioned above is shift from traditional command and

control of water relationship with people and providing opportunities to recognize the

complexity between the two. Evacuation plan shall be made an integral part of the

national preparedness, contingency and local level CBDRM Plans. In addition to

evacuation plan, the local government can also develop CBDRM plans for each

community and village council. These CBDRM plans can be combined together and

each district council can easily develop their own district disaster management plan.

A significant (p0.002) association was found between CBDRM plan and vulnerability

reduction. Since communities are the direct beneficiary of vulnerability reduction

projects, CBDRM approach shall involve the local people in disaster risk reduction.

These plans can also be used as plan for public awareness and capacity building.

Public awareness and capacity building plans are directly associated with the

vulnerability reduction and a significant (p0.030) association was found between both

the variables. Community consultation, public awareness and preparation of a

community level plan provide opportunity to address vulnerabilities at the gross root

level. CBDRM planning promotes public awareness, build capacities and make

communities responsible citizens (ADPC and OXFAM, 2014). Salajegheh &

Pirmoradi (2013) state that CBDRM is people led and development orientated

approach. It empowers the local people at the community level to address the root

180

causes of vulnerability through transforming inequality in social, political and

economic structure of society.

Furthermore, mitigation plans ensure the reduction of disaster losses on communities

and critical infrastructure. A highly significant (p.000) association was found between

mitigation plans and vulnerability reduction. At the district and provincial level

mitigation plan doesn‘t exist in a concrete form but mitigation activities and actions

can be seen in the Irrigation, Health, C&W and Public Health Engineering

departments sectoral annual development programmes. Alongside mitigation,

retrofitting is another strategy to conduct alteration and modification in the already

constructed buildings. A highly significant (p0.000) association was also found

between retrofitting plans and vulnerability reduction. Through retrofitting

government can potentially reduce structural vulnerability of various types of critical

infrastructures. The National Disaster Management Plan explicitly directs the

PDMA‘s to conduct vulnerability assessment in different part of the country and

specify prevention and mitigation measures (Government of Pakistan, 2012). A study

conducted by Zeshan & Khan (2015) in Sialkot, Pakistan shows that mitigation

planning is directly correlated with vulnerability reduction and illustrates that

government intervention in disaster mitigation is negligible. Findings of this study are

consistent with another study conducted by Rafiq & Blaschke (2012) in Pakistan.

Their study reveals that hazard mitigation is crucially important for vulnerability

reduction as it save lives and reduces damages. Ahmed et al. (2016) suggest that

government initiatives should encourage mitigation measures such as flood water

harvesting and enhancing irrigation. Abbas (2016) in a comparative study on flood

management in Pakistan and Bangladesh found that Pakistan has not yet taken

effective measures to manage and mitigate disasters. The authors have attributed this

inadequacy to the missing link between policy formulation and disaster management

planning processes as well as lack of coordination and collaboration.

181

TABLE NO. 5.5.5: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR

DRR AND VULNERABILITY REDUCTION



Government has

allocated fund for

public awareness

regarding disaster

management.

Agree 0 (0.0%) 8 (72.7%) 3 (27.3%) 11

p=.006

χ2=14.503

Disagree 36

(13.2%)

66

(24.2%)

171

(62.6%)

273

Neutral 9 (9.0%) 25

(25.0%)

66 (66.0%) 100

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Local Government

Department has

allocated budget for

small community

based schemes

focusing on

preparedness.

Agree 35

(24.0%)

11 (7.5%) 100

(68.5%)

146

p=.000

χ2=95.188

Disagree 6 (4.4%) 69

(50.7%)

61 (44.9%) 136

Neutral 4 (3.9%) 19

(18.6%)

79 (77.5%) 102

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Government has spent

budget for the

establishment of

standard emergency

rescue services in my

area

Agree 35

(23.0%)

11 (7.2%) 106

(69.7%)

152

p=.000

χ2=84.384


(46.9%)

69 (46.9%) 147

Neutral 1 (1.2%) 19

(22.4%)

65 (76.5%) 85

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Government has


establishment of

standard early

warning system in my

area.

Agree 2 (40.0%) 3 (60.0%) 0 (0.0%) 5

p=.004

χ2=15.138

Disagree 42

(12.3%)

81

(23.8%)

218

(63.9%)

341

Neutral 1(2.6%) 15

(39.5%)

22 (57.9%) 38

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Government is

investing budget for

flood mitigation in

our area.

Agree 8 (5.7%) 19

(13.6%)

113

(80.7%)

140

p=.000

χ2=32.208

Disagree 27

(14.5%)

59

(31.7%)

100

(53.8%)

186

Neutral 10

(17.2%)

21

(36.2%)

27 (46.6%) 58

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Government has


earthquake

mitigation.

Agree 5 (45.5%) 4 (36.4%) 2 (18.2%) 11

p=.000

χ2=24.344

Disagree 40

(12.0%)

78

(23.5%)

214

(64.5%)

332

Neutral 0 (0.0%) 17

(41.5%)

24 (58.5%) 41

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Government is

investing sufficient

amount in landslide

Agree 1 (3.1%) 10

(31.3%)

21 (65.6%) 32 p=.000

χ2=51.324 Disagree 27 9 (11.3%) 44 (55.0%) 80

182

mitigation. (33.8%)

Neutral 17 (6.3%) 80

(29.4%)

175

(64.3%)

272

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Communities provide

financial (cash &

kind) support to the

disaster management

plan implementation

in our area.

Agree 13 (8.6%) 19

(12.6%)

119

(78.8%)

151

p=.000

χ2=31.317

Disagree 21

(12.4%)

56

(33.1%)

92 (54.4%) 169

Neutral 11

(17.2%)

24

(37.5%)

29 (45.3%) 64

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384


χ2 represents the value of chi square and symbol (p) represents the significance level)

Table No. 5.5.5 shows the association between budget allocation and vulnerability

reduction. Dedicated budget allocation for disaster risk reduction contributes to

welfare of vulnerable communities and population. Ex ante budgeting for risk

reduction enhance savings by mitigating the negative impacts of disaster as well as

promote preparedness and pre-disaster commitment for emergency response

management, relief and recovery operations. Government can allocate and spend

budget on public awareness; community based schemes focusing on preparedness and

mitigation; establishment of rescue services and early warning system and mitigation

of disaster. Above table indicates that a significant (p.006) association between

budget/fund allocation for public awareness and vulnerability reduction. At the

moment budget allocation for public awareness is very limited in the study area and

requires strong commitment of the government to promote culture of disaster risk

reduction through public awareness and communication. Dedicated budget for

awareness and dissemination of information through multiple means improve the

level of understanding of the vulnerable communities. Regarding budget allocation by

local government for small scale community based schemes and vulnerability

reduction, a highly significant (p.000) association was found. This means, local

government at the district level and provincial government at the provincial level shall

allocate more budgets for vulnerability reduction and involve the local communities

in the study area in implementation of these schemes and projects. The National

Disaster Management Act 2010 directs the National Disaster Management

Commission to arrange and oversee funding for mitigation, preparedness and

response measures (Alam, 2015). National Disaster Risk Management Framework

183

(NDRMF) of Pakistan has identified nine priority areas and priority number three is

particularly talking about public awareness, education and training (Government of

Pakistan, 2007b). This signifies the importance of public awareness in the country.

Heo, Park, & Heo (2018) in their study in Korea propose that adequate funding for

public awareness and education can enhance vulnerability reduction at the local level.

In this regard, the local government department and elected representative can play a

crucial role to allocate budget for public awareness and small scale community based

schemes. A study conducted by Warner, Bouwer, & Ammann (2007) found similar

results regarding allocation of funds for small scale community based schemes and

vulnerability reduction. The authors have evaluated the El Salvador‘s Social

Protection Funds. The study findings revels that social investment fund enhanced the

capacity of the poor people and the fund provided resources for small scale

construction work such as adjustment of structure to extreme weather events and

retrofitting of houses. The methodology employed was efficient and contributed to

damage prevention and widened community based civic actions.

Furthermore, a highly significant (p.000) association was found between spending

budget on the establishment of standard emergency rescue services and vulnerability

reduction. Although government has established Rescue 1122 in District Swat,

District Nowshera and District Charsadda but it is not fully equipped as rescue 1122

Punjab province. These results support the finding of another study by Javaeed et al.

(2018) in Rawalpindi Pakistan. The study found that government allocation towards

emergency services is having positive impact on vulnerability reduction of the

victims. Besides, the authors further identified that allocation of budget towards

emergency services is insufficient at the moment. At the same time there are

inequalities in resource distribution for emergency services between rural and urban

areas. Rural areas are more disadvantaged as compared to urban areas. A study

conducted by Akram & Khan (2007) reported that emergency health sector in rural

area is regressive while in urban area it is progressive. Non-availability or limited

availability of emergency services poses significant threat to the survival of the

victims. Moreover, the non availability of emergency services limit the survival of

injured people during disaster (Zia et al., 2015). Mehmood, Khan, & Khursheed

(2012) are of the view that emergency departments in the existing primary, secondary

and tertiary care hospitals are overcrowded. These overcrowded emergency

184

departments are at severe stress during a disaster and sometimes patient‘s accessibility

to emergency care is becomes a challenging task.

Similarly, a significant (p0.004) association was found between allocation of budget

for standard early warning system and vulnerability reduction. Continuous

monitoring, forecasting and early warning save lives and reduce the mortality

chances. At the moment a very weak early warning system exist in the study area and

government should spend and allocate budget for its revamping and strengthening.

Shafiq & Ahsan (2014) in a study on ICTs based early warning system in Pakistan

reported that allocation of insufficient budget is a major hurdle in establishing a

standard multi-hazard early warning system. Kusumasari, Alam, & Siddiqui (2010)

are the view that planning, training and logistics management are the basic

requirement for better preparedness. These requirements are necessary for early

warning system. End to end and user friendly early warning system undertake risk

assessment through systematic data collection, establish monitoring and early warning

services by employing sophisticated technology and communicate early warning

messages through multiple means and a culturally compatible manner. In Pakistan,

Federal Flood Division (FFD) covers the entire Indus Basin but catchment area of

River Swat and Kabul are beyond the coverage of current weather radars. Catchment

area of river Kabul and Swat experienced severe human and economic losses in 2010

floods ( Ahmad, 2015). It is imperative that government should allocate sufficient

fund to establish multi-hazard warning system in catchment area of river Kabul and

Swat. This will subsequently reduce the vulnerability of people in District Swat,

Nowshera and Charsadda through access to accurate information about occurrence of

disasters.

Besides, spending on these preparedness aspects, government also need to allocate

and spend more budget on disaster mitigation. The study data shows a highly

significant (p.000) association between allocation of budget for flood mitigation and

vulnerability reduction. Likewise, highly significant (p.000) association was found

between allocation of budget for earthquake mitigation and vulnerability reduction.

Regarding, budget allocation for landslide mitigation and vulnerability reduction,

above tables further shows a highly significant (p.000) association with vulnerability

reduction. In the study area, except spending on small scale project, government has

not allocated budget for major mitigation projects. Through structural mitigation

projects like construction of earthquake resistant buildings and infrastructure;

185

construction of flood protection walls and integrating land stabilization with road

construction etc. prevent and reduces the actual damage from various hazards.

Similarly, spending budget on land use practices, zoning and training of construction

experts on building codes may save money on avoiding faulty construction and

development practices in vulnerable areas. Such type of mitigation practices will

surely pay direct dividend to community when disaster strikes. A study conducted by

Ahmad et al. (2014) reveals that Pakistan lack mechanism for risk reduction

especially in area if early warning system, rapid response and pre-financing of risk

(insurance and disaster mitigation). Phaup & Kirschner (2010) are of the view that

budgeting for disaster risk reduction contributes to fiscal stability over the long term.

Dedicated budgeting for risk reduction reduces public exposure, save lives, increase

national savings and mitigate disaster losses. National Institute of Building Sciences,

USA in a recent study found that every dollar spent on mitigation saves six dollar

(Schneider, 2018). This mean mitigation not only protects lives and reduces damages

to building but it also save investment.

Furthermore, a highly significant (p0.000) association was also found between

community driven financial support (cash and kind) to the implementation of disaster

management plans and vulnerability reduction. Local communities in the study area

have a high spirit of volunteerism for humanitarian works and government can tap

these resources for vulnerability reduction in the study area. In this regard, formation

of village disaster management committees will be having beneficial impacts to

involve more people in risk reduction. The finding of this statement is consistent with

the findings of a study conducted by Zeshan (2016) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. For

example, the study found that local community actively contributed in the form of 30

% cash/kind grant provision in Sarhad Rural Support Programme led early recovery

and restoration projects after 2009 militancy crises in Malakand region and post 2010

floods early recovery initiatives in District Peshawar, Charsadda and Nowshera.

186

TABLE NO. 5.5.6: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PROCESS OF

IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND EVALUATION AND

VULNERABILITY REDUCTION



Vulnerability

reduction plans are

implemented by the

local communities.

Agree 1 (7.7%) 8

(61.5%)

4

(30.8%) 13

p=.004

χ2=15.434

Disagree 39

(14.4%)

64

(23.7%)

167

(61.9%) 270

Neutral 5 (5.0%) 27

(26.7%)

69

(68.3%) 101

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%) 384

Well reputed

contractors have been

hired by government

for physical

infrastructure

projects in our area.

Agree 2

(10.0%)

4

(20.0%)

14

(70.0%)

20

p=.130

χ2=.889

Disagree 30

(12.1%)

67

(27.1%)

150

(60.7%)

247

Neutral 13

(11.1%)

28

(23.9%)

76

(65.0%)

117

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Govt officials are

regularly monitoring

the progress on both

structural and non-

structural projects

related to

vulnerability

reduction.

Agree 3 (2.6%) 36

(31.3%)

76

(66.1%)

115

p=.003

χ2=15.702

Disagree 31

(16.3%)

48

(25.3%)

111

(58.4%)

190

Neutral 11

(13.9%)

15

(19.0%)

53

(67.1%)

79

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Local Communities

have been involved

in monitoring and

implementation

processes of major

projects

Agree 5

(45.5%)

4

(36.4%)

2

(18.2%)

11

p=.000

χ2=24.344

Disagree 40

(12.0%)

78

(23.5%)

214

(64.5%)

332

Neutral 0 (0.0%) 17

(41.5%)

24

(58.5%)

41

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Local Community

has access to take

part in evaluation of

vulnerability

reduction projects

Agree 3

(33.3%)

4

(44.4%)

2

(22.2%)

9

p=.002

χ2=17.491

Disagree 42

(12.7%)

77

(23.3%)

212

(64.0%)

331

Neutral 0 (0.0%) 18

(40.9%)

26

(59.1%)

44

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384


Symbol χ2 represents the value of chi square and symbol (P) represents the

significance level)

187

Table No. 5.5.6 depict association between process of implementation, monitoring

and evaluation and vulnerability reduction. Project implementation starts after the

allocation of budget. Project implementation includes written agreements with

partners, effective financial mechanism and clear roles and responsibilities for all

stakeholders in implementation process. Similarly, monitoring and evaluation provide

opportunity to learn about the progress, correct the mistakes if any and anticipate risk

for necessary modification into the project plan. Government has its own mechanism

of project implementation. Implementation starts from issuing tender and scrutiny of

bids to select a firm for practical implementation of a project. Since this process is

very technical and beyond the capacity of the general public. In this regard, the

researcher has narrowed the scope of implementation and monitoring only to

participation of the local communities in implementation process. Government

procedures in the study provide opportunity to general public to take part in

monitoring and evaluation but this is only limited to written aspects of the

development projects and missing in practice. Above table shows that a significant

(p0.004) association exists between the implementation of plans and projects by local

communities and vulnerability reduction. This means that government shall ensure the

participation of local communities in vulnerability reduction plans and projects

implementation in the study area. Participatory approach to implementation is not

limited only to the community level and project can‘t be implemented without the

active support of the government. In Pakistan, the National DRR policy directs the

government to adopt a community driven approach to disaster risk management. The

policy state the CBDRM formwork should be adapted and refined both at the

provincial and district level (NDMA, 2013 & 2015). The finding of this statement

regarding participatory implementation is consistent with the results of another study

conducted by di Girasole & Cannatella (2017) in Dominican Republic. For example

the study states that local community involvement in implementation of strategies

lead to a culture of safety and resilience. The evolution of disaster management

practices from top-down relief and response approach to a community based inter

sectoral risk management approach has provide opportunity to social scientists to

view disaster risk as manifestation of unresolved problems of development. This

paradigm provides opportunity to social sciences and risk reduction agencies to

address the problems of the local people by actively engaging them in vulnerability

reduction initiative (Yodmani, 2001). Participatory approaches to DRR helps identify

188

local vulnerabilities and prioritize adaptive capacities of the community and local

institutions for successful implementation of DRR projects and plans (Chaudhury,

2017).

Regarding, hiring of well reputed contractors for implementation of physical

infrastructure projects and vulnerability reduction a non significant (p.130)

association was found. The reason for non significant association is entire dependency

of the project is on planning, decision making, budget allocation, monitoring and

evaluation mechanism. If these aspects are strong and everything has been clearly

defined, definitely government will hire suitable contractors to implement projects.

Furthermore, a significant (p0.003) association was found between government

officials monitoring of progress on both structural and non-structural projects and

vulnerability reduction. Majority of the respondents at the community level said that

they have not observed the government officials during monitoring of various projects

related to DRR. Government is having its own Directorate of Monitoring and

Evaluation (M&E) at the provincial level and each subsidiary organ of government

has M&E section. Officials working in these section and directorate should actively

conduct monitoring and evaluation of both structural and non-structural projects.

Furthermore, local communities‘ involvement is also necessary in monitoring and

evaluation as they are direct beneficiaries of such projects and they have the basic

right to ask where their hard earn tax money has been spent and how it has been spent.

Above table signify a highly significant (p0.000) association between local

community involvement in monitoring process and vulnerability reduction. Not only

monitoring but local community involvement in evaluation of the vulnerability

reduction projects make the government officials accountable and guarantee

transparency and accountability. In this context, a significant (p0.002) association was

found between local community access to take part in evaluation of projects and

vulnerability reduction. Ofosu & Ntiamoah (2016) in a study on community

participation in monitoring and evaluation of projects in Ghana illustrated that

community participation is having direct correlation with the successful

implementation of development projects. It ensures transparency and accountability

and lead to reduction of vulnerabilities. In another study by Iddi & Nuhu (2018)

reported that community participation in monitoring and evaluation of physical

infrastructure projects is important as it contribute to the sustainability of such

projects and reduce vulnerabilities. Participation in monitoring and evaluation process

189

can guarantee legitimacy of the projects, create networks and the process is rewarding

as it reduces conflict of interest between stakeholders (Matsiliza, 2012). A study

conducted by Davis (2004) concluded that setting performance targets in monitoring

and evaluation process for the safety and risk reduction is a viable solution to coherent

disaster risk management. According to Soransora (2013) development and disaster

risk reduction benefits can‘t reach to the poor and marginalized communities unless

they control decision making process practically through participation. Through

genuine participation in monitoring and evaluation, the DRM projects will directly

benefit the vulnerable population.

TABLE NO. 5.5.7: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PEOPLE CANTED

APPROACH AND VULNERABILITY REDUCTION



Government is

considering

community

participation as a pre-

requisite in

vulnerability

reduction Projects.

Agree 3

(50.0%)

2

(33.3%)

1

(16.7%)

6

p=.005

χ2=14.673

Disagree 38

(11.2%)

81

(24.0%)

219

(64.8%)

338

Neutral 4

(10.0%)

16

(40.0%)

20

(50.0%)

40

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Volunteers have been

involved in disaster

mitigation,

preparedness and

emergency response

activities

Agree 26

(12.5%)

30

(14.4%)

152

(73.1%)

208

p=.000

χ2=55.362

Disagree 12

(14.5%)

45

(54.2%)

26

(31.3%)

83

Neutral 7

(7.5%)

24

(25.8%)

62

(66.7%)

93

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Regular rehearsal and

drills regarding

emergency response

management are

conducted in our area

Agree 19

(13.6%)

17

(12.1%)

104

(74.3%)

140

p=.000

χ2=34.344

Disagree 19

(14.6%)

52

(40.0%)

59

(45.4%)

130

Neutral 7

(6.1%)

30

(26.3%)

77

(67.5%)

114

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Gender sensitive

interventions have

been made in all

phases of vulnerability

reduction

Agree 1

(7.1%)

1

(7.1%)

12

(85.7%)

14

p=.000

χ2=38.241 Disagree 42

(12.2%)

79

(22.9%)

224

(64.9%)

345

Neutral 2 19 4 25

190

(8.0%) (76.0%) (16.0%)

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Government is

supporting the local

communities in

utilization of

traditional local

knowledge about

disasters

Agree 7

(10.0%)

8

(11.4%)

55

(78.6%)

70

p=.007

χ2=14.236

Disagree 28

(12.2%)

73

(31.7%)

129

(56.1%)

230

Neutral 10

(11.9%)

18

(21.4%)

56

(66.7%)

84

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384


Symbol χ2 represents the value of chi square and symbol (P) represents the

significance level)

Table No. 5.5.7 portrays the association between people canted approach and

vulnerability reduction. Disaster management is a decentralized subject and requires

active participation of the local communities. People centered vulnerability reduction

activities are cost effectives and sustainable. A significant (p.005) association was

found between the government consideration of community participation as a pre-

requisite in disaster related projects and vulnerability reduction. Community

participation in vulnerability reduction projects are a serious challenge for the

government in the study area. Majority officers working in disaster management

institutions lack capacity to adopt a bottom-up approach and keep the statuesque

aside. Moreover, a highly significant (p.000) association was found between

involvement of volunteers in disaster preparedness, mitigation and emergency

response activities and vulnerability reduction. It has been observed that volunteers in

District Swat, Charsadda and Nowshera have worked alongside government agencies

in emergency management activities. Participation of local community in disaster

preparedness and emergency response lead to operational readiness of public sector

offices and they can conduct regular rehearsals and drills at the local level. In this

context a highly significant (p.000) association was found between conduction of

regular rehearsal and drills and vulnerability reduction. Findings of above statements

are consistent with studies conducted by Cadag & Gaillard (2012; Cronin et al.,

(2004); Fordham (1999) & Gaillard, 2010). Shi et al., (2018) in another study in

China concluded that willingness to work as volunteer in emergency event has

191

effectively contributed to action oriented approach to emergency management.

Citizen participation in disaster preparedness, mitigation and managing emergency

response is a key principal of resilience building and vulnerability reduction.

However, mostly emergency and disaster management authorities rely on professional

work force and volunteer affiliated with these official agencies. Volunteers outside the

system are often tended as liability and their efforts are not valued. Keeping in view

the unprecedented rise in disasters, population growth and climate change challenges,

it is imperative that these informal volunteers shall be considered as surge capacity

and shall be involved more actively in disaster risk reduction. Civil protection

institutions require adapting itself to the changing environment of using information

and communication technology to map out all volunteers in the study area. In this

regard online platforms need to be provided where citizens can register themselves as

volunteer without being a member of the organization (Schmidt et al., 2018). Besides,

civil protection institutions can establish networked governance to include citizens in

disaster risk management (Waldman et al., 2018). Moreover, continuous rehearsal and

drills is considered a good strategy to reduce vulnerabilities and enhance preparedness

mechanism at the local and national level. Above table indicate a highly significant

(p.000) association of vulnerability reduction with rehearsal and drills. During an

emergency, managers and team working on the ground experience various stresses.

Rehearsal and drills develop capacity of emergency management officials to deal with

environmental, organizational and operational stressor. The primary objective of

rehearsal and drills is the orderly evacuation during an emergency situation. Rehearsal

and drills test the system as a whole and provide opportunity to identify gaps and

challenges in the emergency management mechanism (Dube, 2015). The finding of

this statement supports the results of a study conducted by Kim (2013) in Korea. For

example Kim‘s study reveals that rehearsal and drills allow adaptation of emergency

managers and local communities to changing circumstances due to disaster event and

provide opportunity to review the operational and management mechanisms and

promote individual and organizational learning.

Furthermore, a highly significant (p.000) association was found between gender

sensitive interventions and vulnerability reduction. Women and girls in the study area

are at greater risk from disasters than men. Male members can acquire knowledge and

information from various sources within the community and outside community.

Besides, majority of the training programmes of government and NGOs was focusing

192

on the involvement of male members and didn‘t provide equal opportunity of learning

and training to women. Expected role of women in disaster risk reduction can‘t be

seen due to their socio-political marginalization. Mostly their voices go unheard in

decision making and development of vulnerability reduction policies and plans. The

findings of this statement are consistent with a study conducted by Sadia et al.,(2016)

at Nowshera, Pakistan. The study explore that a comprehensive examination of

differential vulnerability on the basis of gender need to be conducted and concluded

that women vulnerabilities can be decreased through education and adapting a gender

sensitive approach to disaster risk reduction. Ariyabandu & Fonseka (2009) in a study

on Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004 and Kashmir earthquake 2005 found that hazards

do not discriminate in impacts on various group, classes and individual but the

existing socio-economic, political and institutional structure of society make the

impact more severe on individuals and groups. Women, children, aged people and

disable people are more susceptible to the impact of disaster due to their socio-

cultural and political marginalization.

Likewise, a significant (p.007) association was found between utilization of

traditional local knowledge about disaster and vulnerability reduction. Traditional

practices like land stabilization through planting, rain water harvesting in ponds and

harvesting fruits before windy/rainy seasons can be further strengthen through

scientific and engineer knowledge. Hiwasaki, Luna, & Shaw (2014) in a study

explored that indigenous local knowledge helped many communities across the world

to survive disasters and social sciences have documented it at various part of the

world. Dekens (2007) in a study in Chitral found that local communities are applying

centuries old traditional knowledge about occurrence of disasters. The local

community uses whistling and shouting as warning to downstream communities

during floods. The nomads on the higher grounds near glaciers light fire when they

observe glacier outburst floods. It is common early warning between nomads and

people living downstream to take precautions. Besides, folklores, poetry and stories of

past disasters are used as communication of information to the younger generation.

193

TABLE NO. 5.5.8: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

MECHANISM, DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVES AND VULNERABILITY

REDUCTION



Protective

evacuation has

been conducted

by government in

past disasters.

Agree 10

(8.3%)

27

(22.5%)

83

(69.2%)

120

p=.000

χ2=67.198

Disagree 31

(14.8%)

34

(16.3%)

144

(68.9%)

209

Neutral 4

(7.3%)

38

(69.1%)

13

(23.6%)

55

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Relief camps

have been

established by

government

during the past

disasters.

Agree 34

(11.9%)

51

(17.8%)

201

(70.3%)

286

p=.000

χ2=65.212

Disagree 9

(11.1%)

48

(59.3%)

24

(29.6%)

81

Neutral 2

(11.8%)

0

(0.0%)

15

(88.2%)

17

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Relief items have

been provided by

government to

the victims of

disasters.

Agree 35

(20.1%)

30

(17.2%)

109

(62.6%)

174

p=.000

χ2=38.688

Disagree 8

(4.4%)

67

(36.6%)

108

(59.0%)

183

Neutral 2

(7.4%)

2

(7.4%)

23

(85.2%)

27

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Affected

population has

been

compensated

through cash

grant

Agree 41

(12.2%)

79

(23.4%)

217 (64.4%) 337

p=.000

χ2=22.150


(64.0%)

9 (36.0%) 25

Neutral 4 (18.2%) 4 (18.2%) 14 (63.6%) 22

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240 (62.5%) 384

Social protection

of women,

children, old age,

disable etc has

been ensured

during

emergencies

Agree 19

(22.9%)

11

(13.3%)

53

(63.9%)

83

p=.000

χ2=32.741

Disagree 19

(7.3%)

86

(32.8%)

157

(59.9%)

262

Neutral 7

(17.9%)

2

(5.1%)

30

(76.9%)

39

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

People have been Agree 41 75 204 320 p=.011

194

supported in

repatriation to

their areas after

emergencies

(12.8%) (23.4%) (63.7%) χ2=13.071

Disagree 2

(9.1%)

4

(18.2%)

16

(72.7%)

22

Neutral 2

(4.8%)

20

(47.6%)

20

(47.6%)

42

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Moveable shelter

was provided by

government to

the affected

people during the

rehabilitation

stage

Agree 31

(11.4%)

83

(30.4%)

159

(58.2%)

273

p=.010

χ2=13.249

Disagree 11

(15.9%)

11

(15.9%)

47

(68.1%)

69

Neutral 3

(7.1%)

5

(11.9%)

34

(81.0%)

42

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Basic facilities

were temporarily

repaired by

government to

ensure

facilitation of

communities

during

rehabilitation

phase

Agree 41

(12.2%)

94

(28.1%)

200

(59.7%)

335

p=.047

χ2=9.657

Disagree 2

(6.7%)

4

(13.3%)

24

(80.0%)

30

Neutral 2

(10.5%)

1

(5.3%)

16

(84.2%)

19

Total

45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Government

assisted

communities in

recovery phase in

hazard resistant

reconstruction.

Agree 1

(33.3%)

1

(33.3%)

1

(33.3%)

3

p=.000

χ2=26.444

Disagree 40

(11.6%)

77

(22.3%)

229

(66.2%)

346

Neutral 4

(11.4%)

21

(60.0%)

10

(28.6%)

35

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Government

facilitated and

supported local

people in

employment,

livelihoods &

agriculture in

post disaster

recovery

initiatives

Agree 19

(20.4%)

12

(12.9%)

62

(66.7%)

93

p=.000

χ2=34.058

Disagree 19

(7.7%)

85

(34.4%)

143

(57.9%)

247

Neutral 7

(15.9%)

2

(4.5%)

35

(79.5%)

44

Total

45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384

Government

launched skill

trainings

Agree 2

(9.5%)

7

(33.3%)

12

(57.1%)

21 p=.000

χ2=20.202 Disagree 35 67 209 311

195

programme to

ensure social

protection of

affected people

(11.3%) (21.5%) (67.2%)

Neutral 8

(15.4%)

25

(48.1%)

19

(36.5%)

52

Total 45

(11.7%)

99

(25.8%)

240

(62.5%)

384


χ2 represents the value of chi square and symbol (P) represents the significance level)

Table No. 5.5.8 explore the association between emergency management mechanism,

disaster recovery operations and vulnerability reduction. Emergency management and

post disaster recovery is totally dependents on the operational readiness of civil

protection institutions like NDMA, PDMA, DDMU and Emergency Rescue Services

1122. Onset of a disaster is test time to activate the emergency preparedness and

response plan. For activation of emergency response system, civil protection

institutions are dependent on technical institutes like metereological department who

have the basic job of hazard detection, monitoring, forecasting and generating

warning. With the issuance of early warning messages, precautionary measures are

communicated to local communities on print, electronic and social media platforms. If

the threat level is high, consequently governments conduct protective evacuation.

Protective evacuation helps people to stay away from disaster site and reduces

casualties. In the context of this study a highly significant (p.000) association was

found between protective evacuation and vulnerability reduction. The finding of this

statement is supporting a similar study conducted by Shah et al., (2018) in Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. For example, the study found that evacuation is an integral

part of the emergency management and require clearly designated routes and sites. In

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa protective evacuation is a major challenge both for

communities and government. Designated spaces for evacuation has not yet identified

and local communities lack knowledge on safe routes to evacuation sites. This

phenomenon further enhanced the vulnerability of the people during disaster

especially during floods in the past. Aslam (2018) while analyzing the current status,

challenges and future prospects of flood management in Pakistan is of the view that

risk reduction strategies should provide about evacuation procedure to transform

knowledge into practical actions. Crichton, Ramsay, & Kelly (2009) are of the view

that evacuation site map and clearly designated evacuation routes are essential for

effective emergency response management.

196

Moreover, a highly significant (p.000) association was found between establishment

of relief camps in post disaster situation and vulnerability reduction. It is encouraging

to observe that in past emergencies government established relief camps for the

victims of disasters. Besides, a highly significant association (p.000) was also found

between provision of relief items and vulnerability reduction. Majority of the people

in study area lost their precious belongings in disasters and were in dire need of food

items, nonfood items and medicine. Relief camps in emergency situation play a vital

role in provision of safe and secure places for victims of disaster to live and help them

recover from post traumatic stress disorder as well as provide a base for follow-up

rehabilitation (Bashawri, Garrity, & Moodley, 2014). The National Disaster

Management Authority has developed guidelines for minimum standard of relief

provision in the relief camps in relation to food, shelter, drinking water, sanitation and

health for the person affected by disaster (NDMA, 2017b). Although it was a

requirement of the National Disaster management Act 2010 and with a gape of seven

years the NDMA developed these guidelines as per the directive of section 11 of the

national Act (Gazette of Pakistan, 2010). These policy level guidelines are minimum

standards required during humanitarian response and direct the provincial, divisional

and district administration as well as the NGO‘s regarding the efficient administration

of relief camps, ensuring minimum standards of relief. These guidelines on minimum

standard on relief and camp management are in line with international minimum

human right standards for reliefs i.e. SPHERE standards and Camp Coordination

Camp Management Toolkit and have been contextualized to Pakistan (NDMA,

2017b).

Camps establishment and provision of relief items do not suffice the need of the

victims of disaster but they need cash compensation as well for reconstruction of their

houses. A highly significant (p.000) association was found between the provision of

cash grants and vulnerability reduction. Majority of the people in the study area have

been compensated through cash grants by government after disasters. The study

findings are consistent with another study conducted by Ali (2018) on cash transfer

programme in disaster in Pakistan. The study states that after the earthquake 2005, the

government of Pakistan initiated the Cash Transfer Programme. Between 2008 and

2010 around three million people were displaced due to militancy and ongoing war on

terror and were compensated with cash. In post floods 2010, Pakistan continued the

197

cash transfer programmes and provided cash relief for shelter to 1.5 million people. In

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, the PDMA provided financial assistant to the victims

of insurgency crises, floods 2010 and earthquake 2015. Only in flood 2010 cash

compensation amounting 5.5 billion rupees was provided to 274984 beneficiaries

through WATAN Card in the first phase and 260,000 families were facilitated

through cash transfer in second phase and an amount of 10.54 billion rupees was

distributed amongst flood victims (PDMA, 2012).

Furthermore, a highly significant (p.000) association was found between social

protection of women, children, old age, disable etc. and vulnerability reduction. These

are the most vulnerable groups and intensity of impact can be very high on them. For

example women can face problem of harassment, children can be trafficked, old age

people can face problems in access to adequate food and medicine and disable people

can lose their mobility devices. Such type of impacts can worsen the life of these

vulnerable groups. A study conducted by Sami et al., (2009) reported that the number

of injuries amongst of female and children were higher during earthquake 2005. Sadia

et al., (2016) reported that 485,000 pregnant women were affected by flood during

2010 and 2013 and were in need of expert obstetric care. Moreover, Bukhari & Rizvi

(2015) in their study on flood impacts on women concluded that poor living condition

for women in relief camps affected their physical and emotional health. It is essential

that gender sensitive interventions shall be made in future to reduce the vulnerability

of affected people during an emergency situation.

Furthermore, regarding support in the repatriation process after emergency situation, a

significant (p.011) association was found with the vulnerability reduction. It has been

observed that government supported the victims of disaster in repatriation to their

native towns and provided transport facilities. In addition, a significant (p0.010)

association was found between provision of moveable shelter during rehabilitation

and vulnerability reduction. Similarly, a significant (p0.047) association was found

between the temporary repair of basic facilities during rehabilitation and vulnerability

reduction. Basic facilities like schools, roads, markets, water supply and access

bridges requires immediate repair when the people start repatriating to their native

towns after emergency. Rehabilitation is considered a transitionary period between

emergency and recovery. Rehabilitation activities are more effective when local

communities are involved through cash for work and food for work programmes.

198

Many success stories are available from Pakistan and across the world where cash and

food for work programmes have been used for employment generation and recovery

from traumatic stress. For example, Pakistan Red Crescent launched Cash for Work

programme in Muzaffarabd, Pakistan helped communities in restoration and

rehabilitation of watermills and canals in 2007. Similarly, to strengthen community‘s

livelihood and economic productivity Pakistan Red Crescent involved local

communities in construction of trasitionary shelter and latrine in Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa through conditional cash grants (Amin, 2008). Lasoona a local civil

society organization based in District Swat in collaboration with district Local

Government Department involved more than 200 local people for 22 days to work on

desiltation of a major water channel known as ―KHAIREE KAKA NEHHER‖. The

channel is lifeline for the people of the area and it was affected by 2010 floods. The

channel water is not only used water for irrigation but also used for domestic use and

a source of water for livestock. Commitment of the local community and provision of

conditional cash by Lasoona made it possible to resume water supply to 11 villages in

District Swat (Lasoona, 2011).

Correspondingly, a highly significant (p.000) association was found between hazard

resistant reconstructions in recovery phase and vulnerability reduction. Disasters on

one side affect the people and setback development but at the same time disaster also

creates opportunities to design strategies for resilient development in recovery

intervention. After mega disasters, government and communities have to start their

lives on a clean slate. This is the best time to start hazard resistant reconstruction and

mainstream risk and vulnerability with the recovery initiatives. Unfortunately, such

practices were not conducted in the study area in post disaster recovery especially

after flood 2010 and earthquake 2015 which worsened the vulnerability of the local

communities to disasters. Lodi et al., (2016) in a comparative study on Pakistan‘

experiences in earthquake rehabilitation and reconstruction reported that after 2005

earthquake, Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA)

mobilized 600 teams and trained 8400 people on seismic and earthquake resistant

reconstruction in Hazara region and Kashmir. Low cost houses were designed for

private houses and cash grant provision was made mandatory with the inclusion of

safe houses reconstruction guidelines. This approach reduced future earthquake

vulnerability of thousand of population. The study also support another study

199

conducted by Xu & Lu (2012) in China on Wenchuan earthquake recovery and

reconstruction. The study reveals that through systematic and comprehensive planning

and reconstruction, the recovery efforts has made remarkable achievements in term of

vulnerability reduction through hazard resistant reconstruction. Bilau, Witt, & Lill,

(2015) further articulate that construction innovation in post disaster recovery

positively contribute to disaster resilience and mitigate the impact of disasters and

climate change.

Besides, a highly significant (p.000) association was found between government

support in employment, livelihood and agriculture and vulnerability reduction. This

component was also undermined by the government agencies in recovery phase and

sufficient support was not extended to local people. Shahbaz et al., (2012) in a study

on Swat, Pakistan reported that the loss of agricultural tools, seeds, livestock, access

to farms and local employment due to disasters cruelly impacted the wellbeing of the

local people. Shah et al., (2018) in a study on household vulnerability to flood hazard

in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa concluded that through employment, diversification of

livelihoods, education and skill training vulnerability to flood can be reduced and

adaptive capacities of the household can be improved. Similarly, a highly significant

(p.000) association was found between skill trainings programmes in disaster

recovery and vulnerability reduction. Proper skill trainings were not provided to

unskilled and unemployed population in the recovery activities in the study area.

Through skill training government can reduce unemployment ratio and it is also

considered a therapeutic strategy for post traumatic stress disorder. Dorosh, Malik, &

Krausova (2010) in a study on 2010 Pakistan flood has recommends that enhancing

skills through training and capacity building specifically in hazard reconstruction

technology can upgrade future workforce. Moreover, the study suggests that provision

of seeds, agriculture utensils, livestock, adaptation of farming techniques to local

environment and introducing multiple crops production will reduce future

vulnerabilities through enhanced earning and economic protection. He (2019) in a

study in Nepal on local needs identification for post disaster recovery concluded that

local communities prefer to resettle in safe locations and have access to farmland and

cash jobs that leads towards productive lifestyle. In this context it is necessary to

design post disaster recovery as per people demands and needs.

200

5.6. Conclusion/Synthesis of Chapter

On the basis of quantitative data it is concluded that 43 % respondents have been

affected by flash floods, 98.7% by riverine floods, 73.4 % earthquake and 23.4 % by

landsliding. These disasters have affected both life and properties of the local

communities in the study area. 75.3 % respondents have lost their houses and

property, 55.4% experienced injuries to self or family members, 50.3 % lost their

livelihoods and 28.6 % respondents lost family members due to disasters in the study

area. The study has established highly significant and significant association of

vulnerability with the legal and institutional framework; risk knowledge, education

and understating risk factors; process of planning and decision making; availability of

disaster preparedness and mitigation plans; budget allocation; process of

implementation, monitoring and evaluation; people centered approach and

effectiveness of the system in emergency management and post disaster recovery. The

study found that disaster management policies are not multi-hazard in nature and

doesn‘t establish a sound mechanism for effective DRR in the province. Local

communities are not satisfied with the role of disaster management authorities as they

have failed to ensure community participation and resilience in order to reduce

vulnerabilities. None of the district has developed risk sensitive land use planning

policy neither the provincial government has prepared one. Building code policy does

exist but lack proper implementation. Secondly, the building code policy only focuses

on seismic risk and that too is limited to the public sector buildings only. Lack of the

standard early warning system is putting lives of millions of population at risk each

year. Local community voices are not ensured in the planning and implementation

level in DRR related projects. Political interference is very high in diversion of funds

as well as relief items and most deserving areas and people are left out of the benefits

of such projects. Very limited budget is allocated for DRR in the province. People

centered vulnerability reduction activities are cost effectives and sustainable but it is a

serious challenge for the government in the study area. Majority officers working in

disaster management institutions lack capacity to adopt a bottom-up approach and

ensure public safety by reducing disaster risk.

201

CHAPTER NO 06

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1. Summary of Major Findings:

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province has been affected by a multitude of disasters in the

recent past. The province is not only vulnerable to natural hazards like earthquakes,

floods, landsliding etc. but has been affected by complex emergencies (terrorism,

insurgency and sectarian violence) as well. The study is the outcome of data collected

from 30 government officials through In-depth Interview Checklist and 9 focus group

discussion with communities (for qualitative data database of the study) along with

384 structured (closed ended) interviews with the community level respondents (for

quantitative database of the study). Study findings unveil that majority of the people

have been affected by disasters. Univariate data reveals that 98.7 %, 73.3%, 43.4%

and 64.4 % respondents were affected by the riverine flood, earthquake, flash flood

and fire respectively. These disasters caused multiple losses and impacts on the local

people i.e. loss of family members (28.6%), injuries (55.4%), loss of house and

property (75.5%) livelihoods (50.3%) and business damages (11.5%). Poor,

marginalized, disable, children and women remained the direct victims of disasters.

The study has identified multiple socio-economic and physical factors that have

negatively affected vulnerability in the study area. Social factors include unequal

participation in decision making (91.4%), gender base discrimination (78.9%) and

social stratification (84.1%). Economic factors causing vulnerability of the inhabitants

of the province are poverty (90.4%), unemployment (78.1%) and high level of

dependency (88.8%). Physical/geographical factors that have increased the exposure

and vulnerability are fragile environment (90.4%), adobe houses (98.4%) and

encroachment (91.4%). Similarly, fatalistic attitudes towards disaster are also

negatively affecting behavioral actions to reduce vulnerability.

Governance mechanism dealing with disaster vulnerability reduction is still very weak

despite the enactment of legal and policy framework for DRR. Majority (i.e. 63.8%)

community level respondents reported that disaster related policies implementation is

202

not reducing their vulnerability albeit a highly significant association (p.000) has been

found between implementation of policies and vulnerability reduction. Qualitative

data analysis further explored that government policies still roam around management

of incidents and its comprehensiveness is questionable. Another majority (i.e. 66.4%)

respondent was of the view that disaster management institutions and authorities have

not played its due role in vulnerability reduction. Research participants unveiled that

focus of government is still reactive and a paradigm shift is yet to take place.

Government has promulgated various acts dealing with disasters and has formulated

plans and policies but its implementation is still missing on the ground. Land use

planning and policy is almost negligible and majority (76.6%) respondents reported

that lake of risk sensitive land use planning has increased vulnerability of the area,

whereas a significant (p.005) association has been found between land use planning

and vulnerability reduction. Similarly, building code policy implementation is also

trivial (87.5%) while a highly significant (p.000) association has been found between

building code implementation and vulnerability reduction. Government has failed

(97.9 % respondents reported) to conduct technical vulnerability assessment in the

province covering geographical, geological, social, economic, institutional and

political aspects while assessment of vulnerability and assessment based planning is

highly significant (p.000) as per this study results. The study area lack multi-hazard

early warning system even though it is significantly (p.004) associated with

vulnerability reduction. Majority (88.8%) respondents reported that houses and

buildings are weak and vulnerable in the area. Research participants narrated that

local masonry lack capacities to construct hazard resistant houses and government

have not paid any attention to this aspect of physical development of communities.

Mainstreaming vulnerability reduction into physical and social sector development

programmes is missing which is further reported by 89.8% respondents. This study

establishes a highly significant (p.000) association between vulnerability reduction

and mainstreaming DRR into development plans/programmes. Planning process is

highly centralized and lacking community participation. Communities are not

involved in formulation of plans, projects designing and implementation as reported

by 87.7% study respondents with a highly significant (p.000) association with

vulnerability reduction. Although government is claiming community participation

through Union Council level structure and local civil society organizations but 69.3%

respondents reported lack of availability of CBDRM plan at the community level.

203

Planning process is limited to preparation of annual monsoon contingency plan and

comprehensive plans for vulnerability and risk reduction is not available with the

government at the provincial and district level. In addition, initiation of major projects

for flood, earthquake, landsliding mitigation etc. is also missing in the DRR regime of

the province whereas, a highly significant (p.000) association has been found between

attributes of mitigation plans and vulnerability reduction. Lake of dedicated budget

allocation is seriously hampering DRR initiatives in the study area despite of highly

significant association between vulnerability reduction and attributes of budget

allocation i.e. budget allocation for flood mitigation (p.000), landslide mitigation

(p.000) and earthquake mitigation (p.000). Political interference is widespread and

question the transparency and accountability of DRR related programmes and

projects. Furthermore, vulnerable communities are not involved in disaster related

projects implementation (70.3% respondents), monitoring (86.5% respondents) and

evaluation (86.2% respondents) regardless of significant association of these attributes

with vulnerability reduction. DRR governance and operational procedures lack gender

sensitivity and women in most of the cases remained deprived to take part in public

awareness, preparedness and recovery benefits. The study found highly significant

(p.000) results between gender sensitive interventions and vulnerability reduction.

The only component that has improved a little bit within the complete spectrum of

disaster risk management is emergency response. Majority i.e. 74.5% respondents

said that government established relief camps during past events while 87.8%

respondents were compensated through cash grants. At the same time government

interventions in disaster recovery after 2010 floods and 2015 earthquake were not

satisfactory and up to the mark. For example government failed to facilitate people in

hazard resistant reconstruction, launch comprehensive skill training programmes,

support livelihood, integrate mitigation measures with reconstruction of public sector

critical infrastructure etc. This study found highly significant and significant

association between these attributes and vulnerability reduction.

204

6.2. Conclusion

On the basis of study findings it is concluded that government has enacted disaster

management laws and policies along with establishment of disaster management

authorities at the national, provincial and local levels. But still vulnerability of

communities is very high in the province. Governance mechanism is weak and

implementation of laws and policies is a serious issue for disaster management

authorities. At the national and provincial level disaster management authorities have

comprehensive structure whereas at the operational level i.e. district level DDMUs

lack proper structure and offices. Limited level of coordination exists between

different tiers of government but it is not leading to strong collaboration. Concept of

vulnerability assessment is at very initial stage in government interventions and

comprehensive vulnerability assessment roster has not yet prepared even for most

vulnerable areas. Political interference is widespread and seriously affecting DRR

related interventions. The province lack multi-hazard early warning system and it

endangers the lives of millions of population due to limited access to early warning

messages. Government has failed to allocate budget for risk reduction projects and

only at the local government level limited budget allocation can be seen for small

scale mitigation projects. Vulnerable communities have been kept out of the circle of

planning, decision making, implementation and monitoring of DRR related projects.

DRR related interventions are not gender sensitive and inclusive in nature. In a

nutshell, it is concluded that emergency response system has improved while

improvement in preparedness will still take a few years, whereas, prevention and

mitigation of disaster has been neglected completely and one can‘t observe the

seriousness of government to both these components.

6.3 Suggestions and Recommendations

On the basis of study findings following suggestions and recommendations are made

to reduce disaster vulnerabilities and enhance resilience capacities of the system and

local communities.

6.3.1. Policy Level Suggestion

Synchronization of various government acts and policies dealing with disaster

management is required. At the moment various legal acts exist but each one of

205

them is dealing with disaster in isolation. Particularly National Climate Change

Act and National Disaster Management Act shall be synchronized and synergies

shall be developed as both acts are directly contributing to the same domain.

Amendments in NDMAct are required, making it more endemic to national and

provincial context. New amendments shall focus on proactive disaster risk

management approaches through prevention and mitigation of disasters. The act

was prepared as per the requirements of Hyogo Framework of Action 2005-15.

The focus of the new global agenda for DRR i.e. Sendai Framework 2015-30 is on

risk reduction rather than managing disasters through recovery. These

amendments shall adhere to the new framework. Moreover, special sections shall

be included on complex emergencies and industrial hazards.

National DRR policy needs revision on the basis of hazard profile of Pakistan

including multi-dimensional aspects of vulnerability. The policy need to be more

applied in nature. Provincial government shall develop its own DRR policy as per

the requirement of the NDMAct.

Building codes of Pakistan shall be revisited and codes for hydro-metrological and

other associated disasters shall be included.

6.3.2. Institutional Level Suggestions

At the moment National and Provincial Disaster Management Authorities are run

through an adhoc approach. Staff members are deputed temporarily from various

government departments or consultants are hired by donor agencies to work in

these authorities. Permanent staff members with suitable qualification shall be

hired to effectively address the prevailing circumstances of vulnerability of the

province.

Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Unit in PDMA shall be invigorated with

technical equipments for vulnerability/risk assessment along with hiring of

professional staff having experiences in documenting vulnerabilities through

multi-disciplinary and multi-sectoral approach. At the moment this unit is very

weak at operational level being the backbone of the PDMA.

Dedicated offices of DDMUs shall be established as implementing units of

disaster related policies and plans. At the moment DDMUs lack proper structure.

206

Along with establishment of dedicated offices, proper cadre of disaster manager

shall be developed to work on vulnerability and risk reduction at the district level.

Legal and Policy documents shall reflect the establishment of collaboration

platforms for disaster prevention, preparedness, mitigation, response management

and recovery. Under such a reflection, provincial and district administration shall

develop Standard Operation Procedures (SOPs) for each platform. Government

shall ensure strict adherence of each operational unit under its jurisdiction to these

platforms.

6.3.4. Suggestions for Planning and Implementation

Proper risk assessment including multi-dimensional vulnerability shall be

conducted in each district of the province. Assessment shall integrate geo-spatial

information, inventory of geology and geomorphology, built environment,

livelihood strategies, social, economic and institutional systems.

Provincial and district disaster management plans shall be prepared on the basis of

results of risk assessments rather than consultation with some officials. This will

ensure elimination of adhocism and voices of the voiceless will be reflected in the

planning process.

Each provincial and district government departments shall be directed to develop

their own sectoral disaster risk reduction plan to jointly contribute to vulnerability

reduction in the province. Moreover, disaster risk reduction shall be mainstreamed

to all social, economic, environmental, built environment and industrial

development plans to reduce exposure of the population to natural hazards and

other related disasters.

District Disaster Management Units in collaboration through local government

department shall involve local communities in hazard, risk and vulnerability

assessment at the local level. Through community participation, a CBDRM plan

shall be developed for each Union Council in the concerned district of the

province. Basic principles of participatory planning and implementation shall be

applied to the complete spectrum of disaster risk management in the province.

Local communities shall be involved in monitoring and evaluation process of

small and large scale risk management projects. Rather they should be empowered

207

to regularly check the progress of various projects, identify shortcomings and

correct the mistakes being the direct beneficiary of such projects.

6.3.5. Suggestions for Budget Allocation

Budget allocation for each district shall be made on the basis of its

vulnerability rather than on the basis of its political significance. Budget shall

be dedicated for disaster preparedness, mitigation and prevention and it should

be reflected in the Annual Development Programme (ADP) of the province

and country.

PDMA‘s and DDMU‘s shall be empowered to use funds for mitigation of

disasters. At the moment fund allocated for PDMA and DDMU‘s can only be

used for relief provision and compensation as per fiscal rules of provincial

government.

District Local Government Department and DDMU‘s shall advocate for

budget allocation for small community based mitigation schemes focusing on

resilience at the district level. In this regard the local government elected

representative shall be properly trained and their services shall be used for risk

management at the local level.

Each district government and provincial government shall establish fund for

research and extension activities attracting academicians to conduct focused

research projects on various aspects of disasters in the province.

Each account used for disaster management activities hall be properly audited

and auditing waiver shall be removed from the legal documents. Each relief

item in the humanitarian response facility shall be properly numbered and

digitized. Items shall be released via digital system rather than analogue

system to ensure transparency and accountability.

6.3.6. Suggestions for Emergency Management

Guidelines developed for emergency management and minimum standards of

relief shall be updated as per the new SPHERE standard guidelines released in

2018.

Emergency Rescue Services 1122 shall be extended to all districts of the

province. Moreover, Rescue 1122 required to extend its scope from

208

management of incidents to management of catastrophes through

requisitioning more machinery and staff.

Mechanism shall be developed to ensure transparency and accountability in

disaster relief and compensation. In this context relief items available with

PDMA and district government shall be digitized through a disaster or

emergency management information system. Currently analogue system is

used for utilization and release of these items.

Evacuation procedure shall be established along with identification and

mapping of evacuations routes as well as evacuation sites. These shall be

communicated to local communities and an evacuation plan shall be prepared

in collaboration with local people. Maximum efforts shall be made not to use

schools as evacuation centre as it affect the delivery of education to children.

Multi-hazard early warning system shall be established through revitalization

of existing system. On time warning and precautionary messages shall be

communicated to communities during a threatening event in culturally

consistent language and credible messengers.

To ensure maximum protection of victims of an emergency, human right

training shall be imparted to all stakeholders dealing with emergencies i.e.

disaster managers, emergency rescuers, civil defence officials, police, armed

forces and volunteer etc.

6.3.7. Suggestions for Inclusive DRR

Gander sensitive interventions shall be ensured at all levels of

programmes/projects planning, execution, implementation and monitoring.

Gender and child cell at PDMA shall be strengthened and it shall work

together with social welfare department to document differential

vulnerabilities on the basis of age, sex and other social features.

Equal opportunity of decision making shall be given to women in each phase

of disaster management including preparedness, mitigation, response and

recovery. Women should be properly trained on different aspects of disaster

management with emphasis on preparation and implementation of family and

community disaster management plans.

209

Disability specific interventions shall be made and guidelines shall be

developed for inclusion of disability in disaster risk reduction as per United

Nations Conventions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

Child friendly disaster risk reduction projects shall be initiated in the

education sector to orient the new generation on causes, impacts and

protection measures from disasters. In this context disaster related information

shall be integrated with school curriculum. Maximum efforts shall be made to

protect children from harassment and abuses during emergencies. Life skill

education shall be imparted to children including protection from sexual

abuse.

Experiences and knowledge of old age people and senior citizens shall be

utilized and protection shall be ensured.

All emergency relief items in stock must contain specific hygiene kits for

women and girls along with nutritional supplements for children.

Community based Village Disaster Management Committees shall be

established at each Union Council to ensure community participation in

disaster risk reduction.

6.3.8 Suggestions for Systemic and Executionery Problems

Decentralization of DRR as per Local Government Act shall be ensured to

reduce bureaucratic hurdles in planning and execution of projects.

Concept of adaptive governance shall be used to select relevant people for the

relevant job.

Decision making at planning level shall be decentralized to village council,

tehsil council and district council.

210

REFERENCES

Abbas, A., Amjath-Babu, T. S., Kächele, H., Usman, M., & Müller, K. (2016). An

overview of flood mitigation strategy and research support in South Asia:

Implications for sustainable flood risk management. International Journal of

Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 23(1), 98–111.

ACTED. (2011). Horn of Africa: Drought predictable and predicted. Retrieved June

19, 2016 from https://reliefweb.int/disaster/dr-2011-000029-ken

ActionAid and I-SAP. (2010). Floods 2010: Disaster risk management-legal

framework, issues and challenges. Retrieved January 03, 2016, from

http://isaps.org/upload/report_publications/docs/1401030390.pdf

ADB. (2008). Islamic republic of Pakistan country environment analysis. Islamabad,

Pakistan: Asian Development Bank.

ADB. (2015). Pakistan: Country partnership Strategy (2015-2019). Retrieved

January 03, 2016, from https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/linked-

documents/cps-pak-2015-2019-sd-05.pdf

Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281.

ADPC. (2011). Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction in housing sector. Katmandu,

Nepal: Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre.

ADPC and OXFAM. (2014). Community based disaster risk management for Sindh

province, Pakistan. Retrieved July 07, 2017, from https://www.adpc. net/igo/

category/ID790/doc/2015-nRIu4YADPCpublication_CBDRMHandbook

SindhPRINTER.pdf

Aftab, S., Hamid, N., & Prevez, S. (2002). Poverty in Pakistan: Issues, causes and

institutional responses. Retrieved July 07, 2017 from https://www.adb.

org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/33464/files/poverty.pdf

Ahmad, K. (2019). Home: Director general message. Retrieved January 12, 2019,

from http://rescue1122.gkp.pk/

Ahmad, N, Ali, Q., Crowley, H., & Pinho, R. (2014). Earthquake loss estimation of

residential buildings in Pakistan. Natural Hazards, 73(3), 1889–1955.

Ahmad, N. (2015a). Disaster damage to critical infrastructure and basic service

provision. Retrieved August 19, 2017, from http://www.lead.org.pk/lead/

attachments/ briefings /LPNB4.pdf

Ahmad, N. (2015b). Early warning systems and disaster risk information. Retrieved

August 19, 2017, from http://www.lead.org.pk/lead/ attachments /briefings

/LPNB7.pdf

http://www.lead.org.pk/lead/

http://www.lead.org.pk/lead/

211

Ahmed, K., Shahid, S., bin Harun, S., & Wang, X. (2016). Characterization of

seasonal droughts in Balochistan province, Pakistan. Stochastic Environmental

Research and Risk Assessment, 30(2), 747–762.

Ahmed, Z. (2013). Disaster risks and disaster management policies and practices in

Pakistan: A critical analysis of Disaster Management Act 2010 of Pakistan.

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 4(2013), 15–20.

Ahrens, J., & Rudolph, P. M. (2006). The importance of governance in risk reduction

and disaster management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,

14(4), 207–220.

Ainuddin, S., Aldrich, D. P., Routray, J. K., Ainuddin, S., & Achkazai, A. (2013). The

need for local involvement: Decentralization of disaster management

institutions in Baluchistan, Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk

Reduction, 6 (2013), 50–58.

Ainuddin, S., Mukhtar, U., & Ainuddin, S. (2014). Public perception about

enforcement of building codes as risk reduction strategy for seismic safety in

Quetta, Baluchistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,

9(2014), 99–106.

Aitsi-Selmi, A., Egawa, S., Sasaki, H., Wannous, C., & Murray, V. (2015). The

Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction: Renewing the global

commitment to people‘s resilience, health, and well-being. International

Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6(2), 164–176.

Akbar, M. S., & Aldrich, D. P. (2018). Social capital‘s role in recovery: Evidence

from communities affected by the 2010 Pakistan floods. Disasters, 42(3),

475–497.

Akram, M., & Khan, F. J. (2007). Health care services and government spending in

Pakistan (No. 2007:32). Islamabad: East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.

Alam, A. R. (2015). Disaster compensation in Pakistan: Policy practices and options.

Retrieved September 06, 2018, from

http://www.lead.org.pk/lead/Publications/Disaster Compensation in Pakistan-

Policy Practices and Options.pdf

Alam, E., & Collins, A. E. (2010). Cyclone disaster vulnerability and response

experiences in coastal Bangladesh. Disasters, 34(4), 931–954.

Alexander, D. (1993). Natural Disasters. London, United Kingdom: UCL Press Ltd.

Alexander, D. (2013). Vulnerability. In Encyclopedia of Crisis Management. Sage

Publications.

Ali, Akhter, & Erenstein, O. (2017). Assessing farmer use of climate change

adaptation practices and impacts on food security and poverty in Pakistan.

Climate Risk Management, 16(2017), 183–194.

212

Ali, A, Iqbal, S., Amin, N. U., & Malik, H. L. (2015). Urbanization and disaster risk

in Pakistan. Acta Technica Corviniensis-Bulletin of Engineering, 8(3), 161-

163.

Ali, I. (2018). An investigation into the viability of cash transfer programmes in

disaster response: A case study of Pakistan. (Unpublished Master Thesis)

Coventry University, UK.

Ali, K. F., & De Boer, D. H. (2007). Spatial patterns and variation of suspended

sediment yield in the upper Indus River basin, northern Pakistan. Journal of

Hydrology, 334(3–4), 368–387.

Ali, M., Farooq, N., Bhatti, M. A., & Kuroiwa, C. (2012). Assessment of prevalence

and determinants of posttraumatic stress disorder in survivors of earthquake in

Pakistan using Davidson Trauma Scale. Journal of Affective Disorders,

136(3), 238–243.

Allen, K. M. (2006). Community‐based disaster preparedness and climate adaptation:

local capacity‐building in the Philippines. Disasters, 30(1), 81–101.

AlShamsi, H., & Pathirage, C. (2015). The role of effective contingency planning in

managing extreme disasters in UAE. 12th International Postgraduate

Research Conference (IPGRC 2015), 10-12 June 2015, Salford Quays.

Salford, United Kingdom.

Amaratunga, D. (2005). Capacity building framework for disaster risk reduction.

Retrieved January 01, 2017, from

http://www.salford.ac.uk/data/assets/pdf_file/0008/394532/Capacity-building-

framework-for-Disaster-Risk-Reduction.pdf

Ambraseys, N., Lensen, G., Moinfar, A., & Pennington, W. (1981). The Pattan

(Pakistan) earthquake of 28 December 1974: field observations. Quarterly

Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology,14(1), 1–16.

Amin, M. (2008). Cash Transfer Program. Retrieved September 5, 2017, from

http://prcs.org.pk/ctp/

Anderson, M. B., & Woodrow, P. J. (1989). Rising from the Ashes: Development

strategies in time of disasters. London, United Kingdom: Intermediate

Technology Publication.

Arif, D. (2017). Risk sensitive land use planning in Bangladesh: Challenges and way

forward. (No. 197368). Retrieved January 01, 2018, from https://www.

researchgate.net/publication/ 324451783_Risk-Sensitive_Land_Use_ Planning

_ In_Bangladesh_ Challenges_and_Way_Forward

Ariyabandu, M. M. (2000). Impact of hazards on women and children situation in

South Asia. South Asia, 50(10), 77–250.

Ariyabandu, M. M., & Fonseka, D. (2009). Do disasters discriminate? A human

security analysis of the impact of the Tsunami in India, Sri Lanka and of the

http://www.salford.ac.uk/data/assets/pdf_file/0008/394532/

213

Kashmir earthquake in Pakistan. In Facing Global Environmental Change (pp.

1215-1226). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Arslan, M., Zaman, R., Malik, R. K., & Mehmood, A. (2014). Impact of CEO duality

and audit committee on firm performance: A study of oil & gas listed firms of

Pakistan. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 5(17), 1697–2222.

Asef, M. R. (2008). Modelling the elements of country vulnerability to earthquake

disasters. Disasters, 32(3), 480–498.

Asgary, A., Anjum, M. I., & Azimi, N. (2012). Disaster recovery and business

continuity after the 2010 flood in Pakistan: Case of small businesses.


Aslam, M. (2018). Flood Management Current State, Challenges and Prospects in

Pakistan: A Review. Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering and

Technology, 37(2), 297–314.

Associated Press of Pakistan [APP]. (2018, November 14). Poverty declines

significantly in Pakistan, says WB report. Pakistan Today. Retrieved March

19, 2019, from https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/11/14/poverty-rate-in-

pakistan-falls-from-64-3-to-29-5-per-cent-wb-report/

Atta-ur-Rahman, A. S., Parvin, G. A., & Shaw, R. (2016). Impact of urban expansion

on farmlands: A silent disaster. Urban Disasters and Resilience in Asia, 91.

Aubrecht, C., Özceylan, D., Steinnocher, K., & Freire, S. (2013). Multi-level

geospatial modeling of human exposure patterns and vulnerability indicators.

Natural Hazards, 68(1), 147–163.

Augustine, J., Kokkammadathil, V. C., & Manikoth, R. M. (2019). Disaster

preparedness among households in the Badakhshan province in Afghanistan:

A baseline evaluation study. Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 13(2),

128–140.

Azad, A. K., Hossain, K. M., & Nasreen, M. (2013). Flood induced vulnerabilities

and problems encountered by women in northern Bangladesh. International

Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 4(4), 190–199.

Azam, K. M. (1979). The role of a public corporation in development: An evaluation

of the West Pakistan agricultural development corporation. Agricultural

Administration, 6(2), 81–87.

Aziz, A. (2014). Rainfall-runoff modeling of the trans-boundary Kabul river basin

using integrated flood analysis system (IFAS). Pakistan Journal of

Meteorology, 10(20), 75–81.

Bacha, A. (2016). Pakistan country report: Asian disaster reduction centre visiting

researcher program. Retrieved March 17, 2018, from https://www.adrc.asia/

countryreport/PAK/2016/Pakistan_CR2016B.pdf

https://www.adrc.asia/

214

Baitenmann, H. (1990). NGOs and the Afghan war: The politicization of

humanitarian aid. Third World Quarterly, 12(1), 62–85.

Bajracharya, B., Childs, I., & Hastings, P. (2011). Role of local government in

disaster management: Findings from regional towns in Queensland. In State of

Australian Cities National Conference (SOAC 2011), Melbourne, Australia.

Retrieved March 29, 218, from www.epublications. bond.edu.

au/sustainable_development/126

Banerjee, R. (2015). Importance of building code. Int. Journal of Engineering

Research and Applications,5(6), 94–95.

Bangash, S. (2012). Socio-economic conditions of post-conflict Swat: a critical

appraisal. J Peace Dev, 2(2012), 66–79.

Baqir, F. (2014). The evolution of volunteerism in Pakistan. In SPO Discussion Paper

Series (No. 225). Retrieved June 08, 2018, from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266946632_Evolution_of_Volunteer

ism_in_Pakistan

Bara, C. (2010). Factsheet: Social vulnerability to disasters. Zurich, Switzerland:

Crisis and Risk Network (CRN), Center for Security Studies (CSS).

Barry, J. (1987). K2: Savage mountain, savage summer. Oxford, United Kingdom:

Oxford Illustrated Press.

Bashawri, A., Garrity, S., & Moodley, K. (2014). An overview of the design of

disaster relief shelters. Procedia Economics and Finance, 18 (2014), 924–931.

Baudoin, M.-A., & Wolde-Georgis, T. (2015). Disaster risk reduction efforts in the

Greater Horn of Africa. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6(1),

49–61.

Berariu, R., Fikar, C., Gronalt, M., & Hirsch, P. (2015). Understanding the impact of

cascade effects of natural disasters on disaster relief operations. International

Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 12(2015), 350–356.

Bilau, A. A., Witt, E., & Lill, I. (2015). A framework for managing post-disaster

housing reconstruction. Procedia Economics and Finance, 21(1), 313–320.

Bilham, R. (2014). Lessons from the Haiti earthquake. Nature, 463 (18), 878–879.

Birkmann, J. (2007). Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales:

Applicability, usefulness and policy implications. Environmental Hazards,

7(1), 20–31.

Birkmann, J., & Wisner, B. (2006). Measuring the unmeasurable: The challenge of

vulnerability. Bonn, Germany: UNU-EHS.

Blake, E. S., Landsea, C., & Gibney, E. J. (2011). The deadliest, costliest, and most

intense United States tropical cyclones from 1851 to 2010 (and other

215

frequently requested hurricane facts).Miami, Florida: National Hurricane

Center.

Blakia, P., Cannon, T., Wisner, B., & Davis, I. (1994). At Risk: Natural hazards,

people‟s vulnerability and disasters (1st ed.). New York, USA: Routledg.

Bolin, B., & Kurtz, L. C. (2018). Race, class, ethnicity, and disaster vulnerability. In

Rodriguez, H., Donner, W., & Tainor, J. E. (Eds.), Handbook of disaster

research (pp. 181–203). New York, USA: Springer.

Bosher, L., & Chmutina, K. (2017). Disaster risk reduction for the built environment.

New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Briceño, S. (2004). Global challenges in disaster reduction. Australian Journal of

Emergency Management, 19(1), 3–5.

Bronfman, N. C., Cisternas, P. C., Repetto, P. B., & Castañeda, J. V. (2019). Natural

disaster preparedness in a multi-hazard environment: Characterizing the

sociodemographic profile of those better (worse) prepared. PloS One, 14(4),

e0214249.

Bukhari, S. I. A., & Rizvi, S. H. (2015). Impact of floods on women: with special

reference to flooding experience of 2010 flood in Pakistan. Journal of

Geography & Natural Disasters, 5(2), 140–144.

Burgess, R. (1982). The unstructured Interview as a conversation. In Bulmer, M.

(Ed.), Contemporary social research series (pp. 164–179). London, United

Kingdom: Routledge.

Burling, W. K., & Hyle, A. E. (1997). Disaster preparedness planning: policy and

leadership issues. Disaster Prevention and Management An International

Journal, 6(4), 234–244.

Burton, I., Kates, R. W., & White, G. F. (1993). The environment as hazard (2nd ed.).

New York, USA: Oxford University Press.

Business Recorder. (2015, November 6). Building a building code. Business

Recorder. Retrieved August, 03, 2018, from https://epaper.brecorder.

com/m/2015/11/06/2-page/539790-news.html

Cadag, J. R. D., & Gaillard, J. C. (2012). Integrating knowledge and actions in

disaster risk reduction: the contribution of participatory mapping. Area, 44(1),

100–109.

Cannon, T. (1994). Vulnerability analysis and the explanation of ‗natural ‗disasters. In

Varley, A. Disasters, Development and Environment, ed. (pp. 13–30). New

York, United States of America: Wiley Publication.

Cannon, Terry. (2000). Vulnerability analysis and disasters. In Parker, D. J., (Ed.),

Floods, Vol. 1, (45–55). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

https://epaper.brecorder/

216

Caragliano, S., & Manca, D. (2007). Emergency management and land use planning

in industrial hazardous areas: learning from an Italian experience. Journal of

Contingencies and Crisis Management, 15(4), 194–207.

Carter, M. R., Little, P. D., Mogues, T., & Negatu, W. (2006). Shocks, sensitivity and

resilience: Tracking the economic impacts of environmental disaster on assets

in Ethiopia and Honduras. Retrieved February 06, 2018, from https://www.

researchgate.net/publication/23742595_Shocks_Sensitivity_and_Resilience_T

racking_the_Economic_Impacts_of_Environmental_Disaster_on_Assets_in_E

thiopia_and_Honduras/link/00b4953cd6d4428bcf000000/download

Carter, M. R., Little, P. D., Mogues, T., & Negatu, W. (2007). Poverty traps and

natural disasters in Ethiopia and Honduras. World Development, 35(5), 835–

856.

Carvalho, V. M., Nirei, M., Saito, Y., & Tahbaz-Salehi, A. (2016). Supply chain

disruptions: Evidence from the great east Japan earthquake. In Columbia

Business School Research Paper (No. 5). Retrieved August 19, 2018, from

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2883800

CDPM. (2013). A hand book of center for disaster preparedness and management.

Peshawar, Pakistan: Centre for Disaster Preparedness and Management.

Chan, E. Y., & Kim, J. (2011). Chronic health needs immediately after natural

disasters in middle-income countries: the case of the 2008 Sichuan, China

earthquake. European Journal of Emergency Medicine, 18(2), 111–114.

Chaudhry, Q. U. Z. (2017). Climate change profile of Pakistan. Retrieved June 01,

2018, from https://www.adb.org/sites/default/ files /publication /357876

/climate-change-profile-pakistan.pdf

Chaudhury, M. (2017). Strategies for reducing vulnerability and building resilience to

environmental and natural disasters in developing countries. Retrieved

September 21, 2018, from https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-

content/uploads/sites /22/ 2017/04/Moushumi-Chaudhury-Strategies-to-

Reduce-Vulnerability-Paper_WRI_ Final .pdf

Cheema, A. R., Mehmood, A., & Imran, M. (2016). Learning from the past: analysis

of disaster management structures, policies and institutions in Pakistan.

Disaster Prevention and Management, 25(4), 449–463.

Chiroiu, L. (2005). Damage assessment of the 2003 Bam, Iran, earthquake using

Ikonos imagery. Earthquake Spectra, 21(S1), 219–224.

Choularton, R. (2007). Contingency planning and humanitarian action: A review of

practice (No. 59). Retrieved September 21, 218, from

https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/93866/networkpaper059.pdf

Ciurean, R. L., Schr ter, D., & Glade, T. (2013). Conceptual frameworks of

vulnerability assessments for natural disasters reduction. In Tiefenbacher, J.,

(Ed.), Approaches to Disaster Management-Examining the Implications of

https://www.adb.org/sites/default/

https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites%20/22/

https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites%20/22/

217

Hazards, Emergencies and Disasters Examining the Implications of Hazards,

Emergencies and Disasters (pp. 3–32). London, United Kingdom:

IntechOpen.

Cochran, W. G. (2007). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). New York, USA: Jhon Wiley

& Sons Incorporated.

Collins, B. D., & Jibson, R. W. (2015). Assessment of existing and potential landslide

hazards resulting from the April 25, 2015 Gorkha, Nepal earthquake

sequence (No. 2015-1142). US Geological Survey.

Colombo, A., Hervás, J., & Vetere Arellano, A. L. (2002). Guidelines on flash flood

prevention and mitigation. Retrieved June 17, 2018, from

http://lib.riskreductionafrica.org/bitstream/handle/123456789/1047/3300.NED

IESProjectGuidelinesonFlashFloodPreventionandMitidation.pdf?sequence=1

Combaz, E. (2013). Community-based disaster risk management in Pakistan. GSDRC

Helpdesk Research Report 1028, University of Birmingham.

Concern Worldwide. (2016). Concern approaches to disaster risk reduction.

Retrieved June09, 2018, from https://admin.concern.net/sites/default

/files/media/migrated/_concerns_approach_to_disaster_risk_reduction.pdf

Cook, N., & Butz, D. (2013). The Atta Abad landslide and everyday mobility in

Gojal, northern Pakistan. Mountain Research and Development, 33(4), 372–

381.

Cornia, A., Dressel, K., & Pfeil, P. (2016). Risk cultures and dominant approaches

towards disasters in seven European countries. Journal of Risk Research,

19(3), 288–304.

Crawford, L., Langston, C., & Bajracharya, B. (2013). Participatory project

management for improved disaster resilience. International Journal of

Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 4(3), 317–333.

Creswell, J W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed

Methods Approaches. London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications.

Creswell, John W, & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative,

quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London, United Kingdom: Sage

publications.

Crichton, M. T., Ramsay, C. G., & Kelly, T. (2009). Enhancing organizational

resilience through emergency planning: Learning‘s from cross‐sectoral

lessons. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 17(1), 24–37.

Cronin, S. J., Gaylord, D. R., Charley, D., Alloway, B. V, Wallez, S., & Esau, J. W.

(2004). Participatory methods of incorporating scientific with traditional

knowledge for volcanic hazard management on Ambae Island, Vanuatu.

Bulletin of Volcanology, 66(7), 652–668.

https://admin.concern.net/sites/default%20/files/media/migrated/_concerns_

https://admin.concern.net/sites/default%20/files/media/migrated/_concerns_

218

Cui, P., Chen, X. Q., Zhu, Y. Y., Su, F. H., Wei, F. Q., Han, Y. S., & Zhuang, J. Q.

(2011). The Wenchuan earthquake (May 12, 2008), Sichuan province, China,

and resulting geohazards. Natural Hazards, 56(1), 19–36.

Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to

environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242–261.

Daud, M. K., Nafees, M., Ali, S., Rizwan, M., Bajwa, R. A., Shakoor, M. B., …

Murad, W. (2017). Drinking water quality status and contamination in

Pakistan. BioMed Research International, Vol. 2017, 1-18.

Davis, I. (2004, August). The application of performance targets to promote effective

earthquake risk reduction strategies. In 13thWorld Conference on Earthquake

Engineering (pp. 1-6).

DDMU Swat. (2015). district disaster management plan (2015-2020) district Swat,

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Retrieved November 28, 2018, from http://www.

pdma.gov.pk/sites/ default/files/DistrictDisasterManagementPlan%282015-

2020%29 Swat KP.pdf

de la Poterie, A. T., & Baudoin, M.-A. (2015). From Yokohama to Sendai:

Approaches to participation in international disaster risk reduction

frameworks. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6(2), 128–139.

Deen, S. (2015). Pakistan 2010 floods. Policy gaps in disaster preparedness and

response. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 12(2015), 341–

349.

Dekens, J. (2007). Local knowledge for disaster preparedness: A literature review.

Retrieved August 19, 2018, from http://lib.icimod.org/record/ 22470

/files/DPL.pdf

Dekens, J. (2008). Local knowledge on flood preparedness: Examples from Nepal and

Pakistan. Retrieved August 19, 2018 from

http://drm.cenn.ge/Trainings/PGIS/Lectures_ENG/ISDR%20IndigenousKnow

ledge%20 for%20DRR%202008.pdf#page=47

Dhungel, R., & Ojha, R. N. (2012). Women‘s empowerment for disaster risk

reduction and emergency response in Nepal. Gender & Development, 20(2),

309–321.

di Girasole, E. G., & Cannatella, D. (2017). Social Vulnerability to Natural Hazards in

Urban Systems. An Application in Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic).

Sustainability, 9(11), 1–17.

Doberstein, B., & Stager, H. (2013). Towards guidelines for post‐disaster

vulnerability reduction in informal settlements. Disasters, 37(1), 28–47.

Dolidon, N., Hofer, T., Jansky, L., & Sidle, R. (2009). Watershed and forest

management for landslide risk reduction. In Kyoji, S. & Paolo, C. (Eds.),

Landslides–disaster risk reduction (pp. 633–649). Berlin, Heidelberg:

Springer.

http://lib.icimod.org/record/

219

Dorosh, P., Malik, S. J., & Krausova, M. (2010). Rehabilitating agriculture and

promoting food security after the 2010 Pakistan floods: Insights from the

south Asian experience. Pakistan Development Review, 49(3), 167.

Dube, E. (2015). Improving disaster risk reduction capacity of district civil protection

units in managing wild fires: A case of Mangwe district in Matabeleland South

Province, Zimbabwe. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 7(1), 1–13.

Durrani, A. J., Elnashai, A. S., Hashash, Y., Kim, S. J., & Masud, A. (2005). The

Kashmir earthquake of October 8, 2005: A quick look report. MAE Center CD

Release Report 05-04. Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois.

Durrani, S. (2016). Ensuring more effective responses to natural disasters: Pakistan

in perspective. Retrieved January 10, 2017, from Policy Analysis website:

https://www .mei.edu/ publications/ensuring-more-effective-responsesnatural-

ddisasterspakistan-perspective

Dynes, R. R. (2002). The importance of social capital in disaster response (No. 327).

Retrieved March 02, 2018, from

http://dspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/292/PP 327.pdf?sequence=1

Ebrahim, Z. T. (2017, March 29). Pakistan passes climate change act, experts remain

skeptical. Daily Dawn, p. 3. Retrieved from

http://http//www.lead.org.pk/lead/postDetail.aspx?postid=345

Eckstein, D., Künzel, V., & Schäfer, L. (2017). Global climate risk index 2018.

Retrieved June 18, 2019, from https://www.germanwatch.

org/sites/germanwatch.org/files/GlobalClimateRiskIndex2019_2.pdf

El-Sabh, M. I. (1994). World conference on natural disaster reduction. Natural

Hazards, 9(3), 333–352.

Elahi, N. (2015). Militancy conflicts and displacement in Swat Valley of Pakistan:

Analysis of transformation of social and cultural network. In International

Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 5(3), 226–236.

EM-DAT. (2016). Disasters statistical review. Brussels, Belgium: Centre for

Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED).

Enarson, E., Fothergill, A., & Peek, L. (2007). Gender and disaster: Foundations and

directions. In Rodriguez, R. D. H. & Quarantelli, E., (Ed.), Handbook of

disaster research (pp. 130–146). New York, USA: Springer.

Eshghi, K., & Larson, R. C. (2008). Disasters: lessons from the past 105 years.

Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 17(1), 62–

82.

Faas, A. J. (2016). Disaster vulnerability in anthropological perspective. Annals of

Anthropological Practice, 40(1), 14–27.

Fazeel, Z., & Jehan, R. (2016). Flood vulnerability reduction in district Nowshera-

Pakistan. (Unpublished Master Thesis) University of Peshawar, Pakistan.

https://www/

220

Federal Flood Commission. (2018). History of federal flood commission. Retrieved

May 10, 2018, from https://ffc.gov.pk/history/

Ferris, E. (2010). Natural disasters and human rights: Comparing responses to Haiti

and Pakistan. Retrieved June 15, 2016, from http://www.brookings.

edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2010/0826_earthquakes_floods_ferris/0826_earth

quakes_floods_ferris.pdf.

Fink, A. (2019). Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper

(5th ed.). California, United States: Sage publications.

Fordham, M. (1999). Participatory planning for flood mitigation: models and

approaches. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 13(4), 27.

Fothergill, A., & Peek, L. A. (2004). Poverty and disasters in the United States: A

review of recent sociological findings. Natural Hazards, 32(1), 89–110.

Frenken, K. (2011). Irrigation in Southern and Eastern Asia in figures. Retrieved

August 17, 2018, from http://www.fao.org/3/i2809e/i2809e.pdf

Fritz, H. M., Blount, C. D., Thwin, S., Thu, M. K., & Chan, N. (2009). Cyclone

Nargis storm surge in Myanmar. Nature Geoscience ,2(7), 448–449.

Funk, C. (2011). We thought trouble was coming. Nature News, 476(7358), 7–7.

Füssel, H.-M. (2007). Vulnerability: A generally applicable conceptual framework for

climate change research. Global Environmental Change, 17(2), 155–167.

Gaillard, J. C. (2010). Vulnerability, capacity and resilience: perspectives for climate

and development policy. Journal of International Development: The Journal

of the Development Studies Association, 22(2), 218-232.

Galperin, A., & Wilkinson, E. (2015). Strengthening disaster risk governance. UNDP

support during the HFA implementation period 2005-2015. Retrieved

September 05, 2018, from https://www.undp.org/ content/dam/ undp/library

/crisis prevention/disaster/StrengtheningDisaster Risk Governance-Full-

Report.pdf

Gazette of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. (2014a). Khyber Pakhtunkhwa emergency rescue

services (amendment) act (Act No. XXXIX of 2014).

Gazette of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2014b). Khyber Pakhtunkhwa environmental

protection act (Act No. XXXVIII of 2014).

Gazette of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. (2013). Khyber Pakhtunkhwa local government act

(Act No. XXVIII of 2013).

Gazette of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. (2012a). Khyber Pakhtunkhwa emergency rescue

service act (Act No. XV of 2012).

Gazette of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. (2012b). National disaster management (Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa) (amendment) act (Act No.VI of 2012).

http://www.brookings/

https://www.undp.org/

221

Gazette of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. (2002). Khyber Pakhtunkhwa river protection

ordinance (Ordinance No. III of 2002).

Gazette of Pakistan. (2017). Pakistan climate change act (Act No. X of 2017).

Gazette of Pakistan. (2011). Pakistan engineering council (amended) act (Act No. II

of 2011).

Gazette of Pakistan. (2010). National disaster management act (Act No. XXIV of

2010).

Gazette of Pakistan. (1997). Pakistan environmental protection act (Act XXXIV of

1997).

Gazette of Pakistan. (1994). The civil defence (amendment) act (Act No XXII of 1994).

Gazette of Pakistan (1958). The west Pakistan national calamities (prevention, relief

and response) act (Act No. XXXIII. of 1958).

Gazette of Pakistan. (1952). The civil defence act (Act No. XXXI of 1952).

GDPC. (2017). Public awareness and public education. Retrieved October 11, 2017,

from https://www.preparecenter.org/topics/public-awareness-and-public-

education

Gendron, Y., Cooper, D. J., & Townley, B. (2007). The construction of auditing

expertise in measuring government performance. Accounting, Organizations

and Society, 32(1–2), 101–129.

GFDRR. (2015). Building back better in post-disaster recovery. Retrieved February

19, 2017, from https://www.recoveryplatform.org/assets/tools_

guidelines/GFDRR/DisasterRecoveryGuidanceSeries-Building Back Better in

Post-Disaster Recovery.pdf

Ghaffar, S. A. (2005). Research in education and social sciences. Peshawar, Pakistan:

Institute of Education and Research, University of Peshawar.

Glavovic, B. C. (2010). The role of land-use planning in disaster risk reduction: An

introduction to perspectives from Australasia. Australasian Journal of

Disaster and Trauma Studies, 2010(1), 1–22.

Godfrey, A., Ciurean, R. L., Van Westen, C. J., Kingma, N. C., & Glade, T. (2015).

Assessing vulnerability of buildings to hydro-meteorological hazards using an

expert based approach–An application in Nehoiu Valley, Romania.


Good, J. (2011). Contingency planning Coordination Toolkit. Retrieved December 07,

2017, from http://www.coordinationtoolkit.org/wp-content/uploads/UNHCR-

Contingency-Planning-Training-Module.pdf

Goode, W. J., & Hatt, P. K. (1952). Methods in social research. New York, USA:

McGraw-Hill Book Co.

https://www.recoveryplatform.org/assets/tools_

http://www.coordinationtoolkit.org/wp-content/uploads/UNHCR-Contingency-Planning-

http://www.coordinationtoolkit.org/wp-content/uploads/UNHCR-Contingency-Planning-

222

Goodyear, E. J. (2009). The state of disaster risk reduction in Iraq. Retrieved May 10,

2018, from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents

/apcity/unpan050289.pdf

Gopalakrishnan, C., & Okada, N. (2007). Designing new institutions for

implementing integrated disaster risk management: Key elements and future

directions. Disasters, 31(4), 353–372.

Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. (2019a). Khyber Pakhtunkhwa irrigated

agriculture improvement project (KPIAIP): Environmental and social

management framework. Retrieved June 27, 2019, from

http://kp.gov.pk/uploads/2019/04/ESMF_Pub_Disclosure.pdf

Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. (2019b). Performance of rescue 1122:

Consolidated report of emergency calls and rescue operations in Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa. Retrieved June 13, 2019, from http://rescue1122.gkp.pk /site

/performance

Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. (2016a). Geography and climate. Retrieved

October 15, 2017, from http://kp.gov.pk/page/geography_climate

Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. (2016b). Vulnerability categorization of

districts in the context of floods. Peshawar, Pakistan: Provincial Disaster

Management Authority.

Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. (2014). Integrated development strategy 2014-

2018. Retrieved July 27, 2017, from http://lgkp.gov.pk/wp-

content/uploads/2014/08/Integrated-Development-Strategy.pdf

Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. (2010). Comprehensive development strategy

2010-2017. Retrieved July 27, 2017, from http://lgkp.gov.pk/wp-content

/uploads/2014/03/11.-Report-on-Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa-Comprehensive-

Development-Strategy-2010-2017.pdf

Government of Pakistan. (2019). NDRMF to fund PKR 189.9 million to NDMA

project of multi hazard vulnerability & risk assessment. Retrieved July 15,

2019, from https://reliefweb.int/report/pakistan/ndrmf-fund-pkr-1899-million-

ndma-project-multi-hazard-vulnerability-risk-assessment

Government of Pakistan. (2017a). Economic survey of Pakistan 2016-17. Retrieved

October 17, 2017, from http://www.finance.gov.pk/survey_1617.html

Government of Pakistan. (2017b). Population census of Pakistan-2017. Retrieved

January 13, 2019 from http://www.pbs.gov.pk/content/block-wise-provisional-

summary-results-6th-population-housing-census-2017-january-03-2018

Government of Pakistan. (2015). Pakistan economic survey 2014-15. Retrieved

October 17, 2017, from http://www.finance.gov.pk/survey/chapters_

15/Highlights.pdf

http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents

http://rescue1122/

http://lgkp.gov.pk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Integrated-Development-

http://lgkp.gov.pk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Integrated-Development-

http://lgkp.gov.pk/wp-content%20/uploads/2014/03/11.-Report-on-

http://lgkp.gov.pk/wp-content%20/uploads/2014/03/11.-Report-on-

https://reliefweb.int/report/pakistan/ndrmf-fund-pkr-1899-million-ndma-project-multi-hazard-

https://reliefweb.int/report/pakistan/ndrmf-fund-pkr-1899-million-ndma-project-multi-hazard-

http://www.pbs.gov.pk/content/block-wise-provisional-summary-results-6th-population-

http://www.pbs.gov.pk/content/block-wise-provisional-summary-results-6th-population-

http://www.finance.gov.pk/survey/chapters_

223

Government of Pakistan. (2014a). Pakistan floods 2014: Recovery needs assessment

and action framework 2014-16. Islamabad, Pakistan: National Disaster


Government of Pakistan. (2014b). Environment and climate change outlook of

Pakistan. Retrieved September 11, 2018, from

http://www.mocc.gov.pk/moclc/userfiles1/file/MOC/Events/Chapter-08.pdf

Government of Pakistan. (2012). National disaster management plan 2012-2022.

Islamabad, Pakistan: National Disaster Management Authority.

Government of Pakistan. (2011). Highlights: Economic survey 2010-11. Retrieved

August 15, 2017, from http://www.finance.gov.pk/survey/chapter_11

/Highlights.pdf

Government of Pakistan. (2007a). Building code of Pakistan (Seismic provision

2007). Islamabad, Pakistan: Ministry of Housing and Works.

Government of Pakistan. (2007b). National disaster management framework.

Retrieved May 22, 2017, from http://www.ndma.gov.pk/plans/National

Disaster Risk Management Framework-2007.pdf

Government of Pakistan. (1987). Construction and operation of engineering works

bye-laws. Retrieved March 18, 2017, from

http://pec.org.pk/downloads/byelaws/engg_Works_Byelaws.pdf

Green, G. B., Modi, S., Lunney, K., & Thomas, T. L. (2003). Generic evaluation

methods for disaster drills in developing countries. Annals of Emergency

Medicine, 41(5), 689–699.

Guarnacci, U. (2012). Governance for sustainable reconstruction after disasters:

Lessons from Nias, Indonesia. Environmental Development, 2(2012), 73–85.

Guha-Sapir, D., & Vogt, F. (2009). Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar: lessons for public

health preparedness for cyclones. American Journal of Disaster Medicine,

4(5), 273—278.

Guha-sapir, D., Vos, F., & Below, R. (2012). Annual disaster statistical review 2011:

The numbers and trends. Retrieved July 16, 2017, from

http://cred.be/sites/default/files/2012.07.05.ADSR_2011.pdf.

Hancock, G. (1994). Lords of poverty: The power, prestige, and corruption of the

international aid business. New York, USA: Atlantic Monthly Press.

Haq, M., Akhtar, M., Muhammad, S., Paras, S., & Rahmatullah, J. (2012).

Techniques of remote sensing and GIS for flood monitoring and damage

assessment: A case study of Sindh province, Pakistan. Egyptian Journal of

Remote Sensing and Space Science, 15(2), 135–141.

Hashmi, A. (2011, May 10). Social stratification. Pakistan Today. Retrieved

November 22, 2018 from

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/05/10/social-stratification/

http://www.finance.gov.pk/survey/chapter_11

224

He, L. (2019). Identifying local needs for post-disaster recovery in Nepal. World

Development, 118(2019), 52–62.

Hellmuth, M. E., Moorhead, A., Thomas, M. C., & Williams, J. (2007). Climate risk

management in Africa: Learning from practice. Retrieved February 02, 2018,

from https://iri.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Climate-and-

Society-No1_en.pdf.

Hemingway, L., & Priestley, M. (2006). Natural hazards, human vulnerability and

disabling societies: A disaster for disabled people? Review of Disability

Studies: An International Journal, 2(3), 57–68.

Heo, B.-Y., Park, J., & Heo, W.-H. (2018). Sustainable disaster and safety

management of government: Integrated disaster and safety budget system in

Korea. Sustainability, 10(11), 4267.

Hermansson, H. (2017). Centralized disaster management collaboration in Turkey.

(Doctoral Thesis). Uppsala University.

Hettige, S. (2007). Tsunami recovery in Sri Lanka: Retrospect and prospect.

Colombo: University of Colombo.

Hewitt, K. (1983). Interpretation of calamity: From the viewpoint of human ecology.

London, United Kingdom: Allen and Unwin Inc.

Hewitt, Kenneth. (1998). Glaciers receive a surge of attention in the Karakoram

Himalaya. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 79(8), 104–105.

Hillstrom, L. . (2015). Natural Disaster Response. Michigan, USA: Greenhaven

Publishing LLC.

Hiwasaki, L., Luna, E., & Shaw, R. (2014). Process for integrating local and

indigenous knowledge with science for hydro-meteorological disaster risk

reduction and climate change adaptation in coastal and small island

communities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 10 (2014),

15–27.

Holzer, T. L., & Savage, J. C. (2013). Global earthquake fatalities and population.

Earthquake Spectra, 29(1), 155–175.

Housner, G. W. (1989). An international decade of natural disaster reduction: 1990-

2000. Natural Hazards, 2(1), 45–75.

Humanitarian Practice Network. (1994). The IDNDR–for the uninitiated. Newsletter

Relief and Rehabilitation Network, 01-16. Retrieved from

https://odihpn.org/wp- content/uploads/1994/03/newsletter01.pdf.

Hyndman, J. (2007). The securitization of fear in post-tsunami Sri Lanka. Annals of

the Association of American Geographers, 97(2), 361–372.

IASC. (2008). Multi-agency flood impact assessment of Koshi river flood–Nepal.

Retrieved March, 09, 2018, from http://neksap.org.np/uploaded/ resources/

https://iri.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Climate-and-Society-No1_en.pdf

https://iri.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Climate-and-Society-No1_en.pdf

https://odihpn.org/wp-

http://neksap.org.np/uploaded/%20resources/%20Publications-and-Research/Reports/Multi

225

Publications-and-Research/Reports/MultiAgencyFloodImpactAssessmenet,

KoshiRiverFloodNepal.pdf

ICIMOD. (2007). Disaster preparedness for natural hazards – Current status in

Pakistan. Retrieved August 18, 2018 from

http://lib.icimod.org/record/22467/files/c_attachment_288_1708.pdf

Iddi, B., & Nuhu, S. (2018). Challenges and opportunities for community

participation in monitoring and evaluation of government projects in

Tanzania: case of TASAF II, Bagamoyo District. Journal of Public Policy and

Administration, 2(1), 1-10.

Idrees, M. W., & Khan, M. B. (2018). Analysis of susceptibilities, capacities of local

communities, disaster management structures, policies and institutions in

Pakistan: A case of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). Review of Economics

and Development Studies, 4(2), 189–197.

IFRC. (2019). What is vulnerability? Retrieved July 01, 2019, from

https://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-management/about-

disasters/what-is-a-disaster/what-is-vulnerability/

IFRC. (2018). World disasters report 2018. Geneva, Switzerland: International

Federation of the Red Cross.

IFRC. (2016). World disasters report 2016: Resilience saving lives today, investing

for tomorrow. Geneva, Switzerland: International Federation of the Red Cross.

Ikeda, T., & Yoshitani, J. (2006). Japan‘s strategic contributions to hydro‐meteorological disaster mitigation in the world: planning to establish the

UNESCO–PWRI Centre. Hydrological Processes: An International Journal,

20(6), 1251–1261.

Innocenti, D., & Albrito, P. (2011). Reducing the risks posed by natural hazards and

climate change: The need for a participatory dialogue between the scientific

community and policy makers. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(7), 730–

733.

Inter-Cooperation. (2010). Community based disaster risk reduction planning tool:

Local level risk assessment of natural hazards and development of action

plans for reducing disasters. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Swiss Agency for

Development and Cooperation, Swiss Cooperation office

Iqbal, K., & Ahmed, M. (2015). Are decentralized governments more effective in

mitigating disaster risks? Bangladesh Development Studies, 38(3), 1–24.

Iqbal, M., Ahmad, M., & Mustafa, G. (2015). Climate change, vulnerability, food

security and human health in rural Pakistan: A gender perspective. Islamabad,

Pakistan: Pakistan Institute of Development Economics.

Iqbal, M. J., Shah, F. H., Chaudhry, A. U. H., & Baig, M. N. (2014). Impacts of

Attabad lake (Pakistan) and its future outlook. European Scientific Journal,

10(8), 107–120.

http://neksap.org.np/uploaded/%20resources/%20Publications-and-Research/Reports/Multi

https://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-

226

Iqbal, S., Khan, A. N., Jadoon, M. A., & Alam, I. (2018). Effects of Flood-2010 on

Agricultural Sector in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa: A Case of District Charsadda.

Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 34(1), 215– 219.

Ismail, N., & Khattak, N. (2015). Reconnaissance report on the Mw 7.5 Hindu Kush

earthquake of 26th October 2015 and the subsequent aftershocks. Al Ain,

UAE: United Arab Emirates University

Israr, M., Faraz, M., Jan, D., Ahmad, N., & Ahmad, S. (2016). Farming community

perceptions about climate change in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan. World J

Agric Res, 4(3), 70–76.

IUCN. (2017). Nature-based solutions to disasters. Retrieved June 09, 2017, from

https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/nbs_to_disasters_issues_brief_final.pdf

Jackson, P. (2007, June). From Stockholm to Kyoto: A brief history of climate

change. UN Chronicle, XLIV (2).

JAICA. (2013). Pakistan approves a national disaster management plan. Retrieved

July 11, 2016, from https://www.jica.go.jp/english/news /field /2012 /130328

_01.html

Jain, V., Noponen, R., & Smith, B. M. (2003). Pediatric surgical emergencies in the

setting of a natural disaster: experiences from the 2001 earthquake in Gujarat,

India. Journal of Pediatric Surgery,38(5), 663-667.

Jamal, S. (2018). Examining the Pakistan climate change act 2017 in the context of

the contemporary international legal regime. LUMS Law Journal, 5(2018),

108-116.

Jan, M. A. (2018). Training manual on community based flood risk management in

Pakistan. Peshawar, Pakistan: Centre for Disaster Preparedness and

Management, University of Peshawar.

Jan, M. A. (2011). Socio-economic analysis of timber trade in the NWFP, with special

reference to stakeholders analysis in Malakand region. (Unpublished M.Phil

thesis) University of Peshawar, Pakistan.

Jatmiko, A. (2014, December 23). How Indonesian mosques survived the tsunami?

The National, Retrieved July 02, 2019, from https://www.thenational.

ae/world/asia/how-indonesian-mosques-survived-the-tsunami-1.636974

Javaeed, A., Malik, M. N., Yaseen, M., & Abbasi, T. (2018). Emergency medical

services and quality of care in emergency departments: Knowledge, attitude

and practices among general population in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. South Asian

Journal of Emergency Medicine, 1(1), 22–28.

Javaid, Z., Arshad, M., & Khalid, A. (2011). Child protection in disaster management

in South Asia: A case study of Pakistan. South Asian Studies, 26(1), 191–202.

https://www.jica.go.jp/english/news%20/field%20/2012%20/1303

227

Jeggle, T. (2013). Disaster risk management at the regional level: The case of Asia

and the Pacific (ADBI Working Paper, No. 447). Tokyo, Japan: Asian

Development Bank Institute (ADBI).

Joerin, J., & Shaw, R. (2011). Mapping climate and disaster resilience in cities. In

Shaw, R. & Sharma, A. (Eds.), Climate and disaster resilience in cities (pp.

47–61). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research

paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

Jolivet, R., Duputel, Z., Riel, B., Simons, M., Rivera, L., Minson, S. E., … Leprince,

S. (2014). The 2013 MW 7.7 Balochistan Earthquake: seismic potential of an

accretionary wedge. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 104(2),

1020–1030.

Jones, S., Oven, K. J., Manyena, B., & Aryal, K. (2014). Governance struggles and

policy processes in disaster risk reduction: A case study from Nepal.

Geoforum, 57(2014), 78–90.

Joshi, S. R. (2008). Natural disasters in North-East region and its management: An

essay. Meghalaya, India: Centre for Science Education, North Eastern Hill

University.

Kappes, M. S., Papathoma-Koehle, M., & Keiler, M. (2012). Assessing physical

vulnerability for multi-hazards using an indicator-based methodology. Applied

Geography, 32(2), 577–590.

Kapucu, N., Arslan, T., & Demiroz, F. (2010). Collaborative emergency management

and national emergency management network. Disaster Prevention and

Management: An International Journal, 19(4), 452–468.

Kazemi, A. H., & Jan, M. Q. (1997). Geology and tectonics of Pakistan. Karachi,

Pakistan: Graphic publisher.

Kefela, G. (2011). Good governance enhance the efficiency and effectiveness public

spending -Sub Saharan countries. African Journal of Business Management,

5(11), 3995–3999.

Kellett, J., Caravani, A., & Pichon, F. (2014). Financing disaster risk reduction:

Towards a coherent and comprehensive approach. Retrieved May 01, 2018,

from https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-

opinion-files/9027.pdf

Kelman, I., Gaillard, J. C., Lewis, J., & Mercer, J. (2016). Learning from the history

of disaster vulnerability and resilience research and practice for climate

change. Natural Hazards, 82(1), 129–143.

Kelman, I. (2015). Climate change and the Sendai framework for disaster risk

reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6(2), 117–127.

228

Kelman, I. & Gaillard, J.-C. (2008). Placing Climate Change within Disaster Risk

Reduction. Disaster Advances, 1(3), 12–20.

Kemal, A. R. (2002). Regulatory framework in Pakistan. The Pakistan Development

Review, 41(4), 319–332.

Khan, A.N., & Jan, M. A. (2015). Community based Disaster risk management in

Pakistan. In Rahman, A., Khan, A.N. & Shaw, R. (Eds.), Disaster Risk

Reduction Approaches in Pakistan: Disaster Risk Reduction (Methods,

Approaches and Practices) (pp. 361–376). Tokyo, Japan: Springer.

Khan, A. N., & Jan, M. A. (2015). National strategy, law and institutional framework

for disaster risk reduction in pakistan. In Rehman, A., Khan, A.N. & Shaw, R.,

(Eds.), Disaster Risk Reduction Approaches in Pakistan. Disaster Risk

Reduction (Methods, Approaches and Practices) (pp. 241–257). Tokyo, Japan:

Springer.

Khan, A. N., Shah, N., & Jehan, I. (2013). Analysis of the community based early

warning system: A case study of tehsil Charsadda Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,

Pakistan. J. Sc. & Tech. Univ. Peshawar, 37(2), 53–58.

Khan, A.N., Collins, A. E., & Qazi, F. (2011). Causes and extent of environmental

impacts of landslide hazard in the Himalayan region: A case study of Murree,

Pakistan. Natural Hazards, 57(2), 413–434.

Khan, Asadullah, Waris, M., Ismail, I., Sajid, M. R., Ullah, M., & Usman, F. (2019).

Deficiencies in project governance: An analysis of infrastructure development

program. Administrative Sciences, 9(1).

Khan, H., & Khan, A. (2008). Natural hazards and disaster management in Pakistan.

(MPRA paper No. 11052). Retrieved August 3, 2018, from

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/11052/

Khan, I. U. (2015). Comparative review of provincial environmental legislations.

Central Asia Journal, 76(4), 69–78.

Khan, I. U. (2018). Impact of incongruous jail environment on the juvenile prisoners

in selected jails of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. (Unpublished Doctoral

Thesis). University of Peshawar, Pakistan.

Khan, M. A. (2011, August 6). One-third area of KP vulnerable to floods. Daily

Dawn. Retrieved September 24, 2017, from https://www.dawn.com/news

/649736

Khan, T., & Qazi, J. (2014). Measles outbreaks in Pakistan: causes of the tragedy and

future implications. Epidemiology Reports, 2(1), 1-5

Khan, T., & Rabbani, M. M. (2000). Sea level monitoring and study of sea level

variations along Pakistan coast: a component of integrated coastal zone

management. Retrieved April 29, 2017 from https://www.gloss-sealevel.org

/sites/gloss/files/publications/documents/ge9-meeting-report-pakistan.pdf

https://www.dawn.com/news

229

Khattak, M. S., Babel, M. S., & Sharif, M. (2011). Hydro-meteorological trends in the

upper Indus river basin in Pakistan. Climate Research, 46(2), 103–119.

Khondker, H. (2009). Globalization, disasters, and disaster response. In Bryan, S. T.,

(Ed.), The Routledge International Handbook of Globalization Studies (pp.

227–244). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Kiliç, E. Z., Özgüven, H. D., & Sayil, I. (2003). The psychological effects of parental

mental health on children experiencing disaster: The experience of Bolu

earthquake in Turkey. Family Process, 42(4), 485–495.

Kim, H. (2013). Improving simulation exercises in Korea for disaster preparedness.

Disaster Prevention and Management, 22(1), 38–47.

Kirsch, T. D., Wadhwani, C., Sauer, L., Doocy, S., & Catlett, C. (2012). Impact of the

2010 Pakistan floods on rural and urban populations at six months. PLoS

Currents, 4(2012), 1–7.

Kolen, B., & Helsloot, I. (2014). Decision‐making and evacuation planning for flood

risk management in the Netherlands. Disasters, 38(3), 610–635.

Konoorayar, V. (2006). Disasters: Global response to the challenges. In AALCO

Quarterly Bulletin (Vol. 4).

Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques (2nd ed.).

New Delhi, India: New Age International.

Kousky, C. (2016). Impacts of natural disasters on children. Future of Children,

26(1), 73–92.

Krejcie, R. V, & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research

activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610.

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied

research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Kurosaki, T. (2006). Consumption vulnerability to risk in rural Pakistan. The Journal

of Development Studies, 42(1), 70–89.

Kurosaki, T. (2017). Household-level recovery after floods in a tribal and conflict-

ridden society. World Development, 94(2017), 51–63.

Kusumasari, B., Alam, Q., & Siddiqui, K. (2010). Resource capability for local

government in managing disaster. Disaster Prevention and Management: An

International Journal, 19(4), 438–451.

Lasoona. (2011). Case study on rehabilitation of irrigation channel through cash for

work. Retrieved September 23, 2017, from http://lasoona.org/upload/files/Case

study on Infrastructure rehabilitation through CfW.pdf

230

Lay, T., Kanamori, H., Ammon, C. J., Nettles, M., Ward, S. N., Aster, R. C., &

DeShon, H. R. (2005). The great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake of 26

december 2004. Science, 308(5725), 1127–1133.

Lechat, M. F. (1990). The international decade for natural disaster reduction:

background and objectives. Disasters, 14(1), 1–6.

Lee, H., Hong, W.-H., & Lee, Y.-H. (2019). Experimental study on the influence of

water depth on the evacuation speed of elderly people in flood conditions.


Leeuw, F. L. (1996). Performance auditing, new public management and performance

improvement: questions and answers. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability

Journal, 9(2), 92–102.

Li, M., Lu, C., Son, W., Miao, J., Ding, Y., Li, L., … Zhang, Y. (2011). Significance

of vulnerability assessment in establishment of Hainan provincial disaster

medical system. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Medicine, 4(8), 594–596.

Lodi, S., Rafi, M. M., Bashir, S., & Jamali, A. (2016). Pakistan‘s experience with

post-earthquake reconstruction and rehabilitation (No. XLIII). Technical

Journal, 2016 (Gorkha Earthquake 2015 Special), 116-120.

Looney, R. (2012). Economic impacts of the floods in Pakistan. Contemporary South

Asia, 20(2), 225–241.

Lu, S.-Y., Cheng, J. D., & Brooks, K. N. (2001). Managing forests for watershed

protection in Taiwan. Forest Ecology and Management, 143(1–3), 77–85.

Maleeha. (2012). Disaster management in Pakistan. Retrieved December 10, 2017,

from http://www.espark.co/2012/08/disaster-management-in-pakistan-2

Marden, M. (2012). Effectiveness of reforestation in erosion mitigation and

implications for future sediment yields, East Coast catchments, New Zealand:

A review. New Zealand Geographer, 68(1), 24–35.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). The ―what‖ of the study: Building the

conceptual framework. Designing Qualitative Research, 3(3), 21–54.

Marvasti, A. B. (2004). Qualitative research in sociology. London, United Kingdom:

Sage Publications.

Matsiliza, N. (2012). Participatory monitoring and evaluation: Reviewing an inclusive

approach in the South Africa‘s government wide monitoring and evaluation.

Africa‟s Public Service Delivery & Performance Review, 1(2), 67–83.

McCall, R. B., & Kagan, J. (1975). Fundamental statistics for psychology (2nd

ed.).

New York, USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

McClure, J. (2017). Fatalism, causal reasoning, and natural hazards. In Oxford

Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. Retrieved June 20, 2018,

231

from https://oxfordre.com/naturalhazardscience /view /10.1093/ acrefore /97

80199389407.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389407-e-39

McEntire, D. A. (2001). Triggering agents, vulnerabilities and disaster reduction:

towards a holistic paradigm. Disaster Prevention and Management: An


McEntire, D. A. (2004). The status of emergency management theory: Issues,

barriers, and recommendations for improved scholarship. Conference

Proceedings of the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA) Higher

Education Conference June 8, 2004, Emmitsburg, MD. New York, USA:

FEMA.

McEntire, D. A., Fuller, C., Johnston, C. W., & Weber, R. (2002). A comparison of

disaster paradigms: The search for a holistic policy guide. Public

Administration Review, 62(3), 267–281.

McFarlane, A. C. (1987). Family functioning and overprotection following a natural

disaster: The longitudinal effects of post-traumatic morbidity. Australian &

New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 21(2), 210–218.

McSweeney, K. (2005). Natural insurance, forest access, and compounded

misfortune: Forest resources in smallholder coping strategies before and after

Hurricane Mitch, northeastern Honduras. World Development, 33(9), 1453–

1471.

Mehmood, A., Khan, B. A., & Khursheed, M. (2012). Overcrowded emergency

departments: a problem looking for solution. Journal of Pakistan Medical

Association, 62(6), 529-530.

Melo Zurita, M. de L., Cook, B., Thomsen, D. C., Munro, P. G., Smith, T. F., &

Gallina, J. (2018). Living with disasters: Social capital for disaster

governance. Disasters, 42(3), 571–589.

Mian, S. (2014). Pakistan‘s Flood Challenges: An assessment through the lens of

learning and adaptive governance. Environmental Policy and Governance,

24(6), 423–438.

Mir, S. A. (2010, May 26). Attabad lake swallows Shishkat. The Express Tribune.

Retrieved June 10, 2017, from https://tribune.com.pk/story/16251/attabad-

lake-swallows-shishkat/?amp=1

Mirhashemi, S., Ghanjal, A., Mohebbi, H. A., & Moharamzad, Y. (2007). The 2003

Bam earthquake: Overview of first aid and transport of victims. Prehospital

and Disaster Medicine, 22(6), 513–516.

Miyamoto, H. K., Gilani, A. S., & Wada, A. (2008). Reconnaissance report of the

2008 Sichuan earthquake, damage survey of buildings and retrofit options. The

14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-17, 2008,

(MMI), 1–10. Retrieved from https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/

14_S31-031.PDF

https://oxfordre.com/naturalhazardscience%20/view%20/10.1093/%20acrefore%20/97%2080199389407.001.0001/

https://oxfordre.com/naturalhazardscience%20/view%20/10.1093/%20acrefore%20/97%2080199389407.001.0001/

https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/

232

Moazzam, M. F. U., Vansarochana, A., & Rahman, A. U. (2018). Analysis of flood

susceptibility and zonation for risk management using frequency ratio model

in District Charsadda, Pakistan. International Journal of Environment and

Geoinformatics, 5(2), 140–153.

Mohanty, A., Hussain, M., Mishra, M., Kattel, D. B., & Pal, I. (2019). Exploring

community resilience and early warning solution for flash floods, debris flow

and landslides in conflict prone villages of Badakhshan, Afghanistan.

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 33, 5–15.

Montgomery, H. (2011). Rumours of child trafficking after natural disasters: fact,

fiction or fantasy? Journal of Children and Media, 5(4), 395–410.

Mori, N., Takahashi, T., Yasuda, T., & Yanagisawa, H. (2011). Survey of 2011

Tohoku earthquake tsunami inundation and run‐up. Geophysical Research

Letters, 38(August), 6–11.

Mukhtar, R. (2018). Review of National Multi-Hazard Early Warning System Plan of

Pakistan in context with Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.

Procedia Engineering, 212(2018), 206–213.

Mulligan, M., & Buddhadasa, N. (2006). Sri Lanka: Great Achievements and Wasted

Opportunities: A Balance Sheet of Post-tsunami Recovery. Arena Magazine,

83, 35–37.

Murty, T. S., & Rafiq, M. (1991). A tentative list of tsunamis in the marginal seas of

the north Indian Ocean. Natural Hazards, 4(1), 81–83.

Mustafa, D. (1998). Structural causes of vulnerability to flood hazard in Pakistan.

Economic Geography, 74(3), 289–305.

Mustafa, D., Gioli, G., Memon, M., Noshirwani, M., Idris, I., & Ahmed, N. (2019).

Pinning down social vulnerability in Sindh Province, Pakistan: from narratives

to numbers, and back again. Disasters, 43(2), 311–335.

Mustafa, D., & Wrathall, D. (2011). Indus basin floods of 2010: souring of a Faustian

bargain? Water Alternatives, 4(1), 72–85.

Musyoki, A., Thifhulufhelwi, R., & Murungweni, F. M. (2016). The impact of and

responses to flooding in Thulamela Municipality, Limpopo Province, South

Africa. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 8(2), 1–10.

Myeong, S. (2014). Flood vulnerability and deforestation: A case study of North

Korea. Retrieved June 18, 2018, from

https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/50235

Nachmias, F. C., & Nachmias, D. (1992). Research Methods in the Social Sciences

(4th ed.). New York, USA: St. Martin‘s Press.

Nakahara, S., & Ichikawa, M. (2013). Mortality in the 2011 Tsunami in Japan.

Journal of Epidemiology, 23(1), 2011–2014.

233

Nath, P. K., & Behera, B. (2011). A critical review of impact of and adaptation to

climate change in developed and developing economies. Environment,

Development and Sustainability, 13(1), 141–162.

National Assembly Secretariat. (2010). Report on Eighteenth Constitutional

Amendment. Retrieved March 19, 2017, from http://www.na.gov.pk/uploads

/documents/report_constitutional_18th_amend_bill2010_020410_.pdf

National Research Council. (1991). A safer future: Reducing the impacts of natural

disasters. Washington, USA: National Academies Press

Naureen, M. (2009). Development of environmental institutions and laws in Pakistan.

Pakistan Journal of History and Culture, 30(1), 93–112.

Nawaz, H., & Khalid, A. (2017). Strengthening and designing district disaster

management units in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. (Unpublished Mater Thesis)

University of Peshawar.

NDMA. (2018a). Composition and mandate of PDMA. Retrieved December 18, 2018,

from http://www.ndma.gov.pk/pdma.php

NDMA. (2018b). Composition, mandate and HR organogram of NDMA. Retrieved

November 9, 2018, from http://www.ndma.gov.pk/ndma.php

NDMA. (2018c). Mandate of NDMC. Retrieved March 29, 2019, from http://www.

ndma. gov.pk/ndmc.php

NDMA. (2017a). Constitution: National Disaster Management Authority. Retrieved

February 15, 2017, from http://www.ndma.gov.pk/ndma.php

NDMA. (2017b). Guidelines for minimum standards of relief in camp. Islamabad:

National Disaster management Authority.

NDMA. (2015a). Multi-hazard vulnerability and risk assessment. Islamabad,

Pakistan: National Disaster Management Authority.

NDMA. (2015b). National progress report on the implementation of the Hyogo

Framework for Action (2013-2015). Islamabad, Pakistan: National Disaster


NDMA. (2013). Pakistan national disaster risk reduction policy. Islamabad, Pakistan:

National Disaster Management Authority.

NDMA. (2012). Disaster Risk Management Needs Report 2012. Islamabad, Pakistan:

National Disaster Management Authority.

NDMA. (2010). NDMA annual report 2010. Islamabad, Pakistan: National Disaster


NDMA. (2008). NDMA annual report 2007-08. Retrieved June 17, 2017, from

http://www.ndma.gov.pk/publications/AR2007&2008.pdf

http://www.na.gov.pk/uploads%20/documents/report_constitutional_18th_amend_bill2010_02041

http://www.na.gov.pk/uploads%20/documents/report_constitutional_18th_amend_bill2010_02041

http://www/

234

Neuman, W. (2013). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches. Essex, UK: Pearson.

Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches (7th ed.). Boston, USA: Pearson Education Limited.

Ngo, E. B. (2001). When disasters and age collide: Reviewing vulnerability of the

elderly. Natural Hazards Review, 2(2), 80–89.

Nhamo, L., Ndlela, B., Nhemachena, C., Mabhaudhi, T., Mpandeli, S., & Matchaya,

G. (2018). The water- energy-food nexus: Climate risks and opportunities in

southern Africa. Water, 10(5), 567.

Nicholson, S. E. (2014). A detailed look at the recent drought situation in the Greater

Horn of Africa. Journal of Arid Environments, 103(2014), 71–79.

Norio, O., Ye, T., Kajitani, Y., Shi, P., & Tatano, H. (2011). The 2011 eastern Japan

great earthquake disaster: Overview and comments. International Journal of

Disaster Risk Science, 2(1), 34–42.

Noy, I., & Yonson, R. (2018). Economic vulnerability and resilience to natural

hazards: A survey of concepts and measurements. Sustainability, 10(8), 1–16.

O‘Keefe, P., Westgate, K., & Wisner, B. (1976). Taking the naturalness out of natural

disasters. Nature, 260(1976), 566–567.

Ofosu, S., & Ntiamoah, E. B. (2016). Assessing community involvement in

monitoring and evaluation of development projects: The case of the Kwahu

west municipal assembly, Ghana. In British Journal of Education, Society &

Behavioral Science, 14(2016), 1–12.

Okamura, M., Bhandary, N. P., Mori, S., Marasini, N., & Hazarika, H. (2015). Report

on a reconnaissance survey of damage in Kathmandu caused by the 2015

Gorkha Nepal earthquake. Soils and Foundations, 55(5), 1015–1029.

Olowu, D. (2010). The Hyogo Framework for Action and its implications for disaster

management and reduction in Africa. JAMBA: Journal of Disaster Risk

Studies, 3(1), 303–320.

Osti, R., Tanaka, S., & Tokioka, T. (2009). The importance of mangrove forest in

tsunami disaster mitigation. Disasters, 33(2), 203–213.

Pakistan Meteorological Department. (2002). Drought prone regions in Pakistan and

mitigation strategies. Retrieved September 12, 2017, from www.pmd.gov.pk

Palliyaguru, R., Amaratunga, D., & Baldry, D. (2014). Constructing a holistic

approach to disaster risk reduction: the significance of focusing on

vulnerability reduction. Disasters, 38(1), 45–61.

Pandy, B., & Okazaki, K. (2005). Community Based Disaster Management:

Empowering Communities to Cope with Disaster Risks. Regional

Development Dialogue, 26(2), 52–55.

235

Park, H. (2015). Community Based Disaster Risk Management: Towards Risk-

informed Development. Islamabad, Pakistan: United Nations Department

Programme.

PDMA. (2019). Monsoon contingency plan 2019. Retrieved June 01, 2019, from

http://www.pdma.gov.pk/sites/default/files/MonsoonContingencyPlan

20190.pdf

PDMA. (2018a). Constitution: Establishment of PDMA. Retrieved October 12, 2017,

from https://www.pdma.gov.pk/node/17

PDMA. (2018b). Functions of PDMA. Retrieved December 18, 2019,

https://www.pdma.gov.pk/node/18

PDMA. (2018c). Provincial emergency operation centre. Retrieved May 16, 2018,

from http://www.pdma.gov.pk/content/provincial-emergency-operation-

center-peoc

PDMA. (2018d). Strengthening of civil defence department & rescue service 1122.

Retrieved November 25, 2018, from https://www.pdma.gov.pk/node/39

PDMA. (2017a). District disaster management units. Retrieved December 18, 2018,

from https://www.pdma.gov.pk/node/21

PDMA. (2017b). Response & recovery. Retrieved January 16, 2018, from

http://www.pdma.gov.pk/content/response-recovery

PDMA. (2016). Overview of natural disasters 2015: Impact, response and managing

risk. Retrieved April 02, 2017, from

https://www.pdma.gov.pk/sites/default/files/Overview of natural disasters

2015_7_0.pdf

PDMA. (2014). District disaster management plan, district Nowshera. Retrieved July

10, 2017, from https://www.pdma.gov.pk/sites/default/files/DRM District

Nowshera_0.pdf

PDMA. (2012). Monsoon contingency plan 2012. Peshawar, Pakistan: Provincial

Disaster Management Authority.

PEC. (2008). Safety codes. Retrieved September 17, 2017, from https://www.pec.

org.pk/building_code_pakistan.aspx

Peek, L. (2008). Children and disasters: Understanding vulnerability, developing

capacities, and promoting resilience—An introduction. Children Youth and

Environments, 18(1), 1–29.

Pelling, M., & Mustafa, D. (2010). Vulnerability, disasters and poverty in desakota

systems. In Environment, Politics and Development Working Paper Series

(No. 31; Vol. 31). Retrieved March 17, 2017, from

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/sspp/geography/research/epd/working.html

https://www.pec/

236

Pelling, M., & Uitto, J. I. (2001). Small island developing states: natural disaster

vulnerability and global change. Global Environmental Change Part B:

Environmental Hazards, 3(2), 49-62.

Pelto, P. J., & Pelto, G. H. (1978). Anthropological research: The structure of inquiry.

New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Phaup, M., & Kirschner, C. (2010). Budgeting for disasters. OECD Journal on

Budgeting, 10(1), 1–24.

Picard, M. (2014). Effective law and regulation for disaster risk reduction: A multi-

country report. Retrieved April 10, 2016, from

https://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/IDRL/countrystudies/summary_repo

rt_final_single_page.pdf

Prater, C. S., & Lindell, M. K. (2000). Politics of hazard mitigation. Natural Hazards

Review, 1(2), 73–82.

Provincial Disaster Management Authority [PDMA]. (2014). Road Map for Disaster

Risk Management 2014 - 2019. Retrieved June 10, 2017, from

http://www.pdma.gov.pk/sites/default/files/drm_road_map_2014-19.pdf

Qasim, S., Qasim, M., Shrestha, R. P., & Khan, A. N. (2017). An assessment of flood

vulnerability in Khyber Pukhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. AIMS

Environmental Science, 4(2017), 206–216.

Quarantelli, E L. (1998). Introduction: The basic question, its importance, and how it

is addressed in this volume. In Quarantelli, E. L., (Ed.), What is a disaster?

(pp. 1–8). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Quarantelli, Enrico L. (1998). Epilogue: Where we have been and where we might go.

In Quarantelli, E. L., (Ed.), What is a Disaster (pp. 234–273). London, United

Kingdom: Routledge.

Rafiq, L., & Blaschke, T. (2012). Disaster risk and vulnerability in Pakistan at a

district level. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 3(4), 324–341.

Rahman, Atta-ur, Khan, A. N., & Collins, A. E. (2014). Analysis of landslide causes

and associated damages in the Kashmir Himalayas of Pakistan. Natural

Hazards, 71(1), 803–821.

Rana, I. A., & Routray, J. K. (2016). Actual vis-à-vis perceived risk of flood prone

urban communities in Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk

Reduction, 19(2016), 366–378.

Rehman, J., Sohaib, O., Asif, M., & Pradhan, B. (2019). Applying systems thinking to

flood disaster management for a sustainable development. International

Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 36(1), 101101.

Rehman, Z. U. (2016). Nexus between poverty and disaster vulnerability.

(Unpublished Master Thesis) University of Peshawar.

https://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/IDRL/countrystudies/summary_report_final_single_p

https://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/IDRL/countrystudies/summary_report_final_single_p

237

Richards, C. (2015). When Communications Infrastructure Fails During a Disaster.

Retrieved May 15, 2017, from https://www.drj.com/articles/online-

exclusive/when-communications-infrastructure-fails-during-a-disaster.html

Rijal, S., Barkey, R. A., & Nursaputra, M. (2019). Profile, Level of Vulnerability and

Spatial Pattern of Deforestation in Sulawesi Period of 1990 to 2018. Forests,

10(2), 1–14.

Ringer, F. (2004). Max Weber: An intellectual biography. Chicago, USA: University

of Chicago Press.

Robert, K. W., Parris, T. M., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2005). What is sustainable

development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment: Science

and Policy for Sustainable Development, 47(3), 8–21.

Rowling, M. (2015, March 18). New global disaster plan sets targets to curb risk,

losses. Reuters. Retrieved May 07, 2017, from

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-disaster-risk-agreement/new-global-

disaster-plan-sets-targets-to-curb-risk-losses-idUSKBN0ME27720150318

Roy, F., & Ferland, Y. (2015). Land-use planning for disaster risk management. Land

Tenure Journal, 1(14), 71–107.

Roy, N., Shah, H., Patel, V., & Coughlin, R. R. (2002). The Gujarat earthquake

(2001) experience in a seismically unprepared area: community hospital

medical response. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 17(4), 186–195.

Sabri, F. (2017, May 20). 67,399 people killed in terror attacks during past 15 years.

Pakistan Today. Retrieved August 07, 2017, from

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2017/05/20/67399-people-killed-in-terror-

attacks-during-past-15-years/

Sadia, H., Iqbal, M. J., Ahmad, J., Ali, A., & Ahmad, A. (2016). Gender-sensitive

public health risks and vulnerabilities‘ assessment with reference to floods in

Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 19(2016), 47–56.

Sadruddin, M. M. (2011). Study on the important issues of child rights in Pakistan.

Dialogue, 6(1), 14.

Salajegheh, S., & Pirmoradi, N. (2013). Community-based disaster risk management

(CBDRM) and providing a model for Iran. International Journal of

Engineering Research and Development, 7(9), 60–69.

Saleem, S. (2013). Flood and socio-economic vulnerability: New challenges in

women‟s lives in northern Pakistan. (Unpublished M. Phil Thesis) The

University of Bergen, Norway.

Sami, F., Ali, F., Zaidi, S. H., Rehman, H., Ahmad, T., & Siddiqui, M. I. (2009). The

October 2005 earthquake in Northern Pakistan: patterns of injuries in victims

brought to the Emergency Relief Hospital, Doraha, Mansehra. Prehosp

Disaster Med, 24(6), 535–539.

https://www.drj.com/articles/online-exclusive/when-communications-

https://www.drj.com/articles/online-exclusive/when-communications-

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-disaster-risk-

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2017/05/20/67399-

238

Sapsford, R. J. (1978). Life-sentence prisoners: Psychological changes during

sentence. Brit. J. Criminology, 18(2), 128–145.

Sardar, A., Javed, S. A., & Amir-ud-Din, R. (2016). Natural disasters and economic

growth in Pakistan: An enquiry into the floods related hazards‟ Triad.

Retrieved April 02, 2017, from https://www.pide.org.pk/pdf/Working

Paper/EE_Working_Paper-10.pdf

SARRC. (2014). Disaster profile of Pakistan. Retrieved May 14, 2016, from

http://www.saarcsadkn.org/countries/pakistan/disaster_profile.aspx

Sato, H. P., Hasegawa, H., Fujiwara, S., Tobita, M., Koarai, M., Une, H., & Iwahashi,

J. (2007). Interpretation of landslide distribution triggered by the 2005

Northern Pakistan earthquake using SPOT 5 imagery. Landslides, 4(2), 113–

122.

Sawada, Y., & Takasaki, Y. (2017). Natural disaster, poverty, and development: An

introduction. World Development, 94(2017), 2–15.

Sayed, S. A., & González, P. A. (2014). Flood disaster profile of Pakistan: A review.

Science Journal of Public Health, 2(3), 144–149.

Sayira, T., & Andrews, H. (2016). Impacts of crises and communication media on

place image: A case study of Chilas, Pakistan. Journal of Destination

Marketing & Management, 5(4), 351–360.

Schmidt, A., Wolbers, J., Ferguson, J., & Boersma, K. (2018). Are you Ready2Help?

Conceptualizing the management of online and onsite volunteer

convergence. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(3), 338–

349.

Schmidtlein, M. C., Deutsch, R. C., Piegorsch, W. W., & Cutter, S. L. (2008). A

sensitivity analysis of the social vulnerability index. Risk Analysis: An


Schneider, B. (2018, January). Disaster resilience saves six times as much as it costs.

Citylab, The Atlantic Monthly, 3. Retrieved March 12, 2019, from

https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/01/disaster-resilience-saves-six-

times-as-much-as-it-costs/550712/

Schröder-Butterfill, E., & Marianti, R. (2006). A framework for understanding old-

age vulnerabilities. Ageing & Society, 26(1), 9–35.

SDPI. (2011). SDPI (2011). Policy recommendations details. Retrieved May 10,

2017, from https://www.sdpi.org/policy_outreach/policy_recommendations_

details73.html

Seekins, D. (2009). State, society and natural disaster: cyclone Nargis in Myanmar

(Burma). Asian Journal of Social Science, 37(5), 717–737.

Shabir, O. (2013). A summary case report on the health impacts and response to the

Pakistan floods of 2010. PLoS Currents, 5(2013), 1–46.

https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/01/disaster-resilience-saves-six-times-as-much-as-

https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/01/disaster-resilience-saves-six-times-as-much-as-

https://www.sdpi.org/policy_outreach/policy_

239

Shafiq, F., & Ahsan, K. (2014). An ICT based early warning system for flood

disasters in Pakistan. Res. J. Recent Sci. ISSN, 3(9), 108–118.

Shah, A. A., Ye, J., Abid, M., Khan, J., & Amir, S. M. (2018). Flood hazards:

household vulnerability and resilience in disaster-prone districts of Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa province, Pakistan. Natural Hazards, 93(1), 147–165.

Shah, A. A., Ye, J., Pan, L., Ullah, R., Shah, S. I. A., Fahad, S., & Naz, S. (2018).

Schools‘ flood emergency preparedness in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province,

Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 9(2), 181–194.

Shah, A., Qureshi, M. A., Saleem, M. W., Naseer, S., & Israr-U-Haq. (2013). An

analysis of Seismic Provisions of Building Code of Pakistan. Retrieved April

28, 2017, from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304253358_An_analysis_of_Seismi

c_Provisions_of_Building_Code_of_Pakistan

Shahbaz, B., Shah, Q. A., Suleri, A. Q., Commins, S., & Malik, A. A. (2012).

Livelihoods, basic services and social protection in North-Western Pakistan

Retrieved April 16, 2018, from https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-

assets/publications-opinion-files/7782.pdf

Shahid, A., Zahid, H., Qureshi, A. S., Rashida, M., & Mohammad, S. (2004). Drought

mitigation in Pakistan: current status and options for future strategies. In IWMI

Working Paper. International Water Management Institute.

Shahzad, T. (2014). Policy recommendations and guidelines to streamline &

incorporate glacial lake outburst flood issues for future policy formulation in

Pakistan. Islamabad, Pakistan: Pakistan Glacier Lake Outburst Floods Project,

Climate Change Division.

Shaikh, S. H. (2019, February 1). Alarming literacy rate. The Nation. Retrieved July

18, 2019, from https://nation.com.pk/24-Feb-2019/alarming-literacy-rate

Shamim, M. (2016). Theoretical approach to disaster management. Retrieved March

16, 2017, from https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/ 306394957 _Theo

retical_Approach_to_Disaster_Management

Shaw, R., Rodriguez, H., Wachtendorf, T., Kendra, J., & Trainor, J. (2006). A

snapshot of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami: societal impacts and

consequences. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International

Journal, 15(1), 163–177.

Shaw, Rajib. (2015). Disaster Resilience: Generic Overview and Pakistan Context. In

Atta-Ur-Rahman, Khan, A.N. & Shaw, R. (Eds.), Disaster Risk Reduction

Approaches in Pakistan (pp. 53–73). Kyoto, Japan: Springer.

Sheikh, M. M. (2013). Disaster monitoring and management utilizing GNSS.

Retrieved from. Retrieved March 03, 2017, from

http://www.suparco.gov.pk/pages/presentations-pdf/day-1/session- 1/12B-

II/2.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304253358_An_analysis_of_Seismic_Provisions_of_

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304253358_An_analysis_of_Seismic_Provisions_of_

https://www.researchgate.net/%20publication/%20306394957%20_Theo%20retical_Approach_to_Disaster_Ma

https://www.researchgate.net/%20publication/%20306394957%20_Theo%20retical_Approach_to_Disaster_Ma

http://www.suparco.gov.pk/pages/presentations-pdf/day-1/session-

240

Shi, M., Xu, W., Gao, L., Kang, Z., Ning, N., Liu, C., … Liang, L. (2018).

Emergency volunteering willingness and participation: a cross-sectional

survey of residents in northern China. BMJ Open, 8(7), e020218.

Shinozuka, M., & Chang, S. E. (2004). Evaluating the disaster resilience of power

networks and grids. In Okuyama, Y. & Chang, S. E., (Eds.), Modeling spatial

and economic impacts of disasters (pp. 289–310). Heidelberg, Germany:

Springer.

Siddiqui, J. (2017, February 4). Agriculture sector on decline in KP. Business

Recorder. Retrieved March 12, 2018, from https://fp.brecorder.

com/2017/02/20170204137451/

Silverman, W. K., & La Greca, A. M. (2002). Children experiencing disasters:

Definitions, reactions, and predictors of outcomes. In A. M. La Greca A.M.,

Silverman, M.K., Vernberg, E. M. & Roberts, M. C., (Eds.), Helping

children cope with disasters and terrorism (pp. 11–33). Washington DC:

USA: American Psychological Association.

Soomro, K. A., Shukui, T., Butt, M., & Anand, V. (2016). Participatory governance

through youth volunteerism in public sector of Pakistan. Journal of Public

Administration and Governance, 6(2), 169–180.

Soransora, D. T. (2013). Influence of Community Participatory Monitoring And

Evaluation On Performance Of Development Project Acase Of Ewaso Ngi‟ro

North Development Authority, Isiolo County. (Unpublished Master of Arts

thesis) University of Nairobi.

Srinivas, H., & Nakagawa, Y. (2008). Environmental implications for disaster

preparedness: Lessons Learnt from the Indian Ocean Tsunami. Journal of

Environmental Management, 89(1), 4–13.

Stallings, R. A. (2002). Weberian political sociology and sociological disaster studies.

Sociological Forum, 17(2), 281–305.

Stanganelli, M. (2008). A new pattern of risk management: The Hyogo Framework

for Action and Italian practise. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 42(2), 92–

111.

Steckley, M., & Doberstein, B. (2011). Tsunami survivors‘ perspectives on

vulnerability and vulnerability reduction: evidence from Koh Phi Phi Don and

Khao Lak, Thailand. Disasters, 35(3), 465–487.

Steckley, M. E. (2006). The impact of governance on disaster vulnerability.

(Unpublished Mater Thesis) University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Sudmeier-Rieux, K., Ash, N., & Murti, R. (2013). Environmental guidance note for

disaster risk reduction: Healthy ecosystems for human security and climate

change adaptation. IUCN.

SUPARCO. (2015). Environmental atlas of Pakistan. Islamabad, Pakistan: Space and

Upper Atmospheric Research Commission.

https://fp.brecorder/

241

Susman, P., O‘Keefe, P., & Wisner, B. (1983). Global disasters, a radical

interpretation. In Hewitt, K., (Ed.), Interpretations of Calamity. Melbourne,

Australia: Allen & Unwinn.

Takasaki, Y., Barham, B. L., & Coomes, O. T. (2004). Risk coping strategies in

tropical forests: floods, illnesses, and resource extraction. Environment and

Development Economics, 9(2), 203–224.

Talal, M. (2017). Counting disaster (1947-2016): Pakistan disaster risk index.

Islamabad, Pakistan: Plan International Pakistan.

Tamima, U., & Chouinard, L. (2012). Framework for earthquake evacuation planning:

case study for Montreal, Canada. Leadership and Management in

Engineering, 12(4), 222–230.

Tierney, K. (2012). Disaster governance: Social, political, and economic dimensions.

Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(2012), 341–363.

Tierney, Kathleen. (2006). Social inequality, hazards, and disasters. In Daniels, R.,

Kettl, D. & Kunreuther , H.,(Ed.), On Risk and Disaster: Lessons from

Hurricane Katrina. (pp. 109–128). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania

Press.

Trindade, A., Teves-Costa, P., & Catita, C. (2018). A GIS-based analysis of

constraints on pedestrian tsunami evacuation routes: Cascais case study

(Portugal). Natural Hazards, 93(1), 169–185.

Tsakiris, G. (2016). Proactive planning against droughts. Procedia Engineering,

162(2016), 15–24.

Twigg, J. (2001). Sustainable livelihoods and vulnerability to disasters. Disaster

Management Working paper 2/2001. Benfield Greig Hazard Research Centre.

Ullah, S. (2019). Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into health sector in Pakistan:

An opportunity to prepare for emergency response and disaster risk

management mainstreaming DRR into health sector. Humanitarian Resilience

Journal, 1(2), 4–7.

Ullah, S. . (2010). Building codes and regulation for Pakistan. Retrieved September

15, 2017, from http://urbanairs.blogspot.com/2010/02/building-codes-and-

regulation-for.html

Ullah, W., Nihei, T., Nafees, M., Zaman, R., & Ali, M. (2018). Understanding climate

change vulnerability, adaptation and risk perceptions at household level in

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. International Journal of Climate Change

Strategies and Management, 10(3), 359–378.

UN. (2003). Johannesburg declaration on sustainable development: Plan of

implementation of the world summit on sustainable development. Geneva,

Switzerland: United Nations, Department of Public Information.

242

UNCRD. (1989). Challenges of the IDNDR report and summary of proceedings of the

international symposium on “challenges of the IDNDR” Yokohama.

Retrieved August 05, 2017, from

http://www.uncrd.or.jp/content/documents/1989IntlSymposium.pdf

UNDP. (2017a). Guidance: Capacities and vulnerabilities assessment framework

(CVA). Retrieved March, 02, 2018, from https://www.adaptation-undp.org/

sites/default/files/resources/6_capacities_and_vulnerabilities_assessment_fram

ework_cva_framework.pdf

UNDP. (2017b). Strengthened integrated early warning systems for more effective

disaster risk reduction in the Caribbean. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from

http://www.bb.undp.org/content/barbados/en/home/projects/strengthened-

integrated-early-warning-systems-for-more-effective.html

UNESCAP. (2015). What is good governance? Retrieved April 29, 2017, from

https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/good-governance.pdf

UNESCAP. (2017). Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction for sustainable

development: A guidebook for the Asia Pacific. Retrieved July 13, 2018, from

https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/publication_WEBdrr02_Mainstrea

ming.pdf

UNESCO. (2009). Water in a changing world: The United Nations world water

development report. Retrieved September 17, 2017, from https://unesdoc.

unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000181993

UNICEF. (2015). Disaster Risk Reduction and Gender. Retrieved September 17,

2017, from http://www.americalatinagenera.org/es/documentos

/post2015_fichas/DRR.pdf

UNISDR. (2005a). Disaster management policies and system in Pakistan. Geneva,

Switzerland: United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

UNISDR. (2005b). Hyogo framework for action (HFA): Building the resilience of

nations and communities to disasters. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations

Inter-Agency Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.

UNISDR. (2005c). Hyogo framework for action 2005-2015: building the resilience of

nations and communities to disasters. Extract from the Final Report of the

World Conference on Disaster Reduction (A/CONF. 206/6) Kobe, Japan, 18-

22 January 2005,. Kobe, Japan: The United Nations International Strategy for

Disaster Reduction Geneva.

UNISDR. (2015). Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. Retrieved

March 19, 2017, from https://www.unisdr.org/files/43291_sendaiframew

orkfordrren.pdf

United Nations. (1994). Yokohama strategy and plan of action for a safer world:

Guidelines for natural disaster prevention, preparedness and mitigation. In

https://www.adaptation-undp.org/

http://www.bb.undp.org/content/barbados/en/home/projects/strengthened-integrated-early-

http://www.bb.undp.org/content/barbados/en/home/projects/strengthened-integrated-early-

https://unesdoc/

http://www.americalatinagenera.org/es/documentos

https://www.unisdr.org/files/43291_sendaiframew%20orkfordrren.pdf

https://www.unisdr.org/files/43291_sendaiframew%20orkfordrren.pdf

243

World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction, Yokohama, Japan. Geneva,

Switzerland: United Nations Department for Humanitarian Affairs.

UNOCHA. (2013). Affected Population in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa by UCs-Pakistan

Floods 2010. Retrieved March 11, 2017, from

http://floods2010.pakresponse.info/figures/kpk/Populatoin_Affected_in_KPK

_by_UC.pdf

Vachette, A., King, D., & Cottrell, A. (2017). Bonding, bridging and linking social

networks: A qualitative study of the emergency management of Cyclone Pam,

Vanuatu. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 58(3), 315–330.

Vanholder, R., Tol, A. Van Der, Smet, M. De, Hoste, E., Koc, M., Hussain, A., …

Sever, M. S. (2007). Earthquakes and crush syndrome casualties : Lessons

learned from the Kashmir disaster. ComKidney International, 71(1), 17–23.

Waldman, S., Yumagulova, L., Mackwani, Z., Benson, C., & Stone, J. T. (2018).

Canadian citizens volunteering in disasters: From emergence to networked

governance. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(3), 394–

402.

Walker, G., Tweed, F., & Whittle, R. (2014). A framework for profiling the

characteristics of risk governance in natural hazard contexts. Natural Hazards

and Earth System Sciences, 14(1), 155–164.

Wallemacq, P. (2018). Economic losses, poverty & disasters: 1998-2017. Retrieved

March 12, 2019, from

https://www.preventionweb.net/files/61119_credeconomiclosses.pdf

Wamsler, C. (2007). Bridging the gaps: stakeholder-based strategies for risk reduction

and financing for the urban poor. Environment and Urbanization, 19(1), 115–

142.

Warner, K., Bouwer, L. M., & Ammann, W. (2007). Financial services and disaster

risk finance: Examples from the community level. Environmental Hazards,

7(1), 32–39.

Wasim, S. S., & Khalidi, M. A. (2018). Causes of Construction Project Failures in

Pakistan. Civil and Environmental Research, 10(7), 38–41.

Waugh Jr, W. L., & Streib, G. (2006). Collaboration and leadership for effective

emergency management. Public Administration Review, 66(2006), 131–140.

Webb, G. R. (2007). The popular culture of disaster: Exploring a new dimension of

disaster research. In Rodriguez, H., Quarantelli, E.L. & Dynes, R., (Eds.),

Handbook of Disaster Research (pp. 430–440). New York, USA: Springer.

Weichselgartner, J. (2001). Disaster mitigation: The concept of vulnerability revisited.

Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 10(2), 85–

94.

244

Weichselgartner, J., & Pigeon, P. (2015). The role of knowledge in disaster risk

reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6(2), 107–116.

Weir, T., & Virani, Z. (2011). Three linked risks for development in the Pacific

Islands: climate change, disasters and conflict. Climate and Development,

3(3), 193–208.

Wescoat Jr, J. L., Halvorson, S. J., & Mustafa, D. (2000). Water management in the

Indus basin of Pakistan: a half-century perspective. International Journal of

Water Resources Development, 16(3), 391–406.

Van Westen, C. J. (2000). Remote sensing for natural disaster

management. International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote

Sensing, 33(B7/4; PART 7), 1609-1617.

White, T. (2011). Government decentralization in the 21st century: A literature

review. Retrieved May 16, 2017, from https://csis-

prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/ files/publication /12032 9_

White_Decentralization_Web.pdf

WHO & NIH. (2010). Flood Response in Pakistan. Weekly Epidemiological Bulletin,

2(November), 1–6. Retrieved from

https://www.who.int/hac/crises/pak/sitreps/pakistan_epi_24january2011.pdf

WHO & PAHO. (2012). Guidelines for mainstreaming the needs of older persons in

disaster situations in the Caribbean. Washington, DC: Pan American Health

Organization.

Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2003). At risk: Natural hazards,

people‟s vulnerability and disasters (2nd ed.). London, United Kingdom:

Rutledge Taylor and Francis Group.

Wisner, B., Gaillard, J.-C., & Kelman, I. (2012). The Routledge handbook of hazards

and disaster risk reduction (Vol. 2). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

World Bank & ADB. (2009). Post conflict need assessment preliminary damage and

needs assessment: Immediate restoration and medium term reconstruction in

crisis affected areas. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/492201468067130443/pdf/703280

ESW0P12305B00PUBLIC00Pakistan.pdf

World Bank & ADB. (2010). Pakistan floods 2010: Preliminary damages and needs

assessment. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from

https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/linked-documents/44372-01-pak-oth-

02.pdf

Xu, J., & Lu, Y. (2012). Meta-synthesis pattern of post-disaster recovery and

reconstruction: based on actual investigation on 2008 Wenchuan earthquake.

Natural Hazards, 60(2), 199–222.

https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/

https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/492201468067130443/pdf/703280ESW0P12305B

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/492201468067130443/pdf/703280ESW0P12305B

https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/linked-documents/44372-01-pak-

245

Xu, W. (2007). Development of a methodology for participatory evacuation planning

and management: Case study of Nagata, Kobe. (Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation) Kyoto Univ., Japan.

Yari, A., Zarezadeh, Y., & Ostadtaghizadeh, A. (2019). Prevalence of Fatalistic

Attitudes toward Earthquake Disaster Risk Management in Citizens of Tehran,

Iran. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 38(2019), 1–8.

Yasir, A. (2010). The political economy of disaster vulnerability: a case study of

Pakistan earthquake 2005(MPRA no. 20762). Munich: Germany.

Yasser, Q. R., Entebang, H. A., & Mansor, S. A. (2011). Corporate governance and

firm performance in Pakistan: The case of Karachi Stock Exchange (KSE).

Journal of Economics and International Finance, 3(8), 482–491.

Yodmani, S. (2001). Disaster risk management and vulnerability reduction: Protecting

the poor. Paper Presented at the Asian and Pacific Forum on Poverty, 5–9

February 2001, Manila, Philippines. Retrieved April 19, 2017, from

http://www.adpc.net/V2007/IKM/ONLINEDOCUMENTS/downloads/Poverty

Paper.pdf.

Young, P. V. (1966). Scientific social surveys and research: an introduction to the

background, content, methods, principles and analysis of social studies. New

Jersey, United States of America: Prentice-Hall.

Zaheer, H. A. (2012). Blood management in disaster situations in Pakistan. ISBT

Science Series, 7(1), 1–5.

Zeshan, A, & Khan, D. M. B. (2015). Implementation of Disaster Risk Reduction

Policy in Pakistan-An Evidence from Sialkot. In ISSRA Papers (No. 17).

Zeshan, Atif. (2016). Partnerships for development through M & E in harsh, fragile

and complex environments. In 8th Annual „M&E on the Cutting Edge‟

Conference, March 17-18, 2016, 1–13. Retrieved March 02, 2018, from

http://www.managingforimpact.org/sites/default/files/case/paper_me_conferen

ce_2016_atif_zeeshan_rauf.pdf

Zia, A., & Wagner, C. H. (2015). Mainstreaming early warning systems in

development and planning processes: Multilevel implementation of Sendai

framework in Indus and Sahel. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science,

6(2), 189–199.

Zia, N., Shahzad, H., Baqir, S. M., Shaukat, S., Ahmad, H., Robinson, C., … Razzak,

J. A. (2015). Ambulance use in Pakistan: an analysis of surveillance data from

emergency departments in Pakistan. BMC Emergency Medicine, 15(2), S9.

http://www.adpc.net/V2007/IKM/ONLINE

246

ANNEXURE 01: IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW CHECKLIST

S.NO. Probing Questions/Statements Responses

01 Please indicate what is your designation /department that you

belong to and describe the nature of your role in the

department as well as your main responsibilities and duties.

How long have you worked in this department? Or another

agency dealing with disasters? How long have you worked in

the disaster management system?

02 What are the major disasters affecting Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

province? Please elaborate the types of disasters that have

frequently affected the province in the recent past. What are

the impacts of these disasters on the socio-economic fabric of

the province? (Please focus in the following aspects while

answering this question: Impact on Social Sector; Impact on

Economic Sector Impact on Physical Infrastructure; Energy

and Power Generation Governance and Environment)

03 In your opinion, who are the most vulnerable to these

disasters? (Everyone in our society doesn‘t have equal

vulnerability to disasters. Different sections of society are

having differential vulnerability to disasters).Keeping in view

the above questions, do you think of disaster vulnerability as a

major component exposing people to the impacts of disasters?

04 What type of vulnerabilities exists in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

province? Please describe it in term of social, economic,

physical and attitudinal vulnerabilities. Also narrate the causes

of these vulnerabilities in the province to disasters.

05 Do you consider risk knowledge, education and understanding

risk factors like dangerous geographical locations, poor

construction practices, land use planning etc. as a pre-requisite

for vulnerability reduction? In your view how much

knowledge and awareness exist in public sector employees

regarding these factors? How it contributes to the vulnerability

reduction in the province? What types of instruments the

government is using for awareness of the public sector

employees?

06 What is the mandate of your organization in disaster

vulnerability reduction in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province?

Describe it as per the following components of disaster

management (Prevention, Mitigation, Preparedness, Response

247

and Recovery).

07 Keeping in view the above mandated aspects of disaster

management, does your department have any sort of legal,

policy and planning framework? Legal Framework (Mention

any Act/Bill that direct the employees to conduct activities for

disaster vulnerability reduction). To what extent it has been

implemented by your department/organization? Policy

Framework (Mention any Policy that direct the employees to

conduct activities for disaster vulnerability reduction). Plan

(Mention any Plan that direct the employees to conduct

activities for disaster vulnerability reduction). How your

organization is contributing to the vulnerability reduction

plans and to what extent it has been implemented?

08 Do you think the present legal, policy and

structural/organizational framework enhances capacities and

reducing vulnerabilities to disasters? What type of

changes/alternates you suggest in these aspects of DRR

governance to reduce vulnerabilities of the population

segments?

09 Are these policies and plans people centered and inclusive in

nature? If, yes how it will influences societal attitudes and

socio-political processes to enable and empower the

marginalized to speak for themselves. How do you perceive

the role of the Local Community in rebuilding and facing the

influence of the disaster in the long term?

10 Is government allocating dedicated budget for disaster

vulnerability reduction? How much it has influenced

vulnerability reduction plan implementation? What types of

factors affect the budget allocation for DRR?

11 Do you think proper Planning, Implementation, Monitoring

and Evaluation of DRR projects in place and the government

has taken vulnerability reduction as a priority for better

preparedness of the communities? What do you think are the

major obstacles (both systemic and execution) in achieving the

aims and objectives of the disaster vulnerability reduction

policies and plans? What are the available capacities and

resources in provincial governance system for vulnerability

reduction and Disaster Preparedness?

248

ANNEXURE 02: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION (FGD) GUIDE

FGD No:________ Date: __________

Location/Union Council _______________ District_______

Number of Participant:__________ Total_____

Moderator_________ Note Taker: ______

Start Time:_________ End Time: _______

Question No Or Key Statement Responses Observation

Do you know about hazard and disasters? What types of

disasters are occurring in your area? How many times

your community has been impacted by disasters? What

were the impacts of those disasters on your community?

Do you consider disasters as an act of God or it is due to

human action and inaction? What are the reasons of

occurrence of these disasters? What type of social,

economic, physical and attitudinal vulnerabilities exists

in your area?

In your opinion, who are the most vulnerable to these

disasters? (Everyone in our society doesn‘t have equal

vulnerability to disasters. Different sections of society

are having differential vulnerability to disasters).

After the last disaster in your area, what type of changes

you have observed in the landscape of the area? What

type of changes has been noticed in the settlement

pattern of the community? What type of attitudinal and

behavioral changes you have noticed in the people

regarding disasters? Do you think that awareness level

has increased in the community regarding risk and

vulnerability reduction?

Do you know about any Government Policies regarding

disaster management? Do you know about any

vulnerability reduction plan? If yes, have you been

contacted by Government in formulation of these plans

and policies?

Is Government implementing any vulnerability reduction

project in your community?

Can you mention a few projects? Do you think these

projects reduce vulnerability and miseries of the local

249

people? What sort of major projects have been

implemented by government in your community? (i.e.

Construction of Embankments, protection walls,

retention walls, roads, schools, hospitals, community

centers etc.)

Are they involving the local community in the

implementation projects? If yes what are the positive

impacts of those projects. If no what are the reasons?

Do you think government has invested enough money in

vulnerability reduction in your community? Do you

consider yourself safe while living in the community?

Is there any Village Disaster Management Committee

exists? Do they have any DRR Plan in your community?

What do you think about the effectiveness of Govt

Policies and Plans? Are they reducing vulnerability of

the community to future disasters? Do you consider it

people friendly?

What are the major obstacles in vulnerability reduction in

your community? What type of flaws you have observed

in government approach to disaster risk reduction?

Do you consider risk knowledge, education and

understanding risk factors like geographical locations,

poor construction practices, land use planning etc. as a

pre-requisite for vulnerability reduction? In your view

how much knowledge and awareness exist in public

sector employees regarding these factors? How it

contributes to the vulnerability reduction in the province?

If community is fully involved and empowered, do you

think it will be having positive impacts in creating

resilient communities? What contribution the community

can make in disaster vulnerability reduction?

250

ANNEXURE 03: STRUCTURE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

SECTION A: SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS

1. Respondent No. _____________________________________________

2. Name of the respondent (Optional)____________________________________

3. Gender

a) Male

b) Female

4. Age

a) 20 years and below

b) 21-30 years

c) 31-40 years

d) 41-50 years

e) 51-60 years

f) Above 60 years

5. Marital status

a) Single

b) Married

a) Divorced

c) Widowed

6. Family type

a) Nuclear Family

b) Joint family

c) Extended family

7. How many family members do you have?

Family Size Response

5 and below

6 to 10

11 to 15

251

above 15

Total

8. Level of Education

a) Illiterate

b) Up to Matric

c) Intermediate

d) Bachelor

e) Master

f) MPhil/PhD

g) Any other Please Specify

9. Occupation

a) Unemployed

b) Student

c) Farmer

d) Horticulturist

e) Laborer

f) Public/Private Servant

g) Businessman

h) Industrialist

i) Dependent on foreign remittances

j) Others

252

10. Family Monthly Income in PKR from all resources

a) Less than 10000

b) 10001-20000

c) 20001-30000

d) 30001-40000

e) 40001-50000

f) Above 50000

SECTION B. EXPERIENCES OF DISASTERS

01 Do you know

about

disaster?

Yes No

02 What types of

disasters are

occurring in

your area?

Flash

Flood

Riverine

Flood Earthquake Landsliding Fire

Any

other

please

specify

03 Have you

suffered any

loss from

these

disasters?

Yes No

04

What sort of

losses you

suffered?

Loss of

Life.

(Number

of

People

Killed)

Injury to

yourself

or any

other

family

members

Livelihood

affected

Business

was

damaged

House/Property

was damaged

253

SECTION C: EFFECTIVENESS OF LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL

FRAMEWORK IN VULNERABILITY REDUCTION

S.NO Attributes Option


1. You have knowledge of government policies

about disaster management.

2. You know about the National, Provincial and

District Disaster Management Authorities.

3. The disaster management policies focus on

reducing future disaster vulnerabilities.

4. Disaster Management Policies have been

formulated through a multi hazard approach.

5.

Disaster management policies ensure

strengthening community participation and

resilience.

6.

National, Provincial and District Disaster

Management Authorities have played a key

role in disaster prevention, preparedness and

mitigation in my community.

7. District government has ensured

preparation/implantation of land use Policies.

8. Building codes policies have been strictly

implemented in my area.

9.

Government ensures water security, food

security and energy security of our

community for climate change induced

disasters.

10. Under current environmental/forest

management policies, forests are more

protected than the past.

11. Government has established Standard Early

Warning system in my area.

12. Government officials are regularly monitoring

and predicting about disaster.

SECTION D: RISK KNOWLEDGE, EDUCATION AND UNDERSTANDING

RISK FACTORS

S.NO. Attributes

Option


1. Houses and building in our area can cope

with future disaster.

2. In case of disaster our area has alternate

routes for evacuation and food supply.

3. Construction in vulnerable areas (riverbanks,

riverbeds, and landslide areas) is strictly


4. Proper land use planning has been carried.

5. Due to poverty, people are forced to live in

vulnerable locations.

254

6. Social and physical sector development plans

are focusing on reducing disaster risks.

7. Sanitation system and water supply are intact

to avoid disease outbreak.

8. The community members are provided

trainings on the warning signs and symptoms

of disasters.

9. Government officials have knowledge, skills

and technical capacity for disaster risk

reduction.

10. Government officials have the capacity to

developed good recovery plans..

SECTION E: PROCESS OF PLANNING AND DECISION MAKING

S.NO Attributes

Option


1. Government is regularly conducting

vulnerability assessment in my area before

formulation of vulnerability reduction plans.

2. I have observed that government has

conducted feasibility studies for vulnerability

reduction projects in my area.

3. Local communities are consulted during

vulnerability reduction plan preparation.

4. The problems of communities are identified

and prioritized by the local communities.

5. Planning Commission Form (PC-1) has been

prepared in consultation with all stakeholders

including communities.

6. Communities at risk have strong say in the

Planning Commission Form approval.

7. Vulnerability reduction plan has been

communicated to us by the relevant

government departments.

8. Political interference in planning and

construction of bridges, embankments, roads,

buildings, relief distribution and compensation

to affected people exists.

SECTION F: AVAILABILITY OF DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND

MITIGATION PLANS

S.No Attributes Option


1. Government has formulated a preparedness

plans at the district level

2.

Preparedness plans aim to enhance the

capacities of government and communities for


3. Government is preparing annual contingency

255

plans for summer monsoon and winter season.

4. Evacuation plan has been prepared and shared

by government with the communities.

5.

Local Government Department has prepared a

CBDRM plan in consultation with local

community.

6. Government has plans for public awareness and

capacity building in my area.

7. Government has prepared a plan for mitigation

of critical infrastructure in our community.

8. Government has prepared a plan for retrofitting

of major public sector buildings.

SECTION G: BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR DISASTER VULNERABILITY

REDUCTION



1. Government has allocated fund for public

awareness regarding disaster management.

2.

Local Government Department has allocated

budget for small community based schemes

focusing on preparedness and mitigation.

3.

Government has spent budget for the

establishment of standard emergency rescue

services in my area

4.


establishment of standard early warning system

in my area.

5. Government is investing budget for flood

mitigation in our area.

6. Government has allocated budget for

earthquake mitigation.

7. Government is investing sufficient amount in

landslide mitigation.

8.

Communities provide financial (cash & kind)

support to the disaster management plan

implementation in our area.

SECTION H: PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND

EVALUATION



1. Vulnerability reduction plans and projects are

implemented by the local communities.

2.

Well reputed contractors were hired by

government for physical infrastructure projects

in our area.

3. Govt officials are regularly monitoring the

progress on both structural and non-structural

256

projects related to vulnerability reduction.

4.

Local Communities have been involved in

monitoring and implementation process of

major projects

5. Local Community has access to take part in

evaluation of vulnerability reduction projects.

SECTION I: EFFECTIVENESS OF PEOPLE CANTED APPROACH IN

VULNERABILITY REDUCTION



1.

Government is considering community

participation as a pre-requisite in vulnerability

reduction Projects.

2.

Volunteers have been involved in disaster

mitigation, preparedness and emergency

response activities.

3.

Regular rehearsal and drills regarding

emergency response management are

conducted in our area.

4. Gender sensitive interventions have been made

in all phases of vulnerability reduction.

5.

Government is supporting the local

communities in utilization of traditional local

knowledge about disasters.

SECTION J: EFFECTIVENESS OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND

POST DISASTER RECOVERY MECHANISMS

S.No Attributes

Option


1. Protective evacuation has been conducted by

government in past disasters.

2. Relief camps have been established by

government during the past disasters.

3. Relief items have been provided by government

to the victims of disasters.

4. Affected population has been compensated

through cash grant.

5. Social protection of women, children, old age,

disable etc. has been ensured during

emergencies.

6. People have been supported in repatriation to

their areas after emergencies.

7. Moveable shelters were provided by

government to the affected people during the

rehabilitation stage.

8. Basic facilities like roads, shops, hospitals and

schools were temporarily repaired by

257

government to ensure facilitation of

communities during rehabilitation phase.

9. Government assisted communities in recovery

phase in hazard resistant reconstruction.

10. Government facilitated and supported local

people in employment, livelihoods &

agriculture in post disaster recovery initiatives.

11. Government launched skill trainings

programme to ensure social protection of

affected people.

SECTION K: DEPENDENT VARIABLE DISASTER VULNERABILITY

SOCIAL VULNERABILITY



SOCIAL VULNERABILITY

1. Unequal Participation in decision making and

community affairs increases vulnerability.

2. Prevailing social stratification and inequality

increases vulnerability of the people at risk.

3. Cultural values and norms restrict women to

evacuate during an emergency without male

member of their family.

PHYSICAL VULNERABILITY

4. Fragile Physical Environment of the area

increases physical vulnerability of the

community.

5. Weak Infrastructure and adobe houses are the

major reason of deaths and casualties during

disaster.

6. High rise buildings without safety measure

increases vulnerability to disasters.

7. Lack of implementation of building codes is

major cause of structural vulnerability of

both private and public sector buildings.

8. Lack of Implantation of land use planning

policy incited people to reside in vulnerable

locations.

9. Encroachment in rivers increases

vulnerability of the people.

ECONOMIC VULNERABILITY

10. Due to poverty people are unable to construct

hazard resistant houses.

11. Unemployment increases vulnerability of

individuals to future disasters.

12. Unskilled labor force reduces financial

capacities to invest in disaster risk reduction

258

at family level.

13. Non-diversified economy reduces the

chances of offsetting family income in case

of disasters.

14. High level of dependency ratio reduces the

chances to spend more money on protection

of all family members.

15. Lack of Insurance increases financial burden

on families in post disaster situation.

ATTITUDINAL VULNERABILITY

16. Disasters are from Allah side and people

can‘t avert its impact.

17. Due to fatalistic attitudes people stay at

homes during disasters.

18. Due to non-scientific knowledge, people

don‘t believe on modern mechanism for

dealing with disasters.

19. Lack of confidence reduces the chances to

take initiatives for vulnerability reduction.

governance in disaster vulnerability reduction in khyber ...

Documents