International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 13 (2015) 291–300

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

GIS based mapping of vulnerability to earthquake and fire hazard in

Dhaka city, Bangladesh
Naima Rahman a,n, Mehedi A. Ansary b,1, Ishrat Islam c,2
a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas, 701S Nedderman drive, Arlington, TX 76019, USA
b
Department of CE, BUET, Dhaka, Bangladesh
c
Department of URP, BUET, Dhaka, Bangladesh

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: As Dhaka city is at risk of earthquake and fire hazard, ward 29, an old part of Dhaka city has been selected
Received 12 August 2014 for vulnerability assessment of both hazards in this study and social vulnerability has been included in
Received in revised form the assessment as it has become an important issue in the recent years. The methodology of three dif-
5 July 2015
ferent vulnerability assessments and the way of combining the results of the assessments to develop
Accepted 5 July 2015
composite vulnerability score of the study area has been described. A sample of 350 buildings has been
Available online 10 July 2015
analyzed by a visual screening method FEMA-RVS for earthquake, a methodology developed by ADPC [1]
Keywords: for fire hazard and a methodology developed by World Bank [24] for social vulnerability. The composite
Earthquake vulnerability score has been developed by incorporating earthquake and fire hazard as well as social
Fire hazard
vulnerability condition of the study area and represented in form of map produced using ArcGIS 10
Social vulnerability
showing buildings of different vulnerable categories. The study area is relatively more vulnerable to fire
Vulnerable structure
GIS mapping hazard than earthquake. As it is one of the most densely populated wards in Dhaka city, social factors
Hotspot have compounded the overall vulnerability to higher scale. Most of the buildings are vulnerable to both
earthquake and fire hazard considering social impacts. Thus ideal mitigation planning to reduce risk is
almost impossible here without involvement of community people. By warning them of their own risk
and making them resilient through awareness programs and training, disaster risk in the study area can
be reduced effectively.
Crown Copyright & 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction physical characteristic of the region made the community more

Bangladesh is the fifth most natural disaster prone country in
the world [16] that is affected almost every year by some form of
natural disaster. The historical trend of seismicity and some recent
tremors occurred in Bangladesh and adjoining areas indicate that
the country is at high risk of earthquake [9] and major earthquakes
might take place in Bangladesh [7]. Dhaka city is at the highest
relative earthquake disaster risk [18] under Madhupur Fault as
expressed by local experts, as the phenomenal urbanization, high
density of population and fast growing high-rise structures [21].
Although no moderate to large earthquake has struck Dhaka city
in historical past, it experiences minor tremors almost all the year
round which indicates the region to be seismically active [15]. The
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: naima_rahman05@yahoo.com (N. Rahman),
ansary@ce.buet.ac.bd (M.A. Ansary), ishratislam@urp.buet.ac.bd (I. Islam).
1
Fax: þ880 28620586.
2
Fax: þ880 286130462.
vulnerable to earthquake. Some buildings in older part of Dhaka
city collapsed even without any earthquake [13], so it is beyond
imagination what will happen during an earthquake. In June
2004 a five storied building collapsed in Sakhari bazaar which
killed 19 people and injured several others among its 30 in-
habitants. Due to poor construction quality of buildings, in April
2005 a nine-storied factory building collapsed in Savar that killed
70 people and injuring around 200 others among its 300 workers
and in February 2006, a five storied under construction building
collapsed in Tejgaon that killed 18 and injured 40 workers. On 24
April 2013, a nine-storey building ‘Rana Plaza’ collapsed in Savar is
considered one of the worst man made hazard killing 1127 people
and more than 100 are still missing [3]. If a 6-magnitude earth-
quake shakes Dhaka originating from its beneath some 78,323
buildings will be destroyed completely with an economic loss of
US $1075 million [9]. The risk in urban center is complex due to
unplanned urbanization and development in high risk zones.
Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh is the center of economy, com-
merce, politics, etc. and accommodates vast population of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.07.003
2212-4209/Crown Copyright & 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
292 N. Rahman et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 13 (2015) 291–300
17,151,925 in the wider metropolitan area while the population of
Dhaka city Corporation has approximately 9,254,473 in 2011 [5].
Particularly the older part of the city is relatively more vulnerable
due to high density of population. According to Bangladesh Po-
pulation Census 2011 the population density of Chawkbazar Thana
at Old Dhaka is 8229 per square kilometer [5]. Besides, the densely
constructed old and unreinforced masonry buildings along with
narrow local streets make the locality more earthquake disaster
prone. Along with earthquake, fire hazard has become a major
issue of concern as Dhaka city has experienced a number of no-
table fires like Nimtoli Fire, Bashundhara City Complex Fire, Ban-
gladesh Steel and Engineering Corporation (BSEC) Bhaban Fire and
Tazreen Garments Fire etc. in the recent years [4]. A report of
Bangladesh Fire Service and Civil Defense [6] shows a rising trend
in the number of fire incidents in the Dhaka city. Dhaka the capital
of Bangladesh often faces fire hazards due to its dense building
concentrations, narrow roads, flammable building materials, aging
water supply and electrical wire, chemical factory in residential
areas as well as the lack of preparedness and response skills
among local people and the fire authority. The annual monetary
loss due to fire accidents is very high in Dhaka city compared with
the other urban centers in Bangladesh as the city is involved in the
highest concentration of economic activities [12]. Fire is con-
sidered as the most common secondary hazard of earthquake [11].
The Great Hansin Earthquake at Kobe, Japan was followed by the
ignition of over 300 fires within minutes of the earthquake [23].
It is important to assess the integrated vulnerability of earth-
quake and fire because of their close association. A number of
researches have been carried out on earthquake and fire in Old
Dhaka City Corporation (DCC). About 53% buildings of Ward 68
(Old DCC) are vulnerable to earthquake [14]. In a study, Old DCC is
categorized into different fire hazard zones according to the fre-
quency of fire incidence [2]. A study showed that most of the
buildings in Ward 72 in Old Dhaka are moderately vulnerable to
fire [19]. But none of the studies focused the integrated vulner-
ability of earthquake and fire hazard. In this research, an in-
tegrated vulnerability assessment will be conducted incorporating
both of earthquake and fire hazard. The analysis of vulnerability
situation of Dhaka city due to earthquake and fire hazard is the
prime concern of this research. Social vulnerability contributes a
lot to the overall vulnerable condition. So the objectives of this
paper are: (i) To assess earthquake and fire hazard vulnerability of
a selected ward of Dhaka city, and (ii) To incorporate social vul-
nerability with physical vulnerability for measuring overall
vulnerability.
In this article, the methodology of three different vulnerability
assessments and the way of combining the results of the assess-
ments to develop composite vulnerability score of the study area
has been described. Then the results have been analyzed and re-
presented in form of maps. Three different map layers using Arc-
GIS 10 using the results of earthquake vulnerability assessment,
fire hazard vulnerability assessment and social vulnerability as-
sessment have been produced. Then the first two layers have been
combined to create physical vulnerability map which has been
combined later with the social vulnerability layer to develop
composite vulnerability map. The final map layer shows different
categories of vulnerable buildings in the study area and its
hotspots.
2. Methodology
2.1. Selection of the study area
Ward No. 29 of DSCC is selected for the vulnerability assess-
ment of fire and earthquake in this research. This ward is one of
the oldest areas in the city with 58,233 populations [5] in 0.457
square kilometer area [20]. According to the Map 3.1, the study
area is located in zone 2 with earthquake intensity of IX [18].
About 27–30% building will be destroyed completely if a 7.5-
magnitude earthquake hits in the study area [24]. So a small scale
earthquake may cause disaster in this ward. This ward is mainly
comprised of manufacturing and processing industries of plastic,
warehouses of chemical and unprocessed leather. As a result, fire
incident is very common phenomenon in this area [17].
2.2. Sampling and data collection
The total number of buildings of Ward 65 is 3057. To conduct
both physical and socio-economic survey, a sample of 350 build-
ings have been selected by stratified sampling procedure keeping
the confidence level at 95% and confidence interval is 4.93 for
primary data collection. Stratification of sample has been chosen
according to the percentage of construction type, number of storey
and structure use of buildings. Physical survey of buildings has
been conducted through checklist to find out the existing condi-
tion of buildings for earthquake and fire hazard vulnerability as-
sessment. Socioeconomic survey of the same buildings has been
conducted to assess social vulnerability. The time frame of the
primary data collection survey was from September 2013 to De-
cember 2013. The secondary data have been collected in form of
hard copies and shapefiles from different sources like Dhaka South
City Corporation (DSCC), Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (RAJUK)
and World Bank etc.
2.3. Data analysis
Physical and socio-economic data of sample buildings in
quantitative forms have been inputted in SPSS 21, joined with
existing GIS shapefile and analyzed by statistical tools such as
frequency distributions, descriptive statistics, cross tabulation and
custom table etc. to be classified, tabulated and presented in the
form of maps, tables and graphs by using MS-Excel 2007, SPSS 21
and ArcGIS 10. The earthquake vulnerability assessment of build-
ings has been conducted by Rapid Visual Screening method
(FEMA-RVS). Fire hazard vulnerability assessment has been done
by a methodology developed by Asian Disaster Preparedness
Center (ADPC) in making fire hazard maps in Vientiane [1]. Weight
of factors of vulnerability to fire hazard has been determined by
Analytical Hierarchal Process (AHP) through expert opinion by the
researcher. Panels of 10 experts have been consulted to determine
the combined vulnerability score (physical score) of fire and
earthquake through workshop. Social vulnerability score was
combined with the physical vulnerability score by using the for-
mula developed by Cardona [8] to calculate the composite vul-
nerability score.
2.3.1. Earthquake vulnerability assessment by FEMA-Rapid Visual
Screening (RVS) method
Earthquake vulnerability score has been calculated by FEMA-
Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) method for moderate seismicity
developed by Federal emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of
United State of America which is applicable for Bangladesh. An-
other widely used method RVS (Turkish) is not valid for this re-
search as it is applicable only for reinforced concrete building
(RCC) up to 7-storey. So about 38.1% structures which are katcha,
unreinforced masonry building (URM) and above 7-storey cannot
be analyzed using Turkish method. The parameters of scoring of
FEMA-RVS include space for documenting building identification
information such as its use and size, floor area, etc., a photograph
of the building, sketches building plan and elevation and doc-
umentation of pertinent data related to seismic performance,
 N. Rahman et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 13 (2015) 291–300 293

Table 1 Table 3
Expected damage level based on RVS score. Social vulnerability indicators and weights.
Source: FEMA-154, 2002 Source: [24]

RVS score Damage potential Indicator Formula Weight

S o 0.3 High probability of Grade 5 damage; very high probability of Population density ¼ Total population in building/Total floor area of 0.30
Grade 4 damage. building in square feet
0.3 oS o 0.7 High probability of Grade 4 damage; very high probability of Gender ¼ Number of female/number of male 0.05
Grade 3 damage. Age below 5 ¼ Number of children/Total population in 0.17
0.7 oS o 2.0 High probability of Grade 3 damage; very high probability of building
Grade 2 damage. Age 65 and over ¼ Number of elderly/Total population in building 0.11
2.0 oS o 3.0 High probability of Grade 2 damage; very high probability of Disability ¼ Number of disable/Total population in 0.34
Grade 1 damage. building
S 43.0 Probability of Grade 1 damage. Illiterate ¼ Number of illiterate/Total population in 0.03
building
Total 1.00
including the development of a numerical seismic hazard and
vulnerability score. The scores are based on the expected ground
shaking levels in the region as well as the seismic design and Cardona et al. (2005). The methodology was modified for this re-
construction practices for the city or region. Basic Structural Ha- search for building level calculation. The demographic data of
zard Scores based on Lateral Force Resisting System for various building of Ward 29 was collected by field survey (2013). The
building types are provided on the form, and the screener circles weighted value of each factor was derived through an expert
the appropriate one. The screener modifies the Basic Structural survey according to the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) by
Hazard Score by identifying and circling Score Modifiers related to World Bank [24]. The social vulnerability score (SVS) of each
observed performance attributes, by adding (or subtracting) them building is the weighted sum of these indicators (Table 3).
a final Structural Score, ‘S’ is obtained. The likely damage of
building can be categorized in different grades depending on their 2.3.4. Development of composite vulnerability score
impact on the seismic strength of the building according to Eur- The composite score of vulnerability is the combination of
opean Macro Seismic Scale (EMS-98) which define building da- earthquake vulnerability score, fire vulnerability score and socio-
mage to be from Grade 1 to Grade 5 presented in Table 1 [10]. economic vulnerability score. Though these three scores are in
different scale, these have been converted into a common scale
2.3.2. Fire hazard vulnerability assessment (Table 4) for calculation of composite score. RVS (FEMA) scores
Fire hazard vulnerability analysis has been carried out in few vary from 0.7 to 4.4 where higher value means low vulnerability
stages. First, the factors of fire hazard vulnerability have been fixed and lower value means high vulnerability. According to the clas-
based on literature reviews and opinion of local fire experts in the sification of FEMA [10], sample buildings were classified into four
context of Dhaka city. The factors are construction type, number of vulnerability categories of earthquake and given new scale from
storey, floor area, fire source in building, fire source around 0.25 to 1; where 0.25 means the low vulnerability and 1 indicate
building and accessibility which have been collected from field high vulnerability. Fire scores vary from 0.393 to 1.72 where lower
survey in 2013. Based on opinion of expert, six attributes of fire value means low vulnerability and higher value means high vul-
hazard were given numeric values for vulnerability calculation nerability. According to fire scores, sample buildings were classi-
with weighted impact from 0 to 1 derived from AHP [22]. Fire fied into four vulnerability categories of fire score and given new
hazard vulnerability score (FS) of each sample building is the scale from 0.25 to 1 where 0.25 means the low vulnerability and
weighted some of these indicators (Table 2). 1 indicates high vulnerability. Physical vulnerability score (PVS) of
each building was calculated using an equation based on expert
2.3.3. Social vulnerability assessment
opinion: PVS ¼0.6*Earthquake score þ0.4* Fire score. Social vul-
Social vulnerability assessment was conducted by the metho-
nerability scores (SVS) vary from 0.065 to 0.2638 where lower
dology derived from a study conducted by World Bank [24] and
value means low vulnerability and higher value means high vul-
nerability. The composite vulnerability score (CVS) of a building is
Table 2
Fire hazard vulnerability indicators and weights. the combination of physical vulnerability score (PVS) and social
Source: [24] vulnerability score (SVS). Hazards only become disasters when
people are affected and livelihoods are swept away. The theoretical
Factors Value Weight
and analytical methodological framework for the CVS is based on
Construction Pucca – 1 Semipucca – 2 Kutcha – 3 0.140 the work of Cardona et al. (2005). According to this procedure, the
type CVS is obtained by multiplying the physical vulnerability score
Number of Up to 1-storey 2–5 storey 6 and above 0.113 (PVS) by the social vulnerability score (SVC), based on variables
storey storey
associated with the socio-economic conditions of each building,
Low – 1 Moderate – 2 High – 3
Floor Area Up to 1000 sqft 1001 sqft – 2001 sqft and 0.070 according to the relationship: CVS ¼ PVS (1 þ SVS).
2000 sqft above
Low – 1 Moderate – 2 High – 3 Table 4
Fire source in No – 0 Residential Hazardous 0.327 Common vulnerability category.
building sourcesa – 1 sourcesb – 2
Fire source No – 0 Yes – 1 0.091 Vulnerability New RVS score Fire score Social vulnerability
around category Scale score
building
Accessibility Code-0 Code – 1 0.259 Low 0.25 3.01–4.4 0.393–0.7 0.0000–0.0650
Road 4 ¼ 10 ft Road o 10 ft Moderately low 0.5 2.01–3 0.71–1.00 0.0651–0.1000
Moderate 0.75 0.71–2.0 1.01–1.30 0.1001–0.1500
a
Residential source: gas stove. High 1 0.3–0.7 1.31–1.72 0.1501–0.2638
b
Hazardous source: chemical, plastic, paper, electric generator.
294 N. Rahman et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 13 (2015) 291–300
3. Analysis and findings
Data analysis contains three vulnerability assessments: earth-
quake, fire and social. Details of each part are presented below:
3.1. Earthquake vulnerability analysis
Among 350 surveyed buildings, 338 buildings have been ana-
lyzed using RVS (FEMA) method and rest structures which are
katcha cannot be analyzed for earthquake hazard. From the field
survey, information about four factors of earthquake hazard, i.e.,
type of building, number of storey, vertical irregularity and plan
irregularity have been collected and then analyzed to develop
score of each building. The factors of earthquake vulnerability are
described as follow:
3.1.1. Building type
Among 350 surveyed buildings 256 buildings are pucca (73.1%),
82 are semipucca (23.4%) and 12 are katcha (3.4%). Among pucca
only 1 building (0.29%) are C2 (concrete shear wall) type building.
C3 (moment resisting frame with unreinforced masonry infill or
URM inf) type building dominates with 64.3% occupancy in total
buildings. URM (unreinforced masonry) buildings which are
mostly semipucca buildings are 32% in the study area. About
60.57% buildings are C3 type and pucca; and 3.71% are C3 type
semipucca buildings. 12.29% area URM and pucca; and 19.71% are
URM and semipucca.
3.1.2. Number of storey
The area mainly comprises of one to six storey buildings where
one storey buildings are the highest with 22.3% occupancy.
Buildings above six storeys are very limited (3.5%). The tallest
building in the study area is a 9-storey building. Among the others,
2-storey buildings are 20.9%; 3-storey, 4-storey, 5-storey and
6-storey buildings are 12.6%, 12.6%, 14.6% and 13.7% respectively.
Fig. 1. : Earthquake vulnerability map of Ward 29. Prepared by author, source: field survey, 2013.
3.1.3. Vertical Irregularity and plan Irregularity
Buildings with irregular pattern both in their elevation and
plan are more vulnerable to earthquake than buildings with reg-
ular form. From the field survey it has been found that 16.3%
buildings in the study area are vertically irregular and 83.7%
buildings are vertically regular in their elevation shape. About 60%
buildings of the study area have regular shape and 40% buildings
have irregularity in their plan. Regular shape means rectangular or
square plan and irregular shape may be an L-shaped or T-shaped
building.
3.1.4. Rapid visual screening (FEMA)
Based on scoring the earthquake vulnerability map (Fig. 1) is
prepared which shows the building according to the different
earthquake vulnerability category based on Table 4. About 50.9%
buildings scored 3.01–3.4 values which mean most of the build-
ings are structurally low vulnerable according to RVS (FEMA).
Among 50.9% of safe buildings, the highest 33.4% are pucca C3
type, 5.1% are pucca URM, 2.6% area semipucca C3 type and 9.4%
are semipucca URM. Only one building in the study area is C2 type
building which also falls in low vulnerable category. 3.4% structure
fall in highly vulnerable category. Among these buildings, 3.1% are
C3 type pucca and 0.3% is URM. No semipucca building falls in this
category (Table 5).
Among high vulnerable category, 0.9% buildings are 2-storey,
1.1% are 3-storey and 1.4% are 4-storey in total sample buildings. In
this category, only residential, commercial and mixed use activity
has been seen with 0.9%, 0.3% and 2.3% share. Among moderate
vulnerable category, height of buildings varies from 1-storey to
9-storey. This category is seen in almost all type of use of building
except recreational activity. Mixed use and residential dominate in
this category with 5.4% and 4.9% share. Moderately low vulnerable
buildings vary from 1-storey to 6-storey where 2-storey are the
highest (7.1%). In this category, mixed use again dominates with
14.9% share (Fig. 2).
 N. Rahman et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 13 (2015) 291–300 295

Table 5 3.2.4. Existence of fire source in building

Type of buildings according to RVS (FEMA). As a traditional old part of Dhaka city, Ward 29 contains dif-
Source: Field survey, 2013
ferent types of economic activities such as plastic manufacturing
RVS score Construction type Total industries, warehouse of flammable material like chemicals and
plastic etc that can trigger a fire hazard. Fire sources in buildings
Katcha Pucca Semipucca
are categorized into five classes where first four are hazardous
0 C2 C3 URM C3 URM sources (chemical, plastic, leather, and generator) and the last one
is residential. In case of scoring of fire, first four types of sources
0 3.4 0 0 0 0 0 3.4
are given more preference than gas stove. Buildings where fire
0.31–0.7 0 0 3.1 0.3 0 0 3.4
0.71–2 0 0 8.6 1.4 0.9 2 12.9 sources and flammable materials are available in the study area
2.01–3 0 0 15.4 5.4 0.3 8.3 29.4 were located during the field survey. Around 20% buildings are
3.01–4.4 0 0.3 33.4 5.1 2.6 9.4 50.9 found with no fire sources. 21% buildings have plastic, 4% have
Total 3.4 0.3 60.6 12.3 3.7 19.7 100
chemicals, 2% have leather and 1% have generator. Rest 52%
buildings which are mainly residential have gas stove as a source
3.2. Fire hazard vulnerability analysis of fire. Building with no fire source is given 0, where building with
residential fire source (gas stove) and hazardous fire source (class
Fire hazard vulnerability in context of Dhaka city depends on 1 to 4) is given 1 and 2 respectively.
six factors including construction material type of building, num-
ber of storey, floor area, fire source in building, fire source around 3.2.5. Existence of fire source outside building
building and accessibility of road which are described below. Safe distance of building from outside fire source like electric
pole and transformer should be minimum 3 m or 20 ft according
3.2.1. Construction material type to international standard (electrical-engineering-portal.com). In
Fire hazard depends on construction material of buildings such the study area, about 27% buildings have been found to have
as earthen floors, wooden floor, mud walls, straw roofs, tin-shed electric pole and 2% have transformer at their close proximity.
roof, etc. Katcha structures tend to be more vulnerable to fire than These buildings are highly vulnerable to fire hazard. Besides, most
pucca buildings. So katcha building is given a score of 3 where of the buildings have electric wire so closely with their outer wall.
semipucca and pucca are given score of 2 and 1 respectively. In the If there is a spark in transformer, these electric cables can easily
study area 73.1% buildings are pucca, 23.4% are semipucca and spread fire to the buildings. About 71% buildings have no electric
3.4% are katcha. pole or transformer to their close proximity. Building with no
transformer or electric pole is given 0, where building having
3.2.2. Number of storey transformer or electric pole at its close proximity is given 1.
Number of storey of buildings is an important factor of fire
hazard. According to the view of local expert, vulnerability of 3.2.6. Accessibility
building increases with the increase of number of floor, i.e., first Accessibility is one of the important factors of fire vulnerability.
floor of a building is safer than any of the upper floors. In the study Fire affected building needs to be served by fire truck coming from
area, most of the buildings are one storey to six storeys. High rise fire stations which carry water, ladder and various firefighting
buildings are very limited in the study area. From the opinion of equipment to extinguish fire. If the adjacent road of affected
expert, buildings with up to one storey scores 1, 2–5 storey scores building is not accessible for fire vehicle, the buildings become
2 and high rise building (above 6 storey) score 3. vulnerable as it cannot be served effectively by fire fighters. In this
study, a minimum width of 10 feet of adjacent road is considered
3.2.3. Floor area as accessible according to firefighting expert. From the field sur-
Larger area tends to be more vulnerable than smaller area. In the vey, it was found that the percentage of the buildings that get
study area, floor space of building varies from 169 square feet to access of fire vehicle is 46%. Rest of the buildings (around 54%) is
11,100 square feet. To calculate fire score, area of building is cate- not accessible to fire engines. According to opinion of expert,
gorized in three classes where up to 1000 square feet scores 1, 1001– building with road accessibility scores 0 where building with no
2000 square feet scores 2 and above 2000 square feet scores 3. road accessibility scores 1.

Fig. 2. : Earthquake score according to number of storey and use of structure. source: field survey, 2013.
296 N. Rahman et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 13 (2015) 291–300

Fig. 3. : Fire hazard vulnerability map of Ward 29. Prepared by author, source: field survey, 2013.

Fig. 4. : Physical vulnerability map of Ward 29. Prepared by author, source: field survey, 2013.

3.2.7. Fire vulnerability score
The vulnerability score of buildings of the study area range from
0.393 to 1.72 which is presented in Fig. 3. Lower value indicates less
vulnerability whereas higher value indicates high vulnerability. Most
of the buildings (58.6%) have fire score more than 1 which indicates
most of the buildings in the study area are vulnerable to fire. Buildings
having fire score less than 0.7 are only 14.9% and having score 0.71–1.0
are 26.6%. Buildings fall in most vulnerable category of fire are 14.9%.
3.3. Physical vulnerability score
Fig. 4 shows the physical vulnerability scenario of the study
area by combining earthquake and fire score using the equation
mentioned in Section 2.3.4. About half of the total buildings in the
 N. Rahman et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 13 (2015) 291–300
Fig. 5. : Social vulnerability map of Ward 29. Prepared by author, source: field survey, 2013.
study area fall in moderately low vulnerability category of both
earthquake and fire with 50.9% share. Moderate vulnerable
buildings are 36.6% and high vulnerable buildings are 4.3%.
Buildings with low vulnerability are 8.3% of sample building.
3.4. Social vulnerability analysis
A building is socially vulnerable to any hazard when people live
there. So it is important to analyze the social features of building
such as total population, gender distribution, age category, etc.
which are also known as impact factors of hazard. Social vulner-
ability of area or building depends on some factors including de-
mographic features, age group, income and education level etc.
World Bank identified six factors for Dhaka city that lead to social
vulnerability. These factors are population density per square
kilometer, female to male ratio, children below 5 years, elderly
with 65 years and above, people with disability and illiterate
people. In this research social vulnerability of each building level
has to be analyzed, so density is converted to person per square
feet.
3.4.1. Density of population
Density of population in the study area is one of the highest in
Dhaka city [5] which is about 127,425 people per square kilometer.
From the field survey it is also found that the density of population
living in a building is very high. Most of the buildings (26.6%) have
about 31 to 50 people living in a building. Analyzing person per
1000 square feet in a building, it has found that most of the
buildings (44.3%) have up to 10 people per 1000 square feet. About
37.7% buildings have 11 to 20 people. Buildings having more than
50 people per 1000 square feet are 6% of total sample buildings.
3.4.2. Female to male ratio
Woman is more vulnerable than man in case of any hazard. In
the study area, most of the buildings (80.57%) have male
297
population greater than female population. The rest (19.43%) are
socially vulnerable as they have more female population than
male.
3.4.3. Age below 5 years and 65 plus
Age group is another criterion for analyzing social vulnerability.
Both young and old people may be unable to respond to disasters
on their own. Number of children in a building in the study area
varies from 0 to 23. About 39.1% buildings have no children hence
these buildings are safer than other. About 48.3% buildings have no
elderly people with 65 years and above which are safer than other.
51.7% have at least one elderly that lead to social vulnerability.
3.4.4. People with disability
Only 18.6% buildings have at least one disable people which are
more vulnerable than other buildings in the study area as disable
people cannot move effectively in case of any hazard.
3.4.5. People with Illiteracy
Illiterate people are less aware of any hazard so they are more
vulnerable than literate people. In the study area, a large number
of people are illiterate who are mainly the workers of the plastic
manufacturing and processing industries. Buildings having no il-
literate people are 31.7% in the study area. Buildings having 1–10
illiterate people are more than half of the total sample buildings
(51.4%).
3.4.6. Social vulnerability score
Social vulnerability score of each building is the weighted sum
of the above mentioned factors mentioned in Table 3. In the study
area, about half of the sample buildings (49.4%) fall in low vul-
nerability group. 35.4% fall in moderately low vulnerability group;
11.4% are moderately vulnerability and 3.7% are highly vulnerable.
The scores of social vulnerability are represented on Fig. 5 to show
overall scenario of the study area.
298 N. Rahman et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 13 (2015) 291–300

Fig. 6. : Composite vulnerability map of Ward 29. Prepared by author, source: field survey, 2013.

3.5. Composite vulnerability analysis
The composite vulnerability scores of the buildings which is the
combination of physical vulnerability score (PVS) and social vul-
nerability score (SVS) are presented in Fig. 6. From the analysis, it
has found been that most of the buildings fall in moderate vul-
nerability category with 42% share. 26.3% buildings are highly
vulnerable and 11.7% are very highly vulnerable.
vulnerable. Percentage of 2-storey buildings is slightly greater than
other storey (Fig. 7). From the vulnerability analysis of earthquake
and fire hazard incorporating social vulnerability, it has been ob-
served that pucca buildings are more vulnerable than semipucca.
Mixed uses of buildings followed by residential uses tend to be
more vulnerable than any other uses. Educational institutions and
community services are comparatively low vulnerable so these can
be used as evacuation center.

3.5.1. Detailed inventory of vulnerable buildings

After developing the composite vulnerability map of Ward 29
for earthquake and fire, it is necessary to give attention to the most
vulnerable building in the study area. About 38% buildings (133
sample buildings out of 350) fall in these categories. Among them,
101 are pucca structures and 32 are semipucca. Mixed uses of
building dominate (84 out of 133) in these categories followed by
residential use (34 out of 133). Among the existing land use of the
study area, educational institutions and community services like
mosque, community center, social gathering club does not fall in
high vulnerable categories except one mosque. So these buildings
can be used as evacuation center is case of any hazard. Among the
vulnerable category, about 24.1% structures are semipucca and
75.9% are pucca. There is no remarkable variation in case of
building height. 1-storey to 9-stoery all buildings are more or less
4. Major findings and recommendation
4.1. Major findings
This part concludes the research by proposing some re-
commendations on the basis of the major findings of the vulner-
ability assessment of earthquake and fire hazard incorporating
social vulnerability. Major findings of the research are described as
follow.
4.1.1. Exiting scenario
The surveyed buildings cover 11.45% of existing structures in
the study area. In spite of being one of the oldest parts of Dhaka
city, the study area comprises both old and new building

Fig. 7. : Vulnerable buildings according to type, number of storey and use of structure. Prepared by author, source: field survey, 2013.
 N. Rahman et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 13 (2015) 291–300
constructed up to 10 years before which is about 49%. Pucca
buildings dominate with about 73.1% occupancy among which
about 60.57% are C3 (moment resisting frame) type building. Un-
reinforced masonry buildings which are mostly semipucca are 32%
in the study area. One storey buildings are the highest with 22.3%
occupancy whereas buildings above 6 storeys are very limited
(3.5%). The tallest building in the study area is a 9 storey building.
Most of the buildings (38%) have 1001–2000 square feet floor area.
About 50.9% buildings are used as mixed use activity such as shops
and industry at ground floor and residence at upper floor.
4.1.2. Vulnerability assessment
According to RVS (FEMA) most of the buildings (50.9%) are
structurally safe and 3.4% buildings are highly vulnerable to
earthquake. This scenario is quite surprising as about 16.3%
buildings are vertically irregular and 40% buildings have irregu-
larity in their plan. One of the main reason behind low earthquake
vulnerability is about 49% buildings are newly constructed. In
contrast, most of the buildings (58.6%) in the study area are vul-
nerable to fire among which 14.9% are highly vulnerable. Around
80% buildings are found with fire sources stored in building
whereas 29% have fire source around. Adjacent roads of most of
the buildings (54%) are not accessible for fire truck. As many
buildings are used for mixed activities, these are highly vulnerable
to fire hazard. The study area may withstand a single hazard. But
considering multi-hazard of earthquake and fire, there is greater
chance of disaster. About 50.86% buildings in the study area are
moderately low vulnerable to both earthquake and fire hazard
where 4.29% buildings are highly vulnerable. More population
living in hazardous area leads to greater risk of disaster. About half
of the buildings (49.4%) are low vulnerable according to social
score where 3.7% are highly vulnerable. According to the compo-
site vulnerability score incorporating earthquake, fire hazard and
social vulnerability, most of the buildings (38%) are highly to very
highly vulnerable because of high population density and high risk
of fire hazard. Pucca and mixed use buildings tend to be more
vulnerable than any other buildings.
4.2. Recommendation
The study area was found to be more vulnerable to fire and less
vulnerable to earthquake. But due to the social impact, narrow
road, lack of critical facilities and lack of preparedness among local
people, a great disaster may happen even if a small scale earth-
quake or fire occurs. Fire may be happened both as primary hazard
or secondary hazard of earthquake. So taking measures to reduce
fire hazard vulnerability and to enhance social resilience may
improve the condition as a whole. Some recommendations which
have been derived by analyzing findings of vulnerability assess-
ment are described as follow:
 One of the major reasons of vulnerability of the study area is
poor road network which is practically impossible to improve
at present. Design of new road network is strongly re-
commended as a long term measure.
 Storage of flammable material in buildings is another main
cause of fire hazard vulnerability which must be regulated.
 Buildings with mixed land use such as residential building with
industrial or storage use tend to be more vulnerable than any
other buildings. Segregation of industrial use from residential
use is highly recommended.
 As social vulnerability factors affect the overall vulnerability, it
should be more focused in case for disaster risk reduction.
Women, children, olds and disables are the most vulnerable
group in case of any disaster. Evacuation route of disaster
should be planned in such way that it addresses both physical
299
and social vulnerability.
 Developing social resilience through raising awareness among
local people about their vulnerability to earthquake and fire
hazard may be a suitable solution to mitigate vulnerability to
earthquake and fire hazard in the community.
 Composite vulnerability map can be a great tool to find out
potential hotspot of hazard which will help the disaster man-
agement authority for taking risk mitigation measures. In the
study area, some structures are found to be vulnerable only to
earthquake; some are only to fire. But about 38% structures are
highly vulnerable to both hazards which are identified as hot-
spot from the composite vulnerability map. Special measures
should be taken for those buildings.
5. Conclusion
Vulnerability assessment is a tool of decision-making of specific
stakeholders about options for responding and adapting to the
effects of hazard. In this research, vulnerability assessment of
earthquake and fire hazard in a selected area in Dhaka city has
been carried out incorporating social issues. Analyzing different
map layers produced from the findings of the vulnerability as-
sessment, one can understand the earthquake vulnerability sce-
nario, fire hazard vulnerability scenario and the integrated sce-
nario when both hazards strike. The main reason behind the
compilation of earthquake, fire hazard and social vulnerability is to
observe the complete picture of exiting vulnerability of an area.
The integrated map can be a tool for disaster management au-
thorities to determine the mitigation measures and to find vul-
nerable buildings needed further investigation and also to relocate
the people living in those vulnerable buildings. Though the study
has been carried out to a small portion of Dhaka city, the metho-
dology is applicable to the whole ward as well as other wards of
the city and it will help the policy makers to prioritize special
consideration area or hotspot for disaster management. The in-
tegrated vulnerability assessment of earthquake and fire hazard
can be described as well balanced in regard to the social compo-
nents of vulnerability. Assessing both earthquake and fire hazard is
able to create a common understanding about the relevance of
existing risks in a region or municipality. This common under-
standing is an essential basis for reaching a consensus on neces-
sary measures for mitigating vulnerability which is an integral part
of spatial planning.
Acknowledgement
This article is a part of research work of master's thesis con-
ducted by the first author under co-supervision of second and third
authors. Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
(BUET) funded the research as a part of author's Master's Degree.
Reference
[1] ADPC, Asian Urban Disaster Mitigation News Quarterly Activity Highlights,
2004.
[2] M.J.B. Alam, G.N. Baroi, Fire hazard categorization and risk assessment for
Dhaka city in GIS framework, J. Civ. Eng. (IEB) 32 (1) (2004) 35–45.
[3] M.A. Ansary, N. Rahman. Savar building tragedy in Bangladesh: way forward,
in: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on New Technologies for
Urban Safety of Mega Cities in Asia, Hanoi, Vietnam, 2013.
[4] M.A. Ansary, S. Ara, T. Afrin. Evaluation of fire fighting system at high-rise
buildings in Dhaka city, in: Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium
on New Technologies for Urban Safety of Mega Cities in Asia, Kobe, Japan,
2010.
300 N. Rahman et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 13 (2015) 291–300
[5] BBS Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Bangladesh Population Census: Dhaka
Community Series 2011 Planning Commission, Ministry of Planning Dhaka.
[6] BFSCD Bangladesh Fire Service Civil Defence Annual Report, 2010.
[7] R. Bilham, Earthquakes in India and the Himalaya: tectonics, geodesy and
history, Ann. Geophys. 47 (2/3) (2004).
[8] O.D. Cardona, Indicators of Disaster Risk and Risk Management, Summery
Report, Program for Latin America and the Caribbean, Inter-American Devel-
opment Bank, Washington D.C., 2005.
[9] CDMP, Report on Earthquake Risk Assessment of Dhaka, Chittagong and Sylhet
City Corporation Area, Govt. of Bangladesh, Dhaka, 2010.
[10] FEMA, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards, A
Handbook, FEMA 154, second ed, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
2002.
[11] G. Horwich, Economic lessons of the Kobe earthquake., Econ. Dev. Cult. Change
48 (2000) 521–542.
[12] M.M. Islam, N. Adri, Fire hazard management of Dhaka city: addressing issues
relating to institutional capacity and public perception, Jahangirnagar Plann.
Rev. 6 (2008) 57–67.
[13] I. Jahan, Earthquake Vulnerability and Evacuation Plan for Old Dhaka, De-
partment of Urban and Regional Planning, BUET, Dhaka, 2011, MURP thesis.
[14] I. Jahan, M. Ansary, S. Ara, I. Islam, Assessing social vulnerability to earthquake
hazard in Old Dhaka, Bangladesh, Asian J. Environ. Disaster Manag. 3 (3)
(2011) 285–300.
[15] A.A. Khan, Earthquake Hazard: Dhaka City Perspective, vol. 5, The Daily Star,
2004.
[16] X.S. Martin. The Global Competitiveness Report, 2011–2012, in: Klaus Schwab
(ed.), World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
[17] N. Rahman, M.A. Ansary. Community under Fire Threat: An assessment of fire
hazard vulnerability of Ward 65 in Dhaka city, in: Proceedings of the 11th
International Symposium on New Technologies for Urban Safety of Mega Cities
in Asia, Mongolia, 2012.
[18] M.G.F. Rahman, Seismic Damage Scenario for Dhaka city, Department of Civil
Engineering, BUET, Dhaka, 2004, M.Sc. Engineering project thesis.
[19] D.R. Raja, M.S. Islam, M.S. Islam, Analyzing Vulnerability of a Community to
Fire Hazard: A Case Study of Ward 72, BUET, Dhaka, 2008, BURP thesis.
[20] RAJUK, Detailed Area Plan of Dhaka under Dhaka Metropolitan Development
Plan (1995–2015), 2006.
[21] SAARC, South Asia Disaster News, Issue No. 120, SAARC Disaster Management
Centre, New Delhi, 2010.
[22] T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
[23] Paul Somerville. Kobe Earthquake: An Urban Disaster. Eos 76 (6). Archived
from the original on 1 May 1997. (Retrieved 05.06.09), 1995.
[24] World Bank, Dhaka Earthquake Risk Guidebook, Bangladesh Urban Earth-
quake Resilience Project, Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative, 2014.