Climate and Development

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcld20

Livelihood vulnerability to urban flood: the case of

urban poor households in Dhaka, Bangladesh

Hasina Akther, Mokbul Morshed Ahmad & Thi Phuoc Lai Nguyen

To cite this article: Hasina Akther, Mokbul Morshed Ahmad & Thi Phuoc Lai Nguyen (03 Oct
2023): Livelihood vulnerability to urban flood: the case of urban poor households in Dhaka,
Bangladesh, Climate and Development, DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2023.2257625

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2023.2257625

Published online: 03 Oct 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 46

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcld20
CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2023.2257625

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Livelihood vulnerability to urban flood: the case of urban poor households in Dhaka,
Bangladesh
Hasina Akthera, Mokbul Morshed Ahmadb and Thi Phuoc Lai Nguyenb
a
Faculty of Earth and Sciences, Department of Geography and Environment, Jagannath University, Dhaka, Bangladesh; bDevelopment Planning
Management and Innovation, Department of Development and Sustainability, School of Environment, Resources and Development (SERD), Asian
Institute of Technology (AIT), Pathum Thani, Thailand

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper examines the livelihood vulnerability of the urban poor households due to urban flood. The Received 26 January 2023
Livelihood Vulnerability Index (LVI) and IPCC-LVI framework were applied for analysing the vulnerability Accepted 5 September 2023
of Mirpur Slum (MPS) and Rail-line Slum (RLS) in Dhaka city. The findings indicate that slum settlements
KEYWORDS
with similar characteristics could have different levels of vulnerability due to their households’ attributes Livelihood vulnerability;
and the characteristics of the surrounding neighbourhoods. This study provides insights of livelihood flood; slum dwellers; Dhaka
vulnerability of the urban poor which appeals for effective urban flood adaptation strategies through city
enhancing public health, water access and food security for the slum dwellers. The findings and
recommendations derived from this study are likely applicable to other cities in Bangladesh and to
other countries including global south with similar socio-economic profiles.

1. Introduction
Urban flooding, sometimes referred to as pluvial flooding, is a
prevalent problem in many cities due to heavy rainfall and
rapid urban growth without proper sewer infrastructure
(Huang et al., 2018; Jenkins et al., 2017; Sörensen & Mobini,
2017). Urban flooding has become more frequent during the
past few decades (Hu et al., 2018), especially in densely popu-
lated cities (Jiang et al., 2018). Dhaka, capital city of Bangla-
desh, is one of the mostly populated metropolitan cities of
the world that has been going through immense physical
changes. Due to the high population density and ensuing
demand of land for development activities, wet land and low-
land of the city are continually filled up. In fact, the city has lost
around 32.57% of its water body and 52.8% of its lowland from
1960 to 2008 (Islam et al., 2014). Changes in land use, such as
eradication of vegetation cover, expansion of built-up areas
and inadequate drainage systems can enhance urban flooding
risk through changing run-off hydrographs (Zhou et al., 2019).
Many of these development activities in the city went through
without sufficient drainage systems therefore, urban flooding
and waterlogging are common during the monsoon season
due to moderate to severe rainfall (Ishtiaque et al., 2015).
Depending on a household’s capacity for decision-making
and access to resources, floods have different effects on
homes in different social classes (Pandey et al., 2018). The live-
lihoods of slum people are very vulnerable because they gener-
ally inhabit in ecologically susceptible areas and are less
resilient to the consequences of the flood (Olajide & Lawanson,
2014). Therefore, living in slums, it is critical to overcome the
challenges of hazards and in some cases, due to the proximity
of the current flood to the previous flood, the effects of the
flood are worsened and the slum inhabitants are unable to
adapt (Aßheuer et al., 2013).
In Dhaka, between 300,000 and 400,000 new migrants
arrive each year (Banks et al., 2011), and over 40% of the popu-
lation lives in slums (Angeles et al., 2009) indicating that slum
settlement will likely continue to grow in the city. A densely
populated temporary residential house with the lack of tenure
and limited economic resources and have no proper water
supply, sanitation facilities or electricity supply indicate the
low adaptive capacity of the urban poor (Kamruzzaman &
Hakim, 2016). Concern is raised when a new slum is estab-
lished or an existing one is expanded in a high-risk location
because the slum dwellers may not have the capacity to
respond to new shocks, such as extreme climatic events that
may occur there. Hence, it is important to give attention to
the adaptability of the slum dwellers to cope with the climatic
calamities which has been poorly addressed.
The climate adaptation process ideally initiates with an
assessment of household vulnerability to extreme climate-
induced events. This assessment is prerequisite to effectively
adopt flood vulnerability reduction programme (Sam et al.,
2017a, 2017b). Vulnerability assessment represents the potential
damages which occur within human and ecological systems in
response to climate change (Adger et al., 2007). Adequate
measures can be addressed in reducing vulnerabilities to hazards
and to adapt to extreme events when the decision-makers know
where and how vulnerable the system is and which factors play
an important role in it. Many studies use different methods and
approaches at different scales in vulnerability assessment to
inform policy makers for improving capacity and to suggest
adaptation strategies based on their study findings.

CONTACT Hasina Akther h.aktherjnu@gmail.com Associate Professor, Department of Geography and Environment, Faculty of Earth and Sciences, Jagannath
University, 9-10, Chittaranjan Avenue, Dhaka 1100, Bangladesh
© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 H. AKTHER ET AL.
Several studies on various vulnerable communities in Ban-
gladesh have been done in relation to climate change issues.
For instance, in Southeast Bangladesh, Brouwer et al. (2007)
looked into the dynamic relationship between environmental
risk, poverty and vulnerability. Pouliotte et al. (2009) con-
ducted a study to determine how poor households in the vil-
lage of Subarnabad in southwest Bangladesh were exposed
to, sensitive to and adapted to changing conditions. In
addition, Toufique and Yunus (2013) examined the livelihood
vulnerability of coastal Bangladeshi households to climate dis-
asters. The results showed that households afflicted by cyclones
are more vulnerable than families affected by floods. Likewise,
Toufique and Islam (2014) evaluated livelihood vulnerability
for four disaster-prone zones in Bangladesh, including salinity,
flood, flash flood and drought. A Socio-economic Vulner-
ability Index (SeVI) was created by Ahsan and Warner
(2014) for households impacted by climate change in seven
unions of the Koyra upazilla in Bangladesh’s south-western
coastal region. Similar to this, Xenarios et al. (2016) examined
the vulnerability status of two Bangladeshi regions: one in the
south and one in the north. Monirul Alam et al. (2017) also
identified vulnerabilities among Bangladeshi char and river-
bank communities. Kabir and Khan (2017) made an effort to
look at the experiences of Bangladeshi coastal residents who
were impacted by Cyclones Sidr and Aila.
The discussions indicate that coastal vulnerability is given
disproportionate focus in Bangladeshi research on climate
change risk compared to other areas of the country. However,
there is little discussion of how urban poor people and cities
are affected by climate change (Rashid et al., 2013). In a
study focused on Dhaka, Hossain and Rahman (2017) demon-
strated how the pro-poor urban may adapt to climate change.
The asset-transfer technique was discovered to be particularly
helpful in developing household adaption plans, claims the
study. Adri and Simon (2018) looked into whether there
were any changes in the features, practices and aspirations of
climate-related and non-climate-related migrants living in a
slum in Dhaka city. Akther and Ahmad (2021) examined the
livelihood status of the urban poor in both normal situation
and a stressful situation due to urban flood in Dhaka city.
The study found that in a normal situation, slum dwellers
were living with a moderate level of livelihood status, which
dropped down to a poor level during a stressed period. In
another study, Akther and Ahmad (2022) discovered that
there was a positive relationship between the conditions that
suggests the normal livelihood status of the urban poor influ-
ences the stressed livelihood status.
However, urban climate change concerns, particularly for
the urban poor, have not previously received much attention.
Despite the fact that this group of people is most at risk from
the effects of climate change because of their way of life and the
environment where they live in. Although vulnerability assess-
ment is helpful to address adaptation strategies for the most
vulnerable group in cities, no research has been done so far
to examine how vulnerable the urban poor are. Therefore,
this study made an attempt to quantify the level of vulner-
ability of urban poor households affected by urban floods in
Dhaka. The present work differs from Akther and Ahmad
(2021, 2022) by concentrating on measuring the degree of
vulnerability rather than focusing on livelihood status in regu-
lar and stressed periods, and the relationship of livelihood sta-
tus between the normal and stressed periods, which is
significant because vulnerability assessment is the first step
in the development of adaptation strategies for this group of
people. To see the differences between the two slum settle-
ments with comparable features, it analyses the degree of vul-
nerability with the various household-level components in
more detail. The findings of this study may be used to develop
adaptation strategies and flood risk reduction measures for the
most vulnerable urban poor groups.
2. Methodology
2.1. Study area
One of the world’s megacities with the fastest population
growth is Dhaka. Slum areas are home to more than one
third of the city population (Banks et al., 2011). The city is
especially at risk due to its uncontrolled growth and its pos-
ition, where flooding is a frequent event (Rabbani et al.,
2011). The majority of the urban poor reside in low-lying wet-
land areas on the outskirts of the city, which are also the places
most at risk of flooding. Developers are continuously
encroaching on these low-lying areas and aquatic bodies to
accommodate the expanding population. A significant popu-
lation density and a poorly maintained drainage infrastructure
further decrease natural drainage systems. As a result, urban
flooding affects the low-lying area’s inhabitants more
frequently.
Dhaka was chosen as the study region because it has a his-
tory of pluvial flooding and has the largest percentage of urban
and slum dwellers in Bangladesh. Two urban flood-prone
locations were chosen from the city’s two main administrative
divisions (Dhaka South City Corporation (DSCC) and Dhaka
North City Corporation (DNCC)), subsequently. Finally, due
to the geographical location and the propensity for pluvial
flooding, two urban slums were considered: Gendaria Rail-
line Slum (RLS) in DSCC and Mirpur Kobir Mollah Slum
(Mirpur Slum) in DNCC (Figure 1). We chose two slum settle-
ments in Dhaka city that almost entirely share the same
characteristics (like large family sizes, a high percentage of illit-
eracy, the majority of them working in informal jobs with low
income and living in substandard conditions with insufficient
basic amenities) to assess the differences in the degree of liveli-
hood vulnerability between the slums.
2.2. Data collection
Data were collected through a structured questionnaire rel-
evant to indicators of LVI at the household level. This study
has chosen the indicators that are reflective of the three contri-
buting factors of vulnerability: exposure, sensitivity and adap-
tive capacity of the urban poor households (Table 1). In two
slum settlements, a total of 400 households were surveyed.
From July to October of 2018, data were collected. Prior to col-
lecting the data, the respondents for the household question-
naire survey were systematically selected, and the
questionnaire was tested. Whenever possible, we talked with

Figure 1. Location of the study area.
both male (363 respondents) and female (37 respondents)
household heads in each of the chosen households. In addition
to the questionnaire, six focus groups discussion (FGD) were
conducted in each slum settlement involving community
representatives, room owners and tenant with groups of 10–
12 participants. The FGDs assisted in identifying the impor-
tant topics that the questionnaire survey did not cover.
2.3. Data analysis
The LVI and LVI-IPCC are the two alternate techniques we
used to show the findings. The LVI is a composite index
made up of several components, whereas the LVI-IPCC com-
bines these components to form the three contributing par-
ameters of vulnerability identified by the IPCC: adaptive
capability, sensitivity and exposure. Following Hahn et al.
(2009), we just presented them as alternatives; we did not pre-
fer one approach to the other. Each technique gives a thorough
explanation of the factors influencing the livelihood vulner-
ability of urban poor households in study locations. LVI uses
CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT 3
the indicators to characterize and measure various aspects of
livelihoods. These multiple indicators are then combined to
create a single composite index of vulnerability.
2.4. LVI, the composite index approach
To assess the vulnerability of poor households affected by
urban flooding, we applied the LVI, the composite index
approach established by Hahn et al. (2009) and referred to
the studies Toufique and Islam (2014), Sam et al. (2017b),
Monirul Alam et al. (2017), Shah et al. (2013), Ahsan and War-
ner (2014) and UN-HABITAT (2018) in setting the major
components and sub-components as indicators of vulner-
ability. Due to the flexibility of the methods, additional rel-
evant components and sub-components were added in this
study, which are based on a critical analysis of pertinent litera-
ture and the local settings (Monirul Alam et al., 2017). There-
fore, in current study, the LVI was based on eight main
components (socio-demographic profile (SDP), livelihood
strategies (LS), social networks (SN), health (H), food (F),
4 H. AKTHER ET AL.
water (W), housing (H) and flood (FL)), each of which was
determined by several sub-components. We added housing
components as one of the important components for the
urban poor households. This study also modified a total of
26 sub-components of eight major components according to
their relevance to the urban poor in Bangladesh (Table 1).
The LVI was calculated using a balanced weighting method
and each sub-component equally contributes to the final
index (Monirul Alam et al., 2017). The LVI ranges in this
study from 0 (least vulnerable) to 1 (most vulnerable).
The LVI calculation consisted of a number of steps. At first,
the collected primary data for each sub-component were con-
verted into several suitable measurement units such as num-
bers, ratios and indices. Thereafter, the sub-components
were standardized by using Equation (1) since they were
measured at different scales.
Sb − Smin
Indexsb = (1)
Smax − Smin
where Sb is the sub-component for the study area b, and for
each sub-component, which were determined by using data
from the study areas. For instance, for the sub-components
those were measured in percentages such as ‘percentages of
households with no access to school’ the minimum and maxi-
mum values were set at 0 and100, respectively.
After standardization of the sub-components, in the third
step, they were averaged for calculating the index score of
each major component by using Equation (2):

n
indexsb i
Mb = i=1
n
where Mb is one of the eight major components for study area
b [socio-demographic profile (SDP), livelihood strategies (LS),
social networks (SN), health (H), food (F), water (W), housing
(Ho) and climatic event - flood (FL)], indexsb i represents the
sub-components, indexed by i, that form each major com-
ponent, and n is the number of sub-components in each
major component.
Finally, the values of the major components of a study area
were averaged using Equation (3) to obtain the final LVI for
the study area.

8
i=1 wMi Mbi
LVIb =
8
i=1 wMi
where LVIb, the Livelihood Vulnerability Index for study area
b, equals the weighted average of the eight major components.
The weights of each major component, WMi, were determined
by the number of sub-components that make up each major
component and were included to ensure that all sub-com-
ponents contribute equally to the overall LVI (Sullivan, 2002).
2.4.1. IPCC–LVI framework approach
This study took into account eight significant components to
incorporate into the three contributing factors to vulnerability
listed by the IPCC – exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity
(Hahn et al., 2009) (Table 1). We measured three sub-com-
ponents of exposure in this study, including the frequency of
urban floods in the study areas for the five years prior to the
interview. Additionally, we took into account the percentage
of households that experienced disease as a result of flooding
in the previous three years as well as the percentage of house-
hold members who were hurt or died. In this case, three years
is taken into account so that the responders may accurately
recall the incidents. The ability of the system to recover from
the exposure is referred to as adaptive capacity. The key
elements of the socio-demographic profile, livelihood options
and social networks demonstrate the adaptive capacity. Last
but not least, sensitivity describes how much exposure affects
a system. The main components covered by the sensitivity
are health, food, water and housing. Equation (4) is made up
of these three contributing factors,
LVI-PCCb = (Expb –AdaCapb )∗Senb (4)
where LVI-IPCCb is the LVI for study area b used the IPCC
vulnerability framework, Exp is the exposure, AdaCap is the
adaptive capacity and Sen is the sensitivity scores for the
study area. LVI-IPCC is ranged from minimum value (−1)
representing the least vulnerability to the maximum value
(1) representing most vulnerability.
In this study, we used Equation (5) for Adaptive capacity,
Sensitivity and Exposure:

n
i=1 wMi Mbi
AdaCap/Sen/Exp =
n
i=1 wMi
where equals the weighted average of the eight main com-
ponents distributed in three contributing factors, adaptive
capacity (SDP, LS and SN); Sensitivity (H, F, W and Ho)
and Exposure (FL). WMi, the weights of each key component,
were calculated by the number of sub-components that com-
prise each main component.
3. Results
3.1. LVI: Mirpur Slum (MPS) and Rail-line Slum (RLS)
3.1.1. Socio-demographic profile (SDP)
The dependency ratio index for MPS was slightly higher than
the dependency ratio index for RLS (MPS: 0.107, RLS: 0.102),
indicating that MPS had a higher dependency ratio to the pro-
ductive portion of the population (MPS: 0.43, RLS: 0.41). The
RLS had a higher proportion of households where heads of
households did not attend any formal school and a smaller
proportion of households with more than five persons than
those of the MPS. The percentage of female-headed house-
holds was 10.2 in MPS and 8.1 in RLS (Table 2). Therefore,
we found that RLS had a higher vulnerability index for the
SDP than that of the MPS (SDP MPS: 0.181; SDP RPS 0.186)
(Table 3).
3.1.2. Livelihood strategies (SL)
The majority of the urban poor work a variety of informal
occupations. In our study, MPS had a higher score of liveli-
hood strategies than RLS (LS MPS: 0.195; LS RLS: 0.153).
According to the respondents, no household members were
working outside of the city in both slums. Although the
slums had a similar index value for livelihood diversification,
MPS had a higher proportion of households with no savings

Table 1. Indicators for Livelihood Vulnerability Index.
Major components Sub-components
Adaptive capacity
Socio- Dependency ratio
demographic
Profile
Household size
Percent of female-headed households
(HHH)
Percent of households where the head
of household has not attended
school
Livelihood/ Percent of households with a family
Livelihood member working out of the locality
strategies
Average Livelihood Diversification
Index (range: 0.20–1)
Percent of households do not have
savings
Average asset diversification index
Social Networks Average Receive: Give ratio (range: 0–
15)
Average Borrow: Lend Money ratio
(range: 0.5–2)
Percent of households with no access
to school
Sensitivity
Health Average time to go to the health centre
(minutes)
Percent of HHs not having sanitary
latrine
Percent of households that have family
members with chronic illness
Percent of households where family
members had to miss work in the last
2 weeks due to illness
Food The average number of months
households struggle for food due to
extreme events (range: 0–12)
Average per month food expenditure
of a household
Water Average travel time to the water source
(minutes)
Percent of households that do not have
a consistent water supply
Percent of households depending on
their sources of water for household
activities
Housing Types of the housing structure
Room crowding
Room size
Exposure
Extreme events The average number of the flood, events
pluvial flood in the past 5 years (range: 0–5)
Percent of households with an injury or
death as a result of the most severe
flood in the past 3 years
Percent of household with disease due
to flood in the last 3 years
Explanation of sub-components
The ratio of the population under 15 and over 65 years of
age to the population between 15 and 64 years of age.
Percentage of the household more than 5 persons
Percentage of households where the HHH is female. (If a
male head is away from the home >6 months per year
the female is counted as the head of the household)
Percentage of households where the head of the
household reports that they have attended 0 years of
school.
Percentage of households that report at least 1 family
member who works outside of the city for their primary
work activity.
The inverse of (the number of livelihood activities +1)
reported by a household, e.g. the household members
are working as day labour, a rickshaw puller, and a maid
will have a Livelihood Diversification Index = 1/(3 + 1)
= 0.25
Percentage of households that reported that they did not
have any savings.
The inverse of (the number of assets of a household +1)
The ratio of (the number of types of help received by a
household in the past month + 1) to (the number of
types of help given by a household to someone else in
the past month + 1)
The ratio of a household borrowing money in the past
month to a household lending money in the past
month, e.g. If a household borrowed money but did not
lend money, the ratio = 2:1 or 2 and if they lent money
but did not borrow any, the ratio = 1:2 or 0.5
Percentage of households reporting no access to schools
The average time it takes the households to get to the
nearest health centre.
Ring slabs are not considered as sanitary
Percentage of households that report at least 1 family
member with chronic illness. (Chronic illness was
defined subjectively by respondent)
Percentage of households that report at least 1 family
member who had to miss work due to illness in the last
2 weeks
The average number of months households struggle to
obtain food for their family.
The average per month food expenditure of a household
The average time it takes the households to travel to their
primary water source
Percentage of households that report that water is not
available at their primary water source every day
Percentage of households depending on their source of
water for household activities such as cooking, drinking,
washing, cleaning, and bathing
Percentage of households that are structured in poor
materials (Jupri)
Percentage of the household that reported more than 3
persons living in a room
Percentage of HH has the minimum standard room size (4
sqm)
Hahn et al. (2009), Monirul Alam et al. (2017), Toufique
and Islam (2014), Shah et al. (2013)
Hahn et al. (2009), Monirul Alam et al. (2017), Shah et al.
(2013)
Sam et al. (2017b)
CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT 5
Sources
Hahn et al. (2009), Sam et al. (2017a),
Monirul Alam et al. (2017), Toufique
and Islam (2014), Shah et al. (2013)
Developed for this Study.
Hahn et al. (2009), Sam et al. (2017a),
Monirul Alam et al. (2017) Toufique and
Islam (2014), Shah et al. (2013)
Hahn et al. (2009), Sam et al. (2017a),
Monirul Alam et al. (2017), Shah et al.
(2013)
Hahn et al. (2009), Shah et al. (2013)
Hahn et al. (2009), Sam et al. (2017a),
Toufique and Islam (2014), Shah et al.
(2013)
Developed for this study
Sam et al. (2017a)
Hahn et al. (2009), Monirul Alam et al.
(2017), Toufique and Islam (2014), Shah
et al. (2013)
Hahn et al. (2009), Toufique and Islam
(2014), Shah et al. (2013)
Sam et al. (2017b)
Hahn et al. (2009), Monirul Alam et al.
(2017), Toufique and Islam (2014), Shah
et al. (2013)
Monirul Alam et al. (2017), Toufique and
Islam (2014), Ahsan and Warner (2014)
Hahn et al. (2009), Monirul Alam et al.
(2017), Toufique and Islam (2014), Shah
et al. (2013), Ahsan and Warner (2014)
Hahn et al. (2009), Monirul Alam et al.
(2017), Toufique and Islam (2014), Shah
et al. (2013)
Hahn et al. (2009), Sam et al. (2017a),
Monirul Alam et al. (2017), Toufique
and Islam (2014), Shah et al. (2013)
Sam et al. (2017a)
Hahn et al. (2009), Toufique and Islam
(2014) Monirul Alam et al. (2017)
Hahn et al. (2009),
Sam et al. (2017b)
Developed for this study.
UN-HABITAT (2018)
UN-HABITAT (2018)
6 H. AKTHER ET AL.

Table 2. Actual sub-component values and the minimum and maximum sub-component values for MPS and RLS, Dhaka.
Mirpur Slum Rail-line The maximum value in The minimum value in
Sub-components Units (MPS) Slum (RLS) both slums both slums
Socio-demographic profile
Dependency ratio Ratio 0.43 0.41 4 0
Percent of households more than 5 persons Percent 12.6 10.3 100 0
Percent of female-headed households (FHHH) Percent 10.2 8.1 100 0
Percent of households where the head of household has Percent 39.1 45.9 100 0
not attended school
Livelihood strategies (LS)
Percent of households with a family member working out Percent 0.000 0.00 100 0
of the locality
Average livelihood diversification index (0.20–1) 1/ (Avr. No of 0.33 0.33 1 .20
livelihoods +1)
Percent of households not having savings Percent 55.3 34.6 100 0
Average asset diversification index 1/ (Avr. No of assets 0.25 0.33 1 0.25
+1)
Social network (SN)
Average received assistance: Give assistance ratio (0–15) Ratio 1 1.33 15 0
Average borrow:lend money ratio (0.5–2) Ratio 1 1 2 0.5
Percent of households with no access to school Percent 3.3 23 100 0
Health (H)
Average time to go health centre (minutes) minutes 28.37 26.19 60 10
Percent of households with no sanitary latrine Percent 88.6 99.01 100 0
Percent of households that have a family member with Percent 12.6 19.5 100 0
chronic illness
Percent of households where a family member had to miss Percent 5.45 7.12 100 0
work in the last 2 weeks due to illness
Food (F)
The average number of months households struggle for Months 2.49 2.45 12 0
food
Percent of average monthly expenditure of a household Percent 48.53 69.14 100 0
on food
Water (W)
Average travel time to the water source (minutes) Minutes 15.42 17.12 40 0
Percent of households that do not have a consistent water Percent 98.02 80 100 0
supply
Percent of households depending on their sources of Percent 0 3 100 0
water for household activities
Housing (Ho)
Percent of households with poor housing structure Percent 4.2 30.8 100 0
Percent of HHs more than 3 persons living in a room Percent 54.9 65.4 100 0
Percent of HHs have the minimum standard room size (4 Percent 1 5.9 100 0
sqm.)
Flood (Fl)
The average number of the flood, events in the past 5 Count 1 1 5 0
years (range: 0–5)
Percent of households with an injury or death due to flood Percent 21.8 23.7 100 0
in the past 3 years
Percent of household with disease due to flood in the last Percent 56.3 60.5 100 0
3 years

and the lower average asset diversification compared to the
RLS (Average asset diversification Index MPS: 0.066; Average
asset diversification Index RLS: 0.106). When all four sub-com-
ponents were averaged together, the scale of the LS component
vulnerability scores, MPS showed the higher vulnerability
score than that of the RLS.
3.1.3. Social network (SN)
MPS households stated borrowing money frequently and they
lent money several times in the previous month like RLS
households. The reciprocal in-kind help (family, friends and
relative) had been taken place in the households of RLS
more frequently than MPS households in last month (borrow:
lend money ratio: MPS 0.333, RLS 0.333; receive: give ratio:
MPS 0.067, RLS 0.089). RLS households had a greater vulner-
ability on the social networks component than MPS house-
holds (0.144 versus 0.217, respectively) because a greater
proportion of their households lacked access to schooling.
3.1.4. Health (H)
In our study, MPS households stated that their journey time to
a medical centre was on average 28.37 min, compared to RLS
households’ average trip time of 26.19 min. Around 90% of
households had no sanitary latrine in MPS whereas in RLS
almost 99% of households did not have this type of toilet. In
total,12.6% of MPS households and 19.5% of RLS households
reported having a chronic illness. In the previous two weeks
only 5.45% of MPS households and 7.12% of RLS households
reported that their household members had missed work due
to sickness. When the sub-components were added together,
the RLS health vulnerability score (0.395) was higher than
the MPS health vulnerability score (0.358).
3.1.5. Food (F)
The respondents stated that, on average, they struggled to pro-
vide their households with enough food for 2.49 months in
MPS and 2.45 months in RLS each year. From the field data, it
 CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT 7

Table 3. Indexed sub-components, the major components, and the composite LVI for MPS and RLS, Dhaka.
Mirpur Slum Rail-line Slum IPCC contributing
Sub-components (MPS) (RLS) factors Major components MPS RLS
Socio-demographic profile
Dependency ratio 0.107 0.102 Adaptive capacity Socio-demographic 0.181 0.186
profile
Percent of household more than 5 persons 0.126 0.103
Percent of female-headed households (HHH) 0.102 0.081
Percent of households where the head of household has not 0.391 0.459
attended school
Livelihood strategies
Percent of households with a family member working out of the 0.000 0.000 Livelihood/livelihood 0.195 0.153
locality strategies
Average Livelihood Diversification Index 0.162 0.162
Percent of household not having savings 0.553 0.346
Average asset diversification index 0.066 0.106
Social networks
Average receive assistance:give assistance ratio 0.067 0.089 Social Networks 0.144 0.217
Average borrow:lend money ratio 0.333 0.333
Percent of households with no school access 0.033 0.344
Health
Average time to go health centre (minutes) 0.367 0.324 Sensitivity Health 0.358 0.395
Percent of HHs not having a sanitary latrine 0.886 0.990
Percent of households that have family members with chronic 0.126 0.195
illness
Percent of households where a family member had to miss work 0.054 0.071
in the last 2 weeks due to illness
Food
The average number of months households struggle for food 0.207 0.204 Food 0.346 0.447
Percent of average consumption expenditure of household on 0.485 0.691
food
Water
Average travel time to a water source (minutes) 0.385 0.428 Water 0.455 0.419
Percent of households that do not have a consistent water supply 0.98 0.8
Percent of households depending on their sources of water for 0 0.03
household activities
Housinga
Percent of households with poor housing structure 0.042 0.308 Housing 0.200 0.340
Percent of HHs more than 3 persons living in a room 0.549 0.654
Percent of HHs have the minimum standard room size (4 sqm.) 0.01 0.059
Natural disaster (Flood)
The average number of the flood, events in the past 5 years 0.2 0.2 Exposure Natural Disaster (Pluvial 0.327 0.347
(2011–2015) (range: 0–5) flood)
Percent of households with an injury or death due to flood in the 0.218 0.237
past 3 years
Percent of household with disease due to flood in the last 3 years 0.563 0.605
Overall LVI LVI: Mirpur Slum 0.269
LVI: Rail-line Slum 0.300
a
Housing is not defined as a major component by IPCC, but the present study includes it as a very important component for the urban poor in vulnerability measure.

was observed that the households in both slum settlements
expended the higher proportion of average monthly expenditure
on food consumption compared to the other sectors of expendi-
ture. It was found that the households of MPS expended 48.53%
of the total average monthly expenditure (US$ 74.58) on food
consumption where the households of RLS paid 69.14% of the
total average monthly expenditure on food (US$ 90.50). The
overall food component score was found lower for MPS than
the food score for RLS (F MPS: 0.346; F RLS: 0.447).
3.1.6. Water (W)
Additionally, RLS had a lower water component vulnerability
scale (0.419) than MPS. (0.455). To get water particularly
during in flood, MPS households reported that they had to tra-
vel 15.42 min while 17.12 min claimed by the households of
RLS on average. In MPS, around 98% of homes lacked a con-
tinuous supply of water and 80% of RLS households did not
have water regularly. There were no sources of water for dom-
estic usage in any of the MPS dwellings whereas only 3% of
households reported using their supplies of water for domestic
activities in RLS. The component score revealed that MPS was
more vulnerable than the RLS in the water component.
3.1.7. Housing (Ho)
The RLS had a higher housing vulnerability score than MPS
(Ho MPS: 0.200; Ho RLS 0.340). MPS had a lower proportion
of households (4.2%) with very poor housing structure
(Jupri) compared to the very poor housing structure in RLS
(30.8%). Around 60% of total households in both slums were
living in a crowded room (more than 3 persons living in a
room) and without maintaining a minimum standard of
room size (4 sqm). However, when all four sub-components
were averaged together, the scale of the housing component
the MPS’s vulnerability score was lower than the RLS’s.
3.1.8. Natural disaster (ND)
Based on the average recorded number of urban floods over the
previous five years, both slums (which are in Dhaka) have equal
8 H. AKTHER ET AL.
Natural Disaster vulnerability scores. The proportion of the
households’ members with an injury and death and affected
by several diseases due to flood in the last three years was higher
in RLS compared to the percentage of the households in MPS.
The RLS households were more vulnerable (0.347) than the
MPS households (0.327) when climatic event (exposure) was
included in the Natural Disaster index.
The Livelihood Vulnerability Index (LVI) showed that gen-
erally, RLS was more exposed to the effects of climate change
than MPS, as shown by its higher LVI score (0.300 versus
0.269, respectively).
3.2. LVI-IPCC: MPS and RLS
Similar vulnerability results were obtained by the second
method to estimate the LVI-IPCC using the IPCC framework
approach (LVI-IPCC MPS: 0.048; LVI-IPCC RLS: 0.066).
As discussed above the natural disaster; being injured and
death; and affected by diseases of household members due to
flood (Exposure), the RLS had a higher exposure index score
of climate change impacts than MPS (Exposure MPS: 0.327;
Exposure RLS: 0.347). Based on demographic profile, diversity
of livelihood options, as well as social network, MPS had a
higher adaptive capacity score than RLS (Adaptive capacity
MPS: 0.186; Adaptive capacity RLS: 0.180). However, RLS was
more sensitive to the effects of climate change than MPS
when taking into account the existing level of health, food, as
well as water security, and housing structures in both slums
(Sensitivity MPS: 0.341; Sensitivity RLS: 0.396). RLS tended to
be more vulnerable than MPS when these contributing factor
scores for each slum were added applying the LVI-IPCC
equation (LVI-IPCC MPS: 0.048; LVI-IPCC RLS: 0.066) (Table 4).
4. Discussion
In the current study, the two selected urban poor settlements
serve as an example of slum settlements (poor households
with limited access to household amenities and lack of tenure
facilities) in Dhaka city. Here, we attempt to assess the degree
of two slum settlements’ vulnerability to pluvial floods. Eakin
and Bojorquez-Tapia (2008) discovered that within a small
region, the indicators used for assessing the vulnerability
index do not differ significantly. Similar evidence came to
light by the current study as well. One of our previous studies
(Akther & Ahmad, 2021), we discovered that there are some
influencing factors, such as the location and pattern of the
settlements, the characteristics of floods (length and intensity),
socio-economic status, the level of collective cooperation, etc.,
that cause the livelihood statuses to differ between the urban
poor settlements in stressed situations. Additionally, we
found that the livelihood capitals had an internal influence
Table 4. Results of the calculation of the contributing factors for the LVI-IPCC
utilizing the IPCC framework approach.
IPCC contributing factors to vulnerability MPS
Adaptive Capacity 0.186
Sensitivity 0.341
Exposure 0.327
LVI-IPCC 0.048
on one another, leading to differences in the livelihood status
among the households in the poor settlements (Akther &
Ahmad, 2021). In another study, we looked at how the
urban poor’s normal livelihood status influenced their stressed
livelihood status (Akther & Ahmad, 2022).
Although the study areas and target population are the
same for all of the studies (Akther & Ahmad, 2021, 2022)
including the present one, the goals and methodology vary.
In our earlier research, we looked at the livelihood status of
the urban poor in Dhaka city in both a regular situation and
a situation under stress as a result of urban flooding (Akther
& Ahmad, 2021). We also discovered that there was a positive
relationship between the conditions, suggesting that the nor-
mal livelihood status influences the stressed livelihood status
(Akther & Ahmad, 2022). The current study, however,
differs significantly from the authors’ earlier research because
it focuses on determining the level of vulnerability of urban
poor households. The findings of the current study might
assist in developing adaptation strategies for this particular
community, while the prior two studies provided suggestions
for assessing the urban poor’s vulnerability, which is the
main focus of the present study.
The index value of the main components showed (Figure 2)
in which household characteristics are driving the degree of vul-
nerability of each slum. Between the two slums, RLS had a
higher LVI (0.300) than the MPS (0.269), indicating the higher
vulnerability of RLS. Health, food, water and housing com-
ponents had the highest values for RLS households at 0.395,
0.447, 0.419 and 0.340, respectively, compared to 0.358, 0.346,
00.455 and 0.200 for MPS households. The LVI variations
were strongly influenced by these four factors (Table 3).
The households in both slums claimed that they experienced
food insecurity for two to three months in a year, notably during
and after floods. In a discussion, it was discovered that house-
holds’ low monthly incomes and the need to spend more on
health or medicine were the primary causes of inadequate
food consumption. RLS showed a higher vulnerability score
on health component than MPS because a higher proportion
of households (99.1%) did not have a sanitary latrine and a
higher proportion of households’ members missed their work
in the last two weeks because of sickness such as chronic dis-
eases, seasonal illness and injured, etc. The respondents claimed
that they used homemade medications before visiting public
health facilities when they fell ill or were affected by any dis-
eases. They also mentioned there is no free health facility
from the healthcare centre. As a result, high healthcare costs
may push them to use other resources less, making households
more susceptible (Adelekan, 2010; Flores et al., 2008). For
example, according to Baro and Deubel (2006), a significant
drop in food consumption is the primary effect of an extreme
event (Baro & Deubel, 2006). Similarly, a big difference in aver-
age travel time for going to water sources and lack of water
supply of households showed that MPS was more vulnerable
to water component compared to RLS. Besides, the higher pro-
RLS
portion of households with poor housing structure and
0.180
crowded living room (more than 3 persons in a room)
0.396 confirmed that RLS was more vulnerable than MPS. Only 1%
0.347 of households had the minimum standard room size in MPS
0.066
while the proportion was 5.9 in RLS.

Figure 2. Vulnerability spider diagram of the major components of the LVI for MPS and RLS.
The SDP, the livelihood strategies and social network also
influence the LVI. The ability of a household is influenced
by SDP through which a household can respond, recover
from and adapt to climatic events. In our study, RLS showed
a higher vulnerability score on the SDP index than MPS
because a higher proportion of household heads did not attend
school in RLS than the MPS. Education is one of the most sig-
nificant sub-components of the status of SDP. For example,
better education and skills increase a family’s capacity to
take on well-paying occupations (Dehghani Pour et al., 2018)
higher incomes affect human capital by promoting health
and education, and they affect physical capital by putting
money into infrastructure.
A livelihood is a key tool for helping households deal with
and recover from difficulties and improve their abilities and
assets, at present, and in the coming years (Paavola, 2008).
MPS showed a greater vulnerability score on livelihood strat-
egies than the RLS due to the high proportion of households
that did not have savings. In addition, in RLS only 10.8% of
households had to pay their house rent whereas in MPS
80.5% of households were tenants, this could be the reason
for financial differences between the slums and this, in turn,
led to no saving of the households in MPS. The households
also stated that they experienced unemployment during the
floods because the majority of them were working on a daily
basis. To get away from the effects of a flood, poor households
obtained loans from moneylenders at high rates of interest.
Although strong community ties and high levels of trust
among households are significant strategies for reducing sus-
ceptibility to the effects of climate change (Thomas et al.,
2005), these social aspects are more challenging to quantify
than measures of food security and health components
(Hahn et al., 2009). Sam et al. (2017b) found that no access
to school influenced the vulnerability of households as they
CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT 9
mentioned social institutions like school is an important indi-
cator of social network (Sam et al., 2017b). This sub-com-
ponent score showed a higher difference between the slums
in the social network component and reflected the higher vul-
nerability of the RLS than the MPS. The respondents reported
three reasons for less (no) access to school in MPS (3.3%) and
the RLS (23%), first, the households had infant and adult
population; and second, in MPS, two schools were running
by Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) and
UNICEF whereas, only one local NGO called Pathshala tried
to provide primary education to the slum children in RLS,
and children were not sent to schools rather insist to generate
extra income for the family. Thomalla et al. (2006) also found
that the people who have the least access to economic and
social capital are the most exposed to natural disasters (Tho-
malla et al., 2006). Finally, although the average number of
the flood was the same in slums, the proportion of households
with injury and death; and the proportion of households’
members with diseases due to flood showed that RLS was
more vulnerable than MPS.
MPS was more vulnerable than RLS in terms of livelihood
strategies and the water component, two of the eight key com-
ponents in the assessment of livelihood vulnerability of the
urban poor. In contrast, RLS scored more vulnerable than
MPS in the areas of socio-demographic profile, social net-
works, health, food, housing and natural disaster. However,
the combined score shows that the livelihood vulnerability of
the urban poor is higher in RLS (LVI: 0.300) than the MPS
(LVI: 0.269). Several studies found that some components
are more influential for the variations in LVI of the
resource-poor communities such as health, social network
and food (Toufique & Islam, 2014); food, water and health
(Monirul Alam et al., 2017); health, water and social network
(Sam et al., 2017b) and livelihood strategies, food and water
10 H. AKTHER ET AL.
(Sam et al., 2017a). We also found that water, health and food
are more prominent components in the LVI variation of urban
poor communities.
The findings are displayed in Figure 3, where a vulnerability
triangle is plotted along with scores for exposure, capacity for
adaptation and sensitivity. It was found that the RLS had a
lower adaptive capacity with higher SDP and SN vulnerability
scores compared to the MPS. Similarly, the higher vulner-
ability index value of health, food and housing components
of RLS compared to MPS reflected the higher sensitivity. Fur-
thermore, RLS had a higher exposure index score than MPS
(Exposure MPS: 0.327; Exposure RLS: 0.347). Therefore, the
findings showed that according to the contributing factors,
the RLS was more exposed to climatic stress with a lower adap-
tive capacity and a higher sensitivity compared to the MPS.
5. Conclusions and policy implications
This study provides insights into the livelihood vulnerability of
urban poor households in Dhaka city which is one of the
urban flood-prone areas of Bangladesh. The community chosen
for the study is both extremely poor and highly vulnerable to
natural disasters. The results of LVI and IPCC-LVI analyses
showed one slum settlement was more vulnerable than the
other slum settlement and the vulnerability order remained the
same. The settlements with similar characteristics have a differ-
ent level of vulnerability due to their households’ attributes and
status of providing services and the characteristics of the sur-
rounding neighbourhoods. The differences between the slum
settlements in vulnerability level caused by factors related with
health (poor sanitation and medical facilities), food security
(having 1 or 2 meals per day and struggle for food), unfavourable
socio-demographic backgrounds (higher dependency ratios and
Figure 3. Vulnerability triangle diagram of the contributing factors of the LVI-IPCC for MPS and RLS.
uneducated households), livelihood strategies (dependence on
informal jobs), poor housing (overcrowded and poor housing
structure) and natural disaster. Additionally, in both slum com-
munities there are insufficient sources for safe drinking water
and fewer public health services are offered. Since many house-
holds lack the endowments to endure the shocks of natural dis-
asters, there is a strong reliance on social networks (especially
neighbours, friends and relatives).
By assessing the vulnerability of urban poor households,
this study has expanded the LVIs’ field of application. The
results of this study will add to the knowledge regarding LVI
of urban poor communities in developing nations like Bangla-
desh. The researchers might learn about the degree of vulner-
ability of the various vulnerability indicators and what are the
main influencing factors of the vulnerability of urban poor
communities. The methodology used in this study is flexible
enough to be used to assess and compare the vulnerability of
other resource-poor groups. Since the index was created
using primary data, any researcher can decide what infor-
mation is included and how each relevant category is defined
for a particular area, or community. Furthermore, the data
applied to assess the index are pertinent for many developing
countries as they often experience very similar situations. The
major shortcoming of this index is the equal weights used to
measure the sub-components, which are not always accurate.
Therefore, alternative methods of calculating the unequal
weights might be used.
A vulnerability assessment is an initial step to effective risk
reduction and climate change adaptation measures. The out-
comes of this study may assist to develop strategies, policies
and programmes that would reduce the vulnerability of the
urban poor in Bangladesh. The findings and recommendations
derived from this study are likely applicable to other cities in

Bangladesh and to other countries including south Asian
countries with similar socio-economic profiles. The study
implies that there is an urgent need for public investment in
the water sector, access to food, health care facilities and infra-
structure in the development of adaptation strategies for urban
poor households. To increase adaptive capability and lessen
vulnerability, more focus should be placed on enhancing
food safety, medical facilities and family access to safe and
sufficient drinking water. To make sure access to food, food
supply might be arranged by GOs and NGOs, particularly
during the disaster period. An adaptation action can be
taken to ensure the sanitary latrine facility and safe drinking
water supply for both slums which can be implemented
through several phases by local government or NGOs. To
enhance adaptive capacity, formal and vocational education
along with training can be taken for strengthening the SDP
of households. Diversification of LS, such as having at least
one household member produce an income from sources
other than the current place, is another step for lowering live-
lihood risk. The final step is to work with GOs, NGOs and local
communities to develop disaster management and aid plans
for urban floods.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Ethical statement
We declare that this article is unique, has not previously been
published, and is not presently being accepted for publication
anywhere. There are no conflicts of interest involving the
authors and this article. As the Corresponding Author, I attest
that all of the indicated authors have read and approved the
paper for submission.
Notes on contributors
Dr Hasina Akther is working as an associate professor in the Department
of Geography and Environment at Jagannath University, Dhaka, Bangla-
desh. Having a keen interest in urban and climate change issues, she com-
pleted her doctoral research from the Asian Institute of Technology
(AIT), Thailand, on the vulnerability and adaptive capacity of the urban
poor exposed to extreme climate events in Bangladesh. Over the course
of her professional and academic career, Dr. Akther has led many research
projects addressing a diverse range of urban challenges and climate
change-related matters, including rural-urban linkages, urban develop-
ment processes, livelihood assessments, slum mapping, and slum vulner-
ability. The outcomes of Dr. Akther’s twelve years of research excellence
in this field have produced several published articles in esteemed peer-
reviewed journals. Additionally, she has made significant contributions
to numerous international and national-level seminars, workshops, and
conferences in her field of interest.
Dr Mokbul Morshed Ahmad is a Professor in Development Planning
Management and Innovation in the Department of Development and
Sustainability in the School of Environment, Resources and Development,
Asian Institute of Technology, P.O. Box. 4. Klong Luang, Pathumrhani
12120, Bangkok, Thailand (e-mail: morshed@ait.ac.th, phone: 66-2-524-
5664 fax: 66-2-524-6431). Prior to that he was an Assistant Professor in
the department of Geography and Environment, Dhaka University,
Dhaka, Bangladesh. He holds a PhD. in Development Geography from
Durham University, Durham, UK (2000). He did his first MSc in
CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT 11
Geography and Environment from Dhaka University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
(1991) and second MSc in Rural and Regional Development Planning
from Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand (1993). He also
worked with the government of Bangladesh as a civil servant in the min-
istries of public administration and Commerce. Dr. Mokbul teaches and
researches on international development, NGOs, community develop-
ment, human conflicts and adaptation to climate change. He has pub-
lished many articles on his research areas in many journals and books.
He has written/co-authored eight books.
Dr Thi Phuoc Lai Nguyen is a social scientist and currently an Assistant
Professor at the Asian Institute of Technology. Her research centers upon
the human dimension in planning and managing the environment
regarding social attitudes, epistemological processes and behaviors of
understanding, mitigating, and adapting to social and environmental
changes. The areas of research interest are coupled human-environment
complex systems, social and environmental changes, social actors and
environmental inequalities, governance of socio-ecological systems, edu-
cation, and innovation for sustainable development.
References
Revised references (New)
Revised References (24 July 2023)
Adelekan, I. O. (2010). Vulnerability of poor urban coastal communities
to flooding in Lagos, Nigeria. Environment and Urbanization, 22(2),
433–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247810380141
Adger, W. N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M. M. Q., Conde, C., O’Brien, K.,
Pulhin, J., … Takahashi, K.. (2007). Assessment of adaptation prac-
tices, options, constraints and capacity. In M. L. Parry, O. F.
Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, & C. E. Hanson
(Eds.), Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (pp. 717–743). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Adri, N., & Simon, D. (2018). A tale of two groups: Focusing on the differ-
ential vulnerability of “climate-induced” and “non-climate-induced”
migrants in Dhaka City. Climate and Development, 10(4), 321–336.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1291402
Ahsan, N., & Warner, J. (2014). The socioeconomic vulnerability index : A
pragmatic approach for assessing climate change led risks – A case
study in the south-western coastal Bangladesh. International Journal
of Disaster Risk Reduction, 8, 32–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.
2013.12.009
Akther, H., & Ahmad, M. M. (2021). Livelihood under Stress: The Case of
Urban Poor during and post-flood in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The
Geographical Journal, 187(3), 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.
12379
Akther, H., & Ahmad, M. M. (2022). Livelihood in the pluvial flood prone
slum communities in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Progress in Disaster Science,
14(April 2022), Article 100227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2022.
100227
Angeles, G., Lance, P., Barden-O’Fallon, J., Islam, N., Mahbub, A. Q. M.,
& Nazem, N. I. (2009). The 2005 census and mapping of slums in
Bangladesh: Design, select results and application. International
Journal of Health Geographics, 8(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/
1476-072X-8-32
Aßheuer, T., Thiele-Eich, I., & Braun, B. (2013). Coping with the impacts
of severe flood events in Dhaka’s slums – The role of social capital.
Erdkunde, 67(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.3112/erdkunde.2013.01.03
Banks, N., Roy, M., & Hulme, D. (2011). Neglecting the urban poor in
Bangladesh: Research, policy and action in the context of climate
change. Environment and Urbanization, 23(1), 487–502. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0956247811417794
Baro, M., & Deubel, T. F. (2006). Persistent hunger: Perspectives on vul-
nerability, famine, and food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 35(1), 521–538. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.anthro.35.081705.123224
Brouwer, R., Akter, S., Brander, L., & Haque, E. (2007). Socioeconomic
vulnerability and adaptation to environmental risk: A case study of
12 H. AKTHER ET AL.
climate change and flooding in Bangladesh. Risk Analysis, 27(2), 313–
326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00884.x
Dehghani Pour, M., Barati, A. A., Azadi, H., & Scheffran, J. (2018).
Revealing the role of livelihood assets in livelihood strategies:
Towards enhancing conservation and livelihood development in the
Hara Biosphere Reserve, Iran. Ecological Indicators, 94(May), 336–
347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.074
Eakin, H., & Bojorquez-Tapia, L. A. (2008). Insights into the composition
of household vulnerability from multicriteria decision analysis. Global
Environmental Change, 18(1), 112–127. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.
09.001
Flores, G., Krishnakumar, J., O’Donnell, O., & Van Doorslaer, E. (2008).
Coping with health-care costs: Implications for the measurement of
catastrophic expenditures and poverty. Health Economics, 17(12),
1393–1412. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1338
Hahn, M. B., Riederer, A. M., & Foster, S. O. (2009). The Livelihood
Vulnerability Index: A pragmatic approach to assessing risks from cli-
mate variability and change – A case study in Mozambique. Global
Environmental Change, 19(1), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2008.11.002
Hossain, M. Z., & Rahman, A. K. (2017). Pro-poor adaptation for the
urban extreme poor in the context of climate change: A study on
Dhaka City, Bangladesh. International Journal of Climate Change
Strategies and Management, 10(3), 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJCCSM-08-2016-0117
Hu, R., Fang, F., Salinas, P., & Pain, C. C. (2018). Unstructured mesh
adaptivity for urban flooding modelling. Journal of Hydrology, 560,
354–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.02.078
Huang, H., Chen, X., Zhu, Z., Xie, Y., Liu, L., Wang, X., & Liu, K. (2018).
The changing pattern of urban flooding in Guangzhou, China. Science
of the Total Environment, 622–623, 394–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2017.11.358
Ishtiaque, A., Mahmud, M. S., & Rafi, M. H. (2015). Encroachment of
Canals of Dhaka City, Bangladesh: An investigative approach.
GeoScape, 8(2), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.2478/geosc-2014-0006
Islam, S., Shahabuddin, A. K. M., Kamal, M. M., & Ahmed, R. (2014).
Wetlands of Dhaka city: Its past and present scenario. Journal of Life
and Earth Science, 7, 83–90. https://doi.org/10.3329/jles.v7i0.20126
Jenkins, K., Surminski, S., Hall, J., & Crick, F. (2017). Science of the total
environment assessing surface water flood risk and management strat-
egies under future climate change: Insights from an agent-based
model. Science of the Total Environment, 595, 159–168. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.242
Jiang, Y., Zevenbergen, C., & Ma, Y. (2018). Urban pluvial flooding and
stormwater management: A contemporary review of China’s challenges
and “sponge cities” strategy. Environmental Science & Policy, 80
(September 2017), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.11.016
Kabir, R., & Khan, H. T. A. (2017). Study on the health status of coastal
people in Bangladesh after cyclone Sidr and Aila. European Scientific
Journal, ESJ, 13(15), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2017.
v13n15p10
Kamruzzaman, M., & Hakim, M. A. (2016). Socio-economic status of
slum dwellers: An empirical study on the capital city of Bangladesh.
American Journal of Business and Society 1(2), 13–18.
Monirul Alam, G. M., Alam, K., Mushtaq, S., & Clarke, M. L. (2017).
Vulnerability to climatic change in riparian char and river-bank house-
holds in Bangladesh: Implication for policy, livelihoods and social
development. Ecological Indicators, 72(March 2018), 23–32. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.06.045
Olajide, O., & Lawanson, T. (2014). Climate change and livelihood vul-
nerabilities of low-income coastal communities in Lagos, Nigeria.
International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 6(1), 42–51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2013.878348
Paavola, J. (2008). Livelihoods, vulnerability and adaptation to climate
change in Morogoro, Tanzania. Environmental Science & Policy, 11
(7), 642–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2008.06.002
Pandey, R., Alatalo, J. M., Thapliyal, K., Chauhan, S., Archie, K. M.,
Gupta, A. K., Jha, S. K., & Kumar, M. (2018). Climate change vulner-
ability in urban slum communities: Investigating household adaptation
and decision-making capacity in the Indian Himalaya. Ecological
Indicators, 90(September 2017), 379–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2018.03.031
Pouliotte, J., Smit, B., & Westerhoff, L. (2009). Adaptation and develop-
ment: Livelihoods and climate change in Subarnabad, Bangladesh.
Climate and Development, 1(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.3763/cdev.
2009.0001
Rabbani, G., Rahman, A., & Islam, N. (2011). Climate change implications
for Dhaka City: A need for immediate measures climate change
implications for Dhaka City: A need for immediate measures to
reduce vulnerability. (January). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-
0785-6
Rashid, S. F., Gani, S., & Sarker, M. (2013). Urban poverty, climate change
and health risks for slum dwellers in Bangladesh. In R. Shaw, F.
Mallick, & A. Islam (Eds.), Climate change adaptation actions in
Bangladesh (pp. 51–70). Japan: Springerhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-
4-431-54249-0.
Sam, A. S., Kumar, R., Kächele, H., & Müller, K. (2017a). Quantifying
household vulnerability triggered by drought: Evidence from rural
India. Climate and Development, 9(7), 618–633. https://doi.org/10.
1080/17565529.2016.1193461
Sam, A. S., Kumar, R., Kächele, H., & Müller, K. (2017b). Vulnerabilities
to flood hazards among rural households in India. Natural Hazards, 88
(2), 1133–1153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2911-6
Shah, K. U., Dulal, H. B., Johnson, C., & Baptiste, A. (2013).
Understanding livelihood vulnerability to climate change: Applying
the livelihood vulnerability index in Trinidad and Tobago.
Geoforum, 47, 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.
004
Sörensen, J., & Mobini, S. (2017). Pluvial, urban flood mechanisms and
characteristics – assessment based on insurance claims. Journal of
Hydrology, 555(September), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.
2017.09.039
Sullivan, C. (2002). Calculating a water poverty index. World
Development, 30(7), 1195–1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X
(02)00035-9
Thomalla, F., Downing, T., Spanger-Siegfried, E., Han, G., & Rockström,
J. (2006). Reducing hazard vulnerability: Towards a common approach
between disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation. Disasters, 30
(1), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2006.00305.x
Thomas, D., Osbahr, H., Twyman, C., Adger, N., & Hewitson, B. (2005).
ADAPTIVE: Adaptations to climate change amongst natural resource-
dependant societies in the developing world: Across the Souther
African climate gradient.
Toufique, K., & Yunus, M. (2013). Vulnerability of livelihoods in the
coastal districts of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Development Studies, 36
(1), 95–120.
Toufique, K. A., & Islam, A. (2014). Assessing risks from climate variabil-
ity and change for disaster-prone zones in Bangladesh. International
Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 10(PA), 236–249. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.08.008
UN-HABITAT. (2018). Metadata on SDGs Indicator 11.1.1 Indicator cat-
egory: Tier I https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2020/06/
metadata_on_sdg_indicator_11.1.1.pdf.
Xenarios, S., Nemes, A., Sarker, G. W., & Sekhar, N. U. (2016). Assessing
vulnerability to climate change: Are communities in flood-prone areas
in Bangladesh more vulnerable than those in drought-prone areas?
Water Resources and Rural Development, 7(January), 1–19. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wrr.2015.11.001
Zhou, Q., Leng, G., Su, J., & Ren, Y. (2019). Comparison of urbanization and
climate change impacts on urban flood volumes: Importance of urban
planning and drainage adaptation. Science of the Total Environment,
658, 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.184