Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Gender-based differences in flood vulnerability among men and women in the char farming households of Bangladesh

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Gender and vulnerability are important issues to examine in the context of flooding caused by climate change. Men and women around the world adapt differently to climate change effects and natural disasters. Therefore, this study examines men and women’s level of vulnerabilities and their choices of livelihood practices in char farming households in Zanjira, Bangladesh. The study used primary and secondary data. Both qualitative and quantitative were collected. Quantitative data were collected from a household survey of 115 men and 114 women using a questionnaire. Qualitative data were collected through 15 key informant interviews, 30 focus group discussions, and 18 in-depth interviews. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to assess men and women’s vulnerabilities, including three indices of vulnerability measuring access to livelihood assets were used. A hierarchical regression model was used to perform a gender-based analysis. The percentile score for men was 0.430 units higher than for women, revealing that male respondents were less vulnerable than female respondents in the study area. The results of the regression model showed that the use of gender as an explanatory variable increased the explanatory power of the model and was highly significant. The overall findings of quantitative and qualitative data analysis revealed that floods’ impacts were different for men and women and that women were more vulnerable overall, in part because of gender-related sociocultural norms. These differentials in vulnerabilities affected men and women’s ability to respond and recover from floods and adapt to new opportunities when disaster strikes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Source: Agriculture Office, Zanjira, Shariatpur, Bangladesh 2014

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agarwal B (1997) “Bargaining” and gender relations: within and beyond the household. Fem Econ 3(1):1–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A (2003) Sustainable governance of common-pool resources: context, methods, and politics. Annu Rev Anthropol 32(1):243–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguilar L (2012) Establishing the linkages between gender and climate change adaptation and mitigation. In: Gender and climate change: an introduction, Routledge, pp 201–221

  • Ariyabandu MM (2009) Sex, gender and gender relations in disasters. Women Gend Disaster global Issues Initiat 2009:5–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkin H, Colton R (1963) Table for statistics. Barnes and Noble Publication, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B (2004) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters, 2nd edn. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bujang MA, Saat N, Ikhwan TM, Sidik TAB (2017) Determination of minimum sample size requirement for multiple linear regression and analysis of covariance: considering to get close approximation of the estimates with the parameters in a population. Epidemiol Biostat Public Health 14(3):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Carney D (1998) Implementing the sustainable rural livelihoods approach. Department for International Development, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett J (1989) Poverty and sickness: the high costs of III-health. IDS Bull 20(2):58–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuter SL (1993) Living with risk: the geography of technological hazards. Edward Arnold, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dadzie SKN, Acquah H (2012) Attitudes toward risk and coping responses: the case of food crop farmers at Agona Duakwa in Agona East District of Ghana. Int J Agric For 2(2):29–37. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ijaf.20120202.06

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dankelman I (2002) Climate change: learning from gender analysis and women’s experiences of organising for sustainable development. Gender Dev 10(2):21–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Dankelman I, Jansen W (2012) Gender, environment and climate change: understanding the linkages. In: Gender and climate change: an introduction, Routledge, pp 49–82

  • Dasgupta S, Huq M, Khan ZH, Sohel Masud M, Ahmed MMZ, Mukherjee N, Pandey K (2011) Climate proofing infrastructure in Bangladesh: the incremental cost of limiting future flood damage. J Environ Dev 20(2):167–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison J (1988) Women and the land: the african experience—Westview special studies on Africa, agriculture. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Denton F (2001) Climate change, gender and poverty—academic babble or realpolitik? Point de Vue 14:1–2

    Google Scholar 

  • Deressa TT, Hassan RM, Ringler C, Alemu T, Yesuf M (2009) Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Glob Environ Change 19(2):248–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Deressa TT, Ringler C, Hassan RM (2010) Factors affecting the choices of coping strategies for climate extremes. The case of farmers in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia IFPRI Discussion Paper, 1032

  • DFID (2000) Poverty elimination and the empowerment of women: strategies for achieving the international development targets, London. http://www.albacharia.ma/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/31733/1577Target_Strategy_Paper_Povertyelimination_and_the_empowerment_of_women%5B2000%5Dr.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 1 Sep 2017

  • Doss C, Summerfield G, Tsikata D (2014) Land, gender, and food security. Fem Econ 20(1):1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer A, Zoppou C, Nielsen O, Day S, Roberts S (2004) Quantifying social vulnerability: a methodology for identifying those at risk to natural hazards. Geoscience Australia, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Enarson E (2005) Making risky environments safer: women building sustainable and disaster resilient communities. New York: Published by the United Nations Divisions on Advancement of Women. https://www.academia.edu/6617414/Making_risky_environments_safer_Women_building_sustainable_and_disaster_resilient_communities. Accessed 20 Oct 2016

  • FAO (2015) Agriculture bears major brunt of disaster impacts, new report says. World Food Organization, Japan: Food and Agriculture Organization. http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/280526/icode/. Accessed 21 Oct 2016

  • Flanagan BE, Gregory EW, Hallisey EJ, Heitgerd JL, Lewis B (2011) A social vulnerability index for disaster management. J Homel Secur Emerg Manage 8(1):1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs S, Karagiorgos K, Kitikidou K, Maris F, Paparrizos S, Thaler T (2017) Flood risk perception and adaptation capacity: a contribution to the socio-hydrology debate. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 21(6):3183–3198

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaillard J-C, Sanz K, Balgos BC, Dalisay SNM, Gorman-Murray A, Smith F, Toelupe V, Toelupe VA (2017) Beyond men and women: a critical perspective on gender and disaster. Disasters 41(3):429–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Guégan D, Hassani BK (2019) Risk measurement. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1998) Multivariate data analysis, 5th edn. Printice-Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim R (2012) Community report Shariatpur Zila June 2012. Population and Housing Census 2011

  • Islam M (2012) Flood risks for the char community on the Ganges-Padma floodplain in Bangladesh. Int J Environ 2(2):106–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam MN, Islam MZ, Fujita K (2011) Coping with flood disaster: household level responses by the char-dwellers on the river Padma in Bangladesh. Indian J Power River Valley Dev 61(9):159–171

    Google Scholar 

  • ISPAN (1993) The dynamic physical and socioeconomic environment of riverine char lands Meghna

  • Kabeer N, Subrahmanian R (1996) Institutions, relations and outcomes: framework and tools for gender-aware planning. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan I, Abdullah MF, Rahman NNA, Nor MRBM, Yusoff MYZBM (2016) The right of women in property sharing in Bangladesh: Can the islamic inheritance system eliminate discrimination? SpringerPlus 5(1):1695

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehta JN, Kellert SR (1998) Local attitudes towards community- based conversation policy and programs in Nepal: a case study in the Makalu-barun conversation area. Environ Convers 15(1):320–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Nasreen M (2012) Women and girls vulnerable or resilient. Institute of Disaster Management and Vulnerability Studies, University of Dhaka, Dhaka-1000

  • Naz F (2019) Gender based analysis of vulnerability and adaptability to flood: the case of char-farming households in Bangladesh. PhD, Doctoral Dissertation Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand

  • Naz F, Doneys P, Saqib SE (2018) Adaptation strategies to floods: a gender-based analysis of the farming-dependent char community in the Padma floodplain, Bangladesh. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 28(2018):519–530

    Google Scholar 

  • Paldam M, Svendsen GT (2000) An essay on social capital: looking for the fire behind the smoke. Eur J Polit Econ 16(2):339–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul SK (2010) Livelihood Security of cyclone-prone coastal communities in Bangladesh: a comparative study. Doctoral dissertation, Asian Institute of Technology

  • Rahman MS (2013) Climate change, disaster and gender vulnerability: a study on two divisions of Bangladesh. Am J Hum Ecol 2(2):72–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakib M, Islam S, Nikolaos I, Bodrud-Doza M, Bhuiyan MA (2017) Flood vulnerability, local perception and gender role judgment using multivariate analysis: a problem-based “participatory action to Future Skill Management” to cope with flood impacts. Weather Clim Extremes 18:29–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehima M, Belay K, Dawit A, Rashid S (2013) Factors affecting farmers’ crops diversification: evidence from SNNPR, Ethiopia. Int J Agric Sci 3(6):558–565

    Google Scholar 

  • Saqib SE, Ahmad MM, Panezai S, Ali U (2016a) Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of agricultural credit as a risk management strategy: the case of Pakistan. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 17(2016):67–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Saqib SE, Ahmad MM, Panezai S, Rana IA (2016b) An empirical assessment of farmers’ risk attitudes in flood-prone areas of Pakistan. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 18(2016):107–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Saqib SE, Ahmad MM, Panezai S, Rana IA (2016c) An empirical assessment of farmers’ risk attitudes in flood-prone areas of Pakistan. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 18:107–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.06.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scalise E (2009) Women’s inheritance rights to land and property in South Asia: a study of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. World Justice Project: Rural Development Institute. http://www.landesa.org/wp-content/uploads/WJF-Womens-Inheritance-Six-South-Asian-Countries.FINAL_12-15-09.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2017

  • Singh RK, Zander KK, Kumar S, Singh A, Sheoran P, Kumar A, Lego Y (2017) Perceptions of climate variability and livelihood adaptations relating to gender and wealth among the Adi community of the Eastern Indian Himalayas. Appl Geogr 86:41–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Smit B, Pilifosova O (2003) From adaptation to adaptive capacity and vulnerability reduction. In: Climate change, adaptive capacity and development, World Scientific, pp 9–28

  • Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2001) Using multivariate statistics, 4th edn. Allyn and Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Tendayi K (2011) Household vulnerability Index. Vulnerability Analysis of seed farmers in Zaka District, Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe: Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/HaSSP_household_vulnerability_index_hvi_seed_farmers_in_zaka_zimbabwe_report.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2016

  • Ullah R, Jourdain D, Shivakoti GP, Dhakal S (2015) Managing catastrophic risks in agriculture: simultaneous adoption of diversification and precautionary savings. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 12:268–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincent K (2007) Gendered vulnerability to climate change in Lampopo province, South Africa. Doctoral dissertation, University of East Anglia UK

  • Watson C (1994) Gender versus power as a predictor of negotiation behavior and outcomes. Negotiation J 10(1):117–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2014) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu D, Zhang J, Rasul G, Liu S, Xie F, Cao M, Liu E (2015) Household livelihood strategies and dependence on agriculture in the mountainous settlements in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China. Sustainability 7(5):4850–4869

    Google Scholar 

  • UV (n.d) Hierarchical linear regression. from university of virginia library. https://data.library.virginia.edu/hierarchical-linear-regression/

  • Yila JO (2013) Gendered based analysis of adaptability and vulnerability to climate change among smallholder farmers: a case of semi-arid NGURU local government area, northeastern Nigeria. Doctoral Dissertation Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand

  • Yila JO, Resurreccion BP (2013) Determinants of smallholder farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate change in the semi arid Nguru Local Government Area, Northeastern Nigeria. Manag Environ Qual Int J 24(3):341–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Yila JO, Resurreccion BP (2014) Gender perspectives on agricultural adaptation to climate change in drought-prone Nguru local government area in the semiarid zone of northeastern Nigeria. Int J Clim Change Strateg Manag 6(3):250–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Žurovec O, Vedeld PO (2019) Rural livelihoods and climate change adaptation in laggard transitional economies: a case from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sustainability 11(21):6079

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gender and Development Studies, Department of Development and Sustainability School of Environment Resources and Development (SERD), Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Pathum Thani, 12120, Thailand

    Farha Naz

  2. Department of Commerce Education and Management Sciences, Higher Education, Archives and Libraries Department, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

    Shahab E. Saqib

Authors
  1. Farha Naz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shahab E. Saqib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farha Naz.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Five capitals assets: key indicators

Source: Household survey, 2014

Human capital

1. Level of education

2. Ability to cope with adverse situations

3. Knowledge of agriculture, fisheries, or disaster reduction

4. The expectation of using agriculture as the primary economic activity in the next 10 years

5. Understanding of flood warning

Physical capital

1. Entry of floodwater into the house

2. Access to market from house

3. Accessibility of road

4. Access to a flood shelter

Social capital

1. Attend community meetings held in the village

2. Training from line agencies or NGOs for flood adaptation

3. Relief material received

4. Warnings received on time

Natural capital

1. Access to agricultural land

2. Types of access to agricultural land

3. Possession of/access to homestead land

4. Types of access to homestead land

Financial capital

1. Possession of savings/cash

2. Possession of livestock

Appendix 2: Classification of respondents’ key indicators for the level of vulnerability

Capital

Low vulnerability

Medium vulnerability

High vulnerability

1. Human

1. Higher than primary education

1. Primary education

1. Illiterate

2. Can cope actively with adverse situations

2. Can cope with adverse situations

2. Cannot cope with adverse situations

3. Good skills, knowledge of farming and fisheries to sustain livelihoods in agriculture

3. Moderate skills, knowledge of farming and fisheries to sustain livelihoods in agriculture

3. No skills or knowledge of farming and fisheries to sustain livelihoods in agriculture

4. Farming/cultivation planned as only a secondary economic activity in the next 10 years

4. Farming/cultivation planned as one of the primary economic activities in the next 10 years

4. Farming/cultivation planned as the only primary economic activity in the next 10 years

2. Natural

1. More than one means of access to and control of agricultural land

1. Minimum access to and control of agricultural land

1.No access and control

2. More than one means of access to and control of homestead land

2. Minimum access to and control of homestead land

2. Access to homestead land

3. Financial

2. Livestock and savings

2. Livestock only

2. No livestock or savings

4. Physical

1. Unaffected by floodwater inside and outside the household

1. Unaffected by floodwater outside the household

1. Affected by floodwater inside and outside the household

2. Good road access from the household to the market

2. Moderate road access from the household to the market

2. Poor road access from the household to the market

3. Good access to roads was good

3. Moderate

3. Poor

4. Good access to shelter

4. Moderate access to shelter

4. Poor access to shelter

5. Social

1. Training from NGOs and government for flood adaptation in the village

1. Training from NGOs for flood adaptation in village

1. No training program from government and NGOs for flood adaptation in village

2. Receive warnings

2. Receive warnings

2. No warnings

3. Attend community meetings in the village for floods

3. Sometimes attends community meeting for floods in the village

3. No community meetings for floods in the village

 

4. Do not require relief

4. Receive relief

4. No relief

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Naz, F., Saqib, S.E. Gender-based differences in flood vulnerability among men and women in the char farming households of Bangladesh. Nat Hazards 106, 655–677 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04482-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04482-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation