See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/314082713

An assessment of flood vulnerability in Khyber Pukhtunkhwa province of

Pakistan

Article · February 2017

DOI: 10.3934/environsci.2017.2.206

CITATIONS READS

8 803

4 authors:

Said Qasim Mohammad Qasim

University of Balochistan University of Peshawar
35 PUBLICATIONS   118 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   74 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rajendra Shrestha Amir Nawaz Khan

Asian Institute of Technology 59 PUBLICATIONS   347 CITATIONS   
115 PUBLICATIONS   1,002 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Technology Needs Assessment for Asia and CIS View project

A study om Estimation of cassava Area and Production Using Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System in the Northeast Region of Thailand View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rajendra Shrestha on 02 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 AIMS Environmental Science, 4(2): 206-216.
DOI: 10.3934/environsci.2017.2.206
Received: 01 November 2016
Accepted: 21 February 2017
Published: 27 February 2017
[Link]

Research article

An assessment of flood vulnerability in Khyber Pukhtunkhwa province

of Pakistan

Said Qasim1,*, Mohammad Qasim2, Rajendra Prasad Shrestha3 and Amir Nawaz Khan4
1
Faculty of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Department of Geography University of
Balochistan, Quetta, Pakistan
2
Economics Department at University of Peshawar and Assistant Professor in Economics at Govt.
Postgraduate College, Charsadda, Khyber Pukhthunkhwa, Pakistan
3
Department of natural resources management, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand
4
Centre for Disaster Preparedness and Management (CDPM), University of Peshawar, Khyber
Pukhthunkhwa, Pakistan

* Correspondence: Email: saidqasim2@[Link]; Tel: +92-819211262.

Abstract: In this research we have attempted to measure vulnerability of the communities living in
the flood prone area of Khyber Pukhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. Extensive literature review was
conducted to identify the flood vulnerability indicators. Primary data were used to achieve the
objective of this study. Questionnaires were used to collect the primary data from the selected
households and from the director of Centre for Disaster Preparedness and Management. Subjective
assessment technique was used to allocate weights to the selected indicators of vulnerability. A
sample size of 280 respondents was taken from three selected locations of Charsadda, Nowshera and
Peshawar. Simple random sampling was employed for the selection of respondents. Results revealed
that overall vulnerability as well as component vulnerability for the selected locations was very high.
The study therefore recommends preparedness, provision of funds for building houses with flood
resistant materials and building houses in safer places. There is also a need for enhancing the
adaptive capacities of the concerned communities through their socio-economic uplift.
Implementation of these policies would lower the vulnerability of the communities to flood disasters.

Keywords: vulnerability; floods; indicators; disaster management; Khyber Pukhtunkhwa

 207

1. Introduction

Vulnerability research is recognized as an important filed due to advancement in natural hazard

science & disaster risk management [1]. Vulnerability is generally categorized in to physical, social
vulnerability and human vulnerability [2,3]. Vulnerability results from the physical, social, economic and
environmental elements that increase the sensitivity of a community to hazards [4,5]. Vulnerability is
considered to be a combination of adaptive capacity, sensitivity and exposure [1,4,6-10]. Adaptive
capacity is the main element in many definitions of vulnerability [11] and is defined as the ability of a
community to accommodate the environmental hazards. Sensitivity is the extent to which a system is
affected by worries & exposure is the extent to which a community is faced with the environmental
stress [6,12]. Studies of [13,14] revealed that vulnerability is composed of exposure and coping
ability whereas coping ability is further subdivided in to resistance & resilience. Flood vulnerability
is a multidimensional and complex issue [6,11,15]. Poor people live often nearby the rivers and are
more vulnerable to floods [16]. An individual’s characteristics such as age, race, health, income,
house type and occupation may be used as proxy indicators for vulnerability assessment [17].
Exposure is the possibility that humans and/or physical things will be affected by the floods [4].
Susceptibility refers to the elements exposed in a system that influences the possibilities of being
harmed during floods and include people’s preparedness and awareness regarding flood risk [8]. The
topographical conditions and climate change make Khyber Pukhthunkhwa (KPK) one of high risk
area to flooding in Pakistan [18,19]. This is evident through historical records which show that the
districts of Charsadda, Noshera and Peshawar have faced floods almost after every three years since
1973 [19,20]. Due to lack of research on flood vulnerability in Pakistan, we in this paper attempted
to measure vulnerability of flood prone areas of Peshawar, Charsadda and Nowshera. The results of
the study would be useful for policies and plans regarding prioritizing vulnerable communities for
funds and enhancing adaptive capacities of the communities. Therefore the study would help to
decrease the vulnerability of the communities to floods.

2. Methodology

2.1. Profile of the study area

KPK province is situated to the north west of Pakistan. The province covers an area of about
74,521 km2. Exact location of the province is 31°15' to 36°57' North latitude and 69°5' to 74°7' East
longitude. Due to wide variations in altitudinal characteristics, the climate of the province also shows
considerable variations. As a result, the southern part of the province is prevailed with mild winters
and hot summers and the northern part is faced with extreme cold climate. The area is drained by
Indus, Kabul and Swat rivers. Monsoon often results in river flooding in the area. The three sites of
Charsadda, Nowshera and Peshawar have been badly affected by almost every flood due to their
proximity to Sardaryab, Jindi, Khyali, Kabul and Indus rivers. Therefore these three sites were
selected for this study. The melting of snow on mountains of Himalayas and Hindukush also results
in floods due to overflow in the low lying rivers. Recently, the floods of 2010 and 2013 affected the
districts of Peshawar, Charsadda, Swabi, Noshera, Mardan and Swat. The 1998 census record shows
that KPK had a population of 17.74 million with a growth rate (average annual) of 2.8% and a
literacy rate of 37% [18]. Agriculture contributes 38% of gross domestic product of the province and

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 4, Issue 2, 206-216.

 208

is thus a major economic activity. Majority of the people in the areas live near river coasts due to
fishing activities and water availability. The area is blessed with fertile soils. The two main cropping
seasons (i.e., Kharif and Rabi) exist in the area. Livestock are also kept by people due to availability
of water and fodder sources in the area.

2.2. Sample size and data collection

Charsadda, Nowshera and Peshawar are the three flood prone districts of KPK. Therefore we
selected these three districts as sample sites for this study. The population of district Charsadda,
Nowshera and Peshawar were 1,022,000; 874,373 and 2,026,851 respectively according to the
census of 1998. No census has been conducted after the 1998 census. Therefore we used the 1998
census data for computation of sample size. The cumulative population of the three selected
locations is about 3,923,224. We employed the [21] formula that gave us a sample size of 278 with 6%
of d value (error acceptance). However, for ease of analysis we took a sample size of 280. We also
computed the proportional samples for all the three selected sample sites to show their equal
representation in the survey. To compute the proportional samples, the populations of the selected
locations and their corresponding proportional sample sizes were rounded off in order to achieve the
resultant values in whole numbers. The resultant proportional samples for Peshawar, Charsadda and
Nowshera were 143, 72 and 65, correspondingly. Due to recurrent floods in these locations, the rural
population is often affected as they are deprived of their standing crops, livestock and houses that are
made of mud. We therefore, targeted the rural population from the three selected sites. The director
of Centre for Disaster Preparedness and Management (CDPM) of University of Peshawar was also
consulted for ranking the variables used for vulnerability in this study.
To achieve the objectives of this study, we used primary data. The literature review enabled us
to identify the components of vulnerability to floods. Further in-depth review enabled us to come up
with the variables for the components of vulnerability. Two sets of questionnaires were used to
collect the primary data in this study. A detailed full length questionnaire was constructed to
complete the household survey. A second short questionnaire was constructed for the director of
CDPM, University of Peshawar to rank all the selected variables on a percentage scale ranging from
0 to 1. Questionnaire for household survey included socio-economic and demographic characteristics,
adaptive capacities, sensitivity and exposure of the respondents related to flood vulnerability. Five
students of [Link]. geography were trained for collection of data from households. However, only the
first author of this paper collected data from the director of CDPM. The household heads were
generally interviewed in the household survey. However, the elder family member was interviewed
in case of unavailability of the household head. About 40 minutes on average were spent on
completion of a single questionnaire. The collected primary data was analyzed using SPSS version
16 and Excel programs. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate percentages for socio-economic
and demographic characteristics. Excel was used for data entry and analysis about adaptive capacity,
sensitivity and exposure. Radar diagrams were constructed to compare vulnerabilities of the
communities in the flood prone districts of Peshawar, Charsadda and Nowshera.

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 4, Issue 2, 206-216.

 209

2.3. Indicators for vulnerability to floods

An index is a quantitative score [18] obtained through combination of variables according to

certain rules [22]. Indices have been used widely in disaster studies and they simplify the intricate
data in a single value [18,23]. They serve as important tools in making decisions and policies.
Vulnerability can be measured both through quantitative and qualitative ways [24]. Absolute
measurement of vulnerability is not an easy task [25,26]. Vulnerability can be measured by using
proxy indicators [27-29]. We therefore used proxy indicators to measure vulnerability. Values of the
variables were recorded in percentages to overcome complications with dissimilar measurement
units. Table 1 shows the selected vulnerability indicators used in this study.

2.4. Vulnerability components and their accompanying variables

The three components of vulnerability (i.e., adaptive capacity, sensitivity and exposure) were chosen
to cover vulnerability. For the first component of adaptive capacity we selected six variables including
working age group, social networks, education, income, employment and multiple livelihood sources.
The working age group variable, in this study includes the percentage of population below 60 years plus
the percentage of population above 15 years. The population in this age group is active and may decrease
vulnerability to floods. Social capital can also increase linkages and are considered to help people during
disasters. The presence of social networks therefore makes the communities less vulnerable to floods.
Education is an important variable because the educated people are supposed to be less vulnerable to
disasters [30,31]. Income of the family also affects vulnerability to floods. This is because due to more
income the people can have their houses in safer areas and they may also use flood resistant materials in
house construction. Therefore, the more the income of the people, the less will be their vulnerability to
floods. In the research of [32], he used USD 32.74 per month as a standard for poverty measurement.
Therefore, we used this definition and people with an amount of less than USD 32.74 per month were
considered as poor in this study. Employment is also supposed to affect people’s vulnerability to floods.
The more the percentage of people employed on a community, the more they will be able to invest in
flood protection measures. Similarly, multiple livelihood sources in a community make them less
vulnerable to floods. In case one livelihood source is affected, the community might have the other
income sources to bear the loss. For the second component of exposure we identified two variables (i.e.,
past experience with floods and houses built near river coasts). The variable past experience with floods,
was selected because the study area is one of the badly affected flood prone areas and majority of the
households were expected to have experienced flood events in the past. The variable, location here refer
to the percentage of people living in flood prone coastal areas. For the third component of sensitivity, we
identified four variables including building material, disability, dependent population and illiteracy. The
building material variable is about percentage of people with mud houses. This is due to the reason that
bulk of the respondents from the area had houses that were made of mud and were vulnerable to floods.
A large majority of these types of houses makes them more susceptible to floods. Presence of a large
number of disabled and dependents in a community makes it more susceptible to flood hazards.
Therefore, we also included disability and dependent population for susceptibility measurement. The
poverty and illiteracy are also variables that make the communities more vulnerable to flood hazards.
Therefore, we also included these variables in measuring sensitivity to floods.

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 4, Issue 2, 206-216.

 210

Table 1. Indicators and their concerned variables for vulnerability assessment.

Indicator Variable & sources CDPM director Explanation Justification & positive or negative impact on
suggested weights vulnerability
Adaptive Working age group ([1,3,4,11,36-40] 25 Percentage of population Presence of a large number of working age people
capacity ˂60 years plus percentage of makes the community less vulnerable to floods , −
Population ˃15 years
Social networks ([1,3,4,13,15,36,41] 05 Percentage of population that have The more the social capital of the population, the less
membership in any organization the vulnerability, −
Education [1,3,5,8,36-38,40,42] 02 Percentage of population that have high The more the educated people in a community, the less
school education the vulnerability, −
Income [1,3,8,13,32,36] 05 Percentage of households above poverty People above poverty line are less vulnerable to flood
line hazards, −
Employment [3,36,43] 15 Percentage of population employed People with employment are less vulnerable to floods, −
Multiple income sources [18,20] 04 Percentage of population with multiple People with multiple income sources are less vulnerable
income sources to flood events, −
Exposure Past experience with flood events 100 Percentage of people who were affected The more the exposure to floods in the past the more
[37,39,40,42,44,45] by flood events in the past the vulnerability, +
Houses built near river coasts 94 Percentage of housing units built near People living very close to flood prone rivers and
[3,15,18,25,26,36,37,39] flood prone rivers coastal areas may be more exposed to floods, +
Susceptibility/ Building material [12] 96 Percentage of housing units made of mud Houses made of mud will be more vulnerable to floods, +
Sensitivity
Disabled people [3,13,26] 92 Percentage of population with physical Physical and mental disability creates hindrances in
or mental disability mobility and evacuation and increases vulnerability, +
Dependents [1,3,4,11,36-40] 88 Percentage of dependent population Presence of a large number of dependent population
˃60 years plus percentage of makes the community more vulnerable to floods , +
Population ˂15 years
Illiteracy [18,20] 98 Percentage of illiterate population The more the illiteracy, the more the vulnerability, +

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 4, Issue 2, 206-216.

 211

2.5. Allocating weights to selected variables

The three components of adaptive capacity, sensitivity and exposure were used to compute the
overall vulnerability of the three sites (i.e., Peshawar, Charsadda & Nowshera). The two component
indicators (i.e., adaptive capacity and susceptibility) consist of different variables except for exposure
which is based on a single variable. The values of all the variables were collected in percentages to
overcome the normalization process. In the research of [33], they had discussed that weights can be
allocated to the variables based on their importance. Weight allocation can be done either through
empirical or subjective methods [26,34]. Due to data limitations, we used subjective method for
allocating weights to variables. Subjective method and weight allocation has been employed by [35]
and cutter et al., 2010 in their studies. The director of CDPM was asked to give scores to the variables
given in Table 1 on a percentage scale ranging from 0 to 1. The values obtained from the director
CDPM, were divided by the actual values of the variables obtained from the household survey (in
percentages) which gave the vulnerability index for each variable i.e., Variable Vulnerability Index
(VVI). The low values show less vulnerability and high values show high vulnerability for that variable.
For variables whose high values leads to high vulnerability, the scale for such variables in the
questionnaire for the director CDPM as well as the calculation process for such variable was inversed.
For example, the more the exposure, the more the vulnerability. For variables that increases
vulnerability, the scale was inversed in such a way that the director CDPM was asked to rank the
variable on a percentage scale from 1 to 0 in a manner so that the values close to 1 on the percentage
scale will show less vulnerability and vice versa. The vulnerability for the components (Component
vulnerability) was then computed through calculation of the averages of their concerned VVIs. Theses
component vulnerability indices for adaptive capacity vulnerability index, exposure vulnerability index
and susceptibility vulnerability index were represented by AVI, EVI and SVI respectively. The
composite vulnerability indices (CVI) for the three sites were then computed by using the formula used
by [3]. According to her, vulnerability index can be calculated as FVI = E * S/R, where FVI = Flood
vulnerability Index, E = Exposure, S = Susceptibility/Sensitivity & R = Resilience/adaptive capacity.

3. Results & discussions

3.1. Demographic & socio-economic information of the respondents

The survey showed that Peshawar, Charsadda and Nowshera had 1,401,776 and 516 household
members, respectively (Table 2). Results of the survey showed that Peshawar, Charsadda and
Nowshera about 75%, 76% and 68% uneducated population, respectively. Peshawar had
comparatively less percentage of dependent people (53%) as compared to Nowshera (75%) and
Charsadda (70%). The percentage of population below poverty line was about 78%, 92% and 95% for
Peshawar, charsadda and Nowshera, respectively. All the three sites had about 1 percent disabled
population. A large majority of the population (i.e., 62%, 61% and 62% from Peshawar, charsadda and
Nowshera) were found settled near flood prone areas. The percentage of population that had mud
houses were about 82%, 83% and 78% from Peshawar, charsadda and Nowshera. A large majority of
the population (i.e., 86%, 82% and 79% from Peshawar, charsadda and Nowshera) had experienced
floods in the past. The survey showed that 23%, 19% and 28% from Peshawar, Charsadda and
Nowshera had employment, respectively. The percentage of population from Peshawar, charsadda and

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 4, Issue 2, 206-216.

 212

Nowshera that had income levels above poverty line were 22%, 8% and 5%, respectively. Only 6%, 5%
and 6% people from Peshawar, charsadda and Nowshera had multiple livelihood sources respectively.
The percentage of population that belonged to working age groups from Peshawar, charsadda and
Nowshera were about 47%, 30% and 25%, respectively. The percentage of population that had
membership in social organizations was about 5% for Peshawar and 8% for both Charsadda and Nowshera.

Table 2. Demographic and socio-economic information of the respondents.

Variable Peshawar % value Charsadda % value Nowshera % value
(N = 143) (N = 72) (N = 65)
Educational status 353 25% 184 24% 164 32%
Illiterate 1048 75% 592 76% 352 68%
Household members 1401 776 516
Age (Dependents) 744 53% 546 70% 386 75%
Working age members 657 47% 230 30% 130 25%
Social capital 66 5% 59 8% 42 8%
Disabled population 20 1% 8 1% 4 1%
Employment 321 23% 147 19% 145 28%
Income above poverty line 9855 22% 4869 8% 4166 5%
Multiple livelihood sources 84 6% 38 5% 30 6%
Mud Build houses 1149 82% 644 83% 403 78%
Location 869 62% 473 61% 320 62%

3.2. Results of the vulnerability indices

The mean values of the index range were used to interpret results of vulnerability indices. So, 0
was considered as low vulnerability, 0.5 as medium and 1 as high vulnerability. All the three sites also
have high values of component vulnerability indices. The composite vulnerability indices were also
high for all the three sites. The composite indices for Peshawar, Charsadda and Nowshera were 0.81,
0.72 and 0.66, respectively (Table 3). The component resilience indices for the sample sites are
discussed below.
a. Adaptive capacity Index
The results of the adaptive capacity indices show that all the three sites have high adaptive
capacities. The adaptive capacity indices for Peshawar, Charsadda and Nowshera were 0.53,
0.63 and 0.65, respectively. The reason for this may be because communities in all the three
sites had moderate to high values of social capital, educational status, income and
employment. The percentage of population that belonged to working age groups was more
(47%) in Peshawar as compared to Charsadda and Nowshera. The low percentage of
population with multiple livelihood sources in the three sites may also be attributed to the
moderate to high values of adaptive capacity indices for the sites.
b. Exposure Index
The exposure index is the result of two selected variable (i.e., percentage of population who
had faced flood events in the past and houses built near river coast). The exposure indices for

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 4, Issue 2, 206-216.

 213

Peshawar, Charsadda and Nowshera were 0.76, 0.73 and 0.72, respectively. The exposure
index is high for all the three sites because preponderance of the population was found settled in
the river coasts and had been seriously affected by the flood events. Majority of the population
from the three selected sites had also experienced flood events in the past. That’s why the
exposure indices were high among the component indices for all the three selected sites.
c. Sensitivity Index
The sensitivity index is the result of variables such as building material, disability, dependent
population and illiteracy. All these variables make a community susceptible to floods. The
exposure indices for Peshawar, Charsadda and Nowshera were 0.56, 0.61 and 0.59,
respectively. The results showed that all the three sites have high sensitivity indices. This is
due to the fact that majority of the houses in these rural communities in the three sites had
mud houses that could be easily affected by floods. Similarly a large percentage of
populations in the three localities (more than 60%) were living in the flood prone locations.
Poverty and illiteracy were also common in the three sites. A large proportion of the
population was dependent because there was more population in the 0–14 age groups but
fortunately very low percentage of population in the three sites had some sort of disability.

Table 3. Vulnerability indices for sample sites.

Indicator and their Peshawar Charsadda Nowshera
variables % value VVI % value VVI % value VVI
Adaptive capacity
Working age groups 47 0.53 30 0.83 25 1.0
Social networks 05 01 08 0.63 08 0.63
Education 25 0.08 24 0.08 32 0.06
Income 22 0.23 08 0.63 05 01
Employment 23 0.65 19 0.79 28 0.54
Multiple income sources 06 0.67 05 0.80 06 0.67
AVI 0.53 0.63 0.65
Exposure
Pat experience with 86 0.86 82 0.82 79 0.79
flood events
Houses built near river 62 0.66 61 0.65 62 0.66
coasts
EVI 0.76 0.73 0.72
Sensitivity/Susceptibility
Building material 82 0.85 83 0.86 78 0.81
Disability 01 0.01 01 0.01 01 0.01
Dependents 53 0.60 70 0.80 75 0.85
Illiteracy 75 0.77 76 0.78 68 0.69
SVI 0.56 0.61 0.59
Composite VI 0.81 0.72 0.66

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 4, Issue 2, 206-216.

 214

4. Conclusions

In this research paper, we calculated and also compared the components of vulnerability and the
overall vulnerability of the three selected sites. Results revealed that all the three locations were
vulnerable to floods. The composite vulnerability indices show the overall picture of vulnerability of
the community in the three sites. The component vulnerability indices help us to compare the selected
sites for the individual indicators of adaptive capacity, exposure and sensitivity. The composite
vulnerability indices show that all the three localities have high vulnerability to floods. However,
Peshawar has a high vulnerability as compared to Charsadda and Nowshera. The government should
give proper attention to all the three sites to raise the adaptive capacities of the communities and thus
reduce vulnerability to floods. The component indices of adaptive capacity, sensitivity and exposure
show high values for adaptive capacity, exposure and sensitivity. The government should arrange
programs to provide education, employments and alternate income sources for the rural people to raise
their resilience to floods. Sensitivity of the community to floods in the three sites can be lowered
through providing opportunities to build their houses in safer places and eradicating poverty and
illiteracy. The government and non-governmental organization should provide assistance to change
their housing structures (from mud to concrete) that may reduce sensitivity to floods. These activities
will reduce vulnerability of the communities to floods in these areas.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.

References

1. Fekete A, Brach K (2010) Assessment of Social Vulnerability River Floods in Germany: United
Nations University, Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS).
2. De León Vn, Carlos J (2006) Vulnerability: a conceptional and methodological review:
UNU-EHS.
3. Balica S, Douben N, Wright N (2009) Flood vulnerability indices at varying spatial scales. Water
sci technol 60: 2571-2580.
4. Balica S, Wright NG (2010) Reducing the complexity of the flood vulnerability index. Environ
Hazards 9: 321-339.
5. Kumpulainen S (2006) Vulnerability concepts in hazard and risk assessment. Special
paper-Geological Survey of Finland 42: 65.
6. Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Global environ chang 16: 268-281.
7. Hahn MB, Riederer AM, Foster SO (2009) The Livelihood Vulnerability Index: A pragmatic
approach to assessing risks from climate variability and change—A case study in Mozambique.
Global environl chang 19: 74-88.
8. Balica S, Wright NG, van der Meulen F A (2012) flood vulnerability index for coastal cities and its
use in assessing climate change impacts. Nat Hazards 64: 73-105.
9. Balica SF (2012) Applying the Flood Vulnerability Index as a knowledge base for flood risk
assessment: TU Delft, Delft University of Technology.
10. Fuchs S, Kuhlicke C, Meyer V (2011) Editorial for the special issue: vulnerability to natural
hazards-the challenge of integration. Nat Hazards 58: 609-619.

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 4, Issue 2, 206-216.

 215

11. Scheuer S, Haase D, Meyer V (2011) Exploring multicriteria flood vulnerability by integrating
economic, social and ecological dimensions of flood risk and coping capacity: from a starting
point view towards an end point view of vulnerability. Nat Hazards 58: 731-751.
12. Amaratunga D, Haigh R, Bosher L, et al. (2009) Attaining improved resilience to floods: a
proactive multi-stakeholder approach. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International
Journal 18: 9-22.
13. Clark GE, Moser SC, Ratick SJ, et al. (1998) Assessing the vulnerability of coastal communities to
extreme storms: the case of Revere, MA., USA. Mitig adapt strat gl 3: 59-82.
14. Kelman I (2003) Physical flood vulnerability of residential properties in coastal, eastern England:
University of Cambridge. (Doctoral dissertation).
15. Messner F, Meyer V, Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perception–challenges for flood
damage research. Flood risk management: hazards, vulnerability and mitigation measures:
Springer Netherlands, 2006: 149-167.
16. Brouwer R, Akter S, Brander L, et al. (2007) Socioeconomic vulnerability and adaptation to
environmental risk: a case study of climate change and flooding in Bangladesh. Risk Anal 27:
313-326.
17. Cutter S, Emrich C, Morath D, et al. (2013) Integrating social vulnerability into federal flood risk
management planning. J Flood Risk Manag 6: 332-344.
18. Qasim S, Khan AN, Shrestha RP, et al. (2015) Risk perception of the people in the flood prone
Khyber Pukhthunkhwa province of Pakistan. Int J Disast Risk Re 14: 373-378.
19. Khan AN, Khan B, Qasim S, et al. (2013) Causes, effects and remedies: A Case study of rural
flooding in District Charsadda, Pakistan. J Manag Sci 7: 2.
20. Qasim S, Qasim M, Shrestha RP, et al. (2016) Community resilience to flood hazards in Khyber
Pukhthunkhwa province of Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 18:
100-106.
21. yamane T (1967) Statistics: an introductory analysis: Harper & Row New York.
22. Sullivan C, Meigh J (2005) Targeting attention on local vulnerabilities using an integrated index
approach: the example of the climate vulnerability index. Water sci technol 51: 69-78.
23. Cutter SL, Barnes L, Berry M, et al. (2008) A place-based model for understanding community
resilience to natural disasters. Global environ chang 18: 598-606.
24. Birkmann J (2007) Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: applicability, usefulness
and policy implications. Environmental Hazards 7: 20-31.
25. Borden KA, Schmidtlein MC, Emrich CT, et al. (2007) Vulnerability of US cities to
environmental hazards. J Homeland Security and Emergency Management 4: 1-21.
26. Cutter SL, Burton CG, Emrich CT (2010) Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline
conditions. J Homeland Security and Emergency Management 7.
27. Adger WN, Brooks N, Bentham G, et al. (2004) New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive
capacity: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Norwich.
28. Adger WN, Kelly PM (1999) Social vulnerability to climate change and the architecture of
entitlements. Mitig adapt strat gl 4: 253-266.
29. Rygel L, O'sullivan D, Yarnal B (2006) A method for constructing a social vulnerability index: an
application to hurricane storm surges in a developed country. Mitig adapt strat gl 11: 741-764.
30. Dufty N (2010) A new approach to community flood education.

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 4, Issue 2, 206-216.

 216

31. Gwimbi P (2007) The effectiveness of early warning systems for the reduction of flood disasters:
Some experiences from cyclone induced floods in Zimbabwe. J sust dev in Africa 9: 152-169.
32. Ravallion M, Chen S, Sangraula P (2009) Dollar a day revisited. The World Bank Economic
Review: lhp007.
33. Mayunga JS (2007) Understanding and applying the concept of community disaster resilience: a
capital-based approach. Summer academy for social vulnerability and resilience building 1: 16.
34. Davidson MA (2006) Designing for disasters. Massachusetts coastal hazards commission, NOAA
coastal services center.
35. Esty DC, Levy M, Srebotnjak T, et al. (2005) Environmental sustainability index: benchmarking
national environmental stewardship. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy:
47-60.
36. Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social
science quarterly 84: 242-261.
37. Miceli R, Sotgiu I, Settanni M (2008) Disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk: A study
in an alpine valley in Italy. J Environ Psychol 28: 164-173.
38. Grothmann T, Reusswig F (2006) People at risk of flooding: why some residents take
precautionary action while others do not. Nat Hazards 38: 101-120.
39. Ludy J, Kondolf GM (2012) Flood risk perception in lands “protected” by 100-year levees. Nat
Hazards 61: 829-842.
40. Botzen WJW, Aerts J, Van Den Bergh J (2009) Dependence of flood risk perceptions on
socioeconomic and objective risk factors. Water Resour Res, 45(10).
41. Cutter SL, Emrich CT (2006) Moral hazard, social catastrophe: The changing face of vulnerability
along the hurricane coasts. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
604: 102-112.
42. Ho MC, Shaw D, Lin S, et al. (2008) How do disaster characteristics influence risk perception?
Risk Anal 28: 635-643.
43. Tapsell SM, Penning-Rowsell EC, Tunstall SM, et al. (2002) Vulnerability to flooding: health and
social dimensions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical,
Physical and Engineering Sciences 360: 1511-1525.
44. Bradford R, O'Sullivan J, Van der Craats I, et al. (2012) Risk perception issues for flood
management in Europe. Nat hazard earth sys scie 12: 2299-2309.
45. Braun B, Aßheuer T (2011) Floods in megacity environments: vulnerability and coping strategies
of slum dwellers in Dhaka/Bangladesh. Nat Hazard 58: 771-787.

© 2017 Said Qasim et al., licensee AIMS Press. This is an open

access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License
([Link]

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 4, Issue 2, 206-216.

View publication stats