A bottom-up approach was undertaken where the community was actively engaged in identifying existing risk reduction infrastructure, their deficiencies, and community requirements. Disaster risk reduction infrastructure McEntire et al (2011) discussed four schools of thought with regard to reducing vulnerability; physical science, engineering, structural, and organisational. It was noted that successful disaster management systems will incorporate the strengths of each of these approaches to form a comprehensive system (McEntire et al., 2011). The engineering school recognises the key role that infrastructure plays in reducing vulnerability to disasters (McEntire et al., 2011), and promotes DRR by building adequate structures and infrastructure. Further, investing in and maintaining critical infrastructure that reduces risk, adjusts to cope with changing climatic conditions and is considered as an essential in making a city / community resilient to natural disasters (UNISDR, 2010). As identified by Bhatia et al (2010), activities in Bangladesh often concentrate on engineered physical systems such as dykes and emergency shelters. Such infrastructure is essential in the case of Bangladesh, given the nature and extent of risk posed by natural disasters; especially cyclones, storm surges and flooding, as well as the inability of poor communities to implement protection measures of their own. Previous research has noted that many people in Bangladesh are left unable to adequately protect their property and livelihoods from floods and cyclone surges due to factors such as shortage of resources and pressure of immediate needs (Thompson and Tod, 1998, Concern Universal Bangladesh, 2010). For example, a study by Concern Universal Bangladesh (2010) found that although the most vulnerable households were aware of the measures that should be taken to reduce the risks to their households, they were unable to implement those measures due to lack of resources. Further, Paul and Routray (2010) emphasised the ineffectiveness of individual, often indigenous, coping strategies beyond a critical threshold, requiring people to seek the safety of places like cyclone shelters when the flood level increases. These issues require special attention should be placed on providing protection to such communities via essential infrastructure in order to safeguard the lives and livelihoods of poorer communities. Whilst recognising the need for a comprehensive disaster
A bottom-up approach was undertaken where the community was actively engaged in identifying existing risk reduction infrastructure, their deficiencies, and community requirements. Disaster risk reduction infrastructure McEntire et al (2011) discussed four schools of thought with regard to reducing vulnerability; physical science, engineering, structural, and organisational. It was noted that successful disaster management systems will incorporate the strengths of each of these approaches to form a comprehensive system (McEntire et al., 2011). The engineering school recognises the key role that infrastructure plays in reducing vulnerability to disasters (McEntire et al., 2011), and promotes DRR by building adequate structures and infrastructure. Further, investing in and maintaining critical infrastructure that reduces risk, adjusts to cope with changing climatic conditions and is considered as an essential in making a city / community resilient to natural disasters (UNISDR, 2010). As identified by Bhatia et al (2010), activities in Bangladesh often concentrate on engineered physical systems such as dykes and emergency shelters. Such infrastructure is essential in the case of Bangladesh, given the nature and extent of risk posed by natural disasters; especially cyclones, storm surges and flooding, as well as the inability of poor communities to implement protection measures of their own. Previous research has noted that many people in Bangladesh are left unable to adequately protect their property and livelihoods from floods and cyclone surges due to factors such as shortage of resources and pressure of immediate needs (Thompson and Tod, 1998, Concern Universal Bangladesh, 2010). For example, a study by Concern Universal Bangladesh (2010) found that although the most vulnerable households were aware of the measures that should be taken to reduce the risks to their households, they were unable to implement those measures due to lack of resources. Further, Paul and Routray (2010) emphasised the ineffectiveness of individual, often indigenous, coping strategies beyond a critical threshold, requiring people to seek the safety of places like cyclone shelters when the flood level increases. These issues require special attention should be placed on providing protection to such communities via essential infrastructure in order to safeguard the lives and livelihoods of poorer communities. Whilst recognising the need for a comprehensive disaster