Authors Accepted Manuscript

We are more scared of the power elites than the

floods: Adaptive capacity and resilience of
wetland community to flash flood disasters in
Bangladesh

Mahed-Ul-Islam Choudhury, C. Emdad Haque

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdr

PII: S2212-4209(16)30114-5
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.08.004
Reference: IJDRR387
To appear in: International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
Received date: 16 March 2016
Revised date: 12 August 2016
Accepted date: 26 August 2016
Cite this article as: Mahed-Ul-Islam Choudhury and C. Emdad Haque, We are
more scared of the power elites than the floods: Adaptive capacity and
resilience of wetland community to flash flood disasters in Bangladesh,
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.08.004
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
We are more scared of the power elites than the floods: Adaptive capacity and resilience
of wetland community to flash flood disasters in Bangladesh

Mahed-Ul-Islam Choudhurya1, C. Emdad Haqueb2

a
Department of Sociology, ShahJalal University of Science and Technology, Bangladesh; and Natural
Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Canada
b
Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Canada

cemdad.haque@umanitoba.ca
choudhum@myumanitoba.ca

Abstract

Studies on disaster risk reduction primarily centers on the research streams of vulnerability and
resilience. The concept of adaptive capacity is central to both streams of study and has profound
implications for disaster risk reduction. Drawing insights from both streams, we examined the
adaptive capacity of wetland communities with regards to flash flood disasters. Focusing on
societal dimensions, we investigated how the interplay of institutions, community power
structures, and human agency shape adaptive capacity of wetland communities. We employed
the dominant-less dominant research methodological framework, and followed a 4-tier study
design: i) a household survey, ii) a semi-structured questionnaire survey, iii) oral history
interviews, and iv) key informant interviews. Our findings revealed that wetland communities in
the region are highly vulnerable to flash flood hazards. Local community members were
conditioned, chiefly by the asymmetrical social power structure, to feel helpless in the face of
natural disasters. Their reactive recovery measures have resulted in maladaptation and in their
becoming passive towards risk mitigation for future floods. However, transformative patterns
were also observed in a large proportion of the population, wherein community members
modified or changed their behavior to achieve longer-term sustainability and risk mitigation. We
concluded that in designing development interventions to enhance adaptive capacity,
consideration must be given to the diverse range of skills and educational development among
the local population.

Keywords: flash floods; adaptive capacity; resilience; human agency; transformative adaptation;
wetland community

1. Introduction

1
ADDRESS: Department of Sociology, ShahJalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet-3114, Bangladesh.
TELEPHONE NUMBER(S): +88-01724795224.
2
POSTAL ADDRESS: 70 Dysart Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2. TELEPHONE NUMBER(S): 1
(204) 474-8375.

1
 Flash floods are generally characterized by rapid onset and a consequent lack of an early
warning, and are thus atypical among flood hazards. They are usually caused by sudden, heavy
rainfall and the resultant downstream run-off of rainwater within a limited place and short period
of time [1,2 ]. The wetland communities of Bangladesh have experienced numerous severe flash
flood disasters in recent years, most notably in 1998, 2004, 2007, and 2012. The increasing
intensity and variability of flash floods is believed by some to be linked to climate change [3-5]
- specifically, to shifts in the frequency and intensity of precipitation patterns. It is predicted that
an increase of 2C in atmospheric temperature would enhance the intensity of precipitation in
South Asia by more than 10%. Because precipitation patterns are largely determined by the
temperatures in adjacent mountainous regions, local communities, especially the foothill
communities, are more frequently affected by flash flood disasters than ever before [6].

Wetland communities in Bangladesh are situated in the foothills of the Meghalaya mountain
chain, which straddle the border with northeastern India. As the region receives the largest
amount of rainfall per year in the world, and the annual precipitation volume has increased
during the past century, particularly in the Indian state of Meghalaya [7], wetland communities in
Bangladesh located downstream remain vulnerable to increased risk of flash flooding. In this
regard, the IPCC [8] led scenario-building research efforts with the General Circulation Models
have identified north-eastern Bangladesh as a hot spot of environmental extremes caused by
climate change. Reviewing the several global models, including CCCM, GFDL and GF01,
Rashid [9] concluded that all projections are indicative of the countrys increased susceptibility
to flooding, in terms of both geographical extent and frequency, and enhanced moisture stress
during the dry periods. In addition to flash flooding, wetland communities are also facing
challenges from anthropogenic pressures including socioeconomic marginalization and the
exclusion of poor locals from accessing the vital natural resources. Such resources (e.g., fisheries
or flooded forests) are primary sources of livelihood for many locals [10]. As the wetland
communities are highly dependent upon the sustainability of natural resources, access to them is
a key factor in the recovery from flash flood disasters.

The social power structure of wetland communities in Bangladesh is asymmetrical. Sources of

asymmetrical social power are embedded both in internal and external factors [11]. Major
elements of internal sources of power are the control over land and various forms of capital (i.e.
the means of production), social status, socioeconomic characteristics and, more importantly,
control over local institutions including cooperative societies, resource management associations,
network, and connections with Union (lower-tier administration) offices, Upazila (sub-district)
administrations, and local political elites. Differential distribution of these elements frame the
asymmetrical power structure, which, in turn, shape command and control over people and
resources; they also profoundly influence the livelihood practices and disaster recovery processes
of the affected households and local communities at large.
Our study sought to understand the adaptive capacity of wetland communities in Bangladesh
to recover from flash flood disasters. Adaptive capacity has been the subject of inquiry by i) the
natural hazard and disaster research stream, and ii) the social-ecological systems (SES) resilience
research stream [12-13]. Although the concept of adaptive capacity is a common thread linking
both research streams, the locus of inquiry has been quite different between them. In natural
hazard and disaster research, adaptive capacity is defined primarily in relation to vulnerability to
natural disasters (i.e., weakness) with concerns either with biophysical or social vulnerability

2
dimensions [14]. In the SES resilience stream, adaptive capacity is mainly defined in relation to
resilience (i.e. strength) to shocks and stresses, with consideration of biophysical and social
systems as integrated spheres. This shift of focus from weakness to strength is coined by as a
paradigm shift in the disaster risk reduction research [14-15] . However, some critics cautioned
that such a shift in focus could be a dangerous move in discourse because the social dimensions
of disaster risk reduction that hold a very strong position within the vulnerability research could
lose ground [16-18].
We align ourselves with the resilience scholars [19-20] in our view that adaptive capacity is
primarily a social phenomenon in social-ecological systems and it is one of the prerequisites for
resilience [20]. Enhancing adaptive capacity may therefore reduce the vulnerability of SES,
enhance resilience, and facilitate transformation. Focusing on the social dimensions of adaptive
capacity enabled us to draw insights from these two research streams and better understand the
processes of adaptation to natural disasters. Such focus on social aspects would also create a
space for mutual enrichment and facilitate convergence of the two research streams. Until now,
there has been little effort to compare and integrate the concept of adaptive capacity with the
natural hazard and SES resilience research streams [21]. Our research on disaster resilience in
the wetland communities of Bangladesh employed an integrative approach to assessing adaptive
capacity and placed emphasis on the social dimensions of resilience.

Adaptive capacity can be viewed as a latent characteristic that must be activated in order for a
community to successfully adapt to shocks (e.g. flash floods) [22] through the exercise of
human agency, which is defined as the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make
their own free choices [22-23]. Therefore we limited our analysis to the individual level. We
argue that agency is central to understanding adaptive capacity, which still remains an unfamiliar
concept in the fields of natural hazard, climate change and environmental change. Recognizing
that exercise of agency is linked with power and authority, we posit that the ability to exercise
some forms of agency means the ability to exercise some forms of power [24]. How social power
shapes the exercise of agency and consequential adaptive capacity still is an under-studied area.
In respect to this question, in the particular context of wetland resource-based communities that
are susceptible to severe flash flood hazards, we sought to understand i) the degree of damage
and property loss was incurred by the last major flash flood event; ii) the key characteristics of
the community recovery processes; and iii) how the social power structure shaped these recovery
processes.

2. Conceptual considerations and theoretical framing

2.1 Adaptive capacity in vulnerability and resilience thinking discourse

There are several advantages to conceptualizing adaptive capacity as a bridging concept rather
than solely from a vulnerability or resilience stance. The concept of adaptive capacity holds a
unique position between both natural hazard and social-ecological system (SES) resilience
research streams. First, research on disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation mostly
revolves either around vulnerability reduction or resilience building initiatives. Even though both
research streams offer significant policy prescriptions, they often take opposing positions in
terms of disaster risk reduction -- what Lei et al. called either vulnerability preference or
resilience preference [12]. Since societys goal is both to reduce vulnerability and to enhance

3
resilience to natural disasters, research that considers both areas would have greater and more
effective policy implications. Second, vulnerability is universally considered as the less desirable
property of an SES and resilience is a contested concept because of its normative and political
implications, whereas adaptive capacity is considered as the universally desirable property within
both streams (see Engle for details, [21]).Third, the processes of how social dimensions, such as
power and politics, shape adaptive capacity still remains poorly understood within the SES
resilience research stream, whereas in vulnerability studies they are much discussed [25-26]. We
assert that linking these two research streams can improving our understanding of adaptive
capacity and addressing the problems relating to societal dimensions of resilience.

We consider vulnerability analysis (both social and biophysical dimensions) as the first
necessary step of any assessment of adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems. Although
vulnerability to extreme environmental events is defined in varied ways, three common themes
in the literature are exposures, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity [27]. Exposure implies the
degree, duration, and/or extent in which the system is in contact with, or subject to, the
perturbation [13]. Sensitivity means the degree of direct and indirect impacts of shocks and
stresses on a system, and can be conceptualized in terms of potential of loss and/or damage of
property or life when exposed to natural hazards and the capacity to recover from said loss and
damage [28-29]. Exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity are shaped by the interactions
between social and biophysical systems. For instance, social processes like marginalization and
exclusion may enhance the sensitivity of a system to biophysical exposure and consequently
augment potential loss and damage.

In disaster risk reduction research, resilience and vulnerability are often viewed as the
flip side by defining the former as the capacity of a system to resist and recover from disaster
losses [30]. Resilience thinking integrates the principles of vulnerability wherein adaptive
capacity is one of the prerequisites of resilience, defined as the capacity of actors in a system to
influence resilience [19]. Adaptive capacity, from the perspective of social dimensions, is
uniquely placed within the natural hazard and social-ecological system (SES) resilience research
streams [21]. The concept can mediate the relationship between the two streams, and it can also
determine whether a system would be vulnerable or resilient. Considering adaptive capacity as a
bridging concept between vulnerability and resilience discourse, we assert that adaptive capacity
should be conceptualized in terms of capability of social actors of integrated SESs to recover
from disaster losses in a sustainable manner. Such a state can be attained through adopting
alternative livelihood strategies and building for future despite losses and stress imposed by the
prevailing power structure.

2.2 Human agency, adaptive capacity and power

We argue that human agency is central to understanding adaptive capacity. Since social actors
have the potential to shape resilience (i.e. adaptive capacity), understanding agency requires
analysis of behavior and actions of social actors as responses to shocks [31]. It is relevant here to
divide human response, resilience strategies, and adaptation, following the environmental change
and disaster risk reduction research literature, into three main categories: i) reactive, ii) proactive
or anticipatory, and iii) transformative [13,22,31]. Reactive responses are immediate unplanned

4
responses to events [32-33], whereas proactive or anticipatory adaptive measures are taken
beforehand to reduce future losses [21,34]. Such actions also often transform the actors
behavior and actions, through which original characteristics are significantly modified or
changed in order to reduce future losses [31]. Agency or adaptation is understood within these
three broad response categories. Three interrelated factors that may shape the responses to flash
flood hazard are subjective (e.g. skills, norms, values, belief system), objective (e.g. financial
capital and other resources), and relational (e.g. social relationships of domination and
subordination) factors [35,22]. These factors are to be considered enabling and/or constraining
elements for agency exercise or adaptation.
Since our principal goal is to understand how the social power structure of a community
shapes the adaptive capacity of wetland communities to flash flood hazards, we emphasize the
relational factors that shape the exercise of agency or adaptation. Insights from natural resources
management and climate change research suggest that the exercise of agency or adaptation does
not operate in social vacuum, but is rather constrained or facilitated by social power structure
(i.e. social relationship of domination and subordination) [21,24,29]. To better understand such
social processes, such as marginalization and exclusion of weaker members of society, we
therefore paid special attention to community power structures and resources management
practices.
In the social sciences literature, power is interpreted in various ways [36], and it is difficult to
find a single lens to encompass social power structure and its implications in the context of
environmental change and natural resources management. Drawing insights from existing
theories and perspectives on power structure such as in the power of power [37], structuration
theory [38], the power cube [39], we synthesize two basic properties of power that are relevant
to our discussions:

i) Power operates through the social relationships between groups and individuals, and is
manifested through social interaction in the form of domination and subordination. Sources
of social power may reside within communities or come from outside [37,39]. In the wetland
community context of Bangladesh, analysis of social relationships of power and politics is
necessary to understand marginalization, inclusion and exclusion from common pool
resources (e.g. water, fisheries), and distributional inequalities of varied social and ecological
outcomes [40].

ii) Power operates on the basis of various resources, such as authoritative resources
(command and control over people), and allocative resources (command and control over
goods and services) [38]. Power in the form of power to or power over [41] depends on
the control over allocative and authoritative resources. Institutions hold power and control
over both authoritative and allocative resources. The key questions are: i) Do current
institutional regimes create marginalization, inclusion and exclusion, and livelihood
instability, and what role do community power structures play? ii) If livelihood stability is
threatened, what are the strategies taken by households to raise income and transform their
behavior to cope with loss and damage?

5
 To further our understanding of agency dynamics, we draw insights from Anthony Giddens
idea of agency [38], which views individuals as having the capacity to process and cope with
social experiences in the face of oppressive social norms and institutions. In Giddens view, most
individuals' actions are the result of routine activity rather than conscious strategy, with
individuals rarely evaluating how their actions will affect their vulnerability in the long run.
Giddens emphasizes the variation resulting from the exercise of agency, the structural constraints
within which agents operate, and the intended and unintended consequences of individuals
conscious actions [24]. Three types of consciousness are highlighted: i) discursive or reflexive
(those actions and beliefs that agents are able to bring into discursive scrutiny), ii) practical (the
taken-for-granted everyday practices that are part and parcel of every day practice and rarely
subject to scrutiny); and iii) unconscious. In this research, we examined whether individuals
reactive (i.e. loss recovery), proactive (i.e. future loss reduction) and transformative responses to
flash flood hazards are an expression of unconscious or conscious action (e.g., discursive or
practical consciousness). We explored how individuals orient themselves and react to disaster
losses in terms of coping, adapting, and transforming. In addition, we examined how the
conscious exercise of agency shapes adaptation practices in general and which forms of
consciously-driven action leads to better adaptation.

3. Methods and study area

Drawing insights from studies in both vulnerability and resilience fields, Nathan Engle [21]
explored various approaches for assessing adaptive capacity, particularly in the context of global
environmental change. He advocated combining insights from all these approaches and focusing
on analyzing governance, management and institutions, (p, 648). Adopting Engels integrative
approach, we extended the scope of analysis to include social power structures and human
agency. One advantage of adopting such an integrative approach is that it is grounded in
vulnerability analysis, and thus assists to spell out the attribution of adaptive capacity from
exposure and sensitivity. In the Bangladesh wetland community context, this approach enables
us to explore the biophysical aspects of vulnerability to environmental hazards as well as
incorporate the attribute of human agency into our assessment of adaptive capacity.
In order to distinguish sensitivity and exposure from adaptive capacity, we drew insights from
the studies on disaster loss and damage [42-43]. For us, in operational terms, damage refers to
partially destroyed assets and loss refers to completely destroyed. To estimate loss and
damage, we considered the 2004 and 2007 flood disasters that the community members
experienced in recent years. We estimated loss and/or damage at the household level at current
market value.
In adopting Engels [21] integrative approach, we used a dominant-less dominant research
framework [44]. In the context of the present study, we regard the qualitative approach as the
dominant and the quantitative approach as the less dominant component. From a quantitative
viewpoint, we purposively selected 109 households from five villages for a socioeconomic
survey to gather the required data. The survey instruments encompassed the socioeconomic and
demographic characteristics and the nature and magnitude of their loss and damage to past large
flash flood events. Prior to conducting household survey, we carried out pilot testing of survey

6
questionnaire for refinement. From a qualitative perspective, we adopted a participatory research
model that acknowledges the role of research in changing the lives of participants and the
institutions in which they live and work [45]. In this context the voices of marginalized
community members are of paramount importance. This is an emancipatory approach where the
objective is to empower marginalized people to resist and overcome oppressive-hegemonic
power structures. As the purpose of our research is to understand disaster recovery processes and
resilience to flash flood hazards, the application of the dominant-less dominant research
framework was helpful in understanding the drivers that shape recovery and the role of social
power structures in shaping adaptive capacity.
We selected as our study area the Fotehpur Union of Bishwambarpur Upazila (sub-district)
of Sunamganj district -- a wetland-community in the northeastern region of Bangladesh (Fig. 1),
which among similar regions in the country is most prone to flash flood hazards. There are four
large haors (wetlands) in this Upazila, namely Karcharia haor, Sonir haor, Angrulir haor, and
Halir haor. Fotehpur is one of the unions (lowest tier of administrative hierarchy) of
Bishwambarpur Upazila, located in the deep haor area, which covers Karcharia haor, Angrulir
haor, and Halir haor areas. Karcharia haor is the biggest haor in Bishwambarpur Upazila. Due
to its geographical location, people living in Fotehpur Union depend heavily on the haor
ecosystems for their livelihoods. We focused our research on selected parts of Fotehpur Union in
order to investigate and measure adaptive capacity of the wetland communities, who rely heavily
on the natural resources of the Karcharia haor as well as on the patterns in inter-annual and
seasonality of flash floods. After a series of consultation forums with different stakeholders, such
as Union Parishad (UP) chairman and members, and community people, and government
representatives like a Project Implementation Officer (PIO), we selected five villages to carry out
our investigation.

7
Fig. 1. Location map of the study area in the Fatehpur Union of Sumanganj District

8
 By adopting a participatory approach, a 4-tier study design was followed with the
assistance of a field research assistant to collect relevant primary data during the period of
August-December 2014. These included: i) a household survey; ii) a semi-structured
questionnaire survey; iii) oral history interviews; and iv) key informant interviews (the timeline
of the research is exhibited in Fig. 2). First, through the use of household survey questionnaires,
we estimated loss and damage at the household level due to past large flash floods. Second, we
conducted 109 semi-structured interviews with guided questions to understand the loss and
damage recovery process and its constraints. Key questions asked during semi-structured
interviews are: What are the immediate sources of finance? How do you recover from asset
losses? How do social networks and relationships help you get immediate sources of finance and
asset loss recovery? Interviews in general lasted for 20-45 minutes. Third, we conducted 6 oral
history interviews (Table 1). Oral history interviews helped us unpacking human agency
dynamics and learning aspects -- how individuals coped with the large flash floods, what he/she
learned from that event, and how this learning contributed to future loss reduction. Household
surveys and semi-structured interview helped us recruit participants for oral history.
We selected those participants who were willing to share their experience. We conducted
interviews at interviewees convenient time and place. Interview length ranged from 1-1.5 hours.
Fourth, we conducted 5 key informant interviews (Table 1). At the beginning of our fieldwork,
we decided to recruit a guide from the community so that he/she could work as a gate-keeper.
During the process of research, whenever we had difficulty in understanding any issue the guide
made it clear to us (i.e., the guide worked as a translator for us). We conducted key informant
interviews (KII) at the later part of fieldwork because by that time we developed a good rapport
with community people. We also knew by then who could answer our questions. For example,
we conducted a KII with an individual who was nominated by NGO as the President of Village
Development Committee (VDC); he was also a peasant. As an active individual of the
community, he knew community peoples problems with flash floods, especially peasants
struggle with powerful groups. KIIS were helpful in understanding local power structures and
their associated dynamics, and how networks of socially powerful groups operate in the locality.
In order to acquire further insights about problems faced by fishers due to
marginalization from common pool resources, we conducted 2 Focus Group Discussions (FGD)
with fishers (8 participants in each FGD). In addition, we organized 2 FGDs with peasants (6
participants in one and 8 participants in another FGD) to collect data on the problems faced from
early flash flood hazards and on the dynamics of local social power structures. Prior to
conducting a FGD, we became aware of few factors that could affect the result, such as age and
gender of the participants, place for conducting FGD, number of participants and recruitment
process. In the rural social structure of Bangladesh, younger people do not speak-up in front of
their elders; therefore, we tried to keep participants within a similar age range, such as 40/45 to
50/55. Second, we conducted the FGDs within the villages and in places where participants felt
comfortable. Third, we made an appointment with them prior to conducting a FGD. While we
were conducting FGDs, we found that not everybody speaks-up, even within a small group. We
then had to engage them in the discussion by asking whether they have anything to add. We
stayed close to the community for five months, which helped us apply participant observation
technique apart from these methods. We jotted down field observations on a notebook. These
activities helped us to gather deeper insights into the lives of people.

9
Table 1 Background information of respondents for oral history and key informant interview

Methods S/l# Characteristics of respondents

Age Gender Religion Occupation

Oral history 01 38 Male Hindu Agriculture

interviews
02 55 Male Hindu Fishing

03 32 Male Hindu Service, primarily belong to a

fishing caste

04 56 Male Islam Agriculture

05 48 Male Islam Small business

06 57 Male Islam Agriculture

Key informants 01 38 Male Hindu Agriculture

interview
02 35 Male Islam Agriculture

03 55 Male Islam Community leader, former UP

member

04 57 Male Islam Community leader

05 60 Male Islam Agriculture, also a community

leader

All the interviews were recorded with an audio voice recorder. Interviews were recorded
with the informed consent of the interviewees. Images were taken by digital camera to
supplement textual interpretations. The goal of qualitative research is to offer an interpretation by
researchers. To this end, interviews were first transcribed verbatim. Data were then deductively
coded to trace out underlying themes running through the texts. Data were also inductively coded
based on a priori themes, such as marginalization. Thus, themes emerged from the text, and a
priori themes help coded the text. We followed a paper based rather than a computer assisted
data coding process. Data collected from household survey were coded and analyzed using SPSS
software. Household survey data were predominantly descriptive in nature, which helped
position the qualitative research finding within the socio-economic context of wetland-
community of Bangladesh.

10
 We also collected secondary data from multiple sources. For example, data on water level
and discharge of Surma River (Station ID-SW269) from 1997 to 2014 and Government
documents, such as the gazette of the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, the government
ordinance for leasing water bodies, documents on wetland from Bishwambarpur Upazila fishery
office. Apart from these secondary sources, we also carried out some formal and informal
chatting and discussion with government officials like Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO), Upazila
agricultural officer and officials of non-government organization (NGO) and members of civil
society organization (e.g., Bishwambarpur Upazila Press club).

Methods Timeline

August16 September16 October16 November16 December16

Consultation with
stakeholders and pilot
testing of survey
questionnaire

Household survey

Semi-structured
questionnaire survey

Oral history interviews

Key informant
interviews

Focus Group
Discussion (FGD)

Participant
Observation

Verification by
community members

Fig.2. Timeline of research

4. Results and discussion

4.1 A brief overview of the wetland-community

4.1.1 Livelihood patterns, wealth status and demographic profile of the wetland-community

Livelihood sustainability of the community members is closely linked with wetland ecosystem
services. The wetland ecosystems cycle follows sequential temporal variation in terms of dry and

11
wet seasons. In the study area, fishing is the main source of livelihood during the wet seasons
and cultivation of crops during the dry seasons. Peasants cultivate boro -- a winter variety of
paddy -- once in a year. Occupation-wise, agriculture is the main source of livelihood for 47
households (43.1%), and fishing for 31 households (28.4%). Retail business in fishery (buying
and selling) is the main occupation of 7 households (6.4%), and menial labor, such as working as
boatman, of 4 households (3.7%; Fig. 3). In other wetland areas of Bangladesh, fishing and
cultivation of crops are recorded as the two main sources of livelihood [10].

Fig. 3. Distribution of primary occupation of households (n=109) in Fotehpur Union reveals that
an overwhelming majority of community members depend on agriculture and fishing for their
livelihoods (Source: Field survey data, 2014).

According to the World Bank [46] definition, if an individual has a daily income less
than US $ 1.9 then he/she belongs to below poverty level. Our research results revealed that
almost one-fourth of the households (24.77 %) had daily income less than US $ 1.9 (Table 2).
The majority (53.2 %) of the households we surveyed did not own any agricultural lands. Among
the respondents, 37.6% were small and marginal peasants, only 7.2% and 1.8% of the
respondents were medium and large peasants respectively (Table 3). As mentioned above,
43.12% households main income source was agriculture. The majority of the households relying
on agriculture were small and marginal peasants. In terms of formal years of education, it is
evident that 48.6% of the household head had no formal education. A total of 84.4% household
head had education below the primary level (Table 4). In terms of earning members and size of
the household, 60 % household had a single earning member (Table 5). Among the single
earning member, 80% of the household heads were required to support more than four, even up
to ten, household members.

12
Table 2 Average daily income of households (n=109)

Income (US $) Frequency Percentage Cumulative

percentage
<1.9 27 24.77 24.77
1.9-3.8 55 50.46 75.23
3.8-7.6 19 17.43 92.66
7.6> 8 7.34 100
Total 109 100

Source: Field survey data, 2014

Table 3 Agricultural land ownerships (n=109)

Categories of peasants Amount of land Percentage of households

(hectares)
Landless 0 53.2
Marginal 0.2 11.0
Small 0.2-0.6 26.6
Medium 0.6-2.2 7.2
Rich 2.2> 1.8
Total 100
Source: Field survey data, 2014

Table 4 Formal years of schooling

Years of schooling Frequency Percentage Cumulative

percentage
No schooling 53 48.6 48.6
1-5 39 35.8 84.4
6-10 17 15.6 100
Total 109 100
Source: Field survey data, 2014

13
Table 5 Cross tabulation between number of earning members and total number of household
members (n=109)

Number Total number of household members

of 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 12-14 Total
earning
members
1 13 36 15 1 0 0 65 60 %
20.0% 55.4% 23.1 % 1.5 % 0% 0% 100 %
2 7 10 3 2 1 1 24 22%
29.2 % 41.7 % 12.5 % 8.3 % 4.2 % 4.2% 100 %
3 0 2 4 5 3 2 16 14%
0% 12.5 % 25% 31.2% 18.8% 12.5% 100 %
4 or more 0 0 2 1 1 0 4 4%
0% 0% 50% 25% 25% 0% 100 %
Total 20 48 24 9 5 3 109 100 %
18.3% 44.0% 22.0% 8.3% 4.6% 2.8% 100 %
Source: Field survey data, 2014
4.1.2 Power structure, network and connection
The sources of power that shape the wetland-community can be divided into two broad
categories: i) internal sources of power, and ii) external sources of power. Internal elements of
power that shape community power dynamics are also connected with the livelihood practices of
community people, such as control over means of production (e.g., agricultural land, agricultural
inputs, fishing net). The livelihood of community people largely depends on fishing and
cultivation of crops. Those who control the agricultural means of production shape power, for
example, ownership of land, control over agricultural inputs like fertilizer, pesticides, seeds, and
water pumping and irrigation machines. Landless and marginal peasants work on the agricultural
land of rich peasants, and borrow land to grow paddy. Fertilizer, pesticides, seeds are often
controlled by government authorized dealers. Often the government-authorized dealers are local
community members. Peasants largely rely on machines for irrigation and watering the land, but
do not own the machines. Control over water bodies for fishing, and fishing elements such as
nets, boats shape power structure.
Connection with the Union office and Upazila is also the sources of power.
Bishwambarpur Upazila Headquarters and Thana (police office) are at close proximity. Upazila
Headquarters has many government offices that provide various government services to people,
such as agricultural office, fishery office, UNO office, cooperative office, land office, and
livestock. Connection with various government offices and with police station (thana) is also
internal sources of power. Connection with GO and NGO officials is tied with the various
distributional inequalities. For example, water bodies less than 8.09 hectares or 20 acres are
typically lease out from Upazila office; therefore, those who have good connection with the
Upazila office can avail these water bodies or beels. For peasants, getting various agricultural
inputs and fair price of rice is largely shaped by GO and NGO connections. Union office also
offers various social services to people, such as providing birth certificates. Thus, connection

14
with various service provider government offices turned out to be an important factor that shapes
power. Moreover, position in various profit, non-profit organization also work as a source of
power. For example, being President of Bishwambarpur bazar somite (association of
businessmen) a person can exert influence considerably in decision making process within
community.
Studies conducted in the rural social structure of Bangladesh highlight the function of
encapsulation process that links local politics with national politics (external source of power)
Khan [47]. Local politics cannot be treated in isolated manner, rather as a part of larger political
process. Because of encapsulation process, local political leaders and external political leaders
exert considerable influence upon the socio-economic process of community. For instances,
Fotehpur Union Parishad Chairman is the President of Bishwambarpur Upazila Committee of
Awami League (current ruling party); Chairman of Bishwambarpur Upazila is the president of
Bishwambarpur Upazila Committee of BNP (previous ruling party). Because of their political
affiliation they exert considerable influence, especially when their political party runs the
government.
Political affiliation of peoples representatives often creates factionalism, patron-client
relationships or vertical class alignment. Political culture of Bangladesh is often confrontational
[48], which promotes factionalism among community people because peoples representatives
often create followers, which in turn promotes patron-client relationships or vertical class
alignment. Community people often invoke patron-client relationships because during crisis
period (e.g., post-disaster situation) they turn to powerful patron (like local political leaders) for
help. Also during post-disaster period, relief distribution is controlled by these patrons.
4.2 Temporal (inter-annual and seasonal) variability of flash floods and differential loss and
damage

Due to increased climatic variability in recent years, there have been significant seasonal
shifts in precipitation patterns, characterized by increased rainfall intensity which contributed to
increased vulnerability of community members to flash flood hazards [49]. Based on their
timing, flash floods can be characterizes as: i) early (April to May), ii) monsoon (June to
August), or iii) post-monsoon (August to November) floods. In Bangladesh studies, no
differentiation is typically made between monsoon floods and monsoon flash floods, as nearly all
floods during this period are of rapid onset. For example, National Plan for Disaster Management
(2010-2015) of Bangladesh differentiates between types of floods. It documents that flash floods
occur during April to May and September to November, and monsoon floods occur during June
to September. However, flash flood can also occur during the monsoon period due to the
influence of microclimatic factors and their consequential changes in local rainfall patterns [50-
51].
The temporal variability and severity of flash flooding (locally described as varying between
normal (Borsha) and extreme flooding (Bonna) is illustrated in the hydrographs in Fig. 4 (a, b, c,
and d). In 2004 (Fig. 4a), flash flood occurred during pre-monsoon (early flood), monsoon and
post-monsoon period. The 2011 (Fig. 4b) inundation can be regarded as a typical season (i.e.,
Borsha), when the water level did not cross the danger level (defined as "the level above which it
is likely that the flood may cause damage to nearby crops and homesteads [52]). Such water
levels are referred to as the Public Works Datum (PWD) by the Bangladesh Water Development

15
Board (BWDB). The 2006 flood represented a typical case of monsoon extreme flooding
(Bonna) (Fig. 4c), while the 2009 flood was a case of post-monsoon extreme flooding (Bonna)
(Fig. 4d); during both 2006 and 2009, flood water rose above the danger level (8.25m PWD).
Borsha (normal flooding) transforms into Bonna (extreme flooding) during the monsoon and
post-monsoon period when water level rises above danger levels. However, such relationships
between water level and flooding do not hold for pre-monsoon or early flooding. Early flash
floods become disastrous when water inundates boro crops; in this case the water level may or
may not rise above danger level. The early arrival of the monsoon (April-May in Fig. 4a) or
Borsha inundates the haor and causes crop loss.

16
17
Fig. 4. Water level of the Surma River for selected years (2004, 2006, 2009, and 2011); data
source: North-Eastern Measurement Division, Water Development Board, Bangladesh, 2014
The effects of flash flood timing on social-ecological systems are varied. In the study area,
early flash flooding (typically early April) typically causes boro or IRRI crop loss when the
haors become inundated (Fig. 5). Monsoon flash floods (typically June to August) cause damage
to homesteads, temporary displacement, and damage to seasonal vegetables; and post-monsoon

18
flash floods (typically August to September) often result in homestead loss, temporary
displacement, and damage to winter crops (Ravi including lentils) and vegetables (Fig. 5).

Flooding by months

Crops April- May- June- July- Aug- Sept- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- March
May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March -April
(Earl
y Monsoon flash flood Post-monsoon flash
flash flood
flood)

boro/ IRRI
crops

Vegetables
/winter
crops
(Ravi)
Fig. 5. Seasonal variability of flash flood and differential losses of crops (Source: Field survey
data, 2014)

Flood effects at the household level include direct losses and/or damages to crops, livestock,
property (e.g. housing), and fuel/fodder (Table 6). A total of 51 (46.8%) (n = 109) households
surveyed experienced some degree of loss and/or damage of crops due to the 2007 floods, with
the greatest crop loss by a household being US $1930. These crops were stored inside houses for
consumption throughout the year. The 2007 flood also damaged other household assets,
including housing structures, fuel, fodder, and livestock; it also caused health problems (e.g.,
diarrhea, and/or high fever) that resulted in financial losses (Fig. 6). In terms of total damages
and/or losses, the greatest amount suffered by any household was US $ 3110. Overall, a total of
104 (95.4%) households suffered from some form of damage due to floods. Findings of other
studies revealed that monsoon and post-monsoon flooding in the recent past (e.g., 1988, 1998,
2004, and 2007) caused loss of considerable number of lives and properties, with far-reaching
adverse impacts [53-54].

19
Table 6 Damage and /or loss due to the 2007 flood, Fotehpur Union

Items % of flood affected (loss and damage) Highest level of damage

households at the community level and/or losses (US $) by a
(n=109) household

Crops 46.8 % households with some degree of crop 1930

damage
Monetary 48.6 % households with some degree of 643
loss due to monetary loss due to health problem
health
problem
Property 85.3 % households with some degree of 1362
(housing) property damage
Livestock 35.8 % households with some degree of 1285
(e.g., livestock damage
ducks,
chickens,
cow)
Fuel for 67.9 % households with some degree of fuel 257
domestic damage
use
Fodder 20.2 % households with some degree of 386
fodder damage
Total 95.4 % households 3110
damages
and/or
losses
(Source: Field survey data, 2014)

20
(a)

(b)
Fig. 6. Flood affected households (a) and damaged incurred by flash flood (b)

21
 Prior to the 2007 flood disaster, community members also suffered from a large early flash
flood event in 2004 that severely damaged their boro crops. A study conducted by CNRS [55]
showed that the extent of crop loss in Sunamganj district was almost 90%. Our survey reveals
that a total of 58 (53.2%) households lost between 75% and 100% of their crops, and 67 (61.5%)
households had borne some degree of loss and/or damage. Among them, 56 (51.37% of all
households surveyed) lost their crops entirely (100%) (Table 7). In 2004, 42 (38.5%) households
did not cultivate crops at all or worked as fishers or other occupations.
Table 7 Degree of loss and/or damage of boro crops due to the 2004 early flash flood, Fotehpur
Union

% range of loss Frequency % Cumulative %

and/or damage
25-50 7 6.4 6.4
50-75 2 1.8 8.3
75-100 58 53.2* 61.5
Non-farm (Not 42 38.5 100
applicable)
Total 109 100

* 51.37 % household lost almost100 % crops due to the 2004 early flash flood

(Source: Field survey data, 2014)

4.3 Community power structures and the challenge of loss recovery

4.3.1 Marginalization of fishers from common pool resources

As wetland communities are resource-dependent socio-geographic entities, disaster loss
recovery by the fishers is largely determined by their accessibility to fishery resources available
in the Karcharia haor, particularly during post-flood periods. The results of our field surveys
revealed that local resource users have systematically been marginalized and excluded by the
current institutional regimes. Such exclusionary processes are further exacerbated by an
asymmetrical social power structure that deprives the poor from their rights to access wetland
resources historically considered a common property resource in the locality.
The current Jalmohal (fishery estate) leasing-out system, which follows an open bidding,
system impedes poor fishers from accessing water bodies because of their financial inability and
socio-politically subjugated position. The formal institutional regime (e.g., District and Upazila
administrative/legal provisions) operates within the existing power structure of the wetland
community. Local resource users (e.g., fishers) are barred not only by the current wetland leasing
policy, but also exasperate by an unequal sociopolitical power structure. Local poor resource
users do not have the ability to mobilize large sums of financial capital and are thus excluded

22
from bidding for and leasing the large water bodies. Even when marginal fishers form collective
occupational associations, such network-based organizations are barred from bidding for small
and medium-sized water bodies. The findings of our study conform to observations of other
wetland areas of Bangladesh [10,56]. For example, Toufiques study [57] on inland fisheries
documents the exclusion of poor fishers from their rights of fishing from water bodies by
socially powerful agents, who are mostly from outside the community. Studies conducted in the
context of small-scale fisheries in Chilika lagoon in India, Tam Giang lagoon in Vietnam, and
Paraty in Brazil also showed that local resources users (i.e. fishers) were systematically excluded
from their rights to access resources due to similar institutional factors, asymmetrical power
structures, and politics [58,40]. However, how the dynamic interplay between institutions and
community power structures functions in transforming coping capacity into adaptive capacity
has thus far received very limited attention [34]. In Section 4.4, we explored into how access to
natural resources shape adaptive capacity.
Political structures (local, regional, and national), networks, and government leasing-out
policies are all interconnected. In most cases, leaseholders are chosen from the ruling political
party, and a change of political regimes commonly leads to change in leaseholders as well.
Leaseholders therefore attempt to maximize profits by allying themselves with local political
leaders to gain favor in the bidding pool, excluding poor fishers in the process. One poor fisher
expressed his frustration and powerlessness in the following words:
Previously we could fish from Boishakh (April-May) to Kartik (October-November), now
it is forbidden for throughout 12 months of a year. They [the elite leaseholders] are
wealthy, what can we do? They take our nets, file court cases against us; even the officers
(police, fishery) listen to them.

4.3.2 Peasants struggle against local power dynamics

Multiple actors in the power structure constrain peasants from recovering from property and
crop loss incurred by monsoon and post-monsoon flash floods. Because of existing asymmetrical
power structures, most government initiatives to help small farmers and peasants recover from
losses eventually favor the clients of powerful groups. Powerful groups consisting of local
political leaders and their followers take advantage of post-disaster recovery initiatives taken by
the government. Politicization of post-disaster recovery incentives is documented by numerous
authors [59-60], who examined post-disaster recovery dynamics in the context of Cyclone Sidr
(2007) and Aila (2009) respectively. These studies found that due to the actions of social
networks and established patron-client relationships, most of the post recovery incentives
favored the clients of powerful groups. Denial Aldrich [61] also documented the exclusionary
character of post-disaster recovery mechanisms in the Indian tsunami context.
Small-scale farmers and peasants often face exploitation by middlemen when dealing with
agricultural loans. In addition, peasants do not get a fair price of their crops due to strong alliance
between businessman and government officials to suppress pricing of crops. Small farmers
expressed their distress by saying that:

23
 We struggle to buy, same way, we also struggle to sell... we do not have the chance to sell
[paddy at a fair price], we do not get the chance to buy [seeds, fertilizer]even if I have
proper document of land, I may not get agriculture loan. This is because I do not have
the capacity to bribe; however, I may get loan if I give away half of the loan to the
middleman
4.4 Constraints and challenges to successful adaptation and building resilience
Successful adaptation to climate change-induced disaster risks largely depends on the
availability of rapid and sustainable means of disaster loss and damage recovery. Without such
access, members of flood-affected communities often opt for immediate, short-term recovery
solutions without considering the risk of future hazards. Such reactive coping strategies often
result in maladaptation and enhancement of vulnerability. Koskos use of the term agency
vulnerability is relevant here [62]. This view holds that the vulnerability of individuals is
increased when they have limited control over the social and economic factors that affect them.
Poor peasants inability to pursue opportunities arising from post-disaster recovery incentives,
and fishers inability to access fishery resources compel them to take short-term loss recovery
measures that worsen their vulnerability and, in turn, erode resilience. For example, to recover
from property damage (e.g., housing structures), caused by monsoon and post-monsoon flash
flood, individuals often are forced to sell property, assets, and other tangible resources that are
crucial for their livelihood security. These include cows, paddies, and agricultural land; the
affected people also mortgage their land to Mohajans, informal money lenders who often charge
high interest rates.
Early flash floods threaten peoples food security by undermining the successful harvesting of
boro crops to which their livelihoods are closely linked. To secure food for family members,
small farmers and peasants typically sell cows or other property to buy paddies for household
consumption when the market price is relatively low. Perceptually, having a secure source of rice
available brings people peace of mind. We label this form of consciousness as practical
consciousness as community members rarely place such forms of coping practices in scrutiny.
These actions tend to enhance vulnerability of the affected people as many of them fall into
vicious cycles of poverty by losing property, paying high interests for borrowing credits, and
facing deteriorating health. In the process, the unintended consequences of conscious action
further perpetuate their vulnerability. Due to successive disaster events and the cumulative
burden of loss and damage, customary coping mechanisms adversely affect long-term adaptation
and undermine resilience. In a similar case, a study on Chagga people in Tanzania revealed
people who cut down old-growth trees and sell them to sustain livelihoods undermine their own
capacity to adapt to future climate-induced shocks by encouraging soil erosion and worsening
the effects of droughts [63].
This vicious cycle of property loss, borrowed money, and improvisation creates a downward
spiral of socioeconomic status. For instance, sometimes flood disaster victims sell property to
pay the loans or when they have nothing to sell; they are forced to take loans to rebuild houses or
to pay premiums to creditors, commonly NGOs or local mahajons. The affected people often
borrow loans from mohajans to grow crops, and when they lose the crops due to early flash
floods, the borrowers find no other option but to sell property (e.g., cow, land) to pay the loans.
To recover from asset-loss, or pay the installments related to borrowing micro credits from
NGOs and/or mohajans, or due to income instability, flood-affected households struggle to have

24
three meals a day. As part of survival strategies, such households purposefully reduce nutritious
food intake so that they can save some money to pay back installments. A few recent studies
have provided similar evidence that changing eating habit and reducing nutritious food intake are
adopted as coping mechanism with flood loss [64-65]. This is even doubly stressful for female
headed households (particularly widow and divorced women) as food insecurity is found to be a
highly gendered phenomenon; this is because of womens limited access and entitlement to
natural resources [66,63,56].
Community members adaptation to flood hazards is significantly constrained by their
inability to recover successfully from losses. Loans frequently function as a constraining factor
in agency exercise. For example, to quickly recover from losses, individuals become reluctant to
take any proactive measures, like initiating a business enterprise. The flood-affected members
tend to think that they already have some burden of loans, and if they further fail in
entrepreneurial efforts, it could be a cumulative burden on them. The fear of cumulative financial
burden constrains the economic aspect of agency exercise. One respondent described this fear, as
follows:
I took loan for loss recovery and still I am paying the installments. When I have burden of
loan, I do not feel confident in doing any businessbecause I know I have loan
elsewhere, and if I fail in my business then I will fall further behind

4.5 Transformative adaptation and enhancing resilience

Reactive behavior may result in maladaptation that consequently constrains proactive
adaptation. However, individuals are able to transform their behavior strategically over the
longer-term by developing technology and innovation to foster resilience [31]. As Giddens
[38] notion of agency recognizes the transformative capacity of agency (irrespective of the
degree of stress imposed individually, many people are able to transform their circumstances), it
is important to explore this dimension in the flood disaster-induced stressful context of wetland
inhabitants.
Actions generated by discursive or reflexive consciousness (i.e. when individuals reflect on
their own actions and change their future conduct to lessen the adverse effects of loss and
damage) facilitate transformative adaptation. Evidence from the Shanmei community in Taiwan
shows that actions based on reflexive consciousness after Typhoon Morakot helped foster
transformative adaptation [67]. Transformability is a prerequisite of resilience [20]. In this
respect, Pelling, OBrien & Matyas [68] view transformation as an adaptive response to climate-
induced risk. Equating transformation with adaptation, Rickards [69] opines that transformation
is imperative for society for adaptive and mitigation responses to climate-induced disaster risk.
Transformative adaptation to natural disasters relates to both immediate loss recovery and future
loss reduction. Facing disaster loss and damage, some individuals tend to transform their
behavior and actions -- they attempt to develop skills and build capacity to initiate new
entrepreneurships apart from what they have already acquired or what they have learned for
generations.
Attachment to land and place is a common characteristic of the wetland communities, which
affects transformational capacity significantly. In a study in Australia, Marshall et al., [70]
noticed that place and occupational identity may negatively shape transformational capacity.

25
However, we note that despite such close attachment with land and occupation, wetland
community members in recent years are engaging themselves in economic activities outside their
traditional primary occupation (Tables 8 and 9). For example, fishing is an inherited occupation
for Hindu fishers as they belong to a fishing caste. Due to shrinking income opportunities, some
fishers have engaged themselves in other economic sectors such as working with services
provided by NGOs or as day laborers. As a strategy, some flood affected household members are
working for an extended period of time and engaging themselves with laborious and risky work.
Peasants typically do not engage themselves in digging soil or carrying goods and commodities
for earning wages. However, when affected by flash floods they tend to perform these laborious
and risky jobs as wage laborers.
As one peasant explained:

in our area, people can do to work like soil digging during November-December. My
two sons did some risky job like soil digging. They also worked as agricultural labor.
Thus, we worked very hard to recover from our losses over multiple years.

Table 8 Cross tabulation between primary and secondary occupation of respondents (n=109)

Primary Secondary occupation

occupation
Fishing Agriculture Day Fish Boatman Other (e.g. Not Total
labor business self- applicabl
employed) e
Fishing 0 10 7 10 1 2 1 31
Agriculture 11 0 12 2 5 13 4 47
Day labor 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
Fish business 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 7
Boatman 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 4
Other (e.g. 3 11 1 0 0 1 2 18
self-
employed)
Total 19 24 21 13 6 17 9 109
(Source: Field survey data, 2014)

26
Table 9 Cross tabulation between primary and tertiary occupation of respondents (n=109)

Primary Tertiary occupation

occupation
Agricultur Day labor Fish Other (e.g., Not applicable Total
e business self-
employed)
Fishing 4 8 0 2 17 31
Agriculture 0 6 1 8 32 47
Day labor 0 0 0 0 2 2
Fish business 1 1 0 0 5 7
Boatman 0 0 0 0 4 4
Other (e.g. self- 1 2 1 2 12 18
employed)
Total 6 17 2 12 72 109
(Source: Field survey data, 2014)

Other strategies of flood affected households involve the male members seasonally migrating
to distant locations to generate household income. In Bangladesh, February to mid-April is a lean
cultivation period and a common time for such migrations. However, such temporary migration
is not confined to the lean periods, also being common following flash flood disasters as a means
of raising money to replace damaged assets. One respondent said:
My wife and I went to Bholaganj to work in stone and sand quarries... we stayed there for
six months and both of us worked hard and saved her [my wifes] income to pay the
installment of loan taken from Mohajans

A thorough analysis of individual cases reveals that there are several factors that shape
transformative behaviors. First, it is apparent that younger people are better equipped and
capable of transforming their behavior relative to more aged individuals during the post-disaster
period, as they have the necessary physical strength and associated skills. For example, a 70-year
aged man clarifiedI cannot work at sand or stone quarriesmy body is already fragile. How
can I help them when I myself need help? Some members affected by flood disasters opted to
enhance their education and skills to seek better wages and income. Another respondent (age 32,
originally belonging to the fishing caste) concentrated on passing the Secondary School
Certificate Examination and succeeded into finding an employment with the World Fish Centre.
Second, households having multiple earning members are better able to recover from disaster
losses relatively quickly than single-earning families. Third, households with members in other
countries who send home remittances recover faster and are more likely to take proactive
measures to reduce their future vulnerability to natural disasters.

5. Conclusions

27
 In this study, we asserted that an integrated approach to adaptive capacity building can
facilitate our understanding of how the interplay of institutions, social power structures and
human agency shape adaptive capacity of communities to environmental shocks, such as crop
loss due to flash floods resulting from increasing climatic variability. The high vulnerability of
wetland communities in the northeastern regions of Bangladesh to flash flood hazards and the
high associated risks in both biophysical and social terms were evident in the research findings.
The last two large flash flood disasters (i.e. 2004 and 2007) caused significant crop loss and
property damage respectively in the study area. Adaptive capacity to flash flood disasters,
assessed in terms of reactive, proactive and transformative responses, was diverse and
profoundly affected by local institutions and social power structures. As adaptation or exercise of
agency occurs within the preexisting power structure and institutions for resources management,
reactive actions (e.g. customary way of coping) typically result in short-term measures.
However, some community members have succeeded in enhancing their resilience to disaster
losses by transforming their actions and adopting longer term risk-mitigation strategies and
livelihood options; in this manner actions generated by discursive or reflexive consciousness
enhanced adaptive capacity and resilience to flash flood disasters. Co-existence of vulnerability
and resilience is also noticed in other contexts [71,15]. Despite vulnerability, these authors
recognize that resilience may originate from strong social relationships and social safety net
program whereas in our context it originates from individuals transformative behavior.
In keeping our focus on the societal dimensions of adaptive capacity, we incorporated
institutions, community power structures and agency dynamics within the integrated approach to
of adaptive capacity building. Such expanded coverage assisted us to explain the relationships
and interactions between the multiple facets of adaptive capacity building (i.e. coping, adaptation
and transformation) that shape the overall adaptive capacity and resilience to flash flood disasters
in Bangladeshs wetland communities. In our research we noticed some validity in Berman et
al.s [34] argument that institutions are the key that can transform coping capacity into adaptive
capacity to mitigating climate-induced disaster risk. The findings of our investigation reaffirm
that the risk of following an unsustainable path can be altered either i) by deliberate or
directional or purposive transformation at the community (i.e. system) level [72-73] by
institutions such as government, based on ethics and sustainability principles that can help people
to access vital natural resources and transform coping into adaptation [20,74] or ii) through
appropriate development interventions that can help people (actors) develop skills and
knowledge required to transform their behavior and actions. In this respect, Frankenberg et al.
[75] found education as the protective factor in the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami context.
Our adoption of Nathan Engles [21] approach to assessing adaptive capacity of wetland
communities to flash flood disasters facilitated placing adaptive capacity within the
vulnerability-resilience continuum, and demonstrating how adaptive capacity mediates between
vulnerability and resilience. We found that understanding the role of human agency is critical for
analyzing the underpinnings of human responses to disaster-losses. However, integration of
human agency dimensions with physical exposure and vulnerability in assessing adaptive
capacity remains a challenge; these aspects deserve attention for further research. One of the
main methodological challenges in applying an integrated approach to assess adaptive capacity is
to use considerably varied tools and techniques in a single study; finding compatible tools and
techniques is thus a perquisite for a successful integrative study on adaptive capacity to cope and
transform from adverse disaster impact.

28
Acknowledgements:
The authors are deeply indebted to the wetland community people of Fatehpur Union of
Bangladesh for their spontaneous participation in the research process. This research was funded
by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Grant (435-2012-
1748), Ottawa, Canada.

References
[1] Collier, C.G. (2007). Flash flood forecasting: What are the limits of predictability?. Quarterly
Journal of the royal meteorological society, 133 (622), 3-23. doi: 10.1002/qj.29
[2] BWDB (Bangladesh Water Development Board). (2014). Flash flood, Available at:
http://www.bwdb.gov.bd/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=177&Itemid=150.
Accessed on 14 May 2014
[3] Schiermeier, Q. (2011). Increased flood risk linked to global warming. Nature, 470 (7334),
316-316. doi:10.1038/470316a
[4] Guhathakurta, P., Sreejith, O.P., & Menon, P.A. (2011). Impact of climate change on extreme
events and flood risk in India. Journal of earth system science, 120 (3), 359-373.
[5] Hirabayashi, Y., Mahendran, R., Koirala, S., Konoshima, L., Yamazaki, D., Watanabe, S., &
Kanae, S. (2013). Global flood risk under climate change. Nature Climate Change, 3 (9), 816-
821. doi:10.1038/nclimate1911
[6] Allamano, P., Claps, P., & Laio, F. (2009). Global warming increases flood risk in
mountainous areas. Geophysical Research Letters, 36 (24). 1-5 doi:10.1029/2009GL041395.
[7] Jain, S.K., & Kumar, V. (2012). Trend analysis of rainfall and temperature data for
India. Current Science , 102 (1).37-49. Retrieved from ebscohost database
[8] IPCC (2014). Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2014: Impact, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Barros, V.R. et al.
(edit.). Cambridge University press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 1-32.
[9] Rashid, A.K.M.M. (2009). Climate change vulnerability in Bangladesh: Strategic position of
DSK/DCA in the field of climate change adaptation initiatives in Bangladesh. Dustha
Shansta Kendra (DSK) and Dan Church Aid (DCA), Dhaka.
www://file://psf/Home/Downloads/Climate+Change+Vulnerability+in+Bangladesh,+200
9.pdf; accessed on June 15, 2016.

[10] Khan, S.M.H. (2012). Participatory wetland resource governance in Bangladesh: an

analysis of community-based experiments in Hakaluki Haor (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved
from http://www.umanitoba.ca/institutes/natural_resources/Left-
Hand%20Column/nri_gradsandtheses2012.htm
[11] Chowdhury, A. (2003). Bangladesher ekti gram,Mauli Prokashoni, Dhaka

29
[12] Lei, Y., Yue, Y., Zhou, H., & Yin, W. (2014). Rethinking the relationships of vulnerability,
resilience, and adaptation from a disaster risk perspective. Natural hazards, 70 (1), 609-627.
[13] Gallopn, G.C. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive
capacity. Global Environmental Change, 16 (3), 293-303. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.004
[14] Berkes, F. (2007). Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from
resilience thinking. Natural Hazards, 41(2), 283-295.doi: 10.1007/s11069-006-9036-7
[15] Akter, S., & Mallick, B. (2013). The povertyvulnerabilityresilience nexus: Evidence from
Bangladesh. Ecological Economics, 96, 114-124. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07013
[16] Cannon, T., & Mller-Mahn, D. (2010). Vulnerability, resilience and development
discourses in context of climate change. Natural Hazards, 55(3), 621-635. doi: 10.1007/s11069-
010-9499-4
[17] Brown, K. (2014). Global environmental change I A social turn for resilience?. Progress in
Human Geography, 38 (1), 107-117. doi: 10.1177/0309132513498837
[18] Pelling, M., & Manuel-Navarrete, D. (2011). From resilience to transformation: the adaptive
cycle in two Mexican urban centers. Ecology and Society, 16 (2), 11.d doi:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/ vol16/iss2/art11/
[19] Walker, B., Holing, C.S., Carpenter, S.R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and
transformation in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2): 5. doi:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5
[20] Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockstrm, J. (2010).
Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and
Society, 15 (4), 20. doi; http:// www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/
[21] Engle, N.L. (2011). Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental
Change, 21 (2), 647-656. Doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.019
[22] Brown, K., & Westaway, E. (2011). Agency, capacity, and resilience to environmental
change: lessons from human development, well-being, and disasters. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 36(1), 321-342. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-052610-092905
[23] Berkes, F., & Ross, H. (2013). Community resilience: Toward an integrated
approach. Society & Natural Resources, 26 (1), 5-20.
doi:10.1080/08941920.2012.736605
[24] Cleaver, F. (2007). Understanding agency in collective action. Journal of Human
Development, 8 (2), 223-244. doi:10.1080/14649880701371067
[25] Adger, W.N. (1999). Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in coastal
Vietnam. World development, 27 (2), 249-269. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00136-3
[26] Handmer, J.W., Dovers, S., & Downing, T.E. (1999). Societal vulnerability to climate
change and variability. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 4(3-4), 267-
281.doi: 10.1023/A:1009611621048
[27] Adger, W.N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change. 16 (3), 268-281.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006

30
[28] Cutter, S.L., Mitchell, J.T., & Scott, M.S. (2000). Revealing the vulnerability of people and
places: a case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina.Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 90 (4), 713-737. doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1515440
[29] Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global
environmental change, 16 (3), 282-292. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008
[30] Zhou, H., Wan, J., & Jia, H. (2010). Resilience to natural hazards: a geographic
perspective. Natural Hazards, 53(1), 21-41. doi: 10.1007/s11069-009-9407-y
[31] Bristow, G., & Healy, A. (2014). Regional resilience: an agency perspective. Regional
Studies, 48(5), 923-935. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2013.854879
[32] Pelling, M. (2011). Adaptation to climate change: from resilience to transformation.
Routledge.
[33] Davies, S. (1993). Are coping strategies a cop out?. IDS bulletin, 24(4), 60-72. doi:
10.1111/j.1759-5436.1993.mp24004007.x
[34] Berman, R., Quinn, C., & Paavola, J. (2012). The role of institutions in the transformation
of coping capacity to sustainable adaptive capacity. Environmental Development, 2, 86-100. doi:
10.1016/j.envdev.2012.03.017
[35] Armitage, D., Bn, C., Charles, A.T., Johnson, D., & Allison, E.H. (2012). The interplay of
well-being and resilience in applying a social-ecological perspective. Ecology and Society, 17
(4), 15. http://dx.doi. org/10.5751/ES-04940-170415
[36] Van Dijk, T.A. (1989). Structures of discourse and structures of power. Communication
yearbook, 12, 18-59.
http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Structures%20of%20discourse%20and%20structures%20
of%20power.pdf, Accessed on 06/07/2014
[37] Jentoft, S. (2007). In the power of power: the understated aspect of fisheries and coastal
management. Human Organization, 66 (4), 426-437. Retrieved from ProQuest database
[38] Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration,
Barkley and Los Angeles, CA, USA: University of California Press.
[39] Njaya, F., Donda, S., & Bn, C. (2011). Analysis of power in fisheries co-management:
Experiences from Malawi. Society & Natural Resources, 25 (7), 652-666. doi:
10.1080/08941920.2011.627912 .
[40] Nayak, P.K., Armitage, D., & Andrachuk, M. (2016). Power and politics of social
ecological regime shifts in the Chilika lagoon, India and Tam Giang lagoon, Vietnam. Regional
Environmental Change, 16 (2), 325-339. doi: 10.1007/s10113-015-0775-4
[41] Olsson, P., Galaz, V., & Boonstra, W. J. (2014). Sustainability transformations: A resilience
perspective. Ecol. Soc, 19, 1.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06799-190401
[42] Warner, K., & van der Geest, K. (2013). Loss and damage from climate change: local-level
evidence from nine vulnerable countries. International Journal of Global Warming, 5 (4), 367-
386.

31
[43] Surminski, S., Lopez, A., Birkmann, J., & Welle, T. (2012). Current knowledge on relevant
methodologies and data requirements as well as lessons learned and gaps identified at different
levels, in assessing the risk of loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate
change. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland:
UNFCC.
[44] Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Los Angeles, CA, USA: Sage Publication.
[45] Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Los Angeles, CA, USA: Sage Publication.
[46] World Bank. (2015). World Bank forecasts global poverty to fall below 10% for first time;
major hurdles remain in goal to end poverty by 2030. October 2015 press release.
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/world-bank-forecasts-
global-poverty-to-fall-below-10-for-first-time-major-hurdles-remain-in-goal-to-end-
poverty-by-2030; Accessed on June 25, 2016.
[47] Khan, M. I., (2003). The peasant society of Bangladesh, Dibyaprakash, Dhaka
[48] Khan. S.I., Islam. S.A., & Haque, M,I.,(1996). Political culture, political parties and the
democratic transition in Bangladesh, Dhaka: Academic Publishers
[49] Bronstert, A. (2003). Floods and climate change: interactions and impacts. Risk
Analysis, 23(3)545-557. doi: 0272-4332/03/1200-0545$22.00/1
[50] Kale, V.S. (2003). Geomorphic effects of monsoon floods on Indian rivers. Natural
Hazards, 28 (1), 65-84. doi: 10.1023/A:1021121815395
[51] Grimm, N.B., & Fisher, S.G. (1989). Stability of periphyton and macroinvertebrates to
disturbance by flash floods in a desert stream. Journal of the North American Benthological
Society, 293-307.doi: 10.2307/1467493
[52] FFWC. (2015). Definitions. http://www.ffwc.gov.bd/index.php/definitions. Retrieved on
08/08/2015
[53] Sultana, N., & Rayhan, M.I. (2012). Coping strategies with floods in Bangladesh: an
empirical study. Natural hazards, 64 (2), 1209-1218. doi: 10.1007/s11069-012-0291-5
[54] Zaman, M.Q. (1993). Rivers of life: Living with floods in Bangladesh. Asian
Survey, 33(10). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2645097
[55] CNRS. (2009). Adopting early warning system to address flash flood in the deeply flooded
Haor (wetland) basin in north-east Bangladesh. Retrieved from
https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/climate_change_kiosk/application/pdf/09_12_12banglad
esh1.pdf on 05/04/2014
[56] Choudhury. M., Haque. C.E., & Habib. S. (2016). Participatory exclusion of women from
natural resources management: silent voices from wetland-community in Bangladesh,
Community Development Journal , advance access,1-19, doi:10.1093/cdj/bsw007
[57] Toufique, K.A. (1997). Some observations on power and property rights in the inland
fisheries of Bangladesh. World Development, 25(3), 457-467.
[58] Nayak, P.K., Oliveira, L.E., & Berkes, F. (2014). Resource degradation, marginalization,
and poverty in small-scale fisheries: threats to social-ecological resilience in India and
Brazil. Ecology and Society, 19(2), 73. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06656-190273

32
[59] Nadiruzzaman, M., & Wrathall, D. (2015). Participatory exclusionCyclone Sidr and its
aftermath. Geoforum, 64, 196-204.
[60] Haque et al., (2014). Community Resilience to Disasters and Public Health: Understanding
the Role of Social Capital from Evidence in Coastal Bangladesh, 11th Annual Canadian
Risk and Hazards Network Symposium, October 22-24, 2014, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[61] Aldrich, D.P. (2011). The externalities of strong social capital: Post-tsunami recovery in
Southeast India. Journal of Civil Society, 7 (1), 81-99. doi: 10.1080/17448689.2011.553441
[62] Kosko, S. (2013). Agency vulnerability, participation, and the self-determination of
indigenous peoples, Journal of Global Ethics, 9 (3), 293-310, doi:
10.1080/17449626.2013.818385
[63] O'Brien, G.E.O.F.F., O'Keefe, P.H.I.L., Meena, H., Rose, J., & Wilson, L. (2008). Climate
adaptation from a poverty perspective. Climate Policy, 8 (2), 194-201. doi:
10.3763/cpol.2007.0430
[64] Paul, S.K., & Routray, J.K. (2010). Flood proneness and coping strategies: the experiences
of two villages in Bangladesh. Disasters, 34 (2), 489-508. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
7717.2009.01139.x
[65] Del Ninno, C., Dorosh, P.A., & Smith, L.C. (2003). Public policy, markets and household
coping strategies in Bangladesh: Avoiding a food security crisis following the 1998
floods. World Development, 31 (7), 1221-1238. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00071-8
[66] Shariff, S.Z., .(2007). Food insecurity in Kilimanjaro region. MSc dissertation, University of
Northumbria, UK.
[67] Tsao, C.Y., & Ni, C.C. (2016). Vulnerability, resilience, and the adaptive cycle in a crisis-
prone tourism community. Tourism Geographies, 18 (1), 80-105. doi:
10.1080/14616688.2015.1116600
[68] Pelling, M., OBrien, K., & Matyas, D. (2015). Adaptation and transformation. Climatic
Change, 133 (1), 113-127. doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1303-0
[69] Rickards, L. (2013). Transformation is adaptation. Nature Climate Change,3 (8), 690-690.
[70] Marshall, N.A., Park, S.E., Adger, W.N., Brown, K., & Howden, S.M. (2012).
Transformational capacity and the influence of place and identity. Environmental Research
Letters, 7 (3), 034022.
[71] Usamah, M., Handmer, J., Mitchell, D., & Ahmed, I. (2014). Can the vulnerable be
resilient? Co-existence of vulnerability and disaster resilience: Informal settlements in the
Philippines. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 10, 178-189. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.08.007
[72] OBrien, K. (2012). Global environmental change II From adaptation to deliberate
transformation. Progress in Human Geography, 36 (5), 667-676.
[73] Moore, M.L., Tjornbo, O., Enfors, E., Knapp, C., Hodbod, J., Baggio, J.A., Norstorm, A.,
Olsson, P., & Biggs, D. (2014). Studying the complexity of change: toward an analytical

33
 framework for understanding deliberate social-ecological transformations. Ecology and
Society, 19 (4), 54. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06966-190454
[74] Olsson, P., Gunderson, L.H., Carpenter, S.R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C., & Holling, C.
S. (2006). Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological
systems. Ecology and society,11 (1), 18.
[75] Frankenberg, E., Sikoki, B., Sumantri, C., Suriastini, W., & Thomas, D. (2013). Education,
vulnerability, and resilience after a natural disaster.Ecology and society: a journal of integrative
science for resilience and sustainability, 18 (2), 16. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05377-
180216

34