Sustainability of co-created flood proofing technologies in strengthening community resilience

Abstract

Most of the small to medium scale flood mitigation technologies in Bangladesh are planned, designed and constructed in a top-down approach, ignoring the actual needs of the vulnerable communities and appropriateness of the technologies in the local context. This non-inclusive approach does not create ownership of the technologies by the local communities and stakeholders, and also undermines the sustainability of the technologies. This study evaluated the sustainability of some selected flood proofing technologies mainly from Sirajganj district. Sirajganj is among the most flood-prone areas of Bangladesh, yet very representative of the unprotected floodplains of a large river (the Jamuna). A few leading-edge flood proofing Dutch technologies, such as amphibious living unit, retrofitted housing have been piloted in this district. Other technologies studied are the raised homestead from Sirajganj Sadar Upazila, amphibious house from Shariatpur district and amphibious school from Keraniganj Model Town. In this study, an operational conceptual framework of community flood resilience incorporating technology, production and society has been developed to assess the sustainability of different co-created flood proofing technologies in strengthening community capacity, where the major community groups are the users and manufacturers of the technologies. Here "Community Capacity" means the capacity to enhance resilience to floods. Community capacity can be enhanced through gradually increased capital, local and available technical knowhow and skill, and the main capitals being human capital, natural capital and financial capital. "Technological Change" can be possible via introduction of innovative small scale flood mitigation technologies. External inputs are the training in operating skills and skilled laborers. Technological change can be stimulated by short term changes in community demand through increased savings of the user group, and capital of the manufacturer group. To scale up these technologies, the production capacity of the community needs to be strengthened which is an indicator for enhanced community resilience. Here, the ultimate output is large scale replication, i.e., production and use of flood mitigation technologies. Production process is influenced by community demand, community savings and production capacity. Community savings can be gradually increased from the reduction in flood damage, thereby improving the community resilience, where community resilience is conceptualized as the capacity of a flood affected community to recover from the damages due to flood through introduction of new and innovative flood mitigation technologies. Additionally, an assessment of the impact of technology on local life and livelihoods is done through a causal diagram to provide further insights into the technology-resilience linkage. For that, a generalized causal diagram depicting the technology-livelihood linkage has been developed. Firstly, factors (causal and effect) under the five livelihood capitals – human, physical, financial, social and natural – are identified, i.e., availability or utilization of local materials and local laborers, use of new technology, improvements in flood risk management structures, job opportunity, economic activities and household income, poverty, savings, education of people, technical knowledge and skills, health risk, socio-economic dignity, quality of life, efficient use of water, environmental quality, availability of natural resources for livelihood, and water quality. Importance weight of effect factors were fixed based on ad hoc basis based on public consultation, field visits and KIIs. Then, the potential impacts of a flood proofing technology on life and livelihoods considering the above five capitals are assessed using the diagram through the development of a decision matrix to identify the most effective technology. This study also develops a multi-dimensional sustainability index to assess and compare sustainability of different co-created technologies in local field context. In this study, sustainability of co-created technology means, a technology constructed follow the co-creation process considering technical, economic, social and environmental domain. For that, sustainability scores of the technologies in their technical, economic, social and environmental dimensions are assessed through a set of indicators. A comparative sustainability analysis of these technologies is performed based on the users’ experiences and key informant interviews (KIIs). The sustainability of the technologies has been assessed using four different methods: weighted average method, sustainability index-based method, composite indicator-based sustainability analysis, and sustainability index-based analysis. To reduce the problem of uncertainty and ensure robustness in assessing sustainability, different data weighting and aggregation schemes are used in these methods. When working with values that differ in their degree of importance, the first method is usually effective. The second method is appropriate in resource-poor settings. The third method is considered as a base model and is extremely simple to convey messages to all its end users. The last method is used to avoid extreme value and to get representative results. Some methods also require relative weights for different domains as well as for overall sustainability index. Relative weight of sustainability indicators are assigned based on the feedback from the key informants and communities. Relative weight of each domain is assigned based on an unranked pair-wise comparison method. A comparative sustainability analysis with the four different methods is carried out to identify the best performing technology. In each method, retrofitted house scores highest considering different sustainability indicators, whereas amphibious school in Keraniganj obtains the lowest score. The most sustainable technology, retrofitted house scored 2.91 out of 4 due to simple construction technology, low maintenance and repair costs, and finally serving the intended purpose satisfactorily during the flood. The lowest ranked technology is the amphibious school in Keraniganj scored 1.89 out of 4. The reason behind the unsustainability of the amphibious school in Keraniganj is that the implementer group emphasized much to make it environment friendly rather than sustainable. So, the technology was damaged very quickly and was abandoned by the user group. Raised homestead in Dougachi char scores 2.7 out of 4 in comparative sustainability study and occupied the second position. This technology can be more sustainable if it co-creates with the retrofitted house. As the retrofitted house is unable to provide complete support during occasional extreme high flood (once in last six years), co-creation of traditional and indigenous technology raised homestead with Dutch concept retrofitted house may provide sustainable solution. This study is based on theoretical conceptual analysis, and the feedback on performances of the implemented technologies and responses from the user groups. According to the conceptualization and field testing, interruption into the poverty cycle is the prior requirement to make the community resilient to flood. If the community becomes economically stable, the possibility of sustainability, acceptability, adaptability and affordability of these implemented technologies can be increased. From the overall observations and findings, this can be concluded that small scale flood mitigation measures need to be implemented into those communities who are extremely vulnerable to flood disaster. To make these technologies well received among the user groups, the implemented technologies should be cost-effective, have low maintenance cost, and be technically simple and sound. Moreover, involvement of local laborers along with the use of local materials would create locally skilled and experienced laborer and manufacturer groups. That would have a positive impact on the production process and further replication of the technologies. Successful technical performance and functional effectiveness along with reasonable and fair cost are found to be the primary requirements for sustainability of a flood mitigation technology to improve community resilience. In these, the use of local resources, limited technologies for implementation and low costs are the salient considerations.