A study on the selective high storage buildings of Dhaka city
Objectives of the study:
The overall objective of the study is to examine their level of awareness and how it is crucial in reducing the vulnerability of fire hazard.
The specific objectives are:
1. To analyze perception concerning fire hazard (how fire start, fire control and fire damage)
2. To analyze the risk perception of people/resident (acceptability of fire hazard and knowledge about the catastrophic potential of fire )
3. To analyze the influence of institutional arrangements (organization, information channels, laws regulatory enforcement mechanisms) on people perceptions and how they respond to fire risk.
4. To evaluate respondents understanding about allocation of responsibilities between government and individual.
1. How do homeowner/shopowner/executives of the offices perceive fire?
2. How people evaluate multiattribute nature of risks?
3. How institutional arrangement influence the way people think and respond to risk?
4. How fire protection responsibilities allocated between government and individuals?
5. What are the specific trajectories in building awareness among individuals?
Types of the study:
The study will involve both qualitative approach but quantitave approaches. The research will be descriptive in nature. To analyze the level of awareness quantitave approach is needed, and to conduct indepth study about the trajectories behind building awareness qualitative data will permit a more comprehensive analysis
Universe of the study:
According to the categorization of place of occurrence of fire hazards in Dhaka city, 17% fire hazards have occurred in the residential buildings of Dhaka city and 18% in the commercial buildings-markets, garments, offices (Alam,Md.Jobair.B and Baroi,George N,2004. Fire Hazard categorization and risk assessment for Dhaka city in GIS Framework). Among these incidents National Housing Authority(NHA) have identified 3 major building fire incidence- Bangladesh Steel and Engineering Corporation (BSEC) Bhaban, Bashundhara City Complex, Concord twin tower in Dhaka city.
Study will be conducted in these 3 buildings as it represents the all the high rise and mix occupancy characters of the building s of Dhaka city .
For the study purpose two sampling frame will be appropriate for the approximation of all the elements of population
1. Residential frame
2. Commercial frame
This study will employ “purposive sampling” technique from two sampling frame which have mentioned above. The reason of using this method is the differential impact of fire hazards in different types of building. sample will be also drawn from managerial sector of the residential and commercial building
Unit of analysis of this study will be homeowner/shop owners/executive members of the offices.(to avoid the heterogeneity of the sampling frame 1 shop will be considered equal to 1flat/1office)
For the current study 100 respondents will be selected as primary sample. in view of constraints of resources and time and considering my skill this sample size would me more manageable
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUE:
Data will be collected from the shop owners, home owners, and executives of the offices , and also from the managerial sector of residential and commercial building. all of the sample respondents will be individually interviewed on the basis of the questions in the interview schedule.
A primary survey will be conducted by the following outline:
· A structured interview schedule will be developed for data collection for this study, concerning the major objectives of the study, and —–respondents. comprising both close and open ended question , a semi structured question will be developed
· Questionnaire survey will be done to asses the level of awareness of the respondents. Suppose how many of them avoid careless disposal of ashes, avoid smoking in smoking zone, how many have knowledge about the use of the equipment ( e.g. fire extinguisher).
· Open ended questions will be comprised to analyze about their perception in deathly, their understanding about fire protection responsibilities, and how they evaluate risk on the basis of controllability
Data processing and analysis:
With the passage of time mankind’s race for more comfort and better living resulted in faster development in building construction along with its various service systems like electricity, water supply, sanitary drainage, mechanical escalators etc. Increasing trend in population growth coupled with poverty laden economy provokes people to live in urban centers. Shortage of urban land coupled with high demand of building infrastructures compels construction of high rise buildings. Exorbitant cost of land and callousness of concerned regulating and planning authorities encouraged owners to construct buildings of bigger floors and levels than the rules normally permits. In this way the urban areas predominantly the Dhaka city has turned to a chaotic city entangling its dwellers into the almost all sorts of manmade hazards of life threatening. Fire is one of those hazards whose occurrence increasing day by day mostly in buildings. In Dhaka fire is becoming an unmanageable threat particularly in high rise buildings
Rational of the study:
Many study have analyzed the nature of fire incident by their type, spatial distribution, variation over time and also have assessed the vulnerability of high rise buildings, but no study have yet done regarding peoples level of awareness whereas the fact is that no fire protection strategy will come at end until research will be done in regard to people’s perception concerning fire risks. This study on the peoples associated with high rise buildings, analysis of their level of awareness affecting their vulnerability may preclude as a risk management tool in high rise buildings.
Statement of the problem:
Although a fire hazard need not necessarily reach catastrophic, it will present some of the characteristic aspect of the disaster because of highly destructive actions of fire and of the considerable number of victims.
Decision makers evaluating policies to reduce fire damage but their success will likely depend on the support of the people of high rise buildings but yet little is known about, how peoples associated with high rise buildings perceive fire, much less what policies they are likely to prefer and why unlikely to take all possible steps to safeguard their own properties and life.
Slovic (1987), for example, proposed that people evaluate risk on the basis of controllability, voluntariness, catastrophic potential, and degree of outcome uncertainty. Perceptions of these characteristics affect preferences over policies designed to reduce hazard.
Drawing on the behavioral economics and psychology literature, three factors important in risk valuation and management were identified: (1) percept ions concerning specific components of ?re hazard (e.g., how fire start, ?re control, ?re damage) , (2) institutional arrangements, and (3) risk perception risk exposure. When individuals misperceive risks or rely on decision rules that fail to conform to the traditional utility maximization paradigm, their behavior may differ from what policy experts expect. The literature is replete with evidence that individuals routinely express biased probability estimates when confronted with hazards (e.g., Slovic 1987; Kahneman and Tversky 1979). Furthermore, the multi attribute nature of risk complicates the analysis of individuals’ intended or expressed behavior, even when they possess perfect risk information. For example, such risk attributes as voluntariness and controllability can have profound effection whether individuals believe that it is worthwhile to take protective actions (Slovic 1987).
Institutional arrangements organizations, information channels, laws, regulatory enforcement mechanisms influence how people think about and respond to risk. Institutional legitimacy depends on demand for hazard reduction via government intervention, and such demand is tightly linked to perceptions about property rights to the hazard. If the risk is regarded as public (because, e.g., the magnitude of risk an individual faces depends on the actions of others), then those exposed to the risk will likely favor government intervention. The risk of injury associated with not wearing a seatbelt is usually considered private because an individual’s own behavior determines the magnitude of the risk the person faces. Fire risk can be viewed as having both public and private components