Abstract
Despite substantial investments in decentralized disaster governance, Bangladesh’s coastal regions remain highly vulnerable to climate-induced hazards. Disaster Management Committees (DMCs) were established to enhance local preparedness, response, and recovery through participatory governance. However, empirical evidence on their effectiveness at the community level remains limited. This study examines the institutional capacity, operational effectiveness, and governance legitimacy of DMCs in two disaster-prone coastal upazilas: Dumki and Kalapara of Patuakhali District. A mixed-methods approach was adopted, combining a community survey (N = 100) with key informant interviews (N = 30). Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, and four composite indices were constructed: Community Awareness Index (CAI), Community Satisfaction Index (CSI), Institutional Capacity Index (ICI), and Operational Effectiveness Index (OEI). Qualitative data were analyzed thematically to contextualize institutional practices and explain the gap between institutional claims and community experience. The findings reveal a pronounced disconnect between institutional self-assessment and community-level perceptions. Community awareness of DMCs was very low (CAI = 0.07), and community satisfaction with DMC performance was also very low (CSI = 0.04), indicating limited public engagement and weak service visibility. In contrast, DMC members reported very high institutional capacity (ICI = 0.95) and ceiling-level operational effectiveness (OEI = 1.00), suggesting a substantial mismatch between institutional perceptions and community realities. Union-wise differences in awareness and satisfaction were limited and not statistically significant. Firth penalized logistic regression likewise did not identify any statistically significant predictor of community satisfaction, indicating that dissatisfaction was broad-based rather than confined to specific respondent groups or locations. Overall, the results suggest that decentralization alone is insufficient to ensure participatory and effective disaster governance without accountability, transparency, and sustained community engagement. The study highlights the importance of community-validated performance measures and stronger accountability mechanisms for improving local disaster risk governance in climate-vulnerable settings.
Conclusions
This study critically examined the institutional capacity and operational effectiveness of Disaster Management Committees (DMCs) using a mixed-methods approach. By integrating community survey data with key informant interviews and composite index analysis, the research provides robust empirical evidence of how disaster governance is experienced at the local level. The findings reveal a remarkable performance gap between institutional self-assessment and community experience. DMC members reported very high levels of institutional capacity and operational effectiveness. In contrast, community respondents demonstrated extremely low awareness of DMCs, minimal engagement, and widespread dissatisfaction with preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. However, because the institutional measures were based on self-assessed responses from DMC members, they should be interpreted cautiously and not as independently verified evidence of actual operational performance. This divergence highlights a gap between documentation and reality, where procedural compliance and reporting do not translate into meaningful or visible outcomes for disaster-affected populations. Importantly, the analysis suggests that dissatisfaction is structural rather than confined to particular respondent groups or unions. The penalized regression model did not identify any statistically significant predictor of community satisfaction, and union-level differences in awareness and satisfaction were also not statistically significant. These findings indicate that poor community-level outcomes are systemic across the study area. From a methodological perspective, the study demonstrates the value of combining mixed methods with standardized composite indices to assess governance performance from both institutional and community perspectives. This approach enables systematic comparison and offers a useful framework for evaluating local disaster governance in other climate-vulnerable contexts. Overall, the findings suggest that decentralization alone is insufficient to ensure effective disaster risk reduction. Strengthening DMC performance will require a shift from compliance-driven governance toward community-validated outcomes, supported by inclusive engagement mechanisms, transparent reporting, and stronger accountability systems. Aligning institutional practice with community realities is essential for building trust, enhancing local resilience, and realizing the participatory intent of Bangladesh’s disaster management framework.
How to cite
Tamim, S. T. R., Faisal, M., Saha, M. K., Boiddho, J., & Cvetković, V. M. (2026). Assessing Local Disaster Governance in Coastal Bangladesh: Comparing Institutional and Community Perspectives on Disaster Management Committees. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 8(1), 465-486. https://doi.org/10.66050/3cawjv12
