COSI-SAFE: A GIS-Based Multi-Criteria Framework for Evaluating Urban Open Space Suitability for Post-Earthquake Emergency Sheltering

Authors

  • Nazma Ahmed Department of Sociology and Anthropology, West Virginia University, United States
  • Md. Shahidul Islam Local Government Engineering Department, Dhaka, Bangladesh

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18485/ijdrm.2025.7.2.10

Keywords:

earthquake response, contingency planning, emergency shelter, open space suitability, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Geographic Information System (GIS)

Abstract

Emergency response preparedness is a critical component of comprehensive earthquake risk management. The selection of suitable sites for post-disaster emergency sheltering during the response phase is central to effective contingency planning in densely populated urban areas. However, conventional planning often relies on ad-hoc methods that fail to systematically balance competing suitability factors. We propose COSI-SAFE, a Comprehensive Open Space Suitability Index (COSI)-based Suitability Assessment for Emergency-sheltering (SAFE) framework that evaluates the suitability of open spaces for temporary shelter establishment in the immediate aftermath of an earthquake in a densely populated urban area (Mirpur area in Dhaka City, Bangladesh), utilizing a GIS-based multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach. The evaluation framework defines suitability based on three key dimensions — quality, capacity, and accessibility. Quality indicators were derived from field surveys and secondary data sources. Capacity and accessibility assessments were conducted using spatial analysis tools, including network and proximity analysis in the ArcGIS platform. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was applied to combine the three criteria and derive the COSI for the identified open spaces. The results indicate that most open spaces are either moderately or poorly suited for use as emergency shelters, with only a small fraction deemed highly favorable in a post-earthquake context. Specifically, 1.2% of the open spaces were found to be completely unsuitable, 23.5% had low suitability, 56.8% were moderately suitable, and only 18.5% were fairly suitable for temporary shelter establishment. When weighted by total open-space area rather than site counts, the distribution was: unsuitable 0.8%, low 18.0%, moderate 59.5%, and fair 21.7%, indicating that a limited number of large open spaces contribute disproportionately to the total available shelter area. The findings highlight the inadequacy of existing open spaces to accommodate potential sheltering demand, emphasizing the need for proactive planning in the studied region. Assuming a deterministic Mw 7.5 event and displacement rates of 80% for partially damaged and 100% for extensively damaged buildings, we estimate a shelter-seeking population of 576,678, of whom 242,381 (42.0%) could be accommodated within a 700 m walking radius at 1.7 m²/person. The developed methodology offers a replicable planning tool for policymakers, emergency managers, and responders to strengthen earthquake response preparedness and inform post-disaster response strategies in high-density, earthquake-prone urban areas.

References

1. Albris, K., Lauta, K. C., & Raju, E. (2020). Disaster knowledge gaps: Exploring the interface between science and policy for disaster risk reduction in Europe. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 11(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-020-00250-5

2. Anhorn, J., & Khazai, B. (2015). Open space suitability analysis for emergency shelter after an earthquake. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 15(4), 789–803. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-15-789-2015

3. Apu, N., & Das, U. (2021). Tectonics and earthquake potential of Bangladesh: A review. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 12(3), 295–307.

4. Bakhshi Lomer, A. R., Rezaeian, M., Rezaei, H., Lorestani, A., Mijani, N., Mahdad, M., Raeisi, A., & Arsanjani, J. J. (2023). Optimizing emergency shelter selection in earthquakes using a risk-driven large group decision-making support system. Sustainability, 15(5), 4019. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054019

5. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). (2022). Population and Housing Census 2022: Preliminary report. Statistics and Informatics Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of Bangladesh.

6. Cañete, R. M., Lisay, & Mahmud, M. N. S. (2025). Project DINGGIN: Empowering Communities through Risk‐Based and Inclusive Cash Transfer in Disaster‐Prone Areas in Bangladesh and Philippines. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 7(1), 339-366.

7. Celik, E. (2024). Analyzing the shelter site selection criteria for disaster preparedness using best–worst method under interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Sustainability, 16(5), 2127. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052127

8. Chandler, P. J. (2007). Environmental factors influencing the siting of temporary housing in Orleans Parish (Master’s thesis, Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College).

9. Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme (CDMP). (2009). Earthquake contingency plan for Dhaka City. Ministry of Food and Disaster Management, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

10. Cvetković, V. M., Ronan, K., Shaw, R., Filipović, M., Mano, R., Gačić, J., & Jakovljević, V. (2019). Household earthquake preparedness in Serbia: A study of selected municipalities. Acta Geographica, 59(2), 28–42.

11. Cvetković, V., & Planić, J. (2022). Earthquake Risk Perception in Belgrade: Implications for Disaster Risk Management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 4(1), 69–88.

12. Da Silva, J. (2007). Quality and standards in post-disaster shelter. Structural Engineer, 85(14), 25.

13. Duan, M., Wu, D., Dong, B., & Zhang, L. (2016). Quantitatively measuring transportation network resilience under earthquake uncertainty and risks. American Journal of Civil Engineering, 4(4), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajce.20160404.1

14. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). (2015). Disasters without borders: Regional resilience for sustainable development (Asia-Pacific Disaster Report 2015, ST/ESCAP/2730). United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.

15. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2003). HAZUS®–MH MR1 Technical Manual. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

16. Hossen, M. N., Nawaz, S., & Kabir, M. H. (2022). Flood research in Bangladesh and future direction: An insight from the last three decades. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 4(1), 15–41

17. Islam, A. B. M., Ahmad, S. I., & Al-Hussaini, T. (2010). Effect of isolation on buildings in Dhaka. In Proceedings of a Conference (March, pp. 465–472).

18. Islam, F. (2023). Anticipated role of Bangladesh Police in disaster management based on the contribution of Bangladesh Police during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 5(2), 45–56.

19. Jiao, H., & Feng, S. (2024). Towards resilient cities: Optimizing shelter site selection and disaster prevention life circle construction using GIS and supply-demand considerations. Sustainability, 16(6), 2345. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062345

20. Ma, Y., Liu, B., Zhang, K., & Yang, Y. (2022). Incorporating multi-criteria suitability evaluation into multi-objective location–allocation optimization comparison for earthquake emergency shelters. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 13(1), 2333-2355.

21. Ma, Y., Xu, W., Qin, L., & Zhao, X. (2019). Site selection models in natural disaster shelters: A review. Sustainability, 11(2), 399. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020399

22. Manik, M. H. (2024). Demographic and socio-economic changes in Bangladesh: Evidence from the population census in 2022. Formosa Journal of Sustainable Research, 3, 29–38.

23. Mansouri, B., Nourjou, R., & Hosseini, K. A. (2008). Comprehensive GIS-based solution for road blockage due to seismic building collapse in Tehran. In The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (October, pp. 1–6).

24. Nowsheen, K. T. B., Takiya, T. K., Zohra, F. T., & Zaman, M. (2021). Identifying the gap between available and required open space for potential emergency assembly points (EAP) in Dhaka City: A case study of Mirpur area. International Journal of Latest Research in Humanities and Social Science (IJLRHSS), 4(10), 61–67.

25. Podder, M., Hasan, M. K., & Islam, M. J. (2022). Seismic vulnerability assessment of existing buildings by rapid visual screening method: A study on Ward 27 in Dhaka South City Corporation. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 4(2), 77–91.

26. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill.

27. Soltani, A., Ardalan, A., Boloorani, A. D., Haghdoost, A., & Hosseinzadeh-Attar, M. J. (2015). Criteria for site selection of temporary shelters after earthquakes: A Delphi panel. PLOS Currents Disasters, 7. https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.dis.16f9730a13eaa68c0b0ecbed3c5b5990

28. Soltani, A., Ardalan, A., Boloorani, A. D., Haghdoost, A., & Hosseinzadeh-Attar, M. J. (2014). Site selection criteria for sheltering after earthquakes: A systematic review. PLOS Currents, 6. https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.dis.17ad1f98fb85be80785d0a81ced6a7a6

29. Sphere Project. (2011). Sphere handbook: Humanitarian charter and minimum standards in humanitarian response. https://spherestandards.org/handbook-2011/

30. SYNER-G Project. (2013). Systemic seismic vulnerability and risk analysis for buildings, lifeline networks and infrastructures safety gain: Reference report. European Commission, Seventh Framework Programme.

31. Tai, C., Lee, Y., & Lin, C. (2010). Urban disaster prevention shelter location and evacuation behavior analysis. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 9(1), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.9.215

32. Unal, M., & Uslu, C. (2016). GIS-based accessibility analysis of urban emergency shelters: The case of Adana City. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 42, 95–101.

33. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). (2013). Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action: Summary of reports 2007–2013. UNISDR.

34. Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028

35. Wang, Y., Han, Y., Luo, A., Xu, S., Chen, J., & Liu, W. (2024). Site selection and prediction of urban emergency shelter based on VGAE-RF model. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 14368.

36. Wright, K. C., & Johnston, D. M. (2010). Post-earthquake sheltering needs: How loss of structures and services affects decision making for evacuation. In 2010 New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Conference Proceedings (Vol. 21, p. 23). Wellington, New Zealand.

37. Zaman, A. A., Sifty, S., Rakhine, N. J., Abdul, A., Amin, R., Khalid, M., Tanvir, M. H., Hasan, K., & Barua, S. (2018). Earthquake risks in Bangladesh and evaluation of awareness among the university students. Journal of Earth Science & Climatic Change, 9(7), 482.

38. Zhao, L., Li, H., Sun, Y., Huang, R., Hu, Q., Wang, J., & Gao, F. (2017). Planning emergency shelters for urban disaster resilience: An integrated location-allocation modeling approach. Sustainability, 9(11), 2098. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112098

39. Zhou, J., Nie, G., & Liu, Y. (2024). Multi-criteria comparison analysis of spatial equity for emergency shelters in old and new urban districts: A case study in Wuhua District and Chenggong District of Kunming City, China. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 108, 104547.

Downloads

Published

2025-12-24

How to Cite

Ahmed, N., & Islam, M. S. (2025). COSI-SAFE: A GIS-Based Multi-Criteria Framework for Evaluating Urban Open Space Suitability for Post-Earthquake Emergency Sheltering. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 7(2), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.18485/ijdrm.2025.7.2.10

Issue

Vol. 7 No. 2 (2025): International Journal of Disaster Risk Management

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Nazma Ahmed, Md. Shahidul Islam

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This journal operates under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction, adaptation, and transformation in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.

Authors retain the copyright of their articles.

The International Journal of Disaster Risk Management (IJDRM) encourages and permits authors to:

  • Post pre-print (submitted version), post-print (accepted version), and publisher’s version/PDF of their articles on personal websites, institutional repositories, disciplinary repositories, and academic networks such as ResearchGate, Academia.edu, or departmental websites,

  • Do so at any time, including before or after publication,

  • Provided that appropriate credit is given to the original publication in this journal, including:

    • Full bibliographic details

    • A clear mention of the journal name

    • A direct link to the article’s DOI (as an HTML link)

No prior permission is required from the publisher or editors for such actions, as long as the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license are followed.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.