Question III. How is the conceptual framework of ‘environmental justice’ useful in understanding variations in vulnerability and resilience in groups of communities?
Chapter 5 Descriptive analysis of the questionnaire survey
5.2 CASE STUDY ONE - RESULTS OF SURVEY AT CLC
This case study at CLC was carried out in August and September 2010. A full
description of the geography of the site and the selection of communities for this case study is found in Section 3.13.1.
5.2.1 Household characteristics
This section explores the household characteristics of the flood-affected group or community from CLC that was selected for the case study .The number of households in the sample is 236, which comprises 1191 members.
Source: Author’s survey
Figure 5.1 Frequency distribution of the number of members in CLC households ((i) Distribution of number of members by households
The results of the analysis of the questionnaire survey found that the average number of members in each household was 5.5, with 72% (n=169) of households having more than 4 members (Figure 5.1). However, according to the 2006/2007 population survey by the Mauritius Central Statistics Office (2007), the average household in Mauritius consisted of about 4 members; thus there were a relatively high proportion of households in CLC
121
with families with more than the average number of members, which are henceforth described as ‘large’ families.
(ii) Age–group of household members
The distribution of number of members by age group is given in Figure 5.2, which shows that 34.6% of members were children below the age of 14 years and 7.9% were elderly persons above 60; both groups are generally considered as vulnerable.
Source: Author’s survey
Figure 5.2 Number of CLC household members within different age groups (iii) Householders’ level of literacy
Of those who replied to the survey (Table 5.1), a large majority (62%) had at least primary education and a significant number had secondary education. Education is compulsory and has been free up to secondary level since 1988. The level of literacy for
Table 5.1 Level of literacy of CLC householders Level of literacy of
Total respondents 149 100
Source: Author’s survey
the year 2007 for Mauritius was 88% (UNICEF, 2009, p.89). It is said that informed people interpret risk communication differently from ordinary people (Haynes et al., 2008), so this information can be used to investigate how households’ level of literacy
40
Number of household members of different age groups in CLC
122
could influence their understanding of warning systems, preparedness, and coping capacity, and the use of science and technology in recovery, awareness, and resilience-building.
(iv) Occupation and income level of householders
Table 5.2 indicates number of respondents according to their occupation. It is likely that many of those who responded were stating the occupation of their spouses while those who answered ‘none’ were likely to be unemployed, looking for work, or doing petty jobs. Based on the salary scale of the 2013 Government Pay Research Bureau (PRB), it could be assumed that 146 (Factory (factory, artisans, housewife, and none), representing about 60% of the households surveyed, were in the low-income category.
Table 5.2 Occupation of CLC householders Occupation of
Government service 31 13.1
Professional 26 11.0
Artisan 43 18.2
Housewife 25 10.6
None 45 19.1
Total respondents 236 100
Source: Author’s survey
5.2.2 Experience of flood hazard
(i) Frequency of flood hazard
The survey was carried out during August/ September 2010, more than two years after the historic flood disaster of 26 March 2008, which caused the loss of four lives. Such a loss had not occurred in the previous four decades. The event was therefore a memorable one, and most households still remembered it during this survey.
The experiences of flooding over the period of three years prior to the survey, as recalled by the 233 respondents, were: more than 95% of householders that responded agreed or strongly agreed to having experienced a flood during the period, 70% agreed or strongly agreed to having experienced more than one flood, and about the same percentage agreed to having experienced a flood every year.
123 (ii) Type and extent of flood experienced
The types of floods experienced were those arising from cyclones and heavy seasonal rainfall (Appendix 12, Table 1).
Of the 136 householders that replied, about 90% agreed and strongly agreed that their houses had been inundated (Appendix 12, Table 2). The extent of flooding varied with the height the flood water reached. In cases where houses and gardens were flooded, the water level often reached up to ankle height and sometimes up to knee height. The results indicate that households were differentially exposed to flooding.
5.2.3 Impact of flood
(i) Tangible impact
The extent of tangible or material damage caused by the flood water varied from household to household; a significant proportion of respondents (53% of n=125 respondents) reported damage to flooring and personal belongings as a consequence of the flood (Appendix 12, Table 3). More than 60% had had their garden damaged (Appendix 12, Table 4); fruit trees and especially vegetable patches had been destroyed.
Of the 136 respondents, some 60% perceived that the water supply had been interrupted temporarily. Roads were very adversely affected, and over 90% of households reported that schools had been closed for one day (Appendix 12, Table 5).
(ii) Intangible impact
About 75% of the respondents were upset about the damage caused by the flooding since it took them time, effort, and resources to return to normal. Emotional impacts resulted from families being disrupted, children missing school, and the loss of sentimental items (Appendix 12, Tables 7). Carroll et al. (2010) found that disasters often result in people suffering from psychological health issues and from severe disruption in their lives. The lasting tangible impact is given in Appendix 12, Table 8.
Lasting intangible impacts among households resulted from anxiety about the future of their families and the recurrence of flood-related diseases after a flood (Figure 5.3). It is
124
noted that during the 2005/2006 rainy seasons, there was an outbreak of chikungunya4, a disease caused by mosquitoes (Beesoon et al., 2008; Goorah et al., 2008). This may partly explain the very high level of responses expressing anxiety about flood-related diseases.
Source: Author’s survey
Figure 5.3 Lasting flood aftermath emotional stress as expressed by CLC households 5.2.4 Exposure
Table 5.3 Reasons for living on site as expressed by CLC householders
Source: Author’s survey
4Chikungunya is an emerging mosquito-borne viral disease that has affected Mauritius, with two recent outbreaks in 2005 and 2006
Expression of concern about family by households in CLC
Strongly
125
About 90% of the households claim to live on inland wetland (Appendix 12; Table 9).
An overwhelming 62% (152 households) of the respondents claimed that they came to live on that site through their own choice (Table 5.3). For 21% of the respondents, being close to their relatives was an important factor that probably could influence their social resilience. Fewer respondents claimed to live there for job purposes.
5.2.5 Socio-economic conditions of households
(i) Land occupation and house ownership
Nearly 60% of households owned property with housing on it. About 27% of households (n=62) lived on state lands (Table 5.4). Temporary houses were defined as those made of precarious materials that were vulnerable to adverse weather conditions.
The types of houses the households occupy are given in Appendix 12, Table 10. Some 20 % of the households live in fragile houses covered with tin sheets.
Table 5.4 Land and house ownership in CLC
Ownership Number of
respondents (n)
Percentage of respondents
Own land 133 58.6
Own house 147 64.6
Live in low-cost housing1 42 18.5
Live on governments property
62 27.3
1concrete, partly tin/concrete or wholly tin material Source: Author’s survey
The issue of land ownership and the choice of location may be related to the historical factors of land use and population movement over the years. In order to accommodate the increase in the population in Mauritius since 1965, many agricultural land areas have been transformed into urban spaces (Lutz and Holm, 1993). The region of CLC has been developed with the construction of many low-cost housing schemes, enabling more settlements of medium- to low-income groups to be built.
As regards the social factors that influence living conditions, about 90% of those who replied agreed or strongly agreed that they were living in an unsafe neighbourhood with drug addicts and the risk of exposure to flood-related diseases (Appendix 12, Table 11).
126
Some 80% agreed or strongly agreed that they were living among disrupted families, and about 30% were of the opinion that they were living in crowded conditions. This analysis illustrates the poor socio-economic and environmental conditions, which may account for the vulnerability of the households.
5.2.6 Recovery
(i) Getting property back to normal after flood
Of the 130 responses, nearly 60% of households restored their houses to normal immediately after a flood event. Some took a longer time to recover, while a significant 35 (27%) households never got their houses back to normal.
Table 5.5 shows the perception of the householders of being exposed to damp conditions in a flooded environment. A higher percentage of householders stayed in damp conditions for a day or more compared to those who stayed in such conditions for a short while. A smaller proportion of the householders (15%) agreed that they never lived in damp conditions. Exposure to living in damp conditions was disproportionately distributed amongst households.
Table 5.5 Perception of householders in CLC of living in damp conditions
Number of
agree agree neutral disagree strongly
disagree Total
(ii) Perception of householders of living conditions after a flood
The perception of living conditions after a flood varied among householders. Of the 202 householders who responded, some 37% agreed or strongly agreed that their living conditions had improved after the flood (Appendix 12, Table 12). However, of these, the majority felt that the improvement was only slight. For 49 householders (20%), the living conditions of their family had remained mostly unchanged in the recovery phase
127
of a flood hazard. Only a very small percentage felt that the living conditions had deteriorated.
(iii) Forms of assistance given in the recovery phase
After a flood, some of the householders received short-term assistance from their relatives and from external sources including the government authorities (Appendix 12, Table 13). Various forms of assistance were received (Figure 5.4): 75 householders (31% of the replies) received school materials for their children, and 97 households (40%) received financial help while other forms of assistance included food and household items. Some 76% of 107 respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the assistance from the government was insufficient (Appendix 12, Table 14). Nearly 80%
of those who replied were worried as they had no insurance against hazard risk.
Source: Author’s survey
Figure 5.4 Forms of external assistance received by households in CLC
(iv) Relocation after flood
Of the 113 responses, only 20% of householders agreed to be relocated elsewhere by the government (Appendix 12, Table 15). This low percentage for the relocation strategy among the flood victims may be due to households not being willing to leave their personal belongings, to live away from their community, or for various other reasons.
5.2.7 Resilience - coping and adapting to flood
(i) Precautions taken before a flood
As regards actions taken ahead of a flood event, 142 householders (about 60% of the total households) responded that they made furrows to divert flood water from coming
40.1 35.5 34.7
Type of external assistance (% of replies ) after a flood event in CLC
128
into their houses. Around 44% placed flood guards at their doorsteps. However, only about 10%of households were willing to move to safer places (Figure 5.5). This could be because householders were afraid of losing their personal belongings or for various other personal reasons.
Source: Author’s survey
Figure 5.5 Types of precaution taken ahead of each flood event in CLC (ii) Adapting to flood hazards
One of the most common adaptive measures taken by 35% of the 83 householders who responded to this question was to raise the floors above the previous water mark (Appendix 12, Table 16). Some 20 householders who did not raise the floor level agreed or strongly agreed that they accepted things as they were and lived through the event.
(iii) Reliance for flood protection
Source: Author’s survey; n=155
Figure 5.6 Reliance for protection from floods in CLC
38.1
Precaution taken before each flood event by CLC householders ( in % of responses)
Reliance for protection from flood in CLC
% of responses
129
About 65% of the 155 householders who responded said that they relied on themselves and their families for protection against flooding (Figure 5.6). In addition, some 75% of households also relied on various external sources (charities, local authorities, and the government) for protection during flood events. Less than 10% relied on neighbours or their own community for flood protection.
(iv) Collaborating with the community
About 80% (n=187) of all householders responded that they collaborated with their neighbours by providing them with moral support, and some 40% provided food and short-term assistance (Appendix 12, Table 17). About 85% of householders participated in helping neighbours or in collaborating with them in planning to mitigate the impacts of flooding. However, only 47% were prepared to participate in cleaning debris, and 35% were ready to collaborate with local authorities and NGOs in flood mitigation planning (Appendix 12, Tables 18 and 19).
5.2.8 Awareness of flood hazard
(i) Awareness of living in a flood zone
Most householders who responded stated that they were aware or slightly aware of occupying a flood-risk zone (Table 5.6) and of the increase in flood hazards in recent years (Appendix 12, Table 20).
Table 5.6 Awareness of CLC householders of living in a flood-risk zone
Source: Author’s survey
According to the householders, flooding had increased due to blocked waterways and the lack of sufficient drainage (Figure 5.7). Some households felt that the flood increase was due excessive development, with buildings replacing the natural vegetation in the area and resulting in, overcrowding and deforestation. This raised the issue of
Number of respondents
(n)
% of total respondents
Very much aware 133 56.8
Slightly aware 95 40.6
Not aware 6 2.6
Total 234 100
130
government policies on land-use planning. About 90% of the respondents felt that the increase in flood events was due to climate change. This reflected the awareness and local knowledge on such issues of householders living in the flood risk zone.
Source: Author’s survey
Figure 5.7 Households’ perception of the reasons for the increase in flood events (ii) Flood warning sources
Over 90% of households responded that they received flood warnings from the radio while some 45% received them from the television. Other sources of flood warnings were mobile phones, the internet, and hearing the news from neighbours (Appendix 12, Table 21). Table 5.7 shows that about 45% of households listened regularly to warnings. An equal percentage mentioned that they listened to warnings only some of the time. Only a few householders rarely or never listened to flood warnings (Table 5.7).
Table 5.7 Frequency of listening to flood warnings by CLC households
Source: Author’s survey
Perceived reasons by CLC households for flood increase (% of reponses)
Frequency of listening to
131 (iii) Householders’ opinions on warnings
About 50% of householders agreed that warnings were delivered in time for them to act, and over 70% agreed that they fully understood the warning issued. However, over 90%
of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that flood warnings should be further improved (Appendix 12, Table 22).
5.2.9 Opinion on flood risk reduction measures
(i) Householders’ opinion on government support
About 90% of householders agreed or strongly agreed that the government should improve emergency services and structural measures in flood protection and should take other measures besides flood warnings to mitigate flooding (Appendix 12, Table 23). A high percentage of householders agreed or strongly agreed that in order to raise awareness of flood hazards, the government should invest in flood-awareness programmes in schools, youth clubs, and community centres (Appendix 12, Table 24).
About 35% of householders agreed or strongly agreed that there were differences in government support during and after a flood event. They also voiced their concern regarding differences among communities regarding the government’s support in relief and emergency services, in building flood defences, and in helping them to improve their quality of life. Significantly, about 45% of those who replied did not express any opinion on these issues (Appendix 12, Table 25).
(ii) Households’ opinion on NGOs’ support
Some 20% of householders agreed that there were differences in NGOs’ support among communities regarding relief operations, in building flood defences, and in helping them to improve their quality of life. As in the case of the government, about 44% of those who replied did not express any opinion on these issues (Appendix 12, Table 26).
(iv) Householders’ perception Households’ perceptions on participation in decision-making (DM)
About 40% of householders agreed or strongly agreed that they felt ‘left out’ after a flood event, and more than 60% felt that the government should allow them and the community to participate in the decision-making (Appendix 12 Tables 27 and 28).
132