Food security and climate change perceptions of different groups .1 Perceptions of household food security .1 Perceptions of household food security

As food security is an important consideration in understanding HIV/Aids and climate change vulnerability, perceptions of household food security were disaggregated by site, household head gender types and income quartiles.

Lesseyton households were on average significantly more food secure than households in Gatyana, based on scores derived from weighting the responses (Table 6.5.1). However, on average households in both sites were food insecure.

Households with only adult females reported on average the highest food security in both sites, while households with only adult males reported the lowest food security (Table 6.5.1). However, these differences were not significant.

Table 6.5.1: Differences in mean (± standard error) weighted perceptions of food security for households in different groups in Lesseyton and Gatyana

Lesseyton Gatyana

Total Mean 0.96±0.62 0.70±0.62

N 170 168

P Value 0.003

Test T-test

Gender Male only Mean 0.91±0.121 0.65±0.124

N 47 37

Male with female Mean 0.91±0.122 0.70±0.120

N 45 40

Female with male Mean 1.00±0.111 0.69±0.138

N 53 42

Female only Mean 1.08±0.162 0.75±0.121

N 25 48

P Value 0.810 0.180

Test ANOVA ANOVA

Income Lowest income Mean 0.86±0.130 0.64±0.131

N 42 42

Low income Mean 1.05±0.132 0.51±0.108

N 39 45

Moderate income Mean 0.84±0.123 0.77±0.130

N 45 39

High income Mean 1.11±0.114 0.88±0.132

N 44 41

P Value 0.305 0.954

Test ANOVA ANOVA

90

In both sites, food security did not improve as income increased (Table 6.5.1), although households in the high income quartile had higher mean weighted scores compared to the other quartiles.

Generally, households in Lesseyton considered themselves to be significantly more food secure than those in Gatyana. However, rural households have been found to be more food secure than more urbanised areas in South Africa, owing to the role that proximity to cultivation contributes to food security (Schönfeldt et al., 2010). Within the two sites, higher income households and female headed households tended to rate themselves as more food secure than other groups in their respective sites.

Interestingly, the men’s mental map in Lesseyton (see 6.2.2) did not feature food security, yet male headed households generally consider themselves less food secure than female headed households in this site. This could indicate that male headed households’ food security is generally lower as these households do not place as much value in good nourishment as do female headed households. In participatory exercises in both sites, women linked poor food security to ill-health in participatory exercises, while the men in Gatyana linked hunger as a cause of crime in the area (see 6.2).

In community meetings in both sites, results from this study relating to women’s lower income yet higher food security were presented. In Gatyana, a man suggested that this could be attributed to men’s tendency to spend more of their money on alcohol, whereas women spend most of their income on food. There appeared to be agreement with this suggestion in the meeting in Gatyana, as well as in Lesseyton when this was suggested in a community meeting held there. As alcohol was offered as an explanatory cause for men’s comparatively low food security, and as alcohol and substance abuse were described as drivers in all the mental modelling exercises (see 6.2), alcohol use was further explored (see 6.6 below). The higher food security of female headed households reiterates findings that child nutritional status tends to be higher amongst de facto female headed households (Kennedy

& Peters, 1992).

6.5.2 Perceptions of household-level climate change impacts

The mean weighted and summed perceptions of the extent to which the weather affects various aspects of household life were not significantly different between households in each of the two sites (Table 6.5.2).

Amongst the climate change perceptions scores of the various types of household, the only significant difference was amongst the income quartiles in Lesseyton, where a higher impact was noted as income increased. This could be a reflection of wealthier households being more affected by the drought in this area, as seen in their higher rates of crop failure and livestock loss (see 6.4 above; 8.2 for livelihood portfolios).

91 6.7 Discussion

6.7.1 Multiple stressors and differential vulnerability

When multiple stressors interact there is a potential for heightened stress and vulnerability (see 1.1.1).

Households in different locations, and with different genders and income levels can be differentially vulnerable to shocks and stressors, whether these are driven principally by economic systems (such as high health related expenses, caring for orphaned children or low income levels), social systems (such as the marginalisation of women), or ecological systems (such as livelihoods based on crops and livestock affected by drought). It has frequently been suggested that male headed households can be vulnerable in different ways to female headed households (O’laighlin; 1998). Similarly, households across income quartiles can be vulnerable in different ways. Different geographical localities also elicit nuanced experiences, whether these arise from socio-political, economic, or ecological differences. For instance, while the two sites had similar HIV/Aids impact experiences, gender and income were significant factors only in Lesseyton and not in Gatyana. In contrast, income was fairly evenly distributed amongst gender headship types in Lesseyton, but was significantly different amongst households in Gatyana.

This chapter has highlighted how stressors act and interact across multiple scales in complex ways.

The main drivers of stressors in the two sites were seen to be poverty and unemployment, although Table 6.5.2: Differences in mean (± standard error) weighted perceptions of climate change for households in different groups in Lesseyton and Gatyana.

Lesseyton Gatyana

Total Mean 15.69±0.41 15.81±0.38

N 170 170

P Value 0.842

Test T-test

Gender Male only Mean 15.51±0.77 15.03

N 47 37

Male with female Mean 16.36±0.85 15.93±0.78

N 45 41

Female with male Mean 16.32±0.62 15.42±0.7

N 53 43

Female only Mean 13.52±1.27 16.52±0.7

N 25 48

P Value 0.137 0.536

Test ANOVA ANOVA

Income Lowest income Mean 13.81±0.86 16.44±0.75

N 42 43

Low income Mean 15.41±0.86 15.26±0.7

N 39 46

Moderate income Mean 16.4±0.73 15.54±0.85

N 45 39

High income Mean 17.02±0.8 15.9±0.79

N 44 41

P Value 0.032 0.712

Test ANOVA ANOVA

92 these had many contributing causal factors. The groups perceived that government intervention was the primary agent capable of addressing the main drivers of poverty and unemployment, if these are possible to address at all, implying that the solution rested beyond the level of the household or even the community. These main drivers aggravate and are aggravated by additional stressors, notably, a lack of education, crime, disease (such as HIV/Aids), difficulties in farming and the limited

availability of water (whether climate-related or provided via infrastructure). While these stressors interact to form longer-term, often perpetuating vulnerable conditions (Chapter 5) they frequently manifest as shocks in the short term. The finding that the high income quartiles tend to experience more affects of HIV/Aids could be an indication of these households being at risk of falling below a threshold of vulnerability (see 3.4.6; McGarry, 2008).

Overall, this chapter revealed many aspects of the two sites that were counter to expectation and the hypotheses formed at the onset (see 5.1.3). In general, there were fewer differences between the two sites, and between households differentiated by gender headship types and income quartiles, than expected. Gender was not a significant factor for income poverty in Lesseyton (see 6.3.1), nor for HIV/Aids affects in Gatyana (see 6.3.3). Site was not a significant variable for HIV/Aids effects (see 6.3.2). Only one shock – wage loss – was significantly different between the two sites (see 6.4). Food security was different only between sites, while the only significant difference between climate change impact perceptions was amongst income quartiles in Lesseyton (see 6.5). Alcohol usage was only significant amongst gender groups (see 6.6). However, that there were fewer significant

differences than expected is itself an interesting finding which highlights the complexity of multiple, interacting factors shaping these contexts.

These differential experiences of vulnerability are also further shaped by a multitude of additional contextual factors besides gender, geographical location and poverty. Such factors include the variety of resources available to a household to construct and define their livelihoods, and minimise exposure and respond to shocks and stress. These resources are a household’s human, social, physical, natural and financial capital stocks (see Chapter 3), and will be explored in the next two chapters for a more comprehensive understanding of differential vulnerability.

6.7.2 Implications for adaptation, resilience and development

The variety of experiences and identities presented here are important considerations in understanding perceptions of vulnerability, with implications for capacity to adapt (Frank et al., 2011). Contrastive experiences of vulnerability by particular localities, livelihoods and social groups (such as different gender groups) frequently overlap, exposing them to multiple stressors.

Incorporating broader spatial scales across socio-ecological systems raises awareness of the extent to which vulnerability can emerge beyond the sphere of control of the household. This may imply a limit

93 to the household’s capacity to respond (Adger et al., 2009; Brooks et al. 2005). In both sites, during participatory discussions amongst men and women, as well as with the youth and elderly (see Chapter 5), knowledge and agency repeatedly surfaced as a valuable mitigating factors for vulnerability.

When discussing possible and actual responses to stressors within the community, groups in both sites (see Chapter 5 for elderly and youth perspectives) placed heavy emphasis on the need for government to drive development in the areas to overcome the problems identified by the groups. Men in Gatyana felt that unemployment would only be alleviated with infrastructural development and skills training initiated at a regional or national level. While men in Lesseyton felt they could influence government to make these changes, women’s concluding analysis in both sites that only God could solve their problems could be indicative of their comparatively heightened feelings of a lack of agency and lack of political power. Alongside discussions of the role of the state in facilitating development ran criticisms of the government and of democracy in general. Government officials across scales were frequently seen as corrupt and self-serving, while moral corruption within the community (such as misuse and abuse of government grants, crime and violence, substance abuse and alcoholism) arising from personal freedoms were also criticised. Political empowerment is needed to challenge

environmental injustices, such as climate change (Faber & McCarthy, 2003; Thomas & Twyman, 2005), as these frequently arise from broader scales beyond the sphere of control of the household (see Chapters 3 & 5).

94 CHAPTER 7: HOUSEHOLD ASSETS DIFFERENTIATED BY SITE, GENDER AND

INCOME