Abstract

6.1. Introduction

In this chapter, the primary focus is to examine, using statistical methods, the possible association of vulnerability-related responses with specific characteristics of household groups. The statistical analysis is meant to increase the conciseness, clarity, and objectivity with which the results are presented and interpreted. The results also complement the descriptive results of Chapter 5 when answering Research Question I:

What is the vulnerability of different sectors of a community in Mauritius to flood hazards, and how does it relate to recovery and resilience building?

6.1.1 Independent or explanatory variables - Household groups and characteristics

Independent or explanatory variables are obtained by reducing or collapsing selected household socio-economic characteristics (Section 5.2.1) into two elements or sub-groups that can be used to test possible associations with the dependent variables.

Several studies have identified socio-economic groups with specific characteristics as being vulnerable to disasters: families with children and elderly members (Cutter, 2003); children (Wisner et al, 2006); families with children and families with low income level (Houston et al., 2007); age, education level, employment level and household size (Ferdinand et al., 2012); older adults (Tuohy and Stephens, 2012); and children/young adults (Whittle et al., 2012). Therefore, five explanatory variables were selected from the above that best describe the socio-economic characteristics of the households in the three locations, namely:

(i) Independent variables

a) Household size

Household size was divided into two sub-groups: (a) families with four or fewer members, and (b) those with more than four members. The limiting value is based on

157

the 2010 Census in Mauritius, which gave the average number of members per household as 3.9. The census period was close to the period of the questionnaire survey, namely, August/September 2010 for CLC, October/November 2010 for LH, and December 2010/February 2011 for GB. However, since then, the average number of members per family has decreased to 3.6 (Housing Census, 2011).

b) Level of literacy

The two sub-groups were householders with (a) a low level of literacy, and (b) a high level of literacy. The low-literacy sub-group was considered to be those who had received up to six years of schooling or had completed the Certificate of Primary Education (CPE). It was assumed that the other sub-group had at least attended a technical school or acquired secondary or higher level of education.

c) Income level

The two sub-groups were (a) low income, and (b) high income householders. The low-income sub-group comprised those who claimed to be factory or manual workers or who were unemployed or partly employed. Their monthly salary was estimated at Rs7, 055 (about £110 at July 2007 rate) or less. The high income group comprised those with a monthly salary of more than Rs7, 055. This group included householders employed as skilled workers, either in public service or as professionals. The salary was the average monthly income of household categories indicated in Poverty Analysis 2006/2007 by the Central Statistics Office (2007), Ministry of Finance and Economic Empowerment.

This was the most up-to-date figure on salaries available at the time of the survey.

d) Household without/with children

This variable was divided into two sub-groups: (a) households with no children, and (b) households with children younger than 14 years. The children younger than 3 are generally under the care of parents and those between 3 and 14 years are at pre-primary or primary, or at the first year of secondary. Both sub-groups are highly dependent on their parents.

158 e) Household without/with old persons

The two sub-groups were households (a) with no persons above 60 years, and (b) with persons above 60 years. The 60-year age limit was chosen as it marked the age of retirement, and retirees benefit from a universal pension scheme. They stay mostly at home and are dependent on the householders for their overall well-being. At the time of the survey, the mandatory retirement age in both public and private sectors was 60 years. Since then, the retirement age has been raised to 65 years.

(ii) Structure and characteristics of the groups

The chapter explores statistically how far the vulnerability of householders could be associated with family size, education level, income level, and being households with children and with elderly persons. Table 6.1 gives the frequency (and corresponding % to facilitate comparison across regions) of households in each of the sub-groups used in the statistical test of independence.

Table 6.1 Breakdown of the survey data into two sub-groups of households for each of the five sets of independent variables of the three communities in terms of frequency and percentage

Region CLC LH GB

Independent variables (10 Subgroups)

Number of households surveyed

236 131 216

Number % Number % Number %

Size of family ≤4 67 28.4 77 58.8 176 81.5

Size of family >4 169 71.6 54 41.2 32 14.8

Literacy low 93 39.4 55 42 149 69.0

Literacy high 56 23.7 21 16 62 28.7

Low income 123 52.1 43 32.8 157 72.7

High income 113 47.9 85 64.9 56 25.9

Without young children 56 23.7 37 28.2 113 52.3

With young children 174 73.7 94 71.8 103 47.7

Without elderly 170 72.0 93 71 151 69.9

With elderly 65 27.5 38 29 65 30.1

159

From Table 6.1, the total number of questionnaire replies received was least for LH (131) while those for CLC and GB were comparable (236 and 216, respectively). A brief examination of the table gives the following comparative socio-economic data for the three locations:

i) In CLC, there were three times as many large families as small ones. In LH, smaller families were about 1.5 more numerous than large ones, but in GB, there was an overwhelming number of small families.

ii) In both CLC and LH, a significant number of householders (35% at CLC and 42% at LH) did not specify their level of education. At GB, nearly all specified their level of education. At CLC, the proportion of those with a higher level of education to the lower level group was 0.6 while the corresponding figures for LH and GB were about 0.4.

iii) In CLC, the numbers with low and high incomes were similar; in LH, the number with a high income was twice the number of those with a low income, and in GB, the number with a low income is three times those with a low income.

iv) In CLC and LH, three times as many families had children compared to those who did not. However, in GB, the number of householders with children was about the same as those who did not have children.

v) In all three regions, the proportion of households without/with elderly was about the same for all three regions at 2.5.

(iii) Dependent variables

In the statistical analysis, 220 dependent variables or response variables were identified in the questionnaire. These were grouped into nine broad themes (Section 4.9.1) along the conceptual framework of vulnerability. The theme ‘household characteristics’ was applied as an independent variable. The grouping used throughout the study ensures uniformity and ease of interpretation.

160

The use of Pearson’s chi-square test for the different types of variables and the conditions of its applicability are discussed in Appendix 12 along with the procedures used for obtaining the corresponding values. The complete set of chi-square values as calculated using SPSS for the possible association between independent and dependant variables is given in Appendix 13.