Resultados

Table 6.10 shows that a higher proportion of the large families perceived that warnings were not delivered in a timely manner. It could be that they found that the lead time necessary to ensure their security was inadequate leaving them in vulnerable conditions in the advent of the flood.

In addition, the difference in perception may be largely related to the better living conditions of small households. It was found that in Mauritius, households with fewer persons had more living space available to each member and hence had better living conditions with access to a better communication network and a greater awareness of any warning bulletins issued (Mauritius Central Statistics Office: Poverty Analysis, 2006/, 2007 and Housing Census: Statistics Office, 2011). The Census also reported that over 90% of the population had televisions or radio sets, which were the most common sources of warnings (5.2.8 ii). Access to alerts through a communication network could ensure greater awareness and facilitate resilience by helping people make better-informed decisions (Collins et al., 2008). Smaller households tended to be more educated and better informed and with greater ability to interpret risk (Haynes et al., 2008). They were thus less vulnerable to flood risk.

Response variables

Chi-square test results Summary statistics χ ²

df p-value

Small households

≤4 members (%) Large households

>4 members (%) agree* disagree* agree* disagree*

Warning was delivered in time

to act (NP=66/168) 9.521 3 0.023 63.7 19.7 45.3 37.5

168 6.7 Government and NGO support

(i) Government support to flood hazard victims (dependent variables F, G and H, Table 6.11)

A significant number from both groups, especially the high income group (50%), did not wish to express an opinion on government actions (dependent variables F, G and H Table 6.11). Among the low income group, up to 40% maintained a neutral position though a greater proportion of the low income group perceived differences in government support during relief and emergency situations or in building flood defences. However, the proportion was smaller and similar when it came to improving quality of life.

Table 6.11 Statistics defining relationship between household income (in %) and other dependent or response variables in CLC significant at p<0.05 level

Response variables

Chi-square test results Summary statistics

χ ² df p-value

169

‘disagree’; df- degrees of freedom; NR=number of respondents (low/high income households)

Their opinion on government support may be framed by the past experience of such households. For example, during the major flood event of 2008, the only external aid the flood victims received was in the form of cash from the government of around Rs 500 (equivalent to £10) per household. It was found that households from a low economic background often used that money to buy their immediate basic necessities for a few days. Thus, such assistance could lead to more vulnerability and could impede resilience (Tobin, 1999). Furthermore, expectations could be high in view of the high demand of those seriously affected. These might not be adequately satisfied, thus reinforcing the perception held by low income households that there are differences in government support.

(ii) NGOs support to flood hazard victims (dependent variables I, J, K and L, Table 6.11)

As in the case of the government, a significant number from both groups, especially the high income group (50%) did not wish to express an opinion (dependent variables I, J, K, and L, Table 6.11). Among the low income group, up to 40% maintained a neutral position. The low income group invariably perceived that there were differences in NGO support to the community in various aspects. The high income householders were less concerned. However, within each group, especially among the high income group, a higher percentage disagreed rather than agreed that there were differences in the support given to the community.

The disparity in NGOs support as seen by low income households could be explained by the working methods of NGOs when working with vulnerable groups. As stated by a study on in the Common Country Assessment Mauritius (Office of the United Nations

170

Coordinator Mauritius, 2000), there could be a lack of coordination between vulnerable groups and the authorities. Indeed, Pelling (1998) mentioned the following factors that contributed to the lack of coordination in Guyana in the aftermath of a flood hazards:

(i) limited resources

(ii) inequality in providing support to the needy vulnerable groups

(iii) political affiliation may contribute to disparity in support of households of low economic background

(iv) elites chosen at the local level as leaders may have political contacts and they may give priority to those they know

These factors show some similarity in the context of Mauritius and could be further explored in the focus groups.

(iii) Lack of support from local authorities (dependent variable E, Table 6.12)

Income group

Table 6.12 Statistics defining relationship between household income (in %) and support from local authorities in CLC significant at p<0.05 level

Response variables

Chi-square test results Summary statistics

χ ² df p-value

Households with low income (%)

Households with high income (%)

agree* disagree* agree* disagree*

E Lack of support from local

authorities (NR=120/111) 16.989 4 0.003 53.1 25.2 35.0 41.7 Source: Author’s survey

Note: agree* = sum of ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’; disagree* = sum of ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘disagree’;

df- degrees of freedom; NR=number of respondents (low/high income households)

Among those who replied to the question related to support from authorities (dependent variable E, Table 6.12), about 53% of the low income group and 35% of the high income group felt that there was a lack of support from the authorities. About 20% from each group did not express an opinion on the subject.

The low income householders were generally needy and came to expect ready assistance from the authorities. However, these needs were not always fully satisfied, leaving householders with the feeling that the authorities did not support them. In