La reducción de la altura de la pastura en el consumo

(i) Precautions taken before a flood and adapting to flood hazards

In order to minimise the adverse impact of a flood event, households had developed a number of coping strategies. About 40% of householders (n=88) took essential precautions, such as stockpiling food and removing possessions from the ground, while about 15% placed flood guards at doorsteps or made furrows to divert flood water away from the house (Table 5.19). Very few householders were willing to move to safer places.

Table 5.19 Precautions taken by householders in GB before each flood event

Source: Author’s survey

Number of respondents

% of responses Remove possessions from

ground 88 40.7

Evacuate to safer grounds 16 7.4

Place flood guard at doorsteps 31 14.4 Make furrows to divert water 28 13.0

Move to refugee centre 5 2.3

Move to relatives’ place 9 4.2

Move to neighbour’s place 3 1.4

Stockpile food 87 40.3

Move animals to safer grounds 11 5.1

None of the above 36 16.7

149

Long-term adaptive strategies involved the raising of floors to above the watermark or the building of another level. Of the 65 householders who responded, 70% lived through flood events and accepted things as they were (Appendix 12, Table 63).

(ii) Reliance for flood protection

Of the 195 householders who replied, about 90% responded that they relied on themselves for flood protection. While around 27% relied on the family, very few relied on external support, such as NGOs, and charity organisations and local and government authorities (Appendix 12, Table 64).

(iii) Collaborating with the community

Of the 134 householders who responded, over 60% helped their neighbours and around 35% (n=75) collaborated with their communities to clean up after a flood. However, very few liaised with local authorities in planning measures to reduce the impact of flooding in their localities (Appendix 12, Table 65).

5.4.8 Awareness of flood hazard

(i) Awareness of living in a flood zone

About 63% of those who responded (n=136) were aware to varying degrees that they were living in a flood risk area and that there had been flood events in recent years (Appendix 12, Tables 66).

Among the reasons given for the increase in flooding in their locality were blocked drainage systems and haphazard development over the area (Figure 5.17 and Appendix 12, Table 67). A majority of householders claimed that the increase in flood frequency was due to a change in weather patterns or climate change, an issue that had become very popular in media coverage.

150

Source: Author’s survey

Figure 5.17 Perception of householders in GB for increase in flood events (ii) Flood warning sources

Most householders responded that the radio and the television were the most common media sources of flood warnings. About 50% of householders (n=108) listened to warnings some of the time, 40% listened regularly, and a few never listened to them (Table 5.20).

Table 5.20 Frequency of listening to flood warnings by householders in GB

Source: Author’s survey

(iii) Householders’ opinions on warnings

Of the 214 householders who responded, 86% agreed or strongly agreed that warnings were delivered in time for them to act and that they were fully understood. On the other hand, 61% of householders who responded (n=215) were of the opinion that flood warnings should be improved further (Appendix 12, Table 68).

8.3

Perceived reasons given by householders in GB for flood increase in region

151 5.4.9 Opinion of flood risk reduction measures

(i) Householders’ opinions on government support

Householders gave diverse opinions on government support for flood risk reduction measures. About 60% of householders who responded (n=214) agreed or strongly agreed that the government should improve emergency measures after a flood.

Furthermore, about 70% agreed that the government should improve and strengthen flood proof structures (Appendix 12, Table 69).

Over 90% of householders who replied strongly agreed that the government should invest in flood awareness programmes in schools, youth clubs, and community centres (Appendix 12, Table 70). Of the 187 householders who responded, some 40% were of the opinion that there were differences in government support to their community during and after a flood event. About the same proportion of householders agreed that the government should help them in improving their quality of life (Appendix 12, Table 71).

(ii) Householders’ opinions on NGOs’ support

About 30% of householders who responded agreed that there were differences in NGOs’ support from one sector of the community to another after a flood. About 15%

felt that NGOs should help with emergency services and with investing in flood prevention structures in their locality. It was also thought that they should furthermore help the community in improving their quality of life. Significantly, about 70% did not respond to the question relating to NGOs (Appendix 12, Table 72).

(iv) Householders’ perceptions of participation in environmental decision-making (EDM)

Of the 213 householders who responded, 50% agreed or strongly agreed that they were

‘left out’ by the government in participating on decision-making concerning flood management in their locality. Some 30% of householders, however, agreed that the government should allow them to participate in EDM (Appendix 12, Table 73).

152

5.5 Comparison of findings amongst the three communities (i) Characteristics of households

The analysis of the questionnaire survey showed that the characteristics of the households in the three communities varied in several ways. Compared to LH and GB, there were more households with a large number of family members in CLC, with a high percentage of dependent persons under one roof. Although the levels of literacy of households were about the same in all three communities, there was a relatively high number of households belonging to low-income groups in CLC and GB.

Householders’ experiences of flooding varied, but in all three locations, householders responded that they had experienced flooding after every heavy rainfall. Houses and neighbourhoods were flooded, and the water level reached different heights with associated damage to houses, property, and infrastructure in CLC, LH, and GB.

Intangible impacts, such as being upset about not being able to recover immediately after the flood and anxiety about living conditions and about recurrent flood-borne diseases were prevalent in all three cases.

(ii) Social conditions of households

It was found that nearly all householders surveyed occupied flood risk zones through their own choice or in order to live in their own communities. Making their own choice may mean that households might have taken their own risk or might have had only limited options available to them. Virtually no investments were needed as flood risk zones had little or no land value. In CLC and GB, households occupying government lands live in precariously built houses. Environmental factors, like overcrowding and living in unsafe neighbourhoods, could have contributed to the vulnerability of households in the three communities.

(iii) Recovery and resilience-building

Patterns of recovery varied over a time scale in CLC, LH, and GB. Some householders could not get the household back to normal due to a lack of financial resources or a lack of insurance cover. The variation of living in damp conditions over a longer period had an adverse psychological impact on some householders.

153

Most of the householders took the responsibility to protect their own families from future harm rather than relying on authorities or others. Fewer householders relied on social protection from outside sources in LH and GB than in CLC. Making furrows and placing flood guards to divert water at the doorstep were common strategies in all three locations. Longer-term adaptive strategies were to build floors higher than the previous water mark, implying that past experience of households played an important role in building resilience against flooding. Strengthening the community network and liaising with local authorities were also taken as social protection measures in all three locations.

Most householders declined the opportunity to move out to other locations; this could be from a fear of losing their belongings. Householders occupying government land might be afraid that they might not be allowed to come back and reclaim their property.

This could explain why some householders in CLC and GB adapted themselves to flood conditions by accepting things as they were and living through each flood event.

Most householders in all three communities were aware that they were living in a flood risk zone, and they gave a number of reasons for the increase in the number of flood hazards in their areas. The insufficient drainage systems resulting from unplanned land use to accommodate a growing population, blocked waterways, and a change in weather patterns in recent years were seen as factors contributing to the increase in the frequency of flood hazards.

(iv) Attitude of local and national institutions

Not all householders were regular listeners to flood warnings, but most of them felt there was a need to improve the flood warning systems. Opinions on flood risk reduction measures were similar in all three cases. Most householders thought that the government should improve the flood risk reduction measures by investing in flood awareness programmes, improving emergency services, and reinforcing flood protection structures. Some householders thought the government and NGOs should support them in improving their quality of life. This was more evident in households in CLC and GB, who had a sense of being ‘left out’ by the authorities.

154 5.6 Summary

This chapter provided the results of the exploratory analysis of all the data obtained from the questionnaire used in the survey that was carried out in the three communities.

The findings provided valuable information on the household characteristics, patterns of vulnerability, and coping strategies, and on householders’ perceptions of local authorities’ policies on flood risk disaster risk management. A summary of the overall findings is listed below:

 Social resilience: Households varied in their level of vulnerability/resilience in accordance with the social parameter considered. Among the communities studied, CLC was the least socially resilient when all of the parameters are taken into account. GB was more resilient than CLC, and LH was the most resilient of the three.

 Economic resilience: Socio-economic conditions and living in crowded conditions indicated conditions of poverty, which were most marked amongst households in CLC. This also indicated the difficulties that underprivileged groups of households encounter in the recovery phase of flood hazards; poorer households are more vulnerable and show least resilience. The CLC community was found to be the least resilient economically followed by GB and LH.

 Infrastructural/environmental resilience: Land occupation issues and the economic and social factors that influenced householders to live in flood risk zones contributed to households’ vulnerability and weak resilience in the event of flooding. The quick restoration of infrastructure and communication systems was a crucial element in the effective and timely relief and emergency operations after a flood. This, in turn, depended on the effectiveness of the arrangements made at the institutional level to increase resilience to flooding within the community.

 Institutional resilience: The degree of support the government provided to households in the three locations was found to be inadequate for rehabilitation purposes. On the other hand, giving assistance to affected households in the

155

aftermath of floods could be counter-productive and could lead to lower resilience. Likewise, relocation programmes could also reduce the resilience of the relocated households.

 Psychological resilience: Most householders were worried about the living conditions of their families. They lived in fear of catching flood-related diseases.

 Community competence: There was a reasonable degree of community cohesion, particularly among households in CLC, though this was far less noticeable in GB and LH. Hence, though CLC is the least endowed location socially and economically, community solidarity should help in building resilience in times of need. There was also some feeling of marginalisation and environmental injustice among the CLC households. This condition could explain the sense of social cohesion among some households.

The next chapter examines the possible association of vulnerability-related responses with specific characteristics of household groups.

156

Chapter 6 - Statistical Analysis of Quantitative Data from