TOPIC:
COPING WITH VULNERABILITY TO ENVIRONMENTAL
HAZARD IN CENTRAL GONJA: CASE STUDY BUIPE
AND YAPEI
PRESENTED BY
THERESA DARI, Dr Dacosta Aboagye and Joseph Koomson
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
 Introduction
 Operational Definitions
 Problem statement
 Research questions
 Objectives
 Hypotheses
 Methodology
 Findings and Discussions
 Conclusions
 Recommendation
INTRODUCTION
 In November 2010, 55 communities in the Central Gonja
district were affected by floods.
 At Buipe,12,418 people displaced, 1,196 houses and 81
acres of farms destroyed, cost of GH¢ 86,044.
 At Yapei, 784 people displaced, 298 acres of farms
destroyed, cost of GH¢ 56,720 (NADMO, 2010).
 Communities were affected by floods in 2003, 2007 and
2009.
 Coping is the process of continuing on after flooding and
involves resistance and resilience .
Introduction Cont’
 Remedial actions undertaken by people whose survival
and livelihood are compromised or threatened.
 Strategies could be erosive, non-erosive and failed
strategies (WHO, 1999).
 Strategies vary by region, community, social group,
gender, age, season and time in history and are deeply
influenced by the people's previous experience (WHO,
1999).
 Blaikie et al. (1994) argued that resistance and resilience
depends on demographic characteristics and access to
key assets.
 Access Model Blaikie et al. (1994).
7 Social Relations and
flows of resources
1a households 1
and 2
2 structures of domination
Household 1
b. Resources and
Assets
•Crop farming
•Land
Fishing
Livestock
Animal farming
Skills
Pasturing of animals
Labor
Casual labor
Capital
Access Qualification
Fishing Nets
•Gender,
boats
Ethnicity, Age,
Income opportunities
•Improved social relations
Household 2
•Better social relations
6 Decisions and outcome
decisions
Household 1
•Borrowing from relations
Social network, wealth, power
Sale of assets
Skills
Households
•Acquisition of assets like animals,
land, stocks of food
Savings and investment
5Household budget
Household 1
•Deficit
Household 2
•Surplus
4 Livelihood
3 Choice of households
(access profile)
A. Household 1
A Household 1
•Shelter
•Subsistence farming
Water
Pasturing of animals
food
Casual labour
B. Household 2
B Household 2
•Shelter
•Commercial crop and
animal farming
Water
Food
fishing
PROBLEM STATEMENT
 Buipe (8,347), Yapei, 4,044 people (PHC, 2000).
 Population growth rate, 3.1%
 Buipe and Yapei are located along the Black and
White Volta respectively.
 Mean annual rainfall ranges 1,000 mm and 1,500 mm
(GMA, 2010).
Map of Study Area
Problem Statement Cont’
Buipe and Yapei have had a long history of the
occurrence of flood (1974, 1979, 2003, 2007,
2009 and 2010).
In 2003, at Yapei, 279 were displaced, 223 acres
of crops destroyed, estimated value of
GH¢1,750.
In Buipe, the floods displaced 444 people and 42
houses were destroyed, estimated value of GH¢
24,000 (NADMO, 2003).
Problem Statement Cont’
 Annual rainfall 1,000 to 1,500mm per year, and monthly
averages have not changed dramatically,
 The people who have long experience with flooding should
develop methods of mitigating their impacts. If flood
victims continue to suffer heavy losses, then explanations
must be forthcoming.
 increased flood disaster be attributed to human processes.
 contextual or external influences have affected peoples’
capacities to cope with flood.
 how decreasing access to and deteriorating conditions of
key assets has increased human vulnerability to flooding in
the Central Gonja district.
Research Questions
 What are the effects of gender on access to livestock and
education?
 What are the effects of age on access to savings, loans and
social network?
 How does religious affiliation affect access to social
network and education?
 What are the effects of ethnicity on access to land and
secured houses?
 What are the differences in vulnerability between the two
communities?
Objectives
Objectives of the Study
 Demonstrate how socio-demographic characteristics of the
people of Buipe and Yapei affect access to key assets and
their ability to cope with vulnerability to flooding.
Specific Objectives
 The effects of gender on access to Livestock and education.
 The effects of age on access to savings, loans and social
network.
 The effects of religious affiliation on access to social
network and education.
 The effects of ethnicity on access to land and secured
houses.
 The differences in vulnerability between the two
communities.
Hypotheses
 Gender does not influence access to education.
 Age does not influence access to savings.
 Age does not affect access to loans.
 Age does not influence access to social network.
 Religious affiliation does not influence access to
education.
 Religious affiliation does not influence access to social
network.
 Ethnicity does not affect access to land.
Methodological Approach
 Units of analysis (households and communities.)
 Probability sampling technique.
 Multi stage cluster sampling used for the selection of the
sample units.
 Simple Random and Systematic
 Twelve per cent was used as the sample size
Methodological Approach Cont’
 At Buipe, 1264 households, at Yapei, 542 (2000, PHC)
 Sample size was 152 at Buipe and 65 at Yapei
 Primary and secondary sources of data
 Cross tabulations and Chi square
Gender and Access to Human and
Physical Capital
 Human capital (Education), Physical capital (Livestock)
 At Buipe, males constituted 65.1 % and 34.9 % were
females.
 At Yapei, Males constituted 83.08 % and females
constituted 16.92 %.
Gender and Access to Education at
Buipe and Yapei
Gender
Education
No Education
Primary (%)
JSS (%)
SSS (%)
Tertiary (%)
(%)
Buipe Yapei
Buipe
Yapei
Buipe
Yapei Buipe
Yapei
Buipe
Yapei
Male
59
83
15
6
15
9
6
2
5
0
Female
87
100
7
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
Gender does not affect access to
education
Chi Square Test
Community
Buipe
Yapei
Value
14.126a
2.128a
Df
4
3
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
0.007
0.546
Gender and access to Livestock
• Livestock are important source of income and means of
wealth accumulation . General pattern is for men to own large
livestock and particularly, work animals, while women own
smaller livestock and yard animals (Doss et al., 2008).
Livestock
Own (%)
Do not own (%)
Gender
Buipe
Yapei
Buipe
Yapei
Male
43
72
57
28
Female
43
55
57
45
Recovery Rate at Urban and Rural
Centre
Gender
Recovery Rate
Less than a year (%)
More than a year (%)
Buipe
Yapei
Buipe
Yapei
Male
67
41
33
59
Female
23
0
77
100
Age and Access to Financial and Social
Capital
 Financial Capital (savings, loans)
 Social capital (social network and household relations)
 At Buipe, less than sixty years represented 75 % whiles
60 years and above constituted 25 % of the population.
 At Yapei, 58.5 % of the population were below sixty years
and 41.5 % were sixty years and above
 The elderly tend to lack efficient income or capital
reserves which restrict them from accessing certain
forms of formal government aid or qualifying for lowinterest building loans (Bolin, 1986; Alexander, 1997;
Mileti, 1999; Morrow, 1999).
Age and access to financial Capital at
Urban and rural
Age groups
Savings
•
Saves (%)
Loans
Do not save (%)
Accessed loans (%)
Did not access
loans (%)
Buipe
Yapei
Buipe
Yapei
Buipe
Yapei
Buipe
Yapei
Less than
60
54
11
46
89
45
8
55
92
26
11
74
89
53
4
47
96
60 years
and above
Age does not influence access to
financial capital
Age does not influence access to
savings
Pearson Chi-
Community
Pearson
Square
Chi-Square
Community
Buipe
Yapei
Value
0.714a
0.480a
1
Df
1
1
0.940
Asymp. Sig.
0.398
0.488
Buipe
Yapei
Value
9.007a
0.006a
Df
1
Asymp. Sig.
0.003
(2-sided)
Age does not influence access to
loans
(2-sided)
Age and access to social capital
Age and access to social capital
at Buipe and Yapei
Age
groups
Pearson Chi-
Count and percentages
Received help
Did not receive
(%)
help (%)
25
Yapei
13
Buipe
75
Yapei
Buipe
Yapei
Value
0.047a
1.014a
Df
1
1
Asymp. Sig.
0.829
0.314
87
60 years
(2-sided)
60 years
and above
Community
Square
Buipe
Less than
Age does not affect access to
social capital
24
26
76
74
Pictures of Places occupied by flood
Victims
A tent occupied by flood victims
School occupied by flood victims
Recovery rate among the age groups
at Buipe and Yapei
Counts and Percentages
Age groups
Less than a year (%)
More than a year (%)
Buipe
Yapei
Buipe
Yapei
56
40
44
60
37
26
63
Less than 60
years
60 years and
above
74
Religion and Access to Social and
Human Capital
 Human capital (Education)
 Social Capital (social network and household relations
represents social capital).
 Christianity, Islamic and Traditional are the main religious
groups in the study areas.
 At Buipe, Christians represented 18.4 per cent, Muslims
represented 80.3 per cent while the traditionalist
constituted 1.3 per cent of the population.
 At Yapei, Islamic religion constituted the largest, 95.4 per
cent while Christianity represented 4.6 per cent.
 None of the respondents indicated a traditional religion.
Religion and Education
•
Academic expectations, level of educational attained, school
attendance, and academic performance are all positively
affected by religious practice, (Fagan, 2006).
•
Religion
•
Counts and percentages
None
Primary
JSS
SSS
Tertiary
Buipe
Yapei
Buipe
Yapei
Buipe
Yapei
Buipe
Yapei
Buipe
Yapei
46
100
21
0
18
0
11
0
4
0
74
85
10
3
11
5
2
2
3
0
Christianity
Islamic
Traditional
50
50
0
0
0
Religion does not affect access to
Education
Pearson Chi-Square
Buipe
Yapei
Value
12.639a
0.505a
Df
8
3
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
0.125
0.918
Religion and Access to social
capital
Religion and access to social
capital at Buipe and Yapei
Religion
Religion does not affect access to
social capital
Pearson
Square
Social Capital
Received help
Did not receive help
(%)
(%)
Buipe
Yapei
Buipe
Yapei
Christianity
18
0
82
100
Islamic
27
19
73
81
Traditional
0
100
Chi- Buipe
Yapei
Value
1.702a
.786a
Df
2
1
Asymp.
sided)
Sig.
(2- 0.427
0.375
Recovery Rate among Religious groups
Religion
Counts and Percentages
Less than a Year (%)
Buipe
Yapei
More than a Year (%)
Buipe
Yapei
Christianity
57
0
43
100
51
35
49
65
Islamic
Traditional
0
100
Ethnicity and access to Physical and
natural capital
 Physical capital (secured house)
 Natural capital ( land).
 At Buipe, Natives(32%), Migrants (68%)
 At Yapei, natives(80%), migrants (20%)
Ethnicity and access to physical capital
 At the urban center, 61% of the natives and 64% of
migrants own houses
 39% of natives and 36% of migrants do not own houses.
 37% of natives and 23% of migrants own houses built of
cement blocks.
 63% of natives and 77% of migrants own houses built of
mud.
 At Buipe, 47% of natives and 30% who rent live in houses
built of cement.
 53% of natives and 70% who rent live in houses built of
mud.
Ethnicity and access to physical capital
Cont’
 At the rural center, 96% of natives and 92% of migrants
own houses
 6% of natives own houses built of cement. None of the
migrants own houses built of cement.
 94% of natives and all migrants who own houses are built
of mud
 4% of natives and 8% of migrants live in rented houses.
 None of those who rent live in cement houses.
Pictures of mud and cement house
Block houses been able to
withstand floods
Collapsed mud houses
Ethnicity and access to natural capital
at Buipe and Yapei
 Race and ethnicity imposes language and cultural barriers that
affect access to post-disaster funding and residential locations
in hazard prone areas (Pulido, 2000; Peacock, Morrow, and
Gladwin 1997, 2000; Bolin with Stanford 1998; Bolin 1993).
Ethnicity
Counts and percentages
Land (%)
Landless (%)
Buipe
Yapei
Buipe
Yapei
Natives
69
56
31
44
Migrants
26
23
74
77
Ethnicity does not affect access to land
Pearson Chi-Square
Buipe
Yapei
Value
36.259a
8.346a
Df
8
7
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
0.000
0.303
Ethnicity and Rate of Recovery at
Buipe and Yapei
Ethnicity
Recovery rate
Less than a year (%)
More than a year (%)
Buipe
Yapei
Buipe
Yapei
Natives
73
39
27
61
Migrants
37
15
63
85
Conclusion
 Natural events are not sufficient to explain human
vulnerability to environmental hazards but rather social
processes in both communities causes human vulnerability
to floods.
 Respondents at Buipe had a better access to key assets
than the respondents at Yapei
 Concludes that the inability of the people to prevent the
consequences of flood events is as a result of lack of access
to key assets which prevents their ability to anticipate,
resist and recover from flood impacts.
Recommendation
 Intervention efforts should be designed to build up the
assets. Some writers suggest that intervention efforts
designed to build up the assets of the poor to withstand
shocks will be increasingly important to reducing the
human burden from flooding (Sanderson, 2000).
 Again, NADMO and the District Assemblies should
design strategies to strengthen the coping strategies of
the local people towards floods.
 As put by Blaikie et al., (1994) interventions to
strengthen capacities to cope is also a positive step
towards the empowerment of communities rather than
the reinforcement of dependency associated with flood
relief efforts.
References
 Alexander, D. (1997). The study of natural disasters 19771997: some reflections on a changing field of knowledge.
Disasters 21, 284-304.
 Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and Wisner, B. (1994). At
Risk: Natural hazards, peoples, vulnerability and
disasters, Routledge, London.
 Bolin, R. (1993). Household and Community Recovery
after Earthquakes. Boulder Colorado Institute of
Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Colorado.
 Bolin, R. and Stanford, L. (1998). The Northridge
Earthquake: Vulnerability and Disaster. Routledge,
London.
References
 Doss, C., Grown, C. and Deere, C.D. (2008). Gender and
Asset Ownership: A Guide to Collecting Individual-Level
Data, Policy Research Working Paper 4704.
 Fagan, P. (2006). Why Religion Matters Even More: The
Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability, The
Heritage Foundation, Washington D.C.
 Ghana Meteorological Agency, (GMA). Annual Rainfall
Figures for Yapei and Buipe, 2000-2010, Accra.
 Ghana Statistical Service, 2000 Population and Housing
Census. Summary Report of Final Results, Accra, Ghana.
References
 Morrow, B.H. (1999). Identifying and mapping
community vulnerability. Disasters, 23(1): 1–18.
 National Disaster Management Organization (2010).
Flood statistics for Buipe and Yapei, 2003 -2010, Buipe,
Ghana
 Peacock, W. Morrow, B. H. and Gladwin, H. (eds). (1997).
Hurricane Andrew and the Reshaping of Miami: Ethnicity,
Gender, and the Socio-Political Ecology of Disasters,
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
References
 Sanderson, D. (2000). Cities, disasters and livelihoods,
Environment and Urbanization 12(2), 93- 102.
 World Health Organization (WHO). (1999). Emergency
Health training Programme for Africa, WHO/EHA/EHTP,
Addis Ababa
THANK YOU