socio-economic impacts of natural disasters: a livelihood ... · socio-economic impacts of natural...
TRANSCRIPT
Socio-Economic Impacts of Natural
Disasters: A Livelihood analysis of
Rural Communities in Kundasang,
Sabah
Khairul Hisyam Kamarudin, PhDUTM RAZAK SCHOOL of Engineering and Advanced Technology, UTM, Kuala Lumpur
23 May 2017
MMJD 1263 Disaster Education &
Preparedness for Social Resilience
This paper analyses the socio-economic
impacts of natural disasters and multi-
hazards resulted from the Sabah Earthquake
(followed by series of aftershocks, landslides
and debris flow).
The main analysis examines the impacts of
natural disasters mainly to the local
economy, social activity and
physical/environment.
INTRODUCTION
Twin landslides in Mesilou, Kundasang, Sabah
(Khamarrul 2015)
Community Livelihood Analysis (CLA)
CLA is a tool for analysing people’s livelihood and the impacts of specificthreats on livelihood vulnerability.
Household income
Employment structure
Ownership of assets
Socio-economic Goals + stra
at micro level
CLA Lax & Krug (2013); Morse et al. (2009); ENN (2006)
Community Livelihood Analysis (CLA)
Another crucial element of CLA is that it involves communityparticipation to identify the economic, social and physicalcomponents of their livelihoods that are affected or vulnerable to aspecific threat (or in this case, the multi-hazards and the aftermathof natural disasters) (Lax and Krug, 2013; ENN, 2006).
Relevant participatory methods for assessments are adopted suchas household surveys using specifically-designed questionnaires andunstructured interviews in order to uncover local issues, problemsor concerns and their perception and response towards reducingthe risk or negative consequences, should multi-hazards anddisasters occur in the future.
The CLA might not serve as a basis for emergency assessments.However, some information gathered through CLA process could beuseful especially to alert the community and local authoritiesregarding the socio-economic impacts of a disaster on thelivelihoods of rural households.
Assessment: Field visit & participatory method
Field visit and observation
Stakeholders’ meeting
Household survey
FGD
Follow-up interview
RESULTS
Information Num.
(n)
Total num.
(n)
% Total
(%)
1 Gender
• Male
• Female
33
60
36.0
64.0
93 100.0
2 Ethnicity
• Dusun
• Others
90
3
97.0
3.0
93 100.0
3 Religion
• Islam
• Christian
• Animism
90
1
2
97.0
1.0
2.0
93 100.0
Information Num.
(n)
Total num.
(n)
% Total
(%)
4 Marital status
• Single
• Married
• Single mother
• Single father
16
71
4
2
17.0
76.0
4.0
3.0
93 100.0
5 Origin
• Born and raised
here
• Moved here from
other village/place
74
19
80.0
20.0
93 100.0
Yes
Experiencing disaster
No
Experiencing disaster – types of disaster
Landslide Mud flood Earthquake Strong wind
Others
Due to climate shifting
Natural phenomena
Human activities (uncontrolled development)
Possible factors of disaster
Question / statement Min value
Note / remarks
1 I may have capability to predict disaster 2.29 Disagree
2 Natural disaster is something that you cannot avoid or prevent
4.11 Agreed
3 My house was built to withstand earthquake (shaking)
2.56 Disagree to not sure
4 My bedroom was built to withstand earthquake
2.82 Disagree to not sure
5 I have/prepare disaster emergency kit / bag
3.26 Not sure
Question / statement Min value Note / remarks
6 I knew where to evacuate / safe shelter 3.53 No sure to agree
7 It is important to share experience in facing disaster
4.45 Agreed
8 I believe government will provide sufficient help/facilities for disaster relief
3.54 Not sure to agree
9 I believe government will repair damages in my area after disaster
3.83 Not sure to agree
10 I knew which agencies to be contacted for help/assistance
3.82 Not sure to agree
11 I am aware of the importance of DRR activities 4.02 Agreed
Access to information during and after disaster (n=93)
After disaster During disaster
No access
Very limited
Good access
Perception on the possibilities of moving out or to be resettled elsewhere (n=93)
Not thinking about moving out
Have thought but can’t afford
Have thought & wanted to move
Reasons given by those who do not want to move out (n=34)
Will involve high cost
Have no other option/no land
Already used to it/adopted
Perception on the role and effectiveness of agencies in disaster response and management (n=93)
Very effective
Effective
Not sure
Less efficient
Not efficient
SESI 1Soal-selidik isirumah – menilai impak geobencana terhadap kehidupan
penduduk kampung, 25/11/2015
Bilangan responden, n=100
Conclusion
This study revealed an evidence that can be used to support the claim that monthly
income of the villages was reduced after the disaster. The most significant evidence is the increase in the
percentage of households with a monthly income below RM500 in every village (which means more people have fallen into the “poor” category) which is then
directly related to the decrease in households with a monthly income between RM501 and RM2500.
However, this study cannot confirm/conclude whether the poor people (income below
RM500/month) in the study area is attributed to the reduced revenue for categories
other than under RM500.
Thus, regular research should be conducted promptly to describe this relationship in
greater depth and find out whether the decline in income was due to a disaster or
otherwise
•BUY ONLINE AT: booksonline.my
•BUY ONLINE AT: MPH Bookstore
•BUY ONLINE AT: Kinokuniya