Household Baseline Survey for Enhancing Disaster …pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00JRFV.pdf · i...

i

Myanmar Red Cross Society

Household Baseline Survey for Enhancing

Disaster Safety in Vulnerable Communities

in Myanmar

Authors:

Ranjan Mohnot, ARC Quality and Learning Delegate

Ekaterina Noykhovich, ARC Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor

Date: March 31, 2014

Baseline Survey for Enhancing Disaster Safety in Vulnerable Communities in Myanmar ii

Table of Contents List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................... iii

List of Figures and Tables ........................................................................................................... v

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. vii

1. Introduction and Context ..................................................................................................... 1

a. Project Overview ............................................................................................................. 1

a. About American Red Cross ............................................................................................. 1

b. About Myanmar Red Cross Society ................................................................................. 1

c. American Red Cross’ work in Myanmar ........................................................................... 2

2. Baseline Survey .................................................................................................................. 2

a. Survey Objectives and Approach..................................................................................... 2

b. Survey Locations ............................................................................................................. 3

c. Sample size and calculations .......................................................................................... 3

d. Sampling Method ............................................................................................................ 4

e. Research tools ................................................................................................................ 4

f. Pilots ............................................................................................................................... 5

g. Trainings ......................................................................................................................... 5

h. Data Collection process ................................................................................................... 6

i. Data entry and analysis ................................................................................................... 6

j. Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 6

3. Analysis and Results .............................................................................................................. 7

a. Response rate .................................................................................................................... 7

b. Sample distribution and demographics ............................................................................... 7

Ethnicity and Religion ........................................................................................................10

Education ...........................................................................................................................10

Occupation .........................................................................................................................11

Housing .............................................................................................................................12

c. Knowledge and attitudes about disasters ...........................................................................13

Household knowledge of disasters and perceptions of vulnerability ...................................13

Early warning systems .......................................................................................................14

Attitudes towards disasters ................................................................................................15

d. Disaster preparedness actions ..........................................................................................17

Disaster preparedness activities ........................................................................................17

Baseline Survey for Enhancing Disaster Safety in Vulnerable Communities in Myanmar iii

e. Community preparedness planning and activities ..............................................................22

Community preparedness ..................................................................................................22

Community training and activities .......................................................................................25

Environmental protection ...................................................................................................28

Red Cross awareness ........................................................................................................29

4. Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................31

5. Recommendations ................................................................................................................33

Appendix

Appendix 1: Village Profiles

Appendix 2: Community and school selection process

Appendix 3: Sampling Instructions

Appendix 4: Survey questionnaire

Appendix 5: Respondent tracking sheet

Appendix 6: Field supervision sheet

Appendix 7: Training agenda

Appendix 8: Roles and Responsibilities of the Supervision Team

Appendix 9: Field Plan for Data Collection

Appendix 10: List of interviewers and supervisors

Appendix 11: Local consultant TOR

Appendix 12: Data Analysis Plan

Appendix 13: Village Maps

Appendix 14: Project Logical Framework

Baseline Survey for Enhancing Disaster Safety in Vulnerable Communities in Myanmar iv

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ARC American Red Cross

CBDRR Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

HFA Hyogo Framework for Action

MAPDRR Myanmar Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction

MRCS Myanmar Red Cross Society

TOR Terms of Reference

VDMC Village Disaster Management Committees

VDSC Village Development Support Committee

Baseline Survey for Enhancing Disaster Safety in Vulnerable Communities in Myanmar v

List of Figures and Tables Figure 1: Distribution of respondents across villages ................................................................. 7

Figure 2: Distribution of respondents across gender .................................................................. 8

Figure 3: Age distribution of respondents ................................................................................... 8

Figure 4: Age distribution of respondents, by gender ................................................................. 9

Figure 5: Respondents’ relationship to head of household ......................................................... 9

Figure 6: Number of people living in a household ......................................................................10

Figure 7: Vulnerability within households ..................................................................................10

Figure 8: Highest education level ..............................................................................................11

Figure 9: Highest education level by village ..............................................................................11

Figure 10: Main occupation .......................................................................................................12

Figure 11: Type of housing by village ........................................................................................13

Figure 12: Most common disaster experienced in community in the past 10 years as reported by

respondents, (n=214) multiple-response question .....................................................................14

Figure 13: Most vulnerable groups to disasters .........................................................................14

Figure 14: Respondents who report receiving an early warning prior to a natural disaster ........15

Figure 15: Method of early warning reported .............................................................................15

Figure 16: Extent to which natural disasters affect respondents and respondents' family ..........16

Figure 17: Frequency of worries about natural disasters ...........................................................16

Figure 18: Frequency of other worries with natural disasters.....................................................17

Figure 19: Frequency of reported action to prepare before a natural disaster ...........................17

Figure 20: Reasons why respondents do not prepare for natural disaster .................................18

Figure 21: Actions taken during a natural disaster .....................................................................18

Figure 22: Other actions taken during a natural disaster ...........................................................19

Figure 23: Frequency of reported actions respondents will take after a natural disaster ............19

Figure 24: Other actions after a natural disaster ........................................................................19

Figure 25: Frequency of actions reported if respondents’ house is located in a river/flood area 20

Figure 26: Frequency of reported actions if respondents’ house is located in a cyclone area ....20

Figure 27: What will respondents do if an earthquake occurs ....................................................21

Figure 28: Households who report preparing an emergency kit/grab bag ..................................21

Figure 29: Households with a grab bag by village .....................................................................21

Figure 30: Contents of a grab bag .............................................................................................22

Figure 31: Percent of respondents who know of disaster preparedness organization in their

community ................................................................................................................................22

Figure 32: Frequency of community disaster preparedness organization named by respondents

.................................................................................................................................................23

Figure 33: Percent of respondents who report a village disaster management plan ..................23

Figure 34: Percent of households reporting a village disaster management plan ......................24

Figure 35: Frequency of respondents' role in preparation of disaster management plan ...........24

Figure 36: Percent of respondents reporting a community fund for disasters, by village ............25

Figure 37: Frequency of reported use of the community fund ....................................................25

Figure 38: Percent of respondents who know someone in community who can provide first aid

.................................................................................................................................................26

Figure 39: Frequency of first aid kits in the community ..............................................................26

Baseline Survey for Enhancing Disaster Safety in Vulnerable Communities in Myanmar vi

Figure 40: Frequency of households with a first aid kit ..............................................................27

Figure 41: Frequency of respondents who have participated in a simulation .............................27

Figure 42: Frequency of last time a respondent participated in a simulation ..............................27

Figure 43: Frequency of confidence level of respondent who participated in simulation ............28

Figure 44: Percent respondents who report a dyke/levee in their community, by village ...........28

Figure 45: Percent of respondents who reported a dyke/levee in their community describe the

role of dykes/levees ..................................................................................................................29

Figure 46: Frequency of respondents talking to someone with MRCS shirt ...............................29

Figure 47: Reported role of MRSC affiliated person ..................................................................30

Figure 48: Most effective communication channels about natural disasters ..............................30

Figure 49: Frequency of reported sources for weather related news .........................................31

Table 1: Sample size calculation ................................................................................................ 3

Table 2: Sample size per village ................................................................................................ 4

Table 3: Response rate per village ............................................................................................. 7

Table 4: Types of housing .........................................................................................................12

Table 5: Most common disaster experienced in community in the past 10 years as reported by

respondents, (n=214) multiple-response question .....................................................................13

Baseline Survey for Enhancing Disaster Safety in Vulnerable Communities in Myanmar vii

Executive Summary

Myanmar is prone to several natural hazards including cyclones, earthquakes, floods, storm surges,

droughts, tsunamis and fires. In 2008, cyclone Nargis claimed 138,373 lives and affected an estimated

2.4 million people. The American Red Cross (ARC), with financial assistance from OFDA, supporting the

Myanmar Red Cross Society (MRCS) in implementing a new project entitled, “Enhancing Disaster Safety

in Vulnerable Communities and Schools in Myanmar”. The project aims to reduce the number of deaths,

injuries and impact from disasters by increasing safety and resilience in Myanmar. This project will

directly benefit 8,700 people (children, women, and other vulnerable groups including MRCS staff and

volunteers) and indirectly benefit 214,000 individuals. The purpose of a baseline survey is to provide a

measure of relevant project indicators and inform project’s target setting.

Overall, there was a high response rate from the sampled population (214 of 230) with females making

up two-thirds of the sample. About two-thirds of the sampled households have family members who fall

into the vulnerable categories (elderly, person with disability, pregnant women, and children under

five).

The most common disasters reported were cyclones, floods and strong winds, with the elderly and

children named as the most vulnerable groups to disasters. The majority of respondents receive an

early warning via radio (80%) followed by television and village head/leaders. The majority of sampled

households believe that natural disasters are extremely serious in their effects to the respondents and

their families. In preparations for a disaster, only 24% of the sampled households have an emergency

grab bag ready.

Before a natural disaster, sampled households most frequently reported that they “did nothing”,

followed by less frequently reported stockpiling food and storing drinking water. The main reason

behind the 113 respondents (of 213) who stated they did nothing was because they did not know or

think a disaster would happen, and lesser number did not know what should be prepared. During a

natural disaster, the most frequently reported action was that the sampled households “did nothing”.

After a natural disaster, over half of the respondents reported that they would fix their house, and less

than a quarter would participate in clean-up operations and find food.

There is an overall low awareness of disaster preparedness knowledge as well as following practices.

Despite being affected by Cyclone Nargis in 2008, a large number of respondents don’t think a disaster

would happen or are unaware of proper steps to take to enhance safety and preparedness.

Approximately half of the sampled households across all villages know of a community

organization/institution that helps their community prepare for a disaster. Only 25% of sampled

households were aware of a village disaster management plan, with less than half having played a role in

preparing it. In first aid, about 75% of sampled households know of someone who can provide first aid

within their community, and 39% of sampled households know of a first aid kit available in their

Baseline Survey for Enhancing Disaster Safety in Vulnerable Communities in Myanmar viii

community. Almost all (208 of 214) households sampled do not have a first aid kit in the home. Very

few (19 of 214) of the sampled households have participated in a community simulation exercise in

preparation for a disaster. The most effective means of communication about natural disasters was

reported to be via radio by over three-fourths of the sampled households.

Based on the findings of this survey, while a good majority of sampled households have knowledge on

what to do before and during a natural disaster (especially floods, cyclones), respondents showed a lack

of taking action regarding disaster practices. Several indicators are lagging in terms of attitudes and

practices towards disaster preparedness.

Key recommendations:

� Further explorations should be conducted to determine the reasons behind lack of actions

regarding attitudes and practices towards disasters. For example, use a barrier analysis to study,

identify, and subsequently develop activities to address the barriers households face in changing

their behaviors (attitudes and practices) in disaster preparedness.

� It is recommended that the project aim to address other vulnerabilities in programming such as

targeting elderly individuals and households with children under five, as these vulnerable groups

were more prominent in this survey.

� Furthermore, the project would benefit from the indicators of the baseline and should aim to

set appropriate targets to measure its progress.

1

1. Introduction and Context

a. Project Overview

Myanmar is prone to several natural hazards including cyclones, earthquakes, floods, storm surges,

droughts, tsunamis and fires. In 2008, cyclone Nargis claimed 138,373 lives and affected an estimated

2.4 million people. The education sector was also severely impacted damaging or destroying

approximately 60% of the total number of schools in the affected areas. The devastation caused by

cyclone Nargis was not caused by a technical failure in the early warning service–warnings were

provided by the Myanmar Meteorological Service–but the failure of other elements of effective early

warning systems especially communications networks and adequate preparedness initiatives enabling

rapid response (World Disaster Report, 2009).

The American Red Cross (ARC), with financial assistance from OFDA, supporting the Myanmar Red Cross

Society (MRCS) in implementing a new project entitled, “Enhancing Disaster Safety in Vulnerable

Communities and Schools in Myanmar”. The project aims to reduce the number of deaths, injuries and

impact from disasters by increasing safety and resilience in Myanmar. Its strategic objectives are to

build the internal capacity of the MRCS (at national and branch levels) to ensure the efficient delivery of

disaster response and preparedness programs, as well as design and conduct disaster risk reduction

education in targeted areas of Myanmar.

This project will directly benefit 8,700 people (children, women, and other vulnerable groups including

MRCS staff and volunteers) and indirectly benefit 214,000 individuals. It is anticipated that MRCS

targeted communities and schools will have increased capabilities to mitigate, prepare for, and respond

to disasters.

a. About American Red Cross

The ARC is a volunteer-led organization that extends its humanitarian mission around the world through

participation in the global Red Cross and Red Crescent network and through resource centers such as

Global Disaster Preparedness Center. ARC has amassed over 125 years of experience in disaster

management, responding to its first international disaster in 1892 to the Russian Famine. ARC and its

Red Cross and Red Crescent partners are uniquely positioned to provide urgent humanitarian assistance

to the world’s hardest to reach and most vulnerable populations. During 2013, ARC’s International

Services Division, assisted over 5.6 million people in disaster response and recovery activities and carried

out disaster preparedness and risk reduction in 32 countries.

b. About Myanmar Red Cross Society

As the leading and oldest humanitarian organization in Myanmar, the MRCS is committed to

improving the health and well-being of vulnerable people. MRCS strives to maintain excellent

partnerships with UN Agencies, non-governmental organizations, the press and other public information

media. News coverage of Red Cross activities in the whole country is continually featured in the press,

Baseline Survey for Enhancing Disaster Safety in Vulnerable Communities in Myanmar 2

radio and television news broadcasts. MRCS strive to be the leading humanitarian organization in

Myanmar, acting with and for the most vulnerable at all times through its 330 branches. With a

nationwide network of volunteers, the Myanmar Red Cross Society works to promote a more healthy

and safe environment for the people in Myanmar, giving priority to most vulnerable communities and

individuals. In times of distress and disaster, MRCS will assist those affected to help them return to their

normal lives.

MRCS’ Disaster Preparedness and Response initiatives focus on reducing deaths, injuries, and

impacts from natural disasters. The provision of timely and effective relief assistance to disaster areas is

achieved through improved organizational preparedness. Priorities for the organization include

improving logistics, particularly warehouse capacity, establishing emergency response teams,

strengthening communication and early warning systems, promoting coordination and collaboration

with partners and local authorities, among other priorities. In terms of DRR, MRCS’s programmatic

approach employs a successful local-level model that reduces deaths, injuries, and impact from

disasters. The lives of targeted vulnerable communities are improved through increased community

participation in risk reduction activities.

c. American Red Cross’ work in Myanmar

The ARC is currently supporting MRCS in areas of disaster risk reduction and organizational

development. A history of collaboration between ARC and MRCS exists since 1992 and has expanded in

the last two years including the signing of a Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) in September 2013.

An American Red Cross Disaster Risk Reduction Delegate is based in Yangon along with administrative,

financial and programmatic local staff. ARC also has a regional office in Bangkok with a full

administrative, programmatic and financial support staff including a Regional Quality and Learning

Delegate, a Regional Disaster Risk Reduction Advisor and a Regional Representative.

2. Baseline Survey

a. Survey Objectives and Approach

The purpose of a baseline survey is to provide a measure of relevant project indicators and inform

project’s target setting. The baseline gathered a range of information on the relevant disaster

preparedness and risk reduction activities as well as knowledge of households and communities in

project locations. It also provides benchmark values against which the project performance will be

measured, especially at the end of the project through an end line survey. MRCS project implementation

team will also use baseline data and its analysis for informing the design of project activities.

The main objectives of the baseline survey are:

1. To have quantitative measure of key project indicators for assessing progress at the end of the

project.

2. To measure knowledge, attitude and practices in order to inform project interventions.


b. Survey Locations

The sampling frame included all five project villages from Dedaye Township. This area is highly disaster

prone and was affected by cyclone Nargis in 2008. This delta area is not only exposed to hydrological

hazards (cyclone, floods, surges and tornados) but also prone to seismic hazards like earthquakes and

tsunamis. Other prevailing factors are pervasive such as poverty, poor accessibility of basic services,

environmental degradation, and vulnerability to changing climate. Despite the recovery initiatives in

the delta, it continues to remain one of the vulnerable areas in Myanmar. A profile of each of the

villages is enclosed in Appendix 1.

A thorough two-step selection process was conducted by MRCS with ARC support in order to select

project communities (five villages). [See Appendix 2 for community selection process information]. The

resulting project sites selected for this intervention are:

1. Ta Mar Ta kaw

2. Nyaung Lein kone Taw Ka Ni

3. Yae Twin Kone Than Deik

4. Don Yan Thaung Tan

5. Ah Kal Chaung Wa

c. Sample size and calculations

An unadjusted sample size was estimated at 134 for the parameter presented in Table 1. A design effect

of 1.5 was applied, as well as a nonresponse adjustment of 15% with population of approximately 7,000.

The adjusted sample size was 230 households. The sample size was calculated to control for precision at

the population level, not at the community (village) level.

Table 1: Sample size calculation

Key indicator None chosen

Significance level 95%

Power 80%

Estimated baseline value of key indicator 45%

Expected future value of key indicator at endline 60%

One or Two-Tailed Test? One

The sample size was distributed proportionately by population in the project villages. The sample size

from each village is indicated below in Table 2.


Table 2: Sample size per village

Sr.No. Name of village Households Sample size

1 Ta Mar Ta kaw 325 43

2 Nyaung Lein kone Taw Ka Ni 172 23

3 Yae Twin Kone Than Deik 276 37

4 Don Yan Thaung Tan 535 71

5 Ah Kal Chaung Wa 420 56

Total 1728 230

d. Sampling Method

For each selected village, systematic random sampling without replacement was applied for selection of

households into the survey. Interviewers used village maps to identify the starting point in each village.

Each team was given with a sheet with a random start point and they successively selected (with interval

7) the house number to avoid any error in the field. Several scenarios were presented including a mock

exercise during baseline-training to master this skill. To ensure equal distribution of gender among

respondents, interviewers were given instructions for selecting a respondent of a given gender in the

selected household (Interview male respondent if the selected HH number is even and interview a

female respondent if the selected HH number is odd). Non-response rules were set up to address

ambiguities in selection of respondent and household (See Appendix 3 for detailed sampling

instructions).

e. Research tools

To meet survey objectives and adhere to quality standards in survey implementation, a variety of

research tools were designed. The following research tools were designed (see Appendix 4-6):

1) Survey questionnaire

2) Respondent tracking sheet

3) Field supervision sheet

A respondent tracking sheet was developed as part of basic survey management, but specifically to: 1)

monitor the data collection process (adherence to sampling method), and 2) to record reasons of non-

response and follow up plan.

A survey questionnaire for households was designed based on the project monitoring and evaluation

plan, MRCS CBDRR Manual examples, Oxfam’s survey, as well as questionnaires used within American

Red Cross for similar CBDRR projects. The MRCS CBDRR manual specifically looks at identifying local


hazard experiences, perceptions of natural hazards, and current levels of natural disaster preparedness

and response and the questionnaire aims to collect this information.

The survey questionnaire specifically captures basic demographic information, knowledge of disasters,

attitudes towards disasters, practices related to disasters, disaster preparedness activities, as well as

appropriate communication channels related to disasters.

A field supervision sheet was developed as part of basic survey management to identify and to give

feedback to interviewers and survey managers on the overall quality of the event, and identify

promising practices and challenges of surveys in Myanmar for future reference, especially as a tool for

MRCS.

f. Pilots

A pilot survey was conducted as part of the training in a community outside of the project intervention

area, with approximately 30 households interviewed (equal representation from both male and female

respondents). No major issues were encountered during the pilot. Based on interviewer feedback,

options were added for few questions in the questionnaire to address additional responses that may

come up in the survey.

g. Trainings

Two trainings, one for interviewer and one for supervisors, were conducted to ensure adequate

preparation and support for the survey (see Appendix 7-8).

All the interviewers and supervisors recruited for the survey received an intensive three-day training by

a consultant from the Focus Point Research Services Company. Ten interviewers consisted of five MRCS

volunteers and five community mobilizers. Six supervisors consisted of MRCS staff including two field

officers, one program coordinator, one township branch leader, and two consultants. The training was

conducted in local Myanmar language. The training was organized from February 25-27, 2014 at Kan

Chaung Monastery, Dedaye including one field pilot and debriefing session. MRCS and ARC staff actively

participated in the training. The training of interviewers comprised of both classroom and field practice.

The first day of training covered basic survey methodology, “do’s and don’ts” during surveys, and a

review of questionnaires in the classroom setting. The second day, the interviewers and the supervisors

were taken to the field (Ta Nyin Kone Village) and were asked to complete at least three interviews with

households in the morning. Following this pilot in a non-project village, a debrief session was held to

discuss and resolve the problems encountered with the questionnaires in the field. On the third day,

interviewers were trained on the sampling of households, and also conducted a mock survey. The

supervisors were given separate and specific training to carry out their respective work. The training

helped supervisors develop skills on field supervision, carrying out spot checks and back checks1,

1 Spot checks are quality checks wherein the supervisor observes when the interview is happening and provides feedback to

interviewer soon after its completion. In case there is an important quality gap, the supervisor intervenes during the interview.

Back checks are for quality verification wherein the supervisor takes random filled-up questionnaire and visits the household

again to check data authenticity and quality.


accompanying the interviewers, field editing for consistency checks, and managing the monitoring

sheets.

h. Data Collection process

Data collection occurred over three days, from February 28 to March 2, 2014. Five teams (two

interviewers per team) were responsible for the data collection across the five villages, divided up based

upon the sample size for each village (see Appendix 9-10). The following steps were completed during

field work:

Step 1: Set up the team and approach the field

Step 2: Conduct transect walk. Each supervisor and/or team conducted a transect walk to become

familiar with the geography of the village and to mark the boundary for team members

Step 3: Data collection

Step 4: Quality control

In general, supervisors were responsible for developing a thorough understanding of the survey tools,

guiding interviewers on sampling as well as randomly checking (through spot and back checks) and

taking corrective actions when needed, observing data collection and interviews, checking the filled-out

questionnaires for internal consistency, and checking the respondent tracking sheet, as well as

informing ARC and MRCS about observations and/or questions in the field.

i. Data entry and analysis

To manage the data entry process of over 200 paper-based questionnaires, a local consultant – the

same consultant hired for training - was recruited by MRCS (see Appendix 11). Data entry was carried

out in CS Pro 5 and analysis was done in SPSS 21 and Stata 12 (see Appendix 12).

All the completed questionnaires were thoroughly reviewed by the supervisor in the field for

completeness and consistency. Other responses were coded before data entry. Appropriate range and

checks were built in the data entry package to avoid data entry error (out of range value). No further

data cleaning was undertaken during data entry.

j. Limitations

Due to the nature of the project and community selection process, a basic yet strong sampling design

was employed at the household level (one-stage sampling was employed) with systematic random

sampling at every 7th household. No weights are required as the sample was self-weighted (i.e.

proportionate to the number of households in the village). There is minimal weight at the household

level based on the number of eligible respondents (male/female adults), and would not impact the

analysis and interpretation.


3. Analysis and Results

a. Response rate

The total number of respondents was 214 out of the estimated sample size of 230 (see Table 3). Per

village, the non-response rate ranged from 0-14%, while the overall non-response rate is approximately

7%. As the sample was designed to be self-weighted, taking into account female and male

representation in the respondents, as well as the limited number of respondent required no weights

were applied prior to analysis.

Table 3: Response rate per village

Sr. No. Name of village Households Targeted sample

size

Surveys

completed

1 Ta Mar Ta kaw 325 43 37

2 Nyaung Lein kone Taw Ka Ni 172 23 23

3 Yae Twin Kone Than Deik 276 37 37

4 Don Yan Thaung Tan 535 71 65

5 Ah Kal Chaung Wa 420 56 52

Total 1728 230 214

b. Sample distribution and demographics

The distribution of respondents (n=214) across the five selected villages in which MRCS and ARC will

work in is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Distribution of respondents across villages

With regards to gender distribution within the sample, an attempt was made to balance gender across

respondents. As shown in Figure 2 below, females comprised approximately 65% of the sample, while

males were about 35% of respondents (n=214).

17

11

17

30

24

0 20 40 60 80 100

Ta Mar Ta kaw

NyaungLeinkone Taw Ka Ni

Yae Twin Kone Than Deik

Don Yan Thaung Tan

Ah KalChaungWa

Percent

Distribution of respondents across villages, (n=214)Distribution of respondents across villages, (n=214)Distribution of respondents across villages, (n=214)Distribution of respondents across villages, (n=214)


Figure 2: Distribution of respondents across gender

The mean age of respondents is 41.7 years, ranging from 18 - 79 years of age. Respondents

predominantly fell into three main age groups, with roughly 29% between 25-35 years and 29%

between 36-45 years of age, and 21% of the sample falling within the 46-55 age group (see Figure 3

below).

Figure 3: Age distribution of respondents

The age distribution of respondents by gender did not show any differences in the majority of

respondents, with only slight variation between genders above 56 years of age (Figure 4).

Male

35%

Female

65%

D i st r i bu t i on D i st r i bu t i on D i st r i bu t i on D i st r i bu t i on o f r e s po n de nt s o f r e s po n de nt s o f r e s po n de nt s o f r e s po n de nt s

a c ro s s g e n de r, ( n =2 1 4 )a c ro s s g e n de r, ( n =2 1 4 )a c ro s s g e n de r, ( n =2 1 4 )a c ro s s g e n de r, ( n =2 1 4 )

Male Female

8

29 2921

7 6

0

20

40

60

80

100

Less than

25

25-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 Greater

than 65

Pe

rce

nt

Age distribution of respondents, (n=214)Age distribution of respondents, (n=214)Age distribution of respondents, (n=214)Age distribution of respondents, (n=214)


Figure 4: Age distribution of respondents, by gender

The majority of respondents in the sample were either the head of the household (35%) or the spouse

of the head of household (54%)2 (n=214) (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Respondents’ relationship to head of household

The mean number of persons living in a household is about 4.5 (standard deviation=1.8), ranging from

one to twelve persons per household (Figure 6).

2 In Myanmar, generally the eldest or earning male-member of the family is considered by the family members as the head of

the household.

5

27 2823

124

9

29 30

20

5 6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Less than 25 25-35 36-46 46-56 56-66 Greater

than 65

Pe

rce

nt

Age distribution of respondents, by gender, (n=214)Age distribution of respondents, by gender, (n=214)Age distribution of respondents, by gender, (n=214)Age distribution of respondents, by gender, (n=214)

Male Female

35

54

7

1

1

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Head of household

Spouse of head of household

Child of head of household

Sibling of head of household

Daughter in law/Son in law

Parents

Percent

Respondents' relationship to head of household, (n=214)Respondents' relationship to head of household, (n=214)Respondents' relationship to head of household, (n=214)Respondents' relationship to head of household, (n=214)


Figure 6: Number of people living in a household

When asked if any family member is a) over 60 years old, b) person with disability, c) pregnant, or d)

under 5-years old, about a third of respondents (37%) reported a family member under 5 years old, and

about 20% of respondents reported a family member over age 60; the remaining categories were less

frequent across the sample (see Figure 7).

Figure 7: Vulnerability within households

Ethnicity and Religion

Almost all respondents in the sample associate themselves with the Burma ethnic group, with only one

household belonging to the Chin group. With regards to religion, all respondents (n=214) in the sample

identified themselves as Buddhist.

Education

Approximately 36% of respondents reported primary school as the highest level of education attained;

another 28% have completed middle school, and another 22% completed monastery school, with 10%

of respondents who reported completion of high school, undergraduate, and graduate education (see

Figure 8). Highest education level attained differs widely by village, with primary level studies as the

most common level attained as a percentage of all respondents within Ah Kal Chaung Wa (54%) village.

Ta Mar Ta kaw village has a higher proportion of respondents who completed primary education (38%),

110

1826

2113

5 4 1 0 0 00

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Pe

rce

nt

of

ho

use

ho

lds

Number of people

Number of people living in a household, (n=214)Number of people living in a household, (n=214)Number of people living in a household, (n=214)Number of people living in a household, (n=214)

22

6 2

37

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt

Vulnerability within households, (n=142)Vulnerability within households, (n=142)Vulnerability within households, (n=142)Vulnerability within households, (n=142)

Over 60 years old Person with disability Pregnant Under 5 years old


followed by about a third (32%) who completed Monastery education. Nyaung Lein Kone Ta ka has a

large percentage of respondents who report completing Monastery education (39%), with about a third

(30%) who completed primary education. Of the five villages, Yae Twin Kone Than De (32%) and Don Yan

Thaung Tan (42%) have a higher percentage of respondents who report completion of middle school

(see Figure 9).

Figure 8: Highest education level

Figure 9: Highest education level by village

Occupation

The majority of respondents report casual work (such as fishing), as their primary occupation, followed

by owning a Paddy, then Fishing, and small business vendors (see Figure 10).

3 22 36 29 6 2 2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent

Highest education level, (n=214)Highest education level, (n=214)Highest education level, (n=214)Highest education level, (n=214)

Never went to school Monastery Primary Middle High School Undergradute Graduate

3

5

4

32

39

16

22

13

38

30

35

25

54

22

17

32

42

19

9

11

6

4

4

5

2

5

2

4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Ta Mar Ta kaw

NyaungLeinkone Taw Ka

Yae Twin Kone Than De

Don Yan Thaung Tan

Ah KalChaungWa

Education level by village, (n=214)Education level by village, (n=214)Education level by village, (n=214)Education level by village, (n=214)

Never went to school Monastery Primary Middle High School Undergraduate Graduate


Figure 10: Main occupation

Housing

The most common type of housing across the sampled households were reported bamboo hut or

variation of a bamboo hut with wooden floor (approximately 70%), with less common types such as

wooden houses (approximately 20%) (See Table 4).

Table 4: Types of housing

Type of housing Description Percentage of sample

(n=214)

Bamboo Hut Bamboo pole, bamboo floor, bamboo mat

and thatch roof

39.7%

Bamboo Hut w/wooden floor Timber pole and floor, bamboo mat and

thatch roof

32.7%

Wooden House 1-story 16.4%

Wooden House 2-story 6.1%

Brick Nogging Building Brick infill in a primarily wooden frame 3.3%

Concrete Building Primarily reinforced concrete building with

wall partitions of brick or other material

0.9%

Mixed Material Building Steel roof, timber wall, concrete floor 0.9%

When comparing the type of housing across villages, Bamboo Huts are the most common type of

housing in Ah KalChaungWa, Don Yan Thaung Tan, and Yae Twin Kone Than Deik; and; whereas Bamboo

Huts with wooden floors are more common in Nyaung Leinkone Taw Ka Ni and Ta Mar Ta kaw (see

Figure 11).

24 5 16 6 45 2 1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent

Main occupation, (n=214)Main occupation, (n=214)Main occupation, (n=214)Main occupation, (n=214)

Paddy (own) Paddy (Hire) Farming Fishing

Small Business/Vendors Casual work (Fishing, etc) Job (Regular income) support by my child


Figure 11: Type of housing by village

c. Knowledge and attitudes about disasters

Household knowledge of disasters and perceptions of vulnerability

When asked what the most common disasters in the last ten years, the most commonly reported

disaster was a cyclone, followed by floods, and strong winds (see Table 5 and Figure 12). The most

vulnerable groups as identified by the respondents were most frequently reported to be the elderly,

children, and persons with disabilities (see Figure 13).

Table 5: Most common disaster experienced in community in the past 10 years as reported by respondents, (n=214) multiple-response question

Most common disaster reported in past 10 years

Frequency Percent of responses

Cyclone 196 50.13

Floods 98 25.06

Strong wind 59 15.09

Fires 13 3.32

Tsunami 6 1.53

Health epidemic 5 1.28

Tornado 5 1.28

Earthquakes 4 1.02

Don't know 3 0.77

Other 1 0.26

Drought 1 0.26

Landslide 0 0

There are no disasters 0 0

Total 391 100

16

17

49

43

56

41

43

24

40

19

22

22

19

14

12

16

4

5

3

4

3

9

3

6 4

3

4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Ta Mar Ta

NyaungLei

Yae Twin

Don Yan T

Ah KalCha

Percent

Type of housing by village, (n=214)Type of housing by village, (n=214)Type of housing by village, (n=214)Type of housing by village, (n=214)

Bamboo Hut Wooden Floor Bamboo Hut Wooden House (1 story) Wooden House (2 story)

Brick Nogging Building Concrete Building Mixed Material Building


Figure 12: Most common disaster experienced in community in the past 10 years as reported by respondents, (n=214) multiple-response question

Figure 13: Most vulnerable groups to disasters

Early warning systems

Approximately 71% of respondents report receiving an early warning before a disaster strikes. When

comparing by village, those who report receiving an early warning ranges by village from 58% to 89% of

respondents (see Figure 14). Of the 151 respondents who reported receiving an early warning, 121

(80%) mentioned receiving the warning via radio, followed by 40 respondents receiving a warning via

television, followed by less frequently mentioned methods (see Figure 15).

0 50 100 150 200 250

There are no disasters

Landslide

Drought

Other_specify

Don't know

Earthquakes

Tornado

Health epidemic

Tsunami

Fires

Strong wind

Floods

Cyclone

Frequency

Most common disasters in the last ten years reported by respondents by Most common disasters in the last ten years reported by respondents by Most common disasters in the last ten years reported by respondents by Most common disasters in the last ten years reported by respondents by

village, (n=214)village, (n=214)village, (n=214)village, (n=214)

Ta Mar Ta kaw NyaungLeinkone Taw Ka Yae Twin Kone Than De Don Yan Thaung Tan Ah KalChaungWa

1

2

5

5

6

8

15

29

30

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Those who cannot swim

Don't know

Other

Fishermen

Pregnant women

Poor households

Person with disability

Children

Elderly

Percent of responses

Most vulnerable groups to disasters, (n=214)Most vulnerable groups to disasters, (n=214)Most vulnerable groups to disasters, (n=214)Most vulnerable groups to disasters, (n=214)


Figure 14: Respondents who report receiving an early warning prior to a natural disaster

Figure 15: Method of early warning reported

Attitudes towards disasters

The majority of respondents (80%) reported thinking that natural disasters have an extremely serious

effect on themselves and their family (see Figure 16).

35

39

11

42

19

29

65

61

89

58

81

71

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Ta Mar Ta kaw

NyaungLeinkone Taw Ka

Yae Twin Kone Than De

Don Yan Thaung Tan

Ah KalChaungWa

Total

Percent

Respondents who report receiving an early warning prior to a natural Respondents who report receiving an early warning prior to a natural Respondents who report receiving an early warning prior to a natural Respondents who report receiving an early warning prior to a natural

disaster, (n=214)disaster, (n=214)disaster, (n=214)disaster, (n=214)

No Yes

0

1

1

3

5

5

11

12

16

47

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Other

Social orgs and NGOs

Red Cross volunteers/staff

Mobile phones

Through friends

Portable speakers

Loudspeakers

Head of village, local govnt staff

TV

Radio

Percent

Method of early warning reported, (n=151)Method of early warning reported, (n=151)Method of early warning reported, (n=151)Method of early warning reported, (n=151)


Figure 16: Extent to which natural disasters affect respondents and respondents' family

When asked what respondents worry most about when it comes to natural disasters, about half of the

respondents worry about wasting money necessary to re-establish their lives, another third worry about

a variety of other issues, and another third worry about water pollution, with less frequently reported

worries across the other items (see Figure 17). The most frequently mentioned concern is primarily

related to livelihoods, followed by environmental concerns, and life. Of those who reported “other”

worries (n=74) about natural disasters, the two major concerns that that were revealed are about life

and loss of family (see Figure 18).

Figure 17: Frequency of worries about natural disasters

0 315

79

1

0

20

40

60

80

100

No impacts Mild Impact Serious Impact Extremely

Serious

Don't know

Pe

rce

nt

To what extent do natural disasters affect you and your To what extent do natural disasters affect you and your To what extent do natural disasters affect you and your To what extent do natural disasters affect you and your

family, (n=214) family, (n=214) family, (n=214) family, (n=214)

2

2

2

3

3

5

9

10

12

25

27

30

33

68

74

117

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

More pests and diseases

Shortage of fresh water

More diseases

Effects work and reduce income

Saline intrusion

Collapsed houses

More disasters

Environment pollution

Low crop yield

Losing land

Crop failures

Losing jobs

Unusual weather conditions

Water pollution

Other

Waste money to re-establish lives

Frequency

Frequency of what respondents worry about with natural disasters, (n=214)Frequency of what respondents worry about with natural disasters, (n=214)Frequency of what respondents worry about with natural disasters, (n=214)Frequency of what respondents worry about with natural disasters, (n=214)


Figure 18: Frequency of other worries with natural disasters

d. Disaster preparedness actions

Disaster preparedness activities

When asked what respondents do to prepare before a natural disaster, the most frequently mentioned

actions were to do nothing (n=113), followed by less frequent actions such as stockpiling food, storing

drinking water and listening to news (see Figure 19).

Figure 19: Frequency of reported action to prepare before a natural disaster

1

1

2

3

23

44

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Losing my animals and machines

I don't know

Transportation

Child education

Losing my family

Life

Frequency

Other: Frequency of other things respondents worry about, (n=74)Other: Frequency of other things respondents worry about, (n=74)Other: Frequency of other things respondents worry about, (n=74)Other: Frequency of other things respondents worry about, (n=74)

1

1

1

2

2

3

5

6

6

7

12

14

14

21

24

28

54

113

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Moved livestock

Cleaned out drainage canal in field

Never faced a disaster

Reserved fuel

Strengthened local dyke

Kept children from going to school

Evacuated by order of local authorities

Prepared evacuation route and area

Protected/raised belongings

Stored medicine

Other

Prepared safety kit

Secure important documents

Strengthened the house

Regularly listened to news

Stored drinking water

Stockpiled food

Did nothing

Frequency

Frequency of reported actions to prepare before a natural disaster, (n=214)Frequency of reported actions to prepare before a natural disaster, (n=214)Frequency of reported actions to prepare before a natural disaster, (n=214)Frequency of reported actions to prepare before a natural disaster, (n=214)


Of those respondents who did nothing (n=113), 79 did not know or think the disaster would happen,

and another large group (35 respondents) did not know what actions to take to prepare (see Figure 20).

Figure 20: Reasons why respondents do not prepare for natural disaster

When respondents were asked about actions they would take during a natural disaster, about half of

respondents stated that they would do nothing, with less than a quarter of respondents stating other

options such as running to a safe place and strengthening their house (see Figure 21). Of those who

stated “other” options (n=49), 35 of them would run to a safe place (see Figure 22).

Figure 21: Actions taken during a natural disaster

1

2

3

35

79

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Other

Did not have the time and/or money

Felt that there was no way of preparing

Did not know what should be prepared

Didn't know or think it would happen

Frequency

Reasons why respondents did not prepare for natural disaster, (n=113)Reasons why respondents did not prepare for natural disaster, (n=113)Reasons why respondents did not prepare for natural disaster, (n=113)Reasons why respondents did not prepare for natural disaster, (n=113)

47

21

16

6

6

3

2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Did nothing

Other

Strengthened the house

Helped vulnerable people

Did not allow children to play near risk areas

Regularly listened to news on disaster situation

Participated in rescue work when needed

Percent

Frequency of actions reported during a natural disaster, (n=213)Frequency of actions reported during a natural disaster, (n=213)Frequency of actions reported during a natural disaster, (n=213)Frequency of actions reported during a natural disaster, (n=213)


Figure 22: Other actions taken during a natural disaster

When respondents were asked what they would do after a natural disaster, the majority responded that

they would fix their house, followed by a large response for other options such as finding food,

participating in clean-up operations, and participate in relief work (see Figures 23 and 24).

Figure 23: Frequency of reported actions respondents will take after a natural disaster

Figure 24: Other actions after a natural disaster

35

5

3

3

2

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Ran to safe place

Live together family

Saved food

Stayed in a big building

Held a life jacket

Went to a tree

Frequency

Frequency of other actions during a natural disasters (n=49)Frequency of other actions during a natural disasters (n=49)Frequency of other actions during a natural disasters (n=49)Frequency of other actions during a natural disasters (n=49)

139

5743

27 264 2 1 1

0

50

100

150

200

Fix the house Other

(specify)

Participate in

cleanup

operations

Participate in

relief work

Do nothing Participate in

village mtgs.

on disaster

preparedness

and response

Report to

local

government

about the

effects of

disaster

Cleaning

water sources

Proactively

prevent

diseases

Fre

qu

en

cy

Frequency of reported actions respondents will take after a natural disaster Frequency of reported actions respondents will take after a natural disaster Frequency of reported actions respondents will take after a natural disaster Frequency of reported actions respondents will take after a natural disaster

3813 5 1

0

50

100

150

200

Finding food Reestablishing life Finding lost people Repairing my shop

Fre

qu

en

cy

Frequency of other reported actions after a natural disaster, (n=57)Frequency of other reported actions after a natural disaster, (n=57)Frequency of other reported actions after a natural disaster, (n=57)Frequency of other reported actions after a natural disaster, (n=57)


If the respondents’ homes were located in a river flood area, many respondents stated that they would

re-elevate their house, prepare life jackets/boats, and evacuate to safe shelter (see Figure 25). Other

options mentioned included going ashore.

Figure 25: Frequency of actions reported if respondents’ house is located in a river/flood area

If the respondents’ home was located in a cyclone prone area, the most common responses were that

they would move to a relative’s house, and evacuate to a community shelter after an early warning (see

Figure 26).

Figure 26: Frequency of reported actions if respondents’ house is located in a cyclone area

Regarding earthquakes, the majority of respondents stated that they would run out of the building if an

earthquake were to occur (see Figure 27).

56

54

51

50

40

27

15

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Re-elevate house on stilt

Prepare life jacket/boat

Evacuating to the community shelter when the water level is rising

Putting belongings to upper level (shelf)

Moving to relative house

Other

Don't know

Frequency

Frequency of actions reported if respondents' house is located in river flood Frequency of actions reported if respondents' house is located in river flood Frequency of actions reported if respondents' house is located in river flood Frequency of actions reported if respondents' house is located in river flood

area? (n=214)area? (n=214)area? (n=214)area? (n=214)

88

77

40

22

18

14

1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Moving to a relative's house

Evacuating to the community shelter after receiving the early…

Stockpiling food items, water and securing important document

Inspect house and yard for heavy items and secure them

Other

Don't know

Listening to the radio to get latest weather update

Frequency

Frequency of reported actions if respondents' house is located in an area to Frequency of reported actions if respondents' house is located in an area to Frequency of reported actions if respondents' house is located in an area to Frequency of reported actions if respondents' house is located in an area to

be affected by a cyclone? (n=214)be affected by a cyclone? (n=214)be affected by a cyclone? (n=214)be affected by a cyclone? (n=214)


Figure 27: What will respondents do if an earthquake occurs

In terms of household preparedness for disasters, respondents were asked about whether families

(households) prepare an emergency kit (i.e. grab bag) to take out in case of a disaster, where only 51 of

214 (approximately 24%) have a grab bag (see Figure 28 and 29). More than three-fourths of the sample

do not have a grab bag. Of those who responded that they do have a grab bag, many include important

papers, valuables, medicines, food and clothes within the bag (see Figure 30).

Figure 28: Households who report preparing an emergency kit/grab bag

Figure 29: Households with a grab bag by village

159

26

20

20

17

9

2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Run out of the building

Hide under the table or other strong object

Look for my children

Don't know

Other

Avoid my valuable assets to fall down

Stand beside a reinforced door frame

Frequency of reported actions if respondents' are in their house Frequency of reported actions if respondents' are in their house Frequency of reported actions if respondents' are in their house Frequency of reported actions if respondents' are in their house

during an earthquake, (n=214)during an earthquake, (n=214)during an earthquake, (n=214)during an earthquake, (n=214)

76

24

Pe rc e nt o f h o u s e ho l ds w i t h a g ra b b a g , Pe rc e nt o f h o u s e ho l ds w i t h a g ra b b a g , Pe rc e nt o f h o u s e ho l ds w i t h a g ra b b a g , Pe rc e nt o f h o u s e ho l ds w i t h a g ra b b a g ,

( n = 2 1 4 )( n = 2 1 4 )( n = 2 1 4 )( n = 2 1 4 )

No Yes

12 11

3

12 13

0

10

20

30

40

50

Ta Mar Ta kaw NyaungLeinkone

Taw Ka

Yae Twin Kone

Than De

Don Yan Thaung

Tan

Ah KalChaungWa

Fre

qu

en

cy

Households with a grab bag, by village (n=51)Households with a grab bag, by village (n=51)Households with a grab bag, by village (n=51)Households with a grab bag, by village (n=51)


Figure 30: Contents of a grab bag

e. Community preparedness planning and activities

Community preparedness

Approximately, 51% of respondents know of a group or institution in their community that helps

prepare the community for disasters. When compared across villages, more than 50% of households

sampled within NyaunLeinkone Taw Ka and Ah KalChaungWa know of such an institution (see Figure

31).

Figure 31: Percent of respondents who know of disaster preparedness organization in their community

Of the 108 respondents who knew of an organization or institution in their community that works to

prepare for disasters, almost 70 mentioned the Red Cross, followed by the Fire Brigade, VDMC, VDSC,

and others (see Figure 32).

32

14

11

11

11

6

1

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Important Paper

Valuable

Medicine

Food

Food,clothes,blanket

Clothes

Life jacket

Money

Frequency

Contents of grab bag of households who report having a grab bag, (n=51)Contents of grab bag of households who report having a grab bag, (n=51)Contents of grab bag of households who report having a grab bag, (n=51)Contents of grab bag of households who report having a grab bag, (n=51)

38

78

4938

63

0

20

40

60

80

100


Taw Ka

Yae Twin Kone Than

De

Don Yan Thaung Tan Ah KalChaungWa

Pe

rce

nt

Percent of respondents who know of a disaster preparedness org. in their Percent of respondents who know of a disaster preparedness org. in their Percent of respondents who know of a disaster preparedness org. in their Percent of respondents who know of a disaster preparedness org. in their

community, by village (n=214)community, by village (n=214)community, by village (n=214)community, by village (n=214)


Figure 32: Frequency of community disaster preparedness organization named by respondents

When asked if respondents knew if their community had a village disaster management plan, only 53 of

214 respondents (25%) were able to say that yes they do have one, another 30% said they did not know,

and about 45% stated that their village did not have a disaster management plan (see Figure 33). There

were slight differences when comparing knowledge of a disaster management plan across villages (see

Figure 34).

Figure 33: Percent of respondents who report a village disaster management plan

68

28

17

12

9

8

5

5

4

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Red Cross

Firebrigade

VDMC

VDSC

Don't know

Care

Household Group

Volunteer young people group

School

Township Government

Ka Yu Nar Myanmar

Unicef

Mataining La Mu tree group

Safe from water dangerous

MBE

A Ma Yar group

Frequency

Community organization/institution named by respondents who prepare Community organization/institution named by respondents who prepare Community organization/institution named by respondents who prepare Community organization/institution named by respondents who prepare

communities for disasters (n=108)communities for disasters (n=108)communities for disasters (n=108)communities for disasters (n=108)

25 45 30

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percent of respondents who report a village disaster

management plan, (n=214)

Yes No Don't Know


Figure 34: Percent of households reporting a village disaster management plan

Of the total respondents who knew of disaster management plans (n=53), only 18 had participated in

the preparation of the plan. The 18 respondents who participated in the preparation of the disaster

management plan had various roles, such as VDMC member, community member, VDC member, and

others (see Figure 35).

Figure 35: Frequency of respondents' role in preparation of disaster management plan

With regards to a community fund for support to deal with disasters, only 31 of 214 (approximately

15%) of respondents stated that their community has such a fund, with 45 respondents unsure if such a

fund exists, and 138 reporting that there is no such fund. There are no major differences when

comparing across villages (see Figure 36).

14

35 38

11

37

49

30

46

68

21

38 35

1622

42

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Taw Ka

Yae Twin Kone

Than De

Don Yan Thaung

Tan

Ah KalChaungWa

Pe

rce

nt

Percent of households reporting if there is a village disaster management Percent of households reporting if there is a village disaster management Percent of households reporting if there is a village disaster management Percent of households reporting if there is a village disaster management

plan, (n=214)plan, (n=214)plan, (n=214)plan, (n=214)

Yes

No

Don't Know

6

4

4

2

1

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

VDMC member

Participated as community member

Other

VDC member

RC volunteers

Community volunteers

Frequency

Role of respondent in prepartion of disaster management plan (n=18)Role of respondent in prepartion of disaster management plan (n=18)Role of respondent in prepartion of disaster management plan (n=18)Role of respondent in prepartion of disaster management plan (n=18)


Figure 36: Percent of respondents reporting a community fund for disasters, by village

Of all respondents who know about a community disaster fund (n=31), only 17 reported contributing to

the fund in the past six months (from date of survey - March 2014). The most common reported use of

the fund is for medical/first aid items, among other less frequently reported items (see Figure 37).

Figure 37: Frequency of reported use of the community fund

Community training and activities

Of the 214 respondents, 160 (approximately 75%) know of someone in their community who can

provide first aid. The following figure (Figure 38) displays knowledge of a first aid provider by village.

5 9

19 17 17

73 7065 65

56

22 2216 18

27

0

20

40

60

80

100


Taw Ka

Yae Twin Kone

Than De

Don Yan Thaung

Tan

Ah KalChaungWa

Pe

rce

nt

Percent of respondents who report a community fund for disasters by Percent of respondents who report a community fund for disasters by Percent of respondents who report a community fund for disasters by Percent of respondents who report a community fund for disasters by

village, (n=214)village, (n=214)village, (n=214)village, (n=214)

Yes

No

Don?t Know

14

7

6

4

4

3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Buy medical or first aid items

Others

Do not know

Buy food items

Help poor families

Repair damaged houses

Frequency

Reported use of community fund, (n=18)Reported use of community fund, (n=18)Reported use of community fund, (n=18)Reported use of community fund, (n=18)


Figure 38: Percent of respondents who know someone in community who can provide first aid

Of 214 respondents, only 84 (39%) know of a first aid kit available in their community, with another 82

(38%) respondents stating there is no first aid kit, while another 48 (22%) do not know of a first aid kit in

their community. Figure 39 below depicts this information by village.

Figure 39: Frequency of first aid kits in the community

Of the 84 respondents who are aware of a first kit in their community, only 13 have ever used it. When

asked whether respondents have a first aid kit in their home, only 6 out of 214 stated they have one (see

Figure 40). The reported contents of the first aid kit included: bandage, plaster, cotton wool, spirit,

betadine, and scissors.

78

96

59

7277

14

0

32

15

48

48

1219

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Taw Ka

Yae Twin Kone

Than De

Don Yan Thaung

Tan

Ah KalChaungWa

Pe

rce

nt

Percent of respondents who know someone in community who can provide Percent of respondents who know someone in community who can provide Percent of respondents who know someone in community who can provide Percent of respondents who know someone in community who can provide

First Aid, (n=214)First Aid, (n=214)First Aid, (n=214)First Aid, (n=214)

Yes

No

Don't Know

16

4335 35

6251

35

5143

15

3222

1422 23

0

20

40

60

80

100

Ta Mar Ta kaw NyaungLeinkone Taw

Ka

Yae Twin Kone Than

De

Don Yan Thaung Tan Ah KalChaungWa

Pe

rce

nt

Percent of respondents reporting a first aid kit in their community, by village Percent of respondents reporting a first aid kit in their community, by village Percent of respondents reporting a first aid kit in their community, by village Percent of respondents reporting a first aid kit in their community, by village

(n=214)(n=214)(n=214)(n=214)

Yes No Don't Know


Figure 40: Frequency of households with a first aid kit

When asked about community simulation exercises in preparation for a disaster, only 19 of 214 (9%)

respondents stated that they had participated in such an exercise. At least one respondent per selected

village reported participating in a simulation exercise (see Figure 41).

Figure 41: Frequency of respondents who have participated in a simulation

Of those who had participated in a simulation exercise (n=19), 12 had participated more than one year

ago, and seven within the past year (see Figure 42).

Figure 42: Frequency of last time a respondent participated in a simulation

208

6

0

50

100

150

200

250

No Yes

Fre

qu

en

cyFrequency of households with a First Aid Kit, (n=214)Frequency of households with a First Aid Kit, (n=214)Frequency of households with a First Aid Kit, (n=214)Frequency of households with a First Aid Kit, (n=214)

16

1 38

36

17

36

62

44

0

20

40

60

80

100


Taw Ka

Yae Twin Kone

Than De

Don Yan Thaung

Tan

Ah KalChaungWa

Fre

qu

en

cy

Frequency of respondents who have participated in simulation Frequency of respondents who have participated in simulation Frequency of respondents who have participated in simulation Frequency of respondents who have participated in simulation

exercise, (n=214)exercise, (n=214)exercise, (n=214)exercise, (n=214)

Yes

No

4 3

12

0

5

10

15

20

In the past 6 months 6-12 months, less than

one year ago

More than one year ago

Fre

qu

en

cy

Last time respondent participated in simulation exercise, Last time respondent participated in simulation exercise, Last time respondent participated in simulation exercise, Last time respondent participated in simulation exercise,

(n=19)(n=19)(n=19)(n=19)


The majority of those who participated in a simulation exercise, reported feeling much more confident

about their family’s safety (see Figure 43).

Figure 43: Frequency of confidence level of respondent who participated in simulation

Environmental protection

Based on the current sample (n=214), 132 respondents (about 61%) reported their village having a dyke

or levee. All villages are reported to have a dyke/levee to some degree, but it is not clear if all

community members were aware of it (see Figure 44).

Figure 44: Percent respondents who report a dyke/levee in their community, by village

Of those who reported knowledge of a dyke/levee within their village, many reported the role of dykes

to protect houses and crops against floods, protect fields from saline intrusion, protecting crops from

sea level rise and high tides (see Figure 45).

13 2

13

0

5

10

15

20

Not at all more

confident

A little more

confident

Somewhat more

confident

Much more

confident

Fre

qu

en

cy

Did the exercise make the respondent feel more confident Did the exercise make the respondent feel more confident Did the exercise make the respondent feel more confident Did the exercise make the respondent feel more confident

about family safety? (n=19)about family safety? (n=19)about family safety? (n=19)about family safety? (n=19)

65

100

62

28

85

62

32

0

38

71

15

37

3 0 0 2 0 1

0

20

40

60

80

100


Taw Ka

Yae Twin Kone

Than De

Don Yan Thaung

Tan

Ah

KalChaungWa

Total

Pe

rce

nt

Percent of respondents who report a dyke/levee in their community, by Percent of respondents who report a dyke/levee in their community, by Percent of respondents who report a dyke/levee in their community, by Percent of respondents who report a dyke/levee in their community, by

village (n=214)village (n=214)village (n=214)village (n=214)

Yes No Don't know


Figure 45: Percent of respondents who reported a dyke/levee in their community describe the role of dykes/levees

Red Cross awareness

When respondents were asked if they have ever talked to anyone from MRCS or affiliated with MRCS

(e.g., confirmed by identification of MRCS logo), over half (120, 56%) respondent that they had, with

slight variations across villages (see Figure 46).

Figure 46: Frequency of respondents talking to someone with MRCS shirt

Of those who had encountered a person with an MRCS shirt (n=120), the majority reported that they

were doing health care, followed by training (see Figure 47).

44

29

23

22

11

11

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Protecting houses, crops against floods

Protecting fields from saline intrusion

Protecting houses, crops from sea level rise

Protecting houses, crops against high tides

Other

Don't know

Percent

What are the roles of dykes, (n=132)What are the roles of dykes, (n=132)What are the roles of dykes, (n=132)What are the roles of dykes, (n=132)

16 20 17

31 36

21

3

20

34

16

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140


Taw Ka

Yae Twin Kone

Than De

Don Yan Thaung

Tan

Ah KalChaungWa

Fre

qu

en

cy

Frequency of respondents who report interacting with an MRCS person, Frequency of respondents who report interacting with an MRCS person, Frequency of respondents who report interacting with an MRCS person, Frequency of respondents who report interacting with an MRCS person,

(n=214)(n=214)(n=214)(n=214)

Yes

No


Figure 47: Reported role of MRSC affiliated person

For the most effective communication about natural disasters, the most common method reported was

via radio, followed by other less common methods (see Figure 48).

Figure 48: Most effective communication channels about natural disasters

Respondents report source of weather related information from radio as well as television; fewer

respondents mentioned heads of villages, mobile phones, loudspeakers, among others (see Figure 49).

68

44

18

13

7

6

4

4

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Health care

Training

Don't know/don't remember

Awareness campaign

Disaster drill

House visit

VCA/Mapping

Other

Frequency

Reported role of MRSC affiliated person(n=120)Reported role of MRSC affiliated person(n=120)Reported role of MRSC affiliated person(n=120)Reported role of MRSC affiliated person(n=120)

181

70

49

29

27

24

13

5

3

3

3

3

2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Radio

TV

Mobile phone/SMS

Head of villages, or local government staff

Loudspeakers

Red cross

Family members, friends

Internet

Books, newspaper

From social organizations

Don't know

Other

Other NGOs

Frequency

Most effective communication channels about natural disasters, (n=214)Most effective communication channels about natural disasters, (n=214)Most effective communication channels about natural disasters, (n=214)Most effective communication channels about natural disasters, (n=214)


Figure 49: Frequency of reported sources for weather related news

4. Conclusions Overall, there was a high response rate from the sampled population (214 of 230) with females making

up two-thirds of the sample. About two-thirds (66%) of the sampled households have family members

who fall into the vulnerable categories (22% elderly, 6% person with disability, 2% pregnant women, and

37% children under five). The majority of respondents were between the 25-45 age group with roughly

20% between 46-55 years of age. About half of the respondents were the spouse of the head of

household, and a third was the head of household. The majority of respondents are educated, either

through monastery school, primary, or middle school; for primary occupation, almost half of the sample

rely on casual work (45%) such as fishing and about 24% own their own paddy. About 70% of the

households sampled live in a type of bamboo hut with or without a wooden floor. Knowledge The most common disasters reported were cyclones, floods and strong winds, with the elderly and

children named as the most vulnerable groups to disasters. Regarding early warning systems, about

71% of respondents report receiving an early warning prior to a disaster; however the percentage of

respondents per village who receiving an early warning varies greatly. The majority of respondents

receive an early warning via radio (80%) followed by television and village head/leaders. Attitudes The majority of sampled households believe that natural disasters are extremely serious in their effects

to the respondents and their families. The most frequently mentioned concern about natural disaster

was the wasting of money to re-establish their lives, water contamination and loss of life. In

preparations for a disaster, only 24% of the sampled households have an emergency grab bag ready,

and of those that have one, the most common items include important papers, valuables, medicine,

food and clothes. Practices

Before a natural disaster, the most frequently mentioned action that sampled households reported was

that they “did nothing”, followed by less frequently reported stockpiling food and storing drinking

water. The main reason behind the 113 respondents (of 213) who stated they did nothing was because

201

82

28

23

9

8

6

5

0

0 50 100 150 200

Radio

TV

Head of villages, or local government staff

Mobile phone/SMS

Loudspeakers

Family members, friends

Internet

Other

Newspaper

Frequency

Reported sources for weatherReported sources for weatherReported sources for weatherReported sources for weather----related news, (n=214)related news, (n=214)related news, (n=214)related news, (n=214)


they did not know or think a disaster would happen, and lesser number did not know what should be

prepared. During a natural disaster, the most frequently reported action was that the sampled households “did

nothing”, with less frequently (less than a quarter of the sample) reported strengthening their house

and running to a safe place. When posed with the situation if households were in a river flood area,

over a quarter of the sample would re-elevate their house, prepare life jackets/boats and evacuate. If

households were in an area to be affected by a cyclone, almost half of the respondents would move to a

relative’s house, and slightly less than half would evacuate to a community shelter. If households were

to be affected by an earthquake, about three-fourths of the sample would run out of the building. There is an overall low awareness of disaster preparedness knowledge as well as following practices.

Despite being affected by Cyclone Nargis in 2008, a large number of respondents don’t think a disaster

would happen or are unaware of proper steps to take to enhance safety and preparedness.

After a natural disaster, over half of the respondents reported that they would fix their house, and less

than a quarter would participate in clean-up operations and find food.

Community Disaster Preparedness Approximately half of the sampled households across all villages know of a community

organization/institution that helps their community prepare for a disaster, with the most frequently

mentioned organizations being the Red Cross, fire brigade, VDMC, VDSC and others. Only 25% of

sampled households were aware of a village disaster management plan, with less than half having

played a role in preparing it. Regarding community funds for disasters, only 15% (31 of 214) of sampled

households reported that such a fund existed, and of those, only half (17 households) report

contributing to it. About 61% (132 of 214) of sampled households reported that their village has a

dyke/levee, and of those who report one, the majority stated that the role is to protect houses, crops,

and fields against floods and high waters. In first aid, about 75% of sampled households know of someone who can provide first aid within their

community, and 39% of sampled households know of a first aid kit available in their community. Almost

all (208 of 214) households sampled do not have a first aid kit in the home. Very few (19 of 214) of the sampled households have participated in a community simulation exercise in

preparation for a disaster, with at least half (12 of 19) of those who participated feeling much more

confident about family safety afterwards. Red Cross awareness and communication Over half of the sampled households (120 of 214) report speaking to someone with an MRCS shirt, with

the majority of that half reporting that the MRCS person was doing health care, and training. This

finding reinforces the commonly held belief that the MRCS, as one of the largest humanitarian

organizations, has extensive grassroots network and presence on the ground. Also the visibility of MRCS

can be attributed to the significant relief and recovery programs implemented by MRCS in the program

villages. It is, therefore, timely that through the project, MRCS will be able to spread knowledge and

skills on disaster preparedness and further solidify its image in the community.


The most effective means of communication about natural disasters was reported to be via radio by

over three-fourths of the sampled households. This was followed by less frequently reported use of

television, village leaders/local government and mobile phones/SMS for communication about natural

disasters.

5. Recommendations Based on the findings of this survey, while a good majority of sampled households have knowledge on

what to do before and during a natural disaster (especially floods, cyclones), respondents showed a lack

of taking action regarding disaster practices (e.g., not taking any actions to prepare for disaster because

a disaster won’t happen or don’t know what to do. It can be clearly identified that several indicators are

lagging in terms of attitudes and practices towards disaster preparedness. Further explorations should

be conducted to determine the reasons behind lack of actions regarding attitudes and practices towards

disasters. For example, a barrier analysis may help identify some of the barriers that households face in

taking action either in preparation for or during a natural disaster.

As a follow up to the baseline survey, MRCS and ARC project team will hold a one-day meeting to discuss

and identify how findings and conclusions of baseline survey can further strengthen planned project

activities. Some of the activities that are already planned in the project such as inclusion of people with

disabilities as being the right approach as these groups have been identified as the most vulnerable by

the community members. It is recommended that the project aim to address other vulnerabilities in

programming such as targeting elderly individuals and households with children under five, as these

vulnerable groups were more prominent in this survey.

Some initial key recommendations for strengthening the project activities are:

� Further explorations should be conducted to determine the reasons behind lack of actions

regarding attitudes and practices towards disasters. For example, use a barrier analysis to study,

identify, and subsequently develop activities to address the barriers households face in changing

their behaviors (attitudes and practices) in disaster preparedness.

� It is recommended that the project aim to address other vulnerabilities in programming such as

targeting elderly individuals and households with children under five, as these vulnerable groups

were more prominent in this survey.

� Furthermore, the project would benefit from the indicators of the baseline and should aim to

set appropriate targets to measure its progress.

Following suggestions re-emphasizing the validity of already planned activities could be identified from

the baseline survey:

• Raising awareness of village disaster preparedness plans should be emphasized and visibility and

knowledge is available to most community members.

• Encouraging broader and wider participation of community members in the preparation of

village disaster management plans.


• Supporting the community to ensure first aid kits are available in the community with

community volunteers, and other community leaders during and after the project. The

community should have a mechanism of sharing information about the location of first aid kits

as well as a plan for regular replenishment.

• Strengthening community level initiatives that stockpile food, water instead of such stockpiling

at an individual level. The community emergency fund planned in the project could be a

supplement to this community level initiative.

• Conducting already planned simulation exercises as the role and benefit of simulation exercises

is well-appreciated by community members, and ensuring vulnerable members of the

community are included.

Household Baseline Survey for Enhancing Disaster …pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00JRFV.pdf · i...

Documents

Transcript of Household Baseline Survey for Enhancing Disaster …pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00JRFV.pdf · i...