Statistical Analysis of Community Vulnerability to Tsunami in Nagapattinam Coastal Area

Home , Akkaraipettai, Nagapattinam block

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 9, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2020 ISSN 2277-8616 Statistical Analysis Of Community Vulnerability To Tsunami In Nagapattinam Coastal Area

Dr. Ilango Sivakumar , Dr. S.Selvamuthukumar

Abstract:The main intention of this study is to analyse the vulnerability condition of coastal community to Tsunami. The study involves in finding out the human vulnerability by means of questionnaire survey made with the community, responsible officials and administration of the considered region for scrutinizing the current Tsunami Warning and Evacuation Process (TWEP) using vulnerability factors. The assessment of community vulnerability tasks on twenty-four issues based on seven factors on the site concerning TWEP. The obtained factors from the assessment are used for the statistical analysis of community vulnerability.

Index Terms: Tsunami, Vulnerability, Warning, Evacuation, Statistical Analysis, Coastal area, Risk ——————————  ——————————

1. INTRODUCTION and to identify the pitfalls in existing TWEP and to enhance Tsunamis are dangerous and may cause massive loss, a better community based TWEP. destruction and disruption to coastal lives, infrastructure and all other economic activities. the 2004 Tsunami in india 2. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA caused major damages along the coastal areas of In 2004 Tsunami, severe destructions are recorded along Tamilnadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Kerala where, most of the the coast of Nagapattinam because of its geographic damages and death toll were recorded in Nagapattinam setting, prone to much inundation [19]. It is observed that district, tamil nadu due to the inundation of water the maximum run up level of sea water is 3.9 m and transgressed up to 1 km into the mainland of Nagapattinam inundation in land is 750 m in this area (MoES, 2005 & [2] [3]. This is due to that Tsunami hazard management Collectorate, Nagapatinam). Hence, the coast alone was given a low priority by local governments without being recorded 6065 confirmed deaths; which is equivalent to strongly pressed in local plans and lack of public concern 76% of the state‟s total toll. [4]. Hence The 2004 Tsunami significantly raised public The area selected for the study consists of three hamlets awareness about the hazard of Tsunamis and the need for namely Keechankuppam, Akkaraipettai and Kallar whose Tsunami early warning in the Indian Ocean [5]. This event major occupation is fishing. These three hamlets come led to broad international efforts to design and implement under North Poigainallur panchayath in Nagapattinam block the Tsunami early warning system on one hand, and on the which is situated 2 km away from the Nagapattinam town other, to strengthen community based disaster and 8 km from Velankanni. It is surrounded by the river management strategies. Polsky [6] proposed an eight‐step Kaduvaiyar and more so by the Bay of Bengal. method for vulnerability assessment. The steps are Define Nearly 50% of the people who lost their lives in the study area, become aware of the study area and its Nagapattinam district belong to Akkaraipettai, contexts, hypothesize who (or what) is vulnerable to what, Keechankuppam and Kallar fishing hamlets (Collectorate develop a causal model of vulnerability, find indicators for Nagapatinam and NCRC), because of which these villages the components of vulnerability, weight and combine the are almost like an island. The risk factor is high in this place indicators, project future vulnerability, communicate because perpendicular evacuation is not possible during vulnerability creatively. The main objective of this study is to Tsunami. Hence this area is selected for study. analyze the community vulnerability using statistical test

————————————————  Dr Ilango Sivakumar, Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering, Government College of Engineering, Thanjavur, Tamilnadu, India, Email: [email protected]  Dr S.Selvamuthukumar, Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering, Government College of Engineering, Thanjavur, Tamilnadu, India, Email: [email protected]

Fig. 1 Satellite Map of Study Area

3. METHODOLOGY The study involves in drawing an enormous attention on 3.1 Identification of Factors Influencing the Community literature surveys outlining that the community vulnerability Vulnerability is closely related to TWEP. On the basis of the identified With the help of a thorough literature survey and experts weakness a questionnaire is prepared. Even though the opinion the factors greatly influencing the community issue is common to community and officials, the vulnerability are identified and presented in Table 1. questionnaire set to the officials reflect the view of community. Table 1 Factors Influencing TWEP S.No. TWEP Issues Related Factor 1 Evacuation Programme 2 Mock Drill Awareness 3 New Developments 4 Safe Places 5 Evacuation Instructions 6 Govt. Organization Services Service 7 Government Vehicle Provision 8 Shelter Maintenance 9 Perpendicular Evacuation Route 10 Enough Higher Ground 11 Short Route to Safe Place Facility 12 Place for Movable Assets

13 Shelter Provision 14 Easy Access Shelter 15 Facilities During Emergency 16 Belief in Next Tsunami Belief 17 TWEP Save Lives

18 Managing Night Time Emergencies 19 Warning Alert Through Announcement/Siren Expectation 20 Warning Alert Via TV/Radio

21 Warning Alert Through Mobile 22 Night Time Emergency Experience Experience 23 False Warning Experience 24 View on Current TWEP Appraisal of TWEP 3.2 Data Collection is divided as literate and illiterate for 159 respondents out of A questionnaire is a preferable and a simple technique for which 72.3% (115) and 27.7% (44) are literates and data collection. The questionnaire should be in a sharp, illiterates respectively. The occupation dependency of the apparent and well-designed manner so that it would provide community is classified as, (i) fisheries (ii) cultivation (iii) reliable and relevant data from the respondents. Sample agriculture labour (iv) non worker. Where, 55.3%, 17.6%, sizes of 159 respondents are selected from the three 11.3% and 15.7% are involved in fisheries, cultivators, hamlets (71 members from Keechankuppam, 67 from agricultural labourers and non-workers respectively. The Akkaraipettai and 21 from Kallar). number of respondents selected from three hamlets namely Keechankuppam, Akkaraipettai and Kallar which are 3.3 Data Analysis 71(44.7%), 67(42.1%) and 21(13.2%) respectively. These The collected data is analyzed using SPSS software. The three hamlets belong to Vadakkupoigainallur village, profile of the respondents like gender, education, Nagapattinam district. occupation, name of hamlets, building vulnerability is prepared using descriptive statistics. The received 5. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESPONDENTS responses are grouped under „yes‟ or „no‟ category. Further the group is subdivided into „fair‟ and „should PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS ON improve‟ groups with respect to community appraisal of VULNERABILITY FACTORS TWEP. On comparing the proportions of „fair‟ and „should The significance level of various respondents of the seven improve‟ groups the vulnerable factors are obtained. The vulnerability factors like awareness, service, facility, belief, same procedure is repeated for official group also. The expectation, experience and building vulnerability are respondents group are tested whether they are statistically discussed below. significant using chi square, ANOVA and t-test. 5.1 Significance of Gender Table shows the number of samples, mean values of each 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION gender, sig. and t-value for the vulnerability factors. The null OF VARIOUS RESPONDENTS hypotheses are considered to find out the significant The details of 159 community respondents, i.e. their relation between the male and female respondents in gender, education, occupation and hamlet are taken for the vulnerability factors. study. Among the 159 respondents, 111 and 48 are males and females respectively. The furnished data on education

Table 2 t-test: Vulnerability Factors with Respondents Gender Variables Gender N Mean t-value Sig. (2-tailed) Male 111 6.9 Awareness 3.22 0 Female 48 6.29 Male 111 6.15 Service 0.03 0.97 Female 48 6.14 Male 111 10.91 Facility 0.29 0.77 Female 48 10.83 Male 111 4.55 Belief 0.44 0.65 Female 48 4.47 Male 111 4.81 Expectation -1.08 0.28 Female 48 4.93 Male 111 2.62 Experience -3.73 0.71 Female 48 2.66 Male 111 10.41 Building vulnerability -1.23 0.22 Female 48 10.85

From this table the factor awareness has t-value 3.22 and building vulnerability factors between the male and female the significance value 0 which is lesser than 0.05. So the respondents. null hypothesis is rejected and hence concluded that there is a statistically significant difference in the mean of the 5.2 Significance of Education awareness factor between the male and female The null hypotheses are considered to find out the respondents at 95% confidence level. In the awareness significant relation between the literate and illiterate factor the mean value of male (6.9) is slightly higher than respondents in vulnerability factors that of the female (6.29). The lowest mean indicates lack of awareness in female and when compared with male respondents. All the other variables have significance values greater than 0.05. So the null hypothesis is accepted and concluded that there is no significant difference in the mean of service, facility, belief, expectation, experience and

Table 3. Table t- teat: Vulnerability Factors with Respondents Educations t-value Sig. (2- Variables Education N Mean tailed) Literate 115 7.16 0 Awareness 10.1 Illiterate 44 5.56 Literate 115 6.21 0.24 Service 1.2 Illiterate 44 5.97 Literate 115 11.01 Facility 1.5 0.13 Illiterate 44 10.56 Literate 115 4.73 Belief 4.3 0 Illiterate 44 4 Literate 115 4.85 0.92 Expectation 0.1 Illiterate 44 4.84 Literate 115 2.54 0.01 Experience -2.6 Illiterate 44 2.86 Literate 115 10.87 Building vulnerability 3.4 0 Illiterate 44 9.68 higher than that of literate (2.54). This indicates that the The factors awareness, belief, experience and building illiterate has better experience when compared to literate. In vulnerability have significance values 0, 0, 0.1 and 0 which building vulnerability factor, literate (10.87) carrying the is lesser than 0.05. So the null hypothesis is rejected and highest mean indicates better living condition when hence it is concluded that there is a statistically significant compared to the illiterate (9.68). difference in the mean of these factors between literate and the illiterate respondents at 95% confidence level. There is 5.3 Significance of Occupation a discrepancy between literate (7.16), (4.73) and the The null hypothesis is considered here to find out the illiterate (5.56), (4) in awareness and belief factors. The significant relation of the fisheries, cultivators, agricultural lowest mean indicates lack of awareness and belief in the labourers and non-workers in vulnerability factors. illiterate when compared to literate respondents. In the experience factor the mean value of illiterate (2.86) is

Table 4. ANOVA: Vulnerability Factors with Respondents Occupation Variables Occupation N Mean F Sig. Fisheries 88 6.72 Cultivator 28 6.92 Awareness 0.52 0.66 Agriculture 18 6.55 Non Worker 25 6.6

Total 159 6.72 Fisheries 88 6.22 Cultivator 28 6.03 Service Agriculture 18 6.27 0.62 0.6 Non Worker 25 5.92 Total 159 6.15 Fisheries 88 10.79 Cultivator 28 10.57 Facility Agriculture 18 11.16 1.34 0.26 Non Worker 25 11.4 Total 159 10.89 Fisheries 88 4.54 Cultivator 28 4.53 Belief Agriculture 18 4.27 0.53 0.65 Non Worker 25 4.68 Total 159 4.53 Fisheries 88 4.93 Cultivator 28 4.71 Expectation Agriculture 18 4.77 1.02 0.38 Non Worker 25 4.76 Total 159 4.84 Fisheries 88 2.60 Cultivator 28 2.78 Experience Agriculture 18 2.61 0.52 0.66 Non Worker 25 2.6 Total 159 2.63 Fisheries 88 10.94 Cultivator 28 11.92 Building Agriculture 18 10.02 6.94 0 vulnerability Non Worker 25 10.56 Total 159 10.54 The factor building vulnerability have significance value 0 5.4 Significance of Hamlet which is lesser than 0.05. The cultivators (11.92) carry the The null hypothesis is considered here to find out the highest mean which indicates the best living environment significant relation of the Keechankuppam, Akkaraipettai when compared to fisheries (10.94), agriculture labour and Kallar in vulnerability factors. (10.02) and non-worker (10.56).

Table 5. ANOVA: Vulnerability Factors with Respondents Hamlet Variables Hamlet N Mean F Sig. Keechankuppam 71 6.67 0.97 0.37 Akkaraipettai 67 6.67 Awareness Kallar 21 7.04 Total 159 6.72 Keechankuppam 71 6.22 0.83 0.43 Akkaraipettai 67 6.16 Service Kallar 21 5.85 Total 159 6.15 Keechankuppam 71 10.6 4.72 0.01 Akkaraipettai 67 11.35 Facility Kallar 21 10.38 Total 159 10.89 Keechankuppam 71 4.54 0.74 0.47 Akkaraipettai 67 4.59 Belief Kallar 21 4.28 Total 159 4.53 Keechankuppam 71 4.92 1.32 0.26 Akkaraipettai 67 4.82 Expectation Kallar 21 4.66 Total 159 4.84 Keechankuppam 71 2.38 9.71 0 Akkaraipettai 67 2.86 Experience Kallar 21 2.76 Total 159 2.63 Keechankuppam 71 10.4 0.45 0.63 Building Akkaraipettai 67 10.73 vulnerability Kallar 21 10.42 Total 159 10.54 Hence the null hypothesis is rejected. There is a difference As for the facility and experience factors are concerned of opinion in Keechankuppam (10.6),(2.38), Akkaraipettai significance values 0.01 and 0 which are less than 0.05. (11.4), (2.86) and Kallar (10.4),(2.76) in facility and

6265 IJSTR©2020 www.ijstr.org INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 9, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2020 ISSN 2277-8616 experience factor. The lowest mean indicates the lack of tests.The purpose of cross tabulation is to show the facility in Kallar and lack of experience in Keechankuppam. relationship between the two variables.

6. SIGNIFICANCE OF TWEP APPRAISAL IN 6.1 Significance of Hamlet Levels Cross Tabulation gives the percentage of community VARIOUS RESPONDENTS appraisal about TWEP, where larger proportion of the The significance of TWEP appraisal in various respondents community from Kallar (57.1%) said that the TWEP should is analyzed using cross tabulation and Chi Square improve.

Table 6. Cross Tabulation: TWEP Appraisal Based on Hamlet Appraisal of TWEP Hamlet Total Should improve Fair Count 35 36 71 Keechankuppam % within hamlet 49.3 50.7 100 % within Appraisal of TWEP 44.3 45 44.7 Count 32 35 67 Akkaraipettai % within Hamlet 47.8 52.2 100 % within Appraisal of TWEP 40.5 43.8 42.1 Count 12 9 21 Kallar % within Hamlet 57.1 42.9 100 % within Appraisal of TWEP 15.2 11.3 13.2 Count 79 80 159 Total % within Hamlet 49.7 50.3 100 % within Appraisal of TWEP 100 100 100

Table 7. Chi- Square Tests: TWEP Appraisal Based on Hamlet Asymp. Sig. Chi-Square Tests Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 0.57 2 0.75

Table 7 gives the chi-square value 0.57. The attained Cross Tabulation gives the percentage of based community significant value 0.75 is greater than 0.05. So the null appraisal about TWEP where larger proportion of the hypothesis is accepted and it is concluded that there is no community is Illiterate (63.6%) out of the sample proportion association between these two variables in hamlets. 49.7% which tells that the TWEP should be improved. 6.2 Significance of Education

Table 8. Cross Tabulation: TWEP Appraisal Based on Education Appraisal of TWEP Education Total Should improve Fair Count 51 64 115 Literate % within Education 44.3 55.7 100 % within Appraisal of TWEP 64.6 80 72.3 Count 28 16 44 Illiterate % within Education 63.6 36.4 100 % within Appraisal of TWEP 35.4 20 28 Count 79 80 159 Total % within Education 49.7 50.3 100 % within Appraisal of TWEP 100 100 100

Table 9. Chi-Square Test: TWEP Appraisal Based on Education Asymp. Sig. Chi-Square Tests Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4.73 1 0.03

Table 9 shows that the Chi-Square value is 4.73 and the 6.3 Significance of Gender degree of freedom is 1. The significant value is 0.03 which Table 10 gives the percentage of gender based community is lesser than 0.05. So the null hypothesis is rejected and it appraisal about TWEP where larger proportion of the is concluded that there is an association between the community are females (54.2%) out of the sample opinion about TWEP and literacy level of the respondents. proportion 49.7% which tells that the TWEP should be A larger proportion of the illiterates feel that the TWEP improved. should be improved. Table 10. Cross Tabulation: TWEP Appraisal Based on Gender Appraisal of TWEP Gender Total Should improve Fair Count 53 58 111 Male % within Gender 47.7 52.3 100 % within Appraisal of TWEP 67.1 72.5 69.8

Count 26 22 48 Female % within Gender 54.2 45.8 100 % within Appraisal of TWEP 32.9 27.5 30.2 Count 79 80 159 Total % within Gender 49.7 50.3 100 % within Appraisal of TWEP 100 100 100

Table 11. Chi-Square Test: TWEP Appraisal Based on Gender Asymp. Sig. Chi-Square Tests Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 0.55 1 0.45 Table 11 shows that the Chi-Square value is 0.55 and the Table 12 gives the percentage of occupation based degree of freedom is 1. The significant value is 0.45 which community appraisal about TWEP where larger proportion is greater than 0.05. So the null hypothesis is accepted and of the community are from fisheries (51.1%) out of the concluded that there is no association between these two sample proportion 49.7% tells the TWEP should be variables in gender. improved.

6.4 Significance of Occupation

Table 12. Cross Tabulation: TWEP Appraisal Based on Occupation Appraisal of TWEP Occupation Total Should improve Fair Count 45 43 88 Fisheries % within hamlet 51.1 48.9 100 % within Appraisal of TWEP 57 53.8 55.3 Count 14 14 28 Cultivators % within Hamlet 50 50 100 % within Appraisal of TWEP 17.7 17.5 17.6 Count 8 10 18 Agriculture labourers % within Hamlet 44.4 55.6 100 % within Appraisal of TWEP 10.1 12.5 11.3 Count 12 13 25 Non Workers % within Hamlet 48 52 100 % within Appraisal of TWEP 15.2 16.3 15.7 Count 79 80 159 Total % within Hamlet 49.7 50.3 100 % within Appraisal of TWEP 100 100 100

Table 13. Chi-Square Test: TWEP Appraisal Based on Occupation Asymp. Sig. Chi-Square Tests Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 0.3 3 0.96 factors are considered as the independent variables and Table 13 gives the Chi-Square value is 0.3 and the degree community appraisal of TWEP is considered as the of freedom is 3. Here the significant value 0.96 is greater dependent variable in the analysis. F-test or „t‟ test which is than 0.05. So the null hypothesis is accepted and hence applicable were run to check the different hypothesis of the concluded that there is no association between these two independent variables with respect to the different variables in occupation. demographic details collected. The data is analysed using cross tabulation and Chi Square test to find the significance 7.CONCLUSION of dependent variable with respect to the different This study presents the findings of brief and different steps demographic details collected. A detailed view of accepted involved in hypothesis test of discrete data. The TWEP and rejected variables in the analysis is given in Tables 14 issues are grouped under factors such as awareness, and 15. service, facility, belief, expectation and experience. These

Table 14. Significance of Various Respondents Null Hypothesis rejecting variables Characters Null Hypothesis accepting variables (Sig>0.05) (Sig<0.05) Gender Awareness Service, Facility, Belief, Expectation, Experience Education Awareness, Belief, Experience, Service, Facility, Expectation Occupation Awareness, Belief, Experience, Service, Facility, Expectation Hamlet Facility, Experience Awareness, Belief, Service, Expectation Community Appraisal Group Service, Facility, Belief, Expectation, Awareness about TWEP Experience

Table 15. Significance of Community Appraisal about TWEP

Null Hypothesis rejecting variables Null Hypothesis accepting variables Characters (Sig<0.05) (Sig>0.05)

Hamlet Gender Occupation Community Appraisal Group Education

[8] Kintisch. E, (2005). “Disaster preparedness Global From t- test, there is a discrepancy between the male (6.9) Tsunami warning system takes shape” Science, (5708), and female (6.29) and also between the literate (7.16) and 307- 331. illiterate (5.56) in awareness factor. The lowest mean [9] Bhattacharjee. Y, (2005). Indian Ocean Tsunami-in indicates the lack of awareness in the female and illiterate wake of disaster, scientists seek out clues to when compared with male and literate respondents. prevention, Science, 307(5706), 22-23. Similarly from t- test the lowest mean shows the lack of [10] Kerr. R.A, (2005). “South Asia Tsunami Failure to belief in illiterate (4) when compared with literate (4.73) gauge the quake crippled the warning effort” Science, respondents. Likewise the lowest mean shows the lack of (307), 201- 211. experience of literate (2.54) as compared to the illiterate [11] Danielsen. F, (2005). “The Asian tsunami: A protective (2.86). From ANOVA test, there is a difference of opinion in role for coastal vegetation.” Science, 310(5748), 45 - Keechankuppam (10.6), Akkaraipettai (11.35) and Kallar 64. (10.38) in facility factor. The lowest mean indicates the lack [12] Krishna. K.S, (2005). “Science plan for coastal hazard of facility in Keechankuppam and Kallar. Moreover a preparedness”, Curr. Sci., 89(8), 1339-1347. contradiction prevails among Keechankuppam (2.38), [13] Levy. J.K and Gopalakrishnan. C, (2005). “Promoting Akkaraipettai (2.86) and Kallar (2.76) in experience factor. disaster - resilient communities: The great Sumatra - The Keechankuppam carrying the lowest mean indicates Andaman earthquake of 26 December 2004 and the lack of experience with the community when compared to resulting Indian Ocean Tsunami”, Int. J. Water Resour. Akkaraipettai and Kallar. Dev., 21(4), 543-559. [14] Lorch. R, (2005). “What lessons must be learned from REFERENCES the Tsunami?” Build. Res. Inf., 33(3), 200 -211. [15] Marris. E, (2005). “Inadequate warning system left Asia [1] Papathoma. M and Dominey-Howes. D, (2003). Assessing Tsunami Vulnerability, an Example from at the mercy of Tsunami”, Nature, 433(7021), 3-5. Herakleio, Crete, Natural Hazards and Earth System [16] Wisner. B, Blaikie. P, Cannon. T and Davis. V, (2005). Sciences, 3,377-389. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People‟s Vulnerability and Disasters, Routledge, London. [2] Alpa. S, Singdha. S, Arvind. J and Prathibha. G, (2006). Effects of December 2004 Indian Ocean [17] Villagran de Leon. J. C, Bogardi. J, Dannenmann. S, Tsunami on the Indian Mainland. Earthq Spectra, and Basher. R, (2006). Early Warning Systems in the 22(S3), 435-473. context of Disaster Risk Management, Entwicklung & Landlicher Raum, 2, 23-25. [3] Srinivasulu. S, Rajeshwara Rao. N, Thangadurai. N, Jonathan. M.P, Roy. P.D and Ram Mohan. V, (2009). [18] Raval. U, (2005). Some factors responsible for the Characteristics of 2004 Tsunami deposits of the devastation in Nagapattinam region due to Tsunami of northern Tamil Nadu coast, south-eastern India, Boletin 26th December 2004, Journal of the Geological Society De La Sociedad Geologica Mexicana, 61(1), 111-118. of India, 5(65), 64 -649. [19] Al-Ghamdi. A.S, (2002). Using Logistic Regression to [4] Johnston. D, Paton. D, Crawford. G.L, Ronan. K, Houghton. B and Burgelt. P, (2005). “Measuring Estimate the Influence of Accident Factors on Accident Tsunami preparedness in coastal Washington, United Severity, Pergamon, Elsevier, 34, 729-741. States.” Natural Hazards, (35), 173 - 184.

[5] Rudloff. A, Lauterjung. J, Munch. U and Tinti. S. (2007). Preface “The GITEWS Project (German-Indonesian Tsunami Early Warning System)”, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9, 138 -1382. [6] Polsky. C, Schroter. D, Patt. A, Gaffin. S, Martello. M.L, Neff. R, Pulsipher. A and Selin. H, (2003). Assessing Vulnerabilities to the Effects of Global Change: An Eight‐Step Approach, Research and Assessment Systems for Sustainability Program Discussion Paper, 2003-2005. [7] Cyranoski. D, (2005). “Solo efforts hamper tsunami warning system”, Nature, 433-343.