42 These answers were combined to create a composite score ‘Tsunami damage to
productivehousehold materials’ Velasquez and Tanhueco 2005:92. For each household, 0 for ‘Not Lost’ or 1 for ‘Lost’, was recorded for the following
factors: boat, engine, gear, household items and livelihood activity impact. There were no intermediate scores to distinguish between damaged and destroyed. The
values for each of these factors were added to create a summary measure of productive and household materials lost due to the tsunami.
3.5.4 Perception of Recovery Activities
Perception of recovery activities was assessed through four variables: 1. Participation in Current Projects, 2. Perceived Value of Current Projects, 3.
Predicted Participation in Proposed Projects, 4. Perceived Value of Proposed Projects. Respondents were asked the following questions in order to create the
variables describing perception of recovery activities: 1. Recovery Activity Knowledge
What are the activities in your village that are directed at recovery from the effects of the tsunami?...For each activity Have you
participated in or benefited from this activity?
8
Each of the above activities is to be evaluated using the following question: What kind of an impact has this activity had on the
community? 0=made things a lot worse, 1=made things worse, 2=made things a little worse, 3=no impact, 4=made things a little
better, 5=made things better, 6=made things a lot better.
2. The following types of activities have been proposed for your community.
Each activity will be described with a standard description. For each proposed activity Would you participate in such an activity?
Do you think you would benefitnot benefit from such an activity?
8
This is phrased as two separate questions; 1. Have you participated in this activity? 2. Have you benefited in this activity?
43 Each of the above activities is to be evaluated using the following
question: What kind of an impact do you think this activity would have on the community? 0=make things a lot worse, 1=make
things worse, 2=make things a little worse, 3=no impact, 4=make things a little better, 5=make things better, 6=make things a lot
better.
Proposed projects differed for each village, but none included direct involvement in the capture fishery. Each list of projects also included ‘Small
Groups’ which was explained to the survey respondents as a group of people who are jointly given a small loan to begin some type of livelihood that the borrowers
decide on their own, with restrictions including environmental and sustainability concerns. For each village, several examples were included. A complete list of
proposed projects is included as Appendix B. Each variable of ‘Perception of Recovery Activities’ is a summary measure.
For the variable of participation in current projects, non-participation was coded as 0 and participation was coded as 1. Perceived project value was coded as per the
directions included in the survey and above from 0 ‘made things a lot worse’ to 6 ‘made things a lot better’. There were no intermediate values included but the
summary measures were continuous values because the variable was an average of more than one evaluation. Willingness to participate in proposed projects was
coded as 0 for non-willingness to participate and 1 for willingness to participate. Each of these four variables includes more than one value. For example, one
respondent may have named four current projects and there could have been three proposed projects in the village in which they reside. Therefore, each actual
participation for current projects were added and divided by the number of projects mentioned in this example, four. Value of current projects, willingness to
44 participate in proposed projects and perceived value of proposed projects were each
calculated in the same way by adding each response and dividing by the number of responses to create summary measures for each of the four variables of perception
of recovery activities.
3.5.5 Background Information
