Next Article in Journal
Measuring Neighborhood Walkable Environments: A Comparison of Three Approaches
Next Article in Special Issue
Risk Perceptions on Hurricanes: Evidence from the U.S. Stock Market
Previous Article in Journal
Interventions Aimed at the Prevention of Childhood Injuries in the Indigenous Populations in Canada, Australia and New Zealand in the Last 20 Years: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Modeling Fire Occurrence at the City Scale: A Comparison between Geographically Weighted Regression and Global Linear Regression
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 14
Issue 6
10.3390/ijerph14060590
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Ethnic Groups Differences in Domestic Recovery after the Catastrophe: A Case Study of the 2008 Magnitude 7.9 Earthquake in China

by
Ying Wang
1,2,*,
Yingqi Zhu
1,2 and
Qi Sui
1,2
1
Key Laboratory of Environmental Change and Natural Disaster of Ministry of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
2
Academy of Disaster Reduction and Emergency Management, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14(6), 590; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14060590
Submission received: 16 March 2017 / Revised: 26 May 2017 / Accepted: 26 May 2017 / Published: 2 June 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Human Health, Risk Analysis and Environmental Hazards)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This research examined the ethnic differences in domestic recovery after the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake in China. In 2014, 866 valid questionnaires were collected. Han and Qiang & Zang households were analyzed using logistic regression to determine the factors influencing household recovery. It was found that the householder of the Qiang & Zang group played a more important role in household recovery. Different from the Han, females from Qiang & Zang households had negative attitudes on recovery, and Qiang & Zang households did not believe in the effectiveness of public donations for post-quake recovery. The study also showed that local workers in a household were more helpful for household recovery than were migrant workers in a household, regardless of ethnicity. Therefore, the government should create more local jobs in Han and Qiang & Zang households and pay more attention to women in Qiang households. Assistance should be established specifically for the psychological recovery of Qiang women and family recovery projects.

1. Introduction

After natural hazards, inequalities in populations in terms of long-term recovery are evident [1]. The behaviors of people who face natural hazards are influenced by factors including culture, society, and the economy [2,3,4].
Hazard vulnerabilities vary according to the type of hazard, as they are contingent on various circumstances (social, psychological, economical, etc.) [5] and unevenly distributed across individuals, households, and regions [6]. Domestic recovery trajectories depend on household internal characteristics, such as household size, income, ethnicity etc. [7,8].
Studies on post-natural hazard recovery often emphasize that people from different ethnic backgrounds are affected differently when struck by a hazard. Understanding radicalized social processes requires a historically informed understanding of the particularities of racial formations in specific places and times, and how these shape the environmental risks to which people are exposed [9,10,11]. Historically and spatially informed research such as Peacock’s work [12] should serve as a model for studies that combine qualitative and quantitative techniques to examine the ways that class, race, and ethnicity shape vulnerability to hazards.
Scholars have attempted to determine the reasons for these differences based on the relevant backgrounds of race and ethnicity, as different races and ethnicities take different actions towards hazards [13,14]. Generally, racial minorities (mostly people who are black) are more vulnerable than people who are white during post-hazard restoration [15,16,17]. Elliott and Pais [18] collected and analyzed information including recovery time, housing conditions, and the employment status of 1200 survivors of Hurricane Katrina. According to the results, people from different ethnicities responded differently to post-hazard reconstruction. Among these, low-income, black homeowners from New Orleans were more willing to work in their original places of residence. Studying employment recovery after the hurricane, Zottarelli [19] confirmed Elliott’s argument that people who are black from New Orleans were at a particular recovery disadvantage. Zottarelli suggested considering human capital to explore additional reasons when discussing racial differences.
Ethnicities [20] and religions [21] shape our concerns and actions, and in many cases, are why strategies to reduce hazard risk or factors that increase hazard risk are not recognized by society, as they are so embedded in everyday life. Fundamentally, different cultures appear in different ethnicities and races, and cultures significantly affect how ethnic groups cope with the post-hazard reconstruction stage [22]. Therefore, there are significant differences between the ways ethnic groups cope with the post-hazard reconstruction stage. However, does this apply to China or other countries as well? The ethnicities of some countries are classified according to states or regions [2,18,19]. In China, the national attribute is not assigned by the state. In a county there are several ethnic groups, and in the village there will be ethnic settlements. We are interested in knowing whether the recovery of different ethnic groups in China differs.
Social capital is important to post-hazard recovery. Aldrich highlights the critical role of social capital [23] and networks [24] in hazard survival and recovery, and lays out recent literature and evidence on the topic. Social capital is commonly viewed as positively affecting hazard resilience [25]. Kim [26] empirically estimated the association between social capital and natural hazards using Florida counties as a case example, and found that coastal counties with stronger economies and better social conditions before the hazard experienced lower hazard losses.
Economic status in a household is also critical to post-hazard recovery. Homes in low-income and minority neighborhoods recovered more slowly [27]. Schultz [28] used the Spatial Hazard Events and Loss Database for the US and population censuses from 1990 to 2000, finding that income inequality between those in the upper half of the local income distribution and those in poverty tended to increase during hazard recovery. Peacock [29] reported empirical work from Hurricane Andrew in Miami-Dade (FL) in 1992 and the 2008 Hurricane Ike in Galveston (TX) to assess long-term trends in the housing recovery of different households. The findings suggest that social vulnerability factors play out differently in different settings. In Miami, income, race, and ethnicity were critical determinants, whereas in Galveston, income was the more critical factor. Wang [30] researched post-hazard recovery after the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, determining that long-term unemployment and poor economic conditions were unfavorable to household recovery.
According to a comparative post-hazard study, attention should be paid to women’s coping strategies in risky environments based on their characteristics [31,32]. The International Labor Organization working paper on gender, work, and hazard [33] observed that working-class women dependent on social protection, secure employment, public services, and home-based livelihoods were more severely impacted by hazards than men. In addition, most studies found that women are more vulnerable than men when confronting natural hazards [15,34,35]. Moreover, people with a higher education level [1] recover at a quicker pace after a hazard. Investment in education also requires financial support in a family [36]. Therefore, we also want to find out if educational investment is needed for household recovery after an earthquake.
Little literature explores ethnic household differences in China’s post-hazard recovery. In this study, we are interested in knowing whether the recovery of different ethnic groups in China is different. We focused on ethnic households to explore factors such as gender, age, education, income source, and other household characteristics that affected natural hazards recovery. In our study, a household is defined as those members living under the same roof who make up a distinct economic unit.

2. Data Source

The 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake measured 7.9 magnitude and occurred on 12 May in Sichuan province. It caused 69,277 deaths, 374,643 injuries, and 17,923 missing people. After the Wenchuan earthquake, 30,000 Qiang, 10% of the Qiang population, perished [37]. Less than 150 kilometers from the epicenter, most Qiang villages in Beichuan were buried or otherwise devastated [38].
China is a country with multiple ethnic groups, including the majority Han and minorities such as the Qiang, Zang and others. Approximately 91.5% of people in China are Han [39] and are distributed countrywide. Sichuan, one of the western provinces with a large population, is also multi-ethnic. Ethnicities in the province include Han, Qiang, Yi, and Tibetan.
The Qiang are an old ethnic group in Western China, and the predecessors of the Han, an important part of the Chinese nation [40]. Unlike the Han, most Qiang are mountain dwellers [41,42]. Our study area includes Wenchuan and Beichuan Counties, which are inhabited by the Qiang. The Qiang religion is still at a stage of primitive polytheistic religious belief, worshipping objects such as white stones. Ancestor worship by the Qiang is also common [43].
The Qiang are composed of essentially monogamous patriarchal households, and every household is a basic unit of production and life. The family concept for the Qiang is inveterate: the family system prevails in Qiang ethnicities [44], and procreation in the family is strongly influenced by ancestor worship [45]. In closed Qiang villages, the original character of the religious culture and traditional social customs are maintained, especially their social perception of ethnic groups [46]. For the Qiang, the interest of the tribal group is far higher than that of the individual [47].
Unlike the Qiang preference for living in the same geographical region, six waves of large-scale Han migration occurred during their history in Sichuan [48]. Due to freely migrating individuals and encouragement from the Qing government, many Han settled in Sichuan, and the ethnic composition in the area changed dramatically during the Qing Dynasty [49]. Compared to the Qiang, the Han in Sichuan easily accept migration, and it is not expected that family members live in the same region.
After the earthquake, the Chinese government, with the help of the whole country, adopted the partner assistance policy, which has helped in the reconstruction of hazard areas. We assumed that different ethnicities received similar amounts of government aid after the earthquake and that recovery was similar across different ethnic groups.
The researcher surveyed the affected households before the Spring Festival in 2014, finding that most had already completed their housing recovery. All the respondents were adults aged from 18 to 70 years, who survived the Wenchuan Earthquake in Sichuan. The study areas were Beichuan County and Wenchuan County, which were the most affected areas, with a seismic intensity scale of XI. In addition to the Han ethnic group, Qiang & Zang ethnic groups, also live in both of these counties. According to statistics from the end of 2014 [50,51], the population of Beichuan was 238,683 people, comprised of 62.29% Han and 35.80% Qiang. The population of Wenchuan was 99,949, composed of 41.00% Han and 37.40% Qiang. Table 1 shows the ethnic statistics of Beichuan and Wenchuan in 2014.
The survey occurred 10 days before the Spring Festival in 2014 (17 to 25 January). Many migrant workers returned home to be with their families for the festival, which ensured higher sample numbers and better survey efficiency.
Our point-survey was based on simple random sampling. First, according to the intensity of the earthquake and demographic situation of the villages and towns, we determined that the villages and towns with large populations are located in high-intensity areas. The investigators randomly selected households for the survey. In every survey location, the investigators selected respondents randomly based on the house number. In principle, investigators attempted to ensure that the surveyed families reflected the basic situation of the study area. According to the previous investigation and the results of this survey, few households had moved in or out of the area. Therefore, it was possible to determine household situation before and after the hazard could be determined.
In addition to the research team members, well-trained Sichuan college students also conducted surveys. The model of “investigators inquire-respondents answer” was adopted for the survey, and the questionnaire took approximately 30 min to complete. To unify the criteria of the questions, the investigators were trained before the survey. All respondents were adults aged from 18 to 70 years, as mentioned.
To guarantee the validity of the survey responses with regard to recovery time, investigators first asked household members whether they had moved into new housing, whether the necessities of life had been restored, and the length of time spent on recovery. Respondents were then asked to evaluate whether they had recovered from the hazard and to give a detailed recovery timeline. If the timeline was contradictory, respondents were asked to recall it again. The recovery time for living is the specific time taken to recover all the necessities of life. The unit of time was based on one month, because the hazard occurred a long time ago.
In the survey, 878 questionnaires were administered. Investigators each house for a face-to-face investigation and collected all questionnaires; thus, the number of valid questionnaires was high. There were 866 valid questionnaires and only 12 invalid questionnaires. Questionnaires were considered invalid when respondents unwilling to answer the questions provided incomplete information.
The study investigated the factors influencing recovery rates of different ethnic group classifications. The ethnic groups were obtained directly using the 866 valid questionnaires. In China, especially in the area under investigation, there is less intermarriage between different. Therefore, most household members are the same ethnicity as the householder. The questionnaires used in this study were based on the actual situation. According to responses regarding the ethnicity of the householder, the questionnaire was classified into two categories. One is the Han group, the other is the Qiang & Zang group. Ultimately, the Han group completed 422 valid questionnaires, and the Qiang & Zang group 444 valid questionnaires.

3. Measures

3.1. Dependent Variables

Our two dependent variables represent two levels (the fast and slow) of recovery time after an earthquake. In this research, the household recovery rate was evaluated according to the time spent on recovery efforts. It was presumed that the shorter the recovery time, the better the recovery conditions. The recovery time was based on the survey question, “How long did it take before daily life returned to the same as before? On XX month and XX year.” The recovery time (in units of months) was obtained via calculations beginning in May 2008. According to the recovery time distribution, the households were divided into two categories, namely a fast group and a slow group. Using “average time + standard deviation” as the standard time, it was revealed that households in the fast group spent less than the standard time to recover, while the slow group spent more than the standard time.

3.2. Independent Variables

Based on the questionnaires, the current study utilized 8 indexes as independent variables to investigate their relationship with the rate of post-hazard recovery. One numerical variable was the age of the respondent. The seven classified variables were as follows: the gender of the respondent, whether educational investment is needed, whether the householder is always at home, the main source of household income, the change in the total number of temporary workers after the hazard, the change in income after the hazard, and the degree of satisfaction with public donations.
Respondents’ gender (Male = 1, Female = 0), age and whether the householder is always at home (Yes = 1, No = 0) were obtained from basic information in the questionnaires. Whether educational investment is needed was measured based on whether there was a dependency burden for a juvenile in a household, which indicates that educational investment is needed every year if any children in the household attend school. According to the number of students going to school, in the questionnaire, the index is 1 if the number of students is more than 1, otherwise 0.
Based on the results of the pre-survey, the income of most rural households in this area relies on temporary work. However, the place of work influences income stability differently. According to the results for the question, “What is the main source of income in your household? (ranking)”, the main sources of income are: “1: others (not from working)”, “2: local workers”, and “3: migrant workers”. Compared with household income before the hazard, an increased income was recorded as “1”, decreased income as “2”, and invariant income as “3”. The evaluation of the change in the total number of temporary workers after the hazard is the same as the change in household income. In addition, according to the “the main source of household income” index, household income that does not come from working is separated and recorded as “0” (others), which eliminates confusing factors in the results. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree of satisfaction of each item on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “1: Indifference” to “6: Very Satisfied”. Table 2 shows the statistics of the 7 indexes for the Han and Qiang & Zang ethnic groups.

4. Methodology

4.1. Descriptive Statistical Analysis

The distribution of the recovery time for the Han and Qiang & Zang ethnic groups in the questionnaires was analyzed using a control group chi-square test. Based on the distribution of the recovery time for the Han and Qiang & Zang ethnic groups, the recovery rate of the two groups was classified into two categories, namely fast and slow.
Figure 1 traces the summation curve of the recoveries of the Han and Qiang & Zang ethnic groups. The result of the chi-square test for the recovery times of the Han and Qiang & Zang ethnic groups was p < 0.01 which indicates significant differences between the two groups. According to Figure 1, during the early period of recovery (January to May), the conditions of the two groups were similar. However, the recovery of the Qiang & Zang ethnic groups was faster than that of the Han during the middle recovery period (May to September). Moreover, during the last period, the two groups were consistent, and the Han ethnic group was somewhat faster than the other group. The factors influencing post-quake recovery of the Han and Qiang & Zang ethnic groups and differences between the factors are analyzed in the following section.
According to the recovery time distribution, the households were divided into two categories. Using “average time + standard deviation” as the standard time, households in the fast group spent less than the standard time recovering, and the slow group spent more than the standard time. Therefore, for Han households (average: 7.701, standard deviation: 3.756), a recovery time from 1 to 12 months is recorded as “1” and a recovery time from 12 to 16 months as “0”. The recovery time for the Qiang & Zang households (average: 7.702, variance: 3.881) was recorded in the same way.

4.2. Logistic Regression Analysis

The logistic regression model can be expressed by the equation below:
P = 1 1 + e − ( X 1 B 1 + X 2 B 2 + X 3 B 3 + X 4 B 4 + X 5 B 5 + X 6 B 6 + X 7 B 7 + X 8 B 8 + X 9 B 9 + c o n s t a n t )
P refers to the possibility for fast recovery after the earthquake (fast recovery when P = 1 and slow recovery when P = 0);
X i (i = 1, 2… n) is the independent variable. X 1 : The gender of the respondent (Female); X 2 : The age of the respondent; X 3 : Whether the householder is always at home (No); X 4 : Whether educational investment is needed (No); X 5 : The main source of household income (Migrant workers); X 6 : The change in the total number of workers after hazard (Invariant); X 7 : The change in income after hazard (Invariant); X 8 : The degree of satisfaction with public donations (Very satisfied).
B i refers to the coefficient of the independent variable X i .
Constant is the constant in the logistic regression model.
The samples of the “0” and “1” households of the Han and Qiang & Zang ethnic groups are shown in Table 3. We found fewer “0” samples than “1” samples. If the sizes of the “0” and “1” samples differ significantly, the final logistic regression model will be defective. According to the unbiased premise of the logistic regression model, the sizes of the “0” and “1” samples should be approximately equal [40]. Therefore, the sample number of “0” households has been extended to be almost the same as the “1” samples. For example, the number of “0” households is 52, which accounts for 1/7 of the number of “1” households. Therefore, the 52 “0” households were copied seven times and put into the model (364). Similarly, the 63 Qiang & Zang households were copied 6 times and put into the model (378). In our logistic model, the number of “0s” in the Han group is 364, and there are 370 “1s”. The number of “0s” in Qiang & Zang group is 378, and 381 are “1s”.
Table 4 shows the influence of the 8 independent variables obtained through a logistic regression for the post-hazard recovery rate of the Han ethnic group. Table 5 shows the results of the Qiang & Zang ethnic groups. When the cutoff value is 0.5, the accuracy of the model for the Han ethnic group is 78.10% (p < 0.01), whereas the accuracy for the Qiang & Zang ethnic group is 73.90% (p < 0.01). The model used in this study provided favorable predictions for the Han and Qiang & Zang ethnic groups.
In Equation (1), the relation between Xi and the household recovery rate after the earthquake can be judged based on whether its corresponding Sig. passes significance testing. Usually, when Sig. < 0.10, it has passed the significance test. In addition, * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, and *** p < 0.01 mean an enhancement of significance testing.

5. Results

In comparing Table 3 and Table 4, the common factors influencing the Han and Qiang & Zang ethnic groups can be observed. (i) When the respondent is older, more time is needed for recovery. The coefficients of the age of the Han and Qiang & Zang ethnic groups are −0.028 and −0.030, respectively, which pass the significance level test at 0.01; (ii) The households whose major income source is from local workers recover faster than those whose major income source is from migrant workers. When the income source from migrant workers is the reference classification, the coefficients of the Han and Qiang & Zang ethnic groups are 1.337 and 0.473, respectively, passing the significance level test at 0.01 and 0.05 respectively. The result is similar to the post-quake survey in Yunan because migrant workers spend only part of their income on local household construction, and must spend another part of their income at their place of work [52]; (iii) Households with increased income after the earthquake recover faster. The reference classification is “the income is invariant”. If income increased, the coefficient is positive (Han ethnic group: 0.434, Qiang & Zang ethnic groups: 0.510); otherwise, the coefficient is negative (Han ethnic group: −0.660, Qiang & Zang ethnic groups: −0.749); (iv) Whether a household must invest in education makes little difference for post-hazard recovery. When the reference classification is “a household needs educational investment”, both the Sig. of Han and Qiang & Zang are approximately 0.100.
In addition, the variables with large differences in significance levels or coefficients in the logistic regression model between the Han and Qiang & Zang ethnic groups were compared. First, males from a Qiang & Zang household evaluated household recovery higher. In the logistic regression, the variable “the gender of the respondent” for the Han ethnic group failed to pass significance testing (t = −1.447, p > 0.5), but this variable for the Qiang & Zang ethnic groups passed (t = 2.908, p < 0.01). Therefore, the gender of a respondent will influence the self-evaluation of the household recovery rate in a Qiang & Zang household. When the reference classification is female, the coefficient is 0.538, which indicates that a male from a Qiang & Zang household will evaluate household recovery higher. However, respondents from Han households showed no differences.
The “satisfaction degree with public donations” also differs between the two groups. Using “very satisfied” as the reference classification, this variable passed the significance test (p < 0.01) in Han households with a positive coefficient, which indicates that the households with a higher degree of satisfaction recover faster. Regarding the Qiang & Zang households, although the variable passed the significance test (p < 0.01), the significance levels of the different categories are relatively poor (three are p > 0.1, and two are 0.01 < p < 0.1). This difference indicates that Han households believe in the effectiveness of public donations for post-quake recovery, but that Qiang & Zang households do not. On the night of the quake, the Chinese State Council organized an emergency meeting and the General Headquarters of Quake Relief was immediately estableshed within the State Council to coordinate rescue and relief efforts [53]. After the earthquake, the Chinese government encouraged public donations. Furthermore, Yamamura [54] found a positive relationship between social trust and happiness after the Great East Japan earthquake. In general, the families under investigation were satisfied with public donations after the Wenchuan earthquake in China.
The variable “whether the householder is always at home” reflects different values. Utilizing “the householder is not always at home” as the reference classification, this variable of the Han households fails to pass the significance test (t = 0.751, p > 0.10), while the variable of the Qiang & Zang households passes the significance test (t = 2.761, p < 0.01) with a coefficient of 0.588. This result indicates that whether the householder is always at home makes no difference in household recovery in the Han households, but it is favorable for the Qiang & Zang households.
Finally, we focused on the change in the total number of workers after the hazard. Using “the total number of workers is invariant” as the reference classification, the variable for Han households passed the significance test. The coefficient for non-temporary working households is 1.695 (t = 4.632, p < 0.05). When the number of workers increases, the coefficient is −0.504 (t = −2.152, p < 0.05); otherwise, the coefficient is 1.067 (t = 2.100, p < 0.05). This result indicates that income not obtained from temporary workers in Han households negatively influences recovery, and an increase in the total number of these households negatively influences household recovery. However, for Qiang & Zang households, this variable fails to pass the significance test (p > 0.1).

6. Discussion

In previous studies, education was widely accepted as an indicator of an individual’s earthquake hazard perception [55,56,57,58]. In addition, it has been shown that people with a higher level of education were less likely to have a post-traumatic stress disorder [59,60,61]. In general, survivors with higher education levels had a better ability to overcome difficulties caused by an earthquake; therefore, the recovery time was shorter [62].
This study also found that education levels had little significance in post-hazard household recovery. Among the survey samples, 68.40% of individuals had an education level lower than primary education. It was concluded that, because there was little difference in residents’ education, education was not significant in the recovery analysis.
Han and Qiang & Zang households who still had to invest in education demonstrated slower hazard recovery (−0.367, p < 0.10; −0.302, p = 0.10). If any school-aged children were present, persistent education investment from households was expected. According to the field survey, 45.60% Qiang & Zang and 31.60% Han households were investing in education. Educational investment becomes a small burden to households during earthquake recovery. The government should plan to provide funds for elementary education after the earthquake, not just relief materials.
Although Han and Qiang & Zang people in hazard-stricken regions shared the same natural environment and, governmental and social support, and were deeply rooted in culture, education and customs, there were generally few significant differences in their post-hazard recovery processes. In Qiang & Zang households, females evaluated their household recovery as being slower. The “satisfaction degree with public donations” in Qiang & Zang households was more optimistic. The householder at home was favorable for the recovery of Qiang & Zang households. In addition, the change in the total number of temporary workers after the hazard had no significant effect on Qiang & Zang households. Furthermore, the main source of household income in both the Han and Qiang & Zang ethnic groups was critical for household recovery. Local workers in a household were more helpful to household recovery than migrant workers in a household, regardless of ethnicity.
The government should pay more attention to the women in Qiang households, and assistance should be estableshed specifically for the psychological recovery of Qiang women and family recovery projects, because they are more pessimistic about the recovery of their own families. The householder in Qiang has a very important role in recovery; therefore, the government should initiate assistance projects for householders in Qiang to help them with local employment. At the same time, the government should create more local jobs in both Han and Qiang & Zang households, so that they have a sustained source of income, rather than having to rely on short-term capital assistance.
There are some shortcomings in this paper. Social capital variables are important factors affecting recovery. However, because of the large sample survey, this part of data acquisition was more difficult; thus, this article does not discuss the impact of social capital on post-hazard recovery. In addition, the recovery time in this study was based on the recall of respondents, and because the period of recovery was long, there may be some deviation. Therefore, more research should be conducted in the future to keep track of the survey.

7. Conclusions

This research provides new evidence regarding the differences and similarities in domestic recovery between different ethnic groups through field surveys, which complement the experimental evidence in related literature.
The study revealed common influence factors as well as differences in the household recovery process of Han and Qiang & Zang ethnic groups following the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake. In this research, a descriptive statistical analysis indicated a similar recovery process for Han and Qiang & Zang households. Finally, by analyzing the factors for the two groups’ recovery processes through a logistic regression model, the study found no differences between some factors influencing the recovery process for the Han and Qiang & Zang groups. Older populations needed more time for recovery after the earthquake. The households whose major source of income was from local workers recovered faster, as did households with increased income after the earthquake.
In recent decades, the Han and Qiang & Zang populations have become deeply involved in the process of urbanization in Sichuan, and the ethnic groups are moving forward in harmony. After the earthquake, the main source of household income for both the Han and Qiang & Zang ethnic groups was significant in household recovery. As land destroyed in the earthquake was occupied for rebuilding, the main source of post-hazard income for households in both groups was temporary work. Moreover, households where major income was from local workers after the hazard recovered much faster than those whose major income was from migrant workers. It is worth noting that local workers in a household were more helpful to household recovery than migrant workers in a household, regardless of ethnicity.
In addition, we should also examine the differences in post-hazard recovery of the two ethnic groups. A male from a Qiang & Zang household evaluated household recovery higher. However, respondents from Han households showed no differences. Previous papers identified gender as a very important factor in determining behavior and recovery after a natural hazard such an earthquake. The Qiang & Zang households followed that conclusion, because women have additional dependencies and household responsibilities, and face greater risks in hazards compared to men in a household [63].
Householders played a critical role in the post-hazard recovery process for Qiang & Zang households. In other words, Qiang & Zang households relied on their householder more. For example, in the highly patriarchal Qiang society, people think highly of their own family. As described in the overview of ethnic, Qiang people sharing clan ancestors are firmly linked by blood relationships and live in the same geographical region. However, the Han people have been in a state of high mobility throughout history. The Han easily accept migration, and family members are not necessarily expected to live in the same region. Compared to Qiang & Zang males, female members in Qiang & Zang households were more likely to hold an optimistic attitude towards their post-hazard recovery. However, respondents from Han households showed no differences. Furthermore, the Han respondents believed that donations were strongly favorable to the recovery of their households, whereas the Qiang & Zang respondents did not.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary File 1

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41271544), and National Key Research and Development Program Project: "Global change risk of population and economic system: mechanism and assessment（2016YFA0602403）. Several undergraduates from the Sichuan University contributed to this research.

Author Contributions

Ying Wang designed the study and revised and approved the final manuscript, Yingqi Zhu collected the data, wrote the first manuscript, and revised and approved the final manuscript; Qi Sui collected the data, conducted data analysis, and revised and approved the final manuscript draft.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Fussell, E.; Sastry, N.; Vanlandingham, M. Race, socioeconomic status, and return migration to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Popul. Environ. 2010, 31, 20–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Gaillard, J.-C.; Clave, E.; Vibert, O.; Azhari, D.; Denain, J.-C.; Efendi, Y.; Grancher, D.; Liamzon, C.C.; Sari, D.R.; Setiawan, R. Ethnic groups’ response to the 26 December 2004 earthquake and Tsunami in Aceh, Indonesia. Nat. Hazards 2008, 47, 17–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Fothergill, A.; Maestas, E.G.M.; Darlington, J.D. Race, ethnicity and disasters in the United States: A review of the literature. Disasters 1999, 23, 156–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Drabek, T.E.; Boggs, K.S. Families in disaster-reactions and relatives. J. Marriage Fam. 1968, 30, 443–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Blaikie, P.; Cannon, T.; Davis, I.; Wisner, B. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters; Routledge: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cardona, O.D.; Bankoff, G.; Frerks, G.; Hilhorst, D. Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People; Earthscan Publishers: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bolin, R. Family recovery from natural disaster: A preliminary model. Mass Emerg. 1976, 1, 267–277. [Google Scholar]
  8. Peacock, W.; Zhang, Y.; Dash, N. Single Family Housing Recovery after Hurricane Andrew in Miami-Dade County. Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center, Texas A&M University: College Station, TX, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bolin, B.; Grineski, S.; Collins, T. The geography of despair: Environmental racism and the making of South Pheonix, Arizona, USA. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2005, 12, 156. [Google Scholar]
  10. Pellow, D.N. Environmental inequality formation toward a theory of environmental injustice. Am. Behav. Sci. 2000, 43, 581–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pellow, D.N.; Weinberg, A.; Schnaiberg, A. The environmental justice movement: Equitable allocation of the costs and benefits of environmental management outcomes. Soc. Justice Res. 2001, 14, 423–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Peacock, W.G.; Morrow, B.H.; Gladwin, H. Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender, and the Sociology of Disasters; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  13. Jones, M.M. There is no such thing as a natural disaster: Race, class, and Hurricane Katrina. Glob. Public Health 2009, 4, 318–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lavelle, K.; Feagin, J. Hurricane Katrina-the race and class debate. Mon. Rev. Indep. Soc. Mag. 2006, 58, 52–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rhodes, A.; Tran, T. Predictors of posttraumatic stress and growth among black and white survivors of Hurricane Katrina: Does perceived quality of the governmental response matter? Race Soc. Probl. 2012, 4, 144–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Myers, C.A.; Slack, T.; Singelmann, J. Social vulnerability and migration in the wake of disaster: The case of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Popul. Environ. 2008, 29, 271–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Stringfield, J.D. Higher ground: An exploratory analysis of characteristics affecting returning populations after Hurricane Katrina. Popul. Environ. 2010, 31, 43–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Elliott, J.R.; Pais, J. Race, class, and Hurricane Katrina: Social differences in human responses to disaster. Soc. Sci. Res. 2006, 35, 295–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zottarelli, L.K. Post-Hurricane Katrina employment recovery: The interaction of race and place. Soc. Sci. Q. 2008, 89, 592–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bolin, B. Race, class, ethnicity, and disaster vulnerability. Handb. Disaster Res. 2007, 1, 113–129. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gaillard, J.C.; Texier, P. Religions, natural hazards, and disasters: An introduction. Religion 2010, 40, 81–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mercer, J.; Gaillard, J.C.; Crowley, K.; Shannon, R.; Alexander, B.; Day, S.; Becker, J. Culture and disaster risk reduction: Lessons and opportunities. Environ. Hazards 2012, 11, 74–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Aldrich, D.P.; Meyer, M.A. Social capital and community resilience. Am. Behav. Sci. 2014, 59, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ersing, R.L.; Kost, K.A. Surviving Disaster: The Role of Social Networks; Lyceum Books: Chicago, IL, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  25. Aldrich, D.P. Building Resilience: Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recovery; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kim, H.; Marcouiller, D.W. Natural disaster response, community resilience, and economic capacity: A case study of coastal Florida. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2016, 29, 981–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhang, Y.; Peacock, W.G. Planning for housing recovery? Lessons learned from Hurricane Andrew. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2010, 76, 5–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Schultz, J.; Elliott, J.R. Natural disasters and local demographic change in the United States. Popul. Environ. 2012, 34, 293–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Peacock, W.G.; van Zandt, S.; Zhang, Y.; Highfield, W.E. Inequities in long-term housing recovery after disasters. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2014, 80, 356–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, Y.; Zou, Z.; Li, J. Influencing factors of households disadvantaged in post-earthquake life recovery: A case study of the wenchuan earthquake in China. Nat. Hazards 2015, 75, 1853–1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Acar, F.; Ege, G. Women's Human Rights in Disaster Contexts: How Can Cedaw Help? United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women: Ankara, Turkey, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  32. Enarson, E.; Fordham, M. Lines that divide, ties that bind: Race, class, and gender in women’s flood recovery in the US and UK. Aust. J. Emerg. Manag. 2000, 15, 43. [Google Scholar]
  33. Enarson, E. What women do: Gendered labor in the red river valley flood. Glob. Environ. Change Part. B: Environ. Hazards 2001, 3, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. West, D.M.; Orr, M. Race, gender, and communications in natural disasters. Policy Stud. J. 2007, 35, 569–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Falk, M.L. Gender, buddhism and social resilience in the aftermath of the Tsunami in Thailand. South East. Asia Res. 2012, 20, 175–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Psacharopoulos, G. Returns to investment in education—A global update. World Dev. 1994, 22, 1325–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yunxia, W.; Prott, L.V. Cultural revitalisation after catastrophe: The Qiang culture in a’er. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2016, 22, 26–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, Q. Phoenix out of the ashes: Convergence of disaster and heritage tourism in jina qiang village, Sichuan Province, China. Pract. Anthropol. 2012, 34, 24–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Office, C. Major Figures on 2010 Population Census of China; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  40. Yu, S. Sacrifice to the mountain: A ritual performance of the qiang minority people in China. TDR/Drama Rev. 2004, 48, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Meakin, E.; Luo, Y. English literature review of research on the history of the qiang people—From the late shang dynasty to the early han dynasty. J. Sourthwest Univ. Natl. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2008, 29, 67–74. [Google Scholar]
  42. Qian, Y.; Ma, N. A Comprehensive Review of Study of the Qiangs. Guizhou Ethnic Stud. 2008, 4, 031. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  43. Li, S. A comparative study of the culture of the qiang and baima tibetan ethnic groups. Ideol. Front 2000, 5, 009. [Google Scholar]
  44. Xiong, K.; Ding, Y. A general review on the qiang ethnic concepts. J. Xinjiang Norm. Univ. (Ed. Philos. Soc. Sci.) 2007, 3, 008. [Google Scholar]
  45. Liu, J.; Yang, L.; Jiang, H.; Tang, D. Study on fertility culture of the qiang. J. Southwest Univ. Natl. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2004, 1, 21–27. [Google Scholar]
  46. Deng, H. A summary of studies on the religion and culture of qiang ethnic group both at home and abroad. J. Minzu Univ. China (Philos. Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2010, 1, 018. [Google Scholar]
  47. Li, M. Analysis of the succession customary law of qiang nationality. Trib. Polit. Sci. Law ( J. China Univ. Polit. Sci. Law) 2004, 22, 110–118. [Google Scholar]
  48. Li, W. Population migration characteristics of sichuan province after the founding of new china. J. Southeast. Univ. Soc. Sci. 1992, 3, 121–124. [Google Scholar]
  49. Deng, Q. Reverse migration of population in Sichuan Province in the late qiang dynasty and its influence on development in outlying ethnic regions. J. Southwest Univ. Natl. Philos. Soc. Sci. 2001, 22, 15–18. [Google Scholar]
  50. Internet, Beichuan Government Affairs. Available online: http://www.beichuan.gov.cn/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=lists&catid=259 (accessed on 15 January 2016).
  51. Internet, Wenchuan Government Affairs. Available online: http://www.wenchuan.gov.cn/NewsDefault.aspx?TabId=www_1 (accessed on 15 January 2016).
  52. Wang, Y.; Chen, H.; Li, J. Factors affecting earthquake recovery: The yao’an earthquake of China. Nat. Hazards 2012, 64, 37–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hui, D.L.H. Politics of sichuan earthquake, 2008. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2009, 17, 137–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yamamura, E.; Tsutsui, Y.; Yamane, C.; Yamane, S.; Powdthavee, N. Trust and happiness: Comparative study before and after the great east Japan earthquake. Soc. Indic. Res. 2015, 123, 919–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Buckle, P. Assessing resilience and vulnerability in the context of emergencies: Guidelines; Technical Report; Department of Human Services: Victoria, Melbourne, Australia, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  56. Annan, K. Message for the International Day for Disaster Reduction 8 October 2003. Available online: http://www.unisdr.org/2003/campaign/pa-camp03-sg-eng.htm (accessed on 8 October 2003).
  57. Armas, I. Social vulnerability and seismic risk perception. Case study: The historic center of the Bucharest municipality/Romania. Nat. Hazards 2008, 47, 397–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Heller, K.; Alexander, D.B.; Gatz, M.; Knight, B.G.; Rose, T. Social and personal factors as predictors of earthquake preparation: The role of support provision, network discussion, negative affect, age, and education. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 35, 399–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Armenian, H.K.; Morikawa, M.; Melkonian, A.K.; Hovanesian, A.P.; Haroutunian, N.; Saigh, P.A.; Akiskal, K.; Akiskal, H.S. Loss as a determinant of PTSD in a cohort of adult survivors of the 1988 earthquake in armenia: Implications for policy. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 2000, 102, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. DiGrande, L.; Perrin, M.A.; Thorpe, L.E.; Thalji, L.; Murphy, J.; Wu, D.; Farfel, M.; Brackbill, R.M. Posttraumatic stress symptoms, ptsd, and risk factors among lower manhattan residents 2–3 years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. J. Trauma. Stress 2008, 21, 264–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Xu, J.P.; Liao, Q. Prevalence and predictors of posttraumatic growth among adult survivors one year following 2008 Sichuan earthquake. J. Affect. Disord. 2011, 133, 274–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Armaş, I. Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. Risk Anal. 2006, 26, 1223–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Işık, Ö.; Özer, N.; Sayın, N.; Mishal, A.; Gündoğdu, O.; Özçep, F. Are women in Turkey both risks and resources in disaster management. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 5758–5774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijerph 14 00590 g001 550
Figure 1. Recovery curves of Han and Qiang & Zang.
Figure 1. Recovery curves of Han and Qiang & Zang.
Ijerph 14 00590 g001
Table
Table 1. Ethnic Statistics of Beichuan and Wenchuan in 2014.
Table 1. Ethnic Statistics of Beichuan and Wenchuan in 2014.
HanQiangZangOthers
Beichuan62.29%35.80%1.50%0.41%
Wenchuan41.00%37.40%20.10%1.50%
Table
Table 2. Summary Statistics.
Table 2. Summary Statistics.
Category and VariableHanQiang and ZangSurvey Questionnaire
Gender What is your gender?
Male55.90%48.00%1. Male
Female44.10%52.00%2. Female
Household at home Does the householder stay at home all year round?
Yes73.40%68.50%1. Yes
No26.60%31.40%2. No
Education The number of people in a household who go to
Above primary school31.60%45.60%1. Primary school 2. Junior high school 3. Senior high school, or university and above.
Primary school68.40%54.40%
The main source of the household income What is the main source of income in your household? (ranking)
The main income of the household is not from working, but other sources19.81%16.89%1. Planting 2. Cultivation 3. Transportation 4. Local working
Working inside51.05%44.14%5. Migrant working 6. Government subsidy
Working outside29.14%38.96%
Total working population after the earthquake How many household members went to work before/after the earthquake?
The main income of the family is not from working, but others.51.10%55.30%
Increase22.30%18.80%
Decrease7.30%7.20%
The same 19.30%18.60%
Income after the earthquake How has your household income changed in comparison to before the earthquake?
Increase34.40%41.00%1. Increase
Decrease42.50%39.50%2. Decrease
The same 22.50%19.00%3. The same
The degree of satisfaction with government aid Are you satisfied with government aid?
Very satisfied8.10%6.30%1. Very satisfied
Satisfied27.10%37.50%2. Satisfied
Not bad21.10%20.90%3. Not bad
Dissatisfied21.50%29.50%4. Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied20.10%5.30%5. Very dissatisfied
Indifferent1.80%1.10%6. Indifferent
Table
Table 3. Distribution of Degree of Recovery.
Table 3. Distribution of Degree of Recovery.
EthnicStrong RecoveryWeak Recovery
Han36052
Qiang and Zang38163
Classification value10
Table
Table 4. Details and tests of multiple predictor logistic regression model in Han households.
Table 4. Details and tests of multiple predictor logistic regression model in Han households.
VariablesBS.E.WalddfSig.Exp(B)
The gender of the respondent (Female)−0.306 0.2112.09510.1480.736
The age of the respondent−0.028 ***0.00811.87010.0010.972
Whether the householder is always at home (No）0.1960.2610.56410.4531.217
Whether educational investment is needed (No)−0.367 *0.2202.79710.0940.693
The main source of household income (Migrant workers)*** 33.99220.000
Others (not from doing temporary work)1.659 ***0.35821.45510.0005.256
Local workers1.337 ***0.25926.56610.0003.806
The change in the total number of workers after disaster (Invariant)*** 37.05330.000
The main source of income is not from doing temporary work, but other sources1.659 ***0.35821.45510.0005.256
Increase−0.504 **0.2344.63010.0310.604
Decrease1.067 **0.5084.40910.0362.907
The change in income after disaster (Invariant)*** 20.25420.000
Increase0.4340.2972.13610.1441.543
Decrease−0.660 **0.2825.47610.0190.517
The degree of satisfaction with public donations (Very satisfied)*** 133.13750.000
Indifferent−5.994 ***1.31220.88410.0000.002
Very dissatisfied−6.392 ***0.85056.60810.0000.002
Unsatisfied−2.877 ***0.75514.53510.0000.056
Ordinary−3.582 ***0.75722.39710.0000.028
Satisfied−1.841 **0.7575.90710.0150.159
Constant4.135 ***0.91420.46510.00062.494
* Sig. < 0.10, ** Sig. < 0.05, *** Sig. < 0.01.
Table
Table 5. Details and tests of multiple predictor logistic regression model in Qiang and Zang households.
Table 5. Details and tests of multiple predictor logistic regression model in Qiang and Zang households.
VariablesBS.E.WalddfSig.Exp(B)
The gender of the respondent (Female)0.538 ***0.1858.45510.0041.713
The age of the respondent−0.030 ***0.00716.79910.0000.970
Whether the householder is always at home (No）0.588 ***0.2137.62110.0061.801
Whether educational investment is needed (No)−0.3020.1842.70010.1000.739
The main source of household income (Migrant workers) * 5.60720.061
Others (not from doing temporary work)21.4714731.4190.00010.9962,111,437,206.785
Local workers0.473 **0.2005.60710.0181.604
The change in the total number of workers after disaster (Invariant) 3.46530.325
The main source of income is not from doing temporary work, but other sources−42.3717159.9260.00010.9950.000
Increase−0.3550.1913.44010.0640.701
Decrease−0.1480.3320.19910.6550.862
The change in income after disaster (Invariant)*** 38.14920.000
Increase0.510 **0.2414.46910.0351.665
Decrease−0.749 ***0.2489.15010.0020.473
The degree of satisfaction with public donations (Very satisfied) 22.51350.000
Indifferent0.65118,589.9190.00011.0001.918
Very dissatisfied0.0380.5240.00510.9431.039
Unsatisfied−0.2570.3850.44710.5040.773
Ordinary−0.8930.4064.83210.0280.409
Satisfied0.2810.3710.57610.4481.325
Constant1.0920.5503.94310.0472.981
* Sig. < 0.10, ** Sig. < 0.05, *** Sig. < 0.01.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Sui, Q. Ethnic Groups Differences in Domestic Recovery after the Catastrophe: A Case Study of the 2008 Magnitude 7.9 Earthquake in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 590. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14060590

AMA Style

Wang Y, Zhu Y, Sui Q. Ethnic Groups Differences in Domestic Recovery after the Catastrophe: A Case Study of the 2008 Magnitude 7.9 Earthquake in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2017; 14(6):590. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14060590

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Ying, Yingqi Zhu, and Qi Sui. 2017. "Ethnic Groups Differences in Domestic Recovery after the Catastrophe: A Case Study of the 2008 Magnitude 7.9 Earthquake in China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14, no. 6: 590. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14060590

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop